HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-20; Planning Commission; ; Begonia Court Retaining WallItem No. 3
Meeting Date: March 20, 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: 214-390-23-00
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 %. The lot is surrounded by single-
family residences to the north, south, east, and
west.
Site Map
March 20, 2024 Item #3 1 of 62
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.
March 20, 2024 Item #3 2 of 62
The applicant submitted a Coastal Development Permit and variance in June of 2020. On Dec. 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.
The project was first agenized for hearing on Feb. 21, 2024. However, on request of the applicant considering
only four commissioners were available for that hearing, the project was continued to an uncertain future date.
Public Outreach & Comment
Public notice of the proposed project was mailed on Feb. 8, 2024, prior to the Feb. 21, 2024 Planning
Commission hearing, and again on March 7, 2024, prior to the March 20, 2024 Planning Commission hearing, 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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 3 of 62
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
the elevated terraces and concerns about the stability of the unpermitted work on the slope. These early
outreach comments are included as Exhibit 7. Public comment received leading up to the Feb. 21, 2024, hearing
are provided as Exhibit 8.
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 9). 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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 4 of 62
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 10. 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
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. Public Comments, February 2024
9. CEQA Determination Letter
10. Pre-Project Site Plan
11. List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
March 20, 2024 Item #3 5 of 62
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 CT 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 March 20, 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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 6 of 62
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 March 20, 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,
March 20, 2024 Item #3 7 of 62
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.
March 20, 2024 Item #3 8 of 62
March 9, 2024 Item #3 9 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 10 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 11 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 12 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 13 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 14 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 15 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 16 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 17 of 62
± 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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 18 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 19 of 62
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:
March 20, 2024 Item #3 20 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 21 of 62
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.
March 20, 2024 Item #3 22 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 23 of 62
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.
March 20, 2024 Item #3 24 of 62
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.comRene 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 privilegesenjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification:
The subject property possesses topographic constraints which deprives the Owners of the typical usageafforded to other properties in the vicinity and creates a disproportionate maintenance burden. Thefollowing 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 yardslopes. Out of the 236 lots studied, only one other lot has over 45% slope encumbrancepercentage.•Portion of rear yard area encumbered by slope:
o Subject Property = 76%
o Similar Lot (w/ Rear Yard Slope) Average = 44%
Exhibit 5
March 20, 2024 Item #3 25 of 62
Fusion Engineering and Technology
1810 Gillespie Way Suite 207
El Cajon, CA 92020
(619) 736-2800
2Monday, November 13, 2023
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%, whichmakes 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 ofusable lot area, with many including expansive views. Please refer to the Lot and Slope Areas Exhibitincluded in Appendix ‘B’.
2. That the the granting of this variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent withupon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located and is to anyconditions 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 rearyard slopes, no other lots have as great of an elevation differential between adjacent properties or theextensive percentage of lot area encumbered by slope as the subject lot. Please refer to Lot and SlopeAreas Exhibit apart of this application. Furthermore, strict adherence to the 6-foot retaining wall heightlimit 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 expresslyauthorized 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 zoneregulations because the construction of retaining walls and other yard improvements is consideredaccessory to the primary use of the property as a single-family residence, which is a permitted use in theR-1 Zone.
4. That the variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and the zoningordinance.
The variance is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the general plan and zoning ordinancebecause the project complies with all policies of the Land Use Element, does not affect the density of theproperty, does not affect the Growth Management program, and complies with all the developmentstandards of the R-1 zone except for the retaining wall height limit of the Hillside DevelopmentRegulations.
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 OpenSpace 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.
March 20, 2024 Item #3 26 of 62
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:
•Planning Comments: Updated responses to P-4 questions provided hereon.
•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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 27 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 28 of 62
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.
March 20, 2024 Item #3 29 of 62
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:
March 20, 2024 Item #3 30 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 31 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 32 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 33 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 34 of 62
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.
March 20, 2024 Item #3 35 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 36 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 37 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 38 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 39 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 40 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 41 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 42 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 43 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 44 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 45 of 62
PUBLIC COMMENT Exhibit 7
March 20, 2024 Item #3 46 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 47 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 48 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 49 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 50 of 62
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 51 of 62
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Lori Filippo <lorifilippo@yahoo.com>
To: "kyle.vanleeuwen@carslbadca.gov" <kyle.vanleeuwen@carslbadca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 04:11:21 PM PST
Subject: CDP 2023-0016/V 2023-0002 (DEV 2020-0134) - BEGONIA COURT RETAINING WALL
Dear Mr. Vanleeuwen,
I am writing to you regarding the hearing which will be held on February 21, 2024, to consider a request for the above-mentioned case no. to allow a series of
retaining walls located at 939 Begonia Court in Carlsbad.
I am unable to attend this meeting and therefore would like to formally request a written denial to permit this structure of be kept in place.
I reside directly next door to this address where these series of retaining walls are structured. They are in the rear yard of the above-mentioned address and are
exceedingly elevated overlooking my yard, but most importantly, looking into my bedroom windows. Being an Airbnb,
the tenants who rent this residence will often climb up these series of balconies and want to look around to see what is visible from that high of an elevation.
With doing so, people look directly into my bedroom where I often read, watch tv, sleep and change clothes. It is very intrusive and very creepy!!
I feel that I shouldn't have to constantly keep my drapes and blinds closed morning and night due to these retaining wall and the people that climb onto them.
Attached are 3 photos showing the direct line of vision from these retaining wall into my bedroom windows.
I hope that these pictures describe to you what I see every day and explain to you why I would like to have these retaining removed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lori FIlippo
941 Begonia Court
Carslbad
Exhibit 8
March 20, 2024 Item #3 52 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 53 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 54 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 55 of 62
1
Cynthia Vigeland
To:Eric Lardy
Cc:Planning
Subject:RE: CDP 2023-0016V 2023-0002 (DEV 2020-0134) Begonia Court Retaining Wall February 21, 2024
agenda item
From: j phelps <jmwp1984@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2024 3:06 PM
To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>; Eric Lardy <eric.lardy@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: CDP 2023-0016V 2023-0002 (DEV 2020-0134) Begonia Court Retaining Wall February 21, 2024 agenda item
Good afternoon, please find attached a comment letter for an agenda item for the planning commission meeting being
held on February 21, 2024 at 5 p.m. We do plan to attend the meeting and will request to speak.
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe.
March 20, 2024 Item #3 56 of 62
February 18, 2024
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Case No: CDP 2023-0016/V 2023-0002 (DEV 2020-0134) Begonia Court Retaining Wall
Dear Chairman Peter Merz and Planning Commissioners,
We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposal to grandfather the structural retro fitting
of an illegally built “retaining wall” at 939 Begonia Court, Carlsbad, CA 92011.
• It is an obfuscation to call this structure a “retaining wall” as it is an observation deck, which was
erected by the property owner to increase the rental rate the property could generate. We note that
it is very atypical for a “retaining wall” to have built-in steps and seating. During its erection,
we overheard the property owner tell the laborers that no one could make him remove the structure.
There are three compelling reasons for this planning commission to reject this proposal.
1. This observation deck has adversely affected ours and surrounding neighbor’s economic and
physical well-being. The economic damage if this structure is allowed to remain would be actual
and permanent, not hypothetical. The actual damage is a loss of privacy in two ways. First, the
observation deck allows for direct visibility into the backside of our house and backyard. Second,
because of the acoustical effects of the “mini-canyon”, even a causal conversation of people on
the observation deck cascades down onto our property. The visual and noise intrusion of this
observation deck has diminished our ability to fully use our backyard outdoor experience as well
being able to open our windows to enjoy the natural air conditioning our coast is famous for. Our
physical well-being has been and will continue to be impaired by the noise blasting down onto our
property. This property has and will be used for shorter-term vacation rentals that results in large
groups partying well past midnight. This has interrupted our ability to get peaceful sleep on too
many nights. I would welcome for any commissioner to conduct a site inspection on our property
to acquire a fuller understanding of our privacy loss.
2. Removing the observation deck will restore the neighborhood to its prior state and reduce
tensions that have led to law enforcement responses. This is not an owner-occupied property,
instead it is being used for commercial rental purposes. The excessive noise from these short-term
commercial rentals required neighbors to seek the help of the Carlsbad Police Department (CPD).
CPD would like for you to make their job easier through the removal of this observation deck.
3. Send a strong message to irresponsible owners that think the rules or neighborhood decorum
do not apply to them through the removal of this observation deck.
You denied this retroactive permit before, so we implore you to do the right thing again by requiring
removal of this observation deck. We pray that you will find the wisdom to return our property back to
the “American Dream” status that it was before this monstrosity nightmare was erected.
Jack & Renee Phelps
956 Whimbrel Court
Carlsbad, CA 92011
March 20, 2024 Item #3 57 of 62
Page 2
RE: Case No: CDP 2023-0016/V 2023-0002 (DEV 2020-0134) Begonia Court Retaining Wall
View of Observation Deck from 956 Whimbrel Court Backyard
View of Observation Deck & Seating Area from 956 Whimbrel Court Bedroom
March 20, 2024 Item #3 58 of 62
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
Exhibit 9
March 20, 2024 Item #3 59 of 62
March 20, 2024 Item #3 60 of 62
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
Exhibit 10
March 20, 2024 Item #3 61 of 62
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS EXHIBIT 11
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
March 20, 2024 Item #3 62 of 62
Fusion Engineering and Technology
1810 Gillespie Way Suite 207
El Cajon, CA 92020
(619) 736-2800
1Wednesday, February 21, 2024
City of Carlsbad Planning Commission Hearing February 21, 2024
Subject:939 Begonia Court
Variance – Hillside Development Ordinance
Hello Planning Commissioner,
Please find below Civil Engineer notes / summary regarding the subject variance application.
1.Construction Options:
a.Restore Slope with Reinforcement. Construction difficulty. Long term erosion concern. City
Staff Engineers have made comments / statements that over steepened 1.5:1 (67%)
inclination ‘sliver’ fill slope is acceptable, but they are not the responsible charge Civil /
Geotechnical Engineer.
b.Singular 6’ Retaining Wall with Reinforced Slope. Significant grading operation to facilitate
grid installation of over steepened 1.5:1 slope.
c.Structurally Retrofit Existing Retaining Walls in place. Danny Cohen JC Baldwin.
2.Variance Justification:
a.Community Statistics (236 Lots Studied):
i.939 Begonia Court 47% Slope Encumbrance vs 22% Average (w/ Rear Yard Slope). Only
one other lot within study area has over 45% slope encumbrance.
b.Immediate Neighborhood Statistics (937 to 942 Begonia Court):
i.Avg Lot Slope Encumbrance = 34% (939 is 1.39X Avg)
ii.Average useable rear yard area = 3,519 s.f. (939 is 2,506 s.f., or 29% Less than Avg)
3.Precedence:
a.Cited numerous examples of other properties that have retaining walls more than 6’.
b.Hom Residence (2170 Twain Avenue):
i.Already had developer installed retaining wall with ~3ksf of useable back yard area.
ii.14,070 s.f., 1 of 3 lots with over 0.3 acre out of 149 total residential lots per Map
14340.
iii.43.6% Slope encumbrance, 25’ high, both less than 939 Begonia
iv.Multiple other properties in this community have constrained back yards, separate
from ‘cut back slope’ lots.
4.Owner Statements:
a.Rene Lichtman.
Should you have any questions regarding the information contained in this memo please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Thank You,
_________________________________
Johnny Rivera, P.E. C73878
President / Principal of Civil Engineering
Mobile: (619)992-6618
Johnny@FusionEngTech.com
Handout from applicant
R. Lichtman
Begonia Court Retaining Wall
Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner
Community Development
March 20, 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
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 - 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 (…).
12
JUSTIFICATION/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
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
Response to Additional Comments
Outside of Scope
•Approach & Cost of Code Case Remedy
•Owner’s Financial Status
Other Retaining Walls in Neighborhood
•Not Subject to Hillside Ordinance (not 15’)
•Or Approved with Subdivision
Hom Residence Approval
•Special Circumstance which Created Slope
•Slope impact was loss of privilege
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
Wall Examples Provided by Applicant
Rose Drive/Cordgrass Ct Cul-de-sac
Not Subject to Hillside Ordinance
Less than 15’ height differential differ
Not an Uphill Perimeter Slope
Wisteria Way/Daisy Ave
Not Subject to Hillside Ordinance
Less than 15’ height differential differ
Not an Uphill Perimeter Slope
Wall Examples Provided by Applicant
924 Anatra Court
Stairs allowed, slope naturally levels off at
top, flat area not dug into slope
931 Daisy Ave
Not Subject to Hillside Ordinance
Less than 15’ height differential differ
Wall Examples Provided by Applicant
4975 El Camino Real
Retaining Wall approved for widening of
El Camino Real
Not an Uphill Perimeter Slope
End of Alyssum Road
Not Subject to Hillside Ordinance
Less than 15’ height differential differ
Not an Uphill Perimeter Slope
Wall Examples Provided by Applicant
Beach Near Army Navy Academy
Not an Uphill Perimeter Slope
904 Daisy
Not Subject to Hillside Ordinance
Less than 15’ height differential differ
Slope less than 40%
Wall Examples Provided by Applicant
4811 Kelly
Initial retaining walls built prior to Hillside Ordinance
Current walls built in 2016
Potential Code Case