The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPE 2.88.25; BARBOUR RESIDENCE; Engineering ApplicationApplication for Grading Permit PE NO. CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2075 Las Palmas Drive 438-3550 Validation by Finance Department Building Permit Plan Check No. 2340 10/06/88 0001 01 05 FOR APPLICANT TO FILL IN Site Address Surety Company Bond No. 3 30 Z VENADO ST. EIZ 1,05 C6 /a 73 41 Legal Description LOT 467 Map No. 7950 Surety Ad ftoal) rtTK (D, 3,71 01 -2/0 1 Subdivision Name Date Filed nec'd LA COSTA VALE - UNIT NO. 3 '714 4; 6 0 fly 91-11;- - - A-04 Owner RICHARD BARBOUR Phone 942-2223 Cash deposit $ 07, 5-// 0--!? Rec'd 10ate f i I ed do— Owner's Address <:,d e ere q Th~ Tollowing clocument;'ffre'rgc~ui red and shalf become a part 2438 SACADA CIRCLE, CARLSBAD, CA 92009 76VC of the grading permit when I they are approved. Plans by Civil Engineer R.C.E * P-PT - d"l-tc SAN MARCOS ENGINEERS 28846 a 7 ffa Grading plans Soil report - _!ff' Specifications _4~—-Geologic Report Other Address Phone 744-0111 370 MULBERRY DR. STE. E, SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 Drainage structures Compaction report -Soil Engineer R.C.E. Phone SAN MARCOS ENGIN7PRq 28846 -7 A A r) 1 1 1 Gtpding Contractor Phone KM~rl Add Party responsible-for overall sup&vis-ion RICHARD 'RARBOTTR Proposed use of grade site 1 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Number of cubic yards Cut Fill Import Waste 1400 CY 13500 CY 1 2000 CY I Proposed Schedule of Start Finish Operations (dates) JUNE 1988 SEPT. 1988 I hereby acknowledge that I have read the application and state that the information I have provided is correct and agree to comply with all City ordinances and Stat~ laws regulating excavating and grading, and the provisions and conditions of any permit issued pursuant to this application. n - A Signature of Permittee A— - Owner or authorized agent OWNER ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE - EIA Log No. HD? F-B-q Date 9-19.3 :EBB By 0)~~l Grading permit fee $ 00 /Zo Plan check fee $ _16Z~~_04 Perm Date Permit Expiration Date SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH ARE MADE A PART OF THIS PERMIT Authorized hours of operation: 7:00 AM to Sunset, Monday - Friday. Haul routes are to be approved by City Engineer. Adequate provisions shall be made for erosion and siltation control. All slopes shall be planted per City Code. All fills to be compacted to at least 90% of optimum density unless noted otherwise. Under City Code Sec. 11.06 170 this grading is: 0 REGULAR GRADING, - City inspector will make i nspections listed below. El CONTROLLED GRADING - Private grading engineer shall observe work, coordinate tests, make reports. INSPECTION DATE INSP. SIGNATURE Initial - site prep. 0 - 17-61 Rough - prior to drains _?-/0-01 ".4? rl e 0,'V V Final - slopes planted Compaction reports rec'd. Private engr. cert. rec'd. :7 - V Copies: White-Office; Green-Building; C-1/ Yellow-inspector; Pink-Permittee; Goldenrod- F i nance THISFO,RMWHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED ISAPERMITTO DOTHEWORK DESCRIBED THIS PERMIT IS VALID FOR A SIX (6) MONTH PERIOD CITY OF CARLSBAD ENGINEERIN6 DEPARTMENT FEES ANDDEPOSITS VORKSHEET PREPARED BY:— ,PROJECT NAME: DATE: ,TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FEE . . . . ... . . . . ... . . MAP FEE LOTS)(PARCEL MAP/FINAL MAP NO. OF LOTS . (EXPEDITED/NOT.,EXPEDITED) PARCEL'NAP EXTENSION FEE . . . . . . . . IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECK FEE: DEPOSIT WITH SUBMITTAL RECEIPT NO. ,IMPROVEMENT DESCRIPTION BONDED VALUE TOTAL: X PERCENTAGE IMPROVEMENT INSPECTION FEE: VALUE TOTAL: X PERCENTAGE PARK-IN-LIEU FEE (CIRCLE ONE): DWELLIN~ TYPE: SF OR DUPLEX' MF (<4 UNITS) -MF (> 4 UNITS) MH AREA: 1 2. 3 4 NUMBER OF UNITS: X AREA FEE/UN.IT STREET LIGHT ENERGIZING: 5,800 LUMEN AT .81 .00'= LUMEN AT 111.06 = 16,000 LUMEN AT '152.10 - 20,QOO LUMEN 'AT 169.38 = TOTAL: (2—e I I NO. -,Vol GRADING PLAN CHECK FEE DEPOSIT RECEIPT (EXPEDITED/NOT *EXPEDITED) GRADING PLAN CHECK FEE CUBIC YARDS) . ... . . . . . . GRADING CASH DEPOSIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... 4K DUPLICATE TRACING FEE a . ... . . . . . . . STREET SIGN DEPOSIT: A T AT A T TOTAL: STREET STRIPING DEPOSIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FRONT LINE 0 R AREA FEES (TYPE . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . DRAINAGE AREA FEE (AREA NO. JOTAL ACRES: X 'AREA FEE LESS VALUE OF ,MASTER DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AS NOTED~Ir4 kAi -fER DRAINAGE PLAN DOCUMENTS MULTIPLIED BY CURRENT INFLATION FACTOR. LINE VALUE. X , ~FACTOR AMOUNT X X X TOTAL: DRAINAGE FEE DUE: ADDITIONAL FEES: TYPE: ~TYP E: TOTAL FEES AND DEPOSITS: (IN ADDITION, A GRADING PERMIT FEE OF IVI IS DUE UPON ISSUANCE OF THE GRADING PERMIT.) TELEPHONE 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE (619) 438-11-61 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009-4859 - X—M. Office of the City Engineer Au Iv,5 1A,16Z 4tZ_)~P~ IAI,:::~, of Tartsbab ~77 A/:S FZD:n7 0 TO: DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING SERVICES-__ AID V FROM: ENGINEERING INSPECTION DIVISION, DATE: /0- ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL. FOR PROJECT NO. (P. E. or- TRACT ?--.s 1,0,ewe -3 30a V.,E"AOO S-r, (Project Name and Address) 2 q315 svC-4.04 (Developer's Name and Addeess) We have inspected the grading for Lot P4-~ i,~4 7 of the above mentioned project. In addition, we have received rough grading certification f rom 11,~,fA 4 0— 'Z- A Arrl s _,the Soils Engineer, dated 12-23-86 and from -,.~,~RAI__o 4Avrl_~ the Supervision Grading- Engineer; dated Y-6-89 -and are satisfied that the rough grading 'ha's been completed in accordance with City Standards. Based on these -certifications and our observation, we take no exception to the issuance of a building permit- for Lot '7 Gr- P4ft&9e of X, project g4~?,6czjg -from a grading standpoint. This release, however, is not intended to certify the project from other engineering concerns including site development, water or sewer availa- bility, or final grading. We will need-to be advised prior to the issu.ance of -a,. Certificate of Occupancy so that we can verify - that final grading and landscaping h as been completed in accordance with the approved plans for the project. APPROVED: Project Grading InVpector S r. ConstQOion Inspector C I T Y 0 F. CARLSBAD GRADING INSPECTION CHECKLIST' FOR PARTIAL SITE RELEASE DATE: PROJECT INSPECTOR: /0 PROJECT Ib: ~~xlaol-q ?,e5,,;De1Vc,- GRADING PERMIT NO.:.Pe.2.98.2_5 LOTS 414 -7 -REQUESTED FOR RELEASE: N/A = Not Applicable = Complete 0 =.Incomplete or unacceptable 2nd. 1-0.: Site access to requested lots adeq6ste and logically grouped 2 Site erosion control' measures adequate 3.. Overall site adequate for health., safety.and welfare of pub-lic -4. Letter.of request for partial release submitted Al- ~5. 8-1/21". X 1111 ,site plan showing requested lots submitted compaction report from soils engineer Submitted 7. Enginder-df-work-certificat-ion of work done and pad elevations .8. Geol gic engineer's letter if unusual geologic or subsurface conditions ex*ist., 9. Project conditions of, approval checked for conflicts' 10.,~'Can water service be installed prior,to bringing building combustibles on site..- -~-Partia1 release of'griading for the above stated lots is approved for the purpose of building permit issuance. Issuance of buildin' 9 permits is-still subject to all normal'.City'requirements required pursuant to the b6ilding permit process. Partial release ok the site -is denied -for thefollowing reasons:- 5!~ f-W ~__, PROJECT INSFERTO DATE PROJECT ENGINEER DATE -;9_EWI_0R, 1927TOR DT 1b --2e`;75 LAS PALMAS DRIVE TELEPHONE. CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA92009-4859 (619)438-1161 Office of the City Engineer Mtv of (garts bob TO: DEVELOPMENT. PROCESSING SERVICES OROM: ENGINEERING INSPECTION, DIVISION, 044*1 DATE: 0,V2,V PAFrrIA4-. REL-i—EAS -_:F0"A1,0Ar; 0 lv~y "V*~tcl R PROJECTmNO.- 2-5 or TRACT #) -Z 12) e-1V Cf _330a VeV.4 00 ST. (Project Name and Address) AD A C-Age-Jig.40, C"A. ?eO6'7 (Developer's Name and Address) We have inspected the grading for Lot~( -.elL-7 -or- Phase- of * the above mentioned project. In addition, we have received rough grading certification from 24e~—_,oeA. o R. Z-A IV?/ the Soils Engineer, dated 10-23 - 66 and from MFIFA &o L_ A A171S the Supervision Grading Engineer, dated -3-6-C31 and are satisfied that the rough grading has been in accordance with City Standards. Based on these certifications and our observation, we --take no exception to the issuance of a building permit for LotX or- P4".&e of project -1-?A /3 8deff &Z 5 lDe-)11 f rom a grading standpoint.' This release, however, is not intended t6 certify--'the project from other engineering concerns including site development, water or sewer availa-, bility, or final grading- We will need to be advised prior to. the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy io that we can verify that final grading and landscaping has been completed 'i n accordance with the approved plans for the project.' APPROVED:~ Prdwct-Grading lnspg]~Zor Sr. Constr /On Inspector 47e CITY- OF CARLSBAD. GRADING INSPECTION CHECKLISJ FOR PARTIAL'SITE RELEASE. PROJECT INSPECTOR: DATE:' 3.-'? PROJECT ID: g.4,,wvte 16rr14rAe_e GRADING PERMIT NO.: Re'2.88 25 LOTS REQUESTED FOR RELEASE: N/A Not Applicable* Complete 0 Incomplete or unacceptable 1st. 2nd., Site access to requested lots adequate and logically grouped Site erosion control measures ad**equate Overall site adequate for health;,'safety and welfare of public Letter of request for partial relea.se'.submitted -VI4 8-1/211 .X 11" site plan showing requested lots submitted Compaction report'from soils engineer submitted Engine'er-of-work certification of work done and.'pad elevations 8.. Geologic engineer's letter if unusual geologic or-subsurface Z4 conditions exist 'Check'e'd -Pro'*ect conditions of -approval for conflicts Can water service be installed prior t.o'bringing building combustibles'on 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: PaROJE CTOR DATE PROJEV ENGINEER' DATE ttNPA INSPECTOR DA TE. 0 COW4TY OF SAN DF#GO DEPIKTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE -Z-0 r->-(,o C ODES DIVISION SAN DIEGO OFFICE NORTH COUNTY OFFICE RETURN TO: E1 5201 Ruffin Road, Suite S3 334 Via Vera Cruz San Diego, CA 92123 San Marcos, CA 92069 565-5920 741-4236 Ap 0 '1Z'-?5,ZC,0, C) I 9--ST f- t r) 7- (— cry Project Locati( W-44AD() Name of Peri-nittee Grading Permit No. This report form for a "minor" grading project is to be completed and signed by the Registered Civil Engineer (or Architect) who has been designated on the Grading Plan and ' Permit as ti ' ie Engineer who will furnish the compaction report for work authoiized by a grading permit issued by the Department of Planning and Land Use. The intent of the format is to provide inforination tot lie Department of P larining and Land Use as to grading compliancewitlit he approved Grading Plan and Permit. Where (lie questions below refer to location, configuration or quantity of cut and/or fill areas, it is understood that your response will not normally be based on an actual land survey or detailed earthwork quantity calculations. It should be noted, however, that the Department is particularly concerned where there are possible infractions with respect to over-steepened slopes, encroachments of required setbacks, unconipacted fills placed, or where the quantity of fill placed differs substantially from that authorized. The Department of Planning and Land Use requires that all fills authorized by a Grading Permit be compacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum density with the exception that not more than 12" of uncompacted and untested fills may be dispersed over the land parcel.'The need to compact all fills that are beyond the present limits of (lie present proposed construction is to insure that future proposed construction of room additions or swinuning pools or similar structures will not require that uncompacted fills be removed or recompacted, or that extensive foundation work be installed. Compaction reports will not be accepted unless this forni is completed and signed by the registered person. A. COMPATIBILITY WITH GRADING PLAN AND PERMIT I . Was the compacted fill placed only in the approximate locations designated on the grading plan V as areas to be filled? Yes -- — 0— V7 Did the quantity of fill material placed approxiniately conform to the grading plan? Yes No Did the toe of fill or the top of' cut. appear to meet the prescribed property line setback (1.3' for fill; 3.0' for cuts)? Yes No Were the finished fill slopes equal to or'%Iess than 2 horizontal to I vertical'? Yes No- If ' the fill material was obtained by cuts on the site, were the cuts made in the proper location and to the proper slope approximately as shown on the approved grading plan? Yes No Were brow ditches constr6cted'approxiiiiately as shown on the grading plan'! Yes Z No B. LOCATION AND AMOUNT OF COMPACTIONTESTS Have you attached a sketch and data showing the location and relative elevation for all compaction tests? Yes I/ No Was a compaction test made so that there is at least one test in each 2' thick lens of compacted material? Yes No As indicated by inspections, observations and compaction test results, was the fill, excluding tile top 1.0', compacted to at least 90% of maximum dry density? Yes No C. QUALITY OF FILL COMPACTION OPERATION Was the area to receive fill properly prepared in terms of brush removal, benching, wetting, removal of noncompacted fill or debris and related items? Yes No Was all detrimentally expansive soil placed in the fill at 3' or more below finish grade? Yes No- Have you attached a copy of your curve showing the relationship between optimum moisture content and maximum density? Yes I/ No Was all material. used as fill (earth, rocks, gravel) smaller than 12" in size? Yes No Are all areas of the fill suitable for support of structures? ...... Yes V/ N' o Were all existing fills on the site reconipacted in accordance with the provisions of the grading ordinance? Yes No—