Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1935 CALLE BARCELONA; 176; CBC2023-0018; Permit
Building Permit Finaled Commercial Permit Print Date: 07/26/2023 Job Address: 1935 CALLE BARCELONA, # 176, CARLSBAD, CA 92009-8465 Permit Type: Parcel#: Valuation: BLDG-Commercial 2550120400 $40,000.00 Occupancy Group: B #of Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Bathrooms: Occupant Load: Code Edition: 2022 Sprinkled: Yes Project Title: Work Class: Retaining Wall Track#: Lot#: Project#: Plan#: Construction Type:V-B Orig. Plan Check#: Plan Check#: Description: REPLACEMENT CURB RAMP AND RAILING AT RETAIL BUILDING Applicant: Property Owner: KOHN ARCHITECTURE STEVEN KOHN TREA NW FORUM AT CARLSBAD OWNER LLC 695 TOWN CENTER DR, # 17 9939 HIBERT ST, # 202 COSTA MESA, CA 92626-1924 SAN DIEGO, CA 92131-1029 (858) 274-1812 FEE BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEE (manual) BUILDING PLAN REVIEW-MINOR PROJECTS (LDE) BUILDING PLAN REVIEW -MINOR PROJECTS (PLN) SB1473 -GREEN BUILDING STATE STANDARDS FEE STRONG MOTION -COMMERCIAL (SMIP) Total Fees: $545.20 Total Payments To Date: $545.20 Permit No: Status: (city of Carlsbad CBC2023-0018 Closed -Finaled Applied: 01/27/2023 Issued: 05/16/2023 Fina led Close Out: 07/26/2023 Final Inspection: 06/07/2023 INSPECTOR: Dreibelbis, Peter Balance Due: Renfro, Chris AMOUNT $240.00 $194.00 $98.00 $2.00 $11.20 $0.00 Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exaction." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitation has previously otherwise expired. Building Division Page 1 of 1 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 I 442-339-2719 I 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov ( City of Carlsbad COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 8-2 Plan Check ,a:'2.DL?:, -001(,s Est. Value PC Deposit Date Job Address 1935 Calle Barcelona Suite: 176 APN: 255-12-04 _____ , Tenant Name#: None Lot#: Year Built: 2003 ·-----------------·-------------- Year Built: 2003 Occupancy:_N_IA __ Construction Type:_N_IA __ Fire sprinklers0ES0NO A/C:0YES0NO BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK: New Retaining Wall 55 Feet -----"---------------------------- 0 Addition/New: ____________ ,New SF and Use, __________ New SF and Use _______ SF Deck, SF Patio Cover, SF Other (Specify) ___ _ 0Tenant Improvement: _____ SF, _____ SF, Existing Use: _______ Proposed Use: ______ _ Existing Use: Proposed Use: ______ _ 0 Pool/Spa:, _____ .SF Additional Gas or Electrical Features? ____________ _ 0 Solar: KW, ___ Modules, Mounted:ORoof OGround 0 Reroof: ____________________________________ _ D Plumbing/Mechanical/Electrical D Other: Retaining Wall APPLICANT (PRIMARY CONTACT) Name: Steven Kohn Address· 9939 Hibert St. Ste. 202 PROPERTY OWNER Name: N-W Forum, LLC Address: 1905 Calle Barcelona, Suite 200 City· San Diego State:._C_A __ Zip: 92131 City: Carlsbad State:_C_A __ ,Zip: ____ _ Phone· (858) 274-1812 Phone: (760) 479-0166 Email· steven@kohndesign.com Email: rruiz@northwoodretail.com DESIGN PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTOR OF RECORD Name· Steven Kohn Business Name:Schroeder Construction & Development Inc. Address: 9939 Hibert St., Ste. 202 Address: 2695 State Street City: San Diego state:_c_A __ .Zip: 92131 City: Carlsbad State: CA Zip:_9_20_0_8 ____ _ Phone: (858)274-1812 Phone:619 884-3660 Email: steven@kohndesign.com Email: scdcorp@aol.com Architect State License: _c_2_66_2_4_________ CSLB License #:_4_94_9_5_4 _____ c.Iass: 81, C36 Carlsbad Business License# (Required):BLNR1204546 APPLICANT CERT/FICA T/ON: I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plansisaccurate. lagree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. NAME(PRINT}: Steven Kohn SIGN: _________ DATE: 1/27/2023 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 442-339-2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 Email: Building@carlsbadca.gov REV. 07/21 THIS PAGE REQUIRED AT PERMIT ISSUANCE PLAN CHECK NUMBER: ______ _ A BUILDING PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED TO EITHER A STATE LICENSED CONTRACTOR OR A PROPERTY OWNER. IF THE PERSON SIGNING THIS FORM IS AN AGENT FOR EITHER ENTITY AN AUTHORIZATION FORM OR LETTER IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. (OPTION A): LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION: I hereby affirm under penalty of per jury that I am I icensed under provisions of Chapter 9 ( commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, and my license is in full force and effect. I also affirm under penalty of perjury one of the fallowing declarations (CHOOSE ONE): D1 have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work wh'ich this permit is ·issued. PolicyNo .. _____________________________________ _ -OR- ~I have and will maintain worker's compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company Name: _s_tat_,_F_oo_o _________________ _ Policy No. 906153913 Expiration Date: _6-_18_-_20_23 ____________ _ -OR- Ocertificate 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 coverage is unlawful and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to $100,000.00, In addition the to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for In Section 3706 of the Labor Code, interest and attorney's fees. CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY, IF ANY: 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: NA Lender's Address: _N_A __________________ ~ CONTRACTOR CERTIFICATION: I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordina es and State I ws relating to building construction. NAME (PRINT): Tom Schroeder SIGNAT E: May 16,2023 Note: If the person signing above Is an authorized agent for the contractor provide a letter of authorization on contractor letterhead. -OR - (OPTION B): OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby affirm that I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: n 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. L.n144, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's Ucense 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 provlngthat he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). -OR-01, 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). -OR-01 am exempt under Business and Professions Code Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 3 for this reason: AND, D FORM B-61 "Owner Builder Acknowledgement and Verification Form" is required for any permit issued to a property owner. By my signature below I acknowledge that, except for my personal residence in which I must have resided for at least one year prior to completion of the improvements covered by this permit, I cannot legally sell a structure that I have built as an owner-builder if it has not been constructed in its entirety by licensed contractors. I understand that a copy of the applicable law, Section 70440/ the Business and ProfessionsCode, is available upon request when this application is submitted or at the following Web site: http:l lwww.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. OWNER CERTIFICATION: 1 certify that I have read the application and state that the above informatian is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. NAME (PRINT): SIGN: __________ DATE: ______ _ Note: If the person signing above is an authorized agent for the property owner include form B-62 signed by property owner. 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 442~339-2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 Email: Building@carlsbadca.gov 2 REV. 07121 Building Permit Inspection History Finaled (city of Carlsbad PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBC2023-0018) Permit Type: Work Class: Status: Scheduled Date 05/31/2023 BLDG-Commercial Application Date: 01/27/2023 Retaining Wall Issue Date: 05/16/2023 Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 12/04/2023 IVR Number: 46210 Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Start Date 05/3112023 Status BLDG-11 212495-2023 Partial Pass Foundation/Ftg/Piers (Rebar) Checklist Item BLOG-Building Deficiency NOTES Created By Chris Renfro COMMENTS TEXT TOM 619.884.3660 06/0712023 06/0712023 BLDG-11 213427-2023 Passed Wednesday, July 26, 2023 Foundation/Ftg/Piers (Rebar) Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency NOTES Created By Chris Renfro Angie Teanio COMMENTS New ramp ok TEXT TOM 619.884.3660 619-884-3660 Tom BLDG-Final Inspection 213428-2023 Passed Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLOG-Plumbing Final BLDG-Mechanical Final BLDG-Structural Final BLDG-Electrical Final NOTES Created By Angie Teanio COMMENTS TEXT 619-884-3660 Tom Owner: TREA N W FORUM AT CARLSBAD OWNERLLC Subdivision: CARLSBAD TCT#92-08 GREEN VALLEY Address: 1935 CALLE BARCELONA, # 176 CARLSBAD, CA 92009-8465 Primary Inspector Reinspection Inspection Chris Renfro Reinspection Incomplete Passed Yes Created Date 05/30/2023 Peter Dreibelbis Complete Passed Yes Created Date 05130/2023 06/06/2023 Peter Dreibelbis Complete Passed No No No Yes No Created Date 06106/2023 Page 1 of 1 ' MESRI ENGINEERING 6798 LA JOLLA BOlJLVARD LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037 fPI 858 454 0883, IFI 858 459 3428 jcmaill MIKE_MESRl(ii)SBCGLOBAL.NET CITY 1935 CALLE BARCELONA SMALL RETAINING WALLS January 17. 2023 ACTIVE SOIL PRESSURE: 35 PCF (0: I SLOPE) PASSIVE SOIL PRESSURE: 250 PCF FRICTION: 0.40 SOIL PRESSURE: 2000 PSF (INCREASE BY 1/3 FOR SEISMIC) FACTOR OF SAFETY WITHOUT SEISMIC: 1.5 DRAINED. AND WATER PROOFED WALL. BACKFILL WITH GRANULAR SOILS WITH SOIL REPORT CBC2023-0018 1935 CALLE BARCELONA #176 FORUM CARLSBAD RETAINING WALL 55 LNFT X MAX HEIGHT 4FT 41N/ENLARGE PATIO AREA 2550120400 1/27/2023 CBC2023-0018 Project Title Engineer: Project ID Project Descr: [cantilevered Retaining Wall . UC#· KW-06018608. Bu,l'"d."20~2"2~1~2~2~8.C---------~M"ESRI ENGINEERING DESCRIPTION: 4'-6" WALL Code Reference, Calculations per IBC 2021 1807.3, ASCE 7-16 Criteria Retained Height Wall height above soil Slope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe Water height over heel 4.50 ft 0.50 ft 000 6.00 in 0.0 ft Surc:_harge Load_s _________ _ Surcharge Over Heel 0.0 psf Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Surcharge Over Toe 0.0 Used for Sliding & Overturning Axial Load Applied to Stem __ Axial Dead Load = 0.0 lbs Ax1af Live Load 0.0 lbs Axial Load Eccentricity = 0.0 in Soil Data Allow Soil Bearing = 2,000.0 psf Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Active Heel Pressure 35 O psf/ft Passive Pressure Soil Density, Heel Soil Density, Toe FootingllSoil Friction Soil height to ignore for passive pressure 250.0 psf/ft 11000pcf 110.00 pct 0400 6.00 in _ Lateral Load Applied to Stem_ Lateral Load 0.0 #/ft ... Height to Tor: 0.00 ft .Height to Bottom 0.00 ft Load Type Wind(W) (Service Level) Wind on Exposed Stem = 0.0 psf (Strength Level) Project File: 4.5 FOOT WALL.ec6 J (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 Adj_acent Footing Load Adjacent Footing Load F coting Width Eccentricity Wall to Ftg CL Dist Footing Type Base Above/Below Soil at Back of Wall Poisson's Ratio = 0.0 lbs 0.00 ft 0.00 in 0.00 ft Spread Footing 0.0 ft 0.300 1 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC#: KW-06018608, Build:2022.12.28 DESCRIPTION: 4'-6" WALL Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: Project File: 4.5 FOOT WALL.ec6 (c) ERCALC INC 1983-2022 Design Summary Stem Construction Bottom Wall Stablllty Ratios Overturning Sliding Global Stability = = = 2.89 OK 1.80 OK 2.37 Total Bearing Load = 1,205 lbs ... resultant ecc. 3. 75 in Eccentricity within middle third Soil Pressure@ Toe = 497 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 160 psf OK Allowable = 2,000 psf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored@ Toe = 696 psf ACI Factored @ Heel = 225 psf Footing Shear@ Toe = 5.9 psi OK Footing Shear@ Heel = 4.0 psi OK Allowable = 82.2 psi Sliding Cates Lateral Sliding Force = 529.4 lbs less 100% Passive Force 468.8 lbs less 100% Friction Force = 482.1 lbs Added Force Req'd = 0.0 lbs OK ... .for 1.5 Stability = 0.0 lbs OK Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS NOT considered in the calculation of soil bearing Load Factors ____________ _ Building Code Dead Load Live Load Earth, H Wind,W Seismic, E 1.200 1.600 1.600 1.600 1.000 Design Height Above Ftt ft= Wall Material Above "Ht" Design Method = Thickness == Rebar Size Rebar Spacing Rebar Placed at Design Data fb/FB + fa/Fa = Total Force@ Section Service Level lbs = Strength Level lbs = Moment ... Actuat Service Level ft-#= Strength Level ft-# = Moment. .... Allowable = Shear ..... Actual Service Level psi= Strength Level psi = Shear ..... Allowable psi= Anet (Masonry) in2 = Wall Weight psf = Rebar Depth 'd' in = Masonry Data rm Fs Solid Grouting Modular Ratio 'n' Equiv. Solid Thick. Masonry Block Type Masonry Design Method psi= psi= = in= = = Stem OK 0.00 Masonry ASD SD SD 8.00 # 4 16.00 Center 0.441 354.4 531.6 1,203.9 3.9 50.3 91.50 0.0 3.81 2,000 32,000 Yes 16.11 7.63 ASD Concrete Data -------------------------re Fy psi= psi= Cantilevered Retaining Wall LI --06018608, Build:20.2 .12.28 DESCRIPTION: 4'-6" WALL Footing Data Toe Width Hee/Width Total Footing Width = = = Footing Thickness =- Key Width = Key Depth = Key Distance from Toe = re = 3,000 psi Fy = Footing Concrete Density = 2.00ft 1.67 3.67 12.00 in 8.00in 6.00 in 2.00 fl 60,000 psi 150.00 pct 0.0018 Min.As% Cover@Top 2.00 @ Btm.= 3.00 in Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: Project File: 4.5 FOOT WALL.ec6 Footing Design Results IQ! Heel Factored Pressure 696 225 psf Mu'; Upward = 1,220 134 ft-# Mu' : Downward = 574 516 fl-# Mu: Design = 646 382 ft-# OK phiMn = 5,807 2,739ft-# Actual 1-Way Shear = 5.87 4.04 psi A/low 1-Way Shear = 82.16 43.82 psi Toe Reinforcing = #4@ 16.00 in Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key Reinforcing = None Spec'd Footing Torsion, Tu = 0.00 ft-lbs Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu = 0.00 fl-lbs If torsion exceeds allowable, provide supplemental design for footing torsion. Other Acce11table Sizes & S11acings Toe: #4@ 9.25 in, #5@ 14.35 in, #6@20,37 in, #7@ 27.77 in, #8@ 36.57 in, #9@ 46.29 in, #10@ 58. 79 in Heel: phiMn = phi'5'Iambda'sqrt(fc)'Sm Key phiMn = phi'5'Iambda'sqrt(fc)'Sm Min footing T&S reinf Area Min footing T&S reinf Area per foot If one layer of horizontal bars: #4@ 9.26 in #5@ 14.35in #6@20.37 in 0.95 in2 0.26 in2 ,ft If two iavers of horizontal bars: #4@ 18,52 in #5@28.70in #6@40.74 in Cantilevered Retaining Wall LI #: -06018608, Build:20.22.12.28 DESCRIPTION: 4'-6" WALL Project Title: Engineer. Project ID: Project Descr: Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments ..... OVERTURNING ..... Force Distance Moment Item lbs ft ft-# HL Act Pres (ab water tbt) 529.4 1.83 970.5 HL Act Pres (be water tbl) Hydrostatic Force Buoyant Force = Surcharge over Heel = Surcharge Over Toe = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Load @ Stem Above Soil = Total 529.4 0.T.M. = 970.5 Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) Soil Over HL (bel. water tbl) Water Table Sloped Soil Over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = • Axial Live Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe = Stem Weight(s) = Earth @ Stem Transitions= Footing Weigh1 Key Weight Project File: 4.5 FOOT WALL.ec6 (c) E ERCALC INC 1983-20 .. ... RESISTING ..... Force Distance Moment lbs ft ft-# 495.2 110.0 550.1 50.0 3.17 3.17 1.00 1.83 2.33 1.568.1 1.568.1 110.0 1,008.5 116.7 Resisting/Overturning Ratio Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure= = 2.89 1,205.2 lbs Vert. Component _= ____ _ Total = 1,205.2 lbs R.M.= 2.803.3 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturning resistance, but is included for soil pressure calculation. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS NOT considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS NOT considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil {Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus Horizontal Defl@ Top of Wall (approximate only) 250.0 pci 0.019 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. Cantilevered Retaining Wall UC#: KW-06018608, Build:20.22.12.28 DESCRIPTION: 4'-6" WALL Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Stem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Calculated Rebar Stress, Is; 12286.39 psi Project Tille: Engineer. Project ID: Project Descr: MESRI EN !NEERING Lap Splice length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment (25.4.2.4a); Development length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment = Hooked embedment length into tooting for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment = As Provided = As Required ; Project File: 4.5 FOOT WALL.ec6 (c)ENERCALC IN 1983-2022 20.00 in 12.29 in 7.67 in 0.1500 in2/ft 0.0586 in2/ft 5 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC#: KW-06018608, ulld:20.22.12.28 DESCRIPTION: 4'-6" WALL 8"w/#4@ 16" Solid Grout #4@16In @Toe 2'-0" 2'-0" Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: 8" 1'-0" 1'-8" 3'-8" Project File: 4.5 FOOT WALL.ecS Clear Cover : 3.5625" 4'-6'' 3" (c) ENERCALC IN 1983-2022 5'-0" Cantilevered • Retaining Wall LI #: KW-06018608, Bui :20.22.12.28 DESCRIPTION: 4'-6" WALL Pp= 468. 75# / -------------- Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: Project File: 4.5 FOOT WALL.ec6 (c) ENER AL INC 1983-2022 529# l sst Ill Lateral earth pressure due to the soil BELOW water table g Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: I Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# KW-06018608, Build·20 22.12.28 MESRI ENGINEERING DESCRIPTION: ~6" WAL~ Code Reference: Calculations per IBC 2018 1807.3, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Criteria Retained Height Wall height above soil Slope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe Water height over heel Surcharge Loads 3.50 ft 0.50 ft 0.00 6.00 in 0.0 ft Surcharge Over Heel = 0.0 psf Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Surcharge Over Toe 0.0 Used for Sliding & Overturning Axial Load Applied to Stem Axial Dead Load Axial Live Load = Axial Load Eccentricity 0.0 lbs 0.0 lbs 0.0 in Soil Data Allow Soil Bearing = 2,000.0 psf Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Active Heel Pressure 35.0 psf/ft Passive Pressure Soil Density. Heel Soil Density, Toe FootingllSoil Friction Soil height to ignore for passive pressure = 250.0 psf/ft = 110.00 pct = 110.00 pct = 0.400 6.00 in Lateral Load Applied to Stem Lateral Load 0.0 #/ft ... Height to To~ = 0.00 ft ... Height to Bottom 0.00 ft Load Type Wind (W) (Service Level) Wind on Exposed Stem = 0.0 psf (Strength Level) Project File: 3.5 FOOT WALL.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 l .. •• • • • • Adjacent Footing Load Adjacent Footing Load = 0.0 lbs Footing Width = 0.00 ft Eccentricity 0.00 in Wall to Ftg CL Dist 0.00 ft Footing Type Spread Footing Base Above/Below Soil at Back of Wall 0.0 ft Poisson's Ratio = 0.300 Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC# : KW-06018 08, Build:20.22.12.28 DESCRIPTION: 3'-6" WALL Project Title; Enaineer: Proiect ID: Project Descr: MESRI E GINEERING Project File: 3.5 FOOT WALL.ec6 (c) NERCALC INC 1983-2022 Design Summary Stem Construction Bottom Wall Stability Ratios Overturning Sliding Global Stabiltty = = = 3.41 OK 2.01 OK 2.91 Total Bearing Load = 1,152 lbs ... resultant ecc. 2.67 in Eccentricity within middle third Soil Pressure@ Toe = 648 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 216 psf OK Allowable = 2,000 psf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe = 908 psf ACI Factored @ Heel = 302 psf Footing Shear@ Toe Fooling Shear@ Heel = Allowable == Sliding Cales Lateral Sliding Force less 100% Passive Force less 100% Friction Force = Added Force Req'd ... .for 1.5 Stability = 5.2 psi OK 2.2 psi OK 82.2 psi 354.4 lbs 250.0 lbs 460.9 lbs O.O lbs OK 0.0 lbs OK Vertical component of acUve lateral soil pressure IS NOT considered in the calculation of soil bearing Load Factors ____________ _ Building Code Dead Load Live Load Earth, H Wind,W Seismic, E 1.200 1.600 1.600 1.600 1.000 Design Height Above FIE fl= Wall Material Above "Hr Design Method Thickness Rebar Size = Rebar Spacing = Rebar Placed at = Stem OK 0.00 Masonry ASD SD so 8.00 # 4 16.00 Center Design Data -------------------------- fb/FB + fa/Fa Total Force@ Section Service Level Strength Level Moment .... Actual Service Level Strength Level Moment. ... Allowable Shear ..... Actual Service Level Strength Level Shear ..... Allowable Anet (Masonry) Wall Weight Rebar Depth 'd' Masonry Data fm Fs Solid Grouting Modular Ratio 'n' Equiv. Solid Thick. Masonry Block Type Masonry Design Method = lbs= lbs= fl-#= ft-#= psi= psi= psi= in2= psf= in= psi= psi= = in= = = 0.244 214.4 250.1 1,025.0 2.3 44.6 91.50 78.0 3.81 1,500 24,000 Yes 21.48 7.63 ASD Concrete Data ------------------------- fc Fy psi= psi= Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC#: K --06018608, Build:20.22.12.28 DESCRIPTION: 3'-6" WALL Footing Data Toe Width Heel Width 1.00 ft 1.67 2.67 Total Footing Width Footing Thickness 12.00 in Key Width = 8.00 in Key Depth = 0.00 in Key Distance from Toe = 1.00 ft fc = 3,000 psi Fy = 60,000 psi Footing Concrete Density = 150.00 pcf Min. As% = 0.0018 Cover@ Top 3.00 @ Btm.= 3.00 in Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: Footing Design Results Toe Heel Factored Pressure 908 302 psi Mu': Upward 416 189 ft-# Mu' : Downward = 164 428 ft-# Mu: Design = 252 239 ff-# phiMn = 5,807 5,8071!-# Actual 1-Way Shear 5.16 2.22 psi Allow 1-Way Shear 82.16 82.16 psi Toe Reinforcing = #4@16.00in Heel Reinforcing #4@16.00in Key Reinforcing = None Speed Footing Torsion, Tu = 0.00 ft-lbs Footing Allow. Torsion, phi Tu = 0.00 ft-lbs If torsion exceeds allowable. provide supplemental design for footing torsion. Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Project File: 3.5 FOOT WALL.ec6 (c) E ER LC INC 1983.2022 Toe: #4@9.25 in, #5@ 14.35 in. #6@20.37 in, #7@27.77 in, #8@36.57 in, #9@ 46.29 in, #10@ 58.79 in Heel: #4@9.25 in, #5@ 14.35 in, #6@ 20.37 in, #7@ 27.77 in, #8@36.57 in, #9@ 46.29 in, #10@ 58.79 in Key: No key defined Min footing T&S reinf Area 0.69 in2 Min footing T&S reinf Area per foot . 0.26 in2 1ft If one layer of horizontal bars: If two Javers of horizontal bars: #4@ 9.26 in #4@ 18.52 in #5@ 14.35 in #5@28.70 in #6@ 20.37 in #6@ 40. 74 in • Cantilevered Retaining Wall LIC#: KW-06018608, Bui d:20.22.12.28 DESCRIPTION: 3'-6" WALL Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments ..... OVERTURNING ..... Force Distance Moment Item lbs ft ft-# HL Act Pres (ab water tbl) 354.4 1.50 531.6 Soil Over HL (ab. water tbl) HL Act Pres (be water tbl) So~ Over HL (bel. water tbl) Hydrostatic Force Water Table Buoyant Force Sloped Soil Over Heel Surcharge over Heel Surcharge Over Heel Surcharge Over Toe Adjacent Footing Load Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Added Lateral Load = * Axial Live Load on Stem = Load @ Stem Above Soil = Soil Over Toe = = Surcharge Over Toe = Stem Weighl(s) = Total = 354.4 O.T.M. = 531.6 Earth@ Stem Transitions= Footing Weighl = Key Weight = Resisting/Overturning RaUo = 3.41 Vert. Component = Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 1,152.2 lbs Total= Project File: 3.5 FOOT WALL.ec6 (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2022 . .... RESISTING ..... Force Distance Moment lbs ft ft-# 385.1 2.17 834.5 2.17 834.5 55.0 0.50 27.5 312.0 1.33 416.0 400.1 1.33 533.5 1.33 1,152.2 lbs R.M.= 1,811.5 * Axial live load NOT included in total displayed, or used for overturning resistance. but is included for soil pressure calculation. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS NOT considered in the calculation of Sliding Resistance. Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure IS NOT considered in the calculation of Overturning Resistance. Tilt Horizontal Deflection at Top of Wall due to settlement of soil {Deflection due to wall bending not considered) Soil Spring Reaction Modulus Honzontal Defl@ Top of Wall (approximate only) 250.0 pci 0.027 in The above calculation is not valid if the heel soil bearing pressure exceeds that of the toe, because the wall would then tend to rotate into the retained soil. Cantilevered Retaining Wall UC#: KW-06018608, Bulld:20.22.12.28 DESCRIPTION: 3'-6" WALL Rebar Lap & Embedment Lengths Information Siem Design Segment: Bottom Stem Design Height: 0.00 ft above top of footing Calculated Rebar Stress. fs ; 5856.01 psi Project TiUe: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: MESR EN !NEERING Lap Splice length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment (25.4.2.3a) ; Development length for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment = Hooked embedment length into footing for #4 bar specified in this stem design segment= As Provided = As Required ; Project File: 3.5 FOOT WALL.ec6 (c) ENER L NC 1983-2022 20.00 in 12.00 in 7.67 in 0.1500 in2/ft 0.0366 in2/ft P reject TI tie: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: Cantilevered Retaining Wall Project File: 3.5 FOOT WALL.ec6 UC#: l(W.06018608, Build:2022.12.28 DESCRIPTION: 3'-6" WALL MESRI ENGINEERIN (C) ENER LC INC 1983--2022 a·· wt #4@ 15·• Solid Grout 6''~-------------- #4@16in @Toe #4@16'' @Heel •• 1'-0" - 1'-8" 2'-8' Clear Cover : 3.5625" 3•~· -i-:3" •1·-0~ 4'-0" Project Title: Engineer: Project ID: Project Descr: Cantilevered Retaining Wall Project File:. 3,5 FOOT WALL.ec6 UC#· -06018608, Build:20.2 .12.28 (c) ENERCAL I C 1983-2022 DESCRIPTION: 3'-6" WALL Pp= 250.00# // 354# Ill Lateral earth pressure due to the soil BELOW water table It • C~7Y Results of Subsurface Investigation for Geotechnical Design Recommendations for Proposed Retaining Wall Parakeet Cafe The Forum Shopping Center 1935 Calle Barcelona, Carlsbad, CA Prepared for Mr. Robert Ruiz January 12, 2023 CBC2023-0018 1935 CALLE BARCELONA #176 FORUM CARLSBAD RETAINING WALL 55 LNFT X MAX HEIGHT 4FT 41N/ENLARGE PATIO AREA 2550120400 1/27/2023 CBC2023-0018 Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. ■iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii __________ ___._ ________ _ " . Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. Robert Ruiz Operations Manager c/o Steve Kohn Kohn Architects 9320 Chesapeake Drive San Diego, CA 92123 SUBJECT: RE: Dear Mr. Ruiz: Results of Subsurface Investigation for Geotechnical Design Recommendations for Proposed Retaining Wall Parakeet Cafe The Forum Shopping Center, Carlsbad, CA January 12, 2023 I 222 I I In accordance with your request and authorization, Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. (HGI) has perfonned a geotechnical investigation for proposed improvements at the subject site. The following report presents a description of our investigation and provides geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for design and construction of the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our geotechnical services on this project. If you should have any questions concerning our report or any other aspects of this project, please call at your earliest convenience. Respectfully, Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. Y~ /J 9Q,.,.,,~_L-\o Stanley Herenschmidt Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2064 ·,v\,\\~~. Michael W. Hart Consulting Engineering Geologist CEG 706 ~.,, . o.CF.G706 ..-. CERTIFIED N(;(NEERIN(; (;F,OLO<:JST 593 I Sea Lion Place, Suite I 02 Carlsbad, CA 92010 www.hgiengineering.com Telephone 760-579-0333 Fax 760-579-0230 RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMEND A TIO NS FOR PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PARAKEET CAFE THE FORUM SHOPPING CENTER CARLSBAD, CA Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ I 1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................ I 1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work ............................................................................................... I 2.0 GENERAL GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC SETTING ......................................................... 2 2.1 Stratigraphy ........................................................................................................................ 3 2.1.1 Santiago Fonnation (Tsa) .......................................................................................... 3 2. I .2 Torrey Sandstone (Tt) ............................................................................................... 3 2.1.3 Colluvium/ Alluvium (Qcol/Qal) Undifferentiated ................................................... 3 2.1.4 Fill (At) ...................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .............................................................................................................. 3 3.1 Landsliding ................................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Faulting ......................................................................................................................... 3 3.3 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement ....................................................... 4 3.4 Groundwater ................................................................................................................. 4 4.0 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 4 5.0 RECOMMEND A TIO NS ............................................................................................................. 5 5. I Retaining Wall Design ................................................................................................. 5 5.2 Slab Design .................................................................................................................. 6 5.3 Earthwork Recommendations ............................................................................................ 6 5 .3.1 Site Preparation ........................................................................................................ 6 5.3.2 Excavation and Trenching ......................................................................................... 6 5.3 .3 Foundation Excavation Observation and Removal and Recompaction .................. 6 5.3.4 Fill Placement and Compaction ................................................................................ 7 5.4 Surface Drainage ................................................................................................................ 7 5.5 Seismic Design ................................................................................................................... 7 5.6 Technical Review ............................................................................................................... 8 5.7 Earthwork Construction Observation and Testing ............................................................. 8 6.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................... 8 TABLE I - TABLE 2 - FIGURE I - FIGURE 2- FIGUREJ- FIGURE 4- FIGURE 5- Table of Contents ( cont.) Tables, Figures, Appendices and Plates Earthquake Faults and Seismicity ................................................................................ 4 Probabilistic Seismic Analysis Results (PGA) ............................................................. 7 Site Location Map ...................................................................................... Rear of Text Geologic and Boring Location Map ........................................................... Rear of Text Cross Section: HG! 1-1' ............................................................................. Rear of Text Excavation and Backfill Detail.. ................................................................. Rear of Text Retaining Wall Drainage Detail (Typical) ................................................. Rear of Text Appendices APPENDIXA- APPENDIXB- APPENDIX C- APPENDJX D- References Field Investigation: Exploratory Boring Logs Laboratory Test Data Seismic Hazard Data RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PARAKEET CAFE THE FORUM SHOPPING CENTER CARLSBAD, CA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a limited geotechnical investigation for a proposed retaining wall located adjacent to Building 8 at the Forum Shopping Center, 1935 Calle Barcelona, Carlsbad, California (Figure I). We performed our field investigation on December 21, 2022 in accordance with our proposal dated November 22, 2022. I.I Project Description The project site is located at the northerly driveway entrance to the Forum Shopping Center off Calle Barcelona and directly north of Building 5 and northeast of Building 7, 1935 Calle Barcelona, Carlsbad, California (Lot 4 of Carlsbad Tract 92-08). The site was reportedly rough graded in 1999 under the observation and testing of Leighton and Associates as a portion of the La Costa Glen project (Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., 2001). The rough grading observation and testing was summarized in Leighton and Associates' report entitled Final As Graded Report of Rough Grading, Green Valley CT 92-08 (Proposed La Costa Glen), Carlsbad, California dated January 28, 1999. A subsequent report dated November 8, 2001 by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. entitled Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation Proposed Retail Development, The Pavilion at La Costa, Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08, Lot 4, Carlsbad, California describes proposed fine grading was to include "cuts and fills on the order of I to 3± feet" to prepare building pads and associated improvements. Please note that our City of Carlsbad record research did not disclose the rough grading as-built report, nor the fine grading as-graded report. Consequently, these two reports were not reviewed by Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. (HG!). We understand that the proposed new construction will include 3.5 feet high (approximate), masonry block wall that will replace an existing stacked block wall parallel to and near the east side of Suite 176 of the Forum Shopping Center (1935 Calle Barcelona, Carlsbad, CA). A patio slab is also proposed between the existing building and proposed retaining wall. Preliminary design has been depicted on plan sheets entitled 1935 I Suite 176 Patio, The Forum Carlsbad (two sheets) dated 9-8-22 by Kohn Architecture. The site of the proposed retaining wall construction is gently sloping to the north. An existing stacked block wall roughly coincides with the alignment of the proposed masonry block wall and ascends to a maximum height of about 3.5 feet to an existing concrete patio separating the block wall from the proposed Parakeet Cafe at 1935 Calle Barcelona, Suite 176. Hedges front the existing stacked block wall west of the sidewalk (Figures 2 and 3). 1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work The purpose of our investigation was to develop geotechnical recommendations for retaining wall design. Our objectives were to: (1) evaluate surface and subsurface conditions; and (2) develop conclusions and recommendations regarding: geotechnical hazards; site grading; foundation type and geotechnical wall design criteria. Mr. Ruiz January I 2, 2023 122211 Our scope of work outlined below includes identification of relevant geotechnical features which may affect the proposed construction and development of site-specific geotechnical design recommendations. Record Review -We reviewed readily available geotechnical reports and grading for the prior shopping center development online at the City of Carlsbad. Review of Geologic and Seismic Data -We have reviewed available geologic and seismic data relevant to the site area. Subsurface Exploration -We excavated two four-inch diameter, hand-auger borings to depths of 5.25 feet and 5.33 feet. Our field representatives logged and sampled the borings to help characterize site geotechnical conditions (Appendix B). Bulk samples and drive samples were obtained at selected intervals for laboratory testing. Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with cuttings or sand that was brought to the site. Note that HG! did not sample and log the entire depth of fill underlying the construction area. For purposes of this investigation, we have assumed that existing fill soils beneath the depth of our exploration have been properly compacted as part of the shopping center grading and construction and make no representation about the condition of fill soils beyond the limits or depth of our exploration. Laboratory Testing -Representative samples from the field investigation were tested for moisture, density, maximum dry density, optimum moisture and direct shear strength properties (Appendix C). The results of these tests were utilized for evaluation of appropriate foundation bearing capacity, lateral earth pressure and minimum embedment. Technical Analyses -Research, field and laboratory test data were analyzed and conclusions and recommendations were developed for mitigation of identified geotechnical constraints and retaining wall design and grading recommendations. We have developed appropriate seismic design parameters (earthquake magnitude, ground accelerations and probability of occurrence) based on current criteria for a design earthquake scenario. Report -Findings, conclusions and recommendations are summarized in this report. The report has been prepared in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Guidelines for Geotechnical Reports. 2.0 GENERAL GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC SETTING The site is located in the western portion of the Peninsular Range geomorphic province characterized by a series of extensive Pleistocene marine terraces developed on gently westward dipping Tertiary sediments. According to review of site conditions and published geologic data (Tan and Kennedy, 1996), the site of the Forum shopping center is underlain by man-placed compacted fill overlying alluvium and, at depth, the Eocene Santiago Formation . -2- Mr. Ruiz January 12, 2023 122211 2.1 Stratigraphy Mapping by Tan and Kennedy ( 1996) indicates the site is underlain by two geologic fonnations: a Quaternary alluvium and the Santiago Fonnation at depth. Tan and Kennedy also indicate that Torrey Sandstone interfingers with Santiago Formation. Alluvium and Santiago Fonnation were not encountered in our borings which exposed fill soils overlying undifferentiated colluvium/alluvium. 2.1.1 Santiago Fonnation (Tsa) -In this area, the Santiago Formation consists primarily of fine to coarse, light gray to light brown, sandstone with localized thin beds of clayey siltstone. The sandstones vary from very highly cemented thin concretionary beds to moderately cemented and friable. 2.1.2 Torrey Sandstone (Tt) -In this area the Torrey Sandstone is light gray to white slightly cemented sand. It is generally massive and thick bedded. 2.1.3 Colluvium/ Alluvium (Qcol I Qal) Uandifferentiated -Based on a previous geotechnical study (Southern California Geotechnical, 2001) of the general site area, alluvium consists of brown to dark brown, or red brown slightly silty sand. Undifferentiated colluvium/alluvium encountered in our borings consisted of yellow to tan silty sand with occasional sandstone clasts. 2.1.4 Fill (Af) -Man-placed fills are present below the area of the proposed retaining wall. These soils were encountered to a depth of 3.5 to 4 feet in our borings. Fill soils consist of gray clayey sand to tan silty fine sand. 3.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Potential geologic hazards reviewed for this report include the potential for landsliding, faulting, seismicity, and seismically induced liquefaction and dynamic settlement. 3.1 Landsliding Review of published geologic and landslide maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Plate 2 (Tan and Kennedy, 1996) indicate that no previously mapped bedrock landslides occur on or adjacent to the property. Further, the Landslide Susceptibility Map (Tan and Kennedy, 1996) categorizes this area as "Least Susceptible to Landsliding". The potential for landsliding at this site is considered negligible. 3.2 Faulting The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Zone (A-P Zone). According to the State of California (California Geological Survey, 2010) no active faults have been recognized on or mapped through the subject property. Therefore, the potential for surface faulting and ground rupture are considered to be low. However, the site is located between several major, northwest-southeast trending fault zones which are capable of generating large earthquakes and seismic shaking at the site. The closest fault systems are the Newport-Inglewood (Connected) and Rose Canyon Faults. Fault characteristics of nearby faults are shown below in Table I below: -3- Mr. Ruiz TABLE I Earthquake Faults and Seismicity Fault Zone' Sense of Slip' Distance (miles) 1 Newport- Inglewood Strike-Slip 4.9 (Connected) Rose Canyon Strike-Slip 4.9 Newport- Inglewood Strike-Slip I I.I (Offshore) Palos Verdes Strike-Slip 20.4 (Connected) Coronado Bank Strike-Slip 20.4 Elsinore Strike-Slip 23.7 Earthquake Valley Strike-Slip 40.1 Palos Verdes Strike-Slip 40.4 San Joaquin Hills Strike-Slip 43.2 San Jacinto Strike-Slip 49.0 " 2008 Natmnal Se1sm1c Hazard Maps rault Parameter Database (USGS) Parameters for seismic design are provided in Section 5.5. 3.3 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement January 12, 2023 I 22211 Maximum Moment Magnitude' 7.5 6.7 6.8 7.7 7.3 7.9 6.6 7.2 6.9 7.9 The soils underlying proposed retaining wall apparently consist of shallow compacted fill overlying dense to very dense Torrey Sandstone. Due to the density of the Torrey Sandstone, potential for liquefaction is consider negligible. 3.4 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during our exploration to a depth of approximately five feet below grade. A previous study (Southern California Geotechnical, 2001) has indicated that groundwater levels could be as high as 30 feet below the ground surface. However, this is well below any proposed improvements associated with the proposed retaining wall construction. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS The proposed improvements are considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. No significant geotechnical conditions have been discovered that would preclude construction of the proposed retaining wall and patio improvements as planned. -4- Mr. Ruiz January 12, 2023 122211 Several large palm trees are located in the plant strip between the existing sidewalk and the driveway. Sometimes high concentration of palm tree roots can cause lifting of hardscape improvements. If concentrated palm tree roots are encountered during construction in the area of proposed improvements (footings or new sidewalks), installation ofa root barrier may be warranted. 5.0 RECOMMEND A TIO NS The following foundation design and grading recommendations are provided based on the plans that we have been provided and geotechnical conditions disclosed by our investigative testing and analysis. If conditions are encountered which were not evident at the time of our investigation, additional recommendations may be required. 5.1 Retaining Wall Design The proposed MSU retaining wall may be founded on a conventional continuous footing imbedded a minimum of I 8 inches below lowest adjacent finish grade into properly compacted fill soils. Footing thickness should be determined by the structural engineer. At the above depth and dimensions, the spread footing may be designed for an allowable bearing capacity of 2000 pounds per square foot (psf). Lateral loads for active earth pressure conditions may be calculated by assuming an equivalent fluid weight of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pct). Lateral loads may be resisted by assuming an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pcf against the foundation edge. A coefficient of friction against sliding of 0.30 may also be assumed. The allowable bearing and lateral earth pressures may be increased by one third for temporary loadings such as wind or seismic. If the retaining wall is not free to rotate, then "at-rest" earth pressure should be used for design. For at rest conditions, lateral loads may be calculated using an equivalent fluid weight of 50 pounds per cubic foot. The above pressures are for well drained, non-expansive granular backfill and are soil pressures only. Dead load from slabs and live loads should be added to the above pressures for design. A single layer of Tencate Miragrid 5XT (geogrid) is recommended to reduce lateral relaxation of fill near the top of the proposed retaining wall in accordance with Figure 4. Polyester geogrid is specified because oflow strains required for strength development. The structural engineer should determine footing and retaining wall reinforcement. We recommend the use of Type WV cement for footing construction. Steel reinforcement should have a minimum concrete cover of three inches. Footing excavations should be wetted prior to concrete placement. Curing compound, frequent wetting or barriers should be used to minimize cracking during concrete set. The proposed retaining wall should be provided with appropriate drainage as indicated in Figure 5. -5- Mr. Ruiz 5.2 Slab Design January 12, 2023 122211 Sidewalk and patio slabs should be at least 4 inches in total thickness and reinforced (minimum) with number 3 rebar at 18 inches on center placed at mid-height in the slab. Additional reinforcement may be specified by the structural engineer. Tooled or sawcut joints should be provided based upon the structural engineer's recommendation. Particular attention should be given to providing joints adjacent to re-entrant corners in slabs. We recommend that a joint be provided where proposed slabs abut the existing building and proposed retaining wall. The joint should be sealed with flexible sealant. In areas where moisture migration may affect use or appearance, slabs should be underlain by a IO-mil visqueen barrier over a two-inch layer of clean sand (sand equivalent of at least 30). We recommend the use of Type 11/V cement for slab construction. 5.3 Earthwork Recommendations 5.3.1 Site Preparation -Prior to construction of the proposed improvements, the area of the proposed improvements should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions and debris including abandoned utilities, foundation and slab remnants and organic or otherwise unsuitable materials. Concrete, organic soils and other generated debris should be removed from the site. Removal of unsuitable materials should be performed under the observation of HGI. 5.3.2 Excavation and Trenching -Excavation may be accomplished by conventional heavy duty earth moving equipment in good working condition to depths of at least five feet. Trenches over five feet in depth should be provided with shoring if workers are to enter excavations. Stockpiling of materials directly adjacent to utility trenches or excavation can promote sloughing or cave-ins and should be avoided. Stockpiles should be located a minimum horizontal distance from the side of the trench (or excavation) equal to the trench (or excavation) depth. 5.3.3 Foundation Excavation Observation and Removal and Recompaction -The foundation excavation should be observed and tested by a representative of HG! prior to placement ofre-bar. Fill soils should have a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent based on ASTM D 1557. If unsuitable conditions are encountered during our field observation, compaction of soils or removal and replacement of soils may be recommended. Depths of removal and recompaction, if necessary, should be determined by the geotechnical consultant following foundation excavation. It should be noted that remnant roots from hedges along the alignment of the current stacked block retaining wall may render some of the fill soils immediately below the proposed footing bottom unsuitable due to high organic content. This can be checked by the geotechnical consultant during construction. Regardless of whether removal of fill beyond the bottom of the proposed footing is performed, footing bottom should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557. The contractor shall be responsible for any temporary shoring, if necessary, during construction. Replaced fill should meet the following criteria and be compacted as described below. -6- Mr. Ruiz January 12, 2023 122211 5.3.4 Fill Placement and Compaction -Fill material should be granular and non- expansive in nature, free of debris and deleterious matter and have no particles larger than six inches in maximum dimension. Imported fill (if needed) should be approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to hauling. The contractor shall allow for time in his schedule for sampling and conformance testing of fill by the geotechnical consultant. Fill should be placed at near optimum moisture and in uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding six to eight inches in loose lift thickness. Fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM DI 557. Utility trench backfill should be placed in lifts not exceeding six to eight inches in loose lift thickness and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Due to the granular nature of the on-site soils, compaction should most easily be achieved with vibratory equipment. 5.4 Surface Drainage We recommend that all slab drainage be permanently diverted away from the existing building at a minimum one percent grade to a suitable outlet. 5.5 Seismic Design We have performed a probabilistic analysis of potential earthquake events on faults near the proposed improvements to demonstrate an earthquake event. We have used the U.S. Geological Survey Unified Hazard Tool with criteria for 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (2475- year return interval) and IO percent probability of occurrence in 50 years ( 475-year return interval) to provide peak ground acceleration and modal magnitude values in the table below. TABLE2 Probabilistic Seismicity Analysis Results (PGA) Probability of Return Modal Peak Horizontal Exceedance in 50 Interval Magnitude Ground vears /vears) Acceleration 2% 2475 6.9 0.51 10% 475 6.9 0.25 Due to the limited wall height, we do not anticipate seismic design spectral parameter requirements for the wall. But, we will provide them upon the request of the Project Architect or Structural Engineer. A report of the results from the site response analysis, U.S. Geological Survey Unified Hazard Tool is included in Appendix D. Final selection of the appropriate seismic design coefficients should be made by the structural consultant based on the local laws and ordinances, expected building response, and desired level of conservatism. -7- Mr. Ruiz 5.6 Technical Review January 12, 2023 122211 Supplemental geotechnical design recommendations should be provided by our firm based on specific design needs developed by the other project design professionals. This report, and any supplemental recommendations, should be reviewed by the contractor as part of the bid process. It is strongly recommended that no construction be started nor grading undertaken until the final drawings, specifications, and calculations have been reviewed and approved in writing by a representative of Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. 5.7 Earthwork Construction Observation and Testing All excavations should be observed by a representative of Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. prior to backfilling, fill placement or pouring of concrete foundations. Any grading should also be observed and tested as appropriate to check compaction and placement methods. Our office should be contacted with a minimum of 48 hours advance notice of construction activities requiring observation and/or testing services. 6.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS Our services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No warranty, express or implied, or merchantability of fitness, is made or intended in connection with our work, by the proposal for consulting or other services, or by the furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. Any recommendations and/or design criteria presented in this report are contingent upon our firm being retained to review the final drawings and specifications, to be consulted when any questions arise with regard to the recommendations contained herein, and to provide testing and inspection services for earthwork and construction operations. Unanticipated soil and geologic conditions are commonly encountered during construction which cannot be fully determined from existing exposures or by limited subsurface investigation. Such conditions may require additional expenditures during construction to obtain a properly constructed project. Some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate these possible extra costs. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the project architect, structural engineer and civil engineer and incorporated into the plans. Furthermore, it is also the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. -8- Imagery© 2018 Google, Map Data© 2018 Google PACIFIC OCEAN ,s i '<OT T'OSCAH VICINITY MAP m r ~ z 0 ,i if E1'Cl~ITA~ VILLAGE SHOPPING CE1'TER ENCIN1~-4S -it., ,0 ,_ Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. ■ Site Location Map Project Number: 122211 Drafted: VC Scale: NTS The Forum Carlsbad, CA Date: Jan. 2023 Eng/Geo: SRH/MH Figure Number: I I EXISTING BUILDING I 0 z 0 L) ..... w f· fl 0) - (!) l J .-('IL{) o .-.-.- ,01.7\4 ,,, ' 5 ~ ,o,.76 10; .79 ii .IN' )R 13LOG rS ~.83 1 ~0 OIi\ fU 85 coR SLOG f ,o,.79 86 fl:&'·8'\ \mft 87 ,o,.80 ONOO ~cM ,a 9'\ ,0,.82 92 '.)~O'JI g .80 \. 93 Q\. S:I <JG19 d0) <;6 -v~no~ ,o,.83 94 .13 97.35 ,25 f ()N 97 .4-5 ,24 r. ;coNC ,0,.,2 , 1 .. ,32 ' ·' E}cfJNC~ N 9, ~-30 l 41:}11-!\9 ~~~~ b <ff . .t.Pf \RR 5 0 5 SCALE -1 ":5' (H=V) 97.90 ,23 51 t.,91.M· ,22 •'-JI,._ ,o,.,, '33 T'N CR18 l~[[l) Af '\ f,." ~-62 Af f I LEGEND ~ - ~[[l] IHGl-1 I ARTIE ICIAL FILL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL APPROX. LOCATION SMALL DIAMETER (6-INCH) EXPLORATORY BORING BY HGI CROSS SECTION ==== -- II, .. Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. Geologic and Boring Location Map Project Number: 122211 Dra~ed: VC The Forum Carl sbad, CA Date: Jan. 2023 Eng/Geo: SRH/MH Basemap From: Survey Prepared by Acculine Survey. Inc., file entitled "2355.dwg", dated 8/30/2022. Scale: I" = 5' Figure Number: 2 HGl-1 110 -i-: LL -z 0 105 ~ > w ....J w >< 0 O::'. a.. 100 a.. <( C) z 0 ...J ::::> CD C) z ~ Cl) x w PROPOSED PATIO EXTENSION EXISTING PATIO EXISTING STACKED BLOCK WALL TD: HGl-1' EXISTING PLANTER AREA PROPOSED RETAINING WALL HGI BORING 8-2: PROJ. 7.5' ..L TO SECTION EXISTING SIDEWALK DRIVEWAY EXISTING PLANTER AREA R 110 -i-: LL -z 105 0 ~ > w ....J w >< 0 100 8: a.. <( 95 5·33' 95 ---N88E ► SCALE 1": 5' (H = V) I .. Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc . • Cross Section: HGI 1-1 ' The Forum Carlsbad, CA Project Number: 122211 Date: Jan. 2023 Dralied: VC Eng/Geo: SRH/MH Scale: I" = 5' Figure Number: 3 '\ (.'.) z 0 _J :) co (.'.) z i== (/) x w I' 1 . ~1 ,. REMOVE AND RECOMPACT ,---EXISTING SOIL TO 90%-- RELATIVE COMPACTION BASED ON ASTM D1557 .JL 5' , : . . i tr .--PROPOSED RETAINING WALL I/ ,, r-- F 1' --------\I K , ~-~ · .... _;, :.;.--~ .;. ..;, • r" . ):-. ':°•·""· .... ~ I MIRAFI 8XT GEOGRID '1// I ~ ~ . :<Q◊o oo .~ <> 'O' ·: l o SEE FIGURE 5 FOR · : ., 0 --4.,.__._~--RETAINING WALL :lo0 DRAINAGE DETAIL .·, 00 ,:';' C I O D j -~ ~:~=i0.5' -......,__ I -... '-. . I . . ' I --~ "// I ' .1 ~ I ~1 _}'--~,\ t '.' I_ -' t L BENCH AS FILL IS PLACED ~::/ BOTTOM OF FOOTING MIN. 18" BELOW GRADE I.a. Helenschmidt Geotechnical. Inc . ~ .___COMPACT BOTTON OF EXCAVATION TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION BASED ON ASTM D1 557 Excavation Backfill Detail Project Number: 122211 Drafted: VC Scale: NTS The Forum Carlsbad, CA Date: Jan. 2023 Eng/Geo: SRH/MH Figure Number: 4 RETAINING l WALL FINISHED FLOOR v ~/ 7,, 0' WATERPROOFING PER ARCHITECT'S RECOMMENDATIONS FINISH GRADE ~ I ! 314-INCHWASHEDGRAVEL 1 SURROUNDED BY MIRAFI 1.0' MIN. 11 -o• 140N FILTER FABRIC OR ............ ~ APPROVED EQUIVALENT. C> 0 ◊ C> ·: 6" MIN. LAP ◊ <> • 'v-(7 ◊ /, . // () ◊(J t:> :~ 0 c.. 'v'<J : L:::.. ◊ () : 4" SCH. 40 PERFORATED OO <l <>: PVC PIPE (PERFORATIONS '1' 0 .:! 'v' : _/ DOWN) 2% MINIMUM SLOPE C) CJ D r-.: / TO OUTLET 'v' Cl ◊ t:> V , o ~./1 // 0<1:~ 'v' : 2" MINIMUM CLEARANCE OPTION A WATERPROOFING PER ARCHITECT'S RECOMMENDATIONS RETAINING FINISH GRADE WALL 7 ! 314 -INCH WASHED GRAVEL MIRADRAIN G100N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT FINISHED FLOOR //. ~- 1.0' ~· SURROUNDED BY MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. 6" MIN. LAP. 3 CU. FT/FT 4" SCH. 40 PERFORATED PVC PIPE (PERFORATIONS ··o···,;;;·t :: DOWN) 2% MINIMUM SLOPE C) '1' CJ D ,,__; TO OUTLET 'v'Cl ◊ t:>v ' o OQC> // D4 '--g 'v' 2" MINIMUM CLEARANCE I // ~" OPTION B II .. Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. Retaining Wall Drainage Detail (Typical) The Forum Carlsbad, CA Project Number: 12221 1 Date: Jan. 2023 Drafted: VC Eng/Geo: SRH/MH Scale: Not to Scale Figure Number: 5 APPENDIX A REFERENCES REFERENCES Acculine Survey, Inc. (2022): 2355-LINEWORK-8-30-22, I sheet, dated August 30, 2022. Anderson, J.G. (1984) Synthesis of seismicity and geological data in California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-424, 186 pp. Boore, D. M., Joyner, W. B., and Furna!, T. E. (I 994) Estimation of response spectra and peak accelerations from western North American earthquakes: an interim report, part 2: U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 94-127. California Building Standards Commission (2022): 2022 California Building Code, California Code of Regulation, Title 23, Part 2. California Division of Mines and Geology ( 1996) California Fault Zone, Southern California, Open- File Report 93-02. California Division of Mines and Geology ( 1986) Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California, DMG Open-File Report 86-8. Campbell, K. W. and Bozorgnia, Y. (1994) Near source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration from worldwide accelerograms recorded from 1957 to I 993: in Proceedings, Fifth U. S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Vol. lll, p.283-292. Clark, M.M., Lienkaemper, J.J., Harwood, D.S., Lajoie, K.R., Matti, J.C., Perkins, J.A., Rymer, M.J., Sarna-Wojcicki, A.M., Sharp, R.V., Simms, J.D., Tinsley, J.C., lll, and Ziony, J.I. (1984) Preliminary slip-rate table and map of late Quaternary faults of California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 84-106. Gutenburg, B., and Richter, C.F. ( 1954) Seisrnicity of the earth, Princeton University Press, 310 pp. Jennings, C. W. (I 994) Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas with locations and ages of recent volcanic eruptions, California Division of Mines and Geology Geologic Data Map No. 6. Kohn Architecture (2022): 1935 I Suite 176 Patio, The Forum Carlsbad, 2 sheets, dated 9-8-22. Leighton and Associates (1999): Final As Graded Report of Rough Grading, Green Valley CT 920-08 (Proposed La Costa Glen), Carlsbad, California, dated 1-28-99. Meyers & Associates (2004 ): As-Built Grading Plans The Pavilion at La Costa, Carlsbad, California, 17 sheets, dated 3-4-04. Peterson, M.D. and Wesnousky, S.G. ( 1993) Fault slip rates, paleoearthquake histories, and seismic hazard of active faults in southern California, (A. Strawrnan for discussion), draft report prepared for the Southern California Earthquake Center, dated March 2, 1993, 94 pp. Peterson, M.D. and Wesnousky, S.G. ( I 994) Fault slip rates, paleoearthquake histories, and seismic hazard of active faults in southern California, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 84,no.5,pp. 1608-1649 A-1 Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. (2001) Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation, Proposed Retail Development, The Pavillion at La Costa, Carlsbad Tract No. 9208, Lot 4, Carlsbad, California. Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. ( 1982) Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Monograph No. 5, 134 p. Tan, S.S., Kennedy, M.P., I 996, Geologic maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5 minute quadrangles, San Diego County, California, Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-02. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B. (1987) Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, v. 113, p. 861-878. United States Geological Survey (USGS; 2008): 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps -Source Parameters: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults _ 2008 _search/query_ main.cfm United States Geological Survey (USGS; 2022): Unified Hazard Tool: https:/ /earthquake. usgs .gov/hazards/interactive/ Wesnousky, S.G. (I 986) Earthquakes, Quaternary faults, and seismic hazard in California, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 91, no. B 12, pp. 12,587-12,631. Youd, T.L. (I 997) Preliminary Report from NCEER (National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research) Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils for Seismic Short Course, Evaluation and Mitigation of Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Hazards. A-2 APPENDIXB FIELD INVESTIGATION: EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS FIELD INVESTIGATION Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by means of two 4-inch diameter hand auger borings excavated to depths of 5.25 to 5.33 feet using hand auger sampling equipment. The locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2. Our field representative who logged the borings directed the sampling and visually classified the soils in accordance with ASTM D-2487. We obtained samples of the materials encountered at selected depths from borings. Drive samples were obtained in brass rings that were 2.5 inches in outside diameter and I inch high using a modified California split barrel sampler (designated 0-# on the Boring Logs) driven by a 30 pound (approximate) hand lifted weight mounted onto the drill rod. Bulk samples were collected at selected depths. Descriptive logs of the borings are presented in this Appendix. These logs depict our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated, based on representative samples collected at roughly 2-foot sample intervals. It is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other times and locations. The contacts on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between earth materials and the transitions between these materials may be gradual. HELENSCHMIDT GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILLING Project _!he Forum Location Southwest of Ca_lle Barct,lona and Woodfcrn _Ln. in_Plantcr Area Drilling Contractor/Rig Hand Auger Ground Surface E:.lev. H_)O' (Approx.) Logged By SRH/VC Surface Conditions Soil • Geotechnical -2:! oi-:c ~ ,,_ "' .; Description c..;; --Q. 0 U• Q.. E..a E • . ., r:r.~ 1c o-" :;;u .; = •c :.-e -Q Boring No. B-1 Project No. 122211 Date of Drilling 12/21/ZQ_n Hole Diameter 6-1~..d! Weather Cool~ Sunny ~ Q =-.,.0 • .... ::: --. ;~ -. .s,,.;.. Q. Q. E _.., Et =-:; "'": " ... Q er, "'- Comments //,-SC FILL (A!): 0.7'-4.0' (ii 0'-4.75': Bulk Sample. /// Gray Cla:ycy Sand. Moist, dense. V/ V /, 2 fT".,.~., ------------------------~ I I I SM Tan Silty Sand. Damp to moist, dense. -I I I ..JU_ 103.5 7.5 50/6" HA 60 I I I RC=84 4 -ITT T ----------------------SM (;OLLIJVl!lM {Q!,;ql)LALI JJVl!JM {!!DI} I I I !lNU!EEEBEl'.SIIAIEll· :Ml'-S 25' Roots and !i1" dia. rock -W-4.0': Becomes whitish gray. D-2 107.5 7.5 50/6.5' HA 60 fragment in sampler. 6 -Yellow to tan, line grained Silty Sand\\ i1h small white Sandstone clasts. Damp to moist, very dense, slight!) iccmcnted, Fe:,0_1 staining. Total Depth: 5.25' 8 -No Groundwater Table Encountered. Backfilled with cuttings on 12/22/2022. 10 - 12 - 14 -- 16 18 - 20 22 24 - 26 28 > HELENSCHMIDT GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILLING Project _1he Forum Location Southwest_ofCalle Barcc_lona an_~ Woodfern Ln. in P_lanter_Area Drilling Contractor/Rig Hand Ang~ Ground Surface Elev. 98' (AJ!I!!:Q_x.) Logged By SRH/VC Surface Conditions Soil " Geotechnical :.2 OJ) f.~ ~-~ ~ C. C Description =-t: E ..i E t •..S, sr.!: J5Q c:-c.;, ~u /// SC FILL (AQ: 0.7'-3.5' /// Gray Clayey Sand. Moist, dense. //• 2 I//. l' I~ I D-1 It t t ~~M------------------------I I I Tan Silty Sand. Damp to moist, dense. tr TT ----------------------4 SM !;;QLLl!VlllM nh;pl}lALLIJVIIJM (~ial} I I I lll'.SIMEEEBErsIJAIEll· J S'-S 33' -I I I I I I Ycllmv to tan, line grained Silt}' Sand 'nith small white D-2 Sandstone clasts ( 1 /4" dia). Damp to moist, vel}' dense, 6 slightly cemented, CaC03 stringers, minor fe203 staining. Total Depth: 5.33' No Groundwater Table Encountered. 8 -Backfilled with cuttings on 12/22/2022. IO 12 14 - 16 18 - 20 22 - 24- 26 28 ,;, C . "' Qo -C. c·- Q 116.9 R(>=95 93.2 Boring No. B-2 Project No. 12_2lll_ Date of Drilling J2/21/2022 Hole Diameter 6-lnch Weather Cool~ Sun_n:y " ~g -• =-... §~ .'Zi i -. C' C. Q. o--~ ~ r=:· :; "'"' •• e "' ,,- 8.9 50/6" HA JOO 9.5 50/6.5" HA 40 Comments (ii 0'-4.0': Hulk Sample. Root in sampler. 3/4" dia. rock in sampler. APPENDIXC LABO RA TORY TEST RES UL TS LABO RA TORY TESTING The laboratory analysis performed for the site consisted of limited testing of the principal soil types sampled during the field investigation to evaluate moisture and density, and strength parameters of subsurface materials. The soil descriptions and the field and laboratory test results were used to assign parameters to the various materials at the site. The results of the laboratory testing program are presented on the boring logs and in this Appendix. The following laboratory tests were performed as part of this investigation and m general accordance with the referenced standards: I. Detailed soil description; ASTM D-2487 2. Natural moisture content of the soil, ASTM D-2216 3. In-situ density of the soil (wet and dry) 4. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture; ASTM D-1557 5. Direct Shear Test; ASTM D-3080 The Forum, Carlsbad, CA Sample Description B-1, Bulk 0-4.75 Feet Gray to Tan, slightly Clayey Silty Sand Test Maximum Density Optimum Moisture Results 123.0 pcf 10.5 % 1• Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. Maximum Density The Forum Carlsbad, CA Project Numhcr: 12221 I Date: Jan. 2023 Drafted: VC Eng/Oeo·. SRH/MI I Scale: NIA Figure Number: C-1 BORING/SAMPLE NO. B-1 /D-I DEPTH 3.0'-3.75' SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Tan Sij_ty_ Sand APPARENT ANGLE OF PEAK 30.2 APPARENT PEAK 0.377 INTERNAL FRICTION, COHESION, C (KSF) 0 (DEGREES) EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN STRESS (KSF) 0.33 -- DRY DENSITY (PCF) 103.5 SAMPLE DIAMETER 2.4 Inches NArtJRAL MOISTURE CONTENT(%) 7.5 HORIZONTAL SHEAR RATE (in. per min.) 0.005 5.0 4.0 G:" / C/l " I-> 3.0 "' Vl V "' CG f-VO CG <1'. "' ./ :i: 2.0 V C/l I 1.0 / V) 0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 SURCHARGE, cr (KSF) ,_ Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. Direct Shear Test The forum Carlsbad, CA Project Numhcr: 122211 Date: fan. 2023 Dratted: VC Eng/Cico: SRI I/Mil Scale: Not to Scale Figure Number: C-2 APPENDIXD SEISMIC HAZARD DATA U.S. Geological Survey -Earthquake Hazards Program Unified Hazard Tool Please do not use this tool to obtain ground motion parameter values for the design code reference documents covered by the U.S. Seismic Design Ma Rs web tools (e.g., the International Building Code and the ASCE 7 or 41 Standard). The values returned by the two applications are not identical. "' Input Edition Spectral Period l~_D_y_n_a_m_i_c:_c_o_n_t_e_rm_i n_o_u_s_u_._s_. 2_0_1_4_(_u_. _ .. __ ~I I Peak Ground Acceleration Latitude Time Horizon Decimal degrees Return period in years 1~33_._01_2_6 ____________ ~11 2475 Longitude Decimal degrees, negative values for western longitudes I -117.2659 Site Class 537 m/s (Site class C) "' Hazard Curve le+O le-l w '" C w '" ~ w lc-4 ~ le-5 0 le-6 ~ V C le-7 w a le-8 rr J! le-9 1 le-10 < le-ll le-12 le-13 Hazard Curves -lomeHomon2475years -+-Peak Ground Acceleration ---+--O 10 Second Spectral Accelerat,on -U 20 Second SpectralAccelera!1on ----0.305econd SpectralAcrelera11on -+--o.~u Second Spect,al A"elerat,on O 7.'i Second Spectral Accelerat,on I.UO Second Spect,al Acceleration 2 00 Second SpectralAccelerat,on J 00 Second Spect<al Acceleration 4 00 Oecond Spectral Accelerat,ori -',_UO Second SpeWal Acceleration le-2 Ground Motion (g) Je+O Component Curves for Peak Ground Acceleration le•O le-1 le-9 le 10 lP-11 lc-12 le 13 -I ,me Ho<1rno 24 rf, years ----System ---Gnd -lnwtiace --laull le-2 View Raw Data le-1 le+O Ground Motion (g) Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum '0 's '; '§ " C /\, Q u 0 ~ '° -g a 0.0 e "' o.e 0A Spectral Period (s): PGA 0, Ground Motion (g): 0,5135 0.0 05 Spectral Period (s) A Deaggregation Component Total Lt) N . • • • . •• • •• . • •• •·· • . • . •• • • • • ■ f. = (-oo .. -2.5) ■ f. = (-2.5 .. -2) ■ f. = [-2 .. -1.5) ■£=[-1.5 .. -1) D f. = [-1 .. -0.5) 0 f. = (-0.5 .. 0) 0 f. = [0 .. 0.5) D f. = ro.5 .. 1) ■ £= (1 .. 1.5) ■ f. = (1.5 .. 2) ■ f. = (2 .. 2.5) ■ f. = (2.5 .. +00) Summary statistics for, Deaggregation: Total Deaggregation targets Return period: 2475 yrs Exceedance rate: 0.0004040404 yr 1 PGA ground motion: 0.51353285 g Totals Binned: 100 % Residual: O % Trace: 0.06 % Mode (largest m-r bin) m: 6.89 r: 8.44 km Eo: 0.79 CJ Contribution: 18.22 % Discretization r: min= 0.0, max = 1000.0, 6 = 20.0 km m: min = 4.4, max = 9.4, 6 = 0.2 E: min = -3.0, max= 3.0, 6 = 0.5 CJ Recovered targets Return period: 2664.1293 yrs Exceedance rate: 0.00037535716 yr 1 Mean ( over all sources) m: 6.72 r: 11.47 km Eo: 1.07 CJ Mode (largest m-r-tu bin) m: 6.89 r: 8.1 km Eo: 0.78 CJ Contribution: 16.94 % Epsilon keys EO: [-oo .. -2.5) El: (-2.5 .. -2.0) El: (-2.0 .. -1.5) E3: (-1.5 .. -1.0) E4: (-1.0 .. -0.5) ES: (-0.5 .. 0.0) E6: (0.0 .. 0.5) E7: (0.5 .. 1.0) ES: [1.0 .. 1.5) E9: (1.5 .. 2.0) ElO: (2.0 .. 2.5) Ell: (2.5 .. +oo] Deaggregation Contributors Source Set I+ Source Type r m t o Ion lat az % UC33brAvg_FM31 System 40.73 Rose Canyon [lSJ 8.02 6.96 0.71 117.333°W 33.028°N 231.25 24.73 Rose Canyon [16J 8.02 6.69 0.90 117.339°W 33.035°N 238.00 3.22 Oceanside altl [OJ 17.42 7.13 1.27 111.s89°w 33.024°N 259.96 2.59 Rose Canyon [17J 9.07 6.12 1.37 117.362°W 33.062°N 262.51 2.02 Carlsbad [4J 13.06 7.24 0.87 117.443°W 33.017°N 249.65 1.39 Elsinore (Temecula) rev [SJ 38.30 7.64 2.08 111.008°w 33.341°N 38.72 1.14 Rose Canyon [14J 9.08 6.41 1.19 111.320°w 33.oos·N 213.85 1.05 UC33brAvg_FM32 System 36.84 Rose Canyon [l SJ 8.02 6.98 0.72 117.333°W 33.028°N 231.25 23.60 Rose Canyon [16J 8.02 6.75 0.87 117.339°W 33.035°N 238.00 2.44 Rose Canyon [17J 9.07 6.18 1.34 117.362°W 33.062°N 262.51 1.73 Oceanside alt2 [6J 17.51 7.66 0.91 117.588°W 33.020°N 259.07 1.41 Elsinore (Temecula) rev [SJ 38.30 7.67 2.06 117.008°W 33.341°N 38.72 1.23 Carlsbad [4J 13.06 6.69 1.26 111.443•w 33.017°N 249.65 1.06 UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt) Grid 11.30 PointSourceFinite: -117.266, 33.131 7.67 5.89 1.08 117.266°W 33.131°N 0.00 1.60 PointSourceFinite: -117.266, 33.131 7.67 5.89 1.08 117.266°W 33.131°N 0.00 1.60 PointSourceFinite: -117.266, 33.113 6.91 5.50 1.20 117.266°W 33.113°N 0.00 1.20 PointSourceFinite: -117 .266, 33.113 6.91 5.50 1.20 117.266°W 33.113°N 0.00 1.20 UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt) Grid 11.13 PointSourceFinite: -117.266, 33.131 7.67 5.88 1.08 117.266°W 33.131°N 0.00 1.60 PointSourceFinite: -117.266, 33.131 7.67 5.88 1.08 117.266°W 33.131°N 0.00 1.60 PointSourceFinite: -117.266, 33.113 6.91 5.50 1.20 117.266°W 33.113°N 0.00 1.18 PointSourceFinite: -117.266, 33.113 6.91 5.50 1.20 117.266°W 33.113°N 0.00 1.18 U.S. Geological Survey-Earthquake Hazards Progra m Unified Hazard Tool Please do not use this tool to obtain ground mot ion parameter va lues for the design code reference documents covered by the U.S. Seismic Design MaP-S web tools (e.g., the International Building Code and the ASCE 7 or 41 Sta ndard). The values returned by the two applications are not identical. A Input Edition Spectral Period I~ _o_y_n_a_m_i_c_: c_o_n_t_e_rm_i n_o_u_s_u_._s_. _20_1_4_{_u_._· ·--~I I Peak Ground Acceleration Latitude Time Horizon Decimal degrees Return period in years I._ _3_3._0_12_6 ____________ __,I I 475 Longitude Decimal degrees, negative values for western longitudes I -117.2659 Site Class 537 m/s (Site class C) A Hazard Curve Hazard Curves Uniform Hazard Response Spectrum l~ .. 0 2.0 le-1 1l le•2 18 C: le-3 ., 'O :i: 1 ... ill le-5 0 le-6 i::' -Time Honzon <175 years C: le-7 ~ PNk Ground Accele,.tlon ., -+-0.10 Second Sl)@Ctr,1 Acc .. ~11,on :, le-8 <:T -0.20 Second SpKt~l Acc.iefllion ~ u. le-9 -.-0.30 Second Spt(ual AccelttMion ;; -O.SO Second Spectral Accelera!lon :, le-10 -+-0.15 Second Spectral AccMfaoon C: C: le-11 -+-1.00 Second SpKtr,l AccelfftttOn < 2.00 Second Spectral Accflenu,on 1.6 :§ 1.4 C: .2 1.2 0 :E 1.0 'O C: :, 0.8 2 <.!) 0.6 0.4 le-12 3.00s.condS~IAccritt'MIOn 0.2 le-13 ◄.00 Second Spectral Aecelenll1on _,._ 5.00 SKond Spe,ctr,I Acc~at,on 0.0 le-2 le•l le•O 2.S 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Ground Motion (g) Spectral Period (s) Component Curves for Peak Ground Acceleration le•O le•l 1l le-2 C: le•l ., 'O :i: le--< ill le-5 0 le-6 >, V C: le 7 ., :, l le-8 u. Je-9 ;; :, le-10 C: C: -TtmtHoru:on247SyHt'S < le•ll _._syst@m le-12 -+-Gnd -+-lntN"f~e le-13 -+-Fault le-2 le 1 let0 Ground Motion (g) View Raw Data Deaggregation Component Total -0 ro ~ 0 N ro I.I) = ..... E C: 0 .;:;o ::,r-1 .0 ·5 C: 0 U l.l) 0 C' <s ~m~-· .I.. ··•·· .. .. .. ..• .. .. .• • •• • • •• •• • • • • . • • • . • • •• .• • . • • • . . . • . :Gs • . . :as ■ E = (-oo .. -2.5) ■ E = [-2.5 .. -2) ■ E = [-2 .. -1.5) ■E=[-1.5 .. -1) 0 E = [-1 .. -0.5) 0 E = [-0.5 .. 0) 0 E= [0 .. 0.5) 0 E = [0.5 .. 1) ■ E = (1 .. 1.5) ■ E= (1.5 .. 2) ■ E = [2 .. 2.5) ■ E = [2.5 .. +oo) Summary statistics for, Deaggregation: Total Deaggregation targets Return period: 475 yrs Exceedance rate: 0.0021052632 yr 1 PGA ground motion: 0.25209835 g Totals Binned: 100 % Residual: O % Trace: 0.18 % Mode (largest m-r bin) m: 6.89 r: 8.72 km to: -0.4 a Contribution: 10.77 % Discretization r: min = 0.0, max= 1000.0, 6 = 20.0 km m: min = 4.4, max= 9.4, 6 = 0.2 t: min = -3.0, max = 3.0, 6 = 0.5 a Recovered targets Return period: 495.23449 yrs Exceedance rate: 0.0020192455 yr 1 Mean ( over all sources) m: 6.64 r: 20.75 km to: 0.48 a Mode (largest m-r-£o bin) m: 6.88 r: 8.38 km to: -0.38 a Contribution: 5.88 % Epsilon keys t0: (-0() .. -2.5) £1: (-2.5 .. -2.0) t2: [-2.0 .. -1.5) t3: [-LS .. -LO) t4: [-1.0 .. -0.5) tS: [-0.5 .. 0.0) t6: [O.O .. 0.5) t7: [0.5 .. 1.0) £8: [LO .. LS) t9: [LS .. 2.0) tl0: (2.0 .. 2.5) £11: (2.5 .. +oc,J Deaggregation Contributors Source Set I+ Source Type r m £0 Ion lat az o/o UC33brAvg_FM31 System 36.47 Rose Canyon [lSJ 8.02 6.86 -0.43 111.333•w 33.028°N 231.25 14.02 Elsinore (Temecula) rev [SJ 38.30 7.54 1.02 111.008°W 33.341°N 38.72 2.61 Oceanside altl [OJ 17.42 6.99 0.17 117.589°w 33.024°N 259.96 2.45 Rose Canyon [16J 8.02 6.53 -0.20 117.339°W 33.035°N 238.00 2.13 San Jacinto (Anza) rev [2J 79.00 8.04 1.59 116.754°W 33.640°N 36.84 2.07 Rose Canyon [17J 9.07 6.05 0.26 117.362°W 33.062°N 262.51 1.96 Coronado Bank altl [OJ 32.56 6.87 1.45 111.s31•w 32.882°N 229.56 1.40 UC33brAvg_FM32 System 32.99 Rose Canyon [lSJ 8.02 6.89 -0.44 117.333°W 33.028°N 231.25 13.35 Elsinore (Temecula) rev [SJ 38.30 7.58 0.98 111.008°W 33.341°N 38.72 2.71 San Jacinto (Anza) rev [2J 79.00 8.04 1.60 116.754°W 33.640°N 36.84 2.05 Coronado Bank alt2 [llJ 32.81 7.46 0.92 117.545°W 32.893°N 232.66 1.96 Rose Canyon [17J 9.07 6.08 0.23 117.362°w 33.062°N 262.51 1.64 Rose Canyon [16J 8.02 6.58 -0.24 117.339°W 33.035°N 238.00 1.58 UC33brAvg_FM31 (opt) Grid 15.43 PointSourceFinite: -117 .266, 33.131 8.03 5.70 0.20 117.266°W 33.131°N 0.00 1.23 PointSourceFinite: -117.266, 33.131 8.03 5.70 0.20 117.266°W 33.131°N 0.00 1.23 UC33brAvg_FM32 (opt) Grid 15.10 PointSourceFinite: -117.266, 33.131 8.03 5.70 0.20 117.266°W 33.131°N 0.00 1.23 PointSourceFinite: -117.266, 33.131 8.03 5.70 0.20 117.266°W 33.131°N 0.00 1.23