Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 91-04; Arco AM/PM Gas Station & Minimart; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (3)SeceiVecf MAY 17 199) CITY OF CARLSBAD DEVELOP* PROC. SERV. DIV. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS PROPOSED AM-PM MINI-MART NEC Elm Avenue and Harding Street CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GEA PROJECT NO. C-901114 FOR SOUTHGATE ASSOCIATES. LTD. PHOENIX, ARIZONA OiLGS GlGinGGRinC ^^SSOCIKTGS. IMC. GcOTeCHMIOIL GeO-CnvilROnMGriWL, GeO-HvDROLOCIOlL TABLE OF CONTENTS Geoteclmical Engineering Exploration and Analysis O Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart NEC Elm Avenue and Harding Street Carlsbad, California GEA Project No, C-901114 Page COVER LETTER I-III INTRODUCTION 1 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 CONCLUSIONS 4 Site Development Considerations 5 Site Preparation Recommendations 6 Foundation Design Parameters 7 Trasli Enclosure Design Parameters 9 Sign Foundation Design Parameters 10 Floor Slab Design Parameters 11 Underground Storage Tanks 11 Pavement Design Parameters 12 Construction and Other Design Considerations 13 GENERAL COMMENTS 14 APPENDICES Guideline Specifications (Modified Proctor) Boring Location Plan Test Boring Logs (5) General Notes ©Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. 1990 niLW/^Uk€€. Wl Ones C^nGiM€€RinG ssociwes. inc. GcoTCCHmoiL Gco-GnvjiRoriMcriT/iL GCO-HYDROLOGIOIL 4riD GoM^TRUaiGM M/^TCRML^ ConSULT4riT<? 4879 oi<rr M 9Avm /tvjenue - 'juire 201. mmem, QA 99807 714-779-0052, MX: 714-779-(X568 December 21, 1990 Southgate Associates, Ltd. 4323 N. 12th Street, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Attention: Mr. Tom Southgate Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart NEC Elm Avenue and Harding Street Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 Dear Mr. Southgate: In compliance with your authorization, a Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis has been conducted for the above referenced site. Conclusions and recommendations developed from the exploration and analysis are summarized below and discussed in more detail in the accompanying report. Consideration of the geo-environmental aspects of the property have been provided on a preliminary basis due to the nature of the current development. 1. The proposed site is presently developed with a gasoline service station with associated product storage and dispensing facilities currently in-place. Subsurface conditions consist of variable strength possible fill to a depth of 3± feet comprised of silty fine sands; moderate strength native silty "fine sand with clay content and occassional sand seams to a depth of 11 to 14± feet; and moderate strength clayey silt with probable sand seams which appeared to contain water extending to 15± feet, the maximum depth explored. Although the groundwater table was considered to exist below the maximum depth explored of 15± feet at the time of exploration the site may be subject to perched water conditions. 2. The proposed site does not appear to present a significant fault rupture hazard. All foundations should, however, be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and local requirements. A liquefaction evaluation can be (^ Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 Page II SSOCIWGS performed for this site by Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. (GEA) upon request. 3. Further exploration is recommended to evaluate the potential for the site to have been affected by petroleum hydrocarbon compounds from the existing development. Underground storage tank removal must be performed in accordance with the appropriate regulatory guidelines. Upon proper removal of the storage tanks and product dispensing facilities, substantial remediation may be required to treat chemically affected soils. 4. The use of a conventionally reinforced shallow foundation system and floor slab designed for a moderate allowable soil bearing pressure is anticipated to be appropriate for the subject site after the recommended site grading is performed. Subsequent to the recommended overexcavation and placement of structural fill, nominal footing embedment depth is anticipated to be adequate. A higher allowable soil bearing pressure may be used for design if the footings are extended a sufficient depth within the underlying native soils. A conventional slab-on-grade floor slab may be used. 5. On a preliminary basis, a conventional spread footing foundation designed for a moderate allowable soil bearing capacity is recommended to be used on this site. The bearing suitability of the sign foundation bearing grade should be verified by the soils consultant at the time of construction. A drilled pier foundation may not be feasibly constructed due to the potential for borehole instability problems. 6. . The trash enclosure may be designed as a properly reinforced concrete pad to resist the impact loading of trash removal equipment with thickened edges for wall support. 7. Reuse of the existing pavement with the proposed development is not recommended. New pavement may consist of conventional asphaltic concrete over a granular base. Portland Cement concrete pavements are recommended in the most highly stressed areas of the site. Some overexcavation may be necessary throughout the proposed parking lot areas due to the presence of variable strength possible fill and should be budgeted appropriately. 8. It is recommended that GEA monitor site preparation so that soils are adequately and properly placed and compacted. Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 Page III SSOCIWGS iriC 9. Adequate site drainage during and after construction will be required to reduce the potential for problems associated with the moisture sensitive soils. Modification of the subgrade through chemical or mechanical methods or overexcavation of unstable soils and replacement with structural fill may be necessary. Excavation bank stability problems may be encountered within the near surface granular soils. Widening excavations or sloping excavation banks may be required. GEA appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If GEA may be of additional assistance, should geotechnical related problems occur or to provide monitoring and testing services during construction, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time. Very truly yours. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Enclosure: GEA Report No. C-901114 Distribution: (4) Addressee Terry L. Giles, G.E. President RGE No. 000342 JEH/laa CA147 • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS PROPOSED AM-PM MINI-MART NEC Elm Avenue and Harding Street CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GEA PROJECT NO. C-901114 INTRODUCTION The scope of geotechnical services performed by Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. (GEA) for this project included a site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis to provide criteria for preparing the building and sign foundations, building floor slab, trash enclosure and pavement design for the proposed development. A brief discussion of potential site-specific seismic hazards is also included. Consideration of geo-environmental aspects of the property have been addressed on a preliminary basis due to the nature of the development currently occupying the site. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Elm Avenue and Harding Street in Carlsbad, California. At the time of field exploration, the site was developed as a gasoline service station. The existing facility contained a single-story structure, underground storage tanks, pump islands and, presumably, product dispensing lines. The ground surface was generally paved with asphaltic concrete pavement which was observed to contain significant and extensive cracking. Several landscaped areas were also present on-site which occasionally contained tall trees. Surface topography was relatively flat and level with the adjacent roadways with less than 3± feet of elevation differential. The ^proposed development is understood to be comprised of a small market with gasoline storage and dispensing facilities. The structure is understood to be a single-story masonry or wood frame structure with a wood truss roof system. Maximum exterior plan dimensions are understood to be approximately 37 x 57± feet. No basement is planned for the building. The structure is anticipated to be supported by exterior bearing walls possibly with interior walls and/or columns. Maximum structural loads of 2,5 kips per lineal foot for wall footings and 25 kips for columns are anticipated. The floor slab is understood to carry a maximum design live load of 100 pounds-per-square-foot (psf), A 35-foot wide strip of the existing parking area on the northerly adjacent property is believed to be incorporated into the proposed development. For the purpose of this report, the parking lot is assumed • Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 Page 2 to be subjected to a traffic loading intensity approximately equivalent to a Traffic Index of 4.5, for a ten year analysis period. Planned floor elevation was not specified with the information supplied for this report. However, based on the existing site grades and the existing development, a finished floor elevation of El. 101.0± feet, relative to teh benchmark indicated on the Boring Location Plan, Figure 1, has been assumed for the geotechnical analysis. Consequently, only nominal site grading is anticipated to be necessary to establish the anticipated final grades, exclusive of any overexcavation or site preparation requirements. FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING Five soil test borings were drilled to depths ranging from 5 to 15± feet below existing grade for this project. Test Boring No, 2 was terminated at a depth of 14i± feet due to soil sampler refusal within dense soils. Test boring locations were restricted due to the presence of the existing structure and subsurface facilities. Borings were backfilled upon completion of drilling and sampling using conventional backfilling procedures with the spoil created during drilling. Existing pavement was patched with Portland Cement concrete where penetrated by test borings. It should, however, be understood that the borehole may cave or the backfill may settle with time and weather conditions which may result in the formation of surficial depressions. Test borings were patched with Portland Cement concrete where existing pavement was penetrated. Test boring logs (Record of Subsurface Exploration), and Boring Location Plan, Figure 1, are enclosed in the Appendix, Field exploration for this project consisted of performing Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in accordance with the ASTM D-1586 Standard Test Method, The SPT provides a means of determining the relative density of granular soils and the comparative consistency of cohesive soils, thereby providing a method of evaluating the subsoils relative strength and settlement characteristics. In addition, to provide relative soil design parameters, a soil sample is also obtained from the SPT sampler for classification of the subsoils and laboratory testing. Samples obtained from the field exploration were originally classified in the field by the GEA drilling crew and again reviewed in the laboratory by a soils engineer in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2488-75), A geotechnical soil mechanics laboratory testing program was performed on the recovered soil samples. In conjunction with determining the natural moisture content profile for the recovered soil samples an evaluation of the expansive potential was performed by • Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 Page 3 conducting an Expansion Index (EI) test in accordance with UBC Standard No. 29-2. Laboratory testing was performed to evaluate a combination of the strength, settlement and expansive characteristics of the subsoils. Soil parameters indicating the engineering characteristics of the materials encountered in the test borings as determined by the field and laboratory testing, are presented on the logs and figures enclosed in the Appendix of this report; with the symbols and notations defined on the General Notes enclosed as the last page of the Appendix. All field and laboratory testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM sampling and testing techniques. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions encountered at the test boring locations indicate the existing pavement consists of li to 3i± inches of asphaltic concrete pavement which is occasionally underlain by 3± inches of base course comprised of brown fine sand with little coarse sand and fine gravel. Near surface soils extending to a depth of 3± feet were found to be comprised of loose dark brown silty fine sand or firm orange brown silty fine sand with little clay content. These near surface soils were classified as possible fill due to the somewhat inconsistent strength characteristics exhibited by field testing. Underlying native soils generally consist of firm orange brown silty fine sand with clay content and occasional seams of fine sand to depths of 11 to 14± feet; and firm light grayish brown clayey silt or dense light grayish brown fine to medium sandy silt extending to at least the maximum depth explored of 15± feet. Tested near surface cohesive soils are considered to have low expansive potential as indicated by an Expansion Index (EI) value of 2 which was. obtained for the tested sample recovered from Test Boring No, 1 at a depth of approximately 1 to 3± feet. Free water was not encountered within the test borings at the time of field exploration. Based on the relative moisture contents and coloration of the recovered soil samples and field observations, the long term water table was considered to exist at a depth below the maximum depth explored of 15± feet below existing grade at the time of exploration. Groundwater may be perched at various depths where more pervious granular soils are underlain by less permeable soils. The water table may also fluctuate seasonally and during periods of heavy precipitation. The above described subsurface conditions have been simplified somewhat for ease of report interpretation, A more detailed description • Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 Page 4 of the subsurface conditions at the test boring locations is described on the test boring logs enclosed in the Appendix. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conditions imposed by the proposed development have been evaluated on the basis of the engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials encountered in the borings and their anticipated behavior both during and after construction. Conclusions and recommendations for design of building and sign foundations, building floor slab, trash enclosure and parking lot pavement along with construction and seismic considerations and site preparation requirements are discussed in the following sections of this report. Geo-environmental aspects of the property have been addressed in a preliminary manner due to the present use of the property. Site Development Considerations a) Seismic Design Considerations Research of the available geologic information indicates that the site is considered to be subject to lateral ground accelerations in a seismic event. This site is not, however, located in an area currently designated for special studies under the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Act of 1972, and does not appear to represent a significant fault rupture hazard potential. All foundation designs should, however, be performed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and local governing regulations. Foundation lateral load resistance recommendations are presented later in this report. A specialized liquefaction evaluation was not considered to be within the scope of services for this exploration. GEA can perform a liquefaction evaluation upon request but will require additional field exploration, laboratory testing, review of geologic data and additional engineering analysis. b) Preliminary Geo-Environmental Considerations The presence of underground storage tanks and the current usage of the property suggests that environmental considerations enter into development of the proposed site. Underground storage tanks and other subsurface facilities will require removal in accordance with the local, state and federal regulatory guidelines. In conjunction with such removal, soils may be present which has been affected by the contents of the tanks. Significant increases in development costs may then be Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 Page 5 incurred due to the need to properly remediate any affected soils. Substantial overexcavation of affected soils may be required with the appropriate treatment to allow reuse as structural fill or off-site disposal. It may otherwise be necessary to perform an extensive in-situ remediation program to ensure volatile chemical content is within regulatory guidelines if a problem is found to exist. Consequently, it is considered prudent and is recommended to perform additional test borings to greater depths to determine the potential for soils and/or groundwater to have been affected by products which were stored in the underground tanks. Results of further exploration relative to geo-environmental conditions on the property may affect the recommendations contained herein. c) Site Grading and Foundation Considerations Development of the proposed site for its intended use will require removal of the existing underground storage and dispensing facilities as well as the existing structure. Clearing of the site is anticipated to disturb the existing soils within the proposed building area to depths of 1 to 2± feet within the proposed building area. In conjunction with site clearing, the proposed building area is recommended to be overexcavated to a suitable bearing native soil subgrade which is anticipated to be available at depths of 3 to 4± feet below existing grade. Site grades may then be raised to final elevations by placement of structural fill. Subsequent to the recommended site preparation, the proposed structure may be supported by a conventional shallow foundation system comprised of strip and isolated spread footings for wall and column support, respectively. The recommended grading prior to construction is anticipated to allow the use of nominal footing embedment depth within the structural fill, A conventional slab-on-grade floor slab may also be used. Although not recommended for reuse with the proposed development, existing pavements may be pulverized for future use as structural fill on the property or may be broken into small pieces and recompacted into the subgrade for use as a subbase. Consideration should be given to allow the existing pavement to remain in-place until removal is necessary so that the pavement may serve as a working mat for construction and protect the underlying soils. New pavement may consist of asphaltic concrete over a granular base course. Portland Cement concrete pavement is recommended in areas of the site subjected to high stresses. The encountered near surface soils within the proposed building area were found to exhibit a low expansive potential as indicated by Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No.-C-901114 Page 6 Expansion Index testing as defined by UBC Table 29-A. Consequently, specific reinforcing minimum requirements in both the foundation and floor slab will not be required with regard to expansive characteristics. It should be noted that if site grades are substantially altered, the soils at the bearing grade elevation should be tested to evaluate their expansive potential. Existing near surface soils contain high silt and moderate clay content and are considered to be sensitive to changes in moisture and disturbance by construction equipment. Additionally, the granular nature indicates they are susceptible to erosion if exposed to free flowing water. These soils may undergo a reduction in strength and increase in settlement characteristics when allowed to increase in moisture content. Due to the sensitivity of the existing soils, compaction problems and subgrade deterioration should be anticipated, especially if construction is carried out during periods of wet weather and should be appropriately considered in the development budget. Subgrade modification through chemical or mechanical means or overexcavation of unstable or disturbed areas and replacement with structural fill may be necessary. Site Preparation Recommendations Initial site preparation will require the removal of the existing structures including all foundations, floor slabs, etc. Remnants of previously existing construction may be encountered in unexplored areas of the site. All utilities not planned for reuse with the proposed development will require proper removal or rerouting. The existing storage tanks will also require removal but must be performed with the proper supervision of the appropriate regulatory agencies. In conjunction with tank removal, substantial removal of chemically affected soil may be required which could substantially increase grading costs as previously discussed. The existing pavements are not recommended for reuse with the proposed development. Existing pavements may be removed from the site or may either be pulverized and mixed with soil to be used as structural fill elsewhere on the property or broken into a maximum 3-inch particle size and recompacted as a subbase for new pavement construction. Existing pavements are, however, recommended to remain in-place until removal is needed so that they may protect the underlying subgrade soils and serve as a working mat during construction. Site grading is anticipated to require the removal and replacement of soils disturbed by removal of the existing structure (anticipated to Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 Page 7 be 1 to 2± feet) and removal of the near surface possible fill soils. The building pad area is, therefore, recommended to be overexcavated to a suitable bearing native subgrade (anticipated to be available at depths ranging from 3 to 4± feet) and to a minimum lateral extent of 5 feet but sufficiently extended to ensure encompassing the foundation influence zone as indicated in Item No. 3 of the enclosed guide specifications. Additional removal quantities may be required due to the potential for variability is soil conditions. With regard to the underground storage tank pit area, the degree to which overexcavation will be necessary is dependent upon the results of the recommended additional subsurface exploration and analysis and conditions encountered at the time of tank removal. Following removal operations, the exposed subgrade within the building and parking areas should be proofrolled to detect soft, yielding soils which must be removed to a suitable bearing grade. The suitability of the exposed subgrade should be evaluated using the provisions provided in the Foundation Design Parameters section of this report. Following proofrolling, tine subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted in accordance with the enclosed guide specifications. Low areas and excavations may then be raised to the planned finished grade with compacted fill. All fill to be placed on site should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory dry density obtained by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D 1557-78). Any imported soils should consist of non-organic materials with an Expansion Index (EI) less-than 20. Compaction operations should be monitored and tested by a field representative of GEA. Site preparation and structural fill selection, placement and compaction should be performed in accordance with the guide specifications enclosed in the Appendix of this report (Modified Proctor Procedures). Excavations and general site stripping will expose a soil subgrade containing appreciable quantities of silt and moderate clay content. If these soils are exposed to moisture increases they are anticipated to become unstable and create subgrade stability problems. In addition, predominantly granular soils may be eroded if exposed to free flowing water. The site must, therefore, be graded to prevent ponding and surface water from flowing into excavations. Foundation and floor slab concrete should be cast as soon as possible after the concrete has set. All disturbed and yielding soils or soils which become excessively wet or dry must be moisture conditioned and recompacted and/or removed and replaced with a structural fill that has been placed and compacted in accordance with the enclosed guide specifications. On-site soils may be reused as structural compacted fill for foundation, floor slab, and pavement support provided they do not Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 Page 8 contain significant organic or other deleterious materials. Caution must, however, be used during recompaction of the on-site soils since they must be compacted within a relatively narrow range of optimum moisture to achieve proper compaction for load bearing and pavement support. All subgrade soil recompaction and placement and compaction of fill soils must, therefore, include careful control of the moisture content in accordance with the enclosed guide specifications due to the silt and clay content of the soils. Foundation Design Parameters a) Vertical Load Capacities Following the previously recommended subgrade and site preparation, the proposed building may be supported by a conventionally reinforced shallow spread footing foundation system. A turned-down slab or monolithically poured foundation and floor slab with thickened edges to support bearing walls may also be used on this site. Trench footings may be used where the building code allows, and the trench walls are stable. Foundations must be supported at least one foot into suitable bearing soils comprised of either newly placed fill soils and/or undisturbed native soils. Foundations may be designed using a maximum, net, allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds-per-square-foot (psf). Minimum foundation widths for walls and columns should be 14 and 24 inches, respectively, for strength considerations. Suitable soils for direct foundation support or to serve as the subgrade for structural fill subgrade and thereby provide indirect foundation support should have at least a loose relative density (average N-value greater than or equal to 8) for non-cohesive soils or a stiff comparative consistency (average qu greater than or equal to 1.0 tsf) for, the recommended maximum bearing pressure. Structural fill soils which are selected, placed and compacted in accordance with the enclosed guide specifications are considered suitable for direct foundation support. For design and construction estimating purposes, suitable bearing native soils are anticipated to be available at depths of 3 to 4± feet on the basis of the subsurface exploration; however suitable bearing native soils may not be encountered until greater depths due to the potential for variability in the fill soils below existing grade. It is strongly recommended that the suitability of the foundation bearing grade and structural fill subgrade be evaluated by "li representative of GEA at the time of construction to ensure that tHe foundation system is supported on suitable bearing soils as recommende? herein. Tf Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 Page 9 unsuitable bearing soils are encountered at the proposed foundation bearing grades or structural fill subgrades, they should be removed to a suitable bearing subgrade and to a lateral extent in accordance with Item No. 3 of the enclosed guide specifications with the excavation backfilled with structural fill to develop a uniform bearing grade. Minimum foundation embedment depth for the area in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) is 12 inches where footings will be supported by very low expansive soils. Footings are, however, recommended to be founded at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade for protection of the moisture sensitive bearing soils. Footings and their excavations must be protected against weather and water damage both during and after construction and all foundations must be supported on suitable bearing soils as described herein. Post-construction total and differential settlements of a foundation system designed and constructed in accordance with the enclosed recommendations are estimated to be less than 1,0 and 0,5 inches, respectively, which is considered within tolerable limits for the proposed structure. Adequate moisture protection for foundation soils is essential to keep differential foundation movement within acceptable levels, b) Lateral Load Resistance Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. Passive pressure and friction may be used in combination, without reduction, in determining the total resistance to lateral loads, A one-third increase in these values may be used for short term wind or seismic loads, A coefficient of friction of 0,30 may be used for footings and slabs placed on the recommended properly compacted newly placed fill or undisturbed native soils. An allowable passive earth pressure of 300 psf per foot of footing depth below lowest adjacent final grade (pcf) may be used for the sides of footings placed against properly compacted backfill or poured against undisturbed native soils or structural compacted fill. The maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is 1,500 psf. Floor Slab Design Parameters The floor slab may be designed as a conventionally reinforced 4-to 6-inch thick concrete slab-on-grade supported by a suitably prepared Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 Page 10 subgrade. Based upon the recommended site preparation, the subgrade is anticipated to be comprised of structural compacted fill. All utility trenches and foundation excavations should be properly backfilled prior to slab construction. If desired, the floor slab may be poured monolithically with the perimeter foundations with thickened sections for exterior walls and/or structurally isolated and designed as separate units. The floor slab should be supported by a 4-to 6-inch thick layer of coarse granular material placed on a suitably prepared subgrade. A synthetic sheet should be placed immediately below the floor slab to serve as a vapor barrier in areas where moisture might present a problem with floor coverings. If the materials underlying the synthetic sheet contain sharp, angular particles, a cushion layer of sand approximately 2 inches thick or a geotextile should be provided to prevent puncture. With proper site preparation and geotechnical monitoring, the post-construction total and differential settlement of the floor slabs constructed as recommended and structurally isolated from footings is estimated to be less than 0.5 and 0,3 inches, respectively, which is considered within tolerable limits for the proposed structure. Slabs poured monolithically with footings are expected to settle similar to the estimates presented in the above Foundation Design Parameters section. Sign Foundation Design Parameters A review of the site plan provided by the client does not indicate a specific sign location. The sign is, however, anticipated to be located in the southwestern corner of the property in the vicinity of Test Boring No. 5. Therefore, since the location and specific structural details and loading requirements were not known at the time of geotechnical analysis, sign foundation parameters are presented on a preliminary basis using the general soil conditions as depicted at the test boring locations and typical foundation designs for a low-rise pylon or monument sign. If a high-rise sign is planned, deeper test borings and additional geotechnical analysis will be necessary. A typical low-rise sign foundation is considered to consist of a spread footing or drilled pier extending to depths of approximately 4 to 6± feet below the adjacent ground surface for overturning considerations. Based upon the subsurface conditions encountered at the test boring locations which generally consist of occasional variable strength possible fill soils underlain by moderate strength native soils, the foundation system is recommended to consist of a conventional spread footing supported within suitable bearing existing soils and/or newly Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No, C-901114 Page 11 placed structural compacted fill soils. The sign foundation may be designed for a maximum, net, allowable vertical soil-bearing pressure in the range of 1,500 to 2,500 psf at nominal embedment depth. It is strongly recommended that the suitability of the sign foundation bearing grade be verified by the soils consultant at the time of construction to ensure that the sign foundation is supported by suitable bearing materials. Lateral load resistance may be calculated for the sign foundation as recommended in the above Lateral Load Resistance subsection for the building foundations. A drilled pier foundation may not be feasibly constructed due to the potential for borehole stability problems created by the predominantly granular soils. Trash Enclosure Design Parameters The trash enclosure is believed to be located east of the proposed structure in the vicinity of Test Boring No. 2. Near surface soil conditions encountered at Test Boring No. 2 consist of loose silty fine sands soils which are considered suitable for support of the trash enclosure provided the subgrade is prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation Recommendations section of this report. Overexcavation of unstable or unsuitable soils may be required during subgrade preparation. The trash enclosure is understood to consist of a flexible wooden or chain link fence, or a more rigid masonry block enclosure. The planned enclosure proposed for this site is considered to be very light and, therefore, a conventional bearing capacity analysis is not considered to be applicable. The trash enclosure area will, however, be subjected to impact loads imposed by trash removal equipment. The foundation system for the proposed trash enclosure may consist of a 6-inch minimum thickness, properly reinforced concrete slab to resist the impact loading of trash removal equipment, supported on a minimum 4-to 6-inch layer of coarse granular material and properly prepared subgrade. The slab edges should be thickened to at least 12 inches for masonry wall or wood fence support for a width of at least 12 inches, and should be designed by a qualified structural engineer. Underground Storage Tanks Underground storage tanks must be installed in accordance with state and federal regulations. Due to possible entrapment of water in the tank backfill, a means of anchoring the tanks is recommended to prevent hydrostatic uplift. Backfill soils are recommended to consist of non-expansive soils. The selection, placement and compaction of the Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 Page 12 backfill should be performed under engineering controlled conditions in accordance with the guidelines specifications enclosed in the Appendix. Pavement Design Parameters a) Pavement Subgrades After proper subgrade preparation as described in the Site Preparation Recommendations section of this report, the subgrade is anticipated to generally consist of silty fine sand soils with areas anticipated to be underlain by fill and possible fill associated with the current development. The silty fine sand soils are anticipated to exhibit an R-value ranging from 25 to 55, based on the Unified Soil Classification of SM-SP when property prepared. Since a specific R-value test has not been authorized for the preparation of the recommendations, a conservative R-value of 25 has been used in the preparation of the pavement design considering the presence of possible fill soils. It should, however, be recognized that City of Carlsbad or San Diego County may require a specific R-value test to verify the design assumption. Alternatively, the City/County may require that a minimum code pavement section be used if a specific R-value test is not performed. To use this assumed R-value, all fill added to the site must have pavement support characteristics at least equivalent to the existing soils, and must be placed and compacted in accordance with the enclosed guide specifications. Due to the potential for the presence of fill and the presence of possible fill soils on this site, some overexcavation may be necessary throughout the parking lot areas and should be anticipated and included in the project budget. ' b) Asphalt Pavements The following table is presented indicating the recommended thicknesses for a flexible pavement structure for asphaltic concrete over a granular base along with the appropriate CALTRANS specifications to ensure proper materials and placement procedures. Due to the presence of possible fill soils, some periodic maintenance of flexible asphalt pavements may be required due to the potential for variability in support characteristics. Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 Page 13 PAVEMENT SECTION CALTRANS Materials Thickness (inches) Specifications Asphaltic Concrete 1 (b) Section 39, (a) Surface Course Asphaltic Concrete U (b) Section 39, (a) Binder Course Crushed Aggregate 6 Section 26, Class 2 Base Course (R-value greater than 78) NOTES: (a) Compaction to density between 95 and 100 percent of the 50-Blow Marshall Density (b) The surface and binder course may be combined as a single layer placed in one lift if similar materials are utilized. Pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring and are based on CALTRANS design parameters for a ten year design period. It is recommended that the subgrade preparation be evaluated by the soils consultant prior to asphalt placement. c) Concrete Pavements A concrete pad, typically about 10 by 30 feet in dimension, is recommended in the loading area in front of the trash enclosure due to the heavy impact loads developed by trash removal equipment in this area. Concrete pads are also recommended in all areas subjected to relatively high vehicular stresses such as the entrances and exits to the parking lot. The concrete pads should typically consist of 6-inch thick properly reinforced slabs over a 4-to 6-inch thick layer of coarse granular material and properly prepared subgrade. Materials and construction procedures for concrete pavements should be in accordance with Section 40 of the CALTRANS Specifications. Construction and Other Design Considerations The long-term water table was considered to exist below the maximum depth explored of 15± feet at the time of exploration which is Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 Page 14 considered to be below the depths planned for construction excavations. Storm or irrigation water may, however, become trapped at shallow depths. If water is encountered, filtered sump pumps placed in the bottoms of excavations or other conventional dewatering methods are anticipated to be adequate with the anticipated excavations. Excavation bank stability problems may be encountered within the near surface predominantly granular soils. Sloping excavation walls or widening excavations in anticipation of caving may be required to mitigate the instability effects. Development of the proposed site entails some soil and foundation oriented problems especially with respect to the presence of possible fill soils, the nature of the existing development and presence of an existing structure in the proposed building area. Recommendations presented in this report are predicated upon site preparation, foundation, floor slab, and pavement construction monitoring and testing performed by GEA, GENERAL COMMENTS Soils samples obtained during the subsurface exploration will be retained for a period of 30 days. If no instructions are received, they will be disposed of at that time. This report has been prepared to for the exclusive use of Southgate Associates, Inc, to aid evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the structural design. This report should not be reproduced or distributed in any manner without prior approval from Southgate Associates, Inc. and GEA. It is intended for use with regard to the specific project discussed herein and any substantial changes in the building, loads, locations, or assumed grades should be brought to the attention of Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. (GEA) so that a determination of how such changes affect these conclusions and recommendations can be made. Analysis of this site was based on a subsoil profile interpolated from a limited subsurface exploration. If the actual conditions encountered during construction vary from those indicated by the borings, GEA must be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the enclosed recommendations. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice in the field of geotechnical engineering. APPENDIX The boring logs and related informa- tion enclosed in the appendix depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations drilled and at the particular times designated on the logs. Soii conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these lx>ring locations. Aiso the passage of time may resuit in a change in the soil conditions at the lx)ring locations drilled. GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUBGRADE AND GRADE PREPARATION FOR RLL FOUNDATION, FLOOR SLAB AND PAVEMENT SUPPORT; AND SELECTION, PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF FILL SOILS x-s ^ USING MODIFIED PROCTOR PROCEDURES OiLGS OnGiri€GRinG f lSSOCIW€S. IflC 1. Construction monitoring and testing of subgrades and grades for fill, foundation, floor slab and pavement; and fill selection, placement and compaction shall be performed by an experienced soils engineer and/or his representatives. 2. All compacted fill, subgrades and grades shall be and/or consist of (a) underlain by suitable bearing material, (b) free of all organic, frozen, or other deleterious material; and (c) observed, tested and approved by qualified engineering personnel representing an experienced soils engineer. Preparation of subgrades after stripping vegeta- tion, organic or other unsuitable materials shall consist of (a) proofrolling to detect soft, wet, yielding soils or other unstable materials that must be undercut;, (b) scarifying top 6 to 8 inches; (c) moisture conditioning the soils as required; and (d) recompaction to same minimum in-situ density required for similar materials indicated under Item 5. Note: Compaction requirements for pavement subgrade are higher than other areas. Weather and construction equipment may damage compacted fill surface and reworking and retesting may be necessary to assure proper performance. 3. In over-excavation and fill areas, the compacted fill must extend (a) a minimum lateral distance beyond the exterior edge of the foundation or pavement of 1 foot at grade and down to compacted fill subgrade on a max- imum 0.5(H):1(V) slope; (b) 1 foot above footing grade outside the building; and (c) to floor subgrade inside the building. Fill shall be placed and compacted on a maximum 5(H):1{V) slope or must be stepped or benched as required to flatten if not specifically approved by qualified personnel under the direction of an experienced soils engineer. 4. The compacted fill materials shall be free of deleterious, organic or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in the material being classified as "contaminated", and shall be non-expansive with an Expansion Index (El) less than 30, as determined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard Test 29-2, unless specifically ap- proved by an experienced soils engineer. The top 12 inches of compacted fill should have a maximum 3 inch parti- cle diameter and all underlying compacted fill a maximum 6 inch diameter unless specifically approved by an ex- perienced soils engineer. All fill material must be tested and approved under the direction of an experienced soils engineer prior to placement. If the fill is to provide non-frost susceptible characteristics, it must be classified as a clean GW, GP, SW or SP as defined by the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487). 5. For structural fill depths less than 8 feet, the density of the structural compacted fill and scarified subgrade and grades shall not be less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by Modified Proctor (ASTM D-1557) with the exception of the top 12 inches of pavement subgrade which shall have a minimum in-situ density of 95 percent of maximum dry density, or 5 percent higher than underlying structural fill materials. Where the structural fill depth is greater than 8 feet, the portion below 8 feet should have a minimum in-place density of 95 percent of its maximum dry density or 5 percent higher than the top 8 feet. Moisture contents of cohesive soil shall not vary by more than -1 to +3 percent and granular soil ±3 percent of optimum when placed and compacted or recompacted, unless specifically recommended/approved by the soils engineer monitoring the place- ment and compaction. Fill shall be placed in layers with a maximum loose thickness of 8 inches for foundations and 10 inches for floor slabs and pavements, unless specifically approved by the soils engineer taking into con- sideration the type of materials and compaction equipment being used. The compaction equipment should con- sist of suitable mechanical equipment specifically designed for soil compaction. Bulldozers or similar tracked vehicles are typically not suitable for compaction. 6. Excavation, filling, and subgrade and grade preparation shall be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation, springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable working platform. Springs or water seepage encountered during grading/foundation construction must be called to the soil engineer's attention immediately for possible construc- tion procedure revision or inclusion of an underdrain system. 7. Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along building walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls (i.e. basement walls and retaining walls) must be properly tested and approved by an experienced soils engineer with consideration for the lateral pressure used in the wall design. 8. Wherever, in the opinion of the soils consultant or other Owner's Representatives, an unstable condition is being created either by cutting or filling, the work shall not proceed into that area until an appropriate geotechnical exploration and analysis has been performed and the grading plan revised, if found necessary. Copyright: January 1989, Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. GEA974/kam/CA (Specifications) Note: Dimensions indicate approximate method of locating test-borings in the field with respect to apparaent property lines. u (U re 41' u w to c •H TJ M td US 21' N (Reference) Scale: 1"=30' Existing Structure Q Benchmark: Base of Light Pole at Ground Surface; Assumed El. 100.0 ELM AVENUE FIGURE 1 BORING LOCATION PLAN Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart Carlsbad, California GEA Project No. C-901114 SSOCIW€S. IMC. GeoTGCHriioiL G€o-GrNii?onM€riT4L GGO-HVDROLOGIOII 4nD ConsTRuaion M/TTGW/IL^ Corf<?uiT/iriT<? ^2^ RECORD OF SUBSUR EXPLORATION BORING NO. GEA PROJECT NO. 1 (NW Building Corner) C-901114 DATE 12-12-90 FIELD REPRESENTATIVE Rich Koester PROJECT Proposed AMVPM Mini-Mart NEC Elm Avenue and Harding Street Carlsbad, California l^nanccAiriG #181 Boring No. 1 GuGS GnanccAiriG issociwes. MIC. GGOTGCHMICI^L. G€0-GrivjiBorin€riML. G€0-HVDPOLOGIC/IL ftm Con<;ma\on \^ftmm COM<;ULM«T<; DESCRIPTION Ground Surface Elevation 100.4± Depth Below Surface Sample No. & Type N qu q. w REMARKS NOTE A TJrangish Brown Silty tine Sand,littl Clay,,few Dark Brown Silt lenses- JismE (ZaaaJbUJlJi) 1-AU 2-SS Orangish Brown Silty fine Sand, little Clay-Damp with layers of Grayish Brown fine Sand, little Silt at 7'-Damp 5' 3-SS 4-SS 10' 5-SS 26 14 15 27 8 8 7 12 NOTE C _ *- NOTE B 15' 6-SS 38 16 Boring Tenninated at 15' NOTE A: 2i"± Asphaltic Concrete over Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, some Clay- Moist (Possible Fill) NOTE B: Light Grayish Brown Clayey Silt-Damp NOTE C: Expansion Index (EI) test performed per UBC Standard No. 29.2 EI = 2 (very low) * Caved and Dry to 6± feet at Completion V Water encountered at ft. while drilling V Water at ft. at completion T Water at ft. after hours Changes of strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between boring locations. Dashed lines shouid be interpreted as more approximate than solid lines. RECORD OF SUBSURF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 2 CSE Building Con 1 GEA PROJECT NO. aer) \ C-901114 DATE 12-12-90 FIELD REPRESENTATIVE R. Koe.qter PROJECT Prr)pn.«5efi AM-PM Mini-Mart NEC Elm Avenue and Harding Street Carlsbad. California QC GiLCs CncinGGRinc (^"""^ssociwes.inc. GGOTGCHnOL. Geo GnvjIPOMMGriT/ll. Geo HvDPOLCXjOl Am Cori<rrpuaion M/Trrpwi*; Cori<;uiMnr; DESCRIPTION Ground Surface Elevation 102.0± Depth Below Surface Sample No. & Type N qu q. W REMARKS 1 NOTE A r Brown to Dark Orange Brown Silty fine Sand-Damp (Possible Fill) Orange Brown Silty fine Sand, little Clay, few Black Silty fine Sand lenses-Damp Orange Brown Silty fine Sand, little Clay and fine Sand seams-Damp Light Gray Brown fine to medium Sandy Silt, trace Clay-very moist Boring Terminated at 14i' due to sampler refusal within dense soils NOTE A: 1 3/4" Asphaltic Concrete 3"± Base Course: Brown fine Sand, little coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel-Damp * Caved and Dry to 4i± feet at Completion V Water encountered at . Jt. while drilling V Water at T Water at -ft. at completion .ft. after hours 5' 10' 15' - 20' - 25' - 30' - 35' - 40' - 45' - l-AII 2-SS 3-SS - 4-SS 5-SS 5 23 23 26 50/3" 6 9 9 12 16 Changes of strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between boring locations. Dashed lines should be interpreted as more approximate than solid lines. RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION #179 BORING NO. 3fNE Parklnff Area) GEA PROJECT NO. C-901114 DATE 12-12-90 FIELD REPRESENTATIVE R. Koester PROJECT Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart NEC Elm Avenue and Harding Street Carlsbad, California G.CS R ssociM€s. inc. GeoTGCHMic^L. Geo-GnvjiROMneriML. G€O-HVDROLOGIC/»L DESCRIPTION Ground Surface Elevation 100.71 Depth Below Surface Sample No. a Type N qu q. w REMARKS NOTE A NOTE B 1-AU 2-SS NOTE C 5' 3-SS 20 16 Boring Terminated at 5' NOTE A: NOTE B: NOTE C: 3i"± Asphaltic Concrete over Dark Brown Silty fine Sand-Damp (Possible Fill) Dark Orange Brown Silty fine Sand, little Clay, few Black stained (Possible Fill) fine Sandy Silt lenses-Damp Orange Brown Silty fine Sand, little Clay and Yellow Brown fine Sand lenses-Damp * Caved and Dry to 3i± feet at Completion V Water encountered at ft. while drilling V Water at ft. at completion - T Water at ft. after hours Changes of strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between boring tocations. Dashed lines should be Interpreted as more approximate than solid lines. RRCE E RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION BORING NO. 4(SW Parking Area) GEA PROJECT NO. C-901114 DATE 12-12-90 FIELD REPRESENTATIVE R. Koester PROJECT Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart NEC Elm Avenue and Harding Street Carlsbad, California #179 ssociw€s. inc. GeoTGCHfiic^L. Geo-GrivjiRonncnML. GGO-HYDROLOGIOIL Am COM^TRUaiOM n^lTGPWL? COM^ULMnT? DESCRIPTION Ground Surface Elevation 102.01 Depth Below Surface Sample No. & Type N qu q. w REMARKS .2i"l Asphaltic concrete over Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, trace Clay and coarse Sand-DamP (Possible Fill) l-AU - 2-SS NOTE A 5' 3-SS 21 Boring Terminated at 5' NOTE A: Orange Brown Silty fine Sand, little Clay, few Light Brown fine Sand lenses- Damp -* Caved and Dry to 3i± feet at Completion V Water encountered at ft. while drilling V Water at ft. at completion T Water at ft. after hours Changes of strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between boring locations. Dashed lines should be interpreted as more approximate than solid lines. RECORD OF SUBSUR W9!CEE EXPLORATION #179 BORING NO. DATE 5(S, Parl^ins Area) 12-12-9Q GEA PROJECT NO. C-901114 FIELD REPRESENTATIVE R. Koester PROJECT Proposed AM-PM Mini-Mart NEC Elm Avenue and Harding Street Carlsbad, California QC Gaa GnaU^ ^^ssociM€s. inc. GeoTGCHtiiG^L. Geo-GMMiRorinGriML. GGO-HYDROLOGIOIL Am Cofi^TRuaiOM M/UGCWL? COM^ULMMK DESCRIPTION Ground Surface Elevation 100.71 Depth Below Surface Sample No. & Type N qu q. W REMARKS NOTE A 1-AU Dark Orange Brown Silty fine Sand- Damp 2-SS Orange Brown Silty fine Sand, little Clav-Damp 5' 3-SS 25 21 Boring Terminated at 5' NOTE A: 3i"l Asphaltic Concrete over Brown fine Sand, little coarse Sand and Silt-Damp (FILL) " * Caved and Dry at 3ii feet at Completion V Water encountered at ft. while drilling - V Water at - T Water at ft. at completion tt. after hours Changes of strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between boring locations. Dashed lines should be interpreted as more approximate than solid lines. fz^^ GENERAL NOTES SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION Giles GncinceniMC SSOCIMGS Ific AH sample classifications in general accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487-75 or D-2488-75) DESCRIPTIVE TERM {% BY DRY WEIGHT) PARTICLE SIZE (DIAMETER) Trace: Little: Some: And/Adjective 1-10% 11-20% 21-35% 36-50% Boulders: Cobbles: Gravel: Sand: Silt: Clay: 8 in and larger 3 in to 8 In coarse- 3/4 to 3 in fine- No. 4 (4.76mn) to 3/4 in coarse- No. 4 (4.76nm) to No. 10 (2.Ona) medium- No. 10 (2.0mm) to No. 40 (0.42mm) fine- No. 40 (0.42mm) to No. 200 (0.074nm) No. 200 (0.074mm) and smaller (Non-plastic) No. 200 (0.074mm) and smaller (Plastic) DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS SS: Split-Spoon Shelby Tube - 3" O.D. (except where noted) 3" O.D. Califomia Ring Saiqpler Dynamic Cone Penetrometer per ASTM Spl. Tech. Pub. No. 399 Auger Saa^le DB: Diamond Bit CB: Carbide Bit HS: Hash Saiit>le RB: Rock-Roller Bit BS: Bag Sample Note: Depth intervals for sampling shown are not indicative of sample recovery, but position where stomping initiated. SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS Dd: Dry Density, pcf LL: Liquid Limit, percent PL: Plastic Limit, percent PI: Plasticity Index (LL-PL) L0I:Loss on Ignition percent Gs:Specific Gravity K:Coefficlent of Permeability w:Moisture Content, percent gp: Calibrated Penetrometer Resistance, tsf qs: Vane-Shear Strength, tsf qu: Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf qc: Static Cone Penetrometer Strength correlated to qu (Unconfined Compressive Strength) value, tsf PID:Results of vapor analysis conducted on representative samples utilizing a Photoionization Detector equipped with a 10.2 eV laap calibrated to benzene reported as parts per million. (ND-Not Detectable) N: Penetration Resistance per foot or fraction thereof for standard 2 Inch O.D., 1 3/8 inch I.D.,split spoon seuapler driven with a 140 pound weight free-falling 30 inches, in accordance with Standard Penetration Test Specifications (ASTM D-1586) Nc: Penetration Resistemce per 1 3/4 inches of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer approximately equlvelent to Standard Penetration Test N-Value. Nr: Penetration Resistance per foot or fraction thereof for California Ring Sampler driven with a 140 pound weight free-falling 30 inches per ASTM D-3550-84, not equlvelent to Standard Penetration Test N-Value. \/ \^ ^[_: Apparent groundwater level at the time noted after completion XX or XXX: Depth to which boring caved during water level readings SOIL STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS COMPARATIVE COHESIVE (CLAYEY) SOILS UNCONFINED BLOHS PER COMPRESSIVE NON-COHESIVE (GRANULAR) SOILS RELATIVE BLOHS PER CONSISTENCY FOOT (N) STRENGTH (TSF) DQJSITY FOOT (N) Very Soft 0-2 0 - 0.25 Very Loose 0-4 Soft 3-4 0.25 - 0.50 Loose 5-10 Medium Stiff 5-8 0.50 - 1.00 Firm 11-30 Stiff 9-15 1.00 - 2.00 Dense 31-50 Very Stiff 16-30 2.00 - 4.00 Very Dense 51+ Hard 31+ 4.00+ DEGREE OF DEGREE OF PLASTICITY PI EXPANSIVE POTENTIAL PI None to Slight 0-4 Low 0-15 Slight 5-10 Medium 15-25 Medium 11-30 High 25+ High to Very High 31+ C£A446/Kah CASE NO. (^? DATE: S'-n-'il ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (To be Completed by APPLICANT) Applicant: Desert Petroleum, Inc, Address of Applicant: P.O. Box 1601, Oxnard, CA 93032 Phone Number: ( 805 ) 644-6784 Name, address and phone number of person to be contacted (if other than Applicant): Robert Morris (805) 644-6784 GENERAL INFORMATION: (Please be specific) Project Description: Project Location/Address: 920 Elm Street, Carlsbad. CA 92008 Project Location/Address: Assessor Parcel Number: 203 - 355 - 05 00 General Plan/Zone of Subject Property: Local Facilities Management Zone: Is the site within Carlsbad's Coastal Zone? Please describe the area surrounding the site to the North: East: South: West: List all other applicable permits & approvals related to this project (Please be Specifier^ Attach Additional Pages or Exhibits, if necessary) 1. Please describe the project site, including distinguishing natural and manmade characteristics. Also provide precise slope analysis when a slope of 15' or higher and 15% grade or greater is present on the site. 2. Please describe energy conservation measures incorporated into the design and/or operation of the project. 3. PLEASE ATTACH A PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET WHICH SHOWS THE FOLLOWING: a. If a residential project identify the number of units, type of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected, average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates). b. If a commercial project, indicate the exact type, activity(ies), square footage of sales area, average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates), parking provided, and loading facilities. c. If an industrial project, indicate the exact type or industry(ies), average daily traffic generation (latest SANDAG rates), estimate<j employment per shift, time of shifts, and loading facilities. d. If an institutional project, indicate the major project/site function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. I. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Please Answer each of the following questions by placing a check in the appropriate space. Then, fully discuss and explain why each item was checked yes or no. Provide supporting data if applicable. Attach additional sheets as necessary. YES NO 1) Could the project significantly impact or change present or future land uses in the vicinity of the activity? x_ EXPLANATION: 2) Could the activity affect the use of a recreational area, or area of aesthetic value? x_ EXPLANATION; 3) Could the activity affect the functioning of an established community or neighborhood? ^ EXPLANATION: 4) Could the activity result in the displacement of community residents? ]L EXPLANATION: YES NO 5) Could the activity increase the number of low and moderate cost housing units in the city? L EXPLANATION: 6) Could the activity significantly affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? ^ EXPLANATION: 7) Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity area unique, that is, not found in other parts of the county, state or nation? L EXPLANATION: 8) Could the activity significantly affect an historical or archaeological site or its settings? L EXPLANATION: 9) Could the activity significantly affect the potential use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural resource? EXPLANATION: YES NO 10) Could the activity significantly affect fish, wildlife or plant resources? x_ EXPLANATION: 11) Are there any rare or endangered plant or animal species in the activity area? x_ EXPLANATION: 12) Could the activity change existing features of any of the city's stream, lagoons, bays, tidelands or beaches? EXPLANATION: 13) Could the activity result in the erosion or elimin- ation of agricultural lands? ^ EXPLANATION: 14) Could the activity serve to encourage development of presently undeveloped areas or intensify develop- ment of already developed areas? ^ EXPLANATION: YES NQ 15) Will the activity require a variance from estab- lished environmental standards (air, water, noise, etc.)? x_ EXPLANATION: 16) Is the activity carried out as part of a larger project or series of projects? x_ EXPLANATION: 17) Will the activity require certification, authoriza- tion or issuance of a permit by any local, state or federal environmental control agency? EXPLANATION: Building, Fire, APCD, Health 18) Will the activity require issuance of a variance or conditional use permit by the City? x_ EXPLANATION: 19) Will the activity involve the application, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? EXPLANATION: YES NO 20) Will the activity involve construction of facilities in a flood plain? x_ EXPLANATION: 21) Will the activity involve construction of facilities in the area of an active fault? x EXPLANATION: 22) Could the activity result in the generation of significant amounts of dust? EXPLANATION: 23) Will the activity involve the burning of brush, trees, or other materials? ^ EXPLANATION: 24) Could the activity result in a significant change in the quality of any portion of the region's air or water resources? (Should note surface, ground water, off-shore.) L EXPLANATION: YES NO 25) Will the project substantially increase fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)? EXPLANATION: 26) Will the activity involve construction of facilities on a slope of 25 percent or greater? x_ EXPLANATION: 27) Will there be a significant change to existing land form? (a) Indicate estimated grading to be done in cubic yards: . (b) Percentage of alteration to the present land form: . (c) Maximum height of cut or fill slopes: EXPLANATION: 28) Will the activity result in substantial increases in the use of utilities, sewers, drains or streets? ^ EXPLANATION: (D YES NO 29) Will the project significantly increase wind or water erosion of soils? EXPLANATION: 30) Could the project significantly affect existing fish or wildlife habitat? x EXPLANATION 31) Will the project significantly produce new light or glare? x_ EXPLANATION: 10 f II. STATEMENT OF NON-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRQNMENTAL EFFECTS If you have answered yes to any of the questions in Section I but think the activity will have no significant environmental effects, indicate your reasons below: III. COMMENTS OR ELABORATIONS TQ ANY QF THE QUESTIONS IN SECTION I (If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach additional sheets as needed.) Signature (Person Completing Report) Date Signed ^//^/ 11