The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1915 CALLE BARCELONA; ; CB030624; PermitCity of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 06-04-2003 Retaining Wall Permit Permit No: CB030624 Job Address: Permit Type: RETAIN Status: ISSUED Parcel No: Lot #: 0 Applied: 03/04/2003 Valuation: $1 95,300.00 Construction Type: NEW Entered By: RMA Reference #: Plan Approved: 06/04/2003 Issued: 06/04/2003 Project Title: PAVILLION(F0RUM)-I 2,400 SF Plan Check#: 191 5 CALLE BARCELONA CBAD SOIL RETENTION WALL-S/W CORNER OF SITE Inspect Area: Applicant: VRATSINAS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY P 0 BOX 2558 LllTLE ROCK, AR 72203-2558 501 -376-001 7 Owner: Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Addl Plan Check Fee Strong Motion Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $842.24 $0.00 $547.46 $0.00 $19.53 $0.00 $0.00 $0.77 $0.00 $1,410.00 Total Fees: $1,410.00 Total Payments To Date: $547.46 Balance Due: $862.54 Clearance: 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. FOR OFFICE USE PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 Name Address citv Telephone # Fax # State/& 0 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 worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: UVK 91 OZOYZ %,~uL HA\R;w€ Policy No. ww Expiration Date 01 / 011 07 ECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$1001 OR LESS) I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: 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). 0 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). 0 1. 2. 3. 4. I am exempt under Section I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. 0 YES UNO I (have I have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name I address I phone number I contractors license number): 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 I address I phone Business and Professions Code for this reason: number I 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 I address I phone number I type of work): PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE COlVrPLEfE MIS SECTION FOR NOM€StDENlML 3 PERMITS 0 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? 0 YES 0 NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? 0 YES 0 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. YES 0 NO CTIRN LENDING AGEN 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 4 Uniform Building Code) SIGNATURE A -;I,,,, I Y Io,? WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance Inspection List ~ Permit#: CB030624 Type: RETAIN PAVILLION(FORUM)-12,400 SF SOIL RETENTION WALL-SMI CORNER OF Date Inspection Item Inspector Act Comments ~ .- 04/13/2004 69 Final Masonry PS AP FINAL 02/27/2004 43 AirCond/Furnace Set PY co SEE NOTICE AlTACHED 06/12/2003 1 1 Ftg/Foundation/Piers PS NR 06/12/2003 13 Shear Panels/HDs PS wc Tuesday, April 13,2004 Page 1 of 1 Corporate Office Branch Office 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A 73 13 Carroll Road, Suite G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 921 2 1 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (7 14) 632-2974 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Age Date Nominal Actual Area (Days) Size (Sq. Inch) 7 811 4/03 2.82 X 5.64 6.25 28 9/4/03 4x8 12.57 28 9/4/03 4x8 12.57 28 H 9/4/03 4x8 12.57 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH-SHOTCRETE Load Strength (Ibs.) (Psi) 20.200 3.234 Specified Strength: 4,000 PSI Cast By: ORAN MARKSBURY on 8/7/03 Location: SOIL RETENTION WALL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SITE BASE OF WALL @ PIER # 74 Concrete Supplier: PALOMAR TRANSIT MIX Mix No.: 34401 1 Ticket No.: 1433742 Water added at Site: 0.00 gal. By Cement Type: II/V Mix Time: min. Slump: in. ASTMC143 Remarks: Distribution: THOMAS ENTERPRISES VCC (CARLSBAD) NADEL ARCHITECTS. INC. (SD) MAYERS ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. **LAB COPY** Date Received: 8/8/03 Air: Yo ASTM C231 Unit Weight: PCF ASTMC138 Concrete Temp: 88 OF ASTMC1064 Ambient Temp: 74 "F Admixture: DARAVAIR 1000 WRDA-64 Respectfully Submitted, Client: A Age Date Nominal (Days) Size 7 811 4/03 2.82 X 5.64 28 9/4/03 4x8 28 9/4/03 4x8 28 H 9/4/03 4x8 Corporate Office Branch Office 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92 1 2 1 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Actual Area Load Strength (Sq. Inch) (Ibs.) (Psi) 6.25 17.750 2.842 12.57 12.57 12.57 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH-SHOTCRETE ** CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT 1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 THOMAS ENTERPRISES Set Nu.: 3-1 1126 Project No.: 31 15G02 Project Name: THE FORUM AT CARLSBAD-SITE WORK CALLE BARCELONA CARLSBAD, CA BP / DSA No.: CB030132 Plan File No.: ASTM C39/1231 A Specified Strength: 4,000 PSI Cast By: ORAN MARKSBURY on 8/7/03 Date Received: 8/8/03 Location: SOIL RETENSION WALL AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SITE PIER # 88 5' ABOVE GRADE Concrete Supplier: PALOMAR TRANSIT MIX Mix No.: 34401 1 Ticket No.: 1434099 Water added at Site: 0.00 gal. By Cement Type: II/V Mix Time: min. Slump: 3.50 in. ASTM C143 Remarks: Distribution: THOMAS ENTERPRISES VCC (CARLSBAD) NADEL ARCHITECTS. INC. (SD) MAYERS ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. **LAB COPY** Air: Yo ASTMC231 Unit Weight: PCF ASTMC138 Concrete Temp: 90 OF ASTMC1064 Admixture: DARAVAIR 1000 Ambient Temp: 79 "F WKDA-64 Respectfully Submitted, Corporate Office Branch Office 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A 73 13 Carroll Road, Suite G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Report of: COMPRESSlVE STRENGTH-SHOTCRETE ** Project No.: 3 1 15G02 CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. 1635 FARADAY AVENUE CALLE BARCELONA CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA Project Name: THE FORUM AT CARLSBAD-SITE WORK BP / DSA No.: CB030132 Plan File No.: Client: THOMAS ENTERPRISES ASTM C39/1231 A A Set No.: 3-1 1105 Specified Strength: 4,000 PSI Cast By: ORAN MARKSBURY on 8/6/03 Location: SOlL RETENSION WALL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SITE PIER # 56 TOP OF WALL Concrete Supplier: PALOMAR TRANSlT MIX Mix No.: 34401 1 Ticket No.: 1433 127 Water added at Site: 0.00 gal. By Cement Type: 11/V Mix Time: min. Slump: in. ASTMC143 Remarks: Distribution: THOMAS ENTERPRlSES VCC (CARLSBAD) NADEL ARCHITECTS. INC. (SD) MAYERS ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. **LAB COPY** Date Received: 8/7/03 Air: % ASTMC231 Unit Weight: PCF ASTMC138 Concrete Temp: 89 OF ASTMC1064 Ambient Temp: 67 "F Admixture: DARAVAIR 1000 WRDA-64 Respectfully Submitted, Corporate Office Branch Office 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A 73 13 Carroll Road, Suite G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92 12 1 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Age (Days) 7 28 28 28 28 H Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH-SHOTCRETE ** Date Nominal Actual Area Load Strength Size (Sq. Inch) (Ibs.) (psi) 811 3/03 2.82 X 5.58 6.25 22.800 3.650 9/3/03 4x8 12.57 9/3/03 4x8 12.57 9/3/03 4x8 12.57 9/3/03 4x8 12.57 Project No.: 5G02 CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. 1635 FARADAY AVENUE CALLE BARCELONA CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CARLSBAD, CA Project Name: THE FORUM AT CARLSBAD-SITE WORK BP / DSA No.: CB030132 Plan File No.: Client: THOMAS ENTERPRISES ASTM C39/1231 A A Set No.: 3-1 I106 Specified Strength: 4,000 PSI Cast By: ORAN MARKSBURY on 8/6/03 Location: SOIL RETENSION WALL AT S/W CORNER OF SITE PIER # 67 6’ ABOVE GRADE Concrete Supplier: PALOMAR TRANSIT MIX Mix No.: 34401 1 Ticket No.: 1433413 Water added at Site: 4.00 gal. By CONTPACTOR Cement Type: 1IN Mix Time: min. Slump: in. ASTM C143 Remarks: Distribution: THOMAS ENTERPRISES VCC (CARLSBAD) NADEL ARCHITECTS. INC. (SD) MAYERS ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. **LAB COPY** Date Received: 8/7/03 Air: Yo ASTMC231 Unit Weight: PCF ASTMC138 Concrete Temp: 89 OF ASTMC1064 Admixture: DARAVAIR 1000 Ambient Temp: 79 OF WRDA-64 Respectfully Submitted, Client: A Corporate Office Branch Office 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A 73 13 Carroll Road, Suite G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92 12 1 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH-SHOTCRETE ** CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. 1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 THOMAS ENTERPRISES Set No.: 3-1 I104 Project No.: Project Name: BP / DSA No.: Plan File No.: ASTM C39/1231 3115602 THE FORUM AT CARLSBAD-SITE WORK CALLE BARCELONA CARLSBAD, CA CB030132 Specified Strength: 4,000 PSI Cast By: ORAN MARKSBURY on 8/5/03 Date Received: 8/7/03 Location: SOIL RETENTION WALL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SITE PIER 3 47 4' ABOVE GRADE Concrete Supplier: PALOMAR TRANSIT MIX Mix No.: 34401 1 Ticket No.: 1432748 Water added at Site: 0.00 gal. By Cement Type: IIN Mix Time: min. Slump: in. ASTMC143 Remarks: Distribution: THOMAS ENTERPRISES VCC (CARLSBAD) NADEL ARCHITECTS. INC. (SD) MAYERS ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. **LAB COPY** A Air: % ASTMC231 Unit Weight: PCF ASTMC138 Concrete Temp: 88 OF ASTMC1064 Admixture: DARAVAIR 1000 Ambient Temp: 77 "F WRDA-64 Respectfully Submitted, Client: A Corporate Office Branch Office 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A 73 I3 Carroll Road, Suite G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92 12 I Tel: (714) 632-2999 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH-SHOTCRETE ** CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. I635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD. CA 92008 THOMAS ENTERPRISES Set No.: 3-1 1078 Project No.: 3 1 15G02 Project Name: THE FORUM AT CARLSBAD-SITE WORK CALLE BARCELONA CARLSBAD, CA BP I DSA No.: CBO30132 Plan File No.: ASTM C39/1231 A Specified Strength: 4,000 PSI Cast By: ORAN MARKSBURY on 8/1/03 Date Received: 8/4/03 Location: SOIL RETENSION WALL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SITE-BOTTOM OF WALL AT PIER 17 Concrete Supplier: PALOMAR TRANSIT MIX Mix No.: 34401 1 Ticket No.: 1451722 Water added at Site: 10.00 gal. By CONTRACTOR Cement Type: 1I/V Mix Time: min. Slump: in. ASTM C143 Remarks: Distribution: THOMAS ENTERPRISES VCC (CARLSBAD) NADEL ARCHITECTS. INC. (SD) MAYERS ASSOClATES CIVIL ENGINEERS CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. **LAB COPY** Air: Yo ASTMC231 Unit Weight: PCF ASTMC138 Concrete Temp: OF ASTMC1064 Admixture: DARAVAIR 1000 Ambient Temp: 76 "F WRDA-64 Respectfully Submitted, Client: A Load Age Date Nominal Actual Area (Days) Size (Sq. Inch) (lbs.) 7 7/24/03 2x4 3.14 12.000 28 8/14/03 2x4 3.14 20.000 28 811 4/03 2x4 3.14 24.300 Corporate Office Branch Oflice 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A 73 13 Carroll Road, Suite G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92 I2 1 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (7 14) 632-2974 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Strength 3.820 6.366 7.735 (Psi) Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH-MORTAR ** CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT 1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 92008 THOMAS ENTERPRISES Project No.: 3 1 15G02 Project Name: THE FORUM AT CARLSBAD-SITE WORK CALLE BARCELONA CARLSBAD, CA BP / DSA No.: CB030132 Plan File No.: ASTM C39/1231 Specified Strength: 4,000 PSI Cast BY: ORAN MARKSBURY on 7/17/03 Date Received: 711 8/03 Location: SOIL RETENTION WALL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SITE PIER # 50 LEVEL 2 Concrete Supplier: SITE MIX Mix No.: Ticket No.: Water added at Site: 0.00 gal. By Cement Type: 1/11 Mix Time: min. Slump: in. ASTM C143 Remarks: Distribution: THOMAS ENTERPRlSES VCC (CARLSBAD) NADEL ARCHITECTS. INC. (SD) MAYERS ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. **LAB COPY** Air: Yo ASTMCZ31 Unit Weight: PCF ASTMC138 Concrete Temp: OF ASTMC1064 Admixture: Ambient Temp: 77 "F Respectfully Submitted, 7,05 1 28-day test complies with specified strength. Corporate Office Branch Office 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92 12 1 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Age Date Nominal Actual Area Load (Days) Size (Sq. Inch) (Ibs.) 7 711 0103 2x4 3.14 10.200 28 713 1 103 2x4 3.14 28 713 1/03 2x4 3.14 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. Strength (psi) 3.247 Specified Strength: 4,000 PSI Cast By: ORAN MARKSBURY on 7/3/03 Location: SOIL RETENTION WALL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SITE PIER # 42 Concrete Supplier: Mix No.: Ticket No.: Water added at Site: 0.00 gal. By Cement Type: 1I/V Mix Time: Slump: in. ASTRl C143 Remarks: GROUT min. Distribution: THOMAS ENTERPRISES VCC (CARLSBADI NADEL ARCHITECTS. INC. (SD) MAYERS ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. **LAB COPY** Date Received: 7/8/03 Air: % ASTMC231 Unit Weight: PCF ASTM C138 Concrete Temp: "F ASTM C1064 Admixture: Ambient Temp: 86 "F RHEOBUILD 1000 Respectfully Submitted, Corporate Office Branch Office 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A 73 13 Carroll Road, Suite G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92 12 1 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Age (Days) 7 28 28 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH-' Date Nominal Actual Area Load Strength 711 0103 2x4 3.14 17.1 50 5.459 713 1 103 2x4 3.14 713 1 103 2x4 3.14 Size (Sq. Inch) (Ibs.) (Psi) Specified Strength: 4,000 PSI Cast By: ORAN MARKSBURY Location: SOIL RETENTION WALL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SITE PIER # 34 Concrete Supplier: Mix No.: Ticket No.: Water added at Site: 0.00 gal. By Cement Type: IIIV Mix Time: Slump: in. ASTM C143 Remarks: GROUT min. Distribution: THOMAS ENTERPRISES VCC (CARLSBAD) NADEL ARCHITECTS, INC. (SD) MAYERS ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. **LAB COPY ** on 7/3/03 Date Received: 7/10/03 Air: Yo ASTM C231 Unit Weight: PCF ASThl C138 Concrete Temp: "F ASTM C1064 Admixture: RHEOBUILD 1000 Ambient Temp: 79 "F Respectfully Submitted, c Corporate: San DiegoAmperial County: Inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite ClOl Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 71 4.632.2974 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 FIELD REPORT Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 909.653.4666 27 WEOF WORK ~~HN~CIAN AVAILABLE: SOIL REPORT (Y) (N) SPECS (Y)(N) APPROVED SHOP DRAWING (VI IN) FOR WEEK ENDING ' Csuw REPORT NO. += ARCHITECT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAWMTGL SOIL MANUAL - REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC., FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTOR'S, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND I SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEK'S REPORTS. TEMRFUTURE. I -wpm3 /DP TESTS REWIRED: SITE TIME START: LUNCH PERIOD: SITE TIME FINISH: THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS. PLICABLE SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT 8, y/zw5 5Z)?6m- 47 Date of Report ICE0 Certification Number ' Prinl Name I City I County Certification Number Rsv: 7/97 t' -- \ Corporate: San Diegohmperial Counb. Inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 909.653.4666 FDELD REPORT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAUMTGL SOIL MANUAL - REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RRS, ETC., FILL OUT AND APACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTOR'S, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEK'S REPORTS. CONTRACTORS EOUIPMENT / MANPOWER U I SITE TIME START: LUNCH PERIOD: SITE TIME FINISH: I DO CERTIW THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS, LICABLE SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT SaPd/W- e4 gig nature I Date of Report ICBO Certifiion Number B,6 1-5 City I County Certitition Number m If PA49-4 Print Name Rev: 7/97 I- '\* \ Corporate: San DiegoAmperial County. Inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 71 4.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 909.653.4666 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 921 21 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite ClOl Moreno Valley, CA 92553 FDELD REPORT OTECHNlClAN 1 AVAILABLE SOIL REPORT (V) (N) SPECS (Y) (N) APPROVED PLAW APWlOVED SHOP DRAWING (Y) (N) - ARCHITECT PROJECT NO REPORT NO - /y/m3 I 3f/ScPpZ PG ENGINEER REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAUMTGL SOIL MANUAL - REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RF'IS. ETC., FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTOR'S, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEKS REPORTS. CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT I MANPOWER USED I STRUCTURAL NOTES, DETAIL, OR RFlS U EG &@2LKb YLWG I DO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS. NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT Signature Date of Report ICE0 Certification Number City I County Cectifition Number Rev: 7197 fl, Corporate : San Diegohmperial CounQ. Inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 909.653.4666 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 FIELD REPORT /?(G c=fMa5AeGZJ &A, w Ism 1/q 35 # p -*, I REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAUMTGL SOIL MANUAL -REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC , FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTOR’S, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEK’S REPORTS. TEMPERATURE: ITE TIME FINISH: LUNCH PERIOD: __ I DO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS, CODE. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT 53P6OS-Q Date of Report 1CBO Certitiiijon Number ’ Cii I County Certification Number Rw: 7/97 ,. \. Corporate: San Diegollmperial County: Inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 909.653.4666 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 FIELD REPORT IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS. ETC.. FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEF'ICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTOR'S, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEK'S REPORTS. S@/L Sam deq- 6/* I STRUCTURM AS PPP WEATHER & TEMPERATURE ESTS REOUIRED LUNCH PERIOD I DO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS. SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT $dp6/p?-ky Signature Date of Report ICBO CerMition Number Print Name Ci I County Certification Number Rcv: 7197 ,--. _- \ I Corporate: San DiegoAmperiai County: inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 909.653.4666 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite GI01 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 FIELD REPORT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAUMTGL SOIL MANUAL - REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK ATTHE END OFTHE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC , FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTOR’S, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFlClENCY REPORT AND SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEK’S REPORTS - MATERIALS U ED BY CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT NO OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS) Jtf6 ,&q CONTFIACTORS EWIPYENT I MANPOWER USED: SITE TIME START: SITE TIME FINISH: I DO CERTIN THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS, NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT ICBO Certification Number City I County Certification Number Rev: 7/97 'i Corporate: San Diegoflmperial County: Inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 909.653.4666 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAUMTGL SOIL MANUAL - REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC., FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTORS, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEKS REPORTS. - Iu-ffi 57&, 6 +~6 '- @.E, 9 P id& 9 BPS TEMPERATURE: SITE TIME START / ! WA! SITE TIME FINISH. -e, a, ,I LUNCH PERIOD TRAVEL TIME. VERIFIED By \ ' ' -&-,'', LL,' I I DO CERTIW THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTGATION RECOMMENDATIONS. LICABLE SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT 99&w - 4-7 ICBO Certriition Number 7, WIaG Date of Report Print Name , City I County Certifiition Number Rev: 1/97 -. ' Corporate: San Diegohmperial County. Inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 909.653.4666 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 UWORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAUMTGL SOIL MANUAL - REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC., FlLL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPqRT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTORS, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEK'S REPORTS. I - - - 1 I STRUCTURAL NOTES. DETAIL. OR RFIS USEG: M/?#&?D pLA.vs ps3K WEATHER: cb& TEMPERATURE: FAMES TAKEN: TESTS REOUIREO: p/& LUNCH PERIOD: I DO CERTIM THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTtGATION RECOMMENDATIONS. LE SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT ?,-=,-B -5a% [ f 747 / / Date of Report ICBO Certifiition Number Print Name City I County Certification Number Rev: 7/97 - -\ Corporate: San Diegdlmperial County. Inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 909.653.4666 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 FIELD REPORT APPROVED PLANS 2EF'ORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAUMTGL SOIL MANUAL - REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY. OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC., RLL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTORS, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEKS REPORTS. - MATERIALS USED BY CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT NO. OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS): L~'~x&'- 1.dL4~dZ.q ~e~e ui/W*&c, I fi &/s #.3*&c' b #q I PFRCFNT PROJFCT COMPl ETION: WEATHER @% 'AMPLES TAKEN TEMPEFUTURE 70 3 I DO CERTIM THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOM AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS, NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT Signature Date of Report ICBO Certification Number Ci I County Certification Number Rev: 7/97 -_ ? Corporate: San Diegdmperial County. Inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 71 4.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 909.653.4666 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 I IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC., FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY. YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTORS, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND I SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEKS REPORTS. I SITE TIME FINISH: TRAVEL TIME: VERIFIED ey: P- . I LUNCH PERIOD: I DO CERTIM THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENOATIONS, AND I OR THE APPROVED PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT Siipature Data of Repolt 5~96 ( 9?-49 ICE0 Cettifkation Number City I County Certification Number Rev: 7197 -. /-\ , Corporate: San Diegohmperial County: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 71 4.632.2999 Fax: 71 4.632.2974 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 FIELD REPORT Inland Empire: 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 909.653.4666 /I I / CONTRACTOR PLAN FILE NO. PERMIT NO. I 7& MANUAYMTGL SOIL MANUAL - REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC.. FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT OR'S, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND TEMPERATURE: I LUNCH PERIOD: I DO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OFTHE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS, NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT Signalure Date of Report ICE0 Certdmtion Number R R*&@ Print Name City I County Certification Number Rev: 7/97 Corporate: San Diegollmperial Counb. 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 71 4.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 FIELD REPORT Inland Empire: 14320 Eisworth Street, Suite C101 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 909.653.4666 ADDRESS DF PR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAUMTGL SOIL MANUAL - REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC., FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTORS, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND I SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEKS REF'ORTS. CONTRACTORS EOUIPMEMI MANPOWER USED ff&P, I PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETION: WEATHER LL&%? SAMPLES TAKEN TH zi' TEMPERATURE mf?/ESs/dd TESTS REWIRED LUNCH PERIOD: I DO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL QTHE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SO~~VESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS, PLICABLE SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT Date of Report lCB0 Certification Number Print Name City I County Certilication Number Rev: 7l97 . Corporate: 2992 E. La Palrna Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Branch: 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 FlELD REPORT SPECS (Y)(N) 0 TECHNICAN I AVAILABLE SOIL REWRT(Y) (N) aUCs APPROVED PLANSh APPROVED SHOP DVWING (Y) (N) ~ ARCHITECT FOR WEEK ENDING PROJECT NO - ENGINEER / REPORT NO +/mf; I 3,5,&nyb PLAN FILE NO. PERMIT NO. PROJECT NAME LBO50824 CONTRACTOR SUB-CONTRACTOR W@&& CaK*cpLJ w--&f Ar &.LS Blhs INSPECTION ADDRESS ADDRESS OF PROJECT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO HELD INSPECTION MANUAUMTGL SOIL, MANUAL IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC , FILL OUT AND AnACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY. YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTORS, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEF'ICIENCY REPORT AND REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS SUBMIT A COPY WITHYOUR WEEKS REPORTS. Ib- STRUCTURAL NOTES DETAIL OR RFIS USEG MfkUzD 3 L&25 f shq- EA4 I WEATHER: 0v-T TEMPERATURE: @- SAMPLES TAKEN TESTS REOUIREO. I DO CERTIN THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS. AND I NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT Signature Date of Report ICBO Certification Number City / County Certifiotion Number Wagner Construction,., Rua BegnRsng TB Tested Anchor No. 1 46-53 I 1 1 1 CREEP EST DATA: Elapsed Initial Final Ebng. The ol Tie Readlng Readi AL Reading (min.) cm.) (in.) On.) NOTE: For perlormance and proof tests, each increment of load shall be appkd in less than one minute and he16 In at least one minute but not more than 2 minutes. The obenrstbn perbd for tne load hold shall start when the pump begins to appty that last inasmenl bad A prodtest isaccemk it A: Tht paltem d mwemenk k similar to that of adjacent performance tested tiebacks: and E: The creep movsmeni belween one and 10 mlnutes k kss than 1 .O rnm (0.040 In.). Wagner Construction, Shmq ani Fw&wn Cmrmaa Rw BcanRMoe 10 Tested AJlchoc No. 1 46-53 PROOF TEST DATA: PROOF TEST DATA: OesiredGuage AdualGuage ActualGuage Actual Initial Final Ebng. Load Reading Reading AL 568 56A 56B (Kips) (in.) (in.) CREEP 7EST DATA: 8, aQ.3 <omm NOTE: For pefformance and proof tests, each increment d bad shall be appfied h less than one minute and held for at least one mkt~ le but not more than 2 minutes. The obervation perbd foc the bad hold shall sta.. when the pump begins to apply Mat hst increment bad. A pmaf last is acceplabk it A: The patlem dmovemenbk similar lothat of adjacent pmfomance Wed tiebacks; and 8: The creep movement between one end 10 rnhutes is less than 1 .O rnm (0.040 In.). Wagner .- Construction ,.v. 15 20 1.251 63.8 2382 / 1.50T (Test Load) 76.5 2813 I AL 5.10 401 CREEP EST DATA: -psed Initial Fmal Ebng. Timed Time Reading Reading AL Reading (mm.) (ill.) m.1 (ii.) 30 / I .. 60 I lnitfml Fml Mng, Reading Reading bL (in.) (h.) (in.) 0933 0,abiJ NOTE: For perlomtance and piwf tesh, &h increment d bad shall be app&d in less than one minute and held for at least one minute but not n.cn than 2 minutes. The obervatlon prbd for the bad hold shell start when the p~'?.)) begins to appty that last increment load. A prooft& k aa;eptabk t A: The pattom dmwemene k simPar tothat dadm pecbrmanrteded tkbacla; and B: The creep tnommmt between ow and 10 minutes h less than 1.0 mm (0.040 In.). Wagner -. Construction,. ”. 0.751 1 .OT 1.2s 1 50T (Test Load) AL Shoriq and Fwndorion Cmmufa 38.3 1521 1298 1600 /3m &3QZ 51 .O 1951 1733 a35 1775 ot P3 63.8 2382 2167 zSwD 1,193 76 5 281 3 2602 29-75 75 f( 60 / 5 10 401 160 GG 17s @ 078 RW BeanRsnge TB Trsled Anchor No. 1 46-53 I 55 1 20 25 30 45 / L 60 <OWm 1 , I CREEP TEST OAT.. lnithl Fml Ebng. AL (in.) Ekpoed Time d Tlme Reading Reading ropr JukNo = ssBn5 1 -No= 56A 568 I [L-= 23- ]p Corporate: Branch: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 FIELD REPORT S, AND RF'IS, ETC THE ORIGINAL D I I TEMPERATURE: I TESTS REWIRED: >/p SITE TIME START ?&*A SITE TIME FINISH T-~ I LUNCH PERIOD TRAVEL TIME OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS. APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT -7-1 9 IW3 +%Wf?- 9z Date of Report ICBO Certification Number Print Name Cily / Counly CeMcation Number 15 20 I 25 30 I , +” ,/ 45 i 60 , <OOBOn Wagner . Anchor No. 1 34-41 I Construction, Shoring ad Fwnlohon Cmrmna Rar BesrnR- TBTeSLcd 30 45 60 CREEP TEST DATk lnitiil Final Ebng. AL apsed Time of Tie Reading Reading ,. t NOTE: FM per(0Cmance and pmftests, each increment of bad shall be applied in less than one minute and held for at least one minute bt.1 not more than 2 minutes. The obervatin period for the load hold shall start wker :!,e pump begins to appty Chat tast increment bad. Apooltest b acceptable if: < 0.080 in A: De pattem d movMnents is sbniir to thai of adjacent perfomarm tested tiebacks; and €3: Tlce cmep movement bgtween 009 and 10 minutes is less than 1.0 mm (0.040 In.). Wagner . Construction, Shng ami Farndahon Cuntracfar Rw BeeinRm TB Tested Anchor No. 1 46-53 4b J AL=OlOl 0.251 w JadtNo = 554575 1 fipt -No= 56A 568 1 LockMI = 3f;P n Y= 33 m+Pa 62 Y=3 096x-6 172 n n in M = I1 5TALRUL+JLW Desired Desired Guage DesKed Guage Actual Guage Actual Guage Actual Initial Final Ebng. Load (PSI) 0-1, (PSI) eso Load Reading Reading AL (Kips) 56A 56B 568 (Kips) on.) (in ) On.) 5 10 401 168 77% 225 0,333 9 52.3 12 8 659 429 475 04 r3. +- 0 501 25 5 1090 863 ,215 0.751 38 3 1521 1298 /hizso 1 OT 51 0 1951 1733 z9F5 1251 638 2382 2167 2.325 1 501 (lest Load) 76 5 2813 2602 279 401 168 +a_3 AL 5 10 5 75 ot 436 r5oa 0&3 r7.73- (A+' 2-/F5 /6 $7 z4LF+. --';/- AF93 ZQ3 Elapsed Initial Final Time of Time Reading Readmg Readinq (min.) fin.) Ti.) Ebng. AL Cin.) 15 20 25 30 45 60 ,/ 1' i' i / <OoBom Wagner Construction, Shonng ond Fm&ion Cnrmaa RW BeamRwqe TB T&ed Anchor No. 1 46-53 I 97 1 I I Elapsed I tniliil I Fml I Ebng. I PROOF TEST DATA: Time of Reading 7; 2.4. --, PRO0 Desired Desired Guage Desired Gwge Actui Load eso Load Reading Reading AL- 56A 56B 56A 56B (in.) (in.) c- Elapsed lniliil Fml Ebng. Trne Reading Reading AL (mm.) (in.) [m.) (in.) 0 2,7$ 10 Time of Readinq 7; 2.4- --, Trne Reading Reading AL- (mm.) (in.) [m.) (in.) 2,7$ 10 0 0 080 in. NOTE: For performance and proof tesls, each increment of bad shaR be apprd in less than one minute and held for a1 least one minute bul not more than 2 minuteg. The obetvation period for the kad hold shall start when the pump beglns lo appty that last increment kmd. A proof tesl is acceptable if: A: The paPsm d movements t similar to that ofad@& petfomance rested tiebacks; and B: The cit ep moveman1 between one and 10 minutes is less than 1 .O mm (0.040 in.). Wagner . Anchoc No. 1 46-53 I Construction, Shonns and Fw&ron Cmrrarla RW BwmRangc TB TesM i NOTE: For perfmnca and proof test4 each increment dkad shall be applied In less than one minute and held for a1 ds1 one minule but not more Ihan 2 minutes. The obervation period for the Iced hold shall start when the pump beglns to appty Ihet tast increment bad. A proof test is acceptable I: A: The panern d movements is similar to Itit OC ad- peffmance tested *backs; and B: The creep mvtl behveen one and 10 minutes h less than 1 .O mm (0.040 In.). Wagner . Construction, Allchol No. 1 46-53 I 4-7 %mng ad Fw-n Cmada RaBanRagc lp Tagd I , 1 lopr Jdtm.= 556)575 I lapr CuSgrNo = 564 568 1 R Y= 33 me28 62 Ye4 096x6172 -1- n n ha h Q1.5T AL = (1.5T-M)IUL+JLyAE NOTE: Fwpec(amclme and pmdtests. each increment of load sheR be appkd h kss lhan one rnlnute and held for at least one minute but not more than 2 minutes. The obetvatbn perlcd for the bad hold shall start when the pump begins to apply that lad inCrarrient bad. A pmoftesl isacceptable it E?: The creep movamant baween we and 10 rnlnutes k less than 1.0 mm (0.040 In.). A: Thepenemd~ks~tothrrtd~~pa6onnancatcstcdIhbacla;snd A CorDorate: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 71 4.632.2999 Fax: 71 4.632.2974 Branch: 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 FlELD REPORT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAUMTGL SOIL, MANUAL REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC., FILL OUT AND A'ITACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTOR'S, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFKIENCY REPORT AND SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEK'S REPORTS. I - MATERIALS USED BY CONTPACTOR zw D3 * '5 TEMPERATURE I TESTS REWIRED: p/k LUNCH PER100: I DO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INMSTtGATION RECOMMENDATIONS, PLICABLE SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT 7-1 lB I.=%= 5646 (44 4 Z Signature. Date of Report ICBO Certifii+on Number Print Name Ci I County Certiticatlon Number 0.00 h CREEP TESTDATA: , i' I 1 I 60 I I I NOTE: For petfornark% and prooftests, each increment of had shall be applied in less than one minute and held for at least cr.e minute but nd more than 2 minutes. The obervation period for the bad hoM skl! start when the pump begins lo appty that bst increment bad. A proof test is acceptable it A: The pstlern of movements b mitar to that of adjacenl per6mmnce tested tkbacla: and 6: The creep movement between one and 10 minutes K less than 1 .O rnrn (0.040 In.). /' ,-, ,/' .. I . :. 1s 20 I / s 4 IC / . .-,- -+ L> Wagner Construction, i.’ 15 20 25 30 45 60 Row -Range T E Tested Anchor No. 1 42-45 1 / i ,/ // <OD80in .. PROOF TEST DATA: Corporate: Branch: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 FIELD REPORT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAUMTGL SOIL, MANUAL REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RF", ETC , FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIWCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTOR'S, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND SUBMITA COPY WITH YOUR WEEKS REPORTS c . MATERIALS USED BY CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT NO OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS) z 4rnj49p rg%ws! v,kq~-5 LGW&T! ew&tcb imo &M - STRUCTURAC NOTES DETAIL OR RFlS USEG MBgm 7LN5 p SYJ - 5& SITE TIME START 7 ~ SITE TIME FINISH 3 08 A, LUNCH PERIOD. TRAVEL TIME: I I DO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS. PLICABLE SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT 5wz(P?- $7 ICE0 Certifiin Number 71 7- 1-5 Data of Report / Print Name Cily / County Certificltion Number A Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Branch: 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 921 21 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAUMTGL SOIL, MANUAL IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RHS, ETC , FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTORS, IS CORRECTED, SO NGI'E ON THE OIUGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEK'S REPORTS > MATERIALS USED BY CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT NO OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS) STRUCTURAL NOTES. DETAIL. OR RFlS USEG jtiq&i/&? /7LWG T7s=T.MIL J-- p 53 WEATHER. L L&@' TEMPERATURE LL SAMPLES TAKEN: TESTS REWIRED: ~ (fi I DO CERTIFYTHAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED AIL OFTHE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS, PPLICABLE SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT 7, ztm3 GafS/fi Date 01 Report ICBO Certification Number Print Name / City / County Certification Number Corporate: Branch: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 921 21 FIELD REPORT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUALMTGL SOIL, MANUAL REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY. OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC , FILL OUT AND A'lTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTOR'S, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEKS REPORTS MATERIALS USED ey CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT NO OR MATERIAL TEST REPORTS) A57W ASirz tZ+%hg-SD 5- gsq-gl q a, I / WEATHER: I TEMPEWTURE: g~!~ SAMPLES TAKEN TESTS REWIRED: I DO CERTIM THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL QF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WiTH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS, PPLICABLE SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT +, s1-3 5G$%/47- y z Date of Reporl JCBO Certification Number City I County Certification Number Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 71 4.632.2974 Branch: 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 FBELD REPORT lEPORTlNG REQUIREMENTS: ICBO FIELD INSPECTION MANUAL~MTGL SOIL, MANUAL IF THERE IS NON-CONFORMING WORK AT THE END OF THE WORK DAY, OR MISSING MTRS, AND RFIS, ETC . FILL OUT AND ATTACH A DEFICIENCY REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTOR’S, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND REVIEW PREVIOUS REPORTS AND LISTS SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEK’S REPORTS OF ALL WORK TODAY: PFRCFNT PROJFCT COMPLETION: WEATHER c& SAMPLES TAKEN &Ls TEMPERATURE $14 TESTS REWIRED: SITE TIME START SITE TIME FINISH: I DO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS. AND I OR THE APPROVED LANS, SPECIFIFATI ND APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT Sd?6/Pt - ?Z- lCBO Certification Number kp7TG TI (1-3 Signature Date of Raport Print Name ( City I County Ccrtifiition Number Corporate: San Diegohmperial County. Inland Empire: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 909.653.4666 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite ClOl Moreno Valley, CA 92553 A-& *3 I / 5 2, FIELD REPORT WHEN A DEFICIENCY, YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTOR’S, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND SUBMIT A COPY WITH YOUR WEEK’S REPORTS MATERIALS USED BY CONTRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH REPORT NO OR MlTERlAl TEST REPORTS) rtc~~a ;sL~ZSO/ CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT/ MANPOWER‘USED ?&LL/ L&f.+K- g &5-v I I SAMPLES TAKEH TEMPERATURE I $Id- TESTS REWIRED: SITE TIME START: LUNCH PERIOD: ~ ~~ ~~ ______ I DO CERTIM THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY OBSERVED ALL OF THE WORK LISTED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS, SECTION OF THE BUILDING CODE. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT rl;‘ I-+ l2-s-3 5Lq&/Y?- Tz Sonature Date of Report ICBO Certdlcatron Number City I County Certification Number Rev: 7B7 EsGil Corooration DATE: May 15,2003 JURI S DI CTION: Carlsbad 0 APPLICANT psi&) REVIEWER R FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 03-0624 SET: I11 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1915 Calle Barcelona PROJECT NAME: Retaining wall for The Pavillion at La Costa 0 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 in the attached list are resolved and checked by building department staff. 0 The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list 0 The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. 0 The applicant’s copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant 0 The applicant’s copy of the check list has been sent to: contact person. a Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. 0 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 0 REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation GA 0 MB 0 EJ 0 PC 511 2 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 San Diego, California 92123 (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 i Carlsbad 03-0624 May 15,2003 e i7 From the soils report provided: o 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 (required by the soil report - pages 17 and 30). The required letter shall clearly address the retainins wall proposed. Special inspection is required. The designer shall complete the City Special Inspection Notice Form. . EsGil Corporation . In Partnenhip with Government forOuiGf?ng safety DATE: May 5,2003 J U RI SDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 03-0624 0 FILE SET: I1 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1915 Calle Barcelona PROJECT NAME: Retaining wall for The Pavillion at La Costa 0 The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. 0 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. 0 The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. Ix] The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil 0 The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant Ix] The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: C. Shoemaker, Mayers & Associates, Attn: C. Shoemaker I9 Spectrum Pointe Dr., # 609, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. contact person. 0 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Ix] Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: C. Shoemaker Date contacted:5-5-63 (by:- Fax #: (949)5%Qtf"0 Telephone #: (949) 599-0870 Mail / Telephone 4 Fax/ In Person 0 REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation 0 GA MB 0 EJ 0 PC 4/29 tmsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 03-0624 May 5,2003 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST J U Rl SDl CTI ON: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 03-0624 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1915 Calle Barcelona SET: I1 DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 4/29 May 5,2003 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela DATE RECHECK COMPLETED: 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. A. 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. B. The following items have not been resolved from the previous plan reviews. The original correction number has been given for your reference. In case you did not keep a copy of the prior correction list, we have enclosed those pages containing the outstanding corrections. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these items. C. 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? OYes ONo macvalue.doc A Carlsbad 03-0624 May 5,2003 I. e 2. 0 e 0 0 e e 3. 4. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commerciaVindustria1 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 calculationsheports 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. ONE SET OF PLANS IDENTICAL TO THE SET OF PLANS PROVIDED FOR THE FIRST CHECK WAS PROVIDED FOR THIS RECHECK. NO RESPONSES FOR THE APPLICABLE CORRECTIONS WERE PROVIDED. ALL ORIGINAL CORRECTIONS ARE STILL APPLICABLE. On the cover sheet of the plans, specify any items requiring special inspection, in a format similar to that shown below. Section 106.3.2. REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS Inspection in accordance with Sec. 1701 of the Uniform Building Code. In addition to the regular inspections, the following checked items will also require Special ITEM REQUIRED? SOILS COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION STRUCTURAL CONCRETE YES OVER 2500 PSI PRESTRESSED STEEL YES FIELD WELDING YES PILES/CAISSONS YES OTHER REMARKS 4,000 PSI TI E B AC KS SH-4 SH-4 When special inspection is required, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Please review Section 106.3.5. Please complete the attached form. 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. Carlsbad 03-0624 May 5,2003 CARLSBAD SPECIAL CODE REQUIREMENTS 5. If special inspection is required, the designer shall complete the attached Special Inspection Notice. 0 Between soldier beams # 54 and ## 70, was provided a note on sheet SH-3 that reads as follow: “RETAINING WALL BEYOND”. Please clearly show on plans a cross section showing the location of the retaining wall that is beyond and show how?/or if? Is this wall affecting the design of the soldier beams and shoring wall. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. DATE: March 17,2003 J U Rl SDl CTl ON : Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 03-0624 EsGil Corporation In Partnership w’tfi Government for ~uiMing Safe9 0 FILE SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 1915 Calle Barcelona PROJECT NAME: Retaining wall for The Pavilion at La Costa 0 0 0 w o w 0 w 0 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: C. Shoemaker, Mayers & Associates, Attn: C. Shoemaker I9 Spectrum Pointe, Lake Forest, CA 92630 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: C. Shoemaker ( CAFCLY~J) Telephone #: (949) 599-0870 Date contacted: 31 I h3 (by: I& ) REMARKS: Fax #: 1.w- Mail Jelephone w Fax In Person By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation 0 GA 0 MB 0 EJ 0 PC 316 tmsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 4 Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 03-0624 March 17, 2003 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST - JURI SDl CTl ON : Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 03-0624 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1915 Calle Barcelona DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 3/6 REVIEWED BY: Serptio Azuela DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: March 17, 2003 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. 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? 0 Yes 0 No Carlsbad 03-0624 March 17,2003 I. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industriaI projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: I. 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 calculationsheports 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. 2. On the cover sheet of the plans, specify any items requiring special inspection, in a format similar to that shown below. Section 106.3.2. 0 REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS In addition to the regular inspections, the following checked items will also require Special Inspection in accordance with Sec. 1701 of the Uniform Building Code. ITEM REQUIRED? * SOILS COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO FOU N DATl 0 N I N S P ECT IO N STRUCTURAL CONCRETE YES OVER 2500 PSI PRESTRESSEDSTEEL YES FIELD WELDING YES - PILEWCAISSONS YES OTHER REMARKS 4,000 PSI TI E B AC KS SH-4 SH-4 3. When special inspection is required, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Please review Section 106.3.5. Please complete the attached form. 4. 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. * 05-06-' 03 12: 10 FROM- iuarcn I l7 iuua 'I . $SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM .* T-680 P@&'02 V-999 I, as the owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may or the architectlengineer of record. will be responsibk for employing the special inspector{s) as required by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 1701.1 for the construction project located at the site listed above. UBC Section 106.3.5. employ the special inspector), cedify that 1, Signed I. as the engher/architeci of record, ced6 thsr I bave prepared &e fa!lo\Ving spechl inspection pragnm as rcquirzd by UEC Se-ctian 106.3.S for the constmction project located at the site listcd above. A. B. C. 3. Duties of the special inspectors for the work listed above: A 8. C. - Special -mpectofs shall check in 4th Ihe City md present their uedentials for approval prior 'la Wnnhg wrk on the job site- E *d 0880-685 C6C61 L SPI Consulting Shoring, Structures & General Construction Engimering 35 Embarcadero Cove, 700 Oakland, CA 94606 Ph 510 536-3319 Fax 510 536-3320 SPECIAL INSPECTION Special Inspection by an agency approved by the engineer of record shall be performed for the following: 1. Existing soils conditions and site geometry to be verified prior to soldier beam placement. 2. Unconfined compression tests to be performed on structural concrete (or shotcrete) with a specified strength over 2,500-psi. 3. Soldier beam placement. 4. Soldier beam concrete installation. 5. Tieback drilling. 6. Tieback grouting. 7. Tieback testing. 8. Field welding of tieback pockets. 9. Permanent wall reinforcing placement. 10. Permanent shotcrete placement. Carlsbad 03-0624 March 17, 2003 PPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN CHECK NUMBER: OWNER'S NAME: I, as the owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may not employ the special inspector), certify that I, or the architectlengineer of record, will be responsible for employing the special inspector@) as required by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 1701 .I for the construction project located at the site listed above. UBC Section 106.3.5. Signed I, as the engineedarchitect of record, certify that I have prepared the following special inspection program as required by UBC Section 106.3.5 for the construction project located at the site listed above. Signed 1. List of work requiring special inspection: 0 Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI c] Prestressed Concrete 0 Structural Masonry Designer Specified 0 Other 0 Field Welding 0 High Strength Bolting 0 Expansion/Epoxy Anchors 0 Sprayed-On Fireproofing 2. Name@) of individual(s) or firm(s) responsible for the special inspections listed above: A. 6. C. 3. Duties of the special inspectors for the work listed above: A. 6. C. Special inspectors shall check in with the City and present their credentials for approval prior to beginning work on the job site. Carlsbad 03-0624 March 17, 2003 ~ALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 03-0624 PREPARED BY: Sergio Azuela BUILDING ADDRESS: 1915 Calle Barcelona BUILDING OCCUPANCY: NA TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: NA DATE: March 17,2003 Ret. Wall The Pavilion at La Costa Air Conditioning fire Sprinklers I I I I I I TOTALVALUE I I I I I 195,300 ~ Jurisdiction Code Icb By Ordinance ~ 1994 UBC Building Permit Fee V I $842.241 1994 UBC Plan Check fee v I $547.461 Type of Review: Complete Review Structural Only I 0 Other 0 Hourly I] Hour * Esgil Plan Review Fee Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAl N I NG WALL 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 BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER: CB 03 062q marked with 0. 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. BUILDING ADDRESS: 1415 alk Grcel om . -, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Retaining Wall ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL DENIAL The item YOU have submitted for review has been I Please see the attached report of deficiencies codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in susphsion of permit to build. By: Date: Date: I BY: Date: ATTACH ME NTS Rig h t-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 "DWebpment Sewices\MASTERS\FORMS -\CHECKLISTS -\BUILDING PLANCHECK CKLIST FORM. RETAINING WAuS.doc Rev. 8128198 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 - (760) 602-2720 FAX (760) 602-8562 @ BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALLS POND' ;m' 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: A. North Arrow D. Easements B. Existing 8, Proposed Structures E. Retaining Wall C. Property Lines (dimensioned from street) (location and height) /Q D 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 I m port/Export (Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required) D D D 4. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No. Conditions were complied with by: Date: MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 0 LI 0 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. Page I H:IDevelaomen( ServicesWSTERSFOS -\CHECKLISTS -\BUILDING PLANCHECK CKLlST FORM - RETAINING WALLS.dOC Rev. &r28/8a 06-04-'03 12:07 FROM- T-236 P02/03 U-764 UIWO 1 ocarions lrlM Enyirr 14320 Elswartti 81nn suite c1m Mureno Wb, CA 92553 Td: 909853.4999 Far. MB.6S3.4666 wmr.mQlmo.com h June 3,2003 Geatechnical Engineering Constructiofi Inspection Materials Testing Atteation: Mr. Mel Kuhnel SUBJECT: Shoriag Plrn Rcvh - SOU Retcntlon Wan The Padion at La Costa 1935 Cdk Bardona Carlsbad, Wbmia Rcfcrcacc: MTG, 2003, Shoring Rcconmcadadans, Thc Pavilion at La cobta, 1935 Callt Bdwu , Carlsbad, califumia, Ptujccl No. 31 lS-AOl, dad Jawtuy 22,2003. 0 Sbt SH-1, Ph, Soil Rrttutioil Watt, drtbd FC~WY 28,2003 Sheet SH-2, Elevations, Soil Retention Wali , datal Februsty 28,2003 Shea SH-3, Elcvatioms, Soil Retention Wall, dated 1:ebruary 28,2003 0 Sheet $Ha, Section & Wil, Sui) Rdmh Wall, dtlttxl F&nwy 28,2003 06-04-'03 12:07 FflOM- I s The Pavilion nt b c&sQ Page 2 PrujcctNo. 31tS-AO1 Log No, 3-7 I3 "he oppoTtunity to bc of SQVicc is mated. If thue m MY qutstims, plcssc do not hesitate to contact our office. StafxRnginraw RCE 57217, Exp4 12/31/M a THE PAVILION AT LA COSTA 1935 Calle Barcelona C a rls abad, California Soil Retention Wall Design Rev. 0 February 28,200 Subcontractor - Wagner Construction J.V., Inc Prepared by: SPI Consulting Shoring, Structures & General Construction Engineering 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 Ph 510 536 3319 Fax 510 536 3320 cj SPI Consulting Shoring, Structures & General Conslncdion EnSineering 35 Em barcadero Cove, Oakland, CA 94606 Ph 510 536 3319 Fax 510 536 3320 Table of Contents Design Foreword Section I - Soil Retention Wall Design Soidier Beam and Tieback Schedules Cantilever Soldier Beam Design Tied Back Soldier Beam Design Wall Facing Design Recommended Design Parameters Drawings 1 2-36 2-3 4-21 22 - 28 29 - 33 34 - 36 Rev. 0 - February 28,2003 SH-1 through SH-4 SPI Consulting Shoring, Structures & General Construction Engikering 35 Embarcadero Cove, Oakland, CA 94606 Pi15105363319 Fax5105363320 Design Foreword This document addresses the design of a soil retention wall for a parking lot at the Pavilion at La Costa project in Carlsbad, CA. The design uses cantilevered and tied back soldier beams with wood lagging and a shotcrete facing. The design is based on the Shoring Recommendations by MTGL, Inc., dated January 22,2003, and the project civil plan entitled Soil Retention Wall Exhibit 4, by Mayers & Associates Civil Engineering, Inc. Pages 2 and 3 of this document provide summary tables of the wall elements shown on the plans. Pages 4 through 2 1 provide the estimated loading and design calculations for the design of cantilevered soldier beams. Pages 22 through 28 provide the design parameters and calculations for the tied back soldier beams. Pages 29 through 33 provide the wall facing design. An architectural finish which will be applied to the shotcrete facing during installation is to be designed by others. Pages 34 through 36 are the recommended design parameters by MTGL, Inc., which were used in this design. Drawings SH-1 through SH-4, Rev. 0, dated February 28, 2003, are provided for construction of the soil retention walls. SOLDIER BEAM SCHEDULE TIEBACK SHEDULE SOLDIER TIEBACK DESIGN TEST # 0.6 MIN. BEAM LEVEL LOAD LOAD STRANDS UNBOND. NUMBER LENGTH (kip) (kip) (ea) (ft) 34 -41 1 51 76 3 13 42 - 45 1 64 96 3 15 46 - 53 1 51 76 3 18 46 - 53 2 77 115 4 11 A 3 JoaScJ)~&T), l-rt-M SHEETNO.4 OF ' SPI CONSULTING 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 CALCUUTEDBY& DATE , CHECKED BY DATE SCALE Phone (51 0) 536-331 9 Fax (51 0) 536-3320 t- kcky A zA3 SHEET No. OF CAuXlLATEDBY CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ' SPI CONSULTING DATE . 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 Phone (510) 536-3319 Fax (510) 536-3320 fit q,; 5.8' h=4' 4 -= /. 5' JOB PkVlGlolq &hdat7ls SHEETNO. (b OF SPI CONSULTING 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 9 DATE Vo3 CALCULATEDBY J CHECKED BY DATE SCALE Phone (51 0) 536-331 9 Fax (51 0) 536-3320 d I "" .. ,. I , a- JOB VklO# e> c4 G2m.A SHEETNO. 7 OF CALCUUTED BY CHECKED BY DATE SCALE * SPI CONSULTING JP DATE %3 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 Phone (51 0) 536-331 9 Fax (51 0) 536-3320 GWTWR JOB urn m LA. Ti OF Jrp DATE G3 SHEET No. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ' SPI CONSULTING 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 Phone (510) 536-3319 Fax (510) 536-3320 cc~&G4 k7h SHEET NO. OF CALCULATEDBY CHECKEOBY SCALE ' SPI CONSULTING DATE *%3 DATE 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 Phone (51 0) 536-331 9 Fax (51 0) 536-3320 *I** PbLO I +'2&0 I IX I nr P-L. JOB ~ SHEET NO. OF 59 DATE ;;/03 CALCULATEDBY CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ' SPI CONSULTING 33 ernrJarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 Phone (510) 536-3319 Fax (510) 536-3320 I ," I +:E LA3 SHEET NO. CAUXllAED BY CHECKED BY DATE SCruE ' SPI CONSULTING 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 Phone (510) 536-3319 Fax (510) 536-3320 I I "S4 -%6 I I JOB h ' SPI CONSULTING SHEET NO. 12 OF c)crwIw Bmli -TED BY 3 . DATE v3 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE Phone (51 0) 536-331 9 Fax (51 0) 536-3320 1 "~ *67- b8 Ha q~: 216' 5'8' pa wL*2-s~7 IS& pt.S "L , m' JOB LlO* 8 cp-eps 7A SHEETNO.LOF cALaJuTE*BYA DATE %? ' SPI CONSULTING 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE Phone (510) 536-3319 Fax (510) 536-3320 ' SPI CONSULTING mJk-c)2m SHEET NO. DATE gO.3 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 CALCuUrnBY CHECKEO BY DATE SCME Phone (51 0) 536-331 9 Fax (51 0) 536-3320 '* ?^ * " cpn4f(m %"&&zJ *"ft -26 " , I , . Joe h-&A SHEElNO.ld OF ' SPI CONSULTING 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 CALCULATEDBY lr9 DATE y33 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE Phone (510) 536-3319 Fax (510) 536-3320 a< c&n.L€vtx <" 477 '79 SPI CONSULTING ILI SHEET NO. !! OF CALCULATEDBY !e DATE DATE 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 , I,"x ^x . , , , . . .. , ,, , ,. , Xle-P!w~ c-wk-4 L SHEET NO. OF ' SPI CONSULTING CALCULATEDBYJP DATE 2/03 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE Phone (510) 536-3319 Fax (510) 536-3320 L//ClODc 4 Wd SHEET No. 19 OF * SPI CONSULTING WTEDwL DATE- 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE Phone (510) 536-3319 Fax (510) 536-3320 c /"< .L I -x JOB CA-cdsm SHEET NO. 21 OF CALCCIUTEDBY DATE.- CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ' SPI CONSULTING . Oakland, CA 94606 Phone (51 0) 536-331 9 Fax (51 0) 536-3320 35 Embarcadero Cove lLL0rq @ CA,&sNI SHEET No. 22 of -umw-L DAE.z/oB 4 ' SPI CONSULTING 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE Phone (510) 536-3319 Fax (510) 536-3320 /ye 22' 1 1 JOB !kwCm Q> w, SHEET NO. 23 OF CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY DATE SCALE SPI CONSULTING 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 & DATE Yoa Phone (510) 536-3319 Fax (510) 536-3320 24 Input Data ................................................................................ BEAMAC I1 beam name: two level tiebacks. Last modified at 8:53:46 AM on Fri, Feb 28, 2003. All distances are given in ft from the left end of the beam. Beam length is 31.50 ft. ................................................................................ ................................................................................ Node Location Support Hinge No. ft 1 0.00 none No 2 6.00 pin No 3 20.00 pin No 4 31.50 pin No ................................................................................ Element From, To Length Section E No. Nodes ft name ksi 1 112 6.00 --- 29000.00 2 2,3 14.00 --- 29000.00 3 3,4 11.50 --- 29000.00 ................................................................................ Element Area Depth IZ Weight Include No. in* *2 in in**4 lb/ f t self wt. 1 8.83 13.86 290,OO 30.00 No 2 8.83 13.86 290.00 30.00 No 3 8.83 13.86 290.00 30.00 No ................................................................................ Concentrated Forces: (none ) ................................................................................ Distributed Loads: No. L end at R end at MagX at L MagY at L MagX at R MagY at R ft ft kip/ f t kip/ f t kip/ f t kip/ f t ................................................................................ 1 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.28 2 6.00 24.00 0.00 5.28 0.00 5.28 3 24.00 30.00 0.00 5.28 0.00 0.00 ................................................................................ Applied Moments: ( none ) ................................................................................ . Output Data ................................................................................ BEAMAC I1 beam name: two level tiebacks. Last modified at 8:53:46 AM on Fri, Feb 28, 2003. All distances are given in ft from the left end of the beam. Maximum tension is 0.00 kip; it occurs: from x=O.OO ft to x=31.50 ft. Maximum compression is -0.00 kip; it occurs: from x=O.OO ft to x=31.50 ft. Maximum shear is 32.82 kip; it occurs: at x=6.00 ft. Minimum shear is -41.10 kip; it occurs: at x=20.00 ft. Maximum moment is 70.3 kip-ft; it occurs: at x=12.22 ft. Minimum moment is -89.6 kip-ft; it occurs: at x=20.00 ft. The maximum upward deflection is approximately 0.26 inch. The maximum downward deflection is approximately 0.24 inch. Node deformations: (positive is to right, up, or counterclockwise.) ................................................................................ ................................................................................ Node Locat ion Delta-X Delta-Y Theta- Z No. ft inch inch radians 1 0.00 0.00 0.26 -0.00 2 6.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 3 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 31.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 ................................................................................ ................................................................................ Support reactions: (pos. force is to right or up; pos. moment is ccw.) Node Location Fx FY Mz No. ft kip kip kip- f t --- 2 6.00 0.00 48.66 3 20.00 0.00 73.92 4 31.50 0.00 4.14 --- --- ................................................................................ Points of internal force discontinuity: From left Tension Tension Shear Shear Moment Moment on left on right on left on right on left on right ft kip kip kip kip kip- f t kip- f t 0.00 --- 0.00 --- 0.0 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 -15.84 32.82 -31.7 -31.7 20.00 0.00 0.00 -41.10 32.82 -89.6 -89.6 24.00 0.00 0.00 11.70 11.70 -0.6 -0.6 30.00 0.00 0.00 -4.14 -4.14 6.2 6.2 -4.14 31.50 0.00 ................................................................................ --- --- 0.0 --- --- ................................................................................ BEAMAC II beam name: two N1 El N2 0.00 6.00 6.00 D1Y D2Y 5.285.28 TIT 7-7 level tiebacks Last modified at 8:53:46 AM on Fri, Feb 28, 2003 E2 N3 E3 N4 31.50 7 I 20.00 7 MY D3Y 5.285.28 TI F: kip Load D: kip/ft M: kip-ft 32.82 - a kip -41.10 70.3 Moment kip-ft '-- -89.6 -_ ~ ......... *.*..,,. 0.26 ........ ......... ....... mmmmm.. inch .- Defl. ......... ............ .......... ........ ................................. -0.24 '.I, '.I, I-'-'-'- L'/61 - L'14 . I L'/3 "'I"' L'/ 2 -'-I-'- 2I!/d . 3I!14 . 15I!/6 "'I"'I ft Distance 0.00 6.30 12.60 18.90 25.20 31.50 JOB. Pkvm4 mLtt.h SHEET No. 27 OF SPI CONSULTING CALCUUTEDBY~ DATE %3 CHECKED BY SCALE 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 DATE Phone (51 0) 536-331 9 Fax (51 0) 536-3320 ww It$- 53 z P n 3 is Y 0 w I- I- z W f a n W n Q: z u) W 9 P n u! r .. e s cn Y 0 w I- h I- 8 3 3 3 is w 0 e ' SPl Consulting . 35 Ernbrrcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 _-._._ ._.... ......................... ...--. - ...... .-.... .... ...- .... - .. .... ... ..... -.'.,._.-... L . .... _-.. .-. . ....... ._ . ....................... - ...__..___..__ ... ...... .- ... I-__- .- ..... -..- ........ .. 4 .... .. . - .. (2) '' . L2' - -s .. - .... ........ ...... - . - ... _. .. .- _-- .. ..... b ..-_ .. SPI Consulting Shoring, Structures 8 General Construction Engineering 35 Embarcadero Cove, 700 Oakland, CA 94606 Ph 51 0 536331 9 Fax 51 0 5363320 LAGGING DESIGN With reference to "Lagging Design Guidelines'' PileSpaang(S)= 8 ft Pile Diameter(D)= 2 ft L1= 6 ft L2= 3 ft Angle of Repose (a)= 33 degrees from MTGL, Inc. UnitWeight(G)= 127 pcf from MTGL, Inc. Cohesion (c)= 0 psf neglect Lagging Pressure (Ph)= (G*L2-2c)l'tan(45-a/2) = 206.9 Lagging Shear (V)= Ph*LlB = 413.7 Lagging Moment (M)= \r(5/16*Ll+D/2) = 1189.5 USE Doug. Fir #2 3"x12" Pressure Treated Sy= 11.72 inA3 A= 28.13 irP2 Fb= 850 psi Fv= 95 psi Cd= 1.20 Cfu= 1.15 CF 1.15 F'b= Fb*Cd*Cfu'Cr = 1348.95 psi F'v= Fv'Cd = 114 psi Required Section Modulus (Sy)= M'12/F'b 10.58 irP3 41.72 irP3 OK Required Area (A)= VFv = 3.63 inA2 ce8.1 iP2 OK JOB LlO& eL4 - Gm4 SHEETNO.L OF ciuculAmsvL DATE :A3 SPI CONSULTING 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE Phone (51 0) 536-331 9 Fax (51 0) 536-3320 32 SPI Consulting Shoring, Structures General Construction Engineering 35 Embarcadero Cove, 700 Oakland, CA 94606 Ph 510 536-3319 Fax 510 536-3320 Comer Lagging Design Interaction Check I Member I Axial+ I t I 28.13 1 . Area (sa-inches) Loai (pounds) Moment (ft-Lb) Unbraced Length (ft) d min (inches) d max (inches) E (Psi) F- (Psi) Fce max (psi) F'b Fc' (psi) Fce/Fc' CP F'c fc f fi'c (f c/F'c)A2 fb C 1 fb/Fb Total Interaction Check 1 1.72 414 1190 4.00 3.50 3.50 1,500,000 2,392.58 2,392.58 1,348.95 1,650.00 0.80 1.45 1,322.84 14.72 I 1218.43 I * SPI CONSULTING ! 35 Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606 CHECKEDBY DATE ' SCALE Phone (510) 536-3319 Fax (510) 536-3320 f It cil !! '& 2.r) '- -1 "-. . h 3anuaiy 22,2003 *. 4 Gaotechnical Engineering Consfruction Inspection Ma &rials .Tes fing Project No. 3 1 1 SA01 lLng NO. 3-1 37 SURJECT: SHORMC: RECOMMENDATIONS The Pavilion at La Costa 1935 Calk Badom ChrIsbud, Califodia c Reihe: Leightclll and Awwuutes, 1999, Find As43~ded Repit of Rough Grading, Grccn Vsflcly, CT 9268, (Pmposcd La Costa Glm), Cwlsbtid, Caljfom*a, rcport datcd Janoiay 28,1999. Dear Mr. Kuhnel: 38 psf 58 pri' 15 psf (Sloping Down) I * - - 1-28-03 : 5 : 35AM :WAGNER JV ; 151'0 337 0443 tC4 5 Seit 'Bi: "VCC. CARLSBAD; 760479061 3; Jan - 27- 03 12: 59PM; Page 3/4 01/22/2003 12:23 FAX 714 8Jt 2974 MT&MlM OFFIa P 003/0 0 3 'Y' --/ 3s _. 4 i Pavilion La Costa Rctorining Wall Rccommcndations Project Nu. 3 I 1 $A01 Pqc 2 LOg NO. 3- I37 retaining by 100 psf fix street looding If traffic is rtshictsd to 1 0 fed of the back of the sharing this load may be neglected. When (he sib on rhe foe side of the wall are not covered with hardscapc the upper 1 fbot of soil passive rcsistanOe Eboufd bc neglcctcd Bearing capacity fir P minimum fbrmdation cmbecRnent of one fbot below lowest adjacent grsde is 2,500 pounds per quare ht. And in addition ovenll .sfability aould rely on P + of 32 ciegms iod a cohesion of200 p~rmdi per squm foot ..-. L Tied Back Wdis T€tc above rooomnrcnbtim apply whcrc appropiore The prrsm agak he wall should be trapezdu &ending hm the top of the wined pottian to 03 times the height at 22 times the height. This unih distribution should conthuc for 0.6 rima thc hcight of rhc &ed paion and then return to ahe bottom of the remined portion. The cappartunity b be of m'cc is nppreciatd. If there m any questions, plaw do no1 hcsitatc to contact our ofice. MTGq wc. Thamas C. Harc G. E. Chief Gcotcchaical E# Regimttion Expires December 3 I, 2004 Distribution (1) Addressec L -".. -..* ... CcnW Dlspa1rh 800.491.2990 w.ml@bnc.com ..- *. Vcrdura WjaU Design Patamctcrs PTOjCCT: The Pavilim L a Costa Omtechnical Engineer of Record Proiecl No. 3 1 1 PA01 Location: 1935 Cd le.Barceiona. Carlfiad. Cali lmin LO& NCI. 2-1 $42 Thm~ C. liarc Scismic P~cramctm Repeatable Cnound Acceleration a= 0.27 g (Default value is 0.15 g) Specid Design Conditions (jplogic surcharge. ecc.) Scal of Rcgistcrcd Civil Or Cjtmtechnicd Engineer e P c c P GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT The Pavilion at La Costa Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08, Lot 4 Carls bad, California for Thomas Enterprises, Inc. P m I I a c ri 'I .a I P I Southern California Geotechnical Thomas Enterprises, Inc. 3604 Carleton Street San Diego, California 921 06 November 8,2001 Project No. 0 1 G2 1 6-1 Attention: Mr. Me1 Kuhnel Vice President, Development Subject: Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation Proposed Retail Development The Pavilion at La Costa Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08, Lot 4 Ca rls bad , California Dear Mr. Kuhnel: In accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation of the subject site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and recommendations developed from our investigation. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, Soy\qtem California Geotechnlcal, Inc. Dis\rib%nr (2) Addressee ' - (4) Mayers and Associates, Attn: Dru Mayers 1260 North Hancock Street. Suite 101 Anaheim. California 92807-1951 (71 4) 777-0333 Fax (7141 7774.19~ ,. . ., ... "-"" - - . , . . . , . . . - - - - . _. . 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1 4 7 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 SCOPL OF SERVICES 3 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 3.1 Site Conditions 3.2 Proposed Development 3.3 Background and Previous Studies 4 5 5 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 8 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions 4.3 Geologic Conditions a a 9 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING 10 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 n I T 1 1 4 1 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations 6.3 Site Grading Recommendations 6.4 Construction Considerations 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction 6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction 6.7 Retaining Wall Design and Construction 6.8 Exterior Flatwork Design and Construction 6.9 Pavement Design Parameters 13 16 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 c 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 30 8.0 REFERENCES 31 7 The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 016216-1 T- I ?- f r: f 7 APPENDICES A Plate 1 : Site Location Map Plate 2: Boring Location Plan Plate 3: Site Geologic Map B Boring Logs C Laboratory Test Results D Grading Guide Specifications E UBCSEIS and FRISKSP Output F Liquefaction Analysis Spreadsheets The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 0 1 G216- 1 I 7 1 1 1 a 3 -4 1 7 1 7 1 1 1 9 ?I 7 7 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation. Since this summary is not all inclusive, it should be read in complete context with the entire report. Geotechnical Design Considerations The subsurface profile at the subject site consists of engineered fill soils extending to depths of 8 to 30k feet. These fill soils were placed during recent grading operations, as monitored by Leighton and Associates, and generally consist of medium dense to dense sands and silty sands. The fill soils are underlain by medium dense alluvium comprised of silts and sands and/or sandstone of the Torrey Sandstone. We have reviewed the final as-graded report of rough grading prepared for this site by Leighton and Associates. During previous mass grading of the subject site, the previously existing cut/fill transitions were mitigated, by overexcavating the cut portions of the site to depths of at least 8 to IO& feet. All fill soils on the site have reportedly been compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. A large ascending fill slope is located along the south half of the western property line and near the eastern end of the south property line. This fill slope was reportedly constructed as a stability fill, not as a buttress fill. Based on the geologic conditions reported by Leighton, as well as geotechnical research performed by SCG, no adverse geologic bedding is present in this area. The proposed development will include segmental retaining walls along the south portion of the west property and along some areas of the south property line. A detailed analysis and design of these walls will be presented in an addendum report. Subsurface Conditions and Site Preparation Initial site preparation should consist of removal of the existing vegetation. Based on conditions observed at the time of the subsurface exploration, stripping will require removal of the existing grass, weeds and brush. These materials should be disposed of off-site. The existing soils within the proposed building area should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing grade, to remove the existing weathered and softened fill soils. No significant overexcavation is recommended for the proposed parking areas. Subgrade preparation in these areas may be limited to scarification to a depth of 10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioning and recompaction. Once the overexcavation depths have been achieved, the resulting su bgrades should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to identify any additional soils that should be removed to a level of competent subgrade soils. The excavated soils may be replaced as compacted structural fill. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. OlG216-1 Page 1 1 1 7 7 9 7 1 1 T 1 1 Building Foundations 0 Conventional Shallow Foundations supported in existing or newly placed structural fill. 0 2,500 psf maximum allowable soil bearing pressure. 0 Minimum Reinforcement in Strip Footings: Four No. 5 bars (2 top and 2 bottom) additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. Building Floor Slabs Conventional Slabs-on-Grade, 5-inch minimum thickness Minimum Reinforcement: No. 3 bars at 18-inches on-center, in both directions, additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. Pavements 0 Asphaltic Concrete (Assumed R=30): 0 Auto Traffic Only: 3 inches asphaltic concrete, 3 inches aggregate base. 0 Auto Drive Lanes: 3 inches asphaltic concrete, 6 inches aggregate base 0 Light Truck Traffic: 3% inches asphaltic concrete, 7 inches aggregate base. 0 Moderate.Truck Traffic: 4 inches asphaltic concrete, 10 inches aggregate base. 0 Less than 4 trucks per day (TI = 6.0): 5.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete 0 Less than 14 trucks per day (TI = 7.0): 6.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete 0 Less than 42 trucks per day (TI = 8.0): 7.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete Portland Cement Concrete (PCC): The Pavilion at La Costa - Carfsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 2 The scope of services per No. OlP269, dated Augu: reconnaissance, subsurfac engineering analysis to I foundations, building floor recommendations and ca Based on the location of tt liquefaction evaluation. The the scope of services forth 24, 2001. The scope of services included a visual site ! exploration, field and laboratory testing, and geotechnical -ovide criteria for preparing the design of the building abs, and parking lot pavements along with site preparation The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. OlG216-1 Page 3 1 I 7 I f $ a ,- r P L. r r f 4 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Conditions The subject site is located on the south and east sides of Calle Barcelona, approximately 1,000 feet north of Leucadia Boulevard, in Carlsbad, California. Calle Barcelona forms a 90 degree curve at the northwestern corner of the site, and bounds the subject site on the west and north sides. The site has been identified as Lot 4 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08. The site is bordered to the south by a wildlife undercrossing and a drainage easement, with an Expo Design Center located further to the south. Calle Barcelona borders the site to the north and west, and a drainage easement borders the site to the east. The subject site is approximately 18.3 acres in size, and is a portion of the La Costa Glen Development in Carlsbad, California. The subject site is generally rectangular in shape. At the time of the subsurface exploration, the site consisted of a vacant parcel that appears to have been sheet graded to its present topography. Ground surface cover consists of exposed soil with sparse to moderate native grass, weed and brush growth. Other than the appearance that the site was previously graded, no evidence of previous development was observed. Topographic data for the project was provided by Mayers and Associates, the project civil engineer. This data indicates that site topography generally consists of gently sloping terrain, dropping from southwest to northeast. Site grades within the sheet graded portion of the site range from El. 106k near the southwestern property comer to El. 92,+ at the northeastern comer. Large ascending slopes are located along the south portion of the east property line and east portion of the south property line. These slopes are up to 302 feet in height and possess inclinations of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2h:lv). A descending slope is also located within the property boundary along the east portion of the south property line. This slope possesses an inclination of 2h:lvk and a height of 10 to 15k feet. A descending slope is also located on the easterly adjacent site, bordering most of the eastern property line. This slope ranges from 20 to 30k feet in height and possesses an inclination of approximately 2h: 7 v. Other topographic features noted during the site reconnaissance include a desilting basin located in the northeastern region of the subject site, descending to El. 84.5. This desilting basin was dry at the time of the subsurface exploration. These ascending slopes are located within the property boundary. It should be noted that the topography illustrated on the provided plan, in the vicinity of Building 6, including the area of Boring B-IO, does not represent the currently existing site conditions. Apparently, the topographic survey was performed at a time when a The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. OlG216-1 Page 4 7 1 large stockpile was present in this area of the site. This stockpile is no longer present, and site grades in the area of Boring B-6 are consistent with those of the surrounding area. 1 3.2 Proposed Development 1 t I 1 7 7 rr I 9 7 I 1 c I c I Preliminary site plans depicting the proposed development have been provided to our office by Mayers and Associates. These plans indicate that the proposed development will consist of eight (8) new retail buildings. These buildings will range in size from 6,000+ e to 58,523+ ft2. These buildings are indicated to be 1 to 2 stories in height. One or two of the larger buildings will also include loading dock areas. Although not specified on the site plan, it is assumed that the proposed structures will not include any significant below grade construction. Detailed structural information regarding the new buildings has not been provided. However, it is assumed that most of the larger buildings will be of concrete tilt-up or masonry block construction. Based on the assumed construction, maximum column and wall loads are expected to be on the order of 75 kips and 5 kips per linear foot, respectively. Some of the smaller out buildings may be of wood frame construction, and maximum column and wall loads on the order of 30 kips and 2 kips per linear foot are assumed for these buildings. All of the floor slabs are assumed to be subjected to loads of less than 150 psf. Preliminary grading information is included on the site plan provided to our office. This plan indicates that grading for the new development will generally require maximum cuts and fills on the order of 1 to 3k feet. The plan also indicates that new retaining walls will be located along the south portion of the east property line as well as most of the south property line. These walls will be up to 25+ feet in height. Consideration has been given to the use of a segmental retaining wall system in these areas. This report presents preliminary information for design of conventional retaining walls. However, a supplementary report is currently being prepared to address the design of segmental retaining walls. The site plan indicates that most of the areas outside of the proposed buildings will be developed with asphaltic concrete pavements. Limited areas of these pavements will be subjected to heavy truck traffic. 3.3 Background and Previous Studies Prior to preparation of this geotechnical report, we obtained a copy of a previous grading report with coverage of the subject site. This report is identified as follows: 0 Final As Graded Report of Rough Gradinq. Green Vallev. Ct 92-08 (Proposed La Costa Glen). Carlsbad. California, prepared by Leighton and Associates for The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 5 1 7 a 1 1 7 ? 1 7 Continuing Life Communities, LLC, dated January 28, 1999, Leighton Project No. 49601 34-002. This report presents a summary of observations, field and laboratory test results, and the geotechnical conditions encountered and created during rough grading of the subject site. This grading generally was performed to achieve sheet graded pads as well as the widening of a portion of El Camino Real. Rough grading operations for the subject site were performed during the period of August 1998 through January 1999. As stated by Leighton, rough grading operations generally included the removal of potentially compressible soils and undocumented fill soils to a depth of competent materia1,'the preparation of areas to receive fill, placement of new fill soils, the construction of fill slope keys, the excavation of formational material to achieve design grades, overexcavation of transition lots, and subdrain placement. Prior to grading, the areas of proposed development were reportedly stripped of surface vegetation and organic debris. Removals of unsuitable and potentially compressible soil, including undocumented fill, topsoil/colluvium/alluvium, slopewash and weathered formational material were made to a depth of competent material in all areas proposed for new structural fill. Removal areas with slopes flatter than 5h:lv or within 1 foot of the encountered water table were scarified to a depth of 12 inches and moisture conditioned as needed, to obtain a near optimum moisture content, and then recompacted at least 90 percent of relative compaction. The steeper natural hill sides were benched to expose competent material prior to fill placement. The geotechnical maps included within the Leighton report identified the overexcavation bottom elevations throughout the proposed development. Removals of the topsoil/colluvium/alluvium and weathered formational materials were generally on the order of 5 to 10 feet in thickness, as recommended in the original Leighton geotechnical report. Any existing undocumented fill was removed to a depth of competent formational materials and/or competent engineered fill. Prior to construction of new fill soils, including fill over cut slopes, fill slope keys were constructed. The keys were excavated at least 5 feet into competent material along the toe of slope, at least 15 feet wide, angled a minimum of 2 percent into slope. The locations of the fill slope keys are indicated on the Leighton geotechnical maps. One of these fill slope keys was located along the extreme western end of the south property line as well as along the southern one-half of the western property line. The location of this fill slope is indicated on Plate 2 included in Appendix A of this report. New fill soils were placed in 6 to 8 inch thick lifts of loose soil, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-I 557 maximum dry density. Due to the presence of a steep alluvium/bedrock transition in many areas of proposed development, an overexcavation was made where the transition was encountered. This overexcavation generally consisted of a IO-foot removal and recompaction in order to reduce the effects of differential settlement, due to the differing engineering The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. OlG216-1 Page 6 characteristics of the alluvium versus the bedrock. Such an excavation was performed in the western region of the subject site, including Buifdings 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8. As such, the entire site is generally underlain by at least 8 to IO& feet of compacted structural fill. In their report, Leighton presents a preliminary discussion of the liquefaction potential of the on-site soils. Leighton indicates that within the western portion of the project, shallow groundwater conditions were not encountered. As such, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction in this area of the site was considered to be very low. However, the alluvial soils in the eastern portion of the subject site generally were identified to consist of loose, clean, silty fine to medium grained sands with groundwater present at depths of 2 to 10 feet below the previously existing ground surface. As a result of their liquefaction analysis, Leighton concludes that no special foundation design considerations are warranted, based on the presence of a layer of surficial compacted fill that will overly the potentially liquefiable soils. This recommendation is also made on the basis that the proposed structures will be relatively lightly loaded. During the grading operations on the La Costa Glen site, Leighton performed eight (8) expansion index tests, in accordance with UBC Standard 18-2. These tests indicated very low to low expansion potentials. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad. CA Project No. 01G216-1 Pann 7 7 1 1 1 7 , k I c I # m I r r r r 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Samplinq Methods The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of sixteen (16) borings advanced to depths of 5 to 50k feet below currently existing site grades. The number and approximate locations of the borings were specified by the client. These borings were logged during excavation by a member of our staff. The borings were advanced with hollow-stem augers, by a truck-mounted drilling rig. Representative bulk and in-situ soil samples were taken during drilling and trenching. Relatively undisturbed in-situ samples were taken with a split barrel “California Sampler“ containing a series of one inch long, 2.416k inch diameter brass rings. This sampling method is described in ASTM Test Method D-3550. In-situ samples were also taken using a 1.4+ inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive blows of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain their original moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory. The approximate locations of the borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan, included as Plate 2 in Appendix A of this report. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, as well as the results of some of the laboratory testing, are included in Appendix B. 4.2 Geotechnical Conditions The soils encountered at and immediately below the existing ground surface at all sixteen boring locations consist of engineered fill soils. These fill soils extend to depths of 8 to at least 30+ feet below currently existing site grades. The fill soils generally consist of medium dense to dense fine sands and fine to medium sands with trace to some silt, trace to little clay and occasional fine gravel content. The fine gravel, where encountered, generally consists of sandstone fragments. The fill soils are somewhat variable in composition, and some zones of clayey fine sand and fine sandy clay were encountered at the boring locations. The fill soils also contained occasional silt and clay clasts. Borings B-I, 8-2, B-7, B-11, 8-14 and B-16 were terminated within the engineered fill materials at depths ranging from 5 to 30 feet below grade. Most of the borings encountered native alluvial soils beneath the engineered fill soils. These alluvial materials generally consist of medium dense silty fine to medium sands r The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 8 1 1 1 1 7 I 7 m c 1 m r I r ? I F I with occasional trace clay content. Borings B-6, B-8, B-9, and B-13 were terminated within these alluvial soils at depths of 15 to 40k feet. The remaining borings were extended into the formational bedrock that underlies the western portion of this site. This bedrock consists of the Torrey Sandstone. The sandstone was encountered at Borings B-3, B-4, B-5, B-10, B-12, and 8-15 At these boring locations, the sandstone extends to at least the maximum depth explored of 50+ feet. The Torrey Sandstone generally consists of dense to very dense light brown to white fine grained sandstone with trace silt. Occasional zones of siltstone and sandy siltstone were encountered within the Torrey Sandstone materials. Most of the borings did not encounter any free water during drilling, nor was any water observed within the open boreholes immediately after the completion of drilling. However, water was measured at a depth of 29.5+ feet within Boring B-12, 24 hours after completion of drilling. However, this water may represent seepage, since the moisture contents of the Torrey Sandstone between depths of 20 and 50+ feet are not indicative of saturated conditions. No free water was encountered during or after drilling at any of the other fifteen boring locations. 4.3 Geoloaic Conditions The general geologic conditions of the subject site were determined by review of available geologic literature. The primary reference applicable to the subject site is the Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology, Department of Conservation, authored by Siang S. Tan and Michael P. Kennedy, dated 1996. The map indicates that the subject site is generally underlain by alluvial deposits consisting of unconsolidated silt, clay, sand and gravel. These materials are primarily located within the Encinitas Creek drainage course. Prior to disturbance as a result of recent grading, Leighton indicated that these soils consisted of medium to dark brown, moist to wet, loose to medium dense, clayey to silty fine sands and fine sandy clays. The upper 3 to 5 feet of this unit was typically characterized by abundant organic debris. The Torrey Sandstone underlies the western portion of the subject site. In some areas, the Torrey Sandstone was encountered beneath the alluvial soils. The Torrey Sandstone is Tertiary aged, light brown to white, fine grained silty sandstone. Occasional interbeds of sandy siltstone and clayey sandstone are also present within this unit. Bedding attitudes within the Torrey Sandstone, as mapped by Tan and Kennedy are relatively flat lying, ranging from 5 to 10 degrees, generally dipping to the west. Plate 3, enclosed in Appendix A of this report, presents a portion of the referenced geologic map. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. OlG216-1 Page 9 r L. t- ! c I P 1 c L n , f- T- I r i f 1. 5.0 LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our laboratory for further testing to determine selected physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests are briefly discussed below. It should be noted that the test results are specific to the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected at other locations and depths. Classification All recovered soil samples were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), in accordance with ASTM 0-2488. Field identifications were then supplemented with additional visual classifications and/or by laboratory testing. The USCS classifications are shown on the Boring Logs and are periodically referenced throughout this report. In-situ Density and Moisture Content The density has been determined for selected relatively undisturbed ring samples. These densities were determined in general accordance with the method presented in ASTM D-2937. The results are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture contents are determined in accordance with ASTM D-2216, and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are presented on the Boring Logs. Consolidation Selected soil samples have been tested to determine their consolidation potential, in accordance with ASTM D-2435. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either natural or remolded samples in a one-inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Each sample is then loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and the resulting deflection is recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The samples are typically inundated with water at an intermediate load to determine their potential for collapse or heave. The results of the consolidation testing are plotted on Plates C-I through C-12 in Appendix C of this report. Soluble Sulfates Representative samples of the near-surface soils were submitted to a subcontracted analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates are naturally present in soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result in degradation of concrete which comes into contact with these soils. The results of the The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 10 7 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 7 I c’t !I D I I rr L a r soluble sulfate testing are presented below, and are discussed further in a subsequent section of this report. Sample Identification Soluble Sulfates (%I UBC Classification 8-3 @ 0 to 5 feet 0.007 Negligible B-I3 @ 0 to 5 feet 0.046 Negligible Expansion Index The expansion potential of the on-site soils was determined in general accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard 18-2. The testing apparatus is designed to accept a 4-inch diameter, I-in high, remolded sample. The sample is initially remolded to 50 f I percent saturation and then loaded with a surcharge equivalent to 144 pounds per square foot. The sample is then inundated with water, and allowed to swell against the surcharge. The resultant swell or consolidation is recorded after a 24-hour period. The results of the El testing are as follows: Sample Identification Expansion Index Expansive Potential 8-3 @ 0 to 5 feet 23 Low 8-7 @ 0 to 5 feet B-15 @ 0 to 5 feet 0 15 Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Very Low Very Low Representative bulk samples have been tested for their maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. The results have been obtained using the Modified Proctor procedure, per ASTM D-1557. These tests are generally used to compare the in-situ densities of undisturbed field samples, and for later compaction testing. Additional testing of other soil types or soil mixes may be necessary at a later date. The results of this testing are plotted on Plates C-13 and C-14 in Appendix C of this report. Direct Shear A direct shear test was performed on two selected soil samples to determine their shear strength parameters. The test was performed in accordance with ASTM D-3080. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either natural or remolded samples in a one- inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Three samples of the same soil are prepared by remolding them to 90+ percent compaction and near optimum moisture. Each of the three samples are then loaded with different normal loads and the resulting shear strength is determined for that particular normal load. The shearing of the samples is performed at a rate slow enough to permit the dissipation of excess pore water pressure. Porous stones are in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The results of the direct shear tests are presented on Plate C-15 and C-16. T i The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 11 I 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 n A Grain Size Analvsis Limited grain size analyses have been performed on several selected samples, in accordance with ASTM 0-1140. These samples were washed over a #200 sieve to determine the percentage of fine-grained material in each sample, which is defined as the material which passes the #200 sieve. The weight of the portion of the sample retained on each screen is recorded and the percentage finer or coarser of the total weight is calculated. The results of these tests are presented on the test boring logs. Southern Callfornla Geotechnlcal , The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. OlG216-I Page 12 7 I 1 7 I ’4 rg 7 I I I 1 c i I n P I r r 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our review, field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the design, construction, and grading considerations. The recommendations are contin9nt - --** ypon ’ *. Lqjbracj.ing and fouqd>ation- construction activities u I*&--”+ being__r?l9_ntmdby the geotechnical --w*-Y,* I-M XIiPv enaneer )yi”ll, .””-*- of I.* recprd. r &)by“ The Grading Guide Specifications, included as A-x D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated into the project specifications. The contractor and/or owner of the development should bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from those stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development. -----: --* I- -“Trgr*L-.uI,.. __ 6.1 Seismic Design Considerations The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes. Numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the subject site. Due to economic considerations, it is not generally considered reasonable to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthquake damage. Therefore, significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The proposed structure should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage and loss of life. Faultha and Seismicitv Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the possibility of significant fault rupture on the site is considered to be low. Seismic Desiqn Parameters The proposed development must be designed in accordance with the requirements of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The UBC provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, seismic zoning, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. The seismic design parameters presented below are based on the seismic zone, soil profile, and the proximity of known faults with respect to the subject site. The 1997 UBC Design Parameters have been generated using UBCSEIS, a computer program published by Thomas F. Blake (January 1998). The table below is a compilation of the data provided by UBCSEIS, and represents the largest design values r The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 13 a ZI r r 1 c I I P i r 1 r f lllr i r r presented by each type of fault. A copy of the output generated from this program is included in Appendix E of this report. A copy of the Design Response Spectrum, as generated by UBCSEIS is also included in Appendix E. Based on this output, the following parameters may be utilized for the subject site: Nearest Type A Fault: Nearest Type B Fault: Soil Profile Type: Seismic Zone Factor (Z): Seismic Coefficient (Ca): Seismic Coefficient (C"): Near-Source Factor ( Na) Near-Source Factor (N,) Elsinore-Julian (41+ km) Rose Canyon (8k km) SO 0.40 0.44 0.69 1 .o 1 .I The design procedures presented by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) are intended to protect life safety. Structures designed using these minimum design procedures may experience significant cosmetic damage and serious economic loss. The use of a significantly higher lateral acceleration (Ca factor) such as 0.7 to 0.8 would be necessary to further reduce the risk of economic loss. However, since these values are much higher than those specified by the UBC, owners and structural engineers often regard them as impractical for use in structural design and with respect to the economics of the project. Ultimately, the structural engineer and the project owner must determine what level of risk is acceptable and assign appropriate seismic values to be used in the design of the proposed structure. Ground Motion Parameters As part of the liquefaction analysis performed for this study, we have generated a site specific peak ground acceleration, as required by CDMG Special Publication I1 7. This probabilistic analysis was performed using FRISKSP v4.00, a computer program published by Thomas F. Blake (2000). FRISKSP estimates probabilistic seismic hazards using three-dimensional faults as earthquake sources. The program uses a seismotectonic source model, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), to estimate seismic hazards at the subject site. The program originated from the original FRISK program (McGuire, 1978) published by the United States Geological Survey. FRISKSP generates site specific ground motion data based on generalized soil conditions (soil or bedrock), site location relative to nearby faults, accepted attenuation relationships, and other assumptions made by the geotechnical engineer. The attenuation relationships used by FRISKSP include a one standard deviation measure of uncertainty. Peak accelerations have been determined for both magnitude weighted and unweighted conditions. A magnitude weighting relationship accounts for the fact that earthquakes of lower magnitudes are considered to result in fewer cycles of strong ground motion than those of higher magnitudes. The magnitude weighting relationship used in this analysis is described by ldriss (1 998). 6 I The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 0 1G2 16-1 Page 14 r r r I c i I P I r r c I r r r t The peak ground acceleration at the site was determined using an appropriate attenuation relationship (Campbell, K.W., 1997) using parameters for a “deep soil” site, which is considered appropriate for the subject site. Appendix E of this report contains the peak acceleration results, in graphical form. The graphical output consists of four plots: a probability of exceedence plot for 25, 50, 75 and 100 year return periods; and an average return period vs. peak acceleration plot, for both magnitude weighted (M = 7.5) and unweighted analyses. The UBC requires that the selected return period should have at least a 10 percent chance of exceedence in 50 years, which is equal to a 475year return period. Based on the plot included in Appendix E, this would be 0.27g for the subject site, weighted to a magnitude 7.5 earthquake. Appendix E also contains-the tabulated results of the FRISKSP analysis. Liquefaction Liquefaction is the loss of the strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 40 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean (da) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm (Seed and Idriss, 1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particles (d<O.O05mm) in excess of 20 percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table. The liquefaction analysis was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Special Publication 11 7 (CDMG, 1997), and currently accepted practice (SCEC, 1997). The liquefaction potential of the subject site was evaluated using the empirical method originally developed by Seed, et al. (Seed and ldriss 1971). This method predicts the earthquake-induced liquefaction potential of the site based on a given design earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration at the subject site. This procedure essentially compares the cyclic resistance ratio (CFR) [the cyclic stress ratio required to induce liquefaction for a cohesionless soil stratum at a given depth] with the earthquake-induced cyclic stress ration (CSR) at that depth from a specified design earthquake (defined by a peak ground surface acceleration and an associated earthquake moment magnitude). The current version of a generally accepted baseline chart (Youd and Idriss, 1997) is used to determine CRR as a function of the corrected SPT N-value (Nib0. The factor of safety against liquefaction is defined as CRWCSR. The current version of a generally accepted baseline chart (Youd and Idriss, 1997) is used to determine CRR as a function of the corrected SPT N-value (N1)60. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad. CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 15 i L I c h - J - J 3 3 3 1 3 1 Guidelines to determine the appropriate factor of safety against liquefaction have been presented as Table 7.1 of the SCEC publication, “Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 1 17, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California.” This table is reproduced below: FACTORS OF SAFETY FOR LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ASSESSMENT Consequence of /N1)60 (clean sand] Factor of Safety Liquefaction Settlement Surface Manifestations Lateral Spread <=15 >=30 <=15 >=30 <=I 5 >=30 1.1 1 .o 1.2 1 .o 1.3 1 .o The liquefaction analysis procedure is tabulated on the spreadsheet form included in Appendix F of this report. The liquefaction analysis was performed for Boring 6-1, which was drilled to a depth of 50k feet. The liquefaction potential of the site was analyzed utilizing a maximum peak site acceleration of 0.27g for a magnitude 7.5 seismic event. The analysis was performed using groundwater at 30 feet, which is expected to be representative the average groundwater elevation at the subject site. Conclusions and Recommendations The liquefaction analysis, documented __yIII-y --”.-”-----*.. in Aa~diX F oL.thjse reeo~~,~~s~aqf,~d=e~t~if~ed~ ~ any poten-fnes **-*-.- ---~ C-.n.*.*_.WIh^~_-C_I *t161Y14.^.UC o? soil within -Xlbl(lri the , subsurfacefprofjle. .+p. . at the” boring -&u e-- IocatQQS. All of the encountered so& are either above the groundwater table, consist of engineered fill soils, or possess factors-of-safety in excess of 1.2. Therefore, no design considerations -*?*&”--.-. . I related ,_ to liquefaction .Ilhlr 2- or . I liquefaction I 11 ’.I.lll*--.h.* induced~~settle~~~~,a~e- - comLH.*~I2~!9d. 6.2 Geotechnical Desiqn Considerations General The subsurface profile at the subject site generally consists of engineered fill soils extending to depths of 8 to 30+ feet, underlain by medium dense alluvial sands andlor dense to very dense sandstone bedrock. Previous grading, as monitored by Leighton and Associates, included overexcavation of the previously existing fill/bedrock transitions. Therefore, each of the proposed building areas is underlain by at least 8 to IO+ feet of recently placed compacted structural fill. Southern Callfornla Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-I Page 16 c 1 7 i 7 1 7 1 1 I 1 1 7 rl 7 The existing engineered fill soils are considered suitable for support of the foundations and floor slabs of the new structures. The suitability of the engineered fill soils is based on data obtained performed from borings performed by Southern California Geotechnical and our review of the previous grading report prepared by Leighton and Associates. However, the existing fill soils were placed 2 to 3 years ago. Since the time of placement, the surficial fill soils have become softened and weathered. Therefore, limited amounts of remedial grading will be necessary to remove and replace these near surface weathered fill soils. Significant amounts of remedial grading are not expected to be necessary. Grading and Foundation Plan Review As discussed previously, detailed grading or foundation plans are not available at this time. Numerous assumptions were made in preparing the preliminary conclusions and recommendations presented below. Once grading and foundation plans have been developed, it is recommended that these documents be provided to our office for review with regard to the assumptions, conclusions and recommendations presented herein. Near-Surface Settlements The near surface soils at this site generally consist of engineered fill materials, extending to depths of at least 8 to IO& feet. With the exception of the near surface zone of weathered and softened fill materials, representative samples of these soils generally exhibit favorable consolidation characteristics when exposed to moisture infiltration and when exposed to loads in the range of those that will be exerted by the foundations of the new structures. Provided that the recommendations presented in this report are implemented in the design and construction of the proposed development, the post-construction settlements due to the near surface materials are expected to be within the structural tolerances of the proposed buildings. Settlement of Existing Fill Soils As discussed above, the proposed development area is underlain by engineered fill soils, extending to depths of 8 to 30k feet. These fill soils were monitored during placement and have been certified by Leighton and Associates. Based on their composition, these fill soils will be susceptible to only minor amounts of secondary (long-term) consolidation. Furthermore, the recently completed grading has removed any sharp transitions between relatively shallow fill soils in the deeper areas of fill, further reducing the potential for differential settlements due to secondary consolidation. Based on these considerations, the long-term secondary settlement of the existing fill soils is not considered to be problematic for the proposed structures. Expansive Soils Expansion index testing performed by Southern California Geotechnical as part of this study, as well as testing completed by Leighton and Associates during the previous The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 17 3 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 grading, indicates that the on-site soils possess low to very low expansion potentials. Therefore, no design considerations related to expansive soils are considered warranted for this project. Shrin kaae/Subsidence The proposed development area is entirely underlain by existing structural fill soils. Therefore, no significant shrinkage or subsidence is expected to occur during grading operations. However, due to local variations in compaction, shrinkage and/or bulking of 0 to 3 percent could occur in some areas. Sulfates The results of soluble sulfate testing, as discussed in Section 5.0 of this report, indicate negligible levels of sulfates within the selected soil samples, in accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Portland Cement Association (PCA) guidelines. Therefore, specialized concrete mix designs are not expected to be necessary, with regard to sulfate protection purposes. However, the soils present at finished pad grade may vary from those encountered at the boring locations. It is therefore recommended that additional soluble sulfate testing be conducted at the completion of rough grading to verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils that are present at pad grade within the building areas. Slope Stability The site is bordered on portions of the south and west property lines by an ascending fill slope. Leighton indicates that the as-graded slopes are both grossly and surficially stable from a geotechnical standpoint. These slopes currently possess inclinations of 2h:lv. Descending fill slopes are located along the east property line and portions of the south property line. Leighton has also determined these slopes to be grossly and surficially stable. New fill slopes constructed with inclinations of 2h:lv or less are expected to possess adequate stability from both a gross and surficial standpoint. The Leighton report identifies the location of a stability fill, constructed along the southern half of the west property line and the western end of the south property line. The preliminary site plan indicates that some or all of the stability will be removed as part of the proposed grading. Leighton indicates that this fill was constructed as a stability fill, not as a buttress fill. No evidence of adverse geologic conditions are mapped on the as-graded geotechnical map included within the Leighton compaction report. The stability fill is therefore serving to provide adequate surficial stability for this slope, and/or stability of any alluvium and/or slope wash materials in this area. The proposed segmental retaining wall that is proposed to replace the stability fill will provide a similar stabilizing effect and therefore removal of the stability fill is not considered problematic. The geologic structure identified by Leighton, as documented The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 18 in the rough grade compaction report indicates that bedding on the site is flat lying to slightly dipping to the southwest. With regard to the stability fill, this would represent favorable (into slope) bedding. This bedding is consistent with the geology mapped by Tan and Kennedy as referenced in Section 4.3 of this report. 6.3 Site Gradina Recommendations The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed development. We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless superseded by site-specific recommendations presented below. Site Striminq All surficial vegetation as well as any soils with excessive organic content should be stripped from the site prior to the start of grading operations. Based on conditions observed at the time of the subsurface exploration, removal of moderate grass, weed and shrub growth will be required. No significant topsoil was encountered at the boring locations. The actual extent of site stripping should be determined in the field, during grading, by the geotechnical engineer. As part of the initial grading operations, remedial grading should be performed within the existing retentioddesilting basin, located in the northeastern area of the site. No standing water was present within the basin at the time of the subsurface exploration, although evidence of previous standing water as well as some silt deposits were observed. It is expected that overexcavation to a depth of 2 to 3 feet will be required in this area to reach of level of suitable subgrade soils. This overexcavation should be done under the observation of the geotechnical engineer. Treatment of Existina Soils: Buildincl Areas The proposed building areas are generally underlain by existing structural fill soils, extending to depths of 8 to 30+ feet. Based on the time that has elapsed between the original placement of these fill soils and the present, and the results of the consolidation/collapse testing, some softening and weathering of these materials has occurred. It is therefore recommended that the existing fill soils be overexcavated to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing grade, to remove the existing weatheredkoftened fill soils. The areas of overexcavation should extend at least 10 feet beyond the building perimeters. If the proposed structures include any exterior columns, such as for a canopy or overhang, the area of overexcavation should also encompass these footings. Following completion of the overexcavations, the subgrade soils within the building areas should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 19 serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the foundation loads of the new structure. This evaluation should include proofrolling with a heavy rubber-tired vehicle to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstable soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if loose, porous, or low density soils are encountered at the bottom of the overexcavation. The overexcavation subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and recompacted. Treatment of Existing Soils: Parkinq Areas Subgrade preparation in the remaining new parking areas should initially consist of completion of cuts where required. The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify any areas of additional unsuitable soils. Based on conditions observed at the site at the time of drilling, additional overexcavation is expected to be necessary at isolated locations within the new parking areas. The subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12_+ inches, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Fill Placement Fill soils should be placed in thin (6+ inches), near-horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted. On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer. All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the grading code of the City of Carlsbad. All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed. Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content. These tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the job specifications. Imported Structural Fill All imported structural fill should consist of low expansive (El <30), well graded soils possessing at least 10 percent fines (that portion of the sample passing the No. 200 sieve). Additional specifications for structural fill are presented in the Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 20 r; 7 J Utilitv Trench Backfill In general, all utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean sand (minimum Sand Equivalent of 30) may be placed within trenches and compacted in place (jetting or flooding is not recommended). Compacted trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be indicated by the City of Carlsbad. All utility trench backfills should be witnessed by the geotechnical engineer. The trench backfill soils should be compaction tested where possible; probed and visually evaluated elsewhere. Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and extending below a 1h:lv plane projected from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with structural fill soils, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 standard. Pea gravel backfill should not be used for these trenches. 6.4 Construction Considerations 1 Moisture Sensitive Subclrade Soils 1 1 7 1 1 1 I 7 Some of the near surface soils possess appreciable silt content and may become unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by construction traffic. In addition, based on their granular content, some of the on-site soils will also be susceptible to erosion. The site should, therefore, be graded to prevent ponding of surface water and to prevent water from running into excavations. Excavation Considerations It is expected that some excavations for this project will encounter predominantly granular soils. Such soils will be susceptible to caving. Flattened excavation slopes may be sufficient to mitigate caving of shallow excavations, although deeper excavations may require some form of external stabilization such as shoring or bracing. All excavation activities on this site should be conducted in accordance with Cat-OSHA regulations. Special excavation considerations may be warranted during construction of the segmental retaining walls along the south and east property lines. These considerations will be addressed in the subsequent segmental retaining wall design report. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered within only one of the borings, at a depth of 30k feet. Based on the elevation of Boring B-12, this would indicate a static groundwater table at 1 The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 016216-1 Page 21 El. 71+. proposed grading or foundation construction activities. Based on these conditions, groundwater is not expected to impact the 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction Based on the preceding grading recommendations, it is assumed that the building pads will be underfain by existing structural fill soils, placed during mass grading of the subject site, or newly placed structural fill soils used to replace weathered materials or used to raise site grades. Based on this subsurface profile, the proposed structures may be supported on conventional shallow foundation systems. Foundation Desian Parameters New square and rectangular footings may be designed as follows: Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 2,500 IbsM. Minimum wall/column footing width: 14 inched24 inches. Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Four (4) No. 5 rebars (2 top and 2 bottom). It is recommended that a grade beam footing be constructed across all exterior doorways. This footing should be founded at a depth similar to the adjacent building foundations. Any flatwork adjacent to the exterior doors should be doweled into this grade in a manner determined by the structural engineer. Minimum foundation embedment: 12 inches into suitable structural fill soils, and at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. Interior column footings may be placed immediately beneath the floor slab. The allowable bearing pressure presented above may be increased by 1/3 when considering short duration wind or seismic loads. The minimum steel reinforcement recommended above is based on geotechnical considerations; additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. The actual design of the foundations should be determined by the structural engineer. Foundation Construction The foundation subgrade soils should be evaluated at the time of overexcavation, as discussed in Section 6.3 of this report. It is further recommended that the foundation subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to steel or concrete placement. Within the new building areas, soils suitable for direct foundation support should consist of existing or newly placed structural fill, compacted to at least The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No.01G216-1 Page 22 r r P P r r r m c 90 percent of the ASTM D-I557 maximum dry density. Any unsuitable materials should be removed to a depth of suitable bearing compacted structural fill or medium dense to dense relative sands, with the resulting excavations backfilled with compacted fill soils. As an alternative, lean concrete slurry (500 to 1,500 psi) may be used to backfill such isolated overexcavations. The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of the Modified Proctor optimum, to a depth of at least 18 inches below bearing grade. Since it is typically not feasible to increase the moisture content of the floor slab and foundation subgrade soils once rough grading has been completed, care should be taken to maintain the moisture content of the building pad subgrade soils throughout the construction process. Estimated Foundation Settlements Post-construction total and differential movements (settlement and/or heave) of shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the previously presented recommendations are estimated to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively. Differential movements are expected to occur over a 30-foot span, thereby resulting in an angular distortion of less than 0.002 inches per inch, which is considered within tolerable limits for the proposed structures, provided that the structural design adequately considers this distortion. Lateral Load Resistance Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces: 0 Passive Earth Pressure: 350 Ibs/ft3 0 Friction Coefficient: 0.35 The recommended passive earth pressure and friction include an appropriate factor of safety. A one-third increase in these values may be used for short duration wind or seismic loads. When combining friction and passive resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. These values assume that footings will be poured directly against suitable structural compacted fill. The maximum allowable passive pressure is 3,000 Ibs/f?. 6.6 Floor Slab Desiqn and Construction c 1' Subgrades which will support new floor slabs should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, the floors of the new structures may be constructed as conventional slabs-on-grade supported on c Southern Callfornla Geotechnlcal The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. OlG216-1 Page 23 1 1 T I i rs I i 7 I n t I 7 I 4 1 l a t 1 c existing or newly placed structural till. Based on geotechnical considerations, the floor slabs may be designed as follows: 0 Minimum slab thickness: 5 inches 0 Minimum slab reinforcement: No. 3 bars at 18 inches on-center, in both directions. The actual floor slab reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer, based on the imposed loading. 0 Slab underlayment: 2 inches of clean sand overlain by a IO-mil vapor barrier, overlain by 2 inches of clean sand. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are not anticipated, the vapor barrier and upper 2-inch layer of sand may be eliminated. 0 Moisture condition the floor slab subgrade soils to within 2 percent of the Modified Proctor optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches. 0 Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks. The actual design of the floor slabs should be completed by the structural engineer to verify adequate thickness and reinforcement. 6.7 Retaininq Wall Desicln and Construction Although not indicated on the conceptual grading and drainage plan provided to our office, some small retaining walls may be required to facilitate site grades. The parameters recommended for use in the design of these walls are presented below. These values should not be used for design of segmental retaining walls. A site specific segmental retaining wall design will be presented in a subsequent geotechnical report. Retainina Wall Design Parameters Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the following parameters may be used in the design of new retaining walls for this site. We have provided parameters for two different types of wall backfill: on-site soils comprised of sands and silty sands as well as imported select granular material. These parameters are based on site specific direct shear testing. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. OlG216-1 Page 24 RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Design Parameter Internal Friction Angle (4) Unit Weight Active Condition (level backfill) Equivalent Active Condition Fluid Pressure: (2h:lv backfill) At-Rest Condition ~ (level backfill) Soil Type Imported On-Site Sands Aggregate Base and Silty Sands 38" 32" 130 Ibs/ft3 125 Ibs/ft3 30 Ibs/ft3 38 Ibs/ft3 44 Ibs/ft3 58 Ibs/ft3 50 Ibs/ft3 58 Ibs/ft3 ~ ~~ ~ Regardless of the backfill type, the walls should be designed using a soil-footing coefficient of friction of 0.35 and an equivalent passive pressure of 350 Ibs/ft3. The structural engineer should incorporate appropriate factors of safety in the design to the retaining walls. The active earth pressure may be used for the design of retaining walls that do not directly support structures or support soils that in turn support structures and which will be allowed to deflect. The at-rest earth pressure should be used for walls that will not be allowed to deflect such as those which will support foundation bearing soils, or which will support foundation loads directly. Where the soils on the toe side of the retaining wall are not covered by a "hard" surface such as a structure or pavement, the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed or degraded during the life of the structure. Retainina Wall Foundation Desicln The retaining walls should be supported within existing or newly placed compacted structural fill. Foundations to support new retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the general Foundation Design Parameters presented in a previous section of this report. ' Backfill Material It is recommended that a minimum 1 foot thick layer of free-draining granular material (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) should be placed against the face of the retaining walls. This material should be approved by the geotechnical engineer. If the layer of freedraining material is not covered by an impermeable surface, such as a Southern California Geotechnlcal The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. OlG216-1 Page 25 I c ? ! f 1 t- I structure or pavement, a 12-inch thick layer of a low permeability soil should be placed over the backfill to reduce surface water migration to the underlying soils. All retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions in the necessary layer thicknesses to ensure an in-place density between 90 and 93 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test (ASTM 01557-91). Care should be taken to avoid over-compaction of the soils behind the retaining walls, and the use of heavy compaction equipment should be avoided. Subsurface Drainaae As previously indicated, the retaining wall design parameters are based upon drained backfill conditions. Consequently, some form of permanent drainage system will be necessary in conjunction with the appropriate backfill material. Subsurface drainage may consist of either: 0 A weep hole drainage system typically consisting of a series of 4-inch diameter holes in the wall situated slightly above the ground surface elevation on the exposed side of the wall and at an approximate 8-foot on-center spacing. 0 A 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by 2 cubic feet of gravel per linear foot of drain placed behind the wall, above the retaining wall footing. The gravel layer should be wrapped in a suitable geotextile fabric to reduce the potential for migration of fines. The footing drain should be extended to daylight or tied into a storm drainage system. 6.8 Exterior Flatwork Design and Construction 1 L I !- I i i Subgrades which will support new exterior slabs-on-grade for patios, sidewalks and entries should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Grading Recommendations section of this report, as recommended for the parking areas. Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, exterior flatwork will be supported by a minimum 1 foot thick layer of compacted structural fill. Based on geotechnical considerations, exterior slabs on grade may be designed as follows: Minimum slab thickness: 4 inches, 5 inches where subjected to infrequent vehicular traffic. 0 Minimum slab reinforcement: Driveway slabs or other flatwork which may be subjected to vehicular traffic should include conventional welded wire mesh (6x6- W1.4xW1.4 WWF) or No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, in both directions. Reinforcement in other exterior flatwork is not required, with respect to geotechnical conditions. t- i Southern Callfornla Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 26 3 3 3 3 -l 1 1 7 1 7 1 The flatwork at building entry areas should be structurally connected to the grade beam that is recommended to span across the door opening. This recommendation is designed to reduce the potential for differential movement at this joint. Moisture condition the flatwork subgrade soils to a moisture content of 2 to 4 percent above optimum, to a depth of at least 12 inches. Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks. Control joints should be provided at a maximum spacing of 8 feet on center in two directions for slabs and at 6 feet on center for sidewalks. Control joints are intended to direct cracking. Minor cracking of exterior concrete slabs on grade should be expected. Expansion or felt joints should be used at the interface of exterior slabs on grade and any fixed structures to permit relative movement. 6.9 Pavement Desiqn Parameters Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously recommended in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The subsequent pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring, and are based on either PCA or CALTRANS design parameters for a twenty (20) year design period. However, these designs also assume a routine pavement maintenance program to obtain the anticipated 20-year pavement service life. Pavement Subarades It is anticipated that the new pavements will be supported on existing or newly placed structural fill soils. The existing structural fill soils are expected to consist of sands and silty sands. These materials are expected to exhibit good pavement support characteristics, with estimated R-values of 30 to 50. Since R-value testing was beyond the scope of services for this project, these materials have been assigned an R-value of 30. At the completion of grading, it is recommended that R-value testing be performed in a representative number of the proposed pavement areas to determine the actual R- value of the as-graded subgrade. The R-value test results may indicate higher R-values within the as-graded pavement subgrades, resulting in a thinner pavement section. Any fill material imported to the site should have support characteristics equal to or greater than that of the on-site soils and be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions. 7 Southern California Geotechnlcal The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 27 Asphaltic Concrete 5.0 The pavement designs are based on the traffic indices (TI’S) indicated. The client andlor civil engineer should verify that these TI’S are representative of the anticipated traffic volumes. If the client and/or civil engineer determine that the expected traffic volume will exceed those recommended herein, we should be contacted for supplementary recommendations. The design traffic indices equate to the following approximate daily traffic volumes over a 20-year design life, assuming 5 operational traffic days per week: Per Day I I Traffic Index (TI) I Number of Heavy Trucks I ~~ 6.0 7.0 4 14 8.0 9.0 42 112 For the purposes of the traffic volumes above, a truck is defined as a 5-axle tractor- trailer unit, with one 8-kip axle and two 32-kip tandem axles. All of the traffic indices allow for 1000 automobiles per day. Auto Parking (TI = 4.0) Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for new flexible pavement structures consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. It should be noted that the TI = 6.0 section only allows for 4 trucks per day. Therefore, all significant heavy truck traffic must be excluded from areas where this thinner pavement section is used; otherwise premature pavement distress may occur. Heavy Truck Traffic (TI = 7.0) Auto Lanes Drive Light Truck (TI = 5.0) Traffic (TI = 6.01 ASPHALT PAVEMENTS UNDERLAIN BY ENGINEERED FILL (R = 35) I Thickness (inches) Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Base Aggregate Subbase 3 3 3.5 4 3 6 7 10 - -- - I- The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D- 1557 maximum dry density. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Marshall maximum density, as determined by ASTM D-2726. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 28 Portland Cement Concrete The preparation of the subgrade soils within concrete pavement areas should be performed as previously described for proposed asphalt pavement areas. The minimum recommended thicknesses for the Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections are as follows: e Automobile Parking and Drive Areas 5 inches Portland Cement Concrete over Light Truck Traffic Areas (TI = 6.0) 6.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete Heavy Truck Traffic Areas (TI = 7.0) 7.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete The concrete should have a 28-day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi. Reinforcing within all pavements should consist of at least heavy welded wire mesh (6x6-W2.9xW2.9 WWF) placed at mid-height in the slab. The maximum joint spacing within all of the PCC pavements is recommended to be equal to or less than 30 times the pavement thickness. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Paae 29 c !’ 3 3 3 3 3 3 -3 1 7 7 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client, in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. This report may be provided to the contractor@) and other design consultants to disclose information relative to the project. However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect, civil engineer, and/or structural engineer. The reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party’s sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur. The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited discrete soil samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations and sample depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein. This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed development. It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil engineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent with the characteristics of the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted. The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 30 r P 1 r r r r pl 1 c - i I m P t f 1 c 8.0 REFERENCES Blake, Thomas F., FRISKSP, A Computer Proaram for the Probabilisfic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Usinq 3-0 Faults as Earthquake Sources, Version 4.00,2000. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 117, 1997. Campbell, K.W., "Imperical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo- Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra", Seismoloaical Research Letters, Seismological Society America, Volume 68, Number 1, January/February 1997, pp. 154-1 79. National Research Council (NRC), "Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes," Committee on Earthquake Enaineerinq, National Research Council, Washington D. C., Report No. CETS-EE-001,1985. Seed, H. B., and Idriss, 1. M., "Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential using field Performance Data," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, September 1971, pp. 1249-1273. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), University of Southern California, "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 1 17, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California," Committee formed 1997. Tokimatsu K., and Seed, H. B., "Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking," Journal of the Geotechnical Enaineerina Division, American society of Civil Engineers, Volume 113, No. 8, August 1987, pp. 861-878. Tokimatsu, K. and Yoshimi, Y., "Empirical Correlations of Soil Liquefaction Based on SPT PI-value and Fines Content," Seismoloaical Research Letters, Eastern Section Seismological Society Of America, Volume 63, Number 1, p. 73. Youd, T. L. and Idriss, 1. M. (Editors), "Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils," Salt Lake City, UT, January 5-6 1996, NCEER Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Buffalo, NY. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01 G216-1 Page 31 rn i 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 7 1 1 1 1 3 1 APPENDIX A SITE LOCATION MAP BORING LOCATION PIAN SITE GEOLOGIC MAP . r SOURCE: SAN DIEGOCOUNTY THOMAS GUIDE, WB3 SITE LOCATION MAP THE PAVILION AT LA COSTA CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA t 1- = rldm I 1-1 Southern Californla Geotechnical CHKD: GKM 01G216-1 1260 North Hancuck Street, Suite 101 Anaheim, California 92807 Phone: (714) 777-0333 Fax: (714) 777-0390 SOURCE: CDMG OFR W2 KENNEDY AND TAN, 1996 SITE GEOLOGIC MAP THE PAVILION AT LA COSTA CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 1-=m CHKD: GKM SCG PROJECT 016216-I PLATE 3 RB Southern California Geotechnical I 1260 North Ha& Street. Suite 101 Anaheim, California 92807 Phone: (714) 777-0333 Fax: (714) 777-0398 f 1 1 1 7 APPENDIX B BORING LOGS BORING LOG LEGEND GRAB GRAPHICAL ISAMPLE TYPE/ SYMBOL SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT. SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE GROUND SURFACE. (DISTURBED) Dl SAMPLE DESCRIPTION I NR NO RECOVERY: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR ROCK MATERIAL. STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER IS A 1.4 INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL. DRIVEN 18 INCHES WITH THE SPT HAMMER. (DISTURBED) AND THEN EXTRACTED. (UNDISTURBED) 1 VANE I #l I VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGTH OBTAINED USING A 4 BLADED SHEAR DEVICE. TYPICALLY USED IN SOFT CLAYS-NO SAMPLE RECOVERED. COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS PEPTH: SAMPLE: Distance in feet below the ground surface Sample Type as depicted above. BLOW COUNT POCKEN PEN.: GRAPHIC LOG: DRY DENSITY: MOISTURE CONTENT: LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTIC LIMIT PASSING #200 SIEVE: UNCONFINED SHEAR: Number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 Ib hammer with a 30-inch drop. 50/3” indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows) at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 inches or more. Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by the pocket penetrometer. Graphic soil symbol, as depicted on the following page. Dry Density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample. Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid. The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic. The percentage of material finer than the #200 standard sieve. The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the unconfined state. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART '.\"Ia*: .". ,s e \"I HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SYMBOLS GRAPH I LElTER MAJOR DIVISIONS PT COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE SAND AND SANDY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE SILTS AND CLAYS SANDS WITH (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LllTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LllTLE OR NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS r e C I C r I i r L L L r L Li 7 - I J 7 J 3 3 n 3 7 Southern California Geotechnisal BORING NO. B-1 JOB NO.: 016216 PROJECT La Costa Pavilion DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: None LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas DE SCRl PT IO N SURFACE ELEVATION: 94 feet MSL - FILL: Light Brown to'Brdwn fine to medium Sand, trace to some Silt, trace Clay, medium dense to dense - damp 8.. . 8.. . 8.4. Boring Terminated at 5' TEST BORING LOG READING TAKEN: at ComDletion LABORATORY PLATE B-1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 #I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Southern California Geoteshnisal BORING NO. B -2 JOB NO.: 016216 DRILLING DATE: 10125/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: None LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Comdetion ‘IELD RE: - B DESCRIPTION 2 I SURFACE ELEVATION: 96 feet MSL - m: Light Brown fine to medium Sand, some Silt, little Clay, loose to medium dense - dry . m: Light Brown to Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace Clay, medium dense - moist Boring Terminated at 5 TEST BORING LOG LABORATORY I PLATE B-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 3 I 1 1 I 7 1 a 1 1 1 bmpletion i Southern California Geoteshnical BORING NO. B -3 ~~~ ~ JOB NO.: OlG216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATFDE-~ ?ROJECT La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 16.5' -0CATION: Carlsbad. California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: a LTSI I Y t; IYI DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 97 feet MSL m: Light Brown fine Sand, little medium Sand, little to trace Silt, medium dense - dry to damp E!!,& Brown to Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, trace Clay, occasional Sandstone fragments, medium dense - moist [:.I;. .. ." !:.,?? '.! E!!,& Brown to Light Brown fine Sand, trace to some Silt, little .,'.', . ', f- Clay, medium dense to dense - moist .... ... .. .... ...... ........ ........ ..... ..... . _. . ...... ..... .. .. .,.,:,. ._ .. - occasional Clayey fine Sand clasts at 7 to 8 feet ...... .. , :, ._ . , . .. ..: . . :. ..... , .. '. .. , .... .. ..- '.: . . ', ..... .... .... .... .... .... .... TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION: Light Gray fine grained Sandstone, occasional iron oxide stains, dense to very dense - moist Boring Terminated at 20' ~ .TI TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-3 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 7 1 7 7 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 7 (3 0 9 T (3 3 BORING NO. B -4 Southern California Geoteshnical DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 100 feet MSL JOB NO.: 01 G216 PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion ... ::'..*- ............ .... .. ..:.. < ... . : i.. . ': .. ... . LOCATION: Carl: U; Light Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, trace Clay, occasional medium Sand, trace iron oxide staining, dense - moist :E: - k- z 0 s -I 6 m 67 - 47 57 70 57 61 - .. .... .. ... . ...L .. ... ... .. .... ....... .... .. ..... ... ... ... .... ... _. ._ _.: . .... . .... ... .. ... .... ... ,. _.: . ..... .. .... .... .. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 11.5' - some Silty Clay clasts at 7 to 8 feet .- TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION: tight Brown fine . grained Sandstone, little Silt, occasional Clayey fine Sand clasts, medium dense to dense - damp to moist 1 ::..iff[ - weathered SandstonelClaystone clasts at 3 to 4 feet .... ::::I .... READING TAKEN: at LABORATORY RESULT! PLATE B-4 TEST BORING LOG 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 3 71 7 1 7 $7 1 1 I 7 7 Southern California Geoteshnisal BORING NO. B-5 JOB NO.: 016216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas :IELD RESULTS~ I LABORATORY RESULTS CAVE DEPTH: 36' READING TAKEN: at Completion E E x 0, 5 10 15 !O !5 IO - 5 9 $ 3 m - 61 58 58 62 45 42 34 38 55 48 - ll I- DESCRIPTION - Dark Brown fine to medium Sand, trace to some Silt. trace Clay, dense - moist at 7 to 8 feet - trace Clay at 19 to 20 feet - Clayey fine Sand at 24 to 25 feet - Clayey fine Sand at 29 to 30 feet - moist at 29 to 30 feet W! a! zi g %( - 1c 12 17 14 8 13 9 17 15 17 - PLATE B-5a TEST BORING LOG BORING NO. B-5 Southern California Geotechnieal JOB NO.: 016216 PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion WATER DEPTH: Dry DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 36' LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas =IE F - W !t I t- W 0 a - 40 DESCRIPTION Q (Continued) .. :: :; ;:: ALLUVIUM: Brown to Light Brown Silty fine Sand, bace :. ':' .:.. medium Sand, medium dense - moist to very moist . .. .. fine Sand, very stiff - moist to very moist ,. TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION: Brown to Gray Brown fine grained Sandstone, slightly Silty, dense to very dense - very moist Boring Terminated at 45' READING TAKEN: at ComDletion LABORATORY RES TEST BORING LOG PLATE B4b 1 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1 7 7 7 1 T 1 1 1 7 7 1 I BORING NO. B-6 Southern California Geoteshnisal JOB NO.: OlG216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 16.5' LOCATION: Carisbad. California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: a ~~ 'IELD RESULl TORY RESULTS DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 97 feet MSL u: Light Brown fine to medium Sand, some Gravel, fl$l: Light Brown to tight Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, ,Asphaltic Concrete fragments. loose - dry - medium dense to dense - damp 1 O! - Dark Brown to Brown fine Sand, liffle Silt, medium dense to dense - damp at 3 to 4 feet - Dark Brown fine Sand, liffle Clay, medium dense - damp to moist at 5 to 6 feet - Gray fine to medium Sand, liffle to trace Silt at 6 to 7 feet - Dark Brown fine to medium Sand, little Clay, occasional Clay dasts, medium dense - moist at 7 to 8 feet .... .: ._ .... .... ... ._ . ... ;.:. . .. _. . . - Brown to Dark Brown fine Sand, liffle Clay, trace fine Gravel, medium dense - very moist at 9 to 10 feet .. __. ..... .... .... .: ..: ...... ... .: .:: ..... ..... ..... .:: :,. : .., ... ._ Silt, trace Clay, medium dense - moist to very moist at 14 to 1. .: ._ 15 feet 1: ... '..: - Dark Gray Brown fine Sand and occasional fine Gravel, trace ..... ... .... ... ..... ... .... ..... NLUVIUM: Brown fine to medium Sand, dense - moist , 10; 11: 101 10: 1 os - - trace coarse Sand and fine Gravel at 19 to 20 feet 1111 Boring Terminated at 25' bmpletion v) I- z z r" s TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-6 BORING NO. B-7 Southern California Geotechnical JOB NO.: OlG216 DRILLING DATE: 10/26/01 PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY Romeo Balbas :IELD RESULTS~ I II DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 97 feet MSL ELL: Light Brown fine Sand, trace siit, occasional fine Sandstone fragments, medium dense to dense - moist DESCRIPTION sional Clayey fine Sand clasts, dense - moist at 7 to 8 - trace Organics (fine root fibers) at 14 to 15 feet - fine to medium Sand at 20 to 23 feet - occasional Clayey fine Sand clasts, dense - moist at 7 to 8 feet u: Dark Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt, little Clay, dense - moist - trace Organics (fine root fibers) at 14 to 15 feet - fine to medium Sand at 20 to 23 feet m: Dark Brown Silty fine to medium Sand, trace warse Sand, little Clay, dense - mdst - dense - very moist to wet at 29 to 30 feet I WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVEDEPTH: 22' READING TAKEN: 1 LABORATORY RESULTS E n, &! Of lo! z z W - 1 Of 107 1 OE 111 110 I20 IO9 TEST BORING LOG C u' - Yt 1; n! si I( - 11 14 17 11 11 8 6 14 12 iinutes + PLATE B-7 1 7 I 1 1 7 T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 1 I1 M i 9 L BORING NO. B -8 Southern California Geotechnical JOB NO.: OlG216 DRILLING DATE: 10/26/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion LOCATION: Carlsbad. California DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 26' LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: 1 'IELD RES t4: DE SC R I PTI 0 N - ocmsional Clayey fine Sand clasts - moist at 3 to 4 feet - Gray Brown Clayey fine sand. occasional Sandstone fragments - moist at 9 to 10 feet - Dark Red Brown Silty fine Sand, trace fine Sandy Clay clasts, medium dense - moist at 19 to 20 feet TEST BORING LOG 0 - W p: 3 ki 6 I - 11 14 8 1' 6 8 9 15 !4 - Y RESULT5 - Hour cn I- z W 2 2 8 'LATE B-8a 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 1 1 1 1 7 f I E e t z c c - 0 c U c 6 r - Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B-8 JOB NO.: OlG216 DRILLING DATE: 10/26/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVEDEPTH: 26' LOCATION: Cads 1 RESULT d, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas DESCRIPTION (Continued) ... ..e... ALLUVIUM: Brown to Dark Brown fine to medium Sand, trace ....,.. to some Silt, medium dense to dense - very mdst to wet ... ... ... . . .I ... ... ... ... '.'.'. I Boring Terminated at 40' READING TAKEN: 1 LABORATORY RESULT5 Hour TEST BORING LOG PLATE 6-8b BORING NO. B-9 Southern California Geotechnical JOB NO.: OlG216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry DROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 13' -0CATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas IELD RESULTS1 I - E I w 0 k - 5 IO t5 i W p. c W gs E- - L DESCRI PTlON DESCRI PTlON SURFACE ELEVATION: 101 feet MSL FILL: Light Brown fine to medium Sand, some Silt, loose to \sum dense - drv / m: Light Brown to Light Gray Brown fine Sand, trace to little SURFACE ELEVATION: 101 feet MSL FILL: Light Brown fine to medium Sand, some Silt, loose to \aum dense - drv / m: Light Brown to Light Gray Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt, occasional fine Sandstone fragments. dense - damp to moist Silt, occasional fine Sandstone fragments. dense - damp to moist -trace Clay at 5 to 6feet - moist -trace Clay at 5 to 6feet - moist - Clayey fine Sand, very moist at 9 to 10 feet - Clayey fine Sand, very moist at 9 to 10 feet /4LLWIUM: Red Brown fine to medium Sand, trace Silt, dense - moist /4LLWIUM: Red Brown fine to medium Sand, trace Silt, dense - moist I Boring Terminated at 15' READING TAKEN: at Completion I LABORATORY RESULT3 7- TEST BORING LOG PLATE 6-9 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 1 1 1 7 1 1 7 7 t I Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B-I 0 JOB NO.: 016216 JROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 106 feet BCATION: Carl: :IELD RESULT I I- z z 3 m 9 54 27 35 67 81 72 id. California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas (3 9 5 0 I DESCRIPTION 8 SURFACE ELEVATION: 104 feet MSL . ........ ._. . u: tight Brown to Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt, .,';.. .... medium dense to dense - damp to moist ........ - trace fine Gravel at 3 to 4 feet - trace fine Gravel, little Sit at 7 to 8 feet ._ . . ... ..... J' . ..... TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION: Light Brown to Light ..... . Gray Brown fine grained Sandstone, little Silt, very dense - ..... ..... moist to very moist ..... .....- ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... .... .... ' ' ' .. .... .... - Light Gray to White, trace Silt at 13 to 15 feet .... .... .... .... Boring Terminated at 15' READING TAKEN: i LABORATORY RESULT! kmple tion 8 TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-IO 7 I 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 7 7 3 I J 1 1 1 7 1 7 I Southern California Geotechnisal BORING NO. B-I I JOB NO.: 01G216 PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING DATE: 10/26/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: None LOCATION: Carlsl -IELD RESULT! d. California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas (3 9 DESCRIPTION 0 I SURFACE ELEVATION: 106 feet MSL 3 (3 ... . '.. .] 14.1 u: Laht Brown fine Sand, loose to medium dense - dry to Boring Terminated at 5' READINGTAKEN a LABORATORY RESULTS :ompletion 2 8 z W z E PLATE B-11 TEST BORING LOG 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 BORING NO. 6-1 2 Southern California Geotechnical JOB NO.: OlG216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: 29.5' PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 42 feet LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: 24 hours 'IELD RES I ILP I r- c rfg Q - v) z w 9 DESCRIPTION $ 0, 4 >u SURFACE ELEVATION: 101 feet MSL a, (3 *. ,., u: Light Brown fine to medium Sand, little to some Silt, .:.. :. . loose to medium dense - dry u.. . t.. . b. 4 .. v.. . s.4. t.. t.. 0: - extensive Clay clasts, some Silt, dense - damp to moist at 3 ,:* .:.. to 4 feet 8.. . 8.4 8.. 8.4 3- - Brown to Dark Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt, trace ':: :::. medium Sand, dense to very dense - moist at 5 to 12 feet .... .... 1 .. . grained Sandstone, dense to very dense - moist ::::[ 116 106 114 109 106 - extensive Sandstone, Claptone seams at 14.5 to 15 feet - moist to very moist - Gray to Light Gray, trace to some Silt, very dense at 28 to 30 feet - moist - Red Brown fine grained Sandstone at 33 to 35 feet 107 104 2 Y 8 z E TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-12a Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B-I 2 JOB NO.: 01G216 PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion LOCATION: Cad$ -IELD RESULT f !A W W I W 0 ti - 40 45 58 DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: 29.5’ CAVE DEPTH: 42 feet DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger Id, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas SI DESCRIPTION (Continued) d (3 ..... ’ ‘ ..... TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION: Light Brown fine ..... . grained Sandstone, dense to very dense - moist ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... - Light red Brown fine Grained Sandstone at 38 to 40 feet ..... t ..... ..... ..... .... ... .- .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... .... - Red Brown Siltstone, Claystone, dense to very dense at 43 . to 45 feet ....- .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... ; ; -,Claystone. vew dense - moist ’ Torrey Sandstone Forktion: Dark Gray Black weathered Boring Terminated at 50’ READING TAKEN: : ORATORY RESULT! tours TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-12b BORING NO. B-13 Southern California Geotechnical JOB NO.: OlG216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 20.5' READING TAKEN: at Completion LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas ~IELD RESULTS~ I LABORATORY I It t DESCR I PTI ON - Orange Brown fine Sand, dense at 5 to 6 feet - Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, liie Clay, trace Organics, medium dense - moist at 14 to 15 feet ..a. ..a. ..a. ..e. ..<. Disturbed , Sample Disturbed Sample TEST BORING LOG PLATE Bo13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Southern California Geotechnisal BORING NO. B-I 4 ~~ JOB NO.: OiG216 'ROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING DATE: 10/26/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVEDEPTH: 8' -0CATION: Carlsbad. California LOGGED BY Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Cornoletion (3 s DESCRIPTION 0 I SURFACE ELEVATION: 100 feet MSL 3 (3 .. ,*. f 1:- .I. medium dense -damp to moist FILL: Light Brown to Brown fine to medium Sand, trace silt, ,.a. ..<. . . , .. ,.. . ,.a. ,., . ,., . P., . 8.. . I., . t .~. - :: - Light Brown fine Sand, medium dense - moist at 5 to 6 feet - Light Gray Brown fine Sand, occasional Clayey fine Sand ,clasts - moist at 9 to 10 feet I Boring Terminated at 1V LABORATC TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-14 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 '1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Southern California Geoteshnisal BORING NO. 6-1 5 JOB NO.: 016216 DRILLING DATE: 10/26/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 12' E ki W I w4 bu nu 5- 10- 15 - I- z 0 0' J z rn - 6WC 40 35 50 41 'a1 1 %/3' id, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas DESCRIPTION 0 I SURFACE ELEVATION: 105 feet MSL 3 a :.:fi:.: FILL: tight Brown fine sand, trace Silt, trace medium Sand, :.; .; ..: '. occasional Sandstone fragments, medium dense to dense - ' .. ..': ..... damp to moist ..... .... .._: ... ... ._ . :. . .. .... , ..... .... .... ..:. :_ - bace Clay- moist at 5 to 6 feet , ., ..... .._ ,. ._ . , : ..... ..: '.'. .... ,. -I::;.: - Brown to Light Brown, trace Clay - mdst at 7 to ?O feet ..: . . ', .... ._:. .: .. '.: .'. ., ._ .... TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION: Light Brown to White . fine grained Sandstone, trace Silt, dense to very dense - moist , .... I.. .... ..... ..... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... I Bmhg Terminated at 20' READING TAKEN: a LABORATORY RESULTS :ompietion TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-I5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 3 Southern California Geotechnieal BORING NO. B-I 6 JOB NO.: 01G216 PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion LOCATION: Cads 1 RE2 DRILLING DATE: 10/26/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: None d, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas DESCRl PTI ON SURFACE ELEVATION: 106 feet MSL ._ . . ... .: '_ .- m: Light Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt, medium dense . ': ..._ . to dense - damp to moist ._. . . . ._ .. . .. .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . ., .::., _.. . . .. . ., .. .. .: .. .. .. . , _. '. , .. ., Boring Terminated at 5 READING TAKEN: at ComDletion LABORATORY RESULT3 TEST BORING LOG PLATE 8-16 I APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING 1 1 7 '1 1 7 7 1 1 '3 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 rn L I ConsolidationlCollapse Test Results 0.1 1 10 Load (ksf) 100 Classification: Light Brown to Light Gray Brown Silty fine Sand ring Number: B-6 mple Number: --- Pth (fit) 1 to2 ecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 ecimen Thickness (in) 1 .o Initial Moisture Content (%) IO Final Moisture Content (%) 13 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 104.( Final Dry Density (pcf) 116.4 Percent Collapse (%) 0.82 )ject No. 01 G216 .ATE C- I 1280 North Hancock Street, Sub I01 Anaheim, California 92807 I Phone: (714) 777-0333 Fax: (714) 7774398 3 I -l 1 7 I 7 t 7 1 1 7 -1 1 1 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 Costa Pavilion *Isbad, California tject No. 01G216 ,ATE C- 2 ~~~ ConsolidationlCollapse Test Results Southern California Geotechnica - 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 Anaheim, Cdlfomia 92807 Phone: (714) 7770333 Fa: (714) 7774398 0 2 4 A E -6 e 6 - s 28 0" C - m '0 - C 10 12 14 0.1 1 10 Load (ksf) 100 Classification: Dark Brown to Brown fine Sand, little Silt ring Number: B-6 mple Number: --- Pth (fit) 3 to 4 ximen Thickness (in) 1 .o acimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 12 Final Moisture Content (%) 11 Initial Dry Density (pd) Ill.€ Final Dry Density (pc9 123.i Percent Collapse (%) 0.45 ConsolidationlCollapse Test Results 0.1 1 10 Load (ksf) 100 Classification: Dark Brown fine Sand, little Clay ring Number: B-6 mple Number: --- Pth (ft) 5 to 6 ecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 ecimen Thickness (in) I .o Initial Moisture Content (%) 10 Final Moisture Content (%) IO Initial Dry Density (pcf) 116.4 Final Dry Density (pcf) 128.E Percent Collapse (%) 0.20 Costa Pavilion rlsbad, California )ject No. 01G216 ATE C- 3 Southern California Geotechnfca - 1260 North Hancock Stnel Suite 101 Anaheh, Califomla 92807 Phone: (714) l774333 Fax: (714) 7774398 1 -7 -I 1 7 1 7 1 1 7 7 1 '1 1 I 1 7 1 I 1 Costa Pavilion rlsbad, California )ject No. 01 G216 .ATE C- 4 ConsolidationlCollapse Test Results Southern California Geotechnica 1250 ~orth n-k stmt, sub ioi Anaheim, California 92807 Phone: 1714) 7770333 Fax: f714) 7774398 C 2 4 c 16 z C C 0 m '0 - c. - - g8 C 0 0 10 12 14 0.1 1 10 Load (ks9 100 Classification: Dark Brown fine to medium Sand, little Clay, occasional Clay clasts ring Number: B-6 mple Number: I- Pth (fit) 7 to 8 ecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 ecimen Thickness (in) 1 .o Initial Moisture Content (%) 9 Final Moisture Content (%) 12 Initial Dry Density (pd) 103.1 Final Dry Density (pcf) 117.C Percent Collapse (%) 1.33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -I 1 1 -I n fl n 1 1 4l I ‘I ConsolidationlCollapse Test Results 0 2 4 A c -6 ,m z C C 0 a - - 0 - $8 s C 10 12 14 0.1 1 10 Load (ks9 100 Classification: FILL: Light Brown to Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt -ing Number: B-10 nple Number: --- ?th (ft) 1 to2 ximen Thickness (in) 1 .o ximen Diameter (in) 2.4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 8 Final Moisture Content (%) 12 Initial Dry Density (pc9 109.2 Final Dry Density (pc9 119.3 Percent Collapse (%) 0.97 Costa Pavilion .Isbad, California ject No. 01 G216 ATE C- 5 Southern California Geotechnica G 1260 North Hancock Strfmt. Suite 101 Anaheim, California 92807 Phone: (714) 7774333 Fu: (714) 777-0398 ConsolidationlCollapse Test Results a Costa Pavilion :arkbad, California lroject No. 01 G216 'LATE C- 6 0 2 4 - E -- 6 e z E C 0 3 m E - 28 0' 0 10 12 14 Southern California Geotechnica : 1260 North Hu~cocL Street, Suite I01 Anaheim. Califomk 92807 Phone: (714) 7774333 Fax: (714) 7774398 0.1 1 10 Load (ks9 100 Classification: FILL: Light Brown to Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt, trace fine Gravel loring Number: B-IO ;ample Number: --- bepth (ft) 3 to 4 ipecimen Thickness (in) 1 .o ipecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 9 Final Moisture Content (%) 13 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 98.2 Final Dry Density (pcf) 116.6 Percent Collapse (%) 2.73 \ ConsolidationlCollapse Test Results Costa Pavilion rlsbad, California deet No. 01G216 ,ATE C- 7 0 2 4 C -6 E z E 0 m - * E 88 cn C s 10 12 14 Southern California Geotechnica 1260 No& Hmcock StneS Sub 101 Anaheim, California 92807 Phone: (714) 7774333 Fa: (714) 7774398 0.1 1 10 Load (ksf) 100 Classification: FILL: Light Brown to Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt ring Number: B-I 0 mple Number: --- Pth (fit) 5 to 6 ecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 ecimen Thickness (in) 1 .o Initial Moisture Content (%) 10 Final Moisture Content (%) 12 Final Dry Density (pcf) I 26.8 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 113.7 Percent Collapse (%) 0.25 ConsolidationKollapse Test Results Costa Pavilion rlsbad, California Uect No. 01 G216 ATE C- 8 a 2 4 A a-' -6 2 z - C C 0 m - sr - C 0 0 10 12 14 Southern California Geotechnica - 1280 No& Hancock Street, Sulle 101 Anaheim, Califomla 92807 Phone: (714) 7774333 Fax: (714) 7774398 0.1 1 10 Load (ksf) Classification: FILL: Light Brown to Brown fine Sand, trace fine Gravel, little Silt ring Number: B-I 0 mple Number: -- Pth (ft) 7 to 8 ecimen Thickness (in) 1 .o ecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 12 Final Moisture Content (%) 12 Final Dry Density (pcf) 121.1 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 105.E Percent Collapse (%) 1.30 ConsolidationlCollapse Test Results Costa Pavilion rlsbad, California 0 2 4 C T!6 tj rr C 0 e a - %a 8 C 10 12 14 Southern California Geotechnical 1 0.1 gect No. 01 G216 .ATE C- 9 1 10 Load (bf) v 1260 North Hancock Stnet, Suite 101 Anaheim. California 02807 phorw: (714) 7770333 FPX: (714) nn70398 100 Classification: FILL: Light Brown fine Sand ring Number: B-12 mple Number: --- Pth (ft) 1 to 2 ecimen Thickness (in) I .o ecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Initial Moisture Content (%) a Final Moisture Content (%) 11 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 117.5 Final Dry Density (pcf) 127.8 Percent Collapse (%) 0.41 I 7 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 7 7 7 1 1 1 3 I 7 T Costa Pavilion rlsbad, California ~~ ~ ConsolidationlCollapse Test Results Southern California Geotechnisa : 0.1 1 10 Load (kst) 100 Classification: FILL: Brown fine to medium Sand, extensive Clay clasts, some Silt ring Number: B-12 mple Number: --- Pth (fit) 3 to 4 ecimen Thickness (in) 1 .o ecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 13 Final Moisture Content (%) 14 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 101.5 Final Dry Density (pcf) 112.E Percent Collapse (%) 0.25 )ject No. 01G216 ATE C- ‘IO w 1260 Nocth H-k Street, Suite I01 hhehn. California 92807 I Phone: (7S4) 777-0333 Fax: r14) 7774398 ConsolidationlCollapse Test Results Costa Pavilion rlsbad, California Iject No. 01 G216 ATE C- 1 I 0 2 4 8 -6 E 6 C C 0 m - Y 2 -8 0 0 8 10 12 14 Southern California Geotechnical 3 1260 North Hancock Street, Suile 101 Anaheim, Califomla 92807 PMW: 014) 7774333 FU: 014) 7774398 0.1 1 10 Load (ks9 100 Classification: FILL: Brown to Dark Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt, trace medium Sand ring Number: B-12 mple Number: I- Pth (ft) 5 to 6 ecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 ecimen Thickness (in) 1 .o Initial Moisture Content (%) 11 Final Moisture Content (%) 12 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 111.6 Final Dry Density (pcf) 123.5 Percent Collapse (%) 0.83 ConsolidationKoIlapse Test Results Costa Pavilion rlsbad, California bject No. 01 G216 .ATE C- 12 0.1 Southern California Geotechnica - 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 Anaheim, Caliiia 92607 Phone: 1714) 771-0333 Fax: 17141 77l-0398 1 10 Load (kf) 100 Slassification: FILL: Brown to Dark Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt, trace medium Sand ring Number: B-12 mple Number: --- Pth (fit) 7 to 8 ecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 ecimen Thickness (in) 1 .o Initial Moisture Content (%) 8 Final Moisture Content (%) 13 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 103.E Final Dry Density (pcf) 112.5 Percent Collapse (%) 1.04 Moisture/Density Relationship ASTM D-1557 Soil ID Number Optimum Moisture (%) Maximum DN Densitv hcf) 135 13C 1212 126 124 122 120 118 116 114 112 110 6-1 1 12.5 119 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Moisture Content (%) Classification le Pavilion at La Costa arlsbad, California roject No. 01 G216 LATE C-I3 1260 North Hancodr Stmet, SuHe 101 kphehn,cSllfomia 82807 phone: ai41 7774333 F~X: me 777.0398 Moisture/Density Relationship ASTM D-I557 ~ Optimum Moisture (YO) Maximum Drv Densitv bcf) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Moisture Content (%) 9.5 129.5 L Soil ID Number I B-12 1 ie Pavilion at La Costa arlsbad, California -eject No. 01G216 I ATF C-14 Southern California Geotechnical 1260 North tiancock Street, Suite 101 hhelm,CllM1;1 92807 Phone: n14) m4U3 Fu: Ul4~7114198 Classification medium Sand (8-12 @ 5 to IO') ~~ ~~~ Direct Shear Test Results 500C 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 lo00 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Normal Stress (psf) Sample Description: 6-1 1 at 0 to 3.5 feet Classification: Silty fine to medium Sand Samde Data molded Moisture Content 13 la1 Moisture Content molded Dry Density 107.1 al Dry Density ecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 *** rcent Compaction 0 *** ecimen Thickness (in) 1 .o Test Results Peak Ultimate 0 (“1 33.0 33.0 c (PS9 430 200 3 Pavilion at La Costa rlsbad, California Southern California Geotechnica bject No. Project No. 01G216 ATE C-15 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 7 7 I Ti 1 7 1 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Direct Shear Test Results Peak 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 Normal Stress (psf) Sample Description: B-12 at 5 to 10 feet Classification: Clayey fine to medium Sand Sample Data molded Moisture Content 10 tal Moisture Content molded Dry Density 116.6 al Dry Density ecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 *** rcent Compaction 0 *** ecimen Thickness (in) 1 .o Test Results Peak Ultimate 33.0 33.0 425 200 3 Pavilion at La Costa rlsbad, California Southern Californla Geotechnlcal )ject No. Project No. 01G216 ATE C-I6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX D GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 I 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 7 i 1 1 7 I I I Grading Guide Specifications Page 1 GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS These grading guide specifications are intended to provide typical procedures for grading operations. They are intended to supplement the recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation report for this project. Should the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site specific recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report will govern. General The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the plans and geotechnical reports, and in accordance with city, county, and Uniform Building Codes. The Geotechnical Engineer is the representative of the OwnerIBuilder for the purpose of implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are not intended to relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in a workman-like manner, nor is the Geotechnical Engineer to direct the grading equipment or personnel employed by the Contractor. 0 The Earthwork Contractor is required to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the anticipated work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If necessary, work may be stopped and redone if personnel have not been scheduled in advance. 0 The Earthwork Contractor is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on the job- site to process, moisture condition, mix and compact the amount of fill being placed to the specified compaction. In addition, suitable support equipment should be available to conform with recommendations and guidelines in this report. 0 Canyon cleanouts, overexcavation areas, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and benches should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of any fill. It is the Earthwork Contractor's responsibility to notii the Geotechnical Engineer of areas that are ready for inspection. 0 Excavation, filling, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation, springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable working surface. The Geotechnical Engineer must be informed of springs or water seepage encountered during grading or foundation construction for possible revision to the recommended construction procedures and/or installation of subdrains. Site PreParation 0 The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for all clearing, grubbing, stripping and site preparation for the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer. 0 If any materials or areas are encountered by the Earthwork Contractor which are suspected of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contamination, the Geotechnical Engineer and Owner/Builder should be notified immediately. Major vegetation should be stripped and disposed of off-site. This includes trees, brush, heavy grasses and any materials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnicaf Engineer. C c c i c c i w L L d 7 J ; I I 3 7 1 J -1 J I Grading Guide Specifications Page 2 0 Underground structures such as basements, cesspools or septic disposal systems, mining shafts, tunnels, wells and pipelines should be removed under the inspection of the Geotechnical Engineer and recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer andlor city, county or state agencies. If such structures are known or found, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified as soon as possible so that recommendations can be formulated. 0 Any topsoil, slopewash, colluvium, alluvium and rock materials which are considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer should be removed prior to fill placement. Remaining voids created during site clearing caused by removal of trees, foundations basements, irrigation facilities, etc., should be excavated and filled with compacted fill. Subsequent to clearing and removals, areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of 10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted 0 The moisture condition of the processed ground should be at or slightly above the optimum moisture content as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending upon field conditions, this may require air drying or watering together with mixing and/or discing. Compacted Fills 0 Soil materials imported to or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, all fill materials shall be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in the material being classified as "contaminated," and shall be low to non-expansive with a maximum expansion index (El) of 50. The top 12 inches of the compacted fill should have a maximum particle size of 3 inches, and all underlying compacted fill material a maximum 6- inch particle size, except as noted below. 0 All soils should be evaluated and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. Materials with high expansion potential, low strength, poor gradation or containing organic materials may require removal from the site or selective placement and/or mixing to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer. Rock fragments or rocks greater than 6 inches should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations and in areas designated as suitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. Acceptable methods typically include windrows. Oversize materials should not be placed within the range of excavation for foundations, utilities, or pools to facilitate excavations. Rock placement should be kept away from slopes (minimum distance: 15feet) to facilitate compaction near the slope. 0 Fill materials approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed in areas previously prepared to receive fill and in evenly placed, near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. 0 Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, or slightly above, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After proper mixing andlor drying, to evenly distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with ASTM D-1557 unless otherwise indicated. 0 Density and moisture content testing should be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer at random intervals and locations as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. These tests are intended as an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship, i i c I L 1 L 1 i - i - 1 J t 3 J 3 3 3 3 7 3 - J Grading Guide Specifications Page 3 Foundations equipment effectiveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for compaction as required by the Geotechnical Report(s) and governmental agencies. After compacted fills have been tested and approved by the geotechnical engineer, the contractor should moisture condition the soils as necessary to maintain the compacted moisture content. Compacted fill soils that are allowed to become overly dry or desiccated may require removal and/or scarification, moisture conditioning and replacement. Soils with medium to high expansion indices are especially susceptible to desiccation. Sandy soils that are allowed to dry can also lose density Fill areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and recompaction prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer of his intent so that an evaluation can be made. Fill placed on ground sloping at a 540-1 inclination (horirontal-to-vertical) or steeper should be benched into bedrock or other suitable materials, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Typical details of benching are illustrated on Plates G-2, G-4, and G-5. Cut/fill transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet and rebuilt with fill (see Plate G-l), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. All cut lots should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for fracturing and other bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with a uniform, more cohesive soil type to impede moisture penetration. Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture penetration. Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used in the design. The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the outside edge of a footing, and then proceeding downward at a % horizontal to 1 vertical (0.5:l) inclination. Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be conducted so as to encompass the entire foundation influence zone, as described above. 0 Compacted fill adjacent to exterior footings should extend at least 12 inches above foundation bearing grade. Compacted fill within the interior of structures should extend to the floor subgrade elevation. Fill Slopes The placement and compaction of fill described above applies to all fill slopes. Slope compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill in even layers, including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the compacted core. Slope compaction may also be achieved by backrolling the slope adequately every 2 to 4 vertical feet during the filling process as well as requiring the earth moving and compaction equipment to work close to the top of the slope. Upon completion of slope construction, the i d d 1 1 1 I 7 7 3 1 7 7 1 7 Grading Guide Specifications Page 4 Cut SloDes 0 0 0 0 Subdrains 0 0 0 slope face should be compacted with a sheepsfoot connected to a sideboom and then grid rolled. This method of slope compaction should only be used if approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Sandy soils lacking in adequate cohesion may be unstable for a finished slope condition and therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face. All fill slopes should be keyed into bedrock or other suitable material. Fill keys should be at least 15 feet wide and inclined at 2 percent into the slope. For slopes higher than 30 feet, the fill key width should be equal to one-half the height of the slope (see Plate G-5). All fill keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection and should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and governmental agencies prior to filling. The cut portion of fill over cut slopes should be made first and inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The fill portion should be adequately keyed through all sutficial soils and into bedrock or suitable material. Soils should be removed from the transition zone between the cut and fill portions (see Plate G-2). All cut slopes should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for stabilization. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer when slope cutting is in progress at intervals of 10 vertical feet. Failure to notify may result in a delay in recommendations. Cut slopes exposing loose, cohesionless sands should be reported to the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations. All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and dimensions of the key. A typical stabilization fill detail is shown on Plate G-5. Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdrains. Typical subdrain details are shown on Plates G-6. Subdrains may be required in canyons and swales where fill placement is proposed. Typical subdrain details for canyons are shown on Plate G-3. Subdrains should be installed after approval of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer. Plastic pipe may be used for subdrains provided it is Schedule 40 or SDR 35 or equivalent. Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement in a squarecut (backhoe) trench or as recommended by the manufacturer. Filter material for subdrains should conform to CALTFWNS Specification 68-1.025 or as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions. Clean %-inch crushed rock may be used provided it is wrapped in an acceptable filter cloth and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Pipe diameters should be 6 inches for runs up to 500 feet and 8 inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four-inch diameter pipe may be used in buttress and stabilization fills. 7 1 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CUT LOT CDMPETENl MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE m TUF WII FUCIYFSP ' .. . '.I CUT FILL LOT (TRANSITION) .. OVEREXCAVATE AND *OEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER IN STEEP TRANSITIONS COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE TO THE SOIL ENGINEER TRANSITION LOT DETAIL PLATE G-I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 CUTfFIll CONTACT SHOWN COMPACTEO FllL ON GRADING PUN NATURAL GRADE -- MINIMUM 1' nu BACK CUTSLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR A BEDROCK OR APPROVED 1 TO PLACEMENT OF Flu COMPETENT MATERIAL KMWAV IN COMPnENT MAT- ERIAL MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED ev THE SOIL ENGINEER FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL PLATE G-2 1 3 1 1 1 1 7 a 3 1 1 1 1 1 a 7 1 1 9 1 I MIfI 6" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE - MINIMUM 1% SLOPE PIPE DEPTH OF FILL MATER1 AL OVER SUBDRAIN ADS (CORRUGATED POLETHYLENE 8 TRANSITE UNDERDRAIN 20 PVC OR ABS: SDR 35 35 SDR 21 100 CLASS I1 PERMEABLE MATER I AL SCHEMATIC ONLY NOT TO SCALE CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL PLATE G-3 COMPACTED FILL OVERFIUREWREMEHTS - - KEA PUT€ NO. 4 TOE OF SlOk SHOWN . ERIAL UlNlMUU MOTH OF 15 TH€ SOIL ENGINEER KNAY MAY NOT BE REWIRED IF FILL SLOPE I LESS THAN 5' IN HEIGHT, AS RECOMMENDED BY lH€ SOIL ENGINEER FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED By PLACE COMPACTED BACKFILL TO ORIG lNA1 GRAOE WOE WHEN NATURAL SLOPES ARE OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY .WE SOIL ENGINEER BENCHING SHALL BE REWIRED EWL ro OR STEEPER THAN S:I FILL ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 7 I 1 1 3 1 1 a -1 15' Minimum COMPACTED 7 .- 3' WCAl BUNKO FILL IF RECOMMENDED 6Y THE SOIL ENGINEER 1 1 I t-i -..-. .. :- COMPEfENT MATERIAL 7 ACCEPTABLE TO THE FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE SOIL ENGINEER MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOM- mccn ' .. - -* MENDED BY THE SOIL ENGI- LbCLn MINIMUM 1' TILT BACK OR 2 PERCENT (%I SLOPE WHICHMR IS GREATER 15' Minimum or 4 Slope Height STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL Southern California Geotechnical OESIGN OUTLETS TO BE SPACE0 AT loo' MAXIMUM INTER- VALS EXEND 12 INCHES BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE ING CONSTRUCTION. AT nME OF ROUGH GIW NEER 44NCH DlAM€TER NON-PERFORATED .OUTLET PIPE TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD BY THE SOIL ENGINEER . -.. 'FILTER MATERIAL- TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFI* $ATION OR APPROVED EOUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO '€MA STD. PLAN 323) SIM SlDE PEACENTAGE PASSING 1" 100 34' 90-100 30" 40-100 No. 4 25-40 NO. 8 18-33 NO. 30 5-15 NO. 50 07 NO. 200 0-3 "GRAVEL- TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EOUIVALENT: SIM SUE PERCENTAGE PASSJNG MUMUM 1 H' loo no. 4 50 NO. 200 8 SAND EOUIVbLENT = MINIMUM OF 50 FILER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF FM ABM FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFI- CUBIC FEET PER MOT OF PIPE. SEE ALTERNATM: IW UEU OF FILTER MAT- .OUTLET PIP€ fo BE CON- NECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW ERIAL FM CUBiC FEET OF GRAVEL PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE ABOVE FOR GRAVEL SPEClFC". FILTER FABRIC SWU BE MlRAFl 140 OR EWNMENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE UPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES &ON AU.JOINTS MfNIMUM 4-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CUSS SDR 35 Wmc A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEASE 1,000 POUNDS, WITH A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFOfUTlONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM .Nons: '' TRENCH BE BAC((FIUED EN0 OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENTTO OUkn PIPE. WITH ON-SITE SOIL STABILIZATION FILL SUBDRAINS PLATE G-6 1 7 ;1 1 1 1 1 1 rl I '1 1 ;f 7 3 l a 7 1 APPENDIX E UBCSEIS AND FRISKSP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT ....................... * * * UBCSEIS * * Version 1-03 * * * * * ....................... il 7 I 3 1 7 I 1 1 1 1 1 LI m I COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER: 01G216 JOB NAME: The Pavilion LC FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.0710 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2642 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN DISTANCE: 41.3 km NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 8.0 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME : DISTANCE: 99999.0 km DATE: 10-26-2001 SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1.0 Nv: 1.1 Ca: 0.44 Cv: 0.69 Ts: 0.626 TO: 0.126 .................................................................... * CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are * * limited in number and have been digitized from small- * * scale maps (e. g., 1 : 750,000 scale) . Consequently, * * the estimated fault-site-distances may be in error by * * several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that * * the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and * * . adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. * .................................................................... 9 7 1 1 ______-___-_--__--__-------------- ___________--___-___-------------- ROSE CANYON NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) CORONADO BANK ELSINORE-JULIAN ELSINORE-TEMECULA ELSINORE-GLEN IVY EARTHQUAKE VALLEY PALOS VERDES SAN JACINTO-ANZA SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) CHINO-CENTRAL A=. (Elsinore) ELSINORE-WHITTIER SAN JACINTO - BORREGO SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO SAN ANDREAS - Southern PINTO MOUNTAIN SAN JOSE CUCAMONGA SIERRA MADRE (Central) SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) BURNT MTN. NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) ELMORE RANCH EUREKA PEAK SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) CLEGHORN ELSINORE-LAGUNA SAJADA NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture RAYMOND CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT VERDUGO LANDERS HOLLYWOOD BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS SANTA MONICA EMERSON SO. - COPPER MTN. JOHNS ON VALLEY (Northern IMPERIAL MALIBU COAST SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 4 I APPROX . DISTANCE (km) --_----- --___--- 8.0 18.0 32.1 41.3 41.3 64.1 64.8 67.0 78.0 81.1 82.5 84.9 85.5 87.5 93.7 100.7 105.2 110.2 120.8 120.8 124.7 125.1 125.4 127.6 131.4 131.5 132.0 133.1 133.8 134.4 137.5 140.0 140.1 140.4 144.1 144.9 147.3 148.3 149.1 154.2 154.9 157.1 158.2 158.9 159.2 I 165.0 I B B B A B B B B A B B B B B B B B A B B A B B B B B B B B B B A B B B B B B B B B B B A B B I 6.9 I I 7.4 I I 7.1 I I 6.8 I I 6.8 I I 6.5 I I 7.1 I I 7.2 I I 6.9 I I 6.8 I I 6.8 I I 6.9 I I 6.7 I I 6.8 I I 6.6 I I 6.7 I I 7.4 I I 7.0 I I 6.5 I I 7-0 I I 7.0 I I 6.6 I I 6.5 I I 7.0 I I 6.6 I I 6.5 I I 6.6 I I 6.5 I I 7.0 I I 6.7 I I 7.8 I I 6.5 I I 6.5 I I 6.7 I I 7.3 I I 6.5 I I 6-5 I I 7.1 I I 7.3 I I 6.6 I I 6.9 I I 6-7 I I 7.0 I I 6.7 I I 6-7 I 1.50 1.50 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 12-00 12.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.50 4.00 12.00 24.00 2.50 0.50 5.00 3.00 5.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.60 4.00 3 .OO 3.50 0.50 34.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.60 1.00 25.00 0.60 0.60 1.00 0.60 0.60 20.00 0.30 2.00 FAULT TYPE (SS,DS,BT) ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss DS ss ss ss ss ss DS DS DS ss ss DS ss ss ss ss ss DS ss DS DS DS ss DS ss ss ss DS ss ss ss DS DS ----__-___ ----______ 7 1 1 a 1 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME _______--__--_----_-------------- ________-_______-__-______c______ PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK ANACAPA-DUME SAN GABRIEL CALICO - HIDALGO SANTA SUSANA HOLSER SIMI-SANTA ROSA OAK RIDGE (Onshore) GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE SAN CAYETANO BLACKWATER VENTURA - PITAS POINT SANTA YNEZ (East) SANTA CRUZ ISLAND M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA RED MOUNTAIN GARLOCK (West) PLEITO THRUST BIG PINE GARLOCK (East) SANTA ROSA ISLAND WHITE WOLF SANTA YNEZ (West) So. SIERRA NEVADA OWL LAKE PANAMINT VALLEY LITTLE LAKE TANK CANYON DEATH VALLEY (South) LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE LIONS HEAD DEATH VALLEY (Graben) SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) SAN JUAN CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) OWENS VALLEY LOS osos HOSGRI HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY DEATH VALLEY (Northern) INDEPENDENCE R INCONADA BIRCH CREEK WHITE MOUNTAINS DEEP SPRINGS SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 166.6 i 167.6 I 167.9 I 170.9 I 180.5 I 189.4 I 197.0 I 197.8 I 202.9 I 206.2 I 218.4 I 225.1 I 226.0 I 233.3 I 235.8 I 239.1 I 242.0 I 247.6 1 253.4 I 256.1 I 268.0 I 268.0 I 270.9 I 280.4 I 284.2 I 284.5 I 284.6 I 285.8 I 292.4 I 313.1 I 330.7 J 340.4 I 341.2 I 348.8 I 370.5 I 376.4 I 379.1 I 388.2 I 389.2 I 391.5 I 445.6 I 447.8 I 450.0 I 468.4 I 334.5 I 353.3 I B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B A B B A B B 3 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B A B B B B B B MAX. I SLIP I FAULT MAG. I RATE I TYPE 7.1 I 7.3 I 7.0 I 7.1 J 6.6 I 6.5 I 6.7 I 6.9 I 6.9 I 6.8 I 6.9 I 6.8 I 6.8 I 6.7 I 6.8 I 6.8 I 6.7 I 6.9 I 6.9 I 6.5 I 7.2 I 6.7 I 6.5 I 6.9 I 6.8 I 6.6 I 6.9 I 7.0 I 7.1 I 7.3 I 7.2 I 7.1 I 7.0 I 7.0 I 6.5 I 7.6 I 6.8 I 7.3 I 7.0 I 7.2 I 7.3 I 5.0 J 7.1 I 6.9 I 6.5 I 6.6 I 0.60 3.00 1.00 0.60 5.00 0.40 1-00 4.00 0.60 6.00 0.60 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.40 2 .oo 6.00 2.00 0.80 7.00 1.00 2 .oo 2.00 0.10 2.00 2.50 0.70 1.00 4.00 0.70 0.02 4.00 0.20 1.00 0 -25 1.50 0.50 2.50 2.50 5.00 0.20 1-00 0.70 34.00 1.00 0.80 I (SS,DS,BT) I - - - - - - - - - _ I ss I DS 1 ss I ss I DS ---------- 1 DS DS DS ss DS ss DS ss DS DS DS ss DS ss ss DS DS ss DS ss ss ss DS ss DS DS DS DS ss DS ss DS ss ss ss DS ss DS ss ss DS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 7 7 1 a 1 1 7 1 7 I 7.0 I 6.8 I 6.6 I 6.7 I 6.6 I 6.9 I 6.2 I 7.1 I 7.0 I 6.5 I 6.6 I 6.8 I 6.8 I 6.5 I 6.9 I 6.5 I 6.5 I 6.7 I 6.8 I 6.9 I 6.9 I 7.0 I 6.5 I 6.8 I 6.9 I 6.9 I 7.9 I 7.3 I 7.1 I 6-5 I I 7.1 I I 7.1 I I 7.1 I I 6.8 I I 6.5 I I 6.7 I I 6.9 I ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME -_-----_----------_--------------. __---__----___--____---_-----_---. DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.1 FISH SLOUGH HILTON CREEK HARTLEY SPRINGS ORTIGAL ITA CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS PAL0 COLORADO - SUR QUIEN SABE MONO LAKE ZAYANTE-VERGELES SAN ANDREAS (1906) SARGENT ROBINSON CREEK SAN GREGORIO GREENVILLE MONTE VISTA - SHANNON HAYWARD (SE Extension) ANTELOPE VALLEY HAYWARD (Total Length) CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) GENOA CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY RODGERS CREEK WEST NAPA POINT REYES HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA MAACAMA (South) COLLAYOMI BARTLETT SPRINGS MAACAMA (Central) MAACAMA (North) ROUND VALLEY (N. S . F . Bay) BATTLE CREEK LAKE MOUNTAIN MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE LITTLE SALMON (Onshore MAD RIVER CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE McKINLEWILLE TRINIDAD FICKLE HILL TABLE BLUFF LITTLE SALMON (Off shore) GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 473.2 I 480.8 I 488.5 I 506.9 I 531.3 I 532.2 I 540.4 I 541.4 I 551.0 I 567.3 I 569.6 I 537.8 I 574.8 I 574.9 I 598.6 I 615.8 I 624.6 I 625.0 I 625.1 I 639.0 I 644.8 I 644.8 I 664.4 I 692.5 I 731.3 I 732.2 I 750.2 I 754.6 I 811.0 1 814.4 I 835.7 I 895.2 I 901.4 I 924.6 I 959.8 I 977.0 I 1033.3 I 1039.9 I 1042.7 I 1047.0 I 1053.1 I 1054.6 I 1055.1 I 1060.5 I 1073.9 I 794.1 I A B B B B B B B B B B B A B B A B B B B A B B B A B B B B B A A A B B B B A A B A B B B B B SLIP RATE (mm/yr 1 -------- ____-__- 5.00 1.00 0.20 2.50 0.50 1.00 15.00 0.50 3.00 1.00 2.50 0.10 24.00 3.00 0.50 5.00 2.00 0.40 3.00 0.80 9.00 6.00 1.00 6.00 9.00 1.00 0.30 6.00 9.00 0.60 6.00 9.00 9.00 6.00 0.50 6.00 9.00 35.00 5.00 0.70 35.00 0.60 2.50 0.60 0.60 1.00 FAULT TYPE (SS,DS,BT) ss DS DS DS DS ss ss DS ss ss DS ss ss ss DS ss ss DS ss DS ss ss DS ss ss ss DS ss ss ss ss ss ss ss DS ss ss DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS ---------- __-___-___ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 I APPROX. ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE FAULT NAME I (km) .............................................. BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE I 1091.5 ........................................... 7 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 7 1 7 1 1 PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE CAMP. & BOZ. (1997 Rev.) AL (UNWEIGHTED) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 IO 0 25 yrs (r( Irl 50 yrs Irl 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Acceleration (g) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 T- O 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 LI) cv 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 I 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 2 3 a 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE CAMP. & BOZ. (1997 Rev.) AL (WEIGHTED M=7.5). 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 IO 0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Acceleration (g) .t.ttt..t*tttt..t**..tl...~********~~**~~** t PRISXSP - IBH-PC VERSION Uodified from *FRISK* (UcGuire 1978) To Perform Probabilistic Earthquake Hazard Analyses using Multiple Forms of Ground-Motion-Attenuation Relations Modifications byr mCmas F. Blake - 1988-2000 - . VERSION 4.00 t (visual Fortran) . **. f..f..t.....~tt..***~****.~*.~***.~**** TITLE1 Pavilion at La Costa IPR-FILE 0 I PLOT 0 SITE CONDITION 0.00 BASEMENT DEFIX (km) 5.00 WGA FmR 1.000 NFLT NSITE 15 1 ATT c1 C14 0.0000 AlT C15 IMK 1 0.0000 ATT c1 C14 0.0000 ATT C15 ICHK 2 0.0000 ATT c1 C14 0 .oooo AlT C15 IMK 3 0.0000 ATT c1 C14 0.0000 ATT c15 IMK 4 0.0000 ATP c1 C14 0.0000 ATT c15 ICHK 5 0.0000 ATT Cl C14 0.0000 1 -3.5120 2 -3.5120 3 -3.5120 4 -3.5120 5 -3.5120 6 -3.5120 WGA DIST (km) 0.000 NPROB NATT LCD a 6 1 c2 c3 0.9040 -1.3280 C16 C17 0.0000 0.0000 c2 c3 0.9040 -1.3280 C16 C17 0.0000 0.0000 cz c3 0.9040 -1.3280 C16 C17 0.0000 0.0000 c2 c3 0.9040 -1.3280 C16 C17 0.0000 0.0000 c2 c3 0.9040 -1.3260 C16 C17 0.0000 0.0000 ca c3 0.9040 -1.3280 c4 c5 C6 c7 C8 c9 CLO c11 0.1490 0.6470 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 cl8 c19 c10 c21 c2 2 C23 PER DSMIN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000 1.0000 c4 cs C6 c7 C8 c9 c10 c11 0.1490 0.6470 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 C18 c19 C20 c21 c2 2 C23 PER DSUIN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000 1.0000 c4 c5 C6 c7 C8 c9 c10 c11 0.1490 0.6470 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 C18 c19 c2 0 c2 1 c12 C23 PER DSUIN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000 1.0000 c4 c5 C6 c7 C8 c9 c10 c11 0.1490 0.6470 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 C18 Cl9 c2 0 81 c22 C23 PER WIN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000 1.0000 c4 c5 C6 c7 CB c9 c10 c11 0.1490 0.6470 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 C18 C19 c2 0 c21 c2 2 C2 3 PER DSMIN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000 1.0000 c4 c5 C6 c7 C8 c9 c10 c11 0.1490 0.6470 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 c12 0.0000 SIm 37 c12 0.0000 SIGA 37 c12 0.0000 SIGA 37 c11 0.0000 SZGA 37 c12 0.0000 SIGA 37 c12 0.0000 C13 0.0000 IBeLw 0 c13 0.0000 IREW 0 C13 0.0000 IRBLAP 0 C13 0.0000 IRBW 0 C13 0.0000 IBEW 0 C13 0.0000 1 1 7 T 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 AlT C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 c2 0 c21 c2 2 C2 3 ICHK 6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 PROBLEM DATAI WP. C BOZ. (1997 Rev.) AL 1 AMPLITUDES* 15 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 1.100 1.200 1.300 1.400 )UU3SIRIDE WEIGHTING FAClKIRSr HMO: 0 CAMP. L BOZ. (1997 Rev.) AL 2 AMPLITUDES: 15 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 1.100 1.200 1.300 1.400 WIRIDE WEIGHTING FAClKIRSi HMFx 3 RISXS SPECIFIEDz 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.500 MWF MAGNITUDE: 0.00 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.500 I4UF MAGNITUDEr 7.50 5 0.010000 0;005000 0.002105 0.001000 0.000500 SITE COoRDINATESi 1 -117.2642 33.0710 FAULT 1"ATIONr FAULT 1 FAULT WE: ROSE CA" NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODSSt 8 10 13 AMHIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BBTA BCTR SCDP COKP 5.000 0.1000 1 1.5000 2.072 2.700 2.000 1.000 ElluIAMHAx PmX 1 6.90 1.00 &char ampchar -char 0.50 6.40 1.00 Slip Rate ( 1.5000 amlye) converted to Activity Rater Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm**2 Input Fault Area - m**2 mi0 IMo (1) 1 - (1.50)m + (16.05) 0.330E+ll 0.715St13 XMM ApIIw[ €nax ARATE. Ex-RATE+ a-RATE 1 6.9000 1.0000 0.00856 0.00579 0.00277 IND-RL 2 RVPIIIR& AUSA VS. MAGNITUDS A-RA B-RA BIG-RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SBMEKP COOBDXNATW 1 -117.1325 32.7074 2 -117.1876 3a.7642 4 -117.2610 31.0577 5 -117.307~ 3a.9646 8 -117.1a47 33.1299 3 -117.2226 32.8277 6 -117.3178 33.0080 7 -117.3763 33.0848 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SE3XION 1 0.0000 0,0000 2 0.0000 13.0000 Computed Total Fault Area - 0.72E+03 FAULT 2 FAULT NAME* WEwoORT-IMXEWOOD (Offahorel NPP NRL ATTENUATION CODES: 6 10 13 WIN AMsIgP IRATE RATE BBTA SCTR ECDP COEF 5.000 0.1000 1 1.5000 2.072 3.300 2.000 1.000 HIwAEwu( mAx 1 6.90 1.00 PER DSMIN SIGA IRELAP 3.0000 1.0000 37 0 1 1 7 7 7 T 7 1 1 7 1 1 7 1 1 I 7 7: 1 dmchar alllpchar @char 0.50 6.40 1.00 Slip Fate ( 1.5000 mnlyr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear nodulus - dyne/cll**2 Input Fault Axea - m.92 Loolo IHo (m) 1 * (1.50)m + (16.05) 0.330E112 0.858E+13 IW ACMRX €wax ARATE- Ex-RATE+ CH-RATE 1 6.9000 1.0000 0.01027 0.00695 0.00333 1m-m 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE A-RA B-RA GIG-RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEOMW COORDINATES 1 -117.9146 33.5910 2 -117.7989 33.5080 3 -117.6882 33.4024 4 -117.5473 33.2515 5 -117.4870 33.2163 6 -117.4191 33.1559 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FNLT CROSS SPCTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 13.0000 Caaputed Total Fault Area - 0.87B+03 FAULT 3 FAULT NAnsi cORoHAD0 BANK NFP NRL ATWNATION CODBSi 6 10 13 AMUIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BgTA BCTR EWP COBF 5.000 0.1000 1 3.0000 2.072 9.200 2.000 1.000 NmxmKax €nAx 1 7.40 1.00 dmchar ampchar aapchar 0.50 6.90 1.00 Slip Rate 3.0000 Wyr) Converted to Activity Rates Input shear nodulus - dyne/cm**l Input Fault Area - cm*+2 Loo10 It40 (la) I - (1.5O)m + (16.05) 0.330E+12 0.241E+l4 Inax AJ4MAX €wax ARATE - Kx-RATE + CH-l?ATE 1 7.4000 1.0000 0.02361 0.02029 0.00332 RUPTURE AREA VS. llAoNIllJDE A-RA B-EA BIG-RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT Sm COORDINATES 1 -117.9274 33.2685 2 -117.6067 32.9479 3 -117.5199 32.8778 4 -117.2527 32.4669 5 -117.2380 32.4460 6 -116.8350 31.8900 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 13.0000 Computed Total Fault Area I 0.24B+O4 FAULT 4 FAULT HI XISIMIILE-JLaI'AN NFP Mu, A"LIAT1ON CODESx 2 10 13 -IN MSTEP IRATE RATE BETA Em ECDP COEP 5.000 0.1000 1 5.0000 2.072 3.700 2.000 1.000 NplAxAwMAx FUAX 1 7.10 1.00 dmchar ampchar campchar 0.50 6.60 1.00 Slip Rate ( 5.0000 dyr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dyoe/cm**2 Input Fault Area - m+*2 LOG10 [no (m) 1 I (1.5O)m + (16.05) 0.330E+12 0.113B+l4 IWAX AMNAX p(uy ARATE I Ex-RATE + CH-UTE 1 7.1000 1.0000 0.03091 0.02359 0.00732 IND-RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. HAWI1VDE A-€S 6-RA SIG-RA -3.490 0.910 FAULT SEMKNT COORDINATES 1 -117.0130 33.3770 2 -116.3620 32.9650 NDP 2 ORIGlNU FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 15.0000 Computed Total Fault Area I O.llB+O4 FAULT 5 FAULT Mt ELSINORB-TENECULA NFP lJRL ATTENUATION CODBSi 2 10 13 WIN ILPISTRP IRATE RATE BgpA BCPR BCDP COEP 5.000 0.1000 1 5.0000 2.072 2.100 2.000 1.000 NHAxA?IMax PMAX 1 6.80 1.00 dmchar ampchar -char 0.50 6.30 1.00 Slip Rate ( 5.0000 dyr) Converted to Activity Rater Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm*+2 Input Fault Area - m++2 LOG10 IMo (m) 1 I (1.50)m + (16.05) 0.330E112 0.6308+13 IWAX AwMAx plux ARATE I BI-UTE+ CH-RATS 1 6.8000 1.0000 0.03076 0.01926 0.01150 IND-RL 2 RUPTURE AFSA VS. MIIVDE A-RA 6-RA SIG-RA -3.490 0.910 FAULT SEGHEhT COORDINATES 1 -117.3480 33.6430 2 -117.0130 33.3770 WDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 15.0000 Computed Total Pault Area - 0.65B+03 0.240 0.240 ............................................................................. FAULT 6 FAULT NAME: BLsIK)RB-GLKN IVY NFP NRL ATTENUATION CODES! 2 10 13 1 1 1 I 1 2 1 1 7 1 1 I 7 7 7 1 1 3 1 AnnIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECl'R ECDP COEF 5.000 0.1000 1 5.0000 2.072 1.900 2.000 1.000 NMRxpIptMAx ppw[ 1 6.80 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.30 1.00 Slip Rate ( 5.0000 mnlyr) Converted to Activity Ratex Input Shear nodulus - dyne/cm**2 Input Fault Area - cm**2 LOG10 [no (m) I I (1.501.1 + (16.05) 0.330E+l2 0.570E+13 IHAX hwAx PWAX ARATE-Ex-RATE+ a-RATE I 6.8000 i.oooo o.om3 0.01743 o.oi040 IND-RL RUPTURB AREA vs. ~AGNI~~E A-RA B-RA SIG-RA -3.490 0.910 0.140 2 FAULT SE- cooRDINkTSS 1 -117.6370 33.0540 2 -117.3480 33.6430 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SEffION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 15.0000 Computed Total Fault Area I 0.54E+03 FAULT 7 FAULT HAUEr EARlllQUAKE VALLEY UFP NRL ATTENUATION CODGSI 3 10 13 AMUIN AMSTEP IRATE RATB BBTA BcTIl ECDP COEF 5.000 o.iooo 1 a.oooo 2.072 1.000 2.000 1.000 NUAXAPMAX PMI 1 6.50 1.00 drnchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.00 1.00 Slip Rate ( 2.0000 dyr) Converted to Activity Ratex Input shtar nodulus - dyne/cm**2 Input Fault Area - cm-2 0.330E+l2 0.300E+13 LOG10 Ilro (m) 1 I (1.50)a + (16.051 IllAx APMAX PMAx ARATE I Ex-RATE + ai-RATB 1 6.5ooo i.oooo 0.01138 0.005ai 0.006i7 INL-RL a RUPTURB AREA VS. UAGNITUDE A-RA B-RA SlG-RA -3.490 0.910 0,240 FAULT SEMBNT cooRoINATES 1 -116.4107 33.0761 2 -116.4970 33.1113 3 -116.5815 33.1017 NDP ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SEffION a 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 15.0000 Canputed Total Fault Area I 0.30&+03 FAULT 8 FAULT NAUEr PAWS VERDES NFP WRL A'ITENUATION CODES: 4 10 13 7 I .J ’1 1 1 7 1 7 3 3 -7 1 7 7 7 3 3 AMnIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COW 5.000 0.1000 1 3.0000 2.030 4.800 2.000 1.000 NMAXALMAX PMRX 1 7.10 1.00 dmchar anlpchar dmpchar 0.50 6.60 1.00 Slip Rate ( 3.0000 Wyr) Converted to Activity Rater Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm**2 Input Fault Area - m**2 rxr;lO~no~m)l - (1.5O)m + (16.05) 0.330E+l2 O.l25E+14 Iwllx Amax ppvu( ARATE- Ex-RATE + ai-RATE 1 7.1000 1.0000 0.02038 0.01553 0.00485 IND-RL 2 RUP’NRE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE A-RA 8-RA SIO-RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT Sm COORDINATES 1 -117.9388 33.2825 2 -118.1977 33.6571 3 -118.2758 33.7560 4 -118.5568 33.9720 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 13.0000 CaPputed Total Fault Area I 0.13E+04 ............................................................................. FAULT 9 FAULT NAllBi SAN JACIEITO-ANZA NPP NUL ATPgMTATIOU CODES1 3 10 13 AWIN AHSTEP IRATE RATE BgTA ECTR ECDP COEF 5.000 o.iooo i12.0000 2.07a a.500 2.000 1.000 NMXAEMAX PWAX 1 7.30 1.00 dmchar lrmpchar -char 0.50 6.70 1.00 Slip Rate ( 13.0000 Wyr) Converted to Activity Rate: Input Shear Modulus - dynefcaf*2 Input Fault Area - m**z m10 [MO(rn) 1 I (1.5O)m + (16.05) 0.330E+l2 0.16mii IW AIDUUL plux ARATE- =-RATE + a-EATE 1 7.2000 1.0000 0.08901 0.07119 0.01783 IND-RL a RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE A-RA E-RA SIG-RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SEQIEHP COODDINATES 1 -116.9170 33.7400 2 -116.5333 33.4750 3 -116.1220 33.2630 lpDD 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 18.0000 Computed Total Fault Area 0.168+04 ............................................................................. FAULT 10 FAULT NAME, SAN JACIEiTO-SAJ JACIEITO VALLEY 7 J 3 3 3 3 7 3 1 1 3 3 3 -3 7 3 3 7 1 3 NFP 3 NRL ATI'ENUATION CODES8 LO 1 3 WIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECTR ECDP COEP 5.000 0.1000 1 12.0000 2.072 2.100 2.000 1.000 lJllAxAwdRx PMAX 1 6.90 1.00 dmchar ampchar dDlpchar 0.50 6.40 1.00 Slip Rate ( 12.0000 dyr) Converted to Activity Rater Input Shear nodulus - dyne/cm**Z Input Fault Area - m**l Mol0 INo(m)l I (1.50)m + (16.05) 0.330E+12 0.756E+13 InAx APMAX PnAx ARATE. Ex-mTE i a-RATE 1 6.9000 1.0000 0.07241 0.04897 0.02344 1m-m 2 RUPTURE AREA vs. MAGNITUDE A-RA a-m SIG-RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT 8- COORDINATES 1 -117.2370 34.0170 2 -117.2333 34.0167 3 -116.9170 33.7400 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECl'ION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 18.0000 Caaputed Total Fault Area I 0.778+03 FAULT 11 FAULT NAME, 6AN JACIMD-COYOl% CREEK NFP NRL A'ITENUATION CODESx 2 10 13 WIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA KCl'R ECDP COBF 5.000 0.1000 1 4.0000 2.072 2.000 2.000 1.000 lylwAIIIw( PnAx 1 6.80 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.30 1.00 Slip Rate ( 4.0000 mJyr) Converted to Activlty Rate: Input Shear noduiun - dync/cm*+2 Input Fault Area - cm**2 MalOIno(m)l - (1.5O)m + (16.05) O.330E+l2 0.600E+13 InAx APMAX PWAX ARATE- Ex-RATE i m-RATE 1 6.8000 1.0000 0.02343 0.01468 0.00876 "D-RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAGNITUDE A-RA B-RA SIG-RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT S- COORDINATES 1 -116.5080 33.4570 2 -116.1940 33.2000 NDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 15.0000 Computed Total Fault Area I 0.618103 FAULT 12 FAULT "ICs ELSIHORE-MY@TE MOUNTAIN 1 1 7 1 1 7 1 1 -7 -I 3 3 1 7 1 1 1 7 7 NFP NRL ATI'ENVATION CODES, 2 10 13 AHMIN AUSTEP IRATE RATE BETA Em ECDP COEP 5.000 0.1000 1 4.0000 2.072 1.900 2.000 1.000 NmxAMnAx PMAX 1 6.80 1.00 dachar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.30 1.00 Slip Rate ( 4.0000 dyr) Converted to Activity Ratei Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm+*2 Input Fault Area - m++2 0.330E+12 0.570E+13 LallO [rcO (ml 1 I (1.5OIM + (16.05) Irwc NmAx PnAx mTE I Ex-RATE+ a-RATE 1 6.8000 1.0000 0.02226 0.01394 0.00832 IND-RL 2 RUPTURE AILEA VS. MAGNITUDE A-RA B-RA SIG-RA -3.490 0.910 FAULT SEWENT COORDIEULTBS 1 -116.3620 31.9650 2 -116.0060 31.7790 NDP 2 ORIGII?AL FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 15.0000 Computed Total Fault Area I 0.59B+O3 FAULT 13 FAULT "E: ~PORT-INoLBwooD (L.A.Basin) NFP BRL ATI'ENUATION CODES, 5 10 13 AUMIN AMsIgP IRATE RATE BETA ECPR ECDP CQEF 5.000 0.1000 1 1.0000 2.072 3.200 2.000 1.000 -Annax PnAx 1 6.90 1.00 &char ampchar Qnpchar 0.50 6.40 1.00 Slip Rate ( 1.0000 dyr) Converted to Activity Rates Input Shear Modulus - dyne/m**2 Input Fault Area - m*+2 0 .330E+12 0.832E+13 Loo10 IMo lm) 1 I (1.5O)m + (16.05) Irwc AmAK PnAx ARATE I a-RATE+ CR-EATI 1 6.9000 1.0000 0.00664 0.00449 0.00215 IND-RL 2 RupRlRE AREA VS. WITUDE A-RA B-lu SIG-RA FAULT Sm cO0Iu)INATES 1 -118.3723 34.0337 2 -118.1662 33.8073 3 -118.1510 33.7822 4 -118.1208 33.1746 5 -117.9246 33.6061 rnP 2 ORIGI- FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 13.0000 Cmted Total Fault Area I 0.83B+03 FAULT 14 FAULT "Et MINO-CENTRU AVE. (Elsinore) -3.490 0.910 0.240 0.240 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 7 i 7 i 7 , i NPP 2 NRL A"UATI0N CODES: 10 2 4 AMIN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA Em ECDP COEF 5.000 0.1000 1 1.0000 2.072 1.400 2.000 1.000 NMAxAmiu pMpJ( 1 6.70 1.00 dmchar ampchar dmpchar 0.50 6.20 1.00 Slip Rate ( 1.0000 aa/yr) Converted to Activity Rater Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm**2 Input Fault Area - cm*+2 -10 [Mo(m) I - (1.5O)m + (16.05) 0.330E+12 0.476Et13 IW PMAX AUATE . =-RATE+ a-RATE 1 6.7000 1.0000 0.00574 0.00329 0.00245 IND-RL 2 RUPTURE AREA VS. MAWITUDE A-RA B-RA SIG-RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 FAULT SE- COORDINATES 1 -117.7455 34.0332 2 -117.5681 33.8275 NDP 2 ORIGINAL- FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 7.2000 15.4000 Canputed Total Fault Area - 0.48B+03 FAULT 15 FAULT WAnE: HHITTIER NPP NRL A7l"UATION CODES, 2 10 13 -IN AMSTEP IRATE RATE BETA ECl'R ECDP MEF 5.000 0.1000 1 2.5000 2.072 1.800 2.000 1.000 mAxA)p(Px PMAX 1 6.80 1.00 dmchar *char -char 0.50 6.30 1.00 Slip Rate ( 2.5000 Wyr) Converted to Activity Rater Input Shear Modulus - dyne/cm**2 Input Fault Fuca - cm**2 LO310 IMo (m) 1 - (1.50110 + (16.05) 0.330E+lZ 0.555B+13 IW AMMAX PMAX AUATE. =-RATE+ a-RATE 1 6.8000 1.0000 0.01355 0.00848 RLIFTURB AEXA VS. HAGNIlWDE A-RA B-RA FAULT Sm COORDINATES 1 -118.0180 33.9860 2 -117.6370 33.8540 0.00506 SIG-RA -3.490 0.910 0.240 NDP 2 ORIGINAL- FAULT CROSS SECTION 1 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.0000 15.0000 Casputed Total Fault ArM - 0.588+03 AMPLITUDES (9) I LN (AMPLITUDE) i FAULT 1 E(NO/YR) FAULT 2 E(NO/YR) FAULT 3 E(NO/YR) FAULT 5 E(NO/YR) FAULT 6 E(NO/YR) FAULT 7 EINO/YR) FAULT 8 E(NO/YR) FAULT 9 E(NO/YR) FAULT 10 E(NO/YR) FAULT 11 E(NO/YR) FAULT 12 E(NO/YR) FAULT 13 E(NO/YR) FAULT 14 E(NO/YR) FAULT 15 E(NO/YR) TfJTAL E(NO/YR) lWl'AL RISK FAULT 4 E(NO/YR) AMPLITUDES lg)x LIS (WPLIlUDE): FAULT 1 E(NO/YR) FAULT 2 E(NO/YR) FAULT 3 E(NO/YR) FAULT 4 E(NO/YR) FAULT 5 E(NO/YR) FAULT 6 B(NO/YR) FAULT 7 E(NO/YR) FAULT 8 E(NO/YR) FAULT 9 E(NO/YR) FAULT 10 E(NO/YR) FAULT 11 E(NO/YR) FAULT 12 E(NO/YRl FAULT 13 E(NO/YR) FAULT 14 E(NO/YR) FAULT 15 E(NO/YR) TOTAL E(NO/YR) lW4'AL RISK 0.1000E+000.20006+000.3000E+000.4000E+000.5000E+000.6000E+000.7000E+000.8000E+000.9000E+000.1000E+01 -2.30 -1.61 -1.20 -0.92 -0.69 -0.51 -0.36 -0.22 -0.11 0.00 0.5344E-020.3236E-020.1870E-020.9861E-030.4847E-030~2294E-030~1071E-030.4994E-040.2349E-040.1119E-04 0.2226E-020.6450E-030.169EE-030.4364E-040.1155E-040.3219E-050.9501E-060.2969E-060.9792E-070.3398E-07 0.2956E-020.9092E-030.2236E-030.5310E-040.1317E-040.3485E-050.9889E-060.2999E-060.9672E-070.3301E-07 0.3172E-020.4480E-030.7175E-040.1377E-040.3100E-050.7979E-060.2295E-060.7243E-070.2475E-070.9052E-08 0.3121E-020.3267E-030.4597E-040.8347E-050.1845E-050.4753E-060.1384E-060.4454E-070.1558E-070.5851E-0E 0.5255E-030.2201E-040.1835E-050.2347E-060.4011E-070.8466E-0E0~2098E-080.5903E-090.1835E-090.6123E-10 0.1294E-030.3353E-050.2061E-060.2107E-070.3016E-080.5493E-090.1197E-090.2933E-100.7427E-110.1563E-11 0.2953E-030.1654E-040.1692E-0S0.2529B-060.4903E-070.1150E-070~3121E-080.9512E-090.31E6E-090.1153E-09 0.1667E-020.9346E-040.9274E-0S0.1342E-050.2522E-060.5751E-070.1522E-070.4532E-080.14E7E-080.5282E-09 0.5785E-030.1649E-040.1079E-050.1155~-060.1716E-070.3224E-080.7224E-090.1833E-090.5021E-100.1321E-10 0.1460E-030.3429E-050.1987E-060.1947E-070.2697E-080.4780E-090~1011E-090.2385E-100.5593E-110.6281E-12 0.9063E-040.1854E-05O.9947E-O7O.9245E-O8O.l23OE-OSO.2lO6E-O9O~427SE-lOO.9276E-llO.l622E-llO.OOOOEtOO 0.2473E-040.5646E-060.3271E-070.3224E-080.4498E-090.8021E-100.1707E-100.4055E-110.9428E-120.1714E-12 0.1547E-040.2395E-06O.lO79E-O7O.8829E-09O.lO6lE-O9O~l645E-lOO.2822E-llO.3227E-l2O.OOOOE+OOO.OOOOE+OO O.3355E-040.5434E-060.2519E-070.2105E-080.2572E-090.4054E-100.7268E-110.1016E-110.0000E+000.0000E+00 0.2032E-010.5723E-020.2396E-020.1107E-020.5147E-030.2375E-030.1094E-030.5066E-040.2373E-040.1127E-04 0.2012E-010.5707E-020.2393E-020.1106E-020.5146E-030.2375E-030~1094E-030.5066E-040.2373E-040.1127E-04 0.1100E+010.1200E+010.1300E+010.1400~+010.1500E+01 0.10 0.18 0.26 0.34 0.41 0.5414E-050.2664~-050.1333E-050.6789E-060~3516E-06 0.1236E-070.4694E-080.1E5SE-080.7609E-090~3229E-09 0.1186E-070.4465E-080.1755E-080.7172E-090.3038E-09 0.3513E-080.1436~-080.6148E-090.2741E-090~12~7E-09 0.2335B-080.9820E-090.4325E-090.1983E-090.9390~-10 0.2126E-100.7209~-110.2062E-110.3493E-120.0000E+00 0.0000E+OOO.OOOO~+00O.OOOOE+OOO.OOOOE+OOO.OOOOE+OO 0.4446E-100.18029-100.7499~-110.31519-110~1286E-11 0.1987E-090.77710-100.32250-100.1297E-100~4395~-11 0.2316~-110.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+00 0.0000E+OOO.OOOOE+00O.OOOOE+OOO.OOOOE+OOO.OOOOE+OO 0.0000E+OOO.OOOOE+00O.OOOOE+OOO.OOOOE+OOO.OOOOE+OO 0.0000E+000.0000EtOOO.OOOOE+OOO.OOOOE+OOO.OOOOE+OO 0.0000E+000.000OE+00O.OOOOE+OOO.OOOOEtOOO.OOOOE+OO 0.0000E+OOO.OOOOE+00O.OOOOE+OOO.OOOOE+OOO.OOOOE+OO 0.5445E-050.2676E-050.1338E-~50.6809E-060.3524E-06 0.5445E-050.2676E-050.133EE-OSO.6809B-060.3524E-06 SPECIFIED RISKSi 0.010000 0.005000 0.002105 0.001000 0.000500 ESTIMATED LN AMP. t -1.918 -1.548 -1.156 -0.887 -0.686 ESTIUATED AMP. (9) I 0.14690 0.21272 0.31469 0.41196 0.50340 CAMP. BOZ. 11997 Rev.) AL 2 AMPLITUDES (9) I LN (AMPLI~UDE)I FAULT 1 E(NO/YR) FAULT 2 E(NO/YR) FAULT 3 E(NO/YR) FAULT 4 E(NO/YR) FAULT 5 E(NO/YR) FAULT 6 E(NO/YR) FAULT 7 E(NO/YR) FAULT 8 E(NO/YR) FAULT 9 E(NO/YR) FAULT 10 E(NO/YR) FAULT 11 E(NO/YR) FAULT 12 E(NO/YR) FAULT 13 E(NO/YR) FAULT 14 E(NO/YR) FAULT 15 E(NO/YR) TfJTAL E(NO/YR) TOTAG RISK AnPLITUDES (g) I LN (WPL1lUDE)t FAULT 1 B(NO/YR) FAULT 2 ElNO/YR) FAULT 3 E(NO/YR) FAULT 4 E(NO/YR) FAULT 5 E(NO/YR) FAULT 6 E(NO/YR) FAULT 7 E(NO/YR) FAULT 8 E(NO/YR) FAULT 9 E(NO/YRI FAULT 10 E(NO/YR) FAULT 11 E(NO/YR) FAULT 12 E(NO/YR) FAULT 13 E(NO/YR) FAULT 14 E(NO/YR) FAULT 15 E(NO/YR) TfJTAL RISK TOTAL E(NO/YR) 0.1000~+000.2000~+000.3OOOE+OO0.4000~+000.5000~+000.6000E+000.7000E+000.8000E+000.9000Et000.1000~+01 -2.30 -1.61 -1.20 -0.92 -0.69 -0.51 -0.36 -0.22 -0.11 0.00 0.4067E-020.2214E-02O.llO9E-O2O.4869E-O3O.l998E-O3O.EO26E-O4O.3234E-O4O.l323E-O4O.5534E-O5O.237OE-O5 0.1554E-020.3446E-030.6821E-040.1374E-040.2964~-050-6938E-060~1760E-060.4812E-070.1409E-0?0.4388~-08 0.2462E-020.7118E-030.1601E-030.3532E-040.8229E-050~2064E-050~5579E-060.1619E-060.5011E-070.1645E-07 0.2188E-020.2417E-030.3227E-040.5385E-050.1083E-050.2533E-060.6703E-070.1966E-070.6284E-0E0.2164E-08 0.1639E-020.1161E-030.1257E-040.1878E-050.3552E-060.~035E-070.2093E-070.6107E-080.1958E-080.6792E-09 0.2153E-030.6248E-050.4168E-060.4541E-070.6846E-080.13039-080.2949E-090.759EE-100.2126E-100.5988E-11 0.3066E-040.4604E-060.2039E-070.1647E-080.1955E-090.2995E-100.5051E-110.4050E-120.0000E+000.0000E+00 0.1767E-030.8075~-050.7280E-060.9931E-070.1792E-070~3961E-080~1022E-080.2980E-090.9578E-100.3328E-10 0.1079E-020.5109B-040.4580E-050.6166~-060.1096E-060.2388E-070~6079E-080.1750E-080.5564E-090.1915E-09 0.2417E-030.4989B-05O.2689E-O6O.25O7E-O7O.334lE-O8O.S7l8E-O9O~ll66E-O9O.258lE-lOO.494lE-llO.OOOOE+OO 0.5097~-040.8188E-060.3780E-070.3148E-080.3833~-090~6006E-100~1085E-100.1669E-110.0000E+000.0000E+00 0.3066E-040.4307~-060.1844E-070.1457~-080.1700E-090~2536E-100~4058E-110.3136E-120.0000E+000.0000E+00 0.9905E-050.1648E-060.78~4E-080.6769E-090.8460E-10~.1363~-100~25319-110.4616E-120.0000E+000.0000E+00 0.4096E-050.4085E-070.1416E-000.9581E-100.9613E-110.1019E-110~0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+00 0.1063E-040.1177E-060.4347E-080.3082E-090.3259E-100.4182E-110~1826E-120.0000E+000.0000E+000.0000E+00 0.1376E-010.3700E-020.1389E-020.5440E-030.2126~-030.8338E-040~3317E-040.1347E-040.5607E-050.2394E-05 0.1366E-010.3693E-020.1388~-020.5439~-030.2126E-030.8338E-040~3317E-040.1347E-040.5607E-050.2394E-05 0.1100~+010.12OOB+01O.l3OOE+OlO.l4OOE+OlO.l5OOE+Ol 0.10 0.18 0.26 0.34 0.41 SPECIFIED RISKS: 0.010000 0.005000 0.002105 0.001000 0.000500 ESTIMATED LN WP. I -2.137 -1.770 -1.377 -1.103 -0.896 ESTIMATED AMP. (9) I 0.11799 0.17035 0.25244 0.33176 0.40807 No. FAULT NAME .................................... 1 ROSE CANYON 2 NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 3 CORom BANK 4 ELSINOPE-JULIAN 5 ELSINORB-TEMECULA 6 ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 7 EARTH- VALLEY 8 PAL% WES 9 SAN JACINTO-ANZA 10 SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINXI VALLEY 11 SAN JACINTO-COYOTB CREEK 12 ELSINORE-COYOTE )IOUblTAIN 13 NEWPORT-INGLBwooo iL.A.Basin) 14 MINO-CENTRAL AVB. (Elsinore) 15 WHITPIER .................................... CD-1DRP 8.0 18.0 32.1 41.3 41.3 64.1 64.8 67.1 78.0 81.1 82.5 84.9 85.6 88.8 93.7 . - - - - - - - - - - . -_---------- CD-2DRP 8.0 18.0 32.1 41.3 41.3 64.1 64.8 67.1 78.0 81.1 82.5 84.9 85.6 86.9 93.7 . - - - - - - - - ---- - -_-- CDIST 8.5 18.3 32.2 41.4 41.4 64.2 64.9 67.2 78.0 81.2 82.6 84.9 85.7 88.1 93.8 _-_________ --_-- -_ ---. CWDIS 8.0 18.0 32.1 41.3 41.3 64.1 64.8 67.1 78.0 81.1 82.5 84.9 85.6 88.1 93.7 -_ __---. ~ - - - - - - - CD_EPI 8.0 19.1 32.1 41.3 41.5 64.9 65.4 68.0 78.0 81.5 82.8 85.9 86.7 88.1 94.5 . - - - - - - - - - . _---_-_--- EXPIANATION --_----_--- CD-IDRP I Closest distance to projection of rupture area along fault trace. CD-2DRP I Closest distance to surface projection of the rupture area. CDIST I Closest distance to seismogenic rupture. (ZODIS I Closest distance to subsurface rupture. CD-BpI - Closest epicentral distance. CD-HYPO - Closest hypocentral distance. ~ - - - - - - - 8.1 km 19.1 km 32.3 km 41.3 km 41.5 km 64.9 km 65.4 km 68.0 km 78.0 km 81.6 km 82.8 km 85.9 km 86.7 km 89.1 km 94.5 km - - - - - - - 3 - I i 3 5 e J J J J J 7 ~ APPENDIX F LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SPECIFICATIONS 1 3 7 3 1 3 7 7 3 3 1 7 7 1 -I -I 1 1 1 f n L I Factor of Safety Cylclic Stress Ratio Induced by Design Earthquake Cylclic Stress Ratio to Cause Jquefaction (Mr7.5) Cylclic Stress Ratio to Cause Jquefaction (M=7.5) Stress Reduction Coefficient (r,) Stress (oo') Overburden Stress I ?pth to Midpoint (tt) t! .- A -2 c I L c c Y c 'I -1 3 i 1 1 3 3 1 1 0 m II A 0 m II A 0 m II A I Factor of Safely Cylclic Stress Ratio Induced by Design Earthquake Cylclic Stress Ratio to Cause Jquefaction (M-7.5) 1 Cylclic Stress Ratio to Cause -iquefaction (M=7.5) Stress Reduction Coefficient (r,) I Lffective Overburden stress (Go') Overburden Stress (0,) (Pa I epth to Midpoint (ft) JCC CARLSBAD; 760479061 3; Mer-4-03 3:OIPI;