Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2470 FARADAY AVE | 6200 EL CAMINO REAL; ; CB091318; Permit
:r City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 10-22-2009 Commercial/Industrial Permit Permit No: CB091318 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: Project Title: Applicant: 2470 FARADAY AV CBAD Tl 2090402800 Sub Type: Lot#: $0.00 Construction Type: Reference #: BECKMAN: EXPANSION OF PARKING LOT INCL. NEW LIGHTING INDUST 0 NEW Owner: Status: Applied: Entered By: Plan Approved: Issued: Inspect Area: Plan Check#: ISSUED 08/11/2009 JMA 10/22/2009 10/22/2009 NED HASKELL HAGAMAN FAMILY SURVIVORS 1990 TRUST 11-07-90 858-493-4 777 Building Permit Add'I Building .Permit Fee Plan Check Add'I Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee BTD#2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'I Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'I Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee Green Bldg Stands (SB1473) Fee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.00 5320 SUNNY CREEK RD CARLSBAD CA 92010 Meter Size Add'I Reel. Water Con. Fee Meter Fee SDCWA Fee CFO Payoff Fee PFF (3105540) .PFF (4305540) License Tax (3104193) Lic(;lnse Tax ( 4304193) Traffic Impact Fee (3105541) Traffic Impact Fee (4305541) PLUMBING TOTAL ELECTRICAL TOTAL MECHANICAL TOTAL Master Drainage Fee Sewer Fee Redev Parking Fee Additional Fees HMP Fee TOTAL PERMIT FEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $660.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ?? $662.00 Total Fees: $662.00 Total Payments To Date: $6~~ t~,at1ce Due: <"\ ~; r:,.._GY $0.00 Inspector:~ FINAL APPRZOVAL Date: 7,/1--J r;o Clearance: _____ _ NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which vou have oreviouslv been aiven a NOTICE similar to this or as to which the statute of limitations has oreviouslv otherwise exoired. ! ) City of Carlsbad Plan Check No. eoq l3lg- 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-602-2717 / 2718/ 2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 Building Permit Application JOB ADDRESS 2470 Faraday Avenue SUITE#/SPACE#/UNIT# Est. Value Plan Ck. Deposit Date? ( ( Q APN 209 04 20 CT/PROJECT# LOT# PHASE# # OF UNITS # BEDROOMS # BATHROOMS TENANT BUSINESS NAME CONSTR. TYPE acc. GROUP Beckman Coulter V-8 B,F1,S1 DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Include Square Feet of Affected Area(s) Expansion of existing parking lot for 57 additional spaces, including lighting for the new parking area as well as grading and landscaping for the proposed area. Existing parking areas to remain unchanged beyond scope showing on drawings. EXISTING USE PROPOSED USE GARAGE (SF) F1 &B Mfr and office F1 &B Mfr & office Q CONTACT NAME (JfDifferentFomAppl/cant) Ned Haskell-Smith Con. Arch. ADDRESS 12220 El Camino Real, Ste 200 CITY STATE ZIP San Diego CA 92130 PHONE FAX PATIOS (SF) DECKS (SF) 0 0 APPLICANT NAME ADDRESS CITY San Djego PHONE FIREPLACE YESD. AIR CONDITIONING FIRE SPRINKLERS No0 YES ONo D YEsG.:J NoO Smith consulting Architects 12220 El Camino Real, Ste 200 STATE ZIP CA 92130 FAX 858-793-4777 858-793-4787 858-793-4777 858-4787 EMAIL EMAIL nedh@sca-sd.com nedh@sca-sd.com PROPERTY OWNER NAME Beckman Coulter CONTRACTOR BUS. NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS 2470 Faraday Avenue CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP Carl~bad CA 92009 PHONE FAX PHONE FAX 760-438-6313 760-438-6504 EMAIL EMAIL DJTaniguchi@beckman.com ARCH/DESIGNER NAME & ADDRESS STATE LIC.# STATE LIC.# CLASS CITY BUS. UC.# Smith consultinQ Architects C11701 (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicantfor such permit to file a signed statementtnat he is licensed pursuantto the provisions of the Contractor's License Law [Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code} or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subJects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars {$500)). W©@as&m@<> (30@CPGill0&~00Ci!l Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjwy one of the following declarations: B I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance carrier and pohcy number are: Insurance Co Policy No. Expiration Date This section need not be completed ff the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less. D Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars (&100,000), in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees • .f!S CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE DATE 0® ro@@o@©OC!,©@@ ©l.s@C!.&©tMro.0@ , · '* • -..: ',I,. -= • ~ ~ , --~ I hereby affirm that I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: D I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). D I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). D I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. 0Yes 0No 2. I (have/ have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name address/ phone / contractors' license number): 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name /address/ phone/ contractors' license number): 5. I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name/ address/ phone/ type of work): -·· .f!S PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE J Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business..ll.!fill, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? D Yes LJNo Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or a~ality management district? 0Yes 0 No Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? 0Yes 1.!..JNo IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work ·this permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (i) Civil Code). Lender's Name Lender's Address I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and thatthe information on the plans is accurate. I agree to complyv.ith all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representative of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0' deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit orif the building orw autho · ed by such permit is suspended or abandoned at anytime after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). _.g APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE n_; DATE J City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 07/21/2010 Permit# CB091318 Title: BECKMAN: EXPANSION OF PARKING Description: LOT INCL. NEW LIGHTING Type:TI Job Add res$: Sub Type: INDUST 2470 FARADAY AV Suite: Lot: Location: APPLICANT NED HASKELL Owner: BECKMAN COULTER INC Remarks: Total Time: CD Description 0 Act Comments Inspector Assignment: TP --- Phone: 7608010701 Inspector: L Requested By: ERIC MOODY Entered By: CHRISTINE 19 29 39 49 Final Structural Final Plumbing Final Electrical Final Mechanical ~..__.,.__ _________ _ ~fl,, JJI ---------- lul/ ------------------- Comments/Notices/Holds ._IN_o_tic_~ ___ PA_v_sw_P_PP_F_EE_s_PR_1_o_R_T_o_1s_s_u_A_N_c_E_(_sw_o9_-_oe_,s_w_M_Po_9_-1_e_) _________ -==--==~:-~-~; Associated PCRs/CVs/SWPPPs Original PC# PCR09085 WITHDRAW BECKMAN: CHANGES TO PADS FOR; HEAT EXCHANGER & WATER TANK SW090006 ISSUED -BECKMAN COULTER; DOCK ADDITION & PARKING LOT EXPANSION Inspection History Date Description Act lnsp Comments 0!)/07/2010 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers AP RB ON 8 LIGHT BALLARD FTGS & 3 LIGHT POLE FTGS 03/04/2010 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers AP TP LITE POLE BASE FTGS (5) 03/04/2010 31 Underground/Conduit-Wiring AP TP 12/23/2009 31 Underground/Conduit-Wiring AP TP POWER AND COMM LINES TO BLDG 12/02/2009 21 Underground/Under Floor WC TP 12/02/2009 31 Underground/Conduit-Wiring AP TP U/G CONDUIT FOR FUT PARK LOT GATES 11/30/2009 21 Underground/Under Floor AP TP STORM WATER PIPE 11/30/2009 22 Sewer/Water Service AP TP ,\. City of Carlsbad • =di b • tMi+il·i I 0011-#i; I·•• ,1441 • 11~1 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST DATE: Q~ Q t PLANCHECK NO.: CB 00): I ?2 l 0 BUILDINGADDREss: ~o PAflA't>AY Av. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: EK 126klQN OF ~<l NG WJ = ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 7ZcB --(Oq-(-~ EST. VALUE: ___ _ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. D A Right-of-Way permit is required prior to construction of the following improvements: DENIAL Please ~th attached report of deficiencies marked 'th D. ke necessary corrections to plans or speci 1 • for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. By: _________ Date: By: ---------Date: ~·' FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ENGINEERING AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMI '2 ~ By: c'} ATTACHMENTS Date: \& ff) ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSON _, t-D Dedication Application/Checklist ~C--?; D Encina Wastewater Screening Survey Name: Linda Ontiveros City of Carlsbad f E. D Encroachment Application/Checklist ~ D Final Map (Reference) ~'j D Grading Plan Application/Checklist Address: Phone: Email: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-2773 Fax: (760) 602-1052 Linda.Ontiveros@carlsbadca.gov CFO INFORMATION_ ioc;,,( Reference No(s): ~~ D Improvement Application/Checklist ~~ D Neighborhood Improvement Agreement E:::i D Right-of-Way Permit Submittal Checklist Lot No . · () II\ ,I) /\ CL 1 ?,~ and Information Sheet .. IM I <--1./v ;~ [i)/storm Water Compliance Fz;;ff/ff!;;rJ fl)fM 1'<,ecordation: _-....,l .... 3--.~_g"'--''--------- _! ' ~ther fJ?,DU f-.l t-? /subdivision/ "-Carlsbad Tract: ~I 1635 Faraday Avenue• Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 602-8562 . ., BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST SITE PLAN 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: A North Arrow F. Right-of-Way Width & Adjacent Streets B. Existing & Proposed Structures G. Driveway widths C. Existing Street Improvements H. Existing or proposed sewer lateral ttroperty Lines I. Existing or proposed water service ~asements -~ lAPf 13~~e, Existing or proposed irrigation service 2. Showonstteplan:-~NE.S 4~ ,Al,{;,cJ A Drainage Patternsfee Nb. f?, ( A.DD1 TI~f\J AL-"'MM-E.f'J' ~7 1. Building pad surface drainage must maintain a minimum slope of one percent towards an adjoining street or an approved drainage course. 2. ADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE: "Finish grade will provide a minimum positive drainage of 2% to swale 5' away from building." B. Existing & Proposed Slopes and Topography C. Size, type, location, alignment of existing or proposed sewer and water service (s) that serves the project. Each unit requires a separate service, however, second dwelling units and apartment complexes are an exception. D. Sewer and water laterals should not be located within proposed driveways, per standards. 3. Include on title sheet: A Site address ,., ,iO) {) l}l -2iP-OD B. Assessor's Parcel Number-~'l-M /\.ID t3ni5"t..1 C. Legal Description -fAfl__lt,,L. 1 if n 'f v.1 V · . .. For commercial/industrial buildings and tenant improvement projects, include: total building square footage with the square footage for each different use, existing sewer permits showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, warehouse, office, etc.) previously approved. EXISTING PERMIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION 2 Rev. 2/02/09 • l BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 1 sr 2ND 3RD DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE D D D 4a. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No. _______________________ _ D D D 4b. All conditions are in compliance. Date: _________ _ D D DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS 5. Dedication for all street Rights-of-Way adjacent to the building site and any storm drain or utility easements on the building site is required for all new buildings and for remodels with a value at or exceeding $ 17,000 , pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.030. Dedication required as follows: ________________ _ Dedication required. Please have a registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor prepare the appropriate legal description together with an 8 ½" x 11" plat map and submit with a title report. All easement documents must be approved and signed by owner(s) prior to issuance of Building Permit. Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the dedication process. Submit the completed application form with the required checklist items and fees to the Engineering Department in person. Applications will not be accept by mail or fax. Dedication completed by:____________ Date:_. ___ _ IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS 6a. All needed public improvements upon and adjacent to the building site must be constructed at time of building construction whenever the value of the construction exceeds $ 82,000 , pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.040. Public improvements required as follows: ____________ _ Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the public improvement requirements. A registered Civil Engineer must prepare the appropriate improvement plans and submit them together with the requirements on the attached checklist to the Engineering Department through a separate plan check process. The completed application form and the requirements on the checklist must be submitted in person. Applications by mail or fax are not accepted. Improvement plans must be approved, appropriate securities posted and fees paid prior to issuance of building permit. Improvement Plans signed by: _________ _ Date: ---- 3 Rev. 2/02/09 " .! BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 1 sT 2ND 3RD IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS continued D D D 6b. Construction of the public improvements may be deferred pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40. Please submit a recent property title report or current grant deed on the property and processing fee of $441 so we may prepare the necessary Neighborhood Improvement Agreement. This agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the City prior to issuance of a Building permit. D D D D D D D D u/ D D D D D D D D D D Future public improvements required as follows: 6c. Enclosed please find your Neighborhood Improvement Agreement (NIA). Please return agreement signed and notarized to the Engineering Department. Completed by: Date: ----------- 6d. No Public Improvements required. SPECIAL NOTE: Damaged or defective improvements found adjacent to building site must be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Inspector prior to occupancy. GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The conditions that invoke the need for a grading permit are found in Section 15.16.010 of the Municipal Code. ?a. Inadequate information available on Site Plan to make a determination on grading requirements. Include accurate grading quantities in cubic yards (cut, fill import, export). This information must be included on the plans. 7b. Grading Permit required. A separate grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer must be submitted together with th~ completed application form attached. NOTE: The Grading Permit must be issued and rough grading approval obtained prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Grading Inspector sign off by: Date: ---------- 7c. Graded Pad Certification required. (Note: Pad certification may be required even if a grading permit is not required.) 7d .No Grading Permit required. ~ MN v~ ·Pest:-( . 7e. If grading is not required, write "No Grading" on plot plan. 4 Rev. 2/02/09 .. D D D D D BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT 8. A Right-of-Way permit is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way. Types of work include, but are not limited to: street improvements, tree trimming, driveway construction, tying into public storm drain, sewer and water utilities. To see requirements, visit our website: www.carlsbadca.gov/engineering INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMIT 9. If your facility is located in the City of Carlsbad sewer service area, you need to contact the Carlsbad of Carlsbad, Development Services Division, located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. City Staff can provide forms and assistance. You may telephone (760) 602-2750 for assistance NPDES PERMIT 10. Complies with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant D!scharge Elimination System .(NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. STORM WATER COMPLIANCE 1 0a~equires Project Storm Water Permit: PSP () g-\@ ~ier II (Requires SWPPP -Please com lete attached forms a No threat -Please complete a ched Storm Water Exemption form_ . ~N~S FOK MfPf/swMf' DEVELOPMENT FEES 11. ~quir~d fees are attached a More information needed a No fees required 5 ~~- SV'/PPf' - bWMf'- ~ltftt+.- t 7~1. --- Rev. 2/02/09 • J BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 1 ST 2ND 3RD WATER METER REVIEW D 12a. Domestic (potable) Use Ensure that the meter proposed by ihe owner/developer is not oversized. Oversized meters are inaccurate during low-flow conditions. If it is oversized, for the life of the meter, the City will not accurately bill the owner for the water used. • All single family dwelling units receive "standard" 1" service with 5/8" meter. • All residential units that need to be fire sprinkled receive a 1" meter. See Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 17.04.230 for Automatic fire extinguishing systems criteria. • If owner/developer proposes a size other than the "standard", then owner/developer must provide potable water demand calculations, which include total fixture counts and maximum water demand in gallons per minute (gpm). Once the gpm is provided, check against the "meter sizing schedule" to verify the anticipated meter size for the unit. • Maximum service and meter size is a 2" service with a 2" meter. • If a developer is proposing a meter greater than 2", suggest the installation of multiple 2" services as needed to provide the anticipated demand. (manifolds are considered on case by case basis to limit multiple trenching into the street). NOTE: Lipan declaration of Drought Response Level 3 condition, no new potable water service shall be provided and no new temporary meters or permanent meters shall be provided. See Ordinance 44 for more information. D 12b. Irrigation Use (where recycled water is not available) All irrigation meters must be sized via irrigation calculations (in gpm) prior to approval. The developer must provide these calculations. Please follow these guidelines: • If the project is a newer development (newer than 1998), check the recent improvement plans and observe if the new irrigation service is reflected on the improvement sheets. If so, at the water meter station, the demand in gpm may be listed there. Irrigation services are listed with a circled "I", and potable water is typically a circled "W". The irrigation service should look like: STA 1+00 Install 2" service and 1.5: meter (estima~ed 100 gpm) • If the improvement plans do not list the irrigation meter and the service/meter will be installed via another instrument such as the building plans or grading plans (w/ a right of way permit of course), then the applicant must provide irrigation calculations for estimated worst-case irrigation demand (largest zone with the farthest reach). Typically, the landscape consultant has already reviewed this if landscape plans have been prepared, but the applicant must provide the calculations to you for your use. 6 Rev. 2/02/09 . . BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 1 sT 2N° 3RD WATER METER REVIEW continued 12b. Irrigation Use (continued) D Once you have received a good example of irrigation calculations, keep a set for your reference. In general the calculations will include: • Hydraulic grade line • Elevation at point of connection (POC) • Pressure at POC in pounds per square inch (PSI) • Worse case zone (largest, farthest away from valve • Total Sprinkler heads listed (with gpm use per head) • Include a 10% residual pressure at point of connection In general, all major sloped areas of a subdivision/project are to be irrigated via separate irrigation meters (unless the project is only SFD with no HOA). As long as the project is located within the City recycled water service boundary, the City is in the process of switching these irrigation services/meters to a new recycled water line 12c. Irrigation Use (where recycled water is available) Recycled ·water meters are sized the same as the irrigation meter above. • If a project fronts a. street with recycled water, then they should be connecting to this line to irrigate slopes within the development. For subdivisions, this should have been identified, and implemented on the improvement plans. Installing recycled water meters is a benefit for the applicant since they are exempt from paying the San Diego County · Water Capacity fees. However, if they front a street which the recycled water is there, but is not live (sometimes they are charged with potable water until recycled water is available), then the applicant must pay the San Diego Water Capacity Charge. If within three years, the recycled water line is charged with recycled water by CMWD, then the applicant can apply for a refund to the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) for a refund. However, the City of Carlsbad cannot guarantee the refund. The applicant must deal with the SDCWA for this. 7 Rev. 2/02/09 .. ~-o- ~ 2 2 2 "' "' "' a Cl Cl di >, >, £i' .0 ..c * ~ ~ -"' .,., .,., " 0 0 Q) Q) Q) .c: .c: .c: (..) (..) (..) C: C: C: "' "' "' ii: a: a: [gl D D [gl D D [gl D D [gl D D [gl D D PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check No. CB09-1318 Address 2470 Faraday Av Planner Chris Sexton Phone ....,(7"""6=0.,_) -=60=2=---4=6=2'""""4 _______ _ APN: 209-041-26 Type of Project & Use: addl parking Net Project Density:N/A DU/AC Zoning: M-Q General Plan: Pl Facilities Management Zone: § CFD (in/out) #_Date of participation: __ Remaining net dev acres: __ Circle One (For non-residential development: Type of land used created by this permit: _) Legend: [gl Item Complete Environmental Review Required: . DATE OF COMPLETION: D Item Incomplete -Needs your action YES O NO [gj TYPE Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Discretionary Action Required: YES D NO D TYPE __ APPROVAL/RESO. NO. DATE PROJECT NO. OTHER RELATED CASES: Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: __ Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES D NO 0 CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES D NO D If California Coastal Commission Authority: Contact them at -7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego, CA 92108-4402; (619) 767-2370 Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt): Habitat Management Plan Data Entry Completed? YES D NO D If property has Habitat Type identified in Table 11 of Hf'v'.lP, complete HMP Permit application and assess fees in Permits Plus (NP/Os, Activity Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, HMP Fees, Enter Acres of Habitat Type impacted/taken, UPDATE!) lnclusionary Housing Fee required: YES D NO D (Effective date of lnclusionary Housing Ordinance-May 21, 1993.) Data Entry Completed? YES D NO D (A/P/Ds, Activity Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, Housing Fees, Construct Housing Y/N, Enter Fee, UPDATE!) H:\ADMIN\Template\Building Plancheck Review Checklist.doc Rev 4/08 Site·•Plan': o;@o ~DD DOD ~DD ~DD ~DD ~DD D)QD Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines (including all side and rear yard slopes). Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number. Policy 44 -Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines 1. Applicability: YES D NO D 2. Project complies: YES D NOD Zoning: 1. Setbacks: Front: Interior Side: Street Side: Rear: Top of slope: Required __ Shown __ Required __ Shown __ Required __ Shown __ Required __ Shown __ Required __ Shown __ 2. Accessory structure setbacks: Front: Required __ Shown __ Interior Side: Required __ Shown __ Street Side: Required __ Shown __ Rear: Required __ Shown __ Structure separation: Required __ Shown __ 3. Lot Coverage: Required __ Shown __ 4. Height: Required __ Shown __ 5. Parking: Spaces Required __ Shown 51:._ (breakdown by uses for commercial and industrial projects required) Residential Guest Spaces Required __ Shown __ 0@0 Additional Comments 1) Per the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.44 (attached) standard parking space size is a minimum area of 170 square with a minimum width of 8.5 feet. The plans show the length as 18' instead of the required 20'. 2) What is the maximum overhang? Cannot exceed 2.5'. 3) Please identify on the plans that at least 3% of the parking area is planted and aintained with trees listed on the ci 's official tree list or a roved shrubs. The trees or shrubs shall be contained in planting areas with a minimum dimension of 4 feet and bounded by concrete or masonry curb of a minimum of 6 inches in height and located throughout the off-street parking areas in order to obtain the maximum amount of dispersion. (see attached). 4) Please provide a lighting plan. All lights need to be shielded downward. 5) Need to submit and receive approval of landscape plan. 9/22/9 1) Please note on the lighting plan that the lights are shielded downward. 2) Need approval of landscape plan. fj.. J s:,..u... ,',i} • OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPU~~ATEc JU>/Jll--J 'fl H:\ADMIN\Template\Building Plancheck Review Checklist.doc Rev 4/08 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I w CHRISTIAN WHEaER. ENGINEER.ING REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED TRUCK DOCK AND PARKING LOT EXPANSION BECKMAN COULTER FACILITY 2470 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO MR. DOUG TANIGUCHI BECKMAN COULTER 2470 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009 SUBMITTED BY CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 3980 HOME A VENUE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92105 3980 Home Avenue 4 San Diego, CA 92105 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I April 16, 2009 Beckman Coulter 2470 Faraday Avenue Carls bad, California 92009 Attention: Mr. Doug Taniguchi w CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEER.ING C\'v'E 2090188.02 SUBJECT: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED TRUCK DOCK AND PARKING LOT EXP ANSI ON, BECKMAN COULTER FACILITY, 2470 FARADAY AVENUE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, and our proposal and agreement dated March 11, 2009, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the subject property. We are presenting herewith a report of our findings and recommendations. As encountered in our investigation, the area of the property to receive the proposed truck dock expansion is underlain primarily by competent weathered Granitic Rock. The proposed west parking lot expansion area is underlain by fill and native deposits that have very poor pavement support characteristics. In order to mitigate this condition relatively duck pavement sections will be recommended. If you have questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING clB~d~ ~(/4 Charles H. Christian, RGE. #00215 Distribution: (2) Submitted (4) Smith Consulting Group, ,\ttn. Ned ffaskell I 3980 Home Avenue + San Diego, CA 92105 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction and Project Description ............................................................................................................... 1 Project Scope ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Findings .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Findings .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 General, Geology and Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................ 4 Geologic Setting and Soil Description ...................................................................................................... 4 Proposed Dock Addition ............................................................................................................................ 4 Proposed Parking Lot Expansion ............................................................................................................. 4 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Tectonic Setting ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Geologic Hazards .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Seistnic Design Factors ............................................................................................................................... 6 Miscellaneous Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................................... 6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................ 7 Grading And Earthwork .............................................................................................. :······ ............................ 7 General ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Pregrade Meeting ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Observation of Grading .............................................................................................................................. 8 Site Preparation ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Removal Litnits ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Processing of Fill Areas ............................................................................................................................... 8 Imported Fill ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Compaction And Method of Filling ........................................................................................................... 9 Surface Drainage .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Foundations ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 General ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 Dimensions .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Bearing Capacity ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Footing Reinforcement .............................................................................................................................. 10 Settlement Characteristics ......................................................................................................................... 10 Expansive Characteristics ......................................................................................................................... 10 Foundation Plan Review ........................................................................................................................... 10 Foundation Excavation Observation ...................................................................................................... 10 On-Grade Slabs .............................................................................................................................................. 11 Dock Slab-On-Grade ................................................................................................................................ 11 Under-Slab Vapor Retarders .................................................................................................................... 11 Earth Retaining Walls ................................................ ; ................................................................................... 11 Foundations ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Passive Pressure .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Active Pressure ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Waterproofing And Subdrain ................................................................................................................... 12 Backfill .......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Soluble Sulfates ........................................................................................................................................... 12 CWE 2090188.02 Proposed Truck Dock and Parking Lot Expansion Beckman Coulter Facility 2470 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Preliminary Pavement Sections .................................................................................................................... 12 Traffic Index ............................................................................................................................................... 12 R-Value Test ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Preliminary Structural Section .................................................................................................................. 13 Miscellaneous Considerations .................................................................................................................. 14 Limitations ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 Review, Observation and Testing ................................................................................................................ 14 Uniformity of Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 15 Change in Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 15 Time Limitations ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Professional Standard .................................................................................................................................... 16 Client's Responsibility .................................................................................................................................... 16 Field Explorations .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................................................................. 17 FIGURES Figure 1 PLATES Plates 1 Plates 2-9 Plate 10 APPENDICES Appendix A AppendixB ATTACHMENTS Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1 Site Plan & Geologic Map Test Pit Logs Laboratory Test Results References Recommended Grading Specifications-General Provisions CWE 2090188.02 Proposed Truck Dock and Parking Lot Expansion Beckman Coulter Facility 2470 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I w CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEER.ING REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED TRUCK DOCK AND PARKING LOT EXPANSION BECKMAN COULTER FACILITY 2470 FARADAY A VENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed improvements to the existing Beckman Coulter Facility located at 2470 Faraday Avenue, in the city of Carlsbad, California. The following Figure Number 1 presents a site vicinity map showing the location of the property. We understand that it is proposed to expand an existing truck loading dock to the south, and to construct a new concrete apron in front of the dock addition. The dock addition will be a nearly triangular-shaped structure, with the parking apron extending towards the southeast from the dock. We anticipate that the dock addition will be a concrete block structure with retaining walls about four feet high around the perimeter. Grading is expected to consist of cuts of less than a foot in the dock apron area, and .fills up to about five feet from the existing grades in the dock addition area. A relatively large parking lot exists in front of the two main existing buildings at the site. This parking lot and the entrance to the property are paved with asphalt concrete pavement. We understand that it is also proposed to expand the parking lot to the west, with additional asphalt concrete pavement. In addition, the entrance will be slightly realigned. Grading for this area is expected to consist of cuts and fills of less than a few feet from existing grades. To assist in the preparation of this report, we were provided with a site plan dated March 3, 2009 and a Modified Parking Plan, dated March 4, 2009, both prepared by Smith Consulting Architects. In addition, we have review our "Report of Soil Investigation, Proposed Outside Truck Dock, Beckman Coulter Facility", dated December 10, 1998 (CWE 198.106.1), and miscellaneous reports in our files. 3980 Home Avenue ~ San Diego, CA 92105 ~ 619-550-1700 ~ FAX 619-550-1701 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I North CWE 2090188.02 SITE VICINITY MAP (Adapted from Thomas Brothers Maps) PROPOSED TRUCK DOCK AND PARKING LOT EXPANSION BECKMAN COULTER FACILITY 2470 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SITE April 16, 2009 Fie:ure 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Page No. 2 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Beckman Coulter and its design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be changed in any way, the modified plans should be submitted to Christian Wheeler Engineering for review to determine their conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation, laboratory testing and/ or recommendations are warranted. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied. PROJECT SCOPE The scope of our preliminary investigation included: surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, obtaining representative soil samples, laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data and review of relevant geologic literature. Our scope of service did not include assessment of hazardous substance contamination, recommendations to prevent floor slab moisture intrusion, or any other services not specifically described in the scope of services presented below. More specifically, the intent of this investigation was to: a) b) c) d) e) Explore the near-surface soil conditions of the site; Evaluate, by laboratory tests and our past experience with similar soil types, the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed construction, including bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential; Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards that could have an effect on the proposed construction, and provide the seismic design parameters as required by the 2007 edition of the California Building Code; Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater or geologic hazards, and provide recommendations concerning these problems; Develop soil engineering criteria for site preparation and grading; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Page No. 3 g) h) i) Provide design parameters for unrestrained and restrained retaining walls; Provide structural pavement section recommendations for the loading dock and parking lot expansion, for both asphalt concrete pavement (AC) and Portland cement concrete (PCC); Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structure anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation design; Present our professional opinions in this written report, which includes, in addition to our conclusions and recommendations, a plot plan, exploration logs and a summary of the laboratory test results. FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at 2470 Faraday Avenue, in the city of Carlsbad, California. The property consists of a relatively large parcel ofland bound on the south by Faraday Avenue, on the east by Orion Street, on the west by vacant land, and on the north by a commercial development. The property presently supports two manufacturing buildings and associated improvements. A covered, above-grade truck loading dock that consists of a square, concrete block building opened on two sides, with a ramp up to the dock area on the north side, is located in the eastern portion of tl1e property. A concrete apron, where trucks park during loading operations, is located on the south side of the existing dock. The truck route follows a driveway that exists along the northern, eastern and southern property lines. As encountered in the test pits, the existing pavement section near the existing dock consists of three inches of asphalt concrete over four to six inches of base. The proposed parking lot expansion area is located in the southwestern portion of the property, and is presently landscaped with lawn grasses, shrubs and boulders. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Page No. 4 GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located within the Foothills Physiographic Province of San Diego County. Based on our subsurface explorations, and analysis of readily available pertinent geologic literature, the areas of the site investigated were found to be underlain by artificial fill, residual soils, Point Loma Formation deposits and Granitic Rock. The soils underlying the proposed dock addition area differ substantially from those underlying the proposed parking lot expansion. The following describes the soil conditions at each of the project locations. PROPOSED DOCK ADDITION AREA: Three test pits were excavated in the proposed dock addition area. All the pits were excavated in areas covered with pavement. The pavement section consists of three inches of asphalt concrete over four to six inches of base. Two test pits encountered fill soils extending to a maximum depth of about 1 ½ feet below the pavement surface. The fill consisted of light yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty sand with clay (SI:vI). Decomposed Granite was encountered underlying the fill or just below the existing pavement section. This material generally consisted of light yellowish-brown, moist, dense to very dense, silty sand and silty sand with clay (SI:vI). The soils encountered in the test pits were judged to have a low expansive potential (EI <50), and have good foundation and pavement support characteristics. PROPOSED PARKING LOT EXPANSION AREA: Five test pits were excavated in the proposed parking lot expansion area. Fill soils were encountered in all the test pits extending to a maximum depth of about three feet. The fill consisted predominantly of brown, yellowish-brown, and olive brown, moist, soft to very stiff, silty clay with sand (CL). However, in test pit P-4 (north eastern corner of the proposed parking lot), a 1 ½-foot-thick layer of reddish-brown and brown, moist, medium dense silty sandy fill (SI:vI), was found below grade. The fill in two test pits was found to be underlain by a subsoil layer exceeding 1 ½ feet in maximum thickness. This material consists of brown, moist, soft to very stiff, sandy clay (CL). Point Loma Formation deposits were encountered underlying the surficial soils. This material generally consisted of light yellowish-brown orangish- brown and olive gray, moist, medium stiff to hard, silty day-clayey silt with sand (CL-ML). With tl1e exception of the sandy fill, the soils encountered in the test pits are expected to have very poor pavement support characteristics. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C\VE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Page No. 5 GROUNDWATER: No groundwater was encountered in our subsurface explorations. However, it should be recognized that minor groundwater seepage problems might occur after construction and landscaping at a site even where none were present before construction. These are usually minor phenomena and are often the result of an alteration in drainage patterns and/ or an increase in irrigation water. Based on the anticipated construction and landscaping, it is our opinion that any seepage problems that may occur will be minor in extent. It is further our opinion that these problems can be most effectively corrected on an individual basis if and when they occur. TECTONIC SETTING: No active or potentially active faults are known to traverse the subject site. However, it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones that consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone) are classified as "active" according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years). The Division of Mines and Geology used the term "potentially active" on Earthquake Fault Zone maps until 1988 to refer to all Quaternary-age (last 1.6 million years) faults for the purpose of evaluation for possible zonation in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and identified all Quaternary-age faults as "potentially active" except for certain faults that were presumed to be inactive based on direct geologic evidence of inactivity during all of Holocene time or longer. Some faults considered to be "potentially active" would be considered to be "active" but lack specific criteria used by the State Geologist, such as sef/Mentfy adive and ivell-dejined. Faults older than Quaternary-age are not specifically defined in Special Publication 42, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology. However, it is generally accepted that faults showing no movement during the Quaternary period may be considered to be "inactive". The nearest active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, which is is located approximately 11 kilometer to the west of the site. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone to the northwest; the Palos Verde and Coronado Bank Fault Zones to the southwest; the Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas Fault Zones to the northeast; and the Earthquake Valley Fault to the east. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 PageNo. 6 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS SEISMIC DESIGN FACTORS: A likely geologic ~1azard to affect the site is ground shaking as a result of movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above. The fault most likely to have a significant effect on the site is the Rose Canyon Fault, located about 11 kilometers west of the site. The seismic design factors applicable to the subject site are provided below. The seismic design factors were determined in accordance with the 2007 California Building Code. The site coefficients and adjusted ma..-<lmum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters are presented herein: SEISMIC DESIGN FACTORS Site Coordinates: Latitude 32.137° Longitude -117.270° Site Class B Site Coefficient Fa 1.0 Site Coefficient Fv 1.0 Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods Ss 1.126 g Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 Second Period S1 0.427 g SMs=FaSs 1.126 g SM1=FvS1 0.427 g Sos=2/3*SMs 0.751 g So1=2/3*SM1 0285 g Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate, depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed improvements MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC HAZARDS: Based on the site location, topography and our findings, it is our opinion that the risk of geologic hazards such as landsliding, soil liquefaction, flooding, tsunamis and seiches is negligible. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Page No. 7 CONCLUSIONS It is our professional opinion and judgment that no geotechnical conditions exist on the subject property that would preclude the construction of the proposed improvements, provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. The findings of our investigation indicate that the proposed dock addition area is underlain primarily by competent Decomposed Granitic Rock that has very good foundation and pavement support characteristics. It is anticipated that site preparation in this area be will very minor and, if necessary, will mostly involve soils disturbed during demolition of the existing improvements. Imported fill is anticipated for proposed dock construction. The proposed west parking lot expansion area is underlain by clayey fill and native soils that have very poor pavement support characteristics. This condition will result in thicker than usual pavement structural sections. In addition, removal of existing soil to a minimum depth of two feet below subgrade elevation, and replacement as compacted fill will be required in order to provide a sugrade layer with more uniform compaction and moisture content. The site is located in an area that is relatively free of geologic hazards that will have a significant effect on the proposed construction. The most likely geologic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking due to seismic activity along one of the regional active faults. However, construction in accordance with the requirements of the most recent edition of the California Building Code and the local governmental agencies should provide a level of life-safety suitable for the type of development proposed. RECOMMENDATIONS GRADING AND EARTHWORK GENERAL: All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix J of the California Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto as Appendix B, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C\VE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 PageNo. 8 PREGRADE MEETING: It is recommended that a pregrade meeting including the grading contractor and a representative from Chri_stian Wheeler Engineering be performed, to discuss the recommendations of this report and address any issues that may affect grading operations. OBSERVATION OF GRADING: Continuous observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is essential during the grading operation to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein. SITE PREPARATION: Site preparation should begin with the demolition of the existing improvements within the area of the site to receive the proposed improvements, and the removal of the resulting debris as well as any vegetation and deleterious matter. This material should be properly disposed off-site. Based on our findings, it is anticipated that site preparation requirements within the proposed dock addition area will be limited to soils disturbed during demolition operations. This material should be removed and replaced as compacted fill. Site preparation within the proposed west parking lot expansion should consist of the removal and replacement as compacted fill of existing fill and native soils to a minimum depth of two feet below proposed bottom of subgrade elevation. Deeper removals may be necessary in areas of the site not investigated due to unforeseen conditions and/ or high moisture contents. Actual removal depths will be determined by our project geologist, engineer or technician supervisor. The bottoms of all excavations should be approved by our representative prior to placing fills or constructing improvements, and all areas to receive fill should be processed as described below in the "Processing of Fill Material" section of this report. REMOVAL LIMITS: Removal operations should extend at least two feet beyond the perimeter of the dock addition and associated parking apron, and two feet away form the edge of the proposed west parking lot expansion area. PROCESSING OF FILL AREAS: Prior to placing any new fill soils or constructing any new improvements in areas that have been cleaned out and approved to receive fill, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Page No. 9 IMPORTED FILL: Imported fill will be necessary for the construction of the proposed dock addition and possible in the west parking lot expansion area. Imported fill should consist of nondetrimentally expansive (Expansion Index less than SO) sands, silty sands and silty sands with clay. Imported soils should be approved by this office prior to delivery to the site. A minimum 72-hour advance notice is required to allow for laboratory testing required for proper evaluation. COMPACTION AND MJ?THOD OF FILLING: All structur:µ fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D1557. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content, in lifts six to eight inches thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris, roots, vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project geologist. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches in maximum dimension. However, in the upper two feet of pad grade, no rocks or lumps of soil in excess of three inches should be allowed. Utility trench backfill witl1in five feet of the proposed structures and concrete flatwork should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The upper twelve inches of subgrade beneath paved areas should be compacted to 95 percent of its maximum dry density. This compaction should be obtained by the paving contractor just prior to placing the aggregate base material. SURFACE DRAINAGE: The drainage around the proposed improvements should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from proposed improvements toward appropriate drainage facilities. Rain gutters with downspouts that discharge runoff away from the structure are recommended. The ground around the proposed improvements should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the improvements without ponding. FOUNDATIONS GENERAL: The following recommendations are based on the soil conditions exposed in our test pits, and are not intended to be in lieu of structural considerations. All foundations should be designed by a qualified structural engineer. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 PageNo. IO DIMENSIONS: Conventional footings supporting the proposed dock addition should have a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish grade. Continuous and isolated footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches and 24 inches, respectively. Retaining wall footing should have a minimum width of 24 inches. All footings should also extend at least six inches into the underlying Decomposed Granite. BEARING CAPACITY: Continuous footings with the aforementioned minimum dimensions may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by 800 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of embedment and 500 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of width up to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per square foot. The bearing value may also be increased by one-third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads. FOOTING REINFORCEMENT: The project structural engineer should provide reinforcement requirements for new foundations. Where they abut, new footings should be dowelled to existing footings as recommended by the project structural engineer. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and differential foundation settlement is expected to be less than about 1 inch and 1 inch over 40 feet respectively, provided the recommendations presented in our forthcoming report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses, tl1erefore some cracks should be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The foundation soils are expected to have a low expansive potential (E.I. <SO). The recommendations presented in this report reflect this condition. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW: The foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review in order to ascertain that the recommendations in our forthcoming report have been in1plemented, and that no additional recommendations are needed due to changes in the anticipated construction. FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: All foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of this office prior to the placement of forms or reinforcement in order I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Page No. 11 to verify that the footings have the proper dimensions and that the soil conditions are as anticipated during the fo1TI1atio11 of our foundation recommendations. ON-GRADE SLABS DOCK SLAB-ON-GRADE: The on-grade dock slabs subject to fork lift traffic should be designed by a structural engineer. However, from a geotechnical perspective, we recommend that the minimum dock slab thickness should be at least five inches (actual), and that it be reinforced with at least No. 4 reinforcing bars placed at 12 inches on center each. Slab reinforcement should be supported on chairs such that the reinforcing bars are positioned at mid-height in the floor slab. New slabs should be doweled to existing footings and slabs as recommended by the project structural engineer. Joints within the fork lift traffic routes should br doweled per the requirements of the structural engineer. UNDER-SLAB VAPOR RETARDERS: It is anticipated that the dock slab will not have a moisture sensitive cover. In addition, the characteristics of the dock make vapor or moisture intrusion unlikely. Provided that the imported soil used consist of sandy material, no moisture protection layer is considered necessary. If such a layer is installed, it is recommended that it consist of four inches of with a vapor retarder placed in the middle. The vapor retarder should consist of at least 10-mil plastic with sealed seams and should extend at least 12 inches down the sides of the retaining walls. The sand should have a sand equivalent of at least 30, and contain less than 20% passing the Number 100 sieve and less than 10% passing the Number 200 sieve. EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES FOUNDATIONS: Foundations for proposed retaining walls should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations for shallow foundations presented previously in this report. PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the design of sliding resistance for the proposed retaining wall footings may be considered to be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased one-third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.35 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one-third. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 PageNo. 12 ACTIVE PRESSURE: The lateral soil pressure for the design of unrestrained and restrained earth retaining structures with level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 35 pounds per cubic foot (pd) and 55 pcf, respectively. An additional foot of wall height should be assumed to account for loads due to forklift traffic. These pressures do not consider any other surcharge. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. These values are based on a drained, non-detrimentally expansive (E.I. <50), high strenght backfill condition. The proposed retaining walls may have to be designed to withstand seismic earth pressures. If this is required, the seismic lateral earth pressures may be assumed to equal an inverted triangle starting at the bottom of the wall with the maximum pressure equal to 16H pounds per square foot (where H = wall height in feet) occurring at the top of the retained portion of the wall. WATERPROOFING AND SUBDRAIN: Waterproofing and subdrain details should be provided by the project architect. If installed, we recommend that the Geotechnical Consultant observe all retaining wall subdrains to verify proper construction. BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. SOLUBLE SULFATES The water soluble sulfate content of a randomly selected soil sample from the site was determined in accordance with California Test Method 417. The results of this test indicate that the soil sample had a soluble sulfate content ofless than 0.001 percent. Soils with a soluble sulfate content ofless than 0.1 percent are considered to be negligible and no special recommendations are considered necessary for this condition. Nevertheless, Type II modified Portland cement is recommended for concrete in contact with soil. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT SECTIONS TRAFFIC INDEX: Based on an anticipated traffic, we have assumed Traffic Indexes of 4.5 for the parking areas, and 6.0 for driveways subject to truck traffic. For truck routes we assumed traffic I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Page No. 13 consisting of less than five semi-trailers or trucks a day. The client and/ or project civil engineer should determine if these assumptions are appropriate, and if revised Traffic Indexes are warranted. R-V ALUE TEST: The following pavement sections should be considered preliminary and should be used for planning purposes only. Final pavement designs should be determined after R-value tests have been performed in the actual subgrade material. In consideration of the existing earth materials exposed on-site, we have assumed an R-value of 5 for the west parking lot expansion, and truck route/ entry driveway areas. This value was used in determining the required preliminary structural pavement sections. PRELIMINARY STRUCTURAL SECTION: Based on the above parameters, the following minimum preliminary pavement sections are recommended. ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION WEST PARKING LOT EXPANSION AND ENTRY DRIVEWAY Proposed Use R-Value Traffic index Asphalt Concrete Base Parking Lot 5 4.5 4.0 inches* 6.0 inches Truck Route and 5 6.0 4.0 inches* 11.5 inches Entry Driveway *l'viinimum City of Carlsbad Standard PORTLAND CONCRETE CEMENT PAVEMENT SECTION LOADING DOCK PARKING APRON Proposed Use Portland Cement Concrete* Base Dock Apron 7.5 inches 4.0 inches * The concrete apron should be reinforced with at least No 4 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way. Prior to placing the base material, the subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density. The base material could consist of Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB) or Class II Aggregate Base. The Crushed I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 PageNo. 14 Aggregate Base should conform to the requirements set forth in Section 200-2.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. The Class II Aggregate Base should conform to requirements set forth in Section 26-1.02A of the Standard Specifications for California Department of Transportation. As an alternate, the base material for the pavements may consist of Crushed Miscellaneous Base (recycled base material) which conforms to the requirements set forth in Section 200-2.4 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. It should be noted, however, that Crushed Miscellaneous Base material has lower durability characteristics than Crushed Aggregate Base or Class II Aggregate Base, which may result in a shorter pavement life. As such, the owner of the project should approve the use of this material for the pavement base. Concrete pavements construction should comply with the requirements set fourth in Sections 201-1.1.2 and 302-6 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (concrete Class 520-A-2500). All paving methods and materials should conform with good engineering and paving practices and to the requirements of the City of Carlsbad. MISCELLANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS: The anticipated subgrade soils at the proposed parking lot expansion area consist of expansive soils with very poor pavement support characteristics. Consideration should be given to the construction of deeper than typical curbs in this area. The deeper curbs will act as moisture cut-off barriers, and reduce the potential for water migrating into the subgrade soils. Water intrusion into the subgrade soils could increase the potential for pavement failure. Consideration should also be given to using drought resistance landscape adjacent to paved areas. Proper drainage is also imperative. LIMITATIONS REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the California Building Code. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. CWE 2090188.02 .April 16, 2009 PageNo. 15 It is recommended that Christian Wheeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/ or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. CHANGE IN SCOPE This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Page No. 16 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The c~ent recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations be based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY It is the responsibility of the clients, or their representatives to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. FIELD EXPLORATIONS Eight subsurface explorations were made on March 26, 2009 at the locations indicated on the attached Plate Number 1. These explorations consisted of hand dug test pits. The fieldwork was conducted under the observation of our engineering geology personnel. The explorations were carefully logged when made. The boring logs are presented on the following Plate Numbers 2 through 9. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are provided. The density of granular soils is given as very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense. The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, or hard. I I I I I I I I I ·1 I I I I I I I I I C\VE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Page No. 17 Relatively undisturbed chunk samples and bulk samples of the encountered earth materials were collected. The samples were transported to our laboratory for testing. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTJ\1) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed is presented below: a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. b) COMPACTION TEST: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a selected soil sample were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM D 1557, Method A. The results of this test are presented on Plate Number 10. c) DIRECT SHEAR TEST: A direct shear test was performed on a selected sample of the on-site soils in accordance with ASTM D 3080. The results of these tests are presented on Plate Number 10. d) R-VALUE TEST: An R-Value test was performed on a selected soil sample. The test was performed in accordance with California Test Method 301. The result of this test is presented on Plate Number 10. e) SOLUBLE SULFATES: The soluble sulfate content was determined for a selected soil sample. The soluble sulfate content was determined in accordance with California Test Method 417. The test results are presented on Plate Number 10. •• c-:7-----/" \ · --· ---·-----= ::·: c·: :· :··::·: ·j CWE LEGEND I [ ~ttri'~$ •N~~::,:l;U-_, •• ----··-- , _;,:~: .. -:, .. . . ---~ ···-·---;~-~ :~: ::.:-: --~-' -,1 ·;//zr ----------· 1 ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AREA OF PROPOSED PARKINGLOT EXPANSION ~~ ·1· 0. ~ ¼~. ~ ~· ~ ~L . , , ............. " . ..____ ___ i t.d(Jl!Jc.\Y ,\V( -~~A· ~, ~~B ! ./ , . -6.' : j / -------,i: 1 •• :.\ ... r:-:; ~ :_::-..... . . . .....• !. ·1 l . . . . ~ -· -·· .. . . ··-·-· . I ; I ; --11~ \ l---·-, I .... -·"=r"'~·:·l ~{fi-· -1 .... ,,,,/,. ... ,-- ,,.:.;,(.;:c!.'";:. ,.v,·.--·~~ ...... ~ ,v.,• @ ([) 0 POINT LOMA FORMATION UNDERLAIN BY WEATHERED GRANITICS ARTIFICIAL FILL UNDERLAIN BY POINT LOMA FORMATION UNDERLAIN BY WEATHERED GRANITICS WEATHERED GRANITICS ':E;J IL --· -----I " 'i---·-; ----.--• --i~· >•• ,_ • ~-"' . \ ----1 L :-\::·'."~ r i .,:·~ '"' -/ : ·,· ,... I r'-../ GEOLOGIC CONTACT ~P-8 APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION e II] ·~St) I --·-·· r---. ·---!··-·--· __ i _____ _ ,,e .. :. __ '-·-i::-· __ , ---·--· -.. . ··---,-. .. ·-· ... . _ __j .... . 'aif'!fi .. .. ---:~~:r ... . ...... ,(;,:,. ®5$1~, []I . :s,_~ p~-I ---··••· ·--·-::::_·· .•. (~ ~ -... ··-·-·· ---,,... r ---.........~ .. --------···:::=-:.e--~;-··· --~~~~{- -t-.. . --·--·· 1 ., • - @ ... --- ';'··?1 ~$:, ~-. ,, ~-, .,.-J ,. , .,.... ... .,,_ 1 / 1 r( ~ 'r \r, .~ .. -t ··-· .i ... . . f .... . l ··--· .L .. , ·----... ·,, /_..,. ,-.,, / ... / .,./ / / ,-/ ._/ // /// /// // ./ /,_,.,. /_,.,./ ~,...,-; ,,,, ... /' .,, .......... ,,.,..,,, /~_,.,.( ..... / '· / __;....-_,.,. ···-m-;,~ ·,, / , ......... .. :1,:1,.-:,· '·,evQa . : ~ '~~-~> Kn -; 1,.0 ' = ,.,. ..... Kgr ?~ . /""'\ ~'?.~ ..;. -.. 1'; of ., )'~ r \1 I ,·, •11.i! L~~ ...__..,.._...._J !~~ -~ -~ it!>' ~ ~-••'!'!,. SITE PLAN AND GEOTECHNICAL MAP ' ·1 . ,,s: • : ! I NOTE& FIU.s LESS THAN 1 FOOT NOT MAPPED ! SUBSOIL NOT MAPPED . -( . 1 --· PROP r:::-7~:~ DOCKAND CONCRETE ,I '.}(, i _J -_ _ TRUCKAPRON AREA ·~ ... __.,.,·1,./ /j ............ .........--/ _/r,,,... .,.,,... I, .... ... /_ :~/ .. ,/!, ,/;,-::;1::;: ,.,/·--~[_,/ ,,,.,..,,.,,,: ,,,,,.. .. ./ __.,.,·;.,,..,..· ,./;,-/ .. _.,....-:t~i c~ -~"!5 ~~ .,.-, ,/ 1/ .. / _.,,....-... ....... ,.... 1/.,, .. -;......;;;: ::=::> _, ........ ....... ,.. // ,./_.,,- / _.....-rk / / ,./...,<~ / ,;i;.Jv· . <."' / t' .. ,e n ~:P.li -~·>lz,. ( {, I r'c,-' W'i,''l _.;.l •, ·-.rz.1~f-.Jrf'\ \ r-1"·· / . I_/~-I ~ :1/~r'l'?.,;, ~ ... r;"" ~/:::., ,,.,/ tc1v.{l!r.· \ .., .. ..-1li~ ~l'lf'it, .,,-~'f<.1~1; / ~1t•·*;,A.t-:/t. ,..... ,,,.,.,,. t' .'. • I ; . f. I if I ' I 1 I IJ:~----~- '' ' t /ii ..... .,.-· 1' -"~ . ! ~i li(.I · .. / 1' ~ .~ ,:• ·ict,.,~;it. . r~r{l \ ,t:v.11 i !'·~~~ , .. ¾~· If d"• l!"'J{· I ! ~.,f lli'lil' . • -. I tl"A ,;.)Pl / / "~if~~-/ ' ® .~,.~#:; '/ \ -,{<::)~ i: 4?) ·?:~1 / /-...J,...:~ .... ,,,,. .. ,1;1 . '/.. . .... ____ /~·-,! / . --~· . ___ .,.,..~ -;.-st);!~ ." '{t)~t~ ,;£~;--~./-. ~(~ "·· .i .,; . ! f I ·' ! PROPOSED TRUCK DOCK AND PARKING LOT EXPANSION DATE: APRIL 16, 2009 JOB NO.: 2090188.02 BY: DA/MAH PLATE NO.: NO SCALE '~lrU .... Cl lRISTIJ\N WI ILlLF I "(.1:-\JI I RINC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOG OF TEST PIT P-1 Sample Type and Laboratory Test Legend Dat:e Excavated: 3/26/09 Equipment: Hand Tools Cal Modified California Sampler CK Chunk Sample SPT Standard Penetration Test DR Density Ring ST Shelby Tube Logged by: DJF Bucket Size: N/A MD Maximum Density OS Direct Shear S04 Soluble Sulfates Con Consolidation Existing Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: N/A SA Sieve Analysis EI Expansion Index HA Hydrometer R-Val Resistance Value Proposed Elevation: N/ A Depth to Water: N/A SE Sand Equivalent Chi Soluble Chlorides PI Plasticitu Index Res oH & ResistivitV (.!) ~ 0 ---~ $ ,... u f-< ,... ::i:: ~g I ti: 5 ~ ><:i 0 ---- 1 -- -- -- -- 2 -- 3 --- 4 -i- _,_ _,_ 5 _ ... _,_ -1- 6 -i- 7 -- Symbol Legend J Groundwater ~~ Apparent Seepage s ~ en u en p SC SM * No Sample Recovery ** Nonrepresentative Blow Count (rocks present) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) 3" layer of AC over 6" layer of Base. Artificial Fill (Oaf): Llght yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, CLAYEY SAND, very fine to coarse-grained. Weathered Granitics (Kg!): Llght yellowish-brown to yellowish-brown, moist, dense to very dense, SILTY SAND, fine to coarse-grained. Test Pit terminated at 2¼ feet. No groundwater or seepage present. ~ ~ ,... ~1 i-,..S i ~e, ~ ~ CK ---~ ~ z ~ 0 ~~ ,... "' .... z f-< P.,;i ><:ic-~~ ~ I-< I-< A u ~z ;,,.-& ~~ p Oo /l::l ~ P:i ~u A ··~· i'.1 PROPOSED TRUCK DOCK & PARKING LOT EXPANSION BECKMAN COULTER FACILITY 2470 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINl:-.ER.ING BY: HF DATE: April 16, 2009 JOB NO.: 2090188 PLATE NO.: 2 ~ 0 ~ 0 en ~~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOG OF TEST PIT P-2 Dat:e Excavated: 3/26/09 Equipment: Logged by: DJF Bucket Size: Hand Tools N/A ,,..... lE, ::c: t ! 0 -- -- _i-. 1 --- -e- 2 -- -- -f- 3 --_,_ -f- _,_ 4-- _,__ -e- _,__ 5 --_,_ 6 ---_,__ -f- -f- 7 --- ->- Existing Elevation: N / A Pro posed Elevation: N / A Drive Weight: N/A Depth to Water: N/ A s I-< E-< ~g ; c:, 8 u ~ c:, n .. iJ •1 ,; ·yr, .. ,-l 0 ~ rn rn u rn p SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) 3" layer of AC over 611 layer of Base. Weathered Granitics (Kgt:): Yellowish-brown, moist, dense to very dense, SILTY SAND, with clay, fine to coarse-gtained, micaceous. Test Pit terminated at 1 ½ feet. No gtoundwater or seepage present. Sample Type and Laboratory Test Legend Cal Modified California Sampler CK Chunk Sample SPT Standard Penetration Test DR Density Ring ST Shelby Tube MD Maximum Density DS Direct Shear S04 Soluble Sulfates Con Consolidation SA Sieve Analysis EI Expansion Index HA Hydrometer R-Val Resistance Value SE Sand Equivalent Chi Soluble Chlorides PI Plastici1v Index Res pH & Resistivity s ~ ,,..... ~ ~ -;g_ z I-< C ~1 ~~ I-< 0 0 rn I-< z E-< ~ F-<£ ~ ~~ ~c-;a ~ ~e ~ A u 0 rn ~ i:!3 z :,.. -E:i ~~ ~~ ~ p Oo i:.:: ~ ~ J:l.< ~ ~u A Symbol Legend ! Groundwater !ii PROPOSED TRUCK DOCK & PARKING LOT EXPANSION BECKMAN COULTER FACILITY ~~ Apparent Seepage * No Sample Recovery ** Nonrepresentative Blow Count (rocks present) CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENCINEER.ING 2470 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California BY: HF DATE: April 16, 2009 JOB NO.: 2090188 PLATE NO.: 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOG OF TEST PIT P-3 Sample Twe and Laboratoi;y Test Legend 1---------------------------------------ICal Modified California Sampler SPTStandard Penetration Test CK Chunk Sample DR Density Ring Da-te Excavated: 3/26/09 Logged by: DJF Exi sting Elevation: N/A Equipment: Hand Tools Bucket Size: N/A Drive Weight: N/A ST Shelby Tube Maximum Density Soluble Sulfates Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Pro posed Elevation: N / A Depth to Water: N/A MD S04 SA HA SE PI Sand Equivalent Plasticitu Index DS Con EI R-Val Chi Res Direct Shear Consolidation Expansion Index Resistance Value Soluble Chlorides pH & ResistivitY c., z 0 .-.. 0 ,-1 $ i:: u .... E ~g i ; ~ 0 ------" , 1 -io- -- -f--.. . -f--J: i• ':. •.·. 2-... _,__ ---- 3 -... -f-- -f-- -~ 4-- -- _,__ -f-- s-.,_ -+- _,__ -- 6 _.,_ -- _,__ _,__ 7-i-- -'- Symbol Legend ! Groundwater ii Apparent Seepage ,-1 0 ~ ~ "' "' u "' ;:i SC SM * No Sample Recovery ** Nonrepresentative Blow Count (rocks present) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) 3" layer of AC over 4" layer of Base. Artificial Fill (Oaf): Yellowish-brown, moist, medium dense, CLAYEY "<\ Nn UA-, finp tC\ ~~n,eo_-n:~~rl Weathered Granitics (Kgr): Yellowish-brown, moist, dense to very dense, SILTY SAND, with clay, very fine to coarse-grained, micaceous . Test Pit terminated at 2 feet. No groundwater or seepage present. ·~· I"• PROPOSED TRUCK DOCK & PARKING LOT EXPANSION BECKMAN COULTER FACILITY CHR..ISTIAN WHEELER. 2470 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California ENGINEERING BY: HF DATE: April 16, 2009 JOB NO.: 2090188 PLATE NO.: 4 MD DS S04 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOG OF TEST PIT P-4 Sample Type and Laboratory Test Legend 1----------------------------------------1Cal Modified California Sampler SPT Standard Penetration Test ST Shelby Tube CK Chunk Sample DR Density Ring .-. $ ~ ! 0 -- -- -I- 1 -i- -1- -I- -- 2-- -,_ -1- -- 3-i- -I- -I- -- 4-- -- -- -- 5-... _,_ _,_ -- 6 -... -1- -1- -1- 7 -- -- Date Excavated: 3/26/09 DJF Equipment: Hand Tools Logged by: Bucket Size: N/A Existing Elevation: N/ A Proposed Elevation: N/ A Drive Weight: N/ A Depth to Water: N/ A ~ .... 5 g SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) 4" layer of associated Topsoil. SM Artificial Fill (Oaf): Brown to dark reddish-brown, moist, medium dense, SILTY SAND, fine to coarse-grained. ----------------------CL Brown, moist, very stiff, SANDY CLAY. CL Subsoil: Brown to dark brown, moist, very stiff, SILTY CLAY, with rootlets. Test Pit terminated at 4½ feet. No groundwater or seepage present. MD S04 SA HA SE PI Maximum Density Soluble Sulfates Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Sand Equivalent Plastici "Index DS Con EI R-Val Chi Res Direct Shear Consolidation Expansion Index Resistance Value Soluble Chlorides pH & Resistiviry ----f------ CK Symbol Legend ! Groundwater 'l'!I ,,, PROPOSED TRUCK DOCK & PARKING LOT EXPANSION BECKMAN COULTER FACILITY ~~ Apparent Seepage * No Sample Recovery ** Nonrepresentative Blow Count (rocks present) CHR..ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING 2470 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California BY: HF DATE: April 16, 2009 JOB NO.: 2090188 PLATE NO.: 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOG OF TEST PIT P-5 Date Excavated: 3/27/09 Equipment: Hand Tools Logged by: DJF Bucket Size: N/A ,..... .::: ...., E ~ 0 0 -- -I- -I- 1 -... -1- -I- -I- 2-""' -'- -'- -- 3-- -- -- -- 4-- -- -- -- 5 -... ---- _,_ 6 -- -1- ---- 7---- Existing Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: N/A Pro posed Elevation: N / A Depth to Water: N/A (!) 6 0 ...i u ..... ~,::;- ..... ::i:: >~ ~ ~ (!) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cl I t/l u t/l p CL SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) Artificial Fill (Oaf): Brown to yellowish-brown, moist, medium stiff, SANDY CLAY, with abundant roots. CL Subsoil: Dark brown, moist, soft to medium stiff, SILTY CLAY, with rootlets. CL Point Loma Formation (Kp): Light yellowish-brown and olive gray, moist, medium stiff, SANDY SILTY CLAY, highly weathered/fractured. Test Pit terminated at 3½ feet. No groundwater or seepage present. Sample T)!pe and Laboratoi:y Test Leg~nd Cal Modified California Sampler CK Chunk Sample SPTStandard Penetration Test DR Density Ring ST Shelby Tube MD Ma.ximum Density OS Direct Shear S04 Soluble Sulfates Con Consolidation SA Sieve Analysis El Expansion Index HA Hydrometer R-Val Resistance Value SE Sand Equivalent Chi Soluble Chlorides Pl Plasticitn Index Res pH & Resistivity 6 ~ ,..... b z ~ '$-..... ~~ 0 ~1 t/l f:: 0 z ~ F-< .Q ~ ~ pq pq,;:;-~~ ~e ~ t/l F-< 0 CJ 0 t/l ~ ..... z >< ,e, 0~ j~ re p Oo ~ t ~ ~u 0 t/l R-Val Symbol Legend ! Groundwater ·~· :l'.1 PROPOSED TRUCK DOCK & PARKING LOT EXPANSION BECKMAN COULTER FACILITY ~~ Apparent Seepage * No Sample Recovery ** Nonrepresentative Blow Count (rocks present) CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING 2470 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California BY: HF DATE: April 16, 2009 JOB NO.: 2090188 PLATE NO.: 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOG OF TEST PIT P-6 Sample Type and Laborato,t;y Test Legend 1---------------------------------------iCal Modified California Sampler SPT Standard Penetration Test CK Chunk Sample DR Density Ring Dat:e Excavated: 3/27/09 Equipment: Logged by: DJF Bucket Size: Existing Elevation: N/A Drive Weight: Hand Tools NIA N/A ST Shelby Tube MD Maximum Density S04 Soluble Sulfates SA Sieve Analysis HA Hydrometer Pro posed Elevation: N / A Depth to Water: NIA SE Sand Equivalent PI Plastici Index OS Con EI R-Val Chi Res Direct Shear Consolidation Expansion Index Resistance Value Soluble Chlorides pH & Resistivitv 0 -- _,_ 1 -i- _,_ _,_ _,_ 2-- -- -- _,_ _,_ -I- 4-- -- s-- -I- -'- -'- 6 -- -- 7-- _,_ ~ CL I l]l 1111 ML/ CI v~ WJ Symbol Legend ! Groundwater ii Apparent Seepage .. No Sample Recovery ** Nonrepresentative Blow Count (rocks present) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) Artificial Fill (Oaf): Yellowish-brown to olive-brown moist soft to medium stiff, SILTY CLAY, with abundant roots. ' ' Point Loma Formation (Kp): Olive-gray, moist, hard, CLAYEY . SILT/SILTY CLAY. Test Pit terminated at 2 feet. No groundwater or seepage present. ··~· ~-PROPOSED TRUCK DOCK & PAR.KING LOT EXPANSION BECKMAN COULTER FACILITY 2470 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California CHRJSTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING BY: HF DATE: April 16, 2009 JOB NO.: 2090188 PLATE NO.: 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOG OF TEST PIT P-7 Sample T~e and Laboratory Test Legend t-------------------------------------lCal Modified California Sampler CK Chunk Sample SPTStandard Penetration Test DR Density Ring Date Excavated: 3/27/09 Logged by: DJF Existing Elevation: N/A Equipment: Bucket Size: Drive Weight: Hand Tools N/A N/A ST Shelby Tube Maximum Density Soluble Sulfates Sieve Analysis Hydrometer Proposed Elevation: N/ A Depth to Water: N/A l'vID S04 SA HA SE PI Sand Eguivalent Plastici1" Index DS Con EI R-Val Chi Res Direct Shear Consolidation Expansion Index Resistance Value Soluble Chlorides pl-I & Resistivttv c., z 0 ,...... 9 ,-l ,::: u ,__, !-< .... E ~g :i:: ; ; ~ 0 ~ -- _,_ _,_ i ~ 1 -... 1rn111 _,_ ~ _,_ ; _,_ 2-... 1@ _,_ %' / '; _,_ I _,_ 3 -.... _,_ _,_ -- 4-... -~ -~ _,_ 5 _..., _,_ _,_ _,_ 6 _..., _,_ _,_ -1- 7 _..., _,_ Symbol Legend ! Groundwater s i Vl u Vl j:) CL ML/Cl ~~ Apparent Seepage * No Sample Recovery ** Nonrepresentative Blow Count (rocks present) SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) Artificial Fill (Oaf): Brown, moist, medium stiff, SANDY CLAY, with roots. Point Loma Formation (Kp): Olive-gray to orangish-brown, moist, medium stiff, CLAYEY SILT/SILTY CLAY. Moderately weathered up to 2 feet with rootlets. Test Pit terminated at 3 feet. No groundwater or seepage present. ·~· ~,.. PROPOSED TRUCK DOCK & PARKING LOT EXPANSION BECKMAN COULTER FACILITY 2470 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING BY: HF DATE: April 16, 2009 JOB NO.: 2090188 PLATE NO.: 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOG OF TEST PIT P-8 Sample Tn,e and Laboratory Test Legend 1---------------------------------------ICal Modified California Sampler SPT Standard Penetration Test CK Chunk Sample DR Density Ring Da-te Excavated: 3/27/09 DJF Equipment: Hand Tools Logged by: Bucket Size: N/A Existing Elevation: N/ A Proposed Elevation: N/ A Drive Weight: N/ A Depth to Water: N/A g ~ r.l A ~ ""' !;;;,o > !::::, El r.l 0 -'- -- -'- 1 -- -- -'- -'- 2-.. -'- -- -- 3-- -'-- -'-- -'- 4-.. -'- -- -'-- 5 --- ->- ->- -'- 6 -- -- -'- -'- 7 ---_,_ (!) 0 >-l u ""' I w ~ >-l 0 ~ Cl) Cl) u Cl) p CL SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) Artificial Fill (Oaf): Brown, moist, medium stiff, SANDY CLAY, with roots. J 111 ML/CI Point Loma Formation (Kp): Olive-gray, moist, very stiff, CLAYEY ~ SILT /SILTY CLAY. Moderately weathered up to 1 ¼ feet with rootlets. -------- Hard. Test Pit terminated at 2 feet. No groundwater or seepage present. ST Shelby Tube MD Maximum Density S04 Soluble Sulfates SA Sieve Analysis HA Hydrometer SE Sand Equivalent PI Plastici1u Index DS Con EI R-Val ChJ Res Direct Shear Consolidation Expansion Inde.x Resistance Value Soluble Chlorides oH & Resistivitv Symbol Legend f Groundwater ·,1 PROPOSED TRUCK DOCK & PARKING LOT EXPANSION BECKMAN COULTER FACILITY \\ Apparent Seepage * No Sample Recovery -t* Nonrepresentative Blow Count (rocks present) CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING 2470 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California BY: HF DATE: April 16, 2009 JOB NO.: 2090188 PLATE NO.: 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PROPOSED TRUCK DOCK AND PARKING LOT EXPANSION BECKlvIAN COULTER FACILITY 2470 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D1557) Sample Location Sample Description Maximum Density Optimum Moisture Pit P-3 @ 1'-2' Yellowish-B1won Silty Sand with clay (SM) 120.9 pcf 10.9% DIRECT SHEAR (ASTM D3080) Sample Location Sample Type Friction .Angle Cohesion Pit P-3 @ 1'-2' Remolded to 90% 36 ° 250 psf R-VALUE TEST (CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 301) Sample Location R-Value Pit P-5 @ 1'-2½' <5 SOLUBLE SULFATES (CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 417) Sample Location Soluble Sulfate CWE 2090118.02 Pit P-3 @ 1'-2' < 0.001 % (S0-1) April 16, 2009 Plate No. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I " CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Appendix A, Page A-I REFERENCES Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 95-03. Unites States Geologic Survey, Seismic Design Values for Buildings,Java Ground Motion Calculator Version 5.0.9. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Appendix B, Page B-1 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS -GENERAL PROVISIONS PROPOSED TRUC DOCK.AND PARK.ING LOT EXPANSION BECKMAN COULTER FACILITY 2470 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GENERAL INTENT The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/ or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OBSERVATION AND TESTING Christian Wheeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep him apprised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend rejection of this work. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C\VE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Appendix B, Page B-2 Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods: Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content-ASTM D-1557 Density of Soil In-Place -ASTM D-1556 or ASTM D-6938 All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of. All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. After clearing or benching tl1e natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soil which possesses an in-situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil. The lower bench shall be atleast 10 feet wide or 1-1/2 times the equipment width, whichever is greater, and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ., CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 AppendLx B, Page B-3 All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and/ or a qualified Structural Engineer. FILL MATERIAL Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non- stl'.Uctural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CWE 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Appendix B, Page B-4 the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut- back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. \Vhere failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. CUT SLOPES The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. C\'v'E 2090188.02 April 16, 2009 Appendix B, Page B-5 ENGINEERING OBSERVATION Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading ·with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. SEASON LIMITS Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS -SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with ASTM D 4829. OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material is provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve. TRANSITION LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required. \. ·~ .. APPENDIX A STORM WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONNAIRE I INSTRUCTIONS: This questionnaire must be completed by the applicant in advance of submitting for a development application (subdivision and land use planning approvals and construction permits). The results of the questionnaire determine the level of storm water pollution prevention standards applied to a proposed development or redevelopment project. Many aspects of project site design are dependent upon the storm water pollution protection standards applied to a project. Applicant responses to the questionnaire represent an initial assessment of the proposed project conditions and impacts. City staff has responsibility for making the final assessment after submission of the development application. A staff determination that the development application is subject to more stringent storm water standards, than initially assessed by the applicant, will result in the return of the development application as incomplete. If applicants are unsure about the meaning of a question or need help in determining how to respond to one or more of the questions, they are advised to seek assistance from Engineering Department Development Services staff. A separate completed and signed questionnaire must be submitted for each new development application submission. Only one completed and signed questionnaire is required when multiple development applications for the same project are submitted concurrently. In addition to this questionnaire, applicants for construction permits must also complete, sign and submit a Construction Activity Storm Water Standards Questionnaire. To address pollutants that may be generated from new development, the City requires that new development and significant redevelopment priority projects incorporate Permanent Storm Water Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the project design, which are described in Chapter 2 of the City's Storm Water Standards Manual This questionnaire should be used to categorize new development and significant redevelopment projects as priority or non-priority, to determine what level of storm water standards are required or if the project is exempt. I 1. Is your project a significant redevelopment? Definition: Significant redevelopment is defined as the creation, addition or replacement of at least 5,000 square feet of impervious surface on an already existing developed site. Significant redevelopment includes, but is not limited to: the expansion of a building footprint; addition to or replacement of a structure; structural development including an increase in gross floor area and/or exterior construction remodeling; replacement of an impervious surface that is not part of a routine maintenance activity; and land disturbing activities related with structural or impervious surfaces. Replacement of impervious surfaces includes any activity that is not part of a routine maintenance activity where impervious material(s) are removed, exposing underlying soil during construction. Note: If the Significant Redevelopment results in an increase of less than fifty percent of the impervious surfaces of a previously existing development, and the existing development was not subject to SUSMP requirements, the numeric sizing criteria discussed in Table 3 of 2.3.3.4 applies only to the addition, and not to the entire development. 2. If your project JS considered significant redevelopment, then please skip Section 1 and proceed with Section 2. 3. If your project IS NOT considered significant redevelopment, then please proceed to Section 1. 21 SW\-IP Rev 6:--i,08 .. I SECTION 1 NEW DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY PROJECT TYPE YES NO Does you project meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. Home subdivision of 100 units or more. )( Includes SFD, MFD, Condominium and Apartments 2. Residential development of 10 units or more. Includes SFD, MFD, Condominium and Apartments X 3. Commercial and industrial development greater than 100,000 square feet including 12arkinq areas. Any development on private land that is not for heavy industrial or residential uses. Example: Hospitals, X Hotels, Recreational Facilities, Shopping Malls, etc. 4. Heavy Industrial/ Industry greater than 1 acre (NEED SIC CODES FOR PERMIT BUSINESS TYPES) X SIC codes·5913, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, and 7536-7539 5. Automotive repair shof2. )< SIC codes 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, and 7536-7539 6. A New Restaurant where the land area of deve/og_ment is 5,000 square feet or more including parking areas. )(. SIC code 581.2 7. Hillside development (1) greater than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface area and (2) development will grade on any )< natural slooe that is 25% or areater 8. Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA/. Impervious surface of 2,500 square feet or more located within, "directly adjacent"2 to (within 200 feet), X or "discharaina directly to"3 receiving water within the ESA 1 9. Parking Jot. Area of 5,000 square feet or more, or with 15 or more parking spaces, and potentially exposed to urban X runoff 1 O. Retail Gasoline Outlets -serving more than 100 vehicles g_er day X Serving more than 100 vehicles per day and greater than 5,090 square feet 11. Streets, roads, driveways, highways, and freeways. X Project would create a new paved surface thafis 5,000 square feet or greater. 12. Coastal Oevelog_ment Zone. Within 200 feet of the Pacific Ocean and (1) creates more than 2500 square feet of impermeable X surface or (2) increases impermeable surface on property by more than 10%. 1 Environmentally Sensitive Areas include but are not limited to all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies; areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); areas designated as preserves or their equivalent under the Multi Species Conservation Program within the Cities and Count of San Diego; and any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the Copermittees. 2 "Directly adjacent" means situated within 200 feet of the environmentally sensitive area. 3 "Discharging directly to" means outflow from a drainage conveyance system that is composed entirely of flows from the subject development or redevelopment site, and not commingled with flow from adjacent lands. Section 1 Results: If you answered YES to ANY of the questions above you have a PRIORITY project and PRIORITY project requirements DO apply. A Storm Water Management Plan, prepared in accordance with City Storm Water Standards, must be submitted at time of application. Ple_ase check the "MEETS PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS" box in Section 3. If you answered NO to ALL of the questions above, then you are a NON-PRIORITY project and STANDARD requirements apply. Please check the "DOES NOT MEET PRIORITY Requirements" box in Section 3. •. \ ~ . . SWMP Rev 6/4:08 .. . , < , ' . j SECTION 2 SIGNIFICANT REDEVELOPMENT: YES NO 1. Is the project redeveloping an existing priority project type? (Priority projects x· are defined in Section 1) If you answered YES, please proceed to question 2. If you answered NO, then you ARE NOT a significant redevelopment and you ARE NOT subject to PRIORITY project requirements, only STANDARD requirements. Please check the "DOES NOT MEET PRIORITY Requirements" box in Section 3 below. 2. Is the project solely limited to one of the following: a. Trenchino and resurfacina associated with utilitv work? >C b. Resurfacino and reconfigurina existina surface oarkina lots? x C. New sidewalk construction, pedestrian-ramps, or bike lane on public X and/or orivate existino roads? d. Replacement of existino damaoed pavement? X If you answered NO to ALL of the questions, then proceed to Question 3. If you answered YES to ONE OR MORE of the questions then you ARE NOT a significant redevelopment and you ARE NOT subject to PRIORITY project requirements, only STANDARD requirements. Please check the "DOES NOT MEET PRIORITY Requirements" box in Section 3 below. 3. Will the development create, replace, or add at least 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces on an existing development or, be located within 200 feet of the Pacific Ocean and (1 )create more than 2500 square feet of X impermeable surface or (2) increases impermeable surface on property by more than 10%? If you answered YES, you ARE a significant redevelopment, and you ARE subject to PRIORITY project requirements. Please check the "MEETS PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS" box in Section 3 below. If you answered NO, you ARE NOT a significant redevelopment, and you ARE NOT subject to PRIORITY project requirements, only STANDARD requirements. Please check the "DOES NOT MEET PRIORITY Requirements" box in Section 3 below. I SECTION 3 Questionnaire Results: MY PROJECT MEETS PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS, MUST COMPLY WITH PRIORITY PROJECT STANDARDS AND MUST PREPARE A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SUBMITTAL AT TIME OF APPLICATION. D MY PROJECT DOES NOT MEET PRIORITY REQUIREMENTS AND MUST ONLY COMPLY WITH STANDARD STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS. Applicant Info1T11ation and Signature Box Thi., 811\ /iir Cm l \,_. Only Addr~~s: As~cssors Parcel Numbcr(s): IZ'2.~ !:4,-C41H/M()~ 201-01-2.0 :\ppli>.:ant Name: Applicmit Title: $W1171-I-C,,Pl/5tll-71rfl7 A !UI-J lf(Se r ~~ / Date: 1-10-01 SWMP Rev 6:-l. 08 .. : '"t Glen Van Peski From: Sent: To: Subject: Glen, • Tim Carroll [Timc@odayconsultants.com] Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:12 PM Glen Van Peski RE: Beckman • There will be a building permit connected to the parking lot expansion, it's to replace the canopy over the front building entrance. Also included will be the landscape/irrigation and hardscape plans. Work exempt from a grading permit, please see Section 15.16.06.A.8. Please let me know if a grading permit will be required and if the existing parking lot needs to be retrofitted with LID. Thanks. Tim --------· ,-, __ ,,,,-, -- From: Glen Van Peski [mailto:Gleri.VanPeski@carlsbadca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:26 AM To: Tim Carroll Cc: Will Foss; Mike Peterson; David Hauser Subject: RE: Beckman Tim- ____ ,,,_,, ____ _ I don't remember being in a meeting, and don't seem to have any notes on it. I'll check around. What provisions of 16.16.040 were quoted that no grading permit would be required? The SWPPP question would be answered by filling out the Threat Assessment worksheets. Project would qualify as a Priority Project by number of parking spaces, so a SWMP would be required. I would have to review the SUSMP regarding application of LID in cases of 'redevelopment'. --Glen From: Tim Carroll [mailto:Timc@odayconsultants.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 9:43 AM To: Glen Van Peski Subject: Beckman Glen, I understand there was a meeting with city staff to discuss the parking lot extension for the Beckman property, see attached. I wanted to verify the following of what I was told: Grading plan/permit is not required. Tier 2 SWPPP is required SWMP is required Low impact design of th·e new parking expansion is required, but no modification to the existing lot is required. Thanks. Sincerely, 1 f ., 41~1 --Tim Carroll Project Manager timc@odayconsultants.com O'Day Consultants, Inc. 2710 Loker Avenue West, Suite 100 Carlsbad,.CA 92010 www.odayconsultants.com • Phone (760) 931-7700 Fax (769) 931-8680 • 2 i \ . ·(D {z) •• 0f2-;A·f)(Nl -pg-~il~ • I ' I I :1 CB091318 2470 FARADAY AV BECKMAN: EXPANSION OF PARKING LOT INCL. NEW LIGHTING Tl •••-••.-.-.- \ ~r\ l looi--lo C1'::j I t=lr2.E 4 Sf-e,,JE . ~BIJCK V w; Soi I 5 "t-&-b-~0 ;,I {)w,JtW '5,ef" y LW ' J :,:: 8/(t /o':> CoJ~ Q_ p-c__ f I r!t1 'l -/!;';, ,/4;; J: a 7;' s.r 1(zz/09-Ur·7Z17Lft> Ur··73/ w/t1~< ~aJr? /4/ders . -tSJwefl?Y 'IL@ lfa_t21( tysr1,lrovt1t~ · -f &i,oMr"sw/{ /!,tNdttrs );Ju,;,/ -lo bi! 1,d,ld . wlie# {!r'o/ 1'So/?r' ar.e ~/r-c)(/tecf, /D{J{ll ~ ~ JJ-{J#-\YAek,. lt)\7,' \o ~ ~Ao (f ~ r-rvwf C,~ ) i) -C/Mc':, s~.\-,,...,. Ca.. I[ ...cl N "-"L ;o(;_;J()r IJJ!;-W .. .. Approved Building Planning "' Engineering t,1/~rdM('MW . Fire c-- HazMat APCD Health Forms/Fees Sent CFO Fire FOG HazMal;IAPCD Health PFF PE&M School Sewer Stormwater l=,...,r r-,6. Comments Date Building L. fYi Planning '6/-ir,(tJ&/ Engineering Fire Need? Application Complete? Fees Complete? DCV A Date By 8//( I 4' ~ ~ /0'/9-~ /q Q" J(J.--<,-t) '1 /{/j/ IJ/LJ .Jl'P./ Gtv ( , Rec'd Due? By y N y N y N y N y N y N y N y N y N y N y N y N Date Date Date tr'l. 9/dt;q riroldl 9/?la·q ( ( ODone ODone DDone ODone ODone y N By: y N By: