HomeMy WebLinkAbout1381 PUFFIN PL; ; CB961906; PermitJ.ected & Credits I ,.' -----------------------
di-4c:
it
00
631.80.
991.20
Ext fee Data --------------
972.00
632.00
191100
1623.00
B U I L D I N G PE R 11 I T Permit. No: CB961906
12/02/96 10:36 Project No; A94006
Page 1 of 1 . Development No: DEV89028
Job Address: LL *i?L .. Suite:
Permit Type: RETAINING WALL 1281 i2/02/96 0001 01 02 Parcel No: 24 u-uu Lot#: C_PRMT 99120
Valuation: 194,400 Construction Type: NEW
Occupancy Group: Ref erence#: Status: ISSUED
Description: 14,400 SF RETAIN WALLS-VARIOUS Applied: 10/03/96
LOCATIONS-SEA COUNTRY HOMES,CT94-3, Apr/Issue: 12/02/96
Entered By: RHA
Appl/Ownr : SEA COUNTRY.HOMES 714 452-1181
95 ARGONAUT, STE 21.0.
ALISO VIEJO -CA 92656
.** Fees Required ** F ez CZP ----------------------------
-F; - ,623 0
Adjustments: .OU Tota
Total, Fees: 16f'3. 0 Tot
an
Fee description its
Building Permit (
TOTAL
Plan Check
Strong Motion Fee
BUILDING (Q9
INCORPORATED
1952
-
F1 AL APPROVAL
INS DATE
,CLEARANCE _-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-1161
c o;9
PERMiT APPLICATION --"
City of Carlsbad Building Department 004 0
2075 Las Patinas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-1161
I. PERMiT TYPE
From List I (see back) give code of Permit-Type:
---------------------------------------------------------
For Residential Projects Only: From List 2 (see back) give
Code of Structure-Type:
Net Loss/Gain of Dwelling Units
PLAN CHECK NO. q1 j q ô
c7-qtf -O-?
q 9 11,777 p2'4
2. PRQJEC INFORMATION - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Address Building or Suite No. 0151. 10/03/96 001 01 02
Nearest Cross Street Ct C.— (:C) C-T 631.80
I'
02 Energy Calcs 2 Structural Calcs 02 Soils Report DI Addressed Envelope
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL L. — b (? LU EXIS'flNG USE PROPQS
DESCRIPTION OF WORK SerX .. kM,40C) pP
SQ. Fr. # OF STORIES .) # OF BEDROOMS # OF BATHR(MS
s. WN IALd Pi.HiN 1,11 thiferent from applicant)
NAME (last.name first) ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP CODE DAY TELEPHONE
4. APPLICANT U WNTHACIUR
NAME (last name first)
Li AGENI kOR WNL1AC1DR U OWNER
ADDRESS
U AGENt FOR OWNER
cnv A\so STATE C) ZIP CODE DAY TELEPHONL.71'I) 15z
. PItUPItKIT UWNIK '.J.
NAME (last name first)()/Sell,S
,43
12 ADDRESS Ar3oL-
CITY 4 U e..\0 STATE c_9,- ZIP CODE ' Z6:5716 DAY TELEPHONE (7i '4 i-/,r/ ix (7,s')4VSc_
J._Ji I lilt'... I'.JIt
NAME (last name first)S ADDRESS 2S- S u#t 2 t)
CITY 0 o STATEA ZIP CODE 26 Slo DAY TELEPHONE (71 40 'i — /111
STATE LIC. #7I92IL1 LICENSE CLASS 8 CITY BUSINESS LIC. #
DESIGNER NAME (last name first) ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP CODE DAY TELEPHONE STATE LIC. #
7. WORKERS' WMPENSAI1ON
Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm that I have a certificate of consent to self-insure issued by the Director of Industrial
Relations, or a certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance by an admitted insurer, or an exact copy or duplicate thereof certified
by the Director of the insurer thereof filed with the Building Inspection Department (Section 3800, Lab. Q.
INSURANCE COMPANY &C41... POLICY NO.! Y6 2./6—gxP1RA11ON DATE 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.
SIGNATURE DATE
S. OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION
Owner-ISuilcier Declaration: I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's Ucense Law for the following reason: E3 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.).
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). o I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason:
(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 Is requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contract - s w (Chapter 9, commencing with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he is exempt th , d the be is for the Ileged exempti n. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit
subjects the applicant a - nalty of t ore fi e dollars [$5001).
SIGNATURE DATE / 2.. 4
Is the applicant or f5ture 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?
DYES ONO
Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district?
DYES [3 NO
Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site?
DYES 13 NO
IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED AFrER JULY 1, 1989 UNLESS THE APPLICANT
HAS MEF OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIS'IlUCf.
9. WN5IRUC31ON LENDING AGENCY
purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CI1Y OF CARlSBAD AGAINST ALL UABfl flESJU)GMENTS CX)S1'S
AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF ThiS PERMIT.
0511k 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 Of q4e.the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the
pe building or work authorized by such rmit is n Co in 3 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by
such permit is suspended or abandoned at an ti
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE v ,
,.P. 180 days (Section 303(d) Uniform
A -2... 1(. form Building Code).
0
Inspection List
Permit#: CB961906 Type: RETAIN 14,400 SF RETAIN WALLS-VARIOUS
LOCATIONS-SEA COUNTRY HOMES,CT94
Date Inspection Item Inspector Act Comments
2/2/98 66 Grout NE AP
1/28/98 66 Grout NF AP GROUT WALL #34
1/27/98 63 Walls NE CO WALL #34
1/26/98 63 Walls NE AP GROUT WALL #34 TO 4FT
1/23/98 61 Footing NF AP
1/15/98 66 Grout NE AP WALL 33 OK TO GROUT TO F
1/14/98 63 Walls NE CO
1/13/98 61 Footing NE AP
1/9/98 61 Footing NE CO
1/9/98 63 Walls NF WC
6/30/97 66 Grout PY AP WALL 30
6/27/97 66 Grout PY NS
6/26/97 66 Grout PY AP WALLS 32,30,29,28
6/24/97 66 Grout PY AP WALLS 29,30,31
6/23/97 61 Footing PY AP WALL 30
5/14/97 66 Grout PY AP WALL 2 & 12
5/9/97 61 Footing TP AP FTN WALL #12
5/9/97 66 Grout TP AP 1ST LIFT WALL # 31
5/5/97 61 Footing TP AP WALL 12
5/5/97 66 Grout TP AP WALL 31,1ST LIFT
4/25/97 61 Footing PY AP WALL 31
4/23/97 66 Grout PY AP WALL 2 1ST LIFT
4/17/97 61 Footing PY AP WALL #2
4/17/97 66 Grout PY AP 10&11 AND 2ND LIFT ON 17
4/15/97 66 Grout PY AP WALL 17
4/14/97 66 Grout PY NR
4/11/97 61 Footing PY AP WALL 10 & 11
4/9/97 61 Footing PY AP WALL 17
4/8/97 66 Grout PY AP WALLS 13,21,30
4/3/97 66 Grout PY AP WALL 19 2ND LIFT
4/3/97 66 Grout PY AP WALL 13 1ST LIFT
4/3/97 66 Grout PY AP WALL 30 1ST LIFT
4/1/97 61 Footing PY AP WALL 17 PARTIAL
4/1/97 66 Grout PY AP WALLS 21,19,1
3/27/97 61 Footing PY AP FTG WALL 13 & 30
3/25/97 61 Footing PY AP WALL #3
3/21/97 61 Footing PY AP WALLS 19 & 21
2/25/97 66 Grout PY AP WALL 4
2/19/97 66 Grout PY AP WALL 4 & 24
2/13/97 61 Footing PY AP WALL 24
2/13/97 66 Grout PY AP BLACKRAIL/WALL 25 A & 3
2/7/97 61 Footing PY AP 25 A & B & WALL 4 FTGS
2/5/97 66 Grout PY AP WALL 260K TO GROUT
2/4/97 66 Grout PY AP WALL 15 & 2ND LIFT @ 14
Thursday, March 04, 1999 Page 1 of 2
1,/31i7 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers PY AP
1/22/97 61 Footing PY AP
1/22/97 66 Grout PY AP
1/8/97 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers PY AP
1/6/97 66 Grout PD AP
12/30/96 66 Grout TP NR
12/19/96 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers PY AP
12/18/96 66 Grout PY AP
12/9/96 61 Footing PY PA
12/6/96 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers PY NR
WALL 26
WALL 15
WALLS 8 & 140K TO GROUT
WALLS 8 & 14
WALLS 6 & 7
UTL
WALL #7 AND #6
WALL #7
WALL #7
Thursday, March 04, 1999 Page 2 of 2
I -' - -_.-_I. ¶• - - I -• - '. . t .-%_ .. -.
. . -
-'
• 1
EsGil COrporation
ofessioia(P(an Review Engineers
DATE: November 21, 1996
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
-- -• -
,••.. • • -
-
O ICANT
JURIS' 0 FIRE
O PLAN REVIEWER
0 FILE
PLAN CHECK NO: 96-1906 SET: II
PROJECT ADDRESS: ?
PROJECT NAME: Retaining Walls
The plans transmitted herewith' have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply
with thd jurisdiction's building codes.
The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's ********** codes
when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff.
LI The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list
and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
F-1 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:
Date contacted: (by: ) Telephone #:
REMARKS:
By: Kurt Culver Enclosures:
Esgil Corporation
0 GA 0 CM 0 EJ 0 PC log trnsmtl.dot •
9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (619) 560-1468 • Fax (619) 560-1576
EsGil Corporation
Trofessiona(P1'an Review Engineen
DATE: October 18, 1996 0 APPLICANT
J(Ji1 0 FIRE
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad 0 PLAN REVIEWER
0 FILE
PLAN CHECK NO.: 96-1906 SET: I
PROJECT ADDRESS: ?
PROJECT NAME: Retaining Walls
The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply
with the jurisdiction's codes.
The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's ********** 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:
Sea Country Homes 95 Argonaut, Suite 210
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
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:
Date contacted: (by: ) Telephone #:
LII REMARKS:
By: Kurt Culver Enclosures:
Esgil Corporation
0 GA 0 CM 0 EJ 0 PC 10/7/96 tmsmtl.dot
9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (619) 560-1468 • Fax (619) 560-1576
Carlsbad 96-1906
October 18, 1996
GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
PROJECT ADDRESS: ?
DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY
ESGIL CORPORATION: 10/7/96
REVIEWED BY: Kurt Culver
PLAN CHECK NO.: 96-1906
DATE REVIEW COMPLETED:
October 18, 1996
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,
1994 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 and submit two new sets of prints to:
ESGIL CORPORATION.
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?
DYes L3 No
The plans don't show the #6 bars, as specified on sheet 3 of the calculations. Please
clarify.
5; The soils report allows a lower passive pressure value than used in the calculations
(even with the addendum). Please clarify.
ar1bad 96-1906
Otober 18, 1996
The soils report requires a reduction if the calculations combine passive and friction
values. This doesn't seem to have been done.
The friction value used in the calculations is higher than given in the soils report. Please
clarify.
On pages 10 and 11 of the calculations, the critical condition isn't the vertical load from
the high wall. Rather, since the high wall is retaining, the horizontal force from the high
wall will be felt by the lower wall.
Provide an addendum from the soils engineer, specifically addressing the "distance-to-
daylight" dimension shown on the plans for the retaining wall footings resisting lateral
loads.
Provide a letter from the soils engineer, indicating that they have reviewed the plans for
the retaining walls and find that the plans are consistent with the recommendations of the
report (as required by the soils report).
The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake
Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 619/560-1468, to
perform the plan, review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan
review items, please contact Kurt Culver at Esgil Corporation. Thank you.
Carlsbad 96-1906
October 18, 1996
VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 96-1906
PREPARED BY: Kurt Culver DATE: October 18, 1996
BUILDING ADDRESS:?
BUILDING OCCUPANCY: Misc. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Mas.
BUILDING PORTION BUILDING AREA
(ft.2)
VALUATION
MULTIPLIER
VALUE
($)
Ret. Walls —14,400 194,400
Air Conditioning
Fire Sprinklers
TOTAL VALUE 194,400
1991 UBC Building Permit Fee 0 Bldg. Permit Fee by ordinance: $ 972.00
1991 UBC Plan Check Fee 0 Plan Check Fee by ordinance: $ 631.80
Type of Review: Complete Review Q Structural Only 0 Hourly
0 Repetitive Fee Applicable O Other:
Esgil Plan Review Fee: $ 505.44
Comments:
Fire Services Review: 0 Complete Review J Suppression System
0 Fire Alarm 0 Other:
Esgil Fire Services Review Fee:
Comments:
Sheet I of I
macvalue.doc 5196
City of Carlsbad
iT4012t1ji•[. ffiT.'kU
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
RETAINING WALL
BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER: _CB
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.
By72 4Date a
Date:_____
By:__ Date:_________
By: Date:__________
DENIAL
Please see the a tached report of deficiencies
marked with ^Make necessary corrections to
plans or s4cifications for compliance with
applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected
plans and/or specifications to this office for
review.
ATTACHMENTS ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON
0 Right of Way Permit Application NAME: MICHELE MASTERSON
City of Carlsbad
ADDRESS:2075 Las Palmas Drive
PHONE: (619) 438-1161, Ext. 4315
P:DOCSCHKLSTWAU. REV 04118196
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (61 9)438-0894
P1111 nmirz DI ANtI.1f'I( fU('VI IT - 9ICTAIRIMM2 %AIAI I C
SITE PLAN
3rdV c1/'
1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: . - ,
OL C. Property Lines
D. Easements
j44y-J4-
E. Retaining wall (location and height)
41C/
North Arrow
Existing & Proposed Structures
(dimensioned from Street)
2. Show on site plan:
Drainage Patterns
Existing & Proposed Slopes
Existing Topography ... 3. Include on title sheet
Site address
Assessor's Parcel Number
Legal Description
Grading Quantities Cut Fill Import/Export_______
(Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required) U..-. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for
Project No.
Conditions were complied with by: Date:__________________
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS
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 permit issued by the Engineering Department is required
for the following:
Please complete attached Right-of-Way application form and return to the
Engineering Department together with the requirements on the attached Right-of-
Way checklist,, at the time of resubmittal.
P:DOCSCHKLSTWALL Page 1 REV 04118196
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST
Plan Check No. CB 14 /t' b Address
Planner 1_-I?1k' 61',tdcJ Phone (619) 438-1161, extension
APN:
Type of Project and Use: /i,2 ) f ° Zone: Facilities Management Zne: /
CFD1but) it p - o 'Circle One (If property in, compfete SPECIAL TAX CALCULATION WORKSHEET provided by Building
Department.)
Legend
cc cc Z . Item Complete
Item Incomplete - Needs your action
LI LI Environmental Review Required: YES V"NO TYPE
DATE OF COMPLETION:
Compliance with conditions of If not, state conditions which require action.
Conditions of Approval -
E4' LI Discretionary Action Required: YES NO TYPE
APPROVAL/RESO. NO. 35 DATE '7-3
—
PROJECTNO. IP JO43
OTHER RELATED CASES:
Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action.
Conditions of Approval ,i// ,f
EZE] LI Coastal. ZonèAssessmeflt/Compliance
Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES V"NO____
If NO, proceed with checklist; if YES, proceed below.
Determine status (Exempt or Coastal Permit Required):
If Exempt, proceed with checklist; if Coastal Permit required, hold building permit until Coastal
Permit issued.
Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed? YES NO____ If NO, complete Coastal Permit Determination Form now.
Coastal Permit Determination Log #:
Follow-Up Actions: 4_7~1.4 zi-A." A!7 ? _-;zz
Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum
Floor Plans).
Attach completed Coastal Permit Determination Form to this Checklist.
Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed.
Inclusionary Housing Fee required: YES NO
(Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21, 1993.)
Site Plan:
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.
I1"L1 D 2. Provide legal 'description of property and assessor's parcel number.
Zoning:
IZ1 fl 1. Setbacks:
Front: Required Shown
Int. Side: Required Shown
Street Side: Required Shown
Rear: Required Shown
E E 2. Lot Coverage: Required Shown
3. Height: Required Shown
4. Parking: Spaces Required Shown
Guest Spaces Required Shown
fl . Additional Comments_____________________________________________________
OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER DATE i/jc'Z7 I
. Geotechnics
Incorporated
Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. lmbriglio
W. Lee Vanderhurst
March 29, 1996
(Revised August 19, 1996)
Sea Country Homes, Inc. . Project No. 0289-001-00
95 Argonaut, Suite 210 Doc. #6-0087
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Attention: Mr. James R. Devlin
SUBJECT: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND UPDATE
Aviara Planning Area 15
Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
The following report presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the geotechnical
investigation of the previously graded subject site. In general, our findings indicate that the
alluvium within the site is generally wet and dense, and has a low potential for collapse. There
were no unusual or special geotechnical conditions apparent in our investigation which would
preclude the construction as planned. Proposed grading will create local areas of transitions
between cut and fill that should be treated to reduce the potential for differential settlement. A
fill proposed for the southeast corner of the site will create a surcharge on the underlying
alluvium. Construction in that area may be subject to some delay while consolidation occurs in
the alluvium.
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate existing conditions at the site as they relate to
the proposed residential construction, and to make recommendations regarding foundation design
parameters and site preparation. The recommendations contained herein are based on a surface
reconnaissance, laboratory testing, and professional experience in the general, site area. Design
values may include presumptive parameters based on professional judgement. Our scope of
work was limited to:
9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B • San Diego California • 92131
Phone (619) 536.1000 • Fax (619) 536-8311
..--- ,_•
Sea Country Homes, Inc. Project No. 0289-001-00
March 29, 1996 (Revised August 19, 1996) Doc. #6-0087
Page 2
1.1 A review of the available geotechnical reports and geologic literature, site
development plans, and aerial photographs of the site and immediate vicinity. A 40-scale
map of the site "Substantial Conformance Exhibit 'A", prepared by Lundstrom and
Associates was used as a base map for Plate 1, Geotechnical Map.
1.2 A geologic-reconnaissance of the surface characteristics of the site.
1.3 A subsurface investigation consisting of the drilling of two exploratory borings with an
o eight inch diameter flight auger. The subsurface investigation focused on characterizing
the behavior of the alluvium left in place beneath the fill.
1.4 Laboratory testing of samples collected in the field in order to assess the
compressibility and collapse potential of the alluvium.
1.5 Engineering analysis of field and laboratory data in order to develop our conclusions
and recommendations.
1.6 Preparation of this report as well as subsequent reviews of foundation and grading
plans.
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site consists of Aviara Planning Area 15, located in Carlsbad, California. Planning
Area 15 was graded between April 20 and November 15, 1989 as a portion of Unit E of the
Aviara Development. Our reconnaissance of February 6, 1996 indicated that the site appears to
be at the same grade as originally constructed. The site consists of a rough graded pad bound
on west and south by 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) descending fill slopes, to the east by natural,
ascending slopes, and to the north by composite ascending natural and cut slopes. Surface
drainage is by sheet flow and concrete lined ditch southward into a large desilting basin. The pad
is accessed by Black Rail Court. The site configuration is presented in the Geotechnical Map,
Plate 1.
The pad has undergone erosion since grading in 1989. A prominent north-south trending erosion
gully up to 6-feet deep is present in the center of the pad. The main gully has several tributary
drainages. The gully empties into the desilting basin. -
Geotechnics Incorporated
Sea Country Homes, Inc. Project No. 0289-001-00
March 29, 1996 (Revised August 19, 1996) Doc. #6-0087
Page 3
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development will consist of 16 multifamily, single- and two-story buildings will be
built on fine graded pads. There will be between 3 and 4 units per structure. Paved streets will
provide access. Gradin,g will consist generally of cuts in the southern portion of the site and filling
the northern portion to create level pads for the buildings. Slopes up to 25 feet high are proposed
at inclinations of 2:1.
4.0 dEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
Based on our investigation and literature review, the site is underlain by fill, alluvium, Torrey
Sandstone, and Ardath Shale. The approximate extent of each of these units has been
delineated previously on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps, which have been adapted for use
in this report as the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. The estimated subsurface conditions of the
southern portion of the site are shown on Figure 1, Cross Section A-A'. A description of the
specific units observed during drilling follows.
4.1 Torrey Sandstone (TO
The site is underlain at depth by Torrey Sandstone materials. The formational material,
as observed on site, consists of a light yellow brown, fine to medium grained, poorly
graded sandstone with silt (SP-SM) which is dry to moist, and dense. This material is
nonplastic, and exhibits little or no expansive potential.
4.2 Ardath Shale (Ta)
The Ardath Shale is exposed in the northeast corner of the site and consists of sandy to
silty claystone and siltstone. Grading for access roads and erosion debris have covered
this formation. During the original grading of the site and in other locations within the
Aviara subdivision, the Ardath Shale was found to be moderately to highly expansive. The
expansive soil conditions created by the Ardath Shale will only affect Units 1-3.
- Ccotecliiiics Incorporated
Sea Country Homes, Inc. Project No. 0289-001-00 March 29, 1996 (Revised August 19, 1996) Doc. #6-0087
Page 4
4.3 4.3.1 Alluvium (Qal)
During grading of PA 15 in, 1989, loose dry alluvium was removed to moist dense soil prior
to placement of fill. Alluvium was encountered immediately overlying the Torrey
Sandstone in.both exploratory borings (Plate 1). Alluvium materials, as observed on site,
typically consist of a light.brown silty sand (SM) or a sand with silt (SP-SM) which is moist
to very moist, and medium dense.
4.4 Fill
Fill material was encountered in both borings to a depth of up to 37 feet. The composition
of the fill material varied from a fine to medium grained silty to a clayey sand (SM to SC).
The fill was moist, medium dense, and had a low plasticity. Observation and testing of
fill placement was conducted by ICG, Inc. and reported in 1990 (References).
4.5 Groundwater and Seepage
No seepage or groundwater was observed during our investigation. However,
groundwater may become perched at any elevation within the soils due to poor surface
drainage, irrigation, seasonal rainfall, or a combination of these factors. Based on our
observations, it is likely that groundwater could become perched at the interface which
exists between the alluvium and the Torrey Sandstone. This should not, however, affect
the proposed development.
5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND SEISMICITY
5.1 Geologic Hazards
The subject site is not located within an area previously known for geologic hazards, nor
was evidence of past faulting noted in our investigation.
5.2 Seismicity and Faulting
The subject site is located approximately 5.0 miles northeast of the projetted offshore
trace of the Rose Canyon fault zone. This fault zone is classified as active, and capable
of generating a magnitude 6.4 earthquake (maximum probable event). The estimated
Geotechnics Incorporated
Sea Country Homes, Inc. Project No. 0289-001-00
March 29, 1996 (Revised August 19, 1996) Doc. #6-0087
Page 5
peak site ground acceleration for such an event is 0.42g. Design of structures should
comply with the requirements of the governing jurisdictions, building codes and standard
practices of the Association of Structural Engineers of California. Ground-breaking due
to active faulting is considered to have a low potential, due to the distance from known
active fault traces.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
No' geotechnical conditions were apparent during the investigation which would preclude
construction of the proposed subdivision as planned. The as-graded geotechnical conditions
described in the referenced report remain applicable to the site. However, some geotechnical
factors were observed in our investigation which will need to be addressed.
Our laboratory analysis indicates that the existing alluvium on site has a very low collapse
potential. Based on observations made during grading, as well as our professional
experience with similar materials, it appears as though primary consolidation of the
alluvium is completed. However, secondary compression of the alluvium may still occur,
resulting in relatively minor broad settlements.
The site contains deep fill. It has our experience that even well documented compacted
fills may undergo hydrocompression on the order of 0.2 percent of the fill height. This
may result in moderate differential settlements across the length of the proposed
structures. The potential for damage resulting from such movement should be mitigated
through the use of post-tensioned slab foundations, and thickened and reinforced exterior
slabs and sidewalks.
A proposed fill in the southeast corner of the site (Unit 31) will apply an additional
surcharge to the underlying alluvium. This will trigger primary consolidation in the alluvium
and may result in settlement to the newly graded surface. Additionally, settlement may
cause deflection of pipelines within the easement.
The on-site soils include both medium dense fill, and dense to very dense sandstone.
The proposed development may therefore result in cut/fill transitions within building pad
areas. Transitions from sandstone to fill below foundations and ,slabs are not
recommended due to the different settlement characteristics of the materials, and the
(cotccliuiics I IIcoIpora(c(I
Sea Country Homes, Inc.
Project No. 0289-001-00 March 29, 1996 (Revised August 19, 1996)
Doc. #6-0087
Page 6
resulting potential for differential movements. Foundations should bear either ent
i
r
e
l
y
i
n
formation, or entirely in fill. In areas where proposed building pads will c
r
o
s
s
a
c
u
t
/
f
i
l
l
transition, the cut portion of the pad will need to be overexcavated in .order t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
uniform bearing conditions.
A relatively deep erosion gully traverses the site, terminating in a debris basin co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
during mass grading. This gully will need to be properly backfilled. In additio
n
,
s
o
f
t
sediments which have accumulated within the debris basin will need to be r
e
m
o
v
e
d
a
n
d
replaced with compacted fill.
Expansive soil underlies Units 1-3. The affects of expansive soil on foundati
o
n
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
be mitigated by removing the soil and replacing it with nonexpansive soil. The exc
a
v
a
t
e
d
clay may be reused as fill provided it is kept 5 feet below finnish grade.
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The remainder of this report presents recommendations in detail. These rec
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard of practic
e
i
n
s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
California. If these recommendations appear not to cover any specific featur
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
please contact our office for additions or revisions to the recomme
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
The recommendations given in this report supersede the recommendations given in t
h
e
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d
as-graded report.
7.1 Plan Review
It is recommended that foundation plans (and grading plans, if applicable) be
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
Geotechnics Incorporated prior to plan finalization.
7.2 Earthwork
Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the Grading Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
of the City of Carlsbad, Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, and the
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
Guidelines for Grading Projects attached as Appendix 0 of this report. The foll
o
w
i
n
g
recommendations are provided regarding specific aspects of the propoed eart
h
w
o
r
k
construction. Where the following recommendations conflict with the Standard G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
in Appendix D, the following recommendations shall take precedence.
Ceo(ccliiiics Incorporated
Sea Country Homes, Inc. Project No. 0289-001-00
March 29, 1996 (Revised August 19, 1996) Doc. #6-0087
Page 7
7.2.1 General: General site preparation should consist of the removal of all
deleterious material from within any areas to be developed. Deleterious materials
should be removed from the site, and legally disposed. Deleterious material
includes vegetative debris, topsoil, and construction debris.
7.2.2 Building Pads: Within the entire building pad area, deleterious material
should be removed as discussed above, and the remaining loose surficial
materials should be scarified to a depth of one foot. The scarified soil should then
be compacted in accordance with the recommendations given in Section 7.4.
Structures should not be constructed over cut/fill transitions. In areas where a
cut/fill transition will exist beneath a structure, we recommend that the cut portion
of a building pad be over-excavated, and then brought back to finish grade with
compacted fill. Overexcavation for cut/fill transitions should be performed to a
depth of H/2, where H is defined as the greatest depth of fill underlying the pad.
Expansive soil should be removed to a depth of 5 feet below Units 1-3 and be
replaced with nonexpansive soil.
7.2.3 Debris Basin: A temporary debris basin was installed during rough grading
in the southern corner of the site. Soft sediments have accumulated within the
basin since initial construction. All soft sediments within the basin should be
removed to a depth where competent material is encountered. The entire
excavation should then be brought up to finish surface grade with compacted fill
as discussed in Section 7.4. In the event that the existing storm drain pipes within
the debris basin are to be abandoned, they should be removed and their
excavations backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with Section 7.4.
7.2.4 Erosion Gullies: Soft sediments within the erosion gullies should be
removed to a depth at which competent material is encountered. The gullies
should then be brought up to plan grade with compacted fill in accordance with
Section 7.4.
Ccotechiiics Incorporated
Sea Country Homes, Inc.
March 29, 1996 (Revised August 19, 1996)
Project No. 0289-001-00
Doc. #6-0087
Page 8
7.3 Excavation and Grading Observation
Foundation or other site excavations should be observed by Geotechnics Incorporated.
Such observations are considered essential to identify field conditions that differ from
those anticipated by the preliminary investigation, and to adjust designs to actual field
conditions. Recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon Geotechnics
Incorporated performing such services.
7.4 Fill Compaction
All fill and backfill to be placed in association with site development should be accom-
plished at slightly over optimum moisture conditions and using equipment that is capable
of producing a uniformly compacted product. The minimum relative compaction
recommended for fill is 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM D1557. Sufficient
observation and testing should be performed by Geotechnics Incorporated so that an
opinion can be rendered as to the compaction achieved.
Imported fill sources, if needed, should be observed prior to hauling onto the site to
determine the suitability for use. Representative samples of imported materials and on
site soils should be tested by the geotechnical consultant in order to evaluate their
appropriate engineering properties for the planned use. Imported soils should have an
expansion index of 20 or less.
7.5 Site Drainage
Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well the runoff waters drain
from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the structure.
The ground surface around structures should be graded so that water flows rapidly away
from the structures without pbnding. The surface gradient needed to achieve this depends
on the prevailing landscape. In general, we recommend that .pavement and lawn areas.
within five feet of buildings slope away at gradients of at least two percent. Densely
vegetated areas should have minimum gradients of at least five percent away from
buildings in the first five feet. Densely vegetated areas are considered those in which the
planting type and spacing is such that the flow of water is impeded.
Geotechnics Incorporated
Sea Country Homes, Inc. Project No. 0289-001-00
March 29, 1996 (Revised August 19, 1996) Doc. #6-0087
Page 9
Planters should be built so that water from them will not seep into the foundation, slab,
or pavement areas. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain
landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation, surface water intrusion, water line breaks,
or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones or "perched" groundwater may develop
in the underlying soils or bedrock. The residence should be constructed with rain gutters
which intercept all roof runoff. Rain gutters should be kept clear of debris. The rain
gutters should outlet to drain lines, which in turn outlet directly to the curb or storm drain.
All surface flatwork should be serviced by area drains. Area drains should have a fall of
at least 1%, and should outlet to a suitable curb or storm drain system.
7.6 Foundation Recommendations
These recommendations are considered generally consistent with methods typically used
in southern California. Other alternatives may be available. The foundation
recommendations herein should not be considered to preclude more restrictive criteria of
governing agencies or by the structural engineer. The design of the foundation system
should be performed by the project structural engineer, incorporating the geotechnical
parameters described in the following sections.
The following recommendations assume that grading operations are performed as
discussed in Section 7.2. Shallow foundations should be suitable for structures founded
entirely on fill (Units 1-25, 39-51). Post-tensioned slab foundations should be used for
structures founded on fill underlain by alluvium (Units 26-38).
7.6.1 Shallow Foundations on Fill, Units 1-25 and 39-51
Allowable Soil Bearing: 50_sf (allow a one-third increase for short-term
I wind or seismic loads)
Minimum Footing Width: 12 inches
Minimum Footing Depth: 18 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade
Minimum Reinforcement: Two no. 4 bars at both top and bottom in continuous
footings.
Ccotcchti ics Incorporated
Sea Country Homes, Inc.
Project No. 0289-001-00 March 29, 1996 (Revised August 19, 1996)
Doc. #6-0087
Page 10
7.6.2 Post-Tensioned Foundations, Units 26-38
Allowable Soil Bearing: 1,500 psf at slab subgrade (allow a one-third
increase for short-term wind or seismic loads)
Ym, differential settlement: 1.5 inch
7.6.3 Lateral Loads: Lateral loads against structures may be resisted by fricti
o
n
between the bottoms of footings or slabs and the supporting soil. A coeffici
e
n
t
o
f
friction of 0.3 is recommended. Alternatively, a passive pressure of 300Ib
L
f
t
.
i
s
recommended for the portion of vertical foundation members embe
d
d
e
d
i
n
t
o
Torrey Sandstone. If friction and passive pressure are combined, the pa
s
s
i
v
e
pressure value should be reduced by one-third.
7.6.4 Settlement: Settlement resulting from the bearing loads recommen
d
e
d
f
o
r
shallow foundations on sandstone are not expected to exceed one inch and thr
e
e
-
fourths of an inch, respectively, for total and differential settlements across th
e
length of the structure. Deep fill areas underlain by alluvium may experience
u
p
to approximately 1.5 inches of differential settlement.
7.7 Conventional Interior On-Grade Slabs
Slabs should be designed for the anticipated loading. If an elastic design i
s
u
s
e
d
,
a
modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 kips/ft3 should be suitable. As a minimum, slabs
should be at least 51/2 inches in thickness and be reinforced with at least #3 bars on 18
inch centers, each way.
7.7.1 Moisture Protection for Slabs
Concrete slabs resting on soil ultimately cause the moisture conte
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
underlying soils to rise. This results from continued capillary rise and th
e
e
n
d
i
n
g
of normal evapotranspiration. As concrete is permeable, moisture will event
u
a
l
l
y
penetrate the slab unless some protection is provided.
To decrease the likelihood of problems related to damp slabs, suitable moist
u
r
e
protection measures should be used where moisture sensitive floor covering
s
o
r
a
Geotechnics Incorporated
Sea Country Homes, Inc.
March 29, 1996 (Revised August 19, 1996)
Project No. 0289-001-00
Doc. #6-0087
Page 11
other factors warrant. A commonly used moisture protection consists of about four
inches of clean sand covered by 'visqueen' plastic sheeting. In addition, two
inches of sand are placed over the plastic to decrease concrete curing problems
associated with placing concrete directly on an impermeable membrane. It has
been our experience that such systems may transmit from approximately 6 to 12
pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day. This may be excessive for
some applications.
If more protection is needed, we recommend that the slab be underlain by at least
6-inches of minus 3/4-inch crushed rock, with no plastic membrane. In addition,
concrete should have a water to cement ratio no greater than 0.5 and the concrete
should be cured for at least 5 days in accordance with guidelines of the American
Concrete Institute. On-site quality control should be used to confirm the design
conditions.
7.7.2 Exterior Slabs
Exterior improvements such as slabs and sidewalks should be constructed directly
over soils prepared as discussed in Section 7.2. Exterior slabs should have a
minimum actual thickness of 4 inches, actual thickness, and should be reinforced
with at least 6" X 6", W1.4 X W1.4 WWF . Crack control joints should be used on
all exterior slabs, on a maximum spacing of five feet for sidewalks, and ten feet
each way for slabs.
7.8 Expansive Soils
The soils observed during our investigation consisted of fine to medium grained silty to
clayey sands (SM-SC), which appear to have a low expansion potential, based on Uniform
Building Code criteria. However, representative samples of finish grade materials should
be tested after fine grading is completed in order to verify these observations.
7.9 Reactive Soils
Because of the likelihood that the sulfate content of the on-site soil or groundwater is
sufficient to react adversely with normal cement, we recommend that Type II cement be
used in all concrete which will be in contact with soil.
Gcotcchuiics Incorporated
Sea Country Homes; Inc.
March 29, 1996 (Revised August 19, 1996) Project No. 0289-001-00
Doc. #6-0087
Page 12
7.10 Earth Retaining Structures
Cantilever retaining walls backfilled with on-site soil should be designed for an active earth
pressure approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure otjs/ft3. The active pressure
should be used for walls free to yield at the top at least 0.2 percent of the wall height. For
walls restrained so that such movement is not permitted, an equivalent fluid pressure of
45 lbs/ft3 should be used, based on at-rest soil conditions. The above pressures do not
consider sloping backfill, surcharge loads, or hydrostatic pressures. If these are
applicable, they will increase the lateral pressures on the wall and we should be contacted
for additional recommendations. Walls should contain an adequate subdrain to eliminate
any hydrostatic forces. Alternative wall drain details are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction,
based on ASTM D1557. Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved adequate
structural strength. Heavy compaction equipment which could cause distress to walls
should not be used.
7.11 Pavement
Currently, materials of the Torrey Sandstone, and granular fill soils derived from the
sandstone and nearby alluvial soils are exposed at existing grades. New grading of the
site will likely changes in soil type at actual street subgade. We are therefore making
preliminary recommendations based on an assumed R-Value of 16 for Street "A" and
Driveways "D" and "E" at the subject site. Our experience with soils in adjacent areas of
the Aviara project indicates that this is a typical worse-case soil condition. Final pavement
design should be based on a sampling and testing program of the actual soil exposed at
street subgrade after grading.
A Traffic Index of 4.5was obtained from Mr. Greg Lundstrom, the project Civil Engineer.
Based on the CALTRANS design method and the minimum requirements of the City of
Carlsbad, we recommend that the section consist of 4 inches of Asphalt Concrete over
4 inches of Aggregate Base. Note that the minimum Carlsbad street section for a Traffic
Index of 4.5 is 4 inches of asphalt over 4 inches of base. This minimum section is
applicable for all soils with an R-Value greater than 16. Consequently, these preliminary
recommendations should remain• applicable unless subsequent sampling of the site soils
Geotechnics Incorporated
Sea Country Homes, Inc.
March 29, 1996 (Revised August 19, 1996)
Project No. 0289-001-00
Doc. #6-0087
Page 13
indicates that pavement subgrade has an R-Value less than 16. Selective grading is
suggested to assure that this condition does not occur. Asphalt concrete should conform
to Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Section 203-6. Type Ill, C2-AR-
4000 asphalt concrete should be used. Aggregate base should conform to Section 26-1
of the CAL TRANS Specification for Class II aggregate base or to SSPWC Section 200-2
for crushed miscellaneous base. Aggregate base and the upper 12 inches of subgrade
soil should be compacted to at least 95% of ASTM D1557. Asphalt concrete should be
compacted to at least 95% relative compaction based on the Hveem density.
8.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
This investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under
similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities.
No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional opinions
included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are
believed representative of the project site; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary
significantly between borings. As in most projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be at
variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by
the geotechnical consultant and additional recommendations made, if warranted.
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 necessary design consultants for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractors carry out such recommenda-
tions in the field.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the condition
of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work
of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards
of practice may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings
of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore,
this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333
Principal Engineer 4
W. Lee Vanderhurs
W. LEE
VANDERHURST
./.. ,
I No. 1125
I -
• CERTIFIED
ENGINEERING
G OLOGIST
OF C'
Gcotcchiiiçs Incorporated
01/25/1994 03:55 619-536-8311 GEOTECHNICS INC. PAGE 01
Geotechnics
Incorporated
FAX TRANSMITTAL GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
P.O. BOX 26500-224
SAN DIEGO, CA 92198
PHONE: (619) 536-1000
FAX: (819) 536-8311
FROM: (R(AHI
DATE: p4. j( Jccç Lo
NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED,
INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE:
FAX NUMBER:57p (p 1
01/25/1994 03:55 619-536-8311 GEOTECHNICS INC. PAGE 02
Geotechnics
Incorporated
September 16, 1996
Sea Country Homes, Inc.
95 Argonaut, Suite 210
Ahso Viejo, CA 92056
Anthony P. Bcffot
Michael P. lmbrfgJ,o
Project Llju
Document No. 6-0602
Attention: Mr. James R. Devlin
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Aviara Planning Area 15
Carlsbad, California
References: "Report of Geotechnical Investigation and Update, Aviara Planning Area 15,
Carlsbad, California", by Geotechnics Incorporated, Project No. 0298-001-00
Document No. 6-0087, March 29, 1996.
Gentlemen:
The intent of this addendum is to provide additional recommendations regarding retaining walls
at the subject site. The recommendations provided in Section 7.10 of the referenced report
remain applicable. However, it is our understanding that 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) sloping backfllls
are proposed for retaining walls at the site. Walls with a 2:1 sloping backfill should be designed
for an active pressure approximated by a fluid with an equivalent unit weight of 63 pd. This active pressure is applicable only to walls free to yield at the top by at least 0.2 percent of the
wall height.
In order to develop larger resisting moments, retaining wall footings may be deepened. The
recommendations for shallow foundations given in Section 7.6.1 of the referenced report remain
applicable to retaining wall footings, with the following modifications. For each additional 1 foot
of total embedment below the minimum recommended depth of 2 feet, the allowable bearing
capacity may be increased by 500 psf, up to a maximum of 4000 psf. In other words, footings
with depths of 2, 3, 4, and 5 feet have allowable bearing capacities of 2500, 3000, 3500, and
4000 psf, respectively.
Please call at your convenience if you should have any questions or comments.
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED iWES
Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333 him C am= —.1
Principal
Distribution: (4) Addressee
(1) Mr. Mark Creveling, Simon & Wong Engineering (FAX: 566-6844) (1) Mr. Shared Patel, VCA (FAX; 978-9926)
- 9951 Buslneae Park Ave.., Ste. B San Diego California - 92131 Phone (619) 536-1000 Fax (619) 536-8311
------..-------
2F00TM1N1MUM
. ./..F COMPACTED SOIL
-l• COVER
TTI 314-INCH
OPEN GRADED ROO
••'
FAC FLAP
:; :::
CTION CONSTRU
" •:''..-:-..• '
••
ONIMENDED
.
SOILS
SLOPE
ENGINEER Y 41 WATERPROOFING
/46
FLAP
'
DISCHARGE Ay.OU) UNDERMIHINC OF FOOTING PIPE AiN EXCAVATION SHOULD NOT
EXTEND BELOW THIS PLANE
SUBDRAIN SHOULD HAVE A FALL OF AT LEAST 1.5%
NATIVE SOIL COVER SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90%
ASTMDI5S7
INTALLATION OF THE DRAIN SHOULD BE OBSERVED BY
THE SOILS ENGINEER
TOP OF BACKFILL SHOULD SLOPE AWAY FROM WALL 2% OR INTO CONCRETE SWALE
GEOTECHNICS
INCORPORATED
J RETAINING WALL DETAIL, GRAVEL PROJECT NO. 0120-001-00
A LDEA AT A VI RA
I CARLSBAD, CALFOINIA FIGURE NO. 2
2I1Mf14 MO. VU bib.L.L ic.Li i riN.LL. a..q'.d;. Qa.
4 a •
Geotechnics
kh.Incorporated
Aaiiy F. 8uIfi
Mimht P. Imbiigtio
W. L Vu4iuru
October 1, 1995
See Country Homes, Inc. Project No. 0289-001-00
95 Argonaut, Suite 210 Document No. 6.0838
Ailso Viejo, CA 92058
Attention: Mr. James R. Devlin
SUBJECT PASSIVE PRESSUIERECQMMENDA11ONS, WALLS 013 & 025
Aviara Planning Area 15
Carlsbad, California
References: "Report of Geotechnical Investigation and Update, Aviara Planning Area 15,
Carlsbad, California", by Geotechnics incorporated, Project No. 0298-001-00,
Document NO.i 60087, March 29, 1998.
Gentlemen:
At the request of Mr. Mark Creveliñg oF Simon & Wang Engin8enng, we have reviewed the soil
conditions at the locations of Retaining Walls #13 and 025 at the project site. We anticipate that
the retaining walls will be founded in formational materials at those locations, and therefore can
recommend an increase in the passive resistance used in wail design. We recommend an
allowable passive pressure of 415 lbs/03, and an ultimate passive pressure of 600 lb3/ft3.
Please call at your convenience if you should have any questions or comments.
GEOTECHNlCs INCORPORATED
Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 4033
Principal
Distribution: (2) Addressee
(1) Mr. Mark Creveling. Simon & Wong Engineering (FAX: 568-6844)
(1) Mr. Greg Surber; Lundstrom & Associates
S1 RMASM Park An, Stz. B • San D1go Cands • 92131 - Phone (019) 526-1000 Fax (619)536-5311
ial