The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2649 OCEAN ST; ; CB030517; Permit09-07-2005 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Retaining Wall Permit Permit No CB030517 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address Permit Type Parcel No Valuation Reference # Project Title 2649 OCEAN ST CBAD RETAIN 2031401000 Lot# $11,655 00 Construction Type 0 NEW KIKO RES-500 SF SEAWALL.240 SF 240 SF RETAIN WALLS® PROPERTY LINE Status Applied Entered By Plan Approved Issued Plan Check# ISSUED 02/24/2003 RMA 09/07/2005 09/07/2005 Inspect Area Applicant WOLF DESIGN BUILD INC 1459LIETAST 92110 619275-0074 Owner KIKO FREDERICK J TRUST 06-30-98 3561 DONNA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Strong Motion Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $11509 $000 $7481 $000 $1 17 $000 $000 $000 $000 $191 07 Total Fees $191 07 Total Payments To Date $191 07 Balance Due $000 PLANSIN STORAGE ATTACHED Inspector FINALAPPROVAL Date Clearance NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the 'Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions" You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3 32 030 Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been oiven a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has oreviouslv otherwise expired PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave , Carlsbad, CA 92008 PROJECT INFORMATION;:'Of '. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK EST VAL Plan Ck Deposit Validated By. Date Address (include Bldg/Suite <|4 "A Subdivision Name/Number Business Name (at this address^-? 2 00,1 {. Legal Description Lot No Unit No Phase No"Total # of units"'":- Assessor s Parcel # Description of Work Existing Use SQ FT Proposed Use #of Stories _^ "2^Gftf # of Bedrooms # of Bathrooms .. =,.,sr StatsName 13 Z lAPPLICANT,:. Address ' City State/Zip fContractor.^ P;Agent fo'f Contractor|::::1F1 Owner-Tj^liAoerffiifor Owner ""'" ,?' fff'-.fs Telephone #Fax # Address Pfl-City State/Zip Telephone 9 Name Address City State/Zip Telephone - COWIpANYhNAME Js ^ (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]) t/OQuy5- Pg^'&Aj l3i?rtLjp> 3ZMC.. Iff^Q ^-P. ^/e\ ff/x/ffcx*? ^nt&anA Name State License # Address License Class City State/Zip City Business License tt I J<, Telephone # Address City State/Zip TelephoneDesigner Name State License #IF Workers' Compensation Declaration I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations |~| I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued O I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued My worker s compensation insurance carrier and policy number are Insurance Company Policy No ^ ^^^~ -^S) I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor Q I, as owner of the property or my employees (Sec 7044, Business and Professions Code such work himself or through his own employees, Expiration Date_ issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS O CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION I certify that in the performance of the work; to become subject to the Workers Compensation Laws of California WARNING Failure to secure workers compensation coverage is unlawful,^an^l^^BfBJe'ct an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred Bed for in Section 3706 of the Labor code interest and attorney s fees SIGNATURE . ^JtaTW^^" DATE 7JN OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION^:;. ; . he following reason i their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does fed that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale) 0 I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec 7044, Business and Professions Code The Contractor s License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law) n I am exempt under Section _ Business and Professions Code for this reason 1 I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement l~l YES I~|NO 2 I (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work 3 I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number) 4 I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number) __ _ __ _ __ _ 5 I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type of work) _ PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE BUILDJNG PERMITS ONLYrf ;• , " ~ Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? O YES Q NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district7 l~l YES l~1 NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? fj YES l~l NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec 3097(i) Civil Code) LENDER'S NAME _ LENDER S ADDRESS I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction I hereby authorize representatives of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT OSHA An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height EXPIRATION Every permit issued by the building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 d; at any time after the work is commenced fora APPLICANT S SIG of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned 106 4 4 Uniform Building Code) DATE PINK Finance Inspection List Permit* CB030517 Type RETAIN Date Inspection Item 09/01/2006 69 09/01/2006 69 05/03/2006 61 04/14/2006 61 04/14/2006 66 03/30/2006 65 03/29/2006 65 03/17/2006 65 03/09/2006 61 02/23/2006 92 01/19/2006 11 12/30/2005 65 12/22/2005 66 12/19/2005 65 12/16/2005 65 12/14/2005 66 12/09/2005 65 12/07/2005 61 12/01/2005 61 11/17/2005 61 11/16/2005 61 11/01/2005 61 09/20/2005 92 Final Masonry Final Masonry Footing Footing Grout Retaining Walls Retaining Walls Retaining Walls Footing Compliance Investigation Ftg/Foundation/Piers Retaining Walls Grout Retaining Walls Retaining Walls Grout Retaining Walls Footing Footing Footing Footing Footing Compliance Investigation Inspector Act PD - PD PD PD PC PD PD PD PD PD PD BN PD PK PD PD PD PD PD PD PD PD AP Rl PA we PA PA CA AP AP PI AP AP AP AP CA AP AP AP AP AP PA AP PI KIKO RES-500 SF SEAWALL.240 SF 240 SF RETAIN WALLS@PROPERTY LINE Comments FINAL can you fina? Progress inspection'? PLANTER CEILING S/N WALLS 1ST LIFT NORTH AND SOUTH WALLS BY WOLF FTG @ N SIDE SOUTH WALL FTGS STAIRS BETWEEN RADIUS WALLS NO CARD ON SITE RADIUS WALL OK 2ND LIFT GROUT 1ST LIFT RADIUS WALL FTG WALL OK TO POUR MET W/CONTRACTOR Tuesday September 05, 2006 Page 1 of 1 City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For 09/01/2006 Permit* CB030517 Title KIKO RES-500 SF SEAWALL.240 SF Description 240 SF RETAIN WALLS@PROPERTY LINE Inspector Assignment PD 2649 OCEAN ST Lot Type RETAIN Sub Type Job Address Suite Location APPLICANT WOLF DESIGN BUILD INC Owner KIKO FREDERICK J TRUST 06-30-98 Remarks can you fma9 Progress inspection' Phone 7606JQ22700 Inspect Total Time Requested By CHRISTINE Entered By CHRISTINE CD Description 69 Final Masonry ,ct „ Comment Comments/Notices/Hold Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# Date 05/03/2006 04/14/2006 04/14/2006 03/30/2006 03/29/2006 03/17/2006 03/09/2006 02/23/2006 01/19/2006 12/30/2005 12/22/2005 12/19/2005 12/16/2005 12/14/2005 12/09/2005 12/07/2005 12/01/2005 11/17/2005 11/16/2005 Inspection History Description 61 Footing 61 Footing 66 Grout 65 Retamm 65 Retaimn 65 Retamm 61 Footing 92 Compha 11 Ftg/Foui 65 Retamm 66 Grout 65 Retamm 65 Retamm 66 Grout 65 Retamm 61 Footing 61 Footing 61 Footing 61 Footing I Walls I Walls ) Walls ice Investigation dation/Piers ; Walls j Walls ) Walls ) Walls Act PA we PA PA CA AP AP PI AP AP AP AP CA AP AP AP AP AP PA Insp PD PD PD PC PD PD PD PD PD PD BN PD PK PD PD PD PD PD PD Comments PLANTER CEILING S/N WALLS 1ST LIFT NORTH AND SOUTH WALLS BY WOLF FTG @ N SIDE SOUTH WALL FTGS STAIRS BETWEEN RADIUS WALLS NO CARD ON SITE RADIUS WALL OK 2ND LIFT GROUT 1ST LIFT RADIUS WALL FTG WALL OK TO POUR Sep 07 05 10:42a LOVELHCE ENGINEERING (858) 535-1989 LOVELACE ENGINEERING Jo 3.f i (c ..p ..... SHEET NO .JU OF _j£ ____ Structural Engineering Services 6496 Weathers Place • Suite 200 San Diego California 92121 Phone 858 535 9111 Fax 858 5351989 CALCULATED BY _ CHECKED BY SCALE DATE. • • tfKlti. MKCTION t USE TTFE V CEMENT IN ALL CONCRETE CONCRETE STRENGTH fc. 40O0 PdlW>C RATIO OF 0 45 .M.L REKF 34R95UALL BE EROXT COATED •6 EPOXT COATED • 4 OC TOP Of MAUL WPBOX. IB flSLJ BE ENTRANT FEATURE • IfeS 0£ CONCFETE SEAWALL K/ -S UOR1I EPOXT COATED BARS* D OC rEACH 31DEJ •9 VERT EPOXT COATED R&F BARS «0 OC fEACU AIDE OF MALLJ TWC STONE VENEER SEAWALL DETAIL 5ANO BACKFILL DRAIN FABRIC W/ THOHOSEAL PER ASCU PRAINJ&E AND CLE/NOUT PER WAVE STUDT (SKH.LT EM&NEERINS TO LAYOUT AND APPROVE" 9 0 DEEP N ? -0 OF6RAVEL FILL COLLECTOR. 4 «PVC PERFORATEO PIP! WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC M THHJ MALL • 10 «• OC.. APPROX) •S EPOXT COATED OOMEL9 • 17 OC^EXTEND 36 INTO WALL •5 EPCXT COATED TIE* « OX: AS SHOWN SCALE '^ • I -0 sep u, L W%«-> ' *J~>*S LOVELACE ENGINEERING SHEET NO .OF. Structural Engineering Services 6496 Weathers Place • Suite 200 San Diego California 92121 Phone 858 535 9111 Fax 858 5351989 CALCULATED GY_ CHECKED 8V. . SCALE DATE. /«YtV' ^WWLM/X\,A^\<-TO*«r''K»>\ M** mFjjj SUMMARY OF SPECIAL INSPECTION ^^^^^^ 1 CONCRETE 2 BOLTS NSTALLEO N CONCRETE 3 CONCRETE MOMENT-RESISTING SPACE FRAME 4 REINFORCING STEEL AND PRESTRESSING STEEL 9.1 ALL STRUCTURAL WELDS*. 5 1 HELD TESTNS DUCTILE MOMENT RESISTING STEEL FRAME 33 WELDING REINFORCNS STEEL 6 HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING 1 STRUCTURAL MASONRY 6 REINFORCED GYPSUM CONCRETE 3 INSULATING CONCRETE FILL 10 SPRAY APPLIED FIREPHOOFING II DEEP FOUNDATIONS rPNLNG DRILLED I CAISSCN&J » SHOTCRETE NO 1 13 1 VERIFY SOIL CONDITIONS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY IN CGNFOR1ANCE HITH THE SOIL NveSTINGATION REPORT 13 ] VERIFY THAT FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS EXTEND TO PSOPER DEPTH AND BEARMG STRATA. O 3 PROVIDE SOIL COMPACTION TEST RESULTS DEPTH OF FILL. RELATIVE DENSITY BEARING VALUES 13 4 PROVIDE SOILD EXPANSION TEST RESULTS EXPANSION INDEX RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FOUNDATIONS ON-GRADE FLOOR SLAB DESIGN FOR EACH BUILDING SITE 14 SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEM & SPECIAL CASES (DESCRIBE' t> Off SITE FABRICATION FO BUILDING COMPONENTS n OTHER SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AS REQUIRED BY DESIGNER DESCRIPTION OF TYPE OF INSPECTION REQUIRED. LOCATION REHARKS. ETC STRUCTURAL CONCRETE AT SEAWALL A THE SPECIAL INSPECTIONS IE BY SECTION 108 OF THE BUIL SPECIAL INSPECTION IS NOT INSPECTOR. 8 CONTIfUOUS INSPECTIONS IS THE HORK UNLESS OTHEB-JS CATEGORY OF HORK ftEOUIS SMJLTANECUSLY OR THE GE canar BE CONTINUOUSLY c CBC SECTION nets IT is THE SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF INSPE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE DESIGN STRENGTH f'e = 4<Z>2>0 PSI 3ENTIFIED ARE IN ADDITION TO TMOSE REQUIRED C THE SPECIAL INSPECTORS MUST BE CERTIFIED BY THE GOVERNS JURISDICTION DING CODE AS AMENDED TO PERFORM THE TYPE OF INSPECTION SPECKED A SUBSTITUTE FOR INSPECTION BY A CITY EXCEPTIONS 1 SOILS INSPECTIONS BY THE SOILS ENGINEER Of RECORD ALWAYS REQUIRED DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF J SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEM BY THE MECHANICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD E SPECIFIED HHEN HOHK IN MORE THAN ONE 1 WHEN HAIVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL UNO SPECIAL INSPECTION IS TO BE PERFORMED O&RAPHIC LOCATION OF THE HOHK IS SUCH THAT IT D IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY Of THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR eSERVED IN ACCORDANC6 WIIW THE PROVISIONS OF OR INSPECTION AGENCY AT LEAST ONE WORKING DAY PRIOR TO PEBWRMNS ANY AGENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO EMPLOY A WORK THAT REQUIRES SPECIAL INSPECTION. CTOR6 TO ASSURE THAT ALL THE HORK IS INSPECTED E SPECIALLY INSPECTED HORK THAT IS INSTALLED OR COVERED WITHOUT THE PROVISIONS APPROVAL OF THE CITY INSPECTOR IS SUBJECT TO REMOVAL OR EXPOSURE A CERTIFICATE OF SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF HOWC REQUIRING SPECIAL INSPECTION MUST BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED TO THE INSPECTION SERVICE DEPARTMENT SITE MAP Proposed Kiko Residence 2649 Ocean Street Carlsbad, CA. Figure No. la Job No. 02-8201 8 oo 3]3zICO It SI 33 I -o Q CD 3 Q f en O ^ CD 3! I ! 3) 8 8s OTJ 9.5" 03 OCEAN STREET §S?,R°*HI 51H -i-U QJ *._3 !II?|SIHa «o 7«j 2 ^Si ^-,(0 2.?s!a^$§!r -n... >Hlit* 7551OtQ«c »3 3 !T1018 i a. 1.1 R- 3?g»cfOQ-°IS^>5-S°- T)^8°0 sf8^-» n 3 o ™• CLM xia 9; -O, Q- VE. -H « a3 < 8- I S- 8- 8- H. B?-° l»? oJ_b£ uI LAPPROXIMATE ELEVATION 0B 0(0(0 (0 3 0 i EsGil Corporation In Partnersfiip with government for (BuiCding Safety DATE O6/2O/O3 a APPttqANT JURISDICTION Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO 03-517 SET HI PROJECT ADDRESS 2649 Ocean Street PROJECT NAME Seawall, Shoring and Site walls for Kiko Residence XI The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck The check list transmitted herewith is for your information The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to Wolf Design 1459 Lieta Street San Diego, Ca 92110 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 Wolfram Kalber Telephone # (619) 275-0074 Date contacted (by ) Fax # Same Mail Telephone Fax In Person X REMARKS By ALI SADRE FOR (Ray Fuller) Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC LOG trnsmtldot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 4 (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 EsGil Corporation In Partnership with government for <Buif<fing Safety DATE O4/14/O3 a APPLICANT JURIS JURISDICTION Carlsbad a FILE PLAN CHECK NO 03-517 SET II PROJECT ADDRESS 2649 Ocean Street PROJECT NAME Seawall and Site walls for Kiko Residence | 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 XI The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to Wolf Design 1459 Lieta Street San Diego, Ca 92110 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 Wolfram Kalber Telephone # (619) 275-0074 Date contacted *J-/y-o$ (by &-?) Fax # Same Mail ,/ Telephone Fax ^ In Person REMARKS By Ray Fuller Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 04/07/03 trnsmtldot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 *• (858)560-1468 4 Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 03-517 O4/14/O3 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO 03-517 PROJECT ADDRESS 2649 Ocean Street SET II DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY DATE RECHECK COMPLETED ESGIL CORPORATION 04/07/03 04/14/03 REVIEWED BY Ray Fuller FOREWORD (PLEASE READ). This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments The following items listed need clarification, modification or change All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations Per Sec 106 4 3, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law A To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revised plans B The following items have not been resolved from the previous plan reviews The original correction number has been given for your reference In case you did not keep a copy of the prior correction list, we have enclosed those pages containing the outstanding corrections Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these items C Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans Have changes been made not resulting from this list? QYes QNo Carlsbad O3-517 O4/14/O3 The items listed below are from the previous list. These remaining items have not been adequately addressed. The remarks in bold are to emphasize the remaining problem. 1 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 92009, (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 2 No shoring calculations provided and shoring plans need to be stamped and signed by engineer of record. 4 When special inspection is required, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit Please review Section 106 3 5 Please complete the attached form The special inspection form must reference all applicable details. Special inspection form to note name of inspector and add soils compliance will require engineer to verify depth of holes for shoring (Can be completed prior to pulling permit) 5 The plans are noting shoring by others Shoring must be in conjunction with this permit Permit cannot be issued until shoring details and design approved If a part of this permits then need to provide this and have soils report address piles/cladding and special inspection noted placement of shoring/piles. Need to provide the calculations for shoring/cladding and stamp and sign plans and calculations to be provided. 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 Ray Fuller at Esgil Corporation Thank you EsGil Corporation In Partnership with government for <Buif<fing Safety DATE 03/O5/O3 D AEEUCANT JURISDICTION Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO 03-517 SET I PROJECT ADDRESS 2649 Ocean Street PROJECT NAME Seawall and Site walls for Kiko Residence I | 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 [Xj The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to Wolf Design 1459 Lieta Street San Diego, Ca 92110 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 Wolfram Kalber Telephone* (619)275-0074 Date contacted 3/^/0 3 (by /c_ ) Fax # Same Mail »—Telephone_--- Fax «-^ In Person REMARKS By Ray Fuller Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 02/25/03 tmsmtldot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diego, California 92123 * (858)560-1468 * Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 03-517 03/05/03 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES PLAN CHECK NO O3-517 JURISDICTION Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS 2649 Ocean Street FLOOR AREA Sea wall 500 Site wall 240 REMARKS DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION 02/24/03 DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED O3/05/03 STORIES HEIGHT DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION 02/25/03 PLAN REVIEWER Ray Fuller 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 1999 NEC (all effective 11/1/02) 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 03-517 03/05/03 • PLANS 1 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 92009, (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 Final sets of plans and any new calculations to be stamped and signed by engineer and /or architect of record also 2 On the cover sheet of the plans, specify any items requiring special inspection, in a format similar to that shown below Section 106 3 2 • REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS In addition to the regular inspections, the following checked items will also require Special Inspection in accordance with Sec 1701 of the Uniform Building Code ITEM REMARKS • SOILS COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION Per Soils report • STRUCTURAL CONCRETE 4000 psi Type V OVER 2500 PSI • STRUCTURAL MASONRY Per calculations • PILES/CAISSONS Shoring 3 When special inspection is required, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit Please review Section 106 3 5 Please complete the attached form The special inspection form must reference all applicable details 4 Masonry walls to note where special inspection required Appears 2/S2 to be special inspected'? Carlsbad O3-517 O3/O5/O3 5 Specify the W/C ratio for 4000 psi Type 5 concrete Are other walls, footings slab to be 2500 psi? 6 Provide details for retaining wall shown on 4/S2 Plans to reflect max length of concrete beam shown, earthquake bends and jamb bar details at either end of lintel Specify psi of concrete at these locations and depending on span of lintel - calculations may be required 7 The plans are noting shoring by others Shoring must be in conjunction with this permit Permit cannot be issued until shoring details and design approved If a part of this permits then need to provide this and have soils report address piles/cladding and special inspection noted placement of shoring/piles 8 Details provided for example on S-2 and S-3 need to clearly reflect location of property lines and adjacent structures Shoring / site retaining walls to address all surcharges from adjacent structures and existing and proposed structures on this lot i e pool/spa etc 9 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). • 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 • Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located in the plans • Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate Yes Q No Q • 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 Ray Fuller at Esgil Corporation Thank you City of Carlsbad P u b I i c Wo rks — En gin e e r i n g BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALL BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER BUILDING ADDRESS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Retaining Wall ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 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 msure/SbyitinjBed conformance with applicable codes Pleaae review caWully all comments attached, as failufa to comply/with Instructions in this report can resuiyfn sYsBansioniof paranV to build By Date DENIAL Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked with D 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 By By By Date Date Date ATTACHMENTS Right-of-Way Permit Application ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON NAME C ADDRESS 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 PHONE (760) H \DevelopmentServices\MASTERS\FORMS \CHECKLISTS \BUILDINGPLANCHECKCKLISTFORM RETAINING WALLS doc 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-272O • FAX (760) 602-8562 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALLS .]STV Q 2 Q 3' Q 1 Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale Show A North Arrow B Existing & Proposed Structures (dimensioned from street) C Property Lines D Easements E Retaining Wall (location and height) Q 2 Show on site plan J A Drainage Patterns B Existing & Proposed Slopes C Existing Topography a 3 Include on title sheet A Site Address B Assessor'sParcel Number C Le,gahDe"scnption D Grading Quantities (Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required) a J 4 Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No a Conditions were complied with by Date MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 5 A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way A separate Right-of-Way issued by the Engineering Department is required for the following X?A/V M)AJ£. g& STA&M&> cjj/r^/fJ 7s/e~ Please obtain an application for Right-of-Way permit from the Engineering Department Pagel H \Development Services\MASTERS\FORMS \CHECKLISTS \BUILDING PLANCHECK CKLIST FORM RETAINING WALLS doc PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check No CB O *g>, <T II Planner _ Saima Qureshy _ Address Phone (760) 602-4619. APN 2^0 3- Type of Project & Use Zoning r^-~ ^ General Plan CFD (in/out) #_Date of participation Net Project Density i_DU/AC Facilities Management Zone Remaining net dev acres i_ Circle One (For non-residential development Type of land used created by this permit ) Legend Item Complete Environmental Review Required DATE OF COMPLETION 1- Item Incomplete - Needs your action YES \/ NO TYPE Compliance with conditions of approval' If not, state conditions which require action Conditions of Approval Discretionary Action Required APPROVAL/RESO NO PROJECT NO YES TYPE DATE / OTHER RELATED CASES </v\ Compliance with conditions or approval7 If not, state conditions which require action Conditions of Approval 6 i I ^ , \^ . Cr>a»J>>f>J Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance Project site located in Coastal Zone7 YES_^_ NO CA Coastal Commission Authority7 YES NO If California Coastal Commission Authority Contact them at - 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego CA 92108-4402, (61 9) 767-2370 Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt) Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed7 If NO, complete Coastal Permit Determination For;; Coastal Permit Determination Log # Follow-Up Actions 1) Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum Floor Piansj 2) Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed \ YES Inclusionary Housing Fee required YES NO (Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21, 1993 Data Entry Completed7 YES NO (A/P/Ds, Activity Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, Housing Fees, Construct Housing Y/N, Enter Fee, UPDATE') H \ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPlnchkRevChklst Rev 9/01 n a n Site Plan 1 Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale Show North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right- of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines (including all side and rear yard slopes) 2 Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number Policy 44 - Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines n n n n n n n n 1 Applicability YES ^ 2 Project complies YES_ Zoning 1 Setbacks Front Interior Side Street- Side Rear Top of slope 2 Accessory structure s Front Interior Side Street Side Rear Structure separation NO \X" NO Required Required -Required . Required Required ;etbacks Required Required Required Required Required "2-O Shown f ' Shown —Shown Shown Shown Shown \\ ~ Shown vj\ p Shown V \ H Shown Shown <•' (^1 n n E'D n earn n 3 Lot Coverage 4 Height 5 Parking Required Required Spaces Required Shown Shown Shown 30 (breakdown by uses for commercial and industrial projects required) Residential Guest Spaces Required _ \ _ Shown _ 1 _ Additional Comments K]~~ ^^vv^ rxJp V? KA \t oA\ i OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER DATE H \ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPlnchkRevChklst Rev 9/01 STAT£;if JF.CALIJ-ORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 August 15,2005 DonNeu "'" - """ Planning Director City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 RE: City of Carlsbad CDP 02-28 (California Coastal Commission Appeal A-6-CII-03-026) Dear Mr Neu Pursuant to the peremptory writ of administrative mandamus issued in the action Kiko v California Coastal Commission, County of San Diego Supenor Court, Case No GIC 827057, the Coastal Commission hereby notifies the City of Carlsbad that the stay imposed by Public Resources Code section 30623 on the City's approval of CDP 02-28 is lifted The City action on CDP 02-28 is now final If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call our counsel, Christopher Pederson, at (415) 904-5220 Thank you Sun 'PETER DOUGLAS Executive Director cc Ray Patchett, City Manager Ron Ball, City Attorney Tim Paone, Attorney for Frederick Kiko Jamee Jordan Patterson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Deborah Lee, California Coastal Commission City of Carlsbad Planning Department PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION February 10, 2003 Wolf Design Build 1459 Lieta Street San Diego, C A 92110 SUBJECT: CDP 02-28/SUP 02-01/V 02-05 - KIKO RESIDENCE At the Planning Commission meeting of February 5, 2003, your application was considered The Commission voted 6-0 to APPROVE your request The decision of the Planning Commission became final on February 5, 2003 The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094 6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code 116 Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date which this decision becomes final, however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the Planning Director, Michael J Holzmiller, Secretary of the Planning Commission, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at (760) 602-4600 Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH SQ mh Enclosed Planning Commission Resolutions No 5357, 5358, 5359 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • wwwci carlsbad ca us 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5357 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 02-28 TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 2649 OCEAN STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 CASE NAME KIKO RESIDENCE CASE NO CDP 02-28 WHEREAS, Frederick Kiko, "DeveloperV'Owner," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property, described as Lots 13 and 14 in Block "A" of Hayes Land Company addition to Carlsbad Map No. 2, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 1221, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 4, 1909, including that portion if any lying between the above described property and the line of ordinary high tide of the waters of the pacific Ocean and excepting that portion, if any, of said lots lying below the line of the ordinary high tide of the waters of the Pacific Ocean ("the Property"), and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal Development Permit as shown on Exhibits "A - J" dated February 5, 2003, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, KIKO RESIDENCE - CDP 02-28, as provided by Chapter 21 201 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of February, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the CDP NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows 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 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES K1KO RESIDENCE - CDP 02-28. based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions Findings: That the proposed development is in conformance with the Mello II segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies in that the development is a single-family residence on a previously developed lot; no agricultural activities, sensitive resources, geological instability, flood hazard or coastal access opportunities exist on the site and the development does not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or public right-of-way or otherwise damage the visual beauty of the Coastal Zone The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21 203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City's Master Drainage Plan, Storm Water Ordinance and Grading Ordinance to avoid increased runoff and soil erosion. The site is not located in an area prone to landslides or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction. The existing slopes do not support any endangered plant/animal species and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities. The development ot steep slopes is permitted in that: A A geotechmcal analysis of the site was prepared The analysis concluded subject 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 stability of the coastal slope B Grading of the slope is essential to the development of the site since the steep slopes are located in the middle of the property 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 presently developed with a residential structure D Review of the site has concluded that that site contains no habitat or wildlife and that no environmental impacts will result from the project E The project site is not predominated by steep slopes and the site does not serve as a wildlife corridor The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that adequate vertical public access exists within 400 feet of the property and the subject property was not identified as a potential lot for future additional public access to the shoreline in the Local Coastal Program PCRESONO 5357 -2- 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 The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (Chapter 21 204 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that vertical access exists within 400' of the project. The site is not now, and has not historically been used for vertical access. No vertical access is warranted for this development based upon the ordinance criteria. A geotechnical analysis of the project site was prepared. The analysis concluded that the proposed development will have no adverse effects on the stability of the coastal slope. The proposed residential structure has been designed with attractive architectural features which will be compatible with the surrounding development and natural environment. The proposed grading is needed for the development of the site. The project adheres to all coastal "stnngline" setback requirements for the placement of structures, decks, balconies and the sea wall. 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 environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15303 (single-family residence in an urbanized area) and 15332 (infill development) 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 The project is consistent with the City-Wide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 and all City public facility policies and ordinances The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding sewer collection and treatment, water, drainage, circulation, fire, schools, parks and other recreational facilities, libraries, government administrative facilities, and open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need Specifically, A The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities B The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No 17 and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit The project is not located in the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone, according to Map X 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 Ordinance) 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 the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project PCRESONO 5357 -3- Conditions: 2 Note Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a 3 grading permit. 4 1 If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be r 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 6 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 7 issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of 9 this Coastal Development Permit. 10 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 in conformity with the final action on the project 12 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval 13 3 The Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws 14 and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance 4 If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment 16 of any fees m-heu 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 17 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 19 5 The Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and 20 hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims 21 and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City ansing, directly 99 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 non- 23 discretionary, m connection with the use contemplated herein This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval 24 is not validated 25 6 The Developer shall submit to the Planning Department a reproducible 24" x 36," 25 mylar copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body 27 28 PCRESONO 5357 -4- ~" This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required 2 as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits 3 This approval is granted subject to the approval of SUP 02-01 and V 02-05 and is subject to all conditions contained in Resolutions No 5358 and 5359 for those other approvals This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this 6 project within 18 months from the date of project approval 7 10 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Director from the Carlsbad Unified obligation to provide school facilities Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied itso 9 11 Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing 10 water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy 13 12 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit developer shall submit to the City a Notice of Restriction 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 a Coastal Development Permit by Resolution No. 5357 on the property Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of 16 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 17 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 19 13 If a grading permit is required, all grading activities shall be planned in units that can be 20 completed by October 1st Grading activities shall be limited to the "dry season," April 1st to October 1st of each year Grading activities may be extended to November 15th or beyond upon written approval of the City Engineer and only if all erosion control measures are in place by October 1st 23 14 The applicant shall dedicate any land seaward of the proposed sea wall to the California Coastal Commission or their designee as agreed to with the California 24 Coastal Commission. 25 _ .Engineering: 26 Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the approval of 27 this proposed coastal development permit, must be met prior to approval of a grading permit or building permit whichever occurs first 28 PCRESONO 5357 -5- 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 Grading 22 Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the Site Development Plan, a giadmg permit for this project is required Developer shall apply for and obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project General 15 Prior to issuance of any building permit, Developer shall comply with the requirements of the City's anti-graffiti program for wall treatments if and when such a program is i formally established by the City 16 Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, a reproducible 24" x 36," mylar copy of the site plan and coastal Development plan and a digital copy of said map using NAD 83' reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body (INCLUDING ANY APPLICABLE COASTAL COMMISSION APPROVALS) 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, improvement or grading plans, whichever occurs first The digital file copy shall be submitted in a format as approved by the City Engineer. Fees/Agreements 17 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project the developer shall adjust (merge) the existing (two) 2 lots into one (1). An Adjustment Plat and certificate of compliance shall be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 18 The developer shall pay all current fees and deposits required 19 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 from this project. 20 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 21 The owner shall make an offer of dedication to the City for all public streets and easements required by these conditions or shown on the Site Development Plan The offer shall be made by a separate document and recorded by the City of Carlsbad All land so offered shall be granted to the City free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the City Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated 23 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 PCRESONO 5357 -6- 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 with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1516 (the Grading Ordinance) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 24 Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from this project, the developer shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route The developer shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation 25 No grading for private improvements shall occur outside the limits of the project unless a grading or slope easement or agreement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties 26 Developer shall execute and record a City standard Development Improvement Agreement to install and secure with appropriate security as provided by law, public improvements shown on the site development plan and the following improvements including, but not limited to (paving, base, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, grading, clearing and grubbing, undergrounding or relocation of utilities, sewer, and water), to City Standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 27 Developer shall underground all utilities to serve the proposed development Code Reminders: 28 Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5 09030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5 09 040 Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1 pursuant to Chapter 21 90 All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void 29 Approval of this request shall not excuse compliance with all applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances, except as otherwise specifically provided herein 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 PCRESONO 5357 -7- 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 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 5th day of February, 2003 by the following vote, to wit AYES Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dommguez, Hememan, Segall, White, and Whirton NOES None ABSENT None ABSTAIN None JULIE BAKER, Chairperson CARtSBATJ PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST MICHAEL J Planning Director PCRESONO 5357 -8- 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5358 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 2649 OCEAN STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 CASE NAME KIKO RESIDENCE CASE NO SUP 02-01 WHEREAS, Frederick Kiko, "Developer'V'Owner," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lots 13 and 14 in Block "A" of Hayes Land Company addition to Carlsbad Map No. 2, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 1221, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 4, 1909, including that portion if any lying between the above described property and the line of ordinary high tide of the waters of the pacific Ocean and excepting that portion, if any, of said lots lying below the line of the ordinary high tide of the waters of the Pacific Ocean ("the Property"), and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Special Use Permit as shown on Exhibits "A - J" dated February 5, 2003, on file in the Carlsbad —Planning Department, KIKO RESIDENCE - SUP 02-01 provided by Chapter 21 110 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of February, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Special Use Permit SUP 02-01 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows 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 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission APPROVES KIKO RESIDENCE - SUP 02-01 based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions Findings: 1 The site is reasonably safe from flooding 2 The project as designed and conditioned minimizes the flood hazard to the habitable portions of the structure 3 The proposed project does not create a hazard for adjacent or upstream properties or structures 4 The proposed project does not create any additional hazard or cause adverse impacts to downstream properties or structures 5 The proposed project does not reduce the ability of the site to pass or handle a base flood of 100-year frequency 6 The proposed project taken together with all the other known, proposed and anticipated projects will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point 7 All other required state and federal permits have been obtained Conditions: 1 Approval is granted for SUP 02-01, as shown on Exhibits "A - J," dated February 5, 2003, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions 2 This approval is granted subject to the approval of CDP 02-28 and V 02-05 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No 5357 and 5359 for those other approvals incorporated by reference herein. 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 PCRESONO 5358 -2- 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 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 5th day of February, 2003, by the following vote, to wit AYES NOES Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dommguez, Hememan, Segall, White, and Whitton None ABSENT None ABSTAIN None JULIE BATER, Chairperson CARLSBAb PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST MICHAEL J HOEZMILfeER Planning Director PCRESONO 5358 -3- 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 PLAIVNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5359 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A ZERO FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 2649 OCEAN STREET IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 CASE NAME KIKO RESIDENCE CASE NO V 02-05 WHEREAS, Frederick Kiko, "Developer'V'Owner," has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lots 13 and 14 in Block "A" of Hayes Land Company addition to Carlsbad Map No. 2, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 1221, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 4, 1909, including that portion if any lying between the above described property and the line of ordinary high tide of the waters of the pacific Ocean and excepting that portion, if any, of said lots lying below the line of the ordinary high tide of the waters of the Pacific Ocean ("the Property"), and WHEREAS, said application constitutes a request to allow a zero foot front yard setback,and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Variance as shown on Exhibits "A - J" dated February 5, 2003, on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department, KIKO RESIDENCE - V 02-05 provided by Chapter 21 50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 5th day of February, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Variance 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows A) That the above recitations are true and correct B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission APPROVES KIKO RESIDENCE - V 02-05" based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions Findings: 1 That special circumstances apply to the subject property in that constraints on the lot include a coastal string-line setback, sloping topography and availability of only approximately 50' of developable flat pad, west of the 20' front yard setback. This limits the ability to design a two-story structure with garage similar in size to those presently located on the west side of Ocean Street, such that the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives said property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification 2 That the variance is subject to conditions which will assure that the adjustment(s) thereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated in that the majority of lots on the west 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 the applicant from achieving similar lot coverage and square footage enjoyed by other properties located on the west of Ocean Street. Conditions: 1 Approval is granted for V 02-05, as shown on Exhibits "A - J," dated February 5, 2003, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions 2 This approval is granted subject to the approval of CDP 02-28 and SUP 02-01 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No 5357 and 5358 for those other approvals, incorporated by reference herein. 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 PCRESONO 5359 -9. 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 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 5th day of February, 2003, by the following vote, to wit AYES NOES ABSENT Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dommguez, Hememan, Segall, White, and Whitton None None ABSTAIN None JULIEBAKER, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST MICHAEL J HCTLZMILLER Planning Director PCRESONO 5359 -3- Carlsbad Fire Department 030517 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review Requirements Category: Date of Report 33Q3 Fire Prevention (760) 602-4660 Building Plan Reviewed by Name Address City, State Wolf Design Build 1459 Lieta St San Diego CA 92110 Plan Checker / Job Name Kiko Residence Job Address 2649 ocean st Job# 030517 Bldg# CB030517 Ste orBldg No Approved 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 and standards Please review carefully all comments attached as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to construct or install improvements Approved The item you have submitted for review has been approved subject to the Subject to attached conditions The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to construct or install improvements Please resubmit to this office the necessary plans and / or specifications required to indicate compliance with applicable codes and standards Incomplete The item you have submitted for review is incomplete At this time, this office cannot adequately conduct a review to determine compliance with the applicable codes and / or standards Please review carefully all comments attached Please resubmit the necessary plans and / or specifications to this office for review and approval Review FDJob# 1st 2nd 3rd 030517 FDFile# Other Agenr.y ID 1 [Carlsbad Fire Department 030517 1635 Faraday Ave ' Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Review Date of Report 3303 Fire Prevention (760) 602-4660 Reviewed by Name Address Wolf Design Build 1459LietaSt City, State San Diego CA 92110 Plan Checker Job Name Klk° Residence 030517 Job Address 2649 Ocean St Ste orBldg No FIRE - This entry is made for the purpose of permanent record Although these plans have undergone substantial code review and analysis, these plans as submitted comply with all codes The intended use of the basement/storage area as submitted is appropriate However, any use of this area for purposes other than storage are in contradiction of the intended use statement and my be cause for further review and or revocation of Certificate of Occupancy It should be further noted that for the purposes of insurance updates and/or renewals, that CFD may be contacted, this contact may initiate an inspection by the Fire Department and if conditions exist other than those approved, further enforcement actions may be initiated as appropriate GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 27 November 2002 Frederick and Jessica Kiko Job No. 02-8201 3561 Donna Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject Response to City Review Proposed Kiko Residence 2649 Ocean Street Carlsbad, California CDP 02-28/AC 02-02/SUP 02-01 Dear Mr and Mrs Kiko1 In accordance with your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. responds to comments in a review letter by the City of Carlsbad, dated October 10, 2002 We have responded to Items 3, 4 and 5 by the Engineering Department Item #3 Drainage Issues Side yard areas with less than 10 feet from building to property line, shall be provided with surface dram inlets or covered with concrete and sloped to the street as shown on the project plans Temporary Slopes. Stability of temporary slopes on this site will not be an issue The north and south property lines will have shoring installed Item #4 Wave run-up and coastal hazard issues were addressed in a letter by Skelly Engineering, dated October 22, 2002 Item #5 The geotechnical report addresses soil bearing and foundation design issues for the proposed sea wall Details regarding wall construction adjacent to existing walls or rip-rap will be addressed by the sea wall engineer and shown on the foundation plans. 7420 TRADE STREET • SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX (858) 549-1604 • E-MAIL geotech@ixpres com -Proposed Kiko Residence Carlsbad, California Job No 02-8201 Page 2 This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 02-8201 will help to expedite a response to your inquiries Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Jay K. Heiser, Senior Project Geologist • '?-• "I- Jairrrerx CtrrFosrf^E / R C E. 34422/G E 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer JKH/JAC/pj SKELLY ENGINEERING October 29, 2002 Wolf Kalber Wolf Design Build 1459 Lieta Street San Diego, CA 92110 SUBJECT Response to City of Carlsbad Review Comments, Issue of Concern Engineering, Items 4 & 5, Kiko Residence, CDP 02-28/AV02-02/SUP 02-01 REFERENCE "Wave Runup & Coastal Hazard Study" May 2002, prepared by Skelly Engineering Dear Mr Kalber At your request we are pleased to respond to items 4 and 5 of the subject review For ease of review the City of Carlsbad review comment is provided in italics followed by our response 4 The Wave Runup and Coastal Hazard Study addressed the existing condition and briefly identified adjacent properties This study needs to address the proposed sea wall and specifically the adjacent structures and the effects of Wa ve and Hydrostatic pressures Erosion and damage from wave action needs to be identified A wave runup analysis was performed for the proposed wall using the methods detailed in the Wave Runup & Coastal Hazard Study prepared by this office The top of the wall was chosen to be +18' MSL and the maximum scour elevation at the base of the wall is -1 0' MSL These are design conditions similar to the adjacent seawall to the south Table 1 below provides the output from the runup and overtopping analysis The calculated overtopping rate is about 4 2 ft3/sec-ft of wall Once the wave runup water comes over the top of the wall it does not have enough energy to runup to higher elevations This water is manageable with a typical wall drainage system The amount overtopping water can be reduced significantly with a reentrant feature at about elevation +165 MSL on the face of the wall The proposed design has such a feature 619 S. VULCAN AVE, #214B, ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PHONE 760 942-8379 fax 942-3686 SKELLY ENGINEERING TABLE 1 The effect of hydrostatic pressure is the same as for a simple retaining wall The wall have drains which will reduce the effect of hydrostatic pressure The final design of the wall will account for all possible forces on the wall Wave force information for the proposed seawall is provided herein The information is being provided in addition to the Wave Uprush& Coastal Hazard Study prepared by the office in May 2002 I would like to first point out that the design wave input parameters for the wave runup study is slightly different than the parameters used when calculating wave forces The wave runup is calculated using the maximum unbroken wave height with the longest period at the toe of the structure which gives the maximum wave runup However, the possible maximum wave forces on the structure will be from the maximum wave at the toe with a shorter period In addition, due to the geometry and nature of the littoral material fronting the site, it is likely that the wall will be subject to forces from a broken wave In an effort to be thorough I will first calculate the maximum wave force for an unbroken wave and then for the broken wave case Using these calculated forces I will discuss the design forces on the proposed wall 619 S. VULCAN AVE, #214B, ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PHONE 760 942-8379 fax 942-3686 SKELLY ENGINEERING UNBROKEN WAVE FORCE The unbroken wave force on the bulkhead is calculated using Figure 7-101 of the US Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Manual. 1 984 edition The water depth is 5 2 feet at the base of the wall and about 7 feet at the base of the cobbles fronting the wall The design period will be 6 seconds (the shorter the period the higher the wave force) Therefore, ds/D = 5 2/7= 0 74 & ds/gT2=0 0045 From Figure 7-101 pm /wHb = 90 & = 90 So pm= maximum pressure = (9 0)(62 4)(4)=2,246 Ib/ft2 & Rm=force=(3)(62 4)(4)(4) =2,995 Ib/ft of wall These calculations use the Minikin Method which tends to over estimate wave forces BROKEN WAVE FORCES The broken wave force on the seawall is calculated using the methods outlined on pages 7-1 92 to 7-1 98 of the US Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Manual 1 984 edition The dynamic component of the wave force is wdbhJ2 = (62 4)(5 2)(3 2)/2 = 519 Ib/ft The hydrostatic component is w(ds + hc) = 62 4(8 2)= 499 Ib/ft So the total force for the broken wave is about 1 ,000 Ib/ft DISCUSSION Because cobbles are at the base of the wall, it will not scour down significantly even during large wave events Therefore, the design wave force used will be for the broken wave with a force of about 1 ,000 Ib/ft of wall It is very important to point out that the wave forces occur over a very short period of time and much of the force is withstood by the concrete that the seawall is made from The earth forces and hydrostatic forces from the soil and water behind the wall also counter the wave forces from the ocean side of the wall The final design for the wall will account for both the wave forces and the earth/water forces on the bulkhead The wall will have minimal impact on the coastal process Recent scientific papers have shown that in most cases seawalls do not cause erosion I refer the reviewer to Wiegle, R , January 2002, "Seawalls, Seacliffs, Beachrock What Beach Effects'? Part I, 619 S. VULCAN AVE, #2148, ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PHONE 760 942-8379 fax 942-3686 SKELLY ENGINEERING Part 2, & Part 3", Shore & Beach, Vol 70, Nos 1, 2, & 3 The seawall on the property to the south has had no measurable impact on coastal processes and has been in place for a few years The Carlsbad Blvd seawall has been in place for a few decades and not had any adverse impact on coastal processes The proposed wall will be essentially identical to this wall The certification on page 6 leaves the City in no position to approve or support the project The certification on page 6 is actually an industry standard and typical of an engineering report I suggest the reviewer look at other studies performed by licensed individuals (geotechnical, engineering, coastal engineering, etc ) and he will see similar statements 5 The existing material and dimensions of adjacent walls or rip rap need to be shown It is unclear how the project proposes to retain, tie into, or construct retaining walls on top of or immediately adjacent to existing retaining walls This element should be specifically identified in the Soils and Geology Report as well as the Wave Runup & Coastal Hazard Study The plans have been modified to show the adjacent structures The proposed wall will be placed immediately next to the adjacent seawall to the south but not physically connected to it The proposed wall will have a return back down the property line to the north if it is to abut next to a revetment It is our understanding that the neighbor to the north would like to construct a seawall During construction of the wall any adjacent wall or structure will be protected from failure by shoring if necessary These notes will be placed on the construction documents for the proposed wall If you have any questions or require additional information please contact me at the number below Sincerely, David Skelly RCE#47857 619 S. VULCAN A VE, #2148, ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PHONE 760 942-8379 fax 942-3686 SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W SKELLY COASTAL ENGINEER July 24, 2002 Mr Frederick Kiko C/0 Wolf Design Build 1459 Lieta Street San Diego, CA 92110 SUBJECT: Comments on City of Carlsbad Coastal High Hazard Special Use Permit Procedures With Regards to 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad. REFERENCE: "Wave Action and Coastal Hazard Study 2649 Ocean Street Carlsbad, CA," May 2002, prepared by Skelly Engineering. Dear Mr Kiko At your request, we are pleased to present the following comments and additional coastal processes information to facilitate the processing of a special use permit for a seawall by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department The "Wave Action and the Coastal Hazards Study" prepared by this office provides much of the required information However for ease of review we will note the item number in the City of Carlsbad Development Processing Procedure/Discretionary Review, Section 3 Special Use Permit document in italics first followed by our comment 2 A Results of wave analysis of height, force and direction from statistical storms for the section of coast that contains the project site, including 1 The wave height, the runup height and the effect that swell would have on the wave runup height 2 The depth of the wave scour The referenced study provides the design wave, maximum scour and maximum wave runup for the site The analysis uses the maximum still water level and wave scour to determine the maximum water depth at the toe of the site (or structure) This water depth is used to compute the breaking maximum wave height at the toe This wave will provide the maximum runup The statistical storms will report much higher wave heights but these wave break offshore and do not impact the site as much as the breaking wave at the toe of the site (or structure) The maximum wave height is 6 feet, the maximum scour depth is -1 0' MSL and the maximum wave runup on the existing slope is about +17 5' MSL Wave runup on a shore protection structure will be approximately up to +17' MSL 619 S. VULCAN AVE, #2148 ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PHONE 760 942-8379 fax 942-3686 SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W SKELLY COASTAL ENGINEER The wave forces on a revetment are countered by the size of the stone The broken wave force on a seawall is calculated using the methods outlined on pages 7-192 to 7-198 of the US Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Manual 1984 edition The dynamic component of the wave force is wdbh,/2 = (62 4)(5 2)(3 2)/2 =519 Ib/ft The hydrostatic component is w(ds + hc) = 62 4(8 2)= 499 Ib/ft So the total force for the broken wave is about 1,000 Ib/ft Because the largest waves will break before they reach the wall, the design wave force used will be for the broken wave with a force of about 1,000 Ib/ft of wall This force is primarily absorbed by the earth/fill behind the wall It is very important to point out that the wave forces occur over a very short period of time (less than a second) and much of the force is absorbed/reflected by the concrete that the seawall is made from The force does not have enough time to fully develop and fully transfer throughout structure In addition, the earth forces and hydrostatic force from the soil and water behind the wall counter the wave forces on the ocean side of the wall 2 B Analysis of water level elevations 1 At the statistical highest and lowest tides 2 Identify the highest high water elevation 3 Identify the lowest water elevation The following table is from the NOAA website for tidal datums and elevations for the La Jolla Scnpps Pier This is valid for the Carlsbad shoreline HIGHEST OBSERVED WATER LEVEL (08/08/1983) = 781 MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER (MHHW) = 5 37 MEAN HIGH WATER (MHW) = 4 62 MEAN TIDE LEVEL (MTL) = 2 77 * NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM-1929 (NGVD) = 2 56 MEAN LOW WATER (MLW) = 0 93 MEAN LOWER LOW WATER (MLLW) = 0 00 LOWEST OBSERVED WATER LEVEL (12/17/1933) = -2 60 Relative to mean sea level MSL=NGVD29 and based upon the available data, the highest observed water level is +5 25' MSL( 7 81' MLLW) It is this elevation that was corrected for an additional sea level rise of 0 75' to give the design water level of +6' MSL in the study The lowest observed water level is -5 21' MSL However, the maximum scour depth is not determined by the lowest water but rather by the materials that make up the beach There is a significant cobble layer beneath the existing beach sand Once the sand is eroded and transported offshore the cobble layer is exposed The cobble layer is 619 S. VULCAN AVE, #2148 ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PHONE 760 942-8379 fax942-3686 TI SKELLY ENGINEERING DAVID W SKELLY COASTAL ENGINEER very resistant to wave transport and remains intact even under extreme wave conditions Based upon direct observation of nearby beaches during the 1982-83 El Nino winter the maximum observed scour was about -1 0' MSL 3 C All structural elements in contact with the sea especially sea walls and other sea protection such as rip rap and groins should be analyzed for wave energy reflection and concentration Adjacent properties should have no impacts from energy reflection or increased erosion caused by the project There is rip rap protection on the property of the north of the site and a vertical concrete seawall on the property to the south of the site The proposed shore protection will tie into the structures at both sides Wave reflection will only occur when the waves reach the wall whcih may only be less than 20 day a year No impacts due to wave reflection and erosion are anticipated 3 B Superimpose the wave height and the wave runup upon the highest water for a moderate storm of 50 year frequency to obtain a base flood elevation Due to the geometry of the sight the base flood elevation due to wave runup will be at about +17 5' MSL Maximum still water will be at about +6' MSL with a breaking wave crest elevation at about +11' MSL 3 F Sea walls have to be designed to resist scour at their footing They shall have or be founded in bedrock having the lowest erosion potential The proposed shore protection will be founded a minimum of two feet below the maximum scour or into competent bedrock material 3 G Rip-rap and other sea protection structures effect of wave scour shall be analyzed The applicant is proposing a concrete vertical seawall Statements to support findings for approval of a SUP high coastal hazard project The hazards associated with the project are mitigated by the proposed seawall and proposed development The hazards do not create a hazard for the seawall or the proposed structure The proposed seawall and development does not create a hazard for the adjacent properties or structures and will not adversely impact the adjacent properties or structures 679 S. VULCAN AVE, #2148 ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PHONE 760 942-8379 fax942-3686 WAVE ACTION STUDY PAGE 1 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad May 24, 2002 Mr Frederick Kiko C/O Wolf Design Build 1459 Lieta Street San Diego, CA92110 SUBJECT: Wave Action & Coastal Hazard Study 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad. Dear Mr Kiko At your request, we are pleased to present the following letter report concerning wave action and the vulnerability to coastal hazards at the subject property INTRODUCTION The subject site, located at 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California, lies on top of a wave cut sea cliff which backs a low sand and cobble beach The lot is about 50 feet in width along the ocean parallel property line The seaward portion of the property is protected from minor wave attack by "pickle weed" vegetation with a low height timber bulkhead beneath it (see Photographs 1 & 4) The properties to the south are protected by a series of seawalls (see Photograph 2) The properties to the north are protected by a continuous quarry stone revetment The site have been subject to wave attack in the past, primarily during the 1982-83 El Nino (see Photograph 3) TV^-sW^j. "^^^*<*-.>-rrT Photograph 1 Subject site as seen from the beach April 1, 2002 SKELLY ENGINEERING (760) 942-8379 WAVE ACTION STUDY 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad PAGE 2 ^^r^^^:^:^^^^^\^^-^l^^ :»•" -^v"'.'-1-.-*/•-. :*l*-':-;v:f"*'?4£. *-sA-ii%fipV;C^v;V*-'-<'^1'- ^.'(?*i~" •-f*'"'*-. ' ,•'"'.', '/"*-,* ; ^ '*"";?'•* ^ '"^ , •- Photograph 2 Adjacent seawall on properties tcPhotograph 2 Adjacent seawall on properties to the south of the subject site Photograph 3 Quarry stone revetment protecting properties to the north of the subject site SKELLY ENGINEERING (760) 942-8379 WAVE ACTION STUDY PAGE 3 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad The beach in front of the site currently consists of sand and cobbles that overly a formational sandstone The beach in this area was nourished by the regional beach replenishment project last year Much of that nourishment sand is still in the beach profile above low water The nourishment sand thickness on the beach varies from 1 foot to over 5 feet Just landward of the western property line the sand and cobble layer is about 4 ± feet thick Below the cobble layer is the Santiago Formation, an Eocene bedrock material This site, and neighboring Carlsbad beaches, are situated along a moderately high wave energy portion of the Southern California coast This report constitutes an investigation of the wave and water level conditions expected at the site in consequence of extreme storm and wave action It also provides conclusions and recommendations regarding the stability of the site and vulnerability to coastal hazards Finally, this report provides preliminary designs, and design parameters for shore protection at the site DATUM The datum used in this report is Mean Sea Level (MSL), which is +0 19 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) In the open ocean off the San Diego County coast, Mean High Water (MHW) is 1 87 feet above MSL The units of measurement in this report are feet (ft), pounds force (Ibs), and second (sec) A survey performed by San Diego Land Surveying and Engineering, Inc on February 14, 2002 was provided by the designer, Mr Wolfram Kalber SITE INSPECTION A visual inspection of the site and the adjacent properties was performed on April 1,2002 There currently exists an older residence on the site It is our understanding that this structure is to be removed and a new single family residence constructed The site sits atop a sea cliff Photograph 4 taken in 1989 shows a timber bulkhead fronting the site During the site inspection the location of the timber bulkhead was verified Only the upper portion of the wall was exposed and it appears to be in good/fair condition The wall sits on the western property line and provides protection of the slope from wave runup attack The wall was most likely constructed after the 1982-83 El Nino winter Photograph 4 shows the cobble field that currently lies beneath and within the recently nourished sand beach fronting the site The area behind the bulkhead is planted with heavy ice plant or "pickle weed" This vegetation does provide some protection of the slope from wave overtopping of the timber bulkhead but does not protect the toe from extreme wave runup attack In order to determine the vulnerability of the site to wave runup a wave runup an overtopping analysis is performed herein SKELLY ENGINEERING (760) 942-8379 WAVE ACTION STUDY PAGE4 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad Photograph 4 Site circa 1989 Note the timber bulkhead fronting the site WAVE RUNUP AND OVERTOPPING ANALYSIS As waves encounter the beach in front of this section of shoreline the water rushes up the beach and sometimes onto the site Often, wave runup strongly influences the design and the cost of coastal projects Wave runup is defined as the vertical height above the still water level to which a wave will rise on a structure (beach slope) of infinite height Wave runup and overtopping for the proposed project is calculated using the United States Army Corps of Engineers Automated Coastal Engineering System, ACES ACES is an interactive computer based design and analysis system in the field of coastal engineering The methods to calculate runup and overtopping implemented within this ACES application are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 7 of the Shore Protection Manual (1984) The wave, wind and water level data used as input to the ACES runup and overtopping application was taken from the historical data reported in USACOE CCSTWS report #88-6 The North County shoreline has experienced a series of storms over the years These events have impacted coastal property and beaches depending upon the severity of the storm, the direction of wave approach and the local shoreline orientation The ACES analysis was performed on oceanographic conditions that represent a typical 75+ year recurrence storm The onshore wind speed was chosen to be 40 knots During storm conditions the sea surface rises along the shoreline (super-elevation) and allows SKELLY ENGINEERING (760) 942-8379 WAVE ACTION STUDY PAGE 5 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad waves to break closer to the shoreline and runup on the cobble beach Superelevation of the sea surface can be accounted for by wave set-up (1 to 2 5 feet), wind set-up and inverse barometer (0 5 to 1 5 feet), wave group effects (1 to 2 5 feet) and El Nino effects (0 5 to 1 0 feet) These conditions rarely occur simultaneously The extreme water elevation used in this analysis is +6 0 MSL (100 year recurrence water level) The wave that has the greatest potential runup onto the site is the wave that breaks at the toe of the cobble and rides up the cobble slope to the site This is due to the very large cobble field which is held in place by the northern jetty at Agua Hedionda The El Nino waves in February 1982-83 did run up onto the properties and eroded some of the toe of the slope It was in response to this extreme short term erosion that the small wooden runup walls were constructed It is underthese conditions that the maximum wave runup will occur This is confirmed by an interview with the next door neighbor who has lived on the adjacent property for 40 years Therefore, the runup analysis problem is for the beach to be at maximum scour, with a cobble slope leading up to the site For the purpose of the runup analysis the small wooden walls are considered to not be there or failed The design wave is not the largest wave to come into the area The larger waves break offshore of the beach and lose most of their energy before reaching the shoreline If the total water depth is 7 feet, based upon a maximum scour depth at the toe of the beach/cobble slope of -1 0' MSL and a water elevation of +6 0' MSL, then the design wave height would be about 6 feet The effective height of the shore protection is +14' MSL The cobble slope is 10/1 (horizontal/vertical) and the nearshore slope was chosen to be 1/60 Table I is the ACES output for these design conditions Table I SKELLY ENGINEERING (760) 942-8379 WAVE ACTION STUDY PAGE 6 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad CONCLUSIONS The site has been subject to wave attack from extreme wave runup in the past resulting in some erosion of the toe of the slope Wave runup can reach as high as approximately +18' MSL on the natural slope The properties to either side of the site have shore protection either in the form of a seawall or a quarry stone revetment There exists a timber bulkhead on the property that provides minimal protection of the slope from wave runup The wall has a shallow foundation well above the possible maximum scour elevation The wall is in disrepair, well into it useful life, and should be replaced with a properly designed shore protection structure Even with the bulkhead in place, if the site is allowed to erode further as a result of extreme wave action the adjacent properties will be in jeopardy due to erosion out flanking the existing shore protection RECOMMENDATIONS • Long term stability of the site and the adjacent properties will depend on the prevention of the occasional erosion of the slope by extreme wave attack The existing bulkhead should be replaced with an engineered structure that meets the current design standard for shore protection The shore protection proposed is a vertical seawall roughly in line with the seawall to the south • The vertical seawall should be constructed of steel reinforced concrete The seawall should be located at the western property line (or just landward) and be founded into the formational material at about elevation +5' MSL The top of the seawall should be about +18 0' MSL to minimize overtopping CERTIFICATION This report is prepared in accordance with accepted standards of engineering practice, based on the site materials observed and historical data reported No warranty is expressed or implied REFERENCES Inman, D L andSA Jenkins, 1983, "Oceanographic Report for Oceanside Beach Facilities", prepared for the City of Oceanside, California, 206 pp SKELLY ENGINEERING (760) 942-8379 WAVE ACTION STUDY PAGE 7 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad USACOE 1984 Shore Protection Manual USACOE 1988 CCSTWS report #88-6 "Historic Wave and Water Level Data Report San Diego Region If you have any question regarding this letter report please contact us at the number below Respectfully Submitted, David W SkellyMS, PE RCE#47857 Coastal Engineer SKELLY ENGINEERING (760) 942-8379 SKELLY ENGINEERING December 9, 2002 Wolf Kalber Wolf Design Build 1459 Lieta Street San Diego, CA 92110 SUBJECT Response to City of Carlsbad (Clyde Wickham) December 4, 2002, Memo, Kiko Residence, CDP 02-28/AV 02-02/SUP 02-01 REFERENCES "Wave Runup & Coastal Hazard Study" May 2002, prepared by Skelly Engineering Skelly Engineering Letter dated October 29, 2002 "Response to City of Carlsbad Review Comments, Issue of Concern Engineering, Items 4 & 5, Kiko Residence, CDP 02-28/AV 02-02/SUP 02-01 " Shore Protection Manual. 1984, 4th ed 2 Vols, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Coastal Engineering Research Center, US Government Printing Office, Dear Mr Kalber At your request we are pleased to respond to the subject memo from the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department The statements and comments herein are intended to supplement and supercede as necessary the subject referenced report and letter For ease of review the memo comment number and first and last few words are provided in italics followed by our response 1 The existing material and dimensions of the adjacent address this design feature The existing materials and dimensions of the adjacent shore protection are provided on the revised drawings The property to the south is protected by a vertical cast in place steel reinforced concrete seawall The seawall is only a few years old and approved by the City of Carlsbad This return wall extends back over 20 feet from the seawall face The property to the north has submitted an application for a seawall and proposes to be part of a continuous wall extending across both sites The northern return, regardless of the exact location, will be adjacent to a quarry stone revetment The seawall and returns will be founded into the relatively shallow bedrock which is at about elevation +5' MSL or 679 S. VULCAN AVE, #214B, ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PHONE 760 942-8379 fax 942-3686 SKELLY ENGINEERING greater This means that the excavations for the seawall and return walls will be shallow, ~ 5 feet, before competent bed rock is reached The existing seawall return on the property to the south is a stand alone wall that does not encroach onto the Kiko site This wall will not need any form of shoring during construction of the Kiko return wall The two return walls will have about one to two inches of separation A sheet of viscoelastic material (expansion joint material) will be placed between the two walls to allow for minor wall movement The return wall on the north end of the seawall will be designed identically to the existing return wall on the seawall to the south of the Kiko site Any quarry stone that is in the area will be temporarily moved out of the way and then replaced upon completion of the seawall return The construction ready design drawings will be subject to review and comment by the engineering department Job site safety will be the responsibility of the contractor 2 There has been a supplemental is consider significant and must be accounted for The overtopping rate is the rate per wave That is to say with a design wave period of 18 seconds the overtopping for each wave is 4 2 cubic feet per second per foot of wall However, each wave is 18 seconds apart so the approximate continuous (sustained) overtopping rate is 4 2/18 or 0 23 ft3/sec-ft of wall Overtopping may not even occur with each wave hitting the wall In addition, this overtopping will only occur for about a one hour window when the tide is the highest We apologize for the confusion in that this is not clearly stated in our letter response of October 29. 2002 This overtopping rate is manageable with a wall drainage system A typical cross section of the proposed seawall is provided with the revised drawings The proposed seawall will be constructed with dram panels, a collector "burnto dram", 3" drains (through wall) at 10' on center, and the seawall will be back filled with porous sand material This drainage system is redundant with the number of drains, and the dram panels and burrito dram The system will easily manage any extreme wave overtopping waters over the life of the seawall The seawall to the south is at elevation +18' MSL and has not been subject to overtopping over its brief life Finally, the proposed seawall has a reentrant feature which will further reduce or eliminate overtopping of the wall under the extreme wave conditions 3 The second study, under the titled specifications to insure stability of the adjacent property Under the design wave and beach conditions the beach is scoured down to the formational material which is at the top of the footing The broken wave force is applied the footing The top of the footing is at about +5' MSL and the maximum still water is at about +6 0' MSL Calculation of the broken wave force with the still water level seaward of the wall yields a force less than the 1000 Ib/ft (see the US Army Corps Of Engineers 619 S. VULCAN AVE, #2148, ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PHONE 760 942-8379 fax 942-3686 SKELLY ENGINEERING Shore Protection Manual) The adjacent structure was designed by others but based upon our review of the design of the wall it is more than adequate to resist this broken wave force The quarry stone revetment to the north has been in place for several decades and has withstood significant wave forces on the order of the design broken wave force The proposed seawall will not reflect wave energy to the adjacent seawall or quarry stone revetment The proposed seawall will not contribute to the instability of the adjacent structures or properties 4 The "Certification" on page 5 Business and Professions Code The certification of the Wave Runup & Coastal Hazard Study should read as follows, The study, conclusion and recommendations contained herein are based upon engineering judgement and information available at the time of the analysis No other warranty is provided If you or Mr Clyde Wickham of the City of Carlsbad have any additional questions or comments please contact me at the number below David W SkellyMS.PE V.^t ,', RCE#47857 C^V" 619 S. VULCAN AVE, #214B, ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PHONE 760 942-8379 fax 942-3686 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 31 July 2002 Frederick and Jessica Kiko Job No. 02-8201 3561 Donna Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject- Bluff Edge Determination Proposed Kiko Residence 2649 Ocean Street Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kiko: In accordance with your request, we are hereby submitting this letter as clarification of our position regarding determination of the coastal bluff edge at the subject site As previously mentioned in our geotechnical investigation report, we excavated five test pits and three borings to help locate the existing coastal terrace bluff edge. As indicated on the geologic cross-section A-A', we determined that the bluff edge is located along contour elevation 18 feet above mean sea level (MSL). This point on the site is where the marine terrace deposits slope steeply down to the west and come in contact with the relatively flat surface of beach sand deposits. The bluff face is currently covered with iceplant, so it is not visible As indicated during our meeting with the City of Carlsbad, our bluff edge evaluation utilized information included in the "Coastal Bluffs and Beaches Guidelines," dated February 1, 1996. According to the referenced report, " the bluff edge means the upper termination of a bluff face where the down gradient of the top of the bluff increases more or 7420 TRADE STREET • SAN DIEGO CA 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX (858) 549-1604 • E-MAIL geotech@ixpres com JKiko Property Carlsbad, California Job No. 02-8201 Page 2 less continuously, until it reaches the general gradient of the bluff face. The bluff edge is the upper termination of a bluff face. When the top edge of the bluff is rounded away from the bluff face, the edge shall be defined as the point at the top of bluff nearest the bluff face beyond which the downward gradient of the land surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the bluff face " This statement refers to the portion along the top of bluff that is actually rolling over to meet the bluff face. On the Kiko property, this point is at the 18 feet elevation contour. As such, it is our opinion that the mapped bluff edge is correct and should be adhered to in determining the construction setbacks for this project. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 02-8201 will help to expedite a response to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Jay K^Heiser, Senior Project Geologist li-estfe D. ReecC President C E.G. 999cexP 3-31-03J/R.G. 3391 JKH/LDR/pj I it I I I I 1 I i '' iftfl \<$8zm*$3^"wy^^^ss^- \REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ^J/^K^^r^7,: ' • . Proposed Kiko Residence ^^^^^/T^T ''*'.' " JOB NO. 02-8201 05 June 2002 §^ I I I I Geofechnical Ejcploration, inc. REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Kiko Residence 2649 Ocean Street Carlsbad, California JOB NO. 02-8201 05 June 2002 Prepared for: Frederick and Jessica Kiko GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 05 June 2002 Frederick and Jessica Kiko 3561 Donna Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Job No. 02-8201 Subject Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Kiko Residence 2649 Ocean Street Carlsbad, California Dear Mr and Mrs. Kiko In accordance with your request and per our proposal dated January 23, 2002, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. has performed an investigation of the soil and geologic conditions at the subject site The field work was performed on April 5, 2002 In addition, we previously issued a document titled, "Interim Report of Site Conditions, 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California,"dated April 17, 2002. Based on a review of site plans prepared by WOLF Design*Build, it is our understanding that the site is being developed to receive a single-family residence with a 3-car attached garage, swimming pool, and associated improvements The residential structure is to be a maximum of two stories in height, with a mezzanine and below-grade basement area. The structure will be constructed of standard- type building materials utilizing slab-on-grade, with conventional continuous foundations and retaining wall foundation systems Our investigation revealed that the site is underlain by medium dense to dense terrace and formational materials overlain by approximately !1/2 to 41/z feet of loose to medium dense fill soil In order to reduce the effects of potential settlement, we recommend that the upper 2 to 5 feet of surficial soils be removed and recompacted to provide a more uniform, firm soil base for the proposed structure and improvements It is our understanding that the proposed construction of the two basement levels will result in the removal of all of the existing loose surface soils. In the seawall location, dense formational material was encountered at a relatively shallow depth. 7420 TRADE STREET • SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX (858) 549-1604 • E-MAIL geotech@ixpres com In our opinion, if the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are implemented during site preparation, the site will be suited for the proposed development. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions concerning the following report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Reference to our Job No. 02-8201 will expedite a response to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. , R C E 34422/G E 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer JKH/JAC/LDR/pj ^jtfZ?- -"---,.. <^:£:i;\>gff-" c%^<o I' T,-A ^- (i No 002007 jj S jj; "Hteslie D. Re^d, President C.E G. 999cexp. 3-31-D31/R.G. 3391 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAG I I. SCOPE OF WORK 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION 2 III FIELD INVESTIGATION 3 IV. LABORATORY TESTS 4 V. GENERAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 6 VI SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 7 VII GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 10 VIII. EARTHQUAKE RISK EVALUATION 15 IX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 X GRADING NOTES 33 XI LIMITATIONS 34 FIGURES la Vicinity Map Ib Site Plan and Geologic Map Ic. Cross Section A-A' Ila-f Exploratory Boring and Handpit Logs III Laboratory Test Results IV Foundation Requirements Near Slopes V Retaining Wall Waterproofing and Drainage Schematic APPENDICES A. Unified Soil Classification System B. EQ Fault Tables and EQ Search Tables C Modified Mercalli Index D General Earthwork Specifications REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Kiko Residence 2649 Ocean Street Carlsbad, California JOB NO. 02-8201 The following report presents the findings and recommendations of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. for the subject project (for Vicinity Map, see Figure No. la) I. SCOPE OF WORK It is our understanding, based on communications with Mr. Wolfram Kalber, and a review of conceptual site plans provided by Wolf Design*Build, that the site is intended for the construction of a two-story, single-family residence (including an attached 3-car garage, a lower-level basement area, a new seawall, a swimming pool, and associated improvements (for Site Plan, see Figure No Ib). It is our understanding that the site will be graded to create a level building pad. Construction of the basement levels will result in installation of permanent shoring and the removal of the loose surficial soils The residence will utilize standard slab- on-grade foundations and retaining walls With the above in mind, the scope of work is briefly outlined as follows1 1. Identify and classify the surface and subsurface soils in the area of the proposed structures conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Figure No. II and Appendix A). 2 Review the site geology and make note of any faults or significant geologic features which may affect the development of the site (refer to Appendix B). Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 2 3 Evaluate the condition of the existing fill soils, terrace deposits and formational material. 4. Recommend site preparation procedures. 5. Recommend an allowable bearing pressure for the existing dense native soils and any recompacted fill soils. 6 Evaluate the settlement potential of the existing bearing soils under the proposed structural loads. 7. Provide preliminary foundation design information, including active and passive earth pressures to be utilized in design of any foundation structures and retaining walls. II. SITE DESCRIPTION The property is known as: Assessor's Parcel No 203-140-09 and 10, Lots 13 and 14 of Block A, according to Map No. 1221, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. The site, consisting of approximately 7,000 square feet, is located at 2649 Ocean Street, in the north Carlsbad beach area, in the City of Carlsbad, California. The property is bordered on the north and south by developed residential properties, on the east by Ocean Street, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. I I I I I II II II II It II II ll II ll II II II II Proposed Kiko Residence Job No 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 3 A two-story residential structure with a partial basement currently exists on the site. Presently, vegetation on the site consists primarily of mature trees, decorative shrubbery and iceplant. The property slopes gently to moderately down to the west from Ocean Street. Approximate elevations across the site range from a high of 40 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near the street, to approximately 11 feet MSL in the western portion of the site. Survey information concerning actual elevations across the site was obtained from a "topographical survey" map by San Diego Land Surveying and Engineers, Inc., dated February 14, 2002. III. FIELD INVESTIGATION Three auger borings and five exploratory handpit excavations were placed on the site m areas where the structure, a new seawall, a swimming pool, and improvements are to be located and where representative soil conditions were expected (see Figure No Ib) The soils encountered in the exploratory borings and handpits were observed and logged by our field representative, and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout the field operation Exploratory boring and handpit logs have been prepared on the basis of our observations and the results have been summarized on Figure No II. The predominant soils have been classified in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix A) In-place samples were obtained by driving a 3-mch outside-diameter (O.D.) by 2- 3/8-mch inside-diameter (I.D.) split-tube sampler a distance of 12 inches. Also, the Standard Penetration Test was performed by using a 140-pound weight falling 30 Proposed Kiko Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 02-8201 Page 4 inches to drive a 2-mch O.D. by 1-3/8-mch I.D. sampler tube a distance of 12 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the given distance was recorded for use in density determination. The following chart provides an m-house correlation between the number of blows and the relative density of the soil for the Standard Penetration Test and the 3-mch sampler. Soil f Sand and Silt Clay Density Designation Very loose Loose Medium Dense Very Dense Very Soft Soft Firm Stiff Very Stiff Hard Very Hard 2-inch O.D. Sampler Blows/Foot 0-4 5-10 11-30 31-50 Over 50 0-2 3-4 5-8 9-15 16-30 31-60 Over 60 3-inch O.D. Sampler Blows/ Foot 0-7 8-20 21-53 54-98 Over 98 0-2 3-4 5-9 10-18 19-45 46-90 Over 90 IV. LABORATORY TESTS Field and laboratory tests were performed on the disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples in order to evaluate their physical and mechanical properties and their ability to support the proposed structure and improvements The following tests were conducted on the sampled soils: Proposed Kiko Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 02-8201 Page 5 1. Moisture/Density Relations (ASTM Dl557-98, Method A) 2 Moisture Content (ASTM D2216-92) 3 Standard Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling (ASTM Dl586-99 and Dl587-94) 4 Mechanical Analysis (ASTM D422-98) 5 Direct Shear Test (ASTM 03080-^0) The moisture content of a soil sample is a measure of the weight of water, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight of the sample The relationship between the moisture and density of the soil gives qualitative information regarding the soil strength characteristics and soil conditions to be anticipated during any future grading operation The mechanical analysis was used to aid in the classification of the soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System. The expansion potential of soils is determined utilizing the Uniform Building Code Test Method for Expansive Soils (UBC Standard No. 29-2). In accordance with the UBC (Table 18-1-B), expansive soils are classified as follows. Expansion Index Oto 20 Potential Expansion Very low 21 to 50 Low 51 to 90 Medium 91 to 130 High Above 130 Very high Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 6 Based on our experience with similar soils and our visual classification, it is our opinion that the on-site soils have a very low expansion potential, with an expansion index of less than 20. A direct shear test was performed on relatively undisturbed sample in order to evaluate the soil strength and support capacity of the existing dense natural soils The shear test was performed with a constant strain rate direct shear machine. The test specimen was saturated and then sheared under various normal loads at a slow rate to allow for drainage of the sample Based on laboratory test data, our observations of the primary soil types on the project, and our previous experience with laboratory testing of similar soils in this area of the County of San Diego, our Geotechnical Engineer has assigned conservative values for friction angle, coefficient of friction, and cohesion to those soils that will have significant lateral support or bearing functions on the project The assigned values are presented in Figure No. Ill and have been utilized in determining the recommended soil bearing capacity, as well as active and passive earth pressure design criteria for retaining wall and foundation design. V. GENERAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION The San Diego County area is part of a seismically active region of California It is on the eastern boundary of the Southern California Continental Borderland, part of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This region is part of a broad tectonic boundary between the North American and Pacific Plates The actual plate boundary is characterized by a complex system of active, major, right-lateral strike- slip faults, trending northwest/southeast. This fault system extends eastward to the San Andreas Fault (approximately 70 miles from Oceanside) and westward to Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 7 the San Clemente Fault (approximately 50 miles off-shore from Oceanside) (Berger and Schug, 1991). During recent history, the San Diego County area has been relatively quiet seismically. No fault ruptures or major earthquakes have been experienced in historic time within the San Diego area Since earthquakes have been recorded by instruments (since the 1930s), the San Diego County area has experienced scattered seismic events with Richter magnitudes generally less than 4.0. During June 1985, a series of small earthquakes occurred beneath San Diego Bay; three of these earthquakes had recorded magnitudes of 4.0 to 4.2. In addition, the Oceanside earthquake of July 13, 1986, located approximately 26 miles offshore of the City of Oceanside, resulted in a magnitude of 5.3 (Hauksson, 1988). In California, major earthquakes can generally be correlated with movement on active faults As defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Hart, E W , 1980), an "active" fault is one that has had ground surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). Additionally, faults along which major historical earthquakes have occurred (about the last 210 years in California) are also considered to be active (Association of Engineering Geologist, 1973). The California Division of Mines and Geology defines a "potentially active" fault as one that has had ground surface displacement during Quaternary time, that is, during the past 11,000 to 1 6 million years (Hart, E.W , 1980) VI. SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION A geologic investigation of the site was conducted to evaluate the on-site geology and potential of geologic hazards that might affect the site. Our investigation drew Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 8 upon information gathered from published and unpublished geologic maps and reports, as well as the results of our recent exploratory excavations. The subject site is located within a residential area along the west side of Ocean Street, along the edge of the coastal bluff in the City of Carlsbad. The subject site is located in an area with moderate to high geologic risk (as identified by Map 12b of the "Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region — Volume II" [California Department of Boating and Waterways and San Diego Association of Governments]) due to conditions identified as "unprotected, unfavorable geology, inadequate setback and inadequate design." No faults were shown to cross the site. The Rose Canyon Fault is located approximately 5 miles west of the subject site Our field investigation and review of pertinent geologic maps and reports indicate that the site is underlain by a limited amount of artificial fill soils, marine terrace deposits and the Santiago Formation. Artificial Fill (Oaf). A limited amount of fill (approximately !1/2 to 4 feet) was encountered on the surface mostly in the western portion of the site. The fill is loose to medium dense and consists of red-brown to gray-brown, silty, fine to medium sand with roots and sandstone rock fragments The fills are considered to have a very low expansion potential. Refer to Figure Nos. II and III for details Beach Deposits (Ob). The beach deposits encountered at the site consist of loose to medium dense, dry to damp, light gray, fine to medium sand with lenses of cobble 1 to 6 inches in diameter. These materials range from 4 to 41/2 feet in thickness and were encountered at the western portion of the site These soils are Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 9 considered to have a negligible expansion potential. Refer to Figure Nos. II and III for details Marine-Terrace Deposits COt). The major portion of the site is underlain by Pleistocene-age marine-terrace deposits These materials are medium dense to dense and consist of tan-gray to dark gray and red-brown, fine- to medium-grained and fine- to coarse-grained sand These materials are poorly to moderately well cemented and susceptible to some caving Due to the variable degree of cementation in the terrace materials, any temporary slopes should be cut back to a safe gradient. Some of the terrace materials are relatively low density, but have a low consolidation potential The terrace deposits are considered to have a very low expansion potential A review of several geologic maps for this area indicates that the marine-terrace deposits occur as thin, very gently dipping, mantle-like deposits within 2 to 3 miles of the coast One of the older maps (Wilson, 1972) shows these deposits as part of the Lindavista Formation However, a more recent map (Weber, 1982) includes these deposits as part of the Bay Point Formation. Review of the Shoreline Erosion Assessment report also indicates that these deposits are mapped as part of the Bay Point Formation. Santiago Formation (Tsb): The site is mapped as being underlain by the Eocene- age Santiago Formation (Weber, 1982) The encountered Santiago Formation consists primarily of dense, well-cemented, tan-gray and green, silty fine sand. The Santiago Formation is considered to have low expansion and consolidation potential Refer to Figure Nos II and III for details. Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 10 VII. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS A. Local and Regional Faults It is our opinion that a known "active" fault presents the greatest seismic risk to the subject site during the lifetime of the proposed structures. To date, the nearest known "active" faults to the subject site are the northwest-trending Rose Canyon Fault, Coronado Bank Fault and the Elsmore Fault. Rose Canyon Fault The Rose Canyon Fault Zone (Mount Soledad and Rose Canyon Faults), located approximately 5 miles west of the subject site, is mapped trending north-south from Oceanside to downtown San Diego, from where it appears to head southward into San Diego Bay, through Coronado and offshore The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered to be a complex zone of onshore and offshore, en echelon strike slip, oblique reverse, and oblique normal faults. The Rose Canyon Fault is considered to be capable of causing a 7.5-magnitude earthquake and considered microseismically active, although no significant recent earthquake is known to have occurred on the fault Investigative work on faults (believed to be part of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone) at the Police Administration and Technical Center in downtown San Diego and at the SDG&E facility in Rose Canyon, has encountered offsets in Holocene (geologically recent) sediments These findings have been accepted as confirmed Holocene displacement on the Rose Canyon Fault and this previously classified "potentially active" fault has now been upgraded to an "active" fault as of November 1991 (California Division of Mines and Geology -- Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, 1994) Coronado Bank Fault The Coronado Bank Fault is located approximately 20 miles southwest of the site. Evidence for this fault is based upon geophysical data I I I I II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 11 (acoustic profiles) and the general alignment of epicenters of recorded seismic activity (Greene, 1979). An earthquake of 5 3 magnitude, recorded July 13, 1986, is known to have been centered on the fault or within the Coronado Bank Fault Zone Although this fault is considered active, due to the seismicity within the fault zone, it is significantly less active seismically than the Elsmore Fault (Hileman, 1973). It is postulated that the Coronado Bank Fault is capable of generating a 7.0- magnitude earthquake and is of great interest due to its close proximity to the greater San Diego metropolitan area Elsmore Fault. The Elsmore Fault is located approximately 24 miles northeast of the site. The Elsmore Fault extends approximately 200 km (125 miles) from the Mexican border to the northern end of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Elsmore Fault zone is a 1- to 4-mile-wide, northwest-southeast-trending zone of discontinuous and en echelon faults extending through portions of Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Individual faults within the Elsmore Fault Zone range from less than 1 mile to 16 miles in length. The trend, length and geomorphic expression of the Elsmore Fault Zone identified it as being a part of the highly active San Andreas Fault system Like the other faults in the San Andreas system, the Elsmore Fault is a transverse fault showing predominantly right-lateral movement According to Hart, et al (1979), this movement averages less than 1 centimeter per year Along most of its length, the Elsmore Fault Zone is marked by a bold topographic expression consisting of linearly aligned ridges, swales and hallows. Faulted Holocene alluvial deposits (believed to be less than 11,000 years old) found along several segments of the fault zone suggest that at least part of the zone is currently active Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 12 Although the Elsmore Fault Zone belongs to the San Andreas set of active, northwest-trending, right-slip faults in the southern California area (Crowell, 1962), it has not been the site of a major earthquake in historic time, other than a 6.0- magnitude quake near the town of Elsmore in 1910 (Richter, 1958, Toppozada and Parke, 1982). However, based on length and evidence of late-Pleistocene or Holocene displacement, Greensfelder (1974) has estimated that the Elsmore Fault Zone is reasonably capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude as large as 7 5. Recent study and logging of exposures in trenches in Glen Ivy Marsh across the Glen Ivy North Fault (a strand of the Elsmore Fault Zone between Corona and Lake Elsmore), suggest a maximum earthquake recurrence interval of 300 years, and when combined with previous estimates of the long-term horizontal slip rate of 0.8 to 7.0 mm/year, suggest typical earthquake magnitudes of 6 to 7 (Rockwell, 1985). B. Other Geologic Hazards Ground Rupture Ground rupture is characterized by bedrock slippage along an established fault and may result in displacement of the ground surface. For ground rupture to occur along a fault, an earthquake usually exceeds magnitude 5.0 If a 5 0-magnitude earthquake were to take place on a local fault, an estimated surface- rupture length 1 mile long could be expected (Greensfelder, 1974) Our investigation indicates that the subject site is not directly on a known fault zone, and, therefore, the risk of ground rupture at the site is considered remote. Ground Shaking: Structural damage caused by seismically induced ground shaking is a detrimental effect directly related to faulting and earthquake activity. Ground shaking is considered to be the greatest seismic hazard in San Diego County The intensity of ground shaking is dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake, the Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 13 distance from the earthquake, and local seismic condition. Earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 Richter scale or greater are generally associated with significant damage It is our opinion that the most serious damage to the site would be caused by a large earthquake originating on the nearby Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Although the chance of such an event is low, it could occur within the useful life of the structures The anticipated ground accelerations at the site from earthquakes on faults within 100 miles of the site are provided in Tables 1 and 2, Appendix B. Liquefaction The liquefaction of saturated sands during earthquakes can result in major damage to buildings Liquefaction is the process in which soils are transformed into a dense fluid that will flow as a liquid when unconfined. It occurs principally in loose, saturated sands and silts when they are shaken by an earthquake of sufficient magnitude On this site, the risk of liquefaction of foundation material due to seismic shaking is considered to be remote due to the density of the natural-ground material No loss of soil strength is anticipated to occur at the site due to the design seismic event. Landslides. According to our geologic reconnaissance and a review of the geologic map (Santa Ana Sheet - 1965) and aerial photographs (4-11-53, AXN-8M-99 and 100), there are no known or suspected ancient landslides located on the site. Tsunamr The site is located at an elevation between 11 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and 40 feet MSL immediately east of the active beach. Based upon historical information on tsunami activity in Southern California, it is our opinion that the risk to the site from a tsunami is minimal In addition, since a vertical concrete seawall is proposed, adequate protection should be provided Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 14 Groundwater. No groundwater problems were encountered during the course of our field investigation and we do not expect significant problems to develop in the future -- if the property is developed as planned and proper drainage is provided. It should be kept in mind, however, that the proposed grading operations may change surface drainage patterns and/or reduce permeabilities due to the densification of compacted soils Changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the appearance of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously. Positive drainage measures should be constructed to intercept and divert all surface runoff waters away from the structure and improvements planned for the site The damage from such water is expected to be minor and cosmetic in nature, if good positive drainage is implemented and maintained at the completion of construction Corrective action should be taken on a site-specific basis, if and when it becomes necessary. C. Bluff Edge Evaluation As part of our geotechnical investigation, we excavated five test pits to help locate the existing coastal terrace bluff edge As indicated on the geologic cross-section A-A', we determined that the bluff edge is located along contour elevation 18 feet above mean sea level (MSL) This point on the site is where the marine terrace deposits slope steeply down to the west and come in contact with the relatively flat surface of beach sand deposits The bluff face is currently covered with iceplant, so it is not visible. We understand that the City of Carlsbad's preliminary assessment determined the bluff edge to be at approximately elevation contour 30 feet above MSL along the west side of the existing wood deck. However, our test pit at the 30- I I I I I I ll n ll II ll ll ll ll ll 1 ll n 1 Proposed Kiko Residence Job No 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 15 foot MSL slope top encountered approximately 4 5 feet of artificial fill and topsoil over the terrace deposits D. Summary It is our opinion that a significant geologic hazard does not exist on the site. No evidence of faulting or landslide activity was encountered during our investigation of the site The site is situated in a developed neighborhood of Carlsbad and in the event that severe earth shaking does occur from major faulting within the area, compliance with Uniform Building Code requirements for construction should help reduce structural damage to a degree considered acceptable by the UBC. From a geotechnical standpoint, our investigation indicates that the proposed residence can be constructed at the site provided the recommendations in this report are followed VIII. EARTHQUAKE RISK EVALUATION Evaluation of earthquake risk requires that the effect of faulting on, and the mass stability of, a site be evaluated utilizing the M10 seismic design event, i e., an earthquake event on an active fault with less than a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years Further, sites are classified by UBC 1997 Edition into "soil profile types SA through SF " Soil profile types are defined by their shear velocities where shear velocity is the speed at which shear waves move through the upper 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of the ground. These are: Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 16 SA => Greater than 1500 m/s SB => 760 to 1500 m/s Sc => 360 m/s to 760 m/s SD => 180 to 360 m/s SE => Less than 180 m/s SF => Soil requiring specific soil evaluation By utilizing an earthquake magnitude MIO for a seismic event on an active fault, knowing the site class and ground type, a prediction of anticipated site ground acceleration, g, from these events can be estimated. The subject site has been assigned Classification "Sc." An estimation of the peak ground acceleration and the repeatable high ground acceleration (RHGA) likely to occur at the project site by the known significant local and regional faults within 100 miles of the site is included in Appendix B. Also, a listing of the known historic seismic events that have occurred within 100 miles of the site at a magnitude of 5 0 or greater since the year 1800, and the probability of exceeding the experienced ground accelerations in the future based upon the historical record, is provided in Appendix B. Both tables generated from computer programs EQ Fault and EQ Search by Thomas F. Blake (1989) utilizing a digitized file of late-Quaternary California faults (EQ Fault) and a file listing of recorded earthquakes (EQSearch) Estimations of site intensity are also provided in these listings as Modified Mercalli Index values. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Index follows the EQ Fault and EQ Search tables of Appendix B. For earthquake resistant design, the Uniform Building Code requires that the design earthquake acceleration correspond to the one produced by an event with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, and that is 0.28g. I I I I I I 1 II I II II II II II II II II II II Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 17 IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the practical field investigation conducted by our firm, and resulting laboratory tests, in conjunction with our knowledge and experience with the soils in this area of the City of Carlsbad Our investigation revealed that the site is underlain by medium dense to dense terrace and formational materials with approximately !1/2 to 41/2 feet of variable density fill materials The loose surface soils will not provide a stable soil base for the proposed structure and associated improvements. As such, we recommend that these loose surface soils be removed and recompacted as part of the site preparation prior to the addition of any proposed fill and/or structural improvements It is our understanding that the site will be cut down to create the lower-level storage and basement areas. As such, the loose surface soils should be removed during the excavation process Due to the poor cementation in the terrace materials, temporary cut slopes may have to be laid back to a safe gradient Some of the deeper terrace materials may have some low m-place densities and require additional removal during the grading operation. The seawall location was found to be underlain by dense formational materials at a relatively shallow depth Because of the depth of the basement level and the proximity to the property line improvements, it is very likely that shoring will be required A. Preparation of Soiis for Site Development 1. The existing structures and vegetation observed on the site should be removed prior to the preparation of areas to receive new fill and/or structural improvements This includes any roots from trees and shrubbery that might I I I I I I I I I I I I II II II II II II II Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 18 extend under the proposed structures or improvements Large roots have been known to cause significant damage to foundations All roots over 1/2- mch in diameter shall be removed from soils to be recompacted. 2. To provide a uniform soils base for the proposed structures and rigid improvements (such as the swimming pool, patios, walkways, decking, driveway, etc.), the existing loose fill materials across the site, should be excavated to expose firm native soil, or as per the indications of our field representative Any other areas observed to include loose soils during grading shall be excavated to expose firm native soil. The depth of removal is expected to be approximately 2 to 41/2 feet over most of the site. The bottom of the excavation should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, watered to approximately optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. The excavated fill materials to be used as fill should be cleaned of any debris and deleterious materials, watered to approximately optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density, in accordance with ASTM D1557- 98 standards Those areas supporting proposed improvements or retaining structures should be prepared in a like manner 3 No uncontrolled fill soils should remain on the site after completion of any future site work In the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils, the loose fill soils should be removed and/or recompacted prior to completion of the grading operation 4 Any buried objects, utility lines, abandoned irrigation lines, subsurface disposal systems, etc , which might be discovered on the site during grading, I I I I I ll ll llI ll ll ll ll ll ll p Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 19 should be removed and properly backfilled with approved on-site or imported fill soils and compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. 5 Any backfill soils placed in utility trenches or behind retaining walls that support structures and other improvements (such as patios, sidewalks, driveways, pavements, etc.) should be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density for low-expansive soils. Note Due to the generally poor cementation of the terrace materials and the potential for caving, special care should be taken during excavation of utility trenches and temporary slopes Because of the depth and configuration of proposed temporary slopes, shoring will most likely be required As a minimum, Cal-OSHA safety standards shall be followed. B. Design Parameters for Foundations 6 The recommended allowable bearing value for design of foundations for the proposed residential structure is 2,000 pounds per square foot. This load- bearing value may be utilized in the design of continuous foundations and spread footings when founded a minimum of 18 inches (for the proposed structure) into dense natural ground or properly compacted fill, measured from the lowest adjacent grade at the time of foundation construction. We recommend that three-story portions of the structure be founded on at least 24-mch-deep footings For wider and/or deeper footings, the allowable soil bearing capacity may be calculated based on the following equation: Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 20 Qa = 1000D+500W for footings in compacted fill Qa = 1500D+750W for footings in formation where "Qa" is the allowable soil bearing capacity (in psf); "D" is the depth of the footing (in feet) as measured from the lowest adjacent grade; and "W" is the width of the footing (in feet) This load-bearing value may be increased one-third for design loads that include wind or seismic analysis. In fill soils, an increase of 500 psf in the allowable bearing value may be allowed for every 1 foot of embedment and for every additional 1 foot in width over the minimum dimensions indicated above, up to a maximum of 5,000 psf Foundations in formational soils may have an allowable bearing increase of 1,500 psf for each additional foot in depth, and 750 psf for each additional foot in width. The maximum bearing capacity shall not exceed 6,000 psf. 7. The passive earth pressure of the dense natural-ground soils (to be used for design of shallow foundations and footings to resist the lateral forces) shall be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot. This passive earth pressure shall only be considered valid for design if the ground adjacent to the foundation structure is essentially level for a distance of at least three times the total depth of the foundation and is comprised of properly compacted fill within the depth of the foundation. 8. An allowable Coefficient of Friction of 0.40 times the dead load may be used between the bearing soils and concrete foundations, walls, or floor slabs. il I I I I I I II II II II II II II II II II II II Proposed Kiko Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 02-8201 Page 21 10 11. The following table summarizes site-specific seismic design criteria to calculate the base shear needed for the design of the residential structure The design criteria was obtained from the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition) based on the soil characteristics and distance to the closest fault Parameter Seismic Zone Factor, Z Soil Profile Type Seismic Coefficient, Ca Seismic Coefficient, Cv Near-Source Factor, Na Near-Source Factor, Nv Seismic Source Type Value 040 Sc 040NA 0 56NV 1 0 1 14 B Reference Table 16-1 Table 16-J Table 16-Q Table 16-R Table 16-S Table 16-T Table 16-U Based upon our previous laboratory test results and our experience with the soil types on the subject site, the underlying properly compacted fill and/or dense natural soils should experience a total settlement of less than 1 inch and a differential settlement in the magnitude of approximately 1 inch, under a structural static load within the allowable bearing capacity. The angular rotation due to static differential settlement is anticipated to be less than 1/240 Our experience indicates that for various reasons, footings and slabs occasionally crack causing ceramic tiles and other brittle surfaces to become damaged. Therefore, all footings and slabs should contain at least a nominal amount of reinforcing steel to reduce the separation of cracks, should they occur Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 22 11.1 A minimum of steel for continuous footings should include at least four No 4 steel bars continuous, with two bars near the bottom of the footing and two bars near the top For footings up to 24 inches in depth, the minimum reinforcement shall consist of four No 5 bars 11 2 If isolated square footings are to be used, they should contain, as a minimum, a grid of No 4 steel bars on 12-inch centers, both ways, with no less than three bars each way. 11 3 Interior floor slabs on-grade on properly compacted soil should be a minimum of 5 inches actual thickness and be reinforced with at least No 3 steel bars on 18-inch centers, in both directions, placed midheight in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 3-mch-thick layer of clean sand (S E =30 or greater) overlying a vapor retardant such as Vapor Shield (3-mil, high density, cross laminated) or equivalent Slab subgrade soil shall be properly moistened prior to placement of the vapor retardant and pouring of concrete It is recommended that the moisture content of subgrade soil for slabs and footings be checked within 48 hours prior to concrete placement. Building slabs may be thicker and more heavily reinforced if the alternative structural mat slabs are utilized If this option is chosen, the allowable bearing capacity for mat design may be 400 pci modulus of subgrade reaction for soil settlement not exceeding 1/2-mch under static loading. For a higher degree of protection against moisture- related problems, the basement level slab shall preferably be protected by a waterproof membrane (such as Paraseal) placed as indicated by the manufacturer Paraseal membranes are usually placed on a gravel bas layer Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 23 For exterior slabs, we recommend the project Civil/Structural Engineer incorporate isolation joints and sawcuts to at least one-fourth the thickness of the slabs. The joints and cuts, if properly placed, should reduce the potential for random exterior shrinkage cracking In no case, however, shall control joints be spaced farther than 15 feet apart. Re-entrant corners shall also be provided with control joints or additional steel reinforcing. Due to a number of reasons (such as base preparation, construction techniques, curing procedures, and normal shrinkage of concrete), some cracking of slabs can still be expected Control joints shall be placed within 12 hours after concrete placement or as soon as the concrete sets and may be cut without aggregate ravelling Reinforced slabs on-grade shall have every other bar interrupted 3 inches before crossing control joints for an effective weak plane result To prevent moisture infiltration, all exterior slab joints shall be sealed with elastomenc seal material. The sealant shall be inspected every six months and be properly maintained. Due to the proximity of the ocean, the structural engineer should consider the use of concrete with Cement Type II and a water-cement ratio no higher than 0.40 due to sea water chlorides. For concrete pavement, we recommend that the compressive strength f'c be at least 4,500 psi at 28 days of age and the slab thickness be not less than 51/2 inches thick, with control joints no farther than 15 feet or the width of the driveway, whichever is less. Driveway subgrade soils shall be properly compacted and moisture conditioned before any base and/or concrete placement. I I I I I I I I llllI ll ll ll ll llll I" ll Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 24 NOTE The project Civil/Structural Engineer shall review all reinforcing schedules The reinforcing mmimums recommended herein are not to be construed as structural designs, but merely as minimum safeguards to reduce possible crack separations. 12. As a minimum for protection of on-site improvements, it is recommended that all nonstructural concrete slabs (such as patios, walkways, etc.) be underlain by at least 3 inches of clean sand, include No. 3 steel bars spaced every 18 inches apart at the center of the slab, and contain adequate isolation and control joints spaced no farther than twice the width of the reinforced slab, not more than 15 feet apart, and also at re-entrant corners It should be noted that standard concrete improvements may not perform well, due to the loose surficial soil conditions. As such, each improvement should be designed to tolerate the on-site conditions The performance of on-site improvements can also be greatly affected by soil base preparation and the quality of construction, and is therefore the responsibility of the designer and the contractor installing the improvements. Moisture content and verification of subgrade soils compaction for outside improvements is also recommended. A representative of our firm shall check that within 48 hours prior to concrete pouring and before steel reinforcing placement. C. Design Parameters for Proposed Seawall and Retaining Walls Our investigation revealed that, at the location of the proposed seawall, the site is underlain by dense formational materials with a surface layer of beach sand deposits that typically range from 2 to 5 feet below the existing beach grade. This loose surface soil will not provide a stable soil base for the proposed seawall As such, recommendations have been made to embed the seawall foundation into the Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 25 underlying formational materials We also recommend that the fill/backfill soils placed behind the seawall and patio/terrace area consist of beach/terrace sand-type material 13 The seawall foundation shall be embedded a minimum of 4 feet into dense formational material due to concern for potential scouring by storm surf action. This depth is approximately 3 feet above mean sea level (depending on the beach sand thickness) and is expected to be approximately 14 feet below the adjacent western patio/terrace area 14 The recommended allowable load-bearing value (at a minimum depth of 4 feet into the dense native materials) is 3,500 pounds per square foot for a minimum footing width of 4 feet This load-bearing value may be utilized in the design of the seawall foundation when founded a minimum of 4 feet into the firm natural ground, measured from the bottom of the footing to the lowest adjacent grade at the time of foundation construction. This load- bearing value may be increased one-third for design loads that include wind or seismic analysis. The soil bearing capacity may be increased 1,000 psf for each additional foot of embedment over 4 feet, and 750 psf for each additional foot in width over 4 feet. The total maximum soil end-bearing capacity shall not exceed 6,000 psf All other proposed retaining walls to be constructed should be founded on firm natural ground or properly compacted fills. All retaining walls shall be designed based on the following soil design parameters: 15 The active earth pressure (to be utilized in the design of the proposed seawall and other retaining walls, etc ) utilizing the on-site materials as I I I I II II II li II Proposed Kiko Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 02-8201 Page 26 backfill should be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 38 pounds per cubic foot (for level backfill only). Any surcharge pressures applied within the potential failure block shall also be added to the soil lateral pressures. In the event that a retaining wall is surcharged by sloping backfill, the design active earth pressure shall be based on the appropriate Equivalent Fluid Weight presented in the following table. 44 48 50 52 *To determine design active earth pressure for ratios intermediate to those presented, interpolate between the stated values. II li li li li ll ll ll ll 16 In the event that a retaining wall is to be designed for a restrained condition, a uniform pressure equal to 9xH (nine times the total height of retained soil, considered in pounds per square foot) should be considered as acting everywhere on the back of the wall in addition to the design Equivalent Fluid Weight. Any surcharge applied within the failure block behind the retaining wall shall be considered in the wall design. For cantilever retaining walls, the lateral load conversion factor is 0.32. For restrained retaining walls, the lateral load conversion factor is 0.53. The passive earth pressure of the encountered dense natural-ground soils or properly compacted fill (to be used for the design of shallow footings) should be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot. I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 27 The passive earth pressure should only be considered valid for design if the ground adjacent to the foundation structure is essentially level for a distance of at least three times the total depth of the foundation. 17 A Coefficient of Friction of 0.40 times the dead load may be used between the bearing soils and concrete wall foundations. 18 Due to the possible buildup of groundwater (derived primarily from rainfall and irrigation), excess moisture is a common problem in below-grade structures or behind proposed retaining walls. These problems are generally in the form of water seepage through slabs and/or walls, mineral staining, mildew growth and high humidity. In order to minimize the potential for moisture-related problems to develop at the site, proper ventilation and waterproofing must be provided for below-ground areas and the backfill side of all structure retaining walls must be adequately waterproofed and drained Should water seeps be observed during grading, additional recommendations will be provided by our firm, as warranted Proper waterproofing, protection board, subdrams and free-draining backwall material such as gravel or geocomposite (Miradram 6000 or equivalent) shall be installed behind all retaining walls on the subject project Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will assume no liability for damage to structures, which is attributable to poor drainage. Subdram shall be placed at least 12 inches below the surface elevation being protected (interior slab). If the subdram is to be installed on top of the foundation heel, then the interior slab shall be at least 12 inches above the footing toe. I I I I I I I I I i i i i i i i i i i Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 28 D. Slopes 19 The existing slopes on the site appear to be relatively stable However, it is our opinion that the new cut and fill slopes may be subject to future erosion and surficial failure if left unprotected. In order to reduce the risk of future slope stability problems, we recommend that a program of proper landscaping and maintenance be effected as part of development of this site. 20 The soils that occur within 5 feet of the face of fill slopes often possess poor lateral stability and structures and other improvements (such as walls, fences, patios, sidewalks, swimming pools, driveways, etc.) that are located within 5 feet of the edge of any slopes could suffer differential movement as a result of the poor lateral stability of these soils. Conventional shallow foundations and footings of proposed structures, walls, etc , when founded 5 feet and farther away from the top of allowable slopes, may be of standard design in conformance with the recommended load- bearing value If the proposed foundations and footings are located closer than 5 feet inside the top of allowable slopes, they shall be deepened to 1.5 feet below a line beginning at a point 5 feet horizontally inside the slopes and projected outward and downward, parallel to the face of the slope (see Figure No IV). I I I I I I II II II II II II II IIII II II ll II Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 29 E. Temporary Slopes 21 We anticipate that temporary slopes into the terrace material of approximately 10 to 22 feet in height may be required during excavation of the lower-level living areas Based on the results of our field investigation, it is our opinion that the following temporary-slope design criteria may be considered in areas where the excavation slope top will be at least 18 feet away from any existing structures: The existing cemented formation materials may be cut vertical for the lower 5 feet and at a slope ration of 0.75 horizontal to 1.0 vertical for the remaining height (for an unsupported period not to exceed eight weeks) For the basement areas, the cuts shall be from the heel of the foundation and extend to at least 12 feet horizontally at the ground level. The basement wall backfill shall consist of non-expansive soil Any plans for slopes in excess of the assumed 22-foot maximum must be presented to our office prior to grading to allow time for review and specific recommendations, if warranted Proper drainage away from the excavation shall be provided at all times. Soil stockpiles shall not be placed within 6 feet from the top of the cuts A representative of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. must observe any steep temporary slopes during excavation. In the event that soils and formational material comprising a slope are not as anticipated, any required slope design changes would be presented at that time. If the temporary slopes as recommended herein are not developed, then shoring will be required. I I I I I I I I llI ll II ll llll ll llll ll Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 30 22 Where not superseded by specific recommendations presented in this report, trenches, excavations and temporary slopes at the subject site shall be constructed in accordance with Title 8, Construction Safety Orders, issued by OSHA 23. It is recommended that all compacted fill slopes and natural cut slopes be planted with an erosion resistant plant, in conformance with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad. F. Floor Slab Vapor Transmission 24 Vapor moisture can cause some problems to moisture sensitive floors, some floor sealers, or sensitive equipment in direct contact with the floor, in addition to mildew and staining on slabs, walls and carpets. 25 The common practice in Southern California is to place vapor retarders made of PVC, or of polyethylene. PVC retarders are made in thickness ranging from 10- to 60-mil. Polyethylene retarders, called visqueen, range from 5- to 10-mil in thickness The thicker the plastic, the stronger the resistance against puncturing 26 Although polyethylene (visqueen) products are most commonly used, products such as Vaporshield possess much higher tensile strength and are more specifically designed for and intended to retard moisture transmission into concrete slabs. The use of Vaporshield or equivalent is highly recommended when a structure is intended for moisture-sensitive floor coverings or uses. I I t I I I I II II II II IIII II II II IIII II Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 31 27 The vapor retarders need to have joints lapped and sealed with mastic or manufacturer's recommended tape for additional protection. To provide some protection to the moisture retarder, a layer of at least 2 inches of clean sand on top and 2 inches at the bottom shall also be provided. No heavy equipment, stakes or other puncturing instruments shall be used on top of the liner before or during concrete placement In actual practice, stakes are often driven through the retarder material, equipment is dragged or rolled across the retarder, overlapping or jointing is not properly implemented, etc. All these construction deficiencies reduce the retarder's effectiveness. The vapor retarders are not waterproof. They are intended to help prevent or reduce capillary migration of vapor through the soil into the pores of concrete slabs. Other waterproofing systems must supplement vapor retarders if full waterproofing is desired The owner should be consulted to determine the specific level of protection required, especially for basement- level areas G. Site Drainage Considerations 28 Adequate measures shall be taken to properly finish-grade the site after the structures and other improvements are in place Drainage waters from this site and adjacent properties are to be directed away from foundations, floor slabs, footings, and slopes, onto the natural drainage direction for this area or into properly designed and approved drainage facilities Roof gutters and downspouts should be installed on all structures, with runoff directed away from the foundations via closed drainage lines. Proper subsurface and surface drainage will help minimize the potential for waters to seek the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings, and floor slabs. Failure Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 32 to observe this recommendation could result in undermining and differential settlement of the structure or other improvements on the site. The ground surface adjacent to building foundations shall be sloped at a gradient of at least 5 percent within 10 feet, draining away from the foundations In addition, appropriate erosion-control measures shall be taken at all time during construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations and ponding on finished building pads or running uncontrolled over the tops of newly constructed cut or fill slopes. Particular care should be taken to prevent saturation of any temporary construction slopes. 29 Planter areas, flower beds, and planter boxes shall be sloped to dram away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs Planter boxes shall be constructed with a sealed bottom and a subsurface dram, installed in gravel, with the direction of subsurface and surface flow away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs, to an adequate drainage facility All landscaped areas shall be provided with proper area drains H. General Recommendations 30 Following placement of any concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time should be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings could result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish-floor materials Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 33 31. In order to minimize any work delays at the subject site during site development, this firm should be contacted 24 hours prior to any need for observation of footing or caisson excavations or field density testing of compacted fill soils If possible, placement of formwork and steel reinforcement in footing excavations should not occur prior to observation of the excavations, in the event that our observation reveals the need for deepening or redesigning foundation structures at any locations, any formwork or steel reinforcement in the affected footing excavation areas would have to be removed prior to correction of the observed problem (i.e., deepening the footing excavation, recompactmg soil in the bottom of the excavation, etc ). X. GRADING NOTES Any required grading operations shall be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork Specifications (Appendix B) and the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance 32 Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. recommends that we be asked to verify the actual soil conditions revealed during site grading work and footing excavations to be as anticipated in this "Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation " In addition, the compaction of any fill soils placed during site grading work must be tested by the soil engineer. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to comply with the requirements on the grading or building plans and the local grading ordinance 33. It is the responsibility of the owner and/or developer to ensure that the recommendations summarized in the report are carried out in the field I I I I I I II II II il II II II II II I II H ii Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 34 operations and that our recommendations for design of the project are incorporated in the building and grading plans. Our firm should review the grading and foundation plans when they become available. 34 This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. XI. LIMITATIONS Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on all available data obtained from our field investigation and laboratory analysis, as well as our experience with the soils and native materials located in the City of Carlsbad. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures The actual soil conditions between exploratory excavations may differ It is, therefore, necessary that all observations, conclusions, and recommendations be verified at the time grading operations begin or when footing excavations are placed. In the event discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued, if required. The work performed and recommendations presented herein are the result of an investigation and analysis that meet the contemporary standard of care in our profession with the County of San Diego. No warranty is provided. I I I I I I I If I I I ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Proposed Kiko Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 02-8201 Page 35 This report should be considered valid for a period of two (2) years, and is subject to review by our firm following that time. The firm of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to issuance of this report. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Reference to our Job No. 02-8201 will help to expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. ^lC hreiser, Senior Project Geologist ^ Te~D. ReecTTPTesident C E.G. 999cexP 3-31-031/RG 3391 Jaime A Cerros, P E R C E. 34422/G E 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer JKH/LDR/JAC/pj I I I I I I I llI I s I ll I I I l REFERENCES JOB NO. 02-8201 June 2002 Association of Engineering Geologists, 1973, Geology and Earthquake Hazards, Planners Guide to the Seismic Safety Element, Southern California Section, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, Published July 1973, p 44 California Division of Mines and Geology - Alquist-Pnolo Special Studies Zones Map, November 1, 1991 Clarke, S H , H G Greene, M P Kennedy and J G Vedder, 1987, Geologic Map of the Inner-Southern California Continental Margin in H G Greene and M P Kennedy (editors), California Continental Margin Map Series, Map 1A, Calif Div of Mines and Geology, scale 1 250,000 Crowell, J C , 1962, Displacement along the San Andreas Fault, California, Geologic Society of America Special Paper 71, 61 p Greene, H G , 1979, Implication of Fault Patterns in the Inner California Continental Borderland between San Pedro and Oceanside, in "Earthquakes and Other Perils, Oceanside Region," P L Abbott and W J Elliott, editors Greensfelder, R W , 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23 Hart, E W , D P Smith and R B Saul, 1979, Summary Report Fault Evaluation Program, 1978 Area (Peninsular Ranges-Salton Trough Region), Calif Div of Mines and Geology, OFR 79-10 SF, 10 Hart E W , 1980, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Calif Div of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, Rev March 1980, p 25 Hileman, J A , C R Allen and J M Nordquist, 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California Region, January 1, 1932 to December 31, 1972, Seismological Laboratory, Cal-Tech, Pasadena, Calif Kennedy, M P , 1975, Geology of the Oceanside Metropolitan Area, California, Bulletin 200, Calif Div of Mines and Geology, 1975 Kennedy, M P , and S H Clarke, 2001, Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, California Geology, July/August 2001 Kennedy, M P and S H Clarke, 1997A, Analysis of Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, Calif Div of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 97-10A Kennedy, M P and S H Clarke, 1997B, Age of Faulting in San Diego Bay in the Vicinity of the Coronado Bridge, an addendum to Analysis of Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, Calif Div of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 97-10B Kennedy, M P , S H Clarke, H G Greene, R C Jachens, V E Langenheim, J J More and D M Burns, 1994, A Digital (CIS) Geological/Geophysical/Seismological Data Base for the San Diego 30-x60' Quadrangle, California -- A New Generation, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v 26, p 63 Kennedy, M P and G W Moore, 1971, Stratigraphic Relations of Upper Cretaceous and Eocene Formations, San Diego Coastal Area, California, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v 55, p 709-722 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ll llll Page 2 Kennedy, M P , S S Tan, R H Chapman and G W Chase, 1975, Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Calif Div of Mines and Geology Special Report 123, 33 pp Kennedy, M P and E E Welday, 1980, Character and Recency of Faulting Offshore, metropolitan San Diego California, Calif Div of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 40, 1 50,000 Kern, J P and T K Rockwell, 1992, Chronology and Deformation of Quaternary Marine Shorelines, San Diego County, California in Heath, E and L Lewis (editors), The Regressive Pleistocene Shoreline, Coastal Southern California, pp 1-8 Lmdvall, S C and T K Rockwell, 1995, Holocene Activity of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone in San Diego, California, Journal of Geophysical Research, v 100, no B-12, p 24121-24132 McEuen, R B and C J Pmckney, 1972, Seismic Risk in Oceanside, Transactions of the Oceanside Society of Natural History, Vol 17, No 4, 19 July 1972 Moore, G W and M P Kennedy, 1975, Quaternary Faults in San Diego Bay, California, U S Geological Survey Journal of Research, v 3, p 589-595 Richter, C G , 1958, Elementary Seismology, W H Freeman and Company, San Francisco, Calif Rockwell, T K , D E Millman, R S McElwam, and D L Lamar, 1985, Study of Seismic Activity by Trenching Along the Glen Ivy North Fault, Elsmore Fault Zone, Southern California Lamar-Menfield Technical Report 85-1, U S G S Contract 14-08-0001-21376, 19p Simons, R S , 1977, Seismicity of San Diego, 1934-1974, Seismological Society of America Bulletin, v 67, p 809-826 Tan, S S , 1995, Landslide Hazards in Southern Part of San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Calif Div of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 95-03 Toppozada, T R and D L Parke, 1982, Areas Damaged by California Earthquakes, 1900-1949, Calif Div of Mines and Geology, Open-file Report 82-17, Sacramento, Calif Treiman, J A , 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California, Calif Div of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 93-02, 45 pp, 3 plates I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Kiko Residence 2649 Ocean Street Carlsbad, CA. Figure No. la Job No. 02-8201 s 1 §§ (D QQ. D Q(QO Q j? § 1 I 2)3 z 8 I -a CD- CD Q I OCD OCD T3 i 03 8 O c?XJOv\cr nQ' Q I r- I 8s OTJ S.51 03 OCEAN STREET r i -01- 8 Jjftfjj • o 5-0 it |J<a|a at?H 000 g-u z 1 1539=5-3"° m 2 = BI "10 ^): > <o —<n o y 3-- • o K.-D 0-0.' CQ D. T r4- E. -* B. i R-3:3 030«o 3 in3 « 5-0-o 5 n 2 °a d s:5 -•3 < o^ _n n 3 o »• Q- w x_ia m coo -* — w10 =s> ™ 3s a" Q -. 5 r~2 3 — 2 j.'D 9- Q. Otn -3 q 3 E. -* S. o 3 ^.3 § 3 R" (Din Q 8- 8- m m OTOs OIo s- S- ro 8- 8 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION 8 0B 0(0(0 (0 3 0 8 8 ''EQUIPMENT Limited Access Auger Drill Rig SURFACE ELEVATION ± 20' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 6-inch diameter Boring GROUNDWATER DEPTH at 10 feet DATE LOGGED ^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH 1— X EhQ - - 2- - 4- - 6- — 8- 10- A O\£. - 14-SYMBOL'i i i ! ; .!!1 ! 1,il " ! i!i| i LU— 1Q- 1 • A 1 I • •1 FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size Density, Moisture, Color) FILL (Qaf) FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ slight silt and some roots, poorly cemented Loose to medium dense Dry to damp Tan-brown TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) FINE TO COARSE SAND, w/ some rock fragments Medium dense Damp Tan-gray and brown TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) SILTY SANDSTONE, well cemented Dense ~\ Damp Light tan-gray \ SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsb) / Bottom® 11' COoen SP- SM SW SM LU o :Dss I! i! ^1 £ II Is ^ O 2 <. *ft s< OLU O j_ 11 13 19 B5/ 11" a 0 LU </>-J UJ sx 3" 2" y_ WATER TABLE Kl LOOSE BAG SAMPLE [H IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE 0 SANDCONE/FDT H STANDARD PENETRATION TESTV JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER Ha REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC 4Trl^-ili Geotechnical t BV|°flltlen' lne- ^^ LOG No B-1 J ''EQUIPMENT Limited Access Auger Drill Rig SURFACE ELEVATION ± 34' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 6-1 nch diameter Boring GROUNOWATER DEPTH at 24 feet DATE LOGGED ^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH K-LL X LUD - 2- 4- ~ 6- 8- -innu — - - - 12- 14- 1 1 .i;i.[• i~..fi f.1 i.•;'}}!{'•»{•jt f!'|. r •• T~T * '•* . . .*. '/\ SAMPLEI #j% YS •I 1 ' FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size Density Moisture Color) FINE TO COARSE SAND, w/ slight silt and some rock fragments Medium dense Damp Tan-gray and red-brown TERRACE DEPOSITS {Qt) - same as above, becomes tan-gray and orange _______ _ _ ___ FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, poorly to moderately cemented Dense Damp Dark gray and red-brown TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) 05 0to sw ~S~P~ uj£II LU -s_of: g 3 =) O S ^ ^~_ |1 0 il"Z. O e i 1 LU O ,_ 11CD O 24 19 52 oo _ UJ CO 3" 2" 3" Y WATER TABLE [X] LOOSE BAG SAMPLE 0 IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE QG SANDCONE/FDT H STANDARD PENETRATION TESTV JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER lib REVIEWED BY LDRJJ^ 4lnE~?i Geotectmlcal*IW ilr U Exploration, inc. pi?* LOG No B-2 J ^EQUIPMENT Limited Access Auger Drill Rig SURFACE ELEVATION ± 34' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 6-inch diameter Boring GROUNDWATER DEPTH at 24 feet DATE LOGGED ^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH DEPTH FT16- - 18- 20- 22- O/l 26- 28-SYMBOLv SAMPLEI I FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Gram size Density, Moisture, Color) FINE TO COARSE SAND, w/ some rock fragments, poorly to moderately cemented Medium dense to dense Dry to damp Light gray-white TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) SANDSTONE, well cemented Dense Damp Light tan-gray A SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsb) [ Bottom @ 25' co 0in Z3 sw SM IN PLACEMOISTURE (%)IN PLACE DRYDENSITY (pcf)OPTIMUMMOISTURE (%)MAXIMUM DRYDENSITY (pcf)DENSITY(%ofMDD)vP ^d< g $ 8 BLOWCOUNTS/FT24 50+ D O^ UJ CO-J LUQ-Xm 2" 2" JL WATER TABLE G3 LOOSE BAG SAMPLE U] IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE [s\ SANDCONE7FDT ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST V JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER Me RENEWED BY ^^ 4fr4£-n Ceotectmical •_-3!- ^P101" Jrtlon' lne- LOG No B-2 J ''EQUIPMENT Limited Access Auger Drill Rig SURFACE ELEVATION ± 39' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 6-inch diameter Boring GROUNDWATER DEPTH at 16 feet DATE LOGGED ^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH H-DEPTH F- - - 2- - — 6- 8- - 12- _ 14-SYMBOL<<> «•" A\'•• ~y ' s? *• •' v; ^\/ >A<•;;> _<£< ~ I ji'(I ii ; ; I I SAMPLEL \r i FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Gram size Density Moisture Color) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ some rock fragments and chunks of sandstone Medium dense Damp Red-brown FILL/ TERRACE (Qaf/Qt) -1' to 2' of fill at the surface FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, poorly cemented Medium dense Damp Tan-gray and orange TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ slight silt, moderately well cemented Dense Damp Red-brown and tan TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) in o SM SP SP- SM £ LLJII 1 TYO Z)II 1111 so:li 1%0 S i?II o 11 £ § 8 t llm o 31 20 53 o o II | (fy1 ii | 0- XS O 3" 2" 3" T WATER TABLE [x] LOOSE BAG SAMPLE [T] IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE [s] SANDCONeFDT ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST V JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER lid REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC llrlP-S GeotectinlcalJS e*Ptot*tion, Inc. ^^ LOG No B-3 J '"EQUIPMENT Limited Access Auger Drill Rig SURFACE ELEVATION ± 39' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 6-mch diameter Boring GROUNDWATER DEPTH at 16 feet DATE LOGGED ^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH h-DEPTH F16- - - - 18- 20- 22- - 24- 26- 28-SYMBOLJIM! ! ! III •SAMPLErxxi'^. \ FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Gram size, Density Moisture, Color) FINE TO COARSE SAND, w/ some rock fragments, poorly to moderately cemented Dense Damp Tan-gray and orange TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) Bottom @ 21 5' o C/J SP- SM SW — LU 11 >- o& CL "Z. -7 LJU ^ O ;^- LUnsi >- gg Q ~ §^ + ? o E 11to o 30 54 ooyft s o 2" 2" I. WATER TABLE Kl LOOSE BAG SAMPLE 0 IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE [s] SANDCONE/FDT H STANDARD PENETRATION TESTV JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER lie REVIEWED BY L[)R/JAC 4fr4^-?l Geotectinlcal ^-fc ExPtofatlon' lne- ^^ LOG No B-3 J I&UIPMENT Hand Tools, Hand Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ±15' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 3' x 3' x 6* Handpit GROUNDWATER DEPTH at 5 feet DATE LOGGED ^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH DEPTH FT_ — — 1 -_ 2- 3- 4- ~ 5- : — 7-SYMBOL$ .. l~h .• I C SAMPLE IFIELD DESCRIPTION ANDCLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size Density Moisture Color) FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ lenses of cobbles (to 6" in diameter) Loose to medium dense Dry to damp Light gray BEACH DEPOSITS (Qb) FINE TO COARSE SAND, w/ some rock fragments, poorly cemented Medium dense Moist to wet Tan-brown TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) — hand-augered from 4' to 6' SANDSTONE, well cemented Dense Damp i Light tan-gray r \ SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsb) / Bottom @ 61 o SP sw SM IN-PLACEMOISTURE (%)IN PLACE DRYDENSITY (pcf)OPTIMUMMOISTURE (%)MAXIMUM DRYDENSITY (pcf)DENSITY(%ofMDD)2 i*X 0LU o BLOWCOUNTS/FTSAMPLE OD(INCHES)y_ WATER TABLE [><3 LOOSE BAG SAMPLE [T| IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE [s] SANDCONE/FDT HI STANDARD PENETRATION TESTV JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER llf REVIEWED BY ^^ llrl^-8 Geotechnleal•^j? Exploration, Inc. pi^ LOG No HP-1 J ^EQUIPMENT Hand Tools, Hand Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ±11' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 3' x 3' x 51 Handpit GROUNDWATER DEPTH Not Encountered DATE LOGGED ~^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH DEPTH FT_ — - - •< J 2- 3- 4- ~ _ — 5- - 6-SYMBOLa • a • • • * a a o . . . • • • >. < .'.'. 4 T l« J--Ll.!.i SAMPLE |FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Gram size, Density Moisture, Color) FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ lenses of cobble (to 6" in diameter) Loose to medium dense Dry to damp Light gray BEACH DEPOSITS (Qb) -hand-augered from 4 5' to 5' SILTY SANDSTONE, well cemented Dense Damp Light tan-gray A SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsb) f Bottom @ 5' COo CO SP SM IN PLACEMOISTURE (%)IN PLACE DRYDENSITY (pd)OPTIMUMMOISTURE (%)MAXIMUM DRYDENSITY (pd)DENSITY(%ofMDD) |+ 1 i£5 8 BLOWCOUNTS/FTSAMPLE OD(INCHES) |I WATER TABLE [g] LOOSE BAG SAMPLE H IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE H] SAND CONE/F D T ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TESTV JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER ng REVIEWED BY ^^ PGeotectmlcalExploration, Inc. LOG No HP-2 J '"EQUIPMENT Hand Tools, Hand Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ± 20' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 3' x 3' x 4' Handpit GROUNDWATER DEPTH Not Encountered DATE LOGGED ^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH DEPTH FT_ - - ~ 1 - 2- - 3- 5-SYMBOL<&l •/& <^ /VsX ^ H ^SAMPLE |FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size Density Moisture, Color) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ abundant roots and sandstone fragments Loose to medium dense Dry to damp Red-brown and gray-brown FILU TOPSOIL (Oaf) FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ slight silt and some rock fragments Medium dense (poorly cemented) Damp Tan-brown and orange TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qbp) Bottom @ 4' COo CO SM SW IN PLACEMOISTURE (%)IN PLACE DRYDENSITY (pd)OPTIMUMMOISTURE (%)MAXIMUM DRYDENSITY (pd)DENSITYptofMDD)1 8 BLOWCOUNTS/FTSAMPLE 0 D(INCHES) |I WATER TABLE [X] LOOSE BAG SAMPLE H IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE H SANDCONE/FDT ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TESTV JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER llh REVIEWED BY ^^ PGeotectmfcalExploration, Inc. LOG No HP-3 J ''EQUIPMENT Hand Tools, Hand Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ?•>•> DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 3' x 3' x 3' Handpit GROUNDWATER DEPTH Not Encountered DATE LOGGED ^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH DEPTH FT_ - - 1 - 2- - ~ 3- - 4-i SYMBOLu .-' ; ii . ", ' . •! -•--»—SAMPLEFIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Gram size, Density Moisture, Cola) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ some roots and rock fragments Loose to medium dense Dry Tan-gray FILL/ WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qaf) - poorly cemented FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ slight silt, moderately well cemented Dense Damp Red-brown and orange A TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qbp) f Bottom @ 3' 03 O03 SM SM IN PLACEMOISTURE (%)IN PLACE DRYDENSITY (pd)OPTIMUMMOISTURE (%)MAXIMUM DRYDENSITY (pcf)DENSITY| (%ofMDD)^ + <; CO UJ <_>BLOWCOUNTS/FTSAMPLE 0 D(INCHES)Jt WATER TABLE [>3 LOOSE BAG SAMPLE 0 IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE [s] SANDCONE/FDT H STANDARD PENETRATION TEST V JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER III REVIEWED BY ^^ PGeotecttnlcal Exploration, inc. LOG No HP-4 J ^EQUIPMENT Hand Tools, Hand Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ± 30' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 3' x 3' x 6' Handpit GROUNDWATER DEPTH Not Encountered DATE LOGGED ^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH DEPTH FT_ — — 1 - 2-j — 3- - 4- — *\SYMBOL,'-J~5 *. •!x. •A\7 1; % *'£•/ &( S ^ j .• * • * e a •SAMPLEFIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Gram size, Density Moisture Color) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ abundant roots, cobbles and rock fragments Loose to medium dense Dry to damp Gray-brown FILL (Qaf) -Dram pipe encountered SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ some rock fragments and large boulders (to 12" in diameter) Medium dense Damp Red-brown FILL (Qaf) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ some roots and orgamcs Loose to medium dense Dry -, Dark brown r \ TOPSOIL / FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ some coarse rock fragments Medium dense Damp Tan-brown WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS -dense Terrace Deposits encountered on the east \half of the excavation /" Bottom @ 6' o CO SM SM SM "SM"IN PLACEMOISTURE (%)IN PLACE DRYDENSITY (pcf)OPTIMUMMOISTURE (%)MAXIMUM DRYDENSITY (pcf)DENSITY(%ofMDD)vp EXPAN +CONSOL- *'BLOWCOUNTS/FTSAMPLE 0 D(INCHES)I WATER TABLE [>3 LOOSE BAG SAMPLE H IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE GO SANDCONE/FDT %& STANDARD PENETRATION TESTV JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER Hj REVIEWED BY ^^ ffmCr. ft GeotectinicalI Exploration, IIK. LOG No HP-5 J LABORATORY SOIL DATA SUMMARY 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 14-UD. 5 i- HHzrs Ofo \ \ \) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\V\ ,, \\1\\V\ / \\\ \ \ >\ s \\\ y^\ MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (I) \\V\\\ V-1<o \ \ \ \\ \y, \ 1 115 14.5 V \ X * 2 \ \ \ \ , N ^\\\ Xs! i,z LL t—2U.t-ex.Li.CL \ 3 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA APPARENT COHESION (psf) APPARENT FRICTION ANGLE 1 230 39° 2 3 Gravel m 6C 10 sX\ "— K \ \ o ^ Sand Coarse To Hediun U S • ° ° ° i i l I 1 ' ' 1 1 1 1 . . L_ 1 1 1 1 - - 1- —1 1 —> \ 11 1 i 1 1 i^i t-« ^ r^ o *^ c 50^ S ~~ — -» ^ — ^" 1 \ 1 \ \ \ \ F r,e standard 0 O0 O« (M 0 0 -1 \ \ \ j '1 Fines j it sieve sizes Clay > i r <\J <r /^ o o o3 *? — • O O 0 0o3 0 o 0 O O GWIN DiAHETtr, H> PECIFIC GRAVITY ERO AIR VOIDS CURVES 10 20 30 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST 40 SOIL TYPE 1 2 3 SOIL CLASSIFICATION FINE TO MEDIUM SAND with slight silt. Tan- brown. TERRACE BORING No. B-l TRENCH No.DEPTH 3' SWELL TEST DATA INITIAL DRY DENSITY (pcf) INITIAL WATER CONTENT (i) LOAD (psf) PERCENT SWELL E | = 1 - - - *20 2 3 FIGURE NUMBER 1 I JOB NUMBER 02-8201 OD lO FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS NEAR SLOPES Proposed Structure Concrete Floor Slab Reinforcement of Foundations and ROOT Slabs Following the Recommendations of the Architect or Structural Engineer. Concrete Founation 18" Minimum or as Deep as Required for Lateral Stability TOP OF COMPACTED RLL SLOPE [Any loose soils on the slope surface shall not be considered to provide lateral or vertical strength for the footing or for slope stability. Needed depth of imbedment shall be measured from competent soil.) COMPACTED RLL SLOPE WITH MAXIMUM INCLINATION AS PER SOILS REPORT. Total Depth of Footing Measured from Finish Soil Sub-Grade Outer Most Face>-«- of Footing TYPICAL SECTION (Showing Proposed Foundation Located Within 5 Feet of Top of Slope) 18" FOOTING / 5' SETBACK Total Depth of Footing 1.5:1.0 SLOPE #2.0:1.0 SLOPE a IB 0 T 2' 3' 4' 5' 58" 51" 42' 34" 26" 18" 48" 42" 36" 30" 24" 18" # when applicable Figure No. IV Job No. 02-8201 Exploration!, Inc. 1 RECOMMENDED BASEMENT/SUBGRADE RETAINING WALL/EXTERIOR FOO1OTG DESIGN Exterior /Retaining Footing / Wall Lower-level Slab—on—grade Crawlspace Sealant Proposed Exterior Grade 6" Win. To Dram at A Win. 2% Fall Away from Bldg Miradram 6000 > ^__ Properly Waterproofing Compacted To Top Of Wall Backfill Perforated PVC (SDR 35) 4" pipe with 0.5% min slope, with bottom of pipe located 12" below slab or Interior (crawlspace) Sealant around surface elevation, with 1.5 fcu.ft.) of gravel 1" diameter max, wrapped with Filter clothsuch as Miradram 6000 Between Bottom 12" of Slab and Pipe Bottom Miradram Cloth NOTE. As an option to Miradram 6000. Gravel or Crushed rock 3/4" maximum diameter may be used with a minimum 12" thickness along the interior face of the wall and 20 cu.ft/ft. of pipe gravel envelope 01-8130-V Figure No. V Job No. 02-8201 1 1 I I I I I I I II II II II II II I APPENDIX A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL DESCRIPTION Coarse-grained (More than half of material is larger than a No 200 sieve) GRAVELS, CLEAN GRAVELS (More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No 4 sieve size, but smaller than 3") GRAVELS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount) SANDS, CLEAN SANDS (More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than a No 4 sieve) SANDS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount) GW Well-graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little or no fines GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little or no fines GC Clay gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures SW Well-graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures FINE-GRAINED (More than half of material is smaller than a No 200 sieve) SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit Less than 50 Liquid Limit Greater than 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt and clayey-silt sand mixtures with a slight plasticity CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, silty clays, clean clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity PT Peat and other highly organic soils II I R R APPENDIX B EQ FAULT TABLES AND EQ SEARCH TABLES 1 I I I n Kiko TEST.OUT *********************** * ** EQFAULT •* * ** version 3 00 * * * *********************** DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER 02-8201 DATE 06-05-2002 DOB NAME Kiko Test Run CALCULATION NAME Ki ko Test Run Analysis FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE DAT SITE COORDINATES SITE LATITUDE 33 1600 SITE LONGITUDE 117.3500 SEARCH RADIUS 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION 15) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1997 Rev ) - Soft Rock UNCERTAINTY (M=Mechan, s=Sigma) M Number of Sigmas 0 0 DISTANCE MEASURE cdlSt SCOND I Basement Depth 5 00 km Campbell SSR 1 Campbell SHR- 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED CDMGFLTE DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km) 3 0 EQFAULT SUMMARY Page 1 Ifl in n iffm Kiko TEST.OUT DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 1 ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) ROSE CANYON CORONADO BANK ELSINORE-TEMECULA ELSINORE-DULIAN ELSINORE-GLEN IVY PALOS VERDES EARTHQUAKE VALLEY NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L A Basin) SAN DACINTO-ANZA SAN DACINTO-SAN DACINTO VALLEY CHINO-CENTRAL AVE (Elsinore) WHITTIER SAN DACINTO-COYOTE CREEK COMPTON THRUST ELYSIAN PARK THRUST ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN SAN DACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino SAN ANDREAS - Southern SAN DACINTO - BORREGO SAN DOSE SIERRA MADRE PINTO MOUNTAIN CUCAMONGASAN ANDREAS - coachella NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) CLEGHORN BURNT MTN RAYMOND NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) SAN ANDREAS - MOjave SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture EUREKA PEAK CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT VERDUGO SUPERSTITION MTN (San Dacinto) HOLLYWOOD ELMORE RANCH LANDERS DISTANCE mi (km) 5 0( 80)5 0( 80)20 9( 33 6)24 4( 39 2)24 7( 39 7)33 4( 53 8) 35 2( 56 6) 44 5( 71 6) 45 4( 73 0) 46 9( 75 5) 47 3( 76 1) 47 3( 76 1) 50 8( 81 7) 52 9( 85 1) 55 1( 88 6) 58 0( 93 4) 58 7( 94 5) 59 5( 95 8) 64 9( 104.5)64 9( 104 5) 66 9( 107 7) 68 1( 109 6) 71 8( 115 5) 71 9( 115 7) 72 1( 116 0) 73 3( 117 9) 75 5( 121 5) 77 2( 124 2) 78 2( 125 9) 79 7( 128 3) 80 2 ( 129 1) 80 2( 129 1) 80 2( 129 1)81 0( 130 4) 81 5( 131 2)82 4( 132 6)83 4( 134 3)84 2( 135 5) 87 0( 140 0)87 9( 141 4) ESTIMATED MAX EARTHQUAKE EVENT MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKE MAG (Mw) 6 9 6 9 7 46 87 1 6 8 7 1 6 5 6 9 7 2 6 9 6 7 6 8 6 8 6 86 7 6 8 6 7 7 37 4 6 6 6 5 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 1 7 0 6 5 6 4 6 5 6 77 1 7 86 4 6 56 7 6 66 4 6 67 3 PEAK SITE ACCEL g 0 447 0 447 0 1630 083 0 1050 053 0 0640 027 0 037 0 046 0 035 0 029 0.029 0 027 0 025 0 021 0 0230 021 0 031 0 034 0 0160 0140 0190 021 0 019 0 022 0 018 0 012 0 Oil 0 Oil 0 013 0 019 0 036 0 0100 Oil0 012 0 0120 0090 Oil0 020 EST SITE INTENSITY MOD MERC X X VIII VII VII VI VI V V VI V V V V V IV IV IV V V IV IV IV IV IV IV IVIIIIIIIIIIII IV VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IV DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 2 ABBREVIATED APPROXIMATE DISTANCE Page 2 (ESTIMATED MAX EARTHQUAKE EVENT MAXIMUM PEAK |EST SITE II I I III It III II III It Kiko TEST.OUT FAULT NAME SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) HELENDALE - S LOCKHARDT SANTA MONICA LACUNA SALADA MALIBU COAST LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS DOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) NORTHRIDGE (E Oak Ridge) BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) EMERSON SO - COPPER MTN SAN GABRIEL ANACAPA-DUME -..- V.'t •- •*• -V -1.- i -V •«• •• •<- * * -V V- A -' #• •"• •> 1 •> -V *• A * * ••• mi (km) 88 0( 141 7) 88 2( 141.9) 88 9( 143 0) 90 1( 145 0) 91 4( 147 1) 92. 3( 148 5) 95 6( 153 8) 95 6( 153.9) 95 9( 154 4) 96 2( 154 8) 96 2( 154 8) 96 4( 155 2) 98 0( 157 7) EARTHQUAKE MAG (Mw) 6 6 7 1 6 6 7 0 6 7 7 3 6 7 6 9 6 4 6 7 6 9 7 0 7 3 SITE ACCEL g 0 Oil 0 017 0 010 0 015 0 010 0 019 0 010 0 Oil 0 008 0 009 0 012 0 013 0 015 INTENSITY MOD MERC III IV III IV III IV III III II III III III IV -END OF SEARCH- 53 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE IT IS ABOUT 5 0 MILES (8 0 km) AWAY LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION 0 4470 g Page 3 I II Kiko TEST.OUT 111 II II II III II II II II II II II II *-•-*******••*•************* * * * EQFAULT ** •* v version 3 00 * * * *********************** DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER 02-8201 DATE- 06-05-2002 DOB NAME Kiko Test Run CALCULATION NAME KIko Test Run Analysis FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME CDMGFLTE DAT SITE COORDINATES SITE LATITUDE. 33 1600 SITE LONGITUDE 117 3500 SEARCH RADIUS 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION 15) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1997 Rev ) - Soft Rock UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma) M Number of Sigmas 0 0 DISTANCE MEASURE cdist SCOND 1 Basement Depth 5 00 km Campbell SSR 1 Campbell SHR 0 COMPUTE RHGA HORI2 ACCEL (FACTOR 0 65 DISTANCE 20 miles) FAULT-DATA FILE USED CDMGFLTE DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km) 3 0 EQFAULT SUMMARY Page 1 II II ll Kiko TEST.OUT ll DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page I ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) ROSE CANYON CORONADO BANK ELSINORE-TEMECULA ELSINORE-JULIAN ELSINORE-GLEN IVY PALOS VERDES EARTHQUAKE VALLEY NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L A Basin) SAN JACINTO-ANZASAN :ACINTO-SAN :ACINTO VALLEY CHINO-CENTRAL AVE (Elsinore) WHITTIER SAN 3ACINTO-COYOTE CREEK COMPTON THRUST ELYSIAN PARK THRUST ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN SAN JJACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino SAN ANDREAS - Southern SAN 3ACINTO - BORREGO SAN JOSE SIERRA MADRE PINTO MOUNTAIN CUCAMONGASAN ANDREAS - Coachella NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) CLEGHORN BURNT MTN RAYMOND NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) SAN ANDREAS - MOjave SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture EUREKA PEAK CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT VERDUGO SUPERSTITION MTN (san Jacinto) HOLLYWOOD ELMORE RANCH LANDERS DISTANCE rm (km) 5 0( 80) 5 0( 80) 20 9( 33 6) 24 4( 39 2) 24 7( 39 7) 33 4( 53 8) 35 2( 56 6) 44 5 ( 71 6) 45 4( 73 0)46 9( 75 5) 47. 3( 76 1)47 3 ( 76 1) 50 8( 81 7) 52 9( 85 1) 55 1( 88 6)58 0( 93 4) 58 7( 94 5) 59 5( 95 8)64 9( 104 5)64 9( 104 5) 66 9( 107 7) 68 1( 109 6) 71 8( 115 5) 71 9( 115 7) 72 1( 116 0) 73 3( 117 9) 75 5( 121 5) 77 2( 124 2) 78 2( 125 9) 79 7( 128 3) 80 2( 129 1) 80 2( 129 1) 80 2( 129 1) 81 0( 130 4) 81 5( 131 2) 82 4( 132 6) 83 4( 134 3) 84 2( 135 5) 87 0( 140 0) 87 9( 141 4) ESTIMATED MAX EARTHQUAKE EVENT MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKE MAG (MW) 6 9 6 9 7 4 6 8 7 1 6 8 7 1 6 5 6 9 7 2 6 9 6 7 6 8 6 8 6 8 6 7 6 8 6 7 7 3 7 4 6 6 6 5 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 17 0 6 5 6 4 6 5 6 7 7 17 8 6 4 6 5 6 7 6 6 6 4 6 6 7 3 DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 2 RHGA SITE ACCEL g 0 291 0 291 0 163 0 083 0 1050 053 0 064 0 027 0 037 0 0460 035 0 0290 029 0 027 0 025 0 021 0 023 0 021 0 031 0 034 0 016 0 014 0 019 0 021 0 019 0 022 0 018 0 012 0 Oil 0 Oil 0 0130 019 0 036 0 010 0 Oil 0 012 0 012 0 009 0 Oil 0 020 EST SITE INTENSITY MOD MERC. IX IX VIII VII VII VI VI V V VI V V V V V IV IV IV V V IV IV IV IV IV IV IVIIIIIIIIIIII IV VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IV ESTIMATED MAX EARTHQUAKE EVENT ABBREVIATED DISTANCE MAXIMUM RHGA EST SITE Page 2 II Kiko TEST.OUT I 1 1 FAULT NAME SUPERSTITION HILLS (San 3acinto) HELENDALE - S LOCKHARDT SANTA MONICA LACUNA SALADA MALIBU COAST LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) NORTHRIDGE (E Oak Ridge) BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) EMERSON SO - COPPER MTN SAN GABRIEL ANACAPA-DUME t fV*V*Jr-V*-^ft -END OF SEARCH- 53 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5 0 MILES (8.0 km) AWAY LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION 0 2905 g rm (km) 88 0( 141 7) 88 2( 141 9) 88 9( 143 0) 90 1( 145 0) 91 4( 147 1) 92 3( 148 5) 95 6( 153 8) 95 6( 153.9) 95 9( 154 4) 96 2( 154 8) 96 2( 154 8) 96 4( 155 2) 98 0( 157 7) EARTHQUAKE MAG (Mw) 6 6 7.1 6 6 7 0 6 7 7 3 6 7 6 9 6 4 6 7 6 9 7 0 7 3 SITE ACCEL g 0 Oil 0 017 0 010 0 015 0.010 0 019 0 010 0 Oil 0.008 0 009 0 012 0 013 0 015 INTENSITY MOD MERC III IV III IV III IV III III II III III III IV Page 3 II Kiko TEST.OUT II II III ************************* * ** EQSEARCH * * ** version 3 00 ** ***************************** ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS JOB NUMBER 02-8201 DATE 06-05-2002 JOB NAME K1KO Test Run EARTHQUAKE-CATALOG-FILE NAME ALLQUAKE DAT MAGNITUDE RANGE MINIMUM MAGNITUDE 5 00 MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE 9 00 SITE COORDINATES SITE LATITUDE 33 1600 SITE LONGITUDE 117 3500 SEARCH DATES START DATE 1800 END DATE 2001 SEARCH RADIUS 100 0 mi 160 9 km ATTENUATION RELATION 25) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1997 Rev ) - soft Rock UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma). M Number of Sigmas 0 0 ASSUMED SOURCE TYPE. DS [ss=Stnke-slip, DS=Reverse-slip, BT=Blind-thrust]SCOND 0 Depth Source A Basement Depth 5 00 km Campbell SSR 1 Campbell SHR 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km) 3 0 Page 1 Kiko TEST.OUT I 1 I I EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS page 1 | TIME SITE ISITEl APPROX FILEJ LAT LONG DATE (UTC) | DEPTH | QUAKE | ACC MM DISTANCE CODE] NORTH WEST H M S6C (km) MAG g | INT mi [km] DMG |33 0000 MGI MGI PAS DMG T-A T-A 33 0000 32 8000 32 9710 32 7000 32 6700 32 6700 T-A |32 6700 DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG MGI DMG DMG DMG DMG MGI DMG DMG DMG DMG PAS DMG DMG 33 7000 33 7000 33 7000 33 2000 33 6990 32 8000 33 2000 33 7100 33 7500 33 7500 33 5750 33 8000 33 6170 33 8000 33 6170 33 9000 33 5010 33 6830 33 0000 DMG |33 5000 DMG 33 7000 DMG |33 7000 DMG |34 0000 MGI |34 0000 DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG T-A MGI DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG 33 7500 33 7500 33 7500 33 7500 33 7500 33 3430 33 9500 33 7830 32 8170 33 4000 32 2500 34 1000 33 4080 33 2000 33 9760 33 7830 33 2830 33 2830 33 2830 33 2830 33 9940 117 3000 117 0000 117 1000 117 8700 117 2000 117 1700 117 1700 117 1700 117 4000 117 4000 117 4000 116 7000 117 5110 116.8000 116 6000 116 9250 117 0000 117.0000 11/22/180012130 0 0 09/21/1856 05/25/1803 07/13/1986 05/27/1862 10/21/1862 05/24/1865 12/00/1856 05/13/1910 04/11/1910 05/15/1910 01/01/1920 05/31/1938 10/23/1894 10/12/1920 09/23/1963 06/06/1918 04/21/1918 117 9830|03/11/1933 117 6000104/22/1918 117 9670 117 0000 118 0170 117 2000 03/11/1933 12/25/1899 03/14/1933 12/19/1880 116 5130102/25/1980 118 0500 116 4330 116 5000 118 0670 118 0670 117 2500 117.5000 118 0830 118 0830 118 0830 118 0830 118 0830 116 3460 116 8500 118.1330 118 3500 116 3000 117 5000 117 3000 03/11/1933 06/04/1940 09/30/1916 03/11/1933 03/11/1933 07/23/1923 12/16/1858 03/11/193303/11/1933 03/13/1933 03/11/1933 03/11/1933 04/28/1969 09/28/1946 10/02/1933 12/26/1951 02/09/1890 01/13/1877 07/15/1905 116 2610103/25/1937 116 2000 116 7210 118 2500 116 1830 116 1830 05/28/1892 06/12/1944 11/14/1941 03/23/1954 03/19/1954 116 1830103/19/1954 116 1830 116 7120 03/19/1954 730 0 00000 1347 8 2 20 0 0 0 0000 0000 0000 620 0 0 757 0 0 1547 0 0 235 0 0 83455 4 23 3 0 0 1748 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 144152 6| 16 5 2232 0 0 223225 0 518 4 0 2115 0 0 154 7 8 1225 0 0 19 150 0 0000 104738 5 658 3 0 1035 8 3 211 0 0 51022 0 85457 0 73026 0 10 0 0 0 230 0 0910 0 0 131828 0 323 0 0 2900 232042 9 719 9 0 91017 6 04654 0 12 6 0 0 20 0 0 0 2041 0 0 1649 1 8 1115 0 0 104534 7 84136 3 41450 0 95429 0 102117 0 95556 0 06/12/1944 111636 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 6 50) 0.208 5 00 5 00 5 30 5 90 5 00 5 00 5 00 5 00 5 00 6 00 5 00 5 50 5 70 5 30 5 00 5 00 6 80 5 20 5 006 30 6 405 10 6 00 5 50 5 50 5 10 5 00 5 10 5 10 6 25 7 00 5 105 10 5 30 5 00 5 00 5 80 5 00 5 40 5 90 6 30 0 023 0 016 0 017 0 028 0 012 0 012 0 012 0 Oil 0 Oil 0 024 0 Oil 0 016 0 017 0 Oil 0 008 0 008 0 034 0 009 0 0080 021 0 022 0 008 0 015 0 009 0 009 0 007 0 006 0 006 0 006 0 015 0 027 0 0060 006 0 007 0 005 0 005 0 010 0 005 0 007 0 010 0 014 5 00| 0 005 5 30 6 00 6 30 5 10 5 40 5 10 6 20 5 50 5 00 5 30 0 006 0 010 0 012 0 005 0.006 0 005 0 Oil 0 006 0 004 0 005 VIII IV IV IV V III III III III III VIII IV IVIIIIIIIII VIIIII IV IVII IVIIIIIIIIIIIIII IV VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11 4( 18 4) 23 1( 37 1) 28 8( 46 3) 32 8( 52 8) 32. 9( 53 0) 35 4( 57 0) 35 4( 57 0) 35 4( 57 0) 37 4( 60.2) 37 4( 60 2) 37 4( 60 2) 37 7( 60 6) 38 3( 61 7) 40 4( 65 0) 43 4( 69 9) 45 2( 72 7) 45 4( 73 1) 45 4( 73 1) 46 4( 74 7) 46 5( 74 8) 47 5( 76 5) 48 6( 78 2) 49 7( 80 0) 51 8( 83 4) 53 7( 86 4) 54 1( 87 1) 54 2( 87 2) 54 4( 87 5) 55 6( 89 6) 55 6( 89 6) 58 3( 93 8) 58 6( 94 4) 58 7( 94 4)58 7( 94 4) 58 7( 94 4) 58 7( 94 4) 58 7( 94 4) 59 3( 95 5) 61 7( 99 2) 62 3(100 3) 62 6(100 7) 62 8(101 1) 63 4(102 1) 65 0(104.5) 65 1(104 8) 66 5(107 0) 67 0(107 8) 67 4(108 4) 67 9(109 3) 67 9(109 3) 67 9(109.3) I I 67 9(109.3) II 68 3(109 9) Page 2 I 1 I Kiko TEST OUT EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS Page 2 I TIME SITE (SITEl APPROX. FILE] LAT | LONG DATE (UTC) | DEPTH | QUAKE | ACC MM DISTANCE CODE| NORTH WEST H M Sec| (km) MAG g INT mi [km] DMG MGI DMG GSP DMG DMG DMG PAS DMG DMG DMG DMG GSP DMG PAS DMG PAS DMG DMG 32 7000 34 0000 33 2170 34 140033 1900 33 8500 34 2000 33 9980 34 1000 34 2000 116 3000102/24/1892 118 0000 12/25/1903 116 1330108/15/1945 117 7000 116 1290 118 2670 117 4000116 6060 116 8000117 100034 18001116 9200 34 180034 1630 34 1000 34 0610 33 1130 34 0730 34 0170 34 0170 DMG 34 0170 DMG 34 0170 GSP 34 1950 DMG 33 9330 DMG 34 2700 T-A 34 0000 T-A 34 0000 T-A 34 0000 MGI DMG GSN DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG GSP MGI GSP DMG DMG GSP DMG DMG DMG DMG GSP PDG MGI DMG GSP DMG 34 1000 116 9200116 8550 116 7000 118 0790116 0370 118 0980 116 5000 116 5000 116 5000 116 5000 116 8620 116 3830 117 5400 118 2500 118 2500 118 2500 118 1000 33 23101116 0040 34 2030 34 2000 34 3000 32 9670 116 8270 117 9000 117 5000 02/28/1990 04/09/1968 03/11/1933 07/22/1899 07/08/1986 10/24/193509/20/1907 01/16/1930 01/16/1930 06/28/1992 02/07/188910/01/1987 04/09/196810/04/1987 07/26/1947 07/25/1947 07/25/1947 07/24/1947 08/17/1992 12/04/1948 09/12/1970 09/23/1827 03/26/1860 01/10/1856 07/11/1855 05/26/1957 06/28/1992 08/28/1889 07/22/1899 116 0000)10/22/1942 32 96701116 0000 10/21/1942 32 967032 9670 34 2670 33 8760 34 0000 33 9020 34 3000 32 9830 34 2390 32 0000 32 0000 32 2000 32 2000 33 9610 34 2900 34 0800 116 0000110/21/1942 116 0000 116 9670 116 2670 118 3000 116 2840 117 6000 115 9830 116 8370 117 5000 117 5000 116 5500 116 5500 116 3180 116 9460 118 2600 32 50001118 5500 34 0290(116 3210 10/21/1942 08/29/1943 06/29/1992 09/03/1905 07/24/1992 07/30/1894 05/23/1942 07/09/1992 720 00) 00 1745 0 0 175624 0 234336 6 22859 1 1425 0 0 046 0 092044 5 1448 7 6 154 0 0034 3 6 02433 9 144321 0 520 0 0 144220 0 3 353 5 105938 2 24941 0 61949 0 04631 0 221046 0 204152 1 234317 0 143053 0 0000 0000 0000 415 0 0 155933 6 150530 7 215 0 0 2032 0 0 181326 0 162519 0 162654 0162213 0 34513 0 160142 8 540 0 0181436 2 512 0 0 154729 0 014357 6 06/24/1939(1627 0 0 05/01/1939 11/05/1949 11/04/1949 04/23/1992 02/10/2001 07/16/1920 02/24/1948 08/21/1993 32 08301116 6670111/25/1934 2353 0 0 43524 0 204238 0 045023 0 210505 8 18 8 0 0 81510 0 014638 4 818 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 11 1 0 00 0 11 70 0 0 00 0 0 06 0 0 0 9 5 6 70 5 00 5 70 5 20 6 40 5 00 5 50 5 605 106 005 10 5 205 30 5 305 90 5 0| 5 20 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 00 00 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 5 305 105 20 5 00 5 50 5 30 6 50 5 40 5 00 5 00 5 00 6 30 5 00 6 70 5 50 6 50 5 00 5 00 5 006 50 5 50 5 20 5 30 5 00 6 00 5 00 5 30 5 00 0 016 0 004 0 007 0 005 0 012 0 004 0 006 0 0060 004 0 0080 004 0 004 0 005 0 0050 007 0 0040 004 0 0040 004 0 003 0 005 0 004 0 012 0 005 0 003 0 003 0 003 0 010 0 003 0 013 IV I II IIIII I IIIII IIII III II IIII I I I II I III II I I I III I III 0 005 II 0 Oil 0 003 0 003 0 0030 Oil 0 005 0 004 0 004 0 003 0 007 0 003 0 004 0 003 5 00| 0 003 5 10 5 70 6 10 5 10 5 00 5 30 5 00 5.00 0 003 0 006 0 008 0 003 0.003 0 004 0 003 0 003 III I I IIII III I I III I I I I II III I I I I 68 6(110 5) 69 0(111 0) 70 4(113.3) 70 6(113 6) 70 6(113 6) 71 1(114 4) 71 9(115.6) 72 0(115 8)72 2(116 2)73 2(117 8)74 6(120 1)74 6(120 1)74 9(120 5) 74 9(120 5)75 0(120 7)76 0(122 3)76 3(122 8) 76 8(123 5) 76 8(123 5) 76 8(123 5) 76 8(123 5) 76 8(123 5) 77 1(124 1) 77 4(124 6) 77 7(125 1) 77 7(125 1) 77 7(125 1) 77 9(125 4) 77 9(125 4) 78.0(125 6) 78 4(126.2) 79.2(127 4) 79 2(127 5) 79 2(127 5)79 2(127 5)79 2(127 5) 79 5(128 0)79 6(128 0) 79 7(128 2) 79 9(128 6)80 0(128 8)80 0(128 8) 80 1(128 9) 80 6(129 6) 80 6(129 6) 81 0(130 3) 81 0(130 3) 81 1(130 6) 81 4(131 0) 82 3(132 4) 83 2(133 9) 84 3(135 6) 84 3(135 7) Page 3 1 II I Kiko TEST OUT I 1 I I I I I I EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS Page 3 FILE CODE LAT NORTH LONG WEST DATE TIME (UTC)H M sec DEPTH (km) QUAKE MAG SITE ACCg SITE MM INT APPROX DISTANCE mi [km] 1 j , j , , , ^ , GSP GSP GSP DMG GSP DMG DMG GSP DMG GSP DMG MGI DMG PAS DMG DMG GSN DMG PAS PAS T-A DMG PAS GSP DMG GSP DMG DMG DMG GSP PAS DMG DMG DMG GSP PAS GSP 34 0640 34 2620 34 1080 34 3700 34 3400 34 0670 34 0670 116 3610 118 0020 116 4040 117 6500 116 9000 116 3330 116 3330 34 13901116 4310 33 1830 34 3690 34 0830 34 0000 34 0000 33 0130 33 0000 33 0330 34 2010 33 2160 33 9190 33 0820 33 5000 33 9500 33 9440 34 2680 31 8110 34 3410 32 9830 33 2330 32 9500 34 3320 34 3270 34 0000 34 0000 32 9000 34 2310 33 0980 34 2130 115 8500 116 8970 116 3000 118 5000 118 5000 115 8390 115 8330 115 8210 116 4360 115 8080 118 6270 115 7750 115 8200 118 6320 118 6810 116 4020 117 1310 116 5290 115 7330 115 7170 115 7170 116 4620 116 4450 116 0000 116 0000 115 7000 118 4750 09/15/1992 06/28/1991 06/29/1992 12/08/1812 11/27/1992 05/18/1940 05/18/1940 06/28/1992 04/25/1957 12/04/1992 05/18/1940 11/19/1918 08/04/1927 11/24/1987 01/08/1946 09/30/1971 06/28/1992 04/25/1957 01/19/1989 11/24/1987 05/00/1868 08/31/1930 01/01/1979 06/16/1994 12/22/1964 06/28/1992 01/24/1951 10/22/1942 06/14/1953 07/01/1992 03/15/1979 04/03/1926 09/05/1928 10/02/1928 03/20/1994 115 6320104/26/1981 118 5370101/17/1994 084711 3 144354 5 141338 8 15 0 0 0 160057 5 55120 2 72132 7 123640 6 222412 0 020857.5 5 358 5 2018 0 0 1224 0 0 131556 5 185418 0 224611 3 115734 1 215738 7 65328 8 15414 5 0000 04036 0 231438 9 162427 5 205433 2 124053 5 717 2 6 15038 0 41729 9 9 0 11 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 8 0 1 0 -0 3 11 9 4 9 0 0 0 0 11 3 3 0 2 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 074029 9| 90 21 716 5 20 8 0 0 1442 0 0 19 1 0 0 212012 3 12 928 4 123055 4 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 3 8 18 0 5 20 5 40 5 40 7 00 5 30 5 20 5 00 5 10 5 10 5 30 5 40 5 00 5 00 6 00 5 40 5 10 7 60 5 20 5 00 5 80 6 30 5 20 5 00 5 00 5 60 5 20 0 003 0 004 0 004 0 015 0 004 0 003 0 003 0 003 0 003 0 004 0 004 0 003 0 003 0 006 0 004 0 003 0 022 0 003 0 003 0 005 0 007 0 003 0 003 0 002 0 004 0 003 5 60| 0 004 5 50 5 50 5 40 5 20 5 50 5 00 5 00 5 30 5 70 6 70 0 004 0 004 0 003 0 003 0 004 0 002 0 002 0 003 0 004 0 009 I I I IV I I I I I I I I I II I I IVIIIIIII - - IIIIIIII - - IIIII 84 4(135 9) 84 8(136 5) 85 1(136 9) 85 3(137.3) 85 5(137 5) 85 7(137 9) 85 7(137 9) 85 8(138 0) 86 7(139 5) 87 4(140 7) 87 8(141 3) 88 0(141 6) 88 0(141 6) 88 0(141 6) 88 5(142 3) 88 9(143 0) 89 0(143 2) 89 2(143 5) 90 3(145 2) 91 2(146 8) 91 3(147 0) 91 7(147 6) 93 8(150 9) 93 9(151 1) 94 0(151 3) 94 2(151 6) 94 3(151 8) 94 5(152 0) 95 6(153 9) 95 6(153 9) 95 9(154 3) 96 9(156 0) 96 9(156 0) 97 2(156 4) 98 2(158 0) 99 4(160 0) 99 7(160 4) ' •"• -' -1- •' •• •••"•< •"••*• V -,1- * V- V *•**•*•"•**•'•* * •• *• -t * -V * *• it -V V -t •*•**# V * * V 5V *• *• •»•J- -,1- -1- -1- * * -V * -i * -V * *J -END OF SEARCH- 143 EARTHQUAKES FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH AREA TIME PERIOD OF SEARCH 1800 TO 2001 LENGTH OF SEARCH TIME 202 years THE EARTHQUAKE CLOSEST TO THE SITE IS ABOUT 11 4 MILES (18 4 km) AWAY LARGEST EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE FOUND IN THE SEARCH RADIUS 7 6 LARGEST EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION FROM THIS SEARCH 0 208 g COEFFICIENTS FOR GUTENBERG & RICHTER RECURRENCE RELATION a-va1ue= 1 518 b-value= 0 381 beta-value= 0 877 Page 4 1 Kiko TEST.OUT I 1 I I I TABLE OF MAGNITUDES AND EXCEEDANCES Earthquake I Number of Times | CumulativeMagnitude | Exceeded | No. / Year 4 0 4 5 5 0 5 5 6 0 6 5 7 0 7 5 i 1 143 143 143 50 27 11 31 0 70792 0 70792 0 70792 0 24752 0 13366 0 05446 0 01485 0 00495 Page 5 1 1 I I APPENDIX C MODIFIED MERCALLI INDEX APPENDIX C MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931 (Excerpted from the California Division of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology DMG Note 32) I I I I I I I I The first scale to reflect earthquake intensities was developed by deRossi of Italy, and Forel of Switzerland, in the Il880s, and is known as the Rossi-Forel Scale This scale, with values from I to X, was used for about two decades X need for a more refined scale increased with the advancement of the science of seismology, and in 1902, the Italian seismologist Mercalli devised a new scale on a I to XII range The Mercalli Scale was modified in 1931 by |iAmencan seismologists Harry 0 Wood and Frank Neumann to take into account modern structural features The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale measures the intensity of an earthquake's effects in a given locality, and is I perhaps much more meaningful to the layman because it is based on actual observations of earthquake effects at specific places It should be noted that because the damage used for assigning intensities can be obtained only from direct firsthand reports, considerable time -- weeks or months -- is sometimes needed before an intensity map can be assembled for a particular earthquake On the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, values range from I to XII The most commonly used adaptation covers the range of intensity from the conditions of "I -- not felt except by very few, favorably situated," to "XII -- damage total, lines of sight disturbed, objects thrown into the air " While an earthquake has only one magnitude, it can have many intensities, which decrease with distance from the epicenter It is difficult to compare magnitude and intensity because intensity is linked with the particular ground and structural conditions of a given area, as well as distance from the earthquake epicenter, while magnitude depends on the energy released at the focus of the earthquake Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake Standing motor cars may rock slightly Vibration like passing of truck. Duration estimated III IV During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few At night some awakened Dishes, windows, doors disturbed, walls make cracking sound Sensation like heavy truck striking building Standing motor cars rocked noticeably Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened Some dishes, windows, etc, broken, a few instances of cracked plaster, unstable objects overturned Disturbances of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes noticed Pendulum clocks may stop V VI Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors damaged chimneys Damage slight Some heavy furniture moved, a few instances of fallen plaster or Vll Everybody runs outdoors Damage negligible in building of good design and construction, slight to moderate in well- built ordinary structures, considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures, some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving motor cars VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures, considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with partial collapse, great in poorly built structures Panel walls thrown out of frame structures Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls Heavy furniture overturned Sand and mud ejected in small amounts Changes in well water Persons driving motor cars disturbed IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures, well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb, great in substantial buildings with partial collapse Buildings shifted off foundations Ground cracked conspicuously Underground pipes broken Some well-built wooden structures destroyed, most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations, ground badly cracked Rails bent. Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud Water splashed (slopped) over banks. XI Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed Broad fissures in ground. pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly. Underground XII Damage total. Practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or destroyed Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown upward into the air. Waves seen on ground surface 1 I APPENDIX D GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS II APPENDIX D GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS I I II I General The objective of these specifications is to properly establish procedures for the clearing and preparation of the existing natural ground or properly compacted fill to receive new fill, for the selection of the fill material, and for the fill compaction and testing methods to be used Scope of Work The earthwork includes all the activities and resources provided by the contractor to construct in a good workmanlike manner all the grades of the filled areas shown in the plans The major items of work covered in this section include all clearing and grubbing, removing and disposing of materials, preparing areas to be filled, compacting of fill, compacting of backfills, subdram installations, and all other work necessary to complete the grading of the filled areas Site Visit and Site Investigation 1 The contractor shall visit the site and carefully study it, and make all inspections necessary in order to determine the full extent of the work required to complete all grading in conformance with the drawings and specifications The contractor shall satisfy himself as to the nature, location, and extent of the work conditions, the conformation and condition of the existing ground surface, and the type of equipment, labor, and facilities needed prior to and during prosecution of the work The contractor shall satisfy himself as to the character, quality, and quantity of surface and subsurface materials or obstacles to be encountered Any inaccuracies or discrepancies between the actual field conditions and the drawings, or between the drawings and specifications, must be brought to the engineer's attention in order to clarify the exact nature of the work to be performed 2 A soils investigation report has been prepared for this project by GEI It is available for review and should be used as a reference to the surface and subsurface soil and bedrock conditions on this project Any recommendations made in the report of the soil investigation or subsequent reports shall become an addendum to these specifications Authority of the Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist The soils engineer shall be the owner's representative to observe and test the construction of fills Excavation and the placing of fill shall be under the observation of the soils engineer and his/her representative, and he/she shall give a written opinion regarding conformance with the specifications upon completion of grading The soils engineer shall have the authority to cause the removal and replacement of porous topsoils, uncompacted or improperly compacted fills, disturbed bedrock materials, and soft alluvium, and shall have the authority to approve or reject materials proposed for use in the compacted fill areas The soils engineer shall have, in conjunction with the engineering geologist, the authority to approve the preparation of natural ground and toe-of-fill benches to receive fill material The engineering geologist shall have the authority to evaluate the stability of the existing or proposed slopes, and to evaluate the necessity of remedial measures If any unstable condition is being created by cutting or filling, the engineering geologist and/or soils engineer shall advise the contractor and owner immediately, and prohibit grading m the affected area until such time as corrective measures are taken The owner shall decide all questions regarding (1) the interpretation of the drawings and specifications, (2) the acceptable fulfillment of the contract on the part of the contractor, and (3) the matter of compensation II • 1 I Appendix D Page 2 Clearing and Grubbing 1 Clearing and grubbing shall consist of the removal from all areas to be graded of all surface trash, abandoned improvements, paving, culverts, pipe, and vegetation (including -- but not limited to -- heavy weed growth, trees, stumps, logs and roots larger than 1-mch in diameter) _ 2 All organic and inorganic materials resulting from the clearing and grubbing operations shall be collected, I piled, and disposed of by the contractor to give the cleared areas a neat and finished appearance Burning of ll ll combustible materials on-site shall not be permitted unless allowed by local regulations, and at such times and in such a manner to prevent the fire from spreading to areas adjoining the property or cleared area It is understood that minor amounts of organic materials may remain in the fill soils due to the near impossibility of complete removal The amount remaining, however, must be considered negligible, and in no case can be allowed to occur in concentrations or total quantities sufficient to contribute to settlement upon decomposition Preparation of Areas to be Filled 1 After clearing and grubbing, all uncompacted or improperly compacted fills, soft or loose soils, or unsuitable materials, shall be removed to expose competent natural ground, undisturbed bedrock, or properly compacted fill as indicated in the soils investigation report or by our field representative Where the unsuitable materials are exposed in final graded areas, they shall be removed and replaced as compacted fill 2 The ground surface exposed after removal of unsuitable soils shall be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, brought to the specified moisture content, and then the scarified ground compacted to at least the specified density Where undisturbed bedrock is exposed at the surface, scarification and recompaction shall not be required 3 All areas to receive compacted fill, including all removal areas and toe-of-fill benches, shall be observed and approved by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placing compacted fill 4 Where fills are made on hillsides or exposed slope areas with gradients greater than 20 percent, horizontal benches shall be cut into firm, undisturbed, natural ground in order to provide both lateral and vertical stability This is to provide a horizontal base so that each layer is placed and compacted on a horizontal plane The initial bench at the toe of the fill shall be at least 10 feet in width on firm, undisturbed, natural ground at the elevation of the toe stake placed at the bottom of the design slope The engineer shall determine the width and frequency of all succeeding benches, which will vary with the soil conditions and the steepness of the slope Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent (5010) shall be benched when considered necessary by the soils engineer Fill and Backfill Material Unless otherwise specified, the on-site material obtained from the project excavations may be used as fill or backfill, provided that all organic material, rubbish, debris, and other objectionable material contained therein is first removed In the event that expansive materials are encountered during foundation excavations within 3 feet of finished grade and they have not been properly processed, they shall be entirely removed or thoroughly mixed with good, granular material before incorporating them in fills No footing shall be allowed to bear on soils which, in the opinion of the soils engineer, are detrimentally expansive -- unless designed for this clayey condition However, rocks, boulders, broken Portland cement concrete, and bituminous-type pavement obtained from the project excavations may be permitted in the backfill or fill with the following limitations I I I I I Appendix D Page 3 1 The maximum dimension of any piece used in the top 10 feet shall be no larger than 6 inches 2 Clods or hard lumps of earth of 6 inches in greatest dimension shall be broken up before compacting the material in fill 3 If the fill material originating from the project excavation contains large rocks, boulders, or hard lumps that cannot be broken readily, pieces ranging from 6 inches in diameter to 2 feet in maximum dimension may be used m fills below final subgrade if all pieces are placed in such a manner (such as windrows) as to eliminate nesting or voids between them No rocks over 4 feet will be allowed in the fill 4 Pieces larger than 6 inches shall not be placed within 12 inches of any structure 5 Pieces larger than 3 inches shall not be placed within 12 inches of the subgrade for paving 6 Rockfills containing less than 40 percent of soil passing 3/4-inch sieve may be permitted in designated areas Specific recommendations shall be made by the soils engineer and be subject to approval by the city engineer 7 Continuous observation by the soils engineer is required during rock placement 8 Special and/or additional recommendations may be provided in writing by the soils engineer to modify, clarify, or amplify these specifications 9 During grading operations, soil types other than those analyzed in the soil investigation report may be encountered by the contractor The soils engineer shall be consulted to evaluate the suitability of these soils as fill materials Placing and Compacting Fill Material 1 After preparing the areas to be filled, the approved fill material shall be placed in approximately horizontal layers, with lift thickness compatible to the material being placed and the type of equipment being used Unless otherwise approved by the soils engineer, each layer spread for compaction shall not exceed 8 inches of loose thickness Adequate drainage of the fill shall be provided at all times during the construction period 2 When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the engineer, water shall be added to it until the moisture content is as specified 3 When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the engineer, resulting in inadequate compaction or unstable fill, the fill material shall be aerated by bladmg and scarifying or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified 4 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than the density set forth in the specifications Compaction shall be accomplished with sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other approved types of acceptable compaction equipment Equipment shall be of such design that it will be able to compact the fill to the specified relative compaction Compaction shall cover the entire fill area, and the equipment shall make sufficient trips to ensure that the desired density has been obtained throughout the entire fill At locations where it would be impractical due to inaccessibility of rolling compacting equipment, fill layers shall be compacted to the specified requirements by hand-directed compaction equipment I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendix D Page 4 When soil types or combination of soil types are encountered which tend to develop densely packed surfaces as a result of spreading or compacting operations, the surface of each layer of fill shall be sufficiently roughened after compaction to ensure bond to the succeeding layer Unless otherwise specified, fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2 0 horizontal to 1 0 vertical In general, fill slopes shall be finished in conformance with the lines and grades shown on the plans The surface of fill slopes shall be overfilled to a distance from finished slopes such that it will allow compaction equipment to operate freely within the zone of the finished slope, and then cut back to the finished grade to expose the compacted core Alternate compaction procedures include the backrollmg of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers in increments of 3 to 5 feet in elevation gam Alternate methods may be used by the contractor, but they shall be evaluated for approval by the soils engineer Unless otherwise specified, all allowed expansive fill material shall be compacted to a moisture content of approximately 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content Nonexpansive fill shall be compacted at near-optimum moisture content All fill shall be compacted, unless otherwise specified, to a relative compaction not less than 95 percent for fill in the upper 12 inches of subgrades under areas to be paved with asphalt concrete or Portland concrete, and not less than 90 percent for other fill The relative compaction is the ratio of the dry unit weight of the compacted fill to the laboratory maximum dry unit weight of a sample of the same soil, obtained in accordance with A S T M D-1557 test method The observation and periodic testing by the soils engineer are intended to provide the contractor with an ongoing measure of the quality of the fill compaction operation It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to utilize this information to establish the degrees of compactive effort required on the project More importantly, it is the responsibility of the grading contractor to ensure that proper compactive effort is applied at all times during the grading operation, including during the absence of soils engineering representatives Trench Backfill 1 Trench excavations which extend under graded lots, paved areas, areas under the influence of structural loading, m slopes or close to slope areas, shall be backfilled under the observations and testing of the soils engineer All trenches not falling within the aforementioned locations shall be backfilled m accordance with the City or County regulating agency specifications 2 Unless otherwise specified, the minimum degree of compaction shall be 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density 3 Any soft, spongy, unstable, or other similar material encountered in the trench excavation upon which the bedding material or pipe is to be placed, shall be removed to a depth recommended by the soils engineer and replaced with bedding materials suitably densified Bedding material shall first be placed so that the pipe is supported for the full length of the barrel with full bearing on the bottom segment After the needed testing of the pipe is accomplished, the bedding shall be completed to at least 1 foot on top of the pipe The bedding shall be properly densified before backfill is placed Bedding shall consist of granular material with a sand equivalent not less than 30, or other material approved by the engineer 4 No rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter will be allowed in the backfill placed between 1 foot above the pipe and 1 foot below finished subgrade Rocks greater than 2 5 inches in any dimension will not be allowed in the backfill placed within 1 foot of pavement subgrade I ™Appendix D • Page 5 I I H H Material for mechanically compacted backfill shall be placed in lifts of horizontal layers and properly moistened prior to compaction In addition, the layers shall have a thickness compatible with the material being placed and the type of equipment being used Each layer shall be evenly spread, moistened or dried, and then tamped or rolled until the specified relative compaction has been attained Backfill shall be mechanically compacted by means of tamping rollers, sheepsfoot rollers, pneumatic tire rollers, vibratory rollers, or other mechanical tampers Impact-type pavement breakers (stompers) will not be permitted over clay, asbestos cement, plastic, cast iron, or nonremforced concrete pipe Permission to use specific compaction equipment shall not be construed as guaranteeing or implying that the use of such equipment will not result in damage to adjacent ground, existing improvements, or improvements installed under the contract The contractor shall make his/her own determination in this regard Jetting shall not be permitted as a compaction method unless the soils engineer allows it m writing Clean granular material shall not be used as backfill or bedding in trenches located in slope areas or within a distance of 10 feet of the top of slopes unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate the potential buildup of seepage forces into the slope mass Observations and Testing 1 The soils engineers or their representatives shall sufficiently observe and test the grading operations so that they can state their opinion as to whether or not the fill was constructed in accordance with the specifications 2 The soils engineers or their representatives shall take sufficient density tests during the placement of compacted fill The contractor should assist the soils engineer and/or his/her representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill In addition, the contractor should cooperate with the soils engineer by removing or shutting down equipment from the area being tested 3 Fill shall be tested for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions Field density testing should be performed by using approved methods by A S T M , such as A S T M D1556, D2922, and/or D2937 Tests to evaluate density of compacted fill should be provided on the basis of not less than one test for each 2-foot vertical lift of the fill, but not less than one test for each 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate In fill slopes, approximately half of the tests shall be made at the fill slope, except that not more than one test needs to be made for each 50 horizontal feet of slope in each 2-foot vertical lift Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate 4 Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the soils engineer Site Protection It shall be the grading contractor's obligation to take all measures deemed necessary during grading to maintain adequate safety measures and working conditions, and to provide erosion-control devices for the protection of excavated areas, slope areas, finished work on the site and adjoining properties, from storm damage and flood hazard originating on the project It shall be the contractor's responsibility to maintain slopes m their as-graded form until all slopes are in satisfactory compliance with the job specifications, all berms and benches have been properly constructed, and all associated drainage devices have been installed and meet the requirements of the specifications IAppendix D age 6 Ml observations, testing services, and approvals given by the soils engineer and/or geologist shall not relieve the contractor of his/her responsibilities of performing the work in accordance with these specifications I I mm After grading is completed and the soils engineer has finished his/her observations and/or testing of the work, no further excavation or filling shall be done except under his/her observations Adverse Weather Conditions Precautions shall be taken by the contractor during the performance of site clearing, excavations, and grading to protect the worksite from flooding, ponding, or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage Temporary provisions shall be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the worksite Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting shall be kept reasonably accessible to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated Where necessary during periods of rainfall, the contractor shall install checkdams, desiltmg basins, rip-rap, sandbags, or other devices or methods necessary to control erosion and provide safe conditions During periods of rainfall, the soils engineer should be kept informed by the contractor as to the nature of remedial or preventative work being performed (e g pumping, placement of sandbags or plastic sheeting, other labor, dozing, etc ) Following periods of rainfall, the contractor shall contact the soils engineer and arrange a walk-over of the site in order to visually assess rain-related damage The soils engineer may also recommend excavations and testing in order to aid in his/her assessments At the request of the soils engineer, the contractor shall make excavations in order to evaluate the extent of ram-related damage Ram-related damage shall be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress, and other adverse conditions identified by the soils engineer Soil adversely affected shall be classified as Unsuitable Materials, and shall be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading, as recommended by the soils engineer Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1 0 foot, shall be overexcavated to unaffected, competent material Where less than 1 0 foot in depth, unsuitable materials may be processed in place to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly recompacted in accordance with the applicable specifications If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials shall be over-excavated, then replaced in accordance with the applicable specifications In slope areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1 0 foot, they shall be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications Where affected materials exist to depths of 1 0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture-conditioning in place, followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein presented may be attempted If materials shall be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill, it shall be done in accordance with the slope-repair recommendations herein As field conditions dictate, other slope-repair procedures may be recommended by the soils engineer