Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2653 OCEAN ST; ; CB982244; Permit
2Itie /17 - City of Carlsbad 05/28/1999 Building Permit Permit No:CB982244 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 438-3101 Job Address: 2653 OCEAN ST CBAD Permit Type: CONDO Sub Type: Parcel No: 2031401100 Lot #: Valuation: $647,734.00 Construction Type: VN Occupancy Group: Reference #: Project Title: 2 UNIT CONDO PROJECT 2653 & 2655 2 UNITS 7186 SF,GAR 858 SF,DECKS 1504 SF Applicant: Owner: BLAIR, CINDY BLAIR CINDY 655 INDIA STREET 92101 619 696-0330 Status: ISSUED Applied: 07/15/1998 Entered By: MOP /1 Appr/Issu 999 2 05 26/99 0001 01 02 Inspect Ar C—PRMT 7380.00 Total Fees: $49, 1,714.64 \0r Due: $7,380.00 Fee --------------- Description ------------------ * ELECTRICAL TOTAL * MECHANICAL TOTAL * PLUMBING TOTAL Additional Master Drain BLDG PLAN CHECK BUILDING PMTS Enter Additional Reclai Enter In-Lieu Fee PUBLIC FACILITIE STRNG MOTION TRAFFIC IMPACT INCORPORATED 1 (nd 1951. 9? 0 110.00 190.00 407.00 415.68 1,600.38 2,462.12 10, 800.00 9,030.00 22,670.69 64.77 1,344.00 FINAL APPROVAL Date: I 17 -0 Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the 'Imposition' of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as 'fees/exactions.' You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capactiy changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 438-1161 City of Carlsbad Sewer Permit Permit No: SE980166 01/26/1999 Status: ISSUED 0 Applied: 08/26/1998 Issued: 01/26/1999 Expired: Entered By: DT 5755 011261 0001 01 02 C-PRMT 3648-00 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Reference#: Project Title: Description: Permitee: BLAIR, CINDY 655 INDIA STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 619 696-0330 2653 OCEAN ST CBAD SWRSD 2031401100 Lot#: CB982244 7,186 SF CONDO 2655 OCEAN ST Total Fees: $3,648.00 / iot'aI Payments ToaSe I 7 WV Description Sewer Fee $0.\(-"baIhce Due: $3,648.00 Fee 1 3,648.00 INCORPORATED 7 1952 co CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 438-1161 V( O-S FOR OFFICE USE ONLY -i-V-P PERMIT APPLICATION PLAN CHECK No.f mo CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Validated ByG) EST. VAL. .S Plan Ck. Deposit 4,il- 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad CA 92009 AA (760) 438-1161 _____________________ Date_____________________ PROJECT. INFORMATION_______________________________ '2 ( 56 Address (include Bldg/Suite #) Business Name (at this address) - L-ok I , P' I ' f'LQ p( rj . Ia 1-0 -4.P Legal Description - Lot No. Subdivision Name/Number Unit No. - Phase No. Total # of units Assessor's Parcel # - Existing Use Prosed Use Description of Work SO. FT. #of # of # of Bathrooms CONTACT PERSON Name - - Address City State/Zip Telephone # - Fax # iv C1 for Owner k Io ?, Name Address City State/Zip Telephone # [5TCONTRACTORMANIE (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 ap licant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($5001). MCA H. 1 CkZ±2Ad c.c 34 Name Address City State/Zip Telephone 9 State License # 1 '7 License Class City Businss LicenAe # J5o p f'cc, Si,,iLe /C3A Designer Name Address City State/Zip State License # 1d. WORKERS' Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. 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 .t'S'1e55 ,T-is 0 1,10 14 t ell Policy No. t/9s?I '7' iCA? Expiration Date (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1001 OR LESS) CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failur to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand doll rs 100,00 , in ad.' to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees. SIGNATURE i1-U-.. DATE I —;; I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: I, as owner of 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 does 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). o I am exempt under Section _______________ Business and Professions Code for this reason: I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. 0 YES ONO - I (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. - I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): I plan to provide portions of the work, but I 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 I address I phone number / type of work): - - - PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE rcoMpLETE THIS SECTION FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ONLY _1 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. [so : CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(i) Civil Code). LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS_______________________________________________________ [9TAPPiJCANTCTRTiFiCAtION I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the Cite 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. COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for 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 work is commenced for a period of 180 days (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE (lM - DATE WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance - N 33 Associated PCRs Inspection History Date Description Act Insp Comments 12/30/1999 39 Final Electrical • AP NF HOUSE METER ONLY 12/22/1999 39 Final Electrical WC NF 12/16/1999 89 Final Combo PA NF FOR 2653 ONLY 12/14/1999 21 Underground/Under Floor AP NF 12/14/1999 23 Gas/Test/Repairs AP NF 12/13/1999 21 Underground/Under Floor CA NF BY TIM 12/13/1999 23 Gas/Test/Repairs CA NF 12/6/1999 21 Underground/Under Floor AP NF GAS PIPING 12/6/1999 22 Sewer/Water Service WC NF 12/6/1999 23 Gas/Test/Repairs CO NF 12/6/1999 34 Rough Electric WC NF 12/6/1999 39 Final Electrical AP NF METER RELEASE FOR 2653 ONLY 12/3/1999 21 Underground/Under Floor NR NF 12/3/1999 22 Sewer/Water Service NR NF 12/3/1999 34 Rough Electric NR NF 11/24/1999 34 Rough Electric NR NF NO SUPT. I City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request 50 For: 2000 L(L BV-2--ij Permit# CB982244 1 ?, Inspector Assignment: NF Title: 2 'U' NIT CONDO PROJECT 2653 &( 55 Description: 2 UNITS 7186 SF,GAR 858 SF,DECKS 1504 SF Type: CONDO Sub Type: Job Address: 2653 OCEAN ST Suite: Lot Location: APPLICANT BLAIR, CINDY Owner: BLAIE, CINDY Remarks: Total Time: CD Description Act Comments 19 Final Structural n - 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical 49 Final Mechanical Phone: 7604342233 Inspector: Requested By: NA Entered By: CHRISTINE 3At tT4 - __ City of Carlsbad Inspection Request For: 12/6/1999 Permit# CB982244 inspector Assignment: NF Title: 2 UNIT CONDO PROJECT 2653 & 26 Description: 2 UNITS 7186 SF,GAR 858 SF,DECKS 1504 SF Type: CONDO Sub Type: Job Address: 2653 OCEAN ST Suite: Lot Location: APPLICANT BLAIR, CINDY Owner: BLAIE, CINDY Remarks: Total Time: Phone: 0000000000 Inspector: AJ 11P Requested By: NA Entered By: CHRISTINE CD Description 21 Underground/Under Floor 22 Sewer/Water Service 23 Gas/Test/Repairs 34 Rough Electric Act Comments f Associated PCRs Inspection History Date Description Act Insp Comments 11/24/1999 34 Rough Electric NR NF NO SUPT. 11/23/1999 21 Underground/Under Floor AR NF PIPING FROM BBQ TO FIRE RING 11/23/1999 23 Gas/Test/Repairs AR NF 11/22/1999 21 Underground/Under Floor NS NF 11/22/1999 23 Gas/Test/Repairs NS NF 9/7/1999 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall CA NF APPD ON 9/3 9/2/1999 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall CO NF 9/1/1999 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall CO NF 8/27/1999 17 Interior Lath/Drywall PA NF SEE JOB CARD 8/27/1999 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall CO NF 8/26/1999 17 Interior Lath/brywall CO NF 8/26/1999 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall CO NF 8/10/1999 16 Insulation AP NF 8/10/1999 84 Rough Combo AP NF 8/6/1999 13 Shear Panels/HD's AR NF 8/6/1999 84 Rough Combo CO NF 7/23/1999 12 Steel/Bond Beam NR NF 7/20/1999 21 Underground/Under Floor AR NF BBQ & FIREPIT City of Carlsbad Inspection Request LW For: 2/12/99 Permit# CB982244 Inspector Assignment: NF Title: 2 UNIT CONDO PROJECT 2653 & 26 Description: 2 UNITS 7186 SF,GAR 858 SF,DECKS 1504 SF Type: CONDO Sub Type: Job Address: 2653 OCEAN ST Suite: Lot Location: APPLICANT: BLAIR, CINDY Owner: BLAIE, CINDY Remarks: Phone: 7608026010 Inspector: A) / Total Time: Requested By: TOM Entered By: CHRISTINE CD Description Act Comments 12 Steel/Bond Beam #44' SL 13 jrr 5rO1?.A6 E 9-&V"-1 Inspection History Date Description Act Insp Comments 2/10/99 66 Grout AP NF TOP-OUT #6, & 7, A-F 2/9/99 66 Grout AP NF FIRST LIFT #6 & 7 AT A-F 2/5/99 66 Grout NR NF RAINDED OUT 214/99 66 Grout CA. NF BY TOM 1/29/99 12 Steel/Bond Beam AP NF PATIO AND STORAGE AREA ONLY 1/28/99 12 Steel/Bond Beam CA NF BY SUPT 1/27/99 12 Steel/Bond Beam . CO NF SEE NOTICE ATTACHED City of Carlsbad Final Building Inspection I LDEC ! t!: Nam CITY O J I " - F C,RL3AD Dept Building neerig lanning CMWD St Lute FIrNCINEERIt LPARTMENT Plan Check #: Date: 12/16/1999 Permit #: CB982244 Permit Type: CONDO Project Name: 2 UNIT CONDO PROJECT 2653 & 26 Sub Type: 2 UNITS 7186 SF,GAR 858 SF,DECKS 1504 SF Address: 2653 OCEAN ST Lot: Contact Person: TIM Phone: 7604342509 Sewer Dist: CA Water Dist: CA By: .Inspected: Approved: Disapproved: Inspected Date By: Inspected: Approved: Disapproved: Inspected Date By: Inspected: Approved: ______ Disapproved: Comments: City of Carlsbad Final Building Inspection Dept: Building Engineering PlandiWDt Lite Fire Plan Check #: Permit #: Project Name: CB982244 2 UNIT CONDO PROJECT 2653 & 26 2 UNITS 7186 SF,GAR 858 SF,DECKS 1504 SF 2653 OCEAN ST TIM Phone: 7604342509 CA Water 01st: CA Date: 12/16/1999 Permit Type: CONDO Sub Type: Address: Contact Person: Sewer Dist: Lot: Inspect D,ate _______./ &?Approved: '' Disapproved: Insp cted Date By: Inspected: Approved: ______ Disapproved: Inspected Date By: Inspected: Approved: ______ Disapproved: Comments: k ON of Carlsbad Final Building Inspection Dept: Building Engineering Planning CMW Fire Plan Check #: Date: 12/16/1999 Permit #: C13982244 Permit Type: CONDO Project Name: 2 UNIT CONDO PROJECT 2653 & 26 Sub Type: 2 UNITS 7186 SF,GAR 858 SF,DECKS 1504 SF Address: 2653 OCEAN ST Lot: Contact Person: TIM Phone: 7604342509 Sewer Dist: CA Water 01st: CA Inspec Date Inspected: Approved: Disapproved: Inspected Date By: Inspected: Approved:. Disapproved: Inspected Date By: Inspected: Approved: ______ Disapproved: Comments: N City of Carlsbad Final Building Inspection 3l:Ii Dept: Building Engineering Planning CMWD St Lit OF-Fr671 Plan Check #: Date: 12/16/1999 Permit #: CB982244 Permit Type: CONDO Project Name: 2 UNIT CONDO PROJECT 2653 & 26 Sub Type: 2 UNITS 7186 SF,GAR 858 SF,DECKS 1504 SF Address: 2653 OCEAN ST Lot: Contact Person: TIM Phone:• 7604342509 Sewer Dist: CA Water Dist: CA Inspected Date Approved: By: Inspected: / Inspected Date By: Inspected: Approved: Disapproved: Inspected Date By: Inspected: Approved: Disapproved: Comments: • City of Carlsbad Ii Final Building Inspection Dept: Building Engineer-6V ~Iannitvg CMWD St Lite Fire Plan Check #: Date: 12/16/1999 Permit #: CB982244 Permit Type: CONDO Project Name: 2 UNIT CONDO PROJECT 2653 & 26 Sub Type: 2 UNITS 7186 SF,GAR 858 SF,DECKS 1504 SF Address: 2653 OCEAN ST • Lot: Contact Person: TIM Phone: 7604342509 Sewer Dist: CA Water Dist: CA Inspected Date '1 By: _______________ Inspected: ('2 -' ___ Approved: Disapproved: Inspected Date By: Inspected: Approved: ______ Disapproved: Inspected Date••' By: Inspected: Approved: ______ Disapproved: Comments: CITY OF CARLSBAD GRADING INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR PARTIAL SITE RELEASE PROJECT INSPECTOR:hP ecc.o F Fe- DATE:1 - 1'? - eo PROJECT ID M .-,;. ?I- GRADING PERMIT NO._______ LOTS REQUESTED FOR RELEASE: 26 5 N/A = NOT APPLICABLE = COMPLETE 0= Incomplete or unacceptable Site access to requested lots adequate and logically grouped Site erosion control measures adequate.. Overall site adequate for health, safety and welfare of public. Letter of request for partial release submitted 8W x 11" site plan (attachment) showing requested lots submitted. 6.,i Compaction report from soils engineer submitted. Engineer of work certification of work done and pad elevations. Geologic engineer's letter if unusual geologic or subsurface conditions exist. Project conditions of approval checked for conflicts Fire hydrants within 500 feet of building combustibles and all weather roads access to site. Partial release of grading for the above stated lots is approved for the purpose of building permit issuance. Issuance of building permits is still subject to all normal City requirements required pursuant to the building permit process. Partial release of the site is denied for the following reasons: i-'rojecz inspector 001, 206 L. Inspector I (24(cf Date Date 9 H:\LIBRARY\ENG%WPDATA\TNSPECrTORMS\PARTSITE.FRM B. i. Carlsbad 98-2244 f August 3, 1998 SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION: t 26 5 dEi%4 PLAN CHECK NUMBER: 98-2244 OWNER'S NAME: Cindy Blair_____________ I, as the owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may not employ the special inspector), certify that I, or the architect/engineer of record, will be responsible for employing the special inspector(s) as required by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 1701.1 for the construction project located at the site listed above. UBC Section 106.3.5. Signed I, as the engineer/architect of record, certify that I have prepared the following special inspection program as required by UBC Section 106.3.5 for the construction project located at the site listed above. alIWw•,,d.•s 3uI £ SwRawo$w Signed List of work requiring special inspection: Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection • Field Welding O Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI 0 High Strength Bolting O Prestressed Concrete Expansion/Epoxy Anchors Structural Masonry 0 Sprayed-On Fireproofing O Designer Specified 0 Other 2. Name(s) of individual(s) or firm(s) responsible for the special inspections listed above: _ qzio A . -. - - . - N. 3. Duties of the special inspectors for the work listed above: A. c'Ar *4'G C. - Special inspectors shall check in with the City and present their credentials for approval prior to beginning work on the job site. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. (280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627 SAN DIEGO, Ca. 92160, Phone (619) 2804321 47 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO. Ca. 92029, Phone (619) 7464544 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: 0 REINFORCED CONCRETE 0 REINFORCED MASONRY 0 WELDING 0 FIREPROOFING O P. T. CONCRETE 0 EPDXY ANCHORS 0 H. S. BOLTING fl PROJECT TITLE SCS&T FILE No V ,11 4/ PROJECT LOCATION 55 (' PERMIT No gel A PLAN FILE No ARCHITECT - ENGINEER GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUB CONTRACTOR MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION DATE DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED ',// 'r;1 ;-i _á 0 ',- Alt, en ' C ,2 zov A4 c A'6W 1/4 ) 'tAo /' IS , h1T) / IL< nji I / C ellfe - i_/ 7( 1 I / . I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported work. Unless noted otherwise, the work inspected is to the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the governing building laws. INSPECTORS SIGNATURE REGISTRATION No. SUPERINTENDANTS_SIGNATURE DATE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. V V*-3 6280 R1VERDAE STREET, P. 0. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Grout Compressive Strength Test Report - File Number: 98111284 V Project Title: cean ree P11006 ocation: 2653 Ocean Street Archite Cindy Blair Permit No: 98-2244 Engineer: Horowitz/Taylor V V Plan File No:- : * Contractor.' Mullen Construction Location In Structure: V First lift, basement . V Material Supplier: Superior Ready Mix Mix Designation: V 8665P - V Admixture(s): V V V V Time In Mixer (Minutes): 171 Slump, Inches: . CC Temp: Truck Number: V 383 Ticket Number: 122757 Air Temp P Samples Fabricated By: •KSE V Samples Tested By GG V Air Content Laboratory Number: Mark:. 9001 9002 , 9003 - Date Made: 03-04-99 V 1 V V Date Received 1 03-08-99 V Date Tested V 03-11-99 04-01-99 V 04-01-99 V Nominal Size, Inches Area, Square Inches : 10.12 10.35 . 10.28 . ., Maximum Load, Pounds 18,750 V V 33,750 35,750 : Compressive Strength, psi 1,850 3,260 . 3,480 V Age, Tested, Days V 7 28 28 Required 28 bay Strength, psi V 2,000 V Specimen sampling, transportation and compressive strength testing were performed by this agency in accordance with the applicable ASTM standards. This agency makes no other warranties express or implied. V Distribution: - .Reviewed By: V , (2) Mullen Construction (1) City of Carlsbad, (1) Superior Ready Mix V George Gavit, ACE #56564 V 03-04 g.doc 4/2/99 V - V V SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. T 6280 RJVERDALE STREET, P. 0. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Concrete Compressive Strength Test Repoit File Number: 9811284 Project Title: Ocean Street Condos Project Location: 2653 - 55 Ocean Street Architect: Cindy Blair - Permit No: 98-2244 Engineer: Horowitz Taylor . Plan File No: Contractor: Dan SotoCoflcrete - Location In Structure: Footings for masonry block wall along north side of property Material Supplier: Escondido Ready. Mix Mix Designation: 866P Admixture(s): Time In Mixer (Minutes):• 70 Slump, Inches 3-3/4 CC Temp: 740 Truck Number: 553 .. Ticket Number: 246391 Air.Temp: 0 Samples Fabricated By: GL Samples Tested By: GG . . Air Content: Laboratory Number: Mark: 8697 . 8698 8699 Date Made: 03-01799 Date Received Date Tested 03-08-99 03-29-99 03-29-99 Diameter, Inches 6.00 Area, Square Inches 28.27 Maximum Load, Pounds 50,000 72,000 72,250 Compressive Strength, psi : 1,770 . 2,550 - 2,560 Age Tested, Days 7 -- 28 . 28 - Required 28 Day Strength, pal 2,500. ., . Fracture Type Specimen compressive strength testing were performed by this agency in accordance with the ASTM C39-96 standard. This agency makes no other warranties express or implied. Legend: Fracture Type - Cone =C; Cone and Split =CS; Cone and Shear =CSH; Shear = S; Columnar = CL Distribution: - (2) Mullen Construction (1) City of Carlsbad (1) Superior Ready Mix 03-01.doc 3/29/99 Reviewed By: George Gavit, RCE #56564 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING 41 , INC. () 16280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160(619)2804321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA., 120259 (619) 7464544 p. •. - COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ThST REPORT' FILE NUMBER " 9811284 : DATE Apr. 2, 1999 0 CONCRETE (ASTM C39) PROJECT TITLE Ocean Street Condos 0 MORTAR (UBC 24.22) PROJECT LOCATION * 2653 Ocean Street D GROUT IASTM CI 019) ARCHITECT Cindy BT air.' r 0 PRISMS (ASTM E447) ENGINEER • Horowitz Taylor 'PERMIT No 982244 o CONTRACTOR Muullen Construction ,,- PLAN FILE, No. C V V V• -' .- . * LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Firt lift, basement! - MATERIAL SUPPLIER. Superior Ready Mix p. ADMIXTURE(S)4 - - V- - . - . - - * V - - V• - MIX DESIGNATION 8665 P - - - TIME IN MIXER MINUTES 171 - SLUMP INCHES 4 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY KSE SAMPLES TESTED BY 'GG - - . . . .'TRUCK No. 383 . - TiCKEr No. 12257 LABORATORY NO 9007 : 9008 9009 I' DATE MADE 03-0449 .71 DATE RECEIVED L. 03-08-99 DATE TESTED 04-01-99 , 04-01-99 04-01-99 DIAMETER INCHES I p. AREA SQUARE INCHES - 101.50 . 10150 .101.50 -- MAXIMUM LOAD ,.Los :3d6,250'.288,750 296,500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH PSI 3,020 2,840 2,920 AGE TESTED DAYS - - 28 28 28 - REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH PSI I MO , V UNIT WTJCU. FT. (PLASTIC) S V __________ _________ __________- - V -. j*•.V V . . 4. .. ., .. - DISTRIBUTION . .4 V. - . ;. •" - -: V (2) MullenCohstruètioti (1)-City ôfCarlsbad : •,..SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: -V.. SOIL.. A . TES G, IN( REVIEWED BY George A Gavit, R.C.E. #56564 I. 4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL ,& TESTING, INC. T (6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P 0 BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 -. 747 ENTERpIusEsrREET,EscoNDmo, CA. 92025, (619) 746-4544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER - 9811284; DATit Apr., 2, 1999 0 CONCRETE (ASTMC39) PROJECT TITLE Ocean Street Condos 0. MORTAR (UBC 24-221 PROJECT LOCATION 2653 Ocean Street 0 GROUT (ASTM CI 019) ARCHITECT CindY Blai 1. r D PRISMS (ASTME447) - . PERMIT No 98-2244 ENGINEER Horowitz Taylor o CONTRACTOR t Muullen Construction PLAN FILE No LOCATION INSTRUCTURE First lift, basement MATERIAL SUPPLIER Superior Ready Ph x ADMIXTURE(S) - MIX DESIGNATION 8665P* TIME IN MIXER MINUTES 171 SLUMP. INCHES SAMPLES FABRICATED BY KSE - SAMPLES TESTED BY GG . TRUCK No. 383 .- TICKET No. 122757 LABORATORY No MARK 9004 9005 9006 DATE MADE 030499 -: DATE RECEIVED 03-08-99 DATE TESTED 04-01-99 04-01-99 04-01-99 DIAMETER. INCHES. - AREA SQUARE INCHES 67.05 67 05 67.W MAXIMUM LOAD LBS 190,250 196,250 215,750 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH PSI 2,840 2,930 3,220 AGE TESTED DAYS 28 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH PSI 1 ,500 UNIT WT.!CU. FT. (PLASTIC) 1. DISTRIBUTION (2) Mullen Construction (1) City of Carlsbad',SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. - REVIEWED BY:, George A Gavit, R C E #56564 - -- -, ••t . .. - .. - - .... - gua eze4e*e4 ID '3 O E ,q ,U S" LDREPORT FILE NO. 746-4544 IjA J / • DATE (S JOB NAME let r x,,,44' (Q'/O. REPORT NO. PROJECT ENGINEER 1 FIELD TECHNICIAN. CONTRACTOR --FOREMAN- , EQUIPMENT WORKING '''' 6eoic4,,J j11/€54a6csZ. /*1c dJJ TYPE OFCOMPACTOR • -• - •, F- - -DATE • • R E M A OR •K w $ • -. -:6 ,. ô I,: eri1cJu. iiLrtrre.5 .aerJ I1i ?/g hv j,'t 7Ty/ne ,ç/teEP , ct ,ei--5*' ej_,( Sill Id/ / ' —_/r) -6 czJJ. , P1 7/fc&ce /Jei/e,s, 1 ____ : ( •4.€jim4I( c4/. L€)/Af/i ie-eJ- _____ — /d ,tcefrj- gi-( tzc € ,, c-(ic e/ A cj 4ee /foe,J C4o'r-7 ôed! j5 ____ ,4cec 5-f (- 4i-. ,4tr ((,i,,/ . he c&,( 3tIdr5 le t-/c' 4 /'' , /ç Jr .1,4•••• L HOURS CHARGED _) •• T 10 ": • •• . ri - A it VV - _DAILY—WORKREPORT . . . JOB NAME Vol' e.s JOB NO. DATE .- wP.. sho TECH. LOCATION V : E4r/2a/; CLIENT . / V //&rp (rictbS'e'i HOURS 1 WEATHER . . EQUIPMENT V .. M- NO. TEST. LOCATiON . ELEVATION . OR DEPTH. DRY. DENSITY PERCENT MOISTURE MAXIMUM DENSITY RELATIVE. .COMCTION ______ _____ 'i2o.c V :57 -t . (..O . _V _______ - - V • t_••_j COMMENTS T)v aiAp., €'l,p, /e.' 30 44't I 1 ,4 /J 70 74 seg j. ,6 wdt41 7J mvtx 0,7 £ cli i4.d ,, 't,Aé 1 kC- c __rc',rA')4hi_W)D•.)4;i.V . ce1 I 1e1 24/-% V.;.- •• _ V -.• V V •V • V • sç Sea amd ?m&44. lac 280-4321 - .-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160-0627, Phone (619) 2804321, FAX (619) 280-4717 FIELD INSPECTION REPORT FOR: 0 REINFORCED CONCRETE REINFORCED MASONRY OWELDING D FIREPROOFING 0 P.1. CONSRETE 0 EPDXY ANCHORS OH. S. BOLTING 0 PROJECT TITLEf)a,, /f SCS&T FILE No. 9 e6'? S'V PROJECT LOCATION PERMIT No. 2 97' PLAN FILE No. ARCHITECT - t - ENGINEER GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUB CONTRACTOR MATERIAL CLASSIFICATION DATE DESCRIPTION OF WORK INSPECTED J ..,ñ - A i'cf/A - /r • I hereby certify that I have inspected the above reported the best of my knowledge in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the work. Unless noted otherwise, the work inspected Is to governing building laws. - INSPECTORS SIGNATURE REGISTRATION No. SUPERINTENDANTS SIGNATURE 5;7.•7 jpS3 4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. T 6280 RNERDALE STREET, P. 0. Box 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA 92160 (619) 280-4321 Grout Compressive Strength Test Report File Number: 9811284 Project Title: Ocean Street Condos Project Location: 2653 Ocean Street Architect: Cindy Blair Permit No: 98-2244 Engineer: Horowitz/Taylor Plan File No: Contractor: Mullen Construction Location In Structure: 2nd lift - basement level -- Material Supplier: Superior Ready Mix Mix Designation: 86625P Admixture(s): Time In Mixer (Minutes): 75 Slump, Inches: 8 - 9 CC Temp: Truck Number: 386 Ticket Number: 247102 Air Temp: Samples Fabricated By: CJH Samples Tested By: GG Air Content: Laboratory Number: 9283 Mark: 9284 9285 Date Made: 03-18-99 Date Received 03-19-99 Date Tested 03-25-99 04-15-99 04-15-99 Nominal Size, Inches Area Square Inches 9.3 9.24 9.12 Maximum Load, Pounds 21,250 36,250 36,000 Compressive Strength, psi 2,280 3,920 3,950 Age Tested, Days 7 28 28 Required 28 Day Strength, psi 2,000 Specimen sampling, transportation and compressive strength testing were performed by this agency in accordance with, the applicable ASTM standards. This agency makes no other warranties express or implied. Distribution: 2) Mullen Construction (1) City of Carlsbad (1) Superior Ready Mix Reviewed By: George Gavit, RCE #56564 03-18g.doc 4/16/99 5 —1 S-9 - e SOUTHERN CALiFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. T 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2804321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, EScONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7464544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9811284 DATE: Apr. 16, 1999 0 CONCRETE (ASTM C39) PROJECT TITLE Ocean Street Condos D MORTAR (UBC 24-221 PROJECT LOCATION 2653 Ocean Street 0 GROUT (ASTM C1019) ARCHITECT Cindy Blair • PRISMS (ASTM E447) ENGINEER Horowitz/Taylor . PERMIT NO. 982244 o CONTRACTOR Mullen Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Second lift - basement 8" CMU Prisms MATERIAL SUPPLIER Superior Ready Mix ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES 75 SLUMP, INCHES 8 - 9 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY CJH SAMPLES TESTED BY GG TRUCK No. 386 TICKET No. .247102 LABORATORY No. 9286 .• 9287 9288 MARK . . . DATE MADE 03-18-99 DATE RECEIVED 03-19-99 DATE TESTED 04-15-99 04-15-99 04-15-99 DIAMETER. INCHES AREA. SQUARE INCHES 58.98 58.98 58.98 MAXIMUM LOAD..LBS 110,000 106,750 108,500 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH. PSI 1,870 1,810 1,840 AGE TESTED. DAYS 28 28 28 REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH. PSI 1,500 UNIT WT.ICU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (2) Mullen Construction (1) City of. Carlsbad (1) Superior Ready Mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTG, INC. REVIEWED BY: _ki-1 George A. Gavit, R.C.E. #56564 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 RIVERDALE STREET, P.O. BOX 600627, SAN DIEGO, CA. 92160 (619) 2804321 747 ENTERPRISE STREET, ESCONDIDO, CA. 92025, (619) 7464544 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT FILE NUMBER 9811284 DATE: Apr. 16, 1999 0 CONCRETE (ASTM C39) PROJECT TITLE Ocean Street Condos . 0 MORTAR (UBC 24-221 PROJECT LOCATION 2653 Ocean Street . 0 GROUT (ASTM Cl 019) ARCHITECT Cindy Blair . M PRISMS (ASTM E447) ENGINEER Horowitz/Taylor PERMIT No. 98-2244. D CONTRACTOR Mullen Construction PLAN FILE No. LOCATION IN STRUCTURE Second lift - basement 12". CM.0 Prisms MATERIAL SUPPLIER Superior Ready Mix ADMIXTURE(S) MIX DESIGNATION TIME IN MIXER. MINUTES 75 SLUMP. INCHES 8 - 9 SAMPLES FABRICATED BY CJH SAMPLES TESTED BY GG TRUCK No. 386 TICKET No. 247102 LABORATORY No. 9289 9290 9291 MARK DATE MADE 03-18-99 DATE RECEIVED 03-19-99 DATE TESTED 04-15-99 04-15-99 04-15-99 DIAMETER. INCHES AREA, SQUARE INCHES 89.2 89.2 89.2 MA.XIMUMLOAD..LBS 228,750 243,500 260,250 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI 2 31560 2 9730 2,920 AGE TESTED. DAYS 28 28 28. REQUIRED 28 DAY STRENGTH, PSI 19 500 UNIT WTJCU. FT. (PLASTIC) DISTRIBUTION (2) Mullen Construction (1) City of Carlsbad (1) Superior Ready Mix SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTJNG INC. REVIEWED BY: George A. Gavit, R.C.E. #56564 EsGil Corporation In Partnership with Government for Building Safety. DATE: September 21, 1998 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 98-2244 SET: III PROJECT ADDRESS: 2653 & 2655 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: Duplex for Cindy Blair ANT JURIS. VIEWER U FILE LI The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. III The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. F-1 The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. I The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Cindy Blair Telephone #: Date contacted: 9/21/98 (by: Abe) Fax #: Mad Telephone Fax In Person XX REMARKS: -4 Seawatl tpart Cff-UTt57PT01L-et---2~— Prepare-an4R&peGt4en pFeg1am..which shaThe submitted to thA htildingoffiiaI4or approval pFIGc. —to-is&iance otttie-building permit 3. Applicant to carry plans to the city. Ok'd by Mike Peterson. By: Abe Doliente Enclosures: Esgil Corporation 0 G I-] MB DEJ 0 Pc 9/21/98 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (619) 560-1468 • Fax (619) 560-1576 IN X EsGil Corporation InTartnership with government for Building Safety DATE: September 8, 1998 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO..-. 98-2244 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2653 & 2655 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: Duplex for Cindy Blair SET: II 13,AR12L,ICANT JURI U PLAN REVIEWER U FILE El The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. LI 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. Eli The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. R The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. El The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Cindy Blair 655 India, San Diego, CA 92101 U 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 D REMARKS: By: Abe Doliente Enclosures: Esgil Corporation 0 GA 0 CM 0 EJ 0 Pc 9/1/98 trnsmtLdot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (619) 560-1468 • Fax (619) 560-1576 Carlsbad 98-2244 II September 8, 1998 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 98-2244 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2653 & 2655 Ocean St. SET: II DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY DATE RECHECK COMPLETED: ESGIL CORPORATION: 9/1/98 September 8, 1998 REVIEWED BY: Abe Doliente FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing 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 conformance 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 revised plans. 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. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these items. 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 on the plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this list? DYes ONo Carlsbad 98-2244 II September 8, 1998 2. Plans, specifications and calculations shall be signed and sealed by the California state licensed engineer or architect responsible for their preparation, for plans deviating from conventional wood frame construction. Specify expiration date of license. (California Business and Professions Code). Check final sets of plans and calculations for signatures. 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. Show locations of permanently wired smoke detectors with battery backup: Inside each bedroom. Centrally located in corridor or area giving access to sleeping rooms. On each story. In the basement, if part of the dwelling unit. When sleeping rooms are upstairs, at the upper level in close proximity to the stair. 16. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction documents. 30. The regulations require a properly completed and properly signed Form CF-lR to be either imprinted on the plans, taped to the plans or "sticky backed" on the plans, to allow the building inspector to readily compare the actual construction with the requirements of the approved energy design. Building Designer must sign the imprinted CF-1R form. . MISCELLANEOUS 40. Complete and recheck all the call-outs and cross references to the details and cross sections. See sheets A2, A3 and A4. References are made to DI/A8 and D2/A8. 42. Revise the structural calculations for the seawall retaining walls. Use the active pressure as 38 PCF as called out on page 21 of the soils report. See the requirements for restrained walls also. Or provide revised soils report to show the values shown in the revised structural calculations. Carlsbad 98-2244 II September 8, 1998 43. Wood stud walls and bearing partitions shall not support more than two floors and a roof unless an analysis shows that shrinkage of the wood framing will not have adverse effects on the structure or any plumbing, electrical or mechanical systems, or other equipment installed therein due to excessive shrinkage or differential movements caused by shrinkage. The analysis shall also show that the roof drainage system and the foregoing systems or equipment will not be adversely affected or, as an alternate, such systems shall be designed to accommodate the differential shrinkage or movements. Section 2318. Refer-to the sections and the framing plans. 49. Structural calculations included cantilevered retaining walls and is shown on detail 5 on sheet SDI, but this detail is not referenced on the foundation. Please clarify where this retaining wall is located. I cannot seem to find where this wall is located. 53. Revise index sheet to include all the drawings submitted. 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 Abe Doliente at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. ) EsGil Corporation In Partnership with government for Bui(Iing Safety DATE: August 3, 1998 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 98-2244 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2653 & 2655 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: Duplex for Cindy Blair SET:I 13 APPLICANT J.URIS N REVIEWER I FILE 0 The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. El The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of thecheck list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. I The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Cindy Blair 655 India, San Diego, CA 92101 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. LI 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 I REMARKS: PLEASE SEE REVISED VALUATION. By: Abe Dollente Enclosures: Esgil Corporation 0 GA 0 CM 0 EJ 0 PC 7/16/98 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (619) 560-1468 • Fax (619) 560-1576 Carlsbad 98-2244 August 3, 1998 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES PLAN CHECK NO.: 98-2244 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 2653 & 2655 Ocean St. FLOOR AREA: 7,186 SF STORIES: 4 HEIGHT: REMARKS: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED: August 3, 1998 FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 7/16/98 PLAN REVIEWER: Abe Doliente This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinance by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or other departments. Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Present California law mandates that residential construction comply with Title 24 and the following model codes: 1994 UBC (effective 12/28/95), 1994 UPC (effective 12/28/95), 1994 UMC (effective 2/23/96) and 1993 NEC (effective 12/28/95). The above regulations apply to residential construction, regardless of the code editions adopted by ordinance. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1994 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list (or a àopv) where each correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet number, specification section, etc. Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans. LIST NO. 1, GENERAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES WITHOUT SUPPLEMENTS (1994 UBC) r31orw.dot Carlsbad 98-2244 August 3, 1998 1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit 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. Plans, specifications and calculations shall be signed and sealed by the California state licensed engineer or architect responsible for their preparation, for plans deviating from conventional wood frame construction. Specify expiration date of license. (California Business and Professions Code). 3. Provide a statement on the Title Sheet of the plans that this project shall comply with Title 24 and the 1994 UBC, UMC and UPC and the 1993 NEC. 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 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 REQUIRED? REMARKS SOILS COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION X PRESTRESSED STEEL. X FIELD WELDING X STRUCTURAL MASONRY X 5. 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 98-2244 August 3, 1998 6. Show locations of permanently wired smoke detectors with battery backup: Inside each bedroom. Centrally located in corridor or area giving access to sleeping rooms. C) On each story. In the basement, if part of the dwelling unit. When sleeping rooms are upstairs, at the upper level in close proximity to the stair. In rooms adjacent to hallways serving bedrooms, when such rooms have a ceiling height 24 inches or more above the ceiling height in the hallway. NOTE: Detectors shall sound an alarm audible in all sleeping areas of the unit. Section 31 0.9.1. 7. Glazing in the following locations should be of safety glazing material in accordance with Section 2406.4 (see exceptions): Fixed and sliding panels of sliding door assemblies and panels in swinging doors other than wardrobe doors. Doors and enclosures for bathtubs and showers and in any portion of a building wall enclosing these compartments where the bottom, exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches above a standing surface and drain inlet. Fixed or operable panels adjacent to a door where the nearest exposed edge of the glazing is within a 24-inch arc of either vertical edge of the door in a closed position and where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches above the walking surface. 8. Walls and floors separating units in a duplex shall be of one-hour fire resistive construction. Provide details of the assemblies. Section 310.2.2. 9. Provide a note on the plans stating: "Penetrations of fire-resistive walls, floor-- ceilings and roof-ceilings shall be protected as required in UBC Sections 709 and 710." 10. A mezzanine is an intermediate floor and may not have a floor area exceeding 33 1/3 percent of the total floor area in the room below. The mezzanine floor must have a clear height of 7 feet, above and below, and must have the long side open to the room below except for posts and protective walls or railings not exceeding 44" in height. Section 507. 11. The loft you show does not comply as a mezzanine floor and is, by Uniform Building Code definition, a story. Section 507. Carlsbad 98-2244 August 3, 1998 12. Floors above the second story shall have not less than 2 exits. Exceptions: 1. Occupied roofs may have one exit if such occupied areas are less than 500 square feet and located no higher than immediately above the second story. 2. When the third floor within a unit does not exceed 500 sq. ft., only one exit need be provided. Section 1003.1. 13. Specify on the plans the following information for the roof materials, per Section 106.3.3: (for the tile roof). Manufacturer's name. Product name/number. ICBO approval number, or equal. 14. Provide skylight details to show compliance with Sections 2409 and 2603., or specify on the plans the following information for the skylight(s), per Section 106.3.3: Manufacturer's name. Model name/number. ICBO approval number, or equal. 15. Show a self-closing door, either 1-3/8" solid core or a listed 20 minute assembly, for openings between garage and dwelling. Section 302.4. 16. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction documents. 17. Show source of combustion air to-furnace, per Chapter 7, UMC. 18. Specify on the plans the following information for the fireplace(s), per Section 106.3.3: Manufacturer's name. Model name/number. ICBO approval number, or equal. Show height of chimney above roof per I.C.B.O. approval or Table 31-B. 19. Note on the plans that approved spark arrestors shall be installed on all chimneys. UBC, Section 3102.3.8. 20. Note on plan: Gas vents and noncombustible piping in walls, passing through three floors or less, shall be effectively draft stopped at each floor or ceiling. UBC, Section 711.3. 21. Show on the plan the amperage of the electrical service, the location of the service panel and the location of any sub-panels. If service is over 200 amps, submit single line diagram, panel schedule and load calculations. Carlsbad 98-2244 August 3, 1998 Note on the plans that receptacle outlet locations will comply with 1993 NEC Art. 210-52(a): For a single-family dwelling unit (and for each unit of -a duplex), show that at least one receptacle outlet accessible at grade level will be installed outdoors at the front and back of the dwelling. NEC Art. 250-52 (e). This receptacle must be GFCI protected. Show T and P valve on water heater and show route of discharge line to exterior. UPC, Section 608.5. Show that water heater is adequately braced to resist seismic forces. Provide two -straps (one strap at top 1/3 of the tank and one strap at bottom. 1/3 of the tank). UPC, Section 510.0 Provide a note on the plans: In showers and tub-shower combinations, control valves must be pressure balanced or thermostatic mixing valves. UPC Section 410.7 Show details of duplex common (party) walls and floor/ceiling assemblies to achieve a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating in walls of 50 decibels and an Impact Insulation Class (IIC) rating on floor/ceiling of 50 decibels. Title 24. Show how penetrations of assemblies for piping, electrical devices, recessed cabinets, bathtubs, soffits, or heating ventilating, or exhaust ducts shall be sealed, lined, or insulated to maintain required sound transmission rating. Title 24. Provide insulation in walls and ceiling to achieve STC of 50 between garage and living area if garage use is not controlled by resident. Title 24. The regulations require a properly completed and properly signed Form CF-lR to be either imprinted on the plans, taped to the plans or "sticky backed" on the plans, to allow the building inspector to readily compare the actual construction with the requirements of the approved energy design. Building Designer must sign the imprinted CF-1 R form. Provide fluorescent general lighting (40 lumens per watt minimum) in kitchen(s) and bathrooms. .• CARLSBAD S.F.D. & DUPLEX SUPPLEMENT For gas piping under slabs that serve kitchen island cooktops, see the attached Policy 91-46 for special sleeve and clean-out requirements. Carlsbad 98-2244 August 3, 1998 New residential units must be pre-plumbed for future solar water heating. Note that two roof jacks must be installed where the water heater is in the one story garage and directly below the most south facing roof (City Ordinance No. 8093). Note that two 3/4" copper pipes must be installed to the most convenient future solar panel location when the water heater is not in a one story garage and is not directly below the most south facing roof. (City Ordinance No. 8093). All piping for present or future solar water heating must be insulated when in areas that are not heated or cooled by mechanical means (city policy). Incorporate the waterproofing details, on the attached Policy 80-8, where interior living space occurs below grade at the masonry wall(s). Show on the Title Sheet on the plans, the information required by the attached Developmental Services Sheet 4797. Overflow roof drains shall terminate in an area where they will be readily visible and will not cause damage to the building. If the roof drain terminates through a wall, the overflow drain shall terminate 12" minimum above the roof drain. Policy 84-35. MISCELLANEOUS It appears that this building is a 4 story structure. See definitions of story, Section 220 and mezzanine, Section 507. For R-3, the maximum story for type V building is three stories. Revise plans to comply. Complete and recheck all the call-outs and cross references to the details and cross sections. Show all the inked changes on the original plans. Revise the structural calculations for the seawall retaining walls. Use the active pressure as 38 PCF as called out on page 21 of the soils report. See the requirements for restrained walls also. Wood stud walls and bearing partitions shall not support more than two floors and a roof unless an analysis shows that shrinkage of the wood framing will not have adverse effects on the structure or any plumbing, electrical or-mechanical systems, or other equipment installed therein due to excessive shrinkage or differential movements caused by shrinkage. The analysis shall also show that the roof drainage system and the foregoing systems or equipment will not be adversely affected or, as an alternate, such systems shall be designed to accommodate the differential shrinkage or movements. Section 2318. Carlsbad 98-2244 August 3, 1998 Show deck joists (2 X 12 @ 12" 0. C.) as called out on sheet V3 of the structural calculations. Show beams B24 (TSI 0 X 4 X 5/16), B40 (7 X 11-7/8" PSL), B42 (4X 10) as called out on sheets V8, VI 3 and V14 of the structural calculations. Recheck the hold down requirements. The derivation of the resisting moment is very hard to follow. Ordinary moment frames shall be designed for a lateral force of 3R/8 times the prescribed seismic load. Include the surcharge from the garage for the design of the retaining walls for the garage. Structural calculations included cantilevered retaining walls and is shown on detail 5 on sheet SDI, but this detail is not referenced on the foundation. Please clarify where this retaining wall is located. 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: 52. 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 Abe Doliente at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. CITY OF CARLSBAD POLICIES AND PROEDURES NUMBER: 91-46 SUBJECT: Gas Piping - Island Kitchen Cooktop EFFECTIVE: 5/24/91 SECTION: BUILDING DEPARTMENT' SUPERSEDES: PURPOSE: To establish an approved method for gas piping to an island cooktop. POLICY: The drawing shown below is approved for this use. NOTES: 1. ALL SLEEVES TO BE SCH. 40 ABS GAS PIPING BELOW SLAB TO BE FACTORY WRAPPED EXCEPT FITTINGS MAY BE PRIMED AND FIELD WRAPPED ALL UNDERGROUND PIPING TO BE INSTALLED AT THE TIME O.F UNDERGROUND PIPING INSPECTION GAS PIPING APPROVED SEALANT SCREENED—N. VENT OPENING 2" SAN. TEE 311 ABS 2" ABS RISER RISER. I 6" MIN - d--- - :' : A •: - • • i.-. 3"X211 " X2" SAN. -' - 3" ABS SLOPE UP TO XTERIOR 311CLEAN OUT CA ,' Initiated By: Approved By: . //W CITY OF CARLSBAD POLICIES AND-PROCEDURES NUMBER: 80-8 SUBJECT: WATERPROOFING BELOW GRADE EFFECTIVE: 9/23/80 SECTION: BUILDING DEPARTMENT • SUPERSEDES: I PURPOSE: TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM POLICY FOR WATERPROOFING BELOW GRADE MASONRY WALLS. POLICY: The Building Department requires approval in advance of any method of waterproofing below grade masonry walls except the one shown below. THE FOLLOWING METHODS ARE APPROVED. Three layers hot niop and felt. Johns-Manville mecibrane waterproofing system. U.S.C. "Supertite" system Thoroseal Fflntkote "Yellow Jacket". MOISTURE BARRIER ' GRADE 1/2" GRAVEL (MIN.) 4" DRAIN PIPE (PERFORATED OR OPEN JOINT).— INTERIOR FINISHED FLOOR---\ -S. -,-\ DRAIN PIPE SHALL SLOPE TO FINISHED GRADE AT 118" PER FOOT MIN. initiated By: • Approved By: City of Carlsbad THE INFORMATION LISTED BELOW MUST BE SHOWN ON THE TITLE SHEET OF THE PLANS . SITE ADDRESS . LEGAL DESCRIPTION ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER PROPERTY OWNER . DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF WORK QUANTITY OF GRADING IN CUBIC YARDS CONTACT PERSON - NAME AND DAYTIME PHONE NUMBER BELOW, PLEASE CIRCLE ANY PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON THIS PROPERTY: VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TRACT OR PARCEL MAP PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN PLAN CHECK NUMBER 2075 Las Palmas Dr.. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 4797 Carlsbad 98-2244 August 3, 1998 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO;: 98-2244 PREPARED BY: Abe Doliente DATE: August 3, 1998 BUILDING ADDRESS: 2653 & 2655 Ocean St. BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R-3/U-1 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-1HR [BUILDING PORTION L BUILDING AREA (ft.2) VALUATION MULTIPLIER VALUE ($) Duplex 7,186 SF 82.00 589,252 Garage 858 SF 22.00 18,876 Decks 1,504 SF 12.00 18,048 Air Conditioning 7,186 SF 3.00 21,558 Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE 647,734 F1 199 UBC Building Permit Fee • Bldg. Permit Feeby ordinance: $ 2,461.38 D 199 UBC Plan Check Fee • Plan Check Fee by ordinance: $ 1,599.90 Type of Review: • Complete Review LI Structural Only LI Hourly LI Repetitive Fee Applicable LI Other: Esgil Plan Review Fee: $ 1,279.92 Comments: Sheet I of I macvalue.doc 5196 4 City of Carlsbad BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST DATE: ___ ,s3 PLANCHECK NO.: CB Z244 BUILDING ADDRESS: 2& S QcecLr Sid- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: J ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 23 •- 140- 1I q- 2.. EST. VALUE: _ 15 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. A Right-of-Way permit is required prior to construction of the following improvements: DENIAL Please bthe attached report of deficiencies markedgake necessary corrections to plans or sp4i for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. B)/CiL rate: By: (a~(,L "ate: By: Date: FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ENGINEERING AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMIT: By: /ç 7''2tit/ Date: ATTACHMENTS Dedication Application Dedication Checklist' Improvement Application Improvement Checklist Future Improvement Agreement Grading Permit Application Grading Submittal Checklist Right-of-Way Permit Application Right-of-Way Permit Submittal Checklist and Information Sheet Sewer Fee Information Sheet ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON Name: Danna Trigs City of Carlsbad Address: 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 Phone: (619) 438-1161, ext. 4374 CFD INFORMATION Parcel Map No: Lots: Recordation: Carlsbad Tract: A-4 CA 92009-1576. (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) TWT569 LII BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST SITE PLAN Provide a fully dimensioned site plan dryQjo/scale. Show: ej1th.Arrow Property Lines B7xisting & Proposed Structures ' Easements C. Existing Street Improvements '. ight-of-Way Width & Adjacent Streets -'briveway widths Show on site plan: A. Drainage Patterns Pc- T j Building pad surface drainage muthmaintain a minimum slope of one percent towards an adjoining street or an approved drainage course. ADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE: "Finish grade will provide a minimum positive drainage of 2% to swale 5' away from building." B. Existing & Proposed Slopes and Topography U 3. Include on title sheet: i&fe address BJcsssor's Parcel Number ( Legal Description For commercial/industrial buildings and tenant improvement projects, include: total building square footage with the square footage for each different use, existing sewer permits showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, warehouse, office, etc.) previously approved. EXISTING PERMIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION ISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE 4a. Project does not comply with the following Engine Project No. VA S 9 7 — I wl u T Conditions of approval for U U U 4b. All conditions are in compliance. Date: H:WORODOCStCHKLSlr3uitthng plantheck Cklst OP0001 Form OT.doc 2 Rev. 12120108 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST I SW 2ND/ 3RD/ 0 0 DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS 5. Dedication for all street Rights-of-Way adjacent to the building site and any storm drain or utility easements on the building site is required for all new buildings and for remodels with a value at or exceeding $______________ pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.030. Dedication required as follows: Dedication required. Please have a registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor prepare the appropriate legal description together with an 8 V2" x 11" plat map and submit with a title report. All easement documents must be approved and signed by owner(s) prior to issuance of Building Permit. Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the dedication process. Submit the completed application form with the required checklist items and fees to the Engineering Department in person. Applications will not be accept by mail or fax. Dedication completed by: Date: IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS U 6a. All needed public improvements upon and adjacent to the building site must be constructed at time of building construction whenever the value of the construction exceeds $________________ pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.040. Public improvements required as follows: 1€/ jJ - Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the public improvement requirements. A registered Civil Engineer must prepare the appropriate improvement plans and submit them together with the requirements on the attached checklist to the Engineering Department through a separate plan check process. The completed application form and the requirements on the checklist must be submitted in person. Applications by mail or fax are not accepted. Improvement plans must be approved, appropriate securities posted and fees paid prior to issuance of building permit. Improvement Plans signed by: L1'01 1 Date: U U U 6b. Construction of the public improvements may be deferred pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40. Please submit a recent property title report or current grant deed on the property and processing fee of $____ we may prepare the necessary Future Improvement Agreement This agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the City prior to issuance of a Building permit. Future public improvements required as follows: H:WORO%DOCSCHKLSflBuiIdlng Plancheck ClInt BP000I Pomi DT.doc 3 Rev. 12126196 0 0 U 0 0 I ' i. st/ 2nd/ 3' 0 0 0 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 6c. Enclosed please find your Future Improvement Agreement. Please return agreement signed and notarized to the Engineering Department. Future Improvement Agreement completed by: Date: 0 0 0 6d. No Public Improvements required. SPECIAL NOTE: Damaged or defective improvements found adiacent to building site must be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Inspector prior to occupancy. GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The conditions that invoke the need for a grading permit are found in Section 11.06.030 of the Municipal Code. 0 0 0 7a. Inadequate information available on Site Plan to make a determination on grading requirements. Include accurate grading quantities (cut, fill import, export). Write "No Grading" on plot plan if none is required. 0 7b. Grading Permit required. A separate grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer must be submitted together with the completed application form 370.....4A attached. NOTE: The Grading Permit must be issued and rough grading approval obtained prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Grading Inspector sign off by: Date: 7c. Graded Pad Certification required. (Note: Pad certification may be required even if a grading permit is not required.) 7d.No Grading Permit required. 7e.If grading is not required, write "No Grading" on plot plan. MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 0 0 U 8. ARIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way. Types of work include, but are not limited to: street improvements, tree trimming, driveway construction, tieing into public storm drain, sewer and water utilities. Right-of-Way permit required for: H.WORDDOCStCHKLSflBujIding Plancheck Clilat 13P0001 Form DT.doc 4 Rev. 12128196 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 9. A SEWER PERMIT is required concurrent with the building permit issuance. The fee is noted in the fees section on the following page. LII Li] U 10. INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMIT If your facility is located in the City of Carlsbad sewer service area, you need to contact the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, located at 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008. District personnel can provide forms and assistance, and will check to see if your business enterprise is on the EWA Exempt List. You may telephone (760) 438-2722, extension 153, for assistance. Industrial Waste permit accepted by: Date: LII 11. NPDES PERMIT 0—"--Zu U 12 11~ a/ Complies with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. fees are attached U No fees required 0(t 5t)frJ !t C4( H:WOROOOCSCHKLSflBuiIding Plancheck Chist 13P0001 Form DT.doc 5 Rev. 12128190 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET O Estimate based on unconfirmed information from applicant. O Calculation based on building plancheck plan submittal. Address: --2— Ca 03 Z. QCY\ 94131dg. Permit No. ____S 212A c- Prepared byC) Tr Date: /c?&/fchecked by: Date: EDU CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Types of Use: (.Or (4 Sq. Ft./Urns) EDU's: Types of Use: Sq. Ft/Units: EDU's: ADTCALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Types of Use: C-ceNcko Sq. Ft./t$j?Z.. ADT's: Types of Use: Sq. Ft./Units: ADT's: FEES REQUIRED: WITHIN CFD: 0 YES (nQ bridge & thoroughfare fee in District #1, reduced Traffic Impact Fee) KNO 2/111* -IN-UEU FEE PARK AREA & #: U 4 NW FEE/UNIT:L 4 ('3 X NO. UNITS: '2- 2 24 BTRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ADT's/$? X FEE/ADT: (..O1c = $1 344 OF 13. BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE FEE (01ST. #1 DIST. #2 DIST. #3 ADT's/UNITS: X FEE/ADT:_________ FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE ZONE:_________ / UNITISQ.FT.: X FEE/SQ.FT./UNIT:________ SEWER FEE. PERMIT No. .5 91pO EDU's: X FEE/EDU: _I 14 = $ 3 1191 , BENEFIT AREA: DRAINAGE BASIN:______ EDU's: . X FEE/EDU: = $_______________ SEWER LATERAL ($2,500) O 7. DRAINAGE FEES PLDA_A_: HIGH /LOW______ ACRES: ._I_Q X FEE/AC:cQSq 4 I'( TOTAL OF ABOVE FEES*: $ 0334 *NOTE: This calculation sheet is NOT a complete list of all fees which maybe due. Dedications and Improvements may also be required with Building Permits. P:DOCSMISFORMstFEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET REV 7/13/98 August 20,1998 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmar Dr. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Attn: Elaine Blackburn: Should you have any questions, Firm, or Dr. Jack D. Phillips Sincerely, allip4S5 éD.Phi cc. Cindy Blair Engineers, Inc. regarding 1 at 2653-2655 Ocean St please contact the En i (760) 720-0017. Enclose please find letter from T.V. the conceptual layout of the seawall and their concerns. STRUCTURAL • GEOTECHNICAL • ARCHITECTURAL Buildings - Commercial, Industrial, Residential • Bridges e. iaei Damage Investigation • Expert Witness • Foundations I Piers and Docks I M Engineers, Inc. Post-Tensioned Structures • Shoring • Water & Air Pollution Control Structures August 10, 1998 Dr. Jack Philips 2645 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, CA 92008 Seawall at 2653-2655 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California Dear Dr. Philips: By your request, I have reviewed the conceptual layout of the seawall shown on the Site Plan I Project Data of your northern neighbor at 2653-2655 Ocean Street. The Site Plan / Project Data, revised on 3/27/98, was prepared by Cindy Blair, Architect. The site plan shows that your neighbor's planned seawall would form an 120 degree angle with respect to your seawall. The angular geometry of the seawall, can be conducive to undermining the foundation at the north corner of your seawall. The angular seawall can also alter the sand transport pattern causing local sand depletion or accumulation. Both undermining and sand transport problems should be studied by your neighbor's coastal engineer. Sincerely yours, I T'(4e> - - A , Tshien Ma, CE, SE Tel (714) 361-0618 Fax. (714) 361.0754 Tel: (619) 5354849 Fax: (619) 5354890 226 Avenida del Mar. San Clemente, CA 92672 4660 La Jolla Village Drivá, SuiteO0. San Diego, CA 92122 CITY OF CARLSBAD GRADING INSPECTION CHECKLIST FOR PARTIAL SITE RELEASE PROJECT INSPECTOR: ca' F F t EX DATE:/ - - PROJECTID I.c. q f'?- —GRADING PERMIT NO. ______ LOTS REQUESTED FOR RELEASE: c23e'i (' N/A = NOT APPLICABLE = COMPLETE 0 = Incomplete or unacceptable 1st 2nd. Site access to requested lots adequate and logically grouped Site erosion control measures adequate. 1/ 3. Overall site adequate for health, safety and welfare of public. V 4. Letter of request for partial release submitted V 5. 8W x 11" site plan (attachment) showing requested lots submitted. Compaction report from soils engineer. submitted. Engineer of work certification of work done and pad elevations. Geologic engineer's letter if unusual geologic or subsurface conditions exist. Project conditions of approval checked for conflicts Fire hydrants within 500 feet of building combustibles and all weather roads access to site. Partial release of grading for the above stated lots is approved for the purpose of building permit issuance. Issuance of building permits is still subject to all normal City requirements required pursuant to the building permit process. Partial release of the site is denied for the following reasons: rrojecz inspector ~& !06 Inspector (fr(p1/gc/ Date Date 9 H:\L1BRARYNG\WPDATA\INSPECTtFORMSWARTSITE.FRJv1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST ) 0 0 0 0 0 aim > )_ .0 .0 ('1 (•) It It 10112101 Plan Check No. CB Address 2435 7-. Planner 1 ls'ii q / Phone (619) 438-1161, extension '9q 7/ APN: Type of Project & Use:c -o,,j reThjet Project Density: 3.4 DU/AC Zoning: I- 3 General Plan:- Facilities Management Zone: . CFD (in/out) # __Date of participation: Remaining net dev acres:-6-- Circle One (For non-residential development: Type of land used created by this permit: Legend: Z Item Complete Item Incomplete - Needs your action Environmental Review Required: YES NO TYPE DATE OF COMPLETION: 5 L - Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Discretionary Action Required: YES NO TYPE 5p OF APPROVAL/RESO. NO. j 14. DATE PROJECT NO. 6i7f' 'T'-7 OTHER RELATED CASES: bF'i° -)/r" 12- /e17f'10-3gJv Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conaitions which require a'ctlon. Conditions-of Approval:. ( ( Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES NO____ CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES V- NO '9,'/91_ ) If California Coastal Commission Authority: Contact them at - 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego CA 92108-1725; (6 19) 521-8036 Determine status (Coastal or Exempt): C.. 1 '7- Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed? YES v- NO____ If NO, complete Coastal Permit Determination Form now. Coastal Permit Determination Log #: Follow-Up Actions: Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum Floor Plans). Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed. -S.- O E?1 El IncIusionary Housing Fee required: YES NO (Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21, 1993.) Data Entry Completed? YES NO (Enter CB #; UACT; NEXT1 2; Construct housing Y/N; Enter Fee Amount (See fee schedule for amou n t ) ; R e t u r n ) Site Plan: i1 0 1. Provide a fully dimensiónlite plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensional setbacks aiid existing topographical lines. 2. Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number. Zoning: Setbacks: Front: Required down Interior Side: Required 3' Shown 3 1 / o f Side: Required Shown .c' ,' Rear: Required ____4 10__ Shown _______ Accessory structure setbacks: Front: Required Interior Side: Required Street Side: Required Rear: Required Structure separation: Required Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Lot Coverage: Required ,O ,, Shown 37 4. Height: 3L'l' Required te.r ,,iz,- .vnShown 5. Parking: Spaces Required 2J Shown Lilgr- Guest Spaces Required I Shown / Additional Comments______________________________________________________ OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER f117If& _________ City of Carlsbad 98291 Fire Department • Bureau of Prevention Plan Review: Requirements Category: Building Plan Check Date of Report:Friday, August 21, 1998 Reviewed by: Contact Name Cindy Blair Address 655 India - City, State San Diego CA 92101 Planning No. Job Name Ocean Street Condos 2(53/ Job Address 2655 Ocean Ste. or Bldg. No. O Approved - 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 modifica- tions, 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 construct or install improvements. II Disapproved - Please see the attached report of deficiencies. Please make corrections to plans or specifications necessary to indicate compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. For Fire Department Use Only Review 1st 2nd 3rd Other Agency ID CFD Job# 98291 File#___________ 2560 Orion Way a Carlsbad, California 92008 0 (619) 931-2121 -m .1 OCEAN STREET CONDOMINIUMS STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS SEA WALL BY C.J. RANDLE, P.E. 5858 98 tl'N 4'30g A1A.L C.' 46 1 OQN#,T 10,4 p2qPcr rp,PcF V 4c 2q.7g 40 i.V 97630e • 12,409 vx1 46O5-6L - z? x 7L,, I24057JV,ot' U ' I2.14o5-- jq,i74z 7? AT b Fcc. d: iii f .30oop9t fr4S OG e 10 S 2 0030& <St4,,J As .. CO333'( I2c js .- [i7ciI- A (y) 'OOSSx It. c! ) (H cots A 'z-x 1' 1' 4 Pit Li? A lso ' 377S 4,5 41.I719O 7. L I If SOIL. 3^215Aii0 709 67 47Z'f WM-L S'$ io 2- I i rpso FouJt .I7txI5o ZjLSj 4* 10,000 I 0 sz..c 4 041 '' i ,,/'IIIII1I7 eco 7-(4 -2 12 ) / CM.L$ 8'49GA 14AAA- Si+r r owi', Co ti?. 44o' e 431 ,sfr31 IL - '&& ± 44e.. - 2.3t P5c'.i1&x) Vo i. ,8s 'Z ax o I3, l45 > 0, £ #V1 ,-1u f.7 )ZS2O 3I,5Z. 40 3 .00I As: 1,$!5jcloOI48X1ZKEO 14 Y 470'1 1i7%(tM/0+ £c f)(31f)1 /t/314c0.VL. 44, L 64 00 10-1 I As 1,;S L'ii.' p!L7tt çj$1 Co.Jc. V 1.7/J SO!bfL i (#1 3 Li- 1 00 P5? TL SoPST M O L j.?jtZ5VX jj,7 z- A V 7z7t' 1oosz&I . . . .. . I •. . FourJDMiOiJ - it AQM.. £Msv p a. Sjgxjb~j, F 6ZG# (o FiCT(O') F , gli 0114 P( Vu 9443 t% x j,gg 2 FOX 0t1'q' V tfccssGsi' ,300 Vf,£Q 2 1,l 2 4 6,o7o~4!,c%t O, F'.461 z 277 " 481 AS ,00r x lxIC? I,67a" o I Tj LIE BAcY. P IS (2Z79- + c 14 4,cc S7, & frrp,C 5bPcF L em sc'o j*lf.h(6SP PuLl,!7JI57g i' DYWIPAG -' IAS#-t A72.2. k G"012 1SOI, 7 SCrA.-W&U_Q..Lc1AID 7I3Cj Swr 4 o TR!CV. AtD. Foe. it P,tEJ TP-€JGTH 3 f 7. e If 7 •a I4 i&' Loi 14-13 1 Ds1." I010' D1(#!' P. -S 37l2. MU 1.7 % 371Z. l(/3 33 C5S 3oS loIts-_ OO(O9 #&elg I - ]$I I 77 c2I V t.7A'?l2. 3I0# --7 117;c Zqx I 'I m u 1.60-52 1 40 )çj' 164 100316 4 Lf E! A 5 :40033I2-oS0 r u ' 71- - k7g 71,33,001xl10' Sc W't4G .4M4-5— FouWcMtO' K' 4I C7 x 46b • I fl " WAL.L. 1(axi17. Igo Z60b Pt S' J 16Z.3 - LOlL q3"iisO ct i L Z.Z37c, L)' I I -P, - OW- 3'asitL IAIG I f 'a a + 2.2.. 37jC '4 i Soil. 7os IO$ ti Sol ± 1725 Ps 9 ___ H D L 8 1 shaped ftg pa pp emeIght waIiIdth footIn9vádthfo1fllngthickness x sail 29 500 16 1.17 10.5 2 5.835 WwaH Wsoul Wftg Ms waN Ms soil Ms ftg Sum Ms Sum We 2808 1420.8 3150 1642.88 95815.368 18537.5 113995.55 223i78.8 Va Mo FSOT u 3u e PIA rn/s 4098 28133 4.0441162 3.334323 11.502989 1.415877 2131.3143 1724,1443 soil press 1 - 70 (t7* R.e;r. i cuoc 3S' fl 37..7g 3855.4536 5, SLIDPJ 7&A3 147 NoIslie.k'f SMr6 0 W t4 WU. oArO CorJt. H D I. B L shaped ftg pa pp ialieIght ialWildth footlngwidthtuotlngthickneis z soil 29 1500 13 1.11 7.5 2 4.335 WMA Wsoil Wftg Ms waU Ms sail Ms ltg Sum Ms Sum Ws 2281.5 9051.9 2250 1334.6715 39239.987 8437.5 49012.194 13683.4 Vo Mo FSOT u 3u e P/A rn/s 3292.5 18312.5 3.0045771 2.4073254 7.2219762 1.3426746 1811.12 1945.3058 -ec (ci twx f3 • 47 9f (EQcto.) 2p/3u ?c4 3781 185. 49 çL 1 . 2,6, H 0 L 8 I, shaped ltg pa pp walieight walk jidth footlnidthfoottngthickiess x sail 29 I 500 10 1,17 5.25 2 3.21 Wvmll wsoil Wttg Ms i'sail MS soul Ms Aq Sum Ms Sum Ws 1755 4488 1575 1026.875 14408.48 4134.375 19587.53 !7818 Vu Ma FSOT u 3u e PA rn/s 2038 8352 2.342556 1.4345779 4.3037337 1.1904221 1489.1429 20259527 601?'Ue(3 I 351)?65 2p/3u 1244 y 0 tU-4. r J8 Z74 5/L! 500x1.7 . I 317 e) C, ..iQtaJ4 I, vi, op , H 0 L 12 I. 4halød All pp u'affhelght walWidth footin9Jidth1cottngtl1i.kness x soil 29 1 500 7 lit 3.1 2 2.25 Wall WsoH iI jftq Ms wall Ms soil Ms ftg Sum Ms Sum Ws 1228.5 1663.2 999 718.6725 3742.2 1883.335 6124.2015 1 3890.7 Va Mo FSOT u 3u e P/A 171119 1174.5 32 I.73 03 1034 0.66442T 2.0053262 0.9965579 1163.3764 2097.9401 SL0i' <tp,J C. FR-• 691 325 P I.3eS% I!34 2p/3 U 5u O ct LS' 0, )c._________ I 7T ei â ROROWFI7 TAYLOR ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL & CIVIL CONSULTING STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS (.' PROJECT: 144 R-1 bpL DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS: CONCRETE STRENGTH AT TWEt(fl' EIGHT DAYS: Z&) PSI MASONRY: GRADE N" CONCRETE I3LOCk F' M = 1500 PSI MORTAR: TYPE S 1800 PSI GROUT: 2000 PSI REINFORCING STEEL: A-615 GRADE 40: #5 AND LESS (U.O.N.) GRADE 60:. #6 AND LARGER Uj Cze 'fl3824F. STRUCTURAL STEEL: A-36 LUMBER: DOUGLAS FIR-LARCH JOISTS BEAMS AND POSTS STUDS SEISMIC FORCE: O1 4 WIND FORCE: )t1?, p. 42 STUD OR BETTER REPORT BY: (5 014s- I C-A L ExPL0P_4"rI0t4 Ir'-1C. - REPORT NO.: 9 554 SOIL PRESSURE: FLOOR DEAD LOAD WALL DEAL) LOAD ELI UIL EXTe I II I i? FLOORING /0 to INTERIOR PLYWOOD W I.B EXTERIOR JOISTS 1%, Z44 24 INSUL. & CLG. 5/&tYz. S ie..if3W...3 MISC. 2.7 TOTAL = •47, 4z-.0 FLOOR LIVE LOAD INTERIOR 40 PSF BALCONY 60 PSF (U.O.N.) EXIT WALKWAY 100 PSF DESIGN LOADS: ROOF DEAD LOAD SLOPING ROOFING TiLE 16.0 PLYWOOD'Z,KTkC, 5,0 JOISTS 4k.. INSUL & CLG.z".QiG'D.? MISC. TOTAL = 72O ROOF LIVE LOAD SLOp[NG(3:r?-') 70.0 FLAT 10 PSF 16 PSF These calculations are limited only to the items included herein, selected by the client and do not imply approval of any other portion UI the structure by this office. These calculations are not valid if altered in any way, or not accompanied by a wet stamp and signature of Ilic Engineer of Record. a WHY ls q7- Zoo 9-14-9b 3914 Murphy Canyon Rd. Suite AIOO San Diego, CaliFornia 92123 (619) 5604383 . FAX (619) 560.8842 CiJ 41iC4O 444:. 1, .4. sF 95;(,d 1L1e .065,:&z#Po LL ia.4 YER-flc.AL A'~4AL-~:515 (o P') RA1- 4): +o)4 f: (I?to A ; 1114 )'73X2sr) 31,71,j 4 10 c!+OC Ql 4&.c EAr/t • E;E:; t-k 4: th1Z0YC): zcz /5.j%- Ap.- r'1 4c3 6: 4_ is -4s. BEAM Z 777 1. • 4g•: 4x 10 to VI EEAr-i -4 3/ 37o 345.4 rA 443 ,,3 3YxL4 PsL. 13E4M D314j , 0 co )cV4PSL Ir 3' 1 io' 375?;. •1. pj = //ZCQ7 Sri, 3P7,) '3Yax.lI '/)r P51.. SL "3 PT.. 03ç+ 2-7 7) r//6'f h ez6)*,o') 7#/ Ax 4ô,9c,j fl°4coo ic/ (L - Ar',,4 fLa,p. -i LJ +4c(,33 /O9 (40)C mS# 14 &. 4/ 7Ib'w2-sD -f? 1 Dc Dv -r i,): V , 1-4 L I1) o 'V 3z 77 ctc 4c' IZ o4 A: ?.i,,, Z4.S" ) 4f Zxl2e R1P 4M 31,.7, M 3 31 J.TS_T ,P =61o5U' Cc) = &zá ,4c&- /54,,) 'E2- LTT 14/17/6 L 1E4,i DIF-SICA 4Q P.OP r J: 8Z.("/)t t •.+ V-. Z4j 3?' f'SL Ei Di&. 'I 7,504 /41_= ,O.7/,s SP- g. Z, 69A ll'Irb Psi.. EeArii 11516t,4 004 ; L)v L 1317 938 P z&I5ø C 73_f ' - Z51z /L Z-7',, f4: sp_- 44 J3EAM DEs,G-J @ - -)+ i6C)+ £f2(45) i3z -,ç•• '757 • AR.. O I ,J' 171: Vf*f" • .1OZ-rn 3 4D' 7 -l(,7 BEAM Dt-kj :J øzI) i-'&(')i-4(_')= 5! V A p1r T _11 lb rsi. 0id(7/6 PSL 5 i,1 csi4 ,—J1J Ci: 4z(vf) - /0(0) 1-90.5-) 4p ,-i1 r779' 13 b7z 4?43s3 =!ss- P = s,st4 zc. St .43 4?o 3Vi.AIi7/s 1si lEd\M &+zCv 1- 4' .z?c d M V, cc br (*tXi."> /°• V 55 jo t7 Cc)— (tzco) cS14 / V I (it z 305j T::8 L. ZxIOeRYoc. R(P 1I4i-. 5EC.c4t' Ftcx !I73l/PfW25b e, I z.ti 1IJI/PgO2o c!, Ii• i/ozs &(Z'o,. '/7 EAfr1 GN cJ c a("°f) -j-j.o 45o (?1 35l•5(."- S4XPSL (f) 1&Arii 31S P1: 1777' c-q!. Ayr ,4cL Sø_- 73,4,4.J 3 - 131/zly- 14 P$L- \/ Z44i. 4a 3c,.j' r1 197z!" v=(40 rfl: Ea.' 7s?,c3 4: -Is S/i6, 4 i3EAI Ozr-, NO L/ (2O/ ri 32.&' 3t- t5.45& 52- 15 lox 4 5//t l+2&' 4HP) CJ (.;J2- seD, E;EAcri L ác?); V Zi A j- M; - 3__ 43 frJ3•• 4o BE 7-i1 (2S Pos3' Ur W A: 16i p-' 7'J.fl¼) 'I, - 3'/zx((, P3L p . 4454 M ,374(= I4vi DEG4 o7z (44 &ZO'VT.) '6()tô*! 4R. ?o5, 46.Z.,.) 4rz_ eA111 bsc () P 55 t I 'is (P.7 7,014 Z83'f si c.J'- 11(33) -1b9 P — 4lil£&v) j7 5. I' Ut7 (3h.7 (?1 s331 Z7 AIL 4?.7fr 5i- I4"3 E7t'.73 :J/310 Jo 19 bo 7445 - )CO 8.44 ii- fi1 3),P4 75 a I k, Wi DE5164 4330 D3 I (4 7?? '.1J'1 ,l t53 *Li " = T7 t . Th4? L7 .si 5114)((4 Psi.. P .0 3 47,:L) PI (*) I I (&33) w 9i5-. 9iSz. P1 It 10CC, P2 Z576' - L'73". iii ((.1o'4 (, •44 ,5'/4 x 16 PL W 11 1sd1fr,,s cL, (-z2 •4Z 1 -(17 II) - I / . I /cZJ d d.t o4/Içj Qv/ •7 7d criZ 995 b'2-i1Ls 1( 95'? 30I= (V2q.(77 ) NI JL1 I-. BEAM b551614 G P - LA)Ifo 97 iS7 p 327 5f o 4S til. 16Z5' P C46 7071 5p-IIe.7 ,11J 3 4t- 4• _;5_ EEAp1 bE:CetJ ) I7c?z 8' 1 U 44th , SlB ____ ,z4z-7 24ó72.I* '4)- P, - 1f0? 101 4-i -a3 b2L6 7cI1 PSL 36/471 14- 13-5 51- I5-0 4~8I t7f' I45' W p.g / 3 , o72_ -/440 'i-)( (i"4 v'3 Ø(3(v) ?43 ,4a--IZ,E Of LATERAL A431. 5(6H 14 i&D Poc P C; /3 /c7 1.13 /o 1.3 1z-4 idt 5 30 I.Z 1.3 /0 40 1.31 (1.4. 1.0 Seismi c, Fcc \/ jL— \r 4 (# 4 - - LOFT ka- 1- *10 OSQ (Oh (%Y)/14 .*/o - 1Sr4z- ± Ic (-3/4't. HO A to Z7.b = 55.7 5c.I =59(9 - 4 L.I 1 S TA&. D,c-r,o,-i Le..(63 ('v) 37,7 p. P LV6L 1-F LJ..(4 01 ,' (>6r-) Rc ti.7 8. Z Lopr 584 175 3g.?.. 53 iZ45,3 vi.! . 13 4.1 Joe' 37,7 L GITUDIt1AL big&-r,o - Iso 35 F.5 F: (,z- 70 RAR.) - DIBu-nor- /(7l : 36 131(0 Z/JD 5&J. z ~ ,o 13 .. ... Lccs ?/DE T S E . RF. - R WALL.. r'lor71r4-r - FRAFii F . I Z87 1-z- MIDOLL JAcLL L, Z S((/fa.Y44 * 4ZYf 1fr413914 /7lor = ef za9 (e') . 1.5 44 t.JAtL. 174.: 1C.(3) ? '1 1 +Y-.4 ,o C&Ys)$O $'zo 9w 1f- 32.? Y it c_ i/ I-1 3o 3ô3 -k h& MIDDLE.- LJLL 9.4'4)(22f)t Il4jj): 5141 r. s1+116 m. 1-4c,r = 51+tc7) l)liL L&o* (c.)J3%. /b (8)(5)() K25: 7?7?" ftt-z Z1.i' /Oc( c:! 3oe. Et4 F2-5~ ,1sT4a.v) MIbDL tcIkLL t- wL 4 , fs 4ov) * 359 Mor M FH-f F,o#ji- LLkL-L L-I LIS r7 Z59i to rAor l71,2. p7:N Pttc" 7,30 t?977c7 cCV) Puy COX Be 14 liv,-5 113 le0 /0 fLy CJ)c tJ/ .140> L0ic15 Fc,r- ro R1407- , L41-j-I6 7i'4) -r •5/ _i71 )/BUPLY :D,& EI ?/O> b r4,r,f- LJAtL .f = esoa PtYc1/ &c 3Uj El 5 >53._ h1cr &ós). Pi,- jc 'foO.Jlk% +?.'OU" ts') f?M rob S3s7 !71Thpv) 14 LOADS: Sim To PEA1 1JM..L No f-)&A L0's 1b t-Aor1'\E4--r ci r')ILE LiAu. f .j- 14.4 30 = 7c3" - I4-r 75)7E1) M g-aZ 2.o)1- 426 k)+ k(,)Jilz # 9% . . $fl4 £J/)?/e LA- E#r '\E'L Li Lz 3785 Fs I4I.(4/i9) + 14.4((io')C) - '/"PLY 1: J/ 1 C?Z,% c?ôYI goct 2&#J NOT-. if ?5 .frk th)t11,4 iE.. OA-LL- L-i,J. 3,7 rs 541()t I4M'2/L)(Zb '3cz.i . Mit-i CAx. r./ Ed [1 8O ?o1 r4or= 45 () 4f . " L-c M,oi- WA-LL- 4 31 , 3s1 t I4.4(?12)(z%) ,oz, jO( 87c957 joioth) 24I0' rY1Tocv Frr )IJAU.. S -fci-45i-5' tcI 1% = Z57 -r i4 31p, 11 PLY c-D t/ 4J 4/ Z&? 1 4'6. ) Fl-sl s6o Z67 ._11 • (f Ier • pi 5ro LeV5 !-1iQr O#JL4' 4- it(i4fz)•igce;2 • VS. e4/[4 6.05 IN c, Ev [1 li/or . 6462(,)U 13a 1-4 2 - t35bó4- O4Y.?3S 74161 Ft -4-b' IL t/1x L1- ..e c,-c L'I f:. '4' i44//z)(',) /o5'93 9Th I.- P' c4/ ! ,e F1. 5_ or N. ac'k ,) . 3/o&" (c riI. 1-10f 11-440 tI46835 Ao- ,5s)}r' 13o /14- ...317k- 15T4(v) LI o \ hDS s rc E - 2. ib 4AtL t . (&f . 7 54 SEA Mo7714Jr fMM CAI-C,- I, I It. iOc ec ii;i f3'5 i; 1746- . ZT;- M473/4 5- 24. rtor . t()+ 4t) 4- I5)3' 14 ff18" Ftc' 18?c M LLk.L Li,i S F Ile SEE (JAt. L'pE..z.. AV, 0 M1 .4kt-L Li,Ji 37 2-33 PS 'tcz- 4-10-J('?-'7t,,)(3 R)= Zfl:. 9?54/fc fulor 97946) = 975ô 14, rAp- fL( )OO8)JI51 . 4- 4z!?(, 25 2-es1w 4, pci sz.r -q. F1 tIrctE L111. 2 WD'7 '424 14533 ci- /0a9e 1/c &'YL(3a) -2' I433/ 1 -1 I' Harr- /o o(fa)+ )*'/6)O0) ZI4o' '7(p_ 1& 7' hip- ti )3,-f7.t t)3.s OIc' H5% F-1- LJG , 5;44 /ozL1(33) 84 - &42/2.5= lic?- ', (1. 13)0 'll5z- tAor I(5C)á) 9S& T1Ip- 1L4 6&)tI6(zs) ioA LOAc Fgo,jr 7-o R44p- I:kf1 SIt, tfrJ.b 454 I4.4(U,4,'i)l-I0.iPT)(7B): Z23 -u- S'7 Y, '9 PLI coy- JV F 5-1 em O'57 r4cr- 02318). 2O !.1D ffb5 M LE 14*1)— LW6 c. 2b8 + Bib t I2Ø/5() t 3'za-)7 31ô,? 'v iots/, = S44 *-/, >c4 Plc r I TXV ictJfOi) ?/.. tO84' BOA fir It s_#1 V z c.MIT ir 6fQ Fc o-rL (JL.5 fr. L/1/ B5 11 9eo>98 A- /55j62 0 R- -visyi4 1.1 StbE r sr, REA,e- tfJAct 258) SEL (I&,-IT J•'?1 tbLE J,JALL L Z 12473-f /)(44) 14s-?W 7Th.t452-I/?.- 194 1710-rz I4zi Ceo) z)+-ioOoZ> •5P 1b /&77&' M WAtL 36 F /iôi t4.(34faS44) /4C 7V 4(41& 631 t/() WkLL I453 CP7c) cAtc-. LIo Loi to,Jr 7 PS = &a f 47 = /0131 k-IAzL I! ALL Lu t 31c'iS+ 4.)36LcP.)=3! . : 6004;ff .. . % c _________ :: .::.: •. * i . : c-v U-il PSI 4 bI/3 649 ', • °° ' NOT (Zo )CIb) • .• +41z, 4I (7%. 1 MorAsH -r E. I - z. i4.7 3 13 I • 44 1447 7 V.33 44 0, /0 ii /2. 4+ /3 0 If 1'1'7 I5 jc33 I? ° fe44. /f I47 Zo q.ys U- 14, 71+ Is to s 'WI4o ( 7 le 19 '5 -- - 4 Wøx3 o1 l/Ig x 35 Lr J4/cx4O 17YS t_=', Atc L //a(fr) 30 3 30 • 3+ 37 37.5' GNR Engineering, Inc. 2240 Vineyard Ave. Escondido, CA 92029 OCEAN STREET DUPLEX RISA-2D (R) Version 3.00 Job__________ Page_________ Date_________ Units Option : US Standard AISC Code Checks : 9th Edition ASD Shear Deformation: No P-Delta Effects : No Redesign : No Edge Forces : No A.S.I.F. : 1.333 Node ------------------------------- No X-Coord Y-Coord ------ (ft ) -------- ( ft) 1 0.00 0.00 2 14.67 0.00 .3 29.33 0.00 4 44.00 0.00 5 0.00 . 10.00 6 14.67 10.00 7 29.33 10.00 8 . 44.00 10.00. .9 0.00 20.50 10 14.67 20.50 11 29.33 20.50 12 44.00 20.50 13 0.00 30.00 14 14.67 30.00 15 29.33 30.00 16 44.00 30.00 17 0.00 34.0 18 44.00 34.00 19 14.67 37.50 20 29.33 37.50 21 22.00 39.00 Boundary Conditions . X-dof Y-dof . Rotation Temp. (in,K/in) ---- (in,K/in) --- (r,K-ft/r) -----(F)-. R R 0.00 R R 0.00 R . R . 0.00 R R 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Material • Elastic. Poisson's Thermal Weight Yield Stress Label Modulus Ratio Coefficient Density (Fy) ----------(Ksi) -----------------------(F) --------(K/ft3) ------ (Ksi) ---- STL 29000.00 0.30000 0.65000 0.490 36.000 1 GNR Engineering, Inc. 2240 Vineyard Ave. Escondido, CA 92029 OCEAN STREET DUPLEX RISA-2D (R) Version 3.00 Job Page Date Section Database Mati. Area Moment of. As y/y Label Shape Set Inertia Coef ---------------------------------. (in -2) --------- ( jn 4 )----------------- COL1 W18X35 STL . 10.30 510.000 1.20 COL2 TU6X6X8 STL 10.40 . 50.500 1.20 BM1 W18X35 STL 10.30 510.000 1.20 BM2 W18X40 STL 11.80 612.000 1.20 I. J ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I Releases J End Offsets No Node Node Section x y z x y z Sec Sway I J Length -------------------------------------------------( (in) ---- (in) ------ ( (ft) 1 1 - 5 CCLl . . 10.00 2 5- 9 COL1 10.50 3 9 - 13 COL1 . 9.50 4 13 - 17 COL1 . . . 4.00 5.. 2 - 6 COL2 . 10.00 6 6 - 10 COL2 1 1 . . 10.50 7 10 - 14 COL2 1 . 9.50 8 14 - 19 COL2 1 1 7.50 9 . 3 - 7 COL2 . 10.00 10 7 - 11 . COL2 1 1 10.50 11 11 • : 15 COL2 . . 9.50 12 15 20 COL2 1 1 . 7.50 13 4 - 8 COL1 . . . . . 10.00 14 8 - .12 COL1 . 10.50 15 12 - 16 COLi .. 9.50 16 16 - 18 CCL]. • • 4.00 17 5 - 6 'BM2 . 1 . 14.67 18 6 - 7 BM1 1 1 • .• 14.66 19 7 - 8 BM2 1 14.67 20 9 - 10 BM1 . . 14.67 21 10 - 11 BM1 1 1 . 14.66 22 11.- 12 BM1 1 . . 14.67 23 13 - 14 BM1 1 1 • . 14.67 24 14 - 15 BM1 1 1 14.66 25 15 - 16 BM1 1 1 . . 14.67 26 17 - 19 BM1 . . 15.08 27 19 - 21 BM1 1 . 48 28 20 - 21 BM1 • . 7.48 29 18 - 20 BM]. • . 15.08 I . J ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- lJnbraced Lengths K Factors . Bending Coefs No Node Node. Lb-in Lb-out Lc • In Out Cm Cb ---------------. (ft ) ----- ( ft )----- (ft) 1 . 1 - 5 2 5- 9 J t j RISA-2D (R) Version 3.00 GNR Engineering, Inc. Job_________ 2240 Vineyard Ave. Page________ Escondido, CA 92029 . Date OCEAN STREET DUPLEX I . J Unbraced Lengths K Factors Bending Coefs No Node Node Lb-in Lb-out Lc In Out Cm Cb ---------------(ft) ----- ( ft )-----( ft )---------------------------------- 3 9-13 4 13- 17 5 2- 6 6 6- 10 7 10- 14 8 14- 19 9 3- 7 10 7 - 11 11 11.- 15 12 15-20 13 4•- 8 14 8- 12 15 .1. - 16 16 16- 18 17 5 - 6. 18 6- 7 19 7- 8 20 . 9- 10 21 10 - 11 . 22 11 - 12 23 13- 14 24 141_ 15 25 15- 16 . 26 17- 19 27 19- 21. 28 20- 21 . 29 18- 20 . BLC Basic Load Case Load Totals No. . Description Nodal Point Dist. 1 E --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Nodal Loads, BLC 1 : E . . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- . Node . . Number GlObal X Global Y Moment -------------------(K)------------------( K)------------------(K-ft ) 5 . 2.600 . 0.000 0,.000 9 . 7.850 . 0.000 0.000 17 2.900 . 0.000 0.000 GNR Engineering, Inc. 2240 Vineyard Ave. Escondido, CA 92029 OCEAN STREET DUPLEX RISA-2D (R) Version 3.00 Job Page Date Load Combination Self Wt BLC BLC BLC BLC BLC W E No. Description Dir Fac Fac Fac Fac Fac Fac DYNA S V 1E Y-1 11 Dynamic Analysis Data Number of modes (frequencies) . 3 Basic Load Case for masses : None Acceleration of Gravity : 32.20 Load Combination is 1 : E Nodal Displacements Node Global X Global Y Rotation ----------------( in)-----------------( in)----------------( rad)--------- 1 0.00000 . 0.00000 -0.00657 2 -0.00000 -0.00000 -0.00549 3 . . -0.00000 . 0.00000 -0.00546 4 0.00000 -0.00000 -0.00657 5 . 0.65967 0.00302 -0.00335 6 .0.65896 -0.00533 -0.00549 7 . 0.65813 . 0.00305 . -0.00548 8 0.65741 -0.00502 -0.00330 9 ; 1.06071 0.00410 -0.00205 10 1.05864 -0.00820 0.00.094 . 11 1.05657. 0.00428 -0.00189 12 1.05450 -0.00762 -0.00205 13 • . 1.27318 0.00426 -0.00152 14 . 1.27271 -0.00943 -0.00188 15 1.27225 . 0.00461 -0.00189 16 1.27179 -0.00863 -0.00149 17 1.33357 0.00440 -0.00095 18 1.32848 -0.00898 -0.00084 19 1.33660 -0.01015 0.00025 20 1.33273 0.00512 . 0.00011 21 . . 1.33307 0.00539 -0.00006 Load Combination is 1 E Spring Reactions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Node . Global X Global I . Moment - ----------------- (K) ------------------(K) --------------- (K-f t) --------- 1 -6.62768 -7.33525 0.00000 2 0.00000 13.56601 0.00000 3 0.00000 -7.49614 0.00000 ? 'I GNR Engineering, Inc. 2240 Vineyard Ave. Escondido, CA 92029 OCEAN STREET DUPLEX RISA-2D (R) Version 3.00 Job Page__________ Date ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Node Global X Global Y Moment -----------------(K) ------------------(K) ---------------(K-fr) --------- 4 . -6.72232 12.66068 0.00000 Totals -13.35000 11.39530 0.00000 Load Combination is 1 : E Member End Forces Nodes ========== I - End ========== ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == ===== === J- End ========= No I J Axial . Shear Moment Axial Shear Moment ----------(K)--------(K) ------(K-ft) -------(K) --------(K)----7-(K-ft)-- 1 1- 5 -7.34 6.63 0.00 .7.69 -6.63 66.28 2 5- 9 -2.39 5.43 15.79 2.75 5.43 41.17 3 9- 13 -0.24 1.09 -0.55 0.58 -1.09 10.90 4 13- 17 -0.83 1.87 -10.90 0.97 -1.87 18.40 5 2- 6 13.57 -0.00 -0.00. -13.21 0.00 -0.00 6 6- 10 7.07 0.00 0.00 -6.69 0.00 0.00 7 10- 14 3.41 -0.00 :o.00 -3.08 0.00 -0.00 8 14- 19 2.56 0.00 0.00 -2.30 0.00 0.00 9 3- 7 -7.50 0.00 0.00 7.85 -0.00 0.00 10 7- 11 -2.74 0.00 0.00 3.11 0.00 0.00 11 11- 15 . -0.72 0.00 -0.00 1.06 -0.00 0.00 12 15- 20 -1.57 0.00 000 1.84 0.00 0.00 13 4- 8 12.66 6.72 0.00 -12.31 -6.72 67.22 14 8- 12 6.36 5.32 15.79 -5.99 . -5.32 40.11 15 12- 16 2.82 -. .1.81 r2.54 -2.49 . -1.81 14.66 16 16- 18 2.23 1.03 -14.66 -2.09 -1.03 . 18.76 17 5- 6 . 1.40 -5.30 -82.07 -1.40 5.9 0.00 18 6- 7 1.40 0.26 0.00 -1.40 0.26 0.00 19 7- 8 . 1.40 -5.36 0.00 -1.40 5.95 -83.02 20 9- 10 3.51 -2.51 -40.62 -3.51 3.03 -0.00 21 10- 11 3.51 0.26 0.00 -3.51 0.26 0.00 22 11- 12 3.51 -2.65 0.00 -3.51 3.16 -42.66 23 13- 14 0.79 0.26 0.00 -0.79 . 0.26 0.00 24 14- 15 0.79 0.26 0.00 -0.79 0.26 0.00 25 15- 16 0.79 0.26 0.00 -0.79 0.26 0.00 26 17- 19 0.77 -1.18 -18.40 -0.65 . 1.70 -3.33 27 19- 21 1.16 0.57 3.33 -1.11 -0.32 0.00 28 20- 21 0.95 0.47 4.48 -0.90 -0.73 -0.00 29 18- 20 1.48 -1.80 -18.76 -1.36 1.28 -4.48 RISA-2D (R) Version 3.00 GNR Engineering, Inc. Job 2240 Vineyard Ave. Page Escondido, CA 92029 Date OCEAN STREET DUPLEX Load Combination is 1 : E AISC Code Checks Nodes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Member Quarter Points No I J Maximum 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/4 1/2 3/4 L Shear 1 1- 5 0.5854 0.0247 0.1649 0.3051 0.4452 0.5854 0.0650 2 5- 9 0.3678 0.1455 0.0218 0.1192 0.2435 0.3678 0.0532 3 9- 13 0.0914 0.0054 0.0269 0.0484 .0.0699 0.0914 0.0107 4 13- 17 0.1242 0.0745 0.0869 0.0994 0.1118 0.1242 0.0184 5 2- 6 0.0545 0:•0545 0.0542 0.0538 0.0534 0.0531 0.0000 6 6- 10 0.0288 0.0288 0.0284 0.0280 0.0277 0.0273 0.0000 7 10- 14 0.0135 0.0135 0.0132 0.0129 0.0125 0.0122 0.0000 8 .14- 19 0.0097 0.0097 0.0094 0.0092 0.0089 0.0087 0.0000 9 3-. 7 0.0262 0.0250 0.0253 0.0256 0.0259 0.0262 0.0000 10 7- 11 0.0104 0.0092 0.0095 0.0098 .0.0101 0.0104 0.0000 11 11- 15 0.0035 . 0.0024 0.0027 0.0030 0.0032 0.0035 0.0000 12 15- 20 0.0061 0.0052 0.0055 0.0057 0.0059 0.0061 . 0.0000 13 4- 8 0.6355 0.0700 0.2114 0.3528. 0.4941 .0.6355 0.0660 14 8- 12 0.3840 '• 0.1744 0.0522 . 0.1417 0.2629 0.3840 0.0522 15 12- 16 0.1334 0.0358 0.0289 0.06 38 0.0986 0.1334 0.0178 16 16 18 . .0.1313 : 0.1048 .0.1115 0.1181 0.1247 0.1313 0.0101 17 5- 6 0.8663 . 0.8663 0.6610 0.4501 0.2336 0.0114 0.0544 18 6- 7 0.0263 0.0142 0.0232 0.0263 0.0232 0.0142 0.0025 19 7- 8 0.8762 0.0114 0.2192 0.4325 0.6515 0.8762 0.0550 20 9- 10 0.5569 0.5569 0.4357 0.3084 0.1751 0.0358 0.0297 21 10- 11 0.0478 0.0357 0.0448 0.04:78 0.0448 0.0357 0.0025, 22 11- 12 0.5830 0.0358 0.1635 0.29:73 0.4371 0.5830 0.0311 23 13- 14 0.0201 0.0080 0.0171 0.0201 0.0171 0.0080 0.0025 24 14- 15 0.0200 .0.0080 0.0170 0.0200 0.0170 0.0080 0.0025 25 15- 16 0.0201 0.0080 0.0171 0.0201 0.0171 0.0080 0.0025 26 17- 19 0.2577 0.2577 0.1936 0.1229 0.0457 0.0521 0.0167 27 19- 21 0.0302 0.0302 0.0225 0.0158 0.0.100 0.0050 0.0056 28 20- 21 0.0378 0.0378 0.0307 0.0227 0.0138 0.0041 0.0071 29 18- 20 0.2703 0.2703 0.1813 0.0989 0.0231 0.0754 0.0176 Stem Design -Data Stem Material . : Masonry Em I'm * 750 n : Modular Ratio = 25.78 Allowable Fa = 286.3 Nominal Wall Thick. = 8.00 in f'in = 1500 psi Fs = 24000 psi Load Duration Factor = 1.00 Special Inspection Required Grout All Cells Use Lightweight Block " iORbWITZ TAYLOR ENGINEERING Title: 'TPM.1E-.D IiJAti... 3914 MURPHY CANYON RD. 0100 Scope: SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 Job #: (619) 560-4383 Designer: FAX (619) 560-8842 Misc: Date: 08/20/98 Page: RESTRAINED RETAINING WALL DESIGN Description : Cindy Blair 0 Wall Data Footing Data Soil Data Retained Soil Ht. = 10.00 It Footing Thickness 12.00 in Allow.Soit Bearing = 3500 psf Toe Width = 1.00 It Active FLuid Press = 38pcf Ht. Above Top Support = 0.00 It Heel Width = 2.08 It Design FLuid Press = 38.00 pcf Dist: Ftg. To lop SuppoFt 10.00 It Total Footing Width = 3.08 ft Backfill Slope = 0.00 :1 Total Wall Height = 10.00 It Passive Lateral = 300.0 psf Fixity @ Base of Wall = 50% Key Depth = 0.00 in SoiL Density = .110.0pcf Vertical Loads Key Width = 0.00 in Soil Ht Over Toe 6.00 in Axial DL on Stem .= 680.0 plf Key Dist. to Toe = 0.00 ft Axial LL on Stem = 380.0 plf I Summary Eccentricity = 0.00 in Pressure @ Toe = 3306.2 psf Ecc. of Resultant = 9.05 in Surcharge over Toe = 0.0 psf Pressure @ Heel = 0.0 psf Kern Distance = 6:16 in Surcharge over Heel = 0.0 psf Allowable Press. . = 3500.0 psf Footing One-Way Shear: Lateral Loads Sliding F.O.S. = 999.00 1 @ Toe = 9.70 psi Lateral Load Acting on @ Heel = 10.75 psi Stem above soil = 0.0 psf Restraint Force Req'd Allowable Shear = 85.0 psi Add'l Lateral Load 81.0 plf at Top of Wall = 861.0# Footing Overturning ....Top Ftg to load staFt 0.00 It Additional Restraint Stability Ratio = 999.00 ....Top Ftg to load staFt 10.00 It Req'dat Bottom = 0.0# - Sliding Check @ Base - Footing Design Slab Resists Wall SIding! Soil Press. Mult. Toe Heel f'c = 2500 psi Ftg/Soil Friction = 0.400 by ACI 9-1 = 4725 0psf Fy = 60000 psi Soil to Neglect = 0.00 in Mu - Upward = 2029 110 ft-N Min. AsteeL = 0.0014% Factor of Safety = 999.00 :1 Mu - Downward = 143 1748 ft-N Lateral Pressure. = O.0# Mu - Design = 1885 -1638 ft-N Rebar Choices - Passive Pressure = O.0# One-Way Shear: Toe .Heel - Friction Pressure = 0.0 N Actual = 9.7 10.7 psi #4 @ 15.87 15.87 in Addn' I Force Req'd = 0.0 N AlLow*.85 = 85.0 85.0 psi #5 @ 24.60 24.60 in Cover over Rebar = 3.00 3.00 in #6 @ 34.92 34.92 in Ru = Mu/bd2 = 26 22 psi #7 @ 47.62 47.62 in As Req'd = 0.15 0.15 in' #8 48.00 48.00 in 49 @ 48.00 48.00 in Stem Section Designs NOTE !! Maximum Moment Occurs at 5.06 It above Top of Footing Top .8 Ht .6 Ht .4 Ht .2 Ht Bottom Dist. above Ftg 9.00 8.00 6.00 . 4.00 2.00 0.00 It Bar Size 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 Rebar Spacing 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 .16.0 16.0 in Rebar Location Edge Edge Edge Edge Edge Edge Rebar 'd' Dist. 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 in Tension Face Front Front Front Front Front Earth Moments: Actual 787 1489 2385 2345 1061 -1773 ft-N Allowable 2374 2374 2374 2374 2374 2374 1t-N Shears: Actual 8.4 6.9 2.6 3.3 11.0 20.2# Allowable 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 N Wall Weight 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 psf Masonry Stem Data.....- Interaction Value 0.375 0.674 1.057 1.046 0.512 0.817 Actual fa 12.5 13.3 15.0 16.8 18.5 20.2 psi Actual fb 12.5 310.5 497.2 488.9 221.3 369.5 psi Software Cc) 1983-94 ENERCALC Engineering Software Licensed to: SRN: HRWITZ TAYLOR ENGINEERING 3914 MURPHY CANYON RD. #A100 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (619) 560-4383 FAX (619) 560-8842 Title: WOW- Scone: .Job #: Designer: Misc: Date: 07/13/98 Page: CANTILEVERED RETAINING WALL DESIGN Description : Cindy Blair Wall & Footing Data - Vertical Loads Lateral Loads Retained Height = 4.00 ft Axial DL on Stem = 0 plf Lateral Load Acting on Wall Ht. above Soil = 6.00 ft Axial DL on Stem = Opif Stem Above Soil = 12.00 psf Toe Width = 2.00 ft . . . .Eccentricity = 0.00 in Add' L Lateral Load = 0.00 plf Heel Width = 0.67 ft Surcharge over Toe = 0.0 psf Dist to Load Start = 0.00 ft Total Footing Width = 2.67 ft Surcharge over Heel 0.0 psf Dist to Load End = 0.00 ft Footing Thickness = 12.00 in Note: Toe Surcharge Resists Overturning isey Depth 0.0 in Note: Heel Surcharge Resists Overturning : Key Width = 0.0 in Soil Data Adjacent Footing Toe to Key Dist. = 0.00 ft Allowable Bearing 3500 psf Vertical Load = 0.0# Sliding Check Active Lateral . 38.0 pcf Load Eccentricity = 0.00 in Ftg/SoiL Friction = 0.40 Max Press. = 0.0 pcf Footing Width . = 0.00 ft Soil to Neglect 0.00 in .....Slope Press. = 0.0 pcf Ftg. CL to Wail = 0.00 ft Lateral Pressure = 547# Backfill Slope = 0.0 .1 Vert. Position of Ftg. - Passive Pressure = 338# Passive Press. . = 300.0 pcf ...Above/Below:[+/-] . 0.0 ft - Friction = 505# Soil Density = . 110.0 pcf Spread Footing No .AddL Force Required = 0.0# Soil Mt over Toe = 6.00 in SUMMARY . Footing Design Pressure B Toe = 10089psf Soil Press. Mult. Toe Heel f'c = 2500 psi Pressure B Heel = 0.0 psf By ACI Eq 9-1 = 1413 0 psf Fy 60000 psi ALlowable Press. = 3500 psf Mu-Upward = 0 2072 ft-# Min. As Percent 0.0012 Ecc. of resultant = 6.01 in Mu-Downward = 574 0 ft-# Omit SP Under Heel ?. . No Max. Shear B Toe = 9.63 psi Mu-Design = 1498 -0 ft-# Toe Heel Max. Shear B Heel = 0.00 psi One-Way Shear: # 4 B 19.61 17.54 in 0/c Allow. Ftg Shear = 85.00 psi Actual = 9.6 0.0 psi # 5 B 30.39. 27.19 in 0/c Factors of Safety: Allowable = .85.0 85.0 psi . # 6 B 43.14 38.60 in o/c Overturning = 1.78:1 Cover over Reber = 3.50 2.50 in # 7 E 48.00 48.00 in o/c Sliding = 1.54:1 d 8.50 9.50 jr # 8 B 48.00 48.00 in 0/c Stem Summary Ru = Mu/b -2 = 23.0 0.0 psi # 9 ii 48.30 48.00 in 0/c Top Stem: From 4.00 ft to Top of Wail 8.001n Masonry w, # 5 8 16.00th, d= 5.251n fm= 1500.Opsi, Fs= 24000.0psi LDF= 1.00, n= 25.78 . . Solid Grouted Wall Wt.= 75.00psf, Bar Embed= 6.0in Mactual= 216.0 ' 1058.Oft-# Vactual = 0.79 < 19.36psi Interaction Value = 0.204 Third Stem From 2.00ft to 0.00ft 8.00in Masonry w/ # 5 B 16.00in, d= 5.251n f'm= 1500.0p5i, Fs= 24000.opsi LDF 1.00, n= 25.78 Solid Grouted Wall Wt. 75.o0psf, Bar Embed= 6.0iri flactual = 410.7 < 1058.0ft-# Vactual = 1.62 < 19.36psi Interaction Value = 0.388 Bottom Stem From 0.00ft to 0.00ft 8.00in Masonry w/ # 5 B 16.00in, d= 5.25in fm= 1500.opsi, Fs= 24000.0ps1 LDF= 1.00, n= 25.78 Solid Grouted WalL Wt. 75.00psf, Bar Embed= 6.0in Mactual = 908.5 1058.oft-# Vactual = 4.07 19.36psi Interaction Value = 0.859 'c) 1983-94 ENP.CALC Engineering Software i.e. I(CROWITZ TAYLOR ENGINEERING 3914 MURPHY CANYON RD. #A100 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (619) 560-4383 FAX (619) 560-8842 Title: Scope: Job #: Designer: Misc: Date: 07/13/98 CANTILEVERED RETAINING WALL DESIGN (cont'd) Description : Cindy Blair SUMMARY OF FORCES & MOMENTS Overturning Moments Resisting Moments Origin of Force... # ft k-ft # ft k-ft Active Soil. Press. = 475.0 1.67 791.7 0 0 0 Soil over Heel = 0 0, 0 1.5 2.67 3.9 Soil over Toe = -42.8 0.50 -21.4 110.0 : 1.00 110.0 Sloped Soil @ Heel 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 0.0 Adjacent Ftg. Load = 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0. Surcharge Over Heel = 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 0.0 Surcharge over Toe = 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 AxiaL Load on Wall = 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 0.0 Load @ Proj. Wall = 72.0 8.00 576.0 0 0 0 Averaged Stem Wts. = 0 0 0 750.0 2.33 1750.0 Added Lateral Load = 0.0 0.00 0.0 0 0 0 Footing Weight = 0 0 0 4005 1.34 534.7 Key Weight = 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 0.0 Vertical Component of Active Pressure 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 0.0 Totals 504.3 # 1346.3 k-ft 1262.0 # 2398.6 k-ft Resisting Totals Used For Soil Pressure 1262.0# 2398.6k7ft (Vert. . Component of Active Pressure Removed) Software (c) 1983-94 ENERCALC Engineering Software Licensed to: SRN: 8" C.M.U., Solid Grout #5 & 16" Vert & Edge *4 @ 24" Horiz 8" C.M.U., Solid #5 & 16" Vert & #4 @ 24" Horiz 8" C.M.U., Solic *5 & 16" Vert @. #4 @ 24" Horiz HEEL (top) : TOE (bot) : #5 #4H0 Airg)PIDWITZ TAYLOR ENGINEERING 391.4 MURPHY CANYON RD. #A100 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (619)560-4383 FAX (619) 560-8842 Title: Scope: Job #: Designer: Misc: Date: 07 3.tware ¼c,19&3-94 ENERCALC Engineering Software License's : SRH REPORT OF SOIL AND LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION UPDATE Palisoul/Blair Duplex 2653 Ocean Street Carlsbad, California JOB NO. 89-5594 27 May 1997 Prepared for: Mr. and Mrs. Philip R. Palisoul and Mr. and Mrs. Martin L. Blair E1D-1L aD GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. U SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 27 May 1997 Mr. and Mrs. Philip R. Palisoul Mr. and Mrs. Martin L. Blair 1500 Quail Street, Suite 510 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Job No. 89-5594 Subject: Report of Soil and Limited Geotechnical Investigation Update Palisoul/Blair Duplex 2653 Ocean Street Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. Palisoul and Blair: In accordance with your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. has performed an investigation of the soil and geologic conditions at the subject site. The field work was performed on March 31, 1997. In addition, we have reviewed our previous "Report of Oceanographic and Marine Geologic Conditions and Recommendations for Seawall Design," dated October 4, 1989. This report is included herein as Appendix D. Although final plans are not yet available, it is our understanding that the site is being developed to receive a two-unit residential development with a new seawall and associated improvements. The structure is to be a maximum of three stories in height and will be constructed of standard-type building materials utilizing slab-on- grade and conventional continuous foundations. Our investigation revealed that the site is underlain by medium dense to dense terrace and formational materials overlain by approximately 2 to 5 feet of loose surficial terrace materials, topsoil and some artificial fill. In order to reduce the effects of potential settlement, we recommend that at least the upper 2 to 5 feet of surficial soils be removed and recompacted to provide a more uniform, firm soil base for the proposed structure and improvements. It is our understanding that the western portion of the site is to be cut down in preparation for the lower-level living areas. As such, the loose surface soils should be removed during the excavation process in these areas. In the seawall location, dense formational material was encountered at a relatively shallow depth. 7420 TRADE STREET • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 9 (619) 549-7222 • FAX: (619) 549-1604 2 In our opinion, if the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are implemented during site preparation, the site will be suited for the proposed development. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions concerning the following report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Reference to our Job No. 89-5594 will expedite a response to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTTE-QqNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Jai A. Cerros, P.E. R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer J K H /JAC/pj Cz Ui 51 No. 002007 l 2 Exp. 9/30/99/ QJ TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. SCOPE OF, WORK 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION 2 III. FIELD INVESTIGATION 3 IV. GROUNDWATER 4 V. LABORATORY TESTS 5 VI. SOIL AND GENERAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 7 VII. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 8 VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 IX. GRADING NOTES 27 X. LIMITATIONS 28 FIGURES I. Plot Plan and Geologic Map Ha-f. Boring and Trench Logs Ill. Laboratory Test Results Foundation Requirements Near Slopes RetainingWall Waterproofing and Drainage Schematic VI Regional Fault Map APPENDICES Unified Soil Classification System General Earthwork Specifications Fault Tables Report of Oceanographic & Marine Geologic Conditions & Rec. for Seawall Recommendations for Seawall Design REPORT OF SOIL AND LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION UPDATE Palisoul/Blair Duplex 2653 Ocean Street Carlsbad, California JOB NO. 89-5594 The following report presents the findings and recommendations of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. for the subject project. I. SCOPE OF WORK It is our understanding, based on communications, with Mr. Philip Palisoul and review of very preliminary site plans provided by Ms. Cindy Blair, the architect, that the site is intended for the construction of a two-unit residential development with a new seawall and associated improvements. It is our understanding that the site will be graded to create a multi-level building pad and recompact the loose surface soils. Construction is to utilize standard slab-on-grade foundations. With the above in mind, the scope of work is briefly outlined as follows: Review the site geology and make note of any faults or significant geologic features which may affect the development of the site. Identify and classify the surface and subsurface soils in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix A). Recommend site preparation procedures. AMD Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 2 Recommend an allowable bearing pressure for the existing firm soils and proposed recompacted soils. Estimate the anticipated settlement of the existing dense soils and any compacted fills under the anticipated structural loads. Provide preliminary foundation design information, including active and passive earth pressures to be utilized in design of any retaining walls and foundations. Update our previous "Report of Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Seawall," dated October 4, 1989. This report includes a wave run-up analysis with information regarding the type and configuration of seawall (attached as Appendix D). II. SITE DESCRIPTION The property is known as: Lots 15 and 16, according to Map No. 1221, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. The site, consisting of approximately 7,000 square feet, is located at 2653 Ocean Street, in the north Carlsbad beach area, in the City of Carlsbad, California. The property is bordered on the north and south by developed residential properties, on the east by Ocean Street, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. There were no structures on the site at the time of our field investigation. Presently, vegetation on the site consists primarily of native weeds, grass, Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 3 shrubbery and iceplant, with a few palm trees in the eastern portion of the property. A limited amount of fill and trash debris was encountered in the western portion of the site. It appears that this material may have been dumped during work on the adjacent seawall. The property slopes gently to moderately down to the west from Ocean Street. Approximate elevations across the site range from a high of 40 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near the street, down to 6 feet MSL in the western portion of the site. Survey information concerning actual elevations across the site was obtained from a topographic survey map by O'Day Consultants, dated April 1997. III. FIELD INVESTIGATION Five auger borings and a single backhoe trench were placed on the site in areas where the structure, a new seawall, and improvements are to be located and where representative soil conditions were expected. The borings and trench were logged by our field representative, and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout the field operation. Boring and trench logs have been prepared on the basis of the observations and the results have been summarized on Figure No. II. The predominant soils have been classified in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix A). In-place samples were obtained by driving a 3-inch outside-diameter (O.D.) by 2- 3/8-inch inside-diameter (l.D.) split-tube sampler a distance of 12 inches. Also, the Standard Penetration Test was performed by using a 140-pound weight falling 30 Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 4 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D. by 1-3/8-inch I.D. sampler tube a distance of 12 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the given distance was recorded for use in density determination. The following chart •provides an in-house correlation between the number of blows and the relative density of the soil for the Standard Penetration Test and the 3-inch sampler. Soil Density Designation 2-inch.O.D.., . . 'Sampler Blows/Foot -inch Q.D. ;Sampler Blows/FOot Sand and Silt Very loose 0-4 0-7 Loose 5-10 8-20 Medium 11-30 21-53 Dense 31-50 54-98 Very Dense Over 50 Over 98 Clay Very Soft 0-2 0-2 Soft 3-4 3-4 Firm 5-8 5-9 Stiff 9-15 10-18 Very Stiff 16-30 19-45 Hard 31-60 46-90 Very Hard Over 60 Over 90 IV. GROUNDWATER No groundwater problems were encountered during the course of our field investigation and we do not expect significant problems to develop in the future -- if the property is developed as planned and proper drainage is provided. It should be kept in mind, however, that the proposed grading operations may change surface drainage patterns and/or reduce permeabilities due to the densification of Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 5 compacted soils. Changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the appearance of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously. Positive drainage measures should be constructed to intercept and divert all surface runoff waters away from the structure and improvements planned for the site. The damage from such water is expected to be minor and cosmetic in nature, if good positive drainage is implemented and maintained at the completion of construction. Corrective action should be taken on a site-specific basis, if and when it becomes necessary. V. LABORATORY TESTS Field and laboratory tests were performed on the soils in order to evaluate their physical and mechanical properties and their ability to support the proposed structure and improvements. The following tests were conducted on the sampled soils: Moisture/Density Relations (ASTM D1557-91, Method A) Moisture Content (ASTM D2216-92) Sampling of Soils (ASTM D1586-84[92] and D1587-83) Mechanical Analysis (ASTM D422-63[901) Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080-90) Consolidation Test (ASTM D2435-90) Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 6 The relationship between the moisture and density of the soil gives qualitative information regarding the soil strength characteristics and soil conditions to be anticipated during any future grading operation. The mechanical analysis was used to aid in the classification of the soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System. A direct shear test was performed on relatively undisturbed sample in order to evaluate the soil strength and support capacity of the existing dense natural soils. The shear test was performed with a constant strain rate direct shear machine. The test specimen was saturated and then sheared under various normal loads without appreciable drainage of the sample. A consolidation test was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample in order to evaluate the soil strength and support capacity of the existing terrace materials. The specimen was subjected to increased loads and the resulting consolidations noted. The consolidation test aids in estimating settlement magnitudes of the terrace materials. Based on the test performed, the existing soils have a low consolidation potential. Based on our experience with similar soils, it is our opinion that the on-site soils have a very low expansion potential, with an expansion index of less than 20. Based on the above laboratory test data, observations of the primary soil types on the project, and our previous experience with laboratory testing of similar soils, our Geotechnical Engineer has assigned conservative values for friction angle, Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 7 coefficient of friction, and cohesion to those properly compacted soils that will have significant lateral support or bearing functions on the project. These values are presented in Figure No. Ill and have been utilized in recommending the allowable bearing value, as well as active and passive earth pressure design criteria for wall and footing designs in competent native soils or properly compacted fills. VI. SOIL AND GENERAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION Our investigation and review of pertinent geologic maps and reports indicate that the site is underlain by a limited amount of artificial fill soils, topsoils, and marine- terrace deposits. Artificial Fill (Qaf): A limited amount of fill (approximately 2 to 3 feet) was encountered on the surface in the western portion of the site adjacent to the seawall on the property to the south. The fill is loose to medium dense and consists of gray-brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some gravel and concrete debris. The fills are considered to have a very low expansion potential. Topsoils: The topsoils encountered at the site consist of loose, dry to damp, red- brown, silty, fine to medium sand with some roots. These materials range from 1 to 3 feet in thickness and were encountered at the surface of much of the site. These soils are considered to have a very low expansion potential. Marine-Terrace Deposits (Qm)': The entire site is underlain by Pleistocene-age marine-terrace deposits. These materials are medium dense to dense and consist of tan-gray and red-brown, fine- to medium-grained sand and silty sand. These Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 8 materials are poorly to moderately cemented and susceptible to some caving. Due to the poor cementation in the terrace materials, any temporary slopes should be cut back to a safe gradient. Some of the terrace materials are relatively low density, but have a low consolidation potential. The terrace deposits are considered to have a very low expansion potential. A review of several geologic maps for this area indicates that the marine-terrace deposits occur as thin, very gently, dipping, mantle-like deposits within 2 to 3 miles of the coast. One of the older maps (Wilson, 1 972) shows these deposits as part of the Lindavista Formation. However, a more recent map (Weber, 1982) includes these deposits as part of the Bay Point Formation. Review of the Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet, 1965, indicates that these deposits are mapped as Pleistocene Marine and Non-Marine Terrace deposits. VII. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS A. Faulting and Seismicity In California, major earthquakes can generally be correlated with movement on active faults. As defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Hart, E.W., 1980), an "active" fault is one which has had ground surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). Additionally, faults along which major historical earthquakes have occurred (about the last 210 years in California) are also considered-to be active (Association of Engineering Geologist, 1973).. The California Division of Mines and Geology defines a "potentially active" Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 9 fault as one which has had ground surface displacement during Quaternary time, that is, during the last two to three million years (Hart, E.W., 1980). For construction projects in California, seismologists and earthquake engineers estimate earthquake magnitudes for "upper bound earthquake" and "maximum probable earthquake" to ascertain the seismic risk involved with different faults. Greensf elder 0 974) defines these as follows: The upper bound earthquake is "the maximum earthquake that appears to be reasonably capable of occurring under the condition of the present known geologic framework." While the event is highly unlikely, it is still a believable event that could occur. The maximum probable earthquake is "the maximum earthquake that appears to be reasonably expectable within a 100-year period." This is also regarded as the maximum "design" earthquake. An estimation of the peak ground acceleration likely to occur at the project site, by the known significant local and regional faults within 100 miles of the site, is included in Table 1 (see Appendix Q. Also a listing of the known historic seismic events that have occurred within 100 miles of the site at a magnitude of 5.0 or greater since the year 1800, and the probability of exceeding the experienced ground accelerations in the future, based upon the historical record, is provided in Table 2 (see Appendix C). Faults in the Southern California region that are of particular concern to the subject site are the nearby Rose Canyon Fault, and the more distant Coronado Bank Fault and Elsinore Fault (see Figure No. VI-- Regional Fault Map). sM Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 10 Local Faults The Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately 4 miles west of the subject site, trends generally north-south from Oceanside to downtown San Diego, then appears to head southward into San Diego Bay, through Coronado and offshore. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is possibly the southern extension of the active Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone and is considered to be a complex zone of onshore and offshore, en echelon strike slip, oblique reverse and oblique normal faults. Investigative work on faults (believed to be part of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone) within the downtown-area of the City of San Diego and at the SDG&E facility in Rose Canyon, has encountered offsets of Holocene (geologically recent) sediments and soils. These findings have been accepted as confirmed Holocene displacement on the Rose Canyon Fault and this previously classified "potentially active" fault has been upgraded to an "active" fault since November 1991 (CDMG - Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zones). Regional Faults Coronado Bank Fault: The nearest known active fault is the Coronado Bank Fault, located approximately 19 miles southwest of the site. • Evidence for this fault is based upon geophysical data (acoustic profiles) and the general alignment of epicenters of recorded seismic activity (Greene, 1979). An earthquake of 5.3 magnitude, recorded on July 13, 1986, is thought to have been centered on this fault or within the Coronado Bank Fault zone. Although this fault is considered active, due to the seismicity within the fault zone, it is significantly less active seismically than the Elsinore Fault (Hileman, 1973). It is postulated that the VAN Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 11 Coronado Bank Fault is capable of generating up to a 6.5-m8gnitude earthquake. and is of great interest due to its close proximity to the San Diego Greater Metropolitan area. Elsinore Fault: The Elsinore Fault is located approximately 26 miles northeast of the site. The Elsinore Fault extends approximately 200 km (125 miles) from the Mexican border to the northern end of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Elsinore Fault zone is a 1- to 4-mile-wide, northwest-southeast-trending zone of discontinuous and echelon faults extending through portions of Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Individual faults within the Elsinore Fault Zone range from less than 1 mile to 16 miles in length. The trend, length and geomorphic expression of the Elsinore Fault Zone identifies it as being a part of the highly active San Andreas Fault system. Like the other faults in the San Andreas system, the Elsinore Fault is a transverse fault showing predominantly right-lateral movement. According to Hart, et al. (1979), this movement averages less than 1 centimeter per year. Along most of its length, the Elsinore Fault Zone is marked by a bold topographic expression consisting of linearly aligned ridges, swales and hallows. Faulted Holocene alluvial deposits (believed to be less than 11,000 years old) found along several segments of the fault zone suggest that at least part of the zone is currently active. Although the Elsinore Fault Zone belongs to the San Andreas set of active, northwest-trending, right-slip faults in the southern California (Crowell, 1962), it has not been the site of a major earthquake in historic time, other than a 6.0- magnitude quake near the town of Elsinore in 1910 (Richter, 1958; Toppozada and Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 12 Parke, 1982). However, based on length and evidence of late-Pleistocene or Holocene displacement, Greensfelder (1974) has estimated that the Elsinore Fault Zone is reasonably capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude as large as 7.5. Studies and logging of exposures in trenches in Glen Ivy Marsh across the Glen Ivy North Fault (a strand of the Elsinore Fault Zone between Corona and Lake Elsinore), suggest a maximum earthquake recurrence interval of 300 years, and when combined with previous estimates of the long-term horizontal slip rate of 0.8 to 7.0mm/year, suggest typical earthquake magnitudes of 6 to 7 (Rockwell, 1985). B. Other Geologic Hazards Ground Rupture: Ground rupture is characterized by bedrock slippage along an established fault and may result in displacement of the ground surface. For ground rupture to occur along a fault, an earthquake usually exceeds magnitude 5.0. If a 5.0-magnitude earthquake were to take place on a local fault, an estimated surface- rupture length 1 mile long could be expected (Greensfelder, 1974). Since there are no known faults crossing the property, the risk of ground rupture at the site is considered remote. Ground Shaking: Structural damage caused by seismically induced ground shaking is a detrimental effect directly related to faulting and earthquake activity. Ground shaking is considered to be the greatest seismic hazard in San Diego County. The intensity of ground shaking is dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance and orientation from the earthquake, and the soil and geologic structure beneath the site. Earthquakes of magnitude 5.5 Richter scale or greater are generally associated with significant damage. It is our opinion that the most Palisoul/Blair Duplex. Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 13 serious damage to the site would be caused by a large earthquake originating on the nearby active Rose Canyon Fault or one of the major regional active faults. Although the chance of such an event is low, it could occur within the useful life of the structures. The ground accelerations that could be reasonably expected to occur during a major earthquake on a fault within 100 miles of the site are provided in Table 1, Appendix C. Landslides: According to our geologic reconnaissance and a review of the geologic map (Santa Ana Sheet - 1965) and aerial photographs (4-11-53, AXN-8M-99 and 100), there are no known or suspected ancient landslides located on the site Tsunami: The site is located at an elevation between 6 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and 40 feet MSL immediately east of the active beach. Based upon historical information on tsunami activity in Southern California, it is our opinion that the risk to the site from a tsunami is minimal. In addition, since a vertical concrete seawall is proposed, adequate protection should be provided. Liquefaction: The liquefaction of saturated sands during earthquakes can be a major cause of damage to buildings. Liquefaction is the process in which soils are transformed into a dense fluid which will flow as a liquid when unconfined. It occurs principally in loose, saturated sands and silts when they are shaken by an earthquake. On this site, the risk of liquefaction of foundation material due to seismic shaking is considered to be remote due to the density of the natural-ground material. Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 14 Summary: It is our opinion that a significant geologic hazard does not exist on the site. No evidence of faulting or landslide activity was encountered during our investigation of the site. The site is situated in a developed neighborhood of Carlsbad and in the event that severe earth shaking does occur from major faulting within the area, compliance with Uniform Building Code requirements for construction should help reduce structural damage. VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the practical field investigation conducted by our firm, and resulting laboratory tests, in conjunction with our knowledge and experience with the soils in this area of the City of Carlsbad. Our investigation revealed that the site is underlain by medium dense to dense terrace and formational materials with approximately 2 to 5 feet of loose surficial terrace materials, topsoil, and some artificial fill. The loose surface soils will not provide a stable soil base for the proposed structure and associated improvements. As such, we recommend that these loose surface soils be removed and recompacted as part of the site preparation prior to the addition of any proposed fill and/or structural improvements. It is our understanding that the western portion of the site will be cut down to create the lower-level living areas. As such, the loose surface soils should be removed during the excavation process in this area. Due to the poor cementation in the terrace materials, temporary cut slopes may have to be laid back to a safe gradient. Some of the deeper terrace materials may have some low in-place densities and require additional removal during the grading operation. Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 15 The seawall location was found to be underlain by dense formational materials at a relatively shallow depth. A. Preparation of Soils for Site Development The existing vegetation observed on the site should be removed prior to the preparation of areas to receive new fill and/or structural improvements. This includes any roots from trees and shrubbery that might extend under the proposed structures or improvements. Large roots have been known to cause significant damage to foundations. All roots over 1/2-inch in diameter shall be removed from soils to be recompacted. To provide a uniform soils base for the proposed structures and rigid improvements (such as the swimming pools, patios, walkways, decking, driveway, etc.), the existing loose fill and terrace materials across the site, should be excavated to expose firm native soil, or to a depth approved by the Field Soils Technician. Any other areas observed to include loose soils during grading shall be excavated to expose firm native soil. The depth of removal is expected to be approximately 2 to 3 feet over most of the site and approximately 5 feet in the eastern portion of the site. The bottom of the excavation should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, watered to approximately optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. The excavated loose fill and terrace materials to be used as fill should be cleaned of any debris and deleterious materials, watered to approximately optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density, in accordance Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 16 with ASTM Dl 557 standards. Any areas supporting proposed improvements or retaining structures should be prepared in a like manner. If the grading results in a transition cut/fill pad, the cut portion shall be undercut at least 3 feet, properly moisture-conditioned and recompacted. 3 No uncontrolled fill soils should remain on the site after completion of any future site work. In the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils, the loose fill soils should be removed and/or recompacted prior to completion of the grading operation. 4. Any buried objects, abandoned irrigation lines, subsurface disposal systems, etc., which might be discovered on the site during grading, should be removed and properly backfilled with approved on-site or imported fill soils and compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. 4 Any backfill soils placed in utility trenches or behind retaining walls which support structures and other improvements (such as patios, sidewalks, driveways, pavements, etc.) should be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. Note: Due to the generally poor cementation of the terrace materials and the potential for caving, special care should be taken during excavation of utility trenches and temporary slopes. Depending on the depth and configuration of proposed temporary slopes, shoring may be required or safe slope shall be used. As a minimum, Cal-OSHA safety standards shall be followed. 13 cAno Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 17 B. Design Parameters for Foundations The recommended allowable bearing value for design of foundations for the proposed residential structure is 2,000 pounds per square foot. This load- bearing value may be utilized in the design of continuous foundations and spread footings when founded a minimum of 18 inches (for the proposed structure) into the firm natural ground or properly compacted fill, measured from the lowest adjacent grade at the time of foundation construction. We recommend that three-story portions of the structure be founded on at least 24-inch-deep footings. This load-bearing value may be increased one-third for design loads that include wind or seismic analysis. An increase of 500 psf in the allowable bearing value may be allowed for every 1 foot of embedment and for every additional 1 foot in width over the minimum dimensions indicated above, up to a maximum of 5,000 psf. Our experience indicates that for various reasons, footings and slabs occasionally crack causing ceramic tiles and other brittle surfaces to become damaged. Therefore, all footings and slabs should contain at least a nominal amount of reinforcing steel to reduce the separation of cracks, should they occur. 7.1 A minimum of steel for continuous footings should include at least four No. 4 steel bars continuous, with two bars near the bottom of the footing and two bars near the top. For footings up to 24 inches in depth, the minimum reinforcement shall consist of four No. 5 bars. CAN Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 18 7.2 Any isolated square footings should contain, as a minimum, a grid of No. 4 steel bars on 12-inch centers, in both directions, with no less than three bars each way. 7.3 Floor slabs should be a minimum of at least 4 inches actual thickness and be reinforced with at least No. 3 steel bars, placed on 18-inch centers, both ways, placed at midheight in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch-thick layer of clean sand (S.E. = 30 or greater) overlying a 6-mil vis queen membrane over 2 inches of sand. Slab subgrade soil should be thoroughly moistened prior to placement of the vapor barrier and pouring of concrete. 7.4 We recommend the project Civil/Structural Engineer incorporate isolation joints and sawcuts to at least one-fourth the thickness of any slab designs. The joints and cuts, if properly placed, should reduce the potential for and help control slab cracking. However, due to a number of reasons (such as base preparation, construction techniques, curing procedures, and normal shrinkage of concrete), some cracking of slabs can be expected. Control joints shall not be spaced farther than 20 feet if reinforced with the minimum steel reinforcement. Control joints shall also be provided at re-entrant corners, or additional diagonally placed steel be provided. All isolation and control joints shall be sealed with elastomeric joint sealant. They shall be inspected and maintained at least every 6 months by the property owner. CAR Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 19 NOTE. The project Civil/Structural Engineer shall review all reinforcing schedules. The reinforcing minimums recommended herein are not to be construed as structural designs, but merely as minimum safeguards to reduce possible crack separations. Based on our laboratory test results and our experience with the soil types on the subject site, the soils should experience angular rotation in the magnitude of less than 1 inch in 25 feet under a structural load of 2,000 pounds per square foot. The total settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 1 inch. As a minimum for protection of other on-site improvements, it is recom- mended that all nonstructural concrete slabs (such as patios, walkways, etc.) be underlain by at least 2 inches of clean sand and include at least a minimum of 6 x 6 - 10/10 welded-wire mesh at midheight of the slab and contain adequate isolation and control joints. The performance of on-site improvements can be greatly affected by soil base preparation and the quality of construction. It is therefore important that all improvements are properly designed and constructed for the existing soil conditions or be built on properly compacted soil tested by our firm. Any rigid improvements founded on the existing loose surface soils can be expected to undergo movement and possible damage and is therefore not recommended. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. takes no responsibility for the performance of the improvements. Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 20 C. Design Parameters for Proposed Seawall and Retaining Walls Our investigation revealed that at the location of the proposed seawall, the site is underlain by dense formational materials with a surface layer of beach sand deposits that typically range from 2 to 5 feet below the existing beach grade. This loose surface soil will not provide a stable soil base for the proposed seawall. As such, recommendations have been made to embed the seawall foundation into the underlying formational materials. We also recommend that the fill/backfill soils placed behind the seawall and patio/terrace area consist of beach/terrace sand-type material. The seawall foundation shall be embedded a minimum of 4 feet into dense formational material due to concern for potential scouring by storm surf action. This depth is approximately 3 feet above mean sea level (depending on the beach sand thickness) and is expected to be approximately 14 feet below the adjacent western patio/terrace area. The recommended allowable load-bearing value (at a minimu.m depth of 4 feet into the dense native materials) is 3,500 pounds per square foot for a minimum footing width of 4 feet. This load-bearing value may be utilized in the design of the seawall foundation when founded a minimum of 4 feet into the firm natural ground, measured from the bottom of the footing to the lowest adjacent grade at the time of foundation construction. This load- bearing value may be increased one-third for design loads that include wind or seismic analysis. Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 21 All other proposed retaining walls to be constructed should be founded on firm natural ground or properly compacted fills, and should be designed based on the following soil design parameters: 12. The active earth pressure (to be utilized in the design of the proposed seawall and other retaining walls, etc.) utilizing the on-site materials as backfill should be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 38 pounds per cubic foot (for level backfill only). Any surcharge pressures applied within the potential failure.block shall also be added to the soil lateral pressures. In the event that a retaining wall is surcharged by sloping backfill, the design active earth pressure shall be based on the appropriate Equivalent Fluid Weight presented in the following table: *To determine design active earth pressure for ratios intermediate to those presented, interpolate between the stated values. In the event that a retaining wall is to be designed for a restrained condition, a uniform pressure equal to 9xH (nine times the total height of retained soil, considered in pounds per square foot) should be considered as acting everywhere on the back of the wall in addition to the design Equivalent Fluid Weight. Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 22 The passive earth pressure of the encountered dense natural-ground soils or properly compacted fill (to be used for the design of shallow footings) should be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot. The passive earth pressure should only be considered valid for design if the ground adjacent to the foundation structure is essentially level for a distance of at least three times the total depth of the foundation. A Coefficient of Friction of 0.40 times the dead load may be used between the bearing soils and concrete wall foundations. D. Slopes The existing slopes on the site appear to be relatively stable. However, it is our opinion that the new cut and fill slopes may be subject to future erosion and surficial failure if left unprotected. In order to reduce the risk of future slope stability problems, we recommend that a program of proper landscaping and maintenance be effected as part of development of this site. The soils that occur within 5 feet of the face of fill slopes often possess poor lateral stability and structures and other improvements (such as walls, fences, patios, sidewalks, swimming pools, driveways, etc.) that are located within 5 feet of the edge of any slopes could suffer differential movement as a result of the poor lateral stability of these soils. Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 23 Conventional shallow foundations and footings of proposed structures, walls, etc., when founded 5 feet and farther away from the top of allowable slopes, may be of standard design in conformance with the recommended load- bearing value. If the proposed foundations and footings are located closer than 5 feet inside the top of allowable slopes; they shall be deepened to 1.5 feet below a line beginning at a point 5 feet horizontally inside the slopes and projected outward and downward, parallel to the face of the slope (see Figure No. IV). 17. We anticipate that temporary slopes into the terrace material of approximately 8 to 10 feet in height may be required during excavation of the lower-level living areas. Based on the results of our field investigation, it is our opinion that the following temporary-slope design criteria may be considered in areas where the excavation slope top will be at least 10 feet away from any existing structures: The existing terrace materials may be cut vertical for the lower 5 feet and at a slope ration of 0.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical for the remaining height (for an unsupported period not to exceed eight weeks). For the basement areas, the cuts shall be from the heel of the foundation and extend to at least 8 feet at the ground level. The basement wall backfill shall consist of non-expansive soil. Any plans for slopes in excess of the assumed 10-foot maximum must be presented to our office prior to grading to allow time for review and specific recommendations, if warranted. Proper drainage away from the excavation CAN Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 24 shall be provided at all times. Soil stockpiles shall not be placed within 6 feet from the top of the cuts. A representative of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. must observe any steep temporary slopes during excavation. In the event that soils and formational material comprising a slope are not as anticipated, any required slope design changes would be presented at that time. Where not superseded by specific recommendations presented in this report, trenches, excavations and temporary slopes at the subject site shall be constructed in accordance with Title 8, Construction Safety Orders, issued by OSHA. It is recommended that all compacted fill slopes and natural cut slopes be planted with an erosion resistant plant, in conformance with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad. E. Site Drainage Considerations Adequate measures shall be taken to properly finish-grade the site after the structures and other improvements are in place. Drainage waters from this site and adjacent properties are to be directed away from foundations, floor slabs, footings, and slopes, onto the natural drainage direction for this area or into properly designed and approved drainage facilities. Roof gutters and downspouts should be installed on all structures, with runoff directed away from the foundations via closed drainage lines. Proper subsurface and Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 25 surface drainage will help minimize the potential for waters to seek the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings, and floor slabs. Failure to observe this recommendation could result in undermining and differential settlement of the structure or other improvements on the site. The ground surface adjacent to building foundations shall be sloped at a gradient of at least 5 percent within 10 feet, draining away from the foundations. In addition, appropriate erosion-control measures shall be taken at all time during construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations and ponding on finished building pads or running uncontrolled over the tops of newly constructed cut or fill slopes. Particular care should be taken to prevent saturation of any temporary construction slopes. 21. Due to the possible buildup of groundwater (derived primarily from rainfall and irrigation), excess moisture is a common problem in below-grade structures or behind proposed retaining walls. These problems are generally in the form of water seepage through slabs and/or walls, mineral staining, mildew growth and high humidity. In order to minimize the potential for moisture-related problems to develop at the site, proper ventilation and waterproofing must be provided for below-ground areas and the backfill side of all structure retaining walls must be adequately waterproofed and drained. Should water seeps be observed during grading, additional recommendations will be provided by our firm, as warranted. Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 26 Proper waterproofing, protection board, subdrains and free-draining backwall material such as gravel or geocomposite (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent) shall be installed behind all retaining walls on the subject project. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will assume no liability for damage to structures which is attributable to poor drainage. Subdrain shall be placed at least 18 inches below the surface elevation being protected (interior slab). Planter areas, flower beds, and planter boxes shall be sloped to drain away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs. Planter boxes shall be constructed with a sealed bottom and a subsurface drain, installed in gravel, with the direction of subsurface and surface flow away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs, to an adequate drainage facility. All landscaped areas shall be provided with proper area drains. F. General Recommendations Following placement of any concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time should be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings could result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish-floor materials. In order to minimize any work delays at the subject site during site development, this firm should be contacted 24 hours prior to any need for observation of footing or caisson excavations or field density testing of compacted fill soils. If possible, placement of formwork and steel reinforcement in footing excavations should not occur prior to observation of CAM Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 27 the excavations; in the event that our observation reveals the need for deepening or redesigning foundation structures at any locations, any formwork or steel reinforcement in the affected footing excavation areas would have to be removed prior to correction of the observed problem (i.e., deepening the footing excavation, recompacting soil in the bottom of the excavation, etc.). IX. GRADING NOTES Any required grading operations shall be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork Specifications (Appendix B) and the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. recommends that we be asked to verify the actual soil conditions revealed during site grading work and footing excavations to be as anticipated in this "Report of Soil and Limited Geotechnical Investigation Update." In addition, the compaction of any fill soils placed during site grading work must be tested by the soil engineer. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to comply with the requirements on the grading or building plans and the local grading ordinance. It is the responsibility of the owner and/or developer to ensure that the recommendations summarized in the report are carried out in the field operations and that our recommendations for design of the project are incorporated in the building and grading plans. Our firm should review the grading and foundation plans when they become available. Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 28 27. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on all available data obtained from our field investigation and laboratory analysis, as well as our experience with the soils and native materials located in the City of Carlsbad. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. The actual soil conditions between exploratory excavations may differ. It is, therefore, necessary that all observations, conclusions, and recommendations be verified at the time grading operations begin or when footing excavations are placed. In the event discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued, if required. The work performed and recommendations presented herein are the result of an investigation and analysis which meet the contemporary standard of care in our profession with the County of San Diego. No warranty is provided. This report should be considered valid for a period of two (2) years, and is subject to review by our firm following that time. The firm of Geotechnical Exploration, Palisoul/Blair Duplex Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 29 Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to issuance of this report. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to contact the project coordinator. Reference to our Job No. 89-5594 will help to expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. ~~-ks6ve4~— Jay K. Reiser, Senior Project Geologist Jaime A. Cerros, P.E. R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer JKH/LDR/JAC/pj XieD.' Reed,r(PFeeident/C.E.G. 999 xJ2 F .i No. oo2oo7j: .z 9/30/92 J ' OF Cp' AMB REFERENCES JOB NO. 89-5594 12 May 1997 Association of Engineering Geologists, 1973, Geology and Earthquake Hazards, Planners Guide to the Seismic Safety Element, Southern California Section, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, Published July 1973, p. 44. California Division of Mines and Geology - Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Map, November 1, 1991. Growell, J.C., 1962, Displacement along the San Andreas Fault, California; Geologic Society of America Special Paper 71, 61 p. Greene, H.G., 1979, Implication of Fault Patterns in the Inner California Continental Borderland betwen San Pedro and San Diego, in "Earthquakes and Other Perils, San Diego Region," P.L. Abbott and W.J. Elliott, editors. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California; California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. Hart, E.W., D.P. Smith and R.B. Saul, 1979, Summary Report: Fault Evaluation Program, 1978 Area (Peninsular Ranges-Salton Trough Region), Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, OFR 79-10 SF, 10. Hart E.W., 1980, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, Rev. March 1980, p. 25. Hileman, J.A., C.R. Allen and J.M. Nordquist, 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California Region, January 1, 1932 to December 31, 1972; Seismological Laboratory, Cal-Tech, Pasadena, Calif. Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California; Bulletin 200, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, 1975. McEuen, R-.B. and C.J. Pinckney, 1972, Seismic Risk in San Diego; Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History, Vol. 17, No. 4, 19 July 1972. Richter, C.G., 1958, Elementary Seismology, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, Calif. cir Page 2 Rockwell, T.K., D.E. Millman, R.S. McElwain, and D.L. Lamar, 1985, Study of Seismic Activity by Trenching Along the Glen Ivy North Fault, Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California: Lamar-Merifield Technical Report 85-1, U.S.G.S. Contract 14- 08-0001-21376, 19 p. Toppozada, T.R. and D.L. Parke, 1982, Areas Damaged by California Earthquakes, 1900-1949; Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, Open-file Report 82-17, Sacramento, Calif. VICINITY MAP El Im Chain—Link Fence Li 0 Building Garage I Building SCALE: 1" = 20' REFERENCE THIS PLOT PLAN WAS PREPARED FROM AN EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP BY O'DAY CONSULTANTS DATED APRIL 1997 AND FROM A GRADING PLAN BY THE SAME DATED SEPT 1989 AND FROM ON-SITE FIELD LEGEND RECONNAISSANCE PERFORMED BY GO. r ASSUMED PROPERTY BOUNDARY PLOT PLAN PROPOSED STRUCTURE and GEOLOGIC R11P _ '50 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY (Feet) PALISOUL/BLAIR DUPLEX NOTE: This Plot Plan is not to be used for legal purposes. Locations and dimensions are approxi— APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 2653 OCEAN STREET CARLSBAD, CA. mate. Actual property dimensions and locations B—i EXPLORATORY BORING FIGURE NUMBER I of utilities may be obtained from the Approved JOB NUMBER 89-5594 Building Plans or the As—Bull( Grading Plans. T-- i APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ___As EXPLORATORY TRENCH GEOTECHNICAL 5594—P2 Q rn QUATERNARY MARINE—TERRACE DEPOSITS ._ EXPLORATION INC. EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION -s DATE LOGGED Portable Auger Drill Ri.g 6" diameter boring 3-31-97 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY ± 38' Mean Sea Level Not encountered JKH FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION LiJ 19 CL CS d a_ W DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) M I a =1 3 cm C3 go SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND rock SM 2 - fragments and roots, poorly cemented. Dry to damp. Red- 4.5 98.1 brown. 19 3" 4 - 6 - TERRACE 34 8 - SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, SM 10 Pit". moderately cemented. Dense. Damp. Red-brown. 3.6 107.2 12- TERRACE 40+ Bottom of hole @ 11' 14 - 16- 18 - 20 - 22 — WATER TABLE JOB NAME Pali-soul/Blair Duplex LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION [I] IN—PLACE SAMPLE 2653 Ocean Street, Carlsbad,California U DRIVE SAMPLE JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG No. [] SAND CONE/F.D.T. 89 B - FIGURE NUMBER CONTINUOUS CORE SAMPLE Ha EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED Portable Auger Drill Rig 6" diameter boring 3-31-97 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY ± 38' Mean Sea Level Not encountered JKH FIELD DESCRIPTION AND in CL • CLASSIFICATION ,, &, CL + d " Ui DESCRIPTION (Grain size, DftE=re, Color) Gri =1 SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND with SM 2 • some roots and rock fragments. - Loose to medium dense. Damp to 5.7 112.9 414 - moist. Red-brown. 17 3" : - TERRACE 6 -: - FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, poorly SM 12 2" 8 cemented. Medium dense. Damp. Tan-gray and red-brown. 10- : I TERRACE FINE TO MEDIUM SAND with some SM 4•1 108.7 50 311 12 — rock fragments, moderately - cemented. Medium dense to dense. 14— Damp. Tan-gray and red-brown. - TERRACE 16 Bottom of hole @ 11.5' 18- 20 22 WATER TABLE JOB NAME Pali-soul/Blair Duplex LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION IN—PLACE SAMPLE 2653 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER • REVIEWED BY LOG No. U DRIVE SAMPLE ' SAND CONE/F.D.T. CONTINUOUS CORE SAMPLE 89-5594 FIGURE - 2 FIGURE NUMBER lib EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED Portable Auger Drill Ri-g 6" diameter boring 3-31-97 SURFACE ELEVAI1ON GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY ± 32' Mean Sea Level Not encountered JKH FIELD DESCRIPTION AND . _ co CLASSIFICATION ' 9 • cn . cn °... DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS U3 i (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) Ni La Vi S SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND with SM 2 - some roots and rock fragments. 8.1 108.8 - Medium dense. Damp. Red-brown. . 31 3" • TERRACE FINE .10 MEDIUM SAND with some SM • 21 rock fragments, poorly cemented.' 8 - Medium dense. Damp. Tan-gray and red-brown. . 10- TERRACE 5.6 100.5 39 12- - Bottom of hole @ 11.5' 14 - 16 - 18 - 20 22 - 9 WATER TABLE ' JOB NAME Pali-soul/Blair Duplex LOOSE BAG SAMPLE . SITE LOCATION OJ IN—PLACE SAMPLE . 2653 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY . LOG No. U DRIVE SAMPLE ' III SAND CONE/F.D.T. CONTINUOUS CORE SAMPLE 89-5594 (j FIGURE — 3 FIGURE NUMBER I Ic EQUIPMENT I DIMENSION & 1WE OF EXCAVATION I DATE LOGGED Portable Auger Drill Ri-g 6" diameter boring 3-31-97 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY ± 28' Mean Not encountered JKH FIELD DESCRIPTION AND n CLASSIFICATION in CL 2 + , . "a DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS IIA (Grain size, Density, Moisture,color)CS LLI ke _C2 c SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND with SM 2 - :f some roots, gravel and concrete t debris. Loose. Dry. Gray-brown. i 5.7 104.2 23 3" 4j: FILL - - SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, SM 0 moderately cemented. Medium dense. Damp. Red-brown. 8 V TERRACE - 16 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, poorly SM 10 cemented. Medium dense to dense. 4.6 103.3 Damp. Tan-gray and red-brown. 12: TERRACE 504 Bottom of hole @ 11' 14- '6 T 18- 20 22 19! WATER TABLE JOB NAME Pali..soul/Blair Duplex LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION lii IN—PLACE SAMPLE 2653 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG No. 1 DRIVE SAMPLE [] SAND CONE/F.D.T. CONTINUOUS CORE SAMPLE 89-5594 B - 4 FIGURE NUMBER lid EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED Portable Auger Drill Ri.g 6" diameter boring 3-31-97 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY ± 28' Mean Sea Level Not encountered JKH FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION a W W CK d U) w cn DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS a. (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color)L o cc mu -- - • 4•3 SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND with SM 2 - some roots, gravel and concrete debris. Loose. Dry. Gray-brown. 3.0 102.9 12 3" 1 -;: \ FILL - - SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND with some SM 6 i5F roots and rock fragments. Loose - } to medium dense. Damp. Red- 8 -.- brown. 17 TERRACE 10- FINE TO MEDIUM SAND with some rock SM 1.8 105.4 50+ 12 - / fragments, poorly cemented. Dense :Yt Damp to moist. Light gray and 14- J red-brown. 16 - - . TERRACE 18J. - perched groundwater 20 — Bottom of hole @ 19' 22- Drilling refusal @ 19' on dense sandstone. WATER TABLE JOB NAME Pali-soul/Blair Duplex LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION IN—PLACE SAMPLE 2653 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California DRIVE SAMPLE JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG No. I SAND CONE/F.D.T. 89-5594 I FIGURE NUMBER CONTINUOUS CORE SAMPLE ( lie EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED John Deere Backhoe 2' x 20' x 5' Trench 8/31/89 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH LOGGED BY Approximately 5' MSL Approximately 4' JKH FIELD DESCRIPTION . — AND S a CLASSIFICATION w 0. , 0 , ce U. La U1 DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) CL In 'I.. z In 0 X — W ca L v •• FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, with abundant SR cobbles and debris. Loose. Damp. 1 - Light gray. - 2_::::: -- BEACH SAND - • -groundwater SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND, well Sm - indurated. Dense. Moist. Yellow- 5 - tan. FORMATION - Bottom of hole @ 5'. Contact between beach sand and • formation ranges from 2' near the - bluff to 5' along the western property line. JOB NAME Paisoul/Blair Duplex 17 WATER TABLE SITE LOCATION LOOSE BAG SAMPLE 2600 Block of Ocean Street, Carlsbad, CA IN-PLACE SAMPLE JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG No. DRIVE SAMPLE 89-5594 T — 1 FIGURE NUMBER El SAND CONE/F.D.T. I If EIED 130 LABORATORY SOIL DATA SUMMARY DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA 1 2 3 APPARENT COHESION (psf) 850 APPARENT FRICTION ANGLE 380 Fines Chy 140 120 110 100 - In .-. a o — co 'W a a a • c a a a a 0 a a GRAIN DIAMETER, NM 2.70 2.60' SPECIFIC GRAVITY ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES 10 20 30 40 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST SOIL SOIL CLASSIFICATION BORING TRENCH DEPTH TYPE No. No. 1 SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND. Red-brown. B-i 2' 2 FINE TO MEDIUM SAND. Light gray & red-brown. B-5 10' 3 90 80'. 0 SWELL TEST DATA 1 2 3 INITIAL DRY DENSITY (pcf) INITIAL WATER CONTENT (S) LOAD (psf) PERCENT SWELL 0 0 FIGURE NUMBER lila JOB NUMBER 89-5594 jr CAgjD I'll" IMillil '-I I I I I -"III -"III uuuiin FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS NEAR SLOPES PROPOSED STRUCTURE CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB SETBACK - 51 - a a 64 I"N p4 44 4 q •,4 - _q_ b4 4 7 s--% 444., ,4 44 a • REINFORCEMENT OF 44 FOUNDATIONS AND FLOOR 6 SLABS FOLLOWING THE a a RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ARCHITECT OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 4 p S '4 CONCRETE FOUNDATION a 44 180 MINIMUM OR AS DEEP AS REQUIRED FOR LATERAL STABILITY TOP OF COMPACTED FILL SLOPE (Any loose soils on the slope surface shall not be considered to provide lateral or vertical strength for the footing or for slope stability. Needed depth of ithedment shall be measured from competent soil.) COMPACTED FILL SLOPE WITH MAXIMUM INCLINATION AS PER SOILS REPORT. TOTAL DEPTH OF FOOTING MEASURED _\ FROM FINISH SOIL SUB-GRADE COMPACTED FILL OUTER MOST FA(~çs 5' OF FOOTING TYPICAL SECTION (SHOWING PROPOSED FOUNDATION LOCATED WITHIN 5 FEET OF TOP OF SLOPE) 18" FOOTING! 5' SETBACK - TOTAL DEPTH OF FOOTING 1.5:1.0 SLOPE • 2.0:1.0 SLOPE 0 58" 48" • 1' 51" 42" - 2' 42" 36" 35 3411 30" 41 26" 24" 5' 18" 18" I when applicable FIGURE NUMBER iv JOB NUMBER 89-5594 RECOMMENDED RETAINING WALL/EXTERIOR FOOTING SUBDRAIN Proposed Exterior Grade - To Drain at A Mm. 5% 6" Mm. , ,._7Fall Away from Bldg Miradrain 60 Exterior /Retaining \ ............. Footing I Wall N .• . . \ Properly ,1. :• :• : Waterproofing Compacted To lop Of Wall -BackfTll F- Perforated PVC Schedule 40, 4" pipe with 0.5% mm. slope, Sealant with bottom of pipe located 12" Lower—level below slab or interior (crawlspace) Slab—on—grade \ . . . .. .:.: round suface elevation, with 1.5 Sealant ground of gravel 1" diameter °such as drain 6 cloth .......... .... 4 T Between Bottom Pipe Bottbrn Miradrain Cloth NOT TO SCALE NOTE: As an option to Miradroin 6000, Class II Aggregate Base 3/4" maximum diameter, per Coltrans Section 26-1.028 may be used, with a minimum 12' thickness along the interior face of the wall and 2.0 cu.ff./ft of pipe grovel envelope. 5594-V FIGURE NUMBER V JOB NUMBER 89-5594 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION INC. FAULT a A1Thi PAUL r S PALM SPRINGS 'MEXICO c ' \ JAI 1>6 / REGIONAL FAULT MAP FIGURE NUMBER VI JOB NUMBER 89-5594 COMPILED FROM CL)MC AND UCSD MAPS Fault Map of southern Caiffornia. io 20 30 40 50 60 miles 30 SO km GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION INC. APPENDIX A APPENDIX A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL DESCRIPTION COARSE-GRAINED More than half of material Is larger than a No. 200 sieve GRAVELS, CLEAN GRAVELS More than half of coarse fraction is larger than GW Well-graded gravels, gravel and sand mix- No. 4 sieve size, but smaller than 3" tures, little or no fines. GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mix- tures, little or no fines. GRAVELS WITH FINES (appreciable amount) SANDS, CLEAN SANDS More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than a No. 4 sieve. SANDS WITH FINES (appreciable amount) GM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures. GC Clay gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures. SW Well-graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no no fines. SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures. SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures. FINE-GRAINED More than half of material Is smaller than a No. 200 sieve SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit Less Than 50 Liquid Limit Greater Than 50. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt and clayey-silt sand mixtures with a slight plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, clean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity, MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. PT Peat and other highly organic soils. / APPENDIX B APPENDIX B GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS General The objective of these specifications is to properly establish procedures for the clearing and preparation of the existing natural ground or properly compacted fill to receive new fill; for the selection of the fill material; and for the fill compaction and testing methods to be used. Scope of Work The earthwork includes all the activities and resources provided by the contractor to construct in a good workmanlike manner all the grades of the filled areas shown in the plans. The major items of work covered in this section include all clearing and grubbing, removing and disposing of materials, preparing areas to be filled, compacting of fill, compacting of backfills, subdrain installations, and all other work necessary to complete the grading of the filled areas. Site Visit and Site Investigation The contractor shall visit the site and carefully study it, and make all inspections necessary in order to determine the full extent of the work required to complete all grading in conformance with the drawings and specifications. The contractor shall satisfy himself as to the nature, location, and extent of the work conditions, the conformation and condition of the existing ground surface; and the type of equipment, labor, and facilities needed prior to and during prosecution of the work. The contractor shall satisfy himself as to the character, quality, and quantity of surface and subsurface materials or obstacles to be encountered. • Any inaccuracies or discrepancies between the actual field conditions and the drawings, or between the drawings and specifications, must be brought to the engineer's attention in order to clarify the exact nature of the work to be performed. A soils investigation report has been prepared for this project by GEl. It is available for review and should be used as a reference to the surface and subsurface soil and bedrock conditions on this project. Any B2 recommendations made in the report of the soil investigation or subsequent reports shall become an addendum to these specifications. Authority of the Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist The soils engineer shall be the owner's representative to observe and test the construction of fills. Excavation and the placing of fill shall be under the observation of the soils engineer and his/her representative, and he/she shall give a written opinion regarding conformance with the specifications upon completion of grading. The soils engineer shall have the authority to cause the removal and replacement of porous topsoils, uncompacted or improperly compacted fills, disturbed bedrock materials, and soft alluvium, and shall have the authority to approve or reject materials proposed for use in the compacted fill areas. The soils engineer shall have, in conjunction with the engineering geologist, the authority to approve the preparation of natural ground and toe-of-fill benches to receive fill material. The engineering geologist shall have the authority to evaluate the stability of the existing or proposed slopes, and to evaluate the necessity of remedial measures. If any unstable condition is being created by cutting or filling, the engineering geologist and/or soils engineer shall advise the contractor and owner immediately, and prohibit grading in the affected area until such time as corrective measures are taken. The owner shall decide all questions regarding: (1) the interpretation of the drawings and specifications, (2) the acceptable fulfillment of the contract on the part of the contractor, and (3) the matter of compensation. Clearing and Grubbing Clearing and grubbing shall consist of the removal from all areas to be graded of all surface trash, abandoned improvements, paving, culverts, pipe, and vegetation (including - but not limited to - heavy weed growth, trees, stumps, logs and roots larger than 1-inch in diameter). All organic and inorganic materials resulting from the clearing and grubbing operations shall be collected, piled, and disposed of by the contractor to give the cleared areas a neat and finished appearance. Burning of combustible materials on-site shall not be permitted unless allowed by local regulations, and at such times and in such a manner to C r_`~L 4 D B3 prevent the fire from spreading to areas adjoining the property or cleared area. 3. It is understood that minor amounts of organic materials may remain in the fill soils due to the near impossibility of complete removal. The amount remaining, however, must be considered negligible, and in no case can be allowed to occur in concentrations or total quantities sufficient to contribute to settlement upon decomposition. Preparation of Areas to be Filled After clearing and grubbing, all uncompacted or improperly compacted fills, soft or loose soils, or unsuitable materials, shall be removed to expose competent natural ground, undisturbed bedrock, or properly compacted fill as indicated in the soils investigation report or by our field representative. Where the unsuitable materials are exposed in final graded areas, they shall be removed and replaced as compacted fill. The ground surface exposed after removal of unsuitable soils shall be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, brought to the specified moisture content, and then the scarified ground compacted to at least the specified density. Where undisturbed bedrock is exposed at the surface, scarification and recompaction shall not be required. All areas to receive compacted fill, including all removal areas and toe-of- fill benches, shall be observed and approved by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placing compacted fill. Where fills are made on hillsides or exposed slope areas with gradients greater than 20 percent, horizontal benches shall be cut into firm, undisturbed, natural ground in order to provide both lateral and vertical stability. This is to provide a horizontal base so that each layer is placed and compacted on a horizontal plane. The initial bench at the toe of the fill shall be at least 10 feet in width on firm, undisturbed, natural ground at the elevation of the toe stake placed at the bottom of the design slope. The engineer shall determine the width and frequency of all succeeding benches, which will vary with the soil conditions and the steepness of the slope. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent (5.0:1.0) shall be benched when considered necessary by the soils engineer. B4 Fill and Backfill Material Unless otherwise specified, the on-site material obtained from the project excavations may be used as fill or backfill, provided that all organic material, rubbish, debris, and other objectionable material contained therein is first removed. In the event that expansive materials are encountered during foundation excavations within 3 feet of finished grade and they have not been properly processed, they shall be entirely removed or thoroughly mixed with good, granular material before incorporating them in fills. No footing shall be allowed to bear on soils which, in the opinion of the soils engineer, are detrimentally expansive -- unless designed for this clayey condition. However, rocks, boulders, broken Portland cement concrete, and bituminous- type pavement obtained from the project excavations may be permitted in the backfill or fill with the following limitations: 1. The maximum dimension of any piece used in the top 10 feet shall be no larger than 6 inches. 2 Clods or hard lumps of earth of 6 inches in greatest dimension shall be broken up before compacting the material in fill. If the fill material originating from the project excavation contains large rocks, boulders, or hard lumps that cannot be broken readily, pieces ranging from 6 inches in diameter to 2 feet in maximum dimension may be used in fills below final subgrade if all pieces are placed in such a manner (such as windrows) as to eliminate nesting or voids between them. No rocks over 4 feet will be allowed in the fill. Pieces larger than 6 inches shall not be placed within 12 inches of any structure. Pieces larger than 3 inches shall not be placed within 12 inches of the subgrade for paving. Rockfills containing less than 40 percent of soil passing 3/4-inch sieve may be permitted in designated areas. Specific recommendations shall be made by the soils engineer and be subject to approval by the city engineer. Continuous observation by the soils engineer is required during rock placement. CNN B5 Special and/or additional recommendations may be provided in writing by the soils engineer to modify, clarify, or amplify these specifications. During grading operations, soil types other than those analyzed in the soil investigation report may be encountered by the contractor. The soils engineer shall be consulted to evaluate the suitability of these soils as fill materials. Placing and Compacting Fill Material After preparing the areas to be filled, the approved fill material shall be placed in approximately horizontal layers, with lift thickness compatible to the material being placed and the type of equipment being used. Unless otherwise approved by the soils engineer, each layer spread for compaction shall not exceed 8 inches of loose thickness. Adequate drainage of the fill shall be provided at all times during the construction period. When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the engineer, water shall be added to it until the moisture content is as specified. When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the engineer, resulting in inadequate compaction or unstable fill, the fill material shall be aerated by blading and scarifying or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than the density set forth in the specifications. Compaction shall be accomplished with sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other approved types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such design that it will be able to compact the fill to the specified relative compaction. Compaction shall cover the entire fill area, and the equipment shall make sufficient trips to ensure that the desired density has been obtained throughout the entire fill. At locations where it would be impractical due to inaccessibility of rolling compacting equipment, fill layers shall be compacted to the specified requirements by hand-directed compaction equipment. When soil types or combination of soil types are encountered which tend to develop densely packed surfaces as a result of spreading or B6 compacting operations, the surface of each layer of fill shall be sufficiently roughened after compaction to ensure bond to the succeeding layer. Unless otherwise specified, fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical. In general, fill slopes shall be finished in conformance with the lines and grades shown on the plans. The surface of fill slopes shall be overfilled to a distance from finished slopes such that it will allow compaction equipment to operate freely within the zone of the finished slope, and then cut back to the finished grade to expose the compacted core. Alternate compaction procedures include the backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers in increments of 3 to 5 feet in elevation gain. Alternate methods may be used by the contractor, but they shall be evaluated for approval by the soils engineer. Unless otherwise specified, all allowed expansive fill material shall be compacted to a moisture content of approximately 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content. Nonexpansive fill shall be compacted at near-optimum moisture content. All fill shall be compacted, unless otherwise specified, to a relative compaction not less than 95 percent for fill in the upper 12 inches of subgrades under areas to be paved with asphalt concrete or Portland concrete, and not less than 90 percent for other fill. The relative compaction is the ratio of the dry unit weight of the compacted fill to the laboratory maximum dry unit weight of a sample of the same soil, obtained in accordance with A.S.T.M. D-1557 test method. The observation and periodic testing by the soils engineer are intended to provide the contractor with an ongoing measure of the quality of the fill compaction operation. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to utilize this information to establish the degrees of compactive effort required on the project. More importantly, it is the responsibility of the grading contractor to ensure that proper compactive effort is applied at all times during the grading operation, including during the absence of soils engineering representatives. Trench Backfill 1. Trench excavations which extend under graded lots, paved areas, areas under the influence of structural loading, in slopes or close to slope areas, shall be backfilled under the observations and testing of the soils engineer. All trenches not falling within the aforementioned locations 87 shall be backfilled in accordance with the City or County regulating agency specifications. Unless otherwise specified, the minimum degree of compaction shall be 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Any soft, spongy, unstable, or other similar material encountered in the trench excavation upon which the bedding material or pipe is to be placed, shall be removed to a depth recommended by the soils engineer and replaced with bedding materials suitably densified. Bedding material shall first be placed so that the pipe is supported for the full length of the barrel with full bearing on the bottom segment. After the needed testing of the pipe is accomplished, the bedding shall be completed to at least 1 foot on top of the pipe. The bedding shall be properly densified before backfill is placed. Bedding shall consist of granular material with a sand equivalent not less than 30, or other material approved by the engineer. No rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter will be allowed in the backfill placed between 1 foot above the pipe and 1 foot below finished subgrade. Rocks greater than 2.5 inches in any dimension will not be allowed in the backfill placed within 1 foot of pavement subgrade. Material for mechanically compacted backfill shall be placed in lifts of horizontal layers and properly moistened prior to compaction. In addition, the layers shall have a thickness compatible with the material being placed and the type of equipment being used. Each layer shall be evenly spread, moistened or dried, and then tamped or rolled until the specified relative compaction has been attained. Backfill shall be mechanically compacted by means of tamping rollers, sheepsfoot rollers, pneumatic tire rollers, vibratory rollers, or other mechanical tampers. Impact-type pavement breakers (stompers) will not be permitted over clay, asbestos cement, plastic, cast iron, or nonreinforced. concrete pipe. Permission to use specific compaction equipment shall not be construed as guaranteeing or implying that the use of such equipment will not result in damage to adjacent ground, existing improvements, or improvements installed under the contract. The contractor shall make his/her own determination in this regard. Jetting shall not be permitted as a compaction method unless the soils engineer allows it in writing. B8 8. Clean granular material shall not be used as backfill or bedding in trenches located in slope areas or within a distance of 10 feet of the top of slopes unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate the potential buildup of seepage forces into the slope mass. Observations and Testing The soils engineers or their representatives shall sufficiently observe and test the grading operations so that they can state their opinion as to whether or not the fill was constructed in accordance with the specifications. The soils engineers or their representatives shall take sufficient density tests during the placement of compactad fill. The contractor should assist the soils engineer and/or his/her representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. In addition, the contractor should cooperate with the soils engineer by removing or shutting down equipment from the area being tested. Fill shall be tested for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should be performed by using approved methods by A.S.T.M., such as A.S.T.M. Dl 556, D2922, and/or D2937. Tests to evaluate density of compacted fill should be provided on the basis of not less than one test for each 2- foot vertical lift of the fill, but not less than one test for each 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. In fill slopes, approximately half of the tests shall be made at the fill slope, except that not more than one test needs to be made for each 50 horizontal feet of slope in each 2-foot vertical lift. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the soils engineer. Site Protection It shall be the grading contractor's obligation to take all measures deemed necessary during grading to maintain adequate safety measures and working conditions, and to provide erosion-control devices for the protection of B9 excavated areas, slope areas, finished work on the site and adjoining properties, from storm damage and flood hazard originating on the project. It shall be the contractor's responsibility to maintain slopes in their as-graded form until all slopes are in satisfactory compliance with the job specifications, all berms and benches have been properly constructed, and all associated drainage devices have been installed and meet the requirements of the specifications. All observations, testing services, and approvals given by the soils engineer and/or geologist shall not relieve the contractor of his/her responsibilities of performing the work in accordance with these specifications. After grading is completed and the soils engineer has finished his/her observations and/or testing of the work, no further excavation or filling shall be done except under his/her observations. Adverse Weather Conditions Precautions shall be taken by the contractor during the performance of site clearing, excavations, and grading to protect the worksite from flooding, ponding, or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions shall be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the worksite. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting shall be kept reasonably accessible to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary during periods of rainfall, the contractor shall install checkdams, desilting basins, rip-rap, sandbags, or other devices or methods necessary to control erosion and provide safe conditions. During periods of rainfall, the soils engineer should be kept informed by the contractor as to the nature of remedial or preventative work being performed (e.g. pumping, placement of sandbags or plastic sheeting, other labor, dozing, etc.). Following periods of rainfall, the contractor shall contact the soils engineer and arrange a walk-over of the site in order to visually assess rain-related damage. The soils engineer may also recommend excavations and testing in order to aid in his/her assessments. At the request of the soils engineer, the contractor shall make excavations in order to evaluate the extent of rain-related damage. CAN B1O Rain-related damage shall be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress, and other adverse conditions identified by the soils engineer. Soil adversely affected shall be classified as Unsuitable Materials, and shall be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading, as recommended by the soils engineer. Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot, shall be overexcavated to unaffected, competent material. Where less than 1.0 foot in depth, unsuitable materials may be processed in place to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly recompacted in accordance with the applicable specifications. If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials shall be over-excavated, then replaced in accordance with the applicable specifications. In slope areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot, they shall be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture-conditioning in place, followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein presented may be attempted. If materials shall be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill, it shall be done in accordance with the slope-repair recommendations herein. As field conditions dictate, other slope-repair procedures may be recommended by the soils engineer. APPENDIX C qr[Agilo TABLE 1 DATE: Monday, May 12, 1997 * * * E Q F A U L T * * * Ver. 2.00 * * * * * ************************************* (Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Digitized California Faults) SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: JAY JOB NUMBER: 89-5594 JOB NAME: PALISOUL/BLAIR SITE COORDINATES: LATITUDE: 33.16 N LONGITUDE: 117.35 W SEARCH RADIUS: 100 ml ATTENUATION RELATION: 1) Campbell (1991) Horlz. - Deep Soil & Soft Rock UNCERTAINTY (M=Mean, S=Mean+1-Sigma): M SCOND: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CALIFLT.DAT SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A=Attenuation File, F=Fault Data File): A ----------------------------- DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAX. CREDIBLE EVENT: I APPROX. ABBREVIATED !DISTANCE 1 MAX.1 PEAK 1 SITE FAULT NAME mi (km) ',CRED.,' SITE 11 INTENS , 11 MAG.ACC. .g MM 11 I -- I ---------- I - I :ANACAPA 1 -------------------------- 98 --------- I (158)1 I --------- I 7.00: I ----- ------I I 0.009: ------I ------I III 1 ------ I BLUE CUT 1 ------------------------I 82 I (131),' ---------I I 7.001 -----I I 0.011: ------I I III if ------I I I BORREGO MTN. (San Jacinto)1 I I - 68 I (109)1 I I 6.501 __I I 0.0111 ------I I III I ------I I ----------------- I ICAMP ROCK - EMERSON 1 I--------------------------I 99 - I (160) 1 ---------I I 7.50: -----I I 0.0101 ------I I III 1 ------I I - I 1 CASA LOMA-CLARK (S . Jacin.) I--------------------------I 47 I ( 76)1 ---------I I 7.501 -----I I 0. 0401 ------I I V 1 I CHINO 'CHINO I--------------------------I 45 I ( 73)11 ---------I I 7.00: -----I I 0.0361 ------I ------ I V 11 ------ I I CLEGHORN 1 I--------------------------I 77 I (124): ---------I I 6.50: -----I I 0.0081 ------I III ------I I I 1 CORONADO BANK 1 I--------------------------I 21 I ( 34)l ---------l____ I 7.0011 __._I I 0.08911 ------I I VII I ------I I I !COYOTE CREEK (San Jacinto) I--------------------------I 52 I ( 84)1 ---------I__ I 7.50: __I I 0.0351 ------I I V 1 ------ I I CUCAMONGA 1 ------------------------I 70 I (112)1 ---------I__ I 7.00: __I I 0.0171 ------I I IV ------I I I ELSINORE 1 I--------------------------I 24 I ( 39)l ---------I I 7.501 -----I I 0.100il ------I ------I I VII I I I GLN.HELEN-LYTLE CR-CLREMNT{ I--------------------------I 50 I ( 80)1 ---------I I 7.501 -----I I 0.037: ------I ------I I V 1 I I 1 HELENDALE 1 I --------------------------I 84 I (135): ---------I I 7.501 -----I I 0 .01511 ------I IV 1 ------I I I HOT S-BUCK RDG.(S.Jacinto)l I --------------------------I 51 I ( 82): ---------I I 7.501 ___ I 0.0361 .1 ------I I V ------I I I LENWOOD 1 I--------------------------I 93 I (150){ ---------I I 7.2511 -----I I 0.010: ------I I III 1 ------I I I ftIALIBU COAST : I--------------------------I 92 I (148)1 ---------I I 7.501 -----I I 0.0141 ------I I IV 1 ------I I I MOJAVE RIVER (Ord Mtn.) I I--------------------------,I 79(127)1 I I 7.001 -----I I 0.0141 ------I I III 11 ------I I I I NEWPORT - INGLEWOOD 1 I--------------------------I 38 I ( 61) 1 ---------I I 7.50 11 -----I I 0.0551 ------I I VI ------I I 1 NORTHRIDGE HILLS I--------------------------I 98 I (158)1 ---------I I 6.501 -----I I 0.0061 ------I I II 1 ------I I I I OFFSHORE ZONE OF DEFORM. 1 -------------------------• 7 I ( 12)l ---------I I 7.501 -----I I 0.3411 ------ I IX I II ,OLD WOMAN SPRINGS if I--------------------------I 91 I (146)1 ---------I I 7.0011 -----I 0.0091, II ------I I III 11 I I IPALOS VERDES HILLS if I--------------------------I 38 I ( 61)1 ---------I I 7.0011 -----I -------I I 0.04011 ------I ------I I V if ------I I I 'PINTO MOUNTAIN - MORONGO I I--------------------------I 73 I (118) 1 ---------I I 7.501 -----I I 0.0191 ------I I IV 1 I I RAYMOND I 78 I (126) I 7.50: I 0.0201 ------I I IV I !MAX. PROBABLE EVENT ------------------- 1 MAX. PEAK 1 SITE 1 PROB. I SITE I INTENS I MAG.ACC. gil MM I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 6.2511 0.0051 II I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 6.251 0.0061 II I -----I ------I ______ I I I 6.25: 0.0091 III I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 6.00 11 0.0031 I I -----I ------I ______ I I I 7.001 0.0291 V I I I 1 4.7511 0.0081 III I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 6.2511 0.007: ii I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 6.501 0.0661 VI I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 6.001 0.0121 III I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 6.751 0.0151 IV I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 6.75: 0.0631 VI I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 7.001 0.0261 V I -----I ------I ______ I I 1 6.251 0.0061 II I I 6.251 0.015 I 1 IV I -----I ------I ______ I I I 6.001 0.0041 I I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 5.0011 0.0021 - I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 6.2511 0.0081 II I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 6.501 0.02911 V I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 4.0011 0.001 11 - I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 6.001 0.1601 VIII I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 5.751 0.0031 I I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 5.501 0.0151 IV I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 6.0011 0.0061 II I -----I ------I ______ I I I 1 5.501 0.005 II I_I _ ,____ I__I _Il_I _I _p I I I I I II I I I ROSE CANYON 4 ( 6fl 7.50 0.472 X H 6.2511 0.30111 IX I I I --- -----------------------I --------- I -----I I ------ I ------ II ----- I ------ I ------ I I I II I I I DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS ----------------------------- Page 2 ----------------------------------------- MAX. CREDIBLE EVENT 1 MAX. PROBABLE EVENT APPROX. ---------------------:----------------- ABBREVIATED !DISTANCE MAX.! PEAK I SITE MAX. PEAK 1 SITE FAULT NAME I ml (km) CRED.1 SITE II INTENSI I'PROB.11 SITE 1INTENS I--------------------------I 11 ---------I MAG.!ACC. g1 _ ___I ------I MM ------II H MAC. IACC. gl -----I ------I MM ______ I I SAN ANDREAS (Mojave) 1 I ---------- 78 I (126)1 I I 8.501 I I 0.0341 __I V 11 ____II II I 8.251 -----I I 0.0291 ------I V ______ I -------------------------- I SAN ANDREAS (Southern) I--------------------------I 68 I (109): ---------I -----I 8.001 I ------ -- I 0.031 11 ------I V ------II II I H 7.251 -----I I 0.018 11 ------I IV !SAND I ISAND HILLS 1 I --------------------------I 96 I (155)11 I --------- ----- I 8.001 I I 0.0161 IV II I H 7.001 I 0.0081 ------ II I I SAN CLEMENTE 1 ------------------------I 55 I ( 88)1 ---------I - I 7.50: I ------- 11 0.0321 ------I ------ IIII V H ------II ----- II 6.251 -----I ------ II 0.0141 ______ III I I ISAN GABRIEL 1 I--------------------------I 82 I (133)1 ---------I ----- I 7.501 I__ I 0.0151 __I II IV 11 ------II I 6.251 -----I ------I I 0.0061 ______ II I I SAN GORGONIO - BANNING 1 I--------------------------I 60 I ( 97)1 ---------I - I 8.001 I__ I 0.0381 II V H __I ------II I 7.001 ------I I 0.0191 ______ IV !SANTA I ISANTA MONICA - HOLLYWOOD 1 I--------------------------I 83 I (134): ---------I I 7.501 ____I I 0.0181 ------I ------II II IV H -----I I 6.001 -----I ------I ------ I 0.0061 II I I SIERRA MADRE-SAN FERNANDO 1 ------------------------I 73 I (117)1 ---------I I 7.501 I I 0.0231 ------I ------II II IV H I 6.501 ------I ______ I 0.0111 III I I SUPERSTITION HLS.(S.Jacln)1 I--------------------------I 87 I (141)1 ---------I__ -- I 7.001 ___I I 0.0091 ------I ------II II III H -----I I 5.751 -----I ------I ______ 0.0041 I I I ISUPERSTITION MTN.(S.Jacin),' I--------------------------I 82 I (132)1 ---------I I 7.001 ___I I 0.0111 ------I ------II II III 11 I 6.001 -----I ------I ______ I 0.0051 II I I VERDUGO 1 ------------------------I 80 ---------I I (129)1 I 7.001 I I 0.0131 -------------II II III 11 I 4.501 -----I ------I ______ I 0.0021 ------I ______ - I I IWHITT.IER - NORTH ELSINORE 1 44 I ( 71)1 - I 7.501 I 0.0451 II VI H I 6.251 I 0.0191 IV I--------------------------I ---------I ------------I ------II -----I ------I ______ I I I I I II I I -END OF SEARCH- 37 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. rHE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 4.0 MILES AWAY. JARGEST MAXIMUM-CREDIBLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.472 g LARGEST MAXIMUM-PROBABLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.301 g TABLE 2 DATE: Monday, May 12, 1997 * * * E Q S E A R C H * * * * Ver. 2.00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * (Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From California Earthquake Catalogs) SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: JAY JOB NUMBER: 89-5594 JOB NAME: PALISOUL/BLAIR SITE COORDINATES: LATITUDE: 33.16 N LONGITUDE: 117.35 W YPE OF SEARCH: RADIUS SEARCH RADIUS: 100 ml ;EARCH MAGNITUDES: 5.0 TO 9.0 SEARCH DATES: 1800 TO 1996 ATTENUATION RELATION: 1) Campbell (1991) Horiz. - Deep Soil & Soft Rock UNCERTAINTY (M=Mean, S=Mean+1-Sigma): M SCOND: 0 -. FAULT TYPE ASSUMED (DS=Reverse, SS=Strike-Slip): DS COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION EARTHQUAKE- DATA FILE USED: ALLQUAKE. DAT 'IME PERIOD OF EXPOSURE FOR STATISTICAL COMPARISON: 25 years SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A=Attenuation File, E=Earthquake Catalog): A Page 1 TIME SITE !SITE! APPROX. FILE LAT. , LONG. 1 DATE 1 (GMT) 1DEPTHIQUAKE 1 ACC. 1 MM ' DISTANCE CODE NORTH , WEST 1 1 H M Sec (km)l MAG. I g 'INT.' ml [km] -- - ------ - ------- I I I _ -- ----------- -------- - ----- I I ------ ------- _ ---- _----------- DMG 133.0001117.3001 11/22/1800 12130 0.01 3.0' 6.50 1 0.158 IVIIII 11 [ 181 AGI 132.8001117.1001 5/25/1803 1 0 0 0.01 3.0' 5.00 , 0.020 1 IV 1 29 46] DMG 134.3701117.6501 12/ 8/1812 115 0 0.01 3.0' 7.00 , 0.012 1 1111 85 [ 1371 f-A 34.000 118.250 9/23/1827 0 0 0.011 3.011 5.00 11 0.003 11 I 11 78 125] IGI 134.1001118.1001 7/11/1855 ' 415 0.01 3.0 .6.30 1 0.008 1 III 78 f 1251 T-A ,34.000 118.250 1/10/1856 1 0 0 0.01 3.01 5.00 1.0.003 1 I 1 78 125] MGI 33.000 117.000 9/21/1856 1 730 0.0' 3.011 5.00 1 0.027 1 V 1 23 371 f-A 132.6701117.1701 12/ 0/1856 1 0 0 0.0' 3.01 5.00 1 0.014 1 IV 1 35 [ 57] MGI :34.000 117.500 12/16/1858 110 0 0.0' 3.01 7.00 1 0.024 I IV 1 59 [ 941 T-A 134.000 118.250, 3/26/1860 1 0 0 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.003 1 I 1 78 [ 125] DMG 132.700,117.200 5/27/1862 120 0 0.01 3.01 5.90 1 0.029 1 V 1 33 1 531 F-A 132.670 117.170, 10/21/1862 1 0 0 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.014 1 IV 1 35 [ 571 T-A 132.670 117.170, 5/24/1865 1 0 0 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.014 1 IV 1 35 [ 57] -A 133.500 115.8201 5/ 0/1868 0 0 0.01 3.01 6.30 1 0.006 1 II ' 91 [ 147] F-A 132.250 117.500, 1/13/1877 120 0 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.005 1 II 1 63 [ 1021 DMG 133.900117.2001 12/19/1880 1 0 0 0.01 3.01 6.00 1 0.015 1 IV 1 52 [ 83] DMG 134.1001116.700 2/ 7/1889 1 520 0.01 3.01 5.30 1 0.004 1 I 1 75 1 1211 DMG 134.2001117.900 8/28/1889 1 215 0.01 3.01 5.50 1 0.005 1 II 1 78 [ 1261 DMG 133.4001116.300 2/ 9/1890 112 6 0.01 3.01 6.30 1 0.013 1 1111 63 1 1011 1)MG 132.7001116.300 2/24/1892 1 720 0.01 3.01 6.70 1 0.014 1 IV 1 69 [ 1101 )MG 133.2001116.200' 5/28/1892 11115 0.01 3.01 6.30 1 0.012 1 1111 67 [ 1071 JMG 134.300 1 117.6001 7/30/1894 1 512 0.01 3.01 6.00 1 0.006 1 II 1 80 [ 129] DMG 132.8001116.8001 10/23/1894 123 3 0.01 3.01 5.70 1 0.018 1 IV 1 40 [ 65] )MG 134.200 1117.4001 7/22/1899 1 046 0.01 3.01 5.50 1 0.006 1 II 1 72 [ 116] )MG 34.300'117.500 7/22/1899 12032 0.01 3.01 6.50 1 0.009 1 III, 79 [ 1271 DMG 133.8001117.0001 12/25/1899 11225 0.01 3.01 6.40 1 0.022 I IV 1 49 [ 781 1G1 134.0001118.0001 12/25/1903 11745 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.004 1 I 1 69 [ 111 4G1 134.1001117.3001 7/15/1905 12041 0.01 3.01 5.30 0.006 1 II 1 65 [ 105 MGI 134.000 118.3001 9/ 3/1905 1 540 0.01 3.01 5.30 1 0.004 1 I 1 80 [ 1281 1MG 134.200 117.1001 9/20/1907 1 154 0.01 3.01 6.00 1 0.008 , II 1 73 [ 118] )MG 133.700 117.4001 4/11/1910 1 757 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.013 1 III' 37 [ 601 JMG 133.700 117.400 5/13/1910 1 620 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.013 ' 1111 37 [ 60] DMG 33.700 117.400:. 5/15/1910 11 1547 0.01 3.01 6.00 1 0.025 ' V ' 37 [ 60] )MG 133.500 116.500 9/30/1916 1 211 0.01 3.0' 5.00 1 0.007 1 II 1 54 1 871 )MG 133.750 117.0001 4/21/1918 1223225.01 3.0' 6.80 1 0.032 ' V ' 45 [ 731 MGI '33.800 117.600' 4/22/1918 12115 0.01 3.0' 5.00 1 0.009 1 1111 46 [ 75] )MG 133.7501117.0001 6/ 6/1918 12232 0.01 3.0' 5.00 1 0.009 ' III' 45 1 73] fGI '34.000 118.500 11/19/1918 12018 0.01 3.01 5.00 , 0.002 1 - 88 1 1421 0MG '33.200 116.700' 1/ 1/1920 .11 235 0.011 3.011 5.00 , 0.013 11 1111 38 [ 611 GI 34.080,118.260 7/16/1920 1 18 8 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.003 1 I 1 82 [ 132] IGI 133.200,116.600 10/12/1920 11748 0.01 3.01 5.30 , 0.012 1 III 43 1 70] JMG 134.0001117.2501 7/2311923 1 73026.01 3.01 6.25 1 0.014 1 IV 1 58 [ 941 0MG 134.000 1 116.0001 4/ 3/1926 120 8 0.01 3.01 5.50 1 0.003 1 I 1 97 [ 1561 )MG 134.0001118.5001 8/ 4/1927 11224 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.002 1 - 88 142] JMG 134.0001116.0001 9/ 5/1928 11442 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.002 1 - 97 [ 1561 DMG 132.9001115.7001 10/ 2/1928 119 1 0.01 3.01 5.00 ' 0.002 1 - 97 156] )MG '34.1801116.920 1/16/1930 02433.91 3.01 5.20 1 0.004 1 I 1 75 [ 1201 )MG 134.1801116.9201 1/16/1930 034 3.61 3.01 5.10 1 0.004 1 I 1 75 120] DMG 133.9501118.6321 8/31/1930 1 04036.01 3.01 5.20 1 0.003 1 - 92 [ 1481 )MG 133.6171117.9671 3/11/1933 1 154 7.81 3.01 6.30 1 0.021 1 IV 1 48 77] )MG 33.7501118.0831 3/11/1933 1 2 9 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.006 1 II 1 59 941 JMG 33.7501118.0831 3/11/1933 1 230 0.01 3.01 5.10 1 0.006 I II 1 59 941 DMG 133 .7501118.0831 3/11/1933 1 323 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.006 1 11 1 59 [ 941 DMG 133.7001118.0671 3/11/1933 1 51022.01 3.01 5.10 1 0.007 1 II I 56 [ 901 DMG 133.5751117.9831 3/11/1933 1 518 4.01 3.01 5.20 1 0.010 1 1111 46 [ 751 DMG 133.6831118.0501 3/11/1933 1 658 3.01 3.01 5.50 1 0.010 1 1111 54 [ 87] DMG 133.7001118.0671 3/11/1933 1 85457.01 3.01 5.10 I 0.007 1 II 1 56 [ 90] DMG 133.7501118.0831 3/11/1933 1 910 0.01 3.01 5.10 1 0.006 1 II I 59 [ 941 Page 2 TIME SITE SITE APPROX. FILE LAT. 1 LONG. 1 DATE 1 (GMT) 1DEPTH11 QUAKE , ACC. 11 MM 11 DISTANCE CODE NORTH 1 WEST 1 1 H M Sec (km)' MAG. , g INT. ml [km] DMG 133.8501118.26711 3/11/1933 1425 0.011 3.011 5.00 1 0.004 11 I 11 71 [ 114] DMG 133.7501118.0831 3/13/1933 1131828.01 3.01-5.30 1 0.007 1 II 1 59 1 941 DMG 33.617 118.017 3/14/1933 119 150.0' 3.01 5.10 10.009 1 1111 50 80] DMG 133.7831118.1331 10/ 2/1933 1 91017.6' 3.01 5.40 ' 0.007 1 II 1 62 f 1001 DMG 132.0831116.6671 11/25/1934 1 818 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.003 , I , 84 136] DMG 134.1001116.8001 10/24/1935 11448 7.61 3.01 5.10 1 0.004 , I , 72 1161 DMG 133.4081116.2611 3/25/1937 ,1649 1.81 3.01 6.00 1 0.010 1 1111 65 [ 105] DMG 133.6991117.5111 5/31/1938 1 83455.41 3.01 5.50 I 0.017 , IV , 38 [ 621 DMG 132.0001117.5001 5/ 1/1939 12353 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.003 1 I 1 81 [ 130] DMG 132.0001117.500 6/24/1939 11627 0.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.003 ' I 1 81 [ 130] DMG 134.0831116.3001 5/18/1940 11 5 358.511 3.01 5.40 11 0.003 if I 11 88 [ 141 DMG 134.0671116.333' 5/18/1940 1 55120.21 3.01 5.20 I 0.003 1 I if 86 [ 138 DMG 134.0671116.333 5/18/1940 1 72132.71 3.01 5.00 1 0.003 1 I 1 86 [ 138 DMG 133.0001116.433 6/ 4/1940 11035 8.31 3.01 5.10 1 0.007 1 II 1 54 [ 87 DMG 133.7831118.250 11/14/1941 1 84136.31 3.01 5.40 ' 0.006 1 II 1 67 [ 108 DMG 132.9831115.983 5/23/1942 1154729.01 3.0' 5.00 ' 0.003 1 I 1 80 1 1291 DMG 132.9671116.000 10/21/1942 1162213.01 3.01 6.50 1 0.009 1 1111 79 [ 1281 DMG 132.9671116.000 10/21/1942 1162519.01 3.01 5.00 ' 0.003 1 I 1 79 [ 128] DMG 132.9671116.0001 10/21/1942 1162654.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.003 1 I 1 79 [ 128] DMG 133.2331115.7171 10/22/1942 1 15038.01 3.01 5.50 1 0.003 1 I 1 94 [ 1521 DMG 132.9671116.0001 10/22/1942 1181326.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.003 1 I 1 79 [ 128] DMG 134.2671116.9671 8/29/1943 1 34513.01 3.01 5.50 1 0.004 1 I , 80 [ 128] DMG 133.976 1 116.7211 6/12/1944 1104534.71 3.01 5.10 1 0.005 1 II 1 67 [ 1081 DMG 133.9941116.7121 6/12/1944 1111636.01 3.01 5.30 1 0.005 1 II 1 68 1 1101 DMG 133.2171116.1331 8/15/1945 1175624.01 3.01 5.70 1 0.007 , II 1 70 [ 113] DMG 133.0001115.8331 1/ 8/1946 1185418.01 3.01 5.40 1 0.003 I I 1 88 [ 142] DMG 133.9501116.8501 9/28/1946 1 719 9.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.005 ' II ' 62 [ 99] DMG 134.0171116.5001 7/24/1947 1221046.0' 3.01 5.50 1 0.005 1 II 1 77 [ 1241 DMG 34.0171116.500' 7/25/1947 04631.011 3.01 5.00 11 0.003 ' I ' 77 [ 124] DMG 34.017 116.500'. 7/25/1947 61949.011 3.01 5.20 it 0.004 ' I ' 77 1 1241 DMG 134.0171116.5001 7/26/1947 ' 24941.01 3.01 5.10 1 0.004 1 I 1 77 [ 124] .DMG 132.5001118.5501 2/24/1948 ' 81510.01 3.01 5.30 1 0.004 1 I ' 83 1 134] DMG 133.933,116.3831 12/ 4/1948 1234317.01 3.0' 6.50 1 0.010 1 1111 77 [ 124] DMG 132.2001116.5501 11/ 4/1949 1204238.0 3.01 5.70 1 0.005 1 II ' 81 1 1301 DMG 132.2001116.5501 11/ 5/1949 1 43524.01 3.0' 5.10 1 0.003 1 I 1 81 [ 130] DMG 132.9831115.733 1/24/1951.1 717 2.61 3.0' 5.60 , 0.003 1 I 1 94 [ 1521 DMG 132.8171118.3501 12/26/1951 1 04654.01 3.01 5.90 1 0.010 1 III 63 [ 101] DMG 132.950'115.717 6/14/1953 1 41729.91 3.0' 5.50 , 0.003 1 I 1 96 1 154] DMG 133.2831116.1831 3/19/1954 1 95429.01 3.01 6.20 1 0.010 1 1111 68 [ 109] DMG 133.2831116.1831 3/19/1954 1 95556.01 3.01 5.00 1 0.004 1 I 1 68 [ 1091 )MG 133.283,116.183 3/19/1954 1102117.01 3.01 5.50 1 0.006 1 II 1 68 [ 1091 DMG 133.283 116.183 3/23/1954 1 41450.01 3.01 5.10 1 0.005 1 II 1 68 [ 109] DMG 133.216 115.808 4/25/1957 1215738.71 3.01 5.20 ' 0.003 1 I 1 89 144] DMG 133.183 115.850 4/25/1957 1222412.01 3.01 5.10 1 0.003 1 I 1 87 [ 140] DMG 133.231 116.004 5/26/1957 1155933.61 3.01 5.00 1 0.003 1 I 1 78 [ 125] DMG 133.710 116.925 9/23/1963 1144152.61 3.01 5.00 ' 0.010 1 1111 45 1 731 DMG 131.811 117.131 12/22/1964 1205433.21 3.0 5.60 1 0.003 1 I 1 94 [ 1511 DMG 133.190 116.129 4/ 9/1968 1 22859.1' 3.01 6.40 1 0.011 1 1111 71 [ 114] DMG 133.1131116.0371 4/ 9/1968 1 3 353.51 3.01 5.20 1 0.004 I I 1 76 [ 1221 DMG 133.3431116-3461 4/28/1969 1232042.91 3.01 5.80 1 0.010 1 1111 59 [ 95] DMG DMG PAS PAS PAS PAS PAS PAS Page 134.2701117.5401 133.033'115.8211 133.9441118.6811 134.3271116.4451 133'.5011116.5131 133.0981115.6321 '33.998 116.6061 132.971 117.8701 3 9/12/1970 9/30/1971 1/ 1/1979 3/15/1979 2/25/1980 4/26/1981 7/ 8/1986 7/13/1986 1143053.01 1224611.31 1231438.91 121 716.51 1104738.51 112 928.41 1 92044.51 11347 8.21 3.0' 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01 3.01 5.40 5.10 5.00 5.20 5.50 5.70 5.60 5.30 1 0.004 1 0.003 ' 0.002 1 0.002 1 0.010 1 0.003 1 0.006 1 0.020 I I 1 1 - 1 1 - I 1 - 1 1 1111 1 I 1 1 II 1 1 IV 1 77 89 94 96 54 99 72 33 [ 1251 [ 1431 [ 151] [ 1541 [ 86] [ 1601 [ 1161 [ 531 i 11 I 1 TIME 1 I SITE I SITE I APPROX. FILE,' LAT. ' LONG. 11 DATE (GMT) IDEPTHIQUAKE 11 ACC. 1 MM I DISTANCE ODE 1 NORTH I WEST 1 H M Secl (km)I MAG. I g I INT.' ml [km] - -------- -------- I ------------ --------_, -----I ------ I I I , , - ------- I ________________ ,. PAS 34.061 118.0791 10/ 1/1987 144220.0 3.01 5.90 , 0.007 1 II 1 75 1211 PAS :34.0731118.0981 10/ 4/1987 1105938.21 3.01 5.30 I 0.004 1 I 1 76 123] PAS 33.0821115.775 11/24/1987 1 15414.51 3.01 5.80 ' 0.004 1 I 1 91 f 1471 AS 133.013 115.8391 11/24/1987 1131556.51 3.01 6.00 1 0.005 1 II 1 88 1421 'AS 33.919 118.6271 1/19/1989 I 65328.81 3.01 5.00 1 0.002 1 - 90 1451 SP 134.1401117.7001 2/28/1990 1234336.61 3.01 5.20 1 0.005 1 II , 71 [ 1141 GSP 134.2621118.0021 6/28/1991 1144354.51 3.01 5.40 1 0.004 1 I , 85 [ 136] SP 133.9611116.318, 4/23/1992 1045023.01 3.01 6.10 1 0.007 1 II 1 81 [ 131] SN 134.2011116.436 6/28/1992 1115734.1 11 3.0 7.60 11 0.017 1 IV 1 89 [ 1431 GSP 134.1391116.4311 6/28/1992 1123640.61 3.01 5.10 1 0.003 1 I 1 86 [ 138 SP '34.3411116.529, 6/28/1992 1124053.51 3.01 5.20 1 0.002 I - 1 94 [ 152 SP 134.1631116.8551 6/28/1992 1144321.01 3.01 5.30 1 0.004 1 I 1 75 [ 120 GSN 1 34.2031116.8271 6/28/1992 1150530.71 3.01 6.70 , 0.011 1 III 78 [ 126 GSP 134.1081116.4041 6/29/1992 1141338.81 3.01 5.40 ' 0.004 1 I 1 85 [ 1371 SP 33.8761116.267' 6/29/1992 1160142.81 3.0' 5.20 ' 0.004 1 I 1 80 [ 128] SP 134.3321116.4621 7/ 1/1992 1074029.91 3.01 5.40 1 0.003 1 I 1 96 [ 154] GSP 134.2391116.8371 7/ 9/1992 1014357.61 3.01 5.30 1 0.004 1 I 1 80 [ 129] 3SP 133.9021116.2841 7/24/1992 1181436.21 3.01 5.00 1 0.003 1 I 1 80 [ 129] SP 134.195 116.862 8/17/1992 1204152.11 3.01 5.30 1 0.004 1 I 1 77 [ 1241 GSP 134.0641116.3611 9/15/1992 1084711.31 3.01 5.20 1 0.003 1 I 1 84 [ 136] 3SP 134.340 116.900 11/27/1992 1160057.51 3.01 5.30 1 0.003 1 I 1 85 [ 138] SP 134.369 116.897: 12/ 4/1992 1020857.5' 3.01 5.30 1 0.003 1 I 1 87 [ 141] GSP 134.029 116.3211 8/21/1993 1014638.41 3.01 5.00 1 0.003 , I 1 84 [ 1361 1 SP 134.213,118.5371 1/17/1994 1123055.41 3.01 6.70 1 0.007 ' II 1 100 [ 160] SP 134.2311118.4751 3/20/1994 1212012.31 3.01 5.30 1 0.002 ' - ' 98 [ 1581 SP 134.2681116.4021 6/16/1994 1162427.51 3.01 5.00 1 0.002 - 94 [ 151] END OF SEARCH- 142 RECORDS FOUND COMPUTER TIME REQUIRED FOR EARTHQUAKE SEARCH: 0.7 minutes IAXIMIJM SITE ACCELERATION DURING TIME PERIOD 1800 TO 1996: 0.158g 'IAXIMUM SITE INTENSITY (MM) DURING TIME PERIOD 1800 TO 1996: VIII tAXIMUM MAGNITUDE ENCOUNTERED IN SEARCH: 7.60 EAREST HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKE WAS ABOUT 11 MILES AWAY FROM SITE. NUMBER. OF YEARS REPRESENTED BY SEARCH: 197 years RESULTS OF PROBABILITY ANALYSES ------------------------------- TIME PERIOD OF SEARCH: 1800 TO 1996 LENGTH OF SEARCH TIME: 197 years ATTENUATION RELATION: 1) Campbell (1991) Horiz. - Deep Soil & Soft Rock TIME PERIOD OF EXPOSURE FOR PROBABILITY: 25 years PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE FOR ACCELERATION ------------------------------------------ ,NO.OFI AVE. 1RECURR.1 ACC.ITIMESIOCCUR.IINTERV.1 in g 1EXCED1 -------- I 11/yr 1 years 10.5 yr I ------ ------- _------ 0.011, I 311 I 0.1571 6.355 0.0757 0.0211 81 0.0411 24.625 0.0201 0.0311 21 0.0101 98.500 0.0051 0.041 11 0.0051197.00010.0025 0.051 11 0.0051197.00010.0025 0.0611 11 0.005 197.00010.0025 0.07' 110.005 197.00010.0025 D.08 1, 110.005 197.00010.0025 D.09i fl 0.005197.00010.0025 0.101, 11 0.005197.00010.0025 9.111 11 0.005 197.00010.0025 ).1211 1:0.005197.00010.0025 J.131 11 0.005 197.00010.0025 0.14 11 1:0.005197.00010.0025 ).151 11 0.0051197.00010.0025 COMPUTED PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE in I in I in I in I in I in 1 yrl 10 yr' 50 yr, 75 yrl100 yr l*** yr I I I 0.145610.792710.999611.000011-000010.9804 0.039810.3338 0.8687 0.9524 0.98280.6377 0.010110.0965 0.3981 0.5330 0.637710.2242 0.005110.0495 0.2242 0.3166 0.398110.1192 0.005fl0.04951 0.224210.3166 0.398fl0.1192 0.005110.049510.224210.316610.398110.1192 0.005110.04951 0.22421 0.316610.398110.1192 0.005110.0495 0.224210.316610.3981 0.1192 0.005140.0495 0.2242:0.31660.3981 0.1192 0.005110.0495 0.224210.3166 0.3981 0.1192 0.005140.0495 0.224210.3166,0.3981 0.1192 0.005140.0495 0.224210.316610.3981 0.1192 0.005140.0495,0.2242:0.3166:0.3981 0.1192 0.005110.0495 10.22421 0.316610.398110.1192 0. 005110. 0495 10. 224210. 3166 ' 0. 398110. 1192 PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE FOR MAGNITUDE --------------------------------------- I NO.OF AVE. 11 RECURR.11 COMPUTED PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE MAG.TIMES OCCUR.IINTERV.1 in 1 in I in ' in I in I in I in :ExCED #/yr ' years 10.5 yrl 1 yr' 10 yr' 50 yrl 75 yrloo yr*** yr ____I ---------------------------I --------------------I -------I ------ II ______ I I I 5.001 1421 0.7211 1.387 0.302610.5136 0.9993 l.0000'l.00OO'l.00O011.00OO 5.501 501 0.2541 3.940 0.119210.2242 0.9210 1.0000 1.0000 1.000010.9982 6.001 271 0.1371 7.2960.066210.12810.7460 0.9989 1.0000 1.000010.9675 6.501 111 0.056 17.9090.027510.0543 0.4279 0.9387 0.9848 0.996210.7524 7.0011 31 0.0151 65.66710.007610.01510.14130.53300.68090.781910.3166 7.5011 11 0.0051197.000'0.00250.00510.049510.2242 0.31660.398fl0.1192 GUTENBERG & RICHTER RECURRENCE RELATIONSHIP: a-value= 3.431 b-value= 0.721 beta-value= 1.660 APPENDIX D lrc4@H,o GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. U SQL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 12 May 1997 Mr. and Mrs. Philip R. Palisoul Mr. and Mrs. Martin L. Blair 1 500 Quail Street, Suite #510 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Job No. 89-5594 Subject: Evaluation of Oceanographic and Marine Geologic Conditions on North Carlsbad Beach and Recommendations for Seawall Design - Update Palisoul/Blair Duplex 2653 Ocean Street Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. Palisoul and Blair: As part of the "Report of Soil and Limited Geotechnical Investigation Update, we have reviewed our previous "Report of Oceanographic and Marine Geologic Conditions and Recommendations for Seawall Design" dated October 4, 1989. This report is included herein as Appendix D, and should be adhered to during the proposed development. Although development plans are not yet completed, it is our understanding that a moderate height, vertical concrete seawall is proposed. In accordance with the recommendations included in our original report, the seawall is to be approximately 10-feet-high at its western extent (to 17 feet above mean sea level MSL). The. wall foundation should be cut at least 4 feet into the dense formational materials. Wing walls should be constructed as needed. It should be noted that a new vertical concrete seawall has recently been constructed on Lots 17 and 18 immediately to the south. The proposed seawall design (and proposed wing walls) should take into consideration the adjacent wall. The adjacent lots to the north remain the same. 7420 TRADE STREET • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 • (619) 549-7222 • FAX: (619) 549-1604 Page 2 Should you have any additional questions concerning this matter, please contact our office. Sincerely, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Leslie D. Reed, C.E.G. 999 President Jaime A. Cerros, P.E. R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer LD R/JAC/kl h lmo EVALUATION OF OCEANOGRAPHIC AND MARINE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ON NORTH CARLSBAD BEACH AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SEAWALL DESIGN Lots 15 and 16 2600 Block of Ocean Street Carlsbad, California JOB NO • 89-5594 Ok October 1989 Prepared for: Mr • Charles Morse CNN 04 October 1989 Mr. Charles Morse 425 Madeline Drive Pasadena, CA 91105 Subject: Evaluation of on North Cai GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY Job No. 89-5594 ic Conditions s for Seawall Design Lots 15 and 16. 2600 Block of Ocean Street Carlsbad, California. Dear Mr • Morse: At your request, Geotechnical Exploration. Inc. has conducted an investigation of the soils at the proposed seawall. location and performed a wave runup analysis to provide design information. Also, we have conducted a reconnaissance of the north Carlsbad beach site and have reviewed pertinent oceanographic and coastal engineering reports. Our investigation revealed that dense formational material is located at shallow depth along the line of proposed seawall construction. Our report presents information for design of a vertical concrete seawall and a rubble-mound seawall. It is our opinion that either type will function adequately at the site and that costs and aesthetics may be the deciding factors. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions concerning the following report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 89-5594 will help to expedite a response to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Werner R. Lan9", Hydrogeolo s R.G. 42511C.E.G. 1466 A Wendell Gayman, MaVine Geologist C.E.G. 1166 WRL/WG/pi /EDGeo AV WERNER R. LANDRY NO. 1466 * * CERTIFIED ENGINEERU4G GEOLOGIST . I OF 7420 TRADE STREET • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 • (619) 549-7222 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 II. OBJECTIVE OF SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION 2 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AFFECTING SEAWALL DESIGN 3 IV. LONG-TERM RISES IN SEA LEVEL 4 V.. EROSIONAL IMPACTS UPON WATER DEPTHS AND BREAKING WAVE HEIGHTS 4 ALTERNATIVE SEAWALL DESIGNS 6 DESIGN WAVE 8 ESTIMATED RUNUP ELEVATIONS • 10 DESIGN HEIGHT AND OVERTOPPING 12 RECOMMENDED SEAWALL DESIGNS 14 WING WALLS 16 X1 1. CONCLUSIONS 19 REFERENCES TABLE I FIGURE I EVALUATION OF OCEANOGRAPHIC AND MARINE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ON NORTH CARLSBAD BEACH, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SEAWALL DESIGNS Lots 15 and 16, 200 Block of Ocean Street Carlsbad, California JOB NO • 89-55914 I. EXISTING CONDITIONS Lots 15 and 16 each have adjoining 25 feet frontages on north Carlsbad beach. These lots are bordered by Lot 14 on the north and Lot 17 on the south; all lots are of equal width. Lot iLl is partially protected by a 3-foot-high light wooden wall. A 21-foot-high rubble-mound wall is planned for construction on Lots 17 and 18, but there is no protective structure on these lots now. Lot 19 (just south of Lot 18) is protected by a new 18.5-foot-high vertical concrete seawall. The north Carlsbad beach is a long straight beach with a thin veneer of sand which overlays a thin gravel layer lying on Eocene bedrock. The beach has an approximate emergent width of 100 to 300 feet, depending on the tide. The narrow and poorly developed berm on the landward side of the beach has an elevation of 7 to 11 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Behind the berm a poor iv indurated, easily eroded Pleistocene sandstone sea cliff rises to elevations of 30 feet. Beach face slopes range from 1:8 to 1:15. To the seaward, slopes vary from 1:50 to 1:100 or less. Most coastal engineers and geologists believe that a wide sandy beach is one of the best forms of protection against shoreline erosion. The Oceanside and Carlsbad beaches have suffered severely from wave erosion during the last 20 years. Fortunately, severe damage to coastal structures in the north Carlsbad area has been quite limited. Much of the sand has been lost from the beaches, exposing gravel. In some areas, seasonal erosion removes all of the sand from the beach during North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-55911 Carlsbad, California Page 2 the winter. Usually most of the lost sand is redeposited on the beach during the summer months. Gravel deposits such as those located at the foot of the sea cliff on Lots 15 and 18 will tend to protect the underlying formation rock from wave erosion. Formational material was encountered at 4 feet below the cobbles at the proposed seawall location (see Figure No. I). II. OBJECTIVE OF SEAWALL CONSTRUCTION The main purpose of the proposed seawall construction (at Lots 15 and 16 in the 2600 block of Ocean Street in Carlsbad) is to provide protection against wave erosion of the bank (sea cliff) and soils found on the site. A reconnaissance of the beach along 20 to 30 lots to the north and south of the site suggests that the beach front structures in this area have not suffered serious wave damage in the past, and that a very strong, high, and well built seawall may not be necessary for short-term (10 to 20 years) protection against wave erosion. Protection of soils against wave erosion is desirable in order to minimize foundation costs for any future residential construction. It is also recognized that adequate protection against marine erosion may be sought in order to maintain and increase the value of property, and to maximize any yard or patio area which would be located between the beach and any new residential structure. The limited marine erosion hazard in this area can be attributed to the fact that most of the residential structures are built on a bank or low sea cliff 15 to 20 feet above the beach berm, and they are located 20 to 30 feet or more to the landward of existing protective seawalls. Apparently, these relatively high elevations and wide separations have, in the past, provided satisfactory protection during even the most severe storms. E 1 North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-55911 Carlsbad, California Page 3 There are many short segments of seawalls in the Oceanside/Carlsbad area which are located on beaches similar to that seaward of the subiect site. Many of these seawalls have maximum elevations of 114 to 16 feet. Although overtopping probably has occurred on some of the seawalls, it is believed that many are considered adequate at the present time. Ill'. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AFFECTING SEAWALL DESIGN The design, strength, height and costs of the proposed seawall on this site will depend upon the characteristics of the waves which can be expected to occur in this area during the life of the planned wall. For the short term (10 to 20 years), the breaking wave characteristics at the site can be estimated with adequate precision by extrapolating readily available data on past wave occurrences. However, in the medium and long term (say 20 to 60 years), potential changes in beach topography due to wave erosion and possible rises in sea level could cause substantial changes (increases) in water depths to the seaward of the proposed wall. These changes could result in higher waves and greater wave forces striking local seawalls, and cause higher runups and more frequent overtoppinqs. These future water depth changes cannot be predicted with a high degree of certainty. However, one can make a number of conservative assumptions regarding future. erosion rates and predicted sea level rises. Such assumptions have been used to derive crude design data for a seawall which probably would provide adequate protection to the site for a period of 50 years. However, even with a conservatively designed structure, one might have to extend and/or reinforce the wing walls (return walls or tiebacks) after the year 2020 if adequate protection from wave erosion is not provided for the adjacent properties. North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 4 IV. LONG-TERM RISES IN SEA LEVEL Accelerating rises in sea level should be considered in the design of any long term seawall. Currently, sea level along the San Diego County coastline is rising at a rate of about 0.07 foot/year (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988). Thus, If there is no change in the rate of sea level rise, 50 years from now, mean sea level would be only about 0.35 feet higher than it is today. Because of global warming caused by the greenhouse effect, accelerated rises in sea level are expected. Predicted rates of sea level rise vary from 2 to 11 feet per century. One of the highest of the forecasted rates of sea level rise estimates a 1 foot elevation increase (above the 1980 level) by the year 2010, and another 1 foot increase by the year 2025 (36 years from now). By 2037, sea level would be 3 feet higher than the 1980 level. This latter increase would allow a 4 to 5 feet higher wave to break against any seawall in the area, and the runup and/or overtopping elevations might be increased by 6 to 10 feet. V. EROSIONAL IMPACTS UPON WATER DEPTHS AND BREAKING WAVE HEIGHTS Any significant erosion of the beach will alter offshore aradients and increase water depths to the seaward of the seawall site. These topographic changes may or will result in: higher waves breaking against (or running up and over) the seawall; greater wave forces acting upon the seawall; and more frequent overtopping by wave swash. The Carlsbad beaches have suffered severely from wave erosion during the last 40 years (i.e., since a few years after the first construction of Camp Pendleton boat basin in 1942, and the damming of large portions of the Santa Margarita River and San Luis Rev River watersheds). Prior to these events, the sand on the Carlsbad beaches was usually North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 5 replaced by littoral drift at about the same rate that it was lost due to wave erosion; thus, the sandy beaches were relatively stable. However, the damming of rivers reduced the sand supply to the coast, and the construction of the boat basin interfered with the supply of sand by littoral drift from the north. The supply of sand to the beaches has been reduced •further by the paving and channeling of local drainage basins, and the construction of seawalls (protecting against cliff erosion) to the north and south. Some mitigation for these losses has been provided intermittently by the dredging of Oceanside harbor, and by other Corps of Engineers funded beach replenishment programs. Nevertheless, beach profile surveys show that sand has been lost from the Carlsbad and upcoast (Oceanside) beaches at a substantial (and some might say "alarming") rate during the last decade. Inman and Jenkins (1983) have estimated net sand losses from the Oceanside littoral cell to be about 125,000 cubic meters/year. Profiles have been surveyed twice a year across the south Oceanside and north Carlsbad beaches since 1981 (Waldorf and others, 1983; Tekmarine, Inc., 1989). The profiles indicate that 2 to 3 feet of cut and fill commonly occur below the MLLW level. An average of 170 feet of shoreline recession occurred during the January 1988 storm, but much of the lost sand was redeposited on the beach during the following year. The average shoreline retreat from 1984 through April 1989 ranged from 5 to 30 feet per year. These higher rates reflect sand losses; they are not expected to continue. Future beach sand losses and rates of shoreline (beach) erosion will depend upon: (1) man's efforts to maintain the natural sand supply to the beach; (2) the resistance to erosion of the beach sediments and subbeach formations; (3) changes in wave characteristics resulting from water depth increases and beach and surf zone gradient changes related to erosional processes and rises in sea level. North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-55914 Carlsbad, California Page 6 VI. ALTERNATIVE SEAWALL DESIGNS Seawalls constructed along the southern California coastline are generally of two differing designs: (1) vertical walls constructed of pilings or sheet pile or poured concrete; and (2) rubble-mound walls constructed of quarrystone. (If the seaward slope of a rubble-mound structure rests upon a bank or sea cliff, the wall may be termed a revetment.) The choice of either design may depend upon considerations of cost, projected lifetimes for the structures, foundation conditions, space available, maintenance requirements, aesthetics, the height or degree of protection required for the back shore lands and structures, and concerns for beach access and beach visibility. Rubble-mound walls are generally less expensive than vertical walls, but they may require more maintenance (especially when they are not well designed or properly constructed). They require more space (on private property or public beach) and they are likely to impede access (along the beach at high tide, and between beach areas and backshore properties). Rubble-mound walls may pose a considerable hazard to those who attempt to transgress them, especially during the house of darkness. Some people consider rubble-mound walls to be less attractive than vertical walls. Rubble walls generally have a maximum slope of 1.5:1 (i.e., 1.5 horizontal distance to 1.0 vertical distance); steeper slopes are likely to be unstable. Thus, a 10-foot-high rubble wall would have a width seaward of the crest of 15 feet or more. Many of the problems with rubble-mound walls can be mitigated, or partially mitigated. One can reduce maintenance by using heavier stone and by insuring that each stone is properly placed. Stairs and walkways can be constructed on the rubble. Grouting can be used to North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 7 reduce access hazards and maintenance problems. However, the mitigation measures will increase the cost and may reduce the effectiveness of the wall. For example, grouting will result in greater (higher and more potentially damaging) runups and greater erosion potential at the foot of the structure. Rubble-mound walls are generally believed to cause less erosion at the foot of the wall than would be expected at the base of a vertical seawall of similar height. Grouting would largely invalidate this advantage. A vertical seawall, although generally more costly, offers significant advantages to a rubble-mound wall. The foundation conditions in the vicinity of the Lot 15 and 16 site suggest that the most appropriate design fOr a well-built, long-lasting vertical seawall would be poured reinforced concrete. Because of the occurrence of bedrock at a relatively shallow depth, excessive excavations would not be required for the wall foundation, and the use of pilings would not be required. The relatively narrow width of a vertical wall would leave more space (than would be left by a rubble wall) for a wider beach on the seaward side, and/or for additional patio or yard areas on the landward side. If properly designed and constructed, the wall should be nearly maintenance free, and might have a life of 50 years or more. Stairs can easily be built over the wall to provide easy access to the beach, but as with rubble walls, these stairs should probably be considered expendable. The vertical face of the wall may be aesthetically decorated by constructing the wall with a textured face, or by covering it with decorative rock. During severe storms, a vertical wall may be expected to cause more rapid erosion of sand and gravel at the base of the wall than would be expected from a rubble wall. However, the differences in erosion rates are likely to be quite small, and, in any case, the increased erosion at the foot of the vertical wall may be partially mitigated by placing the base of the wall further landward than the base of a rubble-mound wall. North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-55914 Carlsbad, California Page 8 The height and several other important characteristics of the seawall will depend upon the design wave characteristics. The highest and most damaging waves that may strike the seawall can be expected during the simultaneous occurrence of: (1) high storm waves; (2) unusually high astronomical tides; and (3) periods of substantially higher than normal non-astronomical sea levels such as those which occurred during 1982-83. The highest and most forceful waves that can possibly impact against the proposed seawall will depend upon water depths and bottom slopes seaward of the proposed wall. The water depths during future decades will depend upon seasonal patterns in erosion and deposition, and on long-term trends in littoral drift and beach erosion. These trends during the next several decades will, in turn, depend upon the frequency and intensity of wave storms, the size of flood sediment loads carried by the Santa Margarita and San Luis Rey Rivers, the frequency of dredging of the sediment deposits accumulating in the entrance to Oceanside Harbor, and the success of the Oceanside Harbor sand bypassing plant. Beach and surf zone erosion rates may also be influenced by rates of tong-term rises in sea level, and the dredging schedule and location of disposal sites adopted for the Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Plan. Somewhat imprecise predictions can be made for all of these factors, but the results might be quite controversial and, in any case, the efforts required are far beyond the scope of this modest investigation. VII. DESIGN WAVE High waves approaching the Carlsbad beaches may be generated in several local and distant areas during various seasons of the year (see Figure No. I). The heights of these deep water waves will diminish dUe to refraction, as they approach the' coastline, and may increase due to shoaling as they enter shallow water. In the north Carlsbad area, UUN North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 9 the highest waves breaking along the coastline usually break well offshore, in fairly deep water. By the time the surge and swash from these broken waves reach the shoreline, the remnant wave forces have been greatly diminished. For this reason, and because of the relatively gentle offshore slopes seaward of Lots 15 and 16, the characteristics of the highest waves are not of particular interest here. Design wave studies done for the 4,000-foot-high seawall built by the City to protect Carlsbad Boulevard found that the 18-foot, 12-second period design wave would break at least 300 feet seaward of the proposed wall (Woodward & Clyde, 1984). Because of the gentle gradient of the beach, the waves causing the highest runup on sloping rubble-mound walls (and the greatest wave forces acting on vertical seawalls) will be the highest waves which break upon the wall, or on the toe of the wall. The height of such waves will be determined by the maximum still water depth adiacent to the seawall -- the greater the depth, the higher the wave. The greatest still water depth (SWD) will result from the simultaneous occurrence of: Unusually high astronomical tides. These occur only during December and January, and July and August. During the next several decades, unusually high astronomical tides are predicted at 4.4- and 18.6-year intervals, and the highest tides are most likely to occur during the following 5-year periods: 1986-90, 2008-12; and 2025-30. Maximum non-astronomical increases in regional sea levels. Some of the increases result from periods of ocean warming generally associated with El Nino currents. El Nino events occur irregularly at 8- to 17-year intervals, and may last 2 to 3 years. North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-55911 Carlsbad, California Page 10 During periods of maximum seasonal scour. In this area, maximum sand losses from the beach usually occur between December and March. Short period (1 to 5 days) storm surges (swash and wave setup), which occur only during severe local wave storms. The existing sand and gravel elevations along the seawall stringline vary from 7 to 10 feet above MSL. In the near future (say, next winter), one might, under severe conditions, experience 2 feet of erosion along this stringline, lowering the minimum surface elevation to about 5 feet above MSL. The highest astronomical tides which might occur (during the winter of 1990) would have an elevation of 7.8 feet MLLW (6 feet above MSL) • Under rare and particularly severe conditions, the area might,at the same time, experience a non- astronomical increase in sea level of an additional 2 feet, bringing the still water level elevations to 8 feet above MSL. Two feet of erosion would result in a 3-foot still water depth at the base of any seawall constructed along the stringline. Calculations based upon the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Manual (SPM) suggest that under these conditions one might expect a 10-second wave with a height breaker of. 6.7 feet to break against the wall. If the wall were vertical, a runup of 8 feet might be expected to an elevation of about 15 feet. If the wall was a permeable rubble-mound structure with a 1.5:1 slope, one might estimate runups of 9 feet to elevations of about 16 feet, depending in part on the type and arrangement of the stone used on the face of the wall. VIII. ESTIMATED RUNUP ELEVATIONS Table 1 gives estimated runup values for selected oceanographic and foundation conditions for two seawall locations. The conclusions have been derived from data, graphs and equations given in the SPM. Columns A through D pertain to short-term conditions (10 to 20 years); CAN North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 11 columns E and F refer to long-term conditions characterized by higher sea levels and more severe beach erosion. Columns A. B, C and E represent seawalls with toe locations along the stringline extending north from Lot 19, while columns 0 and F refer to walls located at the foot of the sea cliff. The column A conditions assume the occurrences of maximum astronomical tides, extreme non-astronomical increases in sea level (very rare), and moderate rates of beach erosion. Under these conditions, a 3.4-foot-high deep water wave approaching the shoreline directly would produce a 6.7-foot shallow water wave which would break upon the planned seawall. This wave could occur at any time throughout the year. Because of refraction, deep water waves approaching the coast obliquely would have to be higher tan 3.4 feet to produce the same breaker height. However, the seasonal storm wave and swell regimes Illustrated in Figure No. I are (excluding the sea breeze regime) all capable of generating the maximum breaker heights selected as design waves. If the 6.7-foot wave broke upon a vertical seawall, it would cause runup to an elevation of about 15 feet above MSL. If the wall had a maximum elevation of 16 feet, overtopping would be unlikely. The same wave breaking upon a rubble-mound wall with a 1.5:1 slope would cause runup to an estimated 16.4 feet, thus slightly overtopping a 16-foot- high wall. A 2.9-foot-high, 14-second deep water wave would cause about the same. runup (column B). Waves of these heights and periods may occur at. any time throughout the year, but the assumed erosion (required for the occurrence of the maximum estimated runup) is only likely during the winter months. Column C represents the same conditions as column A, except the non- astronomical water level increase has been reduced from 2 feet to 1 foot, which would be a more common occurrence. Under these conditions, the maximum breaker height would be about 4.4 feet, and the maximum runups on vertical and rubble-mound walls would be about 12.1 and 12.7 feet, respectively. RMO North Carlsbad Beach . . Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 12 Column D oceanographic conditions are similar to the column A conditions, but the seawall location hat been moved landward so that the toe of the wall is located close to the bank. The maximum breaker height would be reduced to 2.7 feet, and the maximum runup elevations would be 10.11 feet and 10.2 feet for the vertical and sloping walls, respectively. . Columns E and F represent conditions that might be expected 140 to 60 years from now if the sea level rise accelerated at or near the maximum estimated rate. A 2.5-foot rise in sea level has been assumed, along with 3.5 feet of beach erosion. Most other conditions are similar to those. assumed in columns A or D. Waves up to 11.9 feet would be expected to break upon the seawall (located on the stringline) when maximum astronomical tides occurred simultaneously with 1-foot non- astronomical elevations in sea level. These breakers would produce estimated runup elevations of 22.6 and 27.0 feet, respectively, on vertical and sloping seawalls. These runup elevations are probably 1 to 6 feet higher than any existing or planned seawall in this area. If the seawall were located adjacent to the sea cliff (column F), the maximum expected breaker height would be reduced to 6.7 feet, and the maximum estimated runups would be decreased to 17.8 and 18.9 feet, respectively, for the vertical and sloping seawalls. The advantage here over the stringline wall results primarily from the assumption that 40. to 60 years from now the ground level at the base of a wall located adjacent to the sea cliff will be 2.5 feet higher than the ground level on the seaward side of a wall built along the stringline. It is recognized that this assumption is somewhat tenuous even though present stringline/cliff toe ground level differences presently range from 2.5 to 5.5 feet. North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 12 It is possible, but improbable, that for any one of the cases considered above, the values assumed for erosion, non-astronomical increases in sea level, and long-term rises in sea level could be expected. This would result in higher runups and greater overtopping. IX. DESIGN HEIGHT AND OVERTOPPING The maximum recommended height of the proposed seawall will depend upon: the type of wall constructed; financial considerations; the design and character of the structures behind the wall which require protection; the degree of protection sought; the duration of protection (or the life of the proposed seawall); and perhaps aesthetic concerns. In many cases, seawall designers find it undesirable to plan walls which would provide 100% protection against runup and overtopping during the entire proposed life of the structure. Because of the uncertainties in predicting extreme wave heights during 50-year periods, the provision of absolute protection might require walls to be built to heights which could be regarded as excessive, from both the aesthetic and economic points of view. Seawalls built to lesser heights might infrequently be overtopped (perhaps at intervals of 10 to 20 years). However, in many areas such occurrences are not likely to cause excessive damage. In case of the Lots 15 and 16 site, it is assumed that the possibility of infrequent overtopping is likely to be acceptable because: 1 • It is probable that the main dwelling structures behind the wall would be located 30 to. 50 feet to the landward of the seawall, and that such structures would also be elevated 5 to 15 feet above the top' of the seawall. If these assumptions are correct, then it is unlikely that any overtopping would cause significant damage to the structure. North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 13 2. It is assumed that rare overtopping would not cause serious damage to any landscaping or yard improvements located between the top of the seawall and the residential dwelling. Overtopping of a rubble seawall may result in occasional jets of light to heavy spray carried into the area landward of the seawall • Under the very worst conditions, the spray might carry small quantities of sand, and occasional pebbles. The pebbles could resent a significant hazard to window panes located within 20 to 30 feet of the crest of the wall. Overtopping of a vertical concrete wall is most likely to produce vertical jets of water which may include small concentrations of sand, and rarely pebbles. The vertical lets are not likely to intrude shoreward a significant distance, unless they are carried by strong onshore winds. Any problems resulting from the overtopping of a vertical seawall are likely to be greatly reduced if the seawall is designed with some recurvature at the top, or with an overhanging lip. It is suggested that a maximum height of 17 feet above MSL for a rubble seawall would provide complete protection from most winter storms, assuming a stable beach except for normal seasonal changes. Over the long-term, one might expect severe storms would cause overtopping on the average of once or twice every 10 to 20 years. After 20 years, more frequent overtopping might occur as a result of: (1) severe beach erosion; and/or (2) rapidly rising sea levels. A maximum height of 21 feet would provide further protection against these future hazards, and would significantly reduce the chances of any overtopping prior to the year 2010. North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 14 X. RECOMMENDED SEAWALL DESIGNS Three alternative rubble-mound designs and three alternative vertical wall designs are recommended. The property • owners choice would depend upon seawall lifetime expectations, the degree of protection sought, plans for use of the yard space between the wall and any proposed residential structure, and economic considerations. The lower and less expensive walls should give adequate protection for 20 to 30 years or more, but some overtopping may be expected during heavy storms, and the frequency of overtopping is likely to increase as the wall ages. The lower wall designs offer 50 years of adequate protection if long-term beach erosion is greatly reduced, and if the rates of sea level rise do not accelerate as expected. The moderately designed walls should provide adequate protection for 20 to 40 years, unless the sea level rise markedly accelerates and/or the rates of beach (sand, gravel, and bedrock) erosion are much more rapid than anticipated. Overtopping should be rare during the first 20 years, but might occur more frequently (perhaps several times/decade) thereafter. Severe damage due to overtopping would be unlikely. Under favorable conditions, such walls should last 50 to 60 years or more. The more conservatively designed walls with heights of 21 feet should probably provide adequate protection for at least 50 years. Overtopping would be extremely rare and probably would not occur at all during the first 20 to 30 years. Thereafter, it might occur infrequently, but it would be unlikely that any serious damage would occur behind the wall during the first 50 years. If significant damage did occur, it would probably result from severe beach erosion and an accelerated sea level rise, and with such conditions one could be fairly certain that widespread damage would occur to a great many oceanfront properties in San Diego County. North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 15 A. Rubble-mound Seawalls 1 • Low and Inexpensive. Construct the wall to an elevation of 14 feet above MSL (k to 7 feet above present sand levels), with a seaward slope of 1.5:1 • The face of the wall should be composed of 2-ton or larger stone placed on bedrock; the use of 4-ton stone would increase the life of the structure and reduce maintenance costs. For economy and for a wider, sandy beach, place the top portions •of the wall against the existing bank. This landward location will also eliminate (for 20 years or more) the need for any wing walls and it will result in a slight increase in the life of the structure. Alternatively, to obtain maximum yard space and to minimize overtopping damage, align the toe and face of the wall with the (proposed) Lot 17 rubble wall. Construct wing walls as necessary to the same elevation. Moderate Height Seawall. Construct the wall to 17 feet above MSL with a 1.5:1 slope. Use 2- to 4-ton stone. Align seaward face and toe of planned wall with Lot 17 rubble wall. The wall will project 7 to 10 feet above existing sand level. Construct wing walls as necessary. The foundation should be entrenched 1 foot or more into bedrock. Conservative, Long-lasting Structure. Construct wall to elevation of 21 feet with 1.5:1 slope using 4-ton stone. Align toe and face with Lot 17 rubble wall and construct wing walls as necessary. The crest of wall will be 10 to 14 feet above present sand level. Armor stone on wall face should be entrenched at least 2 feet into bedrock. North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 16 B • Vertical Poured Concrete Wall Low and Inexpensive. Construct to 14 feet above MSL. Foundation should be cut at least 3 feet into bedrock. Align wall with Lot 19 stringline for more yard space,, or locate against - existing bank for longer life. Construct wing walls as required. Dewatered may be necessary for all cuts below approximately 3 feet. Moderate Height Seawall. Construct to 17 feet above MSL. Foundation should be cut at least 11 feet into bedrock. Align with Lot 19 stringline for larger yard space, or locate close to bank for longer wall life, larger beach area, and reduced wing wall costs. Conservative, Long-lasting Structure. Plan wall height of 21 feet above MSL. Foundation should be trenched 5 feet into bedrock. Align wall with Lot 19 stringline, or locate to the landward for greater security. Construct wing walls as required. Adopt measures to greatly reduce or eliminate corrosion of steel reinforcing. Stringline wall should be designed to withstand 12 feet breaking wave. XI. WING WALLS It is assumed that the proposed seawall would be constructed at least several feet seaward of the present embankment, and would most likely be located close to the stringline between seawalls to the north and south. Therefore, wing walls would be required to protect the neighboring property from wave erosion along the north and south boundaries unless the seawall joins at each end with other seawalls of similar (or at least of substantial) height. At the present time, the lots to the north and south are not protected by adequate seawalls. North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 17 Lot 114 to the north is partially protected by a 3-foot-high wooden wall composed of 2-inch-thick horizontal boards. This board wall could easily fail as a result of wave attack during the initial phases of a severe storm. (However, wall failure is not likely to occur until all of the sand seaward of the property has been eroded from the beach.) There is presently no protective seawall on Lots 17 and 18 to the south, but it is our understanding that a 21-foot-high (above MSL) rubble-mound seawall has been designed for these two lots and will soon be constructed. This wall is to be built of 2-ton stone, at a 1.5:1 slope, with a 14-inch-thick horizontal concrete cap. The toe of this planned wall is in approximate alignment with the 18.5-foot-high vertical wall to the south (Lot 19). The crest of the Lot 17 and 18 wall would be about 18 feet further to the landward (east). The designers of the Lots 17 and 18 rubble seawall have proposed a rubble wing wall on the north lot boundary, extending 10 to 13 feet onto Lot 16. Presumably this wing wall would have a maximum height of about 20 to 21 feet. The construction of this wing wall along the boundary between Lots 16 and 17 would require the permission of the Lot 16 owner. If the Lot 16 property owner did not begin seawall construction until after the Lot 17 seawall was completed (with a new wing wall), then no new wing wall would have to be constructed along the south boundary of Lot 16 unless either a Lot 16 rubble structure was located well to the seaward of the Lot 17 rubble wall, or it was desired to construct a vertical wall to protect Lot 16 and the wall was to be located seaward of the crest of the Lot 17 wall. A wing wall will have to be constructed along the north boundary of Lot 15, regardless of the design of the oceanfront wall. If the primary wall is constructed of rubble, then a rubble wing wall extending 5 to 15 feet (depending on the height) onto Lot 14 would be recommended. North Carlsbad Beach Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 18 This would, of course, require the permission of the Lot 14 owner. If permission cannot be obtained, then a vertical, poured concrete wall would be recommended. In either case, the wing wall should be constructed to the same height as the primary seawall. If the Lots 17 and 18 seawall is not under construction by the time work begins on the seawall for Lots 15 and 16, then wing walls should be constructed on each end of the primary seawall. Where a wing wall is required, it should extend from the top of the primary seawall eastward at least 2 feet or more into bank. If the seawalls protecting Lot 15 and 16 and 17 and 18 are built at the same time, and of the same height and same design (i.e., of rubble, 1.5:1 slope, of 2-ton or larger) stone, and to a height of 20 feet), then no wing wall between the two pairs of lots would be required. Of course, a wing wall would still be needed for the north boundary of Lot 14. The joining of one rubble wall to another rubble wall of roughly the same height and design can be accomplished without much difficulty. However, the joining of a new vertical concrete wall to an existing rubble structure may present some problems. This is because the ungrouted rubble may not provide a stable foundation. The uncemented stone may settle, or rotate as a result of gravitational and/or wave forces. This could result in cracking and eventual failure of any vertical concrete structure built upon the rubble. Thus, if the Lot 16 property owner permitted the Lot 17 owner to place rubble northward of the Lot 16 and 17 boundary line (onto Lot 16), then the . Lot 16 owner might have some difficulty if he subsequently sought to construct a concrete seawall. Therefore, the Lot 16 owner should consider the following alternatives: North Carlsbad Beach ,, Job No. 89-5594 Carlsbad, California Page 19 1 • Limit his selection to a rubble wall to be constructed in approximate alignment with the proposed Lot 17 rubble-mound seawall. Construct a vertical seawall very close to the bank, and well to the landward of the crest of the proposed Lot 17 and 18 rubble- mound seawall. Construct the desired wall before work begins on the Lot 17 and 18 seawall (In which case,, two wing walls would be required). Deny the Log 17 property owner permission to place rubble on any portion of Lot 16. Require that any rubble placed on Lot 16 be removed prior to the commencement of any wall construction on Lots 15 and 16. XII. CONCLUSIONS The type of seawall selected for the site is primarily based upon the owner's preference and governing agency requirements, as both types are expected to provide adequate protection. Final plans should be sent to our office for review and comments. The footing excavation for a vertical wall or the entrenchment depth of stone should be verified by our representative at the time of excavating. REFERENCES Inman, D.L., and S.A. Jenkins, 1983, Oceanographic report for Oceanside beach facilities, 206 pp. Tekmarine, Inc., 1989. Semi-annual beach profiles, surveys, and analysis for April 1989 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, undated, Low cost shore protection a guide for engineers and contractors,. 173 pp. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984, Shore Protection Manual, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 2 volumes. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Los Angeles District, 1989, Historic wave and sea level data report San Diego region, CCSTWS 88-6. Waldorf, B.W., Flick, R.E., and Hicks, D.M., 1983, Carlsbad and Oceanside beach profiles, SID Ref. 83-6. Woodward & Clyde, 1984, Feasibility Study - Carlsbad Boulevard Shore Protection - Carlsbad State Park, ElR-84-2. TABLE 1 ESTIMATED RUNUP VALUES FOR SELECTED OCEANOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND WALL LOCATIONS FOR VERTICAL AND SLOPING SEAWALLS LOTS 15 AND 16 VALUES IN FEET; ELEVATIONS REFER TO MSL SHORT TERM CONDITIONS FUTURE (10 to 20 years) (2030-2050) A B C D E F Wall Location string- string- string- sea string- sea line line line -Cliff line cliff Assumed beach elevation 7 7 7 10 7 10 Assumed erosion 2. 2 2 3 3.5 3.5 Ground elevation 5 5 5 7 3.5 6.5 Astronomical tide 6 6 6 6 6 6 Non-astronomical tide 2 2 1 2 1 1 Long-term sea level rise 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 Still water depth ds 3 3 2 1 6 3 Still water elevation 7 7 7 8 9.5 9.5 Wave period T (seconds) 10 14 10 10 10 10 Deep water wave height 3.4 2.9 1.9 0.75 7.5 3.4 Breaker height Hb7 6.7 6.7 45.4 2.3 11.9 6.7 Vertical wall runup 8.3 8.3 5.1 2.4 13.1 8.3 Vertical wall maximum runup elevation 15.3 15.3 12.1 10.4 22.6 17.8 Rubble wall, permeable slope 1.5:1, runup 9.4 9.2 5.7 2.2 17.5 9.4 Rubble wall, permeable max. runup elevation . 16.4 16.2 12.7 10.2 27 18.9 *Footnotes; on next page TABLE 1 FOOTNOTES 1 • Vertical walls are located either on the Lot 19 stringline, or at the foot of the sea cliff. The toe of the rubble-mound walls would be located on the stringline, or close to the base of the sea cliff. Elevations refer to sand or gravel levels at the base of the seawall, on the seaward side. Attributable to El Nino warming, barometric pressure changes, seasonal changes in sea level, and setup and swash associated with storm passages. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1989, Fig. 8-19. Most rapid rises suggest a 2.5-foot increase in sea level may occur about 2035. At toe of seawall. For unrefracted waves. For refracted waves, higher deep water wave heights will be required to produce indicated breaker heights. Refers to highest wave height that will break upon the wall. In the case of sloping walls, the wave will break very close to the toe of the wall. Above still water level. JAN-22-99 FRI 1430 011,? OF 0RLS8AD 0O1I1 PE FAX NO. 4380894 P.04 of Carlsbad CERTtFICMIEOFçpMPL1ANE PAYMENtOF SCHOOL FEESQR OTHERM!TJArsOu This form must be completed by the City and the appropriate school districts and returned to the City prior to - - issuing a budding permit. The City will not issue any building permit without a completed school fee form. Project Name: 2553 E 269S OCEAN STREET OCEAN STREET CONDOS 8uiIding Permit Plan C-heckNurnber: CB982244 Project Address: - 2653 52655 OCEAN STREET 3-1140-11 Project Applicant (Ownei'(s') Name(s) CINDY BLAIR Project Description: 2 UNIT CONDO PROJECT 8uftthngType 2 Residential: Number of Newflwelliri.g Units Square Feet of Living Area in New Dwelling 7, 186 SF Second Dwelling Unit: Square Feet of.L,iying Area in SDU -Res.Additione __ Net Square Feet New Area Comm./ Jnd. quare Feet Floor Area City Certification: J)j Ai —Date: 42L7IL - SCIQPkPISTRtCTS ft1P1 THE CITY OP CARLS0D Carlsbad Unified School DiStltctxxx San MT0O hO9l t)I$tflCt 801 Pine Ave. 215 Mate Way Cafl$bad CA 92009 (434-0061). - San Maros, CA 92069 (736-2200J £ncuute Union $chool District San Oleguito Union High School DisWtct 101 South Ranch Santa Pe Rd 10 gnctnitaslvd. Ea,CAa2O24(944-4300) - Encnitas4 92024.T53.6421j -.CeñiflcaUon-oApplicantiOwners. The person executing this declaration ('Owncr) certifies -under penalty otperiuythatfi) the Info;mationpmyjdedis Cu P44r000-the-bestaflwowner1sknowledge and That the Owner will file an amended ,certification -of paymwit and py the adddlonaLfe nerreQueets-&n units or square Thotnge after the building permit it issued or lithe initial determination of unilsorsquareogeis fbund4ob irnon'ect, and -that (2)-the'Owneri$the owner/ developer of tha above descflbad pmject($ orthet the person Vxecu09fljls deciaration is au horizad to sign on behalf of the Owner. alure; (6ic_ -. Date: 1/2-5 / 75 Las Patinas Dr. • Carisad. CA 9OO9-i 576. (75G) 438-1161 AX (760) 438-0894 JAN-22-99 FRI 14:31 CITY OF CARLS8AD 001111 DE FAX NO. 4380894 P.05 Z) QL6)'— SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FEE CERTJFJATION (To be completed by the schooLdisbict(s)). CHOOt. DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE SATISFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING (Check one): Coy. Code Gay. Code Government Prior Existing - Exempt from 53080165995 65970 Code 53311 Mitigation Agreement tee (AB 181) (SB 201) (Mello '.Roos) Note: requirements f(Indicate Date and Number Or name of Agreement)] Total amount oTnew) floor area Withiriihei,uildlng 7. 119 (o ffee.mountper•Square Foot . Amount Collected X (, t -OrJIsubJed to•PiiorExlsting Mitigation Agreement: Eor Detat±ed Residential OweIUngUnits or Attadied Dwelling Units 1600 Square Feet Total. Number of Dwelling Units 2. Amount perDvefling.Unit Amount Collected - nd/or- Fi ched Detached Dwelling units < 1600 square feet/ per dwelling (If applicable) Total Nu roY Dwellingiinits - Arnoun) er welling Unit Ama/nt Colle -SCHOOL DISTRICT; Tlis IS tO Gently that the applicant llsted on page 1 has paid all amOunts or completed otherapplfcablescltool mitigaton determined by the information presented above and We 10 ifle School Di*JcLThe.City.may.issue bu4d1n9 permits for this project (•\ j ( o ..SIGNATURE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICiAL 1?5. i"t$" J a flair DATE S /19: Acistant Sup!. TITLE (In - 3 -OL' 2 Rusiness Services PHONE NUMBER NOTICE OF 90 DAY PERJPO FOWPOTEST OF F$ The cartsDaø Unified School District has elected to imposed the fees and/ar amounts herein upon a linthng that those I described in the Schcc!lmpaciMib9ation Fee I U.on rCa,fsbed Unified SghntOiskit, prepared by David Tau" & Associates for the Disblct. Section 66020 of the Govemmeni Code enacted as Assembly am 3081, set fethas Chapter 649. Statutes or the State of Califarnta, requires that all school districts, lnciudistg the Carlsbad t)nilled and the Encinitas Union School Oietncts, provide a wriftri notice to the project apptlesnt at the time of payment of the school fea, iinowip payments, orother exaction. This notice is to advise the project appfucant that the protest period regard to such amounts or the validity thereof m accordance with Section 66020 of the Government Code and other applicable law, commences with such payment or peifonnanceof any other requirement as described in Seniuon 66020 of the Government Code. MdLtionaliy, this fttice advises that the protest thereof must occur within 90 calendar days thereafter. City of Carlsbad Plumbing - Electrical - Mçchanical Worksheet Project Address U 5.3 p , &S S Cca , Sf Permit No. cjy 2 Plumbing 39 Number of new or relocated fixtures, traps, or floor drains? New building sewer line? Yes No Number of roof drains? Install/alter water line? Yes No Number of water heaters? Number of hose bibs? Gas piping system - Install X Repair Number of new or relocated gas outlets New water meter - No. of 2 Size 3/4/11 Potable 'Z.- Irrigation I Electrical Number of new panels or subpanels? Size of New Service 440c Single Phase Size Number of amperes Three Phase 0 Number of amperes 7_J 10 Three Phase - 480 Number of amperes Remodel exist (no increase in service size)? Yes -No Mechanical Number of furnaces, A/C, or heat pumps? ____ Number of fireplaces? Number of exhaust fans? Number of exhaust hoods? Number of boilers or compressors? Number of HP? ' New or relocated duct work? Yes / No BEFORE THE PERMIT CAN BE FEE'D OUT THIS FORM NEEDS TO BE RETURNED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT - FAX NUMBER (760)438-0894 Applicant: MULLEN CONSTRUCTION 2890 PlO PICO DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 619-434-2233 PALISOULPHILIP R&PAMELA F 4269 COSOY W' i - SAN DIE'G'O CA 2Zf0\ City of Carlsbad 01/28/1999 Plan Check Revision Permit No:PCR99043 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 438-3101 Job Address: 2653 OCEAN ST CBAD Permit Type: PCR Parcel No: 2031401100 Lot #: 0 Valuation: $0.00 Construction Type: NEW Reference #: CB98-2244 Project Title: FOOTINGS AND WALL © ELEV 21 Status: ISSUED Applied: 01/28/1999 Entered By: MDO Plan Approved: 01/28/1999 Issued: 01/28/1999 Inspect Area: 5881 01/28/99 0001 01 02 C-PRIIT 109.00 Total Fees: $109.00 / TôI Payments 1e' $o.00\ \,rBaIa?ce Due: $109.00 / 1 7 \ Plan Check Revision Fee TED 1952 FINAL APPROVAL Inspector: Date: ______________ Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions? You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capactiy changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project NOR DOES IT APPLY to any lees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 438-1161 EsGil Corporation 2n Partnership with Government for !Bui(ing Safety 0 FILE DATE: January 28, 1999 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 98-2244(PCR99043) SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 2653 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: Duplex for Cindy Blair The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. PLEASE SEE REMARKS BELOW. LI 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. LI 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. fl The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant t contact person. LI 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. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Tom McLean Telephone #: 760/802-6010 Date contacted: 1/28/99 (by: Abe) Fax #: Maul Telephone Fax In Person XX REMARKS: REVISION NO. I TO CB 98-2244. 1. Provide special inspection for the construction of the masonry walls as required by the Engineer. 2. Applicant to carry approved sets of plans to the city. Ok'd by Mike Peterson. By: Abe Doliente Enclosures: Esgil Corporation 0 GA 0 MB 0 EJ D PC 1/28/99 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (619) 560-1468 • Fax (619) 560-1576 I Carlsbad 98-2244(PCR99043) January 28, 1999 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad 2244(PCR99043) PREPARED BY: Abe Doliente BUILDING ADDRESS: 2653 Ocean St. BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R-3/U-1 PLAN CHECK NO.: 98- DATE: January 28, 1999 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-N BUILDING PORTION BUILDING AREA VALUE (ft.2) ]A]VALUATION MULTIPLIER ($) REVISION NO. I TO THE ORIGINAL SET OF APPROVED PLANS Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE 199 UBC Building Permit Fee 0 Bldg. Permit Fee by ordinance: $ Z 199 UBC Plan Check Fee LI Plan Check Fee by ordinance: $ Type of Review: El Complete Review El Structural Only Z Hourly El Repetitive Fee Applicable El Other: Esgil Plan Review Fee: $ 87.15 Comments: Esgil fee, hourly, 1 hour @ 87.15. Sheet I of I macvalue.doc 5196 . Ec 44-(. i4/4 c!? I 36' 3.. 21. r (i') AT S.SS• S • S S • S S. •S S... • S.. S S.SSS S•SSS S S 56øE42 T-.. • -TtJ: 7 / - 7o- 43+7 J1oW3 /&QL( -roe, botfo1 a P foa+1!43 (2 - "L• ii i- --- ' 01/22/1999 12O DroLJI 4j A1 C4&IY3LA,L -5 *5 I ffftA(1 4 1 /r/ //r-so C~v ( 57L )c),f6'X APPROVED JAN ,Ø1999 City of CARLSBAD .:. BUILDING DEPT. • ..•..S •• S ::•:• •• 0/22f1999 1:O F raw, P~s e~)~ ) 5E8842 PAE b2 Wa 1IS F 6e1&e° 5rid , 5" 7 - ,A-rl e ill 61f4p A * 1 71mjp4 ID5 ceaii $7L O.7dg City of Carlsbad 03/02/1999 Plan Check Revision Permit No:PCR99057 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 438-3101 Job Address: 2653 OCEAN ST CBAD Permit Type: PCR Parcel No: 2031401100 Lot #: 0 Valuation: $0.00 Construction Type: NEW Reference #: CB982244 Project Title: REVISIONS-MOMENT FRAME Status: APPROVED Applied: 02/19/1999 Entered By: JM Plan Approved: 03/01/1999 Issued: Inspect Area: Applicant: MULLEN CONSTRUCTION 2890 PlO PICO DR CARLSBAD, CA 92008 619-434-2233 ' PALISOUL PHIU 4269 COSOY WA ANDIOA' 6955 03/02/99 0001 01 02 11 C-PRIIT 109.00 Total Fees: $109.00 $0 Due: $109.00 Lni Plan Check Revision Fee ME INCORPORATED 1952 " \? OL FINAL APPROVAL Inspector: Date: _____________ Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the"Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as feesIexactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these lees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capactiy changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 438-1161 PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad CA 92009 (760) 438-1161 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK NO. pgg S7 EST. VAL. Plan Ck. Deposit Validated By Address (include 81dg/Sqite *r Busineu..Nam. (at this aaire ) i Lo Is /5 9 /6 s'vl t/øek A )Ia ç, L4AC( Ce. 19Jd.'/"01, /ej C/sA.J, La .1 Descn tion Lot No. Subdi iJ Name/Number Unit No. Phase No. Total # of units 9 CP Abes ors ParcelI - Lx sting Use Proposd Use dew C64s,4cc1;OA 7O33# Description of Work so. FT. #of Stones # of Bedrooms U of Bathrooms Address City State/Zip - - Telephone U Fax U Address City State/Zip Name e Address City Stete/Zip Telephone S (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 Codel or that he Is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged ex mption ny violation *Section 7931.5 by any applicant fore rmIt subjpcts the applicant toe ;ivil penalty of not more than five undred dollap 1*5001). oI (4 • 2k40 P.'. P.cc ~St.'te 16I4 k!1c,( 016n Name Addresa' State License U License Class 5tetelZip Telephone U I3 q.; 23 City Business License S Designer Name Address . City State/Zip Telephone State License Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit Is Issued. 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 1*1001 OR LESS) CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shell 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 *ml.whd,. and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and clvii fines up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). In addition to the cost of compsnudon, damages as provided for In Section 3708 of the Labor coda, lntCrest and attorney', fees. SIGNATURE DATE 7 5WNER I hereby affirm that I em exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: I, as owner of 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). o i, as owner of the property, em exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (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 contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). o I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason: I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. 0 YES ONO I (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (Include name / address I phone number / contractors license number): I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): S. I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following parsons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number I type of work): - PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE COMPLETEZTHIS SECTION FORNUN4DiAZBUG 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- ES 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? 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(l) Civil Code). LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS_____________________________________________________ Fftft I certify that I have reed 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 Cite' 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 UABILITIES, JUDGMENTS. COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for 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 work is commenced for a period of 180 days (Section 108.4.4 Uniform Building Code). APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance EsGil Corporation 2n Partnership with government for Building Safety DATE: February 25, 1999 =r NT JURISDICTION: Carlsbad U PLAN REVIEWER 0 FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 98-2244 REV 2 PCR 9957 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 2653 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: Ocean Street Condominiums Revised Moment Frame The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed checklist and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. fl The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. fl The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person: LI 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. 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: Revised 2015D3. By: Kurt Culver for A. Doliente Enclosures: City-approved plans Esgil Corporation 0 GA 0 MB EJ 0 PC 2/19/99 trnsmtl.dot Ar 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 •(619) 560-1468 • Fax (619) 560-1576 Carlsbad 98-2244 REV 2 February 25, 1999 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad . PLAN CHECK NO.: 98-2244 REV 2 PREPARED BY: Kurt Culver for A. Doliente DATE: February 25, 1999 BUILDING ADDRESS: 2653 Ocean St.. BUILDING OCCUPANCY: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: BUILDING PORTION IF-BUILDING AREA 11 VALUATION IF- VALUE (ft.2) MULTIPLIER ($) Air Conditioni Fire SDrinkle TOTAL VALUE 199 UBC Building Permit Fee E Bldg. Permit Fee by ordinance: $ El 199 UBC Plan Check Fee El Plan Check Fee by ordinance: $ Type of Review: El Complete Review Structural Only 1Z Hourly 0 Repetitive Fee Applicable F1 Other: Esgil Plan Review Fee: $ 87.15 Comments: Moment frame revision: Esgil fee = 1 hr. @ $87.15/hr. Sheet I of I macvalue.doc 5196 MO. PAGE @1 a1EA4 s-r--r Gor4 $LAIZ. tvtcME.N-r g&IsS,o,4 02/18/1999 15:23 5608842 5- ..-. 0' ROOF 2ND FLOOR FIN. FLOOR MOMENT FAr 13'Ar71 REj15,4 Owe Sot pees Pe Note R7573ø/?7 I r8xS