HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-16; City Council; ; Coastal Development Permit and Variance for an Unpermitted Retaining Wall at 939 Begonia CourtMeeting Date: March 16, 2021
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: Jessica Evans, Associate Planner
jessica.evans@carlsbadca.gov, 760-602-4631
Subject: Coastal Development Permit and Variance for an Unpermitted Retaining
Wall at 939 Begonia Court
District: 3
Recommended Action
Hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution (Exhibit 1) denying Coastal Development Permit
No. 2020-0026 and Variance No. V 2020-0004 for an unpermitted retaining wall located at 939
Begonia Court.
Executive Summary
This is a request to approve a variance and a coastal development permit to authorize the
installation of an unpermitted retaining wall within the backyard of a single-family residence, at
939 Begonia Court. The retaining wall starts at the base of the slope and extends approximately
two-thirds up the grade toward the rear property line. The slope has been graded and filled
without a required grading permit, and each level between the multitiered system is flat and
designed in a manner that could be used as recreation areas (Exhibit 2 and 3).
The retaining wall does not meet city standards and cannot be approved as constructed. To
obtain permits for the retaining wall as it is currently constructed, the property owner applied
for a variance for relief from the design standards in the Hillside Development Regulations,
under Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.95.140. The request also requires a coastal
development permit for deviations to grading of steep slopes in the Coastal Zone in keeping
with Section 21.203.040A(3).
For the reasons further explained below, the Planning Commission and staff are unable to make
the required findings for either request and therefore recommend that the City Council deny
the applicant’s petitions.
The project is being presented before the City Council because the Carlsbad Municipal Code
requires City Council approval for coastal development permit requests to deviate from
development standards for steep slopes. Because the permit requires City Council approval,
CMC Section 21.54.040 C requires that all concurrently processed development permits – in this
case, the variance – also be considered by the City Council.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 1 of 193
Discussion
Project description
The site is developed with a two-story, single-family residence. The property comprises an
uphill slope with a gradient of approximately 55%. The lot is surrounded by single-family
residences to the north, south, east and west.
The existing single-family residence is in the Coastal Zone and is used as a short-term vacation
rental.1 The property has one open code enforcement violation for the existing and
unpermitted retaining wall system. According to a geotechnical report (Exhibit 4), the property
owner began unpermitted grading and construction of the multitiered retaining wall system
into the uphill slope located in the backyard in March 2016. Code enforcement staff issued a
notice of violation in February 2019 and a final notice of violation in June 2019. Construction
stopped in approximately June 2019 and the property owner chose to pursue a variance and
coastal development permit application.
The notice of violation referenced violations of municipal code Section 15.16.050 for grading
the slope to construct the walls without a grading permit; Section 21.95.140 for constructing a
retaining wall system on a manufactured uphill perimeter slope that exceeds the permitted
standards; and Section 21.203.040 for the construction of the wall system without approval of a
coastal development permit. To ensure the health and safety of the occupants during this
review process, the Code Enforcement Division required the area of the unpermitted walls be
sectioned off with a gate and caution tape to restrict entering or engaging in recreational
activities on the slope that has been structurally compromised and to disclose the restriction in
rental marketing materials.
Staff conferred with the property owner on several occasions since 2018 regarding potential
corrective actions. The actions discussed were:
A. Apply for and obtain a grading permit to remove the unpermitted walls and restore the
slope above to its original condition; or
B. Apply for a variance and coastal development permit application to request the
approval for the unpermitted retaining wall system to remain.
Staff told the property owner that the department could not support making the required
findings for a variance and a coastal development permit for the reasons further explained
below. Despite staff’s recommendation, the property owner chose to proceed with Option B.
Variance request
Under CMC Section 21.50.050, variances may be granted where special circumstances that
result from the unique size, shape, topography or dimensions of a property act to deprive that
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that fall under the same zoning
classification. Variances may not grant a special privilege that is not shared by other properties
in the surrounding area.
All properties in the vicinity are subject to the same hillside development and design standards
in CMC 21.95.140, which prohibit retaining walls from being constructed on a manufactured
1 In accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 5.60 – Short-Term Vacation Rentals, property owners in the
Coastal Zone may operate a short-term rental with the approval of a short-term vacation rental permit and a
business license.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 2 of 193
uphill perimeter slope. Except for the subject property, all neighboring properties comply with
this requirement. Before the unpermitted grading, the lot was similar in size, shape and
topography to surrounding lots. A single-family home was constructed at roughly the same size
as the neighboring properties and included a usable front and rear yard, again similar to other
properties in the neighborhood. Staff finds that the lot contains no special circumstances or
characteristics that deprive it of a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. Approval
of a variance in this case would grant a special privilege not enjoyed by surrounding properties.
Staff therefore recommended denial of the variance request. The full list of variance findings
with staff’s analysis can be found in Exhibit 7 – Planning Commission Staff Report, pages 7-12.
Coastal development permit request
Within the Coastal Zone, applicants may deviate from the grading and development standards
for steep slopes through a coastal development permit approved by the City Council. To
approve a coastal development permit, the City Council must find that:
• The development conforms to the certified Local Coastal Program policies
• The subject slope area is stable
• Any grading and development impacts are mitigatable for at least 75 years or the life of
the structure
• Grading of the slope is essential to the development intent and design
In addition, any grading that affects steep slopes in the Coastal Zone that is equal to or greater
than a 25%gradient may be allowed when it is necessary to preserve natural habitats as
required by the city’s Habitat Management Plan.
In this case, the project fails to conform to the Local Coastal Program in that it does not
preserve or protect steep manufactured slopes or ensure the structural stability of the slope
from erosion or geological instability. The unpermitted grading actually created geologic
instability. A geotechnical evaluation provided by the applicant and prepared by Advanced
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., dated October 9, 2019 (see Exhibit 4 and 5), confirms the slope
stability has been compromised and does not meet minimum safety standards for static or
seismic conditions. The geotechnical evaluation offered conceptual options to stabilize the
structure. However, the applicant’s engineer did not provide adequate technical information
for staff to determine if the subject slope area would be stable or if the impacts would be
mitigatable for at least 75 years or for the life of the structure. The grading also cannot be
considered essential to the development intent and design, because the grading was performed
after the development of the neighborhood and differs greatly from neighboring properties. In
addition, the property is not eligible for the natural habitat exception because there is no
evidence of any existing or previous habitat on the site.
Because the project fails to protect or preserve steep slopes, creates geologic instability and
contains no natural habitat, staff cannot support the findings needed to grant the coastal
development permit and recommended that the request be denied. The full list of coastal
development permit findings with staff analysis can be found in Exhibit 7 - Planning Commission
Staff Report, pages 4-7.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 3 of 193
Planning Commission hearing
The Planning Commission considered the request for the variance and coastal development
permit at a public hearing on Dec. 16, 2020. No public comments were read into the record.
However, there were 10 public comments received before the Planning Commission meeting
(see attachment 11 in Exhibit 7). Nine of the 10 comments were in opposition to the project.
Other issues discussed at the hearing included the following:
Noise concerns
Several concerns were raised regarding short-term vacation rental guests hosting
parties and creating noise issues for adjacent neighbors. This concern is not related to
the coastal development permit and variance application, but these comments have
been addressed and staff has informed neighbors to contact the Police Department for
noise complaints related to the short-term vacation rental use.
Aesthetics
The unpermitted retaining wall system is inconsistent with the city’s Landscape Manual,
which recommend slopes be landscaped with native or drought tolerant plants. In
addition, hillside development and design standards are intended to enhance the
aesthetic qualities of manufactured slopes, and development of the retaining wall
system is not a permitted development on an uphill slope. The project is inconsistent
with the intent and guidelines for hillside aesthetics.
Drainage concern
The adjacent property to the south at 937 Begonia Court is at a lower level than the
subject site and its owner has raised the concern of drainage issues since the
construction of the walls. The neighbor reported being able to see streams of water
draining onto their property when there is heavy rainfall. If the project is denied, the
property owner will be required to remove the walls and obtain a grading permit from
the city to restore the slope to its original condition. The grading permit review will
ensure the stability of the slope as well as address drainage issues and should rectify this
concern.
In addition, planning commissioners asked questions regarding the following:
Variance findings
Planning commissioners asked the applicant how the project could meet the variance
findings. The applicant answered by acknowledging there are no special circumstances
related to the property regarding the size, shape or topography and did not address
how allowing the project would not constitute a special privilege. The applicant did state
that there were special circumstances arising from the unpermitted grading and
construction. The applicant stated the variance should be considered in order to avoid
impacts to adjacent neighbors. However, the removal of the walls that are not allowed
by code and the restoration of the slope should not impact adjacent neighbors any more
than retrofitting the existing wall system.
Similar walls
The applicant provided a list of several walls throughout the city that appear to be
similar to the retaining walls in question (see Attachment 9 in Exhibit 7). Most of the
walls listed by the applicant are located on project sites that are not similar to his
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 4 of 193
property. Those projects were subject to other sections of the code or provisions within
a master plan development or were necessary, for circulation and roadways; or were
required for the preservation of significant natural habitats as required by the city’s
Habitat Management Plan; or were approved as concessions for the provision of
affordable housing. Some sites cited by the applicant are not subject to the hillside
development design standards because the topography does not meet the criteria for
the regulations to apply or predate the current Hillside Development Regulations.
Continuance
The Planning Commission raised the possibility of continuing the matter so that the
applicant could return to the commission with the technical information necessary to
demonstrate the feasibility of stabilizing the slope and retrofitting the walls. Staff
informed the Planning Commission that a continuance of the project to review technical
information for retrofitting the walls would not result in findings that would support of
the variance and coastal development permit.
The Planning Commission deliberated and recommended by a 6-0-1 vote (Commissioner
Peter Merz abstained) that the City Council deny the project (Exhibits 6-8).
Fiscal Analysis
There are no expected costs to the city from this action.
Next Steps
If the city council denies this request, staff will ensure that the property owner will obtain a
grading permit and restore the slope to its previously approved condition.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
The project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act environmental review as noted in
sections 15061(b)(4) and 15270 of state CEQA guidelines because the act does not apply to
projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
Should the City Council decide to approve Coastal Development Permit No. 2020-0026 and
Variance No. V 2020-0004, the project is exempt from environmental review in accordance with
Section 15303 - Class 3, for new construction of accessory structures which includes fences and
walls.
Public Notification and Outreach
Public notice of this item was posted in keeping with the Ralph M. Brown Act and it was
available for public viewing and review at least 72 hours before the scheduled meeting date.
In addition, information regarding public notification of this item such as mailings, public
hearing notices posted in the newspaper and on the City of Carlsbad website are available in
the Office of the City Clerk.
Exhibits
1. City Council resolution
2. Location map
3. Aerial view map
4. Geotechnical report
5. Geotechnical addendum
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 5 of 193
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7394
7. Planning Commission staff report dated Dec. 16, 2020
8. Excerpts of Planning Commission minutes dated Dec. 16, 2020
9. Hillside Development and Design Guidelines Section III.B and Exhibit 9
10. Neighborhood contour map
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 6 of 193
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-055
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND
VARIANCE FOR AN UNPERMITTED RETAINING WALL SYSTEM THAT
EXCEEDS STANDARDS ON A MANUFACTURED UPHILL PERIMETER SLOPE
WITH A GRADIENT GREATER THAN 40 PERCENT AND AN ELEVATION
DIFFERENTIAL OF GREATER THAN FIFTEEN FEET LOCATED AT 939
BEGONIA COURT WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE CITY'S LOCAL
COSTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 4
CASE NAME: BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
CASE NO.: CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California has determined that pursuant to
the provisions in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on Dec. 16, 2020, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider Coastal Development Permit No. CDP
2020-0026 and Variance No. V 2020-0004, as referenced in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7394;
and the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 7394 recommending to the City Council that
they be denied; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing to consider
said Coastal Development Permit and Variance; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating to the Coastal
Development Permit and Variance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, as
follows:
1.That the above recitations are true and correct.
2.That the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the denial of Coastal
Development Permit No. CDP 2020-0026 and Variance No. V 2020-0004 are adopted
and approved, and that the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission
contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 7394 on file with the City Clerk and
incorporated herein by reference, are the findings and conditions of the City Council.
3.This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The Provisions
of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 7 of 193
"NOTICE"
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 Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking review must be filed in the
appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes
final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record is filed with
a deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or 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 City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of
Carlsbad on the 16th day of March, 2021, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Hall, Blackburn, Acosta, Bhat-Patel, Schumacher.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: None.
MATT HALL, Mayor
,AV0,5/51/17-1 170. (fr-1--, /1)C
BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk
(SEAL)
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 8 of 193
EXHIBIT 2
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 9 of 193
AREA OF EXISTING
UNPERMITTED
GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION
EXHIBIT 3
Exhibit 3March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 10 of 193
Respectfully
Advanced Geotechnicaf Solutions, Inc.
AUL J. DERISI, Vice President
CEO 2536, Reg. Exp. 5-31-21
DUAL
e
et Ho 2536 ii I
CEFenFfEn
‘$r ENCINLER4NG
A GEOLOGi3T
5>%.‘
1*.E.
I. /1
1 L 1404,1 J L"---
N J. DOVVAN, Geotechnical Engineer
6505 LIGE. 2790, Reg. Exp. 6-30-21
Etisuibution (1)Atldwsiv ipdri
EXHIBIT 4
G S
FUSION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
4231 Balboa Avenue, Suite 619
San Diego, CA 921 17
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUT1 ONS, I NC.
485 Corporate Drive. Suite B
Escondido. California 92029
Telephone: (619)867-0487 Fax: (714) 4(19-3287
October 9. 2019
PM 1907-03
Report No. 1907-03-13-3
Attention: John *Rivera, PE
Subject: Geotee.hnical Evaluation of Existing Mechanically •Stabilizcd Earth Walls. 939
Begonia Courts City of Carlsbad, California
References: See Appendix
Gentlemen,
Pursuant to your request, Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., (AGS) has prepared this letter summarizing the
results of our geotechnical evaluation of the existing mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walla located in
the rear yard of the existing single-family residence located at 939 Begonia Court, City of Carlsbad,
California. Also provided are recommendations for remediatingthe current conditions.
AGS appreciates the opportunity to provide you with geoteehnical consulting services on this project. If
you have questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (619) 867-
0487.
ORANGE AND L.A. COUNTIES INLAND EMPIRE SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES
(714) 786-5661 (619) 867-0487 (619) 867-0487
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 11 of 193
October 9.2019
NW 1907-03
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ii
Report No. 1907-03-8-3
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Scope of Study
I.2. Geotechn ice I Study Limitations
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
2
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 2
4.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
4.1. Site Geology
4.1.1. Undocumented Artificial Fill
2
4.1.2, Very Old Paralic Deposits
3
4.2. Groundwater
3
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
3
5.1. Expansion Potential • 3
5.2. Shear Strength
3
5.3, Earthwork Adjustments .
4
5.4. Relative Compaction of Artificial Fill Materials • 4
5.5. Slope Stability.
4
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
5
7.0 Earthwork Recommendations 5
7.1. Site Preparation and Removals
6
7.2. Remediation Option Recommendations
6
7.2.1, OPTION I- MSE Wall System
7
7.2.2. OPTION 2- Restore Slope with Reinforced Soil Slope
7
7.2,3. Temporary 13ackcut Stabi lity
8
7.3. Geologic Observation During Grading
9
7.4. Seepage 9
7.5. Earthwork Considerations. 9
7.5.1. Compaction Standards
9
7.5.2. Benching
9
7.5.3. Mixing and Moisture Control
10
7.5.4. Haul Roads
10
7.5.5. Import Soils . 10
7.5.6. Fill Slope Construction , 10
7.5.6.1, Overbuilding Fill Slopes
10
7.5.6.2. Compacting the Slope Face
I 1
73.6.3. Reinforced Soil Slopes
I 1
8.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS • I 1
8.1. Mechanically Stabilized Earthen Wall Recommendations
1 I
8. Li. Observation During Construction
It
8.2. Civil Design Recommendations 12
9.0 SLOPE AND LOT MAINTENANCE. I 2
9.1. Slope Planting 12
9.2. Lot Drainage 12
9.3. Slope Irrigation 12
9.4. Burrowing Animals 13
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 12 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page ii.i
PM 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-B-3
10.0 CLOSURE 13
ATTACHMENTS:
Figure I - Site Location Map
Plate 1 - Boring Location Map
Plate 2 - Geologic Cross Sections
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Boring Logs
Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D — Slope Stability Analysis
Appendix E — Earthwork Specifications and Grading Details
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item 444 Page 13 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page 1
PAW 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-B-3
LO INTRODUCTION
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., (MIS) has prepared this report which presents the results of our
subsurface exploration and geotechnical evaluation of existing mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls
located in the rear yard of the existing single-family residence located at 939 Begonia Court. City of
Carlsbad. California.
Li. Scope of Stile,
The scope of this study included the following tasks:
.> Review of pertinent published and unpublished geologic and geotechnical literature, maps,
and aerial photographs (Appendix A, References).
>Geoteehnic.al site reconnaissance to observe site conditions and select exploratory locations.
>Subsurface exploration consisting of four soil borings excavated with a tripod mounted
limited access drill rig (Appendix B).
Geotechnical laboratory testing on selected soil samples (Appendix C).
P Preparation of a plan (utilizing the 10-scale site plan. as a base) showing the approximate
locations of borings and geologic cross sections (Plate I);
>Prepare geologic cross sections depicting the existing site conditions and anticipated geologic
contacts (Plate 2), The proposed design is also shown;
P. Compile and analyze data collected from our site reconnaissance, subsurface evaluation, and
laboratory testing. Specifically, our analyses included the following:
o Evaluation of general subsurface conditions and description of types. distribution, and
engineering characteristics of subsurface materials;
o Perform slope stability analyses of the existing as-gradedfas-bui lt condition.
•Provide recommendations on .rernecliating the current conditions.
> Prepare this report describing the work performed, data acquired and our cOncluSions
regarding the global stability of the existing tiered MSE wall system as well as providing
recommendations on the repair aft existing slope and wall,
1.2. Geotechnical Study Limitations
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are professional opinions based on
information provided by involved parties and the data developed during this investigation. The
conclusions presented herein are based on a limited geotechnical investigation. ACTS did not
provide geotechnical testing or observation Services during site grading and wall construction.
The materials immediately .adjacent to or beneath those observed may have different
characteristics than those observed. No representations are made as the quality or extent of
material not observed. Any evaluation. regarding the presence or absence of hazardous material is
beyond the scope of this firm's services.
ADVANCED GEDIECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 14 of 193
October 9,2019 Page 2
P/W 1907-03 Report No, 1907-03-8-3
2.0. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located at 939 Begonia Court, City of Carlsbad, California and currently supports one
single-family residence and associated improvetnents incite:Ling an in-ground pool and Jacuzzi in the rear
yard. The property is bounded on the west by Begonia Court and on the north, south, and east by existing
single-family residences. Site topography ranges from flat to very gently sloping to the west in the lower
building pad area and moderately sloping up to the east in the rear portion of the property. Elevations
across the site range from approximately 165 feet above mean sea level (artist) at the westerly property
boundary to 200 feet amel at the easterly property houndaey.
A majority of the rear slope has been graded to support the subject multi-tiered MSE wall system. Based
on available information and review of historic satellite imagery, construction of the subject retaining
Walls•began in 2016 and continued until recent months. The subject MSE walls were constructed with
Keystonee Country Manor retaining wall blocks in a tiered manner with a maximum overall height of
approximately 21 feet, Individual wall sections are approximately 5 feet in height and ere horizontally
separated by approximately I to 10 feet. Geogrid reinforcement (Miragride 2X1). appears to have been
placed at 1-foot vertical increments. Length of the geogrid reinforcement is repelled to be 4 feet. The
walls appear to be generally founded in formational materials with the exception of a portion of the
lowest wall adjacent to the pool which is founded upon a pre-existing masonry wall. At the time of our
site exploration, the uppermost wall was partially constructed. Groundwater seepage was observed
coming through the southerly portion of the uppermost wall.
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
On July 18, 2019, AGS conducted subsurface exploration at the subject site. Four (4) exploratory borings
(B-1 through 13-4) were excavated with a tripod drill rig to depths ranging from 5.5 to 16.5 feet below
ground surface (legs). The materials encountered in the borings were logged by our field personnel. The
boring logs are presented in Appendix 8, Upon completion, the borings were backfil led with soil cuttings.
The approximate boring locations are showman Figure 2, Boring Location Map.
Bulicand relatively undisturbed ring samples of the soils were obtained from the borings at various depths
in an effort to evaluate lithologic changes and cinsite geology at the study site. Soil samples were
transported to AOS' laboratory and tested for in-situ unit weight and moisture content, shear strength. and
maximum density and optimum moisture content. Laboratory results are presented in Appendix C.
4,0 ENGINE,ERING GEOLOGY
4.1. Site Ceolo ere-
Current published regional geologic maps indicate the site is underlain by Very Old Paralic
Deposits (Kennedy, lvf,Pe and Tan, S.S., 2007). The following is a brief description of the
geologic units encountered during our geotechnical exploration. A geologic eross section showing
approximate distribution of geologic units encountered ;ensile is presented on Plate 2,
4.1.1. Undocumented Artificial FM
Undocumented artificial fill materials were encountered extending to depths ranging from
3 feet to 7 feet termite. These soils appear to be locally derived and generally consist of
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUT1CKS, NC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 15 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page 3
P/W 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-3-3
light yellow brown, silty sand with gravel and cobbles. The artificial 1111 is generally in a
dry to slightly moist and loose to moderately dense condition.
4.1,2. Very Old Paretic Deposits
Very old piratic deposit were encountered beneath fill soils to the maximum depth
explored. As encountered, these soils generally consist of dark yellow brown to orange
brown, silty sand with trace clay in e slightly moist to moist and moderately dense to
dense condition.
4.2. Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface investigation. No natural groundwater
condition is known to exist at the site. However, seepage was observed coming through the
uppermost wall near the southerly property boundary. Based on our observations, the seepage
does not appear to be naturally occurring and is. most likely related to drainage and/or irrigation
water from the easterly superjacent residence. It should be noted that localized perched
groundwater may develop at a later date, most likely at or near fill/bedrock contacts,• dUe to
fluctuations in precipitation, irrigation practices, or factors not evident at the time of our field
explorations.
5.0 GEOTECHN1CAL ENGINEERING
Presented herein is a general discussion of the geotechnical properties of the various soil types and the
analytic methods used in this report.
5.1. Exnansion Potential
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink
or swell) due to variations in moisture Content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from
precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought,
or other factors and may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures or concrete slabs
supported on grade. Based on our laboratory testing, it is anticipated that the expansion potential
of the onsite Materials will be "Very Low" to "Low".
5,2, Shear 5trength
Based on our laboratory test results and previous experience in the area with similar soils, the
following shear strengths for undocumented artificial fill, engineered artificial fill, and very old
paralic deposits are presented on Table 5.2.
ADVANCE-0 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 16 of 193
October 9. 2019 Page 4
NW 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-13-3
TA OLE 5.2
FORDESIcN RECOMMENDED SHEAR STRENGTHS
Material Cohesion
EPP
Friction Angle
(degrees)
Total Unit
Weight
(Pa)
Artificial Fill, Undocumented (Existing) 50 27 120
Artificial Fill, Engineered (Proposed) 50 30 125
Nrciy Old Faralic Deposits 150 31 _..,.. 125
garthwork Adjustments
The following average earthwork adjustment factors are presented for use in evaluating earthwork
quantities. These numbers are considered approximate and should be refined during grading
when actual conditions are better defined. Contingencies should be made to adjust the earthwork
balance during grading if these numbers are adjusted.
-
TABLE 5.3
•Earthwork Adjustntents
Geologic Unit Approximate Range
r Exisdn. Fill 15 to 25 percent shrinkage
Ve Old Parahe Dep,9sits 0 to 10 percent hulk
5.4. Relative Compaction of Artificial Fill Materials.
Some of the fill materials were observed to be loose and dry to slightly moist. Test results
indicated that some of the artificial fill materials have relative-compactions that are less than 90
percent when compared to the maXimum dry density (ASTM D1557),
5.5. Slone Stability
Slope stability analyses were performed on representative cross-sections and considered both
static and pseudo-static conditions to evaluate global stability. AOS evaluated the global stability
of the tiered MSE retaining walls using GSTABL7. Geogrid reinforcement was added at a
spacing schedule that the owner provided AGS. Per the owner. Mirafi Miragrid 2XT was placed
every 12 inches vertically and extended 48 inches beyond the wall. The Long Term Design
Strength was used as provided by the geogrid manufacturer.
Searches were conducted in CSTABL7 to find the critical failure surface with the lowest factor of
safety. The factor of safety was calculated using the Bishop method (circular failures).
A pseudo-static analysis was used to evaluate the stability of slopes under seismic loading. A
horizontal destabilizing seismic coefficient (kh) of 0.15 was selected for the site. The critical
failure surface that was determined for the static analysis was also selected for the pseudo-static
analysis, and the factor of safety was calculated using the Bishop method (circular failures).
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 17 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page 3
NW° 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-B-3
The results of the global stability analyses are presented in Appendix C. Based on the results of
the analysis, the existing ME retaining wall system has a slope stability Factor .of Safety of Ises
than 15 for static conditions and less than 1.0 for seismic conditions. The failure surfaces were
shallow and indicate a potential for shallow or localized fitilures. Typically, the standard of
practice in southern California, and has been adopted by most agencies, is to show that slopes
have a slope stability factor of safety of 1.5 or greater for static conditions and 1.1 or greater for
seismic conditions.
AGS also conducted a stability analysis wing a proposed design profile consisting of a new toe-
of-slope MSE wall, ascending slope and mid-slope MSE wall. This design profile is considered
preliminary since the civil engineer has not yet prepared grading plans for the site remediation.
The proposed design has factor of safety is greater than 1.5 for static conditions and 1.1 for
seismic conditions, which both meet the minimum recommended factors of safety.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information gathered and the analyses performed, it is our professional opinion that the
existing tiered MSE wall system will not meet current code standards as adopted by the City of Carlsbad.
The following two items will need to be mitigated in order to meet the current standards.
)1- The 1111 has not. been compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the relative compaction.
Typically, fill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the relative compaction as
determined by ASTM D1557, or as recommended by the geoteehnical consultants. If
settlement and material strength is not a concern, then perhaps a lesser relative compaction
may be permissible. However, the shear strength of fill would expected to improve with
increased compaction.
The tiered wall system does not possess an adequate factor of safety for long term global
stability. Typically, a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 is needed for long term stability and
1.1 for seismic stability, Mitigation may be needed to improve the stability of the system and
demonstrate that the slope and wall system has in adequate .factor of safety. The existing
geogrid lengths are not adequate for the overall height of the system.
7.0 EARTHWORK RECOMIVIENDATIQM
It is recommended that the existing MSE wall system be rentediated to meet current code standards. AGS
considered three options of remediation, described below,
I. NEW MSE WALL SYSTEM: Remove the existing MSE walls and undocumented fill. Replace
with a new MSE wall system and slope. A five-foot wall can be constructed at .the toe of the
slope, with a proposed ascending fill slope located above the wall and a new MSE Willi
constructed near the top of the fill slope. Detailed recommendations are provided herein on
constructing this option.
2. RESTORE SLOPE WITH REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE: Remove the existing i'vlSE walls and
undocumented till. Restore the existing slope by constructing a keyway at the bottom. and fill
slope. Portions of the new slope will need to be steeper than 2:1 (I-1:V), which is typically the
steepest that is recommended without reinforcement. For the portions that are Steeper than 2:1,
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 18 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page 6
P/W 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-B-3
reinforcement should be added consisting of primary: and secondary .e.eog„rid layers. Reinforced
soil slopes are typically more difficult to construtt than unreinforced slopes and are .typically
much more expensive. Due to the limited space for stockpiling, the. reinforced soil slope will
need to be constructed in sections. Difficulty should be expected when tying each section
together, which will increase construction costs. They reinforced soil slopes should be
constructed by an experienced contractor. Repair recommendations are provided herein.
3, REINFORCEMENT OF EXISTING SYSTEM: The existing tiered system can be left-in-place
with a considerable reinforcement effort. AGS has met with a specialty geotechnical contractor
to discuss possible repair options. Such an effort is expected to consist of building a reinforced
shotcrete wall in front of each MSE wall. The MSE wall will be cored and a tight spacing of
anchors will be drilled through the walls into the formational materials. The MSE walls will need
to be cored at each anchor location. The anchor will be connected to the shoterete wall. The
MSE walls will essentially be used as formwork for the :shoterete and anchor wall system. Due to
the limited access, constructing the shoterete wall and drilling will be completed with small
equipment and is expected to take a considerable amount of time to complete. This system would
need to be designed by a licensed engineer familiar with these systems. It is our understanding
that additional information is being gathered by homeowner in regard to this remediation option.
If the homeowner opts to remediate the as-built/as-graded condition through reinfercetnent of the
exiSting wall system, additional geotechnical analyses should be performed and repair
recommendations provided in a supplemental report.
A possible configuration of repair option 1 is shown on the attached geologic cross-sections. The civil
engineer will need to provide a grading plan if this option is selected. An MSE wall plan with supporting
calculations may need to be prepared by a licensed engineer. It is possible that Keystone may have
standard wall plans that can be used in lieu of a.she-specific design,
7.1. Site Preparation and Removals.
All grading shall be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project Geotechnical
Consultant in accordance with the rcconuttcralatiops contained herein, the cumin outioN practiced
by the City of Carlsbad and this firm's Earthwork Specifications (Appendix E).
Existing vegetation, trash, debris, and other deleterious materials should be removed and wasted
from the site prior to coinniencing removal of unsuitable soils and placement of compacted fill
materials. The existing-retaining walls on. the slope should be removed.
Within the limits of grading, existing undocumented fill materials and highly weathered Very Old
Paralic Deposits should be removed until competent Very Old Paralie Deposits are encountered.
In general, the removed materials are suitable to be reused as compacted fill provided deleterious
materials are removed.
7,2. Remediation Option Recommendations
The following sections provide preliminary recommendations for Options I and 2 as discusSed in
Section 7.0 above, to remediate the existing as-graded/as-built condition. Recommendations for
Option 3, if reqiiested, can be provided in a supplemental geotechnical report.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 19 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page 7
NW 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-13-3
7.2.1. OPTION 1- MSE Walt System
MSE. walls can be constructed near the toe of the slope. The wall should not be
constructed atop or near the influence of the existing cantilever retaining walls. The
lower MSE wall should have geogrid lengths of -not less than 8 feet. The limits of the
geogrid should be extended to the baekcut, even if shorter geogrid lengths are shown on
the wall plans. A minimum horizontal fill width of 8 feet should be maintained on the
slope. The fill slope can be constructed as described in Section 7.5.6. A minimum of I
subdrain should be installed at the toe of the slope. A second drain may also be needed
behind the upper MSE retaining wall. The MSE retaining walls should be embedded as
recommended by the designer, but no less than 12 inches at the toe of the slope. MSE
walls installed above descending slope should he embedded so that the daylight distance
from the bottom of the wall to the slope face is at least 5 feet.
731. OPTION 2- Restore Slope with Reinforced Soil Slope
A stabilization keyway should be construeted at the toe of the proposed slope. The limits
of this keyway should be based on the final slope design, but should be no less than 12
feet wide. Reinforced soil slopes (RSS) should be constructed oil fill slopes steeper than
2:1. The grading contractor Should have experience in the construction of a RSS. There
are several methods art constructing a RSS, such as using temporal,: wooden formwork
or permanent wire mesh forms (See Figure 72.2, below), and the grading contractor
should select the most economical method of construction. The constructiOn method
should allow for the fill to be compacted out to the slope face without damaging the
reinforcement.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 20 of 193
October 9, 2019
NW 1907-03
WAS MSOH — •
'ISMPORAR 1RMNO*Ic N.,
^
YEGSIATION•
Page 8
Report No. 1907-03-8-3
,—..-ssccoaDARy reaNFORCEMENT WRAP
RONFORCEMEAT
--ago 1v,xr.i.e WRAP AT PACE
win /..r.s1.4 FAcitica •
OR TEMPORARY FOFMWORK - OA RemrortcatEta AP
> PRIMARY ReNvOriCEMEN I
.1/ "N)-• "N"-7\707\7S"\-\,,>\:\,."
/lc '
1.7
- "'• e"
Figure 7.2.2 Alternative Methods of RSS coullruction (from TenCa t 6"/ 2 010 )
The primary reinforcement can include plating layers of Mirafi Miragrid 3XT (or
approved equivalent) every 4 feet vertically starting from the bottom of the keyway. The
primary geogrid layers should extend from the slope face to the backcut. The primary
geogrid should be oriented so that the primary strength is perpendicular to the slope face..
Splices in the primary direction should be avoided. A secondary layer of reinforcement
consisting of Mimfi lvIiramesh TR (or approved equivalent) should be wrapped around
the slope face and embedded a Millittilitn of 5 feet with a maximum vertical spacing of 18
inches. The Miramesh vertical spacing can be reduced to every 2 to 4 feet if the primary
geogrid layer • is wrapped on the outside of the Mirartiesh and the primary geogrid is
embedded a minimum of 8 feet as measured from the slope face. Geogrid reinforced
slopes are expected to be globally and surticially stable to inclinations up to 1:1 (1-1:.V).
Splicing of the SeCondary layer shall not be conducted.
7.2.3,, Temporary Backcut Stability
During grading operatiOns, temporary bacI5.cnts will be requited to accomplish removals
and provide room to place geogrid. Care should be taken during batkcut construction
and back:fill should be placed expeditiously in order to minimize risk of failure.
Complete removal of the failed materials will be required should failure occur.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS. INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 21 of 193
• October 9, 2019
NW 1907-03
Page 9
Report No. 1907-03-B-3
Backcuts exposing competent Very Old Paralic Deposits should be made no steeper than
1:1 to heights of up to 20 feet. Steeper backcuts may be possible for small sections but
should be evaluated by AO& Shallower backcuts are recommended below existing walls
or within undocumented fill. Close geologic mapping of the stabilization and buttress
key backcuts should be provided to document the exposed conditions. Revised
recommendations may be necessary should areas of instability be encountered.
In consideration of the inherent instability created by temporary construction of backeuts,
it is imperative that grading schedules be coordinated to minimize the unsupported
exposure time of these excavations. Once starred those excavations and subsequent fill
operations should be maintained to completion without intervening delays imposed by
avoidable circumstances. In cases where five-day workweeks comprise a normal
schedule, grading should be planned to avoid exposing at-grade or near-grade
excavations through a non-work weekend, Where improvements may be affected by
temporary instability, either on or offsite, further restrictions such as slat cutting,
extending work days, implementing weekend schedules, and/or other requirements
considered critical to serving specific circumstances may be imposed.
'73, Geologic Observation During Grading
All temporary slope excavations, including front, side and backcuts, and all cut slopes should be
mapped to verify the geologic conditions that were modeled prior to grading.
7.4. Seenage
Seepage, if encountered during grading, should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. If
seepage is excessive, remedial measures such as horizontal drains or under drains may need to be
installed.
7.5. Earthwork Considerations
7.5.14 compaction Standards
.All tills should be compacted at least 90 percent of the maximum .dry density as
determined by MTN! D1557. All loose and ar deleterious soils should be removed to
expose firm native soils or bedrock. Prior to the placement of fill, the upper 6 to 8 inches
of suitable material should be ripped, moisture conditioned to optimum moisture or
slightly above optimum, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry
density (ASfivi 01557). FIE should be placed in thin (6 to 8-inch) lifts, moisture
conditioned to optimum moisture or slightly above, and compacted to at least 90 percent
of the maximum dry density (ASTM 01557) until the desired grade is achieved.
7.5.2. Benching
Where the natural slope is steeper than 5-horizontal to 1-vertical and where determined
by the Geotechnical Consultant, compacted fill material shall be keyed and benched into
competent materials.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC,
March 16, 2021 Item 444 Page 22 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page 10
l'/W 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-13-3
15.3. Mixing and Moisture Control
in order to prevent layering of different soil types and/or different moisture contems,
mixing and moisture control of materials will be necessary. The preparation of the earth
materials through mixing and moisture control should be accomplished prior to and as
part of the compaction of each fill lift. Water trucks or other. water delivery means may
be necessary for moisture control. Discine may be required when either excessively dry
or we; materials are encountered.
73.4. Raul Roads
All haul roads, ramp tills, and tailing areas shall be removed prior to engineered Oil
placement.
7.5.5. Import Soils
Import soils, if required, should consist of clean, structural quality, compactable materials
similar to the on-site soils and should be free of trash, debris or other objectionable
materials. Import soils should be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant
prior to importing, At least three working days. should he allowed in order for the
geotochnical cOnsultant to sample and test the potential import material.
7.5.6. Pill Slope Construction
Fill slopes may be constructed by preferably overbuilding and cutting back to the
compacted core or by back-rolling and compacting the slope face. The following
recommendations should be incorporated into construction orthe proposed fill slopes.
Care should be taken to avoid spillage of loose materials down the face of any slopes
during grading. Spill fill will require complete removal before compaction, shaping and
grid rolling.
Seeding and planting of the slopes should follow as soon as practical to inhibit ero5ion
and deterioration of the slope surfaces, Proper moisture control will enhance the long-
term stability of the finish slope surface.
7.5.6.1, Overbuilding Fill Slopes
Fill slopes should be overfilled to an extent determined by the contractor, but not
less than 2 fee measured perpendicular to the slope face, so that when trimmed
back to the compacted cOrt, the compaction of the slope face meets the minimum
project requirements for compaction.
Compaction of each lift should extend out to the temporary slope face, The
sloped should be back-rolled at fill intervals not exceeding 4 feet in height unless
a more extensive overfilling is undertaken.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 23 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page I I
PAV 1907-03 Report No, 1907-03-8-3
7.5.6.2. Compacting the Slope Face
As an alternative to overbuilding the fill slopes, the slope races may be back-
rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibrator:yr roller at maximum 2-foot
fill height intervals. Back-rolling at more frequent intervals may be required.
Compaction of each fill should extend to the face of the slope.
7.5.6.3. Reinforced Soil Slopes
Reinforced soil slopes should be constructed by an experienced contractor.
Compaction of the slope face is. often achieved through the use of temporary .or
permanent forms.
8.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1. :Mechanically Stabilized Earthen Wall Recominendations
The base of the proposed !VISE wail should be founded on compacted fill or on 'competent
formational materials. The wall designer should provide specifications on the materials placed in
the retained and reinforced zones. Assuming materials derived from onsitC sources are used, to
backfill the MSE walk, the wall may be designed using the parameters presented in Table 8.1.
More stringent criteria may be required by the wall designer. Testing should be conducted during
grading to verify that the backfill materials meet the design criteria shown on the retaining wall
plans.
TABLE 8.1
MSE WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS'
Zone
Moist Unit
Weight
(Pe()
Shear Strength
Cohesion
Ultimate
(OM
Friction Angle
Ultimate
(degrees)
Reinforced and Retained Soil Zarien 12.i 50 30.
Foundation Zone 125 50 30
Notos- ' Assumios fill lt dorpasi front onsite sources
8.1.1. Observation During Construction
During construction of the MSE walls, the geotechnical consultants should observe
the following operations:
) Grading to create wail foundation support and to verity competency of
foundation materials;
Block type and sin;
0' Reinforcement type;
34, Placement of geogrid at design elevation, strength direction, and embedment;
Drain placement;
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 24 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page 12
PM 1907-03 Report No. I 907-03-B-3
Gradation and placement of drainage rock;
Gradation, shear strength. compaction, and moisture content of reinforced soils.
'ee Observations of operations not included above (including watt batter,
connections, and block placement) are the responsibility of the wall designer and
the contractor. The geotechnical consultant's observation of these operations in
no way relieves the contractor of his obligation to construct the wall system in
accordance with approved plans and-speeifications.
8.2. Civil Desitm Recommendations
Final site grading should assure positive drainage away from. structures. A concrete swain should
be constructed at the top of the slope to capture offsite irrigation and rainfall runoff. Planter areas
should be provided with area drains to transmit irrigation and rain water away from structures.
The use of gutters and down spouts to carry roof drainage well away front structures is
recommended. Raised planters should be provided with a positive means to remove water
through the face of the containment Wall,
9.0 SLOPE AND LOT MAINTENANCE
Maintenance of improvements is essential to the long-term performance of structures and slopes.
Although the design and construction during mass grading created slopes that are considered both grossly
and surficially stable, certain factors are beyond the control of the soil engineer and geologist. The
homeowners must implement certain maintenance procedures. The following recommendations should
be implemented,
9.1. toe Planting
Slope planting should consist of ground cover, shrubs and trees that possess deep, dense root
structures and require a minimum of irrigation. The resident should be advised of their
responsibility to maintain Such planting.
9.2. 1„,0t Drainage
Roof, pad and lot drainage should be collected and directed away from strUctures.and slopes and
toward approved disposal areas. Design fine-grade elevations should be maintained through the
life of the Structure, or if design flee grade elevations are altered, :adequate area drains should he
installed in order to provide rapid discharge of water away from structures and slopes. Residents
should be made aware that they are responsible for maintenance and cleaning of all drainage
terraces, downdrains, and other devices that have been installed to promote structure and slope
stability.
9.3. Slone irrigation
The resident; homeowner and Homeowner Association should be advised of their responsibility
to maintain irrigation systems. Leaks should be repaired immediately. Sprinklers should be
adjusted to provide maximum uniform coverage with a .nlinimum of water usage and overlap.
Overwatering With consequent wasteful run-off and ground saturation should be avoided, if
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 25 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page 13
PAV 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-8-3
automatic sprinkler systems are installed, their use must be adjusted to account for natural rainfall
conditions.
9.4. Burrowinn Animals
Residents or homeowners should undertake a program for the elimination of burrowing animals.
This should be an ongoing program in order to maintain slope stability.
10.0 CLOSURE
The findings and recommendations in this report are based on the specific excavations, observations, and
tests results as noted herein. The findings are based on the review of the field and laboratory data
combined with an interpolation and extrapolation of conditions between and beyond the exploratory
excavations. The results reflect art interpretation of the direct evidence obtained. Services performed by
AGS have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by
members of the profession currently practicing in the same loeality under similar conditions. No other
representation, either expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended.
The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that an appropriate level of
field review will be provided by geotechnical engineers and engineering geoloOsts who are familiar with
the design and site geologic conditions. That field. review shall be sufficient to confirm that geotechnical
and geologic conditions exposed during grading are consistent with the geologic representations and
corresponding recommendations presented in this report. If the project description varies from what is
described in. this report, AGS must be consulted regarding the applicability of. and the necessity for, any
revisions to the recommendations presented herein.. AGS should review structural plans to veri.fy whether
the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the design. AGS accepts no liability for any
use of its recommendations if the project description or final design varies and AGS is not consulted
regarding the changes.
The data, opinions, and recommendations of this report are applicable to the specific design of this project
as discussed in this report. They have no applicability to any other project or to any other location, and
any and nil subsequent uscrs accept any and all liability resulting from any use or reuse of the data,.
opinions, and recommendations without the prior written consent of AGS.
AGS has no responsibility for construct on means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for
safety precautions or programs in connection with the construction, for the acts or omissions of the
CONTRACTOR, or any other person performing any of the construction, or for failure of any of them to
carry out the construction in accordance with the final design drawings and specifications.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 26 of 193
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 27 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page A-1
PRY 1907-03 Report No, 1907-03-B-3
REFERENCES
Fusion Engineering and Technology, Preliminary Site Plan for Lichiman Residence, 939 Begonia Court,
City of Carlsbad, California, Map I of 1, 10-Scale, undated.
Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California
Geological Survey: Scale 1:100,000.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC,
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 28 of 193
APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 29 of 193
a- AGS I
AllIANCIA) CAOTECHNICAL SOLLTIONS. Pic,
CLIENT
BORING NUMBER B-1
PACE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME Begonia Court
PROJECT NUMBER 1907-03 PROJECT LOCATION 939 Begonia Ct.. Carlsbad
DATE STARTED 7/16,19 COMPLETED Than 9 GROUND ELEVATION ft HOLE see 6 ,A6
DRILUNG DONTRACY0kNativel)rilling GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD Tr-Pod AT TIME OF DRILLING —
LOGGED BY SS CHECKED BY PJU AT END OF DRILUNG —
NOTES AFTER DRILLING —
,..-,
.0 C
0
k2 (7
..• 0 g co D MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER BLOW COUNTS (NI VALUE) DRY UNIT WI. (PO) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) SAT URATION (%) OTHER TESTS I A TTERBERG
LIMITS FINES CONTENT (%) cii 1-
=2 rD [-PLASTIC I UNIT PLASTICITY INDEX
-:•.i; '•
8M
P
Shil
'
WA
Artificial Fill - Undocumented. a(u)
104
94
7.5
9.6
32
33
Max
hear
SILTY SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, light yellow brown, dry to slightly moist, riled urn dense; with some sub-rounded gravel to cobble
0 1.5 ft, Poorly graded SAND with trace CLAY. tine- to medium-grained. slightly moist, medium dense
tfp... 3.0 ft., SILTY SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, slightly moist to moist
06.0 ft.. CLAYEY SAND, tine- to coarse-grainad, yellow
brown to orange brown, moist, medium dense
. DU
s mc.: 4-8-10
SPT 6-8-9
(17)
.,
10
SPT 4-9-7
(15)
..
•
. :
'
VON OldParalle Deposits. fOirop)
SILTY SAND wfth trace CLAY, fine- to coarse-grained, red
brownie orange brown, moist to very moist., medium dense:
micaceous
Ci.. 15,0 ft., dense
SPY 12-1142
(23)
15
MC 14-14-12
(2a)
MC 11-16-17
(33)
Total Depth .-4- 16.5 feet
No grOuldwater encountered
Backfrlied math S011 cuttings
March 16, 2021 Item 444 Page 30 of 193
•(.
GEOTECHAIM $00.11045, is4C4
CLIENT
BORING NUMBER B-2
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME Begonia Court
PROJECT NUMBER 1907-03. PROJECT LOCATION 939 Begoni Ct„ Carlsbad
DATE STARTED 7118119 COMPLETED .7118/19 GROUND ELEVATION 182 ft HOLE SIZE 6
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Native Drilling GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILUNG METHOD Tr-Pod AT TIME OF DRILLING —
LOGGED BY SS CHECKED BY RID AT END OF DRILLING —
NOTES AFTER DRILLING —
0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) _
5
z u
in MOISTURE CONTENT (10 SATURATION (%) a.- D ' OTHER TESTS
ATTERBERS
_,..tAirs
o-
FINES CONTENT (e/0
•SM Artificial Fill - Undocumented, tofu}
.
SILTY SAND. fine- to medium-grained, light yellow brown,
dry to slightly moist. medium dense; with some sub-rounded
gravel to cobble
. ,
MC 3-3-3 ,,
ku l 81 4.1 10 "Shila
— .. •
SPT 4-5-8
(13)
S'M Very Old Peralic DeeositeJCwocq
,
.
SILTY SAND with Irace CLAY, fine- to coarse-grained, dark
yellow brown to orange brown. slightly moist to moist,
medium dense, micaceous a 6.0 ft., dense c. 11-18- 33
0 9) 97 8.8 32 Sheal
Total Depth = 7.5 feet
Na groundwater encountered
Backfilled with soil catengs
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 31 of 193
BORING NUMBER B.3
i ( i
PAGE 1 OF 1
)AGS Woman GEN ECUMCAL SOLLIIONS, INC4
CUENT PROJECT NAME I3egonla Court
PROJECT NUMBER 1907-03 PROJECT LOCATION S-39 accionia CL. Carlsbad
DATE STARTED 7/18119 COMPLETED 7i18/19 GROUND ELEVATION 17a ft HOLE SIZE 6
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Native. Drillino GROUNDWATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD Tr-Pod AT TIME OF DRILLING —
LOGGED BY SS CHECKED BY PJD AT END OF DRILUNG —
NOTES AFTER DRILLING —
L GRAPHIC LOG c-i MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) DRY ma tar. (Kr) ct i /R—
co ILI _ u-
,
ER-
z
<
n c3 z OTHER rEsTs ATTERBERG
LIMITS I FINES CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT 5 6
,
•
•-,
•
:S
. SM
'
[ SM
S.
Artific(al Fill - Undocumente-d. efu)
101 8,0 32
MI Y SAND with trace CLAY, fine- to tnediurn-grained, light •
yellow brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense; with
some sub-rounded gravel to cobble
fix 64-6 (161 Very Old Paretic DeposIts,f0von)
SILTY SAND with trace CLAY, fine- to coarse-grained,
orange brown, slightly moist to moist, medium dense
micaceous
@ 4.6 ft.. dense
7-20-20
00) Shear
Total Depth = 6.0 feet
No groundwater encountered
BaafiNed with soil cuttings
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 32 of 193
I r GS `41;v4e4c6g GEOTIMICAL SOL1110/45, INC
CLIENT
BORING NUMBER B4
PAGE i OF 1
PROJECT NAME Begonia Court
PROJECT NUMBER 1907-D3 PROJECT LOCATION 939 Begonia Cl.. Carlsbad ..
DATE STARTED 7118/19 COMPLETED 7/18119 GROUND ELEVATION 174 ft HOLE SIZE 6
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Native Drilling GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD Tn-Pod AT TIME OF DRILLING --
LOGGED SY SS . CHECKED BY PJD AT END OF DRILLING --
NOTES AFTER DRILLING —
= o co
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER BLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) > 1— ,,.
a n MOISTURE CONTENT (%) SATURATION 4%) I co i— to UJ
ATTERBERG LIMITS FINES CONTENT (%) Z:2 PLASTIC LIMIT •'•
cc z
.
S?.,1
• ,
.' SM
Artificial FIII - Undocumented, WO
SILTY SAND, fine- to coarse-gralned, gray brown, dry to slightly moist, loose; with some sub-roundod gravel
10.5)
rAC 3-5-6 WI)
Vero Old Paretic Deposits, (Guido
SILTY SAND with trace CLAY, fine- to coarse-grained,
orange brown. moist, medium derme, micaceous @ ALE it„ dense
12-20.25
mr,
Total Depth = 5.5 fact
No groundwater encountered
Back/filed with soil cuttings
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 33 of 193
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 34 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page C-1
PM 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-R-3
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
Classi fieation
Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the
boring logs in Appendix B.
Modified Proctor Density
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a selected representative soil sample
was evaluated using the Modified Proctor method in general accordance with ASTM 01557. The
results of these tests are summarized herein.
Direct Shear
Direct shear tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples in general accordance with
ASTM D3080- to evaluate The shear strength characteristics of selected materials. The samples were
inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The results are shown herein.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021
Item #4 Page 35 of 193
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
MAXIMUM DENSITY - ASTM 01557 AGS FORM E-E1
Project Name: 939 begonia Cl. Excavation: 8-1
Location: Carlsbad Depth: 0-3 ft
NW No.: 1907-03 Soil Type: afu
Date: 7/2/2019 Tested by: EV
Checked by: PJ
Method: A Oversize Retained; 5.3 %
Point No. 1 2 3 4
Dry Density (pct) 113.2 116.5 11132 115.6
Moisture Content (%) 8.2 10,2 12.3 14.3
MAXIMUM DENSITY CURVE
140.0
•
.
, \ • --;,••
•;
135.0
—4-- Test Curve
Zero Air Voids Curves 1-
SG22.8
— — SG=2.7
— — SGm2.8
130.0
;
%.
125.0
•
DRY DENSITY (pcf)
;
•f.
120.0
115.0
110.0
- ••.•
'
100.0 ' 'N.... • '". :•,
0 0 50 10.0 15.0 20.0 26.0 30.0
MOISTURE (%)
Corrected Max. Dry Density 120.1 pcf Corrected Moisture 11.8 %
Max. Dry Density 118.2 pcf Optimum Moisture 12.3 %
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 36 of 193
1130
•- 10E1 I soo
2000
1800
1500
1400 a
7; 1200
It.; 1000
g 500
coa ,
250
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.10 0,00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Displacement (in} Displacement lini
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
DIRECT SHEAR - ASTM D3080
Project Name: 939 Begonia Ct. Excavation: B-1
Location: Carlsbad
Project No.. 1907-03
Date: 712312019
Samples Tested 1 2 3
trifle! Moisture (%) 7.5 7.5 7.5
Initial Dry Density (pef) 104.0 106.7 105,9
Normal Stress (psf) 500 1000 2000
Peak Shear Stress Cost) 456 816 1740
Lilt. Shear Stress (00 /156 744 1596
Depth: 2.5-3 ft
Tested by: FV
Reviewed by:
Soil Type: Yellow SC-SM
Test Undisturbed
Method Drained
Consolidation: Yes
Saturation: Yea
Shear Rate (Inimtn): 0.01
Strength Parameters Peak Ultimate
Friction Angle, phi (deg) 41 39
Cohesion (psf) 0 0
2E410
2000
1500
4.4n.
10o0
SOO
SOO 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Normal Stress (psf)
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 37 of 193
Shear Stress v. Displacement
,,, •-•
Vertical Deformation v. Displacemeat
•MO I
30011 I
!4+.1
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.02
•0.01
.1.31 •0 CO
SI
.0.01
.0.02
0 Peak
Dryak
Ii Mare
(.13timam
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
DIRECT SHEAR - ASTNI D3080
Project Name: 939 Begonia Ct.
Location: Carlsbad
Project No.: 1907-03
Date: 7/23/2019
Samples Tested 1 2 3
Intial Moisture (%) 4.1 4.1 4,1
Initial Dry Density (ad) 80.6 81.7 ale
Normal Stress {pet) 500 1000 2000
Peak Shear Stress psf) 432 628 1368
Ult. Shear Stress (osf) 408 816 1308
Excavation: 3-2
Depth: 3-3.5 ft
Tested by; FV
Reviewed by:
Soil Type. Light Brn Sc
Test: Uriciisturbsd
Method: Drained
Consolidation: Yes
Saturation: Yes
Shear Rate (in/min): 0.01
Strength Parameters - Peak Ultimate
Friction Angle, phi tdeg) 32 32
Cohesion (psf) 125 76
2500
e
..
.0 .0
e
-
.0
e r
r
•
e
e
e ..
e
... e
... r
0
Peak
P,ak
ultimate
ultimate ,
e
a
— .... —
I
2000
rg. 1500
tol
sel" w 1000
500
3500 2000
Normal Stress (psf)
0 500 1000 2500 3000 3500
shear Stress v. Displacement
- "
r
I --s7s7i5-11
1 - - - • . :IOW I
0.10 0.20
Displacement (in}
Vertical Deformation v. Displacement
,
• •7.7 7.
----i--------1--
-.:•:.7-17::: ''' : .17,,,..!.. . zbriq
920 1
loco,
, 1 ------
0,10 0.20 0:30
Displacement (in)
1600
1400
1201
1003
•,1 800
tJ 600
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.02
0,02
0.00
.0.01
-0.02
400
200
0.00 0,30 0.00
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 38 of 193
Shear Stress v. Displacement
I
,,,,,,,,, _
tt*, via
0.10 0,20
Displacement OM
Vertical Deformation v. Displacement
--.... ......_..
`.-• w-wse.--• - ....-.,-,
i
! , ••• --.....
----
•• • 1003 I,
0.10 0.20 9,30
Displacement (h)
1600
1400
1200
e• 1000
800
600
•400
.200
0
0:00 0.19 0.00
0.05
0.04
; 0.02 *
:0 001 o
.0.01
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
DIRECT SHEAR - ASTM D3080
Project Name; 939 Begonia Ct. Excavation: B-2
Location: Carlsbad Depth: 7-7.5 ft
Project No.: 1907-03 Tested by: FV
Date: 75/2019
Samples Tested 1 2 3
Inbal Moisture CVO 8.8 8,8 8.8
Initial Dry Density (poi) 99_4 102.0 100,5
Normal Stress (psf) 500 1000 2000
Peak Shear Stress (psf) 432 708 1428
UIL Shear Stress (psi) 408 684 1404
Reviewed by: AS
Soil Type: Reddish Bm,
Test: ILWistorbed
Method: Drained
Consolidation: Yes
Saturation: Yes
Shear Rate (intr), 0.01
Strength Parameters Peak Ultimate
Friction Angle, phi (deg) 34 34
Cohesion (psf) 75 26
2500
2000
500
a Peak
1:3 Ultirriato
Ultimate
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Normal Stress (psf)
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 39 of 193
2500
2000
4) 1000
-0.02 Vertital Deformation (In] .0.01
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
DIRECT SHEAR - ASTM 03080
Project Name: 939 Begonia Ct. excavation: 13-3
Location: Carlsbad
Project No.: 1907-03
Date: 7/25/2019
Samples Tested 1 2 3
Wel Moisture (%) 8.0 8.0 8.0
Initial Dry Density (pot) 103.9 98.0 96.4
Normal Stress (psi) 500 1000 2000
Peak Shear Stress (psf) 456 780 1416
Ult. Shears Stress (psi) 444 72
1344
Depth: 5-5.6 ft
Tested by: FV
Reviewed by:
Soil Type: Reddish Brn. SC-SM
Test: Undisturbed
Method: Drained
Consolidation: Yes
Saturation: Yes
Shear Rate (%n): 0.01
Strength Parameters Peak Ultimate
Friction Angle, phi (deg) 32 31
Cohesion (psf) 160 150
O Peak
Peak
Ultimate
— Ultimate
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Normal Stress (psf)
500
0
Shear Stress V. Displatentent
..
.
1
....... 103 1 scro ,
10 0.20
Displacement (in)
Vertical Deformation v. Displaceniefit
•.._
0. 0 0.20 0.30
Displacement (in)
1600
1400
1200
t000
500
400
4(10
200
0
0.00 0.30 0.00
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 40 of 193
APPENDIX D
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
ADVANCED GEOIECIINICAL sourrums, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item 444 Page 41 of 193
240 260 260 270 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.474
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method TZOZ "9T LID-le1A1 E61 10 Z.17 aSed '1907-03 Section Ae-Aes Static - Existing
z:1proJect Me-3%1907-03 begonia cl wall evaleationWalc.s & analysisil 007-03 secton ae slano.p/2 Run By: AGS 1018/2019 0520PM
#FS Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez, 1
a 1.474 Dem Type Unit WI Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface-,
b 1.492 No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Pararn. (pst) N.
.
afu 1 125.0 125.0 50.0 27.0 0.00 0.0 0
Quop 2 125,0 125.0 150.0 31,0 0.00 0.0 0
c 4.5w
t/ 1-553l e t .573'
I 1,584
9 1,514
h 1.623
i 1.623
0`.
9 21.4:
:JO*, 2
—.,,V14 1/1?o•
/ 2
70
60
40
30 [
10 -
I
1002019 05:22PM
1907-03 Section Ae-Ae' - Pseudostatic - Existing
zAproject iles‘1907.03 begonia cl wall evaluation‘calcs & analysis11907.03 section ae static surface /A.01 Run By: AGS -, I • „
Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Frbtion Pore Pressure Piez. I Load Value I
Desc. Type Unit M. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Skirface Peak(A) 0.470(g) I
No. (PCO (pct) (ost) (mg) Parain. (psi) No.
afu 1 125.0 125.0 5ao 27.0 0.99 0.0 0
kir Coe(. 0.150(9)<
Crwop 2 125.0 125.0 150.0 31.0 0.00 0.0 0
70 IZOZ '9I 1-10-lelN 60
60
40 -
2
/ 2 -
2
30
20
10 E6T Jo El7 aSed I_ I i •, _ 1 . I L._ _I I_.........1
170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.134
Factor 01 Safety Is Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
0
160
IZOZ `9T LIDieV\I E6I 10 1717 aed 1907-03 Section Be-Be' - Static - Existing
70
z: 4:ogled files11907-03 begonia ot waft evaluation'scalcs $. analysis%1907-03 section 3-3 static,p12 — Run By: AGS 10/8,(2019 05:05PM
# FS !
a 1.107i'
b 1,111 i
c 1.1,2:
d 1.117
—CF i i ' Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piz.
Oesc. Type Unit VW. Unit Wt. taterospl Angle Pressure Constant Suiface
No, (pet) (pc() (psi) (deg) Parant (psi) No.
aft u 1 125.0 125.0 50,0 27,0 0.00 0.0 0
Ovop 2 125.0 125.0 150.0 31.0 0.00 0.0 0
!
r I
60 I.: 1...118
f 1.126
g 1,12$
1.12 r-1
i 1.1331
2
60
13 2
40
a )4 •1,?;
!•) 1 •I it,/ 2
-or••
'
i:A 4,4 ....:••••G •••••
30
,
2
;: •1:41,,..1.,-• 46, •
v < • cmkr_
20
2
10
0
.
1
10 20 30 40 50
60 70
80 90 100
GSTABL.7 v.2 FSmin=1.107
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
110
1907-03 Section Be-Be' Pseudostatic - Existing
z.:1project Cles11907-03 begonia ct vial evaluatIon1calcs & analysisl1907-03 section be-be static. surface #1.p11 Run By; AGS 10/8/2019 05:09Phil 70
So4 Soil Total Saturated Cohesion 0.-rbtion Pore Pressure Piez,. Load Value Desc. Type Unit lAtl, Unit Wt. Intercept Asgle Pressure Constant Surface Peak(A) 0.470(g)
No, (pcf) (pet) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. kb Coe. 0.150(9).c afu 1 125.0 125.0 50.0 27.0 0.00 0.0 0
Clop 2 125.0 125,0 150.0 31.0 0.00 0.0 0 so
60
2
.„ 11..;;;•D
„ tbs??1 1 IV 2 '" '' •
0
z
'SO • .34,2 ITN `9T golelAl 40
30
20
10
2 E61 40 St aed 0 1 L 1 i 1 .___I
0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80
GSTABL7 v.2 FSrnin=0.895
Factor Of Safety is Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
90 100 110
TO Z `91 LID-lelN EEC 10 917 aged a 7
1
„CAI-- AUtr--1-v t t'• A(
6 7,,i.:0.---leAgt,--1.i.p;6 4
•.' 15 ffi"-2 '2
2
h
2
•1907-03 Section Ap-Ap - Static 8 ft. Key - Proposed
eiproject filess.1807-03 begonia el wall evaluationscalcs & analysis11907-03 section ap aft key and grid.pI2 Run By AGS 1002019 04:47PM
# FS
a 1.543
I Soil Solt Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure PieZ..
Desc. Type Urill Wt. Unit Aft Herc.ept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
.
b 1.576 Na. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Paten', (psf) No.
C 1.581 afe 1 120.0 125.0 50.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 0
d 1.602 Gvop 2 125.0 125.0 150.0 31.0 0.00 0.0 0
e 1.603
1.605
9 1.611'f
n 1.616
i 1.620i
70
60
50
40
30 1-•
20
270
2
10
160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230
GSTABL7 u.2 FSmin=1.543
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
240 250 260
1907-03 Section Ap-Apt Pseudostatic 8 ft. Key - Proposed
zVroiect files‘1907-03 begonia ct wall evatuationscalcs & analysis11907-03 section ap 8tt key and grid surface #1.plt Run Eiy: AGS 10/8/2019 04:48PM 70 1 -1 r i a i- --1-- 1 soo Soil Total Saturated Cohesion tridion Pore Pressure Piez. Load Value
Casa. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface Peak(A) 0.470(g)
No. (pet) (pc!) (psf) (deg) Pararn. (psf) No. kh Coe. 0.150{g}<
ale 1 120.0 125.0 50,0 30.0 0.00 0.0 0 Qvop 2 125.0 125.0 150,0 310 0.00 0.0 0
SQ -
2 50 -
IZOZ '9I LIDJBLA1 RC( 7
elf+
ky 2
ii 2
cq, 2 2
/ 2
40
30
:
•
.5¢1CVA.,11 20
10 Ea 10 Lt7 aed 0 ..1. i I 1 i ..L 1 .._.1
160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270
•GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.166
Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
1907-03 Section Bp-Bp' - Static 8 ft. Key - Proposed
etproject filesl1907-03 begonia &kali evalualiontalcs & analysisA907-03 section bp 8fl key and grid.p1.2 Run STAGS 10/8/2019 04:46PM
1— 1 Soft Sol Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Plea. Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit WL Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (pot) (pt.* (pat) (deg} Param. (pst)
ale 1 125.0 125.0 50.0 30.0 0,00 0.0
Qvisp 2 125.0 125.0 150.0 31.0 0.00 0.0
60
7 4. 2
40 a ri
g ets 1 4.5.41.. • — gb
2
80
5 FS
a 1.668 b 1.572
1.594
d 1.613
a 1.5n
1.658
g 1.662
h 1.534
I 1.$70 IZOZ '9I t-lilelAl 7,tt.
-
0 • 20 y 2 E6T JO 817 aed 0 L
160 180 200 220
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.669
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
240 260
2
1907-03 Section Bp-B' Pseudostatic 8 ft. Key - Proposed
z:Vroject filest1907-03 begonia ct wall evaluation‘calts & analysisk1907-03 section bp 8ft key and arid sutface #1.olt Run By: AGS 10i812019 0444PM
Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion friction Pore Pressure Ram Load Value
Vesc. Type Unit WI, Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface Peek(A). 0.470(g)
No. (pc1) (pcf) (psi) (deg) Parana. (Psf) No. -kb Coef. oiso(g)‹ ate 1 125.0 125.0 50.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 0
Ovop 2 125:0 125.0 150.0 31.0 0.00 0.0 0
80 -HOZ `9T t-PielAl 60
40
11
01T"
ft..= 2
15
i y 2
20
0 -
160 180
2 6T JO 617 aed 200 220 240 260
GSTABL7 v.2 FSinin=1.210
Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Modifiod Bishop Method
APPENDIX E
GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS AND
GRADING DETAILS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 50 of 193
General Earthwork Specifications Page I
GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
I. General
A. General procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading are presented herein. The
earthwork and grading recommendations provided in the geotechnical report are considered part
of these specifications, and where the general specifications provided herein conflict with those
provided in the geotechnical report, the recommendations in the geotechnical report shall govern.
Recommendations provided herein and in the geotechnical report may need to be modified
depending on the conditions encountered during grading.
3. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance
with the project plans, specifications, applicable building codes, and local governing agency
requirements. Where these requirements conflict, the stricter requirements shall govern.
C.It is the contractor's responsibility to read and understand the guidelines presented herein and
in the geotechnical report as well as the project plans and specifications. Information presented
in the geotechnical report is subject to verification during grading. The information presented on
the exploration logs depict conditions at the particular time of excavation and at the location of
the excavation. Subsurface conditions present at other locations may differ, and the passage of
time may result in different subsurface conditions being encountered at the locations of the
exploratory excavations. The contractor shall perform an independent investigation and evaluate
die nature of the surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures and
equipment to be used in performing his work.
D.The contractor shall have the responsibility to provide adequate equipment and procedures to
accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable requirements. When the quality of work
is less than that required, the Geotechnical Consultant may reject the work and may recommend
that the operations be suspended until the conditions are corrected.
E.Prior to the start of grading, a qualified Geotechnical Consultant should be employed to
observe grading procedures and provide testing of the fills for conformance with the project
specifications, approved grading plan, and guidelines presented herein. All clearing and
grubbing, remedial removals clean-outs, removal bottoms, keyways, and subdrain installations
should be observed and documented by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing fill. It is the
contractor's responsibility to apprise the Geotechnical Consultant of their schedules and notify
the Geotechnical Consultant when those areas are ready for observation.
F.The contractor is responsible for providing a safe environment for the Geotechnical
Consultant to observe grading and conduct tests.
IL Site Preparation
A. Clearing and Grubbing: Excessive vegetation and other deleterious material shall be
sufficiently removed as required by the Geotechnical Consultant, and such materials shall be
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 51 of 193
General Earthwork Specifications Page 2
properly disposed of offsite in a method acceptable to the owner and governing agencies. Where
applicable, the contractor may obtain permission from the Geotechnical Consultant owner, and.
governing agencies to dispose of vegetation and other deleterious materials in designated areas
onsite.
B.Unsuitable Soils Removals: Earth materials that are deemed unsuitable for the support of fill
shall be removed as necessary to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Consultant.
C.Any underground structures such as cesspoles, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks,
wells, pipelines, other utilities, or other structures located within the limits of grading shall be
removed and/or abandoned in accordance with the requirements of the governing agency and to
the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Consultant, Environmental evaluation of existing conditions
is not the responsibility of the Geotechnical Consultant
D, Preparation of Areas to Receive Fill: After removals are completed, the exposed surfaces, shall
be processed .or scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches, watered or dried, as needed, to
achieve a generally uniform moisture content that is at or pear optimum moisture content. The
scarified materials shall then be compacted to the project requirements and tested as specified.
E. All areas receiving fill shall be observed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
the placement of fill. A licensed surveyor shall provide survey 'control for determining elevations
of processed areas and keyways.
III. Placement of Fill
A.Suitability alit! materials: Any materials, derived onsite or imported, may be utilized as fill
provided that the materials have been determined to be suitable by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Such materials shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious materials, and be
of a gradation, expansion potential, and/or strength that is acceptable to the Geotechnical
Consultant. Fill materials shall be tested in a laboratory approved by the Geotechnical
Consultant, and import materials shall be tested and approved prior to being imported.
B.Generally, different fill materials shall be thoroughly mixed to provide a relatively uniform
blend of materials and prevent abrupt changes in material type, Fill materials derived from
benching should be dispersed throughout the till area instead of placing the materials withireonly
an equipment-width from the cut/fill contact.
C.Oversize Materials: Rocks greater than 12 inches in largest dimension shall be disposed of
offsite or be placed in accordance with the recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant in
the areas that are designated as suitable for oversize rock placement. Rocks that are smiler than
8 inches in largest dimension may be utilized in the till provided that they are not nested and are
their quantity and distribution are acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant and do not inhibit
the ability to properly compact fill materials.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 52 of 193
General Earthwork Specifications Page 3
D.The fill materials shall be placed in thin, horizontal layers such that, when compacted, shall
not exceed 6 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed to obtain a
near uniform moisture content and uniform blend of materials.
E.Moisture Content: Fill materials shall be placed at or above the. optimum moisture content or
as recommended by the geotechnical report. Where the moisture content of the engineered fill is
less than recommended, water shall be added. and the fill materials shall be blended so that a
near uniform moisture content is achieved. If the moisture content is above the limits specified
by the Geotechnical Consultant, the fill materials shall be aerated by discing, blading, or other
methods until the moisture content is acceptable.
F.Each layer of fill shall be compacted to the project standards in accordance to the project
specifications and recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant, Unless otherwise specified
by the Geotechnical Consultant, the till shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the
maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method; DI 557.
G.Benching: Where placing fill on a slope exceeding a ratio of $ to I (horizontal to vertical), the
ground should be keyed or benched. The keyways and benches shall extend through all
unsuitable materials into suitable materials such as firm materials or sound bedrock or as
recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. The minimum keyway width shall be 15 feet and
extend into suitable materials, or as recommended by the geoteChnical report and approved by
the Geotechnical Consultant. The minimum keyway width for fill over cut slopes is also 15 feet,
or as recommended by the geotechnical report and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant As
a general rule, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant, the minimum
width of the keyway shall be equal to V2 the height of the fill slope.
H.Slope Face; The specified minimum relative compaction shall be maintained out to the finish
face of fill and stabilization fill slopes. Generally, this may be achieved by overbuilding the slope
and cutting back to the compacted core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field
conditions dictate. Alternately, this may be achieved by backrolling the slope face with suitable
equipment or other methods that produce the designated result. Loose soil should not be allowed
to build up on the slope face. If present, loose soils shall be trimmed to expose the compacted
slope face.
I.Slope Ratio: Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnieal Consultant and governing
agencies, permanent fill slopes shall be designed and constructed no steeper than 2 to I
(horizontal to vertical).
J.Natural Ground and Cut Areas: Design grades that are in natural ground or in cuts should be
evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant to determine whether scarification and processing of
the ground and/or overexcavation is needed.
K.Fill materials shall not be placed, spread, or compacted during unfavorable weather
conditions. When grading is interrupted by rain, filing operations shall not resume until the
Geotechnical Consultant approves the moisture and density of the previously placed compacted
fill.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 53 of 193
General earthwork Specifications Page 4
IV. Cut Slopes
A.The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe all cut slopes, including fill over cut slopes, and
shall be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started.
B.if adverse or potentially adverse conditions are encountered during grading, the Geotechnical
Consultant shall investigate, evaluate, and make recommendations to mitigate the adverse
conditions.
C.Unless otherwise stated in the geotechnical report, cut slopes shall not be excavated higher or
steeper than the requirements of the local governing agencies. Short-term stability of the cut
slopes and other excavations is the contractor's responsibility.
V. Drainage
A.Backdrains and Subdrains: Backdrains and subdrains shall be provided in fill as
recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant and shall be constructed in accordance with the
governing agency andior recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. The location of
subdrains, especially outlets, shall be surveyed and recorded by the Civil Engineer.
B.Top-of-slope Drainage: Positive drainage shall be established away from the top of slope. Site
drainage shall not be permitted to flow over the tops of slopes.
C.Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the governing agency requirements
and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the Civil Engineer.
D.Non-erodible interceptor swales shall be placed at the top of cut slopes that face the same
direction as the prevailing drainage.
VI. Erosion Control
A.All finish cut and fill slopes shall by protected from erosion and/or planted in accordance with
the project specifications and/or landscape architect's recommendations. Such measures to
protect the slope face shall be undertaken as soon aS practical after completion of grading.
B.During construction, the contractor shall maintain proper drainage and prevent the pending of
water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent the erosion of graded areas until
permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed.
VII. Trench Excavation and Backfill
A. Safety: The contractor shall follow all OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations.
Knowing and following these requirements is the contractor's responsibility. All trench
excavations or open cuts in excess of 5 feet in depth shall be shored or laid back. Trench
excavations and open cuts exposing adverse geologic conditions may require further evaluation
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item 444 Page 54 of 193
General Earthwork Specifications Page 5
by the Geotechnical Consultant. If a contractor fails to provide safe access for compaction
testing, backfill not tested due to safety coneems may be subject to removal.
B.Bedding: Bedding materials shall be non-expansive and have a Sand Equivalent greater than
30. Where permitted by the Geotechnical Consultant, the bedding materials can be densified by
jetting.
C.Backfill: Jetting of backfill materials to achieve compaction is generally not acceptable.
Where permitted by the Geotechnical Consultant, the bedding materials can be densified by
jetting provided the backfill materials are granular, free-draining and have a Sand Equivalent
greater than 30.
Geoteehnieat Observation and Testing During Grading
A.Compaction Testing: Fill will be tested and evahlated by the Geotechnical Consultant for
evaluation of general compliance with the recommended compaction and moisture conditions.
The tests shall be taken in the compacted soils beneath the surface if the surficial materials are
disturbed. The contractor shall assist the Geotechnical Consultant by excavating suitable test pits
for testing of compacted fill.
B.Where tests indicate that the density of a layer of fill is less than required, or the moisture
content is not within specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall notify the contractor of the
unsatisfactory conditions of the fill. The portions of the, fill that are not within specifications shall
be reworked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional
fill shall be placed until the last lift of fill is tested and found to meet the project specifications
and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant,
C.If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as adverse
weather, excessive rock or deleterious materials being placed in the fill, insufficient equipment,
excessive rate of fill placement, results in a quality of' work that is unacceptable, the consultant
shall notify the contractor, and the contractor shall rectify the conditions, and if necessary_ stop
work until conditions are satisfactory.
D.Frequency of Compaction Testing: The location and frequency of tests shall be at the
Geotechnical Consultant's discretion. Generally, compaction tests shall be taken at intervals
approximately two feet in fill height.
E.Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate
elevation and horizontal coordinates of the compaction test locations. The contractor shall
coordinate with the surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the
Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations. Alternately, the test locations can be
surveyed and the results provided to the Geotechnica I Consultant.
F.Areas of fill that have not been observed or tested by the (=technical Consultant may have to
be removed and recompacted at the contractor's expense. The depth and extent of removals will
be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 55 of 193
Cieneral Earthwork Specifications Page 6
G.Observation and testing by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be conducted during grading in
order for the Geotechnical Consultant to state that in his opinion, grading has been completed in
accordance with the approved geotechnical report and project specifications.
H.Reporting of Test Results: After completion of grading operations, the Geotechnical
Consultant shall submit reports documenting their observations during construction and test
results, These reports may be subject to review by the local governing agencies.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 56 of 193
E61 JO LS aEd IZOZ `91 1714 WD11
BEGONIA COURT
,,Pla
;.5,44
f.$
Cr;1.41:11 eta
e.r J
r
*
..›*-1•Ar....• Att.
ftAtr
e;:-...;17:2:4711.11 ;11E..
* V*.
0.0.4VMAP!,(11
aAan TO Z `9-E Lip-leiAl CROSS-SECTION f'. E6T 10 8S aed
Pr -
CROSS-SECTION
PLIAE I •r....r.e..a.v....aria
%OAGS .• kevormoor4i %:41Allin
',NM; PIN - 1/......121100.1501*
EXHIBET5
PDVPNCED GEOTECHNCPL SOLUTIONS, I NC.
485 Corporate Drive, Suite B
Escondido, Ca 92029
Telephone: (619) 867-0487
FUSION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
4231 Balboa Avenue, Suite 619
San Diego, CA 92117
Attention: John Rivera, PE
September 10, 2020
P/W 1907-03
Report No. 1907-03-B4
Subject: Geotechnical Addendum, Response to City of Carlsbad Engineering Review Comments,
Lichtman Residence, 939 Begonia Court, City of Carlsbad, California.
References: Appendix
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request and authorization, Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., has prepared
this response to Engineering Review Comments provided by the City of Carlsbad Community Development
Department regarding the existing Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls in the rear yard of
the Lichtman Residence located at 939 Begonia Court, City of Carlsbad, California. More specifically, this
letter has been prepared in response to Engineering review comments la through lg from the 1St Review
for CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV 2020-0134) - Begonia Court Retaining Wall dated June 29, 2020
and provided to AGS on September 9, 2020. Unless superseded in the text of this addendum report, the
conclusions and recommendations presented in referenced geotechnical report (AGS 2019) remain valid
and applicable and should be properly implemented. hi preparing this response to cycle review comments
we have first presented the review comment followed by our response.
City of Carlsbad- Submit supplemental geotechnical report to the report dated October 9, 2019 by AGS
expanding on analysis and recommendations of the third option chosen to reinforce the existing system.
Include in the supplemental geotechnical report:
la — Recommendations for anchor locations, lengths, spacing, etc. and specify which walls shall be
anchored.
AGS Response — It is our understanding that stabilization of the existing MSE retaining walls will
be performed on a design-build basis. The design-build contractor will provide the locations, lengths,
spacing, etc. of the soil nails/tie-backs and determine which walls will be anchored. Any MSE
retaining walls not stabilized with a shotcrete and soil nail/tie-back system should be evaluated by
AGS and may require reconstruction using the appropriate geogrid type, length, and spacing and the
reinforced and retained soils compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the dry density per ASTM D-
1557. The shotcrete with soil nail/tie-back system should be designed by a licensed engineer familiar
with these systems. The soil nail/tie-back capacity is dependent on the drilling and grouting methods
and should be estimated by the design-build contractor. Testing should be conducted during
construction. For preliminary estimating purposes, ultimate anchor capacities in the formational
materials (sandstone) can be assumed to be 4,300 pounds per square foot (30 psi). Since the above
friction capacities are considered ultimate, an appropriate factor of safety should be incorporated into
the design. Soils nails should be embedded a minimum of 10 feet into competent formational
ORANGE AND L.A. COUNTIES INLAND EMPIRE SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES
(714) 786-5661 (619) 708-1649 (619) 867-0487
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 59 of 193
_Page 2 September 10, 2020
Report I 907-03-B-4 P/W 1907-03
materials. The soil nail/tie-back reinforcement system should be designed to support an active
pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid weight of 40 pcf for level backfill and 60 pcf for sloping
backfill, and should also consider the surcharges of the tiered walls. When a design is available, it
should be reviewed by AGS and a global stability analysis performed.
lb— Installation methods and procedures.
AGS Response — Installation methods and procedures should be provided by the design-build
contractor. Typically, this type of reinforcement may first include coring through the MSE wall
blocks at predetermined locations. Hand drills would be used to advance an inclined hole to the
design length. The soil nail would be placed in the hole and possibly tubes for primary and post
grouting. Testing of selected soil nails would be completed after grouting. Drain boards may be
installed on the outside of the MSE wall blocks and a reinforcement mat may be installed. Bearing
plates would be affixed to the end of the nails and possibly tied to the reinforcement mat on the
outside of the MSE wall. Shotcrete would then be applied to complete the wall.
lc — Assess overall feasibility of the project.
AGS Response — Stabilization of the existing MSE retaining wall system with soil nails/tie-back
anchors is considered feasible from a geotechnical perspective. Plans for the stabilization of the
existing retaining walls should be reviewed by AGS when they are available.
ld— Location Map.
AGS Response — Figure 1- Site Location Plan is included herewith.
le — Describe impacts on adjacent properties/improvements as a result of site grading and construction.
AGS Response — It is anticipated that the impacts on adjacent properties/improvements as a result
of site grading and construction will be negligible to favorable. It should be noted that depending on
the fmal design length of the soil nails/tie-backs, they may encroach into the superjacent parcel(s)
and require permission from the adjacent property owner(s).
if— Reference applicable building/grading codes/ordinances.
AGS Response — Applicable building/grading codes/ordinances should be provided by the design
engineer and included on the project plans.
le — Recompaction requirements as the fill has not been recompacted to a minimum of 90% of relative
compaction per the conclusions in Section 6.0 of October 9, 2019 report. Is recompaction of slopes and
level areas between wall required for this remediation option? Design engineer shall also estimate
remediation quantities for recompaction in their grading quantity assessment.
AGS Response — AGS is unaware of slopes between walls with the exception of the stairs. Provided
that there are no structural or settlement sensitive improvements constructed in the project area and
that some settlement of the retained soils is acceptable to the property owner, recompaction of the
existing retained fill soils is not required. The recommended design active pressure for the
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 60 of 193
HN J. DOdOVAN
CE 65051, GE 2790, Reg. Exp. 6-30-21
Distribution: (3) Addressee
Attachments: References
Figure 1 — Site Location Map
PAUL J. DERIS1
CEG 2536, Reg. Exp. 5-31-21
4.
Q LP No. 2536 -- _4
CERTIFIED
ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST
Page 3 September 10, 2020
Report 1907-03-B-4 P/W 1907-03
reinforcement system and the shear strengths provided in the referenced report that should be used
for the global stability analysis have considered the current condition of the existing fill.
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide you with geotechnical
consulting services and professional opinions. Should you have any questions, please contact the
undersigned at (619) 867-0487.
Respectfully Submitted,
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 61 of 193
Page 4 September 10, 2020
Report 1907-03-B-4 P/W 1907-03
REFERENCES
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (2010). "Geotechnical Evaluation of Existing Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Walls, 939 Begonia Court, City of Carlsbad, California," dated October 9, 2019,
Report No. 1907-03-B-3.
Fusion Engineering and Technology, Preliminary Site Plan for Lichttnan Residence, 939 Begonia Court,
City of Carlsbad, California, Map 1 of 1, 10-Scale, undated.
Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California
Geological Survey: Scale 1:100,000.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 62 of 193
SCALE 1:48000
P/W 1907-03 FIGURE 1
AGS ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
485 Corporate Drive, Suite B
Escondido, CA 92029
Telephone: (619) 867-0487 Fax: (714) 409-3287
SITE LOCATION MAP
939 BEGONIA COURT,
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE MAP - U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE
ENCINITAS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (2018)
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 63 of 193
EXHIBIT 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7394
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
DENY A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN
UNPERMITTED RETAINING WALL SYSTEM THAT EXCEEDS STANDARDS ON
A MANUFACTURED UPHILL PERIMETER SLOPE WITH A GRADIENT
GREATER THAN 40 PERCENT AND AN ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL OF
GREATER THAN FIFTEEN FEET LOCATED AT 939 BEGONIA COURT ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 939 BEGONIA COURT WITHIN THE MELLO II
SEGMENT OF THE CITY'S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 4.
CASE NAME: BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
CASE NO: CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
WHEREAS, Rene Lichtman, "Developer/Applicant," has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property owned by Valerie Lichtman, "Owner," described as
Lot 138 of Carlsbad Tract No. 73-79, Spinnaker Hill Unit #3, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no. 8453, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on December 29, 1976
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal Development Permit and
Variance as shown on Exhibit(s) "A" dated December 16, 2020, attached hereto and on file in the Carlsbad
Planning Division, CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL, as provided in
Chapters 21.201 and 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on December 16, 2020, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;
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 Coastal
Development Permit and Variance.
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.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 64 of 193
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS DENIAL of CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING
WALL, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2020-0026)
1.The proposed development is not in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and
all applicable policies in that the site is known for geologic instability due to the unpermitted
grading and construction of an unpermitted retaining wall system. A geotechnical evaluation
provided by the applicant and prepared by Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., dated October
9, 2019 (see Attachment 8) confirms the slope stability has been compromised and does not meet
minimum safety standards for static or seismic conditions. The geotechnical evaluation offered
conceptual options to mitigate the structure; however, the applicant's engineer did not provide
adequate technical information to determine if the subject slope area would be stable or if the
impacts would be mitigatable for at least seventy-five years or for the life of the structure. The
city requested specific structural details related to the retaining walls and retrofitting of the walls.
The applicant refused to provide the information and the applicant's engineer stated that the
specifics regarding the retrofit would be on a design-build basis (see Attachment 9). A design-
build basis implies that the necessary information to demonstrate the feasibility of the retrofit
would only be provided after the coastal development permit and variance are approved, but the
city does not have the information to rely upon in order to approve the project. Therefore, staff
does not have the necessary information to make the determination that the slope would be
stable, or if the impacts would be mitigatable for at least seventy-five years or for the life of the
structure. In addition, the geotechnical evaluation did not address compliance with the
requirements of the Coastal Zone or Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the project is not consistent
with the intent and purpose of the Certified Local Coastal Program in that it does not preserve or
protect steep manufactured slopes, nor does the project ensure structural stability of the slope
.
from erosion, geological instability or destruction of the site or surrounding area. The project does •
not meet this finding.
2.The project is not consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
(Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) because the geotechnical evaluation did not provide
adequate information for staff to confirm that the project will avoid increased urban runoff,
pollutants and soil erosion and there is a steep slope (equal to or greater than 25 percent gradient)
of approximately 55 percent locatecion the subject property. The project does not meet this.
finding based on the analysis in finding number 1 above.
a. The applicant provided a geotechnical evaluation that was prepared by a licensed engineer
who inspected the unpermitted retaining wall system and determined the wall system is
structurally faulty because the fill has not been compacted to a minimum percentage that is
safe. In addition, the evaluation finds that the slope is not safe for long term stability for static
conditions or seismic conditions. The geotechnical evaluation included three options to
remediate the wall system to make it structurally sound which are: A) remove the existing
walls and undocumented fill and replace it with a new five-foot wall near the toe of the slope
with an ascending fill slope located above the wall, and rebuild a new wall system constructed
near the top of the fill slope; B) remove the walls and undocumented fill and restore the
existing slope; or C) leave the existing walls in place with considerable reinforcement effort,
which may require encroachment onto the adjacent properties that will require authorization
MarabstEV 002194 -2- Item #4 Page 65 of 193
from the property owners. Although the geotechnical evaluation offered conceptual options
to mitigate the structure, the applicant's engineer did not provide adequate technical
information to determine if the subject slope area would be stable or if the impacts would be
mitigatable for at least seventy-five years or for the life of the structure as described in more
detail in Section III(C)(1)(a) of the staff report above.
b. The grading of the manufactured uphill perimeter slope is not essential for the development
intent and design of a single-family residential property. If it were essential, it would have
been done with the original grading of the overall subdivision development. Grading is only
necessary to retain the unpermitted retaining wall system, but the walls are not a permitted
structure-on a manufactured uphill perimeter slope in accordance with CMC Chapter 21.95
— Hillside Development Regulations. In addition, grading on a manufactured uphill perimeter
slope beyond the six-foot limitation is only allowed in the Coastal Zone when it is necessary
to preserve onsite natural habitat as required by the city's Habitat Management Plan. The
project site is in the Coastal Zone but there is no natural habitat onsite that is required to be
preserved; therefore, the grading of the slope is not essential to the development. The
project does not meet this finding.
Variance (V 2020-0004)
3.The applicant's justification does not speak to special circumstances related to the subject
property, or loss of privileges enjoyed by other properties, but instead speaks to circumstances
the applicant created through the illegal grading and construction of the retaining wall system.
There are no special circumstances associated with the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, such that the strict application of the zoning ordinance
would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by the other homes in the vicinity and in the
R-1 Residential zone. The property is of average size (17,146 sq. ft.) in the neighborhood and is
a typical pie-shaped lot that is found on a cul-de-sac street. The other lots in the vicinity range
in size from about 12,000 to about 19,000 square feet in size. The 55 percent manufactured
uphill perimeter slope is characteristic of the adjacent properties and other properties in the
vicinity. The strict application of the zoning code does not deprive the property of privileges
enjoyed by other property owners because retaining walls that exceed the hillside development
standards on a manufactured uphill perimeter slope are unpermitted for all residential
properties. The retaining wall system is decorative and does not constitute relief from unique
difficulties or hardships associated with the property in question.
4.The variance would constitute a grant of special privileges that is inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. All properties in the vicinity and the
R-1 Residential zoning designation in the Coastal Zone are subject to the same Hillside
Development Ordinance regulations that are in effect, which prohibit retaining walls from being
constructed beyond what is allowed on a manufactured uphill perimeter slope. No other
properties in the vicinity have similar, permitted retaining walls on the manufactured uphill
perimeter slope. To approve the subject variance would be a grant of special privileges to this
property that other properties in the vicinity do not enjoy.
5.The granting of this variance would authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property. The fact that the retaining
wall system is existing because it has been constructed without city approval is not appropriate
justification to approve the variance. As designed, the unpermitted retaining wall system is
iteME10116020294 -3- . Item #4 Page 66 of 193
prohibited per CMC Chapter 21.95 — Hillside Development Regulations which governs
•development on manufactured uphill perimeter slopes. CMC Chapter 21.95 allows for
modifications to development on slopes; however, modifications are prohibited in the Coastal
Zone unless it is necessary to preserve natural habitat as required by the city's Habitat
Management Plan. The subject property is in the Coastal Zone, but there is no native habitat on
site and the project is not necessary to preserve natural habitat Therefore, granting the variance
would authorize an activity that is expressly not authorized within the applicable zoning
regulations.
6.The granting of this variance is not consistent with the general purpose and intent of the
General Plan. The subject property is designated Residential (R — 4) General Plan Land Use
designation and although walls are a typical component of residentially designated areas, the
subject retaining wall system is not consistent with the development of single-family lots with
a manufactured uphill perimeter slope within the Coastal Zone. The subject retaining wall
system also does not promote the Hillside Development Ordinance intent to enhance the
aesthetic qualities of manufactured slopes and is not consistent with the Hillside Development
and Design Guidelines acknowledgment that manufactured slopes of greater than 40% gradient
and greater than 15 feet in height are regarded as important aesthetic, visual resources because
they provide visually open, vertical separations between developed pads in hilly areas and
between developed pads and roadways. As a result, the project does not preserve the existing
neighborhood atmosphere and identity of the existing residential area.
7.The granting of this variance would not be consistent with the general purpose and intent of
the certified local coastal program and does reduce or adversely affect the requirements for
protection of coastal resources. One of the purposes of the certified local coastal program is to
preserve and protect natural and manufactured slopes in the coastal resource protection
overlay zone area and to ensure stability and structural integrity of the slopes from erosion,
geologic instability, or destruction of the site. The unpermitted grading that has occurred to
construct the unpermitted and unengineered retaining wall system has compromised the
stability of the slope. To retain the wall system will require considerable reinforcement and the
structural integrity of reinforcing the walls has not been determined since the applicant has
refused to provide such information at this time as described in detail previously in the staff
report. Therefore, the feasibility of retaining the wall system and stabilizing the slope in
accordance with the requirements for protection of the local coastal resources is unknown.
Condition:
1. Within 60 days from the date of the City Council action, or as otherwise specified in the Code
Compliance Agreement and Release for Code Enforcement Case No. CC 2018-0902, the property
owner shall apply for the necessary permits such as but not limited to a grading permit and coastal
development permit to remove the unpermitted retaining wall system and restore the slope to
comply with CMC Section 21.95.140(C)(1)(a)(i).
rf6W9d`,19oR94 -4- Item #4 Page 67 of 193
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City
of Carlsbad, California, held on December 16, 2020, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chair Anderson, Commissioners Geldner, Lafferty, Luna, Meenes and Stine
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Merz
VELYN ANDERSON, Chair
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
City Planner
fklaaMS92029.4 -5: Item #4 Page 68 of 193
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
EXHIBIT 7
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: December 16, 2020
Application complete date: October 8, 2020
Project Planner: Jessica Bui
Project Engineer: David Rick
SUBJECT: CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL -
Request for a Coastal Development Permit and a Variance to allow an unpermitted
retaining wall system that exceeds standards on a manufactured uphill perimeter slope
with a gradient greater than 40 percent and an elevation differential of greater than
fifteen feet on property located at 939 Begonia Court within the Mello II Segment of the
city's Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 4. The project site is
not within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. The City Planner
has determined pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(4) and 15270 of the state CEQA Guidelines
that the project is exempt from CEQA because CEQA does not apply to projects which a
public agency rejects or disapproves.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7394 RECOMMENDING that
the City Council DENY Coastal Development Permit CDP 2020-0026 and Variance V 2020-0004 based upon
the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Project Site/Setting: The 0.39-acre (17,146 square feet) project site is located at 939 Begonia Court as
shown on the attached location map. The site is developed with a two-story, single-family residence. The
property slopes from a high point of approximately 204 feet above mean sea level at the rear of the lot to
a low point of approximately 166 feet above mean sea level adjacent to the street, Begonia Court. The
eastern half of the property, or the backyard area (above 168 feet contour line) is comprised of an uphill
slope with a gradient of approximately 55 percent. The lot is surrounded by single-family residences to
the north, south, east and west. Table "A" below includes the General Plan designations, zoning and
current land uses of the project site and surrounding properties.
TABLE A
Location General Plan Designation Zoning Current Land Use
Site R — 4 Residential R — 1 One — Family
Residential Single—Family Residence
North,
South,
East and
West
R — 4 R — 1 Single — Family Residence
March 16, 2021 f 1/4.3 Item #4 Page 69 or-193
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 2
Project Background: The existing single-family residence is in the Coastal Zone and is used as a short-term
vacation rental (STVR)1. The property has one open Code Enforcement violation for the existing and
unpermitted retaining wall system. The Code Enforcement Division opened a case against the property
owner in late 2018 upon discovering unpermitted grading and ongoing construction on the property. Code
Enforcement issued a notice of violation against the property owner in February 2019 and a final notice
of violation in June 2019. Construction stopped in approximately June 2019 as described below, although
the violations have not been corrected to date. Instead, property owner chose to pursue this variance
application.
According to its geotechnical report, the property owner began unpermitted grading and construction of
the multi-tiered retaining wall system into the uphill slope located in the backyard in March 2016 and
continued until approximately June 2019. The city issued a notice of violation to the property owner for
violations of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 15.16.050 of the Grading Ordinance because the
property owner graded the slope to construct the walls without a grading permit; CMC Section 21.95.140
of the Hillside Development Ordinance for constructing a retaining wall system on a manufactured uphill
perimeter slope that exceeds the permitted standards; and CMC Section 21.203.040 for the construction
of the wall system without approval of a coastal development permit to ensure compliance with the
required provisions in the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone. To ensure the health and safety of
STVR guests or other individuals during this review process, the Code Enforcement Division required the
area of the unpermitted walls be sectioned off with a gate and caution tape to restrict entering or
recreating on the slope that has been structurally compromised, and to disclose the restriction in rental
marketing materials.
The Planning Division, Engineering Division, Code Enforcement and City Attorney's Office conferred with
the property owner on several occasions since 2018 regarding potential corrective actions. The actions
discussed were: A) apply for and obtain a grading permit to remove the unpermitted walls and bring the
system into compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance and restore the slope above to its
original condition; or B) apply for a coastal development permit and variance application to request the
approval for the unpermitted retaining wall system to remain. Option A may not require a coastal
development permit because bringing the wall into compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance
should avail the applicant of the standard exemption for typical improvements associated with a single-
family residence outside the Coastal appeal area. However, staff advised the property owner that a
recommendation for denial would likely result from Option B, the application for a coastal development
permit and variance, because the walls do not meet code requirements of CMC Section 21.203.040 —
Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone, CMC Section 21.95.140 — Hillside Development Ordinance, and
the required findings for CMC Section 21.50— Variances. A detailed analysis for each zoning code violation
is discussed in Section III —Analysis of this staff report.
Project Description: The property owner chose to proceed with option "B." The request for a coastal
development permit and variance is to allow an existing and unpermitted retaining wall system to remain
on an uphill perimeter slope with a gradient over 40 percent and an elevation differential of greater than
fifteen feet ("manufactured uphill perimeter slope") located within the backyard of a single-family
residence. The wall system starts at the base of the slope and extends approximately two thirds up the
slope toward the rear property line. The wall system is multi-tiered with four levels and is accessed by
stairs that start at the toe of the slope, which is adjacent to a swimming pool and spa. The slope has been
graded and filled to accommodate the wall system without a required grading permit, and each level
In accordance with CMC Chapter 5.60 — Short-Term Vacation Rentals, property owners in the Coastal Zone may
operate a short-term rental with the approval of a STVR pennit and a business license.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 70 of 193
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 3
between the multi-tiered system is flat and designed in a manner that could be used as recreation areas.
However, a retaining wall or walls are only permitted within an area that is a maximum height of six feet
above the grade elevation at the toe of the slope within a manufactured uphill perimeter slope per
Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.95.140.C.1(a) and the Hillside Development and Design
Guidelines Section III.B and Exhibit 9 (see Attachment 5).
Proposed Grading: The grading quantities (cubic yards of cut and the cubic yards of fill) from the
unpermitted grading that had occurred to construct the unpermitted retaining wall system is unknown.
Estimated grading quantities will be determined by the applicant's licensed engineer's plan to either
remove and remediate the slope or to structurally retrofit the existing wall in place.
The CDP and Variance would normally be heard by the Planning Commission as the final decision-maker.
However, one aspect of the project's CDP application for deviations to grading of steep slopes within the
Coastal Zone requires action by the City Council. Therefore, per CMC Section 21.54.040, Decision-making
authority for multiple development permits, both applications require City Council action. The Planning
Commission's action on the project will be a recommendation. If the project is denied by the City Council,
the walls will be conditioned to be removed and the slope must be restored in accordance with the
provisions of CMC Chapter 21.95 — Hillside Development Regulations. The removal of the walls,
restoration of the slope, and the retainment or construction of a compliant retaining wall that is a
maximum height of six feet tall measured from the grade at the toe of the slope will require the applicant
to obtain a grading permit. Furthermore, if the removal and restoration is consistent with the Hillside
Development Regulations it will not require a hillside development permit due to the exemption for single
family residences. If no impacts are found to coastal resources, a CDP will not be required because
improvements normally associated with residences such as this are exempt from the CDP procedures. A
CDP may be required if the remediation impacts the property or adjacent properties to an extent that
would be considered an impact on coastal resources. The extent of the remediation and CDP requirement
would be determined at the time that specific details provided by the applicant's engineer are submitted
to the city for review.
III. ANALYSIS
The project is subject to the following regulations and requirements:
A.Grading and Erosion Control (CMC Chapter 15.16);
B.Hillside Development Regulations (CMC Chapter 21.95);
C.Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program
(CMC Chapter 21.201) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter
21. 203); and
D.Variances (CMC Chapter 21.50).
The recommendation for denial of this project was developed by analyzing the project's inconsistencies
with the applicable city regulations and policies. The project is not in compliance with the applicable
regulations and is discussed in detail in the sections below. Furthermore, there is no known alternative
design or modifications that can be made to this project that would be compatible with the
aforementioned applicable regulations short of the removal of the walls, restoration of the slope, and the
retainment or construction of one compliant retaining wall that is a maximum height of six feet tall at the
toe of the slope.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 71 of 193
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 4
A.Grading and Erosion Control (CMC Chapter 15.16)
The Engineering Department determined that the property was in violation of CMC Section 15.16.050
because the hillside was cleared and graded to construct the retaining wall system without the approval
of a grading permit. If the project is denied, the applicant will be required to apply for and obtain a grading
permit to restore the slope and bring it into compliance with CMC Chapter 21.95 — Hillside Development
Regulations
B.Hillside Development Regulations (CIVIC Chapter 21.95)
The project site has a manufactured uphill perimeter slope as defined in CMC Section 21.95.140.0 with a
gradient greater than 40 percent and an elevation differential of greater than fifteen feet located in the
backyard into which the unpermitted retaining wall system is constructed. CMC Section 21.95.140
contains provisions related to design standards for development of manufactured uphill perimeter slopes,
and development is limited to a main building, accessory structure and a retaining wall up to a maximum
cut into the slope of six vertical feet measured from the existing grade at the toe of the slope. Stairs are
also allowed to be constructed onto the slope in order to access the area for landscape maintenance. In
addition, CMC Section 21.95.140 allows the construction of decks on the manufactured uphill perimeter
slope up to the required building setback of the zoning designation. Per CMC Section 21.95.040,
improvements to single family residences are exempt from having to apply for a hillside development
permit (HOP), provided that the development complies with CMC Section 21.95.140 of the Hillside
Development Regulations and the city's hillside development and design guidelines. However, walls and
retaining walls built beyond the maximum six-foot cut as measured from the toe of the slope such as the
project in question are not permitted per those standards and guidelines, so the project would not be
exempt from an HDP.
Modifications to the development and design standards of the Hillside Development Ordinance and
Hillside Development and Design Guidelines are only permitted outside of the Coastal Zone with the
approval of a HDP. Because the subject property is in the Coastal Zone, modifications to the design
standards are prohibited unless it is necessary to preserve onsite natural habitat as required by the city's
Habitat Management Plan. There is no natural habitat present on the site. Therefore, an application for a
HDP to seek design standards and guidelines modifications would not be applicable, and the applicant is
instead seeking approval of a variance to deviate from the requirements of the CMC Chapter 21.95 —
Hillside Development Regulations.
C.Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Coastal
Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.201 and 21.203)
The project site is located within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and is not in the appeal
jurisdiction. The site is also located within and subject to the Coastal Resources Protection Overlay Zone.
Improvements typically associated with a single-family residence outside the Coastal appeal area, such as
retaining walls, are exempt from a coastal development permit (CDP). The exemption assumes the
proposed work complies with the rest of the Zoning Ordinance, so a project that does not comply with
the Hillside Development Ordinance is not exempt from a CDP. Therefore, the request to allow the
unpermitted retaining wall system to remain is subject to a CDP and the regulations in CMC Sections
21.201 and 21.203 as described below:
1. Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 72 of 193
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 5
The project is located in the Mello II Local Coastal Program Segment. The project consists of the
construction of an unpermitted retaining wall system more than six vertical feet above the toe of a
manufactured uphill perimeter slope. The proposed retaining wall system is not compatible with the
surrounding development of one and two-story single-family structures in that construction of retaining
walls extending more than six feet above the toe of the slope is not permitted for manufactured uphill
perimeter slopes. The retaining wall system is in an area of known geologic instability that has been
created by the applicant due to the unpermitted grading, construction of unengineered retaining walls
and filling of the slope. Each finding below must be met in order to support a coastal development permit:
a.That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and
all applicable policies.
The proposed development is not in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal Program and
all applicable policies in that the site is known for geologic instability due to the unpermitted
grading and construction of an unpermitted retaining wall system. A geotechnical evaluation
provided by the applicant and prepared by Advanced Geotechnica I Solutions, Inc., dated October
9, 2019 (see Attachment 7) confirms the slope stability has been compromised and does not meet
minimum safety standards for static or seismic conditions. The geotechnical evaluation offered
conceptual options to mitigate the structure; however, the applicant's engineer did not provide
adequate technical information to determine if the subject slope area would be stable or if the
impacts would be mitigatable for at least seventy-five years or for the life of the structure. The
city requested specific structural details related to the retaining walls and retrofitting of the walls.
The applicant refused to provide the information and the applicant's engineer stated that the
specifics regarding the retrofit would be on a design-build basis (see Attachment 8). A design-
build basis implies that the necessary information to demonstrate the feasibility of the retrofit
would only be provided after the coastal development permit and variance are approved, but the
city does not have the information to rely upon in order to approve the project. Therefore, staff
does not have the necessary information to make the determination that the slope would be
stable, or if the impacts would be mitigatable for at least seventy-five years or for the life of the
structure. In addition, the geotechnical evaluation did not address compliance with the
requirements of the Coastal Zone or Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the project is not consistent
with the intent and purpose of the Certified Local Coastal Program in that it does not preserve or
protect steep manufactured slopes, nor does the project ensure structural stability of the slope
from erosion, geological instability or destruction of the site or surrounding area. The project does
not meet this finding.
b.The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act.
This finding is not applicable because the property is not adjacent to the coastal shoreline; and
therefore, will not interfere with the public's right to physical access or water-oriented
recreational activities.
C. 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, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and
Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants,
and soil erosion. No steep slopes or native vegetation is located on the subject property and
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 73 of 193
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 6
the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion,
floods, or liquefaction.
The project is not consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
(Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) because the geotechnical evaluation did not provide
adequate information for staff to confirm that the project will avoid increased urban runoff,
pollutants and soil erosion and there is a steep slope (equal to or greater than 25 percent gradient)
of approximately 55 percent located on the subject property. The project does not meet this
finding based on the analysis in finding number 1 above.
2. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
The project is not consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC
Chapter 21.203) in that the subject property includes a steep slope (equal to or greater than 25 percent
gradient) and development is proposed on a steep slope. In addition, due to the unpermitted grading of
the slope, the site may be prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion.
Furthermore, CMC Section 21.203.040(A)3 contains specific development standards that are applied to
areas within the coastal resource protection overlay zone related to grading and preservation of steep
slopes (equal to or greater than 25 percent gradient) and those standards differ depending on the
geographic area within the coastal zone. For the project site, the city council may allow exceptions to
grading of the steep slope provided all the following applicable mandatory findings to allow exceptions
are made:
a.A soils investigation conducted by a licensed soil engineer has determined the subject slope area to
be stable and grading and development impacts mitigatable for at least seventy-five years, or life
of structure.
The applicant provided a geotechnical evaluation that was prepared by a licensed engineer who
inspected the unpermitted retaining wall system and determined the wall system is structurally faulty
because the fill has not been compacted to a minimum percentage that is safe. In addition, the
evaluation finds that the slope is not safe for long term stability for static conditions or seismic
conditions. The geotechnical evaluation included three options to remediate the wall system to make
it structurally sound which are: A) remove the existing walls and undocumented fill and replace it with
a new five-foot wall near the toe of the slope with an ascending fill slope located above the wall, and
rebuild a new wall system constructed near the top of the fill slope; B) remove the walls and
undocumented fill and restore the existing slope; or C) leave the existing walls in place with
considerable reinforcement effort, which may require encroachment onto the adjacent properties
that will require authorization from the property owners. Although the geotechnical evaluation
offered conceptual options to mitigate the structure, the applicant's engineer did not provide
adequate technical information to determine if the subject slope area would be stable or if the
impacts would be mitigatable for at least seventy-five years or for the life of the structure as described
in more detail in Section III(C)(1)(a) of the staff report above. The project does not meet this finding.
b.Grading of the slope is essential to the development intent and design.
The grading of the manufactured uphill perimeter slope is not essential for the development intent
and design of a single-family residential property. If it were essential, it would have been done with
the original grading of the overall subdivision development. Grading is only necessary to retain the
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 74 of 193
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 7
unpermitted retaining wall system, but the walls are not a permitted structure on a manufactured
uphill perimeter slope in accordance with CMC Chapter 21.95 — Hillside Development Regulations. In
addition, grading on a manufactured uphill perimeter slope beyond the six-foot limitation is only
allowed in the Coastal Zone when it is necessary to preserve onsite natural habitat as required by the
city's Habitat Management Plan. The project site is in the Coastal Zone but there is no natural habitat
onsite that is required to be preserved; therefore, the grading of the slope is not essential to the
development. The project does not meet this finding.
c.Slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to major wildlife habitat or
native vegetation areas.
This finding is not applicable to the site. The slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage
or alteration to major wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas because the site is a previously
developed lot with an existing single-family residence and there is no wildlife habitat or native
vegetation areas existing onsite.
d.If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and is in excess of ten acres,
no more than one-third of the total steep slope area shall be subject to major grade changes.
This finding is not applicable to the site. The finding applies to sites greater than 10 acres, and the
area proposed to be disturbed is not in excess of ten acres.
e.If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and is less than ten acres,
complete grading may be allowed only if no interruption of significant wildlife corridors occurs.
The area proposed is less than ten acres and would not interrupt significant wildlife corridors. The
project would meet his finding.
f.Because north-facing slopes are generally more prone to stability problems and in many cases
contain more extensive natural vegetation, no grading or removal of vegetation from these areas
will be permitted unless all environmental impacts have been mitigated. Overriding circumstances
are not considered adequate mitigation.
This finding is not applicable to the site. The slope is not north-facing and does not contain more
extensive natural vegetation. Moreover, this finding is understood to apply to natural, not
manufactured, slopes as manufactured slopes are engineered and not inherently prone to stability
problems.
In summary, to comply with CMC Chapters 21.201 and 21.203. Within the Mello II Segment of the Local
Coastal Program, all required findings must be made in the affirmative, but finding "a" and "c" cannot be
made. Within the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone all mandatory findings must be made to allow
grading of a steep slope but finding "a" and "b" cannot be made. Therefore, the coastal development
permit cannot be supported, and staff recommends denial of the CDP.
D. Variances (CMC Chapter 21.50)
Variances are granted to resolve practical difficulties or physical hardships that may result from the unique
size, shape, topography or dimensions of a property. Variances are not approved which would have the
effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other properties in the surrounding area. In order to
March 16, 2021 Item 444 Page 75 of 193
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 8
support an approval for a variance, all five required findings of fact from CMC Section 21.50.050 must be
made. The following five findings with justifications stated by the applicant (see Attachment 9) and staff's
analysis are as follows:
1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification.
Applicant's Justification:
The applicant states that the location and size of the existing wall, topography of the area and
accessibility make approving the variance and issuing a permit of the current retaining wall with
approved retrofitting the optimal alternative in remedying the code violation.
Due to the location of the existing retaining wall as constructed, removing it would not only pose a
threat of danger of destabilizing the slope/hill, removing the wall, which spans close to 100 feet long
and 21 feet in height also poses extreme challenges regarding access to the wall. Such challenges
would not only cause substantial nuisances to the neighborhood but would also require considerable
use and intrusion of and onto neighboring lots. The applicant included a petition with some 67
signatures of property owners in the neighborhood that not only support permitting the existing wall
and allowing it to remain with retrofitting, but that clearly show that requiring the wall to be removed
will cause serious concerns of neighboring residents and could possibly result in litigation (see
Attachment 6).
Staff Response:
The applicant's justification does not speak to special circumstances related to the subject property,
or loss of privileges enjoyed by other properties, but instead speaks to circumstances the applicant
created through the illegal grading and construction of the retaining wall system. There are no special
circumstances associated with the property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, such that the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by the other homes in the vicinity and in the R-1 Residential zone. The property is
of average size (17,146 sq. ft.) in the neighborhood and is a typical pie-shaped lot that is found on a
cul-de-sac street. The other lots in the vicinity range in size from about 12,000 to about 19,000 square
feet in size. The 55 percent manufactured uphill perimeter slope is characteristic of the adjacent
properties and other properties in the vicinity. The strict application of the zoning code does not
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property owners because retaining walls that
exceed the hillside development standards on a manufactured uphill perimeter slope are unpermitted
for all residential properties. The retaining wall system is decorative and does not constitute relief
from unique difficulties or hardships associated with the property in question.
In regard to nuisances to the neighborhood, construction that occurs within the city boundary must
comply with CMC 8.48.010 — Construction Hours Limitations, which limits any type of construction,
including the demolition of a structure or grading between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and is not permitted on Sundays and any federal holiday.
Therefore, the removal and remediation of the wall would be subject to the regulations that are
imposed on all types of construction, demolition or grading. The removal and remediation work would
be temporary, must operate during the permitted days and times, and noise and parking impacts
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 76 of 193
CDP 2020-0026/v 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 9
would be temporary and minimal to the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the engineer's
evaluation also includes possible impacts on adjacent properties as a result of grading and
construction which include encroaching onto the adjacent parcels to reinforce the existing walls if the
walls were to remain. The property owner will also be required to obtain authorization from the
adjacent property owners to reinforce the existing wall if encroachment is necessary.
2. That the variance shall 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 located and is subject
to any conditions necessary to assure compliance with this finding.
Applicant's Justification:
The applicant states that granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with any limitation upon other properties in the vicinity. On the contrary, granting of the
variance would be absolutely consistent with the city's explicit or implicit approval of extremely similar
retaining walls not only within the City of Carlsbad, but within the very neighborhood of the subject
premises. The applicant provided examples of 10 retaining walls within the city limits that appear not
to be consistent with CMC Section 21.95.140 (see Attachment 9). The cited retaining walls are on
properties including Grand Pacific Palisades Resort/Karl Strauss, Salk Avenue above El Camino Real,
Robertson Ranch development, The Crossings Golf Course, and two neighboring single-family
residential properties on Azalea Place and Poppy Lane. The applicant states that these walls are
evidence that the city has allowed variances to the code and is selectively enforcing the code, so denial
of this project would be inconsistent. The applicant further indicates that other homes in the area have
retaining walls so approving this project would not prejudice or harm those homeowners. The subject
retaining walls not only beautify the subject property but also raise the property values of the property
and the surrounding neighborhood. Only one complaint has been filed with the city about the walls
since construction began in 2016, more concerned with noise than the wall system. Lastly, the
applicant indicates that the wall system does not impede views and states the wall system stabilized
the slope and makes the slope more attractive.
Staff Response:
The variance would constitute a grant of special privileges that is inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. All properties in the vicinity and the R-1. Residential
zoning designation in the Coastal Zone are subject to the same Hillside Development Ordinance
regulations that are in effect, which prohibit retaining walls from being constructed beyond what is
allowed on a manufactured uphill perimeter slope. No other properties in the vicinity have similar,
permitted retaining walls on the manufactured uphill perimeter slope. To approve the subject
variance would be a grant of special privileges to this property that other properties in the vicinity do
not enjoy.
Staff has reviewed the list of walls provided by the applicant. Walls listed by the applicant that are not
located within the Coastal Zone are not subject to the same CMC Chapter 21.95 — Hillside
Development Regulations as the project site. The majority of the walls listed by the applicant are
located on project sites that were part of a master plan or other major discretionary action for
complex projects that are not similar to the subject project. Those projects included components that
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 77 of 193
CDP 2020-0026A/ 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 10
do not apply to the subject property which were subject to other sections of the code or provisions
within a master plan development, including preservation of significant natural habitat as required by
the city's Habitat Management Plan or the county Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, were
necessary for slope instability corrective work, or were approved as offsets or concessions for the
provision of affordable housing. It appears that some of the sites are not subject to the Hillside
Development Regulations because the topography of the site does not meet the criteria for the
regulations to apply. Some of the properties have retaining walls with no record of permits issued by
the city. Lastly, the Hillside Development Regulations were comprehensively updated in 2012, and
some of the walls cited by the applicant predate the current code requirements. None of the examples
are relevant to the subject request, and do not provide justification to meet this finding.
3.That the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized
by the zone regulation governing the subject property.
Applicant's Justification:
The applicant states that granting of the variance does not authorize any use or activity unauthorized
by the code. The applicant does not seek a building permit in order to conduct an unauthorized activity
or to construct an object that is not there. The subject retaining wall system has already been
constructed and the variance seeks to permit the existing wall system after retrofitting. The wall is
intended to beautify the subject property, not for any other use or activity and no unauthorized use
will be conducted at the property if the project is approved.
Staff Response:
The granting of this variance would authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property. The fact that the retaining wall
system is existing because it has been constructed without city approval is not appropriate
justification to approve the variance. As designed, the unpermitted retaining wall system is prohibited
per CMC Chapter 21.95 — Hillside Development Regulations which governs development on
manufactured uphill perimeter slopes. CMC Chapter 21.95 allows for modifications to development
on slopes; however, modifications are prohibited in the Coastal Zone unless it is necessary to preserve
natural habitat as required by the city's Habitat Management Plan. The subject property is in the
Coastal Zone, but there is no native habitat on site and the project is not necessary to preserve natural
habitat. Therefore, granting the variance would authorize an activity that is expressly not authorized
within the applicable zoning regulations.
4.That the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan, and this
title and any applicable specific or master plans.
Applicant's Justification:
The applicant states that granting the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of
the General Plan as it protects and enhances natural resources. The applicant contends that the
retrofitted retaining wall system will protect the integrity of the slope it is built upon, which protects
the natural topography of the coastline. The applicant further states that removal of the retaining wall
system will not only endanger the integrity of the slope but may cause the slope to become unreflective
of its natural state prior to the wall being built. The applicant has added landscape to the slope, and
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 78 of 193
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 11
is open to installing native vegetation and trees, which they state will enhance and restore the overall
quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and man-made resources, pursuant to the
Coastal Act.
Staff Response:
The granting of this variance is not consistent with the general purpose and intent of the General Plan.
The subject property is designated Residential (R —4) General Plan Land Use designation and although
walls are a typical component of residentially designated areas, the subject retaining wall system is
not consistent with the development of single-family lots with a manufactured uphill perimeter slope
within the Coastal Zone. The subject retaining wall system also does not promote the Hillside
Development Ordinance intent to enhance the aesthetic qualities of manufactured slopes and is not
consistent with the Hillside Development and Design Guidelines acknowledgment that manufactured
slopes of greater than 40% gradient and greater than 15 feet in height are regarded as important
aesthetic, visual resources because they provide visually open, vertical separations between
developed pads in hilly areas and between developed pads and roadways. As a result, the project
does not preserve the existing neighborhood atmosphere and identity of the existing residential area.
The stability of the slope has already been compromised by the unpermitted grading and construction
that has occurred. The existing slope is a manufactured slope and not a natural slope as described by
the applicant. The removal of the walls would not endanger the integrity of the slope because the
applicant would also be required to restore the slope to bring it into compliance with CMC Chapter
21.95 — Hillside Development Regulations which is consistent with the general goals and purpose of
the General Plan. Appropriate landscaping of hillsides is required by the city's Landscape Manual,
including use of native and drought tolerant species when possible.
5. In addition, in the coastal zone, that the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent
of the certified local coastal program and does not reduce or in any manner adversely affect the
requirements for protection of coastal resources.
Applicant's Justification:
The applicant states that the city is to take into consideration what will assure balanced utilization and
conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people
of California. The applicant contends the project offers such a balance by retrofitting the existing walls
to conserve the coastal zone and add natural resources, while benefitting both the social and economic
needs of the community in that the wall brings value to surrounding properties. The applicant raises
the previously cited retaining walls and states the city must protect the rights of property owners by
allowing similar desirable walls within reason such as the subject retaining walls. The subject wall
follows the hillside, it does not reduce or extend it, but was dependent upon its natural state when
constructed. The wall merely covers what was there and stabilizes the hillside and will also aid in
erosion control. The applicant further contends that approving the retaining wall system will prevent
further development on the hillside, minimizing the density of development, and will minimize the
opportunity for toxic compounds, oil and grease, heavy metals, nutrients, suspended solids and other
pollutants from entering the storm water conveyance system through the hillside. In contrast, denying
the variance not only poses a risk to the hillside, will be oppressive to the surrounding neighborhood
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 79 of 193
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 12
and a logistical nightmare that some 67 local residents object to. Removal of the wall. The applicant
states the hope that the code will not be arbitrarily enforced by the city in a discriminatory and
draconian manner that will thwart the city's efforts of coastal protection since the wall system's
retrofitting will work to protect the hillside.
Staff Response:
The granting of this variance would not be consistent with the general purpose and intent of the
certified local coastal program and does reduce or adversely affect the requirements for protection
of coastal resources. One of the purposes of the certified local coastal program is to preserve and
protect natural and manufactured slopes in the coastal resource protection overlay zone area and to
ensure stability and structural integrity of the slopes from erosion, geologic instability, or destruction
of the site. The unpermitted grading that has occurred to construct the unpermitted and
unengineered retaining wall system has compromised the stability of the slope. To retain the wall
system will require considerable reinforcement and the structural integrity of reinforcing the walls
has not been determined since the applicant has refused to provide such information at this time as
described in detail previously in this staff report. Therefore, the feasibility of retaining the wall system
and stabilizing the slope in accordance with the requirements for protection of the local coastal
resources is unknown.
The wall system is not related to density or the city's policies on density or growth management.
Allowing the walls to remain will not discourage development on the manufactured slope because
housing development is not permitted on this manufactured uphill perimeter slope. Furthermore,
because there was not enough information provided by the applicant, it is unknown if there are
drainage issues that resulted from the unpermitted grading and construction and if the walls could be
retained and retrofitted without drainage issues. The removal and remediation work would not cause
impacts to the neighborhood because the work will be temporary and must be completed during the
permitted days and times in accordance with city regulations. Noise and parking impacts related to
the removal and remediation would be temporary and minimal to the surrounding neighborhood
during construction. Furthermore, the code is not being arbitrarily enforced in a discriminatory or
draconian manner because the retaining wall system as designed is strictly prohibited and the
regulations are applied consistently for all single-family residential property owners in the vicinity and
zoning designation. No variances for walls on manufactured uphill perimeter slopes have been
approved in the city. Retaining and retrofitting the wall system has not yet been determined to protect
the hillside, and retrofitting may require encroaching onto the adjacent neighbor's property, thereby
potentially impacting the slopes within the vicinity.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
If this Coastal Development Permit No. 2020-0026 and Variance No. 2020-0004 is denied, the project is
exempt from environmental review pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(4) and 15270 of the State CEQA
Guidelines because CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
March 16, 2021 Item 44 Page 80 of 193
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
December 16, 2020
Page 13
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Planning Commission Resolution No. 7394
2.Location Map
3.Disclosure Form
4.Reduced Exhibits
5.Hillside Development and Design Guidelines Section III.B and Exhibit 9
6.Petition of 67 Signatures
7.Geotechnical Evaluation dated October 9, 2019
8.Geotechnica I Addendum — Response to Engineering Comments dated September 10, 2020
9.Applicant's Justification for Variance
10.Exhibit(s) "A" dated December 16, 2020
11.Public Comments
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 81 of 193
ATTACHMENT 2
NOT TO SCALE
SITE MAP
Begonia Court Retaining Wall
CDP 2020-0026N 2020-0004
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 82 of 193
ATTACHMENT 3
(City of DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Carlsbad P- 1(A)
Development Services
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
(760) 602-4610
www.carlsbadca.gov
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will
require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission
or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project
cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print,
Note:
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm. co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate. in this and any ether county, city and county,
city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit'
Agents may sign this document: however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner
must be provided below.
1. APPLICANT (Not the applicants agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a
financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership,
include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the
shares. IF ,NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE
INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned
corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers, (A
separate page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Valerie Licthman
Title Trustee of Valerie Licthman Trust
Address NC B°1-rwrd \kW- San Bomurdino. CA 944
Corp/Part
Title
Address
Z OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any
ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal
ownership (Le., partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the
ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of
all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE
THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (NIA) IN THE
SPACE BELOW, If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and
addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached ft necessary.)
Person Rene Lichtman Corp/Part
Title Agent of Owner and Beneficiary of Trust Title
Address 860 Bernard Way Address
San Bernardino, CA 92404
P.1 (A) Page : 2 Revised 07/10
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 83 of 193
Valerie Lichtman, Trustee Rene Liebman
Print or type name of qstner Print or type name of applicant
k.ct
ignature owner/applicants age applicable/date
licno Liontman. Avent
3. NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit oroanization or a trypt,
list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-
profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the.
Non ProfitiTr Ub7U Non Profit/Trust
-no. Owner
Address 860 Bernard Way
San Bernardino, CA 92404
4, Have you had more than $500 worth of business transacted with any member of City
staff, Boards, Commissions. Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (1.2)
months?
Yes
NOTE: Attach additional sheets it necessary.
I certify that all the above information Ls true and correct to , t of my ge.
S\ctk
' Signature of owner/date Signature of appfi 4t/tfate
Print or type name of owner/applicants agent
PAW; Page 2 of 2 flEtec5 MO
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 84 of 193
Title
Address
[71 No if yes, pleeise indicate person(s):
BEGONIA COURT $ 7 8 gaiNP.V."01 f." 'ffia4 \ m.o. • MI
14.7.456e ® ® Vigiri"'32
1500,— tom rwymv.
For
L'A'w‘ME - snoragadEs:,m,
10
KWIC:
939 BEGONIA COURT
LOT 138 OF CT 73-39
PER MAP NO. 8453
APN 214-390-23
PROFILE SCALES
HORIZ 1,10'
VERT.: 11=10'
ACINITY MAP
PREPARED BY:
FUSION ENGINEERING &
TECHNOLOGY
4231 BAUSOA AYE, 0610
SAN DIEGO, 06,92117
(619)736-2900
ATTACHMENT 4 co? 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION NOTES,
•MAI. µV NUM 10 3, AMAMI •relV£ warn M., MCA!
000
•qtrf114 70 . 476
0114 .1V12•Map.
rt. 'Mg ., • • 1 • d •
RAC r
•" 43)4 Mae 1/00i
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
LICHTMAN RESIDENCE
939 BEGONIA COURT
CITY OF CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 1
MAP
1
OF
ErAJIPRIElif PER CCNTRACTOR DORM° 'MICRON
sara I
939 BEGONIA COURT A
LOT 138'PER MAP NO. 8453 1
•APN 214-390-23
Mit.. VFW AMR. WU LW.. SALL.
10
£CALL - BEGONIA COURT litoazOaktn
\
A
SECTION A-A
SECTION BTIS .
;
NUM ROVED REFERRING. I 0 LINN-EHOMERRIG DESIGN AK. CON:RAC 1011 IREMSPAU IA 11,00S.
WIL ADIXO R GLQILCPIHICIL IiRPOR I, CURRENT AND FORIKCAIR. PILIAL CNOINEERIKO.
FREPAFtED BY, PRELIANANY StrE FLAN
LICHTMAN RESIDENCE
939 BEGONIA COURT
CRY OF CARLSBAD, CAUFORMA
ni"-WaLiVati:XRCarra-=.:K.VALZWM',,. .LALZ.411-4,=‘, 4, RIA'011 Err; Tech
4231 Balboa Ave 8619
San Diego CA
(610) 736-2800
ATTACHMENT 5
Hillside Development and Design Guidelines
a.The Planning Director to the Planning Commission.
b.The Planning Commission to the City Council.
H. HILLSIDE MAPPING PROCEDURES
The Hillside Mapping Procedures are found in Section 21.95.110 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. At least three major items are needed to appropriately map and
identify a hillside:
A.Slope Analysis
Exhibit 1 illustrates how to show slope classifications.
B.Slope Profiles:
Exhibits 2 and 3 illustrate examples of slope profiles.
C. Total Area of Grading and Grading Volumes
The grading of hillside lands should be kept to a minimum. Exhibits 4 and 5 illustrate
clear ways to show the total area of grading and grading volumes.
D.Assurance of Accurate Hillside Mapping
The assurance of accurate Hillside mapping is to be provided by either a registered
landscape architect or civil engineer land surveyor.
III. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS
The Hillside Development and Design standards address the following development
concepts.
A.Coastal Zone Hillside Standards
B.Development of Manufactured Slopes Greater than 40% Gradient
C.Contour Grading
D.Screening Manufactured Slopes
E.Hillside and Hilltop Architecture
HAAdmin\Report1Hillside Guidelines Page 5
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 87 of 193
EXHIBIT 1-
Slope Analysis: The following graphics illustrate ways
to show slope classifications.
SITE BOUNDARY
SLOPE PERCENTAGE LEGEND
AREA
0 0-less .than 15% 18.2ac
0 15.1ess than 25% 16.1ac
ei 2540% 3.5as
410 water than 40% 2.7ac
40.5ac TOTAL SITE
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 88 of 193
EXHIBIT 2,
, .,..q0F/L.E.1/1YE
SC4t..e A•ilf‘•Ze. . 10"."1.•10 "
Item #4 Page 89 of 193 March 16r2021
510
$00
4;0
Profile Line
1 7:1C Cf.:// t 7 -3:S3 tor e• 7-- •
7 I • •
-7r- • .•
11 440
-.***
N., 4 •••44...
41/
4c/
'1=1r.• :7
41;4
_
t, r 44. '0VIP/
•
490
.180
410
SIO
SOO
490
480
4/0
49-0
480
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
(TYPICA-) SUBDIVISION
BOUNDARY
EXIBTING
TOPOGRAPHY
r--
PROPOSED
TOPOGRAPHY
SUBDIvisinv
BOUNDARY'
I/
/
•le
PROFILE A
260--
SUBDIVISION
240 •••
[BOUNDARY
F-1
•-•_•• •
220 —
5, •
160 —
EXISTING
TOPOGRAPHY PROPOSED STRUCTURE
s (TYPICAL)
SUBDIVISION
BOUNDARY —184
I *re. •••
—240
PROPOSED
TOPOGRAPHY
"PROFILE C
PROFILE A
TO BE PREPARED AT SAME
SCALE AS TENTATIVE MAP
PROFILE B S.
KEY 14441,
.0 A:44:e
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 90 of 193
EXHIBIT 3;
—247
•••• —221
-'160
—140
EXISTING
PROPOSED STRUCTURE TOPOGRAPHY
(TYP'CAL) SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION
[BOUNDARY 1 ,..7.:__-_-171 , . ----- -- BOUNDARY
1 1 ......- ..-..•• ,
4 ......
...i .j
,__L5.:.„... 1
.........
\_
:11
............_.
1 1.,..-teT '''''-4.----1
L. .. ,, •!-- n -, .17— . '''...
ZOO ••• / . PROPOSED
PROFILE
TOPOGRAPHY
me _ ../„. ------_—:---_,......1 I-
ZA.1
—TX
—150
— ISO
PROFILE C
9100 cy
.9ac
10,100 cu yds/ac
PROPOSED GRADING
rod' FILL .5ac 9100 cY
(Larger of two)
CUT .4ac 8000 cy
TOTAL SITE AREA: lac
TOTAL GRADED AREA .9ac
`'"
.44c 8000 cy cut
.5 ic
0000 cy fill-
(1 ACRE LOT) r __ • PROPOSED GRADING
VA FILL .4ac 2800 cy
1\71 CUT .2ac 2500 cy
TOTAL SITE AREA lac
TOTAL GRADED AREA
2800 cy
.6ac
4667 cu yds/ac
Margot* of two)
EXHIBIT 4'
NOT ACCEPTABLE --EXCEEDS 10,000 cy/ac
(1 ACRE LOT)
OFFSITE GRADING
INCLUDED IN
CALCULATIONS
ACCEPTABLE
zi...., \ U.I
---; ''''' \ -1
1--
1 \ 4;
I
CZ
ta
:i.- ,
s i
1
I
I/...
.240 .4ac
2500 cy cut 2800 ay fin
OFFSITE GRADING
INCLUDED IN
CALCULATIONS
TOTAL AREA
OF GRADING &
GRADING VOLUMES
City of Carlsbad
Item #4 Page 91 of 193
March 16, 2021
-1 3041:
Item #4 Page 92 of 193 March 1(4,121A1cuYcligraded ac•
EXHIBIT 5
Natural
CUBIC YDS, AREA (AC.) .
0 10
243,587 18
.
---30ao, i Cut
FIN . 234,711 1.2.
40
Export 8,878
<
243,569
Hillside Development and Design Guidelines
F.Building Setbacks
G.Roadway Design
H.Hillside Drainage
The following exhibits illustrate some of these concepts. These illustrations do not
include all potential design solutions for meeting the Hillside Development Regulations,
however they do show conceptual designs which fulfill the regulations intent. Land
planners, site designers, engineers, and architects are encouraged to explore additional
design solutions that fulfill the intent, purpose and specific requirements of Carlsbad's
Hillside Development Regulations.
A. Coastal Zone Hillside Standards
Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Chapters 21.38 and 21.201 - 21.203 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code implements the California Coastal Act. As shown on
Exhibit 6, Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program is divided into six segments. Certain
segments of Carlsbad's LCP require additional conservation of hillside areas.
Wherever LCP hillside restrictions differ from Carlsbad's Hillside Development
Regulations, the more restrictive aspect of each regulation shall be met. All segments
except the Agua Hedionda segment and the Village Redevelopment segment have the
same Hillside Development restrictions. The following regulations are taken directly
from Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program.
For Agua Hedionda segment the following special requirements must be met:
Policy 4.4 Recognizing the unique environmental features of the lagoon and its
environs and the sensitivity of the area to soil erodibility and sedimentation,
development shall be regulated as follows:
a.Development on existing subdivided lots having all of their area in slopes of 25%
or greater shall be permitted, but grading shall be limited to minimal site
preparation for pole-type footings. Driveway/parking areas shall be limited in
size and shall be restricted to an area adjacent to the local streets. On-site
vegetation shall not be disturbed beyond the minimal area needed to be cleared
for the construction process, which shall be clearly delineated on approved site
plans.
b.Development, grading and landform alteration in steep slope areas (25%) shall
be restricted. Exceptions may include encroachments by roadways and utilities
necessary to reach developable area. The maximum allowable density shall be
calculated on the total lot area, although this may be modified through setbacks,
plan review, or other requirements of this plan and applicable city regulations.
c.Use of the Planned Development (PD) Ordinance and cluster development shall
be required in areas containing environmentally sensitive resources, extensive
steep slope areas and significant natural landform features.
Page 6
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 93 of 193
CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
SEGMENT
MELLO 1
MELLO II
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
WEST BATIGUITOS LAGOON
EAST BATIOUITOS LAGOON
111111111
—.— —5' ...— --. —.--.... -......—..-
4•1111•6=bl=11.
0
'S \
t++++ h++++
March 16, 2021
EXHIBIT 6
Item #4 Page 94 of 193
Hillside Development and Design Guidelines
There are no Coastal Zone Hillside Standards within the Village Redevelopment
Segment.
For all other segments of Carlsbad's LCP the following policy regulates the
development of hillsides:
Any development proposal that affects steep slopes (25% inclination or greater) shall
be required to prepare a slope map and analysis for the affected slopes. The slope
mapping analysis shall be prepared during the CEQA environmental review on a
project-by-project basis and shall be required as a condition of a coastal development
permit.
1) Slopes Possessing Endangered Species and/or Coastal Sage Scrub and
Chaparral Plant Communities:
For those slopes mapped as possessing endangered plant/animal species
and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities, the following policy
language would apply:
a)Slopes of 25% grade and over shall be preserved in their natural state,
unless the application of this policy would preclude any reasonable use of
the property, in which case an encroachment not to exceed 10% of the
steep slope area over 25% grade may be permitted. For existing legal
parcels, with all or nearly all of their area in slope area over 25% grade,
encroachment may be permitted; however, any such encroachment shall
be limited so that at no time is more than 20% of the entire parcel
(including areas under 25% slope) permitted to be disturbed from its
natural state. This policy shall not apply to the construction of roads on
the City's Circulation Element or the development of utility systems. Uses
of slopes over 25% may be made in order to provide access to flatter
areas if there is no less environmentally damaging alternative available.
b)No further subdivisions of land or utilization of Planned Unit Development
shall occur on lots that have their total area in excess of 25% slope unless
a planned Unit Development is proposed which limits grading and
development to not more than 10% of the total site area.
c)Slopes and areas remaining undisturbed as a result of the hillside review
process, shall be placed in a permanent open space easement as a
condition of development approval. The purpose of the open space
easement shall be to reduce the potential for localized erosion and slide
hazards, to prohibit the removal of native vegetation except for creating
firebreaks and/or planting fire retardant vegetation and to protect visual
resources of importance to the entire community.
2) All other Steep Slope Areas:
I-1:\Admin\Report\Hillside Guidelines Page 7
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 95 of 193
Hillside Development and Design Guidelines
For all other steep slope areas, the City Council may allow exceptions to the
above grading provisions provided the following mandatory findings to allow
exceptions are made:
a)A soils investigation conducted by a licensed soils engineer has
determined the subject slope area to be stable and grading and
development impacts mitigatable for at least 75 years, or life of structure.
b)Grading of the slope is essential to the development intent and design.
c)Slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to
major wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas.
d)If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and
is in excess of 10 acres, no more than one third of the total steep slope
area shall be subject to major grade changes.
e)If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and
it less than 10 acres, complete grading may be allowed only if no
interruption of significant wildlife corridors occur.
Because north-facing slopes are generally more prone to stability
problems and in many cases contain more extensive natural vegetation,
no grading or removal of vegetation from these areas will be permitted
unless all environmental impacts have been mitigated. Overriding
circumstances are not considered adequate mitigation.
3)Required Runoff Control Plan:
No development shall be permitted except pursuant to submittal of a runoff
control plan prepared by a licensed engineer qualified in hydrology and
hydraulics; such approved plans shall assure that there would be no increase in
peak runoff rate from the developed site over the greatest discharge expected
from the existing undeveloped site as a result of a 10-year frequency storm.
Runoff control shall be accomplished by a variety of measures, including, but not
limited to, onsite catchment basins, detention basins, siltation traps, and energy
dissipators, and shall not be concentrated in one area.
4)Required Drainage or Erosion Control Facility Maintenance Arrangements:
Development approvals shall include detailed maintenance arrangements for
providing the on-going repair and maintenance for all approved drainage or
erosion-control facilities.
5)Installation and Timing of Permanent Runoff and Erosion Control Devices:
All permanent run-off control and erosion-control devices shall be developed and
installed prior to or concurrent with any onsite grading activities.
Page 8
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 96 of 193
Hillside Development and Design Guidelines
6) Required Open Space Easements on Undeveloped Slopes:
All undevelopable slopes shall be placed in open space easements as a
condition of development approval.
Items 3-6 may be required of all development that requires grading. Carlsbad's Hillside
Development Regulations recognize that the Hillside Conservation Policies of
Carlsbad's LOP segments must be met in addition to the requirements of Chapter
21.95.
B.Manufactured Slopes of Greater than 40% Gradient which are Greater than
15 in Height
Manufactured slopes of greater than 40% gradient which are greater than 15 feet in
height are regarded as important aesthetic (visual) resources in that they provide
vertical open space separation between developed pads and developed pads and
roadways (See Exhibit 7). For this reason, the development of buildings upon such
downhill manufactured slopes which are visible from roadways or adjoining properties
is prohibited. However, for residential and non-residential uses, limited development
upon such uphill perimeter manufactured slopes would be permitted and for non-
residential uses limited development upon downhill perimeter manufactured slopes
would be permitted as shown on Exhibits 8 - 10.
C.Contour Grading
Contour grading creates manufactured slopes in a rounded, undulating pattern that
blend into and mimic the surrounding natural hillside. Exhibits 11 and 12 illustrate an
acceptable contour grading concept along with an unacceptable manmade slope. The
emphasis of the contour grading standard is to create contour graded slopes in areas
where they would be visible (i.e., along Circulation Element roadways, collector streets
and useable open space areas).
D.Screening Manufactured Slopes
The screening of manufactured slopes is of considerable importance. Exhibits 13 and
14 illustrate the use of a variety of landscape materials to soften the appearance of the
manufactured slope. Another way to accomplish this includes using the building itself
as a screening devise.
E.Hillside and Hilltop Architecture
Hillside and hilltop architecture should be customized to specific hillside conditions. It is
strongly recommended that the project architect begin conceptual design work only
after becoming fully aware of both the specific hillside site and the Hillside Development
Regulations. A preliminary review by staff of the conceptual design is also
recommended before any final design is submitted.
HAdmin\Report\Hillside Guidelines Page 9
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 97 of 193
7
Retaining walls, main buildings and
accessory buildings may be
constructed into an uphill slope to a
maximum of 6 vertical feet from the
toe of slope
14-1
CUT
Permitted Residential And Non-Residential
Development Of Uphill Perimeter
Manufactured Slopes
EXHIBIT 9
TaTKA 611R1 FEGA. DING RETANWG VW' y
ATTACHMENT 6
t 1—.y 3,t, ItU'CIF the City of Callsbael, tic City IJ L1L&Jw
axistitig rutailling wait located at the premises located at: 939 Begonia Court, Carlsbad,
We live in the noighboritilud wheto the current retaining wall is located. It e.-IiharteeR the value of
our propestyand does not pose a tin:eat to public sthty. It will be. over-bade-use= and disruptive
to out neighborhood Wit is forded to be :moved by the Ci.. We therefore petition thal the wall
be permitted.
Allowing the petmittins of the existing wall will avoid a lengthy r,litiffmteo our voigbborb.4.1,od
both noise and possible ingress and egress or our p.ropertios.Iti addit.011, it will avoid hetwY
imelthiory and vast amounts of dirt and soil to be moved in, arid around our Stieet.,3and PrOPeAiie6-
It will also avoid -the possible instability of tbe hill on which 0..)e retalping wall is Nitumed, if the
wall is forced to be removed,
Wc detpondtli at the Plotting and Zarling Comminns atim a permit of etc Ketaining-wall at 569
Begonia Court in our neigitbothood. We have listed ctlir address below to be notified &any-mid ail
pfaiming and zoning Co/mission meetings as well as DICetirtgs with the City Couwel 1-9gaidin
Ibis Matter_
itinmv Atlaress i Sittrqt.o.23 ,
.t"liteArlif- qb fNi4 bot-a.;,,,..* t 4„ 50, cos, Li 2„,t,s, .t
fs,,,,,inteffit,e/FON4 _
S-1%.:) .
A..1::: 1. Pik *frigh-- -e--)
0 1., ,..4.44,,e,..„ e4 ..9'.4104"/ _.a. a ....Kare,....;::
Ph
0 ,..t.2 ,,te.A.. ilitee
91.A. 0 /---- ar.6
- - .
.--
A
r .11 ...*
f ile? 1 1 • FT (
in Jillit 4 PO' 7... erki
/
,
/11-22.174C (?.;WU: _
1, Pii.4,1464,- Ref.SS 1.941 tiltaa.i f-katfLIMA,7 OA 99.6 1 4 u. ') e-- • •
nit .
r 1 ..1
f? r
i
( i` el-be / 1:13 W RIt kW e "..
7 at I
. A7 •
erT..,. .
(1,44,1 tle 41,6612 Isl'I ar,z., .. •
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 99 of 193
W( U)
..1-0--a-g—
Ake.-3> Iry-24
4C) t9a PIN
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 100 of 193
Item #4 Page 101 of 193 March 16, 2021
rIngira ,.."•.4-T
CURIVNT RETAINING WALL IN CITY OF Va-414-.'S.BATI
We, - lc 4-gawks of the City Of Calisbed, peEition -Um City to allow the pewit " thc FientlY tirt g retainillg wait lomied at the memixls located at: 939 13 cgoziKi C:ourt, Carlsbad.
— ' * 311 tht, netghborhoo-ti -whom the cocreat retHining Wall;,:; loe,Tted, h cnh-apce4 the ValtIC
k)(11-1.71v.Perty and :does not pose a threat to public stiftly. II will be ovcr-thirtlensorne .41
0
0 41.52910”
ottr neighborhood if it is forced to be removed by the Lt, Wc thordere be perrai
A11,04Wi •%I, the penuittirig of the exi.itlitg wall will void a ienztily /3uisalve in our Ps-iShb
both 'wise and possible iritv-ess and egress over our properties,in addition,. it vA11 'avoid Ilea
Machinery and vast amour3ts of dire and soil to be mc...wed in and arourai Dar Sl=t$ aria.TircTeettieg-
ift 'ill. also avoid the poAibia infitability of thehiII on which the retainiq ':-J''-)..'4ted; If the
ORLI is :breed to be removed.
We deuvul.4.that the Plarming and Zothtg COMMISSiMIS ailOW a permit of thceti
Petr,onia Cim tinour neighborhood, We listed our atithtls btlew to be notified :5K
Plaattirtg ofni4:40fling Conviissiop meetings as nizethigs with. the City
this mallet,
I 1
,
Atleukrti*k_t1
4 t, ept,„Lic,
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 102 of 193
Item #4 Page 103 of 193 March 16, 2021
o, the_ .titirana Of tile City of Catlfibed, petitiwi the City 'to allow th.o. ptrinfit, of the.
eltistirEg 'Laski%wall locamt at the pm---nius rit; 939 Dego/lilt Cowl, Carighl,7_
We the titithborhood whefe the Oir..ectt. trii wUL sluqt-ct.t. II-t1016454,
our FotePaliY,alid 4lOes That rkisti a &rent Pablie, gifttY, will cont-;tio'densa.A., i0.4111, .rionti if it ill/rood to be kiimoved by the City,`14ve14,-aorfole
par.calqcd..
.. ,. .
.A1101.Miikthc trEttitTigiliertiiT owl win 1t 'ia.0-,;(3.'irt.:•cfrio ,
th'tptst:attd. closaible9.4406a atid eta* ova or 0.OPtri*i; .ill-1?.ddttQ •-i.t.i,q4 4*,:,.
. rn,;.1:0-4,064.,#4.vagt affotlii:t!adirt att4 i.toil to bc, *91416 q4:.0.40.. '.... uri.A .4.0,0
. g -voitty,O'tivoid the imsiiblio iottability a the hill ptii.70,4.i.;•;&:-. eTtilio:04-4.y.,,.' : -- 2, ..3 . • . . • . .
I N 01 lo.::.tc*ed.to bc.4r.:niovild.
WO clOr:patidgkiit the-Planning ZOni pg -Cotunitoio4s allow.5.0T4t L 1itflVW 01'1'4:939'
Om* Oailjitt &it ncgbIwoQJ W have Listed our adtitio4:W6.w..i0e :otfe'za 66'4 a:4 4g
441.03titi)eetifigs ll b moiiii.ovviettfb -
7,Y
if!
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 104 of 193
N.nrap
0 04 irm
6z14, a
0114anek J 11
144 1:0.A.rA
Simi=
ce" cif.,,4 tau
for ore.-4,4
ic Oynt,r1k-S
410 Ogre-W-10
OilkciLouiut
944 (3`itc!?
/
e 'r-17.2P1
m, ..„/1
`f1..p-1 S—z+,
90 0 vaiL-to
'Mk() 1,1PrY
(EirV,Lv::e
, . .
711M.N. REGARIA,UP CURRENT RETAINING Wit.EA.,111.CD _ isfaRE_SBAD
uiti.e,t, a the City of Catisbat,' potition the ek,, malgsv the permit of the apirmtly
tAistir3g ret gwL lomr.d at the pmraises located at: 839 ErsagGitaCiCliesbact.
We Kt%jj the tit 'gum:thong] whve the Cuarent retaking wan is komed. trittmoa$ rbit vslise
our proilmy md does got paao tin* to palic, seety. WI wit he crier -bturiamoit. disruoive
-co oar ncighboximd .kf it is frc,..ed t bo rettovvi by the aty. We &wk.= potifAti the. the wail
be pettvilvki.
Mowing tig 11=1i/tin of the exist:am will avoid a kogiklY UtliSE,IiCt Giff Atii ivrhood
ix)th noiw and pmfarple iogre-as al-td egft6S 42vt,r our proputies.fr 4tht. vW avaid heavy
machinery owl vast aroma or din, witi, ELIA to be Dmved ir 4t141 ormod oar dreets and 1mo/241i:lies.
It will also avoid the ponibIa Knability if the hill on MAO Oto waiting waD is simickt. tfs
wall is femxi be. ratneved.
We de-'1""d that glo Zoniug Cothrais4ints, alkw a permit of the wtstokting wa .t939
Begonia Court in. our neighT3orhopd. We have Wed ourOdre4s be.1,*-to be taifipd of Thi.;/ atid
Planoing, and Zoning ComEn'ission meeting ax wel/ ae meetings with ibe City Cout
this mar.
March 16, 2021 Item 144 Page 105 of 193
;
Respectfully SubriVned,
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
AUL J. DER'S!, Vice President
CEG 2536, Reg. -Exp. 5-31-21
N J. DO C VAN, Geotechnical Engineer
E65051/ E 2790, Reg. Exp, 6-30-21
DiNttitvatias(t) Addrasce t
ATTACHMENT 7
S•
ADVANCED GEOTECHNI CAL SOLUTI ONS, I NC.
. 48$ Corporate Drive. Suite B
Escondido, California 92029
Telephone: (61)) 867-0487 Fax: (714) 409-3287
FUSION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY October 9, 2019
4231 Balboa Avenue, Suite 619 P/W 1907-03
San Diego, CA 92117 Report No. 1907-03-B-3
Attention: John Rivera, PE
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation of Existing Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls, 939
Begonia Court, City of Carlsbad, California
References: Se l Appendix
Gentlemen,
Ptuluant to your request, Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., (AGS) has prepared this letter summarizing the
results of our geotechnical evaluation of the existing mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls located in
the rear yard of the existing- single-family residence located at 939 Begonia Court, City a Carlsbad,
California. Also provided are recommendations • for remedittting the- current conditions.
AGS appreciates the opportunity to provide you with geotechnical consulting services on this project. If
you have questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (619) 867-
0487,
ORANGE AND L.A. COUNTIES INLAND EMPIRE SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES
(714) 786-5661 (619) 867-0487 (619) 867-0487
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 106 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page ii
PAV 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-13-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION • 1
1.1. Scope of Study
1.2. Geotechnical Study Limitations 1
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION..
4.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
4.1. Site Geology 9
4.1,1. Undocumented Artificial Fill
4.1.2. Very Old Paralic Deposits 3
4.2. Groundwater 3
5.0 GEOTECIINICA L ENGINEERING. 3
5.1. Expansion Potential 3
5.2. Shear Strength 3
53. Earthwork Adjustments 4
5.4. Relative Compaction of Artificial Fill Materials 4
5.5. Slope Stabi lity 4
6,0 CONCLUSIONS ... 5
7.0 Earthwork Recommendations 5
7.1. Site Preparation and Removals 6
7.2. Remediation Option Recommendations 6
7.2.1, OPTION 1- MSE Wall System,, 7
7.2.2. OPTION 2- Restore Slope with Reinforced Soil Slope 7
7.2,3. Temporary Buiccut Stability
7.3. Geologic Observation During Grading 9
7.4. Seepage 9
7.5. Earthwork Considerations., 9
7.5.1. Compaction Standards 9
7.5.2. Benching 9
7.5.3. Mixing and Moisture Control . to
7.5.4. Haul Roads I 0
7.5.5. Import Soils 10
7.5.6. Pill Slope Construction . 10
7.5.6.1. Overbuilding Fill Slopes I 0
7.5.6.2. Compacting the Slope Face 11
7.5.6.3. Reinforced Soil Slopes 11
8.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 11
8.I. Mechanically Stabilized Earthen Wall Recommendations 11
8.1.1. Observation Durhig Construction 11
8.2. .Civil Design Recommendations 12
9.0 SLOPE AND LOT MAINTENANCE 12
9.1, Slope Planting 12
9.2, Lot Drainage 12
9.3. Slope irrigation 12
9 A. Burrowing Animals 13.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Itern #4 Page 107 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page iii
PAW 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-B-3
10.0 CLOSURE 13
ATTACHMENTS:
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Plate 1 - Boring Location Map
Plate 2 - Geologic Cross Sections
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Boring Logs
Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results
Appendix — Slope Stability Analysis
Appendix E — Earthwork Specifications and Grading Details
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 108 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page 1
P/W 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-13-3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., (AGS) has prepared this report which presents the results of our
subsurface exploration and geotechnical evaluation of existing mechanically stabilized earth (IVISE) walls
located in the rear yard of the existing single-family residence located at 939 Begonia Court, City of
Carlsbad, California,
1.1. Scope of Study
The scope of this study included the following tasks:
>Review of pertinent published and unpublished geologic and geotechnical literature, maps,
and aerial photographs (Appendix A. References),
"aa Geotechnical site reconnaissance to observe site conditions and select:exploratory locations.
la Subsurface exploration consisting of four soil borings excavated with a tripod mounted
'limited access drill rig (Appendix. B).
>Geotechnical laboratory testing'on selected soil samples (Appendix C),
>Preparation of a plan (utilizing the 10-scale site plan as a bast) showing, the approximate
locations of borings and geologic cross sections (Plate 1);
•Prepare geologic cross sections depicting the existing site conditions and anticipated geologic
contacts. (Plate 2). The proposed design is also shown;
>Compile and analyze data collected from our site reconnaissance, subsurface evaluation, and
laboratory testing. Specifically, our analyses included the following:
ca Evaluation of general subsurface conditions and description of types, distribution, and
engineeting characteristics of subsurface materials;
O Perform slope stability analyses of the existing as-graded/as-built condition,
>Provide recommendations on remediating the current conditions.
•> Prepare this report describing the work performed, data acquired and our conclusions
regarding the global stability of the existing tiered IVISE wall system as well as providing
re.commendations on the repair of the existing slope and wall.
1.2, Geolechni cal Study Illanittions
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are professional opinions based on
information provided by involved parties and the data developed during this investigation. The
conclusions presented herein are based on a limited geotechnical investigation. AGS did not
provide. geotechnieal testing or observation services during site grading and wall construction,
The materials immediately adjacent to or beneath those observed may have different
characteristics than those observed. No representations are made as the quality or extent of
material not observed. Any evaluation regarding the presence or absence of hazardous material is
beyond the scope of this firm's Services,
ADVANCED GEOTECNNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 109 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page 2
P/W 1907-03 Report No, 1907-03-B-3
2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located at 939 Begonia Court, City of Carlsbad. California and currently supports one
single-family residence and associated improvements including an in-ground pool and Jacuzzi in the rear
yard. The property is bounded on the west by Begonia Court and on the north, south, and east by existing
single-family residences. Site topography ranges from flat to very gently sloping to the west in the lower
building pad area and moderately sloping up to the east in the rear portion of the property. Elevations
across the site range from approximately 165 feet above mean sea level (ams1) at the westerly property
boundary to 200 feet amsl.at the easterly property boundary.
A majerity of the rear slope has been graded to support the subject multi-tiered MSE wall system. Based
on available information and review of hiStorie satellite imagery, construction of the subject retaining
walls began in .2016 and continued until recent months.. The subject MSE walls were constructed with
Keystonee Country Manor retaining wall blocks in a tiered manner with a maximum overall height of
approximately 21 feet. Individual wall sections are approximately 5 feet in height and are horizontally
separated by approximately I to 10 feet, Geogrid reinforcement (Miragridli) 2XT). appears to have been
placed. at 1-‘foot vertical increments. Length of the geogrid reinforcement is reported to be 4 feet. The
walls appear to be generally founded in formational materials with the exception of a portion of the
lowest wall adjacent to the pool which is founded upon a pre-existing masonry well. At the time of our
site exploration, the uppermost well was partially constructed. Groundwater seepage was obseived
coming through the southerly portion of the uppermost wal L.
3.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
On Ally 18, 2019, AGS conducted subsurface exploration at the subject site. Four (4) exploratory borings
(B-1 through B-4) were excavated with a tripod drill rig to depths ranging from. 5.5 to 16.5 feet below
ground surface (bgs). The materials encountered in the borings were logged by our field pereonnel. The
boring logs are presented in Appendix B. Upon completion, the borings were backfil lett with sail cuttings.
The approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2. Boring Location Map.
Bulk and relatively undisturbed ring samples of the soils were obtained from the borings at various depths
in an effort to evaluate lithologic changes and onsite geolou at the study site. Soil samples were
transported to AGS' laboratory and tested for in-situ unit weight and moisture content, shear strength, and
maximum density and optimum moisture content. Laboratory results are presented in Appendix C.
4,0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
4.1. Site Geoloev
Cuteent published regional geologic maps indicate the site is underlain by Very Old Paralic
Deposits (Kennedy, M.P., and Tan. S.S.. 2007). The following ,is a brief description of the
geologic units encountered during our geotechnieal exploration. A geologic cross section showing
approximate distribUtion of geologic units encountered +ensile is .presentedon Plate 2.
4.1.1. Undocumented Artificial Fill
Undocumented artificial fill materials were encotmtered extending to depths ranging from
3 feet to 7 feet onsite. These soils appear to be locally derived and generally consist of
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 110 of 193
October 9, 201 9 Page 3
NW 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-B-3
light yellow brown, silty sand with gravel and cobbles, The artificial fill is generally in a
dry to slightly moist and loose Co moderately dense condition.
4.1.2. Very Old Penile Deposits
Very old medic deposits were encountered beneath fill soils to the maximum depth
explored. As encountered, these soils generally consist of dark yellow brown to orange
brown, silty sand with trace clay in a slightly moist to moist and moderately dense to
dense condition.
4.2. Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered during our subsurface investigation. No natural groundwater
condition is known to exist at the site. However, seepage was observed coming through the
uppermost wall near the southerly property boundary. Based on our observations, the seepage
does not appear to be naturally occurring and is most likely related to drainage and/or irrigation
water from the easterly superjacent residence. It should he noted that localized perched
groundwater may develop at 41 later date, most. likely at or near fill/bedrock contacts, due to
fluctuations in precipitation, irrigation practices, or factors not evident at the time of our field
explorations:
5.4 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
Presented herein is a general discussion of the geotechnical properties of the various soil types and the
analytic methods used in this report.
IL Expansion Potential
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink
or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from
precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought,
or other factors and may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures or concrete slabs
supported on grade. Based on our laboratory testing, it is anticipated that the expansion potential
of the onsite materials wilt be "Very Low" to "Low".
5.2. Shear Streneth
Based on our laboratory lest results and previous experience in the area with similar soils, the
following shear strengths for undocumented artificial fill, engineered artificial fill, and very old
mak deposits are presented on Table 5.2.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS. INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 111 of 193
Approximate Range Ceologie Unit
Existing Pill
[ Very Old Paralie DeEosits
15 to 25 percent shrinkace
0 to 10 .ereera hulk
TABLE 5.3
Earthwork Adjustments
October 9,2019 Page 4
P/W 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03,-B-3
TA HIE 5.2
FOR DESIGN RECOMMENDED SHEAR STRENGTHS
Material Cohesion
(POI
Friction Angle
(degrees)
Total Unit Weight '
(KO
Atli tieial Fill, Undocumented (Existing) 50 27 120
Artificial Fill, Engineered (Proposed) 50 . 3(1 125
Very Old Paralie Deposits i 50 31 125
53. Earthwork Adjustments
The following average earthwork adjustment factors are presented for use in evaluating earthwork
quantities. These numbers are considered approximate and should be refined during grading
when actual conditions are better defined. Contingencies should be made to adjust the earthwork
balance during grading if these numbers are adjusted.
5,4, Relative Comvaction of Artificial Fill .M*fe*iats
Some of the fill materials were observed to be loose and dry to slightly moist. Test results
indicated that some of the artificial fill materials have relative compactionS that are less than 90
percent when compared 0 the maximum dry density (ASTM 01557),
L5. Skive Stability
Slope .stability analyses were performed on representative cross-sections and considered both
static and pseudo-static conditions to evaluate global stability. AGS evaluated the global stability
of the tiered MSE retaining walls using GSTABL7. Geogrid reinforcement was added at a
spacing schedtile that the owner provided AGS. Per the owner, Mira Miragrid 2XT was placed
every 12 inches vertically and extended 48 inches beyond the wall. The Long Term Design
Strength was used as provided by the geogid manufacturer.
Searches were conducted in OSTAI31.3 to find the critical failure surface with the lowest factor of
safety. The factor of safety was calculated using the Bishop method (circular failures),
A pseudo-static analysis was used to evaluate the stability of slopes under seismic loading. A
horizontal destabilizing seismic coefficient (kw or 0.15 was selected for the site, The ethical
failure surface that was determined for the static analysis was also selected for the pseudo-static
analysis, and the factor of safety was calculated using the Bishop method (circular failures),
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 112 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page 5
PM 1907-03 Report No. I907.03-B-3
The results of the global stability analyses are presented in Appendix C. Based on the results of
the analysis, the existing MSE retaining wall system has a slope stability Factor of Safety of less
than I .5 for static conditions and less: than 1.0 for seismic conditions. The failure surfaces were
shallow and indicate a potential for shallow or localized failures. Typically, the standard of
practice in southern California, and has been adopted by most agencies, is to show that slopes
have a slope stability factor of safety of 1.5 or greater for static conditions and 1.1 or greater for
seismic conditions.
AGS also conducted a stability analysis using a proposed design profile consisting of a new roe,,
of-slope MSE wall, ascending slope and mid-slope MSE. wall. This design profile is considered
preliminary since the civil engineer has net yet prepared grading plans for the site remediation.
The proposed design has factor of safety is greater than 1.5 for static conditions and 1.1 for
seismic conditions, which both meet the minimum recommended factors of safety.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information gathered and the analyses performed, it is our professional opinion that the
existing tiered MSE wall system will not meet current code standards as adopted by the City of Carlsbad.
The following two items will need to be mitigated in order to meet the current standards.
Si. The fill has not been compacted to a minimut of 90 percent of the relative compaction.
Typically, fill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the relative compaction as
determined by ASTM 01557, or as recommended by the geotechnical consultants. If
settlement and material strength is not a concern, then perhaps a lesser relative compaction
may be permissible. However, the shear strength of fill would eXpetted to improve with
increased compaction.
The tiered wall system does not possess an adequate factor of safety for long term global
stability. Typically, a minimum factor Of safety of 1.3 is needed for long term stability and
1.1 for seismic stability. Mitigation may be needed to improve the stability of the system and
demonstrate that the slope and wall system has an adequate factor of safety. The existing
geogrid lengths are not adequate for the overall height of the system.
7.0 EARTHWORK RECOMINIENDATIONS
it is recommended that the existing MSE wall system be remediated to meet current code standards. AGS
considered three Options of remediation, described below.
1, NEW MSE WALL SYSTEM: Retrieve the existing MSE walls and undocumented fill. Replace
with a new MSE wall system and slope. A five-foot wall can be constructed at the toe of the
slope, with a proposed ascending fill slope located above the wall and a new MSE wall
constructed near the top of the fill slope. Detailed recommendations are provided herein on
constructing this option,
2. RESTORE SLOPE WITH REINFORCED SOIL SLOPE: Remove the existing MSE walls and
undocumented fill. Restore the existing slope by constructing a keyway at the bottom and fill
slope. Portions- of the new slope will need to be steeper than 2:1 (H: V), which is typically the
steepest that is recommended without reinforcement. For the portion's that are steeper than 2:1,
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS. INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 113 of 193
October 9, 20 I 9 Page 6
P/W 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-B-3
reinforcement should be added consisting of primary and secondary geogrid layers. Reinforced
soil slopes are typically more difficult to construct than unreinforeed slopes and are typically
much more expensive, Due to the limited space for stockpiling, the reinforced soil slope will
need to be constructed in sections. Difficulty should be expected when tying each section
together, which will increase construction cOstS. They reinforced soil slopes should be
constructed by an experienced contractor. Repair recommendations are provided herein.
3. REINFORCEMENT OF EXISTING SYSTEM: The existing tiered system can be left-inllace
with a considerable reinforcement effort. AGS has met with a specialty geotechniced contractor
to discuss possible repair options. Such an effort is expected to consist of building a reinforced
shoterete wall in front of each MSE wall. The MSE wall will be cored and a tight spacing of
anchors will be drilled through the walls into the formational materials. The MSE. walls will need
to be cored at each anchor location. The anchor will be connected to the shoterete wall. The
MSE walls will essentially be used as formwork for the sholcrete and anchor wall system. Due to
the limited access, constructing the shotcrete wall and drilling will be completed with small
equipment and is expected to take a considerable amount of time to complete. This system would
need to be designed by a licensed engineer familiar with these systems. It is our understanding
that additional information: is being gathered by homeowner in regard to this remediation option.
If .the homeowner opts to rernediate the as-built/as-graded condition through reinforcement of the
existing. wall system, additional geotechnical analyses should be performed and repair
recommendations provided in a supplemental report.
A possible configuration of repair option 1 is shown on the .attached geologic cross-sections. The •civil
engineer will need to provide a grading plan if this option is selected, An MSE wail plan with supporting
calculations may need to be prepared by a licensed engineer. It is possible that Kee/Stone may have
standard wall plans that can be used in lieu of a she-specific design.
7.1. Site Preparation and Removals
All grading shall be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project. Geotechnical
Consuluun in acoordanco with the rcconuntatdatinos contained heroin, the current codes practiced
by the City of Carlsbad and this firm's Earthwork Specifications (Appendix. E).
Existing vegetation, trash, debris, and other deleterious materials should be removed and wasted
•from the site prior to commencing removal of unsuitable soils and placement of compacted fill
materials. The existing retaining walls on the slope should be removed. •
Within the limits of grading, existing undocumented fill ineterials.and highly weathered Very Old
Paralic Deposits should be removed until competent Very Old Paretic Deposits are encountered.
In general, the removed materials are suitable to be reused as compacted fill provided deleterious
materials are removed,
7./ Remediation Option Recommendations
The following sections provide preliminary recommendations for Options I and 2, as discussed in
Section 7.0 above, to reinediate the existing as-graded/as-built -condition. Recommendations for
Option :4, if requested, can be provided in a supplemental geotechpical report.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 114 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page 7
PM 1907-03 Report No. I 907-03-B-3
7.2.1. OPTION 1- MSE Wall System
WISE walls can be constructed near the toe of the slope. The wall should not be
constructed atop or near the influence of the existing cantilever retaining walls. The
lower MSE wall should have geogrid lengths of not less than 8 feet. The limits of the
geogrid should be extended to the backcut, even if shorter geogrid lengths are shown on
the wall plans. A minimum horizontal fall width of 8 feet should be maintained on the
slope. The till slope can be constructed as described in Section 7.5.6. A minimum of I
subdrain should he installed at the toe of the slope. A second drain may also be needed
behind the upper MSE retaining wall. The MSE retaining walls should be embedded as
recommended by the designer, but no less than 12 inches at the toe of the slope. MSE
walls installed above descending slope should be embedded so that the daylight, distance
from the. bottom of the wall to the slope face is at least 5 feet.
7.2.2. OPTION 2- Restore Slope with Reinforced Soil Slope
A stabilization keyway should be constructed at the toe of the proposed. slope. The limits
of this keyway should be based on the final slope design, but should be no less than 12
feet wide. Reinforced soil slopes (RSS) should be constructed on fill slopes steeper than
2:1. The grading contractor should have experience in the construetion of a RSS. There
are several methods on constructing a RSS, such as using temporary wooden formwork
or permanent wire mesh forms (See Figure 7.2.2, below), and the grading contractor
should select the most economical method of construction. The construction method
should allow for the fall to be compacted out to the slope face. without damaging the
reinforcement.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS. INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 115 of 193
October 9, 2019
P/W 1907-03
Page 8
Report No. 1907-03-8-3
IMRE mEGH
OR TEMPOI4AIRY FORNANORK N.
-gC-+XhAlt,ARY A EINO0ACEmEnT ,t./AAR
VEGETATION.
MARY IMNFORaeMerif
<;:e4•N„.ef: -
•-GEO•l'EXritE VIAA0 "7 FACE
twiRG SIEST-4 PAC:NG-az-TEMFORARv FORMWOAK
VEG2IAT:cfN -
'‘Zrs_Y_•<4 .s .
_,---dtc;:anaAply AEI eAFCsICCAIC it WRAF'
..).-IJNAAAWY REINFOatttEMENT
-44'"•</". f'":7K-0 /V *Z.k'/1./.././
rizure 7.2.2 Alternative Methods of RSS Construction (from TenCatt" 2010a)
The primary reinforcement can include placing layers of Mirafi Miragid 3XT (or
approved equivalent) every 4 feet vertically starting from the bottom of the keyway. The
primary geogrid layers should extend from the slope face to the backcut. The primary
geogrid should be oriented so that the primary strength is perpendicular to the slope tace.
Splices in the primary direction should be avoided. A secondary layer of reinforcement
consisting of 141irati Miramesh TR (or .approved equivalent) should be wrapped around
the slope face and embedded a minimum of 5 feet with a maximum vertical spacing of 18
inches. The Miramesh vertical spacing can be reduced to every 2 to 4 feet if the primary
geogrid layer is wrapped on the outside of the Miramesh and the primary geogrid is
embedded a minimum of 8 fect as measured from the slope face. .0togrid reinforced
slopes are expected to be globally and surficially stable to inclinations up to 1:1 (H:V).
Splicing of the secondary layer shall not be conducted.
7.2,3. Temporary Bnekent Stability
During grading operations, temporary backcuts will be required to accomplish removalt.
and provide roam to place gnarl. Care should be taken during ba.ckcut construction
and backlitl should be placed expeditiously in order to minimize risk of failure:
Complete removal of the failed materials will be required should failure occur.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS. INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 116 of 193
October 9,2019 Page 9
P/W 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-B-3
Baclocuts-exposing competent Very Old Pantile Deposits should be made no steeper than
1:1 to heights of up to 20 feet. Steeper backcuts may be possible for small sections but
should be evaluated by AGS. Shallower backcuts are recommended below existing walls
or within undocumented fill. Close geologic mapping of the stabilization and buttress
key backcuts should be provided to document the exposed conditions. Revised
recommendations may be necessary should areas of instability be encountered.
In consideration of the inherent instability created by temporary construction of backcuis,.
it is imperative that. grading schedules be coordinated to minimize the unsupported
exposure time of these excavations. Once started these excavations and subsequent fill
operations should be maintained to completion without intervening delays imposed by
avoidable circumstances. In cases where five-day workweeks comprise a normal
schedule, wading should be planned to avoid exposing at-grade or near-grade
excavations through a non-work weekend. Where improvements may be affected by
temporary instability, either on or offsite, further restrictions such as slot cutting,
extending work days, implementing- weekend schedules, and/or other requirements
considered critical to servingspecific circumstances may be imposed.
7.3. Geologic Observation Durine Grading
All temporary slope excavations, including front, side and backcuts. and all cut slopes should be
mapped to verify the geologic conditions that were modeled prior to grading.
7.4. Seepage
Seepage, if encountered during grading, should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant, If
seepage is excessive, remedial measures such as horizontal drains or under drains may need to be
installed.
7.5. Earthwork Considerations
7.5.1. Compaction standards
All fills should be compacted at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined by ASTM 01557. All loose and or deleterious soils should be removed to
expose firm native soils or bedrock. Prior to the placement of fill, the upper 6 to inches
of suitable material should be ripped, moisture conditioned to optimum moisture or
slightly above optimum, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent ate maximum dry
density (ASTM DI557). Fill should be placed in thin (6 to 8-inch) lifts, moisture
conditioned. to optimum moisture or slightly above, and compacted to at least 90 percent
or the maximum dry density (ASTM D1557) until the desired grade is achieved.
7.5.2, Benching
Where the natural slope is steeper than 5-horizontal to 1-vertical and where determined
by the Geotechnical Consultant, compacted fill material shall be keyed and benched into
competent materials,
ADVANCED egOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS. INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 117 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page 10
PM 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-B-3
7.5.3. Mixing and Moisture Control
In order to prevent layering of different sell types and/or different moisture contents,
mixing and moisture control of materials will be necessary. The preparation of the earth
materials through mixing and moisture control should be accomplished prior to and as
part of the compaction of each fill lift. Water trucks or other. water delivery means may
be necessary for mOiStlire control. Discing may be required when either excessively dry
or wet materials are encountered.
7.5.4. Haul Roads
All haul roads, ramp tills, and tailing areas shall be removed prior to engineered till
placement.
7.5.5. Import Soils
Import soils, if required, should consist of clean, structural quality, compactable materials
similar to the on-site soils and should be free of trash, debris or other objectionable
Materials. Import soils should be toted and approved vtl,.1.1nical Consultant
prioro.,i_niorp_jiLgt., At least three working days should he allowed in order for the
geotechnical consultant to sample and test the potential import material.
Fill Slope Construction
Fill slopes may be constructed by preferably overbuilding and cutting back to the
compacted core or by back-rolling and compacting the slope face. The following
recommendations should be incorporated into construction of the proposed fill slopes.
Care should be taken to avoid spillage of loose materials down the face of any slopes
during grading. Spill till wilt require complete removal before compaction, shaping and
grid rolling.
Seeding and planting of the slopes should follow as soon as prsintiCal tO inhibit erosion
and deterioration of the slope. surfaces. Proper moisture control will enhance The long-
term stability of the finish slope surface.
73.6.1. Overbuilding Fill Slope's
Pill slopes should be overfilled to an extent determined by the contractor, but not
less than 2 feet measured perpendicular to the slope face, so that when trimmed
back to the compacted core, the compaction of the slope face meets the minimum
project requirements for compaction.
Compaction of each lift should extend out to the temporary slope face., The
sloped should be back-rolled at fill intervals not exceeding 4 feet in height unless
'antore extensive overfilling is undertaken.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 118 of 193
October 5, 2019 Page 11
PM 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-B-3
7.5.6.2. Compacting the Slope Face
As an alternative to overbuilding the fill slopes, the slope faces may be back-
rolled with a heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 2-foot
fill height intervals. Back-rolling at more frequent intervals may be required.
Compaction of each fill should extend to the face of the slope. •
73_6.3. Reinforced Soil Slopes
Reinforced sail slopes should be constructed by an experienced contractor.
Compaction of the slope face is often achieved through the use of temporary or
permanent forms.
8.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1. Mechanically Stabilized Earthen Wall Recommendations
The base of the proposed MSE wall should be founded on compacted fill or on competent
formational materials. The wall designer should provide specifications on the materials placed in
the retained and reinforced zones. Assuming materials derived from onsite sources are used to
backfill the MSE wall, the wall may be designed using the parameters presented in Table 8.1.
More stringent criteria may be required by the wall designer. Testing should be conducted during
grading to verify that the backfill materials meet the design criteria shown on the retaining wall
plans.
TABLE 8,1
MSE WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS'
Zone
Moist Unit
Weight
(Pa)
Shear Strength
Cohesion
Ultimate
i. qt./
Friction Angle
Ultimate
de rees)
Rein rimed and Retained Soil Zones 125 50 30
Foundation Zono 12$ 50 30
Notc$: ' Assuming fill is &rival fRiEti onsite SNOCCS
8.1.1. Observation During Construction
During construction of the MSE walls, the geotechnical consultants should observe
the following operations:
Grading to create wall foundation support and to verit, competency of
foundation materials;
Block type and size;
Reinforcement type;
> Placement of geogrid at design elevation, strength direction, and embedment;
Drain placement;
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS. INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 119 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page 12
PAV 1907-03 Report No. l907-03-11-3
•Gradation and placement of drainage rock;
>e Gradation, shear strength, compaction, and moisture content of reinforced soils.
Observations of operations not included above (including wall batter,
connections, and block placement) are the responsibility of the wall designer and
the contractor. The, geoteehnical consultant's observation of these operations in
no way relieves the contractor of his obligation to construct the wall system in
accordance with approved plans and specifications.
8.2. Civil Design Recommendations
Final site grading should assure positive drainage away from structures. A concrete swale should
be constructed at the top of the slope to capture offsite irrigation and rainfall n.tnciff. Planter areas
should be provided with area drains to transmit irrigation and rain water away from structures.
The use of gutters and down spouts to carry roof drainage well away from structures is
recommended. Raised planters should be provided with a positive means to remove water
through the face of the containment wall.
9.0 SLOPE AND LOT MAINTENANCE
Maintenance of improvements is essential to the longterm performance of structures and slopes.
Although the design and construction during mass grading created slopes that are considered both grossly
and surficially stable, certain factors are beyond the control of the soil engineer and geologist. The
homeowners must implement certain maintenance procedures. The following recommendations should
be implemented,
9.1. Slope Planting
Slope planting should consist of ground cover, shrubs and trees that possess deep, dense root
structures and require a minimum of irrigation. The resident should be advised of their
responsibility to maintain such planting.
9,2. Lt Drainage.
Roof, pad and lot drainage should be collected and directed away from structures and slopes and
toward approved disposal areas. Design fine-grade elevations should be maintained through the
life of the structure, or if design tine grade elevations are altered, adequate area drains should be
installed in order to provide rapid discharge of water away from structures and slopes. Residents
should be made aware that they are responsible for maintenance and cleaning of all drainage'
terraces, downdrains, and other devices that have been installed to promote structure and slope
stability.
9.3. Slone Irrigation
The resident homeowner and Homeowner Association should be advised of their responsibility
to maintain irrigation systems. Leaks should be repaired immediately. Sprinklers should be
adjusted to provide maximum uniform coverage with a minimum of water usage and overlap.
..Overwatering with consequent 1.vastehtl run-off and ground saturation should be avoided, If
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 120 of 193
October 9, 2019 rage 13
PAV 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-8-3
automatic sprinkler steins are installed, their use must be adjusted to account for natural rainfall
conditions.
9,4, Burrowing Animals
Residents or homeowners should undertake a program for the elimination of burrowing animals.
This should be an ongoing program in order to maintain slope stability.
10.0 CLOSURE
The findings and recommendations in this report are based on the specific excavations, observations, and
tests results as noted herein. The findings are based on the review of the field and laboratory data
combined with an interpolation and extrapolation of conditions between and beyond the exploratory
excavations; The results reflect an interpretation of the direct evidence obtained. Services performed by
AGS have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by
members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. No other
representation, either expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended.
The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that an appropriate level of
field review will be provided .by geotechnical engineers and engineering geologists who are familiar with
the design and she geologic conditions. That field review shall be sufficient to confirm that geotechnical
and geologic conditions exposed during grading are consistent with the geologic representations and
corresponding recommendations presented in this report. lf the project description varies from what is
described in this report, AGS must be consulted regarding the applicability of, and the necessity for, any
revisions to the recommendations presented herein. AGS should review structural plans to verify whether
the recommendations presented herein are incorporated into the design. AGS accepts no liability for any
use of its recommendations if the project description or final design varies and AGS is not consulted
regarding the changes.
The data, opinions, and recommendations of this report are applicable to the specific design of this project
as discussed in this report. They have no applicability to any other project or to any other location, and
any and all subacqucnt users a:cc:vpt any and all liability resulting from any use or reuse of the data,
opinions, and recommendations without the prior written consent of AGS.
AGS has no responsibility for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures. or for
safety precautions or programs in connection with the construction, for the acts or omissions of the
CONTRACTOR, or any other person performing any of the construction, or for failure of any of them to
carry out the construction in accordance .with the final design drawhigS and specifications.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 121 of 193
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 122 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page A-1
PRAI 1907-03 Report No. 1907-03-B-3
REFERENCES
Fusion Engineering and Technology, Preihninary Site Plan for Lichttnan Residence, 939 Begonia Court,
City of Carlsbad, California, Map I of I, 10-Scale, undated.
Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60 Quadrangle, California
Geological Survey: Scale t:100,000.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 123 of 193
APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 124 of 193
BORING NUMBER B-1
PAGE 1 OF 1
AnvANctu Mincer:icon squatnIsS, INej
CLIENT PROJECT NAME Begonia Court
PROJECT NUMBER 1907-03 PROJECT LOCATION 939 Become Ct.. Carlsbad
DATE STARTED 7/18119 COMPLETED 711W19 GROUND ELEVATION 186 ft HOLE SIZE 6
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Native Drilling GROUND WATER LEVELS:
DRILLING METHOD Tr-Pod AT TIME OF DRILLING —
LOGGED BY $8 CHECKED BY RID AT END OF DRILUNG —
NOTES AFTER DRILLING —
ur -•-•' 0
Ci
:7
CI
ro D MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER SLOW COUNTS (N VALUE) DRY UNIT WT. (Pd.) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) SATURATION (A OTHER TESTS A rfERBERG
LIMITS I-
LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT cix
,-• 0 0 z < - -1 ca. FINES CONTI (%) 10
:
•
Slvl
SP
SM
•
SM
Artificial Fill - Undoetimented. (ata)
7.5
9.6
32
33
Max
Shea
SILTY SAND, tine- to coarse-grained. light yellow brown, thy
to slightly most, meth= dense; with some sub-rounded
gravel to cobble
BU
a 1.5 ft. Poorly graded SAND with (race CLAY. tine- to
medium-grained. Slightly moist, medium dense
4-8-16
(18) 104
.
•
11
a 3.0 ft, SILTY SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, slightly
inerst to moist
SWT 6-8-9 (17)
. ft., CLAYEY SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, yellow
I SPT
4-6-7
OS)
..
•. -•
,
.. .
. :.
..
brown to orange brown, moist, medium dense
Very Old Parallc Deposits, 10/450)
SILTY SAND with trace CLAY, fine- to coarse-grained, red
brown to orange brown, moist to very moist medium dense: micaceous
SRI' 12-11-12 (23)
15
C,,,...., 14-14-12
‘-‘w-, 94
a 15.0 ft„ dense
mr, 11-16-17
Total Depth = 16.5 feet
No grouldwater encountered
Backftlfeci with soil cuttings
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 125 of 193
Item #4 Page 126 of 193 March 16, 2021
SM Artificial Fill -Undocumented, (eu)
SILTY SAND. fine- to medium-grained, light yellow brown,
dry to slightly moist, medium dense; with some sfb-rttimded
gravel to cobble
81
3-3-3
(6)
BORING NUMBER B-2
PAGE 1 OF 1
PROJECT NAME Begonia Court
PROJECT NUMBER 1907-03 _
DATE STARTED 7/18119 COMPLETED 7118/10
PROJECT LOCATION 939 Begonia Ct. Carlsbad
GROUND ELEVATION 182 it HOLE SIZE 6
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Native DriIlino GROUND WATER LEVELS:
AT TIME OF DRILLING —
AT END OF DRILLING —
AFTER DRILLING —
LU
Lu te
(74
11
III Lu
0
ATTEREERG
LIMITS
N.
Shea 10
9
Very Old Pantile DenosltS. (C3vota) SILTY SAND with trace CLAY. fine- to coarse-grained, dark
yellow brown to orange brown, slightly ItOlSt to moist.
medium dense, micaceous
@ 6.0 ft., dense
SM
8.8
15T
MC L-16-33
(49) 9
Total Depth 7.5 feet No groundwater encountered
Backtilled with soil cuttings
32 Shea
DVANCED OCOIECHNICAL SOLullosis,NcJ
CLIENT
DRILLING METHOD Tri-Pod
LOGGED BY SS CHECKED BY PJO
NOTES
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
MO
4-5-8
(13)
Item #4 Page 127 of 193 March 16, 2021
)AGS I
,,f/Mcrn aolrcirocm. sournasis, tvo
BORING NUMBER B.3
PAGE 1 OF I
CLJENT PROJECT NAME Begonia Court
LOGGED BY SS
NOTES
AT END OF DRILLING —
AFTER DRILLING —
CHECKED BY PJD
AT TIME OF DRILLING — t5i19 10.35 - ZAPROJf. a BORING Ult.V2. GMT PROJECT NUMBER 1907-03 PROJECT LOCATION 939 Bectoeja Ct., Cedsbad
DATE STARTED 7118119 COMPLETED 7118(19 GROUND ELEVATION 178 ft HOLE SIZE
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Native Diiihrie GROUND WATER LEVELS:
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Artificial III - Undocunt faful
SIL I Y SAND with trace CLAY7fine- to rnediorn.grgined, light yellow brown. dry to slightly olo;st, medium dense; with
some sub-rounded gravel to cobble
Very Old Fugue Deposits_JCIvop)
SILTY SAND with trace CLAY. Vna-10 coarse-grained,
orange brown, slightly nititat 10 moist, medium dense;
micaceous
4.5 ft.. dense
we- n _ tLi
8.0 32
Total Depth = 8.0 feel
No groundwater encountered
BacktiRed with soil cuttings
?e,
-
DRILLtNG METHOD Tri-Pnd
0
-‹
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
C-)
C4' 7-; •-
05.t= •VA Sba:
Item #4 Page 128 of 193 March 16, 2021
RAGS Auv.v4ctie ctIIIICAisicm. mincers, gyoi
CLIENT
PROJECT NUMBER 1907-03
BORING NUMBER 13-4
PAGE 1 OF I
PROJECT NAME Begonia Court
PROJECT LOCATION 939 Bg_gonle CI. Carlsbad GOT - NEM 11! 3 DATE STARTED 7118119 COMPLETED 7,118r19 GROUND ELEVATION 174 ft HOLE SIZE 6
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Native Drilling
DRILLING METHOD Tri-Pod
LOGGED BY SS
NOTES
GROUND WATER LEVELS:
AT TIME OF DRILLING --
AT END OF DRILLING —
AFTER DRILLING —
CHECKED BY PJD
MAtERIAL DESCRIPTION
Artificial Fill - Undocumented, fefu)
SILTY SAND, fine- to coarse-grained, gray Orriwn, dry 10 slightly moist, loose; with some sub-rounded gravel
Very Old Paralic Deposita, (Qyoo)
SILTY SAND with trace CLAY, me- to coare-grained,
orange brown. moist, medium dense; micaceous
ti) 4.0 ft,, dense
Total Depth = 5.5 fact
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled with soil al:rings
'C-C)
4,t
:r-
s-
D
SM
10.5 SM
ATTERBERG (1) LIMITS
— z ci
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
ADVANCED GEOTTCHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 129 of 193
October 9, 2019 Page C-1
PM 1907-03 Report No. I907-03-B-3
APPENDIX
LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM 132488. Soil classifications are indicated on the
boring logs in Appendix B.
Modified Proctor Density
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a selected representative soil sample
was evaluated using the Modified Proctor method in general accordance with ASTM D1557. The
results of these tests are summarized herein.
Direct Shear
Direct shear tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples in general accordance with
ASTM D3080 to evaluate theshear strength characteristics of selected materials. The samples were
inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions, The results are shown herein,
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 130 of 193
3.
„ 1 1 A
\ NI
S TesICUTW
•Zwo Air Voids Osves
SG=2.6
- - SO=2.7
- SG-2.
i;
, , ....
140.0
135.0
130.0
125.0 DRY DENSITY ipcf) 120.0
115.0
110.0
105.0
100.0
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
MAXIMUM DENSITY - ASTM D1557 AGS FORM E-8.
Project Name: 939 Begonia Ct. Excavation. 13-1
Location: Carlsbad Depth: 0-3 ft
PAN No.: 1907-03 Soil Type: afu
Date: 7/212019 Tested by: FV
Checked by: PJ
Method: A Oversize Retained: 5.3 %
Point No. 1 2 3 4
Dry Density (pot) 113.2 116,5 118.2 118.8
Moisture Content (%) 8.2 10.2 12.3 14.3
MAXIMUM DENSITY CURVE
00 so 10.0 15.0 20,0 25.0 30.0
MOISTURE (%)
Corrected Max. Dry Density 120.1 pcf Corrected moisture 11.6 %
Max. Dry Density 118.2 pcf Optimum Moisture 12.3
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 131 of 193
Depth: 2.5-3 It
Tested by: FV
Reviewed by:
Location: Carlsbad
Project No.: 1907-03
Date: 7/23/2019
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 132 of 193
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
DIRECT SHEAR - ASTM D3080
Project Name: 939 Begonia Ct. Excavation- B-1
Samples Tested 1 2 3
Intiat Moisture_()(0) 7.5 7.6 7.5
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 104,0 105.7 105.9
Normal Stress (lost) 500 1000 2000
Peak Shear Stress (psr) 455 816 1740
lilt. Shear Stress (psi') 456 744 1596
Soil Type: Yellow SC-Sh.1
Test Undisturbed
method. Drained
Consolidation: 'Yes
Saturation: Yes
Shear Rate (1r7miny, 0.01
Strength Parameters Peak Ultimate
Friction Angle. phi (deg) 41 39
Cohesion (pst) 0 0
7500
2000
a 1500
tau'
40 01 1000
500
0
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Normal Stress (psi)
Shear Stress v. Displacement
0.04
-^
aces l
1010 I
0.05
Displacement On)
•0.02
0.00 0.10 5,20 0.30
Diviacement f in)
2000
1800
1600
F. 1400
1200
Le 1000 yr .11500 , a GCO
4C0
200
0
0.00
Vertical Deformation v. Displacement
7..
.2 0.03
0.02
•
• •
o Peak
-- peak
ti loPtimate
— Ultimate
I.
Am.% inn.
Project ts.tame: 939 Begonia Ct.
Location: Carlsbad
Project No.: 1907-03
Date: 7123/2019
Samples Tested 1 2 3
Intia I Moisture (%) 4.1 4.1 41
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 80.6 81.7 83.8
Normal Stress (psi} 500 1000 2000
Peak Shear Stress (pst) 432 828 1358
Wit. Shear Stress cost) 408 816 1308
:41 I.
890
500
169)
1400
IMO
1003
OAP?,
0.02.
0.04
0.02
-5 0.9)
.0.41
0.00 0.10 0 20
Displacement lin!
0,30 0.00 9,10 0,20 930
Displacement (in)
Sheer Stress v. Displacement
t
•• MCC. I
AtICO 1
Vertical befermation v. Displacement o.os
..... ---- ---
-0.02
400
200
0
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
DIRECT SHEAR - ASTM D3080
Excavation: B-2
Depth: 3-3,5 ft
Tested by: FA/
Reviewed by:
$ell Type: Light ern SC
Test: Undisturbed
Method* Drained
Consolidation: Yes
Saturation: Yes
Shear Rate (nlmin): 0.01
Strength Parameters Peak Ultimate
Friction Angle, phi (deg) 32 32
Cohesion (psf) 125 75
2500
S.
2000
S. S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
1500
41J 1000 X te5
S. ;
Jr
500
0 Peak
P,-ak
1:1 Ultimate I
ultImaN
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Normal Stress 1pst)
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 133 of 193
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
DIRECT SHEAR - ASTM 03080
Project Name: 939 Begonia CL Excavation: B-2
Location: Carlsbad
Project No.: 1907-03
Date: 7/25/2019
Samples Tested 1 2 3
Intel Moisture (%) 8.8 8,8 8.8
Initial riry Density (peg 99_4 102.0 100.5
Normal Stress (psi) 500 1000 2000
Peak Shear Stress (psf) 432 708 1426
Lilt Shear Stress (psf) 408 684 1404
Depth: 7-7S ft
Tested by FV
Reviewed by: AB
Sod Typo: Reddish ern. SC-SM
Test: ljnchsturbed
Method; Drained
Consolidation: Yea
Saturation: Yes
Shear Rate (inirrm). 0.01
Strength Parameters Peak Ultimate
Friction Angle, phi (deg) 34 34
Cohesion (psf) 75 25
2500
2000
500
4
0 Peal;
Deg,.
LI Ultimate
Ulthnate
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Normal Stress (psf)
Shear Stress v. Displacement
. ... .
•
,,, • ----- ... .•
, SGG
0. 0 0.20 030
Displacement Ork}
Vertical Deformation v. Displacement
........
----
, ..,.....,
•'4.'"--r•----- :-...,.....„...."..-
t
- i • ... —.-....---. 70imi woo
Pa
0.10 0.20 0,30
Displacement On)
1600
1400
2C.9
1000
S110
;44 600
400
0.05
104
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
-0,01
4102
200
0
0.00
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 134 of 193
9.
500 1000 1.500 2000 2500
Normal Stress (psf)
o Peak
Peak
11 Ultuiiate
— — ultimme
3000 ,7,500
HOD
1403
120t1
='!-• Woo
500
600
400
200
0
0.00
,..
... ...
•• • :•:)..1:1
1033 i
WO f.
$hear Stress v. Displacement
010 0.20
displacement (m)
0.30 0.03 0,111 0.20
Displacement (10
t 0.03 ..9
0.02
.2 a 0.03.
0.03
-0.01
-0.02
0.05
0.04
Vertical Deformation v. Displacement
.....
I • .. ...... - ,To ; _ - , . • lath) - j
0.30
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
DIRECT SHEAR - ASTM D3080
Project Name: 939 Begonia Ct,
Location: Carlsbad
Project No.: 1907-03
Date: 7/25/2019
Samples Tested 1 2 3
Intial Moisture {%) 8.0 8.0 8.0
Initial Dry Density (pet) 103.9 98,0 98.4
Normal Stress (pet) 600_ 1000 2000
Peak Shear Stress (est) 456 780 1416
Ult, Shear Stress (pst) 444 732 1344
Excavation: B-3
Depth: 5-5.6 ft
Tested by: FV
Reviewed by:
Soil Type: Reddish Brn. SC-SM
Test: Undisturbed
Method: Drained
Consolidation: Yes
Saturation: Yes
Shear Rate (l imn): 0.01
Strength Parameters Peak Ultimate
Friction Angle, phi (deg) 32 31
Cohesion (psf) 150 150
2500
2000
a 1500
:71
ak 1000
tri
500
0
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 135 of 193
APPENDIX I)
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAt SOLUTIONS,
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 136 of 193
TZOZ `9T 1-10.1e1N E6T Jo LET aBed 1907-03 Section Ae-Ael - Static - Existing
r..iproject tles‘1907-03 begonia cl wall evaluadontalcs & analysisk1907-03 secton ae static.pf2 Run By: AGS 10i8(2019 05:20PM
# FS I
;
Soil Soil
1
Total
.
Saturated CobesiOn Friction Pore Pressure Pim..
a 1.474 Dose. Type Unit Wt. Unit WI batmen( Angle Pressure Constant Surface
b 1.492, No. (pcf) (pcf) (psi) (deg) Pararn. (psi) No.
C afu 1 125,0 125.0 50.0 27.0 0.00 0.0 0
d 1.553:
e 1.573; Ovop 2 .. 125.0 125.0 •150.0 31.0 0.00 0.0 G
1.584
g -1.614
i 1.623
70
60
50
Ii
9 tir koe
PI Lit' • p of. i":
2
2 e
•.2▪ .• 4
RS1,11;r1
^ 40 -
30 r
20 .11-
10
0
160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250
GSTABL7 v.2 FSinin=1.474
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
260 270
1907-03 Section Ae-Ae Pseudostatic - Existing
eproJect ffles11907.03 begonia ct %yell evalualiontalcs & analysist1S07-03 section ae static surface 1.p(t Run By: AGS 1018/2019 05:22PM _.. , —4 t .....r____ .
Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Fridion Pore %satire. Piez. Load Value 1 •Dest. Type Vnirm. Unit WI. Intercept Angle PivSsure Constant Surface Peak(A) CL470(0) i No. (pc?) (pot) (psi) (ceg) Pamir. (pat) No. Rh Cool. 0.150(g)‹ 1
Wu 1 125.0 «26.0 50.0 27.0 0.00 0.0 0
Lavap 2 125.0 126.0 150.0 31.0 0.00 0.0 0 _ _ .
40 -
2 2
160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270
GSTABLT v.2 FSmin=1.134
Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
70
60
50
12;'
2 TZ0Z '9I 1-1DieVI •Ng rgfiSg.
to: 2
1
30
Plier.extfattM.11
te...it SNOW 2 '
1. IV 2
4.14,-.1«,,,,thbf 2
;:"L:a
2
20
10 E6T lo 8ET aed
TZOZ `9T LIDielAl E6T So 6ET a2ed ' Ayt,romttAKI
..r21 1.1Ai6
01, f .
:`!i. :...11P1 •
2
113 -
1 iy 2
' 2 1
42
1907-03 Section Be-Be - Static - Existing
z.1/2”0,104t Cles+0907-03 begonia ct wail evaluation‘calcs & analysis%.1907-03 section statio,p12 Run By; AGS 10/812019 05:05PM 70
60
60
# FS Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez,
a 1,107. Oeso, Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. tateropl Angle Pressure Constant Surface b 1,111; No, (pci) (pcf) (psi) (deg) Param. (psi) No.
1 125,0 125.0 50.0 27,0 0.00 0.0
2 125.0 125.0 150.0 31.0 0.00 0.0
C 1.112. afu d 1.117 Ovop 0
40 -
30
20
10 —
0 -
0 10 20
I
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmirt=1.107
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
110
1907-03 Section Be-Be' Pseudostatic - Existing
70
eproject fdest1907-03 begonia ot wal evaluationlcalos & analysisk1907-03 section be-be' static surface #1.plt
Sol Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Fridion Pore Pressure Prez. Load Value
Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. letercept Angle Paassure Constant Surface
No, iPef) (13Cf) (psf) (c.eg) Para m. (psi) No. aki 1 125.0 125.0 50.0 27.0 0.00 0.0 0
Peak(A) 0.470(g) kh Coef, 0.1•50(g)‹
(Noe 2 125.0 125.0 150.0 310 0.00 0.0 0
60
50
-*
13
40
10-------- 2 9 19/6—r
7 , 2 P., 44 •
'TV 2
30 •
--e.o 2.
S.
L'•
20
2 2
10
Run By; AGS 10/8/2019 05:09Pkil IZOZ (9I (40-181A1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
GSTABL7 v.2 FSrnin=0.895
Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method E6I Jo OVT aed 90 100 110
TZOZ '91 LIDJelAl E61 JO TV' aged a 7 ,
!
2
1907-03 Section Ap-Ap' - Static a ft. Key - Proposed
x Aproject files1.1907-03 begonia d wall evaluationicalcs & anatysis11907-03 section ap Bit key and grld.p12
0 FS I Soil Soil
--4- • I Total Saturated Czhesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez, .
1
a 1.543 Desc, Type Unll VV1. Unit. VA htercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
b 1,576 No. (pci) (pcl) (psi) tdeg) Pararn. (psi) No.
are 1 120.0 125.0 50.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 0
d 1.602
a 1 .503 Gyps 2 125.0 125.0 150.0 31.0 0.00 0,0 0 ,
1.505
9 1.611i
I)
1.6.2C
Run By: AGS 101612019 04:47PM 70
60
50
40
30
20 '
10 -
1 i i I , I J _./..._
170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 260 260 270
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.543
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
160
1907-03 Section Ap-Ap' - Pseudostatic 8 ft. Key - Proposed
z:'proiect filen:1907-03 begonia ot wall evafuatioreicalcs & analysis11907-03 section ap 8ft key arid grid surface #1.plt Run Dy: AGS 1002010 04:48PM
Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. ' Load Value
Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Argle Pressure Constant Surface Peak(A) 0.47(1(g)
No. (pct)
afe 1 120.0
(pc)
125.0
(psf) (deg) Perarn. (psf) No. 50.0 30.4 0.00 0.0 0
kh Coe!. 0.150(g)-4 i
Qvop 2 125.0 125.4 150.0 31.0 0.00 0.0 0
70 -HOZ `9T Lip-leiN 50
RP 7 40
piLac 2 2 hi/ 2
/2
2
30
hi' Fr. • re,
•1 - .72
;1-A i 2 2 '
1_
10
— 1
160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270
GSTABL7 v.2 F8mintl.166
Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method £6T 10 Zi7T aed
180 208 220 240
GSTABL7 v.2 FSrnin=1.589
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
ztprojeot lifest1907-03 begonia ctwall evalualloneralcs & analysisk1907-03 section bp 8ft key and grid.p12
•
FS
a 1.669
b 1,572
Soil sa Total Saturatec Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Plez.
Dose, Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt_ Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surfaoe
No. (pcf) (poi) (psf) (deg) Param. (psq No.
o 1.594 ate 1 125.0 125.0 50.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 0
d 1.613 Qvop .2 125,0 125.0 160.0 31.0 0.00 0.0 0
t..923]
I '1.966
g 1.662
Ii
1.670
1907-03 Section Bp-Bp' - Static 8 ft. Key - Proposed
Run By AGS 10/6/2019 0446PM
.
9
xr 7 o
fr) 0,744
52,5
CILOt 2
RAN
2 -HOZ `91 LlaielAl E6T Jo EVE aSed
IZOZ `9T LipieVkl £6T 10 17t71 a2ed Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Plea.
Oesc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (pert (pot) (psi) (deg) Peron (psi) No.
ale
Ovop
1 125.0 125.0 50.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 2 126,0 125.0 150.0 31.0 0.00 0.0
2
80
1901-03 Section Bp-Bp' - Pseudostatic 8 ft. Key - Proposed
z:Vroject files41907-03 begonia cl wall evaluation%calcs & analysis).1907-03 section bp eft key and arid surface #1.plt Run By: AGS 10+8/2019 04:414PM
I Load Value
Peak(A) 0.470(0 th Coef. 0.16(m),
60
10..
7 2
KAI—%
-
2
40 -
2
0
160 180
ea a 4;4 Y
-
2
200 220 240 260
G6TABL7 v.2 FSminr--1.210
Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
APPENDIX E
GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS AND
GRADING DETAILS
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021. Item #4 Page 145 of 193
Cieneral Earthwork Specifications Page I
GENERAL EARTHWORK S.PECIFICATIONS
I. General
A.General procedures and requirements for millwork and grading are presented herein. The
earthwork and grading recommendations provided in the geotechnical report are considered part
of these specifications, and where the general specifications provided herein conflict with those
provided in the geotechnical report, the recommendations in the geotechnical report shall govern.
Recommendations provided herein and in the geotechnical report. may need to be modified
depending on the conditions encountered during grading.
B.The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance
with the project plans, specifications, applicable building codes, and local governing agency
requirements. Where these requirements conflict, the stricter requirements shall govern.
C.It is the contractor's responsibility to read and understand the guidelines presented herein and
in the geotechnical report as well as the project plans and specifications. Information presented
in the geotechnical report is subject to verification during grading. The information presented on
the exploration logs depict conditions at the particular time of excavation and at the location of
the excavation. Subsurface conditions present at other locations may differ, and the passage of
time may result in different subsurface conditions being encountered at the locations of the
exploratory excavations. The contractor shall perform an independent investigation and evaluate
the nature of the surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures and
equipment to be used in performing his work.
D.The contractor shall have the responsibility to provide adequate equipment and procedures to
accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable requirements. When the quality of work
is less than that required, the Geotechnical Consultant may reject the work and may recommend
that the operations be suspended until the conditions are corrected.
E.Prior to the start of grading, a qualified Geotechnical Consultant should be employed to
observe grading procedures and provide testing of the fills for conformance with the project
specifications, approved grading plan, and guidelines presented herein. All clearing and
grubbing, remedial removals, clean-outs, removal bottoms. keyways. and subdrain installations
should be observed and documented by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing fill. It is the
contractor's responsibility to apprise the Geotechnical Consultant of their schedules and notify
the Geotechnical Consultant when those areas are ready ibr observation.
F.The contractor is responsible for providing a safe environment for the Geotechnical
Consultant to observe grading and conduct tests.
II. Site Preparation
A. Clearing and Grubbing: Excessive vegetation and other deleterious material shall be
sufficiently removed as required by the Geotechnical Consultant, and such materials shall be
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 146 of 193
General Earthwork Specifications Page 2
properly disposed of offsite in a method acceptable to the owner and governing agencies. Where
applicable, the contractor may obtain permission from the Geotechnical Consultant, owner, and
governing agencies to dispose of vegetation and other deleterious materials in designated areas
onsite.
B.Unsuitable Soils Removals: Earth materials that are deemed unsuitable for the support of fill
shall be removed as necessary to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Consultant.
C.Any underground structures such as cesspoles, cisterns, mining shells, tunnels, septic tanks,
wells, pipelines, other utilities, or other structures located within the limits of grading shall be
removed and/or abandoned in accordance with the requirements of the governing agency and to
the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Consultant. Environmental evaluation of existing conditions
is not the responsibility of the Geotechnical Consultant.
D.Preparation of Areas to Receive Fill: After removals are completed, the exposed surfaces shall
be processed or scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches. watered or dried, as needed, to
achieve a generally uniform moisture content that is at or near optimum moisture content. The
scarified materials shall then be compacted to the project requirements and tested as specified.
E.All areas receiving fill shall be observed and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
the placement of fill. A licensed surveyor shall provide survey control for determining elevations
of processed areas and keyways.
III. Placement of Fill
A.Suitability of fill materials: Any materials, derived onsite or imported, may be utilized as fill
provided that the materials have been determined to be suitable by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Such materials shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious materials, and be
of a gradation, expansion potential, and/or strength that is acceptable to the Geotechnical
consultant. Fill materials shall be tested in a laboratory approved by the Geotechnical
Consultant, and import materials shall be tested and approved prior to being imported.
B.Generally, different fill materials shall be thoroughly mixed to provide a relatively uniform
blend of materials and prevent abmpt changes in material type. Fill materials derived front
benching should be dispersed throughout the fill area instead of placing the materials within only
an equipment-width from the cut/fill contact
C.Oversize Materials: Rocks greater than 12 inches in largest dimension shall be disposed of
offsite or be placed in accordance with the recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant in
the areas that are designated as suitable for oversize rock placement. Rocks that are smaller than
8 inches in largest dimension may be utilized in the fill provided that they are riot nested and are
their quantity and distribution are acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant and do not inhibit
the ability to properly compact fill materials.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 147 of 193
General Earthwork. Specifications Page 3
D.The fill materials shall be placed in thin, horizontal layers such that, when compacted, shall
not exceed 6 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed to obtain a
near uniform moisture content and uniform blend of materials.
E.Moisture Content: Fill materials shall he placed at or above the optimum moisture content or
as recommended by the geotechnical report. Where the moisture content ofthe engineered fill is
less than recommended, water shall be added. and the fill materials shall be blended so that a
near uniform moisture content is achieved. If the moisture content is above the limits specified
by the Geotechnical Consultant, the fill materials shall be aerated by cliscing, blading, or other
methods until the moisture content is acceptable.
F.Each layer of fill shall be compacted to the project standards in accordance to the project
specifications and recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified
by the Geotechnical Consultant, the fill shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the
maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method: D1557.
G.Benching: Where placing fill on a slope exceeding a ratio of 5 to I (horizontal to vertical), the
ground should be keyed or benched. The keyways and benches shall extend through all
unsuitable materials into suitable materials, such as firm materials or sound bedrock or as
recommended by the Geotechaital Consultant. The minimum keyway width shall be 15 feet and
extend into suitable materials, or as recommended by the geotechnical report and approved by
the Geotechnical Consultant. The minimum. keyway width for ill/ over cut slopes is also 15 feet,
or as recommended by the geotechnical report and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. As
a general rule, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant, the minimum
width of the keyway shall be equal to 1 /2 the height of the fill slope.
IL Slope Face: The specified minimum relative compaction shall be maintained out to the finish
face of fill and stabilization fill slopes. Generally, this may be achieved by overbuilding the slope
and cutting back to the compacted core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field
conditions dictate. Alternately, this may be achieved by backrolling the slope face with suitable
equipment or other methods that produce the. designated result. Loose soil should nor be allowed
to build up on the slope face. If present, loose soils shall be trimmed to expose the compacted
slope thee.
I.Slope Ratio: Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Consultant and governing
agencies, permanent fill slopes shall be designed and constructed no steeper than 2 to 1
(horizontal to vertical).
J.Natural Ground and Cut Areas: Design grades that are in natural ground or M. cuts should be
evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant to determine whether scarification and processing of
the ground and/or overexcavation is needed.
K.Fill materials shall not be placed, spread, or compacted during unfavorable weather
conditions. When grading is interrupted by rain, filing operations shall not resume until the
Geotechnical Consultant approves the moisture and density of the previously placed compacted
fin.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 148 of 193
General Earthwork Specifications Page 4
IV. Cut Slopes
A.The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe all cut slopes, including fill over cut slopes, and
shall he notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started.
B.If adverse or potentially adverse conditions are encountered during grading, the Geotechnical
Consultant shall investigate, evaluate, and make recommendations to mitigate the adverse
conditions.
C.Unless otherwise stated in the geotechnical report, cut slopes shall not be excavated higher or
steeper than the requirements of the local governing agencies. Short-term stability of the cut
slopes and other excavations is the contraetor's responsibility.
V, Drainage
A.Backdrains and Subdrains: Backdrains and subdrains shall be provided in fill as
recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant and shall be constructed in accordance with the
governing agency and/or recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. The location of
subdrains, especially outlets, shall be surveyed and recorded by the Civil Engineer.
B.Top-of-slope Drainage: Positive drainage shall be established away from the top of slope. Site
drainage shall not be permitted to flow over the tops of slopes.
C.Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the governing agency requirements
and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the Civil Engineer.
D.Non-erodible interceptor swales shall be placed at the top of cut slopes that face the same
direction as the prevailing drainage.
VI. Erosion Control
A.All finish cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion and/or planted in accordance with
the project specifications and/or landscape architect's recorrunendations. Such measures to
protect the slope face shall be undertaken as soon as practical Mier completion of grading.
B.During construction, the contractor shall maintain proper drainage and prevent the ponding of
water, The contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent the erosion of graded areas until
permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed.
VII. Trench Excavation and Backfill
A. Safety: The contractor shall follow all OSHA requirements !iv safety of trench excavations.
Knowing and following these requirements is the contractor's responsibility. All trench
excavations or open cuts in excess of 5 feet in depth shall be shored or laid back. Trench
excavations and open cuts exposing adverse geologic conditions may requite further evaluation
ADVANCED GEOTECNNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 149 of 193
G'eneral Earthwork Specifications Page 5
by the Geotechnical Consultant. If a contractor fails to provide safe access for compaction
testing, backfill net tested due to safety coneems may be subject to removal.
B.Bedding: Bedding materials shall be non-expansive and have a Sand Equivalent greater than
30. Where permitted by the Geotechnical Consultant, the bedding materials can be densified by
jetting.
C.Backlit!: Jetting of backfill materials to achieve compaction is generally not acceptable.
Where permitted by the Geotechnical Consultant, the bedding materials can be densified by
jetting provided the backfill materials are granular, free-draining and have a Sand Equivalent
greater than 30.
VIM Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Grading
A.Compaction Testing: Fill will be tested and evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant for
evaluation of general compliance with the recommended compaction and moisture conditions,
The tests shall be taken in the compacted soils beneath the surface if the surficial materials are
disturbed, The contractor shall assist the Geotechnical Consultant by excavating suitable test pits
for testing of compacted fill.
B.Where tests indicate that the density of a layer of fill is less than required, or the moisture
content is not within specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall notify the contractor of the
unsatisfactory conditions of the fill. The portions of the fill that are not within specifications shall
be reworked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional
fill shall be placed until the last lilt of fill is tested and fbund to meet the project specifications
and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant,
C.If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as adverse
weather, excessive rock or deleterious materials being placed in the fill, insufficient eqnipment,
excessive rate of fill placement, results in a quality of work that is unacceptable, the consultant
shall notify the contractor, and the contractor shall rectify the conditions, and if necessary. stop
work unti I conditions are satisfactory.
D.Frequency of Compaction Testing: The location and frequency of tests shall be at the
Geotechnical Consultant's discretion. Generally. compaction tests shall be taken at intervals
approximately two feet in fill height.
E.Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate
elevation and horizontal coordinates of the compaction test locations. The contractor shall
coordinate with the surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established, so that the
Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations. Alternately, the test locations can be
surveyed and the results provided to the Geotechnical Consultant.
F.Areas of fill that have not been observed or tested by the Geotechnical Consultant may have to
be removed and recompacted at the contractor's expense. The depth and extent of removals will
be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant,
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 150 of 193
General Earthwork Specifications Page ti•
G.Observation and testing by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be conducted during grading in
order for the Geotechnical Consultant to state that. in his opinion, grading has been completed in
accordance with the approved zeotechnical report and project specifications.
H.Reporting of Test Results: After completion of grading operations, the Geotechnical
Consultant shall submit reports documenting their observations during construction and test
results. These reports may be subject to review by the local governing agencies.
ADVANCED GEOTECHN1CAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 151 of 193
MOIL.
13-04, twi-qa L•411,14A
Nor
Qvap 4,11.1..tomarrett..10
44...4-.41:4.z d4.44444.
4/1•44.44•sa 444.4.4,41111•104414 C44444444.44444,444444.40( TO Z `9T LlileV\I 935 BEGOMA COURT
LOT 138 PER MAP AIO 8453
APIV 4'3 913-23
rk4415::. 1 4441 2411*.?
•
IAA ri *--
Cg:Vtr;
rr.r.
afu
(4:1 V 615:: ::i1-111
•».4s.
t.. .3;
4 • 'SIO.
r.:444.7.
" t '
k
; r •
.411,0 * .g11
: 1.
:-.
74
13
fr
:Tgiv •r"...t6f
rj 44,
C444
•"'tti.39'.4t4r - etiVA
44444 4444 440•41611.4444. PLATE I "C
101.\.: 1 mks. (248,•004.GicurwrekS pc
IPZW'WAIelt 11.44444,14s.e.3 Oct UM
PFcPAFED BY. 26110 ZST GOed F440 &q Teat
401 Mixe het Adti
San rite:, CA
CdS: r.10-10,9
PFELMNO SrtFtU -
MI-MUM RESIDENCE
939 BEGONIA COURT
SIV CAT ne -C4.infiVA
Cbrep f 3 •.44..grt
113
"non. von Pnvesaii TZOZ '91 LIDieV\I TAWNY .7ogrocto
Wnonnr1. v.v..
CROSS-SECTION AA =Ala 1,ou
CROSS-SECTION Se otir144 E6T JO EST aed PLAIEI 4m.flinianaM11111
SAGS uvoitem rt MOW:
PM HIM inr.ne., DeL6.11(1
ATTACHAAMT8 ( 16 -4°.it
44385VC"CEDoip
o
o
,
ra
c
te
a
GECRECHDriv
2
e
4
Suite
"Ti MIS' INc A
Telephone: (619) 867-0487
FUSION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY September 10, 2020
4231 Balboa Avenue, Suite 619 P/W 1907-03
San Diego, CA 92117 Report No. 1907-03-B-4
Attention: John Rivera, PE
Subject: Geotechnical Addendum, Response to City of Carlsbad Engineering Review Comments,
Lichtman Residence, 939 Begonia Court, City of Carlsbad, California.
References: Appendix
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request and authorization, Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., has prepared
this response to Engineering Review Comments provided by the City of Carlsbad Community Development
Department regarding the existing Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls in the rear yard of
the Lichtman Residence located at 939 Begonia Court, City of Carlsbad, California. More specifically, this
letter has been prepared in response to Engineering review comments la through lg from the 1st Review
for CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV 2020-0134) - Begonia Court Retaining Wall dated June 29, 2020
and provided to AGS on September 9, 2020. Unless superseded in the text of this addendum report, the
conclusions and recommendations presented in referenced geotechnical report (AGS 2019) remain valid
and applicable and should be properly implemented. In preparing this response to cycle review comments
we have first presented the review comment followed by our response.
Cif)) of Carlsbad- Submit supplemental geotechnical report to the report dated October 9, 2019 by AGS
expanding on analysis and recommendations of the third option chosen to reinforce the existing system.
Include in the supplemental geotechnical report:
la — Recommendations for anchor locations, lengths, spacing, etc. and speciA) which walls shall be
anchored.
AGS Response — It is our understanding that stabilization of the existing MSE retaining walls will
be performed on a design.-build basis. The design-build contractor will provide the locations, lengths,
spacing, etc. of the soil nails/tie-backs and detemiine which walls will be anchored. Any MSE
retaining walls not stabilized with a shotcrete and soil nail/tie-back system should be evaluated by
AGS and may require reconstruction using the appropriate geogrid type, length, and spacing and the
reinforced and retained soils compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the dry density per ASTM D-
1557. The shotcrete with soil nail/tie-back system should be designed by a licensed engineer familiar
with these systems. The soil nail/tie-back capacity is dependent on the drilling and grouting methods
and should be estimated by the design-build contractor. Testing should be conducted during
construction. For preliminary estimating purposes, ultimate anchor capacities in the formational
materials (sandstone) can be assumed to be 4,300 pounds per square foot (30 psi). Since the above
friction capacities are considered ultimate, an appropriate factor of safety should be incorporated into
the design. Soils nails should be embedded a minimum of 10 feet into competent formational
ORANGE AND L.A. COUNTIES INLAND EMPIRE SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES
(714) 786-5661 (619) 708-1649 (619) 867-0487
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 154 of 193
Page 2 September 10, 2020
Report 1907-03-B-4 P/W 1907-03
materials. The soil nail/tie-back reinforcement system should be designed to support an active
pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid weight of 40 pcf for level backfill and 60 pa' for sloping
backfill, and should also consider the surcharges of the tiered walls. When a design is available, it
should be reviewed by AGS and a global stability analysis performed.
lb—installation methods and procedures.
AGS Response — Installation methods and procedures should be provided by the design-build
contractor. Typically, this type of reinforcement may first include coring through the MSE wall
blocks at predetermined locations. Hand drills would be used to advance an inclined hole to the
design length. The soil nail would be placed in the hole and possibly tubes for primary and post
grouting. Testing of selected soil nails would be completed after grouting. Drain boards may be
installed on the outside of the MSE wall blocks and a reinforcement mat may be installed. Bearing
plates would be affixed to the end of the nails and possibly tied to the reinforcement mat on the
outside of the MSE wall. Shotcrete would then be applied to complete the wall.
Ic — Assess overall feasibility of the project.
AGS Response — Stabilization of the existing MSE retaining wall system with soil nails/tie-back
anchors is considered feasible from a geotechnical perspective. Plans for the stabilization of the
existing retaining walls should be reviewed by AGS when they are available.
id— Location Map.
AGS Response — Figure 1- Site Location Plan is included herewith.
le — Describe impacts on adjacent properties/improvements as a result of site grading and construction.
AGS Response — It is anticipated that the impacts on adjacent properties/improvements as a result
of site grading and construction will be negligible to favorable. It should be noted that depending on
the final design length of the soil nails/tie-backs, they may encroach into the superjacent parcel(s)
and require permission from the adjacent property owner(s).
if— Reference applicable building/grading codes/ordinances.
AGS Response — Applicable building/grading codes/ordinances should be provided by the design
engineer and included on the project plans.
le — Recompaction requirements as the fill has not been recompacted to a minimum of 90% of relative
compaction per the conclusions in Section 6.0 of October 9, 2019 report. Is recompaction of slopes and
level areas between wall required for this remediation option? Design engineer shall also estimate
remediation quantities for recompaction in their grading quantity assessment.
AGS Response — AGS is unaware of slopes between walls with the exception of the stairs. Provided
that there are no structural or settlement sensitive improvements constructed in the project area and
that some settlement of the retained soils is acceptable to the property owner, recompaction of the
existing retained fill soils is not required. The recommended design active pressure for the
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 155 of 193
GE 2790, Reg. Exp. 6-30-21
IN J. DO OVA_N
CE 6505i,
Distribution: (3) Addressee
Attachments: References
Figure 1 — Site Location Map
PAUL J. DERISI
CEG 2536, Reg. Exp. 5-31-21 otlAt_
04(.
r4 No. 2536
CERTIFIED
* ENGINEERING *
GEOLOGIST
OF CAO
Page 3 September 10, 2020
Report 1907-03-B-4 P/W 1907-03
reinforcement system and the shear strengths provided in the referenced report that should be used
for the global.stability analysis have considered the current condition of the existing fill.
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide you with geotechnical
consulting services and professional opinions. Should you have any questions, please contact the
undersigned at (619) 867-0487.
Respectfully Submitted,
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 156 of 193
Page 4 September 10, 2020
Report I 907-03-B-4 P/W 1907-03
REFERENCES
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (2010). "Geotechnical Evaluation of Existing Mechanically
Stabilized Earth Walls, 939 Begonia Court, City of Carlsbad, California," dated October 9, 2019,
Report No. 1907-03-B-3.
Fusion Engineering and Technology, Preliminary Site Plan for Lichtman Residence, 939 Begonia Court,
City of Carlsbad, California, Map 1 of 1, 10-Scale, undated.
Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California
Geological Survey: Scale 1:100,000.
ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 157 of 193
SCALE I :43000
P/W 1907-03 FIGURE 1
SOURCE MAP - U.S.G.S. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE
ENCINITAS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (2018)
March 16, 2021 Page 158 of 193 Item #4
eAGS ADVANCED GEOTECHINICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
485 Corporate Drive, SuiteH
Escondido, CA 92029
Telephone: (619) 867-0487 Fax: (714) 409-3287
Batiquitos
Lagoon
SITE LOCATION MAP
939 BEGONIA COURT,
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT 9
April E. Roberts, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALEC HARSHEY
901 S. State St., Suite 400
Hemet, CA 92543
Addendum to Variances P-4 Justification for Variance:
1.Explain what special circumstances are applicable to the subject property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings, whereby the strict application of the zoning
ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and
under identical zoning classification:
Special Circumstances: Location and size of the existing wall, topography of the area and accessability
make approving the variance and issuing a permit of the current retaining wall with approved
retrofitting the optimal alternative in remedying the code violation.
Due to the location of the existing retaining wall as constructed, removing it would not only pose a
threat of danger of destabilizing the slope/hill, removing the wall, which spans close to 100 feet long
and 21 feet in height also poses extreme challenges regarding access to the wall.
Such challenges would not only cause substantial nuisance to the neighborhood, but would also require
considerable use and intrusion of and onto neighboring lots. Attached hereto is a petition with some 67
signatures of property owners in the neighborhood that not only support permitting the existing wall
and allowing it to remain with retro-fitting, but that clearly shows that requiring the wall be removed
will cause serious concerns of neighboring residents, and could possibly result in litigation.
2.Explain why the granting of the variance does 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 located and is subject to any conditions necessary to assure compliance with
this finding:
Granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent any limitation
upon other properties in the vicinity. On the contrary, granting of the variance would be absolutely
consistent with the City's explicit or implicit approval of extremely similar retaining walls not only
within the City of Carlsbad, but within the very neighborhood of the subject premises.
To follow are several examples of retaining walls within the City's limits that do not comport with
CMC 21.95.140.
They are as follows:
• The Karl Strauss complex with hotel near the Carlsbad Flower Fields. The combined wall
heights are approximately 14 feet, perhaps higher. There are several areas of two walls
staggered in a terrace fashion, similar to the walls constructed on my client's premises, each
over 6 feet in height at the Karl Strauss complex.
1
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 159 of 193
I 4901 El Camino Real, Carlsbad (our closest approximation of address). The walls here are
approximately 6 feet in height in areas, perhaps higher, and do not begin at the base of the hill.
Here the hillside is quite steep, steeper even than the hill at my client's premises at issue.
•On the comer of Salk Avenue and El Camino Real in Carlsbad at the Scripps Coastal Medical
Center is a wall that may be as high as 40 feet.
• At the corner of Kelly Drive and El Camino Real in Carlsbad (across the street from the Oasis
Nursery at 4901 El Camino Real, Carlsbad) are walls that are as long as approximately 1000
feet. They are terraced and also do not begin at the base of the hill. The highest wall is
approximately 20 feet in height.
•The Robertson Ranch housing development at the beginning of the Robertson Ranch trail head,
these load bearing walls are over six feet.
•The Montecito Apartments at Carlsbad also exhibits walls in excess of 6 feet, including a single
wall and two staggered terraced retaining walls.
Across the street from the Montecito Apts. at the El Camino Estates also exhibits a long wall
over 6 feet in height, which is load bearing.
•The Crossings at Carlsbad off of Palomar Airport Road contains a wall that may be up to 30 feet
in height and is perhaps 500 feet in length.
•7214 Azalea Place, which is only one block from 939 Begonia Ct., the subject premises. On this
wall are stairs following the side of a similar sized hillside as the existing wall of the subject
premises. There is also a wooden deck approximately 20 feet up the side of the hill, above the
wall.
•907 Poppy Ln, two blocks from 939 Begonia Ct. At this address, according to its owner, permits
were granted for additions to the house and an expansion of the driveway, wherein the hillside
was cut away to make room for RV parking. The graded hillside has been cut almost vertically
to over 8 ft to10 ft.
These ten separate examples of hillside development retaining walls within the City of Carlsbad, which
do not comport with the municipal code bear evidence to the City's allowance of variances of its Code
and its selective enforcement thereof. As such, denying the permit would be inconsistent with the
City's enforcement of its Code.
In addition, granting the permit would not prejudice or harm any surrounding homeowners. Some such
owners currently have hillside retaining walls of their own. In addition, the retaining wall, as
constructed not only beautifies the subject property and substantially raises its property value, it does
so for the neighborhood as a whole.
2
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 160 of 193
What is more, construction of the wall began sometime in 2016, and the wall was completed some time
ago. Applicant is unaware of any complaints to the City regarding the wall, other than one specific
disgruntled neighbor, with a history of making false claims, whose unfounded complaint had to do with
noise rather than the existence of the wall itself.
The wall, as constructed, does not impede any view of any surrounding property. It is placed upon an
existing slope, both stabilizing the slope and making the slope attractive.
3.Explain why the granting of the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not
otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property:
Granting of the variance does not authorize any use or activity unauthorized by the Code. Applicant
does not seek a building permit in order to conduct some unauthorized activity, or to construct an object
that is not there, the subject retaining wall has been already been constructed. The variance seeks
permitting the existing wall after retrofitting.
Further, no use or activity unauthorized by the zone regulations governing the subject property shall be
conducted at the subject property if a permit is granted. The wall is to beautify the subject property, it
is not for any other use or activity.
4.Explain why the granting of the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of
the General Plan and any applicable specific or Master Plans:
Granting the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the General Plan as it protects
and enhances natural resources. The retrofitted retaining wall will protect the integrity of the slope it
is built upon, which protects the natural topography of the coastline.
Forcing the removal of the retaining wall will do just the opposite, and will not only endanger the
integrity of the slope but may cause the slope to become unreflective of its natural state prior to the wall
being built, it may take away the height, slope, and size of the hillside.
In addition, local vegetation and trees that were not a part of the hillside previously have been placed
in and around the retaining wall. As part of granting the variance, Applicant is open to installing,
introducing and placing additional natural vegetation and trees in and around the existing wall, which
will enhance and restore the overall quality of the Coastal Zone environment and its natural and
man-made resources, pursuant to the Coastal Act.
5.If located within the coastal zone, explain why the variance is consistent with and implements
the requirements of the certified local coastal program and that the variance does not reduce or
in any manner adversely affect the protection of coastal resources.
The City is to take into consideration what will assure balanced utilization and conservation of Coastal
Zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the State. Applicant
offers such a balance. By retrofitting the existing wall, it shall work to conserve the coastal zone, add
natural resources, while benefitting both the social and economic needs of the community in that the
wall brings value to surrounding properties.
3
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 161 of 193
The City must also protect the rights of property owners. The City has allowed sirnilar retaining walls
in size and scope within its limits, giving rise to the argument that such walls are desirable and in
certain circumstances allowed by the City. Property owners should be allowed certain items on their
property within reason. The scope of the wall, once retrofitted is reasonable and consistent with walls
the City has allowed.
If a permit is granted, the City will show its priority for coastal-dependent development over other
development on the coast. The subject wall follows the hillside, it does not reduce or extend it, but was
dependent upon its natural state when constructed. The wall merely covers what was there and stabilizes
the hillside, but is not a development independent of the coast. The current wall also aids in erosion
control.
In addition, permitting the existing wall will further the City's policy regarding Maximum Density of
Development. If the wall is permitted, its placement will disallow other development, which may not
be coastal-dependant, and will create an area where further development cannot occur, minimizing the
density of development.
As stated, Applicant is willing to add further natural vegetation and trees, as well as features to slow
runoff and maximize onsite infiltration of runoff. What is more, the retaining wall works to minimize
the opportunity for toxic compounds, oil and grease, heavy metals, nutrients, suspended solids and other
pollutants from entering the storm water conveyance system through the hillside.
In all, granting the variance is consistent with the goals and policies of the City regarding its coastal
zone and with other variances granted for similar retaining walls in the area. In contrast, denying the
variance not only poses a risk to the hillside, but also a logistical nightmare that some 67 local residents
object to. Removal of the wall will be oppressive to the surrounding neighborhood.
Applicant has been a resident of the area for some time and is a proponent of coastal protection, and
understands the City's interest in consistency and enforcement of its Code. However, Applicant hopes
that the Code will not be arbitrarily enforced in a discriminatory and draconian manner that will thwart
the City's efforts of coastal protection. Not only will granting the variance not cause harm, the wall's
retrofitting shall work to protect the hillside. Applicant is willing to do all practicable to enhance and
protect the coast's natural resources. In consideration of the above, allowing the variance shall not only
be consistent with the City's enforcement of its Code, but also with the spirit and policies of its Master
Plan.
4
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 162 of 193
ATTACHMENT 11
From: Linda Kranen
To: Planning
Subject: Begonia Ct retaining wall, CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
Date: Friday, December 4, 2020 1:28:47 PM
(...<4,002:5E tla,tlaGY,43,.,
Regarding the request for a permit and variance to allow an unpermifted retaining wall system at the site below and
to the south of my property according to your map (you didn't provide an address), I see no reason why this request
should not be approved, considering that there are a multitude of similar retaining walls throughout the old
Spinnaker Hill neighborhood; it's likely that more downhill homes have them than not. Given the prevalence of
these walls, I'm guessing that the city's involvement is the result of a complaint from a cantankerous neighbor.
L. Kranen
, Carlsbad
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 163 of 193
From: g_n
To: Planning
Subject: Begonia Court Retaining Wail CDP 2020-00261V 2020-0004
Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 1:21:30 PM
This property has been the OUTLAW of the neighborhood ! Non-stop party with blasting
music and screaming children! Have you had child protective services there? ! Parties have
gone ALL NIGHT on many occasions for over a year.
The MASSIVE TERRACE cuts into the hillside, and from our view, has no rebar, mortar,
drainage OR RAILINGS! It's amazing a kid hasn't fallen to his death already!.
We are not using our name but we can see it and we have no doubt these scumbags will take
retribution on us . On one weekend, they left a BLARING MEXICAN ( in Spanish) RADIO
STATION ON! directed to the south, our way...We assumed it was because someone
complained.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 164 of 193
From: YNmabev
To: planning
Subject: 939 Begonia Ct permit
Date: Sunday, December 13, 2020 10:44:16 AM
I and my other neighbors living near to the 939 Begonia Ct airbnb short term rental home, run
by absentee business owners Puddle Escapers, agree completely with the planning dept
enforcing the city building codes being violated by said business. We will not be disturbed
enough by the removal process enough to to want it to stay there instead. That is silly idea. I
also want to remain anonymous after read comments from his guests when they make any
kind on negative comment he viciously attacks them making it look like they are the problem,
not him. Go figure
CAUTION: Do not oaLattachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
March 16; 2021 Item #4 Page 165 of 193
From: YNmabev
To: planning
Subject: 939 Begonia Ct wall permit
Date: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:28:36 PM
•• • . ,,, • • ,, „„ „ ,,,,, „, _• . ‘,„
This wall was build by workers paid under the table who had no workerscomp insurance
coverage.
The twisted 3rd world logic used by ABSENTEE airbnb business owner 'Puddle Escaper
LLC'and their attorney, demanding they should be allowed to continue their multiple city code
breaking, is just mind boggling. Constant cycling of noisy airbnb renters going up on the hill
high on booze (or whatever) hootin & hollerin into the darkness at sunsets (and other times)
lighting bottle rockets and small bonfires, pointing lazer lights at us, blasting outdoor
amplified wall thumping music (provided free by the 'host'- how neighborly), even AFTER it
was taped off by the city for its danger for their own safety (Absentee owners don't hear or see
anything - doesn't bother them at all). This wall must come down and STVR license revoked
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 166 of 193
From: )essica Bui
To: Melissa Flores
Subject: RN: Begonia Court Retaining Wall CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
Date: Friday, December 11, 2020 4:45:03 PM
Attachments: jrnage001.ong
FYI — Begonia Ct. public comment follow up.
(City of
Carlsbad
Jessica Bui, AICP
Associate Planner
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-602-46311 jessica.buiPcarlsbadca.gov
DURING THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY:
FOR ONGOING PROJECTS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR PROJECT PLANNER TO SCHEDULE A RESUBMITTAL
DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT.
FOR NEW PROJECT SUBMITTALS AND LANDSCAPE SUBlvIITTALS/RESUBMITTALS/A$_BUILTS, PLEASE
CALL OR EMAIL YOUR REQUEST FOR A SUBMITTAL DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT:
Phone: 760-602-4610
planningPcarlsbadca.gov
From: g n <gn7292186@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 4:22 PM
To: Jessica Bui Klessica.Bui@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Re: Begonia Court Retaining Wall CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
Thanks for the update. We want to remain anonymous, because as I told you, the property has
installed blaring spanish music radio boombox pointing our way, even though we have never made a
complaint. We assume they LEFT FOR A WEEKEND, AND LEFT THIS BLARING MUSIC! It was for 2
days. They have built at least 20 feet of vertical block, and it looks like they are NOT DONE carving-
out the slope, ( what does the resident above have to say about this? ! ...because we can see
another 6-8 feet of columns indicating they are not done.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:32 AM Jessica Bui clessica.BuiPcarlsbadca.gov> wrote:
Hello,
I am the project planner working on the Begonia Court project. I just wanted to reach out to you
to let you know I have received your comment and it will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 167 of 193
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
(City of
Carlsbad
Jessica Bui, AICP
Associate Planner
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-602-46311 jessica.buiPcarlsbadca.gov
DURING THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY:
FOR c2LIGOING PROJECTS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR PROJECT PLANNER TO SCHEDULE A
RESUBMITTAL DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT.
FOR NE i/ PROJECT SUBMITTALS AND
CALL OR EMAIL YOUR REQUEST FOR A SUBMITTAL DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT:
Phone: 760-602-4610
Email: planningP arlsbadca.gov
LAND.accaL3LIBIEnULEF I. PLEASE
CAUTIONi Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 168 of 193
From: Jessica Bui
To: Melissa Flores
Subject: FW: Begonia Court Retaining Wall CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
Date: Friday, December 11, 2020 4:44:49 PM
Attachments: jmage001.ong
FYI — Begonia Ct. public comment follow up.
(city of
Carlsbad
Jessica Bui, AICP
Associate Planner
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-602-46311 jessica.buiPcarlsbadca.gov
DURING THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY:
FOR ONGOING PROJECTS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR PROJECT PLANNER TO SCHEDULE A RESUBMITTAL
DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT.
FOR NEW PROJECT SUBMITTALS AND LANDSCAPE SUBMITTALS/RESUBMITTALS/ SBUILTS PLEASE
CALL OR EMAIL YOUR REQUEST FOR A SUBMITTAL DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT:
Phone: 760-602-4610
Emai!: planninsPcarlsbadca.gov
From: g n <gn7292186@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 4:31 PM
To: Jessica Bui <Jessica.Bui@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Re: Begonia Court Retaining Wall CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
Let me get this straight! !! You allowed them to build a dangerous terrace w/ wall without railing,
mortar, rebar, wire, and they continue to build higher, judging by their unfinished columns... WE
ALERTED YOU A YEAR AGO... You did NOTHING. Because the neighborhood doesn't have an active
HOA they got away with this... So now, you are going to approve this CRAP? We live in Aviara HOA, if
we tried this CRAP, they would have shut us down in a heartbeat.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:32 AM Jessica Bui <Jessica.BuiPcarlsbadca.gov> wrote:
Hello,
I am the project planner working on the Begonia Court project. I just wanted to reach out to you
to let you know I have received your comment and it will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 169 of 193
(City of
Carlsbad
Jessica BO, AICP
Associate Planner
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-602-46311 jessica.buiPcarlsbadca.gov
DURING THE CURRENT PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY:
FOR ONGOING PROJECTS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR PROJECT PLANNER TO SCHEDULE A
RESUBMITTAL DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT.
FOR NEW PROJECT SUBMITTALS AND LANDSCAPE SUBMITTALS/RESUBMITTALS/ASBUILTS„ PLEASE
CALL OR EMAIL YOUR REQUEST FOR A SUBMITTAL DROP-OFF APPOINTMENT:
Phone: 760-602-4610
planninOcarisbadca.gov
CAUTION1 Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 170 of 193
From: I ohelos
To: planning
Subject: Public Hearing Comment -- CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) -- Begonia Court Retaining Wall
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 4:12:31 PM
LACA-.•
Subject: Public Hearing, Wednesday, December 16, 2020
CDP 2020-0026N 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — Begonia Court Retaining Wall
Dear Sirs:
We received a letter from your office on the subject public hearing that invited us to comment via email.
The subject property is to the rear of ours. While it is not contiguous, the topography is such that the
subject property is very visible from the rear of our property.
This notice inaccurately describes the non-permitted improvement as a retaining wall. Although it has a
retaining wall as a feature, it includes a very large patio area that has been used to hold large gatherings
of people. This non-permitted improvement has greatly degraded the character of the neighborhood
through its unsightly aesthetics and, just as importantly, the very loud noise that comes from large parties
that frequently run late in the night.
The Planning Commission should order this eyesore and noise polluter removed immediately to restore
the character of the neighborhood.
Renee & Jack Phelps
Carlsbad, CA 92011
December 15, 2020
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 171 of 193
From: YNmabey
To: Planning
Subject: RE: 939 Bebonia Ct wall permit
Date: Monday, December 14, 2020 8:48:32 AM
This wall was build by workers paid under the table who had no workerscomp insurance
coverage.
The twisted 3rd world logic used by ABSENTEE airbnb business owner 'Puddle Escaper
LLC'and their attorney, demanding they should be allowed to continue their multiple city code
breaking, is just mind boggling. Constant cycling of noisy airbnb renters going up on the hill
high on booze (or whatever) hootin & hollerin into the darkness at sunsets (and other times)
lighting bottle rockets and small bonfires, pointing lazer lights at us, blasting outdoor
amplified wall thumping music (provided free by the 'host- how neighborly), even AFTER it
was taped off by the city for its danger for their own safety (Absentee owners don't hear or see
anything - doesn't bother them at all). This wall must come down and STVR license revoked.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 172 of 193
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
tomtrihnte
planning
tomtribute440amail.corn
RE: Begonia Ct retaining wall, CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
Monday, December 14, 2020 5:37:26 PM
•RE: Begonia Ct retaining wall, CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
•
•I am Thomas Ward and I live at Begonia Ct next to (South of) this
property.1 am concerned about excess drainage coming onto my property
from 939 Begonia during our first heavy rains last season since the
drought years began, during which this wall project was constructed.
Water was coming up very close to my framing level. 1 could also see a
large visible stream pouring onto my side from the higher level of 939
close to my side gate. Will this be corrected by the repair plan, or will I be
out of luck if this unpermitted wall is approved as is? Who will I go after
for damage? The city? Another problem is that the storage shed in same
area on 939 side appears to take a jog over the property line onto to my
side in one spot. Maybe his recent survey would have detected this? My
level is lower than 939 so water will always seek a lower level. Appreciate
your help. How will I know you received this message? Thank You
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 173 of 193
From: cm-de wail
To: Planning
Subject: Thank you :Begonia wall
Date: Friday, December 11, 2020 8:02:44 PM
Thank you to whom it may concern on the planning commission.
This guy whos mother bought the house at 939 begonia court has made my family and I's Life
a living hell for the past 5 years. Rene doesn't care about rules or laws or getting permission
from our city to do anything and he's dangerous and has created a nuisance with his Spinnaker
Gem Beach Villa Hotel/motel.
Even in the midst of a pandemic the number of persons staying there only increased after
March and these guests would have pool parties and birthday parties with different households
obviously because no house has this many people living under it's roof, why else would they
be renting this one and yelling and screaming outside at all hours of the day and night blasting
music and never not once wearing any masks. They did this on the hill on top of the wall-
which by the way this wall only adds to the deafening sounds of screaming and yelling
because it's stone and the sound bounces everywhere ill think a lot of neighbors were hesitant
to complain because of fear of the organized crime Rene is clearly involved in. He was
arrested for possession with intent to sell meth in June of 2017 in san Diego county by the San
Diegos sheriffs office . How that even ended up happening I don't know maybe he was on
probation or maybe he's one of them which if so would be a huge relief to find out.
Anyhow on behalf of me and my elderly folks thanks
Carrie Ward
760 809-0078
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 174 of 193
EXHIBIT 8
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes
City Council Chamber
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
DEC. 16, 2020
CALL TO ORDER: 3 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Anderson, Geldner, Lafferty, Meenes, Merz, Luna, and Stine.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Motion by Commissioner Lafferty, seconded by Commissioner Geldner, to approve the Nov. 18, 2020
meeting minutes, as amended. Motion carried 6/0/1 (Commissioner Merz abstained).
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA:
Diane Nigard submitted comments stating that Covid-19 procedures are not adequately integrating public
comments into discussion and encourages verbal comments be integrated into the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING:
Chair Anderson directed everyone's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the
Commission would be following for that evening's public hearing.
Chair Anderson opened the public hearing for Item 1.
1. CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134) — BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL -
Request for a Coastal Development Permit and a Variance to allow an unpermitted
retaining wall system that exceeds standards on a manufactured uphill perimeter slope
with a gradient greater than 40 percent and an elevation differential of greater than fifteen
feet on property located at 939 Begonia Court within the Mello II Segment of the city's Local
Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 4. The project site is not within the
appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. The City Planner has determined
pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(4) and 15270 of the state CEQA Guidelines that the project
is exempt from CEQA because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects
or disapproves.
Commissioner Merz disclosed that he will need to recuse himself from Agenda Item 1 due to a professional
relationship that he has with the applicant.
City Planner Neu introduced Agenda item 1 and stated Associate Planner Bui would make the staff
presentation (on file in the Planning Division).
DISCLOSURES:
Commissioner Meenes stated that he drove by, walked up the driveway and looked over the gate into the
backyard of the site.
Commissioner Stine drove by and looked at the site aerially via Google maps.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 175 of 193
Planning Commission Minutes Dec. 16, 2020 Page 2
Commissioner Lafferty looked at the site via Google maps.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None
APPLICANT QUESTIONS:
Commissioner Stine asked why the applicant believes that special circumstance findings can be made on
Agenda Item 1.
April Roberts, attorney for the applicant stated that a continuance would allow time for plans to be
presented regarding special circumstances.
Mr. Lich man, applicant, referenced other properties within the city that have similar walls built. He states
that while the property does not have special circumstances, removal of the wall will have negative effect
to the existing neighborhood.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Luna stated that she has not seen any evidence supporting special circumstances or
justification provided to go against the staff recommendation to deny the variance; Chair Anderson,
Commissioners Lafferty, Geldner and Stine agreed.
ACTION:
Motion by Commissioner Stine, seconded by Commissioner Luna, to approve Resolution No. 7394 denying
the requested permits. Motion carried, 6/0/1 (Commissioner Merz abstained).
2. CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-0001/HMP 2018-0001/EIR 2018-
0001 (DEV2017-0033) — AV1ARA APARTMENTS — Request for 1) certification of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR 2018-0001), including the approval of Candidate Findings'
of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and 2) approval of a Tentative
Tract Map, Site Development Plan, Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Development Permit
and Habitat Management Plan Permit to demolish an agricultural packaging warehouse and
construct 329 apartments (81 affordable units and 1 manager's unit), including development
standards modifications, on an existing parcel that is bisected by Aviara Parkway, north of
Laurel Tree Lane, currently addressed as 1205 Aviara Parkway, within the Mello ll Segment of
the Local Coastal Program and within Local Facilities Management Zone 5. This project
located within the appeal area of the California Coastal Commission.
City Planner Neu introduced Agenda Item 2 and stated Associate Planner Garcia would make the staff
presentation (on file in the Planning Division).
DISCLOSURES:
Commissioner Lafferty frequents the market at Aviara Farms monthly.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 176 of 193
Planning Commission Minutes Dec. 16, 2020 Page 3
Commissioner Meenes drove by the site and drove up the southwest bluff where he overlooked the site.
Additionally, he stated has met the owner at community events but has not had any discussions with the
applicant regarding Agenda Item 2.
Commissioner Merz drove by the site.
Commissioner Stine drove by and walked up the East and West parcels.
Commissioner Geldner drove and walked around the site. She also spoke with a resident of the apartments
across the street regarding street parking. Additionally, she read the TDM manual, the Mobility Element of
the General Plan, the HEAC Report, several related ordinances, the LOS Guidelines and the detailed traffic
comments received from the public.
STAFF QUESTIONS:
Commissioner Meenes asked if there are plans to excavate and remove hazardous soil from the site.
Associate Planner Garcia responded that there are procedures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program regarding hazardous materials that the applicant will need to submit and have a soil management
plan approved by the County Department of Environmental Health.
Chair Anderson asked if Laurel Tree Ln will be widened to accommodate parking on both sides of the street
and if adequate recreational areas will be included on the property.
Associate Planner Garcia responded that the north side of the street will be widened. Regarding recreation
area, he responded that apartments don't have such requirements but as much recreation areas as
possible will be provided.
APPLICANT QUESTIONS:
Kevin Dougherty of Summer Hill Apartment Communities gave a brief statement for the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Geldner asked how the 60/40 split in traffic coming from the project was determined.
Dawn Wilson, with Michael Baker International, responded that traffic was determined based on the
location of schools, major employment opportunities and freeway access.
Commissioner Stine asked for comment regarding the rationale behind parking spaces.
Jeff Williams of Bridge Housing responded that parking is believed to be adequate per unit. Additionally,
residents will be encouraged to use public transportation as well as guest parking will be provided.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Resident Chuck Collins submitted comments in opposition to agenda item 2 as the height of the
development as planned will affect the views from his home.
Residents Glen and Jennifer Domingo, and Mike Murton submitted comments in support of the project for
affordable housing stating that the apartments will provide greater opportunity for low income residents
and the Carlsbad workforce.
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 177 of 193
Planning Commission Minutes Dec. 16, 2020 Page 4
Eva Aarons, General Manager of the Aviara Master Association commented to reject the use of the name
Aviara Apartments due to its close proximity to the Aviara Master Community. She states there will be
confusion between the two developments as there is no distinction.
Resident Josh Cantor commented to support the project as it is in line with the needs and values of the
community.
Residents Mark Packard, Karen and Ray Pierson, Brian Colby commented in support of the project as it will
provide housing for employees within the city, opportunity for those in need of assistance, balances
different levels of housing needs, reduces net traffic congestion, and helps with needed infrastructure.
Resident Jeff Segal commented in support of the project as it provides needed housing for workers. He adds
that standards modification in parking recommended by staff should be supported.
Steve Linke, Traffic and Mobility Commissioner commented as a private citizen that traffic studies for this
project need to apply Carlsbad's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. He adds not having the
SANDAG Horizon Analysis and pedestrian and bike analysis within the E1R isn't consistent with HCM or the
General Plan and doesn't meet TIA standard of adoption. He recommends redoing the traffic analysis in the
EIR based on TIA guidelines and including a more comprehensive TOM plan.
DeAnne Wiemer on behalf of the Friends of Aviara Board commented to encourage anti-poison protections
as conditions for approval of the project. Lack of monitoring the removal of surface soils, hazardous
materials and chemicals is addressed as a concern. Stated objections include an increase of unit density and
the reduction of parking spaces.
Christian Garcia on behalf of Californians for Home Ownership submitted a statement declaring that a letter
was provided as part of their work monitoring local compliance with the housing accountability act. The
city's approval of Agenda Item 2 is governed by the act, requiring the city to approve affordable housing
projects without applying informal or subjective criteria. The city must only apply applicable and objective
standards that can be uniformly verified by reference to external benchmarks of criterion available by the
development applicant or proponent, and public officials. Violation of the act can expose the city to
significant financial penalties. Having received the letter, the city can be sued if the project is denied.
Associate Planner Garcia responded to comments that views will be obstructed for homes on Ebb Tide St.
by clarifying that visual simulations of the project showed the project will not affect such views. Regarding
the request not to have the name Aviara Apartments used, he states that the city does not get involved in
the naming of projects but expects that the project will go by a different name.
Kevin Dougherty responded that the site is not contaminated, and pesticides will not run down to Encinas
Creek during construction. He notes an environmental study showed one area on site with motor oil and
that is being addressed in the soil management plan.
Karl Osmitson, Helix Environmental, comments that the Native Habitat Restoration Plan includes methods
for dealing with potentially hazardous materials while maintaining sensitive habitats. He notes, it's a
standard requirement not to use harsh chemicals. Also, the Preserve Management Plan dictates how open
space will be managed and area specific management directives will be standards in how to handle specific
pests. He confirms these standards must be implemented by the land manager.
In response to comments about traffic analysis, Engineering Manager Jason Geldert states that the TIA
guidelines are not applicable to CEQA determination of transportation impacts as the guidelines refer to
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 178 of 193
Planning Commission Minutes Dec. 16, 2020 . Page 5
thresholds for use in transportation impacts. Under state requirements, to be adopted for general use, the
guidelines must undergo a public review process, be supported by substantial evidence and be adopted by
ordinance or resolution. The TIA guidelines did not go through these state requirements and could not be
used for this project. It was legally determined to use historical thresholds. He notes that traffic studies
were performed in accordance with the city's requirements.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Geldner, Lafferty, Luna, Meenes, Merz and Stine stated that the project is well located,
complimented the collaboration and community outreach, support the mix of units available, the number
of affordable housing units that will be provided and complimented the architectural design. They stated
overall support for the project.
ACTION:
Motion by Commissioner Luna, seconded by Commissioner Meenes, to adopt Resolution No. 7398 and
Resolution No. 7399. Motion carried, 7/0.
3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS •
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Chair Anderson opened nominations for the 2021 Planning Commission Chair.
Commissioner Geldner nominated Commissioner Luna.
Commissioner Stine nominated Commissioner Meenes.
Chair Anderson opened nominations for the 2021 Planning Commission Vice Chair.
Commissioners Stine and Merz nominated Commissioner Stine.
Commissioner Lafferty nominated Commissioner Luna.
ACTION:
Motion to elect Commissioner Meenes as Planning Commission Chair carried, 5/2 (Commissioners Geldner
and Lafferty no).
Motion to elect Commissioner Stine as Planning Commission Vice Chair carried, 4/3 (Commissioners
Geldner, Lafferty and Luna no).
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS:
Commissioner Lafferty commented that the virtual SANDAG community chat discussed lowering the
railroad tracks and the airport corridor. She stated that the community chats are open to the public in the
following months.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS:
None
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 179 of 193
Planning Commission Minutes Dec. 16, 2020 Page 6
CITY PLANNER REPORTS:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Anderson adjourned the duly noticed meeting at 6:44 p.m.
Corina Flores - Minutes Clerk
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 180 of 193
EXHIBIT 9
Hillside Development and Design Guidelines
a.The Planning Director to the Planning Commission.
b.The Planning Commission to the City Council.
H. HILLSIDE MAPPING PROCEDURES
The Hillside Mapping Procedures are found in Section 21.95.110 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code. At least three major items are needed to appropriately map and
identify a hillside:
A.Slope Analysis
Exhibit 1 illustrates how to show slope classifications.
B.Slope Profiles:
Exhibits 2 and 3 illustrate examples of slope profiles.
C. Total Area of Grading and Grading Volumes
The grading of hillside lands should be kept to a minimum. Exhibits 4 and 5 illustrate
clear ways to show the total area of grading and grading volumes.
D.Assurance of Accurate Hillside Mapping
The assurance of accurate Hillside mapping is to be provided by either a registered
landscape architect or civil engineer land surveyor.
NIL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS
The Hillside Development and Design standards address the following development
concepts.
A.Coastal Zone Hillside Standards
B.Development of Manufactured Slopes Greater than 40% Gradient
C.Contour Grading
D.Screening Manufactured Slopes
E.Hillside and Hilltop Architecture
HAAdmin\Report\Hillside Guidelines Page 5
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 181 of 193
-3PYZ., •
••
•I •••••'/' •
••••1
•
••%.
••••.•
•••• : ••••
- - '
nr-• '
-
EXHIBIT 'I'
Slope Analysis: The following graphics illustrate ways
to show slope classifications.
SITE BOUNDARY
SLOPE PERCENTAGE LEGEND
AREA
O 0-less.than 15% 18.2ac
O 15-less than 25% 16.1ac
2540% 3.5ac
•greater than 40% 2.7ac
40.5ac TOTAL SITE
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 182 of 193
EXHIBIT 2.
ft
SIO
500
43Q
480
•ROF/LE LINE 1
SCALE • .41: 20 . f0/
490
480
470
460
aid
SOO
490
460
410
March 1r2021
Profile
sr 41,
Item #4 Page 183 of 193
•••.,
seiii I.:7
••••
.00
Olt
•• L
0/
—
4.4)ao • "' 4,4 tir4
•
Lin.
-
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
BOUNDARY 5
EXiSTING
TOPOGRAPHY
(TYPICA.-) sursolvtaioN
BOUNDARY .••••
I r• LI ar Tire.
PROPOSED\ war ot.•="...E1
TOPOGRAPHY
240
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
(TYFCAL)
-740
—1.,0
.▪ 110'
/50
—14.0
.24.0
220
—7C0
—ISO
160
SUBDIVISION
BOUNDARY
•••'•••
/60
240
220
2X-
180
/60 ••• •
SUBDIVISION
BOUNDARY
ZOO •••
f . /10 —
PROFILE A
EXISTING
TOPOGRAPHY
i 4 • -177 .5.
PROPOSED
TOPOGRAPHY
PROFILE
SUBDIVISION
BOUNDARY
fl
760 —
7.40
220
200 N..
180
11.110.001 MAMMA'
Ia
PROFILE A
PROFILE B
XEY
$0 a fit
Item #4 Page 184 of 193
EXHIBIT 3; "
EXISTING
TOPOGRAPHY PROPOSED STRUCTURE
(TYPICAL)
•!r• I
TOPOGRAPHY \
'
PROPOSED
-PROFILE C
SUBDIVISION
BOUNDARY
\J
7 .•'•••••
1:• •
PROFILE C
TO BE PREPARED AT SAME
SCALE AS TENTATIVE MAP
March 16, 2021
PROPOSED GRADING
FILL .5ac 9100 Cy —
CUT .4ac 8000 cy
TOTAL SITE AREA: lac
TOTAL GRADED AREA .92.0
-9100 cY
.9ac
10,100 Cu yds/ac
(1 ACRE LOT)
(Larg•r of two)
r/z ./
.4ac a000 cy cut
.3 ac
2000 cy fill.
OFFSITE GRADING
INCLUDED IN
CALCULATIONS
oi•r• • 1
\
T•a•••• e•—•e—c•••
.8ac
467 cu yd/ac
FILL Aac 2800 cy
71 CUT 2a.c 2500 cy
(Larger of two)
TOTAL SITE AREA lac
TOTAL GRADED AREA ..6ac.
2800 cy
OFFSITE GRADING
INCLUDED IN
CALCULATIONS
March 16 2021
EXHIBIT 4
NOT ACCEPTABLE - EXCEEDS 10,000 cy/ac
ACCEPTABLE
(1 ACRE LOT)
PROPOSED GRADING
TOTAL AREA
OF GRADING Pik
GRADING VOLUMES
Item #4 Page 185 of 193
Ekicturarl
Cu C Y0 3 AREA
10
24`J,J 87 18 —1— 30 ac,
Fl 234,7'31
40
Enport 8,876
24,z.-0501
3Onc
EXHIBIT 5
March 16k,121921cuyth'eaudOd Item #4 Page 186 of 193
Hillside Development and Design Guidelines
F.Building Setbacks
G.Roadway Design
H.Hillside Drainage
The following exhibits illustrate some of these concepts. These illustrations do not
include all potential design solutions for meeting the Hillside Development Regulations,
however they do show conceptual designs which fulfill the regulations intent. Land
planners, site designers, engineers, and architects are encouraged to explore additional
design solutions that fulfill the intent, purpose and specific requirements of Carlsbad's
Hillside Development Regulations.
A. Coastal Zone Hillside Standards
Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Chapters 21.38 and 21.201 - 21.203 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code implements the California Coastal Act. As shown on
Exhibit 6, Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program is divided into six segments. Certain
segments of Carlsbad's LCP require additional conservation of hillside areas.
Wherever LCP hillside restrictions differ from Carlsbad's Hillside Development
Regulations, the more restrictive aspect of each regulation shall be met. All segments
except the Agua Hedionda segment and the Village Redevelopment segment have the
same Hillside Development restrictions. The following regulations are taken directly
from Carlsbad's Local Coastal Program.
For Agua Hedionda segment the following special requirements must be met:
Policy 4.4 Recognizing the unique environmental features of the lagoon and its
environs and the sensitivity of the area to soil erodibility and sedimentation,
development shall be regulated as follows:
a.Development on existing subdivided lots having all of their area in slopes of 25%
or greater shall be permitted, but grading shall be limited to minimal site
preparation for pole-type footings. Driveway/parking areas shall be limited in
size and shall be restricted to an area adjacent to the local streets. On-site
vegetation shall not be disturbed beyond the minimal area needed to be cleared
for the construction process, which shall be clearly delineated on approved site
plans.
b.Development, grading and landform alteration in steep slope areas (25%) shall
be restricted. Exceptions may include encroachments by roadways and utilities
necessary to reach developable area. The maximum allowable density shall be
calculated on the total lot area, although this may be modified through setbacks,
plan review, or other requirements of this plan and applicable city regulations_
c.Use of the Planned Development (PD) Ordinance and cluster development shall
be required in areas containing environmentally sensitive resources, extensive
steep slope areas and significant natural landform features.
Page 6
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 187 of 193
1111111'
SEGMENT
MELLO 1
MELLO 11
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
AGUA HED1ONDA LAGOON
WEST BATIOUITOS LAGOON
EAST BATIOU1TOS LAGOON
CARLSBAD
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
March 16, 2021
+++44
+++++ EXHIBIT 6
Item #4 Page 188 of 193
Hillside Development and Design Guidelines
There are no Coastal Zone Hillside Standards within the Village Redevelopment
Segment.
For all other segments of Carlsbad's LCP the following policy regulates the
development of hillsides:
Any development proposal that affects steep slopes (25% inclination or greater) shall
be required to prepare a slope map and analysis for the affected slopes. The slope
mapping analysis shall be prepared during the CEQA environmental review on a
project-by-project basis and shall be required as a condition of a coastal development
permit.
1) Slopes Possessing Endangered Species and/or Coastal Sage Scrub and
Chaparral Plant Communities:
For those slopes mapped as possessing endangered plant/animal species
and/or coastal sage scrub and chaparral plant communities, the following policy
language would apply:
a) Slopes of 25% grade and over shall be preserved in their natural state,
unless the application of this policy would preclude any reasonable use of
the property, in which case an encroachment not to exceed 10% of the
steep slope area over 25% grade may be permitted. For existing legal
parcels, with all or nearly all of their area in slope area over 25% grade,
encroachment may be permitted; however, any such encroachment shall
be limited so that at no time is more than 20% of the entire parcel
(including areas under 25% slope) permitted to be disturbed from its
natural state. This policy shall not apply to the construction of roads on
the City's Circulation Element or the development of utility systems. Uses
•of slopes over 25% may be made in order to provide access to flatter
areas if there is no less environmentally damaging alternative available.
b)No further subdivisions of land or utilization of Planned Unit Development
shall occur on lots that have their total area in excess of 25% slope unless
a planned Unit Development is proposed which limits grading and
development to not more than 10% of the total site area.
c)Slopes and areas remaining undisturbed as a result of the hillside review
process, shall be placed in a permanent open space easement as a
condition of development approval. The purpose of the open space
easement shall be to reduce the potential for localized erosion and slide
hazards, to prohibit the removal of native vegetation except for creating
firebreaks and/or planting fire retardant vegetation and to protect visual
resources of importance to the entire community.
2) All other Steep Slope Areas:
I-1:1Admin\Report\Hillside Guidelines Page 7
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 189 of 193
Hillside Development and Design Guidelines
For all other steep slope areas, the City Council may allow exceptions to the
above grading provisions provided the following mandatory findings to allow
exceptions are made:
a)A soils investigation conducted by a licensed soils engineer has
determined the subject slope area to be stable and grading and
development impacts mitigatable for at least 75 years, or life of structure.
b)Grading of the slope is essential to the development intent and design,
c)Slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to
major wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas.
d)If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and
is in excess of 10 acres, no more than one third of the total steep slope
area shall be subject to major grade changes.
e)If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and
it less than 10 acres, complete grading may be allowed only if no
interruption of significant wildlife corridors occur.
Because north-facing slopes are generally more prone to stability
problems and in many cases contain more extensive natural vegetation,
no grading or removal of vegetation from these areas will be permitted
unless all environmental impacts have been mitigated. Overriding
circumstances are not considered adequate mitigation.
3)Required Runoff Control Plan:
No development shall be permitted except pursuant to submittal of a runoff
control plan prepared by a licensed engineer qualified in hydrology and
hydraulics; such approved plans shall assure that there would be no increase in
peak runoff rate from the developed site over the greatest discharge expected
from the existing undeveloped site as a result of a 10-year frequency storm.
Runoff control shall be accomplished by a variety of measures, including, but not
limited to, onsite catchment basins, detention basins, siltation traps, and energy
dissipators, and shall not be concentrated in one area.
4)Required Drainage or Erosion Control Facility Maintenance Arrangements:
Development approvals shall include detailed maintenance arrangements for
providing the on-going repair and maintenance for all approved drainage or
erosion-control facilities.
5)Installation and Timing of Permanent Runoff and Erosion Control Devices:
All permanent run-off control and erosion-control devices shall be developed and
installed prior to or concurrent with any onsite grading activities.
Page 8
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 190 of 193
Hillside Development and Design Guidelines
6) Required Open Space Easements on Undeveloped Slopes:
All undevelopable slopes shall be placed in open space easements as a
condition of development approval.
Items 3-6 may be required of all development that requires grading. Carlsbad's Hillside
Development Regulations recognize that the Hillside Conservation Policies of
Carlsbad's LCP segments must be met in addition to the requirements of Chapter
21.95.
B.Manufactured Slopes of Greater than 40% Gradient which are Greater than
15 in Height
Manufactured slopes of greater than 40% gradient which are greater than 15 feet in
height are regarded as important aesthetic (visual) resources in that they provide
vertical open space separation between developed pads and developed pads and
roadways (See Exhibit 7). For this reason, the development of buildings upon such
downhill manufactured slopes which are visible from roadways or adjoining properties
is prohibited. However, for residential and non-residential uses, limited development
upon such uphill perimeter manufactured slopes would be permitted and for non-
residential uses limited development upon downhill perimeter manufactured slopes
would be permitted as shown on Exhibits 8 - 10.
C.Contour Grading
Contour grading creates manufactured slopes in a rounded, undulating pattern that
blend into and mimic the surrounding natural hillside. Exhibits 11 and 12 illustrate an
acceptable contour grading concept along with an unacceptable manmade slope. The
emphasis of the contour grading standard is to create contour graded slopes in areas
where they would be visible (i.e., along Circulation Element roadways, collector streets
and useable open space areas).
D.Screening Manufactured Slopes
The screening of manufactured slopes is of considerable importance. Exhibits 13 and
14 illustrate the use of a variety of landscape materials to soften the appearance of the
manufactured slope. Another way to accomplish this includes using the building itself
as a screening devise.
E.Hillside and Hilltop Architecture
Hillside and hilltop architecture should be customized to specific hillside conditions. It is
strongly recommended that the project architect begin conceptual design work only
after becoming fully aware of both the specific hillside site and the Hillside Development
Regulations. A preliminary review by staff of the conceptual design is also
recommended before any final design is submitted.
HAdmin\Report\Hillside Guidelines Page 9
March 16, 2021 Item #4 Page 191 of 193
Retaining walls, main buildings and
accessory buildings may be
constructed into an uphill slope to a
maximum of 6 vertical feet from the
toe of slope
14-1 2'-0-.1
Permitted Residential And Non-Residential
Development Of Uphill Perimeter
Manufactured Slopes
EXHIBIT 9
neraugwz t --zzerz e-• -
.,3MMUIP
.11111•11110111 12111M.-11111111111r MILJNINbe -1111111110.—
(0
0
(.0 BORHOOD CO UM L, R V
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City
of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chamber, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad,
California, at 3:00 p.m. on Tues., March 16, 2021, to consider denying a Coastal Development Permit and
a Variance for an unpermitted retaining wall system that exceeds standards on a manufactured uphill
perimeter slope with a gradient greater than 40 percent and an elevation differential of greater than
fifteen feet on property located at 939 Begonia Court within the Mello II Segment of the city's Local
Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 4, and more particularly described as:
Lot 138 of Carlsbad Tract No. 73-79, Spinnaker Hill Unit #3, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no. 8453, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on Dec. 29, 1976
Whereas, on Dec. 16, 2020 the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission voted 6/0/1 to deny a Coastal
Development Permit and a Variance for an unpermitted retaining wall system that exceeds standards on
a manufactured uphill perimeter slope with a gradient greater than 40 percent and an elevation
differential of greater than fifteen feet on property located at 939 Begonia Court within the Mello II
Segment of the city's Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 4. The project site is
not within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. The City Planner has determined
pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(4) and 15270 of the state CEQA Guidelines that the project is exempt from
CEQA because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
Copies of the staff report will be available on and after March 12, 2021. If you have any questions, please
contact Jessica Evans in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4631 or Jessica.Evans@carlsbadca.gov.
Per California Executive Order N-29-20, and in the interest of public health and safety, we are temporarily
taking actions to prevent and mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic by holding City Council and
other public meetings online only. All public meetings will comply with public noticing requirements in
the Brown Act and will be made accessible electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe
and address the City Council. You may participate by phone or in writing. Participation by phone: sign up
at https://www.carlsbadca.gov/cityhall/clerk/meetings/default.asp by 2 p.m. the day of the meeting to
provide comments live by phone. You will receive a confirmation email with instructions about how to call
in. Participation in writing: email comments to clerk@carlsbadca.gov. Comments received by 2 p.m. the
day of the meeting will be shared with the City Council prior to the meeting. When e-mailing comments,
please identify in the subject line the agenda item to which your comments relate. All comments received
will be included as part of the official record. Written comments will not be read out loud.
If you challenge the Coastal Development Permit and Variance in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,
Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004 (DEV2020-0134)
CASE NAME: BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
PUBLISH: MARCH 5, 2021
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY COUNCIL
NOT TO SCALE
SITE MAP
Begonia Court Retaining Wall
CDP 2020-0026/V 2020-0004
Easy Peel Address Labels
Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge
Go to avery.com/templates
Use Avery Template 5160 I
AVERY 5160
AVIARA MASTER ASSOCIATION
C/O A MCKIBBIN&CO
1921 PALOMAR OAKS WAY UNIT 104
CARLSBAD CA 92008
MAICHEN FAMILY TRUST 07-13-99
1000 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CARTERETTE JOHN K AND CAROLYN J
1025 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MARTIN AUDREY M TRUST 12-05-95
C/0 DAVID WHIDDON
1613 FAIRLEAD AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92011
YASUKOCHI GEORGE
7204 WISTERIA WAY
I CARLSBAD CA 92011
TURNER LIVING TRUST 0S-25-07
7208 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
ESCALLE ROGER LAND ISABEL
7210 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
STANTON JAMES AND SANDRA 2001
TRUST 12-31-01
7327 BOLERO ST
CARLSBAD CA 92009
DUFFY FAMILY TRUST 10-23-03
1019 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MCBRIDE JOHN B AND LAUREN J
1029 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92011
STEWART FAMILY TRUST 11-01-95
7202 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
HABIB FAMILY TRUST 02-06-01
7207 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
GIBSON MARYLOU G TRUST 03-24-15
7209 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CASTNER JAMES J
7211 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
DAISY 1031 HOUSE LLC
C/O SUSAN ALMOND
5308 DON RICARDO DR
CARLSBAD CA 92010
MCDANIEL LIVING TRUST 03-12-03
1023 DAISY AVE
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SHARMA GURU D AND RASHMI M
1577 CORTE ORCHIDIA
CARLSBAD CA 92011
HASHIM GEORGE J JR AND MARIA G
FAMILY TRUST 05-27-10
7203 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011 ,
WEISSENBERGER ANDREW D AND
JOYCE L
7208 AZALEA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
WEST FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 09-
19-17
7210 AZALEA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BACHMAN BALDWIN FAMILY TRUST 10-
29-05
7212 AZALEA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
DEGRUY FAMILY TRUST 08-15-12
C/O JUDITH DEGRUY
7214 AZALEA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
LEVINE MICHAEL AND MAXINE FAMILY
TRUST 2001
7216 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
JOSEPH FAMILY TRUST 09-23-10
C/O SUSAN JOSEPH
7219 WISTERIA WAY
DAVISSON WILLIAM C AND CAROL J
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 06-24-10
7214 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MOSES DENNIS AND VICKI
7217 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
UHLJASON AND JANINE
7220 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CARPENTER RICHARD L AND MARTHA A:
INTERVIVOS TRUST 12-31-90
7215 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
QUINCE JOSEPH S AND JOYCE M
7218 WISI ERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MASON ELBERT S AND VIVIAN J C M
TRUST 03-10-15
7221 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel'
Allez a avery.ca/•abarits '
AVERY 5160' Easy Peel'Address Labels
Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge'
Go to avery.com/templates
Use Avery Template 5160 I
PETERSON FRANCES M AND GERALD L
REVOCABLE TRUST 03-16-07
7312 LILY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
RU PERT WILLIAM AND JANICE Z FAMILY
TRUST 06-14-95
7317 LILY PL
WICHOWSKI FAMILY TRUST 11-01-16
7314 LILY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
VARGAS RICHARD AND TERRA
7318 LILY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CARLSBAD CA 92011
WRIGHT BRADLEY B LIVING TRUST A KU MAR DAVE
10-06-99 917 BEGONIA CT
914 MYRTLE CT CARLSBAD CA 92011
CARLSBAD CA 92011
LEONARD FAMILY TRUST 03-03-93 LUCIUS FAMILY TRUST 05-31-94
919 BEGONIA CT 920 ANATRA CT
' CARLSBAD CA 92011 CARLSBAD CA 92011
DHILLON TRUST 10-09-96
7222 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
HANLY FAMILY TRUST 09-13-99
7227 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
PAUSE FAMILY TRUST 05-12-93
7305 LILY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
LOFTIN FAMILY TRUST 06-25-01
920 POPPY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SCHULTZ MARK AND AUDREY
7223 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
THORP FAMILY 1993 TRUST 10-26-93
7303 LILY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
OBERLE TRUST 05-08-01
7307 LILY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CONNORS FAMILY TRUST A 01-12-87
921 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SCOTT EDWARD W AND CAROL A
7225 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BARNES J THOMAS AND JENETE FAMILY
TRUST 06-02-11
7304 AZALEA PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
FERNANDES STEVE AND ERMA LIVING
TRUST 05-11-06
7311 LILY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BURNS MICHAEL WAND JOANNE T
2017 TRUST 12-07-17
7315 LILY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SUTTON JANET L REVOCABLE TRUST
01-09-14
7319 LILY PL
CARLSBAD CA 92011
LANDIS GREGG S AND KAREN W
917 POPPY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92011
RAHN FAMILY TRUST 02-12-15
920 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
KIEFFE RONALD V
921 POPPY IN
CARLSBAD CA 92011
KOSKO JOHN AND PATRICIA
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 06-27-08
922 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SCHRADER MICHAEL J AND ANN M
924 ANATRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
•P•
FERRONE ROBERT T TRUST 06-25-14
922 POPPY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MARTIN DAVID G AND JUDITH A
FAMILY TRUST
924 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peer'
ASBOCK STEFAN A AND AMY L1
923 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SMITH KAREN P LIFE TRUST 11-11-14
925 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
Allez a aver .ca/•abarits '
Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel'
AVERY 5160
SUGIURA FAMILY TRUST 09-11-15
•927 ANATRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MCKAY FAMILY TRUST 09-20-17
929 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
KRICKEL FRED RAND NANCY R
932 ANATRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BAILEY CHRISTOPHER G AND NATALIE L
935 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CONGLETON FAMILY TRUST
940 ANATRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
STEWART CYNTHIA LIVING TRUST 02-
17-15
943 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 920-11
DAQUILA DANIEL AND ANGELINA
FAMILY TRUST 05-11-04
945 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
REDDY LALITHA
949 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
TRUJILLO ELAINE V
953 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
REDFIELD TIMOTHY S
955 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
Easy Peel 'Address Labels
Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge
JOHNSON THOMAS KENT AND
MARALIND TYLER FAMILY RESIDUARY
TRUST 01-20-95 ETA
927 BEGONIA CT
STEWART JOSHUA N AND LINDA M
930 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
KENNEDY MICHAEL
932 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
BALE CRAIG AND KENDLE
936 ANATRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
ROTH STUART G AND FILIPPO LORI A
941 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CANNON ANTOINE WAND CHEUNG
DOROTHY
944 ANATRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
PAPAZOGLU VICTOR J AND PAULA A
947 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
HARDESTY J FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST!
08-17-99
950 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
PARKFORD KENNETH A AND ANDREA L I
FAMILY TRUST 08-31-04
953 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
PHELPS FAMILY 2015 TRUST
956 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
Go to avery.com/templates
Use Avery Template 5160 ;
HOLMES WILLIAM R AND PEARL E
INTER VIVOS TRUST 06-12-98
928 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
GIBBONS FAMILY REVOCABLE 1995
TRUST 07-28-95
931 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
TURBEVILLE JOHN H JR
934 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
WARD THOMAS R
937 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
PITA BEATRICE M TRUST 01-19-04
943 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
OLSEN DON AND BRENDA
944 BEGONIA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
ANGUS PATRICK AND ALICE
948 ANATRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
VANSLYKE FAMILY TRUST 03-24-11
951 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 9201.1
SCHAFFER ROBERT M FAMILY TRUST
07-29-03
954 MERGANSER LN
CARLSBAD CA 92011
HOMA ROBERT AND NELLIE
957 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
Allez a aver .ca/•abarits '
Easy Peel Address Labels
Bend along iinc to expose Pop-up Edge
Go to avery.corn/templates
Use Avery Template 3160 I
AVE RY 5160 L---i
WILLIAMS PERRY AND CHARLENE
FAMILY TRUST 01-12-05
958 MERGANSER LN
CARLSBAD CA 92011
WICKERN FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST
02-18-92
960 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
ARKLE KEVIN AND LAUREN
969 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SANDOVAL ARTHUR AND MICHELLE
974 MERGANSER LN
CARLSBAD CA 92011
RAY JOHN RAND HOANG HUE T
980 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
WERNER REVOCABLE TRUST 07-19-00
989 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
OAKES CAROLINE A
7224 WISTERIA WAY
CARLSBAD CA 92011-4848
OAKES BILL AND CAROLYN
962 MERGANSER LN
CARLSBAD CA 92011-4861
BURNETT FAMILY TRUST 07-07-98
959 JASMINE CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MARSHALL GREGORY LAND JANET
964 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
LUU HOA KIM
970 MERGANSER LN
CARLSBAD CA 92011
LEHRMANN PATRICK AND RATIH
FAMILY TRUST 05-04-17
976 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MARR FAMILY TRUST 04-24-15
983 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
LAROCQUE MICHAEL A TRUST
995 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
AVAN DANIEL K AND WENDY S
970 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011-4858
BRUGUERAZIRKLE MICHAEL 0
928 ANATRA CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011-4876
I HANNA JOHN A AND HEATHER
959 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
NEIL FAMILY TRUST 05-23-01
966 MERGANSER LN
CARLSBAD CA 92011
SPIESS NICOLAS SAND LIWAYWAY S
973 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
WHISNANT FAMILY TRUST 05-12-14
978 MERGANSER LN
CARLSBAD CA 92011
MACKENZIE ANTOINE-FIT
984 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011
CARVER CATHERINE
919 POPPY LN
CARLSBAD CA 92011-4832
HIGGINS MATTHEW
990 WHIMBREL CT
CARLSBAD CA 92011-4858
JENSEN JON A AND CAROL L
PO BOX 130640
CARLSBAD CA 92013
WICK EISLER CAROL R
2058 N MILLS AVE # 521
CLAREMONT CA 91711-2812
MILLER ROBERT C AND BRENDA M
526 N 400 W
N SALT LAKE UT 84054
Pat: aver .com .atents
OCHOA HUMBERTO R
29027 BROOKINGS LN
HIGHLAND CA 92346
WEIMER HAROLD H AND KIMBERLY J
34103 N 7TH ST
PHOENIX AZ 85085
Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel'
SHEDD RICHARD LIVING TRUST 02-26-
07
PO BOX 1581
MAMMOTH LAKES CA 93546
CASTANO FRANCISCO D AND SANCHEZ-
CASTANO MARIA
15321 VIA MOLINERO
POWAY CA 92064
Allez a avery.ca/gabarits
Easy Peel' Address Labels
Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge'
Go to avery.com/templates
Use Avery Template 5160 i
Allez avery.ca/gabarits
JAVAMIMM...•
AVE RY 5160'
QIAN XIAO-JIANG AND FENG LI
PO BOX 675594
RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
LICHTMAN VALERIE REVOCABLE TRUST
06-12-03
860 BERNARD WAY
SN BERNRDNO CA 92404
DOMASZEWICZ CASIMIR J TRUST
673 AVE CORDOBA
SAN MARCOS CA 92069
MENON SURESH M AND SANTHIRE V
REVOCABLE TRUST 03-18-00
1574 PARROT AVE
SUNNYVALE CA 94087
OBERMAN STEVEN REVOCABLE TRUST
04-21-06
2773 DOVE TAIL DR
SAN MARCOS CA 92078
GUAN XIAOJUN AND HU JUNLIAN
565 MAR VISTA DR
VISTA CA 92081
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Pat: avery.com/patents Etiquettes d'adresse Easy Peel'
Re•Ilez a la h. h - a •- -
Etiquettes d'adresse Eas Peer Allez
0 . • . •
AVE RY 5160
TENANT
7309 LILY PL
Carlsbad, CA 92011-4828
Easy Peel' Address Labels
Bend along line to expose Pop-up Edge
TENANT
934 BEGONIA CT
Carlsbad, CA 92011-4808
Go to avery.com/templates
Use Avery Template 5160
111111111111111111••=111
Tammy Cloud-McMinn
All Receive - Agenda Item #
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
DateVit4ACA v CC
CM iv- ACM ).----DCM (3) v
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
tomtribute <tomtribute44@gmail.com>
Monday, March 15, 2021 9:18 PM
City Clerk
re: #4 item COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR AN UNPERMITTED
RETAINING WALL AT 939 BEGONIA COURT
939.pdf
Included google maps photo pdf to show how large and disturbing to the neighbors this massive
illegal slope project got before stopped, as it should have been. Obviously this STRV business was
out to
get higher income rent fees with this, and heck with us neighbors and city codes. Our builder's
cc&r's forbid this also, which the owner got a copy of when she purchased this home in 2012, so
they new it was illegal, and didn't apply for a permit, which would have been denied.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe
1
Google Maps https://www.google.eom/maps/@33.0993496,-117.2996577,54m/data=!...
Go gie Maps
Map data 2021 , Map data (>2021 20 ft
1 of 3/15/2021. 9:03 PM
March 12, 2021
924 Begonia Ct
Carlsbad, CA 9201 1
City Council of the City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
All IRmive - Agenda Item # q
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
06to 4/2/ CA CC
,.)c-ACM DCM (3)X
RECEIVED
MAR 1 6 2.021
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Re: Public Hearing on Lot 138 of Carlsbad Tract No. 73 — 79, Spinnaker Hill Unit #3
To Whom It May Concern:
I feel very strongly that "A Coastal Development Permit and a Variance for an unpermitted retaining
wall system that exceeds standards on a manufactured uphill perimeter slope with a gradient greater than
40 percent and an elevation differential of greater than fifteen feet on the property located at 939 Begonia
Court" should be DENIED.
Most of the homes on Begonia Ct could reasonably be destroyed or severely damaged if that retaining
wall fails due to forces of nature such as excessive rain or earthquake. Human lives could be at risk.
Those of us who live on Begonia Ct should not have to live with the consequences because one
homeowner desires permission to exceed city standards.
Please enter my input into the decision making process regarding the approval of this Coastal
Development Permit and Variance.
Thank you for your consideration and opportunity to speak out regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Martin
Begonia Court Retaining Wall
Jessica Evans, Associate Planner
March 16, 2021
2
Begonia Court Retaining Wall /~
CDP 2020-0026N 2020-0004
0 90 180
3REAR PROPERTY LINE.._ . ~ --
0 (.)
$
~
0
C,
~ olr,:q ;
939 BEGONIA COURT
LOT 138 OF CT 73-39
PER MAP NO. 8453
APN 214-390-23'
\
Dl>,'M; ~
)
I
A
.J.:Z
'B B
4
afterbefore
5
Project Request
Request for a Coastal Development
Permit (CDP) and Variance to allow
an unpermitted retaining wall system
that exceeds the standards on a
manufactured uphill perimeter slope
with a gradient greater than 40%and
an elevation differential of greater
than 15 ft.
6
PROJECT SITE
Analysis
7
Variance Findings
•Special circumstances: size, shape, topography, etc.
•Does not grant special privilege
•Does not authorize unpermitted activity
•Consistent with General Plan
•Consistent with Local Coastal Program
Analysis
8
Coastal Development Permit Findings
•Slope is stable and impacts mitigatable for 75 years
•Grading is essential to development intent
Recommendation
That the City Council ADOPT the Resolution DENYING
the Coastal Development Permit CDP 2020-0026 and
Variance V 2020-0004 based upon the findings and
subject to the condition contained therein.
9
J.C. Baldwin Construction
,·
<'I..·-· r'~•-;,::, . . , ........ ~ . ,
~ ..
;·~·.).. 1
--"'-! ~ .,. ... i:... -·---~--.. ~-=--·--•c..---~----:,;·9~ .. ---~--..... :, ---~ ____ .,.,. __ ~....:,-~--.., ..... 'f ,;,,
I
.:
, r
I j 1•
. ' -:-.
I •1 • I I ... , ilt
~
The End