The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2177 CORTE ARBOLES; ; CB984231; Permit01/15/1999 Job Address Permit Type Parcel No Valuation Occupancy Group Project Title City of Carlsbad Building Permit Permit No CB984231 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 438-3101 2177 CORTE ARBOLES CBAD RETAIN Sub Type 2552520700 Lot # $15,488 00 Construction Type Reference # 1050 SF RETAINING WALL W/ CALCS NEW Status Applied Entered By Appr/lssued Inspect Area ISSUED 12/07/1998 JM 01/15/1999 Applicant MASONRY KENNDEY 7533 NAVIGATOR CIRCLE CARLSBAD CA 92009 92009 760931-2671 Owner GREYSTONE HOMES INC 5406 01/15/99 0001 01 02 C-PRMT 167-58 Total Fees $275 58 Total Payments To Date .;-., •• $108 00 Balance Due $16758 Description Fee BLDG PLAN CHECK BUILDING PMTS STRNG MOTION 107 95 166 08 1 f>5 Inspector FINAL APPROVAL Date «3-£ - C 0 Clearance NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions" You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3 32 030 Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void or annul their imposition You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capact'y changes, nor planning, zoning grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760)438-1161 PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2075 Las Palmas Dr, Carlsbad CA 92009 (760)438-1161 1 PROJECT INFORMATION Z::iu:=*ur "' FOR OFFICE USE O PLAN CHECKJS! EST VAL Plan Ck Deposrt Validated By C Date Address (include Bldg/Suite #)Business Name (at this address) Legal Description Lot No Subdivision Nama/NumnBr , i | I Unit No Phase No \o\kv U»lVac.1E.e 12/07/98v I Tctal # of units 02j p- ™'l I lOsT.QOAssessor's Parcel #Existing Use Proposed Use Description of Work 2 CONTACT PERSON (if different from applicant) SQ FT }V#of Stories1060}# of Bedrooms # of Bathrooms Name Address City 3 APPLICANT ;,^3 Contractor Q Agent for Contractor Q] Owner "jO A9?nJj'0r Owner State/Zip Telephone # QC-J i\X$Of/lVW Address^ ^J f^javM^W C t «tkC'tV CW (sW\State/ZlRCA Telephone # WNE8 . J "^ ...... A- '<;'1: ' . .. Fax* Name 4 PROPERTY OWNE8 Addres^ 73^ ^^ g^^rty Q^ State/Zio^ Telephone # 5 CONTRACTOR - COMPANY-NAME ...::ii Ofp' •'• (Sec 7031 5 Business and Professions Code Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor'; License Law [Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code] or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis -or the alleged exemption Any violation of Section 7031 5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$500]) Name State License # Address License Class C— City State/Zip Telephone # City Business License # / 7i Q ^-s O ^ C? Designer Name State License # 6 Address City State/Zip Telephone Workers Compensation Declaration I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations 0 I nave and Wl11 maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued "Jjjl I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued My worker s compensation insurance earner and policy number are Insurance Company Cl CVV*g.C\OVv VJctTVOi/vCL \ Policy No OIL t<.^.0O||^/!2-.O J Expiration Date/d?~|! "><7^7 (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$100] OR LESS) l~| CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California WARNING Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand doftars (SdOO.OOOl, in addition to the cosVpf compensation damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney s fees SIGNATURE ^tejLs_^ \JA^ .1-,, A/ DATE l*X ~ "t ~"i"1 *R 7f OWNER-BOLDER DECLARATION ^ \ "M::?™: : JpIfHT ,.:...:i:iS:: . :. : •:=, vh;WF' / a 1 hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason 0 I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec 7044, Business and Professions Code The Contractor s License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale If however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale) Q I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec 7044, Business and Professions Code The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor s License Law) n I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason 1 I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement l~l YES I~|NO 2 I (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work 3 I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number) 4 I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number) 5 I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type of work) PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR/VOW-fl£S/D£W7Mi BUILDING PERMITS ONLY ih.i; 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? O YES Q NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? [j] YES Q NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? d YES [H 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 8.JJCONSTHUCTIONJUNPING AGENCY .^ .;™ '..- . ""^ilfi' .: ' ' "'' '' I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec 3097(i) Civil Code) LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS "Si.~j- APPLICANTsCERTIFiClifri6N;:: '•••'•; . „. :;rr ™::"::" ...:isi" "2 •'*" I™' .-Z'Z ''" 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 PE RMIT 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 365 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time arr^r the(\fcprk is commenced for a period of 180 days (Section 106 4 4 Uniform Building Code) APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE WHITE File YELLOW Applicant PINK Finance DATE City of Carlsbad Inspection Request For 2/12/99 Permit# CB984231 Title 1050 SF RETAINING WALL Description W/CALCS Inspector Assignment NF 2177 CORTEARBOLES Lot Type RETAIN Sub Type Job Address Suite Location APPLICANT MASONRY KENNDEY Owner GREYSTONE HOMES INC Remarks PM PLEASE Phone 7607538918 Inspector Total Time CD Description 63 Walls Requested By GARY Entered By CHRISTINE Act Comments Date Description 2/10/99 63 Walls 2/4/99 61 Footing 2/3/99 61 Footing 2/1/99 61 Footing Inspection History Act Insp Comments AP NF FIRST LIFT CA NF APPD ON 2/3 AP NF CO NF EsGil Corporation In TartnersHip with government for Quitting Safety DATE January O4, 1999 OAPPLICANT" JURISDICTION Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO 98-4231 SET II PROJECT ADDRESS 2177 Corte Arboles PROJECT NAME Retaining Wall- 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 & checked by building department staff The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed checklist and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck The checklist 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 checklist is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person The applicant's copy of the checklist has been sent to Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Person contacted Telephone # Date contacted (by ) Fax # „ Mail Telephone Fax In Person €)v /REMARKS 1) Engineer of record must stamp and sign retaining wall detail (sheet 1 ) 2/City to please verify location of retaining wall on site plan is adequate The letter from Geo-Soils engineer must be a part of the plans, due to additional recommendations/provided for retaining wall By Tony Embuido Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 12/24/98 trnsmtldot EsGil Corporation In Tartnersdip with government for Quitting Safety DATE December 14, 1998 (^APPLICANT} unrtrms JURISDICTION Carlsbad Q PLAN REVIEWE R a FILE PLAN CHECK NO 98-4231 PROJECT ADDRESS 2177 Corte Arboles PROJECT NAME Retaining Wall- 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 Kennedy Masonry 7533 Navigator Circle, Carlsbad, CA 92009 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Person contacted Telephone # Date contacted (by ) Fax # Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS By Tony Embuido Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 12/08/98 tmsmUdot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 *• San Diego, California 92123 «> (619)560-1468 + Fax (619) 560-1576 Carlsbad 98-4231 December 14, 1998 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO 98-4231 PROJECT ADDRESS 2177 Corte Arboles DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY DATE REVIEW COMPLETED ESGIL CORPORATION 12/08/98 December 14, 1998 REVIEWED BY Tony Embuido FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments The following items listed need clarification, modification or change All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations Per Sec 106 4 3, 1994 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law 1 To facilitate recheckmg, 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 2 Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans Have changes been made not resulting from this list? Q Yes a No Final set of plans, specifications and calculations shall be signed and sealed oy the California state licensed engineer or architect responsible for their preparation, for plans deviating from conventional wood frame construction Specify expiration date of license (California Business and Professions Code) Provide a CURRENT 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 Per soils report, note on the plan the soil's classification, whether or not the soil is expansive and note the allowable bearing value Section 1804 3 Carlsbad 98-4231 December 14, 1998 /D Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan // and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the ' recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction documents (when required by the soil report) Retaining wall details and plans have not been completely checked due to lack of soil's report Additional corrections may follow upon submittal of report Design calc's must be consistent with the soil's report recommendations Engineer of record to please verify consistency The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123, telephone number of 619/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Tony Embuido at Esgi! Corporation Thank you Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list Submit (two sets of plans for residential projects) For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways 1 Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, (760) 438- 1161 The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments 2 Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (619) 560-1468 Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments NOTE Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete EsGil Corporation In Partnership 'With government for tBuibfing Safety DATE December 14, 1998 Q AEEU£ANT JURISDICTION Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO 98-4231 SET I PROJECT ADDRESS 2177 Corte Arboles PROJECT NAME Retaining Wall- 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 Kennedy Masonry 7533 Navigator Circle, Carlsbad, CA 92009 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed I | Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Person contacted Telephone # Date contacted (by ) Fax # Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS By Tony Embuido Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 12/08/98 tmsmUdot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 4> (619)560-1468 + Fax (619) 560-1576 Carlsbad 98-4231 December 14, 1998 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO 98-4231 PROJECT ADDRESS 2177 Corte Arboles DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY DATE REVIEW COMPLETED ESGIL CORPORATION 12/08/98 December 14, 1998 REVIEWED BY Tony Embuido FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments The following items listed need clarification, modification or change All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations Per Sec 106 4 3, 1994 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law 1 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 2 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? U Yes a No 3 Final set of plans, specifications and calculations shall be signed and sealed by the California state licensed engineer or architect responsible for their preparation, for plans deviating from conventional wood frame construction Specify expiration date of license (California Business and Professions Code) 4 Provide a CURRENT 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 5 Per soils report, note on the plan the soil's classification, whether or not the soil is expansive and note the allowable bearing value Section 1804 3 Carlsbad 98-4231 December 14, 1998 6 Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction documents (when required by the soil report) 7 Retaining wall details and plans have not been completely checked due to lack of soil's report Additional corrections may follow upon submittal of report 8 Design calc's must be consistent with the soil's report recommendations Engineer of record to please verify consistency 9 The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123, telephone number of 619/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Tony Embuido at Esgil Corporation Thank you 11 Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list Submit (two sets of plans for residential projects) For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways 1 Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, (760) 438- 1161 The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments 2 Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (619) 560-1468 Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments NOTE Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete Carlsbad 98-4231 December 14, 1998 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO 98-4231 PREPARED BY Tony Embuido DATE December 14, 1998 BUILDING ADDRESS 2177 Corte Arboles BUILDING OCCUPANCY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION BUILDING PORTION RETAINING WALL Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE BUILDING AREA (ft2) VALUATION MULTIPLIER VALUE ($) 15,488 (PER CITY) D 199 UBC Building Permit Fee |EI Bldg Permit Fee by ordinance $ 16608 D 199 UBC Plan Check Fee |El Plan Check Fee by ordinance $ 107 95 Type of Review Q Complete Review Q Structural Only Q Hourly O Repetitive Fee Applicable n Other Esgil Plan Review Fee $ 86 36 Comments Sheet 1 of 1 macvaluedoc5196 Citvof Carlsbad Public Works — Engineering BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALL BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER BUILDING ADDRESS CB PROJECT DESCRIPTION Retaining Wall ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 2&S~- 2.57.- ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal, therefore, any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result jn suspension of permit to build Date DENIAL Please see^3B^~~attached report of deficiencies marked ^th D Make necessary corrections to plans or-speerfications for compliance with applicable codes and standards Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review By By Date Date Date ATTACHMENTS Right-of-Way Permit Application ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON NAME DANNA TRIGS City of Carlsbad ADDRESS 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 PHONE (760) 438-1161, ext 4374 ULASPALMASVSYS\LIBRARY\ENG\WORD\DOCS\CHKLST\Relaining Wall Building Plancheck Cklst Form BE Hoc 2075 Las Palmas Dr • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (76O) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 431-5769 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALLS Q 1 Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale Show Arrow Is Existing & Proposed Structures ^dimensioned from street) ^Property Lines 2 Show on site plan Patterns & Proposed Slopes Existing Topography Include on title sheet Address B-'^ssessor's Parcel Number CXTpgal Description ^/Grading Quantities Cut Easements letaimng Wall (location and height) Fill Import/Export (Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required) Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No Conditions were complied with by Date MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS Q 5 A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way A separate Right-of-Way issued by the Engineering Department is required for the following Please obtain an application for Right-of-Way permit from the Engineering Department Page 1 -I A, \\LASPALMAS\SYS\LIBRARY\ENG\WORD\DOCS\CHKLST\Retairang Wall Buildino Plancheck Cklst Form BE doc 1 2 PLANNING/ENGINEERING APPROVALS PERMIT NUMBER CB DATE ADDRESS a inn Coc4t> A/1 U k >s RESIDENTIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR (< $10,000.00) PLAZA CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES VILLAGE FAIRE COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING OTHER A PLANNER DATE ENGINEER DATE Oocs/Misforms/Planmng Engineering Approvals JERRY'TUCKER & ASSOCIATES, INC CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS TELEPHONE (714) 645-2422 FAX (714) 645-0526 Sheet Job No Date Engineer Cover 97-173 7-28-98 KM STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS PROJECT: Retaining Wall for Lot 26 CLIENT: Villages at La Costa VALID ONLY IF SIGNED IN RED 1 4 1999 -Revisions Table of Contents Detail 1 Calculations 2-10 oc in<D uo _ cu^L<J >, -J n Ml 17/1 1 1 L_A_1 JERRY TUCKER & ASSOCIATES, INC CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS TELEPHONE (714) 645-2422 FAX (714) 645-0526 Sheet Job No Date Engineer H (W)(X) 7'-^" Title Dsgnr Date Description $@ Scope @ Cantilevered Retaining Wall Description LA COSTA LOT General Retained Height = Wall height above retained soil = Slope Behind Wall = Height of Soil over Toe = Soil Density = 26 (RETAIN = 9 5') 1 950 ft 600ft 000 1 42 00 in 110 00 pcf Footing Data | Toe Width Heel Width Total Footing Width = Footing Thickness = Footing Key Data Distance from Toe = Width Depth = 000ft 700ft 700ft 1800m 1 000ft 000 in 0 00 in [Added Lateral Load on Stem | Lateral Load = Height to Top = Height to Bottom = Wind on Stem = 00#/ft 000ft 000ft 130 psf Soil Data Allow Soil Bearing Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Active Soil Pressure - Heel Side Active Soil Pressure - Toe Side Passive Pressure Water table height over heel Job* f/-/7 = 7/<?& Page 1 1 = 2,660 0 psf 43 0 psf 43 0 pcf = 300 0 pcf 00ft Sliding Data Friction Factor @ Footing & Soil neglect ht for passive Lateral Sliding Force less Passive Pressure Force less Friction Force Added Restraint Force Required 0300 = 0 00 in = 2,142 1 Ibs = - 3,750 0 Ibs = - 2,730 2 Ibs 00 Ibs Adjacent Footing Data Adjacent Footing Load = 0 0 Ibs Footing Width = 0 00 ft Eccentricity = 0 00 in Wall to Ftg CL Dist = 0 00 ft Footing Type = Line Load Base Above/Below Soil at Back of Wall = 0 0 ft Footing Design Results fc Fy Minimum As % = Rebar Cover @ Top = Rebar Cover @ Bottom = Upward Soil Pressure Under Heel Omitted ACI Factored Soil Pressure = Mu' From Upward Loads = Mu' From Downward Loads = Mu Used For Design = Actual One-Way Shear = Allowable One-Way Shear = 2,500 psi Minimum Footing Rebar Options 0 0018 PS' Toe Slde Heel Slde 3 oo in Not req'd Not req'd 3 00 in Mu < S * Fr Mu < S * Fr Toe Heel 3,542 40 psf 0 0 ft-# 0 0 ft-# 0 11 583 ft-# 000 818 si Key Reinforcement Not Req'd = Mu<S*Fr 0 00 85 00 psi (c) 1983-97 ENERCALC c \enercalc\lacosta ecw KW-0602454, V502,1-Jun-1997 Title Dsgnr Description Scope Job# Date Cantilevered Retaining Wall Page 2 [Design Summary Total Bearing Load resultant ecc Soil Pressure ( Soil Pressure i i Toe = ! Heel = AC I Factored Press @ Toe ACI Factored Press @ Heel Footing Shear @ Toe = Footing Shear @ Heel = WALL STABILITY RATIOS Overturning Stability Ratio Sliding Ratio Ratio 2,571 <- 29 <= 00 <= 82 <= 9,101 Ibs 1369m 2,660 psf 2,660 psf 3,542 psf 40 psf 85 0 psi 85 0 psi 321 303 Summary of Stem Section Designs Top Fence from 9 5 to 135ft 2nd 8 in Mas, #4@32 00 m@Cntr, From 9 5 ft to 7 5 ft 3rd 8 in Mas, #4@24 00 m@Edge, From 7 5 ft to 3 5 ft 4th 12 in Mas, #4@16 00 m@Edge, From 3 5 ft to 0 0 ft Stem Design & Construction Top Stem 2nd Stem 3rd Stem 4th Stem 5th Stem Design at this height above ftg Wall Material Above "Ht" Thickness Rebar Size Rebar Spacing Rebar Placed at Doojgn p->f-i fb/FB + fa/Fa Total Force @ Section Moment Actual Moment Allowable Shear Actual Shear Allowable Bar Embed ABOVE Ht Bar Embed BELOW Ht Wall Weight Rebar Depth 'd' fm Fs Solid Grouting Special Inspection Modular Ratio 'n' Short Term Factor Equiv Solid Thick fcFy = 1150ft = Fence = = = = = = = = = = = - - - = = ~ = = = = = = Stem OK 950ft Masonry 8 00 in # 4 32 00 in Center 0426 78 1 Ibs 234 4 ft-* 550 7 ft-* 2 81 psi 25 76 psi 1200m 1200 in 55 0 psf 381 in 1,500 psi 20,000 psi No No 2578 1 330 4 90 m Stem OK 550ft Masonry 8 00 in # 4 1600m Edge 0835 422 1 Ibs 1,0055ft-* 1,204 2 ft-# 10 03 psi 25 76 psi 1699m 1699m 63 0 psf 525m 1,500 psi 20,000 psi No No 2578 1 330 5 80m Stem OK 250ft Masonry 1200m # 5 1600m Edge 0948 1,1101 Ibs 3,232 2 ft-# 3,408 8 ft-# 11 29 psi 25 76 psi 25 00 m 1228m 1240 psf 900 in 1,500 psi 20,000 psi Yes No 2578 1 330 11 60 in As < Mm % 000ft Concrete 1200m # 5 1600m Edge 1 000 2,983 7 Ibs 11,5834ft-# 10,371 6ft-* 24 41 psi 85 00 psi 2017m 11 76m 1500 psf 1019m 2,500 psi 60,000 psi (c)1983-97 ENERCALC c \enercalc\lacosta ecw KW-0602454, V5 0 2,1-Jun-1997 Title Dsgnr Description Scope Job# Date Cantilevered Retaining Wall Page 3 Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments Item OVERTURNING Force Distance Moment Ibs ft ft-# Force Ibs RESISTING Distance ft Moment ft-# Heel Active Pressure Soil Over Heel Sloped Soil Over Heel Surcharge Over Heel Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem Toe Active Pressure Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Stem Weight(s) Earth @ Stem Transitions Footing Weight Key Weight Vert Component Added Lateral Load Load @ Stem Above Soil 2,601 5 367 9,538 8 6,270 0 -5375 1 67 -8958 1,1090 1467 1,5750 400 000 045 083 350 25,080 0 4942 1222 5,5125 781 1400 1,0937 TOTALS = 2,1421 Ibs OTM = 9,7367 9,1007 RM Resisting/Overturning Ratio Total used for Soil Pressure = 9,100 7 ( + Axial Uve Load, - Vertical Soil Component) Vertical component of active pressure used for soil pressure Toe Surcharge Not Used To Resist Overturning Heel Surcharge Not Used To Resist Overturning 31,2089 321 (c)1983-97 ENERCALC c \enercalc\lacosta ecw KW-0602454, V5 0 2,1-Jun-1997 Title Job it .-yy .-, Dsgnr Date 7 /&><?, //-//- Description $@ ///*:•> Scope @ Cantilevered Retaining Wall Description LA COSTA LOT 26 General Retained Height = Wall height above retained soil = Slope Behind Wall = Height of Soil over Toe = Soil Density = | Footing Data Toe Width = Heel Width Total Footing Width = Footing Thickness = Footing Key Data Distance from Toe = Width Depth = Added Lateral Load on Stem Lateral Load = Height to Top = Height to Bottom = Wind on Stem = (RETAIN 7 5) 1 750 ft 600ft 000 1 42 00 in HOOOpcf \ 000ft 500ft 500ft 1800m 1 000ft 000 m 0 00 in 1 00#/ft 000ft 000ft 130 psf Soil Data Allow Soil Bearing = 2 Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Active Soil Pressure - Heel Side = Active Soil Pressure - Toe Side = Passive Pressure = Water table height over heel = | Sliding Data Friction Factor @ Footing & Soil = neglect ht for passive = Lateral Sliding Force = 1, less Passive Pressure Force = - 3, less Friction Force = - 1, Added Restraint Force Required = Page 1 j 660 0 psf 43 0 psf 43 0 pcf 300 0 pcf 00ft 0300 0 00 in 282 1 Ibs 750 0 Ibs 572 8 Ibs 00 Ibs Adjacent Footing Data Adjacent Footing Load = Footing Width = Eccentricity = Wall to Ftg CL Dist = Footing Type = Line Base Above/Below Soil at Back of Wall = 00 Ibs 000ft 000 in 000ft Load 00ft Footing Design Results fc Fy Minimum As % = Rebar Cover @ Top = Rebar Cover @ Bottom = Upward Soil Pressure Under Heel Omitted ACI Factored Soil Pressure = Mu1 From Upward Loads = Mu' From Downward Loads = Mu Used For Design = Actual One-Way Shear = Allowable One-Way Shear = 2,500 psi Minimum Footing Rebar Options ft™- Toes,*, Hee,S,de 3 go in Not recTd Not reci'd 3 00 in Mu < S * Fr Mu < S * Fr Toe Heel 3,178 0 psf 0 0 ft-# 0 0 ft-# Q OQ g 02 Key Reinforcement Not Req'd = Mu<S*Fr 0 00 85 00 psi (c) 1983-97 ENERCALC c \enercalc\lacosta ecw \KW-0602454, V5 0 2,1-Jun-1997 Title Dsgnr Description Scope Job# Date Cantilevered Retaining Wall Page 2 1 I Design Summary Total Bearing Load = resultant ecc = Soil Pressure @ Toe = 2,335 <= Soil Pressure @ Heel = 0 <= ACI Factored Press @ Toe = ACI Factored Press @ Heel = Footing Shear @ Toe = 0 0 <: Footing Shear @ Heel = 9 0 <: WALL STABILITY RATIOS Overturning Stability Ratio = Sliding Ratio Ratio = 5,243 Ibs 12 04 in 2,660 psf 2,660 psf 3,178 psf Opsf 85 0 psi 85 0 psi 249 415 Summary of Stem Section Designs Top Fence from 9 5 to 13 5 ft 2nd 8 in Mas, #4@32 00 m@Cntr. From 9 5 It to 7 5 ft 3rd 8 in Mas, #4@24 00 m@Edge, From 7 5 ft to 3 5 ft 4th 12 in Mas, #4@16 00 m@Edge, From 3 5 ft to 00 ft Stem Design & Construction Top Stem 2nd Stem 3rd Stem 4th Stem Design at this height above ftg Wall Material Above "Ht" Thickness Rebar Size Rebar Spacing Rebar Placed at Dae|rjp p-it=> fb/FB + fa/Fa Total Force @ Section Moment Actual Moment Allowable Shear Actual Shear Allowable Bar Embed ABOVE Ht Bar Embed BELOW Ht Wall Weight Rebar Depth 'd' Moo-inry Hota fm Fs Solid Grouting Special Inspection Modular Ratio 'n1 Short Term Factor Equiv Solid Thick fc = 950ft = Fence = = = ~ = = = = = = = = = = = ~ == = = ~ = Stem OK 750ft Masonry 8 00 in # 4 32 00 in Center 0426 78 1 Ibs 234 4 ft-# 550 7 ft-# 2 81 psi 25 76 psi 1200m 1200m 55 0 psf 381 in 1,500 psi 20,000 psi No No 2578 1 330 4 90 in Stem OK 350ft Masonry 8 00 in # 4 24 00 in Edge 0974 422 1 Ibs 1,005 5 ft-# 1,032 3 ft-# 1 1 24 psi 25 76 psi 20 00 in 20 00 in 58 0 psf 5 25 in 1,500 psi 20,000 psi No No 2578 1 330 5 20 in Ratio > 1 Oi 000ft Masonry 1200m # 4 16 00 in Edge 1 282 1,024 1 Ibs 3,536 4 ft-# 2,758 9 ft-# 14 00 psi 25 76 psi 32 56 in 8 80 in 94 0 psf 9 00 in 1,500 psi 20,000 psi No No 2578 1 330 8 50 in (c)1983-97 ENERCALC c \enercalc\lacosta ecw KW-0602454, V5 0 2,1-Jun-1997 Title Job# Dsgnr Date Description $@ Scope @ Cantilevered Retaining Wall Page 3 Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments OVERTURNING RESISTING Force Distance Moment Force Distance Moment Item Ibs ft ft-# Ibs ft ft-# Heel Active Pressure = 1,7415 300 5,2245 Soil Over Heel 3,3000 300 9,9000 Sloped Soil Over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = 0 00 ; Toe Active Pressure = -537 5 1 67 -895 8 ! Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe = Stem Weight(s) = 671 0 0 42 278 5 Earth @ Stem Transitions = 146 7 0 83 122 2 Footing Weight = 1,1250 250 2,8125 ; Key Weight = i Vert Component = ' Added Lateral Load = Load @ Stem Above Soil = 781 1200 9374 TOTALS = 1,2821 Ibs OTM = 5,2661 5,2427 R M = 13,1132 Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 2 49 Total used for Soil Pressure = 5,242 7 ( + Axial Live Load, - Vertical Soil Component) Vertical component of active pressure used for soil pressure Toe Surcharge Not Used To Resist Overturning Heel Surcharge Not Used To Resist Overturning (c) 1983-97 ENERCALC c VenercalcMacosta ecw KW-0602454, V502,1-Jun-1997 & Title Job# a-j.-j... Dsgnr Date -, , Description $@ ffi?? Scope @ Can ti levered Retaining Wall Description LA COSTA LOT 26 General Retained Height = Wall height above retained soil = Slope Behind Wall = Height of Soil over Toe = Soil Density = Footing Data Toe Width Heel Width Total Footing Width = Footing Thickness = Footing Key Data Distance from Toe = Width Depth = Added Lateral Load on Stem Lateral Load = Height to Top = Height to Bottom = Wind on Stem = (RETAIN=5 550 ft 600ft 000 1 42 00 in 110 00 pcf 000ft 350ft 350ft 1800m 000ft 000 in 000 in 00#/ft 000ft 000ft 130 psf 5') \ | Soil Data Page 1 I Allow Soil Bearing = 2,660 0 psf Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Active Soil Pressure - Heel Side = 43 0 psf Active Soil Pressure - Toe Side = 43 0 pcf Passive Pressure = 300 0 pcf Water table height over heel = o 0 ft | | Sliding Data Friction Factor @ Footing & Soil = neglect ht for passive = Lateral Sliding Force = less Passive Pressure Force = - 3, | less Friction Force = - Added Restraint Force Required = | [Adjacent Footing Data Adjacent Footing Load = Footing Width = Eccentricity = Wall to Ftg CL Dist = Footing Type = Line Base Above/Below Soil at Back of Wall = 0300 0 00 in 594 1 Ibs 750 0 Ibs 867 2 Ibs 00 Ibs 00 Ibs 000ft 0 00 in 000ft Load 00ft Footing Design Results fc Fy Minimum As % = Rebar Cover @ Top = Rebar Cover @ Bottom = Upward Soil Pressure Under Heel Omitted ACI Factored Soil Pressure = Mu1 From Upward Loads = Mu1 From Downward Loads = Mu Used For Design = Actual One-Way Shear = Allowable One-Way Shear = 2,500 psi 60,000 psi 00018 300 m 3 00 in Toe 2,735 0 0 0 000 000 Minimum Footing Rebar Options Toe Side Heel Side Not req'd Not req'd Mu<S*Fr Mu<S*Fr Heel Opsf 0 ft-# 0 ft-# 7 41 ft~* Key Reinforcement Not Req'd = Mu<S*Fr 85 00 psi (c)1983-97 ENERCALC c \enercalc\lacosta ecw KW-0602454, V5 0 2,1-Jun-1997 Title Dsgnr Description Scope Date job* 7/fe Cantilevered Retaining Wall Page 2 I Design Summary Total Bearing Load = 2,891 Ibs resultant ecc = 9 69 in Soil Pressure @ Toe = 2,044 <= 2,660 psf Soil Pressure @ Heel = 0 <= 2,660 psf AC! Factored Press @ Toe = 2,735 psf ACI Factored Press @ Heel = 0 psf Footing Shear @ Toe = 0 0 <= 85 0 psi Footing Shear @ Heel = 7 4 <= 85 0 psi WALL STABILITY RATIOS Overturning Stability Ratio = 216 Sliding Ratio Ratio = 7 77 Summary of Stem Section Designs Top Fence from 9 5 to 135ft 2nd 8 in Mas, #4@32 00 m@Cntr, From 9 5 ft to 7 5 ft 3rd 8 in Mas, #4@24 00 m@Edge, From 7 5 f: to 3 5 ft 4th 12 in Mas, #4@16 00 m@Edge, From 3 5 tt to 0 0 ft Stem Design & Construction Top Stem 2nd Stem 3rd Stem 4th Stem Thickness Rebar Size Rebar Spacing Rebar Placed at Design Data fb/FB + fa/Fa Total Force (£ Moment Ac Moment Al Shear Actual Shear Wall Weight Rebar Depth 'd' Masonry Data fm Fs Solid Grouting Special Inspection Modular Ratio 'n1 Short Term Factor Equiv Solid Thick Concrete Data fc Stem OK leight above ftg = 750ft 550ft bove "Ht" = Fence Masonry = 8 00 in # 4 32 00 in t = Center 0426 5 Section = 78 1 Ibs tual = 234 4 ft-# lowable = 550 7 ft-# al = 2 81 psi vable = 25 76 psi BOVE Ht = 12 00 in ELOW Ht = 12 00 in 55 0 psf 'd' = 3 81 in = 1,500 psi = 20,000 psi 3 = No ction = No , 'n' = 25 78 actor = 1 33° 'hick = 4 90 in Stem OK 200ft Masonry 8 00 in # 4 32 00 in Edge 0977 293 1 Ibs 790 9 ft-# 809 1 ft-# 8 32 psi 25 76 psi 20 00 in 20 00 in 55 0 psf 5 25 in 1,500 psi 20,000 psi No No 2578 1 330 4 90 in Ratio > 1 0' 000ft Masonry 12 00 in # 4 32 00 in Edge 1 098 465 1 Ibs 1,549 1 ft-# 1,410 4 ft-# 7 65 psi 25 76 psi 20 00 m 771 in 80 0 psf 900 in 1,500 psi 20,000 psi No No 2578 1 330 700m (c) 1983-97 ENERCALC c \enercalc\lacosta ecw KW-0602454, V5 0 2,1-Jun-1997 Title Dsgnr Description Scope Job# Date -/73 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Page Summary of Overturnmq & Resisting Forces & Moments Item OVERTURNING Force Distance Moment Ibs ft ft-# Force Ibs RESISTING Distance ft Moment ft-# Heel Active Pressure Soil Over Heel Sloped Soil Over Heel Surcharge Over Heel Adjacent Footing Load Axial Dead Load on Stem Toe Active Pressure Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Stem Weight(s) Earth @ Stem Transitions Footing Weight Key Weight Vert Component Added Lateral Load Load @ Stem Above Soil 1,0535 233 2,458 2 1,5125 -5375 1 67 -8958 4625 1283 7875 225 000 039 083 1 75 3,403 1 1808 1069 1,3781 78 1 1000 781 2 TOTALS =594 1 Ibs OTM = 2,3435 2,8908 RM = Resisting/Overturning Ratio = Total used for Soil Pressure = 2,8908 ( +Axial Live Load, - Vertical Soil Component) Vertical component of active pressure used for soil pressure Toe Surcharge Not Used To Resist Overturning Heel Surcharge Not Used To Resist Overturning 5,069 0 216 (c) 1983-97 ENERCALC c \enercalc\lacosta ecw KW-0602454. V5 0 2,1-Jun-1997 ,JflN 13 1999 4 04PN GRLYbTONE. HOflES PRECISE GRADING PLAN COffTE ARBOLES \ STREET LIGHT FIRE HYDRANT UTILITY HANDHOLE UTILITY TRANS/VAULT TREE TRIMMING EASEMENT TO SDG. * £ PER DOC, RECORDED MARCH 21, 1957 IN BOOK 6504 AT PACE 206, 0 R LEGEND 6' SLUMP BLOCK/GLASS WALL 5' BLOCK WALL 5| CEDAR FENCE 5' STEEL FENCE DRAIN PIPE AREA DRAIN FL=99.S GREYSTONE HOMES 5973 Avemda Enemas Suite 101 Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 804-7700 LA COSTA VALLEY (VILLAGE "I") A MIT 1, MAP NO 1338 PHASE 6 - HOMESITE 26 Ti\ENGRYL3Q2\EXHIBIT/13a2XB08.DVC 2001® SKOO 6KO PLDT DATEJ 12/3/98 819 XVJ 6S 01 86/iO/ZI .JflN 13 1999 4 04PM GREYSTONE HOMES NO 802 P 2/2 PRECISE GRADING PLAN CORTE ARBOLES GF 132.7 132.2 JJ2.5 m 33. 4 STREET LIGHT FIRE HYDRANT UT1UTY HANDHOLD UTILITY TRANS/VAULTAW* 100 0 TREE TRIMMING EASEMENT TO S.D G. it £ PER DOC, RECORDED MARCH 21. 1957 IN BOOK 6504 AT PACE 206, 0 R LEGEND 6' SLUMP BLOCK/GLASS WALL 5' BLOCK WALL 5' CEDAR FENCE 5' STEEL FENCE DRAIN PIPE AREA DRAIN FL=99 5 GREYSTONE HOMES 5973 Avenido Enemas Suite 101 Carlsbad, California 92008 (760) 804-7700 LA COSTA VALLEY (VILLAGE "I") * TOT 1, MAP NO. 1338 PHASE 6 - HOMESITE 26 TAENGRSl302\EXHIBIT/13a2XB08.DVCZOO® SKOO 6tCO PLOT DATE- 12/3/98619 IVJ 65 Ot 86/iO/ZI Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 December 21, 1998 WO 2323-C-SC Greystone Homes, Inc. 5973 Avenida Enema, Suite 101 Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention Mr Matt Howe Subject References Review of Retaining Wall Plan and Calculations, La Costa Valley (Village "I") Unit 1, Map No 13385, Phase 6 - Homesite 26, Carlsbad, California 1 "Supplemental Soil and Geologic Investigation for La Costa Ranch - Southwest I and II Areas, Carlsbad, California", Volume I of II, File No D-4229-H02, dated November 28, 1989, by Geocon, Incorporated 2 "Structural Calculations, Retaining wall for Lot 26," Job no 97-173, dated July 28, 1998, -^ by Jerry Tuck&r & Associates \ NJ 3 "Precise Grading Plan, La Costa Valley (Village "I") Unit 1, Map No 13385, Phase 6 - \J Homesite 26," no job#, undated, by Project Design Consultants Gentlemen In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoiIs, Inc (GSI) has performed a review of the precise grading plans and structural calculations (see references 2 and 3) for the proposed subject wall from a geotechnical standpoint The plans and calculations reviewed appear to be in general conformance with the recommendations presented in reference (1), and with additional engineering analysis performed by this office The following additional comments and/or additional recommendations Reference (1) provides an allowable bearing value of 2000 psf, while reference (2) uses an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,660 psf for wall design Based on additional engineering analysis and wall footing dimensions of 7 feet wide by 1 5 feet thick, the bearing capacity of 2,660 psf, indicated in referenced (2), may be used The wall detail shown on Sheet 1, included with reference (2), should also indicate that dram rock should be wrapped, or encapsulated, in a filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, or equivalent) This is recommended in order to provide separation between the dramrock and soil fill The wall backdrain should be able to adequately dram the area immediately above the top of the wall footing Weep holes in the wall stem are not recommended In accordance with guidelines presented in the Uniform Building Code, improvements and/or footings should maintain a horizontal distance, X, between any adjacent descending slope face and the bottom outer edge of the improvement and/or footing The horizontal distance, X, may be calculated by using X - h/3, where h is the height of the slope, or height of the specific improvement on the slope face X should not be less than 7 feet, nor need not be greater than 40 feet X may be maintained by deepening the footings Improvements constructed within a distance of h/3 from the top of slope and/or slope face may be subject to lateral distortion Foundations for any adjacent structures, including retaining walls, should be deepened (as necessary) to below a 1 1 projection upward and away from any proposed lower (wall) foundation system This recommendation may not be considered valid, if the additional surcharge imparted by the upper foundation (residence) on the lower foundation (wall) has been incorporated into the design of the lower foundation Additional setbacks, not discussed or superseded herein, and presented in the UBC are considered valid The structural calculations should refer to reference (1) and this review letter, with respect to soil data used in wall design Since our study is based upon the site materials and conditions observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analysis, the conclusion and recommendations are professional opinions These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied Standards of practice are subject to change with time GSI assumes no responsibility for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others Greystone Homes W O 2323-C-SC La Costa Valley, Lot 26 December 21, 1998 File/2300/2323c ror Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call our office Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. Robert G Crisman \-, >, ^ Project Geologist, CEG 193^ C:" - RGC/DWS/kl Distribution (1) Addressee ||t [ \«0 RCE 47357)3' David W Skelly Civil Engineer, RC£ 47857 Greystone Homes La Costa Valley, Lot 26 File/2300/2323c ror WO 2323-G-SC December 21, 1998 Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. I I CONSUllTAN I ! i ! ! I i i SUPPLEMENTAL SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION FOR LA COSTA RANCH - SOUTHWEST I AND H AREAS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA VOLUME I OF H PREPARED FOR THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY GEOCON INCORPORATED NOVEMBER 1989 ! i I GEOCON INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 The Fieldstone Company 5465 Morehouse Drive, Suite 250 San Diego, California 92121 Attention Subject Gentlemen Mr John Barone LA COSTA RANCH - SOUTHWEST I AND H AREAS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SUPPLEMENTAL SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION We are pleased to submit the accompanying report which presents the results of our supplemental soil and geologic investigation for the subject project Volume I of this report presents our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechmcal aspects of site development as well as a review of the field and laboratory tests upon which they are based Volume II, enclosed as a separate document, presents the results of the field investigation and laboratory test program conducted as a part of the preliminary soil and geologic investigation previously submitted on November 11, 1988 If you have question as our studies on the site proceed, please contact the undersigned Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED H Tom Kuper CEG 1137 David F ILe RCE 2252- Monte L Murbach Project Geologist MLM DFL HTK rcc (4) addressee (2) Hunsaker and Associates Attention Mr Dave Hammar (1) Fieldstone/La Costa Associates Attention Mr Douglas Avis 6960 Flanders Dr,ve • San Diego, Cahforn.a 92121 2974 • Telephone (619) 558 6900 • Fax (619) 558 6159 TABLE OF CONTENTS -^ VOLUME I r? - SUPPLEMENTAL SOIL AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PAGE *? Purpose and Scope . . . . .1 ; Site and Project Description • . . 2 Soil and Geologic Conditions . . 4 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) and Fill (Qaf) . - 4 Topsoil (unmapped) . . .5 Slopewash (Qsw) . .. 5 Alluvium (Qal) . .... . 6 Landslide Debris and Surficial Landslide Debris (Qls and Qlsf) 7 •" Torrey Sandstone (Tt) . . . 8 Delmar Formation (Td) . .8 g[ Geologic Structure . . 9 It Groundwater . - 10 Geologic Hazards .... . 11 f Landslides . 11 Faulting and Seismicity . 11 Liquefaction 12 Alluvial Settlement Considerations 13 If Landslide Stability Analysis and Considerations 15 *^ Remedial Grading Considerations • - .16 f CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General ... 20 f Remedial Grading ... . 22 Sod and Excavation Characteristics 24 Slope Stability and Landslide Stabilization 25 Grading ...... . 27 Subdrams . 30 Bulking and Shrinkage Factors . . 31 Foundations 32 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads - 35 _ Drainage and Maintenance 36 Grading Plan Review . . 37 f ' LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONStrf Figures 1-8, Geology Maps (Map Pocket) Figures 9-19, Geologic Cross-Sections A-A' through K-K' *-• Figure 20, Fault Location Map Figure 21, Estimated Alluvial Settlement vs Height of Fill Figure 22, Alluvial Percent Condition vs Time Figure 23, Typical Stability Fill Detail Figures 24 and 25, Remedial Grading Figures 26 and 27, Canyon Subdrain Details Figure 28, Bench Detail Area "J" TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) VOLUME I APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A-l - A-31, Logs of Test Borings (Small Diameter) Figures A-32 - A-64, Logs of Test Borings (Large Diameter) Figures A-65 - A-174, Logs of Test Trenches APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Table I, Summary of Laboratory Compaction Test Results Table n, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results Table ffl, Summary of In-Place Moisture-Density and Direct Shear Test Results Figures B-l - B-6, Grain Size Analysis - Gradation Curves Figures B-7 - B-23, Consolidation Curves Figures B-24 - B-29, Time Rate Consolidation Curves APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Figures C-l - C-ll APPENDIX D GRADING SPECIFICATIONS f J •4- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 SUPPLEMENTAL SOIL AND GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Purpose and Scope The purpose of this investigation was to perform additional observation and sampling of the prevailing surface and subsurface soil and geologic conditions at the site and to provide supplemental recommendations relative to the geotechnical aspects of proposed site development. The scope of the investigation included more detailed geologic reconnaissance of the site and the excavation of 17 small-diameter rotary wash-borings, 20 large-diameter borings and 110 exploratory trenches. Logs of the exploratory borings and trench excavations, as well as, other details of the field investigation are presented in Appendix A Laboratory tests were performed on selected representative samples obtained at various depths in the test excavations to evaluate pertinent physical characteristics of the soil types encountered A summary of laboratory tests performed is included with the test results in Appendix B For the purpose of reference and clarity, the logs of trenches and borings, as well as the laboratory test results from the previous preliminary soils and geologic investigation (Report No D-4229-H01) are included in Appendices A and B, respectively, of Volume II of this report, attached as a separate document -1- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 As part of this report, geologic literature, previous geotechnical reports and tentative tract maps were reviewed including o "Preliminary Soil and Geologic Investigation for La Costa Ranch - Southwest Area, Carlsbad, California,11 prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated November 11, 1988 o "Revised Geotechnical Feasibility Study, La Costa Southwest," prepared by Ninyo and Moore, dated June 30, 1988 o "Eocene Lithofacies and Geologic History, Northern San Diego County" in "On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County" Eisenburg, LI and Abbott, P L., 1985, Abbott, P L ed , San Diego Association of Geologists Guidebook o "Eocene and Related Geology of a Portion of the San Luis Rey and Encimtas Quadrangles, San Diego County, California", Wilson, ELL; 1972, Master's Thesis for University of California at Riverside o "Tentative Tract Map for La Costa S W II," scale 1" = 100' dated August 9, 1989, prepared by Hunsaker and Associates o Tentative Tract Map for La Costa S W I," scale 1" = 100' dated August 9, 1989, prepared by Hunsaker and Associates Site and Project Description The project comprises approximately 492 acres of presently undeveloped land located in Carlsbad, California and bounded on the west by El Camino Real, on the south by Ohvenhain Road and on the east by Rancho Santa Fe Road (see Vicinity Map insert on Figure 1) Existing subdivisions are present along the northern and southern borders while improved roadways are located along the western and eastern property lines (see Geology Maps, Figures 2 through 8) A major north-south oriented utility easement crosses the site and is located between the western boundary of the proposed development and El Camino Real File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 The site is characterized by two east west trending ridges cut by numerous, steep, narrow tributary gullies and swales which emerge into a central alluvium-filled canyon emptying to the west and several smaller alluvial canyons which dram to the east Topographically, the elevations on the property range from a high of approximately 255 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) in the southeast portion to a low of approximately 65 feet MSL along the western boundary. The site is covered with a sparse growth of native chaparral, scrub oak and coastal oak, and grass, with the thickest growth occurring along the wetlands in the central western drainage. Present plans prepared by Hunsaker and Associates entitled 'Tentative Tract Map for La Costa S W I", dated August 9, 1989 and 'Tentative Tract Map for La Costa S W IT and dated August 9, 1989 indicate that the site will be developed for a residential subdivision consisting of approximately 1092 single 'and/or double story wood-frame residential structures In addition, two proposed school pads will be graded along with associated arterial access roads and residential streets We understand Area "J" has been designated as a future church site with near term use planned for a temporary building and parking area associated with a project information facility The referenced plans indicate maximum cut slopes approximately 70 feet high and fill slopes approximately 30 feet high Both the proposed cut and fill slopes are planned for a maximum inclination of 2 0 1 0 (horizontal to vertical) o- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 Soil and Geologic Conditions Seven general soil types and/or geologic units were encountered during the investigation These include, in order of increasing age, artificial fills, topsoil, slopewash, alluvial soils, landslide debris and formational materials associated with the Torrey Sandstone and Delmar Formation Each of the soil and formational types is described below in order of increasing age Cross-sections depicting geology, as interpreted from field and laboratory data, are presented on Figures 9 through 19 Undocumented Fill (Qudf) and Fill (Oaf) At least two generations of artificial fill are present on the site The youngest fills (Qudf) are associated with the construction of utilities, roads-and borrow-pit mine areas and adjoining subdivisions The undocumented fills (Qudf) are considered by our firm to be fills of which the documentation of its placement (if such documentation exists) was not reviewed by our office The fills of the adjoining subdivisions consist of fill slopes either immediately adjacent to the property line or which encroach onto the property In addition, trashy or rubbly fills consisting of unsuitable materials are present in the central and northeastern alluvial canyon areas (see Figure 3) The results of our investigation indicate that fill was placed on landslide debris, alluvium, slopewash and, in one instance, older fill in the form of a dam (see Cross-Section F-F', Figure 14) The undocumented fills generally consisted of very loose to medium dense, tan to brown, clayey to sdty sand. The older fills (Qaf) consist of earth dams and irrigation ditches installed pre-1953 which are undocumented relative to compaction and depth The approximate areal extents are shown on Figures 2 through 8 Those trenches excavated in -4- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 the margin of the dam fills, indicate that the material is composed of tan or light brown silty to clayey sand and blue-grey sandy silts, probably derived from on-site materials The greatest observed thickness of fill (14 feet) was encountered in Trench No 84 overlying three to four feet of loose slopewash It is recommended that the dams be breached as soon as possible and that the dam fills and undocumented fills eventually be removed or recompacted prior to placing proposed structural fills Off site grading permits may be required to remove the adjacent undocumented fills to provide suitable keyways for the placing of proposed fills Proposed slopes cut in undocumented fill may require stabilization. Topsod ^unmapped) Topsoil blankets a majority of the site to depths on the order of two to three feet and consists of loose or soft dark brown silty sands to sandy clays The potential for both undesirable expansion and consolidation indicates that the topsoil should be removed and recompacted as discussed in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of this report. Slopewash fQsw) Slopewash sods were typically found to occur along valley and canyon slopes, as well as bowl-shaped basins at the heads of tributary drainages (see Figure 5) The slopewash sods consist of loose, dry to damp, dark brown, sdty sands to soft, dark brown, sandy clays which are derived from the erosion of the sandy Torrey Sandstone or the clay-rich Delmar Formation, respectively The thickness of slopewash sods ranges File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 from 3 feet to over 19 feet (see Trench No T-32, Appendix A), the greatest thicknesses typically occurring on the lower slopes of tributary canyons or existing alluvial basins Development within areas containing these soils will require remedial grading Alluvium (Qal). Sods of alluvial origin occur within the drainage bottoms These deposits typically consist of silty to clayey sands interbedded with sandy clays The depth and extent of alluvial deposits were interpreted from the Cone Penetrometer Soundings (CPT), small-diameter borings (SB) and large-diameter borings (LB) In tributary drainages explored by rotary wash borings and numerous trenches, alluvium was found to range from 3 to 20 feet thick. In general, the major westward trending canyon is underlain by approximately 40 to 55 feet of alluvium. Similar thicknesses of alluvial soil are anticipated to extend into Area "F" (see Figure 5) beneath existing undocumented fill and a street, Segovia Way (see also Figure 14, Cross-Section F-F') Approximately 50 feet of alluvium was also encountered within the canyon adjacent to Ohvenhain Road in the south of the project site The results of the field investigation and analysis of the laboratory tests data indicate that the alluvial soils, underlying the subject site, can be classified as moderately to highly compressible Development within areas containing alluvial soils will require remedial grading in the form of removal and recompaction to mitigate potential settlement problems However, remedial work will be limited by the depth of groundwater The geotechmcal characteristics of the canyon alluvium represent a significant geotechmcal consideration to future site development -6- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 g~ Landslide Debris and Surficial Landslide Debris (Ols and Qlsfi Three deep-seated *•* ^ landslides (Qls) and two areas of surficial landslides (Qlsf) were encountered by exploratory y borings Two of the larger, deep-seated, landslides occur in the southwest portion of the site, ; 7 near Olivenhain Road (Figure 2), and El Camino Real (Figure 3) and have failed along gently-inclined planes roughly parallel to weak bedding planes within the Delmar Formation, ';-,. or at the weathered Torrey Sandstone-Delmar Formation contact The bedding plane shear T zone, or zones typically occur below elevation 110 MSL The third landslide occurs in the p northeast Area "P portion of the site west of Segovia Way (Figure 5) The maximum i thickness of landslide debris encountered was approximately 23 feet in Boring No B-l, 22 II feet in Boring No B-6, and over 20 feet in Trench No T-76 • Two areas of surficial landslide materials were outlined by exploratory borings in the vicinity P of the northeastern portion of Area "I" (Figure 3) The extent of landslide debris occurs over much of Area "J" and the southeastern portion of the proposed junior high school site. The £>^ surficial landslide debris averaged approximately 10 feet thick and was located along weak, weathered claystones and remolded clay seams, which was projected to extend southwardi beneath existing offsite fill and residential structures (see Figures 9, 17, 18 and 19, Cross- Sections A-A', I-I', J-J' and K-K') The weak, weathered claystones and remolded clay seams ic~ generally occurs below approximate elevation 130 MSL, or topographically lower portions of £i canyons and major drainages -7- FdeNo D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 In the areas of landsbding, the Torrey Sandstone and/or fractured to sheared Delmar Formation claystones appear to act as aquifers, perching water on the low-strength claystones The landslide debris consists generally of stiff, bluish-green, silty clays derived from the Delmar Formation, medium dense, moist, orange-brown to tan clayey and silty sands derived from the Torrey Sandstone, or loose, dry silty sands or sandy clays derived from slopewash Torrey Sandstone CTt) The Tertiary-aged Torrey Sandstone/Scripps Formation (undifferentiated) consists of dense, damp to moist, light tan to orangish-brown, silty fine sandstone with varying amounts of clay The Torrey Sandstone as a whole was deposited conformably upon the underlying Delmar Formation and appears to dip from horizontal to ten degrees to the southwest. The contact ranges from approximately 110 feet MSL in the west to over 220 feet MSL in the northeast The Torrey is cross-bedded in places, massive in others, highly variable and localized dip directions within the formation The Torrey Sandstone, in general, possesses a low expansive potential in either a natural or re-compacted state Excavations in the sandier portions should provide excellent low-expansive capping materials Delmar Formation (Td) The Tertiary-aged Delmar Formation, consisting of soft to hard, humid to wet, grayish blue-green clayey siitstones and silty claystones interbedded with generally dense, slightly moist, tan silty sandstones, was encountered underlying the lower slopes of the valleys and ridges The formation is known for its weak claystone beds and -8- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 remolded clay seams which are associated with landslides, areas of active creep and unstable bluffs In addition, the majority of the clay beds are characterized as moderately to highly expansive Excavations within the Delmar Formation should encounter little difficulty with conventional heavy-duty grading equipment The contact between the Torrey Sandstone and the underlying Delmar Formation varies across the site, a result of regional dip and vertical offsets by faulting However, in general, the contact dips to the south and southwest and was found at elevations on the order of 185 feet MSL on the northern boundary and on the order of 130 feet MSL on the southern boundary The presence of claystones in the Delmar Formation indicates that a high expansion potential can be anticipated and that selective grading or specially designed foundations may be required The moderately to highly expansive material generated from the siltstones and claystones should be placed in the deeper canyon fills Geologic Structure The old erosion surface of the Santiago Peak Volcanics outcrops offsite to the east, creating a generally westward-dipping platform upon which the Torrey Sandstone and Delmar Formation were deposited The bedding within the Tertiary-aged sediments typically dips a few degrees southward or westward, but generally assumes a horizontal attitude Local variations of dip inclination are influenced by hillside creep in claystones, faults, -9- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 crossbedding, as well as proximity to scour structures associated with interbedded lenticular sandstones and paleochannels In addition, an ancient northeast-to-southwest trending fault zone was encountered in Area "F" which cut and offset the Torrey Sandstone/Delmar Formation contact a vertical distance of over 30 feet (see Figure 5) Groundwater Numerous water seeps were encountered along the Delmar Formation-Torrey Sandstone contact In addition, seepage areas were noted within both formations at contacts between overlying sandstones and underlying less permeable units Areas of seepage encountered during grading will require mitigation and should be included in the design of buttresses and stability fills and berms A more permanent groundwater table is present in the alluvial canyon which drains to the west At the extreme western end of the drainage, the water table is approximately two feet below the surface at the time of the field investigation Groundwater was also encountered at approximately 16 feet below existing grade in the southwestern area of the site adjacent to Ohvenham Road (See Boring Nos SB-12 and B-3) The relationship between recommended remedial grading and the position of the groundwater table is discussed later in this report. Depths to groundwater, as measured below present grade at the time of the field investigation, are indicated on Figures 2 through 8 -10- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 Geologic Hazards Landslides. Due to the previous development of the surrounding residential areas, it appears some landslide debris has been left in-place which may extend under the existing perimeter fill slopes Where cut slopes are proposed in landslide debris and where remedial grading is possible, it is recommended that the on-site cut slopes be buttressed to mitigate the effects of possible slope failure In addition, it is recommended that removals in landslide debris along property lines (such as key ways) be accomplished in sections to reduce the potential for off-site distress Landslides that exist in areas to receive fill soils will require removal and recompaction of the compressible portions of the landslide debris Faulting and Seismicity Based on the site reconnaissance, evidence obtained in the exploratory excavations and a review of published geologic maps and reports, it appears that the site is not located on any known active fault trace A possible north-south trending normal fault is shown in Wilson (1972), although Eisenburg and Abbott (1985) do not show a fault in that location Trench No T-78 and Boring No LB-5 encountered northeastward- striking faults, the fault encountered in T-78 displaced the Torrey/Delmar contact over 30 feet vertically Potential for movement on the north-south and northeast-southeast faults is considered very low to non-existent (Wilson, 1972) The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, approximately 5 miles to the west is thought to be potentially active, meaning that evidence exists for movement within the zone during the Pleistocene age (2 million to 11,000 years ago) but not during the Holocene age (last 11,000 years) However, there are studies now in progress which could upgrade the Rose Canyon Fault zone to the active classification -11- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 rr The nearest known active fault is the Elsinore Fault Zone which lies approximately 27 miles to the northeast (see Figure 20) Recent offshore seismic activity has demonstrated that small magnitude earthquakes generally less than Magnitude 4 can be generated by the offshore faults The probability of the Carlsbad area experiencing a locally generated Magnitude 6.5 or greater earthquake would appear to be low, based on present knowledge It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake along any of the above mentioned faults, however, the seismic risk is" not considered to be any greater than that of the surrounding developments or the greater Carlsbad area in general. It is recommended that proposed structures be designed in accordance with applicable building codes and standards for seismic loading yp Liquefaction Although a permanent water table exists in the basin at the western and southwestern edges of the property, the clayey nature of the alluvial sands indicates that liquefaction is not likely to occur during the small magnitude earthquakes that the site area typically receives The lack of a permanent water table in the remainder of the site further reduces the possibility of liquefaction -12- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 Alluvial Settlement Considerations The previous discussion of soil and geologic site conditions described the presence of alluvial soils encountered across the property Remedial grading involving removal and recompaction of these soils will be limited in areas where groundwater restricts the depth of grading Where development is planned in these areas, settlement potential within the alluvial soils left in place remains a significant design consideration Presented below is a discussion of settlement in general along with the results of the settlement analyses based on field and laboratory data and how these results impact site development considering total settlement and time for these settlements to occur It should be noted that evaluation of the alluvial areas are based on the general compressibility characteristics of the soils encountered within the small-diameter borings and the results of the cone penetrometer soundings The determination of anticipated magnitudes of alluvial settlement is subject to numerous interpretations and simplifying assumptions The amount of anticipated settlement that could occur is a function of how thick the compressible layer is, how compressible the layer is and how heavy the additional vertical load (weight of fill or future building loads will be To aid in understanding the magnitude of the settlement considerations in developing the alluvial areas, Figure 21 was prepared to present the total amount of settlement that would be expected for various heights of fill up to 40 feet These curves are adjusted for removal and recompaction of the alluvial soils to -13- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 within three feet of anticipated depth to groundwater In our opinion, the settlements obtained from Figure 21 represent the upper boundaries of anticipated settlements Actual settlements may range from 20 to 40 percent below the calculated settlements due to soil sample disturbance, laboratory testing methods and the highly variable nature of the alluvial deposits From Figure 21 it can be seen that if development within the main canyon consists of the placement of 10 feet of fill, then approximately 6 to 9 inches of settlement is anticipated. However, of more importance is the time dependant element of alluvial settlement In this regard, Figure 22 was prepared to indicate the percent consolidation as a function of time From this figure it can be seen that the estimated time required for 90 percent of the anticipated settlement to occur may range from 4 1/2 to 9 months. It should be noted that this graphic plot was developed for 90 percent consolidation (settlement) because the additional time required to achieve 100 percent consolidation becomes so disproportionately large that such a curve would have little practical value. In general, the purpose of this analysis was to enable an evaluation of the time element of alluvial settlement in relation to the construction period Where the time available to start construction is less than that estimated for completion of settlement, then methods of accelerating the consolidation process should be considered Once the schedule of construction is established, the requirement to reduce the time of settlement can be addressed and appropriate methods evaluated -14- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 Landslide Stability Analysis and Considerations As previously discussed, weak, weathered claystones and remolded clay seams were encountered in the exploration excavations located in Area T and the existing bluff to the south Landslide debris is mapped as shown on Figure 3 Cross-Sections A-A', I-F, J-J' and K-K' (see Figures 9, 17, 18 and 19) shows the location of the clay seams, weak claystones and landslide debris in relation to the existing topography, as well as the geology A stability analysis of this area was performed utilizing STABL5 computer program to evaluate factors of safety for the present state and the proposed cut slope. The results of this analysis along with the assigned soil parameters are presented in Appendix C In brief, this analysis indicates that the bluff area in its present configuration has a factor of safety of 1 1 to 1 4 Remedial grading in the form of a stability berm would require placement of a fill "buttress1" to a height of at least an elevation 130 MSL at the western portion and 140 MSL at the eastern portion and a minimum width of 80 feet to achieve a factor of safety of 1 5 This assumes extreme care in selection of fill sods with strength parameters equivalent to ^ = 25° and C = 350 psf. Further analyses indicates a factor of safety of just over 1 0 during the grading phase assuming the temporary backcut is excavated all at one time Considering the relatively low margin of safety, it is our opinion that a potentially unstable condition may occur during the grading Therefore, it is recommended that during the excavation of the stability berm key, the key should be excavated in sections and monitored during excavation Details for remedial grading are discussed in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of this report -15- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 Remedial Grading Considerations Extensive remedial grading will be required to develop the site in the form of removal and recompaction of the alluvium, slopewash, landslide debns and undocumented fill soils The majority of these soils within the interior of the site can be regraded without restriction except as limited in depth of removal by the shallow groundwater table in the western half of the major central canyon area. Remedial grading will be restricted at the property boundaries by existing subdivisions and roadways Furthermore, geologic features, including the weak, weathered claystones and clay seams and associated landslide debris, will further limit the extent of regrading The following discussion addresses areas of primary concern and general points of consideration in finalizing grading plans Specific details for each of the areas are presented in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of this report At this time, remedial grading in the Area "J" should be restricted The actual limits of remedial grading and the non-structural designation will be determined once the grading plans within this area are finalized Grading should be permitted for the construction of the stability berm, the area for the temporary facilities and along the south right-of-way of Calle Barcelona Remedial grading along the south property line in the junior high school site will require special consideration As shown on Figure 3, in the vicinity ofJBonng Nos B-20 and B-ll, alluvial soils were encountered to a depth of 17 to 18 feet below present grade Landslide debris is also present along with existing fill sods To construct this fill pad, the alluvium, -16- T * File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 landslide debris and existing fill will require removal and recompaction prior to placement of additional fill soils For proper construction of a structural pad to the property line, undercutting would necessitate off site grading Furthermore, cutting into the toe of the existing slope would be required. This, in our opinion, would reduce the apparent factor of safety of the existing fill slopes and placing the upslope improvements at risk Remedial grading for the backcut should be restricted (See Figure 10, Cross-Section B-B') and a zone designated as non-structural as discussed later in this report. Considerable remedial grading will be required in the area of Segovia Way due to the presence of existing undocumented fill, alluvium and slopewash coupled with the uncertain areal extent of the landslide located to the southwest of the existing Segovia Way street in the vicinity of Trench No T-79 (see also Figure 14, Cross-Section F-F'). Remedial grading adjacent to the street would be limited to preclude settlement or failure of the road embankment More importantly, the proposed fill lots on the north side of the street will have higher finish elevations. This will impose a surcharge effect within the prism of undocumented fill soils under the street not removed during grading Subsequent settlement of these lots may occur It is our opinion that remedial grading in this area include the removal and reconstruction of Segovia Way as a part of the overall grading plan Another area of consideration involves the landslide encountered at the extreme northeast corner of the site Present grading plans indicate satisfactory finish lot elevations that preclude the need to buttress the proposed slope to stabilize the sods within the exiting sewer -17- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 easement However, a stability fill along with sectional regrading should be planned (see Figures 13 and 23) during remedial grading of the landslide debris Another landslide area is located in the extreme southern part of the site just north of Olivenhain Road and adjacent to the existing residential subdivision Borings Nos B-l and B-9 indicated depths to competent formational soils of 20 and 14 feet, respectively Considering the proximity to the adjacent subdivision, remedial grading will be limited by the property line and the backcut of removal Sectional removal should be considered and structural set back of planned structures should be evaluated depending on the final geometry of remedial grading Site work in areas adjacent to Olivenhain Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road will require removal and recompaction of alluvial soils and slopewash in preparation of grading lots and streets Remedial grading should be performed in sections to limit the extent of cut along a given portion of roadway to reduce potential damage to the existing pavement and associated utilities Even with phased grading, some settlement of the existing roadway should be anticipated where proposed earthwork encroaches close to the pavement, such as along Olivenhain Road Where remedial grading in the alluvium is limited by depth to groundwater, further consideration will be necessary when constructing fill slopes This includes slopes proposed to bound the open space in the western part of the site Slopes constructed over the -18- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 £ &M ^ alluvium left in place will surcharge the underlying compressible soils Where these slopes ^ are built too rapidly, a base shear failure may occur within the alluvium Stage loading §£ should be planned to allow consolidation of the alluvial soils and increase the soil strength a£e< parameters Stability analysis indicates fill slopes should be constructed in increments of 5 <*^T feet in height. These fill slopes should be instrumented to monitor any possible movement and to evaluate consolidation and determine when additional fill can be placed r I. -19- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General 1 The site is underlain by surficial soils consisting of fill, topsoils, slopewash, alluvium, landslide debris and by two formational sedimentary deposits The surficial soils are not considered suitable for the support of fill or structural loads in their present condition and will require remedial grading The settlement potential of the alluvial deposits and the stability of proposed slopes will require special consideration during the planning and construction of site improvements However, it is our opinion that no soil or geologic conditions were encountered which would preclude the development of the property as presently proposed provided the recommendations of this report are carefully followed 2 The stability of the proposed cut slopes within the site poses a significant consideration to development of the property At present, grading for Area "J" should be limited to remedial grading and benching along Calle Barcelona, the construction of the proposed stability berm and the slope construction common to the adjacent junior high lot The construction of the stability berm is required for a minimum factor of safety of 1 5 for the Area "J" slope Construction of the stability berm should be performed in conjunction with the grading of the adjacent areas including Calle Barcelona Additional geotechmcal studies should be performed to further evaluate future development within the landslide area of this slope -20- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 ^ 3 Phased remedial grading/shoring and/or structural setback is highly recommended "• where alluvial, slopewash, undocumented fill soils and/or landslide debris are encountered ^ along the property boundaries to prevent any distress to the adjacent roads, utilities and private properties. ,- 4 Due to relatively shallow groundwater, remedial grading in the alluvium will be limited, ~ and the majority of these moderately to highly compressible soils will be left in place Areas f? which will be involved include the major central canyon and that part of the site adjacent to Olivenhain Road The magnitude of anticipated ultimate settlements of alluvial areas is H directly related to an increase in vertical load resulting from the placement of fill and/or jg structural loads. Based on settlement analyses, the estimated settlements are significant and ^ will require special considerations during grading and for foundation design as discussed f below 5 Where the time for development is critical, procedures to reduce the time for alluvial settlement should begin at the earliest date Surcharging may be the most effective procedure, however, other methods, such as wick drains can be considered Irrespective of the method, the area treated should be instrumented and monitored until all significant settlement has ceased For the purpose of scheduling construction, cessation of significant ' settlement should be defined as that point in time at which not less than 90 percent of - primary consolidation has occurred. The information gained from such monitoring program *•' should provide greater certainty regarding the consolidation/compression characteristics of -21- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 the alluvial materials (as a function of time) and should be considered as the primary factor in determining the appropriate time to commence structural improvements 6 All existing pond embankments or earthen dams in the property should be breached as soon as possible 7 The areas along the existing major utility easement (high pressure gas line and the two fuel Lines), where subject to grading, are recommended to be further investigated prior to any grading to establish exact locations and depths. Proposed improvements within the easement should be reviewed and approved by the owner agency prior to start of proposed development. Remedial Grading 8 Remedial work in the alluvium along Olivenhain Road in the southwest part of the property will require structural setback and phased remedial grading to reduce any damage to the existing road and associated utilities Some settlement of the existing roadway should be anticipated during proposed grading of the subject site 9 Remedial work in the alluvium, existing fill and the landslide debris at the proposed junior high school site along the existing perimeter fill slopes will require phased removal and recompaction It is anticipated this will necessitate structural setback and designation of a non-structural zone where remedial grading is limited along the property Line Fue No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 10 Currently proposed pad elevations at the northeast corner of the property along the existing fill slope and utility crossing do not require buttressing The upper zone of the landslide debris will require removal and recompaction prior to fill placement. The remedial grading should be accomplished in sections 11. Proposed cut slopes in the landslide debris along El Camino Real will require extensive buttressing Installation of a retaining wall and reducing the slope height is recommended as a consideration for an alternate to extensive grading 12. Remedial grading of the landslide debris and alluvium within Area "J" should be limited to that required for Calle Barcelona roadway embankment construction, grading of the slope common to the adjacent school lot, and the construction of the stability berm Excavation of the stability berm key and any fills within or adjacent to Area "J" should be performed in maximum lengths of 100 feet and should be backfilled the same day A heal drain should be installed in the stability berm (see Figure 23, drain detail section) The stability berm should be constructed using select granular material with a 0 of 25° and C of 350 The material should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in order to maintain a minimum design shear strength and berm weight Remedial grading along the south right- of-way of Calle Barcelona should include a bench to intercept any surficial debris and drainage flowing down slope Figure 28 presents a recommended cross-section detail of the bench configuration The recommended remedial grading will basically stabilize the existing slope Subject to additional geotechmcal review, the majority of the lot should be designated as non-structural and land use planned accordingly -23- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 ^ 13 Remedial grading will be required to remove and recompact the alluvium and *• slopewash soils along Rancho Santa Fe Road Structural setback and phased remedial ^ grading is recommended Consideration should be given to restricting vehicular traffic from the east-side, southbound lane in these areas adjacent to the right-of-way where grading r^ depth is extensive and encroaches close to the roadway ^T "- 14 Cross-sections of recommended limits of remedial grading typical of the condition W described above are presented on Figures 24 and 25 These limits may vary depending on the existing conditions. All remedial grading excavations should be observed by a It representative from Geocon Incorporated and evaluated at that tune * 15 Areas anticipated to be designated as non-structural due to limited remedial grading H are shown on Figures 2 to 8. Final determination of the extent of these zones will be made after the geometry of grading is determined in the field These areas will be indicated on the 1?& final "As-Built Report" for mass grading — Soil and Excavation Characteristics r 16 The soil conditions encountered vary from low expansive sands derived from the sandstones of the Delmar Formation and the Torrey Sandstone to the highly expansive 1 materials of the landslide debris, the surficial deposits and the clayey portions of the Delmar Formation -24- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 17 In our opinion, the undocumented fill soils, topsod, landslide debris, slopewash and alluvium can be excavated with light to moderate effort with conventional heavy-duty grading equipment Lightweight grading equipment may be required where excavating at depths near the groundwater table Excavation of the formational soils will require moderate to heavy effort Cemented chunks may be generated during excavation of the Delmar Formation and the Torrey Sandstone. Oversize rocks should be placed in accordance with the "Recommended Grading Specifications" presented in Appendix C Slope Stability and Landslide Stabilization 18 The investigation indicates weak, weathered claystones and clay seams exist within the slope adjacent to and south of Area "J " Based on the field and laboratory data in this area and the results of a stability analyses (Appendix C) for conditions along cross-section I-I' and J-J' (see Figures 17 and 19), as previously discussed, the stability berm will have to be constructed in sections to minimize the degree of risk. Therefore, the land use should currently be planned for non-structural Additional studies are recommended for any future alternative grading schemes. 19 Landslide debris and surficial soil creep zones present in other areas to be graded should be removed to the extent as by stability considerations and recompacted prior to placement of fill and structures thereon Approximate depths of complete removal of the landslide debris investigated are indicated on Figures 2 to 8 Actual depths of removal will be restricted by property line and stability of adjacent improvements -25- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 20. Remedial grading performed in the boundary areas near existing residential developments and existing roadways will require special consideration These areas include those shaded zones shown on Figures 2 to 8 Temporary cut slopes should be limited to 1 1 maximum inclinations to reduce the potential for slope failure during construction These cut slopes inclinations may have to be reduced to 2:1 depending on field evaluation. More importantly, the remedial grading may have to be phased to limit the length of cut exposed to sections of approximately 100 to 200 feet. We recommend monitoring of boundary areas for potential movement during excavation. Structural set back for proposed improvements may be required depending on the geometry of the remedial grading as related to finish grades 21. Fill slope stability analysis and experience with similar soil conditions in nearby areas indicates that the proposed 2:1 fill slopes up to 30 feet in height, constructed of granular materials (typically derived from the sandstone zones of Delmar Formation or Torrey Sandstone) will have calculated factors of safety in excess of 1 5 under static conditions for deep-seated failures See Figures C-7, Appendix C for stability calculations 22 Stability analysis was performed for 2 1 cut slopes excavated in the sandstone and siltstone materials of the Delmar Formation and Torrey Sandstone i e, that part of the formation free of claystone or adverse bedding conditions This analysis indicates that these slopes have calculated factors of safety in excess of 1 5 for static conditions and heights up to 70 feet See Figure C-8 through C-11, Appendix C for stability calculations -26- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 23 Proposed stabilizing fill material should be approved by the Soil Engineer prior to placement Suitable materials should be generated from excavations within the granular units of the Delmar Formation and Torrey Sandstone It should be noted that there are cohesionless sand zones within these formations which are susceptible to erosion and should not be placed near finish grade or in the outer Gil slope area 24 It is recommended that all cut slopes and remedial excavations be observed during grading by a representative of Geocon Incorporated to verify that soil and geologic conditions do not differ significantly from those anticipated 25 The outer 15 feet (or a distance equal to the height of the slope, whichever is less) of fill slopes should be composed of properly compacted granular "soil" fill to reduce the potential for surface sloughing All fill slopes should be compacted by back-rolling at vertical intervals not exceeding 4 feet and should be track-walked at the completion of each slope such that the fill soils are uniformly compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction to the face of the completed slope. 26 All slopes should be planted, drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion Grading 27 All grading should be performed in accordance with the attached "Recommended Grading Specifications" (Appendix D) and the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinance -27- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 Where the recommendations of this section conflict with Appendix D, the recommendations of this section take precedence All earthwork should be observed and all fills tested for proper compaction by Geocon, Incorporated 28 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with the Owner or Developer, Grading Contractor, Civil Engineer, and Geotechmcal Engineer in attendance Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that tune 29 Site preparation should begin with breaching the existing earthen dams and removal of all deleterious matter and vegetation in areas to be graded The depth of removal should be such that material to be used in fills is free of organic matter Material generated during stripping operations and/or site demolition should be exported from the site 30 The site should then be brought to final subgrade elevations with structural fill compacted in layers In general, native soils are suitable for reuse as fill if free from vegetation, debris and other deleterious matter Wet native sods considered suitable for reuse may require drying back and mixing prior to placement as fill Layers of fill should be no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction In areas proposed for improvements, all fill (including backfill and scarified ground surfaces) should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density at optimum moisture content or above, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D1557-78, Method A or C -28- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 31 Grading operations on the site should be scheduled so as to place the oversize material and expansive soils in the deeper canyon fills and to "cap" the building pads and fill slopes with granular materials having a low expansion potential. 32 All potentially compressible surficial deposits including existing fill sods, topsoils, slopewash, landslide debris and alluvium (present within minor tributary drainages) not removed by planned grading operations should be removed to firm natural ground and properly compacted prior to placing additional fill and/or structures Deeper than normal benching and/or stripping operations for sloping ground surfaces will be required where thicknesses of potentially compressible surficial deposits are greater than three feet Alluvial removals within the major central alluviated canyon and that alluviated area adjacent to Olivenhain Road should extend a depth of approximately three feet above existing groundwater elevations. Significant depths of removal will be required in areas of deep unsaturated alluvium where no groundwater was encountered. Anticipated depths of removal are shown on Figures 2 through 8 The actual extend of removals will be determined in the field by the soil engineer 33 Remedial grading at depths near existing groundwater table should be performed with minimal repeated exposure to grading equipment to preclude ground surface pumping The use of light weight equipment (low ground pressure) typically used for marsh operations should be considered This condition should be anticipated for the western part of the central canyon and adjacent to Olivenhain Road Ground stabilizing methods, such as -29- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 placement of a coarse gravel blanket and/or a geotextile fabric will assist in developing a suitable base upon which to begin compacting fill soils 34 The upper 3 feet of all building pads (cut or fill) and 12 inches in pavement areas should be composed of properly compacted or undisturbed formational 'Very low" to "low" expansive soils. The more highly expansive soils should be placed in the deeper fill areas and properly compacted. "Very low" to "low" expansive soils are defined as those soils that have an Expansion Index of 50 or less when tested in accordance with UBC Standard 29-2 35. To reduce the potential for differential settlement, it is recommended that the cut portion of cut-fill transition lots be undercut at least 3 feet and replaced with properly compacted 'Very low" to "low" expansive fill soils 36 Grading of fill slopes over alluvial soils left inplace should be planned for stage construction It is recommended that grading be limited to slope height increments of 5 feet Slopes should be instrumental and monitored with subsequent fill placed at a time and depth as recommended by the soil engineer. Subdrains 37 Subdrains should be installed in the canyons to be filled A cross-section of the recommended subdrain configuration is presented on Figures 26 and 27 After installation of the subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare "as-built" -30- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 plans of the subdrain location The project civil engineer should verify the proper outlet for the canyon subdrains and the contractor should ensure that the drain system outlet is free of obstructions. The recommended locations of the canyon subdrains will be finalized during a review of the final site grading and improvement plans 38 Heel drains installed in buttress and stability fills and berms should be connected to a canyon subdrain or storm drain system where possible and have cleanouts installed where practical Connections of heel drains to adjacent storm drain structures should be verified by the project Civil Engineer The project Civil Engineer should survey all heel drain locations and prepare "as-built" plans of the subdrain location Bulking and Shrinkage Factors 39 Estimates of embankment bulking and shrinkage factors are based on comparing laboratory compaction tests with the density of the material in its natural state as encountered in the test borings It should be emphasized that variations in natural soil density, as well as in compacted fill densities, render shrinkage value estimates very approximate As an example, the contractor can compact the fill soils to any relative compaction of 90 percent or higher of the maximum laboratory density Thus, the contractor has approximately a 10 percent range of control over the fill volume Based on the limited work performed to date, it is our opinion that the following shrinkage factors can be used as a basis for estimating how much the on-site sods may shrink or swell (bulk) when exca- vated from their natural state and placed as compacted fills -31- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 Soil Unit Shrink/Bulk Factor Alluvium, topsoil, existing fill soils, 10 to 15 percent shrink slopewash Landslide Debris 5 to 10 percent shrink Delmar Formation, fine grained units 2 to 7 percent bulk Torrey Sandstone and sandstone units 2 to 7 percent bulk of the Deimar Formation For the purpose of the earthwork quantity calculations, approximately 40 to 60 percent of the anticipated ultimate alluvial settlement should be taken into account However, due to the uncertainties associated with accurately predicting the ultimate settlement and rate of settlement expected, it is recommended that the grading plan include a "balancing" area which can be readily adjusted to accommodate change in the earthwork quantities Foundations 40 The following foundation recommendations for the proposed one- and/or two-story residential structures are separated into categories dependent on the depth and geometry of underlying fill soils for a particular lot Determination of final foundation design for specific lots will be made at the completion of grading and will be presented at that time within interim and/or final reports of mass grading operations It should be noted that the following foundation recommendations pertain to lots excavated in or capped with a minimum of 3 feet of 'Very low" to "low" expansive sods (Expansion Index of 50 or less) For lots possessing an Expansion Index greater than 50 within 3 feet of finish grade, additional recommendations will be provided -32- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 Category I Shallow Fill and Cut Pads In general, the lots within this category include cut lots, undercut and/or transition cut lots with less than 10 feet of fill thickness differential or fill lots underlain by less than approximately 20 feet of fill A It is recommended that foundations within this category have a minimum depth of 12 inches and a minimum width of 12 inches Foundations so proportioned may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure may be increased by up to one-third for transient loads such as wind or seismic forces. B. Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No 4 reinforcing bars, one placed near the top of the footing and one near the bottom C Concrete slabs-on-grade should have a thickness of 4 inches and should be reinforced with 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh throughout It has been our experience that the mesh must be physically pulled up into the slab after the placement of concrete. The mesh should be positioned within the upper one-third of the slab Proper mesh positioning is critical to future performance of the slabs The slab should be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean sand and, where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, a visqueen moisture barrier should also be provided and located at midpoint within the 4-inch sand bed. Category II Medium Deep Fill Pads In general, the lots within this category are underlain by 20 to 50 feet of fill and have a differential thickness of less than 10 feet A It is recommended that foundations within this zone have a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of 12 inches Foundations so proportioned may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf (dead plus live load) This bearing pressure may be increased by up to one-third for transient loads such as wind or seismic forces B Continuous footings should be reinforced with four No 4 reinforcing bars, two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom C Concrete slabs-on-grade should have a thickness of 4 inches and should be reinforced with No 3 reinforcing bars spaced at 24 inches in both directions The slab should be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean sand and, where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, a visqueen moisture barrier should also be provided and located at midpoint within the 4-inch sand bed -33- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 Category III Deep FiU Pads In general, the lots within this category are underlain by deep fills in excess of approximately 50 feet in depth or are underlain by differential fill thicknesses which vary more than 10 feet A It is recommended that foundations within this category have a minimum depth of 24 inches and a minimum width of 12 inches. Foundations so proportioned may be designed for an allowable sod bearing pressure of 2,000 psf (dead plus live load) This bearing pressure may be increased by up to one-third for transient loads such as wind or seismic forces B Continuous footings should be reinforced with four No 4 reinforcing bars, two placed near the top of the footing and two near the bottom C Concrete slabs-on-grade should have a thickness of 4 inches and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced at 18 inches in both directions The slab should be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean sand and, where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, a visqueen moisture barrier should also be provided and located at midpoint within the 4-inch sand bed Category IV Pads Underlain by Alluvium left in place In general, the lots within this category are underlain and/or influenced by alluvial soils left in place A It is recommended that the proposed structures within this category be supported by a post-tensioned slab and foundation system The post- tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer experienced with such foundation systems 41 Footings located on or near the top of a slope are not recommended However, where such a condition cannot be avoided, the footing depth should be such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet from the face of the slope 42 As an alternative to the foundation recommendations in Categories I through EQ, consideration should be given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slabs and foundation systems for support of the proposed structures If used, the post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer experienced with such foundation systems -34- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 43 The foundation reinforcing recommendations presented above are based on geotechmcal considerations and are not meant to be in lieu of structural design requirements 44 The recommendations presented herein are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs and foundations as a result of differential settlement of deep fills or fills of varying thicknesses, alluvium and/or previously fill soils left in place However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented, foundations and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by Limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, and in particular, where re-entry slab corners occur Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads 45 Retaining walls not restrained from movement at the top and having a level backfill surface should be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid weight of 30 pcf Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2 1, an active soil pressure of 43 pcf is recommended"^ 46 Unrestrained walls are defined as those walls that are allowed to rotate more then 0 001H at the top of the wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform horizontal pressure of 7H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet) should be added to the above active soil pressure -35- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 47 All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the Project Architect or Design Engineer The location and type of drainage system outlets should be such that a nuisance seepage condition will not result along the base of the wall or adversely impact the adjacent property The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge loads. If conditions different than those described are anticipated or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations 48 For resistance to lateral loads, we recommend a passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weight of 300 pcf for footings or shear keys poured neat against undisturbed natural sods or properly compacted granular fill soils This lateral pressure assumes a horizontal distance for the soil mass extending at least 10 feet or three times the surface generating passive pressure, whichever is greater The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance If friction is to be used for lateral resistance, we recommend using a coefficient of 0 4 between the soil and concrete Drainage and Maintenance 49 Good drainage is imperative to reduce the potential for differential sod movement, erosion and subsurface seepage Positive measures should be taken to properly finish grade the budding pads after the structures and other improvements are in place, so that drainage -36- tat File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 water from the lots and adjacent properties is directed off the lots and to the streets away from foundations and the top of slopes Experience has shown that even with these provisions, a shallow groundwater or subsurface water condition can and may develop in areas where no such water conditions existed prior to site development, this is particularly true where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from an increase in landscape irrigation Grading Plan Review 50 The soil engineer and engineering geologist should review the grading plans prior to finalization to verify their compliance with the recommendations of this report and determine the need for additional comments, recommendations and/or analysis All recommended buttress fills and subdrains should be shown on the final grading plans -37- File No D-4229-H02 November 28, 1989 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon, Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given 2 This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3 The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years