The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2377 JEFFERSON ST; RET WALLS; CB021040; Permit($1 *. 07-22-2002 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Reference #: Project Title: Applicant: SUKUP BOB City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlrbad, CA 92008 Retaining Wall Permit Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Permit No: CB021040 2377 JEFFERSON ST CBAD RETAIN Status: ISSUED 1 551 803900 Lot #: 0 Applied: 04/05/2002 $8,395.00 Construction Type: NEW Entered By: MDP Plan Approved: 07/22/2002 Issued: 07/22/2002 PETRI RESIDENCE Inspect Area: 533 SF SITE RETAlNlG WALLS W/CALCS. Owner: PETRI GEORGE&SANDFIA TRlJST408.~95,'0? %(I? 01 !? 3417 CASA GFIANDE AVE LAS VEGAS NV 891 02 4322 SEA BRIGHT PLACE 92008 760 720-0098 Total Fees: $152.78 Total Payments To Date: $59.79 Balance Due: $92.99 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Addl Plan Check Fee Strong Motion Fee Renewal Fee Addl Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Additional Fees $91.99 $0.00 $59.79 $0.00 $1 .oo $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL PERMIT FEES $152.78 FINALAPP 0 AL Date: 1 6 % 4.3 Clearance: ur project includes the 'imposition' of lees, dedications, reservations. or other exactions hereafler COlleCtiVeiy referred to as "Ieeslexactions." You have 90 days from the date this perml was issued to protest imposlion of these feedexactions. if you protest them. you must follow the protest procedures set fonh in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager tor processinp in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action lo attack. review, sei aside, void, or annul their imposition. 7 PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK NO. a?-- LV) 7 EST. VAL. Plan Ck. Deposit oc2-1 Validated By /y Date I I I C/6L Descriotion of Work sa. FT. #of Stories 11 Of Bedrooms I of Bathroom Y I ., ISec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a Permit olirh or repair any structure, prim to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pufsmnt to the provisions Of the Contractor's License Law IChepter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Codel or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation Of Ssnion 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars 1$50011. Name Address City StateIZip Telephone # State License X License Class City Business License I Designer Name Address City StateIZip Telephone State License X ., 0 of the Work for which this permit is issued. 0 issued. My worker's Compensation insurance Carrier and policy number are: I have and will maintain a certificate Of Consent to self-insure for workers' comPanration as provided by Section 3700 Of the Labor Code. far the performance I have and will maintain workers' Compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the parformance of the Work for Which this permit io Insurance Company Policy NO. Expiration Date ITHIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS Id1001 OR LESS1 0 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 my manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Fallure to secure work-' companratlon coverage 18 unlawful. and .hall subject an employer to Criminal penales and clvll fines up to one hundred thousand dollars 18100,000~. In addhion to the Cost of compensation, damages LIS provided far in Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and anomy's fees. SIGNATURE DATE I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: 0 I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale ISsc. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law doer not apply to an owner of PrOPeIty who builds or improves thereon. and Who doer such work himself or through his own employees, providsd that such improvements ere 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 dei. I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to Construct the project ISec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The 9 ontractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds 01 imPrOves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contmctorlsl licensed pursuant to the Contrsctor'r License Lswl. 1, .-.. , I am exempt under Section I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for COnStruction of the proposed property improvement. 0 YES PO Business and Professions Code for this reason: signed en application for a building permit for the proposed work. with the following person lfirmi to provide the proposed COnStlUCtion linclude name I address I phone numbar I Contractors licmse numberl: 4, number I contractors license number): 5. I plan to provide portions of the Work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work linclude name I address I phone I will omvide some of the work. but I have contracted lhiredi the followino DerSOnS to provide the work indicated linclude name I address I ohme number I tvw Is the applicant or future building OcCUPant required to submit a businerr pian, acutely hazardous materials registration form 01 risk management and prevention program under SBCtions 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act7 0 YES 0 NO 1s the apolicant or future building occupmI required to obtain a permit from the air Poliution control district or air quality management district7 Is the facility to be constructed within 1.000 fset of the outer boundary of a school site? 0 YES 0 NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. U YES U NO ,, . ., , ,,. I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued ISec. 309711) Civil Code). LENDERS NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS I Cmify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is acCUrat8. i agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. i hereby authorize rspreSentatiVeS of the CitV Of Csrlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection PUIPOJBS. 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 CONSEOUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 50" deep and demolition or construction Of structures over 3 Stories in height. EXPIRATION Every pemii issued by me building Onicial under the provisions of mis Code shall expire by iimitaflon and become nuii and void if the building or work authorized bv such Demit is not commenced within 180 davs from the dale of such Dermit or if the buildintr or work authorized bv Such Demit is SUsDended or abandoned at any time iner the work is co APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE . I WHITE File YELLbW: Applicant PINK: Finance I I. Inspection List Permit#: CB021040 Type: RETAIN PETRI RESIDENCE 533 SF SITE RETAlNlG WALLS WKALCS. Date Inspection Item Inspector Act Comments 10/03/2003 69 05/22/2003 66 04/29/2003 11 04/29/2003 66 03/24/2003 11 03/24/2003 63 03/21/2003 61 11 /27/2002 62 11/25/2002 61 11 /25/2002 65 10/22/2002 11 10/22/2002 12 10/10/2002 61 1 OH 0/2002 62 1 OH 0/2002 66 09/24/2002 61 Final Masonty Grout FtglFoundationlPiers Grout FtglFoundationlPiers Walls Footing SteeVBond Beam Footing Retaining Walls FtglFoundationlPiers SteeVBond Beam Footing SteeWBond Beam Grout Fooling PY AP PY AP PY AP PY wc PY AP PY wc PY co RF AP RF PA RF PA RF PA RF PA RF wc RF PA RF PA RF PA OK TO FINAL RETAIN. AT SIDE OF GARAGE RETAINING WALL OK TO GROUT #9 OF PLANS P.L. WALL FINAL LIFT. #10 OF PLANS FINAL LIFT. 52 INCH STAIRWELL 1ST 5FT LIFT P.L. WALLS. 112 UP HILL, MAIN, STAIR WELL Monday, OCtober 06.2003 Page 1 of 1 City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request %6- For 03/21/2003 Permit# CBO21040 Title: PETRI RESIDENCE Inspector Assignment: RF "\ Description: 533 SF SITE RETAlNlG WALLS W/CALCS. Type: RETAIN Sub Type: Job Address: 2377 JEFFERSON ST Suite: Lot 0 Location: I Phone: 7608079098 Inspector: fr \ \ ., APPLICANT SUKUP BOB \ Owner: Remarks: Total Time: Requested By: BOB Entered By: ROBIN CD Description Act Comment ----\\ - -_ 61 Footing w- , Y InsDection History Date Description Act lnsp Comments 11/27/2002 62 Steel/Bond Beam AP RF OKTOGROUT 11/25/2002 61 Footing PA RF #9OFPLANS 11/25/2002 65 Retaining Wails PA RF P.L. WALL FINAL LIFT. #IO OF PLANS FINAL LIFT. 10/22./2002 12 SteeVBond Beam PA RF 10/10/2002 61 Footing WC RF 10/10/2002 66 Grout PA RF 09/24/2002 61 Footing PA RF P.L. WALL S. 1/2 UP HILL. MAIN, STAIR WELL P 10/22/2002 11 FtgIFoundatiodPiers PA RF 52 INCH STAIRWELL ' 10/10/2002 62 SteeWBond Beam PA RF 1ST 5FTLlFT .. I- BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE 1635 FARADAY (760) 602-2700 AVENUE CITY OF CARLSBAD i ! *P i f f ! 4 I FOR INSPECTION CALL (760) 602-2725. RE-INSPECTION FEE DUE? n YES PHONE €B CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER . City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For 1 1 /25/2002 Permit# CB021040 Inspector Assignment: RF Title: PETRI RESIDENCE Description: 533 SF SITE RETAlNlG WALLS WICALCS. Type: RETAIN Sub Type: Job Address: 2377 JEFFERSON ST Suite: Lot 0 Location: APPLICANT SUKUP BOB Owner: Remarks: Total Time: Phone: 7607200098 Inspector: Requested By: BOB Entered By: CHRISTINE InsDection History Date Description Act lnsp Comments 10/22/2002 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers PA RF 52 INCH STAIRWELL 10/22/2002 12 SteeVBond Beam PA RF 10/10/2002 61 Footing WC RF 10H012002 62 SteeWBond Beam PA RF IST 5FTLlFT 10/10/2002 66 Grout PA RF 09/24/2002 61 Footing PA RF P.L. WALLS. 1/2 UP HILL, MAIN, STAIR WELL c L DATE ' U/4 LA INSPECTOR Adc . PLAN CHECK # DESCRIPTION CODE // .a- DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS ReportNo.: 3 -, KLEINFELDER I. 5015 Shoreham Place San Diego CA 92122 Report To: Carl Schmidt Carl Schmidt Inspection Services P.O. Box 178403 San Diego, CA 92177 Project No.: 22694 Ref. No.: Pmlect: Petri Residence Phase: N/A &&&& San DiegoZ379 k S. Permlt NO.: @&Oz!jw Mix Data Observed by Kleinfelder Suppiler: Hanson Cement Type: IIN Mix No.: 3033000 Cement Factor (sklcy): Max. Size Agg.(in.): Designstrength: 3000 psi@ 28 days Admixtures: Sample Data Observed by Kleinfelder Date Sampled: 9/26/02 Date Received: 9/27/02 Measured Speclfled Source of Sample: FOOTINGS FOR WEST RETAINING WALL Siump(in.): Contractor: Air Temperature (OF): TrucMlcket: MIX Temperature (OF): Sampled By: Carl Schmidt AIr Content (X): SubmHted By: Carl Schmidt Unit Welght (pcf): Curing Method Cure Room Batch Size (cy): Specimen Prep: Sulfur Weather: Water Added (gal.) Field Cum Temp (OF) hl: Lo: Wind (MPH) Time Batched: Field Cure Time: 24f4 hrs. Rh (%): Time Sampled Time In Truck: Slump w/plasticlzer(ln.): Laboratory Data rcl Average 28 Day Strength (psl): All fractures were conical in nature unless noted otherwise ;+ 08 cw(5L.A Remarks:e cy secb.r++ Reviewed on 11/4/02 by: Linda Hod0 Concrete Lab Asst. Unless prior arrangements have been made, ail HOLD specimens will be discarded if required strength is attained. rmm Fendhe wr mitw awroval An a IIIuIUaI pmlBolsdion lo hll disnls and OUReIVes. all mpMs rubrnllad am the mnlk(snl1al popaty d WT dienls end LIUfhorizRion far publication of alelemenli. wncllldions. or ex(mda from our rapatr am ReportNo.: 2 Sample Date Age Dimensions Area Ultimate Load Compressive Number Tested (days) Dim. Ht. Len. (in’) (Ibs.) Strength (psi) 11692 A 11/13/02 20 2x4 X 3.14 1165/ 3710 7692 B 11/13/02 28 2x4 X 3.14 11164 3550 I Required Strength (psi) 18UU 1800 .‘#B KLEINFELDER /. I 5015 Shoreham Place San Diego CA 92122 MORTAR~CYLINDEKCONIPKESSIVE STRFmGTH REPORT UBC 21-16 ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ .. ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ Report Date: 11/18/02 Last Reissued on: Report To: Carl Schmidt Carl Schmidt Inspection Services P.O. Box 178403 San Diego, CA 92177 Supplier: Mixed in Field ProJect No.: 22694 Ref. No.: Project: Petri Residence San DiegoZ3?? hd ref&s~.. si.. Phase: n/a&&&& CBO 2-9 YY Permit No.: Mix Data Observed by Kleinfelder Cement Type: Mortar Cement Factor (sklcy): Max. Size Agg.(in.): All fractures were conical in nature unless noted otherwise Reviewed on 11/18/02 by: SQ tLQ--- Linda Hod0 Concrete Lab Asst Unless prior arrangements have been made, all HOLD specimens will be discarded if required strength is attained. As a mul~sl proledion I? our clienls and DY~SI.IVBS. all reports submilled am vls cmndenlial properly ot wr cliinls and aulhorizalion lor Wblicalion of stelmenla, concIY3ionL Or exlmds from Our reP0nS resewed pending our wrlllen approval. Carl Schmidt Inspection P. 0. Box 178403 $an Diego. C A 971 77-8403 Phone (61 9)-855-9252 SPEClAL INSPECTION REPORT JOB START: 7:o 0 JOB STOP: PLAN FILE #: TYPE OF OBSERVATIONS: MASONRYX REINFORCED CONCRETE- FIELD WELDING- EPOXY- PRESTRESSED CONCRETE- SHOP WELDING- BOLTING- REINFORCING STEEL- FIREPROOFING- SAMPLES: NUMBER:- TYPE: Materials/Design Mk NumbeWSI: -40 LAvl,'fs, A - k/r re Lap ... WORK INSPECTED CONFORMS Wrm APPROMD PL4bE AND SPECI"S UNLESS OTHERWlSE NOTED &r/ hr.d7- k +z Project Billing Information: Print Name Certification# Phone: ( ) &Jh Fax:( ) Inspectoh Signature ?-- earl Schmidt Inspection P. 0. Box 178403 -. CA 921 77-8403 Phone (61 9) 855-9252 SPEClAL INSPECTION REPORT TYPE OF OBSERVATIONS: MASONRY- REINFORCED CONCRETE- FIELD WELDING- EPOXY- PRESTRESSED CONCRETE- SHOP WELDING- BOLTING- REINFORCING STEELX FIREPROOFING- SAMPLES: NUMBER:- PIPE: Materiols/Deslgn Mix NurnbewPSI: REPORT ~ WORK INSPECTED CONFORMS APPROMD PlANS AND SPEClFlcATlONs UNLESS OTHEWSE NOTED I - 'CadSchmidt Inspection P. 0. Box 178403 CA97177-8403 phone (61 91 855-9252 Print Name Certlflcdion# I.. .. Phone: ( ) &J& . Fa%:( ) Inspector's Signature EsGil Corporation In Tarhurship with ~ovcrnment for !BuiliiingSaf&y DATE: April 15,2002 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-1040 OWREVIEWER 0 FILE SET I PROJECT ADDRESS: 2377 Jefferson St. PROJECT NAME: RetainingISite Walls at Petri Residence 0 The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply [XI The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. 0 The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list 0 The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to fonvard to the applicant 0 The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: with the jurisdiction's building codes. and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. contact person. Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. 0 Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: (by: ) Fax #: Fax In Person he attached "Retaining Wall Su drain Detail" (from the soils report) must be made yo= By: Kurt Culver Enclosures: Esgil Corporation 0 GA 0 MB EJ 0 PC 4/8/02 tmsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 -1-1- -. . . - MIN. i WATERPROOF BACK OF WALL PER -ARCHITECTS SPECIFICATIONS 3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK OR MlRADRAlN -6000 OR EQUIVALENT -GEOFABRIC BETWEEN ROCK AND SOIL TOP OF GROW0 OR CONCRETE SLAB I 4 INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE MINIMUM RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL NO SCALE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIT@: 2-24-92 SOIL 81 TESTING, INC. IT: WRS 9221004 Plate No. 11 JOI WUYICR: c .. .. 1 Carlsbad 02-1040 April 15,2002 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE J U Rl SDl CTl ON : Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-1040 BUILDING PORTION AREA Reg. VALUE ($) ( Sq. Ft.) Mod. ~~ Site Walls 1 Plan Check Fee by Ordinance Type of Review: Complete Review 0 Structural Only . . . .. . . . . . . . 8,395 I Repetitive Fee . Repeats Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code 0 Other Hourly 71 Hour n Esgll Plan Review Fee . 8,395 cb By Ordinance I 859.791 $51 SI] Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 rnacvalue.doc ~ Citv of Carlsbad The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information andlor specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these items afler this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALL BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER: CB 63 BUILDING ADDRESS: ,2377 ~,h~L~ s-&et/ Please see ched reporl of deficiencies marked WG ake necessary corrections to plans o ications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans andlor specifications to this office for review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Retaining Wall ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: 15 /%d *- 29 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENTS 0 Right-of-way Permit Application ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON NAME: Karen Niemi City of Carlsbad ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 602-2775 H \~avebmed Slln~UV\STERS~ORU~.~~~=~,~~~ .\BUILDING RUICHECKCKUSTFORU- RETAININ WALLS e 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-2720 - FAX (760) 602-8562 Re" wm @ BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALLS j,, ;NW 3RW 0 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: Retaining Wall (location and height) p’ NorthArrow a’ (dimensioned from street) Existing & Proposed Structures / /Property Lines ba 0 2. Show on site plan: A. Drainage Patterns B. Existing & Proposed Slopes C. Existing Topography 3. Include on title sheet: Site Address Legal Description (Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required) @ Assessor’s Parcel Number dGrading Quantities Cut Fill ImporVExport P 0 P 4. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No. Conditions were complied with by: Date: MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS P P P 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. J 000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check No. CB sb- Type of Project 81 Use: u, I !c Planner .P hv 41 APN: Zoning: General Plan: CFD (inlout) #-Date of participation: Phone (61 9) 438-1 161, extension Net Project Density: DU/AC Facilities Management Zone: Remaining net dev acres: Circle One (For non-residential development: Type of land used created by this permit: ) .Legms~ Environmental Review Required: DATE OF COMPLETION: Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Discretionary Action Required: YES NO TYPE APPROVAL/RESO. NO. DATE PROJECT NO. OTHER RELATED CASES: Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Item Complete @ Item Incomplete - Needs your action YES - NO & TYPE - Coastal Zone AssessrnentlCompliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES)( NO CA Coastal Commission Authority? YESX NOT If California Coastal Commission Authority: Contact them at - 200. San Diego CA 92108-1725; (619) 521-8036 Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt): Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed? If NO, complete Coastal Permit Determination Form now. Coastal Permit Determination Log #: 11 1 Camino Del Rio North, Suite Follow-Up Actions: 1) Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum Floor Plans). - 2) Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed. 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 lnclusionary Housing Fee required: YES - NO Data Entry Completed? YES NO (Effective date of lnclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21, 1993.) (AIPIOs, Activity Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, Housing Fees, Construct Housing YIN, Enter Fee, UPOATE!I Site Plan: 1. Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines. 2. Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number. Zoning: 1. Setbacks: Front: Required Shown Interior Side: Required Shown Street Side: Required Shown Rear: Required Shown 2. Accessory structure setbacks: Front: Required Shown Interior Side: Required Shown Street Side: Required Shown Rear: Required Shown Structure separation: Required Shown 3. Lot Coverage: Required Shown Required Shown 4. Height: 5. Parking: Spaces Required Shown Guest Spaces Required Shown OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER DATE January 14,2002 PHONE (619) 280-4321 TOLL FREE (877) 215-4321 FAX (619) 280-4717 P.O. Box 600627 San Diego, CA 92160-0627 6280 Riverdale Street San Diego, CA 92120 www.scst.com George and Sandra Petri 3417 Casa Grande Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Subject: REVIEW OF GRADING PLANS PROPOSED PETRI RESIDENCE JEFFERSON STREET OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA “Update Report, Proposed Petri Residence’; prepared by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.; dated September 15, 1999 (SCS&T9911168-1). Reference: Dear Mr. and Mrs. Petri: In accordance with a request from Mr. Bob Sukup, this letter has been prepared to verify that we have reviewed the grading plans prepared by The Seabright Company forthe subject project, dated November 5, 2001. The plans were found to be in accordance with the recommendations provided in the referenced repbrt. However, it is recommended that the proposed discharge system be located at least 10 feet away from proposed interior and ederior walls. Should you have any questions regarding this document or if we may be of further service, please contact our office at your convenience. 3 Respectfully submitted, C. DBA:sd (3) Addressee ’/ ‘ 5c SOUTHERNCALIFORNIA T SOIL &TESTING, INC. 62x0 Riverdnle Struet, San Diego. CA 92120 PO. Box 600627, San Dicgu, CA 92160-0627 619-28r)-4321. FAX 619-280-4717 September 15, 1999 George and Sandra Petri 3417 Casa Grande Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 SCS&T 991 1168.1 SUBJECT Update Report, Proposed Petri Residence, Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California REFERENCES: 1) “Conceptual Grading Plan for Petri;” Conrad C. Hamman, Jr.; undated. 2) “Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed residential Site;” Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.; March 27, 1992 (SCS&T 9221004). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Petri: & In accordance with your request, we have prepared this update report for the subject project. A recent site visit indicates that the southern portion of the site which will receive the proposed 0 structure remains essentially unchanged. An underground utility line is being located along the eastern property line and the eastern section of the southern property line. It is our understanding that the subject project will consist of the construction of a one and two story split level residential section of wood-frame and masonry construction. Shallow foundations and conventional concrete slab-on-grade floor systems are proposed. Interior and exterior retaining walls ranging in maximum height to about ten feet and eight feet, respectively, are proposed. Grading will consist of cuts and fills up to ten feet and nine feet deep, respectively. RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL In general, the recommendations contained in the referenced report are still applicable and should be implemented. Where in conflict with said recommendations, the following updated recommendations take precedent. - b SCS&T 991 1168.1 September 15, 1999 Page No. 2 SEISMIC DESIGN FACTORS: Based upon the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, the seismic design factors presented below are considered appropriate for the subject site. The seismic source fault for the site is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, which is located approximately 7.5 kilometers to the southwest of the site. Seismic Zone Factor: Zone 4, Z = 0.40. Soil Profile Type: S, Seismic Source Type: B Maximum Magnitude: 6.9 Seismic Coefficient Ca: 0.40 N, Seismic Coefficient C,: 0.56 N, Near Source Factor N,: 1 .O Near Source Factor N,: 1.1 SHORING Cuts up to about nine feet in depth are proposed along the southern property line. In addition, cuts up to about 11 feet in depth are proposed within seven feet from the northern property line. It is our understanding that at least portions of these cuts will be shored. It is further our understanding that the shoring will be designed by a contractor specializing in this type of construction. The design should be based on the minimum recommendations of the referenced report. SURFACE DRAINAGE: The drainage around the proposed building should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from proposed structure and the top of slopes, toward approved draining facilities. Rain gutters on the structure that discharge runoff away from the building are recommended. The ground around the proposed structure should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the structure without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to structures slope away at a gradient of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired should have a minimum gradient of at least five percent within the first five feet from the structure. .I . :. . .. . ... . , , The client should be advised that drainage patterns approved at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the proposed structures. They should also be advised to limit site irrigation to the minimum necessary to sustain hdscape growth. Should excessive irrigation, impaired drainage, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones of perched groundwater conditions may occur. FOUNDATIONS FOOTING DEPTB: It is recommended that all footings be founded on formational soils. A two sack sluny may be utilized to backfill footing excavations where the footing spans backfill soils. In this case the portion of the excavation below 18 inches may be backfilled with sluny. Sluny backfill should not apply to retaining wall footings. FOOTING SETBACK The minimum horizontal distance between the bottom of the footings and the face of slopes should be seven feet. For retaining walls, the minimum distance should be increased to ten feet. CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way. For slabs over retaining wall backfill, the minimum reinforcement should consist of No. 3 bars at 12 inches on center each way. The increased reinforcement should extend at least ten feet beyond the daylight line. A ten mil visqueen moisture barrier should be used. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitte DBA:mw cc: (6) Submitted MC. L .. I. Repon of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Site Jefferson Street (North of Las Flores Drive) Carlsbad, California PREPARED FOR: Daniel Muhe c/o Gary Saterbak -__. ~ies.h.iar. -,x. San Diego, California 92121 PREPARED BY: Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. 6280 Riverdale Street San Diego. California 92120 Post Office Box 600627, Zip Code 92160 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SO& & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Smt. San Dirgo. CA 92120 P.O. BOX 600627. Sa kgQ. CA 92160 619-280-4321.FAX 619.280-4717 March 27. 1992 SCS&T 9221004 Report Number 1 Daniel Muhe c/o Gary Saterbak 8995 Crcrtmar Point San Diego, California 92121 Subject: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Site, Jefferson Street (North of Las Flores Drive), Carlsbad, California Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project. We are presenting herewith our findings and recommendations. In general. we found the site suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations presented in the attached report are followed. The prevalent Qeotechnical conditions affecting the proposed construction at the site are the relatively steep slooes between the upper and lower pads and the relatively high temporary cuts required for construction. These conditions will require special grading and foundation considerations. If you should have any questions after reviewing the findings and recommendations contained in the attached report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be Of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. William R. Stevens, R.C.E. #43010 WRS:CRB:wrs Attachment xc: (4) Submitted (1) SCS&T Escondido Office TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Project Description 1 Scope of the Investigation 2 Findings 3 Site Description 3 General Geology and Subsurface Conditions Geologic Hazards 5 Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map 3 Table 1 - Earthquake Magnitudes and Bedrock Accelerations Table 2 - Probability of Occurrence of Accelerations Conclusions and Recommendations 6 ~~ ~ Grading 6 Slope Stability 7 Shallow Foundations 9 Concrete Floor Slabs 10 Earth Retaining Walls 11 Limitations 12 Field Explorations 14 Laboratory Testing 15 Plates Plate 1 Plot Plan Plate 2 Subsurface Exploration Legend Plates 3-5 Subsurface Exploration Logs Plate 6 Grain Size Distribution Plates 7-10 Plate 11 Direct Shear Test Results Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions Slope Stability Analysis Input and Output Tables Slope Stability Analysis Graphical Results SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 6280 Rimd.lr SWL Snn Dic~o.CA92120 - SOIL&TF..STLNG.INC. Report of Preliminary Geotechnical 'Invest4gatio.m Proposed Resicfenzial Site Jefferson Street (North of Las Flores Drive) Carlsbad, California INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investipation for a proposed residential site to be located on the northwest side of Jefferson Street approximately 200 feet nonh of Las Flores Drive in the City of Carlsbad. California. The site location is illustrated on the following Figure 1. It is our understanding that the proposed lot will be split into two residential parcels, with single family residences proposed for each parcel. The property contains two level pads separated by about 20 feet of elevation difference. Both residences are anticipated to be constructed on the upper pad at street elevations, two stories high, and of wood frame construction. Shallow . . . .. foupdations.and. - . concrme flnor ~1st.~ ?re crpcttad. Siatiiinu wiii txoisiai ol cuts UF 7: 1 Sfcet de%), dnd 1 S-fool-\;& tthiniotg waiis are anticlpated. The site configuration, approximate topography, location of the proposed improvements, and the approximate locations of our subsurface explorations are shown on the attached Plate Number 1. . .. .. .ir PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. By: WRSlWDW DATE: 2-2642 JOB NUMBER: 9221004 FIGURE tl .. SCS&T 9221004 March 27. 1992 PRO. z of 15 SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION The scope of this investigation consisted of: surface reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, obtaining representative samples, a geologic literature search, analysis of the field, laboratory, and geologic data, and preparation of this report. More specifically, the intent of this analysis was to: 1) Explore the subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the proposed project; 2) Evaluate, by laboratory tests, the engineering propenies of the various strata which may influence the proposed construction; 31 Describe the general geology and the possible geologic hazards affecting the site, and determine the impacts, if any. to the project from these hazards; 41 Develop soil engineering criteria for site grading and provide recommendations for temporary cut slopes; 6) Evaluate and address the stability of the existing slope; 6) Provide design criteria for earth retaining structures; 7) Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater, or geologic hazards, and provide recommendations concerning these problems; 81 Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structures proposed and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation design. L c SCS& T 922 1004 March 27. 1992 Pa~e3of 15 FINDINGS Site Description i - The project site is a vacant undeveloped parcel of land located on Jefferson Street approximately 200 feet north of Las Flores Drive in the City of Carlsbad, California. The site is bordered by residential structures on the north and south, Buena Vista Lagoon on the west, and Jefferson Street on the east. Topographically, the property consists of two level areas and two slopes descending down to Buena Vista Lagoon. The upper level pad is at nearly the same elevation as Jefferson Street, and is separated from the lower level pad by a relatively steep slope that drops down about 20 to 25 feet. This lower relatively level area was previously designated as Carlsbad Road. The area western of the site descends down to Buena Vista Lagoon approximately 40 to 45 feet. The property is covered with native grasses and weeds, with several trees and brush located near the northern end of the property. General Geology and Subsurface Conditions i Geologic Setting and Soil Descriptions: The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of S?- minn- County and I: unc'erlain by ru6'ernary L e I ice deposits, Tertiary-age sediments, and associated topsoil, and artificial fill. - 3 - Three subsurface explorations were drilled to depths of up to about 25 feet from existing grade. The two borings extended from the upper pad encountered approximately two feet of topsoil overlying terrace deposits and the Santiago Formation. The topsoil consisted of brown, humid, loose, silty sand. The terrace deposit materials generally consisted of rust to brown to gray to white to tan, humid, very dense, silty sand to sand with silt. The Santiago Formation, which was encountered 17 feet below the existing grade, consisted of yellow to white, humid, very i d - - - d dense silty to clayey sand and rust brown, hard, sandy clay. - The single boring advanced from the lower pad area encountered eight feet of artificial fill over the Santiago Formation. The artificial fill consisted of brown, humid, medium dense, silty sand with trace amounts of concrete, wood, and asphalt. A clayey layer of the Santiago Formation material Consisting of grayish green, moist, hard, silty clay was encountered between 8 to 12 feet labout 34 to 38 feet MSL) below the existing grade. Underlying the clayey layer to the bottom of the boring was a yellow to white, humid, very dense, silty sand to sand with silt. - B - d SCS&T 9221004 March 27. 1992 Page 4 of 15 More detailed information can be obtained from the subsurface exploration logs presented at the end of the report. Groundwater: No proundwater was encountered during our subsurface exploration and we do not anticipate any major groundwater related problems either during or after construction. However, it should be noted that minor groundwater seepage problems may occur after development of a site even where none were present before development. These are usually minor phenomena and are often the result of an alteration in drainage patterns and increased irripation. These types of problems can most effectively be corrected on an individual basis if and when they develop. Since the residence will be constructed about 15 feet below the present grade, the retaining walls should be properly waterproofed and a subdrain installed at the base of the walls. Tectonic Setting: No faults are known to traverse the subject site, but it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones which consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone) are classified as active, while others. acr 4assified as only bo;riitially aclgve according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those which have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years) while potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (1 1,000 to two million years before the present), but no movement during Holocene time. A review of available geologic maps indicates that the site is approximately six miles east of the off-shore extension of the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone. The recent seismic events alonp a small portion of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone generated earthquakes of magnitude 4.7 or less. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Banks and San Clemente Fault Zones to the west and the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones to the northeast. 8 c i d JII . . , . . . . a. -. . L SCS&T 9221004 March 27. 1992 Peg. 5 of 15 Geologic Hazards General: The site is located in an area which is relatively frpz of geologic hazards. Hazards such as tsunamis, seiches, liquefaction, or landsliding should be considered to be neQliQible or nonexistent.. Groundshaking: One of the more likely geologic hazards to affect the site is groundshaking as a result of movement along one of the fault zones mentioned above. The maximum bedrock accelerations that would be attributed to a maximum probable earthquake occurring alono the nearest portions of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in Table 1 on the following page. This table also summarizes our opinion of the maximum and “design‘ accelerations. Design accelerations are commonly a fraction (usually 2/31 of the peak bedrock accelerations. Table 2 summarizes our opinion of the probability of events which would result in the associated maximum and ”design” accelerations. Probability of occurrence is defined as the probability of any given event occurring during the life of the proposed structure (50 years) which would result in accelerations of that level. It is likely that the site will experience the .. . effects of,at least one rnoderPtP ?o 1vp e?r.h::--k? du:in; the life nf *he proposed strr*f:”-” ..uostl uc1nim in akubia‘wr ck:, ii#= whiiiluiit sraridards oi tne unitorm Building Code and other governino agencies should minimize damage due to seismic events. Slope Stability: The subject site is situated in an area that has not been mapped as having slope instability problems. The terrace deposits and the Santiago Formation at the subject site were tound to be relatively dense and hard, and should not pose an undue hazard due to deep seated slope failure. However, the loose colluvial material along the slope face may creep with chanoes in moisture variation. A slope stability analysis was performed for the site, and will be discussed later in this report. ... ‘r 9221004. Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California Table 1 - Earthquake Magnitudes and Bedrock Accelerations Name of Distance Max. Probable Max. Bedrock ' Design from Site Magnitude Acceleration Acceleration Fault Zone (miles) IRichter) (fraction of g) (fraction of g) Rose Canyon 6.0 6.5 0.42 0.28 Coronado Banks 20.0 7.0 0.22 0.15 Elsinore . 24.0 7.3 0.22 0.15 San Jacinto 44.0 7.3 0.10 0.07 Table 2 - Probability of Occurrence of Accelerations -?A- .--.e --- Peak Design Probability of Acceleration Acceleration Occurrence (fraction of g) [fraction of g) [percentage) 0.600 0.50g 0.40 g 0.30 g 0.20 g 0.10a 0.400 0.34g 0.27 g 0.20 g 0.13 g 0.07 g 0.01 % 0.05% 0.15% 1 .00% 15.00% 100.00% SCS&T 9221004 March 27. I992 Pa#@ 6 of f5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I 1 .I II General In general, no Oeotechnical conditions were encountered which would preclude the construction of the proposed residences provided the recommendations contained in this report are followed. The prevalent Oeotechnical conditions affecting the proposed construction at the site are the relatively steep slopes between the upper and lower pads and the relatively high temporary cuts required for construction. The foundation for the residences will have to be set back from the slope or deepened.such that the foundation for the structures will not affect the stability of the near vertical slope. The temporary cuts along the northern and southern sides may require either off-site grading or temporary shoring. - 1. F Additional considerations are the presence of loose topsoil and artificial fill. Any remaining loose topsoil remaining after the excavation for the residences are completed will have to be removed 1 1 .' and replaced as compacted fill in areas to support settlement sensitive improvements. If any structures will be constructed on the lower pad area, the artificial fill will have to be removed and replaced as cornmcted fill. .'. ,. ........ Grading I site Preparation: Site preparation should begin with the removal of any vegetation and all ... other deleterious matter detrimental to the proposed construction. Any topsoil that remains after the ..... . -. .. .___ . -. .- . -. cuts are made that underlies settlement sensitive improvements, .~ including ...... sidewalks, patios, and driveways. should be removed to firm natural Oround and stockpiled for future use as fill. The depths of removal are anticipated ... to .. be approximately two feet from existing grade. The limits of removal should extend horizontally two feet beyond the perimeter of the settlement .... - ...' . . .~. -_.---- - __ ...................... 4 sensitive improvements. Surface Drainage: All surface drainage should be directed away from the structures and the top Of slopes. Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to any foundations. It is recommended that rain gutters be installed and the ensuing water piped directly into the storm a 4 SCS&T9221004 March 27. 1992 Pnge 7 of 15 Earthwork: Earthwork and grading for site preparation should conform to the recommendations contained in the attached Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions. All special site preparation recommendations presented in the above sections will supersede those in the standard Recommended Grading Specifications. All structural fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content. Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structures and beneath pavements should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. - __.-- - -- - - - Grading Plan Review: The grading plans should be provided to the geotechnical engineer for review in order to ascertain if the recommendations presented in this report have been implemented and {hat the assumptions utilized in the preparation of this report are valid. Slope Stability General: The factor-of-safety of a slope against deep-seated failure is defined by the driving forces actin0 to destabilize the slope divided by the resisting forces acting to stabilize the slope. A factor-of-safetv equal to one defines a slope that is on the verge of failinn Le., the driving Lies equal the resisting forces. The stbndard piactice at this time is to provide a minimum static factor-of-safety of 1.5. i.e., the resisting forces are 50% higher than the driving forces. Computer Program Overview: The slope stability analysis program STABR/G is the PC version of STABR developed at the University of California, Berkeley. The program was originally written on Guy Lefebvre in 1971 and subsequently modified by S. Chirapuntu in 1972. The program was converted to PC use by Geosoft (Orange, California) in 1983. STABRX; searches for the circular slip surface having the minimum factor-of-safety using the Modified Bishop Method. The geometry of the slope is described in an X-Y coordinate system. The X-coordinate increases from the top to the toe of the slope, and the Y-coordinate increases downward (elevations are inputted as negative numbersl. Tension cracks. pore pressure, and a water table can be inputted into the program if desired. A maximum of 11 soil layers can be specified. The soil characteristic inputs include the total unit weight in pcf. friction angle in degrees, and the cohesion in psf. I I I i SCS&T 9221004 March 27. 1992 Pane 8 of 15 The program searches for the lowest factor of safety by either specifying a point through which the circle passes [usually near the toe of the slope) or a depth to which the circle must be tangent [such as a soil layer boundary). An initial circle center and the radius of the search is inputted. The search starts with calculations of factor-of-safety for the specified circle center and for 8 circle centers spaced symmetrically around the specified center. If the factor-of-safety less than at the center is found at any point, this point becomes the new center of rotation. This process continues until a minimum factor-of-safety is found. Usually, a large radius of search (usually 5 or 10 feet, depending on the size of the slope) is inputted until the lowest factor-of-safety is determined. Then a small radius of search (usually 0.5 to 2.0 feet) is inputted to refine the analysis and for presentation in a report. Depending on the slope geometry, this procedure is repeated with a different initial circle center. For example, if the slope is benched, two or three initial circle centers are analyzed for each specified failure point or tangent: one for the lower portion of the slope below the bench, the other for the upper portion of the slope above the bench, and one for the entire slope. The point where all circles pass or the tangent for all circles is then modified, if desired, and the procedure is repeated again. The lowest factor-of-safety is usually reported for each slope configuration. Slope Material Strength Parameters: The soil strength parameters used in the analysis are derived from the direct shear test results and the density from the measured unit weights of the ring samples. The ’residual” shear strength parameters from the direct shear test, rather than the ‘peak” strength values, are utilized. The following lists the strength parameters far each type of material: Material Cohesion in PSF Friction AnQk in Deareeh unit Weiaht in Upper Terrace Deposits 150 31 115 Lower Terrace Deposits 100 34 110 Santiago Sandstone 200 3a 130 Santiago Claystone 600 2a 130 Artificial Fill 100 30 110 The contacts between the native materials are assumed to be horizontal. It has been our experience that the terrace deposits and the Santiago Formation in the general vicinity dip at less than 5 degrees from horizontal. i i i J i d SCS&T 9221004 March 27. 1992 Peg. 9 of 15 Slope Geometry: Two cross-sections, AA’ and BB’, were analyzed. as shown on the anached Plate Number 1. Each cross-section was analyzed for overall stability of the slope from Jefferson Street to the lagoon, for the stability of the existing condition of the upper slope, and for the stability of the slope after the cuts are made for the residences. Results of the Slope Stability Analysis: The input and output tables for the STABRIG program .is contained in Appendix 8, and the Appendix C contains the graphical output from the program. The analyses indicate that the overall slope has a factor-of-safety against a deep-seated failure of over 2.0. The existing. relatively steep, upper slopes had factors-of-safety between 1.3 and 1.6. The upper slopes, after excavating for the residences, had factors-of-safety in excess of 2.0. . Unshored Temporary Slopes: Temporary cuts up to 20 feet high may be required for construction of the residences. Unshored excavations up to 15 feet high exposing the terrace deposit materials should be constructed with a continuous inclination no steeper than 0.75H:l .OOV (horizontal to vertical). Temporary cuts between 15 to 25 feet in height should 1, be constructed with a continuous inclination no steeper than 1 .OH:l .OV . Surcharge loads / should not be placed at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the height of i I ~ ’ ‘. the slo”- I., Cut Slope Observation: All cut slopes should be observed by a member of our engineering geology staff in order to verify that the conditions exposed in the cut are as anticipated. Shallow Foundations Shallow Foundations: In our opinion, the proposed structures may be founded on shallow spread footings. The footings should be founded a minimum depth of 18 inches below lowest Y adjacent fiwrade. - - __ . A - minimum -. width ,of .... 18 and 24 inches is recommended for continuous . and isolated fOotings,,lespectively. ..... An allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf may be assumed for these footings. The bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when considering temporary wind andlor seismic forces. ___ __. -~. . .__. -. .- - ...... .__-- - ... - +- Footing Setback: The footings should be deepened such that there is a minimum horizontal distance of at least six feet from the bottom of the footine to the slope face. i - .. _.__ -- - .. .. . .... .. .- .-__ ___ -. ........ ..... SCSBT 9221001 Much 27. 1992 Peg. 1Oof 15 ' Continuous Footing Reinforcement: Exterior and interior continuous footings should be ,/' reinforced with at least one No. 5 bar positioned near the bottom and one No. 5 bar positioned near the top of the footing. This reinforcement is based solely on soil characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu of structural reinforcement. \. .. \. Expansive Characteristics: The prevalent foundation materials are expected to be nondetrimentally to moderately expansive. The recommendations contained in this reflect a moderately expansive condition. Settlement Characteristics: The anticipated total andlor differential settlements for the proposed structure may be considered to be within tolerable limits provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses; hence, some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. Foundation Plan Review: The foundation plans should be provided to the geotechnical engineer for review innrder to acrvt-;r 1: ::,e teco;nmen&iGons ,,resented in .i,:- report have been implemented and that the assumptions utilized in the preparation of this report are valid. ...... - Foundation Excavation Observation: All foundation excavations should be observed by a representative from this office prior to the placement cf forms or reinforcement. Concrete Floor Slabs noor Slabs: Concrete floor slabs should have a minimum, actual thickness of four inches. The concrete slab should be reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches on cI----. __ - .......... .- ........................ ~__-^---.-._. ........... .- .. ..... ... center each way, extending at least 12 inches down into the perimeter footings. The r&forcement should bebositioned near the center of the slab. ._ ... ....... ...... - - .... Send Blanket and Moisture Barrier: A minimum four-inch thick laver of coarse, poorly waded _---.. ~- rand or crushed rock should be placed underneath the interior slabs. This layer should Consist of material with 100 percent passing the 1R-inch sieve. and not exceeding ten and five percent .- _--.-- - ... .... ... /--- '. . I - I i - - i d' SCS&T9221001 March 27. 1992 'Page 11 of 16 passing the #lo0 and #200 sieves, respectively. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are \ . -. , . . -. . - -. .. . .. - -. planned. the slab should be also underlain by at least a 6 mil, visqueen molsture barrier. This barrier should be placed one to two inches below the top of the sand blanket to allow proper curing of the concrete. -- .- .. .- .. . .. . , . __ ~. . .... .~ . .- _--- -' - Earth Retaining Walls Passive Earth Pressure: The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth up to a maximum of 2,000 psf. This pressure may be increased by one-third for seismic loading. The upper foot of passive resistance should be neglected unless the ground is covered by concrete or asphalt for a distance of ten feet horizontally in front of the retaining wall. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.35 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the former should be reduced by one-third. Retaining wall footings located parallel and adjacent to or within slopes should be extended to a depth such that a minimum distance of eight feet exists between the bottom of the footing and the face of slopes. --. Active Et+ r.,ssuia: I i active soil pressure for the drsigh of earti, - .ahirit struct )res w 1 level backfills may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weiuhing 32 and 50 pounds per cubic foot for unrestrained and restrained vualls. respectively. These pressures do not consider any surcharge loads. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. Waterproofing details, if required, should be provided by the project architect. A recommended subdrain detail is provided on the attached Plate Number 11. Retaining Wall Backfill Material: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall sftould not be backfilled until the masonry or concrete, if applicable, has reached an adesuate strength. Factor-of-Safety: The above values, with the exception of the allowable soil bearing pressure. do not include a factor-of-safety. Appropriate factors-of-safety should be incorporated into the design to prevent the walls from overturning and sliding. SCS& 7 9221 004 March 27. 1992 Psue 12 of 15 Review, Observation, and Testing The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of the final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the soil engineer andlor engineering geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with the report and Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that Southern California Soil and Testing, Incorporated be retained to provided continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Uniformity of Conditions ., ... ~ .. . .- The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the 1' '-" ' * 'i .. ./ ?I ients hased on an evkluation of the sUk;&r.c! soil ?m25rb~ ai,countereo a1 the subsurface exploration locations and the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably form those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations andlor cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the soils engineer so that modifications can be made if necessary. _, - , . . . . .. . . ., .. Change in Scope This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site orading so that it may be determined if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writinQ or modified by a written addendum. -. - SCS& T 9221 004 Merch 27, 1992 hoe 130f 15 - Time Limitations 5i L f. Pi a The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the conditions of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, Changes in the State-of-the-Practice andlor Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes. the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the'suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. Professional Standard In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys. and explorations are made. and that our data, interpretations. and recommendations are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data. interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be resDonsible,for thr intwvc*?h-.r b; others of the !nfornianun dt -:.>ped. Our ServlCeS:v!:-i.. : ::iu '.. .; con& of professional consultations and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, expressed or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. Client's Responsibility It is the responsibility of the client or their representatives to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the anention of the enpineer andlor architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. - d - d - d P 4 . . _. -’ 4. SCSB T 9221004 Mnrch 27. 1992 Png. 14 of 15 FIELD EXPLORATIONS Three subsurface explorations were made at the locations shown on the anached Plate Number 1 on February 5, 1992. These explorations consisted of borinps advanced with a drill rig. The field work was conducted under the supervision of our engineering peolopy personnel. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, as illustrated on the anached simplified chart on Plate Number 2. A verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture condition, and the apparent density or consistency are also provided. The moisture condition is piven as dry. humid, moist, very moist, or wet. The density of granular soil is given as very loose, loose, medium dense, dense, or very dense. The consistency of silt and clay is given as very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, or hard. Disturbed and relatively “undisturbed” samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing. Bulk samples of disturbed soil samples were collected in bags from the auger cunings collecting at the top of the boring durinp auper advancement. The relatively ’undisturbed” samples were cotlected by drivinp a nominal 2.5- inch diameter split tube sampler with one-inch thick sampling rings. All samples were carefully transponed .to +hn S.?*athern Cali+--:- 54‘ .;r,u lestiiiy, Inc. Oeotechnical I. :at.q. ScSBr9221oo4 March 2 7. 1992 Pa#* 15of 15 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Sociew for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Uniform Building Code (08C). and other suggested test methods. A brief description of the tests performed is presented below: 11 Classification: Field classifications are verified in the laboratory by a visual examination per ASTM D2487. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. 21 Moisture-Density: In-situ moisture contents and dry densities are determined for representative soil samples. This information is an aid to classification and permit recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot. and the in-situ moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry unit weipht. The results are summarized in the exploration logs. 3) Grain Size Distribution: The grain size distribution is determined for representative samples of the native soils in accordance with ASTM D422. The results of the sieve analyses are rmntained ip Plarc Nur:.ber . ._ . ., -. -,,:,, .I1 .. 41 Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests art! performed to determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength. The shear box is designed to accommodate a sample having a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.5 inches, and a height of 1 .O inch. Samples are tested at saturation and at different vertical loads. The shear stress is applied at a constant rate of strain of approximate!y 0.05 inches per minute. The results of the direct shear test are contained in Plate Number 7 through 10. -. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TLSTING,INC. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE WRS DhTE: 2-26-92 BY: JOB NUMBER: . 9221004 Plate No. 2 - ._ 1. - us UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES . COARSE GRAINED. more than half of material is larser than No. 200 sieve size. ilUVELS CLEAN GRAVELS lorefhan half of :oarsc fraction is larger than No. 4 ;{eve sire but imaller than 3". GRAVELS UITH FINES (Appreciable amount of finesl SANDS CLEAN SANDS Ethan half of :oarre fraction is smaller than No. 4 sieve size. SANDS WITH FINES /Appreciable amount of fines) XI. FINE GRAINED. more than half of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve s1Te. SILTS AN0 CLAYS .- Liquid Limit less than 50 SILTS AN0 CLAYS Liquid Limit greater than 50 CY GP GM GC SW SP sn sc nL Li DL HH CH OH HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Well grddeE gravels. gravel- sand mixtures, little or no fines. Poorly graded gravels, gravel sand mixtures. little or no fines. Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel -sand-si1 t mixtures. Clayey gravels. poorly graded gravel-sand. clay mixtures. Yell graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines. Poorly gradfd sands, gravelly sands, liiile or no fines. Silty sands. poorly graded sand and silty mixtures. Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures. Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour. sand) si1 t or cla*ey-sil t-sand zix?ercr sith slieht plas- ticqty. Inorganic c'iays of low to medium plasticity. gravelly clays. sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. Organic silts and organic silty clays or low plasticit: Inorganic -;Its, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils. elastic silts. Inorganic clays of high plasticity. fat clays. Organic clays of mediutll to hlgh plastlcfty. Peat and other highly organic soils. - Water level at time of excavation or as indicated - Undisturbed, driven ring sample or tube sample CK - Undisturbed chunk sample BG - Bulk sample SP - Standard penetration sample TOPSOIL, Brown, SILTY ’’ I SAND TERRACE DEPOSITS, Rust Brown, SILTY SAND to SAND WITH SILT Gray to Rust Brown sp 1 White to Tan SAND LATIKG0 iX!i”,TILt:, . .I a. I . SC Yellow to White, SILTY to CLAYEY SAND Rust Brown SANDY CLAY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL &TESTING,EWt. I * I- w z 0 Z’C w 3 ww 6 I- ab; In <?w a - amo a 0 az < x <og 0 lumid Loose hid Very Dense Dense Dense loo+ -. . loot - WR I- M 0- z 3+ w= I-= 0” u)w o I- 0 Io 0 0 - *- oz 115.4 6.6 108.8 4.6 110.2 1.6 __ i 119.9 8.5 i I - c I I ? ' U' 4- IU 6- - a- B 01 1 - - 2- .4 - - I L6 -- .. . 18 - - !O 22 - - 24 a a DESCRIPTION TERRACE DEPOSITS, Rust Brown SILTY SAND to SAND with SILT Tan to White SAND -_ ,I 1- -- -. sw SANTIAGO FORMATION, SC Yellow to White SILTY to CLAYEY SAND - Ye1 low to White I I I Humid Humid Humid I try 10Dt 101.0 ense loo+ 108.3 Dense 105.5 .. b 01 r ' BG us 4 - BG us 2 6 - 8 -- - 10 I us - 12 -- - 14 - ORING NUMBER 3 LEVATION 46 DESCRIPTION ARTIFICIAL FILL, Brown, SILTY SAND with Trace Amounts of Concrete.Woo and Asphalt ~ SANTIAGO FORMATIONG~~~~S Green, SILTY CLAY ?- -? Yellow to White SILTY SAND to SAND with SILT mid Medium Dense Dense list Hard - ?- urnid Very Dense 33 73 - loot - loot - 0 - 103.8 103.1 - 113.1 .?- 106.6 - w v) N @ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING w > v) w PROJECT: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE BY: URS DATE: 2-24-92 JOBNUMBER. 9221004 Plate No. 6 In u VI 0 wc' 0 .r VI 010 .r nm un mw ID uc .r m 3m om 4N 00 uc, I 1 .. .. - -. . DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY c " 4 3 2 1 0 2M 1 L 2 2L 3 4 5 10.6741 11.1501 12.3OCl NORMAL STRESS, KSF (2 %" SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL INTERCEPT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION (PSF) 82 at 10 Feet. Natural, Terrace Deposits, Silty Sand Peak 32 200 Residual 31 150 --- t. PROVING RING No. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE DATE: 2-24-92 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. JOB NUMBER: 9771 004 PLATE No.: .-. _.._ i SOu"J3ERN CALIFORNIA , 3 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE DATE: 2-24-92 . WRS BY: L v) Y .- DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY 2M 1 L 2 2L 3 4 5 10.5741 11.1501 12.3001 NORMAL STRESS, KSF (2 3/81' SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL INTERCEPT FRICTION (PSF) SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 82 at 15 Feet, Natural. Terrace Deposits. Sand Peak 40 100 100 --- Res i dua 1 34 PROVING RING N~ 22888 DIRECT SHEA R SUMMARY @ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA son, lk "ESTING, INC. 5 4 IL v) Y tn W n I- tn c W I v) 6' 2 a 1 .,. +... .- . .. 0 2M 1 L 2 2L 3 4 5 10.5741 ~1.1601 (2.3001 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE By: WRS DATE 2-26-92 JOB NUMBER: 9221004 PLATE No.: 9 -- NORMAL STRESS, KSF (2 'h" SAMPLE) .. .. ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL INTERCEPT SAMPIX DESCRIPTION FRICTION (PSFI 83 at 10.0 to 10.5 Feet, Natural, Santiago Formation, Silty Clay Peak 42 600 28 600 Residual --- PROVING RING No. 77RRR L i . - @ SOUTHERNCALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. L tn Y tn I 6 4 w PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE BY: WRS DATE: 2-24-92 ~ -_ .L_. ....-__ ----e-, a c- tn .a a 4 5 W I tn 4 I - 4 DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY NORMAL STRESS, KSF (2 'h" SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL INTERCEPT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION (PSF) 83 at 15 Feet. Natural, Santiago Formation, Silty to Clayey Sand 1 - Peak Similar to Residual 38 200 a -1 PROVING RING No. 22888 , ' ' c ' '(7 - WATERPROOF BACK OF WALL PER .. ARCHITECT'S SPECYICATIONS .e .. .O. 314 INCH CRUSHED ROCK OR MIRADRAIN - 6000 OR EQUIVALENT .. 0' .e . . 0 '0.. . -- $0 . GEOFABRIC BETWEEN ROCK AND SOIL '7 0: 12" - :o. i :o. 3. .e TOP OF GRMlno OR CONCRETE SLAB e. * 0:. J RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL NO SCALE < - .. I PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DATE: 2-24-92 SOIL TESTING, INC. IT: WRS 9221004 Plate No. 11 SCS& T 9221004 March 27. 1992 Appmdix A. 1 of 5 APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS General Provisions General Intent: The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing and compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing the fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigarion repon and/or the attached Special Provisions are a pan of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the Qeotechnical repon for which they are a pan. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed. except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Observation and Testing: Soi*th-:r, Caiiioknia Soil and Testing. Inc. !:hai! ~JE reGnLd a! ....- GeO.r-i,,~.cal'~ngineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or the assigned representative provide adequate observation so that opinions can be provided as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep the Geotechnical Engineer appraised of work schedules. changes, and new information and data so that these opinions may be provided. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary Qeotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations. the Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. .. 1 If. in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction. adverse weather. etc.: construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend rejection of this work. Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods: SCS&T 9221004 March 27. 1992 Appendix A, 2 of 5 Maximum Density and Qinnmm RVoisnwe Cantent - ASTM D3557. Density of Soil In-Place - ASTM D1556 or ASTM 02922. All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM testing procedures. Preparation of Areas to Receive Fill: All vegetation, brush, and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed and legally disposed of. All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. After clearing or benching the natural ground. the fill areas shall be scarified to a depth Of 6 inches. brought to the proper moisture content, compacted, and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground. which is defined as natural soils which possesses an in-situ density Of at kSt 90 percent of its maximum dry density. When the slope of the natural ground receivino fill exceeds 20 CC:CE?* !five horizoctcl UT,(:: :- ont -rri:aI iifiiti lw:;n?l cr?~r.d si,:!! k,~ a:;il-steppeo or oencheo. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil. The lower bench shall be at least ten feet wide or 1-112 times the equipment width, whichever is greater. and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches shot*!” 1.0 at least six feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. . . ~ , . . . .. . -. ,._ -. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. AI underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within ten feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedures should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited 10. Septic tanks. fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains, and water lines. Buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should he bmught to the mention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that it may be detmiincd if any specizl recommendation will be necessary. I - d J. d d a- - 1111 SCSB T 922 1004 March 27. 1992 Appandix A. 3 of 5 All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance with the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least four feet below finish prade or three feet below the bonnrn of footing, whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined bythe Geotechnical Engineer andlor a qualified Structural Enpineer. Fill Meterial: Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Enpineer and shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the peotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed.with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Enpineer before being brought to the site. .- Placing and Compaction of Fill: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed six inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to *"IC? specificc' v 'r-1.r do: e.8 t ' cnm"~rtion.,.Comnartic? e:cip,ieni should either be specifically desipned for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum depree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary peotechnical investigation report. ...... ., . .. ._.: _... .: . .... When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum depree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in Structural fills and in non-structural fills is discussed in the preliminary peotechnical report. when applicable. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer or the assigned representative. The location and freWencV Of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Enpineer and until the desired relative Compaction has been obtained. 1 1 1 1 1 I J 4 a SCS&T 9221004 March 27. 1992 Appendix A. 4 of 5 Unless the slopes are over-built and cua-back Ihe Ire of fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheeps foot rollers or other suitable equrpmmt. Ch.npaction by sheepsfom rollers shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of 2H:lV (two horizontal to one vertical) or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut-back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density, or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer or the assigned representative during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication in the form of a daily field report. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to prod,ucn th? T.i-txSSPfv it; >Its, the Contractm shall rework or rebuild ::pL ~107’3~ vntil ?IC required degree of compaction is obtained. at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. Cut Slopes: Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report, such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints. Or faults planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Enpineering Geologist andlor the Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigation measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or Steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental apencv. Engineering Observation: Field observation by the Geotechnical Engine- or the assiQned representative shall be made during the filling and wmpacting opratians so that opinions regarding the conformance of the w-atbp with acceptable standards of practice can be - SCS& T 922 I OM March 27. 1992 Appendix A. 5 of 5 provided. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or the assigned representative, nor the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. 1 1 - - Season Limits: Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is 1 - interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resultino from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of the work. 1 - Special Provisions c Relative Compaction: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground. compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade. the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative I -Il a 2. I Q a - I compaction. Expansive Soils: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion , ..( - - e. :!. index of 50 or grpatw when *-wd i~. ;ZX,;%,~L~ wit>, ,ne Gniform L.!?-!inn Cxh 9.r;ndard ''3- . ' .-, It. - ",'-'- - Oversized Material: Oversized fill material is oenerally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil Over six inches in diameter. Oversize matcrials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material is provided by the geotechnical engineer. At hSt 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a #4 U. S. Standard Sieve. - - Transition Lots: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed buildino pad. the Cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the Deotechnical report. special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footino reinforcement and undercutting may be required. - n - - . ............................................. * * * SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS * * * * * * * * * * ............................................. - ************** S T A B R G *****a*********** * PORTIONS (C) COPYRIGXT 1985, 1986 * * GEOSOFT * - * ALL RIGHTS RESERVED * - i - .ihe Lot, 9221004, Section AA', Existing, Lower Slope Toe, Cfn=mUhl 1 - JNTROL DATA - i NUMBER OF SPECIFIED CENTERS 0 I NUMBER OF SOIL LAYER BOUNDARIES 7 NUMBER OF DEPTH LIMITING TANGENTS 0 NUMBER OF VERTICAL SECTIONS 12 NUMBER OF PORE PRESSURE LINES 0 NUMBER OF POINTS DEFINING COHESION PROFILE 0 - ISMIC COEFFICIENT S1,S2 = .oo .oo &ARCH STARTS AT CENTER ( 260.0,-200.0) ,WITH FINAL GRTn OF 5.0 . . .._ - . ___ bL CIRCLES PASS THROUGH THE POINT ( 263.0,-104.0) - g,,,,, c SECTIONS 50.0 123.0 124.0 138.0 161.0 164.0 169.0 172.0 177.0 200.0 209.0 263 - - & CRACKS -170.0-170.0-170.0-169.0-155.~-152.0-146.0-143.0-139.0-137.0-129.0-10~ W IN CRACK~170~0~170~0~170.0~169.0~155.0-152.0-146.0~143.0~139~0~137~0~129~0~104 UNDARY 1~170~0~170~0~170.0~169.0-155.0-152.0-146.0-143.0~139~0~137~0~129~0~104 UNDARY 2~155~0~155~0~155.0-155.0~155.0-152.0-146.0-143.0~139.0~137~0~129~0~104 OUNDARY 4~146~0~146.0~146.0~146.0~146.0-146.0-146.0~143.0~139.0~137~0~129~0~1~4 OUNDARY 5~143~0~143.0~143.0-143.0-143.0-~43.0-143.0-143.0~139.0~137~0~129~0~104 BOUNDARY 7 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80 - 4F OUNDARY 3~152~0~152~0~152.0-152.0~152.0-152.0-146.0~143.0~139.0~137~0~129~0~104 - 40 UNDARY 6~143-0~143~0~143.0~143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0~143.0~139.0~132~0~129~~~~~~ d -SOIL PROPERTIES @AY ER - 4 a COHESION FRICTION ANGLE QENSITY 150.0 100.0 200.0 600.0 31.0 34.0 38.0 28.0 115.0 110.0 130.0 130.0 MUHE LOTS 9221004 PAGE 81 OF 812 1 -104.0 3 2 -103.7 3 -103.9 4 -103.1 3 5 -104.0 6 -104.0 7 -104.0 ~~ 8 -104.0 1 9 -103.9 10 -103.6 -104.0 3 :i -103.6 13 -103.7 F.S. MINIMUM= 96.0 96.3 86.1 96.9 106.0 96.0 91.0 91.0 86.1 91.4 86.0 86.4 96.3 96.0 260.0 270.0 260.0 250.0 260.0 265.0 260.0 265.0 260.0 255.0 265.0 255.0 255.0 265.0 -200.0 -200.0 -190.0 -200.0 -210.0 -200.0 -195.0 -195.0 -190.0 -195.0 -190.0 -190.0 -200.0 -200.0 2.358 2.565 2.367 2.500 2.386 2.388 2.356 2.427 2.367 2.381 2.501 2.368 2.400 2.388 2.356 FOR THE CIRCLE OF CENTER ( 260.0,-195.0) FS(0MS) 2.266 2.504 2.266 2.383 2.302 2.308 2.260 2.346 2.266 2.271 2.423 2.251 2.296 2.308 ****************** STABRG * ****************** MUHE LOTS 9221004 PAW 82 OF 712 ,I ,. . . . 1 i ............................................. * * * * *************e S T A B R G ***************** * * * * ............................................. * SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS * PORTIONS (C) COPYRIGHT 1905, 1986 * * GEOSOF"?' * * ALL RIGHTS RESERVED he Lot, 9221004, Section AA', Existing, Upper Slope Toe, Cfn=r~Uh2 -CONTROL DATA 16 NUMBER OF SPECIFIED CENTERS 0 - NUMBER OF DEPTH LIMITING TANGENTS 0 NUMBER OF VERTICAL SECTIONS 10 1 NUMBER OF SOIL LAYER BOUNDARIES 6 NUMBER OF PORE PRESSURE LINES 0 NUMBER OF POINTS DEFINING COHESION PROFILE 0 - .oo .oo LCH STARTS AT CENTER ( 190.0,-200.O),WITH FINAL GRID OF 1.0 &L CIRCLES PASS THROUGH THE POINT ( 177.0,-139.0) - - SECTIONS 100.0 123.0 124.0 138.0 154.0 161.0 164.0 169.0 172-0 177.0 4. CRACKS -170.0-170.0-170.0-169.0-162.0-155.0-152.0-146.0-143.0-13~-~ W IN ~RACK~170~0~170~0~170~0~169.0~162.0~155.0~152.0~146~0~143~0~139~~ UNDARY 1~170~0~170~0~170.0~169.0-1~2.0-155.0-152.0~146~0~143~0~139~0 UNDARY 2~155~0~155~0~155.0~155.0-1~5.0-155.0-152.0~146.0~143~0~139~0 3UNDARY 3~152~0~152~0~152.0~152.0-1~2.0-152.0-152.0~146~0~143~0~139~0 -BOUNDARY 4~146~0~146~0~146~0~146.0-146.0-146.0~146.0~146~0~143~0~13~~~ UNDARY 5~143~0~143~0~143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0~143.0~143~0~139~0 UNDARY 6~100~0~100.0~100.0-100.0-100.0-~O0.0-100.0-100.0~100~0~100~0 3 -2 COHESION FRICTION ANGLE DENSITY 150.0 100.0 200.0 600.0 200.0 31.0 34.0 28.0 38.0 38.0 115.0 110.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 MUHE LOTS 9221004 PAGE 83 OF 812 I -NUMBER TANGENT RADIUS .f 1 -137.6 62.4 2 -137.2 62.8 3 -137.6 60.4 1 4 -137.4 60.6 5 -137.6 59.4 6 -137.8 60.2 7 -137.6 61.4 - 9 -137.8 59.2 -137.8 61.2 1 '1; -137.4 61.6 - - 4 8 -137.3 59.7 (X) CENTER 190.0 192.0 190.0 191.0 290.0 189.0 190.0 191.0 189.0 189.0 191.0 (Y) CENTER -200.0 -200.0 -198.0 -197 -0 -198.0 -199.0 -197.0 -197.0 -199.0 -199.0 -198.0 FS (BISHOP) 1.608 1.609 1.607 1.609 1.608 1.608 1.607 1.611 1.608 1.610 1.608 - 1.S. MINIMUM= 1.607 FOR THE CIRCLE OF CENTER ( 190.0,-198.0) - ****************** * STABRG ****************** s 4 a 9 a a 4 4 a 4 rn dB - L - F - - - - - - - FS (OMS) 1.553 1.557 1.551 1.555 1.552 1.551 1.552 1.557 1.550 1.553 1.554 MUHE LOTS -. D221004 PAGE 84 OF 812 i - 1 1 - phe Lot, i ............................................. * SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS * * * ************** S T A B R G ***************** * * PORTIONS (C) COPYRIGHT 1985, 1986 * * GEOSOFT * ALL RIGHTS RESERVED * * * * * * * ............................................. 9221004, Section AA', With Residence, Upper Slope Toe, cfn-muh3 'I - PNTROL DATA k NUMBER OF SPECIFIED CENTERS 0 NUMBER OF DEPTH LIMITING TANGENTS 0 NUMBER OF VERTICAL SECTIONS 10 NUMBER OF SOIL LAYER BOUNDARIES 6 - NUMBER OF PORE PRESSURE LINES 0 NUMBER OF POINTS DEFINING COHESION PROFILE 0 - - ISMIC COEFFICIENT S1,S2 = .oo .oo &ARCH STARTS AT CENTER ( 175.0,-160.0) ,WITH FINAL GRID OF 1.0 &L CIRCLES PASS THROUGH THE POINT ( 177.0,-139.0) - - TECTIONS 100.0 123.0 124.0 138.0 154.0 162.0 164.0 169.0 172.0 177.0 8. CRACKS -170.0-170.0-154.0-154.0-154.0-154.0-152.0-146.0-143.0-1~9-~ -W IN CRACK~170~0~170~0~154.0-154.O-154.0-154.0~152.0~146~0~143~0~139~0 UNDARY 1~170~0~170.0~154.0-154.0-154.0-152.0~146.0~143~0~139~0 UNDARY 2~155~0~155~0~154.0-154.0-154.0-154.0-152.0~146~0~143~0~139~0 bOUNDARY 3~152~0~152~0~152.0-152.0-152.0-152.0~152.0~146~0~143~0~139~O OUNDARY 4~146~0~146~0~146.0~146.0-146.0-146.0~146~0~146~0~143~0~139~0 UNDARY 5~143~0~143~0~143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0~143~0~143~0~139~0 k UNDARY 6~100~0~100~0~100.0-100.0-10O.O-~OO.O-~O0.0-100.0~100.0~100~0~100~0 8 - $IL PROPERTIES - COHESION FRICTION ANGLE DENSITY 150.0 31.0 115.0 100.0 34.0 110.0 200.0 38.0 130.0 600.0 28.0 130.0 - 5 200.0 38.0 130.0 - I MUHE LOTS 9221004 PAGE e5 OF e12 - LUMBER TANGENT . 1 -138.9 2 -139.0 3 -139.0 4 -139.0 5 -139.0 6 -139.0 7 -139.0 .' 8 -139.0 - 9 -139.0 10 -139.0 - 11 -138.9 12 -139.0 - 13 -138.9 14 -139.0 15 -139.0 -, 16 -138.9 - - i F.S. MINIMUM= 2. RADIUS 21.1 21.0 21.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 20.0 20.0 22.0 22.0 22.1 23.0 21.1 21.0 23.0 23.1 (X) CENTER 175.0 177.0 178.0 177.0 176.0 177.0 178.0 176.0 176.0 178.0 179.0 178.0 179.0 177.0 177.0 179.0 (Y) CENTER -160.0 -160.0 -160.0 -159.0 -160.0 -161.0 -159.0 -159.0 -161.0 -161.0 -161.0 -162.0 -160.0 -160.0 -162.0 -162.0 FS (BISHOP) 2.174 2.097 2.104 2.098 2.122 2.104 2.121 2.112 2.138 2.097 2.121 2.099 2.145 2.097 2.116 2.109 FS (OMS) 2.067 2.005 2.014 2.001 2.024 2.015 2.027 2.010 '2.043 2.012 2.036 2.017 2.056 2.005 2.031 2.028 7 (.I ,097 FOR THE CIRCLE OF CENTER ( 178.0,-161.0) ****************** * STABRG * ****************** MUHE LOTS 0221004 PAGE 86 OF 012 ............................................. * * * SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS * * - ********e***** S T A B R G ***************** * * * PORTIONS fC] COFYRIG"T 1985, 1986 * * * GEOSOFT * * * * ALL RIGHTS RESERVED *. * * ************************a******************** - - . the Lot, 9221004, Section BB', Existing, Lower Slope Toe, Cfn=muhll 8 - )NTROL DATA NUMBER OF SPECIFIED CENTERS 0 - NUMBER OF DEPTH LIMITING TANGENTS 0 NUMBER OF VERTICAL SECTIONS 13 NUMBER OF SOIL LAYER BOUNDARIES 7 NUMBER OF PORE PRESSURE LINES 0 c. NUMBER OF POINTS DEFINING COHESION PROFILE 0 - - SEISMIC COEFFICIENT si, s2 = .oo .oo &ARCH STARTS AT CENTER ( 200.0,-260.0) ,WITH FINAL GRID OF 10.0 4LL CIRCLES PASS THROUGH THE POINT ( 278.0,-104.0) - - *.TRY T ECTION S 50.0 121.0 122.0 127.0 147.0 154.0 156.0 161.0 167.0 197.0 210.0 218 d. CRACKS -169.0-169.0-169.0-169.0-167.0-155.0-152.0-147.0-146.0-144.0-138.0-134 4 IN CRACK~169~0~169.0~169.0-169.0-167.~-~55.0-152.0~147.0~146~0~144~0~138~0~134 OUNDARY 1~169~0~169.0~169.0-169.0-167.0-155.0-152.0~147.0~146~0~144~0~138~0~1~4 OUNDARY 2~155~0~155.0~155.0-155.0-155.0-155.0-152.0~147~0~146~0~144~0~138~0~1~4 OUNDARY 3~152~0~152.0-152.0-152.0-~52.~-152.0-152.0~147.0~146~0~144~0~138~0~134 BOUNDARY 4~152~0~152.0-152.0-152.0-~~2.~-152.0-152.0~147.0~138.0~138~0~138~0~134 OUNDARY 5~138~0~138.0-138.0-138.0-~38.~-~38.0-138.0-138.0~138.0~138~0~138~0~134 a OUNDARY 6~134~0~134.0~134.0-134.0-134.0-134.0-134.0~134.0~134~0~134~0~134~0~~~4 -BOUNDARY 7 -50-0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50 - 4 d -SOIL PROPERTIES &ER COHESION FRICTION ANGLE DENSITY 150.0 100.0 100.0 200.0 31.0 115.0 34.6 30.0 38.0 110.0 110.0 MUHE LOTS 9221004 PAGE 87 OF 812 130.0 - 5 600.0 '6 200.0 - :UMBER TANGENT RADIUS -85.6 174.4 -93.6 166.4 -99.4 160.6 -103.0 157.0 -104.0 156.0 -103.5 156.5 -102.5 157.5 -103.5 146.5 -102.4 141.6 -103.5 136.5 -104.0 146.0 -102.2 137.8 -104.0 136.0 -104.0 156.0 -102.5 157.5 28.0 38.0 130.0 130.0 (X) CENTER (Y) CENTER FS(BISH0P) FS(0MS) 200.0 220.0 240.0 260.0 280.0 290.0 300.0 290.0 300.0 290.0 280.0 300.0 280.0 280.0 300.0 -260.0 -260.0 -260.0 -265.0 -260.0 -260.0 -260.0 -250.0 -250.0 -240.0 -250.0 -240.0 -240.0 -260.0 -260.0 3.664 3.045 2.615 2.480 2.402 2.309 2.357 2.292 2.723 2.302 2.352 2.984 2.309 2.402 2.357 -.S. MINIMUM- 2.292 FOR THE CIRCLE OF CENTER ( 290.0,-250.0) 4 ****************** * STABRG * ****************** ... .. .:. . . 3.313 2.793 2.433 2.361 2.346 2.264 2.322 2.245 2.426 2.254 2.293 2.667 2.247 2.346 2.322 MUHE LOTS 9221004 PAGE 88 OF 812 ............................................. * * * * ************+* S T A R R G **ad************* * * * * '* ............................................. * SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS * * PORTIONS (C) COPYRIGRT 1985, 1986 GEOSOFT * * ALL RIGHTS RESERVED uhe Lot, 9221004, Section BB', Existing, Upper Slope Toe, cfn=muhl2 1 'ONTROL DATA d NUMBER OF SPECIFIED CENTERS 0 NUMBER OF DEPTH LIMITING TANGENTS 0 NUMBER OF VERTICAL SECTIONS 13 NUMBER OF PORE PRESSURE LINES 0 NUMBER OF POINTS DEFINING COHESION PROFILE 0 1 1 NUMBER OF SOIL LAYER BOUNDARIES 7 .oo .oo FEARCH STARTS AT CENTER ( 175.0.-1Pfi.Q) ,XiTH FINAL rKln OF 1 1 JLL CIRCLES PASS THROUGH THE POINT ( 161.0, -147.0) r. - - - ._- c .. #EOMETRY 50.0 121.0 122.0 127.0 147.0 154.0 156.0 161.0 167.0 197.0 210.0 218 roNS - CRACKS ~169~0~169~0~169.0~169.0-167.0-155.0-152~0~147.0~146~0~144~0~138~0~134 T OUNDARY 3~152~0~152.0~152.0-152.0-152.0-152.0-152.0-147.0~146.0~144~0~138~0~13~ W IN ~RACK~169~0~169~0~169.0~169.0-167.0-155.0-152.0~147.0~146~0~144~0~138~0~134 UNDARY 1~169~0~169.0~169.0-169.0-167.0-155.0-152.0~147.0~146.0~144~0~138~0~134 0UNDAP.Y 2~155~0~155~0~155.0~155.0-155.0-155.0-152.0~147.0~146~0~144~0~138~0~134 OUNDARY 4~152~0~152~0~152.0-152.0-152.0-152.0-152.0~147.0~138~0~138~0~138~0~134 0UNDW.Y 5~138~0~138~0~138.0-13~.0-13~.0-l38.Q-13~~0-138.0~138~0~138~0~138~0~13~ do UNDARY 6~134~0~134~0~134.0-134.~-134.0-~34.0-134.0-134.0~134.0~134~0~134~0~134 BOUNDARY 7 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50-0 -50 -a SOIL PROPERTIES COHESION FRICTION ANGLE DENSITY 150.0 100.0 100.0 200.0 31.0 34.0 30.0 38.0 115.0 MUHE LOTS 110.0 110.0 4 - - ‘5 600.0 6 200.0 s I TANGENT -144.5 -143.8 -143.4 -143.7 -143.3 -143.6 -144.1 -143.2 -144.0 -143.9 -144.4 -143.5 -144.3 -144.4 -143.7 RADIUS 40.5 41.2 41.6 40.3 40.7 39.4 39.9 39.8 39.0 38.1 38.6 38.5 37.7 39.6 40.3 28.0 38.0 (X) CENTER 175.0 177.0 1.78.0 177.0 178.0 177.0 176.0 178.0 176.0 176.0 175.0 177.0 175.0 175.0 177.0 130.0 130.0 (Y) CENTER -185.0 -185.0 -185.0 -184.0 -184.0 -183.0 -184.0 -183.0 -183.0 -182.0 -183.0 -182.0 -182.0 -184.0 -184.0 FS (BISHOP) 1.284 1.272 1.273 1.272 1.277 1.275 1.272 1.285 1.271 1.273 1.273 1.282 1.271 1.277 1.272 .S. MINIMUM= 1.271 FOR THE CIRCLE OF CENTER ( 176.0,-183.0) s FS (OMS) 1.256 1.246 1.248 1.245 1.251 1.247 1.245 1.258 1.243 1.244 1.243 1.254 1.241 1.249 1.245 ****************** * STABRG * ****************** MUHE LOTS 9221004 PAGE B10 OF 812 ************************a******************** * * * SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS * * * * * * * * * * * ............................................. ***e********** S T A B R G ***************** * PORTIONS IC) COPYRIGHT 1985, 1986 * * GFO S Q ill! * * ALL RIGHTS RESERVED .* - uhe Lot, 9221004, Section BB', With Residence, Upper Slope Toe, cfn=muhl3 0 NUMBER OF VERTICAL SECTIONS 13 - NUMBER OF DEPTH LIMITING TANGENTS 0 fi NUMBER OF SOIL LAYER BOUNDARIES 7 - NUMBER OF PORE PRESSURE LINES 0 NUMBER OF POINTS DEFINING COHESION PROFILE 0 .oo .oo - lEARCH STARTS AT CENTER ( 160.0,-160.0) ,WITH FINAL GRID OF 1.0 - aLL CIRCLES PASS THROUGH THE POINT ( 161.0, -147.0) 50.0 121.0 122.0 127.0 147.0 155.0 156.0 161.0 167.0 197.0 210.0 2 -KIONS ... - CRACKS ~169~0~169~0~154.0~154.0~154.0-154.0-152.0-147.0~146~0~144~0~138~0~1~ - W IN CRACK~169~0~169.0~154.0~154.0-154.0-154.0-152.0-147.0-146.0~144~0~138~0~1~ UNDARY 1~169~0~169~0~154.0~154.0~154.0-154.0-152.0-147.0-146.0~144~0~138~0~1~ UNDARY 2~155~0~155~0~154.0~154.0-154.0-154.0-152.0-147.0-146.0~144~0~138~0~1~ OUNDARY 3~152~0~152~0~152~0~152.0~152.0-152.0-152.0~147.0~146~0~144~0~136~0~1' 0IJ"DARY 4~152~0~152~0~152~0~152.0~152.0-152.0-152.0-147.0~136~0~138~0~138-0~1~ IJ"DARY 5~138~0~138~0~138.0~138.0~136.0-138.0-138.0-138.0~136~0~138~0~138~0~1~ -* UNDARY 6~134~0~134~0~134.0~134.0~134.0-134.0-134.0-134.0~134~0~134~0~134~0~1~ - BOUNDARY 7 -50-0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -! Ig: -. SOIL PROPERTIES - COHESION FRICTION ANGLE DENSITY 100.0 200.0 30.0 38.0 110.0 130.0 9221004 PAGE 811 OF 812 5 -6 lrMBER TANGENT 1 -147.0 - 2 -147.0 3 -146.7 4 -147.0 5 -146.8 - 6 -147.0 7 -147.0 8 -147.0 - 9 -146.8 10 -147.0 11 -147.0 12 -146.8 - 600.0 200.0 RADIUS 13.0, 13.0 13.3 11.0 11.2 10.0 11.0 12.0 10.2 10.0 12.0 12.2 28.0 38.0 (X) CENTER 160.0 162.0 164.0 162.0 163.0 162.0 161.0 162.0 163.0 161.0 161.0 163.0 130.0 130.0 (Y) CENTER -26~0 -160.01 -160.0 -158.0 -158.0 -157.0 -158.0 -159.0 -157.0 -157.0 -159.0 -159.0 FS (BISHOP) 3.018 2.734 2.735 2.672 2.725 2.681 2.730 2.694 2.830 2.692 2.783 2.690 -.S. MINIMUM= 2.672 FOR THE CIRCLE OF CENTER ( 162.0,-158.0) A- ****************** * STABRG * ****************** FS (OMS) 2.911 2.658 2.668 2.584 2.643 2.586 2.630 2.612 2.740 2.585 2.689 2.615 _19 .. . .... ,. L MUHE LOTS 9221004 PAGE 812 OF 812 v1 0 P 4 d P 0 A P 0 hY w 0 P N (0 0 0 m I d I 0 w 0 0 A P P I d I (J1 (0 0 0 & P 0 N-OINA- CY ooooou 0 000000 g 000000 g 9 000d00 9 2 - UUNUWU mommcy > 2 a no -N z 4 0 0 P cn 0 0 u 0 0 P N 0 a ? CJ C C c Y COORDINATE m 1 3 I I I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 v 1 A 0 P. 0 4 v1 0 0 N 0 0 P N U C c L C C c Y COORDINATE I d I I 2 P O 0 P L" I 0 I OlCC.I'N-. 2 a _--- Y COORDINATE I d I I A P 01 ul 0 0 0 CDVICUN- NmN-4- 00000vI 000000 OPPPPP UNUUU2 rnoPcD?? 000000 u(rru--- 000000 PPPPPY Y COORDINATE - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & mmc. MC. 6280 Rivcrdalc SueU. San Dicgo. CA 92120 P.O. Box "27. S.n Diego. CA 92JtC-0527 619-2804321. FAX 619-280-4717 - October 4, 1993 Mr. Daniel Muhe 4014 Aguila Street, No. 1 Carlsbad, California 92008 .- II.. SCS&T 9221004 Report No. 2 SUBJECT: Existing Slope, Proposed residential Sits, Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California. REFERENCE: "Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Proposed Residential Site;" Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.; March 27, 1992. Dear Mr. Muhe: This letter has been prepared to confirm our opinion that the existing slope between the upper portion of the site and Carlshad Road (ahandoned) is a cut slope. Apparently the slope is the result of grading operations required for the alignment of Carlsbad Road. If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, AND TESTING, INC. '?" '- DBA:mw cc: (3) Submitted