The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1280 HOOVER ST; ; CB023171; Permit11-19-2002 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Retaining Wall Permit Permit No: CB023171 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Reference #: Project Title: Area: Applicant: KENN CHRISS P O BOX 848 OCEANSIDE CA 92049 433-1785 1280 HOOVER STCBAD RETAIN Lot #: 0 $18,742.50 Construction Type: NEW PATEL RES/1 1 90SF TOTAL RETAIN 492 SF CRIP.636SF SLUMP ,62SF CONCRET-WALLS Owner: Status: Applied: Entered By: Plan Approved: Issued: Plan Checktt: 1529 ISSUED 10/21/2002 CB 11/19/2002 11/19/2002 Inspec 11/19/02 0002 01 02 CGP Total Fees: 174-86 $284.70 Total Payments To Date:$109.84 Balance Due:$174.86 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Strong Motion Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $168.99 $0.00 $109.84 $0.00 $1.87 $0.00 $0.00 $4.00 $0.00 $284.70 Inspector: FINAL APPROVAL/ Date:X.Clearance: NOTICE: Please lake NOTICE twit approval of your project includes the "ItjrfpositionVof fees,(6edications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as lees/exactions." Aou have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DQES 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 oLwhich vou have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, oras to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. '" (U^PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK EST. VAL. ~J I Plan Ck. Deposit Validated By Date /f Address (include Bldg/Suite #)Business Name (at this address) State/Zip telephone # Tax # Stsfte/Zip Telephone ft Telephone # (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law [Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code] or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$500D. Name State License # Address License Class City State/Zip City Business License # Telephone # Designer Name State License ft Address City State/Zip Telephone Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: D I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. Q I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company Policy No. Expiration Date {THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [6100] OR LESS} Q CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), In addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees. SIGNATURE DATE I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: Q 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). JQ I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). D I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. Q YES E^NO 2. 1 (JRaveVhave not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the fallowingjjerson (firm) to provide^the proposed construction [include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): 5. I will provide some of the work, byXJhave contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type of work): Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? Q YES Q NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? d YES Q NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? Q YES Q NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(i) Civil Code). LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is comrnBjjpecTtora period of 180 days (Seclion 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance Inspection List Permit*: CB023171 Type: RETAIN Date Inspection Item Inspector Act 02/11/2004 39 02/11/2004 39 02/11/2004 69 02/11/2004 69 02/09/2004 89 02/09/2004 89 12/23/2003 65 12/23/2003 66 12/11/2003 61 12/03/2003 62 12/03/2003 66 11/18/2003 11 11/18/2003 63 10/09/2003 65 10/02/2003 65 10/02/2003 66 10/01/2003 66 09/05/2003 66 09/05/2003 66 08/15/2003 61 08/14/2003 61 03/04/2003 65 03/04/2003 65 02/21/2003 61 01/31/2003 65 01/23/2003 61 Final Electrical Final Electrical Final Masonry Final Masonry Final Combo Final Combo Retaining Walls Grout Footing Steel/Bond Beam Grout Ftg/Foundation/Piers Walls Retaining Walls Retaining Walls Grout Grout Grout Grout Footing Footing Retaining Walls Retaining Walls Footing Retaining Walls Footing - PY PY - - PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY RB PY PY PY PY JE JE JE JE JE Rl AP AP Rl Rl PA we AP AP we AP AP we AP we AP NR AP AP AP NR PA CO NR AP PA PATEL RES/11 90SF TOTAL RETAIN 492 SF CRIP,636SF SLUMP ,62SF CONOR Comments GFI O THE ISLAND NEEDGFI AT ISLAND GMR RETAIN WALL RET WALL FTG ALONG DRIVEWAY NO PLANS OR PERMIT ON SITE OK TO GROUT 1ST LIFT RETAIN WALL SOUTHERN END WALL FOOTINGS WATER PROOFING MIDDLE OF SOFT SECTION CONCRETE PLACED IN REMAINING SOFT WITHOUT INSPECTION. STOP WORK NOTICE PER PETE DREIBELBIS NEED UPDATED SOILS REPORT BEFORE POUR WALL DRAINS/WATER PROOF NORTH CORNER MASONRY 8FT WALL SECTION, NEED CERTIFICATION OF SETBACKS Thursday, February 12, 2004 Page 1 of 1 City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 02/11/2004 Permit* CB023171 Title: PATEL RES/1190SF TOTAL RETAIN Description: 492 SF CRIP,636SF SLUMP ,62SF CONCRET-WALLS Inspector Assignment: PY 1280 HOOVER ST Lot Type: RET AIM Sub Type: Job Address: Suite: Location: APPLICANT KENNCHRISS Owner: Remarks: GFI @ THE ISLAND Phone: 7602148558 Inspector: Total Time: CD Description 39 Final Electrical 69 Final Masonry Requested By: SHANTU PATEL Entered By: ROBIN Act Comment Associated PCRs/CVs Inspection History Date Description Act Insp 02/09/2004 89 Final Combo PA PY 12/23/2003 65 Retaining Walls WC PY 12/23/2003 66 Grout AP PY 12/11/2003 61 Footing AP PY 12/03/2003 62 Steel/Bond Beam WC PY 12/03/2003 66 Grout AP PY 11/18/2003 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers AP PY 11/18/2003 63 Walls WC PY 10/09/2003 65 Retaining Walls AP PY 10/02/2003 65 Retaining Walls WC PY 10/02/2003 66 Grout AP PY 10/01/2003 66 Grout NR RB 09/05/2003 66 Grout AP PY 09/05/2003 66 Grout AP PY 08/15/2003 61 Footing AP PY 08/14/2003 61 Footing NR PY 03/04/2003 65 Retaining Walls PA JE 03/04/2003 65 Retaining Walls CO JE 02/21/2003 61 Footing NR JE 01/31/2003 65 Retaining Walls AP JE Comments NEED GFI AT ISLAND GMR RETAIN WALL RET WALL FTG ALONG DRIVEWAY NO PLANS OR PERMIT ON SITE OK TO GROUT 1ST LIFT RETAIN WALL SOUTHERN END WALL FOOTINGS WATER PROOFING MIDDLE OF SOFT SECTION CONCRETE PLACED IN REMAINING 30FT WITHOUT INSPECTION. STOP WORK NOTICE PER PETE DREIBELBIS NEED UPDATED SOILS REPORT BEFORE POUR WALL DRAINS/WATER PROOF City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 03/04/2003 Permit* CB023171 Title: PATEL RES/1190SF TOTAL RETAIN Description: 492 SF CRIP,636SF SLUMP ,62SF CONCRET-WALLS Inspector Assignment: JE Type: RETAIN Sub Type: Job Address: 1280 HOOVER ST Suite: Lot ( Location: APPLICANT KENNCHRISS Owner: Remarks: waterproofing Total Time: CD Description 65 Retaining \Qtalls Act Comment Associated PCRs/CVs Phone: 7604975039 V Inspector: Requested By: STEVE Entered By: CHRISTINE P- Inspection History Date Description Act Insp Comments 02/21/2003 61 Footing NR JE NEED UPDATED SOILS REPORT BEFORE POUR 01/31/2003 65 Retaining Walls AP JE WALL DRAINS/WATER PROOF 01/23/2003 61 Footing PA JE NORTH CORNER MASONRY 8FT WALL SECTION. NEED CERTIFICATION OF SETBACKS NOTICECITY OF CARLSBAD (760) 602-2700 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 FARADAY AVENUE DATE J- 7" US TIME. LOCATION PERMIT to. t6bZ3i7/ FOR INSPECTION CALL (760) 602-2725. RE-INSPECTION FEE DUE? LJ YES -x*'"—l / FOR FURTWEKINFORMATION, CONTACT &&Z "2 PHONE BUILDING INSPECTOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER H Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc. 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 San Diego, California 92111 S-r phone: (858) 715-5800 ' fax: (858) 715-5810 Est. 1946 Testing Engineers - Inland Empire 571-E Crane Street Lake Etsinore, California 92530 phone: (909) 471-3500 fax:(909)471-3732 Date: _£ Page 1 of Job Name: Address: Job No. Client/Contractor:i D Field Report Q Notice to Comply Type of Service Performed: Soil Asphalt Concrete Engr. Observation Concrete Q Structural Steel Pre-stress Concrete D Rreproofing Masonry D Other _ Waterproofing Roofing nspection Check List: Building Permit #; Soils Report Plan File #:. Plans O Specs. DSA #: D Codes OSHPD #: On-Site Equipment: D Tests Performed (see attached)Sample Type: CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE the workmanship provisions of thj Inspector's Signature/Name 'ed work, unlesrotherwise stated, is in conformance with the approved plans and specifications and For any "nopxSSnforming" items the contractor shall schedule TESD for reinspectton and retesting. Approval Signature/Name/Company TESO Fwm: 100-01 Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc. 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 San Diego, California 92111 ....Rhone: (858)715-5800 fax: (858)715-5810 Es(. 1946 Testing Engineers - Inland Empire 571-E Crane Street Lake Bsinore, California 92530 phone; (909f 471*3500 fax: (909} 471-3732 Date; Page 1 of, Job Name: Address: Job No. Client/Contractor: Report D Notice to Comply Type of Service Performed: Soll Asphalt Concrete £ngr. Observation Concrete Pre-stress Concrete Masonry Q Structural Steel D Fireproofing D Other [HI Waterproofing d Roofing Inspection Check List: Building Permit #: > Report Plan File #: D Plans Specs. DSA #: D RFI D Codes OSHPD #: On-Site Equipment; D Tests Performed (see attached)Sample Type: £-F-O A/ C . tff f A CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE: All of the observed work, unless otherwise stated, is in conformance with the approved plans and specifications and the workmanship provisions of the applicable code. For any "non-conforming" items the contractor shall schedule TESD for reinspection and retesting. Inspector's Signature/Name Cert. No. Approval Signature/Name/Company Date: TESD Form: 100-01 Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc. 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 San Diego, California 92111 phone: (858) 715-5800 fax: (858) 715-5810 Testing Engineers - Inland Empire 571-E Crane Street Lake Elsinore, California 92530 Phone:(909)471-3500 fax:(909)471-3732 Date: Page 1 01 I Job Name: Address: 0 i \ 0 AY a A-g \ qy^.0 < , Q & tA r f (*)C <a\ < Vo rf Job No.r\ . C Client/Contractor. ?a±A I \ D Field Report D Notice to Comply Type of Service Performed: D Soil Q Asphalt Concrete D Engr. Observation Concrete D Structural Steel Pre-stress Concrete CH Breproofing Masonry Hi Other. Waterproofing Roofing nspection Check List: Building Permit #: D Soils Report D Plans Plan File #-. D Specs. DSA#: D RFI OSHPD #: D Codes On-Site Equipment: A //A Tests Performed (see attached)Sample Type: TTvt ^ W-0\ 'i .. r4 1 1^ < ^ s -A-v CA Time In/Oul y CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE: All of the observed work, unless otHapwise^tated, is in conformance with the approved plans and specifications and the workmanship provisions of the applicable code. For any ''non-ajnforniLrfgnteras the contractor shall schedule TESD for reinspection and retesting.f f f ft f * s / / / Inspector's Signature/Name ^/IIA^^ ]^\ / J^f^-fff^f^ Approval Signatu re/Name/Company /TESD Form; 100-01 Date:*&v^ EsGil Corporation In fartners/iip wit/i govtmment for QuiG&tg Safety DATE: 10/30/O2 Q APPLICANT JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad CTPCRNl REVIEWER Q FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-3171 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 1280 Hoover Street PROJECT NAME: Retaining Walls The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Kennith L. Chriss P. O. Box 848 Oceanside, CA 92049 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Kennith L. Chriss Telephone #: (760)433-1785 Date contacted: (0/3, /<xi(by: £_ ) Fax #: (760)433-2810 Mail ^"""f elephone «^-~ Fax*^ In Person REMARKS: By: David Yao Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 10/22 tmsmtl.6* 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 4- (858)560-1468 * Fax (858) 560-1576 City of Carlsbad O2-3171 10/30/02 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-3171 PROJECT ADDRESS: 128O Hoover Street DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: ESGIL CORPORATION: 10/22 10/30/02 REVIEWED BY: David Yao FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. 2. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. • To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revised plans. • Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this list? Q Yes a No City of Carlsbad O2-3171 1O/30/02 1. The scope of the work under this permit shall be clearly identified on the title sheet of the plan. 2. Per section B-B on sheet 2, retaining wall 10 appears to will have surcharge from the retaining wall (3 feet away). The regional standard retaining wall did not have surcharge. Provide construction detail of the retaining wall with calculation to justify it.(Provide soil report to show the factor used in the retaining wall design is adequate.) 3. The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact David Yao at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. City of Carlsbad 02-3171 10/30/02 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-3171 PREPARED BY: David Yao DATE: 10/3O/02 BUILDING ADDRESS: 1280 Hoover Street BUILDING OCCUPANCY: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: BUILDING PORTION retaining walls Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code AREA ( Sq. Ft.) cb Valuation Multiplier By Ordinance Reg. Mod. per city VALUE ($) 18,743 18,743 $168.99 Plan Check Fee by Ordinance Type of Review: CD Repetitive Fee Repeats Complete Review D Other p. Hourly Structural Only Hour Esgll Plan Review Fee $109.84 $94.63 Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 macva1ue.doc EsGil Corporation In {Partners/tip witfi. government for $ui&RngSafety DATE: 11/7/O2 '^JURIST JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad a~PLAFTREVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-3171 SET: II PROJECT ADDRESS: 128O Hoover Street PROJECT NAME: Retaining Walls The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: 2<] Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: Date contacted: (by: ) Fax #: Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS: The inked clouded revision on sheet 2 shall be made on city I set.(at building department) By: David Yao Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC log tmsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 4 San Diego, California 92123 4- (858)560-1468 * Fax (858) 560-1576 City of Car Is bad Public Works - Engineering BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALL BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER: CB BUILDING ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Retaining Wall ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:- 1 5^0 - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. Date: /H H DENIAL Please see Jhe attached report of deficiencies marked wKh Q//Make necessary corrections to plans or^-speafications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. Date: ATTACHMENTS RIght-of-Way Permit Application ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON NAME: Taniya Barrows City of Carlsbad ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad. CA 92008 PHONE:(760) 602-2773 H:\Devtfopnwnt S*vKM«IASTERS\FORMS ^CHECKLISTS -1BU1LDING PLANCHECK CKLIST FORM - RETAINING WALLS.doc 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92OO8-7314 • (760) 6O2-272O • FAX (760) 6O2-8562 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALLS wv Q 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: A. North Arrow B. Existing & Proposed Structures (dimensioned from street) C. Property Lines 2. Show on site plan: A. Drainage Patterns B. Existing & Proposed Slopes C. Existing Topography 3. Include on title sheet: A. Site Address B. Assessor's Parcel Number C. Legal Description D. Grading Quantities Cut D. Easements E. Retaining Wall (location and height) Fill Import/Export (Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required) Q 4. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No. Conditions were complied with by:Date: Q MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 5. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way. A separate Right-of-Way issued by the Engineering Department is required for the following: Please obtain an application for Right-of-Way permit from the Engineering Department. Pagel H:\Dev8topmert SwvleMMASTERSVORMS -CHECKLISTS 4BUILD1NG PLANCHECK CXLJST FORM - RETAINING WALLS.doc PLANNING/ENdNEERtNCTAPPROVALS PERMIT NUMBER CB 1 ~7 I ADDRESS tz&> DATE //~ RESIDENTIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR (<$10fOOO.OO) PLAZA CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES VILLAGE FAIRE COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING OTHER PLANNER JUA DATE ENGINEER DATE Transmrttal From the Office of 4 DESIGN Architecture and Planning- Kennith Chriss, Architect P O Box 848 Oceanside, CA 92049 760-433-1785 Fax: 760-433-2810 www.4designarch.com To: From: Date: City of Carlsbad - Building Department Peg Ramier March 17,2003 Project name: Patel Residence Retaining Wall Permit #CB 023171 Attached please find a letter from the structural engineer for this project regarding the stop order on the retaining wall. We were advised that this is to given to Pete, the person whom signed the attached stop order. •• » Please contact our office if you have any questions. Peg Ramier HCP ENGINEERING March 14, 2003 City of Carlsbad Building and Safety Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re; 1280 Hoover Street Carlsbad, CA Permit #:CB 023171 To Whom It May Concern: I inspected the last 30' of the retaining wall on 3/13/03 for which a Stop Notice and demand for removal of concrete was issued by the City of Carlsbad Building Department. Based on the rebar dowels above the footing, review of photographs of the footing and reinforcing prior to concrete pour (attached), and confirmation of the existence of a footing key by the soils testing engineer prior to the concrete pour, we certify that the footing had been poured according to the required specification and per our drawing as reference (attached copy of detail SK-4), and that it will function as designed for it's intended service. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (909) 738-0840. 1307 West Sixth Street Suite 211 Corona. CA 92882-3168 Phone: 909-738-0840 Fax: 909-738-1432 Email: hcpeng@cantileverinc.com PROPERTY UNE CAP AS REQ'D. 1-f4 AT TOP .1ERPROOFMG MEMBRANE. SEE ARCHnECTURAL |4 H O 16* o.c CONG. LEDGE. SLOPE 1:1 CMU PLAN1ER WALL WHERE OCCURS, w/ 3. O 32" ac. * |4H < 16* (f e - 2.000 Ml) fi OONT. 0120 O.C. BREBAR CONT. " MM. PERT. DRAM w/ CF / FT CRUSHED ROCK / WAP M FLIER FABRIC UNE OF SURCHARGE Hior-<rf A V 4'-0" » D a'-e" T 15' W e'~e- V OVA. |6V 0 16" 0.0. A REBAR fTV 0 16" G.C. B REBAR I #4016* D.C. . . 1 1 1 we flRMSTRONG 8. BROOKS 9093728430 p.3Q 11-05-2003 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Check Revision Permit No: PCR03210 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Reference #: Project Title: Applicant: SHANTU PATEL 1280 HOOVER STCBAD PCR Lot#: 0 $0.00 Construction Type: NEW PATEL RES-ADD 390 SF RETAIN WALL TO SUPPORT FULL LENGTH OF DRIVEWAY Owner Status: ISSUED Applied: 09/22/2003 Entered By: RMA Plan Approved: 11/05/2003 Issued: 11/05/2003 Inspect Area: 760 806-5829 Plan Check Revision Fee Additional Fees $120.00 $0.00 Total Fees: $120.00 Total Payments To Date:$0.00 Balance Due:$120.00 8057 11/05/03 0002 01 02 CGP 120-00 Inspector: FINAL APPROVAL Date:Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the 'Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020fa), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have_Dreviouslv been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK NO., EST. VAL. Plan Ck. Deposit Validated Date Address (include Bldg/Suite #1 Business Name (at this address) Legal Description Lot No. Subdivision Name/Number Unit No. Phase No. Total # of units Name Address City State/Zip Telephone t Fax # Name Address State/Zip Telephone # (Sec. 7031.6 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law [Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code] or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basts for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$500]}. Name State License # Designer Name State License # Address License Class Address City State/Zip City Business License # City State/Zip Telephone # Telephone Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: Q I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. Q I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company Policy No. Expiration Date [THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [9100] OR LESS) G 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 s«cur* worker*' compensation coverage it unlawful, and thall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand doHara (4100,000), in addition to the cost of compensation, damages aa provided for hi Section 3706 of the Labor code. Interest and attorney's fees. SIGNATURE .^_^___ DATE I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: Q 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 ownar-buildar will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). Q I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves therein, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). D I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. Q YES QNO 2. I (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): __ 5. I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type of work): PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 26605, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? Q YES CD NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? O VES Is the facility to be constructed within 1 ,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? Q YES Q NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. I hereby affirm that there is a construction (ending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(i) Civil Code). LENDER'S NAME _ LENDER'S ADDRESS I certify that I have read, the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'Q" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit issuecUsy-ttje building OfficiaLunder the/provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not cornpjShced within 1 80 d&ywfarn tra date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned \ at any time after the work is cc^rnafced for ajawod oy18Qr^w&^Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). i X^PUCANT'S SIGNATURE 4S£^O<£- r&X&^J _ T^DA WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance ATE EsGil Corporation In tPartnersRip witfi government for Quitting Safety DATE: 10/31/03 JURl JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad O>CAtfREVlEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: O2-3171 rev2(PCR03210) SET: II PROJECT ADDRESS: 1280 Hoover Street PROJECT NAME: Retaining Wall Revision (Patel SFD) The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: Date contacted: (by: ) Fax #: Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS: By: David Yao Enclosures: original approved plan Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 10/22 tmsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858)560-1468 * Fax (858) 560-1576 EsGil Corporation In (Partnership witfi government for <Buibfing Safety DATE: 10/2/03 a APpygANT a dQfiisJ JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER Q FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-3171 rev 2(PCR03210) SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 1280 Hoover Street PROJECT NAME: Retaining Wall Revision ((AT* L 5 Ft>) The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. X] The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Shantu Patel 2851 Columbia Drive Oceanside, CA 92054 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. X] Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Shantu Patel (v>|} Telephone #: (760)806-5829 Date contacted: /o |3/O3(by: [c_) Fax #: Mail'-"Telephone*^ Fax In Person REMARKS: By: David Yao Enclosures: original approved plan Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 9/25 tmsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 4 San Diego, California 92123 + (858)560-1468 4- Fax (858) 560-1576 City of Carlsbad 02-3171 rev 2(PCR03210) 10/2/03 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-3171 rev 2(PCR03210) PROJECT ADDRESS: 1280 Hoover Street DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: ESGIL CORPORATION: 9/25 1O/2/03 REVIEWED BY: David Yao FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, (760) 438-1161. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. 2. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. • To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revised plans. • Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this list? Q Yes Q No City of Carlsbad O2-3171 rev 2(PCR03210) 1O/2/03 1. Provide a copy of the project soil report prepared by a California licensed architect or civil engineer. The report shall include foundation design recommendations based on the engineer's findings and shall comply with UBC Section 1804. 2. In Seismic Zone 4, each site shall be assigned a near-source factor. Identify this value in the soils report and on the plans. Section 1629.4.2. 3. Investigate the potential for seismically induced soil liquefaction and soil instability in Seismic Zones 3 and 4. This does not apply to detached, single-story dwellings. Section 1804.5 4. Note on the plan the soils classification, whether or not the soil is expansive and note the allowable bearing value. Section 106.3.3. 5. The soils engineer recommended that he/she review the foundation excavations. Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that: The foundation excavations, the soils expansive characteristics and bearing capacity conform to the soils report." 6. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction documents (when required by the soil report). 7. The drain behind the retaining wall shall comply with the recommendation from the soil report. 8. The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact David Yao at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. City of Carlsbad 02-3171 rev 2(PCRO3210) 10/2/03 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad 2(PCR03210) PREPARED BY: David Yao BUILDING ADDRESS: 1280 Hoover Street PLAN CHECK NO.: O2-3171 rev DATE: 10/2/03 BUILDING OCCUPANCY:TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq.Ft.) retaining wall revision Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code cb Valuation Multiplier By Ordinance Reg. Mod. per city VALUE ($) 6,143 • 6,143 $76.59 Plan Check Fee by Ordinance Type of Review: D Repetitive Fee Repeats Complete Review D Other r-. Hourly Structural Only Hour* Esgll Plan Review Fee $49.78 $42.89 Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc City of Carlsbad Public Works - Engineering BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALL BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER: BUILDING ADDRESS: I ft 3oU Q PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Retaining Wall ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in^suspejjsjon of permit to build. Date: DENIAL Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked with D. Make necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. By: By: By: Date: Date: Date: ATTACHMENTS Right-of-Way Permit Application ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON NAME: JOANNE JUCHNIEWICZ City of Carlsbad ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 PHONE:(760) 602-2775 »*~4, ma Fn^. 11 **• 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 6O2-272O • FAX (76O) 602-8562 4 STV Q G BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALLS U 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: A. North Arrow B. Existing & Proposed Structures (dimensioned from street) C. Property Lines a 2. Show on site plan: A n . D „A. Drainage Patterns B. Existing & Proposed Slopes C. Existing Topography O D 3. Include on title sheet: A. Site Address B. Assessor's Parcel Number C. Legal Description D. Grading Quantities Cut D. Easements E. Retaining Wall (location and height) Fill Import/Export (Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required) Q Q 4. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No. _ Conditions were complied with by:Date: MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 5. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way. A separate Right-of-Way issued by the Engineering Department is required for the following: Please obtain an application for Right-of-Way permit from the Engineering Department. Pagel \\LASPALMAS\SYSU.IBRARY\ENG\WORD\OOCS\CHKLSTARebininB Wai Budding PlMKhK* CMst Form JJ.doe o n n n n PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check No. £B Planner APN:_ AddreSS Phone (619) 438-1 161 , extension Type of Project & Zoning: General Date of participation: u^ (xi*// Net Project Density: Plajr. Facilities Managen DU/AC CFD (in/out) # Circle One Management Zone: / Remaining net dev acres: (For non-residential development: Type of land used created by this permit: ) Legend:X. Item Complete Item Incomplete - Needs your action Environmental Review Required: DATE OF COMPLETION: W~W YES<*^NO J<__ TYPE Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Discretionary Action Required: APPROVAL/RESO. NO. PROJECT NO. YES NO A TYPE DATE OTHER RELATED CASES:0- Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES NO CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES NO If California Coastal Commission Authority: Contact them at - 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego CA 92108-1725; (619) 521-8036 Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt): Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed? YES NO If NO, complete-Coastal Permit Determination Form now. < " _\ • Cdastal Permit Determination Log #: Follow-Up Actions: 1) Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum Floor Plans). 2) Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed. n D n Inclusionary Housing Fee required: YES NO (Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21, 1993.) Data Entry Completed? YES NO (A/P/Ds, Activity Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, Housing Fees, Construct Housing Y/N, Enter Fee, UPDATE!) Site Plan: CH CH CH 1- Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines. d D EH 2. Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number. Zoning: ODD n n n 1. 2. 3. Setbacks: Front: Interior Side: Street Side: Rear: Accessory structure Front: Interior Side: Street Side: Rear: Structure separation Lot Coverage: Required Required Required Required setbacks: Required Required Required Requited : Required Required Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown ODD 4. Height:Required Shown D n D S- Parking: Spaces Required Guest Spaces Required ^Additional Commenuz" Shown Shown OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc. Dr.ShantuPatel C/o Bridge Motor Inn 1103 North Coast Highway Oceanside, California 92054 Established 1946 October 21,2003 Project No. 2000-080B Subject: RETAINING WALL REVISIONS PLAN REVIEW Proj ect: New Single Family Residence 1280 Hoover Street Carlsbad, California 92008 Reference: "Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, 1280 Hoover Street, Carlsbad, California," prepared by Testing Engineers, Inc., dated March 24,2000. DearDr.Patel: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the provided foundation and grading plans and details for the above referenced perimeter retaining wall, prepared by HCP Engineering and Brooks and Armstrong. Based on review by TESD, the plans are considered to be in general conforrnance with the subject Limited Geotechnical Investigation. This statement is contingent upon field-testing and observations by TESD during construction to confirm compliance with geotechnical recommendations presented in our referenced report. TESD makes no representation as to the accuracy of the dimensions and calculations shown on the above-referenced plans and details. vi Respectfully submitted, Tciting Engineers - San Diego, >-\ Van Olin, GE 2578 Geotechnical Department Manag XCc: EsGil Corporation (David Yao HCP Engineer's (Hiteshu Patel) Brooks and Armstrong (Bill Brooks) 2000-080B Retaining Wall Revisions Plan Review Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc., 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 San Diego, CA. 92111 [858] 715-5800 Fax [858] 715-5810 Testing Engineers -San Diego, Inc Established 1946 Dr. Shantu Patel C/o Bridge Motor Inn 1103 North Coast Highway Oceanside, California 92054 March 24, 2000 Project No. 2000-080 Subject: Limited Geotechnical Investigation Project: Proposed Single-Family Residence 1280 Hoover Street Carlsbad, California Dear Dr. Patel: In accordance with your request, Testing Engineers-San Diego, Inc. has conducted a Limited Geotechnical Investigation at the referenced site in Carlsbad, California. The attached report discusses the geotechnical aspects of the project and provides recommendations for the proposed development. Our subsurface investigation has found that the proposed residential building pad is underlain by a one to two-foot layer of topsoil over dense terrace deposits to the maximum explored depth of eight (8) feet. We conclude that the development of the proposed residence is geotechnically feasible based upon the existing soil conditions, and provided the recommendations contained herein are implemented in the design and construction. Testing Engineers-San Diego appreciates the opportunity to be of assistance to you on this project and welcome the opportunity to continue our role as geotechnical consultants. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Testing Diego, Inc. -H Sffeven N. Bradley, CEG Principal Geologist 00-080.rpt — Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc., 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 San Diego, CA. 92111 [858] 715-5800 Fax [858] 715-5810 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION General ........... . Purpose Scope of Services PROJECT BACKGROUND Site Description ......................................................................................... 2 Proposed Development ................................................................................ 2 SITE INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Subsurface Exploration ................................................................................ 2 Laboratory Testing Program ......................................................................... 2 GEOLOGY Geologic Setting ........................................................................................ 3 Site Stratigraphy ........................................................................................ 3 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION General Conclusions ................................................................................... 3 Compressible Soils ..................................................................................... 4 Expansive Soils ............... .......... .................................................. . ............. 4 Groundwater ............................................................................................. 4 Seismic Design Criteria ..... .......................................................................... 4 Liquefaction ............................................................................................. 5 Permanent Slopes ....................................................................................... 5 Temporary Slopes ......................................... . ........................................... .5 GRADING AND EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS General ................................................................................................... 5 Clearing and Grubbing ................................................................................ 5 Structural Improvement of Soils ..................................................................... 5 Transitions Between Cut & Fill ...................................................................... 6 Method and Criteria of Compaction ........................ ; ........................................ 6 Placement of Oversized Rock ........................................................................ 7 Erosion and Siltation ................................................................................... 7 Standard Grading Guidelines ......................................................................... 7 FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS General ................................................................................................... 7 Conventional Foundations ............................................................................ 8 Conventional Slabs-on-Grade ......................................................................... 9 Settlement ................................................................................................ 9 Presaturation of Slab Subgrade ....................................................................... 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS Retaining Walls 9 Pavements 10 Trench Backfill 11 Surface Drainage 11 Foundation Review 11 CLOSURE Limits of Investigation 12 Additional Services 12 FIGURES Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Plot Plan APPENDICES Appendix A - References Appendix B - Field Exploration Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results INTRODUCTION General This report presents the findings and conclusions of a Limited Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed construction of a single family residence to be located on the west side of Hoover Street in Carlsbad, California. The Site Location Map, Figure 1, follows the text of this report. The investigation basically consisted of field reconnaissance and geologic mapping, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and engineering/geological evaluation of the obtained information. Purpose The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions of the proposed area of development and provide recommendations regarding design of suitable foundation systems for the proposed residence, along with other site development criteria. Scope of Services The following scope of services were conducted during the development of this report: O Site reconnaissance and review of published geologic, seismological and geotechnical reports and maps pertinent to the project area; O Excavation of four (4) test pits within the limits of the proposed area of development. The test pits were logged by our Project Engineer. A Plot Plan, Figure 2 indicates the approximate test pit locations. Detailed Exploration Logs are contained in Appendix B; O Collection of representative soil samples at selected depths. The obtained samples were sealed in moisture-resistant containers and transported to the laboratory for subsequent analysis; O Laboratory testing of samples representative of the soils encountered during the field investigation; O Geologic and engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data which provided the basis for our conclusions and recommendations; O Production of this report which summarizes the results of the above analysis and presents our findings and recommendations for site development. SFR Hoover Street O Limited Geotechnical Investigation O Carlsbad. California O Project No. 00-080 O March 24. 2000 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND Site Description The subject site is a rectangular-shaped residential lot located on the west side of Hoover Street, in the city of Carlsbad, California. The project location is shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map. The site encompasses an area of approximately one (1) acre with a moderate west-sloping natural terrain. Vegetation consisted of grass, shrub, ice plant and few trees. The subject parcel is bordered by similar residential developments. Proposed Development Based on the plans prepared by Sullivan Development of Carlsbad, California, the proposed development will include a single-story structure to be utilized as a residence. A driveway will access the property along the south-east side of the proposed residence from Hoover Street. The Plot Plan, Figure 2, provides a layout of the proposed development. SITE INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Subsurface Exploration The site investigation, consisting of surficial reconnaissance and subsurface exploration, was conducted on March 1, 2000, Subsurface exploration was conducted by test pits excavated with a Case 580L backhoe equipped with a 24-inch bucket. The purpose of the test pit excavations was to evaluate the condition of the soils in the proposed area of development. A total of four (4) test pits were completed to depths ranging from approximately 6 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface. The test pits were logged in the field by the Staff Geologist. Representative samples were collected, sealed hi moisture-resistant containers, and transported to the laboratory for subsequent testing. Detailed descriptions of the encountered subsurface materials are provided in the Site Stratigraphy section of this report. The test pit locations are indicated on the Plot Plan, Figure 2. Appendix B contains the Field Exploration Logs. Laboratory Testing Program In addition to the field exploration, a laboratory testing program was conducted to establish the pertinent engineering characteristics of the foundation materials. The laboratory testing program included visual classification, particle size analysis, direct shear, expansion index and maximum dry density and optimum moisture content tests. All laboratory tests were performed hi general accordance with applicable ASTM standard specifications or other accepted test methods. Appendix C provides a summary of test procedures and results. SFR Hoover Street O Limiced Geotechnical InvestigarionO Ramona. California O Project No. 00-080 O March 24.2000 2 GEOLOGY Geologic Setting The subject site is located within the southern portion of what is known as the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The coastal areas of the province in Carlsbad are typically made up of Pleistocene marine terrace deposits (Qm). Site Stratigraphy The subsurface descriptions provided are interpreted from conditions exposed during the field investigation and/or inferred from the geologic literature. As such, all of the subsurface conditions may not be represented. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface materials encountered during the field investigation are presented on the Exploration Logs provided in Appendix B of this report. The following paragraphs provide general descriptions of the encountered soil types. Topsoil Topsoil is the surficial soil material that mantles the ground, usually containing roots and other organic materials which supports vegetation. Topsoil observed in each of the test pits was approximately 1.0 to 2.0 feet thick and consisted of dark brown, silty sand that was moist, loose and porous in consistency with minor amounts of orgamcsjroqts andjootlets)^ Marine Terrace Deposits (Om) Terrace deposits were observed below the topsoil horizon. They generally consisted of reddish brown, silty sand. The moisture content ranged from damp to very moist and the materials were medium dense to very dense in consistency. Well indurated sandstone and conglomerate were encountered approximately three feet below existing ground. These soils were difficult to excavate. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION General Conclusions Based on our investigation and evaluation of the collected information, we conclude that the proposed structural development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations contained in this report will be properly implemented during structural development. Based on the non-expansive nature of the granular near-surface soils, it is our opinion that the building pads may be constructed using the on-site materials. In order to provide a uniform support for the structures, overexcavation and recompaction of the structural portions of the building pads will be required. The foundations may consist of reinforced continuous footings with conventional reinforced slabs. Recommendations and criteria for foundation design are contained in the Foundation and Slab Recommendations section of this report. SFR Hoover Street O Limited Geotechnical InvestigationO Carlsbad. California O Project No. 00-080 Q March 24. 2000 3 Compressible Soils Our field observations and testing indicate low compressibility within the sedimentary bedrock which underlies the entire site. However, loose topsoil was typically encountered to a depth of approximately 2.0 feet below surface grades. In general, the surficial topsoil is compressible. Due to the potential for soil compression upon loading, remedial grading of these near-surface soils (including overexcavation and recompaction) will be required. Following implementation of the earthwork recommendations presented herein, the potential for soil compression resulting from the new development has been estimated to be low. The low- settlement assessment assumes a well-planned and maintained site drainage system. Recommendations regarding mitigation by earthwork construction are presented in the Grading and Earthwork Recommendations section of this report, Expansive Soils The underlying soils consisting of silty sand exhibit a very low potential for expansion. An Expansion Index of zero was obtained from the soils sample tested. Groundwater Static groundwater was not encountered within the depths of our explorations^ Jtaj|eneral1_iljs_ -anticipated-tot-graundwa^ surface in the vicinity of the subject site. Seismic Design Criteria A review of the active fault maps pertaining to me site indicates the existence of the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone approximately seven (7) km west of the subject site. Ground shaking from this fault and the other major active faults in the region is the most likely event affecting the site. The proposed building should be designed in accordance with seismic design requirements of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code or the Structural Engineers Association of California using the following criteria: Parameter Seismic Zone Factor, Z Soil Profile Type Seismic Coefficient, Ca Seismic Coefficient, Cv Near-Source Factor, Na Near-Source Factor, Nv Seismic Source Value 0.4 Sd 0.44 0.70 1.0 1.1 B UBC Reference Table 16-1 Table 16-J Table 16-0 Table 16-R Table 16-S Table 16-T Table 16-U _ SFR Hoover StreetJ3 Limited GeotechnicaJ Investigation Q Carlsbad. California O Project No. 00-080 O March 24.20QQ 4 Liquefaction Based on the absence of shallow groundwater and consistency of the underlying soils, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction is very low. Permanent Slopes Permanent cut and fill slopes are anticipated to be less than 5 feet in height and may be constructed at a maximum slope ratio of 2:1 (nor. to vert.) to the heights indicated on the plans. Slopes constructed in such a manner are anticipated to be grossly stable. Due to the granular nature of the on-site soil materials, surficial erosion is a common problem. It is recommended that drought resistant vegetation be planted on the slope faces as soon as practical to enhance the stability of the slope surfaces. Temporary Slopes For the excavation of foundation or utility trenches, temporary vertical cuts to a maximum of 3.5 feet may be constructed in fill or natural soil. Any temporary cuts beyond the above height constraints should be shored or further laid back following a 1:1 (hor. to vert.) slope ratio. OSHA guidelines for trench excavation safety should be implemented during construction. GRADING AM>-EARTHWORKmECOMMENDATIONSr General Based upon our understanding of the preliminary plans and the information obtained during the field investigation, we anticipate that structures will be founded on continuous footings, which are supported entirely by properly compacted fill. The following grading and earthwork recommendations are based upon the limited geotechnical investigation performed, and should be verified during construction by our field representative. Clearing and Grubbing All areas to be graded or to receive fill and/or structures should be cleared of vegetation. Vegetation and the debris from the clearing operations should be properly disposed of off-site. The area should be thoroughly inspected for any possible buried objects, which need to be rerouted or removed prior to the inception of, or during grading. All holes, trenches, or pockets left by the removal of these objects should be properly backfilled with compacted fill materials as recommended in the Method and Criteria of Compaction section of this report. Structural Improvement of Soils Information obtained from our field and laboratory analysis indicates that loose topsoil covers portions of the site to depths ranging from approximately 1.0 to 2.0 feet. These loose surficial SFR Hoover Street O Limited Geotechnical InvestigationO Carlsbad. California O Project No. 00-080 O March 24. 2000 5 soils are susceptible to settlement upon loading. Based upon the soil characteristics, we recommend the following: * All topsoil or other loose natural or undocumented fill soils (if present) should be completely removed as described herein from areas which are planned to receive compacted fills and/or structural improvements. The bottom of the removal area should expose competent materials as approved by TESD's geotechnical representative. Prior to the placement of new fill, the bottom of the removal area should be scarified a niinirnum depth of at least 6 inches, moisture-conditioned from 0 to 2 percent above the optimum moisture content, and then recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D-1557 test method). * Overexcavation should be completed for the structural building pad to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the proposed footing or 3.0 feet below surface grade, whichever is greater. The limit of the required area of overexcavation should be extended a minimum of 5 feet laterally beyond the perimeter footing (building footprint). * For non-structural areas, such as driveways, we recommend overexcavation to a minimum depth of 2 feet below existing grade or 1.5 feet below proposed subgrade, whichever is greater. * Soils utilized as fill should be moisture-conditioned and recompacted in conformance with the following Method and Criteria of Compaction section of this report. The depth and extent of any overexcavation and recompaction should be evaluated in the field by a representative of TESD. Transitions Between Cut and Fill The proposed structure is anticipated to be founded entirely in properly compacted fill. Cut to fill transitions below the structure should be completely eliminated during the earthwork construction as required in the previous section. Method and Criteria of Compaction Compacted fills should consist of approved soil material, free of trash debris, roots, vegetation or other deleterious materials. Fill soils should be compacted by suitable compaction equipment in uniform loose lifts of 6 to 8 inches. Unless otherwise specified, all soils subjected to recompaction should be moisture-conditioned within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM test method D-1557. The on-site soils, after being processed to delete the aforementioned deleterious materials, may be used for recompaction purposes. Should any importation of fill be planned, the intended import source(s) should be evaluated and approved by TESD prior to delivery to the site. Care should be taken to ensure that these soils are not detrimentally expansive. SFR Hoover Street O Limited Geotechnical Investigation O Carlsbad. California O Project No. 00-080 O March 24. 2000 6 Placement of Oversized Rock All materials for capping the structural building pads should be free of rocks and debris hi excess of 3-inch dimension. Select fill should extend a minimum of 5 feet laterally outside the structural footprint. Material up to 12-inch dimension may be placed between 3 and 10 feet from finish grades, but must remain at least 10 feet laterally from the face of permanent slopes and should also not be placed within the alignment of proposed utilities. Although we do not anticipate earthwork construction to create oversized material from 12 to 48 inches in dimension, if encountered, it may be placed in approved non-structural fill areas. The oversized material should be placed in windrows surrounded by granular fill. The rock windrows should be flooded with water to facilitate filling of voids. Care should be taken to avoid nesting of oversize rocks and no large rock should be placed within 10 feet of any slope face. The non-structural rockfill should be capped with a minimum 3 feet of fill containing no rocks greater than 6-inch dimension. Erosion and Siltation Due to the granular characteristics of the on-site soils, areas of recent grading or exposed ground may be subject to erosion. During construction, surface water should be controlled via berms, sandbags, siltation basins, positive surface grades, or other method to avoid damage to the finish work or adjoining properties. The contractor should take measures to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. After completion of grading, all excavated surfaces should exhibit positive drainage and eliminate areas where water might pond. Standard Grading Guidelines Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the standard-of-practice methods for this local, the guidelines of the current edition of the Uniform Building Code, and the requirements of the jurisdictional agency. Where the information provided in the geotechnical report differs from the Standard Grading Guidelines, the requirements outlined in the report shall govern. FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS General The foundation design recommendations herein are "nmumums" in keeping with the current standard-of-practice. They do not preclude more restrictive criteria of the governing agencies or structural considerations. The Structural Engineer should evaluate the foundation configurations and reinforcement requirements for structural loading, concrete shrinkage and temperature stresses. All design and site development criteria should conform to the minimum design requirements provided in the current edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 5FR Hoover Street O Limited Geotechnical Investigation Q Carlsbad. California O Project No. 00-080 O March 24.2000 7 Conventional Foundations Conventional continuous footings are suitable for support of the planned residential building and garage. Footings for the structures should be founded entirely in properly compacted fill soil. The footing dimensions, reinforcement, and other structural criteria presented below are based on geotechnical considerations and are not intended to be in lieu of requirements of the .Structural Engineer. Footing Dimensions Exterior footings for a single-story structure should be embedded a nunimum of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade and have a minimum width of 12 inches. For two-story structures, the footing depth should be 18 inches at a width of 15 inches. Excavations should be trimmed "neat", square and level, with no loose debris prior to concrete placement. Interior footings should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches at a minimum width of 12 inches. Reinforcement It is recommended that all exterior footings be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footing, two near the top and two near the bottom. Interior footings should be similarly reinforced with four No. 4 rebars. The above reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to supersede requirements of the structural engineer. Allowable Bearing Capacity A soil bearing pressure of 2,500psf may be utilized for continuous footings founded in properly compacted fill. The soil bearing pressure may be increased by 400 and 250 psf for each additional 6 inch increment of depth and width respectively. For settlement considerations, the maximum allowable bearing capacity should not exceed 4,000 psf for footings constructed into compacted fill. Lateral Earth Resistance Lateral loads against foundations or retaining structures may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.40 may be utilized in the foundation design. Alternatively, an allowable passive earth pressure of 335psf/ft (335pcf EFP) may be used. The values for frictional and passive resistance incorporate a factor- of-safety equal to 1.5. In order to utilize the given values, footings must be poured "tight" against competent soils. Should frictional resistance and passive pressure be used conjunctively, the passive pressure value should be reduced by one-half. A one-third increase in the lateral resistance may be considered for transient loads (wind/seismic). SFR Hoover Street O Limited Geotechnicai InvestigationO Carlsbad. California O Project No. 00-080 O March 24.2000 8 Conventional Slabs-on-Grade Conventional interior slabs should be a net 4 inches thick. The slabs should be underlain by a moisture barrier consisting of a minimum of 2 inches of clean sand and 10-mil visqueen sheet. Moisture-sensitive slabs (with tile, linoleum or carpet coverings) should be further underlain (below visqueen) by a minimum 2-inch thick layer of free-draining coarse sand, gravel or crushed rock. Reinforcement for the residential structure and garage should consist of a minimum of No. 3 rebar on 18-inch centers. Reinforcement should be located at or slightly above mid-height within the slab section. Reinforcement for actual loading conditions should be as required by the structural engineer. Settlement While subjected to structural loading, a differential settlement up to one-quarter inch should be anticipated, with corresponding total settlement up to one half-inch across the structural span. The values for structure adjustment assume that compressible surficial soil is completely removed within the structural prism; and that proper surface drainage is implemented such that the subsoil moisture content is maintained relatively constant. Presaturation of Slab Subgrade Due to the granular nature of the surficial soils at this site, pre-soaking of the subgrade prior to concrete placement is not required. However, it is recommended that subgrade soil in areas to receive concrete be watered prior to concrete placement. The intention of subgrade moistening is to mitigate any drying shrinkage, which may occur between the time of grading and slab construction. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS Retaining Walls Cantilevered retaining walls should be designed for an "active" lateral earth pressure of 35 psf/ft (35 pcf EFP) for approved granular backfill and level backfill conditions. Where canlilevered walls support 2:1 (honvert) sloping backfill, the equivalent active fluid pressure should be increased to 45 pcf. Cantilever walls subject to uniform surcharge loads should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-third (1/3) the anticipated surcharge pressure. Restrained walls should be designed utilizing an "at-rest" earth pressure of 60 psf/ft (60 pcf EFP) for approved granular and level backfill. Restrained walls subject to uniform surcharge loads should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-half (1/2) the anticipated surcharge. Retaining wall footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Retaining walls that are to be located near the top of slopes should be designed to allow a minimum daylight distance of 7 feet laterally from the outside edge of the footing to the slope face. SFR Hoover Street O Limited Geotechnical InvestigationO Carlsbad. California O Project No. 00-080 O March 24.2000 9 Soil design criteria, such as bearing capacity, passive earth pressure and sliding resistance as recommended under the Foundation and Slab Recommendations section, may be incorporated into the retaining wall design. The design and location of retaining walls should be reviewed by TESD for conformance with our recommendations. Footings should be reinforced as recommended by the structural engineer and appropriate back drainage provided to avoid excessive hydrostatic wall pressures. As a minimum we recommend a fabric-wrapped crushed rock and perforated pipe system. At least 2 cubic feet per linear foot of free-drainage crushed rock should be provided. The remaining wall backfill should consist of approved granular material. This fill material should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as determined by ASTM D-1557 test method. Flooding or jetting of backfill should not be permitted. Granular backfill should be capped with 18 inches (minimum) of relatively impervious fill to seal the backfill and prevent saturation. It should be noted that the use of heavy compaction equipment in close proximity to retaining structures can result in wall pressures exceeding design values and corresponding wall movement greater than that associated with active or at-rest conditions. In this regard, the contractor should take appropriate precautions during the backfill placement. Pavements The following presents preliminary recommendations for flexible asphalt and rigid concrete pavements. The pavement section requirements have been prepared based on our evaluation of the on-site soils and standard pavement design procedures. The recommendations are not intended to supersede stricter requirements posed by the jurisdictional agency. Asphalt Pavements (AC") It is recommended that the constructed pavement subgrade should be evaluated and tested prior to asphalt placement in order to verify the assumed R-value and/or modify the design sections presented. The R-value of the on-site soils is estimated to be 50 for sandy soil excavated from the existing terrace deposits. Based on an R-value of 50, we offer the following preliminary pavement design sections. The actual design and adoption relative to allowable road gradients should be developed by the civil designer based on jurisdictional requirements. Traffic Index Recommended Pavement Section Comments 4.0 2.5" AC on 4.0" Class 2 AB Driveway The subgrade soils for the proposed driveway should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned within 2 percent of optimum, and recompacted to at least 95 percent SFR Hoover Street O Limited Geotechnical Investigation O Carlsbad. California O Project No. 00-080 O March 24.2000 10 of the Maximum Dry Density per ASTM D-1557. The aggregate base should also be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM 1557) and should be in conformance with the materials criteria as set forth in Section 26 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications, 1994 Edition. Concrete Pavements (PCC) Where rigid concrete pavements are planned to support light vehicular traffic, the following minimum sections are recommended: Traffic Index Recommended Pavement Section Comments 4.0 5.0" PCC on Compacted Subgrade Driveway Compaction of the subgrade soil should be conducted as specified for Asphalt Pavements, above. PCC Pavement should be minimum 3,500 psi concrete. It is recommended that steel reinforcement be provided for PCC pavements, which will sustain heavy impact loading, such as fire trucks. As a minimum for such slabs, we recommend number 3 deformed rebar placed on 24-inch centers each way. Placement of concrete, control/expansion joints, and any reinforcement should be in conformance with ACI specifications and the Structural Engineer's design. Trench Backfill Trench excavations for utility lines, which extend under structural areas should be properly backfilled and compacted. Utilities should be properly bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least 1-foot over the pipe. This backfill should be uniformly watered and compacted to a firm condition for both vertical and lateral pipe supports. The remainder of the backfill may be typical on-site soil or low-expansive import which should be placed near optimum moisture content in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness and mechanically compacted to a least 90 percent relative compaction. Surface Drainage Irrigation and drainage at this site should be designed to maintain the current subsurface moisture regime in a state of relative natural equilibrium. Drainage in hardscape areas adjacent to structures should be designed to collect and direct surface waters away from the proposed structures at a recommended minimum gradient of 1 percent. The drainage should be directed to approved drainage facilities. For earth areas, positive drainage with a niiniimim gradient of 5 percent away from all structures should be provided and maintained for a distance of at least 5 feet to reduce saturation of foundation soils. Earth swales should have a minimum gradient of 2 percent and be directed toward approved drainage receptors. Drainage patterns approved at the time of grading should be maintained throughout the life of the development. SFR Hoovsr Street O Limited Geottchnicai liwestigationO Carlsbad. California O Protect No. 00-080 Q Ntacch 24.2000. 11 Foundation Review Foundation excavations should be reviewed by TESD prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement, or concrete for conformance with the intentions of this investigation. CLOSURE Limits of Investigation Our investigation was performed using the skill and degree of care ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This report is prepared for the sole use of our client and may not be assigned to others without the written consent of the client and Testing Engineers-San Diego, Inc. The samples taken and used for testing, and the observations made, are believed representative of site conditions; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between test pits and surface exposures. As in most major projects, conditions revealed by construction excavations may vary with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by a representative of TESD and designs adjusted as required or alternate designs recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the project architect and engineer. Appropriate recommendations should be incorporated into the structural plans. The necessary steps should be taken to see mat the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The findings of this report are valid as of this present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should be updated after a period of three years. Additional Services The review of plans and specifications, field observations and testing under our direction is an integral part of the recommendations made in this report. If Testing Engineers-San Diego is not retained for these services, the client agrees to assume our responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during construction. Observation and testing are additional services, which are provided by our firm, and should be budgeted within the cost of development. Testing Engineers-San Diego, Inc. SFR Hoover Street O Limited Geotechnical InvestigationO Carlsbad. California O Project No. 00-080 O March 24. 2000 12 r Testing Engineers-San Diego, Inc. PACIFIC CCWS PLAZA N Scale: 1' = 1,000" Project Name: SFR Hoover Street Geotechnical Investigation Carlsbad, CA SITE LOCATION MAP - Figure 1 Project No.: 2000-080 Date: March 2000 CM <D i—3O)151 O UJ5 LJJ O iQ.O. C.g'•*->rooQ in i2 N oooCM .Co oCOoIooo §11X c fe (0 01 REFERENCES 1. Bonilla, M.G., 1970, Surface Faulting and Related Effects. inWiegel, R. L., Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Englewood ClifTs, p. 47-74. 2. Bowles, I.E., 1977, Foundation Analysis and Design: New York, NY, McGraw-Hill, 750 p. 3. Hunt, R.E., 1986, Gcotecbnical Engineering Investigation Manual. New York, NY, McGraw-Hill, 983 p. 4. Hunt, R.E., 1984, Geotechnical Engineering Techniques and Practices. New York, NY, McGraw-Hill, 729 p. 5. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas. California Division of Mines and Geology, Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000. 6. Kennedy, M.P. and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, 1975, California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200. 7. Uniform Building Code. 1997 Edition: Whittier, CA, International Conference of Building Officials, 3 Volumes. 8. Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, Earthquakes. Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, pp. 2587-2631. 9. Winterkorn, H.F., and Fang, H.Y., 1976, Foundation Engineering Handbook: New York, NY, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 751 p. Testing Engineers-San Diego, Inc. LOG OF TEST PIT PROJECT NAME-. SFR Hoover Street PROJECT NO-. 2000-080 DATE OBSERVED: 3/1/00 METHOD OF EXCAVATION: LOGGEDBY: MSD GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Map DEPTH CFEEH 5 _ 10 15 CLASS SM N UNO SAMPLE \/A BULK SAMPLE NX/\ MOIST. CONT. 15.1 9.5 DD 117.7 TEST PIT NO.: T£A DESCRIPTION Tnpsoil: Dark brown silty sand, very moist, loose, fine grained, rootlets. @ 2.0' Fnrmatinn: Terrace deposits consisting of brown to dark brown sandstone, very dense, moist. Terminated @ 7.0' No Groundwater No Caving Backfilled on 3/1/00 SOIL TEST LOGGED BY: MSD GROUND ELEVATKN: LOCATION: See Map TEST PIT NO.: IE2 5 - 10 15 SM \/A \ /A/ \14.5 12.0 Topsnilr Dark brown silty sand, very moist, loose, fine grained, rootlets. @ 1.0' Formation: Dark brown to reddich brown sandstone, moist, medium dense to dense. Terminated @ 6.0' No Groundwater No Caving Backfilled om 3/1/00 — 00-080. ip Testing Engineers-San Diego, Inc. LOG OF TEST PIT PROJECT NAME: SFR HoOVCf Street PROJECT NO: 2000-080 DATE OBSERVED: 3/1/00 METHOD OF EXCAVATION: LOGGED BY: MSD GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Map DEPTH (FEET) 5 10 •— IS CLASS SM N UNO SAMPLE BULK SAMPLE MOIST. CONT.DD TEST PIT NO.: !Er2 DESCRIPTION lopsoil: Dark brown silty sand, very moist, loose, fine grained, rootlets. @ 1.0' Formation: Reddish brown sandstone, moist, medium dense to dense, becomes drier below 2 - 3 feet. Terminated @ 7.0' No Groundwater No Caving Backfilled on 3/1/00 SOIL TEST LOGGED BY: MSD GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Map TEST PIT NO.: TEA - 5 10 15 SM OP X 10.1 10.3 SM 00-080. ip Topsail: Dark brown silty sand, very moist, loose, fine grained, rootlets. @ 1.0' Formation: Reddish brown sandstone, moist medium dense to dense, becomes drier below 2 - 3 feet. @ 6.0' conglomerat layer about six inches thick. Terminated @ 8.0' No Groundwater No Caving Backfilled om 3/1/00 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Testing Program Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to determine their relative engineering properties. Tests were performed in accordance with test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Visual classifications were supplemented( by laboratory testing of selected samples in accordance with ASTM D-2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Logs, Appendix B. Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of selected samples was determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557, Method A. The test results are provided in the following tables. Particle Size Analysis Particle size analyses were performed on selected representative samples in accordance with ASTM D-422. The results are provided in the following table. Expansion Index Expansion Index tests were performed on representative samples of the near-surface soils. Samples were remolded and surcharged to 144 pounds per square foot in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard No. 18-2. The test results are summarized in the following tables. Direct Shear In order to determine the fill soil bearing capacity, a direct shear test was performed on a soil sample remolded to 90 percent relative compaction in accordance to ASTM D 3080. The test results are provided in the following tables. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS RESULTS OF MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST (ASTM D-1557) TP-1 <S 2-4' TP-2@ 1-3' 133.0 pcf 132.0 pcf 8.5 % 9.5 % RESULTS OF PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D-422) 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 uses 100 100 99 95 75 47 31 21 SM RESULTS OF EXPANSION INDEX TESTS (UBC NO. 18-2) TP-4© 0-2'0 (very low) TESTING ENGINEERS - SAN DIEGO TESD JOB NO: CLIENT: 00-080 BRIDGE MOTOR INN DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA 1TESD LAB NO.: PROJECT: [SAMPLE LOCATION; ISOIL TYPE: 54029 SFR HOOVER STREET TP-Zffi1'"3' SILTY SANOIRECOMPACTED TO 90% MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY ffi OPTIMUM MOISTURE^ W:\MceldaU\Dfriet ShiirXOrect Sheir 1-2-4jftlDATA 1.50 DIRECT SHEAR GRAPH 1.50 2.00 2.50 NORMAL PRESSURE y-0.74Mx*O.MaS R' - 0.9DM 3.H 4.00 CALCULATED DATA INITIAL, after consolidation/saturation WET DENSITY DRY DENSITY MOISTURE pcf pcf % COMPRESSION^ or EXPANSION {+) % FINAL, at failure WET DENSITY DRY DENSITY MOISTURE pcf pcf % 129.7 117.0 10.8% 1.1% 132.7 115.8 14.5% COMPRESSION^} gr EXPANSION (+) % 2.0% NORMAL PRESSURE SHEAR STRENGTH ksf ksf 1.04 1.04 131.8 118.6 11.2% -1.4% 134.8 117.4 14.9% •0.3% 2.08 1.78 128.9 115.4 10.0% 1.8% 132.1 114.9 15.0% 2.3% 4.08 3.30 FRICTION ANGLE =36.9 dcgreai COHESION =0.25 ksf 03/24OOOO Plate , GENERAL NOTES SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION The Unified Soil Classification System is used to identify the soil unless otherwise noted. SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS N: Qu: Standard "N" penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D. split-spoon. Unconfuied compressive strength, tsf. Qp: Penetrorneter value, unconfined compressive strength, tsf, Me; Water content, %. Liquid limit, %. Plasticity index, %. Natural dry density, PCF. LL: PI: DD: V :Apparent groundwater level at time noted after completion. DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS CAL: Modified California Sampler - 2 5/8" I.D., 3.0" O.D., except where noted. SS: Split-Spoon -1 3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., except where noted. ST: Shelby Tube - 3" O.D., except where noted. AU: Auger Sample. DB: Diamond Bit. CB: Carbide Bit. WS: Washed Sample. RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION TERM (NON-COHESIVE SOILS) STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (SPT) Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense TERM (COHESIVE SOILS) Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard Oto4 4 to 10 11 to 30 31 to 50 Over 50 SPT OU - (TSFV PARTICLE SIZE Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sin. + 8 in-3.in 3 in -5mm Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Oto2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 Over 32 5mm-0.6mm 0.6mnv0.2mrn 0.2mm-0.074mm 0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.50 0.50-1.00 1.00 -2,00 2.00-4.00 4.00+ Silt 0.074 mrn-0.005rnm Clay 0.005mm ^/ .U73 GAS CAS CAS — 133M1S M3AOOH I c— ! f 1 LANDSCARNG, CURB 8c PAVING BY OTHERS -PROPERTY LINE 1-#4 AT TOP / ••': - .' \ ^§x v§Sf f^k£%tf Vf9^f» *C£Jy I *- . ^ ^ ^ a c w ' •" ' ^ o o «X /• AJS^SJSS"* / / / / #4 DWLS/ / 0 32" o.c. / |4 CONT. / 0 12" o.c. , 1'-9" O 2'-0" RETAIN HT 2'-3" 0 3'-0" RETAIN HT 8" CMU */ 14V 0 32" o.c. AT CNTR OF WALL . 2" CLR. ^WATERPROORNG. SEE ARCH. .// 4" PERF. PIPE w/ 1 CF CRUSH ^ / ROCK PER LF. WRAPED IN FILTER / FABRIC, DRAIN AT LOW POINT. z ia: a bl / ALTERNATE: PROVIDE CRUSH ROCK ^ & FILTER FABRIC w/ 2" WEEP HOLES O 6'-0" o.c. ABV. GRADE W a, , 5'-0" MIN. TO DAYLIGHT z5 *"* f/*\ \ 2'-0" & 3'-0" RETAINING WALL AT DRIVEWAY DR. PATEL RES. 1280 HOOVER STREET CARLSBAD. CA " LANDSCAPING, CURB & PAVING BY OTHERS -PROPERTY LINE 1-#4 AT TOP / i ^ z 2 9j oJ O v H X •• ^ ^ ae K : - «". •I « * ^ > 1 \ *" ^ /^ 6" o.c.^^^^ ® f*mF/ / |4 DWLS/ / O 16" o.e. / |4 CONT. ' C 12" o.c. f f- 10" »- •• . 0 / *fi \ 8" CMU w/ #4V O 32" o.c. AT CNTR OF WALL ^ • ?" QLH, tiQ£ ><.^WATERPROOnNG. SEE ARCH. § S^ s 4" pERF- P'PE w/ 1 CF CRUSH *o•^ / ROCK PER LF. WRAPED IN FILTER -' / FABRIC. DRAIN AT LOW POINT. / ALTERNATE: PROVIDE CRUSH ROCK ' & FILTER FABRIC w/ 2" WEEP HOLES O 6'-0" o.c. ABV. GRADE w . .03 z 00 V , 5'-0" MIN. TO DAYLIGHT . 4'-0" RETAINING WALL AT DRIVEWAY DR. PATEL RES. 1280 HOOVER STREET CARLSBAD. CA No. C50389 Exo. 6-30-goos To-specify your own speciaUiUe block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information. Title • 2* Retain at Driveway Job# : 2001-27 Dsgnr Description.... 2* Retaining wall at driveway Date: Page: SEP 18,2003 This Wall in File: c:\program flles\retalnpro\2001-27 dr. shai Retain Pro 6.1 b, 15-Sep-2003, (c)1989-2003 Registration #: RP-112745S Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Code: CBC 2002 Criteria | Soil Data Retained Height = 2.00 ft Allow Soil Bearing = 2.J... „ . . .. , ., ncnfa Equivalent Fluid Pressure MethodWall he,ght above MI! = 0.50 ft H^, Active Pressure Slope Behind Wall = 0.00 : 1 Toe Active Pressure Height of Soil over Toe = 6.00 in Passive Pressure = ; Water height over heel = 0.0ft Soil Density = 11 Footing||Soil Friction = C Wind on Stem = 0.0 psf Soil height to ignore for passive pressure = I | Footing Dimensions & Strengths | iOO.O psf Toe Width = 0.00 ft Heel Width = 1.75 35.0 psf/n Total Footing Width = 1 .75 35.0 psf/ft Footing Thickness = 12.00 in (35.0 psf/ftmnn^f Key Width = 0.00 in ™nPCf Key Depth = 0.00 in '•30° Key Distance from Toe - 0.00ft 000 in fc = 2,000 psi Fy = 40,000 psi Footing Concrete Density = 1 50.00 pcf Min.As% = 0.0018 Cover® Top = 2.00 in @Btm.= 3.00 in Surcharge Loads | Lateral Load Applied to Stem | \ Adjacent Footing Load | Surcharge Over Heel = 100.0 psf Lateral Load = 0.0#/ft Adjacent Footing Load = 0.0 Ibs Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning ...Height to Top = 0.00ft Footing Width = 0.00ft Surcharge Over Toe - 0.0 psf ...Height to Bottom = 0.00 ft Eccentricity = 0.00 in Used for Sliding & Overturning Wall to Ftg CL Dist = 0.00ft Axial Load Applied to Stem | Axial Dead Load = 0.0 Ibs Axial Live Load = 0.0 Ibs Axial Load Eccentricity = 0.0 in Design Summary | ; Wall Stability Ratios Overturning - 2 81 OK Sliding = 2.89 OK Total Bearing Load = 848 Ibs .. .resultant ecc. = 3.29 in Soil Pressure @ Toe = 940 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 29 psf OK Allowable = 2,500 psf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe - 1 ,070 psf ACI Factored @ Heel = 33 psf Footing Shear @ Toe = 0.0 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel = 3.0 psi OK Allowable = 76.0 psi Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lateral Sliding Force = 213.6 tbs less 100% Passive Force = - 376.9 Ibs less 1 00% Friction Force = - 241.3 Added Force Req'd = 0.0 Ibs OK ....for 1.5: 1 Stability = 0.0 Ibs OK ! Footing Design Results | Toe Heel Factored Pressure = 1,070 33 psf Mil': Upward = 0 219ft-# Mu' : Downward = 0 201 ft-# Mu: Design = 0 17ft-# Actual 1 -Way Shear = 0.00 2.99 psi Allow 1 -Way Shear = 0.00 76.03 psi Toe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel Reinforcing - None Spec'd Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd Stem Construction Design height Wall Material Above "Ht" Thickness Rebar Size Rebar Spacing Rebar Placed at fb/FB + fa/Fa Total Force @ Section Moment... Actual Moment Allowable Shear Actual Shear Allowable Lap Splice if Above Lap Splice if Below Wall Weight Rebar Depth 'd' Footing Type Line Load Base Above/Below Soil _ _ at Back of Wall = uun • Top Stem •1 Stem OK ft= 0.00 = Masonry 8.00 # 4 32.00 = Edge = 0.180 lbs= 129.3 ft-#= 109.6 608.4 psi= 2.2 psi= 19.4 in = 20.00 in = 6.26 78.0 in = 5.25 f m psi = 1 .500 Fs psi = 20,000 Solid Grouting = Yes Special Inspection - No Modular Ratio 'n' = 25.78 Short Term Factor = 1.000 Equiv. Solid Thick. in = 7.60 Masonry Block Type = Medium Weight fc Fy Other Acceptable Sizes & Toe: Not req'd, Mu < S * Heel: Not req'd, Mu < S * Key: No key defined pr To Specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information. Title • 2' Retain at Driveway Job* : 2001-27 Dsgnr: Description..., 2' Retaining wall at driveway Date: Page: SEP 18,2003 This Wall in File: c:\program files\retalnpro\2001-27 dr. shai Retain Pro 6.1b, 15-Sep-2003, (c) 1989-2003 Registration # : RP-1127455 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Code: CBC 2002 Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments torn Heel Active Pressure = Toe Active Pressure Surcharge Over Toe = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Load @ Stem Above Soil = OVERTURNINGForce Distance Moment Ibs ft ft-# RESISTING Force Distance Momentibs n ft-# 253.0 -39.4 1.19 0.50 300.7 -19.7 Total = 213.6 O.T.M. = 281.0 Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 2.81 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 848.1 Ibs Vertical component of active pressure used for soil pressure Soil Over Heel : Sloped Soil Over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe . Surcharge Over Toe . Stem Weight(s) Earth @ Stem Transitions. Footing Weight , Key Weight Vert. Component . 238.3 108.3 1.21 1.21 0.00 2880 130.9 195.0 262.5 0.33 0.88 Total = 43.9 1.75 848.1 Ibs R.M.= 65.0 229.7 76.8 790.4 #0@l8.in @Heet 8.inMasw/#4@32.ino/c Solid Grout, Designer select all horiz. reinf. See Appendix A To-specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information. Title • 3' Retain Wall at Driveway Job# : 2001-27 Dsgnr: Description.... Date: Page: _j SEP 18,2003 This Wall In File: c:\proflram files\retainpro\2001-27 dr. shai Retain Pro 6.1b, 15-Sep-2003, (c) 1989-2003 Registration #: RP-1127455 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Code: CBC 2002 ; Criteria | , Soil Data | Footing Dimensions & Retained Height = 300ft Allow Soil Bearing = 2,500.0 psf Toe Width .». „ u • ui w -, « en ft Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Heel WidthWall height above soil - 0.50 ft Hee| Actjve Pressure = 35 0 psf/ft Total Footjng Width Slope Behind Wall = 0.00 : 1 Toe Active pressure = 35.0 psf/ft Footing Thickness Height of Soil over Toe = 6.00 in Passive Pressure = 335.0 psf/ft Water height over heel = 0.0 ft Soil Density = 1 1 0.00 pcf j^j jjJjJSj I Footing||Soil Friction = 0.300 Key Distgnce from Toe = Wind on Stem = 0.0 psf Soil height to ignore . _ „_ . for passive pressure = 0.00 in £ p = „ 2,000 psi Fy =Footing Concrete Density = Min. As % = Cover® Top = 2.00 in @ Surcharge Loads | Lateral Load Applied to Stem | \ Adjacent Footing Load Surcharge Over Heel = 100.0 psf Lateral Load = 0.0#/ft Adjacent Footing Load - Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning ...Height to Top = 0.00ft Footing Width = Surcharge Over Toe = 0.0 psf ...Height to Bottom = 0.00ft Eccentricity = Used for Sliding & Overturning Wall to Ftg CL Dist = Axial Load Applied to Stern | ?otin.9J^ . „ , Axial Dead Load = 0.0 Ibs at Back of Wall Axial Live Load = 0.0 Ibs Axial Load Eccentricity = 0.0 in Design Summary 1 Stem Construction I Top Stem Wall Stability Ratios Design height ft= 0.00 Overturning = 2.70 OK Wall Material Above "Ht" = Masonry Sliding = 2.08 OK Thickness = 8.00 Total Bearing Load = 1,369 Ibs RebarSize = #4 .. .resultant ecc. = 4.47 in Rebar Spacing = 32.00 Soil Pressure @ Toe = 1 ,21 3 psf OK *£" {J!"* at = Ed9e Soil Pressure @ Heel = 5 psf OK ^B °?a%a = 0.493 ^Pressure Less fhan AHowabie^ ™al Force @ Section Ibs = 248.6 ACl Factored @ Toe = 1,372 psf Moment-Actual ft-#= 300.0 ACI Factored @ Heel = 5 psf Moment Allowable = 608.4 Footing Shear @ Toe = 0.0 psi OK Shear Actual Psi= 4-2 Footing Shear® Heel = 4.6 psi OK Shear Allowable psi= 19.4 Allowable = 76.0 psi Lap Splice if Above in= 20.00 Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lap Splice if Below in = 6.26 Lateral Sliding Force = 367.9 Ibs Wall Weight = 78.0 less 100% Passive Force = - 376.9 Ibs Rebar Depth 'd' in= 5.25 less 1 00% Friction Force = - 38/.4 Masonry Data,, _„ fm psi= 1,500Added Force Req'd = 0.0 Ibs OK Rs . _ 2Q 000 ....for 1.5 : 1 Stability = 0.0 Ibs OK So|jd Grouting = 'Yes Special Inspection = No Modular Ratio 'n' = 25.78 Short Term Factor = 1.000 Equiv. Solid Thick. in = 7.60 Masonry Block Type = Medium Weight f c psi = Fy psi = i Footing Design Results 1 Toe Heel Factored Pressure = 1 .372 5 psf Mu' : Upward = 0 551 ft-# Mu' : Downward = 0 443 ft-# Mu: Design = 0 108tt-# Actual 1 -Way Shear = 0.00 4.56 psi _ „ _ Allow 1-Way Shear = 0.00 76.03 psi Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Toe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Toe: Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel: Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key. No key defined Strengths | 0.00 ft 2.25 2.25 12.00 in 0.00 in 0.00 in 0.00ft 40,000 psi 150.00 pcf 0.0018 Btm.= 3.00 in 1 0.0 Ibs 0.00ft 0.00 in 0.00ft Line Load 0.0ft To specify your own special, title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block Information. Title : 3'Retain Wall at Driveway Job# : 2001-27 Dsgnr: Description.... Page: _, Date: SEP 18,2003 This Wall In File: c:\program files\retalnpro\2001-27 dr. shat Z^ 'I • RP~ ' <C)1989"2003 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Code: CBC 2002 i Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments OVERTURNING Force Distance Moment Item Ibs ft ft-# Heel Active Pressure = 407.3 1.54 627.9 Toe Active Pressure = -39.4 0.50 -19.7 Surcharge Over Toe = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Load @ Stem Above Soil - Total * 367.9 O.T.M. = 608.2 Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 2.70 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 1 ,369.4 Ibs RESISTINGForce Distance Ibs ft Soil Over Heel = Sloped Soil Over Heel = Surcharge Over Heet = Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe _ Surcharge Over Toe _ Stem Weight(s) Earth @ Stem Transitions = Footing Weighl _ Key Weight Vert. Component _ Total - 522.5 158.3 273.0 337.5 78.0 1,369.4 Ibs 1.46 1.46 0.00 0.33 1.13 2.25 R.M.- 1 Moment ft-# 762.0 230.9 91.0 379.7 175.6 1,639.2 Vertical component of active pressure used for soil pressure To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information. Title 4* Wall at driveway Job* : 2001-27 Osgnr: Description.... Date: This Wall In File: c:\program fHes\retalnpro\2001-27 dr. shai Retain Pro 6.1b, 15-Sep-2003, (c) 1989-2003 Registration #: RP-1127455 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Code: CBC 2002 Criteria | Soil Data | Footing Dimensions & Retained Height = 4 00 ft Allow Soi! Bearing = 2,500.0 psf Toe Width Wan hPinht ahnwp .nil - 0 so ft Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Heel Width =Wall height above soil - 0.50ft Heel Active Pressure = 35.0psf/ft Total Footing Width Slope Behind Wall = 0.00 : 1 Toe Active pressure = 35.0 psf/ft Footing Thickness Height of Soil over Toe = 6.00 in Passive Pressure - 335.0 psf/ft Water height over heel = 0.0ft Soil Density = 1 10.00 pcf Key Depth - Footing||Soil Friction = 0.300 Key Di$tance from Joe = Wind on Stem = 0.0 psf Soil height to ignore . . _._ . for passive pressure = 0.00 in J c " „ 2,000 psi Fy =Footing Concrete Density = Min. As % = Cover @ Top = 2.00 in @ Surcharge Loads | Lateral Load Applied to Stem | Adjacent Footing Load Surcharge Over Heel = 100.0 psf Lateral Load = 00#/ft Adjacent Footing Load =» Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning ...Height to Top ~ 0.00ft Footing Width = Surcharge Over Toe = 0.0 psf ...Height to Bottom = 0.00 ft Eccentricity * Used for Sliding & Overturning Wall to Ftg CL Dist * Axial Load Applied to Stem | ^O0tin9 "^ . „ . Axial Dead Load = 0.0 Ibs at Back of Wall ~ Axial Live Load = 0.0 Ibs Axial Load Eccentricity = 0.0 in Design Summary I Stem Construction I Top Stem 2nd Wall Stability Ratios Design height ft = 2.00 0.00 Overturning = 2.81 OK Walt Material Above "Ht" = Masonry Masonry Sliding = 1.72 OK Thickness = 8.00 8.00 Total Bearing Load = 2,068 Ibs Rebar Size = #4 #4 ...resultant ecc. = 5.37 in Rebar Spacjng = 32.00 16.00 Soil Pressure® Toe = 1,421 psf OK nSSSSSS"1"* = Edfle **" Soil Pressure ©Heel = 39 psf OK DSg+D£a = 0.I81 0.693 A"°Sof Pressure Less T=han Allowable^ ™al Force @ Section 'bs = 1 33'6 «« ACI Factored® Toe = 1,605 psf Moment.-.Actual ft*- 110.3 627.1 ACI Factored @ Heel * 44 psf Moment Allowable ft-#= 608.4 905.4 Footing Shear® Toe = 0.0 psi OK Shear Actual Psi= 2-3 7-° Footing Shear® Heel = 6.0 psi OK Shear Allowable psi= 19.4 19.4 Allowable = 76.0 psi Lap Splice if Above in= 20.00 20.00 Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lap Splice if Below in= 20.00 6.26 Lateral Sliding Force = 557.2 Ibs Wall Weight psf= 78.0 78.0 less 100% Passive Force = - 376.9 Ibs Rebar Depth 'd1 in= 5.25 5.25 less 100% Friction Force = - b83.8 Masonry Data Added Force Req'd = 0.0 Ibs OK Fg . 20'OOQ 20'000 ....for 1.5: 1 Stability = 0.0 Ibs OK Solid Grouting = Yes Yes Special Inspection = No No Modular Ratio 'n' = 25.78 25.78 Short Term Factor = 1 .000 1 .000 Equiv. Solid Thick. in= 7.60 7.60 Masonry Block Type = Medium Weight f c psi = Fy psi = I Footing Design Results | Toe Heel Factored Pressure = 1 ,605 44 psf Mu': Upward - 0 1,285ft-* Mu' : Downward = 0 858 ft-# Mu: Design = 0 427ft-# Actual 1 -Way Shear = 0.00 6.03 psi Allow! -Way Shear = 0,00 76.03 psi Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacmgs Toe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Toe: Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel: Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key: No key defined Strengths | 0.00 ft 2.83 2.83 12.00 in 0.00 in 0.00 in 0.00ft 40,000 psi 150.00 pcf 0.0018 Btm.= 3.00 in 1 0.0 Ibs 0.00ft 0.00 in 0.00ft Line Load 0.0ft To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information. Title 4* Wall at driveway Job* : 2001-27 Dsgnr: Description.... Page: Date: SEP 18,2003 This Wall in File: c:\program fJles\retainproV2001-27 dr. shai ^r;*'^^'''™ Cankered Retaining W.II Design Code: CBC 2002 Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments OVERTURNING Force Distance Moment Item Ibs ft ft-# Hee! Active Pressure = 596.6 1.89 1,126.9 Toe Active Pressure = -39.4 0.50 -19.7 Surcharge Over Toe = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Load @ Stem Above Soil = Total = 557.2 O.T.M. = 1,107.2 Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 2.81 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 2,067.9 Ibs RESISTING Force Distance Ibs ft Soil Over Heel = Sloped Soil Over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe _ Surcharge Over Toe _ Stem Weight(s) Earth @ Stem Transitions _ Footing Weight _ Key Weight I Vert. Component _ Total" 953.3 216.7 351.0 425.0 121.9 2,067.9 Ibs 1.75 1.75 0.00 0.33 1.42 2.83 R.M.- 1 Moment ft-# 1,668.3 379.2 117.0 602.1 345.5 3,112.1 Vertical component of active pressure used for soil pressure ^ « 8.in Mas w/ #4 @ 16.in o/c ~** Solid Grout, < *1* « *J* Designer select @Hed See Appendix A j A 6"; A ' '« i i , ! ' L__ i ! 4'-6* :I* 2 3/4' T d'-n- . H3'4' - wi 1 !T y T * " £s&t&$$f-&!*'#~1 i 1'fl"" ^S^^H-XtH- | 2'- 10" j ?' in* i LU \,>o:DLLO9 f ®2rf _ 1 — -r f.,(3 2 C3 — •"•"o < z o >»- h uj =i rf« Lu -i _, 5 *5K ^ -{ LU £D 0.i" LL ^ 5> rn ^3 <Q ^ u- Q-$C»H r>o^n ^s o y 2. *ffi X CL rf _/\S § E 5 bvobg m -JS^P ^(M i *~ ^-*SLUM -. -^§£<gta. a. $a Jj ^XJ*-1•«•MM -^t= s 18s ?!?y I g8rj °if gxSsgfgC!3 O f~ .'" ; 2T O CC i CT >" tn? - r- :^ n 8 R o o s £ffi^'vBSK ia?S^P'" r. .L^.'.O ^ 20LL UJ Li_. "• *-- ^ ILJ m 0- UJ w O a. a:?^,'^,::q Hai ^ . -L O co %•3;I i ! ! ' s -3 1f * 1 i • - S I{ { fVjlk_. t • ! j :f ") I 1 ' ^1 i' I i } . ) 1 ^J.•AM iw n • I.^ ! i &^ 1 : S_; ' i . !^ ' 5 r. ?^1 ' : T-' ^T r "'A^f. -ts- ^> ^r\ 02-20-2003 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Check Revision Permit No: PCR02317 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Reference #: Project Title: Applicant: STEV SPIVEY 1280 HOOVER STCBAD PCR Lot #: 0 $0.00 Construction Type: NEW PATEL RES-REVISE @ EAST REAR WALL Owner: Status: ISSUED Applied: 12/12/2002 Entered By: RMA Plan Approved: 02/20/2003 Issued: 02/20/2003 Inspect Area: 4656 BRIAR RIDGE 92056 497-5039 Plan Check Revision Fee Additional Fees $120.00 $0.00 Total Fees: $120.00 Total Payments To Date:$0.00 Balance Due:$120.00 3649 02/20/03 0002 31 P ' •jXn-.-. Inspector: FINAL APPROVAL Date:Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as lees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which vou have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK NOffi 023/*/ EST. VAL.; Plan Ck. Deposit Validated Bv, / Date ?/ / Address (include Bldg/Suite »\ Legal Description Lot No.Subdivision Name/Number Unit No.Phase No.Total # of units Assessor's Parcel #Existing Use Proposed Use (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code! or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exempttflU—Any violation of Sectiosr^DSI .5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the appliqafT^to a cjyjl penalty of no^gnoie than five hundjajJ dollarsf ^"« f f —_ .rf<-*>*: rtawitf^ £ / LS s*** /* Address — State Licenser ^O r' &&T License Class •£) City State/Zip Telephone 9 Citv Business License # ffytwff*/ (~? Designer Name Address State License # City State/Zip Telephone coverage la unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal .of fcompensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the allies and civil fines up to one hundred code. Interest and attorney's fees. Workers' Compensation Declaration: 1 hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: Q 1 have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for ths performance of the work for which this permit is issued. n I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Cods, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company Policy No. Expiration Date (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$100] OR LESS) ^sQ 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*B«cp_me subject to the Worjt0r^£ompensatj0ft-L.aws of California. WARNING: Failure to thousand dollars (9100 SIGNAL _-^ j?j ^^^— jfi—jj^^_ •—jf _^ i —_^^_— .^— . ^^~ —f— .—, • i ^— (l hereby affirm That I am exempt from*the Contractor's^ License Law for the following reason: Q 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). Q 1, 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). O I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. Q YES QNO 2. I (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number):__ 5. I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type of work): PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE __ Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? Q YES Q NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or eir quality management district? Q YES Q NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? Q YES fj NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(i) Civil Code). LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS ffiWlPOWisyi.'B':,?' _ „„„.„,. I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the CitV of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavatioQa^pver 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the bujkJlng OpftETOnderJh^pravisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become-fiyi and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commence^ithiiyBra^frairfthe date of such oermit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced^or a peyRyrof teOyrays (Secrort 106.4.4?)niform Building Code). / APPLICANT'S YELLOW.Upplicant PINK: Finance EsGil Corporation In Partners/Up witd government for Quitting Safety DATE: 1/21/O3 O, JURIS: JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad a ~POTTffEVlEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: O2-3171 rev(PCR02317) SET: II PROJECT ADDRESS: 1280 Hoover Street PROJECT NAME: Retaining Wall Revision Patel Residence The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. XJ The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: ><] Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: Date contacted: (by: ) Fax #: Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS: The revised retaining wall details shall be signed aj>&#ealed by the engineer. By: David Yao Enclosures: original approved plan Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 1/13 tmsmldot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diego, California 92123 + (858)560-1468 4 Fax (858) 560-1576 EsGil Corporation In Partnership vHtH government for knitting Stftty DATE: 12/23/02 O lAEEUCANT JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad Q~PCAN REVIEWER Q FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-3171 rev(PCR02317) SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 1280 Hoover Street PROJECT NAME: Retaining Wall Revision ( PAT* U *U5S The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Steve Spivey 4656 Bliar Ridge Oceanside, CA 92056 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Steve Spivey (v-M) Telephone #: (760)497-5039 Date contacted: 1^2.3! 02. (by: vo,) Fax #: Mail •** Telephone ^ Fax In Person REMARKS: By: David Yao Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 12/16 tmsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diego, California 92123 + (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 City of Carlsbad 02-3171 rev(PCR02317) 12/23/02 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-3171 rev(PCR02317) PROJECT ADDRESS: 1280 Hoover Street DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: ESGIL CORPORATION: 12/16 12/23/02 REVIEWED BY: David Yao FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. 1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, (760) 438- 1161. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. 2. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. • To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revised plans. City of Carlsbad O2-3171 rev(PCR02317) 12/23/02 • Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this list? Q Yes Q No City of Carlsbad O2-3171 rev(PCRO2317) 12/23/O2 1. The revised retaining wall details shall be signed and sealed by the engineer responsible for their preparation. 2. Provide a copy of the project soil report prepared by a California licensed architect or civil engineer. The report shall include foundation design recommendations based on the engineer's findings and shall comply with UBC Section 1804.(Testing Engineers) 3. In Seismic Zone 4, each site shall be assigned a near-source factor. Identify this value in the soils report and on the plans. Section 1629.4.2. 4. Investigate the potential for seismicatly induced soil liquefaction and soil instability in Seismic Zones 3 and 4. This does not apply to detached, single-story dwellings. Section 1804.5 5. Note on the plan the soils classification, whether or not the soil is expansive and note the allowable bearing value. Section 106.3.3. 6. The soils engineer recommended that he/she review the foundation excavations. Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that: The foundation excavations, the soils expansive characteristics and bearing capacity conform to the soils report." 7. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction documents (when required by the soil report). 8. The drain behind the retaining wall shall comply with the recommendation from the soil report. 9. The wall calculation appears to not clearly, specify any special inspection required? Please clarify.(lf yes, please noted on the plan and provide special inspection program to the building official prior to issuance of the building permit.) 10. Please clearly identify on the plan the location of the revised retaining wall. Any construction is not part of this permit shall be eliminated from the plan. 11. The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact David Yao at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. City of Carlsbad 02-3171 rev(PCR02317) 12/23/02 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad rev(PCR02317) PLAN CHECK NO.: O2-3171 DATE: 12/23/O2PREPARED BY: David Yao BUILDING ADDRESS: 1280 Hoover Street BUILDING OCCUPANCY: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq.Ft.) retaining wall revision Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code cb Valuation Multiplier By Ordinance Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) Plan Check Fee by Ordinance $120.00 Type of Review: D Repetitive Fee Repeats D Complete Review D Other m Hourly Structural Only Hour Esgll Plan Review Fee $96.00 * Based on hourly rate Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc A,' City of Carlsbad Public Works Engineering BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALL BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER: &T BUILDING ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Retaining Wall ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. Date: DENIAL Please see^th^ ^attached report of deficiencies marked with D.yMake necessary corrections to plans or Specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. Date: Date: /-/0-03 Date: £>~3 ATTACHMENTS Right-of-Way Permit Application ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON NAME: Taniya Barrows City of Carlsbad ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 PHONE:(760) 602-2773 H:\DeVBlopmwH SwvtoWMASTERSVORMS -\CHECKUSTS -\BUHXHNG PLANCHECK CKLIST FORM • RETAINING WAUS.doc 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (76O) 6O2-272O • FAX (76O) 6O2-8562 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALLS Q 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: A. North Arrow Q^ Easements B. Existing & Proposed Structures (^) Retaining WaN (dimensioned from street) /•— (location ancTheight] C. Property Lines vi/ — 2. Show on site plan: A. Drainage Patterns B. Existing & Proposed Slopes C. Existing Topography 3. Include on title sheet: A. Site Address B. Assessor's Parcel Number C. Legal Description D. Grading Quantities Cut Fill Import/Export (Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required) 4. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No. Conditions were complied with by:Date: MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS Q 5. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way. A separate Right-of-Way issued by the Engineering Department is required for the following: ^ Please obtain an application for Right-of-Way permit from the Engineering Department. Pagel H:\CWvetopoiflrt S«vlcM\MASTERS\FORMS ^CHECKLISTS -BUILDING PLANCHECK CKUST FORM - RETAINING WALLS.dOC PLANNING/ENGINEERING PERMIT NUMBER CB & ^ / 7 I ADDRESS DATE RESIDENTIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR (< $10,000.00) PLAZA CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES VILLAGE FAIRE COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING OTHER PLANNER ENGINEER DATE oocs/Mls(orms/P)»nnlng Englnecrtng Approvals P- 2 0/8920« "93 3 B567155B10 TESTING ENGINEERS SD PAGE 82/03 Testing Engineers- San Diego, Inc. Established IW6 Dr. Shantu Patel January 8,2003 2851 Columbia Drive Project No. 2000-080D Oceanside, California 92056 Subject: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY THE CFTY OF CARLSBAD Project: Retaining WaU Proposed Single Family Residence 1280 Hoover Street Carlsbad, Califbnria 92008 Reference: 1. "Limited Geotcchnical Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, 1280 Hoover Street, Carlsbad, California," prepared by Testing Engineers, Inc., dated March 24,2000. 2. "Site Retaining Walls Plan, Patcl Residence," Sheet SK-1 through SK-4, prepared by HCP Engineering, undated. Dear Dr. Patel: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the plan check comments prepared by fee City of Carlsbad's plan reviewer, dated December 23, 2002, We are addressing Comment Numbers 3, 4 and 7, which retae to geotechnical issues for the subject project. The comments are presented below in italics and are followed by our response. Comment Number 3: In Seismic Zone 4, fetch file shall be assigned a near-source factor. Identify fa value in the soils report and on the plaits. Section 1629.4.2 The ncar-so-uice factors are given in the referenced report and shown on the referenced plans. Comment Number 4; investigate the potential for seismicalfy Induced soil liquefaction and soil instability in Seismic Zones 3 and 4. This does not apply to detached, single-story dwellings. Section 3904.5. As discussed in the referenced report, die potential for liquefaction is considered to be very low. Comment Number 7:P/wute a Utter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading ptan and specifications have been reviewed and that it Has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are property incorporated into the construction documents (when required by the soil report). Enffnccr* . San D.cgo. int.. 78»5 rnnv*y Coari. Sviiclft $3* Diego. CA. 92111 \9StJ 71J.5800 F«» f«38| 715-5*10 **^^^ ^^- Jan 09 03 8587155813 TESTING ENGINEERS SO P.3 PAGE 03/B3 geotechnical aspects of the referenced plans have been reviewed and were found to be in substantial confbrmance with the geotechnical recommendations presented in the referenced soils report. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. RespectfuDy submitted, Testing Engineer* - San Diego, Inc. J.AWrich,GE2565 Geotechnical Engineer Cc: Steve Spivey, Integri 20Q04MOD City Cmtnaa* RwpotKt j*J» Roy E. Moore, GE 613 Principal Engineer TCSD.toc.*Rqpoa»etoCilvCoiame^a Protxaed 2000-OSOd Manuarv 2003 , J, -PROPERTY LINE CAP AS REQ'D 1-#4 AT TOP >« "c FIN. GR. OR SLAB WHERE OCCURS 3 fc 4 , 8" CMU w/ *4V O 32" o.c. GROUT SOLID 9" CLR. •WATERPROOF MEMBRANE. SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS 4" MIN. PERF. PIPE W/4CF/FT /CRUSHED ROCK ' WAP w/ RLTER 12" OF SURCHARGE FIN. GR. PROPERTY LINE ATERPROOFING MEMBRANE. SEE ARCHITECTURAL 8" CMU w/ «4V O 32" o.c. CONC. LEDGE. SLOPE 1:1 4" MIN. PERF, DRAIN w/ CF / FT CRUSHED ROCK WRAP IN FILTER FABRIC LJNE OF SURCHARGE H 6'-0" 8'-0" A 2'-0" 4'-0" D 12" 2'-6" T 12" 12" W 4'-0" 5'-6" V DWL #5 0 32" o.c. #7 C 16" o.c. A REBAR — — B REBAR — #4 V C 32" o.c. PROPERTY UNE 4" MIN. PERF. DRAIN w/ Z CF / FT CRUSHED ROCK WRAP IN FILTER FABRIC H 10'-0" A 4f-0" D 2'-6" T 15" W 6'-6" V DWL #6V C 16" o.c. A REBAR #7V O 16" o.c. B REBAR #4 O 16" o.c. vfc '/ v-. J ! i— i — V 7 </? / / t L /#f w L '-^ +'-* /Z/S0/0Z *I/^/^3 T22-" I J.P-7\ 7T .6 * 0 4 \ \t'-f- £ >» Wat - z^/^A y „ 2j 7- N? ^^3T- V *.«lk ^t-^* :*>* r.Ji X > I I ! ! I Limited Geotechnical Investigation PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 1280 HOOVER STREET CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 1280 Hoover Street Carlsbad, California Prepared for: Dr. Shantu Patel C/O Bridge Motor Inn 1103 North Coast Highway Oceanside, CA 92054 Prepared by: Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc. 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18, San Diego, California 92111 Project No. 2000-080 March 10,2000 Testing Engineers- San Diego, Inc.Established J946 Dr. Shantu Patel C/o Bridge Motor Inn 1103 North Coast Highway Oceanside, California 92054 March 24,2000 Project No. 2000-080 Subject: T .imited Creotechnical Investigation Project: Proposed Single-Family Residence 1280 Hoover Street Carlsbad, California Dear Dr. Patel: In accordance with your request, Testing Engineers-San Diego, Inc. has conducted a Limited Geotechnical Investigation at the referenced site in Carlsbad, California. The attached report discusses the geotechnical aspects of the project and provides recommendations for the proposed development. . Our subsurface investigation has found that the proposed residential building pad is underlain by a one to two-foot layer of topsoil over dense terrace deposits to the maximum explored depth of eight (8) feet. We conclude that the development of the proposed residence is geotechntcally feasible based upon the existing soil conditions, and provided the recommendations contained herein are implemented in the design and construction. Testing Engineers-San Diego appreciates the opportunity to be of assistance to you on this project and welcome the opportunity to continue our role as geotechnical consultants. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Testing E Diego, Inc. ven N. Bradley, CEG1 Principal Geologist 00-080. rpt Engineers - San Diego, Inc., 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 San Diego, CA. 92111 [858] 715-5800 Fax [858] 715-5810 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION General 1 Purpose 1 Scope of Services 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND Site Description 2 Proposed Development 2 SITE INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Subsurface Exploration 2 Laboratory Testing Program 2 GEOLOGY Geologic Setting 3 Site Stratigraphy 3 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION General Conclusions 3 Compressible Soils 4 Expansive Soils ;; •. 4 Groundwater , 4 Seismic Design Criteria 4 Liquefaction 5 Permanent Slopes 5 Temporary Slopes 5 GRADING AND EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS General 5 Clearing and Grubbing 5 Structural Improvement of Soils 5 Transitions Between Cut & Fill , 6 Method and Criteria of Compaction ;. , 6 Placement of Oversized Rock 7 Erosion and Siltation 7 Standard Grading Guidelines 7 FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS General 7 Conventional Foundations 8 Conventional Slabs-on-Grade 9 Settlement .9 Presaturation of Slab Subgra.de 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS Retaining Walls 9 Pavements.....: ,. 10 Trench Backfill 11 Surface Drainage 11 Foundation Review , 11 CLOSURE Limits of Investigation 12 Additional Services 12 FIGURES Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Plot Plan APPENDICES Appendix A - References Appendix B - Field Exploration Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results EVTRODUCTION General This report presents the findings and conclusions of a Limited Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed construction of a single family residence to be located on the west side of Hoover Street in Carlsbad, California. The Site Location Map, Figure 1, follows the text of this report. The investigation basically consisted of field reconnaissance and geologic mapping, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and engineering/geological evaluation of the obtained information. Purpose The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions of the proposed area of development and provide recommendations regarding design of suitable foundation systems for the proposed residence, along with other site development criteria. Scope of Services The following scope of services were conducted during the development of this report: O Site reconnaissance and review of published geologic, seismological and geotechnical reports and maps pertinent to the project area; O Excavation of four (4) test pits within me limits of the proposed area of development. The test pits were logged by our Staff Geologist. A Plot Plan, Figure 2 indicates the approximate test pit locations. Detailed Exploration Logs are contained in Appendix B; O Collection of representative soil samples at selected depths. The obtained samples were sealed in moisture-resistant containers and transported to the laboratory for subsequent analysis; O Laboratory testing of samples representative of the soils encountered during the field investigation; O Geologic and engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data which provided the basis for our conclusions and recommendations; O Production of this report which summarizes the results of the above analysis and presents our findings and recommendations for site development. SFR Hoover Street * Limited Geotechnical Investigation * Carlsbad. CA * f8581715-5800 * Project No. 00-080 * March 24.2000 1 Of 12 PROJECT BACKGROUND Site Description The subject site is a rectangular-shaped residential lot located on the west side of Hoover Street, in the city of Carlsbad, California. The project location is shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map. The site encompasses an area of approximately one (1) acre with a moderate west-sloping natural terrain. Vegetation consisted of grass, shrub, ice plant and few trees. The subject parcel is bordered by similar residential developments. Proposed Development Based on the plans prepared by Sullivan Development of Carlsbad, California, the proposed development will include a single-story structure to be utilized as a residence. A driveway will access the property along the south-east side of the proposed residence from Hoover Street. The Plot Plan, Figure 2, provides a layout of the proposed development. SITE INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Subsurface Exploration The site investigation, consisting of surficial reconnaissance and subsurface exploration, was conducted on March 1, 2000. Subsurface exploration was conducted by test pits excavated with a Case 580L backhoe equipped with a 24-inch bucket. The purpose of the test pit excavations was to evaluate the condition of the soils in the proposed area of development. A total of four (4) test pits were completed to depths ranging from approximately 6 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface. The test pits were logged in the field by the Staff Geologist. Representative samples were collected, sealed in moisture-resistant containers, and transported to the laboratory for subsequent testing. Detailed descriptions of the encountered subsurface materials are provided in the Site Stratigraphy section of this report. The test pit locations are indicated on the Plot Plan, Figure 2. Appendix B contains the Field Exploration Logs. Laboratory Testing Program In addition to the field exploration, a laboratory testing program was conducted to establish the pertinent engineering characteristics of the foundation materials. The laboratory testing program included visual classification, particle size analysis, direct shear, expansion index and maximum dry density and optimum moisture content tests. All laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM standard specifications or other accepted test methods. Appendix C provides a summary of test procedures and results. SFR Hoover Street * Limited Geotechnical Investigation * Carlsbad. CA * (S58) 715-5800 * Project No. OCM)80 * March 24.2000 2 Of 12 GEOLOGY Geologic Setting The subject site is located within the southern portion of what is known as the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The coastal areas of the province in Carlsbad are typically made up of Pleistocene marine terrace deposits (Qm). Site Stratigraphy The subsurface descriptions provided are interpreted from conditions exposed during the field investigation and/or inferred from the geologic literature. As such, all of the subsurface conditions may not be represented. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface materials encountered during the field investigation are presented on the Exploration Logs provided hi Appendix B of this report. The following paragraphs provide general descriptions of the encountered soil types. Topsoil Topsoil is the surficial soil material that mantles the ground, usually containing roots and other organic materials which supports vegetation. Topsoil observed in each of the test pits was approximately 1.0 to 2.0 feet thick and consisted of dark brown, poorly graded sand that was moist, loose and porous in consistency with minor amounts of organics (roots and rootlets). Marine Terrace Deposits C Qm) Terrace deposits were observed below the topsoil horizon. They generally consisted of reddish brown, poorly graded sand. The moisture content ranged from damp to very moist and the materials were medium dense to very dense in consistency. Well indurated sandstone and conglomerate were encountered approximately three feet below existing ground. These soils were difficult to excavate. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION General Conclusions Based on our investigation and evaluation of the collected information, we conclude that the proposed structural development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations contained in tthis report will be properly implemented during structural development. Based on the non-expansive nature of the granular near-surface soils, it is our opinion that the building pads may be constructed using the on-site materials. In order to provide a uniform support for the structures, overexcavation and recompaction of the structural portions of the building pads will be required. The foundations may consist of reinforced continuous footings with conventional reinforced slabs. Recommendations and criteria for foundation design are SFR Hoover Street * Limited Geotechnical Investigation * Carlsbad. CA * f8S8) 715-5800 * Proieq No. 00-080 * March 24.2000 3 of 12 contained in the Foundation and Slab Recommendations section of this report. Compressible Soils Our field observations and testing indicate low compressibility within the sedimentary bedrock that underlies the entire site. However, loose topsoil was typically encountered to a depth of approximately 2.0 feet below surface grades. In general, the surficial topsoil is compressible. Due to the potential for soil compression upon loading, remedial grading of these near-surface soils (including overexcavation and recompaction) will be required. Following implementation of the earthwork recommendations presented herein, the potential for soil compression resulting from the new development has been estimated to be low. The low- settlement assessment assumes a well-planned and maintained site drainage system. Recommendations regarding mitigation by earthwork construction are presented in the Grading and Earthwork Recommendations section of this report. Expansive Soils The underlying soils consisting of poorly graded sand exhibit a very low potential for expansion. An Expansion Index of zero was obtained from the soils sample tested. Groundwater Static groundwater was not encountered within the depths of our explorations. In general, it is anticipated that groundwater is generally greater than 100 feet below ground surface in the vicinity of the subject site. Seismic Design Criteria A review of the active fault maps pertaining to the site indicates the existence of the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone approximately seven (7) km west of the subject site. Ground shaking from this fault and the other major active faults in the region is the most likely event affecting the site. The proposed building should be designed in accordance with seismic design requirements of the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code or the Structural Engineers Association of California using the following criteria: Parameter Seismic Zone Factor, Z Soil Profile Type Seismic Coefficient, Ca Seismic Coefficient, Cv Near-Source Factor, Na Near-Source Factor, Nv Seismic Source Value 0.4 SD 0.44 0.70 1.0 1.1 B UBC Reference Table 16-1 Table 16-J Table 16-Q Table 16-R Table 16-S Table 16-T Table 16-U SFR Hoover Street * Limited Geotechoical Investigation * Carlsbad. CA * f858) 715-5800 * Project No. 00-080 * March 24.20004 of 12 Liquefaction Based on the absence of shallow groundwater and consistency of the underlying soils, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction is very low. Permanent Slopes Permanent cut and fill slopes are anticipated to be less than 5 feet in height and may be constructed at a maximum slope ratio of 2:1 ( nor. to vert.) to the heights indicated on the plans. Slopes constructed in such a manner are anticipated to be grossly stable. Due to the granular nature of the on-site soil materials, surficial erosion is a common problem. It is recommended that drought resistant vegetation be planted on the slope faces as soon as practical to enhance the stability of the slope surfaces. Temporary Slopes For the excavation of foundation or utility trenches, temporary vertical cuts to a maximum of 4 feet may be constructed in fill or natural soil. Any temporary cuts beyond the above height constraints should be shored or further laid back following a 1:1 ( hor. to vert ) slope ratio. OSHA guidelines for trench excavation safety should be implemented during construction. GRADING AJND EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS General Based upon our understanding of the preliminary plans and the information obtained during the field investigation, we anticipate that structures will be founded on continuous footings, which are supported entirely by properly compacted fill. The following grading and earthwork recommendations are based upon the limited geotechnical investigation performed, and should be verified during construction by our field representative. Clearing and Grubbing All areas to be graded or to receive fill and/or structures should be cleared of vegetation. Vegetation and the debris from the clearing operations should be properly disposed of off-site. The area should be thoroughly inspected for any possible buried objects, which need to be rerouted or removed prior to the inception of, or during grading. All holes, trenches, or pockets left by the removal of these objects should be properly backfilled with compacted fill materials* as recommended in the Method and Criteria of Compaction section of this report. Structural Improvement of Soils Information obtained from our field and laboratory analysis indicates that loose topsoil covers portions of the site to depths ranging from approximately 1.0 to 2.0 feet. These loose surficial soils are susceptible to settlement upon loading. Based upon the soil characteristics, we SFR Hoover Street * Limited Geotechnical Investigation * Carlsbad. CA * fSJfl715-5800 * Project No. 00080 * March 24.2000 recommend the following: * All topsoil or other loose natural soils should be completely removed as described herein from areas which are planned to receive compacted fills and/or structural improvements. The bottom of the removal area should expose competent materials as approved by TESD geotechnical representative. Prior to the placement of new fill, the bottom of the removal area should be scarified a minimum depth of at least 6 inches, moisture-conditioned from 0 to 2 percent above the optimum moisture content, and then recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D-1557 test method). * Overexcavation should be completed for the structural building pad to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the proposed footing or 3.0 feet below surface grade, whichever is greater. The limit of the required area of overexcavation should be extended a minimum of 5 feet laterally beyond the perimeter footing (building footprint). For non-structural areas, such as driveways, we recommend overexcavation to a minimum depth of 2 feet below existing grade or 1.5 feet below proposed subgrade, whichever is greater. * Soils utilized as fill should be moisture-conditioned and recompacted in conformance with the following Method and Criteria of Compaction section of this report. The depth and extent of any overexcavation and recompaction should be evaluated in the field by a representative of TESD. Transitions Between Cut and Fill Proposed structures are anticipated to be founded entirely in properly compacted fill. Cut to fill transitions below the proposed structures should be completely eliminated during the earthwork construction as required in the previous section. Method and Criteria of Compaction Compacted fills should consist of approved soil material, free of trash debris, roots, vegetation or other deleterious materials. Fill soils should be compacted by suitable compaction equipment in uniform loose lifts of 6 to 8 inches. Unless otherwise specified, all soils subjected to recompaction should be moisture-conditioned within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM test method D-1557. The on-site soils, after being processed to delete the aforementioned deleterious materials, may be used for recompaction purposes. Should any importation of fill be planned, the intended import source(s) should be evaluated and approved by TESD prior to delivery to the site. Care should be taken to ensure that these soils are not detrimentally expansive. SFR Hoovec Street * Limited Oeotecfanical Investigation * Carlsbad. CA * (8581715-5800 * Protect No. 00-080 * March 24.2000 6 Of 12 Placement of Oversized Rock All materials for capping the structural building pads should be free of rocks and debris in excess of 3-inch dimension. Select fill should extend a minimum of 5 feet laterally outside the structural footprint. Material up to 12-inch dimension may be placed between 3 and 10 feet from finish grades, but must remain at least 10 feet laterally from the face of permanent slopes and should also not be placed within the alignment of proposed utilities. Although we do not anticipate earthwork construction to create oversized material from 12 to 48 inches in dimension, if encountered, it may be placed in approved non-structural fill areas. The oversized material should be placed in windrows surrounded by granular fill. The rock windrows should be flooded with water to facilitate filling of voids. Care should be taken to avoid nesting of oversize rocks and no large rock should be placed within 10 feet of any slope face. The non-structural rockfill should be capped with a minimum 3 feet of fill containing no rocks greater than 6-inch dimension. Erosion and SUtation Due to the granular characteristics of the on-site soils, areas of recent grading or exposed ground may be subject to erosion. During construction, surface water should be controlled via berms, sandbags, station basins, positive surface grades, or other method to avoid damage to the finish work or adjoining properties. The contractor should take measures to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. After completion of grading, all excavated surfaces should exhibit positive drainage and eliminate areas where water might pond. Standard Grading Guidelines Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the standard-of-practice methods for this local, the guidelines of the current edition of the Uniform Building Code, and the requirements of the jurisdictional agency. Where the information provided in the geotechnical report differs from the Standard Grading Guidelines, the requirements outlined in the report shall govern. FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS General i The foundation design recommendations herein are "minimums" in keeping with the current standard-of-practice. They do not preclude more restrictive criteria of the governing agencies or structural considerations. The Structural Engineer should evaluate the foundation configurations and reinforcement requirements for structural loading, concrete shrinkage and temperature stresses. All design and site development criteria should conform to the minimum design requirements provided in the current edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). SFR Hoover Street * Limited Geotechnical Investigation * Carlsbad. CA * f858) 715-5800 * Project No. 00-080 * March 24.2000 7 Of 12 Conventional Foundations Conventional continuous footings are suitable for support of the planned residential building and garage. Footings for the structures should be founded entirely in properly compacted fill soil. The footing dimensions, reinforcement, and other structural criteria presented below are based on geotechnical considerations and are not intended to be in lieu of requirements of the Structural Engineer. Footing Dimensions Exterior footings for the single-story structure should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade and have a minimum width of 12 inches. Excavations should be trimmed "neat", square and level, with no loose debris prior to concrete placement. Interior footings should also be embedded a minimum of 12 inches at a minimum width of 12 inches. Reinforcement It is recommended that all exterior footings be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footing, one near the top and one near the bottom. Interior footings should be similarly reinforced with two No. 4 rebars. The above reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to supersede requirements of the structural engineer. Allowable Bearing Capacity A soil bearing pressure of 3500psf may be utilized for continuous footings founded in properly compacted fill. The soil bearing pressure may be increased by 400 and 250 psf for each additional 6 inch increment of depth and width respectively. For settlement considerations, the maximum allowable bearing capacity should not exceed 4,000 psf for footings constructed into compacted fill. Lateral Earth Resistance Lateral loads against foundations or retaining structures may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.40 may be utilized in the foundation design. Alternatively, an allowable passive earth pressure of 335psf7ft (335pcf EFP) may be used. The values for frictional and passive resistance incorporate a factor- of-safery equal to 1.5. In order to utilize the given values, footings must be poured "tight" against competent soils. Should frictional resistance and passive pressure be used conjunctively, the passive pressure value should be reduced by one-half. A one-third increase in the lateral resistance may be considered for transient loads (wind/seismic). SPR Hoover Street * Limited Qeotechnical Investigation * Carlsbad. CA * (8581715-5800 * Project No. 00080 * March 24.200Q Siabs-on-Grade Conventional interior slabs should be a net 4 inches thick. The slabs should be underlain by a moisture barrier consisting of a minimum of 2 inches of clean sand and 10-mil visqueen sheet. Moisture-sensitive slabs (with tile, linoleum or carpet coverings) should be farther underlain (below visqueen) by a minimum 2-inch thick layer of free-draining coarse sand, gravel or crushed rock. Reinforcement for the residential structure and garage should consist of a minimum of 6 X 6 - 10/10 welded wire fabric (WWF) or No. 3 rebar on 24-inch centers. Reinforcement should be located at or slightly above mid-height within the slab section. Reinforcement for actual loading conditions should be as required by the structural engineer. Settlement While subjected to structural loading, a differential settlement up to one-quarter inch should be anticipated, with corresponding total settlement up to one half-inch across the structural span. The values for structure adjustment assume that compressible topsoil is completely removed within the structural prism; and that proper surface drainage is implemented such that the subsoil moisture content is maintained relatively constant. Presaturation of Slab Subgrade Due to the granular nature of the surficial soils at this site, pre-soakmg of the subgrade prior to concrete placement is not required. However, it is recommended that subgrade soil in areas to receive concrete be watered prior to concrete placement. The intention of subgrade moistening is to mitigate any drying shrinkage, which may occur between the time of grading and slab construction. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS Retaining Walls Cantilevered retaining walls should be designed for an "active" lateral earth pressure of 38 psf/ft (38 pcf EFP) for approved granular backfill and level backfill conditions. Where cantilevered walls support 2:1 (honvert) sloping backfill, the equivalent active fluid pressure should be increased to 58 pcf. Cantilever walls subject to uniform surcharge loads should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-third (1/3) the anticipated surcharge pressure. Restrained walls should be designed utilizing an "at-rest" earth pressure of 58 psf/ft (58 pcf EFP) for approved granular and level backfill. Restrained walls subject to uniform surcharge loads should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-half (1/2) the anticipated surcharge. Retaining wall footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Retaining walls that are to be located near the top of slopes should be designed to allow a minimum daylight distance of 7 feet laterally from the outside edge of the footing to the slope SFR Hoover Street * Limited Geotechnical Investigation * Carlsbad. CA * (858) 715-5800 * Project No. 00-080 * March 24.2000 face. Soil design criteria, such as bearing capacity, passive earth pressure and sliding resistance as recommended under the Foundation and Slab Recommendations section, may be incorporated into the retaining wall design. The design and location of retaining walls should be reviewed by SAGE for conformance with our recommendations. Footings should be reinforced as recommended by the structural engineer and appropriate back drainage provided to avoid excessive hydrostatic wall pressures. As a minimum we recommend a fabric-wrapped crushed rock and perforated pipe system. At least 2 cubic feet per linear foot of free-drainage crushed rock should be provided. The remaining wall backfill should consist of approved granular material. This fill material should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as determined by ASTM D-1557 test method. Flooding or jetting of backfill should not be permitted. Granular backfill should be capped with 18 inches (minimum) of relatively impervious fill to seal the backfill and prevent saturation. It should be noted that the use of heavy compaction equipment in close proximity to retaining structures can result in wall pressures exceeding design values and corresponding wall movement greater than that associated with active or at-rest conditions. In this regard, the contractor should take appropriate precautions during the backfill placement. Pavements The following presents preliminary recommendations for flexible asphalt and rigid concrete pavements. The pavement section requirements have been prepared based on our evaluation of the on-site soils and standard pavement design procedures. The recommendations are not intended to supersede stricter requirements posed by the jurisdictional agency. Asphalt Pavements (AC) It is recommended that the constructed pavement subgrade should be evaluated and tested prior to asphalt placement in order to verify (he assumed R-value and/or modify the design sections presented. The R-value of the on-site soils is estimated to be 50 for sandy soil excavated from the decomposed bedrock. Based on an R-value of 50, we offer the following preliminary pavement design sections. The actual design and adoption relative to allowable road gradients should be developed by the >civil designer based on jurisdictional requirements. Traffic Index Recommended Pavement Section Comments 4.5 3.0" AC on 4.0" Class 2 AB Driveway The subgrade soils for the proposed driveway should be scarified to a minimuni depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned within 2 percent of optimum, and recompacted to at least 95 percent SFR Hoover Street * Limited Geotechnical Investigation * Carlsbad. CA * (858) 715-5800 * Protect No. OfM)80 * March 24.2000 10 Of 12 of the Maximum Dry Density per ASTM D-1557. The aggregate base should also be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM 1557) and should be in conformance with the materials criteria as set forth in Section 26 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications, 1994 Edition. Concrete Pavements (PCC) Where rigid concrete pavements are planned to support light vehicular traffic, the following minimum sections are recommended: Traffic Index Recommended Pavement Section Comments 4.5 6.0" PCC on Compacted Subgrade Driveway Compaction of the subgrade soil should be conducted as specified for Asphalt Pavements, above. PCC Pavement should be minimum 3,500 psi concrete. It is recommended that steel reinforcement be provided for PCC pavements, which will sustain heavy impact loading, such as fire trucks. As a minimum for such slabs, we recommend number 3 deformed rebar placed on 24-inch centers each way. Placement of concrete, control/expansion joints, and any reinforcement should be in conformance with ACI specifications and the Structural Engineer's design. Trench Backfffl Trench excavations for utility Ones, which extend under structural areas should be properly backfilled and compacted. Utilities should be properly bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least 1-foot over the pipe. This backfill should be uniformly watered and compacted to a firm condition for both vertical and lateral pipe supports. The remainder of the backfill may be typical on-site soil or low-expansive import which should be placed near optimum moisture content in lifts not exceeding 8 niches in thickness and mechanically compacted to a least 90 percent relative compaction. Surface Drainage Irrigation and drainage at this site should be designed to maintain the current subsurface moisture regime in a state of relative natural equilibrium. Drainage in hardscape areas adjacent to structures should be designed to collect and direct surface waters away from the proposed structures at a recommended minimum gradient of 1 percent. The drainage should be directed to approved drainage facilities. > i For earth areas, positive drainage with a minimum gradient of 5 percent away from all structures should be provided and maintained for a distance of at least 5 feet to reduce saturation of foundation soils. Earth swales should have a minimum gradient of 2 percent should be directed toward approved drainage receptors. Drainage patterns approved at the time of grading should be maintained throughout the life of the development. Foundation Review SFR Hoover Street * Linuted Geotechmcal Imesfoaflon * C^^- Foundation excavations should be reviewed by SAGE prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement, or concrete for coafbrmance with the intentions of this investigation. CLOSURE Limits of Investigation Our investigation was performed using the skill and degree of care ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This report is prepared for the sole use of our client and may not be assigned to others without the written consent of the client and SAGE Engineering, Inc. The samples taken and used for testing, and the observations made, are believed representative of site conditions; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between test pits and surface exposures. As in most major projects, conditions revealed by construction excavations may vary with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by a representative of SAGE and designs adjusted as required or alternate designs recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the project architect and engineer. Appropriate recommendations should be incorporated into the structural plans. The necessary steps should be taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The findings of this report are valid as of this present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should be updated after a period of three years. Additional Services The review of plans and specifications, field observations and testing under our direction is an integral part of the recommendations made in this report. If Testing Engineers-San Diego is not retained for these services, the client agrees to assume our responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during construction. Observation and testing are additional services, which are provided by our firm, and should be budgeted within the cost of development. ******************** Testing Engineers-San Diego, Inc. SFR Hoover Street * Limited Geotechnical Investigation * Carlsbad. CA * f858) 715-3800 * Project No. 00-080 * March 24.2000 12 Of 12 Testing Engineers-San Diego, Inc. a *B\rf *fft* <Vr I J "t 'a«yjLa«^,a VW- ^^£3\*;j\ '.« ~bi' \*;\ %••- ^aw"- ,^ •X-?iEA-«rJMU-A--43fr,- N Scale: 1' = 1,000" Project Name: SFR Hoover Street Geotechnical investigation Carlsbad, CA SITE LOCATION MAP - Figure 1 Project No.: 2000-080 Date: March 2000 I I REFERENCES 1. Bonilla, M.G., 1970, Surface Faulting and Related Effects, in Wiegel. R. L., Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p. 47-74. 2. Bowles, I.E., 1977, Foundation Analysis and Design: New York, NY, McGraw-Hill, 750 p. 3. Hunt, R.E., 1986, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Manual, New York, NY, McGraw-Hill, 983 p. 4. Hunt, R.E., 1984, Geotechnical Engineering Techniques and Practices, New York, NY, McGraw-Hill, 729 p. 5. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of Mines and Geology, Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000. 6. Kennedy, M.P. and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California. 1975, California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200. 7. Uniform Building Code. 1997 Edition: Whittier, CA, International Conference of Building Officials, 3 Volumes. 8. Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, pp. 2587-2631. 9. Winterkorn, H.F., and Fang, H.Y., 1976, Foundation Engineering Handbook: New York, NY, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 751 p. GENERAL NOTES SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION The Unified Soil Classification System is used to identify the soil unless otherwise noted. SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS N: Standard "N" penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D. split-spoon. Qu: Unconfined compressive strength, tsf. Qp: Penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, tsf. Me: Water content, %. Liquid limit, %, Plasticity index, %. LL: PI: DP: Natural dry density, PCF. V :Apparent groundwater level at time noted after completion. DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS CAL: Modified California Sampler - 2 5/8" I.D., 3.0" O.D., except where noted. SS: Split-Spoon -1 3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., except where noted. ST: Shelby Tuhe - 3" O.D., except where noted. AU: Auger Sample. DB: Diamond Bit. CB: Carbide Bit. WS: Washed Sample. RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION TERM (NON-COHESIVE SOILS) (SPT) Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense TERM (COHESIVE SOILS) Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE Oto4 4 to 10 11 to 30 31 to 50 Over 50 SPT QU - (TSF) Oto2 2to4 4to8 8 to 16 16 to 32 Over 32 0 -0.25 0.25-0.50 0.50 -1.00 1.00-2.00 2.00-4.00 4.00+ PARTICLE SIZE Boulders Sin. + Coarse Sand 5mm-0.6mm Silt 0.074 mm-0.005mm Cobbles 8 in -3.in Medium Sand 0.6mm-0.2mm Clay - 0.005mm Gravel 3 in -5mm Fine Sand 0.2mm-0.074mm Testing Engineers-Sail Diego, Inc. LOG OF TEST PIT PROJECT NAME: DATE OBSERVED: LOGGED BY: SFR Hoover Street 3/1/00 MSD GROUND ELEVATION; PROJECT NO: 2000-080 METHOD OF EXCAVATION: LOCATION: See Map DEPTH (FEED CLASS UNO SAMPLE ' BULK SAMPLE MOIST. CONT.DD TEST PIT NO.: XEJ. DESCRIPTION SOIL TEST 10 SM 15.1 9.5 Topsnil: Dark brown silty sand, very moist, loose, fine grained, rootlets. @ 2.0' Pnrmarinn: Terrace deposits consisting of brown to dark brown sandstone, -very dense, moist. 117.7 Terminated @ 7.0' No Groundwater No Caving Backfilled on 3/1/00 LOGGED BY: MSD GROUND ELEVATION:LOCATION: See Map TEST PIT NO.: TP-2 10 15 SM 14.5 12.0 Tnpsoit: Dark brown silty sand, very moist, loose, fine grained, rootlets. @ 1.0' Pnrmatintr Dark brown to reddich brown sandstone, moist, medium dense to dense. Terminated @ 6.0' No Gioundwater No Caving Backfilled om 3/1/00 Testing Engineers-San Diego, Inc. LOG OF TEST PIT PROJECT NAME: SFR Hoover Street PROTECT NO-. 2000-OSO DATE OBSERVED: 3/1/00 METHOD OF EXCAVATION: LOGGED BY: MSD GROUND ELEVATION; LOCATION: See Map DEPTH (FEET) 5 10 ' CLASS SM N UNO SAMPLE BULK SAMPLE MOIST. CONT.DD TEST PIT NO.; TE^ DESCRIPTION Tnpsnil- Dark brown silty sand, very moist, loose, fine grained, rootlets. @ 1.0' Formation: Reddish brown sandstone, moist, medium dense to dense, becomes drier below 2 - 3 feet. Terminated @ 7.0' No Groundwater ' No Caving Backfilled on 3/1/00' SOIL TEST LOGGED BY: MSD GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION: See Map TEST PIT NO.: IE=4 5 10 r_ - 15 SM GP X 10.1 10.3 SM TopsniT: Dark brown silty sand, very moist, loose, fine grained, rootlets. ® 1.0' Formation: Reddish brovm sandstone, moist medium dense to dense, becomes drier below 2-3feet. @ 6.0* conglomerat layer about six inches thick. Terminated @ 8.0' No Groundwater No Caving Backfilled om 3/1/00 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory Testing Program Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to determine their relative engineering properties. Tests were performed in accordance with test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples in accordance with ASTM D-2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Logs, Appendix B. Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of selected samples was determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557, Method A. The test results are provided in the following tables. Particle Size Analysis Particle size analyses were performed on selected representative samples in accordance with ASTM D-422, The results are provided in the following table. Expansion Index Expansion Index tests were performed on representative samples of the near-surface soils. Samples were remolded and surcharged to 144 pounds per square foot in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard No. 18-2. The test results are summarized in the following tables. Direct Shear In order to determine the fill soil bearing capacity, a direct shear test was performed on a soil sample remolded to 90 percent relative compaction in accordance to ASTM D 3080. The test results are provided in the following tables. SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS RESULTS OF MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST (ASTMD-1557) . TP-1 @ 2-4' TP-2© 1-3' 133.0 pcf 132.0 pcf 8.5% 9.5% RESULTS OF PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTMD-422) 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 RESULTS OF EXPANSION INDEX TESTS (UBCNO. 18-2) TP-4© 0-2'0 (very low) TESTING ENGINEERS • SAN DIEGO TESDJOBNO: CLIENT: 00-OBO BRIDGE MOTOR INN DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA TESD LAB NO.: PROJECT: SAMPLE LOCATION: SOIL TYPE: 64028 SFR HOOVER STREET SILTY SAND JRJCOMP ACTED TO 90« MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY @ OPTIMUM MOISTURE) cI JheiryOfnd Sheir t-W.AJDATA 0.00 y-0.74Mx +0,1488 H'-QJSW DIRECT SHEAR GRAPH J.M 2.50 NORMAL PRESSURE 3.H CALCULATED DATA INITIAL, aftir consolldatian/saturatlan WETDENSTTY DRY DENSITY MOISTURE pcf pcf COMPRESSION^) or EXPANSION (+) % FINAL, at Mure WET DENSITY DRY DENSITY MOISTURE pcfper% COMPRESSION^) or EXPANSION (+) % NORMAL PRESSURE SHEAR STRENGTH ksf 129.7 117.0 10.9% 1.1% 1317 115.9 14.5% 2.0% 1.04 1.04 131.8nae 11.2% -1.4% 134.8 117,4 14.9% .0.3% 2.06 1.78 126,9 115.4 10.0% 1.9% 132.1 114.9 15.0% 2.3% 4.06 3.30 FRICTION ANGLE'36.9COHESfON =0.25 tef 03^4/2000 GENERAL NOTES SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION The Unified Soil Classification System is used to identify the soil unless otherwise noted. SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS .. •_ - • - N: Standard "N" penetration; Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D. split-spoon. Qu; Unconfined compressive strength, tsf. Qp; Penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, tsf. Me: Water content, %. LL; Liquid limit, %. PI: Plasticity index, %. DD: Natural dry density, PCF. V : Apparent groundwater level at time noted after completion. DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS CAL: Modified California Sampler - 2 5/8" I.D., 3.0" O.D., except where noted. SS: Split-Spoon -1 3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., except where noted. ST: Shelby Tube - 3" O.D., except where noted. AU: Auger Sample. DB: Diamond Bit. CB: Carbide Bit, WS: Washed Sample. ..-.,.. RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION TERM (NON-COHESIVE SOILS) STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE (SPT) Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense TERM (COHESIVE SQILS1 Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard Oto4 4 to 10 11 to 30 31 to 50 Over 50 SPT ou - rrsF) Oto2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 16 16 to 32 Over 32 0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.50 0.50-1.00 1.00-2.00 2.00-4.00 4.00+ PARTICLE SIZE Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sin. + 8 in -3.in 3 in -5mm Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand 5mm-0.6mm Silt 0.6mm-0.2mm Clay 0.2mm-0.074mm 0.074 mm-0.005mm 0.005mm isgo: a- >Hi- a: CO K. Wt a: LU fc <r ^^^?; 0 > es, i