The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2261 COSMOS CT; BLDG A; 81-138; Permit1 hereby affirm that there isding agency for the performawhich this permit is issued (Sea constructionnee of the worksc 3097, Civil CoQ- — 5"3.0 S CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCYNOTICE TO APPLICANT If, aftificate of Exemption you shoto the Workers CompensatioLabor Code you must forthwilprovisions or this permit shallter making this 1uld become subn provisions of:h comply with sbe deemed revolS c — -5 ij&Sjl5 person in any manner so as tcthe Workers Compensation Lt become subjecaws of Callfornio 0a-tfi•oCD3WCflCflIUl.hall not employ(U<CERTIFICATE OF EXEMWORKERS COMPENSATK(This sertion need ncrt be vmit is for one hundred dollars1 certify that in the perform*ompteAed ii the i($100) or less)inceof the work— ao 2 PTION FROMDN INSURANCEI -'Certified copy is hereby funCflCDQ.HCopy is filed with the cityCOMPANYsent to self insure or a certCompensation Insurance ofthereof (Sec 3800 Labor CodiPOLICY NO•2- ^.to o01s«3 o5 <ttfO 3?-O CD3 »WORKERS COMPENSATIOI1 hereby affirm that 1 have iN DECLARATIO> certificate of c0 Z3 W 31 O q r"»» * i 1aliE2;- <D ^- = e<» » 3 g o_55 -a r-i o olliCD ~S3|21s5igS°»»;gs|oS?o5^.r=;• = = o "^ INSPECTION VALIDATE* nm31o,•nOn;UPANCY ISSUED| GASMETER-F'ERM-TEMP - „ELEC ME~f E"R-•PERM-TEMP. '[OTHER DEPT1S REQ COMPLETED• '- i" n;0lDa1crin•>T3]13311 DZ f „I SHOWN <' FRAME• FENCE PREPLASTEE T)31mamn7.inI3Or• STEEL BONDING,' . OinHrr f SEWER' •• '-1 TEMP POWEFR (POLE)' , - '• ' ,-, •'1,1* ^.| OTHER' / ,,-I PLATE TIES/HEIGHT OF'CHIMNEY* '•• <••* \ DAMPER as~—immt*^!1'. I 1 FIREPLACE,i''~ ', 1 **' ''• / f I ;;'•1 EXTERIOR LATH' OK.« PLACE STUnn0 , 7 WALLBOARDi- OK'.» PLACE..TAPE..tj' _, "1 INSULATIONOK • PLACE WALLBO,5o 1 FRAME OK •PLACE INSULATIONROUGH HEA'riNG/VENTILATING1 ROUGH PLUrmO | ROUGH ELEiCTRICAL'FRAME'' ' "* C VI OHOTI0c31: CONCRETE^1"**\,'^ /" ' , i. *" "FOOTING . FORMS • SETBACK • TOrH(^,..- '\ • .'\ UNDER SLAE1 PLUMBINGV 'ISLAB FLOOR!/ - , OH0ZrinCm-n83)| UNDER FLOCDR HEATINGUNDER FLOCDR PLUMBINGi *• ' k c\ FOUNDATIOr-1 • FORMS • SET BACKHgrmH•• S ^ Cn ff J J «l ) I ** ( J. f >r •y \\ WOOD FLOOR^^4 s*> }If*Jr* L^> LJ? A>/ 1 ^ r -* i ) j••^/*s-£3 •••"? D INSPECTIONDHm—1mo-i0 z Dmn-io3D tn Z0-1 R , J ,*..,-*^'<•-;---nm Io, z mn' H O 3Dmn,0 70o 1 '• : » ,SITEADDRESS03> m . T3 3. H ZO • DECLARATIONSLENDERWORKER'S COMPENSATION OWNER/BUILDER CONTRACTORQ I hereby affirm that there is a conlending agency 'or the performance o' thewhich this permit is issued (Sec 3097 Civi°a s*§!!? s£U Sfigfl-lfl ;fg° HPI,o 1,3 £S;3 o^cjMiH !f!i IIPo .. r 9 <-. a* 5 •< X » m .in -. S't')3re sr ^:*H ifli i:i?s "5U Ihis Certiubiect lohe Laborth suchrevokedandfull1 hevisiontionProfforcefessions Codand effectby affirm that 1 am licensed underof Chapter 9 (commencing with000) of Division 3 of the Businessor1!iiS =ilm ^x *H 3:3cccr3£3 ( ( (( Cf( (r t 1 DD TJXozm D ^ "\ -k <s \ISTRUCTION WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT 1 ALSO AGREE TO SAVE INDEMrKEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES JUDGMENTS CC^^11 en -< ^ »r z znoo •oT} ^ zH W Q ? C2)m * ^ So zm3)n oozHX>o \gIk -i^<o CD O m I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED APPLICATION AND PERMIT AND DO HEREBYCERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL INFORMATION HEREON INCLUDING THEDECLARATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT AND I FURTHER CERTIFY AND AGREE IF A PERMIT ISISSUED TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY COUNTY AND STATE LAWS GOVERNING BUILDING CONCTOB C ° [I|?fl°s?|s^;S ft ? wo 21 I»Ssl fill!^(D *» » -*?o=S5 I*°SS *5SS"O^9 CL-< JB|D-3 - C 5 * *"5?8a> S?S3S !'*§!§?!•:§Q. 10 -j Q O?I!Hiii:i Mfff ^i"!HMI ?Q.O° "&SS^sill *(/I «• > a°z 8s5oof 5m5acffi Solz*ss§§5SC 332 §> O<",? 3 — to— Hmmc-n — to— i C/5O 33 0 >r~ ~nmmC/3 TJ> > DD |-m N M vjl —\m0nc:~Q0Co0CO o33fO0CO —imS-D-DCDm1*00o>S,-oCO ! IDm5O0mr—>•Hm33-Qm33n35na—t oxm 0 m coaj S0) o0 -DXCOT3X c: T3 CO O CDIO o" mXCO—1CD0CDm>>2-QC/3CC^33 Xto-o 3D Oo.^ co—io 33 >CDm m o CO o3J CTm — H c~>Qj 5fQ. ZmOZCOmSooc::35 Omr-mOXo>r—~Dm33<:HCm — • O i oo o—1o33 COo:Eo0r— "nm oto 33 O en O > 30 en cm CD ~D ZO CZ I Em O m >m c~> P mCO mm — <0>T)f—csCDZCD -H0 Sf— 5m 0 X>z n>r— ~n DDm CO5 •z.•X. m 33CO I CO—133 O•z.a S 0 o•z. moIEOO-n33COO 5t>—tm33COO— izm33 m>oX<^nCZcz3CO33m>^m33 mOZCO-H^>f—-Hm3J33m5331m33TJrn COor— 33 33mr—On>—i oz o-n m> cz 31Z >nm Xm >— Hm 33 sOCO m3:O ^m 533;*; tn Smn m X X>cCO Xoo0 0czn— \CO CD m o rn m Z -n 2 Z C7J m O CZ smOI>z 0 moXCOCOCO-Hmen033O33m sm— (J> -n 33m-o£Om mCD—1' 33 . <T> • > m>oXCD>COCO-<CO-HmS—tooG—I(—m— tCO c7 0 r—m33 oo13)mCOCOo 33 CO en X-D O— j -D c: CD CD * 1 J>oXs>—1sX5— jm33>zc033<.mZ-H COO f~ Oc 33mCOCO O 33 — ( O CO X T3 >S CD 31mO ^ ^ ii m>nXCOat—°ZCDCOmm33 O<m 33 O0oo0 CO CO o•z.s33 ^—1 m>OX~nI20>-D zen—1 f— -n 3? Z 0c 0—100 C.-a —10 c?0o00 CO c COc o^. CD S ID S D-ar-Sra•z.O-am33HV)<f>Cm D ^mOI>•z. O>r- TJm 3) S H O3C/3 Cm en S 2> 3J >Ooo zH •z. C S CDm 33 nmzc/>C(/)-tT>n-ioT)rZOCwm•D>D*Zayi-D>nm 31 en C Z HCrt n3]>O Z-< o D SX Z £ a ^ O3Crna >3)I mm D>m m D § z fn D ^ n Ho -<Z Tyj mH Onn rO 0 < Ta S z <n D jo (>4\^« « i D ^ 2 D TlrI mrm cn oz30mCO Onn 13 m 1 ? 5 ? 1 53- i 15*s. A^i\ 1 Omwo7)•a-t6zo-nOtv 3^" Omw OZ1 m H(/] >D 0Sm(/)w OmV) OZm a V) T)Iozm cc. i VC| 2^ 03 ^ r •~ rOHaran(/)cCOg<<°oz>•jienmenenO33 T3 3Omr" ZO \M t/i 3 r nm 1**. C/lH >Z 0it- >i" 3^ O ^J r* N. > CC z i * I2 8 - 11 : §Jm si^J 33of^v^ t fc. O3^i UA? \AIS /^S m M **oD1 ^t S|O^ tn ^ "Jh ^•^ \ sS. * 2l f T) f Z 0 03r C(Am o OOm |i1iCS {JvM i m I ; «& m VJ n *i 1 1 m im oCDNsNsiPiJi0 S skt}} H ^N o^V— > 1 m Ni- ^^. ^V Tk r * n N ^ CDC(/) zmCOw r omZc/)m tt \i 'ft N \ H CARLSBAD BUILDINC1200 Elm, Carlsbad, California 92008•^4*o 13a> B3JH mz H >TJ•o I 0 fio TJm31 2 White — Insoector Green — (1) Finance (2) Data Process, Yellow — Assessor Pink — Applicant ' Gold — Temoorarv File m00r—OZ-H•omZo00-oe/>X90O TJ-o1— 0 Z o T; r-r- Z Z-nO3D 1 O Z H Z I Om0 33m Z 0 os 30 5o CERT OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED\t\00TJmO—-)zjHD2/>§M^.N*$f»\v*><\*> j i BUILDING ^i/ ' , i1i 0CO;,•- t \ f J f , , mnzT> }ELECTRICAL(^^y i .•" ' f ^ '"' y •' i 'PLUMBING^^•-" * ^D» ^Jfc »^H i•n f•n iz c> <:— rr5«;rrOcrrrr— <Is5T:5:C>srrC' - i , _, ' ji * ."' • il 1 r-Oi 3]^> P^1 ^^' 0: 6i _j 3:i rtii 5r~) r-i) X> •*)ilti5^r^ i f • 'VENTILATING SYSTEMS..^» f HEAT — AIR COND — SOLARCOCO—\mCO•":','.^ocT31—mmTlZCD •Fc;ijr i! ! j Zn1E>2T>G F 1 - SMOKE DETECTO30 ' |BONDING^~~^ELECTRIC SERVICE\ROUGH ELECTRIC*ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND!•C(«!Hn^^OD>DDsD •ELECTRICALI OCOHmCOPILES-CAISSONSH00ZOCOI0m-oZ PLUMBING TOP OUTSPECIAL MASONR1PLUMBING UNDERGROUNDBOLTSi \ i ; On<<n3J^Car•--.CHIGH STRENGTHPLUMBINGFIELD WELDINGINTERIOR LATH & DRYWALIi POST TENSIONEDCONCRETEEXTERIOR LATH INSULATIONPRESTRESSEDCONCRETEFRAMESTRUCTURAL CONOVER 2000 PSIOum ~l 00 TI rm c> CH 3Z *ID rrrrZCc/aT3£<PIFOUNDATION INSPi>>)^>ijjii3>^: cD CH-t C) fri crGUNITE OR GROUTnDn3~jf\> 7 ^n • j MASONRYINSPECTIOZ O13]m m00 m TID _ •^ ~2. "D *"^"0 *^ 3) Q O _j > ^r~ ^ C/) O Hm ' *REINFORCED STEEL33m 0 _ 33ma CO ~Cm 0 > Z CO T)m OH OzCO zCO-amO H033 Z OHmCO TlDZD>HZ CrC<CFIELD INSPECTIo Z 3)m O' 3DD INSPECTION TYPEDI 111 niMno__Jm_z-omOO COF— .—1— —oex; ,, /i t i- ' t • DECLARATIONSLENDER130* ~ Ii= !I"WORKER'S COMPENSATION OWNER/BUILDER CONTRACTORI I I I :-iftj!f;rifia figfimsiHiiItltplffsjs t!|?fHiinfs!fjiffif&HiiHTjf »;s--»".»;3 ="» (D '•S3?'liliiUUs;!!_j5!8=_5t»3>S£fit! """ISTRUCTION WHElKEEP HARMLESSEXPENSES WHICHGRANTING OFTHIFHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT 1 ALSO AGREE TO SAVE INDEMNIFY ANDFHE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES JUDGMENTS COSTS ANDMAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THES PERMIT>TJT)r- O> 1 n O0 11 ^^. <j^V"v rn D ^ IssiE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED APPLICATION AND PERMITIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL INFORMATION HEREONARATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT AND 1 FURTHER CERTIFY AND AGRED TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY. COUNTY AND STATE LAWS GOVERNINSiiizSc -n00 5>CDo -D a oz m 5 -,- £i§3°^s•^ en m -<Expiration Every permit issued by the BulkCode shall expire by limitation and becomeauthorized by such permit is not commence!permit or if the building or work author)abandoned at any time alter the work is coning Official under thenull and void If thej within 180 days trorrzed by such permitnmenced for a periodprovisions of thisBuilding or workthe date of suchs suspended orof 1 80 days* AN OSHA PERMIT5 0 DEEP AND DESTRUCTURES OVES REQUIRED FOR EXCAVATIONS OVEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION OF=1 3 STORIES IN HEIGHTX TOTAL ElELTRICAL— 1O onc ID 1 TOTAL FEES PAYABLEUJ TEMP OCCUPANCY (30 DAYSIi om33O000 TEMPPOLE 200 AMPSi REMODEL/ALTER PER CIRCUITi oX ~n C/3 CJ o XX EXIST BLDG EA AMP/SWT/BKR-o 0 o inCDo OO o CT3•n m X-DX STORAGE TANKSCarlsbadNEW CONST E A AMP/SWT/BK RCOLLECTORSSCHOOL FEE DISTRICTDELECTRICAL PERMIHCm D SOLARC/5C/5cm PUBLIC FACiLBRIDGE FEETIES FEE| TOTAL PLUMBINGTOTAL MECHANICALm C/3 i —m OO ^1 5*STRONG MOTImOX3D§IDOO0m 00or— 33 WATER SOFTNEREACH VACUUM BREAKERi i RELOCATION OF EA FURNACE/HEATERMOBILEHOME PARK•z.GO MECH EXHAUST - HOOD/DUCTSMOBILEHOMEEACHINSTAI, ALTER REPAIR WATER PIPEEACH GAS SYSTEM 5 OR MOREi 1 i 00 z O m 0c: -H MEGHANo METAL FIREPLACEELECTRICALEACH GAS SYSTEM 1 TO 4 OUTLETSBOILER/COMPRESSOR 3 15 HPTOTAL PLUMBEACH WATER HEATER AND/OR VENTBOILER/COMPRESSOR UP TO 3 HPPLAN CHECKbo (S, "EACH BUILDING SEWER I0 m oo cr SIGN PERMITEACH FIXTURE TRAPzOO—1 r—r— -nc: 3 Z 0 O— \GO C.-a -H O O0 0o0 CO •H BUILDING PERMIToPLUMBZomHWwm D MECHANICAL PERMIT ISSUESUMMARY/ACCOUNT NUMBERCENSUS TRACTO•OC~ZOcVImPARKING SPACEmen C Z Hw GRADING PERMIT ISSUEDYD N OREDEVELOPMENTAREAyQ NDTYPECONSTO OO rO o a s z wa 3 \] '<;;<ij ! i i -C ""a ^ z D -nrI mrm NOSTORIESOno o mDc I ^*1 X uuu' ^ 3/,,/e;, '••;;;Not Valid Unless Machine CertifiedomenOTJHOzo-nS •^<v DESIGNER S ADDRESS1 DESIGNER S PHONEh , >. n. cr IT O-t1 BLOCKSUBDIVISIONASSESSOR PARCEL NO / """ ' "" -^+* is v ^^*v) *~ CV nv* r^ ir 3 I STANDARD PLAN #BUILDING SO FOOTAGEO0•X.CONTRACTOR S ADDRESS•%&3>(s fcuf^/AJ /?JO.o_v m •Dr Z 0 It BLDG USE CODE1OWNER S NAMEAri&S&C. £feJ&U>FW&4TOWNER S PHONEVj 0 H M^ v\CONTRACTORS PHONE «&0~&3&i8Zim O NI 0>IMSN 5\0oN! H t| JM CDC zm m i VALUATIONlM'*f&&.00PERMIT NUMBERJP/-/3FCARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPLICATION & PEF1200 Elm, Carlsbad, California 92008 (714)4385525H 00f—•ooz— 4m0BO•nm30O TJ T3r~ O Z o T] r-i- Z Z-nO i 5z H X z X 0mo am z 0 omo H OZ(ft White — Inspector Green — (1) Finance (2) Data Process, Yellow — Assessor Pink — Applicant Gold — Temporary File ' 1 CERT OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED'r\j\COTJmnr-O00H52yi~-vsfJl^.•\"^\ITSI ».*^k^A I i I i1 i BUILDING\0yj* j j ; j CD^C/} t ; " 1 KJ i : f 1 •f"'^ f f r f ' s.moi>z-)> / , t ELECTRICAL'•'* ,'* . r. 1 „•- j /- *r PLUMBINGI// -* .. - t ••D3D/)H•n•nz>i^ ^ f f •- * ' t 1 ! ii i ^§iac<;a«^rrsrr<itt3C^rrC 1 * 2o53i 5IS> r-i <i ^o; TJi 0: oi _j 3:i m> r~3 r~33 X) t3I i^^0£;.~irn ^ ''. ,' f VENTILATING SYSTEMS- ^ Im1560oza1COO33CO^COHmCO• •i ocoe»TJr-5 :^ F? i= Iz r i i gn•)C>ZT>CTVC7;rrCrrrrrc3C BONDINGii ii i ELECTRIC SERVICEROUGH ELECTRICELECTRIC UNDERGROUNDi "TEMPORARY POWERr1i 1! 1 ji !ELECTRICALCDtoHmto1 —mcrCAISSO N'.I, | I iCDZoCO1m33•uZ PLUMBING TOP OUTTJmOf—2OZ -•PLUMBING UNDERGROUND03OH | 1 1 i 1 i OnSn3JCar?iiSIRENG T1 •>1-13>9j35 ,PLUMBINGTlO5nDZ Ti ! | i | j INTERIOR LATH & DRYWAi—p—r> ~a00~z ^ri HTENSION I:RETEi nu :EXTERIOR LATH INSULATIOIzO "D0 33o""RESSEDRETE•FRAMEO trm ijD dro Oo -<0 C0 IDT! ></) r- O C Z C '-rr FLOOR & CEILING SUB FR,SHEATHING>5i»sm-n -0 cO Z> 'i o [?H<nOf0 =Z , C/5 *-o r r !i ! 1 i j N ?\ i CNr<>i V\ 8§ ! \ C f ^^ .^\^1 ^\\\ ^V / } 1 CDZHmO33CD33H/)o~iDi.a> 7~) r\ \ i >v h. 5 Jx > V ) iu ^ ! k ^ ^ ^\^L\, ^v N k'r \MASONRYINSPEClOZ o 133m m00 m -na _ •^ Z ~° T)~D m 9" >%in 0 Hm ^ \ ^^\ ^a V ^S. ^ ^1 I V JSI 1 ^^ Kj |,J l ^^a\/ ^REINFORCED STEEL3)mO 5mD a> TJm O ^I — —ZC/5 TlmO__j ov*'zen Zin 13mO HO D C/) .2 lO-Hm TlgzoH* CrCeC-nmr~OZenT3mOH Oz 33m ^33O INSPECTION TYPEDl III rtlMS?2_imzen•omoHO31 - * 1 1 Wyman Testing Laboratories 20165 QUESTHAVEN ROAD ESCONDIDO, CALIF 92025 (714) 744-0146 COVERING WORK PERFORMED WHICH REQUIRED APPROVAL BY THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR OF DREINFORCED CONCRETE DSTRUCT STEEL ASSEMBLY DPRE STRESSED CONCRETE DREINFORCED GYPSUM DGLUE-LAM FABRICATION QREINFORCED MASONRY DPILE DRIVING DOTHER JOB ADDRESS 2261 •&w-fe de-iar-f*Carlsbad FOR WEEK ENDING OWNER OR PROJECT NAME Andrex Devel. Co. BLDG PERMIT NO PLAN FILE NO CONSTR MAT L (TYPE GRADE, ETC )ARCHITECT Kowalski & Harding DESIGN STRENGTH SOURCE OR MFGR ENGINEER DESCRIBE MAT L (MIX DESIGN, RE-BAR GRADE & MFGR ) Mild Steel ASTM A36 GENERAL CONTRACTOR Knoll Co Reinforcin stl ASTM A61 CONTR DOING REPORTED WORK F.d Hawkins ¥e>"Idinp LAB RECEIVING & TESTINGtONSTR MAT L SAMPLES INSP'N DATE LOCATIONS OF WORK INSPECTED, TEST SAMPLES TAKEN, WORK REJECTED, JOB PROBLEMS, PROGRESS, REMARKS, ETC , Includes information about amounts of material placed or work performed, number, type, and identity numbers of test samples taken, structural connections (welds made, h t bolts torqued) checked, etc 2/2L/82 Inspected Joint preneration. fit-up and welding of tilt-u annel chord and tie connections . Welder was observed for proper proceediire and technique., dnmpl wp>~lds f*rvp pT»npAT» gn.go, "[pngT.h and ualit. All app.»l n Ho't'.Q'iT g anH tr\if*r\ T or**f~. OT\or>*i "PT e* Q*t" n r\r\ ts E iAR Z 5 198'^ CITY OF Deoartment CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE INSPECTED ALL OF THE ABOVE REPORTED WORK, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED I HAVE FOUND THIS WORK TO COMPLY WITH THE APPROVED PLANS SPECIFICATIONS, & APPLICABLESECTIONS OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO BUILDING LAWS SIGNATURlTjyF REGISTERED INSPECTOR ?/?L/fi2 GMW 121 DATE OF REPORT REGISTER NUMBER X, Wyman Testing Laboratories 20165 QUESTHAVEN ROAD ESCONDIDO, CALIF 92025 (714) 744-0146 COVERING WORK PERFORMED WHICH REQUIRED APPROVAL BY THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR OF DREINFORCED CONCRETE DPRE STRESSED CONCRETE DREINFORCED MASONRY DSTRUCT STEEL ASSEMBLY DREINFORCED GYPSUM DGLUE LAM FABRICATION DPILE DRIVING DOTHER JOB ADDRESS 2261 &c OWNER OR PROJECT NAME Andrex FOR WEEK ENDING BLDG PERMIT NO 81-138 PLAN FILE NO CONSTR MAT L (TYPE GRADE ETC )ARCHITECT & Harding DESIGN STRENGTH SOURCE OR MFGR ENGINEER DESCRIBE MAT U (MIX DESIGN, RE-BAR GRADE & MFGR ) ASTM A61S GENERAL. CONTRACTOR Roll Co. Electrodes £ 8018 B-2 CONTR DOING REPORTED WORK LAB RECEIVING*a TESTING CONSTR MAT L SAMPLES INSP'N DATE LOCATIONS OF WORK INSPECTED, TEST SAMPLES TAKEN, WORK REJECTED, JOB PROBLEMS, PROGRESS, REMARKS, ETC , Includes information about amounts of material placed or work performed, number, type, and identity numbers of test samples taken, structural connections (welds made, h t bolts torqued) checked, etc 2/2L tl amli/13/82 Inspected joint preparation, fit-up and welding of tilt-up pannel chord and tie connections. Welder was observed for proper proceedure and techniaue. Completed welds were inspected and found in accordance with approved pit specifications and atmlieable bn-iTriint? CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE INSPECTED ALL OF THE ABOVE REPORTED WORK, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED I HAVE FOUND THIS WORK TO COMPLY WITH THE APPROVED PLANS SPECIFICATIONS^ APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO BUILDING LAWS SIGNATURE OF R*EGIJ$TERED INSPECTOR U/13/82 DATE OF REPORT cm 123 REGISTER NUMBER REGISTERED INSPECTOR'S WEEKLY REPORT Construction Laboratories 4891 MERCURY STREET SAN DEIGO CA 921II '714! 292 9565 JOB NQ 309.12 COVERING WORK PERFORMED WHICH REQUIRED APPROVAL BY THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR OFF Q^ N^; / D REINFORCED CONCRETE D PRE-STRESSED CONCRETE P-^BNFORCED MASONRY (X) STRUCT STEEL ASSEMBLY D REINFORCED GYPSUM DGLUE-LAM FABRICATION D PILE DRIVING D OTHER ARLSBAD NO FOR WEEK ENDING MAY 1 ,82 OWNER OR PROJECT NAME ANDREX DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - OFFICES BLDG PERMIT NO 81-138 PLAN FILE NO CONSTR MAT L (TYPE GRADE ECT) A 36 COLUMNS, BEAMS AND SHAPES DESIGN STRENGTH ARCHITECT KOWALSKI HARDING & ASSOCIATES I SOURCE OR MFGR ENGINEER NAT. BACHO DESCRIBE MAT L I MIX DESIGN RE BAR GRADE & MFGR Line nln LN 22 Inner Shield 5/16 GENERAL CONTRACTOR ROLL CO Lincoln E7018-1/8 electrode CONTR DOING REPORTED WORK ARTIMEX IRON Generac 25-55 Welder LAB RECEIVING & TESTING CONSTR MAT t SAMPLES CONSTRUCTION LABORATORIES CONTRACT NO INSP'N DATE LOCATIONS OF WORK INSPECTED,TEST SAMPLES TAKEN, WORK REJECTED, JOB PROBLEMS, PROGRESS, REMARKS, ETC Includes information about-amounts of material placed or work performed, number, type, and identity numbers of test samples taken, structural connections (welds made, h t bolts torqued) checked, etc 4-28 4-29 Continually visually inspected the welding of beams to angle clips to beams per revisions dated 4/15/82 by (structural engineer). MAY 2 41982Welding was performed using innershield and E7018 rods. Weldments on Line 9 at Lines D2 , D and C. PITY OF PAR! ^1 Also Line C at Line 8 were completed. ^' j ' ^' ^^m1-01 Building Departme Continued the inspection above, Line 9 at Line F. Line C at Line 9, Line C at Line 4, Line C at Line 12. Replaced broken studs on beams 10K and 10H. Work was performed in an excellent professional manner. Certified Welders: Jose De La Torres #4752 Certified Welders: Jose Naranjo #4230 Certified Welders: Lorenzo Trujillo #3502 AD CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE INSPECTED ALL OF THE ABOVE REPORTED WORK, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED I HAVE FOUND THIS WORKTO COMPLY WITH THE APPROVED PLANS SPECIFICA- TIONS, & APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS SIGNATURE OF REGISTERED INSPECTOR •29-82 W 95 DATE OF REPORT REGISTER NUMBER \ ESGIL CORPORATION O32O CHESAPKAKK OR , Si:iTK 1X»:> SAN niKOO, CA OiiliiJl (T14-) fiOO-1 June 5, 1981 Kowalski, Harding and Associates 201? So. Avalon Boulevard, Suite 310 Carson, California 90?46 Subjects Recheck of Andrex Project, Yarrow Road, Carlsbad, California (Carlsbad Plan Check No. 81-138) Your response to the itemized corrections listed in our April 19, 1981 initial correction list, did not resolve the items due to the shell nature of the project. My telephone conversation to you on June 5 confirmed that you prefer to go forward with the "shell" construction and resolve the interior details as tenant improvements are planned. In view of that aspect, the plans will be acceptable if the following items are addressed: 1. Have the responsible design professionals legibly sign the plan and imprint their seal and license number. Structural should specifically sign and seal the "S" sheets unless a licensed architect desires to sign and seal. 2. Place the following information on the Cover sheet, in the space beneath "Development Co." and have the note signed. Note: APPROVED AS "SHELL" BUILDING ONLY a. The applicant hereby acknowledges that the plans do not reflect the presently unknown ultimate detailed configuration of the interior of the buildings regarding use, corridor location and construction, corridor exit facilities, light and ventilation for the occupants, other light- ing, mechanical, HVAC, electrical and plumbing systems, State energy conservation calculations and design items, interior accessibility to ,- second floor offices by the physically hand- icapped, compliance with City of Carlsbad 1. Policy No. 80-6 and other pertinent regulations. b. No use or occupancy of the buildings shall occur prior to obtaining all required plan checks, approvals and permits for tenant improvements. Applicant or Applicant's Agent We have transmitted all the plans and documents to the Carlsbad Building Department, in the event you wish to take care of the two items by inking the two sets of plans. You can contact Mr. Carter Darnell at (714) 438-5525. If you have any questions, please call Jim Gilshian at (714) 560-1468. Thank you, Esgil Corporation James Joseph Gilshian \eVice-President Encl: Carlsbad Policy 80-6 "Roof Mounted Equipment" cci City of Carlsbad (Mr. Darnell) JJG/jms 2. SSGIL CORPORATION PLAN PICK UP AND PLAN RETURN RSCSIPT Jurisdiction Of Date Delivered by ge (t«l /275m) Number of Plans Picked Up This Date Number of Plans Delivered This Date Plan Check ?Jos. Plans Picked Ur> This Date Plan Check Nos. Plans Delivered This Date &-/3S St-l/b W,t % \-t-a~t VoA- x\-)iofe,^ For Initial Plan Check Plan Approved / -~^ S ^CS ^ } For Recheck Corrections Required A/fs&V>5 "T/•fenis- &(. •^£3<d^lLJi — — ^ Comments \v j'tL vnail RomnT'lfc! Covag «.i«ST- RemariCJ/§IH1S M^^w^ ^T -NiyAfi-Cvilcl^; 'Us O 'VO 72?" — .» ^ >/ «*1 •J^'-' > -i ^ '7- /*l>1 f6i£rtfHT--£-H£,i) H"a, >VJ-Z ';*»&> ' s*a dd? /<i -.»^,,,-»— «— '•«.- -~—^a^f-- (C.-// f.t^-- /^S ~~f-zTTs& <"<• «..7t~- I Concurrence Jurisdiction Official by:.Date ESGIL CORPORATION 932O CHESAPEAKE DR., SVITE 122 Kowalski, Harding SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 S?f A o cj r\ f^ / ^f "i ^ 4_\ ss ft f~\ |. j t> ^j 2017 South Avalon Blvd., Suite 310 April Carson, Ca. 907^-6 COMMERCIAL PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Jurisdiction of Carlsbad Plan Check No. 81-138 Stories Owner Andrex Development Site Yarrow Dr. Area(s) See remarks Occupancy To be clarified Type Const. m-N Sprinklered Allowable Floor Area 9,000 Basis for Area Increase Unlimited, Sprinklers & 60' yards 7 Occupant Load To be clarified ( Remarks Areas: A @ 19,876 + 7,396 mezz ; B @ 63,632 + 21,533 mezz.; C @ 29,618. Date plans picked up/received by ESGIL Tu ^/1^ by R-E- Date first plan check completed by ESGIL Mo -V2%y J-G- Corrections checked below are to be made on plans before permit is issued. The approval of plans and specification does not permit the violation of any section of the Build- ing Code, or other City Ordinance or State Law. The follow- ing list does not necessarily include all errors and ommissions. See Sec. 303(c) of the 19?6 Uniform Building Code. Plans require correction as indicated by listed items below, before a building permit can be issued. Return this correction sheet with corrected plans. TO FACILITATE RECHECKING PLEASE IDENTIFY. NEXT TO EACH ITEM LISTED BELOW. THE SHEET OF THE PLANS UPON WHICH THE CORRECTION HAS BEEN MADE. 1. Return two sets of any plans or documents needed to clarify the listed items, and return any sets of original - plans that may have been returned to you by the City These corrections relate only to Building Department require- ments and other departments, such as Planning or Engineering , may have additional corrections. If you are not advised of to the status of the Planning or Engineering corrections, please call Mr. Carter Darnell at (?l4) ^38-5525- 2. The responsible design professional should sign the approp- riate sheets of the plans. 3. Per Table No. 5-A, U.B.C., please clarify on Sheet I of the plans the type of material to be stored in the warehouse to allow classifying occupancy as either H-2, H-3 or B-2 or B-4 (Sec. 501, U.B.C.). 4. Note on Sheet 1 of the plans, under use, ''Building Use and Occupancy is restricted to warehouse use only" 5. Plans and General Notes refer to "Industrial and Office Complex" and "Office Warehouse". Please modify to warehouse only or provide complete details and plans for offices. Otherwide plan check is predicated on no use except ware- house use 6. Assuming use is warehouse only (B-2, combustible storage), show calculations for light and ventilation to comply with Section 1105 and 605. Occupant load for warehouse use is 300 sq. ft. per occupant (Table 33-A, U.B.C.). A is 91; B is 28^4-j C is 99 ?. Provide notes to show compliance with Section 3303(a)(c); Section 3306 specify slope of handicapped ramps; Section 3312(b) where over 100 occupants. 8. A mezzanine cannot exceed 33 1/3 percent of the total 2. floor area in the room below or it becomes a story (Sec. '-1-14, U.B.C.). Building A and B appear to have stories, rather than mezzanines. 9. The stories (see above) have an occupant load greater than 10 and require two complying exits (Sec. 3302, par. 2). Show compliance as the mezzanines have occupant loads in excess of 10, when using 300 sq. ft. per occupant for warehouse use. 10. Provide toilets for both sexes and handicapped. Show details. (Sec. 1?11(a)(b ) (c ) (d ) and Sec. 1205, U.B.C ). 11. Provide details of the water service and drain, waste and vent piping (Sec. 20.6; U.P.C.) and anjf heating or cool- ing equipment, water heaters, etc. (Sec. 302(b) u.M.C.). 12. I.C.B.O. Research Report for Bristol Skylight-Smoke Vent- Louver (No. 2*4-69) may have expired. Please clarify. 13• Note on plans that smoke vents are to be tested prior to approval for occupancy (I.C.B 0. Research Report 2^69) 14. Sheet A-3 notes on floor plan "Shop-Warehouse". Please clarify word "Shop". 15. Show on Sections the Curtain Boards, and installation details, in Building B. (Sec. 3206(f) U.B.C ). 16. Show location and details, and structural adequacy, for guardrails on mezzanine edges. (Sec. I?l6, U.B.C.) 1?• Show a complying exit for the mezzanines (if you decrease their sjze to qualify). (Sec. 3302(a), par. 1). 18. Please submit revised plans and structural calculations ^as the storage mezzanine requires either a 125 Ibs per sq. ft. or 250 Ibs. per sq. ft. live load (Table 23-A; U.B.C.). The submitted design used office loading of only 50 Ibs. per sq. ft. fc 19. Note on each foundation plan "Prior to the contractor requesting a foundation inspection by the City the geotechnical consultant shall advise the Building Official, in writing, that the consultant has reviewed the site grading, subgrade preparation, foundation excavations and foundation plans and confirms that those items conform to the intent of the consultant's recommendations contained in the December 16, 1980 report from Woodward-Clyde Consult- ants to Andrex Development Company for Project No. 50332W- UD01". 20. Clarify the roof framing to be used in the north offset. Roofing, Plan A. 21. Sheet 7 of Plan A calculations shows 24' - unsupported wall height. SEAOC suggests 42 maximum h/t. What and where is your maximum h/t with the 6" wall9 22. Show on l/S-5; 7/S-5; 12/S-5 connections between plywood, trus - joists and related into ledger 23. Provide the approved I.C.B.O. "Trus-Joists" data referred to on plans. You mentioned you designed Plan A walls using "the latest method developed by SEAOC" for tiltup walls and said you enclosed the article. Apparently it was not enclosed. Please enclose. 25. Calculations by "CRG" for Plan A were received, as well as Iculations for Plan C by Victor Abe and Associates. alculations were received for Plan B Please submit heck was made, at this time, for Plan B, pending * eceiving calculations. If you have any questions please call Jim Gilshian at 560-1468. Esgil Corporation Jmnes Joseph Gilshian Vice President V Date; Prepared by i CARLSBAD VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE Bidp. Dept, Finance PLAN CHECK NO. Ol-\ti» BUILDING ADDRESS ^ 'fllZtt^UJ \),e,C^ ^l^s") APPLICANT/CONTACT P^!>|2ex. DiV 6>,e^ PHONE NO. 2- | 3 - <*+ S~O - *+ 2>2. O BUILDING OCCUPANCY t-2. t*} TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION JUT- KJ BUILDING PORTION O. I (*)/ L(T/ w»j-Ayi f\ c,?rz.»iuv:ure- ^Lw^W ^^) ^ [}/ j ^ 1^*1 1"* V. V^ •* * ^^r ^ 12«j c~*v' ^^ Air Conditioning Commercial Residential Fire Sprinklers Total Value -Tn.T-u»? BUILDING AREA "P^fgj^ "^€"27 < tQ on/ _L n^G1/ * fflflf) fl\\iQi(0\ (Q \v) L\ L ( ^ ^-PC, (o*>(Afa')_l'5rft'-l&\^ MC.S 21 6 IS* to<u?( DESIGNER PHONE Z. I 3- - ^ 3Z 38 "7<5 CONTRACTOR VALUATION MULTIPLIER \4--2 Z,6"^ \^,QO IK1? I if. OO *9 i Q ^.u. i 0 ^ 2.85 2.^0 1.30 PHONE I^-T.'U S1- VALUE 3*01^0^/ ^ — -^-*- — l^— ^- — ^ 11 ^£3$ /7(t«/]2o l^'b S'o'?^ flfto1?^ *t>y-u^ i «V^oc*31 — ( i ?<y\'Cb SZl^' 631^ I8a3oj? ^37,°° r^noO llW1? S%^5 — * — 5SO tS^L t3d^ qt'fiJs \to/irt j — Buildins PermJ.t Fee ID/IS K)^J-) F^CJ^Plan Ch^ck F^e ?,/^y Account No. 65-638-0519 (80?'- of plan check fee) \<&?f\ Account No. 01-000-U80? (20^ of plan check fee) M"^ ''° ' C OMM EN TS i ..-•v^t\ ^/\<<? "YTIgU^ V^P gl- ESQII, CORPORATION SAN DIK<>O. C-A t>;tiv!: ) r><io-i PLAN uitcK OWNER DATE REC'D /72V J DATE CHECKED CHECKED BY -to tfrtfi-. V£? ffiiL*/*. -Pi' <?r)/c/ Lx'i - /•/ 'e^.<SJ^i. sy APPLICANT CITY PLAN CHECXEf KSCill- CORPORATION s>:tt!oc-in:*Ai>i:AKK nit., ^rrn-: ixx SAN I>IKCiO. CA J)itlXi:t (71 fr) r><K>-M.<lM PLAN CHECK NO. OWNER DATE DATE CHECKED 0U+ CHECKED BYX.^6^^- LS&lci >JL or- "7 riSTRIBUTlON:APPLICANT CITY ,. . . ..-,-,!,- « - • •-,.-,.; ,-J "INTERDEPARTMENTAL1 .'INFORMATION DEPARTMENT ADDRESS: NG DEPARTMENT LOT WIDTH UNITS PROVIDEDALLOWED _f: <? *> jING-? SPACES 'REQUIRED' £ 4 i ••' OVERAGE ALLOWED ?- ,• J PROVIDED PROVIDED \ .. PROVIDEDLDING HEIGHTf ALLOWED! ____ ~:>r ' .- £ " ', | ', ONT/^SETBACK; », ? ' il ' < SIDE SETBACK: LOWED \ '.. REAR SETBACK TRUSIONS-?:- ? i ' 0'&*.'. '.'•: . PROTECTION COMMENTS: TO rSSUEr OK'TO FINAL- GINEERING•DEPARTMENT IMPROVEMENTS 'INDUSTRIAL'-WASTE WER .CONNECTION ,DRIVEWAY LOCATIONSV r DRAINAGE AL DESCRIPTION'. -'DITIONL .COMMENTS RE DEPARTMENT~ --- - v INKLING SYSTEM l^FIRE PROTECTION1 EQUIP. *•» v ti^RE ALA-RMS -'.'ft EXITS RE HYDRANTS • LOCATION .*>. f*/ ddt/i*/^ /*,/,DITIONAL COMMENTS.. , Vs OK TO FINAL ,35 1 OF CARLSBAD PIPE DEPARTMENT I275 ELM AVENUE, CARLSBAD, CA S2008 /APPROVED DISAPPROVED \lfi- "«'_./ 7 ? ~y //> -- £- '•••/•• ~ c- *si / /")PRO.IF.CT /-/fltjr+x .£/-*.«/. nwN^a /? »-ct^->t £>~i -' nnr.tiPANCY /?•£ CONST. - kf SPRINKLERED D TENANT IMP (714) 435-5521 PLAN CHECK REPORT >? J ADDRESS (^'rs— -, (^ PLAN CHECK n%~J-S3tf' OTHER P.EF # /kts< ADDRFSS PHONF 5 3Z~3 FW^.Z * l> ADDRESS PHO^f= ^>^- ^^<-7'-V (;r/^ ^2/~^ TOTAL SO. FT. "H 7, 2 7 2~ STORIES _/ 1. APPROVAL OF PLANS IS PREDICATED ON CONFORMING TO THEFOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND/OR MAKING THE FOLLOWINGCORRECTIONS: MM M H-H-H ! I I H-H-+-H- H-H-H Nil-fill 1 -H-++-H 1 I 1 M-I-H-H Provide one copy of the floor plan(s), site plan, and sheets //* '£- -7 l\_ r 2. Storage, dispensing or use of any flammable or combustible liquids, flammable liquids, flammable gases and hazardous chemicals shall comply with Uniform Fire Cade.,af8# ^ ^ .- 3- Buildmg(s) not approved for high piled combustible stock. Storage in closely packed piles shall not exceed 15 feet 5n height, 12 feet on pallets or in tracks and 6 feet for tires, plastics snd some flammable liquids. If high stock piling is to be done, comply with Uniform Fire Code, Article 81. 4. Medical gas system(s) shall comply with N.F.P.A. Standard 56F. 5. Fire extinguishers shall be provided based upon the following criteria: a) 1-2A rated ABC extinguisher for each sq. ft. or portion thereof b) maximum travel distance to an extinguisher of feet c) other: ____».. 6. Fire sprinkler system(s) per N.F.PeA. Standard provided to protect shall be 7- Dry chemical extinguishing system(s) shall be installed per N.F.P.A. Standard 9o to protect cooking equipment and exhaust system. 8. Plans of systenCs) shall b_ approved by the Fire Department prior to installation of 9. Sho* en site plan locations of all nearby proposed or existing hydrants within 200 fee:. 10. H>dr=n::{s) sra". I be provided and located Show location(s) on site plan. Fire Flow: hydrants. II. Access for fi'e apparatus is not adequate. Provide gpm for hours from 12.shal1 be of with openings protected with hour assemblies. V' 13. Comply with regulations on attached sheet(s). Plan Exafniwer IX^ Report mailed to architect Met with hour construction Date Attach to Plans V^"-W ,.». CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT PAGE 2 OF ~Z^ PLAN CHECK REPORT 4 PROJECT /P/ltfo^ fiff- /?/fd'J /?,J?. C PLAN CHECK 3 JP/ — / 3 S^_^-yt ]k. Drapes and other decorative materials shall be flame retardant. Certification thereof shall be provided. Exits, exit lights, fire alarm stations, hose cabinets and extinguisher locations shall not be concealed by decorative material. 15. Interior finish shall conform with Title California Administrative Code regulations. 16. Fireplaces and other appliances employing open flames shall have metallic guards. 17. Loose chairs exceeding 299 shall be bonded together in groups of 3 or more. 18. Storage and janitor closets shall be of one-hour construction with all openings protected with 3/k hour self closing and latching assemblies. J9. An approved fire alarm or two-way communication system shall be provided per Title 2k, California Administrative Code. 20. An occupant capacity sign, with' minimum one inch letters and numbers, shall be posted near main exit ( square feet per person). 21. Exit doors shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. 22. A "THIS DOOR MUST REMAIN UNLOCKED WHENEVER THE PUBLIC IS PRESENT" sign, with minimum one inch letters, shall be provided adjacent to main exit door . 23. "EXIT" signs shall be in block letters minimum 6 inches high. Luminance on face of sign shall be 50 lux. 2k. "EXIT" signs shall be electrically illuminated and energized from separate circuits. Show on electrical plan(s). 25. One of the above circuits shall be part of the emergency lighting system. 26. An "EXIT" sign shall be posted over exit door and directional signs located Show locations on floor plan(s). 27- Approved panic hardware shall be provided on exit doors Show on door schedule. 28. Corridor shall be of one-hour construction with door open- ings protected with 20 minute self closing and latching assemblies. 29- An additional exit door shall be provided in t per Uniform Building Code, Chapter 33- -2C.30. _, c //- ?- / Plan Examiner Date .„;/ V -' DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES D Assistant City Manager (714) 438-5596 {%• Building Department (714)4385525 G Engineering Department (714) 438-5541 D Housing & Redevelopment Department (714)438-5611 D Planning Department (7U) -138-6581 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Citp of Cartefrafc May 14, 1982 Mr. Mick Kubota 7330 Engineer Road San Diego California (92111) Dear Mr. Kubota: Re: Andrex Project, Palomar Airport Business Park #81-138 May 10, 1982In answer to your request of extension of 180 days until November 5, 1982 has been granted to your building permit. No fur(her extension will be granted. //iif)h XA^ fc: MART III ORENYAK- \ Building 0 f f i cXaJ MO/gl , an CONTRACTOR May 10, 1982 Mr Martin Orenyank Director of Building S Housing City Of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re Andrex Project, Palomar Airport Business Park Permit No 81-138 TKC Job #021? Dear Mr Orenyank Due to some uncontrollable circumstances, we have had to temporarily delay the completion of Buildings "B1 and 'C1 of the above referenced project (2271 & 2270 Cosmos Court). We are, however, proceeding with completion of Building 'A1 (2261 Cosmos Court) We request, at this time, an approval to extend the building permit for six (6) months from this date. A courtesy inspection was made for the above buildings on May 5, 1982. Respectfully, THE KOLL COMPANY Mick Kubota Project Manager MK Iw cc File Howard Mann jj'T| £ C^ fr Kowalski/Hard ing D. Allison MAY 121982 CITY OF CARLSBAD Building Department 7330 Engineer Road ° San Diego ° California 92111 ° (714) 2925550 Lie No 221764 SOVALSKf • HARDING 6 ASSOC. OH? YMOMAO W. •oaaar M. MAMOIMO AIA ABCMITQCT TMOMAO W KOtVALUKI aOQfSHT M MAnOlfMO AIA AOCMIT«CT DO71B a. AVAL DIM nt-VO QUITS 31O CAn»C>MCA 007*01 HT _l A DESIGN DATA BUILDING) COPE: \JHIfO[Z^ FOUNDATION STRUCTURA STRUCTURAL PER ASTM A3S' PIPE CO.LUMN.B' PER ABTM AS3, ©RlAOE B.>'' ; WELDINQ» ELECTRIC ARC PROCESS BY CERTIFIED WELDERS IN SHOP OF LICENSED FABRICATOR. CONCRETE BLOCK? PER ASTM C9O, ORADE A UNITS OR|CK= PER ASTM C6B, MVA/ QRADE . ,, MORTAR: 1: 3^:V4 MIX J CEMENT, SAND ANO.HYORATEO LIME OR LIME PUTTY. QRQUT; 1:3:^MJX; CEMENT, SAND ^^a' MAXi PEA GRAVEL, RElNFORCiNQ STEEL: PEP ASTM AS13 GPAOE <oO WQOP FRAMING' PER WCLB QRAOIMO RULES NO. 18 STUOS: LIGHT FRAM»PaQ: JOISTS: BEAMS: POSTS"*: OLUED-LAMiNATED WOOO: DOUGLAS FJP8 COMB DEB. REF.; WEST. WOOO PROO. ASSOC.SPAN COMPUTER. PLYWOOD; BTRUCTURAI I_PER P.e.1-74 X s « " • • CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY REGISTERED DEPUTY INSPECTOR REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING: DEBBQM LQAOB:'' »'••-: ' it?\ • .<, Jr,ir"i V'-'J ' •* I •?, ,}: -'' J. ii' • ^''^ii/Vr'ii1 •• v^^r-i. Uvu:.', IOVALSKI- HARDING &ASSOC. aoaoar M. MAQOIMO AtA - tara a*. 8 lino >j, \1/! - 1'. M U 1, * .,">' "V •> .1" .Jflflfll' c \ 8OVALSKI- HARDING 6ASSOC. OATt. .OATS. U- [ C,9- • I 40Q M». f Sri £ ^•« ili •=• *$&$% i V(t 51, ,F vie> I e/ 6^ g4. T" OP (H 8OVALSK8 • HARDING 6 ASSOC w. HowAt.eeti noaonr M t-taooma AIA AneMoraer 6<^ I.) •» »-- fOVALSKh HARDING 6ASSQC VMUMA9 Mr. DA MABOIMQ A«A AWCMITOCT cvo I/ VI* OATC, *»o. VMA W , A f&c/a»a«so is • -H •^*- §!»• iiMiirg A U^ellf IA Ma 1OVAISKS • HARDING 6 ASSOC W. ^Ww-^'llJ" W* '»•-. kp"*.^M#i.5649S5 fW •-l -,y;*L 'f"i:'l-2;-013b75 fli,4fU%/i^In;'. _ _ . _ V * • •-1, •-. 0. 01.9125 %w* ! -.O.'02.8b875 i0 V 8. 53,1: 12857- Ti' 8.6.4-37604 17 ... 2.-967371b95-Si.: 057224 10 3 ••'53. 30134249 ^•46.07.24.0344' :;i;f5 02200935' v PTO .v KWAISKI • HARDING 6 ASSOC AIA icrro n. AVACOM OLVO BUOVO »«o CAAQOM.CA * .0)0 Wi* -126 *^ ^ «• ; ,0! A . AvQHG IP 7 1,3 G -((, $} ^!u C- Pftt HARDING 6 ASSOC ssoooar (M MAQOIMQ AIA A«cf4i*ecr BLVO OAT8U U •• -. . OAfg- -4- A. 1, D: enisv .J - 1 1 0 M — — . A,„ 1 ' _[_. TO /.tfy^^L^| [t'»rt'/T|l^ 4 •$_- 1 i .' i CtVT V/AtL -. 5,4. HARDING 6ASSOC. TMOMA* W. M. MAOOIMO Al* <ft.«VAI.O«V 001 TO StO C«*>«O*».C* «i«T>0« •#fe . BV_ .a, ip't : HA-*- . VTi P'. povx>£U I-*7* «• \r* o, \/ \/ \/ 7>T /\ C, 0^ ^fl* J ^ .OATS. 6ASSOC. FAvCJMAfl'AiffrffrfrT /OS MO Jii5z I/A &OVALSKI- HARDING 6AS5OC. W. MOUVAkOMI M. MABOlMO AIA ABGMtVOCT ouvo AM r "o iu , /• iwMo-^iiOiov \?> -t.oir- *—A "< f~ p, 1 -S 6-C? . ffrju to k MOWALSKI -HARDING 6ASSOC. O. «W«kOM OLVO M&0 W. MOWAkOMI *i* *ne»«iv«CT ca l-'V IL .ISt iV JL _ .=. '_* x a . I 2 ! Vt!^.' A*.dof-J' ;P=DT . , , _, r '5.,,1176. 48 i ,;';!•'-0.70. ^ t<. •;,(' ,u;;:^ '527/73 „ M; , 0.60.4-r% 24.00'- '" V" . ST— 1 t i /u « >7i ri^ C- ^D i--^1 HP. A*- \<carft HARDING 6 ASSOC V IX. t> MASS W. MOWfiltQWt M *4«saiMe AIA Oate. ®». eum^ecTCT AHQrVe.-£ <£/ fAUjLA/rTL OMaav wd. )•> P/i^ei BM 6(vio vine: r-ni/6 OJftJ T T - ^ / A-c \ / U'K^ ^ TO 8 '- « lr\vr af' ^ I** * IOVAISKI- HARDING &ASSGC YMOMAS VW. M»AIA CA £6 OAT*B»___BU«V<9CTj^i2k§2L ,!«- OMB a v ao, 1 ICWALSKI- HARDING 6ASSOC ctoeaar M. MAUOIMO cna-oie •»• x> &AVALOM CA r- i ^g a.™ v&t a» PATH ffi/ P/M/PMAfl o«es? . A-5-A. •» i o 0 _o fix 1,5 ' p u fc . 010 W \o-fi E* JCMALSKI- HARDING 6AS5QC Te*U<WA0 W, fc*AlA • OT10 «L -o 0L.VO r- L. 9A78. l-f.T , jn-8 2 i 01(9 v IS"- r~^~ It- HARDING 6 ASSQC YMOMA0 Vtf. CW. to 7-0 a.«vai.ow OUIVQ Aee*«i7«cr CAoeoMffia. Hr op .« f (Sx IMC, 40 \f P~ M SOVALSKI- HARDING 6ASSQC TMOMAO VffirC. *«A ~O e «• • o«f.a: a. M- I SCWALSKl - HARDING 6ASSQC M. MABOIW© AIA e«oeo«« HP CLftgCT H' A'n-- Arv i ll MS 8V B8O, A 1- -frfr JOVALSKI - HARDING 6 ASSQC VMOMA9 W. KOWAlOMO o MAOOIMCV AIA OLVO 1/1 a* fi/oon, fWU ITv TO fft^T M-l' £> 4-8 •f 1 ) 6-1 ]U 3467 Kurtz Street San Diego California 92110 714-224 2911 Woodward-Clyde Consultants -^ April 8, 1982 Project No. 503321-FC01 The Koll Company 7330 Engineer Road San Diego, California 92111 Attention: Mr. Mick Kubota INTERIM REPORT OF ENGINEERING OBSERVATION OF GRADING AND TESTING OF COMPACTED FILL LOT 1, LOT 6, AND STORM DRAIN EXTENSION BACKFILL ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK LOT 8 OF TRACT 7349 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and our agreement dated Janu- ary 8, 1982, we have provided engineering services in con- junction with the grading of the subject site. SCOPE OF WORK Our services included: 0 Providing engineering observation of the grading operation 0 Providing periodic engineering observation of the storm drain channel cleanout 0 Performing field density tests in the placed and compacted fill 0 Performing laboratory tests on representative samples of the material used for backfill Providing pr. ractqr^s-^genera' ti SUMMARY OF GENERAL EARTHWORK AND TESTING Current site preparation, February 23 and Ma ding the con- to plans ^nd specifica- and testing were done 1982. In our opinion, based Consulting Engineers Geologists and Environmental Scientists Offices in Other Principal Cit'es The Roll Company April 8, 1982 Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 2 Woodward'CIyde Consultants on our observation and testing, the work performed during that period was in general conformance with the Guide Specifications for Controlled Fill attached to our report entitled "Update Soil and Geologic Investigation for the Proposed Howard Mann 16-Acre Site, Palomar Airport Business Center, Carlsbad, Cali- fornia," dated December 16, 1980. Previous grading of the subject site was conducted during 1974 and since about July 9, 1981. The 1974 grading consisted of mass grading the north and west halves of the site including the placement and compaction of up to 35 feet of fill. That work was summarized in a report prepared by Lowney/Kaldveer Associates, dated October 11, 1974, entitled "Report of Earth- work Observation and Testing Services, C.C. & F. Palomar Air- port Business Park, Phase I, Carlsbad, California." The grading begun about July 9, 1981 was reported in our interim report dated December 17, 1981. At that time remaining grading included minor grading to finish Lots 1 and 6. A copy of the interim report is attached for your reference. During this grading period, the eastern portion of the channel north of Lot 1 was cleaned out by removing loose soils down to firm competent material in preparation for placing a 66-inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain extension. The channel was filled with compacted soil and the pipe was placed and backfilled. Unobserved fill placed to extend the northern portion of Building Pad A, Lot 1, was removed and recompacted from approximately footing Line 'A' northerly. Additionally, minor cutting and filling was done on Lot 6 to continue to bring it to grade. During the grading operation, compaction procedures were ob- served, and field density tests were made to help evaluate the relative compaction of the placed fill. Field observations and results of field density tests indicate that the fill has been generally compacted to 90 percent or more of maximum dry labor- atory density as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method No. D1557-78. For reference, the approximate location of field density tests and the limits of compacted fill have been re- corded on a copy of the grading plan. The results of field density tests, expressed as a percent of maximum laboratory dry density (relative compaction), are given on the attached forms. Laboratory tests were made on representative samples of the materials used for storm drain extension backfill. The tests were performed to evaluate moisture-density relationships, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. The results of laboratory tests are attached. Previous laboratory test results as reported in the interim report of December 17, 1981, were used as a basis for tests on Lots 1 and 6. The Koll Company April 8, 1982 Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 3 Woodward-Clyde Consultants SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE SOIL CONDITIONS Fill Lots and Fill Portion of Cut-Fill Lots: Lots 1 and 6 Observation and laboratory tests indicate that moderately to highly expansive fill was placed within 2 feet of rough grade on all lots noted herein; this fill exhibited a swell of 6 to 10 percent on samples recompacted at moisture contents of 4 percent greater than optimum moisture content, placed under an axial load of 160 psf, and soaked in water. Special founda- tions on these expansive soils are recommended. RECOMMENDATIONS Foundations for Structures on Expansive Soils: All Lots We recommend that structures founded in expansive soil have continuous perimeter footings embedded a minimum depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent rough grade, and designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The footings should be reinforced with one No. 4 bar top and bottom. Slab floors should be steel reinforced and a minimum of 5 inches thick. They should be underlain by 10 mil plastic membrane sheeting and 4 inches of coarse sand. The sketch that follows incorporates our recommendations. These recommendations are intended only to reduce the effects of heaving; footings founded in expansive soils should be expected to heave. Rough or Compacted Grade^18" \ Minimum FOOTING DETAIL Scale: 1" - 20" £3 Dowels, 24" O C. \ \ 12"1 i jH 13" '* 'i "" — i — :Ic\ 91 \1 \! \ «^~ f\ 5" nin X" ^ / » / „ ^2" m — -^ ^=4 bars , con^^ete slab with &"<& 10/10 wv /l" nin * /~v'u~h(:>d ° *"ock. 'o1' Gravel* in sand with clastic nenorane top and bottom Minimum Slopes Fill slopes at the site have inclinations of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), and are approximately 9 feet high. The Roll Company April 8, 1982 Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 4 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Fill slopes were treated by a sheepsfoot compactor and were trackrolled by a Cat D6 bulldozer. We recommend that structures that will not tolerate differen- tial settlements (such as foundations, concrete decks and walls, etc.) not be located within 8 feet of the top of a slope. We recommend that footings that are located within 8 feet of the top of a slope be extended in depth until the outer bottom edge of the footing is 8 feet horizontally from the outside face of the slope. Additional Fill and Utility Trenches This report discusses the fill placement observed by personnel from our firm during the periods specified. We recommend that any additional fill placed, as well as backfill placed in utility trenches located within 5 feet of a building and deeper than 12 inches, or backfill placed in any trench located 5 feet or more from a building and deeper than 5 feet, be compacted under our observation and tested to verify compliance with the earthwork specifications for the project. We should be con- tacted at least 24 hours prior to backfilling operations. Drainage We recommend that positive measures be taken to properly finish grade each lot after structures and other improvements are in place, so that drainage waters from the lot and adjacent prop- erties are directed off the lot and away from foundations, floor slabs, and slope tops. Even when these measures are taken, a shallow ground-water or surface-water condition can and may develop in areas where no such water condition existed prior to site development; this is particularly true where a substantial increase in surface-water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. LIMITATIONS The elevations of compaction tests shown as finished grade (FG) tests on the attached forms for Lots 1 and 6 correspond to the elevations shown on the "Grading Plan for Andrex at Palomar Airport Business Park, Lot 8 of Tract No. 7349," dated May 5, 1981, prepared by CEP Associated. Test elevations for the channel backfill were estimated by our field technician at the time of grading. Elevations and locations used in this report were based on field surveys done by others. The soil conditions described in this report are based on observations and periodic testing. This office should be The Koll Company April 8, 1982 Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 5 Woodward-Clyde Consultants notified of any indications that soil conditions are not as described herein. For this report, rough lot grade is defined as that grade set in the field by the grade checker from reference stakes estab- lished by the surveyor, and represents rough grade at the time we were observing the grading operation. The conclusions and opinions drawn from the test results and site observations apply only to our work with respect to grading, and represent conditions at the date of our final site visit. We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to this site by others, or by uncontrolled action of water, or by failure of others to properly repair damages by uncontrolled action of water. Professional judgments represented in this report are based partly on our evaluations of the technical information gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construc- tion, and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. Our engineering work and judgments rendered meet or exceed the standard of care of our profession at this time. We do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect. If you have any questions, please give us a call. Very truly yours, WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 'James E. Cavallin R.E. 17553 JEC/PD/ee;j Attachments (4) The Koll Company (2) City of Carlsbad Attn: Mr. Carter Darnell COMPACTION TEST RESULTS JO* NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 DATES COVERED 8, 1982 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1982 DATE REPORTED PAGE 4/6/82 DATE TMT RETESTNUMBER OF MAR 8 86 87 88 89 90 MAR 9 91 92 MAR 10 93 94 MAR 12 95 MAR 23 96 MAR 25 97 98 99 100 87 101 MAR 31 102 LOCATION LOT 6 PARKING LOT N. OF BLDG. "F" LOT 1 BLDG. "A", N. SIDE LOT 1 BLDG. "A", N. SIDE LOT 1 BLDG. "A", N. SIDE LOT 6 BLDG. "F" LOT 6 BLDG. "F" LOT 6 BLDG. "F" LOT 1 BLDG. "A", N. SIDE LOT 1 BLDG. "A", N. SIDE FG LOT 1 BLDG. "A", N. SIDE LOT 1 BLDG. "A", N. SIDE LOT 1 BLDG. "A", N. SIDE LOT I BLDG. "A", N. SIDE LOT 1 BLDG. "A", N. SIDE LOT 1 BLDG. "A", N. SIDE LOT 1 BLDG. "A", N. SIDE LOT 1 BLDG. "A", ELEVATIONOF TEST 259' 226' 225' 226' 259' 261' 261' 226' 229.0' 221' 221' 223' 223' 225' 226' 227' MOISTURE CONTENT % ORY WT 19. 25 17. 24 19. 21. 19. 16. 19. 21. 12. 19. 21. 20. 19. 20. 7 0 6 7 0 2 8 3 0 2 2 7 9 7 7 9 FIELD DENSITYper 107. 101. 110. 101. 102. 103. 103. 102. 107. 103. 106. 107. 103. 106. 103. 102. 6 0 7 6 6 9 0 8 3 3 1 0 2 9 6 0 LABORATORY RELATIVEDENSITY COMPACTIONper % or LAB DENS 113 114 114 112 112 113 113 113 113 112 114 114 112 114 112 112 .0 .5 .5 .5 .5 .0 .0 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 95 88 96 90 91 91 91 90 94 91 92 93 91 93 92 90 N. SIDE FG 229 0' 22.7 102.5 112.5 91 Wt 4/6/82 Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^pr COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Joj NAME JOB NUMBER DATES COVERED ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK 503321-FC01 (CHANNEL BACKFILL) FEBRUARY 23, 1982 THROUGH APRIL 6, 1982 DATE REPORTED PAGECBF-1 4/6/82 CBF-1 T*ST NUMBER RETESTor LOCATION ELEVATION OF TEST MOISTURE CONTENT % DMT WT FIELD DENSITYfcr LABORATORY DENSITYper RELATIVE COMPACTIONor LAB OEMS FEE 23 CBF-1 CBF-2 CBF-3 CBF-4 CBF-5 10' S. OF HEADWALL WEST END OF CHANNEL 5' S. OF HEADWALL CENTER 8' S. OF HEADWALL 220' 225' 223' 227' 229' 13.6 12.4 11.1 12.4 11.7 103.8 107.5 103 4 105.2 105.7 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 112.0 92 95 92 93 94 APR 6 CBF-6 CBF-7 12' S. OF HEADWALL 25' S. OF HEADWALL FG FG 20.4 22.7 106.8 105.9 114.5 114.5 93 92 wt 4/6/82 Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^p PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS Liquid Limit, % Plasticity Index, % Classification by Unified Soil Classification System 9 - - - 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 COBBLES GRAVEL c f SANDHe"m f SILT & CLAY 100 I 80 ft £ 60 H §40 80 >!DRY UNIT WEIGHT, pcf\0\\ vA V\ y\ L\V\r\ \ ^ \\A \ \ ZERC — 28( 2 V\\\\y\ \o\ ^ I \ A \\ AV \ \\ ^ Maximum Dry Density, pcf Optimum Moisture Content, % DA )SC 70! 26( - 2 R VOIDS CURVES 5G )SG 50 SG CC LUa.20 0 10 k DIRECT SHE;\\ ^ \ \1 \\ \ \ ^ \ +^ Dry Density, p Initial Water C V PV \\ ^\V\\ A Final Water Cc Apparent Coh \A\ Y\ \ \ Apparent Fric \s\ \\\\\\\\\\ V \ 9 112.0 15.5 \A A\ \ \K\ \A\ \\\\\ \ MOISTURE CONTENT, % NsA VVV SWELL TEST Initial Initial Dry Der Water C Final Dry Den Final Water Cc Load, Swell, psf percent \ A ^^ \ N s\s \\> \\N^ \ Nf\ \1 100 10 10 01 001 0001 GRAIN SIZE, mm MECHANICAL ANALYSIS SAMPLE LOCATION 9 ON SITE (IMPORT) 10 20 30 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST 40 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST METHOD ASTM D 1557 78 A FILL SUITABILITY TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY /mfife | CHECKED BY ^j) | PROJECT NO 503321-FCO1 J DATE 4/6/82 | FIGURE NO wt 4/6/82 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS The Roll Company Mfoodward-Clyde Consultants APPENDIX A Interim Report of December 17, 1981 3467 KUrtz stree. Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsSan Diego California 92110 * 714 224-2911 December 17, 1981 Project No. 503321-FC01 The Koll Company 7330 Engineer Road San Diego, California 92111 Attention: Mick Kubota INTERIM REPORT OF ENGINEERING OBSERVATION OF GRADING AND TESTING OF COMPACTED FILL LOTS 1 THROUGH 6. ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK LOT 8 OF TRACT NO. 7349 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and our proposal dated June 8, 1981 and your letter of authorization dated July 7, 1981, we are providing engineering services in conjunction with the regrading of the subject site. SCOPE OF WORK Our services include: ? Providing engineering observation of the regrading operation, ° Observing slope erosion repair prior to the placement of additional slope fill, °. Observing the removal of alluvium and observing and testing the recompaction of loose topsoil and pre- viously placed weathered fill, ? Performing field density tests in the placed and compacted fill, °. Performing laboratory tests on representative samples of the material used for fill, ? Observing foundation excavations and checking moisture contents of below footing soils on Bldg. B, °. Providing professional opinions regarding the contractor's general adherence to plans and specifications. Consulting Engineers Geologists and Environment Sc eniisis Offices in Other Principal Ores The Roll Company Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsDecember 17, 1981 Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 2 SUMMARY OF GENERAL EARTHWORK AND TESTING Current site preparation, compaction, and testing were started about July 9, 1981 and are almost completed as of this date. In our opinion, based on our observation and testing, the work performed to date is in general conformance with the Specifi- cations for Controlled Fill attached to our report entitled "Update Soil and Geologic Investigation for the Proposed Howard Mann 16-acre Site, Palomar Airport Business Center, Carlsbad, California", dated December 16, 1980. Previous grading of the subject site was accomplished during 1974. That grading consisted of mass grading the north and west halves of the site including the placement and compaction of up to 35 feet of fill. That work was summarized in a report prepared by Lowney/Kaldveer Associates, dated October 11, 1974, entitled "Report of Earthw9rk Observation and Testing services, C.C. & F. Palomar Airport Business Park Phase I, Carlsbad, California". During the current grading period, fill has been placed, compacted, and tested on lots 1 through 6. Lots 4 and 6 are cut-fill lots; there are no totally cut lots. The grading operation generally consisted of excavating alluvium, loose surface soils and a minimum of 1 foot of previously placed fill, scarifying, watering and compacting the areas to receive fill and making cuts and fills to proposed design grade. The building pads on lots 2 through 5 are complete; minor grading remains on lots 1 and 6, and street areas. This grading includes bringing lots 1 and 6 to design grade and size, and bringing the street to design subgrade elevation. Two 2-foot diameter loosely filled holes approximately 10 to 12 feet deep are present in the street at approximate stations 1+68 and 1+86. These holes remain to be excavated and recom- pacted. During the regrading operation, compaction procedures were observed, and field density tests were made to help evaluate the relative compaction of the placed fill. Field observa- tions and results of field density tests indicate that the fill has been generally compacted to 90 percent or more of maximum dry laboratory density as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method No. D1557-78. For reference, the approximate location of field density tests and the limits of compacted fill have been recorded on a copy of the grading plan. The results of field density tests, expressed as a percent of maximum laboratory dry density (relative compaction), are given on the attached forms. SeceSer J^lS?! Wfoodwart-Ciyde ConsuBants Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 3 Laboratory tests were made on representative samples of the materials used for fill. The tests were performed to evaluate moisture density relationships, maximum dry density, optimum moisture content, grain size distribution, and plasticity, strength, and swell characteristics. The results of laboratory tests are attached. SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE SOIL CONDITIONS Fill lots and fill portion of cut-fill lots Inspection and laboratory tests indicate that the fill within 2 feet of rough grade is classed as moderate to highly expansive; this fill exhibited a swell of 6 to 10 percent on samples recompacted at moisture contents of 4 percent greater than optimum moisture content, placed under an axial load of 160 psf, and soaked in water. Special foundations on these expansive soils are recommended. The soil underlying the cut portion of cut-fill lots is classed as moderately to highly expansive. The soils within the upper 3 feet of grade were compacted at moisture contents of 3 to 6 percent over optimum to further reduce the potential swell. The soils were pro- tected from drying by covering the pad with plastic membranes and flat underlay material. Recent moisture content tests in the footing excavations of Building B, lot 2, indicate that the soils within 12 inches below the bottom of the footings range from about 3 percent to over 8 percent greater than optimum moisture content. This is in accordance with recommendations made for this site. RECOMMENDATIONS Foundations for Structures on Expansive Soils: All Lots We recommend that footings founded in expansive soil be embedded 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade and be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The footings should be reinforced with one No. 4 bar top and bottom. Slab floors should be steel reinforced and a minimum of 5 inches thick. They should be underlain by 10 mil plastic membrane sheeting and 4 inches of coarse sand. The sketch that follows incorporates our recommendations. These recom- mendations are intended only to reduce the effects of heaving; footings founded in expansive soils should be expected to heave. The Koll Company December 17, 1981 Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 4 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Rough or Compacted 18" HX-minium Y FOOTING DETAIL Scale: 1" = 20" Dowels, 24" 0 C 12"i 18" i.mimum I 5" mm concrete slao '. ith 6~<6 10/10 ww mesn Minimum „ °- 4" mm ' ci\isned°rocr. or c:ra"cl* 2" mm sand \vith olastic menbrane =4 bars, top and bottom Slopes Fill slopes at the site have inclinations of approximately 1-1/2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical), and are approximately 22 feet high. The upper 5 to 7 feet of fill slopes were treated by periodically backrolling with a sheepsfoot compactor. The lower 15 to 17 feet of the slopes had been constructed during the 1974 grading period. About a 90foot section of the slope at the southwest corner of lot 2 had experienced severe ero- sion and was subsequently rebuilt before additional fill wasplaced. (Flat sneets^ We recommend that structures that will not tolerate differen- tial settlements (such as foundations, swimming pools, con- crete decks, walls, etc.) not be located within 8 feet of the tpp of a slope. We recommend that footings that are located within 8 feet of the top of a slope be extended in depth until the outer bottom edge of the footing is 8 feet horizontallyfrom the outside face of the slope. Additional Fill and Utility Trenches This report discusses the fill placement observed by personnel from our firm during the period specified. We recommend that any additional fill placed, such as that for lots 1 and 6 and the street areas, as well as backfill placed in utility trenches located within 5 feet of a building and deeper than 5 feet, be compacted under our observation and tested to verify compliance with the earthwork specifications for the project. We should be contacted at least 24 hours before planned back- fill operations are started. The Roll Company Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsDecember 17, 1981 ' Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 5 Drainage We recommend that positive measures be taken to properly finish grade each lot (after structures and other improvements are in place), so that drainage waters from the lots and adjacent properties are directed off the lots and away from foundations, floor slabs, and slope tops. Even when these measures are taken, a shallow ground water or surface water condition can and may develop in areas where no such water condition existed prior to site development; this is par- ticularly true where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. LIMITATIONS The elevations of compaction tests shown as finished grade (FG) tests on the attached forms correspond to the elevations shown on the "Grading Plan for Andrex at Palomar Airport Business Park, Lot 8 of Tract No. 7349," dated May 5, 1981, prepared by CEP Associated. Elevations and locations used in this report were based on field surveys done by others. The soil conditions described in the report are based on observations and periodic testing. This office should be notified of any indications that soil conditions are not as described herein. For this report, rough lot grade is defined as that grade set in the field by the grade checker from reference stakes estab- lished by the surveyor, and represents rough grade at the time we were observing the grading operation. The conclusions and opinions drawn from the test results and site examinations apply only to our work with respect to regrading, and represent conditions as of the date of this report. We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to this site by others, or by uncontrolled action of water, or by failure of others to properly repair damages by uncontrolled action of water. The Koll Company Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsDecember 17, 1981 Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 6 If you have any questions, please give us a call. Very truly yours, WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Richard P. While R. E. 21992 RPW/PD/DT/mb Attachments (2) Andrex Development (2) Koll Co. (1) City of Carlsbad COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Joi NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FC01 DATES COVERED JULY 15, 1981 THROUGH AUGUST 7, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGE 1 OF 4 DATE July 15 July 16 July 17 July 20 July 21 TUT NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 RETEST LOCATION OP LOT 5 - BUILDING E LOT 5 - BUILDING E LOT 5 - BUILDING E LOT 5 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING E LOT 5 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING E LOT 5 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING E LOT 5 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING E LOT 5 BUILDING E LOT 5 BUILDING E LOT 2 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING B LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING B LOT 5 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING E LOT 5 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING E LOT 5 BUILDING E LOT 5 BUILDING E LOT 5 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING E LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 2 PAVING AREA ELEVATION OF TEST 244' 248' 250' 240' 242' 244' 246' 243' 245' 227' 226' 227' 220' 229' 228' 230 230' 230' 228 248 250' 248' 250' 245' 233' 235' 236' 235' 238' MOISTURE CONTENT % OUT WT 16.9 16.4 17 3 14.2 16.6 17.2 16.0 16.9 15.7 17.5 16 7 14.9 17.0 15.9 14.5 16.9 14.7 16.9 16.6 16.0 16.9 17.8 17.2 16.5 16 4 17.5 16.1 15.5 16.5 FIELD DENSITYper 106.6 106.1 107.2 104.1 108.9 107.2 104.4 104.8 105.7 105.2 104.7 103.7 107.0 106.0 104.2 106.9 103.7 102.3 101.3 . 103.8 104.6 106.4 103 3 103.2 105.7 102.6 104.8 105.6 103.6 LABORATORY DENSITYPCP 114.5 114.5 114.5 113.5 113.5 113.5 113.5 113.5 113.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 111.0 111.0 113.5 114.5 113.5 113.5 113.5 114.5 111.0 114.5 114.5 111.0 RELATIVE COMPACTION 1, Or LAB DENS 93 92 93 91 96 94 92 92 92 91 91 90 93 92 91 93 90 92 91 91 91 93 91 90 92 92 91 92 93 31 WEST OF BUILDING B LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING B 223' 226' 17.1 105.5 114.5 92 rs 16.6 105.2 114.5 91 Woodward-Clyde Consultants COMPACTION TEST RESULTS NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FC01 DATES COVERED JULY 15, 1981 THROUGH AUGUST 7, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGE 2 Or 4 DATE July 21 July 22 July 23 July 24 July 28 ruly 29 TWIT DETEST LOCATION NUMBER Of 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 1 PAVING AREA SOUTH OF BUILDING A LOT 1 BUILDING A LOT 1 BUILDING A LOT 1 BUILDING A LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING B LOT 4 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING D LOT 4 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING D LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D LOT 6 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING F LOT 5 BUILDING E LOT 5 BUILDING E LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D LOT 2 NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING B LOT 2 WEST SIDE OF BUILDING B ELEVATION OF TEST 228' 230' 231' 232' 231' 233' 225' 226' 228' 228' 235' 235' 235' 232' 246' 241' 240' 242' 231' 233' 237' 238' 243' 244' 253' 252' 252' SG 246' FG 236.5' FG 237.0' MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY WT 15.3 16.8 18.4 19.0 19.5 19.2 15.9 15.3 16.1 18 8 21.2 20.6 19.7 21.0 20.3 22.1 22.5 20.7 20.5 21.3 21.1 21.8 22.2 21.2 18.3 19.8 20.5 22.0 19.8 19.0 FIELD DENSITY PCF 104.5 103 2 103.6 103.9 102.3 102 4 105.6 105.3 103.4 104.2 102.9 103.2 102.5 101.7 101.8 102.0 101.0 103.4 101.6 100.6 101.9 102.0 102.7 104.5 103.6 104.2 103.7 101.5 101.3 99.8 LABORATORY DENSITY PCP 111.0 111.0 111.0 112.5 112.5 112.5 114.5 114.5 113.5 113.5 112.5 111.0 111.0 112.5 111.0 112.5 110.0 111.0 112.5 110.0 112.5 112.5 112.5 110.0 114.5 114.5 114.5 110.0 110.0 110 0 RELATIVE COMPACTION % Or LAB DEMB 94 ! 93 : 93 92 90 91 92 91 91 91 91 92 92 90 91 90 91 93 90 91 90 90 91 92 90 91 90 92 92 90 ^^ Woodward-Clyde Consultants COMPACTION TEST RESULTS NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FC01 DATES COVERED JULY 15, 1981 THROUGH AUGUST 7, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGE Of DATE T»T NUMBER July 29 62 63 64 65 July 31 66 67 68 69 70 71 Auq. 3 72 73 74 75 Aug. 4 76 77 78 79 RETCST LOCATIONor LOT 2 SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING B FG * LOT 2 EAST SIDE OF BUILDING B FG LOT 3 WEST SIDE OF BUILDING C FG LOT 3 EAST SIDE OF BUILDING C FG LOT 4 NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING D FG LOT 4 SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING D FG LOT 6 PAVING AREA WEST SIDE LOT 6 PAVING AREA WEST SIDE LOT 6 PAVING AREA NORTH SIDE LOT 6 WEST OF NORTH WING OF BUILDING F LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST SIDE SG LOT 2 PAVING AREA NORTH SIDE SG LOT 5 BUILDING E SOUTHWEST CORNER LOT 5 BUILDING E NORTHEAST CORNER LOT 6 PAVING AREA NORTH SIDE LOT 3 PAVING AREA NORTH SIDE SG LOT 3 PAVING AREA EAST SIDE SG LOT 4 PAVING AREA WEST SIDE SG ELEVATIONor TEST 237.5' 237.0' 237.7' 240.5' 251.5' 251.5' 255' 258' 249' 251' 230' 231' 254' 255' 253' 236' 239' 247' MOISTURE CONTENT % OUT WT 20.5 19.8 18.3 19.0 18.3 20.5 19 8 19.8 21.2 18.3 19.8 19.0 17.6 18.3 17.6 20.5 19.0 19.8 FIELD DENSITYrcr 100.2 99.9 101.7 101.8 102.9 99.7 100.0 101.4 102.4 99.3 103.1 103.4 102.5 103.4 102.7 103.6 102.3 100.9 LABORATORY DENSITY PCF 110.0 110.0 112.5 112.5 112.5 110.0 110.0 110.0 112.5 110.0 112.5 112.5 113.5 113.5 113.5 112.5 112.5 110.0 RELATIVE COMPACTION 1, Or LAB OEM* 91 90 90 90 91 90 90 92 91 90 91 91 90 91 90 92 90 91 Aug. 5 Aug. 6 80 81 80 LOT 1 BUILDING A NORTHWEST CORNER LOT 1 BUILDING A NORTHWEST CORNER 225' 225' 13.6 17.0 99.9 103.3 114.5 114.5 87 90 Woodward-Clyde Consultants v COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Joa NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FC01 DATES COVERED JULY 15, 1981 THROUGH AUGUST 7, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGE 4 Of 4 TMT NUMBER RETCSTor ELEVATION OF TEST MOISTURE CONTENT % OUT WT FIELD DENSITY PCI" LABORATORY RELATIVE DENSITY COMPACTION PCI" 'h OF LAB DENS Aug. 6 82 83 84 Aug. 7 85 LOT 1 BUILDING A WEST SIDE LOT 5 BUILDING E NORTHEAST SIDE FG LOT 5 BUILDING E SOUTHWEST SIDE FG LOT 1 BUILDING A SOUTHWEST SIDE FG 227' 17.6 257.1' 17.6 255.5' 15.6 230.3' 17.0 102.8 113.5 99.3 110.0 99.9 111.0 102.8 113.5 90 90 90 90 Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^pr COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jou NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 (ACCESS STREET) DATES COVERED 2Q , 1981 THROUGH AUGUST 11, 1981 PAGE S-l Or S-l MOISTURE FIELD LABORATORY RELATIVE DAT! TUT RETEST LOCATION ELEVATION CONTENT DENSITY DENSITY COMPACTION NUMBER OP OF TEST % DRY WT FCF FCF % OF LAB DEN* JUL 28 S-l STA. 6+00 243' 22.0 100.9 110.0 91 S-2 STA. 4+00 246' 20.5 100.1 110.0 91 AUG 11 S-3 STA. 7+25 255' 13.0 99.6 110.0 90 ^ n 0,, -, /0, Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^rwt 1^/1 //ol COMPACTION TEST RESULTS JO* NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 (SEWER LINE BACKFILL) DATES COVERED JULY 17f 1981 THROUGH JULY 22, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGESW-1 0rSW-l JUL 17 JUL 20 JUL 21 JUL 22 TVIT NUMBER SW-1 SW-2 SW-3 SW-4 SW-5 SW-6 RETESTor LOCATION LOT 1, NORTH BLDG. "A" LOT 1, NORTH BLDG. "A" LOT 1, NORTH BLDG. "A" LOT 1, NORTH BLDG. "A" SURFACE -13' -13' -9' -7' — 5 ' -3' MOISTURE CONTENT % OUT WT 12.3 15.4 16.5 16.9 17.9 17.5 FIELD DEN • ITT PCF 104.6 107.0 104.4 100.2 104.3 105.2 LABORATORY RELATIVE OENIITV COMPACTION K.f % OF LAB DENB 108.2 108.2 114.5 111.0 114.5 114.5 96 98 91 90 91 91 wt 12/17/81 Woodward-Clyde Consultants v COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Joil NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FC01 (WATER BACKFILL) DATES COVERED OCTOBER 14f 1981 THROUGH DECEMBER 14, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGE OF w_1 DATE TUT RETESTNUMBER OF OCT 14 W-l W-2 W-3 W-4 OCT 16 W-5 W-6 W-7 W-8 W-9 OCT 19 W-10 W-ll W-12 W-l 3 W-14 W-15 DEC 14 W-16 W-17 LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE LINE LOCATION SURFACE A, OPP. 1+50 B, OPP. 1+00 A, OPP. 3+00 B, OPP. 1+50 C, OPP. 13+40 C, OPP. 12+20 C, OPP. 10+50 C, OPP. 8+00 C, OPP. 6+60 A, OPP. 4+00 A, OPP. 4+50 E, OPP. 7+00 E, OPP. 8+20 C, OPP. 16+50 C, OPP. 19+00 C, OPP. C, OPP. BLDG. "C", BLDG. "C", BLDG. "C", BLDG. "C", BLDG. "B", BLDG. "B", BLDG. "B", BLDG. "B", BLDG. "B", BLDG. "E", BLDG. "E", BLDG. "E", BLDG. "F", BLDG. "D", BLDG. "F", STA. 3+90 STA. 2+90 -1' -1' SURF. SURF. -1' -1' SURF. -1' SURF. -1' SURF. -I1 SURF. -I1 SURF. SURF. SURF. MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY WT 14 12 13 12 12 11 12 13 11 13 14 15 14 14 13 15 15 .9 .8 .4 .3 .3 .1 .3 .0 .7 .6 .9 .3 .3 .9 .7 .6 .6 FIELD DENSITYper 111 104 109 106 107 105 103 99 104 102 104 106 105 110 107 114 110 .4 .9 .0 .5 .2 .4 .9 .2 .5 .2 .1 .1 .9 .9 .7 .0 .9 LABORATORYDENSITY PCP 114 113 114 113 114 114 110 110 113 113 113 114 114 114 114 113 113 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .0 .0 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 RELATIVE COMPACTION % OP LAB DENS 97 92 95 93 93 92 94 90 92 90 91 92 92 96 94 100+ 97 wt 12/17/81 Woodward-Clyde Consultants COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jo* NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 (SEWER BACKFILL) DATES COVERED OCTOBER 7/ 1981 PAGESW-1 °" SW-1 MOISTURE FIELD LABORATORY RELATIVE DAT! TEST RKTEST LOCATION „„__,_ CONTENT DENSITY DENSITY COMPACTION NUMBER OF OUKTHl^.k % DHT WT PCF F«F % OF LAB OCNS OCT 7 SW-1 STA. 0+36 -3' 14.3 98.9 110.0 90 SW-2 STA. 1+20 -3' 13.5 100.0 110.0 90 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Wt 12/17/81 coN.uuTms **=,«„, «OLOC,.T, COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jo* NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 (UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL) DATES COVERED OCTOBER 16, 1981 PAGE U-l Of U-l MOISTURE. FIELD LABORATORY RELATIVE CONTENT DENSITY DENSITY COMPACTIOft NUMBER Or OUrurrt^.E, % DRY WT PCF PCF % OF LAO DCN* T>*T RETCST LOCATION SURFAPF CONTINT DENSITY DENSITY COMPACTION OCT 16 U-l BETWEEN BLDGS. B & C -2' 10.5 105.3 114.5 92 U-2 " " A & B -2' 13.6 103.9 114.5 90 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Wt 12/17/81 CON,ULT,N= INC,«ER, CEOLO=,.TS COMPACTION TEST RESULTS jo* NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 (STORM DRAIN BACKFILL) DATES COVERED OCTOBER 7, 1981 PAGE SD-l °F SD-1 MOISTURE FIELD LABORATORY RELATIVE BATE TEST RETEST LOCATION OmDTPTVOT^ CONTENT DENHITV DENSITY COMPACTIONNUMBER or bUKTACil, « DRY wr per per % or LAB DENS OCT 7 SD-1 INLET #108, 42' EAST -4' 19.1 90.3 111.0 81 SD-2 INLET #111, 50' EAST -4' 13.6 99.7 107.5 92 Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^r Wt 12/17/81 CON,UUT,HceNC,N.«, CEOLOC,»T, 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS Liquid Limit, % — Plasticity Index, % — Classification by Unified Soil Classification System H\— i "*DRY UNIT WEIGHT, pcfV\ \'[\\\\\\ T' \ N\\ \ { \ \ \ 2 3 2 41 22 SC 3 51 34 CH ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES 281 -2 \ \u \\\ \. \ \\ 1 _ _ \ \vA\ i \\ —s / 1/ , / Maximum Dry Density, pcf Optimum Moisture Content, % DSC 70! 26( - 2 VA\ \ \\\Vs \ -f/*/ 5G )SG 50 SG VV \ N\ w«vs ^ V SA AXSCxSA\_x\_r\ VAX5Yv\ Vo\\ Ny 1 2 \ \V y \^S 3 \ \ L \| \ \ 114.5 113.5 111.0 14.5 14.5 14.5 MOISTURE CONTENT, % \ \\s.^ \> \\ ^ss s PERCENT PASSINGCODBLr GRAVEL SAND c | f c m | f 80 60 4U 20 ^S\-^v;v; 2 -*A ' 1 1 1 SILT & CLAY — 3 \v-«— N> \ \ V 1 1 >x x^•s. --^ 1000 100 10 10 01 001 0001 GRAIN SIZE, mm MECHANICAL ANALYSIS DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA Dry Density, pcf Initial Water Content, % Final Water Content, % Apparent Apparent Cohesion, psf Friction Angle, degrees 1 2 102 19 21 940 21 3 - - - SWELL TEST DATA Initial Initial Final Dry Density, pcf Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf Final Water Content, % Load, Swell See ^ '>N\\N \s \ psf percent 1 2 102 103 16 93 28 14 97 24 160 160 9.3 5.6 3 102 16 91 30 160 11.6 Figure 1A for additional test results. y V, \ SAMPLE LOCATION 1 BLDG. A 2 BLDG 6 PAH P S. 3 LOT 4, Vj3 BLDG. D 10 20 30 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST 40 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST METHOD ASTM D 1557 78 A FILL SUITABILITY TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY mrk | CHECKED BY ptj | PROJECT NO 503321-FCO1 | DATE 12/17/81 | FIGURE NO 1 wt 7/27/81 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS RESULTS OF LOADED SWELL TESTS Sample Number 2A* 3A* Initial Dry Dens i ty pcf 103 101 Water Content % 19 18 Saturation % 81 76 Final Dry Dens i ty pcf 101 92 Water Content aj1° 23 28 Saturation "1h 93 100 Pressure psf 160 160 Expansion % of Initial Height 1.9 9.6 INDICATES OVER OPTIMUM Diameter of Samp IBS: 1.94 Height of Samples: -&27 LOADED SWELL TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY mrk I CHECKED BY f*£> \ PROJECT NO 503321-FCO1 | DATE 12/17/81 | FIGURE NO 2- WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS 4 5 Liquid Limit, % - 51 Plasticity Index, % - 34 Classification by Unified Soil Classification System ~ (~DRYUNITWEIGHT, pcf\\ \\\ 4- \i \\\u \\ \\ 0 \ \ 1 -^_ 5 6 ZER( — 281 2 V\A VI \ \v^\> ' \AvAv V\ k< £ Maximum Dry Density, pcf Optimum Moisture Content, % DA DSC 70! 26( - 2 \A\1\ \\ V\ -y f R \ 5G )SC 50! V \v\Av\\ ^L/ /OIDS CURVES SG \ A KA VjAA \VsACA^ ^ \ vVvA\\\v\ \ \ \ OAi \\ S 456 108.2 112.5 110.0 _ 13.5 15.0 16.5 [ MOISTURE CONTENT, % \ S. V \S \ 6 50 32 CH \\ s^ ss s 2 PERCENT PASS100 80 60 40 20 0 10 c,nmr. GRAVEL SANDmLLa c f c m f 4 CLAY t ii it "^.s ^s->-6 'A I - -5\ ii ii \ "^ \ 00 100 10 10 01 001 0001 GRAIN SIZE, mm MECHANICAL ANALYSIS DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA Dry Density, pcf Initial Water Content, % Final Water Content, % Apparent Apparent Cohesion, psf Friction Angle, degrees 4 5 - - - - - - - 6 - - - - - SWELL TEST DATA Initial Dry Density, pcf Initial Water Content, % Final Dry Dens ty, pcf Final Water Content, % Load, psf Swell, percent ^ \ ^^ V v\> x V\ s s \s \ ^^ \ \ \s \] 4 5 101 16 89 31 160 12.9 6 99 17 91 29 160 8.5 SAMPLE LOCATION 4 IMPORT BACKFILL SAND 5 LOT 4 BLDG "D" 6 LOT 4. BLDG. "D" 10 20 30 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST 40 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST METHOD ASTM-D ^557-/3 A FILL SUITABILITY TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY ch [ CHECKED BY PI) | PROJECT NO 503321-FCO1 | DATE 12/17/81 j FIGURE NO 3 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS RESULTS OF LOADED SWELL TESTS Sample Number 5* 6* Initial Dry Density pcf 101 101 Water Content °t7° 20 22 Saturation % 84 90 Final Dry Dens i ty pcf 93 96 Water Content % 29 27 Saturation of1° 98 96 Pressure psf 160 160 Expansion j£ of Initial Height 9.6 5.2 Diameter of Samples: Height of Samples: . * Over Optimum 1.94 T627 LOADED SWELL TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DHAWNBY Ch | CHECKED BY ^S) | PROJECT NO 503321-FCO1 | DATE 12/17/81 | FIGURE NO 4 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS Liquid Limit, % Plasticity Index, % Classification by Unified Soil Classification System 7 42 23 SC 8 53 33 CH 150 140 130 120 110 100 COBBLES GRAVEL c f SAND c m 1 f SILT 4 CLAY 90 oz 8<a. I-z UJo 100 80 60 \\V DRYUNITWEIGHT, pcf\ \ vA\>\\ \y\* \V\\ \\\\\\\ 7. 8 ZERC — 28( 2 t \v\\V\ 0\\ \\v\ \ 1 V\ *y/ -^ Maximum Dry Density, pcf Optimum Moisture Content, % DA 3SC 70! 26( - 2 \A \\\\\ / / IR VOIDS CURVES 5G DSG 50 SG \ \\ k \ AN s \ \ A\ i ^ ^/ 7 113.0 15.0 \ A \\ \ s\ ^v\ \vV VX 8 107.5 18.0 \vvA\ \V)\y o \ \\ ». \ \ \ | MOISTU RE CONTENT, % \\N^ \ kv V \\ s^ s^S S cc. UJQ.20 0 10 DIRECT SHE; Dry Density, p Initial Water C Final Water Cc Apparent Coh Apparent Fric SWELL TEST Initial Dry Der Initial Water C Final Dry Den Final Water Cc Load, psf Swell, ^ ,\ M v\s N \> N percent VI \s\\1 1000 100 10 10 01 001 0001 GRAIN SIZE, mm MECHANICAL ANALYSIS DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA Dry Density, pcf Initial Water Content, % Final Water Content, % Apparent Cohesion, psf Apparent Friction Angle, degrees 7 - - - - - 8 - - - - - SAMPLE LOCATION 7 8 LOT 6, BLDG. LOT 4. BLDG. HP ii "D" 10 20 30 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST 40 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST METHOD ASTM D 1557 78 A FILL SUITABILITY TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY ch | CHECKED BY \D | PROJECT NO 503321-FC01 1 DATE 12/17/81 | FIGURE NO 5 wt 8/7/81 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS RESULTS OF LOADED SWELL TESTS Sample Number 7* 8* Initial Dry Dens i ty pcf 102 100 Water Content % 21 23 Saturation a/ 10 87 92 Final Dry Dens i ty pcf 99 94 Water Content °t7° 24 29 Saturation °f/o 96 99 Pressure psf 160 160 Expansion _% of Initial Height 2.7 7.3 Diameter of Samples: 1:94 Height of Samples: »629 * Over Optimum LOADED SWELL TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY ch { CHECKED BY .gp | PROJECT NO 503321-FC01 | DATE 12/17/81 } FIGURE NO 6 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS J <2 3467 Kurtz Street San Diego California 92110 714 224-2911 _ Woodward-Clyde Consultants December 17, 1981 Project No. 503321-FC01 The Koll Company 7330 Engineer Road San Diego, California 92111 Attention: Mick Kubota INTERIM REPORT OF ENGINEERING OBSERVATION OF GRADING AND TESTING OF COMPACTED FILL LOTS 1 THROUGH 6. ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK LOT 8 OF TRACT NO. 7349 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: V In accordance with your request and our proposal dated June 8, 1981 and ypur letter of authorization dated July 7, 1981, we are providing engineering services in conjunction with the regrading of the subject site. SCOPE OF WORK Our services include: ° Providing engineering observation of the regrading operation, ? Observing slope erosion repair prior to the placement of additional slope fill, 0 Observing the removal of alluvium and observing and testing the recompaction of loose topsoil and pre- viously placed weathered fill, . Performing field density tests in the placed and compacted fill, °. Performing laboratory tests on representative samples of the material used for fill, ? Observing foundation excavations and checking moisture contents of below footing soils on Bldg. B, ° Providing professional opinions regarding the contractor's general adherence to plans and specifications. Consulting Engineers Geologists and Environmental Scientists Offices m Other Principal Cit'es The Koll Company Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsDecember 17, 1981 Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 2 SUMMARY OF GENERAL EARTHWORK AND TESTING Current site preparation, compaction, and testing were started about July 9, 1981 and are almost completed as of this date. In our opinion, based on our observation and testing, the work performed to date is in general conformance with the Specifi- cations for Controlled Fill attached to our report entitled "Update Soil and Geologic Investigation for the Proposed Howard Mann 16-acre Site, Palomar Airport Business Center, Carlsbad, California", dated December 16, 1980. Previous grading of the subject site was accomplished during 1974. That grading consisted of mass grading the north and west halves of the site including the placement and compaction of up to 35 feet of fill. That work was summarized in a report prepared by Lowney/Kaldveer Associates, dated October 11, 1974, entitled "Report of Earthwork Observation and Testing services, C.C. & F. Palomar Airport Business Park Phase I, Carlsbad, California". During the current grading period, fill has been placed, compacted, and tested on lots 1 through 6. Lots 4 and 6 are cut-fill lots; there are no totally cut lots. The grading operation generally consisted of excavating alluvium, loose surface soils and a minimum of 1 foot of previously placed fill, scarifying, watering and compacting the areas to receive fill and making cuts and fills to proposed design grade. The building pads on lots 2 through 5 are complete; minor grading remains on lots 1 and 6, and street areas. This grading includes bringing lots 1 and 6 to design grade and size, and bringing the street to design subgrade elevation. Two 2-foot diameter loosely filled holes approximately 10 to 12 feet deep are present in the street at approximate stations 1+68 and 1+86. These holes remain to be excavated and recom- pacted. During the regrading operation, compaction procedures were observed, and field density tests were made to help evaluate the relative compaction of the placed fill. Field observa- tions and results of field density tests indicate that the fill has been generally compacted to 90 percent or more of maximum dry laboratory density as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method No. D1557-78. For reference, the approximate location of field density tests and the limits of compacted fill have been recorded on a copy of the grading plan. The results of field density tests, expressed as a percent of maximum laboratory dry density (relative compaction), are given on the attached forms. Wbodward.Cly.te Consultants Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 3 Laboratory tests were made on representative samples of the materials used for fill. The tests were performed to evaluate moisture density relationships, maximum dry density, optimum moisture content, grain size distribution, and plasticity, strength, and swell characteristics. The results of laboratory tests are attached. SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE SOIL CONDITIONS Fill lots and fill portion of cut-fill lots Inspection and laboratory tests indicate that the fill within 2 feet of rough grade is classed as moderate to highly expansive; this fill exhibited a swell of 6 to 10 percent on samples recompacted at moisture contents of 4 percent greater than optimum moisture content, placed under an axial load of 160 psf, and soaked in water. Special foundations on these expansive soils are recommended. The soil underlying the cut portion of cut-fill lots is classed as moderately to highly expansive. The soils within the upper 3 feet of grade were compacted at moisture contents of 3 to 6 percent over optimum to further reduce the potential swell. The soils were pro- tected from drying by covering the pad with plastic membranes and flat underlay material. Recent moisture content tests in the fo9ting excavations of Building B, lot 2, indicate that the soils within 12 inches below the bottom of the footings range from about 3 percent to over 8 percent greater than optimum moisture content. This is in accordance with recommendations made for this site. RECOMMENDATIONS Foundations for Structures on Expansive Soils: All Lots We recommend that footings founded in expansive soil be embedded 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade and be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The footings should be reinforced with one No. 4 bar top and bottom. Slab floors should be steel reinforced and a minimum of 5 inches thick. They should be underlain by 10 mil plastic membrane sheeting and 4 inches of coarse sand. The sketch that follows incorporates our recommendations. These recom- mendations are intended only to reduce the effects of heaving; footings founded in expansive soils should be expected to heave. Sece^er iT^SIl Woodward-Clyde Consultants Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 4 FOOTING DETAIL Scale: 1" = 20"Rough or Compacted ^ Dowels, 24" 0 C. 12"i Kin mum Grade>^ i ..,„,„,,,.., --1 5" mm concrete slao v ith 6VG 10/10 ww mesn _ ?" mm. sand with clastic menbrane 18" Minimum . ". 4" mm ' crasned°rock "or ^ra-'cl* * ° g_^^—^——^—^—^ i=4 bars, top and bottom Slopes Fill slopes at the site have inclinations of approximately 1-1/2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical), and are approximately 22 feet high. The upper 5 to 7 feet of fill slopes were treated by periodically backrolling with a sheepsfoot compactor. The lower 15 to 17 feet of the slopes had been constructed during the 1974 grading period. About a 90foot section of the slope at the southwest corner of lot 2 had experienced severe ero- sion and was subsequently rebuilt before additional fill was placed. We recommend that structures that will not tolerate differen- tial settlements (such as foundations, swimming pools, con- crete decks, walls, etc.) not be located within 8 feet of the top of a slope. We recommend that footings that are located within 8 feet of the top of a slope be extended in depth until the outer bottom edge of the footing is 8 feet horizontally from the outside face of the slope. Additional Fill and Utility Trenches This report discusses the fill placement observed by personnel from our firm during the period specified. We recommend that any additional fill placed, such as that for lots 1 and 6 and the street areas, as well as backfill placed in utility trenches located within 5 feet of a building and deeper than 5 feet, be compacted under our observation and tested to verify compliance with the earthwork specifications for the project. We should be contacted at least 24 hours before planned back- fill operations are started. The Roll Company Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsDecember 17, 1981 * Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 5 Drainage We recommend that positive measures be taken to properly finish grade each lot (after structures and other improvements are in place), so that drainage waters from the lots and adjacent properties are directed off the lots and away from foundations, floor slabs, and slope tops. Even when these measures are taken, a shallow ground water or surface water condition can and may develop in areas where no such water condition existed prior to site development; this is par- ticularly true where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. LIMITATIONS The elevations of compaction tests shown as finished grade (FG) tests on the attached forms correspond to the elevations shown on the "Grading Plan for Andrex at Palomar Airport Business Park, Lot 8 of Tract No. 7349," dated May 5, 1981, prepared by CEP Associated. Elevations and locations used in this report were based on field surveys done by others. The soil conditions described in the report are based on observations and periodic testing. This office should be notified of any indications that soil conditions are not as described herein. For this report, rough lot grade is defined as that grade set in the field by the grade checker from reference stakes estab- lished by the surveyor, and represents rough grade at the time we were observing the grading operation. The conclusions and opinions drawn from the test results and site examinations apply only to our work with respect to regrading, and represent conditions as of the date of this report. We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to this site by others, or by uncontrolled action of water, or by failure of others to properly repair damages by uncontrolled action of water. The Koll Company Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsDecember 17, 1981 Project No. 503321-FC01 Page 6 If you have any questions, please give us a call. Very truly yours, WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Richard P. While R. E. 21992 RPW/PD/DT/mb Attachments (2) Andrex Development (2) Koll Co. (1) City of Carlsbad COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jon NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FC01 DATES COVERED JULY 15, 1981 THROUGH AUGUST 7, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGE 1 Or 4 •ATI TUT HOMIER July 15 1 2 3 July 16 4 5 6 7 8 9 July 17 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 July 20 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 July 21 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 •ETE8T LOCATIONor LOT 5 - BUILDING E LOT 5 - BUILDING E LOT 5 - BUILDING E LOT 5 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING E LOT 5 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING E LOT 5 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING E LOT 5 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING E LOT 5 BUILDING E LOT 5 BUILDING E LOT 2 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING B LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 BUILDING B LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING B LOT 5 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING E LOT 5 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING E LOT 5 BUILDING E LOT 5 BUILDING E LOT 5 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING E LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING B LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING B ELEVATION OF TE«T 244' 248' 250' 240' 242' 244' 246' 243' 245' 227' 226' 227' 220' 229' 228' 230 230' 230' 228 248 250' 248' 250' 245' 233' 235' 236' 235' 238' 223' 226' MOimiRE CONTENT % DBT WT 16.9 16.4 17.3 14.2 16.6 17.2 16.0 16.9 15.7 17.5 16.7 14.9 17.0 15.9 14.5 16.9 14.7 16.9 16.6 16.0 16.9 17.8 17.2 16.5 16.4 17.5 16.1 15.5 16.5 17.1 16.6 IffXw FIELDMNiirrper 106.6 106.1 107.2 104.1 108.9 107.2 104.4 104.8 105.7 105.2 104.7 103.7 107.0 106.0 104.2 106.9 103.7 102 3 101.3 103.8 104.6 106.4 103.3 103.2 105.7 102.6 104.8 105.6 103.6 105.5 105.2 iiliaiiaa'ijl f LABORATORY OCNfITTper 114.5 114 5 114.5 113.5 113.5 113.5 113.5 113.5 113.5 114.5 114.5 114 5 114 5 114.5 114.5 114.5 114 5 111 0 111.0 113.5 114.5 113.5 113.5 113.5 114.5 111.0 114.5 114.5 111.0 114.5 114.5 Hkxrltt SVtne •CLATIVE COMPACTION % Or LA* DEM* 93 92 93 91 96 94 92 92 92 • 91 91 90 93 92 91 93 90 92 91 91 91 93 91 90 92 92 91 92 93 92 91 :• •l+4Bl%4o ^S^m rs COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jou NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FC01 DATES COVERED JULY 15, 1981 THROUGH AUGUST 7, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGE 2 Of 4 DATE TUT DETEST NUMBER OF July 21 32 33 July 22 34 35 36 37 38 LOT LOT LOT WEST LOT LOT LOT LOT 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 SOUTH 39 July 23 40 41 42 43 44 45 LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT 1 1 I 2 2 2 2 LOCATION BUILDING B BUILDING B PAVING AREA OF BUILDING B BUILDING B BUILDING B BUILDING B PAVING AREA OF BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING B BUILDING B PAVING AREA ELEVATION OF TEST 228' 230' 231' 232' 231' 233' 225' 226' 228' 228' 235' 235' 235' MOICTURI CONTENT % OUT WT 15. 16. 18. 19. 19. 19. 15. 15. 16. 18 21. 20. 19. 3 8 4 0 5 2 9 3 1 8 2 6 7 FIELD OINIITYper 104 103 103 103 102 102 105 105 103 104 102 103 102 .5 .2 .6 .9 .3 .4 .6 .3 .4 .2 9 .2 5 LABORATORY DENSITY PCF K, 111. 111. 111. 112. 112 112. 114 114 113. 113 112 111 111. 0 0 0 5 5 , 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 RELATIVE COMPACTION OF LAB DEN* 94 93 93 92 90 91 92 91 91 91 91 92 92 July 24 July 28 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 July 29 60 61 WEST OF BUILDING B LOT 4 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING D LOT 4 PAVING AREA WEST OF BUILDING D LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 3 BUILDING C LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D LOT 6 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING F LOT 5 BUILDING E LOT 5 BUILDING E LOT 4 PAVING AREA NORTH OF BUILDING D LOT 2 NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING B LOT 2 WEST SIDE OF BUILDING B 232' 246' 241' 240' 21.0 20.3 22.1 22.5 101.7 101.8 102.0 101.0 112.5 111 0 112.5 110 0 SG 246' FG 236.5' FG 237.0' 22.0 19.8 101.5 101.3 110.0 110 0 90 91 90 91 242' 231' 233' 237' 238' 243' 244' 253' 252' 252' 20.7 20.5 21.3 21.1 21.8 22.2 21.2 18.3 19.8 20.5 103.4 101.6 100.6 101.9 102.0 102.7 104.5 103.6 104.2 103.7 111.0 112.5 110.0 112.5 112.5 112.5 110 0 114.5 114 5 114.5 93 90 91 90 90 91 92 90 91 90 92 92 19.0 99.8 110.0 90 Woodward-Clyde Consultants rs COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jo* NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FC01 DATES COVERED JULY 15, 1981 THROUGH AUGUST 7, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGE 3 or 4 DATE TUT RETCST NUMBER OF July 29 62 63 64 65 July 31 66 67 68 69 70 71 Auq. 3 72 73 74 75 Aug . 4 76 77 78 79 Auq. 5 80 Aug. 6 81 80 LOCATION LOT 2 SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING B FG LOT 2 EAST SIDE OF BUILDING B FG LOT 3 WEST SIDE OF BUILDING C FG LOT 3 EAST SIDE OF BUILDING C FG LOT 4 NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING D FG LOT 4 SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING D FG LOT 6 PAVING AREA WEST SIDE LOT 6 PAVING AREA WEST SIDE LOT 6 PAVING AREA NORTH SIDE LOT 6 WEST OF NORTH WING OF BUILDING F LOT 2 PAVING AREA WEST SIDE SG LOT 2 PAVING AREA NORTH SIDE SG LOT 5 BUILDING E SOUTHWEST CORNER LOT 5 BUILDING E NORTHEAST CORNER LOT 6 PAVING AREA NORTH SIDE LOT 3 PAVING AREA NORTH SIDE SG LOT 3 PAVING AREA EAST SIDE SG LOT 4 PAVING AREA WEST SIDE SG LOT 1 BUILDING A NORTHWEST CORNER LOT 1 BUILDING A NORTHWEST CORNER ELEVATIONor TEST 237.5' 237.0' 237.7' 240.5' 251.5' 251.5' 255' 258' 249' 251' 230' 231' 254' 255' 253' 236' 239' 247' 225' 225' MOISTURE CONTENT % DRY WT 20.5 19 8 18.3 19.0 18.3 20.5 19.8 19.8 21.2 18.3 19.8 19.0 17.6 18.3 17.6 20.5 19.0 19.8 13.6 17.0 FIELD DENSITYper 100.2 99.9 101.7 101.8 102.9 99.7 100.0 101.4 102.4 99.3 103.1 103.4 102.5 103.4 102.7 103.6 102.3 100.9 99.9 103.3 LABORATORY DENSITYper 110.0 110.0 112.5 112.5 112.5 110.0 110.0 110.0 112.5 110.0 112.5 112 5 113.5 113.5 113.5 112.5 112.5 110.0 114.5 114.5 RELATIVE COMPACTION % Or LAB OENS 91 90 90 90 91 90 90 92 91 90 91 91 90 91 90 92 90 91 87 90 Woodward-Clyde Consultants 4r AND ENVIRONMENTAL. SCIENTISTS COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jou NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 JOB NUMBER 503321-FC01 DATES COVERED JULY 15, 1981 THROUGH AUGUST 7, 1981 PAGE 4 OF 4 DATE T««T IIETEST NUMBE* OF MOISTURE FIELD LABORATORY HELATIVE ELEVATION CONTENT DENSITY DENSITY COMPACTION Or TEST % DMT WT PCF per % Or LA* DENS Aug. 6 Aug 7 82 83 84 85 LOT 1 BUILDING A WEST SIDE LOT 5 BUILDING E NORTHEAST SIDE FG LOT 5 BUILDING E SOUTHWEST SIDE FG LOT 1 BUILDING A SOUTHWEST SIDE FG 227' 17.6 257.1' 17 6 255.5' 15.6 230.3' 17.0 102.8 113.5 99 3 110.0 99 9 111 0 102.8 113.5 90 90 90 90 Woodward-Clyde Consultants COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Joa NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DATE REPORTED ]_2/17/81 JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 (ACCESS STREET) DATES COVERED 2Q ^ Ig81 THROUGH AUGUST 11, 1981 PAGE S-l °F S-l MOimiRK FIELD LABORATORY RELATIVE Tm«T RETEST LOCATION ELEVATION CONTENT DENSITY DENSITY COMPACTION NUMBER OP OF TEST % DRY WT PCF PCC It OP LAB DEN* JUL 28 S-l STA. 6+00 243' 22.0 100.9 110.0 91 S-2 STA. 4+00 246' 20.5 100.1 110.0 91 AUG 11 S-3 STA. 7+25 255' 13.0 99.6 110.0 90 wt 12/17/8i Woodward-dyde Consultants 4? AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Joj NAME JOB NUMBER DATES COVERED ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK 503321-FCO1 (SEWER LINE BACKFILL) 1?/ 1981 THROUGH JULY 22, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 DATE JUL 17 JUL 20 JUL 21 JUL 22 TKST NUMBER SW-1 SW-2 SW-3 SW-4 SW-5 SW-6 RCTEST OF LOT 1, NORTH BLDG. "A LOT 1, NORTH BLDG. "A" LOT 1, NORTH BLDG. "A" LOT 1, NORTH BLDG. "A" SURFACE -13' -13' -91 -7' -5' -3' HOimiME CONTENT « OUT WT 12.3 15.4 16.5 16.9 17.9 17.5 FIELD DENSITY PCF 104.6 107.0 104.4 100.2 104.3 105.2 LABORATORY DENSITY PCI* 108.2 108.2 114.5 111.0 114.5 114.5 RELATIVE COMPACTION OF LAB DENS 96 98 91 90 91 91 wt 12/17/81 Woodward-Clyde Consultants COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jod NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 (WATER BACKFILL) DATES COVERED OCTOBER 14, 1981 THROUGH DECEMBER 14, 1981 DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 PAGE w_]_ OF OATE TUT RETESTNUMBER OP OCT 14 W-l W-2 W-3 W-4 OCT 16 W-5 W-6 W-7 W-8 W-9 OCT 19 W-10 W-ll W-12 W-l 3 W-14 W-l 5 DEC 14 W-16 W-l 7 LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE STA. LINE LINE LOCATION SURFACE A, OPP. 1+50 B, OPP. 1+00 A, OPP. 3+00 B, OPP. 1+50 C, OPP. 13+40 C, OPP. 12+20 C, OPP. 10+50 C, OPP. 8+00 C, OPP. 6+60 A, OPP. 4+00 A, OPP. 4+50 E, OPP. 7+00 E, OPP. 8+20 C, OPP. 16+50 C, OPP. 19+00 C, OPP. C, OPP. BLDG. "C", BLDG. "C", BLDG. "C", BLDG., "C", BLDG. "B", BLDG. "B", BLDG. "B", BLDG. "B", BLDG. "B", BLDG. "E", BLDG. "E", BLDG. "E", BLDG. "F", BLDG. "D", BLDG. "F", STA. 3+90 STA. 2+90 -I1 -I1 SURF. SURF. -1' -1' SURF. -1' SURF. -I1 SURF. -1' SURF. -1' SURF. SURF. SURF. MO1ITURE CONTENT% DRY WT 14 12 13 12 12 11 12 13 11 13 14 15 14 14 13 15 15 .9 .8 .4 .3 .3 .1 .3 .0 .7 .6 .9 .3 .3 .9 .7 .6 .6 FIELD DENtltrrcr 111 104 109 106 107 105 103 99 104 102 104 106 105 110 107 114 110 .4 .9 .0 .5 .2 .4 .9 .2 .5 .2 .1 .1 .9 .9 .7 .0 .9 LABORATORY DCNIITY KT 114 113 114 113 114 114 110 110 113 113 113 114 114 114 114 113 113 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .0 .0 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 RELATIVE COMPACTION 't. Or LAB DENS 97 92 95 93 93 92 94 90 92 90 91 92 92 96 94 100+ 97 wt 12/17/81 Woodward-Clyde Consultants w COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Joa NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 JOB NUMBER 503321-FC01 (SEWER BACKFILL) DATES COVERED OCTOBER 7/ 1981 PAGESW-1 °F SW-1 MOIITURC FIELD LABORATORY KKLATIVI DATE T««T I»TCST LOCATION _„„.,-,-._.-, CONTENT OIHUTY DKNIITY COMPACTIONNUMBER or bUKTALr. % DRY WT fcr rcr % OF LAB DCNB OCT 7 SW-1 STA. 0+36 -3' 14 3 98.9 110.0 90 SW-2 STA. 1+20 -3' 13.5 100.0 110.0 90 Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^BF Wt 12/17/81 CONSULT,NOENC,NEERS GEO,OC,STS COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Jo* NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DATE REPORTED i2/17/81 JOB NUMBER 503321-FCO1 (UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL) DATES COVERED OCTOBER 16, 1981 PAGE U-l °F U-l MOISTURE FIELD LABORATORY RELATIVE CONTENT DENSITY DENSITY COMPACTION NUMBER OF SUrUrrtl^IL ^ DRY WT PCr PCr H Or LAB DENBT*«T METEST LOCATION SURFACE CONTENT DENSITY DENSITY COMPACTION OCT 16 U-l BETWEEN BLDGS. B & C -2' 10.5 105.3 114.5 92 U-2 " " A & B -2' 13.6 103.9 114.5 90 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Wt 12/17/81 CONSULT,^ ENC,NEE« «OLOC,.T. COMPACTION TEST RESULTS Joii NAME ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DATE REPORTED 12/17/81 JOB NUMBER 503321-FC01 (STORM DRAIN BACKFILL) DATES COVERED OCTOBER 7f 1981 PAGE gD_1 OF gD_1 MOKTUKK FIELD LABORATORY RELATIVE DATE TUT HETEST LOCATION OT, _,„-._,_ CONTENT DEN»IT)T DENSITY COMPACTIONNUMBEM or bUKrACt % OUT «rr rcr rcF ^ OF LAB OCT 7 SD-1 INLET #108, 42' EAST -4' 19.1 90.3 111.0 81 SD-2 INLET #111, 50' EAST -4' 13.6 99.7 107.5 92 Woodward-Clyde Consultants w Wt 12/17/81 COHEULT.NG .NG,N«« GEOLOS,STS PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS Liquid Limit, % Plasticity Index, % Classification by Unified Soil Classification System 1 — — — 2 41 22 SC 3 51 34 CH 150 140 130 120 110 100 COBBLES GRAVEL c f SAND c| m f SILT & CLAY 90 100 i 80 8<a. I- uiO 60 80 1 DRY UNIT WEIGHT, pcfV 1\\ VAy ^ \ 0\\ vVy-^ \H \o\\ ZER( — 28 2 \ \ 0 \ \> \ . \ \\ 1 2 3 vAvA\ v\ -^// »i1 1 t Maximum Dry Density, pcf Optimum Moisture Content, % DA DSC 70 261 - 2 \ \vA V V\ 17, / IR VOIDS CURVES 3G DSG 50 SG i \ A \ O \ -^ \1 A \\y ^\ \r\\\ \s\\\V i 114.5 14.5 o A5\Os 2 113.5 14.5 vVA\ \ \l \\V o \ 3 ^ ,\ k \ \ \ Lll.O 14.5 | MOISTURE CONTENT, % \ ^V. ^ A k'> \ \ S^ s\s ITLUQ.20 0 1C DIRECT SHE Dry Density, p Initial Water C Final Water Cc Apparent Coh Apparent Fric SWELL TEST Initial Initial Dry Der Water C Final Dry Den Final Water Cc Load, psf Swell,percent See Figure k \S3,\s k \> \ \s\s S\ \1 10 10 01 GRAIN SIZE, mm MECHANICAL ANALYSIS 001 0001 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA Dry Density, pcf Initial Water Content, % Final Water Content, % Apparent Cohesion, psf Apparent Friction Angle, degrees 1 - - _ - - 2 102 19 21 940 21 3 - - - - - See Figure 1A for additional test results. SAMPLE LOCATION 1 2 3 BLDG. A BLDG. 6, PAD LOT 4. BLDG. F D 10 20 30 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST 40 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST METHOD ASTM D 1557 78 A FILL SUITABILITY TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY mrk I CHECKED BY pfr ] PROJECT NO 503321-FCO1 I DATE 12/17/81 | FIGURE NO 1 wt 7/27/81 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS RESULTS OF LOADED SWELL TESTS Sample Number 2A* 3A* Initial Dry Dens i ty pcf 103 101 Water Content % 19 18 Saturation % 81 76 Final Dry Dens i ty pcf 101 92 Water Content % 23 28 Saturation % 93 100 Pressure psf 160 160 Expansion % of Initial Height 1.9 9.6 *INDIGATES OVER OPTIMUM Diameter of Samples: Height of Samples: -627 LOADED SWELL TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY mrk | CHECKED BY p£) | PROJECT NO 503321-FCO1 | DATE J2/17/81 [FIGURE NO 2- WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS 456 Liquid Limit, % 51 50 Plasticity Index, % - 34 32 Classification by Unified Soil o Classification System - CH CH z DRY UNIT WEIGHT, pcf\\\ \ \ \ \u\vA 4- \ \ \ \ -^- Vj ZER( — 28 2 1\!\v\A \\ 5 6 \ \ ) \v\ \ '\\ > / \ Av A \ \\ .-* J r/s Maximum Dry Density, pcf Optimum Moisture Content, % DA 3S( 70 261 - 2 \ \ \ Vv\\Vl\ •/ f IR VOIDS CURVES SG DSG 50 SG V \v\ A V 0 A / \\\ \\ K\r\"Vv \VV\D5\^ \ \vx5\\\s\ \\\\o\\ \ \vy \ vNvS 4 5 6 >0^ 108.2 112.5 110.0 _ 13.5 15.0 Ib.b ' | MOISTURE CONTENT, %PERCENT PASS100 80 60 40 20 0 10 COBBLES GRAVEL c , ,I f SAND c m i i ""^ 5. 1 1 f :>,V n 1 SILT i — 6 A \1 \\. \ i v N 00 100 10 10 01 001 GRAIN SIZE, mm MECHANICAL ANALYSIS DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA Dry Density, pcf Initial Water Content, % Final Water Content, % Apparent Apparent Cohesion, psf Friction Angle, degrees 4 _ - - - - 5 - - - CLAY k, V \ 0001 6 - - - - - SWELL TEST DATA Initial Dry Density, pcf Initial Water Content, % Final Dry Density, pcf Final Water Content, % Load, psf Swell, percent L \ Ak ^^ ^S. TV\\ \s\\v N W0 10 20 30 i Aono ATrtov /VMJDAr^Tirtki TCCT N\ SI 40 4 - - - - - - 5 101 16 89 31 160 12 .9 6 99 17 91 29 160 8 5 SAMPLE LOCATION 4 5 6 IMPORT BACKFILL SAND LOT 4 BLDG " LOT 4 . BLDG . " P" D" LABORATORY COMPACTION TFSTMFTHOn ASTf-D 1557- /8 A FILL SUITABILITY TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY ch | CHECKED BY pjj) | PROJECT NO 503321-FCOl { DATE 12/17/81 | FIGURE NO 3 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS RESULTS OF LOADED SWELL TESTS Sample Number 5* 6* Initial Dry Dens i ty pcf 101 101 Water Content % 20 22 Saturatior % 84 90 Final Dry Dens i ty pcf 93 96 Water Content % 29 27 Saturation % 98 96 Pressure psf 160 160 Expansion 2^ of Initial Height 9.6 5.2 1.94Diameter of Samples: Height of Samples: '62/ * Over Optimum LOADED SWELL TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK PRAWN BY ch j CHECKED BY fft> \ PROJECT NO 503321-FCO1 | DATE 12/17/81 | FIGURE NO 4 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 PLASTICITY CHARACTERISTICS -, 0f O Liquid Limit, % 42 53 Plasticity Index, % 23 33 Classification by Unified Soil Classification System sc CH UV\DRY UNIT WEIGHT, pcf\ \{ \l\ \U W \\\w\\o\\ 7. ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES 28 -2 \\IN \ V\0\\ 8 — v Av AvA V\ ~7 / Maximum Dry Density, pcf Optimum Moisture Content, % DSC 70! 26( Vv\Vv\\ \ ^\ / / oz PERCENT PASS5G DSG 50 SG Vv\ A VV \ ' \ \\ \\\ \\ y \\\"\\ 100 80 60 40 20 0 10 COBBLES GRAVEL c ••JL^BBKHM^i f SAND c i i m ^> 7- , , f SILT 4 CLAY t | Xs J >V— -A \~ v V i \ i - 8 X \ "^^^ 00 100 10 10 01 001 0001 GRAIN SIZE, mm MECHANICAL ANALYSIS DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA Dry Density, pcf Initial Water Content, % Final Water Content, % Apparent Apparent Cohesion, psf Friction Angle, degrees 7 - - — - - 8 - - - - - SWELL TEST DATA \\ ^\ Initial Dry Density, pcf / \\ \\ Initial Water Content, % \Ov V\ Final DryDensity, pcf ^ A \ Final Water Content, % v\k Load, psf \A\\ Swell, percentoXv \ \\V SxC^v5 1 8 \N 113.0 107.5 V 15.0 18.0 | MOISTURE CONTENT, % ^ \ >N ». ^s \\v \\>N\1Ns\si 7 101 17 96 26 160 5.3 8 96 19 89 31 160 8 .5 SAMPLE LOCATION 7 8 LOT 6, BLDG. "F" LOT1 A BLDG "l~>" 10 20 30 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST 40 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST METHOD ASTM D 1557 78 A FILL SUITABILITY TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY ch | CHECKED BY "gD | PROJECT NO 5Q3321-FCO1 | PATE 12/17/81 JFIGURENO 5 wt 8/7/81 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS RESULTS OF LOADED SWELL TESTS Sample Number 7* 8* Initial Dry Dens i ty pcf 102 100 Water Content /' 21 23 Saturation % 87 92 Final Dry Dens i ty pcf 99 94 Water Content % 24 29 Saturation tfJO 96 99 Pressure psf 160 160 Expans i on _% of Initial Height 2.7 7.3 . 1.94Diameter of Samples: Height of Samples: -629 * Over Optimum LOADED SWELL TESTS ANDREX AT PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS PARK DRAWN BY ch | CHECKED BY ^> { PROJECT MO 503321-FCOl | DATE 12/17/81 j f IGURE MO 6 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS December 16, 1930 Project No. 50332W-UD01 Andrex Development Company Post Office Box 34361 Los Angeles, California 90073 Attention: Mr. Howard Mann UPDATE SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED HOWARD MANN - 16-ACRE SITE PALOMAR AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA We are pleased to provide the accompanying report, which presents the results of our update soil and geologic investi- gation for the subject project. Tnis study was performed in accordance with our pioposal dated October 30, 1980 and your authorization of November 18, 1980. The report presents our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the" project, as well as the results of our field explorations and laboratory tests. If you have any questions or if we can be o service, please give us a call. Very truly yours, WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Richard P. While R.E. 21992 RPW/DS/PD/rs Attachment (4) Andrex Development Company (2} Ko11 Company (2) CEP Associated Of1 ces -n Otnor Pii'in^ai c.t us Daryl Streiff C.E.G. 1033 Project No. 50332W-UD01 Woodward-CSyde Consultants TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION BAG KGROUND INFORMATION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS SITE CONDITIONS Geologic Setting Topography and Surface Conditions Subsurface Conditions Ground Water DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Potential Geologic Hazards Faulting a-nd Ground Breakage Liquefacta on Landslides Ground Water Exsiting Fill Expansive Soil Slopes Excavation Characteristics Grading Plan Review Grading Pa g e 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 6 7 7 3 10 10 10 12 12 12 B-vsm No. 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde / TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Foundations Retaining Walls Pavements RISK AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FIGURE 1 - SITE PLAN APPENDIX A - FIELD INVESTIGATION FIGURE A-l - KEY TO LOGS FIGURE A-2 THROUGH A-9 - LOGS OF TEST BORINGS APPENDIX B - LABORATORY TESTS FIGURE B-l - GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES FIGURE B-2 - LOADED SWELL TESTS APPENDIX C - GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUBSURFACE DRAINS APPENDIX D - SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONTROLLED FILL Page 13 15 16 18 A-l B-l C-l D-l Project No. 50332W-UD01 UPDATE SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED HOWARD MANN - 16-ACRE SITE PALOMA.R AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA •\ This report presents the results of our update soil and geologic investigation at the site of a proposed 16-acre office and industrial building development. The site is adjacent to and south of the existing terminus of Corte De La Pina, in the Palomar Airport Business Center, Carlsbad, California. PURPOSE OF INVESTlG/vTION The purpose of^our investigation was to provide information to assist you and your consultants in evaluating the property arid in project design. This report presents our conclusions and recommendations regarding. 0 The geologic setting of the site, 0 Potential geologic hazards, 0 General subsurface soil condjtions, 0 General extent of existing filJ soils, 0 Conditions of areas to receive fill, 0 Characteristics of proposed fill material, 0 Presence and effect of expansive soils, Pro-ject No. 50332W-UD01 Wood ward-Clyde Consultants 0 Depth to water (if within the depths of our subsurface investigation), 0 Stability of proposed cut and fill slopes, 0 Grading and earthwork specifications, 0 Types arid deaths of foundations, 0 Allowable soil bearing pressures, 0 Design oressures for retaining waJ Ls, and 0 Pavement requirements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION For our study, we discussed the project with Mr. Howard Mann, representatives of the Ko]l Company, and CEP Associated. We were provided with plans entitled "Prelimi- nary Site Plan, The Anden-Mann Partnership, Palomar Airport Business Center," prepared by Kowalski-llarding & Associates, dated November 20, 1980, and an untitled topographic map prepared by Arevalo & Safino of San Diego, Inc., (photog- raphy of June 3, 1980). Preliminary soil investigations of the general site area were conducted in 1973 and 1974 by Woodward- Gizienski & Associates and Lowney/Kaldveer Associates, respectively. Subsequent mass grading \/as accomplished i during 1974, during winch the northwest two-thirds of the site was filled with, up to 35 feet of compacted soil. Grad- ing operations were observed and compaction tests were performed by Lowney/Kaldveer Associates. f Project No. 50332W-UD01 We have reviewed, the reports of those studies, which are listed below. 0 "Preliminary Engineering Geological and Soil Study, Cabot, Cabot, and Forbes Industrial Park, San Diego County, California," prepared by Wood- ward-Gizienski & Associates, dated June 18, 1973. 0 "Geotechnical Investigation, C.C. & F Palomar Air- port Business Park, Phase I, February 1974," pre- pared by Lowney/Kaldveer Associates, dated Feb- uary 26, 1974. 0 "Report of Earthwork Observation and Testing Services, C.C. & F Palomar Airport Business Park - Phase I, Carlsbad, California," prepared by Lowney/Kaldveer Associates, dated October 11, 1974. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT Although no grading plan ib available at this time, we understand that the proposed project will ulti- mately include grading to produce level building pads for constructing a total of six office and light industrial buildj ngs. We understand that cuts and fills will be the minimum necessary to maLc level building pads. All the fill soil is to be generated from on-site cuts. Cut and fill slope heights are unknown at this time but. could be up to 20 feet. Proposed buildings range from one to four stories. The one- and two-story buildings will have concrete tilt-up walls, and the four-story complex (Building F) will be of ••Project No. 50332W-UD01 steel and wood frame construction and will have a truss roof. It is planned to support all buildings on continuous and spread footings; buildings will have slab-on-grade ground floors. An access road, parking facilities, and two or three food service and recreation areas are also planned. We understand that construction is to be completed in two phases; Buildings A through C are to be built during Phase I, and Buildings D through F are to be built during Phase II. We further understand that the existing 30-foot wide Buena sewer easement traversing the northwest corner of tne project is to be relinquished; however, the existing 10- foot wide easement, lying within the 30-foot easement, is to remain, and that-the foundation of Building A will abut this 10-foot easement. The location and layout of the proposed building footprints are shown or. Fig. 1. FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS Our field investigation included making a visual geologic reconnaissance of the existing surface conditions, making ten auger borings between November 20 and 26, 1980, and obtaining representative soil samples. Samples were re- turned to our laboratory for testing. The borings v/ere advanced to depths ranging from 12 to 42 feet. The locations * of the borings are shown on Fig. 1. Ploject No. 50332W-UD01 Wood ward* Clyde CoosuStarsts A Key to Logs is presented in Appendix A as Fig. A-l. Simplified logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A as Figs. A-2 through A-9. The descriptipns on the logs are based on field ]ogs, sample inspection, and laboratory test results. Results of laboratory tests are shown at the corresponding sample locations on the logs and in Appendix B. The field investigation and laboratory testing programs are discussed in Appendixes A and B. SITE CONDITIONS GeologicjSetting The site lies in the upper portion of Canyon de las Enemas, approximately 4 miles from the coast and 3 miles south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Tertiary age sediments of the La Jolla Group are the predominant lithologic material present. To p ocjra phy and Surface Corid.ition_s_ The site covers approximately 16 £icres. Approxi- mately two-thirds of the site consists of a fill pad that slopes from east to west. A low natural hill occupies the southeast area of the site. Site elevations range from a high of approximately 300 feet (MSL Datum) in the southeast corner, to a low of approximately 208 feet in the drainage channel paralleling the western property line. Project NO. 50332W-UD01 Wood ward-Clyde Consultants Exposed man-made structures on the site include two concrete headwalls along the northern property line and drains located in the southeast and northwest areas of the site. Vegetation in the filled area is sparse and consists of tall grasses. The natural ground cover in the southeast corner is dense and consists of chaparral and native grasses. Subsurface Conditions Subsurface utilities consist of an 18-incn VCP sewer running diagonally across the northwest corner of the site and a 8-inch VCP sewer line, with man-holes, just inside the northern property line running east from Corte De La Pina to adjacent properties. Approximately two-thirds or the -sate is underlain by compacted fill. Tl^e maximum amount, of fi.1.1, about 35 feet, .is along the western property .line. The SOT.Is used for fill were generated from forniational material in the general vicinity of the site. The fill consists of slightly to moderately expansive silts, clays, and sands. Small bits of wire arid wood debris were noted locally throughout the fill. No loose area or voids were detected from the drill- ing or sampling. Based on our field investigation and review of the report dated October 11, 1974, we have concluded Project No. 50332W-UD01 ' Woodward-Clyde Consultants that the fill is essentially compacted to current standards. We understand that there is no drain below the fill. The southeast area of the site is natural cjround composed of the Eocene age Delmar Formation. This forma- tional material consists of horizontally bedded claystone, siltstone, and sandstone. A residual soil mantle consisting of topsoil and expansive clay caps this formation. The topsoil is generally 0 to 2 feet thick and is composed of loose, sandy silts containing some small gravels on the surface. The residual clay, generally silty to sandy clay, ranges from approximately 1 foot to a maximum thickness of about 6 feet along the lower western-side slopes. Ground Water Water was encountered in Boring 5 at a depth of about 37 feet. Other borings were dry at time of drilling. No water seeps, springs, or wet areas were noted during our ficld reconnaissance. DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The discussions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report arc based on the results of our field and laboratory studies, analyses, and professional judgment. Project No. 50332W-UD01 x * Woodward-Clyde Consultants Potential Geologic Hazards Faulting and Ground Breakage - Our reconnaissance and field explorations dad not reveal any faulting on the site. Available geologic literature indicates that the nearest known active fault zone along which seismic events of magnitude 4 or greater have occurred is the Elsinore Fault zone, mapped some 2-1 miles northeast of the site. The closest significant faulting is the northern extension of the Rose Canyon Fault zone, whicn is mapped approximately 9 miles southwest of the site. No magnitude 4 or larger earthquakes have been recorded on the Rose Canyon Fault zone. Liquefaction - The foimational sediments and compacted fill on.the site are medium dense to very dense. There is no apparent permanent ground water table within probable grading depths. In our opinion, the on-site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction. Landslides - Our review of literature and reports and our field investigations did not reveal any landslides on the site. Gr o_urid_W.a t e r Based on our'investigation, we do not believe that a permanent ground water table exists wjthin the forrua- tional soil at the site. Current site grades and aerial Prefect No. 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde Consultants photographs of the area taken prior to grading'in 1974 indicate that Boring 5 was located in the original canyon bottom. This suggests that the water found in Boring 5 is seepage in the formational soils along the canyon bottom. In our opinion, conditions on the site indicate that the potential is low for ground water seeping onto finished lots. Our experience with similar materials indicates that ground water seepage can occur in cut areas, particularly at the contact between sand lenses and less permeable clays within the Tertiary sediments. Natural jointing and fracturing of the formations could result in such seepage. We recommend that an engineering geologist from our firm inspect eut banks and slopes during grading. If seepage from slopes is noted during the inspection, we recommend installing drains as shown on the attached Guide Specifications for Subsurface Drains (Appendix C). Addi- tional recommendations v/i LI be presented upon request for specific cases. We recommend that positive measures be taken to properly finish grade each pad after the structures and other improvements are completed, so that drainage waters from the pads and adjacent properties are directed off the pads and away from foundations, floor slabs, and slope tops, Even when these measures have been taken, experience has Project No. 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde Consultants shown that a shallow ground water or surface water condition can and may develop in areas where no such water condition existed prior to site development; this is particularly true in developments where a substantial increase in surface- water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. Existing Fil_l A review of the compaction report prepared by Lowney/Kaldveer Associates indicates that the existing fill was compacted in accordance with specifications. In oar opinion, the existing fill is suitable for use as foundation bearing material. The upper 12 inches may be loose due to natural weathering. In our opinion, the fills are clayey and expansive. The report contains no mention of drains being installed in the canyon bottom prior to filling. Expansive Soil Our field investigation indicates that the on-site soils are predominently slightly to moderately expansive. Limited amounts of select soil are available in the upper zones of the natural gi ound in the southeast cor.er of the site. Slopes T7e generally recommend that cut and fill slopes be .4 inclined at 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical") and have maximum heights on the order of 30 feet. 10 Project No. 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde Consultants We have performed stability analyses for 30- foot high slopes by the Janbu method using the following parameters: 0 C (psf) y (pcf) Delmar Formation Cut Slopes 25° 300 125 Compacted Fill Slopes 20° 300 125 The results of those analyses indicate that the slopes have - calculated factors of safety in excess of 1.5 against deep- iseated slope failure for static conditions. Stability analyses require using parameters selected from a range of possible values. There is a finite possibility that slopes having calculated factors of safety, as indicated, could become unstable. In our opinion, the probability of slopes becoming unstable is low, and it is our professional judg- ment that such slopes can be constructed. We did not in- clude an analysis of geologic conditions in the slopes, such as ground water seeps, clay scams, intense fracturing, or beds dipping out-of-slope. We recommend that a member of our staff inspect all cut slopes during grading. Recommendations for handling adverse geologic conditions can be presented during grading. We recommend that, the iiace of each fill slope be compacted at 4-foot internals during construction and track- walked upon completion. All slopes should be properly drained and maintained to help control erosion. 11 Project No. 50332W-UD01 Excavation Characteristics In our opinion, the topsoil, residual soil, and formational sediments revealed .in our test borings can be excavated with light to moderate effort by conventional heavy-duty grading equipment. Grading Plan Review We recommend that we review the grading plans prior to their finalization to verify their conformance with the recommendations of this report. Grading We recommend that all grading be done in accor- dance wa th the attached Specifications for Controlled Fill (Appendix D). We recommend that our firn observe all grading operations and test compacted fills. We recommend that a pre-construction conference be held at the site with the developer, civil engineer, con- tractor, and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Questions regarding special soil handling or the grading plans could be addressed at that time. We recommend that the upper 12 inches of existing fill be scarified, HOLS trur izcd as required, and rocompacted prior to constructing footings or the adding of new fill. 12 Project No. 50332W-UD01 I Woodward-Clyde Corssuiltants We I recommend that the upper 2 feet of soil in ! Ibuilding areas and the upper 1 foot of soil in areas to be: ipaved be composed of nonexpansive soils. In order to'| accomplish this, undercutting of cut areas and replacing i materials with nonexpansive import soils, and topping fills j with import select will be required. I If :no select soils are imported finish grade soils on the site will probc'ibly consist of expansive clayey sands and sandy clays. Swell test results indicate these soils swell on the order of 6 percent in their recompacted state. We recommend jthat these expansive soils placed within the [ aoper 2 feet !of grade be properly compacted at moisture contents of 3 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content as i determined by'ASTM D-1557-70. This moisture content should be maintained up to the tame of concrete placement. The o^er- c\ timurn soils should extend to a minimum of 1 foot below the bottom of footings. i Foundations ' In 'our opinion, conventional, spread or continuous footings placed a minimum ol 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade in nonexpansive soil or in properly compacted, non- , i expansive fill soil can be designed for allowable soil bearing pressures of 2,000 psf (dead plus live load). Footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. In our 13 Project No. 50332W-UD01 Woodward-C8yde Consultants opinion, these bearing values can be increased -by no more than one-third for loads induced by wind or seismic forces.i J Boring 5 encountered water at a depth of about 37 I feet, 4 feet below the bottom of the fill. If the water level should rise in the fill, the fill can be expected to settle. The amount of settlement is related to both the depth of saturation and the overburden load. Settlements of as much as 1 percent of the depth of fill are possible from this source. \ Where the thickness of the fill varies, the resulting settlements would be differentia]. Although not expected, differential settlements up to about 1:800 are i possible. We recommend that footings founded in moderately expansive soil be embedded 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade and be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure i of 3,000 psf.; The footings should be reinforced with one No. 4 bar top:and bottom. Slab floors should be a minimum of 5 inches thick, underlain by 10 mil plastic membrane sheeting and 4 inches of coarse sand. The following sketch clarifies our recommendations. V -,-\ } '•__— — _ 'i ' ' ! 1. }••;" ! 2'. . •11' "i; ' Jr-- -_/J 5 ' r.,,, •:.,,..- - ; 1 O / ' " ' / j \ /\ , r , i •••> . ;'',.• coarse so IK! i ^ - X plastic meribrapc •\ x --.^ ; ','!', I Of :•.: ••• )V i;:i ^ 14 Project No. 50332W-UD01 Woodlward-CSyde Consultants These recommendations are intended only to reduce the effects of heaving; footings founded in expansive soils should be expected to heave. Retaining Walls We recommend using active lateral pressures for cantilevered walls where a horizontal movement of at least 0.001H can be accommodated at the top of the wall, where H is i the height of the wall in feet. If this condition is not satisfied, design criteria for the restrained condition should be used. Vie recommend that cantilevered retaining walls that have level backfill surfaces extending for a minimum horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall be designed for!the pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 60 pcf. This value assumes that on-site soils are utilized for backfill, and that no surcharge loads, such as adjacent footings or vehicle traffic, will act on the wall. We recommend that cantilevered retaining walls with 2 to 1 inclined backfills be designed to withstand the pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 60 pcf. We!recommend that walls restrained from movement at the top, such as basement walls, be designed for the active case equivalent fluid pressure given above plus an additional uniform horizontal pressure of 6H psf for on-site * backfill material. 15 Project No. 5,'0332W-Ur)01 Woodwaird'CBydie Consultants We recommend providing all retaining walls with a backfill drainage system adequate to reduce the buildup of hydrostatic forces. To1provide resistance for design lateral loads, we i recommend using the pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pcf for passive earth pressures on footings or shear keys poured neat against existing soils. We recommend that the upper 1 foot of soil not protected by pavement or floor slabs not be used in design for passive resistance to lateral loads. If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, we recommend using a coefficient of friction of 0.25 between soil and concrete for design. If it is desired to combine fnotional and passive resistance in design, we recommend using a friction coefficient of 0.20. Wei recommend that footings located close to or on slopes be extended to a sufficient depth so that the horizontal djstance between the outside bottom edge of the foundaion and the face of the slope is at least 8 feet. Pavements In pavement design calculations, we assumed a traffic index (T.I.) of 4.5 for. car parking areas and 5.5 ! for access roads and truck traffic areas. We a]so assumed R-values of 10 for on-site expansive soil and 20 for non- expansive import soil. Based on our calculations, wo recom- | 4' |mend the following aspha]t pavement thicknesses i 16 Project No. 50332W-UD01 Full Depth Asphalt Concrete 6-1/2" 5-1/2" 8-1/2" 7-1/2" Asphalt Concrete 3" 3" 3" 3" Class II Base 7-1/2" 6" 11" 9" T.I. 4.5 R = 10 R = 20 T.I. 5.5 R - 10 R = 20 Additionally, we recommend paving loading dock and dumpster areas with 6 inches of PCC Concrete. We also recommend that R-value tests be performed on actual pavement subgrade materials at the end of grading to verify our assumptions. Recommendations for revising the recommended thicknesses can be made at that time, if necessary. We .recommend that the subgrade be scarified, watered or dried as required, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent maximum laboratory density, as determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-70, prior to placing base mate- rial. The minimum depth of compaction of the subgrade soils should be 6 inches. Whenever loose materials are encountered to greater depths, they should be removed and recompacted. We recommend that the base material conform to the State of California Standard Specifications (January 1978), for Class IT aggregate base, Section 26-1.02B; the asphalt concrete should conform to State of California Standard Specifications (January 1978), Section 39-2.01 for the asphalt and Section 39-2.02 (Type B) for the aggregate. 17 Project No. 5:0332W-UD01 Woodward-GSifde Consultants RISK AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Our test borings indicate only a small portion of the pertinent soil and ground water conditions. The recom- mendations made herein are based on the a assumption that soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those found during our field investigation. If the plans for site development are changed, or if variations or undesirable igeotechnical|conditions are encountered during construction, ! the geotechnical consultant should be consulted for further recommendations. We;recommend that the geotechnical consultant review the foundation and grading plans to verify that the intent of the recommendations presented herein has been properly interpreted and incorporated into the contract documents. We further recommend that the geotechnical i consultant observe the site grading, subgrade preparation under concrete slabs c-ipcl paved area's, and foundation excava- tions .iI It] should also be understood that California, including San Diego, as an area of high seismic risk. It is i generally considered economi.cal.ly unfeasible to build totally earthquake-resistant structures; therefore, it as possible that a large 'or nearby earthquake could causo damage at the site. 18 Project No. 50332W-UD01 Wood ward-Ciyde CoBisyStarats Professsional judgments presented herein are basedii partly on our evaluations of the technical information gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed con- struction, and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. Our engineering work and judgments i rendered meet current professional standards. We do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect. This firm does not practice or consult in the i field of safety engineering. We do not direct the con- tractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of other than our own personnel on the site; there- fore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of "the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. . i i 19 . rv ' I — / ,-(.-- i asoo UJa o acc ao C' o2 u UJ cca. tn a u IU 5 m 1<e:a u M -T- a C-'.u f*4 r~ ^fC. rH ^J C. 2- 5^fc, rff- , ^ M CT C C: *?* O w §O croc 1 J r—i IIIH O •"T Oo D1£ fN COen 0in i 1 i aUl III 5 .c U)tico oo o LI WJ <Utn uMKa project No. 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde Consultants APPENDIX A 'FIELD INVESTIGATION Tein exploratory borings were advanced at the ' approximate locations shown on Pig. 1. The drilling was performed by personnel from our firm between November 20 and 26, 1980 using a 8-inch diameter, truck-mounted continuous-, flight auger. Samples of the subsurface materials were obtained from the borings using a modified California drive sampler 2-inch inside diameter and 2-1/2-inch outside diameter with thin brass liners. The sampler was generally driven 18 inches into the material at the bottom of the hole by a 140- pound hammer falling 30 inches; thin metal liner tubes I containing the sample were removed from the sampler, sealed to preserve the natural moisture content of the sample, and returned to the laboratory for examination and testing. i The location of each boring and the elevation of the ground surface at each location were estimated from the topographic jalan. A-l Location Boring Number Elevation D6PTHINF«T • - — TiiT DA A •MC 12 •oo • no K 65 •OTHiR SAMPLE I COIL DESCRTiSTS NUMBER | &OIL UC&UH ] ,-wIj Very dense, i • H v ,2 LJ i , ii WATER LEVEL — ' IPTION • damp, brown silly sand (SM) i , At time of drilling or as indicated. SO IL CLASS! F (CAT UNSoil Classifications are based on the Unified Soil Claisif ication System and include color, moisture and consistency. Field descriptions have been modified to reflect results of laboratory analyses where appropriate. ' DISTURBED SAMPLE LOCATION Obtained by collecting the auger cuttings in a plastic or cloth bag DRIVE SAMPLE LOCATION MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER Sample with recorded blows per foot was obtained with a Modified California drive sampler (2" inside diameter 2.5" outtide diameter) lined with sample tubes The sampler was driven into the toil at the bottom of the hole with a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches IIMLJIUn 1 CS 5VMVI**UC GS - Grain Sue OutTESTED FOR OTHER PROPERTIESrtbution CT - Contottdanon Test LC — Laboratory Compaction UCS — Unconfirmed Compression Tesi Test PI - Atlerberg Limits Test DS - Direct Shear Test ST - Loaded Swell Test TX- Tnaxtal Compression Test CC— Confined Compression Ten NOTE In mis column the results of these tests may be recorded where applicable ULUW OOUN 1 Number of blows needed to advance sampler one toot or as indicated. Pounds per Cubic Foot i uniCTiiRc rnMTCMT Percent of Dry Weight NOTES ON FIELD INVESTIGATION I. REFUSAL indicates the inability to extend excavation practically, with equipment I Ming u*ad in the investigation DRAWN BY: ch | CM1 KEY TO LOGS ' HOWARD MANN 16 ACRE CKfOBV: JlAT-I^- PROJECT NO: 50332W-UD01 | DATE. 12-1-80 I FIGUIte NO: At"! WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS DEPTH IN FEET 5- 10- - - 15- 20- 25- 30 - . 35- 40 _ Tl •MC ESTDA1 •DO - r* •BC 88 1 5D/6,, 78 5b/3H 5P/6» 5D/5,, I cn /50/2 „ •OTHER TESTS GS,PI ST GS,PI • SAMPLE NUMBER 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 - 7 II i;|X J| INS IS 1 |is1^vftW!i1 !SS 1 'UswI ^ Approximate El. 284' <;nii nP<5r R i PTI n.N Loose, damp, tan, clayey sandy silt (ML) V . TOPSOIL Very dense, moist, yelj.ow-tan, silty fine sand to hard, sandy clay (SM-CL) with gypsum crystals DELMAR FORMATION * VPT*V df^ncjp tnri3<?'t" Vf^llow— +*an ciilf'v Fin^ c-ar>^ fCM^ HT?T MAD TTMDMliTT^M I Hard, moist, olive, silty clay (CL-CH) DELMAR FORMATION Hard, moist, brown, silty sand (SM) with sea shell fragments IV DELMAR FORMATION Hard, moist, reddish-brown, silty clay (CL) DELMAR FORMATION Thin lenses of yellow-tan, silty sand (SM) | ~| Color change to qray brown T Very dense;, moist, reddish-brown, cemented silty sand (SM) with shell fragments DELMAR FORMATION \ Refusal A-l DRAWN BY: ch LOG OF TEST BORING 1 HOWARD MANN 16 ACRK | CHECKED BY- f /,(?rj. PROJECT NO 50332W-UDO1 | DATE- 12-1-80 | FIGURE NO: A- 2 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS ' Boring 2 Approximate El. 232' DEPTH IN FEET 5_H 10- - - 15- - - 20 - 25 _ 30_ 35- 40- T6ST DATA1 •MC •OD JBC !39 i 1 54 II !i 58 4Q/4» 1 > •OTHERTESTS GS,PT SAMPLE NUMBER 2-1 i I 2-2 i I * 2-3 2-4 2-5 SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 Moist, mottled tan and qray, silty sandy clay FILL Intermittent layers of qray, clayey silty sand ««- Wire at 8' Moist, liqht brown, silty clay FILL •"— Small pieces of wire and bits of plastic at 15' ' Hard, moist, olive, silty clay (CL-CH) DELMAR FORMATION Bottom of Hole •For description of symbols, tee Figure A-L MX, OP TCST BORING '' HOWARD MANN 10 ACRI DRAWN BY ch \ CHECKED BY l7(!/| PROJECT NO 550332W-UDO1 | DATE. U-2-80 | FIGURE NO: A-3 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTAKTS Bonriq 3 Approximate El. 226' DEPTH IN FEET 5- 10- - - 15- - 20- " 25 _ - 30- 35- - 40- TEST DATA( •MC •DO *BC :' I 36 i 42 .9 i 504- ! •OTHER TESTS • i SAMPLE NUMBER 3-1 3-2 3-3 [ 3-4 SOIL DESCRIPTION i Damp, mottled tan and gray, silty clay FILL . Intermittent layers of clayey silty sand •y* — Gravel « Roots Very noist, dark brown, silty clay with trace of debris FILL — Wire at ?7' J-*— Gravel Hard, moir.t, gray, silty clay (CL-CH) DELMAR FORMATION Bottom ol Hole •For description of syrobols. tee Figure A-] T.OG OF TEST BORING 3 HOWARD MANN 16 ACRE DRAWN BY Ch I CHECKED BY .v^\ PROJECT NO. 50332W-UDO1 1 DATE: 12-2-80 I FIGURE MO: A-41 1 .—« —: 1 i . i, ,.• WOODWARD-CLYDE COKSUU " """ Bonriq 4 Approximate El. 255' DEPTH IN FEET 5- 10- 15- - 20 _ 25- - 30- TEST DATA •MC - •OD •BC •OTHER TESTS SAMPLE NUMBER 4-1 i W 1 1 -1-2 — SOIL DESCRIPTION I #^£J^Moist, gray, silty clay FILL 1 Moist, light brown, gravelly silty sand FILL Hard, moist, olive, silty clay to clayey sand (CL-OH) DELMAR FORMATION Grading to Hard, moist, olive, sandy silty clay to clayey sand (CL-SC) with shell fragments DELMAR FORMATION Bottom of Hole •For description of symbols, see Figure C(, fir TI ST BORING 'I HOWARD MANN 16 ACRI. DRAWN BY ch | CHECKED BY >A-*| PROJECT NO 503 32W-UDO1 | DATET l'--2-80 { FIGURE HO? WOODWARD-CLYDE CONS Boring 5 Approximate El. 226' DEPTH INFE6T 5 - 10 - 15 - 20 - > 30 _ ~ - - 40 - ilr-, - TEST DATA •MC ; •DD '' \ •BC ; •OTHER TESTS i SAMPLE NUMBER ' J SOIL DESCRIPTION * 't •• Moist, mottled tan and qray, sandy silty clay FILL Moist, dark brown and qray, sandy silt clay FILL -"-— - Roots at 11' *•* — — Dark brown clay Oeiibe, moist to wot, olive-brown, clayoy sand (S(. ) DELMAR FORMATION 2 • hot t o;;i -. •' liol v tfc •For description of symbols, see Figure A- ] l,O(, i)I" Tl r->T BORirjG S MOViARD MAN\ 16 A( R]' . . • DRAWN BY ch | CHECKED BY. YUl'^| PR04ECTNO. ')0332W-UD01 ] DATE 12-2-BO | HOURittqs.^%.:.. WOODW;i>n.CLYOE CO Boring 6 Approximate El. 243' DEPTH IN FEET 5_ 10- 15- TEST DATA •MC •DO •BC •OTHER TESTS SAMPLE NUMBER 6-1 MM SOIL DESCRIPTION •• v _*i jA 3 fe! 1 Loose, damp, tan, clayey sand (SC) with gravel TOPSOIL AND SLOPEWASH • Dense, damp, reddish-brown, clayey sand (SC \, TOPSOIL AND SLOPEWASH Hard, moist, gray, sandy clay (CL) DELMAR FORMATION * Bottom of Hole Boring 7 Approximate El. 248' DEPTH IN FEET •5 _ 10- 15- TEST DATA •MC •00 •BC •OTHER TESTS SAMPLE NUMBER 7-1 SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 i 1 Firm, damp, light brown, sandy clay (CL) with surface gravel and cobbles V TOPSOIL AND SLOPEWASH Stiff, moist, yellow-brown, silty clay (CU] RESIDUAL CLAY Very stiff, moist, qray, silty clay (CL-CH) DCLMAR FORMATION . — — — — — Grad ] nq to _ — — — — — Hard, mo:e.t, gray, silty clay (CL-CH) \ DEI.MAR FORMATION Bottom of Hole •For description of symbol*, see Figure /\_ | T,O<; OF TEST I-.ORINGS 6 MM 7 HOWARD MANN 1G ACRE DRAWN BY. <-'h { CHECKED BY N^~{ PROJECT NO. 50332W-UDO1 | DATE 12-1-80 | FIGURE NO: A-7 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Boring 8 Approximate El. 236' DEPTH IN FEET 5- 10- 15~ 20 25 - 30- 15- 40_ TEST DATA •MC •DO •BC 54 33 •OTHER TESTS SAMPLE NUMBER e-,: 8-2 8-1 - SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 I Moist, Lan with gray mottling, silty clay FILL » Moist, brown, sandy gravelly clay FILL |— — Roots Hard, damp, tan and gray, fine sandy clay (CL) DELMAR FORMATION Stiff to hard, moist, pale yellow-tan, sandy clay (CL) DELMAR FORMATION Bottom of Hole - LOG OF TCST RORING 8 HOWARD MANN 16-ACRi: DRAWN BY- ch { CHICKED BY \f^\ PROJECT NO: e?OJ32W-UD01 | DATE: 12-1-80 | FIGURE NO. A~ WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS T : Boring 8A Approximate El. 236' DEPTH IN FEET 5_ 10 _ 15 ~. • - TEST DATA •MC •DO •BC 19 •OTHER TESTS SAMPLE NUMBER SA-1 SOIL DESCRIPTION Moist, tan with qray mottling, silty sandy clay FILL • Moist, brown, sandy gravelly clay FILL Bottom of Hole Boring 9 Approximate El. 250' DEPTH IN FEET 5_ 10- 15- TEST DATA •MC •DD •BC •OTHER TESTS SAMPLE NUMBER ')-! SOIL DESCRIPTION ^I §§ 1 Moist, tan and qray, sandy silty clay FILL -, Root -3 and wood at 3' Stuff, moir.t, t in to liahV brown, qravollv V sandv <. lay (CI.) SLOrPWASfl Vory st.il'f, moist, yollo\/-brown, sil-tv clay (CI!) RF.STDUAL CLAY Hard, d.iipp, iray, .ilty (..lay (CII) DI.r.MAK FOKMATTCm Hot torn o* Hole •For description of vymbolt, ws Ftgur* LOG OF TFST 1-ORINGS 8A AND 9 HOWARD MANN 16 ACRK DRAWN BY PBOtfCTHQ; SQ332W-UDO1 | DATK; 12-1-80 JFIQUHKHO* WOODWARD-CLYDE ., Project No. 50332W-UD01 Woodward-Clyde Consultants APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS * The materials observed in the borings were visually classified and evaluated with respect to strength, and compressibility characteristics. The classifications were substantiated by performing grain size analyses and evaluating plasticity characteristics of representative samples of the soils. Swelling characteristics were evaluated by performing loaded swell tests on relatively undisturbed samples. The grain size distribution curves are shown on Fig. B-l. The results of loaded swell tests are reported on * Fig. B-2. B-l tn<n uto - 90 QAoU /o CO 50 Ufl•KJ 20 IU CODoLtO GRAVEL Coarse Fine SAND Coarse Medi urn Fine SILT and CLAY Mesh Opening- Ins Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis 76 3 I 2 l§ I 74 10 16 20 30 HO 60 80 IW 200 ... 1 ..... - — -• I - \ 4-2 i i \ > _ -2 — I ••«- s — ^ =^ -K .... i >>; V \ \ \ — \ \\ --- -• •^ \\l TJV\T\ \\ \\\. I t— 1 IR • •^ ^[~y\ \\\\\ — 1 ^\v\\ •*- 1 1\1\\ I\\\\>\ • f 2-1 .. 1-4 \ \ Xx^ V\\h"V\'K\^ v . l\ 'V \ \ - — ...... .._. \ \\\ \ \ X-\^ x Ol . " ~ ^^^_ N. ^^"N^ \\ \ \ \V\\II11 '^v N^ v ^••--^~**^^ ^^^^ •^^ ~"-v^ ^~>^_ 100 50 10.0 5oO .0 O.I 0.05 0.01 0.005 O.OC 0 10 20 30 MO SO 60 70 80 90 100 II GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAMPLE 1-2 1-4 ?-l 4-2 CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL Sandy clay (Cl.) Silty clay (CLI) Salty clay (CL-CII) Clayey s.md (SC) *LL 41 52 50 34 *Pi 20 30 31 n *LL - Liquid Limit *PI - Plasticity Index GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES HOWARD MANN 16 AC RH DRAWN BY. ch [CHECKED BY >tf£\ PROJECT NO 50332w-UDQl | DATE i?-4-BO { FIGURE NO-. B-^ WOODWARD-CLYDE COMSUtTAKTS RESULTS OF LOADED SWELL TESTS Sample Number 2-1 4-2 Initial Dry Dens i ty pcf 101 116 Water Content % 24 10 * Saturation % 100 60 Final Dry Density pcf 98 111 Water Content % 26 17 Saturation % 100 92 Pressure psf 160 160 Expansion » % of initial Height 6.5* 4.2 1.94Diameter of Samples: Height of Samples: -6?3 * FROM AIR DRY LOADED SWELL TESTS 1 HOWARD MANN 16 ACRE " j DAAWHIY: ch f CHCCKCO BY. }iW .[..... |->*0»KCTI«0.50332W-UD01 f DATE: 12-4-80 •lllJUli^VSBIWffUHitt^ttHSiKT-^^-^^^init -zlf. t£~. •project No. 50332W-UD01 APPENDIX C GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUBSURFACE DRAINS I. DESCRIPTION Subsurface drains consisting of filter gravel or clean gravel enclosed in filter fabric with perforated pipe shall be installed as shown on the plans in accordance-with these specifications, unless otherwise specified by the engineer. II. MANUFACTURE Subsurface drain pipe shall be manufactured in accordance with the following requirements. Perforated corrugated ADS pipe shall conform to ASTM Designa- tion F405. Transite underdrain pipe shall conform to AST"M Designation C-508 (Type II). Perforated ABS and PVC pipe shall conform to ASTM Desginations 2751 and 3033, respect- ively, for SDR35; and to ASTM Designations 2661 and 1785, respectively, for SDR21. The type pipe shall conform to the following table. Pipe Material ADS (Corrugated Polyethylene) Transite 'underdrain1 PVC or ABS: SDR35 SDR21 III. FILTER MATERIAL Maximum Height of Fill (feet) 8 20 35 100 Filter material for use in backfilling trenches around and over drains shall consist of clean, coarse sand and gravel or crushed stone conforming to the following grading require- ments. Sieve Size Percentage Passing Sieve 1" 3/4" 3/8" 4 8 30 50 200 This material generally conforms with Class II permeable? material in accordance with Section 68-1.025 of the Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation. C-l 90 - 40 - 25 - 18 -^ _ 0 - 0 - 100 100 100 40 33 15 7 3 iject No. 50332W-UD01 APPENDIX C (continued) IV. FILTER FABRIC Filter fabric for use in drains shall consist of Mirafi 140S (Celanese) , Typar (DuPont), or equivalent. The aggregate shall be 3/4-inch to 1-1/2-inch maximum size, free draining aggregate. Filter fabric shall completely surround the aggregate. V. LAYING Trenches for drains shall be excavated to a minimum width of 2 feet and to a depth shown on the plans, or as directed by the engineer. The bottom of the trench shall then be covered full width by 4 inches of filter material or with filter fabric and 4 inches of aggregate, and the drain pip6 shall be laid with the perforations at the bottom and sections shall be joined with couplers. The pipe shall be laid on a minimum slope of 0.2 percent and drained to curb outlet or storm drain. After the pipe has been placed, the trench shall be back- filled with filter material or 1-1/2-inch maximum size aggregate if filter fabric is used, to the elevation shown on the plans, or as directed by the engineer. C-2 , * Project No.', 50332W-UD01 APPENDIX C (continued) TYPICAL SUBSURFACE DRAN1S FOR LOCAL SEEPAGE /Compacted /Native Soil Cut Slope ^-7 ^/—Typical Seepage Line 6" Perforated Pipe Drain to Curb Outlet or Storm Drain J Filter Material or Filter Fabric Cut Slops 6" Perforated Pipe Drain to Curb Outlet or Storm Drain /—Compacted Native Soil Typical Seepage Line Filter Material or Filter Fabric Cut Slops Compacted dative Soil - /—Typical Seepage Line Filter Material or Filter Fabric 6" Perforated Pipe Drmn to Curb Outlet or Storm Orain C-3 , 'Project No. 50332W-UD01 APPENDIX C (continued) TYPICAL SECTION SUBSURFACE DRAINS IN DRAWS -ORIGINAL GROUND EXCAVATION OP AGGREGATE. 7 cf/ft OF LENG1.1, MIN. (3/4" to IS" crushed rock maximum size) DRAIN PIPE- 6 INCH DIAMETER COMPACTED FILL FILTER FABRIC ALL AROUND PIPE MATERIAL ADS (CORRUGATED POL/ETIIYLF HI.) TRANSITF UIIDI Pt PVC or AHS SDR V> SDR Jl MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FILL ABOVE BOTTOM OF ALLUVIAL CLEANOUT (FT.) 0 20 15 100 C-4 * Project No. 50332W-UD01 APPENDIX C (continued) TYPTCiM, SECTION SUBSURFACE DRAINS II! DRAWS -ORIGINAL GROUND EXCAVATION BOTTOM OF ALLU"IAL CLEANOUT FILTER MATERIAL. 7 cf'/ft OF LENGTH, MIN COMPACTED FILL DRAIN PIPE: 6 INCH DIAMETER PIPF MATERIAL AD:; (CORRUGATED POI.ALTMYI TRAtJSITE UI'DPRUHAItJ [>VC Ol AR.S SDR TI. SDR JL MA1- I !UM HEIGHT OF FILL BOTTOM OP ALLUVIAF. CLEANOUT (FT ) 8 '.'0 1 00 C-5 ^Project No APPENDIX D SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONTROLLED FILL I.GENERAL These specifications cover preparation of existing surfaces to receive fills, the type of soil suitable for-use in fills, the control of compaction, and the methods of testing compacted fills. It shall be the contractor's responsibility to place, spread, water, and compact the fill in strict accordance with these specifications. A soil engineer shall be the owner's representative to inspect the construction of fills. Excavation and the placing of fill shall be under the direct inspection of the soil engineer, and he shall give written notice of conformance with the specifications upon completion of grading. Deviations from these specifica- tions will be permitted only upon written authorization from the soil engineer. A soil investigation has been made for this project; any recommendations made in the report of the soil investigation or subsequent reports shall become an addendum to these specifications. II. SCOPE The placement of controlled fill by the contractor shall include all clearing and grubbing, removal of existing unsatisfactory material, preparation of the areas to be filled, spreading and compaction of fill in the areas to be filled, and all other work necessary to complete the grading of the filled areas. III. MATERIALS 1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any material imported or excavated from the cut areas that, in the opinion of the soil engineer, is suitable for use in constructing fills. The material shall contain no rocks or hard lumps greater than 24 inches in size and shall contain at least 40% of material smaller than 1/4 inch in size. (Materials greater than 6 inches in size shall be placed by the contractor so that they are surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks shall be permitted.) No material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise improper nature shall be used in filling. 2. Material placed within 24 inches of rough grade shall be select material that contains no rocks or hard lumps greater than 6 inches in size and that swells less than 6% when compacted as hereinafter specified for compacted fill and soaked under an axial pressure of 160 psf. D-l 50332W-UD01 APPENDIX D (continued) 3. Representative samples of material to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory by the soil engineer in order to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and classification of the soil. In addition, the soil engineer shall determine the approximate bearing value of a recompacted, saturated sample by direct shear tests or other tests applicable to the particular soil. 4. During grading operations, soil types other than those analyzed in the report of the soil investigation may be encountered by the contractor. The soil engineer shall be consulted to determine the suitability of these soils. IV. COMPACTED FILLS 1.General i& (a) Unless otherwise specified, fill material shall be compacted by the contractor while at a moisture content near the optimum moisture co'ntent and to a density that is not less than 90% of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test No. D1557-70, or other density test methods that will obtain equivalent results. (b) Potentially expansive soils may be used in fills below a depth of 24 inches and shall be compacted at a moisture content greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. 2. Clearing ahd Preparing Areas to be Filled (a) All trees, brush, grass, and other objectionable material shall be collected, piled, and burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor so as to leave the areas that have-been cleared with a neat and finished appearance free from un- sightly debris. (b) All vegetable matter and objectionable material shall be removed by the contractor from the surface upon which the fill is to be placed, and any loose or porous soils shall be removed or compacted to the depth shown on the plans. The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equip- ment to be used. (c) Where fills are constructed on hillsides or slopes, the slope of the original ground on which the fill is to be placed shall be stepped or keyed by the contractor as shown on the figure on Page 4 of these specifications. The steps shall extend completely through the soil mantle and into the underlying formational materials. » D-2 I 50332W-UD01 APPENDIX D (continued) (d) After the foundation for the fill has been cleared, plowed, pr scarified, it shall be disced or bladed by the contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to-the proper moisture content, and compacted as specified.for fill. 3. Placing, Spreading, and Compaction of Fill Material • (a) The fill material shall be placed by the contractor in layers that, when compacted, shall not exceed 6 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the spreading to obtain uniformity of material in each layer. (b) When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the soil engineer, water shall be added by the contractor until the moisture content is as specified. (c) When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the soil engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by the contractor by blading, mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified. (d) After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the contractor to the specified density. Compaction shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic->tired rollers, or other types of acceptable com- pacting equipment. Equipment shall be-of such design that it will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and the equipment shall make sufficient trips to insure that the desired density has been obtained throughout the entire fill. (e) The surface of fill slopes shall be compacted and there shall be no excess loose soil on the slopes. V.INSPECTION 1. Observation and compaction tests shall be made by the soil engineer during the filling and compacting operations so that he can state his opinion that the fill was con- structed in accordance with the specifications. 2. The soil engineer shall make field density tests in accordance with ASTM Test No. D 1556-64. Density tests shall be made in the compacted materials below the surface where the surface is disturbed. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below the specified density, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the specified density has been < obtained. s D-3 3 3 2W-UDO1 APPENDIX D (continued) PROTECTION OF WORK 1. During construction the contractor shaljL properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and ^ prevent ponding of water. He shall control surface water to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas and until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. 2. After completion of grading and when the soil engineer has finished his observation of the work, no further excava- tion or filling shall be done except under the observation of the soil engineer. Strip as specified ground N Slope to be such , that sloughing or/ sliding does not occur Remove all topsoil See note See note NOTES: The minimum width of "B" key shall be 2 feet wider than the compaction equipment, and not less than 10 feet. The outside edge of bottom key shall be below topsoil or loose surface material. Keys are required where the natural slope is steeper 6 horizontal to 1 vertical, or where specified by the soil engineer. D-4