HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 2019-0008; WAILES REMODEL; SOILS INVESTIGATION; 2019-02-14•
Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com
Dr. Bob Wailes
c/o BGI Architecture
2091 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92011
Attention: Mr. John Beery
February 14, 2019
.. C
MAY 15 2019
CITY OF-CARLSB
PLANNINC DIV1SIO
W.O. 7565-A-SC
Subject: Soils Investigation, Allowable Bearing Value, Active, Passive Pressures,
Lateral Pressures, and Seismic Design Parameters, Proposed Remodel at
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Wailes:
In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has obtained a representative
sample of site soil for laboratory testing. The purpose of our testing was to evaluate soil
parameters for proposed additional construction to the existing residential structure. The
scope of our services includes a site reconnaissance, soil sampling, a review of documents
presented in the Appendix (References), laboratory testing, engineering analyses,
including an evaluation of slope stability, and preparation of this report. This summary
report has been prepared for the sole purpose of simply providing a limited description of
soil conditions onsite, and engineering parameters derived from testing of a representative
sample of site soil in our laboratory, and does not constitute a geotechnical evaluation of
the overall stability, or suitability of the site for additional development, as this study was
performed without the benefit of a typical subsurface investigation or an evaluation of
geologic hazards.
It is our understanding that planned additional construction will consist of preparing an
existing crawl space beneath the existing residential structure, for construction of a new
"wine cellar." Wine cellar construction is anticipated to consist of a new floor slab, a small
wall, and trimming the existing crawl space slope to a 1 :1 (horizontal to vertical) slope
gradient.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of site earth materials in order
to evaluate their physical characteristics. The results of our evaluation are summarized as
follows:
• Soils were classified visually as "silty sands" (USCS Symbol SM) according to the
Unified Soils Classification System (Sowers and Sowers, 1979).
• An evaluation of soil expansion potential, in general accordance with ASTM D 4829,
indicates a very low expansion potential (Expansion Index [E.I.] ~20), where tested.
• The grain size distribution of the sample was evaluated in general accordance
with ASTM D 422. Based on this test, the soil is generally classified as a silty sand
([USCS Symbol SM], 84 percent sand and 16 percent fines).
• The field moisture content and dry density of a relatively undisturbed soil sample
was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 and ASTM D 2937. The
results of this test indicated a dry density of 112.7 PCF, a soil moisture content of
2.5 percent, and 12.9 percent saturation.
• Shear testing was performed on a representative undisturbed sample of site soil in
general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of
the strain control type.
PRIMARY I RESIDUAL
SAMPLE LOCATION
I AND DEPTH (FT) COHESION I FRICTION ANGLE COHESION FRICTION ANGLE
(PSF) {DEGREES) (PSF) (DEGREES)
I Formation I 69 I 33.9 I 15 I 32.0 I
BEARING VALUE
Based on a review of Table 1806.2 of the 2016 California Building Code ([2016 CBC],
California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2016a), an allowable bearing value of
2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be assumed for continuous footings, a minimum
12 inches wide and 12 inches deep (below lowest adjacent grade [ excluding soft surficial
soils, landscape zones, slab and underlayment thickness, etc.]), bearing on
suitable, approved soil. It is anticipated that actual footing depths will be deeper than
those indicated above, in order to penetrate any loose, near surface soils. Actual footing
depths would be based on conditions exposed within the footing excavation. The
allowable bearing value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in
depth of embedment, into approved suitable bearing soil, to a maximum value of 2,500 psf.
The above values may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic
or wind loads. Differential settlement may be minimally assumed as 1 inch in a 40-foot
span, provided the footing bears on suitable, competent and similar earth materials,
approved by GSI. Foundations should be designed for all applicable surcharge loads.
Dr. Bob Walles
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.eoa GeoSoils, Inc.
W.0. 7565-A-SC
February 14, 2019
Page 2
LATERAL PRESSURE
Based on a review of Table 1806.2 of the 2016 CBC (CBSC, 2016a), passive earth pressure
may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 150 pounds per square foot
(psf) per foot of depth into suitable, approved soil to a maximum earth pressure of
2,000 psf.
An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.25 may be used with the
dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive
pressure component should be reduced by one-third.
In accordance with Table 1610.1 of the 2016 CBC (CBSC, 2016a), and for drained
conditions, active earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density
of 45 psf per foot of depth (level backfill). At-rest, earth pressure may be computed as an
equivalent fluid having a density of 60 psf per foot of depth (level backfill).
SEISMIC DESIGN
General
It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of an upper bound (maximum
probable} or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong
ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any
structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the
inertia of a structure's mass than from those induced by the hazards listed above. This
potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in
the immediate vicinity.
Seismic Shaking Parameters
Based on the site conditions, the following table summarizes the updated site-specific
design criteria obtained from the 2016 CBC (CBSC, 2016a), Chapter 16 Structural Design,
Section 1613, Earthquake Loads. The computer program "Seismic Design Maps,"
provided by SEA/OSPHD, was utilized for design (http://seismicmaps.org). The short
spectral response utilizes a period of 0.2 seconds.
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.eoa GeoSoils, Inc.
W .0 . 7565-A-SC
February 14, 201 9
Page 3
2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
PARAMETER VALUE 2016 CBC
REFERENCE
Risk Category I, II, Ill Table 1604.5
Site Class D Section 1613.3.2/ASCE 7-10
(p. 203-205)
Spectral Response -(0.2 sec), S, 1.174 g Section 1613.3.1
Figure 1613.3.1 (1)
Spectral Response -(1 sec), S, 0.451 g Section 1613.3.1
Figure 1613.3.1 (2)
Site Coefficient, F • 1.03 Table 1613.3.3(1)
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.549 Table 1613.3.3(2)
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral 1.121 g Section 1613.3.3
Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), SMs (Eqn 16-37)
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral 0.698 g Section 1613.3.3
Response Acceleration (1 sec), SM, (Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design Spectral Response 0.807 g Section 1613.3.4
Acceleration (0.2 sec), S05 (Eqn 16-39)
5% Damped Design Spectral Response 0.466 g Section 1613.3.4
Acceleration (1 sec), S01 (Eqn 16-40)
PGAM -Probabilistic Vertical Ground Acceleration may be 0.484 g ASCE 7-10 (Eqn 11 .8.1)
assumed as about 50% of these values.
Seismic Design Category D Section 1613.3.5/ASCE 7-10
(Table 11 .6-1 or 11.6-2)
GENERAL SEISMIC PARAMETERS
PARAMETER VALUE
Distance to Seismic Source (Newport-Inglewood offshore) ±4.3 mi (6.9 km)!'l
Upper Bound Earthquake (Newport-Inglewood offshore) Mw = 7.1!2l
!'l -From Blake (2000)
!2> -Cao, et al. (2003\
Conformance to the criteria above for seismic design does not constitute any kind of
guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur
in the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not
to eliminate all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Cumulative
effects of seismic events are not addressed in the 2016 CBC (CBSC, 2016a) and regular
maintenance and repair following locally significant seismic events (i.e., Mw5.5) will likely
be necessary, as is the case in all of southern California.
Dr. Bob Walles
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.eoa GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
February 14, 2019
Page 4
SLOPE STABILITY
Backcut slopes for temporary excavations to facilitate below grade building wall
construction are anticipated to maximum heights of about 22 to 24 feet, exposing dense,
cemented, sedimentary bedrock. Based on the maximum backcut heights, soil (bedrock)
properties, etc., a temporary slope inclination of½: 1 (horizontal to vertical) was evaluated.
A temporary slope stability analysis was performed with the aid of the two-dimensional
slope stability computer program "GSTABL7 v.2." Based on our analysis, a calculated
factor of safety (FOS) of at least 1.5 (static) and 1.125 (seismic) has been evaluated. The
slope stability analysis is attached as Plates 1 and 2.
The planned crawl space slope is not anticipated to be exposed to subaerial erosion.
However, site soils are erosive. Leaking pipes, such as observed within a portion of the
crawl space, can result is saturated soil conditions locally, and result in slope instability due
to soil saturation and erosion. Recommend that all plumbing is evaluated for leaks, and
repaired as necessary.
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Grading
Any grading should minimally conform to the guidelines presented in the 2016 CBC
(CBSC, 2016a), and the City. When Code references are not equivalent, the more
stringent code should be followed. During earthwork construction, all site preparation and
the general grading procedures of the contractor (if grading is to occur) should be
observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GSI. If unusual or
unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and
if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable
requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met.
Type B soils may be assumed per Cal-OSHA. GSI does not consult in the area of safety
engineering. The contractor is responsible for the safety of construction workers onsite.
Loose and/or compressible materials likely occur at the surface, overlying suitable bearing
material. As such, the need for remedial grading cannot be precluded, and should be
reviewed prior to footing excavation construction. During ourfield sampling, a near surface
layer of loose soil, on the order of about 1 foot in thickness, was observed throughout the
site and should be mitigated during grading (i.e., removed and exported from the site,
etc.). At a minimum, any slab subgrade should be scarified and moisture conditioned to
a depth of at least 12 inches, then compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction
per ASTM D 1557. Deeper remedial grading may be necessary, based on conditions
exposed during construction. Should processing and/or removal and recompaction not
occur, the slab would be subject to settlement and subsequent distress. As an alternative
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.eoa GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
February 14, 2019
Page 5
to processing and/or removal and recompaction (grading), the slab may be designed as
a structural slab, not relying on the underlying soil for support, but spanning between
footings, in accordance with the structural engineers' recommendations.
Foundations
Current laboratory testing indicates that the onsite soils exhibit expansion index values
:s::20 (very low expansion), which do not meet the criteria of expansive soils as defined in
Section 1803.5.2 of the 2016 CBC (CBSC, 2016a), on a preliminary basis.
Reinforced concrete mix design for foundation, slab-on-grade floors, and pavement should
minimally conform to exposure Classes SO and C1, per ACI 318-14. GSI does not practice
in the field of corrosion engineering. Accordingly, consultation from a qualified corrosion
engineer may obtained based on the level of corrosion protection requirements by the
project architect and structural engineer. From a geotechnical viewpoint, foundation
construction should minimally conform to the following:
1. Exterior and interior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches
below the lowest adjacent grade, or embedded at least 12 inches into suitable
bearing material, whichever is deeper. Footing widths should be per Code.
Isolated pad footings should be 24 inches square, by 24 inches deep, and
minimally embedded at least 24 inches into suitable bearing soil, whichever is
deeper.
2. All footings should be minimally reinforced with four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two
placed near the top and two placed near the bottom of the footing. Isolated pad
footing reinforcement should be per the structural engineer.
3. Exterior column footings should be tied together via grade beams in at least one
direction to the main foundation. The grade beam should be at least 12 inches
square in cross section, and should be provided with a minimum of two No.4
reinforcing bars at the top, and two No.4 reinforcing bars at the bottom of the grade
beam. The base of the reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as
the adjoining footings.
4. A minimum concrete slab-on-grade thickness of 5 inches is recommended.
5. Concrete slabs should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 reinforcement bars
placed at 18 inches on center, in two horizontally perpendicular directions (i.e., long
axis and short axis), and per the structural engineer recommendations for expansive
soils, and assuming loose surficial soils has been removed or recompacted. If this
is not the case, the slab should be designed as a structural slab spanning between
the footings and not relying on the soil for support, and considering expansive soils,
per the structural engineer.
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.eoa GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
February 14, 2019
Page 6
6. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper mid-slab height
positioning during placement of the concrete. "Hooking" of reinforcement is not an
acceptable method of positioning.
7. Specific slab subgrade pre-soaking is not required for these soil conditions;
however, slab subgrade should be pre-wetted to at least the soils optimum moisture
content, to a depth of 12 inches below slab subgrade, prior to the placement of the
underlayment sand and vapor retarder.
8. Loose and/or compressible materials likely occur at the surface, overlying suitable
bearing material. As observed, the depth to relatively firm material appears to be
at least 1 to 1 ½ feet thick below existing surface grades. As such, a deeper footing
of the same magnitude will likely be recommended, and should be anticipated. The
depth of the deepened footing should be evaluated prior to the placement of
reinforcing steel and foundational concrete.
9. Foundations should maintain a minimum 7-foot horizontal distance between the
base of the footing and any adjacent descending slope, and minimally comply with
the guidelines per the 2016 CBC (CBSC, 2016a). This may also result in a deeper
footing than per plan.
Floor Slabs
GSI has evaluated the potential for vapor or water transmission through the concrete floor
slabs, in light of typical floor coverings, improvements, and use. Please note that slab
moisture emission rates range from about 2 to 27 lbs/24 hours/1,000 square feet from a
typical slab (Kanare, 2005), while floor covering manufacturers generally recommend
about 3 lbs/24 hours as an upper limit. The recommendations in this section are not
intended to preclude the transmission of water or vapor through the foundation or slabs.
Foundation systems and slabs shall not allow water or water vapor to enter into the
structure so as to cause damage to another building component or to limit the installation
of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application (State of
California, 2019). These recommendations may be exceeded or supplemented by a water
"proofing" specialist, project architect, or structural consultant. Thus, the client will need
to evaluate the following in light of a cost vs. benefit analysis (owner expectations and
repairs/replacement), along with disclosure to all interested/affected parties. It should also
be noted that vapor transmission will occur in new slab-on-grade floors as a result of
chemical reactions taking place within the curing concrete. Vapor transmission through
concrete floor slabs as a result of concrete curing has the potential to adversely affect
sensitive floor coverings depending on the thickness of the concrete floor slab and the
duration of time between the placement of concrete, and the floor covering. It is possible
that a slab moisture sealant may be needed prior to the placement of sensitive floor
coverings if a thick slab-on-grade floor is used and the time frame between concrete and
floor covering placement is relatively short.
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.eoa GeoSoiJs, Inc.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
February 14, 2019
Page 7
Considering the E.1. test results presented herein, and known soil conditions in the region,
the anticipated typical water vapor transmission rates, floor coverings, and improvements
(to be chosen by the Client and/or project architect) that can tolerate vapor transmission
rates without significant distress, the following alternatives are provided:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Non-vehicular concrete slab-on-grade floors should be thicker .
Concrete slab underlayment should consist of a 15-mil vapor retarder, or equivalent,
with all laps sealed per the 2016 CBC and the manufacturer's recommendation.
The vapor retarder should comply with the ASTM E 17 45 -Class A criteria, and be
installed in accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI) 302.1 R-04 and ASTM
E 1643. An example of a vapor retarder product that complies with ASTM E 17 45 -
Class A criteria is Stego Industries, LLC's Stego Wrap.
The 15-mil vapor retarder (ASTM E 1745 -Class A) shall be installed per the
recommendations of the manufacturer, including all penetrations (i.e., pipe, ducting,
rebar, etc.).
Concrete slabs, shall be underlain by 2 inches of clean, washed sand (SE > 30)
above a 15-mil vapor retarder (ASTM E-17 45 -Class A, per Engineering Bulletin 119
[Kanare, 2005]} installed per the recommendations of the manufacturer, including
all penetrations (i.e., pipe, ducting, rebar, etc.). The manufacturer shall provide
instructions for lap sealing, including minimum width of lap, method of sealing, and
either supply or specify suitable products for lap sealing (ASTM E 1745), and per
code.
ACI 302.1 R-04 (2004) states "If a cushion or sand layer is desired between the
vapor retarder and the slab, care must be taken to protect the sand layer from
taking on additional water from a source such as rain, curing, cutting, or cleaning.
Wet cushion or sand layer has been directly linked in the past to significant
lengthening of time required for a slab to reach an acceptable level of dryness for
floor covering applications." Therefore, additional observation and/or testing will be
necessary for the cushion or sand layer for moisture content, and relatively uniform
thicknesses, prior to the placement of concrete.
The vapor retarder should be underlain by a capillary break consisting of at least
2 inches of clean sand (SE 30, or greater). The vapor retarder should be sealed to
provide a continuous retarder under the entire slab, as discussed above.
Concrete should have a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.50. This does not
supercede Table 19.3.2.1 of the ACI (2014a} for corrosion or other corrosive
requirements (such as coastal, location, etc.). Additional concrete mix design
recommendations should be provided by the structural consultant and/or
waterproofing specialist. Concrete finishing and workablity should be addressed
by the structural consultant and a waterproofing specialist.
Dr. Bob Wailes W.O. 7565-A-SC
February 14, 2019
Page 8
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.eoa GeoSoils, Inc.
• Where slab water/cement ratios are as indicated herein, and/or admixtures used,
the structural consultant should also make changes to the concrete in the grade
beams and footings in kind, so that the concrete used in the foundation and slabs
are designed and/or treated for more uniform moisture protection.
• The owner(s) should be specifically advised which areas are suitable for tile flooring,
vinyl flooring, or other types of water/vapor-sensitive flooring and which are not
suitable. In all planned floor areas, flooring shall be installed per the manufactures
recommendations.
• Additional recommendations regarding water or vapor transmission should be
provided by the architect/structural engineer/slab or foundation designer and
should be consistent with the specified floor coverings indicated by the architect.
Regardless of the mitigation, some limited moisture/moisture vapor transmission through
the slab should be anticipated. Construction crews may require special training for
installation of certain product(s), as well as concrete finishing techniques. The use of
specialized product(s) should be approved by the slab designer and water-proofing
consultant. A technical representative of the flooring contractor should review the slab and
moisture retarder plans and provide comment prior to the construction of the foundations
or improvements. The vapor retarder contractor should have representatives onsite during
the initial installation.
Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Only the
amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering
should be avoided as it can adversely affect site improvements, and cause perched
groundwater conditions. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep
rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate.
Utilizing plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for
perched water, staining, mold, etc., to develop. A rodent control program to prevent
burrowing should be implemented. These recommendations regarding plant type,
irrigation practices, and rodent control should be provided to all interested/affected parties.
Drainage
Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of
adverse performance offoundations and hardscape. Surface drainage should be sufficient
to prevent ponding of water anywhere on the property, and especially near structures. Lot
surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during landscaping.
Therefore, care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not
create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within the property should be
provided and maintained at all times. Water should be directed away from foundations and
not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 5 feet around
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.eoa GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
February 14, 2019
Page 9
a structure should slope away from the structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and
landscape areas have a minimum gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and
whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be
given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures. Site drainage should be
directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical
requirement, roof gutters, downspouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to
control roof drainage. Downspouts, or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet
from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due
to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen
this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect
could be provided upon request.
Landscape Maintenance
Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided.
Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect existing and proposed site
improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacent
to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative,
closed-bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the
planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete
flatwork. If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the
planter should be provided with a moisture retarder to prevent penetration of irrigation
water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water
from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters.
Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect
upon surface improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with
their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not
recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the
purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum
relative compaction.
Gutters and Downspouts
As previously discussed in the drainage section, the installation of gutters and downspouts
should be considered to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent
to the structures. If utilized, the downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes
or non-erosive devices that will carry the water away from the house. Downspouts and
gutters are not a geotechnical requirement provided that positive drainage is incorporated
into project design (as di.scussed previously).
Tile Flooring
Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small
cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should
consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs-on-grade where tile will be
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.eoa GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
February 14, 2019
Page 10
placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible
cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane
(approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended
between tile and concrete slabs on grade.
Subsurface and Surface Water
Subsurface and surface water is generally anticipated to not significantly affect site
development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are properly
incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface
drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater
conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring
in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and
should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could
assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the
observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the
introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors.
Site Improvements
Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and construction can be provided
upon request. If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are
planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects
of design and construction of said improvements are recommended to be provided at that
time. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the site, or
trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading,
utility trench, and retaining wall backfills.
Footing Trench Excavation
All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to
trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the
observations is to verify that the excavations are made into the recommended bearing
material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose
or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or
removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended atthattime.
In general, deepened footings beyond the minimum depths indicated herein will likely be
recommended, and should be anticipated. The Client may want to consider having a
representative of GSI onsite at the start of foundation trenching to evaluate the depth to
competent bearing soils and provide recommendations for footing embedment to the
contractor performing the work. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from
utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent, if not removed from the site.
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.eoa GeoSoUs, Inc:.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
February 14, 2019
Page 11
Trenching
Considering the nature of the onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing
could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the
trench walls at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and
should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives
and minimally conform to Cal-OSHA and local safety codes.
Utility Trench Backfill
1. All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least optimum moisture
content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent
of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow (12-inch to 18-inch)
under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30, or greater, may be
utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing, and testing should
be provided to verify the desired results.
2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1 :1 plane
projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath
hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of
the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should
not be used in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along
with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results.
3. All trench excavations should conform to Cal-OSHA and local safety codes.
4. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass
below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass
through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the
structural engineer.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING
We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the
following construction stages:
• During grading/recertification.
• During significant excavation (i.e., higher than 4 feet).
• During placement of subdrains or other subdrainage devices, prior to placing fill
and/or backfill.
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.eoa GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
February 14, 2019
Page 12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls
footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete.
Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building
pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing
steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor retarders
(i.e., visqueen, etc.).
During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement.
During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches,
and retaining wall backfill.
During slope construction/repair .
When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction
operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report.
When any improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed .
A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the
conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear
documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements.
OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS
The design civil engineer, structural engineer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer,
etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those
recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report
part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of
slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria
should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural
engineer/designer. The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure
interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength,
stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to
develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other
influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should
consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the
structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as
minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that
some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has any
questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise
transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or
improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.eoa GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
February 14, 2019
Page 13
the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential
settlement and/or expansion characteristics and design criteria specified herein.
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed
representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between
excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site
conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors.
Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review, engineering analyses, and laboratory
data, the conclusions and recommendations presented herein are professional opinions.
These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and
no warranty is express or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.
This report has been prepared for the purpose of providing soil design parameters derived
from testing of a soil sample received at our laboratory, and does not represent an
evaluation of the overall stability, suitability, or performance of the property for the
proposed development. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing
performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be
onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this
report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined
above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report
may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to
completion our scope of services for this portion of the project.
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.eoa GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
February 14, 2019
Page 14
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Respectfully submitt
GeoSoils, Inc.
~~
Robert G. Crisman
Engineering Geologist,
RGC/DWS/JPF/jh
~~~
Civil Eng~~rcE 4
Attachments: Plates 1 and 2 -Slope Stability
Appendix -References
Distribution: (2) Addressee
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.eoa GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
February 14, 2019
Page 15
65
60
55
WAILES RENOVATION CRAWL SPACE SECTION 1 :1 SLOPE-STATIC
x:\shared\word perfect data\carlsbad\7500\7565 wailes\slope stability\3.pl2 Run By: GeoSoils, Inc. 1/29/2019 04:54PM
Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. II Load Value I Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface LI I 300 psf
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No.
Afe 1 115.0 127.0 100.0 32.0 0
# FS
a 1.541 b 1.541
C 1.580
d 1.616 e 1.629 l'----------_;__ _ __::..::...:..:..:__---=.:::.:.L. _ _:__ Cone 2 150.0 150.0 5000.0 35.0 0
f 1.642
g 1.671
h 1.671
i 1.682
a
LI
16
----"1---
50 • 1/ i;f ___ J,. i~ ' ~~
45
40 L.__ __ .L.._ __ .L.._ __ ~___J_c___~--~--~--~----;
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.541
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0
W.O. 7565-A-SC
PLATE 1
WAILES RENOVATION CRAWL SPACE SECTION 1: 1 SLOPE-SEISMIC
x:\shared\word perfect data\carlsbad\7500\7565 wailes\slope stability\crawl space janbu seismic.pl2 Run By: GeoSoils, Inc. 1/30/2019 08:46AM
65 r.======i:======i====:::::;-;::i:======i:===;-----r------r------r-----,
Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Load Value
Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface
No. (pct) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No.
Afe 1 115.g 127.0 100.0 32.0 0
Cone 2 150. 150.0 5000.0 35.0 0
LI 300 psf
Peak(A) 0.480(g)
kh Coe(. 0.150(g):<
60
LI 16
55 1
50 o 1: 10. y
45
"
40 c__ ____ .,__ ____ ..J..._ ____ __.___------''--'------'---"--------'-'-'-------'--------''----------'
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.273
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method for the case of c & phi both > 0
W.O. 7565-A-SC
PLATE2
40
APPENDIX
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 2014a, Building code requirements for structural concrete
(ACI 318-14), and commentary (ACI 318R-14): reported by ACI Committee 318,
dated September.
__ , 2014b, Building code requirements for concrete thin shells (ACI 318.2-14), and
commentary (ACI 318.2R-14), dated September.
__ , 2004, Guide for concrete floor and slab construction: reported by ACI Committee
302; Designation ACI 302.1 R-04, dated March 23.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1998, Standard practice for installation
of water vapor retarder used in contact with earth or granular fill under concrete
slabs, Designation: E 1643-98 (Reapproved 2005).
__ , 1997, Standard specification for plastic water vapor retarders used in contact with
soil or granular fill under concrete slabs, Designation: E 1745-97 (Reapproved
2004).
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2014, Supplement No. 2, Minimum design loads for
buildings and other structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10, dated
September 18.
__ , 2013a, Expanded seismic commentary, minimum design loads for buildings and
other structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10 (included in third printing).
__ , 2013b, Errata No. 2, minimum design loads for buildings and other structures,
ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10, dated March 31.
__ , 2013c, Supplement No. 1, minimum design loads for buildings and other structures,
ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10, dated March 31.
Blake, Thomas F., 2000, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak
horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version.
Building News, 1995, CAL-OSHA, State of California, Construction Safety Orders, Title 8,
Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, amended October 1.
California Building Standards Commission, 2016a, California Building Code, California
Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, based on the 2015 International
Building Code, 2016 California Historical Building code, Title 24, Part 8, 2016
California Existing Building Code, Title 24, Part 10, and the 2015 International
Existing Building Code.
GeoSoils, Inc.
RECEIVED
SEP 19 2019
• CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DIVISION Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmenlal
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com
TECHNICAL M E M O RA N D U M
Date: July 3, 2019 W.O. 7565-A-SC
To: Dr. Bob Wailes
c/o BGI Architecture
2091 Las Palmas Drive, Suite D
Carlsbad, California 92011
Attention: Mr. John Beery
From: Robert G. Crisman, CEG 1934
David W. Skelly, RCE 47857
Subject: Geotechnical Plan Review and Response to City Plan Review Comments,
Wailes Remodel, 2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California
References: 1. "2nd Review for CDP 2019-0008 (Dev2019-0051) -Wailes Remodel," dated June 3,
2019, by City of Carlsbad.
2. "Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 Zoning, Chapter 21.204 Coastal Shoreline
Development Overlay Zone, Section 21.204.110 Geotechnical Reports, dated May 2019,
by City of Carlsbad.
3. "Plans for: "Wailes Residence Remodel, 2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, CA. 92008,"
Sheets T-1, A-0.0, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, AC-1, and AD-1, J.N.1901, dated May 3, 2019, by
BGI Architecture.
4. "Soils Investigation, Allowable Bearing Value, Active, Passive Pressures, Lateral
Pressures, and Seismic Design Parameters, Proposed Remodel at 2729 Ocean Street,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 7565-A-SC, dated February 14, 2019, By
GeoSoils, Inc.
In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI), has reviewed the plan review
document provided by the City (see Reference No. 1, the relevant portions of the Municipal
Code (see Reference No. 2), and the referenced plans, and details (see Reference No 3)
with respect to the intent of the referenced geotechnical report (Reference No. 4) for this
project. Unless specifically superceded herein, the conclusions and recommendations
presented in Reference No. 4 remain valid and applicable.
Based on our review, the plans reviewed (Reference No. 3) appear to be in general
accordance with the intent of the geotechnical report (Reference No. 4), from a
geotechnical viewpoint.
In response to City plan check comments (Reference No. 1), GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI), has
reviewed the referenced documents with respect to the relevant sections of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code (see Reference No. 2), site conditions. Based on our review of these
items, it appears that these items focus on "new" construction, or additional construction
that significantly alters the existing ground surface, slope geometry, etc. Based on our
understanding of the planned scope of work, it appears that these items are generally not
applicable to this type of improvement and would be exempt from this level of site
evaluation, per Section 21.201.060 of the Municipal Code.
For ease of review, the applicable review comments from Reference No. 1 are presented
below. Items 1-15, indicated in Reference No. 1, per section 21.204.11 0(B), are attached,
with a response/comment to each item presented below.
Planning Comment No. 1
"Per section 21.204. 110(8) items 1 -15 (attached) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code are not
clearly identified in the geotechnical report. Please clarify how the report satisfies and/or
meets the requirements."
Response to Comment No. 1.
Acknowledged. GSI has reviewed Items 1 -15, presented in the referenced section of
Municipal Code (see Reference 2). Based on our review, the following comments are
provided. For ease of review, Item 1 -15 of section 21.204.11 0 (B) are attached.
Response to Item #1. through #4:
The site is an existing, developed residential property. The proposed remodel is typical
of interior remodel practices and is of no soil engineering significance with respect to the
coastal bluff. Site evaluations regarding these items have likely already been approved by
the City, in accordance with governing Codes at the time of original construction.
Response to Item #5:
The proposed residential remodel will not directly or indirectly cause, promote, or
encourage bluff erosion or failure, either on the site or the adjacent properties.
Response to Item #6:
The proposed residential remodel will not directly or indirectly result in adverse ground and
surface water conditions.
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.gpr GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
July 3, 2019
Page2
Response to Item #7:
The site is a developed residential property. The proposed interior residential remodel will
not directly or indirectly cause, promote, or encourage bluff erosion or failure, either on the
site or the adjacent properties.
Response to Item #8:
The site is a developed residential property, extending from Ocean Street to the existing
beach level. The proposed interior residential remodel will not directly or indirectly cause,
promote, or encourage marine erosion of the sea cliff, as a "sea cliff" is not present onsite.
Response to Item #9:
Seismic design parameters to be used in design are provided in Reference No. 4. An
evaluation of the potential effects of earthquakes at the site was likely evaluated as part of
the original site development, and would have been approved by the City at that time.
Based on our review, the existing structure, and planned improvements will be underlain
with dense formational soils. A review of regional geologic maps indicates that there does
not appear to be any "active" faulting underlying the site. Secondary seismic phenomena,
such as liquefaction, ground lurching, settlement, etc. was likely evaluated as part of
planning and construction of the existing structure. Based on our review, the planned
remodel will not increase the potential effects of earthquakes.
It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of an upper bound (maximum
probable) or credible earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong
ground shaking would occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any
structure(s) would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the
inertia of a structure's mass than from those induced by the hazards listed above. This
potential would be no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in
the immediate vicinity.
Conformance to the seismic design criteria presented in Reference No. 4 does not
constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that sig'nificant structural damage or ground
failure will not occur in the event of a large earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design
is to protect life, not to eliminate all damage, since such design may be economically
prohibitive. Cumulative effects of seismic events are not addressed in the 2016 CBC and
regular maintenance and repair following locally significant seismic events (i.e., M~.5) will
likely be necessary, as is the case in all of southern California.
Response to Item #10:
The proposed residential remodel will place no significant additional loading to the bluff,
and should have no adverse effect on the stability of the bluff.
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.gpr GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
July 3, 2019
Page3
Response to Item #11 :
The site is a developed residential property, extending from Ocean Street to near the
existing beach level. The proposed interior residential remodel appear to be located above
an elevation of about 30 feet above mean sea level, and should not be affected by sea
surface super elevations.
Response to Item #12:
The potential for damage due to dam/reservoir failure, offsite landsliding/mudflows is
considered nil.
Response to Item #13:
The site is a developed residential property. The proposed interior residential remodel will
not directly or indirectly cause, promote, or encourage an increased potential for damage
beyond what the existing residential structure has already been designed for, and subject
to in the future. See the response to Item #9 regarding seismic performance.
Response to Item #14:
The proposed residential remodel will place no significant additional loading to the bluff,
and should have no adverse effect on the stability of the bluff.
Response to Item #15:
Mitigating measures are not anticipated with respect to the planned interior remodel.
Conclusion
In our opinion, the planned interior remodel is adequately suited for this site and should
not contribute to any significant geologic instability tt"lroughout the life of the remodel.
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.gpr GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
July 3, 2019
Page4
Closure
The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are professional opinions. These
opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no
warranty is express or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI
assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their
inaction, or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our
recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an
agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding
any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to
review by the controlling authorities.
Attachment: Section 21.204.11 O (8) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
Dr. Bob Wailes
2729 Ocean Street, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp9\7500\7565a.gpr GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7565-A-SC
July 3, 2019
Page5
21.204. UO Geotechnical reports. http://www.qcode.us/codes/carlsbad/view.php?topic=2l-2l_204-2 ...
l of2
Carlsbad Municipal Code
!,lp Prexious .ttext Main Search frint No Frames
Title 21 ZONING
Chapter 21.204 COASTAL SHOREUNE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE
21.204~110 Geotechnical reports.
A. Geotechnical reports shall be submitted to the city planner as part of an application for plan approval.
Geotechnical reports shall be prepared and signed by a professional civil engineer with expertise in soils
and foundation engineering, and a certified engineering geologist or a registered geologist with a
background in engineering applications. The report document shall consist of a single report, or separate
but coordinated reports. The document should be based on an onsite inspection in addition to a review of
the general character of the area and it shall contain a certification that the development as proposed will
have no adverse effect on the stability of the bluff and will not endanger life or property, and professional
opinions stating the following:
1. The area covered in the report is sufficient to demonstrate the geotechnical hazards of the site
consistent with the geologic, seismic, hydrologic and soil conditions at the site;
2. The extent of potential damage that might be incurred by the development during all foreseeable
normal and unusual conditions, including ground saturation and shaking caused by the maximum
credible earthquake;
3. The effect the project could have on the stability of the bluff.
@ As a minimum the geotechnical report(s) shall consider, describe and analyze the following:
1. Cliff geometry and site topography, extending the surveying work beyond the site as needed to
depict unusual geomorphic conditions that might affect the site.
2. Historic, current and foreseeable cliff erosion including investigation of recorded land surveys
and tax assessment records in addition to the use of historic maps and photographs where available
and possible changes in shore configuration and sand transport.
3. Geologic conditions, including soil, sediment and rock types and characteristics and structural
features, such as bedding, joints and faults.
4. Evidence of past or potential landslide conditions, the implications of such conditions for the
proposed development, and the potential effects of the development on landslide activity.
5. Impact of construction activity on the stability of the site and adjacent area.
6. Ground and surface water conditions and variations, including hydro logic changes caused by the
development (i.e., introduction of sewage effluent and irrigation water to the ground water system,
alterations in surface drainage).
7. Potential erodibility of site and mitigating measures to be used to ensure minimized erosion
problems during and after construction (i.e., landscaping and drainage design).
8. Effects of marine erosion on seacliffs.
9. Potential effects of earthquakes including:
a. Ground shaking caused by maximum credible earthquake;
b. Ground failure due to liquefaction, lurching, settlement and sliding; and
c. Surface rupture.
10. Any other factors that might affect slope stability.
11. The potential for flooding due to sea surface super elevation (wind and wave surge, low
6/26/2019, 11:39 AM
21.204.'l 10 Geotechnical reports. http:/ /www.qcode.us/codes/carlsbad/view.php?topic=21-21 _204-2 ...
2 of2
barometric pressure and astronomical tide), wave run-up, tsunami and river flows. This potential
should be related to one-hundred and five-hundred-year recurrence intervals.
12. A description of any hazards to the development caused by possible failure of dams, reservoirs,
mudflows or slides occurring off the property and caused by forces or activities beyond the control of
the applicant.
13. The extent of potential damage that might be incurred by the development during all foreseeable
normal and unusual conditions, including ground saturation and shaking caused by the maximum
credible earthquake.
14. The effect the project could have on the stability of the bluff.
15. Mitigating measures and alternative solutions for any potential impact.
The report shall also express a professional opinion as to whether the project can be designed or located so
that it will neither be subject to nor contribute to significant geologic instability throughout the lifespan of
the project. The report shall use a currently acceptable engineering stability analysis method, shall describe
the degree of uncertainty of analytical results due to assumptions and unknowns, and at a minimum, shall
cover an area from the toe of the bluff inland to a line described on the bluff top by the intersection of a
plane inclined at a twenty-degree angle from horizontal passing through the toe of the bluff or fifty feet
inland from the bluff edge, whichever is greater. The degree of analysis required shall be appropriate to the
degree of potential risk presented by the site and the proposed project. If the report does not conclude that
the project can be designed and the site be found to be geologically stable, no coastal shoreline
development permit shall be issued. (Ord. CS-164 § 10, 2011; Ord. NS-365 § 22, 1996)
View the mobile version.
6/26/2019, 11:39 AM