The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2024-02-21; Planning Commission; ; Begonia Court Retaining WallItem No. 1 Meeting Date: Feb. 21, 2024 To: Planning Commission Staff Contact: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner, 442-339-2611, kyle.vanleeuwen@carlsbadca.gov Subject: Begonia Court Retaining Wall Location: 939 Begonia Court / APN: 208-180-27-00 Case Numbers: CDP 2023-0016, V 2023-0002 (DEV 2020-0134) Applicant/Representative: Applicant: Rene Lichtman, 909-659-4291, isquared@charter.net Representative: John S. Rivera, Fusion Engineering and Technology 619-992-6618, johnny@fusionengtech.com CEQA Determination: ☐Not a Project ☒ Exempt ☐ IS/ND or IS/MND ☐ EIR ☐Other: Permit Type(s): ☐SDP ☐ CUP ☒ CDP ☐ TM/TPM ☐ GPA ☐ REZ ☐ LCPA ☒Other: Variance CEQA Status: ☐The environmental assessment IS on the Agenda for discussion. ☒A CEQA determination was already issued. That decision is final and IS NOT on the Agenda Commission Action: ☐Decision ☒ Recommendation to City Council ☐ Informational (No Action) Recommended Actions Hold a public hearing and ADOPT a resolution RECOMMENDING that the City Council Deny Coastal Development Permit CDP 2022-0019 and Variance V 2022-0002, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein (Exhibit 1). Existing Setting The 0.39-acre (17,146 square feet) project site is located at 939 Begonia Court. The site is developed with a two-story, single-family residence. The property slopes from a high point of approximately 204 feet above mean sea level at the rear of the lot to a low point of approximately 166 feet above mean sea level adjacent to the street, Begonia Court. The eastern half of the property, or the backyard area (above 168 feet contour line) is comprised of an uphill slope with a gradient of approximately 55 percent. The lot is surrounded by single-family residences to the north, south, east, and west. Site Map Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 1 of 55 Existing Conditions & Project Description Table “A” below includes the General Plan designations, zoning and current land uses of the subject site and surrounding properties. TABLE A – SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USE Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Current Land Use Site Residential, 0-4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) One-Family Residential (R-1) Single-Family Dwelling North Residential, 0-4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) One-Family Residential (R-1) Single-Family Dwelling South Residential, 0-4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) One-Family Residential (R-1) Single-Family Dwelling East Residential, 0-4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) One-Family Residential (R-1) Single-Family Dwelling West Right-of-way, Residential, 0-4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) Right-of-way, One-Family Residential (R-1) Begonia Court / Single- Family Dwelling General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Proposed Project The applicant, Rene Lichtman, on behalf of the property owner, Valerie Lichtman, is requesting a coastal development permit and variance to allow a series of retaining walls, which are currently built but unpermitted, to be kept in place. The retaining walls step up the slope, which is over 40% inclination, in the rear yard of their property, with central stairs leading up the slope. The retaining walls were installed without required grading or building permits. A location map is included as exhibit 2. In late 2018, upon discovering unpermitted grading and ongoing construction on the property, the Code Enforcement Division opened a code case on the property. Code Enforcement subsequently issued a notice of violation against the property owner in February 2019 and a final notice of violation in June 2019. Construction of the retaining walls stopped in approximately June of 2019, and those violations have not been corrected to this date. Records indicate the construction of the retaining walls began in 2016. The property owner had the option to either remove the retaining walls and return the rear yard to its previous state, or to process and receive approval of a permit to legalize the improvements. The retaining walls, which are not compliant with provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 21.95 – Hillside Development Regulations, would first need to be granted a variance prior to any building or grading permits being approved. The applicant decided to submit for a variance, requesting authorization to retain and permit the improvements. Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 2 of 55 The applicant submitted a coastal development permit and variance in June of 2020. On December 16, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and recommended the City Council deny the variance. Subsequently, the City Council denied the variance on Feb. 23, 2021. The applicant has been in discussions with the City Attorney’s office since that time about the code case and the potential remediation. One of the outcomes of those discussions was an allowance for the applicant to resubmit for the coastal development permit and variance, in part because the previous reviews occurred during Covid-19 restrictions, which may have impacted the applicant’s ability to argue their case before decision makers under the virtual meeting format. On March 30, 2023, the applicant submitted a new application to keep the retaining walls and terracing in place. The applicant is requesting the following entitlements: • A coastal development permit (CDP), the work is considered development under the Coastal Act/CMC section 21.04.107, and the CDP would allow for installation of the retaining walls on the slope; • A variance to the Hillside Development Ordinance, to allow retaining walls into an uphill perimeter manufactured slope beyond the limit of six vertical feet from the toe of slope, where six vertical feet is the standard limit per CMC section 21.95.140(C)(1)(a)(i). Additional information is included in Exhibit 4: Project Analysis; additional information from the applicant supporting the variance request is included in Exhibit 5: Justification for Variance. Approval of both entitlements would allow for the retention of the retaining walls, with additional measures to ensure the stability of the slope and soundness of the walls, and after the approval of a subsequent grading permit. Along with the applicant’s Justification for Variance (Exhibit 5), the applicant has also provided a statement describing the history of how the walls came to be built and why the removal of the walls, and reconstruction of the slope, would be too costly for the property owner to achieve. This statement is accompanied by a project plan set for removal of the retaining walls and installation of a retaining wall compliant with hillside regulations. The compliant retaining wall shown on these plans would support a regraded slope ranging from 50 to 59% grade. This information is included as Exhibit 6. While this information describes the origin of the unpermitted work and highlights the financial hardship the applicant might face in remediating their unpermitted work with a 50 to 59% slope, these factors are not considerations that would support any required findings for the variance or CDP. The CDP and Variance would normally be heard by the Planning Commission as the final decision-maker. However, an aspect of the project’s CDP application for deviations to grading of steep slopes within the Coastal Zone (CMC Section 21.203.040 (A.)) requires action by the City Council. Therefore, per CMC Section 21.54.040, Decision-making authority for multiple development permits, both applications require City Council action. The Planning Commission’s action on the project will be a recommendation to City Council. Public Outreach & Comment Public notice of the proposed project was mailed on Feb. 8, 2024, to property owners within 600 feet and occupants within 100 feet of the subject property. Additionally, the project is subject to City Council Policy No. 84 (Development Project Public Involvement Policy). As such, a notice of application was sent, by the applicant, to surrounding property owners and a notice placed on the site informing neighbors of their application. These early notices were carried out in May of 2023. Response to Public Comment & Project Issues In response to the notice sent to surrounding properties in May of 2023, staff received emails from three neighbors during the month of June 2023. One up-hill neighbor was supportive of the project, with concerns that "to bulldoze and regrade the hillside, strikes [them] as an unpragmatic solution which [they] would strongly oppose” and stating that allowing the retaining walls to stay “would be less disruptive for the surrounding neighborhood, less hazardous to hillside stability, and more cost-sensitive to one of our city residents”. Additionally, two neighbors stated their concerns about the project, citing noise and privacy issues created by Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 3 of 55 the elevated terraces and concerns about the stability of the unpermitted work on the slope. These early outreach comments are included as Exhibit 7. Project Analysis General Plan Consistency The City of Carlsbad General Plan includes a policy (2-P.11) that calls for development on slopes to comply with the hillside development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. A discussion of how the project is inconsistent with this General Plan policy is summarized in Exhibit 4. Municipal Code Consistency The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, most notably Tile 15 Grading and Drainage and Title 21 Zoning Code, includes requirements and provisions that guide development and land use within the city, consistent with the General Plan. Specific relevant requirements, of which the project is not consistent are described in Exhibit 4. Discretionary Actions & Findings The proposed project requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit and Variance, which is discussed below. Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2023-0016) The project site is in the Coastal Zone and requires a Coastal Development Permit. The project does not comply with the Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment), which includes the policies of the General Plan and municipal code standards, as referenced above. Variance (V 2022-0002) The requested variance would provide relief from strict enforcement of certain provision of the Hillside Development Regulations (CMC Chapter 21.95). Specifically, the hillside development and design standards that call for retaining walls to be limited to six vertical feet, as measured from the toe of slope (CMC §21.95.140.) However, staff cannot make the required findings to support a variance request (Exhibit 4). If the Planning Commission reviews the applicant’s justification for the variance (Exhibit 5) and supports the variance request, it is requested that the commission provide specific direction to staff to return with a draft resolution recommending approval to the City Council, and to provide specific findings in support of the request. Environmental Review If this Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2023-0016) and Variance (V 2023-0002) is denied, the project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(4) and 15270 of the State CEQA Guidelines because CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves (Exhibit 8). If the Planning Commission reviews and recommends a variance could be made, a CEQA finding would need to be prepared to support the recommended action. Conclusion Considering the information above and in the referenced attachments, staff does not find that the proposed Coastal Development Permit and Variance are consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program and provisions of the Municipal Code. The project has also been reviewed by engineering staff and, given the soil strength properties demonstrated in the soils report, restoring the original 1.5:1 (67%) slope is an acceptable approach to remedy the code case, which would likely not require extensive excavation and regrading. Additionally, it appears that the original slope may not have been excavated, with only fill being placed behind the walls. If this is the case, an option to restore the slope may be to simply remove the walls and corresponding backfill. A site plan showing the slope before the unpermitted work is included as Exhibit 9. This approach to remediating the code case would likely be less burdensome than the plan described by the applicant in Exhibit 6, which would grade slopes of 50 to 59%. The Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 4 of 55 specific approach of how the code case is ultimately remedied, would be determined at a later date and is not within the scope of this review. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the resolution, recommending denial of the proposed project described in this staff report. Exhibits 1. Resolution 2. Location Map 3. Project Plans 4. Project Analysis 5. Justification of Variance (Fusion Engineering and Technology) 6. Additional Statement from Applicant 7. Early Public Outreach Comments, June 2023 8. CEQA Determination Letter 9. Pre-Project Site Plan 10. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 5 of 55 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN UNPERMITTED RETAINING WALL SYSTEM THAT EXCEEDS STANDARDS ON A MANUFACTURED UPHILL PERIMETER SLOPE WITH A GRADIENT GREATER THAN 40% AND AN ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL OF GREATER THAN FIFTEEN FEET LOCATED AT 939 BEGONIA COURT WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE CITY’S LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 4. CASE NAME: BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL CASE NO.: CDP 2023-0016/V 2023-0002 WHEREAS, RENE LICHTMAN, “Developer/Applicant,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by VALERIE LICHTMAN REVOCABLE TRUST, “Owner,” described as Lot 138 of Carlsbad Tract No. 73-79, Spinnaker Hill Unit #3, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof no. 8453, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on Dec. 29, 1976 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal Development Permit and Variance as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” dated Feb. 21, 2024, on file in the Planning Division, CDP 2023-0016/V 2022-0002 (DEV2020-0026) – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL, as provided by Chapter 21.201 and 21.50 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Division studied the Coastal Development Permit and Variance applications and performed the necessary investigations to determine if the project qualified for an exemption from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et. seq.), and its implementing regulations (the State CEQA Guidelines), Article 14 of the California Code of Regulations section 15000 et. seq. After consideration of all evidence presented, and studies and investigations made by the city planner and on its behalf, the city planner determined that the project was exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Exhibit 1 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 6 of 55 CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) and 15270, in that CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves; and WHEREAS, on Dec. 7, 2023, the city distributed a notice of intended decision to adopt the CEQA exemption. The notice was circulated for a 10-day period, which began on Dec. 7, 2023, and ended on Dec. 18, 2023. The city did not receive any comment letters on the CEQA findings and determination. The effective date and order of the city planner CEQA determination was Dec. 18, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on Feb. 21, 2024, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Coastal Development Permit and Variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission RECOMMENDS DENIAL of CDP 2023-0016/V 2023-0002 – BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: Variance (V 2023-0002) 1. The justification and evidence provided by the applicant falls short of establishing the finding that, because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, such as topography, location, or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives the property of the privileges enjoyed by the other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. While the exhibits and stats provided by the applicant and their representative do establish that the subject property does have a large amount of lot area that contains manufactured slope. Staff does not find that this is a special circumstance. The neighborhood is comprised of a variety of lot sizes and shapes, with the subject lot being one of the two largest sized lots in the area, at 17,148 square feet (sf). The shape of the lot is also one that is pie shaped, wider in the rear than the front, Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 7 of 55 and this naturally increases the amount of area that the rear-yard manufactured slope takes up. This is meaningful because most other lots are not pie shaped. The most comparable lot to the subject lot in terms of size and shape is 943 Begonia Court, just two doors to the north of the subject property. The applicant states in their submittal materials that the 943 Begonia property is 16,514 sf with 7,314 sf taken up by the slope, or 44.29% of the lot, while the applicant’s property is stated to have 46.58% of the lot taken up by slope. There is not a significant difference in these percentages between these comparable lots. This 2.29% difference in comparable lots indicates this is not a special circumstance, and the amount of lot area taken up by the slope is not sound justification to allow the creation of over 2,000 sf of additional usable back yard space through terracing of the slope. The applicant has also failed to establish that the slope deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. The applicants survey of the surrounding properties found the average lot size in this neighborhood to be 9,528 sf. Even with the 7,988 square feet of slope area identified on the property by the applicant as unusable, if that area were not a part of the property at all, the remaining lot would be 9,160 square feet. Staff’s analysis of the property differs slightly than what is stated by the applicant, with the slope area only taking up approximately 7,500 sf. This would mean that approximately 9,650 square feet of usable lot area exists on the property. This square footage of lot size is in line with the average lot size of the neighborhood. In reviewing the design of the lot pattern in this neighborhood, it appears that lots with rear-yard slopes were specifically made larger to provide a usable lot area that is comparable in size to lots without rear-yard slopes. Therefore, The existence of the slope is not a loss of privilege in terms of usable lot area. 2. The approval of this variance would be a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. The size of the usable lot area, with the square footage of the slope removed from the property altogether, is comparable in size to the average lot size in the neighborhood. Allowing the property to create additional usable area through terracing of the slope inconsistent with the hillside development standards would be a granting of special privilege. Additionally, although the applicant has stated that strict adherence to the six-foot retaining wall limit would disallow the owner from building standard rear-yard improvements such as a patio cover, swimming pool, etc., this statement is inaccurate. The subject property has an existing pool which was installed in 1999, prior to the start of any unpermitted work. The amount of rear-yard area and types of improvements that exist on the property are similar to other lots in the neighborhood as seen from aerial imagery of the neighborhood. 3. That the variance request is inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and the zoning ordinance, in that the approval of a variance to allow for retaining walls above a height of six feet, when measured from the toe of slope, is not consistent and does not implement Policy 2-P.10 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This policy states, development on slopes, when permitted, shall be designed to minimize grading and comply with the hillside development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. The project would allow for development of the property beyond what is allowed by the hillside development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 8 of 55 4. The granting of this variance would not be consistent with the general purpose and intent of the certified local coastal program and does reduce or adversely affect the requirements for protection of coastal resources. One of the purposes of the certified local coastal program is to preserve and protect natural and manufactured slopes in the coastal resource protection overlay zone area and to ensure stability and structural integrity of the slopes from erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site. The unpermitted and un-engineered retaining wall system has compromised the slope as originally engineered, regarding drainage and erosion. Options to address the compromised slope and return it to a stable condition, consistent with the local coastal program, remain available. This includes returning the slope to its original grade similar to its original condition. Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2023-0016) 5. The approval of a CDP would be needed to allow the construction/retention of retaining walls that are inconsistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance. As the findings for a variance to allow the retaining walls cannot be made, as stated above, a CDP will not be required for their construction/retention. Therefore, further analysis of the project’s consistency with the local coastal program, CMC Sections 21.201, and 21.203, is not warranted. Conditions: 1. Within 60 days from the date of the City Council action, or as otherwise specified in the Code Compliance Agreement and Release for Code Enforcement Case No. CC 2018-0902, the property owner shall apply for the necessary permits such as, but not limited to, a grading permit and coastal development permit to remove the unpermitted retaining wall system and restore the slope to comply with CMC Section 21.95.140(C)(1)(a)(i). PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on Feb. 21, 2024, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WILLIAM KAMENJARIN, Chair CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ERIC LARDY City Planner Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 9 of 55 BATIQUITOS DR DA I S Y A V WISTERIA WY AZ A L E A P L BEGONIA CT LIL Y P L WHIMBREL CT POPPY LN ANAT R A CT E L C AMINO R E A L LA COSTA AV A L G A R D C A R L S B A D B L BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL CDP 2023-0016 / V 2023-0002 SITE MAP J SITE!"^ Map generated on: 12/5/2023 Exhibit 2 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 10 of 55 OF 1 1 MAPPREPARED BY: CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LICHTMAN RESIDENCE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 939 BEGONIA COURT FUSION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY 1810 GILLESPIE WAY, #207 EL CAJON, CA 92020 (619) 736-2800 STRUCTURAL RETROFIT OPTION PROFILE SCALES HORIZ. : VERT. : 1"=10' 1"=10' 190 200 180 170 190 180 170 200 190 200 180 170 190 180 170 200 210 210210 PROPERTY INFORMATION:OWNER INFORMATION:DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION NOTES: ••• •• • • • CONSTRUCTION QUANTITIES: 138BEGONIA COURT AA BB SECTION A-A SECTION B-B Exhibit 3 3 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 11 of 55 PROPERTY INFORMATION:OWNER INFORMATION: OF 1 1 SHEETPREPARED BY: CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LICHTMAN RESIDENCE PRE-PROJECT SITE PLAN 939 BEGONIA COURT FUSION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY 1810 GILLESPIE WAY, #207 EL CAJON, CA 92020 (619) 736-2800 138BEGONIA COURT 162.32 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 12 of 55 LOT 138 LOT 139 LOT 137 LOT 151 LOT 150 LOT 152 SCOPE OF WORK: 1. EXISTING UNPERMITTED MULTIPLE TIERED KEYSTONE WALLS IN THE REAR YARD. 2. THE WALLS ARE CURRENTLY STABLE, BUT DO NOT MEET THE CODE PRESCRIBED FACTOR OF SAFETY. 3. THE PROPOSED STRENGTHENING IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE STABILITY ABOVE THE CODE PRESCRIBED FACTOR OF SAFETY OF 1.5. 4. THE LOWER WALL SECTIONS WILL BE STRENGTHENED WITH A CONTINUOUS 10 INCH THICK SHOTCRETE WALL. 5. THE SHOTCRETE WALL WILL BE RESTRAINED WITH SOIL NAILS. OWNER: RENE LICHTMAN 939 BEGONIA COURT CARLSBAD, CA 92011 PROJECT TEAM: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: FICCADENTI, WAGGONER, AND CASTLE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 16969 VON KARMAN AVE., STE. 240 IRVINE, CA 92606 (949) 474-0502 PROJECT DATA: JURISDICTION: CITY OF CARLSBAD TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1-A OCCUPANCY: GROUP U AREA OF PROPOSED WORK: REAR YARD RETAINING WALLS ONLY. NO WORK WILL BE DONE ON THE RESIDENCE. PROJECT INFORMATION: 1. THE PROJECT INVOLVES APPROXIMATELY 195 LINEAL FEET OF KEYSTONE RETAINING WALLS IN THE REAR YARD OF THE SUBJECT RESIDENCE. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 485 CORPORATE DRIVE, SUITE B ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 (619) 867-0487 ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO: 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE CIVIL ENGINEER FUSION ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY 1810 GILLESPIE WAY, SUITE 207 EL CAJON, CA 92020 (619)736-2800 (E) PROPERTY LINE (E) PROPERTY LINE (E) PROPERTY LINE (E ) P R O P E R T Y L I N E BE G O N I A C O U R T S2.01 1 (E) POOL (E) RESIDENCE (E) FIREPLACE No. S 4110MAR SH K ER STE DER O N CRE AURCURT NA C T FOE RFLIOA E GER T S TS RDESITE FORP N L REE IA LISNOAS GI NE SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER SENIOR PROJECT DRAFTER DOCUMENT REVIEW SHEET TITLE 1ST ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY 2/ 1 7 / 2 0 2 3 7 : 3 1 : 1 3 A M S0.00 COVER SHEET A23-040 EJF SHG SHG 02/17/23 93 9 B E G O N I A C O U R T KE Y S T O N E W A L L S T R E N G T H E N I N G 93 9 B E G O N I A C O U R T CA R L S B A D , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 0 1 1 KEYSTONE WALL STRENGTHENING 939 BEGONIA COURT 939 BEGONIA COURT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92011 REV. DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/23 PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ABBREVIATIONS SITE PLAN SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME S0.00 COVER SHEET S0.01 GENERAL NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS S0.02 SPECIAL INSPECTION NOTES AND SCHEDULES S1.01 TYPICAL CONCRETE DETAILS S2.01 ENLARGED SITE PLAN S3.01 WALL SECTION & DETAILS NORTH PROJECT INFORMATION PROPERTY SITE NORTH VICINITY PLAN AB ANCHOR BOLT ABV ABOVE AC ASPHALTIC CONCRETE ACI AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE ADD ADDITIONAL AISC AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION AISI AMERICAN IRON & STEEL INSTITUTE AITC AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF TIMBER CONSTRUCTION ALT ALTERNATE ANSI AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE ARCH ARCHITECT ARCH'L ARCHITECTURAL ASTM AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS AWPA AMERICAN WOOD PRESERVERS ASSOCIATION AWS AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY @ AT BLDG BUILDING BLK BLOCK BLKG BLOCKING BLW BELOW BM BEAM BOT OR B BOTTOM BN BOUNDARY NAILING BRCG BRACING BRG BEARING BS BOTH SIDES BWTN BETWEEN C CHANNEL OR CAMBER CANT CANTILEVER CB CARRIAGE BOLT CBC CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE CC OR C/C CENTER TO CENTER CEN CONTINUOUS EDGE NAILING CIP CAST IN PLACE CJ CONSTRUCTION JOINT, CONTROL JOINT, OR CEILING JOIST CL CENTER LINE CLG CEILING CLR CLEAR CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT COL COLUMN CONC CONCRETE CONN CONNECTION CONST CONSTRUCTION CONT CONTINUOUS CONTR CONTRACTOR CR COLD ROLLED DBL DOUBLE DEN DISCONTINUOUS EDGE NAILING DET DETAIL DIA OR Ø DIAMETER DIM DIMENSION DIR DIRECTION DF DOUGLAS FIR DKG DECKING DL DEAD LOAD DN DOWN DO DITTO DS DOWN SPOUT DWG DRAWING DWL DOWEL EA EACH EE EACH END EF EACH FACE EJ EXPANSION JOINT ELECT'L ELECTRICAL ELEV ELEVATION OR ELEVATOR EOS EDGE OF SLAB EQ EQUAL EQUIP EQUIPMENT ES EACH SIDE EW EACH WAY EXIST OR E EXISTING EXP EXPANSION EXT EXTERIOR FND FOUNDATION FF FINISH FLOOR FG FINISH GRADE FH FULL HEIGHT FIN FINISH FJ FLOOR JOIST FLG FLANGE FLR FLOOR FN FIELD NAILING FOC FACE OF CONCRETE FOM FACE OF MASONRY FOS FACE OF STUD FP FULL PENETRATION FRMG FRAMING FS FAR SIDE FT FEET OR FOOT FTG FOOTING GA GAUGE GALV GALVANIZED GLB GLU-LAM BEAM GR GRADE GYP BD GYPSUM BOARD H HEIGHT HDR HEADER HGR HANGER HORIZ HORIZONTAL HSB HIGH STRENGTH BOLT HSS HOLLOW STRUCTURAL SECTIONS HT HEIGHT IBC INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE ICBO INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS ICC INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL ID INSIDE DIAMETER IN INCH OR INCHES INSUL INSULATION INT INTERIOR INV INVERTED/INVERT JST JOIST JT JOINT K KIP (1000 LBS) L LOW LB POUND LG LENGTH OR LONG LL LIVE LOAD LLH LONG LEG HORIZONTAL LLV LONG LEG VERTICAL LONGIT LONGITUDINAL LT LIGHT LT WT LIGHT WEIGHT LVL LEVEL MANUF MANUFACTURER MAS MASONRY MAT'L MATERIAL MAX MAXIMUM MB MACHINE BOLT MC MISCELLANEOUS CHANNEL MECH'L MECHANICAL MEZZ MEZZANINE MIN MINIMUM MISC MISCELLANEOUS MTL METAL NIC NOT IN CONTRACT NOM NORMAL NS NEAR SIDE NSFC NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY NTS NOT TO SCALE # OR NO NUMBER O/OVER OC OR O/C ON CENTER OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER OH OPPOSITE HAND OPNG OPENING OS OPPOSITE SIDE OSA OFFICE OF THE STATE ARCHITECT (CALIFORNIA) OSHA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD OWJ OPEN WEB JOIST //PARALLEL PERP OR ┴ PERPENDICULAR PC PRECAST PG PLATE GIRDER PJ POUR JOINT PL PLATE OR PROPERTY LINE PLUMB'G PLUMBING PP PARTIAL PENETRATION PSF POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT PSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH PT POST-TENSIONED OR PRESSURE TREATED PWJ PLYWOOD WEBBED JOIST R OR RAFT RAFTER R RAD RADIUS RD ROOF DRAIN REINF REINFORCING REM REMAINDER REQ'D REQUIRED RJ ROOF JOIST RR ROOF RAFTER SBC STANDARD BUILDING CODE SDSTS SELF-DRILLING, SELF-TAPPING SCREWS SECT SECTION SHT SHEET SIM SIMILAR SMS SHEET METAL SCREW SPCG SPACING SPEC SPECIFICATION SOG SLAB ON GRADE SQ SQUARE SS STAINLESS STEEL OR SELECT STRUCTURAL STAGG STAGGERED STD STANDARD STIFF STIFFENER STL STEEL STRUCT'L STRUCTURAL SUSP SUSPENDED SYM SYMMETRICAL T TOP T & B TOP AND BOTTOM T & G TONGUE AND GROOVE THK THICK TOC TOP OF CONCRETE TOF TOP OF FOOTING TOS TOP OF STEEL TRANS TRANSVERSE TS STRUCTURAL STEEL TUBE TSG TAPERED STEEL GIRDER TYP TYPICAL UBC UNIFORM BUILDING CODE UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE UT ULTRASONIC TEST VERT VERTICAL W/ WITH W/O WITHOUT WCSW WOOD CHORD STEEL WEB WCWW WOOD CHORD WOOD WEB WTS WELDED THREADED STUDS WWF WELDED WIRE FABRIC WP WORK POINT X-STR EXTRA STRONG XX-STR DOUBLE EXTRA STRONG Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 13 of 55 GENERAL: 1. GOVERNING CODE AUTHORITY: CITY OF CARLSBAD DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY. 2. STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS, AS PART OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, INDICATE INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO CONVEY DESIGN INTENT. IF ERRORS, INCONSISTENCIES OR OMISSIONS ARE DISCOVERED, PROMPTLY NOTIFY ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK. 3. NO PORTION OF STRUCTURAL RELATED WORK, INCLUDING SHOP DRAWING DEVELOPMENT, SHALL BE PERFORMED WITHOUT CONSIDERING REQUIREMENTS OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS IN THEIR ENTIRETY. FOR EXAMPLE, REFER TO MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SIZE AND LOCATION OF OPENINGS, PENETRATIONS AND EMBEDMENT FOR DUCTS, PIPING, VENTS, CONDUITS AND OTHER ITEMS TO BE INCORPORATED IN STRUCTURAL WORK. 4. DETAILS AND SCHEDULES INDICATED AS "TYPICAL' MAY NOT BE SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED ON DRAWINGS. DETERMINE WHERE EACH TYPICAL DETAIL OR SCHEDULE APPLIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK. IF CONDITIONS ARE FOUND WHICH ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY DETAILED AND NO TYPICAL DETAIL OR SCHEDULE APPLIES, PROMPTLY NOTIFY ARCHITECT. 5. CONDITIONS SHOWN OR NOTED AS EXISTING ARE BASED ON BEST INFORMATION CURRENTLY AVAILABLE WHEN DRAWINGS WERE PREPARED. NO WARRANTY IS IMPLIED AS TO ACCURACY OF THESE EXISTING CONDITIONS. 6. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR INCONSISTENCIES. 7. AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS (ASTM) SPECIFICATIONS OF THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE OF THE LATEST REVISION. 8. TAKE FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND VERIFY FIELD CONDITIONS AND COMPARE SUCH MEASUREMENTS AND CONDITIONS WITH CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. IF ERRORS, INCONSISTENCIES OR OMISSIONS ARE DISCOVERED, PROMPTLY NOTIFY ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK. 9. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS REPRESENT THE FINISHED STRUCTURE. UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN, THEY DO NOT INDICATE METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION. PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES AND PROCEDURES AS REQUIRED. PROVIDE ADEQUATE EXCAVATION PROCEDURES, SHORING, BRACING AND ERECTION PROCEDURES COMPLYING WITH NATIONAL, STATE AND LOCAL SAFETY ORDINANCES. 10. OBSERVATION VISITS TO SITE BY FIELD REPRESENTATIVES OF ARCHITECT DO NOT INCLUDE INSPECTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION MEANS AND METHODS. OBSERVATIONS PERFORMED BY ARCHITECT DURING CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT CONTINUOUS AND DETAILED INSPECTION SERVICES, WHICH ARE PERFORMED BY OTHERS. OBSERVATIONS PERFORMED BY ARCHITECT ARE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING IF CONTRACTOR UNDERSTANDS DESIGN INTENT CONVEYED IN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. OBSERVATIONS DO NOT GUARANTEE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE AND ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS SUPERVISION OF CONSTRUCTION. 11. MODIFICATIONS OR SUBSTITUTIONS: DESIGN, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS OTHER THAN THOSE INDICATED OR SPECIFIED MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR USE PROVIDED A WRITTEN REQUEST, SUBJECT TO REVIEW, IS SUBMITTED TO OWNER, ARCHITECT AND GOVERNING CODE AUTHORITY PRIOR TO ITS USE OR INCLUSION ON ANY SHOP DRAWING. 12. SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTAL: A. REVIEW AND STAMP SHOP DRAWINGS PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO ARCHITECT. REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS AND COMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. B. SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS TO ARCHITECT AS INDICATED OR SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE PRIOR TO FABRICATION. REVIEW WILL BE FOR GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH DESIGN INTENT CONVEYED IN CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. C. WHEN AN ENGINEER IS REQUIRED TO SIGN AND STAMP SHOP DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS, ENSURE SEAL INDICATES ENGINEER AS REGISTERED IN STATE WHERE PROJECT SITE OCCURS. D. SHOP DRAWINGS ARE NOT A PART OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. THEREFORE, ARCHITECT'S REVIEW DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN AUTHORIZATION TO DEVIATE FROM TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT. E. SHOP DRAWINGS WILL BE REJECTED FOR INCOMPLETENESS, LACK OF COORDINATION WITH OTHER PORTIONS OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, LACK OF CALCULATIONS (IF REQUIRED), OR WHERE MODIFICATIONS OR SUBSTITUTIONS ARE INDICATED WITHOUT PRIOR REVIEW PER PARAGRAPH ABOVE. F. SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS TO GOVERNING CODE AUTHORITY WHEN SPECIFICALLY INDICATED OR REQUESTED. G. MAINTAIN A COPY OF ALL SHOP DRAWINGS ACCEPTED BY ARCHITECT AT SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. H. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER REQUIRES 10 WORKING DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF SHOP DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS FOR PROCESSING. 13. BRACE PIPING AND DUCTS COMPLYING WITH LATEST ADDITION OF "GUIDELINES FOR SEISMIC RESTRAINTS OF MECHANICAL SYSTEMS" BY THE SHEET METAL AND AIR CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION. 14. INSTALL AND ANCHOR MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT TO STRUCTURE COMPLYING WITH CBC CHAPTER 16. ISOLATORS, FASTENERS, OR ANY OTHER ELEMENT PROVIDING STABILITY FOR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE APPROVED BY ICC OR EQUIVALENT TESTING PROCEDURE AND BE CAPABLE OF TRANSMITTING CODE REQUIRED LATERAL LOADS. PROVIDE SUSPENDED EQUIPMENT WITH APPROVED LATERAL OR SWAY BRACING. ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP SHALL CONFORM TO THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (2022 CBC) AND AS AMENDED BY THE GOVERNING CODE AUTHORITY. DESIGN LOADS: FLOOR DL . . . . . . . . . N/A FLOOR LL (REDUCIBLE / NON-REDUCIBLE). N/A ROOF DL . . . . . . . . . N/A ROOF LL (REDUCIBLE / NON-REDUCIBLE) . N/A WIND LOAD: EXPOSURE CATEGORY . . . . . B BASIC WIND SPEED . . . . . . 89 MPH TOPOGRAPHIC FACTOR (KZt) . . . . 1.0 RISK CATEGORY I SEISMIC LOAD: IMPORTANCE FACTOR(I) . . . . . 1.0 ANALYSIS PROCEDURE . . . . . FP ANALYSIS PROCEDURE SITE CLASS . . . . . . . . D SDS . . . . . . . . . . . 0.863g QUALITY ASSURANCE: 1. TESTING LABORATORY SHALL SUBMIT REPORTS INDICATING RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS OF TESTS AND INSPECTIONS AND STATING COMPLIANCE OR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH CONTRACT DOCUMENTS TO ARCHITECT AND, UPON REQUEST, TO GOVERNING CODE AUTHORITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL REIMBURSE OWNER FOR COSTS RELATED TO TESTS AND INSPECTIONS OF UNIDENTIFIABLE MATERIALS OR MATERIALS FURNISHED WITHOUT CERTIFIED LABORATORY TEST REPORTS, MATERIALS FOUND DEFICIENT AFTER INITIAL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS, OR MATERIALS REPLACING DEFICIENT MATERIALS. 2. PROVIDE CEMENT, AGGREGATES, REINFORCING STEEL, STRUCTURAL STEEL, HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTS, JOISTS, ETC., FROM IDENTIFIABLE TESTED STOCK. SUBMIT CERTIFIED LABORATORY TESTS REPORTS TO ARCHITECT AND, UPON REQUEST, TO GOVERNING CODE AUTHORITY. IF MATERIALS CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED OR IF CERTIFIED LABORATORY TESTS REPORTS CANNOT BE MADE AVAILABLE, TESTING LABORATORY WILL PERFORM TESTS TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AS DIRECTED BY ARCHITECT. 3. TESTING LABORATORY SHALL PROVIDE SPECIAL INSPECTION, COMPLYING WITH CBC SECTION 1701 (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED), FOR THE FOLLOWING: A. PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED FILL. B. INSTALLATION OF CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE OR SOIL NAILS. C. CONCRETE AND REINFORCING STEEL. D. SHOP AND FIELD WELDING OF REINFORCING STEEL. E. BOLTS INSTALLED IN CONCRETE. 4. TESTING LABORATORY SHALL REVIEW CONCRETE MIX DESIGN DATA AND SHALL PERFORM THE FOLLOWING CONCRETE TESTS AT FREQUENCY INDICATED IN CBC SECTION 1905.6: A. SLUMP TESTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASTM C143. B. PREPARE FOUR TEST CYLINDERS FOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TESTING IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASTM C39, ACI 318. TEST ONE CYLINDER AT 7 DAYS AFTER DEPOSIT, TWO CYLINDERS AT 28 DAYS AFTER DEPOSIT AND RETAIN REMAINING CYLINDERS FOR TESTS UNTIL COMPLETION OF PROJECT. DETERMINE CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS BASED ON AVERAGE OF TWO CYLINDERS TESTED. C. PREPARE AN ADDITIONAL CYLINDER FOR POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE TO BE TESTED FOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AT 3 DAYS AFTER DEPOSIT. D. ENTRAINED AIR CONTENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASTM C231 FOR AIR ENTRAINED CONCRETE. 5. TESTING LABORATORY SHALL PROOF TEST 50% OF ANCHORS (BOTH DRILLED-IN OR EPOXY TYPES) TO 2 TIMES ALLOWABLE TENSION VALUE FOR BOLTS OF SAME DIAMETER. TEST ALTERNATE BOLTS IN ANY GROUP ARRANGEMENT. FAILURES REQUIRE TESTING OF IMMEDIATE ADJACENT BOLTS. 6. STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION BY THE ENGINEER/ARCHITECT SHALL BE PERFORMED. A STATEMENT IN WRITING SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, STATING THAT THE SITE VISITS HAVE BEEN MADE AND WHETHER OR NOT ANY OBSERVED DEFICIENCIES HAVE BEEN CORRECTED TO CONFORM TO THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 7. FOR DETAILED SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS, SEE APPLICABLE NOTES. FOUNDATIONS: 1. THE FOUNDATION DESIGN IS BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS IN GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROJECT NO. 1907-03 PREPARED BY ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS DATED OCTOBER 9, 2019. PERFORM FOUNDATION WORK COMPLYING WITH REPORT AND ADDENDA. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND ADDENDA HEREBY BECOME PART OF THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND SHALL BE KEPT ON JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES. WHERE SOIL PARAMETERS WERE NOT PROVIDED IN THE REPORT THE PRESCRIPTIVE VALUES FROM THE APPLICABLE BUILDING CODE WERE USED. 2. SHALLOW FOUNDATION DESIGN IS BASED ON A MINIMUM BEARING CAPACITY OF 1500 PSF WITH A 33% INCREASE FOR SEISMIC OR WIND LOADING. MINIMUM EMBEDMENT DEPTH IS 12" INTO APPROVED FILLS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLANS. 3. CONTINUOUS FOUNDATIONS DESIGN IS BASED ON A MINIMUM BEARING CAPACITY OF 1500 PSF WITH A 33% INCREASE FOR SEISMIC OR WIND LOADING. MINIMUM EMBEDMENT DEPTH IS 12" INTO APPROVED FILLS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLANS. 4. PASSIVE PRESSURE IS BASED ON EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE OF 100 PCF.. 5. ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE IS BASED ON 40 PCF FOR LEVEL BACKFILL AND 60 PCF FOR SLOPING BACKFILL. 6. VERIFY LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND OTHER EXISTING BELOW GRADE STRUCTURES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. 7. FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS ARE TO BE OBSERVED BY AND ACCEPTABLE TO GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OR HIS/HER REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL, REINFORCING STEEL, OR CONCRETE. 8. PERFORM GRADING, OVEREXCAVATION, FILLING, BACKFILLING, COMPACTION, SUBGRADE, PREPARATION, ETC. AS INDICATED IN GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND ONLY UNDER SUPERVISION OF A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OR HIS/HER REPRESENTATIVE. REINFORCING STEEL: 1. ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE DETAILED AND PLACED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE "BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE" (ACI-318) AND THE "MANUAL OF STANDARD PRACTICE FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION" BY THE CONCRETE REINFORCING STEEL INSTITUTE AS MODIFIED BY THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 2. PROVIDE REINFORCING STEEL COMPLYING WITH ASTM A615, GRADE 60. PROVIDE REINFORCING STEEL TO BE WELDED COMPLYING WITH ASTM A706, GRADE 60. WELDERS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY GOVERNING CODE AUTHORITY. 3. SPLICE REINFORCING STEEL WHERE INDICATED. IF SPLICE LOCATIONS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY SHOWN OR INDICATED, VERIFY SPLICE LOCATIONS WITH ARCHITECT PRIOR TO DEVELOPING REINFORCING STEEL SHOP DRAWINGS. 4. ALL REINFORCING BAR BENDS SHALL BE MADE COLD. 5. LAP REINFORCING STEEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRAWINGS. 6. MINIMUM CLEAR DISTANCES BETWEEN REINFORCING STEEL, INCLUDING SPLICED REINFORCING STEEL, SHALL BE 1" OR 1 BAR DIAMETER, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. MINIMUM CLEAR DISTANCE AT COLUMNS SHALL BE 1-1/2" OR 1-1/2 BAR DIAMETERS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. FOR BUNDLED BARS, MINIMUM CLEAR DISTANCES BETWEEN UNITS OF BUNDLED BARS SHALL BE SAME AS SINGLE BARS EXCEPT BAR DIAMETER IS DERIVED FROM EQUIVALENT TOTAL AREA OF BUNDLE. 7. REINFORCING SPLICES SHALL BE MADE AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. IF NO LAP IS INDICATED, SEE APPLICABLE SCHEDULE. 8. DOWELS BETWEEN FOOTING AND WALLS OR COLUMNS SHALL BE THE SAME GRADE, SIZE AND SPACING AS THE SPECIFIED VERTICAL REINFORCING, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 9. ALL BARS SHALL BE MARKED SO THEIR IDENTIFICATION CAN BE MADE WHEN THE FINAL IN-PLACE INSPECTION IS PERFORMED. 10. CHAIRS OR SPACERS FOR REINFORCING SHALL BE PLASTIC OR PLASTIC COATED WHEN RESTING ON EXPOSED SURFACES. 11. SECURELY TIE ANCHOR BOLTS, REINFORCING STEEL, INSERTS, ETC, IN PLACE PRIOR TO POURING CONCRETE OR GROUT. 12. SUBMIT REINFORCING STEEL SHOP DRAWINGS INDICATING REINFORCING PLACEMENT, INCLUDING SPLICE LOCATIONS AND LENGTHS, TO ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE. PROMPTLY NOTIFY ARCHITECT PRIOR TO DEVELOPING REINFORCING STEEL SHOP DRAWINGS IF INSUFFICIENT CLEAR DISTANCES BETWEEN REINFORCING STEEL OR OTHER CONGESTION IS ENCOUNTERED. PREPARE SHOP DRAWINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ACI 315, PART B. CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE: 1. ALL PHASES OF WORK PERTAINING TO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE, ACI 318 AND WITH MODIFICATIONS AS NOTED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 2. SCHEDULE OF STRUCTURAL CONCRETE 28 DAY STRENGTHS AND TYPES (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON DRAWINGS): LOCATION IN STRUCTURE STRENGTHS (PSI) TYPE FOUNDATIONS & GRADE BEAMS 4500 HARDROCK RETAINING WALLS 4500 HARDROCK SOIL NAILS 4500 HARDROCK 3. PROVIDE LEAN CONCRETE WHERE SPECIFICALLY INDICATED, CONTAINING 2 SACKS OF CEMENT PER CUBIC YARD OF CONCRETE. 4. ALL CONCRETE MIXES SHALL BE DESIGNED BY A RECOGNIZED TESTING LABORATORY, STAMPED AND SIGNED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT. 5. ACHIEVE A CONCRETE MIX WITH A 28 DAY SHRINKAGE NOT GREATER THAN 0.05% AS MEASURED BY ASTM C157 FOR ALL ELEVATED CONCRETE DECKS AND CONCRETE FILLED METAL DECKS. 6. PROVIDE CONCRETE WITH A MAXIMUM SLUMP OF 4". 7. AGGREGATES IN NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C-33. AGGREGATE SIZE SHALL INCLUDE 3/4" MAXIMUM AGGREGATE. 8. PORTLAND CEMENT: CONFORMING TO ASTM C-150, LOW ALKALI, MILL TESTED WITH CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE REQUIRED. CONCRETE SHALL BE TYPE V AND HAVE A MAXIMUM WATER-CEMENT RATIO OF 0.45. 9. FLY ASH MAY NOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR CEMENT IN ELEVATED SLABS AND BEAMS. CLASS F FLY ASH ASTM C618 MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR CEMENT IN OTHER MEMBERS NOT TO EXCEED 15% BY WEIGHT. FLY ASH MAXIMUM LOSS ON IGNITION SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.0 PERCENT. 10. UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN OR NOTED, CONCRETE COVER FOR REINFORCING BARS TO FACE OF CONCRETE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: A. CONCRETE IN CONTACT WITH EARTH, UNFORMED . . . . . 3" B. CONCRETE IN CONTACT WITH EARTH, FORMED . . . . . . 2" 11. SLEEVE PLUMBING OPENINGS IN CONCRETE WALLS, BEAMS, AND SLABS BEFORE PLACING CONCRETE AND BEND REINFORCING AROUND SLEEVES, CORING NOT PERMITTED IN FLOOR, ROOF, SLABS, BEAMS, COLUMNS, AND WALLS UNLESS APPROVED IN ADVANCE BY THE ARCHITECT. 12. PROJECTING CORNERS OF SLABS, BEAMS, WALLS, COLUMNS, ETC. SHALL BE FORMED WITH A 3/4 INCH CHAMFER, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 13. ALL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS NOT SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PLACING. CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE KEYED AND REINFORCED PER PLANS, ROUGHEN ALL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS TO A MINIMUM 1/4" AMPLITUDE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 14. PLACE ALL CONCRETE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ACI 301, AND ACI 304. 15. SLUMP IN CONCRETE USED FOR FLAT SURFACES SHALL NOT EXCEED 4 INCHES +/- 1" AT THE POINT OF PLACEMENT. 16. ELECTRICAL CONDUIT, AND MECHANICAL PIPES IN EXCESS OF 1 INCH DIAMETER SHALL NOT BE EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE UNLESS DETAILED. CONDUIT AND PIPES LESS THAN 1 INCH IN DIAMETER MAY BE EMBEDDED IN SLAB ON GRADE, AND ELEVATED SLABS PROVIDED THE SPACING EXCEEDS 2 INCHES ON CENTER IN HORIZONTAL RUNS, AND ARE PLACED IN THE MIDDLE ONE-THIRD OF THE SECTION DEPTH. 17. THE SURFACE OF ALL HORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE CLEANED AND ROUGHENED BY REMOVING THE ENTIRE SURFACE AND EXPOSING CLEAN AGGREGATE SOLIDLY EMBEDDED IN MORTAR MATRIX. 18. CALCIUM CHLORIDE OR ADMIXTURE CONTAINING CHLORIDE SHALL NOT BE USED IN STRUCTURAL CONCRETE. SHOTCRETE (PNEUMATICALLY APPLIED CONCRETE): 1. PROVIDE WET-MIXED SHOTCRETE COMPLYING WITH IBC SECTION 1908 AND ACI 506.2 EXCEPT AS MODIFIED BELOW. MAINTAIN A COPY OF ACI 506.2 AT SITE AT ALL TIMES. 2. PROVIDE SHOTCRETE ATTAINING A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 4500 PSI AT 28 DAYS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, SEE SHEARWALL ELEVATIONS. 3. PROVIDE PORTLAND CEMENT, NORMAL WEIGHT AGGREGATES AND REINFORCING STEEL COMPLYING WITH CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE AND REINFORCING STEEL SECTIONS. SEE IBC SECTION 1908.4 FOR ADDITIONAL REINFORCING STEEL REQUIREMENTS. 4. DO NOT PLACE KEYWAYS OR EMBEDMENTS IN FRONT FACE SUCH THAT THEY WILL INTERFERE WITH STREAM FROM NOZZLE. 5. PERFORM SHOTCRETE WORK BY A LICENSED CONTRACTOR WITH A MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS EXPERIENCE AND ACCEPTABLE TO ARCHITECT (STRUCTURAL ENGINEER). 6. REMOVE LOOSE MATERIAL AND THOROUGHLY CLEAN AND WASH DOWN WITH WATER AND COMPRESSED AIR SURFACES TO BE COVERED WITH SHOTCRETE. CONCRETE AND MASONRY SURFACES SHALL BE THOROUGHLY WETTED PRIOR TO APPLICATION OF SHOTCRETE. 7. PROVIDE FOUNDATION COAT 1/2" THICK MINIMUM. MAXIMUM THICKNESS OF ADDITIONAL LAYERS SHALL NOT EXCEED THAT REQUIRED TO ELIMINATE SAG AND SEPARATION. 8. REMOVE REBOUND AND DO NOT REUSE. CUT AWAY LAITANCE, SAGS, AND DEFECTS. 9. DO NOT BATCH VOLUMETRICALLY. 10. PROVIDE A DESIGNATED LIAISON BETWEEN CREW, DEPUTY INSPECTOR AND BUILDING INSPECTOR. 11. WHERE SIZE OF REINFORCING EXCEEDS #5 BARS, ONLY A QUALIFIED PERSON ON NOZZLE WITH A MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS STRUCTURAL WET MIX SHOTCRETE EXPERIENCE AND POSSESSING WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION OF THAT EXPERIENCE SHALL APPLY WET MIX SHOTCRETE. 12. WHEN NO. 5 OR SMALLER BARS ARE USED, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM CLEARANCE BETWEEN PARALLEL REINFORCEMENT BARS OF 2 1/2 INCHES. WHEN BARS LARGER THAN NO. 5 ARE PERMITTED, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM CLEARANCE BETWEEN PARALLEL BARS EQUAL TO SIX DIAMETERS OF THE BARS USED. WHEN TWO CURTAINS OF STEEL ARE PROVIDED, THE CURTAIN NEARER THE NOZZLE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SPACING EQUAL TO 12 BAR DIAMETERS AND THE REMAINING CURTAIN SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SPACING OF SIX BAR DIAMETERS. 13. LAP SPLICES OF REINFORCING BARS SHALL UTILIZE THE NONCONTACT LAP SPLICE METHOD WITH A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF 2 INCHES BETWEEN BARS. THE USE OF CONTACT LAP SPLICES NECESSARY FOR SUPPORT OF THE REINFORCING IS PERMITTED WHEN APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, BASED ON SATISFACTORY PRECONSTRUCTION TESTS THAT SHOW THAT ADEQUATE ENCASEMENT OF THE BARS WILL BE ACHIEVED, AND PROVIDED THAT THE SPLICE IS ORIENTED SO THAT A PLANE THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE SPLICED BARS IS PERPENDICULAR TO THE SURFACE OF THE SHOTCRETE. 14. PRIOR TO SHOTCRETE APPLICATION, PLACE RIGID OR OTHER APPROVED BACKING AGAINST EARTH WHERE THERE IS ANY LIKELIHOOD OF SOIL BEING DISLODGED IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY TO DAMAGE SHOTCRETE. ALSO, PLACE BACKING WHERE VOIDS IN EMBANKMENT ARE TO BE BRIDGED. 15. IF PREVIOUSLY PRESUMED SOLID EMBANKMENT SHOULD SLOUGH OR SHED DIRT IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY TO DAMAGE SHOTCRETE, DISCONTINUE SHOTCRETE PLACEMENT WORK IN THAT AREA UNTIL A RIGID BACKING IS INSTALLED AND CONTAMINATED SHOTCRETE IS REMOVED. 16. SECURELY TIE ANCHOR BOLTS, REINFORCING STEEL, INSERTS, ETC., IN PLACE PRIOR TO APPLYING SHOTCRETE. 17. LIMIT LAYER HEIGHTS TO NOT MORE THAN 3 FEET AND SUCCEEDING LAYER SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN LESS THAN 3 HOURS. NO SLOUGHING OR SAGGING IS PERMITTED. 18. SEE CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE AND REINFORCING STEEL SECTIONS FOR REMAINDER OF CONCRETE AND REINFORCING STEEL REQUIREMENTS. SHOP DRAWINGS: 1. SHOP DRAWINGS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: A. SOIL NAILS AND HARDWARE B. GRADE BEAM & WALL REINFORCING 2. MIX DESIGNS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR ALL PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE MIXES STAMPED & SIGNED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. 3. PROVIDE MILL CERTIFICATES FOR REINFORCING STEEL. GROUT: 1. GROUT SHALL CONSIST OF A CEMENT-WATER MIXTURE OR SAND-CEMENT -WATER MIXTURE AND SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 7-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 4500 PSI. CONTRACTOR SHALL SELECT MIXTURES SUITABLE FOR THE ANCHOR RODS, SHEATHING, GROUT INSTALLATION EQUIPMENT, AND PROCEDURES TO BE USED. PROPORTIONS SHALL BE BASED ON TESTS MADE ON THE GROUT BEFORE GROUTING IS TO BEGIN, OR MAY BE SELECTED BASED ON PRIOR DOCUMENTED EXPERIENCE WITH SIMILAR MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND UNDER COMPARABLE FIELD CONDITIONS (WEATHER, TEMPERATURE, ETC.). 2. CEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C150 TYPE V. 3. WATER CONTENT SHALL BE THE MINIMUM NECESSARY FOR PROPER PLACEMENT BUT THE WATER-CEMENT RATIO SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.45. SHORING NOTES: 1. SHORING AND BRACING OF THE STRUCTURE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. SOIL NAIL ANCHORS: 1. ANCHORS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A615 GRADE 75. WITH FULL DOUBLE CORROSION PROTECTION ON ALL ANCHORS. 2. ANCHORS SHALL BE DYWIDAG THREADBAR SIZE AS INDICATED ON DRAWINGS WITH FULL DOUBLE CORROSION PROTECTION. 3. ALL ACCESSORIES FOR ANCHORS, SUCH AS BEARING PLATE, HEXNUT, WASHERS, AND CENTRALIZERS SHALL BE SUPPLIED BY DYWIDAG. 4. PERFORMANCE TESTING: A. TESTING - 5 PERCENT OF SOIL NAIL ASSEMBLIES OR 2 IN EACH LEVEL, WHICH EVER IS GREATER, SHALL BE TESTED AND REFERRED TO AS TEST SOIL NAILS. TESTING SHALL BE PERFORMED AGAINST A TEMPORARY BEARING YOKE, WHICH BEARS DIRECTLY ON THE WALL FACING. TEST LOADS TRANSMITTED THROUGH THE TEMPORARY BEARING YOKE SHALL NOT FRACTURE THE WALL. A MINIMUM OF 5% OF TOTAL SOIL NAILS OR TWO NAILS PER EACH EXCAVATION LEVEL, WHICH EVER IS GREATER, AT EACH WALL SHALL BE TESTED. FOR TEST NAILS, THE GROUT BODY SHALL NOT BE IN CONTACT WITH THE WALL. B. TESTED SOIL NAILS MAY BE INCORPORATED IN THE WORK AT THE DISCRETION OF THE ENGINEER. THE REMAINING LENGTH OF VOID IN THE DRILLED HOLE SHALL BE GROUTED AND THE CORE HOLE IN THE WALL SHALL BE FILLED WITH GROUT. C. A PULLOUT TEST OF A SACRIFICIAL NAIL CONSISTS OF INCREMENTALLY LOADING THE TEST SOIL NAIL ASSEMBLY TO THE MAXIMUM TEST LOAD OR FAILURE POINT, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. FAILURE POINT SHALL BE THE POINT WHERE THE MOVEMENT OF THE TEST SOIL NAIL CONTINUES WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN THE LOAD OR WHEN THE SOIL NAIL HAS DISPLACED 2 INCHES. THE FAILURE LOAD CORRESPONDING TO THE FAILURE POINT SHALL BE RECORDED AS PART OF THE TEST DATA. D. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MONITOR AND RECORD DISPLACEMENT OF THE TEST SOIL NAIL RELATIVE TO THE GROUT DURING APPLICATION OF THE TEST LOAD USING AN ACCURATE DIAL GAUGE. E. APPLIED TEST LOADS SHALL BE DETERMINED WITH EITHER A CALIBRATED PRESSURE GAUGE OR A LOAD CELL. MOVEMENTS OF THE END OF THE SOIL NAIL RELATIVE TO AN INDEPENDENT FIXED REFERENCE POINT, SHALL BE MEASURED AND RECORDED TO THE NEAREST 0.001-INCH AT EACH INCREMENT OF LOAD INCLUDING THE ENDING ALIGNMENT LOAD, DURING THE LOAD TESTS. F. THE PRESSURE GAUGE SHALL HAVE AN ACCURATELY READING DIAL AT LEAST SIX INCHES IN DIAMETER EACH JACK AND ITS GAGE SHALL BE CALIBRATED AS A UNIT. A CERTIFIED, SIX MONTH OLD CALIBRATION CHART WILL BE SUPPLIED WITH EQUIPMENT SET. THE LOAD CELL SHALL BE CALIBRATED AND SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR WITH AN INDICATOR BY MEANS OF WHICH THE TEST LOAD IN THE SOIL NAIL MAY BE DETERMINED. TEST SOIL NAIL BOND LENGTH IS 40% SHORTER THAN PRODUCTION SOIL NAIL. G. THE TEST LOAD MAY BE VERIFIED BY THE OWNER REPRESENTATIVE AGENT USING LOAD CELLS OR PRESSURE GAUGES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT LABOR, EQUIPMENT, AND MATERIAL TO INSTALL AND SUPPORT SUCH TESTING EQUIPMENT AT THE SOIL NAILS AND TO REMOVE THE TESTING EQUIPMENT AFTER THE TESTING IS COMPLETE. H. THE PROOF TEST SHALL BE CONDUCTED TO VERIFY ULTIMATE ADHESION AT SOIL/GROUT INTERFACE BY TESTING NAIL BOND LENGTH TO THE DESIGN ULTIMATE ADHESION. TEST LOAD IS A FUNCTION OF HOLE DIAMETER AND BOND LENGTH. TEST SHOULD BE APPLIED IN 25% INCREMENTS TO THE MAXIMUM TEST LOAD AND HELD FOR 10 MINUTES. EACH INCREMENT OF LOAD SHALL BE APPLIED IN LESS THAN ONE MINUTE AND HELD FOR AT LEAST ONE MINUTE, ENOUGH TO READ THE DIAL GAUGE INDICATOR. I. DURING THE 10-MINUTE LOAD HOLD, THE MOVEMENT OF THE END OF THE SOIL NAIL SHALL BE MEASURED AT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 10 MINUTES. IF MOVEMENT IS LESS THAN 0.04 INCHES AT THE END OF 10 MINUTES, THEN TEST IS SUCCESSFUL. IF MOVEMENT IS MORE THAN 0.04 INCHES THEN LOAD WILL HOLD FOR AN ADDITIONAL 50 MINUTES. TOTAL MOVEMENT SHALL BE MEASURED AT 15, 20, 30, 45, AND 60 MINUTES. IF MOVEMENT IS LESS THAN 0.08 INCHES BETWEEN 11 AND 60 MINUTES, TEST IS SUCCESSFUL. THE SOIL NAIL SHALL BE UNLOADED ONLY AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE TEST. J. PROOF TEST LOADING SCHEDULE: 0.25T 0.50T 0.75T 1.00M (PULLOUT TEST LOAD) DESIGN LOAD (DL) SHALL BE 56 KIPS PER ANCHOR. (T = PROOF TEST LOAD = 1.5 X DESIGN LOAD) (AL = ALIGNMENT LOAD = 0.10T) K. TESTING TO OCCUR NO SOONER THAN 3 DAYS AFTER ANCHOR INSTALLATION UNLESS CONTRACTOR CAN DEMONSTRATE ANCHOR GROUT HAS ACHIEVED ADEQUATE STRENGTH. L. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH TO THE ENGINEER COMPLETE TEST RESULTS FOR EACH SOIL NAIL ASSEMBLY TESTED. DATA FOR EACH TEST SHALL LIST KEY PERSONNEL, TEST LOADING EQUIPMENT, TEST SOIL NAIL LOCATION, HOLE DIAMETER AND DEPTH, BONDED LENGTH, TYPE OF SOIL, AND AMOUNT OF GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED WITHIN THE BOND LENGTH. TEST DATA SHALL ALSO INCLUDE THE DATES AND TIMES OF DRILLING, TEST SOIL NAIL INSTALLATION, GROUTING, AND TESTING. THE TEST LOAD AND AMOUNT OF DISPLACEMENT SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE TEST DATA WHEN ANY DISPLACEMENT OF THE TEST SOIL NAIL RELATIVE TO THE GROUT OCCURS DURING APPLICATION OF THE TEST LOAD. SOIL NAIL ANCHOR TRANSPORTATION AND HANDLING: 1. SOIL NAILS ENCAPSULATED WITH CORRUGATED PLASTIC SHEATHING AND PRE- GROUTED, ARE NORMALLY SHIPPED LYING HORIZONTAL IN BUNDLES WITH MULTIPLE BANDING POINTS TO HELP PREVENT BENDING OF THE NAILS THAT COULD CAUSE CRACKING OF THE INTERNAL GROUT LAYER. THE USE OF MULTIPLE PICKUP POINTS (A SPREADER BEAM IS RECOMMENDED FOR THE PURPOSE) IS REQUIRED TO DECREASE THE POSSIBILITY OF CANTILEVER DEFLECTIONS AND SAGGING BETWEEN PICKUP POINTS DURING TRANSPORTATION, LOADING / UNLOADING OPERATIONS, MOVEMENTS TO INSTALLATION SITES AND INSERTION INTO PREPARED ANCHORAGE HOLES. NEITHER SOIL NAILS THAT ARE SHIPPED IN BUNDLES OR AS INDIVIDUAL NAILS SHOULD BE DROPPED, DRAGGED, OR PULLED OFF OF A TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE. 2. IF FIELD CUTTING IS REQUIRED, THE EXPOSED THREADED SECTION OF THE STEEL BARS WILL BE CUT WITH A PORTABLE BAND SAW OR AN ABRASIVE CUTOFF WHEEL WHICH WILL NOT GENERATE OVERHEATING OF THE AREA OF THE SOIL NAILS WHERE THE INTERNAL THREADED TENSION COMPONENTS ARE INTENDED FOR USE. THE USE OF A CUTTING TORCH IS PROHIBITED. 3. WHEN THE SOIL NAILS HAVE BEEN EPOXY COATED OR HOT DIP GALVANIZED, THE EXPOSED END OF THE SOIL NAIL THAT HAS BEEN FIELD CUT CAN BE REPAIRED WITH AN EPOXY PATCH KIT OR ZINC SPRAY FROM THE MANUFACTURER. 4. WELDING TO EITHER THE STEEL BARS OR TO THE INTERNAL THREADED COMPONENTS IS NOT ALLOWED. THE SOIL NAILS SHOULD NOT BE USED AS GROUNDING FOR ELECTRIC WELDING APPARATUS. 5. SOIL NAILS THAT HAVE BEEN SEVERELY BENT, NICKED, CUT, COMPRESSED (FLATTENED IN THE THREAD SECTION DOWN TO THE MINOR DIAMETER) OR NAILS THAT ARE WORN OUT DUE TO OTHER USES, MISUSE, OR HAVE EXTERNAL THREADS CORRODED WITH PERMANENT PITTING SHOULD BE INSPECTED TO DETERMINE IF STRENGTH CAPACITIES ARE DIMINISHED. ALSO, IF THE SOIL NAILS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY TENSIONED BEYOND THEIR RATED YIELD STRENGTH, THEY SHOULD BE DISCARDED. SOIL NAIL ANCHOR INSTALLATION: 1. THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS SHOULD GENERALLY START FROM THE TOP DOWN, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. HOLES ARE DRILLED AND SOIL NAIL ASSEMBLIES ARE INSTALLED USING CENTRALIZERS. CENTRALIZERS SHOULD ADEQUATELY SUPPORT THE BAR IN THE CENTER OF THE DRILLED HOLE AND SHALL BE SPACED AT A MAXIMUM OF 5 FEET ON CENTER. 3. DRILLING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE DESIGNED TO DRILL STRAIGHT AND OF SUFFICIENT DIAMETER TO PROVIDE 2 1/2 INCHES GROUT COVER OVER DOUBLE CORROSION PROTECTED NAIL. THE SIZE AND CAPABILITY OF THE DRILLING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR. METHODS OF DRILLING WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 4. VARIATIONS IN NAIL LOCATIONS CAN BE UP TO 8 INCHES. VARIATION IN NAIL ANGLE OF +/- 5 DEGREES, AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS, IS ACCEPTABLE WITHOUT RE-DESIGN. 5. HOLES FOR SOIL NAIL ASSEMBLIES AND FOR TEST SOIL NAIL ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE THE SAME DIAMETER AND UTILIZE THE SAME INSTALLATION TECHNIQUES, INCLUDING GROUT. 6. CASING MAY BE USED TO STABILIZE THE HOLES, BUT SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO OR DURING THE GROUTING OPERATION. 7. HOLES SHALL BE CLEANED TO REMOVE MATERIAL RESULTING FROM THE DRILLING OPERATIONS AND TO REMOVE ANY OTHER MATERIAL THAT WOULD IMPAIR THE STRENGTH OF THE SOIL NAIL ASSEMBLIES OR TEST SOIL NAIL ASSEMBLIES. FOREIGN MATERIAL DISLODGED OR DRAWN INTO THE HOLES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE REMOVED. 8. ALL NAILS ARE TO BE GROUTED TO FULL DEPTH, THEN PRE TENSIONED TO 3,000 POUNDS FORCE ± 500 POUNDS. GROUT SHOULD THEN BE FILLED TO BACK OF BEARING PLATE. No. S 4110MAR SH K ER STE DER O N CRE AURCURT NA C T FOE RFLIOA E GER T S TS RDESITE FORP N L REE IA LISNOAS GI NE SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER SENIOR PROJECT DRAFTER DOCUMENT REVIEW SHEET TITLE 1ST ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY 2/ 1 7 / 2 0 2 3 7 : 3 1 : 1 4 A M S0.01 GENERAL NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS A23-040 EJF SHG SHG 02/17/23 93 9 B E G O N I A C O U R T KE Y S T O N E W A L L S T R E N G T H E N I N G 93 9 B E G O N I A C O U R T CA R L S B A D , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 0 1 1 REV. DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/23 PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 14 of 55 SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS: PART 1 - GENERAL 1.1 REQUIREMENTS INCLUDED: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS B. RESPONSIBILITY C. INSPECTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY D. COOPERATION E. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY F. GENERAL DUTIES OF SPECIAL INSPECTOR 1.2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: A. OWNER PROVIDED SPECIAL BUILDING STRUCTURAL INSPECTION 1. PURPOSE OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTION IS TO ASSURE THAT GOOD PRACTICES ARE FOLLOWED IN CONSTRUCTING THE PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIGN AND THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE PUBLIC OF THE SAFE CONSTRUCTION AND SUBSEQUENT USE OF THE STRUCTURE. 1.3 RESPONSIBILITY: A. THIS INSPECTION DOES NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THE WORK PROPERLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, AND DOES NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO CARRY OUT HIS QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTIONS AND TESTING. 1.4 INSPECTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY: A. SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL HAVE ALL QUALIFICATIONS AS OUTLINED BY THE BOARD OF BUILDING CODES AND STANDARDS AND THESE QUALIFICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION FOR THIS PROJECT. B. SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL BE TOTALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE INTENT, THE CONTENT AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PART OF THE PROJECT UNDER THIS INSPECTION RESPONSIBILITY. C. SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION FOR THIS PROJECT. 1.5 COOPERATION: A. CONTRACTOR SHALL COOPERATE WITH AND ASSIST THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR IN PERFORMING HIS INSPECTION DUTIES AS SPECIFIED. THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL HAVE FREE ACCESS TO THE PROJECT AT ALL TIMES. 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL ADVISE THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR IN ADVANCE OF CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES AND PLANNED OPERATIONS IN ORDER TO ASSURE TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE OBSERVATION AND INSPECTION OF ITEMS SPECIFIED BELOW. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR AT THE JOBSITE A SET OF APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS. 1.6 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES: A. COST OF EMPLOYING THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER. B. FINAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL REST WITH THE ARCHITECT AND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF RECORD. 1.7 GENERAL DUTIES OF SPECIAL INSPECTOR: A. SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE CONTRACTOR IN TIMELY OBSERVATIONS AND INSPECTIONS OF APPROPRIATE WORK OUTLINED BELOW. HOWEVER, HE SHALL REFRAIN FROM SUPERVISING OR DIRECTING WORKERS ON THE PROJECT FOR THE CONTRACTOR, AS THIS IS EXPRESSLY NOT PART OF THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR'S DUTIES OR INSPECTION FUNCTIONS. B. SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY ALERT THE CONTRACTOR OF ALL DISCREPANCIES AND DEVIATIONS FROM THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND THE APPROVED SHOP DRAWINGS. 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL, UPON BEING INFORMED BY SPECIAL INSPECTOR, IMMEDIATELY RESOLVE SUCH DISCREPANCIES. DEVIATIONS OF WORK FROM THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED. C. SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE TIME AND DATE OF THE OBSERVATION AND INSPECTION. 1. SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL SUBMIT HIS REPORTS TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION FOR THE PROJECT. IN ADDITION, SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL SUBMIT COPIES OF THIS REPORT TO THE OWNER AND THE CONTRACTOR. 2. UPON COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING, A SIGNED AND SEALED STATEMENT BY THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY, STATING THAT THE PART OF THE PROJECT UNDER HIS INSPECTION RESPONSIBILITIES HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 2.0 MATERIAL TESTING A. ALL TESTING REQUIREMENTS AS DEFINED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL BE ADHERED TO. B. FORWARD COPIES OF ALL TEST RESULTS TO THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR. 3.0 CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WIND OR SEISMIC FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM/COMPONENT LISTED IN THE STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTION SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY TO THE GOVERNING CODE AUTHORITY'S INSPECTORS AND THE OWNER PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK ON SUCH SYSTEM OR COMPONENT PER N5.X.X SERIES TABLES. 4.0 CONTINUOUS SPECIAL INSPECTION BY A REGISTERED DEPUTY INSPECTOR IS REQUIRED FOR FIELD WELDING, POST-INSTALLED ADHESIVE ANCHORS INSTALLED HORIZONTALLY OR UPWARDLY INCLINED TO RESIST SUSTAINED TENSION LOADS, SHOTCRETE PLACEMENT, CONCRETE STRENGTH f'c > 2500 PSI, SPRAYED-ON FIREPROOFING, ENGINEERED MASONRY, HIGH-LIFT GROUTING, HIGH LOAD DIAPHRAGMS, SPECIAL MOMENT-RESISTING CONCRETE FRAMES, AND HELICAL PILE FOUNDATIONS. 5.0 FIELD WELDING TO BE DONE BY WELDERS CERTIFIED BY THE GOVERNING CODE AUTHORITY FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL/REINFORCING STEEL/LIGHT GAUGE STEEL. CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY A DEPUTY INSPECTOR IS REQUIRED. 6.0 SHOP WELDS MUST BE PERFORMED IN A GOVERNING CODE AUTHORITY LICENSED FABRICATOR SHOP. 7.0 CONTINUOUS INSPECTION BY A DEPUTY INSPECTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED. D. FOUNDATION WORK 1. INSPECT EXCAVATIONS AND SUBGRADE PRIOR TO REQUIRED TESTS OF THE SUBGRADE, PER CBC TABLE 1705.6. 2. NOTIFY OWNER AND ARCHITECT IF CONCRETE OPERATIONS COMMENCE PRIOR TO REQUIRED TESTS ON THE SUBGRADE. 3. INSPECTION OF CAST IN PLACE DEEP FOUNDATIONS AND INSTALLATION PER TABLE 1705.6 CHECK FOR: a. PLACEMENT LOCATIONS AND PLUMBNESS. b. CONFIRM PIER DIAMETERS, LENGTH, EMBEDMENT INTO BEDROCK AND ADEQUATE END BEARING STRATA CAPACITY. 4. INSPECT REINFORCEMENT PLACEMENT IN FOOTING, SLAB-ON-GRADE, AND SUBGRADE BEAMS PER TABLE 1705.3 CHECK FOR: a. PROPER SIZE, GRADE NUMBER AND SPACING OF REINFORCING. b. PROPER SUPPORT AND CLEARANCE OF REINFORCING. 5. INSPECT COLUMN, ANCHOR BOLTS AND SLAB ON GRADE DOWELS FROM THE FOOTINGS PER TABLE 1705.3 CHECK FOR: a. PROPER SIZE, GRADE, NUMBER AND SPACING OF REINFORCING AND/OR ANCHOR BOLTS. b. PROPER SUPPORT AND CLEARANCE OF REINFORCING. c. PROPER LENGTH OF EMBEDMENT OF ANCHOR BOLTS. 6. ASSURE THAT TESTING OF THE CONCRETE IS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 7. ASSURE THAT CONCRETE OPERATIONS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 8. PRIOR TO THE CONTRACTOR REQUESTING A BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOUNDATION INSPECTION, THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL ADVISE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IN WRITING THAT: a. THE SOIL WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOILS REPORT. b. THE UTILITY TRENCHES HAVE BEEN PROPERLY BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED. c. THE FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS, THE SOILS EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND BEARING CAPACITY CONFORM TO THE SOILS REPORT. E. ALL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION 1. INSPECT CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION PER CBC TABLE 1705.3 PRIOR TO POURING OF CONCRETE, CHECK FOR: a. REBAR PLACEMENTS FOR PROPER SIZE, GRADE, NUMBER, STRAIGHTNESS, SPACING, LAP SPLICE PROPER HEIGHTS AND LENGTH. b. TENDON PLACEMENTS FOR PROPER SIZE, GRADE, NUMBER, SPACING, PROPER TENDON PROFILE AND LENGTH. 2. ASSURE THAT TESTING OF THE CONCRETE IS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3. ASSURE THAT CONCRETING OPERATIONS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 4. PROVIDE CEMENT, AGGREGATES, REINFORCING STEEL, STRUCTURAL STEEL, HIGH STRENGTH BOLTS, JOISTS, ETC., FROM IDENTIFIABLE TESTED STOCK. SUBMIT CERTIFIED LABORATORY TEST REPORTS TO ARCHITECT AND, UPON REQUEST, TO GOVERNING CODE AUTHORITY. IF MATERIALS CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED OR IF CERTIFIED LABORATORY TEST REPORTS CANNOT BE MADE AVAILABLE, TESTING LABORATORY WILL PERFORM TESTS TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AS DIRECTED BY ARCHITECT. 5. TESTING LABORATORY SHALL TEST AND/OR INSPECT ALL PRODUCTS INCLUDING ANCHORS (BOTH DRILLED-IN OR EPOXY TYPES) IN ACCORD WITH APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL (ICC) - EX REPORTS. 6. TESTING LABORATORY SHALL REVIEW CONCRETE MIX DESIGN DATA AND SHALL PERFORM THE FOLLOWING CONCRETE TESTS AT FREQUENCY INDICATED IN CBC SECTION 1905.6:2. a. SLUMP TESTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASTM C143. b. PREPARE FOUR TEST CYLINDERS FOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TESTING IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASTM C39, ACI 318. TEST ONE CYLINDER AT 7 DAYS AFTER DEPOSIT, TWO CYLINDERS AT 28 DAYS AFTER DEPOSIT AND RETAIN REMAINING CYLINDERS FOR TESTS UNTIL COMPLETION OF PROJECT. DETERMINE CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AT 28 DAYS BASED ON AVERAGE OF TWO CYLINDERS TESTED. c. PREPARE AN ADDITIONAL CYLINDER FOR POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE TO BE TESTED FOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AT 3 DAYS AFTER DEPOSIT. d. ENTRAINED AIR CONTENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASTM C231 FOR AIR ENTRAINED CONCRETE. 7. PRIOR TO THE CONTRACTOR REQUESTING A BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOUNDATION INSPECTION, THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL ADVISE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IN WRITING THAT: a. THE SOIL WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOILS REPORT. b. THE UTILITY TRENCHES HAVE BEEN PROPERLY BACKFILLED AND COMPACTED. c. THE FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS, THE SOILS EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS AND BEARING CAPACITY CONFORM TO THE SOILS REPORT. 8. FOR EXEMPTIONS TO THE REQUIRED CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, SEE CBC SECTION 1705.3 F. SOIL NAIL CONSTRUCTION 1. INSPECT SOIL NAIL EXCAVATIONS PER SECTION D, FOUNDATION WORK, REQUIREMENTS. 2. INSPECT SOIL NAIL AND GROUT PLACEMENT PER SECTION E, ALL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, REQUIREMENTS. 3. SEE GENERAL NOTES FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. TYPE CONTINUOUS SPECIAL INSPECTION PERIODICALLY SPECIAL INSPECTION CBC TABLE 1705.6 REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTS OF SOILS -X -X -X Xa - -X 1. VERIFY MATERIALS BELOW SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ARE ADEQUATE TO ACHIEVE THE DESIGN BEARING CAPACITY. 2. VERIFY EXCAVATIONS ARE EXTENDED TO PROPER DEPTH AND HAVE REACHED PROPER MATERIAL. 3. PERFORM CLASSIFICATION AND TESTING OF COMPACTED FILL MATERIALS. 4. VERIFY USE OF PROPER MATERIALS, DENSITIES AND LIFT THICKNESSES DURING PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF COMPACTED FILL. 5. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED FILL, INSPECT SUBGRADE AND VERIFY THAT SITE HAS BEEN PREPARED PROPERLY. a. FREQUENCY OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROJECT. CBC TABLE 1705.3 REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTS OF CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION -X ACI 318 Ch. 20, 25.2, 25.3, 26.5.1-26.5.3 1908.4 -X AWS D1.4 ACI 318: 26.5.4 - FOR SI: 1 INCH=25.4 mm. a. WHERE APPLICABLE, SEE ALSO SECTION 1705.12, SPECIAL INSPECTION FOR SEISMIC RESISTANCE. b. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE RESEARCH REPORT FOR THE ANCHOR ISSUED BY AN APPROVED SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 17.8.2 IN ACI 318, OR QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES. WHERE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT PROVIDED, SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY THE REGISTERED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK. TYPE CONTINUOUS SPECIAL INSPECTION PERIODIC SPECIAL INSPECTION REFERENCED STANDARD IBC REFERENCEa 1. INSPECT REINFORCEMENT, INCLUDING PRESTRESSING TENDONS, AND VERIFY PLACEMENT. 2. REINFORCING BAR WELDING: a. VERIFY WELDABILITY OF REINFORCING BARS OTHER THAN ASTM A706 b. INSPECT SINGLE-PASS FILLET WELDS, MAXIMUM 5/16" c. INSPECT ALL OTHER WELDS. X X -X ACI 318: 17.8.2 -3. INSPECT ANCHORS CAST IN CONCRETE. ACI 318: 17.8.2.4 - 4. INSPECT ANCHORS POST-INSTALLED IN HARDENED CONCRETE MEMBERS. a. ADHESIVE ANCHORS INSTALLED IN HORIZONTALLY OR UPWARDLY INCLINED ORIENTATIONS TO RESIST SUSTAINED TENSION LOADS. b. MECHANCIAL ANCHORS AND ADHESIVE ANCHORS NOT DEFINED IN 4. X X b ACI 318: 17.8.2 -X ACI 318: CH. 19, 26.4.3, 26.4.4 1904.1, 1904.2, 1908.2, 1908.3 5. VERIFYING USE OF REQUIRED DESIGN MIX X -1908.10 ASTM C172 ASTM C31 ACI 318: 26.4.5, 26.12 6. PRIOR TO CONCRETE PLACEMENT, FABRICATE SPECIMENS FOR STRENGTH TESTS, PERFORM SLUMP AND AIR CONTENT TESTS, AND DETERMINE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE CONCRETE. X -ACI 318: 26.4.5 1908.6, 1908.7, 1908.8 7. INSPECT CONCRETE AND SHOTCRETE PLACEMENT FOR PROPER APPLICATION TECHNIQUES. -X ACI 318: 26.4.7-26.4.9 1908.98. VERIFY MAINTENANCE OF SPECIFIED CURING TEMPERATURE AND TECHNIQUES. X X -ACI 318: 26.9.2.1 ACI 318: 26.9.2.3 -9. INSPECTION PRESTRESSED CONCRETE FOR: a. APPLICATION OF PRESTRESSING FORCES; AND b. GROUTING OF BONDED PRESTRESSING TENDONS - -X ACI 318: CH.26.810. INSPECT ERECTION OF PRECAST CONCRETE MEMBERS - -X ACI 318: 26.10.2 -11. VERIFIY OF IN-SITU CONCRETE STRENGTH, PRIOR TO STRESSING OF TENDONS IN POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE AND PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF SHORES AND FORMS FROM BEAMS AND STRUCTURAL SLABS -X ACI 318: 26.10.1(b)-12. INSPECT FORMWORK FOR SHAPE, LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF THE CONCRETE MEMBER BEING FORMED. a - - No. S 4110MAR SH K ER STE DER O N CRE AURCURT NA C T FOE RFLIOA E GER T S TS RDESITE FORP N L REE IA LISNOAS GI NE SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER SENIOR PROJECT DRAFTER DOCUMENT REVIEW SHEET TITLE 1ST ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY 2/ 1 7 / 2 0 2 3 7 : 3 1 : 1 4 A M S0.02 SPECIAL INSPECTION NOTES AND SCHEDULES A23-040 EJF SHG SHG 02/17/23 93 9 B E G O N I A C O U R T KE Y S T O N E W A L L S T R E N G T H E N I N G 93 9 B E G O N I A C O U R T CA R L S B A D , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 0 1 1 REV. DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/23 PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 15 of 55 SPACING AND COVER SCHEDULE FOR TENSION LAP SPLICES & DEVELOPMENT LENGTHS ONLY MIN CLEARBAR SIZE MIN COVER 1"#3 3/4" 1"#4 1/4" 1 1/4"#5 5/4" 1 1/2"#6 3/4" 1 3/4"#7 7/8" 2"#8 1" 2 1/4"#9 1 1/8" 2 1/2"#10 1 1/4" 2 3/4"#11 1 3/8" NOTES: 1. fy = 60,000 psi 2. ALL LENGTHS SHOWN IN THE TENSION LAP SPLICE & HOOK EMBEDMENT SCHEDULES ARE IN INCHES. 3. ALL LAP SPLICES ARE TO BE CLASS B TENSION LAP SPLICES UNO ON DRAWINGS. 4. TOP BAR IS DEFINED AS A HORIZONTAL BAR WITH 12" OR MORE OF CONCRETE PLACED BELOW THE BAR. 5. ALL CLEAR DISTANCES BETWEEN BARS AND COVERS SHOWN IN THE SPACING AND COVER SCHEDULE TO THE LEFT ARE TO BE MAINTAINED AS A MIN UNO IF THE CLEAR DISTANCE OR COVER IS LESS THAN SHOWN, SEE NOTE #6. 6. INCREASE SPLICE LENGTHS 50% WHERE THE CLEAR DISTANCE BETWEEN BARS OR COVERS SHOWN IN THE SPACING AND COVER SCHEDULE TO THE LEFT ARE NOT MET. 7. LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FOR GRADE 60 UNCOATED BARS. 8. INCREASE LAP LENGTHS 30% FOR LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE. 9. MULTIPLY THE LENGTHS IN THE SCHEDULE BY 1.25 FOR GRADE 75 REINFORCING. 10. MULTIPLY THE LENGTHS IN THE SCHEDULE BY 1.33 FOR GRADE 80 REINFORCING. 11. INDIVIDUAL BARS WITH A BUNDLE SHALL NOT BE SPLICED AT THE SAME LOCATION UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS. CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR REQUIRED SPLICES OF BUNDLED BARS IF NOT SPECIFICALLY SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS. 12. THE DEVELOPMENT LENGTHS OF A BAR IS EQUAL TO A CLASS A TENSION LAP SPLICE LENGTH. 13. THIS TABLE DOES NOT APPLY TO BAR BUNDLES OF THREE BARS OR MORE. BAR #3LAP CLASS TOP 19 CL A S S 'A ' AREA (sq. in.) DIAMETER db NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE f'c PSI BOT 4000 15 0.11 0.375 25 CL A S S 'B '4000 19 6ST D HO O K 4000 #4 TOP 25 BOT 20 0.20 0.500 33 25 7 #5 TOP 31 BOT 24 0.31 0.625 41 31 9 #6 TOP 38 BOT 29 0.44 0.750 49 38 10 #7 TOP 55 BOT 42 0.60 0.875 71 55 12 #8 TOP 62 BOT 48 0.79 1.000 81 62 14 #9 TOP 70 BOT 54 1.00 1.128 91 70 15 #10 TOP 79 BOT 61 1.27 1.270 102 79 17 #11 TOP 87 BOT 67 1.56 1.410 113 87 19 SECTION WALL SLABEMBED ldh HOOK SECTION EDGE OF SLAB SPLICE TENSION LAP (CLASS 'A' SPLICE) ANCHORAGE, USE DEVELOPMENT LENGTH SECTION CONTINUOUS BAR LAPPING BAR TENSION LAP SPLICE AND DEVELOPMENT LENGTH SCHEDULE (Fy=60KSI STEEL) 22 17 28 22 6 29 22 38 29 8 36 28 47 36 10 43 33 56 43 12 63 48 81 63 14 72 55 93 72 16 81 62 105 81 18 91 70 118 91 20 101 78 131 101 22 3000 3000 3000 175000 13 225000 17 65000 23 18 29 23 7 28 22 36 28 8 34 26 44 34 9 49 38 63 49 11 56 43 72 56 12 63 48 81 63 14 71 54 92 71 15 78 60 102 78 17 CLEAR "D" DIA #7 - #8 #14 - #18 #9 - #11 - - - 6d 10d 8d #3 #4 #5 #6 1 1/2" 2" 4 1/2" 2 1/2" 3" 2 1/4" 3 3/4" 4 1/2" DD 180° HOOK90° HOOK DD 135° DD ALT ENDS IN ALL CASES TYPE A TYPE B COLUMN & BEAM TIE BEAM & GIRDER STIRRUP STANDARD HOOKS TYPICAL LAP COLUMN & BEAM CROSS TIE D D* 12d AT TIES AND STIRRUPS #6 AND LARGER SHOP OFFSET LAP 1 6 MAX SLOPE (IN NO CASE SHALL DIA "D" BE LESS THAN LONGIT. OR VERT BAR DIA) BAR SIZE "D" FOR TIES & STIRRUPS ONLY "D" FOR NON-TIES & NON-STIRRUPS ONLY 1 S1.01 1 S1.01 6d*d 6d* 12 d 2 1/2" MIN 4d 3" M I N6d 4" M IN6d 3" MIN6d d d d d d #3 #4 #7 #6 #5 #9 #10 #11 #8 23 TOP BARS 37 45 52 30 82 74 67 59 16 OTHER BARS 27 32 37 21 58 53 48 43 FACE OF SUPPORT BAR DEVELOPMENT LENGTH (ld) SCHEDULE (Fy = 60KSI STEEL) BAR SIZE f'c=3000 PSI TO 5000 PSI NOTES: 1. TOP BARS ARE HORIZONTAL BARS SO PLACED THAT MORE THAN 12" OF CONCRETE IS CAST IN THE MEMBER BELOW THE BAR. NOTE: EXTEND BAR STRAIGHT AS FAR AS POSSIBLE AND BEND ld (INCHES) NOTES: 1. FOR REINFORCING REQUIREMENTS AT OPENINGS, CONTROL JOINTS, ETC., SEE ------------------- 2. PROVIDE VERTICAL DOWELS INTO CONCRETE STEM WALLS OR FOOTINGS, DOWELS SIZE AND SPACING TO MATCH VERTICAL REINFORCING AT WALL. 3. HORIZONTAL REINFORCING AT WALL ENDS OR WHICH DO NOT CONTINUE INTO INTERSECTING WALLS SHALL TERMINATE WITH STANDARD 90° HOOK TURNED DOWN. CEND OR JAMB BINTERSECTIONACORNER LAP PER SCHED HAIRPIN BARS, SIZE AND SPACING TO MATCH HORIZ REINF (2) #6 VERT TRIM BARS, TYP UNO ON PLAN LA P P E R S C H E D TYP, UNO 1 1/2" CLR MIN LAP PER SCHED CONCRETE FOOTING/WALL PER PLAN/ELEVATION ADD'L BARS (2) PER BEND. SIZE TO MATCH VERT REINF DOWELS - SIZE AND SPACING TO MATCH HORIZ REINF IN FOOTING/WALL LA P P E R S C H E D REINF PER PLAN - PLACE VERT BARS ON OUTER MOST FACE, TYP NOTES: 1. FOR REINFORCING REQUIREMENTS AT OPENINGS, CONTROL JOINTS, ETC., SEE DETAIL ----------------- 2. PROVIDE VERTICAL DOWELS INTO CONCRETE STEM WALLS OR FOOTINGS, DOWELS SIZE AND SPACING TO MATCH VERTICAL REINFORCING AT WALL. 3. HORIZONTAL REINFORCING AT WALL ENDS OR WHICH DO NOT CONTINUE INTO INTERSECTING WALLS SHALL TERMINATE WITH STANDARD 90° HOOK TURNED DOWN. CEND OR JAMB BINTERSECTIONACORNER (2) #5 VERT TRIM BARS, TYP UNO ON PLAN 180 DEGREE HOOK MIN2" CLR LA P P E R S C H E D LAP PER SCHED DOWEL SIZE AND SPACING TO MATCH HORIZ REINF IN FOOTING/WALL (ALTERNATE BENDS) LAP PER SCHED REINF PER PLAN - PLACE BARS AT CENTER OF FOOTING/WALL, TYP ADD'L BAR AT BEND, SIZE TO MATCH VERT REINF LA P P E R S C H E D 9" MIN 6" M I N 6" M I N 3' - 0 " M A X . 4" M I N 9" 1' - 3" 3" TYP WALL PROVIDE REINFORCING AROUND OPENING IN CONCRETE WALL BOTTOM OF FOOTING BACKFILL PER SPECIFICATIONS NO EXCAVATION ALLOWED BELOW THIS LINE THIS CONCRETE MUST BE PLACED BEFORE FOOTING PIPE SLEEVE 2" LARGER THAN PIPE, TYP NO PIPES TO OCCUR THRU FOOTING UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED PIPE FOOTING SLEEVE PIPE PROVIDE SLEEVE AT ELBOWS WITHIN FOUNDATION FORMED EDGE 4" MINADD'L #4 x 3'-0" LONG @ 8"OC ASECTIONBFRONT VIEWCVERTICAL PIPE THRU FOUNDATION 1.75('S') 'S 'PROVIDE BARS (2 MIN) SAME SIZE AND AMOUNT AS FOOTING REINFORCING TOP LAYER OF REINF WHERE OCCURS NOTES: 1. INDICATES STEPPED FOOTING SYMBOL, SEE PLAN FOR LOCATION. 2. DIMENSION 'S' SHALL NOT EXCEED 2'-0". 3. 'D' INDICATES DEPTH OF FOOTING. EXTEND BARS AS SHOWN WHERE TOP LAYER OF REINFORCING OCCURS PER SCHEDULE LAP SPLICE 'D'1.75('S') MIN 'S ' 'S ' 'S ' 'D ' 'D ' 3" CLR SEE WALL SECTIONS FOR FOOTING REINF SS PER SCHEDULE LAP SPLICE VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION JOINTSHORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS CLEAN SURFACE PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE HORIZ WALL REINF, TYP CONTINUE VERT REINF THRU JOINT CUT ALTERNATE HORIZ BARS AT CONTROL JOINT IN EACH CURTAINNOTES: 1. STOP ALTERNATE TYPICAL WALL HORIZONTAL REINFORCING AT JOINT. CONTINUE THROUGH ALL LINTEL (#5 AND LARGER BARS) AND SPECIAL STEEL THRU JOINT. CONTINUE JOINTS OVER TOP OF ALL RETAINING PARAPET WALLS, SEE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR LOCATION. 2. MAXIMUM CONTROL JOINT SPACING = 15'-0" OC UNO EQ EQ EQ 3"3" 1 1/2" 12" LONG KEY AT 24" (2 ROWS OF KEYS WHERE WALL IS THICKER THAN 16" VERT WALL REINF, TYP UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE FIRST PLACEMENT PROVIDE POUR STRIP EA SIDE WHERE BOT FACES ARE EXPOSED SANDBLAST TO EXPOSE AGGREGATE AND CLEAN SURFACE PRIOR TO POURING CONCRETE FORMS 1x2 POUR STRIP REMOVED (AT EXPOSED FACE ONLY) CL C L A M P 4" M A X NOTES: 1. PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION JOINT AT 60'-0" MAX UNO 2. LOCATION AND DETAIL OF JOINTS SHALL BE APPROVED BY ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING FORMS OR PLACING CONCRETE. 3/ 4 " 3/4" 3/8" 3/4" 3/ 4 " EXT FACECONCRETE WALL PROVIDE PLASTER EXPANSION JOINT WHERE PLASTER FINISH OCCURS 20 S1.01 20 S1.01 ACONSTRUCTION JOINTSBCONTROL JOINTS SPLICE HORIZ LAP SPLICE HORIZ LAP OFFSET SPLICE LOCATION AND STAGGER SPLICE, SEE NOTE ON WALL REINF FOR ALTERNATE SPLICES 4'-0" MIN SPACING LAP (24" MIN) HORIZ REINF TYP No. S 4110MAR SH K ER STE DER O N CRE AURCURT NA C T FOE RFLIOA E GER T S TS RDESITE FORP N L REE IA LISNOAS GI NE SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER SENIOR PROJECT DRAFTER DOCUMENT REVIEW SHEET TITLE 1ST ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY 2/ 1 7 / 2 0 2 3 7 : 3 1 : 1 5 A M S1.01 TYPICAL CONCRETE DETAILS A23-040 EJF SHG SHG 02/17/23 93 9 B E G O N I A C O U R T KE Y S T O N E W A L L S T R E N G T H E N I N G 93 9 B E G O N I A C O U R T CA R L S B A D , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 0 1 1 SCALE NONE 1TYPICAL TENSION LAP SPLICES AND DEVELOPMENT LENGTHS SCHEDULE SCALE NONE 3TYPICAL BAR BENDS DETAIL SCALE NONE 15TYPICAL BAR DEVELOPMENT LENGTHS SCHEDULE SCALE NONE 13TYPICAL DOUBLE MAT REINFORCING AT FOOTING AND WALL INTERSECTION SCALE NONE 14TYPICAL SINGLE MAT REINF. AT WALLS AND INTERSECTIONS SCALE NONE 12TYPICAL PIPE THRU FOUNDATION AND TRENCH REV. DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/23 PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL 3/4" = 1'-0"4TYPICAL STEPPED FOOTING DETAIL 3/4" = 1'-0"11TYPICAL JOINTS IN CONCRETE WALL 3/4" = 1'-0"20TYPICAL WALL REINFORCING Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 16 of 55 LOWER/OUTER WALL (10" THICK CONCRETE) UPPER/INNER WALL (10" THICK CONCRETE) 24" WIDE x 12" DEEP GRADE BEAM AT 5'-0"OC MAX #9 DYWIDAG THREADBAR (OR APPROVED EQUAL) W/ DOUBLE CORROSION PROTECTION AT 6'-0"OC MAX AT UPPER/INNER WALL #9 DYWIDAG THREADBAR (OR APPROVED EQUAL) W/ DOUBLE CORROSION PROTECTION AT 5'-0"OC MAX AT LOWER/OUTER WALL (E) POOL (E) RESIDENCE #9 DYWIDAG THREADBAR (OR APPROVED EQUAL) W/ DOUBLE CORROSION PROTECTION AT 5'-0"OC MAX AT LOWER/OUTER WALL TYP (E) FIREPLACE REMOVE TOP SECTION OF WALL BELOW WHERE REQUIRED TO ALLOW FOR FOOTING PLACEMENT, TYP 1 S3.01TYP 4 S3.01 24" WIDE x 8" DEEP CONT FTG, SEE LOWER/OUTER WALL (10" THICK CONCRETE) 24" WIDE x 8" DEEP CONT FTG, SEE 16 S3.01 16 S3.01 FOUNDATION PLAN NOTES: 1. FOR GENERAL NOTES, SEE S0 SHEET SERIES. 2. FOR TYPICAL CONCRETE DETAILS, SEE S1 SHEET SERIES. 3. CONCRETE RETAINING WALL, SEE RELEVANT DETAILS. 4. INDICATES POST-GROUTED SOIL NAIL AT LOWER/OUTER WALL. 5. INDICATES POST-GROUTED SOIL NAIL AT UPPER/INNER WALL. 6. WHERE PIPING PENETRATIONS OCCUR THROUGH OR BELOW CONTINUOUS FOUNDATION, PENTRATE THROUGH MIDDLE THIRD OF FOUNDATION. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SEE 12 S1.01 No. S 4110MAR SH K ER STE DER O N CRE AURCURT NA C T FOE RFLIOA E GER T S TS RDESITE FORP N L REE IA LISNOAS GI NE SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER SENIOR PROJECT DRAFTER DOCUMENT REVIEW SHEET TITLE 1ST ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY 2/ 1 7 / 2 0 2 3 7 : 3 1 : 1 6 A M S2.01 ENLARGED SITE PLAN A23-040 EJF SHG SHG 02/17/23 93 9 B E G O N I A C O U R T KE Y S T O N E W A L L S T R E N G T H E N I N G 93 9 B E G O N I A C O U R T CA R L S B A D , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 0 1 1 REV. DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/23 PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL 1/4" = 1'-0" Ref.: S0.00 1ENLARGED SITE PLAN Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 17 of 55 ± 5.00° 15.00° TYP B 2" DIA WEEP HOLE @ ~ 4'-0"OC, TYP (E) KEYSTONE WALL, TYP DRAINAGE BOARD PER GEOTECH RECOMMENDATIONS, TYP PE R P L A N PER PLAN BSECTION (3) #5 CONT (T&B) CL R 2" TY P , U N O 3" C L R CLR 1 1/2" CLR 2" PLAN SEE CLR 1 1/2" CLR 2" PLAN SEE CL R3" CENTRALIZER @ 5'-0" OC, TYP MIN, TYP 6" DIA TYP 3" CLR UNTIL AFTER PROOF/LOAD TESTING UNBONDED LENGTH TO REMAIN UNGROUTED BONDED LENGTH = 12'-0" GROUT PER GENERAL NOTES, TYP #4 @ 12"OC, EA WAY, OUTSIDE FACE, TYP #5 DWL x 24" @ 12"OC #5 DWL x 24" @ 12"OC ADD'L #4 CONT UNTIL AFTER PROOF/LOAD TESTING UNBONDED LENGTH TO REMAIN UNGROUTED BONDED LENGTH = 10'-0" LINE OF FORMATIONAL MATERIALS (SANDSTONE) 6" #3 TIES @ 6"OC (E) KEYSTONE WALL, TYP TOP OF (N) SHOTCRETE WALL TO MATCH (E) KEYSTONE WALL, TYP H 0 . 4 * H #5 @ 12"OC, EA WAY, INSIDE FACE, TYP LAP PER SCHED WORK POINT ATYP S3.01 16 WALL FTG, BEYOND, SEE 16 S3.01 NOTE: REMOVE AND REPLACE HARDSCAPE AS REQUIRED TO PERFORM WORK 6" (4) #4 Z-BARS ((1) AT EACH CORNER) TY P 2 " C L R ANCHOR PROTECTION BLOCK (2) #3 TIES AANCHOR PROTECTION DETAIL 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 8" SQ MIN ANCHOR PLATE (EPOXY- COATED ASSEMBLY), TYP HEX NUT OR ANCHOR NUT (EPOXY-COATED), TYP BEVEL WASHER (EPOXY-COATED), TYP 2" DIA WEEP HOLE @ ~ 4'-0"OC, TYP DRAINAGE BOARD PER GEOTECH RECOMMENDATIONS, TYP CLR 1 1/2" CLR 2" #4 @ 12"OC, EA WAY, OUTSIDE FACE, TYP LINE OF FORMATIONAL MATERIALS (SANDSTONE) (E) KEYSTONE WALL, TYP TOP OF (N) SHOTCRETE WALL TO MATCH (E) KEYSTONE WALL, TYP H 0 . 4 * H #5 @ 12"OC, EA WAY, INSIDE FACE, TYP WORK POINT PLAN SEE S3.01 1A S3.01 16 CENTRALIZER @ 5'-0" OC, TYP MIN 6" DIA GROUT PER GENERAL NOTES, TYP ± 5.00° 15.00° BONDED LENGTH = 12'-0" * * UNBONDED LENGTH TO REMAIN UNGROUTED UNTIL AFTER PROOF/LOAD TESTING NOTE: REMOVE AND REPLACE HARDSCAPE AS REQUIRED TO PERFORM WORK EXISTING HARDSCAPE, WHERE PRESENT 6" PL A N SE E TY P , U N O 3" C L R SEE PLAN 1' - 0 " #5 DWL x 24" @ 12"OC #5 CONT @ 12"OC NOTE: FOR REMAINDER OF INFO, SEE 1 S3.01 No. S 4110MAR SH K ER STE DER O N CRE AURCURT NA C T FOE RFLIOA E GER T S TS RDESITE FORP N L REE IA LISNOAS GI NE SHEET NO. PROJECT NO. SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER SENIOR PROJECT DRAFTER DOCUMENT REVIEW SHEET TITLE 1ST ISSUE DATE DRAWN BY 2/ 1 7 / 2 0 2 3 7 : 3 1 : 1 6 A M S3.01 WALL SECTION & DETAILS A23-040 EJF SHG SHG 02/17/23 93 9 B E G O N I A C O U R T KE Y S T O N E W A L L S T R E N G T H E N I N G 93 9 B E G O N I A C O U R T CA R L S B A D , C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 0 1 1 REV. DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/23 PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL 3/4" = 1'-0" Ref.: S2.01 1CONCRETE WALL SECTION 3/4" = 1'-0" Ref.: S2.01 4CONCRETE WALL SECTION 3/4" = 1'-0" Ref.: S3.01 16CONCRETE WALL FOOTING DETAIL Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 18 of 55 PROJECT ANALYSIS Exhibit 4 (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) PROJECT ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following regulations: A. General Plan R-4 Land Use Designation B. R-1 Zone (CMC Chapter 21.24); Variance (CMC Chapter 21.50); Hillside Development Regulations (CMC Chapter 21.95); and Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203) C. Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment) The recommendation for denial of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail within the sections below. A. General Plan R-4 Residential Land Use Designation The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is R-4 Residential. The R-4 land use designation allows for development of single-family residential use within a density range of 0-4 du/ac. Although the project proposes no change to the existing single family residential unit on the property, the Land Use Element of the General Plan provides policies applicable to the project. Policy 2-P.10 states, development on slopes, when permitted, shall be designed to minimize grading and comply with the hillside development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. The project would allow for development of the property beyond what is allowed by the hillside development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. B. R-1 Zone (CMC Chapter 21.24); Variance (CMC Chapter 21.50); Hillside Development Regulations (CMC Chapter 21.95); and Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203) One-Family Residential (R-1) Zone (CMC Chapter 21.10) The project is subject to applicable regulations and development standards for the R-1 Zone (Chapter 21.10). While the project proposes no change to the existing single-family residence on the property, the project is inconsistent with other chapters of the CMC as discussed below. Hillside Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.95) The project site has a manufactured uphill perimeter slope as defined in CMC Section 21.95.140.C with a gradient greater than 40 percent and an elevation differential of greater than fifteen feet located in the backyard into which the unpermitted retaining wall system is constructed. CMC Section 21.95.140 contains provisions related to design standards for development of manufactured uphill perimeter slopes, and development is limited to a main building, accessory structure and a retaining wall up to a maximum cut into the slope of six vertical feet measured from the existing grade at the toe of the slope. Stairs are also allowed to be constructed onto the slope in order to access the area for landscape maintenance. Per CMC Section 21.95.040, improvements to single family residences are exempt from having to apply for a hillside development permit (HDP), provided that the development complies with CMC Section 21.95.140 of the Hillside Development Regulations and the city’s hillside development and design guidelines. However, walls and retaining walls built beyond the maximum six-foot cut as Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 19 of 55 Page 2 measured from the toe of the slope such as the project in question are not permitted per those standards and guidelines, so the project would not be exempt from an HDP. Modifications to the development and design standards of the Hillside Development Ordinance and Hillside Development and Design Guidelines are only permitted outside of the Coastal Zone with the approval of an HDP. Because the subject property is in the Coastal Zone, modifications to the design standards are prohibited unless it is necessary to preserve onsite natural habitat as required by the city’s Habitat Management Plan. There is no natural habitat present on the site. Therefore, an application for a HDP to seek design standards and guidelines modifications would not be applicable, and the applicant is instead seeking approval of a variance to deviate from the requirements of the CMC Chapter 21.95 – Hillside Development Regulations. Variance (CMC Chapter 21.50) Pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.50, variances are granted to resolve practical difficulties or physical hardships that may result from the unique size, shape, topography, or dimensions of a property. The applicant is requesting a variance to sections of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow the authorized construction of the stepped retaining walls. The following Hillside Development regulations apply to manufactured slopes which have a gradient of greater than forty percent and an elevation differential of greater than fifteen feet. Section 21.95.140(C)(1)(a)(i); "[Retaining walls] on or into an uphill perimeter manufactured slope shall be limited to a maximum of six vertical feet as measured from the existing grade at the toe of the slope." In order to support an approval for a variance, all five required findings of fact from CMC Section 21.50.050 must be made. These five required findings and analysis are discussed below. 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Applicant’s Proposed Justification: The subject property possesses topographic constraints which deprives the Owners of the typical usage afforded to other properties in the vicinity and creates a disproportionate maintenance burden. The following bullet points illustrate these points: • Portion of total lot area encumbered by slope: o Subject Property = 47% o Similar Lot (w/ Rear Yard Slope) Average = 22% o Neighborhood Average = 8% o Subject property encumbered more than double the average of similar lots with rear yard slopes. Out of the 236 lots studied, only one other lot has over 45% slope encumbrance percentage. • Portion of rear yard area encumbered by slope: Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 20 of 55 Page 3 o Subject Property = 76% o Similar Lot (w/ Rear Yard Slope) Average = 44% o Neighborhood Average = 17% • Height of rear yard slope: o Subject Property = 38 feet o Similar Lot (w/ Rear Yard Slope) Average = 18 feet o Neighborhood Average = 15 feet o The inclination of the rear yard slope within the subject property is 1.5:1, or 67%, which makes it very difficult to maintain and unusable from a practical standpoint. In general, virtually all other properties in the vicinity and under the zoning have a larger percentage of usable lot area, with many including expansive views. Staff Response: The applicant’s provided justification falls short of establishing the finding that, because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, such as topography, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives the property of the privileges enjoyed by the other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. While the exhibits and stats provided by the applicant and their representative do establish that the subject property does have a large amount of lot area that contains manufactured slope. Staff does not find that this is a special circumstance. The neighborhood is comprised of a variety of lot sizes and shapes, with the subject lot being one of the two largest sized lots in the area, at 17,148 square feet (sf). The shape of the lot is also one that is pie shaped, wider in the rear than the front, and this naturally increases the amount of area that the rear-yard manufactured slope takes up. This is meaningful because most other lots are not pie shaped. The most comparable lot to the subject lot in terms of size and shape is 943 Begonia Court, just two doors to the north of the subject property. The applicant states in their submittal materials that the 943 Begonia property is 16,514 sf with 7,314 sf taken up by the slope, or 44.29% of the lot, while the applicant’s property is stated to have 46.58% of the lot taken up by slope. There is not a significant difference in these percentages between these comparable lots. This 2.29% difference in comparable lots indicates this is not a special circumstance, and the amount of lot area taken up by the slope is not sound justification to allow the creation of over 2,000 sf of additional usable back yard space through terracing of the slope. The applicant has also failed to establish that the slope deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. The applicants survey of the surrounding properties found the average lot size in this neighborhood to be 9,528 sf. Even with the 7,988 square feet of slope area identified on the property by the applicant as unusable, if that area were not a part of the property at all, the remaining lot would be 9,160 square feet. Staff’s analysis of the property differs slightly than what is stated by the applicant, with the slope area only taking up approximately 7,500 sf. This would mean that approximately 9,650 square feet of usable lot area exists on the property. This square footage of lot size is in line with the average lot size of the neighborhood. In reviewing the design of the lot pattern in this neighborhood, it appears that Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 21 of 55 Page 4 lots with rear-yard slopes were specifically made larger to provide a usable lot area that is comparable in size to lots without rear-yard slopes. Therefore, the existence of the slope is not a loss of privilege in terms of usable lot area. Useable lot area: The Carlsbad Municipal Code does not provide a specific definition of this term. However, this term is defined on the website ZoningTrilogy.com, which is an online resource used by cities throughout the country as a zoning reference. The website defines Usable Lot Area as, “the area of a lot taken in a horizontal plane between the lot boundaries, excluding land in excess of twenty-five percent slope and natural bodies of water comprising in excess of ten percent of the total lot area.” Staff’s use of the term, Useable Lot Area, in this analysis is consistent with this definition. Additionally, while having a lot with a rear-yard slope of 67% does often requires more maintenance, this would be applicable to all lots with 67% rear-yard slopes in the area and is not a special circumstance or a loss of privilege. 2. That the variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located and is subject to any conditions necessary to assure compliance with this finding. Applicant’s Justification: A variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege because, while other lots in the vicinity do rear yard slopes, no other lots have as great of an elevation differential between adjacent properties or the extensive percentage of lot area encumbered by slope as the subject lot. Please refer to Lot and Slope Areas Exhibit apart of this application. Furthermore, strict adherence to the 6-foot retaining wall height limit disallows the Owner's ability to build standard rear yard improvements such as a patio cover, swimming pool, etc. Staff’s Response: As explained above, staff finds that the size of the slope and the amount of lot area encumbered by the slope is a result of the lots size and shape, opposed to an unintentionally or natural topographical constraints on the property. Staff finds that the approval of this variance would be a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. Even with the square footage of the slope removed from the property altogether, the size of the remaining lot is comparable in size to the average lot size in the neighborhood. Allowing the property to create additional usable area through terracing of the slope inconsistent with the hillside development standards would be a granting of special privilege. Additionally, although the applicant has stated that strict adherence to the six-foot retaining wall limit would disallow the owner from building standard rear-yard improvements such as a patio cover, swimming pool, etc., this statement is inaccurate. The subject property has an existing pool which was installed in 1999, prior to the start of any unpermitted work. The amount of rear-yard area and types of improvements that exist on the property are similar to other lots in the neighborhood as seen from aerial imagery of the neighborhood. Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 22 of 55 Page 5 3. That the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property. Applicant’s Justification: The variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulations because the construction of retaining walls and other yard improvements is considered accessory to the primary use of the property as a single-family residence, which is a permitted use in the R-1 Zone. Staff’s Response: Staff agrees that retaining walls and other yard improvements area considered accessory to the primary use of the property as a single-family residence, which is a permitted uses in the R-1 Zone. 4. That the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and the zoning ordinance. Applicant Justification: That the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and the zoning ordinance. The variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and zoning ordinance because the project complies with all policies of the Land Use Element, does not affect the density of the property, does not affect the Growth Management program, and complies with all the development standards of the R-1 zone except for the retaining wall height limit of the Hillside Development Regulations. Approval of the variance will comply with the purpose and intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance (Chap 21.95.010) because: a. The project will continue to implement the goals and objectives of the Land Use and Open Space Elements of the General Plan as originally approved with the subdivision. b. The hillside conditions have been properly identified and are incorporated in this review. c. The manufactured slope modified in the project does not damage or diminish the aesthetic quality of natural hillsides and manufactured slopes that are in highly visible public locations. The project site cannot be seen from any arterial streets, major thoroughfares, or public spaces. d. No alterations of natural hillsides are included in the project, and no impacts to natural resource areas, wildlife habitats or native vegetation will occur. Approval of the variance will also assure that hillside conditions are properly incorporated into the planning process through the review of the integrity of the slope by City Staff to ensure that it is structurally sound, and subsequent building plan review and permit issuance. Staff Response: The approval of a variance to allow for retaining walls above a height of six feet, when measured from toe of slope, is not consistent and does not implement Policy 2-P.10 of the Land Use Element Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 23 of 55 Page 6 of the General Plan. This policy states, development on slopes, when permitted, shall be designed to minimize grading and comply with the hillside development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. The project would allow for development of the property beyond what is allowed by the hillside development provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. That the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the certified local coastal program and does not reduce or in any manner adversely affect the requirements for protection of coastal resources. Applicant Justification: The applicant did not provide a justification for meeting the finding in their final submittal of materials for the project. However, in past submittals the following statement was provided. The proposed walls were installed with an area that was previously disturbed and/or graded as part of the original residential tract home development. Staff Response: The granting of this variance would not be consistent with the general purpose and intent of the certified local coastal program and does reduce or adversely affect the requirements for protection of coastal resources. One of the purposes of the certified local coastal program is to preserve and protect natural and manufactured slopes in the coastal resource protection overlay zone area and to ensure stability and structural integrity of the slopes from erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site. The unpermitted and un-engineered retaining wall system has compromised the slope as originally engineered, regarding drainage and erosion. Options to address the compromised slope and return it to a stable condition, consistent with the local coastal program, remain available. This includes returning the slope to its original grade similar to its original condition. C. Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment) The project site is located within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and is not in the appeal jurisdiction. The site is also located within and subject to the Coastal Resources Protection Overlay Zone. Improvements typically associated with a single-family residence outside the Coastal appeal area, such as retaining walls, are exempt from a coastal development permit (CDP). The exemption assumes the proposed work complies with the rest of the Zoning Ordinance, so a project that does not comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance is not exempt from a CDP. Therefore, the request to allow the unpermitted retaining wall system to remain is subject to a CDP. The approval of a CDP would be needed to allow the construction/retention of retaining walls that are inconsistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance. As the findings for a variance to allow the retaining walls cannot be made, as stated above, a CDP will not be required for their construction/retention. Therefore, further analysis of the project’s consistency with the local coastal program, CMC Sections 21.201, and 21.203, is not warranted. Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 24 of 55 Fusion Engineering and Technology 1810 Gillespie Way Suite 207 El Cajon, CA 92020 (619)736-2800 1Monday, November 13, 2023 To: City of Carlsbad Attn: Kyle Van Leeuwen Planning Department Kyle.VanLeeuwen@CarlsbadCA.gov CC: Marissa Kawecki Marissa.Kawecki@CarlsbadCA.gov David Rick David.Rick@CarlsbadCA.gov William Fuhrman Bill@SDiegoLaw.com Rene Lichtman lSquared@charter.net Valerie Lichtman Valden28@charter.net Eric Freund EFreund@FWCSE.com Sean Donovan Sean.Donovan@Adv-GeoSolutions.com PJ DeRisi PaulD@Adv-GeoSolutions.com Subject: 939 Begonia Court – Variance Application – Retaining Walls Dear Mr. Van Leeuwen, This letter serves to provide updated / additional justification for granting a variance to the subject property in regards to the City of Carlsbad Hillside Development and Design Standards (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.95.140 C.1.a.(i)). Previous submittals have been made which focused on the property / project history, and the practicality of restoring the hillside to its prior condition in response to code violation comments. This letter does not seek to reiterate those findings but does provide responses to the plan review comments received as part of the prior submittal and shall provide a more concise justification and response to the specific variance application questionnaire items per City of Carlsbad Form P-4. The previously submitted Response Letter dated May 26, 2023, which included extensive documentation and practical justifications, should be considered apart of this application, and is included in Appendix ‘A’ for reference. With the above said, this letter seeks to demonstrate the following; 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, location, or surroundings, whereby the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification: The subject property possesses topographic constraints which deprives the Owners of the typical usage afforded to other properties in the vicinity and creates a disproportionate maintenance burden. The following bullet points illustrate these points:x Portion of total lot area encumbered by slope: o Subject Property = 47% o Similar Lot (w/ Rear Yard Slope) Average = 22% o Neighborhood Average = 8% o Subject property encumbered more than double the average of similar lots with rear yard slopes. Out of the 236 lots studied, only one other lot has over 45% slope encumbrance percentage.x Portion of rear yard area encumbered by slope: o Subject Property = 76% o Similar Lot (w/ Rear Yard Slope) Average = 44% Exhibit 5 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 25 of 55 Fusion Engineering and Technology 1810 Gillespie Way Suite 207 El Cajon, CA 92020 (619) 736-2800 2Monday, November 13, 2023 o Neighborhood Average = 17%x Height of rear yard slope: o Subject Property = 38 feet o Similar Lot (w/ Rear Yard Slope) Average = 18 feet o Neighborhood Average = 15 feet o The inclination of the rear yard slope within the subject property is 1.5:1, or 67%, which makes it very difficult to maintain and unusable from a practical standpoint. In general, virtually all other properties in the vicinity and under the zoning have a larger percentage of usable lot area, with many including expansive views. Please refer to the Lot and Slope Areas Exhibit included in Appendix ‘B’. 2. That the the granting of this variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located and is to any conditions necessary to assure compliance with this finding: A variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege because, while other lots in the vicinity do rear yard slopes, no other lots have as great of an elevation differential between adjacent properties or the extensive percentage of lot area encumbered by slope as the subject lot. Please refer to Lot and Slope Areas Exhibit apart of this application. Furthermore, strict adherence to the 6-foot retaining wall height limit disallows the Owner's ability to build standard rear yard improvements such as a patio cover, swimming pool, etc. 3. That the granting of the variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the subject property. The variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulations because the construction of retaining walls and other yard improvements is considered accessory to the primary use of the property as a single-family residence, which is a permitted use in the R-1 Zone. 4. That the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and the zoning ordinance. The variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and zoning ordinance because the project complies with all policies of the Land Use Element, does not affect the density of the property, does not affect the Growth Management program, and complies with all the development standards of the R-1 zone except for the retaining wall height limit of the Hillside Development Regulations. Approval of the variance will comply with the purpose and intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance (Chap 21.95.010) because: a. The project will continue to implement the goals and objectives of the Land Use and Open Space Elements of the General Plan as originally approved with the subdivision. b. The hillside conditions have been properly identified and are incorporated in this review. c.The manufactured slope modified in the project does not damage or diminish the aesthetic quality of natural hillsides and manufactured slopes that are in highly visible public locations. The project site cannot be seen from any arterial streets, major thoroughfares, or public spaces. d.No alterations of natural hillsides are included in the project, and no impacts to natural resource areas, wildlife habitats or native vegetation will occur. Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 26 of 55 Fusion Engineering and Technology 1810 Gillespie Way Suite 207 El Cajon, CA 92020 (619) 736-2800 3Monday, November 13, 2023 Approval of the variance will also assure that hillside conditions are properly incorporated into the planning process through the review of the integrity of the slope by City Staff to ensure that it is structurally sound, and subsequent building plan review and permit issuance. In response to City of Carlsbad 2nd review comments dated June 30, 2023: x Planning Comments: Updated responses to P-4 questions provided hereon. x Land Development Engineering Comments: The original slope has been disturbed and thus presents a concern for surficial and global stability should the upper soil layer need to be restored to 1.5:1. Should you have any questions regarding the information contained in this memo please contact me. Thank You, _________________________________ Johnny Rivera, P.E. C73878 President / Principal of Civil Engineering Mobile: (619)992-6618 Johnny@FusionEngTech.com __________________________________________________ JoJJoJoJoJoJoJJhnny Rivera, P.E. C73878 President / Principal of Civil En Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 27 of 55 Fusion Engineering and Technology 1810 Gillespie Way Suite 207 El Cajon, CA 92020 (619) 736-2800 4Monday, November 13, 2023 List of Appendices Appendix ‘A’: Response Letter dated May 26, 2023 Appendix ‘B’: Lot and Slope Areas Exhibit Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 28 of 55 Fusion Engineering and Technology 1810 Gillespie Way Suite 207 El Cajon, CA 92020 (619) 736-2800 5Monday, November 13, 2023 Appendix ‘A’: Response Letter dated May 26, 2023 Reference previously submitted hard copies on file with City of Carlsbad. Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 29 of 55 Fusion Engineering and Technology 1810 Gillespie Way Suite 207 El Cajon, CA 92020 (619) 736-2800 1Friday, May 26, 2023 To: City of Carlsbad Attn: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner Kyle.Van.Leeuwen@Carlsbad.CA.Gov CC: Marissa Kawecki Marissa.Kawecki@CarlsbadCA.gov David Rick David.Rick@carlsbadca.gov William Fuhrman Bill@SDiegoLaw.com Rene Lichtman lSquared@charter.net Valerie Lichtman Valden28@charter.net Eric Freund EFreund@FWCSE.com Sean Donovan Sean.Donovan@Adv-GeoSolutions.com PJ DeRisi PaulD@Adv-GeoSolutions.com Subject: Response Letter CDP2023-0016/V2023-0002 (DEV2020-0134) – Letter of Incompleteness Dear Mr. Van Leeuwen, This letter is in response to City of Carlsbad Community Development Department, and Land Development Engineering Staff, comment letter dated April 27, 2023, and shall serve to supplement previously submitted documents. Section 1. List of Items Needed to Complete the Application City of Carlsbad Planning Division Comment #1-5: See attached document. Fusion Eng Tech Response: 1. Noted, documents provided hereon. a. Occupants listed hereon on radius map. b. List of Owners and Occupants provided hereon. c. Copy of mailed notice to Owners and Occupants provided hereon. d. Photo of posted “Notice of Project Application” sign provided hereon. e. Completed and signed Attachment A-4 provided hereon. 2. Radius map updated to measure from edge of the property. 3. Form P-1(B) updated to clarify disposition of existing retaining walls. 4. There are multiple plans being submitted for reference to depict various options / scenarios. It is not beneficial, in fact it would be confusing, to combine design sheets from different design scenarios. With that said, a singular combined PDF of the Fusion memo, including all appendices, has been provided hereon. See PD 4._939 Begonia Court_Variance Memo_With Attachments_Fusion Eng Tech_2023 05- 19.pdf. 5. Pre-project site plan provided hereon. City of Carlsbad Land Development Engineering Department Comment (General): Land Development Engineering staff has completed a review of the above-referenced project for application completeness. The application and plans submitted for this proposed project are incomplete and unsuitable for further review due to the following incomplete items: Fusion Eng Tech Response: Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 30 of 55 Fusion Engineering and Technology 1810 Gillespie Way Suite 207 El Cajon, CA 92020 (619) 736-2800 6Monday, November 13, 2023 Appendix ‘B’: Lot and Slope Areas Exhibit Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 31 of 55 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 32 of 55 1 Carlsbad Project Background and Feasibility Arguments My mother purchased 939 Begonia Court in October of 2012 and placed it in the Valerie Lichtman revocable trust. At that time, the original hillside was mainly covered with ice plant and some bare patches of exposed sandstone and hardened soil. A row of clustered small trees was located about 25 feet or ¾ of the way up the hillside. A stairway constructed from old railroad ties went up to that tree line. The front yard was planted with standard water consumptive lawn and flowers which were common at that time. California began to experience some water shortages in 2014, at which time we were told to conserve water, especially for landscaping. We removed the front yard grass and water needy flora and planted all drought resistant plants, mostly with a desert cactus design which included large boulders and a ground cover finish of different pebble aesthetically arranged in a pattern. We completely shut-off the front yard irrigation and drastically reduced the back yard watering cycles. Though we had aggressively reduced irrigation on the entire property, water drainage and runoff to the front yard and street did not diminish and puddles continued to form in front of the city street storm gutters. The property directly above, 7307 Lilly Place, was the source of the runoff, which maintains a large lawn and water consumptive tropical flora. One of our neighbors on Begonia Court reported the water runoff which drained to the front of our house as wasting water which prompted the City to issue a warning violation notice. We immediately responded by informing the City that the water originated at 7307 Lilly Place. This runoff produced signs of erosion on the hillside and carved rivulet markings creating bare patches in the ice plant. The water drainage was so abundant that some cacti and drought resistant plants died. Concerned over threats of further enforcement for the water drainage and the stability of the steep slope, I considered ways to support the hillside and effectively slow down or divert the drainage. The idea of building retaining walls on the hillside emerged. About four years later in 2019, Advanced Geotechnical Solutions was hired to do soil analysis on the property. They drilled several bore holes for soil samples from which water welled-up, demonstrating that the hillside was water saturated, even though irrigation at 939 Begonia Court had ceased before 2017. By June 2017, the wall construction had ceased. So, clearly the wall construction was not the source of water and erosion, contrary to the argument presented by Jessica Evans before the City Council on March 16th, 2021. Well before I did any hillside work, decks and terracing were visible and very common on hillsides in the neighborhood and other areas of Carlsbad’s Coastal zone. I researched permitting required for retaining walls and determined that I was allowed to build retaining walls up to four feet in height without a permit. It never occurred to me that there was a separate section of applicable code that I later learned was entitled “Hillside Development Ordinance.” I was operating under the belief that the codes I needed to focus on were only specific to retaining wall permitting. I did not move ahead with any building because I needed to know more about retaining wall construction. Then tragically my girlfriend and partner Nicole died suddenly in December of 2014, before I was able to do further research. A few months into 2015, I was struggling with grief and needed something to do with my hands. Nicole and I had outdoor chairs on a bare spot on the hillside from which she had loved the views. So, I had the idea of building a small patio halfway up the hillside in Nicole’s memory. At ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FROM APPLICANT Exhibit 6 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 33 of 55 2 the same time, I planned to install some terraced walls and built-in drainage to mitigate the water runoff from the above property which was causing erosion. Machinery was out of the question because of the steepness of the slope, narrowness of access from the fencing and planters separating the adjacent houses and the overhanging eves of each house. I planned to construct the entire project by hand so that I would disturb as little of the existing slope as possible. Building by hand without machinery and my ignorance of the Hillside Development Ordinance further fed my false conclusion that I could build the MSE walls without permitting. I learned in my research that hydrostatic pressure was one of the more serious threats to retaining wall stability, in that drainage not addressed properly water pressure could build up behind the walls causing them to fail. I found that RCP Brick & Block (“RCP”) distributed many of the construction materials I had observed on hillsides in Coastal Carlsbad. After I reviewed their catalog of products and instructional literature on implementation, I selected the Country Manor block system designed by the Keystone Block company (“Keystone”), which utilizes masonry adhesive and fiberglass pins instead of mortar or concrete between blocks. This system allows water to freely permeate the wall, helping to relieve water pressure. Keystone provided instructions for different types of retaining walls using soil reinforcing geogrid during construction. I chose a configuration and followed these instructions. The following describes the manual labor and process of building the walls, while speaking to the infeasibility of grading the hillside. Alone, I began digging 10 feet up the hillside and moving soil uphill from the excavation with 5-gallon buckets uphill to make it easier to back-fill and do compaction when each course of block was laid. The first terrace excavation took almost three months of hard work without any outside labor, which work was therapy for my grief. I began laying the footing and soon after the first course of wall. I set my footing two feet deep, three feet deep in some places. With a sledgehammer, I drove 3-foot coated steel spikes through the 4-inch diameter center holes in the base blocks and used concrete to cement the spike to the first block and secure the footing in place. This provided 5 ½ feet of penetration in some places in the hillside. I applied geogrid at every foot of height, so every two courses of block, per the Keystone instructions for 4-foot sheer vertical walls. The instructions did not specify, and I was unaware of the existence of different types of rated geogrid. I purchased the 2XT 4’ x 50’ rolls which RCP sold when I purchased the block, pins and adhesive. Believing that I was accurately following the instructions, I rolled the 4-foot-wide geogrid lengthwise along the wall in between courses at intervals of every other course. I included an 18-inch corridor of ¾-inch drainage gravel behind the wall under which I laid 4-inch French drains directed toward the south side of the property. Eventually, friends and workers from my landscaping business helped me. We used wheelbarrows and dollies to move blocks and ¾ inch gravel to the backyard from my driveway onto which RCP had delivered the material on pallets. We hand-carried blocks and buckets of gravel up the hill. The first wall was nearly completed after six months but the water runoff from 7307 Lily Place persisted, traveling more to the south side of the property while saturating the majority of the hillside. To address this water saturation, we began constructing another supporting wall on the southside, about 11 feet behind the first wall with a beefed-up design to include 4-foot by 4-foot square columns and double block thickness. We made blocks into bench seating and added planters for aesthetics. We completed this second wall several months into 2016, and then removed and replaced the railroad tie stairway with stairs of Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 34 of 55 3 3-block deep Country Manor block which connected to the adjacent walls. We drove steel spikes at every section of each block step and cemented them in place with concrete. We then employed the same wall and stairs design on the north side of the stairway. Seeing continued hillside saturation from the water runoff, we began to construct the final wall another 11 feet behind the second wall, but with a different design which was recessed into the hillside. We used a step-back design on each course and 4-foot-thick square columns which added stability. We placed the French drain much closer to the very top of the completed wall this time, in an effort to divert the runoff away from the lower levels. Without excavating cutbacks into the original manufactured slope and without creating another platform, we carved away only enough hillside to accommodate the recessed walls and drainage gravel. The wall north of the stairway reached full height without making any cutbacks and trenches were only dug for the footings. We took all of 2017 and much of 2018 to complete the final lower two walls, back-filling with soil from the upper-level excavations, drainage gravel and geogrid. In or about November of 2018, we received notice from the City that we were in violation of a hillside ordinance. Though I knew that I had a permitting issue, I continued construction because slope stability concerned me due to the exposed excavated sections of hillside. Seven months later in June 2017, the City issued formal orders to cease and desist all work on the hillside, at which time we discontinued all work. But the concern for the slope stability and safety remained due to continuing water runoff and some unsupported excavated sections. The City proposes that we grade the hillside to return it to its “original condition,” which is infeasible for several reasons better explained by Johnny Rivera with Fusion Engineering, Eric Freund with Ficcadenti Waggoner and Castle Structural Engineers, and Danny Cohen with JC Baldwin Construction Company. Danny Cohen estimated the cost of this approach will be between $800,000 and $900,000. This cost far exceeds our financial ability, especially after my 83 year old mother in early stage dementia lost more than $270,000 in 2020, as the victim of a credit card scam. Most of this was what remained from a medical malpractice settlement and the retirement savings built by her and my late father. This scam also caused her credit rating to plunge, which prevents access to the equity in the home to obtain adequate financing. In conclusion, I never intended to violate any ordinance when I made and moved forward with my plan to stabilize the hillside against the water runoff and beautify the property. I made an honest mistake in my research when stopping with the wall height ordinance, thinking it was the only applicable law. I took pride in what I thought was beautifying the property, remediating the erosion and hillside saturation attributable to the property above, while adding value to the home and thereby value to the adjacent homes. I am deeply sorry to have caused this situation. My mother and I are honestly convinced that the unanimous plan recommendation by engineers Rivera, Freund and Cohen is the safest, most efficient and feasible long-term solution. Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 35 of 55 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 36 of 55 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 37 of 55 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 38 of 55 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 39 of 55 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 40 of 55 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 41 of 55 20.0 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL PLAN SHEET INDEX SHEET 1.TITLE SHEET AND NOTESSHEET 2. WALL PLAN VIEWSHEET 3. WALL PROFILES SHEET 4. WALL SECTION AND DETAILS 9.0 ERECTION NOTES1. EXCAVATION SUPPORT, IF REQUIRED, IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR, INCLUDING THE STABILITY OF THE EXCAVATION AND ITS INFLUENCE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND STRUCTURES.2. GENERAL: ERECT UNITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND AS SPECIFIEDHEREIN. 3. PLACE FIRST COURSE OF CONCRETE WALL UNITS ON THE PREPARED BASE MATERIAL. CHECK UNITS FOR LEVEL ANDALIGNMENT. MAINTAIN THE SAME ELEVATION AT THE TOP OF EACH UNIT WITHIN EACH SECTION OF THE BASE COURSE.4. ENSURE THAT FOUNDATION UNITS ARE IN FULL CONTACT WITH NATURAL OR COMPACTED SOIL BASE. 5. PLACE CONCRETE WALL UNITS SIDE-BY-SIDE FOR FULL LENGTH OF WALL ALIGNMENT. ALIGNMENT MAY BE DONE BY USING ASTRING LINE MEASURED FROM THE BACK OF THE BLOCK. GAPS ARE NOT ALLOWED BETWEEN THE FOUNDATION CONCRETEWALL UNITS. 6. INSTALL SHEAR/CONNECTING DEVICES PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.7. PLACE 12 INCHES (MINIMUM) OF DRAINAGE AGGREGATE BETWEEN, AND DIRECTLY BEHIND THE CONCRETE WALL UNITS. FILLVOIDS IN RETAINING WALL UNITS WITH DRAINAGE AGGREGATE. PROVIDE A DRAINAGE ZONE BEHIND THE WALL UNITS TO WITHIN9 INCHES OF THE FINAL GRADE. CAP THE BACKFILL AND DRAINAGE AGGREGATE ZONE WITH 9 INCHES OF IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL. 8. INSTALL DRAINAGE PIPE AT THE LOWEST ELEVATION POSSIBLE, TO MAINTAIN GRAVITY FLOW OF WATER TO OUTSIDE OF THEREINFORCED ZONE. SLOPE THE MAIN COLLECTION DRAINAGE PIPE, LOCATED JUST BEHIND THE CONCRETE RETAINING WALLUNITS, 1 PERCENT (MINIMUM) TO PROVIDE GRAVITY FLOW TO THE DAYLIGHTED AREAS. DAYLIGHT THE MAIN COLLECTION DRAINAGE PIPE TO AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION AWAY FROM THE WALL SYSTEM AT EACH LOW POINT OR AT 150 FOOT (MAXIMUM)INTERVALS ALONG THE WALL.9. REMOVE EXCESS FILL FROM TOP OF UNITS AND INSTALL NEXT COURSE. ENSURE DRAINAGE AGGREGATE AND BACKFILL ARE COMPACTED BEFORE INSTALLATION OF NEXT COURSE. 10. CHECK EACH COURSE FOR LEVEL AND ALIGNMENT. ADJUST UNITS AS NECESSARY WITH REINFORCEMENT SHIMS TO MAINTAINLEVEL, ALIGNMENT, AND SETBACK PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH EACH ADDITIONAL COURSE.11. INSTALL EACH SUCCEEDING COURSE. BACKFILL AS EACH COURSE IS COMPLETED. PULL THE UNITS FORWARD UNTIL THE LOCATING SURFACE OF THE UNIT CONTACTS THE LOCATING SURFACE OF THE UNITS IN THE PRECEDING COURSE. INTERLOCKWALL SEGMENTS THAT MEET AT CORNERS BY OVERLAPPING SUCCESSIVE COURSES. ATTACH CONCRETE RETAINING WALLUNITS AT EXTERIOR CORNERS WITH ADHESIVE SPECIFIED. 12. INSTALL GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GEOSYNTHETIC MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS ANDTHE SHOP DRAWINGS.a. ORIENT GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT WITH THE HIGHEST STRENGTH AXIS PERPENDICULAR TO THE WALL FACE. b. PRIOR TO GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT PLACEMENT, PLACE THE BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE WALL UNITS AT THE ELEVATION OF THE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT.c. PLACE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT AT THE ELEVATIONS AND TO THE LENGTHS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.d. LAY GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT HORIZONTALLY ON TOP OF THE CONCRETE RETAINING WALL UNITS AND THE COMPACTED BACKFILL SOILS. PLACE THE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT WITHIN ONE INCH OF THE FACE OF THE CONCRETE RETAININGWALL UNITS. PLACE THE NEXT COURSE OF CONCRETE RETAINING WALL UNITS ON TOP OF THE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT.e. THE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE IN TENSION AND FREE FROM WRINKLES PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE BACKFILL SOILS. PULL GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT HAND-TAUT AND SECURE IN PLACE WITH STAPLES, STAKES, OR BYHAND-TENSIONING UNTIL THE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT IS COVERED BY 6 INCHES OF LOOSE FILL.f. THE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENTS SHALL BE CONTINUOUS THROUGHOUT THEIR EMBEDMENT LENGTHS. SPLICES IN THEGEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT STRENGTH DIRECTION ARE NOT ALLOWED. g. DO NOT OPERATE TRACKED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DIRECTLY ON THE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT. AT LEAST 6INCHES OF COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO OPERATION OF TRACKED VEHICLES OVER THE GEOSYNTHETICREINFORCEMENT. KEEP TURNING OF TRACKED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT TO A MINIMUM. h. RUBBER-TIRED EQUIPMENT MAY PASS OVER THE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT AT SPEEDS OF LESS THAN 5 MILES PER HOUR.TURNING OF RUBBER-TIRED EQUIPMENT IS NOT ALLOWED ON GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT. 17.0 KEYSTONE WALL DESIGN NOTES1. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO VERIFY THE SOIL STRENGTH DESIGN PARAMETERSARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SOILS AVAILABLE FOR WALL CONSTRUCTION. IF THE SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS ARE FOUND TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THOSE ASSUMED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD, THIS DESIGN IS NO LONGER VALID AND IT IS THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD SO THE RETAINING WALLSYSTEM CAN BE REDESIGNED. FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD MAY RESULT IN FAILURE OF THE RETAINING WALL.2. SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS:A. REINFORCED SOIL:PHI = 35 DEGREES C= 0 PSF GAMMA = 130 PCF RETAINED SOIL:PHI = 35 DEGREES C= 0 PSF GAMMA = 130 PCF FOUNDATION SOIL:PHI = 30 DEGREES C= 0 PSF GAMMA = 125 PCF3. DESIGN PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION (2/3*PGAm PER 2019 CBC AND ASCE 7-16): 0.38G 4. REINFORCED BACKFILL SHALL MEET SOIL CLASSIFICATION, GRADATION AND PLASTICITY INDEX AS STATED IN SECTION 6.5 THISSHEET5. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED FOR DESIGN SHALL BE CONFIRMED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO WALLCONSTRUCTION. 6. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES ARE DETERMINED USING RANKINE EARTH PRESSURE THEORY7. INTERNAL STABILITY OF WALLSA. MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY ON GEOGRID STRENGTH = 1.50 B. MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY ON GEOGRID PULLOUT = 1.50C. PERCENT COVERAGE OF GEOGRID = 100%8. EXTERNAL STABILITY A. MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY AGAINST BASE SLIDING = 1.50B. MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY AGAINST OVERTURNING = 2.00C. MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY AGAINST SOIL BEARING OVERSTRESS = 2.00D. UNIFORM SURCHARGE = AS SHOWN ON STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS E. BACKFILL SLOPE = AS SHOWN ON SITE PLAN AND STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS9. GLOBAL STABILITY (TO BE CONFIRMED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER)A. MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY AGAINST STATIC GLOBAL STABILITY = 1.50 B. MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY AGAINST SEISMIC GLOBAL STABILITY = 1.15 10.0 BACKFILL PLACEMENT NOTES1. PLACE REINFORCED BACKFILL, SPREAD AND COMPACT IN A MANNER THAT WILL MINIMIZE SLACK IN THE REINFORCEMENT.2. PLACE FILL WITHIN THE REINFORCED ZONE AND COMPACT IN LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING 6 TO 8 INCHES (LOOSE THICKNESS) WHERE HAND-OPERATED COMPACTION EQUIPMENT IS USED, AND NOT EXCEEDING 12 INCHES (LOOSE THICKNESS) WHERE HEAVY, SELFPROPELLED COMPACTION EQUIPMENT IS USED.A. ONLY LIGHTWEIGHT HAND-OPERATED COMPACTION EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED WITHIN 4 FEET OF THE BACK OF THE RETAINING WALL UNITS.3. MINIMUM COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR FILL PLACED IN THE REINFORCED ZONE:A. COMPACT TO 95 PERCENT OF THE SOIL'S STANDARD MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (ASTM D1557) FOR THE ENTIRE WALL HEIGHT. B. VERIFY COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS WITH THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. C. UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL: COMPACT UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL IN OR BELOW THE REINFORCED SOIL ZONE TO 95 PERCENT OFTHE SOIL'S STANDARD MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (ASTM D1557), OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.D. MOISTURE CONTENT: AT OR 2 PERCENTAGE POINTS ABOVE THE OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT FOR ALL WALL HEIGHTS. E. THESE NOTES MAY BE CHANGED BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.4. AT THE END OF EACH DAY'S OPERATION, SLOPE THE LAST LEVEL OF COMPACTED BACKFILL AWAY FROM THE INTERIOR(CONCEALED) FACE OF THE WALL TO DIRECT SURFACE WATER RUNOFF AWAY FROM THE WALL FACE. A. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THE FINISHED SITE DRAINAGE IS DIRECTED AWAY FROM THERETAINING WALL SYSTEM.B. IN ADDITION, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT SURFACE WATER RUNOFF FROM ADJACENT CONSTRUCTION AREAS IS NOT ALLOWED TO ENTER THE RETAINING WALL AREA OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 5. ANY STRUCTURAL FILL PLACED MUST BE KEPT FROM FREEZING, REQUIRING THE USE OF FROST BLANKETS AND GOOD WINTERCONSTRUCTION PRACTICES. GENERALLY, WINTER CONSTRUCTION REQUIRES THE IMPORT OF NON-FROST SUSCEPTIBLE SOILS,TYPICALLY CLEAN SAND AND/OR GRAVEL. ANY STRUCTURAL FILL FOUND TO BE FROZEN ON SUBSEQUENT DAYS OF CONSTRUCTION MUST BE REMOVED AND REPLACED PRIOR TO PLACING ADDITIONAL FILL. 6.0 MATERIAL NOTES1. CONCRETE RETAINING WALL UNITS: KEYSTONE COMPAC III RETAINING WALL UNITS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND AS MANUFACTURED BY RCP BLOCK & BRICK UNDER LICENSE FROM KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS.2. GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT: MIRAGRID AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.3. LEVELING PAD BASE A. AGGREGATE BASE: CRUSHED STONE OR GRANULAR FILL MEETING THE FOLLOWING GRADATION AS DETERMINED INACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D448: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH 100 3/4 INCH 75 TO 100NO. 4 0 TO 60NO. 40 0 TO 50 NO. 200 0 TO 5 B. BASE THICKNESS: 6 INCHES (MINIMUM COMPACTED THICKNESS).4. DRAINAGE AGGREGATE: CLEAN CRUSHED STONE OR GRANULAR FILL MEETING THE FOLLOWING GRADATION AS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D448: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH 1003/4 INCH 75 TO 100 NO. 4 0 TO 60NO. 40 0 TO 50NO. 200 0 TO 5 5. REINFORCED FILL: SOIL FREE OF ORGANICS AND DEBRIS AND CONSISTING OF EITHER GP, GW, SP, SW, SM OR SC TYPE,CLASSIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2487 AND THE USCS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND MEETING THE FOLLOWING GRADATION AS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D448: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH 100NO. 4 20 TO 100 NO. 40 0 TO 60NO. 200 0 TO 35 A. THE PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) SHALL BE LESS THAN 20.B. MAXIMUM PARTICLE SIZE FOR BACKFILL IS ONE (1) INCHES.C. UNSUITABLE SOILS ARE ORGANIC SOILS AND THOSE SOILS CLASSIFIED AS ML, CL, OL, MH, CH, OH OR PT. D. ALL WALL BACKFILL MATERIALS SHALL ALSO HAVE THE MINIMUM ENGINEERING PROPERTIES SHOWN IN SECTION 17.2 ITEM A.E. TEST RESULTS OF ALL PROPOSED BACKFILL MATERIALS. WHETHER ON-SITE OR IMPORTED, SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THEENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.6. DRAINAGE PIPE: PERFORATED OR SLOTTED PVC OR CORRUGATED HDPE PIPE MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH D3034 AND/OR ASTM F405.7. CONSTRUCTION ADHESIVE: EXTERIOR GRADE ADHESIVE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE RETAINING WALL MANUFACTURER. 1.0 SCOPE OF WORK1. THE WORK SHALL CONSIST OF FURNISHING AND CONSTRUCTING KEYSTONE WALL BLOCK AND MIRAGRID GEOGRID REINFORCEDSOIL RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS TECHNICAL SCOPE OF WORK AND IN REASONABLY CLOSE CONFORMITY WITH THE LINES, GRADES AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE GRADING PLAN BY FUSION ENGINEERING TECH,UNDATED.2. WORK INCLUDED: A. FURNISHING KEYSTONE WALL SEGMENTAL CONCRETE FACING AND CAP UNITS AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS.B. FURNISHING KEYSTONE SHEAR AND REINFORCEMENT PIN CONNECTORS.C. FURNISHING MIRAFI STRUCTURAL GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. D. STORING, CUTTING AND PLACING STRUCTURAL GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT AS SPECIFIED HEREIN AND AS SHOWN ON THECONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS.E. PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF UNIT WALL FILL AND BACKFILL WITHIN THE GEOGRID REINFORCED AREA AS SPECIFIED HEREINAND AS SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. F. ERECTION OF KEYSTONE WALL SEGMENTAL CONCRETE UNITS AND PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURAL GEOGRID. 15.0 STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS1. SPECIAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH IBC SECTION 1704.5. 2. THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE VERIFYING THE FOLLOWING:A. UNIT DIMENSIONS.B. ANCHOR WALL UNIT IDENTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH ASTM C 1372, INCLUDING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND WATER ABSORPTION, AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 3.1 OF ICC REPORT 1959. C. FOUNDATION PREPARATION.D. UNIT PLACEMENT, INCLUDING ALIGNMENT AND INCLINATION.E. GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT TYPE AND PLACEMENT. F. BACKFILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION.G. DRAINAGE PROVISIONS.3. TYPE AND EXTENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTION: A. SPECIAL INSPECTION SHALL BE PERFORMED ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS.4. TYPE AND EXTENT OF EACH TEST:A. MODULAR UNIT DIMENSION SHALL BE VERIFIED ONCE PER WALL PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. B. CONCRETE UNIT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3,000 PSI AND A MAXIMUM WATER ABSORPTION OF 7 PERCENT.C. FOUNDATION PREPARATION SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ANCHOR RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERSAND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD RECOMMENDATIONS ONCE PER WALL PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF CONTROLLED FILL. D. ANCHOR UNIT ALIGNMENT AND INCLINATION SHALL BE VERIFIED BY SURVEYED WALL HORIZONTAL LOCATION PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION AND CORRECT BLOCK PLACEMENT AGAINST THE LOWER BLOCK'S ALIGNMENT DEVICE DURING CONSTRUCTION.E. GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT TYPE SHALL BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WITH AN INSPECTION OF THE GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT DELIVERED TO THE SITE FOR WALL CONSTRUCTION. PLACEMENT OF GEOSYNTHETICREINFORCEMENT SHALL BE CONTINUALLY OBSERVED DURING WALL CONSTRUCTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ANCHORRETAINING WALL PLANS. F. BACKFILL SOIL SHALL BE VERIFIED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ANCHOR RETAINING WALL PLANS AND SOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS PRIOR TO AND PERIODICALLY DURING CONSTRUCTION. BACKFILL SOIL COMPACTION SHALL BE CONTINUOUSLY VERIFIEDCOMPACTED TO AT LEAST 90 PERCENT OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY ASTM D 1557 FOR EVERY 20-40 YARDSOF BACKFILL PLACED. G. ALL DRAINAGE PROVISIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ANCHOR RETAINING WALL PLANS AND THERECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD AS CONSTRUCTED AND PRIOR TO BACKFILL.5. SEISMIC OR WIND RESISTANCE: A. THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC OR WIND RESISTANCE PER CBC 1705.6. STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS:A. THERE ARE NO REQUIRED STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS PER CBC 1709.7. SPECIAL INSPECTION NOTES: A. THE SPECIAL INSPECTIONS IDENTIFIED ON PLANS ARE IN ADDITION TO, AND NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR, THOSE INSPECTIONSREQUIRED TO BE PERFORMED BY BUILDING INSPECTOR. 2.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTATION 1. FUSION ENGINEERING TECH, GRADING PLAN, UNDATED.2. ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC., GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF EXISTING MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALLS,REPORT NO. 1907-03-B-3, DATED OCTOBER 9, 2019. 3. GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC., RESPONSE TO CITY OF DEL MAR REVIEWER'S COMMENTS, JOB NO. 18-12092, DATED MAY 6, 2022.4. WHERE SPECIFICATIONS AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS CONFLICT, THE ENGINEER SHALL MAKE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THEAPPLICABLE DOCUMENT. 3.0 SPECIAL PROVISIONS1. M3 CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. (M3CE ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR INTERPRETATION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS, SUITABILITY OFSOIL DESIGN PARAMETERS AND SUBSURFACE GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS MADE BY OTHERS. 2. M3CE SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF ALL MEANS OF SUBSOIL IMPROVEMENT; COST OF ADDITIONAL SUBSOILEXPLORATION; AND FOR ALL LABOR TOOLS, EQUIPMENT AND INCIDENTALS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK. THE OWNERSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SUCH COST. 3. THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THEEXECUTION OF THE WORK, INCLUDING LOCAL BUILDING INSPECTION AND CURRENT OSHA EXCAVATION REGULATIONS.4. PRIOR TO UNDERTAKING ANY GRADING OR EXCAVATION OF THE SITE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THE LOCATION OF THEPROPOSED RETAINING WALLS AND ALL UNDERGROUND FEATURES, INCLUDING UTILITY LOCATIONS WITHIN THE AREA OF CONSTRUCTION.5. M3CE HAS COMPLETED ENGINEERING DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL(S), INCLUDING INTERNAL STABILITY ANDLOCAL EXTERNAL STABILITY WHERE APPLICABLE, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US AS OUTLINED ABOVE. M3CE ASSUMES THAT OTHERS HAVE DETERMINED THE SUITABILITY OF PLACING RETAINING WALLS AT THE LOCATIONS PROVIDED TOUS, INCLUDING GEOTECHNICAL SUITABILITY AND SITE GLOBAL STABILITY. 7.0 FOUNDATION SOIL NOTES1. EXCAVATE FOUNDATION SOIL AS REQUIRED FOR FOOTING OR BASE DIMENSION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS, OR AS DIRECTED BYTHE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 2. THE OWNER SHALL RETAIN THE SERVICES OF A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TO EXAMINE FOUNDATION SOIL TO ENSURE THAT THEACTUAL FOUNDATION SOIL STRENGTH MEETS OR EXCEEDS THAT INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. UNSUITABLE SOILS AREDEFINED AS ANY SOIL THAT DOES NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT BEARING CAPACITY OR WILL CAUSE EXCESSIVE WALL SETTLEMENT. REMOVE SOIL NOT MEETING THE REQUIRED STRENGTH.3. THE OWNER SHALL RETAIN THE SERVICES OF A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TO DETERMINE IF THE FOUNDATION SOILS WILLREQUIRE SPECIAL TREATMENT OR CORRECTION TO CONTROL TOTAL AND DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT. 4. FILL OVER-EXCAVATED AREAS WITH SUITABLE COMPACTED BACKFILL, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 8.0 BASE COURSE NOTES 1. PLACE BASE MATERIALS TO THE DEPTHS AND WIDTHS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS, UPON UNDISTURBED SOILS, OR FOUNDATIONSOILS PREPARED AS DIRECTED BY THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.A. EXTEND THE LEVELING PAD LATERALLY AT LEAST 6 INCHES IN FRONT AND BEHIND THE LOWERMOST CONCRETE RETAINING WALL UNIT.B. PROVIDE AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTED TO 6 INCHES THICK (MINIMUM).2. COMPACT AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL TO PROVIDE A LEVEL, HARD SURFACE ON WHICH TO PLACE THE FIRST COURSE OF UNITS. 3. PREPARE BASE MATERIALS TO ENSURE COMPLETE CONTACT WITH RETAINING WALL UNITS. GAPS ARE NOT ALLOWED. 11.0 CAP UNIT INSTALLATION NOTES 1. APPLY ADHESIVE TO THE TOP SURFACE OF THE UNIT BELOW AND PLACE THE CAP UNIT INTO DESIRED POSITION.2. CUT CAP UNITS AS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THE PROPER FIT.3. BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO TOP OF CAP UNIT. 12.0 WALL CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCE NOTES1. WALL CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES:A. VERTICAL ALIGNMENT: PLUS OR MINUS 1-1/4 INCHES OVER ANY 10-FOOT DISTANCE, WITH A MAXIMUM DIFFERENTIAL OF 3 INCHES OVER THE LENGTH OF THE WALL.B. HORIZONTAL LOCATION CONTROL FROM GRADING PLAN:B.1. STRAIGHT LINES: PLUS OR MINUS 1-1/4 INCHES OVER ANY 10-FOOT DISTANCE, WITH A MAXIMUM DIFFERENTIAL OF 3 INCHES OVER THE LENGTH OF THE WALL.B.2. CORNER AND RADIUS LOCATIONS: PLUS OR MINUS 12 INCHES.B.3. CURVES AND SERPENTINE RADII: PLUS OR MINUS 2 FEET.C. IMMEDIATE POST CONSTRUCTION WALL BATTER: WITHIN 2 DEGREES OF THE DESIGN BATTER OF THE CONCRETE RETAINING WALL UNITS.D. BULGING: PLUS OR MINUS 1-1/4 INCHES OVER ANY 10-FOOT DISTANCE. 14.0 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE NOTES1. INSTALLER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR QUALITY CONTROL OF INSTALLATION OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS.2. THE OWNER SHALL EMPLOY AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY SPECIAL INSPECTOR EXPERIENCED IN SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION TO PERFORM QUALITY ASSURANCE VERIFICATION OF THE CORRECT INSTALLATION OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS INACCORDANCE WITH THESE SPECIFICATIONS AND THE DRAWINGS.3. CORRECT WORK WHICH DOES NOT MEET THESE SPECIFICATIONS OR THE REQUIREMENTS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AT THE INSTALLER'S EXPENSE.4. PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TO PERFORM COMPACTION TESTING OF THE REINFORCED BACKFILL PLACED ANDCOMPACTED IN THE REINFORCED BACKFILL ZONE.A. TESTING FREQUENCY (OR AS DIRECTED BY PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER) B. ONE TEST FOR EVERY 2 FEET (VERTICAL) OF FILL PLACED AND COMPACTED, FOR EVERY 50 LINEAL FEET OF RETAINING WALL.C. VARY COMPACTION TEST LOCATIONS TO COVER THE ENTIRE AREA OF THE REINFORCED SOIL ZONE, INCLUDING THE AREACOMPACTED BY THE HAND-OPERATED COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. 5. PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TO TEST ALL SOIL PROPOSED FOR USE IN THE SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLCONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING SOIL IN THE FOUNDATION, RETAINED AND REINFORCED ZONE OF THE WALLS, TO VERIFYCOMPLIANCE WITH THE MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING PROPERTIES. 13.0 UTILITY NOTES1. UTILITY INFORMATION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR THE PREPARATION OF THESE PLANS,AND THEREFORE MAY NOT BE INCLUDED. IF UTILITIES ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED REINFORCED ZONE THE ENGINEER OF RECORD MUST BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS TO REVIEW THE DESIGNAND/OR PLANS. MODIFICATIONS TO THE DESIGN AND/OR PLANS MAY BE REQUIRED, AND MAY TAKE UP TO TEN BUSINESS DAYS.2. UTILITIES MUST BE PROPERLY DESIGNED (BY OTHERS) TO WITHSTAND ALL FORCES FROM THE SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL UNITS, REINFORCED SOIL MASS, AND SURCHARGE LOADS (IF ANY).3. STORM DRAINS ARE PRONE TO LEAKING. THEREFORE, IF A JOINT IN A STORM DRAIN IS LOCATED WITHIN 100 FEET OF THERETAINING WALL THE STORM WATER PIPE MUST BE WATER TIGHT. NEOPRENE O-RINGS MUST BE INSTALLED AT ALL STORM PIPE JOINTS AS A MINIMUM. 4. WATER LINES, INCLUDING IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, MUST BE WATER TIGHT WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE RETAINING WALL. LEAKAGEBEHIND A RETAINING WALL WILL INCREASE THE HORIZONTAL PRESSURE AGAINST THE WALL LEADING TO WALL FAILURE. FORTHIS REASON, SUBSURFACE WATERLINES AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHOULD NOT BE INSTALLED ABOVE THE REINFORCED ZONES OF THE RETAINING WALL, OR WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE REINFORCED ZONE. 4.0 GENERAL NOTES1. THIS SET OF SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL PLANS ARE BASED ON THE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN SECTION 2.0. CHANGES TO THESE PLANS OR DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING GRADING, DRAINAGE, UTILITIES, SURCHARGE LOADS OR GEOTECHNICALPARAMETERS MAY AFFECT WALL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. RED ONE ENGINEERING SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY SUCH CHANGESTO DETERMINE IF WALL DESIGN MODIFICATIONS ARE NEEDED. 2. THIS SET OF SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL PLANS ARE BASED SPECIFICALLY ON THE WALL BEING CONSTRUCTED WITH KEYSTONE COMPAC III BLOCK AND MIRAGRID REINFORCEMENT PRODUCTS. ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSTITUTIONS ALLOWED.3. LOCATION OF THE SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL IN RELATION TO PROPERTY LINES, UTILITY EASEMENTS, WATERSHEDEASEMENTS, OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF EASEMENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER OR THE SITE CIVIL ENGINEER. RED ONE ENGINEERING ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR THE LOCATION OF THE SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OFTHE PROPOSED SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL ENCROACHES ANY PROPERTY LINES OR EASEMENTS.4. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE SITE SURVEYING OF THE SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL BE DONE BY THE SITE CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR AND MUST BE BASED ON COMPUTER GENERATED SITE/GRADING PLANS AND NOT PROFILE PLANS DONE BY THEENGINEER OF RECORD. SURVEYING OF THE SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DESIGN BATTERINDICATED ON THE ENCLOSED PLANS AND DETAILS. FAILURE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WALL BATTER FOR SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL SURVEYING WILL PRODUCE INCORRECT LOCATIONS OF ALL TOP OF WALLS AND SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO COST TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD OR THE SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL CONTRACTOR.5. WALL GEOMETRY, LOCATIONS, SLOPES AND SURCHARGE LOADS FOR THE SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS WERE MEASUREDFROM THE GRADING PLAN REFERENCED ABOVE. IF CONDITIONS VARY IN THE FIELD FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, THE ENGINEER OF RECORD MUST BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS TO REVIEW THEDESIGN AND/OR PLANS. MODIFICATIONS TO THE DESIGN AND/OR PLANS MAY BE REQUIRED AFTER THE REVIEW, AND MAY TAKEUP TO TEN BUSINESS DAYS TO COMPLETE. 6. IF THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ANY INFORMATION ON THESE PLANS AND INFORMATION IN THE PROJECTSPECIFICATIONS, THE MORE RESTRICTIVE INFORMATION TAKES PRECEDENCE. 18.0 APPLICABLE BUILDING CODE ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 5.0 SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS:1. THE WALL CONTRACTOR SHALL DOCUMENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS:2. A MINIMUM OF FIVE YEARS IN WHICH THE CONTRACTOR HAS BUILT SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS WITH A TOTAL FACE AREA NO LESS THAN 250,000 SQUARE FEET.3. CONSTRUCTION OF A MINIMUM OF 25,000 SQUARE FEET WITH THE SPECIFIED ANCHOR BLOCK UNITS.4. CONSTRUCTION OF AT LEAST FIVE SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS OF A SIMILAR HEIGHT AND SIZE AS THOSE SPECIFIED HEREIN. 16.0 SUBMITTALS1. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL SUBMIT VERIFICATION TO RED ONE ENGINEERING PRIOR TO THE START OF SEGMENTALWALL CONSTRUCTION THAT ALL SOILS PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SPECIFICATION. 19.0 KEYSTONE WALL ICC REPORTKEYSTONE WALL SYSTEM ICC-ES REPORT ESR-2113 M3 CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. PO BOX 923 OCEANSIDE, CA 92049 760-802-1772 MATT@M3CE.COM NOT FORCONSTRUCTION 6/27/2022 11:09:09 AM Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 42 of 55 M3 CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. PO BOX 923 OCEANSIDE, CA 92049 760-802-1772 MATT@M3CE.COM NOT FORCONSTRUCTION 6/27/2022 11:09:15 AM Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 43 of 55 M3 CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. PO BOX 923 OCEANSIDE, CA 92049 760-802-1772 MATT@M3CE.COM NOT FORCONSTRUCTION 6/27/2022 11:09:20 AM Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 44 of 55 W6" W + 12" MIN. 1/2" x 5 1/4"Fiberglass Pins Front Face Excavation Limits 6" Leveling Pad Leveling Pad Detail Grid & Pin Connection A C Compac III Unit DetailC 4" Cap Unit DetailE Elevation Plan 4" 18" 10 " ± 12" ± Geogrid is to be Placed on Level Backfill and Extended Over the Fiberglass Pins. Place Next Unit. Pull Grid Taught and Backfill. Stake as required. St r e n g t h D i r e c t i o n Note: 1. Secure all cap units with Loctite PL 500 or equal. Top of Wall Steps DetailB 8" Wall Step Excavation Limits 6" Leveling Pad (2) - 4" Cap Units 8" KeystoneUnit 4" Cap Unit Note: 1. The leveling pad is to be constructed of crushed stone or 2000 psi ± unreinforced concrete. Elevation 8" Plan 18" 12 " Detail of Fence Post Installation Using Sleeve-It SLEEVE-IT™ (12"Ø X 24") DEEP BLOCKUNIT FENCE/RAILING BY OTHERS (*) REINFORCED BACKFILL ZONE CAP UNIT SET POSITION OFSLEEVE IMMEDIATELYBEHIND TOPMOSTBLOCK UNIT. FILL SLEEVE WITHCONCRETE, SETFENCE POST. GEOGRID CUT THE GEOGRID AROUND THESLEEVE-IT™ SYSTEMAS NECESSARY PERFORATED LID POCKET TOWER BASE FEET UNIT BACK G Geogrid Installation on CurvesF H / 2 H / 2 Note: 1. Check with manufacturer specifications on correct direction of orientation for geogrid to obtain proper strength. 3" of Soil Fill is Required Between Overlapping Geogrid for Proper Anchorage (Typ.) Place Additional Pieces of Geogrid When Angle Exceeds 20° Drainage Fill 20° Additional Drainage Fill Extend Wall Height / 2 Typical Keystone Wall SectionH 6" 1° KEYSTONE COMPAC III UNIT (TYP.) DE S I G N H E I G H T P E R P R O F I L E 24" WIDE DRAINAGE COLUMN 34" CRUSHED ROCK FOUNDATION SOIL RETAINED SOILREINFORCED SOIL 2.5' 6" MINIMUM COMPACTEDGRAVEL LEVELING PAD 4" PERFORATED PVC SDR 35 SUBDRAIN.PLACE PERFORATIONS DOWN.OUTLET LOCATION PER PROFILE GRID LENGTH PER PROFILE BACKFILL VARIES LEVELTO 1.7:1 MAX. SLOPE MIRAGRID 3XT GEOGRIDREINFORCEMENT (TYP.) 4" OR 8" CAP UNITPER PROFILE FINISHED GRADE AT BWBURIAL PER PROFILE M3 CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. PO BOX 923 OCEANSIDE, CA 92049 760-802-1772 MATT@M3CE.COM NOT FORCONSTRUCTION 6/27/2022 11:09:25 AM Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 45 of 55 PUBLIC COMMENT Exhibit 7 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 46 of 55 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 47 of 55 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 48 of 55 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 49 of 55 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 50 of 55 1/30/24, 11:59 AM we can hear all voices and noise from the wall here below.webp (1920×1440) file:///C:/Users/kvanl.CITY/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/8MZHNL4F/we can hear all voices and noise from the wall …1/1 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 51 of 55 Dec. 7,2023 Rene Lichtman 939 Begonia Court Carlsbad, CA 92011 C_cicyof Carlsbad VIA EMAIL AND MAIL 8 FILE COPY SUBJECT: CDP 2023-0016/V 2023-0002 (DEV2020-0134) -BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL -CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) APPLICABILITY/PROCESS DETERMINATION AND TARGET DECISION DATE CEQA Determination: This is to advise you that after reviewing the application for the project referenced above, the City has determined that the following environmental review process (pursuant to CEQA) will be required for the project: The project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Sections 15061(b)(4) and 15270: CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects_ or disapproves. No environmental review is required for the project. Target Decision Date: In the interest of expeditiously processing your application consistent with the State Permit Streamlining Act (California Government Code Section 65950), the project should be scheduled for a public hearing no later than Feb. 7, 2024. For additional information related to this CEQA applicability/process determination or should you have any questions regarding an application extens_ion or would like to withdraw your application, please contact Kyle Van Leeuwen at 442-339-2611 or by email at kyle.vanleeuwen@carlsbadca.gov. Sincerely, ERIC LARDY, AICP City Planner CJ:KVL:mh c: Valerie Lichtman, 860 Bernard Way, San Bernadino, CA 92404 John S. Rivera, 1810 Gillespie Way, Suite 207, El Cajon, CA 92020 David Rick, Project Engineer Eric Lardy, City Planner Jason Bennett, Code Enforcement File Copy- Attachments: Determination of Exemption Community Development Department Planning Division I 1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 442-339-2600 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 52 of 55 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 53 of 55 PROPERTY INFORMATION:OWNER INFORMATION: OF 1 1 SHEETPREPARED BY: CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LICHTMAN RESIDENCE PRE-PROJECT SITE PLAN 939 BEGONIA COURT FUSION ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY 1810 GILLESPIE WAY, #207 EL CAJON, CA 92020 (619) 736-2800 138BEGONIA COURT 162.32 Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 54 of 55 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS EXHIBIT 10 This is a list of acronyms and abbreviations (in alphabetical order) that are commonly used in staff reports. Acronym Description Acronym Description APA American Planning Association LCPA Local Coastal Program Amendment APN Assessor Parcel Number LOS Level of Service AQMD Air Quality Management District MND Mitigated Negative Declaration BMP Best Management Practice NCTD North County Transit District CALTRANS California Department of Transportation ND Negative Declaration CC City Council PC Planning Commission CCR Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions PDP Planned Development Permit CEQA California Environmental Quality Act PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report CFD Community Facilities District PUD Planned Unit Development CIP Capital Improvement Program ROW Right of Way COA Conditions of Approval RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board CofO Certificate of Occupancy SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments CT Tentative Parcel Map SDP Site Development Permit CUP Conditional Use Permit SP Specific Plan DIF Development Impact Fee SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program DISTRICT City Council Member District Number TM Tentative Map EIR Environmental Impact Report ZC Zone Change EIS Environmental Impact Statement (federal) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GP General Plan GPA General Plan Amendment GIS Geographic Information Systems HCA Housing Crisis Act 2019 IS Initial Study Feb. 21, 2024 Item #1 55 of 55 Begonia Court Retaining Wall Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner Community Development February 21, 2024 CDP 2023-0016/V 2023-0002 1 2 PROJECT LOCATION CDP 2023-0019/V 2023-0002 BACKGOUND 2015/2016 – Retaining Wall Installation Begins •Unpermitted Grading/Construction 2018 – Code Case Opened •Feb. 2019 – Notice of Violation Sent to Owners •June 2019 – Final Notice/Work Stopped June 2020 – Application for CDP and Variance •Denied by City Council Feb. 23, 2021 March 2023 – Current Application Submitted BACKGOUND 2014 2017 TODAY APPLICANT REQUEST – 2023/2024 Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2023-0016) •Allow for grading of the slope Variance from Hillside Development Ordinance (V 2023-0002) •Allow retaining walls beyond the limit of six feet from the toe of slope, where six feet is the standard limit VARIANCE/HILLSIDE REGULATIONS Section 21.95.140(C)(1)(a)(i) •[Retaining walls] on or into an uphill perimeter manufactured slope shall be limited to a maximum of six vertical feet as measured from the existing grade at the toe of the slope. VARIANCE FINDING #1 •That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. JUSTIFICATION/RESPONSE “Constraints deprive the owners of typical usage afforded to other properties in the vicinity/creates maintenance burden.” •47% of Lot is Sloped (22% on Similar Lots) •76% of Rear Yard Sloped (44% on Similar Lots) •28 Feet Slope Height (18 Feet on Similar Lots) •67% slope - Difficult to maintain and unusable Response - 2nd largest lot / Useable Lot Area remains - Lot is “Pie Shaped”; wider in the rear - Near by lot is similar - 943 Begonia: •16,514 SF (17,148 SF subject lot) •44% rear slope (46.5% subject lot) 9 JUSTIFICATION/RESPONSE 10 JUSTIFICATIO/RESPONSE “Constraints deprive the owners of typical usage afforded to other properties in the vicinity/creates maintenance burden.” •47% of Lot is Sloped (22% on Similar Lots) •76% of Rear Yard Sloped (44% on Similar Lots) •28 Feet Slope Height (18 Feet on Similar Lots) •67% slope - Difficult to maintain and unusable Response - Property is not Deprived of Privileges - Neighborhood Average Lot Size: 9,528 SF - 17,148 SF Lot (-7,500 Slope) = ~9,500 SF - Maintenance Burden is not loss of privilege VARIANCE FINDING #2 •That the variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located and is subject to any conditions necessary to assure compliance with this finding. 12 JUSTIFICATIO/RESPONSE No other lots have as great of an elevation differential between adjacent properties or the extensive percentage of lot area encumbered by slope (...), strict adherence to the 6-foot retaining wall height limit disallows the Owner's ability to build standard rear yard improvements (...). Response - Usable Lot Area consistent with the neighborhood. - More useable area exceeds neighborhood average - Existing rear-yard improvements (Pool and Patio) - More would be special privilege STAFF RESPONSE 2014 2024 Comparable Rear Yards VARIANCE FINDINGS Variance - All Five Findings Required •Findings 1 and 2 cannot be made •Analysis of findings 3-5 in staff report Coastal Development Permit •No analysis warranted without variance approval ITEM: RECOMMENDATION ADOPT a resolution RECOMMENDING that the City Council Deny Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2022-0019) and Variance (V 2022-0002). Additional Slides – Site Pictures Additional Slides – Site Pictures Additional Slides – Code Case Pictures Hom’s Comparison Approx 20 feet without wall (28 with) Appx. 8 feet without wall (18 with) Hom’s Comparison 2017 - Hom’s Comparison Hom’s Comparison Additional Slides – Comparable Rear Yards Additional Slides – Comparable Rear Yards Additional Slides – Comparable Rear Yards Additional Slides – Comparable Rear Yards