The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2421 LA COSTA AVE; ; CB981798; Permit00 .00 1,035.00 it Ext fee Data ------------------ 621.00 404.00 10.00 1035.00 eN B U I L D I N G P E R M I T Permit No: CB981798 11/30/98 10:16 Project No: A9802390 Page 1 of 1 Development No: Job Address: 2421 LA COSTA AV Suite: 3655 11/'0198 0001 01 0' Permit Type: RETAINING WALL C-PRT 1035.00 Parcel No: 216-240-55-23 Lot#: Valuation: 100,000 Construction Type: NEW Occupancy Group: Reference#: Status: ISSUED Description: SOIL RETENTION SYSTEM ADJACENT Applied: 06/11/98 TO DRIVEWAY Apr/Issue: 11/30/98 Entered By: JM Appl/Ownr :, ACCUTECH ENGINEERING 619 874-6768 5575 MEGATRON BLVD #H SAN DIEGO CA 92111 *** Fees Required *** —Th&aCollected & Credits O Adjustments: / .0 Total Fees: 135. &J Tot à4( Fee description 2\ it Building Permit Plan Check Strong Motion Fee BUILDING TOTAL 10 CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 438-1161 ~ I FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PERMIT APPLICATION .. PLAN CHECK NO.__________ CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT EST. VAL.,_______________ 2015 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad CA 92009 Plan Ck. Depos Validated By 760) 43811 - pate K :c2 Address (include Bldg/Suite #). Buliness Name (at this address) Legal Description -- - Lot No., Subdivision Name/Number Unit No. Phase No. Total # of units Assessor's Parcel # Existing Use Proposed Use Description of W rk --- - SQ. FT. #of Stories # of Bedrooms # of Bathrooms -15 -2s—t1 iyrvi j - ch Cl- iv Adr?s - Cn State/Zip Telephone # Fax # p Nate PPL IT Dcttcr nt for Contractor 0 Qer fl for Own - Name -- -- Address City State/Zip Telephone # RT-OWNEThOPE%W Name Address City State/Zip Telephone # --- (Sec. 7031.5 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 file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of, the Contractor's License Law [Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$5001). Name 1 - Address . -- City . State/Zip Telephone # State License License Class - City Business License# Designer Name .-- Address .. - City --. State/Zip . Telephone State License # SJ:QQSATiäN - Workers' Compensation Declaration: i hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: 0. •l have and will maintain a certificateof consent to ,self-insure for workérs'corTipensation as provided by Section 37b0 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. '0 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 worker's compensation insurance-carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company, - - -- - - -- Policy No. Expiration. Date . (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE-HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1001-OR LESS)" - - 0 CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this érmit ii issued, I shall not employ'any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to'secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful. -and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). in addition to the Cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor Code, interest and attorney SIGNATURE DATE fees. - - . - -_ - .--. 1 11 - - - - : I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: - - - - - - - - ownerof the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the.structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions. Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon,- and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). - - I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, -Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law dbes not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). 0 I am exempt under Section -. -- Business and Professions Code for this reason: ,1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. 0 YES ONO 2. I (hav / have not) signed in ipplicàtionfór a building permit foi the proposed work. - - - - - I have contracted with the f011owing person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number):- - I plan to provide portions of the wOrk, butl have hired the following person to coOrdinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number] type of work): -.- - .. ----------------------------------,-. - - - .. - . . . . - PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE -________________________________________-- DATE -- ,,Uft 4TH - j Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections-25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? 0 YES 0 NO - - - - Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? 0 YES 0 NO Is the facility to be constructed within,1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? 0 YES - 0 NO - - - IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. * _ _ I.hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency-for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(il Civil Code).- - LENDER'S NAME - - . LENDER'S ADDRESS T!;L. - -- I certify that I haveread 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 authorize representatives of the Cit, of Carlsbad to' enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF - CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTSANDEXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTINGOF THIS PERMIT. - OSHA. An OSHArpermitis required for excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. - - EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by-the Building Official under the 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 365 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended - or abandoned at any time after the is commenced for a eriod of 180 days (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE- ------ - - - __(LAj.L_-"4%OJ' -- DATE'.-- WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance - - - - Inspection List Permit#: C13981798 Type: RETAIN SOIL RETENTION SYSTEM ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAY Date Inspection Item Inspector Act Comments 04/14/1999 62 Steel/Bond Beam DH AP Monday, March 03, 2003 Page 1 of 1 w CHPJSTIAN WHEELER, ENGINEERING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS Job Name: Marbella Job #: 199.136 Job Address: 2423 La Costa Ave., Carlsbad Permit #: 98-1798 Plan File #: Contractor: Mesa Construction Architect: Subcontractor: Engineer: Test Location: Rock anchors, first one between 2419B and 2421A Supplier: Hand mixed on job Req. Strength: 4000 psi - Mix #: Type 1/11 Date Sampled: 2-22-99 Admixture(s): Date Received: 2-23-99 Truck #: Ticket #: Sampled by: AC Mix Temp: Air Temp: Tested by: CWE - . Slump: 10" % Air: Sample Type: Grout, 2" x 4" Min in Mixer: Unit Wt: Sample # Date Tested Age (days) Area (sq. inches) Maximum Load (Ibs) Comp. Strength (psi) Failure Type 0316 3-1-99 7 3.14 10,720 3,410 0317 3-22-99 28 3.14 20,210 6,431 0318 3-22-99 28 3.14 21,740 6,920 0319 - Discarded me sampling, nanuling, curing anu currlpltIve 4LICHUM LW—lu ... .... ---- - other warranties express or implied. Distribution: - - - (1) Mesa Construction - (1) City of Carlsbad Reviewed by: Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 - 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 Vol CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS Job Name: Marbella Job Address: 2423 La Costa Ave., Carlsbad Contractor: Mesa Construction Subcontractor: Mesa Construction Job #: 199.136 Permit #: 98-1798 Architect: Engineer: Accutech Plan File #: Test Location: Tieback #A-14 Supplier.. Job Mix Req. Strength: 4000 psi Mix # Date Sampled: 3-8-99 . . Admixture(s): 1% Date Received: 3-9-99 Truck #: Ticket #: Sampled by: SC Mix Temp: Air Temp: Testd by: CWE Slump: % Air: Sample Type: Grout, 2" x 4" Min in Mixer: 5 Unit Wt: Sample # Date Tested Age (days)3 Area (sq. inches) Maximum Load (lbs) Comp. Strength (psi) Failure Type 0420 3-15-99 7 3.14 8,630 2,750 0421 4-5-99 28 3.14 9,200 2,930 0422 4-5-99 28 3.14 9,450 3,010 The sampling, handling, curing ana compressive strengtn testing were pertormea oy unnstian wneeier tngineenng in accoroance win me appl=Die Abim stanoaras. NO other warranties express or implied. Distribution: (1) Mesa Construction (1) City of Carlsbad -; .. Reviewed by: AM Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 w 7 CHIUSTIAN WHEELER, ENGINEERING DAILY RF.PORT Project Name Project # DR # Page Marbella 199.136 3 1 of I Project Address Permit # Plan File # 2423 La Costa Ave., Carlsbad - 98-1798 Contractor Architect Mesa Construction - Subcontractor - - Engineer Mesa Construction Accutech Engineering Date Rock Anchors Grout: 5 SK, Type II with 1% Interplast 3-22-99 Arrived on site, as requested, to perform inspection during grouting of tie backs #B-8, #B-11 and #B -12. Samples for testing as follows: Stephen W. One set of 3 from #13-8 "A". Campbell One set of 3 from #B-lI #0847684- One set of 3 "Lean Mix" from #B-I2 "C". 88 Ohe set of 2 from #B-12 "D". To the best of my knowledge, anchors grouted this date are in substantial conformance. Unless noted otherwise, the work observed is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans and specifications. Distribution: (2) Mesa Construction (1) City of Carlsbad . Reviewed by Michael B. Wheeler, R.C.E. #45358 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 W CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING DAILY REPORT Project Name - - - Marbdlla Project # 199.136 DR # 4 Page loll Project Address Permit # Plan File # 2423 La Costa Ave., Carlsbad 98-1798 Contractor Architect 0 Mesa Construction Subcontractor - - Mesa Construction Engineer Accutech Engineering Date 0 Rock Anchors Grout: 5 SK,'Type H with 1% Interplast, 4000 psi 3-29-99 Arrived on site, as requested, at 10:30 and 13:00. Due to the job conditions, the contractor was not ready for grouting. Job to be Stephen W. rescheduled at a later date. Campbell #0847684- 88 3-30-99 Arrived on site, as requested, to perform inspection during the grouting of tie back #13-19. Samples for testing as follows: Stephen W. I. Set A - 3 cylinders to be tested. Campbell Set B - 2.cyEnders forJlC #0847684- Set C - 2 cylinders forJlC . 88 To the best of my knowledge, grouting this date was in substantial conformance. Unless noted otherwise, the work observed is, to the best of my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans and specifications. Distribution: (2) Mesa Construction (1) City of Carlsbad 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 EPA Olk CHRISTIAN WHEELER. DAILY RFPflRT Project Name çç \ , \\cx I Permit # 9 9 ) 79 Plan File # Project Address L?3 LO, c Prole:t# 199 Contractor C,Q - Architect Subcontractor - Enginser AC C_ U - 0 Reinforced Concrete 0 Shop Welding 0 Pre-Stressed Concrete 0 Field Welding - DR€-inforced Masonry 0 Geotechnicol 0 Fireproofing 0 Mote rioI/Equipment Weather: Date Time Arrived: / U: o Time Departed: Hours Charged: n S'Ae Conk-aAOC - jcj -rJ, cJc 1,( OC 1G hL3 CT Unless ed at erw' the ork gnature Technician (Print or Type) serve owledge, in compliance with the approved plans and specifications. is, to the best of my knowledge, Reg. # Superintendents Signature - Dole 4925 Mercury trcct + Sn Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619:I969758 PA CHRISTIAN WHEELEft FN G I N: C k P. ING DAILY REPORT Project Name (1oib.l lc Permit # /7 Plan File # Project Address L Project# /99 Contractor Architect Subcontractor - Engineer 99 ' /4 Reinforced Concrete 0 Pre-Stressed Concrete - 0 Reinforced Masonry 0 Geotechnical o Shop Welding 0 Field Welding 0 Fireproofing 0 Material/Equipment: c-a Weather: c00 / Dote ' Time Arrived: Time Depoe.: Hours Charged: m, tea pr as rrouck ec Ir I c,n 4L re rp r r. ckil- r J) e1ir. rdo', ;J n Ckc c Ies (Icr .5J — 1S —c(c. ii,eo Iv t j o-r- '/ nv-J Ici Jere 3 fr?r? e.-ii JJL k) 3c- pieces) eo .J;f/ (O(flcpCI L( f(DLLI f)( .1:, Unless s observe best of nowledge, in compli]nce with rhe approved plans and specifications. . ____ nature z1cicians Reg. # — Supeintendent's Signature - Date Technician (Print or Type) 1 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 w CHRISTIAN WHEELEft I ENGINEEftING DAILY REPORT Project N o;,4 a& Plan •''' - Project Address . - / - kr1rT Subcontractor Reinforced Concrete 'gShop Welding NOWAROARN ME IF, (3 ncrete E] Reinforced Masonry (:1 Gegi.chnic.1 :I . twir C) Fireproofing 13 TimeArrived; 0700 Time Departed: Hours Charged: 11MIN 'OF 11 Pill .41171RCOO'5 V-41 ~001 WE .17111 - . ZOO 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 CHRiSTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEEPING DAILY REPORT Project Name Permit # - / Plan File # Project Address CL '4 Project # J3(, Contractor y'f Cce Architect Subcontractor Engineer A cc ' Reinforced Concrete 0 Pre-Stressed Concrete 0 Shop Welding 0 Field Welding 0 Reinforced Masonry 0 Geotechnical 0 Fireproofing 0 Material/Equipment: -46 cial O/Ct e, (Cl) aonc pc /PIo) Weather: (') Date Time Arrived: 7 Time Departed: Hours Charged: Arf~ueJ on Uee CA', 4) on Hr / plC1n+ Co{ nô/i•AcJcji p )3 IC. U 0 (C'C'sC. (' 1 f)) C-C eel I ñ k - /lcJ' J-7 on- o CcMC (JcS place t j Uflf) Or c o)cJed ccrnp ness k ff !+e' nc 3'i(33 75 °M'Wio l-1'9o9// Q 4g/7 4 4k?95ô IL9o9.3h5 If All LJ(rk I LJ&S in Li1Oc7JC%J co4or.w120re /k Cr jtD)ons ____ Unless not 4hs ,th aricab s,tothestof my knowledge, in compliance with the approved plans and specifications. (J Reg. # Superintendent's Signature Date nature TL A Z_ Technician (Print or Type) 1 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 Vol CI-IPJSTIAN WHEELEft ENGINEERING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS Job Name: Marbella Job Address: 2423 La Costa Ave., Carlsbad Contractor: Mesa Construction Subcontractor: Mesa Construction Test Location: Concrete wall between pins A6 and A7 Req. Strength: 4000 psi Date Sampled: 4-22-99 Date Received: 4-23-99 Sampled by: AC Tested by: AC/SCC/JWB Sample Type: Concrete, 6" x 12" Job #: 199.136 Permit #: 98-1798 Plan File #: Architect: Engineer: Accutech Supplier: Palomar Transit Mix Mix #: 344004 Admixture(s): Truck #: 950 Ticket #: 909365 Mix Temp: 740 Air Temp: Slump: 3 /2" % Air: Min in Mixer: 90 Unit Wt: Sample # Date Tested Age (days) Area (sq. inches) Maximum Load (Ibs) Comp. Strength (psi) Failure Type 0851 4-26-99 4 . 28.27 87,520 3,100 0852 4-29-99 7 28.27 102,110 . 3,610 0853 5-6-99 14 28.27 127,300 41500 0854 5-20-99 28 28.27 150,010 5,310 0855 5-20-99 , 28 28.27 149,140 5,280 I ne sampling, nanaiing, curing and compressive strengm testing were pertormea by unnstian vvneeier tngineenng in accordance witn me appiicaoie Ab I M stanaaras. NO other warranties express or implied. Distribution: (1) Mesa Construction (1) City of Carlsbad Reviewed by: . - . Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 4925 Meicury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 CHRiSTIAN WHEELEK E N G I N EEftING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS Job Name: Marbella Job Address: 2423 La Costa Ave., Carlsbad Contractor: Mesa Construction Subcontractor: Mesa Construction Test Location: Concrete wall betweenpins B2 and B3 Req. Strength: 4000 psi Date Sampled: 4-22-99 Date Received: 4-23-99 Sampled by: AC Tested by: 'AC/SCC/JWB 'Sample Type: Concrete, 6" x 12" Job #: 199.136 Permit #: 98-1798 Plan File #: Architect: Engineer: Accutech Supplier: Palomar Transit Mix Mix #: 344004 Admixture(s): Truck #: 510 Ticket #: 909148 Mix Temp: 750 Air Temp: Slump: 2'. % Air: Min in Mixer: 87 Unit Wt: Sample # V Date Tested . . Age (days) . Area (sq. inches) Maximum Load (Ibs) Comp. Strength (psi) Failure Type 0846 4-26-99 4 28.27 94,960 3,360 0847 4-29-99 7 28.27 112,810 . 3,990 0848 5-6-99 14 28.27 144,520 5,110 0849 5-20-99 . 28 28.27 166,800 5,900 0850 5-20-99 28 28.27 171,800 6,080 The sampling, handling, curing and compressive strength testing were performed by Christian Wheeler Engineering in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards. No other warranties express or implied. Distribution: V (1) Mesa Construction (1) City of Carlsbad Reviewed by: -;Oz4v Z~OZOA~~e Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 4 CHRiSTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEERING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS Job Name: Marbella Job # 199.136 Job Address: 2423 La Costa Ave., Carlsbad Permit #: 98-1798 Plan File #: Contractor: Mesa Construction . Architect: - Subcontractor Mesa Construction Engineer: Accutech Test Location: Grade Beam Anchor A-17 Supplier: Palomar Transit Mix Req Strength: 4000 psi Mix #: 344004 Date Sampled: 4-21799 Admixture(s): Date Received: 4-23-99 Truck #: 862 Ticket #: 908877 Sampled by: SC . Mix Temp: 800 Air Temp: 820 Tested by: AC/JWB Slump: I ½" % Air: Sample Type: Concrete, 6" x 12" Min in Mixer: 81 Unit Wt: Sample # - Date Tested . Age (days) Area (sq. inches) Maximum Load (Ibs) Comp. Strength (psi) Failure Type 0833 4-26-99 5 28.27 92,200 3,260 0834 ' 4-28-99 7 28.27 100,160 3,540 0835 5-5799 14 . 28.27 110,850 3,920 0836 5-19-99 28 28.27 154,680 5,470 0837 - 5-19-99 28 28.27 156,570 5,540 I ne sampling, nanaling, cunng.ana compressive strength testing were performed by Christian Wheeler Engineering in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards. No other warranties express or implied. Distribution: (1) Mesa Construction (1) City of Carlsbad Reviewed by: 10 Oe • . , •., . Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 4925 Mercury Street +'San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 -p. V. Vol CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER INC COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS Job Name: Marbella Job Address: 2423 La Costa Ave., Carlsbad Contractor: Mesa Construction Subcontractor: Mesa Construction Job #: 199.136 Permit #: 98-1798 Plan File #: Architect: Engineer: Accutech Test Location: Grade Beam @ Anchor B-23 Req. Strength: 4000 psi Date Sampled: 4-21-99 Date Received: 4-23-99 Sampled by: SC Tested by: AC/JWB Sample Type: Concrete, 6" x 12" - Supplier: Palomar Transit Mix Mix #: 344004 Admixture(s): Truck #: 865 Ticket #: 908671 Mix Temp: 750 Air Temp: 700 Slump: 2 1/4" % Air: Min in Mixer: 120 Unit Wt: Sample # Date Tested Age (days) - Area (sq. inches) Maximum Load (Ibs) Comp. Strength (psi) Failure Type 0828 4-26-99 5 28.27 96,720 3,420 0829 4-28-99 7 28.27 102,690 3,630 0830 5-5-99 14 28.27 129,930 4,600 0831 5-19-99 28 28.27 159,460 5,640 0832 . 5-19-99 28 28.27 149,850 5,300 I ne sampling, nanaiing curing and compressive strengtn testing were pertormeo Dy (.flristian Wfleeier hnglneenng in accoreance with the applicaDie Ab I M stanoaras. No other warranties express or implied. Distribution: (1) Mesa Construction (1) City of Carlsbad Reviewed by: 00, ? ~~o ~~e4e - -0~-&9~z Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 /3 0 49. CHRiSTIAN WHEELER ENGINEER INC COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS O~- Job Name: Marbella Job Address: 2423 La Costa Ave., Carlsbad Contractor: Mesa Construction Subcontractor: Mesa Construction Test Location: Rock Anchor #B-8 Req. Strength: 4000 psi Date Sampled: 3-22-99 Date Received: 3-24-99 Simpled by: SC Tested by: CWE Sample Type: Grout, 2" x 4" Job #: 199.136 Permit #: 98-1798 Plan File #: Architect: Engineer: Accutech Supplier: Job Mix Mix #: S sk with 1% Interplast Admixture(s): Interplast Truck #: Ticket #: Mix Temp: Air Temp: Slump: %Air: Min in Mixer: 5 Unit Wt: Sample # Date Tested Age (days) Area (sq. inches) Maximum Load (Ibs) Comp. Strength (psi) Failure Type 0473 3-29-99 7 3.14 3,960 1,260 0474 4-19-99 28 3.14 8,130 2,590 0475 5-17-99 56 3.14 10,100 3,215 me sampiing, nanalung, curing anu compressive suengui testing were perturmeu oy ,.,lliISLIdII vv,ieeier iiyuieeiu U ec,. iy , u,uU,I,.e w,u, U IC øJm..øu ,v,- other warranties express or implied.'- Distribution: (1) Mesa Construction (1) City of Carlsbad Reviewed by: ___ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 iN CHRiSTIAN WHEELER ENGINEEftNG COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS Job Name: Marbella Job Address: 2423.La Costa Ave., Carlsbad. Contractor: Mesa Construction Subcontractor: Mesa Construction Test Location: Rock Anchor #B-11 Req. Strength: 4000 psi Date Sampled: 3-22-99 Date Received: 3-24-99 Sampled by: SC Tested by: CWE Sample Type: Grout, 2" x 4" Job #: 199.136 Permit #: 98-1798 Plan File #: Architect: Engineer: Accutech Supplier: Job Mix Mix #: 5 sk with 1% Interplast Admixture(s): Interplast Truck #: Ticket #: Mix Temp: Air Temp: Slump: % Air: Min in Mixer: 5 UnitWt: Sample # Date Tested Age (days) Area (sq. inches) Maximum Load (lbs) Comp. Strength (psi) Failure Type 0476 3-29-99 7 3.14 3,970 1,270 0477 4-19-99 28 ,. 3.14 8,060 2,570 0478 5-17-99 56 3.14 8,790 2,800 I ne sampling, nanoling, curing ano compressive sirengui testing were periormeu Dy ,.,FItI5UdFI vviieeier CilyIrleelIrly Iii dtWIUdIUC Wilt, UIC djJV11UdU1U P%i IVI Lliili. other warranties express or implied. Distribution: (1) Mesa Construction (1) City. of Carlsbad Reviewed by: 9C Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 ' CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEEFtING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS "I Job Name: Marbella Job Address: 2423 La Costa Ave., Carlsbad Contractor: Mesa Construction Subcontractor: Mesa Construction Test Location: Concrete wall between pins A6 and A7 Req. Strength: 4000 psi Date Sampled: 4-22-99 Date Received: 4-23-99 Sampled by: AC Tested by: AC/SCC/JWB Sample Type: Concrete, 6" x 12" Job #: 199.136 Permit #: 98-1798 Plan File#: Architect: Engineer: Accutech Supplier: Palomar Transit Mix Mix #: 344004 Admixture(s): Truck #: 950 Ticket #: 909365 Mix Temp: 740 Air Temp: Slump: 3 1/2" %Air: Min in Mixer: 90 Unit Wt: Sample # • Date Tested . Age (days) Area (sq. inches) Maximum Load (Ibs) Comp. Strength (psi) Failure Type 0851 - 4-26-99 4 28.27 87,520 3,100 0852 4-29-99 7 - 28.27 102,110 3,610 0853 5-6-99 14 28.27 127,300 4,500 - 0854 * 5-20-99 28 28.27 0855 5-20-99 28 28.27 I ne sampling, nanolung, cunng ano compressive sueriuu LeSully wete .Iei lullueu ''.'0" . ....... -- other warranties express or implied. Distribution: (1) Mesa Construction . (1) City of Carlsbad Reviewed by: ___ Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 ? .Vol CHEUSTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS Job Name: Marbella Job Address: 2423 La Costa Ave., Carlsbad Contractor: Mesa Construction Subcontractor: Mesa Construction Test Location: Concrete wall between pins B2 and B3 Req. Strength: 4000 psi Date Sampled: 4-22-99 Date Received: 4-23-99 Sampled by: AC Tested by: AC/SCC/JWB Sample Type: Concrete, 6" x 12" Job #: 199.136 Permit #: 98-1798 Architect: Engineer: Accutech Supplier: Palomar Transit Mix Mix #: 344004 Admixture(s): Truck #: 510 Mix Temp: 750 Slump: 2" Min in Mixer: 87 Plan File #: Ticket #: 909148 Air Temp: %Air: Unit Wt: Sample # Date Tested Age (days) Area (sq. inches) Maximum Load (Ibs) Comp. Strength (psi) Failure Type - 0846 4-26-99 - 4 -. 28.27 94,960 3,360 0847 4-29-99 - 7 28.27 112,810 3,990 V 0848 5-6-99 14 28.27 144,520 5,110 0849 . .. 5-20-99 28 28.27 V 0850 5-20-99 i8 28.27 -.. .-.. --....V ----------------------.._.__.. .._,, AQTt,A me sampling, nanulung, IUIIFI9 uuu uuuuipuiv DU' ............... VVV_VVVV VVV other warranties express or implied. - V Distribution: (1) Mesa Construction . V (1) City of Carlsbad V V Reviewed by: 00, - Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 4925 VMercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 • Vol CHRISTIAN WHEELER. - ENGINEERING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS .Job Name: Marbella Job #: 199.136 Job Address: 2423 La Cota Ave., Carlsbad Permit #: 98-1798 Plan File #: Contractor: Mesa Construction Architect: Subcontractor: Mesa Construction Engineer: Accutech Test Location: Grade Beam Anchor A-17 Req. Strength: 4000 psi Date Sampled: 4-21-99 Date Received: 4-23-99 Sampled by:. SC, Tested by: . Ac/JwB Sample Type: Concrete, 6" x 12" Supplier: Palomar Transit Mix Mix #: 344004 Admixture(s): Truck #: 862 Mix Temp: 800 Slump: I ½ Min in Mixer: 81 Ticket #: 908877 Air Temp: 820 %Air: Unit Wt: Sample # Date Tested Age (days) Area (sq. inches) Maximum Load (lbs) Comp. Strength (psi) Failure Type 0833 . 4-26-99 5 28.27 92,200 3,260 0834 4-28-99 7 28.27 100,160 3,540 0835 . 5-5-99 - 14 28.27 110,850 3,920 0836 519-99 28 . 28.27 0837 519-99 - 28 28.27 I ne sampling, nanauing, curing anu compressive sueiiyui tC5Ull9 Wele IJeuIUuIUeU .y '-.""''. 'v''. •.,"•••- • •••• -•-. other warranties express or implied. Distribution: (1). Mesa Construction (1) City of Carlsbad Reviewed by: Michael B. Wheeler, RCE #45358 4925 Mercury Street + San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 w CHPJSTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TESTRESULTS Job Name: Maxbella Job Address: 2423 La Costa Ave., Carlsbad Contactor: Mesa Construction Subcontractor: Mesa Construction V Test Location: Grade Beam @ Anchor B-23 Req. Strength: 4000 psi Date Sampled: 4-21-99 Date Received: 4-23-99 V Sampled by: SC TI,1 k,• A /TWIT Y ,J Sample Type: Concrete, 6" x 12" Job #: 199.136 Permit #: 98-1798 Plan File #: Architect: Engineer: Accutech Supplier: Palomar Transit Mix Mix #: 344004 Admixture(s): Truck #: 865 Ticket #: 908671 Mix Temp: 750 Air Temp: 700 Slump: 2 1/4 Air: Min in Mixer: 120 Unit Wt: Sample # Date Tested Age (days) Area (sq. inches) Maximum Load (Ibs) Comp. Strength (psi) Failure Type 0828 4-26-99 5 28.27 96,720 3,420 0829 4-28-99 7 . 28.27 102,690 3,630 0830 5-5-99 V 14 28.27 129,930 4,600 0831 5-19-99 28 28.27 0832 V -19-99 28 V 28.27 The sampling, nanaling, curing ana compressive strengm tesung were perlulrlleu uy I11ILI0II YVuI00l0 '• "•••• V other warranties express or implied. V Distribution: (1) Mesa Construction (1) City of Carlsbad V Reviewed by: ______ MichaeKB. Aheeler, RCE #45358 4925 Mercury Street San Diego, CA 92111 + 619-496-9760 + FAX 619-496-9758 EsGil Corporation In Partnership u'itli government for Building Safety DATE: 07/16/98 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK No.; 981798 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2421 Lai Costa SET: II O APPLICANT (0 —PLAN REVIEWER O FILE PROJECT'NAME: Slope Stability For La Costa de Marbella The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdictio'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 tranmitted '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. LII The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. El 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: Bill Elizarraras , Enclosures: Esgil Corporation LI GA [1 CM LI EJ LI PC . 07/10/98 trnsmtl.dot -1468 • Fax (619) 560-1576 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (619) 560 EsGil Corporation In-Partnership with Government for Building Safety DATE: 06/29/98 O APPLICANT JURISbICTION: Carlsbad EVI EWER El FILE PLAN. CHECK NO.: 98-1798 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 2421 La Costa PROJECT NAME: Slope Stability for La Costa de MarbeUa 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 deficincies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. ED 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 checklist is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent-to: Accutech Engineering 5575 Magnatron Boulevard. Suite H, San Diego, Ca. 92111 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant, (except by mail) that the plan check has been completed. El Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Accutech Eng. Date contacted: (by:ftc) Mail'—"Telephone FaxL- In Person REMARKS: By:. Bill Elizarraras Telephone #: 619-874-6768 Fax #: 619-874-6912 Enclosures: trnsmti dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (619) 560-1468 • Fax(619)560-1576 Carlsbad 98-1798 06/29/98 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 2421 La Costa DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY. - ESGIL CORPORATION: 06/15/98 REVIEWED BY: Bill Elizarraras FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): PLAN CHECK NO.: 98-1798 SET: I DATE RECHECK COMPLETED: 06/29/98 This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Phmbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. 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 or other departments. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conforrhance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1994 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new sets of prints to: ESGIL CORPORATION. To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which; each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revisedplans. The following items have not been resolved from the previous plan reviews. The original correction number has been given for your reference. In case you did not keep a copy of the prior correction list, we have enclosed those pages containing the outstanding corrections. Pleas&contact me if you have any questions regarding these items. Please indicate here if an' 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 onthe plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this list? LJYes UNo Carlsbad 98- 1798 06/29/98 PLANS 1. Pleas&make all correctiâns on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three 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: Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92009, (619) 438-1161: The City.will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (619) 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 until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. 2. Indicate on the Title Sheet of the plans the name of the legal owner and name of the person responsible for the preparation of the plans. Section 106.3.2. 3. Submit fully dimensioned plot plan, drawn to scale, showing location,, size, and uses of all existing and proposed structures on the lot. Identify property lines and show lot dimensions and all easements. Section 106.3.3. 4. On the cover sheet of the plans, specify any items requiring special inspection, in a format similar to that shown below. Section 106.3.2. REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS 5. In addition to the regular inspections, the following checked items will also require Special Inspection in accordance with Sec. 1701 of the Uniform Building Code. ITEM? REMARKS STRUCTURAL CONCRETE -. ' TIE BACK CONC. 4000 PSI CAISSON ' DRILLING / PLACEMENT 6. When special inspection is, required, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 'Please review Section 106.3.5.' Please complete the attached form. Carlsbad 98-1798 06/29/98 MISCELLANEOUS Provide a copy of the project soil report prepared by a California licensed architect or civil engineer. The report shall include all anchor construction design parameters, Slope Stability Analysis and recommendations based on the engineer's findings .and shall comply with UBC Section 1804. 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. 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: . Yes L3 • No U The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 619/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Bill Elizarraras at.Esgil Corporation. Thank you. Carlsbad 981798 06/29/98 SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS ORLEGALOESCRIPTION: 2401-2433 La Costa Ave. Gr.bad. CA 92009 PLAN CHECK NUMBER: % 17 90.. OWNERS NAME: La Costa de Mar l)e lla HOA I, as the owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may 0 employ the special inspector), certify that l or the architect/engineer of record, will be resposIbIe for employing the special inspector(s) as required ; by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 1701,1 for the construction projec.t located at the site listed above. UBC Section 108.3.5. Signed 1)2-t4. -. Sine Oteen, Agent For Cal 'West Management and Sales I. as the engineer/architect of record, certify thati have prepared the Mowing special inspection program as required by UBC Section 106.3.5 fofths construction project located at above. ,4 r" \\ q C 04 38 Signed 1. List of work requiring special Inspection. 0 Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection 0 Field Welding Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI [I High Strength Bolting O Prestressed Concrete 0 Expansion/Epoxy Anchors D Structural Masonry 0 Sprayed-On Fireproofing O Designer Specified Other -rlg~AcJKS 2. Name(s) of Individual(s) or firm(s) responsible for the special Inspections listed above; A 4-' 7-EA-I AL1Fà.i4,A :lot/ C. ç Thfl(41 - - - -- -- ' -- 3. Duties of the special inspectors for the work listed above: 'k i- . iTT2i F PA I i- flH L ---:i- - LoAi rET-e'. — C. 5pscvI hpoctors shfl check in vAth the City ard present their credvntl.Is for approval prtoço b.g!nning wwk on the job Site. Carlsbad 98-1798 06/29/98 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PREPARED BY: Bill Elizarraras BUILDING ADDRESS: 2421 La Costa' BUILDING OCCUPANCY: PLAN CHECK NO.: 98-1798 DATE: 06/29/98 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: BUILDING PORTION BUILDING AREA (ft.2) VALUATION MULTIPLIER VALUE ($) Contractor Value ' 100,000.00 Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE ' ' ' ' !00,000.00 1994 UBC Building Permit Fee Bldg. Permit Fee by ordinance: $ 621.08 LI 1994 UPC Plan Check Fee Plan Check Fee by ordinance: $ 403.70 Type of Review:' Complete Review fl Structural Only fl Hourly LI Repetitive Fee Applicable '' ' LI Other: ' Esgil Plan Review Fee $ 322.96 2' Comments: Contractor to submit Project Value. ' Colt of Carolsbai-V- -IL,uuatJupLe BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALL BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER: CB 0// 79& BUILDING ADDRESS: c21 (—ci r- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Retaining Wall ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: ot&, — i'O 5 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. DENIAL Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked with . 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. YtA-!~- Date: 7//Ø' By: Date: By: Date: ATTACHMENTS Right-of-Way Permit Application ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON NAME: JOANNE JUCHNIEWICZ City of Carlsbad ADDRESS: 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 PHONE: (760) 438-1161, ext. 4510 Wall BWng Plevtheck Cdst Fom, JJ.doc Rev. 6/26/98 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 431-5769 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALLS 1SW 2ND/ 3R0/ U 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: b~x!ensioned h Arrow ements ting & Proposed Structures &Retaining Wall from street) (location and height) Property Lines U 2. Show ,9n site plan: (,Drainage Patterns (xisting & Proposed Slopes C'Existing Topography *ç'UY U 3. Include title sheet: cIfcAddress ,Aessor's Parcel Number c,kgaI Description Grading Quantities Cut Fill Import/Export (Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required) U U U 4. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No. Conditions were complied with by: Date: MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS U U • 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 \ASPALMASSYSLIBRARYENG\WORD\DOCSCP(KLSflRetaining Wail Building Plancheck Cidut Form JJ.doc Rev. 8128/98 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST c r Plan Check No. CB q' M'' Address 142 i Lii- th '. Planner .lC(IL Jcne I'.- Phone (61 9) 438-1161, extension 43.i c ?APN: Type of Project & Use: _4.%4 Net Project Density:DU/AC Zoning: Q0.- PA General Plan:QV4-1 Facilities Management Zone: CFD fin/njiti # _Date of participation: Remaining net dev acres:______ Circle One (For non-residential development: Type of land used cre a t e d b y this permit: I. Legend: Item Complete Item Incomplete - Needs your action Environmental Review Required: YES NO TYPE DATE OF COMPLETION: Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions w h i c h r e q u i r e a c t i o n . Conditions of Approval: Discretionary Action Required: YES NO TYPE APPROVAL/RESO. NO. DATE PROJECT NO. OTHER RELATED CASES: Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions w h i c h r e q u i r e a c t i o n . Conditions of Approval: E Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES NO)Y CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES NO____ If California CoataI Commission Authority: Contact them at - 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego CA 92108-1725; (619) 521-8036 Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or, Exempt): 0. - Coasta m l Permit Determination Form already completed? s YES NO____ 1 1f NO complete Ccastal Permit Dete?mination Form now. Coastal Permit_',DeterMihatioAtr )..' a, ' i . ,- 4 , .._,4 .• , - FollowUp Actions 'a ,1L Stamp Building Plans as"Exempt" or "Coastal Permit R e q u i r e d ' ( a t m i n i m u m Floor Plans). j -• '- .' * - 2) Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as neede d . I . 11 'S E Inclusionary Housing Fee required: YES NO (Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21, 1993.) Data Entry Completed? YES NO (Enter CB #; UACT; NEXT12; Construct housing YIN; Enter Fee Amount (See fee schedule for amount); Return) Site Plan: ., . F-1 f fl 1. Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines, easements, existing arid' proposed structures, streets, existing Street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines. E 2. Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number. Zoning: Setbacks: Front: Required Shown Interior Side: Required Shown Street Side: Required Shown Rear: Required Shown Accessory structure setbacks: Front: Required Shown Interior Side: Required Shown Street Side: Required Shown Rear: Required Shown Structure separation: Required -- Shown E 3. Lot Coverage: Required Shown E E 4. Height: Required Shown E E 5. Parking: Spaces Required Shown Guest Spaces Required Shown Additional Comments(Dsk\tsA) o.. e1bqe4 s-k. f lai'. C2)L 1an LJ4h 44€ skit . A Lpvre () cK i-bpe (1-1% e-1 OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF HILLSIDE INSTABILITY BEHIND UNITS 2421A-2425E9 LOCATED AT LA COSTA DE MARBELLA, LA COSTA AVENUE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009 PREPARED FOR: LA COSTA DE MARBELLA HOA do Cal West Management Attn: Signey Osteen 535 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 120 Encinitas, CA 92024 April 21, 1998 Project Ref.: 961317-3 5575 MAGNATRON BLVD., SUITE H, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .............................................1 General..............................................1 Document Review .......................................1 FIELD EVALUATION ........................................2 General..............................................2 Area and Site Reconnaissance ................................2 .Site Improvement Observations ...............................3 Documentation of Observed Distress ...........................3 Subsurface Evaluation ....................................4 LABORATORY TESTING .....................................5 ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION ....................................5 General.............................................. 5 Stability Analysis . . ................................... 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................7 General ...............................................7 Drainage............................................8 Permanent Tie-Back Anchors .................................9 MISCELLANEOUS ..........................................10 General. .............................................. 10 Maintenance Guidelines For Homeowners ..........................11 Limitations ............................................12 ATTACHMENTS Site Vicinity Map .......................................Figure 1 Site Location Map ........................................Figure 2 Site Plan............. ................................. Figure 3 Partial Site Plan ........ ...............................Figure 4 Section A-A' (Typical Cross Section of Slope Repair) ................Figure 5 Section B-B' (Detail of Tie-Back Anchor) ........................Figure 6 Project Ref.: 961317-3 Table of Contents ATTACHMENTS (Continued) References ............................................. Appendix A Inclinometer Readings .......................................Appendix B Laboratory Testing ........................................Appendix C Slope Stability Analysis ....................................Appendix D Préject Ref.: 961317-3 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION General At the request of the La Costa de Marbella Homeowners Association, representatives of Accutech Engineering Systems, Inc. have installed monitoring equipment in the rear (southern) slope at the western end of the complex. Specifically, the request was related to hillside movement and associated damage to several of the structures on the upper (southern) portion of the property. More specifically, the study was limited to the general area to the rear of Building 2421 through the west end of Building 2425, as further discussed in this report. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the magnitude and severity of the hillside movement and to provide recommendations for remedial stabilization of the hillside. Due to budget and time constraints, and based on agreed upon procedures for our evaluation, the scope of our work for this project and the contents of this report provide information related to the following: o Conversations with Signey Osteen of Cal West Management and members of the HOA related to thesite - Review of Available Documents (provided by Cal West Management) Field Evaluation Laboratory Testing Analysis and Discussion Presentation of Conclusions and Recommendations Presentation of Other Miscellaneous Considerations Document Review Documents were made accessible at the offices of Cal West Management. These items were not available for removal from the office; however, copies of .segments of certain relevant documents were obtained. The documents consist of a history related to waterproofing and drainage improvements, as reCommended by John Stevenson, Architect, and other reports from General Analytical, Geocon,, Structural Design Consultants, and Saunders Engineering. The series of reports were directed specifically toward Unit 2421A, the repair of 2425A after a failure of an interior slab, and general drainage and waterproofing improvements implemented Project Ref.: 961317-3 Page 1 to help reduce moisture infiltration to the soils behind site retaining walls and basement retaining walls at various units. The conclusions between various reports were somewhat different. Some reports indicated that the distress occurring within the buildings was not due to vertical soils movement, but only lateral movement due to the shearing evident on the horizontal planes between drywall joints, and the lack of distress on the subsequent upper levels of the units. Other reports suspected vertical settlement of the front (north) of the buildings, due to the likelihood of fill settlement in thi area. All reports were fairly consistent in their belief that heavy soil pressures, due to the steepness of the hillside and infiltration of moisture, were causing lateral displacement and high stresses in the rear retaining walls, which were in turn causing significant cosmetic distress to the units. FIELD EVALUATION General Our field evaluation for the subject site consisted of the following: Area and Site Reconnaissance Site Improvement Observations .• Documentation of Observed Distress Subsurface Evaluation Inclinometers Area and Site Reëonnaissance The subject sié, identified as La Costa dè Marbella, is located in the La Costa area of the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. See Figure 1, "Site Vicinity Map", and Figure 2, "Site Location Map". The subject property is a large, generally rectangular shaped parcel, fronted by La Costa Avenue to the north. The property is further bordered by undeveloped sloping terrain to the east, west, and south. At the top of slope to the south, a development of single family residences was constructed subsequent to construction of the subject property. The overall natural topography of the area consists of steeply sloping terrain, with a general trend of slope down to the north. This specific site has building pads suitable for the on-site improvements created by what appears to be typical cut/fill grading techniques. An overall Project Ref.: 961317-3 Page 2 elevation differential of approximately sixty feet (60') from south to north exists across the lower level developed portion of the site. The vegetation on the rear slope consists of patches of ice plant and other ground cover, natural grasses and shrubberies. The slope has been benched with concrete lined ditches at each level. The slope within the area of study ascends at an approximate inclination of 1.25:1 (horizontal to vertical). Several surfacial failures were apparent along the slope face in addition to some phreatophyte growth. Site Improvement Observations The project consists of sixteen (16) buildings, housing fifty-eight (58) two and three-story units constructed on a northerly sloping hillside. The specific units evaluated during previous site visits by representatives of Accutech Engineering Systems, Inc. were those accessible units on the western end of the upper (southern) level, between Units 2421A at the southwest corner and 2425F near the center of the upper level. These buildings consisted of adjacent, multi-story duplex, triplex, and six-plex "townhouse" type units. The buildings are typically constructed with a concrete slab-on-grade lower (walkout basement) level. The rear (south) wall of the lower level consists of a retaining wall approximately ten feet. (10') tall. This retaining wall retains soils for a rear patio and the surcharge from an additional patioretaining wall approximately five feet (5') tall supporting a steep 11/2:1 (horizontal to vertical) ascending slope. The units at the east and west ends of the buildings also have retaining walls extending in a north/south direction supporting the exterior grades at the ends toward the rear of the buildings. These walls not only act as retaining walls for exterior soil at the east and west sides of the building, but also act as buttresses for the rear (south) retaining wall. Above the basement level, the houses are framed with wood floor and wall systems that support the second and third floor levels. The units evaluated are situated on building pads cut into the northerly trending hillside. Documentation of Observed Distress The distress to the buildings evaluated appeared more significant in the westernmost units. The distress observed was primarily related to tilting of the rear retaining wall at the basement level and patio levels. Racking of the north/south oriented interior and exterior bearing and non- bearing walls within the units was evident, and the necessity for adjustment to most doors in the north/south oriented walls was required for them to properly operate. East/west oriented walls frequently exhibited some warping orout of plane tilting to the north associated with the racking of the north/south oriented walls. Project Ref.: 961317-3 Page 3 Subsurface Evaluation Four (4) borings were drilled at the site near the lower level benches in the southwestern corner of the slope. The borings were accomplished utilizing limited access "Beaver" drilling equipment due to lack of accessibility to the slope area. While they provided valuable information, this means of exploration limits the depths explored and the ability to fully investigate the extent of certain underground features at depth due to the lack of weight and power of the portable equipment. The borings were performed to allow installation of inclinometer and piezometer casings to monitor slope movement and slope groundwater conditions. Subsurface soils were also reviewed, logged, and sampled during the drilling process, and both disturbed and undisturbed samples were obtained for laboratory testing. As encountered during drilling, the rear slope behind the subject units was found to be constructed of fill soils underlain by natural formational deposits. The soils, encountered within the respective exploratory excavation locations are described as follows: Fill'Soils: Fill soils appear to be generated from the original formational and residual soils on or immediately surrounding the site. Generally, these soils consist of yellow brown and gray, medium dense, moist to wet, silty sands with inter-mixed clay. Fill soils classify as SM (fine grained silty sands) according to the Unified Soils Classification System. Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately ten to fifteen feet (10'-15') below surface grade. The depth of fills at this site, on a slope that would otherwise have been expected to be of native, undisturbed, formational material, suggests the likelihood of previous construction of a "buttress fill" at the toe of the cut slope. Throughout the course of our study, groundwater appears to fluctuate relative to periods of rainfall, and is significant in vélume (indicating lack of adequate drainage at the buttress). Formational Deposits: Formational deposits were encoiintered at a depth of approximately twenty feet (20') below surface grade in our borings along the lower bench of the slope. The formational deposits generally consist of interbedded layers of silty claystone, and medium to fine grained, gray, poorly to moderately cemented sandstone. A layer of remolded green clay was encountered at a 'depth of approximately twenty five feet (25') below surface . grade along the lower bench. The groundwater encountered in our borings appeared to be perched water atop the clay layer. The water surface fluctuated between fifteen feet (15') to ten feet (10') from Project Ref.: 961317-3 Page 4 the ground surface over the past several months. No indication of groundwater was apparent directly below the remolded clay layer. This suggests that there was no pressure buildup, in the formational mass beneath the failure plane. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on the disturbed and undisturbed soil samples to determine their physical and mechanical properties and their ability to perform appropriately for their intended use. The following tests were conducted on the sampled soils: Classification (ASTM D2487) Moisture Density (ASTM D2216) Direct Shear (ASTM D3080) A thorough review of laboratory testing, including a description of the purpose and methodology utilized for the tests, is provided along with the quantitative and graphical (where applicable) test results (see Appendix C, "LaboratoryTesting"). Use of the quantitative results of laboratory test data, a thorough visual inspection of the primary soil types on the property, and previous experience with laboratory testing of similar soils have aided in developing the "CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS" section contained within this report. ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION General Hillside slopes constructed of either fills Or cuts into natural residual or formational materials can fail because they are so steep that the "resisting" forces are inadequate to account for the downhill "driving" forces. Often; improperly designed and/or constructed hillsides remain stable for long periods of time, then become unstable and fail after years of adequate performance. These failures are typically due to a changed condition with a resulting inadequate factor of safety (i.e., inadequate "resisting" fOrce for the "driving" forces as illuded to above). This can occur due to a variety of factors, including man-made changes such as excavation at the base of slopes, and/or the failure of man-made improvements such as inadequately designed retaining walls. Additionally, a failure can be due to increased moisture "saturation" of soils due to a broken water line, plugged draihage inlets near the top of slope, failure or improper operation of lateral bench drains along the actual slope surface, or unusual inclement weather causing saturation of the soils which increases the weight ("driving" force) and reduces the strength of Project Ref.: 961317-3 Page 5 the soils ("resisting" force). These changes can frequently reduce the factor of safety to the point where either shallow or deep failures occur. Drainage from uphill sources can frequently impede performance of residential improvements on hillsides. This is especially true if the structures are excavated into the soil, trapping water above an impervious layer. Both surface and groundwater can create problems. The development of uphill properties with significant hardscape and roof areas reduces the amount of vegetation for the evaporation and transpiration of moisture from the property. As a result, the amount of runoff to downhill properties increases dramatically. Typically, the increased moisture runoff is channelled to surface or storm drain installations to avoid erosion or increased subterranean water flow to downhill properties. The collection and redistribution of surface water is critical to prevent damage to downhill properties. Localized discharging of collected water onto the surface or into the ground results in erosion, over-saturation, and can result in significant negative consequences to the natural terrain, as well as on-site or off-site improvements. When soil buttresses are constructed, the new mix of soils can be less pervious than various zones in the natural hillside. Frequently, pervious zones exist in nature and pathways are created over a long geologic time frame to allow water in hillsides to escape at the slope face. The construction of a buttress without excellent internal drainage in the form of a "chimney" or "blanket" drain can cause detrimental moisture buildup within the soil mass. Another issue that frequently occurs during construction is that excavation of a site for residential development can leave the toe of a slope unsupported for a period of time. While this condition exists, the soil mass, especially if a borderline stability condition exists, has a tendency to "creep" in a downslope direction. Even if it does not creep, soil stresses begin to increase within the soil mass due to the lack of support at the area of removed soil at the toe of the slope. Stability Analysis Several iterations related to slope stability of the affected area of the rear (southern) slope were performed utilizing PCSTABL5M computer software. Critical failure surfaces were generated using a random searching algorithm associated with the program. A clay seam, dipping at approximately 5° in a downsloçe direction, was input into the model of the hillside. This 5° inclinometer is supported by the inclinometer readings, the borings, and published geologic information relative to the area. We also assumed that groundwater is perched atop the clay layer and that pore water pressure below this point is not a factor; however, some hydraulic pressure at this perched condition was assumed due to water flow through the embankment. Soil strength parameters were derived from soil and formation deposits sampled during installation Project Ref.: 961317-3 Page 6 - of the inclinometer and piezometer casings, and tested in our laboratory. The results of the testing are presented in Appendix C, "Laboratory Testing." The results of our analysis indicate an existing factor of safety of less than 1 against a deep- seated failure of the slope. Most of the critical failure surfaces found passed through and along the weak clay seam. The most critical failure surface generated indicates an initiation point very near or below the northern end of the buildings at the garage areas. The termination point is projected near the uppermost crest of the slope, off of the subject property. This most probable failure surface generated during our analysis, generally conforms to the information obtained from our inclinometer readings. A minimum factor of safety of at least 1.5 is generally required related to gross overall stability of the slope. Our analysis also indicates marginal stability related to localized shallow failures along the slope face with factors of safety near 1.0 or slightly higher. This borderline condition is supported by isolated surfacial failures which have occurred and are visibly apparent. It is the intent of this report to address the larger slide mass and provide parameters for development of a method of stabilization to reduce the future threat to the effected buildings only, and not to address the ,more .localized surface failures other than to make the owners aware of the condition. These items can be addressed in the future when (it) funds for remediation become available. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on our observations of the specified units, data obtained from our continued study of the southern slope by use of inclinOmeters and quantified slope analysis, and other conditions on-site in conjunction with our review of referenced material, it appears that distress to the units is the result of mass movement of the hillside in the form of a landslide rather than soil "creep." From the installation of our inclinometers dating back to March 25, 1997, as much as one and one-half inches (1 1/2") of lateral movement of the slope has been recorded from that time to current. The inclinometer installation that exhibits the greatest degree of movement is located directly behind Unit 2421. The movement of the slope appears to be occurring along a clay seam located below the buttress constructed during original development of the property. The inclinometer indicates that the entire soils mass is moving uniformly from the surface down to the clay seam with little to no movement below the seam. The magnitude of movement appears to become less to the east, which correlates with the decreasing distress observed in the units to the east and the steepness of the slopes and proximity of the buildings to the west. The depth of the clay seam is slightly below the basement elevation, and as such, explains the extreme distortion of the basement walls as well as the indication of lateral movement of the building at Building 2421. Project Ref.: 961317-3 Page 7 It is likely that site conditions at this property, in conjunction with the construction, have resulted in a product that will undergo continued movement for the life of the improvements. The excavation of soils near the base of the slope during original development of the property or during past remedial repairs may have aggravated or possibly actuated an existing slope condition. The construction of the existing buttress suggests past known instability associated with the hillside. It is likely that the current slope movement is occurring along a failure plane which existed below another plane of instability and was not addressed during original development of the property. It is possible that with modifications or improvements to the project, and with the maintenance precautions as described below, the observed conditions will not become significantly worse, and the potential for future distress can be greatly reduced. A system of tie-back anchors can be installed near the base of the slope, above the patio areas, to help remediate the slope movement. The anchors can increase the frictional resistance along the slide plane in addition to providing an upsiope component of resistance. The installation of a tie-back system can result in an increased factor of safety against future slope movement. Conclusions and/or appropriate recommendations for mitigating distress are provided as follows: Drainage Permanent Tie-Back Anchors Drainage Horizontal drains should be established within the slope to drain perched water which is likely contributing to the slope instability problem. The drains should be constructed utilizing four inch (4") diameter perforated well casings extending beyond the back scarp of the slide mass. The drains will likely extend a horizontal distance of one hundred feet (100'). The casings should be placed at a ±1 % gradient to allow gravity flow of water from the slope. The casings should be sleeved with an appropriate filter fabric to prevent the screen openings from becoming plugged. The drains can be established in conjunction with drilling for the tie-backs. Obviously, the more drains that are installed, the more water that is discharged within the hillside. We believe that two rows of drains should be installed between the tie-back anchors as described below. In order to reduce setup time of the drilling equipment, the drains can be installed on either side of a tie-back anchor and can be drilled using the same drilling equipment as is utilized with the tie-back anchors. The existing bench and concrete open culvert should be maintained and/or upgraded such that it continues to drain all surface water from above the bench into the existing storm drain installations. In addition, all attempts should be made to Project Ref.: 961317-3 Page 8 divert any surface drainage from the properties that are developed above (south of) the subject property to help reduce moisture infiltration in the future. Several figures are provided giving conceptual details of the horizontal drains and surface drainage, in conjunction with the tie-back system. Permanent Tie-Back Anchors A system of permanent tie-back anchors can be utilized to help resist loads imposed on the buildings due to movement of the slide mass by increasing the frictional resistance along the slide plane. Various tie-back sytems have been utilized in the past, ranging from vertical retaining walls with tie-backs that are used solely to provide an uphill force resistant to the movement. Other tie-back systems are utilized which create a significant downward component, thus increasing the friction along the slide plane to provide the necessary added factor of safety. Due to the logistics of accessing the site and the nature of the existing improvements, a tie-back system on the slope just below, the existing bench where the open concrete culvert exists is a more desirable installation than retaining walls at the patios. The angle of the slope and the access both allow for, drilling without interference with the buildings. The tie-back anchors would be installed at such angles as to help increase the frictional resistance along the slide plane while also providing an uphill force, both helping to increase the factor of safety against hillside movement. A typical tie-back consists of a drilled low pressure grouted anchor with an internally bonded tendon as provided by "DYWIDAG." The unbonded length should be free to elongate to transfer the tensile forces when' prestressing the tendon. The following recommendations and guidelines' are provided to help aid in design of the tie-back system: An allowable soil bond stress (r) of approximately 7 psi may be considered for preliminary design of the anchors.' The soil bond stress can be multiplied by the perimeter of the drilled shaft to obtain an allowable anchor load capacity per inch of bonded length. The grouted (bonded) portion of the anchors should have a minimum diameter of at least six inches (6") Preliminary analyses indicate that the tie-back system should be designed to resist a load imposed by the slide mass of 28 ,Kips/lf. A double row of tie-backs, spaced ten feet on center (1O' O.C.)' with an, allowãblê capacity of 140 Kips per anchor, shall provide an increased factor of safety 'of at last 1.5 against gross instability of the slope. In order to develop the necessary resistance to support the soil mass, a "washer" must be installed in order for the tendon to resist the actual movement of the soils mass. At a minimum, tie- back reactions consisting of "washers," with dimensions at least one-third of the distance between adjacent tie-backs, 'must be utilized. The "washers" can be hidden beneath the Project Ref.: 961317-3 Page 9 slope surface or utilized as a cover on the slope surface to minimize erosion in the future. A continuous gunite surface incorporating structural reinforcing to provide the minimum size washer as described above, is a frequently used application to not only provide the reaction for the tie-back anchors, but also significantly reduce erosion on the surface. There is a wide variety of options related to the spacing, angle of drilling, and size, depth, and strength of tie-backs. When actually designing the final system for construction. All of these must be taken into account when finalizing the actual design of the system. We recommend that a qualified contractor, experienced in the construction of tie-back ground anchor systems, be retained to construct this system. We further recommend that once a design has been developed and construction begins, field testing be performed on the first several anchors to verify pull out capacity of the actual design. The first several anchors should be loaded to at least one hundred fifty percent (150%) of design load during testing. In addition, the anchors should be tested for long term creep during field testing. It may be necessary to preload all of the anchors to develop anchor capacity prior to attaching the anchors to the walls. Inclinometer readings should also beT continued to further monitor the slope after remedial measures have been implemented, to assure that movement of the hillside has effectively ceased. The owners should be aware that it is the intent of this report to address the stability Of the gross slide mass as it relates to the chronic problem of building distress. While it was discovered during the preliminary analysis of the slope that shallow failures would likely occur due to the oversteepened slope and the materials that comprise the slope, the purpose of this study was not to quantitatively address those issues, nor provide recommendations for repairing these slopes. The homeowners should be aware, however, that maintenance issues related to localized, shallow, isolated, small failures or sloughs will most likely continue to occur on slopes above the tie-back repair unless a stabilizing program is undertaken for those areas as well. MISCELLANEOUS General The previous recommendationsare believed to be prudent, cost-effective measures that will help the improvements safely function with reduced risk of continued distress, based on the symptoms observed at this level of study. The installation of inclinometers, to quantitatively ascertain the magnitude and location of hillside movement, can be extremely beneficial in determining the exact nature of both vertical and lateral displacement of soils. Inclinometers would help to better define the type of Project Ref.: 961317-3 Page 10 I movement that is occurringither near surface or deep-seated. This type of study would provide information which more accurately defines the type of soil movement occurring. This information would allow for a remedial tie-back design tailored more to the actual problem, which would likely result in better future performance of this remedial system and the buildings overall. This would also help document the reduced movement of the hill in the future, which should help the value of each of the buildings. Other miscellaneous considerations are provided as follows: Maintenance Guidelines For Homeowners Limitations Maintenance Guidelines For Homeowners Homesites, in general, and hillside lots, in particular, need maintenance to continue to function and retain their value. Many homeowners are unaware of this and allow deterioration of their property. It is important to familiarize homeowners with some guidelines for maintenance of their properties and make them aware of the importance of maintenance. Some governing agencies require property developers to utilize specific methods of engineering and construction to protect those investing in improved lots or constructed homes. For example, the developer may be required to grade the property in such a manner that rainwater will be drained away from the lot and to plant slopes so that erosion will be minimized. He may also be required to install permanent drains. However, once the lot is purchased, it is the buyer's responsibility to maintain these safety features by observing a prudent program of lot care and maintenance. Failure to make regular inspection and maintenance of drainage devices and sloping areas may cause severe financial loss. In addition to his own property damage, he may be subject to civil liability for damage occurring to neighboring proerties as a result of his negligence. The following maintenance guidelines are provided for the protection of the homeowner's investment: Surface drainage must be directed away from structural foundations to prevent ponding of storm waters or irrigation adjacent to footings. Care should be taken that slopes, terraces, berms (ridges at crown of slopes) and other proper lot drainage features are not disturbed. Surface drainage should be conducted from Project Ref.: 961317-3 Page 11 the rear yard to the street through the side yard, or to natural drainage ways within the property boundary. In general, roof and yard runoff should be conducted to either the Street or storm drain by non-erosive devices such as sidewalks, drainage pipes, ground gutters and driveways. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation. Periodically inspect, clean of any obstructions, and repair as required so that all drain channeling installations, such as gutters, downspouts, catch basins, area drain inlets and outlets function properly. Limitations This report presents a summary of observations made by ACCUTECH ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC. personnel, and may not reflect all items existing during the evaluation. Evidence of historic distress may well not now exist because of repairs or redecoration, regardless Of whether or not the source of the distress was repaired. This report is based on a visual observation of the specified principal building, as requested or discussed, and applies to those areas and features as specifically described herein. It is not meant to address other structures and appurtenances unless specifically referenced in this report. It is not intended to address mechanical, plumbing or electrical systems, or any architectural elements of the building. Leaks, in pressurized water systems can be the source of significant volumes of water and cause "piping" of soil particles, expansion or collapse of supporting soils, lubrication on bedding planes, and a variety of undesirable consequences as a result. We emphasize that this report has not addressed plumbing or mechanical systems, and that all care must be taken to ensure that none of the plumbing systems leak and/or that any plumbing leaks that occur are immediately repaired to avoid the negative consequences of such leaks. It is intended to address the specific area of concern only, as stated in the "INTRODUCTION" section of this report. Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site, knowledge of local conditions, and a visual observatiOn of the soils exposed in the subsurface excavations. The recommendations in this report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site and neighboring sites. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating the behavior of the proposed improvements; however, our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor can they assure the soil profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations, beyond 'the limits of the obtained data, are herein expressed or implied This report is based on the evaluation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. If either of these conditions is changed, the results would also most likely change. Project Ref.: 961317-3 Page 12 This report is not meant to imply nor does it offer any warranty whatsoever as to the future performance or value of the property. Use of this report is for the sole purpose of the client. It is not to be used by any subsequent parties, and is not to be relied upon, other than as information for evaluation by the client; second or third opinions are recommended. Any party 'claiming damages due to the use of this report, does so with the knowledge, as described herein, that they are subject to a counter suit for all costs associated with defending against the claim, including, but not limited to, legal fees, staff fees, expert witness fees, and any other costs and damages associated with defending against appeal, or in collections of judgements. As governmental regulations, environmental conditions, state-of-the-art solutions, and associated legal ramifications are all subject to frequent revision and fluctuation, which could result in modification of the reported conditions and the conclusions and recommendations contained herein, this report is valid for a period of only six (6) months from the date issued. All subcontractors involved in the repair process and/or the general contractor supervising the repair process should be very familiar with the latest applicable Uniform Building Code (UBC) to ensure that all UBC requirements, including items not specifically addressed in this report, are adhered to and that conflicts related to other code items are not created during the implementation of the 'recommendations contained herein. We hope this report answers your questions relating to the observed distress. It was our pleasure to provide professional service to you concerning this matter. If we can be of further assistance or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Very truly yours, ACCUTECH ENGINERflEMS, INC. W 1?444~ If Robert J. Ran President RGE#000707 OH LU No. GE000707 rri ExP . RJR/GJS : dh/sed Project Ref.: 961317-3 Page 13 7.. Key Map Scale I Inch to 10 Miles o 5 10 15 20 iiiiij Miles Kilometers 0 10 20 SITE VICINITY MAP I .. LA COSTA DE MARBELLA LA COSTA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE #: 1 PROJ.REF.# 9613173 Ii 44 $~A ..UUI- I r\ %LA casT I/ i v 35 *I J N1 T 31\/& CS\ I (-LLv TC',, nN T \Iv /- 3 PSI At lit 9Mill c 4 - -rAVI US !T6/ ;fuEs DA CIR CA 0, suit p (t(!I\ CL d u i •t-.c # ; i---ri -- - - - .. ....... I . .... p. 'I..• U4 - ..... ILA LM :¼ C,' 2 - c 'P - CL •"- . - - ç_ \.' s / ' •. ILI • ;; '.: c.1 . sc. C C * % .*:; SUIT I .:ji__i•o sL - U WWI C sills 9k CIE ) 3JT2L CUP • -- 2; ,C VISLALSA . L2 2; . . ' - r ' . GUI 11 I - '' r 'S)..., j C •• p 3 .T .... .Y Pr iITA 4 s' -T 1_VALLEDA ' 12 -". e•• •-- P •• — ç' S •- • ZOM* WILL CIIALE • - G'( ' I CLS'P' 'C I • .-I.s •_ - U21u4 •. - C r,SUI'T cm . •. It 1 OR ENCINITAS r2p BLVD -. CAL . (L'MJ Of LA 4Z , SJSJT 4$ / • VA :"" ift old REST 'P 14 09 ISLAND VIEW a. -CIA SITE LOCATION MAP LA COSTA DE MARBELLA LA COSTA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LI I III Mir, 11110 .398 FIGUR E#: 2 PROJ. REF .# 9613173 0 LUL. 0 cia Z C) cQ C4 C4 Q > .. 0, o i W. ' %L 0 S. 4' QL I 0 I - CD el I CA ca Xk _ 0 SITE PLAN jT1 I fl rf[J11 LA COSTA DE MARBELLA / LLJ U LL:.0 U LA COSTA AVENUE ENGINEERING SYSTEMS INC. I [ CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE: April,i998 FIGURE #: 3 PROJ. REF. # 961317-3 URIt: '-ti"", A)98 ' t'? •*P - % APPROX. I PROPERTY LINE APPROX. SCALE' 140 PARTIAL SITE PLAN LA COSTA DE MARBELLA LA COSTA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE #: 4 PROJ. REF. # 961317-3 A' APPROX. INCL. PROPERTY 3 LINE BOUNDARY APPROX. iNC/ FAILURE PLANE 1 2421 TOTAL DEPTH TIEBACK POTE NCHORS ANCHORS CLAY SEAM TOTAL 50' OF DIPPING AT DEPTH BONDED 5' OUT OF 40' T.L.= LENGTH SLOPE T 85' AT 12' D1A, I SCALE' 1'=30' SECTION AA': LA COSTA DE MARRELLA LA COSTA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA LIMIt: tiplui 98 FIGURE #: 5 PROJ.REF.# 961317-3 APPROX. PROPERTY LINE BOUNDARY B. I APPROX. FAILURE INCL. PLANE 2 BLDG. . i 2425 4' DRAIN 5 AT IZ SLOP L POTENTIAL CLAY SEAM TOTAL DIPPING AT DEPTH 5 OUT OF 40' • SLOPE SCALE, 1'=30' SECTION B-B' LA COSTA DE MARI3ELLA LA COSTA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 6 -ii, FIGU RE#: PROJ.REF.# 961317-3 APP'ENDix A REFERENCES REFERENCES Bowles, J.E., 1982, Foundation Analysis and Design, 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering coinniand Design Manual 7.2, May 1982. Harris, M.E., 1987, Geology of San Diego County, California, A Bibliography with Subject Index, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 96. Landslide Hazard Identification Prograni, California Division of Mines and Geology, Annual Report 1990. San Diego Planning Department, County of San Diego, California, 1974, Landslides, Scale of 1 inch:2 miles. '6. Tan, S.S., 1986, Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 86-8, Landslide Hazard Identification Map #4. Tan, S.S., 1987, Landslide Hazards in the Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangle, San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 86-15, Landslide Hazard Identification Map 116. Tan, S.S. and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego county, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 95704, Landslide Hazard Identification Map #35. Project Ref.: 961317-3 Appendix A APPENDIX B 0.0 1.0 e. u J • I. . • • .............. 9 .............. . a.............. .................. ........................ ............... 9 ... //.1.........• - 5 10 Base Date: 03/31/97 09/05/97 01/16/98 04/16/98 15 Displacement Profile—A—lin.) 35 4 Point: Instrument: Datum: 1 27446 SLOPE INCLINOMETER RESULTS LA COSTA DE MARBELLA LA COSTA AVENUE lEERING SYSTEMS INC.1 - CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE: April, 1998 FIGURE #: B-i PROJ. REF. # 961317-3 NE 151 ...... 301 351 Displacement Profile--A--I in.J Base Date: 03/31/97 o 09/05/97 01/16/98 0 04/16/98 Point: Instrument: Datum: 2 27446 SLOPE INCLINOMETER RESULTS LA COSTA DE MARBELLA LA COSTA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 1uu; _998 FIGURE#: B-2 961317-3 I Displacement Profile--A--(in.] -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1 1.5 2.0 Base Date: 01/16/98 5...i...................................................................0 04/16/98 10 . .- ............................................................. 15.... ...................... - 20.. 4- - as as '4- 25.- . 30.-•- .- . ... .. .- 4e •--•............................................................................. . 45.. 50 Point: Instrument: Datum: -3 - 27703B SLOPE INCLINOMETER RESULTS ]3[ij1j 1' U1 LA COSTA DE MARBELLA LJ EN LA COSTA AVENUE uI1 L . CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE: April., 1998 FIGURE #: B-3 PROJ. REF. # 961317-3 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the accepted practice of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and other suggested methods. A brief description of the tests performed is as follows: CLASSIFICATION - Field classifications are prepared in the field and are verified in the laboratory by a visual examination per (ASTM D2487). Further classification is provided with the aid of supplemental laboratory testing of selected samples obtained in the field. Samples are classified, as coarse or fine grained, well or poorly graded, high or low plasticity, per the Unified Classification System. . MOISTURE DENSITY - Moisture contents and dry densities are determined for representative soil samples in accordance with ASTM D2216. This information is an aid to classification and assists in recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in-situ moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. The results are summarized in the excavation and/or boring logs and the summary of laboratory testing within this section of the report. DIRECT SHEAR - Direct Shear tests are performed in accordance with ASTM D3080, to determine the failure envelope relating confining pressure to shear strength, based on yield shear strength. This is given as "0", the angle of internal friction and "C" the unconfined strength (cohesion intercept). A minimum of three (3) samples are tested at different vertical loads. The shear stress is applied at a constant rate of strain at approximately 0.05 inch per minute and the ratio is thus obtained and plotted. Project Ref.: 961317-3 Appendix C LA COSTA DE MARBELLA LA COSTA AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIP0RMA 398 FIGURE #: C4 1PROJ. REF.# 961317-3 Natural Moisture & Density Direct Shear- s Sample Field Loc.,mm LABORATORY I ESTRESULTS SUMMARY SHEET GRAVEL SAND FINES Coats. Fine Coats. M•dlum Fine Sill Clay U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMSERS HYDROMETER • IlIlilIlOil IIIiIIIi!!!IIIIIIIIIUIIl 11111111 11111 11111111111 liii IlIIIIIIUH 1ItIIIIIIIR 11111111 I H iIIIIIIIIIIIU_11111111--- liii 11111111111 IlliRlilUll I H • liii IlIllillIll IIRIUIIIIIII II1IRIIHIIIIU 11111111 liii IIIiIIiIIIIIIIIIIUUIRIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIUU 11111111 IlUl 11111 IUIRIIIIIIIIIIIRI1II1IIIIUiiIIII1IIIU____ 1111111 11111 II1IiII1UIIIIIIiIII1R!IIIIIIIUI1IIIIIIII 11111111 11111 • IiiIIUIiUiIIiiIIIiIIiiIlliH lIURi1IIII 11111111 liii IURUIIIIIIIIU_11111111 11111 • IIIiIUIUIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIllhII • iiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiitiiiiia_1111U1111111 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Symbol Hole Number Depth(Feet) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit PlastkityIndex Soil Type • TP-1 '. 39-5' N.P. N.P. SM - p J -GRADAtION TEST RESULTS IL.ILA llEULristtE1Xr ELLA _i CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE: April,1998 FIGURE #: C-2 PROJ. REF. # 961317-3 4 SLoPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Soft PARAMETERS FILL: 'yw = 130pcf = 340 C .= 0 CLAY (Remolded): 'yw = 128pcf = 100 ' C = 250psf SANDSTONE: = 125pcf = 300 C = loopsf TIEBACK LOADS: 140 Kips/Tieback The following is the slope stability analysis of the rear • slope as it currently'. exists indicating the ten most critical failure surfaces. The most critical surfaces fail through the clay seam and have a factor of safety of less than (1). The most critical surface is indicated by the arrows. La Costa de Mar3ella reayi slope stabi1it STATIC condition Ten Most Critical.- B:MARBELL3.PLT By: GEoRGE 04-13-98 2:52pi - 140, 120 190 Y-Axis (f t) 80 60 40 INU 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 PCSTABL5M FS piin=0.89 X-Axis (ft) ** PCSTABL,5M ** by Purdue University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Slope Stability Analysis-- ..Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 04-13-98 Time of Run: 2:52pm Run By: GEORGE Input Data Filename: B:MARBELL3.IN Output Filename: B:MARBELL3.OUT Plotted Output Filename: B:MARBELL3.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION LaCosta de Marbella rear slope stability, STATIC condition BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 13 Total-Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 .00 30.00 31.00 30.00 1 2 31.00 30.00 59.00 54.00 1 3 59.00 54.00 66.00 54.10 1 4 66.00 54.10 99.00 80.00 1 5 99.00 80.00 107.00 80.10 1 6 107.00 80.10 134.00 103.00 1 7 134.00 103.00 149.00 103.10 1 8 .00 24.00 60.10 29.00 2 9 60.10 29.00 100.10 32.00 2 10 100.10 32.00 149.10 36.0.0 2 11 .00 - 20.00 60.00 25.00 3 12 60.00 25.00 100.00 28.00 3 13 100.00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28.00 149.00 32.00 3 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type (s) of Soil' Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 130.0 .0 34.0 .00 .0 1 2 128.0 128.0 250.0 10.0 .00 .0 1 3 125.0 125.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------100.0 30.0 .00 .0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 4 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 31.00 30.00 2 60.00 38.00 3. 99.00 45.00 4 145.00 53.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Irregular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. Janbus Empirical Coef. is being used for the case of c & phi both > 0 100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 50 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 2 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 5.00 ft. and X = 50.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 107.00 ft. and X = 149.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 5.00 ft. 18.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined By The Following 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.00 46.29 2 63.11 33.95 3 76.44 21.85 4 91.14 11.46 5 108.97 9.05 6 123.93 19.07 7 129.61 36.15 8 130.58 54.12 9 130.63 72.12 10 .130.65 90.12 11 130.74 100.23 'Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 3.637 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Fai'lure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. :*, * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 5.00 30.00 2 22.41 25.43 3 40.41 , 25.43 4 58:41 25.43 5 76.36 . 26.75 6 '94.29 28.32 7 108.39 39.52 8 117.72 54.91 9 - 122.40 72.29 10 125.93 89.94 li 126.58 96.71 *** .891 •*** Individual data on the 20 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 1 16.2 4452.8 25.5 2236.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2 1.3 716.9 116.0 476.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3 8.6 5086.7 1245.7 3693.9 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4 9.4 10492.0 .0 4952.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5 18.0 47517.6 .0 12110.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6 .6 2162.2 .0 455.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7 1.0 3697.5 .0 778.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 .1 369.3 .0 78.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 9 5.9 21653.8 .0 4719.4. .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10 104 42759.9 .0 8810.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11 17.9 97159.0 .0 16693.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12 4.5 28092.9 .0 5117.7 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 13 .2 1235.3 .0 .202.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 14 8.0 46606.6 .0 6569.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.4 7544.2 .0 824.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 16 4.8 24966.4 .0 2035.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 17 4.5 21149.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 '18 4.7 16793.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.5 6215.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ,t20 .6 261.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 . 5.00 30.00 2 22.16 24.55 3 40.15 24.97 4 . 57.92 27.87 5 75.78 . 30.06 6 91.09 39.53 7 105.27 50.61 8 117.06 64.22 9 129.50 77.22 10 136.60 93.76 11 137.49 103.02 .958 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 5.00 30.00 2 ' 22.16 24.55 3 40.15 24.97 4 57.92 27.87 5 75.78 ' 30.06 6 91.09 39.53 7 105.27 50.61 8 117.06 64.22 9 129.50 77.22 10 136.60 .93.76 11 137.49 *** .958 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y--Surf No. (ft) . (ft) 1 5.00 30.00 2 22.51's 25.83 3 . 40.25 22.76 4 .56.89 29.61 5 74.89 '29.02 6 92.87 28.38 7 107.29 39.16 8 123.03 47.89 9 129.01 '64.87 10 142.00 77.32 11 145.72 . 94.93 12 146.99 . 103.09 *** 1.084 *** Failure Surface Specified -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. , (ft) (ft) 1 500 30.00 2 18.39 . 17.96 3 35.82 13.47 4 53.81 12.99 5 68.84 22.90 6 83.34 33.56 7 .96:52 45.82 8 .109.23 58.56 9 122.09 71.16 10 132.29 85.99 11 135.27 103.01 *** 1.091 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1, 5.00 30.00 2 22.60 26.22 3 40.54 . 24.83 4 58.54 24.29 5 76.50 25.37 6 93.09 32.37 7 109.65 39.41 8 122.66 51.85 9 130.45 10 137.45 84.66 11 141.28 102.24 12 141.43 103.05 *** 1.103 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point .X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) • (ft) 1 5.00 30.00 2 • 22.60 26.22 3 40.54 24.83 4 58.54 •. 24.29 5 76.50' 25.37 6 93.09 32.37 7 109.65 • 39.41 8 122.66 •. 51.85 9 130.45 68.07 10 . 137.45 84.66 11 141.28 102.24 12 141.43 .103.05 *** 1.103 *** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.00 46.29 2 66.59 .53.27 3 83.44 59.61 4 99.23 68.25 5 112.31 ' • 80.61 6 125.82 92.51 7 134.26 103.00 *** • 1.122 *** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points • Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) • 1 5.00 30.00 2 18.34 17.92 3 • 36.33 18.42 4 54.23 20.33 5 69.05 30.54 6 83.06, 41.85 7 95.81 • 54.56 8 107.04 68.62 • 9 111.53 • 83.94 *** 1.146 •*** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf. • Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 5.00 30.00 2 21.56 22.95 3 38.74 17.57 4 55.89 12.10 5 72.51 19.02 6 89.18 25.82 7 105.67 33.02 8 116.78. 47.18 9 122.29 64.32 10 126.97 81.70 11 132.18 98.93 12 132.35 101.60 *** 1.147 *** The following is the slope stability analysis of the rear slope utilizing two rows of tie-backs spaced horizontally ten feet on center (10' o.c.) along the lower slope. The analysis indicates a factor of safety of at least 1.5 for failure surfaces which extend through the clay seam where the current movement is occurring. dl I - La Costa de Marbella rear slope stabiIit STATIC condition Ten Most Critical. A:MARBELI2.PLT By: GEÔRCE 04-28-98 1:08pm 140 128 100 !1-Axi S (ft) 80 60 40 20 9 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 188 200 PCSTABL5M FS ,iin1.25 X-Axis (ft) 1 **PCSTABL5M ** by :;purdue University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Slope Stability Analysis-- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencers Method of Slices Run Date: 04-20-98 Time of Run: 1:08pm Run By: GEORGE Input Data Filename: A:MARBEL12.IN Output Filename: - A:MARBEL112.OUT PlOtted Output Filename: A:MARBEL12 . PLT ,PROBLEM DESCRIPTION La Costa de Marbella rear slope stability, STATIC condition BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 13 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) *(f t) Below Bnd 1 .00 30.00 31.00 30.00 1 2 31.00 30.00 59.00 54.00 1 3 59.00 54.00 66.00 54.10 1 4 66.00 54.10 99.00 80.00 1 5 99.00 80.00 107.00 80.10 1 6 107.00 80.10 134.00 103.00 1 7 134.00 103.00 149.00 103.10 1 8 .00 24.00 60.10 29.00 2 9 60.10 29.00 100.10 32.00 2 10 100.10 32.00 149.10 36.00 2 11 .00 20.00 60.00 25.00 3 12 60.00 1 - 25.00 100.00 28.00 3 13 100.00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28.00 149.00 32.00 3 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 130.0 130.0 .0 34.0 .00 .0 0 2 128.0 128.0 250.0 10.0 .00 .0 0 3 125.0 125.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100.0 30.0 .00 .0 0 TIEBACK LOAD (S) * 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified 11 Tieback X-Pos Y-Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (ibs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 50.00 46.29 140000.0 10.0 45.00 35.0 2 55.00 50.57 140000.0 10.0 35.00 45.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming AUnifórm Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Irregular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. Janbus Empirical Côef. is being used for the case of c & phi both > 0 100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 50 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 2 Points Equally Spaced Along The 'Ground Surface Between X = 5.00 ft. and X = 50.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 107.00 ft. and X = 149.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 5.00 ft. 18.00 'ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Filure Surface. The Factor Of Safety For The Trial Failure Surface Defined By The Coordinates Listed Below Is Misleading. C Failure Surface Defined By 6 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf. Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.00 46.29 2 67.91 48.10 3 82.41 58.76 4 98.45 66.94 5 109.66 81.02 6 110.78 83.31 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface =-10.256 The Factor Of Safety'For The Trial Failure Surface Defined By Th& Coordinates Listed Below Is Misleading. Failure Surface Defined By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.00 46.2.9 2 66.59 53.27 3 83.44 59.61 4 99.23 68.25 5 112.31 80.61 6 125.82 92.51 7 134.26 103.00 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surfabe = -3.153 The Factor Of Safety For The Trial Failure Surface Defined By The Coordinates Listed Below Is Misleading. Failure-Surface Defined By 6 Coordinate Poj.nts Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.00 46.29 2 67.90 48.15 3 - 84.91 54.06 4 9739 67.02 5 108.53 81.16 6 108.66 81.50 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = -9.535 Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined By The Following 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.00 46.29 2 63.11. 33.95 3 76.44 21.85 4 91.14 11.46 5 108.97 9.05 6 123.93 19.07 7 129.61 36.15 8 130.58 54.12 9 130.63 72.12 10 130.65 90.12 11 130.74 100.23 • Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 4.520 Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Sürf Y-Surf No. - (ft) (ft) :1 50.00 46.29 2 63.19 34.04 3 80.91 30.83 4 95.99' 40.66 5 104.22 56.66 6 114:48" 71.46 7 114.50 86.46 *** 1.246 *** Individual data on the 10 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top sot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 1 9.0 9397.5 .0 ' .0 3664.0 3018.2 .0 .0 .0 2 4.2 9838.4 .0 ' .0 791.6 1741.2 .0 .0 .0 3 2.8 7399.9 ' .0 .0 638.3 536.4 .0 .0 .0 4 14.9 53807.0 .0 .0 2034.4 2946.6 .0 .0 .0 5 15.1 70529.4 .0 .0 2530.8 1643.8 .0 .0 .0 .6 3.0 13799.3 .0 .0 820.0 264.6 .0 .0 .0 '7 ' 5.2 19306.8 .0 .0 1084.8 588.3 .0 .0 .0 2.8 7736.5 ' .0 .0 308.2 295.8 .0 .0 .0 19 7.5 16727.2 .0 .0 576.1 693.1 .0 .0 .0 10 .0 23.9 .0 .0 583.0 -180.3 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 5.00 30.00 2 22.41 25.43 3 40.41 25.43 4 58.41 25.43 5 76.36 26.75 6 94.29 28.32 7 108.39 39.52 8 1117.72 54.91 9 122.40 72.29 10 125.93 89.94 11 126.58 96.71 1.283 Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf , . Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 .5.00 30.00 2 22.16 24.55 3 40.15 24.97 4 . 57.92 27.87 5 75.78 30.06 6 91.09 ' 39.53 7 105.27 50.61 8 117.06 64.22 9 129.50 77.22 10 136.60 93.76 11 137.49 103.02 1.342 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 5.00 30.00 2 22.16 24.55 3 40.15- 24.97 4 . 57.92 27.87 .5 75.78 30.06 6 91.09 39.53 7 105.27 50.61 8 . 117.06 64.22 9 129.50 .77.22 10 136.60 93.76 11 137.49 103.02 1.342 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) . .- (ft) 1 5.00 30.00 2 22.51 . 25.83 3 40.25 22.76 4 . 56.89 29.61 b 5 14 6'9 29.02 6 92:87 28.38 7 107.29 39.16 8 123.03 47.89 9 129.0]. , 64.87 10 142.00 77.32 11 145.72 94.93 12- 146.99 103.09 *** 1.412 *** Failure Surface SpecIfied By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf • Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.00 46.29 - 2 66.93 40.16 3 84.89 41.39 4 101.45 48.44 5 117.43 56.73 125.22 72.95 7 127.39 90.82 8 127.41 97.41 - . *** • 1.456 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 5.00 • 30.00 2 22.60 26.22 .3 40.54 24.83 4 58.54 - 24.29 5- 76.50 25.37 :6, 93.09 32.37 109.65 39.41 8 122.66. 51.85 9 130.45 68.07 10 137.45 84.66 11 •141.28 102.24 12 • 141.43 103.05 *** 1.471 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 5.00 30.00 2 22.60 26.22 3 40.54 24.83 4 58.54 24.29 5 76.50 25.37 6 93.09 32.37 7 109.65 39.41 8, 122.66 51.85 9 130.45 68.07 10 • 137.45 84.66 11 141.28 102.24 12 141.43 103.05 • *** 1.497 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 5.00 30.00 2 21.56 22.95 38.74 17.57 4 55.89 12.10 5 72.51 19.02 6 89.18 25.82 * 7 105.67 33.02 8 116.78 47.18 9 122.29 64.32 10 • 126.97 • 81.70 Ii 132.18 • 98.93 12 132.35 101.60 **•* • 1.562 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points . - Point X-Sürf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 2 19.23. 18.98 3 32.64 6.96 4 50.64 6.83 5 68.50 9.02 6 84.79. 16.68 7 - 99.57 26.95 8 111.86 40.11 9 123.66 53.70 10 135.50 67.26 11 : 137.14- - 85.18 12 138.83 103.03 *** 1.579 **