The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2687 GATEWAY RD; RW; CB080042; Permit02-27-2008 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Retaining Wall Permit Permit No CB080042 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address Permit Type Parcel No Valuation Reference # Project Title 2687 GATEWAY RD CBAD St RW RETAIN 2131910600 Lot# 0 $17,04600 Construction Type NEW BRESSI VILL 947 SF RET WALL Applicant LNR CPI BRESSI RETAIL L L C C/O LNR PROPERTY CORP 4350 VON KARMAN AVE #200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 Status Applied Entered By Plan Approved Issued Plan Check* Inspect Area Owner LNR CPI BRESSI RETAIL L L C C/O LNR PROPERTY CORP 4350 VON KARMAN AVE #200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 ISSUED 01/03/2008 JMA 02/27/2008 02/27/2008 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Strong Motion Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $17595 $000 $11437 $000 $1 70 $000 $000 $000 $000 $292 02 Total Fees $292 02 Total Payments To Date $292 02 Balance Due $000 BUILDING PLANS -k_ IN STORAGE ATTACHED Inspector Clearance NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the Imposition' of lees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fpes/exactions" You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a). and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3 32 030 Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this projeot NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired City of Carlsbad Ti:;.r.o:':-:LV .-:^:I.B, i'-, .it Building Permit Application ! Plan Cl< Deposit i Date M UV—-* i- or, &:::. c,uui;r VACAWT '-A UP iSHDPPlKJG (^.« ~ I y~z D Nn a ' i LOfJIAC'i' NAWi.: (/rjj iLJ^^ sr.£_.aD_ lAiOOSQJZfeifl&Bl^^OSl ||sSj4(6-ql'^O i'rfe>Sft)4-SD-y^gQg__. " Q3j^^ i miii:.-. ir:lri::ni: s:.: a. r,.t P^^^^-^s^av^^Jto,^^L..itf^&^.rwtf^.»g^Kjjyrjt^.^^AJ^^jEi.i^";^ ^^r-^^.^-.^:^T-^\^jjrL.:-^-^^^^^I;:^;^^^ ! I navfi snri wili inaT.uSiM - ceratiC3i» ci ssnssvii;- 52!nr.sijrs ic wen's... ci'.TT/= .! rnve en:i w.!i ira.riJi.r, wcrK r C3.*rasii slio,' a .ij:-"L:!.'::-::i:-1. Sas;i~ i ;:.7C.-j c; l! "in:l F--..JD'. H5r j fKI: L*rr CO.T:!jl=T 3 C-srancsL c: zxemcuor, i riii WAfiN.'MC raifua ]nv c-,=3::£:i ;?/L-jc:n=LSf CO ?* I:*.-.: ttftY. \C- lor ^ i",Si ;.i !ri3 r^f scjjre wc-rWfr: i=d Cff.u'S i'il J-'-i Or ;'=^; o' l/t. w;.v: 7i:-- v,r:sr. tfiis t.-jfn ' .* fiajuC I c.-'ai fi=! ranaw an-,1 OuTsof; if? siv m.^in --c t': cavsrace ;s ijfjiawi:.1 arrd sna.:! SUPJC.-I an cmDbvc.k w =",T;-D! pena'bss V<D 7GD of t ; Ta- SUSK™ w !n V.'owsrc CO-K-^M^C^ LEV.-.I oi iwi nnca u= ii one hjfiflfEc1 rnousana aaJiers fi10-: 005; .,..^ , . ^ .—--.. ...-, ^-.-... - ... ^ / ,•)& sicr5i7j,777 i/Ja?,- on cvsmsf worn Conrfscwi LILIES ;'.rv ;.:>"*iT.- fui'.-iWi,1::? fsara*: ~ i Ei; awne.'nf n.. Qfo&-.n-' c.rnr'e'TiQiovirSs wiji waasr. s.~ !n=:r sao crvnEKfisiL::.11 wil: o-^ ii::i work STd In-- Hrusiuru is ncl inianoar: crofiefod u~ E3!i [tisc '/QJ4 :J'.irjne.-^ and ^loiri.-scn Goc.. " Ljcsrai: LsivRcss noi a;j;i;i.' 10 an owixr-i ni yozttw wio riU.ris o.1 ;;^.~!ovfi5 Insffccr. wiu wr.:i dans suci'. woi?. lurnseli or L^i jj".i lii-iawi 5;i;.i.'ov=t5_ oiovin-'C Irrj; ajc; imrjinvsrnsri!."; ata fie;'. SiisnnKi o; n:ii:foc; ic- :;a=: J;' rinws-.'e l,ir fiuorw c." frrarnvGiiurr; ic saa winrr, one yer^rc; ajmn^aci &]» rwnDr njicer wi.i n^^a in:; curdan r-r w^m '.nzi ns a:ri no' IIU.M or irnnrcr/L: for tie Duruose r., E=J=; " : & [juTf-J cf (ii5 nrcrrtriv srr, c-xcJi-E.-vHly nrfiL'scun? wi:r: I-cuna-rf comrscicrt to uonsiruc! me c/o-sd fSa 7L^- f):J3t;fj£x; snj Proia-raioria ODCS Tns '>n:rr..!C'-p Liasn-a: I.HW 033.. nai spniv id s:i OWTE! L:: p'ffiKiTi' HTi-iJi'H.'ww crarorovv-r trarsor; ani cnnii'.'Kfs 1C' tucfi cro/ej! w;n conirci-fCi't.1;.! (icsfiaa ca'^-anl :c 1,1= CaWKi::.~s Li:;ensj Law) .71 : arr. exnTO: L'r.a.^. LKKIIO-" 5-,;!an!iE; and ••'raiesaons OHJ:T :c-r !fiig r=E?^on 1 i aaioj-.pj y pis"i ID p:oviae iiis major lay* ^ r-si^nol?; io? cons:;us-j[:n of Ins p'ODOBsa Dicp£:-ny im:rjioyprrt'1n'. CF Yss n to 2.1 (iiavc/nsvfi nci) fsanEs a,-. Ennlicalic". icr E Rj/dins PD.TTIJI Ic'Li:; Ofncasedwaf i (n3Wi cari^acirai win tile ToilnwiUj p-xsor< (nnr) ;o crnvjns i.ie prcpOBed coniTrJ^iion (iriaudfa nsirifi adfKCK / pnona / coniraclcru nix.'iEi; numi3erj ••! I p'fln ic providb IXMUWIS rf fna won. DW • havv: fiirtd :no ibijowing p£?rrar, ic coc;a'ir;a!:; surewse and p-ovins,- tie majt:-r wort; (indude n .TIE .' aa'sies: / prrait J r=.f:j-£ciH-,r: jjrc.iss nunsori 5 ! w,i c:nv:ufi sorriS of ths wor>, buj! hava .w-ja-isc fniind.! ln= i'ofic.w.^g pc-rsins !r, DIBWICIS in= wo* inncaed (in^iuds name; adarocc / KiDnEi / tyrs L.I WOTK; ssLrfl aop!.sanl or tuiure bu;!ci-ng occupail required ID ajD.7ii| a buanBSSplar. acuifliy nazardDus maisnaJs rogiGualion lonr cv"n£Kf7ian;agomsn:Kndp(evBnlJo,rinic>t}ra'nuna&',SociJonn 255Ci 25^33 or2553J of ine i^fsa'ey Tanner Haza."nouc Substance Acccunl Act? D Yes D No Is Ins apsranl tr f!j-;jro buildinfi occuDanl raq'jifEd to wlan a peini.1 from ins ar po-luLan conlroi distnd cv air quafiiy mafraggmenl drstfid? D Yes d No Js lie jxsiiy )o oe consiiJciBd VMLTJ.T ; DOC fsc! oJ Ifw ou;&" bou.!wafy cf 3 smool a;6? ^ Yos 3 No IF ANY Or'THE ANSWERS ARE YES A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCIPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUSEM5NTS Or THE OFFICE OF EMER3ENSY SERVICES AND THE AIR PQLLLmON CONTROL DISTRICT i haraby aifirmtfiatir.sreJE s consuustion jendins s^sncy for !hs psncrmance of tiis work tins perm is issued [Se= 3C97 [ij Cwi! LsnaSf's Name Lender's Address D above inforniauon is rarred ar.U CIBItns irrDnnslJD.'i on tne plsns Is accuratt. I sgiiM to corrip'r*"Jfltn all CriYarnrnancEii and Si3ic laws raianng a buiriiing cansayciicn e cf Ins Cfiy of Cariiad u ema- UDCfl tne above nfcnborisi prepany for nspeoKO pupose-i I ALSO AGf^EE TO SAVE. 1NDEMJIFY Ar-iD KE;?1 KAR/»UESS 1 HE CITY DF CARLS3AD AGWW3T AU. LJA3IU1IES JUDSMff.TS COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH WY IN ANYWAY ACC^LJ'S A-GAJNST SAID CITY IN CONSEOJENC- OF THE G.=WNT1N3 O= THIS PERMT CSK*.. An OSii's para* is fsHiur'K' fcr Dxsr^toons twers^' f>jes r-rid riemotfia-i cr canstu^on c; rtij^ajsc a/sr 3 series r height EXP/RATJO.V ri^"/parntfi tf-sjed b~f sne Bu/Hrc OfliaiV(inasr jjeptJ^JjjfiscfUTijCo-jasiialfixntrs^t^jriori andbocoms nufandwtii'Tivs (xii'i.ibigrrvoff'E-'ihsissdby a>npamr isnouvrfryriajd wirm 1ftlj JajsM.'n hr SJIE c1' KJCT penns f f fl -SB hM'mg cf w/y araMfi^sfj oy a,") pa.';:1! J a-'oxjf/asd cr Tr.arAorf-a s'. any fcmfi w?/1 frs unri' a corT^DdJ'JCfed ?cr a f^iod cr 133 days ('Sartor; 7 it 4 4 unn&iT aifiioirc Coos";. City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Ave , Carlsbad CA 92008 760-602-2717 /.2718 7,2719 Fax 760-602-8558 Building Permit Application Plan Check No Est. Value Plan Ck Deposit Date JOB ADDRESS OT /PROJECT*LOT*PHASE <t * OF UNITS * BEDROOMS SUITE*f/SPACE«/UNIT# * BATHROOMS I TENANT BUSINESS NAME APN - CONSTR TYPE - OCC GROUP I DESCRIPTION OF WORK EXISTING USE PROPOSED USE GARAGE (SF) CONTACT NAME (If Different Fom Applicant) UDDRESS IciTY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX EMAIL PROPERTY OWNER NAME <\DDRESS CITV STATE ZIP PHONE 1 FAX | EMAIL ARCH/DESIGNER NAME* ADDRESS STATE LIC # PATIOS (SF) DECKS (SF) FIREPLACE YES D # APPLICANT NAME AIR CONDITIONING FIRE SPRINKLERS NO O YES D NO D YES D NO D ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PHONE F EMAIL AX CONTRACTOR BUS NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PHONE : F EMAIL STATE LIC # C AX LASS CITY BUS LIC # Sec 703 1 5 Business and Professions Code Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance also requires the applicant for such permit to fie a signed statement that he is censed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor s License Law {Chapter 9 commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Coie} or that he is exempt therefrom and the basis for the alleged enemption Any violation of ection 703 1 5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars {$500}) -.;.;• • :.:. • .-L-.-^ -.!'.:. _••..-•.•; r ;;..vU^"\?-v'iU:!:-;-i: ;- •• 1 •• •: •'•,'-'.\ Workers Compensation Declaration / hereby affirm under penalty ofperiury one of the following declarations O lhaveandwillmaintama certificate of consent to self insure for workers compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued L! I have and will maintain workers' compensation as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued My workers compensation insurance carrier and policy number are Insurance Co . Policy No Expiration Date Thissect'on need not he completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less O Certificate of Exemption I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers Compensation Laws of Ca'iforma WARNING Failure to secure workers compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars (S100.000), in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code interest and attorney's fees >£$" CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE DATE eby affirm that I sm evempf from Contractor s License Law for the following reason I as owner of 'ho property or my employees wilh wages as their solo compensation vdl do the- work and the structure is net mlendec or offered for sale (Sec 7044 Business and Professions Code The Contractor s License Law dees no! apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon and who does such work himself or through his own employees provided that such improvements are no! intended or offered for sa'e If however the building or improvement is sold within one yea' of completion the owner builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sate) I as owner o'the property am exclusively contracting with licensed contractor to const'tic! !he project (Sec 7044 Business and Professions Code The Con'-ac.tO'S License I aw does not apply !o an owner of prODerty who billys or improves thereon rind contracts for such projects with contracfor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor s License Law) I am exempt unrler Section Business and Professions Code fcr 'his reason 1 I person<=l'y nlan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property in-provemenl n Yes "3 No 2 I (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work 3 I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name address.' phone / contractors license number) 4 I plan to provide portions of the work but I have hired the fol'owmg person to coordinate supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone / contractors license number) 5 ' will provide SOTO of the work hut I have contracted (hired) the fnllownp p^T-nrs to nrovirlo !he work indicated (include name / address / phone / tyoo n( work) .^PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE | IP the applicant or future building occupant regirrc-d to submit a business plan acutoly ha/ardous materials registration form or risk managemenl and prevention program under Sections 25505 25533 or 2553'' of the 't Presley Tanner Hazardous Substance Account AcP D Yes -3 No . Is the applicant or future bmlcfing occupan! required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air rjualily managemenl district' Cl Yes D No • Is the- facility to be consl.'ucted within 1 000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site7 D Yes ~l No IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES , EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT • I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec 3097 (i) Civil Code) Lender s Name Lender s Address I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction I hereby authonze representative of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned properly for inspection purposes I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES. JUDGMENTS. COSTS KlklD EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT OSHA An OSHA permit is required for exMvatronsdfr^deep and demolition or constmction of structures over 3 stones in height l undeMhe provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within iorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days (Section 106 4 4 Uniform Building Code) | EXPIRATION Every permit issued by the j 180 days from the date of such permit or > APPLICANT S SIGNATURE / DATE ^_3y 2002> Inspection List Permit# CB080042 Type RETAIN BRESSIVILL 947 SF RET WALL Date Inspection Item Inspector Act Comments 09/15/200869 Final Masonry - Rl CAN YOU FINAL THIS PERMIT? OR SEND LTR? 09/15/200869 Final Masonry PC AP 04/18/200866 Grout PC AP 04/16/200866 Grout PC PA 104/09/2008 61 Footing RB AP Tuesday, September 16, 2008 Page 1 of 1 UNSCHEDULED BUILDING INSPECTION //!/?DATE // /X ^ < INSPECTOR^ /" PERMIT # Q^> ^H 2- PLAN CHECK # JOB ADDRESS DESCRIPTION CODE DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For 04/09/2008 Permit# CB080042 Title BRESSI VILL 947 SF RET WALL Description Inspector Assignment 2687 GATEWAY RD RW Lot Type RETAIN Sub Type Job Address Suite Location OWNER LNR CPI BRESSI RETAIL L L C Owner Remarks Phone 7605184437 Inspector Total Time CD Description 61 Footing Act Comment Comments/Notices/Holds Requested By DAVE Entered By JANEAN Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# Inspection History Date Description Act Insp Comments -' _FOOTING OBSERVATION SUMMARY I.eighton and Associates, Inc Project Name Date M- "7- Locatlon Project No Plan File No Permit No Umt/Phase/Lot(s) Referenced Geotechnical Report(s) Observation Summary Initials A representative of Leighton and Associates observed onsite soil conditions Soil conditions at Date lne Slte are substantially in conformance with those assumed in the geotechnical report Initials A representative of Leighton and Associates observed and measured footing excavation depth/width Footing excavations extend to proper depth and bearing strata and are in general Date conformance with recommendations of the geotechnical report Initials A representative of Leighton and Associates measured footing setback from slope face The ^ Date setback was in general accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report Initials BL» \ftn-. ^ ,y...v\ 1-.,^.-^^ ftoigA' r*V _ Vv /VgP*. .. <\' Date ~ Notes to Superintendent/Foreman 1 Footing excavations should be cleaned of loose debris and thoroughly moistened just prior to placing concrete 2 Based on expansion potential of underlying soils, presoakmg of soil below slabs may be recommended Consult the geotechnical report for presoakmg recommendations We note that clayey soils may take an extended period of time and the contractor should schedule accordingly 3 In the event of a site change subsequent to our footing observation and prior to concrete placement (i e , heavy ram, etc ), we should be contacted to perform additional site observations Note to Building Inspector 1 Soil compaction test results, including depth of fill, relative compaction, bearing values, and soil expansion index test results are contained in the As-Graded Geotechnical Report provided at the completion of grading For Leighton,a'nd Associates, Inc - - Date\*s White - File Yellow - Client Gold - Field " " 3930 R/WOS C 27 Othce Locations Orange County Corporate Branch 2992 E La Raima Avenue Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel 714 632 2999 Fax 714 632 2974 San Diego Imperial County 6295 Ferris Square Suite C San Diego. CA 92121 Tel 8585373999 Fax 858 537 3990 Inland Empire 14467 Meridian Parkway Building 2A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel 951 653 4999 Fax 9516534666 Indlo 44917 Golf Center Parkway Suite 1 Indlo. CA 92201 Tel 7603424677 rax: 760.3424525 OC/LA/lnland Empire Dispatch 8004912990 San Diego Dispatch 888 844 5060 www mtglmc com FINAL REPORT FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION AND MATERIAL TESTING Geotechnical Engineering Construction Inspection Materials Testing Environmental Date December 15,2008 To City of Carlsbad (c/o Mr. Jay Jordan) Public Works - Engineering 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, CA 92008 MTGL Project No. 1424-A20 MTGL Log No. 08-2180 SUBJECT SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF WORK REQUIRING SPECIAL INSPECTION AND MATERIAL TESTING. PERMIT NO- CB080042 (Site Retaining Wall) PROJECT NAME/ADDRESS: Bressi Ranch Village Center / 2687 Gateway Road Carlsbad, California I declare under penalty of perjury that, to the best of ray knowledge, the work requiring special inspection, material sampling and testing, for the structure/s constructed under the subject permit is in conformance with the approved plans, the inspection and observation program and other construction documents, and the applicable workmanship provisions of the Uniform Building Code Executed on: December 15,2008 The work which we provided Special Inspection/Testing consisted of* Reinforcing Steel, Concrete, and Masonry. A. If the inspection services were provided by an approved material testing laboratory or special inspection agency TESTING AGENCY: MTGL, me 7313 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 RESPONSIBLE MANAGING ENGINEER OF THE TESTING LABORATORY OR SPECIAL INSPECTION AGENCY: NAME (PRINT OR TYPE). Eduardo C. Dizon / MTGL, Inc State of California Registration Number C 57217 Expiration Date 12/31/09 B) If the inspection services were provided by an independent certified special inspector NASPECIAL INSPCETOR'S NAME (PRINT OR TYPE). Registration Number Expiration Date SIGNATURE i L—AA/< CL-iOwO^ cc Mr. Jeff Williams / LNR Property Corporation Mr David Obnen / Grant General Contractors www mtglmc com Corporate 2992 E La Raima Ave Anaheim OA 92806 Tel 7146322999 Fax 714 632 2974 Dispatch 800 491 2990 San Diego/Imperial Countyr Ste A 7313 Carroll Rd Ste G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel 8585373999 Fax 858 537 3990 Dispatch 8888445060 DAILY INSPECTION REPORT Inland Empire 14467 Meridian Pkwy Bldg 2-A Riverside CA92518 Tel 951 653 4999 Fax 951 653 4666 Dispatch 800 491 2990 DSA/CITY File #.MTGL Project # Permit #. Report #_ Special Inspection Reports must be distributed to the parties listed below within 14 days of the inspection Reports of non-compliant conditions must be distributed immediately Separate reports shall be prepared for each type of special inspection, on a daily basis Each report shall be completed and signed by the special inspector conducting the inspection P6 DF DSA/OSHPO APPL #. DSA/LEA# PROJECT NAME DATE Ih ARCH1TFC TIMt ARRIVED r DEPARTED ENUNH-R TRAVEL TIMf-LUNCH IIMt fi/A- CONTRACTOR SUU CONTRACTOR INSPECTION ADDRFSS (xaJrv wc\V ADDRESSOFPROJECI TYPE OF INSPECTION r ENGINEERED FILL i FOUNDATION _ BACK FILL I BATCH PLANT F PT CONCRETE I SHOTCRETE Z CONCRETE J MASONRY i~l HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING I. WELDING r SHOP WELD j FIREPROOFING' L ANCHOR/DOWEL r MDE FIELD "i NDE SHOP H CEILING WIRE xf &, fU(^ L OSA/OSHPD/PROJECT APPROVED DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE APPROVED PLANS Y y N H SOIL REPORT Y _ N J SPECS APPROVED SHOP DRAWING YL NL MAT/RIALS USED BY CONIRACTOR (INCLUDE RESEARCH PFPORT NO OR MATERIAL II ST REPORTS) c\v» C^yrA^/-, .Heel -/-, CONIRACTORS EQUIPMENT / MANPOWER USED AREA GRID LINES PIECES INSPECTFD •1 /». i '/> \ "\ r\o J STRUCTURAL NOTFS DETAIL OR RFIS USED IX 0\ r^ v\ \ REMARKS INCLUDING MCETINGS ^flf Cr>yn->pr\ /7 nl *, Jo r r . i^<%1io /or J ~7 T~/• & REWORK AS PERCENT OF ALL WORK TODAY PERCENT PROJECT COMPLETE THE WORK WAS ^WAS NOT I , Inspected in accordance with the requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PRQJECT, approved documents "~ MATERIAL SAMPLING WASU WAS NOT I N/A~ Performed in accordance with DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents cc Project Architect Contractor Structural Engineer Building Department DSA Regional Office Owner School District THE WORK INSPECTED MET'X'DID NOT MEET I THE requirements of the DSA/OSHPD/PROJECT approved documents Samples taken ' Weather_ . £_I,j>i..A*-/ __ Temp "?-o*/^- Signature of Special Inspector Print Name CertificatiorV** v Verified by EsGil Corporation In (Partnership with government for (RuiCding Safety DATE 2/21/08 a APPLICANT a JURIS JURISDICTION City of Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO 08O042 SET II PROJECT ADDRESS El Fuerte and Gateway Street PROJECT NAME Retaining Walls for Bressi Ranch Village Center IXI The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck The check list transmitted herewith is for your information The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to XI Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Person contacted Telephone # Date contacted (by ) Fax # Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS By David Yao Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 2/13 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 ^ San Diego, California 92123 ^ (858)560-1468 ^ Fax (858) 560-1576 EsGii Corporation In Partnership with government for <BuiCtfmg Safety DATE 1/16/O8 JURISDICTION City of Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO 080042 SET I PROJECT ADDRESS El Fuerte and Gateway Street PROJECT NAME Retaining Walls for Bressi Ranch Village Center The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck XI The check list transmitted herewith is for your information The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person XI The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to Mike Merrill 1717 Kettner Blvd Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92101 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed X] Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed Person contacted /Mikp Merrill Telephone # 858-410-9760 (0 ft- Date contacted Uf /^by/H^ Fax # 858-450-4609 // " Mail Telephone v Faxv In Person REMARKS By David Yao Enclosures Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 1/8 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 4 (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 City of Carlsbad O8O042 1/16/08 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST COMMERCIAL PLAN CHECK NO O8O042 OCCUPANCY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA SPRINKLERS'? REMARKS DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED 1/16/O8 JURISDICTION City of Carlsbad USE retaining walls ACTUAL AREA 947 sf of wall STORIES HEIGHT OCCUPANT LOAD DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION 1/8 PLAN REVIEWER David Yao FOREWORD (PLEASE READ)- This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the International Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or other departments Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit Code sections cited are based on the 2007 CBC, which adopts the 2006 IBC The following items listed need clarification, modification or change All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations Per Sec 105 4 of the 2006 International Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law To speed up the recheck process, please note on In is list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i e . plan sheet number, specification section, etc Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans City of Carlsbad O80O42 1/16/O8 Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list Submit three new complete sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects) For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways 1 Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave , Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602- 2700 The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments 2 Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468 Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments NOTE Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments unlil review by EsGil Corporation is complete 1 All sheets of the plans and the first sheet of the calculations are required to be signed by the licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation 2 Provide a statement on the Title Sheet of the plans, stating that this project shall comply with the 2007 California Building Code which adopts the 2006 IBC 3 Show on the Title Sheet all buildings, structures, walls, etc included under this application Any portion of the project shown on the site plan that is not included with the building permit application filed should be clearly identified as "not included" on the site plan or Title Sheet Sec 106 1 1 (The retaining wall located at west end of the site appears to not part of this permit Please clearly noted on the plan and remove sheet R-2 from the set) 4 Provide a copy of the project soil report prepared by a licensed civil engineer The report shall include foundation design recommendations based on the engineer's findings (Leiqhton and assoc including the recommendation for the retaining wall) 5 Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated into the plans (when required by the soil report) 6 The soils engineer recommended that he/she review the foundation excavations Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that (if applicable) a) The foundation excavations comply with the intent of the soils report" 7 Show distance from foundation to edge of cut or fill slopes ("distance-to- dayhght") and show slope and heights of cuts and fills Figure 1805 3 1 City of Carlsbad O8OO42 1/16/08 8 A Statement of Special Inspections, prepared by the registered design professional in responsible charge, shall be submitted This statement shall include a complete list of materials and work requiring special inspection, the inspections to be performed and an indication whether the special inspection will be continuous or periodic Section 1705 2 9 The drainage requirement from the soil report for the retaining wall shall be specified on the plan 10 Does the retaining wall design computer program comply with 2007 CBC? Allowable stress design? Strength design? Please clarify 11 Sheet 5 of the calculation shows the heel width for the 6 feet retaining wall is 3 5 feet The table on sheet S1 of the plan shows 3'-0" heel for the 6 feet wall Please check 12 To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, i e , plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc 13 Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located in the plans Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate a Yes Q No 14 The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123, telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact David Yao at Esgil Corporation Thank you City of Carlsbad 080042 1/16/O8 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO 080042 PREPARED BY David Yao DATE 1/16/O8 BUILDING ADDRESS El Fuerte and Gateway Street BUILDING OCCUPANCY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION BUILDING PORTION retaining walls Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code AREA ( Sq Ft ) 947 cb Blda Permit Fee by Ordinance ^ Valuation Multiplier 1774 By Ordinance Reg Mod VALUE ($) 16,800 16,800 $16755 Plan Check Fee by Ordinance Type of Review ] Repetitive Fee~~| Repeats Comments Complete Review D Other r-1 Hourly Structural Only Hour* Esgil Plan Review Fee $10891 $9383 Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue doc i n e e r i n g BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALL BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER CB/){? fy? 87BUILDING ADDRESS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Retaining Wall ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal, therefore, any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build Date DENIAL Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked with Or Make necessary corrections to plans or ^specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review ATTACHMENTS Right-of-Way Permit Application ENGINEERING DEPT CONTACT PERSON NAME JOANNE JUCHNIEWICZ City of Carlsbad ADDRESS 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 ~ PHONE (760) 602-2775 HAWO.pD\pOCS\CHKl yi'qil Rt»i(iinQ Pigncheck CMs' Form -J- 1635 Faraday Avenue « Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 « (760) 6O2-2720 « FAX (76O) 6O2-8562 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALLS •jST/ Q Q oND/ Q Q 1 Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale Show A North Arrow B Existing & Proposed Structun (dimensioned from street} C Property Lines 2 Show on site plan A Drainage Patterns B Existing & proposed Slopes C Existing Topography 3 Include on title sheet A Site Address B Assessor's Parcel Number C Legal Description D Grading Quantities Cut D E Easements Retaining Wall (location and height) Fill Import/Export (Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required) Q Q 4 Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No Conditions were complied with by Date MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 5 A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way A separate Right-of-Way issued by the Engineering Department is required for the following Please obtain an application for Right of-Way permit from the Engineering Department Page 1 \\l_ASPALMAS\SYS\UBRARY\ENG\WORD\DOCSVCHKLST\Retainirig Wall Building Plancheck Cklsl Form JJ doc PLANNING/ENGINEERING APPROVALS PERMIT NUMBER DATE ADDRESS RESIDENTIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR PLAZA CAMINO REAL (<$10,000.00) CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES POOL / SPA RETAINING WALL VILLAGE FAIRE COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING OTHER PLANNER ENGINEER DATE DATE i 7 Structural Engineers Calculations for 6146 A 7*1 Site Retaining Walls El Fuerte and Gate way Street Carlsbad, CA MASCARI WARNER ARCHITECTS 17117 Kettner Blvd., Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 6t9-814-0080 Fax 619-814-008! Structural Engineers Project Bressi Ranch Village Center Engr G Tubach Sheet [ GSSI No 6146A Date 11/28/2007 Concrete Block Retaining Wall Design Wall Level Backfill ? Wall Ht , H Upper Wall Height Lower Wall Height Wall slope Upper Wall Thickness = Lower Wall Thickness fm' n = Special Inspection Wall Design Moment @ Wall base = Rebar size, WallRebar Rebar Spacing As, Wallsteel Effective depth, dwall P, pWall k j <b Fs Wall Stability Horizontal Force, Pa = Overturning, Mot = Factor of Safety Uppei wall = Lower wall = Lower wall = Soil, Si Footing Key Vert Comp of Hoi iz Force = Yes Yes or No 10.0 feet 4.0 feet 6 0 feet 8 0 inches 16 0 inches 1500 psi 258 Yes 13,500 ft-lbs #6 "V" rebars 8 in 0 66 mA2 per foot 13 3 inches 00042 03679 08774 476 psi 21 1 ksi 4,773 plf 19,838 ft-lbs 1 5 331 x 350 = 496 x 350 = 496 x 406 = 5790 x 667 = 2138 x 475 = 900 x 075 = 10,150 1591 x 950 = Design Parameters Concrete Strength, fc = Reinforcement, fy Wall Weight Soil wt qall Active Soil Pressure = Surcharge (uniform) = Friction Coefficient, u = Passive Pressure = Lateral Load Height of Lateral Load = Footing Footing Width, B Footing Thickness, T = Toe Heel Key Depth Key Thickness = Key Toe Use 16" concrete block wall w/#6vert@8"o.c. Ma,iow=14181 ft-lbs/ft 1158 1738 2013 38607 10153 675 54,345 15113 69,458 > 29,756 Okay 3000 psi 60,000 psi 124 pcf 110 pcf 2000 psf 60 pcf 70 psf 035 75 pcf Olbs 0 feet 9.50 feet 18 inches 3 17 feet 5 00 feet 4.00 feet 18.0 inches 0.00 feet 10 foot retaining wall with truck wheel loading xls Page ^GSSI Structural Engineers Project Bressi Ranch Village Center Engr G Tubach Sheet GSSI No 6146A Date 11/28/2007 Check Sliding Fnctional Resistance Pp Pp, Key Moment, Key MuKey, Key effective depth Ku, Mu*12/(phi*bdA2) p, pKey As, mm @ wall.AsKey Rebar size, KeyRebar As, KeySteel Vertical remforement 3552 84 Sum = 3637 < 4773 1134 Sum = 4687 < 4773 2500 ft-lbs 4250 ft-lbs = 14 0 inches 24 psi 0 0004 0 09 mA2 per foot #5 "K" rebars 031 mA2 per foot = 413 inches on centei Pi ovide shear key Okay Check Soil Bearing Pressure a=(RM-OTM)/Total Wt 3*a e q, if 3*a<B Footing @ Heel Heel Arm Soil Pressure @ HeelArm qs, Soil Pressure qi Moment Heel, Mheel Mu, Heel, Wheel*! 7 Effective depth, Footing Ku,Mu*12/(phi*bdA2) p, pHeel As, mm @ wall.AsHeel Rebar size, HeelRebai As, HeelSteel Vertical lemfoiement 3 40 feet 102 >B Check qmax 1 4 feet < Hallow 00 feet 11 16 psf 958 psf 10,589 ft-lbs 14,824 ft-lbs = 155 inches = 69 psi 00012 0 29 mA2 per foot #5 "H" rebars 031 mA2 = J3 0 inches on centei q,max and qmm q,min Footing @ Toe Moment Toe, Mtoe Mu, Toe, MuToe Effective depth, Footing Rebai size, ToeRebar Rebar Spacing As.ToeSteel T=As*Fy a M,, 09Mn = = = = = = = = = = = = Use l'-6" thick x 9'-6" wide footing w/#5 @ 8"o.c. top & key and #6 @ 8"o.c. wall reinforcing @ bottom toe 1979 psf 157 psf < q,allow < q.allow 9,946 ft-lbs 16,908 ft-lbs 14 6 inches #6 "T" rebars 8 inches 0 66 mA2 39 6 kips 1 29 in 46 1 ft-kips 41 5 ft-kips 10 foot retaining wall with truck wheel loading xls Page 2 Structural Engineers Project Bressi Ranch Village Center Engr G Tubach Sheet -3 GSSI No 6146A Date 11/28/2007 Concrete Block Retaining Wall Design Wall Level Backfill f Wall Ht , H Upper Wall Height Lower Wall Height Wall slope Upper Wall Thickness Lower Wall Thickness = f 'Iin n = Special Inspection = Wall Design Moment @ Wall base Rebar size, WallRebar = Rebar Spacing As, Waltsteel Effective depth, dwall p, pWall k j M> = f. Wall Stability Horizontal Foi ce, Pa = Overturning, Mot Factoi of Safety = Upper wall = Lower wall = Lower wall = Soil, Si Footing = Key Vert Comp of Hoi iz Force = Yes Yes or No 8 0 feet 4.0 feet 4 0 feet 8 0 inches 12 0 inches 1500 psi 258 Yes 7,360 ft-lbs #6 "V" rebars 8 in 0 66 mA2 per foot 9 3 inches 00059 04214 08595 475 psi 168 ksi 3,373 plf 11,733 ft-lbs 1 5 331 x 283 = 331 x 283 = 165 x 328 = 3227 x 508 = 1575 x 3 50 = 788 x 075 = 6,416 1124 x 700 = Design Parameters Concrete Strength, fc = Reinforcement, fy = Wall Weight Soil wt qall Active Soil Pressure = Surcharge (uniform) = Friction Coefficient, u = Passive Pressure Lateral Load = Height of Lateial Load Footing Footing Width, B Footing Thickness, T Toe Heel Key Depth Key Thickness = Key Toe Use 12" concrete block wall w/ #6 vert @ 8" o.c. Mai,™ = 7747 ft-lbs/ft 937 937 542 16402 5513 591 24,921 7869 32,790 > 17,599 3000 psi 60,000 psi 124 pcf 110 pcf 2000 psf 60 pcf 70 plf 0.35 75 pcf Olbs 0 feet 7 00 feet 18 inches 2 50 feet 3 50 feet 3.50 feet 18.0 inches 0.00 feet Okay 8 foot retaining wall with truck wheel loading xls Page Structural Engineers Project Bressi Ranch Village Center Engr G Tubach Sheet 4^ GSSI No 6146A Date 11/28/2007 Check Sliding Frictional Resistance Pp Pp, Key Moment, Key MuKey, Key effective depth Ku, Mu*!2/(phi*bdA2) P, pKey As, mm @ wall,AsKey Rebar size, KeyRebar As, KeySteel Vertical remforement Sum = Sum = 2246 84 2330 < 3373 938 3183 < 3373 1761 ft-lbs 2994 ft-lbs 14 0 inches 17 psi 00003 0 06 mA2 per foot #5 "K" rebars 0 31 mA2 per foot 58.7 inches on center Provide shear key No Good Check Soil Bearing Pressure a=(RM-OTM)/Total Wt 3*a e q, if3*a<B Footing @ Heel Heel Arm Soil Pressure @ HeelArm qs, Soil Piessureqj Moment Heel, Mheel Mu, Heel, Mhee!*l 7 Effective depth, Footing Ku,Mu*12/(phi*bdA2) p, pHeel As, mm @ wall,AsHeel Rebai size, HeelRebar As, HeelSteel Veitical remfoiement 2 06 feet 62 <B 1 4 feet 2081 psf < fallow Okay 0 0 feet 0 psf 0 psf 5,390 ft-lbs 7,546 ft-lbs 15 5 inches 35 psi 00006 0 14 mA2 per foot #5 "H" rebars 031 mA2 25.7 inches on center Footing @ Toe Moment Toe, Mtoe Mu, Toe, MuToe Effective depth, Footing Rebar size, ToeRebar Rebar Spacing As.ToeSteel T=A5 * Fy a Mn 09Mn 2,851 ft-lbs 4,847 ft-lbs 14 6 inches #6 'T'rebais 8 inches 0 66 mA2 39 6 kips 1 29 in 46 1 ft-kips 41 5 ft-kips Use l'-6" thick x 7'-0" wide footing w/#5 @ 8"o.c. top & key and #6 @ 8"o c. wall reinforcing @ bottom toe 8 foot retaining wall with truck wheel loading xls Page 2 Structural Engineers Project Bressi Ranch Village Center Engr G Tubach Sheet •=> GSSI No 6146A Date 11/28/2007 Concrete Block Retaining Wall Design Wall Level Backfill f Wall Ht , H Upper Wall Height Lower Wall Height Wall slope Upper Wall Thickness Lower Wall Thickness f»' n = Special Inspection = Wall Design Moment @ Wall base Rebar size, WallRebar Rebar Spacing As, Wallsteel Effective depth, dwall = p, pWall k J <b fs Wall Stability Horizontal Force, Pa Overturning, Mot = Factor of Safety = Upper wall = Lower wall = Lower wall = Soil, Si Footing = Key Vert Comp of Horiz Foi ce = Yes Yes or No 6.0 feet 4.0 feet 2 0 feet 8.0 inches 12 0 inches 1500 psi 258 Yes 3,420 ft-lbs #5 "V" rebars 16 in 023 mA2 per foot 9 3 inches 00021 02791 09070 316 psi 21 0 ksi 2,084 plf 5,650 ft-lbs 1 5 33 1 x 1 33 = 165 x 1 33 = 83 x 1 78 = 2457 x 358 = 1031 x 275 = 450 x 050 = 4,517 695 x 5 50 = Design Parameters Concrete Sti ength, fc = Reinforcement, fy Wall Weight Soil wt qall Active Soil Pressure = Surcharge (uniform) = Friction Coefficient, u = Passive Pressure = Lateral Load = Height of Lateral Load = Footing Footing Width, B Footing Thickness, T = Toe Heel Key Depth Key Thickness Key Toe = Use 12" concrete block wall w/ #5 vert @ 16" o c. Maiiow = 3909 ft-lbs/ft 441 220 147 8803 2836 225 12,672 3821 16,494 > 8,476 3000 psi 60,000 psi 124 pcf 110 pcf 2000 psf 60 pcf 70 plf 0.35 75 pcf Olbs 0 feet 5.50 feet 15 inches 1. 00 feet 3 50 feet 3.00 feet 12.0 inches 0 00 feet Okay 6 foot retaining wall with truck wheel loading xls Page I g^GSSI Structural Engineers Project Bressi Ranch Village Center Engr G Tubach Sheet => GSSI No 6146A Date 11/28/2007 Check Sliding Fnctional Resistance Pp Pp, Key Moment, Key MuKey, Key effective depth Ku, Mu*12/(phi*bdA2) p, pKey As, nun @ wall,AsKey Rebar size, KeyRebar As, KeySteel Vertical remforement 1581 59 Sum = 1639 < 2084 677 Sum = 2258 < 2084 1097 ft-lbs 1865 ft-lbs = 80 inches 32 psi 0 0005 0 07 mA2 per foot #5 "K" rebars 031 mA2 pei foot = 53.7 inches on center Provide shear key Okay Check Soil Bearing Pressure a=(RM-OTM)/Total Wt 3*a e q, if 3*a<B Footing @ Heel Heel Aim = Soil Pressure @ HeelArm = qj, Soil Pressure qs = Moment Heel, Mheel Mu, Heel, Mheel*! 7 Effective depth, Footing = Ku, Mu*12/(phi*bdA2) p, pHeel As, mm @ wall,AsHeel Rebar size, HeclRebai As, HeelSteel Vertical remforement 1 55 feet 47 <B 1 2 feet 1937psf <qallow Okay 0 0 feet 0 psf Opsf 4,043 ft-lbs 5,660 ft-lbs 12 5 inches 40 psi 00007 0 13 mA2 per foot #5 "H" rebais 031 mA2 27 6 inches on center Footing @ Toe Moment Toe, Mtoe Mu, Toe, MuToe Effective depth, Footing Rebar size, ToeRebar Rebar Spacing As,ToeSteel T=As*Fy a Mn 09Mn 968 ft-lbs 1,646 ft-lbs 11 6 inches #5 "T" rebars 16 inches 0 23 mA2 13 95 kips 046 in 132 ft-kips 11 9 ft-kips Use 1 '-6" thick x 5'-6" wide footing w/ #5 @ 12"o.c top & key and #5 @ I6"o.c. wall reinforcing @ bottom toe 6 foot retaining wall with truck wheel loading xls Page 2 g^GSSI Structural Engineers Project Bressi Ranch Village Center Engr G Tubach Sheet GSSI No 6146A Date 11/28/2007 Wall Level Backfill "> Wall Ht , H Upper Wall Height Lowei Wall Height = Wall slope Upper Wall Thickness Lower Wall Thickness = fm' n = Special Inspection = Wall Design Moment @ Wall base Rebar size, Wai IRebar = / Rebar Spacing As, Wallsteel Effective depth, dwall = p, pWall k J fbf —*s Wall Stability Hoi izontal Force, Pa Overturning, Mot = Factor of Safety Upper wall = Lower wall = Lower wall = Soil, Si Footing Key = Vert Comp of Hoi iz Force = Concrete Block Retaining Yes Yes or No 4 0 feet 4.0 feet 0 0 feet 8.0 inches 8 0 inches 1500 psi 258 Yes 1,200 ft-lbs #4 "V" rebars 16 in 0 15 mA2pei foot 5 3 inches 00024 02944 09019 328 psi 20 3 ksi 1,194 plf 2,412 ft-lbs 1 5 331 x 066 = 219 Ox 066 = 0 Ox 1 00 = 0 1321 x 250 = 3301 750 x 200 = 1500 375 x 050 = 188 2,777 5,208 398 x 400 = 1593 6,801 > Wall Design Design Parameters Concrete Strength, fc = Reinforcement, fy = Wall Weight Soilwt qall Active Soil Pressure = Surcharge (uniform) = Friction Coefficient, u = Passive Pressure = Lateial Load = Height of Lateral Load = Footing Footing Width, B Footing 1 hickness, T Toe Heel Key Depth Key Thickness = Key Toe Use 8" concrete block wall w/#4 vert@ 16" o.c Maltew=1419ft-lbs/ft 3,618 3000 psi 60,000 psi 124 pcf 110 pcf 2000 psf 60 pcf 70 plf 0.35 75 pcf 0 Ibs 0 feet 4.00 feet 15 inches 0.33 feet 3 00 feet 2.50 feet 12 0 inches 0 00 feet Okay 4 foot retaining wall with truck wheel loading xls Page 1 Project Bressi Ranch Village Center Engr G Tubach Structural Engineers Sheet £> GSSI No 6146A Date 11/28/2007 Check Sliding Fnctional Resistance Pp Sum = Pp, Key Sum = Moment, Key = MuKey, Key effective depth = Ku, Mu*12/(phi*bdA2) 972 59 1031 < 1194 527 1499 < 1194 684 ft-lbs 1162 ft-ibs 8 0 inches 20 psi Provide shear key Okay P> As, mm @ wall,AsKey Rebar size, KeyRebar As, KeySteel Vertical lemforement 00003 0 04 mA2 pei foot #5 "K" rebars 031 mA2 per foot 86.3 inches on center Check Soil Bearing Pressure a=(RM-OTM)/Total Wt 3*a e q, if 3*a<B Footing @ Heel Heel Arm Soil Pressure @ HeelArm qs, Soil Pressure qs Moment Heel, Mheel Mu, Heel, Mheel*! 7 Effective depth, Footing Ku, Mu*12/(phi*bdA2) p, pHeel As, mm @ wall,AsHeel Rebar size, HeelRebai As, HeelSteel Vertical remforement 1 01 feet 30 <B 1 0 feet 1839psf <qallow Okay 0 0 feet Opsf 0 psf 1,984 ft-lbs 2,778 ft-lbs 12 5 inches 20 psi 00003 0 07 mA2 pei foot #5 "H"rebais 031 mA2 56.4 inches on center Footing @ Toe Moment Toe, Mtoe Mu, Toe, MuToe Effective depth, Footing Rebar size, ToeRebar Rebar Spacing As.ToeSteel T—A * Fi As ry a Mn 09M,, 100 ft-lbs 170 ft-lbs 11 6 inches #4 "T" rebars 16 inches 0 15 mA2 9 kips 029 in 8 6 ft-kips 7 7 ft-kips Use 1'-3" thick x 4'-0" wide footing w/#5 @ 12"o c. top & key and #4 @ I6"o.c. wall reinforcing @ bottom toe 4 foot retaining wall with truck wheel loading xls Page 2 *N Structural Engineers Project Bressi Ranch Village Center Engr G Tubach Sheet °\ GSSI No 6146A Date 11/28/2007 Concrete Block Retaining Wall Design Wall Level Backfill "> Wall Ht , H Upper Wall Height Lower Wall Height = Wall slope Upper Wall Thickness Lower Wall Thickness C n = Special Inspection = Wall Design Moment @ Wall base = Rebar size, WallRebai Rebar Spacing As, Wallsteel Effective depth, dwall p, pWall k I _c f, Wall Stability Horizontal Force, Pa Overturning, Mot = Factor of Safety = Upper wall = Lower wall = Lower wall Soil, Si Footing = Key Vert Comp of Honz Foice = Yes Yes 01 No 2 0 feet 4.0 feet -2 0 feet 8.0 inches 8 0 inches 1500 psi 258 Yes 220 ft-lbs #4 "V" rebars 24 m 0 10 mA2 pei foot 5 3 inches 00016 02482 09173 70 psi 55 ksi 544 plf 713 ft-lbs I 5 331 x 066 = -165 x 066 = Ox I 00 = 33 1 x 1 75 = 469 x 1 25 = 150 x 050 = 1,115 181 x 250 = Design Parameters Concrete Strength, fc = Reinforcement, fy = Wall Weight Soil wt qall Active Soil Pressure = Surcharge (uniform) = Friction Coefficient, u = Passive Pressure = Lateral Load Height of Lateral Load = Footing Footing Width, B Footing Thickness, T = Toe Heel Key Depth Key Thickness = Key Toe Use 8" coincrcte block wall w/ #4 vert @ 24" o c Manow=960ft-Jbs/ft 219 -110 0 578 586 75 1,349 454 1,802 > 1,069 3000 psi 60,000 psi 124 pcf 110 pcf 2000 psf 60 pcf 70 plf 0.35 75 pcf 0 Ibs 0 feet 2.50 feet 15 inches 0.33 feet 1 50 feet 1.00 feet 12 0 inches 0.00 feet Okay 2 foot retaining wall with truck wheel loading xls Page I Structural Engineers Project Bressi Ranch Village Center Engr G Tubach Sheet GSSI No 6146A Date 11/28/2007 Check Sliding Frictional Resistance Pp Sum = Pp, Key Sum = Moment, Key MuKey, Key effective depth Ku,Mu*!2/(phi*bdA2) 390 59 449 < 544 4 190 580 < 544 4 72 ft-lbs 122 ft-lbs 8 0 inches 2 psi Provide shear key Okay As, mm @ wall.AsKey Rebar size, KeyRebar As, KeySteel Vertical remfoiement 00000 0 00 mA2 pei foot #5 "K" rebars 0 31 mA2 per foot 823 7 inches on center Check Soil Bearing Pressure a=(RM-OTM)/TotaI Wt 3*a e q, if3*a<B Footing @ Heel Heel Arm Soil Pressure @ HeelArm qs, Soil Pressure qj Moment Heel, Mheel Mu, Heel, Mheel*! 7 Effective depth, Footing Ku, Mu*12/(phi*bdA2) p, pHeel As, mm @ wall.AsHeel Rebar size, HeelRebar As, HeelSteel Veitical remforement 0 57 feet 1 7 <B 07 feet I303psf <qallow Okay 00 feet 0 psf Opsf 249 ft-lbs 348 ft-lbs = 125 inches 2 psi 0 0000 001 mA2 per foot #5 "H" rebars 031 mA2 Footing @ Toe Moment Toe, Mtoe Mu, Toe, MuToe Effective depth, Footing Rebar size, ToeRebar Rebar Spacing As,ToeSteel T=AS * Fy a Mn 09Mn = = = = = = = = = = = 451 8 inches on centet Use 1'-3" thick x4'-0" and #4 @ 24"o.c wall wide footing w/ #5 @ 12"o.c. top & key reinforcing @ bottom toe 71 ft-lbs 121 ft-lbs 11 6 inches #4 "T" rebars 16 inches 0 15 inA2 9 kips 029 in 8 6 ft-kips 7 7 ft-kips 2 foot retaining wall with truck wheel loading xls Page 2 C591 C592 CS93 C5S4 C595 CS96 C597 C598 C539 \ C600 , C601 ' C602 CB03 \S604 i' |*06 W \SD8 .509 |.70 1'" i?2 jfj >4 5 S > i '» } i ' «'\ 1? V 792 IBS 56 26 78 471 471 3.14 471 471 471 2130 1129 471 471 471 471 471 471 471 471 471 471 471 471 471 679 440 471 471 1131 471 942 1630 595 314 1296 53033 2000 300 300 100 300 300 300 2138 3.76 300 300 3.00 300 300 300 300 300 3,00 300 300 300 300 300 500 300 300 500 300 3.00 800 300 100 35VT13" 20V2'50" 76'39'07" SOW 00" SOW'OO" 180WW" SOW'OO" SOW'OO" SOW'OO" S7W52" 172V2'03' SOW'OO" SOW'OO" 90WW" aow'oo" smo'oo" SOW'OO* 90W'00" sow'oo' SOW'OO" SOW'OO" 90WOO" SOW'OO* 90WW" 129W44" 50"22'16' SOW'OO" SOW'OO" 129-37'IG" SOW'OO" 1BOWOO" ne'44'42" 113-38'02" isow'oo" - •*""" 6" TYPE 'G' CURB 6" TYPE 'C CURB 6" TYPE 'G' CURB 6" TYPE 'G' CURB 6" TYPE 'G' CURB 6" TYPE 'G' CURS C" TYPE 'G' CURB 6" TYPE 'G' CURB 6' TYPE 'G' CUKB 6" TYPE 'G' CURB 8" TYPE 'G' CURB 6" TYPE 'G CURB 6" TYPE '<?' CURS 6" TYPE 'G' CURB 6" TYPE 'G' CURB 6* TYPE 'G' CURB 6" TYPE '& CURB 6" TYPE 'G' CURS 6' TYPE 'G' CUKB 6" TYPE 'G' CUKB 6" TYPE •<? CURB 6" TYPE '6' CVR8 6" TYPE 'G' CURB 6" TYPE 'G' CURS S" TYPE 'G' CURB 6" TYPE 'G' CURB 6" TYPE 'G' 0/flB 6" TYPE 'G' CUKB 6" TYPE 'G' CUKB S* TYPE 'G' CURB 6" TYPE 'G' CURB 6" TYPE 'G' CURS 6" TYPE 'G' CUffS B" TYPE 'S' CUKB f CONC SWALE -AC PAVEMENT SEE PAVEMENT _ SECTIONS DETAIL RA1UHG PER SORSD M-24 Korro MASONRY RET WALL, DESIGNED BY OTHERS UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT SEE PAVEMENT _J SECTIONS DETAIL GffSTJVf? Si SECTION J-J HOT TO SCME -AC PAVEMENT SLOPE VARIES •EXISTING TOP Of SLOPE PAVEMENT _J "SEGTiONS DETAIL Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY Febmary 6, 2008 Project No 971009-050 To LNR Property Corporation Commercial Property Group 4275 Executive Square, Suite 210 La Jolla, California 92037 Attention Mr Jeff Williams Subject Addendum Seismic Earth Pressures Relative to the Proposed Retaining Wall in the Southeast Portion of the Bressi Ranch Village Center, Carlsbad, California Reference Leighton and Associates, 2008, Addendum Geotechmcal Recommendations and Geotechmcal Response to the City of Carlsbad Plan Check Comments and Review of the Proposed Retaining Wall in the Southeast Portion of the Bressi Ranch Village Center, a Portion of Bressi Ranch Planning Area PA-15, Carlsbad, California, Project No 971009- 050, dated January 28, 2008 Based on comments from Mr Bill Schell of GSSI Structural Engineers, this letter presents addendum seismic earth pressures for the proposed retaining wall at the Bressi Ranch Village Center project Based on the 2007 California Building Code criteria, an additional earth pressure due to seismic shaking for Seismic Design Category D of 7 8H psf uniform additive pressure (where H is the height of the wall) should be taken into consideration in the design of the proposed retaining wall If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact this office We appreciate this opportunity to be of service Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, DStC William D Olson, RCE 45283 Associate Engineer Ku/ Randall K Wagner, $EG 1612 Principal Geologist Distribution (1) Addressee (2) Childs Mascan Warner Architects, Attention Mr Michael Merrill (2) GSSI Structural Engineers, Attention, Mr Bill Schell 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 « San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030 • Fax 858.292.0771 Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY February 6, 2008 Project No 971009-050 To LNR Property Corporation Commercial Property Group 4275 Executive Square, Suite 210 La Jolla, California 92037 Attention Mr Jeff Williams Subject Addendum Seismic Earth Pressures Relative to the Proposed Retaining Wall in the Southeast Portion of the Bressi Ranch Village Center. Carlsbad, California Reference Leighton and Associates, 2008, Addendum Geotechmcal Recommendations and Geotechmcal Response to the City of Carlsbad Plan Check Comments and Review of the Proposed Retaining Wall in the Southeast Portion of the Bressi Ranch Village Center, a Portion of Bressi Ranch Planning Area PA-15, Carlsbad, California, Project No 971009- 050, dated January 28, 2008 Based on comments from Mr Bill Schell of GSSI Structural Engineers, this letter presents addendum seismic earth pressures for the proposed retaining wall at the Bressi Ranch Village Center project Based on the 2007 California Building Code criteria, an additional earth pressure due to seismic shaking for Seismic Design Category D of 7 8H psf uniform additive pressure (where H is the height of the wall) should be taken into consideration in the design of the proposed retaining wall If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact this office We appreciate this opportunity to be of service '"nMAL r°"> cJb^S-TT-^r Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, EMC William D Olson, RCE 45283 Associate Engineer CERTIFIED ENGINEERING Randall K Wagner, CEG 1612 Principal Geologist Distribution (1) Addressee (2) Childs Mascan Warner Architects, Attention Mr Michael Merrill (2) GSSI Structural Engineers, Attention, Mr Bill Schell 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030 a Fax 858 292.0771 Leighion and Associates, inc. A I UC I'TOII (IMMH C-..f !'.'•' " January 16, 2008 Project No 971009-050 To LNR Property Corporation Commercial Property Group 4275 Executive Square, Suite 210 La Jolla, California 92037 Attention Mr Jeff Williams Subject Geotechiuca) Review of Grading and Foundation Phans, BresSi Ranch Village Center, a Portion of Bressi Ranch Planning /uea PA-15, Carlsbad, California Introduction As requested, we have performed a geotechnical review of the referenced grading and foundation plans for the Bressi Ranch Village Center, located in Carlsbad, California The purpose of our review was to identify potential conflicts with the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 2007a) Based on our review, both the grading plans (prepared by PDC, dated December 12, 2007) and the foundation plans (prepared by GSSI, dated Novembei 29, 2007) were found to be in general agreement with the geotechnical recommendations However, the following comments were noted on the plans and should be addressed Grading Plan Review • Sheet 1 of 16 In the Concrete Section Design Table, the thickness of concrete should be increased from 7 inches to 7 5 inches Foundation Plan Review • Sheet SI. Structural Pesian Criteria Note 2: The Near Source value, Nv, should be 1 0 and the resulting Seismic Coefficient value, Cv, should be 0.56 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 <-' San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030 e Fax 858.292,0771 971009-050 • Sheet SI. Foundation Note 1 The date of the Geolechmcal Report (Soils Report) should be January 25, 2007 • Sheet SI 1. Structural Design Cutena_Notes and Foundation Notes These notes and other redundant notes that appear on Sheet SI, contain minoi errois and other inconsistencies We suggest that the duplicated notes on Sheet SI 1 be deleted to avoid confusion • Sheet SI 1, Details 1 and 2 The details show (hat the vapor bamer is located between the sand/base matenal, which is not consistent with the recently recommended alternative, excluding the note presented on the foundation plan for Major C (Sheet S-CM1). The recently recommended alternative vapor bamer consists of a 15-rru! Stegowrap over 2 inches of sand over subgrade soils • Sheets S-A1. S-B1. S-BPL S-C1. S-D1, S-E1. S-F1. and S-G1. Typical Slab Note The note is not consistent with recommended alternative vapor barrier and should be revised The recommended alternative vapor bamer consists of a 15-mii Sterowrap ovei 2 inches of sand over subgrade soils • Sheet S2 1. Detail 1 The detail shows that the vapoi barrier is located between the sand layers, which is not consistent with the recently recommended alternative, excluding the note presented on the foundation plan for Major C (Sheet S-CM1) If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact this office We appreciate this opportunity to be of service Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC daU'K. Wagner, Principal Geologist William D Olson, RCE 4528 Associate Engineer WDO/RKW Attachments Appendix A - References Distribution (2) Addressee (1) PDC, Attention Mr Mike Hersh (1) Childs Mascan-Warner Architects, Attention Mr. Michael Memll -2-Leighion 971009-050 APPENDIX A References Leighton, and Associates, 2007a, Geotechnical Preliminary Invest!gation, Biessi Ranch Village Cenlei, A Portion of Planning Area PA-15, Carlsbad, Cahfoinia, Project No 971009-047, dated January 25, 2007 , 2007b Addendum Oeotcchnical Recommendations Concerning Traffic Loading of the Proposed Retaining Wall Adjacent to the Major A Building, E-mail dated October 12, 2007 , 2007c, Addendum Geotechnical Recommendations for Structural Foundations and Exterior Concrete Flatwork, Bressi Ranch Village Center, a Portion of Planning Area PA-15. Carlsbad, California, Project No 971009-050, dated January 15, 2007 PDC, 2007, Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plans For Bressi Ranch Village Center, Carlsbad, California, Drawing Number 452-9A, 16 Sheets, date received December 12,2007 GSSI Structural Engineers, 2007, Structural Plans, Bressi Ranch Village Center, Carlsbad, California, Sheets SI, SI 1, S-A1, S-B1, S-BP1, S-C1, S-CM1, S-D1, S-EI, S-F1, S-G1, and SP-1, dated November 29, 2007 A-l . .Leicjhlon ^^^^Tr-^^!f^mm^m^m^^-~:7^^S^^ To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title EX 2 Job# Description Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 23 June-2006, (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registrations RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design j Criteria Retained Height = V Wall height above soil = Slope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe = Water height over heel = Wind on Stem = Vertical comoonent of active b IjcTdon \ 1 00 ft 000 1 1200m 00ft 00 psf Soil Data Allow Soil Bearing Equivalent Fluid Pressure Heel Active Pressure Toe Active Pressure Passive Pressure Soil Density Footmg||Soil Friction Soil height to ignore for passive pressure 1 = 2,000 0 psf Method 35 0 psiVft 35 0 psf/ft = 1500 psf/ft = 110 00 pel = 0350 = 1200m Footing Dimensions & Strengths ty Toe Width Heel Width Total Footing Width Footing Thickness = Key Width Key Depth = Key Distance from Toe = fc = 3,000 psi Fy = 200ft 650 850 1800m 18 00 in 48 00 in 367ft 60,000 psi-i *n nn nr-f lateral soil pressure options NOT USED for Soil Pressure NOT USED for Sliding Resistance NOTUSED for Overturning Resistance Mm As% = 00018 Cover @ Top = 2 00 in @ Btm = 3 00 in Surcharge Loads Surcharge Over Heel = 0 0 psf Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf Used for Sliding & Overturning Axial Load Applied to Stem Axial Dead Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Live Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Load Eccentricity = 0 0 in I Earth Pressure Seismic Load Lateral Load Applied to Stem | Lateral Load Height to Top Height to Bottom 0 0 #/ft 000ft 000ft 1 Adjacent Footing Load Adjacent Footing Load = Footing Width = Eccentricity = Wall to Ftg CL Dist Footing Type Base Above/Below Soil at Back of Wall Poisson's Ratio Design Kh = 0300g Using Mononobe-Okabe / Seed-Whitman procedure Kae for seismic earth pressure = 0521 Ka for static earth pressure = 0 277 Difference Kae - Ka =0~243~ Added seismic base force 00 Ibs 000ft 000 in 000ft Line Load 00ft 0300 1,257 3 Ibs Stem Weight Seismic 'Design Summary Wall Stability Ratios Overturning = Sliding = Total Bearing Load = resultant ecc = Soil Pressure @ Toe = Soil Pressure @ Heel = Load t Fp / Wp Weight Multiplier = 0 1 1 262 OK 1 50 OK 10,383 Ibs 1502 in je 2,301 psf NG 142 psf OK Allowable = ^,uuu psf n «•"<"- Soil Pressure Exceeds Allowable' ACI Factored @ Toe = ACI Factored @ Heel = Footing Shear @ Toe = Footing Shear @ Heel = Allowable = 3,130 psf 194 psf 26 2 psi OK 21 4 psi OK 93 1 DSI Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lateral Sliding Force = 3,754 9 Ibs er less £§J& Passive Force = - 2. 010 9 Ibs •p \ '»/'" 'ess 100% Friction Force = --** 'rft, Added Force Req'd = for 1 5 1 Stability = Load Factors Building Code Dead Load Live Load Earth, H Wind, W Seismic, E 3,634 1 Ibs 0 0 Ibs OK 0 0 Ibs OK Other 1 400 1 700 1 700 1 700 1 700 300 g Added seismic base force 292 7 Ibs Stem Construction 1 Top stem Design Height Above Ftg ft = Wall Material Above "Ht" Thickness = Rebar Size = Rebar Spacing = Rebar Placed at = fb/FB + fa/Fa = ... Total Force @ Section Ibs = Moment Actual ft-# = Moment Allowable ft-# = Shear Actual psi = Shear Allowable psi = Wall Weight psf = Rebar Depth 'd' in = LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE in = LAP SPLICE IF BELOW m = HOOK EMBED INTO FTG m = Masonry Data f m psi = Fs psi = Solid Grouting = Special Inspection = Modular Ratio 'n' = Short Term Factor = Equiv Solid Thick in = Masonry Block Type = Medium Concrete Data f c psi = Fy psi = Stem OK 600 Masonry 800 # 6 800 Edge 0326 5152 9461 2,900 7 82 387 780 525 8219 82 19 1,500 24,000 Yes Yes 2578 1 000 760 Weight 2nd Stem OK 000 Masonry 1600 # 6 800 Edge 0712 2,975 8 .. 12,8664 . ""- 18,0672^*^'--' .-"•;- 196 " ' ^ 515 - 1640 " ' f f > 1300 •-•• U>K7 •'7436 ^ \*Y/J^ 882 V-^ jCX^ 1,500 /"-tX^" " =•**' 24,000 / Yes Yes 2578 1 330 1560 To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title EX 2 Job# Description Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 23-June-2006 (c) 1989 2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration # RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Footing Design Results Factored Pressure Mu' Upward Mu' Downward Mu Design Actual 1-Way Shear Allow 1-Way Shear Toe Reinforcing Heel Reinforcing Key Reinforcing Heel 194psf 12,509 ft-# 28,057 ft-# 15,548ft-# 21 36 psi 9311 psi #5 @ 11 25m #5 @ 1800m Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacmqs Toe Not req'd, Mu£.S=s-Fr—>^ Heel #4@ 7 25/inT#5@ 11 25 irf\#6@ 16 00 in, #7@ 21 75 in, #8@ 28 50 in, #9@ 36 Key #4@ 7 5OinJ*5@1150in >6@ 16 50 in, #7@ 22 25 in, Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments OVERTURNING Force Distance tem Ibs ft Heel Active Pressure = 2,3144 383 foe Active Pressure = -1094 083 1 RESISTING Moment Force Distance Moment ft-# Ibs ft ft-# 8,871 8 Soil Over Heel = 5,683 3 -91 1 Sloped Soil Over Heel = 5 92 33,626 4 Surcharge Over Toe = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Load @ Stem Above Soil = Seismic Earth Load = Seismic Stem Self Wt 1,2573 2927 690 606 8,675 1 1,7739 Total = 3,7549 OTM = 19,2296 Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 2 62 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 10,3832 Ibs Vertical component of active pressure NOT used for soil pressure Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe . Surcharge Over Toe . Stem Weight(s) Earth @ Stem Transitions. Footing Weight . Key Weight ~ Vert Component 2200 000 1 00 1,374 0 2 57 293 3 3 00 1,9125 425 900 0 4 42 2200 3,534 0 8800 8,1281 3,975 0 Total = 10,3832 Ibs RM'50,363 5 DESIGNER NOTES To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title EX-,? Job# Description Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 23 June-2006, (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration* RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Criteria Soil Data Retained Height - 1000ft Wall height above soil = 100ft Slope Behind Wall = 0 00 1 Height of Soil over Toe = 1200m Water height over heel = 0 0 ft Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure options NOT USED for Soil Pressure NOT USED for Sliding Resistance NOT USED for Overturning Resistance _l | Footing Dimensions & Strengths ]| Allow Soil Bearing = 2,300 0 psf Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Heel Active Pressure Toe Active Pressure Passive Pressure Soil Density Footmg||Soil Friction Soil height to ignore for passive pressure 35 0 psfffi 35 0 psf/ft = 11000pcf = 0350 = 1200m Toe Width Heel Width Total Footing Width Footing Thickness = Key Width Key Depth = Key Distance from Toe = 200ft 600 800 1800m 1800m 40 00 in 300ft fc = 3,000 psi Fy = 60,000 psi Footing Concrete Density = 150 00 pcf Mm As% = 00018 Cover @ Top = 2 00 in @ Btm = 3 00 in Surcharge Loads | Surcharge Over Heel = 0 0 psf Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf Used for Sliding & Overturning Axial Load Applied to Stem | Axial Dead Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Live Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Load Eccentricity = 0 0 in Stem Weight Seismic Load | *Design Summary | /Vail Stability Ratios Overturning = 2 80 OK Sliding = 1 53 OK Total Bearing Load = 9,571 Ibs resultant ecc = 12 75 in Soil Pressure @ Toe = 2,150 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 243 psf OK Allowable = 2,300 psf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe = 2,918 psf ACI Factored @ Heel = 329 psf Footing Shear @ Toe = 24 0 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel = 19 3 psi OK Allowable = 93 1 psi tiding Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) -ateral Sliding Force = 3,277 7 Ibs less 67 % Passive Force = - 1 ,659 6 Ibs less 100% Friction Force = - 3,349 7 Ibs Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK for 1 5 1 Stability = 0 0 Ibs OK oad Factors Building Code Other Dead Load 1 400 Live Load 1 700 Earth, H 1 700 Wind, W 1 700 Seismic, E 1 700 Lateral Load Applied to Stejrn^ | Lateral Load J^ 78 0 #/ft \ Height to Top f= 1000ft I Height to Bottom f = 0 00 ft } "~ *•- "1 Sf^ Fp / Wp Weight Multiplier = 0 300 g j Stem Construction | Top stem Adjacent Footing Load | Adjacent Footing Load = 0 0 Ibs Footing Width = 0 00 ft Eccentricity = 0 00 in Wall to Ftg CL Dist - 0 00 ft Footing Type Line Load at Back of Wall ~ 00ft Poisson's Ratio = 0 300 Added seismic base force /' 292 7 Ibs \ 2nd *•"•-"• '**'"" Design Height Above Fto ft = 6 00 0 00 „ Wall Material Above "Ht" = Masonry Masonry \ \& «>* Thickness = 800 1600 <,,- • V"\ ' "' Rebar Size = #4 #6 ^ £ **' ~£ Rebar Spacing = 1600 800 ^-^\ „ .^^ v" . "VV Rebar Placed at = Edge Edge v*(?f* * /"" '*?~ <£:• fb/FB + fa/Fa = 0848 0814 -f$-f ar> *" * - Total Force @ Section lbs= 6751 2,8052 . %J,y ,&'*'*$, Moment Actual ft-#= 1,2050 11,0624 ^~ ^ -^Y"^ '"v? ^~\ *V? Moment Allowable ft-#= 1,4205 13,5844 "^ '<(& *f ^ '\* Shear Actual psi= 104 183 'V ' ^"^ Shear Allowable psi = 38 7 38 7 Wall Weight psf= 780 1640 Rebar Depth 'd1 m= 525 1300 LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE in = <>4 00 36 00 LAP SPLICE IF BELOW m = <>4 00 HOOK EMBED INTO FTG in = 1 1 50 Masonry Data fm psi= 1,500 1,500 Fs psi= 24,000 24,000 Solid Grouting = Yes Yes Special Inspection = Yes Yes Modular Ratio 'n1 = 25 78 25 78 Short Term Factor = 1 000 1 000 Equiv Solid Thick in = 760 1560 Masonry Block Type = Medium Weight Concrete Data fc ps; = Fy psi = To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title Job# Description EX-2 Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 23-June-2006 (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration # RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Footing Design Results Factored Pressure Mu' Upward Mu' Downward Mu Design Actual 1 -Way Shear Allow 1 -Way Shear Toe Reinforcing Heel Reinforcing Key Reinforcing Toe Heel 2,918 329 psf 7,258 10,858 ft-# 1.277 23188ft-# 5,981 1 2,330 ft-# 2405 1934psi 93 1 1 93 1 1 psi = None Spec'd = #5@ 11 25 in = #5@1800m Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacmgs Toe Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Heel #4@ 7 25 in, #5@ 11 25 in, #6@ 16 00 in, #7@ 21 75 in, #8@ 28 50 in, #9@ 36 Key #4@ 7 50 in, #5@ 11 50 in, #5@ 16 50 in, #7@ 22 25 m, Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments OVERTURNINGForce Item Heel Active Pressure = Toe Active Pressure = Surcharge Over Toe = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Load @ Stem Above Soil = Seismic Stem Self Wt Total Resisting/Overturning Ratio Vertical Loads used for Soil Ibs 2,3144 -1094 7800 2927 3,277 7 Pressure Distance ft 383 083 650 606 OTM = 2 9,570 7 Vertical component of active pressure NOT used for soil Moment ft-# 8,871 8 -91 1 5,070 0 1,7739 15,6245 80 Ibs pressure Soil Over Heel = Sloped Soil Over Heel Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe _ Surcharge Over Toe _ Stem Weight(s) Earth © Stem Transitions Footing Weighl _ Key Weight Vert Component _ Total = RESISTINGForce Ibs 5,1333 2200 1,3740 2933 1,8000 7500 9,570 7 Distance ft 567 000 1 00 257 300 400 375 Ibs R M = Moment ft-# 29,088 9 2200 3,534 0 8800 7,200 0 2,8125 43,735 4 DESIGNER NOTES Project- T F "=**' Number Date .-v <&*> By * j C/**" Sneet February 07, 2008 of CMD97 07 05 Input ^ Filename Reinforced Concrete Masonry,.Wall-per'.^39^B©6Section 2108 2 4 ...^-'Strength Design - ,fF-*' ^ t^ Wall Geometry 10 00' high, 16" nominal thickness CMU wall Cells Grouted at 8" o c Wall Material Properties 10ft 1st Curtain # 6 @ 8 inches on center at 12 625 inches from the loaded face 2nd Curtain # 6 @ 8 inches on center at 3 inches from the loaded face / m ~ /y = Em = Es = n = 1,500 psi 60,000 psi 1,125ksi 29,000 ksi 2578 Support Condition Free Top, Fixed Bottom Wall Section Applied Loads Dead Load Floor Live Load Roof Live Load Snow Load Vertical Seismic Load Lateral Loading # Load Load Condition Type E,W,H1 P,T,M2 1 H T 2 E T Seismic Zone 4 Output: Input Reinforcing 1st Curtain # 6 @ 8 inches o c , As = 0 44 m2/ft, p = 0 0044 2nd Curtain # 6 @ 8 inches o c , As = 0 44 m2/ft, p = 0 0044 maximum p = 0 0044 < 0 0053 = 0 5 PD - OK Wall Design Geometry, Gross Moment of Inertia and Section Modulus Positive Moments b= 8 00 in d= 1263m Negative Moments b= 8 00 in d= 1263m P Ibs 0 0 0 0 0 Load Start Location Value M Ib-m 0 0 0 0 0 Wall Weight psf 133 0 Load End Location Value ft 00 00 Ib sfjlb-m 350l> ft 100 100 psf 0 '120- lg = b*t/12 Sg=lg/(t/2) = 3,815m4/ft 488 m3/ft Allowable Stresses and Cracking Moment h7t=768< 30 -Fa max = 0 2/ m Maximum Axial Stress for h /t > 30 = 0 04/ m = 60 psi Maximum Axial Stress for h/t<30 = 02/m= 300 psi /r= 40S//m (<235psi) = 1549psi MC|= Sg*/r/1000 = 75 6 kip-in/ft U l-\4 1 E = Earthquake Force, W = Wind Force, H = Soil Pressure Load 2 P = Point Load, T = Trapezoidal or Uniform Load, M = Concentrated Moment T F Project Number Date By Sheet February 07, 2008 CMD97 07 05 Filename Reinforced Concrete Masonry Wall per 1997 UBC Section 2108 2 4 - Strength Design - of Service Axial Loads and Stress Checks Equivalent Factored PQ + Pw Load Case Ibs 14D + 16H 1,3300 1 2D+1 6L+05Lr+ 1 6H 1,3300 1 2D+1 6L+0 5S + 1 6H 1,3300 1 2D+1 6Lr+0 5L + 1 6H 1,3300 1 2D+1 6Lr+08W+ 1 6H 1,3300 12D+16S+05L 1,3300 1 2D+1 6S+0 8W + 1 6H 1,3300 1 2D+1 3W+0 5L+0 5Lr + 1 6H 1 ,330 0 1 2D+1 3W+0 5L+0 5S + 1 6H 1,330 0 09D+13W+16H 1,3300 09D-13W+16H 1,3300 1 1(1 2D+1 OE+0 5L+0 2S + 1 6H)1,330 0 1 1(1 2D-1 OE+0 5L+0 2S + 1 6H)1,330 0 1 1(090+1 OE + 1 6H) 1,3300 1 1(090-1 OE + 16H) 1,3300 Service Load Moments and Maximum @h ft 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 PO + Pw/Ag psi 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 709 Stress Ratio 0024 0024 0024 0024 0024 0024 0024 0024 0024 0024 0024 0024 0024 0024 0024 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Deflections - Maximum Allowable Deflection, AS Equivalent Factored Ms Load Case kip-in 1 40 + 1 6H -70 OS""-""" ' 1 2D+1 6L+05Lr+ 1 6H -7003 1 2D+1 6L+05S + 1 6H -7003 1 2D+1 6Lr+0 5L + 1 6H -70 03 1 2D+1 6Lr+0 8W + 1 6H -70 03 1 2D+1 6S+0 5L -70 03 1 2D+1 6S+0 8W + 1 6H -70 03 1 2D+1 3W+0 5L+0 5Lr + 1 6H -70 03 1 2D+1 3W+0 5L+0 5S + 1 6H -70 03 0 9D+1 3W + 1 6H -70 03 0 9D-1 3W + 1 6H -70 03 1 1(1 20+1 OE+0 5L+0 2S + 1 6HJ21 52 1 1(1 20-1 OE+0 5L+0 2S + 1 6H)-18Jj7 1 1(0 90+1 OE + 1 6H) f<-TO152^ 1 1(0 90-1 OE + 1 6H) ^^TETBTl - @*\ 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 max = p.007h,. V *» *rt SAS! X in 00470 00470 00470 00470 00470 00470 00470 00470 00470 00470 00470 01339 00038 01344 00038 = 0 840 in @h ft 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 < Amax < Amax < Amax ^ Amax < Amax < Amax ^ Amax < Amax < Amax ^ Amax < Amax < Amax < Amax < Amax < Amax -OK -OK -OK -OK -OK -OK -OK -OK -OK -OK -OK -OK -OK -OK -OK Project T F Number Date By Sheet CMD97 07 05 February 07, 2008 of Filename Reinforced Concrete Masonry Wall per 1997 UBC Section 2108 2 4 - Strength Design - PU kips 1 86 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 60 1 20 1 20 1 76 075 1 32 056 @h ft 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 571 000 571 Ase in2 069 069 069 069 069 069 069 069 069 068 068 069 067 068 067 c in 3 19 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 317 314 314 3 18 310 3 15 309 Icr in4 1,671 3 1 ,666 0 1 ,666 0 1 ,666 0 1,6660 1 ,666 0 1 ,666 0 1 ,666 0 1 ,666 0 1 ,658 0 1,6580 1 ,669 2 1,6489 1,6604 1 ,645 1 Ultimate Axial Load and Data for Ultimate Positive Moment Calculations Load Case 1 4D + 1 6H 1 20+1 6L+05Lr+ 1 6H 1 20+1 6L+0 5S + 1 6H 1 20+1 6Lr+0 5L + 1 6H 1 2D+1 6Lr+0 8W + 1 6H 1 2D+1 6S+0 5L + 1 6H 1 20+1 6S+0 8W + 1 6H 1 2D+1 3W+0 5L+0 5Lr + 1 6H 1 20+1 3W+0 5L+0 5S + 1 6H 090+1 3W+ 1 6H 0 9D-1 3W + 1 6H 1 1(1 20+1 OE+0 5L+0 2S + 1 6H) 1 1(1 20-1 OE+05L+02S + 1 6H) 1 1(090+1 OE + 1 6H) 1 1(090-1 OE + 1 6H) Ultimate Positive Moment and Deflection Load Case 1 40+ 1 6H 1 20+1 6L+05Lr+ 1 6H 1 20+16L+0 5S + 1 6H 1 20+1 6Lr+05L+ 1 6H 1 20+1 6Lr+0 8W + 1 6H 1 20+1 6S+0 5L + 1 6H 1 20+1 6S+0 8W + 1 6H 1 20+1 3W+05L+05Lr+ 1 6H 1 2D+1 3W+0 5L+0 5S + 1 6H 090+1 3W+ 1 6H 0 90-1 3W + 1 6H 1 1(1 20+1 OE+0 5L+0 2S + 1 6H)466 2 1 1(1 20-1 OE+0 5L+0 2S + 1 6H) 456 2 1 1(090+1 OE+ 1 6H) 1 1(090-1 OE + 1 6H) = 080 Mn kip-m 4673 4646 4646 4646 4646 4646 4646 4646 4646 4607 4607 4662 4562 461 9 4544 <j)Mn kip-m 3738 371 7 371 7 371 7 371 7 371 7 371 7 371 7 371 7 3685 3685 3730 3650 3695 3635 Mu kip-m 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 485 000 485 Strength Ratio 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 000 001 Au in 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 -0007 0000 -0007 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Project T F CMD97 07 05 Number Date By Sheet February 07, 2008 of Filename Reinforced Concrete Masonry Wall per 1997 UBC Section 2108 2 4 - Strength Design - Ultimate Axial Load and Data for Ultimate Negative Moment Calculations Load Case Pu kips 1 4D + 1 6H 1 86 1 20+1 6L+05Lr+1 6H 160 1 2D+1 6L+0 5S + 1 6H 1 60 1 20+1 6Lr+0 5L + 1 6H 1 60 1 2D+1 6Lr+0 8W + 1 6H 1 60 1 2D+1 6S+0 5L + 1 6H 1 60 1 2D+1 6S+08W+ 1 6H 160 1 2D+1 3W+0 5L+0 5Lr + 1 6H 160 1 2D+1 3W+0 5L+0 5S + 1 6H 1 60 09D+13W+16H 120 0 90-1 3W + 1 6H 1 20 1 1(1 20+1 OE+0 5L+0 2S + 1 6H) 1 76 1 1(1 20-1 OE+0 5L+02S + 1 6H) 176 1 1(090+1 OE + 1 6H) 1 32 1 1(090-1 OE+ 1 6H) 1 32 @h ft 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Ase in2 069 069 069 069 069 069 069 069 069 068 068 069 069 068 068 c in 319 3 17 3 17 317 317 317 317 317 317 314 314 318 3 18 315 315 Icr in4 1,671 3 1 ,666 0 1,6660 1 ,666 0 1 ,666 0 1 ,666 0 1 ,666 0 1 ,666 0 1 ,666 0 1,6580 1,6580 1 ,669 2 1 ,669 2 1,6604 1 ,660 4 Ultimate Negative Moment and Deflection § Load Case Mn kip-in 1 40 + 1 6H -467 3 1 20+1 6L+05Lr+ 1 6H -4646 1 2D+1 6L+0 5S + 1 6H -464 6 1 20+1 6Lr+0 5L + 1 6H -464 6 1 20+1 6Lr+0 8W + 1 6H -464 6 1 2D+1 6S+0 5L + 1 6H -4646 1 2D+1 6S+0 8W + 1 6H -464 6 1 20+1 3W+0 5L+0 5Lr + 1 6H -464 6 1 20+1 3W+0 5L+0 5S + 1 6H -464 6 0 90+1 3W + 1 6H -460 7 0 90-1 3W + 1 6H -460 7 1 1(1 2D+1 OE+0 5L+0 2S + 1 6H)-466 2 1 1(1 20-1 OE+0 5L+0 2S + 1 6H)-466 2 1 1(09D+1 OE + 1 6H) -461 9 1 1(090-1 OE + 1 6H) -461 9 <j>Mn kip-m -3738 -371 7 -371 7 -371 7 -371 7 -371 7 -371 7 -371 7 -371 7 -3685 -3685 -3730 -3730 -3695 -3695 Mu kip-in -112 10 -11209 -11209 -11209 -11209 -11209 -11209 -11209 -11209 -11206 -11206 -202 64 -4401 -202 58 -4401 Strength Ratio 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 054 012 055 0 12 Au in -0107 -0107 -0107 -0107 -0107 -0107 -0107 -0107 -0107 -0 107 -0107 -0270 -0016 -0271 -0016 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Project T F CMD97 07 05 Number Date By Sheet February 07, 2008 Filename Reinforced Concrete Masonry Wall per 1997 UBC Section 2108 2 4 - Strength Design - of Factored Input Out-Of-Plane Loads and Moments Load 1 Load 2 Load Type H H E Load Factor 1 6 1 1*1 6 1 1 Pu kips Mu kip-in wu start klf 0560 0616 0132 hstart ft 000 000 000 Wuend klf 0000 0000 0132 hend ft 1000 1000 1000 Ultimate and Nominal Shear Load Case Governing 1 4D + 1 6H Bottom 1 2D+1 6L+0 5Lr + 1 6H Bottom 1 2D+1 6L+0 5S + 1 6H Bottom 1 2D+1 6Lr+0 5L + 1 6H Bottom 1 2D+1 6Lr+0 8W + 1 6H Bottom 1 2D+1 6S+0 5L + 1 6H Bottom 1 2D+1 6S+0 8W + 1 6H Bottom 1 2D+1 3W+0 5L+0 5Lr + 1 6H Bottom 1 2D+1 3W+0 5L+0 5S + 1 6H Bottom 0 9D+1 3W + 1 6H Bottom 0 9D-1 3W + 1 6H Bottom 1 1(1 2D+1 OE+0 5L+0 2S + 1 6H) Bottom 1 1(1 2D-1 OE+0 5L+0 2S + 1 6H) Bottom 1 1(090+1 OE + 1 6H) Bottom 1 1(090-1 OE + 1 6H) Bottom Vu kips 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 440 1 76 440 1 76 <t>Vn = kips 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 871 j> = 060 Strength Ratio 032 032 032 032 032 032 032 032 032 032 032 050 020 050 020 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title EX-2 Job* Description Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall m File c \program files\rp2Q05\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 23-June 2006 (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration # RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design [ Criteria i Soil Data Retained Height Wail height above soil = Slope Behind Wall = Height of Soil over Toe = Water height over heel = 'TT^ToofTI 1 00 000 1200 ft 1 in 00ft Allow Soil Bearing = 2,000 0 psf Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method | ^Footing Dimensions & Strengths | Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure options NOT USED for Soil Pressure NOT USED for Sliding Resistance NOTUSED for Overturning Resistance Heel Active Pressure Toe Active Pressure Passive Pressure Soil Density Footmg||Soil Friction Soil height to ignore for passive pressure 35 0 psf/ft 35 0 psf/ft 150 0 psf/ft = HOOOpcf = 0350 = 1200m Toe Width = 2 00 ft Heel Width = __ _6_50_ Total Footing Width = " " 8 50 Footing Thickness = 1800m Key Width = 1800m Key Depth = 48 00 in Key Distance from Toe = 3 67 ft fc = 3,000 psi Fy = 60,000 psi Footing Concrete Density = 150 00 pcf Mm As% = 00018 Cover @ Top = 2 00 m @ Btm = 3 00 in Surcharge Loads | Lateral Load Applied to Stem | Surcharge Over Heel = 250 0 psf Lateral Load = 0 0 #/ft Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Height to Top = 0 00 ft Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf Height to Bottom = 000ft Used for Sliding & Overturning Axial Load Applied to Stem | Axial Dead Load = Axial Live Load Axial Load Eccentricity = *Design Summary 00 Ibs 00 Ibs 0 0 in i i /Vail Stability Ratios Overturning - 4 13 OK / Sliding = 1 95 OK r Total Bearing Load = 1 1 ,675 Ibs resultant ecc = 5 81 in Soil Pressure @ Toe = 1,843 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 904 psf OK Allowable = 2,000 psf / Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe = 2,515 psf ACI Factored @ Heel = 1,234 psf Footing Shear @ Toe = 21 4 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel = 18 2 psi OK Allowable = 93 1 psi tiding Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lateral Sliding Force = 3,119 8 Ibs less 65 % Passive Force = - 2, 01 09 Ibs less 1 00% Friction Force = - 4,086 2 Ibs Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK for 1 5 1 Stability = 0 0 Ibs OK oad Factors Building Code Dead Load Live Load Earth, H Wind, W Seismic, E Other 1 400 1 700 1 700 1 700 1 700 Stem Construction | Top stem Adjacent Footing Load | Adjacent Footing Load - 0 0 Ibs Footing Width = 0 00 ft Eccentricity = 0 00 in Wall to Ftg CL Dist = 0 00 ft Footing Type Line Load at Back of Wall Poisson's Ratio = 0 300 2nd Design Height Above Ftg ft= 600 000 Wall Material Above "Ht" = Masonry Masonry Thickness = 8 00 16 00 RebarSize = #6 #6 Rebar Spacing = 8 00 8 00 Rebar Placed at = Edge Edge fb/FB + fa/Fa = 0 348 0 543 Total Force @ Section lbs= 5982 2,5280 Moment Actual ft-#= 1,0097 9,8048 Moment Allowable ft-#= <>,9007 18,0672 Shear Actual psi= 114 184 Shear Allowable psi= 387 515 Wall Weight psf= 780 1640 Rebar Depth 'd1 m= 525 1300 LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE in = 8219 7436 LAP SPLICE IF BELOW m= 8219 HOOK EMBED INTO FTG m = 7 50 Masonry Data fm psi= 1,500 1,500 Fs psi= 24,000 24,000 Solid Grouting = Yes Yes Special Inspection = Yes Yes Modular Ratio 'n' = 25 78 25 78 Short Term Factor = 1 000 1 330 -Equiv Solid Thick in = 760 1560 Masonry Block Type = Medium Weight Concrete Data fc psi = Fy psi = To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title Job# Description EX-;. Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 23 June 2006 (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration # RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Footing Design Results Factored Pressure Mu' Upward Mu' Downward Mu Design Actual 1-Way Shear Allow 1-Way Shear Toe Reinforcing Heel Reinforcing Key Reinforcing foe 2,515 6,528 1.277 5,251 21 41 9311 None Spec'd #5@ 11 25 in #5@1800m Heel 1,234 psf 22,843 ft-# 34,485 ft-# 11,642 ft-# 1824 psi 9311 psi Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacmgs Toe Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Heel #4@ 7 25 in, #5@ 11 25 in, #6@ 16 00 in, #7@ 21 75 in, #8@ 28 50 in, #9@ 36 Key #4@ 7 50 in, #5@ 11 50 in, #6@ 16 50 in, #7@ 22 25 in, Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments OVERTURNINGForce Distance Moment tem Ibs ft ft-# Heel Active Pressure = 3,2291 438 14,1317 "oe Active Pressure = -1094 083 -911 Surcharge Over Toe = Xdjacent Footing Load = \dded Lateral Load = ,oad @ Stem Above Soil = Total = 3,1198 O T M = 14,0406 Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 413 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 1 1 ,674 8 Ibs /ertical component of active pressure NOT used for soil pressure RESISTINGForce Distance Ibs ft Soil Over Heel = Sloped Soil Over Heel Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe _ Surcharge Over Toe _ Stem Weight(s) Earth @ Stem Transitions _ Footing Weight _ Key Weight Vert Component _ Total = 5,683 3 1,291 7 2200 1,3740 2933 1,9125 9000 1 1 ,674 8 592 592 000 1 00 257 300 425 442 Ibs RM = 1 Moment ft-# 33,626 4 7,642 4 2200 3,534 0 8800 8,1281 3,975 0 58,005 9 DESIGNER NOTES To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title EX-2 Job# Description Page Date SEP 2,2001Dsgnr HB This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 23-June 2006, (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration* RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Criteria — ~--v 1 Retained Height = Wall height above soil = Slope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe = Water height over heel = W.8 00 ft J 1 00ft 000 1 1200m 00ft I Soil Data Allow Soil Bearing = 2,000 0 psf Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method ~\ | Footing Dimensions & Strengths Wind on Stem 00 psf Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure options NOT USED for Soil Pressure NOT USED for Sliding Resistance NOT USED for Overturning Resistance Heel Active Pressure Toe Active Pressure Passive Pressure Soil Density Footmg||Soil Friction Soil height to ignore for passive pressure 35 0 psf/ft 35 0 psf/ft = 1500 psf/ft = HOOOpcf = 0350 = 1200m Toe Width Heel Width Total Footing Width Footing Thickness Key Width Key Depth Key Distance from Toe 200ft 475 Fy =fc = 3,000psi Footing Concrete Density = Mm As % Cover @ Top = 2 00 in (j 1800m 1800m 36 00 in 367ft 60,000 psi 15000pcf 00018 Btm = 3 00 in fSurcharge Loads Surcharge Over Heel = 0 0 psf Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf Used for Sliding & Overturning j Lateral Load Applied Lateral Load Height to Top Height to Bottom = to Stem 00#/ft 000 ft 000ft k Adjacent Footing Load Axial Load Applied to Stem Axial Dead Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Live Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Load Eccentricity = 0 0 in Earth Pressure Seismic Load Kae for seismic earth pressure = Ka for static earth pressure = Difference Kae - Ka Design Kh =0 300 g Using Mononobe-Okabe / Seed-Whitman procedure Fp / Wp Weight Multiplier 0521 = 0 277 = 0243~ Adjacent Footing Load = Footing Width = Eccentricity = Wall to Ftg CL Dist Footing Type Base Above/Below Soil at Back of Wall Poisson's Ratio = Added seismic base force 00 Ibs 000ft 000 in 000ft Line Load 00ft 0300 858 0 Ibs A Stem Weight Seismic Load 188 7 Ibs *Design Summary Wall Stability Ratios Overturning = Sliding = Total Bearing Load = resultant ecc = Soil Pressure @ Toe = Soil Pressure @ Heel = Allowable = Soil Pressure Less Than ACI Factored @ Toe = ACI Factored @ Heel Footing Shear @ Toe = Footing Shear @ Heel = Allowable = 1 249 OK 1 50 OK 6,746 Ibs 11 78 in 1,872 psf OK 127 psf OK 2,000 psf Allowable 2,564 psf 174 psf 196 psi OK 143 psi OK 93 1 DSI Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lateral Sliding Force = 2, 51 6 7 Ibs less 65 % Passive Force = - 1 .425 9 Ibs less 100% Friction Force = - Added Force Req'd = for 1 5 1 Stability Load Factors Building Code Dead Load Live Load Earth, H Wind, W Seismic E 2,361 2 Ibs 0 0 Ibs OK 0 0 Ibs OK Other 1 400 1 700 1 700 1 700 1 700 Stem Construction | Design Height Above Ftg ft = Wall Material Above "Ht" Thickness = Rebar Size = Rebar Spacing = Rebar Placed at = Donion Dnto fb/FB + fa/Fa = Total Force @ Section Ibs = Moment Actual ft-# = Moment Allowable ft-# = Shear Actual psi = Shear Allowable psi = Wall Weight psf = Rebar Depth 'd' in = LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE m = LAP SPLICE IF BELOW m = HOOK EMBED INTO FTG in = Masonry Data fm psi = Fs psi = Solid Grouting = Special Inspection = Modular Ratio 'n' = Short Term Factor = Equiv Solid Thick in = Top Stem Stem OK 400 Masonry 800 # 4 1600 Edge 0501 5152 946 1 1,8892 76 51 5 780 525 2609 2609 1,500 24,000 Yes Yes 2578 1 330 760 2nd Stem OK 000 Masonry 1200 # 6 800 Edge 0683 1,8996 6,652 6 9,735 3 184 51 5 1240 900 7436 666 1,500 24,000 Yes Yes 2578 1 330 11 60 Masonry Block Type = Medium Weight Concrete Data fc psi = Fy psi = To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title Job# Description EX-2 Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rpS Retain Pro 2005 23 June 2006 (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration # RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design i Footing Design Results Factored Pressure Mu' Upward Mu' Downward Mu Design Actual 1 -Way Shear Allow 1 -Way Shear Toe Reinforcing Heel Reinforcing Key Reinforcing = = = = = = Toe 2,564 5,817 1,187 4,630 1963 93 11 Heel 174 5,169 12,376 psf ft-* ft-* 7,207 ft-* 1430 9311 psi psi = None Spec'd = None Spec'd =#5 @ 1800 in Other Acceptable Toe Heel Key Not req'd, Not req'd, #4@ 7 50 Sizes & Mu Mu in, <S* <S* Spacings Fr Fr #5@ 1 1 50 in, #6@ 16 50 in, #7@ 22 25 in, Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments Item Heel Active Pressure = Toe Active Pressure = OVERTURNINGForce Distance Ibs ft 1,5794 -1094 317 083 Moment ft-# 5,001 4 -91 1 RESISTING Force Distance Moment Ibs ft ft-# Soil Over Heel = 3,300 0 Sloped Soil Over Heel = 488 16,0875 Surcharge Over Toe = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Load @ Stem Above Soil = Seismic Earth Load = Seismic Stem Self Wt = 8580 1887 570 548 4,890 5 1,0343 Total = 2,5167 OTM = 10,8350 Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 2 49 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 6,746 4 Ibs Vertical component of active pressure NOT used for soil pressure Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Stem Weight(s) Earth @ Stem Transitions. Footing Weight Key Weight ~ Vert Component 2200 8860 1467 1,5188 6750 000 1 00 243 283 338 442 2200 2,1500 4156 5,1258 2,981 3 Total =6,7464 Ibs RM =26,980 1 DESIGNER NOTES To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title EX-? Job# Description Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 23 June 2006 (c) 1989 2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration* RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design ! Criteria Retained Height = Wall height above soil - Slope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe = Water height over heel = Wind on Stem = Vprtir.al romnnnent nf artivp. saaaaa^J 800ft 1 00ft 000 1 1200m 00ft OOpsf | Soil Data Allow Soil Bearing Equivalent Fluid Pressure Heel Active Pressure Toe Active Pressure Passive Pressure Soil Density Footmg||Soil Friction Soil height to ignore for passive pressure J = 2,000 0 psf Method 35 0 psf/rt 35 0 psf/rt 1500psf/tt = HOOOpcf = 0350 = 1200m i Footing Dimensions & Strengths g Toe Width Heel Width Total Footing Width = Footing Thickness = Key Width Key Depth = Key Distance from Toe = fc = 3,000psi Fy = 200ft 475 675 1800m 1800m 36 00 in 367ft 60,000 psii«;n nn nr-f lateral soil pressure options NOT USED for Soil Pressure NOT USED for Sliding Resistance NOT USED for Overturning Resistance Mm As% = 00018 Cover @ Top = 2 00 in @ Btm = 3 00 in Surcharge Loads | 1 Lateral Load Applied to Stem | Surcharge Over Heel = 250 0 psf Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf Used for Sliding & Overturning Lateral Load = 0 0 #/ft Height to Top = 0 00 ft Height to Bottom = 0 00 ft Axial Load Applied to Stem jj Axial Dead Load = Axial Live Load Axial Load Eccentricity = *Design Summary 00 Ibs 00 Ibs 0 0 in i /Vail Stability Ratios Overturning = 3 71 OK Sliding = 1 70 OK Total Bearing Load = 7,684 Ibs resultant ecc = 4 50 in Soil Pressure @ Toe = 1,518 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 759 psf OK Allowable = 2,000 psf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe = 2,085 psf ACI Factored @ Heel = 1,042 psf Footing Shear @ Toe = 164psiOK Footing Shear @ Heel = 12 9 psi OK Allowable = 93 1 psi liding Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lateral Sliding Force = 2,225 7 Ibs less 50 % Passive Force = - 1 ,096 9 Ibs less 1 00% Friction Force = - 2,689 4 Ibs Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK for 1 5 1 Stability = 0 0 Ibs OK oad Factors Building Code Dead Load Live Load Earth, H Wind, W Seismic, E Other 1 400 1 700 1 700 1 700 1 700 i Stem Construction | Top stem Adjacent Footing Load | Adjacent Footing Load - 0 0 Ibs Footing Width = 0 00 ft Eccentricity = 0 00 in Wall to Ftg CL Dist = 0 00 ft Footing Type Line Load at Back of Wall ° ° Poisson's Ratio = 0 300 2nd Design Height Above Ftg ft= 4 00 0 00 Wall Material Above "Ht" = Masonry Masonry Thickness = 800 1200 RebarSize = #4 #6 Rebar Spacing = 1600 800 Rebar Placed at = Edge Edge fb/FB + fa/Fa = 0711 0755 Total Force @ Section Ibs = 598 2 1 ,738 9 Moment Actual ft-#= 1,0097 5,5263 Moment Allowable ft-#= 1,4205 7,3198 Shear Actual psi= 105 187 Shear Allowable psi = 38 7 38 7 Wall Weight psf= 780 1240 Rebar Depth 'd' in = 525 900 LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE m= 2609 7436 LAP SPLICE IF BELOW m = 26 09 HOOK EMBED INTO FTG in = 6 23 Masonry Data fm psi= 1,500 1,500 Fs psi= 24,000 24,000 Solid Grouting = Yes Yes Special Inspection = Yes Yes Modular Ratio 'n1 = 25 78 25 78 Short Term Factor = 1 000 1 000 -Equiv Solid Thick m = 7 60 11 60 Masonry Block Type = Medium Weight Concrete Data f c psi = Fy psi = To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title Job# Description EX-2 Dsgnr HB Date Page SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rpS Retain Pro 2005 23 June 2006 (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration # RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Footing Design Results Toe Heel Factored Pressure = 2,085 1,042 psf Mu' Upward = 4,983 9,983 ft-# Mu' Downward = 1,187 1 5,776 ft-# Mu Design = 3,796 5,793 ft-# Actual 1 -Way Shear = 1642 1291psi Allow 1 -Way Shear = 9311 9311psi Other Acceptable Toe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Toe Not req'd, Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel Not req'd, Key Reinforcing =#5@1800m Key #4@ 7 50 Sizes & Spacmgs Mu < S * Fr Mu < S * Fr in, #5@ 11 50 in, #6@ 1650m,#7@ 22 25 in, [ Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments OVERTURNINGForce Distance Moment Item Ibs ft ft-# Heel Active Pressure = 2,335 1 3 68 8,590 8 Toe Active Pressure = -1 09 4 0 83 -91 1 Surcharge Over Toe = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Load @ Stem Above Soil = Total = 2,2257 OTM = 8,4997 Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 3 71 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 7,683 9 Ibs Vertical component of active pressure NOT used for soil pressure 1 RESISTING Soil Over Heel = Sloped Soil Over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe _ Surcharge Over 1 oe _ Stem Weight(s) Earth @ Stem Transitions. Footing Weight _ Key Weight Vert Component Total = Force Ibs 3,300 0 9375 2200 8860 1467 1,5188 6750 7,6839 Ibs Distance ft 488 488 000 1 00 243 283 338 442 RM = Moment ft-# 16,0875 4,570 3 2200 2,1500 4156 5,1258 2,981 3 31,5504 DESIGNER NOTES To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block ^ information ^g, ^ Title EX-? Job# Description ^ \ !> SH^-^Mfc* This Wall in Page Dsgnr HB Date SEP 2,2001 File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 , 23-June-2006 (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Cantilevered Retaining Wall Desicin Registrations RP-1 150545 2005022 ° a , Criteria | Retained Height = 600ft Slope Behind Wall = 0 00 1 Height of Soil over Toe = 1200m Water height over heel = 0 0 ft Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure options NOT USED for Soil Pressure NOT USED for Sliding Resistance NOT USED for Overturning Resistance Soil Data | Allow Soil Bearing = 2,000 0 psf Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Heel Active Pressure = 35 0 psf/ft Toe Active Pressure = 35 0 psf/ft Passive Pressure = 1500 psf/ft Soil Density = 1 1 0 00 pcf Footmg||Soil Friction = 0 350 Soil height to ignore for passive pressure = 1 2 00 in Surcharge Loads | Lateral Load Applied to Stem | Surcharge Over Heel = 0 0 psf Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf Used for Sliding & Overturning Axial Load Applied to Stem ^ Axial Dead Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Live Load = 0 0 IbsAxial Load Eccentricity = 0 0 in Earth Pressure Seismic Load | Design Kh =0 300 g Using Mononobe-Okabe / Seed-Whitman procec Stem Weight Seismic Load | F | *Design Summary | Wall Stability Ratios Overturning = 2 09 OK Sliding = 1 61 OK Total Bearing Load = 3,843 Ibs resultant ecc = 1 1 27 in Soil Pressure @ Toe = 1 ,642 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 0 psf OK Allowable = 2,000 psf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe = 2,254 psf ACI Factored @ Heel = 0 psf Footing Shear @ Toe = 146 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel = 9 7 psi OK Allowable = 93 1 psi Sliding Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lateral Sliding Force = 1,565 2 Ibs less 65 % Passive Force = - 1,1700 Ibs less 100% Friction Force - - 1,345 2 Ibs Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK for 1 5 1 Stability = 0 0 Ibs OK Building Code Other Dead Load 1 400 Live Load 1 700 Earth, H 1 700 Wind, W 1 700 Seismic, E 1 700 Lateral Load = 0 0 #/ft Height to Top = 0 00 ft Height to Bottom = 0 00 ft Kae for seismic earth pressure = 0 521 Ka for static earth pressure - 0 277 Difference Kae - Ka =0 243ure :p / Wp Weight Multiplier = 0 300 g i Stem Construction | T°P stem Footing Dimensions & Toe Width Heel Width Total Footing Width Footing Thickness = Key Width Key Depth = Key Distance from Toe = fc = 3,000 psi Fy = Footing Concrete Density = Mm As % Cover @ Top = 2 00 in @ Adjacent Footing Load Adjacent Footing Load Footing Width = Eccentricity = Wall to Ftg CL Dist Footing Type at Back of Wall Poisson's Ratio = Added seismic base force Added seismic base force 2nd Strengths | 200ft 300 500 1800m 1200m 30 00 in 267ft 60,000 psi 150 00 pcf 00018 Btm = 3 00 in 1 00 Ibs 000ft 0 00 in 000ft Line Load 00ft 0300 534 8 Ibs 155 5 Ibs Design Height Above Ftg ft= 400 000 Wall Material Above "Ht" = Masonry Masonry Thickness = 800 1200 Rebar Size = #4 #5 Rebar Spacing = 1600 1600 Rebar Placed at = Edge Edge fb/FB + fa/Fa = 0118 0784 Total Force @ Section lbs= 1579 1,1102 Moment Actual ft-#= 1671 2,9717 Moment Allowable ft-#= 1,4205 3,7913 Shear Actual psi = 19 97 Shear Allowable psi = 38 7 38 7 Wall Weight psf= 780 1240 Rebar Depth 'd1 in = 5 25 9 00 LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE in = 2609 3689 LAP SPLICE IF BELOW in = 26 09 HOOK EMBED INTO FTG in = 6 29 Masonry Data fm psi= 1,500 1,500 Fs psi= 24,000 24,000 Solid Grouting = Yes Yes Special Inspection = Yes Yes Modular Ratio 'n1 = 25 78 25 78 Short Term Factor = 1 000 1 000 Equiv Solid Thick in = 760 1160 Masonry Block Type = Medium Weight Concrete Data fc psi = Fy psi = To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title Job# Description EX-2 Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 23 June 2006 (c) 1989 2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration # RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Footing Design Results Factored Pressure Mu' Upward Mu' Downward Mu Design Actual 1-Way Shear Allow 1-Way Shear Toe Reinforcing Heel Reinforcing Key Reinforcing Toe 2,254 4,792 1,187 3,605 1461 9311 None Spec'd None Spec'd #5 @ 1800m Heel 0 psf 579 ft-# 3,136ft-# 2,557 ft-# 9 66 psi 93 11 psi Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacmgs Toe Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Heel Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Key #4@ 12 50 in, #5@ 19 25 in, #6@ 27 25 in, #7@ 37 25 in, Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments Item Heel Active Pressure = Toe Active Pressure = OVERTURNINGForce Distance Ibs ft 9844 -1094 250 083 Moment ft-# 2,460 9 -91 1 RESISTINGForce Distance Ibs ft Soil Over Heel = 1 ,320 0 4 00 Sloped Soil Over Heel = Moment ft-# 5,280 0 Surcharge Over Toe = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Load @ Stem Above Soil = Seismic Earth Load = Seismic Stem Self Wt = 5348 1555 450 462 2,406 4 7187 Total = 1,5652 OTM = 5,4948 Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 2 09 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 3,843 3 Ibs Vertical component of active pressure NOT used for soil pressure Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe . Surcharge Over Toe Stem Weight(s) Earth @ Stem Transitions. Footing Weighl Key Weight ~ Vert Component 2200 7300 733 1,1250 3750 000 1 00 245 283 250 317 Total =3,843 3 Ibs R M = 2200 1,7860 2078 2,8125 1,1875 11,4938 DESIGNER NOTES To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title EX-2 Job# Description Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 , 23-June-2006 (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration* RP-11 50545 2005022 Cantllev@red Retaining Wall~ i Criteria | Retained Height Wall height above soil = Slope Behind Wall = Height of Soil over Toe = Water height over heel = 600ft 1 00ft 000 1 1200m 00ft Soil Data Footing Dimensions & Strengths Allow Soil Bearing = 2,000 0 psf Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure options NOT USED for Soil Pressure NOT USED for Sliding Resistance NOT USED for Overturning Resistance | Surcharge Loads Surcharge Over Heel = 250 0 psf Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf Used for Sliding & Overturning Axial Load Applied to Stem Heel Active Pressure Toe Active Pressure Passive Pressure Soil Density Footmg||Soil Friction Soil height to ignore for passive pressure 35 0 psf/ft 35 0 psf/ft = 1500 psf/ft = 11000pcf = 0350 = 1200m Toe Width Heel Width Total Footing Width Footing Thickness Key Width Key Depth Key Distance from Toe 200ft 300 500 1800m 1200m 30 00 in 267ft fc = 3,000 ps; Fy = 60,000 psi Footing Concrete Density = 150 00 pcf Mm As% = 00018 Cover @ Top = 2 00 in @ Btm = 3 00 in I Lateral Load Applied to Stem | Adjacent Footing Load Lateral Load Height to Top Height to Bottom 0 0 #/ft 0 00 ft 0 00 ft Adjacent Footing Load - 0 0 Ibs Footing Width = 0 00 ft Eccentricity = 0 00 in Wall to Ftg CL Dist = 0 00 ft Footing Type Line Load Axial Dead Load = Axial Live Load = Axial Load Eccentricity = *Design Summary /Vail Stability Ratios Overturning = Sliding = Total Bearing Load = resultant ecc = Soil Pressure @ Toe = Soil Pressure @ Heel = Allowable = Soil Pressure Less Than ACI Factored @ Toe = ACI Factored @ Heel = Footing Shear @ Toe = Footing Shear @ Heel = Allowable = 00 Ibs 00 Ibs 00 in 1 293 OK 1 64 OK 4,343 Ibs 545 in 1,342 psf OK 395 psf OK 2,000 pSf Allowable 1,847 psf 544 psf 12 5 psi OK 9 2 psi OK 93 1 DSI hdmg Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lateral Sliding Force = 1,471 6 Ibs less 50 % Passive Force = - 900 0 Ibs less 1 00% Friction Force = - Added Force Req'd = for 1 5 1 Stability oad Factors Building Code Dead Load Live Load Earth, H Wind, W Seismic, E 1,520 2 Ibs 0 0 Ibs OK 0 0 Ibs OK Other 1 400 1 700 1 700 1 700 1 700 [stem Construction 1 Design Height Above Ftg ft = Wall Material Above "Ht" Thickness = Rebar Size = Rebar Spacing = Rebar Placed at = rio^inn DitnLJCol^ll LJdld fb/FB + fa/Fa = Total Force @ Section Ibs = Moment Actual ft-# = Moment Allowable ft-# = Shear Actual psi = Shear Allowable psi = Wall Weight psf = Rebar Depth 'd1 in = LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE in = LAP SPLICE IF BELOW in = HOOK EMBED INTO FTG in = Masonry Data f m psi = Fs psi = Solid Grouting = Special Inspection = Modular Ratio 'n' = Short Term Factor = "Equiv Solid Thick m = Top Stem Stem OK 400 Masonry 800 # 4 1600 Edge 0145 2291 2058 1 ,420 5 40 387 780 525 2609 2609 1,500 24,000 Yes Yes 2578 1 000 760 Base Aoove/tseiow son at Back of Wall Poisson's Ratio = 0 300 2nd Stem OK 000 Masonry 1200 # 5 1600 Edge 0708 1,0898 2,686 0 3,791 3 11 1 387 1240 900 3689 679 1,500 24,000 Yes Yes 2578 1 000 11 60 Masonry Block Type = Medium Weight Concrete Data f c psi = Fy psi = Fo specify your own Title EX-,> special title block here, Job # jse the "Settings" screen Description ind enter your title block nformation _,This Wall in File Paqe Dsgnr HB Date SEP 2,2001 c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 etam Pro 2005 23-June-2006 (c) 1989-2006wwretampro com/support for latest release Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design egistration# RP 1150545 2005022 ° a Footing Design Results I Toe Heel Factored Pressure = 1,847 544 psf Vlu' Upward = 4,180 1,872 ft-# Vlu' Downward = 1.187 4,212 ft-# Mu Design = 2,993 2,340ft-# Actual 1 -Way Shear = 1246 9 24 psi Mlow 1 -Way Shear = 9311 9311psi Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacmgs foe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Toe Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Key Reinforcing =#5@ 1800m Key #4@ 12 50 in, #5@ 19 25 in, #6@ 27 25 Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments OVERTURNING Force Distance Moment tern Ibs ft ft-# Heel Active Pressure = 1,5810 297 4,6982 Soil Over Heel foe Active Pressure = -1094 083 -911 Sloped Soil Over Heel = Surcharge Over Toe = Surcharge Over Heel = \djacent Footing Load = Adjacent Footing Load = \dded Lateral Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = .oad @ Stem Above Soil = Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe Stem Weight(s) Total = 1,4716 OTM = 4,6070 Footing Weigh! I Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 2 93 Key Weight Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 4,343 3 Ibs Vert ComP°nent Total =/ertical component of active pressure NOT used for soil pressure in, #7@ 37 25 in, 1 RESISTING Force Distance Moment Ibs ft ft-# 1,3200 400 5,2800 500 0 4 00 2,000 0 000 220 0 1 00 220 0 7300 245 1,7860 73 3 2 83 207 8 1,1250 250 2,8125 3750 317 1,1875 4,3433 Ibs RM= 13,4938 DESIGNER NOTES "o specify your own pecial title block here, ise the "Settings" screen & nd enter your title block t ' » 1 {• nformation ^s W 1 H e Title EX-2 Job# Dsgnr HB Da Description ™ \ " This Wall m File c \program files\rp2005\( Paae te SEP 2,2001 examples rp5 stain Pro 2005 23-June 2006 (c) 1989-2006ww retampro com/support for latest release Cantilevered Retaining Wall Designsgistration# RP-1 150545 2005022 ° a Criteria i Retained Height = 600ft Slope Behind Wail = 0 00 1 Height of Soil over Toe = 1200m Water height over heel = 0 0 ft Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure options NOT USED for Soil Pressure NOT USED for Sliding Resistance NOT USED for Overturning Resistance Surcharge Loads | Surcharge Over Heel = 0 0 psf Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf Used for Sliding & Overturning Axial Load Applied to Stem | Axial Dead Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Live Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Load Eccentricity = 0 0 in 'Design Summary | /Vail Stability Ratios Overturning - 4 85 OK Sliding = 2 57 OK Total Bearing Load = 3,843 Ibs resultant ecc = 1 51 in Soil Pressure @ Toe = 885 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 652 psf OK Allowable = 2.°00 psf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe = 1,215 psf ACI Factored @ Heel = 896 psf Footing Shear @ Toe = 7 5 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel = 3 0 psi OK Allowable = 93 1 psi lidmg Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lateral Sliding Force = 875 0 Ibs less 50 % Passive Force = - 900 0 Ibs less 100% Friction Force - - 1,345 2 Ibs Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK for 1 5 1 Stability = 0 0 Ibs OK Building Code Other Dead Load 1 400 Live Load 1 700 Earth, H 1 700 Wind, W 1 700 Seismic, E 1 700 Soil Data | Footing Dimensions & Allow Soil Bearing = 2,000 0 psf Toe Width = Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Heel Width = Heel Active Pressure = 35 0 psf/ft Total Footing Width = Toe Active Pressure = 35 0 psf/ft Footing Thickness = Passive Pressure = 1500 psf/ft Soil Density = 11000pcf K^n'"""^ - FootmgllSoil Friction = 0350 KeJ ofs'tance from Toe = Soil height to ignore for passive pressure = 1200m fc ~ 3, 000 psi Fy -Footing Concrete Density = Mm As % = Cover @ Top = 2 00 m @ Strengths § 200ft 300 500 1800m 1200m 30 00 in 267ft 60,000 psi 15000pcf 00018 Btm = 3 00 in Lateral Load Applied to Stem | Adjacent Footing Load | Lateral Load = 0 0 #/ft Adjacent Footing Load Height to Top = 000ft Footing Width Height to Bottom = 000ft Eccentricity Wall to Ftg CL Dist Footing Type at Back of Wall Poisson's Ratio = Stem Construction | Top stem 2nd Design Height Above Ftg ft = 4 00 0 00 Wall Material Above "Ht" = Masonry Masonry Thickness = 800 1200 Rebar Size = #4 #5 Rebar Spacing = 1600 1600 Rebar Placed at = Edge Edge fb/FB + fa/Fa = 0033 0331 Total Force @ Section lbs= 700 6125 Moment Actual ft-#= 467 1,2542 Moment Allowable ft-#= 1,4205 3,7913 Shear Actual psi = 12 62 Shear Allowable psi = 38 7 38 7 Wall Weight psf= 780 1240 Rebar Depth 'd1 m= 525 900 LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE in = 2609 3689 LAP SPLICE IF BELOW m = 2609 HOOK EMBED INTO FTG m = 6 00 fm psi= 1,500 1500 Fs psi= ?4,000 24,000 Solid Grouting = Yes Yes Special Inspection = Yes Yes Modular Ratio 'n' = 2578 2578 Short Term Factor = 1 000 1 000 -Equiv Solid Thick m= 760 1160 Masonry Block Type = Medium Weight Concrete Data f c psi = Fy psi = 00 Ibs 000ft 000 in 000ft Line Load 00ft 0300 To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title Job# Description EX-2 Dsgnr HB Date Page SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 , 23-June 2006 (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration* RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Footing Design Results || Toe Heel Factored Pressure = 1,215 896 psf Mu1 Upward = 2,955 2,389 ft-# Mu' Downward = 1,187 3,136 ft-# Mu Design = 1,768 747 ft-# Actual 1 -Way Shear = 746 3 00 psi Allow 1 -Way Shear = 9311 9311psi Toe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key Reinforcing = #5@1800m [ Summary of Overturning & Resisting Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacing-; Toe Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Heel Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Key #4@ 12 50 in, #5@ 19 25 in, #6@ 27 25 in, #7@ 37 25 in, Forces & Moments 1 Item Heel Active Pressure = Toe Active Pressure = Surcharge Over Toe = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Load @ Stem Above Soil = OVERTURNING Force Distance Moment Ibs ft ft-# RESISTINGForce Distance Moment Ibs ft ft-# 9844 -1094 250 083 2,460 9 -91 1 Total = 8750 OTM = 2,3698 Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 4 85 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 3,843 3 Ibs Vertical component of active pressure NOT used for soil pressure Soil Over Heel = Sloped Soil Over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe . Surcharge Over Tee . Stem Weight(s) Earth @ Stem Transitions. Footing Weigh) . Key Weight Vert Component . 1,3200 2200 7300 733 1,1250 3750 400 Total =3,8433 Ibs RM = 5,2800 000 1 00 245 283 250 3 17 2200 1 ,786 0 2078 2,8125 1,1875 11,4938 DESIGNER NOTES To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title EX-2 Job# Description Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rpS Retain Pro 2005 23 June-2006 (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registrations RP 1150545 2005022 \ Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design" ° j Criteria _________ „..,.,. 1 [Soil Data Retained Height = 4 00 ft Wall height above soil = 1 00 ft Slope Behind Wall = 0 00 1 Height of Soil over Toe = 1200m Water height over heel = 0 0 ft Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure options NOT USED for Soil Pressure NOT USED for Sliding Resistance NOT USED for Overturning Resistance j Surcharge Loads Surcharge Over Heel = 0 0 psf Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf Used for Sliding & Overturning Allow Soil Bearing = 2,000 0 psi Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Heel Active Pressure Toe Active Pressure Passive Pressure Soil Density Footmg||Soil Friction Soil height to ignore for passive pressure 35 0 psf/ft 35 0 psf/ft = 1500 psf/ft = HOOOpcf = 0 350 = 12 00 in i Footing Dimensions & Strengths Toe Width = 1 00 ft Heel Width = 2 00_ Total Footing Width = 300 Footing Thickness = 1500m Key Width = 1200m Key Depth = 1800m Key Distance from Toe = 1 17 ft fc = 3,000 psi Fy = 60,000 psi Footing Concrete Density = 150 00 pcf Mm As% = 00018 Cover @ Top = 2 00 in @ Btm = 3 00 in i Axial Load Applied to Stem | Axial Dead Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Live Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Load Eccentricity = 0 0 in [ Earth Pressure Seismic Load ~j| Design Kh 0 300 g Using Mononobe-Okabe / Seed-Whitman procedure Lateral Load Applied to Stem | Lateral Load = 0 0 #/ft Height to Top = 0 00 ft Height to Bottom = 0 00 ft Kae for seismic earth pressure = 0 521 Ka for static earth pressure = 0 277 Adjacent Footing Load ~|| Adjacent Footing Load = 0 0 Ibs Footing Width = 0 00 ft Eccentricity = 0 00 in Wall to Ftg CL Dist = 0 00 ft Footing Type Line Load Base Above/Below Soil at Back of Wall ~ Poisson's Ratio = 0 300 Added seismic base force 262 0 Ibs U«n,£> * VI- Difference Kae - Ka = 0 243 * * ' ' ° I Stem Weight Seismic *Design Summary Load | 1 /Vail Stability Ratios Overturning = 1 65 OK Sliding = 1 55 OK Total Bearing Load = 1,874 Ibs resultant ecc = 10 01 m Soil Pressure @ Toe = 1,876 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 0 psf OK Allowable = 2,000 psf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe = 2,627 psf ACI Factored @ Heel = 0 psf Footing Shear @ Toe = 1 1 0 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel = 7 3 psi OK Allowable = 93 1 psi hdmg Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lateral Sliding Force = 733 8 Ibs less 50 % Passive Force = - 489 8 Ibs less 100% Friction Force = - 656 0 Ibs Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK for 1 5 1 Stability = 0 0 Ibs OK oad Factors Building Code Dead Load Live Load Earth, H Wind, W Seismic, E Other 1 400 1 700 1 700 1 700 1 700 Fp / Wp Weight Multiplier Stem Construction | Design Height Above Ftg ft Wall Material Above "Ht" Thickness Rebar Size Rebar Spacing Rebar Placed at fb/FB + fa/Fa Total Force @ Section Ibs Moment Actual ft-# Moment Allowable Shear Actual psi Shear Allowable psi Wall Weight Rebar Depth 'd' in LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE in LAP SPLICE IF BELOW in HOOK EMBED INTO FTG in Masonry Data fm psi Fs psi Solid Grouting Special Inspection 0 300 g Added seismic base force / 83 1 Ibs VVA,"-"" Top Stem """ Stem OK 000 = Masonry 800 #4 1600 Edge = 0662 4977 9402 1,4205 73 387 780 525 2609 600 1,500 24,000 Yes Yes Modular Ratio 'n1 = 25 78 Short Term Factor = 1 000 Equiv Solid Thick m= 760 Masonry Block Type = Medium Weight Concrete Data fc psi Fy psi = To specify your own special title blocK here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title EX-? Job# Description Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 23-June-2006 (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration # RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Footing Design Results Toe Factored Pressure = 2,627 Mu' Upward = 1,440 Mu' Downward = 283 Mu Design = 1,156 Actual 1-Way Shear = 1101 Allow 1-Way Shear = 9311 Toe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Key Reinforcing = #5 @ 18 00 in ^Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments Heel 0 psf 27ft-# 988 ft-# 961 ft-# 7 33 psi 93 11 psi Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Toe Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Heel Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Key Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Item Heel Active Pressure = Toe Active Pressure = OVERTURNINGForce Distance Ibs ft 4823 -886 1 75 075 Moment ft-# 844 1 -664 RESISTING Force Distance Ibs ft Soil Over Heel = 5867 233 Sloped Soil Over Heel = Moment ft-# 1,3689 Surcharge Over Toe = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Load @ Stem Above Soil = Seismic Earth Load = Seismic Stem Self Wt = 2620 831 315 375 8254 311 5 Total = 7388 OTM = 1,9146 Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 1 65 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 1,874 2 Ibs Vertical component of active pressure NOT used for soil pressure Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing L oad = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe . Surcharge Over Toe . Stem Weight(s) Earth @ Stem Transitions. Footing Weigh! Key Weight ! Vert Component 1100 3900 5625 2250 000 050 1 33 1 50 1 67 550 5200 8438 3750 Total =1,8742 Ibs RM =3,1626 DESIGNER NOTES To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title EX-2 Job# Description Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rpS Retain Pro 2005 23 June-2006 (c) 1989-2006 www retainpro com/support for latest release Registration* RP-1150545 2005022 Cantllevered Retaining Walla Criteria Retained Height Wall height above soil = Slope Behind Wall Height of Soil over Toe = Water height over heel = 400ft 1 00ft 000 1 1200m 00ft I | Soil Data I ' Footing Dimensions & Strengths Allow Soil Bearing = 2,000 0 psf Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure options NOT USED for Soil Pressure NOT USED for Sliding Resistance NOT USED for Overturning Resistance Surcharge Loads Heel Active Pressure Toe Active Pressure Passive Pressure Soil Density Footmg||Soil Friction Soil height to ignore for passive pressure 35 0 psf/ft 35 0 psf/ft = 1500 psf/ft = HOOOpcf = 0350 = 1200m Toe Width Heel Width Total Footing Width Footing Thickness Key Width Key Depth Key Distance from Toe = = 1 00ft 200 300 1500m 1200m 1800m 1 17ft fc = 3,000 psi Fy = Footing Concrete Density = Mm As % = Cover @ Top = 2 00 in @ 60,000 psi 15000pcf 00018 Btm = 3 00 in ; Lateral Load Applied to Stem | j Adjacent Footing Load Surcharge Over Heel = 250 0 psfUsed To Resist Sliding & Overturning Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf Used for Sliding & Overturning Lateral Load = 0 0 #/ft Adjacent Footing Load = 0 0 Ibs Height to Top = 0 00 ft Footing Width = 0 00 ft Height to Bottom = 0 00 ft Eccentricity = 0 00 in Wall to Ftg CL Dist - 0 00 ft Axial Load Applied to Stem j Axial Dead Load = Axial Live Load = Axial Load Eccentricity = *Design Summary Wall Stability Ratios Overturning Sliding = Total Bearing Load resultant ecc = Soil Pressure @ Toe = Soil Pressure @ Heel = Allowable =Soil Pressure Less Than ; ACI Factored @ Toe ACI Factored @ Heel Footing Shear @ Toe = Footing Shear @ Heel = Allowable = lidmg Calcs (Vertical Compon Lateral Sliding Force = less 50 % Passive Force = - less 100% Friction Force - - Added Force Req'd = for 1 5 1 Stability Building Code Dead Load Live Load Earth, H Wind, W Seismic, E OOlbs OOlbs 0 0 in 1 210 OK 1 56 OK 2,208 Ibs 677 in 1 ,572 psf OK 0 psf OK 2,000 psf Allowable 2,201 psf 0 psf 9 9 psi OK 8 2 psi OK 93 1 psi ent NOT Used) 811 4 Ibs 489 8 Ibs 772 6 Ibs 0 0 Ibs OK 0 0 Ibs OK Other 1 400 1 700 1 700 1 700 1 700 Stem Construction | Design Height Above Fto ft = Wall Material Above "Ht" Thickness = Rebar Size = Rebar Spacing = Rebar Placed at = fb/FB + fa/Fa = Total Force @ Section Ibs = Moment Actual ft-# = Moment Allowable = Shear Actual psi = Shear Allowable psi = Wall Weight Rebar Depth 'd' in = LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE m = LAP SPLICE IF BELOW m = HOOK EMBED INTO FTG in = Masonry Data fm psi = Fs psi = Solid Grouting = Special Inspection = Footing Type Line Load at Back of Wall ~ u u n Poisson's Ratio = 0 300 Top Stem Stem OK 000 Masonry 800 # 4 1600 Edge 0707 5807 1,0039 1,4205 102 387 780 525 2609 600 1 500 24,000 Yes Yes Modular Ratio 'n' = 25 78 Short Term Factor = 1 000 - Equiv Solid Thick in = 7 60 Masonry Block Type = Medium Weight Concrete Data fc psi = Fy psi = To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title EX-? Job* Description Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 23-June 2006 (c) 1989-2006 www retainpro com/support for latest release Registration # RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Footing Design Results i Toe Heel Factored Pressure = 2,201 0 psf Mu' Upward = 1,290 293 ft-# Mu1 Downward = 283 1 ,466 ft-# Mu Design = 1,007 1,174ft-# Actual 1 -Way Shear = 985 8 18 psi Allow 1 -Way Shear = 9311 9311ps: Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Toe Reinforcing = None Spec'd Toe Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Heel Reinforcing = None Spec'd Heel Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Key Reinforcing = #5 @ 18 00 in Key Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments OVERTURNINGForce Distance Moment tern Ibs ft ft-# Heel Active Pressure = 9000 216 1,9403 Foe Active Pressure = -88 6 0 75 -66 4 Surcharge Over Toe = \djacent Footing Load = \dded Lateral Load = .oad @ Stem Above Soil = Total = 8114 OTM = 1,8739 Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 210 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 2,207 5 Ibs Vertical component of active pressure NOT used for soil pressure Soil Over Heel Sloped Soil Over Heel Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe _ Surcharge Over Toe _ Stem Weight(s) Footing Weighl _ Key Weight Vert Component _ Total = RESISTING Force Distance Ibs ft 586 7 2 33 333 3 2 33 000 1100 050 390 0 1 33 562 5 1 50 225 0 1 67 2,207 5 Ibs R M = 1 Moment ft-# 1,3689 7778 550 5200 8438 3750 3,940 4 DESIGNER NOTES To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title EX-2 Job# Description Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 23 June-2006 (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration # RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Criteria I Retained Height = 2 00 ft Slope Behind Wall = 0 00 1 Height of Soil over Toe = 1200m Water height over heel = 0 0 ft Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure options NOT USED for Soil Pressure NOT USED for Sliding Resistance NOT USED for Overturning Resistance Surcharge Loads | Surcharge Over Heel = 0 0 psf Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf Used for Sliding & Overturning Axial Load Applied to Stem ^ Axial Dead Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Live Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Load Eccentricity = 0 0 in Earth Pressure Seismic Load | Design Kh =0 300 g Soil Data Allow Soil Bearing = 2 J ,000 0 psf Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Heel Active Pressure = 35 0 osf/ft Toe Active Pressure = Passive Pressure = 35 0 psf/ft 1500psf/ft Soil Density = 11000pcf Footmg||Soil Friction = Soil height to ignore for passive pressure = j Lateral Load Applied to Lateral Load = Height to Top = Height to Bottom = Kae for seismic earth pressure Ka for static earth pressure Difference Kae - Ka 0350 1200m Footing Dimensions & Toe Width Heel Width Total Footing Width Footing Thickness = Key Width Key Depth = Key Distance from Toe = fc = 3,000 psi Fy = Footing Concrete Density = Mm As % Cover @ Top = 2 00 in @ Stem 1 Adjacent Footing Load 00#/ft 000ft 000ft = 0 521 - 027 1 - 0243 Adjacent Footing Load Footing Width = Eccentricity = Wall to Ftg CL Dist Footing Type at Back of Wall Poisson's Ratio = Added seismic base force Strengths | 1 00 ft 1 00 200 1500m 1200m 0 00 in 000ft 60,000 psi 15000pcf 00018 Btm = 3 00 in 1 00 Ibs 000ft 000 in 000ft Line Load 00ft 0300 100 4 Ibs Using Mononobe-Okabe / Seed-Whitman procedure Stem Weight Seismic *Design Summary /Vail Stability Ratios Overturning = Sliding = Total Bearing Load = resultant ecc = Soil Pressure @ Toe = Soil Pressure @ Heel = Allowable = Soil Pressure Less Than ACI Factored @ Toe = ACI Factored @ Heel = Footing Shear @ Toe = Footing Shear @ Heel = Allowable = Load | 1 1 88 OK 1 74 OK 792 Ibs 579 in 1,021 psf OK 0 psf OK 2,000 psf Allowable 1 ,430 psf 0 psf 3 8 psi OK 1 3 psi OK 93 1 osi lidmg Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lateral Sliding Force = 246 5 Ibs less 50 % Passive Force = - 1 52 3 Ibs less 1 00% Friction Force = - Added Force Req'd = for 1 5 1 Stability = oad Factors Building Code Dead Load Live Load Earth, H Wind, W Seismic, E 277 3 Ibs 0 0 Ibs OK 0 0 Ibs OK Other 1 400 1 700 1 700 1 700 1 700 Fp / Wp Weight Multiplier Stem Construction | Design Height Above Ftg ft Wall Material Above "Ht" Thickness Rebar Size Rebar Spacing Rebar Placed at fb/FB + fa/Fa Total Force @ Section Ibs Moment Actual ft-# Moment Allowable Shear Actual psi Shear Allowable psi Wall Weight Rebar Depth 'd' in LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE in LAP SPLICE IF BELOW in HOOK EMBED INTO FTG in Masonry Data fm psi Fs psi Solid Grouting Special Inspection Modular Ratio 'n' Short Term Factor Equiv Solid Thick in 0 300 g Added seismic base force 49 8 Ibs Top Stem Stem OK 000 = Masonry 800 #4 1600 = Edge 0114 1404 161 2 1,4205 1 6 387 780 525 2609 600 = 1,500 24,000 Yes Yes 2578 1 000 760 Masonry Block Type = Medium Weight Concrete Data fc psi Fy psi = = To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title Job# Description EX-2 Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c \program files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 , 23-June-2006, (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration # RP 1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design Footing Design Results Factored Pressure Mu' Upward Mi/ Downward Mu Design Actual 1-Way Shear Allow 1-Way Shear Toe Reinforcing Heel Reinforcing Key Reinforcing Toe 1,430 0 0 147 377 9311 None Spec'd None Spec'd #5 @ 1800m 0 psf Oft-# 71 ft-# 71 ft-# 1 27 psi 9311 psi Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Toe Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Heel Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Key Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments tem Heel Active Pressure foe Active Pressure OVERTURNING Force Distance Ibs ft 1848 -886 1 08 075 Moment ft-# 2002 -664 Soil Over Heel = Sloped Soil Over Heel = Force Ibs RESISTING Distance ft 73 3 1 83 Hi Moment ft-# 1344 Surcharge Over Toe = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Load @ Stem Above Soil = Seismic Earth Load = Seismic Stem Self Wt = 1004 498 1 95 275 1958 137 1 Total = 2465 OTM = 4667 Resisting/Overturning Ratio = 1 88 Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure = 792 3 Ibs Vertical component of active pressure NOT used for soil pressure Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe Surcharge Over Toe . Stem Weight(s) Earth @ Stem Transitions. Footing Weigh! . Key Weight Vert Component . 1100 2340 3750 000 050 1 33 1 00 050 550 3120 3750 Total =7923 Ibs RM-8764 DESIGNER NOTES To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information , \ \ Title EX-2 Job # Description Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall m File c Vprogram files\rp2Q05\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 23 June-2006 (c) 1989 2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration #RP-1150545 2005022 Cantllevered Retaining Wall DeSKjn° J rCritena Retained Height = 200ft W.H ne,ht above so,, - 1 00 n Slope Behind Wall = 0 00 1 Height of Soil over Toe = 12 00 in Water height over heel = 00ft Wind on Stem = 0 0 psf Vertical component of active lateral soil pressure options NOT USED for Soil Pressure NOT USED for Sliding Resistance NOTUSED for Overturning Resistance ~h j Soil Data J | Footing Dimensions & Strengths | Allow Soil Bearing Toe Active Pressure Passive Pressure Soil Density Footmg||Soil Friction Soil height to ignore for passive pressure = 2,000 Opsf * 35 0 psf/ft = 35 0 psf/ft = 150 0 psf/ft = 11000pcf = 0 350 = 1200m Toe Width Heel Width Total Footing Width = Footing Thickness = Key Width Key Depth = Key Distance from Toe = fc = 3,000 psi Fy = Footing Concrete Density = Mm As % Cover @ Top = 2 00 in @ 1 00ft 1_00_ 200 1500m 1200m 600m 000ft 60,000 psi 15000pcf 00018 Btm = 3 00 in Surcharge Loads | Surcharge Over Heel = 250 0 psf Used To Resist Sliding & Overturning Surcharge Over Toe = 0 0 psf Used for Sliding & Overturning Axial Load Applied to Stem ^ Axial Dead Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Live Load = 0 0 Ibs Axial Load Eccentricity = 0 0 in *Design Summary | /Vail Stability Ratios Overturning = 1 93 OK Sliding = 1 63 OK Total Bearing Load = 951 Ibs resultant ecc = 5 53 in Soil Pressure @ Toe = 1,175 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 0 psf OK Allowable = 2,000 psf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable AC I Factored @ Toe = 1,645 psf ACI Factored @ Heel = 0 psf Footing Shear @ Toe = 5 0 psi OK Footing Shear @ Heel = 2 2 psi OK Allowable = 93 1 psi lidmg Calcs (Vertical Component NOT Used) Lateral Sliding Force = 354 8 Ibs less 50 % Passive Force = - 246 1 Ibs less 100% Friction Force = - 332 7 Ibs Added Force Req'd = 0 0 Ibs OK for 1 5 1 Stability = 0 0 Ibs OK oad Fsctors Building Code Other Dead Load 1 400 Live Load 1 700 Earth, H 1 700 Wind, W 1 700 Seismic, E 1 700 Lateral Load Applied to Stem | Lateral Load = 0 0 #/ft Height to Top = 0 00 ft Height to Bottom = 0 00 ft Stem Construction | Top stem Design Height Above Ftg ft = 0 0( Wall Material Above "Ht" = Masonry Thickness = 8 OC Rebar Size = # >• Rebar Spacing = 160( Rebar Placed at = Edge fb/FB + fa/Fa = 0 14 Total Force @ Section Ibs = 21 1 £ Moment Actual ft-#= 199< Moment Allowable = 1,4205 Shear Actual psi = 37 Shear Allowable psi= 387 Wall Weight = 78 C Rebar Depth 'd1 in = 5 2{ LAP SPLICE IF ABOVE in = 26 0! LAP SPLICE IF BELOW m = HOOK EMBED INTO FTG in = 6 Ot fm psi= 1,50( Fs psi= 24.00C Solid Grouting = Ye; Special Inspection = Yes Modular Ratio 'n1 = 25 7? Short Term Factor = 1 00( "Equiv Solid Thick in = 7 6t Masonry Block Type = Medium Weight Concrete Data fc psi = Fy psi = Adjacent Footing Load \ Adjacent Footing Load - 0 0 Ibs Footing Width = 0 00 ft Eccentricity = 0 00 m Wall to Ftg CL Dist = 0 00 ft Footing Type Line Load at Back of Wall ° ° Poisson's Ratio = 0 300 C ) 1 ) t ) 1 1 ) r r ) 3 ) ) ) ; ; 5 ) ) To specify your own special title block here, use the "Settings" screen and enter your title block information Title Job# Description EX-2 Dsgnr HB Page Date SEP 2,2001 This Wall in File c Vprogram files\rp2005\examples rp5 Retain Pro 2005 , 23-June 2006, (c) 1989-2006 www retampro com/support for latest release Registration # RP-1150545 2005022 Cantilevered Retaining Wall Design [ Footing Design Results § Factored Pressure Mu' Upward Mu' Downward Mu Design Actual 1 -Way Shear Allow 1 -Way Shear Toe Reinforcing Heel Reinforcing Toe 1 ,645 0 0 340 498 9311 = None Spec'd = None Spec'd Heel 0 psf Oft-# 124 ft-# 124ft-# 221 psi 93 1 1 psi Key Reinforcing = #5(5) 1800m Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings Toe Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Heel Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Key Not req'd, Mu < S * Fr Summary of Overturning & Resisting Forces & Moments OVERTURNINGForce Item Ibs Heel Active Pressure = 443 4 Toe Active Pressure = -88 6 Surcharge Over Toe = Adjacent Footing Load = Added Lateral Load = Load @ Stem Above Soil = Total = 354 8 Resisting/Overturning Ratio Vertical Loads used for Soil Pressure Distance ft 1 40 075 OTM = 1 9507 Vertical component of active pressure NOT used for soil Moment ft-# 6203 -664 5539 93 Ibs pressure Soil Over Heel Sloped Soil Over Heel = Surcharge Over Heel = Adjacent Footing Load = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe _ Surcharge Over Toe _ Stem Weight(s) Esrth (o) Stsm Trsnsitions Footing Weigh! _ Key Weight Vert Component _ Total = RESISTING Force Ibs 733 833 1100 2340 3750 750 9507 Distance ft 1 83 1 83 000 050 1 33 1 00 050 Ibs R M = Moment ft-# 1344 1528 550 3120 3750 375 1,0667 DESIGNER NOTES Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY January 28,2008 Project No 971009-050 To Attention Subject LNR Property Corporation Commercial Property Group 4275 Executive Square, Suite 210 La Jolla, California 9203 7 Mr Jeff Williams Addendum Geotechmcal Recommendations and Geotechmcal Response to the City of Carlsbad Plan Check Comments and Review of the Proposed Retaining Wall in the Southeast Portion of the Bressi Ranch Village Center, a Portion of Bressi Ranch Planning Area PA-15, Carlsbad, California Introduction In accordance with the request of Mr Michael Merrill of Childs Mascari Warner Architects, we have prepared this letter to provide addendum geotechmcal recommendations and to address the City of Carlsbad plan check review comments for the proposed retaining wall at the Bressi Ranch Village Center located in Carlsbad, California As part of our response to the plan check comments, we have performed a review of the referenced retaining wall plans relative to the foundation design recommendations presented in the project geotechmcal report (Leighton, 2007a) Our addendum geotechmcal recommendations and response to the Plan Check Review Comment Item Numbers 4 through 6 of Plan Check No 080042, dated January 16, 2008 (City of Carlsbad, 2008,) are provided below Updated Seismic Design Parameters and Earthquake Loads We understand that the proposed retaining wall will need to comply with the 2007 California Building Code (CBC) which adopts the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) Since the project geotechmcal report (Leighton, 2007a) only provided seismic design parameters based on the 2001 CBC, the following seismic design parameters have been determined in accordance with the 2007 CBC and the USGS Ground Motion Parameter Calculator (Version 508) 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030 * Fax 858.292.0771 971009-050 • Latitude 33 126 degrees • Longitude -117 254 degrees • Site Class = D (Table 161352) • Short Period Site Coefficient, Fa = 1 057 (Table 161353(1)) • 1-Second Period Site Coefficient Fv = 1 581 (Table 1613 5 3 (2)) • Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration at Ss = 1 107 • 1-Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration at Si = 0 419 Plan Check Review Comments Item No 4 Provide a copy of the project soil report prepared by a licensed civil engineer The report shall include foundation design recommendations based on the engineer's findings Preliminary foundation design recommendations (including geotechmcal retaining wall design parameters) have been presented in the project geotechmcal report, dated January 25, 2007 (Leighton, 2007a) and addendum recommendation letter dated October 19, 2007 (Leighton, 2007b) Copies of the project geotechmcal report and addendum letter are enclosed with this letter Final design recommendations (if any) will be presented in the as-graded geotechmcal report of the project upon completion of the site rough grading Item No 5 Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the plans (when required by the soil report) The comments concerning our geotechmcal review of the foundation plan for the proposed commercial structures, grading plan, and specifications were provided in our plan review letter dated January 16, 2008 (Leighton, 2008) A copy of the review letter is enclosed with this letter Leighton 971009-050 Item No 6 The soils engineer recommended that he/she review the foundation excavations Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that a) The foundation excavations comply with the intent of the soils report " We concur that the note be placed on the plans The findings, conclusions and recommendations (if necessary) concerning the above mentioned item will be presented in a field memorandum documenting our observation of the foundation excavations Foundation Plan Review Comments We have performed a geotechmcal review of the Retaining Wall Foundation Plan (GSS1 Structural Engineers, 2007) for the Bressi Ranch Village Center retail development The purpose of our geotechmcal review was to evaluate if the foundation plans have been prepared in general accordance with the project preliminary foundation design recommendations (Leighton, 2007a and 2007b) Based on our geotechmcal review of the foundation plans and the project geotechmcal recommendations, the foundation plans appear to have been prepared to general accordance with the project geotechmcal recommendations However, the following items should be noted • General Comment The geotechmcal retaining wall design recommendations were based on preliminary data Final design recommendations (if any) will be presented in the as-graded geotechmcal report of rough and fine grading upon completion of site grading • Sheet SI. Structural Design Criteria Note 2 The 2007 CBC / 2006 IBC seismic design parameters listed above should be added to Note 2 The 2001 CBC design criteria should also be removed • Sheet SI, Foundation Note 1 The date of the Geotechmcal Report (Soils Report) should be January 25,2007 -3-Leighton 971009-050 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact this office We appreciate this opportunity to be of service Respectfully submitted. LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC William D Olson, RCE 45283 Associate Engineer WDO/RKW w/\V"Randall K Wagner, CEG 1612O/? Principal Geologist Attachments Appendix A - References Enclosures 1) Geotechmcal Preliminary Investigation Report, dated January 25, 2007 2) Addendum Geotechmcal Recommendations Letter, dated October 19,2007 3) Geotechmcal Review of the Foundation Plans, dated January 16,2008 Distribution (2) Addressee (4) Chi Ids Mascari Warner Architects, Attention Mr Michael Mem 11 -4-Leighton 971009-050 APPENDIX A References Carlsbad, City of, 2008, Foundation Plan Review, Plan Check No 080042, dated January 16, 2008 Childs Mascari Warner Architects, 2007, Retaining Wall Location Map, Bressi Ranch Village Center, Carlsbad, California, Sheet Rl, dated November 29, 2007 GSSI Structural Engineers. 2007, Retaining Wall Structural Plans, Bressi Ranch Village Center, Carlsbad, California, Sheet SI, Proiect No (6146A) 9910 30, dated November 29. 2007 Leighton, and Associates, 2007a, Geotechmcal Preliminary Investigation, Bressi Ranch Village Center, A Portion of Planning Area PA-15, Carlsbad, California, Project No 971009-047, dated January 25, 2007 , 2007b, Addendum Geotechmcal Recommendations, Bressi Ranch Village Center, Carlsbad, California, Project No 971009-047, dated October 19, 2007 , 2008, Geotechmcal Review of Grading and Foundation Plans, Bressi Ranch Village Center, a Portion of Bressi Ranch Planning Area PA-15, Carlsbad, California, Project No 971009-050, dated January 16, 2008 PDC, 2007, Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plans For Bressi Ranch Village Center, Carlsbad, California, Drawing Number 452-9A, 16 Sheets, dated December 22, 2007 A-1 Leighton Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY February 11,2008 Project No 971009-050 To LNR Properly Corporation Commercial Property Group 4275 Executive Square, Suite 210 La Jolla, California 92037 Attention Mr Jeff Williams Subject Second Geotechmcal Review of the Proposed Foundation Plans for the Bressi Ranch Village Center, a Portion of Bressi Ranch Planning Area PA-15, Carlsbad, California References GSSI Structural Engineers, 2008, Structural Foundation Plans, Bressi Ranch Village Center, Carlsbad, California, Sheets SI 1, S2 1, S-A1, S-B1, S-BP1, S-C1, S-CM1, S-D1, S-E1, S-F1, and S-G1, Project No (6146A) 9910 30, dated November 29, 2007, revised February 14,2008 Leighton and Associates, 2008a, Geotechmcal Review of Grading and Foundation Plans, Bressi Ranch Village Center, a Portion of Bressi Ranch Planning Area PA-15, Carlsbad, California, Project No 971009-050, dated January 16, 2008 In accordance with the request of Mr Michael Merrill of Childs Mascan Warner Architects, we have prepared this second foundation plan review letter of the proposed foundation plans for the Bressi Ranch Village Center located in Carlsbad, California Based on our geotechmcal review of the structural foundation plans (GSSI Structural Engineers, 2008) and our letter dated January 16, 2008 (Leighton, 2008), the foundation plans appear to have been prepared to general accordance with the project geotechmcal recommendations If you have any questions regarding this letter, please CQntact this office We appreciate this opportunity to be of service Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, William D Olson, RCE 45283 Associate Engineer Distribution (2) Addressee (4) Childs Mascan Warner Architects, Attention Mr Michael Merrill ndallKagner, 'nncipal Geologist 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 o San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292 8030 • Fax 858.292.0771f* ft ~ — - "( /4t Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY October 19,2007 Project No 971009-047 To Attention Subject References LNR Property Corporation Commercial Property Group 4275 Executive Square, Suite 210 La Jolla, California 92037 Mr Jeff Williams Addendum Geotechmcal Recommendations, Bressi Ranch Village Center, Carlsbad, California Leighton, and Associates, 2007a, Geotechmcal Preliminary Investigation, Bressi Ranch Village Center, A Portion of Planning Area PA-15, Carlsbad, California, Project No 971009-047, dated January 25, 2007 , 2007b, Addendum Geotechmcal Recommendations Concerning Traffic Loading of the Proposed Retaining Wall Adjacent to the Major A Building, E-mail dated October 12, 2007 Introduction In order to clarify the geotechnical recommendations concerning the construction of the proposed Mechanically Stabilized Engineered (MSE) retaining wall adjacent to the Major A Building at the Bressi Ranch Village Center, we prepared an e-mail presenting our addendum geotechnical recommendations (Leighton, 2007b) This letter presents a summary of the geotechnical recommendations presented in the e-mail and provides other addendum recommendations concerning the grading and construction of the project 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858 292.803Q-fax858.292sD7.71 971009-047 Addendum Recommendations The following recommendations should be incorporated into the design and construction of the Bressi Ranch Village Center project These recommendations either clarify previously presented recommendations provided in the project geotechmcal report (Leighton, 2007a) and/or are updated/addendum recommendations » Remedial grading operations (if needed) and fine grading of the proposed building pads should be performed to a distance of at least 10 feet beyond the limits of the building or other structural improvements if construction of the building is planned prior to the completion of the grading on the remainder of the site o MSE retaining walls should be backfilled with select import material having a very low expansion potential and the following minimum soil strength parameters, an internal friction angle of 32 degrees, a cohesion of 0 psf, and a total unit weight of 130 pcf Additional geotechmcal design parameters are presented on the Hillside Retaining Walls & Engineering Request for Information attached to this letter • The MSE retaining wall backfill and foundation soils should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557) • The surcharge load on the retaining wall resulting from truck and automobile traffic may be assumed to be equivalent to a uniform surcharge loading of 250 psf which is in addition to the equivalent fluid pressures provided on Table 3 of the project geotechmcal report (Leighton, 2007a) For uniform surcharge loads, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 0 35q should be applied to the wall (where q is the surcharge pressure in psf) The wall pressures assume the wall is backfilled with free draining materials and water is not allowed to accumulate behind walls • Based on our professional experience and research, more frequent geognd reinforcing of MSE/segmental retaining walls (i e along every course of block) will help to reduce lateral movement of the wall and cracking of the roadway above the wall • Based on our review, the proposed retaining wall will be located at the top of a 2 1 (horizontal to vertical) fill slope that is on the order of 40+ feet in height Although the minimum setback distance for structural improvements to the face of descending slopes is 5 feet, the minimum setback for the retaining wall foundation should be at least 10 feet based on the height of the adjacent slope -2-Leighton 971009-047 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact this office We appreciate this opportunity to be of service jTr c o /^T^v Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES. INC William D Olson, RCE 45283 Associate Engineer WDO/RKW Randall K Wagner, CEG 1612 Principal Geologist Attachment Hillside Retaining Walls & Engineering Request for Information Distribution (1) Addressee (2) Grant General Contractor, Attention Mr JohnSandalil (1) Hillside Retaining Walls & Engineering, Attention Mr Bob Lathrop CERTtFKD ENGINEERING -3-Leighton HILLSIDE RETAINING WALLS & ENGINEERING Request for information Date & time sent JO/ R/ 7-00? Answer requested by Lti j0V Project name feteM £ftnc,U >ltiUfl (frvW GC Our company is in the process of designing a Segmental Retaining wall(s) (ic Keystone, Allan Block, Anchor wall type) for the project and contractor named above A Direct Shear Test may have been performed as a part of the soil report provided However, we need to verify the soils parameters that need to be used for the wall design and calculations Please provide the following information below Foundation Soils Phi angle 32. degrees Soil unit weight |30 pcf Cohesion |OD psf Retained Soils Phi angle 32. degrees Soil unit weight |30 pcf Cohesion __ Q _ psf Gnd reinforced soils Phi angle degrees psf Soil unit weight pcf Cohesion Q Are on-site soils are being used for all 3 categories above9 Y or b/M g peak ground accelerationSeismic In the wall calculations the peak ground acceleration may be reduced by Please list any additional concerns regarding the wall design, excavation, back cuts, foundational materials & strengths that may need to be considered in the design calculations and/or construction fftm\to\v** W*ll QW^Amtyfr ne<<U *Vc W Please sign and stamp below, list your company name and return to us by the request date shown above \N\\\i*^ D Olson V 5256 S. Mission Rd., #703-002 Bonsall, California 92003 (760) 451-8600 Office (760) 451-8602 Fax 1 GEOTECHNICAL PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, BRESSI RANCH VILLAGE CENTER, A PORTION OF PLANNING AREA PA-15 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: LNR PROPERTY CORPORATION COMMERCIAL PROPERTY GROUP 4275 EXECUTIVE SQUARE, SUITE 210 LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037 Project No. 971009-047 January 25, 2007 Leiahton A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY January 25, 2007 Project No 971009-047 To Attention Subject LNR Property Corporation Commercial Property Group 4275 Executive Square, Suite 210 La Jolla, California 92037 Mr Jeff Williams Geotechmcal Preliminary Investigation, Bressi Ranch Village Center, A Portion of Planning Area PA-15, Carlsbad, California In accordance with your request and authorization, we have conducted a preliminary geotechmcal investigation for the proposed Bressi Ranch Village Center within a portion of Planning Area PA- 15 at the Bressi Ranch development, located in Carlsbad, California Based on the results of our study, it is our professional opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed retail development and associated improvements The accompanying report presents a summary of our preliminary investigation and provides preliminary geotechmcal conclusions and recommendations relative to the proposed site development If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact this office We appreciate this opportunity to be of service Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES William D Olson, RCE 452 Associate Engineer all K Wagner, CEG 1612 mcipal Geologist Distribution (4) Addressee (3) PDC, Attention Karen Beighley 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292 8030 a Fax 858.292.0771 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 10 INTRODUCTION .1 l.l PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 12 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION . . . 3 13 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . 3 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 4 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ... . . ... .5 31 GEOLOGIC SETTING 5 3 2 AS-GRADED GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS . 5 33 SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY .. .5 331 Artificial Documented Fill (MapSymbol-Af) .5 3 3.2 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol-Tsa) .. . ... . . 6 34 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE 6 3.5 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER 6 36 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY .... .. ... 7 37 FLOOD HAZARD ... ... .8 38 GRADEDSLOPES 8 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 9 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 11 51 EARTHWORK 11 511 Site Preparation 11 5.12 Mitigation of Cut/Fill Transition Conditions 12 5.1.3 Mitigation of High to Very High Expansive Soils at Finish Grade 12 5 1.4 Excavations 13 5.15 Fill Placement and Compaction 13 52 FOUNDATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 14 521 Moisture Conditioning 15 5.2 2 Seismic Design Parameters 16 523 Foundation Setback 16 5.24 Anticipated Settlement 17 5.3 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES 17 54 FENCES AND FREESTANDING WALLS 19 5.5 GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS 20 5.6 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 20 57 CONTROL OF SURFACE WATER AND DRAINAGE 22 58 SLOPE MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES 23 Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I i i I i i 971009-047 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page 59 LANDSCAPING AND POST-CONSTRUCTION 23 £ 510 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING 24 60 LIMITATIONS . 25 ASFE Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report ... 26 TABLES TABLE 1 - PRESATURATION RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON FINISH GRADE SOIL EXPANSION POTENTIAL - PAGE 15 TABLE 2 - MINIMUM FOUNDATION SETBACK FROM DESCENDING SLOPE FACES - PAGE 17 TABLE 3 - LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES - PAGE 18 TABLE 4 - PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGNS - PAGE 21 FIGURES FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP - PAGE 2 FIGURE 2 - GEOTECHNICAL MAP - REAR OF TEXT APPENDICES APPENDIX A - REFERENCES APPENDIX B - BORING AND TEST PIT LOGS APPENDIX C - LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS APPENDIX D - GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS """ Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I 971009-047 1 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1 Purpose and Scope This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechmcal investigation for the Bressi Ranch Village Center retail development at the Bressi Ranch project located in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1) The purpose of our preliminary geotechmcal investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechmcal conditions present at the site and to provide preliminary geotechmcal conclusions and recommendations relative to the proposed retail development As part of our preliminary investigation of the site, we performed the following • Review of available pertinent, published geotechmcal reports, geologic literature, and maps (Appendix A) • Field reconnaissance of the existing onsite geotechmcal conditions • Subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation and logging of 21 small-diameter borings and 13 exploratory test pits, as well as, obtaining representative drive and bulk samples for laboratory testing The approximate boring and test pit locations are shown on the Geotechmcal Map (Figure 2) The logs of the borings and test pits are presented m Appendix B • Laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained from the subsurface exploration Results of these tests are presented in Appendix C • Compilation and analysis of the geotechmcal data obtained from the field investigation and laboratory testing • Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechmcal recommendations (including General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented as Appendix D) with respect to the proposed design, site grading, and general construction considerations -1-Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Base Map: Aerials Express, Spring 2005 Retail Center Planning Area PA-15 Bressi Ranch Carlsbad, California SITE LOCATION MAP Project No. 971009-047 Date January 2007 Figure 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 1 2 Site Location and Description The Bressi Ranch development is located southeast of the intersection of El Cammo Real and Palomar Airport Road in the central portion of the City of Carlsbad, California (Figure 1) The Bressi Ranch Village Center is located in the northern portion of the Bressi Ranch project south of Gateway Road, east of the affordable housing site and the Village Square, north of Bressi Ranch Way, and west of El Fuerte Street (Figures 1 and 2) The mass grading operations for Planning Area PA-15 were performed between July 2003 and July 2004 (Leighton, 2004b) The rough grading resulted in a sheet-graded pad with a high point in the middle of the site at an approximate elevation of 411 feet mean sea level (msl) and gently sloping grades falling to an approximate elevation of 400 feet msl to the west and east Rough grading also included the construction of three desiltmg basins on the site Post grading Improvements of Planning Area PA-15 included the placement of underground utilities in the streets, construction of paved streets (including Finnila Place, which separates the western and mam portion of the retail development, and Town Garden Road), and associated improvements The mass grading operations were performed by Nelson and Beldmg while Leighton and Associates performed the geotechmcal observation and testing services Grading of the site included 1) the removal of potentially compressible desiccated older fill soils, undocumented fill soils, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, and weathered formational material, 2) the excavation of fill slope keys, 3) preparation of areas to receive fill, 4) the placement of a subdram in the canyon bottom, 5) excavation of formational material, and 6) the placement of compacted fill soils 1 3 Proposed Development We understand that the proposed retail development will include construction of twelve retail buildings (i e , Pads "A" and "B", Shops "A" through "G", and Majors "A" through "C") totaling approximately 122,000 square-feet, and associated improvements including building pads, driveways, 620 parking areas, concrete flatwork, underground utilities, landscaping, etc We also understand that the proposed retail buildings will be single- story structures and will likely be constructed with conventional foundations Based on the preliminary development plans prepared by Project Design Consultants, the proposed finish grade elevations will be within approximately 5 feet existing sheet-graded elevations of the site ~3~ Leighton I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 2 0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our subsurface investigation consisted of the excavation of 21 small-diameter borings and 13 exploratory test pits to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 20 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) The purpose of these excavations was to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the onsite soils with regard to the proposed development The borings and test pits allowed evaluation of the onsite soils, including those likely to be encountered at the proposed foundation elevations and provided representative samples for laboratory testing Logs of the borings and test pits are presented in Appendix B The exploratory excavations were logged by a geologist from our firm Representative m-place drive and/or bulk samples were obtained at selected intervals for laboratory testing The approximate locations of the borings and test pits are shown on the Geotechmcal Map (Figure 2) Subsequent to logging and sampling, the borings and test pits were backfilled with native soils Compactwe effort utilizing a backhoe with a sheepsfoot wheel and wheel rolling was applied to the backfill soils of the test pits in order to minimize settlement of the test pit backfill soils The compactive effort was observed by a representative from our firm, however no testing was performed Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples to evaluate the moisture/density, expansion potential, soluble sulfate, chloride content, minimum resistivity, and pH A discussion of the laboratory tests performed and a summary of the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 3 0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 3.1 Geologic Setting The subject site is located in the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Province, a geomorphic province with a long and active geologic history throughout Southern California Throughout the last 54 million years, the area known as the "San Diego Embayment" has undergone several episodes of marine inundation and subsequent marine regression, resulting m the deposition of a thick sequence of marine and nonmarme sedimentary rocks on the basement rock of the Southern California bathohth Gradual emergence of the region from the sea occurred in Pleistocene time, and numerous wave-cut platforms, most of which were covered by relatively thin marine and nonmarme terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded from the land Accelerated fluvial erosion during periods of heavy rainfall, coupled with the lowering of the base sea level during Quaternary time, resulted in the rolling hills, mesas, and deeply incised canyons which characterize the landforms we see in the general site area today 3 2 As-graded Geologic Conditions The geologic or geotechmcal conditions encountered during our preliminary investigation of the Bressi Ranch Village Center were essentially as anticipated A comprehensive summary of the geologic conditions is presented below 3 3 Site-Specific Geology The geologic units encountered during our investigation consisted of artificial documented fill soils and the Santiago Formation The approximate limits of the geologic units encountered during the preliminary investigation are presented on the Geotechmcal Map (Figure 2) and discussed (youngest to oldest) below 3.3 1 Artificial Documented Fill (Map Svmbol-Af) Documented fill soils placed during the prior grading operations that were observed and tested by Leighton and Associates are generally located in the northwestern, south-central, northeastern, and eastern portions of the site (as indicated on Figure 2) The cut/fill transition condition on the sheet-graded pad was not mitigated since the proposed building pads were not known at the time of the rough grading operations The field density test results presented in the as-graded geotechmcal report for the project (Leighton, 2004b) indicated the fill soils were placed and ~5~ Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction with moisture contents at or near the optimum moisture content During our preliminary investigation, the upper portion of the fill soils was found to be desiccated and minimal removals and/or scarification and recompaction (i e on the order of 1 to 2 feet) may be necessary prior to the placement of additional fill or structural improvements The fill soils typically consisted of silty sands, clayey sands, and to a lesser extent sandy to silty clays Based on our review of the as- graded geotechmcal report (Leighton, 2004c), the fill soils on the site are up to approximately 20 feet in depth in the south-central portion of the site 332 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol-Tsa) The Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation, as encountered during our investigation, consisted primarily of massively bedded silty sandstones and sandy siltstones, and to a lesser extent claystones The silty sandstones generally consisted of orange- brown (iron oxide staining) to light brown, damp to moist, dense to very dense, silty very fine to medium grained sandstone The siltstones and claystones were generally olive-green, damp to moist, stiff to hard, moderately weathered, and occasionally fractured and moderately sheared Based on our field study, the upper 1 to 2 feet of the existing ground surface was found to be disturbed and minimal removals and/or scarification and recompaction (i e on the order of 1 to 2 feet) may be necessary prior to the placement of additional fill or structural improvements Several well-cemented fossiliferous sandstone beds were encountered on the site during the grading operations (Leighton, 2004b) and future excavations into these cemented beds will likely require heavy ripping and/or breaking 3 4 Geologic Structure The general structure of the formational material on the site appears to be near horizontal Based on our geologic mapping during the mass grading operations (Leighton, 2004b), bedding within the Santiago Formation generally exhibited somewhat variable bedding with strikes ranging from northwest to northeast and dips typically 2 to 9 degrees to the east and west Variable minor jointing and shearing of the bedrock materials was observed locally 3.5 Surface and Ground Water No indication of surface water or evidence of surface ponding was encountered during our field investigation (with the exception of the desilting basins) However, surface -6-Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 water may dram as sheet flow across the site during rainy periods and accumulate in lower elevations and in the on-site desiltmg basins Ground water was not observed in the borings or test pits during our investigation, however, perched ground water levels may develop and fluctuate during periods of precipitation 3 6 Faulting and Seismicity Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and state policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults By definition of the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years) The State Geologist has defined a potentially active fault as any fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000 years) but that has not been proven to be active or inactive This definition is used in delineating Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Pnolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 and as most recently revised in 1997 The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development does not occur across the traces of active faults Based on our review of the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones, the site is not located within any Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone as created by the Alquist- Pnolo Act (Hart, 1997) San Diego, like the rest of southern California, is seismically active as a result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional fault zones such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsmore Faults Zones, as well as along less active faults such as the Rose Canyon Fault Zone As indicated in the Supplemental Geotechmcal Report for the Bressi Ranch project (Leighton, 2001), there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site Evidence of active faulting was not encountered during the mass grading operations However, several minor inactive faults were encountered within the limits of the Bressi Ranch development but are not considered a constraint to development of the Bressi Ranch Village Center Geologic mapping of the onsite minor faults, where topsoil was encountered over the faults, indicated that the faults did not extend into or offset the topsoil, suggesting that the faults are not active The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is located approximately 7 0 miles (112 kilometers) west of the site Based on the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered a Type B Seismic Source Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low Shallow ground rupture due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site ~7~ Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes Both research and historical data indicate that loose, saturated, granular soils are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settlement Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to act as a viscous liquid This effect may be manifested by excessive settlements and sand boils at the ground surface The fill and formational materials underlying the site are not considered liquefiable due to their fine-grained nature, dense physical characteristics, and unsaturated condition 37 Flood Hazard Based on our research, the site is not located within any flood hazard zone as defined by FEMA 38 Graded Slopes Graded slopes within the development are considered grossly and surficially stable from a geotechmcal standpoint (Leighton, 2004b) Manufactured cut and fill slopes within the site were surveyed by the civil engineer are understood to have been constructed with slope inclinations of 2 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter -8-Leighton 971009-047 4 0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our preliminary geotechmcal investigation of the site, it is our professional opinion that the proposed retail development is feasible from a geotechmcal standpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications The following is a summary of the geotechmcal factors that may affect development of the site • Based on our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and reference review, the near- surface fill soils are locally disturbed (i e, the upper 1 to 2 feet) These soils are not considered suitable for support of additional fill soils, structural loads or surface improvements in their present condition Remedial grading measures such as scarification, removals and recompaction will be necessary to mitigate this condition if the disturbed soils are not removed by the proposed excavation the overexcavation of the cut portion of the building pad I I I I I I I I » Cut/fill transition conditions present beneath proposed buildings will need to be mitigated by i-l*»f!i y-vi f£*t*c*-vf\rti rr»+ij"%»*» /•vrrl-ia /^i !+• ••*/"* fti r\n f^T t~r\£* r^nil/^i*1**-! *•>*"!/"t I I I I I I I I I I I Based on laboratory testing and visual classification, the fill soils on the site generally possess a medium to high expansion potential Highly expansive soils should not be placed or located within the upper 5 feet of the proposed building pads Selective grading may be required to minimize highly expansive soils on the building pads Laboratory test results indicate the fill soils present on the site have a negligible potential for sulfate attack on normal concrete, however moderate to severe sulfates are known to exist on the Bressi Ranch project Laboratory testing also indicated that the on-site soils are severely to very severely corrosive on buried metal pipes and conduits The existing onsite soils appear to be suitable material for fill construction provided they are relatively free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 8 inches m maximum dimension Cemented beds and/or oversized rock are present on the site and may require heavy ripping or breaking Oversized rock that is encountered during the future fine grading operations should be removed within the limits of the proposed building pad or utility trench The oversized rock can be removed from the site, placed in landscape areas and/or buried at least 2 feet below the subgrade elevation in the parking lot (outside the limits of planned utility lines) Near surface ground water or seepage was not encountered during our investigation however, perched ground water and seepage may develop during periods of precipitation Leighton 971009-047I • • Active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site I * Due to the fine-grained nature and/or relatively dense nature of the onsite soils, the potential for liquefaction and dynamic settlement of the site is considered very low providing the recommendations for site grading presented herein are adhered to during the design and • construction of the site development • The site is not located within any flood hazard zone as defined by FEMA • • Although foundation plans have not been finalized nor building loads developed, we anticipate that conventional foundation system, consisting of continuous and spread footings • with slab-on-grade flooring supported by competent fill or formational materials, will be I I I I I I I I I I I I I used -10-Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 5 0 RECOMMENDATIONS. 51 Earthwork We anticipate that future earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, fine grading, utility trench excavation and backfill, retaining wall backfill, and street/driveway and parking area pavement section preparation and compaction We recommend that the earthwork on site be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix D, and the City of Carlsbad grading requirements In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those in Appendix D The contract between the developer and earthwork contractor should be worded such that it is the responsibility of the contractor to place the fill properly and in accordance with the recommendations of this report and the specifications in Appendix D, notwithstanding the testing and observation of the geotechmcal consultant 5 1.1 Site Preparation During future grading, the areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures should be cleared of surface obstructions, potentially compressible material (such as disturbed and/or desiccated fill soils or weathered formational material), and stripped of vegetation Vegetation and debris should be removed and properly disposed of off site Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions that extend below finish site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material Areas to receive fill and/or other surface impiovements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 to 24 inches, brought to optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557) If the length of time between the completion of grading and the construction of the proposed buildings is longer than six months, we recommend that the building pads be evaluated by the geotechmcal consultant and, if needed, the finish grade soils on the building pads should be scarified a minimum of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to optimum moisture-content and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557) -11-Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 512 Mitigation of Cut/Fill Transition Conditions In order to reduce the potential for differential settlement of the proposed buildings in areas of cut/fill transitions, we recommend ihe entire cut portion of the building pad be overexcavated and replaced with properly compacted fill Where the fill thickness is greater than 5 feet in depth, the overexcavation of the cut portion of the building pad should be made a minimum of 3 feet below the lowest planned footing elevation and should extend laterally at least 10 feet beyond the building perimeter or footprint Anticipated building pads where this condition may occur include the building pads of Majors "A" and "C" and Shops "A" and UB" (due to the anticipated infilling of the desilting basins) and the building pad of Major "B" and Pad "A" (due to the presence of relatively deep existing fills) Where the anticipated fill thickness is less than 5 feet in depth, the overexcavation of the cut portion of the building pad should equal the same thickness of the maximum fill beneath the pad to a maximum overexcavation depth of 1 foot below the lowest planned footing elevation These overexcavations should also extend laterally at least 10 feet beyond the building perimeter or footprint The building pads where these conditions will occur cannot be determined until the final footing elevations of the buildings relative to the existing site grades are determined In order to minimize perched ground water in the overexcavations, we recommend that the overexcavation bottoms be tilted a minimum of 2-percent toward the fill side of the building pad Additional or revised recommendations may be warranted based on the configuration and size of the proposed buildings If the majority of the proposed building is located on cut, the fill soils beneath the building may be removed and recompacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction and a deep foundation system founded completely on formational material may be utilized as an alternative 513 Mitigation of High to Very High Expansive Soils at Finish Grade Although very high expansive soils were not encountered during our preliminary investigation, highly expansive soils are present within portions of the site Should high to very high expansive soils be encountered on the building pads during the future fine grading operations, we recommend that these soils be removed below the planned finish grade of the proposed buildings and other movement sensitive improvements If these expansive soils are removed, the removal depth should be a minimum of 3 feet below the lowest planned footing elevation or until lower expansive sandy soils are encountered We also recommend that the overexcavation bottom be tilted a minimum of 2-percent toward the fill side of the building pad or toward the street/driveway in order to minimize perched ground water conditions -12' i uiLeighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 The resulting excavation should be replaced wilh properly compacted fill possessing a very low to medium expansion potential The actual location of the claystones and siltstones at or near finish grade at the site should be evaluated during the future fine grading operations The high to very high expansive soils may be placed outside the limits of the proposed building pads 514 Excavations Excavations of the on-site materials may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment [t is not anticipated that blasting will be required or that significant quantities of oversized rock (i e rock with maximum dimensions greater than 8 inches) will be generated during future grading However, localized cemented zones (within the cut areas) and oversized rock (placed within the compacted fill) may be encountered on the site that may require heavy ripping and/or breaking and removal If oversized rock is encountered, it should be placed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Appendix D, hauled offsite, or placed in non-structural or landscape areas Based on our field investigation, discontinuous cemented zones were encountered at approximate elevations of 393 to 396, 398 to 404, and 407 to 408 feet msl m various places on the site Our professional experience during the mass grading operations indicated the cemented zones were generally less than 6 inches to 24 inches thick, moderately fractured, and variable in the amount of cementation While we had refusal of the backhoe and small-diameter ng m some of the excavations, larger equipment may have been able to penetrate the cemented zone Due to the relatively dense characteristics of the on-site soils, temporary excavations such as utility trenches in the on-site soils should remain stable for the period required to construct the utility, provided they are constructed and monitored in accordance with OSHA requirements 5 1.5 Fill Placement and Compaction The on-site soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free or organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension We do not recommend that high or very high expansive soils be utilized as fill for the building pads or as retaining wall backfill All fill soils should be brought to 2-percent over the optimum moisture content and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on the laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557) The optimum lift -13-Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used In general, fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with Appendix D, the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practices, and the geotechmcal recommendations presented herein 5.2 Foundation Design Considerations The foundations and slabs for the anticipated retail buildings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following preliminary recommendations These preliminary recommendations assume that the soils encountered within 5 feet of finish pad grade will have a low to medium potential for expansion per 1997 UBC Standard 18-1 If highly expansive soils are encountered within 5 feet of the proposed finish grade elevations during site grading, these expansive soils should be removed and replaced with lower expansive soils If replacement of the expansive soils is not feasible, additional foundation design will be necessary The proposed buildings may be supported by conventional, continuous or isolated spread footings Footings should extend a minimum of 24 inches beneath the lowest adjacent soil grade At these depths, footings may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) if founded in properly compacted fill soils or formational material An allowable capacity increase of 500 psf for every 6 inches of additional embedment may be used to a maximum of 3,500 psf The allowable pressures may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces The minimum recommended width of footings is 18 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for square or round footings If 12-inch wide continuous footings are desired, we recommend that the allowable bearing pressure be limited to 2,000 psf Footings should be designed in accordance with the structural engineer's requirements and have a minimum reinforcement of four No 5 reinforcing bars (two top and two bottom) The slab-on-grade foundations should be at least 5 inches thick and be reinforced with No 4 rebars 18 inches on center or No 5 rebars at 24 inches on center, each way All reinforcing should be placed at mid-height in the slab Slabs should be underlain by a 2- mch layer of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30), which is m-turn underlain by a minimum 10-mil plastic sheeting (moisture barrier) and an additional 2 inches of clean sand We recommend that control joints be provided across the slab at appropriate intervals as designed by the project architect The potential for slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete ~14~ Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs We recommend that a shpsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if grouted tile, marble tile, or other crack-sensitive floor covering is planned directly on concrete slabs All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations If heavy vehicle or equipment loading is proposed for the slabs, greater thicknesses and increased reinforcing may be required as determined by the structural engineer 521 Moisture Conditioning The slab subgrade soils underlying the foundation systems of the proposed structures should be presoaked in accordance with the recommendations presented in Table 1 prior to placement of the moisture barrier and slab concrete The subgrade soil moisture content should be checked by a representative of Leighton and Associates prior to slab construction Table 1 Presaturation Recommendations Based on Finish Grade Soil Expansion Potential Presaturation Criteria Minimum Presoakmg Depth (in inches) Minimum Recommended Moisture Content Expansion Potential (per UBC 1 8-I-B) Very Low (0-20) 6 Near optimum moisture Low (21-50) 12 1 2 times optimum moisture Medium (51-90) 18 1 2 times optimum moisture Presoakmg or moisture conditioning may be achieved in a number of ways, but based on our professional experience, we have found that minimizing the moisture loss of pads that have been completed (by periodic wetting to keep the upper portion of the pad from drying out) and/or bermmg the lot and flooding if for a short period of time (days to a few weeks) are some of the more efficient ways to meet the presoakmg requirements If flooding is performed, a couple of days to let the upper portion of the pad dry out and form a crust so equipment can be utilized should be anticipated -15-Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 522 Seismic Design Parameters The site lies within Seismic Zone 4, as defined in the CBC, 2001 edition The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is considered a Type B Seismic Source (per 2001 CBC criteria), is located approximately 70 miles (or 11 2 kilometers) west of the site The closest Type A Seismic Source is the Julian segment of the Elsmore Fault Zone, which is located approximately 23 5 miles (or 38 kilometers) east of the site The following data should be considered for the seismic analysis of the proposed structures • Causative Fault Rose Canyon Fault Zone • Maximum Magnitude 72 • Seismic Source Type B • Seismic Zone Factor 040 • Soil Profile Type Sc • Near Source Factors Na= 1 0/Nv = 1 0 52.3 Foundation Setback We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes or adjacent retaining walls for all structural foundations, footings, and other settlement- sensitive structures as indicated on Table 2 This distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing, horizontally 1o the slope face and is based on the slope height and type of soil However, the foundation setback distance may be revised by the geotechmcal consultant on a case-by-case basis if the geotechmcal conditions are different than anticipated ~16~ Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 Table 2 Minimum Foundation Setback from Descending Slope Faces Slope Height Less than 5 feet 5 to 1 5 feet Greater than 1 5 feet Minimum Recommended Foundation Setback 5 feet 7 feet H/2 (where H equals the slope height) to a maximum of 20 feet Please note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc ) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade beam foundation system to support the improvement The deepened footing should meet the setback as described above 5 2.4 Anticipated Settlement Settlement is anticipated to occur at varying limes over the life of the project Short-term settlement typically occurs upon application of the foundation loads and is essentially completed within the construction period Long-term (hydroconsolidation) settlement typically occurs in deep fills upon additional water infiltration mto the fill soils (even m properly compacted fill soils and even with subdrains provided) This settlement typically occurs over many years Long- term settlement values and the affects on the foundations should be evaluated after the site is graded and the actual fill thicknesses beneath the proposed foundations known However, for preliminary planning purposes, total future settlement is expected to be order of 1 to 1 5 inches and differential settlement is estimated to be on the order of 1/4 inch in 25 feet 5 3 Lateral Earth Pressures The recommended lateral pressures for imported very low to low expansive soil (expansion index less than 50 per UBC Table 18-I-B) or on-site medium expansive soil (expansion -17-Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 index between 51 and 90 per UBC Table 18-I-B) and level or sloping backfill are presented on Table 3 High to very high expansive soils (having an expansion potential greater than 91 per UBC Table 18-I-B) should not be used as backfill soils on the site Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under load If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be designed for "active" pressure If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance The above noted passive resistance assumes an appropriate setback per Section 523 Table 3 Lateral Earth Pressures Conditions Active At-Rest Passive Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Import Very Low to Low Expansive Soils Expansion Index less than 50 Level 35 55 350 2 1 Slope 55 65 150 On-Site Medium Expansive Soils Expansion Index between 5 1 and 90 Level 60 70 350 2 1 Slope 70 80 150 For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded above the static ground water and backfilled with soils of very low to low expansion potential or medium expansion potential is provided on Table 3 The equivalent fluid pressure values assume free-draining conditions If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressures values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechmcal engineer The geotechmcal and structural engineer should evaluate surcharge-loading effects from the adjacent structures All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage and appropriately -18-Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 waterproofed The outlet pipe should be sloped to dram to a suitable outlet Typical wall drainage design is illustrated in Appendix D For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0 35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface In combining the total lateral resistance, the passive pressure or the fhctional resistance should be reduced by 50 percent Wall footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations The passive resistance value may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads The horizontal distance between foundation elements providing passive resistance should be minimum of three times the depth of the elements to allow full development of these passive pressures The total depth of retained earth for the design of cantilever walls should be the vertical distance below the ground surface measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding All wall backcuts should be made in accordance with the current OSHA requirements The granular and native backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557) The granular fill should extend horizontally to a minimum distance equal to one-half the wall height behind the walls The walls should be constructed and backfilled as soon as possible after backcut excavations Prolonged exposure of backcut slopes may result in some localized slope instability Foundations for retaining walls in competent formational soils or properly compacted fill should be embedded at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade At this depth, an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf may be assumed 54 Fences and Freestanding Walls Footings for freestanding walls should be founded a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade To reduce the potential for unsightly cracks in freestanding walls, we recommend inclusion of construction joints at a maximum of 15-foot intervals This spacing may be altered in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer, based on wall reinforcement details Our experience on similar sites in older developments indicates that many walls on shallow foundations near the top-of-slopes tend to tilt excessively over time as a result of slope creep If the effects of slope creep on top-of-slope walls are not deemed acceptable, one or a combination of the options provided in the following paragraphs should be utilized in the design of such structures, based on the desired level of mitigation of creep- related effects on them A relatively inexpensive option to address creep related problems m top-of-slope walls and fences is to allow some degree of creep damage and design the structures so that Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 tilting or cracking will be less visually obvious, or such that they may be economically repaired or replaced If. however, a better degree of creep mitigation is desired, the walls and fences may be provided with the deepened footings to meet the foundation setback criteria laid out in Figure 18-1-1 of the UBC, 1997 edition, or these structures may be constructed to accommodate potential movement Under certain circumstances, an effective solution to minimize the effects of creep on top- of-slope walls and fences is to support these structures on a pier-and-grade-beam system The piers normally consist of minimum 12-mch diameter cast-m-place caissons spaced at a maximum of 8 feet on center, and connected together by a minimum 12-mch-thick grade beam at a shallow depth The piers are typically at least 10 feet deep for medium or high expansive soil The steel reinforcement for the system should be designed with consideration of wall/fence type and loading Walls or fences aligned essentially perpendicular to the top of the slope are normally supported on the pier-and-grade-beam system for at least that part of the wall that is within 15 feet from the top-of-slope Caisson support is recommended for all top-of-slope walls where slopes are greater than 10 feet in height and/or the soil on and adjacent to the slope consists of high to very high expansive soils 5.5 Geochemical Considerations Geochemical screening of the representative onsite soils was performed as part of our study and the results presented in Appendix C As indicated in Appendix C, the results of our limited testing and our professional knowledge of similar soils in other portions of the Bressi Ranch project, indicates that concrete in contact with the on-site soils should be designed in accordance with the "moderate" category of Table 19A-A-4 of the 2001 California Building Code In addition, the onsite soils are anticipated to have a corrosive environment for buried metal pipes or uncoated metal conduits Laboratory testing should be performed on the soils placed at or near finish grade after completion of site grading to ascertain the actual corrosivity characteristics 5.6 Preliminary Pavement Design R-Value test results of representative on-site soils on the adjacent streets range from 5 to 34 The appropriate Asphalt Concrete (AC) and Class 2 aggregate base (AB) pavement sections will depend on the type of subgrade soil, shear strength, traffic load, and planned pavement life Since an evaluation of the actual subgrade soils cannot be made at this time, we have conservatively assumed an R-value of 5 and Traffic Indexes (TI) of 4 5, 50, and 60 ~20~ Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 The pavement sections based on a TI of 6 0 and 5 0 should be assumed for the heavy truck drives and vehicle driveways, respectively The pavement sections for vehicle parking stalls should be based on a TI of 4 5 Final pavement designs should be completed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad design criteria after R-value tests have been performed on the actual subgrade materials Table 4 Preliminary Pavement Section Designs Traffic Index 45 50 60 Assumed R-Value 5 5 5 Preliminary Pavement Sections AC and Base Section 4 inches AC over 6 inches Class 2 Aggregate Base 4 inches AC over 8 inches Class 2 Aggregate Base 4 inches AC over 12 inches Class 2 Aggregate Base Full Depth AC Section 7 0 inches AC over native subgrade soils 8 0 inches AC over native subgrade soils 10 0 inches AC over native subgrade soils Asphalt Concrete (AC) and Class 2 aggregate base should conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications Prior to placing the pavement section, the subgrade soils should have a relative compaction of at least 95 percent to a minimum depth of 12 inches (based on ASTM Test Method D1557) Aggregate Base (6 inches minimum) should be placed beneath proposed concrete curb and gutters in accordance with the City of Carlsbad design criteria, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557) prior to placement of the AC For areas subject to unusually heavy truck loading (i e , trash trucks, delivery trucks, etc ), we recommend a full depth of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) section of 7 5 inches with steel reinforcement (Number 4 bars at 18-inch centers, each way) and crack-control joints at a minimum spacing of 10 feet We recommend that sections be as nearly square as possible A 3,500-psi mix that produces a 600-psi modulus of rupture should be utilized The actual pavement design should also be in accordance with City of Carlsbad and ACI design criteria If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscaping areas, we recommend some measures of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming -21-Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 saturated Concrete swales should be designed if asphalt pavement is used for drainage of surface waters 57 Control of Surface Water and Drainage Surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during precise grading, landscaping, and building construction Positive drainage (e g , roof gutters, downspouts, area dram, etc) should be provided to direct surface water away from structures and towards the driveways or suitable drainage devices Ponding of water adjacent to structures should be avoided, roof gutters, downspouts, and area drains should be aligned so as to transport surface water to a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures The performance of structural foundations is dependent upon maintaining adequate surface drainage away from structures Water should be transported off the site in approved drainage devices or unobstructed swales We recommend that the minimum flow gradient for the drainage be 1-percent for area drains and paved drainage swales, and 2-percent for unpaved drainage swales We recommend that where structures will be located within 5 feet of a proposed drainage swale, the surface drainage adjacent to the structures be accomplished with a gradient of at least 3-1/2 percent away from the structure for a minimum horizontal distance of 3 feet Drainage should be further maintained by a swale or drainage path at a gradient of at least 1-percent for area drams and paved drainage swales and 2-percent for unpaved drainage swales to a suitable collection device (i e area drain, street gutter, etc) We also recommend that structural footings within 5 feet of the drainage swale flowhne be deepened so that the bottom of the footing is at least 1? inches below the flow-line of the drainage swale In places where the prospect of mamtEiimng the minimum recommended gradient for the drainage swales and the construction of additional area drains is not feasible, provisions for specific recommendations may be necessary, outlining the importance of maintaining positive drainage The impact of heavy irrigation or inadequate runoff gradient can create perched water conditions, resulting in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none existed Maintaining adequate surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly reduce the potential for nuisance-type moisture problems To reduce differential earth movements (such as heaving and shrinkage due to the change in moisture content of foundation soils, which may cause distress to a structure or improvement), the moisture content of the soils surrounding the structure should be kept as relatively constant as possible All area dram inlets should be maintained and kept clear of debris in order to function properly Rerouting of site drainage patterns and/or installation of area drains should be -22-Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 performed, if necessary A qualified civil engineer or a landscape architect should be consulted prior to rerouting of drainage 58 Slope Maintenance Guidelines It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain the slopes, including adequate planting, proper irrigation and maintenance, and repair of fault/ irrigation systems To reduce the potential for erosion and slumping of graded slopes, all slopes should be planted with ground cover, shrubs, and plants that develop dense, deep root structures and require minimal irrigation Slope planting should be carried out as soon as practical upon completion of grading Surface-water runoff and standing water at the top-of-slopes should be avoided Oversteepemng of slopes should be avoided during construction activities and landscaping Maintenance of proper lot drainage, undertaking of property improvements in accordance with sound engineering practices, and proper maintenance of vegetation, including regular slope irrigation, should be performed Slope irrigation sprinklers should be adjusted to provide maximum uniform coverage with minimal of water usage and overlap Overwatenng and consequent runoff and ground saturation should be avoided If automatic sprinklers systems are installed, their use must be adjusted to account for rainfall conditions Trenches excavated on a slope face for any purpose should be properly backfilled and compacted in order to obtain a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction, m accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557 Observation/testing and acceptance by the geotechmcal consultant during trench backfill is recommended A rodent-control program should be established and maintained Prior to planting, recently graded slopes should be temporarily protected against erosion resulting from rainfall, by the implementing slope protection measures such as polymer covering, jute mesh, etc 5.9 Landscaping and Post-Construction Landscaping and post-construction practices carried out by the owner(s) and their representative bodies exert significant influences on the integrity of structures founded on expansive soils Improper landscaping and post-construction practices, which are beyond the control of the geotechmcal engineer, are frequently the primary cause of distress to these structures Recommendations for proper landscaping and post-construction practices are provided in the following paragraphs within this section Adhering to these recommendations will help in minimizing distress due to expansive soils, and in ensuring that such effects are limited to cosmetic damages, without compromising the overall integrity of structures Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 Initial landscaping should be done on all sides adjacent to the foundation of a structure, and adequate measures should be taken to ensure drainage of water away from the foundation If larger, shade providing trees are desired, such trees should be planted away from structures (at a minimum distance equal to half the mature height of the tree) in order to prevent penetration of the tree roots beneath the foundation of the structure Locating planters adjacent to buildings or structures should be avoided as much as possible If planters are utilized in these locations, they should be properly designed so as to prevent fluctuations in the moisture content of subgrade soils Planting areas at grade should be provided with appropriate positive drainage Wherever possible, exposed soil areas should be above paved grades Planters should not be depressed below adjacent paved grades unless provisions for drainage, such as catch basins and drains, are made Adequate drainage gradients, devices, and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent pavement or walks into planting areas Watering should be done in a uniform, systematic manner as equally as possible on all sides of the foundation, to keep the soil moist Irrigation methods should promote uniformity of moisture in planters and beneath adjacent concrete flatwork Overwatenng and underwatenng of landscape areas must be avoided Areas of soil that do no have ground cover may require more moisture, as they are more susceptible to evaporation Ponding or trapping of water in localized areas adjacent to the foundations can cause differential moisture levels in subsurface soils and should, therefore, not be allowed Trees located within a distance of 20 feet of foundations would require more water in periods of extreme drought, and in some cases, a root injection system may be required to maintain moisture equilibrium During extreme hot and dry periods, close observations should be earned out around foundations to ensure that adequate watering is being undertaken to prevent soil from separating or pulling back from the foundations 5.10 Construction Observation and Testing Construction observation and testing should be performed by the geotechmcal consultant during the fine grading operations, future excavations, and foundation or retaining wall construction on the site Additionally, footing excavations should be observed and moisture determination tests of subgrade soils should be performed by the geotechmcal consultant prior to the pouring of concrete Foundation design plans should also be reviewed by the geotechmcal consultant prior to excavations Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 60 LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests Such information is by necessity incomplete The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechmcal or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site An information sheet entitled "Important Information About Your Geotechmcal Engineering Report", prepared by ASFE is also included on the following page ~25~ Leighton I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 APPENDIX A REFERENCES California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, Open-File Report 95- 04 , 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open-File Report, 96-08 , 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, dated February 1998 California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2001, California Building Code, Volume I - Administrative, Fire- and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provision, Volume II - Structural Engineering Design Provision, and Volume III - Material, Testing and Installation Provision, ICBO California Geological Survey, 2003, The Revised California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment Maps, June 2003 Hannan, D, 1975, Faulting in the Oceanside, Carlsbad and Vista Areas, Northern San Diego County, California in Ross, A and Dowlens, R J , eds , Studies on the Geology of Camp Pendleton and Western San Diego County, California San Diego Association of Geologists, pp 56-59 Hart, EW, 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Pnolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Studies Zones Maps Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42 International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997, Uniform Building Code, Volume I - Administrative, Fire- and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provisions, Volume II - Structural Engineering Design Provisions, and Volume III - Material, Testing and Installation Provision, ICBO Jennings, C W, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No 6, Scale 1 750,000 Kennedy, MP and Welday, EE, 1980, Character and Recency of Faulting Offshore Metropolitan San Diego, California California Division of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 40 A-l 971009-047I • APPENDIX A (continued) • Leary Childs Mascan Warner Architects, 2006, Bressi Ranch Village Center Site Plan, Sheet Al, • dated October 10,2006 • Leighton and Associates, Inc, 1997, Preliminary Geotechmcal Investigation, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No 4971009-002, dated July 29, 1997 I , 2001, Supplemental Geotechmcal Investigation for Mass Grading, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No 971009-0015, dated March 14, 2001 , 2002, Geotechmcal Conclusions Concerning the Mass Grading RecommendationsI — Relative to Proposed Fine Grading and Review of the 40-Scale Tentative Maps, Bressi • Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No 971009-007, dated September 12, 2002 , 2003 a, Geotechmcal Grading Plan Review of the Mass Grading Plans, Bressi Ranch, • Carlsbad, California, Project No 971009-007, dated January 17,2003 , 2004a, Geotechmcal Completion Letter of the Rough and Fine-Grading Operations, I Planning Areas PA-14, PA-15, and OS-2, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No 4971009-014, dated May 25, 2004 I , 2004b, As-Graded Report of Mass Grading, Planning Areas PA-13, PA-14, and a • portion of PA-15, Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No 971009-014, dated _ September 17, 2004 Project Design Consultants, 2003, Mass Grading and Erosion Control Plans for Bressi Ranch, I Carlsbad, California, Carlsbad Tract No 00-06, Drawing No 400-8A, dated January 7, 2003, revised November 24, 2003 , 2006, Bressi Ranch Commercial Site Development Permit Tentative Map, Carlsbad Tract No 03-03, Sheets Cl through C7, dated October 11, 2006 I I I I I I A-2 I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1 Date Project 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 !Ct ng Co Diameter 8" ition Top of Elevation 401 ' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Major A Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30"ElevationFeet400 395- 390 385- 380- 375- SAMF £- fl 5 — 10— - 15 — •)(\ 25 — 1ft O •1°> & O N S •f f '• '.n 'iM> m *• ^ , • VY '• : ,•. ,-.Attitudes>LE TYPES oz 0)a EreV) B-1 @0'-5' . R-l I •uI/)O 5°0^-~ 1.CD CDa. 50/4" >.«rf inc*.d)Oa a. >. a MoistureContent, % |156 in— -(/>C/J 0^_co 03(O— SM sc CL SM ML DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 0' Fine grained silly SAND Light gray to light brown, moist, dense ^ to very dense, oxidized zones (a) 2' Becomes slightly clayey SAND @ 7' Sandy CLAY lense Yellow-brown @ 9' Fine grained silty SAND @ 1 3' Slightly clayey SILT Concretion, more oxidized with depth @ 17' Concretion @ 1 8' Increasing moist content Total Depth = 20 Feet No ground water encountered at tune of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 12/21/06 Type of TestsTYPE OF TESTS ^1% S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^^!^P R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS iSfiS' B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^*|iljl T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^T I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2 Date Project 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 !Ct ng Co Diameter 8" ition Top of Elevation 400' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Major A Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30"ElevationFeet400 395 390 385 380 375 370 SAMF 1 - 5 — 10— - 20 25 — in O -=0)Q.Q N S •_ •_ • \ .-. \ '• • • • • w,//y '•\ :'• " '. • ^% w, . ..' .'Attitudes>LE TYPES 0z "a. Ero R-l U>O CQai Q. ( 75/11" dj'y QO. Q MoistureContent, %6" 2. SM SM SC/MI ML SM ML DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) @ ()' Fine grained silty SAND Light gray, moist, dense to very dense, oxidized zones @ 2 5' Concretion @ 7' Becomes slightly clayey @ 12' Slightly clayey SILT Increased moisture content, concretion @ 1 5' Silly SAND lense, slightly moist @ 1 6' Fine grained sandy SILT Light gray, increasing moisture content @ 18' Sandy SILT Very moist, oxidi/.ed Total Depth = 20 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 1 2/2 1 /06 (A4-* a) a>a. TYPE OF TESTS ^& S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS >*eS3l!F R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS SSlf^ B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^SSi T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^T I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 Date Project 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 !Ct ng Co Diameter 8" Jtion Top of Elevation 402' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Major A Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30"ElevationFeet400 395 390 385- 380- 375- £»- - - 5 — 10— - ?n - 25 — ->A O Q.Q2-3 (3 >J S . •". .. \ • .'. .* • • * t m [• • • _• '•' "• • "^ '/' • "•' ;,- .- • •• •/AttitudesSAMPLE TYPES oz .2aETO R-l j WO ^tCQa>a. 50/6" £ (u'o QQ. Q Moisturelontent, %u ^_CO Q™^ SM ML SM ML SM ML SM DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TF.RTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) @0" Fine grained silty SAND Light gray to light brown, moist, dense to very dense, oxidi/ed /ones (3)2' Veryoxidi/ed @ 4' Slight clayey SILT (ai 6' Increased moisture content @7' Light gray SILT (a>. y Oxidized silty SAND (5) 1 1' Fine grained sandy SILT (w. 1 3' Concretion, increased moisture content, becomes a silty SAND @ 15' Slightly clayey SILT ©18' Silty SAND Total Depth = 20 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 12/21/06 tn pe of Test;>.1- TYPE OF TESTS ^^ S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^^^^ R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS iS!!^ B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^WiSl T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^T I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4 Date Project 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 !Ct ng Co Diameter 8" »tion Top of Elevation 403' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Major A Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30" o11gu- 111 400 395 390 385 380- 375- I"? - - c — - 10— 15 — - - - 25 — -in 0 0 vl S ." . . • '• B* / '• .- ; •/ " .' . " '%$ •" '•" „ f , -.' •" • .. f % • V>0) TJ 3 Z< SAMPLE TYPES 0z 0) 0. ra C/5 R-l I I/)O 5° CQo) Q. 5 50/5" in o>t3QQ. fr Q 0,5? fe*rd =WO)o-£SOO »~ 5=C/J^** SM ML ML CL SM ML DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) @ 0' Fine grained silty SAND Light gray, moist, dense to very dense, oxidized zones, interbedded sands and silts with minor clay ffi:2' SILTU-nst @ 6' SILT k-nse @ 7' Oxidized silty SAND Increased moisture content @ 9" Sandy SILT with minor amounts of clay @ 13' Oxidized silty CLAY @ 14' Fine grained silty SAND with oxidi/ed blebs @ 1 7' Oxidized slightly clayey SILT @ 18' Concretion Total Depth = 20 Feet No ground water encountered at time ot drilling Backfilled with native soil on 12/21/06 1 H-o Q) Q. ^^1- TYPE OF TESTS ^^ S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^SUSP R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS ^^»- B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^TOsSf T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^F I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Date Project 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 !Ct ng Co Diameter 8" Jtion Top of Elevation 401 ' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Major A Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30"ElevationFeet400- 395 390 385- 380 375- $ - - 5 — IS — : - 25 — TA O Q-o" O vl S • • •_ ._ '•' •• ' ; •" •AttitudesSAMPLE TYPES S SPLIT SPOON R RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE oz 0)a EraCO R-l ) B-l •4-*t/)O 5°0"-rr u.Cfl 0)a. \ 90/11" in <ut3QQ. i— Q 1107 MoistureContent, %186 to— SM ML SM ML DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TERTIARY AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION ( Tsa) @ 0' Fine grained silty SAND Light gray to light brown, slightly moist to moist, dense to very dense, oxidized zones, interbedded silts and sands (a), 2' Increased SILT content (fi> 4' Fine grained sandy SILT Oxidi/cd blebs @ 7' Oxidized silly SAND Very moist @ 10' Oxidized SILT, with minor CLAY @ 12 5' Concretion @ 19' Concretion Total Depth = 20 Feet No uround water encountered at tune of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 12/21/06 (/)ype of TestI- TYPE OF TESTS 4|j^ G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^^^[^ SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS ^llll^ CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^wpSf CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^^T I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6 Date Project 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 !Ct ng Co Diameter 8" ition Top of Elevation 405' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Shop E Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30"ElevationFeet•40S- 400 395 390 385 380 SAMF fl 0 — 5 — 1 n 15 — 20 — 25— 1ft O O N S •* \ * * * Iflll f ' •Attitudes>LE TYPES o "5. re R-l } 5§ •3; k-CQo>Q. \ 79/9" 35 <ut3oa t.a 1055 MoistureContent, %15 1 ^«(/) O^D SM CI. SM ML DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) (o) 0' Fine grained silty SAND Light gray, moist, dense to very dense, oxidized zones, interbedded sands, sills, and clays iff. 3' Oxidi/ed silty CI .AY @ 4' Oxidi/cd silr>' SAND (<•;.: 5' Light gray silty SAND @ 7' Gray SILT Increased moisture content, minor clay Total Depth = 10 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 12/21/06 V) ~w0) >o 0)Q. TYPE OF TESTS ^fe S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS _*«82i7 R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^sfsBSj T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^F I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I I i GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-7 Date Project 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 set ng Co Diameter 8" ition Top of Elevation 407' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Major B Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30" o is 35«5"- Ol 405 400- 395- 390 385 380 1$ 0 — - : e - - - 10 — _ 15 — 25 — u Q-0*2-i CD ^ S . •. • .". • J. • f . . • • \ * - _* •' •. i°- '• •• • . • to(U AttltudSAMPLE TYPES S SPLIT SPOON R RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE oz. ~EL Eretn B-l M'O'-S' R-l ** 5°J"- CQaia. sw *•« U) a)1?]QQ. Q 0*5 MoistuContent</>• — • °2. ML SM ML DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af) (ft; 0-6' Sandy SILT with clay Gray-brown, moist, medium dense TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) (w 6' Silty SAND Gray, moist, dense to very dense, oxidized zones, interbedded sands and silts (ai. T Becomes more oxidized @9' Light gray silly SAND (ft; 1 2' Concretion, more oxidized @ 17 Sandy SILT (w ( H' Increased water content, silly SAND lense @ 19' Sandy SILT Total Depth = 20 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 1 2/2 1 /06 U) To0)H•s<1)a>%i- TYPE OF TESTS .f^S^ G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^^^^ SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^lllK5« T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE "^F" I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-8 Date Project 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 !Ct ng Co Diameter 8" ition Top of Elevation 409' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Major B Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30" cO•5®505"- Ol 405 400 395- 390 385 380 II 0 — — - 5 — - 10 — 15 — : 25 — in O -CO)0.0 O N S •• ''.-' '. •; .• in<o AttitudSAMPLE TYPES S SPLIT SPOON oz 0) Q. ETO V) R-l j . •2tCQo> Q. 50/3" & V) QQ. 1_ Q 2s:MoistuContent</>• — • <3" °2. ML SM ML DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB THRTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) (ffi ()' Fine grained sand/ SILT Gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, oxidi/ed zones, mterhedded sands and silts (a: y Very oxidized w< 5' Becomes gray (a:. 8' Veryoxidi/cd (fv. 9' Increasing moisture content Co) 1 1' Slightly clayey @; 13' SiltySAND @ 16' Fine grained sandy SILT (tv 17' Minor clay Total Depth - 20 Feet No ground water encountered at time of' drilling Backfilled with native soil on 1 2/2 1/06 4-1V)0) 1— 'o 0)a H TYPE OF TESTS setSZ G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS <**§!%:? R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS £»@i& B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^wIS T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^lr LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-9 Date Project 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 !Ct ng Co Diameter 8" ition Top of Elevation 41 1 ' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Shop D Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30"ElevationFeet410 405 400- 395 390- 385 SAMF & - 5- 15 — - 20 — 25 — in O .= 0)Q-o N S " * ' •' '"• *• • •'Attitudes>LE TYPES oz 0) Q. £rew 13-1 R-l ) <no 5° CQ<uCL 50/5" & V) a>t3QQ. WQ 1177 MoistureContent, % |146 0=)W— SM ML DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) (tb, ()' Silly SAND Gra>, brown, slightly moist, dense, oxicli/ed zones, mterbedded silts and sands !tf 2' SILT lense rti; 5' SiltySAND Mica present (Si. 7 Oxidi/ed sandy SILT Moist concretion (ft. 8' SILT Light gray, slightly moist @9' SILT Dark gray, moist 1 olal Depth = 1 0 Feet No ground water encountered at lime of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 1 2/2 1 /06 Type of TestsTYPE OF TESTS ^0% S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS sjtzSSJ R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^»WSS T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^FILEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-10 Date 12-21-06 Project Drilling Co Hole Diameter {T Elevation Top of Elevation 410' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Sheet 1 of 1 Project No Type of Rig 971009-047 CME-75 Drive Weight Location 140 pound hammer Drop 30" Shop D Building Pad ElevationFeet |410- 405 400 395- 390 385- 380 SAMF £*-Q*£ - 5 — 10— _ - 15— 25 — in 0 •5°>0-0«_i 0 N S - •m '• ' '• m . • . . •'Attitudes>LE TYPES o Q) Q. £«V) R-l j 4-1too 5° 2tCDo) Q. I ^ >•+* tf> Cv-0) UQQ. £> Q MoistureContent, %</>~~ 2£& OD(/3— ML SM ML DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) @0" Sandy SILT Grav-brown, moist, dense to very dense @ 3' Concretion @4' Fine grained SIL'I SAND Damp, concretion @ 6" Becomes moist @ 7' Dark gray sandy clayey SILT Shells present @ 1 1 ' Concretion @ 1 3' Concretion, increased moisture content @ 18' Traces of CLAY Total Depth = 20 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 12/21/06 Type of TestsTYPE OF TESTS >*^lP5 S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS .dfijS^P R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS teS8s>> B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX *Sll|Si T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^T I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-11 Date 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Drilling Co Hole Diameter 8" Elevation Top of Elevation 41 1 ' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Shop C Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30"Elevation 1Feet410- 405- 400 395 390 385- SAMF !«£ c - - 10— 15— 20 — 25 — in O •5<aS-o2_j 0 N S Attitudes>LE TYPES oz 0) 0. raw +.*wo§o 0"- CQo> Q. 50/2" :x«•* V) Cv-V O QQ. ^Q MoistureContent, %w~~ 82<&fc Ml. DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) @ 0' Sandy SILT Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, shells present, massive @ >S' Becomes moist @ 10' Sandy SILT Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, shells present, massive §1 5' No recover}' (on a concretion) 16' Concretion Total Depth = 16 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 12/21/06 Type of TestsTYPE OF TESTS ^&Z S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^gSijlF R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^HS T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^^ I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-12 Date Project 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 set ng Co Diameter 8" Jtion Top of Elevation 41 0' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Shop C Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30"ElevationFeet410- 405- 400 395 390 385 380 SAM f| - 5 — - in • •-- 15 — 20 — 25 — in O Q.O*5° O N S Attitudes5LE TYPES oz "5.£ R-, j tno 0^-GQoi 0. 76/9" w o> oDO- Q MoistureContent, %into °5- ML DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) @ 0' Fine grained sandy SILT Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, massive, shells present (a}. 2 5' Concretion (a1 6' Becomes very moist @ 9' Fine grained sandy SILT Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, massive, shells present Total Depth = 10 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 121/21/06 Type of TestsTYPE OF TESTS _*^3fe S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS <>l8$SJ^F R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS feflllj^ B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^RSi T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE <Sf^ I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-13 Date Project 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 !Ct ng Co Diameter 8" ition Top of Elevation 410' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Shop B Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30" o11jx UJ 410 405 395 390 385 isn 15 - 5 — — in - 15 — 20 — 25 — in O o-c?2-J O N S (/>0)AttitudSAMPLE TYPES oz "o. Ere CO MO ti?_o"- CQo> 0. ', 50/5" *•» 55c*. 0) Ooa Q 111 1 £*ic<2«oc 5°0 167 wcoJO ML DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) @ (V Fine grained sandy SILT Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, massive, shells present @ 5' Fine grained sandy SILT Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, massive, increased sand content @ 5 5' Medium grained sandy SILT Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, mica present @ 9' Concretion Total Depth = 10 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 12/21/06 U) 9) "o (VQ. "~ TYPE OF TESTS .-^fe S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS jdjJI^F R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^fESl T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^T I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-14 Date Project 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 !Ct ng Co Diameter 8" rtion Top of Elevation 41 0' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Shop A Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30" co^ UJ 405 400 395 390- 385- 380- c- 1- 0u " - 5 — - - 10 — - 15 — - - - 25— in O -= 0)0-02_J 0 N S 0)•a3*^•t-t*-» < _iv - SAMPLE TYPES 0 O "5. EroCO B-l R-i ) WO> o -2tCQd)a. 76/11" V)c*.(DOQO. ^. Q -5= c oc into"(0 03 ML DIESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TFRTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) @ 0' Sandy SILT Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, shells present, massive :'«• 2' Oxidi/cd silty SAND lense (w 5' Concretion (&: 7' Becomes moist (tit 1 ()' Sandy SILT Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, shells present, massive (5'. 1 5' Sandy SILT Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, shells present, slightly clayey Total Depth = 20 Feet No ground water encoumerecl at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 1 2/21/06 to1/50)« 14-o Q. H TYPE OF TESTS ^&i S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^^^S^ R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^f||sj| T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^^ I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-15 Date Project 12-21-06 !Ct ng Co Diameter 8" ition Top of Elevation 41 1 ' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Sheet 1 of Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Pad B Building Pad 1 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30"ElevationFeet410 405 400 395 390 385- SAMF n C in 15 — 20— 25 — -in O 5 N S Attitudes>LE TYPES 0 (V Q. EroW R-i r </>o Q. 71/9" ( inc,«_0)OQQ- 1. 0 MoistureContent, %<fltf) °5- Ml. DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) @ 0' Fine grained sandv SILT Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, massive, shells present @2' Silty SAND lense Oxidized @3' Traces of CLAY @ 7' Becomes moist Total Depth = 10 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 12/21/06 wio %o 0)Q. TYPE OF TESTS ,-^fe S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^sHI^P R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS teSSl* B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^»5S§ T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^T LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-16 Date 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Drilling Co Hole Diameter 8" Elevation Top of Elevation 409' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer West of Shop F 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30" cof!!"-HI 405 400 395 390 385 380 % — - I 10 — - 15 — 20 — 25 — -»rt O Q-O* 2-J0 J S ' '. (/)0)TJ3*^ 4-*4-» < SAMPLE TYPES Oz "a. EreV) R-l _ 50 0"- CQo>a. 50/3" NR in Cv*.0)Oa a u.Q 2s!MoistuContentin — °2- SM MI. DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af) (Of Cf-2' Fine grained silly SAND Brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) (ft 2' Fine grained sandy SILT Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, massive, shells present, traces of'CT.'AY (a V Concretion (refusal) Total Depth : 5 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 12/21/06 I0)I— •8 d)a>I- TYPE OF TESTS ^fe S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^dfiSHI^ R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^W&S T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^T I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-17 Date 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Drilling Co Hole Diameter 8" Elevation Top of Elevation 407' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Shop F Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30"Elevation 1Feet |405 400- 395 390 385 380 SAM! £~ g 0 — 5 — - 15 — 20 — 25 — 1ft 0 •5s>9-°5-Jo N S •Attitudes I3LE TYPES o _a> Q. £ro(/) B-l @0'-5' E-' 4-*</)O50 0"-~ l-CQo> 0_ 50/6" >»4-» i/iCM-ID o OQ.&Q 955 MoistureContent, %135 w~* U>(/)&_w 03w— ML SM/SP DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB ARTIFICIAL FILL (Aft @ 0-2' Fine grained sandy SILT Light brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) @ 2' Fine grained sandy SILT with traces of clay Dark gray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, massive, shells present @8' Moist @ 9' Silty to poorly graded fine to medium grained SAND @ 1 1' Refusal (concretion) Total Depth = 1 1 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 12/21/06 Type of TestsTYPE OF TESTS ^^Z S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^^2^ R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^ill2Sf T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^T LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-18 Date 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Drilling Co Hole Diameter 8" Elevation Top of Elevation 405' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Shop G Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30"ElevationFeet405- 400 395- 390 385- 380 |! - 5— - in - 15— 20 — 25 — -in O O N_S SAMPLE TYPES Attitudesoz ~EL En(/) v>*o c^CQo) Q. 0) O QQ. k. Q MoistureContent, %OD^ SM.'Ml. ML DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB ARTIFICIAL FILL (Aft (a) 0-2' Fine grained silt>' SAND/sandy SILT Brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense TF.RTIARY-AGFD SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) (a) 2' Fine grained sandv SILT Dark uray, slightly moist, dense to very dense, massive, shells present @ 6' Recomes moist Total Depth = 10 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 12/21/06 3inID *Oa>.I- TYPE OF TESTS ^^t S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS jiiJJSJ R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^^^1 T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE **W LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-19 Date 12-21-06 Project Drilling Co Hole Diameter 8^ Elevation Top of Elevation 410' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Sheet 1 of 1 Project No Type of Rig 971009-047 CME-75 Drive Weight Location 140 pound hammer Drop 30" Pad A Building Pad ElevationFeets udesoz _OJ a £rec/} tno CQo>0. Q> O QQ.MoistuContentLogged By Sampled By DESCRIPTION AJB AJB ype of Tes410-IM/Ml. 405-5 — 400-10— 395 15— 390 385 25— 380 30- SAMPLE TYPES S SPLIT SPOON R RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE T TUBE SAMPLE B-l @15'-2( ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af) @ ()' Fine grained silty SAND/sandy SILT Yellow-brown, moist, loose to medium dense ML CL @ 5' Gray sandy SILT @T Gray sandy CLAY @ 10' SiltyCLAY @ 15' Brown siIty CLAY CL TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) @ 17' Fine grained sandy, silly CLAY Brown, moist, hard, drilling became more difficult Total Depth = 20 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 12/21/06 G GRAB SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE TYPE OF TESTS DS DIRECT SHEAR MD MAXIMUM DENSITY CN CONSOLIDATION CR CORROSION SA SIEVE ANALYSIS AT ATTERBURG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX RV R-VALUE LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-20 Date Project 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 !Ct ng Co Diameter 8" ition Top of Elevation 405' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer North of Major C Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30"ElevationFeet405- 400 395 390 385- 380 375 SAMf t-S - 5— 15— 20 — 25 — in O •=0) S3 0 N S Illlpi 'jjjjl Attitudes>LE TYPES 0 0) a Ere B-l @0'-5' (/) Ofe O Odd)a. wtSaa. t. O MoistureContent, %°2- ML CL DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) @ 0' Fine grained sandy SIL 1" Brown, moist, dense to very dense, oxidized, Iraccs of CLAY @ 2' Concretion (S) 4' Concretion @6' Silly CLAY @T Silly CLAY Oxidized @9' Silly CLAY Dark gray Tolal Deplh = 1 0 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled on 12/21/06 Type of TestsTYPE OF TESTS w^8>5 S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS xd§3^ R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^PiM0 T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^T LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-21 Date Project 12-21-06 Sheet 1 of 1 !Ct ng Co Diameter 8" ition Top of Elevation 406' LNR/PA-15 Baja Excavation Drive Weight Location Project No Type of Rig 140 pound hammer Major C Building Pad 971009-047 CME-75 Drop 30"ElevationFeet405- 400 395 390- 385- 380- 1* - - _ - 1 fliu — 15 — - 20— - 25 — in O (5 N S Attitudes*J\J SAMPLE TYPES oz "EL ro<o 4-*e/>o 5° &tOQoQ. • t7) o> oQQ- u. Q MoistureContent, %I ML DESCRIPTION Logged By AJB Sampled By AJB TERTIARY-AGED SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) @ ()' Fine grained sandy SILT with CLAY Gray-brown, moist, dense to very dense @ 4' Concretion @ 6' Concretion @ 8' Fine grained sandy SILT with CLAY Gray-brown, moist, dense to very dense @ 9' Clayey SILT Dark gray Total Depth = 10 Feet No ground water encountered at time of drilling Backfilled with native soil on 12/21/06 VI ype of TestH- TYPE OF TESTS ^^^ S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ^SUSJ R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS £§!§&• B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX ^^^f T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE ^T I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Xuwa:HIX,O OO t/2 C °gj *> >SaiUJ uO 3 oai £ ^\p , O —O ^2 .uS t£Z £fiZ .y, UJ ^00 5 C 1 ^ 5 1 1 c. ^ j T3 IO 11 I in o. ci r-^t r 971009-| h < C cu(U .^ E E ^03 3 cZ Z ^^ s4 s1 §•0- Cu W O EOLOG1UNITa Q_DESCRI10 OsJN uj Q 00u uj c"5 oo *-", "] t™^o PUJ HO < 5@)g 3<Son s li_ 03 < H 0_o 5Eo Q. EOJ "° c" SJO jf Q 1 §00 C E <2 1•S 2E 0o u °S „ o5*^ crt <J H ^1 P-J -= ^3 Z E <» S <J 2 oo I il S UH C H ^eJ 3< < f- o E •o" f^ Eefl bb tricdQ •4— > « R§ 1H ct/3 <l> H fi i-J 60 ^ —T3 75C ° en CD C 1 tu u CO © © CQ GIo£ o0 SLOPEUJU IXa!D I/"JJl ^_H UJj<cj CiO ATIONREPRESENT*_j <^u Sa. o£a .... -«^ x V • V w • 1 / •*— v y ' * ' < t 1 '"'/ **»^_ I^>Nll'-i''1 1 1 , 1 1 . 1 ! . / 1 ' '| ,1 '( ) 1 \\S Y i/ •oac3u c£ LU Or^ J g•£ T3O £ i^1 ^ "uH Z i \•1 / aEozUJoSHLuO Oo ooLU£LUa.O LU c •^ S-o 28> 02 O £ E 8o1 £ «3oo c. K2 JV •gCO§ 1> a.5crLU 00 O llq DLUa PTo00 LU Q o a^CN LU H < Q o£ §§O HLU H O < H Q. CO-o u feb £2P o bOJ LU I 8 - efl CD «So g QZLUQjH LU O. Ojoo LU CJ<U.cd Doo LU en i I gonLUftieu LUoi o XD- < ttJ O 3O<_>cu.o Z =D uUJD£u.o oo UJIUJo.Ocia.OUJ7 <L<L U. c £ 4J00 O cs ^ 5 t--3 a c t^a <uQnj00 B "TAT2(X cr 00 U O DUJa DESCRIPTION2/29/06UJ H < Q U uj 50 SH 2Eo < on oo c 1 C o so QZ EM O a>Siltymed0'ois-O E C/) o 1 a> UJ O S<M8 «o H< O H-HH <oo >• SW •o E 2<a § en on - u Q| b UJa,O oo UJ D00 w uon PRESENTATIONCJ SCL, O CJUJa;HUu,Ooo 00COcuOOSOHOOSCOCO2O CO a £ C (U *jj ^ uo —•-J CO 2 4-*O(U s1 0- I 2 t3u c.K a oi u a. UJ (Uoo ooCJ 00 CJ IsO Dto O | cu 2uco CO Q CN CN r ^ 00CJ m oaoLTU O Hto H O < oo 260 _O "u -4-* o 60 •4-* 60 CO OHoo Q •§ ±n)o •4-tO2 Qco o CO O tou co CO CJoo §p iS §C/3tooS CucoOS y 1a UJa!u_Oa 3 UJos-UJe-ooJ0.OCDUJZO § aiU- C a>J W ou 21 a. r~rj a-c t~a E3 •-8 Q!?El<a *~oo on UC/3 c.n 4aor a o 8-J TAT RarlchopEE W O gfc-1 2O ^>UJa PTIONUon voo3s(N O uj PO HUJ Ha < en -C _o I _o t>0 gSI Q. 03•O o O O , i, oo t« Oii e•O oD is St*-> ed oia.a |£_uS p"-5z ^FnN^ Z onU g C/} ^1—C 'a!(LU- C * c.a 4 V O ^ 1 1w « -Cw> 5 aW) jji o O ^-" Oi-l W J ir o. a 2 t- 2 1 r-a J ^ t-<L S .£> E | « 2 1 S-*-»+-•£ 2i 2i ""o o ^. Cu CL, W UIt o 5 OJO RIPTIONUooWQ o 04 04 H •^Q o tS50 3g0 HOJ H 0 < ^oo cd H o>c/l CL> T3 «' OE 0 a. 1 ^ CrttZtt) -*— * J 1 I &n •? z z 1X-. f-t di0 < 6 p c 8^^ S c S "5 ^ — OS J2 ^ CT . .^ ^TlO ^3 ^J 8 | g -3^C ^+-< fl^ P y E r^> C w tj 2 ~ u tj 2 < OTI, ^ ^ !^H ^^ ^ ^D r"""" H UJ H < 00 TRENDoO SLOPEu IX C^Doo l/~i Jl ~ w uC/D z O P<E-ZW V) §a. _,<i^ CJ £flu<K:0 i^ > " * . , / ~~^ >^^^^ " * ^*^S"I> t ' , * *- '' -*« *r x''^fiT i ' "y c^ • v *i * ^* t * '.-' ' '<^>'x t ^^*' * '/• * /• // •a^ucp•£ -oS" i !ir- Z CQ 1i«Jiv 7V\V iy f^\ UgerfHo,O Oo •^1— ; C .O •o<Uwwc I/"" 0. ;z 0) re •4— <\J O ct OTS_JCrf03O.OCrf0-0—y-£03O325*»/ 03 V C •<* 4) C } I' <u 03 c~•51 a- r~o , JS1 tj0) 1 go. c ^d.4c/ 13d O 1ij 4 ^Cna h L c 1ex' 1 ^ t~lQ "^<DL~^ ^O "— '^.<uI?- o» "7co U00 O O L-o g O 3 O - 2 fc5uon WQ o O^ § 03 ^lQ r ^ °°O O3 0 HttJ Ha < SCO TOcrtH w ° e = g -S 5 2 2 ° I" E •n "0 u^ bb ^* •f) -g "^ ijj _c "^ 03 « Hz ^ S2 s Sn: OT•* 'O /""NQ 1— 1 § < fe 5 P W cc^^ ec __• c 55 B ^ erf "S § 1OS S E PL, _ 0) o2 o *Ji 1 t 1 „"^ ^— • 4> *^x 55 p"| ?>-> c -" -^ " Z ^ •§ °° ^ ^ •^ ^^ ^ ^^ > b £ ^ ^ " erf @o © ©2 erfO3 f- < 03 U Q03-jcci- b 03 O 00 03 U U,erfD iiM 03 (J 00 2 0 H< iOT03erf OH PJ Crf r-1 TJU 3 JU2 ^ "5o o «'- Z CQ. 1 DCUUJa:HIXO OO xti i — -1/1 ^jui u -£rP Q,«>txo- h0 £^eu o ^-'0Z 25 .£UJ ^ oH E z!Z ^« C/5z r f\ UJ r') 25 *• a.U. c Jx, C. ^« a •a. c'a% 1 §(U *{ S31=0 5 s60 g O O r , O ^ in 0.1pi 2 UJ (^ 2 a r~0 j c h< L u E "1ca 3 gZ Z i> 8^1 E1 S^ §CU CU UJ OLOGICUNITUJ 0 I H 5o00 UJO o CN — UJ£- Q cj J3 GEOLOGIATTITUDT @^?CD Q s i-"1 T3 C8 "^ E •o ?^260 J51/3 U T3 O 2(50 ifcaQ Z uj Nw' ^^ H O< H o ^o -^O c< 8 H g i/3 S | g UJH < O1H oO UJ OJ \SJ UJu u.oH 00 j? - UJJ CJoo § P <HZUJonUJ Dia,w ^GRAPHIC•^ 1 ( '/ 1 ^-^^. l^-v^1 1 TV. j I ) 7\ \ • i '\' ) 1 1* * i i i<rf "\ i!*» • \ / | / ,!K// 1c3Oy tS o10 eS ^JiiiQ S|O 0 B1- Z =2 OID-,Oo 3 rrj 0> vSH °pitU <uW-" Mo ^ ^Q> S2 o^Cu 0 — 'o ^^—45 -S2LU CX .-.w £zZ rt>*-; c/}n\^^ztu g (/} ^C •)T0.0.p. ^_ Logged b;Elevationin CL Pi £ r^rti c~CT c. ^JV -onO _ Location/T RarHinp< C, 1—rsj(D -C II- !Z Z w ^ ^ 121 2" §• CU OH tU CJ O f_ 3 z O Dtu0 SCRIPTIONtu Q 12/29/06wH^cQ cj pq EOLOGITTITUDO < _j ^ C/) H "S-o J •= a. 1 "^TD /a- > >: "o _*: cs c3 ^^ Q uj UJ ^"7 Oo f™^ H f£on |j 1— H ^ ^Z -a* c OS " P S | S «*= (u 2 0 2 1 z O ^ (L) r.O *J f—1Or C C/DH1 fl> r < C^l Pip h « dg ^ j= CJ 00 j- $ 55 — ° C/D — , <r> o ~ ^ b | <N i ^ 1 P ["T"] E- < CQ CJ Qtuo£H oO tu /^uu 0 uo tu CJ Dc/o CoJl LU C/3 ENTATION00tuPio«OJ J <J CJ1 o *•• ' 1 • ' ~r^7> .l'!|'i n»\ii*1 1 /i . • i \(l/f ^\ CO o«Jc30.- C ^oO f_o or^~ L^ Qsv|lu* 3 ^J0 2 E"r* C^ — ^O O C3H 2 flQ (J§u.O O O M T>oo ex.UJ o> C?jOSUJ wOH ^^ I S-s5 ^UJ D. .-,S e |S oo 03 *Q 00 C •4.CL U. >-> c. CT aaV -o J^OJO C > -o 2 o ™J ^ ^ O ™ O J, w, 1 in 0- 2 (^ C a c t-a c c a h L. U JD 1 1 ~ S 0 Eqj d> Q"s1 e1 1-0- 0, W U llO 3 UJa go b^ 5u D o rs uu •^Q oou S O D o ^ O < oo 5 oo "i" tn< H o a.PJ5-o„c^ou_Q _O 0 ^u- JO •^-tJ3 "j Q i § I 5 •§ iE £ 0 2 S Q = 1 0 ^ i <J j^-3 P E S! < < of | ^N "^fe p f— ' c^oi m < < H « 0 >-.w?d>^> - C <a 1 •yi so _j UJ ^jo 00 Q <001 •se uj^ o> N d "T3 . **- -Si £n ^^ D tS"7- P ^OO o Di U 1/1 v~> CN ro m CQ U Q;zUJfrH §5 SLOPEUJU Di OO rll UJ ^*r^ 00 §P<H §00 SG. j <^CJ2 (X 2o "•' *f '•^^ • .- , . - // ••- \ k J^fc * * JJIJ •^*•% * * > * , '» ", /Xc^H \AJ 11aT 4 ( 1 )w T3B=o** C vo^ i§II ^ —^ ^ T3U 3 ^C g j="r* ^^ '^O O MH z a U2UJDiHI-L,Oao xoo c yto w saJLU (oQ. !=1 1?a s5 —UJ CL —S E £5 oorn 00 ^—i C *T J u. OCc ^ c K 2c.1c/: "2 cB t O f^ ~"^ T3 2 §w tS -C60 5 03Of £ OH 3 5 r~s cr c i>o^ j a ^ h<C fl> -O E Ejj3 _~ +•*TO -J r-Z Z « B 8 o-s1 e1 §•P-c CL UJ CJit O 5 Q O cu 2 CJoow Q o ONCN <N w •^Q CJ UJ F^ Q§1 0 < T (§)^?(-LJ ^j s H -a ex E C3-a E £ P tob •^ ^ oi Q w 15 ^ g i 1R o -g ±Cj f— , xz <a *^L* ^O ^ ^i 5 I 1^ oo CJ a. >. b vo vo «j ® ® (§) £to E- < CD Q1f- b SLOPEw CJ u. D u-iJl 3 ^^CJoo 1 < itopac*Cua <; CJ Xcu a *«*. • 1 / I x^ (^Y\ liijl/ii!1 • 1 1 • i rv \ j/ • I ' l 1 | V/ )\ y' 1 1 -/\/sr 7 "S1>oc3o0-4-« C \Oilli 1^Q 1 |o ° <^r- 2 CO x OQ acuUJOSO OO 8?oo c &H n^P °.,.>c&tO a>*"N r -fe 3 ^O ~ C?1s rCj -^5ai _OJw y- oua £ 77 « ^-£: oo2 U CJooD ^C > S du- t^c:rf i c.«2 IV -aC O X> C > T3 2 § SI*g> J 8 J UJ J IT 0- p: £ k-« r-^J a p^ a 4cJC ^>!.n QC h < C. L^a>4> J2 6 E•£ — •+-!03 3 f- ' 2^| ^— t 4-J H 88s- o1 o1 5.£• r i o^&. (X PJ CJin 0 DUJ O ESCRIPTIONQ ^oo a!04 ?5 UJH<f^i« Q 00CJ m EOLOGITTITUD0 < S d^ S C300 4_rtn OS o o.E03T3 c" 0^ ^JI _0 "S ^ 1W J= 1 ioo -oO 22 & g - 5< E "g S 5 Q^j -^3 ^^Qt 0> rrj W e« 2 1 1 1 1§ i i I -, P 1. 5 1 !7 — &o g g ^00 CJ (X OO ^ 4) O-i >-, 0 g (N ?n ?n ^ ©-S © © © "^H ftS ClI H < CQ U ^ Q2UJaiF- o O SLOPEw CJ<^PiDon C->jl U-J<; CJoo § ^i C/2s*\P-»$_i<RAPHICO • •o£<L>C3O- g^u UJ 0i £ h a^ i op ^^ • ,< •• . • •/. /// \ Isjrv 1 I-1 ( 1; VV (^ . A nT.1 A ^ \1i Jl^r ^ i-II I"•5 -a _a. c ^3s a -do o a<r- Z 03 UJu,O O O „ ||HUJ w0- hO3 *— v*i r?g 5^0 222 ^UJ ^ oUJ S 77 & *-£; oo UJ f i60 ^—:C "a U o Tj i^ c. J Q.1 -aca.£> C > •a 2 § ^ E E ^ CC J p-| Z Z <o £ S 1 21 ET §• (X DH UJ y O '_ 3 2 UJa ASCRIPTIONUM Q o CN CJ UJ r""1 •<^ Q ooU ua EOLOGITTITUDO < 2 Soo oo £ 0)c/) •a inc*j a> £2 t30 >, c > o E^•* *~j_D Cyi "O 1 ¥ °aj -c ^* ^ UJ UJ 1 1 &0 C/3 Q Q 111 < 1 I*g 3 3 — 5-5-5 SDC Oi (D ID -3 P E £ § *§^ 0 0 N "- ^ 4> « "B 0 <i^- «^^ c ^**— M-< rr o C >, >. e * b i" £* | £ ^ 00 (/5 U 00 ^ ^ ^ in | © © © © P cd UJE- < DQ U D§2E- o0 UJfNk*- G 00 UJU Doo In Jl UJ o00 § r-E— ' 100 UJPda. UJ j <j RAPHICO 1 ^1V. ^X *** r *' . *' * • 7 rtt* /' ~* t * • _ /* / ^\ Ss^\ ^t, n 4\ ^t \j \\ ^ r\ "%!-JL, x -J 1 •< ^4^ / < Yy^ \/ \6 Scoo °til ""J ^^Vl *- O*^m J M5 T38-S1-c§SO G rtH ^ CQ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Expansion Index Tests The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, ASTM Standard D4829 Specimens are molded under a given compactwe energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation The prepared 1-mch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with water until volumetric equilibrium is reached The results of these tests are presented in the table below Sample Location Boring B-l, South of Shop "D" Pad Boring B-5, Major "A" Pad Boring B-7, Major "B" Pad Boring B-9, Shop "D" Pad Boring B-l 7, Shop "F" Pad Boring B-20, Major "C" Pad Test Pit T-l, South of Shop "D" Pad Test Pit T-2, South of Major "B" Pad Test Pit T-8, South of Shop "G" Pad Test Pit T-l 1, North of Major "B" Pad Sample Description Light gray silty fine SAND Light gray-brown sandy SILT Gray-brown sandy SILT with clay Light gray silty fine SAND Light brown sandy SILT with clay Light brown sandy SILT with clay Light brown silty SAND Light olive-gray sandy SILT Dark olive-gray SILT Dark gray sandy SILT Expansion Index 69 66 102 58 92 93 84 91 90 58 Expansion Potential Medium Medium High Medium High High Medium High Medium Medium * The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Classification of Expansive Soil, CBC, Table No 18-I-B C-l I I I I I 971009-047 I I APPENDIX C (Continued) Moisture and Density Determination Tests Moisture content (ASTM Test Method D2216) and dry density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples obtained from the test borings and/or trenches The results of these tests are presented in the boring and/or trench logs Where applicable, only the moisture content was determined from disturbed samples Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with Caltrans Test Method CT643 for Steel or CT532 for concrete and standard geochemical methods The results are presented in the table below Sample Location Boring B-l, South of Shop "D" Pad Boring B-20, Major "C" Pad Test Pit T-2, South of Major "B" Pad Sample Description Light gray silty fine sand Light brown sandy silt with clay Light olive-gray sandy SILT PH 76 77 77 Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm) 740 740 480 I I I I I I I I Chloride Content Chloride content was tested in accordance with Caltrans Test Method CT422 The results are presented below Sample Location Boring B-l, South of Shop "D" Pad Boring B-20, Major "C" Pad Test Pit T-2, South of Major "B" Pad Chloride Content, ppm 400 270 360 Chloride Attack Potential* Positive Threshold Positive *Per City of San Diego Program Guidelines for Design Consultant, 1992 C-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 971009-047 APPENDIX C (Continued) Soluble Sulfales The soluble sulfatc contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods (Caltrans Test Method CT417) The test results are presented in the table below Sample Location Boring B-l, South of Shop "D'? Pad Boring B-20, Major "C" Pad Test Pit T-2, South of Major "B" Pad Sulfate Content (%) 002 004 003 Potential Degree of Sulfate Attack* Negligible Negligible Negligible * Based on the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, Table No I9-A-4, prepared by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO, 1997) C-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Leighton and Associates, Inc GENERALEARTI [WORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 1 of 6 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING 1 0 General 1 1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifieations are for the grading and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical report(s) These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s) In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s) 1 2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant) The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s)and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design assumptions If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required Subsurface areas to be geotechmcally observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditiomngand processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis 3030 1094 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Leightonand Associates, Inc GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 2 of 6 1 3 The Earthwork Contractor The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechmcal report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechmcal Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechmcal Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechmcal Consultant is aware of all grading operations The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved geotechmcal report(s) and grading plan(s) If, in the opinion of the Geotechmcal Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc , are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechmcal Consultant shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified 2 0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 2 1 Clearing and Grubbing Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechmcal Consultant The Geotechmcal Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume) No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc ) have chemical constituents that are considered to be hazardous waste As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed 30301094 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Leighton and Associates, Inc GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 3 of 6 2 2 Processing Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory' for support of fill by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavatedas specified in the following section Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction 2 3 Overexcavation In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading 2 4 Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5 1 (horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched Please see the Standard Details for a graphic illustration The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5 1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill 2 5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches 30 Fill Material 3 1 General Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material 3 2 Oversize Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction 3030 1094 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Leighton and Associates,Inc GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 4 of 6 Import If importmgof fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section 3 1 The potential import source shall be given to the Geolechmcal Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed 4 0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4 1 Fill Layers Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per Section 3 0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness The Geotechmcal Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout 4 2 Fill Moisture Conditioning Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557-91) 4 3 Compaction of Fill After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557-91) Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity 4 4 Compaction of Fill Slopes In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechmcal Consultant Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method Dl 557-91 4 5 Compaction Testing Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechmcal Consultant Location and frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches) 30301094 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Leightonand Associates,Inc GENERAL EAR THWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 5 of 6 4 6 Frequency of Compaction Testing Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechmcal Consultant The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met 4 7 Compaction Test Locations The Geotechmcal Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the Geotechmcal Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided 5 0 Subdram Installation Subdram systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechmcal report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details The Geotechmcal Consultant may recommend additional subdrams and/or changes in subdram extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions encountered during grading Ail subdrams shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys 6 0 Excavation Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the Geotechmcal Consultant during grading Remedial removal depths shown on geotechmcal plans are estimates only The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechmcal Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechmcal Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechmcal Consultant 3030 1094 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Leighton and Associates, Inc GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 6 of 6 70 Trench Backfills 7 1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations 7 2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30) The bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface 73 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant 7 4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill 75 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method 30301094 FILL SLOPE PROJECTED PLANE 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND GROUND BENCH HEIGHT (4 TYPICAL) REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL 2' WIN KEY DEPTH LOWEST BENCH (KEY) FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE BENCH HEIGHT (4' TYPICAL) REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE -CUT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT TO ASSURE ADEQUATE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS EXISTING- GROUND SURFACE OVERBUILD AND TRIM BACK PROJECTED PLANE 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND UT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL BENCH HEIGHT (41 TYPICAL) FOR SUBDRAINS SEE STANDARD DETAIL C 2' MIN—' KEY DEPTH LOWEST BENCH (KEY) BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPE'S ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5 1 MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET KEYING AND BENCHING GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS A LEIGH TON AND ASSOCIATES FINISH GRADE SLOPE FACE * OVERSIZE ROCK IS LARGER THAN 8 INCHES IN LARGEST DIMENSION * EXCAVATE A TRENCH IN THE COMPACTED FILL DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY ALL THE ROCK » BACKFILL WITH GRANULAR SOIL JETTED OR FLOODED IN PLACE TO FILL ALL THE VOIDS * DO NOT BURY ROCK WITHIN 10 FEET OF FINISH GRADE » WINDROW OF BURIED ROCK SHALL BE PARALLEL TO THE FINISHED SLOPE GRANULAR MATERIAL TO BE' DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY FLOODING OR JETTING DETAIL — — — — ^JETTED OR FLOODED — — GRANULAR MATERIAL TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS B LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES \ ^ _^_ -EXISTING GROUND SURFACE y BENCHING REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL SUBDRAIN TRENCH SEE DETAIL BELOW CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (9FT"3/FT) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC // FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)' 4" MIN BEDDING COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL BE MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE SEE STANDARD DETAIL D FOR PIPE SPECIFICATIONS SUBDRAIN DETAIL DESIGN FINISH GRADE NONPERFORATED 6"0 MIN 6" 0MIN PIPE FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (9FT~3/FT) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET CANYON SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS C LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES 15' MIN 4" 100 OUTLET PIPES 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE, ' MAX OC HORIZONTALLY. 30' MAX OC VERTICALLY BACK CUT OR FLATTER •SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL -^mmmr LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD BE SITUATED AS LOW AS POSSIBLE TO ALLOW SUITABLE OUTLET -KEY DEPTH (2' MIN ) KEY WIDTH AS NOTED ON GRADING PLANS (15' MIN )12" MIN OVERLAP — FROM THE TOP HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET CALTRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (3 FT~3/FT) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC -4" 0 NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE PROVIDE POSITIVE SEAL AT THE JOINT T-CONNECTION FOR COLLECTOR PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE 6" MIN COVER 4" 0 PERFORATED PIPE -FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE (MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) 4" MIN BEDDING SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforation down or. unless otherwise designated by the geotechntcal consultant Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated pipe The subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot Perforation shall be 1/4" to 1/2" if drill holes are used All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient of at least 2% towards the outlet SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrom pipe shall be ASTM D2751. SDR 235 or ASTM D1527. Schedule 40, or ASTM D3034, SDR 23 5. Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench no wide than twice the subdrain pipe Pipe shall be in soil of SE >/=30 jetted or flooded in place except for the outside 5 feet which shall be native soil backfill BUTTRESS OR REPLACEMENT FILL SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS D LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION BASED ON ASTM D1557 RETAINING WALL fALL WATERPROOFING ER ARCHITECT'S ^"-\ PECIFICATIONS \ FINISH GRADE — -^ ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-POIulPAPTFn Fll 1 --------------- X x:::^^ 1 — 771 f 6" MIN *'OVERLAP o 0 0 1 MIN o-o . LT~^=J ------ -12 T i P --.-.---.- :-:-:-:-:-:-: FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE :---:-X£>-' (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED ^^I EQUIVALENT)** -"-"---" 7 /&." TO 1 1/9" PI FAKI HRA :X:> _^-4" (MIN ) DIAMETER PERFOR/~--^r PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR'-'.--!•'!-'. EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORA1::-:-::: ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTE:::::::;. MINIMUM i PERCENT GRADIE^-:-:-:-: TO SUITABLE OUTLET ^•^ 3" MIN WALL FOOTING COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE UPON REVIEW BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT, COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS E LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES State Of California S« CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD _ _ — ACTIVE LICENSEConsumer ,,,,„«„ 573265 ,„,„, CORP «.„»„ J E GRANT GENERAL CONTRACTORS INC DBA GRANT GENERAL CONTRACTORS ... -• -,, B 07/31/2009 ^»£ . l{ x Q s3 I- SoDDmmO3enO "t)£ O? CDw o5 xg COo "=CO o p CD SS NO3>CDmzm oO 3 Od c/> o oO S335-H UO Sz oZ *l>mOzOmzm O 0 o 33CO o <enCD5DaOo3:/)— tCO5D 6 (D CD i. CD Co!SIC CODECO0arfiCOo33-oHO~z_a'ATE ISSUEI9/26/200-j ^=-5-~'^"i=;a| 7 3 : J 5 ^?=;^^"S.|"^3 ^! 5 ^1216934:'3^-•E;--TLr3? 1;; S 5 m5 iCO- O go S £ w ^ c00 1M1«HA*2?-} u 3o rri 5 > O z §rn ? 5 S i COUS NUMBE3301Cu>zm CO asen-1 H 0 0m RTIFICA-3JT3oH 0 Tl O> 1"™1 CD > O; . |fi-* Oloai j, <rr C mzo ~5? ^CO CD. cCO m w O •-o 0, < | I * O 3 Es 0 S j? |•1 .^f *n I i 1 | 5 | |- W 'S. 3 g 1 0. 1 1: 1 a I 1 h S O j S -• •- ".' Tl § Zn'OzM - TJ Q Ocen iil•\t™usUU5 (i : i ^s Su uI % Xu J7 Su • • ••'i ffi 3 3 <= i---J ^ « o oTl O wgD O3 £> Om oo o00 oO 00oo mcin S SCD njco -o mmTJ SDO O 3D 3)moo31aen f -vine CA 92614 t ione 949-553-9800 Fax 949-553-0670 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE ; NAIC # INSURED J E Grant General Contractors Inc dba Grant GeneralContractors 5051 Avenxda EnemasCarlsbad CA 92008 JINSURERA Delos Insurance Company | INSURER B INSURER C INSURER D . INSURERS COVERAGES ANY REQUIREMENT TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS IN5R AULVULTR JNSRD TYPE OF INSURANCE 1 GENERAL LIABILITYn' COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY mi ; CLAIMS MADE | OCCUR ; 1 i i ! GEN L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER j ! POLICY PI JECT 1 LOG 1 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY I 1| i ANY AUTO j I ALL OWNED AUTOS1 ' H SCHEDULED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS i 1 NON-OWNED AUTOS~i ! ; GARAGE LIABILITY I 1j ANY AUTO 1 EXCESS/UMBRELLA LIABILITY 1 1 1j j OCCUR | j CLAIMS MADE ! 1 J DEDUCTIBLE | | RETENTION $ WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS1 LIABILITY ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE | OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED' j If yes descnoe under SPECIAL PROVISIONS below OTHER 1| i1 POLICY NUMBER 01DKRM1-2001-116 POLICY EFFECTIVEDATE (MM/DD/YY) 10/01/07 POLICY EXPIRATIONDATE (MM/DD/YY) 10/01/08 i | LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE $ UAMAlit 1 U KtN 1 tU : PREMISES (Ea occurence) * MED EXP (Any one person) $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY S GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT . (Ea accident) * BODILY INJURY - (Per person) BODILY INJURY - (Per accident) ' PROPERTY DAMAGE , (Per accident) * AUTO ONLY EA ACCIDENT S OTHFR THAN EA ACC S AUTO ONLY AGQ $ EACH OCCURRENCE $ AGGREGATE $ ,$ $ $ „ WCSIATU . iOTH-X TORY LIMITS 1 i ER E L EACH ACCIDENT $1,000,000 E L DISEASE EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 EL DISEASE POLICY LIMIT $1,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES / EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT / SPECIAL PROVISIONS *Except 10 days notice of cancellation for non-payment of premium RE All operations of the Named Insured performed during the policy period JE DBA GRANT - WC ONLY CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION CITYCA5 " *-• City of Carlsbad P O Box 9009 Carlsbad CA 92018 SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL _3_0_ DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES AUTHOWjWrtTiT'RESENJAJWE d^jtttotf, -. ACORD 25 (2001/08) v i^ - - - •' ©ACORD CORPORATION 1988