The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2251 ALTISMA WAY; ; CBR2024-2617; PermitBuilding Permit Finaled Residential Permit Print Date: 03/06/2025 Job Address: 2251 ALTISMA WAY, CARLSBAD, CA 92009-6365 Permit Type : BLDG-Residential Work Class: Repair Parcel#: 2152401001 Track#: Valuation: $15,000.00 Lot#: Occupancy Group: Project#: #of Dwelling Units: Plan#: Bedrooms: Construction Type: Bathrooms: Orig. Plan Check#: Occupant Load: Plan Check #: Code Edition: Sprinkled: Project Title: Permit No: Status: (_ City of Carlsbad CBR2024-2617 Closed -Finaled Applied: 10/01/2024 Issued: 12/12/2024 Finaled Close Out: 03/06/2025 Final Inspection: 02/06/2025 INSPECTOR: Mcclane, Duncan de Roggenbuke, Dirk Description: CASA DEL RAY: VOLUNTARY FOUNDATION SUPPORT// UNDERPINNING AND INSTALLATION OF 52 PIERS Property Owner: TERRI CARLSON 16935 BERNARDO DR, # STE 250 SAN DIEGO, CA 92127-1637 {760) 815-2555 FEE FOUNDATION REPAIR-RESIDENTIAL SB1473 -GREEN BUILDING STATE STANDARDS FEE STRONG MOTION -RESIDENTIAL (SMIP) THIRD PARTY REVIEW -Consultant Cost (BLDG) Total Fees: $664.95 Total Payments To Date: $664.95 Contractor: RAM JACK PACIFIC 8115 WING AVE EL CAJON, CA 92020-1247 Balance Due: AMOUNT $542.00 $1.00 $1.95 $120.00 $0.00 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exaction." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Fai lure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitation has previously otherwise expired. Building Division Page 1 of 1 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 I 442-339-2719 I 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov ( City of Carlsbad RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION B-1 Plan Check Est. Value PC Deposit Date Job Address 2251 Altisma Way, Car1sbad, CA 92009 Unit: APN: 2152401001 -----· CT /Project #: Lot #: Year Built: 1973 -------------------------------- BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK: voluntary foundation support. underpinning. installation of 52 piers 0 New SF: Living SF, ____ Deck SF, ___ Patio SF, ____ Garage SF __ _ Is this to create an Accessory Dwelling Unit? O Y O N New Fireplace? O YO N, if yes how many? ___ _ D Remodel: _____ SF of affected area Is the area a conversion or change of use? O YO N □ Pool/Spa: _____ SF Additional Gas or Electrical Features? ____________ _ 0 Solar: ___ KW, ___ Modules, Mounted: 0Roof O Ground, Tilt: 0 YON, RMA: 0 YO N, Battery:OYO N, Panel Upgrade: Ov ON Electric Meter number: -------------0th er: Foundation repair APPLICANT (PRIMARY CONTACT) Name: Robert Montgomery PROPERTY OWNER Address: 811 5 Wing Ave City: El Cajon State:_C_A ___ Zip: 92020 Phone: 619-804-1971 Email: rmontgomery@ramjackpacific.com DESIGN PROFESSIONAL Name: Brian Harp Address: 10146 Lauren Way City: Santee State:_C_A __ .Zip: 92071 Phone: 816-517-4178 Email: brian@mvceng.com Architect State License: ___________ _ Name: Terri Car1son Address: 2251 Altisma Way City: Carslbad Phone: 760-815-2555 Email: terrimcar1son@yahoo.com CONTRACTOR OF RECORD Business Name: Ram Jack Pacific State:_C_A __ Zip: 92009 -----------------Address: 8115 Wing Ave City: El Cajon State:_C_A ___ Zip: 92020 Phone: 619-726-0052 Email: rmontgomery@ramjackpacific.com CSLB License#: 1003878 Class: A, B, C10, 030, 012 Carlsbad Business License# {Required): BLOS000906-05-2017 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION: I certify that I have read the application and state that the above Info Ion is correct and that the Information o[ the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. 1635 Faraday Ave Ca rlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 442-339-2719 Email: Buildin carlsbadca. ov REV. 04122 THIS PAGE REQUIRED AT PERMIT ISSUANCE PLAN CHECK NUMBER: ______ _ A BUILDING PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED TO EITHER A STATE LICENSED CONTRACTOR OR A PROPERTY OWNER. IF THE PERSON SIGNING THIS FORM IS AN AGENT FOR EITHER ENTITY AN AUTHORIZATION FORM OR LETTER IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. (OPTION A): LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION: lherebyaffirmunderpenaltyofperjurythatlamlicensedunderprovisionsofChapter9(commencingwithSection7000)ofDivision3 of the Business and Professions Code, and my license is in full force and effect. I also affirm under penalty of per jury one of the following declarations (CHOOSE ONE): [j]1 have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work which this permit is issued. PolicyNo._c_s56_20_3_13 ________________________________________ _ -OR- D I have and will maintain worker's compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation Insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company Name: _______________________ _ Policy No. _____________________________ Expiration Date: ________________ _ -OR- D Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit Is issued, I shall not employ any person In any manner so as to become subject to the workers' compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers compensation coverage is unlawful and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to $100,000.00, in addition the to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for In Section 3706 of the Labor Code, Interest and attorney's fees. CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY, IF ANY: I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (i) Civil Code). lender's Name: ______________________ ~Lender's Address: _____________________ _ CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION: The applicant certifies that all documents and plans clearly and accurately show all existing and proposed buildings, structures, access roads, and utllltles/utlllty easements. All proposed modifications and/or additions are clearly labeled on the site plan. Any potentially existing detail within these plans Inconsistent with me site plan are not approved for construction and may be required to be altered or removed. The city's approval of the application is based on the premise that the submitted documents and plans show the correct dimensions of; the property, bulldlngs, structures and their setbacks from property lines and from one another; access roads/easements, and utilities. The existing and proposed use of each building asstated is true and correct; all easements and other encumbrances to development have been accur ly shown and labeled as well as all on-site grading/site preparation. All Improvements existing on the property were completed In accordance with all regulations in existence at the ti f t Ir construction, unless otherwise noted. NAME (PRINT): Robert Montgomery Note: If the person signing above Is an authorized agent for the contr (OPTION B): OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby affirm that I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: 0 I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or Improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such Improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or Improve for the purpose of sale). -OR- DI, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project {Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's license Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or Improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). -OR- D I am exempt under Business and Professions Code Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 3 for this reason: AND, D FORM B 61 "Owner Builder Acknowledgement and Verification Form" ,s required for any permit Issued to a property owner. By my signature below I acknowledge that, except for my persona l residence In which I must have resided for at least one yea r prior to completion of the improvements covered by this permit, I cannot legally sell a tructure that I have built as an owner-builder If it has not been constructed in ,ts entirety by licensed contractor../ understand that a copy of the applicable law, Section 7044of the Business and Professions Code, isavailabl e upon request when this application is submitted or at the following Website: http:l lwww.leginfo.ca.gov/colaw.html. OWNER CERT/FICA TION: The applicant certifies that all documents and plans clearly and accurately show all existing and proposed buildings. structures. access roads, and utilities/utility easements. All proPosed modifications and/or additions are clearly labeled on the site plan. Any potentially existing detail within these plans Inconsistent with the site plan are not approved for construction and may be required to b altered or removed. The city's approval of the application is based on the premise that the submitted documents and plans show the correct dimensions of; the property, bulldlngs, structures and their setbacks from property lines and from one another; access roads/easements, and utilities. The existing and proposed use of each building as stated Is true and correct; all easements and other encumbrances to development have been accurately shown and labeled as well as all on-site grading/site preparation. All improvements existing on the property were completed In accordance with all regulations In existence at the time of their construction, unless otherwise noted. __________ DATE: ______ _ Note: If the owner Include form B-62 sl ned b r ert owner. 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 442-339-2719 Email: Bu1lding@carlsbadca.gov 2 REV. 04/22 PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBR2024-2617) Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Work Class: Repair Status: Closed -Finaled Application Date: 10/01 /2024 Owner: TERRI CARLSON Issue Date: 12/12/2024 Subdivision: LA COSTA VALLEY #5 Expiration Date: 07/23/2025 Address: 2251 ALTISMA WAY CARLSBAD, CA 92009-6365 IVR Number: 59294 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Reinspection Inspection Date Start Date Thursday, March 6, 2025 Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-Plumbing Final BLDG-Mechanical Final BLDG-Structural Final BLDG-Electrical Final COMMENTS Status Passed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Page 2 of 2 Bui lding Permit Inspection History Finaled ( City of Carlsbad I PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBR2024-2617) Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 10/01/2024 Owner: TERRI CARLSON Work Class: Repair Issue Date: 12/12/2024 Subdivision: LA COSTA VALLEY #5 Status: Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 07/23/2025 Address: 2251 ALTISMA WAY IVR Number: 59294 CARLSBAD, CA 92009-6365 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Re inspection Inspection Date Start Date Status 01/03/2025 01/03/2025 BLDG-11 272435-2025 Partial Pass Dirk de Roggenbuke Relnspection Incomplete Foundatlon/Ftg/Piers (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 1/3/25 piles A1 -A25 ok Yes BLDG-SW-Inspection 272572-2025 Partial Pass Dirk de Roggenbuke Reinspection Incomplete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed Are erosion control BMPs Yes functioning properly? Are perimeter control BMPs Yes maintained? Is the entrance stabilized to Yes prevent tracking? Have sediments been tracked Yes on to the street? Has trash/debris accumulated Yes throughout the site? Are portable restrooms Yes properly positioned? Do portable restrooms have Yes secondary containment? 01/21/2025 01/21/2025 BLDG-11 273760-2025 Partial Pass Dirk de Roggenbuke Relnspection Incomplete Foundatlon/Ftg/Plers (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 1/3/25 piles A 1-A25 ok Yes 1/21 /25 piles A27-AS2 ok 01/24/2025 01/24/2025 BLDG-11 27 4328-2025 Passed Duncan McClane Complete F ou ndatlon/Ftg/Plers (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 1/3/25 piles A1-A25 ok Yes 1/21/25 piles A27-A52 ok All piles complete. DMC 02/06/2025 02/06/2025 BLDG-Final Inspection 275464-2025 Passed Dirk de Roggenbuke Complete Thursday, March 6, 2025 Page 1 of 2 . . True North / COMPLIANCE SERVICES October 17, 2024 City of Carlsbad Community Development Department -Building Division 1635 Faraday Ave. City of Carlsbad -FINAL REVIEW City Perm it No: CBR2024-26 I 7 True North No.: 24-018-887 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review: Residential Alteration Address: 2251 Altisma Way Applicant Name: Robert Montgomery Applicant Email: Rmontgomery@ramjackpacific.com OCCUPANCY AND BUILDING SUMMARY: Occupancy Groups: R2 Occupant Load: NIA Type of Construction: VA Sprinklers: NIA Stories: 2 Area of Work (sq. ft.): 208 sq. ft. The plans have been reviewed for coordination with the pennit application. Valuation: Confirmed Scope of Work: Confirmed Floor Area: Confirmed Notes: NIA Attn: Building & Safety Department, True North Compliance Services, Inc. has completed the final review of the following documents for the project referenced above on behalf of the City of Carlsbad: 1. Drawings: One (1) copy dated September 16, 2024, by Brian D. Harp. 2. Structural Calculations: One (1) copy dated September I I, 2024, by Brian D. Harp. 3. Geotechnical Report: One (I) copy dated May 8, 2024, by Skyline Geotechnical. 4. Other Documents: One (1) copy dated September 26, 2024, by Skyline Geotechnical. 5. Other Documents: One (1) copy dated September 18, 2024, by Robert Montgomery. The 2022 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical Codes (i.e., 2021 IBC, UMC, UPC, and 2020 NEC, as amended by the State of California), 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, 2022 California Existing Building Code, and 2022 California Energy Code, as applicable, were used as the basis of our review. Please note that our review has been completed and we have no further comments, however, we bring the following to your attention: True North Compliance Services, Inc. 8369 Vickers Street, Suite 207, San Diego, CA 92111 T / 562.733.8030 , . I. This project is Hourly. Please charge the applicant the following hours of plan review. Review No. Hourly Rate Hours Total 1st/Final Review $120.00 2 $240.00 Total $240.00 We have enclosed the above noted documents bearing our review stamps for your use. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, True North Compliance Services Review By: Jasmine Safaqa -Plan Review Engineer QA/QC Review By: Areli Sanchez -Plan Review Engineer Inspection Report w,.-.,K· ( 0 Project Name: ___ ---::,------,l_,.... ___ ,--. __ (~'_0_r-_l'_t~----~ L) \ ,t1p ProjectAddress: --------~(_f'I~( ____________ _ Page:~ __ ! __ of ____ Report#: _____ _ Permit #: _{ __ T--~)~(l_,_o_Z_'-_1_-_1_1_•_-, ____ _ Architect:, ________________________ _ File#: _________________ _ (I Engineer: { A (. ,. DSA #: ________________ _ Contractor: (I c,r(\ 'V-• I Y Other: ________________ _ INSPECTION MATERIAL SAMPLING QTY MATERIAL DESCRIPTION INSPECTION CHECKLIST --Structural Steel --H.S. Bolts --H.S. Bolts --Plans/Specs Masonry Prisms Cone. PSI ./ Clearances -------- Concrete Mortar/Grout Grout PSI _,, Positions -------- Fireproofing Cone. Cylinders Mortar PSI ./ Sizes ------ :)/-;...) "/. -- Epoxy Fireproof .,, Steel ✓ Laps --------.,, Other:) ,, Other: Elect./Wire Consolidation -------- --Other: --Other: --Fireproof --Torque Ft. Lbs: Other: Other: Other: -Other: ( ' 4,.., i -------- --Other: --Other: --Other: --Other: { \ ru( fr, ,p(\ 51 (( r . L , l;-,ln.J ~ t:~ '("\ '.,, ( ( ~ r, l,I f\ I s;; .,... C~L\.-,,( ru ... rt--'L(' C\ --., ( ,.J -:r. !.~ I S 1 <) I 2 ll r"'J ~2 :'i,'-1 r L/::J l/~ £.I </' '-/C/ 10 ,, ') I ' ,, J V p~ J.._,') .--& <. L, ,. ,v ,.) '1/ /I {f"', .,1 -J ( ( (' _J .) rl J, CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE: All reported work, unless otherwise noted, complies with approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the building codes. This report covers the locations of the work inspected and does not constitute opinion or project ontroL I hereby certify that I have observed to the best of my knowledge all of the above reported work unless otherwise ngt d. I have found this work to comply with the approved plans, specifications, and applicable sections of the governing building laws, / ~ ~--/ ,, ~//!',,,, I -r Z ~ Inspector: GIANNI BATTAGLIA Cert: 1323 -'-,--------------- ' Time Start: , Time Stop: City of Carlsba nature ;_pay 2:, ' ., ..... ·J '-1-2025 ........ .,:.. . .. _ay .. :, ~ ..... :_Day 4:_ .. .. , .... ,, ..... BUILDING DIVISION : .. Approved By: ___________________ _ Project Superintendent Date Day 5: J ,.1' J f. I SKYLINE (;E OT EC H NICAL January 20, 2025 Ram Jack Pacific Robert Montgomery 9401 Lurline Ave. Chatsworth, CA 91311 Office I 619.726.0052 Email : rmontgomery@ramjackpacific.com Project No. 24-027R .I INTERIM CERTIFICATION FOR UNDERPINNING PILE INSTALLATION CASA DEL REY UNDERPINNING 2251 ALTISMA WAY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Mr. Montgomery: At your request, Skyline Geotechnical, Inc. has performed periodic installation observation and review of the attached installation logs and data for the driven underpinning piles installed by Ram Jack at the referenced site. Based on our observations and review, the following is noted: • Piles installations observed and documented in the attached logs (by RamJack) appear to achieve depths at or greater than indicated on the approved project plans and extend to appropriate bearing material as specified in the project documents. • Pressure reported on the RamJack installation logs indicated adequate resistance for the installed piles. • Excavations created for the purpose of pile bracket installation completed at this time may be backfilled. This document is subject to the same limitations as the previous geotechnical documents. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact our office. 0 City of Carlsbad Jt:l ~! t025 BUILDING DIVISION Skyline Geotechnical I 7040 Avenida Encinas STE 104, Carlsbad, CA 92011 ~EOTECHNICAL Respectfully submitted, SKYLINE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Rodney J. Jones, GE #3205 Principal Geotechnical Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A -References Appendix B -Contractor Pile In tallation Log Aaron J. Beeby, CEG #2603 Principal Engineering Geologist PAGE2 SKYLINE PROJECT NO. 24-027R.I 20JANUARY2025 SKYLINE (;EOTECHNICAL PAGE3 APPENDIX A: REFERENCES Allied Geotechnical Engineers Inc., 1979, Limited Site Investigation, Existing Residential Building Site, 3437 Goldfinch Street, San Diego, California, project No. 60B4, Dated September 6. Mountain View Consulting, 2024, Foundation Repair Plans, Foundation Underpinning (Single Family Dwelling), 2251 Altisma Way, Carlsbad CA, dated August 16. Skyline Geotechnical Inc., 2024, Limited Update Geotechnical Investigation, 2251 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 23-027R.I, dated May 8. SMS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., 2017, Limited Geotechnical Slope Failure Investigation, Impacted Top of Western Premier Graded Slope, Casa Del Rey Condominiums, 2251 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, California, Project No . Gl-16-12-154, dated February 13. SKY LINE PROJECT NO. 24-027R.I 20JANUARY2025 (;EOTECHNICAL APPENDIX B: CONTRACTOR PILE INSTALLATION LOG PAGE 4 SKYLINE PROJECT NO. 24-027R.I 20JANUARY202S Torque Job Address PIie Section PIie Number Tlmestamp Installation Depth PSI Drive Head ft lbs Bracket / Gulde Sleeve Starter 2251 Altisma Way A 1 12/20/202415:06:41 56 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 2 12/19/2024 9:44:01 56 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 3 12/1912024 7:59:31 56 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gulde Sleeve Driven?' 2251 Altisma way A 4 12/18/2024 9:05:06 56 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 5 12/18/2024 9:55:18 56 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gulde Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma way A 6 12117/2024 14:28:59 56 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 7 12/17/202415:29:45 56 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gulde Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 8 12/23/2024 12:56:39 56 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven?' 2251 Altisma Way A 9 12/17/2024 8:21:05 56 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 10 12/17/2024 10:59:40 56 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gulde Sleeve Driven?' 2251 Altisma Way A 11 12/16/2024 13:51:41 56 2800 Driven Helical Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 12 12/16/2024 13:49:12 59 3000 Driven Helical Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 71 2251 Alt1sma way A 13 12/18/202412:51:24 56 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma way A 14 12/19/2024 10:55:27 54 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma way A 15 12/19/202412:50:49 58 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven?' 2251 Altisma Way A 17 12/19/2024 12:58:10 56 2800 Driven Driven Brackel w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Allisma Way A 18 12/19/2024 13:13:47 57 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven ?1 2251 Altisma Way A 19 12/19/2024 13:50:42 57 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gulde Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altlsma Way A 20 12118/2024 13:32:38 56 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 22 12/20/2024 7:35: 10 57 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gulde Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma way A 23 12/20/2024 10:23:21 60 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gulde Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 24 12/20/2024 8:23:14 60 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 25 12/20/2024 9:41 :48 60 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gulde Sleeve Driven?' ; 2251 Altisma Way A 27 1117i2025 13:32:27 46 2500 L6K5 6432.5 Helical Bracket w/Guide Sleeve 8/10 -Helical 5' 2251 Altisme Way A 28 1/16/202513:15:23 53 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gulde Sleeve Driven7' 2251 Altlsma way A 29 12/30/202411:18:26 56 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 30 12/3012024 14:43:25 56 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 31 12/30/2024 14:44:35 50 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 71 2251 Altisma way A 32 12/31/2024 11:57:55 60 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gulde Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 33 12/31/2024 11:58:57 56 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gulde Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altlsma way A 34 1/9/2025 14:38:39 56 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 35 121311202412:58:25 56 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gu1de Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 36 12131/2024 13:49:52 53 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altlsma Way A 37 1/2/2025 8.40:56 53 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven?' 2251 Altisma Way A 38 1/9/202511:01:41 53 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gulde Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma way A 39 1/2/2025 10:49:04 53 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Dnven 7' 2251 Altlsma way A 40 1/9/2025 12:55:46 53 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gulde Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 41 1/2/2025 13:00:56 53 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 42 1/3/2025 10:26:55 50 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven7' 2251 Altisma way A 43 1/10/2025 9:18:18 51 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gu1de Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altlsma way A 44 1f7/2025 10:37:24 50 3000 Driven Driven Bracket w/Gulde Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 45 1/14/2025 10:53:32 51 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 46 1/7/2025 11:09:40 49 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altlsma Way A 47 1/14/2025 13:31:58 50 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma way A 48 117/2025 15:10:02 49 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven?' 2251 Altlsma Way A 49 1114/2025 13:49:18 50 2800 Drlsen Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 50 117/2025 15:10:57 49 2800 Drisen Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma Way A 51 11812025 8:52:33 50 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sleeve Driven 7' 2251 Altisma way A 52 118/2025 12: 50: 16 49 2800 Driven Driven Bracket w/Guide Sfeeve Driven 7' SKYLINE GEOTECHNICAL December 30, 2024 Ram Jack Pacific Robert Montgomery 9401 Lurline Ave. Chatsworth, CA 91311 Office I 619. 726.0052 Email: rmontgomery@ramjackpacific.com Project No. 24-027R.I INTERIM CERTIFICATION FOR UNDERPINNING PILE INSTALLATION CASA DEL REY UNDERPINNING 2251 ALTISMA WAY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Mr. Montgomery: At your request, Skyline Geotechnical, Inc. has performed periodic installation observation and review of the installation logs and data for the driven underpinning piles installed by Ram Jack at the referenced site. Based on our observations and review, the following is noted: • Piles installations observed and documented in the attached logs (by RamJack) appear to achieve depths at or greater than indicated on the approved project plans and extend to appropriate bearing material as specified in the project documents. • Pressure reported on the RamJack installation logs indicated adequate resistance for the installed piles. • Excavations created for the purpose of pile bracket installation completed at this time may be backfilled. This document is subject to the same limitations as the previous geotechnical documents. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact our office. RECORD CO NOISJ/\10 8NI071n8 ~zoz co NvT peqspe:, JO AJ!O Skyline Geotechnical I 7040 Avenida Encinas STE 104, Carlsbad, CA 92011 PAGE3 APPENDIX A: REFERENCES Allied Geotechnical Engineers Inc., 1979, Limited Site Investigation, Existing Residential Building Site, 3437 Go ldfinch Street, San Diego, California, project No. 60B4, Dated September 6. Mountain View Consulting, 2024, Foundation Repair Plans, Foundation Underpinning (Single Family Dwelling), 2251 Altisma Way, Carlsbad CA, dated August 16. Skyline Geotechnical Inc., 2024, Limited Update Geotechnical Investigation, 2251 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 23-027R.1, dated May 8. SMS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., 2017, Limited Geotechnical Slope Failure Investigation, Impacted Top of Western Premier Graded Slope, Casa Del Rey Condominiums, 2251 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, California, Project No. Gl-16-12-154, dated February 13. SKYLINE PROJECT NO. 24-027R.I 30DECEMBER2024 • Job Address PIie Section Pile Number Timestamp Installation Depth PSI Drive Head 2251 Altisma Way A 1 12/20/2024 15:06:41 56 2800 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 2 12/19/2024 9:44:01 56 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 3 12/19/2024 7:59 :31 56 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 4 12/18/2024 9:05:06 56 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 5 12/18/2024 9:55:18 56 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 6 12/17/2024 14:28 :59 56 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 7 12/17/2024 15:29:45 56 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 8 12/23/2024 12:56:39 56 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 9 12/17/2024 8:21 :05 56 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 10 12/17/2024 10:59:40 56 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 11 12/16/2024 13:51 :41 56 2800 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 12 12/16/2024 13:49:12 59 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 13 12/18/2024 12:51 :24 56 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 14 12/19/2024 10:55 :27 54 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 15 12/19/2024 12:50:49 58 2800 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 17 12/19/2024 12:58 :10 56 2800 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 18 12/19/2024 13:13:47 57 2800 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 19 12/19/2024 13:50:42 57 2800 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 20 12/18/2024 13:32:38 56 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 22 12/20/2024 7:35: 10 57 2800 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 23 12/20/2024 10:23 :21 60 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 24 12/20/2024 8:23:14 60 3000 Driven 2251 Altisma Way A 25 12/20/2024 9:41 :48 60 3000 Driven SKYLINE GE OTE C HNI CA L September 26, 2024 Casa Del Ray HOA Attention: Ms. Terri Carlso n 16935 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 250 San Diego, California 92127 Email: terricarlson@yahoo.com CC; hoacasadelrey@gmail.com Subject : REVIEW OF FOUNDATION PLANS PROPOSED MARIPOSA ST. PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS 2251 ALTISMA WAY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dear Ms. Carlson: Project No. 23-027R.I As requested, Skyline Geotechnical, Inc. (Skyline) has reviewed the referenced foundation plans for the proposed deep foundation improvements at the subject site. The purpose of our review was to identify potential conflicts with the recommendations presented in,the referenced geotechnical documents, as they pertain to the proposed improvements. Based on our review, the Skyline project number should be revised from 23-027R.I to 24-027R.I with a date of May 8, 2024 (Revised May 24, 2024) on Sheet Sl of the foundation plans. It may also be appropriate to remove "Single Family Dwelling" from the project title. With the exception of the above mentioned reference, the reviewed plans appear to be in substantial conformance with the applicable recommendations presented in the project preliminary geotechnical investigation report. This document is subject to the same limitations as the referenced preliminary geotechnical report. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Respectfully submitted, SKYLINE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Rodney J. Jones, GE #3205 Principal Geotechnical Engineer ' 7 aron J. Beeby, CEG #2603 Principal Engineering Geologist Skyline Geotechnical I 7040 Avenida Encinas STE 104, Carlsbad? CA 92011 PAGE2 APPENDIX A: REFERENCES Mountain View Consulting, 2024, Foundation Repair Plans, Foundation Underpinning (Single Family Dewlling), 2251 Altisma Way, Carlsbad CA, dated August 16. Skyline Geotechnical, Inc, 2024, Limited Update Geotechnical Investigation, Casa Del Rey Slope Failure and Structural Evaluation, 2251 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 23-027R.I dated May 8, 2024 {rev. 5/24/2024). SKYLINE PROJECT NO. 24-027R.I September 26, 2024 MOUNTAIN VIEW CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • DESIGN AND DRAFTING --- * ~o 1794 'J r Cf..\.\ ~ ~ --- 9/JJ/2D"2..'f Pile Calculations For 2251 Altisma Way Carlsbad, CA PREPARED FOR: -'RAMJACK. RAM JACK PACIFIC El Cajon, CA 92020 License #1003878 CBR2024-2617 2251 ALTISMA WAY 0 ~: CASA DEL RAY: VOLUNTARY FOUNDATION SUPPOR // UNDERPINNING AND INSTALLATION OF 52 PIERS 2152401001 10/1/2024 CBR2024-2617 10l'16LAU'RENWAY · SANTEECA 92071 · CELLB16.517.4171 • FAX6l9.328.1957 PILE CALCULATION Date: 8/16/2024 Project: 2251 Altisma Way Carlsbad, CA West Wall Design Loads: Dead: Roof= 20 psf Balcony= 40 psf Second Floor = 25 psf First Floor (Slab) = so psf Walls= 20 psf Live: *Roof snow= 0 psf *Roof live= 20 psf Balcony= 60 psf Second Floor = 40 psf First Floor (Slab) = 40 psf *(the greater of the two) bw .s::::. Foundation dimensions: h= 21 in bw= 12 in b= 12 in hf= 0 in Vertical Design Loads: Tributary Widths: Roof= 20 ft )) 400 plf Balcony= 4 ft )) 160 plf Second Floor = 6 ft )) 150 plf First Floor (Slab) = 4 ft » 200 plf Walls= 18 ft )) 360 plf Foundation self-weight = )) 262.5 plf I DL 1532.5 plf Live: Roof= 20 ft )) 400 plf Balcony= 4 ft )) 240 plf Second Floor = 6 ft >) 240 plf First Floor (Slab) = 4 ft » 160 plf I LL 1040 plf (without roof LL) I LL 640 plf Page 1 ASD Loads: Load, w 2 = IDL + ILL Load, w 4 = IDL + ILL(0.75) Max. load w ASD= Concrete Anal)lsis: ACI 318-14 LFRD Loads: Load, w 1= Load, w2= Load, w3= Load, w4= Max. load w LFRD= Max. beam span(e) = Mmax = Wu•l2/8 = Shear max= (1/2)*wu.e= Foundation Width, bw = Foundation Depth, d = Cross Sectional Area, A = Section Modulus, Sxb = Gross Moment of Inertia, 11 = Assumed Cone, f' c = Vt= Foundation Shear Capacit\' Per ACI 318-14 Shear Strength, Vn = Shear Reduction Factor, cl> = Design Shear, cl>Vn = Foundation Moment Capacit)'. Per ACl-318R-14 bw (flexure) bw (shear) d Mu Vu f'c fy Required As As min Defined As cp Mn cp Mn PILE CALCULATION Date: 8/16/2024 2173 2313 2313 2146 3063 3119 2679 3119 5.75 154.68 8.97 12 19 228 722 6859 2500 9.5 15.2 0.6 9.12 plf plf plf plf plf plf plf plf ft= in-kips= kips in in in2 in3 in4 psi in kips kips 12 in. 12 in. 17.75 in. 154.68 in-kips 8.97 kips 2,500 psi 60,000 psi 0.16 in2 0.13 in2 0.20 in2 0.90 210.18 in-kips 189.16 in-kips Page 2 (comb.#2 -without roof LL) OR (comb.#4 -with roof LL) (comb 1) (Comb 2) (Comb 3) (Comb 4) 69 in (Bracket to bracket) 12.89 k-ft Code Reference (h-2") ACI 14.5.1.7 OK Code Reference ACI Table 14.5.5.1 ACI 21.2.1 (1) #4 bar top and (1) #4 bar bottom OK PILE CALCULATION 1) Foundation analysis is based on minimum reinforcement with (1) #4 rebar top and bottom (IRC R403.1.3.1 & R403.1.3.3) 2) When calculating member in strength in flexure, combined flexure and axial load, or shear, the entire cross section shall be considered in design, except for concrete cast against soil where the overall thickness shall be taken as 2 in. less than the specified thickness. (ACI 14.5.1.7) Pile spacing (ft) = 9 ft= 108 Pile Working Loads: in Pile Service Load, Pn = 20813 lbs (wall load x pile spacing) Pile Design Load = 22000 lbs Date: Pile Ultimate Load, PuLT = 44000 lbs *Safety Factor of 2.0 Applied Deflection check Beam El= 8.78E+10 lb-in2 Live Load Deflection= 2.91E-04 in < Total Beam deflection = 0.001 in < Installation requirements for helical piles T, -Q :,,k min -Kr Required ultimate soil capacity (Cl..1t) = Pile 0 = Torque factor (Kt)= 44000 lbs 2 7/8" 9 0.30 in OK 0.45 in OK Minimum pile installation torque, (T min) = Bracket= Bracket Allowable Capacity= 4900 ft-lbs Installation requirements for driven piles Required ultimate soil capacity (Cl..1t) = Pile 0 = Installation pressure = Bracket= Bracket Allowable Capacity = 4021 33,650 lbs 44,000 lbs 2 7/8" 2,800 psi 4021 33,650 lbs Page 3 8/16/2024 PILE CALCULATION Date: 8/16/2024 Project: 2251 Altisma Way Carlsbad, CA North & South Wall Design Loads: Dead: Roof= 20 psf Balcony= 40 psf Second Floor = 25 psf First Floor (Slab) = so psf Walls= 20 psf Live: *Roof snow= 0 psf *Roof live= 20 psf Balcony= 60 psf Second Floor = 40 psf First Floor (Slab) = 40 psf *(the greater of the two) bw ..c: Foundation dimensions: h= 18 in bw= 12 in b= 12 in hf= 0 in Vertical Design Loads: Tributary Widths: Roof= 16 ft )) 320 plf Balcony= 0 ft )) 0 plf Second Floor = 6 ft )) 150 plf First Floor (Slab) = 4 ft )) 200 plf Walls= 18 ft )) 360 plf Foundation self-weight = » 225 plf I DL 1255 plf Live: Roof= 16 ft )) 320 plf Balcony= 0 ft )) 0 plf Second Floor = 6 ft >) 240 plf First Floor (Slab) = 4 ft » 160 plf I LL 720 plf (without roof LL) I LL 400 plf Page 4 ASD Loads: Load, w 2 = IDL + ILL Load, W 4 = IDL + ILL(0.75) Max. load w ASD= Concrete Analysis: ACI 318-14 LFRD Loads: Load, w 1= , Load, w2= Load, w3= Load, w4= Max. load w LFRD= Max. beam span(e) = Mmax = Wu•l2/8 = Shear max= (1/2)*wu.e= Foundation Width, bw = Foundation Depth, d = Cross Sectional Area, A = Section Modulus, s.b = Gross Moment of Inertia, 11 = Assumed Cone, f' c = Vt= Foundation Shear Capacity Per ACI 318-14 Shear Strength, Vn = Shear Reduction Factor, ct,= Design Shear, ct,Vn = Foundation Moment Capacity Per ACl-318R-14 bw (flexure) bw (shear) d Mu Vu f'c fy Required As As min Defined As cp Mn rpMn PILE CALCULATION Date: 8/16/2024 1655 plf 1795 plf 1795 plf 1757 plf 2306 plf 2418 plf 2066 plf 2418 plf 6.25 ft= 141.68 in-kips= 7.56 kips 12 in 16 in 192 in2 512 in3 4096 in4 2500 psi 8 in 12.8 0.6 7.68 kips kips 12 in. 12 in. 14.75 in. 141.68 in-kips 7.56 kips 2,500 psi 60,000 psi 0.18 in2 0.13 in2 0.20 in2 0.90 174.18 in-kips 156.76 in-kips Page 5 (comb.#2 -without roof LL) OR (comb.#4 -with roof LL) (comb 1) (Comb 2) (Comb 3} (Comb 4) 75 in (Bracket to bracket) 11.81 k-ft Code Reference (h-2"} ACI 14.5.1.7 OK Code Reference ACI Table 14.5.5.1 ACI 21.2.1 (1) #4 bar top and (1) #4 bar bottom OK Notes: PILE CALCULATION 1) Foundation analysis is based on minimum reinforcement with (1) #4 rebar top and bottom (IRC R403.1.3.1 & ·R403.1.3.3) 2) When calculating member in strength in flexure, combined flexure and axial load, or shear, the entire cross section shall be considered in design, except for concrete cast against soil where the overall thickness shall be taken as 2 in. less than the specified thickness. (ACI 14.5.1.7) Pile spacing (ti) = 7 ft= 84 Pile Working Loads: in Pile Service Load, Pn = 12565 lbs (wall load x pile spacing) Pile Design Load = 22000 lbs Date: Pile Ultimate Load, PuLT = 44000 lbs *Safety Factor o/2.0 Applied Deflection check Beam El = 2.56E+10 lb-in2 Live Load Deflection= 9.66E-04 in < Total Beam deflection = 0.003 in < Installation requirements for helical piles _ Qui Tm:n -K, 44000 lbs 2 7/8" 9 0.23 in OK 0.35 in OK Required ultimate soil capacity (O..,t) = Pile 0 = Torque factor (Ktl = Minimum pile installation torque, (T min)= Bracket = Bracket Allowable capacity = 4900 ft-lbs Installation requirements for driven piles Required ultimate soil capacity (O..,tl = Pile0= Installation pressure = Bracket= Bracket Allowable Capacity = 4021 33,650 lbs 44,000 lbs 2 7/8" 2,800 psi 4021 33,650 lbs Page 6 8/16/2024 Design Loads: Weight of Wall = Wall Perimeter = Wall Height = Weight of Concrete = Chimney Footing Area = Footing Height = Total Weight of Chimney = Fraction of Load Distributed = to most loaded pile Pile Working Loads: Pile Service Load, Pn = Pile Design Load = Minimum pile installation torque: Qulc Tm:n = K~ Required ultimate soil capacity (Ou1t) = Pilef= Torque factor (Ki) = Min. pile installation torque, (T min)= Bracket= Bracket Allowable Capacity = Installation requirements for driven piles Required ultimate soil capacity (Ou,.) = Pilef= Installation pressure = Bracket= Bracket Allowable Capacity = PILE CALCULATION Date: Chimnei Load 20 psf 17.00 ft 25 ft 150 pd 15 ft2 1 ft 10750 lbs 1 10750 lbs 22,000 lbs 44,000 lbs 2 7/8" 9 4,900 ft-lbs 4021 33,650 lbs 44,000 lbs 2 7/8" 2,800 psi 4021 33,650 lbs Page 1 Project: 2251 Altisma Way Carlsbad, CA *Safety Factor of 2.0 Applied *Safety Factor of 2. 0 Applied 8/16/2024 A This Is a beta release of the new ATC Hazards by Location website. Please contact us with feedback 0 The ATC Hazards by Location website will not be updated to support ASCE 7-22. Find out why~ L\TC Hazards by Location Search Information Address: Coordinates: Elevation: Tlmestamp: Hazard Type: 2251 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, CA 92009, USA 33.0967621 , -117.2587521 156 ft 2024-08-14T20:27:24.465Z Wind 0 Temecula 156 ft San Diego 0 Anza-Borrec Desert • State Park Map data C20_~4 Google, INEGI Report a map error ASCE 7-16 ASCE 7-10 ASCE 7-05 MRI 10-Year 67 mph MRI 10-Year 72 mph ASCE 7-05 Wind Speed 85 mph MRI 25-Year 72 mph MRI 25-Year 79 mph MRI SO-Year 77 mph MRI 50-Year 85 mph MRI 1 DO-Year 82 mph MRI 100-Year 91 mph Risk Category I 89 mph Risk Category I 100 mph Risk Category II 96 mph Risk Category 11 110 mph Risk Category Ill 102 mph Risk Category Ill-IV 115 mph Risk Category IV 107 mph The results indicated here DO NOT reflect any state or local amendments to the values or any delineation lines made during the building code adoption process. Users should confirm any output obtained from this tool with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction before proceeding with design. Please note that the ATC Hazards by Location website will not be updated to support ASCE 7-22. Find out why, Disclaimer Hazard loads are Interpolated from data provided In ASCE 7 and rounded up to the nearest whole integer. Per ASCE 7, islands and coastal areas outside the last contour should use the last wind speed contour of the coastal area -in some cases, this website will extrapolate past the last wind speed contour and therefore, provide a wind speed that is slightly higher. NOTE: For queries near wind-borne debris region boundaries, the resulting determination Is sensitive to rounding which may affect whether or not it Is considered to be within a wind-borne debris region. Mountainous terrain, gorges, ocean promontories, and special wind regions shall be examined for unusual wind conditions. While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, ATC and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for Its accuracy. The material presented in the report should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. ATC does not int.end that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the report provided by this website. Users of the Information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by lati1ude/longitude location In the report. LATERAL CALCULATION - WIND Critical Case Project: 2251 Altisma Way Carlsbad, CA Date: Wind Loads hwindward = Zwlndward = h1eeward = Zieeward = 21 18 21 18 Risk Category = II Basic Wind Speed, V = 96 mph Kd= 0.85 Exposure Category= C Kzt= 1 Ke= 1 Gust Effect Factor, G= 0.85 ft (mean roof height) Kh= 0.908 (Table 26.10.1) ft (top of wall) Kz = 0.88 (Table 26.10.1) ft (mean roof height) ft (top of wall) Roof Angle 0= 20.00 (must be multiple of 5) (Eq. 26.10-1) (Eq. 26.10-1) qh qz 18.21 qh = 0.00256*Kh*Kzt*Kd*Ke*V"2 17.65 qz = 0.00256*Kz*Kzt*Kd*Ke*V"2 Wind direction: q= Wall Roof Roof Horiz Normal to Ridge Windward 17.65 18.21 6.23 Leeward 18.21 18.21 6.23 L (parallel to wind) = 92.00 ft B (normal to wind) = 213.50 ft L/8 = 0.40 Cp = Wall Roof h/L= 0 .25 Windward 0.80 0.20 Leeward -0.50 -0.60 qGCp= Wall Roof Windward 12.00 1.06 Leeward -7.74 -3.18 Roof height hr= 5 ft I(wall or roof heights* p) = 376 plf p= qGCp -qi(GCpi) Trib Width= 40 ft W= 15059 lbs 0.6W= 9036 lbs 8/16/2024 A This is a beta release of the new ATC Hazards by Location website Please contact us with feedback. 0 The ATC Hazards by Location website will not be updated to support ASCE 7-22. Find out why~ L\TC Hazards by Location Search Information Address: Coordinates: Elevatlon: Tlmestamp: Hazard Type: 2251 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, CA 92009, USA 33.0967621, -117.2587521 156 fl 2024-08-14T20:28:10.759Z Seismic acn d 0 Temecula 156 ft condldo -0 San Diego 0 Anza-Borrec Des rt • State Park Reference Document: ASCE7-16 Go gle Map data ~20_24 Google, INEGI Report a map error Risk Category: Site Class: II D-default Basic Parameters Name Value Description Ss 0.981 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s) S1 0.357 MCER ground motion (period=1 .0s) SMs 1.177 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SM1 • null Site-modified spectral acceleration value Sos 0.785 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2s SA So1 • null Numeric seismic design value at 1.0s SA * See Section 11.4.8 •Additional Information Name Value Description soc • null Seismic design category Fa 1.2 Site amplification factor at 0.2s Fv • null Site amplification factor at 1.0s CRs 0.897 Coefficient of risk (0.2s) CR1 0.909 Coefficient of risk (1.0s) PGA 0.429 MCEG peak ground acceleration FPGA 1.2 Site amplification factor at PGA PGAM 0.515 Site modified peak ground acceleration TL 8 Long-period transition period (s) SsRT 0.981 SsUH 1.094 SsD 1.5 S1RT 0.357 S1UH 0.393 S1D 0.6 PGAd 0.5 * See Section 11.4.8 Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (0.2s) Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Factored deterministic acceleration value (0.2s) Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion (1.0s) Factored uniform-hazard spectral acceleration (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) Factored deterministic acceleration value (1 .0s) Factored deterministic acceleration value (PGA) The results indicated here DO NOT reffect any state or local amendments to the values or any delineation lines made during the building code adoption process. Users should confirm any output obtained from this tool with the local Authority Having Jurisdiction before proceeding with design. Please note that the ATC Hazards by Location website will not be updated to support ASCE 7-22. Find out why_,_ Disclaimer Hazard loads are provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Seismic Design Web Services. While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, ATC and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or liability for its accuracy. The material presented in the report should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. ATC does not intend that the use of this information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the report provided by this website. Users of the information from this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the report. LATERAL CALCULATION Date: P.O. Box 10393 Eugene, OR, 97440 West Wall Design Loads for Seismic Effects: Dead: Roof= Third Floor = Second Floor = First Floor = Basement= Walls= Foundation dimensions: h= bw= Design Loads: Areas: Roof= Third Floor = Second Floor = First Floor= Basement= Fireplace= Walls= Foundation self-weight = Eff. Seismic weight= I DL = Seismic coefficient: 20 0 25 so 0 20 21 12 9764 0 9325 9457 0 8852 668 W= sos= R= le= Cs = S05 / (R/I,) = Eff. Seismic weight= I DL= W= QE=V= Csx W= p= Eh= pQE= Factored seismic shear= 0.7*Eh = Wind 0.6W= Max Load (wind, seismic)= psf psf psf psf psf psf in in sf sf sf sf sf # sf ft 1253645 0.785 6.5 1 0.121 1253645 151402 1.3 196822 137776 9036 137776 Project: 2251 Altisma Way Carlsbad, CA )) )) )) )) )) )) )) )) I DL lb lb lb lb lb lbs lb 195280 lb 0 lb 233125 lb 472850 lb 0 lb 0 lb 177040 lb 175350 lb 1253645 lb (ASCE 12.8.1.1 eq 12.8-2) (from US Geological Survey Seismic Design Web Services) (ASCE Table 12.2-1) (ASCE Table 1.5-2) (ASCE eq 12.8-2) (ASCE eq 12.8-1) (ASCE 12.3.4.2) (ASCE eq 12.4-3) (ASCE 2.4.5 COMBINATION 8) 8/16/2024 LATERAL CALCULATION RESISTANCE: Dead: Roof= Balcony= Second Floor = First Floor = Walls= Foundation dimensions: Vertical Design Loads: h= bw= Tributary Widths: Roof= Balcony= Second Floor = First Floor= Walls= Foundation self-weight = Resistance mechanisms for lateral loads: 1) Passive pressure at transverse walls 20 psf 40 psf 25 psf so psf ..c 20 psf 21 in 12 in 20 ft )) 4 ft )) 6 ft )) 4 ft )) 18 ft )) » I DL .... ..c 400 plf 160 plf 150 plf 200 plf 360 plf 262.5 pit 1532.5 plf 2) Contact resistance between footing and bearing soil through friction and/or cohesion 3) Slab Friction/cohesion 4) Passive pressure at pile encasements (when necessary) Lateral bearing pressure = 150 psf/ft (from Geo Report) Bottom contact: Friction or cohesion? Friction (from Geo Report) µ= 0.28 Most unfavorable lateral load (wind, seismic): 137776 lbs Date: 8/16/2024 LATERAL CALCULATION 1) Passive pressure at transverse walls: Stem Wall thickness (t) = Transverse wall: # of transverse walls with passive resistance = One side only (1) or both sides (2)? Wall's contributing width (b0) = Buried height of stem wall, t0= Depth of start of passive resistance = Passive pressure at start of passive resistance: P1 = Passive pressure at bottom of stem wall: P2 = Fpasslve = 1.00 10 2 4.00 1.5 1 150 225 3,750 ft (1 or 2) ft ft ft psf psf lbs FOOTING (for all transverse walls) 2) Contact resistance between footing and bearing soil through friction and/or cohesion: Length of wall supported exclusively by soil = 0 ft Footing width = 1.00 ft Fbot. contact = 0 lbs 3) Slab Friction/Cohesion Area of Slab= 6990 sf Slab Friction/Cohesion = 97860 lb 4) Encasement passive resistance: # of encased piles = Width of encasement = 2 ft Depth of top of encasement h0= 1.5 ft Depth of start of passive pressure resistance = 1 ft Total height of encasement= 2.5 ft Bottom of encasement = 4 ft (Passive pressure starts at): P1 = 225 psf (Passive pressure at bottom of encasement): P2 = 600 psf Anchor Bolts Capacity = 5429 lbs F passive (single pile)= 2,063 lbs F passive (total)= 37,125 lbs F,eslstance = 138735 lb> Anchor calculation Design Load: F =( 0.004 * max shaft allowable capacity)= Actual allowable set capacity = 135 5,429 lbs lbs (not underpinned) (used for cohesion only) J 18 I! lfr ~1 ti wkltfl ()( -~, (calculations attached) 137776 OK OK Date: 8/16/2024 LATERAL CALCULATION Date: P.O. Box 10393 Eugene, OR, 97440 North and South Wall Design Loads for Seismic Effects: Dead: Roof= Third Floor = Second Floor = First Floor = Basement= Walls= Foundation dimensions: h= bw= Design Loads: Areas: Roof= Third Floor = Second Floor = First Floor = Basement= Fireplace= Walls= Foundation self-weight = Eff. Seismic weight = I DL = Seismic coefficient: 20 0 25 50 0 20 18 12 953 0 675 692 0 1620 90 W= SOS= R= le= Cs = S05 / (R/le} = Eff. Seismic weight= IDL= W= Qe=V=CsxW= p= Eh= pQe= Factored seismic shear= 0.7*Eh = Wind 0.6W= Max Load (wind, seismic)= psf psf psf psf psf psf in in sf sf sf sf sf # sf ft 123185 0.785 6.5 1 0.121 123185 14877 1.3 19340 13538 9036 13538 Project: 2251 Altisma Way Carlsbad, CA )) )) )) )) )) )) )) » IDL lb lb lb lb lb lbs lb bw 19060 lb 0 lb 16875 lb 34600 lb 0 lb 0 lb 32400 lb 20250 lb 123185 lb (ASCE 12.8.1.1 eq 12.8-2) (from US Geological Survey Seismic Design Web Services) (ASCE Table 12.2-1) (ASCE Table 1.5-2) (ASCE eq 12.8-2) (ASCE eq 12.8-1} (ASCE 12.3.4.2) (ASCE eq 12.4-3} (ASCE 2.4.5 COMBINATION 8) 8/16/2024 LATERAL CALCULATION RESISTANCE: Dead: Roof= Balcony= Second Floor = First Floor = Walls= Foundation dimensions: Vertical Design Loads: h= bw= Tributary Widths: Roof= Balcony= Second Floor = First Floor= Walls = Foundation self-weight = Resistance mechanisms for lateral loads: 1) Passive pressure at transverse walls 20 psf so psf 25 psf so psf .c 20 psf 18 in 12 in 15 ft )) 0 ft )) 6 ft )) 4 ft )) 18 ft )) )) I DL -.c 300 plf 0 plf 150 plf 200 plf 360 plf 225 plf 1235 plf 2) Contact resistance between footing and bearing soil through friction and/or cohesion 3) Slab Friction/cohesion 4) Passive pressure at pile encasements (when necessary) Lateral bearing pressure = 150 psf/ft (from Geo Report) Bottom contact: Friction or cohesion? Friction (from Geo Report) µ= 0.28 Most unfavorable lateral load (wind, seismic): 13538 lbs Date: 8/16/2024 LATERAL CALCULATION Date: 8/16/2024 1) Passive pressure at transverse walls: Stem Wall thickness (t) = 1.00 ft Transverse wall: i # of transverse walls with passive resistance = 3 One side only (1) or both sides (2)? 2 (1 or 2) QJ ~ Wall's contributing width (b0) = 4.00 ft E PASSIVE u Buried height of stem wall, t0= 1.1667 ft EARTH .E en Depth of start of passive resistance = 1 ft PRESSURE ·w en Passive pressure at start of passive resistance: FOOTING J P1 = 150 psf Passive pressure at bottom of stem wall: P2 = 175 005 psf Fpasslve = 325 lbs (for all transverse walls) 2) Contact resistance between footing and bearing soil through friction and/or cohesion: Length of wall supported exclusively by soil = 34 ft (not underpinned) Footing width = 1.00 ft (used for cohesion only) F bot. contact = 11757 lbs 3) Slab Friction/Cohesion Area of Slab= 488 sf Slab Friction/Cohesion = 6832 lb J 4) Encasement passive resistance: # of encased piles = 0 Width of encasement = 2 ft Depth of top of encasement h0= 1.1667 ft l! Depth of start of passive pressure resistance= 1 ft ( I Total height of encasement = 2.5 ft ii Bottom of encasement = 3.6667 ft (Passive pressure starts at): P1 = 175 psf (Passive pressure at bottom of encasement): -,o,oo enc.,- P2 = 550 psf Anchor Bolts Capacity = 5429 lbs (calculations attached) F passive (single pile)= 1,813 lbs F passive (total)= 0 lbs F resistance = 18914 lb> 13538 OK Anchor calculation Design Load: F =( 0.004 • max shaft allowable capacity)= 135 lbs Actual allowable set capacity= 5,429 lbs OK SIMPSON Strong-Tie Anchor Designer™ Software Version 2.8.7094.3 1.Prolec:t Information Customer company: Customer contact name: Customer e-mail: Comment: 2. Input Data & Anchor Parameters General Design method:ACI 318-14 Units: Imperial units Anchor Information: Anchor type: Concrete screw Material: Carbon Steel Diameter (inch): 0.625 Nominal Embedment depth (inch): 4.000 Effective Embedment depth, he1 (inch): 2.970 Code report: ICC-ES ESR-2713 Anchor category: 1 Anchor ductility: No hmn (inch): 6.00 Cac (inch): 4.50 Company: Engineer: Project: Address: Phone: E-mail: Project description: Location: Fastening description: Base Material Concrete: Normal-weight Concrete thickness, h (inch): 6.00 State: Cracked Compressive strength, f • (psi): 2500 ~c.v: 1.0 Reinforcement condition: B tension, B shear Supplemental reinforcement: Not applicable Reinforcement provided at comers: No Ignore concrete breakout in tension: No Ignore concrete breakout in shear: No Ignore 6do requirement: Not applicable Build-up grout pad: No Base Plate I Date: I 2/19/2020 I Page: I 1/5 Cmn (inch): 1.75 Length x Width x Thickness (inch): 6.31 x 10.00 x 0.38 Smin (inch): 3.00 Recommended Anchor Anchor Name: Titen HD®-5/8"0 Titen HD (THDB model), hnom:4" (102mm) Code Report: ICC-ES ESR-2713 Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing circumstances, the standards and guidelines must be checked for plausibility. 5956 W. Las Positas Boulevard Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925.560.9000 Fax: 925.847.3871 www.strongtie.com SIMPSON Strong-Tie e Load and Geometry Anchor Designer™ Software Version 2.8.7094.3 Load factor source: ACI 318 Section 5.3 Load combination: not set Seismic design: Yes Anchors subjected to sustained tension: Not applicable Ductility section for tension: 17.2.3.4.2 not applicable Ductility section for shear: 17.2.3.5.3 (c) is satisfied Oo factor: not set Apply entire shear load at front row: No Anchors only resisting wind and/or seismic loads: Yes Strength level loads: Nua [lb]: 0 Vua, (lb]: 0 Vuav Pb): 7600 Mux [ft-lbl: 0 Muy (ft-lb): 0 MllZ [ft-lb): 0 <Figure 1> z Olb Company: I Date: I 2119/2020 Engineer: I Page: I 2/5 Project: Address: Phone: E-mail: y Oft-I> Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing circumstances, the standards and guidelines must be checked for plausibility. 5956 W. Las Posltas Boulevard Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925.560.9000 Fax: 925.847.3871 www.strongtie.com SIMPSON Strong-Tie <Figure 2> 1 I Ai I.O I ' Anchor Designer™ Software Version 2.8.7094.3 Company: I Date: I 2119/2020 Engineer: I Page: I 3/5 Project: Address: Phone: E-mail: 10.00 / _l_ 7.50 ► Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing circumstances, the standards and guidelines must be checked for plausibility. 5956 W. Las Positas Boulevard Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925.560.9000 Fax: 925.847.3871 www.strongtie.com SIMPSON Sti-ong-Tie Anchor Designer™ Software Version 2.8.7094.3 3. Resulting Anchor Forces Company: Engineer: Project: Address: Phone: E-mail: Anchor Tension load, Nua (lb) Shear load x, Vuax (lb) 2 Sum 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maximum concrete compression strain (%.): 0.00 Maximum concrete compression stress (psi): 0 Resultant tension force (lb): 0 Resultant compression force (lb): 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Eccentricity of resultant tension forces in x-axis, e'Nx (inch): 0.00 Eccentricity of resultant tension forces in y-axis, e'Ny (inch): 0.00 Eccentricity of resultant shear forces in x-axis, e'vx (inch): 0.00 Eccentricity of resultant shear forces in y-axis, e'Vy (inch): 0.00 8. Steel Strength of Anchor in Shear (Sec. 17.5.1) V,. (lb) ¢-,, ¢ ¢rlro,,¢V .. (lb) 8000 1.0 0.60 4800 9. Concrete Breakout Strength of Anchor in Shear (Sec. 17.5.2) Shear parallel to edge In y-direction: V1>x = mini7(/o/ da)0 2✓dala✓fcCa11•5; 9)...,✓fcea1 15I (Eq. 17.5.2.2a & Eq. 17.5.2.2b) Shear load y, Vuay (lb) 3800.0 3800.0 7600.0 <Figure 3> lo (in) da (in) A.a fc (psi) Cu1 (in) Vb, (lb) 2.97 0.625 1.00 2500 4.69 3838 ¢,Vcbgy = ¢ (2)(A vcl Avco) 'Pac,v'l'oo.v'Pc,v'f'11,vV1>x (Sec. 17.3.1, 17.5.2. l(c) & Eq. 17.5.2.1b) 0 1 Ave (in2) Avco (in2) 'l'ac.v 'f'od,V 'f'c.v %.v V,,. (lb) 129.42 98.98 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.083 3838 10. Concrete Pryout Strength of Anchor In Shear /Sec. 17.5.3) ¢,Vcpg = ¢kcoNcbg = ¢kco(ANcl ANco )'floc,N'l'oo.N'Pc.N'l'q,.NNb(Sec. 17.3.1 & Eq. 17.5.3.lb) kco ANc (in2) ANco (in2) 'l'oc.N 'Pad.N 'Pc.N 'l'co.N 2.0 146.21 79.39 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 4351 11. Results 11, Interaction of Tensile and Shear Forces (Sec, D.7)7 I Date: I 2/19/2020 I Page: I 4/5 Shear load combined, (Vuw,.)2+(Vuay)2 (lb) 3800.0 3800.0 7600.0 ¢ 0.70 ¢ 0.70 y -()2 7608 11218 Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing circumstances, the standards and guidelines must be checked for plausibility. 5956 W. Las Positas Boulevard Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925.560.9000 Fax: 925.847.3871 www.strongtie.com SIMPSON Strong-Tie Shear Steel Anchor Designer™ Software Version 2.8.7094.3 Factored Load, Vua (lb) 3800 II Concrete breakout x+ 7600 Pryout 7600 Company: Engineer: Project: Address: Phone: E-mail: Design Strength, 0Vn (lb) 4800 7608 11218 Ratio 0.79 1.00 0.68 5/8"0 Titen HD (THDB model), hnom:4" (102mm) meets the selected design criteria. 12. Warnings I Date: I 2/19/2020 I Page: j 5/5 Status Pass Pass (Governs) Pass -Per designer input, the tensile component of the strength-level earthquake force applied to anchors does not exceed 20 percent of the total factored anchor tensile force associated with the same load combination. Therefore the ductility requirements of ACI 318 17.2.3.4.2 for tension need not be satisfied -designer to verify. -Per designer input, ductility requirements for shear have been determined to be satisfied -designer to verify. -Designer must exercise own judgement to determine if this design is suitable. -Refer to manufacturer's product literature for hole cleaning and installation instructions. Input data and results must be checked for agreement with the existing circumstances, the standards and guidelines must be checked for plausibility. s, ,1 ,, , 1, . 5956 W. Las Positas Boulevard Pleasanton, CA 94588 Phone: 925.560.9000 Fax: 925.847.3871 www.strongtie.com SKYLINE (;EOTECHNI CAL LIMITED UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CASA DEL REY SLOPE FAILURE AND STRUCTURE EVALUATION 2251 ALTISMA WAY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Casa Del Rey HOA Attention: Terry Carlson 16935 West Bernardino Drive, Suite 250 San Diego, California 92127 Prepared by: Skyline Geotechnical Inc. 7040 Avenida Encinas, Suite 104 Carlsbad California 92011 support@skylinegeotechnical.com CBR2024-2617 2251 ALTISMA WAY ~: CASA DEL RAY: VOLUNTAR FOUNDATION SUPPORT // UNDERPINNING AND INSTALLATION OF 52 PIERS 2152401001 10/1/2024 CBR2024-2617 Project No. 23-027R.I May 8, 2024 (rev 5/24/2024) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT history and Description .............................................................................................. 1 3.0 Scope of services ....................................... ~··············································································· 1 4.0 RECONNAISSANCE ...................................................................................................................... 2 5.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION ................................................................................................... 2 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING .............................................................................................................. 2 7 .0 GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 2 7 .1 Regional Geology .................................................................................................................. 3 7 .2 Site Geologic Conditions ....................................................................................................... 3 7.2.1 Quaternary Previously Placed Fill .................................................................................. 3 7.2.2 Tertiary Santiago Formation ........................................................................................... 3 7 .3 Geologic Structure ................................................................................................................ 4 7 .4 Groundwater Conditions ....................................................................................................... 4 7. 5 SI ope Stab i I ity ........................................................................................................................ 4 8.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 5 9.0 REPAIR AND GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 5 9 .1 Site Excavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9.2 Fill Material ........................................................................................................................... 6 9.3 Fill Placement and Compaction ............................................................................................ 6 9.4 Graded Slopes ....................................................................................................................... 7 9.5 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures ................................................................................ 7 9.6 Pipe and Board Retaining Wall System ................................................................................. 8 9.6.1 Pipe and Board Wall Recommendations ........................................................................ 8 9.6.2 Pipe and Board Wall Drainage ...................................................................................... 10 9.7 Mechanically Stabilized Friction Anchor Retaining Walls ................................................... 10 9.8 Helical or Driven Pile Building Underpinning ...................................................................... 12 9.8.1 Helical and Driven Pile Limitations ............................................................................... 13 9.9 Surface Protection and Vegetation ..................................................................................... 13 9.10 Drainage ............................................................................................................................ 13 10.0 Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM) ........................................................................... 14 11.0 Plan Review ........................................................................................................................... 14 12.0 Construction Observation ..................................................................................................... 14 13.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION .......................................................................................... 15 FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 2A Figure 2B Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure SA APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Site Location Map Exploration Location Map Cross Section A-N Conceptual Pipe and Board Cross Section A-A' Regional Geologic Map Regional Fault Map Pipe and Board Detail -Conceptual References Boring Logs Laboratory Test Methods and Results Standard Specifications for Grading Slope Stability Analysis PAGE 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your authorization of proposal P24-039A dated March 23, 2024, Skyline Geotechnical, Inc. (Skyline} has completed a limited geotechnical investigation of the existing slope failure and evaluated structural distress at the subject site (Figure 1). The following report presents the results of our field evaluation and provides design recommendations for surficial stabilization and protection of the existing slope face in addition to possible deck foundation options. 2.0 PROJECT HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION Based on conversations with the client and review of previously prepared geotechnical reports, Skyline understands a slope failure occurred in 2016 when a waterline ruptured near the top of the existing slope. This failure was mapped and evaluated by SMS Geotechnical Solutions, Inc in 2017. In 1994 Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc performed a limited geotechnical evaluation of the structure and identified cracking in the slab in units 101 and 102. In 2015 and 2016 a visual assessment of foundation performance was performed by Private Eyes Engineers and identified several . cracks in the slab of Unit 9 and performed a floor level survey at the ground level of the entire structure. This survey identified an approximate 2.0 inch tilt in the direction of the slope. The existing slope that was evaluated for this project generally consists of an approximately six to 26 feet high 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) slope that descends from the western limit of the building pad (Figure 2A) with the greatest height extending from the southwestern portion of the building pad. Site elevations were based on field measurements and the topographic map provided by Rancho Coastal Engineering & Surveying. 3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES To evaluate the failure and potential impact to site improvements, the following scope of services were provided: • Review of available geotechnical reports, regional geologic maps, and other applicable documents. • Geotechnical reconnaissance of the slope and structure. • Subsurface investigation consisting of excavating three exploratory borings and sampling utilizing limited-access excavation equipment. • Performed a Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) Test at the top of the slope near the existing structure. • Laboratory testing of soil samples collected during the investigation. • Performed engineering analysis of the slope and adjacent areas. • Preparation of this report presenting findings, conclusions, and recommendations for slope stabilization. SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) SKYLINE --G EOTECHNICAL PAGE 2 4.0 RECONNAISSANCE Based on review of previous geotechnical reports.and historical photographs, it appears the site was graded in the early 1970's ·with Benton Engineering performing testing and observation during fill placement. It is anticipated, based on review of the as graded plan and Benton Engineering's Final Report of Compacted Fill Ground, Lots 229 to 242 that up to approximately 30 feet of fill was placed during grading the site building pad. During our geotechnical reconnaissance, cracking was observed on the column west of Unit 9 where the top of slope is closest to the structure. Additional cracking and signs of settlement were observed on the exterior flatwork along the western portion of the structure. 5.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Skyline conducted a subsurface investigation at the site on March 27, 2024 that consisted of a geologic reconnaissance and excavation of two exploratory borings and a DCP. Due to limited access and sloping terrain, the borings were excavated with a manually advanced three-inch diameter solid-stem auger to a maximum depth of approximately 17.9 feet below existing grade (beg} in Boring B-1. Other manual equipment was utilized to assist the borings due to the abundance of gravel and cobble. Soil samples were collected from the exhumed material for laboratory testing. A Dynamic Cone Penetration (DCP) test was performed at the top of the slope near the north- central portion of the structure to quantify fiU density. The subsurface investigation was performed by a Certified Engineering Geologist experienced in performing geotechnical field investigations. Geologic logging of the explorations was performed using visual and tactile methods to classify soil types in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and to identify geologic units. The exploration locations are illustrated on Figure 2 and the exploration logs are presented in Appendix B. 6.0 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was conducted on soil samples collected during the subsurface investigation to determine engineering properties and mechanical characteristics of site subgrade. Skyline also incorporated data presented in the referenced geotechnical documents. The tests performed for this project included: Modified Proctor (Max Density) and remolded direct shear test. All laboratory testing was performed in accordance with ASTM, CTM, or other approved procedures. Laboratory test procedures and results are presented in Appendix C. 7.0 GEOLOGY The following sections are based on review of published regional geologic studies and subsurface data collected for this project. The compiled information provides a general description of the geomorphic province and a detailed description of site geologic conditions. SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) PAGE 3 In addition, typical geologic hazards encountered in the region have been evaluated and are presented below. 7.1 Regional Geology The subject site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province the occupies the southwestern portion of the state. This Province is bounded by the Transverse Ranges to the north, Colorado Desert to the east., Mexico the south, and the Pacific Ocean the west. Prior to the Mesozoic, the Province was covered with thick sequences of marine sedimentary and volcanic deposits. During the Cretaceous, the sedimentary deposits were intruded by the southern California batholith resulting in mountain building throughout the province. Beginning in the early Tertiary and continuing to present day, the region has experienced extensive faulting and uplift creating steep elongated northwest trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys. San Diego County consists of three geomorphic subzones that consist of the Coastal Plain, Central Mountains, and eastern Mountain Valley. The site is located within the Coastal Plain subzone that consists of late Mesozoic to Quaternary near-shore marine sedimentary deposits that onlap an eroded basement surface consisting Jurassic and Cretaceous crystalline rock. 7.2 Site Geologic Conditions The site geology was evaluated based on regional geologic mapping by Kennedy and Tan (2007), Geologic reconnaissance, and observation of exhumed materials from the exploratory borings (Figure 3). General descriptions of the geologic units encountered at the site are provided below. Detailed descriptions of observed geologic conditions encountered in the explorations are provided on the boring logs in Appendix B and a geologic cross section is presented on Figure 2A. 7 .2.1 Quaternary Previously Placed Fill Previously Placed Fill was observed in both borings that extended to a maximum depth of 11.9 feet below existing grade (beg) in Boring B-1. This unit generally consists of stiff or loose to medium dense, light yellowish brown to grayish brown, clayey fine to medium grained sand and sandy clay. Isolated areas with deeper fill may be encountered during grading. 7 .2.2 Tertiary Santiago Formation The Tertiary Santiago Formation was observed in Boring B-1 at a depth of approximately 11.9 feet. This unit generally consists of medium dense to dense of very stiff to hard, light olive to light yellowish olive, silty to clayey fine to medium grained sandstone and sandy claystone. This unit is anticipated at depth throughout the site. SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) PAGE 4 7 .3 Geologic Structure Based on review of regional geologic maps and geologic reconnaiss~nce performed during the subsurface investigation, the geologic units underlying the site were found to be generally flat sedimentary deposits with moderate to thick bedding that generally dip at five to seven degrees southwest. No known faults or significant structural features are mapped or observed in the site area. 7 .4 Groundwater Conditions At the time of our subsurface investigatibn, groundwater was not observed in any of the explorations that extended to a maximum depth of 17.9 feet beg. Based on regional topography and experience in the area, groundwater is anticipated at depths greater than 50 feet beg. However, localized seepage may be encountered as a result of significant precipitation, poor drainage, leaking pipes, excessive irrigation, or other man-made sources. Provided seepage is not encountered during grading (or identified and mitigated), and proper site drainage is designed and installed in accordance with the project civil engineer's recommendations, groundwater is not anticipated to impact site grading of the proposed improvements. 7.5 Slope Stability An evaluation of slope stability was performed by utilizing field and laboratory data to determine subsurface geologic conditions and soil strength values. This data, combined with slop e geometry, was entered into the SLOPEW program to determine slope failure potential at the subject site. Based on laboratory direct shear testing and conservative assumed values, the soil strength values utilized for the Previously Placed Fill was phi of 22.0 degrees (Lab results: 22 to 26 degrees) and cohesion of 350 psf (Lab results: 364 to 380), for the Landslide Deposits a phi of 20 degrees and a cohesion of 150 psf, and the Santiago Formation a phi of 30.0 degrees and cohesion of 300 psf. Based on these values and other location specific input data, the existing slope exhibits a global factor of safety greater than 1.5, which indicates the slope is generally resistant to deep seated slope instabilities. The results of this analysis are presented in Appendix E. Skyline provides recommendations for surficial failures and mitigation recommendations for increased global stability in this report. The recommendations presented herein are to be considered at the discretion of the owner/governing authority. Mitigation recommendations for global stability will exhibit a global factor of safety greater than 1.5, which is considered to be resistant to deep seated slope instabilities. SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) SKYLIN E --(;EOTECHNI CAL PAGE 5 8.0 CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are based on site reconnaissance, geologic observations performed during the subsurface investigation, laboratory testing, and slope stability analysis. Based on the slope stability analysis, the slope exhibits a factor of safety of greater than 1.5 in its current condition, which is considered to be generally resistant to deep seated slope failures. However, due to the relatively steep angle of the slope and loose nature of the fill material, continued erosion, sloughing, and additional minor failures are anticipated. Therefore, Skyline is presenting recommendations for a surficial slope retention system made up of a tiered pipe and board retaining wall system. Based on the relatively thick layer of Quaternary Previous Placed Fill beneath the existing structure, distress is likely being caused by settlement and consolidation of the underlying unit. As such, Skyline is presenting recommendations for underpinning of the existing structure in order to be supported by the native underlying unit less susceptible to consolidation under the accepted loading. The installation professional should take the recommendations presented below and develop a system of underpinning elements that will support the anticipated loading. Skyline is not responsible for the calculation of existing building load or design of the underpinning system or elements. The existing slope has a slope angle of approximately 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical), which is steeper than the typically recommended 2:1 graded slope. 9.0 REPAIR AND GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS Skyline has provided the following drilled helical pile and driven pile foundation underpinning recommendations for support of the existing two-story condominium improvements. Furthermore, slope stabilization recommendation options for slope remediation are provided herein. A pipe and board retaining wall will offer a surficial stabilization fix that will reduce the potential for future erosion/minor surficial failures and a more substantial mechanical earth anchor (soil nail) fix that will both decrease surficial failures and increase the overall global stability of the slope. It is anticipated that the soil nail slope retention system is not considered necessary based on the model stability of the slope have a factor of safety of greater than 1.5. The slope and underpinning improvements should be evaluated once preliminary plans are developed by the installation contractor. Skyline can also run a slope stability on proposed pipe and board retaining wall improvements to determine its increase in stability. As mentioned, Skyline has provided a surficial stabilization/mitigation measure to reduce potential for surficial failures and sloughing as observed during the field investigation. This measure consists of the installation of a Pipe and Board tiered wall system. The wall system would be installed on the slope face to mitigate erosion and provide some resistance to minor failures similar to those that have recently occurred. The Pipe and Board method would require periodic maintenance, vegetation and/or other surface protection, and will not provide SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) SKYLINE •---GE OTECHNICAL PAGE 6 substantial increased resistance to global, deep-seated instabilities. Conceptual Pipe and Board details are provided in Figure 5 and a conceptual Pipe and Board installation layout is provided in Figure 2B. All depths, spacing, and construction elements should be designed by a structural engineering or the installation contractor. 9.1 Site Excavation Based on anticipated conditions, planned excavations of site subgrade is likely to require moderate effort with standard construction equipment. Excavation within the Tertiary Santiago Formation is anticipated to become more difficult with depth. Although not anticipated due to the relatively shallow depth of anticipated excavation, grading may encounter cemented gravel and cobble layers. 9.2 Fill Material The on -site soil is considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill, provided the organic material and debris are removed prior to placement. If site soil has a potential to be medium to highly expansive, additional testing should be performed to determine suitability for reuse. Other laboratory testing to determine soil characteristics may be recommended based on visual observations. Rock clasts greater than three inches in diameter should be removed from the upper three feet of compacted fill. Import fill intended for use as engineered fill should have a low expansion potential (El of SO or less). Imported fill soils should be sampled, evaluated, and approved by the project Geotechnical Engineer before import to the site. Permanent retaining wall and subterranean wall backfill located within a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) extending up from the bottom rear of the foundation should consist of very low expansion potential soils (Expansion Index of 20 or less) with less than 30 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The project structural engineer and/or architect should design proper drainage behind the walls. 9.3 Fill Placement and Compaction Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with thicknesses determined by equipment used, but generally not exceed 10 inches in loose thickness. Prior to compaction, the fill material should be moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture content and blended to produce uniform moisture content. Once the fill material is properly moisture conditioned it should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D1557. Fill placement and compaction should be observed and tested by a Skyline representative during grading. SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) SKYLINE -.--GEOTEC HNI CAL PAGE 7 9.4 Graded Slopes Based on anticipated soil strengths, all unreinforced cut and fill slopes should be graded at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. It is recommended that fill slopes be overbuilt and cut to finished grade, to ensure proper compaction and performance of the slope face. All permanent constructed slopes should exhibit a factor of safety greater than 1.5. Although the proposed graded slopes are anticipated depending on remediation system chosen, surficial failure and sloughing cannot be precluded if not protected from erosion and saturation. Therefore, properly designed drainage should be installed and erosion- resistant vegetation should be planted and maintained on the face of all slopes. Placement Jute Mat or Jute netting is also highly recommended prior to the planting of vegetation. Additionally, the project civil engineer should further design drainage that does not allow surface water to drain over slope faces or into slope structure. 9.5 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures Lateral loads acting against structures and permanent retaining walls may be resisted by friction between the footings and the supporting soil or passive pressure acting against structures. If frictional resistance is used, allowable coefficients of friction of 0.28 (total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction multiplied by the dead load) for concrete cast directly against compacted fill or native material is recommended. A design passive resistance value of 150 pounds per square foot per foot of depth {with a maximum value of 1,500 pounds per square foot) may be used for foundations embedded into previously placed fill material with a minimum horizontal distance to daylight of 10 feet. Passive resistance may be increased to 300 pcf for portions of foundation embedded into competent native material. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. Retaining walls backfilled using granular soils may be designed using the equivalent fluid unit weights given in the table below. As previously stated, retaining wall parameters herein are assuming all retaining wall backfill within a 45° {1:1) wedge extending up from the bottom base of the wall consists of cohesionless material with a minimum internal friction angle of 30° or greater. SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) SKYLINE ~-GEOTECHNI CAL PAGE 8 - EQUIVALENT FLUID UNlli WE'IGHT5 (Gra) ,pounds per cubic foot) ' ,, SLOPE BACKFILL WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL 2:1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) CANTILEVER WALL 40 62 (ACTIV E/ YIELDING) RESTRAINED WALL 60 86 (AT-REST) Lateral pressures on cantilever retaining walls (yielding walls) over six feet high due to earthquake motions may be ca lculated based on work by Seed and Whitman (1970). For restrained, non-yielding, retaining walls, the total lateral earth pressure may be similarly calculated based on work by Wood (1973). Other methods of calculation may be used at the discretion of the structural engineer as approved by Skyline. The static and increment of dynamic earth pressure in both cases may be applied with a line of action located at H/3 above the bottom of the wall {SEAOC, 2013). The values presented herein consider non to very-low expansive potential backfill/retained soil and free-draining conditions. Design and construction shou ld be conducted to avoid the accumulation of moisture and generation of hydrostatic pressure behind retaining walls. Drainage should be designed so it ensures water does not collect behind the wall and instead is redirected by dimpled drain board with filter fabric (J-Drain or similar) or porous drainage aggregate (minimum 12 inches thick conta ined by filter fabric) in combination with perforated piping. All drains shou ld discharge to an appropriate location determined by the project civi l engineer. Waterproofing may be required at the architect or civil engineer's discretion. Further drainage recommendations are presented in section 9.9 of this report. 9.6 Pipe and Board Retaining Wall System The following pipe and board retaining wall recommendations are surficial failure mitigation measure to reduce near surface failures, sloughi ng and erosion. This method is construction with treated lumber and therefore should be considered semi-temporary in nature and may require periodic maintenance to increase the longevity of the finished product. This mitigation method would consist of the installation of a pipe and board tiered wall system. This system would be installed on the slope face to reduce erosion and provide some resistance t o minor fai lures. A conceptual detail drawing of the pipe and board wall system, including drainage, is presented in Figu re 5. A conceptual cross section is presented in Figure 2B. SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) SKYLINE -.--GEOTEC HNICAL PAGE 9 9.6.1 Pipe and Board Wall Recommendations The slope in its current condition has the potential for additional erosion and minor failures due to loose surficial soil and organic debris. Therefore, as a surficial failure mitigation method Skyline recommends post and board be installed throughout the entirety of the effected slope area. A pipe and board wall can be designed by the project structural or civil engineer of record based on the recommendations presented herein. Schedule 80 galvanized pipe (corrosion resistant) with a minimum diameter of 2-7 /8" inches should be embedded a minimum of two times the depth of retained soil, seven feet below bottom of wall, and to competent material, whichever is greatest. In lieu of embedment two times the wall height, a wider foundation may be constructed out of unreinforced concrete with a minimum unconfined compressive strength of PSI of 2,500. Minimum daylight conditions discussed in this report should be considered for any foundation design. Minimum 2"x12" pressure-treated lumber boards should be laterally supported by the galvanized pipe and anchored to the pipe with adequate bracketing. Dual layers of pressure treated 2"x12" lumber may be used where pressure exceeds the capacity of one 2"x12". Pipes should be spaced no greater than four feet on-center but as per recommended by design engineer and/or installation contractor. Passive lateral capacity may be utilized below a depth of 10 inches when a minimum distance to daylight of four feet is attained. The reduction factors in the table below sh ould be used in design until a minimum of 7 feet distance to daylight is obtained. Pipes may be driven (pipe only) or drilled/excavated and concreted depending on passive resistance required. Slurry/grout may be used if foundation excavation diameter is 8 inches or less. Drilled pipe pile excavations should be backfilled with a minimum of 2500 psi cementitious material. An effective width of 2.0 times the diameter for lateral support may be used due to passive arching of the supporting soil on a round or drilled supporting element for walls not adversely effected by up to ½ inch of movement at the top of the foundations. The pipe itself may also be filled with high-strength grout in order to increase the bending resistance of the vertical support. Pipe and board retaining walls not supporting structures and not attempting to contribute to a global stability increase may be considered landscaping features and design parameters herein may be adjusted. Skyline can be provided preliminary pipe and board retaining wall plans for approved based on intended usage. SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) PASSIVE PRESSURES REDUCT.ION (EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE) PCF FOR PIPE AND BOARD WALLS Distance to Daylight (ft) Passive Resistive Pressure 4 75 6 100 8 125 150 *Linear interpolation may be used for intermittent values. ACTIVE LATERAL EARlH PRESSURES (EQUIVAt;ENT FLUID PRESSURE) PCF FOR PIPE AND BOARD WALLS ·- Wall Type Level Backfill Slope Backfill 4:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) Pipe and Board Cantilevered 40 50 Wall (Yielding) *(using selectively graded site material) 9.6.2 Pipe and Board Wall Drainage PAGE 10 Pipe and board walls should be installed with appropriate drainage. Drainage should consist of a dimple drain board (J-Drain or similar) along the rear height of the wall sweeping horizontally (minimum one foot) into the slope at the bottom of the wall. A perforated pipe encased in a filter fabric drain sleeve (filter sock) should run along the rear bottom length of the wall to capture any moisture from the dimple board. The perforated pipe should drain to and be collected by a non-perforated pipe gravity draining down the slope and daylighting to a proper discharge location 9. 7 Mechanically Stabilized Friction Anchor Retaining Walls As Skyline understands, the proposed slope stabilization improvements may be designed using a mechanically stability friction anchor wall (soil nails and reinforced shotcrete). As such, Skyline1s preliminary recommendations are provided herein based on the observed site conditions and laboratory testing. SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) PAGE 11 Geotechnical friction anchors (soil-nails) would assist in lateral and shear support of the 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) slope. As such, a properly designed soil nail and reinforced shotcrete stabilization system is anticipated to eliminate surficial failures and sloughing. Skyline should review and run a final slope stability analysis. For design purposes, it may be estimated that drilled friction anchors will develop an average friction of 900 psf for the grouted portion of the soil nails drilled beyond the anticipated failure plane. For design purposes the failure plane can be assumed to mimic that of the slope stability analysis presented at the end of this report. The failure plane may be modified based on review of the final design plans and slope stability evaluation. Pullout friction should only be considered for portion of the nail embedded past the predicted slide/failure plane. Friction anchors should be a minimum six (6) inches in diameter and the should extend a minimum 15 feet beyond the anticipated failure plane as described above. Actual friction anchor length should be calculated by the structural engineer or record or a design-build installation contractor's engineer. As such, greater depths may be required to develop the desired capacities. Based on soil nail construction methods and requirement to fill all voids created by drilling, grouting the entire length of soil nail should be performed. To reiterate, only portions of the soil nail passed the failure plane should be used in stability/retention calculations. Skyline should review all design plans • and calculations prior to implementation. Based on the near gradient of the anticipated final slope angle and trial runs of Slope/W, soil-nail anchors should generally be installed between angles of 20° to 40° degrees below horizontal for shotcrete constructed at the proposed final slope shotcrete face angle/gradient. Th e soil nail design professional will determine the most efficient angle of the friction anchors. Soil nail wall may also be a series of near vertical tiered walls. As such, the angle below horizontal will be decreased based on wall batter and height. These values should be confirmed once the preliminary design has been completed and the final layback angle of the shotcrete wall face(s) is/are determined. A conceptual drawing is presented in Figure 6. Anchors should be filled from the tip outward. As standard construction practice, skyline recommends the entire length of the nail be grouted. The minimum compressive strength for grout should be 1,500 pounds per square inch (psi) at 3 days, and 3,500 psi at 28 days, or per design engineer of record as tested in accordance with ASTM C109. Although not anticipated, localized caving of cohesionless soils may occur during anchor drilling and the contractor should have adequate means for mitigation. To ensure proper embedment beyond the anticipated failure plane, a Skyline representative should observe all anchor installations. Final design capacities should be developed based on the installation technique and verified by indicator or "test" anchors. SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) PAGE 12 To verify the friction/bond strength value used in design, anchors can be load tested to at least 133% of design load in accordance with the Post Tensioning Institute (PTI), FHWA, or governing authority determined by the local jurisdiction. Depending on bonded length, may be necessary to test anchors based on friction of the entire bonded length and subtract the portion of the nail withing the active wedge of the anticipated failure or test a partially grouted soil nail/friction anchor. As such, specific "test nails" may be installed with limited bonding length in order to have a more controlled test. Following installation, the grout can be removed by flushing using a tremie pipe and water. The unbonded zone may also be created through isolation by using a pre-installed smooth-casing bond breaker or by other approved means and methods. Skyline should observe installation of the anchors and all load testing. The contractor shall supply information on the hydraulic jacks verifying that they have been recently calibrated before their use. All friction anchors should be designed utilizing a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 or as determined by the structural engineer of record. Although not necessary, it may be beneficial to perform monit(?ring of settlement and horizontal movement of the adjacent structural improvements within 30 horizontal feet of the slope crest on a minimum weekly basis during installation and excavation in order to confirm that actual movements are within tolerable limits. If determined necessary, the number and location of monitoring points shall be indicated on the shoring plans; Skyline can review such locations and proposed monitoring schedule once prepared and provided by the shoring contractor. 9.8 Helical or Driven Pile Building Underpinning Skyline recommends the structural foundations of the existing building be underpinned to help reduce the potential for future settlement and subsequent distress. To underpin the structure, properly designed and embedded helical or hydraulically driven piles should extend to a depth to achieve a minimum three feet embedment into competent, native material. Helical piles should have a minimum of two flights/ helical shaped disks and be a minimum 3/8-inch thick, but as determined by the design professional. Haudrauilcally driven piles should have a minimum diameter of 2-7 /8". Depths to native material vary throughout the site and topography, however, underpinning near the northern portion of the existing structure may require depth as little as 12 feet below existing grade and as great at 40 feet on the southern portions of the structure to achieve adequate embedment into native material. Increase depth may be required for additional capacity of the underpinning elements as per the design engineer. Underpinning elements provide capacity on a case-by-case basis due to their unique design including but not limited to, diameter, number of flights, diameter of flights, pitch angle of flights, and other proprietary elements incorporated by the specific helical or driven pile manufacturer. As such, many underpinning elements will be provided with design charts SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) SKYLINE w:......-GEOTE.CHNICAL PAGE 13 obtaining capacity based on installation pressures and resistance. The proprietary installation contractor should provide Skyline with design charts for review and verification . Underpinning elements should be designed to resist buckling, although the surrounding soils are anticipated to give some resistance against subsurface bending/bucking of the underpinning element. Furthermore, the installation contractor is responsible for the foundation seat support assembly, bracket, sleeve connection, and other foundation connection elements. Skyline understands the underpinning will not be relied upon for upward or lateral resistant. Should design loads become dependent on these factors, Skyline can provide recommendations at that time. 9.8.1 Helical and Driven Pile Limitations All design calculations and drawings should be reviewed and approved by Skyline prior to installation. A Skyline representative should be present during the installation of all underpinning elements. Skyline must be provided all hydraulic ram information and current calibration records for pressure gauges along with pressure to capacity correlation charts. 9.9 Surface Protection and Vegetation As with all repaired slopes, following construction there is potential for surface erosion and minor slope instabil ities occurring over time if slopes are not maintained. After construction, Skyline recommends exposed slopes/grades are protected by the installation of a Jute Mat/Net placed directly on top of soils to help mitigate and further reduce erosion potential. Once Jute Mat is properly installed, erosion resistant vegetation/landscaping should be planted to further reduce surficial creep and erosion. As previously stated, it is pertinent repairs and improvements are designed and maintained such that surface water is kept away from slope faces and not allowed to infiltrate the slope itself further discussed in the next section. 9.10 Drainage Based on observed subsurface conditions, seepage may be encountered during construction of the retaining wall. Th erefore, the retaining wall designer and contractor should understand the possibility of exposing locally saturated and/or cohesionless materials subject to sloughing and cannot be precluded and is likely during the wet season or due to seepage from surrounding landscaping. Additionally, leaking/ruptured utilities, drainage, and/or surface runoff may saturate retained soils through the passage of time causing hydrostatic pressure not accounted for in the design parameters herein. A proper retaining wall drainage system should be designed by the project civil/structural engineer and be reviewed and approved by Skyline Geotechnical. SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 {rev 05/24/2024) SKYLIN E .:....-GEOTECHNICAL PAGE 14 Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from improvements and slopes by means of appropriate erosion-reducing devices and positive drainage should be established around the proposed improvements. Positive drainage should be directed away from improvements at a gradient of at least two percent for a distance of at least five feet. However, the project civil engineer should evaluate on-site drainage and make necessary provisions to keep surface water from impacting the site. Generally, Skyline does not recommend allowing water to infiltrate into building pads or adjacent t o slopes. Some agencies are encouraging the use of stormwater cleansing devices. Use of such devices tends to increase the possibility of adverse effects associated with high groundwater including slope instability. See Appendix D for further discussion of site infiltration. 10.0 CONTROLLED LOW STRENGTH MATERIALS (CLSM) Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM} may be used in deepened footing excavations or other structures, provided the appropriate following recommendations are also incorporated. Minimum overexcavation depths recommended herein beneath thew retaining wall, flatwork, and other areas may be applicable beneath CLSM if/where CLSM is to be used, and excavation bottoms should be observed by Skyline prior to placement of CLSM. Prior to CLSM placement, the excavation should be free of debris, loose soil materials, and water. Once specific areas to utilize CLSM have been determined, Skyline should review the locations to determine if additional recommendations are appropriate. CLSM should consist of a minimum three-sack cement/sand slurry with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 100 psi (or equal to or greater than the maximum allowable short term soil bearing pressure provided herein, whichever is higher) as determined by ASTM D4832. If re- excavation is anticipated, the compressive strength of CLSM should generally be limited to a maximum of 150 psi per ACI 229R-99. Where re-excavation is required, two-sack cement/sand slurry may be used to help limit the compressive strength. The allowable soils bearing pressure and coefficient of friction provided herein should still govern foundation design. CLSM may not be used in lieu of structural concrete where r~quired by the structural engineer. 11.0 PLAN REVIEW Skyline should be authorized to review the project grading and foundation plans prior to commencement of earthwork in order to provide additional recommendations, if necessary. 12.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions observed in the soil borings. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be confirmed by Skyline during construction with respect to anticipated conditions. Upon completion of precise grading, if necessary, soil SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) SKYLINE ~-GEOTEC HNICAL PAGE 15 samples will be collected to evaluate as-built Expansion Index. Foundation recommendations may be revised upon completion of grading, and as-built laboratory test results. Additionally, soil samples should be taken in pavement subgrade areas upon rough grading to refine pavement recommendations as necessary. Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that Skyline will provide the observation and testing services for the project. All earthwork should be observed and tested in accordance with recommendations contained within this report. Skyline should evaluate footing excavations before reinforcing steel placement. 13.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION The subsurface conditions and geotechnical engineering evaluation presented in this report were based on the results of a limited field exploration and laboratory testing program. Subsurface conditions are anticipated to vary across the site and may differ from those observed at the exploration locations, tested in the laboratory, or published in regional documents. Site conditions, including groundwater elevation or seepage, can change over time as a result of natural processes or actions of man at or adjacent to the site. Revisions to laws, regulations, codes, or standards of practice may occur as a result of government action or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore, the findings in this report may be invalidated over time, partially or entirely, by changes in which Skyline cannot control. The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed improvements as described in this report. If proposed improvements or site conditions vary significantly from those described in this report, Skyline should be contacted for evaluation, and if necessary, provide additional recommendations. Skyline's conclusions and recommendations are based on the observed conditions described in this report. If conditions other than what is described in this report are observed, Skyline should be contacted for additional evaluation and if necessary, provide additional recommendations. The findings, recommendations and professional opinions provided in this report were developed in general accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical engineering profession at the time of this report preparation. Skyline makes no other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and recommendations provided in this report. SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) PAGE 16 Skyline appreciates the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us. Respectfully submitted, SKYLINE GEOTECHNICAL, INC Rodney J. Jon es, GE #3205 Principal Engineer No.3205 Aaron J. Beeby, CEG #2603 Principal Geologist No.2603 CERTIFIED NGINEERING GEOLOGIST SKYLINE PROJECT NO. P24-027R.I 08MAY2024 (rev 05/24/2024) ... , ,...._ . ,I " • f" - ii --. .:;; j·-~. l·· i ., M~ I • '\7 .- -b I!.-.. ,~ 111 ,,~ ~· .. . I ,; !• I .; , . ... -"":· .• ,, I I I ,· t I }. .,. ... ' ., I I I J I ,--I • -.. ;'I ! I If ,• ., h ,1 p II Ii ,, 11 l i ,, • I •! " ,, .. .. ,: -~•._ ... t t l . I I ' I . , .t ' I I SKYLINE GEOTECH NI CAL Site Location .. :. I I " I II 11 II i, I• ,, ,, I , -,, I " .. •:;~~--. ..... ·,:~ 11 ' .. .. ,u -: ::. --- ,;, .. ~ ... __ ·; .. , ·-~· .. I I I I I ,, ·-::::,;!: =·~::;-=-=- .. ... -. I .. ' I .. ., + I .... " I . ' ., • ,, I I -=---=-:.. -·: -'. ,, I -:. ' ,, ,-,, I ----· ... . -·· i .• i _ ...... - J .' Site Location Map Existing Casa Del Rey Condo Improvements 2251 Altisma Way Carlsbad, California -4; -- --=-.JL ::;.. Scale: Not to Scale Date: 4/2024 Proj. No.: 24-027R.I Figure: 1 A A' 170 Existing Structure 170 165 165 B-2 160 155 150 Existing Slope l 160 155 150 145 TD=10' Qppf 145 140 ....J_ __________________ ----=-____,.. _________ ..!)_ ___________ +------ • l 135 130 .._. ______ -!)...._ • ------~ 140 135 130 125 r o =17.9' Tsa ----. -----------~----- 125 120 -L-...-----.--~-r-----r--.--r---.-.---r-~-.--,-,--.--r,-,1r1-,1r,-,---,r,-,---,,--,-T 120 o 10 Explanation Qppf Quaternary Previously Placed Fill Tsa Tertiary Santiago Formation Approximate Geologic Contact 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 • 120 130 140 150 Cross Section A-A' Existing Casa Del Rey Condo Improvements 2251 Altisma Way Carlsbad, California Scale: 1" = 15' Date: 4/2024 Proj. No.: 24-027R.I Figure: 2A A 170 165 160 155 150 145 140 .......... _____ _,,,. 135 130 125 -----'l--. ---------- A' Existing Structure -----------170 165 -----+--r----------------------------f-160 -------..... r'\ ---L . ------ Tsa I Building Underpinning Helical or Driven Pile (Details by Others) Qppf Minimum 3 Feet Embedment into Tsa --'2 ..... ___ _ --. --~--2. ------------------------. 155 150 145 140 135 130 125 120 -t----,,---r----r--.r---r----r---,r----r----r---,r------.....,..--,---.,....-.....,..--,---.,....---------~-120 0 10 Explanation Qppf Quaternary Previously Placed Fill Tsa Tertiary Santiago Formation ----Approximate Geologic Contact 20 30 40 50 60 SKYLINE ~~ GEOTECHNICAL 70 80 90 100 Conceptual Cross Section A-A' Existing Casa Del Rey Condo Improvements 2251 Altisma Way Carlsbad, California Scale: 1" = 10' Date: 4/2024 Proj. No.: 24-027R.I Figure: 28 Qya Qoa Tsa Td Kt Mzu Explanation Base Map: U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California Quaternary Young Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits Quaternary Old Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits Tertiary Santiago Formation Tertiary Delmar Formation Cretaceous Tonalite Mesozoic Metasedimentary and Metavolcanic Rock SKYLINE GEOTECH NI CAL Regional Geologic Map Existing Casa Del Rey Condo Improvements 2251 Altisma Way Carlsbad, California Scale: Not to Scale Date: 4/2024 Proj. No.: 24-027R.I Figure: 3 alon u 2-041 5/7/2024, 11:34:04 PM Fault Areas O c1assB V,Y-1 historic late Quaternary :'.":2~ latest Quaternary f '.'->:'.) middle and late.Quaternary National Database Gulf of Sa u t a Cata lina 878 Latest Quaternary (<15,000 years), well constrained location Latest Quaternary (<15,000 years), moderately constrained location Latest Quaternary (<15,000 years), inferred location Late Quaternary(< 130,000 years), well constrained location Late Quaternary(< 130,000 years), moderately contrained location Late Quaternary(< 130,000 years), inferred location -Middle and late Quaternary(< 750,000 years), well constrained location Pendleton / I ·nitas , I J -Undilferenliated Quaternary (< 1.6 million years), well constrained location Valley Cent~l . ( < , ---Undifferentiated Quaternary (< 1.6 million years), moderately constrained location • • • • Undifferentiated Quaternary ( < 1.6 million years), inferred location Unspecified age, well constrained location Unspecified age, moderately constrained location Unspecified age, inferred location -Class B (various age), well constrained location Barona Reservation SAN YSIDRO 0 0 w 8 J • " -~✓ .,,/= ,,p ~=--'. ~..:-- tr== I •1-/'" 1. Juh.:n /~ ~--=-;Iii -~ / ' ,_ N,ORTH PINYJON # ~OUNT Al " ~ -.... ~ \ GRA'NJ.Tf PINYON • \ MOIJNTAIH!i"" MOUNT•AIN dawi-Va llecito Cultural VALL' B MOUNT: ·c1eveland National Forest 5 5 10 ' 1:577,791 10 20km EwiiaapaayP. Reservation \ \ --- 20mi ' IN --Historic(< 150 years), well constrained location --• Middle and late Quaternary(< 750,000 years), moderately constrained location • --Class B (various age), moderately constrained location Esri, CGIAR, USGS, SanGIS, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USFWS ---Historic(< 150 years), moderately constrained location . . • • • • Middle and late Quaternary(< 750,000 years), inferred locahon ·' ·' Historic (< 150 years), inferred location • • ' Class B (various age), inferred location USGS Sources: Esri, USGS I SanGIS, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS I Esri, CGIAR, USGS I USGS I SKYLINE GEOTE CHNICAL REGIONAL FAULT MAP Existing Casa Del Rey Condo Improvements 2251 Altisma Way Carlsbad, California Scale: No Scale Date: 04/2024 Proj. No.: 24-027RI Figure: 4 STEEP SLOPE (> 2: 1) GENTLE SLOPE ( < 2: 1) BENCHING WITH MIN 12" VERITCAL ,/24" JUTE MAT/NET TO BE PLACED TO RESIST EROSION LACE FILL IN 6-8" LIFTS MIN 3 INCH PERFORATED PIPE ~·. W/ FILTER ~~p (S~Clq_ BENCHING WITH MIN 12" VERITCAL J-DRAIN OR SIMILAR (DIMPLE DRAIN • BOARD) MIN 3 INCH SOLID PIPE (PVC) MIN 3 INCH PERFORATED PIPE W/ FILTER WRAP (SOCK) MIN 2-7/8" GALV PIPE (SCHEDULE 80) • PER STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JUTE MAT/NET MAY BE PLACED TO RES IST EROSION EXISTING SOIL (COMPETENT)~ MAY REQUIRE DOUBLE BOARD *PER STRUCTUAL ENGINEER (STAGGER IF DOUBLED) PLACE FILL IN 6-8" LIFTS (COMPACT TO 90%) J-DRAIN 0 (DIMPLE DRAIN OMPACT TO 90%) OPTION TO DRILL AND GROUT/SLURRY TO OBTAIN GREATER WIDTH FOR MIN 2-7/8" GALV PIPE (SCHEDULE 80) - • PER STRUCTURAL ENGINEER _ NOTES: PASSIVE PRESSURE 1. DRAWING IS CONCEPTUAL AND FOR DESIGN USE ONLY. EXISTING SOIL (COMPETENT)~ • -~ -~ : I -----l - I . _-,- OPTION TO DRILL AND --- GROUT/SLURRY TO OBTAIN ·- GREATER WIDTH FOR ---- PASSIVE PRESSURE - I 2. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SHOULD DESIGN/CONFIRM PIPE AND BOARD WALL DESIGN. 3. PIPES SHOULD BE A SPACED A MAX 4' O.C. 4. PIPES MAY BE DRIVEN OR DRILLED AND MAY BE SLURRIED/GROUTED FOR ADDITIONAL EFFECTIVE DIAMETER PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 5. INSIDE OF PIPE MAY BE GROUTED FOR ADDITIONAL BENDING RESISTANCE/STRENGTH . 6. FOR DRILLED OR EXCAVATED POST HOLES GREATER THAN 6 INCHES IN DIAMETER, MINIMUM 2500PSI CONCRETE SHOULD BE USED IN LIEU OF SLURRY. 7. ALL DRAINS SHOULD DAYLIGHT AS TO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO SLOPE SATURATION 8. PIPE AND BOARD IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED WILL NOT INCREASE GLOBAL STABILITY AND ARE FOR SURFICIAL STABILITY ONLY. 9. BOTTOM TWO WALLS SHOULD EXTEND TO COMPETENT NATIVE MATERIAL. 10. RETAINED SOIL SHOULD BE AT A SLOPE NO GREATER THAN 4:1 HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL. FOR MOST STABILITY AND LONGEVITY, LEVEL BACKFILL IS RECOMMENDED. SKYLINE ~EOTECHNICAL Conceptual Pipe and Board Retaining Wall Existing Casa Del Rey Condo Improvements 2251 Altisma Way Carlsbad, California INCH SOLID PIPE (PVC) MAY REQUIRE DOUBLE BOARD *PER STRUCTUAL ENGINEER (STAGGER IF DOUBLED} Scale: NO SCALE Date: 4/2024 Proj. No.: 24-027R.I Figure: 5 SOIL NAILS PRESTRESSED AGAINST ACTIVE ZONE RETAINED FACE ~---- BEARING PLATE SHOTCRETE FACE (MIN 4") MIN ONE SOIL NAIL PAST BOTTOM OF ANTICIPATED SLIDE MAS SKYLINE r,EQTECHNICAL POTENTIAL FAILURE SURFACE/ SLIP SURFACE TYPICAL GROUTED NAIL FULLY BONDED TO RETAIN ACTIVE ZONE OF SOIL MINIMUM 15 FEE BEYOND POTENTIAL FAILURE SURFA MINIMUM 6 INCH DIAMETER Conceptual Soil Nail and Shotcrete Slope Stabilization Scale: NO SCALE Date: 04/2024 Existing Casa Del Rey Condo Improvements 2251 Altisma Way Carlsbad, California Proj. No.: 24-027R.I Figure: 6 APPENDIX A: REFERENCES Allied Geotechnical Engineers Inc., 1979, Limited Site Investigation, Existing Residential Building Site, 3437 Goldfinch Street, San Diego, California, project No. 60B4, Dated September 6. American Society for Civil Engineers, 2016, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-16. ASTM, 2002, Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort, Volume 04.08. Benton Engineering, Inc., 1990, Report of Inspection of Pier Excavations, 3429 Goldfinch Street, San Diego, California, Plan File No. A007250-90, Permit No. C007771-90, Project No. 89-12-13EF, dated November 7. Benton Engineering, Inc., 1989, Limited Soils Investigation, Proposed Residence Addition, 3429 Goldfinch Street, San Diego, California, project No. 89-12-13EF, dated December 29. California Building Code, 2022, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, California Building Standards Commission, published by ICBO, June. California Division of Mines and Geology, CD 2000-003 Digital Images of Official Maps of Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Southern Region, compiled by Martin and Ross. Frankel, A.O., Petersen, M.D., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Leyendecker, E.V., Wesson, R.L. Harmsen, S.C., Cramer, C.H., Perkins, D.M., and Rukstales, K.S., 2002, Documentation for the 2002 update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 02-420, 33 p. Hart, Earl W., and Bryant, William A., Revised 2018, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist Priolo, Special Studies Zones Act of 1972, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Jennings, Charles W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions. Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2008, Geologic Map of the San Diego 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California, California Geological Survey, Map No. 3. SEAOC, Blue Book-Seismic Design Recommendations, Seismically Induced Lateral Earth Pressures on Retaining Structures and Basement Walls, Article 09.10.010, October 2013. Seed, H.B., •and R.V. Whitman, 1970, Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads, in Proceedings, ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth- Retaining Structures, pp. 103-147, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. APPENDIX A: REFERENCES {CONT') Simons, R. S., and R. V. Whitman, 1970, Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads, ASCE Specialty Conference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures, pp. 103-147, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University. Tan, Siang S., and Griffin, Desmond G., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Southern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, La Jolla Quadrangle. Plate 33A Wood, J.H. 1973, Earthquake-Induced Soil Pressures on Structures, Report EERL 73-05. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology. APPENDIX B: BORING LOGS SKYLINE ~-._ GEOTECHNICAL Project Name: Exploration Location: Project Number: Date Loggt:d By: Drilled: Dilling Drill Method: Diameter: 1--::...D:.:.r::.;ill=.R~ig---------------;-~Drilling Type: Contractor: Ground Water At Sampling Time of Drilling: Method(s): --V) +-' u QJ QJ V) QJ -QJ :::::, I LEGEND Boring B-# Sheet 1 of 1 Checked By: Total Depth of Borehole (ft): Approximate Surface Elevation (feet msl): Hammer Data: ::::. +-' 0. 0. QJ E -MATERIAL DESCRIPTION C QJ E QJ QJ ID 0 ::::. ra ... 0. ·;::; ra V) -::::, > .c V) QJ Vl ..... I-ra ..... 31: Vl > 0. ~ > ·o QJ QJ :::::, ·;:: 0 ·o UJ 0 cc 0 co :? V) 0-0 - . BULK SAMPLE . - -5-5 - . --. -~ 1 . 2 MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE 3 . -10-10 -[I ! STANDARD PENETRAION TEST -. -. :Y APPROXIMATE GROUNDWATER DEPTH . . 9 APPROXIMATE SEEPAGE DEPTH . -15-15 -------------i----------------------------------------CHANE IN uses CLASSIFICATION - -CHANGE IN GEOLOGIC UNIT -20-20 -END OF EXPLORATION TD= TOTAL DEPTH . GW =GROUNDWATER . . . MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -DENSITY/STIFFNESS, MOISTURE, COLOR, SOIL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION -25 25 -- I .SKYLINE GEOTECHNICAL Project Name: Casa Del Rey Evaluation Log of Boring B-1 Project Location: Project Number: 2251 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, CA 24-027R.I Sheet 1 of 1 Date Drilled: 3/27/2024 Logged By: AJB Checked By: RJJ Dilling . Drill 3 . h Total Depth of 17 g h d Manual Excavation me Met o : Diameter: Borehole (ft): • Drill Rig S l"d St A Drilling N A Approximate Surface 148 o 1 -em uger Contractor: / Elevation (feet msl): Type:. Ground Water At N/A Sampling Bulk Hammer Data: N/A Time of Drilling: Method(s): -'vl .... u QJ QJ V) QJ -QJ a. :::> ::=. .... a. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION QJ E -C QJ E ~ QJ QJ 0 ::=. "' ... a. "' V) "';;;-:::, > .... .c V) QJ .... I-"' .... 3: <II > a. ~ > ·5 QJ QJ :::, ·;:: ..Q ~ ·o w 0 ca 0 ca V) 148-0 CL Quaternary Landslide Deposits: Stiff, moist, dark brown, fine grained sandy clay. - SC Quaternary Previously 111aced FIii: . Stiff to loose to medium dense, moist, light yellowish brown, clayey fine to medium grained sand/ sandy clay. - 143-5 -Becomes light olive with caly blebs --------Stiff, moist, grayish brown, fine to medium grained sandy clay. CL -Becomes reddish brown with gravel to 9.5' 138-10 - -CL Tertiary Santiago Formation: -------SM-Ver¼istiff moist, li~ht olive fine to medium~rained sand'l_Slaystone. l\il'"e 1um~ense lo ense, ~gnflymoist, fig t yellowlsn gray,sHty"line to mecHumgramea -- sandstone. 133-15 ------SC/CL Medium dense or very stiff, moist, light yellowish olive, clayey fine to medium grained sandstone, and sandy claystone . . Total Depth: 17.9' 128-20 -No groundwater encountered - . 123 25 -- SKYLINE GEOTECHNICAL Project Name: Casa Del Rey Evaluation Log of Boring B-2 Project Location: Project Number: 2251 Altisma Way, Carlsbad, CA 24-027R.I Sheet 1 of 1 Date Drilled: 3/27/2024 Dihllindg Manual Excavation Met o : Drill Rig S l"d St A o 1 -em uger Type: Ground Water At N/ A Time of Drilling: -:;:;- Cl) Cl) .:::; Cl) ::::.. Cl) a. C: Cl) E 0 !t:. ·,.:; ro .c Vl ro ...... > C. .:.it. Cl) Cl) :::, LLJ 0 aJ 160-0 . . . r--- 155-5 - - - 150-10 -~- . 145-15 - - - -. . ' 140-20 - . 135 25 -- Cl) "i5.. E U) "' V') ...... Cl) Vl :i: > ·;:: 0 0 aJ --- ----· 5 V') => -Cl) Cl) ... C. :::, ~ ..., Vl 0 ·o ~ V') CL ,--,_sr- ,--,---- CL Logged By: AJB Drill 3 . h me Diameter: Drilling N/A Contractor: Sampling Bulk Method(s): Checked By: RJJ Total Depth of lO S Borehole (ft): • Approximate Surface Elevation (feet msl): Hammer Data: N/ A MATERIAL DESCRIPTION \.(Uaternary l"rev1ous1y .... ,acea t-111: Medium stiff to stiff, moist, dark olive brown, fine grained sandy clay . 160 ooseTo-medium aense, moTst,lighTrec@1sfi gray,clayey nneto meaium-grafnea saria.--- Becomes slightly moist, olive Becomes moist, dark olive brown, roots e-------------------------------------- Stiff. moist dark olive ~rav fine to medium ~rained sandv clav. Total Depth: 10.5' No groundwater encountered WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 2 Skyline Geotechnical, Inc 7040 Avenid~ Encinas, STE 104 Carlsbad, CA 92011 HOLE#: DCP-1 CREW: RJJ/AJB PROJECT: Casa Del Rey HOA ADDRESS: 2251 Altisma Way LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA 92009 BLOWS RESISTANCE DEPTH PER 10 cm Kg/cm2 -2 8.9 -3 13.3 -1 ft 9 40.0 -11 48.8 -11 48.8 -2 ft 6 26.6 -7 31.1 -7 31.1 -3 ft 5 22.2 -lm 5 22.2 -12 46.3 -4 ft 13 50.2 -12 46.3 -10 38.6 -5 ft 12 46.3 -15 57.9 -16 61.8 -6 ft 20 77.2 -15 57.9 -2m 16 61.8 -7 ft 10 34.2 -11 37.6 -11 37.6 -8 ft 10 34.2 -10 34.2 -11 37.6 -9 ft 10 34.2 - -15 51.3 -17 58.1 -3m 10 ft 19 65.0 -14 42.8 -17 52.0 -15 45.9 -11 ft 19 58.1 -24 73.4 -20 61.2 -12 ft 10 30.6 -10 30.6 -16 49.0 -4m 13 ft 20 61.2 PROJECT NUMBER: 24-027R.I ------DATE STARTED: 03-27-2024 ------DATE COMPLETED: 03-27-2024 SURFACE ELEVATION: 157.5 ft msl ------WATERONCOMPLETION: NIA ------HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. CONE AREA: --1-0-sq-. -cm-- GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY 0 50 100 150 N' NON-COHESIVE COHESIVE •• 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT ••• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF •••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF •••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF ••••••• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF ••••••••• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF ••••••••• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF •••••• 6 LOOSE :rvtEDIUM STIFF •••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF ••••••••••••• 13 :rvtEDIUM DENSE STIFF •••••••••••••• 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF ••••••••••••• 13 :rvtEDIUM DENSE STIFF ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF ••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF •••••••••••••••• 16 I\.IBDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ••••••••••••••••• 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF •••••••••••••••••••••• 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF •••••••••••••••• 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ••••••••••••••••• 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ••••••••• 9 LOOSE STIFF •••••••••• 10 LOOSE STIFF •••••••••• 10 LOOSE STIFF ••••••••• 9 LOOSE STIFF ••••••••• 9 LOOSE STIFF •••••••••• 10 LOOSE STIFF ••••••••• 9 LOOSE STIFF •••••••••••••• 14 :rvtEDIUM DENSE STIFF •••••••••••••••• 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF •••••••••••••••••• 18 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF •••••••••••• 12 :rvtEDIUM DENSE STIFF ••••••••••••••• 14 :rvtEDIUM DENSE STIFF ••••••••••••• 13 :rvtEDIUM DENSE STIFF •••••••••••••••• 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ••••••••••••••••••••• 20 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF ••••••••••••••••• 17 :rvtEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF •••••••• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF •••••••• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF •••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF ••••••••••••••••• 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF Projects\24-027R.I (Casa Del Rey 2251 Altisma Way, Carlsbad 92009)\OCP-1 HOLE#: DCP-1 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 2 of 2 24 027RI PROJECT C D 1 R HOA asa e ev PROJECT NUMBER - BLOWS RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY DEPTH PER 10 cm Kg/cm2 0 50 100 150 N' NON-COHESIVE COHESIVE -19 52.6 ••••••••••••••• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF -15 41.6 •••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF -14 ft 23 63.7 •••••••••••••••••• 18 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF -34 94.2 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF -61 169.0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD -15 ft 32 88.6 ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF -23 63.7 •••••••••••••••••• 18 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF -20 55.4 •••••••••••••••• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF -16 ft 23 63.7 •••••••••••••••••• 18 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF -5 m 25 69.3 •••••••••••••••••••• 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF -18 45.7 ••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF -17 ft 19 48.3 ••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF -18 45.7 ••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF -18 45.7 ••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF -18 ft 24 61.0 ••••••••••••••••• 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF -23 58.4 •••••••••••••••• 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF -22 55.9 •••••••••••••••• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF -19 ft 18 45.7 ••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF -15 38.1 ••••••••••• 10 LOOSE STIFF -6m 22 55.9 •••••••••••••••• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF -20 ft 21 48.9 •••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF -18 41.9 •••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF -18 41.9 •••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF -21 ft 30 69.9 •••••••••••••••••••• 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF -32 74.6 ••••••••••••••••••••• 21 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF -27 62.9 •••••••••••••••••• 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF -22 ft 40 93.2 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF -32 74.6 ••••••••••••••••••••• 21 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF -21 48.9 •••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF -7m 23 ft - - -24 ft - - -25 ft - - -26 ft -8m - -27 ft - - -28 ft - - -29 ft - -9m Projects\24-027R.I (Casa Del Rey 2251 Altisma Way, Carlsbad 92009)\DCP-1 APPENDIX C: LABORATO.RV TEST METHODS AND RESULTS Laboratory Test Program Laboratory tests were performed to provide engineering parameters for design and analysis. Descriptions of the laboratory tests performed for this project are described below. Classification Field soil classifications were performed using visual and tactile methods in accordance with the Unified Soi l Classification System and confirmed with laboratory testing of select soil samples in accordance with ASTM D2487. Modified Proctor The modified proctor test is performed to determine the laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. This was determined using a mechanically operated hammer for compaction of the soil. This test was performed in accordance with ASTM D1557 Direct Shear Direct shear testing is performed' to determine the consolidated drained shear strength of a soil material in direct shear. This test was performed in accordance with ASTM D3080. LABORATORY COMPACTION OF SOIL (MOD.) ASTM D 1557 Project Name: Skyline (Casa Del Rey) Project Number: 4814.2300006.0000 Lab Number: 35658 Sample Location: B-1 Tested By: B.S. ---- Calculated By: B.S. ---- Sampled By: R.J. ----Depth (ft.) 0'-17.9' Date: 4/2/24 Date: 4/2/24 Date: 3/27/24 Sample Description: Grey (SC / CL) _.....;._.;.__ _______________________________ _ Moisture Added (ml) -100 TEST NO. 1 Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (g) 3952 Wt. of Mold (g) 2013 Net Wt. of Soil (g) 1939 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) . 179.5 Wt. of Container (g) 0.0 •' Moisture Content (%) PROCEDURE USED 11----...... X I Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers: 5 (Five) Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five) May be used if No.4 retained =/< 25% I Procedure B 11------' Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold: 4in.(101 .6mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five) May be used if 3/8" retained =/< 25% I Procedure C II------' Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six) May be used if 3/4" retained=/< 30% I 'I •. 1' 11.4 128.4 115.2 C' CJ C. -~ 120.0 11 5.0 ·;; 110.0 C a, C ~ C 105.0 100.0 OVERSIZE FRACTION -50 2 4025 2013 2012 13.6 133.2 117.2 5.0 Total Sample Weight (g): I 17351 Weight Retained (g} Percent Retained I Plus 3/4"1 I Plus 3/8"1 285 I Plus #4 I 1.6 0 3 4043 2013 2030 15.3 134.4 116.6 10.0 50 4 4012 2013 1999 17.3 132.3 112.8 \ \\ ' \ \ ---\ \\ V ~ '\ ✓ ~' ' 15.0 Preparation Method: Dry IT] MoistO Mechanical RammerIT] Manual RammerO Hammer Weight: I 10.0 lb. Drop:I 18 in. Mold Volume (ft.3):I 0.03330 .---SP. GR.= 2.65 __.. .,.,,,... _.,, SP. GR.= 2.70 ~ SP. GR.= 2.75 V ... ./ .,.,,,... 1.\ \ \ ~\ 1.\ ·\ \ t\ I\' f\' \ 't\ i\.' '-\ \ ' i\ \' ~\ \ ~·'\ I\. "\: [\. \ '" \. \. \. \. '\. \. \ \. " \. I'\., 20 .0 25.0 Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%) 117.3 13.9 Rock Correction Applied per ASTM D 4718 Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (%) N/A N/A 35658-Proctor(B-1 @ 0-17.9) PRECONSOLIDATION SHEARING DATA 0 5000 2 4000 C' Ill -4 0. Ill -Q) "' 3000 .c "' CJ w C 0::: ::-6 I-r z "' ~ ~ ~ 2000 -l w / -- "' 8 :c "' l 1000 if 10 r 0 o 2 4 6 6 10 12 14 16 16 20 12 0.1 1 10 100 1000 psf STRAIN(%) VERTICAL TIME (minutes) STRESS 3000 psf 5000 psf FAILURE ENVELOPE 5000 4000 C' Ill 0. -"' 3000 "' w 0::: 0 I-"' (!) z ~ 2000 ·~ w :c "' 1000 0 I d,.=0.08 rnm./min I '' LIES™ 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 VERTICAL STRESS (psf) SHEAR STRENGTH TEST-ASTMD3080 Job Name: S~line Geotech {Casa Del Rer 24-027RI) Initial Dry Density (pcf): 117.3 Project Number: 4814.2300006.0000 Sample Date: 3/27/2024 Initial Moisture(%): 13.9 Lab Number: 35658 Test Date: 4/ 1 l /2024 Final Moisture(%): 19.1 Sample Location: B-1 @ 0-17-91) Tested By: L.N. Cohesion: 350 psf Sample Description: Grei'.: {SC/CL) Remolded to 90 % Angle Of Friction: 25.3 APPENDIX D: STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING GENERAL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS: These specifications are intended to provic~e typical procedures for grading operations and construction of proposed improvements. They are intended to supplement the recommendations presented in the geotechnical investigation report. Should the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report conflict vdth the specifications presented below, the report recommendations supersede the following specifications. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROJECT PERSONNEL~ The Client is responsible for all aspects of the project. During grading and construction, the Client or authorized representative, should be on-site or be accessible to all parties in order to make decisions necessary for proper and efficient completion of work. The Geotechnical Consultant is the representative of the Owner/Builder and provides testing and observation services for the purpose of implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. The Contractor is responsible for the safe and satisfactory completion of all grading and construction in accordance with the geotechnical documents, as well as all City, County, and State building codes and regulations.· The Contractor is responsible for notifying the Geotechnical Engineer of work and schedule so testing and inspection can be performed. If necessary, work may be stopped and redone if the Geotechnical Consultant has not been scheduled in advance. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: A preconstruction meeting should be scheduled prior to site grading by the owner or owner's representative that includes at a minimum, the Grading Contractor, Project Engineers, Geotechnical Consultant, and representatives of appropriate governing authorities. DEMOLITION: All existing structures and improvements (including foundations, utilities, and other man-made improvements) not to remain following site development should be properly demolished and/or removed from the site prior to grading. Existing improvements that are to remain following site development should be protected against damage by the contractor during grading and construction. SITE PROTECTION: Protection of the site is the responsibility of the contractor during grading and construction. Unless other provisions are made in writing a·.1d agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project shoL Id not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until such time as the entire project is complete as identified by the geotechnical consultant, the client, and the regulating agencies. Precautions should be taken during all phase~ of site grading to protect against flooding, ponding, or inundation resulting from improper surfacE! drainage and erosion control. Temporary provisions should be made during rain events to adequately direct surface water away from proposed improvement areas and into temporary stormwater basins designed by the project Civil Engineer. Damage resulting from a rain event could be considered, erosion, saturation, silting, swelling, or other adverse conditions determined by the Geotechnical Consultant. Adversely impacted soils are considered unsuitable and may require excavation and drying, blending with drier material, or removal and replacement with suitable material as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. In relatively level areas and/or slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depths 9f greater than one foot; they should be excavated and replace_d as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of one foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture conditioning in-place, followed by thorough compaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be excavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein. If field conditions dictate, the geotechnical consultant may recommend other slope repair procedures. GRADING: Prior to commencement of grading, the site should be cleared of construction debris and organic material (e.g. trees, bushes, weeds, roots, and other deleterious material) and properly disposed of off-site. Following clearing of unsuitable debris and vegetation, all unsuitable soil (e.g. loose or soft, dry, wet, expansive, or other compressible material) should be excavated to the depth of suitable material as determined by the Geotechnical Consultant. All building pad areas that have cut to fill transitions, should be excavated to a minimum depth of three feet below grade, and properly moisture conditioned compacted fill placed to finished subgrade elevations (Detail D-1). Depth of excavation should be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant and will vary based on the proposed improvement and depth of fill. Proposed building pads located above natural slopes should be designed to drain at a gradient of two percent or greater away from the top of slope. Surface water can also be diverted by means of a berm swale. Excavation, filling, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and with proper erosion control. Precipitation, springs, and seepage water encountered during grading and construction shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable working surface. The Geotechnical Engineer must be informed of springs or seepage encountered during grading or foundation construction. If necessary, the recommended construction procedures could be revised and/or subdrains installed. If adverse or unanticipated conditions are encountered during grading that were not addressed in the geotechnical report, the Geotechnical Consultant should be notified, and may determine additional explorations, testing, and/or analysis is needed. Following evaluation, additional recommendations may be provided. If underground structures such as basements, septic disposal systems, tunnels, wells, and other man-made improvements are encountered at the site, the Geotechnical Consultant should be notified as soon as possible. These structures should be removed under observation and recommendations provided the project Geotechnical Consultant, as well as City, County, and State agencies. Voids created by re~oval of trees or any other site improvements shou Id be adequately cleaned out under observation by the Geotechnical Consultant and backfilled with properly moisture conditioned and compacted fill. Excavation: The Geotechnical Consultant should observe all excavations for building pads, canyon clean outs, keyways, benches, subdrains, or any other area proposed to receive compacted fill or structural improvements (Details D-2, D-3, D-4 and D-5). The contractor is responsible for stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer pertaining to temporary excavations are intended to minimize potential for instabilities, but should not supersede more stringent requirements by regulating agencies. The Geotechnical Consultant should observe all temporary and permanent cut slope excavations to determine if unstable conditions are exposed (cohesionless sand, adverse bedding, severely fractured rock, or other unstable conditions). If unstable conditions are exposed, the Geotechnical Consultant may recommend reducing the slope angle, constructing a buttress fill, or other means of stabilization. If rain events are anticipated, the slopes should be protected against erosion, saturation, and seepage. All permanent cut slopes should be no steeper that 2:1 (horizontal: vertical), unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant or regulating agency. A non-erodible diversion swale should be constructed at the top of all significant cut slopes. Fill Material and Placement: All fill material generated on-site or imported should be approved for use by the project Geotechnical En gineer prior to placement or transport. Soil with high expansion potential, low strength, or contain an abundance of organic material may require removal from the site, or placement in nonstructural areas, at the discretion of the Geotechnical Engineer. Following recommended excavation, the areas to receive fill should be generally level and evaluated for suitability by the Geotechnical Consultant. Prior to fill placement, areas approved by the Geotechnical Consultant should be scarified a minimum six to eight inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report. Once the area has been processed (ripped, moisture conditioned, and compacted), fill material approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed in near horizontal lifts with a loose thickness no greater than eight inches, unless otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Each lift should be moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture content (three percent above for clayey soils), mixed to evenly distribute the moisture, and compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density (in accordance with ASTM D- 1557), or as specified by the project Geotechnical Engineer. Moisture content and density testing of all fill placement should be performed under observation and testing by the Geotechnical Engineer. Testing should also be performed at random intervals and locations as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. These tests are intended to aid the grading contractor in evaluating their methodology and conformance with the project geotechnical documents and governmental agencies. If fill areas are left for an extended period of time, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified to determine suitability prior to development. It is possible the upper portion of the fill may require additional moisture conditioning, mixture, and compaction the meet minimum recommendations. Fill placed on sloping terrain at an inclination of 5:1 (horizontal: vertical) or greater should have a keyway constructed at the bottom of the slope, with a series of vertical benches excavated into the adjacent slope as fill is placed (Detail D-5). Keyways should extend down to suitable material as determined by the Geotechnical Consultant, generally be at least 10 feet wide, and inclined a minimum two percent into the slope, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Following proper keyway preparation, fill slopes should be constructed by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill in even lifts, and cutting the slope back to finished grade. In order to facilitate post grading excavation for future improvements, it is recommended the upper three feet of fill contain rock clasts no larger than three inches in maximum dimension. Rock clasts up to six inches in maximum dimension can be placed at depths greater than three feet below finished subgrade elevations, unless otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Rock clasts greater than six inches in maximum dimension should be removed from the site, or placed in areas determined to be suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer, and in accordance with Detail D-8. Rock clasts greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension should be placed in rows at least 15 feet apart, 15 feet from face of slope, and at depths greater than 10 feet below finished subgrade elevations. Granular fill material, generally less than the No. 4 sieve, with adequate moisture content, should be placed between the rows of rock. Ample water should be utilized in placement of fill between oversized clasts to fill voids and achieve recommended compaction. Subsequent rows of rock should not be placed directly above a previous row. A minimum five-foot offset between rows is recommended. SUBDRAINS: Subdrains may be required in keyways at the bottom of fill slopes, in natural drainages that are to be filled in, or other areas where seepage is encountered. The subdrain location and design should be determined by the project Geotechnical Engineer. Subdrains should be installed after removals have been completed and before compacted fill has been placed. The subdrain pipe should consist of Schedule 40, SDR 35, or equivalent. The pipe should be protected against damage during and following placement (Detail D-3). To minimize soil build up in the subdrain, a filter fabric should surround the pipe that conforms to CAL TRANS Specification 68-1.025, or as approved by the project Geotechnical Engineer. Clean¾ inch crushed rock may be used around the pipe, provided it is wrapped in a suitable filter cloth and is approved by the project Geotechnical Engineer. For runs up to 500 feet, the pipe diameter · should be at least six inches, and eight inches for longer continuous downstream runs, or as recommended by the project Geotechnical Engineer. Four-inch diameter pipe may be utilized in buttress and stabilization fills. If seepage conditions are observed at the site, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified for evaluation, and if necessary, provide additional drainage recommendations. SLOPE MAINTENANCE: To enhance slope protection, it is recommended that planting throughout the slope take place once grading is completed. The slope plants should generally consist of deep-rooted regionally native vegetation that require little water. All planting should conform with local regulations. Heavy shallow-rooted vegetation, such as ice plant, is not recommended. Prior to planting, it is recommended that all unprotected slopes be covered with plastic sheeting during rain events and surface water diverted away from slope faces. Irrigation pipes should be anchored to the slope face and not placed in excavated trenches. Irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timers are utilized, they should be shut off during rain events until the subgrade can accommodate additional water. If a slope failure occurs, the Geotechnical Consultant should be notified to perform an evaluation and provide recommendations for repair. ----- ----- Benched Into Suitable Native Material SKYLINE GEOTECHNICAL ----- Pre Graded Profile --------------\ ____ _ ------ Suitable Native Material! ----i 5' min i-1 ,. __ 3' min T See Report for Overexcavation Depths Cut Lot Detail D-1 Natural Grade -_\_ Cut Slope SKYLINE Fill Slope Keyway Inclined a Min. 2% Into Slope Benching Performed in Accordance Geotechnical Engineer Recommendations (Typically Maintained at 1 O' wide and 4' High) Keyway in Suitable Native Material Approved by the Geotechnical Engineer Fill Above Cut Slope Detail GEOTECHNICAL D-2 Natural Grade Finished Slope Grade Overfilled Slope to be Cut to Finished Grade Place Compacted Fill to Finished Grade . _.,..: .i :>){:;:}lj; };Iiliil~'.iilill ... :,-.,1~: ~-•, Compacted Fill .:•'::~·~:-:··:.-:·.'·•,:·; .. ~ .. ~· ... :•·~-~~-• .. .. / ... ' .:·-~ ~ ,-:·,!.-: .. ::;--~· ': :, :._::~ ... :: : .. •.~-.;~\ :'=·~:~ .. -~ .. :~ .. (t:~f ~.::-::· ?°_~ .. : ... _~.~ .. ~::, ... i::::!;:=~~: ,••~. •:· • .......... , .. ••fl',:-,,•, "··~· .. "' , ... , ..... 'j'' .., ...•• "'-.,,...,. ... :t..:. .. ·•-1,.:,•1' =------\-------24r n ;(' Min 2% iflC1;~~-;~-j~ S,~;~-~ Benching Should Extend Into Suitable Native Material as Determined by the Geotechnical Engineer Suitable Native Material i-1.----15' min Keyway Should Be Excavated Into Suitable Native Material and at Dimensions Determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. SKYLINE Fill Above Natural Slope Detail GEOTECHNICAL D-3 4" Diameter Perforated --l Pipe Backdrain H/3 with 40' max 15'min ~ 4" Diameter Non-Perforated :::r:.~::}r:.-/.:·-:?:;-> Lateral Pipe Drain I .. 15' min •I Keyway Dimensions to be Determined by Geotechnical Engineer SKYLINE GEOTECHNICAL :;~ ._..: ~:; ~-\ \-~~; :~;-.·:· . ". , ... Mid Slope Drain Required for Slopes the Exceed 40 Feet in Height and as Determined by the Geotechnical Engineer Suitable Native Material (Benched in Accordance with the Geotechnical Engineers Recommendations) Not to Scale Buttress Fill Detail D-4 Mirafi 140N Filter Fabric or Approved Equivalent 1" Minus Crushed Rock .·•.•. •.• .. . . · ... : . . , . : ..• : : . •.• .. •, .· ..... ..... •,·t.' .. •. :·. . : .. ·.:-· 24" min 1 Su itable Native Material 4" min i---24" min --••-ii T 6" Diameter Perforated Pipe Minimum 1 % Slope SKYLINE (-;E QTECHNICAL Canyon Subdrain Detail D-5 If a Drainage Composite is not Installed, a 1\/linimum One Foot Wide Layer of Free Draining Material (Less than 5 Percent Passing the #200 Sieve) can be Utilized, provided it is Wrapped with and Approved Geofabric . Properly Installed Prefabricated Drainage Composite (MiraDRAIN 6000 or Approved Equivalent Can be Used) in lieu of Free Draining Material. Retaining Wall Finished Grade .. 4·. ... -.4~. ··.: .. "· ·:.-' .. •• • ... : >;,:.: S01I Backfill Compacted . :.:.;.-.: . .; . : :: -:.-· .-• ••. •. • ·: : : :: <:_:.:-: to 90% with and El of .... ~:-."'\t/•D"nl..u:rn:I. .. ·.: ..... : .-:_ ;: .:. :,:< _.: •• ·:.;?20 or less with no m(?r~:/~·LL· .Lrn:1..1.1:r- ... •· :. • .•• ,. . -: : :·. ·. < · .... ~:::· than 30% Passing the ;.~,;~:,,n CLI.IJ'T'ILl ~ • . • ·· ... •• _. ...... : •. • _. .::;-no 200 seive ~: :..,·"; .. :::·:':--:-. ' •. •. ~.. .. ••. ·:· ... --·:···~ .. • ......... , .. \ . •. ~: .• ·:,.,:.::·.,,·.-,:::·LD'T"ICLI..ll"T' . . .. ... . . • ,I • • •,•. :·:. • . ·"' -~...,_, ............................ • ---: .. . ~rn;:;:;;~ll1i,im;:;:a:nr;:rinnilllri=illliirilIJi=ri!I . • • . \ • '• ~ ... "i..Urnl..l..ln-.LJ.lrn:1.u:n-a.LJ:rra...u:rrD..1.1:n"'tl.u:rTl11.L.11'11"11.1 • . . --~!::!:!l:Il!:!::!1:1 . . ·4 . .• •• \ •.-'• ... :• ..... Geofabric Wall Footing Minimum 4-inch Diameter Perforated PVC or ABS Class SDR 35 with a Crushing Strength of at Least 1,000 lbs, Installed with Perforations on the bottom of the Pipe·. SKYLINE GEOTEC HN ICAL A Cap Should be Installed on the Upstream End of Pipe . The Pipe Shpould be Installed with a Minimum One Percent Slope to the Outlet. Retining Wall Drainage Detail D-6 Soil Should be Placed Adjacent to the Windrows 3nd Flooded into Voids Between the Clasts SKYLINE GEOTECHNICAL ~,ection View Row of bversized Material Plan View Fi ll Slope Placement of Oversized Material D-7 Front View 1 6" min .. . . ., ' ,·4 . .. • ,4 •·· ... : ..• I •' • . . .. . . • . I •· : .. · : .. • : ....... -~-------- 6" min .1 • 4' . • •• -~-• •.. . .. •• ·"'.-.---Concrete Cut-Off Wall •• . . 6 Side View + 12" min -1---- 4 ..... •. 6" min .. : • • . .,._ __ Concrete Cut-Off Wall .. .•: . . . . ,• _:,. .... Perforated Subdrain Pipe ... -Solid Subdrain Pipe ••••••. •.a.·--~ Not to Scale SKYLINE Cut-Off Wall Detail ~at.. GEOTECHN ICAL D-8 APPENDIX E: SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS File Name: A-A'.gsz Analysis Type: Spencer Direction of movement: Right to Left Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Factor of Safety: 1.991 □ Name: Tsa 1.991 • □ Name:Qls • ,Slope Stability Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight 125 pcf Effective Cohesion: 150 psf Effective Friction Angle: 20 • Phi-B: 0 ° Piezometric Surface: 1 ---------- Slope Stability Material Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Effective Cohesion: 300 psf Effective Friction Angle: 30 • Phi-B: 0 ° Piezometric Surface: 1 □ Name: Qppf Slope Stability IYlaterial Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Effective Cohesion: 350 psf Effective Friction Angle: 22 • Phi-B. C" Piezometric Surface: 1 ------------------------------: