The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2497 OCEAN ST; ; CB070099; Permit08-13-2007 Job Address Permit Type Parcel No Valuation Occupancy Group # Dwelling Units Bedrooms Project Title Applicant ERIC BECK City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No CB070099 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 2497 OCEAN ST CBAD RESDNTL 2030210800 $1 022,59500 2 6 Sub Type Lot# Construction Type Reference # Structure Type Bathrooms CONDO 0 VN MF2-4 7 DONALD RES-DEMO 4151SF SFD.NEW 2 UNIT 8473 SF LIV.1559 SF STOR.1061SF GAR, 872 SF Status Applied Entered By Plan Approved Issued Inspect Area Ong PC# Plan Check* ISSUED 01/16/2007 LSM 08/13/2007 08/13/2007 Owner DONALD FAMILY TRUST 03-19-99 24423 WHITAKER WAY MURRIETA CA 92562 909 855 2531 P O BOX 1489 CARLSBAD CA 92018 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee HMP Fee Pot Water Con Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot Water Con Fee Reel Water Con Fee $3,13104 Meter Size $0 00 Add'l Reel Water Con Fee $2,03518 Meter Fee $0 00 SDCWA Fee $0 00 CFD Payoff Fee $10226 PFF (3105540) $0 00 PFF (4305540) $0 00 License Tax (3104193) $0 00 License Tax (4304193) $000 Traffic Impact Fee (3105541) $000 Traffic Impact Fee (4305541) $0 00 Sidewalk Fee $000 PLUMBING TOTAL $0 00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $0 00 .MECHANICAL TOTAL $0 00 Housing Impact Fee $0 00 Housing InLieu Fee $15,254 00 Housing Credit Fee D1 Master Drainage Fee $0 00 Sewer Fee $0 00 Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $000 $440 00 $14,37600 $000 $7,973 16 $7,359 84 $000 $000 $402 32 $453 68 $000 $573 00 $260 00 $241 00 $000 $4,51500 $000 $000 $1,04700 ($8,041 00) $50,12248 Total Fees $50,122 48 Total Payments To Date $50,12248 Balance Due $000 BUILDING PLANS V— IN STORAGE ATTACHED Inspector Clearance NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the lmpo%ition"fcf fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as 'fees/exactions You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3 32 030 Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review set aside void, or annul their imposition You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 FaradayAve, Carlsbad CA 92008 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK NO EST VAL 3/7 ."79Plan Ck Deposit. Validated By Date lj~ltefb*7 |1 PROJECT INFORMATION Address (include Bldg/Suite #)Business Name (at this address) Lot No Subdivision Name/Number Of CONTACT PERSON (if different from applicant) Name Address |3 APPLICANT ~D Cgnlractor"" Argent for Contractor City State/Zip Telephone #Fax* D Owner D _Aflent for Owner Name Address State/Zip Telephone # CONTRACTOR - COMPANY NAME I(Sec 7031 5 Business and Professions Code Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter improve demolish or repair any structure prior to its issuance also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law [Chapter 9 commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code] or that he is exempt therefrom and the basis for the alleged exemption Any violation of Section 7031 5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$500]) Name State License # 5" 2- "? 2 1 ~*> Address License Class fc City State/Zip City Business License # / 2 Telephone # Designer Name State License # Address City State/Zip Telephone # WORKER'S COMPENSATION Workers Compensation Declaration I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations D I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work forwhich this permit is issued JB I have and will maintain worker's compensation as required by Section 3700 of the labor Code for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued My worker's compensation insurance cameund policy number are Insurance Company 7"£ un r i Policy No _Expiration Date_ (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$100] OR LESS) D CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued I shall not employ any person m any manner so as to become subject to the W/oVkers Compensation Laws of California WARNING Failure to/secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand doHars($100,OOOyg^iddition t\the cost of conuieorntinn,' rtnmarjpajire provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor Code, interest and attorney's fees DATE gWS -e?7 [7 OWN^i^BWLDTR'DEctARA'trc'^ ~ I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor s License Law for the following reason D I as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation will d the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec 7044 Business and Professions Code The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale If however the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale) ^f I as owner of the property am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec 7044 Business and Professions Code The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law) D I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason 1 I personally plan to provide the major labor and matenals for construction of the proposed property improvement D YES D NO 2 I (have/have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work 3 I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number) 4 I plan to provide portions of the work but I have hired the following person to coordinate supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number / /ontractors license number) _^_^_______ 6 I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type of work) PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE WHITE File YELLOW Applicant PINK Finance PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave , Carlsbad CA 92008 Page 2 of 2 coM'piTfrfFns^rfTo^^ Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan acutely hazardous materials registration for or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act' D YES D NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district' D YES D NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1 000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? D YES D 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 [F CONSTRUCTJON LENDING~AGlNCY ~ ~ ~] I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec 3097(1) Civil Code) LENDER'S NAME _ LENDER'S ADDRESS _ [9 I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction I hereby authorize representatives of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGEMENTS, COSTS AND OSHA An OSHA permit is required for excavations of 5 0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stones in height. EXPIRATION Every permit issued by the building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within ISJUKiys fropUhe date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a penod of>8tfdays (Sedtion 106 4 4 UnifoorfSuildmg Code) APPLICANT S SIGNATURE —, - // ^. DATE / " /^ " ^ (—— - WHITE File YELLOW Applicant PINK Finance Christine Wauschek From Michael Elliott [mikeelliott2@cox net] Sent Friday, March 27, 2009 3 51 PM To Leticia Trevmo, Greg Fisher, Janean Hawney, Christine Wauschek, Meghan Mckillop, Michele Masterson, Peter Dreibelbis, spackcon@yahoo com Subject Donald Residential Condominiums Attachments 241 - Donald Residential Condominiums - Insp2 doc Donald Residential Condominiums Project Number SDP 05-17 Drawing Number 448-9L 2497 Ocean Street - CB070099 Landscape inspection comments are attached Approved - Permit card was signed on March 27, 2009 City of Carlsbad final Building Inspection Dept Building Engineering Planning CMWD St Lite Fire RECE):VII MAR "3 1 2009 Plan Check # Permit # Project Name Address Contact Person Sewer Dist 1 i.: ^. s: xl-AGi-K^r i;iVncrrrn' ( '•• Ai l,l\ l-,i()N - —03/30/2009 CB070099 DONALD RES-DEMO 4151SF SFD.NEW 2 UNIT CONDO (2497 & 2499 OECEAN ST) 8473 SF LIV, 2497 OCEAN ST Lot Phone CA Water Dist CA Date Permit Type RESDNTL Sub Type CONDO 0 Inspected By _ Inspected By _ JBU Inspected By Date Inspected Date Inspected Date Inspected /?J Approved Approved Approved Disapproved Disapproved Disapproved Comments Inspection List Permit* CB070099 Type RESDNTL CONDO Date Inspection Item 03/30/2009 89 03/30/2009 89 02/18/2009 89 02/18/2009 89 09/17/2008 17 09/17/200823 09/05/2008 16 08/28/2008 14 08/28/2008 18 08/28/2008 24 08/28/2008 34 08/28/2008 44 08/20/2008 16 08/20/2008 24 08/20/2008 27 07/21/2008 22 07/09/2008 13 05/21/2008 15 05/13/2008 34 05/13/2008 39 11/30/2007 11 11/09/200766 11/08/200766 11/01/2007 11 10/19/200721 09/17/200762 08/21/2007 11 Final Combo Final Combo Final Combo Final Combo Interior Lath/Drywall Gas/Test/RepaiVs Insulation Frame/Steel/Boltmg/Weldm Exterior Lath/Drywall Rough/Topout Rough Electric Rough/Ducts/Dampers Insulation Rough/Topout Shower Pan/Roman Tubs Sewer/Water Service Shear Panels/HD's Roof/Reroof Rough Electric Final Electrical Ftg/Foundation/Piers Grout Grout Ftg/Foundation/Piers Underground/Under Floor Steel/Bond Beam Ftg/Foundation/Piers Inspector Act PC - - PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC AP Rl Rl PA AP AP AP CO NR AP AP AP PA AP AP PA AP AP PA PA AP PA PA AP AP PA PA DONALD RES-DEMO 4151SF SFD,NEW 2 UNIT CONDO (2497 & 2499 OECEAN ST) Comments ALL DEPTS SIGNED OFF ON CARD SEE LIST ON SITE OK GAS METER BOTH UNITS DRAFT STOPS OK TO INSUL SEWER ONLY AREAS TO BE COVERED EMR UNIT A & B UPPER PIERS LOWER WALLS 2ND LIFT LOWER WALLS 1ST LIFT grout HIGH WALL FTGS Tuesday, March 31, 2009 Page 1 of 1 City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For 03/30/2009 Permit* CB070099 Title DONALD RES-DEMO 4151SF SFD.NEW Inspector Assignment PC Description 2 UNIT CONDO (2497 & 2499 OECEAN ST) 8473 SF LIV,1559 SF STOR.1061SF GAR, 872 SF DECKS Type RESDNTL Sub Type CONDO Job Address 2497 OCEAN ST Suite Lot 0 Location APPLICANT ERIC BECK Owner DONALD FAMILY TRUST 03-19-99 Remarks Phone 7608224925 Inspector Total Time Requested By SCOTT Entered By KAREN CD Description 19 Final Structural 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical 49 Final Mechanical Comments Comments/Notices/Holds Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# CV040506 CLOSED H-SUBSTANDARD HOUSE Inspection History Date 02/18/2009 09/17/2008 09/17/2008 09/05/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008 08/20/2008 08/20/2008 08/20/2008 07/21/2008 Description 89 Final Combo 17 Interior Lath/Drywall 23 Gas/Test/Repairs 16 Insulation 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Weldmg 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall 24 Rough/Topout 34 Rough Electric 44 Rough/Ducts/Dampers 16 Insulation 24 Rough/Topout 27 Shower Pan/Roman Tubs 22 Sewer/Water Service Act PA AP AP AP CO NR AP AP AP PA AP AP PA lns| PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC Comments SEE LIST ON SITE OK GAS METER BOTH UNITS DRAFT STOPS OK TO INSUL SEWER ONLY City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For 02/18/2009 Permit* CB070099 Inspector Assignment PC Title DONALD RES-DEMO 4151SF SFD,NEW Description 2 UNIT 8473 SF LIV.1559 SF STOR,1061SF GAR, 872 SF DECKS Sub Type CONDOType RESDNTL Job Address 2497 OCEAN ST Suite Lot 0 Location APPLICANT ERIC BECK Owner DONALD FAMILY TRUST 03-19-99 Remarks Phone 7608224925 Inspector Total Time CD Description 19 Final Structural 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical 49 Final Mechanical Requested By SCOTT Entered By CHRISTINE Act Comments &4» Comments/Notices/Holds Date 09/17/2008 09/17/2008 09/05/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008 08/20/2008 08/20/2008 08/20/2008 07/21/2008 07/09/2008 Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# CV040506 CLOSED H-SUBSTANDARD MOUSE Inspection History Description Act Insp 17 Interior Lath/Drywall AP PC 23 Gas/Test/Repairs AP PC 16 Insulation AP PC 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Weldmg 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall 24 Rough/Topout 34 Rough Electric 44 Rough/Ducts/Dampers 16 Insulation 24 Rough/Topout 27 Shower Pan/Roman Tubs 22 Sewer/Water Service 13 Shear Panels/HD's Act AP AP AP CO NR AP AP AP PA AP AP PA AP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC Comments DRAFT STOPS OK TO INSUL SEWER ONLY EsGil Corporation In Partnership with government for <Bm[ding Safety DATE 4/6/07 L^.,^. . ("a JURIS"*" .) JURISDICTION Carlsbad CrPLmTREVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO 07-OO99 SET III PROJECT ADDRESS 2497 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME Condominium Duplex The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes 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 The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck The check list transmitted herewith is for your information The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to XI Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Person contacted Telephone # Date contacted (by ) Fax # Mail Telephone Fax In Person . Lo XI REMARKS City staff to confirm that the Building Official has/deferred the electrical plans, gas line calc's and plans, the DWV plans and water pipe sizing calc's and plans. By Chuck Mendenhall Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 3/29/07 tmsmUdot EsGil Corporation In (Partnership with government for (Builifmg Safety DATE 3/23/O7 a APPLICANT JURISDICTION Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO 07-0099 SET III PROJECT ADDRESS 2497 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME Condominium Duplex The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck The check list transmitted herewith is for your information The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person 1X1 The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to Buck Thompson 627 Bonair Way, La Jolla, CA 92037 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Xj Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Person contacted Buck Thompson Telephone # (858) 336-8249 Date contacted S/H ((by F) Fax # (858)454-2720 Mail —'Telephone Fax ^""In Person REMARKS By Chuck Mendenhall Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 3/19/07 trnsmtldot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diego, California 92123 * (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 07-O099 3/23/07 Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects) For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways 1 Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave , Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700 The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments 2 Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468 Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments NOTE Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete NOTE: The items listed below are from the previous correction list. These remaining items have not been adequately addressed. The numbers of the items are from the previous check list and may not necessarily be in sequence. THE TRUSS DESIGN AND LAYOUT WAS THE ONLY ITEM SUBMITTED FOR RECHECK. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS STILL APPLY MECHANICAL (UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE) 10 The ICBO approval for the proposed ISOKERN fireplaces require structural design and steel reinforcing in seismic zone 4 Provide design for the steel reinforcing of the fireplaces and detail the anchorage of the steel reinforcing to the foundation The response was "CS deferred submittal". This must be approved by the building official. 13 Show source of combustion air to all enclosed furnaces, per Chapter 7, UMC Specify the location and sizes of both of the combustion air openings Combustion air for the lower level mechanical room is shown on sheet E.3 as louvered vent in the door. This door opens into storage beneath the stairs. Combustion air vents must open directly to the exterior. • ELECTRICAL (NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE) 15. Show on the plan the amperage of the electrical service, the location of the service panel and the location of any sub-panels If service is over 200 amps, submit single line diagram, panel schedule and load calculations The response was that this is to be deferred. The building official must approve the electrical plans as a deferred submittal. PLUMBING (UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE) 20 Provide gas line sizing calc's and isometric plans Building official to approve this as deferred submittal. Carlsbad 07-OO99 3/23/07 21 Provide DWV isometric plans Include as part of the plans the location and size of the sump pump, the double check valve for the sump pump and the separation of waste lines between the sump and gravity flow lines Building official to approve this a s deferred submittal. 23 Provide water pipe sizing calc's and water pipe isometric plans Building official to approve this as a deferred submittal. 24 Note on the plans that "Combustion air for fuel burning water heaters will be provided in accordance with UPC Section 507 and Table 5-1" Combustion air vents shown in the door to the mechanical room on sheet E.3 must open directly to the exterior. ENERGY CONSERVATION 28 Provide plans, calculations or worksheets to show compliance with current energy standards adopted October 1, 2005 Required 29 The version of the computer program that you have used is no longer current Provide new calculations, using acceptable updated residential computer energy programs As of October 1, 2005, they are the following Required a) Micropas 7 0 or 7 1 b) EnergyPro 4 1 30 The regulations require a properly completed and properly signed Form CF-1R (4 pages) to be either imprinted on the plans, taped to the plans or "sticky backed" on the plans, to allow the building inspector to readily compare the actual construction with the requirements of the approved energy design required. FOUNDATION 35. As per the soil report, page 43, provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction documents (required by the soil report). • STRUCTURAL 39 When special inspection is required, as outlined on sheet SP1, the engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit Please review Section 106 3 5 Please complete the attached City of Oceanside form and imprint on the plans See the attached form that must be completed by the engineer of record. 41 Please provide evidence that the engmeer-of-record (or architect) has reviewed the truss calculation package prepared by others (i e , a "review" stamp on the truss calculations or a letter) Section 106 3 4 1 TRUSS DESIGN WAS PROVIDED BUT THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR THE BUILDING Dl NOT PROVIDE A REVIEW STAMP AND APPROVAL ON THE TRUSS PLANS. Carlsbad O7-OO99 3/23/07 47 Page V-15 of the calc's lists the allowable vertical load for various sizes of spread footings How did you translate this information to the spread footing sizes shown on sheet S1 1 of the plans'? There is nothing in the design calc's outlining the various point loads to show me how you arrived at the footing sizes shown on the plans The response directed me to the design calc's and criteria used in the design to justify the footing sizes. This is OK but how do I determine where on the plans the various footing sizes apply. Provide a schematic of the foundation with a summary of the concentrated loads to show that the footing sizes on the plans are consistent with the design and the loading. 50 Specify the size of the lagging as shown on SH-1 & SH-2 Elevation 'B' on sheet SH-2 indicates 4X lagging between 13-21 What is the size of the other lagging'? No response. This still applies to the shoring plans. END OF RECHECK To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i e , plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123, telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Chuck Mendenhall at Esgil Corporation Thank you Carlsbad 07-0099 3/23/07 SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN CHECK NUMBER: OWNER'S NAME I, as the owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may not employ the special inspector), certify that I, or the architect/engineer of record, will be responsible for employing the special mspector(s) as required by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 1701 1 for the construction project located at the site listed above UBC Section 10635 Signed I, as the engineer/architect of record, certify that I have prepared the following special inspection program as required by UBC Section 106 3 5 for the construction project located at the site listed above Engineer s/Arcnilect s Seal & Signature Here Signed 1 List of work requiring special inspection D Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection Q Field Welding D Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI D High Strength Bolting D Prestressed Concrete D Expansion/Epoxy Anchors D Structural Masonry D Sprayed-On Fireproofmg D Designer Specified D Other 2 Name(s) of mdividual(s) or firm(s) responsible for the special inspections listed above A B C 3 Duties of the special inspectors for the work listed above A B C Special inspectors shall check in with the City and present their credentials for approval prior to beginning work on the job site EsGil Corporation In Partnership -with government for (Building Safety DATE 2/21/07 a APPLICANT JURISDICTION Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO 07-O099 SET II PROJECT ADDRESS 2497 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME Condominium Duplex The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck XI The check list transmitted herewith is for your information The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to Buck Thompson 627 Bonair Way, La Jolla, CA 92037 I I Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed XI Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Person contacted Buck Thompson Telephone # (858) 336-8249 Date contacted <2y6//0'7 (by^2) Fax # (858) 454-2720 Mail Telephone Fax v In Person 1 REMARKS By Chuck Mendenhall Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 2/15/07 trnsmtldot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 ^ (858)560-1468 * Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 07-OO99 2/21/07 Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects) For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways 1 Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave , Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700 The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments 2 Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468 Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments NOTE Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete NOTE: The items listed below are from the previous correction list. These remaining items have not been adequately addressed. The numbers of the items are from the previous check list and may not necessarily be in sequence. The notes in bold are current. MECHANICAL (UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE) 10 The ICBO approval for the proposed ISOKERN fireplaces require structural design and steel reinforcing in seismic zone 4 Provide design for the steel reinforcing of the fireplaces and detail the anchorage of the steel reinforcing to the foundation The response was "CS deferred submittal". This must be approved by the building official. 13 Show source of combustion air to all enclosed furnaces, per Chapter 7, UMC Specify the location and sizes of both of the combustion air openings Combustion air for the lower level mechanical room is shown on sheet E.3 as louvered vent in the door. This door opens into storage beneath the stairs. Combustion air vents must open directly to the exterior. • ELECTRICAL (NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE) 15. Show on the plan the amperage of the electrical service, the location of the service panel and the location of any sub-panels If service is over 200 amps, submit single line diagram, panel schedule and load calculations The response was that this is to be deferred. The building official must approve the electrical plans as a deferred submittal. PLUMBING (UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE) 20 Provide gas line sizing calc's and isometric plans Building official to approve this as deferred submittal. 21 Provide DWV isometric plans Include as part of the plans the location and size of the sump pump, the double check valve for the sump pump and the separation of waste lines between the sump and gravity flow lines Building official to approve this a s deferred submittal. Carlsbad O7-OO99 2/21/07 23 Provide water pipe sizing calc's and water pipe isometric plans Building official to approve this as a deferred submittal. 24 Note on the plans that "Combustion air for fuel burning water heaters will be provided in accordance with UPC Section 507 and Table 5-1" Combustion air vents shown in the door to the mechanical room on sheet E.3 must open directly to the exterior. • ENERGY CONSERVATION 28 Provide plans, calculations or worksheets to show compliance with current energy standards adopted October 1, 2005 Required 29 The version of the computer program that you have used is no longer current Provide new calculations, using acceptable updated residential computer energy programs As of October 1, 2005, they are the following Required a) Micropas 7 0 or 7 1 b) EnergyPro 4 1 30 The regulations require a properly completed and properly signed Form CF-1R (4 pages) to be either imprinted on the plans, taped to the plans or "sticky backed" on the plans, to allow the building inspector to readily compare the actual construction with the requirements of the approved energy design required. • FOUNDATION 35. As per the soil report, page 43, provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction documents (required by the soil report). STRUCTURAL 39 When special inspection is required, as outlined on sheet SP1, the engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit Please review Section 106 3 5 Please complete the attached City of Oceanside form and imprint on the plans See the attached form that must be completed by the engineer of record. 40 Provide truss details and truss calculations for this project Specify truss identification numbers on the plans Not provided 41 Please provide evidence that the engineer-of-record (or architect) has reviewed the truss calculation package prepared by others (i e , a "review" stamp on the truss calculations or a letter) Section 106 3 4 1 Not provided Carlsbad 07-OO99 2/21/O7 47 Page V-15 of the calc's lists the allowable vertical load for various sizes of spread footings How did you translate this information to the spread footing sizes shown on sheet S1 1 of the plans9 There is nothing in the design calc's outlining the various point loads to show me how you arrived at the footing sizes shown on the plans The response directed me to the design calc's and criteria used in the design to justify the footing sizes. This is OK but how do I determine where on the plans the various footing sizes apply. Provide a schematic of the foundation with a summary of the concentrated loads to show that the footing sizes on the plans are consistent with the design and the loading. 50 Specify the size of the lagging as shown on SH-1 & SH-2 Elevation 'B' on sheet SH-2 indicates 4X lagging between 13-21 What is the size of the other lagging? No response. This still applies to the shoring plans. END OF RECHECK To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i e , plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123, telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Chuck Mendenhall at Esgil Corporation Thank you Mar 28 07 10:20a Pi Rrc Design 858-454-2720 p.l -moi Carlsbad O7-OO99 2/21/O7 SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN CHECK NUMBER: . CA&L-±F>>A o OWNER'S NAME: I. as the owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may not employ the special inspector), certify that I, or tne architect/engineer of record, will be responsible for employing the special inspectors) as required by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 1701 1 for the construction project located at the site listed above. UBC Section 106.3-5 Signed architect of record, certify that I have prepared the following special inspection program as • the construction project located at the site listed above. I. as the required Signed 1 . List of work requiring special inspection. St. Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation inspection §£ Structural Concrete Ovor 2500 PSi Q Prestressed Concrete gj. Structural Masonry D Designer Specified D Field Welding S High Strength Bolting Expansion/Epoxy Anchors D Sprayed-On Fireproofing D Other 2. Name(s) of individual(s) or firm(s) responsible for the special inspections listed above: A B C 3. Duties of the special inspectors far the work listed above- A B C Special irviaoctore atoll truck >n with the, City and txesont their cwtefflbls <V approval AQfi£jQ beginmns work on the job site EsGil Corporation In Partnership -with government for <Buif<fmg Safety DATE 1/24/O7 OAEELJCANT~ JURISDICTION Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO O7-0099 SET I PROJECT ADDRESS 2497 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME Condominium Duplex The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck The check list transmitted herewith is for your information The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person X3 The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to Buck Thompson 627 Bonair Way, La Jolla, CA 92037 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed XI Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Person contacted Buck Thompson Telephone # (858)336-8249 Date contacted J/^W7(b^/^ Fax # (858) 454-2720 Mail Telephorje-^v Fax \/ In Person REMARKS ( W) By Chuck Mendenhall Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB LI EJ D PC 1/17/07 trnsmtldot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 .Carlsbad O7-0099 1/24/07 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES PLAN CHECK NO O7-0099 JURISDICTION Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS 2497 Ocean St. FLOOR AREA 8473 Dwelling STORIES two 2620 Garage/Storage HEIGHT 26ftapprox per UBC REMARKS DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION ESGIL CORPORATION 1/17/07 DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW PLAN REVIEWER Chuck Mendenhall COMPLETED 1/24/07 FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinance by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or other departments Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit Present California law mandates that residential construction comply with the 2001 edition of the California Building Code (Title 24), which adopts the following model codes 1997 UBC, 2000 UPC, 2000 UMC and 2002 NEC The above regulations apply to residential construction, regardless of the code editions adopted by ordinance The following items listed need clarification, modification or change All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations Per Sec 106 4 3, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e.. plan sheet number, specification section, etc. Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans Carlsbad O7-OO99 1/24/O7 Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects) For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways 1 Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave , Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700 The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments 2 Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468 Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments NOTE Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete 1 Show locations of permanently wired smoke detectors in the following area • Centrally located in corridor or area giving access to sleeping rooms This applies to the entertainment room Serving Bed Rm #3 on sheet E.3. This applies at the Dining Rm serving the Master Bed Rm on sheet E.2 • When sleeping rooms are upstairs, at the upper level in close proximity to the stair This applies at the entry level foyer stairs on sheet E.2., E 3 and within the Living Rm at the stairs on sheet E.1. 2. Window area must be at least 1/10 of the floor area and a minimum of 10 square feet per Section 1203 3 This applies to the Entertainment Media Rm on sheet A 4 and the Wine Cellar on sheet A.4. 3 Openable window area in habitable rooms must be 1/20 of the floor area and a minimum of 5 square feet In bathrooms and water closet compartments, 1/20 of area is required and minimum is 1 5 sq ft Section 1203 3 This applies in the wine Cellar with serving bar on sheet A.4. 4 Glazing in the following locations should be of safety glazing material in accordance with Section 2406 4 This applies to the windows at the whirlpool bath tub in the Master Bath on sheet A.3 & A.3. 5 Show on the plans the method of providing overflow drainage 2" above the floor dram for the exterior sun decks as shown on section G/A 15 and detail 17/D 4 ( Drainage sloping to the center of the deck ) 6 Detail on the plans the construction of the one hour shafts for the elevators Also, include on the door schedule for the elevators that door 'R' is a hour hour listed assembly 7 Provide details of winding stairway complying with Section 1003 3382 Carlsbad 07-O099 1/24/O7 • Minimum tread is 6 inches at any point and minimum 9 inches at a point 12 inches from where the treads are narrowest Provide typical winding stair tread dimensions on the plans to show code compliance. ROOFING 8 Specify on the plans the following information for the tile roof materials, per Section 106 3 3 • Manufacturer's name • Product name/number • ICBO approval number, or equal GARAGE 9 Show a self-closing door, either 1-3/8" solid core or a listed 20 minute assembly, for openings between garage and dwelling Section 302 4 Garage doors listed as type J1 on the floor plans are not included on the door schedule MECHANICAL (UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE) 10 The ICBO approval for the proposed ISOKERN fireplaces require structural design and steel reinforcing in seismic zone 4 Provide design for the steel reinforcing of the fireplaces and detail the anchorage of the steel reinforcing to the foundation 11 The building elevations show that you intend to enclose the fireplace chimney with a roofed enclosure The chimney may not be enclosed with a shroud unless the shroud is UL listed or ICBO listed for use the specific ISOKERN chimney 12 Show on the plans the location of the FAU serving unit 'A' 13 Show source of combustion air to all enclosed furnaces, per Chapter 7, UMC Specify the location and sizes of both of the combustion air openings 14 Detail the dryer exhaust duct design from the dryer to the exterior The maximum length is 14 feet with (two) 90° elbows UMC Section 504 2 2 ELECTRICAL (NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE) 15 Show on the plan the amperage of the electrical service, the location of the service panel and the location of any sub-panels If service is over 200 amps, submit single line diagram, panel schedule and load calculations 16 All bedroom branch circuits now require arc fault protection Note clearly on the plans that "Bedroom branch circuits will be arc fault circuit protected " NEC Art 210-12(b) 17 Show on the plan that ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection complies with NEC Art 210-8, which reads as follows Carlsbad 07-0099 1/24/07 18 All 125-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20- ampere receptacles installed in bathrooms, garages, basements, outdoors, kitchen counters and at wet bar sinks PLUMBING (UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE) 19 Show water heater size (gallon and BTU rating) & type, on plans UPC, Section 501 0 20 Provide gas line sizing calc's and isometric plans 21 Provide DWV isometric plans Include as part of the plans the location and size of the sump pump, the double check valve for the sump pump and the separation of waste lines between the sump and gravity flow lines 22 Provide UL listing and manufacturers cut sheet for the sump pump 23 Provide water pipe sizing calc's and water pipe isometric plans 24 Note on the plans that "Combustion air for fuel burning water heaters will be provided in accordance with UPC Section 507 and Table 5-1" 25 Show T and P valve on water heater and show route of discharge line to exterior UPC, Section 608 5 26 In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, show that water heater is adequately braced to resist seismic forces Provide two straps (one strap at top 1/3 of the tank and one strap at bottom 1/3 of the tank) UPC, Section 5105 27 Provide a note on the plans In showers and tub-shower combinations, control valves must be pressure balanced or thermostatic mixing valves UPC Section 420 0 ENERGY CONSERVATION 28 Provide plans, calculations or worksheets to show compliance with current energy standards adopted October 1, 2005 29 The version of the computer program that you have used is no longer current Provide new calculations, using acceptable updated residential computer energy programs As of October 1, 2005, they are the following a) Micropas 7 0 or 7 1 b) EnergyPro 4 1 30 The regulations require a properly completed and properly signed Form CF-1R (4 pages) to be either imprinted on the plans, taped to the plans or "sticky backed" on the plans, to allow the building inspector to readily compare the actual construction with the requirements of the approved energy design Carlsbad O7-OO99 1/24/07 31 Show on the plans compliance with the residential energy lighting requirements (Mandatory requirement) a) In the kitchen at least one-half of the wattage rating of the fixtures must be high efficacy with non-high efficacy fixtures switched separately Note Approximately 3A of the fixtures will be required to be of the high efficacy variety b) In bathrooms, garages, laundry rooms, and utility rooms all fixtures must be high efficacy style or be controlled by a manually-on occupancy sensor c) All other rooms require any installed fixtures to be high efficacy or be controlled by a manually-on occupancy sensor or dimmer (Closets under 70 square feet are exempt) d) Outdoor lighting fixtures are required to be high efficacy or controlled by a combination photocontrol/motion sensor 32 Note Generally a high efficacy style of fixture is fluorescent complete with electronic ballasts Regular incandescent, quartz halogen and halogen MR lamps do not comply 33 The window schedule shall clearly describe the required U-factor and solar heat gam coefficient (SHGC) values and demonstrate compliance with the Title 24 energy calculations 34 Detail or note on the plans "The return air plenum serving the mechanical equipment must be fully ducted from the equipment to the conditioned space Drop ceilings, wall cavities and equipment platforms may not be used as plenums " FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS 35 Provide a copy of the project soil report prepared by a California licensed architect or civil engineer The report shall include foundation design recommendations based on the engineer's findings and shall comply with UBC Section 1804 36 Investigate the potential for seismically induced soil liquefaction and soil instability in Seismic Zones 3 and 4 This does not apply to detached, single-story dwellings Section 1804 5 37 Include as part of the soil report recommendations for the shoring construction to substantiate the design provided STRUCTURAL 38 Include as part of the list of special inspection listed on sheet SP1 the following in addition to the masonry concrete retaining walls, caisson for shoring 39 When special inspection is required, as outlined on sheet SP1, the engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit Please review Section 106 3 5 Please complete the attached City of Oceanside form and imprint on the plans Carlsbad O7-OO99 1/24/07 40 Provide truss details and truss calculations for this project Specify truss identification numbers on the plans 41 Please provide evidence that the engmeer-of-record (or architect) has reviewed the truss calculation package prepared by others (i e , a "review" stamp on the truss calculations or a letter) Section 106 34 1 42 Floor beam B1 shown on page V-5 of the calc's is not shown on the plans See sheet S1 3 of the plans 43 Beam B21 shown on page V-5 of the calc's is not included in the design calc's The beam loading and design jumps from B20 to B22 on pages V-11 & V-12 of the calc's 44 The design calc's for the beams consists of the loading diagram , the design and required moment and shear Expand the design calc's to show how you arrived at the actual and required moment and shear for the various beams 45 Include in the design calc's the sizing of the beam at the stairs that supports B4 & B9 as shown on page V-14 of the calc's The plans show this beam to be 51/4X16 PSL 46 Include in the design calc's beam B12 as shown on p[age V-14 of the calc's 47 Page V-15 of the calc's lists the allowable vertical load for various sizes of spread footings How did you translate this information to the spread footing sizes shown on sheet S1 1 of the plans There is nothing in the design calc's outlining the various point loads to show me how you arrived at the footing sizes shown on the plans 48 Shear wall lines C & D as shown on page L-3 of the calc's must be type '9' shear walls The plans show type '8' at line 'C' revise the plans to the required type '9' 49 All basement walls are designed as cantilevered retaining walls Detail 11/F1 depicts a cantilever wall condition but the details 2, 7,11,13,14 & 167 FD1 which apply to the basement are all restrained at the top and will not act as a cantilever Provide a justification for the design of the basement walls using the cantilever condition 50 Specify the size of the Lagging as shown on SH-1 & SH-2 Elevation 'B' on sheet SH-2 indicates 4X lagging between 13-21 What is the size of the other lagging? END OF REVIEW To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i e , plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123, telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Chuck Mendenhall at Esgil Corporation Thank you Carlsbad O7-OO99 1/24/O7 City ofOceanside Procedure PC-20 PURPOSE ^SSSS^ Special Inspection Program The purpOS1 . iy nuw L-uiiipiianuc win i woo oconun iuu o Inspection and observation program is to be accomplished POLICY It is the policy of the Oceanside Building Department to require that the Special Inspection Program required by CBC Section 106 3 5 be imprinted on the approved set of plans If the Special Inspection Program changes, the plan must be revised accordingly BACKGROUND CBC Section 106 3 5 requires the architect or engineer of record to prepare an inspection program to be approved by the building official prior to the issuance of the building permit The inspection program must designate the portions of the work that require special inspection and the name or names of the individuals or firms who are to perform the special inspections, and indicate the duties of the special inspectors When structural observation is required by Section 1702, the inspection program shall name the individuals or firms who are to perform structural observation and describe the stages of construction at which structural observation is to occur Past practice has been that the Special Inspection Program is submitted in the format specified by the department, is approved by the plan checker, and remains rolled up with the approved set of plans The building inspector is therefore unaware of what the program says unless they take the effort to retrieve the City set of plans and review the form It is important for the inspector to be aware of who the program identifies to perform special inspections The following procedure is being implemented in order to accomplish this PROCEDURE The architect or engineer of record shall imprint a special inspection program, in the format specified by the Building Department (see attached) on the approved set of plans Plan approval shall be contingent on approval of the imprinted special inspection program Deferred Submittal At times, some or all of the special inspection entities have not been selected at the time the permit is ready to be issued The design professional of record may enter "selection deferred" on the program imprinted on the plan, and add a footnote, "This sheet will be revised to indicate the special inspection entities prior to the time the special inspector is required to check in with the Building Department " Carlsbad .07-0099 1/24/O7 SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM 1, as the engineer/architect of record, certify that 1 have prepared the following special inspection program as required by CBC Section 106 3 5 (Uniform Administrative Code Section 302 5) for this construction project I have informed the owner of these requirements, including items 1 through 3 below Signed Date List of Work Requiring Special Inspection D Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection D Structural Concrete D Prestressed Concrete D Structural Masonry D Structural Welding D High Strength Bolting D Sprayed-On Fireproofmg D Expansion/Epoxy Anchors D Designer Specified D Other Individual/Firm Responsible for Special Inspection Duties of the Special Inspectors for the Work Listed Above 1 The owner or the architect/engineer of record, will be responsible for employing the special mspector(s) (contractors may not employ the special inspector) 2 Special Inspectors shall check in with the City, present their credentials, and be approved at least 24 hours Prior to beginning work on the job site 3 Special inspectors shall conform to, at a minimum, the guidelines contained in the City of Oceanside Procedures for Special Inspection Carlsbad O7-0099 1/24/07 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO 07-0099 PREPARED BY Chuck Mendenhall DATE 1/24/07 BUILDING ADDRESS 2497 Ocean St. BUILDING OCCUPANCY R3/U1 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION VN BUILDING PORTION dwelling Garage/ Storage Decks Fireplaces Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code AREA ( Sq Ft ) 8473 2620 872 4 8473 11093 cb Valuation Multiplier / / 101 99 / x 2661 1441 2,426 62 388 288 By Ordinance Reg Mod VALUE ($) 864,161 69,718 12,566 9,706 32,875 31,948 /jD&ffyr1, 020,975 to 4»>v no<PO,1Z/ \J£. Plan Check Fee by Ordinance Type of Review D Repetitive Fee Repeats Complete Review D Other r—| Hourly Structural Only Hour Esgil Plan Review Fee $2,032 56 $1,751 13 Comments Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue doc City of Carlsbad DATE BUILDING ADDRESS _ PROJECT DESCRIPTION ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Public Works;— Engineering BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST PLANCHECK NO CB (sf~ EST VALUE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal, therefore any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build D A Right-of-Way permit is required prior to construction of the following improvements DENIAL Please see^fe") attached report of deficiencies marked witKdJ^Make necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review Only the applicable sheets have been sent Date Date By Date FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY NGINEERING AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMIT Date ATTACHMENTS D Dedication Application D Dedication Checklist LI Improvement Application G Improvement Checklist D Neighborhood Improvement Agreement D Grading Permit Application D Grading Submittal Checklist LJ Right-of-Way Permit Application rj Right-of-Way Permit Submittal Checklist and Information Sheet ENGINEERING DEPT CONTACT PERSON Name KATHLEEN M. FARMER City of Carlsbad Address 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone (760) 602-2741 NOTE: If there are retaining walls associated with your project, please check with the Building Department if these walls need to be pulled by separate RETAINING WALL PERMIT. A-4 , CA 9200(8-7314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (760) D D SITE PLAN A B C YOUR SUBMITTAL NEEDS TO HAVE SIGNED APPROVED GRADING PLANS nun rtiiu/« ni AM/MJE^LT rmr-™, ICINCLUDED WITH YOUR PLANCK YOURBUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIS GRADING PLANS ARE NOT APPROVED TO DATE ONCE THEY ARE SIGNED/APPROVED PLEASE HAVE COPIES MADE FOR BOTH CITY AND OWNER SET AND HAVE SLIP SHEETED IN YOUR PLANCK AND REQUEST TO HAVE REROUTED TO ENGINEERINGProvide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to North Arrow Existing & Proposed Structures Existing Street Improvements Property Lines (show all dimensions) Easements F G H I Driveway widths Existing or proposed sewer lateral Existing or proposed water service Existing or proposed irrigation service 2 Show on site plan t Drainage Patterns 1 Building pad surface drainage must maintain a minimum slope of one percent towards an adjoining street or an approved drainage course 2 ADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE "Finish grade will provide a minimum positive drainage of 2% to swale 5' away from building " Existing & Proposed Slopes and Topography Size, type, location, alignment of existing or proposed sewer and water service (s) that serves the project Each unit requires a separate service, however, second dwelling units and apartment complexes are an exception Sewer and water laterals should not be located within proposed driveways, per standards 3 Include on title sheet A Site address B Assessor's Parcel Number C Legal Description For commercial/industrial buildings and tenant improvement projects, include total building square footage with the square footage for each different use, existing sewer permits showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, warehouse, office, etc ) previously approved EXISTING PERMIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION Show all existing use of SF and new proposed use of SF. Example: Tenant improvement for 3500 SF of warehouse to 3500 SF of office. r \FariiiePAaLliy\MASTIinS\Building Plancheck Cklsl Form (Generic) doc , ST D D BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST SCRET1ONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE 4a Project does not comjplyj/vith the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No wn 4JD All conditions are in compliance Date ^ 6P- "5 / ^u-p c^ - l(f DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS Dedication for all street Rights-of-Way adjacent to the building site and any storm drain or utility easements on the building site is required for all new buildings and for remodels with a value at or exceeding $ 17.000 . pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18 40 030 Dedication required as follows Dedication required Please have a registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor prepare the appropriate legal description together with an 8 %" x 11" plat map and submit with a title report All easement documents must be approved and signed by owner(s) prior to issuance of Building Permit Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the dedication process Submit the completed application form with the required checklist items and fees to the Engineering Department in person Applications will not be accept by mail or fax Dedication completed by Date IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS 6a All needed public improvements upon and adjacent to the building site must be constructed at time of building construction whenever the value of the construction exceeds $ 82.000 . pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 1840040 Public improvements required as follows Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the public improvement requirements A registered Civil Engineer must prepare the appropriate improvement plans and submit them together with the requirements on the attached checklist to the Engineering Department through a separate plan check process The completed application form and the requirements on the F \FamwrtKATHY\MASTERS\BuiMing Plancheck Cklst Form (Generic) doc BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 1ST D ND2n RD3n n checklist must be submitted in person Applications by mail or fax are not accepted Improvement plans must be approved, appropriate securities posted and fees paid prior to issuance of building permit Improvement Plans signed by Date 6b Construction of the public improvements may be deferred pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 1840 Please submit a recent property title report or current grant deed on the property and processing fee of $ 400 00 so we may prepare the necessary Neighborhood Improvement Agreement This agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the City prior to issuance of a Building permit D D D D D D Future public improvements required as follows 6c Enclosed please find your Neighborhood Improvement Agreement Please return agreement signed and notarized to the Engineering Department Neighborhood Improvement Agreement completed by Date 6d No Public Improvements required SPECIAL NOTE Damaged or defective improvements found adiacent to building site must be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Inspector prior to occupancy n n n XV GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The conditions that invoke the need for a grading permit are found in Section 11 06 030 of the Municipal Code 7a Inadequate information available on Site Plan to make a determination on grading requirements Include accurate grading quantities in cubic yards (cut, fill import, export and remedial) This information must be included on the plans. 7b Grading Permit required A separate grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer must be submitted together with the completed application form attached NOTE The Grading Permit must be issued and rough grading approval obtained prior to issuance of a Building Permit Grading Inspector sign off by Date 7c Graded Pad Certification required (Note Pad certification may be required even if a grading permit is not required ) F \FarmeAKATHY\MASTERS\BuiHmg Planchec* Ctet Fomi (Genenc) doc BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 2ND 3RD n n 7d No Grading Permit required D D 7e If grading is not required, write "No Grading" on plot plan MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS D D 8 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 Types of work include, but are not limited to street improvements, tree trimming, driveway construction, tying into public storm dram, sewer and water utilities Right-of-Way permit required for D D D 9 INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMIT If your facility is located in the City of Carlsbad sewer service area, you need to contact the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, located at 5950 El Cammo Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008 District personnel can provide forms and assistance, and will check to see if your business enterprise is on the EWA Exempt List You may telephone (760) 438-2722, extension 7153, for assistance Industrial Waste permit accepted by Date NPDES PERMIT D D D 10a Storm Water Requirements Applicability Checklist Completed D D D 10b Priority Determination and compliance D Priority Project D Subject to Standard Permanent Storm Water BMP's D Exempt D 11 ^Q^Required fees are attached D No fees required WATER METER REVIEW D D D 12a Domestic (potable) Use Ensure that the meter proposed by the owner/developer is not oversized Oversized meters are inaccurate during low-flow conditions If it is oversized, for the life of the meter, the City will not accurately bill the owner for the water used • All single family dwelling units received "standard" 1" service with 5/8" service F \FarmertKATHYWASTERS\Bijilding Plancheck Cklst Form (Generic) doc |ST -.ND ,RD ODD 12b BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST • If owner/developer proposes a size other than the "standard", then owner/developer must provide potable water demand calculations, which include total fixture counts and maximum water demand in gallons per minute (gpm) A typical fixture count and water demand worksheet is attached Once the gpm is provided, check against the "meter sizing schedule" to verify the anticipated meter size for the unit • Maximum service and meter size is a 2" service with a 2" meter • If a developer is proposing a meter greater than 2", suggest the installation of multiple 2" services as needed to provide the anticipated demand (manifolds are considered on case by case basis to limit multiple trenching into the street) Irrigation Use (where recycled water is not available) All irrigation meters must be sized via irrigation calculations (in gpm) prior to approval The developer must provide these calculations Please follow these guidelines 1 If the project is a newer development (newer than 1998), check the recent improvement plans and observe if the new irrigation service is reflected on the improvement sheets If so, at the water meter station, the demand in gpm may be listed there Irrigation services are listed with a circled "I", and potable water is typically a circled "W" The irrigation service should look like STA1+00 Install 2" service and 5 meter (estimated 100 gpm) If the improvement plans do not list the irrigation meter and the service/meter will be installed via another instrument such as the building plans or grading plans (w/ a right of way permit of course), then the applicant must provide irrigation calculations for estimated worst-case irrigation demand (largest zone with the farthest reach) Typically, Larry Black has already reviewed this if landscape plans have been prepared, but the applicant must provide the calculations to you for your use Once you have received a good example of irrigation calculations, keep a set for your reference In general the calculations will include • Hydraulic grade line • Elevation at point of connection (POC) • Pressure at POC in pounds per square inch (PSI) • Worse case zone (largest, farthest away from valve • Total Sprinkler heads listed (with gpm use per head) • Include a 10% residual pressure at point of connection In general, all major sloped areas of a subdivision/project are to be irrigated via separate irrigation meters (unless the project is only SFD with no HOA) As long as the project is located within the City recycled water - l.FarmenKa!hy\MASlERS\Buiiding Plancnuck Cklst Foim iGenenc) doc .ST ,RD BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST service boundary, the City intends on switching these irrigation services/meters to a new recycled water line in the future D D 12c Irrigation Use (where recycled water is available) 1 Recycled water meters are sized the same as the irrigation meter above 2 If a project fronts a street with recycled water, then they should be connecting to this line to irrigate slopes within the development For subdivisions, this should have been identified, and implemented on the improvement plans Installing recycled water meters is a benefit for the applicant since they are exempt from paying the San Diego County Water Capacity fees However, if they front a street which the recycled water is there, but is not live (sometimes they are charged with potable water until recycled water is available), then the applicant must pay the San Diego Water Capacity Charge If within three years, the recycled water line is charged with recycled water by CMWD, then the applicant can apply for a refund to the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) for a refund However, let the applicant know that we cannot guarantee the refund, and they must deal with the SDCWA for this 13 Additional Comments: Y •Farmei*.K.ilMy-MAM"EHS\B(ii:i.liny PlanchecK Cklst Form (Generic) tloc ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET D Estimate based on unconfirmed information from applicant D Calculation based on building plancheck plan submittal Address Bldg Permit No 01- ^ Prepared by Date Checked by Date EDU CALCULATIONS List types and square footages for all uses Types of Use cD C tTwfjxtra Sq Ft /Units 1 - 1 = / Types of Use Sq Ft /Units APT CALCULATIONS List types and square footages for all uses Types of Use c9" ^ IN-fr^—» Sq Ft /Units 2- ^1 - / Types of Use Sq Ft /Units EDU's EDU's ADT's ADT's FEES REQUIRED r WITHIN CFD D YES (no bridge & thoroughfare fee in District #1, reduced Traffic Impact Fee) D NO i^ PARK AREA & #D 1 -PARK-IN-LIEU FEE FEE/UNIT NO UNITS D 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ADT'sf/UNITS =$ D D n n ^ -^ 3 BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE FEE ADT's/UNITS 4 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE UNIT/SO FT 5 SEWER FEE EDU's ' BENEFIT AREA EDU's 6 SEWER LATERAL ($2,500) (DIST X ZONE X X X v #1 DIST #2 FEE/ADT FEE/SQ FT /UNIT FEE/EDU Ib^l FEE/EDU DIST #3 ) -$ ^""^ _$ ^__ C-/ A L7 "*1— $ / u Y / ^~.» --^^" D 7 DRAINAGE FEES PLDA ACRES D 8 POTABLE WATER FEES UNITS CODE CONNECTION FEE HIGH /LOW FEE/AC = $ METER FEE DCWA FEE IRRIGATION WordVDocs\Misforms\Fee Calculation Worksheet 1 Of 2 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6177 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEMOLISH ONE 4 SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND CONSTRUCT TWO (2) 5 RESIDENTIAL AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUMS ON A 0.43-ACRE SITE LOCATED WEST OF OCEAN STREET AND 6 NORTH OF PACIFIC AVENUE WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND IN 7 LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 CASE NAME. DONALD CONDOMINIUMS 8 CASE NO CDP 05-52 9 WHEREAS, Eric Beck, "Developer," has filed a verified application with the 10 City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Peter and Mary Kay Donald, "Owner," 12 described as 13 A portion of Lot 6 of Granville Park, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map 14 thereof No. 1782, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of . 5 San Diego County, February 21,1924 16 ("the Property"), and 17 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal 18 Development Permit as shown on Exhibits "A" - "K" dated October 18, 2006, on file in the 19 Planning Department, DONALD CONDOMINIUMS — CDP 05-52, as provided by Chapter 20 21 201 040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and21 22 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of October, 2006, 23 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and 24 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 25 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 26 relating to the CDP 27 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning28 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct 2 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 3 APPROVES DONALD CONDOMINIUMS — CDP 05-52 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions 4 c Findings: 6 1 That the proposed development is m conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that the project consists of the construction of 7 two residential airspace condominiums on a previously subdivided and graded lot; no agricultural activities, geological instability, flood hazard, or coastal access ° opportunities exist onsite and the development does not obstruct views of the n coastline as seen from public lands or public right-of-way or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the coastal zone. 10 2 The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 11 of the Coastal Act in that while the property is located adjacent to the shore, the project will not interfere with the public's right to physical access as there are vertical shore line public access points in close proximity to the north and south of 12 the project site. The project has been conditioned to dedicate a lateral beach access easement for a minimum of 25 feet of dry sandy beach at all times of the year to the 14 California Coastal Commission or their designee as agreed to with the California Coastal Commission. 15 3 The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay 16 Zone (Chapter 21 203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the jy City's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and Junsdictional Urban Runoff 18 Management Program (JURMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil erosion The site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to 19 accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction The existing slopes do no support any __ endangered plant/animal species and/or coastal sage scrub, chaparral plant communities, or native vegetation The development of steep slopes is permitted in that 21 A A geotechmcal analysis of the site was prepared The analysis concluded subject 22 area to be stable and grading and development impacts mitigatable for the life of the structure and that the development would have no adverse effect on the 3 stability of the coastal slope 24 B Grading of the slope is essential to the development of the site since the steep 25 slopes are located in the middle of the property and the site is further constrained by the coastal string line setback requirements 26 27 C The proposed slope disturbance will not damage or alter major wildlife or native vegetation since the site is an infill site containing no native vegetation and is 28 presently developed with a residential structure. PCRESONO 6177 -2- D Review of the site has concluded that that site contains no habitat or wildlife and 2 that no environmental impacts will result from the project 3 E The project site is not predominated by steep slopes and the site does not serve as a wildlife corridor 4 4 That the Planning Director has determined that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the g environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15332 (in-fill development 7 projects) of the state CEQA Guidelines In making this determination, the Planning Director has found that the exceptions listed in Section 153002 of the state CEQA ° Guidelines do not apply to this project. o 5 This project is not located in the Coastal Agricultural Overlay Zone, according to Map X 10 of the Land Use Plan, certified September 1990 and, therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone (Chapter 21 202 of the Zoning 11 Ordinance) 12 6 The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to this project, and the extent and the 14 degree of exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. 15 Conditions: 16 Note Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to Final Map 17 1 If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be 13 implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to 19 revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy 2" issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, record a notice of violation on the 21 property title, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation No vested rights are gained by Developer 22 or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Coastal Development Permit. 23 2 Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections _. and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and m conformity with the final action on the project 25 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits Any proposed development different from this approval shall require an amendment to this approval 26 3 Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance 28 PCRESONO 6177 -3- 4 If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment 2 of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 3 66020 If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with ^ all requirements of law 5 Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold 6 harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims 7 and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Coastal Development Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or 9 nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and \ (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, 10 v^^l including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the \~> facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions This obligation / survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's ^2 ;b^ approval is not validated 13 <Cfo ^ Prior to the issuance of a building permit or recordation of MS 05-31, the applicant ^^^X shall comply with the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.204 14 of the Zoning Ordinance) and dedicate a lateral access easement for a minimum of 25 feet of dry sandy beach at all times of the year to the California Coastal Commission or their designee as agreed to with the California Coastal Commission. 16 7 The applicant shall apply for and be issued building permits for this project within two 17 (2) years of approval or this coastal development permit will expire unless extended per Section 21 201 210 of the Zoning Ordinance18 19 8 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a grading permit issued by the City Engineer. 20 9 This approval is granted subject to the approval of SDP 05-17, HDP 05-13, and 21 CP 06-11 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions 22 No 6175, 6176, and 6178 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference 23 10 This approval is granted subject to the approval of Minor Subdivision MS 05-31 and is subject to all conditions contained in the City Engineer's approval letter for those other 24 approvals incorporated herein by reference 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO 6177 -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions" You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3 32 030 Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project, NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of October, 2006, by the following vote, to wit AYES Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dommguez, Hememan, Segall, and Whitton NOES ABSENT- ABSTAIN.! 1ARTELLB MO CARLSBAD PLA ATTEST airperson SSION DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PCRESONO 6177 -5- November 20, 2006 Patricia McColl, PE Lmtvedt, McColl & Associates 2810 Cammo del Rio South, Ste 200 San Diego, CA92108 SUBJECT- PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DONALD CONDOMINIUMS (MS 05-31) The City Engineer has made a preliminary decision pursuant to Section 20 24 120 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, to approve the Tentative Parcel Map of the proposed minor subdivision, subject to the conditions listed below The preliminary conditions are Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the approval of this tentative parcel map, must be met prior to approval of a filing a parcel map, building permit, or grading permit, whichever is first General 1 Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, a reproducible 24" x 36", photo mylar and a digital file copy of the tentative parcel map reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body The reproducible shall be submitted to the City Engineer, reviewed and, if acceptable, signed by the City's project engineer and project planner prior to submittal of the building plans, final map, improvement or grading plans, whichever occurs first The digital file copy shall be submitted in accordance with the established City format to the satisfaction of the City Engineer This project is approved as an air-space condominium project as defined by Section 1351 of the Civil Code of the State of California with a maximum number of 2 airspace units --— Unless a standards variance has been issued, no variance from City Standards is authorized by virtue of approval of this tentative parcel map "Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time building permits are issued „—— If any condition for construction of any public facilities, or payment of any fees m- lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are Preliminary Conditions - Donald Condominiums November 20, 2006 Page 2 of 6 challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020 If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Engineer determines that this Project without this condition complies with the requirements of the law Developer shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, agents, officers, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claim and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this tentative parcel map, and (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, including an action filed within the time period specified in Government Code Section 66499 37 ,--' There shall be one parcel map recorded for this project 8 ^XDeveloper shall provide to the City Engineer, an acceptable means, CC&Rs and/or other recorded document, for maintaining the private improvements including but not limited to hardscape, lighting, permanent BMP treatment devices, landscape, irrigation, and storm dram facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within the subdivision The project is approved with the express condition that building permits will not be issued for the development of the subject property unless the City Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy This note shall be placed on the parcel map as non-mapping information 10. ^Developer shall construct the units so that the upper levels of the building are served via gravity flow to the sewer lateral m Ocean Street Only the lower level in the building requiring a private sewer pump shall be served by the pump. Planning^ This approval is granted subject to the approval of ®O1*"()5-17> HDP 05-13, CDP 05-52, and CPXH^II and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No 6175, 6176, 6177, and 6178 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference Conditions MS 05-31 Riddle doc REV 2/21/07 Page 2 Preliminary Conditions - Donald Condominiums November 20, 2006 Page 3 of 6 Fees/A.qreemente Developer is required to pay all required fees and deposits prior to approval of the parcel map Developer shall pay the Local Drainage Area Fee prior to approval of the parcel map Developer shall pay park-m-heu fees to the City prior to approval of the parcel map as required by Chapter 20 44 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation the City's standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement regarding drainage across the adjacent property 7Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the City Engineer for recordation, the City's standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement Prior to approval of any grading or building permits for this project, Developer shall cause Owner to give written consent to the City Engineer to the annexation of the area shown within the boundaries of the subdivision into the existing City of Carlsbad Street Lighting and Landscaping District No 1, on a form provided by the City Engineer Developer shall cause property owner to enter into a Neighborhood Improvement Agreement with the City for the future public improvement of Ocean Street along the subdivision frontage for a half street width of 20-feet Public improvements shall include but are not limited to paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergroundmg or relocation of utilities, sewer, water, fire hydrants, street lights, and retaining walls Developer shall execute and record a City standard Water Quality Facility Maintenance Agreement prior to the approval of grading, building permit or final map, whichever occurs first for this Project Improvemen ts/Dedica tions Developer shall cause Owner to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City and/or other appropriate entities for all public streets and other easements shown on the Tentative Parcel Map The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map and/or separate recorded document All land so offered shall be Conditions MS 05-31 Riddle dot RKV 2/21/07 Paue 3 Preliminary Conditions - Donald Condominiums November 20, 2006 Page 4 of 6 offered free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City eets that already public are not required to be rededicated 1 Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, latest version Developer shall provide improvements constructed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the "California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook" to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer Said plans shall include, but not be limited to notifying prospective owners and tenants of the following A All owners and tenants shall coordinate efforts to establish or work with established disposal programs to remove and properly dispose of toxic and hazardous waste products B Toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds such as gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thmners, wood preservatives, and other such fluids shall not be discharged into any street, public or private, or into storm dram or storm water conveyance systems Use and disposal of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers and other such chemical treatments shall meet Federal, State, County and City requirements as prescribed in their respective containers C Best Management Practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements Prior to the issuance of grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, Developer shall submit for City approval a "Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP)" The SWMP shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order 2001-01 issued by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and City of Carlsbad Municipal Code The SWMP shall address measures to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, for the post-construction stage of the project At a minimum, the SWMP shall a identify existing and post-development on-site pollutants-of-concern, b identify the hydrologic unit this project contributes to and impaired water bodies that could be impacted by this project, Conditions MSU5-31 Riddle doc REV 2/21/1)7 Page 4 Preliminary Conditions - Donald Condominiums November 20, 2006 Page 5 of 6 c recommend source controls and treatment controls that will be implemented with this project to avoid contact or filter said pollutants from storm water to the maximum extent practicable before discharging to City right-of-way, d establish specific procedures for handling spills and routine clean up Special considerations and effort shall be applied to resident education on the proper procedures for handling clean up and disposal of pollutants, e ensure long-term maintenance of all post construct BMPs in perpetuity, and identify how post-development runoff rates and velocities from the site will not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable Prior to Parcel Map approval, Developer shall install separate sewer and potable water services to each Parcel proposed by this tentative parcel map These services shall be provided to the Satisfaction of the City Engineer Grading Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the Tentative Parcel Map, a grading permit for this project is required Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the project Carlsbad Municipal Water District Prior to issuance of building permits, Developer shall pay all fees, deposits, and charges for connection to public facilities Developer shall pay the San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge(s) prior to issuance of Building Permits Code Reminder The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following This Tentative Parcel Map shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of the letter containing the final decision for tentative parcel map approval Developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1516 (the Grading fnance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer Some improvements shown on the tentative parcel map and/or required by these Conditions MS05-.1I Kiddle doc KEV 2/21/117 Page 5 Preliminary Conditions - Donald Condominiums November 20, 2006 Page 6 of 6 conditions are located offsite on property which neither the City nor the owner has sufficient title or interest to permit the improvements to be made without acquisition of title or interest The Developer shall immediately initiate negotiations to acquire such property The Developer shall use its best efforts to effectuate negotiated acquisition If unsuccessful, Developer shall demonstrate to the City Engineer its best efforts, and comply with the requirements of the Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 20 16095 to notify and enable the City to successfully acquire said property by condemnation The applicant may request a review of these preliminary conditions within ten (10) days of the date of this preliminary approval The request must be submitted in writing to the City Engineer in accordance with Section 2024120 through 140 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code The City Engineer has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in the conditions of approval and hereby finds that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused or reasonably related to this project, and the extent and degree of the exactions is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact the Project Engineer, Jeremy Riddle at 760-602-2737 If you have any planning related questions, please contact Greg Fisher at 760-602-4629 Sincerely, David Mauser Deputy City Engineer c Peter Donald, Applicant/Owner (w/o attachment) Jeremy Riddle, Project Engmeer(w/o attachment) Greg Fisher, Project Planner(w/o attachment) Conditions MS 05-31 Kiddle doc RKV 2/21/07 Page 6 Planning Department September 27, 2006 Rick Beck 24423 Whitaker Way Murneta, CA 92562 SUBJECT: AV 05-06 - DONALD CONDOMINIUMS The Planning Director has completed a review of your application for an Administrative Variance, AV 05-06 at 2497 Ocean Street The variance consists of a request to reduce the required front yard setback from 20 feet down to 12 feet to accommodate the development of two attached airspace condominium units along the west or bluff side of Ocean Street. After careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding this request, the Planning Director has determined that the four findings required for granting an Administrative Variance can be made and therefore, approves this request based on the following findings and conditions Findings; 1 There ARE exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zojle, in that the lot has a number of constraints which include an undevelopable coastal bluff, a coastal stringline structure setback, sloping topography and the availability of only approximately 40' of developable flat pad west of the 20' front yard setback. These constraints limit the ability to design a residential structure(s) with garages similar in size to those presently located on the west or bluff side of Ocean Street without granting a front yard setback variance. These conditions also exist on other lots on the west side of Ocean Street where similar variances have been granted. However, they do not generally exist for other properties located along the east side of Ocean Street and in the R-3 zone. The City's Engineering Department is also requiring the applicant to dedicate an additional five feet of public right-of-way in order for the City to improve the road way to its ultimate width of 50 feet in the future. The proposed residence will meet the required interior side yard and rear yard setbacks for the lot. 2 The requested variance IS necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property m question, in that the majority of lots on the west or bluff side of Ocean Street provide garages or parking structures within the front yard setback due to the lot constraints described above. Without the approval of the variance, a significant portion of the level area of the lot would be undevelopable, preventing 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • wwwci carlsbad ca us , A^'05-06 - DONALD CONDOMINIUMS September 27, 2006 Page 2 the applicant from achieving similar lot coverage and square footage enjoyed by other properties located on the west or bluff side of Ocean Street 3 The granting of this variance WOULD NOT be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located, in that the 8-foot reduction in the required front yard setback (from 20' to 12') would not limit visibility or harm the health, safety, and general welfare of passing pedestrians and motorists. The neighborhood was originally developed with reduced front yard setbacks and similar encroachments have been present for some time. 4 The granting of this variance WILL NOT adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan, in that the proposed use is a two unit residential airspace condominium project and is consistent with the Residential Medium-High Density (RMH) Land Use designation and no negative circulation impacts will result. Conditions: 1 Approval is granted for AV 05-06 as shown on Exhibit "A" dated September 27, 2006, on file in the Planning Department and incorporated herein by reference Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions 2 Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be developed Said notice is to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued an Administrative Variance on the property Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction The Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest 3 Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance 4 Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance, except as otherwise specifically provided herein 5 This approval is granted subject to the approval of SDP 05-17/HDP 05-13/CDP 05- 52/CP 06-11 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No 6175, 6176, 6177 and 6177 for those other approvals incorporated herein by reference. - AV\)5-06 - DONALD CONDOMINIUMS September 27, 2006 Page 3 This decision may be appealed by you or any member of the public to the Planning Commission within ten days of receipt of this letter Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Planning Commission at 1635 Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, along with a payment of $550 00 The filing of such appeal within such time limit shall stay the effective date of the order of the Planning Director until such time as a final decision on the appeal is reached If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Greg Fisher at (760) 602-4629 Sincerely, DON NEU Assistant Planning Director c Project Engineer Data Entry File Copy Laurence Sawyer, 2445 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008 J & D Diggers, 2490 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008 John Ford, 15 Tiburon Bay Drive, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 John Ford, 2445 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008 AUG-09-2007 THU 08 10 AM ENGINSPECTION FAX 7604384178 CITY OF CARLSBAD GRADING INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR PARTIAL SITE RELEASE PROJECT INSPECTOR. PROJECT in MS C£'M LOTS REQUESTED FOR RELEASE. .GRADING PERMIT NO _ 0 - Incomplete or unacceptable 1st ^ ^ V^ Y/ V^ v/ v/ A/A v/ 2nd /~ ^ / s /* 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 Q Site access to requested lots adequate and logically grouped Site erosion control measures adequate Overall site adequate for health, safety and welfare of public Letter from Owner/Dev requesting partial release of specific lots, pads or bldg. !£" x 1 1" site plan (attachment) showing requested lots submitted. Compaction report from soils engineer submitted (If soils report has been submitted with a previous partial release, a letter from soils engineer referencing the soils report and identifying specific lots for release shall accompany subsequent partial releases). EOW certification of work done with finish pad elevations of specific lots to be released Letter must state lot (s) is graded to within a tenth ( 1) of the approved grading plan. Geologic engineer's letter if unusual geologic or subsurface conditions exist Fully functional fire hydrants within 500 feet of building combustibles and an all weather roads access to site is required Partial release of grading for the above stated lots is approved for the purpose of building permit issuance. Issuance of building permits is still subject to all normal City requirements required pursuant to the building permit process ] Partial release of the site is denied for the following reasons: &/(— i^ Inspector Date Ccrsmjcnon Vlarager Date 00ooCL < -I m O -: 3 it-'5"!- --i--t - '* ^i ^ ;• * * £ r.,^ vi" '-• -''^ L ^ 5 °« ;.3s:U*n5?:s.„ L •• i= •n SQOte§Q = af! s*«l sii'3 S **5* 3£*iff! IIISP< ;? O 5 i - E * Ih X "", !%t Pi""' SZQ § i ^0 yie J|| /! i l'| >»Q 3 55^ iniSui_"»- T?SIC5^^Is tfis&i^ :i^'»Si S?H r.is 'i'S ^ si; Si!_• D . ©o ann n n n PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check No CB £?y?'"OQ ^ 9 Planner _ Greg Fisher _ APN Address Phone (760) 602-4629 -O 8 GXCPO&Type of Project & Use Zoning ft.-") General Plan CFD (in/out) #_Date of participation / l&L Project Density.771 DU/AC Facilities Management Zone Remaining net dev acres Circle One (For non-residential development Type of land used created by this permit ) Legend Item Complete Environmental Review Required DATE OF COMPLETION Item Incomplete - Needs your action YES _ NO V TYPE Compliance with conditions of approval7 If not, state conditions which require action Conditions of Approval ' Discretionary Action Required APPROVAL/RESO NO PROJECT NO YES |C NO DATE TYPE OTHER RELATED CASES Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action Conditions of Approval ^O 617$ garfyfa -& /O Ct-tR. 'S\ 4/75", Cg/Whfas Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES CA Coastal Comrfiission Authority? YES NO NO If California Coastal Commission Authority Contact them at - 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego CA 921 Q8-44Q2J623±l£tt31Q ^ ^ Determine status CetfasfalPermit Requi£@a or Exempt) C-t/1 O ~) ^*"~~ , Habitat Management Plan Data Entry Completed? YES. If property has Habita^Jyp£*idei~itifie'd in Table 11 of HMP, complete HMP Permit application and assess,fees in (A/P/Ds, Acinrtfy Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, HMP Fees, Enter Acres of Habitat Type impacjtet37taken, UPDATE') Inclusionary Housing Fee required YES f\. NO (Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21,1993 ) ^ Data Entry Completed? YES/*C NO (A/P/Ds, Activity Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, Housing Fees, Construct_Housmg Y/N, Enter Fee, UPDATE') ,____ ^j^Qf) H \ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPlnchkRevChklst Rev 3/06 D Site Plan __ 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 widthr dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines (including all side and rear yard slopes). Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number n n DD n n Policy 44 - Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines 1 Applicability YES NO A 2 Project complies YES NPC___ Zoning 1 Setbacks Front Interior Side Street Side Rear Top of slope 2 Accessory structure Front Interior Si< sett Stre Structure separation 3 Lot Coverage 4 Height Required Required Required Required Required fts Required Required Required Required Required Requ.r^ Requtrerd— '"Zu r Shown /7 ' /?- Shown Shown / ^5 ' Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown , o/C>\D /ft Shown/ ^>^ Shown / /7iA_/ ^7 /S~ ^^i Spaces Required Shown5 Parking (breakdown by uses for commercial and industrial projects required) Residential Guest Spaces Required / Shown [_ Additional Comments f</<,t CC-f&If OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER DATE 0-0 H \ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPlnchkRevChklst Rev 3/06 Structural Shoring Calculations for DONALD RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS TEMPORARY SHORING Carlsbad, CA Prepared for: Mr. Eric Beck u Project No.: 06196 Date Issued: I/I 1/07 Revision Date: Prepared By; FUORESLUND CONSULTANTS 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 • San Diego, California 92121 • (858} Civil and Structural Engineering FLORES LUMP CONSULTANTS i PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS 7220 Trade Street Suite 120 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92121-2325 (858) 566-0626 FAX (858) 566-0627 SHEET NO OF DATE. DATE, PIHMCT OT I (Si»(l! Shall) 215-1 I/N/2OO7 CANTILEVER SHDRINB BEAM WORKSHEET 06196 Active Seismic Passive Pmax qactive qsurch qseis Minimum Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments MA Msoil Msurch Mfound Mseis Mu(perm ) Mu(seis ) Total Equivalent 40 pcf 0 pcf 325 pcf 4500 psf 320 psf 72 psf 0 psf 70ft 4ft 17 14 kips 9 7 kips 3ft 290 k1 161 00 00k1 632 k1 542 k1 Uniform Load = 74 PER CutHt Spacing Cut on Sched Pactive Psurch Pseis Pfound MA Allowables Rb Rt Ignore top (1 5 Mu(temp ) 8/3 W k SOLDIER BEAM @ 8'-0 0 C 8ft 4ft 8ft 5 1 kips 2 3 kips 0 0 kips 0 kips 500 ft 8 63 kips 32 5 kips x Caisson Diameter of soil) 506 k' - 1, — _ ^ r-L-Ci FUOREB LUIMU Caisson Dia 24 in Increase 1 25 Arching 2 Hactive 2 7 ft Hsurch 4 ft Hseis 0 0 ft Hfound 0 ft As seen in KEY =Emb -Toe/2 Embedment F S = 1 53 Minimum Use W12x26 phiMn= 140 k' lxx= 204 inA4 Amax = W X IA3 15xExl 0 08 inches I/II/20O7 CANTILEVER SHORING BEAM WORKSHEET 06196 Active Seismic Passive Pmax qactive qsurch qseis Minimum Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments MA Msoil Msurch Mfound Mseis Mu(perm ) Mu(seis ) 40 pcf 0 pcf 325 pcf 4500 psf 390 psf 72 psf 0 psf 110ft 4ft 48 04 kips 27 2 kips 3ft 951 k' 442 00 00k' 195 0 k' 167 1 k1 PER SOLDIER BEAM @ 8'-0" 0 C CutHt Spacing Cut on Sched Pactive Psurch Pseis Pfound MA P"l— 15 FL.OREB LUND 9 75 ft Caisson Dia 24 in 8 ft Increase 11 ft Arching 15 2 kips Hactive 5 6 kips Hsurch 0 0 kips Hseis 0 kips Hfound 125 2 33ft 4875ft 00 ft Oft 9 00 ft As seen in KEY =Emb - Toe/2 Allowables Rb Rt Ignore top (1 Mu(temp ) 35 29 kips Embedment F S 58 5 kips 5 x Caisson Diameter of soil) 156 0 k1 Use = 125 Minimum W16x26 phiMn= 166 k1 Total Equivalent Uniform Load = 8/3 W 208 k Amax = WxlA3 15xExl = 0 26 inches /II/20O7 CANTILEVER SHORING BEAM WORKSHEET 06\96 Active Seismic Passive Pmax qactive qsurch qseis Minimum Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments MA Msoil Msurch Mfound Mseis Mu(perm ) Mu(seis ) Total Equivalent 40 pcf 0 pcf 325 pcf 4500 psf 530 psf 72 psf 0 psf 140ft 4ft 70 02 kips 41 0 kips 3 ft 169 3 k' 597 00 00k' 320 5 k1 274 7 k1 Uniform Load = 8/3 290 PER SOLDIER BEAM @ 8'-0' 0 C •— • ~-»fr— !_*»*• FLOREB LUND CLJISItlLILIANI ti Cut Ht 13 25 ft Caisson Dia 24 in Spacing 6 5 ft Increase 1 25 cutonsched 14ft Arching 2 Pactive 22 8 kips Hactive 4 4 ft Psurch 6 2 kips Hsurch 6 625 ft Pseis 0 0 kips Hseis 0 0 ft Pfound 0 kips Hfound 0 ft MA 12 00 ft As seen in KEY =Emb - Toe/2 Allowables Rb 66 67 kips Embedment F S Rt 78 0 kips = 1 30 Ignore top (1 5 x Caisson Diameter of soil) Minimum Mu(temp ) 256 4 k1 Use W18x40 phiMn= 294 k1 lxx= 612 mA4 W k Amax = W X IA3 15xExl 0 40 inches CANTILEVER SHORING BEAM WORKSHEET 06196 Active Seismic Passive Pmax qactive qsurch qseis Minimum Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments MA Msoil Msurch Mfound Mseis Mu(perm ) Mu(seis ) 40 pcf 0 pcf 325 pcf 4500 psf 620 psf 72 psf 0 psf 150 ft 4ft 88 36 kips 52 8 kips 375 ft 257 1 k' 770 00 00k' 467 7 k1 400 9 k1 PER SOLDIER BEAM @ 8'-0 OC __•• *p-i> •""L_%M» FLOHEB LUND — !_)(_> NLiULIAN 1 bi Cut Ht 15 5 ft Caisson Dia 30 in Spacing 6 ft Increase 1 25 cut on scned 16 ft Arching 2 Pactive 28 8 kips Hactive 5 2 ft Psurch 6 7 kips Hsurch 7 75 ft Pseis 0 0 kips Hseis 0 0 ft Pfound 0 kips Hfound 0 ft MA 13 00 ft As seen in KEY =Emb - Toe/2 Allowables Rb 99 11 kips Embedment F S Rt 105 6 kips = 1 45 Ignore top (1 5 x Caisson Diameter of soil) Minimum Mu(temp ) 374 2 k1 Use W21x44 phiMn= 358 k1 lxx= 843 inA4 Total Equivalent Uniform Load = 8/3 W 355 k Amax = WxlA3 15xExl = 0 59 inches 3 tnnj !O I/II/20O7 CANTILEVER SHORING BEAM WORKSHEET 06196 Active Seismic Passive Pmax qactive qsurch qseis Minimum Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments MA Msoil Msurch Mfound Mseis Mu(perm ) Mu(seis ) Total Equivalent 40 pcf 0 pcf 325 pcf 4500 psf 660 psf 72 psf 0 psf 170ft 4ft 122 86 kips 73 1 kips 375ft 377 7 k1 1069 00 00k1 678 5 k1 581 6 kr Uniform Load = 8/3 497 PER CutHt Spacing Cut on Sched Pactive Psurch Pseis Pfound MA Allowables Rb Rt Ignore top (1 5 Mu(temp ) W k SOLDIER BEAM @ 8'-0 OC •— -• r^•— L-*-*P FLOREB LUND ULJISItiLJLIA.IM 1 td 16 5 ft Caisson Dia 30 in 7 5 ft Increase 1 25 17 ft Arching 2 40 8 kips Hactive 5 5 ft 8 9 kips Hsurch 8 25 ft 0 0 kips Hseis 0 0 ft 0 kips Hfound 0 ft 15 00 ft As seen in KEY =Emb - Toe/2 134 74 kips Embedment F S 112 5 kips = 1 26 x Caisson Diameter of soil) Minimum 542 8 k1 Use W24x62 phiMn= 578 k1 lxx= 1560 mA4 Amax = W X IA3 15xExl 0 52 inches I/ 1/2007 CANTILEVER 06196 SHORING BEAM WORKSHEET Active Seismic Passive Pmax qactive qsurch qseis Minimum Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments MA Msoil Msurch Mfound Mseis Mu(perm ) Mu(seis ) Total Equivalent 40 pcf 0 pcf 325 pcf 4500 psf 720 psf 72 psf 0 psf 190 ft 4ft 146 10 kips 91 1 kips 375 ft 379 1 k1 991 1812 00k' 923 2 k' 791 3 k1 Uniform Load = 8/3 467 PER CutHt Spacing Cut on Sched Pactive Psurch Pseis Pfound MA Allowables Rb Rt Ignore top (1 5 Mu(temp ) W k SOLDIER BEAM @ 8'-0 0 C m—m ^-»r—H«* FLORHB LUND C^ONSLJLIAN TS 18 ft Caisson Dia 30 in 6 ft Increase 1 25 18 ft Arching 2 38 9 kips Hactive 6 0 ft 7 8 kips Hsurch 9 ft 0 0 kips Hseis 0 0 ft 8 33 kips Hfound 18 ft 17 00 ft As seen in KEY =Emb - Toe/2 175 78 kips Embedment F S 112 5 kips = 1 22 x Caisson Diameter of soil) Minimum 738 5 k' Use W24x76 phiMn= 750 k' lxx= 2100 mA4 Amax = W X IA3 15xExl 0 46 inches I/II/2O07 CANTILEVER SHORING BEAM WORKSHEET 06196 Active Seismic Passive Pmax qactive qsurch qseis Minimum Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments MA Msoil Msurch Mfound Mseis Mu(perm ) Mu(seis ) 40 pcf 0 pcf 325 pcf 4500 psf 730 psf 72 psf 0 psf 200ft 4ft 146 80 kips 90 6 kips 375 ft 393 0 k1 1015 1728 00k' 934 3 k1 800 8 k1 PER SOLDIER BEAM @ 8'-0" 0 C »•— •• r~m,•—1— C5 PUUHEB LUND Cut Ht 18 25 ft Caisson Dia 30 in Spacing 6 ft Increase 1 25 cut on sched 19 ft Arching 2 Pactive 40 0 kips Hactive 6 1 ft Psurch 7 9 kips Hsurch 9 125 ft Pseis 0 0 kips Hseis 0 0 ft Pfound 8 33 kips Hfound 17 ft MA 18 00 ft As seen in KEY =Emb - Toe/2 Allowables Rb 198 33 kips Embedment F S Rt 112 5 kips = 1 31 Ignore top (1 5 x Caisson Diameter of soil) Minimum Mu(temp ) 747 5 k' Use W24x76 phiMn= 750 k1 lxx= 2100 inM Total Equivalent Uniform Load = 8/3 W = 479 k Amax = WxlA3 15xExl = 0 49 inches :7 tku 2O I/II/20O7 CANTILEVER SHORING BEAM WORKSHEET 06196 Active Seismic Passive Pmax qactive qsurch qseis Minimum Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments MA Msoil Msurch Mfound Mseis Mu(perm ) Mu(seis ) Total Equivalent 40 pcf 0 pcf 325 pcf 4500 psf 730 psf 72 psf 0 psf 200 ft 45ft 155 26 kips 91 5 kips 375ft 524 0 k1 1353 00 00k' 923 1 k1 791 2 k1 Uniform Load = 8/3 638 PER Cut Ht Spacing Cut on Sched Pactive Psurch Pseis Pfound MA Allowables Rb Rt Ignore top (1 5 Mu(temp ) W k SOLDIER BEAM @ 8'-0" 0 C 1825ft 8ft 19ft 53 3 kips 10 5 kips 0 0 kips 0 kips 1775 ft 186 89 kips 126 6 kips x Caisson Diameter of soil) 738 5 k1 •— •• «wl"-L.ti FUOFIEB LUND CCJNSUL1ANT&3 Caisson Dia 30 in Increase 1 25 Arching 2 Hactive 6 1 ft Hsurch 9 125 ft Hseis 0 0 ft Hfound 0 ft As seen in KEY =Emb - Toe/2 Embedment F S = 127 4 Minimum Use W24x76 phiMn- 750 k1 lxx= 2100 mM Amax = W x IA3 15xExl 0 66 inches I/ i/2007 C SHORING ANTILEVER ObWo BEAM WORKSHEET PER SOLDIER BEAM @ 8'-0" 0 C •— • ^^•~^t.» F LORES LUND Active Seismic Passive Pmax qactive qsurch qseis Minimum Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments MA Msoil Msurch Mfound Mseis Mu(perm ) Mu(seis ) Total Equivalent 40 pcf 0 pcf 325 pcf 4500 psf 720 psf 72 psf 0 psf 180 ft 4ft 136 08 kips 81 6 kips 375ft 442 3 k' 1157 00 00k' 781 1 k' 669 5 k' Uniform Load = 8/3 544 CutHt Spacing Cut on Sched Pactive Psurch Pseis Pfound MA Allowables Rb Rt Ignore top (1 5 x Mu(temp ) W k 18 ft Caisson Dia 30 in 7 ft Increase 1 25 18 ft Arching 2 45 4 kips Hactive 6 0 ft 9 1 kips Hsurch 9 ft 0 0 kips Hseis 0 0 ft 0 kips Hfound 0 ft 16 00 ft As seen in KEY =Emb - Toe/2 154 58 kips Embedment F S 112 5 kips = 1 23 Caisson Diameter of soil) Minimum 624 9 k1 Use W24x68 phiMn= 664 k1 lxx= 1830 mA4 Amax = W X IA3 15xExl 0 62 inches I/II/20O7 CANTILEVER SHORING BEAM WORKSHEET PER SOLDIER BEAM @ 8'-0 0 C 06196 FUOREBLUMP CONSULTANTS Active Seismic Passive Pmax qactive qsurch qseis Minimum Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments MA Msoil Msurch Mfound Mseis Mu(perm ) Mu(seis ) 40 pcf 0 pcf 325 pcf 4500 psf 620 psf 72 psf 0 psf 160ft 4ft 98 19 kips 58 2 kips 375 ft 289 2 k' 866 00 00k' 526 2 k' 451 0 k' CutHt Spacing Cut on Sched Pactive Psurch Pseis Pfound MA Allowables Rb Rt Ignore top (1 Mu(temp ) 155 ft 675ft 17ft 32 4 kips 7 5 kips 0 0 kips 0 kips 1400 ft 116 25 kips 112 5 kips 5 x Caisson Diameter of soil) 420 9 k1 Caisson Dia Increase Arching Hactive Hsurch Hseis Hfound As seen in KEY =Emb - Toe/2 Embedment F Use phiMn= lxx= 30 in 125 2 52ft 775ft 00 ft 0 ft S 146 Minimum W24x55 506 k1 1360 mM Total Equivalent Uniform Load = 8/3 W 400 k Amax = WxlA3 15xExl = 041 inches 26 I/II/2OO7 CANTILEVER SHORING BEAM WORKSHEET O6\96 PER SOLDIER BEAM @ 8 -0' 0 C Active Seismic Passive Pmax qactive qsurch qseis Minimum Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments MA Msoil Msurch Mfound Mseis Mu(perm ) Mu(seis ) 40 pcf 0 pcf 325 pcf 4500 psf 470 psf 72 psf Opsf 140 ft 3ft 69 57 kips 40 7 kips 3ft 152 8 k1 601 00 00k1 298 0 k1 255 4 k' CutHt Spacing Cut on Sched Pactive Psurch Pseis Pfound MA 1175ft 8ft 14ft 22 1 kips 6 8 kips 0 0 kips 0 kips 1250ft F-LCJ FLOHEB LUND Caisson Dia 24 in Increase Arching Hactive Hsurch Hseis Hfound 125 2 39ft 5875 ft 00 ft Oft As seen in KEY =Emb - Toe/2 Allowables Rb Rt Ignore top (1 Mu(temp ) 79 29 kips 60 9 kips 5 x Caisson Diameter of soil) 238 4 k1 Embedment F S Use = 127 Minimum W18x35 phiMn= 249 k1 Total Equivalent Uniform Load = 8/3 W 289 k Amax = Wxlfl3 15xExl = 0 35 inches 29 and /II/2OO7 CANTILEVER SHORING BEAM WORKSHEET 06196 Active Seismic Passive Pmax qactive qsurch qseis Minimum Embedment Toe Reactions Rb Rt Beam Moments MA Msoil Msurch M found Mseis Mu(perm ) Mu(seis ) Total Equivalent 40 pcf 0 pcf 325 pcf 4500 psf 280 psf 72 psf 0 psf 70ft 3 ft 13 96 kips 8 0 kips 3 ft 209 k' 13 1 00 00k1 476 k1 408 k' Uniform Load 5 PER CutHt Spacing Cut on Sched Pactive Psurch Pseis Pfound MA Allowables Rb Rt Ignore top (1 5 Mu(temp ) = 8/3 W 9 k SOLDIER BEAM @ 8'-0 0 C 7 ft 4ft 8ft 3 9 kips 2 0 kips 0 0 kips 0 kips 550 ft 13 67 kips 26 8 kips x Caisson Diameter of soil) 381 k' •— •• f^•-L.V-* FLOREB UUNO GCJNS3LJL1AN 1 £3 Caisson Dia 24 in Increase 1 25 Arching 2 Hactive 2 3 ft Hsurch 3 5 ft Hseis 0 0 ft Hfound 0 ft As seen in KEY =Emb - Toe/2 Embedment F S = 184 Minimum Use W12x26 phiMn= 140 k1 lxx= 204 inM Amax = W X IA3 15xExl 0 05 inches FLC FLORES LUND.CONSULTANTS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS 7220 TRADE STREET. SUITE 120 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 (858) 566-0626 FAX (858)566-0627 PROJECT - SHEET No - CHECKED BY - CFN - OF - DATE _ SCALE FLC PROJECT NO - LAGGING DESIGN GUIDELINES LEAK COHC. ARCH. ACTION LINE -e*-- FORCE ACTING ON LAGGING R= FORMULA (\)FORMULA C2; FAILURE ~\ I CYLlN- \ DRlCAL \ WALL \ tan = (45- T" tan = FOR GRANULAR 5OlL (FORMULA (\» [tan2C4&-4>/2;] FOR Hx<Hi tan(45-4>/2; FOR Uc>Hi(lJ FOR COHESIVE SOIL (FORMULA C2;; [tanV45-*/2;]-2Ctanf45-*/2; = Ybtanf45-*/2;-2Ctanf45-*/2; C= UNIT COHESIVE STRENGTH SECTION AT FL.ORES L.UIMD C O N S U LT A N T S JOB. SHEET NO .OF 7220 Trade Street, Suite 120 San Diego, California 92121-2325 (858) 566-0626 Fax (858) 566-0627 CALCULATED BY_ CHECKED BY SCALE DATE. DATE. f .= . ^06,... c i_ -118- 8'-' • i—- ", PS 19 PS7- • STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS PROJECT 5 HOROWITZ TAYLORKUSHKAKI STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS CONCRETE STRENGTH AT TWENTY EIGHT DAYS MASONRY GRADE "N" CONCRETE BLOCK F ' M = MORTAR TYPES 1.800PSI GROUT 2000 PSI REINFORCING STEEL A-615 2.SOC).PSI PSI STRUCTURAL STEEL A-36 LUMBER DOUGLAS FIR-LARCH JOISTS BEAMS AND POSTS STUDS SEISMIC FORCE WIND FORCE 7O.*.i'.K DESIGN LOADS ROOF DEAD LOAD SLOPING ROOFING PLYWOOD JOISTS INSUL & CLG MISC FLAT TOTAL =fif ROOF LIVE LOAD SLOPING = FLAT = GRADE 40 GRADE 60 #4 AND LESS (DON) #5 AND LARGER #2 #2 STUD OR BETTER REPORT BY REPORT NO &" SOIL PRESSURE FLOOR DEAD LOAD INT FLOORING ' PLYWOOD JOISTS INSUL & CLG MISC TOTAL = FLOOR LIVE LOAD INTERIOR BALCONY EXIT WALKWAY WALL DEAD LOAD EXT INTERIOR EXTERIOR 10PSF 16PSF 3.6- 40 PSF 60 PSF(U O N ) 100 PSF These calculations are limited only to the items included herein, selected by the client and do not imply approval of any other portion of the structure by this office These calculations are not valid if altered in any way, or not accompanied by a wet stamp and signature of the Engineer of Record Job No OG-W Designed By %£> Date 10/ji loif 14288 Danielson St • Suite 200 • Poway, CA 92064-8819 • (858)679-; i ! O D \/-\ COM * (3.-2L2* -.132,3 / ^ P- - 17. £"' (-»* 5- v-z (L* -_ 0-t> .- 2503 * - 5-167 * T; <J. fe, V -- f = > '838 e,6' M U( -- \ >ei ^ 2,5 L-7 M- 7(92. t J M- =• Lo Z.<g -7 V, 1 P-= 2-101 A (-t V- M- HI M a " 0 V-S" t. 1 16 ^ V- l.Z6o M, > \\\\ LSL 560@12"o/cr BusinessTJ Beam® 6 20 Serial Number 7003018980 ' ™201e" THIS PRODUCT MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE SET DESIGN CONTROLS FOR THE APPLICATION AND LOADS LISTED UK 27'- Product Diagram is Conceptual LOADS Analysis is for a Joist Member Primary Load Group - Residential - Living Areas (psf) 40 0 Live at 100 % duration, 30 0 Dead SUPPORTS 1 Stud wall 2 Stud wall Input Bearing Vertical Reactions (Ibs) Detail Width Length Live/Dead/Uplift/Total 550" 425" 543/408/0/951 End, Rim 350" 225" 537/403/0/939 End, Rim Other 1 Ply 1 1/4" x 16" 0 8E TJ-Strand Rim Board® 1 Ply 1 1/4" x 16" 0 8E TJ-Strand Rim Board® DESIGN CONTROLS Shear (Ibs) Vertical Reaction (Ibs) Moment (Ft-Lbs) Live Load Defl (in) Total Load Defl (in) TJPro Maximum 925 925 6106 Design -919 925 6106 0360 0630 37 Control 2710 1396 12925 0660 1 321 30 Control Passed (34%) Passed (66%) Passed (47%) Passed (L/881) Passed (L/503) Passed Location Rt end Span 1 under Floor loading Bearing 2 under Floor loading MID Span 1 under Floor loading MID Span 1 under Floor loading MID Span 1 under Floor loading Span 1 -Deflection Criteria STANDARD(LL L/480.TL L/240) -TJ maximum bearing length controls reaction capacity Limits End supports, 31/2" Intermediate supports, 51/4" -Deflection analysis is based on composite action with single layer of 19/32" Panels (20" Span Rating) GLUED & NAILED wood decking -Bracmg(Lu) All compression edges (top and bottom) must be braced at 7' 4" o/c unless detailed otherwise Proper attachment and positioning of lateral bracing is required to achieve member stability ADDITIONAL NOTES -IMPORTANT' The analysis presented is output from software developed by Trus Joist (TJ) TJ warrants the sizing of its products by this software will be accomplished in accordance with TJ product design criteria and code accepted design values The specific product application, input design loads, and stated dimensions have been provided by the software user This output has not been reviewed by a TJ Associate -Not all products are readily available Check with your supplier or TJ technical representative for product availability -THIS ANALYSIS FOR TRUS JOIST PRODUCTS ONLY' PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION VOIDS THIS ANALYSIS -Allowable Stress Design methodology was used for Building Code UBC analyzing the TJ Custom product listed above PROJECT INFORMATION OPERATOR INFORMATION Copyright e 2005 by Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Business TJI® and TJ-Beam® are registered trademarks of Trus Joist e-I Joist™ Pro™ and TJ-Pro™ are trademarks of Trus Joist V/-7 560@16"o/c'AWeyTrhaeuser Business TJ Beam® 6 20 Sena! Number" 7003018980 Pa'gel Eng.n^Ve'Jonl 20 1 B THIS PRODUCT MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE SET DESIGN CONTROLS FOR THE APPLICATION AND LOADS LISTED -24f8"- Produrt Diagram is Conceptual. LOADS Analysis is for a Joist Member Primary Load Group - Residential - Living Areas (psf) 40 0 Live at 100 % duration, 30 0 Dead SUPPORTS 1 Stud wall 2 Stud wall Input Bearing Vertical Reactions (Ibs) Detail Width Length Live/Dead/Uphft/Total 550" 425" 662/497/0/1159 End, Rim 350" 225" 653/490/0/1143 End, Rim Other 1 Ply 1 1/4" x 16" 0 8E TJ-Strand Rim Board® 1 Ply 1 1/4" x 16" 0 8E TJ-Strand Rirn Board® DESIGN CONTROLS Shear (Ibs) Vertical Reaction (Ibs) Moment (Ft-Lbs) Live Load Defl (in) Total Load Defl (in) TJPro Maximum 1124 1124 6767 Design -1116 1124 6767 0332 0581 39 Control 2710 1396 12925 0602 1 204 30 Control Passed (41%) Passed (80%) Passed (52%) Passed (L/870) Passed (L/497) Passed Location Rt end Span 1 under Floor loading Bearing 2 under Floor loading MID Span 1 under Floor loading MID Span 1 under Floor loading MID Span 1 under Floor loading Span 1 -Deflection Criteria STANDARD(LL L/480.TL L/240) -TJ maximum bearing length controls reaction capacity Limits End supports, 31/2" Intermediate supports, 51/4" -Deflection analysis is based on composite action with single layer of 19/32" Panels (20" Span Rating) GLUED & NAILED wood decking -Bracmg(Lu) All compression edges (top and bottom) must be braced at 7' o/c unless detailed otherwise Proper attachment and positioning of lateral bracing is required to achieve member stability ADDITIONAL NOTES -IMPORTANT' The analysis presented is output from software developed by Trus Joist (TJ) TJ warrants the sizing of its products by this software will be accomplished in accordance with TJ product design criteria and code accepted design values The specific product application, input design loads, and stated dimensions have been provided by the software user This output has not been reviewed by a TJ Associate -Not all products are readily available Check with your supplier or TJ technical representative for product availability -THIS ANALYSIS FOR TRUS JOIST PRODUCTS ONLYI PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION VOIDS THIS ANALYSIS -Allowable Stress Design methodology was used for Building Code UBC analyzing the TJ Custom product listed above PROJECT INFORMATION OPERATOR INFORMATION Copyright ® 2005 by Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Business TJI® and TJ-Beam® are registered trademarks of Trus Joist e-i Joist™ Pro™ and TJ-Pro™ are trademarks of Trus Joist 560 @ 19.2" o/c&verhaeuser Business TJ-0eam® 6 20 Serial Number 7003018980 ' ™*°l 20 1 e" THIS PRODUCT MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE SET DESIGN CONTROLS FOR THE APPLICATION AND LOADS LISTED LUfi -221-Product Diagram is Conceptual LOADS Analysis is for a Joist Member Primary Load Group - Residential - Living Areas (psf) 40 0 Live at 100 % duration, 30 0 Dead SUPPORTS 1 Stud wall 2 Stud wall Input Bearing Vertical Reactions (Ibs) Detail Width Length Live/Dead/Uphft/Total 550" 425" 709/532/0/1241 End, Rim 350" 225" 699/524/0/1223 End, Rim Other 1 Ply 1 1/4" x 16" 0 8E TJ-Strand Rim Board® 1 Ply 1 1/4" x 16" 0 8E TJ-Strand Rim Board® DESIGN CONTROLS Shear (Ibs) Vertical Reaction (Ibs) Moment (Ft-Lbs) Live Load Defl (in) Total Load Defl (in) TJPro Maximum 1199 1199 6421 Design -1190 1199 6421 0255 0445 44 Control 2710 1396 12925 0535 1 071 30 Control Passed (44%) Passed (86%) Passed (50%) Passed (L/999+) Passed (L/577) Passed Location Rt end Span 1 under Floor loading Bearing 2 under Floor loading MID Span 1 under Floor loading MID Span 1 under Floor loading MID Span 1 under Floor loading Span 1 -Deflection Criteria STANDARD(LL L/480.TL L/240) -TJ maximum bearing length controls reaction capacity Limits End supports, 31/2" Intermediate supports, 51/4" -Deflection analysis is based on composite action with single layer of 19/32" Panels (20" Span Rating) GLUED & NAILED wood decking -Bracmg(Lu) All compression edges (top and bottom) must be braced at 7' 2" o/c unless detailed otherwise Proper attachment and positioning of lateral bracing is required to achieve member stability ADDITIONAL NOTES -IMPORTANT' The analysis presented is output from software developed by Trus Joist (TJ) TJ warrants the sizing of its products by this software will be accomplished in accordance with TJ product design criteria and code accepted design values The specific product application, input design loads, and stated dimensions have been provided by the software user This output has not been reviewed by a TJ Associate -Not all products are readily available Check with your supplier or TJ technical representative for product availability -THIS ANALYSIS FOR TRUS JOIST PRODUCTS ONLY' PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION VOIDS THIS ANALYSIS -Allowable Stress Design methodology was used for Building Code UBC analyzing the TJ Custom product listed above PROJECT INFORMATION OPERATOR INFORMATION Copyright " 2005 By Trus Joist a Weyerhaeuser Business TJI® and TJ-Beam® are registered trademarks of Trus Joist e-I Joist1" Pro1* and TJ-Pro™ are trademarks of Trus Joist I 1 '- *-/ f 7 > --J 5 - 4S7_ ,* * S 1 I i-V f- Z- ~'i V- V, * 3k£ P- A/v * ' 175' ) H.oCT) rr-l _S -. -224 J # f71_i *' 94 : = U2 t^- 2Q7 ..P, =— U 7 LSC "I S« J A» M- -2-^ 73.O i- ,0 W£> £, I JS = Ms P *1£ m i .0 l/o eg. * .2-1. '- V- * py T f ». 2,05^0 4A= 7570 /W X* fr- 24 J ; 17ST «-* - 72,-?,-* < t JLL. 4- ,-*- /Vv,= 14 S 2.2. HOROWITZ TAYLOR KUSHKAKI 5T8UCTURAL ENGINEERS Rev 580004 User KW 0601355. Ver 5 8 0, 1 Dec 2003 (c)1983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Title Dsgnr Description Scope Job# Date 1026AM, 25 OCT 06 General Timber Beam donald ecw Calculations Description B7 General Information Section Name Prllm Beam Width Beam Depth Member Type Load Dur Factor Beam End Fixity Code 70x160 7 000 in 16000m Manuf/So Pine 1 000 Pin-Pin Ref 1997/2001 NDS, 2000/2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 Base allowables are user defined | Center Span Left Cantilever Right Cantilever Fb Base Allow Fv Allow Fc Allow E 475ft Lu ft Lu ft Lu 2,900 0 psi 290 0 psi 625 0 psi 2,000 0 ksi 000ft 000ft 000 ft Trapezoidal Loads #1 DL @ Left DL @ Right 1,08400 1,08400 #/ft #/ft LL( LL( !Left ! Right #/ft #/ft Start Loc End Loc 0000 ft 3750 ft Point Loads Dead Load Live Load distance 4,218 Olbs Ibs 1 000ft 33,489 0 Ibs Ibs 3750ft Ibs Ibs 0000ft Ibs Ibs 0000ft Ibs Ibs 0000ft Ibs Ibs 0000ft Ibs Ibs 0000ft | Summary | Span= 4 75ft, Beam Width Max Stress Ratio Maximum Moment Allowable Max Positive Moment Max Negative Moment Max @ Left Support Max @ Right Support Max M allow fb 1,161 13 psi Fb 2,900 00 psi Deflections = 7000mx Depth = 16 in, 0400 1 28 9 k-ft 72 2 k-ft 28 90 k-ft at 0 00 k-ft at 000 k-ft 000 k-ft 7218 fv 96 17 psi Fv 290 00 psi Ends are Pin-Pin Maximum Shear * 1 3743ft 0000 ft Reactions LeftDL Right DL Allowable Shear Camber 1284 k 2893k 5 ©Left © Right ©Left @ Center @ Right Max Max Beam Design OK 108 k 325 k 1284k 2893k 0000 in 0031m 0000 m 1284k 2893k i Center Span Deflection Location Length/Defl Camber ( using 1 5 @ Center ©Left @ Right Dead Load -0 021 in 2584ft 2,767 1 1 D L Defl) 0 031 in 0 000 in 0 000 in Total Load -0 021 m 2584ft 2,767 06 Left Cantilever Deflection Length/Defl Right Cantilever Deflection Length/Defl Dead Load 0 000 in 00 0 000 in 00 Total Load 0 000 in 00 0 000 in 00 Stress Calcs Bending Analysis Ck 21 298 Le Cf 1 000 Rb © Center © Left Support @ Right Support Shear Analysis Design Shear Area Required Fv Allowable Bearing @ Supports Max Left Reaction Max Right Reaction 0000ft 0000 Max Moment 28 90 k-ft 0 00 k-ft 0 00 k-ft © Left Support 1077 k 37143 m2 290 00 psi 1284k 2893 k Sxx 298 667 m3 Sxx Reo'd 11958m3 0 00 m3 0 00 m3 © Right Support 737k 25 425 m2 290 00 psi Bearing Length Req'd Bearing Length Req'd Area 112 000 m2 Allowable fb 2,900 00 psi 2,900 00 psi 2,900 00 psi 2 935 in 6613 in ¥-7 HOROWITZTAYLORKUSHKAKI Title Dsgnr Description Scope Job# Date 1027AM, 25 OCT 06 STIUCTURAL ENGINtEilS Rev 580004 User KW 0601355. Ver 5 8 0, 1 Dec 2003(c)1983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software General Timber Beam donald ecw Calculations Description B8 General Information Section Name Prllm Beam Width Beam Depth Member Type Load Dur Factor Beam End Fixity Code 525x160 5 250 in 16000m Manuf/So Pine 1 250 Pin-Pin Ref 1997/2001 NDS, 2000/2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 Base allowables are user defined | Center Span Left Cantilever Right Cantilever Truss Joist - MacMillan, Fb Base Allow Fv Allow Fc Allow E 1275ft ft ft Parallam 2 OE 2,900 0 psi 290 0 psi 650 0 psi 2,000 0 ksi Lu Lu Lu 000ft 000 ft 000 ft Trapezoidal Loads #2 DL @ Left DL @ Right #3 DL @ Left DL @ Right #4 DL @ Left DL @ Right 86700 #/ft 86700 #/ft 66500 #/ft 66500 #/ft 867 00 #/ft 86700 #/ft LL @ Left LL @ Right LL @ Left LL @ Right LL @ Left LL @ Right #/ft #/ft #/ft #/ft #/ft #/ft Start Loc End Loc Start Loc End Loc Start Loc End Loc 0000 ft 3000 ft 3000 ft 8250 ft 8250 ft 12750 ft Point Loads Dead Load Live Load distance 17,766 Olbs Ibs 0000ft 10,732 Olbs Ibs 3000ft 7,317 Olbs Ibs 8250ft Ibs Ibs 0000ft Ibs Ibs 0000ft Ibs Ibs 0000ft Ibs Ibs 0000ft 1 Summary | Span= 12 75ft, Beam Width Max Stress Ratio Maximum Moment Allowable Max Positive Moment Max Negative Moment Max @ Left Support Max @ Right Support Max M allow fb 2,548 26 psi Fb 3,625 00 psi = 5250mx Depth = 16 in 0718 1 47 6 k-ft 67 7 k-ft 47 57 k-ft at -0 00 k-ft at 000 k-ft 000 k-ft 6767 fv 260 25 psi Fv 362 50 psi , Ends are Pin-Pin Maximum Shear * 1 6579ft 12750 ft Reactions LeftDL Right DL Allowable Shear Camber 3349 k 1232k 5 ©Left @ Right @Left @ Center @ Right Max Max Beam Design OK 21 9 k 305 k 1572k 1232k 0000 in 0607m 0000 m 3349k 1232k Deflections \ Center Span Deflection Location Length/Defl Dead Load -0 404 in 6273ft 3783 Total Load -0 404 in 6273ft 37829 Camber ( using 1 5 * D L Defl) ! Center ©Left @ Right 0 607 in 0 000 in 0 000 in Left Cantilever Deflection Length/Defl Right Cantilever Deflection Length/Defl Dead Load 0 000 in 00 0 000 in 00 Total Load 0000 in 00 0 000 in 00 .14' 7 > 16 ^^6. (PJ - 73 £2,'. U--I1 HOROWITZ TAYLORKUSHKAKI i M C I N = E XS T g U C T J B A I _ Rev' 580000 User KW 0601355. Ver 5 8 0, 1 Dec 2003 (0 1 983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Title Dsgnr Description Scope Job# Date 332PM, 6 FEB 07 Square Footing Design donald ecw Calculations Description General Information Dead Load Live Load Short Term Load Seismic Zone Overburden Weight Concrete Weight LL & ST Loads Combine Load Duration Factor Column Dimension Code Ref ACI 318-02, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 jj 7250k 0000k 0000k 4 0 000 psf 145 00 pcf 1 330 0 00 in Footing Dimension Thickness # of Bars Bar Size Rebar Cover fc Fy Allowable Soil Bearing 2000ft 1200 in 3 4 3000 2,500 0 psi 60,000 0 psi 2,000 00 psf Note Load factoring supports 2003 IBC and 2003 NFPA 5000 by virtue of their references to ACI 318-02 for concrete design Factoring of entered loads to ultimate loads within this program is according to ACI 318-02 C 2 Reinforcing Rebar Requirement Actual Rebar "d" depth used 200/Fy As Req'd by Analysis Mm Remf % to Req'd 8 750 in 00033 0 0003 m2 0 0014 % As to USE per foot of Width Total As Req'd Mm Allow % Remf 0 259 m2 0518m2 00014 Summary 1 2 00ft square x 12 Om thick with Max Static Soil Pressure Allow Static Soil Pressure Max Short Term Soil Pressure Allow Short Term Soil Pressure Mu Actual Mn * Phi Capacity 3- #4 bars 1,957 50 psf 2,000 00 psf 1 ,957 50 psf 2,660 00 psf 1 37 k-ft / ft 1 1 33 k-ft / ft Vu Actual One-Way Vn*Phi Allow One-Way Vu Actual Two-Way Vn*Phi Allow Two-Way Alternate Rebar Selections 3 #4's 2 #5's 1 #7's 1 #8's Footing 7 07 psi 85 00 psi 31 04 psi 170 00 psi OK 2 #6's 1 #9's 1 #10's HOROWITZ TAYLORKUSHKAKI STBUCfJRAL N C, ! N E £ Rev 580000 User KW 0601 355. Ver 5 8 0. 1 Dec 2003 (c)1983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Title Dsgnr Description Scope Job# Date 331PM, 6 FEB 07 Square Footing Design donald ecw Calculations Description General Information Dead Load Live Load Short Term Load Seismic Zone Overburden Weight Concrete Weight LL & ST Loads Combine Load Duration Factor Column Dimension Code Ref ACI 318-02, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 b ^-.-im- «jvm- J --..»— vaj, JJII^UCT™— ^—~—— — — . .-i—, .,.„- ^mi_^^_J_^__m.^_»_^_n.— ja^.a.'p.— mCTumamtJI 11 500k 0000k 0000k 4 0 000 psf 145 00 pcf 1 330 000 in Footing Dimension Thickness # of Bars Bar Size Rebar Cover fc Fy Allowable Soil Bearing 2500ft 1200m 3 5 3000 2,500 0 psi 60,000 0 psi 2,000 00 psf Note Load factoring supports 2003 IBC and 2003 NFPA 5000 by virtue of their references to ACI 318-02 for concrete design Factoring of entered loads to ultimate loads within this program is according to ACI 318-02 C 2 Reinforcing Rebar Requirement Actual Rebar "d" depth used 200/Fy As Req'd by Analysis Mm Remf % to Req'd 8 688 in 00033 0 0005 m2 00014% As to USE per foot of Width Total As Req'd Mm Allow % Remf 0 259 m2 0 648 m2 00014 Summary 1 ^^^SyjKMfflt-^ylig^liH^^^jfi'iljip^ff 2 SOn square x 12 Oin thick with Max Static Soil Pressure Allow Static Soil Pressure Max Short Term Soil Pressure Allow Short Term Soil Pressure Mu Actual Mn * Phi Capacity 3- #5 bars 1,985 00 psf 2,000 00 psf 1,985 00 psf 2,660 00 psf 217k-ft/ft 1381 k-ft/ft Vu Actual One-Way Vn*Phi Allow One-Way Vu Actual Two-Way Vn*Phi Allow Two-Way Alternate Rebar Selections 4 #4's 3 #5's 2 #7's 1 #8's Footing 14 02 psi 85 00 psi 52 71 psi 17000 psi OK 2 #6's 1 #9's 1 #10's Description Title Dsgnr Job# Date 331PM, 6 FEB 07 mjnmmm HOROWITZ HTK TAYLORn • Im KUSHKAKI STSLCiJRAL F N i, ' H = 6 3 5. Rev 580000 User KW 0601355. Ver 5 8 0. 1 Dec 2003 (c)!983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Scope Square Footing Design donald ecw Calculations General Information Dead Load Live Load Short Term Load Seismic Zone Overburden Weight Concrete Weight LL & ST Loads Combine Load Duration Factor Column Dimension Code Ref ACI 318-02, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000~| 16500k 0000k 0000k 4 0 000 psf 14500pcf 1 330 000 in Footing Dimension Thickness # of Bars Bar Size Rebar Cover fc Fy Allowable Soil Bearing 3 000 ft 12 00 in 3 5 3000 2,500 0 psi 60,000 0 ps: 2,000 00 psf Note Load factoring supports 2003 IBC and 2003 NFPA 5000 by virtue of their references to ACI 318-02 for concrete design Factoring of entered loads to ultimate loads within this program is according to ACI 318-02 C 2 Reinforcing Rebar Requirement Actual Rebar "d" depth used 200/Fy As Req'd by Analysis Mm Remf % to Req'd 8 688 in 00033 0 0008 m2 0 0014 % As to USE per foot of Width Total As Req'd Mm Allow % Remf 0 259 ;n2 0 778 m2 00014 I Summary |f Footing OK 3 00ft square x 12 Om thick with 3- #5 bars Max Static Soil Pressure Allow Static Soil Pressure Max Short Term Soil Pressure Allow Short Term Soil Pressure Mu Actual Mn * Phi Capacity 1 ,978 33 psf 2,000 00 psf 1,978 33 psf 2,660 00 psf 312 k-ft/ft 1161 k-ft/ft Vu Actual One-Way Vn*Phi Allow One-Way Vu Actual Two-Way Vn*Phi Allow Two-Way Alternate Rebar Selections 4 #4's 3 #5's 2 #7's 1 #8's 20 62 psi 85 00 psi 77 76 psi 170 00 psi 2 #6's 1 #9's 1 #10's HOROWITZ TAYLOR KUSHKAKI STftULTJUAt Rev 580000 User KW 0601 355, Ver 5 8 0, 1 Dec 2003 (c)1983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Title Dsgnr Description Scope Job# Date 331PM, 6 FEB 07 Square Footing Design donald ecw Calculation! Description General Information Dead Load Live Load Short Term Load Seismic Zone Overburden Weight Concrete Weight LL & ST Loads Combine Load Duration Factor Column Dimension Note Load factoring supports 2003 22 500 k 0000k 0000k 4 0 000 psf 145 00 pcf 1 330 000 in IBC and 2003 NFPA 5000 CodeRef ACI 318-02, 1997 Footing Dimension Thickness # of Bars Bar Size Rebar Cover fc Fy Allowable Soil Bearing UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 3500ft 1200 in 4 5 3000 2,500 0 psi 60,000 0 psi 2,000 00 psf by virtue of their references to ACI 31 8-02 for concrete design Factoring of entered loads to ultimate loads within this program is according to ACI 318-02 C 2 Reinforcing Rebar Reqirrement Actual Rebar "d" depth used 8 688 in 200/Fy As Req'd by Analysis Mm Remf % to Req'd 00033 00011 m2 0 0014 % As to USE per foot of Width Total As Req'd Mm Allow % Remf 0 259 m2 0 907 m2 00014 Summary | ^^^^^^Mi^Slt^SiM^j^^BS^^*^] 3 50ft square x12Q\n thick Max Static Soil Pressure Allow Static Soil Pressure Max Short Term Soil Pressure Allow Short Term Soil Pressure Mu Actual Mn * Phi Capacity with 4- #5 bars 1,981 73 psf 2,000 00 psf 1,981 73 psf 2,660 00 psf 4 25 k-ft / ft 13 18 k-ft /ft Vu Actual One-Way Vn*Phi Allow One-Way Vu Actual Two-Way Vn*Phi Allow Two-Way Alternate Rebar Selections 5 #4's 3 #5's 2 #7's 2 #8's Footing 27 31 psi 85 00 psi 107 76 psi 17000 psi OK 3 #6's 1 #9's 1 #10's 1 1 mmmmmjf HOROWITZ HTK TAYLORn I i%KUSHKAKI STRUCTURAL ENGiN£ES!S Rev 580000 User KW 0601355, Ver 5 8 0, 1 Dec 2003 (c)1983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Title Dsgnr Description Scope Square Footing Design Job# Date 330PM, 6 FEB 07 donald ecw Calculations Description General Information Dead Load Live Load Short Term Load Seismic Zone Overburden Weight Concrete Weight LL & ST Loads Combine Load Duration Factor Column Dimension Code Ref ACI 318-02, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 32 750 k 0000k 0000k 4 0 000 psf 145 00 pcf 1 330 000 in Footing Dimension Thickness # of Bars Bar Size Rebar Cover fc Fy Allowable Soil Bearing 4 250 ft 1500 in 5 5 3000 2,500 0 psi 60,000 0 psi 2,000 00 psf Note Load factoring supports 2003 IBC and 2003 NFPA 5000 by virtue of their references to ACI 318-02 for concrete design Factoring of entered loads to ultimate loads within this program is according to ACI 318-02 C 2 Reinforcing Rebar Requirement Actual Rebar "d" depth used 200/Fy As Req'd by Analysis Mm Remf % to Req'd 11688m 00033 0 0009 m2 00014% As to USE per foot of Width Total As Req'd Mm Allow % Remf 0 324 in2 1 377 in2 00014 Summary | ^^^^^^j^^ySBjBBJMl-^Si^iBJiJiJ^tSBM^S 4 25ft square x 15 Om thick with Max Static Soil Pressure Allow Static Soil Pressure Max Short Term Soil Pressure Allow Short Term Soil Pressure Mu Actual Mn * Phi Capacity 5- #5 bars 1,99440 psf 2,000 00 psf 1,99440 psf 2,660 00 psf 6 30 k-ft / ft 1847 k-ft /ft Vu Actual One-Way Vn*Phi Allow One-Way Vu Actual Two-Way Vn*Phi Allow Two-Way Alternate Rebar Selections 7 #4's 5 #5's 3 #7's 2 #8's Footing 22 92 psi 85 00 psi 87 46 psi 17000 psi OK 4 #6's 2 #9's 2 #10's HOROWITZTAYLORKUSHKAKI STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Rev 580000 User KW 0601355, Ver 5 8 0, 1 Dec 2003(c)1983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Title Dsgnr Description Scope Date Job# 3 29PM, 6 FEB 07 Square Footing Design donald ecw Calculations Description General Information Dead Load Live Load Short Term Load Seismic Zone Overburden Weight Concrete Weight LL & ST Loads Combine Load Duration Factor Column Dimension 40 000 k 0000k 0000k 4 0 000 psf 14500pcf 1 330 000 in Note Load factoring supports 2003 IBC and 2003 NFPA 5000 Code Ref ACI 318-02, 1997 Footing Dimension Thickness # of Bars Bar Size Rebar Cover fc Fy Allowable Soil Bearing UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 4750 ft 18 00 in 6 5 3000 2,500 0 psi 60,000 0 psi 2,000 00 psf I by virtue of their references to ACI 318-02 for concrete design Factoring of entered loads to ultimate loads within this program is according to ACI 318-02 C 2 Reinforcing Rebar Requirement Actual Rebar "d" depth 200/Fy As Req'd by Analysis Mm Reinf % to Req'd used 14688m 00033 0 0007 m2 0 0014 % As to USE per foot of Width Total As Req'd Mm Allow % Reinf 0 389 m2 1 847 m2 00014 I Summary 1 wtw&»WtoSMls$m*&!&m®i®&is8!$£&mmia 4 75ft square x 18 Om thick with Max Static Soil Pressure Allow Static Soil Pressure Max Short Term Soil Pressure Allow Short Term Soil Pressure Mu Actual Mn * Phi Capacity 6- #5 bars 1,990 35 psf 2,000 00 psf 1,990 35 psf 2,660 00 psf 7 86 k-ft / ft 25 07 k-ft / ft Vu Actual One-Way Vn'Phi Allow One-Way Vu Actual Two-Way Vn'Phi Allow Two-Way Alternate Rebar Selections 10 #4's 6 #5's 4 #7's 3 #8's Footing • 18 20 psi 85 00 psi 68 02 psi 170 00 psi OK 5 #6's 2 #9's 2 #10's UJibJO.. V V__= Ja ^,37 VI ^,02, 23 o L.-I n Li " <L0- i ir2- 2. 5" 7 Q F 6- 2x5- A D . v 25770 - '7Z-IZ UL. n ' a g.e.r* i.?r "X * ZO.P % 57 7, f O.J-" , |2 3 7 £\ -> 24 i («. 5 /,.- - . 1 C. («s>( /I. H f > r * /<> H I o 7 T| S7 L-7 .j * 316 d7 fc^'=- (Ml. i F r •=_. 66 JL-- = IV "- US' LHO V -- f33f|28x^1 [27 c: (770 0 ^i ^ iPfl'- ^J ] C **)*/ 2~ - S ^ *3 w ^ F r - \/ r - S 1•XN. LHPI^ HOROWITZ H • K TAYLOR• • I Im KUSHKAKI STRUCTURAL ENGINEE9S Title Job # Dsgnr Date 1207PM, 3 JAN 07 Description Scope Rev 580004 .. _. „ . . _ _ |g User KW 0601 355, Ver 580. 1 Dec 2003 MaSOHrV PlGf An3 VSIS & DeSIOH 1(c)l 983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software «I«SWIII y TIBI rtlieiiyoia W I^COiyil donald ecw CalculattonsJ Description General Information Total Lateral Force Seismic Zone Load Duration Factor Shear Pier Data Pier Height Pier Length Wall Thickness "j" Depth Mult Pier Fixity fm Fs Sp Insp Grout Spacing Code Ref ACI 530-02, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 j] 17 50 k Moduli Em = fm * 900 00 4 Moduli Ev = Em* 040 1 33 Pier #1 11 33ft 800ft 8 in 090 Pin-Fix 1,500 psi 24,000 psi Yes 16m k Analysis Data | Height/Length (H/L)A3 Rel Defl Sum Rigidity Rgidity= 001/Defl % Force to Pier Shear to Pier Relative Defl * 10A5 M / (V'Depth) Em Ev 1 Summary | Shear Reinforcing fv=V/(12*est*jd) Fv w/o Remf Fv w/ Remf Honz Shear Av Req'd Bending Reinforcing Moment @ End "d" to tension As Bending As Req'd Pier #1 1 4163 28407 1 4455 691 80 691 802 1 00 17500k 000 in 1 574 1350,0000 psi 540,000 0 psi Pier #1 52 38 psi 46 55 psi 77 27 psi 0103mA2/ft 19827k-ft 720ft 0 86 m2 Title Dsgnr Job# Date 1208PM, 3 JAN 07 LHPI^ HOROWITZ HTK TAYLOR•Hi • Im KUSHKAKI STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Rev 580014User KW 0601 355. Ver 5 8 0, 1 Dec 2003(C)1983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Scope Code Ref ACI 318-02, Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 donald ecw Calculations | Description BASEMENT WALL Criteria | Retained Height = 2 00 ft Wall height above soil = 8 00 ft Slope Behind Wall = 0 00 1 Height of Soil over Toe = 0 00 in Soil Density = HOOOpcf Wind on Stem = 14 0 psf Axial Load Applied to Stem b Design Summary || Soil Data | Footing Strengths & Dimensions Allow Soil Bearing = 2,400 0 psf f c - 2,500 psi Fy - 60,000 psi Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Mm As % = 0 0014 Heel Active Pressure = 350 Toe Width = 079ft Toe Active Pressure = 00 |_|ee| Width = 1 46 Passive Pressure = 3250 Total Footing Width = 2~2T5~ Water height over heel = 00ft _ . _. , ......Footing Thickness = 14 00 in FootmgllSoil Friction = 0 300„ .. ' Key Width = 000 inSoil height to ignore Key Depth = 000 infor passive pressure = 000 in ,. * *: T nnnftK K Key Distance from Toe = 0 00 ft Cover @ Top = 3 00 in @ Btm = 3 00 in Axial Dead Load = 930 0 Ibs Axial Load Eccentricity = 0 0 in Axial Live Load = 752 0 Ibs Stem Construction | Top Stem 2nd Total Bearing Load = 3,090 Ibs Design height ft = 4 00 0 00 resultant ecc = 3 34 in Wall Material Above "HI" = Masonry Masonry . . _ _ _ „ „ , , ni. Thickness = 8 00 8 00SO. Pressure® Toe = 2,394 ps OK Rebar Size = # 4 #4 Soil Pressure @ Heel = 353 psf OK Rebar Spacing = 1600 1600 Allowable = 2,400 psf p Center Edae Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable Dc-ian Data ACI Factored @ Toe = 3,526 psf f^pR . fa/F,, ACI Factored @ Hee, = 520 psf S Fo?ce@ Section ,bs = Footing Shear® Toe = 173psiOK Momen, Actug| ft.# = Footing Shear® Heel = 3 1 psi OK Moment A||owab|e ft^ = C'LTf,'6 B = 85°PSI Shear Actual psi = ^ertuS^34105 = 2 79 OK Shear A"°wable ** = Sliding = N/A Bar Develop ABOVE Ht in = Sliding Calcs Slab Resists All Sliding i Bar Lap/Hook BELOW Ht in = Lateral Sliding Force = 287 5 Ibs Wall Weight psf = Rebar Depth 'd1 in = / Footing Design Results | Toe Hee! Factored Pressure = 3,526 520 Mu1 Upward = 1,423 435 Mu Design = 1,311 181 Actual 1 -Way Shear = 1729 311 Allow 1 -Way Shear = 8500 8500 Toe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd ividbuiny uaia f m psi = Fs psi = Solid Grouting = Special Inspection Modular Ratio 'n1 — Short Term Factor = psf Equiv Solid Thick in = ft-# Masonry Block Type = ft-# f c psi = psi Fy PSI = Psl Other Acceptable Sizes 8C Spacing! Toe Heel Key 0644 0815 840 1820 2520 7187 535 0 1 ,204 2 20 32 194 258 24 00 24 00 24 00 6 00 840 840 3 81 5 25 1,500 1,500 24,000 24,000 Yes Yes No No 25 78 25 78 1 000 1 330 ' 7 60 7 60 Title Dsgnr Job* Date 1208PM, 3 JAN 07 • ••PUT HOROWITZ H I K TAYLOR• • • •% KUSHKAKI STRUCTURAL ENGINE6DS Rev 580014 User KW 0601 355. Ver 5 8 0, 1 Dec 2003(c)1983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Scope Code Ref ACI 318-02, 1997 UBC, Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 donald ecw Calculations I Description CIP WALL Criteria | Retained Height = 1400ft Wall height above soil = 0 00 ft Slope Behind Wall = 0 00 1 Height of Soil over Toe - 0 00 in Soil Density = 11000pcf Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf Surcharge Loads fej Surcharge Over Heel = 0 0 psf Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Surcharge Over Toe = 60 0 psf Used for Sliding & Overturning Design Summary || Total Bearing Load = 5,862 Ibs resultant ecc = 1501 in Soil Pressure @ Toe = 1 ,299 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 81 psf OK Allowable = 2,400 psf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe = 1 ,868 psf ACI Factored @ Heel = 116 psf Footing Shear @ Toe = 36 1 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel = 0 0 psi OK Allowable = 85 0 psi Wall Stability Ratios Overturning = 1 55 OK Sliding = N/A Sliding Calcs Slab Resists All Sliding i Lateral Sliding Force = 4,1 14 4 Ibs Footing Design Results | Toe Heel Factored Pressure = 1,868 116 ps Mu' Upward = 38,048 Oft-* Mu1 Downward ~ 10238 0 ft-# Mu Design = 27,810 Oft-* Actual 1 -Way Shear = 3610 0 00 ps Allow 1 -Way Shear = 8500 0 00 ps Toe Reinforcing = # 7 @ 8 00 in Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd Soil Data | Footing Strengths & Dimensions | Allow Soil Bearing - 2,400 0 psf f c - 2,500 psi Fy - 60,000 psi Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Mm As % = 00014 Heel Active Pressure = 350 Toe Width = 750ft Toe Active Pressure = 00 Hee, W|dth = 1 00 Passive Pressure - 3250 Total Footing Width = 850 Water height over heel = 0 0 ft ,Footing Thickness = 1600mFootmg||Soil Friction = 0 350 Soil height to ignore ^W'dn!hh I °°°|"for passive pressure = 1200m Key Depth - 000 inKey Distance from Toe = 0 00 ft Cover @ Top = 3 00 in @ Btm = 3 00 in Lateral Load Applied to Stem | Axial Load Applied to Stem JE9 Lateral Load = 0 0 #/ft Axial Dead Load = 930 0 Ibs Height to Top = 0 00 ft Axial Live Load = 752 0 Ibs Height to Bottom = 0 00 ft Axial Load Eccentricity = 0 0 in Stem Construction | Top Stem 2nd 3rd Design height ft= 800 400 000 Wall Material Above "Ht" = Concrete Concrete Concrete Thickness = 1200 1200 1200 RebarSize = #4 #7 #7 Rebar Spacing = 1600 1600 800 Rebar Placed at = Edge Edge Edge fb/FB + fa/Fa = o 360 o 578 o 846 Total Force @ Section lbs= 1,0710 2,9750 5,8310 Moment Actual ft-#= 2,1420 9,9167 27,2113 Moment Allowable ft-#= 5,9555 17,1497 32,1489 Shear Actual psi= 99 275 540 Shear Allowable psi= 850 850 850 Bar Develop ABOVE Ht m= 1872 1773 4095 Bar Lap/Hook BELOW Ht in = 1872 4095 1216 Wall Weight psf= 1450 1450 1450 Rebar Depth 'd' in = 900 900 900 f m psi = Fs - psi= - - - Solid Grouting = Special Inspection Modular Ratio 'n' = Short Term Factor = : Equiv Solid Thick = t Masonry Block Type = f Concrete Data t fc psi= 2,5000 2,5000 2,5000 Fy psi= 60,0000 60,0000 60,0000 Other Acceptable Sizes 6t Spacing! Toe Heel Key HOROWITZ TAYLORKUSHKAKI STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Title Dsgnr Description Scope Job# Date 1208PM, 3 JAN 07 Code Ref ACI 318-02, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 Rev 580014 User KW 0601 355, Ver 5 8 0, 1 Dec 2003 (01983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design donald ecw Calculations Description CIPWALL(IO') Criteria | Retained Height = 1000ft Wall height above soil = 0 00 ft Slope Behind Wall = 0 00 1 Height of Soil over Toe = 0 00 in Soil Density = 11000pcf Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf Axial Load Applied to Stem b Design Summary fej Soil Data g Footing Strengths & Allow Soil Bearing = 2,400 0 psf f c = 2,500 psi Fy Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Mm As % = Heel Active Pressure = 35 0 joe width = Toe Active Pressure = 00 |_|ee| yvidth = Passive Pressure = 3250 Total Footing WidthWater height over heel 0 0 ft Footing Thickness = Footmg||Soil Fnction = 0 350 Soil height to ignore S Depth = for passive pressure = 12 00 in £ y I, . cv K Key Distance from Toe = Cover® Top = 300m Axial Dead Load = 930 0 Ibs Axial Load Eccentricity = Axial Live Load = 752 0 Ibs Stem Construction | Top stem 2nd 3rd Dimensions | - 60,000 psi 00014 475ft 067 542 1400m 000 in 000 in 000ft @ Btm = 3 00 in 00 in Total Bearing Load = 3,597 Ibs Design height ft = 8 00 4 00 0 00 resultant ecc = 6 1 1 in wall Material Above "Ht" = Concrete Concrete Concrete 0,0 ^ -r « n™ « ™ Thickness = 8 00 8 00 8 00Soil Pressure @ Toe = 1,039 psf OK Rebar Size - #5 #5 #6 Soil Pressure® Heel = 289 psf OK Rebar Spacing = 1600 1600 800 Allowable = 2,400 psf piorpH at - Center Center EdaeSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable ,,„.„ olf.- at ~ °e 9 ACI Factored @ Toe = 1,51 9 psf ACI Factored @ Heel = 423 psf Footing Shear @ Toe = 27 1 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel = 0 0 psi OK Allowable = 85 0 psi Wall Stability Ratios Overturning = 1 50 OK Sliding = N/A Sliding Calcs Slab Resists All Sliding i Lateral Sliding Force = 2,182 2 Ibs Footing Design Results | Toe Heel Factored Pressure = 1,519 423 | Mu1 Upward = 13,524 0 Mu' Downward = 2,764 0 Mu Design = 10,760 Of Actual! -Way Shear = 2713 0 00 [ Allow 1 -Way Shear = 8500 0 00 [ Toe Reinforcing = # 7 @ 8 00 in Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd fb/FB + fa/Fa = o 020 0 550 0 791 Total Force @ Section lbs= 1190 1,0710 2,9750 Moment Actual ft-#= 793 2,1420 9,9167 Moment Allowable ft-#= 3,8980 3,8980 12,5370 Shear Actual psi = 25 22 3 49 6 Shear Allowable psi = 85 0 85 0 85 0 Bar Develop ABOVE Ht m= 2340 1200 2808 Bar Lap/Hook BELOW Ht in = 2340 2340 953 Wall Weight psf= 967 967 967 Rebar Depth 'd1 m= 400 400 500 f m psi = Fs psi = Solid Grouting = Special Inspection = Modular Ratio-'n- — - Short Term Factor = Jsf Equiv Solid Thick = t-# Masonry Block Type =t # Concrete Datat-# fc psi= 2,5000 2,5000 2,5000 JSI Fy psi= 60,0000 60,0000 60,0000 531 Other Acceptable Sizes a. Spacings Toe Heel Key Title Dsgnr Job# Date 1208PM, 3 JAN 07 mmmimf HOROWITZ HTK TAYLORn • Im KUSHKAKI STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS Rev 580014 User KW 0601 355. Ver 5 8 0, 1 Dec 2003(c)1983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Scope Code Ref ACI 318-02, 1997 UBC, Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 donald ecw Calculations I Description CIPWALL(IO') Criteria \ Retained Height = 2 00 ft Wall height above soil = 8 00 ft Slope Behind Wall = 0 00 1 Height of Soil over Toe = 24 00 in Soil Density = 11000pcf Wind on Stem = 21 0 psf Axial Load Applied to Stem i Design Summary 1 :Soil Data | Footing Strengths & Allow Soil Bearing = 2,400 0 psf fc = 2,500 psi Fy Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Mm As % = Heel Active Pressure = 35 0 Toe Wldth _ Toe Active Pressure = 00 Heel Width Passive Pressure = 3250 Total Footing Width Water height over heel = 0 0 ft Footing Thickness = Footing! ISoil Friction = 0 350„ ,u ' . Key Width =Soil height to ignore K ' D th for passive pressure = 1200m g Snce from Toe = Cover @ Top = 3 00 in Axial Dead Load = 930 0 Ibs Axial Load Eccentricity Axial Live Load ~ 752 0 Ibs Stem Construction | Top Stem 2nd 3rd Dimensions ft 60,000 psi 00014 475ft 067 542 1400m 000 in 0 00 in 000ft @ Btm = 3 00 in 0 Om Total Bearing Load = 4,642 Ibs Design height ft= 800 400 000 resultant ecc =11 77 in wall Material Above "Ht" = Concrete Concrete Concrete o , r, S^T « t ™ Thickness = 8 00 8 00 8 00So Pressure® Toe = 0 ps OK Rebar Size = #5 #5 #6 Soil Pressure @ Heel = 1,791 psf OK Rebar Spacing = 1600 1600 1600 ^'^"pressureLessT^anAnowable^ ££$£** = ™" <**" ** ACI Factored @ Toe = 0 psf fb/FB + fa/Fa = 0018 0165 0231 ACI Factored ©Heel = 2,595 psf Total Force @ Section lbs= 714 2142 4046 Footing Shear® Toe = 9 3 psi OK Moment Actug| ft.#= 71 4 642 6 ^ 792 g Footing Shear ©Heel = 0 0 ps, OK Moment A||owab|e ft-# = 38980 38980 77749 ^ Allowable = 85 Ops, She£jr ^^ ps| = 1g 45 6Q ™vertu±gyRatlOS = 10570K Shear Allowable Ps' = 85° 85° 85° Sliding = N/A Bar Develop ABOVE Ht in= 2340 1200 2808 Sliding Calcs Slab Resists All Sliding i Bar Lap/Hook BELOW Ht in = 23 40 23 40 6 00 Lateral Sliding Force = 343 5 Ibs Wall Weight psf= 967 967 967 Rebar Depth 'd1 m= 400 400 563 Footing Design Results | Toe Hee Factored Pressure = 0 2,595 Mu' Upward = 7,684 0 Mu' Downward = 6,239 0 Mu Design = 1,446 0 Actual 1 -Way Shear = 933 000 Allow 1 -Way Shear = 8500 000 Toe Reinforcing = # 7 @ 8 00 in Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd f m psi = Fs psi = Solid Grouting = Special Inspection Short Term Factor = psf Equiv Solid Thick = ft-# Masonry Block Type = ft-# fc psi= 2,5000 2,5000 2,5000 psi Fy psi= 60,0000 60,0000 60,0000 PSI Other Acceptable Sizes 6t Spacing; Toe Heel Key Title Dsgnr Job# Date 1208PM, 3 JAN 07 mmmtmm HOROWITZ H I K TAYLOR• I I •% KUSHKAKI STSUCTORAL ENGINEERS Rev 580014User KW 0601 355, Ver 5 8 0. 1 Dec 2003(c)1983 2003 ENERCAI.C Engineering Software Scope CodeRef ACI 318-02, Can ti levered Retaining Wall Design 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 donald ecw Calculations I Description STAIR WALL (2-0) Criteria | Retained Height = 2 00 ft Wall height above soil = 800ft Slope Behind Wall = 000 1 Height of Soil over Toe - 22 00 in Soil Density = HOOOpcf Wind on Stem = 14 0 psf Design Summary | Soil Data Allow Soil Bearing = 2,660 0 Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Heel Active Pressure = 35 0 Toe Active Pressure = 00 | Footing Strengths & Dimensions psf fc = 2,500 psi Fy = 60,000 psi Mm As % = 0 0014 Toe Width = 0 83 ft Heel Width = 1 17 Passive Pressure = 325 0 Tota| Footing Width = 2 00 Water height over heel = 00ft ,- . TU • 10 ™Footing Thickness = 1200m FootingHSoil Friction = 0350 „„„_ .. ' Key Width = 1200mSoil height to ignore KevDeoth = 0 00 in for passive pressure = 1200m £ y " T < T ncn«K K Key Distance from Toe = 1 50 ft Cover @ Top = 3 00 in @ Btm = 3 00 in Stem Construction fe Top Stem 2nd Total Bearing Load = 1,419 Ibs Design height ft = resultant ecc = 6 92 in Wall Material Above "Ht" Soil Pressure @ Toe = 2,227 psf OK Rebar^zP - Soil Pressure® Heel = 0 psf OK Rebar Spacing = Allowable = 2'660Psf Rebar Placed atSoil Pressure Less Than Allowable Dc-mn Data ACI Factored @ Toe = 3,1 17 psf fh/FR + fa/Fa ACI Factored @ Heel = 0 psf -rTic ^c » ,K^ Total Force @ Section Ibs = Footing Shear® Toe = 13 1 psi OK Moment Actug| ft.# = Footing Shear® Heel = 2 6 psi OK Momen, A|]owgb|e ft.# = W^^B. = 85°PSI S^ ACtUal PS' =Wall Stability Ratios Overturning = 1 64 OK Shear Allowable PSI = Sliding = 5 47 (Vertical Co Bar Develop ABOVE Ht in = Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Bar Lap/Hook BELOW Ht m = Lateral Sliding Force = 269 5 Ibs Wall Weight psf = less 100% Passive Force= - 1,1420 Ibs Rebar Depth 'd' in = less 6/ % r-nction Force = - 332 8 Ibs Masonry Data Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK Fm j^' I for 15 1 Stability = 0 0 Ibs OK Solid Grouting = Footing Design Results | Toe Heel Factored Pressure = 3,117 0 Mu1 Upward _ . .. = 1,150 0 Mu1 Downward = 246 116 Mu Design = 904 116 Actual 1 -Way Shear = 1312 256 Allow 1 -Way Shear = 8500 8500 Toe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd Special Inspection Modular Ratio "n" — Short Term Factor = 3sf Equiv Solid Thick in = t-# Masonry Block Type = ft-# Concrete Data ft-# fc psi = psi Fv PS| = PSI Other Acceptable Sizes K Spacing: Toe Heel Key Stem OK Stem OK 4 00 0 00 Masonry Masonry 8 00 8 00 #4 #4 1600 1600 Center Edge 0 471 0 597 840 1820 2520 7187 5350 1,2042 20 32 194 258 24 00 24 00 24 00 6 00 84 0 84 0 3 81 5 25 1,500 1,500 24,000 24,000 Yes Yes No No 25 78 25 78 1 000 1 330 7 60 7 60 gn mmmmmw HOROWITZH • K TAYLORn • •% KUSHKAKI STRUCTURAL E N G ! N ? £ K S Title Dsgnr Description Scope Code Ref Job# Date 1208PM, 3 JAN 07 ACI 318-02, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 Rev 580014 User KW 0601355. Ver 5 8 0. 1 Dec 2003 (c)1983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design donald ecw Calculations Description STAIR WALL (4-2) Criteria | Soil Data Retained Height = 400ft Allow Soil Bearing = 2,6600 Wall height above soil = 6 00 ft HeerArtiv^Pressure5"1^8 ^^ 35 0 Slope Behind Wall = 000 1 Toe Active Pressure = 00 Height of Soil over Toe = 22 00 in Passive Pressure = 325 0 Soil Density = HOOOpcf Water height over heel = 00 Footmg||Soil Friction = 0 350 Wind on Stem = 14 0 psf Soil height to ignore for passive pressure = 1200 | Design Summary I Total Bearing Load = 1,61 8 Ibs resultant ecc = 8 10 in Soil Pressure @ Toe = 2,388 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 0 psf OK Allowable = 2,660 psf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe = 3,343 psf ACI Factored @ Heel = 0 psf Footing Shear @ Toe = 16 1 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel = 4 1 psi OK Allowable = 85 0 psi Wall Stability Ratios Overturning = 1 52 OK Sliding = 2 92 (Vertical C Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lateral Sliding Force = 521 5 Ibs less 100% Passive Force= - 1 ,142 0 Ibs less 67 % Friction Force = - 379 4 Ibs Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK for 1 5 1 Stability = 0 0 Ibs OK Footing Design Results | Stem Construction | Design height ft = Wall Material Above "Ht" Thickness = Rebar Size = Rebar Spacing = fb/FB + fa/Fa = Total Force @ Section Ibs = Moment Actual ft-# = Moment Allowable ft-# = Shear Actual psi = Shear Allowable psi = Jo Bar Develop ABOVE Ht in = Bar Lap/Hook BELOW Ht in = Wall Weight psf = Rebar Depth 'd' in = f m psi = Solid Grouting = Special Inspection = Mnrlnlar Rahn 'n1 = Toe Heel Short Term Factor = Factored Pressure = 3,343 0 psf Equiv Solid Thick in = Mu' Upward = 1,808 0 ft-# Masonry Block Type = - Mu Design = 1,423 185ft-# Actual 1 -Way Shear = 1608 4 08 psi Allow 1 -Way Shear = 8500 85 00 psi Toe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd 1 Footing Strengths & Dimensions | psf fc = 2,500 psi Fy - 60,000 psi Mm As % = 0 0014 Toe Width = 1 08 ft Heel Width = 117 Total Footing Width = 2 25 Footing Thickness = 1200m Key Width = 1200m Key Depth = 0 00 in Key Distance from Toe = 1 50 ft Cover @ Top = 3 00 in @ Btm = 3 00 in Top Stem 2nd Stem OK Stem OK 4 00 0 00 Masonry Masonry 8 00 8 00 #4 #4 1600 1600 Center Edge 0 471 0 798 84 0 364 0 252 0 961 3 5350 1,2042 20 64 194 258 24 00 24 00 24 00 6 00 84 0 84 0 3 81 5 25 1,500 1,500 24,000 24,000 Yes Yes No No 25 78 25 78 1 000 1 330 7 60 7 60 f c psi = Fy psi = Other Acceptable Sizes OL Spacing! Toe Heel Key HOROWITZTAYLORKUSHKAKI S78UCTURAL Title Dsgnr Description Job# Date 12 08PM, 3 JAN 07 Scope Code Ref ACI 318-02, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 Rev 580014 User KW 0601355, Ver 5 8 0. 1 Dec 2003(01983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design donald ecw Calculations Description STAIR WALL (6-4) Criteria Retained Height = Wall height above soil = Slope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe = Soil Density = 600ft 400ft 000 1 22 00 in HOOOpcf 1 Soil Data Allow Soil Bearing = 2,660 0 psf Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Wind on Stem 14 0 psf Heel Active Pressure Toe Active Pressure Passive Pressure Water height over heel Footmg||Soil Friction Soil height to ignore for passive pressure 350 00 = 3250 00ft = 0350 = 1200m Footing Strengths & fc = 2,500 psi Fy Mm As % = Toe Width = Heel Width Total Footing Width = Footing Thickness = Dimensions = 60,000 psi 00014 1 50 ft 1 50 300 1200m Key Width = 1200m Key Depth = 0 00 in Key Distance from Toe = 150ft Cover @ Top = 3 00 in @ Btm = 3 00 in Design Summary j| Total Bearing Load = 2,175 Ibs resultant ecc = 1012m Soil Pressure @ Toe = 2,209 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 0 psf OK Allowable = 2,660 psf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe = 2,91 9 psf ACI Factored @ Heel = 0 psf Footing Shear @ Toe = 19 3 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel = 5 6 psi OK Allowable = 85 0 psi Wall Stability Ratios Overturning = 1 57 OK Stem Construction Design height Wall Material Above "Ht" Thickness Rebar Size Rebar Spacing Rebar Placed at Design Data fb/FB + fa/Fa Total Force @ Section Moment Actual Moment Allowable Shear Actual Shear Allowable Sliding = 1 81 (Vertical Co Bar Develop ABOVE Ht Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lateral Sliding Force = 9135 Ibs less 100% Passi ve Force= - 1,1 420 Ibs less 67 % Friction Force = - 510 1 Ibs Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK for 1 5 1 Stability = 0 0 Ibs OK Footing Design Results | Toe Heel Factored Pressure = 2,919 0 psf I Top Stem ft= 600 = Masonry 800 = #4 1600 = Center = 0209 Ibs = 56 0 ft-#= 1120 ft-# = 535 0 psi = 14 psi = 194 in = 24 00 Bar Lap/Hook BELOW Ht in = 24 00 Wall Weight Rebar Depth 'd' Masonry Data fm Fs Solid Grouting Special Inspection Modular Ratio "n1 Short Term Factor Equiv Solid Thick psf = 84 0 in = 3 81 psi= 1,500 psi = 24,000 Yes No 2578 1000 in = 7 60 2nd Stem OK 267 Masonry 800 # 4 1600 Edge 0568 2501 5139 9054 44 194 2400 2400 840 525 1,500 24,000 Yes No 2578 1 000 760 3rd Stem OK 000 Masonry 1200 # 6 800 Edge 0467 6860 1,7080 3,659 9 74 194 3600 600 1330 900 1,500 24,000 Yes No 2578 1 000 11 62Mu1- Upward = 3,146 -0-ft-# Masonry Block Type = ....-_-- -- ... Mu Design = 2,392 319ft-# fc Actual 1 -Way Shear = 1934 5 56 psi Allow 1 -Way Shear = 8500 85 00 psi Toe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd Fy psi = psi = Other Acceptable Sizes N Spacing: Toe Heel Key HT II K SiaUCTURAL HOROWITZ TAYLORKUSHKAKI ENGINEERS Rev 580014User KW 0601355. Ver 5 8 0. 1 Dec 2003(c)1983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Description STAIR WALL Cantilevered (8-6) Title Dsgnr Description Scope CodeRef ACI 318-02, Retaining Wall Design Job# Date 1208PM, 3 JAN 07 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 donald ecw Calculations I Criteria Retained Height Wall height above soil Slope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe Soil Density >Soil Data I = 8 00 ft Allow Soil Bearing =2,660 0 psf _ nn „ Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method ^uun Heel Active Pressure = 350 0 °° 1 Toe Active Pressure = 00 = 22 00 in Passive Pressure = = 1 10 00 pcf Water height over heel = FootmallSoil Friction = Wind on Stem = 14 0 psf Soil height to ignore for passive pressure = Design Summary j| Total Bearing Load resultant ecc Soil Pressure @ Toe Soil Pressure @ Heel 2,773 Ibs 1303m 2,023 psf OK 0 psf OK Allowable = 2,660 psf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe ACI Factored @ Heel Footing Shear @ Toe Footing Shear @ Heel Allowable Wall Stability Ratios Overturning Sliding 2,632 psf = 0 psf 23 0 psi OK 7 1 psi OK = 85 0 psi = 1 56 OK Stem Construction Design height o^o u 00 0350 ft 1200m 8 Top Stem ft = Wall Material Above "Ht" = Thickness Rebar Size Rebar Spacing Rebar Placed at Design Data fb/FB + fa/Fa Total Force @ Section Moment Actual Moment Allowable Shear Actual Shear Allowable Footing Strengths & Dimensions fc = 2,500 psi Fy - 60,000 psi Mm As % Toe Width Heel Width Total Footing 0 0014 250ft 150 Width = 4 00 Footing Thickness = 1200m Key Width = 1200m Key Depth = 5 00 in Key Distance from Toe = 1 50 ft Cover @ Top 2nd Stem OK Stem OK 8 00 2 67 Masonry Masonry 8 00 8 00 = #4 #4 1600 1600 = Center Edge = 0 039 0 881 lbs = ft-# = ft-# = psi = psi = = 1 52 (Vertical Co Bar Develop ABOVE Ht in = Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lateral Sliding Force 1,445 5 Ibs less 100% Passive Force= - 1 ,553 9 Ibs less 67 % Friction Force = - 650 3 Ibs Added Force Req'd for 1 5 1 Stability 0 0 Ibs OK 0 0 Ibs OK Footing Design Results | Factored Pressure = Mu' Upward = Mu' Downwsrd ™ Mu Design = Actual 1 -Way Shear = Allow 1 -Way Shear = Toe Reinforcing = Heel Reinforcing = Key Reinforcing = Toe Heel 2,632 0 psf Bar Lap/Hook BELOW Wall Weight Rebar Depth 'd' Masonry uata fm Fs Solid Grouting Special Inspection Modular Ratio 'n1 Short Term Factor Equiv Solid Thick Ht m = psf = 28 0 525 2 280 1,0605 7116 1,2042 07 92 25 8 25 8 24 00 24 00 24 00 24 00 840 840 in = 3 81 5 25 DSI =Kwl psi = 1,50 3 1 .500 24,000 24,000 Yes Yes No No 25 78 25 78 = 1 330 1 330 m =7 60 7 60 = 3 00 in @ Btm = 3 00 in 3rd Stem OK 000 Masonry 1200 # 6 800 Edge 0665 1,1480 3,238 7 4,867 6 123 258 3600 600 1330 900 1,500 24,000 Yes No 2578 1 330 1162 6,636 0 ft-# Masonry Block Type = 1 86° ^06 ft It f^rtnrrata flata 4,774 406 ft-# f c 23 04 7 07 psi 85 00 85 00 psi None Spec'd None Spec'd None Spec'd Fy psi = psi = Other Acceptable Sizes 8t Spacmgs Toe Heel Key lit I k STRUCTURAL HOROWITZTAYLORKUSHKAKI E N G 1 N i E SI S Rev 580014 User KW 0601 355, Ver 5 8 0, 1 Dec 2003 (c)1983 2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Description STAIR WALL Cantilevered (10-8) Title Dsgnr Description Scope CodeRef ACI318-02, Retaining Wall Design Job# Date 1208PM, 3 JAN 07 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 donald ecw Calculations I Criteria I Retained Height = Wall height above soil = Slope Behind Wall = Height of Soil over Toe = Soil Density = 1000ft 000ft 000 1 22 00 in HOOOpcf Soil Data Allow Soil Bearing = 2,000 0 psf Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Wind on Stem 140 psf Heel Active Pressure Toe Active Pressure Passive Pressure Water height over heel Footmg||Soil Friction Soil height to ignore for passive pressure 350 00 = 3250 00ft = 0350 = 1200m Footing Strengths & Dimensions | fc = 2,500 psi Mm As % Toe Width Heel Width Total Footing Width Footing Thickness Fy = = 60,000 psi 00014 325ft 200 525 1200m Key Width = 1200m Key Depth = 1300m Key Distance from Toe = 2 25 ft Cover @ Top = 3 00 in @ Btm = 3 00 in Design Summary J| Total Bearing Load = 3,970 Ibs resultant ecc = 1405m Soil Pressure @ Toe = 1 ,820 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 0 psf OK Allowable = 2,000 psf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable Stem Construction | Top stem Design height ft = Wall Material Above "Ht" Thickness = Rebar Size = Rebar Spacing = Rebar Placed at = ACI Factored @ Toe = 2,423 psf "fh/FB' -Tfa/Fa ACI Factored @ Heel = 0 psf l,,c ^c ,^ Total Force @ Section Ibs = Footing Shear ©Toe = 32 8 psi OK Moment Actual ft-# = Footing Shear® Heel = 17 1 psi OK Moment A||owab|e f,_# = wMcTf,'?,,, = 85°PSI Shear Actual psi =Wall Stability Ratios „. ... .. Overturning = 1 74 OK Shear Allowable Psl = Sliding = 1 54 (Vertical Co Bar Develop ABOVE Ht in = Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Bar Lap/Hook BELOW Ht m = Lateral Sliding Force = 2,117 5 Ibs Wall Weight psf = less 100% Passive Force= - 2,330 3 Ibs Rebar Depth 'd' in = less 67 % Friction Force = - 930 9 Ibs Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK for 1 5 1 Stability = 0 0 Ibs OK Footing Design Results | f m psi = Fs psi = Solid Grouting = Special Inspection MnHular Rntin 'n1 — Toe Heel Short Term Factor = Factored Pressure = 2,423 0 psf Equiv Solid Thick in = Mu1 Upward = 10,871 - 4 ft-# Masonry Block Type = - Stem OK 467 Masonry 800 # 4 1600 Edge 0976 4972 8833 9054 87 194 2400 2400 840 525 1,500 24,000 Yes No 2578 1 000 760 2nd Stem OK 200 Masonry 1200 # 6 800 Edge 0816 1,1200 2,986 7 3,659 9 120 194 3600 3600 1330 900 1,500 24,000 Yes No 2578 1 000 11 62 3rd Stem OK000 Masonry 1200 # 6 800 Edge 0797 1,7500 5,833 3 7,3198 188 387 3600 721 1330 900 1,500 24,000 Yes Yes 2578 1 000 11 62 Mu Design = 7,855 1,363ft-# fc psi = Actual 1 -Way Shear = 3275 17 12 psi FY PSI = Allow 1 -Way Shear = 8500 85 00 psi Other Acceptable Sizes « Spacing* Toe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Toe Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key TO vs f- &ui«--Ciiiocsr", Pit. C-F) 2-/ "7/0? TO E\. SEE. 15 oseo tO v=. T£a r pib i r o v, or THIS , /9-A-jQ UPITH THE: ' &) \£ too a\-2_ cxo THE" \o,S ' i^'iTe^o c-rfo A.^ JT '..o/y UP'0/VHsO MOCv^y 1^1} IS r, _ _ ' . ' ......... /FI DC Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 March 28,2007 W.O.5181-A-SC R & M Enterprises 24423 Whitaker Way Murrieta, California 92562-7521 Attention: Mr. Enc Beck Subject' Response to Plan Check Comments and Grading Plan Review, The Donald Residential Condominiums, 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California References 1. "Portion of Plan Check Document. Carlsbad 07-0099," dated February 21, by the Esgil Corporation 2 "Update Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W O 5181-A-SC, dated June 27,2006, by GeoSoils, Inc 3. "Grading Plans for: Donald Residential Condominiums," Sheets 1 through 7, Project No. MS 05-31. Drawing No. 448-9A, undated, by LJntvedt, McColl and Associates. Dear Mr. Beck: In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has prepared this report in response to plan check comments provided by a representative of the City (see Reference No. 1). The purpose of this report is to respond to the plan check comments, including a review of our geotechnical report (see Reference No 2), and a review of the grading plans for this project prepared by LJntvedt, McColl and Associates (see Reference No. 3). Unless superceded in the text of this report, the recommendations presented in Reference No. 2 are generally considered valid and applicable, and should be appropriately implemented during planning, design, and construction. PLAN CHECK RESPONSE/REVIEW For ease of review, the review comments are repeated below in bold, followed by GSI's response. Foundation. Comment No. 35 "As per the soils report, page 43, provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction documents (required by the soil report). Response to Comment No. 35: The reviewed grading plans, notes, and details shown on Reference No. 3, appear to be in general conformance with the recommendations provided by this office and presented in Reference No. 2, from a geotechnical viewpoint. As additional plans/revisions, etc become available, these plans should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical studies may be warranted. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages' During grading/recertification. • During excavation. • During placement of subdrains, toe drains, or other subdrainage devices, prior to placing fill and/or backfill. • After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. • Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea gravel, etc.), or vapor barriers (i e., visqueen, etc.). • During retaining wall subdram installation, prior to backfill placement. • During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill During slope construction/repair When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report R &M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad March 28, 2007 File.e \wp9\5100\5181a rtp Page 2 GeoSofls, Inc. When any developer or homeowner improvements, such asflatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed, prior to construction. A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements. GSI should review project sales documents to homeowners/homeowners associations for geotechnical aspects, including irrigation practices, the conditions outlined above, etc., prior to any sales. At that stage, GSI will provide homeowners maintenance guidelines which should be incorporated into such documents. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These critena should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. Please note that the recommendations contained herein are not intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the slab or foundation. The structural engineer/foundation and/or slab designer should provide recommendations to not allow water or vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component, or so as to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application. The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and other design criteria specified herein. R &M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad March 28,2007 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a.rtp Page 3 GeoSoUs, Inc. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. All samples will be disposed of after 30 days, unless specifically requested by the client, in writing. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office Respectfully GeoSoils, Inc. Robert G. Crism Engineering Geologl RGC/DWS/jk No. 1934 ftified Engneering Geologist David W Skelly Civil Engineer, RCE 478 Distribution: (2) Addressee (2) Pi Arc Design, Attention: Mr. Buck Thompson (mail and e-mail) R &M Enterprises 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad FHe e \wp9\5100\5181artp WO 5181-A-SC March 28, 2007 Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. r i ! UPDATE PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, 2497 OCEAN STREET, CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR . R & M ENTERPRISES 24423 WHITAKER WAY MURRIETA, CALIFORNIA 92562-7521 WO 5181-A-SC JUNE 27, 2006 \ Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 June 27, 2006 WO 5181-A-SC R & M Enterprises 24423 Whitaker Way Murneta, California 92562-7521 Attention Mr Eric Beck Subject Update Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Dear Mr Beck In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc (GSI) is pleased to present the results of our update preliminary geotechnical investigation of the subject site The purpose of our investigation was to update existing geotechnical site work completed by the C W La Monte Company, Inc (CWLC, 2004), including an evaluation of the geologic and geotechnical conditions of the site, and to present preliminary recommendations for grading and foundation design/construction pertinent to the proposed two-unit residential condominium development EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our field exploration, geologic, and geotechnical engineering analysis, the proposed development appears feasible from a soils engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented herein are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project The most significant elements of our study are summarized below It is our understanding that the proposed development includes demolishing the existing structure and preparing the site for the construction of a two-unit, condominium-style residential structure, and associated exterior improvements It is our understanding that no work is proposed with regard to the existing sea wall, and a garden "fieldstone" wall, located west of the proposed construction area Grading appears to primarily include cut excavation for the purpose of constructing a basement/lower floor level Additional improvements, consisting of a storm water collection tank, and underground utilities, are also proposed • Earth materials, encountered onsite, consist of existing artificial fill, colluvium, and Quaternary-age terrace deposits which, in turn, are underlain by Eocene-age sediments belonging to the Santiago Formation In areas proposed for settlement-sensitive improvements, all existing fill and colluvium should be removed and recompacted Alternatively, foundations may be embedded/deepened into the underlying terrace deposits Actual removal depths should be further evaluated during grading • An existing garden "fieldstone" wall is located beyond (west of) the limits of the planned development, and should not significantly affect new construction However, the wall appears to be distressed, and the potential for this structure to eventually topple seaward should not be precluded It should be noted that the wall is also approximately located along the top of the coastal bluff • Laboratory testing indicates that soils are generally very low in expansion potential (Expansion Index [E I ] = 0 to 20) On a preliminary basis, conventional foundations may be used for this type of soil condition Final foundation design and construction recommendations will be provided at the conclusion of grading, based upon the expansion potential of finish grade soils Although not anticipated, if finish grade soils exhibit a higher expansion potential, a plasticity index (P I) of 15, or greater, and/or if paleoliquefaction features are encountered during grading, additional stronger concrete, and/or foundation/slab reinforcement may be necessary • Soil pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity testing indicates that site soils are mildly alkaline, present negligible sulfate exposure to concrete, and are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated A corrosion specialist should be consulted for the appropriate mitigation recommendations, as needed, regarding foundations, piping, and where metals will come into contact with site soils, etc • Regional groundwater was not encountered in our subsurface excavations, however, the regional groundwater table is anticipated to occur at depth beneath the site, at elevations near sea level A perched groundwater table was encountered locally, along the contact between the overlying terrace deposits, and the underlying Santiago Formation Groundwater is not expected to be a major factor in development of the site, provided the recommendations included herein are incorporated into final design and construction Due to the nature of the site materials, seepage and/or perched groundwater conditions may develop throughout the site along boundaries of contrasting permeabilities (i e , fill/terrace deposit/bedrock contacts), and should be anticipated Again, this potential should be disclosed to all interested parties Thus, supplemental slab details and design for moisture mitigation are warranted The seismic acceleration values and design parameters, provided herein, should be considered during the design of the proposed development The adverse R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page Two GeoSoils, Inc. effects of seismic shaking on the structure(s) will likely be wall cracks, some foundation/slab distress, and some seismic settlement However, it is anticipated that the structure will be repairable in the event of the design seismic event This potential should be disclosed to all owners or future owners • Adverse geologic structures (active faults, significant landslides, etc) that would preclude project feasability were not encountered • The geotechnical design parameters provided herein should be considered during project planning design and construction by the project structural engineer and/or architects The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. Cris Engineering Geologist RGC/PLM/DWS/jk/jh David W Skelly Civil Engineer, RC Distribution (3) Addressee (2) Dall & Associates, Attention Mr Norbert Dall R & M Enterprises File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg WO 5181-A-SC Page Three GeoSoils, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1 PREVIOUS WORK 3 FIELD STUDIES 4 REGIONAL GEOMORPHOLOGY 4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 4 SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS 5 Artificial Fill - (Map Symbol - Af) 5 Colluvium (Not Mapped) 6 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) 6 Santiago Formation (Not Mapped) 6 SLOPE STABILITY 7 GROUNDWATER 7 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY 8 Regional Faults 8 Seismicity 10 PRELIMINARY SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 11 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL 12 LABORATORY TESTING 13 Classification 13 Moisture-Density Relations 13 Laboratory Standard 13 Expansion Index (E I) Testing 13 Atterberg Limits 14 Shear Testing 14 Gram Size Distribution 14 Consolidation Test 14 pH/Soluble Sulfates/Saturated Resistivity Testing 14 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 GeoSofls, Inc. EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 17 General Grading 17 Demolition/Grubbing 18 Treatment of Existing Ground 18 Overexcavation . 19 Fill Placement 19 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS 19 Conventional Foundations - Very Low (El 0 to 20) to Low (E.I 21 to 50) Expansion Potentials With a P I Less Than 15 20 Foundation Design 20 Construction 20 PIER FOUNDATIONS 22 Foundations Design Criteria - Drilled Piers 22 Pier Construction 23 FLOOR SLAB DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 24 SOIL MOISTURE CONSIDERATIONS 24 SHORING DESIGN 25 Shoring of Excavations 25 Underpinning (If Necessary) 27 Open Excavations 27 Lateral Pressure 27 Excavation Observation (All Excavations) 29 Observation 30 WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS 30 Conventional Retaining Walls 30 Restrained Walls 31 Cantilevered Walls 31 Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage 31 Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions 35 DRIVEWAY, FLATWORK, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 36 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 38 Drainage 38 Erosion Control 38 Landscape Maintenance 38 Gutters and Downspouts 39 Subsurface and Surface Water 39 Site Improvements 39 R & M Enterprises Table of Contents File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page II GeoSoils, Inc. Tile Flooring 40 Additional Grading 40 Footing Trench Excavation 40 Trenching/Temporary Construction Backcuts 40 Utility Trench Backfill 41 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING 41 OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS 42 PLAN REVIEW 43 LIMITATIONS 43 FIGURES Figure 1 - Site Location Map 2 Figure 2 - California Fault Map 9 Figure 3 - Lateral Earth Pressures 26 Figure 4 - Pier Analyses 28 Detail 1 - Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Detail 32 Detail 2 - Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdram Detail Geotextile Drain 33 Detail 3 - Retaining Wall and Subdram Detail Clean Sand Backfill 34 ATTACHMENTS Appendix A - References Rear of Text Appendix B - Test Pit and Boring Logs Rear of Text Appendix C - EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, and FRISKSP Rear of Text Appendix D - Laboratory Data Rear of Text Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines Rear of Text Plate 1 - Geologic Map Rear of Text in Folder Plate 2 - Cross Section A-A' Rear of Text in Folder R & M Enterprises Table of Contents File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page III GeoSotts, Inc. UPDATE PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, 2497 OCEAN STREET, CARLSBAD SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following 1 Review of readily available soils and geologic data (see Appendix A) 2 Geologic site reconnaissance and geologic mapping 3 Subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation of one hollow stem auger boring, three limited access, solid flight auger borings, and one hand dug test pit for geotechnical logging and sampling (see Appendix B) Logs of previous site exploration (C W La Monte Company, Inc [CWLC], 2004), are also included in Appendix B 4 General areal seismicity evaluation (see Appendix C) 5 Laboratory testing of representative site soils (see Appendix D) 6 Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation of this report SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The site consists of a gently to moderately west sloping lot, located west of Ocean Street (2497 Ocean Street), in Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map) Topographically, the lot slopes gently to moderately westward Elevations range from approximately 40 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) near Ocean Street, on the east side of the property, to approximately the Mean High Tide Line on the upper edge of the existing beach A relatively steep break in slope occurs approximately 130 feet west of Ocean Street, at an approximate elevation of 16 to 18 feet NGVD29, where slope gradients transition from the flatter, upper portion of the property to a steeper slope descending down to beach level, at an approximately elevation of 11 feet NGVD29 Existing improvements consist of a single-family residential structure, primarily located within the flatter, upper portion of the property The portion of the property located west of the residence (i e, seaward) has been improved with at least two retaining walls, consisting of one "upper" wall which creates a grade break down to beach level, and a "lower" wall, apparently acting as a sea wall at beach level The existing upper wall, or "fieldstone" wall, appears to be distressed (i e , rotated seaward) The lower sea wall is located near the toe of slope (beach level) descending down and away from the fieldstone wall, and appears to be buried A review of Roy J Shlemon & Associates, Inc (RJSA, 2003) and aerial photographs circa 1949 and 1960, and this study, indicate that the GeoSoils, Inc. Base Map: TOPO!® ©2003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S. San Luis Rey Quadrangle, California-San Diego Co., 7.5-Minute, dated 1997, current 1999. SITE Base Map: The Thomas Guide, San Diego Co. Street Guide and Directory, 2005 Edition, by Thomas Bros. Maps, page 1106. Reproduced with permission granted by Thomas Bros. Maps. This map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros. Maps. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal or resale, without permission. All rights Reserved LOCATION AND SCALES APPROXIMATE W.O. 5181-S-SC SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 existing slope, descending from the base of the fieldstone wall to the beach, is a fill slope, placed against the former coastal bluff (now buried) Furthermore, it appears that the existing fieldstone wall is located along the top of this former bluff The sea wall, fieldstone wall, and bluff are further discussed in GSI (2006) It is our understanding that the existing structure and appurtenances located within the future development envelope, will be demolished/removed, and the site prepared for the construction of a two-unit, condominium-style residential structure The part of the property to the east of elevation contour line 21 to 22 feet NGVD29 (see Plate 1, Geologic Map), will be cleared of all existing structures (house, concrete driveway, walkways, steps, and walls/fences), and graded to a proposed lower floor elevation of approximately 24 feet NGVD29 Temporary shoring of the excavation sidealls will likely be necessary for the north, east and south sides of the excavation The fieldstone garden wall, steps between it and the sea wall, and the sea wall will be left intact It is anticipated that the proposed structure will use continuous footings and slab-on-grade floors, with wood-frame and/or masonry block construction However, the use of specialized shallow foundations (i e , post-tensioned and/or mat slab), or deep foundations (piers, piles, etc) should not be precluded at this time Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light structure It is anticipated that sewage disposal will be tied into the municipal system It is our understanding that storm water runoff from the roof, driveways, etc , will be directed to an in-ground storage tank beneath the patio basement level, for treatment, reuse for landscaping, as needed, or pumped into the City storm dram system Minor amounts of storm water runoff from semi-pervious pavers will be allowed to percolate into the ground It is our understanding that this is a net "export" site, and our evaluation will address the suitability for the excavated onsite soil to be used as "beach nourishment" to landward of Mean High Water, or, if unsuitable, exported from the site PREVIOUS WORK A previous phase of geotechnical site work was completed in 2004, by CWLC, with their findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in a geotechnical report dated February 4,2004 (CWLC, 2004) This phase of site work included subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis, and geotechnical recommendations for site development A geotechnical and geomorphic peer review of a nearby property, located south of the subject site, was completed by RJSA (2003) This review work included a review of the geotechnical aspects of the nearby property, but more notably, an evaluation of site geomorphology, which is considered to be very similar to the subject site R & M Enterprises WO 5181 -A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. FIELD STUDIES Field studies conducted by GSI consisted of geologic mapping of the site, and subsurface exploration with one hollow stem auger boring, three limited access auger borings, and one hand excavated test pit for evaluation of near-surface soil geologic conditions All borings were logged by an engineering geologist from our firm, who collected representative samples of soils for appropriate laboratory testing The logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B, and the locations of the borings are presented on Plate 1 (Geologic Map), which uses the 1" = 20' scale topographic survey, prepared by Lintvedt, McColl & Associates (2006), as a base map REGIONAL GEOMORPHOLOGY A review of aerial photographs (provided by Dall & Associates, photographs dated 1949 and 1960), site topography shown on Plate 1, field observations (surface and subsurface), and a review of RJSA (2003), indicate that generally two topographic breaks are present between Ocean Street westward to the Pacific Ocean These breaks in slope are generally observable from about Buena Vista Lagoon on the north, to Batiquitos Lagoon on the south (RJSA, 2003) The upper break appears to occur at an elevation of 37 to 40 feet NGVD29, and the lower, steeper break in slope occurs at an elevation of approximately 15 to 16 feet NGVD29 The toe of slope descending from the second slope break occurs at an approximately elevation of 11 to 12 feet The upper slope break, including the relatively flay lying natural surfaces located to the east of the slope break, appears to be formed in the regionally extensive, late-Phestocene-age (late Quaternary) coastal terrace deposits The slope area, located between the upper, and lower slope breaks likely formed as a results of subanal erosion approximately 4 to 5 thousand years ago (ka), and that the slope surface has been relatively stable for the past 550 years (RJSA, 2003) The steeper slope located below the lower slope break appears to represent a coastal bluff formed in response to processes of wave action and erosion, over the past 4 to 5 ka Based on our current evaluation, it appears that the bluff was filled against some time before 1949, creating a graded slope descending from the top of the former bluff, to beach level In addition to the graded slope embankment, a sea wall also appears to have been constructed along the toe of the fill slope Based on our observations, it appears that the combination of fill embankment and sea wall have generally mitigated any landward retreat of the top of bluff since their construction, over 50 years ago REGIONAL GEOLOGY The subject property is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges It is characterized by steep, R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. elongated mountain ranges and valleys that trend northwesterly The mountain ranges are generally underlain by basement rocks consisting of pre-Cretaceous metasedimentary rocks, Jurassic metavolcanic rocks, and Cretaceous plutonic rocks of the southern California bathohth In the San Diego County region, deposition occurred during the Cretaceous Period and Cenozoic Era in the continental margin of a forearc basin Sediments, derived from Cretaceous-age plutonic rocks and Jurassic-age volcanic rocks, were deposited into the narrow, steep, coastal plain, and continental margin of the basin These rocks have been uplifted, eroded, and deeply incised During early Pleistocene time, a broad coastal plain was developed from the deposition of marine terrace deposits During mid- to late-Pleistocene time, this plain was uplifted, eroded, and incised Alluvial deposits have since filled the lower valleys, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded within coastal and beach areas Our evaluation indicates that the site is underlain by fill, Quaternary beach deposits, terrace deposits, which are, in turn, underlain with Eocene-age sedimentary bedrock Terrace deposits may be subdivided into a lower, or basal, regressive marine sand, which transitions upward, into progradmg continental deposits Surficial deposits of dune (eolian) sand have since accumulated locally on the upper, relatively flat lying slopes formed on the terrace deposits SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS The site geologic units encountered during the subsurface exploration consist of surficial deposits of artificial fill, colluvium, and Quaternary beach deposits The surficial deposits are underlain by Quaternary-age terrace deposits, which, are in turn underlain by Eocene- age sedimentary bedrock belonging to the Santiago Formation The distribution of site geologic units is shown on Plate 1 (Geologic Map) The distribution of site earth materials in Cross Section A-A' is shown on Plate 2 Artificial Fill - (Map Symbol - Af) Existing artificial fill was observed locally as surficial backfills placed behind existing retaining walls, and as a small fill slope located below the existing fieldstone wall, and descending the beach Where observed, fill materials consist of dry to slightly moist, and loose, brown sand with silt Fills appear to range from approximately 21/2 to 7 feet in thickness All existing fill is considered unsuitable for the support of settlement-sensitive improvements and/or engineered fill in its existing state, as it may settle appreciably under loading Therefore, it requires remediation in the form of removal and recompaction in areas of proposed development R & M Enterprises WO 5181 -A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. Quaternary Beach Deposits (Map Symbol - Qb) Beach deposits occur along the western edge of the site and consist of sand with variable amounts of cobbles These materials are typically loose, and are not suitable for the support of settlement-sensitive improvements It should be noted that these deposits are located beyond the limits of the planned development and are not anticipated to significantly affect construction Colluvium (Not Mapped) Colluvium was observed as a relatively thin surficial deposit of weathered soil across the site Colluvium generally consists of dark brown to brown silty sand These soils were dry to slightly moist, and loose Based upon observations during the subsurface exploration, these soils were on the order of 4 to 6 feet thick Colluvium is considered potentially compressible under loading and therefore unsuitable for support of settlement-sensitive improvements in its existing state Mitigation in the form of removal and recompaction in areas to be developed will be necessary Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) Quaternary-age terrace deposits were observed underlying existing fill and/or colluvium, at depths ranging from 4 to 7 feet in all of the borings These deposits primarily consist of dry to slightly moist, medium dense, light brown to brown, to gray sand with some silt Cobbles were also noted near the contact with the underlying Santiago Formation Terrace deposits are considered suitable for the support of engineered fill and/or settlement-sensitive improvements The basal contact of the terrace deposits, and the underlying Santiago Formation, appears to be a relatively flat lying unconformity, located at an approximate elevation of 8 to 10 feet above NGVD29 It is our understanding that the basement level for the planned structure is at an elevation of about 25 feet NGVD29, therefore, it is unlikely that this contact will be encountered during construction Santiago Formation (Not Mapped) Eocene-age sediments directly underlie the Quaternary terrace deposits onsite, and are not exposed onsite Where encountered at depth, this sedimentary "bedrock" consists of a moist, and very stiff, sandy claystone Geologic structure was not observed within bedrock onsite However, based on a review of regional mapping of the area (Tan and Kennedy, 1996) Sedimentary bedrock in the area is generally flat lying, to gently inclined to the east (i e , neutral, and/or into the existing slope) R & M Enterprises W O 5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 6 GeoSofls, Inc. SLOPE STABILITY Our review of available information, and the findings of this evaluation, does not indicate the presence of deposits formed from mass wasting (landslides, slumps, etc) Some minor erosion, due to overland flow and local channel incision was observed "Spring sapping" is a common occurrence in the region, where seepage along the contact between the terrace deposits and the underlying Eocene-age bedrock at the face of slope, and resulting in erosion of the terrace sand above the contact This contact is buried in the vicinity, and erosion due to spring sapping is not considered to be significant As evaluated in this study, and by others (RJSA, 2003), the existing slope between the upper, and lower slope breaks, is at an approximate gradient of 4 1 (horizontal vertical [h v]), and appears to have been relatively stable over the past 550 years Slope retreat, due primarily to marine erosion at the toe of this slope has resulted in the formation of a coastal bluff over the last 4 to 5 ka (RJSA, 2003) In recent times, the placement of a fill embankment across the bluff face, and the construction of a sea wall, appear to have mitigated any further landward migration of the top of bluff As such, the overall slope configuration appears to be relatively stable A quantitative slope stability analysis by others (U S Army Corps of Engineers, 1996) performed for similar slope conditions in similar soils indicates that the slope is relatively stable, in its current configuration Surficial soils appear to be relatively low cohesive, and will be subject to erosion, unless stabilized with vegetation, or other suitable method It is our understanding that the improvement (i e , minimizing erosion) of existing slopes to remain, in the form of revegetation, is planned, and would result in an improvement in the overall slope stability Based on our evaluation, planned development should not adversely affect future slope stability GROUNDWATER Regional groundwater was not encountered within the property during field work performed in preparation of this report and therefore is not anticipated to adversely affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction The water surface elevation of the regional water table is estimated to be about NGVD29, or approximately 25 feet below the basement elevation for the planned structure A perched water table was observed locally, along the contact between the terrace deposits, and the underlying Eocene bedrock (Santiago Formation) The depth of this contact is on the order of 15 to 17 feet below the planned basement elevation, or about 8 to10 feet NGVD29 These observations reflect site conditions at the time of our investigation, and do not preclude future changes in local groundwater conditions from excessive irrigation, precipitation, or that were not obvious at the time of our investigation However, based on the permeability contrasts between any proposed fill and the terrace deposits, perched groundwater conditions may develop R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 7 GeoSofls, Inc. in the future due to excess irrigation, poor drainage, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated Should manifestations of this perched condition (i e , seepage) develop in the future, this office could assess the conditions and provide mitigative recommendations, as necessary The potential for perched water to occur after development should be disclosed to all interested parties FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY Regional Faults Active or potentially active faults have not been previously mapped on the subject property, and none were encountered during our field exploration The site is situated in an area of active, as well as potentially-active, faulting The nearby Rose Canyon fault zone is considered active and is included within an Alquist-Pnolo Earthquake Fault Zone Other major active fault zones that may have a significant affect on the site should they experience activity are listed in the following table (modified from Blake, 2000a) Z FAULT ZONE p Newport-lnglewood (Offshore) Rose Canyon Coronado Bank Elsinore-Temecula Elsmore-Juhan Elsmore-Glen Ivy San Joaqum Hills Palos Verdes Newport-lnglewood (L A Basin) Earthquake Valley APPROX. DISTANCE FROM SITE (Miles [Kilometers]) ' 4 6 (7 4) 5 1 (8 2) 20 7 (33 3) 24 5 (39 4) 24 9 (40 0) 33 2 (53 5) 34 3 (55 2) 34 7 (55 9) 44 9 (72 3) 44 9 (72 3) "4r ' : £- -;,:< FAULT ZONE x.™ \ ,^ |. Chino-Central Ave (Elsmore) San Jacmto - Anza San Jacmto - San Jacmto Valley Whittier San Jacmto - Coyote Creek Elsmore (Coyote Mountain) San Jacmto - San Bernardino Puente Hills Blind Thrust San Andreas - whole M-1a APPROX 'DISTANCE . FROM SITE " (Miles [Kilometers]) 47 0 (75 6) 47 0 (75 6) 47 3 (76 2) 50 8 (81 8) 53 2 (95 2) 59 2 (95 2) 59 5 (95 7) 60 5 (97 4) 657(1057) The relationship of the site to these major mapped faults is indicated on Figure 2 (California Fault Map) Other faults have been mapped in the vicinity, however, these faults are shorter, and hence, are generally considered less likely to produce significant seismic events R & M Enterprises 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg WO 5181-A-SC June 27, 2006 Page8 GeoSoils, Inc. CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP 2497 Ocean Street 1100 1000 -- 900 -- 800 -- 700 -- 600 -- 500 -- 400 -- 300 -- 200 -- 100 -- 0 -- -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 100 200 300 400 500 600 WO 5181-A-SC Figure 2 GeoSoils, Inc. Seismicity The acceleration-attenuation relations of Bozorgnia, Campbell and Niazi (1999), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1997 Rev), and Sadigh, et al (1997) have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a) Forthis study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were assessed based on the random mean plus 1-sigma attenuation curves produced from the relationships noted above EQFAULT is a computer program by Thomas F Blake (2000a), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using digitized California faults as earthquake sources The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a given site If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from an upper bound ("maximum credible") earthquake on that fault Site acceleration (g) is computed by any of a number of user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT Based on the EQFAULT program, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound event at the site may be on the order of 0 7 g to 0 8 g The computer printouts of portions of the EQFAULT program are included within Appendix C Historical site seismicity was evaluated with the acceleration-attenuation relations of Campbell and Bozorgnia (1997 Rev) and the computer program EQSEARCH (Blake, 2000b) This program was utilized to perform a search of historical earthquake records for magnitude 50 to 90 seismic events within a 100-mile radius, between the years 1800 through December 2005 Based on the selected acceleration-attenuation relation, a peak horizontal ground acceleration has been estimated, which may have affected the site during the specific seismic events in the past Based on the available data and attenuation relationship used, the estimated maximum (peak) site acceleration to affect the site during the period 1800 through December 2005 was 0 3 g In addition, a seismic recurrence curve is also estimated/generated from the historical data (see Appendix C) A probabilistic seismic hazards analyses was evaluated with the acceleration-attenuation relations of Campbell and Bozorgnia (1997 Rev) and the computer program FRISKSP (Blake, 2000c) FRISKSP models earthquake sources as 3-D planes and evaluates the site specific probabilities of exceedance for given peak acceleration levels or pseudo-relative velocity levels Based on a review of these data, and considering the relative seismic activity of the southern California region, a probahstic horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA) of 0 37 g was calculated This PHGA was evaluated in accordance with the Uniform Building Code/California Building Code ([UBC/CBC], International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997 and 2001), which corresponds to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (or a 475-year return period) Computer printouts of the FRISKSP program are included in Appendix C R & M Enterprises W O 5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 10 GeoSoils, Inc. PRELIMINARY SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS The recommended values related to seismic parameters as indicated in Chapter 16 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997) for the subject tract are shown below The offshore segment of the Newport-lnglewood fault is the design earthquake fault for the subject site, and is located about 4 6 miles (7 4 kilometers) west of the site CHAPTER 16 OF UBC ^ Seismic zone (per Figure 16-2) Seismic zone factor (per Table 16-1) Soil Profile Type (per Table 1 6-J) Seismic Coefficient Ca (per Table 16-Q) Seismic Coefficient Cv (per Table 16-R) Near Source Factor Nv (per Table 16-T) Near Source Factor Na (per Table 16-S) Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U) Distance to Seismic Source Upper Bound Earthquake (Newport-lnglewood [Offshore]) SEISMIC PARAMETERS 4 040 SD 044Na 064NV 1 1 1 0 B 4 6 mi (7 4 km) MW69 The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered during our evaluation of the site The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, and typical site development procedures • Dynamic Settlement Surface Fault Rupture Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture « Mass Wasting ° Liquefaction Tsunami Seiche It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of an upper bound (maximum probable) or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's mass than from those induced by the hazards listed above This potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures, and improvements in the immediate vicinity R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181aupg Page 11GeoSoils, Inc. Experience has shown that wood-frame structures designed in accordance with the UBC (ICBO, 1997) tend to mitigate earthquake effects Earthquake effects may include lurching and/or localized ground cracking This effect is similar to other portions of southern California Ground lurching, or shallow ground rupture due to shaking, could occur within the project area from an earthquake originating on other nearby faults Such lurching could possibly cause cracking of hardscape areas, with limited damage to structures LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Seismically-induced liquefaction is a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake-induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in soils The soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, and lead to lateral movement, sliding, sand boils, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, and other damaging deformations This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying, non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential at depths greater than 45 feet and is virtually unknown below a depth of 60 feet Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following conditions should be concurrently present for liquefaction to occur 1) sediments must be relatively young in age and not have developed a large amount of cementation, 2) sediments generally consist of medium to fine grained relatively cohesionless sands, 3) the sediments must have low relative density, 4) free groundwater must be present in the sediment, and 5) the site must experience a seismic event of a sufficient duration and magnitude, to induce straining of soil particles The condition of liquefaction has two principal effects One is the consolidation of loose sediments with a resultant settlement of the ground surface The other effect is lateral sliding Significant permanent lateral movement generally occurs only when there is significant differential loading, such as fill or natural ground slopes within susceptible materials No such loading conditions exist on the site In the site area, we found there is a potential for seismic activity and a perched water table anticipated to be 26 feet below the site However, the terrace deposits appear to grade to dense with depth Inasmuch as at least one or two of these five required concurrent conditions discussed above do not have the potential to affect the site, and considering the generally dense nature of the terrace deposits that underlie the site, and the absence of paleoliquefaction features, our evaluation indicates that the potential for liquefaction and associated adverse effects within the site is very low, even with a future rise in groundwater levels The site conditions will also be improved by removal and recompaction of low density near-surface soils If evidence for paleoliquefaction is encountered during grading, additional stronger concrete and/or foundation/slab reinforcement may be subsequently recommended R & M Enterprises WO 5181 -A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg Page 12 GeoSofls, Inc. Therefore, it is our opinion that the liquefaction potential does not constitute a significant risk to site development, provided that our recommendations are properly implemented LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples site earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics Test procedures used and results obtained are presented below Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System (Sowers and Sowers, 1979) The soil classifications are shown on the Boring Logs in Appendix B Moisture-Density Relations The field moisture content and dry unit weight was determined for an undisturbed sample of site soil in the laboratory The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and the field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry weight The results of this test are shown on the Boring Logs in Appendix B Laboratory Standard The maximum density and optimum moisture content was evaluated for the major soil type encountered in the borings The laboratory standard used was ASTM D-1557 The moisture-density relationship obtained for this soil is shown on the following table SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH (FT) B-1 @ 0-3 SOIL TYPE SILTY SAND MAXIMUM DENSITY (PCF) 1260 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 100 Expansion Index (E.I.) Testing Expansion Index (E I) testing was performed on a representative soil sample, according to UBC (ICBO, 1997) Standard No 18-2 The test results are presented below as well as the expansion classification according to UBC (ICBO, 1997) R & M Enterprises WO5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH (FT) B-1 @ 0-3 SOIL TYPE SILTY SAND EXPANSION INDEX <5 EXPANSION POTENTIAL Very Low Atterberg Limits Testing (ASTM D 4318) performed on representative soil samples obtained from Boring B-1, at depths of 10 and 20 feet, indicate that these soils are non-plastic Shear Testing Shear testing was performed on representative, undisturbed samples of site soil in general accordance with ASTM test method D-3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control type Shear test results are presented in Appendix D, and as follows SAMPLE LOCATION AND DEPTH (FT) B-1 @10' B-1 @ 20' PRIMARY COHESION (PSF) 42 130 FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES) 42 40 RESIDUAL COHESION (PSF) 225 189 FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES) 35 36 Grain Size Distribution The gram size distribution was evaluated for representative soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D422 The results of this evaluation are presented in Appendix D Consolidation Test Consolidation testing was performed on relatively undisturbed soil sample in general accordance with ASTM test method D-2435-90 pH/Soluble Sulfates/Saturated Resistivity Testing GSI conducted sampling of onsite materials for soil corrosivity on the subject project Laboratory testing is currently in progress The testing included an evaluation of pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity While test results are pending, our experience in the vicinity indicates that site soils are mildly alkaline with respect to acidity/alkalinity, present a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete, in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the CBC (ICBO, 2001), and are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals based on saturated R & M Enterprises 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg WO 5181-A-SC June 27, 2006 Page 14 GeoSoils, Inc. resistivity A corrosion specialist should be consulted for the appropriate mitigation recommendations, as needed, regarding foundations, piping, and where metals will come into contact with site soils, etc PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the site appears suitable for the proposed residential development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development are ° Depth to competent material • Excavation/shoring • Expansion and corrosion potential of site soils over the life of the project Potential for perched groundwater during excavation/grading, and after development • Regional seismic activity The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site The engineering analyses performed concerning site preparation and the recommendations presented herein have been completed using the information provided and obtained during our field work In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report evaluated or modified in writing by this office Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review 1 Soil engineering, observation, and testing services should be provided during grading to aid the contractor in removing unsuitable soils and in his effort to compact the fill 2 Geologic observations should be performed during grading to evaluate and/or further evaluate geologic conditions Although unlikely, if adverse geologic structures are encountered, supplemental recommendations and earthwork may be warranted 3 As evaluated in this study, and by others (RJSA, 2003), the existing slope between the upper, and lower slope breaks, is at an approximate gradient of 4 1 (h v), appears to have been relatively stable over the past 550 years Quantitative slope R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File G \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. stability analysis by others (U S Army Corps of Engineers, 1996) performed for similar slope conditions in similar soils indicates that the slope is relatively stable, in its current configuration Slope retreat, due primarily to marine erosion at the toe of this slope has resulted in the formation of a coastal bluff over the last 4 to 5 ka (RJSA, 2003) In recent times, the placement of a fill embankment across the bluff face, and the construction of a sea wall, appear to have mitigated any further landward migration of the top of bluff As such, the overall slope configuration appears to be relatively stable, and planned development should not adversely affect future slope stability 4 Existing artificial fill (ontheorderof21/2to7feetthick),andcolluvium (approximately 4 to 6 feet thick) are considered unsuitable for the support of settlement-sensitive structures in their present condition, based on current industry standards These materials are potentially compressible in their present condition, and may be subject to differential settlement Mitigation in the form of removal and recompaction is recommended Preliminary removal depths are anticipated to range between approximately 21/2 to 7 feet below the existing grade Localized deeper removals cannot be precluded Alternatively, foundation systems may penetrate these soils and be founded into the underlying terrace deposits 5 Plans indicate proposed excavation depths up to 15 feet below existing grades Based on the planned excavation depths, suitable terrace deposits will likely be exposed near proposed foundation grades within a majority of the building footprint (eastern portion), while the westernmost ±20 feet is anticipated to be underlain with surficial fills and/or colluvium (see Plate 2) In order to provide uniform foundation support, the foundation system may be deepened into the underlying terrace deposits 6 Surficial improvements within the development envelope, i e , flatwork, driveways, perimeter walls, etc , will require the removal/recompaction of any underlying and unsuitable soil deposits (existing fill and colluvium) 7 The existing "fieldstone" garden wall is located beyond the limits of the planned development, and should not significantly affect new construction However, the wall appears to be distressed, and the potential for this structure to eventually topple seaward, should not be precluded The observed distress to the wall appears to be related to its location along a former coastal bluff (RJSA, 2003), and the placement of existing fill, which forms the existing graded slope descending from the fieldstone wall, to the beach Differential settlement of the fill and/or a potentially under-designed foundation, appears to have resulted in the wall rotating seaward An existing system of wooden buttresses was observed, however, these structures were highly decomposed, and not performing as intended 8 Our laboratory test results indicate that soils with very low El (0 to 20) underlie the site This should be considered during project design Conventional foundations R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 16GeoSoils, Inc. may be utilized for very low expansion potentials, with a plasticity index (P I) of less than 15 Although not anticipated, if finish grade soils exhibit a low expansion potential or a P I of 15, or greater, additional concrete strength and foundation/slab reinforcement may be necessary per code 9 Laboratory testing regarding soil pH, soluble sulfates, and saturated resistivity indicate that site soils are mildly alkaline, present negligible sulfate exposure to concrete, and are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals when saturated Additional comments and/or recommendations should be provided by a qualified corrosion specialist regarding foundations, piping, reinforcement, etc 10 In general and based upon the available data to date, regional groundwater is not expected to be a major factor in development of the site However, due to the nature of the site materials, seepage may be encountered throughout the site along with seasonal perched water within any drainage areas Perched water will likely occur after development, which warrants more onerous concrete slab design and construction This potential should be disclosed to all interested parties 11 Due to the relatively low cohesion of some of the onsite materials, some caving and sloughing may be anticipated to be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching Therefore, current local and state/federal safety ordinances for subsurface trenching should be enforced 12 The seismicity-acceleration values provided herein should be considered during the design of the proposed development 13 General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines are provided at the end of this report as Appendix E Specific recommendations are provided below EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS General Grading All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in the UBC (ICBO, 1997), the City (i e , grading, water quality protection, etc ), and Appendix E (this report), except where specifically superceded in the text of this report When code references are not equivalent, the more stringent code should be followed During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested byarepresentative(s) of GSI If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and, if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and the Construction Safety Act should be met R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. Demolition/Grubbing 1 Existing structures, vegetation, and any miscellaneous debris should be removed from the areas of proposed grading 2 Any previous debris from, foundations, irrigation lines, cesspools, septic tanks, leach fields, or other subsurface structures uncovered during the recommended removals should be removed from the existing soils, stockpiled, and removed from the site 3 Cavities or loose soils remaining after demolition and site clearance should be cleaned out and observed by the soil engineer The cavities should be replaced with fill materials that have been moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard Treatment of Existing Ground 1 All existing fill and colluvium should be removed, cleaned of deleterious materials, as recommended, moisturized, and recompacted Preliminary estimates of removal depths range between 21/2 and 7 feet Variations from these estimated depths should be anticipated and deeper removals cannot be precluded Actual depths of removals will be evaluated in the field during grading by the soil engineer Removals should be completed below a 1 1 projection from the bottom outside edge of any proposed footing and not be advanced below a 1 1 projection from the bottom outside edge of any existing footing that is to remain without shoring Alternatively, foundations may be deepened through any unsuitable surficial soil, and be embedded into the underlying terrace deposits 2 Subsequent to the above removals, the upper 12 inches of the exposed terrace deposits should be scarified, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard prior to placing any fill (if necessary) 3 Existing artificial fill and colluvium may be reused as compacted fill provided that major concentrations of vegetation and miscellaneous debris are removed prior to or during fill placement 4 Localized deeper removals may be recommended due to buried drainage channel meanders or dry porous materials The project soils engineer/geologist should observe all removal areas during the grading It should be noted that the use of deep foundations would preclude removals 5 Soils generated during excavation operations will likely consist of fine to medium grained sand, with some silt (USCS designations SP and SM-SP) These soils are R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File c \wp9\5100\5181a upg Page 18 GeoSoils, Inc. considered to be similar to the existing beach deposits within, and west of, the western portion of the site, and could be used to supplement the existing beach deposits It should be noted that erosional processes along this section of coast, naturally incorporate these materials into the active beach system Overexcavation In order to provide uniform foundation support, any cut portion of a cut/fill transition within the building pad area should be over excavated a minimum of 3 feet below finish grade to provide for a 3-foot thick compacted fill blanket Areas where planned fill thickness are less than 3 feet and/or areas where removal excavations are less than 3 feet below finish grade should also be over excavated to provide for a 3-foot thick compacted fill blanket The maximum to minimum fill thickness across the building pad should not exceed a ratio of 3 1 (maximum minimum) Overexcavation of the building pad will not be necessary if homogenous terrace deposits are exposed at finish grade for a lateral distance of 5 feet outside any proposed footing Due to property line restrictions, the lateral limits of over excavation will likely be limited Alternatively, foundations may be deepened through any unsuitable surficial soil, and be embedded into the underlying terrace deposits Fill Placement 1 Subsequent to ground preparation, fill materials should be brought to at least optimum moisture content, placed in thin 6- to 8-inch lifts, and mechanically compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard 2 Fill materials should be cleansed of major vegetation and debris prior to placement PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS - FOUNDATIONS The foundation design and construction recommendations are based on laboratory testing and engineering analysis of onsite earth materials by GSI Recommendations for foundation systems are provided in the following sections The recommended foundation systems may be used to support the proposed structure, provided they are founded in competent bearing material The proposed foundation systems should be designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the UBC (ICBO, 1997) The following foundation construction recommendations are presented as minimum criteria from a soils engineering viewpoint The onsite soils expansion potentials are generally in the very low range (E I =0 to 20 range) Soils in the low expansion range (E I =21 to 50) and/or soils with a P I of 15 or greater may also be present onsite, and foundations underlain by these soils should be designed in accordance with the UBC (ICBO, 1997), Section 1815 and/or 1816 and CBC (ICBO, 2001) R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 19 GeoSofls, Inc. Conventional Foundations - Very Low (E.I. 0 to 20) to Low (E.I. 21 to 50) Expansion Potentials With a P.I. Less Than 15 The following foundation construction recommendations assume that the soils in the top 7 feet from finish grade will have a very low to low expansion potential (and a P I of less than 15), and that paleohquefaction features are not encountered during grading Although not anticipated, if finish grade soils exhibit a P I of 15, or greater, and/or if paleohquefaction features are encountered during grading, additional concrete and foundation/slab reinforcement will be necessary Recommendations by the project's design-structural engineer or architect, which may exceed the soils engineer's recommendations, should take precedence over the following minimum requirements Final foundation design will be provided at the conclusion of grading Foundation Design 1 Conventional spread and continuous footings may be used to support the proposed commercial structure, provided they are founded entirely in properly compacted fill or competent (unweathered), homogenous terrace deposits The foundation should not simultaneously bear on compacted fill and terrace deposits 2 An allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for design of footings which maintain a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade (continuous) and 24 inches square (isolated) The bearing value may be increased by one-third for seismic or other temporary loads This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum of 3,000 psf No increase in bearing value for increased footing width is recommended 3 For lateral sliding resistance, a 0 35 coefficient of friction may be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load 4 Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 325 pcf with a maximum earth pressure of 3,000 psf 5 When combining passive pressure and fnctional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third 6 All footings should maintain a minimum 7-foot horizontal distance between the base of the footing and any adjacent descending slope, and minimally comply with the guidelines depicted on Figure No 18-1-1 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997) Construction 1 Conventional continuous footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface for one-story floor loads, R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 20GeoSoils, Inc. 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface for two-story floor loads, and 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for three-story floor loads Interior footings may be founded at a depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface All footings should bear on properly compacted fill or competent (unweathered), homogenous terrace deposits Footings for one-, two-, and three-story floor loads should have a minimum width of 12,15, and 24 inches, respectively All footings should minimally have one No 4 reinforcing bar placed at the top and one No 4 reinforcing bar placed at the bottom of the footing Isolated interior or exterior piers and columns should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface If low expansive soils are present within the top 7 feet, these elements should be tied together with a grade beam 2 A grade beam, reinforced as above and at least 12 inches square, should be provided across the garage entrances The base of the reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as the adjoining footings 3 Concrete slabs should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the "Floor Slab Design Recommendations" section of this report Although concrete floor slabs are not anticipated to receive heavy loads as conveyed to GSI by the project architect, floor slab recommendations to accommodate heavy loading conditions have been provided 4 Garage slabs (if any) should be poured separately from the building footings and be quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement 5 Concrete and concrete slab underlayment should be utilize the recommendations provided in the "Soil Moisture Considerations" section of this report 6 Presaturation is not necessary for these soil conditions, however, the moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture to a depth of 12 inches below the adjacent ground grade in the slab areas 7 Soils generated from footing excavations to be used onsite should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction 90 percent of the laboratory standard, whether it is to be placed inside the foundation perimeter or in the yard/right-of-way areas This material must not alter positive drainage patterns that direct drainage away from the structural areas and toward the street 8 Foundations near the top of slope should be deepened to conform to the latest edition of the UBC (ICBO, 1997) and provide a minimum of 7 feet horizontal R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg Page 21 GeoSoils, Inc. distance from the slope face Rigid block wall designs located along the top of slope should be reviewed by a soils engineer PIER FOUNDATIONS Foundations Design Criteria - Drilled Piers The proposed structure may be supported in whole (or in combination with conventional spread footings), by drilled, cast-m-place, concrete piers which penetrate existing fill and colluvium, and are embedded into the underlying terrace deposits We anticipate that the wall loads of 1 5 kips/foot, and column loads of 5 to 20 kips will be utilized The drilled pier foundation for the building should gam vertical support from friction and end bearing in the native bedrock underlying the site The drilled piers should be at least 12 inches in diameter and should extend at least 7 feet into suitable terrace deposits Based on site geology, piers should be anticipated up to approximately 15 feet in depth, along the western edge of the building footprint Drilled piers should be spaced a minimum of 3 pier diameters apart (center to center) The effects of pier groups should be evaluated when the preliminary foundation drawings are made available Soil parameters to be used in pier and grade beam design are provided below All the parameters provided are computed based on soil strength only, structural strength of the piers should be checked by the structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in structural analysis The strength of the concrete and grout should be evaluated by the structural engineer of record The proper ASTM tests for the concrete and mortar should be provided along with the slump quantities The concrete used should be appropriate to mitigate sulfate corrosion, as warranted The design of the grade beam and caissons should be in accordance with the recommendations of the project structural engineer, and include the utilization of the following geotechnical parameters Creep Zone: 7-foot vertical zone below the slope face and projected upward parallel to the slope face Creep Load: The creep load projected on the area of the grade beam should be taken as an equivalent fluid approach, having a density of 60 pcf For the caisson, it should be taken as a uniform 900 pounds per linear foot of caisson's depth, located above the creep zone Point of Fixity: Located a distance of 1 5 times the caisson's diameter, below the creep zone R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg Page 22 GeoSoifs, Inc. Passive Resistance Passive earth pressure of 325 psf per foot of depth per foot of caisson diameter, to a maximum value of 4,500 psf may be used to determine caisson depth and spacing, provided that they meet or exceed the minimum requirements stated above To determine the total lateral resistance, the contribution of the creep prone zone above the point of fixity, to passive resistance, should be disregarded Allowable Axial Capacity Shaft capacity 325 psf applied below the point of fixity over the surface area of the shaft Tip capacity 4,500 psf Pier Construction Pier holes should be drilled straight and plumb Locations (both plan and elevation) and plumbness should be the contractors responsibility All loose materials should be removed from the bottom of each pier hole Concrete and steel reinforcement should be placed in each pier hole on the same day that the hole is drilled If a caving sand condition occurs, during or after drilling, the pier hole should be cased The bottom of the casing should be at least 4 feet below the top of the concrete as the concrete is poured and the casing is withdrawn Dewatermg would be required for concrete placement if seepage or groundwater is encountered during construction Alternately, tremie concrete placement should be considered The tops of the drilled piers should be interconnected with grade beams which will aid in resisting differential foundation movement and lateral drift In general the minimum grade beam size should be 18 inches in width and 12 inches below the finished soil subgrade The actual design of the grade beams and reinforcement should be performed by the Structural Engineer or civil engineer specializing in structural analysis Based on the allowable foundation pressures recommended above, and assuming uniformity of the bedrock surface slope and consistent composition of the bedrock, we estimate that the total foundation settlement will be less than 1/2 inch and the differential settlement will be less than 1/4 inch between adjacent piers Prior to construction, we should review the construction procedure proposed by the contractor Pier excavations should be observed and approved by us prior to concrete and steel placement Observations during pier excavations will allow us to correlate the subsurface conditions exposed during construction with that obtained from our borings and make necessary changes in the foundation support and other geotechnical design criteria, if necessary R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg Page 23 GeoSoils, Inc. Drilled pier steel reinforcement cages should have spacers to allow for a minimum spacing of steel from the side of the pier excavation During pier placement, concrete should not be allowed to free fall more than 5 feet Concrete used in the foundation should be tested by a qualified materials testing consultant for proper slump strength and mix design All footing trench excavations and/or pier excavations should be observed by a representative of this office prior to placing reinforcement Footing trench or pier soil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent if not removed from the site FLOOR SLAB DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Concrete slab-on-grade floor construction is anticipated The following are presented as minimum design parameters for the slab, they are in no way intended to supersede design by the structural engineer Floor slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and be reinforced with No 3 reinforcing bar on 18 inches centers in two horizontally perpendicular directions Reinforcing should be properly supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the slab "Hooking" of the reinforcement is not considered an acceptable method of positioning the steel For areas using a pier and grade beam system, and underlain with existing fill and/or colluvium, slabs should be designed as a structural slab able to span an unsupported distance of at least 6 feet The project structural engineer should consider the use of transverse and longitudinal control joints to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion Two of the best ways to control this movement are 1) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel to increase the tensile strength of the slab, and 2) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion Transverse and longitudinal crack control joints should be spaced no more than 12 feet on center and constructed to a minimum depth of T/4, where "T" equals the slab thickness in inches These recommendations are meant as minimums The project architect and/or structural engineer should review and verify that the minimum recommendations presented herein are considered adequate with respect to anticipated uses SOIL MOISTURE CONSIDERATIONS Per Table 19-A-2 of the UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001), concrete ("intended to have a low permeability when exposed to water") should have a maximum water/cement ratio of 0 50, and a minimum strength of 2,500 pounds per square inch (psi) Concrete slab R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg Page 24 GeoSoils, Inc. underlayment should consist of a 10-mil to 15-mil vapor retarder, or equivalent, with all laps sealed per the UBC/CBC (ICBO, 1997 and 2001) and the manufacturer's recommendation) The vapor retarder should comply with the ASTM E-1745 Class A or B criteria and be installed per the recommendations of the manufacturer, including all penetrations (i e , pipe, ducting, rebar, etc) The manufacturer shall provide instructions for lap sealing, including minimum width of lap, method of sealing, and either supply of specify suitable products for lap sealing (ASTM E-1745) In order to break the capillary rise of soil moisture, the vapor retarder should be underlain by 4 inches of pea gravel and/or fine to coarse, washed, clean gravel (80 to 100 percent greater than #4 sieve) and be overlain by at least 2 inches of clean, washed sand (SE >30) Where slab concrete compressive strength is increased, admixtures used and water/cement ratios are adjusted herein, the structural consultant should also make changes to the concrete in the grade beams and footings in kind so that the concrete used in the foundation and slabs are designed and/or treated for more uniform moisture protection The use of a penetrating slab surface sealer may be considered in rooms where permeable floor tile or wood will be used In all planned floorings, the waterproofing specialist should review the manufacturer's recommendations and adjust installation as needed All interested parties should be advised which areas are suitable for tile or wood floors Additional recommendations regarding water or vapor transmission should be provided by the architect/structural engineer/slab or foundation designer SHORING DESIGN Shoring of Excavations Based on present design excavations for the proposed structures, excavations on the order of up to 15 foot are anticipated Accordingly, and because of limited space, temporary shoring of vertical excavations may be required We recommended that slopes be retained either by a cantilever shoring system deriving passive support from cast-in- place soldier piers (lagging-shoring system) or a restrained tie-back and pile system Based on our experience with similar projects in the County of San Diego area, if lateral movement of the shoring system on the order of 1 to 2 inches cannot be designed for or tolerated, we recommend the utilization of an internal bracing/raked shoring system Shoring of excavations of this size is typically performed by specialty contractors with knowledge of the County of San Diego area soil conditions We recommend that shoring contractors provide the excavation shoring design However, for the design parameters, we provide the following Lateral earth pressures for lagging design of shoring are presented in Figure 3 The use of anchors may not be feasible on this site due to the location of adjacent buildings and utilities north and east of the site If desired, additional anchor recommendations will be provided Since design of retaining systems is sensitive to surcharge pressures behind the excavation, we recommend that this office be consulted if unusual load conditions are anticipated Care should be exercised when excavating into the on-site soils since caving or sloughing of these materials is possible Field testing of R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 25 GeoSoils, Inc. Cantilever Shonna System xH 4.ine Load Q. (pounds) ~"f"3urcharge Pressure P (psf) C 1 0 6H G 3 0 6H 0.5 0 56H 0.7 0 48H Tie-Bac'c Shoring System P (psf) 3 2H (ft)H ( H (feet) D.2H (ft) 400D (psf) K Q (pounds) esistance behind this 1 me. \ Tie Back= 1200 psf Bond Stress (2), (3) eet) p— Minimum 7' depth for supporting piers (2)27H (psf]| NOTES 1 Include ground water effects below ground water level. 2. Include water effects below ground water level. 3 Grouted length greater than 7 feet; field test anchor strength. 4 Neglect passive pressure below base of excavation to a depth of one pier diameter. 0.35 (psf) LOS ANGELES CO RIVERSIDE CO ORANGE CO SAN DIEGO CO LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR SHORING SYSTEMS Figure 3 W.O 5181-A-SC 6/06^sCALE None' tie-backs and observation of soldier pile excavations should be performed during construction Shoring of the excavation is the responsibility of the contractor Extreme caution should be used to minimize damage to existing pavement, utilities, and/or structures caused by settlement or reduction of lateral support Accordingly, we recommend that the foundations of adjacent structures be surveyed prior to and during construction to evaluate the effects of shoring on these structures Photo documentation is also advisable Underpinning (If Necessary) Based on the proximity of the proposed excavation to the existing structures, underpinning may be necessary, as determined by the structural engineer The results of our analyses for piers to be used in underpinning are provided in Figure 4 The allowable capacities presented in the figure are based on Vt inch of settlement Please note that the purpose of our analysis was to provide preliminary design for rough estimates only We recommend that final project drawings be provided by a qualified underpinning contractor and reviewed by this office prior to construction, if underpinning is necessary Settlement monitoring of adjacent flatwork and structures should be considered to evaluate the performance of the underpinning Shoring of the excavation and underpinning of the existing structures is the responsibility of the contractor Extreme caution should be used to minimize damage to existing pavement and/or structures caused by settlement or reduction of lateral support Accordingly, we recommend that the foundations of adjacent structures be surveyed prior to and during construction to evaluate the effects of shoring and underpinning on these structures Photo documentation is also advisable Open Excavations Construction materials and/or stockpiled soil should not be stored within 5 feet of the top of any temporary slope or trench wall Temporary/permanent provisions should be made to direct any potential runoff away from the top of temporary excavations Excavations constructed deeper than 4 feet may be constructed in accordance with guidelines presented in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations for Excavation, Trenches and Earthwork for Type "C" soil material Lateral Pressure 1 The active pressure to be utilized for trench wall shoring design may be computed by the rectangular active pressure (psf) as shown in the following table R & M Enterprises W O 5181-A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181aupg Page 27 GeoSoils, Inc. 01 O) co eau X LU 4-o O)1/1«3 03 0) CQ S-01 a.aia 2. 3. 10 Allowable Pier Capacity (kips) 20 30 4G 50 60 70 80 SO 10 15 20 25 30 35 12-u ch dianif ter con i. rete pi .24 inch di meter oncrete pier Mimrriun pier lengths should be 5 feet. Capacities are allowable capacities (based on F.S. = 2) and may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loads. For uplift use 75 percent of these capacities for single piers and 50 percent for piers in clusters. LOS ANGELES CO RIVERSIDE CO ORANGE CO SAN DIEGO CO PIER CAPACITY CHART Figure 4 W O 5181-A-SC DATE 6/06 SCALE None Earth Pressure for Shoring (Level Ground Surface) SOIL TYPE Terrace Deposits RECTANGULAR ACTIVE PRESSURE (PSF) 40H EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT FOR PASSIVE PRESSURE (PCF) 325 2 Passive pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a given density shown in the table above (pcf per depth) 3 The above criteria assumes that hydrostatic pressure is not allowed to build up behind excavation walls 4 These recommendations are for excavation walls up to 15 feet high Active earth pressure may be used for trench wall design, provided the wall is not restrained from minor deflections An empirical equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall Appropriate fluid unit weights are provided for specific slope gradients of the retained material these do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events, expansive soils or adverse geologic conditions For excavation walls greater than 7 feet in height, a seismic increment of 10H (uniform pressure) may be considered for level excavation For walls, these seismic loads should be applied at 0 6H up from the bottom of the wall to the height of retained earth materials Excavation Observation (AM Excavations) When excavations are made adjacent to an existing structure (i e , utility, road or building) there is a risk of some damage to that structure even if a well designed system of excavation and/or shoring, is planned and installed We recommend, therefore, that a systematic program of observations be made before, during, and after construction to determine the effects (if any) of construction on the existing structures We believe that this is necessary for two reasons first, if excessive movements (i e , more than 1/2 inch) are detected early enough, remedial measures can be taken which could possibly prevent serious damage to the existing structure, and, second, the responsibility for damage to the existing structure can be determined more equitably if the cause and extent of the damage can be determined more precisely Monitoring should include the measurement of any horizontal and vertical movements of both the existing structures and the shoring and/or bracing Locations and type of the monitoring devices should be selected as soon as the total shoring system is designed R & M Enterprises WO5181-A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181aupg Page 29 GeoSoils, Inc. and approved The program of monitoring should be agreed upon between the project team, the site surveyor and the Geotechnical Engineer of Record, prior to excavation Reference points on the existing structures should be placed as low as possible on the exterior walls of buildings adjacent to the excavation Exact locations may be dictated by critical points within the structure, such as bearing walls or columns for buildings, and surface points on roadways and sidewalks near the top of the excavation The points on the shoring should be placed under or very near the points on the structures For a survey monitoring system, an accuracy of a least 0 01 foot should be required Reference points should be installed and read initially prior to excavation The readings should continue until all construction below ground has been completed and the backfill has been brought up to final grade The frequency of readings will depend upon the results of previous readings and the rate of construction Weekly readings could be assumed throughout the duration of construction with daily readings during rapid excavation near the bottom and at critical times during the installation of shoring or support The reading should be plotted by the Surveyor and then reviewed by the Geotechnical Engineer In addition to the monitoring system, it would be prudent for the Geotechnical Engineer and the Contractor to make a complete inspection of the existing structures both before and after construction The inspection should be directed toward detecting any signs of damage, particularly those caused by settlement Notes should be made and pictures should be taken where necessary Observation It is recommended that all excavations be observed by the Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer Any fill which is placed should be approved, tested, and verified if used for engineered purposes Cut slopes and temporary trench excavations should be observed by the Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer Should the observation reveal any unforseen hazard, the Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer will recommend treatment Please inform us at least 24 hours prior to any required site observation WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Conventional Retaining Walls The design parameters provided below assume that either non expansive soils (typically Class 2 permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) or native onsite materials (up to and including an E I of 65) are used to backfill any retaining walls The type of backfill (i e , select or native), should be specified by the wall designer, and clearly shown on the R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 30 GeoSoils, Inc. plans Below grade walls should be water-proofed The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this and preceding sections of this report, as appropriate Footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent grade (excluding top landscape layer, 6 inches) and should be 24 inches in width There should be no increase in bearing for footing width Recommendations for specialty walls (i e , crib, earthstone, geognd, etc) can be provided upon request, and would be based on site specific conditions Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 65 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading For areas of male or re-entrant corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cant/levered retaining walls up to 10 feet high Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in height may be superceded by City and/or County standard design Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material These do not include other superimposed loading conditions due to traffic, structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions When wall configurations are finalized, the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request SURFACE SLOPE OF RETAINED MATERIAL (Horizontal Vertical) Level* 2 to 1 EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT PCF (Select Backfill) 35 50 EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT PCF. (Native Backfill) 45 60 * Level backfill behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials, properly drained, without a slope for a distance of 2H behind the wall Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel wrapped in geofabnc and outlets A backdram system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are 2 feet or greater in height Details 1, 2, and 3, present the back drainage options R & M Enterprises 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg WO 5181-A-SC June 27, 2006 Page 31 GeoSoils, Inc. DETAILS NTS Provide Surface Drainage Waterproofing Membrane (optional) (D Weep Hole Finished Surface 1 WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent 1 ROCK. 3/4 to 1-1/2" (inches) rock 1 FILTER FABRIC Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent, place fabric flap behind core 1 PIPE: 4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet point (Perforations down) WEEP HOLE: Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches) above finished surface (No weep holes for basement walls ) TYPICAL RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND DRAINAGE DETAIL DETAIL 1 Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic 9 Environmental DETAILS NTS Provide Surface Drainage ©Waterproofing Membrane (optional) Weep Hole Finished Surface 1 or Flatter I WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional) Liquid boot or approved equivalent 1 DRAIN: Miradram 6000 or J-dram 200 or equivalent for non-waterproofed walls Miradram 6200 or J-dram 200 or equivalent for waterproofed walls (All Perforations down) FILTER FABRIC Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent, place fabric flap behind core 1 PIPE. 4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet point ' WEEP HOLE: Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches) above finished surface (No weep holes for basement walls ) RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL GEOTEXTILE DRAIN DETAIL 2 Geotechnical » Coastal e Geologic • Environmental DETAILS NTS Provide Surface Drainage /W Waterproofing \L. Membrane (optional) Clean Sand Backfill I WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional) Liquid boot or approved equivalent 1 CLEAN SAND BACKFILL. Must have sand equivalent value of 30 or greater, can be densified by water jetting 1 FILTER FABRIC- Mirafi 140IM or approved equivalent 1 ROCK 1 cubic foot per linear feet of pipe or 3/4 to 1-1/2" (inches) rock PIPE 4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet point (Perforations down) WEEP HOLE: Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches) above finished surface (No weep holes for basement walls ) RETAINING WALL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL CLEAN SAND BACKFILL DETAIL 3 Geotechnical • Coastal © Geologic o Environmental discussed below Backdrams should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or %-mch to 11/2-mch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) For low expansive backfill, the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot For native backfill that has up to medium expansion potential, continuous Class 2 permeable dram materials should be used behind the wall This material should be continuous (i e , full height) behind the wall, and it should be constructed in accordance with the enclosed Detail 1 (Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Detail) For limited access and confined areas, (panel) drainage behind the wall may be constructed in accordance with Detail 2 (Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdram Detail Geotextile Dram) Materials with an E I potential of greater than 65 should not be used as backfill for retaining walls For more onerous expansive situations, backfill and drainage behind the retaining wall should conform with Detail 3 (Retaining Wall And Subdram Detail Clean Sand Backfill) Outlets should consist of a 4-inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no greater than ± 100 feet apart, with a minimum of two outlets, one on each end The use of weep holes, only, in walls higher than 2 feet, is not recommended The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with native soil (E I <90) Proper surface drainage should also be provided For additional mitigation, consideration should be given to applying a water-proof membrane to the back of all retaining structures The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the recommendatfons in this report Should wall footings transition from cut to fill, the civil designer may specify either a) A minimum of a 2-foot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials for a distance of 2H, from the point of transition b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i e , expansion joints or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H on either side of the transition may be accommodated Expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center, in accordance with the structural engineer's/wall designer's recommendations, regardless of whether or nottransition conditions exist Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non-shrmk grout c) Embed the footings entirely into native formational material (i e , deepened footings) R & M Enterprises WO 5181 -A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg Page 35GeoSoils, Inc. If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation "a" (above) and until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment DRIVEWAY. FLATWORK. AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS The soil materials on site may be expansive The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, and typically occur over the lifetime of any improvements On relatively level areas, when the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication and swelling process tends to cause heaving and distress to flatwork and other improvements The resulting potential for distress to improvements may be reduced, but not totally eliminated To that end, it is recommended that the developer should notify any homeowners or homeowners association of this long-term potential for distress To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations are presented for all exterior flatwork 1 The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and then be presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent of) the soils' optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches below subgrade elevation If very low expansive soils are present, only optimum moisture content, or greater, is required and specific presoakmg is not warranted The moisture content of the subgrade should be proof tested within 72 hours prior to pouring concrete 2 Concrete slabs should be cast over a non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level prior to pouring concrete If very low expansive soils are present, the rock or gravel or sand may be deleted The layer or subgrade should be wet-down completely prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete morsture to the surrounding earth materials 3 Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick Driveway slabs and approaches should additionally have a thickened edge (12 inches) adjacent to all landscape areas, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab 4 The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommended to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion Two ways to mitigate such cracking are a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab, and, b) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, slabs should be reinforced at mid-height with a minimum of No 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center, in each R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 36GeoSoils, Inc. direction If subgrade soils within the top 7 feet from finish grade are very low expansive soils (i e , E I =20), then 6x6-W1 4xW1 4 welded-wire mesh may be substituted for the rebar, provided the reinforcement is placed on chairs, at slab mid-height The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, 1/2 to 9 inches deep, often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet For sidewalks or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals of every 6 feet The slabs should be separated from the foundations and sidewalks with expansion joint filler material 5 No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi 6 Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to the house should be separated from the house with thick expansion joint filler material In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i e , irrigation, planters, etc), all joints should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic 7 Planters and walls should not be tied to the house 8 Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed with continuous footings tied in at least two directions If very low expansion soils are present, footings need only be tied in one direction 9 Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long These segments should be keyed or doweled together 10 Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utihdor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions 11 Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times Finish grade on the lots should provide a minimum of 1 to 2 percent fall to the street, as indicated herein It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not periodically maintained by the homeowner or homeowners association 12 Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines A/C waste water lines should be drained to a suitable non-erosive outlet 13 Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices are not followed Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines Mix design should incorporate rate of R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181aupg Page 37GeoSofls, Inc. curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site i DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, etc Surface drainage should be sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on the lot, and especially near structures Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping, and building construction Therefore, care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions Positive site drainage within the lot should be provided and maintained at all times Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of 1 percent sloping away from the structure, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to the structure Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s) Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to control roof drainage Down spouts, or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from the structure or into a subsurface drainage system Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request Erosion Control Onsite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential Consideration should be given to providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a geotechnical viewpoint Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements We would recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet As an alternative, closed-bottom type planters could be utilized An outlet placed in the bottom of the R & M Enterprises 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg Inc. WO 5181-A-SC June 27, 2006 Page 38 planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture retarder to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i e , some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems) From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction Gutters and Downspouts As previously discussed in the drainage section, the installation of gutters and downspouts should be considered to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent to the structures If utilized, the downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes or other non-erosive devices (e g , paved swales or ditches, below grade, solid tight-lined PVC pipes, etc), that will carry the water away from the house, to an appropriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the design civil engineer Downspouts and gutters are not a requirement, however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that positive drainage is incorporated into project design (as discussed previously) Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed This includes any grading, utility trench and retaining wall backfills, flatwork, etc R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg Page 39GeoSoils, Inc. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs-on-grade where tile will be placed The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended between tile and concrete slabs on grade Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed This includes completion of grading in the street, driveway approaches, driveways, parking areas, and utility trench and retaining wall backfills Footing Trench Excavation All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement The purpose of the observations is to evaluate that the excavations have been made into the recommended bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction If loose or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended at that time Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the site Trenching/Temporary Construction Backcuts Considering the nature of the onsite earth materials, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching Shoring or excavating the trench walls/backcuts at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees [except as specifically superceded within the text of this report]), should be anticipated All excavations should be observed by an engineering geologist or soil engineer from GSI, prior to workers entering the excavation or trench, and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA, state, and local safety codes Should adverse conditions exist, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time The above recommendations should be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors, or homeowners, etc , that may perform such work R & M Enterprises WO5181-A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 40GeoSoils, Inc. Utility Trench Backfill 1 All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard As an alternative for shallow (12-inch to 18-inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place Observation, probing and testing should be provided to evaluate the desired results 2 Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1 1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used in these backfill areas Compaction testing and observations, along with probing, should be accomplished to evaluate the desired results 3 All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA, state, and local safety codes 4 Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages • During gradmg/recertification • During excavation During placement of subdrams or other subdramage devices, prior to placing fill and/or backfill • After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoakmg/presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i e , sand, pea-gravel, etc), or vapor retarders (i e , visqueen, etc) R~& M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg Page 41 GeoSoils, Inc. During retaining wall subdram installation, prior to backfill placement During placement of backfill for area dram, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report When any developer improvements, such as flatwork, walls, etc , are constructed, prior to construction GSI should review and approve such plans prior to construction A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements GSI should review project sales documents to all interested parties for geotechnical aspects, including irrigation practices, the conditions outlined above, etc , prior to any sales At that stage, GSI will provide the interested parties maintenance guidelines which should be incorporated into such documents OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc, should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer Please note that the recommendations contained herein are not intended to entirely preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the slab or foundation The structural engineer/foundation and/or slab designer should provide recommendations to not allow water or vapor to enter into the structure so as to cause damage to another building component, or so as to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as R & M Enterprises WO 5181-A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 42GeoSoilSj Inc. minimums, the mmimums presented herein should be adopted It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and other design criteria specified herein PLAN REVIEW Final project plans (grading, precise grading, foundation, retaining wall, landscaping, etc), should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical studies may be warranted LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area, however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given Standards of practice are subject to change with time GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction, or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project All samples will be disposed of after 30 days, unless specifically requested by the Client, in writing R & M Enterprises WO5181-A-SC 12497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad June 27, 2006 File e \wp9\5100\5181aupg Page 43 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES ASTM E 1745-97, 2004, Standard specification for water vapor retarders used in contact with soil or granular fill under concrete slabs Blake, T F , 2000a, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources, Windows 95/98 version , 2000b, EQSEARCH, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from California historical earthquake catalogs, Updated through December, 2005, Windows 95/98 version , 2000c, FRISKSP, A computer program for the probabilistic estimation of peak acceleration and uniform hazard spectra using 3-D faults as earthquake sources, Windows 95/98 version Bozorgnia, Y, Campbell, KW, and Niazi, M, 1999, Vertical ground motion Characteristics, relationship with horizontal component, and building-code implications, Proceedings of the SMIP99 seminar on utilization of strong-motion data, September, 15, Oakland, pp 23-49 California, State of, 2001, Senate Bill 800, Burton Liability construction defects, February 23, approved by Governor September 20, 2002, filed with Secretary September 20, 2002, effective January 1, 2003 Campbell, K W and Bozorgnia, Y , 1997, Attenuation relations for soft rock conditions, in EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources, Windows 95/98 version, Blake, 2000 C W La Monte Company, Inc , 2004, Report of limited geotechnical investigation, proposed residential project, 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California, Job No 04-4412, dated February 4 Dall & Associates, 2006, Aerial Photographs dated 1949 and 1960, No Job No GeoSoils, Inc , 2006, Coastal hazard & wave runup study, 2497 Ocean Street, Carlsbbad, Ca , W O 5181-A-SC, June 13 International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, California building code, California code of regulations title 24, part 2, volume 1 and 2 , 1997, Uniform building code Whittier, California, vol 1, 2, and 3 Lmtvedt, McColl & Associates, 2006, Topographic survey of 2497 Ocean Street, Sheet 1, WO 12295, dated June 6 GeoSoils, Inc. Roy J Shlemon & Associates, Inc, 2003, Peer review, geotechnical and geomorphic investigations, 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California, no job No , dated November 23 Sadigh, K , Chang, C -Y , Egan, J A , Makdisi, F , and Youngs, R R , 1997, Attenuation relations for shallow crustal earthquakes based on California strong motion data, Seismological Research Letters, Vol 68, No 1, pp 180-189 Sowers and Sowers, 1979, Unified soil classification system (After U S Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York Tan, S S and Kennedy, M P , 1996, Geologic maps of the northwestern part of San Diego County, California, DMG Open-File Report 96-02 U S Army Corps of Engineers, 1996, Encmitas shoreline, San Diego County, California, dated March R & M Enterprises Appendix A File e \wp9\5100\5181a upg Page 2GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX B TEST PIT AND BORING LOGS UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Major Divisions Coarse-Grained SoilsMore than 50% retained on No 200 sieveSCD 5> co r\i Fme-Gramed Soil50% or more passes No ,5 a S>- ,- 55 ® S °o* 0 a -«H ifCD (Tj > _ CB C ">B ._ > cu "aJ_ (B Q) L_ ^ ° " O co "P c ^ o^ J) "^ CO £ co co CO CO <B m tn O j| .» ^ "O o to 1-1 js5a Highly Organic Soils Group Symbols GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Typical Names Well-graded gravels and gravel- sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines S Ity gravels gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well-graded sands and gravelly sands little or no fines Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands little or no fines Silty sands sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts very fine sands rock flour silty or clayey fine sands Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays sandy clays silty clays, lean clays Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts elastic silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Peat mucic, and other highly organic soils CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY CRITERIA Standard Penetration Test Penetratio Resistance (blows/ft) 0-4 4-10 10-30 30-50 > 50 n N Standard Penetra Penetration Resistance N (blows/ft) <2 2-4 4-8 8-15 15-30 >30 Consistency Very Sort Sort Medium Stiff Very Stiff Hard Relative Density Very loose Loose Medium Dense Very dense tion Test Unconfined Compressive Strength (tons/ft2) <025 025- 050 0 50 - 1 00 1 00 - 2 00 2 00 - 4 00 >400 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 U S Standard Sieve Unified Soil _ ..._. _ . GobblesClassification Gravel coarse MOISTURE CONDITIONS fine Sand coarse medium MATERIAL QUANTITY fine Silt or Clay OTHER SYMBOLS Dry Absence of moisture dusty, dry to the touch trace 0 - 5 % C Core Sample Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5 --10% S SPT Sample Moist Near optimum moisture content little 1 0 - 25 % B Bulk Sample Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25 - 45 % T Groundwater Wet Visible free water, below water table Qp Pocket Penetrometer BASIC LOG FORMAT Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density Additional comments odor, presence of roots, mica gypsum, coarse grained particles, etc EXAMPLE Sand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets File Mgr c,\SoilClassif wpd PLATE B-1 - w CXIul «-- §-°aDC cCO0}OOCM E V)uj DC O U.O OO ESCRIPTIONQ 14 *£III UJ DC13 1- C?CO £^ O a*-5gj£ S5Q GROUPSYMBOLH — s gjE Q 1- 0to zPE OrganicsCD o0_CD"GO"52CO"a.^CDOL_JD^•^CO1__QCDT3 CD OCO CD"COO O t-•o cf o j5 Q" \ £ c/> _j LL 2cyj ^C\J CDCOoo4-j1COo >, 4— < 0) "53 cf5ol_.a Q <BEACH DEPOSITS SD_ t/) co C\l COoEcf™0)E3T3Q)E2•i— <D3^^Q urn grained SANTJCD 2 CD C Rounded cobbles and flooseD_op oL 0 tco 2' NGVD29^>^ CD -fj•*-• u CO CD E CD X cO n Total Depth = 4'Test Pit Elevation ApprNo Groundwater EncoiBackfilled 6-9-2006i CVICOUJsQ. BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc WO 5181-A-SC PROJECT R AND M ENTERPRISES BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF 2 2497 Ocean Street DA TE EXCA VA TED 6-9-06 <e -ca. 5- 10- 15- - Sample ^£ =3m •a "to T3c 1 ^w5 m 36 31 65 w"C/3o 13 SM SM-SP SP "g" ? ^ Q 1080 1004 988 g- £13 0 54 41 43 g. o m 3 CO 27 17 17 SAMPLE METHOD Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Approx Elevation 40' NGVD29 Standard Penetration Test „„ 2 Groundwaterw/2t Undisturbed, Ring Sample Description of Material ~~ ^ s COLLUVIUM @ 0' SILTY SAND, dark brown, slightly moist, loose, many roots TERRACE DEPOSITS: @ 4' SAND w/SILT, brown, slightly moist, medium dense, fine grained @ 10' Becomes gray brown, dry @ 15' Becomes light yellowish brown @ 20' SAND, light gray, dry, dense, fine to medium grained @ 23' Few cobbles O.OTO c* , GeoSoils, Inc2497 Ocean Street ' PLATE B-3 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc PROJECT R AND M ENTERPRISES 2497 Ocean Street WO 5181-A-SC BORING B-1 OF_2 DATE EXCAVATED 6-9-06 g, £ O. 8 > _ \ 30 - 35- 40- 45- - - Sample n.13 CD 7 UndisturbedI IBlows/ft62 50-4" 1 USCS SymbolGP CL Dry Unit Wt (pcf)slo Recover)Moisture (%)Saturation (%)SAMPLE METHOD _ Standard Penefa j^j Undisturbed, Rin • •• *• ••• • • ••» ••• * • »•• ••• •i @ 26' Many c< @ 29' Perche( Basal Contact SANTIAGO FC @ 31 'SANDY !\ Total Depth = Perched Grou Bottom of Hole Backfilled w/B Approx Elevation 40' NGVD29 -^- Groundwater Description of Material 31' SANDY CLAYSTONE, light gray, wet, dense 2497 Ocean Street GeoSoils, Inc PLATE B-4 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc WO 5181-A-SC PROJECT R AND M ENTERPRISES BORING B-2 SHEET 1 OF 1 2497 Ocean Street DATE EXCAVATED 6-9-06 £• | j- I •*; ! 0) ° | - 5- - 10- i 15 - 20- - Sample Y> m ^-s c i t;"S3aom SP SM-SP oJO $ COoCO SP •g1 ~ 1 Q q- e^aCO O r 1 £ c0 (0u roCO SAMPLE METHOD Solid Flight Auger - Beaver Drill Approx Elevation 27%' NGVD29 Standard Penetration Test __ S Groundwater Yffii. Undisturbed, Ring Sample Description of Material FILL: @ 0' SAND w/SILT, brown, slightly moist, loose, poorly sorted, fine grained TERRACE DEPOSITS. @ 7' SAND w/SILT, light brown, slightly moist, medium dense, fine to medium grained @ 16' SAND, light brownish gray, dry, medium dense ^@ 1 9' Refusal on cobbles / Total Depth = 19' (Practical Refusal) No Groundwater/Cavmg Encountered Bottom of Hole Elevation = 81/2' NGVD29 Backfilled w/Bentonite Chips 6-9-2006 ,,Qvn^n^rODt GeoSoils, Inc ra-re __ BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc PROJECT R AND M ENTERPRISES 2497 Ocean Street WO 5181-A-SC BORING B DATE EXCAVATED SHEET_J_ OF 1 6-9-06 Sample 10 15- 20- o.0 >NCO coo CO SM 3M-SF £Q awo IDw 2497 Ocean Street SAMPLE METHOD Solid Flight Auger - Beaver Drill Standard Penetration Test Undisturbed, Ring Sample Approx Elevation 221/2 NGVD29 -V- Groundwater Description of Material COLLUVIUM @ O1 SILTY SAND, brown, dry, loose TERRACE DEPOSITS @ 6' SAND w/SILT, brown to light brown, dry, medium dense, fine to medium grained Contact Elevation = 10' NGVD29 SANTIAGO FORMATION (S) 13' Dense soil, no recovery " Total Depth = 13'"(Practical Refusal) " No Groundwater/Cavmg Encountered Bottom of Hole Elevation = 91/2' NGVD29 Backfilled w/Bentonite Chips 6-9-2006 GeoSoils, Inc PLATE B-6 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc PROJECT R AND M ENTERPRISES BORING 2497 Ocean Street f<uQ 5- 10- -- _ 15- 20- _ Sample "3CO T30)€i3 •a 5 Blows/tto.a 1,CO COoCO SM 5M-SP SP Dry Unit Wt (p<Moisture (%)£ COj= "to DATEEXCAb SAMPLE METHOD Solid Flight Auger - KS5p«> -^ 1 Standard Penetration Test \ Undisturbed, Ring Sample Descnption COLLUVIUM @ 0' SILTY SAND, brown, sli TERRACE DEPOSITS @ 4' SAND w/SILT, brown, si dense & 6Yz COBBLES and SAND Total Depth = 7' (Practical Re No Groundwater/Cavmg Encc Bottom of Boring Elevation = Backfilled w/Bentonite Chips ( M/O 5181-A-SC SH£E7_..1__ OF 6-9-06 Approx Elevation 17' NGVD29 2 Groundwater 2497 Ocean Street GeoSoils, Inc PLA7E B-7 DEPTH (feet)5 — 10 — f C 20 -SAMPLES* aa II 5s 3 BLOWS / FOOTg H 5 DRY DENSITY (PCF)CLASSIFICATIONusesSM SM SP SM Log of Test Boring No. 1 Surface Elevation + 23' Date 1/23/04 Logged By JBR Drilling Method 4" Dia Hand Auger Dnve Weight 3S# Drop 30" Sampling Methods 25" ID Sampler DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS TOPSOfL Dark red brown slightly moist loose to medium dense siltv sand TERRACE DEPOSITS Red brown, very moist medium dense, silty sand Light brown-tan very moist medium dense to dense slightly silty sand and fine to medium sand EXCAVATION BOTTOM 25 "' -• • •".-,''• " ', •"" •' ••-. ''.-> ''.'"• ' • '" •- , ' • ••'"• * '•'"'•'-' Proposed Residential Project PROJECT: 2497 Ocean Street Carlsbad, California JOB NO 04-4412 FIGURE NO. 3a GSI Plate B-8 ^" J> *— ^XF-p-a 5 15- 20 - 1a*s 3 23 ^td o:a •IVW f-or*js — ^0 •• • s wOS H o 75 teTU H Z Q 02 Q 108 O -4 ^O O 53 = _i SM SM SP SM Log of Test Boring No. 2 Surface Elevation + 28' Date 1/23/04 Logged By JBR Drilling Method 4" Dia Hand Auger Drive Weight 35* Drop 30" Sampling Methods 25" ID Sampler DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS TOPSOIL Dark red brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense silty sand TERRACE DEPOSITS Red brown to light blown slightly moist to moist, medium dense, slightly silty sand with occasional small "pockets" of clayey sand Light brown to Ian, very moist, medium dense to dense slightly silty sand and sand EXCAVATION BOTTOM 25 ' _ Proposed Residential Project x ;. V.'' •' "°°>'<^ ' .. ~* • '• V-'° ~ V , ,. °, ' ',.J.v, .•: ;r;,;," ^ °| - x X •"•'•;. <• FKUJJ&Cl: 2497 Ocean Street I :':^ . Y; Carlsbad, California °""~/. '^'r* ... "•:.: ~^^J'' ^ '"~-"... ". ^. -'.^.,1 .^. •.^.^^^"v. "., V" ^ ••" >; '^v •^•••, v" ; JOB NO. 04-4412 FIGURE NO. 3b GSI Plate B-9 ^ H WO 5 15- 20 - entd a. S 3 ^CC If ^> r"Q ~ o9 ^_ CO 3 - & n Os 80 Ua. H Q ctfQ 1077 ^ -< ^O O U. t/3 < U SM SM SP SM Log of Test Boring No. 3 Surface Elevation + 37' Date 1/23/04 Logged By JBR Drilling Method 4" Dia Hand Auger Drive Weight 35# Drop 30" Sampling Methods 25" ID Sampler DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS TOPSOIL Dark ted brown slightly moist, loose to medium dense, silty sand TERRACE DEPOSITS Red brown very moist medium dense siltv sand Light brown to tan veiy moist medium dense to dense slightly silty sand and sand and fine to medium sand ExcAV<mo^f BOTTOM - 25 ' Proposed Residential Proiect Ki-jt .'• ";, •'.-'-•'"••. >'v t~-;'"~V ' • '""' *'-"''"".-,?; V.s:,-JH •"•£•(*«. ;;;..v-. s; -..'•;'-,..';,;•>-". vV. '4*5 v_ A* FKUJ EC 1 : 2497 Ocean Street "" ••: *';.. *•-, Carlsbad, California t. '„ • • ^ ':' JU15i\U. U4-441Z Jt^ltrL/KJi 1\U. JC GSI Plate B-10 "? s^ffif-0.cd 5 ~" 15- 20 - W s C/J j_J ca ^> f^Q ^ oo Ci,^_ >.>•O /— s w ^H ^^f0 Z 69 U. U H 2 ^JQ C£ 109 O t, c« •S) 3 y SM SM SP SM Log of Test Boring No. 4 Surface Elevation ± 37 5' Date 1/23/04 Logged By IBR Drilling Method 4" Dia. Hand Auger Drive Weight 35# Drop 30" Sampling Methods 25" ID Sampler DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS TOPSOIL Dark red brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense, silty sand TERRACE DEPOSITS Red brown very moist medium dense silty sand Light biown to tan very moist medium dense to dense slightly silty sand and sand and fine to medium sand EXCAVATION BOTTOM 25 ' Proposed Residential Project 1 -.-.••.-. : •. . -v, :. .-.•-- -, '.- -.. • .-; ., .' . - 1JKOJECJL: 2497 Ocean Street ,' •'•'< : ;. : •' Carlsbad, California JUJS1NU. U4-44JZ JbUjfUKJt, 1NU. 6Q GSI Plate B-11 is IH S 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - £o 7 - SAMPLE TYPE ar*r;"UNDISTURBLODRYDENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT(%)c en O VI TEST EXCAVATION NO. 1 Elevation- 105' Dale 1/22/04 Excavation Method Manual SOIL DESCRIPTION BEACH SAND Light gray, moist, medium dense, fine to medium sand @ 3 - 3 5' Abundant gravel and cobble @ 5 - 6' Abundant gravel and cobble EXCAVATION BOTTOM • Ground water level @ 5 feet •Excavation Terminated along side of field stone retaining wall •Caving 5 - 6' do to ground water DEPTH(FEET)1 - 2 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - SAMPLE TVPE =2r UNDISIURHEDDRYDENSITY(PCF)MOISTURECONTENT(%)G ff> n c/> -TEST EXCAVATION NO. 2 Elevation 105' Date 1/22/04 Excavation Method Manual SOIL DESCRIPTION BEACH SAND Light gray, moist, medium, fine to medium sand EXCAVATION BOTTOM C W LA MONTE COMP; Soil and Foundation En£ PWO TFT^T Proposed Residential Project MMV T"MP i'JK.^J^'-A. 2497 Ocean Street "UN I 11N^. Carlsbad, California Ameers PROJECT NO. 04-4412 FIGURE NO. 3e GSI Plate B-12 APPENDIX C EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, AND FRISKSP EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE CURVE 2497 Ocean Street iuu - 10 - L_ CD<u ^ 1 ~Z tf)•4-1c0) HI **—° 1 - 0) .£> Erj Z 0)> ro 01 - ^ £ E^O 001 - ^1 MM i ^^w. j 1 1 1 1 i i ^^^^ ^^s. MM.. f ""V^ 1 1 M ^^•v'^ 1 1 1 1 h. 1 II 1 ( 1 II 1 ^^^ ^"•^^^ ^'^ » lll|•usssas^st MM Mil II II 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 Magnitude (M) WO 5181-A-SC Plate C-1 OeoSoilSj Inc. EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP 2497 Ocean Street 1100 1000 -• 900 - -, 800 -- 700 -- 600 -- 500 -- 400 -- 300 -- 200 -- 100 -- 0 -- -100 -400 -300 -200 -100 100 200 300 400 500 600 W.O. 5181-A-SC Plate C-2 Inc. ERIOD vs. ACCELERATIONET AL.(1999)HOR PS UNC 1^^^^^B m Q.N ZCQ fY \s ^\)X \ \ \ \s ^i\ \\ X\\'isSs,\\>V^' s•>-11 — — — — OMD•LOCM• O ^ O rr. U, c_o m 'coh- *-5-20 0)oo 0< ID • 0 LO CM• O or^LL. ~. D O0000 I O O O O 1 0 0 O v- UJ 8 ?o: - W.O 5181-A-SC (sjA) pou9d GeoSoils, Inc. Plate C-3 PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE BOZ. ET AL(1999)HOR PS UNC 1 sP 0s ^CD O £L 00c CO T3 0 0O X LLJ 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 75 yrs 100 yrs 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Acceleration (g) WO 5181-A-SC Plate C-4 GeoSoils, Inc. RETURN PERIOD vs. ACCELERATIONBOZ. ET AL.(1999)HOR PS UNC 2\100000 -^s \vN \ S 0ooo s ^V \V \\ oo 0 sSNi ^s ksV \. 4 Oo 1 — — — — OID•LOCM• O _ O rr«^ Q T— 'co 10 "Sr^ ^- 5-2^ 0oo 0< LO •0 LO <N• O or-^ • O WO 5181-A-SC (sjA) GeoSoils, Inc.Plate C-5 PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE BOZ. ET AL.(1999)HOR PS UNC 2 5"0^ >+J 'J5 05 O CL (DOc 05 •D 0 00 X LLJ 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 75 yrs 100 yrs 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Acceleration (g) W.O 5181-A-SC GeoSofls, Inc.Plate C-6 MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES co H-*2 ^0)oo 2497 Ocean Street 1 1 .01 .001 1 :• 1 10 Distance (mi) I I I I 100 WO 5181-A-SC Plate C-7, GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX D LABORATORY DATA 9 a 3,000 2500 2000 tn Q. 1 1,500 w 1 000 500 0 C X Sample B-1 B-1 Note Sample GjeoSoilSfelHc. Depth/El 100 100 (A 500 Range 1 / j/ /A // / / \/s 1 '// 1 ,000 1 ,500 2,000 NORMAL PRESSURE psf Classification SILTY SAND(SM) Pnmary/Rcsidual Primary Shear Residual Shear Sample Type Undisturbed Undisturbed Ya 1103 1103 / / /// \ / I / 2,500 MC% 54 54 \ I 3,000 C 130 189 *40 36 Irmundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone (760)438-3155 Fax (760)931-0915 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project R & M ENTERPRISES Number 5181-A-SC Date June 2006 Plate D-1 3000 2,500 2,000 8. x" K. 1,500 CO to 1 000 500 0f X / H/• X"\ ( / s ~/~/ / Y ' \// / 7/ » 1 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2500 3000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Sample Depth/El Range Classification Primary/Residual Sample Type % MC% c 4* • B-1 200 SAN^(vwthYS?LTXS)pE-SM) Primary Shear Undisturbed 991 43 42 42 • B-1 20 0 Residual Shear Undisturbed 99 1 43 225 35 Note Sample Innundated prior to testing GeoSoils, Inc —.^g-^ 5741 Palmer Way G|oSoi|%iiIc. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone (760)438-3155 Fax (760)931-0915 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project R & M ENTERPRISES Number 5181-A-SC Date June 2006 Plate D-2 ~ — ' STRAIN, %« 00 02 04 06 08 10 12 14 16 1 8 20 22 24 26 1C — —-.-^, ( ^ - •\ — ' — , —— • — ^ i — , i i^ \ \ \ -— -, > \\ >\ )0 1,000 STRESS, psf Sample Depth/El Visual Classification B-1 10 0 SILTY SAND(SM) \ \ ^ > \ \ "^ \ \ ^ \ \ ^10,000 Initial 1101 MC Initial 54 MC Final 163 H20 1000 Stress at which water was added 1000 psf Strain Difference 0 53% GeoSoiis, Inc ^gs^ f&sfr<?& 5741 Palmer Way(p«i^ii*£l«5c. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone (760)438-3155 Fax (760)931-0915 CONSOLIDATION TEST Project R & M ENTERPRISES Number 5181-A-SC Date June 2006 Plate D-3 h C5i Ct au.z LL (- LL Ca LLa 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 -55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 n U S SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES 6 4 3 2 1 5 1 3/4 1/23/8 V. I I I 3 "FT1- 6 T ej U S SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER ° 141620 30 40 5060 1» wo200 fl=f^4- V\\fix\' ^ I J\ \\ W— ,\! \ _l1L \ \ n i I \ \ V\,\V. i i a 100 10 1 01 001 0001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0 a A — 9 B A COBBLES GRAVEL coarse fine SAND coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY Sample Depth B-1 100 B-1 20 0 B-1 35 0 Visual Classification/USCS CLASSIFICATION SILTY SAND(SM) POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT(SP-SM) Sandy Clay LL NP NP PL NP NP PI NP NP Cc Cu 0 93 2 47 Sample Depth B-1 100 B-1 200 B-1 35 0 D100 475 2 475 D60 0368 0375 014 D30 0211 023 D10 0152 %Gravel 00 00 00 %Sand 855 938 455 %Silt %Clay 145 62 545 GeoSoils, Inc «a 4E$ <•* 5741 Palmer Way |oSoilS| Ii|c. Carlsbad, CA 92008 ^f^ss&m, Telephone (760)438-3155 Fax (760)931-0915 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Project R & M ENTERPRISES Number 5181-A-SC Date June 2006 Plate D-4 APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrams, and excavations The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supercede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations which could supercede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant), or their representatives, should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for general conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly All remedial removals, clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdram installation should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing and fill It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D-1557 Random or representative field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test methods ASTM designation D-1556, D-2937 or D-2922, and D-3017, GeoSoils, Inc. at intervals of approximately ±2 feet of fill height or approximately every 1,000 cubic yards placed These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by a geotechnical consultant, and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix, and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer The contractor should also remove all non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc , are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material, should be removed and disposed of off-site These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill In-place existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials, determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable, should be removed prior to any fill placement Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading, are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer Soft, dry, spongy, highly R & M Enterprises Appendix E File e \wp9\5100\5181aupg Page 2GeoSoilSj Inc. fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue Overexcavated and processed soils, which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned, should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines Existing ground, which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 to 8 inches, or as directed by the soil engineer After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content, or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein If the scarified zone is greater than 6 to 8 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 to 8 inches in compacted thickness Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report, or by the on-site soils engineer and/or engineering geologist Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable forms of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features, which would inhibit compaction as described previously Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5 1 (horizontal to vertical [h v]), the ground should be stepped or benched The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist In fill over cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet, with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the geotechnical consultant As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the soil engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to 1/2the height of the slope Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet Pre-stnppmg may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toes of fill benches, should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained R & M Enterprises Appendix E File e \wp9\5100\5181aupg m Page 3j Inc. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter, or other deleterious materials All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other approved material Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact Oversized materials defined as rock, or other irreducible materials, with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer Oversized material should betaken offsite, or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal Per the UBC/CBC, oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces (any variation will require prior approval from the governing agency) To facilitate future trenching, rock (or oversized material) should not be placed within 10 feet from finish grade, the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developer's representative If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine it's physical properties and suitability for use onsite If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers, that when compacted, should not exceed about 6 to 8 inches in thickness The soil engineer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification, or should be blended with drier material Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at, or above, optimum moisture R & M Enterprises Appendix E File e \wp9\5100\5181aupg CCOSOlIS, ItlC. Page 4 After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation D-1557, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer In general, per the UBC/CBC, fill slopes should be designed and constructed at a gradient of 2 1 (h v), or flatter Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by overbuilding a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2 1 (h v), prior approval from the governing agency, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, special reinforcement, and special grading procedures will be recommended If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following 1 An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy, short-shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope 2 Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling 3 Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) ±2 to ±8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations 4 After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face Subsequent to testing to evaluate compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to R & M Enterprises Appendix E File e \wp9\5100\5181aupg GCOSOtlS IftC. Page 5 achieve compaction to the slope face Final testing should be used to evaluate compaction after grid rolling Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix, and recompact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction Additional testing should be performed to evaluate compaction Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering geologist SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrams should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant Subdram locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in subdram line, grade, and dram material in the field, pending exposed conditions The location of constructed subdrams, especially the outlets, should be recorded by the project civil engineer EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes, and should be notified by the contractor when excavation of cut slopes commence If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate, and make appropriate recommendations for mitigation of these conditions The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not R & M Enterprises Appendix E File e \wp9\5100\5l81aupg Page 6GeoSoils, Inc. Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractor's responsibility Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist COMPLETION Observation, testing, and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and fill areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications After completion of grading, and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading JOB SAFETY General At GSI, getting the job done safely is of primary concern The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites On-ground personnel are at highest risk of injury, and possible fatality, on grading and construction projects GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site, and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor, however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor, and GSI personnel must be maintained In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects R & M Enterprises Appendix E File e \wp9\5100\5181aupg Page 7Inc. Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractor's regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for, and are to be worn by GSI personnel, at all times, when they are working in the field Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians, one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacons, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office Test Pits Location. Orientation, and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations A primary concern should be the technician's safety Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractor's authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic The contractor's authorized representative (supervisor, grade checker, dump man, operator, etc) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period Of paramount concern should be the soil technician's safety, and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic, whenever possible The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile This necessitates the fill be maintained in a dnveable condition Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration, which typically decreases test results When taking slope tests, the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operational distance (e g , 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing R & M Enterprises Appendix E File e \wp9\5100\5181 a upg Page 8GeoSoils, Inc. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor The grading contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified Any fill placed can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction, or removal In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor bring this to the technician's attention and notify this office Effective communication and coordination between the contractor's representative and the soil technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back, 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL-OSHA and/or state and local standards Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor The contractor's representative will be contacted in an effort to affect a solution All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper controlling authorities R & M Enterprises Appendix E File e \wp9\5100\5181aupg Page 9GeoSoils, Inc. CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL TYPE A PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL NATURAL GROUND COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) TYPICAL BENCHING r BEDROCK -SEE ALTERNATIVES TYPE B _ __ PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL NATURAL GROUND COLLUVIUM AND ALLUVIUM (REMOVE) ^ vr^z TYPICAL BENCHING BEDROCK ALTERNATIVES NOTE ALTERNATIVES, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SUBDRAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING PLATE EG-1 CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL MINIMUM A-1 12'MINIMUM FILTER MATERIAL: MINIMUM VOLUME OF 9 FT.'/LINEAR FT. 6' I ABS OR PYC PIPE OR APPROVEDSUBSTITUTE WITH MINIMUM 8 11/4' 0) PERFS.LINEAR FT. IN BOTTOM HALF OF PIPE.ASTM D2751. SDR 35 OR ASTM D1527. SCHD, 40ASTM D3034. SDR 35 OR ASTM D1785. SCHD. 40 FOR CONTINUOUS RUN IN EXCESS OF 500 FT. USE 8'^ PIPE 6'MINIMUMB-1 FILTER MATERIAL SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH 100 3/4 INCH 90-100 3/8 INCH 40-100 NO. 4 25-40 NO. 8 18—33 NO. 30 5 — 15 "NO. 50 0—7 NO. 200 0—3 ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL AND.FILTER FABRIC 6"MINIMUM OVERLAP 6'MINIMUM COVER 4' MINIMUM BEDDING 6" MINIMUM OVERLAP 4' MINIMUM BEDDING—' A-2 GRAVEL MATERIAL 9 FT3/LINEAR FT. PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1 GRAVEL CLEAN 3/4 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI uo OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE PLATE EG-2 DETAIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE BACKCUT\VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS, BACKCUT ^IKSHOULD BE MADE NO STEEPER THAN\i;1 OR AS NECESSARY FOR SAFETY 'ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL DEPTH PER SOIL ENG8WEER. • PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT. SITE CONDITIONS AMD/OR LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJECTIONS REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL LIMITS LINE v TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL DRAINAGE ONLY Qaf (EXISTING COMPACTED FILL) TO BE REMOVED BEFORE PLACING ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL Qaf ARTIFICIAL FILL Qal ALLUVIUM PLATE EG-3 UJQ LL CO CO LU CC h- ID CD Ot—< CD < CO O Q_ h- PLATE EG-4 1.,. i<LUQZo: Q ION / BUTTRESS SUBL1 MINIMUM OF FIVE Fl'/LINEAR Ft OF PIPFh- -IT ^f\ \ il^"*S. i_M <«£. —I £T — Ul DO !3< a LU0LUmj_i<Xto_i<ccUlH-<"Z.ccLU1-_JLU NEAR Fl OF PIPE WHEN PLACED IN SQUARE_i•-»r» H cc3ou. cco 2 . . rnI "— 'O ^ Z— z —1— LU tO< _j too < <E > o-o = *-LU a zQ. UJ LUin CO1/1 a 50 LU 5| § S1 £ ui_i ir M— { CL l-i=i < tooLU Z LUUl < S-r rr _H 0 W UJm LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL. GRAVEL MAY 1z 5 m " >s Soc <>- i•- iu=> {=CJ _J<PROVED FILTER FABRIC. FILTER FABRICa.< z a• •IUJ LAVI<o Ul 0 00 C3O •»- T-0 I 11 100CT> v*X t-> OO Z Z2— • «^— •-» oon n Fl 140 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC'ED A MINIMUM OF 12" ON ALL JOINTS.ETER PIPE: ABS-ASTM D-2751. SDR 35< "- 2: £ 5 <^ 3 5 UJ Ul ^ ID CD ^ _i i ^£._J ~J •* - _I _l 33 < < ~S.rc 35 ^to to —3: Ulx0 " •*» ^ m 1-«j- co ^- ts. r» ^1 1 1 1 1 u-III11 f-Vin oo in o o "-1fM *- U|m•_J_iXto0 0 S -"^ « ° S ° ^• • «^ >.S 5 o o d ^Z Z _ _. tJ Q;z z Z o• o 27 SCHEDULE 40 PVC-ASTM D-3034,M D-17B5 SCHEDULE 40 WITH A CRUSHIN,000 POUNDS MINIMUM, AND A MINIMUM OFPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE'H PERFORATIONS OF BOTTOM OF PIPE.T UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2%E, OUTLET PIPE TO BE CONNECTED TO:.: i- -^ in »- < Q- " 2 £ >- i Q. 511 < o 2 ^ < . D CC T Z a O J7, 0 K- K LU , yz o o -1 m ^!K_ in S £ -> o t« " S 5 £ > g< tr ir =; [^ o "a: o. i- z cc oo to to eo — a. H- occ z0 P uiz £ to0 m ?5 y"£< < v-O J^ ^v.> z- 1 oo a ~LU LU £fe Q Q-*" LU0 > LUZ 0 M5: £ EJL ••—cs a. LU••^ ^T ^>w_!*<>•P! -, LUO Z —LU < tO WITH TEE OR ELBOW.CH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLEDiON-SITE SOIL.LU z -j- S: LU t-o. cc — -^ »~ ^Z <S '- S LUCD ,_ 3 2 inLuo2:^0 0 20 S ro z^MB U f ^^.5^rUl1 ^O C5 ^\mJ ^B*Z v* 0 3— . CN ars O LU- 2 5 aZ "^- Zto . Ul-y ^_DRAINS AND LATERAL DRAINS SHALL BEFED AT ELEVATION OF EVERY BENCH DRAIIDRAIN LOCATED AT ELEVATION JUST ABO)R LOT GRADE ADDITIONAL DRAINS MAY BEIRED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILSIEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST.^ < »- ui =3 z00^3: a o < 0 E 0 Ul Z CD -1 LU _» CC UJ . r+ CO o DL h- PLATE EG-5 LL EC UJ aLU>occa.a.< PLATE EG-6 LU Q ID O cc UJ O LL a2< Oa 2S gj 2< uJ 25 2 HS O KX 2 OUJ UJ a-§ UJ ZI i— J *•U) UJ UJ O> O UJ Q Z IO >- 2 Q LU o 3 o Ul < O X' > UJH- LU CD LU I— O PLATE EG-7 UlQtrLU LU CD < co O CO ID croLL _j§ LLO ~ZL O \- 01 0 Q- LL O LU p < <—' —rO f£aztrLULU u.Z fe »-LU R a 3 o_ < ^o ^ —S DC KS ° LUo w> az LU 5^0.0tc o zLU -1 LULU U>5 «r §S £ SUJ Q o-^a tit B?U_ UJ ._ UJ K " 5LU 3 z UJ < W 1*3 5 §5 — u>o >- uUl s °o cr O3 u| a * Ul LU Lu Xu 3 3- «-LU w l/) OC U)U) UJ Oui UJLt 5 r: in £ Str a 3 I-o 2sl i- a, ° Iui ui 5 ui< en UJ OS <X to LUU. 0= X ^ O U) 2 D3 »_ <3 5r X UJj-o O UJ PLATE EG-8 a oa:o a:ID LLo LL (S) PLATE EG-9 \ \\xUJ 0\< \K \= \ QJ Q O K Z> O Xo >-< Q <cc:DJ-<\ Ul0ccoI<n•z.\ m\ Qlc \ ^£ \ w "S- \ °XJx o.*\ i •5- \Q- lA $A V" ' \ ^^ \ \\ \ 4=i ^t$ui i:>£ |<*•z. KX.< ry-^Ls JS>i|z 'i?. ?^4— >K£ 1 \ ^^£r-C \ TJvw fe\ 1- i\^*• \^A•^\°o^V ^'V % J<ceUJi-<"S.PPROVED< ce 0 sc.oocca Ulm o z » ^> Ul^ m*-7 j\ / <^"t,^ \$t\ \L*~ LUCJccCD1310aLUCOoa.x Ul zo a Hito CO aui DC 111 H- LUa uim tn •z. Ulaccz :Dui m3: ccui ui CO>-ccininuiuuizQUlZ XKUl UlQ U. auizcco ui in°- oUJ O 10 oa ui-i o ilin cc-, in 1 | o•z. Ul CJ auior XI— Q Ul O U. O inmui oouicc Ul ccoa •—•Z. Q<: -z. o xy o «t 00IIa am z:D om o UJ H- OZ oxui cc Ul>o (M ceuiuiz CD Z Ul in_J oto ur XI- PLATE EG-10 TRANSITION LOT DETAIL CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION) NATURAL GRADE COMPACTED FILL OYEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT MINIMUM* UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) PAD GRADE NATURAL GRADE *N - «&&£^S^V^OVEREXCAVATE 5'MINJMUM^5'MINJ •*—H 3' MINIMUM* X UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL TYPICAL BENCHING NOTE * DEEPER OVEREXCAVAT10N MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT-FILL TRANSITION AREAS. PLATE EG-11 SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RISER DETAIL 2'X 2'X 1/4-STEEL PLATE STANDARD 3/4' PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP OF PLATE. 3/4' X 5' GALVANIZED PIPE, STANDARD PIPE THREADS TOP AND BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS THREADED ON BOTH ENDS AND ADDED IN 5* INCREMENTS. 3 INCH SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE. ADD IN 5* INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS. FINAL GRADE MAINTAIN 5'CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT. MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2'VERTICAL LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIALS' VERTICAL WITHIN A 5'RADIUS OF PLATE BASE. X BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT PROVIDE A MINIMUM V BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND NOTE: 1. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5" RADIUS OF PLATE BASE AND WITHIN 5'(VERTICAL) FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. FILL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULD BE HAND COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 3. AFTER 5'tVERTICAL) OF FILL IS IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 51RADIUS EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE FROM RISER. 4. PLACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL 2'OF FILL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL READING 5. IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA. CONTRACTOR SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER 6. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY BE PROVIDED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. PLATE EG-U TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT FINISH GRADE 3'-6' 3/8- DIAMETER X 6' LENGTH CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIVALENT - DIAMETER X 3 1/2'LENGTH HOLE CONCRETE BACKFILL PLATE EG-15 TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM SIDE VIEW *- lj TEST ( NOT TO SCALE ) TOP VIEW 100 FEET APPROXIMATE CENTER OF TEST PIT ( NOT TO SCALE ) PLATE EG-16 OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 20'MINIMUM CO _^_J5'MINIMUM (A^ OQ i' MINIMUM (C) 10'MINIMUM (E) CO CO CO 15*MINIMUM (A) O »g0 °° DO (G) CO yA^vA\^^\^^^ ^\^\V^X Pnpnry np APPpnvcn MATPPIAIBEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10'MINIMUM (E) 3OoQoe»=c* .100'MAXIMUM (BK ^^Tr^oi^3r!3r'?e^x^iC!)C^CrX^^3 15* MINIMUM r3' MINIMUM <TOCC3CM=O: 5'MINIMUM (C)_ FROM CANYWLWALL BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. (B) HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE AND TYPE OF EQUIPMENT. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100'MAXIMUM. (C) IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIAL OR BEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. ~ (DJ ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHOULD BE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST STAGGERING OF WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. (E) CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES. FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. (F) ALL FILL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENDED IG) AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF FILL COVERING WINDROW. WINDROW SHOULD BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A D-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN PLATE RD — 1 ROCK DISPOSAL PITS VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. FILL LIFTS COMPACTED OVER ROCK AFTERJEMBEDMENT I I I I I j COMPACTED FILL GRANULAR MATERIAL SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS GRANULAR SOIL TO FILL VOIDS. DENSIRED BY FLOODING LAYER ONE ROCK COMPACTED FILL, i~unrMi*.i c.u rii-u PROPOSED FINISH GRADE TO1 MINIMUM OR BELOW LOWEST UTIUT PROFILE ALONG LAYER LOPE FACE CLEAR ZONE 20'MINIMUM LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH PLATE RD-2 Jan 29 07 03:lip Pi flrc Design 858-454-2720 p.l City of Carlsbad Building Department CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PAYMENT OF SCHOOL FEES OR OTHER MITIGATION This form must be completed by the City, the applicant, and the appropriate school districts and returned to the City pnor to issuing a building permit The City will not issue any building permit without a completed school fee form Project Name Building Permit Plan Check Number Project Address APN Project Applicant (Owner Name) Project Description Building Type Residential Second Dwelling Unit. Residential Additions Commercial/Industrial City Certification of Applicant Information DONALD RESIDENCE CB070099 2497 OCEAN STREET 203-021-08-00 PETER DONALD DEMO 4,151 SFD-BUILD NEW CONDO V-N 2 New Dwelling Units 8473 Square Feet of Living Area in New Dwelling Square Feet of Living Area in SDU Net Square Feet New Area Square Feet Floor Area Date -SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD Jmficd School District • £1 Cammo Real 'Carlsbad CA 92009 (331-50 Vntn Unified School l>i\trict 1234 Arcadia Drive Vl$taCA 92083 (726-2170) San Marcos Unified School District 2l5MHtuWjy San Marcos, CA 9206V (290-2649) Contact Nancy Dolce (Ry Appt Only) tnctnitas Union School District 101 South Rancho Santa 1 e Kd CA 92024 (944-4300 CM 166) Sun Dicguifo Union High School District ?10£ncmitasBlvd r ncioitasCA 92024 (753-0491) Certification of Appl/cant/Owners The person executing this declaration ("Owner") certifies under penalty of perjury that (1) the information provided above is correct and true to the best of the Owner's Knowledge, and that the Owner will file an amended codification of payment and pay tho additional fee if Owner requests an increase m the number of dwelling units or square footage after the building permtt is issueo^enrthe initial determination of units or square footage is found to be incorrect, and that (2) the Owner is the owner/developfefyot the above desertbed project(s) or that the person executing this declaration is authorized to sign on behalf of the r Signature Dale Jan 29 07 03:12p Pi flrc Design 858-454-2720 p.2 SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FEE CERTIFICATION (To be completed by the school districts)) »»••**»**•*•••»••***•#*****»*»#****«*** ******«*W«l «T»«rt********~»»»**»*»»»*********»*****»««*»*«««««» THIS FORM INDICATES THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE SATISFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT The undersigned, being duly authorized by the applicable School District, certifies that the developer, builder, or owner has satisfied the obligation for school facilities This is to certify that the applicant listed on page 1 has paid all amounts or completed other applicable school mitigation determined by the School District The City may issue building permits for this project SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIAL // T|TLE WALTER FREEMAN CARLSBAD UNIFIED SUiUOLDIMKIU NAME OF SCHOOL DISTRICT 6225 £L CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD, CA 92009 DATE PHONE NUMBER I I CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT \ \ JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY \ \ AVIARA OAKS ELEMENTARY I | CARLSBAOTlIGH SCHOOL \ \ MAGNOLIA ELEMENTARY \ \ AVIARA OAKS MIDDLE SCHOOL | | CARLSBAD VILLAGE ACADEMY \ \ CALAVERA HILLS SCHOOL \ \ PACIFIC RIM | | VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL \ \ KELLEY SCHOOL [ | CALAVERA HILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL | | BUENA VISTA SCHOOL + \ \ HOPE SCHOOL \ \ OTHER RECEIVED FROM (If Applicable) PARENT OF pi ^"J 0 PAYMENT FOR ACCOUNT NUMBER R6C6lpt NO O Q Q Q 1C. 3 J O J. AMOUNT 3. RECEIVED BY CASH CHECK #£i_Y TOTAL ^3Onr-O rn < c O nu z?§3H> H <° D D r~ 03 O TI ""^mo g 03xv» _J 1^1 iP o^o m O ISd O 03 NJ en ^ o :n O 03-•^ m TIoo O O NJ > O) Z " O) m O) oo 03