The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2042 CORTE DEL NOGAL; I; 84-407; PermitCity of Carlsbad 1200 ELM. CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • TEL (619) 438 5525 MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPT r^,ess 2£4£G?RTE.O3L, rto^Au °- fHm^AlRRPCT- ^Sf/W AMrs g s (5^ UIMPA vis^ OK. °'"5cn TTVjrr^z'P^^^l!TellH-3f^ Contractor j J L«l,-*AT?h>l CZ>W5TKt£?n&t4 M"5S Win UHC* VISTA' WIV& Clly SAKJ M^/rslap<?2&W Te'7^-3/3^ *-- 027267 - A -- COMPLETE FOR PLAN CHECK ONLY LEGAL DESCRIPTION *-£/{ j~2 ~~ Gf\t ^^."^T^ ASSESSORS PARCEL NO L, \ 3> {Qfo ' ^P DESCRIPTION OF WORK ""^fe? i D 1 fY? ^M^ 1 ' n ' j , Ci>n^W^?^L i^8 ^ PLAN ID NO f*f'*fOl \*r DESIGNER ADDRESS f^O M M t)A V i"Sf^ PHONE -*M i*X?&> CONTACT PERSON 1 ( ^'* \ A XI/i // / //H f^/, I/K /(// ^/^fSinnatiireof ApnhnantX J/Z).!-JCi>\ 1 MX Rate C-> / J f M 1^- -n ^. -- - MISCELLANEOUS FEE RECEiPT^'"1 .".'i j. i,.i,L' j V-U \^l\\Jt -i~ • PLAN CHECK FEE " 0100008806 n VALUATION ^o. mrf°II !~1 DEMOLITION l~~i HOUSE MOVING .I"! PARKS AND RFCRFATION FFF * l~1 PIIRI 1C FAHI1 ITIFS FFE 1 ' SCHOOL FFF DISTRICT ! '' Carlshari i 1 Fncmita.q 1 ! San Diego Pb^A '^^ i ' San Marcos i :~\ CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ,-j !~1 n n n n n n n n TOTAL FEE /,--'L/art^ 'WARNING PLAN CHECK FEES WHERE NO ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE APPLICANT IN 180 DAYS AND NO BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED ARE FORFEITED TO THE CITY COMMENTS J White — Applicant Yellow — File Pink — (1) Finance (2) Data Process Gold — Assessor ESGIL CORPORATION 932O CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 122 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (619) 56O-1468 v£ / Datet Jurisdiction Prepared byt VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE p Bldg. Dept, D Esgil PLAN CHECK NO. BUILDING ADDRESS APPLICANT/CONTACT ~To &U BUILDING OCCUPANCY __ Jf/'& TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION PHONE NO.3/3 ^> DESIGNER PHONE CONTRACTOR PHONE BUILDING PORTION y 4^^0^ a' Air Conditioning Commercial Residential Res. or Comm. Fire Surinklers Total Value BUILDING AREA >> 7^^=^ VALUATION MULTIPLIER •^ § 2.80 P 2.40 @ 1.50 VALUE Q^44^)<5 / ygod / Fee Adjusted To Reflect D Energy Regulations (Fee x 1.1) 0 Handicapped Regulations (Fee x 1.065) Building Permit Fee $ Plan Check Fee $ 3 ^' ^ ^) COM MENTS: racitic itoot otractarcs BOO W. QROVI AVI. - ORANGE. CALIF. 02066 (714) 6374200 • (213) 62MSOB CONTRACTORS LICINSI NO. 176982 «T_ DATi. Of 2- ^ &*./* r/A/4 Pejtu. /A/ A -< PRS-1S -L^«Paelflc K»»f Strictarcs 600 W. OROVI AVL .ORANGE, CALIF. 92666 (714) 637-620O- (213) 623-6608 CONTRACTORS LICENSE NO. 176982 SM n ii ^ m I -f- ^- [__ ^ %, ^ CM > b_ ff •" 1 i \ I ft- 4- -A T 4- -4 — t 1 >*" 4 H r /4 « h -4 -r- -»« ^•fc •[ f— "*<$ ^fy* ft ALL (7) PRS-19 (619) 568 7210 9696 BUSINE&SPAHK AVENUE SAN DIEGO CA92131 .,OB l£~4"{- £.)/( RHFFT NO / OF CAI rill ATFn BV ^CHECKED BY _ /Wf 4-/i s 84-013 ^^ r.Ai F HATF - OATF J \VAUu. H-y. *.. n Jfe^L. 6L9* -.14 f,J 6 " £zJ^ltvD_^.ft C ,<?_3 _ AflL—nuTiiS^T^LJ^lff^ 11. 466 5 ^ ,,r- ;7> la" J 84073 (619) 566 7210 9696 BUSINESSPARK AVENUE SANOiEGO CA 92)31 JOB SHEET NO . OF CALCULATED BY . CHECKED BY -DATE . . DATE . ..?_ 4'-o" SL .-2,1*)- _ 0 . ...... U3 41-0^-* J OMJ (619) 566 7210 9696 BUSINESS?ARK AVENUE SAN DIEGO CA 92131 JOB SHEET NO ..SCALE CALCULATED BY . ^CHECKED BY DATE. DATE. (619) 566 7210 9696 BUS.NESSPARK AVENUE SAN DIEGO CA 92131 4! -fi." _ ie r A JP * SLU. 5 S S ............... ^ ....... 1^3 ......... _______ . 1 V > <41 (619| 566 7210 9696 SUSINESSPARK AVENUE SAN DIEGO CA 92131 JOB SHEET NO -SCALE. CALCULATED BY. CHECKED BY .DATE. . DATE . >H JL . 13s ..... - £4 a . -33 3.. .- -2 J (619) 566 7210 9696 BUSINESSPARK AVENUE SAN DIEGO CA92131 JOB SHEET NO . OF ..SCALE. CALCULATED BY . ^CHECKED BY .DATE. .DATE. __ •-V} < _i =.. 44^. J o -^8V073 (619)5667210 9696 BUSINESSPARK AVENUE SAN DIEGO CA 92131 JOB SHFFT ND DF .SCALE CALCULATED BY . ^CHECKED BY gl/073 (619)566 7210 9696 BUSINESSPARK AVENUE SAN DIEGO CA 92131 JOB SHEET NO . OF ..SCALE CALCULATED BY . CHECKED BY .DATE. .DATE. l-\ »n AJ ff i*" It*'I /. \J*~tJLs*- T 7. ~T-**"• ~ ' ^ ^f •••••**- ^_I5 o__ A_G, Qi « ,A , „ _., JLAU 5.7.^5vO_.t .../ -S vr.-T 8Y073 (619) 566 7210 9696 BUSINESS?ARK AVENUE SAN DIEGO CA 92131 JOB SHEET NO . OF -SCALE CALCULATED BY . CHECKED BY .DATE. .DATE. .5J11- 3..p *- Wn,- ...I So, _JL_£. 6O_J1 ]) . o... 4 3>.e i > 8V073 (619) 566 7210 9696 BUSINESSPARK AVENUE SAN DIEGO CA 92131 r .IOR RHPFT NH OF r.Ai nil ATFn BY r.HFrKFD RV •IT"! I'l"?- ' SPAI f: DATE DATF ::z:::i.!z;x: L* I o : JL_.:V .F/c._<J^O-^- J February 5, 1985 FEB 6 1985 LUS/IRDICOfcSTrtljCliO.J Ed Martinet, Project Manager Lusardi Construction Company 1570 W. Linda Vista Drive San Marcos, California 92069 Re: Bldg. 42, Palomar Airport Dear Mr. Martinet: In accordance with the soils report on the subject project, reinforcing steel for the slab-on-grade shall not be required. This is in response to a request from you and the City of Carlsbad, California. Very truly Harrtf F. Deardorff Structural Engineer cc: file C!TY OF CARLSBAD uifftKQ Department DEARDORFF S DEARDORFF 3274 ROSECRANS ST.. SAN DIEGO. CA.92110. (819) 223-2426 REPORT OF SOIL INVESTIGATION Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 - Building No. 41 Palomar Airport Business Park Northwest Corner of Corte del Nogal and Corte del Albeto Carlsbad, California JOB NO. 83-2987 27 January 1984 prepared for LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 51935 prepared by CEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. 8145 Ronson Road, Suite H San Diego, CA 92111 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING GROUNDWATER • GEOPHYSICS • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY Job No. 83-2987/1 14 February 1984 Mr. Ed Martinet LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1570 Linda Vista Drive San Marcos, CA 92069 Subject: Report of Soil Investigation - Addendum No. 1 Lot 5, Palomar Aiport Business Park Northwest Corner of Corte de Nogal and Corte del Abeto Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Martinet: In accordance with your request, Geotechnfcal Exploration, Inc. is providing this addendum to our previously issued "Report of Soil Investigation" dated January 27, 1934. Our previously issued report gives no recommendations for floor slab areas. It is our understanding, however, that Lusardi Construction Company plans to place saw-cut, control joints on 20-to-24-foot centers (to at least 5/8-mch in depth) over floor slab areas. In our opinion, the saw cuts will reduce the potential for random cosmetic cracking of floor slabs assuming the floor slabs are placed over the existing sands after proper compaction of the surface and near-surface materials. Additionally, floor slab sections must be properly designed in order to withstand anticipated loading. If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 83-2987/1 will ensure a prompt reply to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, CEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Ifi, Project Coordinator Clifford yff/fa Monte, R.C.E. 25241 JBR/CWL/pj 8145 RONSON ROAD, SUITE H • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111-2O81 • (619) 56O-O428 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL &. FOUNDATION ENGINEERING GROUNDWATER • GEOPHYSICS • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 27 January 1984 LUSARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1570 Linda Vista Drive San Marcos, CA 92069 JOB NO. 83-2987 Subject:Report of Soil Investigation Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Building No. 41 - Palo mar Airport Business Park Northwest Corner of Corte del Nogal and Corte del Albeto Carlsbad, California Dear Sirs: In accordance with your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. has performed an investigation of the surface and subsurface soil conditions at the location of the subject proposed commercial site. The field work was performed on December 30, 1983 by our Field Engineer. It is our understanding that the site is being developed to receive a commmercial building. The proposed structure will be a maximum of one-story in height and will be constructed near the existing grade utilizing conventional, continuous foundations or spread footings with concrete slab on-grade. The structure will also be constructed utilizing concrete tilt-up panels. Our investigation revealed the site to consist primarily of a cut and fill graded building pad. The encountered fill soils were found to be moderately to well compacted. These fill soils are underlain by dense formational sands. No expansive soils were encountered within three feet of the proposed finish grade elevations. The work performed and recommendations presented in this report are the result of an investigation and analysts which meets the contemporary standard of care in our profession. No other warranty is expressed or implied. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any ques- tions concerning the following report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Refer- ence to our Job No. 83-2987 will expedite response to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. W Raymon/d/J. Scaramel RJS/pj Vice President 8145 RONSON ROAD, SUITE H • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 921H-2O81 • (619) 56O-O428 REPORT OF SOIL INVESTIGATION Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Building No. 41 - Palomar Airport Business Park Northwest Corner of Corte del Nogal and Corte del Albeto Carlsbad, California JOB NO. 83-2987 The following report presents the findings and recommendations of Ceotechnical Exploration, Inc. for the subject project. I. SCOPE OF WORK It is our understanding, based on communications with representatives of Lusardi Construction Company that the site is intended for the construction of a commercial structure to be a maximum of one story in height. The building will be constructed at or near the existing grade utilizing continuous foundations and spread footings with concrete floor slabs on-grade. The structure is to be constructed of concrete tilt-up panels. A previous cut and fill grading operation was performed on the subject lot during the development of the Palomar Airport Business Park subdivision. With the above in mind, the Scope of Work is briefly outlined as follows: 1. Identify and classify the surface and subsurface soils to depths, in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix A). 2. Verify the allowable bearing pressures for the natural ground and the soils existing as compacted fill, based on their shear-strength and compression characteristics and our experience with the soils. 3. Recommend treatment for any expansive soils and/or improperly compacted fill soils that, if left in place and unmodified, could result in future damages to the proposed structure. 4. Predict the settlement of the natural-ground soils, as well as recompacted fill soils (recompacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density), under the proposed structural loads. CD 00 Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Job No. 83-2987 27 January 1984 Page 2 5. Recommend active and passive earth pressures to be utilized in design of any proposed retaining walls and foundation structures. 6. Verify the extent and condition of the existing fill soils that had been placed on the site prior to our investigation. 7. Review of existing engineering reports and maps pertinent to the subject site. The scope of our work was to develop site specific conclusions and recommendations (pertaining to foundations and floor slabs only) for the subject Lot 5 of the Palomar Airport Business Park. The preliminary geotechntcal investigation for the business park was performed by Robert Prater Associates. The results of their investigation are summarized in a report titled: "Geotechnical Investigation', C.C. & F. Palomar Airport Business Park - Phase II, Carlsbad, California, and identified as their #218-3, 1822, dated September 19, 1977. Observations during the actual grading operation of the business park and the testing of compacted fill soils were also performed by Robert Prater Associates. II. SITE The site is legally described as: Lot 5 of Carlsbad Tract 80-33, Palomar Airport Business Park, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California The site, consisting of approximately 3.7 acres, is located at the northwest corner of Corte del Albeto and Corte del Nogal, in the City of Carlsbad, California. Addition- ally, the property is bordered on the north and west by undeveloped, graded building pads. There were no existing structures on the site at the time of our investigation. Vegeta- tion on the site consists of landscape shrubbery and plants on the slopes and scattered grasses and weeds. OD JO Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Job No. 83-2987 27 January 1984 Page 3 The property is further bounded by a 20-foot-high (maximum) south-facing composite cut/fill slope at the north end of the property, a 15-foot-high (maximum) west-facing composite cut/fill slope along the west and southwest property line, a 20-foot-high (maximum) west-facing composite cut/fill slope along the east property line, and a ten-foot-high (maximum) north-facing cut slope along the east portion of the south property line. A relatively level cut and fill graded building pad has been placed on the site by the previously mentioned grading operation. Prior to grading, the site was bisected by a west-to-east-draining canyon, according to an undated unreferenced as-built grading plan provided by Lusardi Construction. Elevations on the site range from approximately 231 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 260 feet above MSL. The existing near level pad elevations range from approximately 241 feet above MSL to 232 feet above MSL sloping to the southwest. III. FiaD INVESTIGATION Five test trenches were placed on the site to determine the condition and location of the existing fill soils and the overall soil profile of the site. Additionally, existing cut slope outcrops were inspected during our investgation. The excavations were located in the field by referring to an undated, unreferenced as-built grading plan provided by Lusardi Construction Company. The excavations were visually inspected by our Field Engineer, and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout the field opera- tion. Test trench logs have been prepared on the basis of our inspection and the results have been summarized on Figure No. II. The predominant soils have been classified in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix A). IV. DESCRIPTION OF SOILS The northern portion of the site is overlain with a wedge of fill soils that apparently range to over 20 feet in thickness (thickening to the west) at the previous canyon centerline, as referenced from the as-built grading plan. In-place field density tests Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Job No. 83-2987 27 January 1984 Page 4 were taken m the test trench excavations at random depths and locations. Refer to Figure No. II for the results of the in-place density tests. The encountered fill soils in our test trench excavations were tested for density and found to be moderately to well compacted. The location of the fills and the approximate daylight line are shown on Figure No. II. The encountered fill soils consist primarily of tan and dark-brown, fine to medium sands. The remnant of a topsoil profile was encountered in trenches #2 and #3. The topsoils consist of one to two feet of dark-brown, silty sands which are non-expansive. The fill soils in test excavations #4 and $5 and the topsoils in trenches #2 and #3 are underlain with dense, tan, fine to medium formational sands. The formation is exposed at existing ground surface in the extreme southern and eastern portions of the site and in the face of the southern half of the western slope. The encountered formational soils were classified as non-expansive. V. GROUND WATER No ground water problems were encountered during the course of our field investi- gation and we do not expect significant problems to develop in the future—if the property is developed as presently designed. It should be kept in mind, however, that any required grading operations may change surface drainage patterns and/or reduce permeabilities due to the densification of compacted soils. Such changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the appearance of minor amounts of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously. The damage from such water is expected to be minor and cosmetic m nature, if good positive drainage is im- plemented at the completion of construction. Corrective action should be taken on a site-specific basis if, and when, it becomes necessary. OD 10 Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Job No. 83-2987 27 January 1984 Page 5 VI. LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION Laboratory tests were performed on the disturbed and undisturbed soil samples in order to determine their physical and mechanical properties and their ability to sup- port the proposed structure. The following tests were conducted on the sampled soils: 1. Moisture Content (A.S.T.M. D 2216-71) 2. Density Determinations 3. Mechanical Analysis (A.S.T.M. D 422) 4. Expansion Tests (County) 5. Consolidation Tests The relationship between the moisture and density of undisturbed soil samples gives qualitative information regarding the soil strength characteristics and soil conditions to be anticipated during the future grading operation. The mechanical analysis was used to aid in the classification of the soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System. The expansion potential of clayey soils was determined utilizing the County of San Diego Test Method for Expansive Soils. Expansive soils are classified as follows: 0 to 3 percent Low or Considered "Non-expansive* 3 to 6 percent Medium 6 to 12 percent High Above 12 percent Very High According to the County of San Diego Test for Expansive Soils, recorded swells of less than three percent result in classification as non-expansive soils. Based on the above laboratory test data, a thorough visual inspection of the primary soil types on the project, and our previous experience with laboratory testing of soils of the same type, our geotechnical engineer has assigned conservative values for OD ID Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Job No. 83-2987 27 January 1984 Page 6 friction angle and cohesion to those soils which will have significant lateral support or bearing functions on the project. These values are presented in Figure No. Ill and have been utilized in determining safe bearing values as well as active and passive earth pressure design criteria for wall and footing designs. Utilizing the laboratory test data, visual inspection of the primary soil types, and our previous experience with field testing procedures developed by our firm, our geotechnical engineer has assigned conservative values for the coefficient of friction of soils which are expected to underlie floor slabs, footings, retaining wall foundations, or any structure subject to possible failure by sliding. If more than one soil type is determined to underlie a structure, the coefficient on only the lower value soil will be presented in this report. Consolidation Tests were performed on undisturbed natural-ground soils and remolded soils expected to be used in any compacted fills. The soils were contained in one-inch-high brass rings and loaded into a consolidometer. The specimens were sub- jected to increased loads and the resulting consolidations noted. The consolidation tests aid in determining anticipated settlements of the natural ground under the pro- posed building loads. VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMmDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the practical field investigations conducted by our firm, and resulting laboratory tests, in conjunction with our knowledge and experience with the soils in the Carlsbad area of the County of San Diego. A. Preparation of Soils for Site Development 1. The existing vegetation observed on the site must be removed prior to the preparation of building pads and/or areas to receive structural improvements. CD ID Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Job No. 83-2987 27 January 1984 Page 7 2. The central portion of the site is overlain with a wedge of fill soils that range to over 20 feet in thickness (see Figure No. I for the location of fill soils). The encountered fill soils consisted of moderately to well compacted sands. The fill soils are underlain by formational sandstones that were classified as non- expansive. No expansive soils were encountered within three feet of finish grade, therefore, no recommendations for expansive soils are required. 3. Existing surface soils which will not be removed during the future grading operation shall be scarified (in place) to a depth of 12 inches, watered to optimum requirements, and shall then be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. 4. No uncontrolled fill soils shall remain on the site after completion of any future site work (except landscape soils). In the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils during a future grading operation, the location and extent of the loose fill soils shall be noted by the on-site representative of a qualified soil engineering firm. The loose fill soils shall be removed and/or recompacted prior to completion of the grading operation. 5. Any backfill soils placed in utility trenches or behind retaining walls which support structure and other improvements (such as patios, sidewalks, drive- ways, pavements, et cetera), other than landscaping, shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. 6. City agencies often require that a qualified soils engineering firm verify the actual soil conditions revealed during site grading work and footing excavation to be as anticipated in the 'Report of Soil Investigation* for a project. In addition, the compaction of fill soils placed during site grading work must be tested by a representative of a qualified soils engineering firm. In order to minimize any work delays at the subject site during site develop- ment, this firm should be contacted 24 hours prior to any need for inspection of footing excavations or field density testing of compacted fill soils. If possible, placement of formwork and steel reinforcement in footing excavations CD Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Job No. 83-2987 27 January 1984 Page 8 should not occur prior to inspection of the excavations; in the event that our inspection reveals the need for deepening or re-designing foundation structures, in any locations, any formwork or steel reinforcement in the effected footing excavation areas would have to be removed prior to correction of the observed problem (i.e., deepening the footing excavation, recompacting soil in the bottom of the excavation, et cetera). 7. All contemporary pavement section design methods assume compaction of the upper one-half foot of foundation soil (natural ground or compacted fill) and all base materials to at least 95 percent of Maximum Dry Density. We therefore recommend that the upper one-half foot of foundation soils and all base materials beneath street, driveway, and parking area pavements to be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of Maximum Dry Density. This recommendation also applies to the upper soils in backfilled trenches or behind retaining walls which support pavement sections. 'Normal use" parking area sections consist of two and one-half inches of asphalt paving overlying four inches of Class II base materials or four inches of asphalt overlying the existing sands. Heavy traffic areas shall be underlain with two and one-half inches of asphalt paving overlying six inches of Class II base materials or five inches of asphalt paving overlying the existing sands. B. Design Parameters for Foundation and Retaining Walls 8. The maximum safe load-bearing value (at a depth of 12 inches into the natural materials or properly compacted fill soils on this site) is at least 2,000 pounds per square foot. This load-bearing value may be utilized in the design of con- tinuous foundations and spread footings when founded a minimum of 12 inches into the firm natural ground or compacted fill (compacted to 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density), measured from the lowest adjacent grade at the time of foundation construction. This soil-bearing value may be increased one-third for design loads that include wind or seismic analysis. If imported soils are required to bring the site to grade, the import soils shall be non-expansive and shall be obtained from an approved off-site borrow area. CD ID Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Job No. 83-2987 27 January 1984 Page 9 A load-bearing value for imported soils, should they be utilized on the site, can- not be given until the materials source is known. It is anticipated, however, that a value of at least 2,000 pounds per square foot will be obtained for footing depths of 12 inches. 9. Based on our laboratory test results and our experience with the soil types on the subject site, the soils will experience settlement in the magnitude of less than 0.5 inch under a structural load of 2,000 pounds per square foot. 10. The active earth pressure (to be utilized in the design of walls, et cetera), shall be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 36 pounds per cubic foot (for level backfill only). In the event that a retaining wall is surcharged by sloping backfill, the design active earth pressure shall be based on the appropriate Equivalent Fluid Weight presented in the following table: Height of Slope/Height of Wall* Slope Ratio 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00(«) 2.0 43 47 50 51 •To determine design active earth pressures for ratios intermediate to those presented, interpolate between the stated values. In the event that a retaining wall is to be designed for a restrained condition, a uniform pressure equal to 7*H (seven times the total wall height, considered in pounds per square foot) shall be considered as acting everywhere on the back of the wall in addition to the design equivalent fluid weight. 11. The passive earth pressure of the encountered natural-ground soils (to be used for design of building foundations and footings to resist the lateral forces) shall be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 325 pounds per cubic foot. CD ID Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Job No. 83-2987 27 January 1984 Page 10 This passive earth pressure shall only be considered valid for design if the ground adjacent to the foundation structure is essentially level for a distance of at least three times the total depth of the foundation. The above retaining wall design values are subject to revision based no our review of finalized grading plans and inspection during actual grading operations. 12. A Coefficient of Friction of 0.4 times the dead load may be used between the bearing and concrete wall foundations or structure foundations and floor slabs. If the coefficient of friction is to be used in conjunction with passive earth pressures, the coefficient shall be reduced to 0.3. 13. The compacted fill soils that occur within five feet of the face of any fill slopes will possess poor lateral stability, even though they have been compacted. Pro- posed structures and other improvements (such as walls, fences, patios, side- walks, swimming pools, driveways, asphalt paving, et cetera), that are located within five feet of the face of compacted fill slopes, could suffer differential movement as a result of the poor lateral stability of these soils. Foundations and footings of proposed structures, walls, et cetera, when found- ed five feet and further away from the top of compacted fill slopes, may be of standard design in conformance with the recommended load-bearing value. If the proposed foundations and footings are located closer than five feet inside the top of compacted fill slopes, they shall be deepened to one foot below a line beginning at a point five feet horizontally inside the fill slopes and projected, outward and downward, parallel to the face of the fill slope (see Figure No. IV). 14. It is recommended that continuous footings be reinforced with at least one No. 4 steel bar (placed approximately three inches from the bottom of the foundation) extending a minimum of 15 feet to either side of daylight areas. The steel reinforcement will help prevent damage due to minor differential settlement between compacted fill soils and more dense natural ground soils. QD UD Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Job No. 83-2987 27 January 1984 Page 11 C. Slope Design 15. In the event that development of the site necessitates construction of steep temporary cut slopes immediately adjacent to existing structures, or to property boundaries at which off-site grading permission has not been granted, either shoring, bracing, or underpinning may be required to prevent damage to on-site or off-site structures as a result of construction of the temporary slope. This office should be contacted for additional recommendations pertaining to such protection of existing structures. 16. Trenches, excavations, and temporary slopes at the subject site shall be constructed in accordance with subparagraph (1) paragraph (f), of section 1541 of Title 8, Construction Safety Orders, issued by OSHA. 17. It is recommended that all compacted fill slopes and natural cut slopes be planted with an erosion-resistant plant, in conformance with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad. D. Site Drainage Considerations 18. Adequate measures shall be taken to properly finish-grade the site after the structures and other improvements are in place. Drainage waters from this site and adjacent properties are to be directed away from foundations, floor slabs, footings, and slopes, onto the natural drainage direction for this area or Into properly designed and approved drainage facilities. Proper subsurface and surface drainage will minimize the potential for waters to seek the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings and floor slabs. Failure to observe this recommendation could result in uplift or undermining and differential settlement of the structure or other improvements on the site. In addition, appropriate erosion-control measures shall be taken at all times during construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations, ponding on finished building pad or pavement areas, or running CD DO Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Job No. 83-2987 27 January 1984 Page 12 uncontrolled over the tops of newly-constructed cut or fill slopes. Particular care should be taken to prevent saturation of any temporary construction slopes. 19. Proper sub-drains shall be installed behind all retaining walls on the subject project. 20. Planter areas and planter boxes shall be sloped to drain away from the founda- tions, footings, and floor slabs. Planter boxes shall be constructed with a sub- surface dram, installed in gravel, with the direction of subsurface and surface flow away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs, to an adequate drain- age facility. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will assume no liability for damage to structures which is attributable to poor drainage. E. General Recommendations 21. Following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Pre-mature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and bosening of the finish floor materials. 22. When building and grading plans are finalized for the subject project, Ceotechnical Exploration, Inc. shall be provided copies of these plans for review. Based on any review, additional and/or amended recommendations will be issued if necessary. VIII. GRADING NOTES Any required grading operations shall be performed in accordance with the general requirements of the City of Carlsbad, under the observation of a qualified soils engineer or supervised field soils technician. (ID ID Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Job No. 83-2987 27 January 1984 Page 13 It is the responsibility of the Owner and/or Developer to ensure that the recommenda- tions summarized in this report are carried out in the field operations. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. IX. SUMMARY AND LIMITATIONS In order to issue foundation and floor slab recommendations, our investigation was performed to verify the extent, condition, and approximate depth of the existing fill soils and to determine the character of the surficial formational materials. Density tests were taken in the existing fill soils to verify the relative densities. The tests were taken in randomly placed trenches and indicate the existing fill soils were properly prepared and compacted. However, our firm cannot assume liability for the integrity of the entire fill area since our firm was not present during the actual grading operation. The grading observation for the business park was performed by Robert Prater Associates (as mentioned previously). In addition, it is not within the scope of this report to determine the underlying and surrounding geology of the subject property. The geotechnical investigation was performed by Robert Prater Associates, summarized in the previously mentioned geotechnical investigation. All statement in this report are appliable for the graded pad inspected by our firm and are representative of the site at the time our report was prepared. The firm of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. shall not be held responsible for fill soils placed at any future time, or subsequent changes to the site by others, which directly or indirectly cause poor surface or subsurface drainage and/or water erosion altering the strength of the compacted fill soils. CD ffl Proposed Commercial Site, Lot 5 Job No. 83-2987 27 January 1984 Page 14 The work performed and recommendations presented herein are the result of an investigation and analysis which meets the contemporary standard of care in our profession. No other warranty is expressed or implied. This report should be considered valid for a period of three (3) years, and is subject to review by our firm following that time. If significant modifications are made to the building and/or grading plans, especially with respect to the height and location of cut and fill slopes, placement of retaining walls, and the height and location of proposed structures, this report must be presented to us for immediate review and possible revision. The firm of GeotechnicaJ Exploration, Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to issuance of this report. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to contact our office. Reference to our job No. 83-2987 will ensure a prompt reply to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Jerry B. Redolfi, Proj CliffojfcpW. La Monte, R.C.E. 25241 JBR/CWL/pj Attachments CD ID EQUIPMENT Case Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION ±235 Feet i_ X Q. tu O 1 2 - 3 J *: 5- - 6 . 7. B: q 10 '. _ 11 . 12 _ - -SYMBOL- / / /// ' / ', / t , i / // . '1 ll ' '1 '// UJ Q. x t' J^A i j DIMENSION DATE LOGGED 2*»" Bucket 12-30-83 GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY Not Encountered JBR DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Damp, si ightly silty, fine to medium sand - FILL - Moist, clayey sand - FILL - Damp, si ightly s i 1 ty , fine to Vned ium s.and Excavation Bottom COLOR Tan & brown Dark brown Tan 6 brown 2 WATER TABLE•™ g] LOOSE BAG SAMPLE £] IN-PLACE SAMPLE U DRIVE SAMPLE CONSISTENCY Medium dense Medium dense Med i um dense TYPE SP sc SP 1U m (X ii 13.8 12.5 UJ j_ 5^Z & m.i 107,6 ?» 1 IK £6 15.0 s MAXIMLDENSITVpel113-5 K RELATIVIDENSITY98 J5 •f i EX PANCONSOlt— u_ »— CQ \J \ Test Trench Lot #5, Building #1»1 Palomar Airport Business Park Carlsbad, California JOB NO. 83-2987 FIGURE NO. 1 l-a DATE 1/27/84 "^ LOG NO. 1 EQUIPMENT Case Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION ±238 Feet _ I a. UJ 0 1. ™ 2J 3J *: 5- 6. — 7. R1 9- 10- ' 11. - 12J -SYMBOL• / / // // • //. '/ f '/ f • /t / UJ a. 1 5 s - DIMENSION DATE LOGGED 2V Bucket 12-30-83 GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY Not Encountered JBR DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Damp, sl ightly s i 1 ty , fine to medium sand - FILL - Damp, s i 1 ty sand - TOPSOIL - Damp, sl ightly silty, fine to medium sand - FORMATION - Excavation Bottom COLOR Tan Dark brown Green- tan 2 WATER TABLE ^ LOOSE BAG SAMPLE m IN-PLACE SAMPLE H DRIVE SAMPLE CONSISTENCY Medium dense Med ium dense Med ium dense TYPE SP SP SP UJ <-*>_J «/>{?< 9. A 9.4 9-2 UJ _ ~z a 112 110 104 •?" Es 05 12.3 53 >- 5 £- — CO l>x z a <. UJ5 a 115 *? UJUJ trO 98 96 92 + i EXPANCONSOl- >— U. IICO U Test Trench Lot #5, Building #*t1 Palomar Airport Business Park Carlsbad, Cal fornia JOB NO. 83-2987 FIGURE NO. 1 l-b DATE 1/27/84 "^ LOG NO. 2 EQUIPMENT Case Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION ±237 Feet i Q. UJ Q . 1 . 2. _ 3- **- 5. 6. - 7- 8' 9- 10 'SYMBOL• • • • - \\ x<:SAMPLE1 2 5 DIMENSION 2V Bucket GROUNDWATER DEPTH Not Encountered DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Damp, fine to medium sand - FILL - Dry, silty, fine i to medium sand \ - TOPSOIL - Damp, si ightly s 1 1 ty , fine to \nedium sand - FORMATION - Excavation Bottom COLOR Tan Brown Tan !Z WATER TABLE ^ LOOSE BAG SAMPLE [I] IN-PLACE SAMPLE M DRIVE SAMPLE CONSISTENCY Medium dense medi urn dense Dense TYPE SP SP SP IN-PLACEMOISTURE%lA.i. 9.5 8.7 UJ ^_ EL 2 °- ? O 111 .9 103-7 107 DATE LOGGED 12-30-83 LOGGED BY JBR oi MAXIMUMDENSITYpetUJ JUU 98 91 95 EX PAN +CONSOL -BLOWCOUNTS/FTTp<;t Trench Lot #5, Build ng #J»1 Palomar Airport Business Park Carlsbad. California JOB NO. 83-2987 FIGURE NO. 1 l-c DATE e 1/27/8A _/iC^OD LOG NO. 3 EQUIPMENT Case Backhoe t SURFACE ELEVATION ±2AO Feet f-u- X a. UJa 1 . 2. T,SYMBOLi \\,\ UJ Q- < t/> DIMENSION DATE LOGGED 2V Bucket 12-30-83 GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY Not Encountered CL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Dry , si ightly silty, fine to medium sand \. - FILL - Damp, si ightly silty, fine to medium sand - FORMATION - Excavation Bottom COLOR Tan- gray Tan 2 WATER TABLE g] LOOSE BAG SAMPLE P] IN-PLACE SAMPLE R DRIVE SAMPLE CONSISTENCY Med turn dense Medium dense TYPE SP SP IN-PLACEMOISTURE%"J s_ *-£$& is < UJ* oc *w* £o OS u >-5 >-_— >/) ux -7 a. < t> 5 Q ^>r <2UJUJ ccQ EXPAN +CONSOL -BLOWCOUNTS/FTTest Trench Lot #5, Buildi Palomar Ai rpor Carlsbad, Cal JOB NO. 83-2987 FIGURE NO. 1 l-d ng #41 t Business Park fornia DATE ,/27/e*LOG NO. 4 EQUIPMENT Case Backhoe SURFACE ELEVATION ±238 Feet u. X Q. UJo - 1 _ 2. 3 .SYMBOL\\ \ V SAMPLEz DIMENSION 24" Bucket GROUNDWATER DEPTH Not Encountered DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Dry, si ightly silty, fine to v medium sand \ - FILL - Damp, si ighl ty silty, fine to medium sand - FORMATION - Excavation Bottom COLOR Tan- gray Tan 2 WATER TABLE ^ LOOSE BAG SAMPLE m IN-PLACE SAMPLE B DRIVE SAMPLE CONSISTENCY Med i urn dense Medium dense TYPE SP SP IN-PLACEMOISTURE%4.3 s- _j *O wa. -r a. -i UJ £ O 112 DATE LOGGED 12-30-83 LOGGED BY CL |l £5 05 9.4 2.3 >-s *- —— u> u 3£a 5 a 121 UJ iuj KO EXPAN +CONSOL -BLOWCOUNTS/FTTest Trench Lot #5, Building #41 Palomar Airport Business Park Carlsbad, California JOB NO. 83-2987 FIGURE NO. 1 l-e DATE 1/27/84 LOG NO. 5 EQUIPMENT , SURFACE ELEVATION 232'MSL • fcb. CL UJo . 1- 2- 3- 4- 5. 6. 7- s: 9- ir 13T SYMBOL« * • •4- • • '• • * » • UJ a if> DIMENSION GROUNDWATER DEPTH Not Encountered DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS Damp, si ightly s i 1 ty , f ine to medium sand FORMATION Log Bottom COLOR Tan tan 2 WATER TABLE [X] LOOSE BAG SAMPLE P] IN-PLACE SAMPLE n DRIVE SAMPLE CONSISTENCY Med i urn dense TYPE SP IIN-PLACEMOISTURE%_J l/> W a. 2 a z. a DATE LOGGED 12-30-83 LOGGED BY JBR ^ oeJ o oi MAXIMUMDENSITYpcfUJ UJUJ exO EXPAN +CONSOL --BLOWCOUNTS/FTLOG OF CUT SLOPE Lot #5, Building #41 Palomar Airport Business Park Csrl^had Ca ifnrnta JOB NO. 83-2987 FIGURE NO. 1 l-f DATE 1/27/84 LOG NO. 6 140 4 130 120 110 100 90 80 •d t- LU z V K O \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ / y\ \ \ \ \ \\\ ^^ LABORATORY SOIL DATA SUMMARY \ \n \\ \ 0 \ y\~ ~fr y \A\ si\^\ 7 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) \A\A A OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 3 \ \ \ 11 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA APPARENT COHESION (p»f) APPARENT FRICTION ANGLE 1 2 225 32 3 MECHANICAL ANALYSIS 3 % 4 IO 40 2OO 2 oo KI \ rn ^,V v \ \ ^0_^ v\o r\ 2° ^A\ o \ V y. 1000 l( \ xlx ^^RPl PQ \K\2 3 y270 3.5 115 121 VX-260 Sf i "\ *V M\\1\\ \W\\\\\\N\\kNni \\ DO 10 10 O 001 0001 N SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL C 1 F C SAND M F -*11-1 » CLAY 3ECIFIC GRAVITY 15.0 12.3 9. A \VK250 | \'Ov> ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES MOISTURE CONTENT % > <1Q 0 10 LABORATORY SOIL TYPE 1 2 3 20 30 40 COMPACTION TEST SOIL CLASSIFICATION Tan, s\Ity, Dark brown, Tan, fi fine sand silty sand ne to medium sand SWELL TEST DATA INITIAL DRY DENSI 1 2 3 BORING NO ^ DEPTH 1 1' 2 S' 5 1.5' • em TY (per) NON PIASTIC INITIAL WATER CONTENT %) LOAD (ptf) PERCENT SWELL JOB NO 83-2987 FIGURE NO | Proposed Structure Concrete Floor Slab Top of Compacted Fill Slope Compacted Fill Slope (Maximum Inclination 1.5:1.0) Peinforcement of Foundations and Floor Slabs following the Rec- omendations of the Architect h of Footing or Structural Engineer. _ -1- \. — Concrete Foundation -j_S^ Compacted Fill TYPICAL SECTION (Showing Proposed Foundation Located Within Five Feet of Top of Compacted Fill Slope) TOTAL DEPTH OF FOOTING DISTANCE FROK TOP OF SLOPE 0 /1 1 2 t 3 L' 1.5 : 1.0 Fill Slope 52" AV 36" 28" 20" 2.0 : 1.0 Fill Slope 42" 36" 30" 2V 18" Job No. 83-2987 Figure 1/1 fcO UJ Q£ a. i z o o fcO o o CM CM OOO'OOI OOO'OS OOO'Ofr ooo'oe ooo'cz ^OOO'OL HI ooos OOOfr 000£ oooz 0001 DOS oot OOE 7 O »—00 ON - uo 0)£oc in r- CN II ofc 05 Job No. 8^-2987 Figure No.V APPENDIX A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL DESCRIPTION COARSE-GRAINED More than half of material Is larger than a No. 200 sieve GRAVELS, CLEAN GRAVELS More than half of coarse fraction is larger than GW Well-graded gravels, gravel and sand mix- No 4 sieve size, but smaller than 3" tures, little or no fines GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mix- tures, little or no fines GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silly gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt (appreciable amount) mixtures GC Clay gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures SANDS, CLEAN SANDS SW Well-graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than a no fines No 4 SI6V6 SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty (appreciable amount) mixtures SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures FINE-GRAINED More than half of material is smaller than a No. 200 sieve SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt and clayey-silt sand mixtures with a slight plasticity Liquid Limit Less Than 50 CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, clean clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts Liquid Limit Greater Than 50 CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils GRADING SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL The intent of this item is to properly establish procedures for cleaning and compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill material to the grades and slopes as shown on the Grading Plans. CLEARING All vegetation, brush and debris shall be removed, piled and burned, or otherwise disposed of, to give the surface a neat and finished appearance. COMPACTING NATURAL GROUND After clearing, the natural ground shall be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, watered to optimum requirements and compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density, according to A.S.T.M. Test Method D-1557, in a four-inch diameter, cylindrical mold of 1/30th-cubic-foot volume. Field density tests shall be taken in the natural ground in accordance with A.S.T.M. Test Method D-1556. FILL MATERIALS Materials for the fill shall be approved by the soils engineer and shall be free from organic matter and other deleterious substances. In the event that expansive materials are encountered within three feet of finished grade, they shall be entirely removed or thoroughly mixed with good, granular material before incorporating them in fills. No footing shall be allowed to bear on soils which, in the opinion of the soils engineer, are detrimentally expansive — unless designed for this clayey condition. PLACING AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIAL After preparing the areas to be filled, the fill materials shall be placed in layers not to exceed six inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall be watered to opti- mum requirements and compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density in accordance with A.S.T.M. Test Method D-1557. Compaction of the fill shall then proceed in the specified manner to the grades shown on the approved plans. When the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 5.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical, the original ground shall be benched. Ground slopes flatter than 5.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical shall be benched when considered necessary by the soils engineer. Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of a sheepsfoot roller, or other suitable equipment. Slope compaction shall be continued until the slopes are stable but not too dense for planting. Field density tests shall be taken when considered necessary by the soils engineer in accordance with A.S.T.M. Test Method D-1556 and shall be made not exceeding two feet in vertical height providing each layer is tested. FIELD OBSERVATION AND DENSITY TESTING Observation and testing of the fill shall be made by the representative of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. during the grading operation so that it can be reasonably assumed that the fill was placed in accordance with these specifications. SEASON LIMITS No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rams, the filling operation shall not be resumed until field tests indicate that the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified. SCALE: r= SO' CORTE DEL NOGAL REFERENCE: THIS PLOT EXISTING AS BUILT OR* NOTE TMs PbM Plan is not to to used tor tegs! purposes. Locations and dimensions are approxi- mate Actual property dimensions am) locations of utiWes may be obtained from the Approved Building Plans or fhs "Aa-BuUT Grading Plans, i. ee uaawnN aor i uaawrtN aunoid •NOD lauvsni xa aaaiAOUd Nvid oiifffvuo NV noud aauvdaud SVM NAOH BI NVld iOld HON3UJ. 1S3A UOO1N09 1VNIOIUO unoiNoo oNiisixa HUM 1H9I1AVQ mo VM ONiNivxau aasodoud aasodoud AUVONOO8 AJLH3dOHd QN3031 j.no n 31VOS ON dVIN AJL1NIOIA V-