HomeMy WebLinkAbout2714 GATEWAY RD; RW; CB071530; Permit10-11-2007
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008
Retaining Wall Permit Permit No CB071530
Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725
Job Address
Permit Type
Parcel No
Valuation
Reference #
Project Title
2714 GATEWAY RD CBAD St RW
RETAIN
2132630100 Lot#
$86,040 00 Construction Type
SPECTRUM FLEX-4780 SF RETAIN
POURED IN PLACE WALL
0
NEW
Applicant
SPECTRUMFLEXLLC
406 9TH AVE #309
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
Status
Applied
Entered By
Plan Approved
Issued
Plan Check#
Inspect Area
Owner
SPECTRUMFLEX LLC
406 9TH AVE #309
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
ISSUED
06/04/2007
RMA
10/11/2007
10/11/2007
Building Permit
Add'l Building Permit Fee
Plan Check
Add'l Plan Check Fee
Strong Motion Fee
Renewal Fee
Add'l Renewal Fee
Other Building Fee
Additional Fees
TOTAL PERMIT FEES
$496 51
$000
$322 73
$000
$860
$000
$000
$000
$000
$827 84
Total Fees $827 84 Total Payments To Date $827 84 Balance Due $000
BUILDING PL/VMS
JL_ IN STORAGE
ATTACHED
Inspector
FINAL APPROVAL
Date I/**/if Clearance
NOTICE Ploase take NOTICE lhat approval of your project includes the Imposition of fees dedications reservations or other exactions hereafter collectively
referred to as lees/exaclioris You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions If you protest them you must
folio* the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a) and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3 32 030 Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack
review set aside void or annul their imposition
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity
changes nor planning zoning grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project NOR DOES IT APPLY to any
loos/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave , Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-602-2717 / 2718 / 2719
Fax 760-602-8558
Building Permit Application
DESCRIPTION OF WORK (Please describe present use and proposed us)
CONTACT NAME (If Different Fom Applicant)
(Sec. 7031S Business and Professions Code/Awuty or County which requires a permit to construct, alter improve demolish or repair any structure, prior to m issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is
licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Ctfntractor's License Law (Chapter 9 commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code} or that he is exempt therefrom and the basis for the alleged exemption Any violation of
Section 70315 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars {$500})
•,.\: -.. • •— " ••".' •:• ..:.;:,-• v^:;,i;^^^^^^^^^5;S;«iy>^' '-"'pS-.S^^«g«g"-' • i- . - l.v-<^--.^.:*,4Aa«":i?:^:•"-;<";t^•s^----^-"^-^;=K^iil»M^K•:~;^^;'•x^:^;:'^ '*»£* fc*-<fc*Sl?"
Workers' Compensation Declaration / hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the foltowmg declarations
/5T I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self insure for workers compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued
LTI I have and will maintain workers' compensation as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued My workers compensation insurance carrier and policy
number are Insurance Co Policy No Expiration Date
This section need not be completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less
n Certificate of Exemption I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers Compensation Laws of
California WARNING Failure to secure workers' compensation coveragejs_unjawfiil, and shatlsubject an employer to cnminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars (&100,000), in
addition to the cost of compensation, damag^js-pfovfasdJpyrj^^RofrSTbe of the Labor code, injVest and attorney's fees
^CONTRACTORSIGNATURE
/ hereby affirm that I am exempt from Contractor s License Law for the following reason
O I as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec 7044 Business and Professions Code The Contractor s
License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon and who does such work himself or through his own employees provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for
sale If however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion the owner builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale)
K l, as owner of the property am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec 7044 Business and Professions Code The Contractor s License Law does not apply to an owner of
property who builds or improves thereon and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law)
1 I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason
1 I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement n Yes D No
2 I (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work
3 I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name address / phone / contractors license number)
4 I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone / contractors' license number)
5 I will provide some of the work but I have contracted (hired) the fnllnwingjersnns tn prmmfo the work indicated (include name / address / phone / type of work)
J&HPROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE
Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505 25533 or 25534 of the
Presley Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act7 D Yes D No
Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district7 O Yes CJ No
Is the facility to be constructed within 1 000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site7 n Yes C3 No
IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, I
EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec 3097 (i) Civil Code)
Lender's Name Lender's Address
I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate I agree to comply witti all City ordinances and State laws relating to buildmgconstruction
I hereby authonze representative of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT
OSHA An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5 0' deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stones in height
EXPIRATION Every permit issued by the Building Official under thepftrnms of this Code shall expire' by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authonzed by such permit is not commenced within
180 days from the date of such permit or if the bujijmg oj^ertr§j)»fonz|d% such permit is susgewed-oraBartdoTred at any tome after the work is commenced for a penod of 180 days (Section 106 4 4 Uniform Building Code)
JS*> APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
Inspection List
Permit* CB071530 Type RETAIN
Date Inspection Item
09/22/2008 69
07/28/2008 69
05/20/2008 69
04/04/2008 65
04/02/2008 66
03/31/2008 66
03/24/2008 66
03/20/2008 61
03/18/200861
02/14/2008 62
02/14/200866
02/12/200862
02/12/200866
02/05/2008 61
02/01/2008 61
11/19/200765
11/19/200766
11/14/200766
11/13/2007 11
11/13/200766
11/06/200766
10/29/200761
10/26/2007 61
10/22/200761
Final Masonry
Final Masonry
Final Masonry
Retaining Walls
Grout
Grout
Grout
Footing
Footing
Steel/Bond Beam
Grout
Steel/Bond Beam
Grout
Footing
Footing
Retaining Walls
Grout
Grout
Ftg/Foundation/Piers
Grout
Grout
Footing
Footing
Footing
Inspector Act
PY
PY
PY
PY
PY
PY
PY
PY
PY
PY
PY
PY
PY
TP
JM
PY
PY
PY
PY
PY
PY
PY
MC
PY
Fl
CA
NR
AP
AP
PA
PA
AP
PA
we
PA
we
AP
AP
PA
PA
PA
we
we
PA
AP
AP
PA
PA
SPECTRUM FLEX-4960 SF RETAIN
ENGINEERED WALL
Comments
2ND LIFT® BID F
1STLIFT@BLDG4
WALL @ BLDG H
WALL FTG @ BLDG H
NEED SOILS REJECT PRIOR TO POUR
2nd lift
2 & 4 FT WALL SECT
OK TO POUR UP TO 6 FT WALL HEIGHT
3RD LIFT
3RD LIFT
2ND LIFT
6 FT HIGH TO 4+36-64
Monday September 22 2008 Page 1 of 1
DAILY FIELD REPORT
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
GEOTECHNICAL
(714) 685-1115
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION \PROJECT NUMBER
GENERAL LOCATION OF FILL 'PURPOSE OF FILL OR NATURE OF STRUCTURE TO BE SUPPORTED
f*n- S >
DATE
/C !
DAY OF WEEK
QENERAL CONTRACTOR SUPERINTENDENT FIELD REP MRS CHARGED
GRADING OR EARTHWORK CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR S SUPT OR FOREMAN HRS CHARGED
SOURCE & DESCRIPTION OF FILL MATERIAL MAXIMUM DENSITY & M/C WEATHER
EOUIPMENT,l!JSED
TEST
NO
TEST LOCATION ELEVATION
IN
FEET
COMP
CURVE
ID
TEST
MOISTURE
%
TEST DRY
DENSITY
LBS/CU FT
RELATIVE
COMP
RETEST
OF
TEST NO
NOTES
7s?.
~7 . yr r > t/ <• «-/
/*•itrc. r
f
fffn "T*"^ T2r
f ,«..,„
•V A I *f ,*r
r ,r-,ft: <» vX t ~, St\ **S f,y fS>
.-
»^ »,// <= / i-f. i r~f a "f f-> i^r ^Ctf>T 5,'c~f-ff- ~f
Js>/>/«•• "7 ff ' tfi /x-ae f—>a /I3
Oft S r
-*•**fi<jGln.i -re /;
y //cfl 49tf/-i
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE | |PAGE OF
WHITE OFFICE YELLOW FIELD FILE PINK-'GOLD SITE
r x" ^,
DAILY FIELD REPORT W /
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
GEOTECHNICAL
(714) 685-1115
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
, 'A.
CLIENT PROJECT NUMBER
GENERAL LOCATION OF FILL PURPOSE OF FILL OR NATURE OF STRUCTURE TO BE SUPPORTED
Uf&LL
DATE DAY OF WEEK
GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUPERINTENDENT FIELD REP
TTuJ 0.
GRADING OR EARTHWORK CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR S SUPT OR FOREMAN ASSISTANTS
HRS CHARGED
HRS CHARGED-a~
SOURCE & DESCRIPTION OF FILL MATERIAL MAXIMUM DENSITY & M/C
a a c<r v
EQUIPMENT USED
TEST
NO
TEST LOCATION ELEVATION
IN
FEET
COMP
CURVE
ID
TEST
MOISTURE
TEST_DRY
DENSITY
LBS/CU FT
RELATIVE
COMP
RETEST
OF
TEST NO
NOTES
, >rc. As* g.s Uitt , T5
rv f7 Ms Ft jgn.lair s^. £?A> T/1
t Sr/l •
7 -8 7/j."T7~
7^^A '' 7 ''
D& 0 F*.gfV
I/O
,<s r ^R 07 7 3'!>i °l Fi&M
\<-L-/TOn
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE PAGE OF
WHITE OFFICE YELLOW FIELD FILE PINK/GOLD SITE
X.£>
DAILY FIELD REPORT
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
GEOTECHNICAL
A Cttlihwia
(714) 685-1115
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
Jig-.3?
PROJECT NUMBER
GENERAL LOCATION OF FILL PURPOSE OF FILL OR NATURE OF STRUCTURE TO BE SUPPORTED
IP-12'07
DAY OF WEEK
GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUPERINTENDENT FIELD REP MRS CHARGED
0°
GRADING OR EARTHWORK CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR S SUPT OR FOREMAN ASSISTANTS MRS CHARGED
*rst;1*'
SOURCE & DESCRIPTION OF FILL MATERIAL MAXIMUM DENSITY & M/C
EQUIPMENTjUSED t
(C GA<£ Hat
TEST
NO
TEST LOCATION ELEVATION
IN
FEET
COMP
CURVE
ID
TEST
MOISTURE
TEST DRY
DENSITY
LBS/CU FT
RELATIVE
COMP
RETEST
OF
TEST NO
NOTES
UiLi nf (ff\JJ\ TO
F~ 16
i ftf ff.\Ct£. 7t<f
I I
& / if ASfrro < f <
n
10
fit|l '""
" ""7" P<gf)@r Tn
Te.f7•<<^fe^• ^x? /l</v»A.Xs>/.S /A)Si & an 1,1*2 A L £~tLL.
_
A .
TO ^^//l
! •I i
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE | |PAGE OF
WHITE OFFICE YELLOW FIELD FILE PINK/GOLD SITE
EsGil Corporation
In (Partners/tip with government for Quitting Safety
DATE 6/14/O7 a APPLICANT
JURISDICTION City of Carlsbad
a FILE
PLAN CHECK NO O71530 SET I
PROJECT ADDRESS Palomar Airport Road & El Fuerte Street
PROJECT NAME Retaining Walls
The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply
with the jurisdiction's building codes
XI The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes
when minor deficiencies identified in the attached list are resolved and checked by building
department staff
-The pJans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list
and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck
The check list transmitted herewith is for your information The plans are being held at Esgil
Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck
The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant
contact person
The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to
X] Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed
Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed
Person contacted Telephone #
Date contacted (by ) Fax #
Mail Telephone Fax In Person
REMARKS
By David Yao Enclosures
Esgil Corporation
D GA D MB D EJ D PC 6/7
9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diego, California 92123 4 (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576
City of Carlsbad O7153O
6/14/07
1 All sheets of the plans and the first sheet of the calculations are required to be
signed by the California licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan
preparation Please include the California license number, seal, date of license
expiration and the date the plans are signed Business and Professions Code
2 When special inspection is required, the architect or engineer of record shall
prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official
for approval prior to issuance of the building permit Please review Section
106 3 5 Please complete the attached form
3 Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan,
grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been
determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated
into the plans (per page 15 of the soil report)
4 Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building
Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building
official in writing that
a) The foundation excavations comply with the intent of the soils report"
City of Carlsbad 07153O
'6/14/07
City of Carlsbad
^" '^VH^BI^VWlWMHHI^HPB^^^BHBH^^M^HHiHHMlHBuilding Department
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION
Do Not Remove From Plans
Plan Check No 071530
Job Address or Legal Description Palomar Airport Road & El Fuerte Street
F=Lg:>L UU^ AddressI *
You are hereby notified that in addition to the inspection of construction provided by the
Building Department, an approved Registered Special Inspector is required to provide continuous
inspection during the performance of the phases of construction indicated on the reverse side of
this sheet
The Registered Special Inspector shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Building
Department pnor to the issuance of the building permit Special Inspectors having a
current certification from the City of San Diego, Los Angeles, or ICBO are approved as
Special Inspectors for the type of construction for which they are certified
The inspections by a Special Inspector do not change the requirements for inspections by
personnel of the City of Carlsbad building department The inspections by a Special
Inspector are in addition to the inspections normally required by the County Building
Code
The Special Inspector is not authorized to inspect and approve any work other than that for which
he/she is specifically assigned to inspect The Special Inspector is not authorized to accept
alternate materials, structural changes, or any requests for plan changes The Special Inspector is
required to submit written reports to the City of Carlsbad building department of all work that
he/she inspected and approved The final inspection approval will not be given until all Special
Inspection reports have been received and approved by the City of Carlsbad building department
Please submit the names of the inspectors who will perform the special inspections on each of the
items indicated on the reverse side of this sheet
(over)
City of Carlsbad 071530
4 6/14/07
SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM
ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION.A/Q.
PLAN CHECK NUMBER:OWNER'S NAME-
I, as the owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may not employ the special inspector),
certify that I, or the architect/engineer of record, will be responsible for employing the special
mspector(s) as required by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 1701 1 for the construction
project located at the site IjstQd above UBC Section 106 3 5
Signed
I, as the engineer/architect of record, certify that I have prepared the following special
inspection program as required by UBC Section 106 3 5 for the construction project
located at the site listed above
Signed
1 List of work requiring special inspection
E3 Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection D Field Welding
D Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI Q High Strength Bolting
n Prestressed Concrete
[X] Structural Masonry
CH Designer Specified
l~~l Expansion/Epoxy Anchors
I I Sprayed-On Fireproofing
D Other
2. Name(s) of mdividual(s) or firm(s) responsible for the special inspections listed
above
A
B.
C.
3. Duties of the special inspectors for the work listed above*
A
B
C Special inspectors shall check in with the City and present their credentials for approval prior to beginning work on the job
site
City of Carlsbad 071530
6/14/07
VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE
JURISDICTION City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO. 071530
PREPARED BY David Yao DATE 6/14/O7
BUILDING ADDRESS Palomar Airport Road & El Fuerte Street
BUILDING OCCUPANCY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
BUILDING II AREA
PORTION (Sq Ft)
retaining walls
Air Conditioning
Fire Sprinklers
TOTAL VALUE
Jurisdiction Code
Rlrln Pprmif FPP hv Orrtin^
4700
cb
Valuation
Multiplier
1774
By Ordinance
nrp ^
Reg
Mod
VALUE ($)
83,378
83,378
$475 96
Plan Check Fee by Ordinance ' ^ |
Type of Review 0 Complete Review
l~1 Repetitive Feef^Tj Repeats
Comments
D Other
r-1 Hourly
Structural Only
Hour
Esgil Plan Review Fee
$30937
$266 54
Sheet 1 of 1
macvalue doc
of Car Is bad
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
RETAINING WALL
BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER CB U / [53 O
BUILDING ADDRESS //-~? ( V
(
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Retaining Wall
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
APPROVAL
The item you have submitted for review has been
approved The approval is based on plans, information
and/or specifications provided in your submittal,
therefore, any changes to these items after this date,
including field modifications, must be reviewed by this
office to insure continued conformance with applicable
codes Please review carefully all comments attached,
as failure to comply with instructions in this report can
result in suspension of permit to build
By Date
DENIAL
Please seeMhe attached report of deficiencies
marked with \irMake necessary corrections to
plans or ^specifications for compliance with
applicable'codes^and standards Submit corrected
plans and/or specifications to this office for review
ATTACHMENTS
Right-of-Way Permit Application
ENGINEERING DEPT CONTACT PERSON
NAME JOANNE JUCHNIEWICZ
City of Carlsbad
ADDRESS 1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
PHONE (760) 602-2775
1635 Faraday Avenue « Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 « (76O) 602-2720 • FAX (760) 602-8562
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
RETAINING WALLS
STV
Q
Q
Q
oRD/
Q 1 Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale Show
/I^
A North Arrow
B Existing & Proposed Structures
(dimensioned from street)
C Property Lines
2 Show on site plan
A Drainage Patterns , ^
B Existing & Proposed Slopes /±\ I
C Existing Topography tA^lt
Include on title sheet
A Site Address
B Assessor's Parcel Number
C Legal Description
D Grading Quantities Cut
Easements
Retaining Wall
(location and height)^
Fill Import/Export
(Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required)
Q Q Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval
for Project No _
Conditions were complied with by Date
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS
5 A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way
and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way
A separate Right-of-Way issued by the Engineering Department is required
for the following
Please obtain an application foMRight-of-Way permit from the Engineering
Department
«LASPALMAS\SYS\LIBRARY\ENG\WORD\DOCS\CHKLS
PLANNING/ENGINEERING APPROVALS
PERMIT NUMBER O&&1 DATE
ADDRESS
RESIDENTIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR PLAZA CAMINO REAL
(<$10,000.00)
CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES
POOL / SPA
VILLAGE FAIRE
RETAINING WALL COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING
OTHER
PLANNER
ENGINEER
DATE
DATE
Partners Planning & Engineering
Andrew J Kann
15938 Bernardo Center Drive
San Diego, CA92127
Tel (858)376-3444
Title Bressi Ranch Lots 33-39
Job # 578 00 Dsgnr Andrew J
Description
2' Retaining Wall
Page
Date MAY 16,2007
This Wall in File p \dwg\578\bressi ranch lots 33-39 rpS
Retain Pro 2007 25-Apr-2007 (c) 1989-2007
www retampro com/support for latest release
Registration # RP-1160795 RP2007 C Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Code 1997 UBC
' Criteria | Soil Data |
Retained Height = 200ft Allow Soil Bearing = 2,500 0 psf
Wail he.nht ahm/P «sml - n *n ft Equivalent Fluid Pressure MethodWall height above soil - 050ft Heel Active Pressure = 79 0 psf/ft
Slope Behind Wall = 2 00 1 Toe Active Pressure = 45 0 psf/ft
Height of Soil over Toe = 1600m Passive Pressure = 250 0 psf/ft
Water height over heel = 00ft Soil Density = 12500pcf
Footmg||Soil Friction = 0 250
Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf Soil height to ignore
.... 4t. for passive pressure = 0 00 inVertical component of active ^ K
lateral soil pressure options
USED for Soil Pressure
USED for Sliding Resistance
USED for Overturning Resistance
| Footing Dimensions <
Toe Width
Heel Width
Total Footing Width =
Footing Thickness =
Key Width =
Key Depth =
Key Distance from Toe =
fc = 2,000 psi Fy
Footing Concrete Density =
Mm As%
Cover @ Top = 2 00 in (
& Strengths |
050ft
1 00
1 50
1000m
000 in
0 00 in
000ft
= 60,000 psi
15000pcf
00018
S> Btm = 3 00 in
Surcharge Loads
Surcharge Over Heel = 0 0 psf
Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning
Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf
Used for Sliding & Overturning
Lateral Load Applied to Stem | Adjacent Footing Load
Lateral Load
Height to Top
Height to Bottom
fAxial Load Applied to Stem |
Axial Dead Load = 0 0 Ibs
Axial Live Load = 0 0 Ibs
Axial Load Eccentricity = 0 0 in
pDesign Summary
Wall Stability Ratios
Overturning
Sliding
Total Bearing Load
resultant ecc
2 53 OK
308 OK
730 Ibs
1 98 in
Soil Pressure @ Toe = 808 psf OK
Soil Pressure @ Heel = 165 psf OK
Allowable = 2,500 psf
Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable
ACI Factored @ Toe = 734 psf
ACI Factored @ Heel = 150 psf
Footing Shear @ Toe = 1 4 psi OK
Footing Shear @ Heel = 4 1 psi OK
Allowable = 76 0 psi
Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component Used)
Lateral Sliding Force = 249 9 Ibs
less 100% Passive Force = - 586 8 Ibs
less 100% Friction Force = - 182 6 Ibs
Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK
for 1 5 1 Stability = 0 0 Ibs OK
Load Factors
Building Code UBC 1997
Dead Load 1 200
Live Load 1 600
Earth, H 1 600
Wind, W 1 300
Seismic, E 1 000
0 0 #/ft
000ft
0 00 ft
Adjacent Footing Load =
Footing Width =
Eccentricity =
Wall to Ftg CL Dist
Footing Type
Base Above/Below Soil
at Back of Wall
Poisson's Ratio =
00 Ibs
000ft
000 in
000ft
Line Load
00ft
0300
j I Stem Construction | Top stem
Design Height Above Ftc
Wall Material Above "Ht"
Thickness
Rebar Size
Rebar Spacing
Rebar Placed at
Dc"iQn DcitQ
fb/FB + fa/Fa
Total Force @ Section
Moment Actual
Moment Allowable
Shear Actual
Shear Allowable
Wall Weight
Rebar Depth 'd'
LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE
LAP SPLICE IF BELOW
™
ft =
=
s:
=
=
=
=
lbs =
ft-# =
=
psi =
psi =
=
m =
m =
m =
Stem OK
000
Masonry
800
# 4
4800
Edge
0177
1180
876
4955
20
387
780
525
2400
HOOK EMBED INTO FTG in =
Masonry Data
6 00
fm
Fs
Solid Grouting
Special Inspection
Modular Ratio 'n'
Short Term Factor
Equiv Solid Thick
Masonry Block Type
Masonry Design Method
Concrete Data
fc psi
Fy psi
psi
psi
in =
1,500
24,000
Yes
Yes
21 48
1 000
760
Medium Weight
ASD
C$07151D
Partners Planning & Engineering
Andrew J Kann
15938 Bernardo Center Drive
San Diego, CA 92127
Tel (858)376-3444
Title Bressi Ranch Lots 33-39
Job # 578 00 Dsgnr Andrew,
Description
2' Retaining Wall
Page
Date MAY 16,2007
This Wall in File p \dwg\578\bressi ranch lots 33-39 rp5
Retain Pro 2007 25 Apr-2007 (c) 1989 2007
www retampro com/support for latest release
Registration # RP-1160795 RP2007 C Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Code 1997UBC
Footing Design Results
Factored Pressure
Mu' Upward
Mu' Downward
Mu Design
Actual 1 -Way Shear
Allow 1 -Way Shear
Toe Reinforcing
Heel Reinforcing
Key Reinforcing
Toe
734
= 144
78
66
1 41
7603
= None Spec'd
= None Spec'd
= None Spec'd
Heel
150psf
27ft-#
152ft-#
125ft-#
4 07 psi
76 03 psi Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacmgs
Toe Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr
Heel Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr
Key No key defined
Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments
OVERTURNING
Force Distance Moment
Item Ibs ft ft-#
Heel Active Pressure = 355 5 1 00 355 5
Toe Active Pressure = -1056 072 -763
Surcharge Over Toe =
Adjacent Footing Load =
Added Lateral Load =
Load @ Stem Above Soil =
Total = 2499 OTM = 2792
Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 2 53
Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 730 3 Ibs
Vertical component of active pressure used for soil pressure
RESISTING
Force Distance Moment
Ibs ft ft-#
Soil Over Heel =
Sloped Soil Over Heei =
Surcharge Over Heel =
Adjacent Footing Load =
Axial Dead Load on Stem =
Soil Over Toe _
Surcharge Over Toe _
Stem Weight(s) _
Earth @ Stem Transitions.
Footing Weighl _
Key Weight ~
Vert Component _
Total =
833
35
833
1950
1875
1776
7303 Ibs
1 33
1 39
000
025
083
075
1 50
RM =
111 1
48
208
1625
1406
2664
7063
DESIGNER NOTES
Partners Planning & Engineering
Andrew J Kann
15938 Bernardo Center Drive
San Diego, CA 921 27
Tel (858)376-3444
Title Bressi Ranch Lots 33-39 Page
Job* 57800 Dsgnr Andrew J Date MAY 16,2007
Description
4' Retaining Wall
This Wall in File p \dwg\578\bressi ranch lots 33-39 rp5
Retain Pro 2007 25 Apr-2007 (c) 1989-2007www retampro com/support for latest release Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Code 1997 UBC
Registration # RP-1 160795 RP2007-C
Criteria |
Retained Height = 4 00 ft
Wall height above soil = 0 50 ft
Slope Behind Wall = 2 00 1
Height of Soil over Toe = 1600m
Water height over heel = 0 0 ft
Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf
Vertical component of active
lateral soil pressure options
USED for Soil Pressure
USED for Sliding Resistance
USED for Overturning Resistance
Surcharge Loads |
Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning
Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf
Used for Sliding & Overturning
Axial Load Applied to Stem |
Axial Dead Load = 0 0 Ibs
Axial Live Load = 0 0 Ibs
Axial Load Eccentricity = 0 0 in
*Design Summary |
Wall Stability Ratios
Overturning = 2 15 OK
Sliding = 1 63 OK
Total Bearing Load = 2,449 Ibs
resultant ecc = 5 02 in
Soil Pressure @ Toe = 1 ,498 psf OK
Soil Pressure @ Heel = 134 psf OK
Allowable = 2,500 psf
Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable
ACI Factored @ Toe = 1,333 psf
ACI Factored @ Heel = 1 19 psf
Footing Shear @ Toe = 6 7 psi OK
Footing Shear @ Heel = 141 psi OK
Allowable = 76 0 psi
Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component Used)
Lateral Sliding Force = 1,145 9 Ibs
less 1 00% Passive Force = - 1 ,253 5 Ibs
less 1 00% Friction Force = - 612 2 Ibs
Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK
for 1 5 1 Stability = 0 0 Ibs OK
Building Code UBC 1997
Dead Load 1 200
Live Load 1 600
Earth, H 1 600
Wind, W 1 300
Seismic, E 1 000
Soil Data | Footing Dimensions &
Allow Soil Bearing = 2, 5000 psf Toe Width =
Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Heel Width =
Heel Active Pressure = 79 0 psf/ft Total Footing Width =
Toe Active Pressure = 45 0 psf/ft Footing Thickness =
Passive Pressure = 250 0 psf/ft
So,, Density = 12500pcf *« I
FootmgllSoil Friction = 0250 Key Distance from Toe =
Soil height to ignorefor passive pressure = 0 00 in fc = 2,000 psi Fy =Footing Concrete Density =
Mm As%
Cover @ Top = 2 00 in @
Lateral Load Applied to
Lateral Load =
Height to Top =
Height to Bottom =
Stem Construction
Stem | ' Adjacent Footing Load
0 0 #/ft Ad|acent Footing Load =
0 00 ft Footing Width =
0 00 ft Eccentricity =
Wall to Ftg CL Dist =
Footing Type
Base Above/Below Soil
at Back of Wall
Poisson's Ratio =
k Top Stem
Strengths |
1 00 ft
200
3 00
1200m
1200m
1000m
050ft
60,000 psi
15000pcf
00018
Btm = 3 00 in
1
00 Ibs
000ft
000 in
000ft
Line Load
00ft
0300
Design Height Above Ftc ft = 0 00
Wall Material Above "Ht" = Masonry
Thickness = 8 00
RebarSize = #4
Rebar Spacing = 24 00
Rebar Placed at = Edge
fb/FB + fa/Fa = o 851
Total Force @ Section Ibs = 592 0
Moment Actual ft-# = 824 9
Moment Allowable = 969 8
Shear Actual psi= 101
Shear Allowable psi = 38 7
Wall Weight = 78 0
Rebar Depth 'd' in = 5 25
LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE in = 24 00
LAP SPLICE IF BELOW m =
HOOK EMBED INTO FTG m = 7 99
Masonry Data
fm
Fs
Solid Grouting
Special Inspection
Modular Ratio 'n'
Short Term Factor
Equiv Solid Thick
Masonry Block Type
Masonry Design Method
Concrete Data
fc
Fy
psi= 1,500
psi= 24,000
Yes
Yes
2148
1 000
m= 760
= Medium Weight
= ASD
psi =
psi =
Partners Planning & Engineering
Andrew J Kann
15938 Bernardo Center Drive
San Diego, CA 92127
Tel (858)376-3444
Title Bressi Ranch Lots 33-39
Job # 578 00 Dsgnr Andrew„
Description
4' Retaining Wall
Page
Date MAY 16,2007
This Wall in File p \dwg\578\bressi ranch lots 33-39 rp5
Retain Pro 2007 25 Apr 2007 (c) 1989-2007
www retainpro com/support for latest release
Registration # RP-1160795 RP2007 C Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Code 1997 UBC
rFooting Design Results
Toe Heel
ractored Pressure = 1
Wu' Upward =
\Au' Downward =
Mu Design =
Actual 1 -Way Shear =
Allow 1 -Way Shear
Toe Reinforcing
Heel Reinforcing
Key Reinforcing
333 119psf
800 0 ft-#
259 0 ft-#
541 1,320ft-#
670 1405DSI
= 76 03 76 03 psi Other Acceptable Sizes
= #4(3
= #4@
= None
1800 in
18 00 in
Spec'd
Toe
Heel
Key
Not req'd,
Not req'd,
Not req'd,
Mu
Mu
Mu
<S
<S<s
& Spacings
*Fr
*Fr
*Fr
Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments
OVERTURNING
Force Distance Moment
Item Ibs ft ft-#
Heel Active Pressure = 1,2684 189 2.3958
Toe Active Pressure = -1225 078 -953
Surcharge Over Toe =
Adjacent Footing Load =
Added Lateral Load =
Load @ Stem Above Soil =
Total = 1,1459 OTM = 2,3006
Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 215
Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 2,448 6 Ibs
Vertical component of active pressure used for soil pressure
RESISTINGForce Distance
Ibs ft
Soil Over Heel =
Sloped Soil Over Heel =
Surcharge Over Heel =
Adjacent Footing Load =
Axial Dead Load on Stem =
Soil Over Toe _
Surcharge Over Toe _
Stem Weight(s) _
Earth @ Stem Transitions.
Footing Weighl _
Key Weight _
Vert Component _
TotaP=
6667
556
1667
351 0
4500
1250
6337
2,4486 Ibs
233
256
000
050
1 33
1 50
1 00
300
RM =
Moment
ft-#
1,5556
1420
833
4680
6750
1250
1,901 2
4,950 1
DESIGNER NOTES
Partners Planning & Engineering
Andrew J Kann
1 5938 Bernardo Center Drive
San Diego, CA 92127
Tel (858)376-3444
Title Bressi Ranch Lots 33-39
Job # 578 00 Dsgnr Andrew J
Description
6' Retamm g Wall
Page
Date MAY 16,2007
This Wall in File p \dwg\578\bressi ranch lots 33-39 rp5
Retain Pro 2007 25-Apr 2007 (c) 1989 2007
www retampro com/support for latest release
Registration # RP 1160795 RP2007 C Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Code 1997 UBC
Criteria |
Retained Height = 6 00 ft
Wall height above soil = 0 50 ft
Slope Behind Wall = 2 00 1
Height of Soil over Toe = 24 00 in
Water height over heel = 0 0 ft
Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf
Vertical component of active
lateral soil pressure options
USED for Soil Pressure
USED for Sliding Resistance
USED for Overturning Resistance
Surcharge Loads |
Surcharge Over Heel = 0 0 psf
Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning
Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf
Used for Sliding & Overturning
Axial Load Applied to Stem |
Axial Dead Load = 0 0 Ibs
Axial Live Load = 0 0 Ibs
Axial Load Eccentricity = 0 0 in
*Design Summary |
/Vail Stability Ratios
Overturning = 2 29 OK
Sliding = 1 62 OK
Total Bearing Load = 4,937 Ibs
resultant ecc = 6 48 in
Soil Pressure @ Toe = 1,887 psf OK
Soil Pressure @ Heel = 307 psf OK
Allowable = 2,500 psf
Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable
ACI Factored @ Toe = 1 ,647 psf
ACI Factored @ Heel = 268 psf
Footing Shear @ Toe = 12 3 psi OK
Footing Shear @ Heel = 27 9 psi OK
Allowable = 76 0 psi
lidmg Calcs (Vertical Component Used)
Lateral Sliding Force = 2 325 5 Ibs
less 100% Passive Force = - 2,531 3 Ibs
less 100% Friction Force = - 1,234 4 Ibs
Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK
for 1 5 1 Stability = 0 0 Ibs OK
Building Code UBC 1997
Dead Load 1 200
Live Load 1 600
Earth, H 1 600
Wind, W 1 300
Seismic, E 1 000
Soil Data | Footing Dimensions &
Allow Soil Bearing = 2 500 0 psf Toe Width =
Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Heel Width =
Heel Active Pressure = 79 0 psf/ft Total Footing Width =
Toe Active Pressure = 45 0 psf/ft Footing Thickness =
Passive Pressure = 250 0 psf/ft
SOU Density = 12500pcf «« J£J !
FootmgllSoil Friction = 0250 Key Distance from Toe =
Soil height to ignore
for passive pressure = 0 00 in fc = 2'000 PSI FV =
Footing Concrete Density =
Mm As% =
Cover @ Top = 2 00 in @
Lateral Load Applied to
Lateral Load =
Height to Top =
Height to Bottom =
1 Stem Construction
Design Height Above Ftc
Wall Material Above "Ht1
Thickness
Rebar Size
Rebar Spacing
Rebar Placed at
Stem | : Adjacent Footing Load
0 0 #/ft Adjacent Footing Load
0 00 ft Footing Width =
0 00 ft Eccentricity =
Wall to Ftg CL Dist
Footing Type
Base Above/Below Soil
at Back of Wall
Poisson's Ratio =
• Top Stem 2nd
J Stem OK Stem OKft= 400 000
= Masonry Masonry
800 1200
#5 #5
1600 1600
= Edge Edge
Strengths |
1 50ft
300
450
1200m
1200m
1800m
050ft
60 000 psi
15000pcf
00018
Btm = 3 00 in
1
00 Ibs
000ft
000 in
000ft
Line Load
00ft
0300
fb/FB + fa/Fa = 0053 0729
Total Force @ Section Ibs = 1 58 0 1 ,332 0
Moment Actual ft-#= 1053 2,7840
Moment Allowable ft-#= 1,9861 3,8204
Shear Actual psi= 28 134
Shear Allowable psi = 38 7 38 7
Wall Weight psf= 780 1240
Rebar Depth 'd' in = 5 25 9 00
LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE in = 30 00 30 00
LAP SPLICE IF BELOW m= 3000
HOOK EMBED INTO FTG in = 8 55
Masonry Data
fm
Fs
Solid Grouting
Special Inspection
Modular Ratio 'n'
Short Term Factor
Equiv Solid Thick
Masonry Block Type
Masonry Design Method
Concrete Data
fc
Fy
psi= 1,500 1,500
psi= 24,000 24,000
Yes Yes
Yes Yes
21 48 21 48
1 000 1 000
m= 760 1160
= Medium Weight
= ASD
psi =
psi =
Partners Planning & Engineering
Andrew J Kann
15938 Bernardo Center Drive
San Diego, CA 92127
Tel (858)376-3444
Title Bressi Ranch Lots 33-39
Job # 578 00 Dsgnr Andrew J
Description
6' Retaintn g Wall
Page
Date MAY 16,2007
This Wall in File p \dwg\578\bressi ranch lots 33-39 rp5
Retain Pro 2007 25 Apr 2007 (c) 1989 2007
www retampro com/support for latest release
Registration # RP 1160795 RP2007-C Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Code 1997 UBC
Footing Design Results
Factored Pressure
Mu' Upward
Mu' Downward
Mu Design
Actual 1 -Way Shear
Allow 1 -Way Shear
Toe Reinforcing
Heel Reinforcing
Key Reinforcing
=
#4
#4
#4
Toe
1,647
2248
735
1,513
12 31
7603
@ 18 00 in
@ 1 1 75 in
@ 1250m
Heel
268
0
0
4,454
2791
7603
psf
ft-#
ft-#
ft-#
psi
psi Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacmgs
Toe Not req'd Mu < S * Fr
Heel #4@ 11 75 in, #5@ 18 25 in, #6@ 25 75 in #7@ 35 25 in, #8@ 46 25 in, #9@ 4
Key #4@ 12 50 in, #5@ 19 25 in, #6@ 27 25 in, #7@ 37 25 in,
[ Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments
OVERTURNINGForce Distance
em Ibs ft
eel Active Pressure =
se Active Pressure =
25280
-2025
267
1 00
Moment
ft-#
6,741 3
-2025
RESISTING
Force Distance
Ibs ft
Soil Over Heel =
Sloped Soil Over Heel =
1,5000
1250
350
383
Moment
ft-#
5,250 0
4792
Surcharge Over Toe =
Adjacent Footing Load =
Added Lateral Load =
Load @ Stem Above Soil =
Total = 2,325 5 O T M = 6,538 8
Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 2 29
Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 4,937 4 Ibs
Vertical component of active pressure used for soil pressure
Surcharge Over Heel =
Adjacent Footing Load =
Axial Dead Load on Stem =
Soil Over Toe _
Surcharge Over Toe _
Stem Weight(s) _
Earth @ Stem Transitions.
Footing Weigh! _
Key Weight ~
Vert Component _
Totaf=~
3750
691 0
833
6750
2250
J_,263 1
4,937 4
000
075
Ibs
281 3
1 95
233
225
1 00
450
RM =
1,3495
1944
1,5188
2250
56840
14,982 1
DESIGNER NOTES
Partners Planning & Engineering
Andrew J Kann
15938 Bernardo Center Drive
San Diego, CA 92127
Tel (858)376-3444
Title Bressi Ranch Lots 33-39
Job # 578 00 Dsgnr Andrew
Description
8' Retaining Wall
Page
Date MAY 16,2007
This Wall in File p \dwg\578\bressi ranch lots 33-39 rpS
Retain Pro 2007 25 Apr 2007 (c) 1989 2007
www retampro com/support for latest release
Registration # RP 1160795 RP2007 C Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Code 1997 UBC
Criteria Soil Data
Retained Height
Wall height above soil =
Slope Behind Wall
Height of Soil over Toe =
Water height over heel =
800ft
050ft
200 1
24 00 in
00ft
Allow Soil Bearing = 2 500 0 psf
Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method
• ' Footing Dimensions & Strengths |
Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf
Vertical component of active
lateral soil pressure options
USED for Soil Pressure
USED for Sliding Resistance
USED for Overturning Resistance
Heel Active Pressure
Toe Active Pressure
Passive Pressure
Soil Density
Footmg||Soil Friction
Soil height to ignore
for passive pressure
Surcharge Loads
Surcharge Over Heel = 0 0 psf
Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning
Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf
Used for Sliding & Overturning
• Axial Load Applied to Stem
Axial Dead Load =
Axial Live Load =
Axial Load Eccentricity =
OOlbs
OOlbs
00 in
*Design Summary
Wall Stability Ratios
Overturning
Sliding
Total Bearing Load
resultant ecc
207 OK
1 51 OK
7,646 Ibs
9 34 in
ACI Factored @ Toe =
ACI Factored @ Heel =
Footing Shear @ Toe =
Footing Shear @ Heel =
Allowable =
2,005 psf
208 psf
143 psi OK
29 7 psi OK
76 0 psi
Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component Used)
Lateral Sliding Force
less 100% Passive Force =
less 100% Friction Force =
Added Force Req'd =
for 1 5 1 Stability
Load Factors — -
Building Code
Dead Load
Live Load
Earth, H
Wind W
Seismic, E
79 0 psf/ft
45 0 psf/ft
250 0 psf/ft
12500pcf
0250
000 in
Toe Width
Heel Width
Total Footing Width
Footing Thickness
Key Width
Key Depth
Key Distance from Toe
= "
=
275ft
300
575
1800m
1200m
28 00 in
050ft
fc = 2,000 psi Fy = 60 000 psi
Footing Concrete Density = 15000pcf
Mm As% = 00018
Cover @ Top = 2 00 in @ Btm = 3 00 in
Lateral Load Applied to Stem | | Adjacent Footing Load
Lateral Load
Height to Top
Height to Bottom
00#/ft
000ft
000ft
Adjacent Footing Load =
Footing Width =
Eccentricity =
Wall to Ftg CL Dist
Footing Type
Base Above/Below Soil
at Back of Wall
Poisson's Ratio =
OOlbs
000ft
0 00 in
000ft
Line Load
00ft
0300
Soil Pressure @ Toe = 2,409 psf OK
Soil Pressure @ Heel = 250 psf OK
Allowable = 2,500 psf
Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable
4,079 3 Ibs
4,253 5 Ibs
1,911 5 Ibs
0 0 Ibs OK
0 0 Ibs OK
UBC 1997
1 200
1 600
1 600
1 300
1 000
Stem Construction | Top stem
Design Height Above Ftc ft =
Wall Material Above "Ht"
Thickness =
Rebar Size =
Rebar Spacing =
Rebar Placed at =
fb/FB + fa/Fa
Total Force @ Section Ibs =
Moment Actual ft-# =
Moment Allowable ft-# =
Shear Actual psi =
Shear Allowable psi =
Wall Weight psf =
Rebar Depth 'd' in =
LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE in =
LAP SPLICE IF BELOW m =
HOOK EMBED INTO FTG in =
Masonry Data
fm psi =
Fs psi =
Solid Grouting =
Special Inspection =
Modular Ratio 'n' =
Short Term Factor =
Equiv Solid Thick in =
Masonry Block Type =
Masonry Design Method =
Concrete Data
f c psi =
Fy psi =
Stem OK400
Masonry
800
# 5
1600
Edge
0424
6320
8427
1 ,986 1
11 2
387
780
525
3000
3000
1,500
24,000
Yes
Yes
21 48
1 000
760
2nd
Stem OK000
Masonry
1200
# 6
800
Edge
0966
2,438 0
6,681 3
6,9155
259
387
1240
900
3600
9 13
1,500
24,000
Yes
Yes
21 48
1 000
11 60
Medium Weight
ASD
Partners Planning & Engineering
Andrew J Kann
15938 Bernardo Center Drive
San Diego, CA 92t27
Tel (858)376-3444
Title Bressi Ranch Lots 33-39
Job # 578 00 Dsgnr Andrew >,
Description
8' Retaining Wall
Page
Date MAY 16,2007
This Wall in File p \dwg\578\bressi ranch lots 33-39 rp5
Retain Pro 2007 25 Apr 2007 (c) 1989-2007
www retampro com/support for latest release
Registration # RP-1160795 RP2007-C Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Code 1997UBC
Footing Design Results
Factored Pressure
Mu' Upward
Mu' Downward
Mu Design
Actual 1 -Way Shear
Allow 1-Way Shear
Toe Reinforcing
Heel Reinforcing
Key Reinforcing
Toe
2,005
7618
2,565
5,053
14 31
7603
= #4@ 1325
= #4 @ 11 75
= #4 @ 1250
Heel
208 psf
1.120ft-#
10,884 ft-#
9.764 ft-#
29 73 psi
76 03 psi
in
in
in
Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacmgs
Toe Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr
Heel #4@ 7 25 in, #5@ 11 25 in, #6@ 16 00 in, #7@ 21 75 in #
Key #4@ 12 50 in, #5@ 19 25 in, #6@ 27 25 in, #7@ 37 25 in,
28 50 in, #9@ 36
Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments
OVERTURNING
Force Distance Moment
em Ibs ft ft-#
eel Active Pressure =
oe Active Pressure =
4,354 9
-2756
350
1 17
15,2421
-321 6
Soil Over Heel =
Sloped Soil Over Hee, =
RESISTING
Force Distance
Ibs ft
2,000 0
1250
475
508
Moment
ft-#
9,500 0
6354
Surcharge Over Toe =
Adjacent Footing Load =
Added Lateral Load =
Load @ Stem Above Soil =
Total = 40793 OTM = 14,9205
Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 2 07
Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 7,645 8 Ibs
Vertical component of active pressure used for soil pressure
Surcharge Over Heel =
Adjacent Footing Load =
Axial Dead Load on Stem =
Soil Over Toe .
Surcharge Over Toe .
Stem Weight(s)
Earth @ Stem Transitions.
Footing Weighl
Key Weight ~
Vert Component .
6875
8470
1667
1.2938
3500
2,1759
Total =7,645 8 Ibs
000
1 38
3 18
358
288
1 00
575
RM =
9453
2,694 3
5972
3,7195
3500
_12511_4_
30,953?'
DESIGNER NOTES
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK
Bressi Ranch Lots 33-37
Planning Area 5
Carlsbad, California
for
St. Croix Capital
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
«& ^WB* '''••*" -'*k''•••••* '" '• ••• ** - ft'1 »? •Soutftern California Geotech^Bkii-*-. *'->'^r
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK
Bressi Ranch Lots 33-37
Planning Area 5
Carlsbad, California
for
St. Croix Capital
Southern California Geotechnical
St. Croix Capital
c/o Mr Jim Jacobs
2720 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
March 3, 2005
Project No 05G109-1
Subject Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Business Park
Bressi Ranch Lots 33-37
Planning Area 5
SEC of Palomar Airport Road and El Fuerte
Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen
In accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation at the
subject site We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and
recommendations developed from our investigation.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look
forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project If
we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office
Respectfully Submitted,
Southern California Geotechnical, Inc.
Ro 3ert G Trazo, m Sc , GE 2655
mmara, CEG2125
pal(£eologist
Distribution-''(5) Addressee
1?fin North Hancock Street Suite 101 • Anaheim California 92807-1951 • (714)777-0333 • Fax (714) 777-0398
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Site Description 4
3.2 Proposed Development 4
3.3 Previous Studies 5
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ?
4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods 9
4.2 Geotechnical Conditions 9
43 Geologic Conditions 10
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING 11
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13
6.1 Seismic Design Considerations 13
6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations 15
63 Site Grading Recommendations 17
6.4 Construction Considerations 20
6 5 Foundation Design and Construction 22
6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction 23
6 7 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations 24
6.8 Pavement Design Parameters 26
7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 29
APPENDICES
A Plate 1: Site Location Map
Plate 2: Boring Location Plan
B Boring Logs
C Laboratory Test Results
D Grading Guide Specifications
E UBCSEIS Computer Program Output
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this
investigation. Since this summary is not all inclusive, it should be read in complete
context with the entire report
Site Preparation
• No significant topsoil or vegetation was present at the site at the time of the
subsurface exploration Any vegetation that develops prior to site grading should be
stripped and removed from the site
• The site is underlain by recently placed compacted fill soils and sandstone, siltstone
and claystone bedrock. The fill soils extend to depths of up to y/2± feet within the
footprints of the proposed nine (9) buildings
• In order to provide for a new layer of structural fill that will help mitigate the potential
cut/fill and geologic contact transitions, it is recommended that remedial grading be
performed within the proposed building pad areas
• The building pad areas underlain by shallow bedrock (Proposed Buildings A - I)
should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet below existing grade and to a
depth of at least 3 feet below proposed pad grade The depth of overexcavation
should be sufficient to provide at least 3 feet of new structural fill beneath the
bearing grade of all foundations
• Following completion of the recommended overexcavation, exposed soils should be
evaluated by the geotechnical engineer After the subgrade soils have been
approved by the geotechnical engineer, the resulting soils may be replaced as
compacted structural fill
• A precise grading plan review is recommended subsequent to preparation of the
plan in order to confirm the recommendations contained herein
Building Foundations
• Shallow foundations, supported in newly placed compacted fill
• 2,500 psf maximum allowable soil bearing pressure
• Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings Four (4) No 5 rebars
(2 top and 2 bottom), due to medium expansive potential of near surface soils
Building Floor Slabs
• Slab-on-Grade, at least 5 inches thick
• Minimum slab reinforcement No 3 bars at 18-mches on-center, in both directions
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Pagel
Pavements
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
Materials
Asphalt Concrete
Aggregate Base
Compacted Subgrade (90%
minimum compaction)
Thickness (inches)
Auto Parking
(Tl = 40)
3
6
12
Auto Drive
Lanes
(Tl = 50)
3
9
12
Light Truck
Traffic
(Tl = 60)
31/2
11
12
Moderate
Truck Traffic
(Tl = 7 0)
4
13
12
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
Materials
PCC
Compacted Subgrade
(95% minimum compaction)
Thickness (inches)
Automobile Parking
and Drive Areas
5
12
Light Truck Traffic
(Tl = 60)
51/2
12
Moderate Truck
Traffic
(Tl = 70)
7
12
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 2
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services performed for this project was m accordance with our Proposal
No 05P104, dated January 5, 2005 The scope of services included review of previous
reports, a visual site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and laboratory
testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis to provide criteria for preparing design of
the building foundations, building floor slabs, and parking lot pavements along with site
preparation recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed
development The evaluation of environmental aspects of this site was beyond the
scope of services for this geotechnical investigation.
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Pages
3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Site Description
The subject site is located within the recently mass graded Bressi Ranch Industrial Park
which is located south of Palomar Airport Road in the city of Carlsbad, California The
specific site is a portion of Planning Area 5 or Lot 33 through Lot 37, and consists of
9 5± acres located southeast of the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El Fuerte.
The general location of the site is illustrated on the Site Location Map, included as Plate
1 in Appendix A of this report
The subject site is an irregular shaped parcel, with overall dimensions of 450 to 550±
feet in the north-south direction and 1000± feet in the east-west direction. At the time of
the subsurface exploration, ground surface cover consisted of exposed soil with
negligible to sparse grass and weed growth Some of the surrounding finished slopes
have been recently hydro-seeded to establish vegetation An existing de-silting basin is
located near the southwestern corner of the site
Site topography consists of gently sloping terrain, dipping downward to the southwest
Topographic information provided to our office indicates that site grades range from a
maximum of El 425± feet msl (mean sea level) near the northwest property corner to a
minimum of El 405± feet msl at the southwest property corner
3.2 Proposed Development
Preliminary information regarding the proposed development was obtained from the site
plan prepared by Smith Consulting Architects This plan has been provided to our
office by the client This plan indicates that the new development will consist of nine (9)
separate buildings The proposed building footprints will range in size from 6,400± ft2 to
20,000± ft2
Detailed structural information is not currently available. It is, however, assumed that
the buildings will be of concrete tilt-up construction, typically supported on conventional
shallow foundation systems and concrete slabs on grade. Based on the assumed
construction, maximum column and wall loads are expected to be on the order of 60
kips and 3 kips per linear foot, respectively
Southern California Geotechnlcal Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 4
3.3 Previous Studies
As part of our investigation of the overall site, including Planning Areas PA-1 through
PA-5, we were provided with several geotechnical reports The geotechnical reports
provided to us consist of preliminary and supplemental geotechnical investigations, a
summary report of mass grading, and as graded reports of mass grading The subject
site has been recently rough graded to its current configuration under the purview of
Leighton and Associates, Inc The reports which are applicable to the entire site,
including all of the Planning Areas, are summarized below
• Geotechnical Investigation. Bressi Ranch Corporate Center. Planning Areas 1
through 5. SEC of Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real. Carlsbad.
California: prepared for Sares Regis Group by Southern California Geotechnical,
Inc , dated May 3, 2004, Project No 03G259-2
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation of Planning Areas 1
through 5 subsequent to the mass grading Subsurface exploration performed as part of
this geotechnical investigation included twenty (20) borings advanced to depths of 5 to
191/2± feet below currently existing site grades The maximum depth of the borings was
limited to less than 20 feet due to permit restrictions imposed by the San Diego County
Department of Environmental Health (DEH).
Based on the subsurface conditions, the site is underlain by recently placed compacted
fill soils and sandstone and claystone bedrock The fill soils extend to depths of up to
90± feet and were placed under the purview of a geotechnical engineer The existing fill
soils and bedrock possesses relatively high strengths, and highly variable expansive
potentials.
Based on the variable expansive potentials and differing strengths of the engineered fill
and bedrock, and in order to provide for a new layer of structural fill that will help
mitigate the potential cut/fill transitions, it was recommended that remedial grading be
performed within the proposed building pad areas
The building pad areas were recommended to be overexcavated to a depth of at least 5
feet below existing grade and to a depth of at least 4 feet below proposed pad grade
The depth of overexcavation should be sufficient to provide at least 3 feet of new
structural fill beneath the bearing grade of all foundations
• Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation for Mass Grading. Bressi Ranch.
Carlsbad. California, prepared for Lennar Homes by Leighton and Associates,
Inc , dated March 14, 2001, Project No 971009-005
This report presents the results of a supplemental geotechnical investigation to update
their earlier preliminary geotechnical report prepared in 1997. Subsurface exploration
performed as part of the supplemental geotechnical investigation included eight (8)
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
PageS
large diameter borings and fifty-six (56) exploratory trenches Logs of these
supplemental borings and trenches as well as previous work by Leighton and others is
included in the report and summarized on the Geotechnical Map included therein
Based on the presented information, the subject site is primarily underlain by sandstone
bedrock The bedrock is indicated to consist of the Tertiary age Santiago formation,
which is described as massively bedded sandstone with some zones of claystone and
siltstone Some minor areas of shallow undocumented fill, terrace deposits, and
alluvial/colluvial soils were also mapped within the boundaries of the subject site
Although the majority of the mapped, larger ancient landslides are located outside the
boundaries of the subject site, two (2) small ancient landslides were mapped on the
subject site, east of PA-1 and PA-2. Due to their small scale, they were recommended
to be removed in their entirety and replaced as compacted fill. Remedial grading
recommendations contained in this report indicate that all undocumented fill and
alluvial/colluvial soils should be completely removed to competent material.
• Supplemental Geotechnical Landslide Investigation. Planning Areas PA-1. PA-2.
and PA-10 through PA-12. Bressi Ranch. Carlsbad. California, prepared for
Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc., dated February 12, 2003,
Project No 971009-007.
This report presents the results of a supplemental geotechnical landslide investigation
for specific portions of the site Subsurface exploration performed as part of the
supplemental geotechnical landslide investigation included nine (9) large diameter
borings and five (5) exploratory trenches in the areas of the previously mapped ancient
landslides Logs of these additional borings and trenches as well as revised cross
sections are included in the report.
The area of the subject site addressed by this report includes the eastern portion of
planning areas PA-1 and PA-2 where several nested ancient landslides were mapped
Cross Sections E-E' and P-P' depict the mapped geologic conditions and the
recommended remedial grading, which consisted of complete removal of the landslides
and replacement as engineered fill This report restates the previous remedial grading
recommendations and provides slope stability calculations to justify the proposed
grading configurations
• Geotechnical Recommendations Concerning 95 Percent Relative Compaction of
Fill Deeper than 40 Feet. Bressi Ranch. Carlsbad. California, prepared for
Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc , dated February 13, 2003,
Project No 971009-007
This report addresses the settlement potential of deep fill areas and provides
recommendations to reduce the time period for the majority of the settlement to occur
In several areas of the overall project, fills up to 80 to 90± feet in thickness were
planned to achieve the design grades Deep fill areas on the subject site are located in
Southern California Geotectintcat Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page6
the eastern portion of PA-2, and two small areas within PA-3 and PA-5. The report
recommends that all structural fills below a depth of 40 feet from finish grade be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density, and
estimates that the time period for the majority of the settlement to occur will be reduced
from 6 to 12 months to 3 to 8+ months Near surface settlement monuments were
recommended to be installed immediately after rough grading, with survey intervals of
once a week for the first month, then twice a month for 3 months, and then monthly to
determine completion primary settlement of deep fills The recommended locations of
the near surface settlement monuments are indicated to be contained on an index map
within this report, however, the copy provided to us does not contain this plan
• Summary of the As-Graded Geotechnical Conditions and Partial Completion of
Rough and Fine Grading. Planning Areas PA-1 Through PA-5. Bressi Ranch.
Carlsbad. California, prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and
Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2004, Project No. 971009-014.
This summary report indicates that grading of Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-3 is
essentially complete, and that grading is ongoing in Planning Areas PA-4 and PA-5
Grading operations were reportedly performed in general accordance with the
recommendations presented in Leighton's previous geotechnical reports. Geotechnical
issues presented in this summary report which were not discussed in the previous
reports include the presence of inactive faults within PA-4 and PA-5, perched
groundwater within the overexcavated tributary canyons on the east side of PA-1 and
PA-2, oversize materials within the engineered fills, high to very high expansive soils at
or near finish grade, and some severe sulfate concentrations which would require the
use of specialized concrete mix designs
• As Graded Report of Mass Grading. Planning Areas PA-1. PA-2. and PA-3.
Metropolitan Street, and a Portion of Town Garden Road. Gateway Road, and
Alicante Road. Carlsbad Tract No 00-06. Bressi Ranch. Carlsbad. California.
prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and Associates, Inc, dated April
15, 2004, Project No 971009-014
This report documents the mass grading of Planning Areas PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3 as
well as a portion of the interior streets. Most of the information contained in this report
was presented in the January 20, 2004 summary report The conclusions and
recommendations are also similar to the previous report. With respect to the deep fills
on this portion of the site, Leighton concluded that most of the anticipated settlement is
complete, but the seven settlement monuments should be continued to be monitored.
Soluble sulfate test results range from negligible to severe, and expansion index test
results range from low (El = 46) to very high (El = 163) Preliminary pavement sections
are presented and are based on assumed R-value of 12 Maximum cuts and fills within
Planning Areas PA-1, PA-2, and PA-3 are documented as 25 and 90 feet, respectively
Fill soils below a depth of 40 feet were compacted to at least 95% of ASTM 1557
maximum dry density.
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page?
• Addendum to As-Graded Reports of Mass Grading Concerning the Completion
of Settlement Monitoring. Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-5. Bressi Ranch.
Carlsbad. California, prepared for Lennar Communities by Leighton and
Associates, Inc , dated October 11, 2004, Project No 971009-014
This report presents the data collected from the settlement monitoring program for the
deep fill (greater than 40 feet) areas of the entire site The settlement monitoring data
was collected over a period of 5 to 6 months Based on the collected data, Leighton
concludes that the primary settlement of the fill soils is essentially complete, and that
construction of improvements within Planning Areas PA-1 through PA-5 may begin
Secondary consolidation settlement of deep fills is estimated to be less than 1 to 3
inches depending on the depth of fill. Differential settlements are estimated to be on the
order of 14 inch in 25 feet
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page8
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods
The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of eight (8) borings
advanced to depths of 21/2 to191/£± feet below currently existing site grades. The
maximum depth of our borings was limited to less than 20 feet due to permit restrictions
imposed by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) All of
the borings were logged during excavation by a member of our staff
Representative bulk and m-situ soil samples were taken during drilling Relatively
undisturbed in-situ samples were taken with a split barrel "California Sampler"
containing a series of one inch long, 2 416± inch diameter brass rings. This sampling
method is described in ASTM Test Method D-3550 In-situ samples were also taken
using a 1 4± inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with
ASTM D-1586 Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive
blows of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving
are recorded for further analysis Bulk samples were taken at periodic locations in the
trenches The bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain their original
moisture content The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in molded
plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory
The approximate location of the borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan,
included as Plate 2 of this report The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions
encountered at the boring locations, as well as some of the results of the laboratory
testing, are included in Appendix B
4.2 Geotechnical Conditions
Presented below is a generalized summary of the subsurface conditions encountered at
the boring locations More detailed descriptions of the conditions encountered are
illustrated on the Boring Logs, included in Appendix B
Artificial Fill
Artificial fill soils were encountered at the ground surface at five (5) of the eight (8)
boring locations These fill soils extend to depths of V/z to at least 3Vz feet below
existing grade The fill soils encountered in the borings generally consist of medium stiff
to very stiff, sandy clays, and dense clayey sands Occasional samples of the fill
materials possess minor debris content including bedrock fragments, asphalt, concrete,
etc The fill soils possess moderately high strengths, moisture contents near or above
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 9
optimum and based on their color mottling and composition, appeared to be well mixed
Bedrock
Bedrock was encountered either at the ground surface or beneath the fill soils at all
eight (8) boring locations. The bedrock encountered at this site consists of Tertiary age
Santiago formation, which is comprised of dense to very dense sandstone with some
zones of claystone and siltstone Bedding within the Santiago formation on site is
generally massive with no significant planes of weakness or discontinuities The
sandstone unit is typically light gray in color, contains moderate iron oxide staining, and
is comprised of weakly cemented silty fine sand. The siltstone unit is typically light gray
to gray in color, contains moderate iron oxide staining, and is comprised of fine sandy
silt. The claystone unit is typically dark gray to gray green in color, contains some shell
fragments, gypsum veins, and is comprised of silts and clays
Groundwater
Based on the water level measurements, and the moisture contents of the recovered
soil samples, the static groundwater table is considered to have existed at a depth in
excess of 20± feet at the time of the subsurface exploration Further, based on the
conditions documented in the mass grading report by Leighton, no groundwater was
encountered during grading Therefore, groundwater is expected to be at depths
greater than the extent of the fill soils, which are 45 to 50± feet thick within the overall
PA-5
4.3 Geologic Conditions
Geologic research indicates that the site is underlain by sandstone mapped as the
Santiago Formation (Map Symbol Tsa) with nearly horizontal bedding attitudes. The
primary available reference applicable to the subject site is DMG Open-File Report 96-
02. Geologic Map of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County. California, by
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996
Based on the materials encountered in the exploratory borings, it is our opinion the site
is underlain by sandstone, siltstone and claystone bedrock consisting of the Santiago
formation (Map Symbol Tsa) The bedrock encountered in the exploratory borings and
observed at the ground surface is generally massively bedded and structure is
comprised of nearly horizontal bedding with some moderately developed joints in the
upper, less weathered portions of the bedrock
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 10
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our
laboratory for further testing to determine selected physical and engineering properties
of the soils The tests are briefly discussed below It should be noted that the test
results are specific to the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected at
other locations and depths
Classification
All recovered soil samples were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS), in accordance with ASTM D-2488 Field identifications were then
supplemented with additional visual classifications and/or by laboratory testing The
USCS classifications are shown on the Boring Logs and Trench Logs and are
periodically referenced throughout this report
In-situ Density and Moisture Content
The density has been determined for selected relatively undisturbed ring samples
These densities were determined in general accordance with the method presented in
ASTM D-2937 The results are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot
The moisture contents are determined in accordance with ASTM D-2216, and are
expressed as a percentage of the dry weight These test results are presented on the
Boring Logs
Consolidation
Selected soil samples have been tested to determine their consolidation potential, in
accordance with ASTM D-2435 The testing apparatus is designed to accept either
natural or remolded samples in a one-inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in
diameter Each sample is then loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and
the resulting deflection is recorded at selected time intervals Porous stones are in
contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore
water The samples are typically inundated with water at an intermediate load to
determine their potential for collapse or heave The results of the consolidation testing
are plotted on Plates C-1 through C-4 in Appendix C of this report
Expansion Index
The expansion potential of the on-site soils was determined in general accordance with
Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard 18-2 The testing apparatus is designed to
accept a 4-mch diameter, 1-m high, remolded sample. The sample is initially remolded
to 50 ± 1 percent saturation and then loaded with a surcharge equivalent to 144 pounds
per square foot The sample is then inundated with water, and allowed to swell against
Southern California Geotechnlcal Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 11
the surcharge The resultant swell or consolidation is recorded after a 24-hour period
The results of the El testing are as follows
Sample Identification Expansion Index Expansive Potential
B-1 @ 0 to 5 feet 57 Medium
Soluble Sulfates
Representative samples of the near-surface soils have been submitted to a
subcontracted analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble
sulfates are naturally present in soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result
in degradation of concrete which comes into contact with these soils The results of the
soluble sulfate testing are presented below, and are discussed further in a subsequent
section of this report.
Sample Identification Soluble Sulfates (%) Sulfate Classification
B-3 @ 0 to 5 feet 0.875 Severe
B-6 @ 0 to 5 feet 0 022 Neghble
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad. CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 12
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our review, field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical
analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the
design, construction, and grading considerations The recommendations are
contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities being monitored by
the geotechnical engineer of record. The Grading Guide Specifications, included as
Appendix D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated into
the project specifications The contractor and/or owner of the development should
bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from those
stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development. Following
completion of the recommended grading and foundation construction procedures, the
subject site is considered suitable for its intended use
6.1 Seismic Design Considerations
The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to
earthquakes. The completion of a site specific seismic hazards analysis is beyond the
scope of services for this geotechnical investigation However, it should be noted that
numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the
subject site Due to economic considerations, it is not generally considered reasonable
to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthquake damage Therefore,
significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The
proposed structures should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and
thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property
damage and loss of life
Faulting and Seismicitv
Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Therefore, the possibility of significant fault
rupture on the site is considered to be low
Seismic Design Parameters
The proposed development must be designed in accordance with the requirements of
the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) The UBC provides procedures
for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil
conditions, seismic zoning, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including
the structural system and height The seismic design parameters presented below are
based on the seismic zone, soil profile, and the proximity of known faults with respect to
the subject site
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 13
The 1997 UBC Design Parameters have been generated using UBCSEIS, a computer
program published by Thomas F. Blake (January 1998) The table below is a
compilation of the data provided by UBCSEIS, and represents the largest design values
presented by each type of fault. A copy of the output generated from this program is
included in Appendix E of this report A copy of the Design Response Spectrum, as
generated by UBCSEIS is also included in Appendix E Based on this output, the
following parameters may be utilized for the subject site
Nearest Type A Fault Elsinore-Julian (36 km)
Nearest Type B Fault Rose Canyon (12 km)
Soil Profile Type' SD
Seismic Zone Factor (Z) 0.40
Seismic Coefficient (Ca) 0 44
Seismic Coefficient (Cv) 0 64
Near-Source Factor (Na) 1.0
Near-Source Factor (Nv) 1 0
The design procedures presented by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) are intended to
protect life safety Structures designed using these minimum design procedures may
experience significant cosmetic damage and serious economic loss. The use of more
conservative seismic design parameters would provide increased safety and a lower
potential for cosmetic damage and economic loss during a large seismic event
Ultimately, the structural engineer and the project owner must determine what level of
risk is acceptable and assign appropriate seismic values to be used in the design of the
proposed structure
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the
pore-water pressure induced m the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or
exceeds the overburden pressure The primary factors which influence the potential for
liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics,
relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of
ground shaking The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact
surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing
ground surface Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine
sands with a mean (d50) gram size in the range of 0 075 to 0 2 mm (Seed and Idriss,
1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particles (d<0.005mm) in
excess of 20 percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be
susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static
groundwater table
The subsurface conditions encountered at the subject site are not conducive to
liquefaction These conditions consist of structural fill soils underlain by high strength
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 14
II
I sandstone and claystone bedrock, neither of which are susceptible to earthquake-
induced liquefaction Based on the subsurface conditions, liquefaction is not considered
to be a significant design concern for this project
6.2 Geotechnicai Design Considerations
General
The subject site is underlain by fill soils and by sandstone, siltstone and claystone
bedrock. The fill soils, extending to maximum depths of 11/£ to 3/4± feet within the
subject site, generally consist of moderate strength sandy clays and clayey sands
Laboratory testing indicates that these materials possess generally favorable
consolidation characteristics. However, the depth of fill soils varies across the site and
several cut/fill transitions between the fill and bedrock were created by the mass
grading procedures In addition, the proposed grading to establish the new finished
floor elevations is expected to result in the formation of numerous additional cut/fill
transitions and geologic contact transitions between sandstone and claystone. The
resultant subsurface profile is expected to provide variable support characteristics for
the foundations of the proposed structures. Based on these considerations, it is
recommended that remedial grading be performed within the new building areas in
order to provide a subgrade suitable for support of the foundations and floor slabs of
the new structures
Grading and Foundation Plan Review
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the
preliminary plans provided to our office No grading plans were available at the time of
this report Once preliminary grading plans become available, it is recommended that
they be provided to our office for review with regard to the conclusions and
recommendations presented herein In addition, a foundation plan was not available at
the time of this report It is recommended that preliminary foundation plans be provided
to our office once they become available Depending on the results of our review, some
modifications to the recommendations contained in this report may be warranted.
Settlement
The results of the consolidation/collapse testing indicate that the existing fill soils are
not subject to significant collapse upon moisture infiltration In addition, the existing fill
soils do not exhibit significant consolidation when exposed to load increases in the
range of those that will be imposed by the new foundations Provided that the
recommendations contained within this report are implemented in the structural design
and construction of the proposed buildings, the post-construction settlements are
expected to be within tolerable limits. Following completion of the recommended
grading, the post-construction static settlements are expected to be within tolerable
limits
Southern California Geotechnicai Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 15
Cut/Fill and Geologic Contact Transitions
All nine (9) proposed buildings are closely underlain by dense bedrock It is expected
that cuts and fills of up to 1 to 3± feet will be necessary within these building areas to
achieve the proposed subgrade elevations Therefore, cut/fill transitions are expected
to exist within these building areas after completion of the proposed grading. This cut/fill
transition condition at bearing grade raises a potential for additional differential
settlement In addition, during our subsurface investigation, we characterized the near-
surface bedrock materials as either sandstone or claystone. Based on our
observations, we have included geologic contact lines on our Plate 2 Boring Location
Plan separating areas of near-surface sandstone and claystone. It appears that
sandstone/claystone transitions exist within the proposed building areas This geologic
contact transition condition at bearing grade raises the potential for additional
differential settlement due to the differential expansion potential for claystone and
sandstone This report contains recommendations for additional remedial grading within
these building pads to remove these cut/fill and geologic contact transitions
It should be noted that the extent of areas that will require overexcavation to
mitigate cut/fill transitions will depend upon the final grades that are established
throughout the site. Therefore, the extent of this remedial grading may change,
following our review of the preliminary grading plan.
Expansion
Most of the on-site soils consist of medium expansive soils and bedrock (El = 57)
However, isolated areas of highly expansive soils may be present on the site Based on
the presence of expansive soils, special care should be taken to properly moisture
condition and maintain adequate moisture content within all subgrade soils as well as
newly placed fill soils. The foundation and floor slab design recommendations
contained within this report are made in consideration of the expansion index test
results It is expected that significant blending of the on-site soils will occur during
precise grading procedures, and that the resulting building pad subgrade soils will
possess medium expansion potentials It is recommended that additional expansion
index testing be conducted at the completion of precise grading to verify the expansion
potential of the as-graded building pads
Shrinkage/Subsidence
Based on experience with similar soils and rock materials near the subject site, removal
and recompaction of the existing near-surface engineered fill soils is estimated to result
in average shrinkage or bulking of less than 5 percent Where the existing bedrock is
overexcavated and replaced as structural fill, bulking on the order of 0 to 5 percent is
expected
These estimates are based on previous experience and the subsurface conditions
encountered at the boring locations The actual amount of subsidence is expected to
Southern California Geotectinlcal Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 16
be variable and will be dependant on the type of machinery used, repetitions of use,
and dynamic effects, all of which are difficult to assess precisely
Sulfates
The results of the soluble sulfate testing, as discussed in Section 5 0 of this report,
indicate that the on-site soils possess negligible to severe concentrations of soluble
sulfates, with regard to attack of subsurface concrete Therefore, specialized sulfate
resistant concrete mix designs will be necessary It is recommended that additional
testing be performed during precise grading However, based on the results of the
testing indicating severe sulfate concentrations, with respect to Uniform Building Code
and Portland Cement Association (PCA) guidelines, the UBC requires that all concrete
which will come into contact with these soils incorporate the following characteristics.
• Cement Type- V (Five)
• Minimum Compressive Strength (fc) 4,500 psi
• Maximum Water/Cement Ratio 0 45
All structural concrete should meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and
the American Concrete Institute Furthermore, any imported fill soils brought to the site
should be tested for sulfate content
6.3 Site Grading Recommendations
The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface
conditions encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed
development We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance
with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless
superseded by site specific recommendations presented below
Site Stripping
The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface
conditions encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed
development We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance
with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless
superseded by site-specific recommendations presented below
Site Stripping and Demolition
Initial site preparation should include stripping of any vegetation and organic debris
Based on conditions observed at the time of the subsurface exploration, no significant
stripping of vegetation or topsoil is expected to be necessary However, if vegetation
develops subsequent to the date of our reconnaissance, it should be removed off site.
Southern California Oeotechnlcal Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 17
Initial grading operations should also include abandonment of the existing detention
basin, located in the southwest corner of the site Any softened soils, silt deposits,
water, or other unsuitable materials should be removed from the detention basin
Removals should extend to a depth of suitable structural compacted fill soils or
bedrock. Where the detention basins are located within proposed building areas, the
building pad overexcavation recommendations should also be implemented
Treatment of Existing Soils' Building Pads
As discussed above, remedial grading will be necessary in several of the building areas
to mitigate potential cut/fill and geologic contact transitions that will exist at or near the
proposed foundation bearing grade.
Remedial grading should be performed within the areas of all nine (9) buildings to
remove and replace a portion of the dense bedrock as engineered fill. The existing
bedrock should be overexcavated to provide for a new layer of compacted structural fill,
extending to a depth of at least 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing grade,
throughout the building areas Building I is partially underlain by fill soils extending to a
depth of 31/1± feet Depending upon the proposed pad elevations within this building,
overexcavation may not be required within Building I
In general, the overexcavations should extend at least 5 feet beyond the building
perimeters If the proposed structures incorporate any exterior columns (such as for a
canopy or overhang) the area of overexcavation should also encompass these areas
Within areas of the proposed structures that do not require overexcavation per the
recommendations presented above, it is recommended that the existing fills be
overexcavated to a depth of at least 1 foot below existing grade, to remove any existing
weathered and/or softened fill soils, as well as to prepare the subgrade for new fill
placement
Following completion of the overexcavations, the subgrade soils (or bedrock) within the
building areas should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their
suitability to serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the foundation
loads of the new structure This evaluation should include proofrollmg with a heavy
rubber-tired vehicle to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstable soils that must be
removed Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if loose, porous,
or low density soils are encountered at the bottom of the overexcavation The exposed
subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to
2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted
Treatment of Existing Soils Retaining Walls and Site Walls
The existing soils within the areas of any proposed retaining walls underlain by less
than 2 feet of existing engineered fill soils should be overexcavated to a depth of 2 feet
below foundation bearing grade and replaced as compacted structural fill, as discussed
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 18
above for the proposed building pad Subgrade soils in areas of non-retaining site walls
should be overexcavated to a depth of 1 foot below proposed bearing grade, if not
underlain by at lest 1 foot of existing engineered fill soils In both cases, the
overexcavation subgrade soils should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior
to scarifying, moisture conditioning and recompactmg the upper 12 inches of exposed
subgrade soils. In areas where unsuitable fill soils are encountered at foundation
subgrade level, additional overexcavation or deepened footings will be necessary. The
previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill
Treatment of Existing Soils' Parking Areas
Overexcavation of the existing fill soils in the new parking areas is generally not
considered warranted, with the exception of any areas where lower strength soils are
identified by the geotechnical engineer during grading.
Subgrade preparation in the remaining new parking areas should initially consist of
completion of cuts where required. The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the
subgrade to identify any areas of unsuitable soils. Based on conditions observed at the
site at the time of drilling, no significant overexcavation is expected to be necessary
within the new parking areas. The subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of
12± inches, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4± percent above optimum, and recompacted
to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density
Depending upon the actual finished grades, which have not yet been established,
portions of the parking lot subgrades may be immediately underlain by bedrock. These
materials may be used for direct pavement subgrade support However, the owner
and/or developer of the project should understand that minor amounts of reflective
cracking and/or minor differential movements should be expected to occur near the
location of the transitions between these bedrock materials and the adjacent
engineered fill. If such cracking or minor differential movements within the pavements is
not considered acceptable, additional overexcavation should be performed within the
cut portions of the parking areas
Fill Placement
• Fill soils should be placed in thin (6± inches), near-horizontal lifts, moisture
conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and
compacted
• On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris or
oversized materials to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer
• All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance
with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the grading code of
the City of Carlsbad.
• All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557
maximum dry density Fill soils should be well mixed
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 19
• Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical
engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content These
tests are intended to aid the contractor Since the tests are taken at discrete
locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and therefore
should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the job
specifications
Imported Structural Fill
All imported structural fill should consist of low expansive (El < 30), well graded soils
possessing at least 10 percent fines (that portion of the sample passing the No 200
sieve) Additional specifications for structural fill are presented in the Grading Guide
Specifications, included as Appendix D.
Utility Trench Backfill
In general, all utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean sand (minimum Sand
Equivalent of 30) may be placed within trenches and flooded in place. Compacted
trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local grading code, and more
restrictive requirements may be indicated by the City of Carlsbad Materials used to
backfill trenches should consist of well graded granular soils with a maximum particle
size of 3 inches All utility trench backfills should be witnessed by the geotechnical
engineer The trench backfill soils should be compaction tested where possible; probed
and visually evaluated elsewhere.
Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and extending below a 1h"lv plane projected
from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with structural fill soils,
compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 standard. Sand or pea gravel
backfill, unless it is similar to the native soils, should not be used for these trenches.
6.4 Construction Considerations
Moisture Sensitive Subqrade Soils
Some of the near surface soils possess appreciable silt and clay content and will
become unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by
construction traffic In addition, based on their granular content, the on-site soils will
also be susceptible to erosion The site should, therefore, be graded to prevent
ponding of surface water and to prevent water from running into excavations
Excavation Considerations
Based on conditions encountered at the boring locations, the bedrock that underlies the
subject site possesses a dense to very dense relative density, but is somewhat friable
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 20
It is expected that it will be feasible to utilize conventional grading equipment within the
depths that were explored by the borings However, some difficulty may be encountered
during excavation, possibly requiring large single shank-equipped bulldozers,
excavators, etc The grading contractor should verify the need for special excavation
equipment prior to bidding the project
Based on the presence of predominantly granular soils throughout the development
area, minor to moderate caving of shallow excavations may to occur Flattened
excavation slopes may be sufficient to mitigate caving of shallow excavations, although
deeper excavations may require some form of external stabilization such as shoring or
bracing Temporary excavation slopes should be no steeper than 1h.1v. All excavation
activities on this site should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations.
Expansive Soils
The near surface on-site soils have been determined to possess a medium expansion
potential Therefore, care should be given to proper moisture conditioning of all building
pad subgrade soils to a moisture content of 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor
optimum during site grading. All imported fill soils should have very low expansive
characteristics. In addition to adequately moisture conditioning the subgrade soils and
fill soils during grading, special care must be taken to maintain the moisture content of
these soils at 2 to 4 percent above the Modified Proctor optimum This will require the
contractor to frequently moisture condition these soils throughout the grading process,
unless grading occurs during a period of relatively wet weather
Due to the presence of expansive soils at this site, provisions should be made to limit
the potential for surface water to penetrate the soils immediately adjacent to the
structures These provisions should include directing surface runoff into ram gutters
and area drains, reducing the extent of landscaped areas around the structures, and
sloping the ground surface away from the buildings. Where possible, it is recommended
that landscaped planters not be located immediately adjacent to the proposed
buildings If landscaped planters around the buildings are necessary, it is
recommended that drought tolerant plants or a drip irrigation system be utilized, to
minimize the potential for deep moisture penetration around the structure. Other
provisions, as determined by the civil engineer may also be appropriate
Groundwater
Free water was not encountered within the depths explored by the borings drilled for
this project These borings extended to a maximum depth of 20± feet below existing
grade. Based on this information, groundwater is not expected to impact the proposed
grading or foundation construction activities
Southern California Geotechntcal Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 21
6.5 Foundation Design and Construction
Based on the preceding preliminary grading recommendations, it is assumed that the
new building pads will be immediately underlain by existing or newly placed structural fill
soils extending to depths of at least 3± feet below foundation bearing grade. Based on
this subsurface profile, the proposed structures may be supported on conventional
shallow foundation systems
Foundation Design Parameters
New square and rectangular footings may be designed as follows.
• Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 2,500 Ibs/ft2. The allowable
bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 when considering short duration
wind or seismic loads
• Minimum wall/column footing width 14 inches/24 inches
• Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings Four (4) No 5
rebars (2 top and 2 bottom), due to medium expansive potential of near
surface soils
• Minimum foundation embedment 12 inches into suitable structural fill soils,
and at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. Interior column footings
may be placed immediately beneath the floor slab
• It is recommended that the perimeter foundations be continuous across all
exterior doorways Flatwork adjacent to exterior doors should be doweled into
the perimeter foundations in a manner determined by the structural engineer.
The minimum steel reinforcement recommended above is based on geotechnical
considerations. Additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural
considerations. The actual design of the foundations should be determined by the
structural engineer.
Foundation Construction
The foundation subgrade soils should be evaluated at the time of overexcavation, as
discussed in Section 6 3 of this report. It is further recommended that the foundation
subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to steel or
concrete placement Soils suitable for direct foundation support should consist of newly
placed structural fill, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum
dry density Any unsuitable bearing materials should be removed to a depth of suitable
bearing compacted structural fill, with the resulting excavations backfilled with
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 22
1
1
compacted fill soils As an alternative, lean concrete slurry (500 to 1,500 psi) may be
used to backfill such isolated overexcavations
The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to 2 to 4
percent above the Modified Proctor optimum, to a depth of at least 12 inches below
bearing grade.
Estimated Foundation Settlements
Post-construction total and differential settlements induced by the foundation loads of
the new structures are estimated to be less than 1.0 and 0 5 inches, respectively, for
shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the
recommendations provided in this report The differential movements are expected to
occur over a 30-foot span, thereby resulting in an angular distortion of less than 0 002
inches per inch.
Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base
of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below
grade. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces
• Passive Earth Pressure: 250 Ibs/ft3
• Friction Coefficient 0 25
These are allowable values, and include a factor of safety When combining friction and
passive resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third
These values assume that footings will be poured directly against suitable compacted
structural fill The maximum allowable passive pressure is 2500 Ibs/ft2
6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction
Subgrades which will support new floor slabs should be prepared in accordance with
the recommendations contained in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this
report Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, the floors of the
new structures may be constructed as conventional slabs-on-grade supported on newly
placed structural fill Based on geotechnical considerations, the floor slabs may be
designed as follows
• Minimum slab thickness 5 inches
• Minimum slab reinforcement No 3 bars at 18-mches on-center, in both
directions
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 23
• Slab underlayment 10-mil vapor barrier, overlain by 2 inches of clean sand
Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are not anticipated, the vapor
barrier and 2-mch layer of sand may be eliminated
• Moisture condition the floor slab subgrade soils to 2 to 4 percent above
optimum moisture content, to a depth of 12 inches
• Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential
for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks
6.7 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations
It is expected that some small retaining walls may be required to facilitate the new site
grades. The parameters recommended for use in the design of these walls are
presented below
Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the following
parameters may be used in the design of new retaining walls for this site We have
provided parameters for two different types of wall backfill1 on-site sandy clays and
clayey sands, and imported select granular material In order to use the design
parameters for the imported select fill, this material must be placed within the entire
active failure wedge This wedge is defined as extending from the base of the retaining
wall upwards at a 60 degree angle of inclination.
RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter
Internal Friction Angle (<)))
Unit Weight
Equivalent Fluid
Pressure.
Active Condition
(level backfill)
Active Condition
(2h 1v backfill)
At-Rest Condition
(level backfill)
Soil Type
Imported
Aggregate Base
38°
130 Ibs/ft3
31 Ibs/ft3
44 Ibs/ft3
48 Ibs/ft3
On-Site
Soils
28°
125 Ibs/ft3
45 Ibs/ft3
79 Ibs/ft3
66 Ibs/ft3
Regardless of the backfill type, the walls should be designed using a soil-footing
coefficient of friction of 0.25 and an equivalent passive pressure of 250 Ibs/ft3
Southern California Geotechnlcal Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 24
The active earth pressures may be used for the design of retaining walls which do not
directly support structures or support soils which in turn support structures and which
will be allowed to deflect The at-rest earth pressures should be used for walls which
will not be allowed to deflect such as those which will support foundation bearing soils,
or which will support foundation loads directly.
Where the soils on the toe side of the retaining wall are not covered by a "hard" surface
such as a structure or pavement, the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected when
calculating passive resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed
or degraded during the life of the structure
Retaining Wall Foundation Design
Retaining walls should be supported within newly placed structural fill monitored during
placement by the geotechnical engineer. Where retaining walls are also serving as
building walls, they should be graded in accordance with the recommendations
presented in Section 6 3 of this report for the proposed building pad areas Foundations
to support new retaining walls should be designed m accordance with the general
Foundation Design Parameters presented in a previous section of this report
Backfill Material
It is recommended that a minimum 1 foot thick layer of free-draining granular material
(less than 5 percent passing the No 200 sieve) should be placed against the face of
the retaining walls This material should be approved by the geotechnical engineer. A
suitable geotextile should be used to separate the layer of free draining granular
material from the backfill soils If the layer of free-draining material is not covered by an
impermeable surface, such as a structure or pavement, a 12-inch thick layer of a low
permeability soil should be placed over the backfill to reduce surface water migration to
the underlying soils
All retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted under engineering controlled
conditions in the necessary layer thicknesses to ensure an m-place density between 90
and 93 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test
(ASTM D1557-91) Care should be taken to avoid over-compaction of the soils behind
the retaining walls, and the use of heavy compaction equipment should be avoided.
Subsurface Drainage
As previously indicated, the retaining wall design parameters are based upon drained
backfill conditions Consequently, some form of permanent drainage system will be
necessary in conjunction with the appropriate backfill material Subsurface drainage
may consist of either
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 25
• A weep hole drainage system typically consisting of a series of 4-inch
diameter holes in the wall situated slightly above the ground surface elevation
on the exposed side of the wall and at an approximate 8-foot on-center
spacing The weep holes should include a minimum 2 cubic foot gravel
pocket surrounded by an appropriate geotextile fabric at each weep hole
location.
• A 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by 2 cubic feet of gravel per
linear foot of dram placed behind the retaining wall, above the footing The
gravel dram should be wrapped in a suitable geotextile fabric to reduce the
potential for migration of fines The footing dram should be extended to
daylight or tied into a storm drainage system
6.8 Pavement Design Parameters
Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously
recommended in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The
subsequent preliminary pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and
construction monitoring, and are based on either PCA or CALTRANS design
parameters for a twenty (20) year design period These preliminary designs also
assume a routine pavement maintenance program to obtain the 20-year pavement
service life
Pavement Subgrades
It is anticipated that the new pavements will be primarily supported on a layer of
compacted structural fill, consisting of scarified, thoroughly moisture conditioned and
recompacted native materials and/or fill soils. The on-site soils generally consist of
sandy clays and sandy clays These soils are considered to possess fair pavement
support characteristics with R-values of 15 to 25 Since R-value testing was not
included in the scope of services for this project, the subsequent pavement design is
based upon an assumed R-value of 15. Any fill material imported to the site should
have support characteristics equal to or greater than that of the on-site soils and be
placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions It is recommended that
R-value testing be performed after completion of rough grading. Depending upon the
results of the R-value testing, it may be feasible to use thinner pavement sections in
some areas of the site.
Asphaltic Concrete
The pavement designs are based on the traffic indices (Tl's) indicated. The client
and/or civil engineer should verify that these Tl's are representative of the
anticipated traffic volumes. If the client and/or civil engineer determine that the
expected traffic volume will exceed those recommended herein, we should be
contacted for supplementary recommendations. The design traffic indices equate to
Southern California Geotechnlcal Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 26
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
the following approximate daily traffic volumes over a 20-year design life, assuming 5
operational traffic days per week1
Traffic Index
40
50
60
70
No. of Heavy Trucks per Day
0
1
3
11
For the purposes of the traffic volumes above, a truck is defined as a 5-axle tractor-
trailer unit, with one 8-kip axle and two 32-kip tandem axles. All of the traffic indices
allow for 1000 automobiles per day.
Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for new flexible pavement
structures consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. It should be noted that
the Tl = 5 0 section only allows for 1 truck per day. Therefore, all significant heavy
truck traffic must be excluded from areas where this thinner pavement section is used,
otherwise premature pavement distress may occur
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS
Materials
Asphalt Concrete
Aggregate Base
Compacted Subgrade (90%
minimum compaction)
Thickness (inches)
Auto Parking
(Tl = 40)
3
6
12
Auto Drive
Lanes
(Tl = 50)
3
9
12
Light Truck
Traffic
(Tl = 60)
3/2
11
12
Moderate
Truck Traffic
(Tl = 70)
4
13
12
The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-
1557 maximum dry density The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95
percent of the Marshall maximum density, as determined by ASTM D-2726 The
aggregate base course may consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB) or crushed
miscellaneous base (CMB), which is a recycled gravel, asphalt and concrete material
The gradation, R-Value, Sand Equivalent, and Percentage Wear of the CAB or CMB
should comply with appropriate specifications contained in the current edition of the
"Greenbook" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction
Portland Cement Concrete
The preparation of the subgrade soils within concrete pavement areas should be
performed as previously described for proposed asphalt pavement areas Since
Southern California Geotechnlcal Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 27
significant portions of the granitic bedrock are expected to be removed around the
perimeters of the proposed structures where the Portland cement concrete pavements
will be located, the pavement design presented below is based on the presence of
existing or newly placed compacted structural fill immediately beneath the proposed
pavement subgrade elevation The minimum recommended thicknesses for the
Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections are as follows:
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
Materials
PCC
Compacted Subgrade
(95% minimum compaction)
Thickness (Inches)
Automobile Parking
and Drive Areas
5
12
Light Truck Traffic
(Tl = 6 0)
51/2
12
Moderate Truck Traffic
(Tl = 70)
7
12
The concrete should have a 28-day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi
Reinforcing within all pavements should consist of at least heavy welded wire mesh
(6x6-W2 9xW2 9 WWF) placed at mid-height in the slab In areas underlain by
expansive soils, the reinforcement should be increased to No. 4 bars at 18 inches on
center The maximum joint spacing within all of the PCC pavements is recommended
to be equal to or less than 30 times the pavement thickness
Southern California Geotechnfcal Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 28
7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client in order
to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the
design and preparation of the project plans and specifications This report may be
provided to the contractor(s) and other design consultants to disclose information
relative to the project However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a
specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect,
structural engineer, and/or civil engineer The reproduction and distribution of this
report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc.
Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party's
sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur.
The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited
discrete soil samples While the materials encountered in the project area are
considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected
between boring locations and sample depths. If the conditions encountered during
construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted
immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein
This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed
development It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer,
and civil engineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent
with the characteristics of the proposed development If discrepancies exist, they
should be brought to our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and
recommendations contained herein We also recommend that the project plans and
specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations
have been correctly interpreted
The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have
been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical
engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed
Southern California Geotechnical Proposed Business Park Lots 33-37 - Carlsbad, CA
Project No 05G109-1
Page 29
1
I
I
APPENDIX A
SITE LOCATION MAP
BORING LOCATION PLAN
MSCO AIMIAR
PASlOCAtW
PASEOGMKTO
PASIO fHSlLLAR
MUONCAOOIWOCFCSTA
PASUVAUEHANQC BRIM
fASCO UL1NCJC
SOURCE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
THOMAS GUIDE, 2004
SITE LOCATION MAP
PROPOSED LOTS 33 - 37 BUSINESS PARK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
2400
DRAWN DRK
CHKD JAS
SCO PROJECT
05G109 1
PLATE 1
Southern California Geotechnfcal
1260 North Hancock Street. Suite 101
Anaheim, California 92807
Phone (714)777-0333 Fax (714) 777-0398
APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
n
ii
ii
BORING LOG LEGEND
SAMPLE TYPE
AUGER
CORE
GRAB
CS
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS NO
FIELD MEASUREMENT OF SOIL STRENGTH '
(DISTURBED)
ROCK CORE SAMPLE TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH A
DIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL TYPICALLY USED
ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK |
SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO SPECIALIZED ,
EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE
GROUND SURFACE (DISTURBED)
CALIFORNIA SAMPLER 2-1/2 INCH I D SPLIT
BARREL SAMPLER, LINED WITH 1-INCH HIGH BRASS
RINGS DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER (RELATIVELY
UNDISTURBED)
NSR
SPT
SH
VANE
NO RECOVER THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT DID NOT
RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY SIGNIFICANT SOIL
OR ROCK MATERIAL
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST SAMPLER IS'A 1 4
INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL. DRIVEN 18
INCHES WITH THE SPT HAMMER (DISTURBED)
SHEBLY TUBE TAKEN WITH A THIN WALL SAMPLE
TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SOIL AND THEN
EXTRACTED (UNDISTURBED)
VANE SHEAR TEST SOIL STRENGH OBTAINED
USING A 4 BLADED SHEAR DEVICE TYPICALLY
USED IN SOFT CLAYS-NO SAMPLE RECOVERED
COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS
DEPTH.
SAMPLE
BLOW COUNT
POCKET PEN
GRAPHIC LOG
DRY DENSITY
MOISTURE CONTENT
LIQUID LIMIT
PLASTIC LIMIT
PASSING #200 SIEVE
UNCONFINED SHEAR
Distance in feet below the ground surface i
Sample Type as depicted above
Number of blow required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 Ib
hammer with a 30-inch drop 50/3" indicates penetration refusal (>50 blows)
at 3 inches WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to
push the sampler 6 inches or more '
Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by
pocket penetrometer
Graphic Soil Symbol as depicted on the following page
Dry density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample
Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentageiof
the dry weight ]
The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid j
The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic'
The percentage of the sample finer than the #200 standard sieve
The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the
unconfined state
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MAJOR DIVISI
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN
NO 200 SIEVE
SIZE
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
NO 200 SIEVE
SIZE
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO
4 SIEVE
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
PASSING ON NO
4 SIEVE
1"IMCUNo
CLEAN
GRAVELS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
CLEAN SANDS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
SANDS WITH
FINES
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
AMR LIQUID LIMIT
CLAYS LESS THAN 50
SILTS• Kin LIQUID LIMIT
CLAYS GREATER THAN 50
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SYMBOLS
GRAPH
£&
>V^->o^(_
ib£
_ r\G
l^ J S~**
$%%4>mm.
Vo
^0mM
•:•••:•:•:•:•:•:•:
%
-Z-H-
w
w
•
~—~—
i
1' ill' ill' ill'
LETTER
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
SILT MIXTURES
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
CLAY MIXTURES
WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
POORLY-GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
SILTY SANDS. SAND - SILT
MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY
MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,
LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SILTY SOILS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
NOTE DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
I
I Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-1
JOB NO 05G109 DRILLING DATE 2/4/05 WATER DEPTH Dry
PROJECT Bressi Ranch Lot 33-37 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH 15 feet
LOCATION Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY Daryl Kas READING TAKEN At Completion
FIELD RESULTS
DEPTH (FEET)u
CL
W
nrr\_hp
5 ^-
10-
15 -
6
np
r BLOW COUNT47
46
50/4"
50/5"
50/3"
50/5"POCKET PEN(TSF)10
45+
45+GRAPHIC LOG'///S//*
WW
4%}\x%<iw&
<0£v
>%§i
li
1
1
1
1
v££o
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION 405± feet MSL
FILL Brown fine Sandy Clay, some Silt, stiff-moist to very
moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Gravfine arained
Sandstone, dense-moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Grav Siltv Clavstone.
very stiff to hard-moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Light Gray Silly fine
grained Sandstone, very dense-moist
-
Boring Terminated at 17'
LABORATORY RESULTS
DRY DENSITY(PCF)92
107
115
117
106 MOISTURECONTENT (%)18
21
15
12
14
13
g
PLASTICLIMITPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)UNCONFINEDSHEAR (TSF)1
LLJ
0
O
Oto5'
El =57
-
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-1
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-2
JOB NO 05G109 DRILLING DATE 2/4/05 WATER DEPTH Dry
PROJECT Bressl Ranch Lot 33-37 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH 19 feet
LOCATION Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY Daryl Kas READING TAKEN At Completion
FIELD RESULTS
DEPTH (FEET)SAMPLEU BLOW COUNT50/2"
MnLJ
Q50/3"M
5 ~D50/5"
Q50/5"M
10-
15 -
U
VA
y(
75
50/3"POCKET PEN(TSF)GRAPHIC LOG^1yfas<<v/<
H§
I
1
SW
1
!
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION 404± feet MSL
FILL Orange Brown Clayey fine Sand, dense-moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Light Gray to Gray fine
Sandy Siltstone, very dense-moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Light Gray Silty fine
grained Sandstone, some shell fragments, very dense-moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Gray Silty fine grained
Sandstone with thinly interbedded Dark Gray Clayey Siltstone
lamination, very dense-damp to moist
Boring Terminated at 19VV
LABORATORY RESULTS
DRY DENSITY(PCF)104
116
109
109
107 MOISTURECONTENT (%)13
15
14
16
18
14
12
Q
il PLASTICLIMITPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)UNCONFINEDSHEAR (TSF)IEUJ
O0
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-2
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-3
JOB NO 05G109 DRILLING DATE 2/4/05 WATER DEPTH Dry
PROJECT Bressi Ranch Lot 33-37 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH 5 feet
LOCATION Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY Daryl Kas READING TAKEN At Completion
FIELD RESULTS
DEPTH (FEET)SAMPLEBLOW COUNTtt 28
mm 45
5 -5?50/1"POCKET PEN(TSF)35
45+GRAPHIC LOG/gj^
%%%
1
nI
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION 408± feet MSL
FILL_Mottled Dark Gray Brown to Orange Brown fine Sandy
Clay, trace Silt, very stiff-damp to moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Dark Gray Silly
Claystone, stiff-moist
-
Boring Terminated at 5/a'
LABORATORY RESULTS
DRY DENSITY(PCF)97
107 MOISTURECONTENT (%)14
18
20
O
||PLASTICLIMITPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)UNCONFINEDSHEAR (TSF)COMMENTS-
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-3
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-4
l/l
8
0UJu
^
s1
p
JOB NO 05G109 DRILLING DATE 2M/05 WATER DEPTH Dry
PROJECT Bressi Ranch Lot 33-37 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH 2 feet
LOCATION Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY Daryl Kas READING TAKEN At Completion
FIELD RESULTS
DEPTH (FEET)U.
1
<BLOW COUNT12 POCKET PEN(TSF)45+GRAPHIC LOGy/M
'Mfc
%^
^/^yfy^
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION 410±feetMSL
FILL Orange Brown fine Sandy Clay, trace Silt, medium
stiff-moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK. Light Gray Brown Silty
fine grained Sandstone, some Iron oxide staining, medium
~xdense-damD >~
Boring Terminated at 2V4'
LABORATORY RESULTS
DRY DENSITY(PCF)105 MOISTURECONTENT (%)16
D
3i_j _i PLASTICLIMITPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)UNCONFINEDSHEAR (TSF)COMMENTSTEST BORING LOG PLATE B-4
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-5
JOB NO 05G109 DRILLING DATE 2/4/05 WATER DEPTH Dry
PROJECT Bressi Ranch Lot 33-37 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH S'/i
LOCATION Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY Daryl Kas READING TAKEN At Completion
FIELD RESULTS
DEPTH (FEET)SAMPLEBLOW COUNTQ 76MnLJQ50/4"M
5 "Q50/5"MM
- FJ50/5"p
X 50/5"POCKET PEN(TSF)45+GRAPHIC LOGZ&/4$
WVs
XVX^%<;m
1
1
1m
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION 411±feetMSL
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Gray Brown fine Sandy
Claystone, some Iron oxide staining, very stiff-moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Light Gray Brown Silly
fine Sandstone, trace Iron oxide staining, very dense-moist
-
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Oranoe Brown Silty fine
grained Sandstone, trace shell fragments, very dense-damp to
moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK White Silty fine
Sandstone, silicified , very dense-dry to damp
Boring Terminated at 9V4'
LABORATORY RESULTS
DRY DENSITY(PCF)101
112
114
112 MOISTURECONTENT (%)24
16
15
13
3
a
5t
21 PLASTICLIMITPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)UNCONFINEDSHEAR (TSF)COMMENTS-
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-5
I
I Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-6
JOB NO 05G109 DRILLING DATE 2/4/05 WATER DEPTH Dry
PROJECT Bressi Ranch Lot 33-37 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH 19 feet
LOCATION Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY Daryl Kas READING TAKEN At Completion
FIELD RESULTS
DEPTH (FEET)5 .
ID
TO
.
•
U
1
e
W
)(
>(BLOW COUNT50/4"
50/4"
74
50/5"
50/5"
29
63 POCKET PEN(TSF)45+
45+
45+
45+GRAPHIC LOGI
1
HI
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION 420± feet MSL
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Light Orange Gray
Brown to White Silty fine Sandstone, some shell fragments,
very dense-damp to moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Gray Green Silty
Claystone, very stiff to hard-moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Orange Brown Silty
Claystone, calcareous veming, very stiff to hard- moist
Boring Terminated at 19%'
LABORATORY RESULTS
DRY DENSITY(PCF)101
112
117
112
108 MOISTURECONTENT (%)10
4
8
17
19
36
21
O
§£
_l _!
O
&K
f)2
0-Ii PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)UNCONFINEDSHEAR (TSF)COMMENTS-
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-6
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-7
JOB NO 05G109 DRILLING DATE 2/4/05 WATER DEPTH Dry
PROJECT Bressi Ranch Lot 33-37 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH 3V,
LOCATION Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY Daryl Kas READING TAKEN At Completion
FIELD RESULTS
DEPTH (FEET)SAMPLEBLOW COUNTtt 20
Q 34 POCKET PEN(TSF)45+
45+GRAPHIC LOGm
m
Hli
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION 41 8± feet MSL
FILL Mottled Orange Brown to light Gray, fine Sandy Clay,
stiff to very stiff- moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Light Gray Green Silty
fine grained Sandstone, medium dense-damp
Boring Terminated at 4V4'
LABORATORY RESULTS
DRY DENSITY(PCF)107
105 MOISTURECONTENT (%)17
17
Q
§1_i _i
O
§*3i0- _l PASSING#200 SIEVE (%)-UNCONFINEDSHEAR CTSF)COMMENTSTEST BORING LOG PLATE B-7
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-8
TBL 05G109 GPJ SOCALGEO GOT 3/3/0JOB NO 05G109 DRILLING DATE 2/4/05 WATER DEPTH Dry
PROJECT Bressi Ranch Lot 33-37 DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH 18 feet
LOCATION Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY Daryl Kas READING TAKEN At Completion
FIELD RESULTS
DEPTH (FEET)•
•
'
•
u
i
co
M
Y
x
x
x BLOW COUNT20
66
35
87
90 POCKET PENCTSF)45+GRAPHIC LOG1
1
1
1
i
1
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION 416±feetMSL
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Dark Orange Brown
fine grained Sandstone, trace Clay, trace Silt, medium
dense-moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Light Gray Silty fine
grained Sandstone, some Iron oxide staining, very
dense-moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Gray Green Silty fine
grained Claystone with Iron oxide staining, with interbedded 1
to 2± inch thick of Gray Brown Silty Claystone, very stiff-moist
SANTIAGO FORMATION BEDROCK Light Gray to White
Gray Silty fine grained Sandstone, trace Iron oxide staining,
very dense-damp to moist
Boring Terminated at 19Vi'
LABORATORY RESULTS
DRY DENSITY(PCF)104 MOISTURECONTENT (%)17
16
21
13
14
g
PLASTICLIMITPASSING#200 SIEVE (%)UNCONFINEDSHEAR (TSF)COMMENTS-
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-8
I
I
1
I
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
I
I
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
cre
J=w
•o1§u
01 100
Load (ksf)
Classification FILL Mottled Dark Gray Brown to Orange Brown fine Sandy Clay, trace Silt
Boring Number. B-3
Sample Number
Depth (ft) 1 to 2
Specimen Diameter (in) 2 4
Specimen Thickness (in) 1 0
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Final Moisture Content(0/-
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Final Dry Density (pcf)
Percent Collapse '0/
13
22
966
1065
023
Bressi Ranch Lots 33-37
Carlsbad, California
reject No 05G109
PLATE C-1
Southern California Geotechnical
1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101
Anaheim, California 92807
Phone (714) 777-0333 Fax (714) 777-0398
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
Ico
1
go
100
Load (ksf)
Classification FILL Orange Brown fine Sandy Clay, trace Silt
Boring Number B-4
Sample Number
Depth (ft) 1 to 2
Specimen Diameter (in) 2 4
Specimen Thickness (in) 1 0
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Final Moisture Content (%)
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Final Dry Density (pcf)
Percent Collapse (%)
16
20
1051
111 2
-030
Bressi Ranch Lots 33-37
arlsbad, California
Project No 05G109
PLATE C- 2
Southern California Geotechnical
1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101
Anaheim, California 92807
Phone (714)777*333 Fax (714)777-0398
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
01 100
Load (ksf)
Classification FILL Mottled Orange Brown to Light Gray fine Sandy Clay
Boring Number B-7
Sample Number
Depth (ft) 1 to 2
Specimen Diameter (in) 2 4
Specimen Thickness (in) 1 0
Initial Moisture Content (%)
Final Moisture Content (%)
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Final Dry Density (pcf)
Percent Collapse f0/-
16
20
1067
1130
011
Bressi Ranch Lots 33-37
arlsbad, California
Project No 05G109
PLATE C- 3
Southern California Geotechnical
1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101
Anaheim, California 82807
Phone (714)777-0333 Fax (714)777-0398
Consolidation/Collapse Test Results
12
10 100
Load (ksf)
Classification FILL1 Orange Brown fine Sandy Clay, trace Silt
Boring Number B-7
Sample Number
Depth (ft) 3 to 4
Specimen Diameter (in) 2 4
Specimen Thickness (in) 1 0
Initial Moisture Content (%
Final Moisture Content (%
Initial Dry Density (pcf)
Final Dry Density (pcf)
Percent Collapse '0/
17
20
1052
1122
-022
Bressi Ranch Lots 33-37
:arlsbad, California
rojectNo 05G109
PLATE C- 4
Southern California Geotechnical
1260 North Hancock Street Suite 101
Anaheim, California 92807
Phone (714)777-0333 Fax (714)777-0398
I
1
I
1
APPENDIX D
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
I
Grading Guide Specifications Page 1
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
These grading guide specifications are intended to provide typical procedures for grading
operations. They are intended to supplement the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical investigation report for this project. Should the recommendations in the
geotechnical investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site
specific recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report will govern.
General
• The Earthwork Contractor Is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork In
accordance with the plans and geotechnical reports, and In accordance with city, county,
and Uniform Building Codes.
• The Geotechnical Engineer is the representative of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of
implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are not Intended to
relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform In a workman-like manner,
nor Is the Geotechnical Engineer to direct the grading equipment or personnel employed by
the Contractor.
• The Earthwork Contractor is required to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the anticipated
work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If necessary, work may
be stopped and redone if personnel have not been scheduled In advance.
• The Earthwork Contractor is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on the job-
site to process, moisture condition, mix and compact the amount of fill being placed to the
specified compaction. In addition, suitable support equipment should be available to
conform with recommendations and guidelines in this report.
• Canyon cleanouts, overexcavation areas, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations,
subdralns and benches should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer pnor to
placement of any fill It is the Earthwork Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical
Engineer of areas that are ready for Inspection.
• Excavation, filling, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and
sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation,
springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable
working surface The Geotechnical Engineer must be Informed of springs or water seepage
encountered during grading or foundation construction for possible revision to the
recommended construction procedures and/or Installation of subdralns
Site Preparation
• The Earthwork Contractor Is responsible for all clearing, grubbing, stripping and site
preparation for the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Engineer.
• If any materials or areas are encountered by the Earthwork Contractor which are suspected
of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contamination, the Geotechnical Engineer and
Owner/Builder should be notified Immediately.
• Major vegetation should be stripped and disposed of off-site. This Includes trees, brush,
heavy grasses and any materials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnica! Engineer
Grading Guide Specifications Page 2
• Underground structures such as basements, cesspools or septic disposal systems, mining
shafts, tunnels, wells and pipelines should be removed under the Inspection of the
Geotechnlcal Engineer and recommendations provided by the Geotechnlcal Engineer and/or
city, county or state agencies. If such structures are known or found, the Geotechnlcal
Engineer should be notified as soon as possible so that recommendations can be
formulated.
• Any topsoil, slopewash, colluvlum, alluvium and rock materials which are considered
unsuitable by the Geotechnlcal Engineer should be removed prior to fill placement.
• Remaining voids created during site clearing caused by removal of trees, foundations
basements, irrigation facilities, etc., should be excavated and filled with compacted fill.
• Subsequent to clearing and removals, areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of
10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted
• The moisture condition of the processed ground should be at or slightly above the optimum
moisture content as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending upon field
conditions, this may require air drying or watering together with mixing and/or discing
Compacted Fills
• Soil materials imported to or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided
each material has been determined to be suitable in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Engineer Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnlcal Engineer, all fill matenals shall
be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result
in the material being classified as 'contaminated," and shall be low to non-expansive with a
maximum expansion index (El) of 50 The top 12 inches of the compacted fill should have a
maximum particle size of 3 Inches, and all underlying compacted fill material a maximum 6-
inch particle size, except as noted below.
• All soils should be evaluated and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. Materials with high
expansion potential, low strength, poor gradation or containing organic matenals may require
removal from the site or selective placement and/or mixing to the satisfaction of the
Geotechnlcal Engineer.
• Rock fragments or rocks greater than 6 inches should be taken off-site or placed in
accordance with recommendations and In areas designated as suitable by the Geotechnical
Engineer. Acceptable methods typically include windrows Oversize materials should not be
placed within the range of excavation for foundations, utilities, or pools to facilitate
excavations Rock placement should be kept away from slopes (minimum distance: 15 feet)
to facilitate compaction near the slope
• Fill materials approved by the Geotechnlcal Engineer should be placed in areas previously
prepared to receive Till and in evenly placed, near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 Inches In
loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnlcal Engineer.
• Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, or slightly above,
as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer After proper mixing and/or drying, to evenly
distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum dry density in compliance with ASTM D-1557 unless otherwise Indicated
• Density and moisture content testing should be performed by the Geotechnlcal Engineer at
random Intervals and locations as determined by the Geotechnlcal Engineer. These tests
are intended as an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship,
Grading Guide Specifications Page 3
equipment effectiveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor Is responsible for
compaction as required by the Geotechnlcal Report(s) and governmental agencies
• After compacted fills have been tested and approved by the geotechnlcal engineer, the
contractor should moisture condition the soils as necessary to maintain the compacted
moisture content. Compacted fill soils that are allowed to become overly dry or desiccated
may require removal and/or scarification, moisture conditioning and replacement. Soils with
medium to high expansion Indices are especially susceptible to desiccation. Sandy soils that
are allowed to dry can also lose density.
• Fill areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and
recompaction prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor should notify
the Geotechnical Engineer of his Intent so that an evaluation can be made.
• Fill placed on ground sloping at a 5-to-1 Inclination (horizontal-to-vertical) or steeper should
be benched into bedrock or other suitable materials, as directed by the Geotechnlcal
Engineer Typical details of benching are Illustrated on Plates G-2, G-4, and G-5.
• Cut/fill transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet
and rebuilt with fill (see Plate G-1), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer
• All cut lots should be Inspected by the Geotechnlcal Engineer for fracturing and other
bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and
rebuilt with a uniform, more cohesive soil type to impede moisture penetration
• Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a
depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture
penetration
• Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide
lateral support Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that
excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop The type of fill material placed
adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical
Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used In the design.
Foundations
• The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the outside
edge of a footing, and then proceeding downward at a % horizontal to 1 vertical (0.5 1)
Inclination.
• Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade Is necessary, It should be conducted so
as to encompass the entire foundation influence zone, as described above
• Compacted fill adjacent to exterior footings should extend at least 12 inches above
foundation bearing grade Compacted fill within the interior of structures should extend to
the floor subgrade elevation
Fill Slopes
• The placement and compaction of fill descnbed above applies to all fill slopes Slope
compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill
In even layers, Including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the
compacted core.
• Slope compaction may also be achieved by backrolling the slope adequately every 2 to 4
vertical feet during the filling process as well as requiring the earth moving and compaction
equipment to work close to the top of the slope Upon completion of slope construction, the
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Grading Guide Specifications Page 4
slope face should be compacted with a sheepsfoot connected to a sldeboom and then grid
rolled This method of slope compaction should only be used If approved by the
Geotechnlcal Engineer.
• Sandy soils lacking in adequate cohesion may be unstable for a finished slope condition and
therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face.
• All fill slopes should be keyed into bedrock or other suitable material. Fill keys should be at
least 15 feet wide and Inclined at 2 percent Into the slope. For slopes higher than 30 feet,
the fill key width should be equal to one-half the height of the slope (see Plate G-5).
• All fill keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnlcal Inspection and
should be approved by the Geotechnlcal Engineer and governmental agencies prior to filling
• The cut portion of fill over cut slopes should be made first and inspected by the Geotechnical
Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The fill portion should be adequately keyed
through all surficial soils and Into bedrock or suitable material. Soils should be removed
from the transition zone between the cut and fill portions (see Plate G-2).
Cut Slopes
All cut slopes should be Inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for
stabilization. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer when slope
cutting is in progress at intervals of 10 vertical feet. Failure to notify may result in a delay in
recommendations.
Cut slopes exposing loose, cohesionless sands should be reported to the Geotechnlcal
Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations.
All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnica!
inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and
dimensions of the key A typical stabilization fill detail is shown on Plate G-5
Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdrains. Typical subdram details
are shown on Plates G-6
Subdrains
• Subdrains may be required In canyons and swales where fill placement is proposed. Typical
subdrain details for canyons are shown on Plate G-3. Subdrains should be Installed after
approval of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer.
• Plastic pipe may be used for subdrains provided it is Schedule 40 or SDR 35 or equivalent
Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement in a square-cut (backhoe)
trench or as recommended by the manufacturer.
• Filter material for subdrains should conform to CALTRANS Specification 68-1.025 or as
approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions Clean '/-inch
crushed rock may be used provided it is wrapped In an acceptable filter cloth and approved
by the Geotechnlcal Engineer Pipe diameters should be 6 inches for runs up to 500 feet
and 8 Inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four-Inch diameter pipe may
be used In buttress and stabilization fills
CUT LOT
-COMPACTED FILL
\l
Y_
OVEREXCAVATEAND
RECOMPACT
COMPETENT MATERIAL, AS APPROVED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION)
DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE
RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER
IN STEEP TRANSITIONS
COMPETENT MATERIAL. AS APPROVED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE
DRAWN AS
CHKD OKM
PLATE 0-1
California Geotechnical
1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101
Anaheim, CaHfomla 82807
Phone (7H) 777-0333 Flic (7U) 777-0398
NEW COMPACTED FILL
COMPETENT MATERIAL
CUT/FILL CONTACT TO BE
SHOWN ON "AS-BUILT*
NATURAL GRADE
CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
BEDROCK OR APPROVED
COMPETENT MATERIALCUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED
PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES
IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
MINIMUM 11 TILT BACK
OR 2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
' KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL
MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE
REQUIRED IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5
FEET IN HEIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.
FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE
DRAWN JAS
CHKD OKM
PLATE 0-3
Southern California Geotechnlcal
1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101
Anaheim California 62607
Phone (714)777X1333 Far (714) 777-0398
MINUS 1" CRUSHED ROCK COMPLETELY
SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRIC. OR
CLASS tl PERMEABLE MATERIAL
MIN
6" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE - MINIMUM 1 % SLOPE
PIPE
MATERIAL
ADS (CORRUGATED POLETHYLENE)
TRANSITS UNDERDRAIN
PVCGRABS. SDR35
SDR 21
DEPTH OF FILL
OVER SUBDRAIN
8
20
35
100
SCHEMATIC ONLY
NOT TO SCALE
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE
DRAWN JAS
CHKD OKM
PLATE G-3
Southern California Geotechnlcal
1260 North Hancock Street. Suite 101
Anaheim. California 82607
Phone (714) 777-0333 Fax- (714) 777-0388
FINISHED SLOPE FACE
OVERFILL REQUIREMENTS
PER PLATE N0.4
TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
PROJECT SLOPE GRADIENT
(11 MAX)
PLACE COMPACTED BACKFILL
TO ORIGINAL GRADE
BACKCUT - VARIES
NEW COMPACTED FILL
COMPETENT MATERIAL
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES
IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
2' MINIMUM
KEY DEPTH
MINIMUM 1'TILT BACK
OR 2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MATERIAL
MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15 FEET OR AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNIAL
ENGINEER. KEYWAY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED
IF FILL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5' IN HEIGHT
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER NOTE
BENCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED
WHEN NATURAL SLOPES ARE
EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 5 1
OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY
THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
FILL ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE
DRAWN JAS
CHKD GKM
PLATE G-4
Southern California Geotechnlcal
1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101
Anaheim, Calltamb 92807
Phone (714)777-0333 Fwc (714) 7774)398
I
3' TYPICAL
BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED —|
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
TOP WIDTH OF FILL
AS SPECIFIED BY THE
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE
TO THE SOIL ENGINEER
COMPACTED FILL
FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE
1— MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES
IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
21 MINIMUM —'
KEY DEPTH KEYWAY WIDTH. AS SPECIFIED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
• MINIMUM V TILT BACK
OR 2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE
DRAWN JAS
CHKD OKM
PLATE 0-5
Southern California Geotechnlcal
1260 North Hancock Street. Suite 101
Anaheim, California 82807
Phone (714)777-0333 Fax: (714) 777-0398
DESIGN FINISH SLOPE
OUTLETS TO BE SPACED
AT 100' MAXIMUM INTERVALS
EXTEND 12 INCHES
BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE
AT TIME OF ROUGH GRADING
CONSTRUCTION
BUTTRESS OR
SIDEHILL FILL
BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED •
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
,-. .IQ-.MIN-.
. .\25'MAX,T
15'MAX.
' . • • •..:•--,-••1 r '„" . .' !
2'CLEAR
•FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONOR APPROVED EQUIVALENT (CONFORMS TO EMA STD PLAN 323)
DETAIL "A"
•4-INCH DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED
OUTLET PIPE TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD
BY THE SOIL ENGINEER
•GRAVEL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR
APPROVED EQUIVALENT-
SIEVE SIZE
1"
3/4"
3/8"
NO 4
NO 8
NO. 30
NO 50
NO 200
PERCENTAGE PASSING
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
OUTLET PIPE TO BE CON-
NECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE
WITH TEE OR ELBOW
DETAIL "A"
SIEVE SIZE
11/2"
NO 4
NO 200
SAND EQUIVALENT
MAXIMUM
PERCENTAGE PASSING
100
SO
8
= MINIMUM OF 50
"FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF FIVE
CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE SEE
ABOVE FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION
ALTERNATIVE IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL
FIVE CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL
PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED
IN FILTER FABRIC SEE ABOVE FOR
GRAVEL SPECIFICATION
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAF1140
OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL
BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES
LjON ALL JOINTS
MINIMUM 4-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SDR 35 WITH
A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1.000 POUNDS, WITH A MINIMUM
OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED
WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM
END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE
NOTES
1 TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED
WITH ON-SITE SOIL
SLOPE FILL SUBDRAINS
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
NOT TO SCALE
DRAWN 4AS
CHKD GKM
PLATE 0-6
Southern California Geotechnlcal
1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101
Anaheim, California 82807
Phone (714) 777-0333 Fax: (714) 777-0398
MINIMUM ONE FOOT THICK LAYER OF
LOW PERMEABLILITY SOIL IF NOT
COVERED WITH AN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE
MINIMUM ONE FOOT WIDE LAYER OF
FREE DRAINING MATERIAL
(LESS THAN 5% PASSING THE #200 SIEVE)
"FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF TWO
CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE SEE
BELOW FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFICATION
ALTERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL
TWO CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL
PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED
IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE BELOW FOR
GRAVEL SPECIFICATION
FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAF1140
OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL
BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES
LON ALL JOINTS
MINIMUM 4-INCH DIAMETER PVC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SDR 35 WITH
A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 1.000 POUNDS. WITH A MINIMUM
OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED
WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM
END OF PIPE SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE
"FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION
OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT' (CONFORMS TO EMA STD PLAN 323)
•GRAVEL' TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR
APPROVED EQUIVALENT
SIEVE SIZE
1"
3/4'
3/8"
NO. 4
NO B
NO. 30
NO 50
NO 200
PERCENTAGE PASSING
100
00-100
40-100
25-40
16-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
/
MAXIMUM 1
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING
1 1/2" 100
NO. 4 60
NO 200 8
SAND EQUIVALENT = MINIMUM OF 60
RETAINING WALL BACKDRAINS
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
HOTTOSCAU Snnthflrii California RflntRr.hnlral
1260 North Hancock Street. Suite 101
Anaheim, California 82807
PLATE 0-7 Phone. (714) 777-0333 Fax (714) 777-0398
I
I
I
1
I
I APPENDIX E
OBCSBSCOMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
iII•5
10
I
<Dao
N
o
•i-H
S
C/3
--10)
I
Trrrt444.jj 11 I I IT
LO
(N
O
O
LO O
ID
10
CM
O
O
LOr^o
LO OsJ
CM CM
q
c>
(6)
qLOLO
CO
«
CO•acoo0
CM
q
CM
LO
0
CL
o•o
II
I
I
COMPUTATION OF 1997
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
JOB NUMBER- 05G109 DATE 02-10-2005
JOB NAME Proposed Lots 33-37 Business Park
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME CDMGUBCR DAT
SITE COORDINATES
SITE LATITUDE. 33 1301
SITE LONGITUDE 117 2586
UBC SEISMIC ZONE. 0 4
UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE SC
NEAREST TYPE A FAULT
NAME ELSINORE-JULIAN
DISTANCE- 35 7 km
NEAREST TYPE B FAULT
NAME ROSE CANYON
DISTANCE: 11.9 km
NEAREST TYPE C FAULT.
NAME DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDaDDDDDDDDDD
DISTANCE: 99999 0 km
SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS
Na 10
Nv 10
Ca 0.40
Cv 0.56
Ts 0.560
To- 0 112
* CAUTION The digitized data points used to model faults are *
* limited in number and have been digitized from small- *
* scale maps (e g , 1 750,000 scale) Consequently, *
* the estimated fault-site-distances may be in error by *
* several kilometers Therefore, it is important that *
* the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and *
* adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. *
I
I
tI
I
I
I
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page 1
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
ROSE CANYON
NEWPORT -INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
ELS INORE -JULIAN
ELS INORE - TEMECULA
CORONADO BANK
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
PALOS VERDES
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
SAN JACINTO -COYOTE CREEK
NEWPORT -INGLEWOOD (L.A Basin)
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE (Elsinore)
ELS INORE - COYOTE MOUNTAIN
ELSINORE-WHITTIER
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO
SAN ANDREAS - Southern
PINTO MOUNTAIN
SAN JOSE
CUCAMONGA
SIERRA MADRE (Central)
BURNT MTN
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)
SUPERSTITION MTN (San Jacinto)
EUREKA PEAK
CLEGHORN
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)
ELMORE RANCH
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture
RAYMOND
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT
ELS INORE -LACUNA SALADA
VERDUGO
LANDERS
HOLLYWOOD
HELENDALE - S LOCKHARDT
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS
SANTA MONICA
EMERSON So - COPPER MTN
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern)
MALIBU COAST
IMPERIAL
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando)
APPROX
DISTANCE
(km)
11 9
16 1
35 7
35 7
37 1
57 6
63 3
65 4
72 6
74 9
78 8
81 4
81 6
85 5
87 9
98 6
99 4
103 9
114 6
114 9
118 3
119 2
122 3
124 9
125 4
126 7
127 2
131.1
131 2
132 9
133.7
134 6
134.7
135 9
139 1
139 1
142.4
142.6
146.5
147 9
150 5
151 6
152.2
155.2
159.2
160 0
SOURCE
TYPE
(A,B,C)
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
MAX
MAG
(Mw)
6.9
6 9
7 1
6 8
7 4
6.8
6 5
7.1
7.2
6.9
6.8
6.9
6.7
6 8
6.8
6.7
6 6
7.4
7.0
6.5
7.0
7 0
6.5
7.0
6 6
6.5
6 5
6.7
6 6
6.6
7.8
6.5
6.5
7.0
6.7
7.3
6.5
7 1
6 5
7 3
6 6
6 9
6 7
6 7
7 0
6 7
SLIP
RATE
(mm/yr)
1 50
1 50
5 00
5 00
3 00
5 00
2.00
3.00
12.00
12.00
4.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
2 50
12 00
4 00
24 00
2 50
0 50
5.00
3 00
0.60
1 00
5 00
0.60
3 00
0 50
1 00
4 00
34 00
0 50
0 50
3 50
0 50
0 60
1 00
0 60
25.00
0 60
1 00
0 60
0 60
0 30
20 00
2 00
FAULT
TYPE
(SS,DS,BT)
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
DS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
DS
DS
DS
SS
DS
SS
SS
SS
DS
SS
SS
SS
DS
DS
SS
DS
SS
DS
SS
SS
SS
DS
SS
SS
DS
SS
DS
I
I
I
I
II
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page 2
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
PISGAH-BULLION MTN -MESQUITE LK
SAN GABRIEL.
ANACAPA-DUME
CALICO - HIDALGO
SANTA SUSANA
HOLSER
SIMI -SANTA ROSA
OAK RIDGE (Onshore)
GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE
SAN CAYETANO
BLACKWATER
VENTURA - PITAS POINT
SANTA YNEZ (East)
SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
M RIDGE -ARROYO PARIDA- SANTA ANA
RED MOUNTAIN
GARLOCK (West)
PLEITO THRUST
BIG PINE
GARLOCK (East)
WHITE WOLF
SANTA ROSA ISLAND
SANTA YNEZ (West)
So SIERRA NEVADA
OWL LAKE
PANAMINT VALLEY
LITTLE LAKE
TANK CANYON
DEATH VALLEY (South)
LOS ALAMOS -W. BASELINE
LIONS HEAD
DEATH VALLEY (Graben)
SAN LUIS RANGE (S Margin)
SAN JUAN
CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault)
OWENS VALLEY
LOS OSOS
HUNTER MTN - SALINE VALLEY
HOSGRI
DEATH VALLEY (Northern)
INDEPENDENCE
RINCONADA
BIRCH CREEK
SAN ANDREAS (Creeping)
WHITE MOUNTAINS
DEEP SPRINGS
APPROX
DISTANCE
(km)
161 5
162.8
164.1
165 1
175.7
184 7
192.8
193 4
196 3
201 7
211.8
221 3
221 5
230 9
231 8
235 4
236 4
242 6
248 7
249 9
262 5
265 8
267 5
274 1
277 6
277.9
278 2
279.3
285 9
310.0
327.4
328.0
336 9
337 1
345 4
347 0
366.9
372 5
373 2
381 6
382 8
387.6
439 3
443 3
443 6
462 0
SOURCE
TYPE
(A,B,C)
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
MAX
MAG
(Mw)
7 1
7 0
7.3
7 1
6.6
6.5
6 7
6.9
6 9
6 8
6.9
6 8
7.0
6 8
6.7
6 8
7.1
6 8
6.7
7 3
7.2
6.9
6 9
7 1
6 5
7.2
6.7
6.5
6.9
6.8
6.6
6 9
7.0
7 0
6 5
7 6
6 8
7.0
7.3
7 2
6 9
7 3
6 5
5.0
7 1
6 6
SLIP
RATE
(mm/yr)
0.60
1 00
3 .00
0 60
5 00
0 40
1.00
4 00
0 60
6 00
0 60
1 00
2 00
1 00
0 40
2 00
6 00
2 00
0.80
7 00
2 00
1 00
2 00
0 10
2 00
2 50
0.70
1 00
4 00
0.70
0 02
4 00
0 20
1 00
0 25
1.50
0 50
2 50
2 50
5 00
0 20
1 00
0 70
34 00
1 00
0 80
FAULT
TYPE
(SS,DS,BT)
SS
SS
DS
SS
DS
DS
DS
DS
SS
DS
SS
DS
SS
DS
DS
DS
SS
DS
SS
SS
DS
DS
SS
DS
SS
SS
SS
DS
SS
DS
DS
DS
DS
SS
DS
SS
DS
SS
SS
SS
DS
SS
DS
SS
SS
DS
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page 3
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
DEATH VALLEY (N of Cucamongo)
ROUND VALLEY (E of S N Mtns )
FISH SLOUGH
HILTON CREEK
HARTLEY SPRINGS
ORTIGALITA
CALAVERAS (So. of Calaveras Res)
MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS
PALO COLORADO - SUR
QUIEN SABE
MONO LAKE
ZAYANTE - VERGELES
SARGENT
SAN ANDREAS (1906)
ROBINSON CREEK
SAN GREGORIO
GREENVILLE
HAYWARD (SE Extension)
MONTE VISTA - SHANNON
ANTELOPE VALLEY
HAYWARD (Total Length)
CALAVERAS (No of Calaveras Res)
GENOA
CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY
RODGERS CREEK
WEST NAPA
POINT REYES
HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA
MAACAMA (South)
COLLAYOMI
BARTLETT SPRINGS
MAACAMA (Central)
MAACAMA (North)
ROUND VALLEY (N S F Bay)
BATTLE CREEK
LAKE MOUNTAIN
GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND
MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE
LITTLE SALMON (Onshore)
MAD RIVER
CAS CAD I A SUBDUCT I ON ZONE
McKINLEYVILLE
TRINIDAD
FICKLE HILL
TABLE BLUFF
LITTLE SALMON (Offshore)
APPROX
DISTANCE
(km)
466 7
474 6
482 2
500 7
525.2
527.4
533 2
536.2
537 4
546.3
561.2
565 0
570.2
570 2
592.5
611 6
619.7
620.3
620 4
632 9
640 0
640 0
658 4
687.6
726 5
727 3
745 6
749.6
789 1
805 9
809.3
830.8
890.2
896 2
918 9
954 7
971 9
1028 3
1034 7
1037 4
1042 1
1047 9
1049.4
1049 9
1055 4
1068 7
SOURCE
TYPE
(A,B,C)
= s = s s: ss s
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
MAX
MAG
(Mw)
7.0
6.8
6.6
6 7
6.6
6 9
6.2
7.1
7.0
6.5
6.6
6 8
6.8
7.9
6.5
7.3
6 9
6.5
6.5
6.7
7.1
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.0
6.5
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.5
7.1
7.1
7.1
6.8
6.5
6.7
6.9
7.4
7.0
7.1
8 3
7.0
7.3
6.9
7.0
7.1
SLIP
RATE
(mm/yr)
5 00
1 00
0.20
2 50
0 50 ]
1 00
15 00
0 50
3.00
1.00
2 50
0 10
3.00
24 00
0 50
5 00
2.00
3 00
0 40
0 80
9.00
6 00
1 00
6 00
9 00
1 00
0.30
6 00
9 00
0.60
6.00
9 00
9 00
6 00
0 50
6 00
9.00
35 00
5 00
0 70
35 00
0.60
2 50
0 60
0 60
1.00
FAULT
TYPE
(SS,DS,BT)
SS
DS
DS
DS
DS
SS
SS
DS
SS
SS
DS
SS
SS
SS
DS
SS
SS
SS
DS
DS
SS
SS
DS
SS
SS
SS
DS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
DS
SS
SS
DS
DS
DS
DS
DS
DS
DS
DS
DS
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page
| APPROX | SOURCE | MAX | SLIP | FAULT
ABBREVIATED j DISTANCE] TYPE j MAG j RATE j TYPE
FAULT NAME j (km) |(A,B,C)| (Mw) j (mm/yr) |(SS,DS,BT)
BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN FLT ZONE | 1086 2 | B | 7.3 | 0 50 | DS
r*******************************