HomeMy WebLinkAbout2831 ELMWOOD ST; ; CBRA2023-0066; PermitBuilding Permit Finaled
{city of
Carlsbad
Residential Associated Permit
Print Date: 09/24/2024
Job Address: 2831 ELMWOOD ST, CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1510
Permit Type: BLDG-Associated Permit Residential Work Class: P/M/E
Parcel#: 1562313100 Track#:
Valuation: $0.00 Lot#:
Occupancy Group: R-3 Project#:
#of Dwelling Units: Plan #:
Bedrooms: Construction Type:V-B
Bathrooms:
Occupant Load:
Code Edition: 2022
Sprinkled: No
Project Title:
Orig. Plan Check#: PC2022-0048
Plan Check #:
Description: LARSON: MAIN DWELLING PANEL UPGRADE (ADU PER CBRA2023-0067}
Applicant:
SETH HOENIG
PO BOX 1958
CARLSBAD, CA 92018-1958
(760) 434-9668
FEE
Property Owner:
J LARSON FAMILY TRUST
2831 ELMWOOD ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1510
PLUMBING, MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL PERMITS
Total Fees: $208.00 Total Payments To Date:
Building Division
$208.00
Permit No:
Status:
CBRA2023-0066
Closed -Finaled
Applied: 05/17/2023
Issued: 05/18/2023
Fina led Close Out: 07/05/2024
Final Inspection: 02/29/2024
INSPECTOR: Alvarado, Tony
de Roggenbuke, Dirk
Balance Due:
AMOUNT
$208.00
$0.00
Page 1 of 1
1635 Faraday Avenu e, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 I 442-339-2719 I 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov
Permit Type:
Work Class:
Status:
Scheduled
Date
02/29/2024
PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBRA2023-0066)
BLDG-Associated Permit Residenti; Application Date: 05/17/2023 Owner: TRUST J LARSON FAMILY TRUST
P/M/E Issue Date: 05/18/2023 Subdivision:
Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 05/28/2024 Address: 2831 ELMWOOD ST
IVR Number: 49243 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1510
Actual
Start Date
Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector
Checklist Item
BLDG-Building Deficiency
Status
COMMENTS
November 28, 2023:
1. New 225 amp. (Dual meter for main
house and new ADU future structure. New
Main electric Panel upgrade requires (2)
copper ground rods and cold water bond
attachment-verified and approved.
2. released new panel upgrade
("REWIRE"-for future electrical
re-connection), to SDGE-New service
department, left message at 5:33 pm.,
Tuesday , November 28, 2023.
3. Informed contractor
representatives-Seth.
4. Verified SDGE work order and electrical
site. Plan diagram.
02/29/2024 BLDG-Final Inspection
Checklist Item
240784-2024
COMMENTS
Passed Dirk de Roggenbuke
BLDG-Building Deficiency
BLDG-Plumbing Final
BLDG-Mechanical Final
BLDG-Structural Final
BLDG-Electrical Final
Re inspection
Passed
Yes
Passed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Inspection
Complete
Tuesday, September 24, 2024 Page 2 of 2
Building Permit Inspection History Finaled
{city of
Carlsbad
PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for ( CBRA2023-0066)
Permit Type: BLDG-Associated Permit Residenti;
Work Class: P/M/E
Application Date: 05/17/2023 Owner: TRUST J LARSON FAMILY TRUST
Status: Closed -Finaled
Issue Date: 05/18/2023 Subdivision:
Expiration Date: 05/28/2024
IVR Number: 49243
Address: 2831 ELMWOOD ST
CARLSBAD, CA 92008-1510
Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Reinspection Inspection
Date Start Date Status
11/28/2023 11/28/2023 BLDG-33 Service 231840-2023 Passed Tony Alvarado
Change/Upgrade
Checklist Item COMMENTS
BLDG-Building Deficiency November 28, 2023:
BLDG-34 Rough
Electrical
Checklist Item
1. New 225 amp. (Dual meter for main
house and new ADU future structure. New
Main electric Panel upgrade requires (2)
copper ground rods and cold water bond
attachment-verified and approved.
2. released new panel upgrade
("REWIRE"-for future electrical
re-connection). to SDGE-New service
department, left message at 5:33 pm.,
Tuesday , November 28, 2023.
3. Informed contractor
representatives-Seth.
4. Verified SDGE work order and electrical
site. Plan diagram.
231 601 -2023 Passed Tony Alvarado
COMMENTS
BLDG-Building Deficiency November 28, 2023:
BLDG-Electric Meter
Release
Tuesday, September 24, 2024
1. New 225 amp. (Dual meter for main
house and new ADU future structure. New
Main electric Panel upgrade requires (2)
copper ground rods and cold water bond
attachment-verified and approved.
2. released new panel upgrade
("REWIRE"-for future electrical
re-connection). to SDGE-New service
department, left message at 5:33 pm.,
Tuesday , November 28, 2023.
3. Informed contractor
representatives-Seth.
4. Verified SDGE work order and electrical
site. Plan diagram.
231841-2023 Passed Tony Alvarado
Complete
Passed
Yes
Complete
Passed
Yes
Complete
Page 1 of 2
June 13, 2023
Seth Hoenig
2714 Madison Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
SUBJECT: File No. 1106F5A-22
Dear Mr. Hoenig:
Report of Compacted Filled Ground
Proposed Residential Building Site
2831 Elmwood Street
City of Carlsbad
P.O. Box 1195
Lakeside, California
92040
(619) 443-0060
City of Carlsbad
JUN 1 j 2023
BUILDING DIVISION
In accordance with your request, our firm has inspected the grading operation and tested the fill
soils that were placed and compacted during the preparation of the subject site. This is to report
the results of our soil tests. The work was performed between May 26, 2023 and June 12, 2023.
The site is located at 2831 Elmwood Street, City of Carlsbad.
To briefly summarize the work, we found the compaction of the current fill soils to conform to
the recommended and approved grading specifications and current standard practices.
SECTION No.1. SCOPE
Our function consisted of providing the engineering services involved with determining the
degree of compaction of fill placed on the site in accordance with the recommendations set forth
in our Site Inspection dated September 22, 2022.
The results of the field density tests are presented on Page T-1 under "Table of Test Results".
The laboratory determinations of the maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of
the fill soils are set forth on Page L-1 under "Laboratory Test Results". The approximate
locations of the filled ground and the field density tests are presented on Plate No. 1 entitled
"Location of Field Density Tests".
The grading was performed for the purpose of creating uniform structural fill for the new
1
Seth Hoenig File No. 1106FSA-22 June 13, 2023
building pad for the proposed accessory dwelling unit. The foundation excavation was inspected
and found to be to the proper depth and bearing strata.
SECTION No. 2. SOIL CONDITIONS
Soils used in the fill were those generated from the on-site grading operation.
EARTHWORK
Preparation: Prior to placement of fill, the areas to receive fill were scarified, watered and
compacted to 90 percent. Natural ground to receive fill was tested to determine its relative
compaction. Native soils having a relative compaction of less than 85 percent were removed,
replaced and compacted to 90 percent.
Placing and compacting fill: Fill soil was placed, watered and mechanically densified in the
areas indicated on attached Plate No. 1. During grading, any fill found to have a relative
compaction of less than 90 percent was reworked until the proper density of 90 percent had been
achieved.
Field density test results: To verify compaction, field density tests were performed in
accordance with applicable American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods.
Test method ASTM O6938-1 ?ael was used at the indicated locations.
SECTION No. 3. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the work and tests described hereinbefore and work description set forth in Section l.
'Scope', we conclude:
1. The filled ground has been compacted to 90%.
2. The placement of fill has been accomplished in accordance with the grading
specifications and with current standard practices.
3. Spread footings will have a minimum allowable bearing value of at least 2000
pounds per square foot. The allowable bearing value will be considerably more
for footings larger than 12 inches wide and/or 12 inches deep. This value may be
increased by one third for wind and/or seismic loading. This value may be
increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of depth and or width to a
maximum of 3 times the designated value.
4. Conventional spread footings founded a minimum of 12 inches below lowest
adjacent grade and having a width determined by the allowable soil bearing value
as detailed above are recommended for foundation support. Footing widths should
2
Seth Hoenig File No. 1106F5A-22 June 13, 2023
be at least 12 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for square footings due
to practical considerations as well as Building Code requirements. These
recommendations are based entirely upon the soil types and do not take into
consideration the requirements of the proposed structure.
5. Reinforcing in footings should consist of at least one #4 steel bar placed
continuously in the top and bottom of continuous footings regardless of structural
requirements. Reinforcing for isolated footings is dictated by the structural
requirements. These recommendations are based upon the soil type encountered
and do not take into consideration the proposed bearing load.
6. Concrete Slab-On-Grade, SOG, should be designed by the project's structural
engineer based on anticipated loading conditions. We recommend that
conventional reinforced concrete SOG for this project be founded on 4 inches of
Class II Virgin Aggregate Base (with approximately 2% +/-over optimum
moisture content and 90% compaction, relative to the lab maximum dry density,
ASTM D 1557), overlying a 12 inch thick zone of adequately placed and
compacted structural fill.
We recommend that a moisture barrier be provided by a membrane, visqueen 10
mils in minimum thickness or equivalent, be placed at top of well compacted
Class II Aggregate Base, then covered with 2 inches of moist clean sand having a
minimum sand equivalent of 30 when tested in accordance with the American
Society of Testing and Materials test method 'ASTM D2419.
Floor slabs, as a minimum, should be 5 inches thick with #4 reinforcing steel at
16" on-center each way with a thickened edge of 18 inches. Reinforcement should
be placed at mid-height of the slab. The final slab thickness and reinforcement
should be determined by the structural design engineer. Control joints should be
provided in accordance with the recommendations of the structural design
engineer.
SITE EROSION CONTROL
During construction, surface water should be controlled via berms, gravel bags and/or
sandbags, silt fence, straw wattles, siltation basins, or other methods to avoid damage to the
finish work or adjoining properties, while maintaining positive surface grades. All site
entrances and exits must have coarse gravel or steel shaker plates to minimize offsite sediment
tracking. Best management Practices (BMP's) must be used to protect storm drains and
minimize pollution. The contractor should take measures to prevent erosion of graded areas
until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. After
completion of grading, all excavated surfaces should exhibit positive drainage and eliminate
areas where water might pond.
3
Seth Hoenig File No. 1106F5A-22 June 13, 2023
SITE AND SURFACE DRAINAGE
Drainage at the site should be directed away from foundations, collected and tight lined to
appropriate discharge points. Consideration may be given to collecting roof drainage by eave
gutters and directing it away from foundations via non-erosive devices. Water, either natural or
from irrigation, should not be permitted to pond, saturate the surface soils or flow towards the
foundation. Landscaping requiring a heavy irrigation schedule should not be planted adjacent to
foundations or paved areas. The type of drainage issues found within the project and materials
specified and used should be determined by the Engineer of Record.
GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATERS
There was no indication of a near-surface groundwater table or perched groundwater. Although
groundwater is not expected to be a significant constraint to the proposed development, our
experience indicates that near-surface groundwater conditions can develop in areas where no
such groundwater conditions previously existed, especially in areas where a substantial increase
in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation or unusually heavy precipitation. It
is anticipated that site development will include appropriate drainage provisions for control and
discharge of surface water runoff. The type of drainage issues found within the project and
materials specified and used should be determined by the Civil Engineer. The type of plants and
soil specified along with proper irrigation used should }Je determined by the Landscape
Architect.
SECTION No. 4. LIMITATIONS
UNIFORMITY OF SOIL CONDITIONS:
The values presented in this report are based on our evaluation of the observed, exposed soil
conditions. We have assumed that the soil conditions in the remaining portions of the site can be
interpolated without significant deviation in physical properties. We have made a conscientious
effort to select representative test locations and to provide enough tests for a statistically
adequate population in excess of current standard practices. However, parameter values may be
substantially different in other areas due to unforeseeable variations in the soils. Also, the
parameters are affected in time by the moisture-expansion (volume)-pressure changes that
seriously affect the tested values.
ENGINEERING INTERPRETATION:
We are available for consultation and should be made aware of any pertinent condition or
problem. Our conclusions will be re-evaluated and any problem or potential problem solved
with a minimum effort and cost before it gets out-of-hand.
TIME LIMITS:
This report presents conclusions and findings that are valid as of this date. Changes on this site
and adjacent property including grading, improvements, drainage, erosion, etc. may directly
4
Seth Hoenig File No. 1106F5A-22 June 13, 2023
affect the findings, conclusions and recommendations presented herein. Subsequent alterations
or conditions may invalidate these recommendations and values. The values in this report will
probably remain applicable for one year provided the site conditions remain unaltered. After this
period, we should be contacted to inspect the site and review this report so that we may verify its
validity.
WARRANTY:
Certain risks are involved with geotechnical and soil engineering work, which should be
recognized by those involved. We have performed our services in accordance with current
standard practices and procedures. These practices and procedures are those presently utilized
by members of our profession in this region. We do not express or imply a warranty or
guarantee regarding these services.
OUTSIDE RESPONSIBILITY:
It is the responsibility of the client (firm or person to whom this report is submitted) to ensure
that the information presented herein is made available to the concerned parties. In addition, it is
the client's responsibility to make certain that any construction reflects any applicable
requirements and conforms with the current codes of jurisdictive governmental agencies.
PROJECT CONCEPT:
We should be notified of any changes in the proposed structures, construction, or site grading, or
project concept so that any addendum or modifications to this report may be provided as
necessary.
SOIL TEST METHODS:
Summary of the
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS USED
for
Proposed Residential Building Site
2831 Elmwood Street
City of Carlsbad
Maximum Density & Opt Moisture
Density of Soil In-Place
ASTM D1557-78
ASTM D6938-17ael
UBC STANDARD 29-2
ASTM D3080-72
ASTM Dl 140-71
Soil Expansion
Shear Strength
Gradation & Grain Size
Capillary Moisture Tension ASTM D2325-68
LIMITING SOIL CONDITIONS:
Minimum Compaction 90% for "disturbed" soils. (Existing
fill, newly placed fill, plowed ground, etc.)
5
Seth Hoenig
Expansive Soils
Insufficient Fines
Oversized Particles
PREPARATION FOR FILL:
File No. 1106F5A-22 June 13, 2023
85% for natural, undisturbed soils.
95% for pavement subgrade within 2' of finish grade and
pavement base course.
Expansion index exceeding 20
Less than 40% passing the #4 sieve.
Rocks over 6" in diameter.
Brush, trash, debris and detrimental soils were cleared from the area to receive fill. Detrimental
soil was removed to competent soil. Slopes exceeding 20% were stepped with benches 10' or
greater in width. The area to be filled was scarified to a 6" depth and compacted.
FILL MATERIAL:
Contained sufficient fines and did not contain oversized particles or excessive organics. Special
attention was given to the disposition of any oversized rock, organic soils and expansive soils.
Please read this report carefully. If you have any questions, please contact our office. This
opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated.
Page L-1, Page T-1 and Plate I are parts of this report.
Respectfully submitted,
CCC/mlj
6
Seth Hoenig
Page L-1
File No. 1106F5A-22
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
June 13, 2023
The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the fill materials as determined by the
A.S.T.M., D1557-78, Method A, which uses 25 blows of a 10 pound rammer falling from a height of 18
inches on each of 5 layers in a 4 inch diameter 1/30 cubic foot compaction cylinder, are presented as
follows:
Soil Type
1 Brown to light brown, fine to medium,
silty sands
Maximum
Dry Density
lb./cu.ft.
133.3
Optimum
Moisture
Content dry wt.
7.2
Seth Hoenig
Page T-1
DEPTH
OFFILL
TEST SOIL AT TEST
NO. TYPE IN FEET
l l +2
2 l +2
3 1 +2
4 1 f.g.
5 1 f.g.
6 1 f.g.
f.g. = finish grade
File No. 1106FSA-22
TABLE OF TEST RESULTS
A.S.T.M., D6938-17ael
FIELD
MOISTURE
%
8.7
9.7
9.0
11.3
10.9
11.4
DRY
DENSITY
P.C.F.
124.9
121.6
123.2
120.8
121.6
121.2
MAXIMUM
DRY
June 13, 2023
DENSITY PERCENT
P.C.F. COMPACTION
133.3 93.7
133.3 91.2
133.3 92.4
133.3 90.6
133.3 91.2
133.3 90.9
NO SCALE
r ·· --------------------------------------------------------------------------------,
I
' I 1 • 3 •
6
5 • •
4 2 • •
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
L----------------------------------------------------------------------------------..
LOCATION OF
FIELD DENSITY TESTS
• FIELD DENSITY TEST
.__ _ _,I COMPACTED FILL
PLATE I
JOB NO.
1106F5-22
BY
6-15-23
1--w w a::: I--fl)
0
0 0 ~ ~ ....I w
March 10, 2023
Seth Hoenig
2714 Madison Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
SUBJECT: File No. 1106F5A-22
Dear Mr. Hoenig:
Foundation Plan Set Review
Proposed Residential Building Site
2831 Elmwood Street
City of Carlsbad
P.O. Box 1195
Lakeside, California
92040
(619) 443-0060
We have reviewed the structural plan set, dated March 9, 2023 prepared by Carothers
Drafting for the proposed accessory dwelling unit and find that from a geotechnical
perspective; the foundation plan conforms to the required minimum specifications in our Site
Inspection, dated September 22, 2022, based on the as-graded conditions per the
recommendations in our report.
A representative of this company must be present to test and observe during the grading
operation and inspect the foundation excavations prior to placement of forms and reinforcing
steel to ensure that adequate depth has been achieved into the structural fill soils. Our
recommendations are based upon on the soil type encountered and do not take into
consideration the proposed bearing load.
If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This
opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
Chl~~~~~
CCC/mlj
, .. , Tl!fll!UI.I -------------------------------
September 22, 2022
Seth Hoenig
2714 Madison Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
SUBJECT:
Dear Mr. Hoenig:
SCOPE
File No. l 106F5A-22
SITE INSPECTION
Proposed Residential Building Site
2831 Elmwood Street
City of Carlsbad
P.O. Box 1195
Lakeside, California
92040
(619) 443-0060
In accordance with your request, a Site Inspection has been performed at the subject site. The
purpose of this investigation was to examine existing site conditions and provide engineering
recommendations for the proposed accessory dwelling unit.
If project details vary significantly from those described, Soil Testers should be notified -
prior to final submittal for revision and possible revision of the recommendations
presented herein
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or the
owner's representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein
are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into
the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry
out such recommendations in the field.
FIELD INSPECTION
In order to accomplish this purpose, a representative of this firm visited the site, reviewed the
topography and site conditions and visually and textually classified the surface and near
surface soils. Representative samples of the on-site soils were obtained from a test
1
Seth Hoenig File No. 1106F5A-22 September 22, 2022
exploration approximately 3 feet in depth and tested for density, shear strength and expansive
characteristics.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site is located on the west side of Elmwood Street. The property is relatively
level and occupied by a single family residential structure. Neighboring properties are
occupied by residential structures. Fill materials were encountered to a depth of
approximately 2 to 3 feet during the course of this inspection.
SOIL CONDITIONS
Soils encountered in the test exploration are fill soils consisting of loose, light brown to light
red brow, silty, fine to coarse sands with roots and organic material to approximately 1 foot in
depth underlain by firm to dense, light brown to light red brow, silty, fine to coarse sands with
5 inch roots to a depth of approximately 2 feet. Native soils consisting of dense, light brown,
silty, cemented sands to the bottom of the exploration, approximately 3 feet in depth.
The soils we encountered were considered to be moderately expansive with respect to change
in volume with change in moisture content.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I. A representative sample of the foundation soil was remolded to 90% of maximum
dry density. Based on the following test results, a safe allowable bearing value of
at least 2000 pounds per square foot for 12 inch deep footings may be used in
designing the foundations and slab for the proposed structures. This value may be
increased by one third for wind and/or seismic loading. This value may be
increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of depth and or width to a
maximum of 3 times the designated value.
Maximum Dry Density
Optimum Moisture
Angle of internal friction
Cohesion
Unit weight
Expansion Index
133.3 pcf
7.2%
32°
248 psf
121.1 pcf
4
2. The soils we encountered were considered to be Non Expansive Index (EI), (with
the valve ranging from 0 to 20) with respect to change in volume
2
Seth Hoenig File No. l 106FSA-22 September 22, 2022
exploration approximately 3 feet in depth and tested for density, shear strength and expansive
characteristics.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site is located on the west side of Elmwood Street. The property is relatively
level and occupied by a single family residential structure. Neighboring properties are
occupied by residential structures. Fill materials were encountered to a depth of
approximately 2 to 3 feet during the course ofthis inspection.
SOIL CONDITIONS
Soils encountered in the test exploration are fill soils consisting of loose, light brown to light
red brow, silty, fine to coarse sands with roots and organic material to approximately 1 foot in
depth underlain by firm to dense, light brown to light red brow, silty, fine to coarse sands with
5 inch roots to a depth of approximately 2 feet. Native soils consisting of dense, light brown,
silty, cemented sands to the bottom of the exploration, approximately 3 feet in depth.
The soils we encountered were considered to be moderately expansive with respect to change
in volume with change in moisture content.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
l. A representative sample of the foundation soil was remolded to 90% of maximum
dry density. Based on the following test results, a safe allowable bearing value of
at least 2000 pounds per square foot for 12 inch deep footings may be used in
designing the foundations and slab for the proposed structures. This value may be
increased by one third for wind and/or seismic loading. This value may be
increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of depth and or width to a
maximum of 3 times the designated value.
Maximum Dry Density
Optimum Moisture
Angle of internal friction
Cohesion
Unit weight
Expansion Index
133.3 pcf
7.2%
32°
248 psf
121.1 pcf
22
2. The soils we encountered were considered to have a Low Expansive Index (EI),
(with the valve ranging from O to 20) with respect to change in volume
2
Seth Hoenig File No. 1106F5A-22 September 22, 2022
along with change in moisture content. For the remaining indexes: Low (EI=2 l-
50), medium (E1=51-90), high (EI=91-130), and very high (EI >130).
3. Lateral resistance to horizontal movement may be provided by the soil passive
pressure and friction of concrete to soil. An allowable passive pressure of 250
pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used. A coefficient of friction of
0.35 is recommended. The soils passive pressure may be increased by 1/3 for wind
and seismic loading.
4. The seismic parameters for the site coordinates 33.16749°N, 117.34032°W for
assumed Site Class D are as follows:
• Ss = 1.045 g
• S1 = 0.380 g
Sms = 1.254 g
Sm1 = null
Sds = 0.836 g
Sdt = null
5. The existing fill soils we encountered should not be utilized to support the proposed
single family residence. They should be removed and recompacted to at least 90
percent of maximum dry density in accordance with the Grading Specifications in this
report in order to provide adequate support for the proposed new structures.
Anticipated depth of recompaction is approximately 2 to 3 feet for the proposed one
story structure. The recompaction should extend at least five feet outside the
proposed building footprints. Organic materials and roots must be removed from the
soils before replacement. A representative of this firm should be scheduled during the
grading operation for testing and observation.
6. Conventional spread footings founded a minimum of 12 inches below lowest adjacent
grade and 12 inches into competent native soils, having a width determined by the
allowable soil bearing value as detailed above are recommended for foundation
support. Footing widths should be at least 12 inches for continuous footings and 24
inches for square footings due to practical considerations as well as Building Code
requirements. These recommendations are based entirely upon the soil types and do
not take into consideration the requirements of the proposed structure.
7. Reinforcing in footings should consist of at least one #4 steel bar placed continuously
in the top and bottom of continuous footings regardless of structural requirements.
Reinforcing for isolated footings is dictated by the structural requirements. These
recommendations are based upon on the soil type encountered and do not take into
consideration the proposed bearing load.
8. Concrete Slab-On-Grade, SOG for the garages, should be designed by the project's
structural engineer based on anticipated loading conditions. We recommend that
3
Seth Hoenig File No. 1106F5A-22 September 22, 2022
conventional reinforced concrete SOG for this project be founded on 4 inches of
Class II Virgin Aggregate Base (with approximately 2% +/-over optimum moisture
content and 90% compaction, relative to the lab maximum dry density, ASTM D
1557), overlying a 12 inch thick zone of adequately placed and compacted
structural fill. The structural fill will be accomplished during the removal and
recompaction of the existing fill soils.
We recommend that a moisture barrier be provided by a membrane, visqueen 10
mils in minimum thickness or equivalent, be placed at top of well compacted Class
II Aggregate Base, then covered with 2 inches of moist clean sand having a
minimum sand equivalent of 30 when tested in accordance with the American
Society of Testing and Materials test method • ASTM D2419. An additional 2 inches
. of moist clean sand may be used in lieu of the Class II Base.
Floor slabs, as a minimum, should be 5 inches thick with #4 reinforcing steel at 16"
on-center each way. Reinforcement should be placed at mid-height of the slab. The
final slab thickness and reinforcement should be determined by the structural
design engineer. Control joints should be provided in accordance with the
recommendations of the structural design engineer.
SITE EROSION CONTROL
During construction, surface water should be controlled via berms, gravel bags and/or
sandbags, silt fence, straw wattles, siltation basins, or other methods to avoid damage to
the finish work or adjoining properties, while maintaining positive surface grades. All
site entrances and exits must have coarse gravel or steel shaker plates to minimize offsite
sediment tracking. Best management Practices (BMP's) must be used to protect storm
drains and minimize pollution. The contractor should take measures to prevent erosion of
graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have
been installed. After completion of grading, all excavated surfaces should exhibit
positive drainage and eliminate areas where water might pond.
SITE AND SURFACE DRAINAGE
Drainage at the site should be directed away from foundations, collected and tight lined to
appropriate discharge points. Consideration may be given to collecting roof drainage by
eave gutters and directing it away from foundations via non-erosive devices. Water, either
natural or from irrigation, should not be permitted to pond, saturate the surface soils or
flow towards the foundation. Landscaping requiring a heavy irrigation schedule should not
be planted adjacent to foundations or paved areas. The type of drainage issues found within
the project and materials specified and used should be determined by the Engineer of
Record.
4
Seth Hoenig File No. 1106F5A-22 September 22, 2022
GROUNDWATER AND SURF ACE WATERS
There was no indication of a near-surface groundwater table or perched groundwater
within the depths of our test exploration. Although groundwater is not expected to be a
significant constraint to the proposed development, our experience indicates that near-
surface groundwater conditions can develop in areas where no such groundwater
conditions previously existed, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface
water infiltration results from landscape irrigation or unusually heavy precipitation. It is
anticipated that site development will include appropriate drainage provisions for control
and discharge of surface water runoff. The type of drainage issues found within the project
and materials specified and used should be determined by the Civil Engineer. The type of
plants and soil specified along with proper irrigation used should be determined by the
Landscape Architect.
The following grading specifications should be utilized if grading is proposed.
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
For
Proposed Residential Building Site
2831 Elmwood Street
City of Carlsbad
GENERAL: Soil Testers and 'Engineer' are synonymous hereinafter and shall be employed
to inspect and test earthwork in accordance with these specifications, the accepted plans, and
the requirements of any jurisdictive governmental agencies. They are to be allowed adequate
access so that the inspections and tests may be performed. The Engineer shall be apprised of
schedules and any unforeseen soil conditions.
Substandard conditions or workmanship, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, or
deviation from the lines and grades shown on the plans, etc., shall be cause for the
engineer to either stop construction until the conditions are corrected or recommend
rejection of the work. Refusal to comply with these specifications or the
recommendations and/or interpretations of the engineer will be cause for the engineer
and/or his representative to immediately terminate his services.
A pre-construction meeting or conference with the developer, contractor, civil engineer,
soil engineer, and the agency inspector in attendance should be held at the site prior to
the beginning of the grading operations. Special soil handling requirements can be
discussed at that time.
5
Seth Hoenig File No. l 106F5A-22 September 22, 2022
Grading of the site should commence with the removal of all vegetation and existing
improvements from the area to be graded. Deleterious material and debris such as
broken asphalt and concrete, underground pipe materials, wires, trash, etc. if
encountered, should be exported from the site and should not be mixed with the fill
soils.
Abandoned foundations and buried septic tanks or cisterns (if encountered) should be
removed and the subsequent depressions and /or trenches should be filled with properly
compacted materials as part of the remedial grading.
All fill and backfill soils should be placed in horizontal loose layers approximately 8
inches thick, moisture conditioned to a water content of one to three percent above
optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, as
determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-00.
The excavation bottom should then be scarified to a depth of approximately 6 to 8
inches, moisture-conditioned to 1 to 3 percent above optimum moisture content, and re-
compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with ASTM
D 1556-00 or D6938-17ael. Excavated sandy or clayey soils should then be uniformly
moisture conditioned at above optimum moisture content, placed in 8-inch-thick loose
layers and compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Import fill soil, if required, should consist of granular materials with low expansion
potential (EI less than 50 or stated by the soil engineer) and should be compacted as
indicated herein. Soil Testers should be notified of the import source and should
perform laboratory testing of the soil prior to its arrival at the site to determine its
suitability as fill material.
Deviations from the recommendations of the Soil Report, from the plans, or from these
Specifications must be approved in writing by the owner and the contractor and
endorsed by the engineer.
SOIL TEST METHODS:
Maximum Density & Opt Moisture
Density of Soil In-Place
Soil Expansion
Shear Strength
Gradation & Grain Size
Capillary Moisture Tension
Organic Content
--ASTM Dl557-70
--ASTM Dl556, D2922 and 03017
--UBC STANDARD 29-2
--ASTM D3080-72
--ASTM DI 140-71
--ASTM D2325-68
--% Weight loss after heating for 24 hours
at 300° F and after deducting soil moisture.
6
Seth Hoenig File No. 1106F5A-22
LIMITING SOIL CONDITIONS:
Minimum Compaction
Expansive Soils
Insufficient fines
Oversized Particles
90% for 'disturbed' soils. (Existing fill,
newly placed fill, plowed ground, etc.)
84% for natural, undisturbed soils.
95% for pavement subgrade within 2' of
finish grade and pavement base course.
Expansion index exceeding 20
Less than 40% passing the #4 sieve.
Rocks over 6" in diameter.
PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL:
September 22, 2022
Brush, trash, debris and detrimental soils shall be cleared from the areas to receive fill.
Detrimental soils shall be removed to firm competent soil. Slopes exceeding 20% should be
stepped uphill with benches 1 0' or greater in width. Scarify area to receive fill to 6" depth and
compact.
FILL MATERIAL shall not contain insufficient fines, oversized particles, or excessive
organics. On-site disposition of oversized rock or expansive soils is to be at the written
direction of the Engineer. Select fill shall be as specified by the engineer. All fills shall be
compacted and tested.
SUBDRAINS shall be installed if required by and as directed by and detailed by the engineer
and shall be left operable and unobstructed. They shall consist of 3" plastic perforated pipe set
in a minimum cover of 4" of filter rock in a 'vee' ditch to intercept and drain free ground from
the mass fills. Perforated pipe shall be schedule 40, Poly-Vinyl-Chloride or Acrylonitrile
Butadienne Styrene plastic. Rock filter material shall conform to the following gradation:
Sieve size: 3/4"
%Passing: 90-100
#4
25-50
#30
5-20
#200
0-7
Subdrains shall be set at a minimum gradient of 0.2% to drain by gravity and shall be tested
by dye flushing before acceptance. Drains found inoperable shall be excavated and replaced.
CAPPING EXPANSIVE SOILS: If capping expansive soils with non-expansive soil to
mitigate the expansive potential is used, the cap should be compacted, non-expansive, select
soil placed for a minimum thickness 3' over the expansive soil and for a minimum distance of
8' beyond the exterior perimeter of the structure. Special precautions should be taken to
ensure that the non-expansive soil remains uncontaminated and the minimum thickness and
dimensions around the structure are maintained. The expansive soils underlying the cap of
non-expansive cap should be pre-saturated to a depth of 3' to obtain a degree saturation
exceeding 90% before any construction supported by the compacted cap.
7
Seth Hoenig File No. 1106F5A-22 September 22, 2022
The non-expansive soil comprising the cap should conform to the following:
Minimwn Compaction
Maximum Expansion Index
Minimum Angle of Internal Friction
Cohesion Intercept
90%
30
33 Deg
100 psf
UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS: Soil Testers assume no responsibility for conditions,
which differ from those, described in the applicable current reports and documents for this
property. Upon termination of the engineer's services for any reason, his fees up to the time of
termination become due and payable. If it is necessary for the engineer to issue an
unfavorable report concerning the work that he has been hired to test and inspect, the engineer
shall not be held liable for any damages that might result from his 'unfavorable report'.
If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This
opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated.
Plate I and Detail 1 area attached.
Respectfully submitted,
Chin C. Chen, RPE C34442
CCC/mlj
8
NO SCALE
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
l..------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCATION OF
EXPLORATION TRENCHES
[;iii EXPLORATION TRENCH
PLATE I
JOB NO.
1106F5-22
BY
JJ
DATE
9-22-22
.... w w a:: .... en
C)
0
0 ~ ~ _J w
5" SLAB
: z 00 ~ 1F00'!1~W@f.&0w:~~~--2"T04"SAND
:c Ii: w
0
C) i( z
§
0 LL
1--z 0 WW
I-I-> z w--a.. I-• ~< ~ oz
(.)
6 • ' 6 . .
.• •• ~-·, . .
=-: SCARIFY, MOISTURIZE AND -= -=--COMPACT 12" ZONE OF :-.:.-
====-= STRUCTURAL FILL :-====
'6 ' '6 ' '6 .
I .. PER PLAN ..I
NON-GRADED LOT
4" TO 6" VIRGIN
CLASS II BASE
* LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE OF STRUCTURAL FILL OR COMPACTED BASE
. z
00 -~
-------------------
C>
' C>
;>· ·~::/\::i:{t~t~/.t~·it:?ttl\·t:1?.\?f~ •
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-=-=-=-STRUCTURAL FILL -= -=-=
-------------
•
'6 ---------------------~·'-------------'------------I .. PER PLAN ,. I
GRADED LOT
5" SLAB
2" T04" SAND
* 4" TO 6" VIRGIN
CLASS II BASE
* * LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE OF OUTSIDE GRADE OR COMPACTED BASE/INSIDE GRADE
NO SCALE
SLAB AND FOOTING DETAILS
DETAIL 1