The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2270 COSMOS CT; ; 81-138; Permit1 hereby affirm that there is a consding agency for the performance ofwhich this permit is Issued (Sec 3097tructionthe work, Civil CoJ>0§CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGLabor Code, you must forthwith compprovisions or this permit shall be deenS !•*0 5** MH NOTICE TO APPLICANT If after maktificate of Exemption you should beeto the Workers Compensation proviwo-11"3 (D __." CO 5a&»if!?person tn any manner so as to becorrthe Workers Compensation Laws ofle subjecCaliformoj —o"1 certify that m the performance ofwhich this permit is issued 1 shall nolthe work: employto .2°(This section need not be completemit is for one hundred dollars ($100)S a.m -*"I•aCD CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTIONWORKERS COMPENSATION INSECopy is filed with the cityD Certified copy is hereby furnishedc -nPm COMPANYPOLICY NOWORKERS COMPENSATION DECLI hereby affirm that I have a certifisent to self insure or a certificateCompensation Insurance or a ce1thereof (Sec 3800 Labor Code)•?°2>S S" >° 2. ^o s- r oo <S o z3 a =>% 5-D 5 fl)~* tl>§•o 33 T30DC1U)CDOCD9«1(A|—nCDDCflr~D)S,s01s3IOS0CDDO>•ocwcfi)3O 1CDODQ.|OOOD03Oen6*«co3-^-1CDC^TJ0T3CD*<"'•3"OCTCaWo 1-S IcTill!3^ (D _ no)r s Liceiw(Dido(DennO O-sjCDCc/t3CD(/>•u3a.70jssions o? 3-s •»£D T3ao1!S o>- 3Sow x^* °0 ca %o S3 2.« *<O m r (/> o "n•n X m J O CHSSKc-is5i?Hi INSPECTION ^t Ill- a. UJ ! ,Q * Q s -,8 OCD J id*Q.' UJ. y.o D C< uz5 XUu.o I- o111I UJ oQ. 5 or UJI- a.UJcca. UJo u QUJ HI UJD UJ. Q.' aUJ u <a. ^u LUI- (/1<o o UJa-ifUJit-o ^ ' Citp of Cartebao REQUEST FOR INSPECTION RECORD INSPECTOR. OWNER PERMIT NO TIME .DATE ADDRESS or, REQUESTED BY PHONE NO BUILDING liV'TOUMDATIOM-. A REINFORCING STEEL n MASONRY D GROUT GUNITE D FLOOR AND CEILING SUB FRAME H SHEATHING G ROOF G SHEAR : : FRAME D EXTERIOR LATH D INSULATION f.] INTERIOR LATH OR DRYWALL 11 FINAL PLUMBING D UNDERGROUND PLUMBING D SEWER AND PL/CO 'J TOP OUT PLUMBING J TUB OR SHOWER PAN G GAS TEST D WATER HEATER D SOLAR WATER G FINAL PERSON TAKING REPORT ELECTRICAL D TEMPORARY SERVICE D UFFER GROUND G ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND C ROUGH ELECTRIC G POOL BONDING G ELECTRIC SERVICE ::: FINAL D CONDITIONED AJfl SYSTEMS D SOLAR HEAT / n PATIO G POOL C SPA G SIGN G GRADING [J DRIVEWAY G FINAL SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS. Ready For Inspection D Monday DAM D PM D Tuesday I Wednesday IH Thursday D Friday INSPECTION REPORT BUILDINGS Job Name. Job Location. Contractor:Q?.\/ Title of Approved Plans. Plans Prepared By Plan File No. Reason for Footing Inspection WCC Preliminary Report Date Date(s). Job No Superintendent: M\\(f. Date. Building Permit No. WCC Final Report Date: LIST AND IDENTIFY FOOTINGS INSPECTED. Lot No or Footing I.D.Type Depth; Width Soil or Geological Formation Cleanliness /ftr 0 / ( r&&S\/\"^ r *L Unusual Conditions or Problems WCC Representative Title. (B) Client (P) Contractor (Y) WCC Accounting C(S6r (W) WCC Pioject Manager Client Representative Job Name. FOOTING INSPECTION REPORT] i BUILDINGS fr-fitfsPfc /af3.g/<k Job No Job Location Contractor.£J:>Superintendent: Title of Approved Plans Plans Prepared By:J Plan File No. £ . ?! M. fl f' o{{)t<Z ? ' 4 Hdl^ $<2M 9 Date, Building Permit No Reason for Footing Inspection: •| WCC Preliminary Report Date.!WCC Final Report Date; /£ LIST AND IDENTIFY FOOTINGS INSPECTED. Lot No. or Footing I.D.Te Depth Width Soil or Geological Formation Cleanliness n a ^ j&+uJI 4 Q^^>/D j Unusual Conditions or Problems WCC Representative Title • ^jfegr/" J /)/\W) fe^ C£<-r (B) Client. (P) Contractor- (W) WCC Project Manager Client Representative. (Y) WCC Accounting /£ n //U/i FOOTING INSPECTION REPORT BUILDINGS Job Name Job Location Contractor. /}y\ Date(s) : 4/Z3/83 Job No: ; Superintendent; Title of Approved Plans: Plans Prepared By: ••ft' Plan File No : Q \ " \ 3 & ar-vw*_. J Date: 9/^o/Vz- Building Permit No:\ ,./Reason for Footing Inspection:/ pooy -fefco'• WCC Preliminary Report Date:.;J^//^/gQ WCC Final Report Date; /2/> Vyl 1 4f8f<g-L- :• ,. -. ... •• -. * ' ..,, s^i'. - u * I , " : • : ; ; ' '"---LIST AND IDENTIFY FOOTINGS INSPECTED. Lot No. or Footing I.D. ID ^M Type Depth Width Soil or Geological Formation Cleanliness 3 B.u B n. -7 ys 60 A Unusual Conditions or Problems _ of cur Sals Tr*2- +o <fe.r<fe. ; rf /r ,qf WCC Representative Title. (B) Client- (P) Contractor: (W) WCC Project Manager Client Representative: (Y) WCC Accounting I P & E ROOF STRUCTURES 605 S Palm St, Unit 'F • La Habra, CA 90631 CALIFORNIA STATE LICENSE NO 344499 (213)691 0713 (714)5223375 September 27, 1983 Carlsbad City Hall Department of Building and Safety 2960 Pio Pico Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 CONTRACTOR SUBJECT Andrex Development Company 3000 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 1004 Santa Monica, California 90405 Andrex Bldg "C" 2270 Cosmos Court Carlsbad, California P & E Job #83-124 Gentlemen Enclosed please find a copy of the A I.T C Certificate of Conformance No. E26502 This is an inspection certificate for the glu-lam beams on the subject job. Sincerely, P & E R9DF STRUCTURES, INC Enclosures cc Contractor for information and file CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE I HE UNDERSIGNED MANUFACTURER HEREBY CERTIFIES that the products identified below and on attached sheets Nos l of l are marked with the collective mark of the American Institute of Timber Construction (AITC) and are manufactured in accordance with the manufacturing and fabricating provisions of Chapter 25 of the Uniform Building Code, as modified by ICBO Research Report No 3983 Windsor, CA.., whichand that such manufacture has been at our plant in plant has a quality control system approved by the Inspection Bureau of the American Institute of Timber Construction and inspected periodically by such Bureau JOB NAME P & E/Andrex "C" JOB LOCATION 2270 Cosmos Ct , Carlsbad, CA CUSTOMER S ORDER NO 20 Glulam Beams . DATE 7/1/83 MFGRSORDERNO S-H-3688Q-RG-1 Combination 24F SIGNATURE f^ 0 TITLE Quality Control Dir. COMPANY Standard Structures Inc ADDRESS.920 Shiloh Road -DATE.9/21/83 AITC HEREBY CL/\ /7//Zro that the said company at its said plant is licensed by the AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF TIMBER CONSTRUCTION to use the AITC Collective Mark in respect of products which comply with applicable provisions of said code and report(s), that the adequacy of the quality control system in effect at said plant is periodically inspected and verified by the Inspection Bureau of the AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF TIMBER CONSTRUCTION, and that, in the judgment of the undersigned, said company is capable of complying with applicable manufacturing and testing provisions of said code and report(s) in respect of products manufactured at said plant Conformance with the said code and report(s) in respect of any specific or particular product is the sole responsibility of the manufacturer, AITC's certificate hereunder being that the said company is qualified to produce a product meeting the said code and report(s) and that its plant is periodically inspected and verified by the AITC Inspection Bureau AITC Certificate No Sgned AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF TIMBER CONSTRUCTION Russell P Wibbens Executive Vice President Jack Minneci irector Inspection Bureau 1982 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF TIMBER CONSTRUCTION AITC FORM IBCE ,-rwG V. r 'J i- ", C C w - C ->•5 A -S>-r ,- 3 -1 906-1 ' t R A 23 -7 £.7 2717 -10 ,-1/530 67 DEVELOPMENTAL1 , SERVICES D Assistant City Manager (714) 438-5'396 & Building Department (71-1)438-5525 Q Engineering (714)438-5541 D Housing & Red«v4!opment Department (714)438-5611 G Planning Dep*ftin»ot (7W) 436-6691 €it? of Cattefoab 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 May 14, 1982 Mr. Mick Kubota 7330 Engineer Road San Diego California (92111) Dear Mr. Kubota: j Re: And^ex Project, Palomar Airport Business Park #81-138 In 3P5'"3r to your request of May 10, 1 982 extension of 180 days until November 5, 1982 has been granted to your building permit. No further extension will be granted, MARTIN OREflYA Building 0 f fi MO/gl , an 1?00 ELM AVENUE f> f ~^^ }~\ TELEPHONE- CAHLS'iAD. CAUFORMA 020C3 714 138-5525 Date: 4-5-83 Citp of Carlib'bab To: Andrex Development pc^ Dated: 3000 Ocean Park Blvd. 82-58 .2261 Cosmos 3-12-82 Ret wall Santa Monica, CA. 90406 82-70 2261 Cosmos 4-20-82 Bldg A 81-138 2270 Cosmos 10-26-81 Bldg. C 81-138 2271 Cosmos 10-26-81 Bldg. B Svbject: Bu L I c; i ng Peanit Expira tion Dear Sir: Our records indicate tha'_ your buildiivj perrr-Ltswill expire .by 1 lied ta tion of time on 5-2-83 . -; , The provisions of UEC Section 303(d) state: (d) Expiration, Every permit issued by ; the building official under the provisions of this code shall expire by liroi-cacion ard become null and void if the building or vor7e authorized by such permit is roc eo-T,Tenc~d vithin 130 days from the date of such permit:7 or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any tiire after the \.ork is cornrer.ced for a period of 180 days. Before such work can be reeo-trrenced, a new permit shall be first obtained so to do, ana the fee therefor shall be one-half the amount required for a new permit for such \ork, provided no changes have been made or \d31 be pade in the original plans and specifications for such T-ork; cind provic'ezl furcher that such sus- pension or ab.incionT.ent rus not exceeded one year. Any pe_-:r.:.ttee holdir:g an unexpirex'l prrm.it nay apply for an extension of the tire within vlnch he 5-ay correrco ;or): urJar that permit \'hen he 3S unable to co.npence \~ork \dt)jin the t..ir e required by thio sect 101 for good and satisfactory reasons. The bailaing official may extend the tiT'a for actio: by the perndttee for a period not exceeding 7_80 days upon vritten request by the permittee showing that circumstances beyond rhe control of the permittee have prevented action from being taken. No permit shall be extended wore than once. In order to rers\; action on a permit after expiration, the permittee shall pay a new full permit fee.. Please check bslow indicating your intentions and return this letter to us. Project abandoned. New permit will be obtained prior to conraencing vork- _____ Maximio> 180 day tun? extension requested. NOTE: Separaj^e letter for an cxterioion request and reason for sucn nust acco-Tpany this .toruu If you have any question, pleaise contact the Ccirlsbad BuilcUng Department at 438-5523. Vety truly you.ro, Tartiri Orchyak \ Building Off icial Andrex Development Company Project No. 50322A-AS01 September 19, 1983 Page 2 Woodward-Clyde Consultants replacement materials for those that previously existed and recommended by us for replacement in our "Site Reconnaissance" letter dated April 12, 1983. While not requested to observe the slab underlay materials prior to the pouring of concrete, our geologist noted during a site footing observation on August 4, 1983 that the old underlay materials had been, removed from the slab area and that the new underlay materials were being installed. Our inspection indicated that soil conditions exposed in the footings consisted of fill soil composed of sandy clay and clayey sand. In our opinion, the soil conditions are similar to those reported in the final report of grading. The subject footings were excavated to at least the minimum depths and widths recommended in the grading report. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Very truly yours, WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Richard P. While R.E. 21992 RPW/RJD/flc (4) Andrex Development Company (2) City of Carlsbad 3467 Kurtz street Woodward-Clyde Consultants \ San Diego, California 92110 (619)2242911 September 19, 1983 Project No. 50332A-AS01 Andrex Development Company 3000 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 1004 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attention: Mr. Steve Welsh CITY QF CARL^RAH suitor? Department FOOTING OBSERVATIONS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK LOT 3, BuiLDiNpHf *">' .C ARLSB AD.,_.C AtlFpRN IA Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have made observations of the excavations for certain spread footings at the subject site. The observations were performed on September 13, 1983 by a project geologist from our firm. The foundations plans are entitled "Foundation Plan C, Industrial and Office Facilities for: Andrex Development Co., City of Carlsbad, California," prepared by Kowalski, Harding & Assoc., dated April 9, 1981, revised September 20, 1982. The purpose of our inspection is to verify that soil conditions were as anticipated in the final report of grading dated December 16, 1980 and to verify recommended minimum depths and widths. The footings observed were identified on the above foundation plan as coordinates K4, K6, K7, K8 and Kll. Also included in our observations were continuous foundations for the trash disposal walls and a stairwell wall, located approximately at plan coordinates J2 and E2, respectively. The above footings were being cleaned of loose soil at the time of our visit. At the request of Mr. Mike Stout of your firm, we observed the slab underlay materials exposed around the perimeter of the building slab-on-grade. As exposed along the perimeter, the slab is underlain by approximately 4 inches of gray select sand with pebbles that in turn is underlain by an impermeable plastic membrane. The slab underlay materials present are Consulting Engineers Geologists and Environmental Scientists Oflices in Other Principal Cit es 92iio Woodward-Clyde Consultants (619)2242911 April 29, 1983 Project No. 50332A-AS01 ANDREX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 3000 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 1004 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attention: Mr. Steve Welsh FOOTING OBSERVATIONS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK LOT 3, BUILDING C CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have made observations of the excavations for certain spread footings at the subject site. The observations were performed on April 28, 1983 by a project geologist from our firm. The foundations plans are entitled "Foundation Plan C, Industrial and Office Facilities for: Andrex Development Co., City of Carlsbad, California," prepared by Kowalski, Harding & Assoc., dated April 9, 1981, revised September 20, 1982. The footings observed were identified on the above foundation plan as coordinates 6A, 7A, 7B-, 9B- and 10B. Each of the footings had been cleaned of loose soil and had the plan recommended reinforcing steel in place. In our opinion, the subject footings were excavated to at least the minimum depths and widths recommended in our report dated December 16, 1980. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Very truly yours, WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Richard P. While R.E. 21992 RPW/RJD/fla (4) ANDREX Development Company (2) City of Carlsbad Consulting Engineers Geologists and Environmental Scientists Ottices in Other Principal Cit es ZSSSXL*™ Woodward-Clyde Consultants (619)2242911 August 5, 1983 Project No. 50332A-AS01 AUG081383 Andrex Development Company 3000 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 1004 GTY Of CARLSBAD Santa Monica, California 90405 ENGUfEBtUOG OEPABIflflEJUI1 Attention: Mr. Steve Welsh FOOTING OBSERVATIONS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK LOT 3, BUILDING C CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have made observations of the excavations for certain spread footings at the subject site. The observations were performed on August 4, 1983 by a project geologist from our firm. The foundations plans are entitled "Foundation Plan C, Industrial and Office Facilities for: Andrex Development Co., City of Carlsbad, California," prepared by Kowalski, Harding & Assoc., dated April 9, 1981, revised September 20, 1982. The purpose of our inspection is to verify that soil conditions were as anticipated in the final report of grading and to verify recommended minimum depths and width. The footings observed were identified on the above foundation plans coordinates Al, A3, A5, A6, A7, B8, B9, BIO, B-l, B_ll, B-l, D12, El, E3, F..12, G3, G5, G.^2, H5, 1^12, 12, 14, 1^12, J,2, Jo ' ^ an^ K12. The above footings were being cleaned of loose soil at the time of our visit. Our inspection indicated that soil conditions consisted of compacted fill composed of sandy clay and clayey sand. In our opinion, the subject footings were excavated to at least the minimum depths and widths recommended in our report dated Consulting Engineers Geologists and Environmental Scientists Ofdces in Other Principal Cit es Andrex Development Company Project No. 50332A-AS01 August 5, 1983 Page 2 Woodward-Clyde Consultants December 16, 1980, and are ready to receive reinforcing steel and final inspection by the City of Carlsbad prior to the pouring of concrete. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Very truly yours, WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Richard P. While R E. 21992 RPW/RJD/flc (4) Andrex Development Company (2) City of Carlsbad 3467 Kuriz Street San Diego California 92110 714 224 2911 November 3, 1982 Project No. 503321-FC01 Koll Company 7330 Engineer Road San Diego, CA 92111 Attention: Mr. Mick Kubota FOUNDATION SOIL MOISTURE CONTENTS LOT 3, BUILDING C ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK LOT 8 OF TRACT NO. 7349 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: At the request of Mr. Kean Rager, site superintendent, we have performed moisture content tests of the foundation soils in randomly selected column footing excavations of Building C. Six moisture tests were taken at depths ranging from 2 inches to 6 inches below the bottom of the footing excavations. The moistures ranged from 19 to 28 percent by dry soil weight, an average of about 8 percent greater than optimum moisture content. These moisture contents are, in our opinion, representative of all footings and are in accordance with recommendations of our report dated December 16, 1980 The attached sketch shows the locations of moisture content samples. The excavation numbering system is our own. The results of moisture contents are attached. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Very truly yours, WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Richard P. While R E. 21992 RPW/PD/lp attachment Consulting Engineers Geologists and Environmental Scientists Offices m Other Principal Gt es uz I-ooLL Q LU U X LU n n CD n 1J iii U<D U (UL. 3 O E co *Jrou 0)-ura E Xoi. Q.QL <U .*-»rou •5 Q - 01 O 01 I- OL OQ. Di o x01 QL Q U COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jod NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT DATE REPORTED 11/3/32 JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 (FOOTING MOISTURE CONTENTS) DATES COVERED NOVEMBER 2, 1982 PAGE I Or I DATE TKST RETEST LOCATION NUMBER OF NOV 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 COLUMN 1 3 5 8 10 11 (SEE It II 11 II II PLANS ) 11 II II 11 11 ELEVATION OF TEST -2" -6" -6" -2" -2" -6" MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY WT 21 25 19 23 23 28 1 6 0 2 2 2 FIELD LABORATORY RELATIVE DENSITY DENSITY COMPACTIONper per •/• OF LAB OEMS 413 398 420 406 406 390 NOTE COLUMN FOOTING NUMBERS ARE MADE UP BY TECHNICIAN (SEE PLANS) Woodward-Clyde Consultants • V >' ' 7H .'-1 November 3, 1982 Project No. 503321-rcOl Roll Company 7330 Engineer Road San Diego, CA 92111 Attention: Mr. Mick Kubota FOUNDATION SOIL MOISTURE CONTENTS LOT 3, BUILDING C ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK LOT 8 OF TRACT NO. 7349 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: At tne request of Mr. Kean Rager, site superintendent, we have performed moisture content tests of the foundation soils in randomly selected column footing excavations of Building C. Six moisture tests were taken at depths ranging from 2 inches to 6 inches below the bottom of the footing excavations. The moistures ranged from 19 to 28 percent by dry soil weight, an average of about 8 percent greater than optimum moisture content. These moisture contents are, in our opinion, representative of all footings and are in accordance with recommendations of our report dated December 16, 1980 The attached sketch shows the locations of moisture content samples The excavation numbering system is our own The results of moisture contents are attached. If you have any questions, p'lease give us a call. Very truly yours, WOORWARD-CLYDE C ONSULTANTS Richard P. While R.L. 21992 RPW/PD/lp attachment Conr,ii'!:n'' Lrrjineors GsoVjq -is Gihcos in Oihcr Principal CM os •• t.':\ ' '*'" '-! inoz n D 01 O Z Ul o LL1 _J in .*UOr- U O O E co -t-»rou cu.^-»ra E Xo D.a CO ind)*-*ray -ac OCL Di O <a. X1JJ tt. D Z CJ COMPACTION TEST RESULTS •» . » Joj NAM*. ANDRCX AT ['ALOMAR AIRPORT DATE REPORTED 11/3/32 , JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 (FOOTING MOIS1URF. CONTi.'NIS) 4 DATES COVERED NOVEMBER 2, 1982 PAGE 1 °F 1 DATE TOST NUUBL3 NOV 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 RETEST OF COLUMN 11 It It II II LOCATION 1 3 5 8 10 11 (SKh. 11 It n ti M PLANS ) n n n n ti ELfclVATlON OF TEST O "~ /. -6" -6" -2" -2" -6" WOI3 rUREC CONTHNT •k DRY WrT 21 25 19 23 23 28 1 6 0 2 2 2 riILD LABORATORY RSLXTIVI DttNSITy DIN01TY COMPACTION PCI1 PCr V. OF LAO DINS 413 398 420 406 406 390 NOTE COLUMN FOOTING NUMBERS ARF, MADE UP BY TECHNICIAN (SEE PLANS) Woodward-Clyde Consultants \ 3467 Kurtz Street San Diego California 92110 714 224 2911 April 8, 1982 Project No 503321-FC01 The Koll Company 7330 Engineer Road San Diego, California 92111 Attention. Mr. Mick Kubota INTERIM REPORT OF ENGINEERING OBSERVATION OF GRADING AND TESTING OF COMPACTED FILL LOT 1, LOT 6, AND STORM DRAIN EXTENSION BACKFILL ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK LOT 8 OF TRACT 7349 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Woodward-Clyde Consultants Gentlemen In accordance with your request and our agreement dated Janu- ary 8, 1982, we have provided engineering services in con- junction with the grading of the subject site. SCOPE OF WORK Our services included 0 Providing engineering observation of the grading operation 0 Providing periodic engineering observation of the storm drain channel cleanout 0 Performing field density tests in the placed and compacted fill 0 Performing laboratory tests on representative samples of the material used for backfill 0 Providing professional opinions regarding the con- tractor's general adherence to plans and specifica- SUMMARY OF GENERAL EARTHWORK AND TESTING Current site /preparation, compaction, and testing were done between Febryfary 23 and March 31, 1982 In our opinion, based aonsL'lline ffgineers Geologists and Environmental Scientists Offices in Other Principal Cit es The Koll Company April 8, 1982 Project No 503321-FC01 Page 2 Woodward-Clyde Consultants on our observation and testing, the work performed during that period was in general conformance with the Guide Specifications for Controlled Fill attached to our report entitled "Update Soil and Geologic Investigation for the Proposed Howard Mann 16-Acre Site, Palomar Airport Business Center, Carlsbad, Cali- fornia," dated December 16, 1980 Previous grading of the subject site was conducted during 1974 and since about July 9, 1981 The 1974 grading consisted of mass grading the north and west halves of the site including the placement and compaction of up to 35 feet of fill That work was summarized in a report prepared by Lowney/Kaldveer Associates, dated October 11, 1974, entitled "Report of Earth- work Observation and Testing Services, C C & F. Palomar Air- port Business Park, Phase I, Carlsbad, California." The grading begun about July 9, 198 L was reported in our interim report dated December 17, 1981 At that time remaining grading included minor grading to finish Lots 1 and 6 A copy of the interim report is attached for your reference During this grading period, the eastern portion of the channel north of Lot 1 was cleaned out by removing loose soils down to firm competent material in preparation for placing a 66-inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain extension. The channel was filled with compacted soil and the pipe was placed and backfilled Unobserved fill placed to extend the northern portion of Building Pad A, Lot 1, was removed and recompacted from approximately footing Line 'A' northerly Additionally, minor cutting and filling was done on Lot 6 to continue to bring it to grade During the grading operation, compaction procedures were ob- served, and field density tests were made to help evaluate the relative compaction of the placed fill Field observations and results of field density tests indicate that the fill has been generally compacted to 90 percent or more of maximum dry labor- atory density as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method No D1557-78 For reference, the approximate location of field density tests and the limits of compacted fill have been re- corded on a copy of the grading plan The results of field density tests, expressed as a percent of maximum laboratory dry density (relative compaction), are given on the attached forms Laboratory tests were made on representative samples of the materials used for storm drain extension backfill The tests were performed to evaluate moisture-density relationships, maximum dry density and optimum moisture' content. The results of laboratory tests are attached Previous laboratory test results as reported in the interim report of December 17, 1981, were used as a basis for tests on Lots 1 and 6 The Roll Company April 8, 1982 Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 3 Woodward-Clyde Consultants SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE SOIL CONDITIONS Fill Lots and Fill Portion of Cut-Fill Lots Lots 1 and 6 Observation and laboratory tests indicate that jnoderatelv to highly expansiy_e_ fill was^ placed wittunj? feet of rough grade on all lots noted herein,this fill exhibited a swell or 6 to" 10 percent on samples recompacted at moisture contents of 4 percent greater than optimum moistuie content, placed under an axial load of 160 psf, and soaked in water. Special founda- tions on these expansive soils are recommended. RECOMMENDATIONS Foundations for Structures on Expansive Soils All Lots We recommend that structures founded in expansive soil have continuous perimeter footings embedded a minimum depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent rough grade, and designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf The footings should be reinforce^JW*-tii one—^o~4~-fetirtop and bottom. Slab floors should^t>er^steel reinforcect\and a~xminimum of 5 inches thick TJjjayshould be underlain by\10 miJXplastic membrane sheetinJg"and 4 inches of coarse sand \The sketch that follows incorporates our recommendations. These recommendations are ;ended only to reduce the effects of heavang; footings ^founded in expansive soils should be expected to heave. Pouch or Comoacted Graae,. FOOTIK7G DETAIL Scale 1" = 201 18" i^-3 Voxels, 24" O C | "Minimum}/^ 10/10 ww mesn5" mm concrete slab with " mm • c"u=;hed°:.ock £>r Gravel*»/ (Flat c: n f* 01" co * 11- *— *- - Slopes Fill slopes at the site have inclinations of approximately 2 1 (horizontal to vertical), and are approximately 9 feet high The Koll Company April 8, 1982 Project No 503321-FC01 Page 4 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Fill slopes were treated by a sheepsfoot compactor and were trackrolled by a Cat D6 bulldozer. We recommend that structures that wil] not tolerate differen- tial settlements (such as foundations, concrete decks and walls, etc.) not be located within 8 feet of tfte top of a slope We recommend that footings" that are located within 8 feet of the top of a slope be extended in depth until the outer bottom edge of the footing is 8 feet horizontally from the outside face of the slope. Additional Fill and Utility Trenches This report discusses the fill placement observed by personnel from our firm during the periods specified We recommend that any additional fill placed, as well as backfill placed in utility trenches located within 5 feet of a building and deeper than 12 inches, or backfill placed in any trench located 5 feet or more from a building and deeper than 5 feet, be compacted under our observation and tested to verify compliance with the earthwork specifications for the project We should be con- tacted at least 24 hours prior to backfilling operations. Drainage We recommend that positive measures be taken to properly finish grade each lot after structures and other improvements are in place, so that drainage waters from the lot and adjacent prop- erties are directed off the lot and away from foundations, floor slabs, and slope tops Even when these measures are taken, a shallow ground-water or surface-water condition can and may develop in areas where no such water condition existed prior to site development, this is particularly true where a substantial increase in surface-water infiltration results from landscape irrigation LIMITATIONS The elevations of compaction tests shown as finished grade (FG) tests on the attached forms for Lots 1 and 6 correspond to the elevations shown on the "Grading Plan for Andrex at Palomar Airport Business Park, Lot 8 of Tract No 7349," dated May 5, 1981, prepared by CEP Associated. Test elevations for the channel backfill were estimated by our field technician at the time of grading. Elevations and locations used in this report were based on field surveys done by others. The soil conditions described in thu s report are based on observations arid periodic testing This office should be The Koll Company April 8, 1982 Project No 503321-FC01 Page 5 Woodward-Clyde Consultants notified of any indications that soil conditions are not as described herein. For this report, rough lot grade is defined as that grade set in the field by the grade checker from reference stakes estab- lished by the surveyor, and represents rough grade at the time we were observing the grading operation. The conclusions and opinions drawn from the test results and site observations apply only to our work with respect to grading, and represent conditions at the date of our final site visit. We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to this site by others, or by uncontrolled action of water, or by failure of others to properly repair damages by uncontrolled action of water Professional judgments represented in this report are based partly on our evaluations of the technical information gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construc- tion, and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. Our engineering work and judgments rendered meet or exceed the standard of care of our profession at this time We do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect If you have any questions, please give us a call Very truly yours, WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS James E. Cavallin R.E. 17553 JEC/PD/eej Attachments (4) The Koll Company (2) City of Carlsbad Attn Mr. Carter Darnell COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Joa NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 j 1982 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1982 DATE REPORTED 4/6/82 DATES COVERED PAGE OF BATE TBST RCTEST NUMBER OF MAR 8 86 87 88 89 90 MAR 9 91 92 MAR 10 93 94 MAR 12 95 MAR 23 96 MAR 25 97 98 99 100 87 101 MAR 31 102 LOCATION LOT 6 PARKING LOT N OF BLDG "F" LOT N. LOT N LOT N LOT LOT LOT LOT N LOT N LOT N LOT N LOT N LOT N LOT N LOT N LOT N LOT 1 BLDG SIDE 1 BLDG SIDE 1 BLDG SIDE 6 BLDG 6 BLDG 6 BLDG 1 BLDG SIDE 1 BLDG SIDE 1 BLDG SIDE 1 BLDG SIDE 1 BLDG SIDE 1 BLDG SIDE 1 BLDG. SIDE 1 BLDG SIDE 1 BLDG SIDE 1 BLDG "A", "A", "A", ,,F,, II TJl II u-p ii "A", "A", FG "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", ELEVATION OF TEST 259' 226' 225' 226' 259' 261' 261' 226' 229 0' 221' 221' 223' 223' 225' 226' 227' MOISTURE CONTENT % OUT WT 19 25 17 24 19 21 19 16 19 21 12 19 21 20 19 20 7 0 6 7 0 2 8 3 0 2 2 7 9 7 7 9 FIELD DENSITYper 107 101 110 101 102 103 103 102 107 103 106 107 103 106 103 102 6 0 7 6 6 9 0 8 3 3 1 0 2 9 6 0 LABORATORY RELATIVE DENSITY COMPACTIONper % or LAB DENS 113 114 114 112 112 113 113 113 113 112 114 114 112 114 112 112 0 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 95 88 96 90 91 91 91 90 94 91 92 93 91 93 92 90 229 0' 22 7 102 5 112 5 91 wt 4/6/82 Woodward-Clyde Consultants CONSULTING ENGINEERS GEOLOGISTS COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jod NAME JOB NUMBER DATES COVERED ANDREX AT PALOMAP AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK 503321-FCO1 (CHANNEL BACKFILL) FEBRUARY 23, 1982 THROUGH APRIL 6, 1982 DATE REPORTED PAGE CBF-1 4/6/82 CBF-1 TUT NUMBER RETEST OP ELEVATION OF TEST MOIWJRB CONTENT % BUY WT FIELD DENSITYper LABORATORY RELATIVE DENSITY COMPACTION PCF % OF LAB OEMS FEE 23 CBF-1 CBF-2 CBF-3 CBF-4 CBF-5 10' S OF HEADWALL WEST END OF CHANNEL 5' S OF HEADWALL CENTER 8' S OF HEADWALL 220' 225' 223' 227' 229' 13 6 12 4 11 1 12 4 11 7 103 8 107 5 103 4 105 2 105 7 112 0 112 0 112 0 112 0 112 0 92 95 92 93 94 APR 6 CBF-6 CBF-7 12' S OF HEADWALL 25' S OF HEADWALL FG FG 20 4 22 7 106 8 105 9 114 114 93 92 wt 4/6/82 Woodward-Clyde Consultants 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80C PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS g Liquid Limit % Plasticity Index, % Classification by Unifie Classification System ^DRY UNIT WEIGHT pcf\r~ i \ \ \\\-\ 0\\ \V\A \ \VA V\ ZER( — 28( 2 \ \A\1V\A\> ii \\AAVAV\ ^ Maximum Dry Density pcf Optimum Moisture Content % DA )SC 70! 26( - 2 \A A\v \\ ^ dSoil R VOIDS CURVES sG DSG 50 SG V \ \\ A\ AV\SAX\ \ \'V \ V \ vjAi\vA OA\ A \\VvA\\\\\ \V\t vS\ "^S\^Sx^ 9 V 112 0 N 15 5 MOISTURE CONTENT % az PERCENT PASS100 80 60 40 20 0 10 C1f.mr^ GRAVEL SANDJDBLLo Ic f c m 1 f ii ii i i ( SILT & CLAY f 00 100 10 10 01 001 GRAIN SIZE, mm MECHANICAL ANALYSIS DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA Dry Density pcf Initial Water Content % Final Water Content % Apparent Apparent Cohesion psf Friction Angle degrees 9 - - - - - 0001 SWELL TEST DATA Initial Dry Density pcf Initial Water Content % Final Dry Density pcf Final Water Content % Load psf Swell percent ^ <\ 'Ny \xs ) 10 20 30 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST N \\ \V N\N\\1 40 9 - - - - - - SAMPLE LOCATION 9 ON SITE (IMPORT) LABORATORY TEST METHOD COMPACTION ASTM D 1557 78 A FILL SUITABILITY TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY /nVtfe | CHECKED BY ^) PROJECT NO 503321-FCO1 DATE 4/6/82 j FIGURE NO wt 4/6/82 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS ?9823ny Woodward-Clyde Consultants ProjectNO. 503321-FC01 APPENDIX A Interim Report of December 17, 1981 3467 Kurtz street Woodwarcfi-CByde ConsultantsSan Diego California 92110 •*' 714 224 2911 December 17, 1981 Project No. 503321-FC01 The Koll Company 7330 Engineer Road San Diego, California 92111 Attention: Mick Kubota INTERIM REPORT OF ENGINEERING OBSERVATION OF GRADING AND TESTING OF COMPACTED FILL LOTS 1 THROUGH 6. ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK LOT 8 OF TRACT NO. 7349 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen. In accordance with your request and our proposal dated June 8, 1981 and your letter of authorization dated July 7, 1981, we are providing engineering services in conjunction with the regrading of the subject site. SCOPE OF WORK Our services include- °. Providing engineering observation of the regrading operation, ? Observing slope erosion repair prior to the placement of additional slope fill, 0 Observing the removal of alluvium and observing and testing the recompaction of loose topsoil and pre- viously placed weathered fill, 0 Performing field density tests in the placed and compacted fill, 0 Performing laboratory tests on representative samples of the material used for fill, 0 Observing foundation excavations and checking moisture contents of below footing soils on Bldg B, ° Providing professional opinions regarding the contractor's general adherence to plans and specifications. Consuming Engineers Geologists and Environment! Scier.t.sts Offices m Other Principal &t es The Roll Company Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsDecember 17, 1981 s Project No 503321-FC01 Page 2 SUMMARY OF GENERAL EARTHWORK AND TESTING Current site preparation, compaction, and testing were started about July 9, 1981 and are almost completed as of this date. In our opinion, based on our observation and testing, the work performed to date is in general confoimance with the Specifi- cations for Controlled Fill attached to our report entitled "Update Soil and Geologic Investigation for the Proposed Howard Mann 16-acre Site, Palomar Airport Business Center, Carlsbad, California", dated December 1(5, 1980. Previous grading of the subject site was accomplished during 1974. That grading consisted of mass grading the north and west halves of the site including the placement and compaction of up to 35 feet of fill. That woik was summarized in a report prepared by Lowney/Kaldveer Associates, dated October 11, 1974, entitled "Report of Earthwork Observation and Testing services, C C & F Palomar Airport Business Park Phase I, Carlsbad, California" During the current grading period, fill has been placed, compacted, and tested on lots 1 through 6. Lots 4 and 6 are cut-fill lots, there are no totally cut lots The grading operation generally consisted of excavating alluvium, loose surface soils and a minimum of 1 foot of previously placed fill, scarifying, watering and compacting the areas to receive fill and making cuts and fills to proposed design grade The building pads on lots 2 through 5 are complete, minor grading remains on lots 1 and 6, and street areas This grading includes bringing lots 1 and 6 to design grade and size, and bringing the street to design subgrade elevation Two 2-foot diameter loosely filled holes approximately 10 to 12 feet deep are present in the street at approximate stations 1+68 and 1+86 These holes remain to be excavated and recom- pacted. During the regrading operation, compaction procedures were observed, and field density tests were made to help evaluate the relative compaction of the placed fill. Field observa- tions and results of field density tests indicate that the fill has been generally compacted to 90 percent or more of maximum dry laboratory density as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method No D1557-78 For reference, the approximate location of field density tests and the limits of compacted fill have been recorded on a copy of the grading plan The results of field density tests, expressed as a percent of maximum laboratory dry density (relative compaction), are given on the attached forms Sece^er iTlSXl Wtoodwa,*Clyde Consultants Project No 503321-FC01 Page 3 Laboratory tests were made on representative samples of the materials used for fill. The tests were performed to evaluate moisture density relationships, maximum dry density, optimum moisture content, grain size distribution, and plasticity, strength, and swell characteristics The results of laboratory tests are attached. SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE SOIL CONDITIONS Fill lots and fill portion of cut-fill lots Inspection and laboratory tests indicate that the fill within 2 feet of rough grade is classed as moderate to highly expansive, this fill exhibited a swell of 6 to 10 percent on samples recompacted at moisture contents of 4 percent greater than optimum moisture content, placed under an axial load of 160 psf, and soaked in water Special foundations on these expansive soils are recommended. The soil underlying the cut portion of cut-fill lots is classed as moderately to highly expansive The soils within the upper 3 feet of grade were compacted at moisture contents of 3 to 6 percent over optimum to further reduce the potential swell The soils were pro- tected from drying by covering the pad with plastic membranesand flat underlay material. Recent moisture content tests in the footing excavations of Building B, lot 2, indicate that the soils within 12 inches below the bottom of the footings range from about 3 percent to over 8 percent greater than optimum moisture content This is in accordance with recommendations made for this site RECOMMENDATIONS Foundations for Structures on Expansive Soils- All Lots We recommend that footings founded in expansive soil be embedded 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade and be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf The footings should be reinforced with one No 4 bar top and bottom. Slab floors should be steel reinforced and a minimum of 5 inches thick They should be underlain by 10 mil plastic membrane sheeting and 4 inches of coarse sand The sketch that follows incorporates our recommendations These recom- mendations are intended only to reduce the effects of heaving, footings founded in expansive soils should be expected to heave The Roll Company December 17, 1981 Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 4 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Rough or Compacted Grade 18" FOOTING DETAIL Scale 1" = 20" ^3 Dowels, 24" O C /J 5"min concrete slao % ith 6*-'6 10/10 ww mcsn \ 12' 1 -_ 18" Iiinimum j\j &^~~ r-12—Minimum / J /O . "„ ( ° • "- A" miri • cr jsned"rock or c:ra rcl* ^2" mm sand with clastic menorane — -^ =4 bars, top and bottom (Flat sneets^ Slopes Fill slopes at the site have inclinations of approximately 1-1/2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical), and are approximately 22 feet high The upper 5 to 7 feet of fill slopes were treated by periodically backrolling with a sheepsfoot compactor The lower 15 to 17 feet of the slopes had been constructed during the 1974 grading period About a 90foot section of the slope at the southwest corner of lot 2 had experienced severe ero- sion and was subsequently rebuilt before additional fill was placed We recommend that structures that will not tolerate differen- tial settlements (such as foundations, swimming pools, con- crete decks, walls, etc.) not be located within 8 feet of the top of a slope. We recommend that footings that are located within 8 feet of the top of a slope be extended in depth until the outer bottom edge of the footing is 8 feet horizontally from the outside face of the slope Additional Fill and Utility Trenches This report discusses the fill placement observed by personnel from our firm during the period specified We recommend that any additional fill placed, such as that for lots 1 and 6 and the street areas, as well as backfill placed in utility trenches located within 5 feet of a building and deeper than 5 feet, be compacted under our observation and tested to verify compliance with the earthwork specifications for the project We should be contacted at least 24 hours before planned back- fill operations are started. Woodward-Clyde Consu«ants Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 5 Drainage We recommend that positive measures be taken to properly finish grade each lot (after structures and other improvements are in place), so that drainage waters from the lots and adjacent properties are directed off the lots and away from foundations, floor slabs, and slope tops Even when these measures are taken, a shallow ground water or surface water condition can and may develop in areas where no such water condition existed prior to site development; this is par- ticularly true where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation LIMITATIONS The elevations of compaction tests shown as finished grade (FG) tests on the attached forms correspond to the elevations shown on the "Grading Plan for Andrex at Palomar Airport Business Park, Lot 8 of Tract No. 7349," dated May 5, 1981, prepared by CEP Associated. Elevations and locations used in this report were based on field surveys done by others. The soil conditions described in the report are based on observations and periodic testing This office should be notified of any indications that soil conditions are not as described herein For this report, rough lot grade is defined as that grade set in the field by the grade checker from reference stakes estab- lished by the surveyor, and represents rough grade at the time we were observing the grading operation The conclusions and opinions drawn from the test results and site examinations apply only to our work with respect to regrading, and represent conditions as of the date of this report We will accept no responsibility for any subseguent changes made to this site by others, or by uncontrolled action of water, or by failure of others to properly repair damages by uncontrolled action of water The Roll Company Woodward-CByde ConsultantsDecember 17, 1981 Project No 503321-FC01 Page 6 If you have any questions, please give ub a call Very truly yours, WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Richard P. While R. E. 21992 RPW/PD/DT/mb Attachments (2) Andrex Development (2) Koll Co (1) City of Carlsbad COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jou NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FC01 DATES COVERED JULY 15, 1981 THROUGH AUGUST 7, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGE 1 OF 4 BATE July 15 July 16 July 17 July 20 July 21 TUT RETEST NUMBER OF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 LOT 5 LOT 5 LOT 5 LOT 5 WEST LOT 5 WEST LOT 5 WEST LOT 5 WEST LOT 5 LOT 5 LOT 2 NORTH LOT 2 LOT 2 LOT 2 WEST LOT 2 WEST LOT 2 LOT 2 LOT 2 LOT 2 LOT 2 WEST LOT 5 NORTH LOT b NORTH LOT 5 LOT 5 LOT 5 WEST LOT 1 LOT j LOT j LOT J LOT I LOT 2 LOCATION - BUILDING E - BUILDING E - BUILDING E PAVING AREA OF BUILDING E PAVING AREA OF BUILDING E PAVING AREA OF BUILDING E PAVING AREA OF BUILDING E BUILDING E BUILDING E PAVING AREA OF BUILDING B BUILDING B BUILDING B PAVING AREA OF BUILDING B PAVING AREA OF BUILDING B BUILDING B BUILDING B BUILDING B BUILDING B PAVING AREA OF BUILDING B PAVING AREA OF BUILDING E PAVING AREA OF BUILDING E BUILDING E BUILDING E PAVING AREA OF BUILDING E BUILDING C BUILDING C BUILDING C BUILDING C BUILDING C PAVING AREA ELEVATION OF TEST 244' 248' 250' 240' 242' 244' 246' 243' 245' 227' 226' 227' 220' 229' 228' 230 230' 230' 228 248 250' 248' 250' 245' 233' 235' 236' 235' 238' MoirrURC CONTENT % OUT WT 16 16 17 14 16 17 16 16 15 17 16 14 17 15 14 16 14 16 16 16 16 17 17 16 16 17 16 15 16 9 4 3 2 6 2 0 9 7 5 7 9 0 9 5 9 7 9 6 0 9 8 2 5 4 5 1 5 5 FIELD DENSITY ret 106 106 107 104 108 107 104 104 105 105 104 103 107 106 104 106 103 102 101 103 104 106 103 103 105 102 104 105 103 6 1 2 1 9 2 4 8 7 2 7 7 0 0 2 9 7 3 3 8 6 4 3 2 7 6 8 6 6 LABORATORY DENSITY PCF 114 114 114 113 113 113 113 113 113 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 114 111 111 113 114 113 113 113 114 111 114 114 111 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 0 RELATIVE COMPACTION S OF LAB DENS 93 92 93 91 96 94 92 92 92 91 91 90 93 92 91 93 90 92 91 91 91 93 91 90 92 92 91 92 93 31 WEST OF BUILDING B LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING B 223' 226' 17 1 105 5 114 5 92 ITS 16 6 105 2 114 5 91 Woodward-Clyde Consultants COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jotf NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FC01 DATES COVERED JULY 15, 1981 THROUGH AUGUST 7, 1981 DATE July 21 July 22 July 23 TUT RETCST LOCATION NUMBER OP 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 1 PAVING AREA SOUTH OF BUILDING A LOT 1 BUILDING A LOT 1 BUILDING A LOT 1 BUILDING A LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST OI BUILDING B LOT 4 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING D LOT 4 PAVING AREA WEST OI BUILDING D ELEVATION OF TEST 228' 230' 231' 232' 231' 233' 225' 226' 228' 228' 235' 235' 235' 232' 246' 241' MOKTURE CONTENT % OUT WT 15 16 18 19 19 19 15 15 16 18 21 20 39 21 20 22 3 8 4 0 5 2 9 3 1 8 2 6 7 0 3 1 DATE PAGE REPORTED 12/17/81 2 OF 4 FIELD DENSITYper 104 103 103 103 102 102 105 105 103 104 102 103 102 101 101 102 5 2 6 9 3 4 6 3 4 2 9 2 5 7 8 0 LABORATORY DENSITYper 111 111 111 112 112 112 114 114 113 113 112 111 111 112 111 112 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 5 RELATIVE COMPACTION 1, Or LA* OEMS 94 93 93 92 90 91 92 91 91 91 91 92 92 90 91 90 July 24 July 28 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 Tuly 29 60 61 LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D 240' LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D LOT 6 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING F LOT 5 BUILDING E LOT 5 BUILDING E LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D SG 246' LOT 2 NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING B FG 236 5' LOT 2 WEST SIDE OF BUILDING B FG 237 0' ?2 5 101 0 110 0 22 0 8 101 5 101 3 110 0 110 0 91 242' 231' 233' 237' 238' 243' 244' 253' 252' 252' 20 20 21 21 21 22 21 ]8 ]9 20 7 5 3 1 8 2 2 3 8 5 103 101 100 101 102 102 104 103 104 103 4 6 6 9 0 7 5 6 2 7 111 112 110 112 112 112 110 114 114 114 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 93 90 91 90 90 91 92 90 91 90 92 92 ]9 0 99 8 110 0 90 Woodward-Clyde Consultants COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jo* NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AI.RPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FC01 DATES COVERED JULY 15, 1981 THROUGH AUGUST 7, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGE 3 OF 4 DATE TBST RETEST LOCATION NUMBER OP July 29 62 63 64 65 July 31 66 67 68 69 70 71 Auq 3 72 73 74 75 Aug 4 76 77 78 79 LOT 2 SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING B LOT 2 EAST SIDE OF BUILDING B LOT 3 WEST SIDE OF BUILDING C LOT 3 EAST SIDE OF BUILD] NG C LOT 4 NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING D LOT 4 SOUTH SIDE OF BUILD'CNG D LOT 6 PAVING AREA WEST SIDE LOT 6 PAVING AREA WEST SIDE LOT 6 PAVING AREA NORTH SIDE LOT 6 WEST OF NORTH OF BUILDING F LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST SIDE LOT 2 PAVING AREA NORTH SIDE LOT 5 BUILDING E SOUTHWEST CORNER LOT 5 BUILDING E NORTHEAST CORNER LOT 6 PAVING AREA NORTH SIDE LOT 3 PAVING AREA NORTH SIDE LOT 3 PAVING AREA EAST SIDE LOT 4 PAVING AREA WEST SIDE ELEVATION OF TEST FG FG FG FG FG FG WING SG SG SG SG SG 237.5' 237.0' 237 7' 240 5' 251 5' 251 5' 255' 258' 249' 251' 230' 231' 254' 255' 253' 236' 239' 247' MoirruM CONTENT % DRY WT 20 19 18 19 18 20 19 19 21 18 19 19 17 18 17 20 19 19 5 8 3 0 3 5 8 8 2 3 8 0 6 3 6 5 0 8 FIELD DENSITYrcr 100 99 101 101 102 99 100 101 102 99 103 103 102 103 102 103 102 100 2 9 7 8 9 7 0 4 4 3 1 4 5 4 7 6 3 9 LABOR ATOMY RELATIVEDENSITY COMPACTIONper % or LAB DEN* 110. 110 112 112 112 110 110 110 112 110 112 112 113 113 113 112 112 110 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 91 90 90 90 91 90 90 92 91 90 91 91 90 91 90 92 90 91 Auq 5 80 Aug 6 81 80 LOT 1 BUILDING A NORTHWEST CORNER LOT 1 BUILDING A NORTHWEST CORNER 225' 225' 13 6 17 0 99 9 103 3 114 5 114 5 87 90 Woodward-Clyde Consultants COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Joa NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-PC01 DATES COVERED JULY 15, 1981 THROUGH AUGUST 7, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGE 4 OF 4 MOISTURE DATE TWST RETEST LOCATION ELEVATION CONTENT NUMBER OF OF TEST *, DRY WT FIELD DENSITY FCF LABORATORY DENSITY FCF RELATIVE COMPACTION % OF LAB DENS Aug 6 82 83 84 Aug 7 85 LOT 1 BUILDING A WEST SIDE LOT 5 BUILDING E NORTHEAST SIDE FG LOT 5 BUILDING E SOUTHWEST SIDE FG LOT 1 BUILDING A SOUTHWEST SIDE FG 227' L7 6 257 1' L7 6 -255.5' L5 6 230 3' L7 0 102 8 113 5 99 3 110 0 99 9 111 0 102 8 113 5 90 90 90 90 Woodward-Clyde Consultants <••• COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Joii NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 (ACCESS STREET) DATES COVERED JULY 2Q ^ 1981 THROTJGH AUGUST 11, 1981 PAGE S-l Or S-l MOISTURE rilLO LABORATORY RELATIVE DATE TW»T RETEST LOCATION ELEVATION CONTENT DENSITY DEN»ITT COMPACTION NUMBER OP OF TEST % DRY WT PCF rCI> % OF LAB DEN* JUL 28 S-l STA 6+00 243' 22 0 100 9 110 0 91 S-2 STA. 4+00 246' 20 5 100 1 110 0 91 AUG 11 S-3 STA. 7+25 255' 13 0 99 6 110 0 90 . „... _ /on Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^pwt 12/1 //ol COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jo* NAME JOB NUMBER DATES COVERED ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK 503321-FCO1 (SEWER LINE BACKFILL) 17/ 1981 THROUGH JULY 22, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGESW-1 OFSW-1 DATE JUL 17 JUL 20 JUL 21 JUL 22 TVBT NUMBER SW-1 SW-2 SW-3 SW-4 SW-5 SW-6 RKTESTor LOT 1,, NORTH BLDG "A" ii H ii ii ii it H H ii H LOT 1, NORTH BLDG "A" LOT 1, NORTH BLDG "A" LOT I, NORTH BLDG "A" SURFACE -13' -13' -9' -7' -5' -3' MOISTURE CONTENT % OUT WT 12 3 15 4 16 5 16 9 17 9 17 5 FIELD DENSITYrcr 104 6 107 0 104 4 100 2 104 3 105 2 LABORATORY DENSITYper 108 2 108 2 114 5 111 0 114 5 114 5 RELATIVE COMPACTIONor LAB DEN* 96 98 91 90 91 91 wt 12/17/81 Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^pr COMPACTION TEST RESULTS NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 (WATER BACKFILL) DATES COVERED OCTOBER 14, 1981 THROUGH DECEMBER 14, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGE w_1 OF DATE Tst«T RETEST NUMBER OP OCT 14 W-l W-2 W-3 W-4 OCT 16 W-5 W-6 W-7 < W-8 W-9 OCT 19 W-10 W-ll W-12 W-l 3 W-14 W-15 DEC 14 W-16 W-17 LINE STA LINE STA LINE STA LINE STA LINE STA LINE STA LINE STA LINE STA LINE STA LINE STA LINE STA LINE STA LINE STA. LINE STA LINE STA LINE LINE LOCATION SURFACE A, OPP 1+50 B, OPP 1+00 A, OPP 3+00 B, OPP 1+50 C, OPP 13+40 C, OPP 12+20 C, OPP 10+50 C, OPP 8+00 C, OPP 6+60 A, OPP 4+00 A, OPP 4+50 E, OPP 7+00 E, OPP 8+20 C, OPP 16+50 C, OPP 19+00 C, OPP C, OPP BLDG "C", BLDG. "C", BLDG. "C", BLDG. "C", BLDG "B", BLDG "B", BLDG "B", BLDG "B", BLDG "B", BLDG "E", BLDG "E", BLDG "E", BLDG "F", BLDG "D", BLDG "F", STA 3+90 STA 2+90 -1' -1' SURF SURF -I1 -I' SURF -I1 SURF. -1' SURF -1' SURF -I1 SURF SURF SURF MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY WT 14. 12 13 12 12 11 12 13 11 13 14 15 14 14 13 15 15 9 8 4 3 3 1 3 0 7 6 9 3 3 9 7 6 6 FIELD DENSITY PCF 111 104 109 106 107 105 103 99 104 102 104 106 105 110 107 114 110 4 9 0 5 2 4 9 2 5 2 1 1 9 9 7 0 9 LABORATORY DENSITY PCF 114 113 114 113 114 114 110 110 113 113 113 114 114 114 114 113 113 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 RELATIVE COMPACTION % Or LA* DENS 97 92 95 93 93 92 94 90 92 90 91 92 92 96 94 100+ 97 wt 12/17/81 Woodward-Clyde Consultants COMPACTION TEST RESULTS NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 (SEWER BACKFILL) DATES COVERED OCTOBER 7< 1981 PAGESW-1 °F SW-1 MOISTURE FIELD LABORATORY RELATIVE DATE TUT RETEST LOCATION CTTTDT? 7\ r>TT CONTENT DENSITY DENSITY COMPACTIONNUMBER OP OUJXt At_-JCj ^ Dnr WT rCP PCI* % OF LAB OEMS OCT 7 SW-1 STA 0+36 -3' 14 3 98 9 110.0 90 SW-2 STA 1+20 -3' 13 5 100 0 110 0 90 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Wt 12/17/81 CON.UUTFNC.NC.N.E-.. G.OLOCI.T. COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jon NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 JOB NUMBER 503321-FCOl (STORM DRAIN BACKFILL) DATES COVERED 0^^ 7f 1981 PAGE SD_1 Or SD_1 MOISTURE FIILD LABORATORY RELATIVE OATK TMT RETEST LOCATION CTTDTP TV Ot:' CONTENT DENSITY DENSITY COMPACTION NUMBER or bUK£AU£j % OUT WT PCF PCP % OP LAB DENS OCT 7 SD-1 INLET #108, 42' EAST -4' 19 1 90 3 111 0 81 SD-2 INLET #111, 50' EAST -4' 13 6 99 7 107 5 92 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Wt 12/17/81 CO*.U,T,*G .NC,N.». CEOLOO..T, PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS Liquid Limit, % Plasticity Index, % Classification by Unified Soil Classification System 1 — — — 2 41 22 SC 3 51 34 CH 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 COBBLES GRAVEL c f SAND c| m f SILT i CLAY 100 % 80 60 LU 40o 80 u\DRYUNITWEIGHT pcf\ \ vA V\\ i\\ \\- \A Z L ER( 281 -2 \ \ \ i ) \ \ \v\\ \o\> 1 2 1 3 ^_ ^— 1| \ \ \ \A \ V\ _j / n/ 7 Maximum Dry Density, pcf Optimum Moisture Content % DA DSC 70. 261 - 2 VA VA \ Vs \ /i // / IR VOIDS CURVES 3G 3SG 50 SG V \ \\ > \V VA•^ \\\\\ Vs\ ^V i 114 5 14 5 \\ \1 1 A A CCo! 20 0 1C DIRECT SHE; Dry Density p Initial Water C Final Water Cc Apparent Coh Apparent Fric v SWELL TEST V\ Initial i \ \V \ 2 113 5 14 5 \ Initial Dry Der Water C V\ Final Dry Den v\\ Final Water Cc \ \\ Load psf \V\ Swe" VAv\ \ 3 111 0 14 5 | MOISTURE CONTENT % \\N^ \ \v V Sy\ ^ ^ s percent See Figure k \ >N k \s \\]\N V \\ \vs\ S3 1000 100 10 10 01 001 0001 GRAIN SIZE mm MECHANICAL ANALYSIS See Figure 1A for additional test results SAMPLE LOCATION 1 2 3 BLDG A BLDG 6, PAD F LOT 4. BLDG D 10 20 30 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST 40 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST METHOD ASTM D 1557 78 A FILL SUITABILITY TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK I CHECKED BY p£> | PROJECT NO 503321-FCO1 1 PATE 12/17/81 j FIGURE NO l'DRAWN BY mrk wt 7/27/81 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS RESULTS OF LOADED SWELL TESTS Sample Number 2A* 3A* Initial Dry Dens i ty pcf 103 101 Water Content of7° 19 18 Saturation °>h 81 76 Final Dry Dens i ty J)Cf 101 92 Water Content /' 23 28 Saturation % 95 100 Pressure psf 160 160 Expansion % of Initial Height 1 9 9 6 *INDICATES OVER OPTIMUM Diameter of Samples __LJLL_ Height of Samples 627 LOADED SWELL TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DHAMNBY mrk j CHECKED BY NO 503321-FC01 |DATE J2/17/81 [FIGURE NO 2- WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS 456 Liquid Limit, % 51 50 Plasticity Index, % - 34 32 Classification by Unified Soil <j Classification System - CH CH z U— jr~i DRY UNIT WEIGHT pcf\\ 4- \[\T\ Vu\M ZER( — 28( 2 tu\NW\ -^. \o\\ 5 6 \A\v>\0\\ y / \Ay \ AVA\\ — *i ^s Maximum Dry Density pcf Optimum Moisture Content % DA DSC 70! 26( - 2 \A v\\V\ iy * R VOIDS CURVES 3G )SG 50 SG V \ \\ ^\V0A / kAT\ \ \\ \yC\ "^fjAV ^ \\V \^A\\\\\ \\\\OA\\ \\y\v\ \ o 456 V 108 2 112 5 110 0 13 5 15 U 16 5 MOISTURE CONTENT %PERCENT PASS100 80 60 40 20 0 10 COBBLES GRAVEL c i i . f i i SAND c m -»." 5- i i f [^V 1 SILT 4 CLAY — 6 \ \1 \\. \ , v>s. \ ""» \ 00 100 10 10 01 001 00( GRAIN SIZE mm MECHANICAL ANALYSIS DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA Dry Density pcf Initial Water Content % Final Water Content % Apparent Apparent Cohesion psf Friction Angle degrees 4 - - - 5 - - - - 6 - - - - - SWELL TEST DATA Initial Dry Density pcf Initial Water Content % Final Dry Density pcf Final Water Content % Load, psf Swell percent w \ ^^ V A\V\\ \s N\vV •X \1 4 - - - - - - 5 101 16 89 31 160 12 9 6 99 17 91 29 160 8 5 SAMPLE LOCATION 4 5 IMPORT BACKFILL SAND LOT 4 BLDG "D" LOT 4. BLDG "D" 10 20 30 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST 40 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST METHOD ASTM-D ^557-/8 A FILL SUITABILITY TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWNBY ch j CHECK ED BY p£> | PROJECT NO 503321-FCOl | DATE 12/17/81 | FIGURE NO 3 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS RESULTS OF LOADED SWELL TESTS Sample Number 5* 6* Initial Dry Dens i ty pcf 101 101 Water Content % 20 22 Saturation % 84 90 Final Dry Dens i ty pcf 93 96 Water Content tf7° 29 27 Saturation °ffo 98 96 Pressure psf 160 160 Expansion % of Initial Heighi 9.6 5.2 Diameter of Samples Height of Samples * Over Optimum 1.94 .627 LOADED SWELL TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY ch | CHECKED BY ^S) | PROJECT NO 503321-FCO1 j DATE 12/17/81 | FIGURE NO 4~ WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80£ PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS Liquid Limit % Plasticity Index, % Classification by Unified Soil Classification System H\V—DRYUNITWEIGHT pcfV\ v\V\ \\ \V\i V\ \\ 7- 8 ZER( — 281 2 V\y\\ \^ ^\\ \ AV\ AV \ —/I -~, Maximum Dry Density pcf Optimum Moisture Content % DA 3SC 705 26( - 2 \v\\v\\ ^\\ / / 7 8 42 53 23 33 SC CH R VOIDS CURVES ;G )SG 50 SG \\ ^\\Xv\v\\\§YA ^0^A \ a PERCENT PASSconnLC" GRAVEL SAND -i LTcmLLa c | f c m| f U|LT & CLAY \r °° 7--i \ ^u •« r> i 1 I 1 II II - 8 1 s.\ S^ S 1000 100 10 10 01 001 0001 GRAIN SIZE mm MECHANICAL ANALYSIS DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA ? g Dry Density pcf - - Initial Water Content % - Final Wate Apparent Apparent r Content % Cohesion psf - - Friction Angle degrees . SWELL TEST DATA 1 Q \Initial Dry Density pcf 101 95 / \V \\ Initial Water Content % 17 19 >\V\ Final DryDensity pcf 96 89 ^y\\ Final Water Content % 26 31 \ \\\ Load psf 160 160 \ *\^ \ Swell percent 53 85 \^\\ \ \\\ \y \ VvN 78 XS^ 113 0 107 5 N 15 0 18 0 | MOISTURE CONTENT, % w \ >N\ XS ) 10 20 30 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST N \\ -SSN SAMPLE LOCATION 7 LOT 6, BLDG "F" 8 LOT 4 BLDG "D" x^ S^j340 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST METHOD ASTM D 1557 78 A FILL SUITABILITY TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY ch I CHECK ED BY ~P£PROJECT NO 503321-FC01 °*TE 12/17/81 | FIGURE NO 5 wt 8/7/81 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS .JL RESULTS OF LOADED SWELL TESTS Sample Number 7* 8* Initial Dry Dens i ty pcf 102 100 Water Content % 21 23 Saturation % 87 92 Final Dry Dens i ty pcf 99 94 Water Content % 24 29 Saturation % 96 99 Pressure psf 160 160 Expans i on % of Initial Heighi 2.7 7.3 Diameter of Samples 1>94 Height of Samples -629 * Over Optimum LOADED SWELL TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY ch I CHECKED BY 353 | PROJECT NO 503321-FCOl [DATE 12/17/81 | FIGURE NO 6 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS WjISsiai..M-3467 Kurtz Street ' San Diego California^1110 714 224 2911 Telex 697 841 December 16, 1980 Project No 50332,7-UDOl ¥ Andrex Development Company Post Office Box 84361 Los Angeles, California 90073 Attention Mr. Howard Mann UPDATE SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED HOWARD MANN - 16-ACRE SITE PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA We are pleased to provide the accompanying report, whi'ch presents the results of our update soil and geologic investi- gation for the subject project Tnis study was performed in accordance with our proposal dated October 30, 1980 and your authorization of November 10, 1980 The report presents our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the project, as well as the results of our field exploration and Laboratory tests If you have any questions or if we can be of fourther service, please give us a call. Very truly yours, i/OOD'JARD-CLYDF CONSULTA JTS Richard P While R E 21992 RPW/DS/PD/rs Attachment (4) Andrex Development Company (2) Koll Company (2) CCP Associated Dar/l Streiff C E G 1033 No. 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde Consultants TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION BACKGROUND INFORMATION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS SITE CONDITIONS Geologic Setting Topography and Surface Conditions Subsurface Conditions Ground Water DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Potential Geologic Hazards Faulting a-nd Ground Breakage Liquefaction Landslides Ground Water 17-:s.iting Till Expansive Soil Slopes Excavation Characteristics Grading Plan Review Grading Page 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 6 7 7 3 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 12 12 12 project No. 50332W-UD01 Wood ward-CS^de GonsuStarsts TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Foundations Retaining Walls Pavements RISK AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FIGURE I - SITE PLAN APPENDIX A - FIELD INVESTIGATION FIGURE A-l - KEY TO LOGS FIGURE A-2 THROUGH A-9 - LOGS OF TEST BORINGS APPENDIX B - LABORATORY TESTS FIGURE B-l - GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES FIGURE B-2 - LOADED SWELL TESTS APPENDIX C - GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUBSURFACE DRAINS APPENDIX D - SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONTROLLED FILL Page 13 15 16 18 A-l B-l C-l D-l Project No. 50332W-UD0.1 Woodward'CByde Consultants UPDATE SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION tOR THE PROPOSED HOWARD MANN - 16-ACRE SITE PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTFR CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA This report presents the results of our update soil and geologic investigation at the site of a proposed 16-acre office and industrial building development The site is adjacent to and south of the existing terminus of Corte De La Pina, in the Palomar Airport Business Center, Carlsbad, California PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION The purpose of our investigation was to provide information to assist you and your consultants in evaluating the property and in project design This report presents our conclusions and recommendations regarding 0 The geologic setting of the site, 0 Potential geologic hazards, 0 General subsurface soil conditions, 0 General extent of existing fill soils, 0 Conditions of areas to receive fill, 0 Characteristics of proposed fill material, 0 Presence and effect of expansive soils, Project No. 50332W-UD01 Wood ward- Clyde Consultants Depth to water (if within the depths of our subsurface investigation), Stability of proposed cut and fill slopes, Grading and earthwork specifications, Types and depths of foundations, Allowable soil bearing pressures, Design pressures for retaining walls, and Pavement requirements. BACKGROUND Tor our study, we discussed the project with Mr Howard Mann, representatives of the Roll Company, and CEP Associated We were provided with plans entitled "Prelimi- nary Site Plan, The Anden-Mann Partnership, Palomar Airport Business Center," prepared by Kowalski-Harding & Associates, dated November 20, 1980, and an untitled topographic map prepared by Arevalo & Safino of San Diego, Inc , (photog- raphy of June 3, 1980) Preliminary soil investigations of the general site area were conducted an 1973 and 1974 by Woodward- Gizienski & Associates and Lowney/Kaldveer Associates, respectively. Subsequent mass grading was accomplished during 1974, during which the northwest two-thirds 'of the site was filled with up to 35 feet of compacted soil Grad- ing operations were observed and compaction tests were performed by Lowney/Knldveer Associates s Project No 50332W-UD01 Wood ward-CSyde CorasuStants We have reviewed the reports of those studies, which are listed below 0 "Preliminary Engineering Geological and Soil Study, Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes Industrial Park, San Diego County, California," prepared by Wood- ward-Gizienski & Associates, dated June 18, 1973 0 "Geotechnical Investigation, C C & F Palomar Air- port Business Park, Phase I, February 1974," pre- pared by Lowney/Kaldveer Associates, dated Feb- uary 26, 1974 0 "Report of Earthwork Observation and Testing Services, C C. & F Palomar Airport Business Park - Phase I, Carlsbad, California," prepared by Lowney/Kald^eor Associates, dated October 11, 1974. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Although no grading plan is available at this time, we understand that the proposed project will ulti- mately include grading to produce level building pads for constructing a total o.J six office and light industrial buildings T\Te understand that cuts and fills will be the minimum necessary to make level building pads All the fill soil is to be generated from on-site cuts Cut and fill slope heights are unknown at this time but could be up to ?0 feet Proposed buildings range from one to four stories The one- and two-story buildings will have concrete tilt-up walls, and the four-story complex (Building F) will be of Project No 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde Consultants steel and wood frame construction and will have a truss roof It is planned to support all buildings on continuous and spread, footings, buildings will have slab-on-grade ground floors An access road, parking facilities, and two or three food service and recreation areas are also planned We understand that construction as to be completed in two phases, Buildings A through C are to be built during Phase I, and Buildings D through F are to be bailt during Phase II Tve further understand that the existing 30-foot wide Buena sewer easement traversing the northwest corner of tne project is to be relinquished, however, the existing 10- foot wide easement, lying within the 30-foot easement, is to remain, and that the foundation of Building A will abut this 10-foot easement The location and layout of the proposed building footprints are shown on Fig 1. FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS Oar field investigation included making a vjsual geologic reconnaissance of the existing surface conditions, making ten auger borings between November 20 and 26, 1980, and obtaining representative SOT! samples Samples were re- turned to our laboratory for testing The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 12 to 42 feel. The locations of the borings are shown on Fig I 4 Project No. 50332W-UD01 Wood ward- Clyde Consultants A Key to Logs is presented in Appendix A as Tig A-l Simplified logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A as Figs A-2 through A-9. The descriptipns on the logs are based on field logs, sample inspection, and laboratory test results Results of laboratory tests are shown at the corresponding sample locations on the logs and in Appendix B The field investigation and laboratory testing programs are discussed in Appendixes A and B SITE CONDITIONS Geologic Setting The site lies in the upper portion of Canyon de las Enemas, approximately 4 miles from the coast and 3 miles south of Agua Kedionda Lagoon Tertiary age sediments of the La Jol.la Group are the predominant lithologic material present Topography and Surface Conditions The site covers approximately 16 acres. Approxi- mately two-thirds of the site consists of a fill pad that slopes from east to west A low natural hill occupies the southeast area of the site Site elevations range from a high of approximately 300 feet (MSL Datum) in. the southeast corner, to a low of appro^imately 208 feet in the drainage channel paralleling the western property line Project No. 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Exposed man-made structures on the site include two concrete headwalls along the northern property line and drains located in the southeast and northwest areas of the site Vegetation in the filled area is sparse and consists of tall grasses The natural ground cover in the southeast corner is dense and consists of chaparral and native grasses. Subsurface Conditions Subsurface utilities consist of an 18-incn VCP sewer running diagonally across the northwest corner of the site and a 8-inch VCP sewer line, with man-holes, just inside the northern property line running east from Corte De La Pina to adjacent properties Approximately two-thirds of the site is underlain by compacted fill The maximum amount of fill, about 35 feet, is along the western property line The soils used for fill were generated from formational material in the general vicinity of the site The fill consists of slightly to moderately expansive silts, clays, and sands Small bits of wire and wood debris were noted locally throughout the fill No loose area or voids were detected from the drill- ing or sampling Based on our field investigation and review of the report dated October 11, 1974, we have concluded Project No 50332W-UD01 Wood ward-Clyde Consultants that the fill is essentially compacted to current standards We understand that there is no drain below the fill The southeast area of the site is natural ground composed of the Eocene age Delmar Formation This forma- tional material consists of horizontally bedded claystone, siltstone, and sandstone A residual soil mantle consisting of topsoil and expansive clay caps this formation The topsoil is generally 0 to 2 feet thick and is composed of loose, sandy silts containing some small gravels on the surface The residual clay, generally silty to sandy clay, ranges from approximately 1 foot to a maximum thickness of about G feet along the lower western side slopes Ground Water Water was encountered in Boring 5 at a depth of about 37 feet Other borings were dry at time of drilling No water seeps, springs, or wet areas were noted during our field reconnaissance DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The discussions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are based on the results of our field and laboratory studios, anal/ses, and professional judgment Project No 50332W-UD01 Potential Geologic Hazards Faulting and Ground Breakage - Our reconnaissance and field explorations did not reveal any faulting on the site Available geologic literature indicates that the nearest known active fault zone along which seismic events of magnitude 4 or greater have occurred is the Elsinore Fault zone, mapped some 24 miles northeast of the site The closest significant faulting is the northern extension of the Rose Canyon Fault zone, which is mapped approximately 9 miles southwest of the site No magnitude 4 or larger earthquakes have been recorded on the Rose Canyon Fault zone Liquefaction - The formational sediments and compacted fill on the site are medium dense to very dense There is no apparent permanent ground water table within probable grading depths In our opinion, the on-site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction Landslides - Our review of literature and reports and our field investigations did not reveal any landslides on the site. Ground Water Based on our investigation, we do not believe that a permanent ground water table exists within the forma- tional soil at the site. Current site grades and aerial Project No 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde Consul!! anfts photographs of the area taken prior to grading in 1974 indicate that Boring 5 was located in the original canyon bottom This suggests that the water found in Boring 5 is seepage in the formational soils along the canyon bottom In our opinion, conditions on the site indicate that the potential is low for ground water seeping onto finished lots Our experience with similar materials indicates that ground water seepage can occur in cut areas, particularly at the contact between sand lenses and less permeable clays within the Tertiary sediments Natural jointing and fracturing of the formations could result in such seepage We recommend that an engineering geologist from our firm inspect cut banks and slopes during grading If seepage from slopes is noted during the inspection, we recommend installing drains as shown on the attached Guide Specifications for Subsurface Drains (Appendix C) Addi- tional recommendations will be presented upon request for specific cases "Je recommend that positive measures be taken to properly finish grade each pad after the structures and other improvements are completed, so that drainage waters from the pads and adjacent properties aie directed off the pads and a//ay from foundations, floor slabs, and slope tops Even when these measures have been taken, experience has No. 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde ConsulitairBfts shown that a shallow ground water or surface water condition can and may develop in areas where no such water condition existed prior to site development, this is particularly true in developments where a substantial increase3 in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation Existing Fill A review of the compaction report prepared by Lowney/Kaldveer Associates indicates that the existing fill was compacted in accordance with specifications. In our opinion, the existing fill is suitable for use as foundation bearing material The upper 12 inches may be loose due to natural weathering In our opinion, the filJs are c]ayey and expansive The report contains no mention of drains being installed in the canyon bottom prior to filling Ex pan sive So11 Our field investigation indicates that the on-site soils are predominantly slightly to moderatel/ expansive Limited amounts of select soil are available in the upper zones of: the natural ground in the southeast corei of the site Slopes r-7e generally recommend that cut and fill slopes be ^inclined at 2 to 1 (horizontal, to vertical) and have maximum neights on the order of 30 feet 10 Project No 50332W-UD01 Wood ward- Cfiyde Consultants We have performed stability analyses for 30- foot high slopes by the Janbu method using the following parameters 0 C__(p_s_f) Y (pcf) Delmar Formation Cut Slopes 25° 300 125 Compacted Fill Slopes 20° 300 125 The results of those analyses indicate that the slopes have calculated factors of s£ifety in excess of 1 b against deep- seated slope failure for static conditions Stability analyses require using parameters selected from a range of possible values There is a finite possibility that slopes having calculated factors of safety, as indicated, could become unstable In our opinion, the probability of slopes becoming unstable is low, and it is our professional judg- ment that such slopes can be constructed We did not in- clude an analysis of geologic conditions in the slopes, such as ground water seeps, clay seams, intense fracturing, or beds dipping out-of-slopc We recommend that a member of our staff inspect all cut slopes during grading Recommendations for handling adverse geologic conditions can be presented during grading We recommend that the face of each fill slope be compacted at 4-foot intervals during construction and track- walked upon completion All slopes should be properly drained and maintained to help control erosion 11 project No 50332W-UD01 Excavation Characteiistics In our opinion, the topsoil, residual soil, and formational sediments revealed in our test borings can be excavated with light to moderate effort by conventional heavy-duty grading equipment Grading Plan Review We recommend that we review the grading plans prior to their finalization to verify their conformance with the recommendations of this report Grading We recommend that a]1 grading be done in accor- dance with the attached Specifications for Controlled Till (Appendi< D). We recommend that our firn observe all grading operations and test compacted fills We recommend that a pre-construction conference be held at the site with the developer, civil engineer, con- tractor, and geotechmcal engineer in attendance Questions regarding special soil handling or the grading plans could be addressed at that tine We recommend that the upper 12 inches of existing fill be scarified, moisturized ais required, and recompacted prior to constructing footings or the adding of new fill 12 '',"! Project No 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde CcmsmSSairats V7e recommend that the upper 2 feet of soil in building areas and the upper 1 foot of soil in areas to be paved be comoosed of nonexpansive soils In order to accomplish this, undercutting of cut areas and replacing materials with nonexpansive import soils, and topping fills with import select will be required If no select soils are imported finish grade soils on the site will probably consist of expansive clayey sands and sandy clays Swell test results indicate these soils swell on the order of 6 percent in their recompacted state We recommend that these expansive soils placed within the anper 2 feet of grade be properly compacted at moisture contents of 3 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D-l557-70 This moisture content should be maintained up to the. time of concrete placement The over- o. timum soils should extend to a minimum of 1 foot below the bottom of footings. Foundations In our opinion, conventional spread or continuous footings placed a minimum of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade in nonexpansive SOL! or in properly compacted, non- expansive fill soil can be designed for allowable soil bearing pressures of 2,000 pbf (dead plus live load) Footings should have a minimum width of 12 incnes In our 13 Project No 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde Consultants opinion, these bearing values can be increased by no more than one-third for loads induced by wind or seismic forces Boring 5 encountered water at. a depth of about 37 feet, 4 feet below the bottom of the fill If the water level should rise in the fill, the fill can be expected to settle. The amount of settlement is related to both the depth of saturation and the overburden load Settlements of as much as 1 percent of the depth of fill are possible from this source. Where the thickness of the fill varies, the resulting settlements xvould be differential Although not expected, differential settlements up to about 1-800 are possible. We recommend that footings founded in moderately expansive soil be embedded 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade and be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf The footings should be reinforced with one No 4 bar top and bottom Slab floors should be a minimum of 5 inches thick, underlain by 10 mil plastic membrane sheeting and 4 inches of coarse sand The following sketch clarifies our recommendations _L J-I_^Ik: iK 1" - 20" '••• 3 no .:•]•-, ", O C J. -n 5 ,, ,: I1 \ .1 conrso sand v plastic meribrane i !j iL <• t-or s -, '• : ).. tc.i 14 Project No. 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde Consultants IfI ft I I These recommendations are intended only to reduce the effects of heaving, footings founded in expansive soils should be expected to heave Retaining Walls We recommend using active lateral pressures for cantilevered walls where a horizontal movement of at least ^ 0 001H can be accommodated at the top of the wall, where H is the height of the wall in feet. If this condition is not satisfied, design criteiia for the restrained condition should be used. We recommend that cantilevered retaining walls that have level backfill surfaces extending for a minimum horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall be designed for the pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 60 pcf This value assumes that on-site soils are utilized for backfill, and that no surcharge loads, such as adjacent footings or vehicle traffic, will act on the wall We recommend that cantilevered retaining walls with 2 to 1 inclined backfills be designed to withstand the pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 60 pcf We recommend that- walls restrained from movement at the top, such as basement walls, be designed for the active case equivalent fluid pressure given above plus an additional uniform ho^i /ontal pressure of 611 psf for on-site s backfill material 15 project No 50332W-U00.1 Wood ward* COyde Consultants We recommend providing all retaining walls with a backfill drainage system adequate to reduce the buildup of hydrostatic forces To provide resistance for design Lateral loads, we recommend using the pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pcf for passive earth pressures on footings or shear keys poured neat against existing soils. We recommend that the upper 1 foot of soil not protected by pavement or floor slabs not be used in design for passive resistance to lateral loads If friction is to be used tc resist lateral loads, we recommend using a coefficient of friction of 0 25 between soil and concrete for design If it is desired to combine frictional and passive resistance in design, we recommend using a friction coefficient of 0 20 We recommend that footings located close to or on slopes be extended to a sufficient depth so tnat the horizontal distance between the outside bottom edge of the foundaion and the face of the sJope is at least 8 feet Pavements In pavement design calculations, we assumed a traffic index (T I ) of 4 5 for car parking areas and 5 5 for access roads and truck traffic areas WG also assumed R-values of 10 for on-site expansive soil and 20 for non- expansive import soil Based on oui calculations, we recom-^ mend the following asphalt pavement thicknesses 16 Project No 50332W-UD01 Woodward-CSyde CorasyStarats T i 4.5 R = 10 R = 20 T I 55 R = 10 R = 20 Full Depth Asphalt Concrete 6-1/2" 5-1/2" 8-1/2" 7-1/2" Asphalt Concrete 3" 3" 3" 3" Class II Base 7-1/2" 6" 11" 9" Additionally, we recommend paving loading dock and dumpster areas with 6 inches of PCC Concrete We also recommend that R-value tests be performed on actual pavement subgrade materials at the end of grading to verify our assumptions Recommendations for revising the recommended thicknesses can be made at that time, if necessary We recommend that the subgrade be scarified, watered or dried as required, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent maximum laboratory density, as determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-70, prior to placing base mate- rial The minimum depth of compaction of the subgrade soils should be 6 inches Whenever loose materials are encountered to greater depths, they •should be removed and recompacted We recommend that the base material conform to the State of California Standard Specifications (January 1978) , for Class II aggregate base, Section 26-1 02B, the asphalt concrete should conform to State of California Standard Specifications (January 1978), Section 39-2.OL for the asphalt and Section 39-2 02 (Type B) for the aggregate * 17 Project No 50332W-UD01 RISK AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Our test borings indicate only a sma]1 portion of the pertinent soil and ground water conditions The recom- mendations made herein are based on the asssunption that soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those found during our field investigation If the plans for site development are changed, or if variations or undesirable geotechnical conditions are encountered during construction, the geotechnical consultant should be consulted for further recommendations We recommend that the geotechnical consultant review the foundation and grading plans to verify that the intent of the recommendations presented herein has been properly interpreted and incorporated into the contract documents We further recommend that the geotechnical consultant observe the site grading, subgrade preparation under concrete slabs and paved areas, and foundation excava- tions It should also be understood that California, including San Diego, as an area of high seismic risk It is generally considered economically unfeasible to build totally earthquake-resistant structures, therefore, it is possible that a large or nearby earthquake could cause damage at the site 18 Project No 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Professsional judgments presented herein are based partly on our evaluations of the technical information gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed con- struction, and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field Our engineering work and judgments rendered meet current professional standards We do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering We do not direct the con- tractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of other than our own personnel on the site, there- fore, 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 19 i-r- u< 1 ' ^ o r r-l h '- '^u r^r 'i' •H C/ C" -: c r- ••. r 1 IGURE MOu. CC' 1 r— H | ] ' ' UJ Q , — t cr. CJI u!_ ^J ro c m o oUJ 3 CCo. pull m Q UJ O UJIO CO z CC Q inIM.(^zz«c1_I COKSUL•A4a>•^i 0 cb CC<g:a 0oS O o LT! cr Project No. 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde Consuitaraf s APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION \ Ten exploratory borings were advanced at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1 The drilling was performed by personnel from our firm between November 20 and 26, 1980 using a 8-inch diameter, truck-mounted continuous- flight auger Samples of the subsurface materials were obtained from the borings using a modified Californiet drive sampler 2-inch inside diameter and 2-1/2-inch outside diameter with thin brass liners. The sampler was generally driven 18 inches into the material at the bottom of the hole by a 140- pound hammer falling 30 inches, thin metal liner tubes containing the sample were removed from the sampler, sealed to preserve the natura] moisture content of the sample, and returned to the laboratory for examination and testing The location ot each boring and the elevation of the ground surface at each location were estimated from the topographic plan A-l Location Boring Number Elevation DEPTH IN FEET - - - TEST DATA •MC 12 •DO no •BC 65 t •OTHER SAMPLE SOIL DESCRTESTS NLMWBtR ^UIL U t i> U K ] ,-»-j| Very dense , • • • j ^ -<2 ^ WATER LEVEL ' IPTION damp, brown M .1 t v . jnd (SM) j . At time of drilling or as indicated SOILCLASSIFICAT c\ * tUi J Soil Classifications am based on the Unified Soil Classification Svsttm and include color moisture and consistency Fit Id descriptions haw been modified to reflect results of laboratory analyst s where appropriate PI i ^TI innrr^ ° rt M p iU 1^ 1 U no t U oArvir LE LOCATION Obtained by collecting the auger cuttings in a plastic or cloth bag DRIVE SAMPLE LOCATION MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER Sample with recorded blows per foot was obtained with a Modified California drive sampler 12 inside diarro tcr 25 outside dianwier) lined with sample tubes The sampler was driven into the soil at the bottom of th(. hole with 3 140 pound hammer falling 30 incties iMnif**A"rr~'~/^ftMpi rINLMOAI to oAMl Lt1 TESTED FOR OTHER PROPERTIES GS — Grain Si7t Distribution Cl — Consolidation I t-^t LC — LabOfalory Compaction UCS — Unconfir\ed Connxes^iorx Ttsl Test PI — Aiteibeig Lirnus Test DS - Onrci Shtat Test ST — Loaded Swell Test TX — Tnux>al Compassion Test CC — Confined Compression Test NOTE In this column the results of thest l(,*:s may tx1 recorded whern dpphcdble rt • x-»i«« y»»*~n mi-.-OI-WVV ^.WUIM I Number of blows needed to advanct sampler one. toot or as indicated n>n\/ nr-tir>i-ris Pounds per Cubic Foot ._.,.,_.. ... _, ... _ mtniiTimc rnwTPMT Percent of Dry Weight NOTES ON FIELD INVESTIGATION 1 REFUSAL indicates the inability to extend excavation practicilly with equipment bamg uttKi in the inv KEY TO LOGS HOWARD MANN 1G ACRC DRAWN BY Ch [ CHECKED BY t'/;.f-f \ PRO-JCCrWO 50332h-UDOl DAfE i 2-1-80 |FIGURE NO "i~ WOODWARD CLYDE CONSULTAWTS Borinq 1 Approximate El 284' DEPTH IN FEET 5- 10- 15- - 20_ 25- 30 - - - 35- - 40 _ TEST DATA •MC •DO •BC 88 50/6, 78 50/3,, 50/6,, 50/2 „ •OTHER TESTS GS,PI ST GS,PI SAMPLE NUMBER 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 l-b - 1 SOIL DESCRIPTION n $! IS xCS US fe I1iar 111 v V. e ». = > > Loose, damp, tan, clayey sandy silt (ML) \ TOPSOIL Very dense, moist, yellow- tan, silty fine sand to hard, sandy clay (SM-CL) with gypsum crystals DELMAR FORMATION Very dense, moist, yellow-tan, silty fine sand (SM) DELMAR FORMATIONy Hard, moist, olive, silty clay (CL-CH) DELMAR FORMATION Hard, moist, brown, silty sand (SM) with sea shell fragments V DELMAR FORMATION Hard, moist, reddish-brown, silty clay (CL) DELMAR FORMATION Thin lenses of yellow-tan, silty sand (SM) "j Color change to gray brown 1 \ Very dense, moist, reddish-brown, cemented silty band (SM) with shell fragments DELMAR FORMATION \ Refusal • For description of symbols, see Figure LOG OF TEST BORING 1 HOWARD MANN 16 ACRF DRAWN BY ch 1 CHKCKED BY r/,<7fV PROJECT NO 50332W-UD01 | DATE 12-1-80 | FIOUHC MOt A-2 WOODWARD-CLYDE Boring 2 Approximate El. 232' p-l|>IPTH MN FEET 1^*^™ ^ 5_ 10- 15- - - 20 - 25 _ ,0 _ 35- 40- TEST DATA •MC •DO •BC 39 54 58 •OTHER TESTS GS,PT SAMPLE NUMBER 2-1 2-2 - 2-3 2-5 SOIL DESCRIPTION \v Moist, mottled tan and qray, silty sandy clay FILL Intermittent layers of qray, clayey silty sand — Wire at 8' Moist, liqht brown, silty clay FILL "•"• Small pieces of wire and bits of plastic at 15' Hard, moist, olive, silty clav (CL-CH) DELMAR FORMATION Bottom of Holo •For description of symbols see Figure A-l I-OC, 0\ TCST BORING HOWARD M7'NN 16 ACRF BY ch | CHECKED BY '/'(/| PROJECT NO 003 J2W-UDO1 |PATE 12-2-80 j WOODWARD-CLY1 DRAWN FIGURE NO A-3 Borinq 3 Approximate El 226' DEPTH IN FEET 5- 10 - 15- - 20 - " 25 _ ;. 30- ~ • 35- - 10- TEST DATA •MC •DO •BC 36 42 39 so/6" •OTHER TESTS SAMPLE NUMBER 3-1 3-2 -c 3-4 3-5 3-6 SOIL DESCRIPTION 1W Damp, mottled tan and gray, silty clay FILL . Intermittent layers of clayey silty sand -j-B_ Gravel ^ Roots Very noist, dark brown, silty clay with trace of debris FILL _ Wire at 27' J-»— Gravel Hard, moi't, qriy, :, ilty clay (CL-CH) DtLMAR FORMATION Bottom ot Hole •For description of symbols see Figure A-l roj oi rcsT RORI.NK, MANN 16 ACRE DRAWN BY ch [ CHECKED BY v,n^{ PROJECT NO 50332W-UDQ1 j OATE 12-2-30 [ FIGURE NO A-4 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Boring 4 1 Approximate El. 255' DEPTH IN FEET 5- 10- 15- - - 20 _ - - - iO- Ar\ - TEST DATA •MC •DO •BC •OTHER TESTS ' SAMPLE NUMBER 4-1 - 4-2 _« SOIL DESCRIPTION | ^: Moist, gray, silty clay FILL Moist, light brown, gravelly silty sand FILL X Hard, moist, olive, silty clay to clayey sand (CL-CII) DELMAR FORMATION _ _ Grading to Hard, moist, olivo, sandy silty clay to clayey sand (CL-SC) with shell fragments DELMAR IORMATION Bottom ot Hole •For description of symbols tee Figure A-l I,O", Ol TLST BORING 4 HOWARD MANN 16 ACRI PHAWNBY ch | CHECKED BY .w\*\ PROJECT NO- 50332W-UDO1 | DATE 12-2-80 | FIQUHt MO; A- 5 WOODWARD-CLYDE Boring 5 Approximate El. 226' DEPTH IN FEET 5 - 10 -, 15 - 20 ~ \ 30 _ <5- 40 - - TEST DATA •MC ; •DD > ; •BC ; •OTHER TESTS ' t SAMPLE NUMBER '* SOIL DESCRIPTION - < , "f Moist, mottled tan and qray, sandy silty clay FILL Moist, dark brown and qray, sandy silt clay FILL "* Roots at 11' '- — — Dark brown clay Dense, moist to wet, olive-brown, clayey sand (SC) DELMAR FORMATION Hot torn ot Hole •For description of symbols see Figure A-1 FOG OF TI ST BORING HOWARD MANN Ift A( RP DRAWN BY ch I CHECKED BY V\T^'{ PROJECT NO *>0 3 32W-UDO1 | DATE 12-2-RO | FIOUBE MO A-6 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Boring Approximate El. 243' DEPTH IN FEET 5_ 10_ 15- TEST DATA •MC •DD •BC •OTHER TESTS SAMPLE NUMBER G-I SOIL DESCRIPTIQN ><. <•: ^ J I I Loose, damp, tan, clayey sand (SC) with gravel TOPSOIL AND SLOPEWASH Dense, damp, reddish-brown, clayey sand (SC V TOPSOIL AND SLOPEWASH Hard, moist, gray, sandy clay (CL) DELMAR FORMATION Bottom of Hole Boring 7 Approximate El. 248' DEPTH IN FEET 5 _ 1.U- L5- TEST DATA •MC •DO •BC •OTHER TESTS SAMPLE NUMBER /-I SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 1 1 Firm, damp, 1 iqht brown, sandy clay (CL) with surface gravel and cobbles y TOPSOIL AND SLOPEWASH Stjff, nioit.t, yellow-brown, silty clay (CH' RESIDUAL CLAY Very stilf, moist, gray, «?ilty clay (CL-CH) OF I MAR FORMATION . — — Grading to _ _ — — Hard, moist, gray, silty (.lay (CL-CH) \ DCLMAR FORMATION Bottom oi Hole •For description of symbols see Figure ,-\_] rO , OF TEST BORINGS 6 AND 7 HOWARD MANN 16 ACRT DRAWN BY ih j CHECKED BY AM-{ PROJECT NO 50332W-UDO1 | DATE 12-1-80 | FIOUKE NO-A-7 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Boring 8 Approximate El. 236' DEPTH IN FEET 5- 10- 15 20 - 25- 30- 35- TEST DATA •MC •DO •BC 54 33 •OTHER TESTS * SAMPLE NUMBER 8— 1 I 8-2 8-3 SOIL DESCRIPTION I I Moist, tan with gray mottling, silty clay FILL Moist, brown, sandy gravelly clay FILL I— Roots I Hard, damp, tan and gray, fine sandy clay (CL) DELMAR FORMATION Stiff to hard, moist, pale yellow-tan, sandy clay (CL) DELMAR FORMATION Bottom of Hole * For description of symbols see Figure A- 1 LOG OF TfST BORING 8 HOWARD MANN 16-ACRF DRAWN BY ch | CHECKED BY ,y^>| PROJECT NO S0.332W-UD01 | DATE 12-1-80 | PIQUHi NO; A-8 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Boring 8A Approximate El. 236' DEPTH INFEET - 5_ 10- 15 ~ • - TEST DATA •MC •DD •BC 19 •OTHER TESTS SAMPLE NUMBER 8A-1 SOIL DESCRIPTION Moist, tan with qray mottling, silty sandy clay FILL • » Moist, brown, sandy gravelly clay FILL Bottom of Hole Boring 9 Approximate El. 250' DEPTH INFEET 5- 10- 15- TEST DATA •MC •DO •BC •OTHER TESTS SAMPLE NUMBER ')-l SOIL DESCRIPTION $S 1 vvs I Moist, tan and qray, sandy silty clay FILL _ Roots and wood at 3' Stiff, moist, tan to light brown, gravelly V sandy clay (CL) SLOPI.WASH Very stiff, moist, yellow-brown, silty clay (( II) RESIDUAL CLAY Hard, damp, qray, silty clay (CH) DP f MAR FORMATION Bottom 01 Holt> •For description of symbols see Figure A- ] ij OF IVsT FORINGS 8A AND 9 HOWARD MANN 1G ACRF DRAWN BY ch [ CHECtEOBY \f\>:L\ PROJECT NO bQ332W-UDOl | DATE 12-1-80 | FIGURE NO A-9 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Project No. 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde Consultants APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS The materials observed in the borings were visually classified and evaluated with respect to strength, and compressibility characteristics. The classifications were substantiated by performing grain size analyses and evaluating plasticity characteristics of representative samples of the soils. Swelling characteristics were evaluated by performing loaded swell tests on relatively undisturbed samples. The grain size distribution curves are shown on Fig. B-l. The results of loaded swell tests are reported on * Fig. B-2. B-l 100 90 80 70 QUJv> CO•< LUo 40 20 10 COBBLcS GRAVEL Coarse Fine SAND Coarse Medium Fine SILT and CLAY Mesh Opening - Ins Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis 76 32 J $ 2 * ._. -- - ) - -4 "I Ml — I 10 1i »-~>}, X., 4-; i -- 6 2wa *s, -2 1 09 F^ \ -- 0 MO 60 80 1 MO 200 =ss -41 _... 1 ^ \ \ \ — K: \ \\ % s\ s \-V-v\ ~ k ^_ V ,iiL_1 h~ R k \\ ••— \\\ \\\ \^ S 1 \ V--v 1 -4_1 • «— 2-1 . — — 1-4 11. _L k \ \ \ \ 1 \ \\k\ \ \\x,^ ^* \\ \ \K\\ ^,\\ ^\1 \ V^ \ \ ^\ \\\ \\ \V ^ 1 • — — « - s^ — -X. \\\\ \\\\\i1 ^^"\ s. ^*^*T»«"^X^^ ™^^^ •V^ ""^» >V_ 100 50 10,0 5,0 .0 O.I 0.05 0.01 0.005 O.OC 0 10 20 30 MOS •a. UJ 50" UJ0 60 £ 70 80 90 100 )l GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAMPLE ].-2 1-1 :'-i '\-S CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL Sandy clay (Cl ) Silty clay (CI!) Silty cl iv fCI -CII) Clayc y <> md ( 0) - --- *LL 41 b2 'SO 34 — *PI 20 30 .M •n *LL - Liquid Limit *PI - Plasticity Index GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES HOWARD MANN 16 ACRF DRAWN BY | CHECKED BY *tfK\ PROJECT NO 50332W-UDO1 | DATE 12-4-80 } FIGURE MO. B-l WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 1 RESULTS OF LOADED SWELL TESTS Sample Number 2-1 4-2 Initial Dry Density pcf 101 116 Water Content % 24 10 Saturation *100 60 Final Dry Density pcf 98 111 Water Content % 26 17 Saturation % 100 92 Pressure psf 160 160 Expansion » %of Initial Height 6.5* 4.2 Diameter of Samples Height of Samples * FROM AIR DRY 1 91 LOADED SWELL TESTS HOWARD MANN 16 ACRE NO 50332W-UDO1 | PATE 12-4-80 | ftQURE NO B-2DHAWN1Y ch | CHECKED BY WOODWARD-CLYDE CQfttttUMtTf IT Project No. 50332W-UD01 APPENDIX C GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUBSURFACE DRAINS I. DESCRIPTION Subsurface drains consisting of filter gravel or clean gravel enclosed in filter fabric with perforated pipe shall be installed as shown on the plans in accordance*with these specifications, unless otherwise specified by the engineer. II. MANUFACTURE Subsurface drain pipe shall be manufactured in accordance with the following requirements. Perforated corrugated ADS pipe shall conform to ASTM Designa- tion F405. Transite underdrain pipe shall conform to AStfM Designation C-508 (Type II). Perforated ABS and PVC pipe shall conform to ASTM Desginations 2751 and 3033, respect- ively/ for SDR35; and to ASTM Designations 2661 and 1785, respectively, for SDR21. The type pipe shall conform to the following table. Pipe Material ADS (Corrugated Polyethylene) Transite 'underdrain1 PVC or ABS: SDR35 SDR21 III. FILTER MATERIAL Maximum Height of Fill (ffeet) 8 20 35 100 Filter material for use in backfilling trenches around and over drains shall consist of clean, coarse sand and gravel or crushed stone conforming to the following grading require- ments. Percentage Passing SieveSieve Size 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 8 30 50 200 This material generally conforms with Class II permeable*1 material in accordance with Section 68-1.025 of the Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation. C-l 90 - 40 - 25 - 18 - 5 - 0 - 0 - 100 100 100 40 33 15 7 3 project No. 50332W-UD01 APPENDIX C (continued) IV. FILTER FABRIC Filter fabric for use in drains shall consist of Mirafi 140S (Celanese), Typar (DuPont), or equivalent. The aggregate shall be 3/4-inch to 1-1/2-inch maximum size, free draining aggregate. Filter fabric shall completely surround the aggregate. V.LAYING Trenches for drains shall be excavated to a minimum width of 2 feet and to a depth shown on the plans, or as directed by the engineer. The bottom of the trench shall then be covered full width by 4 inches of filter material or with filter fabric and 4 inches of aggregate, and the drain pip6 shall be laid with the perforations at the bottom and sections shall be joined with couplers. The pipe shall be laid on a minimum slope of 0.2 percent and drained to curb outlet or storm drain. After the pipe has been placed, the trench shall be back- filled with filter material or 1-1/2-inch maximum size aggregate if filter fabric is used, to the elevation shown on the plans, or as directed by the engineer. C-2 Project No. 50332W-UD01 APPENDIX C (continued) TYPICAL SUBSURFACE DRAINS FOR LOCAL SEEPAGE Compacted Native Soil Cut Slope 6" Perforated Pipe Drain to Curb Outlet or Storm Drain x—r if—Typical Seepage Line Filter Material or Filter Fabric Cut Slops 6" Perforated Pipe Drain to furb Outlet or Storm Drain ^—Compacted Native Soil Typical Seepaga Line Filter Material or Filter Cut Slope Compacted Native Soil I—Typical Seepage Line Filter Material or Filter Fabric 6" Perfotatcd Pipe Drain to Curl) Outlet or Storm Drain C-3 Project No. 50332W-UD01 APPENDIX C (continued) TYPICAL SECTION I SUBSURFACE DRAINS IK DRAWS •ORIGIIJAL GROUND EXCAVATION } OT^O i or ,[ . .JTAI ( ILANOUT AGGPECATE 1 cf/ft OF LENG1.1, MIN (3/4" to 14" crushed roc)' maximum size) DRAIN PIPE- 6 INCH DIAMETER FILL FILTER FABRIC ALL AROUND PIPh MATERIAL ADS (CORRUGATED POLYPI TRANSITF UMDf PVC or AHS SDR IS SDR Jl MAXIMUM HFIGHT OF rILL ABOVP BOTTOM OF ALIUVIAL CLLAMOUT (FT ) NI ) 8 ''0 15 100 C-4 Project No. 50332W-UD01 APPENDIX C (continued) TOPICAL SECTION SUBSURIACC DRAINS III DRAWS •ORIGINAL GROUND EXCAVATION BO'TOM OF ALLUVIAL CLCANOUT FILTER MATERIAL 7 cf/ft OF LENGTH, MIN COMPACTED FILL DRAIN PIPE 6 IJ'CH DIAMETER PIPF MATERIAL (r:ORKUGATED POL^LI livj t. 1' ) ii"nr PUPAK, "VC 01 ABS SDR TO SDK Jl MA^ IMUfl HEIGHT OF FILL A«OVE POTIOM OP ALLUVIA! CLFAMOUT (FT ) 8 .TO 100 C-5 project No. APPENDIX D SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONTROLLED FILL I.GENERAL These specifications cover preparation of existing surfaces to receive fills, the type of soil suitable for-use in fills, the control of compaction, and the methods of testing compacted fills. It shall be the contractor's responsibility to place, spread, water, and compact the fill in strict accordance with these specifications. A soil engineer shall be the owner's representative to inspect the construction of fills. Excavation and the placing of fill shall be under the direct inspection of the soil engineer, and he shall give written notice of conformance with the specifications upon completion of grading. Deviations from these specifica- tions will be permitted only upon written authorization from the soil engineer. A soil investigation has been made for this project? any recommendations made in the report of the soil investigation or subsequent reports shall become an addendum to these specifications. II. SCOPE The placement of controlled fill by the contractor shall include all clearing and grubbing, removal of existing unsatisfactory material, preparation of the areas to be filled, spreading and compaction of fill in the areas to be filled, and all other work necessary to complete the grading of the filled arjeas. III. MATERIALS 1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any material imported or excavated from the cut areas that, in the opinion of the soil engineer, is suitable for use in constructing fills. The material shall contain no rocks or hard lumps greater than 24 inches in size and shall contain at least 40% of material smaller than 1/4 inch in size. (Materials greater than 6 inches in size shall be placed by the contractor so that they are surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks shall be permitted.) No material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise improper nature shall bo used in filling. 2. Material placed within 24 inches of rough grade shall be select material that contains no rocks or hard lumps greater than 6 inches in size and that swells less than 6% when compacted as hereinafter specified for compacted fill and soaked under an axial pressure of 160 psf. D-l Project No. 50332W-UD01 '!*. APPENDIX D (continued) 3. Representative samples of material to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory by the soil engineer in order to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and classification of the soil. In addition, the soil engineer shall determine the approximate bearing value of a recompacted, saturated sample by direct shear tests or other tests applicable to the particular soil. • 4. During grading operations, soil types other than those analyzed in the report of the soil investigation may be encountered by the contractor. The soil engineer shall be consulted to determine the suitability of these soils. IV. COMPACTED FILLS 1. General (a) Unless otherwise specified, fill material shall be compacted by the contractor while at a moisture content near the optimum moisture content and to a density that is not less than 90% of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test No. D1557-70, or other density test methods that will obtain equivalent results. / (b) Potentially expansive soils may be used in fills below a depth of 24 inches and shall be compacted at a moisture content greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 2. Clearing ahd Preparing Areas to be Filled (a) All trees, brush, grass, and other objectionable material shall be collected, piled, and burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor so as to leave the areas that have been cleared with a neat and finished appearance free from un- sightly debris. (b) All vegetable matter and objectionable material shall be removed by the contractor from the surface upon which the fill is to be placed, and any loose or porous soils shall be removed or compacted to the depth shown on the plans. The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equip- ment to be used. (c) Where fills are constructed on hillsides or slopes, the slope of the original ground on which the fill is to be placed shall be stepped or keyed by the contractor as shown on the figure on Page 4 of these specifications. The steps shall extend completely through the soil mantle and into the underlying formational materials. « D-2 ANDREXnnnnnnnnnnUDDE UDDE z n n n \ ^% 1 \J^^r- 'ZZLv'Z- ' February 6, 1986 Mr. Carter Darnell Building Department CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 Subject: Plan Check #86-67 2271 Cosmos Court Carlsbad, CA Dear Mr. Darnell: Enclosed is a copy of the receipt showing the facilities fee paid at the onset of the original permit application for the building at 2271 Cosmos Court. As discussed, our original permit for this building expired and we are applying for a new one This building is identified as Building B Please advise if we may of further assistance. Very truly yours, ANDREX DEVELOPME1 Tve Welsh Vice President Construction CSW/psg Individual Membership in the SOCIETY OF INDUSTRIAL REALTORS 1149 West 190th Street Gardena, California 90248 (213)515-0015 */ C/fy of Carlsbad 1200 ELM CARLSBAD CA 92008 • TEL (7141 438 5525 MISCELLA^ RECEIPT 'I »'-i A .... COMPLETE FOR PLAN CHECK ONLY \ MISCELLANEOUS FEE RECEIPT '••i . - ~f K FEE ";<- 'GLinON 'iOujE MOVING [>AP«3 .-,riD P^CREAT'ON FEE P IH '" rAOlLiriES CEE..._ SCr" Ol -:!r DISTRICT. . rONTALI PERSON TOTAL FEE //ARNING PLAN CHECK FEES WHERE NO ACTION IS TAKEN B f THE APPLICANT IN^etfD^YS AND NO BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED FEE ARE ED TO THE/CITY COMMENTS J