Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1966 OLIVENHAIN RD; BLDG J; CB092046; Permit
City of Carlsbad 12-27-2010 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Commercial/Industrial Permit Permit No: CB092046 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: Project Title: Applicant: 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD CBAD St: J COMMIND Sub Type: INDUST 2550405600 Lot #: 0 Status: $401,007.00 Construction Type: 5B Applied: Reference#: Entered By: OMWD-BUILD NEW 10,442 SF Plan Approved: OPERATIONS (BUILDING "J")-W/ 1,020 SF OFFICE AREAS Issued: Inspect Area: Plan Check#: . Owner: ISSUED 12/03/2009 LSM 05/21/2010 05/21/2010 MC HOFFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 3152 LIONSHEAD AVE CARLSBAD CA 92010 760 692 4017 Building Permit Add'I Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'I Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park Fee LFMFee Bridge Fee BTD#2 Fee BTD#3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'I Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'I Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee Green Bldg Stands (SB1473) Fee Fire Expedited Plan Review · PUBLIC AGENCY 00000 $1,745.21 Meter Size $0.00 Add'I Reel. Water Con. Fee $1, 134.39 Meter Fee $0.00 SDCWA Fee $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee .$84.21 PFF (3105540) $0.00 · · PFF .(4305540) $0.00 Licens.e Tax (3104193) $0.00 Ucense Tax (4304193) $0:00 Tr~ffic Impact Fee (3105541) $0:00 Traffic Impact Fee(4305541) , ,$0;00 PLUMBING TOTAL . ·. $0,00.. ElECTRl¢AL TOTAL . $~o 0 __ : 0 o 0 o: ·.:... MECHANICAL TOTAL Mast~r Draioage Fee -SewerFee ·$0.00 Redev Parking Fee $0.00. ·~ ·: :Additionar Fees $16.00 HNfP Fee ?? ' TOTAL PERMIT FEES Total Fees: $8,999.29 Total Payments To Date:· $8,'999.29 Balance Due: Inspector: y)I\ ~s Clearance: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,470.48 $0.00 $132.00 $272.50 $144.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,999.29 $0.00 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 to protest 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. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest thespecified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any f sf xac i n f whi h u h v r vi I n iv n N Tl E imilar this or o which the statute of limitations has reviousl therwise ex ired. dfO S'JC~I ~ «~ ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD Building Permit Application 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-602-2717 I 2718 / 2719 Fax 760-602-8558 www.carlsbadca.gov Plan Check No. G..f)c,q ~ Est. Value .t..fo I, 0 O -, Plan Ck. Deposit Date APN lal(OC 'ffi&.Olivenhain Road ~. ¢. ~ 1 255 040 56 -(>0 LOT# PHASE# # OF UNITS # BEDROOMS # BATHROOMS CONSTR. TYPE OCC. GROUP CUP 02-01 OMWD V-N S-1 DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Include Square Feet of Affected Area(s) 11 ,4!! SF Operations Building &\c\.~ ::r -~~----~ ' --- EXISTING USE PATIOS(SF) DECKS (SF) FIREPLACE AIR CONDITIONING FIRE SPRINKLERS Vacant YESC)# No(ZI YES(2]NoO YES(2]NoO 'CONTACT NAME (If Different Fom Appl/cant) H ~ Pl . & E . . · APPLICANT NAME · . o,man anmng _ ngmeenng . Olivenhain Muni~ipal Water District ADDRESS ADDRESS 31_52 Lionshead Av~ 1966 Olivenhain Road CITY Carlsbad STATE CA ZIP 92010. CITY Encinitas STATE CA ZIP 92024 PHONE FAX PHONE FAX 760-692-4017. 760-692-05 760-753-6466. 760~753-1578 EMAIL EMAIL malves@hofrnanplanning.com PROPERTY OWNER.NAME Olivenhain Municiapl Water District ADDRESS ADDRESS 1966 O1.ivenhain Road CITY --Encinitas STATE CA ZIP CITY 92024. PHONE FAX PHONE 760-753-6466 760-753;.1578 EMAIL EMAIL GBriest@olivenhain.com ARCH/DESIGNER NAME & ADDRESS STATELIC.# STATE UC.# CLASS'l.s CllY BUS. UC.# 2..~0>f" (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 tl\at he is licensed pursuant to tlie provisions of the Contractor's License Law {Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the allegea exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not mo!e than five hu.ndred dollars.($500)). ...... ... -............ ----------------------. ®®~ Workers' Compensation Declaration:/ herebyaffinn under penalty of perjury one of/he following declarations: i:J I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Sectlon 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which lhis permil is issued. ll(l1 have and will maintain workers' cqmpensation, a re<lUired by · n 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performa e o the work for w 'ch th~ permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy number are:.lnsurance Co G· ~ v. Policy No. IA/ Zo o O Expiration Date . 9 .. / t f 0 This section need not be completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less. D Certlficate of Exemption: I certify Iha! in the performance of the work for which this perm ii 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 penahles and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars (&100,000), in addition to the cost of compensation, dam~ as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees. CONTRACTORSIGNATURE ~ M · ,.... C f" B,6GENT DATE \ °\ ""2,...o \ O ®W~-J, .. '. I hereby affinn that I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: D D D I, as owner di the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the slructure is not inlended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply lo 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 wilhin·one yearof completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving thal he did nol build or improve for the purpose of sale). I, as owner of lhe property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors lo construcl the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does nol apply to an owner of property who.builds or improves thereon, and conlracts for such projecls wilh conlractor(s) licensed pursuanl lo the Contractor's License Law). I am exempt under Section ____ .Business and Professions Code for lhis reason: 1. I personally plan lo provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. 0Yes ONo 2. I (have I have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracled wilh the following person (firm) to provide the pr9posed construction (include name address I phone I conlractors' license number): 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but rhave hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name/ address I phone/ contractors' license number): 5. I will provide some of the work, but I have conlracted (hired) lhe following persons to provide lhe work indicated (include name / address I phone I type of work): KS PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE 0AGENT DATE ~- Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business,Jl!aQ, 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? D Yes L,.JNo Is the 9pplicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air P9llulion control district or a!r.wlality management district? 0Yes D No Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? 0Yes LJNo · IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUl'ANCY 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. ('s@69$u'fil©((\i I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (i) Civil Code). Lender's Name, Lender's Address 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 ail City ordinances and S1ate laws relating to building construction. I hereby.authorize representative of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned properly for inspection puiposes. I Al.SO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAYACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA penntt is required for excavations over 5'0' deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stones in height EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the Bu" ·ng Official under the provisions of this shal expire by Ii ation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such penntt is notoommenced within 18Q days from the date of such penntt or' building or work a · is suspended ora ndoned at any time after the work is oommenced for a nod of 180 ys (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code) . ..@S' APPLICANl''S SIGNATURE DATE Inspection List Permit#: CB09~046 Type: COMMIND INDUST Date l~spection _!!em 12/23/2010 89 Final Combo 12/23/2010 89 Final Combo 12/16/2010 89 Final Combo 12/16/2010· 89 Final Combo 12/08/201 O 39 Final Electrical 12/06/2010 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Weldin 12/06/2010 24 Rough/Topout 12/06/2010 34 Rough Electric 12/06/2010 44 Rough/Ducts/Dampers 12/02/2010 34 Rough Electric 12/02/2010 39 · Final Electrical 11/17/20~ 0 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers 11/17/2010 34 Rough Electric 10/28/201 O 17 Interior Lath/Drywall 10/21/2010 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Weldin 10/21/2010 24 Rough/Topout 10/21/2010 34 Rough Electric 1.0/13/2010 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Weldin 10/13/2010 17 Interior Lath/Drywall 10/13/2010 24 Rough/Topout 10/07/2010 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall 10/06/2010 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall 09/30/2010 17 Interior Lath/Drywall 09/30/2010 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall 09/27/2010 16 Insulation · 09/27/2010 17 Interior Lath/Drywall 09/23/2010 15 Roof/Reroof 09/23/2010 17 · 'interior Lath/Drywall 09/23/2010 72 Awning 09/22/201 o 16 Insulation 09/21/2010 16 Insulation 09/20/2010 13 Shear Panels/HD's 09/20/2010 24 Rough/Topout 09/20/201 O 31 UndergroLJnd/Conduit-Wirin 09/17/2010 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers 09/17/2010 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers 09/17/2010 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Weldin 09/17/2010 17 Interior Lath/Drywall 09/17/2010 21 Underground/Under Floor 09/17/2010 24 Rough/Topout 09/17/2010 34 Rough Electric 09/17/2010 44 Rough/Ducts/Dampers 09/15/2010 13 Shear Pan~ls/HD's Monday, December 27, 2010 lnspe~t<>r Act RI MC Fl RI MC CO MC AP MC AP MC AP MC AP MC AP MC PA MC AP MC WC MC WC MC AP MC PA MC PA MC PA MC CO MC· WC MC CO MC AP MC PA MC PA MC WC MC PA MC PA MC WC MC PA MC WC · MC PA MC PA MC WC MC AP MC PA W AP PY WC PY PA PY PA PY_ WC PY WC PY WC PY WC MC PA OMWD-BUILD NEW 10,442 SF OPERATIONS (BUILDING "J") • WI 1,020 Comments GFl'PROTECTION & HVAC EQUIP OK MINOR PICK UP R~VISION TO ADDRESS, METER RELEASE OK T-GRID T-GRID T-GRID WALLS ONLY METER RELEASE ALL INTERIOR WALLS EXCEPT RM 103 AT FUTURE SINK WALLS ONLY SEE NOTICE ATTACHED SEE NOTICE EXT.@ 1-10 & A-F ONLY WALLS ONLY LINE 1 --2 AND A -F WALL ONLY LINE 1-2 & A-F DRYWALL ONLY LINE 1•10, E-F WALLS ONLY LINE A-E AND 9-10 ONLY WALLS ONL Y@LINE E-F&2-9 WALL INSULATIONONLY,LINES A-F, 9-10 AT RESTROOM ONLY 4 LIGHT BASES & GROUND OK TO INSULATE EXT BROWN BOARD GYP BOARD CASE LA YER ONLY Page 1 of 3 09/15/2010 15 Roof/Reroof MC WC 09/15/2010 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin MC PA CONDUIT ONLY TO ADOBE AND DOG UNITS 09/15/2010 34 Rough Electric MC WC 09/14/2010 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin MC PA CONDUIT ONLY, SEE SHT E-2 09/14/2010 98 .SMP Inspection MC PA GAVE SUPER (MARTY)'SEPT 7 2010 HANDOUT FOR STORM WATER ·REQUIREMENTS. 09/09/2010 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers MC PA 9 LIGHT POLE BASES 09/09/2010 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin MC PA #4 BARE GROUND OK 09/07/2010 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Weldin MC PA EXTERIOR LOWER EAVE & RAKE SOFFIT FRAMING 09/01/2010 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Weldin MC PA RAKE AND LOWER SOFFIT FRAMING ONLY 09/01/2010 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin MC PA 2-2" AND 1-1" CONDUIT ONLY AT WEST . ENTR. 08/31/201"0 21 Underground/Under_ Floor MC PA 1 -1" CONDUIT ONLY SEE SHT E2 08/27/2010 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Weldin MC PA EXT STEEL WALL FRAME ONLY, OK TO ONE SIDE EXTERIOR. 08/25/2010 t5 Roof/Reroof MC AP OK TO DRY IN AND LOAD 08/25/201 0 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin MC PA 1 -1" CONDUIT FOR SITE LIGHTING SEE SHT E2. 08/25/2010 .31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin MC PA 1 -1 IN CONDUIT ONY FOR SITE LIGHTING, SEE SHT E2 08/23/2010 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Weldin MC WC 08/23/2010 15 Roof/Reroof MC PA DECK SHEATHING ONLY, SEE INSP CARD 08/23/2010 17 Interior Lath/Drywall MC WC 08/19/2010 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin MC PA 2-2" & 1-11' CONDUIT SEE SHT E-2 08/16/2010 15 Roof/Reroof MC PA STEEL DECKING ONLY@ LINE 1-2 & A- FONLY 08/13/2010 15 Roof/Reroof MC PA STEEL DECKING ONLY@LINE 9-10 & E- F 08/13/2010 17 Interior Lath/Drywall MC WC 08/12/2010 65 Retaining Walls MC WC 08/12/2010 66 Grout MC PA CMU LAYUP@ INT. PERIMETER, SEE JOB CARD 08/02/2010 66 Grout MC PA CMU LAYUP@ EXT. PERIMETER-SEE BACK OF JOB CARD 07/26/2010 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin TP AP (4) 2" CONDUITS FORE & W GATES SEE PLAN SHEET e 2 07/26/2010 34 Rough Electric TP WC - 07/22/2010 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin MC PA 1-1" CONDUIT FOR SITE LIGHTiNG, SEE APPR PLANS, SHT E2 07/21/2010 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin MC PA 1 -1 IN SITE LIGHTING CONDUIT ONLY, SEE APPR. PLANS, SHEET E2 07/21/2010 34 Rough Electric MC WC 07/16/2010 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin MC PA 2 -21N CONDUITS ONLY, SEE SHT E2 FOR LOCATION 07/14/2010 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin MC PA LIGHTING & SOLAR, SEE SHT E2 07/14/2010 34 Rough Electric MC WC 07/09/2010 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin TP AP SEE PLN FOR LOCATION 07/02/201011 Ftg/Foundation/Piers MC AP RECEIVED SOILS, 'FORM CERT LETTER 07/02/2010 12 Steel/Bond Beam MC WC 07-/02/2010 31 · Underground/Conduit-Wirin MC AP UFER GROUND PER PLAN Monday, December 27, 2010 Page 2 of 3 07/01/201011 Ftg/Foundation/Piers MC co COMPLETE ALL STEEL PLACEMENT & IMBEDS, CLEAN, FTGS 07/01/2010 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin MC co 06/25/201 0 21 Underground/Under Floor TP AP 06/25/2010 22 Sewer/Water Service TP AP 06/24/2010 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin MC PA SEE SHt E-5 & E-6, CONDUIT ONLY 06/08/2010 92 Compliance Investigation MC PA MEET W/SUPER & OMWD REP. Monday, December 27, 2010 Page 3 of 3 12128/2010 09:21 P.0041009 ., I':!\: CJt_y·.-·q,f··~ ... c ·a r Is-bad . · ·.· _. -'1fl . .. . .. . · · ••mFH:HMiiih&di 08092048 1981 OLNEHHAIN RD J OMWD, BUILO NEW 10,442 SF · CJl:ISRATIONS (BUILDING "J") • WI 1,020 SF OFFICE AREAS (11,~SF}TOTAL COMM INC INDUST Lot#: HOFr~AN PLANNING & ENGINEERIN~ -·-·-.. _____ .....,, __ _ IUl!,Dff!ICt. fOUN~T!ON ft11Nf'<JRCl0 SRIL M.!'JONRY' !J,QROUT TTI.T l'A'Nal Rp,OPI Sl:tl'A11111N~ · !D"J',~EAR,f!~ 'PRAM!" INSULATION. · , mERIOR LATH · LA'JH,fl u1nw'ALL , ,WMIING , D .so,81' ~ 11/CO D .Pl,(Ctl "N~QUl.'flill' 1,,1·-w'ASTI' ,IJWA~ -TI.I• ANU _ •• -·· rlTf u ~:r~ C UN'l"JPING · 1U w,, ''"'" "M~l_'I p SOLAl'WA'f.llt ·-. ~,.,~fitlll• . '. ~4',..a.li. . ,-. •lrtl.l• ;to/aw 1n ~ . lftJ•r/.10 -.9,.,.,~ ' I I • • • , •• ,NSPE(;:TIO;N RECO"~- )NsPata'ioN RIECORP ~RD WITHAPP,IIQVED. r&ANS MUJT 81 KIP.TON THI JOI . ~L 1111~~ TO 4:oo P.M. FOR ~~:wa~1<· 'DAY INSPICTION ' · . . ,. !. . r'1D1NG INSPKTIOl4t16o-60z.z,z~ i/~ L --'-· ·D~'.g1 ~/;;,.! f IQ· "r Im,_. N._ · }· l'\11(.. u, ,M;~ Mt.. "' er- Mt, ·---! .. ••-o&aM tl!t491t,Mt'Mllit ,:;_ ·-· aat.U ~~<£ ~\l'.Jl4!'; ,, ~--11'1· •e,MlcN· C6, . ... ~ t ltM'P: / 1-...-1. -·•• •• l, .t..1.t.a. .,,,liJ:L.:• . 1 . . . . . • r .,. : ,k~ A.M·,h,_ -~~-16 ~,lad.,,..;,. -~"'-~~~ ..... PINAi;. ______ ......, ........ ___________ ..,.. ___ -1,. __ --.1--11'--------,----·----- .. ELICTRI~ .. . . !:ii :QI.TRIC: UNOIIIOROUNI:> CJ u,-11, ·-. ·-,~ . "ROUGH l&.ICTRIC WAW Se: ~ ,. .M-~ •II I ;,l"I, ., . .L• MC.. 'I, ... . ,~ M<-'. . " ... ~~.,MG-, -~ ' ! DUCU & PlltlNG D DUCT & JILDI, , .O lt_!P', PIPJNG HMT·AIRCONO."fflTIMS · \IIN!f~11NG s~,a. 'l'2/ Oa;/ID M; : I 1·'1"-~ ·• ~121 • -...... "" -~~ .,.r I.Lli..w.L iuua. ~ t•~-M,1-·--, Ft.NA&.. -... ·-.. CAU. IPOlt FINA&.·lau:•limDN·WNIIN AI.L.APPROPRIAff ITDtSAIOW HAVI HIN NPRO\IID ~~Ill D1pt. fl~nif, 17601 .ount /).Ji-ht. #A Rl!V 1/2008· City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 12/23/2010 Permit# CB092046 Inspector Assignment: MC Title: OMWD-BUILD NEW 10,442 SF Description: OPERATIONS (BUILDING "J") -WI 1,020 SF OFFICE AREAS (11,462 SF) TOTAL Type: COMMIND Sub Type: INDUST Job Address: 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD Suite: J Lot: 0 Location: APPL.ICANT HOFFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING Owner: Remarks: --- Phone: 8582100510 lnsp~ctor: _ _.M'---~-- Total Time: Requested By: MARTY ~ntered By: CHRISTINE CD Description Act Comments 19 Final Structural ~------------- 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical 49 Final Mechanical \ ~. ~ t' l"\V,1<:. £'4Ut?, DI".. ± _____ _ Comments/Notices/Holds Associated PCRs/CVs/SWPPPs Original PC# lnsgection Histoi:y Date Description Act 'lnsp Comments 12/16/2010 89 Final Combo co MC MINOR PICK UP 12/08/2010 39 Final Electrical AP ,MC REVISION TO ADDRESS, METER RELEASE OK 12/06/2010 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding AP MC T-GRID 12/06/2010 24 Rough/Topout AP MC 12/06/2010 34 Rough Electric AP MC T-GRID 12/06/2010 44 Rough/Ducts/Dampers AP MC 12/02/2010 34 Rough Electric PA MC WALLS ONLY 12/02/2010 39 Final Electrical AP MC METERRELEASE 11/17/2010 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers WC MC 11/17/2010 34 Rough Electric WC MC 10128tio10 17 Interior Lath/Drywall AP MC 10/21/2010 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding PA MC ALL INTERIOR WALLS EXCEPT RM 103 AT FUTURE SINK 10/21/2010 24 Rough/Topout PA MC CIIY of Carlsbad · Final Building Inspection ~~~ Dept: Buil~ing &ng_ine.ering' Planning CMWD St Lite Fire RECEIVED Plan Check.#: Permit#: CB092046 Project Name: OMWD-BUILD NEW 10,442 SF OPERATIONS (BUILDING "J") -W / 1,020 SF OFFICE AR Address: 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD #J Contact Person: MARTY Sewer Dist: LC Phone: 8582100510 Water Dist: 0 Lot: Date: Permit 't:YP !: Sub Type: 12r16/2010 C©MM~ 2 0 2010 INjbusT CITY OF CARLSHAD 0 . ENGINEERING !JEPARTMENT .__ __ _.:;.C:.:.:.M::::;&i:..:;D:;_l\:_::'lS:::.:;'IO~N,:__' _ __:__J I I I I I I I I I I 111 I I, 1111 I I I I I I II I I I I I I I 11 I I 11111 I I II I II II I Ill Ill II I II I II I II Ill•••••• 111 II 11 II 111111111111 I I I I II I I I I II I I I I 11111I111111111111111111111 I I Ill I l II I Inspected ~b < 1' Date / / By: . . ulf:211. ~ lnspe.cted: /~/ZO /10 Approved: Ji, • A.._ Disapproved: __ Inspected Date By: __________ Inspected: ----'-'---,--Approved: ___ Disapproved: __ Inspected_ Date By: . Inspected:~-_____ Approved: __ Disapproved: __ . ' ·······································································••1)1••••·······················~····················································· Comnients: __ . _________________ __,.. ___ ---"'------------- ~ Leighton Consulting, Inc. ,~,- ' .. MATERIALS INSPECTION & TESTING DAILY REPORT 17781 Cowan Irvine, CA 92614 Office 949~253-5922 Dispatch 949-222-5321 Fax 949-263-8843 0 6200 Reinforced Concrete 0 6201 Post-Tensioned . . Concrete 0 6202 ICC Weld/ Bolting 0 620~SLC.WLW.eldiQQ-, C '0;'62U~ Reinforced MasoQ.ry___r 0 6205 DSA Masonry 0 6208 Fireproofing 0 6211 Shotcrete/Gunite 0 6213 Epoxy Injection/Anchors D 6214 Batch Plant-Concrete Circle day S M T w TH (_v 0 6217 Fabrication Inspector 0 6230 Technici,an Field/Concrete 0 6237 Pull-out Tests/embedded bolts-/ anchor dowels 0 0000 -Other Bldg Permit I DSA No: .-.::.::-/1 0 7 ·-:2 ~? ~-l(o File No. Jurisdiction C},vec:~·.611-"i) Job Name . 0/'...!,, ,,,Jb ;-;:L nt:.. -:"\" Sample Type s Job Address /CJj., (., ,"')J iu~Alf-h'J.fAI l<."l';,,. D Concrete D CMU ~ i--------'--1--,..._,....__"'"""''-'-"'°"'--"-'-''-'-"-.:..:.-c..,...-l-'""""-.<:.---------'---"-------I D Mortar O..GM(i'Prism Architect ··-, , General Contractor ,..,... --:i. •· ... . l<.'i~"? ?_. ·· '· 'l~"tr:'fr <:,,--c OGrout _......,.---·~b Shotcrete Engineer O ~ 1 E, "} Subcontractor :J 13 IY/t'5 . .:,....v£ y· D ~'6li~g D Other .Laboratory Weather Condition(';, /.J 70 1,s g:P : . Total Yds: __ REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: Only one permit no. reported per sheet. lderitify type of work, item & specific area inspected (floor, gridlines, etc.): identify all joints when inspecting welds and bolts; identify accepted/rejected work by item and specific location, record all job problems and DISCUSSIONS with Contractor, Architect, Engineer, etc.: record amount of material placed and samples taken; write certification of work, referencing applied code, specifications, and approved plans and/or shop drawings. SUMMARY OF WORK INSPECTED l # Workers: (t.) I # De_tails Used: ;..Jp,;:; ']\ !JV (""<5. ·:~-:-! ~, i ' .... , ··-· &;. \ l ' ...... ----·--~----'------------------------------------------t ____ (Je,-·.r::.{\,1,Fi:) "i?,•\,t:' /,;;f?.() l~::...R,_, /-//,,'<:lL:_J.(,;.. </ /t'v-t"/..1 ])1. / N (y· {) r ., ()::;;; :.; ~'·-i -~-;. "l_,'il._1 ,_::_,:, ,A '7 /hJ ff· f..d:;, () r-",? ;:.,:. $':> Xl' (,;, I C ,A-; Lt s Co lhf..JU: . .J"'?;,.; 6-7? /v,;": /':r;::;;~ f ,'l.f tf~T,c.,? iAJr~ (.. L 1.,...1·· (/ ......... It./ /f ~-/__;, -· . ..d. 1 <. ...... -' L.1 \--'fl':-,. -~~~ (.._ •. -t --~ f,, .• tf> hi A--:'::. 77 -Iv:.: i;::. t 1e :::.;"/-C..',{){.,,t J> ·,S," t:, L-v ,,q._ (. \. S J-::,,,.es;: 1·-· .,.., :,··~ --·'hie .:?. JJ~_,,::lc,.._ _______________ _ Exceptions D YES [31'(Jo ' ,., The Work l],wAS O WAS NOT Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the approved documents. The Work Inspected ~ET D DID NOT MEET The requirements of the approved documents Material Sampling O WAS O WAS NOT D NIA Performed in accordan~:-~ith ~:.·p±{r~ved documents. ·,, ·' ,J . -· ~~; ... ,r-.. ..,.....-,.-: ... 4".'··<' .. ,./ /"}.-i,( Signature of Special Inspector Page / . _I _ ot __ LJ~ '/, ,,' ·:· ..,--~ A1 .· J i ,'>, • A _,'._'~()-•_,?/( / .,.,. ,:::. ,..., /V / 1----~-=-"--'t."-,.-"""'--_<-,i-'--'--:r.J'.,_'/.L,,_ '-----~--·' ... '" :, ' Please Print Name Certification Number . TIME IN TIME OUT Actual HRS OFFICE USE ONLY Bill OT HRS 1.SX OT 2X -7 .. ~ A· _;;; p <t' All .inspections based on a minimum of 4 hours. Over 4 hours = 8 hours minimum. Any inspections extending past noon will be charged as an 8 hour minimum. Approved By: fi.J,1 tf-lv/il l-1>/-. v£.. · Project Superintendent/and or Project Inspector Representing ti Leighton Consulting, Inc. DAILY REPORT · 17781 Cowan Irvine, CA 92614 Office 949-253-5922 Dispatch 949-222-5321 Fax 949-263-8843 MATERIALS iNSPECTION & TESTING I Date /) J6 9 i ,:':) Circle day S M T w {TH) F s D 6200 Reinforced Concrete · D 6205 DSA Masonry D 6217 Fabrication Inspector D 6201 Post-Tensioned D 6208 Fireproofing D 6230 Technician Field/Concrete Concrete D 6211 Shotcrete/Gunite D 6237 Pull-out Tests/emb~dded .D 6202 ICC Weld/ Bolting D 6213 Epoxy bolts/ anchor dowels D 6203 AWS/CWI Welding Injection/Anchors D 0000 -Other : ~"04_ ~inforced MasonriJ D 6214 Batch Plant-Concrete Job No: 602 7o..r·oo 3 Bldg Permit / . DSA No: <:'):~ () <:1 _ 2 0 ~-;& File No. Job Name r) A-f l 1-.J "b, ·-· e Ci) c~ -"'t" Sample Type Job Address . /9'4:.; /~ {;) L. I II/.:;\) ,4,r,41 .,...; /2h D Concrete D CMU .,,,..,, ~· D Mortar n ,.CM\'.'.JPrism Architect , ... -t .. k._-;4~7, :>. General Contractor .,~\ ' k"':::>,r;:1::,"'.5,f, """" 1-----..-:W~ll....s;;...__ _____ +------~~--i~==~---'---l 0Grout ~,,..~.,,.,.,,-0 Shotcrete Engineer (!')/21 If ;;2,_ -Subcontractor ::s:·e /L/1t'$\J,A/µ, D Fir~d"ofing D Other ,,. Laboratory A,, ;;4-Weather Condition (~i.ll ?d :.s QTY: _ Total Yds: __ REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: Only one permit no. reported per ~heet. Identify type of work, item & specific area inspected (floor, .gridlines, etc.): identify all joints when inspecting welds and bolts; identify accepted/rejected work by item and specific location, record all j9b problems and DISCUSSIONS with Contractor, Architect, Engineer, etc.: record amount of material placed and samples taken; write certification of work, referencing applied code, specifications, .and approved plans and/or shop drawings. SUMMARY OF WORK IN_SPECTED I # Workers: .~ I# De_tails Used: ,,{_#,,,;JZ)t-virl' ,.,:,-.., /.:i. 1 /,"."'. 1--------~--~------~----,,,.-,----------------,--=.-,:--,-,, _____ , __ _ '1,1llf" /'~'?t~!~a..,,,. /V/)<'7.AI t§,,. ') //v:t,,r-.1)) l IN C:..w .-') {~-1··.,,uP [ -~'}· i_~·"._,;_/_:~_;_)_;;;1~__,,,_ ,1~-l-f·l-·i !..JA<.\. .. r-::; _.,,,..1 3-/Q -'i 1t-f.=-t -. h:.,, lt'>i F_~. 0 __ ----·-, [. , ... ,,., •. , ,t> < ,~: -:-(' ·-r-,,.._ , ... \ C ,., /.{' ,,, '.-': .. · ··r·,,t_,.,., .• _: ,··~. I _ ___!1<,,e,f~ __ ':::.:"""~'.::.""'""!.!:"-::.:·· ,:::,;.,_·!~=_,•:.!!:,:>_-.J,,,,....L-';;;:..,.·~.J~Vc:,:,1-f-_..:....._.::::.,'..:...,.'L.:::, f";"-:::;V:.;:..JC....:..::.C';,e~::.__ __ ~---------------,-.,,) ·-------t . A u( I.. -=xceptions D YES [Q'~O 'The Work ijl,,WAS O WAS NOT Nnspected in accordance with the requirements of the approved documents. trhe Work Inspected ~ET D DID NOT MEET !The requirements of the appr9ved documents Material Sampling D WAS D WAS NOT ~/A Performed in accordance with approved documents. ' _,,, ....... ) ,,,.-··";.'. ,.. _,/ ~·/ ,/ ~,~~· .. ~· _,.~-?-.P :::,f-l/~~,J"'~·--. Signature of Special Inspector J Page { __ .. _ .. _ of-___ _ I, (---~ ,,,, 17--,a;A.._ .• t,'\• "c1 1!L_ .. _,,t:i ·-.,:-4,. / ~,. ,, •. \ /"( I l''i -.. ,,. . ,: " 1 ,r --( 1---'------'=---,-P=le-a"'"se-'-P-'-r-=-in-t -Na_m_e-----~ Certification Number .•, l"-"L ·'I,~ f~ t./ (y1l.t4,(. !)'-l) , I , /<.:P, 0 ~ .,-":i ,e C! .,.. L. OFFICE USE ONLY Bill OT TIME IN TIME OUT Actual HRS 0 ,:0 HRS 1.5X OT 2X . ~-~) All inspections based. on a minimum of 4 hours. Over 4 hours ::: a hours minimum. Any inspections extending past noon will be charged as an 8 hour minimum. · Approved By: '· ____,. ... ~;, "-::-' -~:·: --:--::-·---:-,___,....:,.··~----~ · _;Project Superintendent/and or Project / Inspector • ,. r .• .~ I Representing 620 RS-08 ' , -<' FOOTING OBSERVATION SUMMARY· Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY Project Name: t:Jm w D jJJ U)t,, tj Date: 7, J. Z-c>JC> . Location: (! Rh? /J .D/-1D Project No. : {pt), .2-705- Plan File No.: _______ Permit No.: --~--Unit/Pha~e/Lot(s):. f5L£?u<d . I Referenced GeotechnicaLReport{s): -. · · · · · &dtm1vA--r2..,I 6a,~~rd1.1~~ !Ze:Pt>~ 1?-PJtro Oec/ZO/ tPec</'-1::J" lJ'V,,. . . I , , . . . . -. ·.· ,.. Ku7Af Pi:tot-,e -V:t>L>~~ I &N//4/4fip;J /Ccj?11~/.tldie7t.:f. 71. U:-"161-P/l>Ai_ Ob;,~ation Summary · · --· .·_-·-- . V:J. -Initials A representative of Leighton Consulting obs$rved onsite s·oil conditions. Soi! conditions at the 7,. I · /0 Date site are substantially in conformance with thos.e assumed in the:geotechnical ceport. dJ. _ Initials A representative of Leighton Consulting observed and measured footing exc;:av.ation-depth/width. 7·1· JO.Date · Footing excavations extend to proper depth ~md be1;1ring .strata and are in general conformance with recommendations of the geotechnicar report . . .. ·@, _-Initials 7 · /·/DDate • · A represe'ntative of Leighton Consulting measured footing setback from slope face.· The setback was in general accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnicaLreport. : . a_-f Initials 7 · / ~10-oate Notes to Superintendent/Foreman- ffto6.c1. i 1. Footing excavations should be cleaned of loose debris and thoroughly moistened just pr-ior to placing concrete. · .. . 2. Based on expansion potential of underlying soils, presoaking of soil below slabs may be recommended. Consult the geotechnical report for presoaking recommendations. We note that clayey soils may take-an extended period of time and the contractor should schedule accordingly. 3. In the event of a site change subsequent to our footing observation and prior to concrete placement (Le., heavy rain, etc.), we should be contacted to perform additional. site observations. N·ote to Building Inspector 1. Soil compaction test results, including depth of fill, relative compaction, bearing values, .and soil , expansiQ,n index test results-are-contained in the As-Graded Geotechoical Report pro,v:ided at the 7tic)n ff grading. . lg ,f'lhJ ,nnJ /· J · Zt>IO For Leighton Consulting, Inc. Date 609 R 1-05 CLIENT COPY ~ .. --------~--...,.,--------------'------~~----------------, ·.-J. · · ( i e I d ., D e' n .~ i. t ( ~T e s t YEAR 'Z,o / 0 DATE TEST NUMBER TEST METHOD (CIRCLE ONE) TEST OF STAFF INITIALS 'TEST LOCATION N GRID/STATION NOS. E TEST ELEV/DEPTH SOIL TYPE · A) Sand Dry Density (from Lab) 1) Sand + Tare Before 2) Sand+ Tare After . 3) Sand in Cone & Hole (:=1~2) ' 4) Sand in Cone C11libration 5) Sand in Hole '(=3-4) .. 6) Vol. ofTest Hole .(:=:5+A).: 7) Wet Soil+ Tare 8) Tare 9) Wet Soil (=7-8) 10) Wet Density (=9+6) 11) Wet Soil+ Can 12) Dry Soil +Can 1J) Weight of Can 14) Moisture Loss (=11-12) 15) Dry Soil (=:12-13) FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT = 14+15 X 100 OPT MOISTURE CONTENT FIELD DRY DENSITY =10 + 1 + FMC+100 MAX DRY DENSITY RELATIVE COMPACTION =FDD+MDD F=FAIL R=~ETEST OTHER Project Name Project No. Location · IC No. Tract or Lot No. Project Manager 6})s D p &A-<; ( 0fs( 5t>un-/-6'cu:n/, W/i:51 wE&f' oioi;, sioe .S1De. Sit'£ 6,oe bit)e oF' t?,1..!i n.11vt.r :::-,. =r =7 =::, S& SC- I I 14-I FILE COPY NS D Oat a 60-Z7o s--ool 99- NS D NS D NS D 601--0503 6-09-10 Mr. Marty Stout. J Reese Construction O.M.W.D., Pad Check For Substantial Conformance By Martin & Ziemniak I 0805 Thommint Road, Ste 200 San Diego, CA 92127 Deer Mr. Stout, z ~ ~ I-\\}I -- er. fi(Sl('\\.,.-F z <![ ~ I ~ "\,;. :~ UJ .:::: -~-·_.,,~_'-_·:-N CIVIL ENGINEERING AND LAND SURVEYING 7576 Trade St., Suite 8 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone [858) 831-9420 FA>< l858) 831-9421 This Letter is to confirm that on June 9, 2010 the Martin & Ziemniak Land Surveyors completed a field survey to recheck if the building pad elevation were within substantlal confonnance on the Olivenhain Munipipal Wated)istrfot building project. Upon review of the data we folllld that all paq areas checked were within accepted tolerance as required per standards of practice as typically accepted in .the San Diego County area. The cypical tolerance is to be within (0.10') one tenth of a foot of the called for plan elevation. We accept the building pad as graded to be within substantial confonnance~ see the attached drawing indicating tne pad elevations as located and accepted per the field survey. Page 1 ofl ~--C'}-10 Date . -.-· . EP ------ ~ ETW 8" W 8" w 00 ETW 1+ 8" W 5+00 -I I- 6+00 t -1---+--/ / / 114.50 rs' .,,,,, / -+- 8143 113.36 I I ~ 8021 113.i6 / 8022 113.10 EP 113.33 PAD\ / /.,,,,, 8087 // 23~]>) y 113.32 • \ -- 11.4..4.~ ~:~ 'I f:-?/JJ7 \_-- RnRfi 8142 113.36 8141 113 _______ J 114.10 rs 11137 PAD ..., I r'.. I 8112 113.28--. \ M7' UV.J"r 113.31. 114.10 rs 113.53 PAD L - \ 8110 113.26 . ·11 •• ·'! .. .· 4: .• .. •:- ;-,: ... ... ... , .....•. . . . . : . ·.·.• .. ... 8"'° 8114 11.115 113.il , ..•. -----.. ~-·1 •-i 114.42 rs 113.09 PAD 114.50 rs 113.17 PAD 8023 113.17 8031 113.13 ,, ,. ''-, - 113.25 PAD 114.50 rs 113.33 PAD 8134 113.21 8133 llj,26 ... ;• -~. ,1 ,.,.: ..: . •· 41 . -~· \ 8080 113.39 8135 113.34 8132 li3.33 r 8082 113.33 I I 8036 :\ ; 114.42 rs 8120 rm4 rm4 114.50 rs 113 · 20 . • 113.25 PAD 113.35 . 113.33 PAD 8131 113.33 ':: \ 113 · 29 114.50 rs j •.. . . .. 10,, PCC . • · · ..• ~. · · ·., .. ;_ ·. :: .. : . ·'· c,-.. : .· .• . . .. " . . ·. . .: . .,. . . . • . • . ,.Ir. ·: .• .. . ... . -~ . ~ · ... · ..• ·. ... . . • . 6" AGGREGATE , . •. . ... ... . .... ·. · ... ,. ·... .. _ ............ . " ··:·\ .. • ·. ·--~-.. >. / .. >~-':' :'":.>· .. ·. :;~. ·._."_..,::: :~·, _•.-... ·'·. :~;2~--·~·. 8 PCC ·.. · . · 113.34 6" AGGREGATE 114.50 rs 8119 ~ 8054 , 113.33 PADx........._ 113.4~123 ...---113.44 x........._ 8040 8117 113.46 8038 113.56 8115 11338 113.48 113.36 · 8045 113.51 8118 113.56 8124 113.48 8056 8058 113.58 113.55 8126 _..-- 113.40 8128 113.55 8127 / 113.48 I 8068 113.48 I 8065 113.51 8066 113.56 8072 113.24 8069 113.63 8071 113.39 I I 8129 11346 113.33 PAD 114.10 rs ,113.53 PAD 1114.10 rs 113.53 PAD RELD SURVEY COMPLETED 6-09-10 L&!:JQ :~rs = FIELD SURVEY OF PAD xxxxx rs = PLAN ELEVA noNS XXXXX PAD a: <! ~ CIVIL ENGINEER AND SURVEYI St .. Suits 9 CA 9212 H:1420 FAX B:31-9421 ! i 30 0 ~-~ 1 inch = 30 ft. / / 30 I "' / / / . -.-· . EP ------ ~ ETW ----- ETW 1+ 8" W . 00 8" W 8" W 5+00 -I I- 6+00 t -1---t---+-/ / / 114.50 rs' .,,,,, / I I ~ 8021 113.i6 / 8022 113.10 EP 8142 113.33 PAD\ ,,,,-,,,,- 113.36 \ / 8141 8087 / ____________ ._11J...:.2.:..J _ _=:::=,.-IP. ....... ~....l,~=113_32 • \ .,,.,-.,,.,- 114.42 rs ?!JJ1 · \.... --- _______ J 114.10 rs 11137 PAD ..., I \f/l'.,, I 8112 113.28--. I M7' UV.J"r 113.31. \w~ 114.10 rs 113.53 PAD L - ....-.. \ 8110 113.26 ._ .... . ·11 •• ·'! .. .· 4: -• .. •:- ;-,: ... ... 114.42 rs 113.09 PAD 114.50 rs 113.17 PAD 8023 113.17 113.25 PAD 8082 114.50 rs rio/.~1 11 3. 33 113.33 PAD •.• : 8139 . 113.38 ... ;• -~. \ 8080 113.39 8138 113.39 I 8" PCC ... , .....•. . . 8134 113.21 ,1 8135 113.34 6" AGGREGATE . . : . ·.·.• .. ... 8"'° 8114 11.115 113.il , ..•. -----.. ~-·1 •-i 8031 113.13 8133 113.26 ,.,.: ..: . •· 41 . -~· 8132 I li3.33 r 8036 :\ ; 114.42 rs 8120 rm4 rm4 114.50 rs 113 · 20 . • 113.25 PAD 113.35 . 113.33 PAD ': \ 8131 113 · 29 114.50 rs 113.33 j •. . . "PCC . . · "'. · · .. ·.; . · .... : • .. · .. · ..• 10 . . • . . . . , _ . . • • "· '•.. ···.-. . . . • • . . :~: :.;. ", . . • ·: 6" AGGREGATE -• · .. ·.· · .. •:· ..... •· . · · .. ~-··· ··_ •· ...... ~-. -~. , ·• ··. •.. . . · " ··<~· .. • .. ·:~ .. >.::-' .• >~-":"" :~:.-:···,::. :;~_·'. .. ":.. ;: :''.\ :• ...... ,., .. ~;2~· i~·· 8~ .. ·:· ~ 6" AGGREGATE 114.50 rs 8119 ~ 8054 8038 113.56 , 113.33 PADx........._ 113.4~123 _..---113.44 x........._ 8040 8117 113.46 m~ 1u 38 1u48 113.36 · 8045 113.51 8118 113.56 8124 113.48 8056 113.58 8058 113.55 8126 _..--8127 113.40 / 113.48 I 8068 113.48 8128 I 8065 113.55 113.51 8066 113.56 8072 113.24 8069 113.63 8071 113.39 I I 8129 113.46 113.33 PAD 114.10 rs ,113.53 PAD 1114.10 rs 113.53 PAD RELD SURVEY COMPLETED 6-09-10 L&!:JQ :~rs = FIELD SURVEY OF PAD xxxxx rs XXXXX PAD = PLAN ELEVA noNS a: <! ~ CIVIL ENGINEER AND SURVEYI St .. Suits 9 CA 9212 H:1420 FAX B:31-9421 ~ j 30 0 ~-~ 1 inch = 30 ft . / / 30 I "' / / / Carlsbad 09-2046 2/26/10 ": -~ ._ < •• > . '_ .• -. EsGil Corp.oration . . :, -. ' .~ ·, ·.:: ..• (,~·;;; f''\ ;,,· .. ; In <Partnersliip witli f,o'flehiment for <Buitifing Safety · ... ·i,·,. ~·-·, ·,;: DATE: 2/26/10. , JURISDICTION: Carlsbad. ->+ ••••• ,,-. -,'•i . -:·· .. ~ !!CANT <9?0~ " VIEWER Cl FILE PLAN CHECK NO.·:· . 09,:2046 .. SET: III PROJECT ADDRESS: 1960 'Olivenhain Rd. PROJECT NAME: Olivenhain Water District Operations Building ~ The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the Jurisdiction's building codes . . ... _ ~ r f"': • - D The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficienqies identified.below are resolved and checked by building department staff. ' #~:··· ·: ... , ··_,.·::: ,, ·--.... , .. ~ D The· plans tr~1:1~tr)i~ed herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list an_d 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: [8J 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: ) Mail ·Telephone Fax In Person D REMARKS: By: Chuck Mendenhall EsGil Corporation D GA D EJ D PC Telephone #: Fax#: Enclosures: 2/19/10 DATE: 1/28/10 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 09-2046 Es(;il Corporation In (l?artriersli.ip wit/i, (Jovernment for <Bui{aing Safety SET: II . . lC\(b . PROJECT ADDRESS: 1966 Olivenhain Rd. ~ !l8811~T Cl JU_RIS; Cl PLAN REVIEWER Cl FILE . PROJECT NAME: Olivenhain Water District Operations Building D 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 building 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: Hofman Planning & Engineering · · 31-52 Lionshead Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92010 D 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 contacte~i ~"man Planning & Engr, Telephone#: (760) 692-4017 Date contacted:',~l{/O (b,A Fax#: -1, Mail ~elephone FaXI · · In Person email: malves@hofmanplanning.com D REMARKS: By: Chuck Mendenhall EsGil Corporation D GA D EJ D PC Enclosures: 1/22/10 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, -California 92123 + (8.58) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 09-2046 f • • . ...t... 1/28/i0' - NOTE: ihe items listed below are from the previous correction list. These remaining items have not been adequately addressed. The numbers of the items are from the previous check list and may not necessarily be in sequence. The notes· -in bold· font are current. Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit three new complete sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets ofplans. for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. 2. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. All previous corrections have been addressed_ except the two following items STRUCTURAL 15. Include as. part of the plan submittal package complete plans, details and specifications for the steel building. A complete plan review can not be completed until these documents -are provided. The plans, specifications and design calc's for the steel building is listed as a defer.red submittal on sheet S-1 of the plans. This deferral of the structure ~ust be ,. , . ,J/- approved by the Carlsbad Building ·Official. t).J}f fei-p/JJMJ S«Y7tM;tfel 6tC//1.0JO ~'\ PLUMBING, AND ENE:RGY CORRECTIONS . 16. Please submit energy conserv~tion calculations for the building envelope and lighting of the air conditioned office spaces. Include on the plans copies of the signed energy forms ENV-1 and L TG-1. The L iG-1 lighting energy compliance forma have now been provided on sheet E-12 but there were no energy compliance forms for the envelope area that are to be conditioned. There are 3 areas shown on the plans that are to have air conditioning that must be shown to comply with the State energy standards. Provide envelope energy compliance forms and show ori the plans the required roof and wall insulation. END OF RECHECK To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addres~ed, i.e., plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc. The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123;·telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for yoµr project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Chuck Mendenhall at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. .JAN.to:2004 23:35 ~ t -""'"" .t l> ~' -..... DATE: 12/lS/09 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 09-2046 EsGII Corporation SET:I ''tty PROJECT ADDRESS: ..1860 Olivenhab1 Rd. PROJECT NAME: Olivenhahl Water District Operations Buildi11g #2380 P.002 /007 Q APPLICANT Cl JURIS. 0 PLAN REVIEWER O FILE 0 The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's bulldlng·codes. D The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and c'hecked 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. · fZI 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: Hofman Plannin·g & Engineering 3152 Lionshead Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92010 D Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that "the plan check has been completed. (8) Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been complet~d~ Person contacted: Hofman Planning & Engr. Telephone#: (760) 692-4017 Date contacted: (by: ) Fax #: Mail Telephone Fax In Person D REMARKS: By: Chuck Mendenhall EsGil Corporati<?n 0GA OEJ OPC email: malves@hofmanpl~nning.com Enclosures: 1217/09 9320 <;:besapeakc Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (85~) 560-1576 . JAN.10•.2004 23:35 .. "-. . . Carlsbad 09-2046 12/15/09 #2380 P.003 /007 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST COMMERCiAL ·PLAN CHECK NO.: 09-2046 OCCUPANCY: S-1, B TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VB ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 36,000 SPRINKLERS?: yes REMARKS:, DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED:12/15/09 FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): JURISDICTION: Carlsbad USE: Repair, Storage Maint Facility ACTUAL AREA: 11,442 STORIES: one HEIGHT: 21'-6" approx. per CBC OCCUPANT LOAD: 38 DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 12/7/09 PLAN REVIEWER: Chuck MendeDhall This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the International Building Code, Unlfonn Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy 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 ttie Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or other departments. Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of a building per~lt. · Code sections cited are based on the 2007 CBC, which adopts the 2006 IBC. 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. 105.4 of the 2006 International Building Code, the approval of the plans does not.permit the violation of any state, county ot city Jaw. To speed up the recheck process. please note on this 11st (or a copy) where each correction Item has been addressed, I.e .. plan sheet number, specification section. etG, Be sure to enciose the marked up 11st when you submit the revised plans. ,JAN.10:2004 23:36 ' . #2380 P.004 /007 .. ,_ ;. Carlsbad 09-2046 l2/15/09 Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit three new complete sets of plans for oOmmercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGII Corporation and the Carlsbad' Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. 2. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculatlons/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San DiegQ, CA ·92123; (858) 560;.1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports dire<;tly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be .reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. •. PLANS 1. All sheets of the plans are required to be signed by the licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. 2. Provide a note on the plans indlcatlng If any hazardous materials will be stored and/or used within the building which exceed the quantities listed In IBC Tables 307.7(1) and 307.7(2). 3. A Group "H· occupancy requires a Technical Report, describing the hazardous materials and Including a separate floor plan. Sec. 414.1.3. 4. If a hazardous materials report Is required as listed above, provide data on proposed hazardous material to be stored and used. UBC, Section 307 and UFC .. a) Clearly show types of hazardous material i$ being stored or used. Provide a list of the proposed hazardous materials as per.the types in USC, Tables 3vD, .and 3-E. Provide the material safety data sheets (MSDS ). b) Clearly show the amounts of each type of hazardous material to be stored and in use. c) Clearly show where in the buildings each type of hazardous material is being stored or used. 5. Incidental use areas need to be separated from the main occupancy by complete smoke barrier. Doors opening into the storage areas must be self closing smoke -draft assemblies See Table 508.2 below. Please address the following specific areas; Record Storage Rm 108., Computer Storage Rm 109. 6. Note on the plans: "All egress doors shall be readily openable from the egress side without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort." Section 1008.1.8. In lieu of the above, In a Group B, F. Mor S occupancies (or Group A having an occupant load of 300 or less), you may note on the plans "Provide a sign on or near the exit door; reading THIS DOOR TO REMAIN UNLOCKED WHEN BUILDING IS OCCUPIED." This signage is only allowed at the main exit. ,,JAN,10;2004 23:36 ' , . #2380 P,005 /007 car:tsbad 09-2046 12/15/09 7. Glazing In the following locations should be of-safety glazing material in accordance with Section 2406.2 (see exceptions): Glazing within 24" of a door or within 1~" of the floor must be tempered glass. See window/ door assemblies ·c', 'D' & 'E' on sheetA6.1 of the plans. 8. Specify on the plans the following information for the roof materials, per Section 1506.3: a) Manufacturer's name. b) Product name/number. c) ICC approval number, or equal. 9. Provide skylight details to _show compliance with Sections 2404 and 2606.5, or specify on the plans the following information for the skyUght(s): 10. 11. 12. 13. a) Manufacturer's name. b) Model name/number. c) ICC approval number, or $qual. • FOUNDATION A foundation/soils investigation Is required for all projects in IE.a--illli 'ij''' ,.l!;J.lb~!-\ a ' lo• ' •••-•--,.,,.:: /~':" ' , .. "'•••..,7•1:'\"t"':' • T' •r,, -·••••••• •11 I I .. ,;j~ra -.~:. Section 1802.2. · ...... .t~~I ~n~ Provide a copy of the project soil report prepared by a licensed civil engineer. The report shall Include foundation design recommendations based on the engineer's findings. In· Seismic Design Categories 111161, the soils Investigation must address liquefaction, and, if retaining walls are proposed, the soils Investigation must address increased loading on the walls due to earthquake motions. Sectlon 1802.2.7. · The foundation design provided by Orie Engineering requires the spread footings to be reinforced with $6 @ 12" OC. See page 7 of the design calc's. Section A/S~2 shows the spread footing reinforced with #5 @ 12" OC. this also applies to the continuous footing beneath th~ masonry retaining wall. The design requires #6@ 12" OC bu the Section NS-2 shows #5 reinforcing. • STRUCTURAL 14, The retaining wall design requires the wall to be reinforced with #5 vert@8 .. OC. See page 12 of the design calc's by ·orie engineering. The plans sheet S-3 shows the reinforcing of the 5'-4" high retaining wall to be #5@ 16" OC. · 15. Include as part of the plan submittal package complete plans, details and specifications for the steel building. A complete plan review can not be completed until these·documents are provided. J.J.N.10·.2004 23:37 #2380 P.006 /007 '-i. ,.. ~ • > carlsbad ()9-2046 12ll6/0f.l • PLUMBING, AND ENERGY CORRECTIONS 16. Please submit energy conservation calculations for the building envelope and lighting of the air conditioned office spaces. Include on the plans copies of the signed energy forms ENV-1 and LTG-1. · 17. Show bl-level lighting controls as per Title 24. Part 6, Section 131(b). Note: AB970 has eliminated the occupancy sensor and time switch .exceptions previously allowed. . 18. UPC Section 413.1 Fixture Count. Plumbing fixtures shall be provided for the type of building occupancy and In the minimum number shown in Table 4-1. This facility requires both a men's and women's rest room based on the building size and occupant load. Section 413.3 Separate facilities. Separate toilet facilities shall be provided for each sex. • ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW 2005 NEC (2007 CEC) 19. A grouncf fault circuit interrupter shall be in~talled in the branch circuit supplying 15-20 amp receptacles within the repair garage area. 20. Wire sizes feeding panel DP·1A are·underslzed for the 100A circuit. Min size required for the 1 OOA circuit Is #3 CU. 21. Specify on the single line diagram on sheet E-3 that grounding for panel DP1 within the building shall consist of UFER ground and building steel ground. 22. Specify the wiring method you Intend to use for this project. Indicate the type of conduit to be used when exposed or buried underground, etc. (i.e., EMT, Metal Flex, NMC etc.}. NEC 110.3(a) and (b). 23. Specify on the single line diagram on sheet EM3, the "nearest electrode" used for each transfonner secondary ground system (i.e., building steel, cold water pipe). NEC 250.26(c). 24. Panel LP2 Is rated at 225A. The load on this panel exceeds the capacity of the panel. You have shown on sheet E-8 a deratlng of the load by ¾. Specify the code section you are using to derate the load on the panel. END OF REVIEW 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. The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive. Suite 208, San Diego, Callfomla 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Chuck Mendenhall at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. ,,JA,N. 10~. 2Q04 23: 37 #2380 P.007 /007 r ~ . Carlsbad 09·2046 12/15/09 [DO NOT PAY-T.HIS IS NOT AN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PRE.PARED BY: Chuck Mendenhall BUILDING ADDRESS: 1960 Olivenhabi Rd. PLAN CHECK NO.: 09-2046. DATE: 12/15/09 BUILDING OCCUPANCY: B, S-1 TYPE OF CONSTRLICTJON: VB BUILDING AREA Valuation PORTION (Sq.Ft.) Multiplier Operations Bldg 10442 31:04 · Office Areas 1020 75.38 Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code cb ay Ordln•nc:. Bldg. Pen'l'lit Fee by Ordinance ! -. j TYJ)e of Review: ~veFee L!J ... ej>eats Comments: 0 comp11t1 Review D Other 0 Hourly ••OIi Pee Reg. VALUE ($) ¥od. 324,120 76,888 401,007 $1,745.211 $1,134.391 0 Structural Only $977.321 Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc + I . I ! j ~ I ! ' Board-of Directors Edmund K. Sprague, President Robert F. Topolovac, Vice President Mark A. Muir, Treasurer Jacob J. Krauss, Secretary Gerald E. Varty, Director December 17, 2009. Chuck Mendenhal EsGil Corporation · . , 0-LIV-~~ . ~~:;_..,,: . Municipal Water District 50 Years of Pure Excellence 1959-2009 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 San Diego, California 92123 Subject: Olivenhain MWD Project --Plan Check No. 09-2046 Dear Mr. Mendenhal: General Man~ger Kimberly A. Thorner, Esq. General Counsel Wesley W. Peltzer, Esq. The District is in receipt of your plan check comments dated December.15, 2009. Together with our architects and engineers, we are preparing a full response to the issues raised in this document. . . .-r, Item 18 in the plan check comments relates to a requirement for separate restrooms for each sex. ·we would like to point out that there will only be two employees stationed in ~his building with the rest beir'1g used for storage and intermittent occupancy for retrieving parts and equipment from storage. Several full bathrooms and locker rooms are provided for each sex in another building on this site. We request that a single unisex restroom be a_llowed for this facility. This District understands that we will be solely liable for any lawsuits or other actions that may arise as a result of there not being separate sex restrooms in this building . Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, UNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Tom Kennedy Operations Manage cc: George Briest, Engineering Manager 196.6 Olivenhain Road • Encinitas, CA 92024 P_hone (760) 753-6466 • Fax (760) 753-1578 • www.omwd.com ' Pure Excellence ~ · A Public Agency Prov_iding Water Wastewater Ser.:ices RecycledWater Hydroelectricity .. Elfin Forest Recreational Reserve_ ·J ' BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST DATE: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APeROVAL 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 suspension of permit to build. ~ht-of-Way permit is required prior to cons~the fming)np~ N , · Jr-I \ DENIAL attached report of deficiencies 0. ake necessary corrections to plans or speci ti s for compliance with applicable codes and tandards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. · J~i~R,i1sR ·, -~5~ ~~re=ff(lo =- c£j~ oare: 13/ro By: Date: -------- FOR OFFICIAL USE-ONLY . !NEERING AUTHORIZATION TO iSSUEBUILDING PERMIT: ATTACHMENTS D Dedication Application/Checklist D Encina Wastewater Screening Survey D Encroachment Application/Checklist D Final Map (Reference) D Grading Plan Application/Checklist D Improvement Application/Checklist D Neighborhood Improvement Agreement ght-of-Way Permit Submittal Checklist d Information Sheet Storm Water Compliance Forms D Other _______ ___,_ __ ,__ Date: . Name: Linda Ontiveros City of Carlsbac:;f Address: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (760) 602-2773 Fax: (760) 602-1052 Email: _ Linda.Ontiveros@carlsbadca.gov CFO INFORMATION Reference No(s): __ 4 ......... 3 ___ 8_~_~_-_A ______ _ Lot No.: Recordation: ..Carlsbad Tract: ~ Subdi¥isienf=-:::::, 0y· \. 0 2-~o ]I ..., 1635 Faraday Avenue• Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 602-8562 .1• t'' ,1; BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST ~.CJ=-t,--#l~r.:.NfCf<..,.A ,-. /,; l 'A-1:tt>t 1w «--u,MM~73 ITEPLAN: tuf' 7ft~ Sl&Ne:Pfrff.1;;°~ 0tpli:;;<1").,lf~ ~vANS J)WG-LP.;,~-S-A \._yt"VV" lrvl7 / 'r J<-..,V\l ~ · lP~~ c-nDN CMNG-e:::n 2 l?-1/ 00] ~ J 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale.~how: A. North Arrow F. Right-of-Way Width & Adjacent Streets B. Existing & Proposed Structures G. Driveway widths C. Existing Street Improvements H. Existing or proposed sewer lateral D. Property Lines I. Existing or proposed water service E. Easements J. Existing or proposed irrigation service ~ Show on site plan: A. Drainage Patterns 1. Building pad surface drainage must maintain a minimum slope of one percent towards an adjoining street or an approved drainage course. 2. ADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE: ."Finish grade will provide a minimum positive drainage of 2% to swale 5' away from building." B. Existing & Proposed Slopes and Topography C. Size, type, location, alignment of existing or proposed sewer and water service (s) that serves the project. Each unit requires a separate service, however, second dwelling units and apartment complexes are an exception. /. Sewer and water laterals should not be located within proposed driveways, per standards. Include on title sheet: '.. A. Site address __ .. _. _ . B. Assessor's Parcel Number··--· ' (( J , C. Legal Description For commercial/industrial buildings and·fenant 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 2 Rev. 2/02/09 t' • ., D D D D BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE 4a. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No. _______________________ _ 4b. All conditions are in compliance. Date: _________ _ _ __ _ --, DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS G, ,I[]\ c(' 5, Dedication for all street Rights-of-Way adjacent to the building site and any storm . --~ drain or utility easements on the building site is required for all new buildings and for remodels with a value at or exceeding $ 17,000 , pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.030. • (' ,<\ ( ,/\(,, j~,J\_ :::/} \J ti ~,¥<1 ) Dedication required as follows: ________________ _ f,~,/\-~\ Dedication required. Please have a registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor ~v p. 'rf1v 1 ~pare the appropriate legal description together with an 8 ½" x 11" plat map and lfy v -, ~V submit with a title report. All easement documents must be approved and signed D D ~~ n.'.1 by owner(s) prior to issuance of Building Permit. Attached please find an \Yv application form and submittal checklist for the dedication process. Submit the completed application form with the required checklist items and fees to the Engineering Department in person. Applications will not be accept by mail or fax. 0, Dedication completed by:____________ Date: ___ _ IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS 6a. 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 $ 82,000 , pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.040. Public improvements required as follows: ____________ _ Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the public improvement requirements. A registered Civil Engineer must prepare the -appropriate improvement plans and submit them together with the requirements on the attached checklist to the Engineering Department through a separate plan check process. The completed application form and the requirements on the checklist must be submitted in person. Applications by mail or fax are not accepted. Improvement plans must be approved, aRpropriate securities posted and fees paid prior to issuance of building permit. Improvement Plans signed by: _________ _ Date: ---- 3 Rev. 2/02/09 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 1sr 2N° 3RD IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS continued D D D 6b. Construction of the public improvements may be deferred pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40. Please submit a recent property title report or current grant deed on the property and processing fee of $441 so we may prepare the necessary Neighborhood Improvement Agreement. This agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the City prior to issuance of a Building permit. D D D D D D D D D D D D D Future public improvements required as follows: 6c. Enclosed please find your Neighborhood Improvement Agreement (NIA). Please return agreement si~ned and notarized to the Engineering Department. Completed by: Date: ----------- 6d. No Public Improvements required. SPECIAL NOTE: Damaged or defective improvements found adjacent to building site must be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Inspector prior to occupancy. GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The conditions that invoke the need for a grading permit are found in Section 15.16.010 of the Municipal Code. ?a. Inadequate information available on Site Plan to make a determination on grading requirements. Include accurate grading quantities in cubic yards (cut, fill import, export). This information must be included on the plans. ?d .No Grading Permit required. ?e. If grading is not required, write "No Grading" on plot plan. 4 Rev. 2/02/09 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST . . 1, MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS @-tpf/• s RIGHT-OF-WAYPERMIT /1:,,/'/ -8 A Right-of-Way permit is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private M ves;fl-5> . work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way. Types of work include, but are not ~1;;:.-n limited to: street improvements, tree trimming, driveway construction, tying into Jo,...) \""' r-.\,, ,I public storm drain, sewer and water utilities. To see requirements, visit our ~/~)01,l. . \f'JVU-website: www.carlsbadca.gov/engineering ~\~&' Right-o71U~rrmlt required for: l l< 5Th!dds: 11QN ee ~ )pus s "\. I $jOf F C/zl. r/ 0 0 INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMIT ~s:,tP< ~ ID D D 9. If your facility is located in the City of Carlsbad sewer service area, you need to contact the Carlsbad of Carlsbad, Development Services Division, located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. City Staff can provide forms and assistance. You may telephone (760) 602-2750 for assistance NPDES PERMIT 10. Complies with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant D!scharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. STORM WATER COMPLIANCE 1 0a. Cl Requires Project Storm Water Permit: PSP ____ _ ll ~quires SWPPP) -gfease complete attached forms Cl No t~lease complete attached Storm Water Exemption form DEVELOPMENT ·FEES 11. Cl Required fees are attached a More information needed -s~ AD J)l TOO NA' L-- Q No fees required C-04A. M £]\)~ ~ ( ~ , 5 Rev. 2102109 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 1§:r ... _ ;. 2ND 3RD WATER METER REVIEW ·, ef.':o O 12a. Domestic (potable} Use . r · Ensure that the meter proposed by the owner/developer is not oversized. _ tH\I\ ~ \·bkrb,t-tJ-. Oversized meters are inaccurate during low-flow conditions. If it is oversized, for · _ IVµV v V l"V.i .~ 1 ___ '. the life of the meter, the City will not accurately bill the owner for the water used . . ~s~--.~:=: All single family dwelling units receive "standard" 1" service with 5/8" meter. · • All residential units that need to be fire sprinkled receive a 1" meter. See -------__________ _r· Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 17.04.230 for Automatic fire extinguishing systems criteria. D 12b. • If owner/developer proposes a size other than the "standard", then owner/developer must provide potable water demand calculations, which include total fixture counts artd maximum water demand in gallons per minute (gpm}. Once the gpm is provided, check against the "meter sizing schedule" to verify the anticipated meter size for the unit. • Maximum service and meter size is a 2" service with a 2" meter. • If a developer is proposing a meter greater than 2", suggest the installation of multiple 2" services as needed to provide the anticipated demand. (manifolds are considered on case by case basis to limit multiple trenching into the street}. NOTE: Upon declaration of Drought Response Level 3 condition, no new potable water service shall be provided and no new temporary meters or permanent meters shall be provided. See Ordinance 44 for more information. Irrigation Use (where recycled water is not available} All irrigation meters must be sized via irrigation calculations (in gpm} prior to approval. The developer must provide these calculations. Please follow these guidelines: • If the project is a newer development (newer than 1998), check the recent improvement plans and observe if the new irrigation service is reflected on the improvement sheets. If so, ·at the water meter station, the demand in gpm may be listed there. Irrigation services are listed with a circled "I", and potable water· is typically a circled "W". The irrigation service should look like: STA 1 +00 Install 2" service and 1.5: meter (estimated 100 gpm} • If the improvement plans do not list the irrigation meter and the service/meter will be installed via another instrument such as the building plans or grading plans (w/ a right of way permit of course), then the applicant must provide irrigation calculations for estimated worst-case irrigation demand (largest zone with the farthest reach}. Typically, the landscape consultant has already reviewed this if landscape plans have been prepared, but the applicant must provide the calculations to you for your use. . 6 Rev. 2/02109 : BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 1 sT 2N° 3RD WATER METER REVIEW continued 12b. Irrigation Use (continued) D Once you have received a good example of irrigation calculations, keep a set for your reference. In general the calculations will include: • Hydraulic grade line • Elevation at point of connection (POC) • Pressure at POC in pounds per square inch (PSI) • Worse case zone (largest, farthest away from valve • Total Sprinkler heads listed (with gpm use per head) • Include a 10% residual pressure at point of connection In general, all major sloped areas of a subdivision/project are to be irrigated via separate irrigation meters (unless the project is only SFD with no HOA). As long as the project is located within the City recycled water service boundary, the City is in the process of switching thes~ irrigation services/meters to a new recycled water line 12c. Irrigation Use (where recycled water is available) Recycled ·water meters are sized the same as the irrigation meter above. • If a project fronts a street with recycled water, then they should be connecting to this line to irrigate slopes within the development. For subdivisions, this should have been identified, and implemented on the improvement plans. Installing recycled water meters is a benefit for the applicant since they are exempt from paying the San Diego County Water Capacity fees. However, if they front a street which the recycled water is there, but is not live (sometimes they are charged with potable water until recycled water is available), then the applicant must pay the San Diego Water Capacity Charge. If within. three years, the recycled water line is charged with recycled water by CMWD, then the agplicant can apply for a refund to the .San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) for a refund. However, the City of Carlsbad cannot guarantee / the refund. The applicant must deal with the SDCWA for this. ~0/ 13. Additionart:ommrn £,'INF)• f • I ~ -0-£51\b~ faPf\~r<rv ~ y~--s Aff~V~ C,:\'\i\v,Sf-\ eBT6 JJO ~vr )'JATCH [?UHJ)/N& ~e,1°~ ft,6A~l5 (j4lL 'TO 5ci-lBD1Al-o' A-AJ6't:']7N(,-- TV ,eB~D~. 7 Rev. 2/02/09 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT .. FEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET -~. Type~ of .Us_e: ______ _,, 'sq. Ft./Units: __________ _ EDU's: ----- Types of Usei -------Sq. Ft./Units: __________ .:..-_ EOU's:'··. a...-.,..--------- ADT CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages fQr all uses. ,. Types of Use: fill~ Sq. Ft./Unlts:--Ce,f1. \ ACT'S: s= ~ ~ ( Types of Use:~ . Sq. Ft./Units: Afb ~~DT's: --=!?t'--'G ..... e ___ r Types of Use: ____ ...__ __ Sq. Ft./Units: ____ _ ADT's: ----- Types of Use: ______ _ . . Sq. Ft./Units: -----ADT's: ----- FEES REQUIRED: WITHIN CFO: 0 YES (no t;,ridge & thoroughfare fee in District #1, reduced Traffic Impact Fee) D NO · _NE QUADRANT SE QUADRANT SW QUADRANT· =$ ____ _ X FEE/ADT: , ~C). (t,~ 0 3. BRIDG (DIST. #1 __ . DIST. #2 DIST. #3 __ ) ~ . ADT's/UNITS: X FEE/ADT: FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE . ZONE: \ ( t. . UNIT/SO.FT.: X FEE/SO.FT,./UNIT: SEWER FEE =$ _____ _ EDU's: X FEE/EDU: BENEFIT AREA: __ _ EDU's: ____ _ X FEE/EDU:. __ _ =$ _____ _ 0 6. DRAINAGE FEES PLDA _____ _ HIGH _____ . /LOW __ _ / ACRES: ~ 7. POTABLE WATER FEES ~S\ ~DE CONNECTION FEE 0L,\\ft-N\-\r-~ - X FEE/AC: __ _ METER FEE =$ _____ _ SDCWA FEE IRRIGATION 1 F IFARMERIKATHY\MASTERSIFEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET.doc2008.doc Rev. 7/14/00 ~l~. :.202f. ti2ft100 =-D. I fJ EC . 1 (Leu CAD 1 A \;\/AREHo,u ~.-I\ J I ~ r/ -(( l$s0 CL£1Jl)< \J t A: • CITY OF CARLSBAD G~ING INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR PARTIAL SITE RELEASE / · PROJECT IN~ PECTOR: JU>& 5 L.&11 p,tr DATE; ¢.L9 .u 0 PROJECT IQ __ .:,,,,u_~ /J_{)_l_·_" G_" / _____ --'---GRADING PERMIT NO. /;,lltJ f ()!}() 7 # ',; ( -r II l),li /J LOTS REQUESTED FOR RELEASE:._....,o....,J.(l_ . .;_Jt;_~ _c..1 __ ,_-n ______ _ N/A ::: NOT APPLICABLE "=COMPLETE = or unacceptable 1--~"t----t ..._.~ ....... ,--1 i-----+----1 ____ _, 1. Site access to requested lots adequate and logically grouped 2. Site erosion control measures adequate • 3. overall site adequate for health, safety and welfare of public. 4. Letter from Owner/Dev. requesting partial release of specific lots, pads orbldg. · 5. 8½11 X 11 n Site plan (attachm~nt) Showing requested lots Submitted. 6. Compaction report from soils engineer submitted. (If soils report has been submitted wtth a prevloue partial release, a letter frorn soils engineer referencing the $ollsreportand identifying specific lo~s for relaaae shall accompany subsequent partial releases). 7. 8. EOW certification of work done with finish pad elevation& of specific lots to be n,leased. Letter must state 1qt (s) is graded to within a tenth (.1) of the approved grading plan. · ' ' Geologic engineer's letter if unusual geologic or subsurface conditions exist. 9.. Fully fundional fire hydrants within 500 feet of building. combustibles and an all weather roads acceu to site is required. Partial release of grading for the above stated lots is approved for the purpose of building pel1Tlit issuance. Issuance cf building permit$ i. still subject to all normal City requirements required purauant to the building permit process. · D Partial release of the site Is denied for the following reasons: Date Date J:, i'[LEMASTER/FCRMSi?ARi'SlTE.FRM IZI D D ~DD IZI O 0 ~DD Site Plan: PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check No. CB09-2046 Address 1960 OLIVENHAIN RD Planner MIKE GRIM Phone .._{7"""6 __ 0}'""'6"""0=2'--...._46=2=3 ________ _ APN: 255-040-56 Type of Project & Use: 11,400 SF OPERATIONS BLDG Net Project Density:N/A DU/AC Zoning: __ General Plan: __ Facilities Management Zone: __ CFD (in/out) #_Date of participation: ___ Remaining net dev acres: __ Circle One (For non-residential development: Type of land used created by this permit: ) Legend: ~ Item Complete Environmental Review Required: DATE OF COMPLETION: 1/7/04 D Item Incomplete -Needs your action YES 1ZJ NO O TYPE NEG DEC Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Discretionary Action Required: YES 1ZJ NO O TYPE CUP APPROVAL/RESO. NO. 5538 DATE 1/7/04 PROJECT NO. CUP 02,01 . OTHER RELATED CASES:--· Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: __ Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance Project site located in Coastal Zone?· YES o· NO .l8J. CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES O NO 0 If California Coastal Commission Authority: Contact them at -7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, CA 92108-4402; (619) 767-2370 Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt): Habitat Management Plan Data Entry Completed? YES IZ! NO D If property has Habitat Type identified in Table 11 of HMP, complete HMP Permit application and assess fees in Permits Plus (A/P/Ds, Activity Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, HMP Fees, Enter Acres of Habitat Type impacted/taken, UPDATE!) lnclusionary Housing Fee required: YES D NO ~ (Effective date of lnclusionary Housing Ordinance -May 21, 1993.) Data Entry Completed? YES IZ! NO D (A/P/Ds, Activity Maintenance, enter Cl3#, toolbar, Screens, Housing Fees, Construct Housing Y/N, Enter Fee., UPDATE!) ·H:\ADMIN\Template\Building Plancheck Review Checklist.doc Rev 4/08 ~DD 181 D D DOD ~DD l8J D D ~DD '~D.D 181 D D DOD Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines (including all side and rear yard slopes). Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number. Policy 44 -Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines 1. Applicability: YES O NO ~ 2. Project complies: YES D NOD Zoning: 1. Setbacks: Front: Interior Side: Street Side: Rear: Top of slope: Required PER CUP Shown __ Required __ Shown __ Required __ Shown __ Required __ Shown __ Required __ Shown __ 2. Accessory structure setbacks: Front: Required N/A Shown __ Interior Side: Required __ Shown __ Street Side: Required __ . Shown __ Rear: Required __ Shown __ Structure separation: Required __ Shown __ 3. Lot Coverage: Required PER CUP Shown __ 4. Height: Required PER CUP Shown __ 5. Parking: Spaces Required PER CUP Shown __ (breakdown by uses for commercial and industrial projects required) Residential Guest Spaces Required __ Shown __ Additional Comments OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER 109 DATE 12/22/09 .. H:\ADMIN\Template\Buildlng Plancheck Review Checklist.doc Rev 4/08 Carlsbad Fire Department BLDG. DEPT COPY Requirements Category: COMMIND , INDRUevSi~ewed by·. ____ · __ J? __ ...... ' ~-,f----v=~ Date ofReport:.03-30-2010 ~ Plan Review Name: Address: Permit #: CB092046 HOFFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING 3152 LIONSHEAD AVE CARLSBAD CA, 92010 Job Name: OMWD-BUILD NEW 10,442 SF fob Address: 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD CBAD Conditions: Cond: CON0003770 [MET] APPROVED: w/ NOTES. . . ev1ew :UU.U.F,""' 'clouded", THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ISSUANCE OF ' BUILDING PERMIT. THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTION AND REQUIRED TEST, NOTATIONS HEREON, CONDITIONS IN CORRESPONDENCE AND CONFORMANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. THIS APPROVAL SHALL NOT BE HELD TO PERMIT OR APPROVE THE VIOLATION OF ANY LAW. 1. Provide KNOX Key boxes at doors 11 lA and 104A. These boxes are required to be recessed into the exterior wall at an elevation not to exceed 84-inches AFS. 2. Provide address numbers no less than 12-inches in height at an elevation where they are visible from any point of entry and are illuminated either directly or indirectly 3. If the 'Server Room' (110) is to be protected with a fixed gas extinguishing system. CFD shall not permit-the removal of the wet fire sprinkler heads within this area, however CFD will allow the replacement of the 155 Deg. F. heads with Ultra-High Temp which will provide a response near 300 Deg. F*. Entry: 03/30/2010 By: GR m . . . Carlsbad Fire Department BLDG. DEPT COPY Requirements Category: COMMIND , INDRUevSi~ewed by·. _____ !-1-_'L_· --- Date of Report: 01-25-2010 ~ Plan Review Name: Address: Permit #: CB092046 Job Name: OMWD-BUILD NEW 10,442 SF Job Address: -f960.OLIVENHAIN RD CBAD tQlt~ INCOMPLETE The item you have submitted for review is incomplete. At this time, this office cannot adequately conduct a review to determine compliance with the applicable codes and/or standards. Please-«~w carefully all comments attached. Please resubmit the necessary plans and/or specifications, with change to this office for review and approval. Conditions: Cond: CON0003770 [NOT MET] 1. Provide KNOX Key boxes at doors 11 lA and 104A. These boxes are required to be recessed into the exterior wall at an elevation not to exceed 84-inches AFS. 4. Provide address numbers no less than 12-inches in height at an elevation where they are visible from any point of entry and are illuminated either directly or indirectly ** Question:** "Is it known or being considered whether or not.the OMWD intends to protect the 'Server Room' (110) with a fixed gas extinguishing system. If this is being considered, it should be known the CFD shall not permit the removal of the wet fire sprinkler heads within this area, however CFD will allow the replacement of the 155 Deg. F. heads with Ultra-High Temp which will provide a response near 300 Deg. F". Entry: 01/25/2010 By: GR Action: CO • Carlsbad Fire Department BLDG. DEPT COPY Plan Review Requirements Category: COMMIND , INDUST Date of Report: 12-08-2009 Reviewed by: __ 4 __ 1_4 __ ~- HOFFMAN PLANNING & ENGINEERING Name: Address: Pennit #: CB092046 3152 LIONSHEAD A VE CARLSBAD CA 92010 Job Name: OMWD-BUILD NEW 11,400 SF Job Address: 1960 OLIVENHAIN RD CBAD lNCOMPLETE The item you have submitted for review is uacomplete. At this time, this office cannot adequately conduct a review to determine compliance with the applicable codes and/or standards. Please review carefully all comments attached. Please resubmit the necessary plans and/or specifications, with changes "clouded", to this office for review and approval. Conditions: Cond: CON0003770 [NOT MET] 1. Title Sheet should indicate that this project shall be fire sprinkled. 2. Provide KNOX key entry switch and OPTICOM or equal preemption control device at entry gate. 3. Provide KNOX Key boxes at doors 11 lA and 104A. These boxes are required to be recessed into the exterior wall at an elevation not to exceed 84-inches AFS. 4. Provide address numbers no less than 12-inches in height at an elevation where they are visible from arty point of entry and are illuminated either directly or indirectly 5. Question: "Is it known or being considered whether or not the OMWD intends to protect the 'Server Room' (110) with a fixed gas extinguishing system. If this is being considered, it should be known the CFD shall not permit the removal of the wet fire sprinkler heads within this area, however CFD will allow the replacement of the 155 Deg. F. heads with Ultra-High Temp which will provide a response near 300 Deg. F". · Entry: 12/08/2009 By: gr Action: CO / Orie2 Engineering Structural & Bridge Engineers 9750 Miramar Road, Ste. 31 0 San Diego, CA 92126 Phone: (858) 335-7643 Fax: (858) 586-0911 Supplemental Structural Calcu-1ations PROJECT: Olivenhain Municipal Water District Phase 1 -Building J (Project # 302.090-09 ) CLIENT: Jeff Katz Architect DESIGNED BY: Orie2 -Structural Engineers D.FJD.R.O. DATE: 01/10 Signed By: Donald Orie ' ., Orie2 Engineering $1ruetural & Bridge En(jneers Project No.: ---""""30=2'.=090-::..:09;;:.._ ___ 9750 Miramar Roa<!. Suit.310 san Diego, CA 92i26 ·.Pnorte f.: (858) 335-7643 FAX#: (858) 586-0911 PROJECT: OMWO-Phase 1 Bulldlng J F ro-r1..J-,:='t'J , ct , ... I lt,,JS~ {, D+ t,... "": -,----.;__ Frame-Foundation Ana1vsrs VV\ :-t?,":>, ps.f') ( q') :=. 2D ~\ , "2. A ti\ 2,c,_1e-\ .. s, re.i ::; ---------.c;, /,7£-'d i I 7:S (/5.\\) ,.C O I '3'o ·,~,Z. ( 1 o-v-'n~) u.s:.e... *5 e 12\' (!),c.. Ti 13 . \ I '\ o , 115 t,c. c~ "' , L 5 x: e >LB -+ ( 1' X It_, -F·TG:-t -l lJ. q k. -l-"3 \ '2,.. '2, ~ Revised Page 7 PAGE-No._OF_ DATE: 11/17/09 BY: D.J.F. C'),l5°'h.c..r )( g)(.L,.\,Xl).b'"J\) .I(: 1-\ S--t-rtp ~ slo...h ~r~el Ftt-J, ,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I t 2 · · .iE OR·- STRUC!U~ Orie2 Engineering Structural & Bridge Engineers 9750 Miramar Road, Ste. 310 San Diego, CA 92126 Phone: (858) 335-7643 Fax: (858) 586-0911 Structural Calculations PROJECT: Olivenhain Municipal Water District Phase 1 -Building J (Project# 302.090-09 ) CLIENT: DESIGNED BY: D.F./0.R.O. DATE: 11/09 Jeff Katz Architect Oriti -Structural Engineers This signature is to be a wet signature, not a copy Signed By: (This set of calculations has pages.) I I I I· I I I I I I I· I I I I I I I I 9750 Miramar Rel., Suite 310 San Diego, CA 82126 CODE: Od•z Enginffring Structural & Bridge Eng/llffrs PhOne#: (858) 335-7643 FAX# : (858) 586--0911 Project No. : .... 30=2=;09=0-.... 0 ___ 9 ____ _ PROJECT : OMWD Phase 1 -Building J Gravity Design Loads 2007 CaHfomia Building Code (CBC) ROOF DEAD LOADS: ROOF LIVE LOADS: Slope= Tributary Area = SLAB LIVE LOAD: Collateral Load 2007CBC <4 :12 <200 ft"2 HS-20 Wheel Load 10.0 psf 26.0 psf 16.0 kips Page: 1 PAGE No. DATE: 11/16/09 BY: D.J.F. 1! l I Ii ! I) ! I; Ii ' ' r Ii i I I I I I I I Page:2 "ASCl;705W.xls" Program Version 1.0 WIN[) LOADING ANALYSIS--MairiWint;t-:Force ~~$i§thig $y$~em Per ASCE 7-05 Code for Enclosed er ParllaHy Eni;:losed Suiiding§l: Usin ' I\IIQthod 2; An~l :·c~I P19cetjure •$eeti~n e;~) f~r ~l;,:qy;~~{Sl";l :8ui1di09~c . · Job Number: 302.090:09 . ·od inator: DJF Checker: Input Data: Wind Speed, V = Bldg. Classification = Exposure Category = Ridge Height, hr = Eave Height, he = Building Width = 94.5 II C -201>0 --·-18.00 22.00 mph {Wind Map, Figure 6-1} (Table 1-1 Occupancy Cat.) Wind> (Sect. 6.5.6) ft. (hr >= he) ft .. (he <= hr) ft. (Normal.to Bµilding. Ridge) Building Length = Roof Type= Topo. Factor, Kzt = Direct. Factor, Kd = Enclosed? (Y /N) 250.00 Monoslope ft. (Parallel to Building Ridge) IE L )I (Gable or Monoslope) ~---=---~ (Sect. 6.5.7 & Figure 6-4) Plan 1.00 --o.a5 (Table 6-4)' N (Sect. 6.2 & Figure 6-5) Resulting Parameters and Coefficients: Roof Angle; 0 =~deg. Mean Roof Ht., h ==D[Q[J~-(h = he, fat ~ngle <=10 deg.) Check Criteria for a Low-Rise Building:. 1. Is h <= 60'? I Yes, O.K. I 2. Is h <= Lesser of L 9r B? l=xternal Pre&sure Coeff's., GCpf (Fig. 6-to): (For values, see following wind load tabulations.) Positive & Negative Internal Pressure Coeffidents, GCpi (Figure 6-5): +GCpi Coef. =~Jpositive internal pressure) . -GCpi Coef. =~(negative internal pressure) If h < 15 then: Kh = 2.01*(15/zg)"(2/cx.) (Table 6-3, Case 1b) · If h >= 15 then: Kh = 2.01* z/z "(2.fcx.) {Table 6-3, Case 1b) ex.= 9.50 · (Table 6-2) zg = 900 (Table 6-2) Kh = 0.88 (Kh = Kz evaluated at z = h) I= 1.00 (Table 6-1.) (Importance factor) L Elevation Yes,O.K.. Velocity Pressure: qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*V"2*1 (Sect. 6.5.10, Eq. 6-1~) · qh=l 17.14 !psf qh=O.0b256*Kh*Kzt*Kd*V"2*I (qzevaluatedatz=h) · Design Net External Wind Pressures (Sect. 6.5: 12.2.2): p = qh*[(GCpf) -(+/-GCpi)] (psf, Eq. 6-18) ·Walland Roof End Zone Widths 'a' and '2*a' (Fig, 6-10): · a=~ft. 2*a=~ft. B 1·of3 11/16/2009 5:06 PM ,, . ' I I .I I I I I ·1 I • l ~ I I ' I I I I i I I 1 I I i I I I . . , Page: 3 "ASCE705W.xls" Progr~m Version 1,0 Sur.face . GCpf ·a= Net Pressuries ,ri~1;t)/ $1:Jn'aee '*:G:Cpt , c p,:;:)~iilPJ.~$§liJI~$;J!\t~f;f: ~w/ +QCoO ; (:w/ .:GQ1:1it , _ .. , , .. , · 1 : <~1: +:~~0.f[, . -. Jwr-:~~Qn ; . . . ,'.Zciti'e71f.::;;I 0.40 -2.54 .. 16.31 -Z0i:le f:. OAO -2.57 16.28 .·zeiitei2'i};. '----o-.s-9--i-_-i-1---.2-s--2-40 . : ion~ f ·· -o.es -21.2e -2.40 lbrie\3'?; -0.37 -15.79 3.013 Zone 3: -\).37 -15,77 3.09 Z&rre,,f:,:· -0:29 -14.43 4,43 ' Zone 4." -0.29 -14.40 4.46 ·. ··z~n"&·st,,; -d.45 -17.14 1.11 Zone·$ -0.45 -17.14 1.11 :~~n~·'s;:i,.:~fi -0.45 -17.14 1.71.. tPr.i~HL ... :-0.45 -1.7.14 1.n -----t--..,...---+...,-----"---'--'--+-=""~--±-''--t--i-.:..,,--+,---..,..-~----+--------1 0Z0'rre,JE:[, 0.61 1.07 19.9~ ; Zsme 1:1; .. 0;6·1 1:03 19.88 i6Jiie 2£zt,: -1.07 -';.7.77 -8.91 :Z:0n~2a · -1.07 -27.71 -8.91 Zdn,:sE>ih~ -0.53 -18.55 0.31 · Zeme $ii, -0.53 -18.51 0.34 zon~,~~,:1 :~~I -0.43 -16:85 2.01 ~~me 4~, • -(M3. -46.80 2.06 *Note: Use roaf angle 0 = O degrees for Longitudinal Direction. For Trans. when GC.pf i.s neg, in Zones 2/2E: For Long; when GCpf i.s neg. in ZonE3s 2/2E: Zones 2/2E dist. =I 11.0d !ft. Zones 2/2E dist. = 45.oo: ft Remainder of roof Zones 2/2E extending to ridge line shall l.tse roof Zones 313E pressure coefficients. Surface . P 'i::: Net PreS$gr:e (P.Sf> •• · $~$ce: . <wl +GC~ff lw/~GCPD. . . · · lwf+G01:1lf :: •. 1wl ;_$~p1:f : . · -0.64 4.oa· ". Zorie ff ---o.a~r · 4:07 -5.31 -0.60, ' Zen~ ii 1--_--1---_,....5_-3-1--1----0-.6-0---1 ~3.95 0.77 l Zom$'3T'_: ______ 1 ___ -_3 ___ :-9_4_. _____ o._1 ___ 1_-1 .. 3.61 1 .. 11 , : 40rae 4J : -3.60. 1 .. 11 Notes: t. For Transverse, Longitudin't:11, arid Torsional Cases: Zone 1 is windward wall for interior zone. Zone 1 E is windward wall for end zone. Zone 2 is windward roof for interior zone. Zone 2E is windward roof far end zone. Zone 3 is leeward roof for interior·zone. · Zone 3E is leeward roof for end zone'; Zone 4 is leeward wail for interior zone. Zone 4E .is leeward wall for end zone. Zanes 5 and 6 are sidewalls. Zone 1 T is windward wall for torsional case Zone 2T is windward roof for torsional case. Zone 3T is leeward roof for torsional case Zone AT is leeward wall fortors.ional·case. 2. ( +) and (-) signs signify wind pressures, acting. toward & away from respective sln:faces. 3. Building must be designed for all wind directions using the 8 load cases sbown below. The load cases are applied to each building corner in turn as,the reference corner. 4. Wind loads for torsianal cases are .25% of respective transvers$ or lorigitLJdinal zone load valLJes. Torsional loading shall apply to all 8 basic loacf cases applied at each reference corner. Exception: One-story l;luildings with "h" <= 30', ·buildirigs ..;= 2 stories framed with light frame construction, c:1nd buildings <=2 stories designed with flexible diaphr$gms need not be designed for torsional load cases. 5. Per Code Section 6. t.4.1, the minimum wind load for·MWFRS shall not oe less than 10 psf. 6; References : a. ASCE 7-02, "Minimum D8$!9!1 Loads forB\,lilding,s and Other Structures". b. "Guide to the Use of the Wind Load· Previsions of ASCE 7-02" by: Kishor C. Mehta and James M: Delahay {2004 )~ 2of3 11/16/2009 5:06 PM I I i I i I I ' l 1. I ~ • I l ,I I i I I I l l I ! I I I I I I Low-Rise Buildings h<~60' ll Transveise Direction Ba:sk Load Case.is Transverse Olrectlon Page:4 "ASCE70~W.xls" Program Version 1.0 Longitudinal Direction Tol'sionaT Load .Cnses 11/16/2009 5:06 PM I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 20' Frame Reactigns D+L: 0.581 Orie' Engineering Structur,I & Bridge Engineelg ~·: (858) 335-7643 FAX#: (858) 58$-0911 12.86 O+Wleft: Page:5 Project No. : 302.090-09 PAGE No._OF_ DATE: 11117/09 PROJECT:· OMWD-Phase 1.Bullding J BY: D.J.F. Frame foundation Analysis O+Wright: -;581 ·6.978 I I 1·· I I I I I I I I Orie2 Engineering Structural & Bridge Enrjneers 9750 M".-amar Road, 8l.lillt 310 San Diego, CA 92126 Phone f: (858) 335-7643 FAX#: (8S8)S86-0911 30' Frame Reactions D+L: 1.68 16.47 O+Wleft:, Project No. : 302.090-09 PROJECT: OMWD-Phase 1 Building J Frame Foundoffon AnalYsls D+Wright: 11.03 Page:6 PAGE No._OF_ DATE: 11/17/09 BY: O.J.F. /2.e.c,.. r Co-/, /Z.MO..."I'-::: /{. 0 k. u #-C>..:t-;.. l -i. ~ i--- I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I ltl£1 ·;OR--1 Orie~ Engineering Structural & J3ridg& Enfjneers Project No. : 302.090-09 9750 Miramar Road, Suit• 310 Phone 1 , (8S8) 335-7&43 PROJECT: OMWD·-Phase 1 Bulldlng J 8an Olega, CA.!12126 FAX#: (858) !8&-0911 Frame_ Foundation Analvsis F ro-r1~ ~-rt;. t, D+'i_ :::-I lP, 6"" bJ.-/ 5,f:, 1M =--('J t-.51 l' s.f. ') ( i/) .:=-26 ~ \ . , '2. 2,6 ,e.\ I, 7j (it/'') l) ~ \ ,t-\-[\J\ CA..'f.. ~ \ "1 ' ~ \,o.. D ~ O .. 115 \< c+ "" · f. 5 'x i y.. e ; · ( I' x 't 'FT~ :::: I 7. <o 1-c.. ,,,,_ \ 1 _ ~ \-(.. t.). I \ \ v )(. ~ ,c. l ,6 D Page:? PAGENo._OF_ DATE: 11/17/09 BY: D.J.F. 6, 15" kc.I' ~ g ~/..j 'f< :D, ,,..,,) .,t 1-' s-rr,p o-t-slc:...b ~r~ci F1""-J, I: I I I I I I: I I I I I I I I I I I I Orie2 EnglnNring Structural"& Bridge En{lneilrs 9750 Miramar Road, SUHe 310 Sen Diego, CA 92126 Phone f: {858) 335-7643 f.AX#; (858) 586-0911 Project No. : '302.090-09 PROJECT : OMWD -Phase 1 Building J Frame Foundqffon Analysts Page:8 PAGE No._OF_ DATE: 11/17/09 BY: D.J.F. _ __:.·M_·. ~----::. ,e.\ JC),"/ ,... 0., JC>' I if\ '1, J. ?$( i.s) -/., 15 ~ I \ D L ~ o, I lfi ,<. t.f ;,.. 3D ~ Ii 'I I/ i I 11 l I i • l I • l I . ! • ' I l I I ' 1· ! I ~ f > I I • ( I I Page:9 "BOEF.xls" Program Version 1.2 . BEAM ON ~LA$TIC FOUNDATION ANAL vsrs For Soil Supported Beam, Combilled footing, Slab Sir.ip .or Mat Strip oi A$sume~:tfinii~ L.en~ih wiih !Soth Ends FJ:~e ... . .. Job Name: OMWD Phase 1 Buildini:1 J · Subiect: IJO" Cone. Slab-on-Grade Job Number: 302.090-09 _ ----Oriain8.tor: IOJF I Checker: I . Input Data: Beam Data: Length, L = 3.0000 ft. Width, W = -3.0000-ft. a .C . b _ I +P Thickness, T = -0.8300 ft. +wbJ,! J J, ! J, ! ! ! J,+we <4iM r-+w Modulus, E = 3122 ksi J, J; . .L J, J, J, J.. J, J. ,L J. J. J. J. J, J. J. J. J, J. J.\J. J, J., L, .J, .J, Subgrade, K = ---1~ pcl Inertia, I = --:o:T43-ft.~4 ~:"C: :;~~;;":';;~~1~~bf[F~".::;i~;::tz1~c~ ;; r Beam Loadings: Full Uniform: w =f .... -0-.1-2-so-Jiops/tt. i---~x Nomenclature Results: .,....__sta.....,_rt;.;.......,._..-----;;;;En;,;.;d;;.... _..,_..,..,., Beam Flexiblity Criteria: Distributed:i--_b..,,(tt ..... ) __ ,._Wb_. _-,,_(kJ_p,slft_· _.-l-t-_e ___ {ft_,..)----11-w--· e __ O._ki._Ps...,./ft-'--1,) · for ~*L <= 1114 beam is rigid #1: forn/4 < f3*L < 1t beam is semi-rigid -------·-•----~----, #2: for jl"L >= 1t beam is fleicible #3: ____ ._,....... for f;l*L >= 6 beam is semi~infinite long #4: ------~---~--------#5: -----·--------1-----f #6: ------------------Point Loads: c:1. (ft.) P (kips) #1: .__!'.',.500Q_ 16.00__:_ #2: ----··_....·~---#3: ·------1----1 #4: ---·------i.----i #5: ------·-·-#6: -----•-------#7: #8: __ ,., ________ _ #9: #10: --.. ---------- ·---· --11-----,-#11: ___ ....., ____ -I #12:,__ __ ......,_ _____ __, Momentsi .· c (ft.) M (tt-~ips) . i--..... --+-~ ...... ----'f #1: -----·----· #2: 1----,-------1 #3: -----1-------:1 #4:..._ ________ __ 1i of 2 _ ~ =r 0.244 1 P = ((K*W)/(4*E*144*1))"(1/4) P*L = 0.73 ~*L = Flexibility Factor l ;Beam-is-rigid-h Max. ·shears and Locations: +V(max) =~k @ l_( = ~ft. -V{max)=D]Q:Jk @X= ~ft. Max. Moments .and Locations: +M{max) =C]][:=ltt-k @ x = ~ft. ·-M(max) =[:Q][Jtt-k @X = ~ft. Max. Deflection ari.d Location: A(max) ==r -0.072 hn. @ x = ! 1.50 !tt. Max. Soil Pressure and Location: ___ _, O(max) =! 1.826 !ksf @ X = l 1.50 !tt. 11/16/2009 4:32 PM ---, I\;)· a j\) ..... ..... ._ ..... O> rl) ~ """ i:b I\) iJ s:: ·--_, __ _ ·-----____ , ,_ .. ____ _ ti ' I j l ! >< I =ill .v1 i l ( Bearing Pressure {ksf) ... Rl• "' i -2l "' ... 2l 0 -~ t_ ------~---~. i Moment (ft-kips) "' !" g ~ 0 0 b g: g: ~ o.oo o .. r__. _ _...._~_, ___ __:__::__: 0,12 o .. 0,24 o .. 0.36 o •. 0.48 o., 0.60 0,.·' 0,72 0.84 0,96 1.08 1.20 m (1) m .. s· f'D 1.32 m 1.44 1.56 1.68 Cl) C ciJ t:, ,Qr 1.80 l"'l I» 1.92 13 2.04 2.16 2.28 o .. o .. o .. 1 .. 1., 1 .. *· 1:, 1 .. 1 .. 1 .. 2 .. 2 .. 2,,:1 2.40 2 .. 2.52 2,64 2.76 2.88 3.00 2 .. 2 .. 2 .. 3 .. ' l _______ ...,._ I -------"···-· -' 9 9l 0 0 ' ; l : l l I l I l : ' ' ' I i I l I >< l s! . ' -· ' ' l ' l • I i ' ' l l ! , ?,, 0 t Shear (kips) N b g ~ b g: !; -------· -O• b l I I ' ! ' I I ·en :::r ,,(I) ~ C 1· D1 3 ~ m ,, x. ~~ a3 iJ o· a ::, (C "' • -3,00" ..,,. _________ ·-·---· ______ , ..... jil ~3 - ""Cl a> (Q (I) _.. 0 1· I ., I I I I I f I ~ I I I I I I I I I- I I I. I Orie 2 Engineering structural & Bndge Engineers 9750 Miramar Rd., Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92126 Phone# : (858) 335-7643 FAX#: (858)586-0911 Design Reinf. For 1011S,d.G. ~ Steel Yield Strength -Fy Concrete Compressive Strength -re .: Beam Width -b Effective Depth -d Ultimate Moment (req'd) -MU (req'd) Ultimate Shear (req'd) -Vu·(req'd) Approx. Area of Steel Req'd -As Bar Size Nominal Bar Size . Area .. 3 0.11 8 4 0.20 9 5 0.31 10 6 0.44 11 7 0.60 14 ~~~EB01~cs1MIW! Steel Yield Strength -Fy ·concrete Compressive Strength -fc Ele11mWiqth-b Effective Depth -d a =-As*Fy / (0.85*fc*b) Ultimate Moment (req'd) -Mu (req'd) Ultimate Moment (prov) -Mu (prov) Area of Steel Provided -As Actual.steel Ratio -p Minimum Steel Ratio -p = 200/fy Maximum-Steel Ratio -p = 0.75*pb Nominal Area 0.79 1.00 1.27 1.56 2.00 Top'(-)Steel 60.0 {ksi) 3.0 (ksi) 36.0 (in.) 7.0 (in.j 0,00 (k-ft) 13.60 {kip)- 0.00 (sq. in.) Bar Size: 4.0 No. Bars: 2.0 Area Steel: 0:40 Top(·) Steel 60.0 (ksi) 3.0 (ksi) 36.0 (in.) 7.0 {in.) 0.26 (in.) 0.0 (k•ft) 12.4 (k-ft) 0.40 (in."2) 0.00159 0.00333 0:01604 Notes: Mu (prov)= CJ.9*As*Fy*d*(1-0.59*p*Fy/fc) pb = 0.85'.'f'c*B1/Fy*(87/(Fy+87)) JOB # : 302.09.0-09 PROJECT: OMWD Bldg J Dl;;SCRIPTION : Slab,on-graae Page: 11 PAGE#: DATE: 11/16/09 DESIGNED DJF Bottom(+) Steel 60.0 (ksi) 3.0 (ksi) 36.0 (in.) 7,0 (in:) Mu= 1.7x6.0-k-' = 10.2 k-' 10.20 (k-ft) 13.60 (kip) 0.37 (sq. in.) 4:0 2:0, 0.40 (sq.ln.) Bottom{+) Steel 60.0 (ksi) 3.0 (ksi) 36.0 (in:) 1:0 (iii.) 0.26 (in.) 10.2 (k-ft) <-OK 12:4 (k-ft) <-OK 0.40 (in."2) 0.001l?9 0.00333 0.01604 Use 10" slab-on-grade w/ #4@ 18" o.c. T&B I I I ' I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I Orie% Enginffling Structural &:Bridge Englneens 9750 Miramar Road, &ri!e 310 P11one #: (858) 336-76-43 San Diego, CA 92126 FAX#-: (858) 586-0911 Project No. : 302.090-09 PROJECT: OMWD-Phase 1 Building J R,tatnlnqWall l)~ e-l,.,1,-), {1-d pre.$. ·s. u re =-~o (-> -s.~ \2, -o i:. ~.-;'3) ( '30) -::-\~D °* t.M0 WCL\\ V'f\,;; ( \1, 0) ('? ,~'3) ,r i X. ( b()) ( :5,·-n') 'b Page: 12 PAGE No._ OF_ DATE: 11/17/09 BY: D.J.F. 602705-001 APPENDIX B Explanation of Summary of Field Density Tests TestNo. Test of Test No. Test of Prefix Test of Abbreviations Prefix Test of Abbreviations (none) GRADING Natural Ground NG (SG) SUBGRADE Original Ground OG (AB) AGGREGATE BASE Existing Fill EF (CB) CEMENT 1REATED BASE Compacted Fill CF (PB) PROCESSED BASE Slope Face SF (AC) ASPHALT CONCRETE Finish Grade FG (S) SEWER Curb C (SD) STORMDRAIN Gutter G (AD) AREADRAIN Curb and Gutter : CG Cross Gutter . ., XG (W) DOMESTIC WATER (RC) RECLAIMED WATER Street ST Sidewalk SW (SB) SUBDRAIN Driveway : D (G) GAS (E). ELECTRICAL Driveway Approach DA (T) TELEPHONE Parking Lot PL (J) JOINT UTILITY Electric Box Pad EB (I) IRRIGATION Trash Enclosure TE Loading Ramp LR Bedding Material B Building Pad BP Shading Sand s Main M Lateral -L Crossing X Manhole l'vflI Hydrant Lateral · HL Catch Basin CB Riser R inlet I Fire Service FS Water Services ws Head Wall HW (RW) RETAINING WALL (P) PRESATURATION (CW) CRIB WALL (LW) LOFFELL WALL Moisture Content : M (SF) STRUCT FOOTING Footing Bottom F Backfill B ' Wall Cell C (IT) INTERIOR TRENCH Sewer Lateral s Storm Drain SD Electric Line E N represents nuclear gauge tests that were perfonrted in general accordance with most recent version of ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017. S represents sand cone tests that were performed in general accordance with most recent version of ASTM Test Method Dl556. 15A represents first retest of Test No. 15 B-1 SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Test Test Test -Location Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative(%) . ... No. Date Of Lot# Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Comnaction Remarks . 1 10/7/09 CF South Building 110.0 1 113.7 -126.0 12.0 10.0 90 2 10/7/09 CF South Building 110.5 1 117.8 126.0 10.9 10.0 93 3 10/7/09 CF South Building 111.0 1 117.2 126.0 10.9 10.0 93 4 10/7/09 CF South Building 111.0 1 114.4 126.0 11.4 10.0 91 5 10/8/09 CF East Building 111.0 1 118.3 126.0 13.1 10.0 94 6 10/8/09 CF East Building 111.5 2 112.6 121.0 14.1 10.0 93 7 10/8/09 CF East Building 112.0 1 114.5 126.0 13.1 10.0 91 8 10/8/09 CF East Building 113.0 1 114.2 126.0 14.0 10.0 91 9 10/9/09 CF South Building 112.0 1 117.5 126.0 10.8-10.0 93 10 10/9/09 CF South Building 112.5 1 118.1 126.0 11.6 10.0 94 11 10/9/09 CF Southwest Building 110.5 3 108.1 113.5 18.9 15.0 95 12 10/9/09 CF Southwest I:3uilding 111.0 3 106.4 113.5 18.7 15.0 94 13 10/9/09 CF South Building 111.0 3 105.9 113.5 18.5 15.0 93 14 10/14/09 CF West Building 110.0 2 114.6 121.0 13.6 10.0 95 15 10/14/09 CF West Building 110.5 2 112.2 121.0 14.1 10.0 93 16 10/15/09 CF Southwest Building 110.5 2 108.3 121.0 8.6 10.0 90 Retest on 16A 16A 10/15/09 CF Southwest Building 110.5 2 113.6 121.0 13.7 10:0 94 Retest of 16 17 10/15/09 CF West Buildiing 111.0 2 107.6 12i.O 9.2 10.0 89 Retest on 17 A 17A 10/15/09 CF West Building 111.0 2 111.8 121.0 15.1 10.0 92 Retestofl7 18 10/15/09 CF Southwest Building 112.0 2 112.2 121.0 16.4 10.0 93 19 10/15/09 CF Concrete Park/DriveNortheast 113.0 1 119.6 126.0 10.7 10.0 95 20 10/15/09 CF Concrete Park/Drive West 113.0 2 114.3 121.0 13.1 10.0 94 21 10/15/09 CF Concrete Park/DriveSoutheast 113.5 1 117.8 126.0 11.4 10.0 93 22 10/16/09 CF West Building 112.0 2 113.7 121.0 15.6 10.0 94 23 10/16/09 CF Southwest Building 113.0 2 112.2 121.0 13.8 10.0 93 24 10/16/09 CF South Building 113.0 2 110.3 121.0 16.5 10.0 91 25 10/16/09 CF East Building 113.0 2 109.6 121.0 15.9 10.0 91 26 10/16/09 CF West Building 112.0 2 111.7 121.0 15.5 10.0 92 27 10/19/09 CF West Building 113.0 1 118.0 126.0 11.9 10.0 94 28 10/19/09 CF Concrete Park/DriveEast 112.5 3 105.2 113.5 18.7 15.0 93 29 10/19/09 CF South Building 113.0 1 116.9 126.0 12.1 10.0 93 30 10/19/09 CF Concrete Park/Drive West 113.0 3 107.8 113.5 18.4 15.0 95 Project Number: 602705-001 ,, Project Name: OMWD-Building J Project Location: 0 Client: 0 Page 1 of2 12/3/2 9:59:20AM SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS T~t Test Test Location Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative{%} -No. Date Of Lot # Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. ComJ!action Remarks 31 10/19/09 CF Concrete Park/Drive West 113.0 3 106.6 113.5 19.1 15.0 94 32 10/20/09 CF Access Road East 112.5 3 101.7 113.5 19.7 15.0 90 33 10/20/09 CF Parking Lot North 112.0 3 104.1 113.5 21.2 15.0 92 34 10/20/09 CF Parking Lot North 112.5 3 102.8 113.5 20.7 15.0 91 35 10/20/09 CF Parking Lot North 112.5 3 105.8 113.5 18.8 15.0 93 36 10/20/09 CF Access Road East 112.0 3 107.2 113.5 19.6 15.0 94 37 10/20/09 CF Access Road East 113.0 3 103.4 113.5 20.l 15.0 91 38 10/20/09 CF Parking Lot · North 113.0 3 102.9 113.5 20.0 15.0 91 39 10/21/09 CF Access Road East 112.5 3 106.7 113.5 18.3 15.0 94 40 10/21/09 CF Parking Lot North 112.5 3 108.i 113.5 19.8 15.0' 95 41 10/21/09 CF Parking Lot North 112.0 3 105.9 113.5 20.3 15.0 93 42 10/22/09 CF Landscape Area North 112.5 3 103.3 113.5 17.8 15.0 91 43 _:rnt22/.09--Cit . -. -Landscape Area. -Northwest 123.5 3 101.8 113.5 18.2 15.0 90 44 10/22/09 FG East Building 0.0 1 121.1 126.0 12.4 10.0 96 45 10/22/09 FG East Building 0.0 1 122.0 126.0 12.1 10.0 97 46 10/22/09 FG South Building 0.0 1 118.2 126.0 13.4 10.0 94 47 10/22/09 FG South Building 0.0 l 119.7 126.0 13.8 10.0 95 48 10/22/09 FG West Building 0;0 1 116.l 126.0 12.7 10.0 92 49 10/22/09 FG West Building 0.0 l 115.5 126.0 12.1 10.0 92 50 10/22/09 C,F Access Road West 115.0 4 108.7 118.0 15.2 13.0 92 51 10/22/09 CF Access Roacl West 116.0 4 112.8 118.0 17.4 13.0 96 52 10/22/09 CF Access Road West 117.0 4 110.5 118.0 16.7 13.0 94 53 10/29/09 CF Parking Lot West 114.5-· 4 -. 109.6 118.0 15.9 13.0 . 93 54 10/29/09 CF Parking Lot East 114.0 4 107.3 118.0 16.3 13.0 91 55 10/30/09 CF Concrete Park/Drive 113.0 3 102.8 113.5 17.3 15.0 91 56 10/30/09 CF Parking Lot East 114.0 3 107.6 113.5 18.2 15.0 95 57 10/30/09 CF Parking Lot West 114.5 3 105.8 113.5 18.4 15.0 93 •' Project Number: 602705-001 4 Project Name: OMWD-Building J Project Location: 0 Client: 0 Page 2 of2 12/3/2 9:59:20AM SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Test Test Test Location Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative(%} No. Date Of Lot # Elev (ft) Tvpe Field Max Field Opt. Comnaction Remarks ~ SG l 10/23/09 SG Concrete Park/Drive North 0:0 3 107.6 113.5 18.6 15.0 95 SG 2 10/23/09 SG Concrete Park/Drive East 0.0 3 108.3 113.5 19.2 15.0 95 SG 3 10/23/09 SG Concrete Parle/Drive S!)uth 0.0 4 113.2 118.0 16.3 13.0 96 SG 4 10/23/09 SG Concrete Park/Drive West 0.0 4 115.1 118.0 15.8 13.0 98 SG 5 10/23/09 SG Parkin_g Lot East 0.0 3 108.2 113.5 18.6 15.0 95 SG 6 10/23/09 SG Parkin_g Lot East 0.0 3 107.4 113.5 19.1 15;0 95 SG 7 10/26/09 SG Parkin_g Lot East 0.0 3 107.7 113.5 18.3 15.0 95 SG 8 10/26/09 SG Parking Lot West 0.0 4 112.1 118.0 16.0 13.0 95 SG 9 10/26/09 SG Parking Lot West 0.0 4 114.6 118.0 15.7 13.0 97 SG 10 10/26/09 SG Access Road East 0.0 4 111.8 118.0 17.4 13.0 95 SG 11 10/26/09 SG Access Road East 0.0 4 111.9 118.0 15.4 13.0 95 SG 12 10/2(>/09 SG Access Road West 0.0 4 112.8 118.0 16.7 13.0 96 SG 13 10/26/09 SG Access Road West 0.0 4 114.2 1'18.0 15.6 13.0 97 SG 14 11/2/09 SG Concrete. Park/Drive. 0.0 3 107.7 113.5 18.2 15.0 95 SG 15 11/2/09 SG Parking Lot 0.0 4 113.3 118.0 16.l 13.0 96 SG 16 11/2/09 SG Parking Lot 0.0 3 107.9 113.5 18.9 15.0 95 SG 17 11/2/09 SG Parkil)gLot 0.0 3 108.2 113.5 18.6 15.0 95 SG 18 11/2/09 SG Parking Lot 0.0 4 112.0 118.0 17.3 13.0 95 SG 19 11/2/09 SG Access Road Bet Parking and Building 0.0 4 113.6 118.0 16.7 13.0 96 SG 20 11/2/09 SG · Access Road Bet Parkin_g and Building 0.0 3 107.7 113.5 19.3 15.0 95 Proiect Number: 602705-001 C Proiect Name: OMWD-Buildina J Proiect Location: 0 Client: 0 Page 1 of 1 12/2/2 9:47:28AM SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Test Test Test Location Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative(%} No. Date Of Lot# Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Comnaction Remarks . AB 1 11/4/09 PL Concrete Park/Drive East 0;0 5 123.6 128.0 9.2 9.5 97 AB 2 11/4/09 PL Concrete Park/Drive South 0.0 5 122.5 128.0 ll.1 9.5 96 AB 3 11/4/09 PL Concrete Park/Drive Southwest 0.0 5 122.8 128.0 10.7 9.5 96 AB 4 11/4/09 PL Concrete Park/Drive West 0.0 5 121.5 128.0 10.6 9.5 95 AB 5 11/4/09 PL Concrete Park/Drive North 0.0 5 124.2 128.0 11.4 9.5 97 AB 6 11/4/09 ST Access Road East 0.0 5 121.1 128.0 12.2 9.5 95 AB 7 11/4/09 ST Access Road East 0.0 5 121.5 128.0 10.2 9.5 95 AB 8 11/4/09 ST Access Road East 0.0 5 124.8 128.0 9.7 9.5 98 AB 9 11/4/09 st Access Road East 0.0 5 121.9 128;0 11.6 ,9.5 95 AB 10 11/4/09 ST Access Road East 0.0 5 121.2 128.0 9.8 9.5 95 AB 11 11/4/09 ST Access Road West 0.0 5 122.6 128.0 10.2 9.5 96 AB 12 11/4/09 ST Access Road West 0.0 5 121.3 128.0 11.3 9.5 95 AB 13 11/4/09 ST Access Road West 0.0 5 125.1 128.0 11.7 9.5 98 · AB 14 11-/4/09 ST Access Road West 0.0, 5 121.9 128.0 12.6 9.5 95 AB 15 11/5/09 PL Parking Lot East 0.0 5 121.7 128.0 12.1 9.5 95 AB 16 11/5/09 PL Parking Lot East 0.0 5 123.9 128.0 11.8 9.5 97 AB 17 11/5/09 PL Parking Lot North 0.0 5 121.3 128.0 13.2 9.5 95 AB 18 11/5/09 PL Parking Lot West 0,0 5 124.5 128.0 9.8 9.5 97 AB 19 1.1/5/09 PL Parking Lot West 0.0 5 122.1 128.0 10.7 9.5 95 Proiect Number: 602705-001 ,, Proiect Name: OMWD-Buildina J Proiect Location: 0 Client: 0 Pa2:e 1 of 1 12/2/2 9:47:llAM 602705-001 APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, ASTM Test Method 4829. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests ar~ presented in the table below: Building Pad Sampl~ Description · Expansion Expansion Index Potential North East Brown Clayyy SAND 59 Medium - ·South West BroWll Clayey SAND 85 Medium Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard ~ geochemical methods (Caltrans Test Method CT 417.:B). The test results are presented in the table below: · Building Pad Sulfate Content (percent) Potential Degree of Sulfate Attack North East 0.0600 negligible South West 0.0450 negligible *Based on table 4.3.1 ACI 318R-05 C-1 602705-001 "R"-Value: The resistance "R"-value was determined by the California Materials Method CT301 for base, subbase, and basement soils. The samples were prepared and exudation pressure and "R"- value determined. The graphically determined "R"-value at exudation pressure of 300 psi is reported. ' Sample Location Sample Description R-Value R-2 Northeast of BuildingJ Olive Gray Lean CLAY with trace Gravel 17 (Representative Subgrade) Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: Maximum Optimum Sample S~ple Description Dry. Moisture Number Density · Content(%) (pcf) 1 Brown Silty SAND with Clay and Gravel 126.0 10.0 2 Brown~iliay Silty SAND with Gravel 121.0 10.0 3 Olive Brown-Gray Silty SAND 113.5 15.0 4 Pale Olive to Yellow Brown Clayey SAND 118.0 13.0 5 Class II Base (Maximum Density fropi Plant) 128.0 9.5 C-2 •' SECTION 13122 METAL BUILDING SYSTEMS PART 1 -GENERAL 1.01 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS A CONTRACTOR shall be responsible to submit representative vendors, prepare and submit structural calculations to the City of Carlsbad, procure a building permit using compliant materials, and assemble the complete preengineered building system and related components in the field to the satisfaction of the OWNER. The CONTRACTOR shall review specified materials and submit so as to work together as intended by design, integrate the architectural system components such as roofing system; tiles, wall sections, exterior systems, doors, louvers, paint products, and all domestic service utilities systems, fire alarms, tele-communications system components etc, whether or not they are listed herein, but are considered part of the contract documents. Each shall work together as a functioning building system as intended by industry standards and be supported by the frame system as required without additional stanchions, support members, or other framing systems. B. The basic building systems shall include, as a minimum the following items: 1. Complete primary and secondary framing package using manufacturer's standard components. 2. Primary Framing System: Clear span rigid frame. 3. Lateral Support System in Longitudinal Direction: Cross bracing, located as shown on drawings. 4. Include Additional Framing where shown. 5. Building frame, column, and wall anchoring system components sufficient to structurally connect the metal building system into the proposed foundation mat slab and footing system. 1.02 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS A CONTRACTOR shall develop needed structural calculations package as required herein to integrate each of the following requirements: 1. Applicable Building Code: The 2007 California Building Code (CBC), as. amended by the State of California and local agencies. 2. Minimum Roof Live Load: 20 pounds per square foot. 3. Building system dead load. 4. Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Loads: a. Purlins and Secondary Framing: As indicated on Drawings, minimum 1 O pounds per square foot. b. Primary Frames: As indicated on Drawings, minimum 5 pounds per square foot. Olivenhain Municipal Water District Operations Building Encinitas, California 2/1/2010 Metal Building Systems 13122-1 C!J o °I :<__ CJ L/ G 5. Wind Load: a. Wind Speed: 94.5 miles per hour. b. Exposure Category: C. c. Importance or Use Factor (I): 1.00. 5. Earthquake Load: a. Importance Factor: 1.0 b. Seismic Occupancy category: II c. Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss: 1.173g d. Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration, S1: 0.439g e. Site Class: D f. Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration, Sds: 0.806g g. Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration, Sd1: 0.457g h. Seismic Design Category: D 7. Deflection Criteria: a. In accordance with the applicable provisions of the AISC Steel Design Guide Series 3 -Serviceability Design Considerations for Low-Rise Steel Buildings. b. Applies to primary and secondary framing members and bracing members. 8. Design Standards: a. AISC LRFD Specification For Structural Steel Buildings. b. AISC LRFD Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM A325 or ASTM A490 Bolts. c. AISI Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members. d. AWS D1 .I, Structural Welding Code -Steel. B. The structural calculations package shall be submitted with associated Building Department review fees to the City of Carlsbad for review and plan check. The building Department contact is Mike Peterson (760-602-2721) and will review the package once submitted against the design criteria identified on the contract documents for the appropriate building system and make necessary comments for action by the CONTRACTOR. Repeated submittals may be required and shall be at the CONTRACTORS expense. C. The Owner shall pay for the initial and one follow-up plan check if required. The CONTRACTOR shall submit receipt for reimbursement to the Owner for payment. No mark-up will be allowed for reimbursement. 1.03 SUBMITTALS A. Contractor Submittals: 1. Shop Drawings: a. Manufacturer's literature and technical data. . b. Painting System: Specifications including paint manufacturer's name, product trade name, and preparation for shop and field coats. c. Structural Calculations Stamped by Engineer: 1 ). Complete analysis and design of structural components and connections in accordance with design requirements indicated. 2). Consider prying action of bolts for bolted moment-resistant connections in primary framing. 3). Design column bases as pinned, unless specifically indicated otherwise. 4). Provide calculations that apply to this specific Project as necessary. Olivenhain Municipal Water District Operations Building 2/1/2010 Metal Building Systems 13122-2 Encinitas, California 1.04 1.05 5). Tie-in connections to foundation slab. d. Drawings Stamped by Engineer: Drawings shall be specifically prepared for this Project. Provide details that apply specifically to all building system transition connection. Show all necessary, but not limited to design load criteria, material specifications for framing members and connections, roof framing plan with dimensions and member sizes, base plate details showing anchor bolt size and bolt layout, elevations of wall framing and bracing, instructions for temporary bracing, framing around roof and wall openings, details for joining and sealing of roof panels and wall cladding, and sections and details for all components and accessories. B. Informational Submittals: A A B. C. 1. Manufacturer's written instructions for shipping, handling, storage, protection and erection, or installation of building and components. 2. Manufacturer: AISC Quality Certification: AISC certificate showing name and address of manufacturer, effective date, and category of certification. 3. Erector: a. AISC Quality Certification: AISC certificate showing name and address of erector, effective date, and category of certification, or, in lieu of AISC certification, documentation of past 5 years' experience record to include project name, location, date of completion, building manufacturer, and name and phone number of Owner's contact person b. Certification of approval by manufacturer. 4. Manufacturer's Certificate of Proper Installation. QUALITY ASSURANCE Qualifications: 1. Designer: Registered CA professional engineer. 2. Erector: a. AISC Quality Certification as Certified Steel Erector (CSE), or 5 years of experience in erection of metal building systems in lieu of AISC certification. b. Approval by manufacturer. DELIVERY, STORAGE, AND HANDLING Protect building components and accessories from corrosion, deformation, and other damage during delivery, storage, and handling. Deliver to Site with parts individually tagged. Store on wood blocking or pallets, flat and off ground, to keep clean and to prevent any damage or permanent distortion. Support bundles so there is no danger of tipping, sliding, rolling, shifting, or material damage. Cover with tarpaulins or other suitable weather tight ventilated covering. PART 2 -PRODUCTS 2.01 BUILDING SYSTEM MANUFACTURERS Olivenhain Municipal Water District Operations Building Encinitas, California 2/1/2010 Metal Building Systems 13122-3 2.02 A Products manufactured or supplied by the following, and meeting these Specifications, may be used on this Project: A 1. American Buildings Company, Columbus, GA 2. Butler Manufacturing Co., Kansas City, MO. 3. Ceco Corp., Columbus, MS. 4. Chief Industries, Inc., Rensselaer, IN, 5. Star Building Systems, a Robertson Ceco Co., Oklahoma City, OK. 6. Building layout as shown on Drawings is based on products of Varco-Pruden Buildings, Memphis, TN. COMPONENTS Structural Framing and Bracing: 1. Primary Framing: ASTM A36/A36M, A529/A529M, AS72, or A992 with 311 6-inch minimum thickness and factory primer compatible with finish coating. 2. Secondary Framing: Steel for cold-fanned galvanized channel and z-sections shall be ASTM A6S3/A6S3M; Structural Steel (SS) Grade 33 or High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel (HSLAS) Grade 50 Type A or B, with G60 galvanized coating and minimum design thickness equal to 0.0346 inch. 3. Bracing: a. ASTM A36/A36M or F15S4, Grade 36, for threaded rod, or ASTM A36/A36M for rolled shapes. b. Do not use wire rope or cable for permanent bracing. 4. Bolted Connections: a. Primary Framing: ASTM A325 or ASTM A490 high-strength bolted connections. b. Secondary Framing: ASTM A307 or ASTM A325. 2.03 FABRICATION A Factory Fabricate: To manufacturer's written standards, MBMA Low Rise Building Systems Manual, and AISC LRFD Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. B. Building Parts: Accurate and true to dimension to facilitate building erection without cutting, fitting, or other alterations. C. Welded Connections: In accordance with A WS D 1.1 C. Shop Primer for Primary Framing: 1. Surface Preparation and Primer: As specified in Section 09900, Painting and Protective Coatings Olivenhain Municipal Water District Operations Building. PART 3 -EXECUTION 3.01 PERMITTING Olivenhain Municipal Water District Operations Building Encinitas, California 2/1/2010 Metal Building Systems 13122-4 A Before any erection work, footings, or materials are installed or work on the building is initiated, the Contractor shall coordinate and make needed Building system structural calculations package slibmittals to the City of Carlsbad Building Department sufficient to pull the "Building Permit" required to erect this building system. The permit may be pulled only after the "Pad Certification" is make and approved by the City Engineer which can be achieved once the field certification of the final graded pad placement and compaction is complete and on file with the City Engineering Department. 3.02 EXAMINATION A Examine supporting concrete foundation and anchor bolt placement for compliance with requirements for installation tolerances and other conditions affecting performance of metal building. 3.03 BUILDING ERECTION 3.04 3.05 A Erect building system in accordance with manufacturer's standards and instructions. 8. Provide temporary bracing in accordance with MBMA standards and as required for safe installation. 8. Structural Framing: A 8. C. A 1. Do not field cut or alter primary or secondary framing members. 2. Installation and tolerances shall be in accordance with MBMA Low Rise Building Systems Manual. REPAIR, CLEANING, AND PAINTING Immediately following erection, remove all unused material, screws, fasteners, and other debris from completed installation. Use caution in removing metal cuttings from surface of prefinished metal panels. Replace damaged, dented, buckled, or discolored metal panels. Finish Painting: As specified in Section 09900, Painting and Protective Coatings. MANUFACTURER'S SERVICES Provide manufacturer's representative at Site in accordance with Section 01640, Manufacturers' Services, for installation assistance, inspection, and certification of proper installation. END OF SECTION Olivenhain Municipal Water District Operations Building 2/1/2010 Metal Building Systems 13122-5 Encinitas, California .. , · Le1 ghton consulting} lnci A L-iW.11f.t'O-tl.'G'ft0tJ,P, c-OMP:A:NN June 30, 2010 To: Olivenhain Municipal Water District 1966 Olivenhain Road Encinitas, California 92024 Attention: Mr. George R. Briest Project No. 602705-003 Subject: Re-grading of Building Pad, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Phase One - Building "J", Carlsbad, California References: Leighton, 2009, As.;Graded Report of Rough, Fine, and Post Grading, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Phase One ~ Building "J", WO 179934, Carlsbad, California, dated December 11, 2qo9. Introduction In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton) has performed geotechnical observation and testing services during the re-grading operations for the Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Phase One -Building "J" pad located in Carlsbad, California. This letter summarizes our geotechnical observations and field tests results, and the geotechnical conditions encountered during the re-grading operations. Summary Re":'Grading Operations and Geotechnital Observations The rough and fine grading operations for the project were performed by Sierra Pacific West, Inc. between October 7, 2009 and October 30, 2009. These grading activities were performed under the observation and testing -of a representative of Leighton in accordance with the project geotechnical recommendations and project specifications, reco1:ITQ1endations made during the course of grading, and the requirements of the City of Carlsbad. An as-graded report of rough, fine, and post grading was issued by our firm dated December 11, 2009. The graded building pad has been exposed to surface construction traffic and weathering since the completion of the original grading operations in October 2009. After observation of the site and building pad and following consultation with representatives of OMWD, Leighton 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 Ill San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.569.6914 m Fax 858.292:0771 Ii www.leiqhtonconsultinq.com 602705-003 recommended processing and re-compaction of the upper 12 inches of the existing grades in the building pad areas. The re-grading operations for the project were performed by Sierra Pacific West, Inc. on June 2, June 9, and June 16, 2010. Our field technician ·was on-site on a full-time basis. The re-grading included: 1) Cutting of existing pad grades in the proposed building area to plan grades taking into account the structural section of the foundation and slab areas. In addition, a small cut on the order of 0.2 feet was performed around the southern and southwestern outside perimeter of the pad to provide for a horizontal slab instead of the previously proposed sloping slab of 1/8" per foot gradient. The excess material was removed and spread oh the northwest portion of the OMWD property. 2) The final pad grades were processed as needed to above optimum moisture content and compacted with heavy duty construction equipment to minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method Dl557). Field density testing was performed using the Nuclear- Gauge Method (ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017). The conclusions and recomm~ndations of the as-,graded report of rough, fine, and post grading, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Phase One -Building "J", WO 179934, Carlsbad, California, December 11, 2009, are still applicable to the site. It is our professional opinion that the pad is suitable for the intended use. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. · Respectfully submitted LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. Robert C. Stroh, CEG 2099 Senior Project Geologist/ Project Manager Distribution: (2) Addressee William D. Olson, RCE 45283 Associate Engineer -2-Leighton .. ~ ·~:-_. ·~;~~ ;:,'=' • ~ : ~ '. i : :. ( ~ .:· ~ ,' :~. ·~ ,.. J ; \ : -.t -~ ~ -... _·' '~ , ; • j H ENGINEERING CORPORATION PROJECT 8ulL,t) r~ :r ENGINEER ,9f' DATE/ { -!fl>-0 j SUBJECT fee.. 7>-!Wu.,)6--I JrSPtMt,T C,,Q).}ct4:n PAt/tµV I (2eF ·. SHEET NO. _I_ OF _1_ CLIENT D M. w 'P JOB NO. (202-. DMwo. f.e=,olU)77 /, Lr:zt6-l-lro;J U]tJS"-t.TJ,J&,./.AJC.1 ~t>1t-rlft..it(~ t1t?-o(l:(' ().p~ / ,/~s-pUf)'I 1-· /fl-(C,<A/f!SJ Pest'1"1 foll.. U;,Jcllt:7l': /ker#wtc-'( /rJIJI) Sttl.£if j?AJ/etrle'~) ~lq~ (~r .P. SJ«:...tA1'1 i>.J / tCrif 3. i}€,5t6-/J t,-il..lo {Dptn<J<--o? Cct.Jca,rrt::' f1,xr(.,Jfi.6 1 t'on.ri~,.;1 4MrFP, A.fi6G1Art&J.f IB't'M Gd. ;; , , 1/ ,) 1D A c~ou;..,q-/! 0 12... t:121 ~, J.Jft(-~~ t>es I w /3'1 07111£12.S l / o fee '6 IIE.IZ... 'I A Crlr ~~;__.., ~ N l-lJt: 8 Pee s~ k/J..'FWC/;'J) t-,/ ).}i). lf ~~j e LB o,c. €",i.I). s~ C/'-4e./<. ('r;,vTJU)L. .:J-D11..:n-5 C!.. 2-c,1..sPA<t;I~&. "?-/?:Er'. 2. {:,' I .k.(,,.tu,;Ermf;; /;:11--SC . . POOR . . . . . . . .· QUALIT O-RIGINAL _ . , • I . . j 7 \ CHAPTER 4 Simplified Design Procedure (Axle-Load Data Not Available) The design steps described in Chapter 3 include separate calculations of fatigue consumption and erosion damage for each of several increments of single-and tandem-axle loads. This assumes that detailed axle-load data have been obtained from representative true.Jc weigh stations, weigh-in-motion studies, or other sources. This chapter is for use when specific axle-load data are not available. Simple design tables have been generated based on composite axle-load distributions that repre- sent different categories of road and street types. A fairly wide range of pavement facilities is covered by four cate- gories shown in Table 9.* · The designer does not directly use the axle-load data** because the designs have been presolved by the methods described in Chapter 3. For convenience in design use, the results are presented in Tables II, 12, 13, and 14, which Table 9. Axle-Load Categories Axle-load category Description ADT correspond to the four categories of traffic. Appropriate load safety factors of 1.0, I.I, 1.2, and 1.2, respectively, have been incorporated into the design tables for axle- load Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4. The tables show data for a design period of 20 years. (See the section "Design Period", following.) In these tables, subgrade-subbase strength is charac- terized by the descriptive words Low, Medium, High, and Very High. Fig. 2 shows relationships between various subgrade-bearing values. In the event that test data are not available, Table IO lists approximate k values for dif- ferent soil types. If a sub base is to be used-see Chapter 2 *On page 30, guidelines for preparing design tables for axle-load dis- tributions-different from those given here arc discussed. •• Axle-load data for the four categories are given in Table 15. Traffic ADTT'* Maximum axle loads, kips % Per day Single axles Tandem axles 1 Residential streets 200-800 1-3 up to 25 22 36 Rural and secondary roads (low to @· medium') Collector streets Rural and secondary roads (high*) 700-5000 5-18 40-1000 Arterial streets and primary roads (low*) 3 Arterial streets and primary roads " 3000-12, 000 8-30 500-5000+ (medium') 2Iane Expressways and urban and rural 3000-50,000+ Interstate (low to medium') 4 lane or more 4 Arterial streets, primary roads, 3000-20,000 8-30 1500-8000+ expressways (high') 2Iane Urban and rural Interstate (medium to 3000-150,000+ high') 4 lane or more "The descriptors high, medium. or low refer to the relative weights of axle loads for the·type of street or road; that is, "low" tor a rural Interstate would represent heavier loads than "low" tor a secondary road. "Trucks·-two-axle, four-tire trucks excluded. 26 44 30 52 34 60 23 r !' ;: l' ~ ,; !, H ,, ., l ~ 1! j: r ii 1! 'I' l ,], l :\ i ; I •I :1 I 't· 1, , , Table 12a. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load CateQory 2-:--Pavements with Doweled Joints No Concrete Shoulder or Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb Slab Subgrade-subbase support Slab Subgrade-subbase support thickness, thickness, in. Low Medium High Very high in. Low Medium High Very high 5 3 9 42 5.5 5 5.5 9 42 120 450 ·.;; 6 4 12 59 6 96 380 970 3400 Q. 0 6.5 9 43 120 490 6.5 710 2600 "' U) 7 ~o 320 840 3100 7 4200 II a: 7.5 490 1900 ~ 8 2500 'iii 6 11 5 1 8 Q. 6.5 8 24 110 5.5 1 8 23 98 0 ~ 7 15 70 190 750 6 19 84 220 810 II 7.5 110 ·1440 1100 6.5 160 620 1500 5200 a: ~ 8 590 2300 7 1000 3600 . 8.5 2700 6.5 4 19 5.5 3 17 ·.;; Q. 7 11 34 150 6 3 14 41 160 0 7.5 84 230 890 6.5 29 120 320 1100 "' 19 "' II 8 120 470 1200 7 210 770 1900 a: 8.5 2200 7.5 1100 . 4000 ~ 560 9 2400 Note: Fatigue analysis controls the design. "ADTT excludes two-axle, tour-tire trucks so total number of trucks allowed will be greater-see text. _Table 12b. Allowable ADTT,* Axle-Load Category 2 -Pavements with Aggregate-Interlock Joints No Concrete Shoulder or Curb Concrete Shoulder or Curb Slab Subgrade-subbase support Slab thickness, thickness, in. Low Medium High Very high in. Low 5 ·.;; Q. 5.5 5 5.5 9 0 6 4 12 59 6 96 ll) U) 6.5 9 43 120 490 6.5 550·· II a: 7 80 320 840 1200·· 7 11 oo·· ~ 7.5 490 1200·· 1500·· 8 1300** 1900·· 6 11 5 'iii Q. 6.5 8 24 110 5.5 1 0 ·7 15 70 190 750 6 19 0 U) 7.5 110 440 1100 2100·· 6.5 160 II a: 8 590 1§00·· 7 1000 ~ 8.5 1900'* 6.5 4 19 5.5 ·.;; 7 11 34 150 6 3 Q. 0 7.5 19 84 230 890 6.5 29 It) It) II fr'' 8 __) 120 470 1200 7 210 a: -a.5 560 2200 7.5 1100 ~ 9 2400 • AOTT excludes two,axle, tour-tire trucks; total number of trucks allowed will be greater-see text. •• Erosion analysis controls the design; otherwise fatigue analysis controls. Subgrade-subbase support Medium High Very high 3 9 42 42 120 450 380 100·· 970** 1000·· 1400** 2100 .. 1900·· 1 8 8 23 98 84 220 810 ·620 1400·· 2100·· 1900·· 3 17 14 41 160 120 320 1100 770 1900 25 'j ' ' ' j 1, 1: .,,. • •"--t • ;:JI '.,,'_ . -~. ---- PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION· OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA December 12, 2001 Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited. See ''Application For Authorization To L!se" located at the end of this document if use or copying IS desired by anyone other than the client for the specific project. 51·598501/5111R840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, !rte. Page i ofy December 12, 2001 Ill KLEINFELDER An employee owned company December 12, 2001 Project No. 51-598501 Mr. Thomas Kennedy Olivenhain Municipal Water District 1966 Olivenhain Road Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Pr0ject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Olivenhain Municipal Water District Headquarters and Road Project Encinitas, Calif~rnia Dear Mr. Kennedy: This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the headquarters and road project to be constructed at the southwestern comer of Olivenhain Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road in Encinitas1 California. · We appreciate this· opportunity to be of service and look forward to future endeavors. If you have any questions about our report1 please contact us at 858/320-2000. Very truly yours1 KLEINFELDER, INC. RCS:REL:mhn 51-598501/5 i l 1R840,doc Page ii ofv Copyright 200 I Kleinfelder1 Inc. KLEINFELD ER 5015 Shoreham Pince, S.in Diego, CA 92122 (858) 320-2000 (858) 320-2001 fox \. December 12, 200 I Ill KLEINFELDER An employee owned company December 4, 2003 Project No. CSl-598501 Mr. Thomas Ke1medy Olivenhain Municipal Water District 1966 Olivenhain Road Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Project: Addendum 1 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Olivenhain Municipal Water District Headquarters and Road Project Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Kem1edy: In 2001 Kleinfelder completed a geotecbnical evaluation for the headquarters and road project to be constructed at the southwestern cort1er of Olivenhain Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road in Encinitas, California. We understand that the project scope, proposed improvements, and layout of the new facilities are essentially the same as when we completed our original geotechnical evaluation in December 2001. On December 4, 2003 our Senior Geotechnical Engineer made a site visit to observe if surface conditions at the site had substantially changed that would warrant further geotechnical investigation and analysis. Based on our review of the existing site conditions, our opinion is that no further geotechnical investigation and analysis are warranted at this time, and the project can be designed using our December 12, 2001 Preliminary Geoteclmical Evaluation without modification. Sections 5.0 (Additional Studies) and 6.0 (Limitations) from our 2001 report are still in effect for this addendum. This addendum and our 2001 report should be reviewed in another two years to evaluate whether any changes or modifications to the report are warranted at that time. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service on this project. If you have any questions about this addendum or our report, please contact us at 858/320-2000. Very truly yours, KLEINFELDER, INC. ,,.-:~~ 09,QffSSiOJlt~ I~ \x--~11", .. J_ ~%'f.,, r. .. LA!r.r;'-..<;) ~c.. £7'~ ff ~\J ~c,0t~~ Ric~ B. La1:son, G.E, 2027 \fi No. 3~, 2~7::1~1 Semor Eugmeer 'Jt. Exp, ..1 ··1r1~:rl \.~}):~ Cf \\; .. ,/ ~j REL:111J1n ~-t/([ OF Cf.\\.\~o/ CS J-59850 l/SDI3L243.doc Cop~ight 2003 Klei~felder, Inc. ~~ KL El NF ELDER 501 S Shoreham Place, San Diego, CA 92122 (858) 320-2000 (858) 320-2001 fax December 4, 2003 ), ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS Section RI KLEINFELDER · Page EXECUTIVE SUMMAR..Y ..................................... · ................................................................... ~ .............................................................. Y 1,0 INTRODUCTION ........................................ -......................... ; .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ........................................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. 2 1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................... 11 ........................................................................................................... 3 2.0 INVESTIOATIVE METHODS ............................................................................ ,, ......................................... ~ .............................. 4 2.1 GEOLOGIC EVALUATION AND BAC:KGROUND REVIEW ..................... .4 2.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ............. .4 2.2.1 Borings ....... , .................... , .................................................................................... t,., .............. 4 2 .. 2.2 Laboratory Testing ............ , ... , ....................................................................................... 5 3.0 GEOLOGY AND SUB_BURFACE CONDITIONS ......................................................... 6 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING ....................................................................... 6 3.2 TECTONIC SETTING ............................................. ~ ............................................................ 6 3.3 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................... 6 3.3.1 Undocun1ented Fill ....................................................................................... 6 3.3.2 Alluvium ................................. .' ....................... : .......... 4 .................. : ........................................ 7 3.3.3 Santiago Fonnation ....................................................................................... 7 3.3.4 Del MarFonnation ................................................. ; .................................... ? 3,3.5 Groundwater ........................................................................ , ...................................... 7 · 4.0 DISCUSSIONS AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 9 4.1 POtENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZA.RDS .................................... , .... , ......................... 9 4.1.1 Faulting and Seismicity ............................................................................... 9 4, 1-.2 Surface Rupture ·····"······· .......................................................................................... 9 4.1 .. 3 Landslides ............................... , ............... cf ..................... , ........ , ........................................ 9 4. 1.4 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement ........................................................ .10 4.1.5 Tsunamis and S eiches .................. , ............................................................. 11 4.1.6 Flood Hazard .............................................................................................. 11 4.1.7 ·Expansive soils ........................................................................................... 11 4.2 SITE GR.AD IN.G .................. 11 ................................................................................................................... l 2 4.2.1 Pre-Construction Conference ..................................................................... 12 4.2.2 Construction Observation ...... : ................................................................... 12 4.2.3 Site Preparation .......................................................................................... 12 4.2.4 Treatment of Existing Undocumented Fm and Alluvial Soils ................. .12 4.2.5 Excavation Charaqteristics ......................................................................... 13 4.2.6 EngineeredFill ............... : ........................................................................... 13 4.2.7 Import Soil : ................................. , ............................................................... 14 4.3. SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................... 14 4.3 .1 Peak Ground Acceleration ......................................................................... 14 4.3.2 UBC Sei.smicDesignParameters· ............................................................... 14 4.4 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 15 4.4.1 Bearing Capacity ........................................................................................ 15 4.4.2 Settlement ....... , ......... ~ .... ,, ............................. -...... , ........................... , .... ,, ... , ................. 16 4.4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures .............................................................................. 16 4.4.4 Poured~In-Place Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads ................................ .16 4.4.5 Concrete Slab-on-Grade Floors ... : ............................................................. 16 S l-5985O1/51 I l R840.doc Cop'yrighL200 I Kleinfelder, Inc. Page iii ofv December 12, 200 l (.1 . ) _..;..._ __________ -.. _____ ---------------'------ TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section lfl KLEINFELDER Page 4.5 SEGMENTED RE.TAINING WALL .... ~ .................................................................. 17 4.5.1 Foundations .................. ,, ................................................................ , ........................ 18 4.5 .2 Lateral Earth Pressure ................................................................................ 18 4.5.3 Wall Drainage ............................... ~····:··:··~···· .............. , .......................................... 19 4.5.4 Backfill Placement ...... : .......................................... : .......................................... 19 4.6 PAVEMENT SECTIONS ~ ........................ " .................................................................. 19 4.6.1 Flexible Pavements .................................................................................... 20 4.6.2 Rigid Pavement. ......................................................................................... 21 4. 7 PRELIMINARY CORROSIVE SOIL SCREENING ...................................... 21 4.8 FLATWORK ........................................................................................................................ ~ ............... 22 4.9 SiTE DRAINAGE AND SUBGRADE SEEPAGE ........................................... 22 5.0 ADDITIONAL STUDIES .......................................... , .................. , ......................................................................... 24 6.0 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... -.... 25 7 .. 0 SELECTED REFERENCES ........................... ~ ... · ......................................................................... 26 FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Site Vicinity Map Geotechnical Exploration Map APPENDICES Appendix A Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Appendix C Suggested Guidelines for Earthwork Construction Appendix D ASF~ In~ert . . Appendix E Apphcation For Authonzat10n To Use 51-59850I/51 UR840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page iv ofv December 12, 2001 ) • tfJ NI KLEINFELDER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our document review, subsurface investigation, laboratory testing, and. analysis, the proposed project construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. However, special · design and construction considerations will be necessary. The following geotechnical factors will be significant in plam1ing the proposed project. • No active faults, landslides, or other geologic hazards are underlying, or immediately adjacent to the st,1.bject site. • There is a low to medium potential for liquefaction of alluvial soils during the design- basis ground motion. The alluvial soils are located·south of the existing headquarters as indicated on Figure 2. • In general, subsurface materials underlying the project site are expected to be excavatable with conventional heavy-duty excavation equipment, and should be suitable for reuse as engineered fill. • U11d0cumented :till, which is considered unsuitable for structural support in its present condition, was encountered along the western portion. of the subject site. Recommendations are presented herein for remeclial grading of undocumented fill soil. 5 l-598501/51 I IR840.doc Copyright ioo1 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page v ofv December 12, 2001 k._q l<LEINFELDER 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your authorization to proceed, we have completed a preli~nary geotechnical evaluation for the Olivenhain Headquarters and Road Project, located at the southwestern intersection of Olivenhain and Rancho Santa Fe Roads in Carlsbad; California (Figure 1 ). l.l PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The pu:rpose of o.ur study was to evaluate the surface and subsurface soil apd geologic conditions at the subject site in order to provide preliminary geotechnical information and recommendations to allow for planning of the proposed project development. The scope of services for this study included the following: • Review of background informati?n inclµding available geotechnical reports from the City of Carlsbad, the City of Encinitas, and the Olivenhain Municipal Water District, geologic maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs. • :Performing a geologic field reco~aissance-of the site to observe and map the site geologic conditions, • Performing coordination and mobilization for the subsurface exploration. Mark-out of possible existing underground utilities was conducted through Underground Service Alert and a underground utility location suboonsultant. • Performing traffic control and coordination of work plans. • Drilling, logging, and sampling of six appr?xima.tely 5-foot deep exploratory test borings in the areas of proposed roadway improvements, three approximately 20-foot deep exploratory test borings in the areas of proposed structures, and one approximately 40- foot deep exploratory test boring located along the southern portion of the project site. The borings were excavated with a truck-mounted drill rig to approximately the proposed depths indicated. Bulk and in-place samples of the encountered soils were collected and transported to our laboratory for testing. • Performing geotechnical laboratory testing on selected samples including. i?-situ moisture content and dry density, gradation, plasticity, eXpansion, R-value~ and corrosivity. • Preparing this report which includes our prelimi~azy geotechnical and geologic site reconnaissance findings. This report provides the following: 51-598501/5111 R840.doc CQpyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 1 of26 December 12, 2001 HI KLEINFELDER . . 1. Geotechnical exploration map and site vicinity map showing the project location, the site geology and our exploratory boririg locations. 2. Discussion regarding field exploration and iaboratory testing methods. 3. Findings of our background review and geologic field reconnaissance. 4. Discussion regarding local geologic conditions· and potential geotechni~al hazards. 5. Discussion of general subsurfac~ conditions such as groundwater. 6. Recommendations for new pavement sections based on traffic indices provided by the project design engineer. 7. Discussion of the foundation conditions in the area of the proposed segmented (keystone-type) retaining wall. 8. Discussion of the type of foundation systems which may be utilized for the proposed structures. 9. Reco.tnmendations for additional subsurface evaluation and siting for the final project design. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand the primary project features will consist of building and grading improvements for the existing headquarters and the vacant space south and southwest of the existing headquarters. Secondary project features will consist of new pavements and a retaining wall. Within the existing headquarters complex, the addition of at least one two-story building and several parking areas is proposed. The other proposed major site improvements to the south and southwest of the existing h~adquarters complex will consist of the construction of two new single"sto'ry and one two-story building. The demolition and remodeling of other existing buildings, the construction of various new covered storage/equipment areas, and new asphalt concrete parking lots and driveways is also planned. The new buildings are to be of typical light construction. The roadway improvements will include the widening of approximately 2,000 lineal feet and approximately 900 lineal feet of OliveE.hain and Rancho Santa Fe Roads, respectively. Since modifications t9 the existing roadway grades will be required, the existing roadways located in areas to be improved will be removed and replaced with new roadways. As part of the roadway improvements ''Old 01ive.rµiain Road" will be vacated and converted to a driveway with cul-de" 51-59850I/511 !R840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page2 of26 December 12, 200 I I j_ :, k"fl KLEINFELDER sac. To a9commodate the road improvements within the City of Encinitas on Olivenhain Road (west of the existing headquarters), either tandem keystone retaining walls or a conventional fill slope bank will be constructed at the roadbed edge along the south side. If walls are used, the upper wall will have a length of approximately 340 feet at a height of about 8.5 feet with a descending wing at the eastern end. There would be a 5~foot wide landscape terrace at its toe. The lower·wall will have a length of approximately 280 feet ·at a height ofbetween 4.5 and 8.5 feet. Alternatively, if a conventional fill slope is constructed, it will extend the same distance along the roadway at an inclination of2:1 (horizontal:vertical). 1.3 SITE DESCRIPTION The project site area is located at the $Outhwestem intersection of Olivenhain and Rancho Santa Fe Roads. The site is composed of a northern and southern parcel totaling approximately 10.1 acres ii} area. The northern parcel contains tbe existing headquarters buildings and associated parking areas and an .existing garage/yard area. The northern parcel is located n01ih of the "Old Olivenhain Road" which bisects the property and separates the two parcels. The s0uthem parcel contains existing equipment storage areas, gravel storage areas/bins, and. some paved parking . improvemep.ts. The two parcels are located within the City of Carlsbad, although the water district headquarters has a City of Encinitas address. Site topography consists of gently moderately southward sloping terrain. Drainage gradients are generally in a southerly direction toward Encinitas Creek. _Site elevations range from a high of approximately 130 feet above mean -sea level (MSL) to ~ lpw of approximately 110 feet MSL. On the western portion of the southern parcel, an approximately 15-foot high 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) fill slope descends toward the south from a graded pad area. 5 I-59850 l!S 1 11 R840.doc Copyright 200 I Kleinfelder, lnc. Page 3 of26 December 12, 2001 .k_~ KLEINFELDER 2.0 INVESTIGATIVE METHODS 2.1 GEOLOGIC EVALUATION AND BACKGROUND REVIEW Our geologic evaluation. consisted of reviewing readily available geologic literature and maps, topographic maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs pertaining to the site and vicinity. A site reconnaissance was perfonned by a certified engineering geologist. The site reconnaissance consisted of observing topographic conditions and·mapping readily visible geologic conditions at and adjacent to the subject site. As requested we also perfonned a review of back~ound infonnation including available geotechnical reports from the City of Carlsbad, the City of Encinitas, and the Olivenhain Municipal Water District. Data obtained during our background review included grading plans and an as-graded soil report regarding the subject site. Our review of the grading plans by Boyle Engineering Corporation, dated August 1, 1996; indicates that approximately 4,500 cubic yards of soil were placed along the southwestern portion of the southern parcel. However, based on observations made during our site reconnaissance, additional fill_ materials have subsequently beeri placed in that area of the site. The approximate limits of the existing fill soils are depicted on Figure 2. Additionally, we obtained ·a compaction report dated October 31; 1988, by Testing Engineers. The compaction report included· compaction test results and a plot map for work perfonned regardin~ an office expansion project. No additional documents were located for the remainder of the project site during our research efforts. 2.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration of the subject site included a geologic reconnaissance and subsurface exploration. The subsurface evaluation consisted of excavating ten soil borings on November 20 and 27, 2001. The boring locations were ·selected based on the results of our background geotechnical review and field reconnaissance. 2.2.1 Borings Six borings were located within the limits of proposed roadway improvements,· three borings were located in areas of proposed building improvements, and one boring was located along the southern boundary of the site to assist in the evaluation liqu~faction potential. Excavation of the borings was accomplished using .a CME 75HT, trµck-mounted drill rig, equipped 8-inch diameter, continuous-flight, hollow-stem augers. Borings located in or D:_ear the proposed building footprints were excavated to depths ranging between approximately 21.5 to 33.5 feet. Sl·S9850l/5111R840.doc Copyright 200 I Kleinfelder, Inc, Page 4 of26 December 12, 2001 k_~ KLEINFELDER The boring to evaluate liquefaction potential was excavated to approximately 30.6 feet and tenninated in dense formational material. The. borings located in proposed roadway improvements were excavated to depths of approximately 5 ~eet. The purposes. of the borings were to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and to collect soil samples for laboratory testing. Driven and .bulk samples were obtained from the borings at selected intervals. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2. Detailed logs. of the borings are presenteq. in Appendix A. 2:2.2 Laboratory Testing Our laboratory testing program included in-situ moisture conte11t and dry density, gradation anaJysis, plasticity, expansion index, pH, resistivity, soluble sulfates, and soluble chlorides and R-value. The in-situ moisture content and dry density test resµlts are presented on the boring logs provided in Appendix A. The other test results are presented in Appendix B. Descriptions of our laboratory testing procedures ate also provided in Appendix B. 5]~598501/511 IR840.doc Copyright 200 l Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 5 of26 December 12, 2001 II) KLEINFELDER 3.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE. CONDITIONS 3.1 , REGIONAL GEOl,OGIC SETTING The project area is ·situated in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This geomorphic · province encompasses an area that extends approximately 900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the southern tip of Baja California, and varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles (Norris and :Webb, 1990). The province is characterized by mountainous terrain on the east composed mostly of Mesozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks, and relatively low-lying coastal terraces to the west underlain by late Cretaceous, Tertiary, and · Quaternary age sedimentary rocks. Most of the coast~ region of. the County of San Diego, including the site, occur within this coastal region and are underlain by sedimentary rock. Specifically the project site is in an area underlain at depth by the Tertiary-age (Eocene) sediments of the Santiago Formation and Del Mar Formation (Figure 2). 3.2 TECTONIC SETTING The Peninsular Ranges are traversed by seyeral major active faults (Figure 3). The Whittier" Elsinore, San Jacinto, and the San Andreas faults are major active fault systems located northeast of the site and the Rose Canyon, Newport-Inglewood (offshore), Cor:onado Bank, and San Diego Trough are active faults located to the west-southwest. Major tectonic activity associated with these and other faults within this regional tectonic framework is right-lateral strike"slip· movement. These faults_, as well as other faults in the region, have the potential for generating stro~g ground motions at the project site. Further discussion of faulting relative to the site is provided in the .Faulting and Seismicity section of this report. 3.3 SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSUllFACE CONDITIONS Geologic ·units encountered during our field reconnaissance and subsurface exploration include fill, alluvium, and Eoc~ne-age Santiago Formation and Delmar Formation. Generalized descriptions of the earth units encountered are provided iri the subsequent sections. 3.3 .1 Undocumented Fill Fill was encountered in Bo.rings 1 and 2 to depths of approximately 7 feet and 10 feet, respectively. Lesser depths of fill materials associated. with minor site grading were also encountered in Borings 5 through 10. In Bo.ting 1 the fill material consisted of light brown to light reddish brown, moist, loose, silty sand with asphalt fragments that increase in abundance 5 l-598501151 l lR840.doc Copyright 200 I Kleinfelder, Inc, Page 6 of26 December 12, 2001 ·~"fl K l E I N F El D E R with depth. In Boring 2, fill was encountered to a depth of approximately 10 feet. As encountered, that fill generally consisted of olive brown, dry to moist, stiff to very stiff, clay and tan to olive, dry to moist, medium dense, silty sand. In the other borings fill materials generaIIy ranged from 1 to 4 feet in thickness and consisted of light brown to light olive brown and yellowish brown to light reddish brown, moist, medium dense, silty and clayey sands, and olive to olive brown, moist, very stiff, sandy clays. 3.3.2 Alluvium . Alluvium was encountered in Borings 1 through 4 either from the ground surface or underlying fill materials to depths of approximately 13, 21.5 (total depth explored), 26. 5 (total depth explored), and 33 feet. As encountered_, alluvial deposits generally consisted of light brown, moist to wet, loose to medium dense, silty and clayey sands and sandy silts. 3.3.3 Santiago Fonnation In Borings 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10, materials of the Santiago Fonnation were encountered from the underlying fill, aggregate base materials, or alluvium to the total deptns explored (up to approximately 33.5 feet). As encountered, the Santiago Formation generally consisted of light olive brown, light brown to Hgh! yellowish brown and light reddish brown, dry to moist, weakly. to moderately cemented, silty to clayey fine-to coarse-grained sandstones. 3.3.4 Del Mar Fonnation ln Borings 1 and 6, materials of the Santiago Fonnation were encountered from beneath the fill to the total depths explored (up to approximately 30.6 feet). · As encountered, the Santiago Formation generally consisted of light olive brown, moist to wet, weakly to moderately cemented, clayey to silty fine-to medium-grained sandstones, and weakly to moderately irtdurated sandy claystones. 3 .3 .5 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in Borings 1, 3, and 4 during our subsurface exploration. Groundwater depths were measured following shortly f~Ilowing the completi?n of drilling, prior to backfilling of the boring. As measured1 groundwater depths were approximately 12, 10, and 15 feet, respectively. It should be noted that groundwater levels coul~ fluctuate due to s.easonal variations, irrigation, groundwater withdrawal or injection, and other factors. Based on the depths that-groundwater was encountered during our evaluation, groundwater is not expected to 51-598501/5111R840.dbc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc, Page7 of26 December 12, 200 I Al KLEINFELDER be a constraint to the construction of the project. In the event that extensive seepage is encountered, the recommendations of Section 4.9 should be followed. 51-598501/51 l lR840.doc Copyright 200·1 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 8 of26 December 12, 2001 RI Kl EI N F_EL DER 4,0 DISCUSSIONS AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS These hazards include, surface rupture, landslid~s, liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, tsunamis, seiches, flooding, and expansive soils. The. following sections di.scuss these haz?rds and their potential at this site in more detail. 4.1.1 Faulting and Seismicity The project area is considered to be seismically active, as is mo'st of southern California. Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps, ~tereoscopic aerial photographs, and geologic· reconnaissance, the subject site is riot underlain by known active or potentially active faults · (i.e., faults that exhibit evidence of grpund displacement in the last 11,000 years and 2,000,000 years, respectively), nor do~s the site lie within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The most significant seismic event likely to affect the project site would be a maximum moment magnitude 6.9 earthquake resulting from the Rose Canyon fault zone (CDMG, 1998), located approximately 9.2 kilometers west of the project site .. The Upper Bound Earthquake for the site is also a 6.9 moment magnitude earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault (with a recurrence interval of 781 years [Peterson and others, 1996]). 4.1.2 Surface Rupture As· previously discussed, the subject site is not underlain by known active or potentially active faults. Therefore, the potential for ground rupture due to faulting at the site is considered low. Ground lurching is defiµed as movement of low 4ensity materials on a bluff, steep slope, or • I '• embankment due to earthqµake shaking. Since there are slopes located on and adjacent to some . ' . of the project site, lurching or cracking of the ground surface as a result of nearby or distant seismic events is considered possible. 4.1.3 Landslides Landslides are deep-seated ground failures (several tens to hundreds of feet deep) in which a large arcuate shaped section of a slope detaches and slides downhill. Landslides are not to be confused with minor slope failures (slumps), which are usually limited to the topsoil zone and can occur on slopes composed of almost any geologic material. Landslides can cause damage to structures both above and below the slide mass. Structures above t,he slide area are typically 5l·598501/Sll !R840,doc Copyright 200 l Kleinfelder; Inc, Page 9 of26 December 12, 2001 k_q KLEINFELDER damaged by undermining of foundations. Areas below a slide mass can be damaged by being overridden and crushed by the failed slope material. _Several formations within the San Diego region are particularly prone to landsliding. These formations ge:p.erally have high clay content and mobilize when they become saturated with water. Other factors, such as steeply dipping bedding that project out of the fac~ of the slope and/or the presence· of fr_acture planes, will also increase. the potential for landsliding. No landslides or indications of deep~seated landsliding were noted at the sjte during our field eXploration or our review of avail.able geologic literature, topographic maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs. Further, a geologic map covering the sHbject area, and our field study, indicate that the slope areas of the site are generally underlain by fayorable oriented geologic structure, such as generally massive bedding of the Santiago Forrn·ation. The potentia~ for significant large~scale slope instability at the site is considered low. 4.1.4 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement The term liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which saturated, cohesionless soils temporarily , . . lose shear strength (liquefy) due to increased pore water pressures induced by strong, cyclic ground motions during an earthquake. Structures founded on or aboye potentially liquefiable soils may experience bearing capacity _failures due to the temporary loss of foundation support, . . vertical settlements (both total and differential), and undergo lateral spreading. The factors ,. known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type, relative density, grain size, confining pressure, depth to groundwater, and the intensity and duration of the seismic ground shaking. The cohesionless $Oils most susceptible to liquefaction are Io-ose, saturated sands and some silts. The site is underlain by alluvial deposits up to approximately 30 feet in thickness, and at depth by weakly to moderately cemented sandstones, siltstones, and claystones '(Figure 2). Based on the dense character of the on-site formational deposits, the possibility of liquefaction within those deposits is considered l?W· In the event that the design earthquake occurs, the results of our analyses indicates there is a low to medium potential for liquefaction and dynamic settlement to occur across the site in areas underlain by alluvial soils. This opinion is based on the locally loose, sandy character of the underlying alluvia1 soils and the presence of a relatively shallow groundwater table. 51-598501/511 l R840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. ' Page 10 of26 December 12, 2001 k_q KLEINFELDER 4.1.5 Tsunamis and Seiches Tsunamis are lortg wavelength seismic sea waves (lqng compared to the ocean depth) generated by sud~en 111:ovements of the ocean bottom during submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic activity. A seiche is an oscillation (wave) of a body of water in an enclosed or semi~enolosed basin that varies in period, depending on the ph;ysical dimensions of the basin, from a few minutes to several hours, and in height from several inches to several feet. A seiche is caused chiefly by local changes in ~tmospheric pressur~, aided by winds, tidal currents, and occasionally earthquakes. Based on tlie inland location of the site, the potential for damage due to either a tsunami or seiche is very low. 4.1.6 Flood H~ard Based on review of topographic maps, the site is not located downstream of a dam or·within a dam inundation area. According to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate map (FEMA, 1997), the majority of the site is considered to be outside of a I00~year floodplain. However, some portions of the site, particularly along the southern boundary, are mapped -as being within a 100-year floodplain. Based on our background review and our site reconnaissance, the potential for flooding of the site is considered low for elevations above 108 feet MSL. 4. L 7 Expansive soils Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in.moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors and may result in unacceptable settlerpent or heave of structures or concrete slabs supported on grade. A sample of the near-surface soil was tested in accordance with UBC 18-2, "Expansion Potential", An expansion index value of 99 was obtained from the soil sample. The test result indicates that the soil sample has a high expansive potential. Based on the results of our laboratory testing, we anticipate that the need for mitigation of expansive soils at the subject site will likely be warranted prior to construction. Recommendations for the mitigation of expansive soils are presented in Section 4.2.6. 51-598501/5J 1 IR840.doc Copyright 200 l Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 11 of26 December 12, 200 I RI KLHNFELDER 4.2 SITE GRADING At the time this report was prepared, no final gradii1g plans were available. Our preliniinary site review indicates maximum cuts and minor fills of up fo 5 feet may be in order. The following sections present our preliminary. geotechnical recommendations for the design an~ construction of the proposed project. We recommend that the site earthwork and construction be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the recommendations presented in the . Suggested Guidelines for Earthwork Construction included in Appendix C. In case of conflict, the following recommendations should supersede those outlined in Appendix C. 4.2.1 PreMCon~truction Conference We recommend that a pre-construction conference be held. Owner representatives, the civil engineer, geotechnical consultant, and contractor should be in attendance to discuss the plans and the project. 4.2.2 Construction Observation The recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the project and evaluation of the data collected. The· interpolated subsurface conditions should be further evaluated in the field during construction. Final proJect drawings and specifications should be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultantprior to the commencement of construction. The project geotechnical consultant should observe the grading and backfilling··. operations. Engineered fill and backfill soils should be tested for specified compaction by the geotechnical consultant. 4.2.3 Site Preparation The project site· should be cleared and grubbed prior to grading. Clearing and grubbing should consist of the substantial removal of vegetation, asphalt, concrete, and other deleterious materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of the proposed excavation and fill areas. The debris generated during clearing and grubbing should be removed from areas to be graded and disposed off-site at a legal dump.site. 4.2.4 Treatment of Existing Undocumented Fill and Alluvial Soils .l We recommend that existing undocumented fill and alluvial soils in building areas (building footprint and 5 feet horizontally outside of the building footprint)) be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the bottom of foundation elevations. We also recommend removal of soils underlying 5J-59850l/5111R840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 12 of26 December 12, 2001 kq KLEINFELDER proposed f1atwork and driveway/parking areas aI1d roadways to a depth of 2 feet below finish grade. The exposed surface of the remedial removals should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and compapted. Suitable removed materials, or imported matepals, should then be utilized as compacted structural fill. The areal extent of, and depths to which the alluvium should be removed, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant'$ representative in the field based on the materials exposed. Any unsuitable materials such as organic matter or oversized material should be selectively removed and disposed of off site. 4.2.5 Excavation Characteristics The results of our field exploration program indicate that the·project site, as presently proposed, is underlain by undocumented fill, alluvium, Santiago Fonnatibn and Del Mar Fonnation. The on•site materials should generally be excavatable by heavy-duty earthmoving equipment in good working condition. 4.2.6 Engineered Fill Fill materials generated from the on-site soils are generally suitable for placement as compacted fill provided they are free of oversized rock, clay clods, qrganic materials, 1:illd deleterious debris. Rocks greater than 3 inches in diameter should not be placed within 2 feet of finished grade. Oversize material .in excess of 6 inohes in diameter should not be used in structural fill within 8 feet of finished grade. Fill soil placed within the upper 4 feet of finished grade in structural areas should consist of granular material with a very low to low expansion index ( expansion index of 3.0 or less) as evaluated by UBC Standard 18-2 (ExpaIJ.sion Index Test). More.expansive soil may be placed in the non-structural areas on the sit~ or at depths of 4 feet or more below finish grade. Selective grading may be required to achieve a 4-foot ·zone of very low to low expansive soils. Fill should be moisture conditioned to or above optimum and be compacted to 90 percent or more relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Expansive soils with an expansion ip_dex greater than 30 should be similarly compacted, but at a moisture content of 2 to 3 percent above optimum. Although the optimum lift thickness for fill soils will be dependent on _the type of compaction equipment used, fill sho1.1id generally be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding approximately 8 inches in loose thickness. In pavement areas the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to a moisture content near optimum content and compacted to 95 percent or more of the maximum laboratory dry density, as evaluated by "ASTM D 1557. 5 t-59850 l/5 I 11R840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc, Page 13 of26 December 12, 2001 RI KLEINFELDER 4.2.7 Import Soil We recommend that import material, if any, consist of granular, very low to low expansive material with ~ expansion index of 30 or less and with low corrosivity characteristics: Low corrosivity material is defined as having a minimum resistively of more than 2,000 ol:im~cm, a chloride content less than 200 parts per million (ppm), and a sulfate content less than 0.05 percent when tested in accorp.ance with California Tests 643, 422, and 417, ,respectively unless defined otherwise by the corrosion consultant. Import material should be evaluated by the geotecbnical consultant at the borrow site for its suitability as fill prior to importation to the project site. 4.3 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The proposed project is located in a seismically active region and can expect to be subjected to seismic shaking during its design life.. The primary potential seismic hazard is ground sh~king. Since this site is located in the seismically active .Southern California region, we recommend that, as a minimum, the proposed project be designed in accordance with the requirements of the latest (1997) edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 4.3.1 Peak Ground Acceleration Based on ~e California Division of Mines· and Geology Map Sheet 48 (1999), the horizontal peak ground acceleration having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years is between 0.20g and 0.30g. Based on a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Western United States, issued by the United States Geological Survey (1997), the project site is located in a zoh~ where the horizontal peak ground. acceleration having a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years is 0.25g, and where the .horizontal peak ground acceleration having a 5 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years is 0.32g. The requirements of the governing jurisdictions and the practices of the Structural Engineers Associa-µon should be considered in the design of structures. The closest mapped active fault ( approximately 9 .2 · kilomete~s) to the subject site is the Ro~e Canyon fault, which could produce a maximu_m moment magnitude 6.9 earthquake (California I?ivisJon of Mines and Geology [CDMG], 1998). 4.3.2 UBC Seismic Design Parameters According to the 1997 UBC, the project site is located within Seismic Zone 4. The site is within a UBC Near-Source Zone. The table below includes the seismic 'design parameters for the sjte as defined in, and for use with, the 1997 edition pf the UBC (ICBO, 1997). 51.:5 9850 ! /5 I ! I R840.c;loc Copyright 200 l Kleinfelder, lnc. Page 14 of26 December 12, 2001 . ,k_'q KLEINFELDER UBC Seismic Design Parameters Seismic Zone Factor, Z Soil Profile e Seismic,Coefficient Ca 0.44Na Seismic Coefficient Cv 0.64Nv Near-Source Factor, Aft, 1.00 Near-Source Factor, Nv 1.05 S~ismic 8Qur9e T e · B If any irregµ:lar or co~plex st~ctures are planned, a seismic response spectra with damping would be required. 4.4 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS For the anticipated 1-and 2-story lightly loaded structures, foundatiop. loads can be supported on conventional shallow wall and/or column foundations bearing on engineered fill soils having a very low to low expansion potential based on (UBC-18-2). The following foundation design p.arameters are not intended to control differential movement of soils. Preliminary recommendat.ions for this type of foundation system is presented below. 4.4.1 Bearing Capacity The following values are for foundations founded in a mat of very low or low-expansive (UBC Expansion Index of 30 or less) compacted fill materials~ Continuous footings or isolated square footings should be designed µsing an allowable bearing caJ?aGify of 2,000 pounds per square foot · (psf) for footings supported on alluvium.and 3,000 psf for footings supported_ on undisturbed formation or 3 feet of engineered filt This allowable bearing capacity may ~e increased by one- third when considering loads of short duration s1,1ch as wind or seismic forces. Foundations should be founded 18 inches or more below the lowest adjacent pad grade. Continuous footings should have a width of 12 or more inches and isolated footings should be 18 or more inches in width. We recommend that foundations be reinforced in accordance with the recommendations of the pr9ject structural engineer. From a geotechnical standpoint, we recommend that continuous footings should be reinforced with two No. 4 reinforcing bars, two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom. 51-598501/5111R840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 15 of26 December 12, 200 l It._~ KLEINFELDER 4.4.2 Settlement We anticipate that structures constructed as recommended will undergo total settlement of about 1 inch._ Differential settlement tnay be assumed as half of the total settlement. 4.4.3 Lateral Earth Pressures Foundations bearing in granular fill may be designed using a coefficient of friction of 0.35 (total frictional resistance equals coefficient of friction times the dead load). Foundations may be designed using an allowable passive resistance value of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth, with a maximum value of 2500 pounds per square foot. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed twoMthirds of the total allowable resistance. 4.4.4 Poured-In-Place Retaining Walls and Lateral_Loads Although rigid, poured-in~place concrete retaining walls are not currently indicated on the preliminary project plans, the following are provided ~ the event that such types of retaining walls are utnized at a later time. Retaining wall foundations should be founded as recommended in Section 4.4.1. Active earth pressures against walls will depend upon the slope of backfill and the degree of wall restraint. Unrestrained walls with a level backfill surface should be design~d to resist an active pressure equivalent to that generated by a fluid weighing 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). These values assume a level, -drained granular backfill condition with no surcharge loading on the wall or hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Lateral loads may be resisted by ·a passive pressure equivalent to that generated by a fluid weighing 250 pcf for foundations h;i compacted fill or competent formational materials. The upper 12" inches of soil not protected by pavement or floor slabs should not be included in the design for lateral pressure, A coefficient of friction of 0,35 may be used to calculate the resistance to sliding along the concrete/ so~l interface, 4.4.5 Concrete Slab-on-Grade Floors We recommend that conventional, slab-on-grade floors, be underlain by very low to low expansive engineered fill compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. To help limit shrinkage cracking, we recommend that slabs-on.~grade be 4 or ;more inches in thickness and be reinforced with No. 3 or larger reinforcing bar~ ~paced 24 inches on center each ·way. The reinforcing bars should be placed near the midMpoint of the slabs. Sl-59850t/51 J IR840.doo Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 16 of26 · December 12, 200 l k_'q KLEINFELDER In areas where moisture sensitive uses or floor coverings are planned, we recommend that a moisture barrier membrane should be placed over a 4-inch layer or more of moist, clean sand or gravel base in locations where moisture vapor transmission through the concrete slab are to be mitigated. The membrane should have a permeance of less than 0.3 perms as determined in accordance with ASTM E96. If polyethylene plastic sheeting is used, it should have a minimum thickness of 10-mils with joints lapped at least 6 inches and taped. The membrane ·should then be overlain by" 2 inches or more of moist, clean sand meeting the Unified Soil Classification for SP or SW soils. The purpose of the sand is to help promote the proper curing of concrete and to provide a degree of protection for the plastic membrane during concrete pouring operations. Soils underlying the slabs should be moisture conditioned and compacted in accordance with ~he recommendations contained in this report. Further, the soils should be moistened just prior to the placing of the concrete. In areas where the floor slab is not sensitive to moisture and where items stored on or above the, slab are not sensitive to moisture, the vapo:r membrane and overlying sand can be omitted. This omission is not desirable in any areas where floor coverings will be placed on the slab. As a means to help reduce the potential for shrinkage cracks in the concrete during curing, we reco~end that for slabs on grade the concrete be placed with a slump in accordance with Table 5.2.1 of Section 302. lR of The Manual of Concrete Practice, "Floor and Slab Construction," or Table; 2.2 of Section 332R in The Jy.fauual of Concrete Practice, "Guide to Residential Cast~in~Place Concrete Construction." If a higher slump is needed for screeding and leveling, a super plasticizer is recommended to achieve the higher slump without changing the required water to cement ratio. The slump should be checked periodically at the site prior t? concrete placement. We also recommen~ that crack control joints be provided in slabs in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer to reduce the potential for distress due to minor soil movement and concrete shrinkage. We further recommend that concrete cover over reinforcing steel for slabs on grade and foundations be in accordance with.UBC 1907.7.1. The structural engineer should be consulted for additional concrete specifications. The slab reipforcement and expansion joint spacing should be designed by the structural engineer. 4.5 SEGMENTED RETAINING WALL We understand that a segmented type (keystone) retaining wall may be used in this project along the southwestern portion ofOlivenhain Road within the City of Encinitas. 51-598501/5 l l l R840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 17 of26 December 12, 2001 Ill KLEINFELDER 4.5.l Foundations Segmented wall footings should be founded' a minimum of 3 feet below grade. An allowable foundation pressure of 5000 psf may be used to design segmented wall footings that bear on undisturbed, native formational materials provided the minimum width of the foundation is 6 feet and the minimum embedment is 3 feet. This value may be increased by one-third for seismic loading. Total and differential static settlements are expected to be less than ½ inch for these loading conditions. The following table outlines the soiJ parameters which can be used for foundation, and retained soils Retained Soil * Soil properties ~sume fill soils are compacted to at least90 percent of ASTM D 1557. ** Soil properties assume non-erodible (gravel preferred) granular fill soils, compacted to at least 90 percent of ASTMD 1557. 4.5.2 Lateral Earth Pressure The segmented retaining wall should be designed to. resist the earth pressure exerted by the retained, .compacted backfill plus any additional lateral force that will be applied to the wall due to surface loads placed at or near the wall. The following active e_arth pressure values for level or sloping backfill are provided for walls backfilled with drainage ma,terials and low expansive soils, Equivalent Fluid Weight (pct) :Level 40 2:1 50 Fifty percent of any uniform surcharge placed within a horizontal distance from the top of the wall equal to the wall height may be assumed to act as a uniform horizontal pressure over the entire height of the wall. Fifty and thirty percent of any uniform areal surcharge placed at the top of the wall may be assumed to act as a uniform horizontal pressure over the entire wall for the at- rest and active cases, respectively. As a minimum, we recommend that a traffic surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil backfill be assumed as a surcharge for the at-rest condition. For this condition a pressure of 120 psfmay be assumed to act as a uniform horizontal pressure over the 51-598501/51 l lR840.doc Copyright 200 l Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 18.of26 December I 2, 200 l h._,t KLEINFELDER entire height of the wall, H. We should be contacted where point or line loads are expected so we can provide recommendations for additional wall stresses. Also, p.ermanent segmented wall$ should also be designed for seismic loading. The resultant seismic force (in pounds) for each linear foot of wall can be calculated as 9H2 where H is the height of the wall (in feet) above its base. The resultant seismic force acts at 0.6H above the wall base. 4.5 .3 Wall Drainage The above-recommended values do not include lateral pressures due to hydrostatic water pressures generated by infiltrating surface water that may accumu~ate behind the walls. Therefore, wall backfill materials should be free draining and provisions should be made to collect and remove excess water that may accumulate behind earth retaining structures. . . Wall drainage may be provided by free-draining grav~l surrounded by non-woven synthetic filter fabric or by prefabrici;i.ted, synthetic drain panels. In either case, drai;nage should be collected by perforated pipes and directed to a sump, storm drain, weep hole(s), or other suitable location for disposal. We recommend that drainage gravel consist .of durable stone having 100 percent passing the I-inch sieve and zero percent passing the No. 4 sieve. Synthetic filter fabric should have an equivalent opening size (BOS), U.S. Standard Sieve, of between 40 and 70, a penneability of at least 0.02 centimeters per second, a minimum flow rate of 50 gallons per minute per square foot of fabric, and a minimum puncture .strength of 5 0 pounds. 4.5.4 Backfill Placement All backfill should be placed and compa~ted in accor6ance with recommendations provided above for engineered fill. bu.ring grading and backfilling adjacent to any walls, heavy equipment should not be allowed to operate within a latqral distance of five feet from the wall, or· within a lateral distance equal to the wall height, whichever i_s greater, to avoid overstressing of the wall. Within this zone, only hand operated .equipment ("whackers", vibratory plates or pneumatic compactors) should be used to compact backfill soils. 4.6 PAVEMENT SECTIONS For purposes of analysis and design of pavements, we perfonned R-value tests on a selected soil samples considered representative of subgrade materials on site. We performed R-value tests in two septirate areas across the site. The first sample is considered characteristic of either alluviwn 51-598501/SJ rlR840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, lnc. Page 19 of26 December 12, 200 I It.,~ KLEINFELDER or fill and the second sample is considered representative of sandy formational materials present on the northern portions of the site. Our test results indicate that on-site sub grade soils have an R-value of less than _five for areas of alluviu:o:i or fill, and an R-value of20 for sandy fonnational materials on-site. · Actual pavement recommendations should be based on R-value tests performed on bulk samples of the soil~ that are exposed at the finished subgrade elevations across the site at the completion of the mass grading operations. 4.6.1 Flexible Pavements Flexible pavement sections have been evaiuated in gen~ral accordance with the Caltrans method for flexible pavement design. Traffic indices of 6.5, 7.0, 8.5 .and 9.0 were provided by the project engineer to be used· to facilitate the design of driveways, parking areas and roadways. Specifically, traffic indices of 6.5 and 7.0 are to be used for design of site parking areas and roadways, a traffic index of 8.5 for Rancho Santa Fe Road, and a traffic index of 9.0 for Qlivenhain Road. An R-value of 5 should be assumed for· driveways, parking areas and roadways located south of Olivenhain Road. An R~value of 20 should be assumed for Olivenhain Road. Recommended flexible pavement sections for these conditions are given in the following table: 5 20 51-598501/51 l 1R840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, lnc. Flexible Pavement Sections 4.5 3.Q 5.5 3.0 6.5 4.0 7.0· 4.0 8.5 · 5.5 9.0 6.0 4.5 3.0 5.5 3,0 6.5 4.0 7.0 4.0 8.5 5.S 9.0 6.Q Page 20 of26 8.5 11.5 13.5 15.5 18.5 lQ.5 6.0 9.0 10.5 12.0 14.0 15.0 December 12, 2001 L,_,j KLEINFELDER Flexible pavements should be constructed in accordance with current Caltrans Standard Specifications. Ag~egate base should comply with the Caitrans Standard Specifications of Section 26. Aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 9S percent relative eompaction (ASTM D 1557). 4.6.2 ~gid Pavement Portland cement concrete pavement (PCCP) may be desirable at entry points, trash collection areas, and other locations where tight-tu.ming heavy vehicles are expected. For moderate commercial usage, we recommend a 6-inch thick rj_gid concrete pavement over 8 inches of aggregate base compacted to at least 9S percent relative compactio;n (ASTM D 1557). The subgrade beneath the aggregate base should. be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D 1557)~ Aggregate base should comply with the specifications in Section 26 of Caltr~s Standard Specifications. According to the 1997 UBC, Section 1701.5, non"'structural slabs-on-grade and site work concrete fully supported on earth and concrete ar~ exempt from inspection by a special inspector. Therefore, pavements can be designed with a higher compressive strength and are e~empt from special inspection. We recommen~ a 28-day compressive strength of at least 4,000 pounds per square inch for the pavement concrete mix design. The concrete mix should also ~e designed for a slump not exceeding 4 inches. Thickened edges should be used along outside edges of concrete pavements. Edge thickness should be at least 2 inches greater than the concrete pavement thickness and taper to the actual concrete pavement thic~ess 36 inches inward from the edge. Integral curbs may be used in lieu of thickened edges. Continuous sections of concrete ·pavement should be c-onstructed in an approximately 12-foot square grid system or less. All longitudinal or transverse control joints should ~e constructed by saw-cutting, hand forming, or placing pre-molded-filler such as zip strips. Longitudinal or· transverse construction Joints should be keyed or doweled to mitigate differential movement. 4.7 PRELIMINARY CORROSIVE SOIL SCREENING A preliminary corrosive soil screening for the on-site materials was completed to evaluate their potential effect on concrete and forrous metals. The corrosion potential was evaluated using the results of laboratory testing on three representative soil samples obtained during our subsurface evaluation. 5I-598501151 I l R840,doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 21 of26 December 12, 2001 .lfl KLEINFELDER Laboratory testing was perfonned to evaluate pH, minimum electrical resistivity, and chloride and soluble sulfate content. Th~ sample tested had a measured pH of 7.2, which is considered neutral. The sample had a chloride content of 0.011 percent~ and a measured minimum electrical resistivity of I, 737 ohm-cm, which is considered moderately corrosive to ferrous Il,1etals. Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of soluble sulfates can be subject to chemical deterioration. Bas~d on the UBC criteria (UBC, 1997), the potential for sulfate attack is· negligible for water-soluble sulfate .contents in soil ranging from 0.00 to 0.10 percent by weight (0 to 1,000 ppm), and moderate for water-soluble sulfate contents .ranging from 0.10 to 0.20 percent by weight (1,000 to 2,000 ppm). The potential ·for sulfate -attack is severe for water-soluble sulfate contents ranging from 0.20 to 2.00 percent by weight (2,000 to 20,000 ~pm) and very severe fo1. .. wate1'-soluble sulfate contents over 2.00 percent by weight (greater than 20,000 ppm). Laboratory testing indicated a ~ulfate content of approximately 0.004 percent, which ~s considered negligible for sulfate attack. Based on the laboratory test result, we recommend that Type II cement be used for concrete structures in contact with soil. Our corrosion screening tests are preliminary in nature. Additional sampling and testing should be performed after completion of grading. We recommend that a qualified corrosion engineer evaluate the general corrosion potential with respect to construction materials at this site. The corrosion test results are included in Appendix B. 4.8 FLATWORK To reduce the potential manifestation of distress to exterior concrete flatwork due to movement of the underlying soil, we recommend that such flatwork be constructed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the structural engineer. Exterior slabs should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand to aid in concrete curing. Subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the earthwork recom~endations presented in Section 4.2.6. Positive drainage should be established and maintained adjacent to flatwork. 4.9 SITE DRAINAGE AND SUBGRAJ)E SEEPAGE Surface drainage should be provided to direct water away from structures aIJ.d off of pavement surfaces. Surface water should ~ot be pennitted to drain toward the structures or to pond adjacent to foundations or on pavement areas. Positive drainage .is defined as a slope of 2 percent or more for a distance of 5 feet or more away from structures. Irrigation in the vicinity of structures should be reduced to )ow levels. 51-598S01/51 l 1R840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, fnc. Page 22 of26 December 12,,2001 k,_,i KLEINFELDER Groundwater was encountered in Borings 1, 3, and 4 during our subsurface exploration. Groundwater depths were measured following shortly following the completion of drilling, prior to backfilling of the boring. As measured, groundwater depths were approximately 12, 10, and 15 feet, respectively. The other borings had no indication of groundwater or seepage. Therefore, we anticipate that the natural groundwater surface should be well below the bottom of proposed excavations. In the event that leakage from structures, pipes, irrigation lines, or general surface water infiltration into hurled utility trenches is encountered, it may be necessary to provide temporary or permanent drainage during construction. The need for either temporary or permanent drainage should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in the field at the time of construction. 51·59850l/511JR840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 23 of26 December 12, 2001 L..q KLEINFELDER 5.0 ADDITIONAL STUDIES The review of plans and specifications, and the observation and testing by Kleinfelder of earthwork related construction activities, . are. an i:i;itegral part of the conclusions and recommendations made in this report. If Kl~infelder is not retained for these services, the client will be assuming our responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during or after constructjon. The required tests, observations, and consultation by Kleinfelder during construction includes, but is not limited to: • Additional subsurfa,ce exploration ·to further evaluate the extent of on-site fill ~aterials and liquefaction potential. • . A review of plans and specifications; • Observation of site clearing; • Construction observation and density testing .of fill material placement, trench backfill and subgrade preparation; and • Observation of foundation excavations and foundation construction. 51~59850l/5111R840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page24 of26 December 12, 2001 '· Ill KLEINFELDER 6.0 LIMITATIONS Our firm has prepared this report for the exclusive use of our client. Kleinfelder offers various levels of investigative and engineering services to suit the varying needs of different clients. Although risk can never be eliminated, more detailed and extensive evaluations· yield more information, which may help understand and manage the level of risk. Since detailed evaluation and analysis involve greater expense, Ol:lr clients participate in determining levels of service which provide adequate information fo:r their purposes as acceptal:>le levels of risk. Olive~ain Muniyipal Water District has reviewed our scope of work and determined that it does not need or . . want a greater level of service than that being provided fQr this preliminary siting study phase. A br0chure prepared by ASFE (Association of Finns Practicing in the ·Geoscience) has been i:nclu~ed in Appendix D of this report. ~.11 individuals reading this report should also read the attached brochure. The services provided under this contract as described in this report include professional opinions and judgments based on the data collec_ted. These services have been ,performed according to our agreed scope of services at the time the report was written. No warranty is expressed or implied. This report is issued with the understanding the owner chooses the risk he wishes to bear by the expenditures involved with the con~truction alternatives and scheduling that is chosen. Regulations and professional standards applicable to Kleinfelder's services are continually evolving. Techniques are, by necessity, often new and relatively untried, Different professionals may reasonably adopt different approaches to si~il_arpr.oblems. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on information obtai:z:ied from the review of docUhlents, t_en borings, observat.ions of -our engineer and geologist, our laboratory testing program, and our experience. It is the client's responsibility to see that all parties to the project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. · 51-598501/Sll 1R840.doc Copyright 200 l Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 25 of26 December 12, 2001 lt...'q KLEINFELDER 7.0 SELECTED REFERENCES American Public Works Association (APWA), 1997, "Greenbook," Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. · · Boyle Engineering Corporation, 1996, "As-grade<i" Plap.s for the Olivenhain Water District Storage Yard, dated August 1, 2 sheets. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1999, Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California: Map Sheet 48. · . California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near- Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: International Conference of Building Officials. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1966, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet 1:250,000. · International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997, Uniform Building Code (UBC): Whittier, California. · Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6; Scale 1 :750,000. Norris, R.M., and Webb, R.W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. · · Tan, S.S., and Kennedy M.P., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology,-Open File Report 96-02. Testing Engineers, 1988, "Compaction Report, Office Expansion, Encinitas, California," Olivenhain Municipal Water District, 1%6 Olivenhain Road, Encinitas, California 92024, -dated October 31. · United States Dep_artment of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1989, Engineering Geology Field Manual. United States Geological Survey, 1968, Rancho Santa Fe Quadrang1e, California, San Diego County, 7.5-Minute Series (Tbpogr~phic), revised 1983: Scale 1 :24,000. United States Geological Survey, 1999, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, World Wide Web, http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Source USDA Date 4-11-53 51-59850 l/5111R840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc, Flight Numbers AXN-8M 15 16 ' Scale 1:20,000 Page 26 of26 December 12, 2001 FIGURES 0 .25 .5 {MILES) Rl·KLEINFELDER 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE SAN DIEGO, CALifORNIA 92122 CHECKED BY: RCS FN: PROJECT NO. 51-5985-01 DATE: 12/2001 SITE VICINITY MAP OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA d I WISHBONE WY rDDIJBLoLLR I""'. m .... FIGURE 1 LEGEND: Bl~ -:pr APPROXIMATE BORING LOCA.TION !\ 'l-_ / APPROXIMil.TE GEOLOGIC CONiil.C1' Oaf Fill Qal ALLW!UM Tsa SAITTIAGO FORMATION Td DEL Mo\R FORMATJOt,/ REf'ERENCE: CPG ANO STA ENGINEERING, OUVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS, 11/01/-2001 FN: 5985SITE DATE: 12/2001 OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS ANO ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 2 APPENPIXA Boring Jogs ' ' . APPENDIXA BORING LOGS k'fl KLEINFELDER The geotechnical .test boring prqgram for the proposed project consisted of the excavation and logging of ten hollow~stem auger borings. The borings were advanced to depths ranging ·from 5 to 33.5 feet Figure 2 presents the approximate locations of the borings. The Logs of Borings are. presented as Figures A3 through Al 6. A µnified Soil Classification System (USCS) chart ancl a Boring Log Legen~ are presented as Figures Al and A2, respectively. The ~ogs oi Borings ·describe the earth materials encountered, samples obtained, and .show field and laborato!}' tests performed. The logs also show the general location, boring . nun'.lber, drilling date, the initials of the logger, and 'the drilling subcontractor name.· The borings · were logged by a certified engineering geologist using the USCS. The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate because the transition between different soil layers may - be gradual. Bulk and intact samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the borings . . The exploratory. borings were advanced using a CME 75HT truck-mounted drill rig, equipped_ with 8~inch diameter hollow stem augers. All borings . were backfilled using the soil from cuttings and tamped when the drilling and excavating was complete4. In-place soil samples were · obtained at the test boring locations using either a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) or California penetration sampler driven a total of 18-inches ( or until . . practi<;al refusal), into the undisturbed soil at the bottor,n of the bo~g. The soil samp~ed_ by the California sampler (3-inc~ O.D., 2.4 inches I.D.) was retained in 6-inc.h. long brass tubes for laboratory testing. An addition~l 2-in.c~es of soil from each drive remained in the cutting shoe and was usually discarded after visually classifying the soil. The samplers were driven using a 140 pound automatic hammer or spooling cable winch falling 30-inches. The total number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final 12-inches is tenned the blow count and is recorded on the Logs ofBori1igs. Please note that these blow counts have not been adjusted for tlre effects of overburden pressure, input driving energy, rod length, sampler correction, or boring diameter correction. 5 J-59SS0 1/S 111 R.840.doc. Copyright 20.01 Kleinfelder, lnc. A-1 December 12, 2001 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS .SYMBOLS GRAPH LETTER GW ~-l)O-'\._.. GRAVELS WITH tbC{p:D~<: GM TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL~ SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND- SIL T MIXTURES COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50¾ OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE FINES "01po'DC ~~r ... ~~"~, or.d-'-----1--------------1 (APPRECIABLEAMOUN'T ~~Y~ II t MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAi. IS LARGER THAN NO, 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRAlNED SOILS j MORE THAN 50% i or: MATERIAi.iS ·OF FINES) W"~ SAND AND SANDY SOILS CLEAN SANDS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) MORE THAN 50¾ SANDS WITH OF COARSE FINES '.E/t,<,b' . ' ....... . • • • • • ., • ·• t ............. .. • • 4 " •••• .......... . .. ,. ..... . ••• t' •••• • t I • • T t ' I ... -...... . .... ·• . ' ... 10;.•. •,•. • ••••••• •• t • • to 1 t t 'f 9 FRACTIQN~ v~~·.·· ,· y.· .. ·. PASSING ON NO. 4 (APPRECIABLF(AMOUNl m'. ·. -:': .'. · .. SIEVE OF FINES) -:-.:-·:.:, .:-·: .-·.,,. :> ·---~ GC SW SP SM SC ML SILiS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT LESSTHAN56 • CL -~----------OL _...,;;_ __ ------· ------------.....:. MH J No. 200 s1EVe SIZE SIL TS LIQUID LIMIT CH t AND GREATER THAN·50 0 CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND - CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, l.lTT!..E OR NO FINES SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SIL TS ANO VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SIL TY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO . MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY: CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SIL TY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SIL rs AND ORGANIC SIL TY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIA TOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY :z SMALU:R THAN • li CLAYS h i t1 .. ~-~~~r--O-H-,-O-RG_A_N_IC_C_LA_YS-OF_M_E_D_IU_M_T_o_1 u.L _____ J ______________ J~ijl~=~1:H~IG:H~P~LA~s:r~1c:1TY:,~o:R~G:AN:1~c~s1~1..r:s~_J ~ a ~~~w J f HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ,, ~ '11 ' ' 11 ' PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS ! ~~~~ ~1,.._ ____________________________ .__ __________ _. NOiE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLIN~ SOIi. CLASSIFICATIONS FIGURE .. .. LOG SYMBOLS: ~ X WATER LEVEL BULK/BAG SAMPLE -(level after completion) .• Sl. WATER LEVEL -(level where first encountered) j MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER ABBREVIATIONS: ) (2-1/2 inch outside diameter) SA -(38%) SIEVE ANALYSIS (PERCENT PASSING #200 SIEVE) I CALIFORNIA SAMPLER WA -{38%) -ONE POINT GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (3 inch 01.1tside diameter) (PERCENT PASSING #200 SIEVE) Pl -PLASTICITY INDEX ' ~ STANDARD PENETRATION LL -LIQUID LIMIT SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER DS -DIRECT SHEAR TEST (2 • inch outside diameter) 'R' -R-VALUE .TEST rn NX SIZE CORE BARREL CQRR -CORROSIVITY TEST (2-5/8 inch outside diameter) El -use EXPANSION INDEX m LC -LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST SHELBY TUBE M&D -MOISTURE & DENSITY PP -POCKET PENETROMETER GENERAL NOTES: 1. Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only. Actual transitions may be gradual. 2, No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil conditions between individual sample /ocatlons, 3. Logs repr.esent general soil conditions observed at the point of exploration · on the date indicated. 4. In general, Untfied Soil Classification deslgnations presenfrid on the logs were eva/uated by visual methods only. Therefore, actual designations (based on laboratory tests) may vary. . . . . . CONSISTENCY CRITERIA BASED ON FIELD TESTS , TORVANE POCKET** PENETROMETER RELATIVE SPT* RELATIVE SPT UNDRAINED UNCONFINED DENSllY (# blows/ft) DENSITY (%) CONSISTENCY ·(# blows/ft) SHEAR COMPRESS.IVE STRENGTH (tsf) STRENGTH Very Loose <4 0 -15 Very Soft <2 <0.13 <0.25 Loose 4 -,o 15 -35 Soft 2 -4 0.13 -0.25 0.25 -0.5 Medium Derise 10 -30 35 -65 Medium Stiff 4 -B 0.25' -0,5 0.5 -1.0 " 30.·-50 · ' $tiff 8 -15 0.5 -1.0 1.0 -2.0 Dense 65 -85 Very Stiff 15 -30 1.0 -2.0 2.0 -4.0 i. Very Dense · >50 . 85 -100 Hord >30 >2.0 >4 * NUMElER OF BLOWS OF 140 POUNDS HAMMER F"ALLING 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 2 INCH O.D. (i 3/8 INCH f.D.) SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER (ASTM-1386 STANDARD PENETRATION-TEST) ** UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IN TONS/SO. FT. READ FROM POCKET PENETROMETER ' , DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST MOISTURE CONTENT Dry Absence of· moisture, dusty, dry to the tou~h Moist Damp but no vlslbfe water. Wet Visible f~ee water, usually soil is below water table DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST CEMENTATION Weakly. Cr,umbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure Moderately . Crumbles or ·breaks with considerable finger .pressure Strongly . Will not cr~mble or break with finger pressure - Ill KLEINFELDER LOG KEY FIGUk .... 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER -DISTRICT A2 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 CHECKED BY: RCS -IFN: LOGKEY HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT nnn lr-t"T All'\ i::: 4 i:::noi:::: _n1 I 1'ATC", 1 ') /')nf'1 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA $ ;' ? z 0 ~ ~ LU llO 105 100 5 DATE DRILLED: DRILL.E:D BY: DRILLING METHOD: HOLE DIAMETER: ~ er: a. u, w .11/20/01 Tri-County Drilling CME-75 HT, 140 lbs~, 30" drop Autohommer 811 diameter Hollow Stem Auger WATER DEPTH: DATE MEASURED: ELEVATION: LOGGED BY: REVIEWED BY: 12 feet 11/20/2001 111'± MSL RCS/BTB REL ::i!: ::::.-c& !zP co :!: C!) g SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Q) .l!! .._, :::c fu a5 .!.:: Cl 5~ co 0:: 0 5 10 15 ::,o ::> o.2 z· o] UJ 3:.9 ...I 0. ge. ::i!: a:l ~ (.) :E a. ~ C) -::,/ :: FILLi ... . .' . · · .-· SILTY SAND (SM), light brown, moist, loose ·.~ ·.:. ·. \. ·, ', : . . . . . '.·:. •: ::··\·~· 11 2 . · .. \ ·:. , : Light reddish brown, asphalt fragment in shoe •,' . .. .. •' ·._::.: .:. :, •:, I: ·.··,:.·, 19 3 .• : . '/ · .... ·. ·,.:·· : . . . . 12 4 22 5 Abundant asphalt fragments Medium dense ALLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY (CL), light olive brown, moist, stiff, mottled with calcium carbonate, few scattered rootlets SANDY CLA YSTONE, light olive brown, moist, weakly indurated, scattered thin fractures infilled with iron oxide, weathered ----------------------------- PP=l.5 PP=3 .. 0 II) KLEINFELDER OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE SAN DlEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 A3 PROJECTNO. 51-5985-01 LOG OF BORING 1 ~ 0 Q) z J!! 0 ._., ::i:; ~ i ~ w l-90 - - ~ - - ~ 25- 85 - ~ - - - 30- 80 - ~ - - 35- 75 - - - - 40- 70 - - ~ 0::: a. ~ Cl) w . ~· !zo co C!) SOIL DESCRIPTION ~ g ::> 0 ::, 1--~ o.8 z g AND (.) --~z ~i UJ :c CLASSIFICATION .J ~ 5~ a. ge ~ ro er: ~ C!) 0 .tO (Continued From Previous Page) I 50/5" . ~· SIL TY SANDSTONE, light olive: brown, moist, weakly to 6 ~-moderately cemented, fine~grained, slightly micaceous ~ 50/4" 7 50/3" 8 ~ ~ . ~~,__ . .. -~ SANDY CLA YSTONE, light olive brown, moist, moderately - indurated, scattered interbeas of fine to medium-grained sandstone, increase molstore Wet Total depth 30.6 feet . · Groundwater observed at 12 feet Seepage at 13 feet Backfilled 1 1/20/2001 OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECTNO. 51~5985-01 LOG OF BORING 1 ~ !i: C!) ~ --U) we (I) w [ij cr:'.1--1-1-s c-~z Z..J wci: !:: g_ ~~ !iE z z :a:o -oz ::> :;so or= ~ (.) 05 0 0 < FIGURE A4 j 11 /20/01 WATER DEPTH: NA Tri-County Drilling DATE MEASURED: 11/20/2001 CME-75 HT, 140 lbs., 30" drop ELEVATION: 121'± MSL Autohammer LOGGED BY: 8TB DATE DRILLED: DRILLED BY: DRILLING METHOD: ~"il----H~O-LE--,-DI_A_M_E-rT-ER_:-r--rB_"_d_ia_m_e_t_e_r_H_o_ll_o_w ____ s_te_m--''--Au_g_e_r ______ R_E_V_IE_W_E_D_B_Y_: __ R_E_L-,---r---.----1 120 llS 110 105 10 15 16 2 FILL: SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICA'fION LEAN CLAY (CL), olive~brown, dry to moist, very stiff, with fine sand :·. :·. · ·: SILTY SAND (SM), tan to olive, dry to moist, medium dense; with ·: ·: :· oxidation stains I / I• 19 3 : : .;·. : 24 4 . ',•. :::.: :: 't ·,:: I ,• • ·. :: .:· ... .. ,· ·. ::·: ::-~. ~-. ,,• . . . . ; : .. 25 .... :·~ .:· :.-_:: l:· 5 . : .. ,:~· ::-.: -~ . . . . ... . . . ' .. •. • .. . ~. :: . : . . . ·~ .': -:: ,~: ·.· · ..... . .. . :: _:,· .~· ALLUVIUM:______ ---------- CLAYEY SAND (SC), gray~brown, moist, medium dense, fine grained, scattered organics CLAY (CL), gray~brown, moist, stiff SILTY SAND (SM), orange~brown, moist, medium dense, fine grained Kl KLEINFELDER 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECTNO. 51-5985-01 LOG OF BORING 2 100.4 18.1 EI,'R' llO.l 13.0 FIGURE AS J -~ :z 0 ~ a; ..J UJ ,__100 95 90 85 80 fil ,.J 0. :E ::::, ~ Q) ~ --:i:: Ii: i !i w 0 iE 0 - - - - 25- - - - - 30- - - - - 35- - - - - 40- - - c:: ~ LU lXl 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION zo .. ~ g ::,o ::l oe z () :AND (.)~ w :i: ..J CLASSIFICATION ~.!2 0.. 0. ge i ~ tO (!) en (Continued From Previous Page) 2? 6 ,, ·., ', ~""-+--=-:-:c-:---:--:::-:----:---=-------------__...:..-----1 Total depth 21.5 feet No groundwater observed Backfilled 11/20/2001 Kl KLEINFELDER 501S SHOREHAM PLACE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA .._ PROJECTNO. 51~5985-01 LOG OF BORING 2 FIGURE AS -~ ""':-e z 0 ~ a; ..J UJ 110 105 100 . 5 0 Q) g . ::i: Ii:· w 0 5 15 DATE DRILLED: 11/20/01 WATER DEPTH: DRILLED BY: Tri-County Drilling DATE MEASURED: DRILLING METHOD: CME-75 HT, 140 lbs., 30" drop ELEVATION: Autohammer_, LOGGED BY: HOLE DIAMETER: 8" diameter Ho"lloW Stem Auger REVIEWED BY: IB .J 0:: 0.. :!!: ~ w <( to C.') SOIL DESCRIPTION en zo :a g :::,o :::, 0~ ;z: Q AND )£ it (.)::: w :c S:.9 ...i 0.. CLASSIFICA,TION a. 5,~ o.c ! r2 ..J~ lO 0 en C.') SILTY SAND (SM), orange-brown, moist, loose, fine-grained 10 19 ·: ·,: ... . '.• . .... ·.: :· ... · .. : . (\·~· : ~-· .'· . ' .· . ::.\,:· .,.· . .. : ·:.: :: '. '·/ .. . , .. :: _:-' .:· Wet, medium dense 4 .• .. ·. : :' \ 25 5 ,•: , ( ~-: ·:: : .· ·. ,•:,T•, ·:, '·:. •, ·,,•,;: .. ·' . ' . ,• .· ·. :.·.\.': ·: :: :• '' ' .. ' 10 feet 11/20/2001 114'± MSL STB REL ~-1--::i: (!) UJ~ _en (/,) UJ ITi 0:: '-' .!z~ ~'fi' :::> I-1--Z UJ<( !::o. wW :az -1--:;o z~ oz :::, :ag oi=: ~ 05 0 0 <( 87.1 15.1 14.1 WA (25%) 105.8 19.9 SA (16%) Ill KLEINFELDER 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 OLIVENHAJN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA FIGURE A7 PROJECTNO. 51-5985-01 LOG OF BORING 3 1 I g z 0 !:; ~ ~ w f-90 85 80 15 fil ..J a. :a 0-~ Q) ~ --t i.::z w ..J ~ Q ::, a: co 0 - - - - 25- - -- - -- 30- - - .... - 35- - - - - 40- - - ~ zc-::,0 ol@ (.)~ B.2 ..J8 al 30 35 er w al 9 :IE :::i z 0 ~ 5: a. i :;; ·~ (!) (:~· . .-: .. ·. 6 ... : · .. r,, '•,' .' •I•' •,\•. SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION (Continued From Previous Page) Increase in clay content Total depth 26.5 feet Groundwater observed at 10 feet Backfilled 11/20/2001 Ill KL ~1~S~R!A~P~p ER OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO, CALJFORNIA 92122 PROJECTNO. 51-5985-01 LOG OF BORING 3 FIGURE AS j DATE DRILLED: DRILLED BY: DRILLING METHOD: 11/20/01 Tri-County Drilling CME-75 HT, 140 lbs., 30" drop Auto·hommer WATER DEPTH: DATE MEASURED: ELEVATION: LOGGED BY: REVIEWED BY: 15 feet 11/20/2001 117'± MSL 8TB REL 8" diameter Hollow Stem Auger l fl-.-------~_,...-,....------------------------,---,---,-----1 . HOLE DIAMETER: 115 25 29 110 ~ . IO 13 105 )(·.: . . . •' ,• I ..... ' •::-: : t" 'i •' / ·. ·: '1: •• 2 \:-.~: l ,• • • • # • . . : . ,, '1. ·:.:}-.:, ·. · .. ·, '•. -:_;~~ '_:: 3 . : .· ' • .» • ::·: ~'; -~~ ... . . . . . . . : . ·: ·,:. ·. ·.:-.·. :, .· :· :-. . .~ . ·: \: :, ·.>.· :, : .. ·. . ' : . ': '•c' ,', ·.:, ~ : ... 4 :. ·:.,: ::-::>:·~. ... . . . . . . . . ·: ...... . . · .. . • .. · . . . . . : ' . . .~ . •, .. ,, .... , .:-... : ... SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION SILTY SAND (SM), tan, dry, medium dense, tine grained Moist, loose -~ 15 · ' : . . .' . ~ .. '·. 100 5 14 ·: '. .:··. ·: Wet, loose, increased· clay content 5 -: .,: ... 6 ... •, ... -: . .'\.: CLAYEY SAND (SC), tan, wet, medium dense, fine-grained RI KLEINFELDER 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE SAN DIEGO, CALll"ORNIA 92122 OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECTNO. 51-5985-01 LOG OF BORING 4 84.2 4.2 CORR 91.2 3.7 14.1 WA (23.1% 23,5 Note: SPT . ·sampler has room for liners WA (29.3), PI FIGURE A9 --:-\I:. :z 0 p ~ ~ UJ 5 0 85 80 75 fil ..J a. I ~ 0 Ill ;z:c-g :::> 0 oi@ ~ z o; n. ~ w ~.B .LU 5~ ge 0 co ~ co ·0 35 40 ~ UJ !D C!) :E g ::i z (.) w :i: ,.J ~ n. I SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION (Continued From Previous Page) Orange-brown, coarser grained sand CLAYEY SAND (SC), tan with orange mottling, wet, medium dense, fine~grained . . SAND (SP), tan-brown, wet, very dense Total depth 33.5 feet Groundwater encountered at 15 feet Boring backfilled 11/20/2001 RI KLEINFELDER 5015 SHOREHAM PLACc 'SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROIBCTNO. 51-5985-01 LOG OF BORING 4 !c G ~ t: z ::i ~ 0 en 1- w~ ..... Cl) en UJ 0:: ~ I-I- IP ~!z z.:.i W<C o (/)w :zz 8 -f-:zo oz ~o o-05 u 0 <( 23.8 SA (32%), PI FIGURE A10 l . } J I --:-!!::. :z: Q ~ £ii ..J w '-} 15 llO 105 100 DATE ORlLLED: DRll,.LED BY: 11/27/01 Tri-County Drilling WATER DEPTH: DATE MEASURED: DRILLING METHOD: CME-75 HT, 140 lbs., 30" drop, Sp'!oling Coble ELEVATION: LOGGED BY: HOLE DIAMETER: 8" diameter Hollow Stem Auger REVIEWED BY: en ~ a. i rtJ 6 Cl) en ~~ .e ..., '--~ oa :c (.)°iii !i: :5 f ;;:~ w ge C ::, 0:: co Cl Ill xr x r, -X •· :x '-38 ..... X ~ -;:... s- - - - - ]0- -. ~ - - 15- - - - - 0:: w Ill (!) ~ 0 :, ..J z (.) w 5: ..J i ·O... I (!) ••• I• •.'I•' ,, . \ '. •, .. ~· ·. . ' ~ ·•· ',,' 2 \ :-. ~ :. ... . ; .. , .. : ::·: :::: ·-~~ 1 SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ASPHALT CONCRETE: Annroximatelv 411 thick li'lLM SIL TY SAND (SM)5 light olive-brown) moist, dense Encountered 1211 diameter water nineline Total depth 3.5 feet Boring terminated due to water pipeline ' . NA 11/27/2001 116'± MSL RCS REL RI KLEINFELDER 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE SAN OJEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE A11 PROJECTNO. 51-5985-01 LOG OF BORING 5 DATE DRILLED: 11/27/01 WATER DEPTH: NA DRILLED BY: Tri-County Drilling DATE MEASURED: 11/27/2001 DRILLING METHOD: CME-75 HT, 140 lbs., 30" drop, ELEVATION: 122'± MSL Spooling Cable LOGGED BY: RCS HOLE DIAMETER: 8" diame.fer Hollow Stem Auger REVIEWED BY: REL en w -' 0:: ~ a. I- g -~ re UI :i: O' re Cl --IB ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION (!) UJ~ Cl) za-~ g ill ~I- z J!! ::,O :, 0:: ~ 0 "-"' -,-c-0~ z g AND $,::, :::> I-Z-1 ~ ::i: () ~ w 1-0 1-Z ~~ I- :J ~ ..I :r CLASSIFICATION -C. wW C. 3;_g n. z~ -f-~o ~ Ul a. I :, oz o-o.c I ~o (j t: .o ::> -~ ..J~ ~ UI ca o co C) 0 0 Cl <( .. FILL: . . ~ . . .. . ----f xr \SILTY SANDl.SM}._ljght brown_,_moist,_medium dense.,_~me.:grained / X" SANDY CLAY (CL); oli~e to olive brown, moist, very stiff 120 -x,. 19 2 >(-..,... )I:. X 1 ~ -'-' I DEL MAR FORMATION: 5-~SANDY CLA YSTONE olive-brown moist. weaklv indurated r ' Total depth .5 feet -No ~undwater observed Bae lled 1 l/27 /200J 115 - ' - - 10- - 110 --'- - - 15- -: 105 - - - RI KL ~1~S~R~P~p E R OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT FIGURE HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA B2122 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA A12 . PROJECT NO. 51"5985~01 LOG OF BORING 6 l 6 :z Q ~ it ...J UJ i..}25 120 J 115 llQ DATE DRILLED: DRILLED BY: . 11/27 /01 Tri-County Drilling WATER DEPTH: NA DATE MEASURED: 11 /27/2001 DRILLING METHOD: CME-75 HT, 140 lbs., 30" drop, Spooling Cable ELEVATION: 126'± MSL LOGGED BY: RCS HOLE DIAMEtER: Cl) w ..J 0:: 0. :a ~ . UJ 0 m (I) ~ zo ~ ~ :::, 0 ::, _,__ o!@ z f :S :z OJ UJ ...I ~! 0. UJ ::,~ :a Cl co 0: ..J ~ .Cl co X -v x X -x, )( ,. -)<, >i:'--- 27 2 -;1< .x l 5-'---' - - - ~ 10- - - - - 15- - - - - 811 diameter Hollow Stem Auger REVIEWED BY: REL 0 0 ...I t) 5: 0. ~ (!) SOIL PESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ~ ·.: FILL: . , .. CLAYEY SAND (SC), light brown to brown, moist, medium dense, ·.: . fine-grained, approximately 30% clay fraction =·= ,Brown to dark brown r ~ SANTIAGO FORMATION: ~ SILTY SANDSTONE, light yellowish brown;moist, weakly ~ cemented, weathered, .fine-grained ..:;;:.;: ~ .=.: Total depth 5 feet No groundwater observed Backfilled 11/27/2001 OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LOG OF BORING 7 FIGURE A13 "":' ~ z Q ~ ~ UJ DATE DRILL,ED: DRILLED BY: DRILLING METHOD: HOLE DIAMETER: en ~ 0:: 0. fl) UJ 11/27 /01 Tri-County Drilling CME-75 HT, 140 lbs., 30" drop, Spooling Cable 8" diameter Hollow Stem Auger WATER DEPTH: DATE MEASURED: ELEVATION: LOGGED BY: REVIEWED BY: NA 11/27/2001 130'± MSL RCS REL :'iE -:::-~ ~a IXl ~ C!) g SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION a, JE ...... --::t t UJ 0 ~m ..J > :::, - ro Is X rx -xr .xr :::, 0 o.!2 oj ~.2 ge co P' 50/511 '-- - ::, z 0 . !:J :c a. a. ~ ~ C/J C) 1-:·tr· FILL: ~-:, SILTY SAND (SM), yellowish-brown to light reddish brown, moist, f 1 ~ \medium dense 2 ~ SANTIAGO FORMATION: . ;;;; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .::;:;;;: ~ .:= SIL TY SANDSTONE, light brown, moist, weakly to moderately cemented @ 1.51 .approximate ~1 thick zi;me of abundant biotite laminations, yellowish brown to light reddish brown -125 5-Total depth S feet - - - 120 10- - - - - 115 15- - - - - No groundwater observed Backfilled 11/27/2001 Ill KLE.INFELDER 5015 SHOReHAM PLACE SAN DIEGO, CALIFO~NIA 92122 OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LOG OF BORING 8 FIGURE A14 j \ f I ,-. ~ z 0 ~ ~ ..J w 130 125 120 115 DATE DRILLED: DRILLED BY: 11/27/01 Tri-County Drilling WATER DEPTH: NA DATE MEASURED: DRILLING METHOD: CME-75 HT, 140 lbs., 3b" drop, Spooling Cable ELEVATION: LOGGED BY: 11 /27 /200·1 132'± MSL RCS HOLE DIAMETER: fil ..J 0:: a. !iE ~ w 0 <( . ID Q) C/) :zo :: .!!! ::,O ::, ....... i-..,.... 0~ z :i: 0~ ~ 6: ~ ffi 3=.B a. UJ ..J > o.o ~ Cl :) -..J ...... ID o:'. <( Cl co Cf) ~ ..... ,.-.,, X ~ X ,- X" -x,. 71 2 -~~ X 1 -c.....; 5- ,- - - - 10- - - - - 15-. - - - - (9 g t) x 0. ~ (!l 8" diameter Hollow Stem Auger REVIEWED BY: SOIL l)ESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION REL lJ.l:. FILL: . . , .. r\ .SILTY SAND (SM), light yellowish-b~own, moist, medium dense, r · · · · ·1 \iine-o-rained . ::::: SANTIAGOFORMATION: ..... . .... 0 o I ~ ' o I•• I ..... ...... . .... .... ' .... . . , .. . ..... CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brown to reddishJbrown, moist, weakly cemented, weathered, fine-grained, mottled, increase clay content Total depth 5 feet No groundwater observed Backfilled 11/27/2001 'R' Kl KLEINFELDER OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS :AND ROAD PROJECT - CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE . 6016 SHOREHAM J:>LACE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA !l212t A15 PROJECTNO. 51-5985-01 LOG OF BORING 9 ..... (IS. z 0 ~ ~. w " 130 . 125 120 115 . DATE DRILLED: DRILLED BY: 11 /27 /01 Tri'""'County Drilling WATER DEPTH: DATE MEASURED: DRILLING METHOD: CME-75 HT, 140 lbs., 30''' drop, Spooling Gable _ ELEVATION: LOGGED BY: NA 11/27/2001 134'± MSL RCS HOLE DIAMETER: fil ..J er. a. I ~ w :.:::, co QI zc-!i!! Ql ::> 0 :::::, le, ~ 0~ z ::c 0~ w I-z ..J a. ~ w ~e a. w ..J > :.; 0 .::> 2 ...J c1j ~o al x ,. _x ,. ,. x 79 2 _25 '--I - s- - - ...... - 10- - - - - 15- - - ..... - (!) 0 ..l 2 :r: a. ~ (!) 8" dfameter Hollow Stem Auger REVIEWED BY: SOIL DESCRIPTION AND · CLASSIFICATION ASPHALT CONCRETE: Aonroxirnatelv 611 thick BASE: SILTY SAND (SM), olive brown, moist, dense, with REL II ...... l::"::T~aa!ab!.!:!u#!nd!:!:l:a~n1.:t irr~,av~e1!.,I --=·'="=--------· ____ __/--SANTIAGO FORMATION: ..... .. .. ' ..... ..... ...... It••• #f•,j. ..... '' , .. " . . . . ..... ' .... •••II ..... ... ' . .. . '. • I , I ~ .. , .. ..... CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light-brown, moist, weakly cemented, mottled with reddish brown · · @ 4.0' light yellowish-brown Total depth 5 feet No groundwater observed Backfilled and patched 11/27/2001 FIGURE RI KLEINFELDER 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 OLIVENHAlN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA A16 PROJECTNO. 51-5985-01 LO.G OF BORING 10 APPENDIXB Laboratory Test Results \ APPENDIXB LABORATORY TEST RESULTS- k~ KLEINFELDER Laboratory tests were perfonned on selected bulk and drive. samples to estimate engineering . characteristics of the various earth materials encountered. Testing was perfonned in accordance ' . with one of the following references: 1. Lambe, T. William, (19~1), Soil Testing for Engineers, Wiley, New York. . . · 2. Laboratory S_oils Testing, U.S. Anny, (1970), Office of the Chief of Engineers; Engineering Manual No. 1110-2-1906. 3. AStM Standards for Soil Testing, latest revisions. 4. State of California Department of Transportation, Standard Test methods, latest revisions . . CLASSIFICATION . . ·Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification Systein (USCS) in general accordance witli ASTM D 2488-93. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory excavations in App~ndix A. IN-PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS · The moisture content · and dry density of' relatively undisturbed s_amples o1,tained from the exploratory excavations were. evaluated in gerteral accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory excavations in Appendix B. GRADATION ANALYSIS -, _Gradation analysis . t_ests were performed on selected representative soil ~amples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The grain-size distribution curves are shown on Figures B-1 and B·2. These test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications· in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.· 200WASH An evaluation of the percentage· of minus-200 sieve material in selected soil samples was perfonned in general accordance with ASTM D 1140. The-results of the tests are pres~nted on FigureB~3. 51-5985.0l/511 !R840.doc Copyright 2001 K]einfelde'., Inc. B-1 December 12, 2001 k."fl· KL E J NF ELDER ATTERBERG LIMITS Tests w_ere performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with-ASTM D 4318. These test results were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The test results and-classifi.cat!ons are shown on Figure B-4. EXP ANSI ON INDEX T-ESTS The expansion index of~ selected material was evaluated in general accordance with U.B.C. Standard No. 18-2. The specimen was molded under a specffi.ed compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation (plus or minus 1 percent). The prepared I-inch thick by 4-inch diameter-specimen was loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and then inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours. The results of these tests are presented on Figure B-5. SOIL CORROSIVITY TESTS . . Soil pH, water pH, and resistivity tests were performed on representative samples in general accordance with Caltrans Test (CT) 643. The chloride content of ~elected samples w~s e"'.aluated in general accordance with CT 422. The sulfate conten! of selected samples was evaluated in general accordance with CT 417. The test results are I?~esented on Figure B-6~ R .. V.ALUE The resistance value, o~ R~value, for subbase so~ls was evalu~ted in general accordance wi~ A,STM D 2844. Sample.s were prepared and each was tested for exudation pressure and R-value. Tl).e graphically evaluated R-value at an exudation pressure of 300 pounds· per square inch is reported. The test results are shown on Figure B-7. 51-598501/5 H lR840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. B-2 December 12, 200 J ' l I GRAVEL I ~AND I FINES l I Coarse I Fine I Coarse I Medium Fine T Silt I Clay I .U.S. STANDARD SIEVE·NUMBERS 3" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/f!J' ~ 10 20 40 60 100 200 HYDROMETER 100 [ I l i I I [ I ... , I I I 90 II II I II ' ' ,. I I I I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I I I I l I I I ,, l I 70 :, :, I I I I I !t Cl I I I j I I I J I l \ I I iii 60 ll: II II I II I I I I ~ J ~ 11 I I I I I I ffi 50 \ z I I I I I I I I [ I I I u:: ffi 40 I I I ' T I '\ I u I I [ I I I I I I I ffi I I 0. 30 I I I I I I I I I I J I 20 'I ' I, ' 11 ·' I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I I II I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Gl<AIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS symbol Sample Depth Liquid Plastic Plasticity D10 Dao Dao Cu c. Passing u.s.c.s Location (ft) Limit Limit Index No. 200 {%) • B3 15-16,5 .. .. ---.. ---.. 16 SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63 ,i· Ii ll'IJ! mi111·1it-Et&.1r. w!, etiRt GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE :-.~~~ .;.::~s -; .. .5-·-~c*; ~ !~ .. -:-,· :'$(" ::x~f.· ~~: ~~,! $::~· .~<::i· ·· ... ,., An employs/I ownsd compan)' OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT 8-1 CHECKED BY: 'T,S, FN:LAB CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO,: 51-5985-01 DATE: 12/01 setve.B3xls.~ls I GRAVEL I SAND I FINES I I coarse j Fine I coarse! Medium Fine I Silt I Clay I U,S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 3" 1-112" 1" 3/4" 112" 3/a" • 4 10. 20 40 60 100 200 HYDROMETER 100 -- . I I l I l I I I to-!-. I'\_ I I I 90 -II II I II I I ~ I II I I I I I I I I I I I 80 I I I I I I I I I " I I I 70 II h I II I I I I 11 ~ I I I I I I I I ! I \1 1. £! w 60 ~ II II I II I II I I \ 'I ~ 1 I I I ~ 50 Ill 1\ z I I I I I I I I I I I u:: ~ <IO l'5 II II I II I II II I I I -~II ~ I. I I I I I I I l I I I 30 I I I I I I I I l I I I It It ' I I, I I ' 11 20 I l I I I I I I I I I I 10 II I I I I I I I I I 0 II 11 I II I II I I I 11 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0,001 0.0001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS symbol sample Depth Liquid Plastic Plasticity D10 D30 Dao Cu c. Passing u,s.c.s Location (rt) Limit Limit Index No. 200 (%) • B4 22.5-24.0 31.p 16.4 15.1 --· -· ---· 32 CL PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63 -l ~'.IJi)aHw~,11-W:*.,~~H!i. GRADATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE l'i~1,':·,~~·l'i·°'·''L; Aji ~mp[oJJS,foWried COmpmiJ OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT B-2 CHECKED BY: T.S. FN: LAB CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJEGT NO.; 51-5985-01 DATE: 12/01 I seive.B4,xls j. 1 1 ' .. SAMPLE SAMPLE SOIL PERCENT DEPTH DESCRIPTION TYPE PASSING LOCATION (FT) (USCS) #200 SIEVE B3 10.5-11.5 Orange-brown Silty Sand SM 25.2 84 10.s.:11.s Tan Silty Sand SM 23.1 B4 15-16.5 Tan Clayey Sand SC 29.3 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1140 CHECKED BY: r.s. FN: LAB PROJECT NO.: 51-S985•01 12/01 WASHllg,xls 200WASH OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECTS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-3 uses SAMPLE DEPTH CLASSIFJCATION SYMBOL LOCATION (FT) LL(%) PL(%) Pl(%) (Minus No. 40 Sieve Fraction) • B4 15-16.5 33 16 17 CL • B4 22.5-24.0 31 16 15 CL 70 / 60 ~ / ~/ [ 50 ~ / CH / V 40 2:: / V ,,, ~ 30 (.) / CL ~v MH&OH j:: ; 20 / ~/ / 0.. 10 ~ ,, L•Ml. ,, ML&OL ~ 0 'i/ I ~ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL), % PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4.318-98 CHECKED BY: T.S. PROJECT NO.: 51-5985-01 altetberg.xls FN:LAB DATE: 12/01 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS OUVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA uses (Entire Sample) CL CL FIGURE 8-4 l ; SAMPLE SAMPLE INITIAL COMPACTED FINAL VOLUMETRIC EXPANSION EXPANSION LOCATION DEPTH MOISTURE DRYOENSITY MOlSTURE SWELL INDEX . POTENTIAL (FT) (%) (PCF) (%) (IN) 82 1~5 12,8 99.8 30.2 0.0989 99 HIGH PERFORMED IN GENERALACCORQANCE WITH UBC STANDARD 1~-2 - EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS I 11 I 1a ~ t;:@l!)l@ltl! ""' "'~ An empl0Jet1 own,d compa11)1 OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS ANO RAOD PROJECT FIGURE B-5 CHECKED BY: r.s. jFN: LA!3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 51-59B5-01 !DATE: 12/01 l \ SAMPLE LOCATION 84 SAMPLE DEPTH{FT) 1-5 pH* 7.2 WATER-SOLUBLE RESISTIVITY SULFATE CONTENT IN (ohm-cm)* SOIL**(%) 1,737 0.004 * PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 643 n PERFORMED lN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 417 "** PERFO~MED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 422 - . CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS · If! qJ; ti ~t fi"J. 11 ,..1ir liHt~ ~ Anemplqyeeownedcompa»y LIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRIC HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT CHECKED BY: r.s jFN: LAB CARl,.SBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO,: 51-5985·01 jDATE: 12/01 corrosion.xis CHLORIDE CONTENT*** (%) 0.011 FIGURE 8-6 l , SAMPLE SAMPLE SOIL DEPTH DESCRIPTION TYPE R-VALUE LOCATION (FT) (USCS) 82 1-5 Olive Brown Clay CL <5 89 d-4 Yellow Brown Clayey Sand SC 20 PERFORMED 'IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CAL TRANS STANDARD TEST METHOD 301 CHECKED BY: M.B. FN;LAB PROJECT NO.: 51-5985-01 12/01 rvaluerig.xls, R-VALUE TEST RESULTS OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECTS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-7 APPENDIXC Suggested Guidelines for Earthwork Construction k_,i KLEINFELDER . ' APPENDIXC SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR EARTHWORK _CONSTRUC'fION 1.0 GENERAL· 1.1 Scope ~ The work done under theses specifications shall include clearing, · stripping, removal of unsuitable material, excavation, preparation of natural soils, placement and compaction of on:-site and imported fill material and placement and compa?tion of pavement materials. 1.2 . Contractor.'s Responsibility -The Contractor shaq attentively examine the site in such a manner that he can correlate existing surface conditions with those presented in the geotechnical evaluation report. He shall sat1sfy himself that the quality and quantity of exposed materials and suhsurface soil· or rock deposits have been satisfactorily represented by the Geotechnical Engineer's report and project drawings. AnY discrepancy of prior knowledge to the Contractor to that is revealed through his evaluations shall ?e made known to the Owner. It is the Contractor''s responsibility to review the report prior to construction. The· selection of equipment for use on the project and the order of the work shall similarly. be the Contractor~s responsfbility: The Contractor shall be responsible for providing equiprilerit capable of completing the requjrements inc;:luded in th~ following sections. 1.3 Geotechnical Engineer -The work covered by these specifications shall ·be observed and tested by Kleinfelder, the Geotechnical Engineer, who shall be hired by the Owner. · -Thi· Geo technical Engineer will be present ~ming the 'site . preparation and gr1+ding to obse07e the work and to pei:forr.n the te~ts nec.essary to evaluate material quality and compaction. . The Geotechnical Engineer. shall submit a report to the Owner, including a tabulation of tests perfonned. The costs of re-testing unsuitable· work lllS~alled by the Contractors shall be dedu~ted by the Owner from the payments to the Contractor. 1.4 Standard Specifications -Where referred to in these specifications} 11Standard Specifications" ~hall mean the State of California Standard Speci~cations for Public Works Construction,. with Regional Supplement Amendments for San · Diego County, 2000 Edition. 51-598501611 iR840.doc Copyright 2001 ~lellifeldor, fnc, C-1 · . December 12, 2001 I ,, 1.5 Ill KLEINFELDER Compaction Test Method -Where referred to herein, relative compaction shall mean the in-place. dzy density of soil expressed as a percentage of the max~um dry density of the same material, ~s determined by the ASTM D 1557 Compaction Test Procedure. Optimum moisture content shall mean the moisture content at the maximum dzy density determined above. 2,0 SITE PREPARATION· 2.1 Clearin2 -Areas to be graded shall be cleared and grubbed of all vegetation and· debris. These materials shall be removed from the site by the Contractor. 2.2 Strippin~ -Surface soils containing roots and organic matter shall be stripped , from areas to be graded and stockpiled or discarded as directed by the Owner. In general, the depth of stripping of the ·topsoil will ~e approximately 3 inches. Deeper stripping, ~here required . to remove weak soils or accumulations of organic matter, shall be perfonned when detennined necessary by the Geotecbnical Engineer. Stripped material shall be re~oved from the site or stockpiled at a location designated by the Owner. 2.3 Removal of Existin~ Fill -Existing fill soils, trash and debris in the areas to be graded shall be removed prfor to the placing of any compacted· fill. Portions of .any existing fills that are suitable for use in new compacted fill may be stockpiled for future use. All organic materials, topsoil, expansive soils, oversized rock or other unsuitable material shall be removed from. the site by the Contractor or disposed of at ~ l~~ation on-site, if so designate~ by the Owner. 2.4 Ground 'surface -The $round surface exposed _by stripping shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to the proper moisture content for compaction and compacted as required for compacted filL Ground surface preparation shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placing fill. 3.0. EXCAVATION. 3.1 General -Excavations shall be made to the lines ·and grades indicated on the plans. The data presented in the Geotechnical Engineer's report is for information only and tJ1e Contractor shall make his o~n interpretation with regard to the metho~s and equipment necessary to P.erform the excavation and to obtain material suitable for fill. 51-59850115 n lR840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. December 12, 2001 :k_~ KLEINFELDER 3.2 Materials -Soils whicli are removed and -are unsuitable for fill shall be placed in nonstructural areas of the project, or .in deeper fills at locations designated by the Geotechnical Engineer. All oversize rocks and boulders that cannot be incorporated in the work by placing in embankments or used as rip-:rap or for other purpo~es shall be removed from the site by the Contractor. 3,3 Treatment of Exposed Surface -The ground surface exposed by excavation shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to the proper moisture content for compaction and compacted as required for compacted fill. Compaction shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placing fill. 3.4 Rock Excavation -Where solid rock is encountered in areas to be excavated, it shall be loosened and broken up ·so that no solid ribs, projections or large fragments wiffbe within 6 inches of the surface of the final subgrade. 4.0 COMPACTED FILL 4.1 Materials -Fill material shall consist of suitable on-site or imported soil. All materials used for structural fill shall be reasonably free of organic material, have a Expansion Index of 50 or less, 100%_ passing the 3 inch sieve and less than 30 percent passing the #200 sieye. 4.2 Placement ~ All fill materials shall be placed in layers of 8 inches or less in loose thickness an:d uniformly moisture conditioned. Each lift should then be compacted with a sheepsfoot roll~r or other approved compaction equipment to at least 90 percent relative compaction in ar~as under structures, utilities, roadways and parking areas. No fiq material shall be placed, spread or rolled while it is frozen or thawing, or during unfavorable weather conditions. 4.3 4.4 Compaction Equipment ~ The Contractor shall provide and use sufficient equipment of a type and weight suitable for the conditions encountered in the field. The equipment shall be capable of obtaining the required compaction in all areas, Recompaction -When, in the judgment of the Geotechnical Engineer, sufficient compactive effort has not been used, or where the field density tests indic_ate that 51-598501/51 I lR.840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, fnc. December 12, 200 l ill. l<LEINfELDER the required compaction or moisture content has not been obtained, or if pumping or other indications of instability are noted, the fill shall be reworked and recompacted as needed to obtain a stable :till at· the require~ density and moisture content before additional fill is placed. 4.5 Responsibility -The Contractor shall be responsible for the maintenance and protection of all embankments -iind fills made during the contract period and shall bear the expense of replacing any·portion which has become displaced due to carelessness, negligent work ot failure to take proper precautions. 5.0 UTILITY TRENCH BEDDING AND BACKFILL . . 5.1 Material -Pipe bedding shall be defined as all material within 4 inches of the perimeter and 12 inches over the top of the pipe. Material for use as bedding.shall be clean sand, gravel, crushed aggregate or native free~draining material, having a Sand Equivalent of not less than 30. · Backfill should be classified as all material within the remainder of the trench. Backfill shall meet the re~uirements set f~rth in Section 4.2.6 for compacted fill. 5.2 Placement and Compaction -Pipe bedding shall be placed in layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, conditioned to the proper moisture content for compaction and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. All other trench backfill shall be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 306-1.3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Mechanically Compacted BackfiII. Backfill shaJl be compacted as required for adjacent fill. If not specified, backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction in areas under structures, utilities, roadways, parking areas and concrete flatwork. 6.0 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE 6.1 General -Subsurface drainage shaII be constructed. as shown on the plans. Drainage pipe shall meet the requirements set forth in the Standard Specifications. ' 6.2 Materials -Permeable drain rock used for,su~drainage shall meet the following gradation requirements: 5 l-598501/5 l l 1R840.doc Copyright.200 l Kleinfelder, lnc. C-4 December 12, 2001 6.3 Sieve Size 3" 1-1/2" 3/411 No.4 No. 100 No. 200 Percenta{le Passing · 100 90·-100 50-80 24-40 0-4 0.-2 k.q_ KLEINFELDER Geotextile Fabric -Filter fabric $hall be placed between the permeable drain rock and native soils. Filter cloth shall have an equivalent opening size greater than the No. 100 sieve and a grab strength not less than 100 pounds. Samples of filter . fabric shall be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for. ~pproval before the material is brought to the site. 6.4 Placement and Compaction -Drain rock shall be placed in layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness and c9mpacted as required for adjacent fill, but in no case, to be less than 85 percent relative compaction. · Placemen.t of geotextile fabric shall be in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and shall be· checked by the Geotechnical Engineer. · 7.0 AGGREGATE BASE BENEATH CONCRETE SLABS · 7 .1 Materials -Aggregate base beneath c.op.crete slabs shall consist of clean .free- dra.ining sand, gravel .or crushed rock conforming to the following gradation requirements: Sieve Size 1" 3/8" No.20 Percent Passin2: 100· 30-100 0-10 7.2 Placement -Aggregate base shall be compacted and kept moist until placement of concrete. Compaction shall be by suitable vibrating compactors. Aggregate base shall be placed in layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Each layer shall be compacted by at least four passes of the compaction equipment or until 95 percent_ relative compaction has been obtained. 51-598501/51 I 1 R840.doc Copyright 200 I Kleinfelder, Inc. C-5 December 12, 2001 APPENDIXD ASFE Insert out Your - ------eotechnical. Engineering Repor- Geotechnical ServiciJs Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and P.ro}ects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet th~ spe- cific needs ofthelr clients. A geotechnical engineering study con- ducted for a cMI engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construc- tlori contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geot- echnical engineering study Is unique, each geotechnical engi- neering report ls unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who pre- pared it. And no one-not even you-should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contE;lmplated. ' · A Geotechnital Engineering Report Is Based on . A Unique set of ProJect .. specmc Factors · Geotechnical engineer$· consider a number of unique, .pr.oJect-spe- ciflc factors when establishing the sc:ope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management pref- erences: the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and .configuratiom the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site Improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utlltties. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the stuqy specifically indicates other- wise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before Important project changes wete made. Typical changes that can erode the rellabillty of an existing geotechnicaf engineering report include those that affect: · • the function of the proposed .structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, o~ientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your. geotechnlcal engineer of. project changes-even minor .ones-and request an assessment of their impact. Geoteohnical engineers cannot ac;cept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they wer~ not informed. ·. . . Subsurface Conditions can Change A geotechnlcal engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a · geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as constr.uction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before apply- ingthe report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions · Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnlcal engineers review field and laboratoty data and then app[y their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sub- surface conditions may differ-sometimes 'significantly-from those indicated In your report. Retaining the geotechnical eng~ neer who developed y9µt report to provide construction obser- vation Is· the most effective method of managing the risks asso- ciated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not (?Verrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recom- mendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during· construction. The geotecnnica/ engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations If that engineer does not perform . construction observation. A· Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject To Misinterpretation Other-design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnlcal engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnlcal engineer· confer witb appropriate meIT)bers of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pert[· nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providi~g construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnlcal 'engineers prepare ·f1n·a1 boring and testlhg logs .. based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included In a geotechnlcal engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion Jn architectural or other design drawings. Only photo·· graphic or electronic reproductlon is acceptable, but recognize that separ~ting logs from the report c~n-elevate risk. Give contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners· and design professionals mistakenly believe 1;hey can make contractqrs liable for urtar.iticipc1ted subsurface condi- tions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotech- rilcal engineering report, but prefac~ It with a clearly written let- ter of transmittal. ln that letter, advise contractors that the report · was not prepared for purposes of bid 9evelopment and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnlcal engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific typ~s of information they need or prefer. A prebld conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have suffi. cient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a, position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responslbilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. · Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do n.ot' recognize that geotechnical engineering ls far less exact than other engln~ering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that h,ave led to disappoint- ments, claims, and disputes. To help. reduce such risks, geot- echnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations",: many of these provisions Indicate where geotechnical engi- neers responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risl<s. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental concerns Are Not covered The equipment, ·techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvlronmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnlcal engineering tep9rt does not usually relate any geoenvlronmen- tal findings, conclusions, or r.~cory1mendatlons; e.g., about the likelihood of encounterrng· underground storage tanks or regu• lated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have Jed to numerous project faflures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical · consultant for ris~·managemen't.guidance. Do not rely on an environmental .report prepared for someqne else. Rely .. on Your Geotechriical Engineer tor Additional A~sistance Membership in ASFE exposes geotechnlca! engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine ben- efit for ev~ryone involved with a construotlon project, Confer with · your ASFE-me~ber geotechnlcal engineer for more Information. ASFE. · PROFESSIONAL FIRMS PRACTIClNG . . . IN THE GEOSCJENCES 8811 Colesville Road Suite G 106 Silver Spring, MD 2091 O Telephone: 301-565-2733 Facsimile: 301-589-2017 email: Jnfo~asfe.org www.asf~.o.rg Copyright 1998 by ASFS:, !no. Unless ASFE grants written permission to do so, duplication of this document by any means whatsoever Is expressly prohibited. Re-use ofthe wotdlng In thls dot;urnent, In whole or In part, also ls expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permlssion of ASF!; or for purposes of review or scholarly reseatch. · IIGER06983.5M ( I l APPENDIXE Application For Application To Use Ill KLEINFELDER APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO USE PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION . OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS AND ROAD PROJECT ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA December 12, 2001 TO: Kleinfelder, Inc. 5015 Shoreham Place san·Diego, California 92122 FROM:: (Name and address of person/entity applyi:pg for.permission to use or copy) Applicant ________________ hereby applies for permission to: (state the exact use(s) contemplated) '·-----------------,---------------- for the purpose(s) of:~---------------,--------- Applicant upderstands and agrees that (Document) is a copyrighted document, that Kleinfelder is the copyright owner and that unauthorized use or copying of (Document) is strictly prohibited without the express written permission of Kleinfelder. Applicant understands that Kleinfelder may withhold such permission at its sole discretion, or grant such permission upon such tem1s and conditions as it deems acceptable, such as the payment of a re-use fee. rug~ D~ ~.,______________ -------------'------ Cbmpany ______________ _,,Title ____________ _ 51-598501/5111R840.doc Copyright 2001 Kleinfelder, Inc. December 12, 2001 Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY June 25, 2009 Project No. 602632-001 To: · Olivenhain Municipal Water Distri.ct 1966 0 Ii venhain Road Encinitas, California 92024.,9761 Attention: Mr. George Briest Subject: Geotechnical Report Update, Grading Plan Review, and Value Engineering, Olivenhain Municipal Water District Headquarters, Encinitas, California References: Kleinfelder Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Headquarters and Road Improvement, Encinitas, California, Project No. 51-598501, dated December 12, 2001. Kleinfelder Inc., Addendum 1, Pre1iminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Headquarters and Road Improvement, Encinitas, California, Project No. 51-598501, dated December 4, 2003. CH2M Hill Construction Contract Documents, For the Construction of Phase One Olivenhain Headquarters BtJildiI1g "J" Project, dated May 11, 2009, 11 Sheets Total. In accordance with the request of Olivenhai.p Municipal Water District (OMWD), we have perfonned a geotechnical review of the above referenced documents and improvement plans (CH2M Hill, 2009), for the proposed Building "J'' with associated roadway and site improvements, located in Encinitas, California. The purpose of our geotechnical review was to identify potential conflicts with the project geotechnical report (Kleinfelder, 2001) and referenced improvement plan documents, and to provide updated seismic parameters for the project along with preliminary pavement recommendations based on recent R-Value testing that are appropriate for the interior driveways and parking areas for the project. ....... ----... ... .,,..-:._r~~HAIN / oV #'~f:JJ { ~\)~ :, \) '/_tlJ'?, ,,.,ti!j\?~1--. 'N\'->~' !,.) ~ ~s~ 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 Ill San Diego, CA 425 858.292.8030 ll Fax 858.292.0771 602632-001 Scope of Work We are providing this pre-grading analysis and a review of the geotechnical aspects of the grading, and improvement plans applicable to the site, as requested by the 0MWD. Such a review is generally meant to identify whether design information conflicts with the intent of geotechnical recommendations. Specifically, we have performed the following: • A site visit to verify that site conditions have not changed significantly from those described in the referenced geotechnical report. • Obtained one representative subgrade bulk sample for laboratory R-Value testing. • Performed value engineering regarding pavement sections recommended for interior project roadways and parking areas. • Performed a geotechnical review of the grading and improvement plans, to confinn recommendations and other remedial measures are properly identified. • Provided this letter updating the project geotechnical report and the results of our reviews, and provide updated 2007 CBC seismic parameters for the project, along with our value engineered pavement section recommendations. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations Based on our review, it is our opinion that the referenced geotechnical report is applicable for the proposed project provided the recommendations of this letter are incorporated into the project design. In addition, it is also our opinion that the plans were found to be in general agreement with the geotechnical recommendations made in the referenced report with the following comments: • Sheet Gl Soils Engineer Certificate; Leighton Consulting, Inc., William D. Olson, RCE 45283, should be identified as the Soils Engineer for all geotechnical observations and testing. • Sheet Gl; Work To Be Done: The project should also comply with 2007 California Building Code{CBC, 2007) requirements. • Sheet Gl: Work To Be Done: Item 6 should also reference this letter. • Sheet G4; Grading Notes: The following item should be added to the Grading Notes "Existing undocumented fill and alluvial soils within and 5 feet horizontally outside of the Building "J" footprint should be removed to a depth of 3 feet below the bottom of the foundation elevations. In addition, in the areas of proposed flatwork, driveway/parking areas and roadways, existing undocumented fill and alluvial soils should be removed to a depth of 2 feet below finish grade. In general, on-site materials are anticipated to be suitable for re-use. Unsuitable materials for reuse include organic materials and oversize materials in excess of 6 inches diameter. ~2- Leighton 602632-001 • Sheet G4; Grading Notes: Item 21 should .also include that import materials should be approved by the Geo technical Engineer of Record prior to importi,ition to the site. • Sheet 04; Grading Notes: Item 36 should also include a reference to this letter, which contains updated seismic recommendations and pavement recommendations for interior improvements. • Sheet G4; Soils Engineer Certificate: Leighton Consulting, Inc., William D. Olson, RCE 45283, should be identified as the Soils Engineer for all geotechnical observations and testing. • Sheet G4; Work To Be Done: Item 6 should also include a reference to this letter, which contains. updated seismic recommendations and pavement recommendations for interior improvements. • Sheet C2; Site Improvement Notes: Item 016 may utilize pavement recommendations for interior improvements contained within this letter. • Sheet Cl and C2; Site Improvement Ca.Houts: Sheets C7, C8, C9 and C14 are referred to, but are not included in referenced Plan Set. Preliminary Pavement Section The appropriate pavement section will ultimately depend on the type of subgrade soil, shear strength, traffic load, and planned pavement life. In summary, a full evaluation of the actual subgrade soils cannot be made at this time; however, we did obtained a soil sample from the central portion of the driveway immediately north of the proposed Building "J" and performed an R-value test. Results of testing indicated that the soil has an R-Value of 43. Based on recent and previous R-value testing and our experience with similar soil in that area, we have assumed an R-value of 30 jn oro.er to develop the preliminary pavement sections for parking areas and driveways. In addition, we have selected or assumed Traffic Indices (TI) of 4.5 and 7 to represent the anticipated traffic loading of parking and driveway pavements, respectively. The pavement sections presented on the table below are to be used for preliminary planning purposes only. Final pavement designs should be verified after R-value tests have been performed on actual subgrade materials. Preliminary Pavement Section Traffic Index Preliminary Pavement Section 4.5 (Parking) 4 inches AC over 4 inches Class 2 Aggregate Base 7 (Driveway) 4 inches AC over lO inches Class 2 Aggregate Base It should be noted that in accordance with City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards (2004), a minimum AC thickness of 4 inches is required. Asphalt Concrete (AC) and Class 2 aggregate base should confonn to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications. Prior to placing the pavement section, the subgrade soils should have a relative compaction of at least 95 percent to a minimum depth of 12 -3- Leighton 602632-001 inches (based on ASTM Test Method D 1557). Aggregate Base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D 1557) prior to placement of the AC. If pavement areas are adjac.ent to heavily watered landscaping areas, we recommend some measures of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. It is recommended that the concrete curbing, separating the .landscaping area from the pavement, extend below the aggregate base to help seal the ends of the sections where heavy landscape watering may have access to the aggregate base. Concrete swales should be designed if asphalt pavement is used for drainage of surface waters. For areas subject to regular truck loading, we recorrunend a minimum section of 8 inches of Portland cement concrete (PCC) over 4 inches of Class 2 aggregate base. The PCC pavement section should be provided with appropriate crack-control joints as designed by the project structural engineer. If sawcuts are used, they should be a minimum depth of ¼ the slab thickness and made within 8 hours of concrete placement. We recommend that PCC pavement utilize a concrete mix design with a minimum 28-day strength of3,250 psi. The upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method I) 1-557 prior to placement of aggregate base. The aggregate base layer should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. Seismic Parameters The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southern California are surface rupturing of fault traces and damage caused by strong ground shaking or seismically induced ground settlement. Historically, the San Diego ·region has been spared major destructive earthquakes. The site is considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of Southern California. The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by .adhering to the California Building Code or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. Secondary effects associated with severe ground shaking following a relatively large earthquake can include shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, earthquake-induced settlement, and tsunami~/seiches. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are discussed in the project report referenced above. The following table below presents geotechnical design parameters that have been determined in accordance with the 2007 CBC. 4 -4- Leighton 602632-001 Table l CBC (2007) Seismic Code -Parameters for the Site Description Values CBC Reference Site Class D Table 1613.5.2 Short Period Spectral Acceleration Ss 1.172 Figure 1613.5(3) !-Second Period Spectral Acceleration S1 0.438 Figure 1613.5(4) Short Period Site Coefficient Fa 1.031 Table 1613.5.3(1) I-Second Period Site Coefficient Fv 1.562 Table 1613 .5 .3(2) Adjusted Short Period Spectral Acceleration SMs 1.208 Equation 16-37 Adjusted 1 ~Second Period Acceleration SM, 0.685 Equation 16-38 Design Short Period Spectral Response Parameter Sos 0.805 Equation 16-39 Design I-Second Period Spectral Response Parameter S01 0.457 Equation 16-40 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Distribution: (2) Addressee Respectfully submitted, Robert Stroh, CEG 2099 Senior Project Geologist William D Olson, RCE 45283 Associate Engineer -5- Leighton Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LElGHTON GROUP COMPANY July 27, 2009 To: Olivenhain Municipal Water District 1966 Olivenhain Road Encinitas, California 92024-9761 Attention: Mr. George Briest Project No. 602632-001 Subject: Results of Additional Expansion Index Testing, Building J, Olivenhain Municipal Water District Headquarters, Encinitas, California References: Leighton, Geotechnical Report Update, Grading Plan Review, and Value Engineering, Olivenhain Municipal Water District Headquarters, Encinitas, California, dated June 25, 2009. Kleinfelder Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Headquarters and Road Improvement, Encinitas, California, Project No. 51-598501, dated December 12, 2001. Kleinfelder Inc., Addendum 1, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Headquarters and Road Improvement, Encinitas, California, Project No. 51-598501, dated December 4, 2003. CH2M Hill Construction Contract Documents, For the Construction of Phase One Olivenhain Headquarters Building "J" Project, dated May 11, 2009, 11 Sheets Total. In accordance with the request of Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD), we have performed. geotechnical sampling and expansion index testing for the proposed Building "J'' with associated roadway and site improvements, located in Encinitas, Califomia. The purpose of our geotechnical services was to obtain soil samples in addition to those presented in the original Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (Kleinfelder, 2001) within the proposed cut area of the project to further identify the extent and expansive characteristic of the cut materials, and to provide additional geotechnical recommendations relative to site grading. 39~ Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 8205 P San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.569.6914 11 Fax 858.292.0771 P www.leightonconsultinq.com 602632-001 In summary, Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD) excavated three backhoe test pits in the proposed cut area to depths ranging between 4 and 7 feet below current site grades, which extended down to proposed cut depths. Geotechnical observations of the test pits indicated that in the area is underlain by shallow fills ranging between 1 and 2 feet in thickness, which are in-turn underlain by the Delmar Fonnation to the total depth explored. At each exploration location, the Delmar Fonnation was ob$erved to consist of silty claystone. Representative soil samples of the Delmar Fonnation were taken and returned to our laboratory for preliminary expansion potential testing. The results of the expansion potential testing indicate that soils at the proposed cut depths have an expansion index ranging fi:om 57 to 75, which is considered to be a Medium expansion potential based on Table 18-I-B of the Unifonn Building Code (UBC). Based on the results of our additional testing, we are of the opinion that the excavated cut materials are suitable for re-use in the proposed engineered fill materials provided they are properly moisture conditioned (as discussed below), free of organic material, debris and cobbles, and do not have an expansion index of greater than 90. Note that the use of a Medium expansion potential soil in asphalt pavement areas will adversely affect the pavement section design (i.e., having a lower R- value, which will increase the thickness for the aggregate base material). All fill soils should be moisture conditioned to at least 3 percent above the optimum moisture content and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D 1557). The optimum. lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. The conclusions and recommendations in this letter are based in part upon data that were obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. Such infonnation is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this letter can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. -2-Leighton 602632-001 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. Distribution: -3- William D. Olson, RCE 45283 Associate Engineer Leighton AS-GRADED REPORT OF ROUGH, FINE, AND POST GRADING, OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, PHASE ONE, BUILDING "J", WO 179934 ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Olivenhain Municipal Water District 1966 Olivenhain Road Encinitas, California 92024 Project No. 602705-001 December 11, 2009 4' Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIG'HTON GROUP COMPANY To: Attention: Subject: Introduction December 11, 2009 Olivenhain Municipal Water District 1966 Olivenhain Road Encinitas, California 92024 Mr. George R. Briest Project No. 602705-001 As-Graded Report of Rough, Fine, ~d Post Grading, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Phase One -Building "J", WO 179934, Carlsbad, California In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton) has performed geotechnical observation and testing services during the rough, fine, and post grading operations for the Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Phase One -Building "J" project located in Carlsbad, California. This report summarizes our geotechnical observations, field and laboratory test results, and the geotechnical conditions encountered during the rough, fine, and post grading operations of the site. The conclusions and recommendations presented in the project geotechnical investigation and addendums (Kleinfelder, 2001, 2003; and Leighton, 2009a, 2009b) are still considered pertinent and applicable to the development of the project. As of the date of this report, the rough, fine and post grading activities for this phase of the project are complete, with the exception of some rem.aining post grading tasks. Specifically, other phases of work will he utilized to complete the remaining post grading tasks such as the construction of underground utilities, excavations for foundation improvements, concrete and asphalt paving for the driveways and parking areas .. · 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 8205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.569.6914 • Fax 858.292,0771 a www.leiqhtonconsultinq.com 602705-001 Site Location and Improvements The site is located within Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD) property located at 1966 Olivenhain Road, Encinitas, California (Figure 1). It should be noted that the OMWD's mailing address is defined as Encinitas; however, the property is actually within the City of Carlsbad and is under the purview of City of Carlsbad. fu summary, the project improvements included new asphalt driveways and parking areas, a concrete pavement loading area, and a Building "J" pad. Site grading generally consisted of remedial grading with shallow overexcavations and fills on the order of 5 feet in depth to create the building pad and pavement areas. A variable cut slope 2:1 to 6:1 (horizontal: vertical), approximately 14 feet high, was also graded along the northern portion of the site. Elsewhere across the site only minor grading was required. Summary Rough, Rne & Post Grading Operations The rough and fine grading operations for the project were performed by Sierra Pacific West, fuc. between October 7, 2009 and October 30, 2009. The grading activities were performed under the observation and testing of a representative of Leighton in accordance with the project geotechnical recommendations and project specifications (Appendix A), recommendations made during the course of grading, and the requirements of the City of Carlsbad. It should be noted that site grades were modified slightly (RBF, 2009) to provide temporary drainage across portions of the site. Our field technician was on-site on a full-time basis while our field geologist and office personal were on-site on an as-needed basis during the grading operations. The grading included: 1) site preparation and removal of potentially compressible alluvium and existing undocumented artificial fill; 2) overexcavation of the building pad; and 3) the placement of compacted fill soils. The post grading operations for the project were performed between October 23, 2009 and November 5, 2009. Post grading operations included: 1) compaction of pavement subgrade soils; and 2) aggregate base material placement and compaction. Compaction testing and observation during the post grading was perfonned by representatives of our firm who were on-site on a full- time basis. Rough and Fine Grading • Site Preparation and Remedial Grading Prior to remedial grading, the areas of the proposed improvements were stripped of surface vegetation and debris, and existing improvements were demolished. These materials were consolidated and hauled away for disposal off-site. fu addition, a relatively large soil stock pile located in the southern portion of the site was exported off-site. Some minor localized -2- Leighton 602705-001 concrete and pavement debris were broken up into fragments less than 6-inches in dimension and were incorporated into the deeper, non-structural portions of the fill area. It should be noted that during rough grading operations, an unknown and abandoned concrete septic tank was encountered and removed. The resulting excavation bottom was scarjfied, and fill soil was moisture conditioned to generally 3 percent above the optimum moisture content, and recompacted ,to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). In addition, a buried fiberglass boat and trailer (i.e., partially crushed debris) were exposed during the remedial grading for the concrete pavement &rea near Building "J". The debris was located approximately 5 feet east of the·proposed building footprint. Following discussions with OMWD regarding the debris, OMWD directed the contractor to further crush the debris using heavy equipment and leave it in-place. Subsequently, approximately 3 feet of fill was placed over the debris. In general, the fill in that area was observed to be non-yielding when proof rolled by heavy construction equipment. The approximate location of the debris is depicted on Figure 2. in summary, the remedial grading for the building pad consisted of removing the existing undocumented fill and alluvial soils within and 5 feet horizontally outside of the building footprint to a depth of 3 feet below the bottom of the foundation elevations. The resulting . removal bottom was then scarified to a minimum .depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to generally 3 percent above the optimum moisture content and recompacte.d to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). For reference, the elevations of remedial removal depths are recorded on Figure 2. Remedial grading for the proposed fl.atwork, driveway/parking areas and roadways consisted of removing existing undocumented fill and alluvial soils to a depth of 2 feet below finish · grade. The resulting removal bottoms were then scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to generally 3 percent above the optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). It should be noted, that undocumented fill soils located on the southwestern portion of the project were left in-place. Therefore, this area is not considered suitable for the placement of future settlement sensitive improvements. • Fill Placement and Compaction The existing site soils were used to construct the building pad and to achieve grade beneath the improvements. In general, the fill soil was spread in 4-to 8-inch loose lifts; moisture conditioned, as needed, to attain generally 3 percent above the optimum moisture content, and -3- Leighton ) 602705-001 compacted in accordance with the recommendations of our addendum letter (Leighton, 2009b ). Field density test results performed during the grading operations indicated the fill soils were compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Compaction of the fill was achieved by use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Areas of fill in which field density tests indicated compactions less than the recommended relative compaction or where the soils exhibited nonuniformity or had field moisture contents less than the required moisture content were reworked. the reworked areas were recompacted, and re- tested until the recommended minimum relative compaction and moisture content was achieved. • Field Density Testing Field density testing and observ~tions were performed using the Nuclear-Gauge Method (ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017). The approximate test locations are shown on the Field Density Test Map (Figure 2). The results of the field density tests· are summarized in Appendix B. The field density testing was performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM Standards, the current standard of care in the industry, and the precision of the testing method itself. Variations in relatj.ve compaction should pe expected from the results documented herein. • Laboratory Testing Laporatory maximum dry density tests of representative on-site soils were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method Dl557. Expansion potential and soluble sulfate content tests of representative finish grade soils were performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829 and standard geochemical methods, respectively. R-Value testing was · performed on representative subgrade soils to confirm that preliminarily recommended pavement sections were appropriate. The laboratory test results indicate the building pad finish grade soils possess a medium expansion potential (less than 90) and negligible soluble sulfate content. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. Post Grading • Structural Pavement Sections Prior to placement of the aggregate base material, a representative subgrade soil sample was collected for the asphalt parking and driveway pavement areas for an R-V alue test. Test results indicate an R-value of 17. Based on an R-value of 17 and an assumed traffic index (Tl) of 6, a 10-inch layer of Class II aggregate base was selected by OMWD for the pavement section in the -4- Leighton 602705-001 driveway areas. It should be noted that based on an earlier assessment (Leighton, 2009a) the on- site soils were more clayey than originally anticipated and OMWD elected to increase the minimum thickness of the Class II aggregate base from 4 to 6 inches in the parking areas. The aggregate base materials were placed and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of their respective maximum dry densities (based on ASTM Test Method D1557) and above optimum moisture content. It should be noted that asphalt concrete materials or concrete slab pavements were not placed during this phase of the project. The field density test results for the·subgrade soil and aggregate base material testing are summarized in Appendix B. • Field and Laboratory Testing Field density tests were performed during the placement and compaction of subgrade soil and aggregate base material during the post-grading operations at the site. Density tests were performed in general accordance with the Nuclear-Gauge Method (ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017). The results and approximate locations of the field density tests performed are summarized in Appendix B. The field density testing was performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM standards, the current standard of care in the industry, and the precision of the testing method itself. Variations in relative compaction should be expected from the results documented herein. As indicated in Appendix B, areas in which field density test results were less than the required minimum 95 relative compaction were reworked, recompacted, and re-tested until the minimum 95 percent relative compaction was achieved. Representative samples of the native soil and imported base material placed and compacted during the post-grading operations were tested for maximum dry density and optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM Test Method Dl557. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. Geologic Units With the exception of more clayey and expansive materials e:o.countered locally within the Delmar Formation, the geologic units encountered during the rough grading were generally as anticipated, and consisted of undocumented fills, alluvium, and the Delmar Formation, as discussed in the geotechnical investigation (Kleinfelder, 2001; Leighton, 2009a and 2009b). The approximate areal extent of these units, as encountered, is depicted on Figure 2. -5- Leighton 602705-001 Faulting Based on our geologic mapping during rough grading, it is our continued opinion that there are no faults within the subject property. Landslides Based on our geologic mapping during rough grading, it is our continued opinion -that there are no landslides within the subject property. Expansion Potential and Soluble Sulfate Content Testing of Finish Grade Soils The expansion potential and soluble sulfate content tests were performed on representative finish grade soils of the building pads. The test results indicate the finish grade soils have a medium expansion potential (per ASTM Test Method D4829) and negligible soluble· sulfate content. The test results and procedures are presented in Appendix C. Conclusions Based on our geotechnical observations and testing, the grading operations were performed in general accordance with the project geotechnical reports and addendums (Appendix A), the geotechnical aspects of the project specifications, geotechnical recommendations made during the course of grading, and the City of Carlsbad requirements. It is our professional opinion that the site is suitable for the intended use. Limitations The presence of our field representative at the site was intended to provide the owner with professional advice, opinions, and recommendations based on observations of the contractor's work. Although the observations did not reveal obvious deficiencies or deviations from project specifications, we do not guarantee the contractor's work, nor do our services relieve the contractor or his subcontractor's work, nor of their responsibility if defects are subsequently discovered in their work. Our responsibilities did not include any supervision or direction of the actual work procedures of the contractor, his personnel, or subcontractors. The conclusions in this report are based on test results and observations of the grading and earthwork procedures used and represent our engineering opinion as to the compliance of the results with the project specifications. -6- Leighton 602705-001 If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. W,e appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. Robert C. Stroh, CEG 2099 Senior Project Geologist/ Project Manager Attachments: Figure 1 -Site Location Map William D. Olson, RCE 45283 Associate Engineer Figure 2 -Density Test Location Map Appendix A -References Appendix B -Summary of Field Density Tests Appendix C -Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Distribution: ( 6) Addressee -7- Leighton Raenefte Abbey From: Mike Peterson Sent: To: Tuesday, February 23, 201 0 2:57 PM Bob Wojcik; Will Foss C~: Subject: Raenette Abbey; Janet Altar; Barbara Hale-Carter; Gary Barberio RE: CFO 1 Bob- I have verified with the County tax assessor that OMWD does not receive a property tax bill and will be exempt from CFD 1 fees on their project . Mike From: Bob Wojcik [mailto:bobw@hofmanplanning.com] . Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 12:48 PM To: Will Foss Cc: Mike Peterson Subject: RE: CFD 1 Will, Mike has given use his determination and requested that OMWD submit its articles of incorporation to prove that it is _a public agency exempt from the CFD. We are appealing Mike's request for this. Thus, I had left a phone message for Gary. As their title states, Olivenhain MUNICIPAL Water District, is the same as CMWD, ie a public agency. As a sister public agency they feel that being asked to prove their family lineage is a bit of an insult. Any assistance in resolving this quickly is appreciated. Thanks, Bob Bob Wojcik Director of Engineering Hofman Planning and Engineering 3152 Lionshead Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92010 · (760) 692-4020 bobw@hofinanplanning.com From: Will Foss [mailto:Will.Foss@carlsbadca.gov] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 11:23 AM To: bobw@hofmanplanning.com Cc: Mike Peterson Subject: CFD 1 Bob, 1 A We are looking in to whether or npt CFO fees are applicable to the OMWD project. Mike or myself Will get back to you as- soon as•possible. Will .· «~ ~ CITY or CARLSBAD Will Foss Building Official City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 T 160-602-2716 F 760-602-8560 2 ' ,_. «~ ~ CITY ,OF .CARLSBAD CERTIFICATION OF SCHOOL FEES PAID B-34 R Oi\S9 Development Services Building Department 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov This form must be completed by the City, the applicant, and the app~opriate school districts and returned to the City prior to issuing a building permit. The City w'ill not issue any building permit without a completed school fee form. Project Name: OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Building Permit Plan Check Number: CB092046 Project Address: 1966 OLIVEN HAIN RD A.P.N.: 255 040 56 00 Project Applicant OMWD -----------------------------(Owner Name): Project Description: NEW OPERATIONS/OFFICE BLDG Building Type: Residential: New Dwelling Unit(s) Square Feet of Livlng Area in New Dwelling Second Dwelling Unit: Square Feet of Living Area in SOU Residential Additions: Net Square Feet New Area Commercial/Industrial: 11,461 Net Square Feet New Area City Certification of Applicant Information: ~ Date: 02/03/2010 SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD D Carlsbad Unified School District 6225 El Camino Real Carlsbad CA 92009 (331-5000) D Vista Unified School District 1234 Arcadia Drive Vista CA 92083 (726-2170) D San Marcos Unified School District 215 Mata Way San Marcos, CA 92069 (290-2649) Contact: Nancy Dolce (By Appt. Only) . D Encinitas Union School District .~$an Dieguito Union High School District -101 South Rancho Santa Fe Rd 710 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 (944-4300 ext 166) Encinitas, CA 92024 (753-6491) Certification of Applicant/Owners. The person executing this declaration ("Owner'') certifies under penalty of perjury that (1) the information provided above is correct and true to the best of the Owner's knowledge, and that the Owner - will file an amended certification of payment and pay the additional fee if Owner requests an increase in the number of dwelling units or square footage after the building permit is issued or if the initial determination of units or square footage .is found to be incorrect, and that (2) the Owner is the owner/developer of the above described project(s), or that the person executing this declaration is authorized to sign on behalf of the Owner. Signature: Date: -------------------- B-34 Page 1 of2 Rev. 03/09 SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FEE CERTIFICATION (To be completed by the school district(s)) *************************************************************************************************** WILL BE SATISFIED. SCHOOL DISTRICT: The undersigned, being -duly authorized by the applicable School District, certifies that the developer, builder, or owner has satisfied the obligation for school facilities. Thi_s is to certify that the applicant listed on page 1.has paid all amounts or completed other applicable school mitigation determined by the School District. The City may issue building permits for this project. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIAL TITLE NAME OF SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE PHONE NUMBER ·B:34 .· .. J -Joln1 Addleman Director of Planning & .J (t ., Financial Management SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIS'IRICT ' ·. : Rev:. 03/09 ,,.•,: _, -!• l Date: 02-09-10 RECEIPT No. 9159 FOR: School Fees Prepared by 1cm Plan File Number: CB092046 Owner's name: Site Address: APN# 255-040-56 Olivenhain Municipal Water District 1966 Olivenhain Rd Unit Type E Square Footage :'.;om. Splitt-Demo 11461 0 Net Sq Footage 11461 San Dieguito Union High School District-------,-----------, Rate Com. Splitt-Demo Rate Secured/Misc. Fee Received from n/a Other Rate Com. Splitt-Demo Rate Secured/Misc. Fee $0.000 $0.000 $0.00 $0.000 $0.000 $0.00 Comments: Exempt -Public Agency Fee Subtotal Com. Split/Demo Subtotal Total Fee Check# n/a Fee Subtotal Com. Split/Demo Subtotal Total Fee Check# $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Applicants may protest their fees under Government Code 66020. Anyone filing a protest on the imposition of fees allowable under Goverment Code section 65995 Education Code Section 17620 must do so within ninety (90) days from payment of the fee. 12/28/2010 09:21 P.002/009 ·. i 505(D 1 ENTERED JUL 2 7 20,o ..P,.......-=~=~--Ck. t) OffllCI: use ONLY ~~O\ .~ u,,,~ l O<Dl)l.{b SAN 01eoo REGIONAL ""' 2sa-<ea&~ HAZARDOUS-MATERIALS Q ESTfONNAIRE a,0Ai1 t, ,q, o9 753-6466 A 255-040-56 Brltlly dNDllbt IMMllluf IIIIM!ol: ldl/lrllltC!1be prapo111cf ~1 M~ gip•l wat•~ district ~onstr\J~tion ot Ope~ationa Building 11 , ao tl«B oate ~•v: ____________________ ___ DA~ 'I --. COlltlly ci(.!:an 01,p-DEii -H~~-Malcual~ l)ivJJIQfl ~ ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD SEWER DISTRICT CERTIFICATION B-36 Development Services Building Department 1635 Faraday Avenue 760-602-2719 www.carlsbadca.gov ~ Leucadia Sewer District 1960 La Costa Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92009 760-753-0155 D Vallecitos Sewer District 201 Vallecitos de Oro San Marcos, CA 92069 760-7 44-0460 The following project has been submitted for building permits: Plan Check No. ...,.C~6~09,...2..,.0.....,46"'-".-----------------""-D""'at.,,.e__..0,..2....,/0""3,.../2..,.0""'"'10.._ Property Owner OUVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Project Address 1966 OLIVENHAIN RD FEB l 7 2010 Project Description NEW 11,461 SF OPERATIONS/OFFICE BLDG City Certification: ~ ~-Date: 02/03/201 O Please fndicate in the space below tha~ the owner has entered into an agreement to have your agency provide public sewer service to lhe premises; and/or if the existing service is adequate for this project. Permits will not be issued until this form is completed and returned to our office . •••••..••......•..••..•. , ....•................................•..............................•...•....••.••..•...... . . . . This space to be completed by District Personnel ents for sewer service have been satisfied. ~ Approved b,6,,,-'~---,.--..w:;;..... _______ Date._7..._/_/_!~/~/_D __ : · FIELD SERVICE SPECIALIST : Title ___ ----,-_____________ .....,...,,=TT'"........, ________ _ i FlE\..,D $ERVICE SF'EC!AUS I '······································~··········································································· 8-36 Page 1 of 1 Rev. 03/09 VIYIYYU-CUILU 1'111::VV "IU,44:.! :Sf-.LL ____ _ ~,._.,..,i,,......,~ ... ~f I 'o, c..l.~ (1·' hii~k:,! .._,.,,...,-Q':t#F,..l .. "?'1tb' t='CI t"K:f _,..,,,...,..., •--r-•-· ·-~-·, .. ~.-·..,·-··-·-, .. --~-~ .. ,._ .. 1~8/09 /;)-j IS: 1 Jr6}lo I [t90j(O ,,, 10 G\"rY I f!,\~ ..,._ t:;66-IL i..JJ/-6~, en~ -1--pAv,'j ~C.S e~ (_.L.f'Y\ ~@_Fe· ~:u=-4 r=,~ 1I--., F''-re. ~ § ,. ~IL t.O I ~,LS 1 6u.p • :st-tw.<!fs J etl~j 1 ~-~ ~atkr ~~ -,, '6~fe on bcd/i.rt:t:Jm t / :J-'6} IV ~6' 1,t__. C.,L.-tY\. ~)~}ro ~--re ~fC i' { 11 /10 ,Cdvl .{d #W ~~ A~ Cir7U:fo ':I/ ~ to [J t, IL J 17M,<..-lf'. 1» 7/-~ Wf ~~ c1;-ffuiJ~S~ 2.( Vo/10-~~@ rr::-: .)-'lHt ¼~~-4'(!_- o\~1 \ 10 rh::r:: -JJ N.,.n-~ tr'; ~ . ~~~ . ~[to --C,TtA 5e;r-gErJT -in [S61·L. w/f:CR 10-'==,I ~}2>-1 ) ro -:s., 95 (J..J€D OV[K ¢ • Approved Date Building 2 · Z.h-//') Planning t:2-/;)->j OG/ Engineering 1-:2-l<J Fire t:>/8nf ,o HazMat Ll11tD APCD Health Forms/Fees Sent Rec'd . CFO $/'ti .9-(::S I 'tO e:\l ~ l ~ l Encina ~ .. ,Of\ f>I• rind I Fire HazHealthAPCD PE&M /1/5/J-ri t::,J1qtro -LSchool~ ,.;r s\ro .:J 11 YI lD ~ Sewer ~ ..!l: al,f"'."l -5. \iv/tr? Stormwater V ... PFF 11 ,-, fJ ,-,-~ l,R ~ I KL. Comments Date Date Date Building 1-z_/1s !/~Ju Planning Engineering 1/13) ,o ~/3/tO Fire ll!-¥1?'1 1/2.b/ ro Need? - (Inn.ht~ -.• .L-:Tfi1~ 17. t t-fl/\ V ~ Application Complete? y N Fees Complete? y N DCV By -V vr,c I ~ .J4A ~ ., ' /J_ I ~ --· -- Due? B_y y N I'. { l y N , \I y N y N ---y Nr. ll""~ v /NY I II AJ--- y ,/ft) IA- y N y N y N _v N JWy N ~.6- Date I I o'q6ne ~one ODone D Dorie Doane By: By: .. J I ! SEE REVISIOl\!S) SCANNED SEPARATELY