The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2075 CORTE DEL NOGAL; ; 85-423; Permit}ueoi|ddv —eiea (2) eoueuid (0 — U99JQ - joioadsui — a(iy/v\i : , •' i:ILL IN INFORMATION WITHIN SHADED AREA AND DECLARATIONSILL POINT PEN ONLY S PKtbs PMBU -- " "' APPLICANT TO FLUC/ 1111t . _ C'ARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION & PEFXF ' ^1200 Elm Carlsbac^ California 92008 1989 (619) 438 5525uj i^^j5< ^>> ^&^>BUSINESS LICENSE aCATIONL ;Ou3 K COCOoccoh-coUJ vt \<UJz **, f ^ ^ ^ ^SY_ sri 3 0 CD 19 r^J\ (^--~"^ 'O 1 "ereby aW v' inat ' am "c«nsed unde!' provisions a< Chapter 9 (commencing withSection 7000) of Division 3 of-the Businessand Profess'ons Code and my license is infull force and effect ~" .. — j.1., kjn rijK<11)jt^QUJ"8CONTRACTORS PHONE I7VY ^/J?J2CONTRACTORLiSfAjrtof &6AKT:§130HVd UOSS3SSV . .- NOis'iAiaansujO 5S- OlQO(JLUtf)OQ£*QZ l< 1,-Ja.^0LU ~LJJ jyjo N CONTRACTORS ADDRESS ^^^ jf^^g^^J/C70 Li^rfiA- W«>A, tj&voe.I r> iv\ ; & : VJt 5 f-$ /> • A X. l^ : i U 1STANDARD PLAN *LICENSE »C,6>6(~r\I $ £ rx C Z Cij2D JC"6ZSH 4s>vre De*. M&rv fam&fi-btiiDESIGNER S PHONE ,.DESIGNER S ADDRESS . &£,&t^&&&-tfD i."i Z L ' T \ 11OJfZ.Hi•s1 iVk ^ ^\ \r i •i « ^ iii"IS^LO 'LLJ-i : -i - D %"• I t' V ' *ift!EC11r"J ^Q3 'UUoUJ tfl^^"- {^T R t Dt VE LOPMEN TAREA f~-•n\4NG PERMIT ISSUED*fl N DQ CCO HLT A PARK IMG SPACfcUJ D OZ • CL.ot CtNbUS TRAC1i ij<•- T'IELJJ iCD ,SUMMARY/ACCOUNT NUMi \MECHANICAL PERMIT ISSUEO l\V- LJJ |W NG PERMITm a 'v &oVQ$oCNJCOoIo1 —31LJJD_COCO\cco o Q_ C/J cc z EACH FIXTURE TRAPCNJCOCD0gOIi iccLJJQ_CDC/D\ CDCD CC LU O "EACH BUILDING SEWEREt^»^r-•^.CDCOCOCD0CDCD :OOLJJDTCJ_Ja.BOILER'CUrVlPRESSOH UPT0.3 HjV*^ ' IuJ 1 CC •p cc LU Li- CC UJ g X LL i ll^TOTAL PLUMBING 01 00 00 8???i BOILER/COMPRESSOR i \yrtf :t i LO LJj FACH C.AS SYSTEM I T U .1 OUT\COc\;CO.OCDCDCDoCCCJLLJ— 1LLJ \ CJ Q i— o ! i/3 1 C/5 CO CJ -'\ CNJCOOCDCD0CDOCJLLJ icn Z LU CNJCOCDCDgO' UJOLUmoi , CJZ3 O 0o X c/; XCJ LU FAHH INSTAI Al TFR RFPAIR WATFR PlPF /T-^Lw^^ lR^IIiEgS<ll' llsll=llli HlzESl i 1 ^ . -s"ss5~ssigf>! ?.:|si*!H= • l^J^1 f J i5 p aj £ i^ _ ^ .-. ^ • -r^^^-jro-a;- - SJ ,/i • ^ ,/i ^ -a; ^ 5: fc.=r£ 5--3S s ?=-S *T3,I <u 5 e-= S 5.5 ":»_=«^' ~ -S» T5 ^i^S-E S -S*£ Si2^°S«o,iS -^S§o2£l ¥.-=s •= lgSg;sE<*g«&s I^Hlr^E^ l&Sin s si a*PI|*3*!s&5l • rs^ollli! ifspa. I «s| • ' iPlS! 1 1UI. §'S "Stoics; o^feEs^fcSp- - B -J 2 = E >.-i.mii=plF=sp§~ |?seiS|.i?S i-Sis*! ^ fill!^"sgspsjggrg r£S3§Sgs=sa sSf-g-sl f^ss^o^si3e=s S5=~s§g sil^Ioflt 5§-t=S .. is;i;|f ttllf^IlSlsli N.!§sS*ll*I Hiiii!- ff^~ ISg~ifs-g£s'H ^=ffg'p£p S|K|£§ . slh~ „ ~rlllllsstl§« -^K^sfctll-l "sllli* <S,'2(£S£-5.^j<5 ll»o . : Sa SiSSoE 5 a . : iSISaS™ '. = ll' . ' ' 'fACH VACUUM BREAKER | ' 'for this reason |Il. MOBILEHOME PARK INSP . _— - -iii TN OF EA FURNACE/HEATERLUCC 1 j "CC UJ U" ccJ- !1c\j:C\j'OOCD00CDOCC— 1OC/J- \ -1 £ " H I 1 IcnLOo'CD'CNJcno'COoCDOCC1 —C/D 1FIRE SPRINKLERS 01 00 00.8227 ._P 1 -TOTAL MECHANICAL1 1 n ' hereby affirm that l ha^e a ceniticate ut fionseni J| to- self insure or a certifirate of Workers<* P ,1 L W CE a. 18COCOoCDgCOUJLLJLL.C/>PUBLIC FACILITIiA P y ii . i *i 'I\1|U-ILJJUJCDDCCCD'tr< t \ £ < 0CO a V\ 1 ^LJJ CO- I--ELECTRICAL'PERMIi.o ' Compensation insurance or acerrifiedcopy thfrc-t(Sec 3800 Labor CodeiVt 1 *W ^ JT'' « POLICY NO ' <t1occ1—LOUJLUU_OOinl1<£ <• ) oi LiJ cniD0cvCNICDCDCO1CJ'cnLOCNJC\j'cnCDCOliECJLJJ3ft; i i ^1 ex Uj OCJ Q- »1ic 4 1 o c£ ' 1 I i t/D 1 ol . LUc; 1 CG X UJ CT,LOOCwCNJcnCDCOocna:C/J»:* \ Q. X 1 X0- 1 t'a;• LJD0CMCNIcnCDopCCc=iniS i ^LU - i Z3 LJT CJ CC LLj Q_ a: UJ UJcr i'l.*ri11[ i -; 1 a, S LL-_J CL • 1 ^LICENSE TAX 01 00008162- C/JQ_ CD CC UJ 0 lit COMPANY • ' \C,\~D Copy »s tiled with the cityQ Ceniiied copy is herebvlurnisrieOCERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION F HCIM. WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE - -fThis section need not be completed •' !h'C iiem---: '•• is tor one hundred dollars (JiOOl iv -essj _i(_ Ahich this permit is issued i shaN '»ot empinv an> —person in any manner so as to become sufjei t t,.the Wooers Compensation Laws u' Canforrsia j1a*1§CNJcngLJLLJ-1 -7tMP OCCUPANCY :30 DAYS) • ! ? 'CREDIT DEPOSIT1 r-:r^LJJ03>a.wLJJ ,LJJLL01 (T o •* o ;; i, - '•, , - ^*- -i , i• NOTICt TO APPLICANT l< allei ma»"i; l"'l Crrti- ficate ot Exemption you should her.ome •sutjiert t'- -1 , the Workers Compensalion provisions o' the i_dhoi^ 1 U-i 1 I A- AN OSHA PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOREXCAVATIONS OVER5 0 DEEP ANObEMOtmON OR CONSTRUCTION OFSTRUCTURES OVER 3 STORIES JN HEtGHT% /ing Official under the provisions of thisnull and void H the budding or worki within 180 days from the date of suchsed by such permit is suspended ornmenced for a period of 180 davsHill" - 1 a>» t o * £»sc g- Slf^l!i§i:^!P SS^«f-r^;c "jQt: • igll a o LJ- 5z z: ~ ^<f — U-;LLJ fj._ * a: z MPLETED APPLICATION AND PFRMIiY THAT ALL. INFORVAIION HERECOT AND 1 FURTHER CERTIFY AND AGCOUNTY AND STATE LAWS GOVERNII HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED'THE COCERTIFY UNDFR -PENALTY OF PERJUDECLARATIONS AHE TRUE AND CORRtISSUED TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITYprovisions or this permit snail De deemec! rev^eo' . - _ ': _j s' Q 1 hereby, a^ir^i 'lhat :h(?re S a '.or'-strurt -.-nlending agency tr," the perforrrar-u.f u'-'nfc *or)- 'or— **nich this permit .s issued 'Sei- 'it'W? Ovi Cfjdf--^at>• ^^D O APPLICANTS SIGNATURE * OWNER Ll CONTRACTOR Dg^4^ O< £***rr^ BY PHONED>O AGREE TO SAVE INDEMNIFY ANDABILITIES JUDGMENTS COSTS ANDAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE1STRUCTION WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT 1 ALEKEEP HARMLESS THf CITY Or CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL L'? i ? S€ orc uz < I i r. nz<J .=r ; JJ :D .rJ..'j •'<: >~<• .-S 11 * c/j".''i£ Xu_3 o w O slsiLJJ CJ 1 ll J ^•'MiNOO uaaimamaNMO NOIiVSNBdWOO S U3XUOM U30N31 : SNOILVUV103Q ul ','*TI-i!~- j \\ISPECTORz LU ,, UJa. "'*c-'•'c150'.." ^1 \\BUILDING - -Q CE 0 LUtr zO 1-o LU Q_ CO ^ Q LU Li_ S ^ \FOUNDATION^*COLUh-OZCOtrOCJCLCOZ co Zo 1— CJLUa. COz 1 < o LU Q. CO Q LUat 5ouutr ^ O \REINFORCED STEEL'"~ii- u ac hc.j_ ac/ - L c uC II i ;: „ '... S.MASONRY.,/1iLLJ .f— Q n j ^J >jo 1< a - u.i: 30 jLUcrCJ C O a. C/3z L- .;GUNITE OR GROUT ...--j**v^S•' j>j, (^°\^V /\V*\'-J->^*^4 j .'_' Z ^ ^>/"• o cc„ c f \ < - -FLOOR & CEILING SUB FRAMEv;\.N,s^s\*"*i>•N^ ? r. h-^ tt ~ ." cT - kv ^ nrLL.SHEATHING D^BOOF -D SHEy\^\•w^V1"J^X1s'»i^\"V ! 7 7 ^ J - LU OCU_ C*x^^^X >ff\^^•v i1^^ JNIvr-\\O_Vy*vJ*v:^^ ul.^ «"'fj*** £ 1 3 LJJ CC z '^c cr ^ j i^ C'3 ^ CC 'Y Ll_i |_ > x 0 -EXTERIOR LATH'1X^s.N.:->^'k.r"trt't'"y ^>i1 ^f»• 2jjfr L*' C; /j u>J ' i- 21" ^ (T ^i! Z !T Oa c; r INSULATION- -i \<Hf*i.qi.,t a. Z •J) Z LLJ ,_ (fca -INTERIOR LATH & DRYWALL_0' jSJ.'•? .s? i; L^i— L^i It 0ZoCJ ,,_ ^i."w 1* *•-!, 1 iS ''Z Cj * UJ _, LJJ v-* •| -.-PLUMBING1HJ•*v-1*'r i1 <S X. £j;->**i^rS *r i j; C'» LJJcn =/; M-^ -r1-J- _, '^i CT in 1N> L! S S X SEWER AND BL/CO DIPL/CO ;-J1Jk.3 , \ I v X, ^ ^ocLU - 5 n •n 1 Q Z Ooc (3OCLU Q Z —' t''f*-*(.^V**,/ Jl Z -J L \rJ "t X ^ cc LU 1- 1 n LU h-co n i- o Q. O ' 't1 , I ; t • ,,.-' >i TUB AND SHOWER PAN 1—i• ^' ( •* i .3 !".- <J O Ji LLJ ^ " 1 g C5 -- ~ ^ — r cLL. < C < Cc [ c L h < L C L h < i [ | r; J nLJ ?> n 5 0 D n LI U C cu < S D ii* j / ;' **• _ L,/.' J-^^ i1 - ^V5^ELECTRICAL /-->_^*t- ' ~ •. ^. ' f i \ i$ •-- oc LU LL. LL D ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND JZ\l-"/ i X, C C K L [ C C C '-*-,_.-•}1i - J C uJu c DD 3n c,^" >/ ^'_\••''— in ; : J3 j -| j ,. 1 C. _• OC D ELECTRIC SERVICE . D TEMPOFk—'*Lut i•:''-c'-,f * L. •^ - ••' j ^ ; n t -D BONDING- J-D POOL r3an> ^»f*3"O7Z -j):::*•'~j-^1H-'11 ""|1 **t XJ1,'.I, i I"1 t ^. ' |r ( *-^ '^ t [ , / j- | j '; t ( 1 i - , f- —-,. f • - < C« t < m < 1 • J **'L"~J7L^ _: , f L. J J«•rtc ug ~_*v'rtv.'-, ! ' ~". ^ / -,' ' ' ' - i 1 Oz E LL UJ CC p' Q. 06 0 a a /~~r jafJ3"">^_-"_^.., " " f HEAT — ;AIR;COND SYSTEMS < '--ri •" ,f «_ 1M. "i t "* L, 7 ji ' *• •._"VENTILATING SYSTEMS ': " . ,i.- .. . ' ... '-" j'...i "i ^si(,1 .,"f''w/i *''V •> f^" " \ £^&Q, a:Q.a.•^-i-j«c UJ.1 -^ 2:' CALL FOR FINAL INSPECTIC"r" K ' t i — — " QUJ ^Occa. Q, SUJ UJ QQ : ITEMS ABOVE HAVE(ii--• - " •- < LL rt.» J ( t •^ \ V ^-a ft •ss " 11 .s O Z m _i D_ J'"• - ' •'" i V -s% * — • 0oc UJ LU _'•;•-/-f\ ^•-— \ ^^"-***» "=*=:MECHANICAL ~ "^i*•"' j 1 i .-. S *^ i » '"* *\, CO<c _.'LL^ ** ••'L " P>,» yx, • ^ «" *' — ! _V Xi ^BUILDING-'~ i r ••"• i ~ fL j .j - i ^ " \ r ^^ !» Ci. ^ \SPECIAL CONDITIONSi ' i j•• !' ^ \\ i City of Carlsbad MISCELLANEOUS 1200 ELM, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • TEL 1^9)4385525 RECEIPT U HOUSE MOVING D PARKS AND RECREATION FEE D PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE D SCHOOL FEE DISTRICT ! I Carlsbad COMPLETE FOR PLAN CHECK ONLY LOL Encimtas _. San DiegoLEGAL DESCR.PTION CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPAN ASSESSORS PARCEL NO DESCRIPTION OF WORK PLAN ID NO i'"*"'- ^" DESIGNER ADDRESS/ •WARNING PLAN CHECK F APPLICANT IN 180 DAYS AND FORFEITED TO THE CITY N IS TAKEN RMIT IS ISSUED ARE COMMENTS Signature of Applicant White — Applicant Yellow — File Pink — (1) Finance (2) Data Process Gold — Assessor FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION ,, PLAN CHECK NUMBER . C^>^)~ ^ C. ^) }1i4;su) f/jJo*$o DATE I ~ PROJECT NAME ADDRESS 3o7£-CAr4c - PROJECT NO TYPE OF UNIT UNIT NUMBER NUMBER OF UNITS PHASE NO CONTACT PERSON. CONTACT TELEPHONE. INSPECTED BY INSPECTED BY INSPECTED BY DATE INSPECTED DATE INSPECTED DATE INSPECTED > APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED COMMENTS D 7/y Rev 1/86 WHITE Suspense GREEN Engineering CANARY Utilities PINK Planning GOLD Fire PLAN CHECK NUMBER PROJECT NAME ADDRESS j PROJECT NO TYPE OF UNIT CONTACT PERSON CONTACT TELEPHONE. FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION .UNIT NUMBER PHASE NO NUMBER OF UNITS INSPECTED BY INSPECTED BY INSPECTED BY DATE INSPECTED DATE INSPECTED DATE INSPECTED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED COMMENTS Rev 1/86 WHITE Suspense GREEN Engineering CANARY Utilities PINK Planning GOLD Fire *.«»•" "-'IK ••' „ ,;s,.* -••-";"•- •"-'. * - T£T™" FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION >«wwra .PLAN ' ADDRESS PROJECT NO TYPEJOF UNIT * V^* \^ ' W* ^ .l.Z.&J- DATE . UNIT NUMBER PHASE NO CONTACT PERSON. CONTACT TELEPHONE. NUMBER OF UNITS INSPECTED BY INSPECTED INSPECTED BY DATE INSPECTED DATE INSPECTED DATE INSPECTED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED COMMENTS Rev 1/86 WHITE Suspense GREEN Engineering CANARY Utilities PINK Planning GOLD Fire FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION PLAN CHECK NUMBER PROJECT-NAME . • OO ' <—DATE I~ ADDRESS PROJECT NO TYPE OF UNIT CONTACT PERSON. CONTACT TELEPHONE. .UNIT NUMBER NUMBER OF UNITS .PHASE NO INSPECTED BY INSPECTED BY DATE INSPECTED DATE INSPECTED DATE INSPECTED APPROVED APPROVED APPROVED Deft ISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED COMMENTS V., Rev 1/86 WHITE Suspense GREEN Engineering CANARY Utilities PINK Planning GOLD Fire ESGIL CORPORATION 932O CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 2O8 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (619) 56O1468 DATE- August 15, 1985 <jJjURISDICTI JURISDICTION: Carlsbad Q PLAN CHECK. FILE COPY PLAN CHECK NO: 85-423 Set II PROJECT ADDRESS: Corte Del Nogal Lot 9 UPS DESIGNER PROJECT NAME: Mitsui Fudusan ,—| The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where ud necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply .—. with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficien- I I cies identified are resolved and checked by building department staff. 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 the jurisdiction's [{ copy for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to return to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: D Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that plan check has been completed. Esgil staff did advise applicant that the plan check has LX] been completed. Person contacted: Architect Date contacted: 8-15-85 Telephone # 721-1600 REMARKS: BY; Richard Esgate ENCL: ESGIL CORPORATION ESGIL CORPORATION 932O CUES VPEAKE DR . SUITE 2O8 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 ((> I <)) 5(>O-1468 DATE:7/31/85 JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD PLAN CHECK NO: 85-423 PROJECT ADDRESS: Corte Del Noaa.1 . Lot QAPPLICANT ^JURISDICTION QPLAN CHECKER QFILE COPY QUPS QDESIGNER PROJECT NAME: Mitsua Fudusan. Tilt-up shell D D D D D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficien- cies identified are resolved and checked by building department staff. 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 the jurisdiction's copy for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to return to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Krommenhoek/McKeown, 3355 Mission Ave. Suite 211 Oceanside, CA 92054 Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that plan check has been completed. Esgil staff did advise applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Tom Aubrey Date contacted: 7/31/85 Telephone # 721-1600 REMARKS: cc: Krommenhoek/McKeown Attn: torn Aubrey 1515 MOrena Blvd. San Diego, CA 92110 BY:Esate ESGIL CORPORATION ENCL: /Jj'.ffl fOBLL^ T0: Citp of Cartebab Krominenhoek/McKeown Q APPLICANT COPY 3355 Mission Ave. St.211 QCITY COPY Oceanside, CA 92054 1200 ELM AVENUE D PLAN CHECKER COPY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 ENCLOSURES: 1. PLAN CORRECTION SHEET A. Plan Check Number 85-423 B. Site address Corte Del Nogal, Lot #9 C. Owner Mitsui Fudosan Inc. D. Building Code Applicable 1976 LAC. 1979 UPC, 19S2 LBC, 1984 NEC _ E. Occupant Load 489 _ Stories 1, 22 'height F. Occupancy B-2 _ Use to be determined G. Type of Construction V-N _ Sprinklers: xxxYes _ No H. Allowable Floor Area 40,800 _ Actual 48,874 _ I. Basis for Area Increase 70% for 4 yardX200°o for sprinklers 3. Remarks shell Date Plans Submitted 7/11/85 Date Plans to Plan Checker 7/12/85 Date Initial Plan Check Completed 7/30/85 By Dick Esgate Applicant Contact Person John McKeown Tel. 721-1600 FOREWORD- PLEASE READ 1. This plan check is limited to technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the handicapped. The plan check is based on regulations enforced by the Building Inspection Department. 2. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. For information regarding those departments, please contact Mr. Carter Darnell at (619) 438-5525. 3. The items below need clarification, modification or change. All items have to be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 303 (c), 1982 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. 4. Please submit two sets of corrected plans and show on this list where corrections were made i.e. sheet, detail, etc. Return any original plans and documents that were returned to you by the city. The above items may be returned to the City Building Department or to Esgil Corporation at 9320 Chesapeake Dr., Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, telephone (619) 560-1468. CITY OF CARLSBAD PLAN CHECK NO. 85-423 JULY 31, 1985 5. Include with the Building Code Data on the title sheet the following code information: Description of proposed building use Justification to exceed allowable area in Table 5-C 6. Show on the site plan, or provide the grading plans, showing finish floor elevations, elevations of finish grade adjacent to buildings, drainage patterns and locations and gradients of cut or fill slopes. 7. Show the height of the retaining walls shown on the site plan. Provide design calculations and structural plans for the walls or note on the site plan that they are not included v/ith this permit application. 8. Deleted. 9. The two-hour area separation wall on sheet A-2 references detail 9/A10. Detail 9/A10 is a one-hour stud wall not a two-hour wall. The two-hour wall on sheet A-7 references detail 16/A9 which is a concrete wall with an undimensioned parapet. Please correct details and references. 10. The two-hour wall stops short of the e-cterior wall. Show how it will be made to comply with Section 505(e)2. As shown the windows mu^t be 3/4-hour fire rated. 11. All area separation walls must extend in a continuous straight vertical plane from the foundation to a point 30 inches above the roof. 12. Two-hour area separation walls may terminate at the roof sheathing provided that: A. Where the roof/ceiling framing elements are parallel to the walls, such framing and elements supporting such framing shall be of not less that one-hour fire-resis- tive construction for a widthof not less that 5 feet on each side of the wall. CITY OF CARLSBAD PLAN CHECK NO. 85-423 JULY 31, 1985 12. Continued. B. Where roof/ceiling framing elements are perpendicular to the wall, the entire span of such framing and ele- ments supporting such framing shall be of not less than one-hour fire-resistive construction. C. Openings in the roof shall not be located within 5 feet of the area separation wall. Section 505(3). 13. No openings in the roof are permitted within 5 feet of a two- hour area separation wall if parapets are not provided. Section 505 (e)3. 14. The two-hour wall shown in detail D/A7 is a concrete wall with a foundation. Please show the wall structural require- ments on the structural plans. 15. Provide complete details of the area separation wall(s) to show compliance with Section 505(e)l-5. 16. See the attached artical, "Area Separation Walls Revisited", and incorporate appropriate data and details on your plans. 17. Glass in doors or within 12 inches of doors is required to be safety glazing. Section 5406(d) 18. Glass in excess of 9 square feet with the lowest edge less than 18 inches above a walking surface shall be safety glazing or shall have a horizontal member not less than 1-1/2 inches in width and located between 24 and 36 inches above the walking surface. 19. Specify roof material and application. The roof shall be fire-retardant per Section 3202(b). 20. Provide skylight details to show compliance with Section 3401 and 5207 or provide ICBO or other recognized approval listing. 21. When serving nore than 100 sprinkler heads, automatic sprinkler systems shall be supervised by an approved central, proprie- tary or remote, station service, or shall be provided with a local alarm which will give an audible signal at a constantly attended location. CITY OF CARLSBAD PLAN CHECK NO. 85-423 JULY 31, 1985 22. Provide a copy of the project soil report prepared by a California licensed civil engineer. The report shall include foundation design recommendations based on the engineer's findings and shall comply with UBC Section 2905. 23. Note on the foundation plan that: "Prior to the contractor requesting a Bailding Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the Building Official in writing that: a. the building pad was prepared in accordance with the soils report; b. the utility trenches have been properly backfilled and compacted, and; c. the foundation excavations, forming and reinforcement comply with the soils report and approved plan". 24. Include on the special inspection chart on sheet S-l the pilasters with 3,000 p.s.i., f'c. 25. Provide design calculations for the narrow panels between openings acting as columns. The footing depths specified on sheet S-l are conflicting. Wall panel note 16 requires 18" depth and concrete note 1 requires 24" minimum depth. 26. Provide a complete set of calculations for this job in numerical order, some of the sheets provided are not applicable to this job and the sheets are not in numerical order. 27. Add note to require identification of each service on the building as required by NEC. 230-2, and San Diego Area Newsletter 230-2. 28. By policy, the Carlsbad inspection department requires the ampacity of the unfused tap to equal the anpacity of the buss bars in the panel being supplied. If you have any questions, please contact Dick Esgate of Esgil Corporation at (619) 560-1468. Thank you. Date: 7/o//ffirb Jurisdiction_A Prepared byi VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE Q Bldg. Dept, D Esgil PLAN CHECK NO. BUILDING ADDRESS _ APPLICANT/CONTACT BUILDING OCCUPANCY 'PHONE NO. DESIGNER PHONE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION f\J CONTRACTOR PHONE BUILDING PORTION 7 * ! 1 •-" '• // f 1^ X.'.' v__>.-V/ (• Air Conditioning: Commercial Residential Res. or Comm. Fire Sprinklers Total Value BUILDING AREA ^6. °'7V <-/ " 5 7X VALUATION MULTIPLIER /-? @ 0 @ '. r"^ VALUE 1^&$1'«/ 733/1 s /<?£>/ 9/7 Fee Adjusted To Reflect D Energy Regulations ^Fee x 1.1) D Handicapped Regulations (Fee X--i_i Building Permit Fee $ Plan Check Fee $ COM MENTS. 7 8/4/82 Date:Jurisdiction Prepared byipared DVI 0 Jt—/ ^ z_* -ff VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK Bldg. Dept. Esgil PLAN CHECK NO. BUILDING ADDRESS v la r A? /)-2. 1 /' / - <? J X. L^oT ~*J APPLICANT/CONTACT ~'PHONE NO. BUILDING OCCUPANCY — -? o-6 ^~- TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION (^ t\J BUILDING PORTION ~7f i^ 's--:^<sf*.y ,.', £>&%>»>/ s * jS Air Conditioning Commercial Residential Res. or Comm. Fire Srcrinklers Total Value BUILDING AREA /" ^x f-{3 -J7y )-v. _-^ s &) %> & ' -/ - 5 /y DESIGNER PHONE CONTRACTOR VALUATION MULTIPLIER /^ ^^flfl<=> - — 0 0 e ^r^ PHONE VALUE °> ^.B.^0^/ cr-y^^^ X^ '"* J* — »—«* 73vJ// y / OO J J / 7 Fee Adjusted To Reflect D Energy Regulations ^Fee x 1.1) Q Handicapped RegulaLfons (Pee x,JU 065) Building Permit Fee $ Plan Check Fee $ COM HE N TS- 7 7 8/4/82 \N CHECK ANNING: ADDRESS TYPE OF STRUCTURE SCHOOL FEES: SAN DIEGUITO_ CARLSBAD $ « COVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT FENCES/WALLS TWO CAR GARAGE COMMENTS: LAs\/9 ^T ENCINITAS SAN MARCOS REQUIRED SETBACKS, FRONT SIDE REAR \ V EfixWx) >/> coc^ (tt<nc»fl»flw i dl ^DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL REQUIRED; wDIXc: o-c uj LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: :nvinc,\hEMTAL REQUIRED: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: OK TO 13SUE:DATE: A.P.N. CHECKED?LEGAL DESCRIPTION VERIFIED PARK IN LlcU IMPROVEMENTS: GRADING PERMIT; EASEMENTS:ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: OK TO ISSUE: ENGINEERING INSPECTION REQUIRED: PUBLIC WWCS INSPECTOR; FiNAL OK;DATE: IF THIS ifFtf IS NOT CHECKED, BUILDING DEPARTMENT WILL MAKE ALL INSPECTIONS (DRIVEWAYS, CURB CUT. DRAINAGE, ETC.) 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1989 TELEPHONE (619) 438-5523 PROJECT ARCHITECT OWNER M IT"SO > Citp of Cartefcafc FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 OF. PLAN CHECK REPORT APPROVED K DISAPPROVED PLAN CHECK* OCCUPANCY - — CONST [^PRINKLERED D TENANT IMP I/A/ ADDRESS ADDRESS 3?rT .ADDRESS 5. 5> oJ O k, ,PHONE "7T-V - } L,OO TOTAL SQ FT £f-(0 OOP STORIES / APPROVAL OF PLANS IS PREDICATED ON CONFORMING TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND/OR MAKING THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS JL 11 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND PERMITS Provide one copy of floor plan(s), site plan, sheets Provide two site plans showing the location of all existing fire hydrants within 200 feet of the project Provide specifications for the following Permits are required for the installation of all fire protection systems (sprinklers, stand pipes, dry chemical, halon, CO2, alarms, hydrants) Plan must be approved by the fire department prior to installation The business owner shall complete a building information letter and return it to the fire department FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT The following fire protection systems are required afAutomatic fire sprinklers (Design Criteria ) U Dry Chemical, Halon, COz (Location ) D Stand Pipes (Type Fire Alarm (Type/Location Fire Extinguisher Requirements D One 2A rated ABC extinguisher for each _ extinguisher not to exceed 75 feet of travel D An extinguisher with a minimum rating of _ sq ft or portion thereof with a travel distance to the nearest _ to be located D Other 8 Additional fire hydrant(s) shall be provided o/J EXITS Exit doors shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort A sign stating, " This door to remain unlocked during business hours" shall be placed above the mam exit and doors EXIT signs (6" x 3A" letters) shall be placed over all required exists and directional signs located as necessary to clearly indicate the location of exit doors GENERAL , dispensing or use of any flammable or combustible liquids, flammable liquids, flammable gases and rdous chemicals shall comply with Uniform Fire Code dmg(s) not approved for high piled combustible stock Storage in closely packed piles shall not exceed 15 feet in height, 12 feet on pallets or in racks and 6 feet for tires, plastics and some flammable liquids If high stock pil- ing is to be done, comply with Uniform Fire Code, Article 81 .14 Additional Requirements /3 .15 Comply with feaulations on attached sheet(s)31?, ;>^^^~-Plan Examiner.Date- Report mailed to architect . Met with .Attach to Plans DATE_ ENGR. JULY 1985 RKB PROJECT RALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK burkett &uuong structure! & civil engineers SHEET. JOB M COVER B 3171 A STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Krommenhoek/McKeown I. Associates 1515 Morena Boulevard P 0. Box 82208 San Diego, California 92110 DATE. ENCR. BURKETT ENGINEERS SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA SHEET JOB '•JO PROJECT = i> 40 = ZS 8 ft 7.7 W- -f »'», f. /,25X I USi -4' SPAkl = 11,7' M = S - ,-'•7*6X7 DATE. ENGR. burkett &ujong SHEET. JOB N003/-7/ A: PROJECT structural & civil engineers XV f PROJECT burkett &UUOHQ SHEET. structural & civil engineers JOB KIO 3 / 7 / A_ ." A ) •*»—•* Kg-/ f-f Roof* -*-*<tf -4V- ^5-7 C-. /" J: _ 1^- r DATE. PROJECT burkett SHEET_ JOB NO.-?/7//\- structural & civil engineers guStfJESS PfrRK ( Bt-oc, A } **' 44' /* = If 1. t- 63-1 x/ -•288 -- .294 X <<< - /<: DATE. ENGR. PROJECT burkett & ujono structural t civil engineers SHEET JOB Mo'ff^ / "7 / , A =• • 7 7 - -273 -T 0/2", -j; ' "f // - ~7 -=. - £/ / fc - . — - / 2- ~*1?/"2/ J P1 ~ ," < >>i DATE. ENGR. burkett &wong SHEET JOB NO 31 PROJECT structure! & civil engineers Pw- -. -//go-' 1 L' 1\ - 4 - C. -- 1 1" -' 2-7 <3 2 TL 17 Ai.b •v P c -/ 7 X '/,,.* ' ) / burkett PROJECT structural & civil engineers "A' SHEET_ JOB Ni ft . /4 r ^ , /!<• r ft,)/- ID A " /f P - -•?/') "' 7/£7 "" t/: A - <? - 1*1 PROJECT burkett &uuong structural & civil engineers - 'M"A 7. otf *i7 t -. II «/ y/Jf ->• 77, t /4'" "> ,0."1 ^: A 6 " <z PL TC -- , K IK, fa -ff.e - **{*& Li <>*-> -re f ^ ,K -* 1 2-~ 0 c _ - -7 5/as burkett ^m SHEETfcujongFIMGB <~Cs ' ' •* -—' JOB NO_ structural & civil engineers PROJECT t -t t' 1 ' 'OL. -re, ^/tZ/* A"Jo' ( 5'k x -2. 1 TTTF 2 .n DATE . ENOK 7/85. PROJECT burkett & LUOHQ engineers & planners SHEET _ JO* NO. /.SB £6 oexso /v 2.01. **> 37- •S3 coL. s/Z* S7 X 2 7 3?. £> c. 3 86 /•V*/Dt>0 6 V-7. 7 D-&* I 53 e-ot '5/Mr 'ZA WAY).§- DATE_ ENGR. burkett &uuong SHEET. JOB NO. PROJECT structurol & civil engineers *-/<,••? IB m~r £si.t ,? 73-^ /.*/>- 73 (' -Jy - * 3 -t 7 =«?.«?J X e- &5 X -2-23 - o-7^ •^..^ - / 7-0 "^ ^ t''-P7-0J 1.06 £ • ENGR. PROJECT burkett &uuong structural * civil engineers SHEET JOB NO]t-j/ Lx v A*' ' y v; 8»l j' ? v i*' r "< M^ ^ . . ir>' } **-*< - i-*-1 u. ijc' 1- -Z4-' L ^ ' "•is fr»/ :f" f *klf' Av) f 'I II - Jo DATE.burkett &uuong SHEET. PROJECT structure) & civil engineers JOB N0f3 17 I A <-V . t4-' WTi i /-<wt<"^-( ; S'*xt8'/T.' ^ /s/ Roof* a t- • - burkett »*-.. among structural & civil engineers PROJECT , l/'-z/^cs^ ~-lB6<*J(7 73 x- /<3-* /86 = 2, X ) 4- ?.(> flo -j- I aGr lY^ - £,/f hi '•' I/, -- ^$X ?u'c ££<?"• _ i*- '- T burkett J0, PROJECT structural & civil engineers /''-*/' ^ - Me. i '- £4- ' X 3 6 -f I -o § - w. C - T cc-B V' m ' ,1 j u^^ 4-11 ' & /67 ' " o (^ HATF burkett PROJECT structural & civil engineers ^ P/A._ f <<-'£- ^rt-t-PA f 8 e <f.l&'t <_ J. <r tf-iiQ/^-) -?$* 3 -- 30^ , burkett structural & civil engineers PROJECT 3fo x / 7 /- C 74.% + /?<% ' &l?i: 3/&' d 9 3 "^ DATE. PROJECT D Mf\f. &wong structure! & civil engineers ?Y' f^& y- - v - s~* 3 /?- d *" Ca - 3t - ** 2 <x DATE ENGR £ burkett &uuong SHEET JOB NO_ PROJECT structural & civil engineers ,£& ^ tx/V A * * •* s /' ^ *•% /I 7 & 5 ?6 " 1 _£,A/, <n? V- / '*y DATE. ENGR. PROJECT burkett &UUODQ structured & civil engineers SHEET. JOB NO 7 / A? a -•? i. A ' \ h •/*»>•. 6 >• ftf '1 - 7" = ff 5 7- / /7 0-7 / ' 5' -f-V- ,r T^s^T.-<-°II -/1se 3 •=- ""} 61 - "V §_"""' — 1-50 L•re- DATE ENGR £" ^ PROJECT P/9V burkett &wong SHEET. JOB MO 2>l ~11 structure! 4 civil engineers S,i~if f S ttj 7 .J.il <-/<-,!' ^ /5 J ?-^J__2;_.r/=>7':> = f ^"xr J = 2 7 -a. *' ( 5 -&s - °- y •7 v -,. /.?• DATE_ ENGR. PROJECT burkett &uuong SHEET. JOB NO structural & civil engineers \\ 5 - . 7 /« /, <r - • 7 >*,T- 11 •/*!*>• - 7.X 7? S/ « ' $-' ATX, ENGR PROJECT burkett &ujong structural & civil engineers JOB :? u PROJECT structural & civil engineers &' } SHEET. NO_ LL-- A H / '( 7 t~ 'fg'iB^+ijf'S, /So /?.6 /a, ^ r g ?rul ^ , 00 ' 1 H W ^ r ~~' . burkett PROJECT JOB NO in/ A- structural & civil engineers /?«' 4" ,' |C I_- R | £•- <"J __ : ,£ 4~s-1~ ag~ 1"/av ^' r g-^-/ A e TL r - OJ c ' ^ r- <. T-V7-T ^r'5T7^ i 2 <-/ 67/60 - "^%^ ,^ r, /.7/ <? ^" burkett structure! & civil engineers <„,„,„,„ ,0. N f ' w .. - 17 ^ f £•* Vc ' / 78 ' f T77. b -~ BI DATE ENGR. burkett &uuong SHEET. JOB MO :? / 7V • PROJECT & civil engineers PROJECT burkett &WOnQ structurol & civil engineers i ^I— / /;., U*- ^ f- *l\ !,A , It/1 '- /77 6' "' X2. + J ? tv ''--- / / # ^' ? x ^3* 1 /o / V/x 2x M /414 r ' 4/11 b) 4t> 4- {1 L frti* V, ^ 4i 4 /- ^o i ?-], bi" ''^: - 2 7.4* /*£,'=- T* > ri i A. 4 o — ^ j | « *^ ,*i* 39-8 ff if." r (j -tt/t - 7 ,b ] /&*' - DATE. ENGR. PROJECT burkett &uuong structural & civil engineers SHEET. JOB NO 3 / 7 / -7-j - 115 \/f ~. <-i-)< O . <b (2 '7 r 7 J. ^(<5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC 62BO RIVERDALE ST SAN DIEGQ. CALIF 92,ZD . TELE 280-432, . P a BOX ZO6Z7 SAN DIEBD, CALIF 92,2D 74-83, VELIE WAY PALM DESERT. CALIF 9ZZ6O 6 7 B ENTERPRISE ST ESCONDIDO, CALIF 9 2 D 2 TELE TELE 3 4 6 - I O 7 B 746-4544 November 5, 1985 Mitsui-Fuddsan U.S.A., Inc. 6354 Corte Dei Abeto, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 SCS&T 8521133 Report No. 3 SUBJECT: Report of In-Place Density Tests, Proposed Commercial Building, Lot 9 Palomar Airport Business Park, Carlsbad, California. REFERENCE: Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Prepared by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., dated June 20, 1985. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, this report has been prepared to report the results of the in-place density tests performed in the natural ground and compacted fill material at the subject site by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. These tests were performed between October 22 and 30, 1985. AVAILABLE PLANS To assist in determining the locations and elevations of our field density tests and to define the general extent of the site grading for this phase of work, we were provided with a grading plan prepared by Henry Worly Associates, undated. SOUTHERN C A L I F O R N SOIL AND TESTING,I N C SCS&T 8521133 November 5, 1985 Page 2 FIELD TESTING Field density tests were taken by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. The density tests were taken according to A.S.T.M. Test 1556-74 and the location and results of those tests are shown on the attached plates. The locations and elevations of the in-situ tests were determined in accordance with their importance and the accuracy and proximity of the survey control provided by other than Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. representatives. Unless otherwise note, their locations and elevations were determined by pacing and hand level methods and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. LABORATORY TESTS Maximum dry density determinations were performed on representative samples of the soils used in the compacted fills according to A.S.T.M. Test 1557-78, Method C. This method specifies that a four (4) inch diameter cylindrical mold of 1/30 cubic foot volume be used and that the soil tested be placed in five (5) equal layers with each layer compacted by twenty-five (25) blows of a 10 pound hammer with a 18 inch drop. The results of these tests, as presented on Plate Number 2, were used in conjunction with the field density tests to determine the percent of relative compaction of the compacted backfill. CONCLUSIONS Based on field observations and the density test results, it is the opinion of Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. that the grading was performed basically in accordance with the recommendations contained in the referenced geotechmcal report, and the recommendations contained therein do apply to the subject site with one exception. Instead of undercutting Building B the contractor elected to reinforce the footings with 2 No. 5 bars top and bottom. SCS&T 8521133 November 5, 1985 Page 3 This report covers only the services performed between October 22 and 30, 1985. Additional testing will be required for utilities and pavement sections. Our opinions presented herein are based on our observations and the relative compaction tests results. As limited by the scope of the services which we agreed to perform, our opinions presented herein are based on our observations and the relative compaction tests results. Our services were performed in accordance with the currently accepted standards of practice and in such a manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the mass grading operations with the job requirements. No warranty, express or implied is given or intended with respect to the services which we have performed, and neither the performance of those services nor the submittal of this report should be construed as relieving the grading contractor of his primary responsibility to conform with the job requirements. If you have any questions after reviewing our report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. Charles H. Christian, R.C.E. #22330 CHC:DAP:mw cc: (2) Submitted (2) Krommenhoek/McKeown (2) Burkett and Wong (1) SCSST, Escondido SCALE O 30 60 90 120 RETAINING WALL BUILDING'PAD=261.97' TAINING WALL \T 17 EXIST!NG 2:1 SLOPE \ LEGEND: IN PLACE DENSITY TEST LOCATION EXISTING CONTOURS DEPTH OF REMOVAL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING,INC.BY PC JOB NUMBER 8521133 DATE 11-5-85 Plate No. 1 Co » — ti— i i— > i ro i—"en 0 i— •oo (—• -p. co i — *i— » on O r— -om 0 FIMUM MOISI(PERCENT)— i C73m X iff n o C 73 -n Z H (_J ro COroro •n o <-•• -o CU 3 ro CTIt-« o TlCD ro ro i— >co CTI CO UDon -J t— •o | COo1 COen t— '1— » oororo -a 0<->• -a CU 3 roen UD O ~nCD CO CTI >_, -P* oo UDCTI --J i — * O1 COo1 COen i—1 O co ro -a ot+ -o CU 3 roenUD 0 CO CTI t— >-p. CTl OO UD CTl ^J O 1roeni00en UD COroro -o ort- -a cu 3 ro CTlro o -nCD i— » ,_, .£> CO UD CTl en Oiroeni COen 00 00roro -a 0rf -a cu 3 roCTIro o -T| CD ro CO >_, co CTl oo UDen -^ 0iroenicoen ^ COrom -a 0 c+ -o cu 3 ro ro o ~nCD -p. UD I—*ro co CO UD-p. CTI i — i 01roeni ooen CTl 00roro -u 0 r* -o a>3 ro CTlro o -nCD co i— » -P- UD CO UD CO I — i O1roeniCOen en oon> fD -a 0<^ "O EU 3 ro ro o -nCD -^ UD t— »i— » i— « eo UD CO CTI o1 roeniCOen -p. oororo -a 0<-*• -o cu 3 ro CTI en 2 CD -P> UD O O ro UDt— » en Oiro^«-iooen oo 00roro -a or+ -a cu 3 roCTIi— ' o ro CO ^t— * UD CO UD CO o1ror^i 00on ro oororo -a o <-*• -o cu 3 roenUD O -p. UD OCTl ro ro UDoo -^ 0 roroiooen COro -a o -o cu 3 roen o m CD CO CTl O CTl I—" l— > UDro -J 0 roro ooen —lm H ZO 0n —^ Oz mr—m m O —1 mvi ~z 73 — H m O-^ 73 r- •<C3 ,—CO *— n H ll ^ Qm r— n s|§ Zr! < z 9, m ^-Ni^e m H r— 0 0 z H m tn m-on 70 COO m o33 Hmco CDO O33 O coooo 00enro coco REPORT OF 6EOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOT 9, PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: Mitsin-Fuddsan U.S.A., Inc. 6354 Corte Del Abeto, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 PREPARED BY: Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. Post Office Box 20627 6280 Riverdale Street San Diego, California 92120 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL 6ZBD RIVERDALE ST SAN DIEGO CALIF 9Z12D • TELE ZBO-43Z1 . 7 4 - S 3 1 VELIE WAY PALM DESERT, CALIF 67B ENTERPRISE ST ESCDNDIDO, CALIF AND TESTING, INC p D BOX ZD627 SAN DIEGD, DALIF 9Z1ZD 9Z26D • TELE 3 4 6 - 1 Q 7 B 9ZOZ5 • TELE 746-4544 June 20, 1985 Mitsui-Fuddsan U.S.A., Inc. 6354 Corte Del Abeto, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 SCS&T 8521133 Report No. 1 SUBJECT: Gentlemen: Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Commercial Buildings, Lot 9, Palomar Airport Business Park, Carlsbad, California. In accordance with your request, we have completed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed project. We are presenting herewith our findings and recommendations. The findings of this study indicate that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations presented in the attached report are complied with. If you have any questions after reviewing the findings and recommendations contained in the attached report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. Robert-R.""Russell, R.C.E. #32142 RRR:CRB:mw cc: (2) Submitted (2) Krommenhoek-McKeown (2) Burkett and Wong (1) SCS&T, Escondido urtis R.'Burdett, C.E.G. #1090 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING,INC TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction and Project Description 1 Project Scope 1 Findings 2 Si te Descri pti on 2 General Geology and Subsurface Conditions 3 Geologic Setting and Soil Description 3 Tectonic Setting 3 Geologic Hazards 4 Groundwater 5 Recommendations and Conclusions 6 Site Preparation 6 Building Pads 6 Parking Areas 7 Surface Drainage 7 Earthwork 7 Foundati ons 7 General 7 Settl ement Character! stics 9 Retaining Walls 9 General 9 Backf 111 9 Bearing Pressure 9 Passive Pressure 9 Active Pressure 10 Factor of Safety 10 Slope Stability 10 Limitation 10 Review, Observation and Testing 10 Dm formi ty of Conditions 11 Change in Scope 11 Time Limitations 11 Professional Standard 12 Cl i ent' s Responsi bi 11 ty 12 Field Explorations 13 Laboratory Testing 13 ATTACHMENTS PLATES Plate 1 Plot Plan Plate 2 Subsurface Exploration Legend Plate 3-6 Trench Logs Plate 7 Direct Shear Test Results Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture Content Expansion Index Test Results APPENDIX Recommended Grading Specification and Special Provisions SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING. INC 6ZSO RIVERDALE ST SAN DIEGO CALIF 9212Q . TELE 2BD-43Z1 • P D BOX 2D627 SAN DIEDD CALIF 9212O 74-S31 VELIE WAY PALM DESERT, CALIF 9226D • TELE 3 4 6 - 1 a 7 a 6 7 S ENTERPRISE ST ESCDNDIDD, CALIF 9 2 O 2 5 • TELE 746-4544 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS LOT 9. PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for two proposed commercial/industrial buildings which are to be located at Lot No. 9 in the Palomar Airport Business Park in Carlsbad, California. It is our understanding that two concrete tilt-up structures with 22 foot high walls are planned for this site. It is further understood that only a minimal amount of additional grading will be necessary to develop the site. This information was obtained from conversations with the architect. The site configuration and exploration locations are shown on Plate Number 1 of this report. PROJECT SCOPE This investigation consisted of: surface reconnaissance; subsurface explorations; obtaining representative disturbed and undisturbed samples; laboratory testing; analysis of the field and laboratory data; research of available geological literature pertaining to the site; and preparation of this report. Specifically, the intent of this analysis was to: a) Explore the subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Page 2 b) Evaluate, by laboratory tests, the pertinent engineering properties of the various strata which will influence the development, including their bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential. c) Define the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards which could have an effect on the site development. d) Develop soil engineering criteria for site grading and provide design information regarding the stability of cut and fill slopes. e) Determine potential construction difficulties and provide recommendations concerning these problems. f) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structures anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation design. FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is a roughly trapezoidal shaped lot of 3.8 acres, located at the northeast end of Corte Del Nogal, in the Palomar Airport Business Park in Carlsbad, California. The topography consists of a relatively level area bounded by slopes with slope ratios on the order of 1.6:1 (horizontal to vertical) and the following approximate heights: on the northwest side a cut slope ranging from 10 to 28 feet, on the east side a combination cut and fill slope of 20 feet, on the southeast a combination cut and fill slope of up to 39 feet and on the northeast side a combination cut and fill slope of 3 to 4 feet. The site is bounded on all sides by commercial developments. Currently the site is vacant except for a SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Page 3 rectangular fenced-in storage area approximately 100 by 50 feet on the southeastern portion of the site. On-site vegetation consists of a light growth of weeds and grasses on the flat area and a light to moderate growth of weeds, grasses, landscaping shrubs and several trees on the slopes. GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain by Tertiary and Quaternary sediments and artificial fill. The northern portion of the site is cut into Tertiary sediments with the cut and fill line trending approximately southwest to northeast through the southeastern third of the site. The fill in this southern portion of the site consists of light tan-brown to gray-green, humid to moist, medium dense to dense, slightly plastic to plastic, clayey silt to silty clay in excess of 13 feet thick. In the northeastern portion of the fill area the fill was found to be underlain by 3 feet of tanbrown to brown, humid and medium dense, clayey silts. These were underlain by Tertiary sediments which are gray green, humid, medium dense to dense, slightly fissile claystones which are fractured and slightly weathered in the upper 2 1/2 feet. The cut portion of the site was underlain by the same Tertiary claystone. However, on the northwestern portion it is overlain by 2 feet of orange brown to white, humid and medium dense to dense, sandy siltstones. TECTONIC SETTING: No evidence of faulting was noted during our surface reconnaissance or in our exploratory trenches. However, it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones which typically consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone) are classified as active while others are classified as only potentially active according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those which have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Page 4 (the most recent 11,000 years) while potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 2,000,000 years before the present) but no movement, during Holocene time. A review of available geologic literature reveals the presence of numerous minor northeast trending faults in the vicinity of the site that are presently considered not capable of ground rupture, and the Rose Canyon Fault Zone approximately 8 miles to the southwest. The major active fault zones that could possibly affect the subject site include the Elsinore to the northeast and the San Clemente to the southwest. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The subject site can be considered to be relatively free of geologic hazards. Potential hazards such as tsunamis, seiches, liquefaction, or landsliding should be considered to be negligible or nonexistent. The most likely geologic hazard to affect the site is groundshaking as a result of movement along one of the major, active fault zones mentioned previously. The maximum bedrock accelerations that would be attributed to a maximum probable earthquake occurring along the nearest portion of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in the following table. TABLE I Fault Zone Rose Canyon Elsinore Coronado Banks San Clemente Distance 8 miles 23 miles 24 miles 54 miles Maximum Probable Earthquake 6.0 magnitude 7.3 magnitude 6.0 magnitude 7.3 magnitude Maximum Bedrock Acceleration 0.28 g 0.20 g 0.09 g 0.08 g SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Page 5 Earthquakes on the Rose Canyon or Coronado Banks Fault Zone are expected to be relatively minor. Major seismic events are likely to be the result of movement along the Elsinore or San Clemente Fault Zones. In addition, we have analyzed the fault zones which could affect the San Diego area in order to determine the probability of groundshaking of any given level. The individual faults and the different fault zones have slip rates which have been calculated to range from very low to very high rates of activity. The following chart summarizes our opinion of the probability of events which would result in the associated maximum and "design" bedrock accelerations. Peak Acceleration Design Acceleration 0.50 g 0.34 g 0.40 g 0.27 g 0.20 g0.30 g 0.25 g 0.20 g 0.15 g 0.10 g 0.17 g 0.13 g 0.10 g 0.07 g Probability of Occurrence 5 x 10 -4 1 x 10 -3 1 x 10 -2 5 x 10 -2 1 x 10 -1 5 x 10 -1 1 x 10 -° Probability of occurrence is defined as the 90% probability of any given event occurring during the assumed life of the proposed structure (50 years) which would occur in accelerations of that level. Construction in accordance with the minimum standards of the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and the governing agencies should minimize potential damage due to groundshaking. GROUNDWATER: No groundwater was encountered during our subsurface exploration and we do not anticipate any major groundwater related SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Page 6 problems, either during or after the construction of the proposed project. However, it should be recognized that minor groundwater seepage problems may occur after development of a site even where none were present before develoment. These are usually minor phenomena and are often the result of an alteration of the permeability characteristics of the soil, an alteration in drainage patterns and an increase in Irrigation water. Based on the permeability characteristics of the soil and the anticipated usage of the development, it is our opinion that any seepage problems which may occur will be minor in extent. It is further our opinion that these problems can be most effectively corrected on an individual basis if and when they develop. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS SITE PREPARATION BUILDING PADS: A review of the previous grading plan for this site, by Henry Worley Associates, indicated that Building A will be founded entirely on cut soils while Building B will be on both cut and fill soils. In view of this condition and the competent nature of the native soils, it is our opinion that no special site preparation will be required by Building A. We recommend, however, that the upper 12 inches of subgrade be scarified, moisture conditioned to at least 2% over optimum and densified to 90% relative compaction. Since Building B will be founded on both cut and fill soils, which could result in differential settlements, we recommend that the subgrade soils be excavated to a depth of one foot below the bottom of the proposed footings and be stockpiled for future use. The soils exposed at the base of this excavation should then be scarified 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum dry density. The stockpiled soils may then be replaced in eight lifts, moisture conditioned to at least 2% over optimum and densified as indicated above. The horizontal limits of these recommendations should include the area within a perimeter of 3 feet outside of the proposed structure. A sufficient number of in-place density tests should also be performed during grading to document that the above criteria has been complied with. SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Page 7 PARKING AREAS: We recommend that the subgrade soils beneath all areas to be paved should be scarified 12 inches. The soils within this depth should be moisture treated to 2% over optimum and densified to at least 90%. SURFACE DRAINAGE: We recommend that all surface drainage be directed away from the proposed structures and that ponding of water not be allowed adjacent to their foundations. EARTHWORK: All earthwork and grading contemplated for site preparation should be accomplished in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions. All special site preparation recommendations presented in the sections above will supersede those in the standard Recommended Grading Specifications. All embankments, structural fill and fill should be compacted to at least 90$ relative compaction at or slightly over optimum moisture content. Utility trench backfill within 5 feet of the proposed structures and beneath asphalt pavements should be compacted to minimum of 90% of its maximum dry density. The maximum dry density of each soil type should be determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. Test Method D-1557-78, Method A or C. FOUNDATIONS GENERAL: Due to the expansive characteristics of the prevailing foundation soils, the following recommendations are made so that structural damage is not likely to occur due to expansion. a) All footings should be founded a minimum of 24 inches below adjacent finish grade and may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2000 psf for footings in fill soils and 3000 psf for footings in natural ground. Footings should have a minimum width or diameter of 12 inches. SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Page 8 b) Both exterior and interior continuous footings should be reinforced with at least 2 No. 4 bars positioned 3 inches above the bottom of the footings and 2 No. 4 bars positioned 3 inches clear below finish floor. Pier footings need not be reinforced. c) Interior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness and underlain by a 6 inch blanket of clean coarse sand or crushed rock. Further, slabs should be reinforced with 6"x 6"-W1.4xW1.4 welded wire mesh and completely surrounded with a continuous footing. d) Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness and underlain by a 4 inch blanket of clean sand or crushed rock. Further, exterior slabs should be reinforced with 6"x6"-W1.4xW1.4 welded wire mesh and provided with weakened plane joints as recommended hereinafter. e) Weakened plane joints for exterior slabs should be provided for any slab greater than five feet in width. Any slab between five and ten feet should be provided with longitudinal weakened plane joint at its center line. Slabs exceeding ten feet in width should be provided with a weakened plane joint located three feet inside the exterior perimeter. f) Clayey soils should not be allowed to dry before placing concrete. They should be sprinkled if necessary to insure that the soils are kept in a very moist condition or at a moisture content exceeding two percent above optimum moisture content. g) Surface drainage should be directed away from the proposed foundation. Planters should be constructed so that water is not allowed to seep into soils beneath foundations or slabs. SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Page 9 h) Prior to placing concrete, the foundation excavations should be inspected by a representative of this office to verify compliance with the above recommendations. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and/or differential settlements for the proposed structure may be considered to be within tolerable limits provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. RETAINING WALLS GENERAL: It is our understanding that the retaining walls planned for the site will be of masonry construction and that they will have a maximum height on the order of 10 feet or less. According to the plans, walls are proposed along the northern limits of the proposed parking area. All walls should have adequate weep holes or a subdrain system to prevent a building of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. BEARING PRESSURE: The foundation for the proposed walls may consist of spread footings founded in the native soils or compacted fill. Footings should extend through any topsoils or the topsoils should be removed and be replaced as a compacted fill. Footings may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure as previously recommended. PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 275 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased one-third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.40 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the latter should be reduced by one-third. SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Page 10 ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of earth retaining structures with backfills sloping at a ratio of 2 to 1 may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 55 pounds per cubic foot for walls free to move at the top (unrestrained walls). This pressure does not consider any surcharge (other than the sloping backfill). If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. FACTOR OF SAFETY: The above values, with the exception of the allowable soil bearing pressure, do not include a factor of safety. Appropriate factors of safety should be incorporated into the design to prevent the walls from overturning and sliding. SLOPE STABILITY Based on the findings of this study, it is our opinion that the existing slopes are stable with relation to deep-seated failures. An examination of these slopes, however, revealed that they were constructed at a ratio of approximately 1.6:1 (horizontal to vertical) in lieu of the 2:1 ratio shown on the grading plan. Should any changes be proposed to these slopes, this office should review these plans and present our opinion regarding any potential impact on the slope stability. LIMITATIONS REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. The soil engineer and engineering geolgist should review and verify the compliance of the final grading plan with this report and with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Page 11 It is recommended that Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the soils engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. CHANGE IN SCOPE This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that it may be determined if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the State-of-the-Art and/or SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Page 12 Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY It is the responsibility of Mitsui-Fuddsan U.S.A., Inc., or their representatives to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the projects plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Page 13 FIELD EXPLORATIONS Four subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on the attached Plate Number 1 on June 11, 1985. These explorations consisted of trenches dug by means of a backhoe. The field work was conducted under the observation of our engineering geology personnel. The explorations were carefully logged when made. These logs are presented on the following Plate Numbers 3 through 6. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System as illustrated on the attached simplified chart on Plate 2. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are presented. The density of granular materials is given as either very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense. The consistency of silts or clays are given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, or hard. Disturbed and "undisturbed" samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (A.S.T.M.) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed is presented below: a) MOISTURE-DENSITY: Field moisture content and dry density were determined for representative undisturbed samples obtained. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the field moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the trench logs. SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Page 14 b) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. c) DIRECT SHEAR TESTS: Direct shear tests were performed to determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accomodate a sample having diameters of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. Samples were tested at different vertical loads and a saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inches per minute. The results of these tests are presented on attached Plate Number 7. d) COMPACTION TEST: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical soils were determined in the laboratory in accordance with A.S.T.M. Standard Test D-1557-78, Method A. The results of these tests are presented on the attached Plate Number 7. e) EXPANSION INDEX TEST: An expansion index test on remolded samples was performed on representative samples of soils likely to be used as compacted fill. The test was performed on the portion of the sample passing the #4 standard sieve. The sample was brought to optimum moisture content then dried back to a constant moisture content for about 12 hours at about 230 9 degrees Fahrenheit. The specimen was then compacted in a 4-inch-diameter mold in two equal layers by means of a tamper, then trimmed to a final height of 1 inch, and brought to a saturation of approximately 50%. The specimen was placed in a consolidometer with porous stones at the top and bottom, a total normal load of 12.63 pounds was placed (144.7 psf), and the sample was allowed to consolidate for a period of 10 minutes. SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Page 15 The sample was allowed to become saturated, and the change in vertical movement was recorded until the rate of expansion became nominal. The expansion index is reported on the attached Plate Number 7 as the total vertical displacement times the fraction of the sample passing the #4 sieve times 1000. CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION 1-20 very low 21-50 low 51-90 medium 91-130 high Above 130 very high BLD'G. B JMLJIrlL T V M ift'so'oa'EYzni si'i 1 LEGEND: • TRENCH LOCATION 60 120 yV SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ^f|X SOIL & TESTING, INC.By S.M.S. JOB NUMBER 8521133 DATE 6-25-85 Plate No. 1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CitART SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 COARSE GRAI'.ED, More than half of material is larger than No 200 sieve size GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No 4 sieve size but smaller than 3"GRAVELS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fines) SANDS CLE^' SANDS More than half of coarse fraction is s-naller than No 4 sieve size SANDS WITH FINES (Aooreciable amount of fines) 11 FIVE GRAINED, Mere than half of material is smaller than No 200 sieve size SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Linit less than 50 SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Lu-.lt greater than 50 HIGr'LY ORGANIC SOILS CROUP SYV3OL TYPICAL NA.MES GW Wall graded qravels, gravel- sand mixtures, little or no fines GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel sand mixtures, little or no fines CM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand, clay mixtures. 'i SW Well graded sand,gravelly ' sands, little or no fines (SP Poorly graded sands,gravelly sands, little or no fines SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silt mixtures. SC Clayey sands, poorly graded said and clay mixtures ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sand> silt or clayey-silt-sand nixtures with slight plast- icity CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,gravelly clays, sandy clays,silty clays, lean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silt> clays of low plasticity MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH Organic clays of isediura to high plasticity PT Peat and other higvly organic soils. — - Water level at time of excavation or as indicated US - Undisturbed, driven ring sanole or tube sample Ci< - Undisturbed chunlc sainpla BG - Bulk samole SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. DBBO RIVEROALE STREET BAN DIEOO, CALIFORNIA BB1BO BY RRR JOB NO 8521133 DATE 6-25-85 Plate No. 2 I t-o. UJo 1 - 2 _ 3 _ 4 _ 5 -SAMPLE TYPEBG CK SOILCLASSIFICATIONML TRENCH NUMBER 1 ELEVATION DESCRIPTION Greenish Gray, SILTSTONE Highly Fractured to 4 feet APPARENTMOISTUREHumid APPARENTCONSISTENCYOR DENSITYVery Stiff DENSITYIpcfl>•c 0 MOISTURECONTENT 1%)RELATIVECOMPACTION^!- — y/^V SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA "Hp SOIL & TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG LOGGED BY G. S. DATE LOGGED 6-11-85 JOB NUMBER 8521133 plate No. 3 it- 0- UJ 1 _ 2 - 3 ~ 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - - UJ Q.AMPLE TCO CK BG CK CK BG zo SOILASSIFICA_iO ML ML TRENCH NUMBER 2 ELEVATION DESCRIPTION Greenish Gray, SANDY SILT (Fill) Tanish Brown to Brown, SILTSTONE (Native) Weathered and Slightly Fractured t— yj Z QC Q. — Q. 0 < 5 Humid to Moist Humid UJ Ul COa: Jr z< 52 uj P- f/i Q o Stiff Very Stifi i- wz _ o I Ka 102.8 110.7 £ IT 2 -CO Ul o z2 Oo 19.5 4.2 a? zUl o H 0< < -1 0. o _ 90 - — 97 _ ~ - •• — — — y/V SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THnr SOIL & TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG LOGGED BY p <- DATE LOGGED JOB NUMBER 852U33 plateNo>4 it-o. UJ Q 1 - 2 - - 3 " 4 _ 5 _ 6 _ — 7 ~ 8 _ 9 10- 11 12 -SAMPLE TYPECK BG CK CK CK BG CK z ISOILCLASSIFICATIOML ML/ CL TRENCH NUMBER 3 ELEVATION DESCRIPTION Light Brown, SANDY SILT (Fill) Greenish Gray, CLAYEY SILT (Fill)APPARENTMOISTUREMoist Moist to Wet APPARENTCONSISTENCYOR DENSITYMedium Stiff Stiff DRY DENSITYIpcfl94.3 100.1 96.3 MOISTURECONTENT l%l14.5 19.7 23.1 a?RELATIVECOMPACTIONI— — : — —— — __— _~— — y/\ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HT? SOIL & TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG LOGGED BY r c DATE LOGGEDi3.:>. b-ll-ob JOB NUMBER 852U33 ^^^^ 5 I a LUa 1 _ 2 - 3 ~ 4 -SAMPLE TYPECK CK BG CK SOILCLASSIFICATIONSMML ML/ CL TRENCH NUMBER 4 ELEVATION DESCRIPTION Orange-Brown, SAND AND SILT Greenish Gray, CLAYEY SILTSTONE APPARENTMOISTUREHumid Humid APPARENTCONSISTENCYOR DENSITYMedium Dense Very Stiff DRY DENSITYIpcf)106.2 MOISTURECONTENT l%l9.3 RELATIVECOMPACTIONS!- — — — — — ; y/\ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA <nH SOIL & TESTING, INC. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG LOGGED BY £^5. DATE LOGGED 6_U_g5 JOB NUMBER 8521133 plate No. g DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS SAMPLE T-l @ 4 T-2 (<> 1-3 DESCRIPTION Undisturbed Remolded to 90% Angle of internal friction C ) 22 11 Cohesion intercept (psf) 500 300 MAXIMUM DENSITY 8 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT ASTM 1557-78 METHOD A SAMPLE T-2 @ 1-3 DESCRIPTION Maximum Density (pcf) 114.5 Optimum Moisture Content (°/o) 14.3 EXPANSION TEST RESULTS SAMPLE CONDITION INITIAL M C (%>) INITIAL DENSITY(pcf) FINAL M C (°/o) NORMAL STRESS (psf) EXPANSION index T-2 & 1-3 Remolded 11.7 102.6 27.6 144.7 115 ^XV SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TESTING VQ-X LABORATORY, INC. ^^mSsbS 6280 RIVERDALE STREET XX^r SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92120 >Jr 714-283 6134 BY RRR JOB NO 8521133 DATE 6-25-85 Plate No. 7 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, LOT 9, PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS GENERAL INTENT The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary soil investigation report and/or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the soil report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the soil report or in other written communication signed by the Soil Engineer. OBSERVATION AND TESTING Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., shall be retained as the Soil Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Soil Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide an opinion that the work was or was not accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the soil engineer and to keep him apprised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary soil report are encountered during the grading operations, the Soil Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Appendix, Page 2 If, in the opinion of the Soil Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as; questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., he will be empowered to either to either stop construction until the conditions are remedied or corrected or recommend rejection of this work. Test methods used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods: Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - A.S.T.M. D-1557-78. Density of Soil In-Place - A.S.T.M. D-1556-64 or A.S.T.M. D-2922. All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing A.S.T.M. testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of. all areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedures should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Soil Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Appendix, Page 3 drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be investigation by the Soil Engineer to determine if any special recommendation will be necessary. All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth in the Geotechnical Report. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Soil Engineer and/or a qualified Structural Engineer. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20% (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent soil condition. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1 1/2 times the the equipment width which ever is greater and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified hereinbefore for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20% shall be benched when considered necessary by the Soil Engineer. After clearing or benching, the natural ground in areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the minimum degree of compaction in the Special Provisions or the recommendation contained in the preliminary soil investigation report. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soils which possesses an in-situ density of at least 85% of its maximum dry density. SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Appendix, Page 4 FILL MATERIAL Materials placed in the fill shall be approved by the soil engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks, expansive and/or detrimental soils are covered in the soils report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the soil engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Soil Engineer before being brought to the site. PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to a minimum specified degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary soil investigation report. When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Appendix, Page 5 achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non-structural fills is discussed in the soil report, when applicable. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Soil Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Soil Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Soil Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot rollers shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at ratios of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut-back to finish contours. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90% of maximum dry density or that specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Soil Engineer is satisfied that the slopes will be stable in regards to surficial stability. Slope tests will be made by the Soils Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Soil Engineer in the form of a daily field report. SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Appendix, Page 6 If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no additional cost to the Owner or Soils Engineer. CUT SLOPES The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soil Engineer to determine if mitigating measures and necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the soil and geological report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. ENGINEERING OBSERVATION Field observation by the soil Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compacting operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of practice. The presence of the Soil Engineer or his representative or the observation and testing shall not release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. SCS&T 8521133 June 20, 1985 Appendix, Page 7 SEASON LIMITS Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damage site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacting natural ground, in the compacted fill, and in the compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as soil which will swell more than 3 percent against a pressure of 150 pounds per square foot from a condition of 90 percent of maximum dry density and air dried moisture content to saturation. Oversized fill material is defined as rocks or lumps over 6 inches in diameter. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve. TRANSITION LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill.