The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2223 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD; ; PC050098; Permit07-10-2006 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Check Permit No PC050098 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address Permit Type Parcel No Valuation Reference # Project Title Applicant MARY RYAN 949 582-3735 2223 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD CBAD PLANCK 2130702900 Lot# $0 00 Construction Type HOMEWOOD SUITES & HAMPTON INN 8000 SF GRAVITY RETAINING WALLS(200 SF AT Status Applied Entered By Plan Approved Issued Inspect Area Owner AGO HILLS L L C C/O EDWARD G COSS 620 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 PENDING 09/06/2005 RMA Plan Check Fee Additional Fees $000 $000 Total Fees $0 00 Total Payments To Date $0 00 Balance Due $000 BALDING PLANS -*- IN STORAGE ATTACHED Inspector FINAL APPROVAL Date Clearance NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions" You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3 32 030 Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 09-22-2005 Job Address Permit Type Parcel No Valuation Reference # Project Title Applicant MARY RYAN 949 582-3735 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Retaining Wall Permit Permit No CB053337 Buildin Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 RETAIN 2130702900 $36,000 00 CBAD Lot# 0 Construction Type NEW Status PENDING Applied 09/22/2005 RMA HOMEWOOD SUITES-2000 SF RETAIN WALL Entered By Plan Approved Issued Plan Check# Inspect Area Owner AGO HILLS L L C C/0 EDWARD G COSS 620 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 PC050098 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Strong Motion Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $276 35 $000 $17963 $000 $360 $000 $000 $000 $000 $459 58 Total Fees $459 58 Total Payments To Date $0 00 Balance Due $459 58 Inspector FINAL APPROVAL Date Clearance NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition' of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(3), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3 32 030 Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 09-22-2005 Job Address Permit Type Parcel No Valuation Reference # Project Title Applicant MARY RYAN 949 582-3735 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Retaining Wall Permit Permit No CB053339 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 RETAIN 2130702900 $108,00000 CBAD Lot# 0 Construction Type NEW HAMPTON INN-6000 SF RETAIN WALL Status Applied Entered By Plan Approved Issued Plan Check* Inspect Area Owner AGO HILLS L L C C/0 EDWARD G COSS 620 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 PENDING 09/22/2005 RMA PC050098 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Strong Motion Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $571 20 $000 $371 28 $000 $1080 $000 $000 $000 $000 $953 28 Total Fees $953 28 Total Payments To Date $0 00 Balance Due $953 28 Inspector FINAL APPROVAL Date Clearance NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as 'fees/exactions You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3 32 030 Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave , Carlsbad, CA 92008 1.. Dri Business Name lat this address) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK NO EST VAL Plan Ck Deposit Validated B Date Address (include Bldg/Suite tt) Legal Description Lot No Subdivision Name/Number Unit No Phase No l&teA Total # of units ONfAtafPSRSONiflf different from Name APPLICANT: ...... fl Contractor Address ; Q:: Agent for Contractor Q Owner City Q Agent for Owner State/Zip Telephone # Name Address City State/Zip Telephone # ERTYO hfft^sIAddressCityState/Zip Telephone #Name 5; CONTRACTOR - COMUNV NAME (Sec 7031 5 Business and Professions Code Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law [Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption Any violation of Section 7031 5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$500]) V Name State License tt Address License Class "City State/Zip City Business License # Telephone # Designer Name Address City State/Zip Telephone State License tt 6. WORKERS'COMPENSATION Workers' Compensation Declaration I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations Q I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued l~l I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued My worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are __ —^^ m .ftC" jVpolicy No tlTm^'lM fepiiration Date lQ • I (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS TOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$100] OR LESS) Q CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California WARNING Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage a unlawful and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred / thousand dollars ($100,000), in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section B706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney s fees /^SIGNATURE L^tt^CT* . ^- DATE "2. ' 7 I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason Q I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec 7044, Business and Professions Code The Contractor s License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale) 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) ' 0 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~1 YES QNO 2 I (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work 3 I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number) 4 I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number) 5 I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type of work) PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ONLY 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? fj YES Cl NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district' l~l YES l~l NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1 ,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? l~1 YES l~| 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, CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec 3097(0 Civil Code) LENDER'S NAME _ LENDER S ADDRESS __ 9. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction I hereby authorize representatives of the CitV of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT OSHA An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height EXPIRATION Every permit issued by the building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commerieed for a period of 180 days_ (Section 106 4 4 Uniform Building Code) APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE 0 days (Section 10 XJ&z*vv DATE 7 " WHITE File YELLOW Applicant PINK Finance ENGINEERING I DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL CIVIL STBUCIURAL&ARCHITEC1UBAL CONSULTANTS FOB BESIOEN'IAL 8 COMMERCIAL CONSIBUCI'01 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax (760) 480-7477 • www designgroupca com Date. To. Re- June 27, 2006) Tarsadia Hotels Attention: Rashik Patel/Lon Donald 620 Newport Center Drive - 14th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Retaining Wall Tarsadia Hotels/Homewood Inn to be Located at 2223 Palomar Airport Road in the City of Carlsbad, California Subject. Summary Letter of Keystone Wall Special Inspection Reference Wall Permit #CB053337 We have performed part-time site observation dunng the construction of the above referenced Keystone wall plans. Our site observation included observation of concrete leveling pad excavations, placement of Keystone block, gnd and wall backdrains. Soil observation and compaction testing was performed by the project soils engineer, Leighton & Associates. Based upon our observations of the wall construction, the wall has been built with the overall design intent of the project retaining wall plans Please note any work within the reinforced (i.e. grid) zone of the project retaining wall should be reviewed by Engineering Design Group on a case by case basis. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please fee free to contact our office. Sincerely, ENGINEERINOOESIGN GROUP inRist N\ California RCE 65122 Page No. 1 E \LETTER\LETTER 2\2005U>53743-2, TARSADIA HOTEL-HOMEWOOD INN, 2223 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD, CARLSBAD - KEYSTONE INSPEC SUMMLTRwpd ENGINEERING iDESIGN GROUP .. RKIttMlBITIILtCOMMDICHLCBUmutmi 2121 Montiel Road,. San Marcos CA -92069 Office (760) 839-7302 FAX (760) 480-7477 E-mail ENGDG@aolcom PROJECT. ADDRESS EQUIPMENT NAME / COMPANY -CONTACTS DAILY FIELD REPORT .DATE , PROJECT NO DESCRIPTION OF FIELD OPERATIONS Tfj To _________ /3 •* No <«><g LA <. A/-I/L nntAi o-fQA iy ...... fz/z. «/ of FIELD DENSITY TESTS TAKEN _____________________ FAILURES RETESTS Arrive A Depart D_. A D A D A D TOTAL DAILY HRS r- ENG_. DES 2121 MontielBbacf San Marcos CA -92069 office (760) 839-7302 DAILY FIELD REPORTFAX (760) 480-7477 UMII_T TICUU. HCrWH I E-mail ENGDG@aol <l com PROJECT jVW^ ttW) DATE ?- H- ADDRESS fftWw*'' k<tp0r\- fid > fatrtrf O/. _ _ _ EQUIPMENT - _ _PROJECTNO NAME / COMPANY -CONTACTS __.. <7/W - T«<s/_ DESCRIPTION OF FIELD OPERATIONS Jt t ^ft I ' t f // f / i, I _* f**i L Xly*i ft.Asg/^/*i/^a tiff ff C<*"^\ pfarlL. T^H O'OQQ of uyv/ A:_ _. % FIELD DENSITY TESTS TAKEN _ _ & ..._.. FAILURES . _O ~ ._RETESTS Arrive A 12^6^ A A A TOTAL DAILY MRS Depart D '2-'5o D D D- _. _ —- J ENGINEEING 212t Morrtiel Road rSarr Marcos CA -92069 •. v ' *Dffice (760) 839-7302 ' ^AX (7)60) 480-7477 E-mail ENGDG@aol com DAILY FIELD REPORT PROJECT ADDRESS _DATE EQUIPMENT NAME / COMPANY -CONTACTS PROJECT NO DESCRIPTION OF FIELD OPERATIONS of; g*Wi.aooaf QVurkfi /L /Tg£.fct/o a^/ /i TO/?TO '//A /J- M£$ ,i J&1L ghc.r\sc,h'o<'o<-*<><» // FIELD DENSITY TESTS TAKEN Arrive A_9'.15A&_ A Depart D / 000/1* D A D ..FAILURES A D — _ RETESTS TOTAL DAILY HRS ENGINEERINGm , ••:••# OBUKHKH. OH. snOTlMajW-nKTUML -3BU-BWSFOB Rfseemn. t CGMMBICW. cMsw-roi 2121 Montiel Road San Marcos CA -92069 Office (760) 839-7302 FAX (760) 480-7477 E-mail ENGDG@aolcom PROJECT c,rf<,i^ " ADDRESS _ fa^^vy $/— EQUIPMENT __ ___ DAILY FIELD REPORT _DATE ........ _____ _ PROJECT NO _ NAME / COMPANY -CONTACTS lee/- DESCRIPTION OF FIELD OPERATIONS oL&y>O/4//, P/ol'tfc & ^e FIELD DENSITY TESTS TAKEN Arrive Depart A |l D II A D A D _____ FAILURES A D -RETESTS — TOTAL DAILY MRS ENG *Ag 2121 Montisl Road San Marcos CA-92069 Office (760) 839-7302 FAX (760) 480-7477 E-mail Ew3DG@aolcom PROJECT DAILY FIELD REPORT <*».DATE ADDRESS EQUIPMENT w )> ....... -*• Pe,\ti PROJECT NO. NAME / COMPANY -CONTACTS \fil - DESCRIPTION OF FIELD OPERATIONS Ton - T6& mc.M pii a^// .w>/if o ifl. t/tt To 01 l^-(<-4 i? Ttf'V."<2 'vf Q /e. - flfae,hoi? fe,*«<,,,-i //-* jr A Tt>h/ Ato FIELD DENSITY TESTS TAKEN Arrive A B-'oOii* A Depart D ^'^9f^ D .FAILURES A D A D ~ RETESTS TOTAL DAILY MRS -•-•to ENGINEERING IDESBGN GROUP •»*• 2121 Montiel Road San Marcos CA -92069 OfficeJ760) 839-7302 FAX (760) 480-7477 E-mail ENGDG@aolcom DAILY FIELD REPORT PROJECT ADDRESS I H'{i o*y .DATE EQUIPMENT .PROJECT NO NAME / COMPANY -CONTACTS T««t DESCRIPTION OF FIELD OPERATIONS ol- FIELD DENSITY TESTS TAKEN .FAILURES -RETESTS Arrive A / 00*** A Depart D /..•.} o.^*^ D A D A D TOTAL DAILY HRS .,*• 2121 Montiel Road ' San Marcos CA -92069 Office (760) 839-7302 FAX (760) 480-7477 E-mail ENGDG@aol com PROJECT ADDRESS EQUIPMENT DAILY FIELD REPORT A, * /t.* NAME / COMPANY -CONTACTS *W - 6/ay DESCRIPTION OF FIELD OPERATIONS _. .DATE .PROJECT NO FIELD DENSITY TESTS TAKEN .FAILURES -RETESTS Arrive Depart *.*. D _ ILja A* D A D A D TOTAL DAILY MRS EsGii Corporation In Partners/tip with (government for <Bmfding Safety DATE 1/18/O6 O^EELCANT JURISDICTION City of Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO pcOS-0098 SET II PROJECT ADDRESS 6100 Yarrow Dr. PROJECT NAME Keystone Retaining Walls The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes X3 The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck The check list transmitted herewith is for your information The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Person contacted Telephone # Date contacted (by ) Fax # Mail Telephone Fax In Person ;EMARKS Provide special inspection program to the building official prior to issuance of the building permit See attached form By David Yao Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 1/10 trnsmtldot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 •* San Diego, California 92123 + (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION Do Not Remove From Plans Plan Check No pcOS-0098 Job Address or Legal Description 6100 Yarrow Dr. Owner Address You are hereby notified that m addition to the inspection of construction provided by the Building Department, an approved Registered Special Inspector is required to provide continuous inspection during the performance of the phases of construction indicated on the reverse side of this sheet The Registered Special Inspector shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Building Department prior to the issuance of the building permit Special Inspectors having a current certification from the City of San Diego, Los Angeles, or ICBO are approved as Special Inspectors for the type of construction for which they are certified The inspections by a Special Inspector do not change the requirements for inspections by personnel of the City of Carlsbad building department The inspections by a Special Inspector are in addition to the inspections normally required by the County Building Code The Special Inspector is not authorized to inspect and approve any work other than that for which he/she is specifically assigned to inspect The Special Inspector is not authorized to accept alternate materials, structural changes, or any requests for plan changes The Special Inspector is required to submit written reports to the City of Carlsbad building department of all work that he/she inspected and approved The final inspection approval will not be given until all Special Inspection reports have been received and approved by the City of Carlsbad building department Please submit the names of the inspectors who will perform the special inspections on each of the items indicated on the reverse side of this sheet (over) SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLAN CHECK NUMBER: OWNER'S NAME: I, as the owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may not employ the special inspector), certify that I, or the architect/engineer of record, will be responsible for employing the special mspector(s) as required by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 1701 1 for the construction project located at the site listed above UBC Section 10635 Signed I, as the engineer/architect of record, certify that I have prepared the following special inspection program as required by UBC Section 106 3 5 for the construction project located at the site listed above Engineer s/Architect s Seal & Signature Here Signed 1 List of work requiring special inspection: G Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection Q Field Welding D Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI D High Strength Bolting D Prestressed Concrete D Expansion/Epoxy Anchors O Structural Masonry Q Sprayed-On Fireproofing D Designer Specified O Other 2 Name(s) of individual(s) or firm(s) responsible for the special inspections listed above: A B C. 3 Duties of the special inspectors for the work listed above: A B Special inspectors shall check in with the City and present their credentials for approval prior to beginning work on the job site EsGil Corporation In tPartnersHip witfi government for (BuiCding Safety DATE 9/20/O5 Q APPLICANT ^— U JURISDICTION City of Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO pcOS-0098 SET I PROJECT ADDRESS 6100 Yarrow Dr. PROJECT NAME Keystone Retaining Walls The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes I | 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 I I 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 Mary Ryan 26601 Verbena Mission Viejo, CA 92691 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 Mary Ryan Telephone # (949)582-3735 Date contacted ?/W/°^(by^&3) Fax # (949)348-392// s /Mail Telephone v Fax i/ln Person REMARKS By David Yao Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 9/9 trnsmtldot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 4 San Diego, California 92123 * (858)560-1468 4 Fax (858) 560-1576 City of Carlsbad pc05-O098 9/20/05 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES PLAN CHECK NO pcO5-OO98 JURISDICTION City of Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS 6100 Yarrow Dr. FLOOR AREA Retaining walls REMARKS DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED 9/20/05 STORIES HEIGHT DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION 9/9 PLAN REVIEWER David Yao FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinance by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or other departments Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit Present California law mandates that residential construction comply with the 2001 edition of the California Building Code (Title 24), which adopts the following model codes 1997 UBC, 2000 UPC, 2000 UMC and 2002 NEC The above regulations apply to residential construction, regardless of the code editions adopted by ordinance The following items listed need clarification, modification or change All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations Per Sec. 106 4 3, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e.. plan sheet number, specification section, etc. Be sure to enclose the marked UP list when you submit the revised plans. 'City of Carlsbad pcO5-0098 9/20/05 Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects) For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways 1 Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave , Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602- 2700 The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments 2 Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468 Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments NOTE Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete • PLANS 1 When special inspection is required, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit Please review Section 106 3 5 Please complete the attached form • FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS 2 Note on the plan the soils classification, whether or not the soil is expansive and note the allowable bearing value Section 106 3 3 3 The soils engineer recommended that he/she review the foundation excavations Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that a) The foundation excavations, the soils expansive characteristics and bearing capacity conform to the soils report" 4 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 (see page 23 of the soil report(8/6/04) 5 Please specify ICBO approval number for the keystone wall and note on the plan that all the construction of the keystone wall shall comply with the requirements in the ICBO report City of Carlsbad pcO5-0098 9/2O/O5 6 The soil parameters for geogrid reinforced walls shows the angle of friction is 30 degree and unit weight is 125 pcf The keystone wall calculation shows the friction angle is 28 degree and unit weight is 120 pcf Please provide revised calculation 7 The retaining wall calculation shows embedment 3 5 feet for all walls (except the 12 feet wall) The sections appear to not show it Please check 8 The soil report shows the retaining wall drainage detail shall be clearly identified on the plan The soil report shows clean gravel and filter fabric on the back of the retaining wall Detail on sheet 4 and 5 did not show it 9 Sheet S1 of the keystone retaining wall calculation shows 4 layers of SG300 geogrid for the 7 4 feet wall Section 1 on sheet 5 shows three layers of geogrid Please check 10 Sheet S5 of the calculation shows the geogrid for the top layer is 6 5 feet long Section 7/5 shows geogrid length is 6 feet long Please check 11 Sheet S12 of the calculation shows the 12 feet wall embedment is 4 feet Secion 5/4 appears to not show it Please clarify 12 To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i e , plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc 13 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 in the plans • Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate Yes Q No a 14 The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123, telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact David Yao at Esgil Corporation Thank you City of Carlsbad pcO5-OO98 9/20/05 City of Carlsbad Building Department BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION Do Not Remove From Plans Plan Check No pc05-0098 Job Address or Legal Description 6100 Yarrow Dr. Owner Address You are hereby notified that in addition to the inspection of construction provided by the Building Department, an approved Registered Special Inspector is required to provide continuous inspection during the performance of the phases of construction indicated on the reverse side of this sheet The Registered Special Inspector shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Building Department prior to the issuance of the building permit Special Inspectors having a current certification from the City of San Diego, Los Angeles, or ICBO are approved as Special Inspectors for the type of construction for which they are certified The inspections by a Special Inspector do not change the requirements for inspections by personnel of the City of Carlsbad building department The inspections by a Special Inspector are in addition to the inspections normally required by the County Building Code The Special Inspector is not authorized to inspect and approve any work other than that for which he/she is specifically assigned to inspect The Special Inspector is not authorized to accept alternate matenals, structural changes, or any requests for plan changes The Special Inspector is required to submit written reports to the City of Carlsbad building department of all work that he/she inspected and approved The final inspection approval will not be given until all Special Inspection reports have been received and approved by the City of Carlsbad building department Please submit the names of the inspectors who will perform the special inspections on each of the items indicated on the reverse side of this sheet (over) JAN-19-2Q06 THU 01:47 Ptl CITY OF CARSLBAD , ^ FAX NO, 760 602 855B P. 03 BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION Do Not Remove From Plans Plan Check No. pc05-0098 Job Address or Legal Descnption 6100 Yarrow Dr. Owner 7^6^ HlLJ-A, Address _ You are hereby notified that in addition to the inspection of construction provided by the Building Department, an approved Registered Special Inspector is required to provide continuous inspection dunng the performance of the phases of construction indicated on the reverse side of this sheet The Registered Special Inspector shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Building Department prior to the issuance of the building permit Special Inspectors having a current certification from the City of San Diego, Los Angeles, or ICBO are approved as Special Inspectors for the type of construction for which they are certified The inspections by a Special Inspector do not change the requirements for inspections by personnel of the City of Carlsbad building department The inspections by a Special Inspector are m addition to the inspections normally required by the County Building Code. The Special Inspector is not authorized to inspect and approve any work other than that for which he/she is specifically assigned to inspect The Special Inspector is not authorized to accept alternate materials, structural changes, or any requests for plan changes The Special Inspector is required to submit written reports to the City of Carlsbad building department of all work that he/she inspected and approved The final inspection approval will not be given until all Special Inspection reports have been received and approved by the City of Carlsbad building department Please submit the names of the inspectors who will perform the special inspections on each of the items indicated on the reverse side of this sheet (over) I Hi' Ji • H i I'H i,'> iu . ou c rjr; SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION. PLAN CHECK NUMBER' ?C oh D«. CA<u*<,xt> c* OWNER'S NAM£- I. as the owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may not employ the special inspector), certify that I, or the architect/engineer of record, will be responsible for employing the special inspector(s) as required by Uniform Buildmq Code (UBC) Section 1701 1 for the construction project located at the site listed above, U8C Section 106 35 J. as ihr engineer/architect of record, certify that 3 have piepaicd the following special inspection program as required by UBC Section 106 3 5 for the construction project located at the site listed above eniimtr'VAf Mud »l*ii IP.Signed D Field Welding D High Strength Bolting S Expansion/Epoxy Anchors Sprayad-On Fireproofing Q'Other \* 1. List of work requiring special inspection: [j/f Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection P Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI [3 Prestressed Concrete PI Structural Masonry C] Designer Specified i 2 Name(s) of mdividual(s) or firm(s) responsible for the special Inspections listed above: r >, t /•- A UCu*t(AXP*O y r\tfci.oc.t«!<4-fc*> ( (ys<S^<K. Ht^i <" >*» 11 ««i»w^"^«i^*"i«"i"«ii««iiiiiBB^^M • in« i u \ ILI— --I- —""•*«««^M«^«»™BI™«^^**^»^I^^««««**'M^ C 3 Duties of the special Inspectors for the work listed above: B C OF op i cieck in /xitr, ih& Ci'y a^O presen1 thei'for aporova ofior |^tiff )o& site City of Carlsbad pc05-OO98 9/20/05 : VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION City of Carlsbad PREPARED BY David Yao BUILDING ADDRESS 6100 Yarrow Dr. BUILDING OCCUPANCY PLAN CHECK NO pcO5-0098 DATE 9/20/05 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION BUILDING PORTION retaining walls Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code AREA ( Sq Ft ) 8000 cb Valuation Multiplier 1774 By Ordinance Reg Mod VALUE ($) 141,920 141,920 Bldg Permit Fee by Ordinance v Plan Check Fee by Ordinance Type of Review I Repetitive Fee Repeats Complete Review D Other r-1 Hourly Structural Only Hour* Esgll Plan Review Fee $675 92 $439 35 $378 52 Comments Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue doc City of Carlsbad Public Works — Engineering BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALL BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER BUILDING ADDRESS (_£>[ ftft PROJECT DESCRIPTION Retaining Wall ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER <£?|3 ~ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal, therefore, any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in susjje'nsion of permit to build Date Please see marked plans or DENIAL ittached report of deficiencies lake necessary corrections to fcations for compliance with applicable codes and standards Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review ATTACHMENTS Right-of-Way Permit Application ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON NAME Taniya Barrows City of Carlsbad ADDRESS 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 PHONE (760) 602-2773 H \DevetopmenlSeivlces\MASTERS\FORMS \CHECKLISTS \BUILDINGPLANCHECKCKLISTFORM RETAINING WALLS doc 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (76O) 6O2-272O - FAX (760) 6O2-8562 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALLS 1 Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale Show A North Arrow D~ Easements B Existing & Proposed Structures /E JiRetaming Wall (dimensioned from street) ( --- ^(location and height) C Property Lines ShowonS,,ep,an A Drainage Patterns B Existing & Proposed Slopes C Ex.st,ng Topography Include on title sheet A Site Address B Assessor's Parcel Number C Legal Description D Grading Quantities Cut (Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required) Q 4 Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No _ Conditions were complied with by _ Date _ MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 5 A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way A separate Right-of-Way issued by the Engineering Department is required for the following Please obtain an application for Right-of-Way permit from the Engineering Department Pagel H \DevetopmertServices\MASTERS\FORMS \CHECKLISTS \BUILDINGPLANCHECKCKLISTFORM RETAINING WALLS Hoc Rev 6/26196 I « > I I PLANNING/ENGINEERING APPROVALS PERMIT NUMBER CB DATE ADDRESS RESIDENTIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR « $10,000.00) PLAZA CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES VILLAGE FAIRE COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING OTHER PLANNER DATE ENGINEER DATE Oocs/Mlsforms/Planning Engineering Approvals • • f 8s- ENGINEERING I DESIGN GROUP GfOIECHNICAL CIVIL & S'PUCTURAL CC'NS-.TANTS FOR RESIDENTIAL I CCMMWML COHWUCTICI, 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax (760) 480-7477 • E-mail ENGDGOaol com Date December 23, 2005 To William Olson Leighton Consulting Inc 3934 Murohy Canyon Rd, Sutie B205 San Diego, CA 92123-4425 Re Tarsadia Hotels/Hampton Inn to be Located on Palomar Airport Road and Yarrow Drive, Carlsbad, California Subject Revised Wall Design, based upon latest review by Leighton Consulting, Inc Ref Review of Keystone Retaining Wall Plans, Proposed Homewood Suites Project, Southeast of Palomar Airport Road and Yarrow, Carlsbad, Letter prepared by Leighton Consulting, Inc dated Dec 22, 2005 Performance Expectation of Modular Block Walls Letter prepared by Engineering Design Group, dated November 17, 2005 We have made the revisions noted your above referenced review letter With regard to the detailing at the pool We have shown the pool at the section where it occurs, Detail 5, Sheet 5 Notes have been added to the plan indicating that the geogrid reinforcement should not be cut In addition we have issued a letter to the owner, referenced above, as well as noting this on the plans that the pool walls should be designed as a free standing retaining wall If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact our office Sincerely, ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP cc Tarsadia Hotels, Attn Michael Kim P&D Consultants, Attn Erin Sweeney Project No 053743-2 F \LETTER\LETTER 2\2005\053743-2 HAMPTON INN Response to Leighton wpd ENGINEERINGmDESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL CIVIl (L SFRUCTURAl CONbu.IANTS A COMMERCIAL CONS1RUCTICS 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax (760) 480-7477 • E-mail ENGDG@aol com PROJECT:TARSADIA HOTEL - RETAINING WALL PROJECT ADDRESS: Palomar Airport Rd and Yarrow Drive Carlsbad, California DATE: JOB No: CLIENT: Revised December 23, 2005 053743-2 TGR COMPANY, INC TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM WALL WALL A - CALCULATIONS B - CALCULATIONS SHEET # S1-S9 S10-S14 Rist California R(IE65122 PC 05 • WALLA STONER™™VLLSYSTEMS RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3 3 1 167 SEISMIC DESIGN Project: Hampton Inn-Carlsbad Project No: Project Number Case- Al NCMA2 Design Method. Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Date: 12/23/2005 Designer: Design Parameters Soil Parameters' Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type- Unit Fill: <) c 30 0 29 0 29 0 Silts & sands Crushed Stone, I inch minus 125 125 125 / Peak Acceleration = 0 20 g Vertical Acceleration = 0 00 g Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding I 50/1 13 pullout 1 50/1 13 uncertainties overturning 2 00/1 50 shear 1 50 connection bearing 2 00/1 50 bending 1 50 Serviceability I 50/1 13 1 50/1 13 1 00 IN A Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS 3400 161 110 105 1828 FS 1 50 Taj. 1219 a 080 Cds 080 Analysis WallB, Section 1 Unit Type Leveling Pad WallHt Level Backfill Surcharge Compac Crushed Stone 800ft Offset 200 LL 250 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Case- Al NCMA2 Wall Batter 0 00 deg embedment 6 00ft DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Results Sliding Factors of Safety 2 05/2 06 Calculated Bearing Pressure >''429/1471 psf Eccentricity at base 0 56 ft/0 88 ft Reinforcing (ft&lbs/ft) Calc. Tension 83/338 136/233 243/341 308/379 371/411 433/447 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included) SG300 467sy/ft Overturning 3 58/3 53 Bearing 12 75/12 28 Shear 5 6115 44 Bending 104/285 Remf. Type SG300 SG300 SG300 SG300 SG300 SG300 Allow Ten Tal 1219/2093 ok 1219/2093 ok 1219/2093 ok 1219/2093 ok 1219/2093 ok 1219/2093 ok Pk Conn Tel 418/557 ok 446/594 ok 501/668 ok 556/741 ok 6 11/8 14 ok 666/888 ok Serv Conn Tsc 506/N/A ok 530/N/A ok 579/N/A ok 628/N/A ok 677/N/A ok 726/N/A ok Pullout FS 5 85/1 15 ok 6 17/2 88 ok 2 55/1 45 ok 4 51/2 93 ok 6 62/4 78 ok 8 83/6 85 ok NOTE THESE CALCULA TIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINAR Y DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 12/23/2005 Page 1 STONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3 3 1 167 SEISMIC DESIGN Project. Hampton Inn-Carlsbad Project No: Project Number Case. A2 NCMA2 Design Method: Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Date: 12/23/2005 Designer: Design Parameters Soil Parameters: Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type- Unit Fill: <|> c 30 0 29 0 29 0 Silts & sands Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus 125 125 125 z 5 4 3 2 1 Peak Acceleration = 0 20 g Vertical Acceleration = 0 00 g Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding 150/1 13 pullout 150/1 13 uncertainties overturning 2 00/1 50 shear 1 50 connection bearing 2 00/1 50 bending 1 50 Serviceability Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geognds 1 50/1 13 1 50/1 13 1 00/NA Analysis Tult 5000 RFcr RFd RFid LTDS 1 61 1 10 105 2689 Wall B, Section 2 Unit Type Compac Leveling Pad Crushed Stone WallHt 940ft Level Backfill Offset 200 Surcharge LL 250 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Sliding Overturning •tors of Safety I 99/1 90 3 25/3 00 FS Tal Ci Cds 150 1793 080 080 Case A2NCMA2 Wall Batter OOOdeg embedment 5 00ft DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Bearing Shear Bt 9 46/8 62 5 22 14 94 27 Results. Calculated Bearing Pressure / 731/1851 psf Eccentricity at base 0 73 ft/1 15 ft Reinforcing (ft&lbs/ft) Calc. Tension 91/400 139/262 246/379 311/417 374/450 436/485 498/526 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included) SG500 617sy/ft Reinf. Type SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 Allow Ten Tal 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok Pk Conn Serv Conn Tel Tsc 97 1/1 294 ok 445/N/Aok 992/1 322 ok 485/N/Aok 1033/1378 ok 567/N/Aok 1075/1433 ok 649/N/Aok 1 1 17/1 489 ok 731/N/Aok 11 59/1 545 ok 813/N/Aok 1200/1600 ok 895/N/Aok Pullout FS 9 08/1 65 ok 9 53/4 05 ok 2 32/1 20 ok 4 13/2 46 ok 6 09/4 05 ok 8 13/5 85 ok >10/7 74 ok NOTE THESE CALCULA T1ONS ARE FOR PRELIMINAR Y DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 12/23/2005 Page 1 RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3 3 1 167 SEISMIC DESIGN Project: Hampton Inn-Carlsbad Project No: Project Number Case: A3 NCMA2 Design Method. Coulomb-NCMA (modifiedsoil interface) Date- 12/23/2005 Designer: Design Parameters Soil Parameters- Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type Unit Fill- et* c y pcf 30 0 125 29 0 125 29 0 125 Silts & sands Crushed Stone. 1 inch minus a. - - '- - - - -1 / / / « / / / / / 5 4 3 2 1 8 Peak Acceleration = 0 20 g Vertical Acceleration = 0 00 g Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding I 50/1 13 pullout 1 50/1 13 uncertainties overturning 2 00/150 shear 150 connection bearing 2 00/1 50 bending 1 50 Serviceability 1 50/1 13 1 50/1 13 1 00/NA Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid 5000 LTDS 161 1 10 105 2689 FS 1 50 1793 a 080 Cds 080 Analysis Wall B, Section 3 Unit Type Leveling Pad WallHt Level Backfill Surcharge Compac Crushed Stone 10 70ft Offset 200 LL 250 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Case- A3 NCMA2 Wall Batter OOOdeg embedment 5 70ft DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Results Sliding Factors of Safety 1 81/1 67 Calculated Bearing Pressure 2140/245 9 psf Eccentricity at base 0 97 ft/1 51 ft Reinforcing (ft&lbs/ft) Calc. Tension 577435 138/287 245/413 310/451 373/483 435/518 497/559 560/591 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included) SG500 722sy/ft Overturning 2 63/2 31 Bearing 8 05/6 72 Shear 4 92 14 64 Bending 289/273 Layer 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Height 933 867 733 600 467 333 200 067 Length 120 120 85 65 65 65 65 65 Remf. Type SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 Allow Ten Tal 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok Pk Conn Serv Conn Tel Tsc 970/1293 ok 442/N/Aok 991/1321 ok 483/N/Aok 1032/1 376 ok 565/N/Aok 1074/1432 ok 647/N/Aok 11 16/1488 ok 729/N/Aok 1158/1543 ok 811/N/Aok 1199/1599 ok 893/N/Aok 1241/1655 ok 975/N/Aok Pullout FS 854/1 36 ok 8 79/3 3 7 ok 4 06/1 92 ok 2 55/1 40 ok 4 40/2 71 ok 6 36/4 2 7 ok 8 40/5 96 ok >10/7 92 ok NOTE THESE CALCULATIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY A ND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 12/23/2005 Page 1 RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3 3 1 167 SEISMIC DESIGN Project: Hampton Inn-Carlsbad Project No: Project Number Case. /44 NCMA2 Design Method- Coulomb-NCMA (modified sod interface) Date: 12/23/2005 Designer. Design parameters Soil Parameters: ^ c Kemjorcea rill ju u Retained Zone 29 0 Foundation Soil 29 0 Reinforced Fill Type: Silts & sands Peak Acceleration = 0 20 g Vertical Acceleration = 0 0( Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding 1 50/1 13 pullout 1 50/1 13 overturning 2 00/1 50 shear 1 50 bearing 2 00/1 50 bending 1 50 Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geognds Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS 5000 1 61 I 10 I 05 2689 Analysis Wall B, Section 4 Unit Type Compac Leveling Pad Crushed Stone WallHt 1210ft Level Backfill Offset 200 Surcharge LL Opsf uniform surcharge Load Width 100 00 ft Results. Sliding Overturning Factors of Safety 2 54/1 70 4 28/2 41 Calcinated Bearing Pressure 1954/2300 psf Eccentricity at base 0 86 ft/1 55 ft Reinforcing (ft&lbs/ft) Calc. Layer Height Length Tension Reinf Type 8 1067 130 54/508 SG500 7 1000 120 79/315 SG500 6 867 100 210/570 SG500 5 667 75 379/757 SG500 4 467 75 423/693 SG500 3 333 75 408/594 SG500 2 200 75 470/630 SG500 I 067 75 532/665 SG500 - / Y pet _ /I r / 1 1 T - A 61*5 _ /\n* f 5/125 [- / a - / - / -/f Tg uncertainties 1 50/1 13 connection 1 50/1 13 Serviceability 1 00 /NA FS Tal Ci Cds 150 1793 080 080 Case A4NCMA2 Wall Batter 0 00 deg embedment 6 00ft DL Opsf uniform surcharge Load Width 100 00 ft Bearing Shear Bending 988/794 550/290 4^5/250 Allow Ten Pk Conn Serv Conn Tal Tel Tsc 1793/3078 ok 972/1 296 ok 447/N/Aok 1793/3078 ok 993/1 323 ok 488/N/Aok 1793/3078 ok 1034/1379 ok 569/N/Aok 1793/3078 ok 1097/1 463 ok 692/N/Aok 1793/3078 ok 1160/1546 ok 815/N/Aok 1793/3078 ok 120 1/1 602 ok 897/N/Aok 1793/3078 ok 1243/1658 ok 979/N/Aok 1793/3078 ok 1285/1713 ok 1061/N/A ok Q 7 Pullout FS >10/1 25 ok >10/2 62 ok 597/1 76 ok 3 31/1 33 ok 6 80/3 32 ok > 10/5 79 ok >10/7 63 ok > 10/9 60 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included) SG500 806sy/ft NOTE THESE CALCULA T1ONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 12/23/2005 Page I STONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3 3 1 167 SEISMIC DESIGN Project: Hampton Inn-Carlsbad Project No. Project Number Case: A6-Rev Design Method: Rankme-w/Batter (modified soil interface) Date- 12/23/2005 Designer Design Parameters Soil Parameters: Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type: Unit Fill: $ c Y Pcf 30 0 125 29 0 125 29 0 125 Silts & sands Crushed Stone, I inch minus - V - /_ / / : / = / = / -/ 5 5 4 3 2 1 Peak Acceleration = 0 20 g Vertical Acceleration = 0 00 g Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding 150/1 13 pullout 150/1 13 uncertainties overturning 2 00/1 50 shear 1 50 connection bearing 2 00/150 bending 150 1 50/1 13 1 50/1 13 Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogridi Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS 5000 1 61 1 10 105 2689 FS 1 50 Taj_ 1793 a 080 Cds 080 Analysis Detail 8 Unit Type Leveling Pad Wall Ht Level Backfill Surcharge Compac Crushed Stone 14 10ft Offset 400 LL 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Case A6-Rev Wall Batter 0 00 deg embedment 3 20ft DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Results. Sliding Factors of Safety 1 92/1 30 Calculated Bearing Pressure 2563/3489 psf Eccentricity at base 1 34 ft/2 36 ft Reinforcing (ft&lbs/ft) Calc. Tension 7237 403 286/426 453/642 619/897 786/1151 782/1235 1092/1603 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included) SG500 706sy/ft Overturning 3 14/1 79 Bearing 5 31/3 37 Shear 2 83 /I 93 Bending 3 9312 13 Remf. Type SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 Allow Ten Tal 1793/3078 ok 1 793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1 793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok Pk Conn Serv Conn Tel 972/1 296 ok 1034/1 379 ok 1097/1463 ok 11 60/1 546 ok 1222/1 630 ok 1285/17 13 ok 1 327/1 769 ok Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS 4 95/1 21 ok 255/1 37 ok 3 46/1 95 ok 5 06/2 80 ok 6 66/3 64 ok > 10/5 Wok 9 09/4 95 ok NOTE THESE CALCULA TIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINAR Y DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 12/23/2005 Page 1 RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3 3 1 167 SEISMIC DESIGN Project Hampton Inn-Carlsbad Project No: Project Number Case: A5 Design Method: Rankme-w/Batter (modified soil interface) Date: 12/23/2005 Designer: Design Parameters Soil Parameters: <fe c Reinforced Fill 30 0 Retained Zone 29 0 foundation Soil 29 0 Reinforced Fill Type- Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, I inch minus - 7 Y PCI = / 725 - / l""i - ^- /12b - / //- ,r- / 11 10 9e: 5 4 3 2 J. Peak Acceleration = 0 20 g Vertical Acceleration = 0 00 g Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding 1 50/1 13 pullout 1 50/1 13 uncertainties 1 50/1 13 overturning 2 00/1 50 shear 1 50 connection 1 50/1 13 bearing 2 00/1 50 bending 1 50 Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds 3400 1 61 1 10 1 05 1828 Analysis Wall B, Section 5 Unit Type Compac Leveling Pad Crushed Stone WallHt 1540ft Level Backfill Offset 200 Surcharge LL 250 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Results Sliding Overturning Factors of Safety 1 56/1 40 2 62/2 08 Calculated Bearing Pressure 3134/3935 psf Eccenfncity at base 1 62 ft/2 56 ft Reinforcing (ft&lbs/ft) Calc. Layer Height Length Tension Remf. Type 11 1400 120 202/241 SG300 10 1200 100 350/323 SG300 9 1067 100 369/387 SG300 8 933 100 446/504 SG300 7 800 100 521/607 SG300 6 667 100 594/715 SG300 5 533 100 668/824 SG300 4 400 100 744/942 SG300 3 267 100 819/1043 SG300 2 133 100 662/949 SG300 1 067 100 704/1008 SG300 750 72/9 080 080 Case AS Wai' Batter 0 00 deg embedment 8 00ft DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 100 00 ft Bearing Shear Bending 7 85/5 83 3 77 /2 96 2 44 /2 24 Allow Ten PkConn ServConn Pullout Tal Tel Tsc FS 1219/2093 ok 421/561 ok N/A 2 33/1 57 ok 1 219/2093 ok 503/671 ok N/A 2 32/2 01 ok 1219/2093 ok 559/745 ok N/A 4 21/3 21 ok 1219/2093 ok 614/818 ok N/A 5 67/4 01 ok 1219/2093 ok 669/891 ok N/A 7 19/4 94 ok 1219/2093 ok 724/965 ok N/A 8 74/5 81 ok 1219/2093 ok 779/1038 ok N/A > 10/6 69 ok 1219/2093 ok 834/1 112 ok N/A >10/748ok 1219/2093 ok 889/1185 ok N/A >10/842ok 121 9/2093 ok 944/1 259 ok N/A >10/>10ok 121 9/2093 ok 97 1/1295 ok N/A >10/>10ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included) SG300 1244sy/ft NOTE THESE CALCULA TIONS ARE FOR PREL1MINAR Y DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 12/23/2005 Pagel 5-1 STONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3 3 1 167 SEISMIC DESIGN Project: Hampton Inn-Carlsbad Project No: Project Number C*se-A7NCMA Design Method: Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Date. 12/23/2005 Designer: Design Parameters Soil Parameters Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type Unit Fill- <|) c y pcf 30 0 125 29 0 125 29 0 125 Silts & sands Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Peak Acceleration = 0 20 g Vertical Acceleration = 0 00 g Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding 1 50/1 13 pullout 150/1 13 uncertainties overturning 2 00/1 50 shear 150 connection bearing 2 00/1 50 bending 1 50 Serviceability 1 50/1 13 1 50/1 13 1 00/NA Reinforcing Parameters Strata-Grid Geognds Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS 5000 1 61 1 10 105 2689 FS 1 50 M 1793 a 080 Cds 080 Analysis- Wall B, Section 7 Unit Type Leveling Pad WallHt Level Backfill Surcharge Compac Crushed Stone 860ft Offset 200 LL 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Case A7NCMA Wall Batter 0 00 deg embedment 3 60ft DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Results Sliding Factors of Safety 3 09/2 07 Calculated Bearing Pressure 1261/1333 psf Eccentricity at base 0 50 ft/0 89 ft Reinforcing (ft&lbs/ft) Calc. Tension 45/346 73/243 200/449 368/612 323/453 283/363 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included) SG500 SOOsy/ft Overturning 6 36/3 58 Bearing 11 14/1028 Shear 592/356 Bending 4 75 '3 06 Layer 6 5 4 3 2 1 Height 753 667 5 33 333 1 33 067 Length 95 95 65 65 65 65 Reinf. Type SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 Allow Ten Tal 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1 793/3078 ok 1 793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok Pk Conn Serv Conn Tel Tsc 967/1 289 ok 436/N/Aok 987/1 31 7 ok 477/N/Aok 1029/1372 ok 559/N/Aok 1092/1456 ok 682/N/Aok 11 54/1 539 ok 805/N/Aok 11 75/1 567 ok 846/N/Aok Pullout FS >10/1 20 ok >10/2 95 ok 3 59/1 28 ok 5 38/2 58 ok > 10/6 82 ok >10/>10ok NOTE THESE CALCULA TIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINAR Y DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 12/23/2005 Page 1 TONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3 3 1 167 Project: Hampton Inn-Carlsbad Project No Project Number Case: A8 NCMA Design Method: Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Date: 12/23/2005 Designer: Design Parameters Soil Parameters: Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type: Unit Fill- <j> c 30 0 29 0 29 0 Silts & sands Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Y pcf 120 120 120 Minimum Design Factors of Safety sliding 1 50 pullout 1 50 overturning 2 00 shear 1 50 bearing 2 00 bending 1 50 Reinforcing Parameters Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS 5000 I 61 1 10 105 2689 Analysis Wall B Section 8 Unit Type Leveling Pad WallHt Level Backfill Surcharge Compac Crushed Stone 670ft Offset 100 LL 0psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Results. Sliding Factors of Safety 2 77 Calculated Bearing Pressure / 004 psf Eccentricity at base 0 &5 ft Reinforcing (ft & Ibs/ft) Overturning 503 Layer 3 2 1 Height 533 333 1 33 Length 60 45 45 Calc. Tension 94 226 433 Reinf. Type SG500 SG500 SG500 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included) SG500 1 67sy/ft uncertainties connection Serviceability 1 50 1 50 100 FS 1 50 1793 a 080 Cds 080 Case A8NCMA Wall Batter 0 00 deg embedment 2 60ft DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Shear 506 Bending 502 Allow Ten Tal 1793 ok 1793 ok 1793 ok Pk Conn Tel 970 ok 1032 ok 1095 ok Serv Conn Tsc 442 ok 565 ok 688 ok Pullout FS 2 26 ok 2 07 ok 3 57 ok NOTE THESE CALCULATIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 12/23/2005 Pagel RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3 3 1 167 SEISMIC DESIGN Project: Hampton Inn-Carlsbad Project No: Project Number C*se:A9NMCA Design Method: Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Date. 12/23/2005 Designer- Design Parameters Soil Parameters Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type Unit Fill: 30 0 29 0 29 0 Silts & sands Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus 125 125 125 — — — I/ /f/I / 2 / , 4 3 Peak Acceleration = 0 20 g Vertical Acceleration = 0 00 g Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding 1 50/1 13 pullout 1 50/1 13 uncertainties overturning 2 00/1 50 shear 1 50 connection bearing 2 00/150 bending 150 Serviceability I 50/1 13 1 50/1 13 I 00 /NA Reinforcing Parameters. Strata-Grid Geognds Tuh RFcr RFd RFid 5000 161 1 10 LTDS 1 05 2689 FS 1 50 Td 1793 G 050 Cds 080 Analysis Wall B Section 9 Unit Type Leveling Pad WallHt Level Backfill Surcharge Compac Crushed Stone 603ft Offset 1 00 LL Opsf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Case A9NMCA Wall Batter 0 00 deg embedment 3 13ft DL Opsf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Results Sliding Factors of Safety 2 70/1 8! Calculated Bearing Pressure 931/9 72 psf Eccentricity at base 0 40 ft/0 72 ft Reinforcing (ft&lbs/ft) Calc. Tension 50 / 282 77/194 205/367 302/423 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included) SG500 250sy/ft Overturning 4 89/2 76 Bearing 11 07/1043 Shear 7 24 /5 18 Bending 4 82 /2 72 Layer 4 3 2 1 Height 467 400 267 067 Length 70 70 45 40 Remf. Type SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 Allow Ten Tal 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok Pk Conn Serv Conn Tel Tsc 970/1 293 ok 442/N/Aok 990/1321 ok 483/N/A ok 1032/1 376 ok 565/N/Aok 1095/1460 ok 688/N/Aok Pullout FS 893/1 27 ok > 10/3 20 ok 3 21/1 44 ok 5 22/2 99 ok NOTE THESE CALCULATIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 12/23/2005 Pagel WALLB 510 STONE RCTAININGWALLSYSTEMS RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3 3 1 167 SEISMIC DESIGN Project: Hampton Inn-Carlsbad Project No: Project Number Case. Bl NCMA Design Method: Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Date: 12/23/2005 Designer Design Parameters Soil Parameters* Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type: Unit Fill: <|> c y Pcf 30 0 120 29 0 120 29 0 120 Silts & sands Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Peak Acceleration = 0 20 g Vertical Acceleration = 0 00 g Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding 150/1 13 pullout 150/1 13 uncertainties overturning 2 00/150 shear 150 connection bearing 2 00/150 bending 150 Serviceability 1 50/1 13 1 50/1 13 1 00/NA Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS 5000 1 61 1 10 105 2689 FS 1 50 To], 1793 a 080 Cds 080 Analysis Wall A, Section 1 Unit Type Leveling Pad Wall Ht Level Backfill Surcharge Compac Crushed Stone 420ft Offset 200 LL 250 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Case- Bl NCMA Wall Batter 0 00 deg embedment 2 30ft DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Results Sliding Overturning Factors of Safety 1 97/2 62 4 06/5 68 Calculated Bearing Pressure 697/652 psf Eccentricity at base 0 20 ft/0 32 ft Reinforcing (ft&lbs/ft) Calc. Tension Reinf. Type 35/142 SG500 112/144 SG500 345/345 SG500 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included) SG500 1 78 sy/ft Layer 3 2 I Height 333 267 1 33 Length 60 60 40 Bearing 12 51/13 84 Allow Ten Tal 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok Shear 547/547 Bending 657/566 Pk Conn Serv Conn Tel Tsc 954/1272 ok 412/N/Aok 975/1300 ok 453/N/Aok 1017/1356 ok 535/N/Aok Pullout FS 651/1 29 ok 4 43/2 76 ok 1 80/1 44 ok NOTE THESE CALCULA T1ONS ARE FOR PRELIMINAR Y DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 12/23/2005 Pagel RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3 3 1 167 SEISMIC DESIGN Project: Hampton Inn-Carlsbad Project No. Project Number Case: B2 NCMA Design Method* Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Date: 12/23/2005 Designer. Design Parameters Soil Parameters: Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type- Unit Fill (|) c y pcf 30 0 125 29 0 125 29 0 125 Silts & sands Crushed Stone, I inch minus Peak Acceleration = 0 20 g Vertical Acceleration = 0 00 g Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding 1 50/1 13 pullout 1 50/1 13 uncertainties overturning 2 00/150 shear 150 connection bearing 2 00/150 bending 150 Serviceability 1 50/1 13 1 50/1 13 1 00/NA Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS 5000 1 61 1 10 105 2689 FS 1 50 1793 a 080 Cds 080 Analysis Wall A; Section 2 Unit Type Compac Leveling Pad Crushed Stone WallHt 810ft Level Backfill Offset 200 Surcharge LL 250 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Case- B2 NCMA Wall Batter 0 00 deg embedment 3 90ft DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Results-Sliding Factors of Safety 2 03/2 03 Calculated Beanng Pressure 1454/1503 psf Eccentricity at base 0 58 ft/0 91 ft Reinforcing (ft & Ibs/ft) Calc. Tension 95/364 140/238 320/438 517/602 537/559 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included) SG500 400sy/ft Overturning 3 51/3 44 Bearing 9 53/9 10 Shear 4 25 /3 65 Bending 254/252 Layer 5 4 3 2 1 Height 667 600 467 267 067 Length 90 90 60 60 60 Reinf. Type SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 Allow Ten Tal 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok Pk Conn Serv Conn Tel Tsc 972/1296 oh 447/N/Aok 993/1 323 ok 488/N/Aok 1034/1379 ok 569/N/Aok 1097/1463 ok 692/N/Aok 11 60/1 546 ok 815/N/Aok Pullout FS 5 51/1 15 ok 6 29/2 97 ok 200/1 16 ok 3 72/2 55 ok 7 21/5 54 ok NOTE THESE CALCULA TIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 12/23/2005 Page 1 'STONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3 3 1 167 SEISMIC DESIGN Project' Hampton Inn-Carlsbad Project No: Project Number Case: B3 NCMA Design Method: Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Date: 12/23/2005 Designer: Design Parameters Soil Parameters: Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type. Unit Fill: Peak Acceleration = 0 20 g Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding 150/1 13 pullout overturning 2 00/150 shear bearing 2 00/150 bending Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geognds * c 30 0 29 0 29 0 Silts & sands Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Vertical Acceleration = 0 00 g Y pcf 125 125 125 -/ // B• /= /= /_ J r 4 3 2 fl - '/ - 6 I 50/1 13 1 50 1 50 uncertainties connection Serviceability 1 50/1 13 1 50/1 13 1 00/NA Analysis Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS 5000 1 61 1 10 105 2689 Wall A; Section 3 Unit Type Compac Leveling Pad Crushed Stone Wall Hi 1275ft Level Backfill Offset 200 Surcharge LL 2 50 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Sliding Overturning •tors of Safety 1 83/1 61 2 62/2 1 7 FS Tal Ci Cds 150 1793 080 080 Case B3NCMA Wall Batter 0 00 deg embedment 3 70ft DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Bearing Shear Bending 539/415 337/280 262/257 Results Calculated Bearing Pressure 25 70/3085 psf Eccentricity at base 1 17 ft/1 85 ft Reinforcing (ft&lbs/ft) Calc. Tension 93/520 140/329 319/590 516/785 655/861 796/948 609/673 498/528 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included) SG500 8 33 sy/ft Reinf. Type SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 Allow Ten Tal 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok Pk Conn Serv Conn Tel Tsc 97 1/1 295 ok 446/N/Aok 992/1 323 ok 486/N/Aok 1034/1378 ok 568/N/Aok 1096/1462 ok 691/N/Aok 11 59/1 546 ok 814/N/Aok 1222/1 629 ok 937/N/Aok 1284/1713 ok 1060/N/A ok 1305/1 740 ok 1101/N/Aok Pullout FS 8 56/1 22 ok 5 69/1 94 ok 5 20/2 25 ok 2 49/1 31 ok 4 45/2 71 ok 5 81/3 90 ok > 10/8 77 ok >10/>10ok NOTE THESE CALCULA T1ONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 12/23/2005 Page 1 RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3 3 1 167 SEISMIC DESIGN Project: Hampton Inn-Carlsbad Project No: Project Number Case: B4 NCMA Design Method: Rankme-w/Batter (modified soil interface) Date: 12/23/2005 Designer: Design Parameters Soil Parameters: Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type: Unit Fill: <|> c 30 0 29 0 29 0 Silts & sands Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus 125 125 125 Peak Acceleration = 0 20 g Vertical Acceleration = 0 00 g Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding I 50/1 13 pullout 1 50/1 13 uncertainties overturning 2 00/1 50 shear 1 50 connection bearing 2 00/1 50 bending 1 50 1 50/1 13 1 50/1 13 Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS 5000 1 61 1 10 105 2689 FS 1 50 1793 a 080 Cds 080 Analysis Wall A, Section 4 Unit Type Leveling Pad WallHt Level Backfill Surcharge Compac Crushed Stone 11 40ft Offset 400 LL 0 psf 'uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Case- B4 NCMA Wall Batter 0 00 deg embedment 3 70ft DL 0psf'uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Results Sliding Factors of Safety 1 95/1 32 Calculated Bearing Pressure 2035/2643 psf Eccentricity gt base 1 06 ft/1 87 ft Reinforcing (ft & Ibs/ft) Calc. Tension 63/215 93/272 248/342 450/623 502/755 485/790 867/1224 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included) SG500 589sy/ft Overturning 3 26/1 86 Bearing 6 63/4 59 Shear 3 19/226 Bending 398/222 Remf. Type SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 SG500 Allow Ten Tal 1793/3 078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok Pk Conn Serv Conn Tel 971/1294 ok 992/1322 ok 1033/1 378 ok 1096/1461 ok 11 59/1 545 ok 1200/1 600 ok 1242/1 656 ok Tsc N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pullout FS 5 75/1 34 ok 6 70/1 83 ok 2 19/1 27 ok 3 51/2 03 ok 6 28/3 34 ok 9 27/4 55 ok 7 01/3 97 ok NOTE THESE CALCULATIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 12/23/2005 Page 1 STONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3 3 1 167 SEISMIC DESIGN Project: Hampton Inn-Carlsbad Project No: Project Number Case B5NCMA Design Method: Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Date: 12/23/2005 Designer. Design Parameters Soil Parameters: Reinforced Fill Retained Zone Foundation Soil Reinforced Fill Type: Unit Fill *30 29 29 Silts & sands Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus c 0 0 0 r pcf 725 725 725 Peak Acceleration = 0 20 g Vertical Acceleration = 0 00 g Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding 150/1 13 pullout 1 50/1 13 uncertainties overturning 2 00/150 shear 150 connection bearing 2 00/150 bending 150 Serviceability 1 50/1 13 1 50/1 13 1 00/NA Reinforcing Parameters: Strata-Grid Geognds Tult RFcr RFd RFid 5000 LTDS 1 61 1 10 105 2689 FS 1 50 Ta[ 1793 a 080 Cds 080 Analysis Wall A; Section 8 Unit Type Leveling Pad WallHt Level Backfill Surcharge Compac Crushed Stone 700ft Offset 400 LL 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 100 00 ft Case. B5 NCMA Wall Batter 0 00 deg embedment 3 40ft DL 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width 10000ft Results. Sliding Overturning Factors of Safety 2 62/1 76 4 60/2 59 Calculated Bearing Pressure 1101/1189psf Ecce.ttncity at base 0 48 ft/0 86 ft Reinforcing (ft & Ibs/ft) Calc. Tension Reinf. Type 124/521 SG500 256/485 SG500 475/667 SG500 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included) SG500 200sy/ft Layer 3 2 I Height 533 333 733 Length 55 50 45 Bearing 10 24/9 21 Allow Ten Tal 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok 1793/3078 ok Shear 469/334 Bending 383/1 95 Pk Conn Serv Conn Tel Tsc 979/1305 ok 461/N/Aok 1042/1389 ok 584/N/Aok 1104/1472 ok 707/N/Aok Pullout FS 6 05/1 15 ok 2 90/1 22 ok 3 58/2 04 ok NOTE THESE CALCULA TIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Date 12/23/2005 Pagel Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY December 22, 2005 Project No 600550-004 To Tarsadia Hotels 620 Newport Center Drive, 14th Floor Newport, California 92660 Attention Mr Michael Kim Subject Review of Keystone Wall Retaining Wall Plans, Proposed Homewood Suites Project, Southeast of Palomar Airport Road and Yarrow, Carlsbad, California References Engineering Design Group (EDC), 2005, Keystone Wall Retaining Wall Plans and Wall Sections, 5 Sheets, Project No 053743, dated December 15, 2005 Leighton Consulting. Inc 2004a, Preliminary Geotechmcal Investigation, Proposed Carlsbad Hotel Project, (Homewood Suites and Hampton Inn), Southeast of Palomar Airport Road and Yarrow, Carlsbad, California, Project No 600550-001, dated August 6, 2004 , 2004b, Geotechmcal Response to City of Carlsbad Comments Regarding Slope Stability and Proposed Improvements, CUP 04-22/PUD 04-15, Proposed Carlsbad Hotel Project, (Homewood Suites and Hampton Inn), Southeast of Palomar Airport Road and Yarrow, Carlsbad, California, Project No 600550- 001, October 25, 2004 B , 2005, Soil Parameters for Geognd Reinforced Walls, Tarsadia Hotels/Hampton Inn, Palomar Road and Yarrow, Carlsbad, California, furnished toTGRCo August 12,2005 , 2005, Review of Keystone Wall Retaining Wall Plans, Proposed Homewood Suites Project, Southeast of Palomar Airport Road and Yarrow, Carlsbad, California, Project No 600550-003, November 2, 2005 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 a San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858 569 69140 Fax 858.292.0771 s wwwleightonconsulting com V 600550-004 In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the set of the retaining wall plans recently provided (EDC, 2005), dated December 1 2, 2005 Our review was performed to identify potential conflicts with the intent of the geotechmcal documents referenced above Based on our review, the subject plans are considered acceptable from a geotechmcal point of view, provided the following comments are addressed in the final plans for construction Specifications (Sheet 1) - Field Quality Control, Section 3 08 Please note foundation observation and soils testing does not technically fall into the category of "Special Inspection" In Item "C", please change "Foundation Inspection" to "Foundation Observation" And add "Wall foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechmcal consultant and approved in writing prior to wall construction " Specifications (Sheet 1) - Construction Notes, and Wall Cross Sections (Sheet 4) Please add notation stating that the minimum horizontal distance between the bottom of the wall foundation and the daylight to the slope face should be 10 feet Specifications (Sheet 1) - References, Section 1 03 Our soil report should be referenced (Leighton, 2004a) Retaining Wall Plan (Sheet 2) - The pool and other subsurface elements, which may conflict with the reinforcement (geognd) should be identified and details presented in the drawings If you have any questions regarding our letter, please contact this office We appreciate this opportunity to be of service ?^° - S/fJ^ Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC Distribution William D Olson, RCE 45283 Senior Project Engineer (2) Addressee (2) Engineering Design Group, Attention Ms Erin Rist (2) P&D Consultants, Inc , Attention Ms Erin Sweeney -2- Leighton Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON CROUP COMPANY August 6,2004 Project No 600550-001 To 4th Tarsadia Hotels 620 Newport Center Drive 14m Floor Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention Mr Rashik Patel Subject Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Carlsbad Hotel Project, (Homewood Suites and Hampton Inn), Southeast of Palomar Airport Road and Yarrow, Carlsbad, California In accordance with your request and authorization, we have conducted geotechnical investigation for the Carlsbad Hotel Project, consisting of the proposed Homewood Suites and Hampton Inn, to be located in southeast of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and Yarrow, Carlsbad, California This report presents the results of our subsurface investigation and geotechnical evaluation, and provides a summary of our conclusions and recommendations relative to the proposed construction Based on review of the previous geotechnical reports pertinent to the subject site, subsurface geotechnical investigation at the site, laboratory testing of the subsurface materials, and analysis of the findings, it is our opinion that the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided that the conclusions and recommendations summarized in this report are implemented during the design and construction phases If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact this office We appreciate this opportunity to service Respectfully submitted LEIGHTON CONSULTING, William D Olson, RCE 45 Senior Project Engineer Distribution (4) Addressee £ NO 1349 CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST Michael R Stewart, CEG 1349 Vice President/Principal Geologist 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858 292.8030 • Fax 858.292.0771 • www leightonconsulting com I GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CARLSBAD HOTEL PROJECT (HOMEWOOD SUITES AND HAMPTON INN), SOUTHEAST OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND YARROW, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Tarsadia Hotels 620 Newport Center Drive, 14th Floor Newport Beach, California 92660 Project No. 600550-001 August 6, 2004 Leighton Consulting, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY 600550-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1,0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 3 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 4 2.1 PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATION 4 2.2 CURRENT SITE INVESTIGATION 4 2.3 LABORATORY TESTING 4 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 5 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 5 3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY 5 3.2.1 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Ts) 5 3.2.2 Artificial Fill Soils (Map Symbol -Af) 6 3.3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE 6 3.4 LANDSUDING 7 3.5 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER 7 3.6 FAULTING 7 3.6.1 CBC Seismic Design Criteria , 7 3.7 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS 8 3.7.1 Shallow Ground Rupture 8 3.7.2 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement 8 3.8 EXPANSION POTENTIAL 8 3.9 SOIL CORROSMTY 9 3.10 SLOPE STABILITY 9 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 10 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 11 5.1 EARTHWORK 11 51.1 Site Preparation 11 5.1 2 Removal and Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils 11 5.1.3 Excavations and Oversize Material 12 5.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction 12 5.1.5 Expansive Soils and Selective Grading 12 5.2 CUT/FILL TRANSITION CONDITIONS 13 5 3 FOUNDATION'AND SLAB CONSIDERATIONS 13 5.3.1 Shallow Spread Footings Foundations 14 5.3.2 Floor Slabs 14 5.3.3 Post-Tensioned Foundation System 15 5.3.4 Mat Foundation 15 535 Foundation Setback 16 Leighton 600550-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 5.3.6 Settlement , 16 5.3.7 Slab Subgrade Moisture Conditioning 16 5.4 GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS 17 5.5 CONTROL OF GROUND WATER AND SURFACE WATER 17 5.6 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 18 5.7 SWIMMING POOL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 19 5.7.1 Swimming Pool 19 5.7.2 Pool Deck 20 5.8 LANDSCAPING AND POST-CONSTRUCTION 21 5.9 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AND RETAINING WALL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 22 5.10 CONCRETE FLATWORK 23 5.11 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND PLAN REVIEW 23 6.0 LIMITATIONS 24 TABLES TABLE 1 - POST TENSIONED FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS - PAGE 15 TABLE 2 - PRESOAKING RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON FINISH GRADE SOIL EXPANSION POTENTIAL - PAGE 17 TABLE 3 - PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT SECTIONS - PAGE 18 TABLE 4 - LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES - PAGE 22 FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP - PAGE 2 FIGURE 2 - GEOTECHNICAL MAP - REAR OF TEXT APPENDICES APPENDIX A - REFERENCES APPENDIX B - BORING LOGS APPENDIX C - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX D - SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS APPENDIX E - GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Leighton NORTH BASE MAP 2003 Digital Edition Thomas Guide, San Diego County NOT TO SCALE Proposed Carlsbad Hotel Project Homewood Suites and Hampton Inn Southeast of Palomar Airport Road and Yarrow Drive Carlsbad, California SITE LOCATION MAP Project No 600550-001 Date August 2004 Figure No 1 Leightonand Associates, Inc GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADINGSPECIFICATIONS Page 3 of 6 2 2 Processing Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavatedas specified in the following section Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction 2 3 Overexcavation In addition to removal:, and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechmcal report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading 2 4 Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5 I (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5 1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill 2 5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches 30 Fill Material 3 1 General Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material 3 2 Oversize Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction 303010M Leightonand Associates, Inc GENERAL EARTIIWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 4 of 6 3 3 Import. If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1 The potential import source shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed 4 0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4 1 Fill Layers. Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3 0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout 42 Fill Moisture Conditioning Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557-91) 4 3 Compaction of Fill After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557-91) Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity 4 4 Compaction of Fill Slopes In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolhng of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method Dl 557-91 4 5 Compaction Testing Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches) 30301094 Leighton and Assoc la tes, Inc , GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPEUIICATIONS 'Page 5 of 6 4 6 Frequency of Compaction Testing- Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Gcotcchnical Consultant The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met 47 Compaction Test Locations The Geotechmcal Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechmcal Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided 5 0 Subdram Installation Subdram systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechmcal report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details The Geotechmcal Consultant may recommend additional subdrams and/or changes in subdram extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading All subdrams shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and pnoi to burial Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor tor these surveys 60 Excavation Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechmcal Consultant during grading Remedial removal depths shown on geotechmcal plans are estimates only The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechmcal Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechmcal Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechmcal Consultant 30301094 Leighton and Associates, Inc GENERAL EAK1HWORK AND GRADINGSPECIFICATIONS 'Page 6 of 6 70 Trench Backfills 7 1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations 7 2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30) The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum ot 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface 7 3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechmcal Consultant 7 4 The Geotechmcal Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill 7 5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechmcal Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method 30301094 •FILL SLOPE PROJECTED PLANE 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND EXISTING GROUND SURFACE BENCH HEIGHT (4' TYPICAL) REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL 2' MIN—J KEY DEPTH LOWEST BENCH (KEY) FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE BENCH) LBENCH HEIGHT (4' TYPICAL) REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE -CUT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT TO ASSURE ADEQUATE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS EXISTING GROUND SURFACE OVERBUILD AND TRIM BACK PROJECTED PLANE 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND UT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL BENCH HEIGHT (4' TYPICAL) FOR SUBDRAINS SEE STANDARD DETAIL C 2' MIN—1 KEY DEPTH LOWEST BENCH (KEY) BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPE'S ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5 1 MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET KEYING AND BENCHING GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS A LEICHTON AND ASSOCIATES FINISH GRADE SLOPE FACE K<-x-x^:-x-2>>>>>>>>>>>x+ZZZZii:^^ * OVERSIZE ROCK IS LARGER THAN 8 INCHES IN LARGEST DIMENSION * EXCAVATE A TRENCH IN THE COMPACTED FILL DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY ALL THE ROCK * BACKFILL WITH GRANULAR SOIL JETTED OR FLOODED IN PLACE TO FILL ALL THE VOIDS * DO NOT BURY ROCK WITHIN 10 FEET OF FINISH GRADE * WINDROW OF BURIED ROCK SHALL BE PARALLEL TO THE FINISHED SLOPE GRANULAR MATERIAL TO BE' DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY FLOODING OR JETTING DETAIL — — - - ^-JETTED OR FLOODED - - GRANULAR MATERIAL TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS B LCICHTON AND ASSOCIATES EXISTING GROUND SURFACE v\Xi'M^tv>-;-»x-----»>:•.•.-.*0-.-.-.-.J5v---.---.-.-.-.-.-.---. BENCHING REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (9FT"VFT) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC // SUBDRAIN TRENCH SEE DETAIL BELOW FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI HON OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)' 4" MIN BEDDING^ COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL BE MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE SEE STANDARD DETAIL D FOR PIPE SPECIFICATIONS SUBDRAIN DETAIL DESIGN FINISH GRADE FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI HON OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (9FTA3/FT) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC NONPERFORATED 6"0 MIN PERFORATED 6" 0MIN PIPE DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET CANYON SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS C LEICHTON AND ASSOCIATES 600550-001 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed Homewood Suites and Hampton Inn located on the southeast corner of the Palomar Airport Road and Yarrow intersection in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The purpose of our investigation was to identify and evaluate the existing significant geotechnical conditions present at the site and to provide conclusions and geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed development Our scope of services included. • A review of geotechnical and geologic literature, relative to the site (Appendix A) • Reconnaissance geologic mapping of site conditions • A subsurface exploration program consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of seven exploratory borings 8 to 20 feet in depth All of the borings were sampled and logged by a geologist from our firm Logs of these borings, along with the logs of borings completed during prior investigations of the site are included in Appendix B • Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained during drilling Laboratory test results are included in Appendix C • Preparation of a Geotechnical Map (Figure 1) showing the approximate locations of all geotechnical borings, and distribution of the geologic units on-site The site plan provided by Joseph Wong Design Associates (JWDA, 2004) dated July 15, 2004, was utilized as a base map and illustrates the preliminary project design • Compilation and analysis of the geotechnical data obtained from the field investigation and laboratory testing This includes slope stability analysis, included in Appendix D " Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, geotechnical recommendations for structure design, site grading, and general construction considerations General Earthwork Specifications for Rough Grading are provided as Appendix E -1- Leighton 600550-001 1.2 gite Location and Description The site is located on the southeast corner of the Palomar Airport Road and Yarrow intersection in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1) The L-shaped parcel consists of a generally flat, previously mass-graded pad. It is bounded by Palomar Airport Road to the north, Yarrow Street to the west, an existing commercial business park to the east and south. The property partially encircles an existing bank building and associated parking lot located immediately northwest of the site. A graded slope, up to approximately 40 feet in height, descends from the property to the south and east. 1-3 Proposed Development Based on our review of the site plan and architectural schematic provided by (JWDA, 2004), we understand site development will include the construction of two 3-story structures, consisting of an I-shaped Hampton Inn and L-shaped Homewood Suites (Figure 2) A swimming pool and spa is proposed at the southeast corner of the lot Although finished grade elevations are not provided, minor cuts and fills are expected to be necessary to reach the finished grades -3- Leighton 600550-001 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2.1 Previous Site Investigation A previous subsurface investigation of the property was performed on March 9, 1998 by Robert Prater and Associates, Inc. (RPA, 1998). It included the excavation, logging, and sampling of 10 small-diameter borings to a maximum depth of 165 feet below the existing ground surface The approximate boring locations are labeled PB-1 through PB- 10 on the Geotechmcal Map (Figure 2), and logs of those borings are included in Appendix B 2.2 Current Site Investigation Subsurface exploration was performed on July 22, 2004, and consisted of the excavation of seven small diameter borings (B-l through B-6 and B-4A) to approximate depths of 8 to 20 feet below the existing ground surface The purpose of these excavations was to evaluate the physical characteristics and engineering properties of the onsite soils pertinent to the proposed development The excavations allowed evaluation of the soils to be encountered at foundation elevations, the general nature of the onsite soils for use as compacted fills, evaluation and measurement of any previously placed fill soils, and provided representative samples for laboratory testing The exploratory excavations were logged by a geologist from our firm Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed (drive cylinder) samples were obtained at frequent intervals for laboratory testing The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2 After logging and sampling, the excavations were backfilled 2-3 Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples to evaluate the expansion potential, shear strength, and geochenucal characteristics of the subsurface soils A brief discussion of the laboratory tests performed and a summary of the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C -4- Leighton 600550-001 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 3.1 Regional Geology The subject site is located m the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Province, a geornorphic province with a long and active geologic history throughout Southern California. Throughout the last 54 million years, the area known as the "San Diego Embayment" has undergone several episodes of marine inundation and subsequent marine regression, resulting in the deposition of a thick sequence of marine and nonmarme sedimentary rocks on the basement rock of the Southern California batholith. Gradual emergence of the region from the sea occurred in Pleistocene time, and numerous wave-cut platforms, most of which were covered by relatively thin marine and nonmanne terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded from the land. Accelerated fluvial erosion during periods of heavy rainfall, coupled with the lowering of the base sea level during Quaternary time, resulted in the rolling hills, mesas, and deeply incised canyons which characterize the landforms we see m the general site area today 3.2 Site-Specific Geology Based on our subsurface exploration and review of pertinent geologic literature and maps, the bedrock unit underlying the site consists of the Tertiary Santiago Formation Artificial Fill was also encountered on the site A brief description of the geologic units encountered on the site is presented below Approximate geologic contacts between the units are mapped on Figure 2 3.2.1 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Ts) The bedrock unit underlying the entire site is the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation In general, the unit consists of massive to thickly-bedded sandstone with interbedded clayey siltstone and claystone. The sandstone consists primarily of light gray, light brown, and light yellow-brown, moist, dense, poorly-graded to clayey, fine- to occasionally medium-grained sandstone The poorly-graded to slightly silty sandstone is generally friable, slightly micaceous and massive The siltstone consisted of light gray to light yellow-brown, moist, stiff, clayey siltstones that were generally indistinctly bedded and contained calcium carbonate, manganese-oxide and non-oxide staining -5- Leighton 600550-001 3.2.2 Artificial Fill Soils (Map Symbol - Af) The subject site is underlain by artificial fill soils, encountered along the south and east portions of the subject lot, including the existing slopes descending from the building pad area These fill soils were apparently placed under the observation and testing of others (Robert Prater and Associates, 1980) These soils primarily consisted of light gray-brown to yellow-brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty sands and clayey sands and stiff to very stiff sandy clays except for the near- surface fill soils (0 to 5 feet) which were found to be loose to medium dense Based on our results of our recent field investigation laboratory testing, and prior experience in this area (Leighton, 1999a and 1999b) these engineered fills are expected to be suitable for support of the proposed improvements except for the near-surface fill as described above, which will require removal and recompaction In addition, the existing engineered fills and soils derived from cuts within this unit have the potential to possess moderate to high expansion potential Expansive soils, if encountered, should be mitigated in accordance with Section 5 1 5 33 Geologic Structure Based on our review of the geologic mapping completed during the nearby rough grading operations, literature review, and our subsurface investigation, the Santiago Formation bedrock includes mterbedded clays, silts, and fine sands which dip gently (less than 10 degrees) west Local variation in bedding attitudes can be expected, resulting from cross lamination within the subhonzontally dipping Santiago Formation Based on our previous field explorations and a review of published geologic maps of the site and vicinity, no active faults have been mapped or were encountered on or immediately adjacent to the site The significance of faulting is discussed in the following section on faulting and seismicily -6- Leighton 600550-001 3.4 Landslidlna No ancient landslides have been mapped on the site and no evidence of landsliding was observed during our site investigation. 3.5 Surface and Ground Water Surface water may also dram as sheet flow in the higher portions of the site during rainy periods and accumulate in lower portions of the site. Ground water was not observed during our investigation, however ground water levels will fluctuate during periods of high precipitation Ground water is not expected to impact the proposed development if the recommendations regarding drainage outlined in this report are implemented 3.6 Faulting Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults By definition of the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years) The state geologist has defined a potentially active fault as any fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000 years) This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Pnolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and as subsequently revised in 1997 The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development and certain habitable structures do not occur across the traces of active faults The subject site is not included within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Pnolo Act (Hart, 1997) Our review of available geologic literature (Appendix A) indicates that there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site The nearest known active regional fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 6 3 miles west of the site 3.6.1 CBC Seismic Design Criteria The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the California Building Code and state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California The site is located within Seismic Zone 4 as designated by the California Building Code (CBSC01, Figure 16A-2) The soil profile designation for the site is considered to be type Su per the 2001 CBC, Table 16A-J Near source factors Na and Nv for the site equal to 1 0 and 1 0, -7- Leighton 600550-001 respectively, are appropriate based on the seismic setting and criteria of Tables 16A-S and 16A-T of the 2001 CBC. 3.7 Secondary Seismic Hazards Secondary effects that can be associated with severe ground shaking following a relatively large earthquake include shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement, seismic slope instability seiches and tsunamis These secondary effects of seismic shaking are discussed in the following sections. 3.7.1 Shallow Ground Rupture Ground rupture because of active faulting is not likely to occur on site due to the absence of known active faults Cracking due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site 3.7 2 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes Both research and historical data indicate that loose, saturated, granular soils are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settlement Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to liquefy, This effect may be manifested by excessive settlements and sand boils at the ground surface The onsite artificial fill and Santiago Formation are not considered hquefiable due to their physical characteristics, lack of an elevated ground water table, high- density characteristics, and age 3.8 Expansion Potential The majority of the onsite boil is expected to have a low to medium expansion potential (per CBC criteria), however, based on the results of our laboratory test results, some on- site soils may have a very high expansion potential (Appendix B) Expansive soil may be reused as fills provided that it is blended with granular material Special foundation design for expansive soil can mitigate the effects of the expansive soil These recommendations will be discussed in Section 5 1 5 for the proposed development In summary, finish grade soils should be sampled and tested tor expansion potential once grading of the site is complete -8- Leighton 600550-001 3.9 Soil Corrosivlty The test results performed for the subject site and adjacent tracts indicate the onsite soils derived from the Santiago Formation and associated artificial fills possess a negligible to moderate soluble sulfate content and a moderate to high potential for corrosion to buried metals. Laboratory testing of finish grade soils at-grade or in contact with concrete and/or buried metal conduits should be performed once grading of the site is completed. A corrosion engineer should be contacted for design of measures to mitigate corrosion. 3.10 Slope Stability Although the proposed finished pad elevations were not provided for the preparation of tins report, it is our understanding that the finished grades will be similar to the existing grades The stability of the existing slopes was evaluated for the preparation of this report The slope geometry considered was a 40 foot 1 8 1 (horizontal to vertical) fill slope with a surcharge of 750 psf applied at an offset of 20 feet from the top of slope The described configuration was analyzed for gross stability utilizing the data gathered from our subsurface investigation, laboratory testing and professional experience The analysis of the proposed slope configuration was performed using the computer program Gstable 7 Based on our field observations, previous testing of similar materials, and strength testing of a sample collected during our subsurface investigation strength parameters of <j» =30 degrees and c = 350 pound per square foot (psf) were used for Artificial Fills Our analysis indicates that the existing slopes have a calculated static factor of safety of 1 5 or greater, with respect to potential deep rotational failure Summary calculations are presented in Appendix D We recommend that the geotechmcal consultant document and geologically map all excavations during grading The purpose of this mapping is to substantiate the geologic conditions assumed in our analysis Additional investigation and stability analysis may be required if unanticipated or adverse conditions are encountered -9- Leighton 600550-001 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our Geotechnical Investigation of the site, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated during design and construction. • No Active or potentially active faults are known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site « Based on subsurface exploration of the formational materials, artificial fills, and surficial soils present on the site, we anticipate that these materials should be generally nppable with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. • With the exception of the upper 1 to 2 feet of the documented fill soil, the existing documented fill soils, generally appear to be well compacted • Based on laboratory testing and visual classification, test results indicate that the on-site soil possesses a medium to very high potential for expansion Therefore, special foundation design and site grading are recommended to reduce the adverse effects of expansive soils We note that heaving and/or differential movement of exterior flatwork and hardscape, that typically occur over the life of a project, are likely consequences of the presence of expansive soils at shallow depths Accordingly, more than typical maintenance and/or repairs may be anticipated for buildings, slabs, flatwork, curbs, and pavements due to wetting/drying cycles of the highly expansive soils • Laboratory test results indicate the onsite soils have a negligible to moderate potential for sulfate attack on concrete and have a moderate to high potential for attack on concrete and buried uncoated metal conduits A corrosion engineer should be consulted • The existing onsite soils appear to be suitable material for use as compacted fill provided they are relatively free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension Where highly to very highly expansive soils are reused, special design and construction measures will be required " Ground water was not encountered during our investigation, nor is ground water anticipated to be encountered during site excavation and construction • Transitions from cut to fill materials beneath the proposed Homewood Suites building will require undercutting formation materials to provide a blanket of fill beneath the structure foundations We recommend undercutting the building pad to an elevation of 5 feet below the finish pad grades for the proposed Homewood Suites building, as described in the following Section 5 2 -10- Leighton 600550-001 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, removals of potentially compressible soil, excavation of cut material to remediate transitions, fill placement, and trench excavation and backfill We recommend that earthwork on site be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, the City of Carlsbad grading requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough-Grading (GEGS) included in Appendix E In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those included as part of Appendix E. 5.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to the grading of areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures, the areas should be cleared of surface obstructions, any existing debris, potentially compressible material (such as undocumented fill soils, topsoil, colluvium, and weathered formational materials) and stripped of vegetation Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of offsite Holes results from the removal of buried obstructions which extend below finished site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material Areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 to 12 inches, brought to at least 3 percent above the optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on American Standard of Testing and Materials [ASTM] Test Method D1557) 5 1.2 Removal and Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils Portions of the site are underlain by potentially compressible soils that may settle under the surcharge of fill and/or foundation loads These materials include unsuitable surficial fill soils, and weathered formational material Compressible materials not removed by the planned grading should be excavated to competent material, moisture conditioned or dried back (as needed) to obtain at least a 3 percent above the optimum moisture content, and then recompacted prior to additional fill placement or construction The actual depth and extent of the required removals should be determined during grading operations by the geotechmcal consultant -11- Leighton 600550-001 5.1.3 Excavations and Oversize MateriaJ Excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. We do not anticipate the generation of significant quantities of oversize material Oversize material (greater than 8 inches maximum dimension) if encountered, should be handled in accordance with the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading presented in Appendix E 5.1.4 RH Placement and Compaction The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6-mches in maximum dimension All fill soils should be brought to at least 3 percent above- optimum moisture conditions and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM Test Method D1557 The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used In general, fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practices, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading presented in Appendix E 5.1,5 Expansive Soils and Selective Grading Since the on-site bedrock and artificial fill soil includes material tested to be of "high" expansion potential (Expansion Index > 90), appropriate design and construction measures are required Options to mitigate for the presence of highly expansive soils are provided below -12- Leighton 600550-001 Option 1; Selective Grgding and Reuse as Compacted Fill Highly expansive soils should be buried in fills below 5 feet of the finish pad grade. All fills placed within the upper 5 feet of finish grade in building pads should possess an expansion index less than 70 Based on our review of the subsurface borings excavated at the site, some of the near surface soils consist of granular material with very low to moderately expansion potential, Selective grading would involve the stockpiling and mixing of granular materials, with the surficial expansive soils, creating a surficial soils with an expansion index less than 70 throughout the upper 5 feet of finished grade. In this case, foundations may be designed as shallow spread footings, as described in Section 5.3.1 below. Option 2: Post-Tensioned and .Mat Foundations If the "highly" expansive soils comprise the upper 5 feet of the building pads, specially designed foundations, including post-tensioned slabs or mat foundations may be used. Recommendations for design of post-tensioned or mat foundations are included below, in Sections 533 and 534 5.2 Cut/Fill Transition Conditions A cut/fill transition condition is expected beneath the proposed Homewood Suites building to be located on the western portion of the subject lot In order to reduce the potential for differential settlement in areas of cut/fill transitions, we recommend the entire cut portion of the transition building pad be overexcavated and replaced with properly compacted fill to mitigate the transition The overexcavation of the cut portion of the buildings pad should be a minimum 5 feet below the proposed building finished pad grades All overexcavations should extend across the entire buildable portion of the lot and at least 5 feet beyond the building perimeter 5.3 Foundation and Slab Considerations Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations Foundation design depends on the earthwork activity and success in mitigating for the highly expansive soils previously described Various options are described in Section 5 1 5 above Recommendations for shallow spread footings assume that the soil encountered within 5 feet of pad grade have utilized selective giadmg resulting m soil with an Expansion Index tested to be less than 70 within the upper 5 feet of finished grade In this case, additional expansion testing must be performed as part of the fine grading operations. If highly expansive soils are encountered and selective grading cannot be accomplished, additional foundation design, including post tensioned, mat, or other specialty foundation may be necessary. -13- Leighton 600550-001 5.3.1 Shallow Spread Footings Foundations The proposed structures may be supported by conventional, continuous perimeter, or isolated spread footings. Footings should extend a minimum of 24 inches beneath the lowest adjacent finish grade At these depths, footings founded in properly compacted fill soils may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf The allowable pressures may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces The minimum recommended width of footings is 18 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for square or round footings Footings should be designed in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements and have a minimum reinforcement of four No 5 reinforcing bars (two top and two bottom). 5.3.2 Floor Slabs The slab-on-grade should be at least 5 inches thick and be reinforced with No 3 rebars 18 inches on center or No 4 rebars at 24 inches on center each way (minimum) placed at mid-height in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a minimum of 2 inches of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30) which is in turn underlain by a vapor barrier and inches of clean sand The vapor barrier should be sealed at all penetrations and laps Moisture vapor transmission may be additionally reduced by use of concrete additives Moisture barriers can retard, but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slabs We recommend that the floor covering installer test the moisture vapor flux rate prior to attempting applications of the flooring "Breathable" floor coverings should be considered if the vapor flux rates are high A slip-sheet or equivalent should be utilized above the concrete slab if crack-sensitive floor coverings (such as ceramic tiles, etc) are to be placed directly on the concrete slab All waterproofing measures should be designed by the project architect 'I he potential for slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot \veather to minimize cracking of slabs We recommend that a shpsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if grouted tile, marble tile, or other crack-sensitive floor covering is planned directly on concrete slabs All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations If heavy vehicle -14- Leighton 600550-001 or equipment loading is proposed for the slabs, greater thickness and increased reinforcing may be required 5.3.3 Post-Tensioned Foundation System We recommend that the post-tensioned slabs for highly expansive soils be designed in accordance with the following design parameters presented in Table 1 and the criteria of the 2001 edition of the California Building Code (CBSC, 2001). Post-Tensioned Table 1 Foundation Design Recommendations Design Criteria Edge Moisture Variation, em Differential Swell, ym Differential Settlement Center Lift Edge Lift Center Lift Edge Lift Allowable Bearing Capacity- Expansion Index (CBC 18-2) High to Very High >90 5 5 feet 4 5 feet 4 inches 1 5 inches 3/4 inch 3,000 psf The post-tensioned foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations Slabs should be at least 5 inches thick Continuous footings (ribs or thickened edges) with a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 24 inches below adjacent grade may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf if founded in properly compacted fill soils The perimeter edge should extend at least 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The allowable pressures may be increase by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces 5.3.4 Mat Foundation A soil modulus of 100 pounds per cubic inch is recommended for design of the mat foundation. The mat foundation should be designed by the project structural engineer -15- Leighton 600550-001 5.3.5 Foundation Setback We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural footings and settlement-sensitive structures. This distance is measured from the outside edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of H/2, where H is the slope height (in feet) Please note that the soils within this structural setback area possess poor lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement 5.3.6 Settlement The recommended allowable bearing capacities are based on a maximum total and differentia] settlement of 3/4 inch and 1/2 inch, respectively, with all footings founded m competent artificial fill material Since settlements are a function of footing size and contact bearing pressures, some differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists However, for most cases, differential settlements are considered unlikely to exceed 1/2 inch and should be generally be less than 1/4 inch 5-3.7 Slab Subqrade Moisture Conditioning The slab subgrade soil underlying the post-tensioned or conventional foundation system should be presoaked in accordance with the recommendations presented in Table 2 prior to placement of the moisture barrier and slab concrete The subgrade soil moisture content should be checked by a representative of Leighton and Associates prior to slab construction -16- Leighton 600550-001 Table 2 Presoaking Recommendations Based on Rnish Grade Soil Expansion Potential Expansion Potential (CBC 18-I-B) Very Low to Low Medium to High Presoaking Recommendations Optimum moisture content to a depth of at least 6 inches 3 percent above optimum to a depth of at least 24 inches Presoaking or moisture conditioning may be achieved in a number of ways But based on our professional experience, we have found that minimizing the moisture loss on pads that have been completed (by periodic wetting to keep the upper portion of the pad from drying out) and/or berming the lot and flooding for a short period of time (days to a few weeks) are some of the more efficient ways to meet the presoaking recommendations If flooding is performed, a couple of days to let the upper portion of the pad dry out and form a crust so equipment can be utilized should be anticipated 5.4 Geochemical Considerations Concrete m direct contact with soil or water that contains a high concentration of soluble sulfates can be subject to chemical deterioration commonly known as "sulfate attack " Soluble sulfate results (Appendix C) indicated a negligible soluble sulfate content Refer to CBSC, 2001, Table 19-A-4 for cement requirements Minimum resistivity and pli tests were performed on representative samples of onsite soils (Appendix C) Based on our results, the site soils have a moderate to highly corrosive potential to buried uncoated metal conduits The test results should be provided to the conduit supplier We recommend further review be performed by a corrosion engineer 5.5 Control of Ground Water and Surface Water Subsurface water was not encountered during our recent investigation, however, our experience indicates that shallow ground water/perched ground water conditions can develop in areas where no such ground water conditions existed prior to site development, -17- € Leighton 600550-001 recommend that sections be as nearly square as possible. A mix that provides a 600 psi modulus of rupture should be utilized The actual pavement design should also be in accordance with City of Carlsbad and ACI criteria. All pavement section matenals should conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the Greenbook and American Concrete Institute (ACI) codes and guidelines. Prior to placing the AC or PCC pavement section, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils and all aggregate base should have relative compaction of at least 95 percent (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, we recommend some measure of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated It is recommended that the concrete curb separating the landscaping area from the pavement extend below the aggregate base to help seal the ends of the sections where heavy landscape watering may have access to the aggregate base Concrete swales should be designed in roadway or parking areas subject to concentrated surface runoff 5 7 Swimming Pool Design Considerations 571 Swimming Pool It has been our experience that swimming pools located on expansive or adjacent to cut/fill transition are extremely susceptible to movement The following design considerations will reduce the impact of the differential settlement and expansive soil-related and forces but will not eliminate movement The following items should be taken into consideration in the design and construction of the swimming pool • Heavy-duty pipes and couplings should be used for the pool plumbing system to minimize leaking, which may produce additional local high pressures to the pool shell • Installation of a pressure release valve system beneath the pool bottom should be considered • The pool contractor should provide a sufficient level of inspection and control to assure that approved pool plans and specifications are implemented during construction -19- Leighton 600550-001 • Observation/testing should be performed by a geotechnical consultant during pool excavation to verify that exposed soil conditions are consistent with the design assumptions. • The pool designer should assume highly expansive soils and include adequate reinforcement to minimize the potential of cracks in the pool shell and deckings • The pool shell/wall within 10 feet of the top of the existing slope should be designed to support the water in the pool without soil support (CBSC, 2001) 5.7.2 Pool Deck We recommend that pool decks be a minimum of 5-inches thick, reinforced with No, 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way, and underlain by a layer of granular material (i e Caltrans aggregate base material, decomposed granite, etc) The granular material should be a minimum of 4-mches thick at the edge of the pool and thicken away from the pool with a minimum 2 percent fall at its base away from the pool The deck should have appropriate crack control and expansion joints to reduce the potential for the formation of cracks as the deck responds to the underlying expansive soil, if present In general, the construction joints should be a minimum of 5 feet on center each way and extend to a depth of at least 1/3 of the concrete thickness The joints should not cut the rebar reinforcement Special attention should be given to ensure that the joint between the pool decking and pool coping is properly sealed with a flexible, watertight caulking to prevent water infiltration In addition, we recommend that the pool deck subgrade be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557) The subgrade soil should then be thoroughly moisture conditioned to at least 3 percent above the optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches prior to placement of the granular material and concrete We recommend that presaturation of subgrade soil be verified by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of granular material The granular material should then be placed on the moisture-conditioned subgrade and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557) Special attention should be given to ensure that the plumbing trenches for the pool are properly backfilled and tested for compaction (i e , 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557) at a moisture content of at least 3 percent above optimum -20- Leighton 600550-001 5.8 Landscaping and Post-Construction Landscaping and post-construction practices exert significant influences on the integrity of structures founded on expansive soil. Improper landscaping and post-construction practices, which are beyond the control of the geotechnical engineer, are frequently the primary cause of distress to these structures Recommendations for proper landscaping and post- construction practices are provided in the following paragraphs within this section. Adhering to these recommendations will help in minimizing distress due to expansive soil, and in ensuring that such effects are limited to cosmetic damages, without compromising the overall integrity of proposed structures. Initial landscaping should be done on all sides adjacent to the foundation of a structure or associated improvements, and adequate measures should be taken to ensure drainage of water away from the foundation or improvement If larger, shade providing trees are desired, such trees should be planted away from structures or improvements (at a minimum distance equal to half the mature height of the tree) in order to prevent penetration of the tree roots beneath the foundation of the structure or improvement Locating planters adjacent to buildings or structures should be avoided as much as possible If planters are utilized in these locations, they should be properly designed so as to prevent fluctuations in the moisture content of the subgrade soil Planting areas at grade should be provided with appropriate positive drainage Wherever possible, exposed soil areas should be above paved grades Planters should not be depressed below adjacent paved grades unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins and drains, are made Adequate drainage gradients, devices, and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent pavement or walks into planting areas Watering should be done in a uniform, systematic manner as equally as possible on all sides of the foundation, to keep the soil moist Irrigation methods should promote uniformity of moisture m planters and beneath adjacent concrete tlatwork Overwatenng and underwatenng of landscape areas must be avoided Areas of soil that do no have ground cover may require more moisture, as they are more susceptible to evaporation Ponding or trapping of water in localized areas adjacent to the foundations can cause differential moisture levels in subsurface soil and, therefore, should not be allowed Trees located within a distance of 20 feet of foundations would require more water in periods of extreme drought, and in some cases, a root injection system may be required to maintain moisture equilibrium During extreme hot and dry periods, close observations should be carried out around foundations to ensure that adequate watering is being undertaken to prevent soil from separating or pulling back from the foundation -21- Leighton 600550-001 5.9 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Wall pesign Considerations The recommended lateral pressures for very low to low expansive soil (expansion index less than 50 per CBC 18-I-B) and level or sloping backfill are presented on Table 4. Table 4 Lateral Earth Pressures Active At-Rest Passive Equivalent Fluid Weight (per) Level Backfill 35 55 350 2 1 Sloping Backfill 60 65 350 Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under load If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for "active" pressure If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher Such walls should be designed for "at-rest" conditions If a structure moves toward the soil, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance The passive earth pressure values assumes sufficient slope setback (see Section 434) For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded above the static ground water and backfilled with import soil of very low to low expansion potential or the onsitc soil is provided in Table 4 The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechmcal engineer Surcharge loading effects from the adjacent structures should be evaluated by the geotechmcal and structural engineer All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately waterproofed The outlet pipe should be sloped to dram to a suitable outlet Typical wall drainage design is illustrated in Appendix B Foi sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0 35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface In combining the total lateral resistance, the passive pressure or the fnctional resistance should be reduced by 50 percent Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. The passive resistance value may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic loads The horizontal distance between foundation elements providing passive resistance should be a minimum of -22- Leighton 600550-001 three times the depth of the elements to allow full development of these passive pressures The total depth of retained earth for design of cantilever walls should be the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding. Wall back-cut excavations should be made in accordance with the applicable OSHA requirements. The backfill soil (having an expansion index less than 50 per CBC 18-1-B) should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557) at moisture content of at least 2 percent above optimum. The walls should be constructed and backfilled as soon as possible after back-cut excavation Prolonged exposure of back-cut slopes may result in some localized slope instability Foundations for retaining walls in competent formational soil or properly compacted fill should be embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade At this depth, an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf may be assumed 5.10 Concrete Flatwork Concrete sidewalks and other flatwork (including construction joints) should be designed by the project civil engineer or architect and should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches For all concrete flatwork, the upper 18 inches of subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned to at least 3 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557 prior to the concrete placement 5.11 Construction Observation and Plan Review Construction observation of all onsite excavations and field density testing of all compacted fill should be performed by a representative of this office so that construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report We recommend that excavations be geologically mapped by the geotechnical consultant during grading for the presence of potentially adverse geologic conditions Project grading and foundation drawings should be reviewed by Leighton and Associates, Inc before excavation to see that the recommendations provided in this report are incorporated in the project plans -23- Leighton 600550-001 6.0 LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site -24- Leighton in it 9zli o * gjlfjj U T5 i 8 ix -o K^ *J^ ® " n ^ Sill' ^^ S E *~ \U^xvio ! I 600550-001 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Aerial Fotobank, 1999, Aerial Foto-Map Book, San Diego County, 1999. Blake, 2000, EQFAULT, Version 3 0. California Building and Safety Commission (CBSC), 2001, California Building Code California Division of Mines and Geology, 1988, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, February 1998 CDMG, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open-File Report, 96-08 Hart, EW, 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Pnolo Earthquake Fault Zoning with Index to Special Study Zones Maps Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42 Jennings, C W , 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanics Eruptions California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No 6, Scale 1 750,000 Joseph Wong Design Associates, Inc. (JWDA), 2004, Homewood Suites/Hampton Inn, Site Plan and Architectural Elevation Drawings, Sheets Al through A5, Scheme A, dated 7/15/04 Leighton and Associates, Inc , 1999a, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Carlsbad Self Storage Facility, Corte del Cedro, Lot 11, Carlsbad, California, dated May 10, 1999. , 1999b, Supplemental Site Exploration and Foundation Recommendations, Proposed Carlsbad Self-Storage Facility, Corte del Cedro, Lot 11, Carlsbad, California -, 2001, As-Graded Report of Rough, Fine and Post Grading Operations, Carlsbad Self Storage Facility, Corte del Cedro, Carlsbad, California, Project No 99072-002, dated July 5, 2001 A-l 600550-001 APPENDIX A (Continued) Robert Prater Associates (RPA), 1980, Earthwork Observation and Testing Services, Birtcher Business Center, City of Carlsbad Tract No 79-14, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 304-1 A, 3605, dated October 9,1980 , 1998, Geotechnical Investigation for Carlsbad Office Building, Yarrow Dnve and Palotnar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California, Prepared for Integrated Capital Enterprises LLC, 564-1,98-103, dated March 31,1998 A-2 Hollow Stem Auger Boring Logs (This Investigation B-l through B-6 and B-4A) and (RPA, 1998-PB-l through PB10) GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY Date Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS Sheet .__1 Project No Type of Rig of 1 Drive Weight Location Drop j_ I1 \ SAMP S SF R Rl B Bl T TL Pa"- 0 — in 1C "i 20— 30 — i- O M S zZS& ~— II o P •( — II !• CT \°,^ P?^ ' Q '. 1 Attitudesi Sample No.B-l C-l G-l R.I SH-1 S-l Blows 1Per FootDry Densitypcf|i 1 C£T CH OL ~MH" MIX:L ow OP CM GC SW Sf SM SC DESCRIPTION Logged By Sampled By Asphaltic concrete Portland cement concrete Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clay, sandy clay, sfllv clay, lean clay Inorganic silt, clayey silt with low plasticity Inorganic silt, diatomaceous tine sandy or silly soils, elastic silt Clayey silt to silty clay Well-graded gravel, gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines Poorly graded gravel, gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines Clayey gravel, gravel-sand-clay mixture Well-graded sand, gravelly sand, little or no fines Poorly graded sand, gravelly sand, little or no fines Silty sand, poorly graded sand-silt mixture Bedrock Ground water encountered at time of drilling Bulk Sample Core Sample Grab Sample Modified California Sampler (3" 0 D , 2 5 I D ) Shelby Tube Sampler (3" 0 D ) Standard Penetration lest SP 1 (Sampler (2" 0 D , 1 4" 1 D )Type of TestsLE TYPES TYPE OF TESTS j* •LIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^^P NO SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SE SAND EQUIVALENT ^Hf JLK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^j^S (BE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV RVALUE ^F LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1 " Daiel_ Project 7-22-04 Tarsadia Hotel Sheet 1 of _i Project No.600550-001 Drilling Co Tn County Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter (T Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Drop 30" Elevation Top of Hole JOO^ Location N W Side of Proposed Homewood Suites Elevation 1Feet300 295 290 285 280 275- 270- SAMP H 0 5 — 10 15— J ~~ 20 — 25— 30 - LETYPE | &o O M S Attitudesd £ V R-l R-2 MO JOou- mS 0. 73 76 Dry Densitypcf111 8 Moisture 1Content, %151 rf«7J>in % |2- ML DESCRIPTION Logged By GJM Sampled By GJM -. TERTIARY SAN F1AGO FORMATION (Tsa) @ Of Clayey SILTSTONE Light yellow-brown, damp to moist, medium stiff @ y Clayey SILTSTONE Light gray, damp to moist hard @ 101 Fine sandy SH.TSTONE Light gray, damp to moist, hard Total Depth= 11 SFeet No ground water encountered at tune of drilling Backfilled with bentorute and native soil on 7/22/04 Type of Testsbl -S TYPE OF TESTS, .tffc S SPLIT SPOON 0 ORAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^SSf R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SE SAND EQUIVALENT ^H^ 8 BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX *V^S T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV RVALUE ^^T LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC, GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Date Project Drilling Co 7-22-04 Tarsadia Hotel Sheet 1 of _J Project No.600550-001 Trl County Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Drop 3JT Elevation Top of Hole 300' Location W Side of Proposed Homewood Suites ff v UJ "300 295 290- 285 280 275- 270- SAMP n 0 — 5— 10— „: jn 15 — tn _O & \- • '•• _' • • LE TYPES •Attitudesi Sample No. 1<ao'-5' TJ-l R-l R-2 R-3 R-4 Blows 1Per Foot19 27 34 74 f St;QC. O 1053 »* a**ii so 148 Ei SM ML DESCRIPTION Logged By GJM Sampled By GJM- ARlTHClALFlLUAf) @0' Silty fine to medium SAND Yellow-brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense @ 5' Silty fine to medium SAND Mottled, brown to yellow-brown, damp to moist, medium dense @ 10' Silty fine to medium SAND Brown to light brown, damp to moist, medium dense @ 1 5' Silty fine SAND Light gray-brown, damp to moist, medium dense ^TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION fTsa) @ 17' Clayey S1LTSTONE Olive-green, damp, hard, oxidation stains @20' Clayey SILTSTONE Olive-green, damp, hard Total Depth = 200 Feet No ground water encountered at tune of drilling Backfilled with bentonite and native soil on 7/22/04 Type of TestsEI.CR TYPE OF TESTS' 4fe S SPLIT SPOON 0 GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^jSSt R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SE SAND EQUIVALENT ^jf B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^H^fi T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV RVALUE ^^T LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 Date Project Drilling Co. _ Hole Diameter 7-22-04 Tarsadia Hotel Tn County 8"Drive Weight Sheet 1 of _1__ Project No. 600550-001 Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger_ 140 pound hammer Drop 30" Elevation Top of Hole 301' Location N E Side of Proposed Homewood Suites Elevation 1Feet ]300 295- 290- 285 280 275- F-*rf o— - 5— - 10— 15 — - 20 — - 25 - in. « 5 9QiQ N § T"— r • -.- • • • • •' / . • •Attitaldes. -Sample No.R-l R2 R3 R-4 BlowsPer Foot33 89/U" 76 88 if T 1073 980 Moisture 1Content, %144 109 faSSla ... SM SM/MI SM DESCRIPTION Logged By GJM Sampled By GJM - - ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af) @ C? Silty fine to medium SAND Light gray-brown, damp to moist, medium dense @ 5' Silty fine to medium SAND Light gray-brown, damp to moist. medium dense TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMA F1ON fTsa) @ 101 Silty fine SANDSTONE to fine sandy SILTSTONE Light gray to light yellow-gray, damp to moist, very dense, slightly finable @ 15' Silty fine SANDSTONE Light gray to light yellow-gray, damp to moist, very dense @ 1 8' Silty fine SANDS 1 ONE Light gray to light yellow-gray, damp to moist, very dense Total Depth =19 5 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with bentonite and native soil on 7/22/04 I •8 I SAMPLE TYPES TYPE OF TESTS' ^jjfc S SPLIT SPOON 0 GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^MP R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SE SAND EQUIVALENT flKT B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^1^9 T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV RVALUE ^^T LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 7-22-04Date Project Drilling Co. _ Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole 300' Tarsadla Hotel Sheet 1 of _J_ Project No.600550-001 Tn County 8"Drive Weight Location Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger 140 pound hammer Drop 30" N E Side of Proposed Hampton Inn Elevation \Feet300 295 290 285 280 275- 270- g 0 - - 5— — 10 — 15— 20— 25— in O fsr a_ • . SAMPLE TYPES S SPLIT SPOON . • • . R RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE i 8 t •'• • : •AttitudesSample No.R-l Blows iPer Foot I42 •to w OO Ji 0 ISo 1 SM DESCRIPTION Logged By GJM Sampled By GJM ARTMCIA , FILL ( Aft @0 Silty tine to medium SAND Yellow-brown to gray-brown, dry to damp, medium dense @ 5' Silty fine to medium SAND Light brown to light gray-brown, damp, medium dense @ 8' Refusal, possible cobble'' Total Depth = 8 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with bentomte and native soil on 7/22/04 Type of TestsTYPE OF TESTS ^jfc 0 GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS _^pSf C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SE SAND EQUIVALENT j&K CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX %BB CR CORROSION RV RVALUE ^T LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4A Date 7-22-04 Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter 8" Elevation Top of Hole 300' Tarsadia Hotel Tn County Drive Weight Location Sheet 1 of 1 Project No 600550-001 Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger 140 pound hammer Drop 30" E Side of Proposed Hampton Inn, Adjacent to B-4 if|l UJ 300 295 290 285- 280 275- 27(1- S 0 — 5— ~ 10— 15 - _ - 20-- - 25— in O J=t» !3o si. s 7"" :' , ,• • • ' .• •' • m t f "• • • •• %Attitudes-x d a 1OT R-l R-2 R-3 Blows 1Per Foot 119 26 27 i-•oi 8t QQ. 21 Q 1004 l|iso 176 I SM CL DESCRIPTION Logged By GJM Sampled By GJM. _.__ . . ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af) @ 0' Silty fine to medium SAND Light brown to yellow-brown, dry to damp, medium dense @ 10' Sdty fine to medium SAND Light yellow-brown to gray-brawn, damp to moist, medium dense @ 15' Silty fine to medium SAND Mottled, brown to light gray-brown, damp, medium dense @ 18' Hne sandy CLAY Mottled, red-brown to gray-brown, damp to moist, very stiff Total Depth =19 5 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling BacKfilled with bentomte and native soil on 7/22/04 pe of Tests>, SAMPLE TYPES TYPE OF TESTS jjj^ S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^ffSr R RINO SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SE SAND EQUIVALENT &t£ B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX <V^Q T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV RVALUE ^F LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Date Project Drilling Co. 7-22-04 Tarsadia Hotel Sheet 1 of _1_ Project No.600550-001 Tri County Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 pound hammer Drop 30" Elevation Top of Hole 299' Location W Side of Proposed Hampton Inn Elevation 1Feet295 290 285 280 275- 270- cP- 0 — 10— — 15 — - - 20- *- - -u\ _L O 2 01 I3 M S • ;. • 1 • ' • -t •: • ;• •. • • • H 1 AttitudesSample No. 1R-l R-2 R-3 R-4 Blows 1Per Foot31 32 33 95/11"Dry Density Ipcf992 1012 2*a*'ij OC=3 119 140 to-m. SM CL MI, DESCRIPTION Logged By GJM Sampled By GJM ARTIFICIAL Ffl^L (Af) @ 0" Silty fine to meoium SAND Yellow-brown, dry to damp, loose to medium dense @ 5' Silly fine to medium SAND Yellow-brown to light gray, damp, medium dense @ 10' Silty fine to medium SAND Yellow-brown to light gray, damp, medium dense 1ERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) @ 16' CLAYSTONE Olive-green, damp, hard, weathered, fractured, oxidation stains @ 18' SILTSTONE Light gray-green, damp, hard, gypsum crystals Total Depth =19 5 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Bacloiiled with bentomte and native soil on 7/22704 Type of TestsSAMPLE TYPES TYPE OF TESTS ^fc 8 SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^Sf R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SE SAND EQUIVALENT fflKl B BULK SAMPLE ON CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^H^Hf T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV RVALUE ^F LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6 Date 7-22-04 Project Drilling Co Hole Diameter 8" Elevation TOD of Hole 297' Tarsadia Hotel Tn County Drive Weight Location Sheet 1 of 1 Project No. 600550-001 Type of Rig Hollow-Stein Auger 140 pound hammer Drop 30" Proposed Pool Area, S of Proposed Hampton Inn Elevation 1Feet295 290- 285 280 275- 270- H - _ E - in : IS _ 'in*V _ 25 - m u •gen §3o SI S •• ;. • ; • •. * * •'' ' t • • ' •.' • , • •, •. •Attitudesd «a R-l R-2 R-3 R-4 BlowsPer Foot41 70 57 39 Dry Densitypcf.- -MoistureContent, %jjjrfg Ja SM DESCRIPTION Logged By GJM Sampled By GJM ARTIFICIAL FILL f Aft @0' Silty fine to medium SAND Yellow-brown to gray- brown, dry to damp, loose to medium dense, slightly triable @ 5' Silty fine to medium SAND Yellow-brown to gray-brown, dry to damp, loose to medium dense @ 10' Silty fine to medium SAND Yellow-brown to light gray, dry to damp, dease @ 15' Silty fine to medium SAND Yellow-brown to light gray, dry to damp, dense @ 18' Silty fine to medium SAND Yellow-brown to light gray, dry lo damp, dense Total Depth =19 5 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with bentorute and native soil on 7/22/04 Type of TestsDS SAMPLE TYPES TYPE OF TESTS ^Jfe S SPUT SPOON 0 GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS .dflV R RING SAMPLE C CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SE SAND EQUIVALENT ^VK B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX *V^fi T TUBE SAMPLE . CR CORROSION RV RVALUE ^^ LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. DRILL RIG CME55 S DEPTH TO GROIWDWATER None E URFACE ELEVATION 301 ' (appfOX ) ORINO DIAMETER 6 Inches DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS SANDY CLAY (fill) FILL CLAYEY and SILTY SAND (formational sandstone) Bottom of Boring @ 11-1/2 feet Note The strairfieaUon lines represent the approximate boundary between materiel types and !h« transition may *e gradual SYM- BOL ROBERT PR A TER ASSOCIA TES Consulting Soil Foundation & Geologic Engineers COLOR olive brown gray/ brown CONSIST firm- stiff dense- very dense SOIL TYPE CL SC/ SM DEPTH <FEET) •— *1 - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - - 10 - - 11 - - 12 - - LOGGED BY JB | DATE DRILLED 3/9/98 § s x X PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT)96 50 || o 14 SHEARSTRENGTHBVTORVANE(KSF)DRY UNITWEIGHT(PCF)EXPLORATORY BORING LOG | CARLSBAD OFFICE BUILDINGS Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO 564-1 DATE March 1998 BORING NO 1 DRILL RIG CME55 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None SURFACE ELEVATION 3Q2' (appFOX.) BORING DIAMETER Q Inches DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS CLAYEY and SILTY SAND (formatlonal sandstone) Scattered lenses of sandy clay Bottom of Boring @ 1 0-1/2 feet Note The stratification lines represent teia approximate boundary between material type* and the transition may be gradual SYM- BOL ROBERT PRA TER ASSOCIA TES Consulting Soil Foundation & Geologic Engineers COLOR gray/ brown CONSIST dense- very dense SOIL TYPE SCV SM DEPTH (FEET) - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - _ 4 _ - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - - 10 - - 11 - - LOGGED BY JB DATE DRILLED 3/9/98 SAMPLERX X PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT)76/ 11" 62 B!Ej SHEARSTRENGTHBYTORVANE(KSF)DRY UNITWEIGHT(PCF)EXPLORATORY BORING LOG CARLSBAD OFFICE BUILDINGS Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO 564-1 DATE March 1998 BORING NO 2 DRILL RIG CME55 SURFACE ELEVATION 301'(apprOX) DEPTH TO GROUNOWATER None BORING DIAMETER 6 IncheS DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS CLAYEY SAND (fill) | CLAYEY SAND (formational sandstone) Scattered lenses of silty sand Bottom of Boring @ 10 feet Note The slraliricallon lines represent the approximate boundary between material types and the transition may be gradual SYM- BOL COLOR grayish brown gray/ brown CONSIST medium dense medium dense- dense SOIL TYPE SC SC DEPTH (FEET) - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - A - - 5 - - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - - in - LOGGED BY JB DATE DRILLED 3/9/98 £ 1 HMIil piIt 24 51 «2E!no 17 15 s|jl u>>oo iiis o* EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES CARLSBAD OFFICE BUILDINGS Consulting Soil Foundation, & Gaologic Engineers CSflSbsd, CctllfOmO PROJECT NO 564-1 DATE March 1998 BORING NO 3 DRILL RIG CME55 SURFACE ELEVATION 298' (appfOX.) DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS CLAYEY SAND (fill) HLL1 CLAYEY SAND (formational sandstone) Scattered lenses of sandy clay and silty sand Bottom of Boring @ 1 0 feet Note The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between me'erlal types and the transition may be gradual SYM- BOL COLOR brown gray/ brown gray CONSIST medium dense dense SOIL TYPE SC SC DEPTH (FEET) - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - LOGGED BY JB DATE DRILLED 3/9/98 i E X iifi! 53 39 WATERCONTENT<%)SHEARSTRENGTHBYTORVANE<KSF)III EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES Consulting Soil Foundation & Geologic Engineers CARLSBAD OFFICE BUILDINGS Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO 564-1 DATE March 1998 BORING NO 4 DRILL RIO CME 55 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None SURFACE ELEVATION 300* (appfOX.) BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS CLAYEY SAND (fill) CLAYEY SAND (formational sandstone) Scattered lenses of sandy clay and silty sand Bottom of Bonng @ 15 feet Not« Th« stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between material types and the transition may be gradual SYM- BOL ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES Consulting Soil Foundation i Geologic Engineers COLOR brown gray/ brown CONSIST medium dense dense SOIL TYPE SC SC DEPTH (FEET) - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - - 10 - - 11 - - 12 - - 13 - - 14 - _ _ - - LOGGED BY JB ] DATE DRILLED 3/9/98 I S _L X PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT)75 75 WATERCONTENT(%)SHEARSTRENGTHBY TORVANE(KSF)DRY UNITWEIGHT(PCF)EXPLORATORY BORING LOG CARLSBAD OFFICE BUILDINGS Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO 564-1 DATE March 1998 BORING NO 5 DRILL RIO CME 55 S DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None B URFACE ELEVATION 299' (appfOX ) ORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS CLAYEY SAND (fill) FILL * CLAYEY SAND (formational sandstone) Scattered lenses of silty sand Bottom of Boring @ 1 0 feet Note The stratification Imej represent the approximate boundary between material types and tho transition may be gradual SYM- BOL COLOR brown gray/ brown CONSIST medium dense dense SOIL TYPE SC SC DEPTH (FEET) - 1 - - 2 J - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - _ - LOGGED BY JB DATE DRILLED 3/9/98 I )//\PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWS/FT)40 47 WATERCONTENT(%315 SHEARSTRENGTHBY TORVANEJKSF)DRY UNITWEIGHT(PCF)EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ROBERT PRA TER ASSOCIATES Consulting Soil Foundation 4 Geologic Engineer* CARLSBAD OFFICE BUILDINGS Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO 564-1 DATE March 1998 BORING NO 6 DRILL RIG CME55 S DEPTH TO OROUNDWATER None E URFACE ELEVATION 298' (appTOX.) WRING DIAMETER 6 Inches DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS CLAYEY SAND (fill) Scattered lenses of sandy clay and silty sand I FILL1 SANDY-SILTY CLAY (formatlonal mudstone) Scattered gypsum seams Bottom of Boring @ 16-1/2 feet Note The stratification line'; represent Ine approximate boundary between material types and the transition may be gradual ROBERT PRA TER ASSOCIA TES Consulting Soil Foundation t Geologic Engineers SYM- BOL COLOR brown olive CONSIST medium dense hard SOIL TYPE SC CL DEPTH (FEET) _ - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - - 10 - - 11 - - 12 - - 13 - - 14 - 15 - 16 - - 17 - - LOGGED BY JB DATE DRILLED 3/Q/98 I y PENETRATIONRESISTANCE< BLOWS/FT 127 70 30 32 WATERCONTEKTflt)14 12 SHEARSTRENGTHBY TORVANE(KSF)DRY UNITWEIGHT(PCF>EXPLORATORY BORING LOG CARLSBAD OFFICE BUILDINGS Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO 564-1 DATE March 1998 BORING NO 7 WILL RIO CME55 SURFACE ELEVATION 299' (approx) OEPTHTOGROUNOWATER None BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS CLAYEY SAND (fill) FILL SANDY-SILTY CLAY (formational mudstone) Bottom of Boring @ 15 feet Note The stratification lines represent lh« approximate boundary between materiel types and the transition may b« gradual ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES Consulting Soil Foundation t Geologic Engiratr$ SYM- BOL COLOR brown grayish brown olive CONSIST medium dense hard SOIL TYPE SC CL DEPTH (FEET) I ! I - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - ~ 9 - - 10 - - 11 - - 12 - - 13 - - 14 - -1 C „ - LOGGED BY JB DATE DRILLED 3/9/98 I SAMPLERX PENETRATIONRESISTANCE(BLOWSflT)19 22 30 WATERCONTENT^)19 17 l|ORYUNrrWEIGHT(PCF)EXPLORATORY BORING LOG CARLSBAD OFFICE BUILDINGS Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO 564-1 DATE March 1998 BORING NO 8 DRILL RIG CME55 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None SURFACE ELEVATION 299' (appfOX.) BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS CLAYEY SAND (fill) Bottom of Boring @ 1 1-1/2 feet Note The sIraMicalion lines represent the approximate boundary between material types and Ihe transition may be gradual SYM- BOL ROBERT PRA TER ASSOCIA TES Consulting Soil Foundation, & Geologic Engineers COLOR grayish brown CONSIST loose- medium dense SOIL TYPE sc DEPTH (FEET) — •] — - 2 ~ - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - - 10 - - 11 - - 12 - - LOGGED BY JB DATE DRILLED 3/9/98 ! s X PENETRATIONRESJSTANCE(BLOWS/FT)8 41 26 WATERCONTENT(%)16 SHEARSTRENGTHBY TORVANE(KSF)Hi EXPLORATORY BORING LOG CARLSBAD OFFICE BUILDINGS Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO 564-1 DATE March 1998 BORING NO 9 DRILL RIG CME55 SURFACE ELEVATION 30V (appfOX.) DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER None BORING DIAMETER 6 (HCheS DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS CLAYEY SAND (fill) CLAYEY and SILTY SAND (formational sandstone) Bottom of Boring @ 10 feet Nolc Tne stratification line: represent Ihe approximate boundary b»tw«9n material types and the transition may 6e gradual SYM- BOL ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES Consulting Soil, Foundation, t Geologic Engineers COLOR grayish brown gray CONSIST medium dense dense- very dense SOIL TYPE SC SC/ SM DEPTH (FEET) - - 1 - - 2 -i - 3 - _ 4 ~ - 5 - - 6 - — — - 7 - - 8 - - 9 - - m - - LOGGED BY JB DATE DRILLED 3/9/98 |i x««**•• X ps i»« 33 67 JL 0)>-m t,^ |F EXPLORATORY BORING LOG CARLSBAD OFFICE BUILDINGS Carlsbad, California PROJECT MO 564-1 DATE March 1998 BORING NO 10 PRIMARY DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL SECONDARY DIVISIONS W u_ Q UJ Z o UJ o w LU M 8 LU GRAVELS MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE FRACTION IS LARGER THAN NO 4 SIEVE SANDS MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE FRACTION IS SMALLER THAN NO 4 SIEVE CLEAN GRAVELS (LESS THAN 5% FINES) GW W«il graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, Mils or no rme» GP Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand m«lur«J, little of no flnei GRAVEL WITH FINES GM Silly gravels gravel tand-illt mixtures non-pl«»tle fines GC Clayey gravels grav«l-eand-day mixtures, non plastic finei CLEAN SANDS (LESS THAN 5% FINES) SW Weil graded land gravelly sands, liille or no fine* SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands lillla or no fines SANDS WITH FINES SM Silly sands send silt mixtures non-plastic Tines sc Clayey fends, sand-day mixtures plastic fines O ,7 OT 3 8 1I !uj a;z ou. 2 il SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS LESS THAN 50% ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock Hour silly or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity CL Inorganic clays of tow to medium plasticity gravelly days sandy days silty days, lean clays tn w OL Organic silts and organic sflty clays of low plasticity ^ M S 2 SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS GREATER THAN 50% MH Inorganic sills micaceous or diatomacaous fine sandy or jilty soils elastic silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity fat days OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity organic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils 200 DEFINITION OF TERMS U S STANDARD SERIES SIEVE 40 10 CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 3/4" 3" 12" SILTS AND CLAYS SAND FINE MEDIUM COARSE GRAVEL FINE COARSE COBBLES BOULDERS GRAIN SIZES SANDS, GRAVELS AND NON-PLASTIC SILTS VERY LOOSF LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE BLOWS/FOOT' 0 4 4-10 10-30 30-50 OVER 50 CLAYS AND PLASTIC SILTS VERY SOFT SOFT FIRM STIFF VERY STIFF HARD STRENGTH" 0- 1/4 1/4 1/2 1/2 1 1 -2 2-4 OVfcR 4 BLOWS/FOOT' 0-2 2 4 4 8 8-16 16-32 OVER 32 RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY Numbor ol blows of MO pound hammsr (ailing 30 indies lo dnvo a 2 inch O D (1 3/B inch I 0 ) split spoon (ASTM O-1586) Unconh'nad compressive strength in lons/sq ft as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the standard penei/alion lesl (ASTM D 1566) pocket penetrometer lorvane or visual observation ROBERT PRA TER A SSOCIA TES Consulting San, Foundation i Geologic KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM 0-2467) CARLSBAD OFFICE BUILDINGS Carlsbad. California PROJECT NO 564-1 DATE March 1998 FIGURE A-1 600550-001 APPENDIX C Summary of Laboratory Test Results from this Investigation Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829) The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U B C Standard No. 18-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached The results of these tests are presented in the table below Sample Location B-l @ 0-5 Feet B-2 @ 0-5 Feet Expansion Index 107 52 pH and Resistivity (California Test No 643) Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with California Test Method 532 The results are presented in the table below Sample Location B-2 @ 0-5 Feet PH 770 Minimum Resistivity 1,031 Soluble Sulfate (California Test No 417) The soluble sulfate contents contained within selected samples of soil were detennmed by California Test Method 417 The test results are presented in the table below Sample Location B-l @ 0-5 Feet B-2 @ 0-5 Feet % Soluble Sulfates 005 0075 C-l 600550-001 APPENDIX C (Continued) Chloride Content- Chloride content was tested in accordance with Caltrans Test Method CT422. The results are presented below. Sample Location B-2 @ 0-5 Feet Chloride Content (ppm) 900 *per City of San Diego Program Guidelines for Design Consultant, 1992 Direct Shear Tests. Direct shear tests were performed on selected remolded and/or undisturbed samples which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing After transfer of the sample to the shear box, and reloading the sample, pore pressures set up in the sample due to the transfer were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force The samples were tested under various normal loads, a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a strain rate of less than 0 001 to 0 5 inches per minute (depending upon the soil type) The test results are presented in the test data Sample Location B-6@18feet Unit Af Sample Description Silry SAND (SM) Peak Shear Friction Angle (degrees) 29 Apparent Cohesionjpjjf) 1,100 Moisture and Density Determination Tests Moisture content and dry density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings The results of these tests are presented in the boring logs Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from "undisturbed" or disturbed samples C-2 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 1000 Boring Location Sample Depth (feet) Sample Description 2000 3000 Vertical Stress (psf) B-6 4000 5000 Deformation Rate 0.05 in/mln 18 Silty SAND (SM) Peak Friction Angle, <|>'peak (deg) Cohesion, c'peak (psf) Average Strength Parameters 29 Relaxed Friction Angle, fuj^d (deg) 30 Cohesion, c'Reiaxed (psf)1100 700 DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY Project No Project Name 600550-001 Tarsadia Hotel CT CD - ' 2L O V) CO SI .w UJ Q. "m 2<p° IIS C —r- LL Oto a jo OTJ D*- oix: -- .: ~'s O O S ao N u> o • O (MN v! h-: mi fl O I £ w tsi So p.\leight~l\600501~l\600550.001\eng\filll.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H Gregory, P.E ** ** Original Version 1 0, January 1996, Current Version 2.002, December 2001 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)*****+***+******************+********+*********************************+********* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static Earthquake, and Applied Force Options Y-Left (ft) 100 00 100 00 140 00 X-Right (ft) 150 00 222 00 400 00 Y-Right (ft) 100 00 140 00 140 00 Soil Type Below End 1 1 1 Analysis Run Date 8/3/2004 Time of Run 9 31AM Run By Username Input Data Filename p FILL1 Output Filename- P FILL1 OUT Unit System English Plotted Output Filename, P FILL1 PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Tarsadia Hotel 40 ft 1 8 1 Fill Slope BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 Top Boundaries 3 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No (ft) 1 0 00 2 150 00 3 222 00 Default Y-Origin = 0 00(ft) TSOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 1 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez Type Unit Wt Unit Wt Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param (psf) No 1 130 0 135 0 350.0 30 0 0 00 00 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62 40 (pcf) Piezometric Surface No 1 Specified by 5 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor -- 0 50 Point X-Water Y-Water No (ft) (ft) 1 0 00 100 00 2 150 00 100 00 3 200 00 120 00 4 220 00 130 00 5 400 00 130 00 BOUNDARY LOAD(S) 1 Load(s) Specified Load X-Left X-Right Intensity Deflection No (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 242 00 350 00 750 0 00 NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified 1000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated 10 Surface(s) Initiate (s) From Each Of 100 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 90 00(ft) and X = 200 00 (ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X =• 210,00(ft) and X = 300 00 (ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0 00 (ft) 5 00 (ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial p \leight~lS600501~l\600550.001\eng\filll OUT Page 2 Failure Surfaces Evaluated They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated - 1000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values FS Max = 10.951 FS Mm = 1.510 FS Ave = 2.364 Standard Deviation = 0 846 Coefficient of Variation = 35.77 % Failure Surface Specified By 23 Coordinate Points Sl-ice No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Point X-Surf Y-Surf NO. (ft) (ft) 1 146 67 100 00 2 151 46 98.59 3 156 35 97 51 4 161 29 96 76 5 166 27 96.36 6 171,27 96 30 7 176 27 96 59 8 181 23 97 21 9 186 13 98 18 10 190 96 99.48 11 195 69 101 11 12 200 29 103 06 13 204 75 105 32 14 209 05 107 88 15 213 16 110 73 16 217.06 113 85 17 220 74 117 23 18 224 18 120 86 19 227 36 124 72 20 230 27 128 79 21 232 89 133 04 22 235 27 137 47 23 236 34 140 00 Circle Center At X = 169 63 , Y = 169 11 , and Radius = 72 82 Factor of Safety *** 1.510 *** Individual data on the 27 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Width Weight Top Hot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load (ft) 3 1 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 3 2 0 1 2 3 2 0 1 2 3 5 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 8 7 3 3 5 3 1 9 9 7 3 2 2 9 7 9 3 (Ibs) 220 315 2695 5137 7394 9422 11179 12633 13762 14548 14987 14112 968 14834 14291 13464 12388 8928 2183 3639 5857 7232 5057 1033 2067 1434 8 3 9 2 9 3 4 9 0 5 0 0 0 6 8 3 3 0 2 8 7 5 8 3 8 2 (Ibs) 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Ibs) 106 1.32 1021 1856 2599 3246 3794 4240 4582 4818 4948 4656 304 4794 4732 4563 4286 3155 821 1383 2033. 2248 1012 53 0 0. (Ibs) (Ibs) (Ibs) 4 1 0 6 6 5 2 1 2 8 7 6 6 9 7 1 8 2 9 5 1 8 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Ibs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Ibs) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p:\leight~l\600501~l\600550.001\eng\filll OUT Page 3 27 11 183 4 0.0 00 0. 0. Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 Point X-Surf No (ft) 1 140 00 2 144.76 3 149 61 4 154 52 5 159.48 6 164 47 7 169 47 8 174 46 9 179.43 10 184 35 11 189 20 12 193 98 13 198 65 14 203 21 15 207 63 16 211 90 17 216 01 18 219 93 19 223 65 20 227 17 21 230 46 22 233 51 23 236 32 24 238 87 25 240 12 Circle Center At X = Factor of Safety *** 1 524 ** Y-Surf (ft) 100.00 98 48 97.25 96 31 95.68 95.36 95.34 95 62 96 22 97 11 98.30 99 79 101 56 103 62 105.96 108 55 111 41 114 51 117 85 121 40 125 17 129 12 133 26 137 56 140 00 167 29 , Y = 177 06 , and Radius * Failure Surface Specified By 24 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf No (ft) 1 141 11 2 145 99 3 150 92 4 155 90 5 160.89 6 165 89 7 170 88 8 175 83 9 180 74 10 185 58 11 190 34 12 195 00 13 199 54 14 203 95 15 208 22 16 212 32 17 216 25 18 219 98 19 223 51 20 226 83 21 229 91 22 232 76 23 235 36 24 235 38 Circle Center At X = Y-Surf (ft) 100 00 98 90 98 09 97 58 97 36 97 44 97 81 98 48 99 44 100 69 102 23 104 04 106 13 108 48 111 09 113 95 117 05 120 37 123 91 127 66 131 59 135 70 139 97 140 00 1.62 08 , Y = 181 67 , and Radius 81 75 84 32 Factor of Safety ** * 1 525 *** Failure Surface Specified By 23 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 140 00 100.00 2 144 88 98 92 p-\leight~l\600501~l\600550 001\eng\filll.OUT Page 4 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Circle * Failure Point No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Circle 149.82 154.80 159 79 164.79 169 78 174.72 179.62 184.45 189 18 193.82 198 33 202.70 206 92 210 98 214 84 218 51 221 97 225 21 228 20 230 96 232 76 Center At X - Factor of Safety ** 1 536 ** 98 14 97.66 97 47 97 59 98.01 98 73 99.74 101 05 102.65 104 53 106.68 109 10 111 78 114 72 117 88 121 28 124 89 128 70 132 71 136 88 140 00 160 33 , * Surface Specified By 26 X-Surf (ft) 136.67 141 48 146 36 151 29 156 25 161 24 166 24 171 24 176 21 181 16 186 05 190 89 195 65 200 33 204 90 209 36 213 69 217 88 221 93 225 81 229 51 233 04 236 37 239 50 242.41 244 33 Center At X = Y-Surf (ft) 100 00 98 64 97 54 96 71 96 13 95 82 95 77 96 00 96 48 97 23 98 24 99 51 • 101.04 102 82 104 84 107 10 109 60 112 32 115 26 118 41 121 77 125 32 129 05 132 95 137 01 140 00 164 59 ; Factor of Safety *** 1 536 *** Failure Surface Specified By Point No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X-Surf (ft) 138.89 143 75 148.66 153 61 158 59 163 59 168.59 173 58 Y-Surf (ft) 100.00 98 82 97 88 97 19 96 74 96.55 96 60 96 90 Y =180 46 , and Radius 82 99 Coordinate Points 189 73 , and Radius 93 98 26 Coordinate Points p-\leight~l\600501~l\600550.001\eng\filll.OUT Page 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 178 55 183 48 188 37 193 20 197 97 202 65 207.23 211 71 216 08 220.32 224 42 228.37 232 16 235.79 239 24 242 51 245 59 247 60 97 45 98.25 99 30 100 58 102 11 103.87 105 86 108 08 110 52 113.17 116 03 119.09 122 35 125 79 129 41 133.19 137 13 140.00 Circle Center At X - 165 02 196 72 , and Radius = 100 19 Factor of Safety *** 1 536 *** Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Circle * Failure Point No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 X-Surf (ft) 145 56 150 44 155 38 160 34 165 33 170 33 175.33 180 31 185 26 190 18 195 04 199 84 204 56 209 20 213 73 218 16 222 46 226 63 230 66 234 53 238 25 241 79 245 15 248 32 251 30 251 45 Y-Surf (ft) 100 00 98 94 98 12 97 55 97 23 97 16 97 34 97 76 98 44 99 36 100 52 101 93 103 57 105 44 107 55 109 89 112 42 115 18 118 14 121 30 124 65 128 18 131 88 135 75 139 77 140 00 Center At X = 169 28 , Y - 197 38 , and Radius = Factor of Safety ** 1 538 *** Surface Specified X-Surf (ft) 152 22 157 17 162.15 167 15 172 15 177.12 182 03 186 89 191 65 196 30 200 83 By 21 Coordinate Points Y-Surf (ft) 101 23 100 51 100 12 100 04 100 29 100 86 101 76 102 97 104 49 106 32 108 44 100 22 p.\leight~l\600501~l\600550.001\eng\filll OUT Page 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 Circle 205 21 209.42 213.45 217 28 220 89 224 27 227.41 230 28 232 89 233.35 Center At X =• 110 86 113 55 116 51 119 73 123 18 126 87 130 76 134 85 139 12 140 00 165 80 , Factor of Safety *** 1 540 *** Failure Surface Specified By Y = 177 15 , and Radius 28 coordinate Points Point X-Surf No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Circle (ft) 138 143 148 153 158 163 168 173 178 183 188 193 198 202 207 212 216 220 225 229 233 236 240 244 247 250 253 253 Center At 89 68 54 46 41 39 39 39 38 35 28 17 00 76 44 03 51 88 11 22 17 97 60 05 32 40 28 38 X = Y-Surf (ft) 100 98 97 96 95 95 95 95 95 96 96 97 99 100 102 104 106 109 111 114 117 120 124 128 131 135 139 140 169 72 00 58 41 48 79 35 16 22 53 08 88 93 22 74 50 50 71 15 81 67 73 98 42 03 81 75 84 00 , 77 12 Y =195 60 , and Radius = 100 45 Factor of Safety *** 1 545 *** Failure Surface Specified By 22 Coordinate Points Point NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 X-Surf (ft) 141 145 150 155 160 165. 170 175 180 185 189 194, 198 202 206 210 213 11 84 69 61 59 ,59 58 53 42 20 86 ,37 69 80 68 30 64 Y-Surf (ft) 100 00 98 39 9/ 15 96 29 95 82 95 73 96 03 96 72 97 80 99 25 101 06 103.24 105 75 108 60 111 75 115 20 118 92 p \leight~l\600501~l\600550 001\eng\filll OUT Page 7 16 216 69 122 88 19 219.41 127 07 20 221 81 131 46 21 223.85 136 03 22 225 27 140.00 Circle Center At X - 164 19 , Y = 159 98 , and Radius = 64 27 Factor of Safety *** 1 548 *** **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** • Leigh ton and Associates, Inc GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS ' ' Page 1 of 6 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING 1 0 General 1.1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s) These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s) In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s) 12 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant) The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s)and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendationspnor to the commencement of the grading Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "vvoik plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required Subsurface areas to be geotechmcally observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditiomngand processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis 30301094 Leightonand Associates, Inc GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 2 of 6 1 3 The Earthwork Contractor The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechmcal report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechmcal Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechmcal Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechmcal Consu Itant is aware of all grading operations The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechmcal report(s) and grading plan(s) If, in the opinion of the Geotechmcal Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc , are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechmcal Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that constiuctionbe stopped until the conditions are rectified 2 0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2 I Clearing and Grubbing Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechmcal Consultant The Geotechmcal Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume) No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed If potentially hazardous materials arc encounteied, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc ) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed 10101094 15' MIN. OUTLET PIPES 4" 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE, 100' MAX OC HORIZONTALLY, 30' MAX OC VERTICALLY BACK CUT 1 1 OR FLATTER EE SU8DRAIN TRENCH DETAIL LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD BE SITUATED AS LOW AS POSSIBLE TO ALLOW SUITABLE OUTLET -KEY DEPTH (2' MIN ) KEY WIDTH AS NOTED ON GRADING PLANS (15' MIN )12" MIN OVERLAP — FROM THE TOP HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET CALTRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (3 FT~3/FT) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC -4" 0 NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE .. PROVIDE POSITIVE SEAL AT THE JOINT T-CONNECTION FOR COLLECTOR PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE 6" MIN COVER FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) 4" 0 PERFORATED PIPE -4" MIN BEDDING SUBDRAiN TRENCH DETAIL SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - subdroin collector pipe shall be installed with perforation down or, unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated pipe The subdram pipe shall hove at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot Perforation shall be 1/4" to t/2" if drill holes ore used All subdram pipes shall have a gradient of at least 2% towards the outlet SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdroin pipe shall be ASTM D2751, SDR 235 or ASTM D1527. Schedule 40, or ASTM 03034, SOR 23 5, Schedule 40 Polyvmyi Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe All outlet pipe shall be placed in o trench no wide than twice the subdroin pipe Pipe shall be in soil of SE >/=30 jetted or flooded in place except for the outside 5 feet which sholl be native soil backfill BUTTRESS OR REPLACEMENT FILL SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS D LEICHTON AND ASSOCIATES SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION BASED ON ASTM D1557 RETAINING WALL— ^ ALL WATERPROOFING — ER ARCHITECT'S ^\ PECIFICATIONS \ FINISH GRADE -•>. "-"-•-"-~""-"-"-*-"-"-"-"/*niuiPAPTFr> FII i "-•-"-•-•-"-•-•- \ m*m ^T~1\\i'n" i.Ai" '•6 MIN'OVERLAP o ' °f ' ', ° °1 MIN * ' ° ." ' ft t-'-x 9-f /• ° frf i^lLiL, Ttd •:-.-: 3 2 TYP :-:-:-:-:- r-I-X-X-: FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE .".--•^^•^ ^MIKArl J^UN UK ArrKUVLU ^^ EQUIVALENT)" I-X-I- ^/4" TO 1 1/9" n EAN GR^ :>::Z: ^--4" (MIN ) DIAMETER PERFOR/ r--y&r PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR :»X EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORA1 :X:::: ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTE -:-:-:-:- MINIMUM i PERCENT GRADier -X;X- TO SUITABLE OUTLET ^^ 3" MIN WALL FOOTING COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICALCONSULTANT NOTE UPON REVIEW BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT, COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS E LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES Cf"12,;:005 17-R5 8582665199 LF.IGHTON (-JPCIUP '-•AGE e; Angle of Friction Unit Weight Cohesion RETAINED SOIL Angle of Kriction Unil Weight Cohesion FOUNDATION SOIL Angle of R lotion Unit Weight Cohesion Bear.ng Capacity Minumim Embedment ^7[nlml/m Distance to Daylight Increment due to Width of D&pfh Maximum Bearing Capecify SEISMIC COEFFICIENT (for gravity vi-ali) Sods Engineer Rsport Number Dato ^- Observation SOILS PARAMETERS FOR GEQGRID REINFORCED WALLS Project Name "//to 5/» £>,<* /^7«-/* //^* >-. ^ Location WALL MAXIMUM HEIGHT REINFORCED SOIL degrees derees ^ __ degrees pcf <r7 psf "ft /£> psf pSf Not Valicl Without ^P:i^!S S-IIa-5^.kaft Sir^51 B^1 °i| ^ ill ?i >•? si ^1 0* i*03 Ss3 .?>mnQ siSI iH SSI»_ ,«^(0-3^^ssSia 3£3 S5 53! •WILLIAM E PLUMMERDISTRICT ENGINEER•x o n 3 0> nl h«iM^~^ n S(/>i s 3 •o II 3 2 < 5£ £ a g3 a i g M fSiIs1 53™PROJECT NOi f zo z O CARLSBAD MUz Q "D s 3 0 en OH 3 IJ c 1 ° •D PI 1 0 Ft WNACf: BOX INLET 50 ITT;JF CCWTF OE MS PIN* ANDSERVICE ACCORDING TO CITYORK STATION HAUC CLSB-IreaojXH000 9« 9 3 000 066 1 ^>IHi JO X30NI 3lrNIOUOOO•UO-BZ-OiO-SIl8 Ns : 3 2 So * "D W ^lisg 1 | : §§11^ ^ i ^-Sia 1 5^^ n i fO >O >i » HO"S2w H Is :>O HMr< !/l -s -" n 3K So F CARLSKIHG DEPAKTUOI\cd ^w •^Pi V, _E P S |^o50 C 5 **S S § fc2 5 5 H I ! *§ '1 II 1| 1 H1 3 "0 •zg. ! f^ „ *5 SKpa " N-3 ^ \ n° ^ ^ 1F i i 2 H | g i? s 2 M CD C ^^-H SSas:!^iBSf iin=it;* ™ as asa''''^'!] S"23|SS^nia§ ^§933^i ^ii iu:a ?m BgSgsll^f>o3*>E fn|Prili 3|"31 i§ «s Qs: 5"<< 5S-<q>.IlII5§q21a!? ill Si" 3 ii 10 CB -si 0) IT1 ^ n 3 « 1 g § I 3I ^ili: i| 03rnno RT HOTELSARSADIAo I"*§o[N J>l»SES CO a £ 01 CD 31 »a»,oi<£— -j in..;Ai» £"^^v - —- ~iz -......1 --•^-.._.f 5 ABUTTBTS'-- _ O _„, _ mflROW OWE -AS glflUN AMO^SEBjftMEB• MIJ5 H*VE, .g ' DEDICATED AND RfUNOWSHED /WD WMVEO.' ' / / '"'n03>rnnOS-BS2|»ijBiii^i §ilP IPS8»WILUAM E PLUMMER DATEDISTRICT ENGINEER RCE 28176DATEENGMEO)ii REVISION DESCRIPTIONii it 31 £ P XQ O gl* 533 PROJECT NODRAWING NOCARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTi 1 S Sij | TJm m5 3n o>^GRADING PLANS FOKAIRPORT HOTELSTARSADIA<"R CITY OF CARLSBADEUGWETWNC DEPARTMENTi? •fc-R </]( INSPECTOR OA TF 13 1 ? V V 1 to-< - "• \ i I ! i PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVALDHI. / /(nan) ' 'KKsiiLi Hmuuxt. punmc DOBIOIO i*" ^ LO CDc r- ~j_ £ st 1. EX SWf UNDERDRAWSTO SC ABANDONED * - iil° zJ: s S 03mnO? ^a!H O , K H M n ?9 Nl DO CM •h \~~u~""^ ~ - - - -X?£fe,i -L-r"** **•-- n f" "*te. *LiX.r?t sSSgpj *&!"*!SB" & iS|3§|Sifas S!*IPi|§^1838 s 1^ 51aa "Is1 i "" «|,1 > a * lib 1i« 1 1u oz omwo? T ? i I i I m 1 S S 1 I Ssi z 1 ss§!0,5 II 1 PROJECT NO§ izo g Q 1 i 1 o a 1 APPROVIo TAESADIA3=K-aica r- P r— t? u 1 IF ^ 3c 3 1 }• ^5 3 3 *j -*"g n *3 OF CARLSBAINEERING DEPARTMENTa 52 05 F 21 s^ i'i » o n 1 5 [INSPECTOR5i Fl nR£ MARSH/S C 2 JS UJ S £ | F— £ S 1 1 n i i s£ 1 0-a K J 1 n 5 3 5 Czlr~ 3 o U)-)RICT APPROVAL(S)g sS*i5 = 1°a a r>>7) s « 2 >e o -n 1X3m S 0E m § £* s z a: 5 >" C/) 03 r^—is sll3 P3 J93s 225 2 r>oomnO "n" a9 1 5 "* 1 COi o en T) Oz i Q i i 311 1 i 1 i QO 1* 5? 1 o s s £ C ICITY ENGINEERTJ gs 0 p 1 APPROVEDIMPROVEMENTAI^PH^;is1 IK >0 H M «! n SK; n DO m W ">a u • -1 \ j * '" \*l";'~ I | s i •=™ ? > O3 s ? j*l PI