The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2377 JEFFERSON ST; ; CB020944; Permitq=- 07-22-2002 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Residential Permit Permit No: CB020944 2377 JEFFERSON ST CBAD RESDNTL SubType: SFD 1551803900 Lot #: 0 $252,875.00 Construction Type: VN 1 Structure Type: SFD 3 Bathrooms: 2 Reference #: PETRI -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENC SFD 2250 SF. GAR 2237 SF, DECK 446 SF Applicant: ALEXANDERSON RON Owner: Status: ISSUED Applied: 03/28/2002 Plan Approved: 07/05/2002 Issued: 07/22/2002 Entered By: JM Inspect Area: Orig PC#: Plan Check#: 731 S HWY 101 SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 858-350-9705 Total Fees: $19,569.69 Total Payments To Date: $661.57 Balance Due: $18,908.12 Building Permit $1,017.80 Meter Size Add'l Building Permit Fee $0.00 Addl Recl. Water Con. Fee $0.00 Plan Check $661.57 Meter Fee $140.00 Addl Plan Check Fee $0.00 SDCWA Fee $2,004.00 Plan Check Discount $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $0.00 Strong Motion Fee $25.29 PFF $4,602.33 Park in Lieu Fee $0.00 PFF (CFD Fund) $4,248.30 Park Fee $0.00 License Tax $0.00 LFM Fee $0.00 License Tax (CFD Fund) $0.00 BTD #2 Fee $0.00 Sidewalk Fee $0.00 Bridge Fee $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee $442.00 Other Bridge Fee $0.00 Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) $498.00 BTD #3 Fee $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL $182.00 Renewal Fee $0.00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $60.00 Addl Renewal Fee $0.00 MECHANICAL TOTAL $50.00 Other Building Fee $0.00 Housing Impact Fee $0.00 Pot. Water Con. Fee $2,400.00 Housing InLieu Fee $0.00 Meter Size D5/8 Master Drainage Fee $1,219.40 Addl Pot. Water Con. Fee $0.00 Sewer Fee $2,019.00 Recl. Water Con. Fee $0.00 Additional Fees ' TOTAL PERMIT FEES $0.00 $19,589.69 You am hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified feedexadions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection lees and capacity PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK NO.Go2 -?+? EST. VAL. Validated By Date ~~~~,~~~~~~~~ $W .. v. 31.5 Business and Professions Cods: Any City or County which requires B permit to construct, alter. improve, demolish or repair any struct~re, Prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file B 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 ROfeJSionS Codel or that hs is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a Permit subjenr the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred doilars 1550011. Name Address City StetelZip Telephone X State License X License Class City Business License X Designer Name Address City Statelzip Telephone State License X 0 of the work for which this permit is issued. issued. My worker‘s compensation insurance Carrier and policy number are: 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 i have and will maintain workers’ compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Cods, for the performance of the work for which this permit is Ins~rance Company Policy No. Expiration Date (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS IPlOOl OR LESS) 0 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. Faihfn m sem v0r)mr’ compsnrstlon couwaga Is unlawful. and shall subject an employer to uiminrl pmWUu and civil flm up to om hundred thousand dollan 1$100.0001. In addition to the cost Of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code. interest and attorney’s feel. SIGNATURE DATE ., ,, . .. ense aw or e 0 owingreason: 0 I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their 5018 Compensation. will do the work and the structure is not intsnded or offered for de ISec. 7044, Business and Pmfessions Code: The Contractor’s License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who doer such work himself or through his own employee6. provided that Such improvemsnts are not intended 01 offered for saie. 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 del. I. as owner of the property. am exclusively contracting with licensed ~ontra~tors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The !& o tractor’s License Law doer not apply to an owner of propertv who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with cmtractoilsl licsnsed pursuant to the Contractor‘s License Lawl. I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason: Po provide the major labor and materials for Construction Of the proposed property improvement. 0 YES signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the following person (firm1 to provide the Proposed COnStrUCtion linclude name I address I phone number I contractors license number): 4. number I contractors license number): 5. i plan to provide portions Of the work. but I have hired the foilowing person to coordinate, SUpewiSB and provide the major work linclude name I address I phone 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 I type program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act7 0 YES 0 NO Is the applicant or future building occ~pant required to Obtain a permit from the air poliution control district or air quality management district7 1s the facility to be Constructad within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site7 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 RELlUiREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. YES NO ,, ,, ,. ,., I hereby affirm *hat there is a Construction lending agency for the Performance Of the work for which this permit is issued 1Sec. 3097lil Civil Codel. LENDER’S NAME LENDER’S ADDRESS I Certify that I have reed the application and state that the sbow 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 rspreSentatives of the City of Carirbsd to enter upon the above mentioned property for inSpeCtiQn purpos~s. 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 CONSEWENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA An OSHA permit is required for eXCBvatiOnS Over 5’0” deep and demolition or COnPtruction Of structurss over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION Every permit issued by the building Mficial under lhe provisions of this Code shall expire by iimilation and become null and void if the building or work authorized bv such Dermit is not commenced within 180 davs from the date of Such Demit or if the buildino or work authorized bv such Dermit is susoended or abandoned at any lime her the work is c APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ‘ WHITE File YELLOW Applicant PINK: Finance INSPECTION RECORD CARD WITH APPROVED PLANS MUST 6f KEQT ON THf 10% CALL PRIOR TO 2M P.M. FOR NEXT WORK DAY INSPECTION BUILDING INSPECTION: (760) 602-2n5 CIU rl Carlsbad Final Building lnsuection I Dept: Building En- Planning CMWD St Lit Plan Check #: Permit #: CEO20944 Project Name: PETRI -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENC SFD 2250 SF, GAR 2237 SF. DECK 446 SF Address: 2377 JEFFERSON ST Contact Person: BOB Phone: 7608079098 Sewer Dist: CA Water Dist: CA Permit Type: RESDNTL SubType: SFD Lot: 0 .......................................................................................................................................................... Disapproved: - Inspected Date By: AQk fl4flc-d Approved: - Inspected Date By: Inspected: Approved: - Disapproved: - Inspected Date Disapproved: - By: inspected: Approved: - ........................................................................................................................................................... City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 10/03/2003 Permit# CB020944 Inspector Assignment: PY Title: PETRI -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENC Description: SFD 2250 SF, GAR 2237 SF, DECK 446 SF Type: RESDNTL SubType: SFD Job Address: 2377 JEFFERSON ST Suite: Lot 0 Location: APPLICANT ALEXANDERSON RON Owner: PETRI GEORGE&SANDRA Remarks: Phone: 7608079098 Inspector: Total Time: Requested By: BOB CD Description 19 Final Structural Entered By: CHRISTINE Act Comment I A 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical “I I 49 Final Mechanical t ~__ Associated PCRs/CVs Inspection History Date Description Act lnsp 09/24/2003 09/22/2003 08/01 12003 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 07/31/2003 07/30/2003 07/28/2003 07/28/2003 07/18/2003 07/17/2003 07/10/2003 07/07/2003 06/1 $/ZOO3 06/19/2003 06/16/2003 89 Final Combo 89 Final Combo 14 Frame/Steel/Boltingelding 18 Exterior LatWDrywall 18 Exterior LatWDrywall 18 Exterior LatWDrywall 18 Exterior LatWDrywall 17 Interior LatWDrywall 23 GaSesVRepairs 16 Insulation 16 Insulation 14 Frame/Steel/Boitingelding 13 Shear PaneldHDs 14 Frame/SteeVBolting/Welding 22 Sewerwater Service 84 Rough Combo co PY co PY AP FIB AP RB AP RB PA PY co PY AP PY AP PY AP PY NR PY AP PY CA PD AP PY WC PY PA PY Comments HAND RAIL SEE ATTACHED NOTICE METAL FRMNG B FAU SEE ATACHED NOTICE WATER c City of Carlsbad Bldg For: 09/22/2003 Permit# CB020944 Title: PETRI -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENC Description: SFD 2250 SF, GAR 2237 SF, DECK 446 SF Type: RESDNTL SubType: SFD Job Address: 2377 JEFFERSON ST Suite: Lot 0 Location: APPLICANT ALEXANDERSON RON Owner: PETRI GEORGE&SANDRA Remarks: Total Time: Inspection Request Inspector Assignment: PY Phone: 7608079098 Inspector: Requested By: BOB Entered By: CHRISTINE CD Description Act Comment 4 19 Final Structural 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical 49 Final Mechanical , Associated PCRdCVs InsDection History Date DescriDtion Act lnsp Comments 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 07/31/2003 07/30/2003 07/28/2003 07/28/2003 07/18/2003 07/17/2003 07/10/2003 07/07/2003 06/19/2003 06/19/2003 06/16/2003 06/03/2003 05/132003 14 FrameISteeVBoltingMIelding 18 Exterior LatNDrywall 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall 17 Interior LatWDrywall 23 ClaSTest/Repairs 16 Insulation 16 Insulation 84 Rough Combo 14 FramelSteellBoltingeiding 13 Shear Panels/HDs 14 Frame/Steel/Boltingelding 22 SewerMater Service 13 Shear Paneis/HDs 15 Roof/Reroof AP RB METAL FRMNG @ FAU AP RB AP RB PA PY SEE ATTACHED NOTICE co PY AP PY AP PY AP PY NR PY AP PY C4 PD AP PY wc PY PA PY WATER CA PY AP PY NOTICE (760) 602-2700 I I '- CITY OF CARLSBAD 1635 FARADAY AVENUE DATE LOCATION 7 37 7 I I ~ I I FOR INSPECTION CALL (760) 602-2725. RE-INSPECTION FEE DUE? A PHONE @ BUILDING hdSPECTOk. CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For 07/31 I2003 Permit# CB020944 Inspector Assignment: PY Title: PETRI -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENC Description: SFD 2250 SF, GAR 2237 SF, DECK 446 SF Type: RESDNTL SubType: SFD Job Address: Suite: Location: APPLICANT Owner: Remarks: Total Time: 2377 JEFFERSON ST Lot 0 Phone: 7608079098 Inspector: ALEXANDERSON RON PETRI GEORGE&SANDRA Requested By: BOB Entered By: ROBIN CD Description 18 Exterior LathlDrywall Associated PCRs/CVs Inspection History Date Description Act lnsp Comments 07/28/2003 07/26/2003 07/18/2003 07/17/2003 07/10/2003 07/07/2003 06/19/2003 06/19/2003 06/16/2003 06/03/2003 05/13/2003 05/12/2003 04/04/2003 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 02/06/2003 01 /31 E003 01/13/2003 1 2/1 8/2002 12/17/2002 11/25/2002 11/01/2002 17 Interior LathfDrywall 23 GaflesVRepairs 16 Insulation 16 Insulation 84 Rough Combo 14 Ftame/Steel/Boltingelding 13 Shear Panels/HD's 14 Flame/Sleal/Boitingeiding 22 SewerWater Service 13 Shear PaneidHD's 15 Rwf/Reroof 15 Rwf/Reroof 34 Rough Electric 14 FramelSteellBoltingelding 14 FramelSteellBoltingelding 22 SewerWater Service 66 Grout 63 Walls 11 FtglFoundatioMPiers 11 FtglFoundatioMPiers 65 Retaining Walls 12 SteeVBond Beam AP PY AP PY AP PY NR PY AP PY CA PO AP PY wc PY PA PY WATER CA PY AP PY co PY WC PY TSPBOK wc PY AP PY SUB FLOOR FRAMING AP PD AP PY ADD HDS WHERE NOTED AP PD GROUT AP RB B 2ND LEVEL - ALL FTGS COMPLETED CA PD PA RF 5 FT LIFT (IST) STAIRWELL AP RF (760) 602-2700 1635 FARADAY AVENUE CITY OF CARLSBAD , DATE TIME LOCATION PERMIT NO. 02 -$c/.f FOR INSPEhN CALL (760) 602-2725. RE-INSPECTION FEE DUE? YES PHONE @ CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For 04/04/2003 Permit# CB020944 Inspector Assignment: PY Title: PETRI -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENC Description: SFD 2250 SF, GAR 2237 SF, DECK 446 SF Type: RESDNTL SubTypE: SFD Job Address: 2377 JEFFERSON ST Suite: Lot 0 Location: APPLICANT ALEXANDERSON RON Owner: Remarks: OR CELL 807-9098 T.S.P.B. Total Time: CD Description 34 Rough Electric Phone: 7607200098 Inspector: Requested By: BOB SUKUP Entered By: CHRISTINE v--c Associated PCRdCVs InsDection History Date Description Act lnsp Comments 04/01/2003 - 04/01/2003 02/06/2003 01 /31 /ZOO3 01/13/2003 1 a1 8/2002 12/17/2002 11/25/2002 11/01/2002 11/01/2002 10/31/2002 10/31/2002 10/31 /ZOO2 10/22/2002 10/22/2002 10/21/2002 10/16/2002 10/10/2002 10/10/2002 r 14 Frame/Steei/Boitingeiding 14 Frame/SteeVBoltingelding 22 SewerNYater Service 66 Grout 63 Walls 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers 65 Retaining Walls 12 SteellBond Beam 64 Monolithic FioorNYall 61 Footing 62 SteeVBond Beam 64 Monolithic FloorNYall 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers 12 SteeWBond Beam 11 Flg/Foundation/Piers 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers 62 SteeVBond Beam 66 Grout AP PY wc PY AP PD AP PY AP PD AP RB CA PD PA RF AP RF AP RF WC RF CO RF CO RF PA RF PA RF CA RF PA RF PA RF PA RF SUB FLOOR FRAMING ADD HDS WHERE NOTED GROUT @ 2ND LEVEL. ALL FTGS COMPLETED 5 FTLIFT (IST) STAIRWELL OK TO PLACE CONCRETE FOR 6 COUNTERFOOT WALLS 21N DOBIES/GIN STAND - OFF - STEEL LAST LIFT32 INCHES GAN.WALL 2ND 5FT LIFT IST 5FT LIFT City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For 10/22/2002 Permit# CBO20944 Inspector Assignment: RF Title: PETRI -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENC Description: SFD 2250 SF, GAR 2237 SF, DECK 446 SF Type: RESDNTL SubTypa: SFD Job Address: 2377 JEFFERSON ST Suite: Lot 0 Location: APPLICANT ALEXANDERSON RON Owner: Remarks: WSE Total Time: Phone: 7607200098 inspector: Je Requested By: BOB Entered By: CHRISTINE CD Description Act Comments 11 FtglFoundationlPiers PA Last L-J+ / 32" c,~. LUP . 12 SteellBond Beam PB- Date Description Act lnsp Comments 1011612002 11 FtgIFoundationlPiers PA RF 2ND5FTLiFT 10~1012002 62 SteellBond Beam PA RF IST 5FTLiFl 1011012002 66 Grout PA RF Carl Schmidt Inspection Services, Inc. P.O. Box 178403 San Diego, CA 92177-8403 (619) 855-9252 SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT Project: Address: 2 3 7 7 IJ. JLf&/d? 5.i- fLrr; F2.r I deq c e City: eo iS6 e d Permit Number: r,eoa294q Plan File Number: TYPE OF OBSERVATIONS Reinforcing Steel __ Reinforced Concrete ~ Structural Masonry ~ Field Welding Prestressed Concrete ~ Shop Welding - Bolting ~ Fireproofing ~ Epoxy ~ Number of Samples: Type: REPORT WIT1 I APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IJNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 642 TIME IN. K.'30 TIME OUT Inspector (Print) Certification # General Contractor Address Inspector's Signature - City: Phone: Authorized Job Site Contact Signature SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT JOB START: 7:OoW . PROJECT: TYPE OF OBSERVATIONS: MASONRY& REINFORCED CONCRETE- FIELD WELDING- EPOXY- SAMPLES: NUMBER:-$ TYPE: ?Y? Kb MaterialdDesign Mbc Numbers/PSI: 37,P fsc G&Cn?+ 387 00 InspectlonDate: 9 */ '03 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE- SHOP WELDING- BOLTING- REINFORCING STEEL- FIREPROOFING- OED CONFORMS Wrm APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFlCAllONS UNLESS OTHEME NOTED A 76 Project Information: Print Name CeMlcdlon# > Fax:( ) Inspector's Signature Phone: ( 1 SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT i &?-3rr-q,Z rZ. WE OF OBSERVATIONS: MASONRY% REINFORCED CONCRETE- FIELD WELDING- EPOXY- PRESTRESSED CONCRETE- SHOP WELDING- BOLTING- REINFORCING STEEL- FIREPROOFING- SAMPLES: NUMBER:- TYPE: MateriaWDesign MIX Numbers/PSI: Ab I ,? 6 rZ bo k3&7 ; C?WJ CrcM5 Inspection Date: I' 3 I 1 03 REPORT 74 46 - .s' M' d/T-p/, PLANS AND SPEClFlCATlONS UNLESS OlHERWlSE NOTED Project Information: Certification# OW Print Name Phone: ( ] &- Fax:( ) Inspectots Signature Carl Schmidt Inspection P. 0. Box 178403 San Dieao. CA 9 21 77-8403 PhOW (61 9) 855-9252 I 'TYPE OF OBSERVATIONS: MASONRY~ REINFORCED CONCRETE- FIELD WELDING- EPOXY- SAMPLES: NUMBER:- WE: PRESTRESSED CONCRETE- SHOP WELDING- BOLTING- REINFORCING STEEL- FIREPROOFING- Materials/Design Mix Numbers/PSI: c- 90 , /?- 61s WORK INSPECTED CONFORMS MH NFROVED PLANS AND SPECIFCNONS UNLESS OTHEmMSE NOTED 6~- Project Billing Information: Print Name Certification# Phone: ( 1 , Fax:( ] Inspectofs Signature SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT: ,* x"c /,'de, c4 JOB START: ADDRESS: 737 7 r&g< -e.f-Sde J-7. JOB STOP: CIW:GP/S& d PERMIT#: c&027c/Y PLAN FILE #: TYPE OF OBSERVATIONS: MASONRY- REINFORCED CONCRETE- FIELD WELDING- EPOWX PRESTRESSED CONCRETE- SHOP WELDING- BOLTING- REINFORCING STEEL- FIREPROOFING- I,/ SAMPLES: NUMBER:- TYPE : MderlaWDesign Mix Nurnbers/PSI: /-6/r. rdrr J-15-7- .?=C/d 5-27? 1 WORK INSPECTED CONFORMS Wrm APPROVED PLANS AblD SPEClFlCAllONS UNLESS OWEME NOTED Project Informatlon: Print Name Certiflcatlon# Phone: ( ) Fax:( 1 Inspectoh Signature Carl Schmidt Inspection P. 0. Box 178403 Sen Dieao. CA 921 77-8403 Phone (61 9) 855-9252 WE OF OBSERVATIONS: MASONRY- REINFORCED CONCRETE- FIELD WELDING- EPOXY- PRESTRESSED CONCRETE- SHOP WELDING- BOLTING- REINFORCING STEELX FIREPROOFING- SAMPLES: NUMBER:- WE: Mater!als/Design Mix NumbeWI: SPECW. INSPECTION REPORT A- f$ /s REPORT K INSPECTED CONFORMS MlH APPROllED PLANS AND spECIF!€AllONs UNLESS OTHERWlSE NOTED k g.2 Project Billing Informdon: Certification# ea& Print Name Phone:( ) Fax:( ) Inspectots Signature Carl Schmidt Inspection P. 0. bx 178403 Phone (619) 855-9252 San Dmo. C A 921 77-8403 SPEClAL INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT: ff? 7r ' Ra Sl'd-! Y c e JOB START: 7:o a J4$$k~Joh X7- JOB STOP: PERMIT#: cf902-7vY PLAN FILE #: TYPE OF OBSERVATIONS: MASONRY~ REINFORCED CONCRETE- FIELD WELDING- EPOXY- PRESTRESSED CONCRETE- SHOP WELDING/, BOLTING- REINFORCING STEEL- FIREPROOFING- SAMPLES: NUMBER:- TYPE: MaterioWDesign Mix Numbers/PSI: 7 8, , /4-6/3-- I. WORK INSPECTED CONFORMS Wl" APPROMD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS UNLESS OTHERWlSE NOTED & r / c d i c/ 7 Project Billing Information: Print Name ' Certification# Phone: ( ) &!A Fax:( ) Inspectoh Signature Carl Schmidt Inspection P. 0. Box 178403 San Dieao, C A 921 77-8403 Phone (61 9) 855-9252 SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT: JOB START: ADDRESS: 2377 3'S$Fxrfob J7, JOB STOP: PIAN FILE #: TYPE OF OBSERVATIONS: MASONRY~ REINFORCED CONCRETE- FIELD WELDING- EPOXY- PRESTRESSED CONCRETE- SHOP WELDING- BOLTING- REINFORCING STEEL- FIREPROOFING- SAMPLES: NUMBER:- WE: Materials/Design MK NumbeWPSI: - 70 LI - ,' YJ , A 6 /r r * & 9/- REPORT InspectionDate: 1 0-/6-02 PtfiPoc+& c/ /orr.'od;c ,'er,eecr,'aq /k" C&L~ ~QT&,.-;-~ La// Se3C6fld /,*& a7 AA~~T dG//, I/er;c:., d :-t 64,- /c;ceir?chz. /ea f3 Gro-7 WORK INSPECTED CONFORMS Wmc APPROMD PLANS AND SPEClFlCAlONS UNLESS OMERWlSE NOTED ) Lr- /S, i4 /h ; d 7 6 yz Project Billing Information: Print Name Certification# Phone: ( ) Fax:( ) Inspectoh Signature Carl Schmidt Inspection P. ’0. Box 1 76403 San Diego. CA 93 1 77-8404 Phone (61 9) 855-9252 SPEClAL INSPECTION REPORT PROJECT PeFr; fe5; deYl L e. JOB START: 7:o 0 ADDRESS’ 2377 J%~~.cr-row 57 JOB STOP: cm: .&a. L- 6~ r/ PERMIT #: cdd 2 YO PIAN FILE #: WE OF OBSERVATIONS: MASONRYX REINFORCED CONCRETE- FIELD WELDING- EPOXY- PRESTRESSED CONCRETE- SHOP WELDING- BOLTING- REINFORCING STEEL- FIREPROOFING- @Bo2 - svy SAMPLES: NUMBER:- WE: MateriaWDesign Mbc Numbers/PSI: L -70 iAwI,*+J, A - 6/r ~469s- WORK INSPECTED CONFORMS Wrm APPROMD FUNS AND SPEClF!CAllONS UNLESS OMERWlSE NOTED c7,P/s,I h-r,.dT k vz Project Billing Information: Print Name Certification# Phone: ( 1 Fax:( ) Inspectoh Signature 6 Car1 Schmidt Inspection P. 0. Box 178403 Phone (61 9) 855-9252 San Dieoo. C A 921 77-8403 SPEClAL INSPECTION REPORT WE OF OBSERVATIONS: MASONRY~ REINFORCED CONCRETE- FIELD WELDING- EPOXY- SAMPLES: NUMBER:% WE: G-ro -,T MateriaWDesiin Mk NumberslPSI: PRESTRESSED CONCRETE- SHOP WELDING- BOLTING- REINFORCING STEEL- FIREPROOFING- WORK "ED CONFORMS Wrm APPROMD PLANS AND SPECIFIC"S UNLESS OMERIMSE NOTED ~ - Xd@&,dl - 6qz Project Billing Information: Print Name Cerlif!cation# Phone: ( ) Fax:( 1 Inspectoh Signature - ' Carl Schmidt Inspection P. 0. Box 178403 San Dieao. CA 921 77-8403 Phone (61 9) 855-9252 SPECWL INSPECTION REPORl PROJECT: fe*ri Ke5; de- Le JOB START: 7,r0 0 ADDRESS. 2377 J~TZ~-?<-C~J-~M X7 JOB STOP: CITY: &~46c;$ PERMIT #: Cdd 2 10 90 Pw\I FILE #: Lf3 0 2 - 9yy TYPE OF OBSERVATIONS: MASONRY~ REINFORCED CONCRETE- FIELD WELDING- EPOXY- PRESTRESSED CONCRETE- SHOP WELDING- BOLTING- REINFORCING STEEL- FIREPROOFING- SAMPLES: NUMBER:- TYPE: Materials/Design Mix Numbers/PSI: L - 90 Li 4 ,.+I, 4 6/r r-e 6- WORK INSPECTED CONFORMS wml "ED PLANS AND SPECIFIC"S UNLESS OlHmWlSE NOTED @-/ L I: t * d 7 6 'Fz Project Billing Infomation: Print Name Certification# Phone: ( ) Fax:( ] Inspectoh Signature ,_ I Cart Schmidt Inspection P. 0. Box 178403 San Dieqp. CA 921 77-8403 Phone (61 9) 855-9252 K "ED CONFORMS WllH "ED PLANS AND SpEclFlcATlONs UNLESS OlliElWSf NOTED 6Fz Proiect Billing Information: - Print Name CeMcation# Phone: ( 1 Fax:( ] Inspectoh Signature Carl Schmidt Inspection P. 0. Box 178403 San Diego. 01 93 1 7 - 7-8403 Phone (61 9) 855-9252 SPECIAL INL ECTION EPORT .. .- PROJECT: JOB START: 7 ,' * 0 ADDRESS' A3 7 7 /d. JfZ fd'QPId& 5 7- JOB STOP: cm: fi/~6fid PERMIT#: c802 /o YO PIAN FILE #: ME OF OBSERVATIONS: MASONRY- REINFORCED CONCRETE- FIELD WELDING- EPOXY- CBdL- SW PRESTRESSED CONCRETE- SHOP WELDING- BOLTING- REINFORCING STEEL^ FIREPROOFING- SAMPLES: NUMBER:- TYPE: MateriaWDeslgn Mbc Numbers/PSI: ,4-6/~- r-c 6ar WORK INSPECTED CONFORMS Wmr "PROVED PLANS AND SPEClFCATlONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED Print Name Certification# Phone: (760) 72 o - 00 4 Fax:( 1 Inspectoh Signature m KLEiNFELDER ReportNo.: 5 P 5015 Shoreham Place San Diego CA 92122 CONCRETE CYLINDEKCCJMPRESSIVFSTR~GTH KEPURT ASTM C39 Report Date: 12/6/02 Last Reissued on: Report To: Carl Schmidt Carl Schmidt Inspection Services P.O. Box 178403 San Diego, CA 92177 Project No.: 22694 Ref. No.: 7 Permit NO.: &2qy Mix Data Reported to Kleinfe der Supplier: Palomar Transit Mix Cement Type: Mix No.: 303006 DesignStrength: 3000 psi@ 28 days Cement Factor (skky): Max. Size Agg.(in.): Admixtures: Sample Data Reported to Kleinfelder Date Sampled 11/7/02 Date Received: 11/8/02 Measured Specified Source of Sample: COUNTER WALLS ON WALL PANEL Slump(in.): Contractor: Air Temperature (OF): TrucluTicket: Mix Temperature (OF): Sampled By: Carl Schmidt Air Content (Oh): Submitted By: Carl Schmidt Unit Weight (pcf): Curing Method: Cure Room Batch Size (cy): Speclmen Prep: Sulfur Weather: Water Added (gal.) Field Cure Temp (OF) Hi: Lo: Wind (MPH) Time Batched: Fieid Cure Time: 24t4 hrs. Rh (%): Time Sampled: Time in TNC~ Slump w/plasticizer(in.): Laboratory Data EErl Average 28 Day Strength (psi): All fractures were conical in nature unless noted otherwise. Reviewed on 1216102 by: ._ Linda Hod0 Concrete Lab Asst Unless prior arrangements have been made, all HOLD specimens will be discarded if required strength is attained. As a mutual pmtedian to our clients and ourselver. all repofis submitted are Ihe confidential property of our Clients and authorization for publicstion of statements. ~~n~lusions, or exlra~b horn our repofis am resewed pending ourwrltten approvsl. ReportNo.: 4 m 'KLEINFELDER 5015 Shoreham Place San Diego CA 92122 Report Date: 10128/2002 Last Reissued on: ReportTo: Carl Schmidt Carl Schmidt Inspection Services P.O. Box 178403 San Diego, CA 92177 Mi% Data Supplier: Mixed in Field Mix No.: Type S Design Strength: 1800 pal @ 28 days Sample Data Date Sampled 10/10/2002 Date Received: ' 10/14/2002 Source of SamDie: FIRST LIFT LOWER RETAINING WALL Contractor: TrucWTicket: Sampled By: Carl Schmidt Submitted By: Carl Schmidt Curing Method: Cure Room Specimen Prep: Sulfur Weather: Field Cure Temp (OF) HI: Lo: Wind (MPH) Field Cure lime: 24+4 hrs. Rh (%I: Project No.: Project: Phase: 22694 Ref. No.: ~~ ~ ~ Petri Residence San Diego 2377&& 01 9. N/A&ccfSbcd Permit No.: ~oz~~y Observed by Kleinfelder Cement Type: Mortar Cement Factor (sklcy): Max. Size Agg.(in.): Admixtures: Observed by Kleinfelder Measured Specifled Slump(in.): 8.0 Slump wlplasticizer(in.): Air Temperature (OF): Mix Temperature (OF): Air Content (Oh): Unit Weight (pcf): Batch Size (cy): Water Added (gal.) Time Eatched: Time Sampled: Time in Truck Laboratory Data Average 7 Day Strength (psi): 3290 All fractures were conical in nature unless noted otherwise. Remarks:C;f2 04 CC~L-.~ S&&i?Vfj Linda Hod0 Concrete Lab Asst Unless prior arrangements have been made, ail HOLD specimens will be discarded if required strength is attained. As B mutual aoteclion lo our Clients and our.IeiveI. ail repmll submlbd are Iha mntidmial property of ow clients and authukatbn tor publication of slall)mmts. com(usions, or extracts Imm our rems am resewed pnding our written ~ppm~sl m KLEINFELDER 5015 Shoreham Place San Diego CA 92122 ReportNo.: 4 Report To: Carl Schmidt Carl Schmidt Inspection Services P.O. Box 178403 San Diego, CA 92177 Supplier: Mixed in Field Mix No.: TYPElS Project No.: 22694 Ref. No.: Project: Petri Residence San Diego Phase: N/A Permit No.: Mix Data Observed by Kleinfelder Cement Type: MORTAR Cement Factor (sklcy): Max. Size Aamlin.): . Designstrength: 2000 psi@ 28 days Admixtures: Sample Data Observed by Kleinfelder Date Sampled: 10/10/02 Date Recelved: 10/14/02 Measured Speclfied Source of Sample: FIRST LIFT LOWER RETAINING WALL Slump(in.): 8.0 Contractor: Air Temperature (OF): TrucklTicket: Mix Temperature (DF): Sampled By: Carl Schmidt Air Content (%): Submitted By: Carl Schmidt Unit Weight (pcf): Curing Method: Cure Room Batch Size (cy): Specimen Prep: Sulfur Weather: Water Added (gal.) Field Cure Temp (DF) HI: Lo: Wind (MPH) Time Batched: Field Cure Time: 24f4 hrs. Rh (%): Time Sampled: Time in Truck: Slump w/plasticizer(in.): Laboratory Data c?!Kl Average 28 Day Strength (psi): All fractures were conical in nature unless noted otherwise. Remarks: Reviewed on 11/14/02 by: &-ap@ Linda Hod0 Concrete Lab Asst. Unless prior arrangements have been made, all HOLD specimens will be discarded if required strength is attained. AI a m~hA proIe~lion Io our ciienie and OUIS~IVBS. ail repons rubmifled are (ha confldenlial proprty of our ~IienB and authorization for publication of rlafemenls. conclusions. or e~lracls Imm our reports 818 re9ewBd pending our written approval C PL NC FIX PAGE OF 0 Q.C. CONCRETE 0 ROOFINWATERPROOF~NG 0 P.T. CONCRETE/STRESSO EPOXY ANCHORS 0 H.S. BOLTING c] __ DSA FILE NO.: DSAAPP. NO.: PERMITNO.: /jL? 5 . L&! l4 CX. PLAN FILE No.: ; (, ! VtT:', c PROJECTTITLE: rc I PROJECT ADDRESS: ARCHITECT: / ENCINEER: I P.E. REVIEW .'i ..i ! 18 I GENERAL CONTRACTOR: I hereby certify that I have k9cted the above reported wok. Unless noted otherwise, the work mspected IS to the best of my knowledge In campilance with the approved plans. speciflcatlons r and applicable sections of the governing building SUE CONTRACTOR: I lam Inspector Initials - EsGil - Corporation DATE: July 1, 2002 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-944 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2377 N. Jefferson St. PROJECT NAME: Petri Residence SET I11 0 PLAN REVIEWER 0 FILE [XI The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply 0 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. 0 The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list 0 The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil 0 The applicant’s copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant 0 The applicant’s copy of the check list has been sent to: with the jurisdiction’s building codes. and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. contact person. [XI Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. 0 Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: Date contacted: (by: 1 Fax #: Mail Telephone Fax In Person 0 REMARKS: By: Bill Elizarraras Enclosures: Struct & Title 24 calc’s Esgil Corporation Soils Rptlltr. 0 GA 0 MB 0 EJ 0 PC 6/21 102 bnsrntl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 - EsGil CorDoration DATE: June 3,2002 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-944 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2377 N. Jefferson St. PROJECT NAME: Petty Residence SET: I1 0 The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply 0 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. 0 The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list [XI The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil 0 The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant [XI The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: with the jurisdiction's building codes. and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. contact person. Ron Alexanderson 731 S. Hwy 101, Solana, CA. 92075 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. [XI Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Ron Alexanderson Date contacted: b I3 10 yby: & ) Telephone #: 858-350-9705 Fax #: Mail Jelephone Fax In Person 0 REMARKS: By: Bill Elizarraras Enclosures: Esgil Corporation 0 GA 0 MB 0 EJ 0 PC 4/1/02 tmsrntl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 02-944 June 3,2002 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST PROJECT ADDRESS: 2377 N. Jefferson St. SET: I1 DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 4/1/02 DATE RECHECK COMPLETED: June 3,2002 11 REVIEWED BY: Bill Elizarraras 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, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. A. Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new sets of prints to: THE JURISDICTION'S BUILDING DEPARTMENT. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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? OYes UNO Carlsbad 02-944 June 3,2002 * The following corrections were either not properly shown or addressed. The numbering of correction list refers to original deficiency list dated 4/11/02. 0 PLANS 1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commerciallindustrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculationslreports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. 2. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. 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). Stamp and sign plans prior to resubmittal. 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. Add to cover sheet. 2. 3. 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 * STRUCTURAL CONCRETE OVER 2500 PSI * FIELD WELDING * STRUCTURAL MASONRY Carlsbad 02-944 June 3,2002 GENERAL RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS 5. Glazing in the following locations should be of safety glazing material in accordance with Section 2406.4 (see exceptions): b) Provide design calculations for glass panels if not supported on all sides. FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS 8. 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 (required by the soil report). Not submitted MECHANICAL (UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE) 15. Specify on the plans the following information for the fireplace(s), per Section 106.3.3: c) misquoted please provide alternative. ICBO approval number, or equal. The ICBO number submitted was expired or MISCELLANEOUS To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, Le., plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc. The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Bill Elizarraras at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. ? EsGil Corporation ln Partnership with Gouemnunt for BuiLfingsafcty DATE: April 11,2002 J U Rl SDl CTl ON : Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-944 SET: I 0 PLAN REVIEWER 0 FILE PROJECT ADDRESS: 2377 N. Jefferson St. PROJECT NAME: Petty Residence 0 The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply 0 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. 0 The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list [XI The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil 0 The applicant‘s copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant The applicant‘s copy of the check list has been sent to: with the jurisdiction’s building codes. and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. contact person. Ron Alexanderson 731 S. Hwy 10IASolana, CA. 92075 ST€b,lL Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. [XI Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Ron Alexanderson (V.U.) Date contacted: 1,2102 (by: & ) Fax #: Telephone #: 858-350-9705 Mail/ Telephone ’. Fax In Person 0 REMARKS: By: Bill Elizarraras Enclosures: Esgil Corporation 0 GA MB 0 EJ 0 PC 4/1/02 tmsrntl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 02-944 April 11, 2002 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-944 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 2377 N. Jefferson St. I FLOOR AREA: 2250 sqft. Dwelling STORIES: 2 2237 sqft. Garage 445 sqft. Deck HEIGHT: 27' REMARKS: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: ESGIL CORPORATION: 4/1/02 DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW PLAN REVIEWER: Bill Elizarraras COMPLETED: April 11,2002 FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY 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 the 1998 edition of the California Building Code (Title 24), which adopts the following model codes: 1997 UBC, 1997 UPC, 1997 UMC and 1996 NEC (all effective 7/1/99). 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, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. To meed UD the recheck Drocess. Dlease note on this list lor a CODV) where each correction item has been addressed, Le.,. Dlan sheet number. sDecification section. etc. Be sure to enclose the marked UD list when vou submit the revised plans. Carlsbad 02-944 April 11, 2002 PLANS 1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commerciallindustrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be su bmitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculationslreports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. 2. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculationslreports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculationslreports 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. 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). 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. 2. 3. 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 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE OVER 2500 PSI FIELD WELDING - STRUCTURAL MASONRY 4. 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 02-944 April 11,2002 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. IO. 11. 12. 13. 14. GENERAL RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS Glazing in the following locations should be of safety glazing material in accordance with Section 2406.4 (see exceptions): a) Glass railings, regardless of height, above a walking surface (including structural baluster panels and nonstructural in-fill panels). b) Provide design calculations for glass panels if not supported on all sides. GARAGE 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. FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS The foundation plan does not comply with the soils report recommendations for this project. Please review the report and modify design, notes and details as required to show compliance: Soil report updates must be incorporated into plans. 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 (required by the soil report). Show distance from foundation to edge of cut or fill slopes ("distance-to- daylight") and show slope and heights of cuts and fills. Chapter 18. Show adequate footings under rear deck. Section 1806.3. FRAMING Show double top plate with minimum 48" lap splice. Section 2320.1 1.2. Show nailing will be in compliance with Table 23-ll-B-1. Detail all post-to-beam and post-to-footing connections and reference the detail to the plan. Section 2314. @ Rear deck area? Specify plywood grade and panel span rating. Table 23-11-E-I. Carlsbad 02-944 April 11. 2002 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. MECHANICAL (UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE) Specify on the plans the following information for the fireplace(s), per Section 106.3.3: a) Manufacturer's name. b) Model narnelnumber. c) d) e) ICBO approval number, or equal. Show height of chimney above roof per I.C.B.O. approval or UBC Table Note on the plans that approved spark arrestors shall be installed on all chimneys. UBC, Section 3102.3.8. 31-8. ENERGY CONSERVATION Detail or note on the plans: "The return air plenum serving the mechanical equipment must be fully ducted from the equipment to the conditioned space. Drop ceilings, wall cavities and equipment platforms may not be used as plenums." Note on the plans: "The manufactured windows shall have a label attached certified by the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC) and showing compliance with the energy calculations." 0 CITY REQUIREMENTS New residential units must be pre-plumbed for future solar water heating. Note "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 "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). Carlsbad 02-944 April 11,2002 MISCELLANEOUS 21. Are the site retaining walls part of this permit? If so please reference all details to appropriate details. 22. To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, Le., 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. Show maximum design height of all retaining walls on plans. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate: Yes 0 No 0 The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Bill Elizarraras at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS OR LEQAL DESCRIPTION: 23 7 7 &Ft=6RSO/J s-r. PLAN CHECK NUMBER c6 02-94'4 OWNER'S NAME: GEORGC $'.SA 1vff R4 PGTRi I, as the owner, certify that I, or t inspector(s) as requlred by Unlfom Building Code (UBC) Section 1701.1 for the construction pmlect located at the Slte ll$ted above. UBC Sedon 106.3.5. .I e owner (contracton may ntg employ the special Inspector), of record, will be reeponslble for employlng the speclal ' I, as the enQineer/archltset of record, ceftlfy that I have pft3pared the following special inspection program as required by UBC Section 106.3.5 far the construction project located at the site lieted above. Signed RGE z83or; \ I 1. Lbt of work nqulrine special Inrpectlon: Fkld Weld 9 High Stren 0 ExpmsionEpoxy Anchors 0 Sprayed-On Fireproofing Sails Compllsnce Prlw to Faundrtlon inspection Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI 0 Prestressed Concrete a Structural Masonry 0 Deslgner Speelfied 0 Other 2. Name(s) of Indlvldual(r] or flnn(r) msponrlble for the special Inrpectlons llsted above: !!il A. GA~L sCAMi5-T . B. sou7 HERM CALIF% SOILS ST I w&. /SCSfT\ C. 3. Dutles of the speclal Inspecton for the work liated above: A. CheL: CONcRe76 CY(,ih,DCRs rdR 3(&Jp 5 1 C&G. I c&%~k MFDJ&' J 6tfl ALL S?(;'EiL BG~W~C YOUR/G ROUTMG I 6 RMT SMpLG J d .I 9. IO4 ,rt-5-7, a. F(t3-D NGLIDS. 2-S-3: 9-5-53 ', '7,8{1C) 3-b, z,$,(, 5. - 55.647-5-3 c. stsbJ-: IMP bZ FOOTlAl65 EGmRG II RG Spdrl lnspottm shall check In wlth lha CHy and pwnt thah asdantbh fw ar+roval .Q&& beglnnb work on the ]ab slb. SIP 4997 Carlsbad 02-944 April 11,2002 mm VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE Valuation Reg. VALUE ($) Multiplier Mod. JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 02-944 PREPARED BY: Bill Elizarraras BUILDING ADDRESS: 2377 N. Jefferson St. DATE: April 11, 2002 IDwelling I 2250 City Estimate 252,875 Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code (cb By Ordinance I 252,875 Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance V $1.017.801 Plan Check Fee by Ordinance Type of Review: a 0 Structural Only v 0 Repetitive ~ee .m Repeats Cl Other Hourly Hour Esgll Pian Review Fee 0 I $569.97) Comments: Sheet1 of 1 macvalue.doc ~ City of Carlsbad The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans. information andlor specifications provided in your this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by thls office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST PLANCHECK NO.: CB @a - ?q(/ 0- s4 SFR IJN nclaytp ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER /EO -34 EST. VALUE: 85‘c DATE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: U Please se he attached report of deficiencies marked wit 0. ake necessary corrections to plans or specifi ation for compliance with applicable specifications to this offtce for review. 0 A Right-of-way permit is required prior to construction of the following improvements: suspension of permit to build. By: Date: By: Date: 0 Dedication Application 0 Dedication Checklist 0 Improvement Application 0 Improvement Checklist 0 Future improvement Agreement 0 Grading Permit Application 0 Grading Submittal Checklist Name: Karen Nierni City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad. CA 92008 Address: Phone: (760) 602-2775 CFD INFORMATION Parcel Map No: Lots: 0 Right-of-way Permit Application Recordation: 0 Right-of-way Permit Submittal Checklist Carlsbad Tract: 0 Sewer Fee Information Sheet and Information Sheet “IOW~~,~ad~~L~,~~s~~d, CA 920097314 (760) 602-2720 - FAX (760) 602&,56P @ . BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST SITE PLAN 2ND 3RD 0 0 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: Right-of-way Width 81 Adjacent Streets Existing or proposed sewer lateral Existing or proposed water service Existing or proposed irrigation service $ Lii%$%oposed Structures Driveway widths R: Existing Street lmpmvements 0 2. Show on site plan: drainage must maintain a minimum slope of one percent towards an adjoining street or an approved drainage course. drainage of 2% to swale 5’ away from building.” @ADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE: “Finish grade will provide a minimum positive Existing & Proposed Slopes and Topography Size, type, location, alignment of existing or proposed sewer and water service (s) that serves the project. Each unit requires a separate service, however, second dwelling units and apartment complexes are an exception. Sewer and water laterals should not be located within proposed driveways, per standards. 0 0 3. Includeon titlesheet: d Site address Assessor‘s Parcel Number f Legal Description 1 For commercialhdustrial 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 2 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 000 on0 000 000 DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE 4a. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No. 4b. All conditions are in compliance. Date: 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 $15.ooo, 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 %" 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 be accept by mail or fax. Dedication completed by: Date: IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS 6a. AI1 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 $75.ooo. pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.040. Public improvements required as follows: 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 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 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: Date: 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 $310 so 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. 0 Future public improvements required as follows: 0 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 6d.No Public Improvements required. SPECIAL NOTE: Damaaed or defective improvements found adiacent to buildinq site must be repaired to the satisfaction of the Citv Inspector prior to occuDancy. GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The conditions that invoke the need for a grading permit are found in Section 11.06.030 of the Municipal Code. 7a. Inadequate information available on Site Plan to make a determination on grading requirements. Include accurate grading quantities (cut, fill import, export). 7b. Grading Permit required. A separate grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer must be submitted together with the completed application form attached. NOTE: The Gradina Permit must be issued and rouah aradinq approval obtained prior to issuance of a Buildina Permit. Grading Inspector sign off by: Date: 0 7c. Graded Pad Certification required. (Note: Pad certification may be required even if a grading permit is not required.) BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 00 00 00 3m 0 P o 0 0 0 0 7d .No Grading Permit required. 7e. If grading is not required, write "No Grading" on plot plan. MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 8. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-way. Types of work include, but are not limited to: street improvements, tree trimming, driveway construction. tying into public storm drain, sewer and water utilities. 9. 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 7153, for assistance. Industrial Waste permit accepted by: Date: IO. NPDES PERMIT 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. 5 No fees required 11. Required fees are attached WATER METER REVIEW 12a. Domestic (potable) Use Ensure that the meter proposed by the owner/developer is not oversized. Oversized meters are inaccurate during low-flow conditions. If it is oversized, for the life of the meter, the City will not accurately bill the owner for the water used. All single family dwelling units received "standard" 1" service with 5/13'' service. 5 RW. lll4.m 1ST 2ND 3R0 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST If owner/developer proposes a size other than the "standard", then owner/developer must provide potable water demand calculations, which include total fixture counts and maximum water demand in gallons per minute (gpm). A typical fixture count and water demand worksheet is attached. Once the gpm is provided, check against the "meter sizing schedule" to verify the anticipated meter size for the unit. Maximum service and meter size is a 2" service with a 2" meter. If a developer is proposing a meter greater than 2". suggest the installation of multiple 2" services as needed to provide the anticipated demand. (manifolds are considered on case by case basis to limit multiple trenching into the street). 0 0 0 12b. Irrigation Use (where recycled water is not available) All irrigation meters must be sized via inigation calculations (in gpm) prior to approval. The developer must provide these calculations. Please follow these guidelines: 1. If the project is a newer development (newer than 1998). check the recent improvement plans and observe if the new irrigation service is reflected on the improvement sheets. If so, at the water meter station, the demand in gpm may be listed there. Irrigation services are listed with a circled "I", and potable water is typically a circled 'W". The irrigation service should look like: STA 1+00 Install 2" service and 1.5: meter (estimated 100 gprn) 2. If the improvement plans do not list the irrigation meter and the serviceheter will be installed via another instrument such as the building plans or grading plans (w/ a right of way permit of course), then the applicant must provide irrigation calculations for estimated worst-case irrigation demand (largest zone with the farthest reach). Typically, Larry Black has already reviewed this if landscape plans have been prepared, but the applicant must provide the calculations to you for your use. Once you have received a good example of irrigation calculations, keep a set for your reference. In general the calculations will include: Hydraulic grade line Elevation at point of connection (POC) Pressure at POC in pounds per square inch (PSI) Worse case zone (largest, farthest away from valve Total Sprinkler heads listed (with gprn use per head) Include a 10% residual pressure at point of connection 3. In general, all major sloped areas of a subdivisionlproject are to be irrigated via separate irrigation meters (unless the project is only SFD with no HOA). As long as the project is located within the City recycled water BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST . 1- ryD 3RD service boundary, the City intends on switching these irrigation servicesheten to a new recycled water line in the future. 0 0 0 12. Irrigation Use (where recycled water is available) 1. Recycled water meters are sized the same as the irrigation meter above. 2. If a project fronts a street with recycled water, then they should be connecting to this line to irrigate slopes within the development. For subdivisions, this should have been identified, and implemented on the improvement plans. Installing recycled water meters is a benefit for the applicant since they are exempt from paying the San Diego County Water Capacity fees. However, if they front a street which the recycled water is there, but is not live (sometimes they are charged with potable water until recycled water is available), then the applicant must pay the San Diego Water Capacity Charge. If within three years, the recycled water line is charged with recycled water by CMWD, then the applicant can apply for a refund to the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) for a refund. However, let the applicant know that we cannot guarantee the refund, and they must deal with the SDCWA for this. 4 0 13. Additional Comments: &YGL &ud&U if & 4/s?h */'A A& 0 7 Re". nrw ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET 0 Address: 33 77 d'. .\P.&65c?vc 9 Bldg. Permit No. cfi 82 y(l{ Prepared by: CSAd Date: 4$<:$- Checked by: Date: EDU CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Typesofuse: >w Types of Use: Sq. Ft./Units: EDU's: ADT CALCULATTONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Estimate based on unconfirmed information from applicant. )$- Calculation based on building plancheck plan submittal. Sq. Ft./Units: EDU's: // ~ypes of Use: ,<s- Sq. Ft./Units: ADT's: /& c Types of Use: Sq. Ft./Units: ADT's: FEES REQUIRED: WITHIN CFD: 0 YES (no bridge & thoroughfare fee in District#l, reduced Traffic Impact Fee) ,@ 1. PARK-IN-LIEU FEE Bb.. PARK AREA 8 #: FEEIUNIT X NO.UNITS =$ 4 2. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE c/ @ ADTslUNITS: /o X FEEIADT 99 - -$ 740 65. SEWER FEE I/ 6 7.DRAlNAGEFEES PLDA 8 : HIGH x ROW- J f3. BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE FEE (DIST. #I - DIST. #2 - DIST. #3 3 84. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE ZONE: / ADTslUNITS: X FEEIADT =$ -e UNIT/SQ.FT.: X FEUSQ.FT.NNIT '€- =$ -€+ EDU's: / X FEEEDU: 2; CJl? =$ ~,fii7 BENEFIT AREA: -- -.~ EDU's: X FEUEDU: '~~~ =s =s ,,d 6. SEWER LATERAL (52,500) ACRES: *?-- X FEEIAC: (P; =$ /; a/y.i$3 - 1 a I40.DL 2,400 8. POTABLE WATER FEES UNITS CODE CONNECTION FEE METER FEE SDCWA FEE IRRIGATION -- -.SEE ULCUUMN WORKSHEET.* 1 of2 Rev. 7lluW ~ . . ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET 0 9. RECLAIMED WATER FEES UNITS CODE CONNECTION FEE METER FEE TOTAL OF ABOVE FEES+: $ +NOTE This calculation sheet is a complete list of all fees which may be due. Dedications and Improvements may also be required with Building Permits. 20f2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST DUIAC Facilities Management Zone: Remaining net dev acres:- Circle One (For non-residential development: Type of land used created by this permit: ) Leaend: Environmental Review Required: DATE OF COMPLETION: Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Discretionary Action Required: TYPE APPROVAL/RESO. NO. Ix] Item Complete 0 Itern Incomplete - Needs your action YES $No - TYPE PROJECT NO. OTHER RELATED CASES: CJ@M 'WS c.n P LI . Compliance with conditions or apprlval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Coastal Zone AssessmentlCornpliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES- NOF If California Coastal Commission Authority: Contact 103, San Diego CA 92108-4402; (619) 767-2370 Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt): If NO, complete Coastal Permit Determination Form now. Coastal Permit Determination Log #: Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed? - NO- Follow-Up Actions: 1 ) 2) lnclusionary Housing Fee required: (Effective date of lnclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21, 1993.) Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum Floor Plans) Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed. NO - YES - Data Entry Completed? YES - NO - (A/P/Ds, Activity Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, Housing Fees, Construct Housing YIN, Enter Fee, UPDATE!) H:\ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPlnchkRevChklst Rev 9/01 OOU 000 000 000 Site Plan: 1. Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines. easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right- of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines (including all side and rear yard slopes). 2. Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number. Policy 44 - Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines 1. Applicability: YES NO 2. Project complies YES- NO Zoning: 1. Setbacks: Front: Required Shown Interior Side: Required Shown Street Side: Required Shown Rear: Required __ Shown Top of slope: Required Shown 2. Accessory structure setbacks: Front: Required Shown Interior Side: Required - Shown Street Side: Required Shown Rear: Required Shown Structure separation: Required Shown 3. Lot Coverage: Required Shown 4. Height: Required Shown 5. Parking: Spaces Required Shown Residential Guest Spaces Required r Additional Comments (breakdown by uses for commercial and industrial projects required) I> QWM I " I OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER Rev 9/01 - H \ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPInchkRevChklst nl 0 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST *. Plan Check No. CB 07 qLIcl Address 23 77 bWk .:'&. .- i:;. Planner br -fVlAn Zoning: RP3 General Plan: b!,M [- Facilities Management Zone: I Type of Project & Use: CFD (inlout) #- Date of participation: Phone (61 9) 438-1 161, extension APN: \ 5 5 - 1'6.c) ~ 37 Net Project Density: DU/AC Remaining net dev acres: - Circle One (For non-residential development: Type of land used created by this permit: ) Ceaend: Environmental Review Required: YES - NO TYPE DATE OF COMPLETION: Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Discretionary Action Required: APPROVAL/RESO. NO. DATE PROJECT NO. OTHER RELATED CASES: Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Item Complete 0 Item incomplete - Needs your action YES - NO *TYPE Coastal Zone AssessmentlCompliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES)( NO- CA Coastal Commission Authority? YESL NO- If California Coastal Commission Authority: Contact them at - 31 11 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200. San Diego CA 92108-1725:.(619) 521-8036 Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt): QLqjiJ ci Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed? If NO, complete Coastal Permit Determination Form now. Coastal Permit Determination Log #: YESK NO- Follow-Up Actions: 1) Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum Floor Plans). 2) Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed. on0 A0 do 0 000 000 000 000 000 000 lnclusionary Housing Fee required: YES /NO - IEffective date of lnclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21, 1993.) Data Entry Completed? YES NO k IA/P/Ds, Activity Maintenance, enter CEI, toolbar. Screens, Housing Fees, Construct Housing YIN. Enter Fee, UPDATEll Site Plan: 1. Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines. 2. Provide legal description of property and assessor‘s parcel number. Zoning: 1. Setbacks: Front: Required 20 Shown 33l -** 6 / Interior Side: Required 7.6 ’ Shown Street Side: Required Shown Rear: Required 15’ Shown =I v 2. Accessory structure setbacks: Front: Required Shown Interior Side: Required Shown Street Side: Required Shown Rear: Required Shown Structure separation: Required Shown 3. Lot Coverage: 4. Height: Required ‘6@@ Shown 2qG70 Required 3s ‘ Shown 32 ’ 5. Parking: Spaces Required Shown Guest Spaces Required Shown Additional Comments OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER DATE ”)”- 2 2 Fox ’, .- .>#ATE OF CALlFORNlA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS. Gobem I.~ CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE. SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO. CA 921Mu402 (619) 787-2370 Date June 24.2002 Application No. 6-95-28-A1 Page 1 of 2 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE AMENDMENT TO PERMIT On ADril 12. 1995 and as amended on June 14.2002 , the California Coastal Commission approved the application of George. Sandra Petri special conditions, for the development described below: Original Description: , subject to the attached Construction of a 3-level (%foot high and two stories above street level), 3,160 sq. ft. home and attached 600 sq. ft. garage on avacant 7,844 sq. ft. lot. Vacation of a portion of Jefferson Street and incorporation of the vacated area into the subject site and a lot line adjustment to include approximately half the right of way width of Carlsbad Road (a paper street) to the west. Revise project to construct a two level, %foot high, 2,250 sq. ft. home and 2,237 sq. ft. garage. Site: 2377N. Jefferson St., Carlsbad, San Diego County, APN 155-180-17 The permit will be held in the San Diego District Office of the Commission, pending fulfillment of Special Conditions 2 satisfied, the permit will be issued. Proposed . When these conditions have been DEBORAH N. LEE DISTRICT DIRECTOR BY I. / ',- -9' NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE AMENDMENT PERMIT NO. 6-95-28-A1 Page 2 of 2 SPECIAL CONDITIONS This amendment is subject to the following special conditions: 1. Prior Conditions of Approval. All special conditions adopted by the Coastal Commission as part of the original permit action or any subsequent amendments, except as specifically modified or replaced herein, remain in full force and effect. 2. Final Drainage Plans. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director for review and written approval, final drainage and runoff control plans, which shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad. The plans shall document that the runoff from the roof, driveway and other impervious surfaces shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be collected and directed into pervious areas on the site (landscaped areas) for infiltration and/or percolation prior to being conveyed off-site in a non-erosive manner. The permittee shall undertake the development in accordance with the approved plans. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be reported to the Executive Director. No changes to the plans shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. (6-95-28-Aln Amendment to NOI) i I I I i i I I I I I I I I I I I I D 3 rj c STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS PETRI RESIDENCE 2377 N. JEFFERSON STREET CAKLSBAD, CA 4200B OYYNER: DESIGNER: George 6 Sandra Petri 3417 Casa Grande Avenue Las Vegas, NV 84102 Ron Alexanderson R.H. Alexandersonrnesign 731 5. Highway 101, suite 1L Solana Beach, CA 42075 Fax: (058) 153-6544 Off: (056) 950-4705 PREPARED BY: Arthur %rata C.E. 2475 Avenida Valera Carlsbad, CA 42004 Off: (760) 450-0486 , I' - I I 3 - e z; 3 - ii - _' 'I , I I _' 1'' I I 4 4 I . t I I . U c 3 I I 7w I I I - ? cp 13 "Y e/+ e_ P zsooc f /&. P e41 A1L I I/ Bj-5 P f4 I3 I 5 !&, Et- CIP l-i d - G=== P w '+ P lo !7 . p b 33 t /x f s7. w3. I -+ I s) EZ I I i . 5 '1 7 I li I I 5-4 i, 13 - I I I I- , ! - - 1 i rw '4 1 A L= 9-0 'y i . , 87 c y__ SOIL1& TESTING, INC 6; PHONE (619) 280-4321 (877) 215-4321 FAX (619) 280-4717 TOLL FREE, June 19,2002 P.O. Box 600627 San Diego, CA 92160-0627 6280 Riverdale Street San Diego. CA 92120 www.scst.com SCS&T No. 9911168 Report No. 5 George and Sandra Petri 3417 Casa Grande Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 Subject: REVIEW OF FOUNDATION PLANS PROPOSED PETRI RESIDENCE JEFFERSON STREET OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA 1) “Update Reporf, Proposed Petri Residence’; prepared by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.; dated September 15, 1999 (SCS&T9911168-1). 2) “Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Site”; prepared by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.; dated March 27, 2002 Reference: (SCSST 9221004-1). Dear Mr. and Mrs. Petri: In accordance with a request from Mr. Bob Sukup, this letter has been prepared to verify that we have reviewed the undated foundation plans (sheets S-1, S-2, S-5, S-8 and S-9) prepared by R. W. Alexsanderson Design for the subject project. The plans were found to be in accordance with the recommendations provided in the referenced report. The attached retaining wall subdrain is applicable to all walls. Should you have any questions regarding this document or if we may be of further service, please contact our office at your convenience. 3 L &TESTING, INC. DBA:sd Attachment: Plate No. 1 -Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail (3) Addressee (1) The Sea Bright company TYPICAL RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL No Scale SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. sc S-T Slab on Grade A PROOSED PETRI RESIDENCE BY: DBNSD JDATE: 06-1 9-02 JOB NUMBER: 991 1168-5 [PLATE NO.: 1 Subdrain 6" Below Slab on Grade May 3.2002 *MQN* TOLL (''9 IPEe l,Hyl r.x (619) 280-4717 EO. Box 600627 hn Diqo. cs 92160-0627 6280 Riwdalp S(tQIt San Dicgo, CA 92120 ww.xst.com SGS&T No. 991 1168 Report NO. 4 ~ewge and Sandra Pebf 3417 Casa Grande Avenue , as Vegss, Nevada 89102 REVIEW OF GRADING PLANS subjed: PROPOSED PETRI RESIDENCE. .. ... . .. ... , .. .. JEFFERSON STREET ,. .. . . . OCEANSIDE, CALIFORVIA .. .. .. Reference: 1) 'Review of Gradjng plans, Proposed PtW Residence"; prepared by Southern California Soil and Tesliig, !ne; dgted January 14,2002 (SCSaT 991 1168-2). 2) 'Update Report Proposed Petti i?esMence:. pmred by Southern California Soil and Testing. Inc.; dated September 15.1999 (SCSBTWII 488-1). DearMr. and Ms. Pew. tn BccMdanoe with a request from Mr. Bob Sukup, this letter has been prepared to verb that we have reviewed the grading plans pkpared by The Sea Bright Company forthe subjed p-ct dated March 31,2002. The planswere found to be in acccfdance with the recommendaaiomprovided in the referenced report. Howsver, it is recommended mat SDR 86 pip8.b used for proposed dis&aw *ern. In addfflon, the attaM retaining uan subdrain is applicable to all wlbr. Should vau have any auestidns wardha thii document or if we . .. . INC. Dmsd Attachment: Plate No. 1 -Retalnlng Wall Sutjdrain Detail may be of further se~Ice;please ., ... ~ . 50115 REPORT PETRI RE51DENCE 2377 N. JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008 OYYNER: DESIGNER: George cf Sandra Petri 9417 Casa Grande Avenue La5 Vegas, NV 84102 Ron Alexanderson R.H. AlexandersonIDesign 731 5. Highway 101, suite 11 Solana Beach, CA 42075 Off: (858) 350-9105 Fax: (858) 155-6594 PREPARED BY: Southern California 5oils cf Testing, Inc. 6280 Riverdale 5treet San Diego, CA 421604627 Off: (614) 200-4921 January 14,2002 rnowr (619) 2804321 TOLL rule (sn) 215421 FAX (619)280-4717 GOOW and Sandra PeM 3417 C.u GandeAvmnw La6 Vega$, Nevada 89102 P.O. Box 600627 hn Diego. CA 92160C627 6280 Rlvarclah Stmt 5an Diepo, CA 92120 WwWJQt.com Subject: REVIEW OF GRADING PLANS PROPOSED PETRI RESIDENCE JEFFERSON STREET OCEANSIDE, CALlFORNlA ‘Updete Report, Proposed Pebi ResMencs’; prepared by Southern Csliomia Soil and Tssiing, Im; datad September 15,1999 (SCS&T9911168-1). - Reference: I, , Dear hk. end Mrs. m. In accordance with a request fmm Mr. Bob Sukup, thls letter has been prepared to verify thet we have revicwed the grading plans prepared by The Seabright Company forthe subject projcd, dated November 5,2001. The plans were found to be in accOrdance with the recommendations pmvided in the referenced repart. However, it is reoommended that the proposed discharge -tern be located at least 10 feet away frnn plopmed interior and walls. Shwd yw have any queskns regarding this document or if we may k of further se1yTcb. please contact our ofice at wr convem‘ience. (3) Addressee January 14,2002 PHONEM. : 7607288898 . George and Sandta Petri 3417 Casa Grande Avenue La$ Vega, Nevada 89102 PHON! P.O. Box 600617 (619) 2804321 TOLL CIfE 1877) 2154321 6280 Riwrdale Street San Diego, CA 921604627 .~ , . ~ TAX San Diego. CA 92120 (619) 2804717 www.scst.com . SCST No. gSll168 Repart No. 3 Subject ADDITIONAL CONCRETE SLASONORADE RECOWENDATIONS PROPOSED PETRI RESIDENCE JEFFERSON STREET OCEANSIDE. CALIFORNIA Reference: ‘Update Report, ProposedPem’ Reskfence”; prepared by Swthem California Soil and Testing, Inc.; dated September 15,1999 (SCSgT9911168-1). Dear Mr. and hhs. Petri: This letter has been prepared to provide addfflml recommendations lor the subjec! project. FOUNDATIONS It is recommended that all footings be founded on nethe soils. Foohnga adjacent to elopes should be extended to a depth such tt12 a minimum setback of 7 feet exists beWmen the lower footing edge and the face of the slope. For retaining wall footings, the minimum setback should be increased to 10 feet. SUBS-ON ORADE A Interlor Concrets Slaboon%mde The proposed interior concrete siabs-ongmde should have a thickness of at least 5 inches and be reinforced with at least No. 4 reinfordng ban placed at 12 inches on-center each way. The slab should be underlain by a 4-inch thick blanket of dean, poorly graded, coarse sand or crushed rock. fha blanket should consiS1 of 100 percent materhl passing the Ik-inch screen and no mwe than 10 psrcent and 5 percent pessing the #lo0 and WOO sh, mpedively. Where moisture sensltlve Wr coverings are planned, a lO-mil vtsqueen banSer should be placed over the sand layer. To enhance concrete curing, the viaqueen should be overlain by at least 2 inches of sand. FROM : THE SEA BRIGHT CO PHM.E M. : 760 720 0898 Mar. 28 2082 02:18PM P3 Georpe and Sendm Pefn Pmwsed Pefn Rerrdenn January i4, Mo2 scsar~o. WIIIMM psgs 2 Exterior Concrete Slabs-onGmde Exterior slabs should have a minimum thiss of 4 inches and should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars at 18 inches onenter each way. All slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints. Joints should be plaoed in acmrdance with the American'Concrete Institute (AC!) guidelines Section 3.13. Joints should be placed where cracks are ydid,pated to develop naturally. Alternative patterns consistent with ACI guldeiina also can be used. The landscape archM can be consulted in seleding the final joint patterns to irnprwe the aesthetics of the concrete slabsongrade. A one-inch maximum she aggregate mncrete'mlx is recommended fof &riM slabs. A water/cement ratio of less +an 0.6 is mknded. A lovler water content wiIl.decmse the potential for shrinkage cracks. It is stmnglysuggested that the driveway concrete mix have a minimum compressive strength of 3,000 pounds per square inch (psi). Thissuggt+im is meant to address early driveway use prior to full concrete curing. Both coarse and fine aggregate should conform to the'Greenbwk" Standard Specifications for Public Warks Construction. It would be prudent to Consult with a Materials Engineer regarding review of the concrete mix design. and to reta'ln a Registerad Spedal Inspector to obsenrcl placement of the concrete.. Special attention should be paid to the method of wring the concrete to redup the potential for excessive shrinkage and resultant random crawng. It should be recognized that minor cracks Dccur normally In concmte slabs and foundations dudto shrinlmge during curing redistributian of stresses. Some shrinkage cracks may be expected. Such cracks are not nkessarily an indication of verb1 movements w struchrral distmss. Factors that contribute to the amount ofshrinkage that takes place in a slabongrade include joint spacing, depth, and design; concrate mix components; waterlcament ratio and surface finishing techniques. AccMding to the attadmi undated "Technical Bulletin' published by the Southern California Rock Products Assoriationand Southem Carrmia Ready Mixed Concrste Association, tlatwork formed of high-slump concrete (high water/cementratio) utiliting3/Binch maximum size aggregate ("Pea Gram1 Grout' nnx) is likelyto exhibit extensive shrinkage and cra&ing. Cracks most olten occur in random patterns betneen canshction joints. . mN0. : 7607288098 Mar. 28 2882 82:19Pm P4 January i4,2002 SCS&T No. 991 11653 Should you have any questions regarding this document or if we may be of further service, please contact our ofice at pur convenience. vely Sq&7SOlL truly yours, 6 lEmNQ, INC. 0 Vice P ' ent DBA:sU Attachment: Technical Bulletin (6) Addressee SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOll. & TESTING. INC. 6280 Rivndrle Sml. Sm Dicp, CA 92120 P.O. Box KKX21. Ssn Diqo. CA 921604621 619.280.4321, FAX 619.280.4711 October 4, 1993 Mr. Daniel Muhe 4014 Aguila Street, No. I Carlsbad, California 92008 SCS&T 9221004 Report No. 2 SUBJECT: Existing Slope, Proposed residential Sits, Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California. REFERENCE: "Report of Preliminary Gwtechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Site;" Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.; March 27, 1992. Dear Mr. Muhe: This letter has been prepared lo confirm our opinion that the existing slope between the upper portion of the site and Carlsbad Road (ahandoned) is a CUI slope. Apparently the slope is the result of grading operations required for the alignment of Carlsbad Road. .. . If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, AND TESTING, INC. '?.* '- DBA:mw cc: (3) Submitted I, ~ :. . I Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Site Jefferson Street (North of Las Flores Drivel Carlsbad. California PREPARED FOR: Daniel Muhe c/o Gary Saterbak L. __.. bm.4.iar. -.x. San Diego, California 92121 I .*;,..:. - .... ..I I ,. ,, : ' .. 1 PREPARED BY: Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. 6280 Riverdale Street San Diego, California 92120 Post Office Box 600627, Zip Code 92160 % SOUTHERN CALFORNIA SOIL&TESTlNG.INC. 6280 Rimddc Suen. San Diego. CA 92120 P.0.Bo~6M)627.SmDicgo.CA92~~ 619-2804321. FAX 6192804717 March 27. 1992 SCS&T 9221004 Report Number 1 Daniel Muhe c/o Gary Saterbak 8995 Crestmar Point San Diego. California 92121 Subject: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Site, Jefferson Street (North of Las Flores Drive). Carlsbad, California Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project. We are presenting herewith our findings and recommendations. In general, we found the site suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations presented in the attached report are followed. The prevalent geotechnical conditions affecting the proposed construction at the site are the relatively steep slooes between the upper and lower pads and the relatively high temporary cuts required for construction. These conditions will require special grading and foundation considerations. If you should have any questions after reviewing the findings and recommendations contained in the attached report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. ;@la, William R. Stevens, R.C.E. #43010 WRS:CRB:wrs Attachment xc: (41 Submitted (1) SCS&T Escondido Office TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Project Description 1 Scope of the Investigation 2 Findings 3 Site Description 3 General Geology and Subsurface Conditions Geologic Hazards 5 Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map 3 Table 1 - Earthquake Magnitudes and Bedrock Accelerations Table 2 - Probability of Occurrence of Accelerations Conclusions and Recommendations 6 General 6 Grading 6 Slope Stability 7 Shallow Foundations 9 Concrete Floor Slabs 10 Earth Retainino Walls 11 Limitations 12 Field Explorations 14 Laboratory Testing 15 Plates Plate 1 Plot Plan Plate 2 Subsurface Exploration Legend Plates 3-5 Subsurface Exploration Logs Plate 6 Grain Size Distribution Plates 7-1 0 Plate 11 Direct Shear Test Results Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions Slope Stability Analysis Input and Output Tables Slope Stability Analysis Graphical Results SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOlL & TESTING, LNC. 6280 Riverdale Smc San Diego. CA92120 P.O.Boa600627.SpnDicgo.CA92160 619-280-4321. FAX 619-280-4117 Report of Preliminary Gmtechnical 1lnvestigatio:ru Proposed Residansial Site Jefferson Street (North of Las Flores Drive) Carlsbad, California lNTRODUCTlON AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for a proposed residential site to be located on the northwest side of Jefferson Street approximately 200 feet north of Las Flores Drive in the City of Carlsbad, California. The site location is illustrated on the following Figure 1. . It is our understanding that the proposed lot will be split into two residential parcels, with single family residences proposed for each parcel. The property contains two level pads separated by about 20 feet of elevation difference. Both residences are anticipated to be constructed on the upper pad at street elevations, two stories high, and of wood frame construction. Shallow foundations . . . . and.concrnte , .. . . flnv sl>t.: ?re cx~.;tted. Siiriing wiii c~tisis\ OF cuts UF-K 1 Sfue? dee3, dnd 1S-fool-hidii nttdiniB8y waiis are anticipated. The site configuration, approximate topography, location of the proposed improvements, and the approximate locations of our subsurface explorations are shown on the attached Plate Number 1. _. ... I BY WRSIWDW JOBNUMBER: 9221004 SOIL & TESTING, INC. I --+ I DATE: 2-2&92 FIGURE tl .ar .. , SCSdT 922 1004 March I?. 1992 Psgs 2 of 15 SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION The scope of this investigation consisted of: surface reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, obtaining representative samples, a geologic literature search, analysis of the field, laboratory, and geologic data, and preparation of this report. More specifically, the intent of this analysis was to: 1) Explore the subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the proposed project: 2) Evaluate, by laboratory tests, the engineering properties of the various strata which may influence the proposed construction; 3) Describe the general geology and the possible geologic hazards affecting the site, and determine the impacts, if any, to the project from these hazards; 4) Develop soil engineering criteria for site Qrading and provide recommendations for temporary cut slopes; 6) Evaluate and address the stability of the existing slope; 6) Provide design criteria for earth retaining structures; 7) Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater, or geologic hazards, and provide recommendations concerning these problems; 8) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structures proposed and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation design. SCS&T 9221004 March 27. 1992 Page 3 of I5 FINDINGS Site Description The project site is a vacant undeveloped parcel of land located on Jefferson Street approximately 200 feet north of Las Flores Drive in the City of Carlsbad, California. The site is bordered by residential structures on the north and south, Buena Vista Lagoon on the west, and Jefferson Street on the east. Topographically, the property consists of two level areas and two slopes descending down to Buena Vista Lagoon. The upper level pad is at nearly the same elevation as Jefferson Street, and is separated from the lower level pad by a relatively steep slope that drops down about 20 to 25 feet: This lower relatively level area was previously designated as Carlsbad Road. The area western of the site descends down to Buena Vista Lagoon approximately 40 to 45 feet. The property is covered with native grasses and weeds, with several trees and brush located near the northern end of the property. General Geology and Subsurface Conditions Geologic Setting and Soil Descriptions: The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province qf .,. :?- W-- County and i: underlain by fiusternary- e : e,.~oe deposits, Tertiary-age sediments, and associated topsoil, and artificial fill. ., Three subsurface explorations were drilled to depths of up to about 25 feet from existing grade. The two borings extended from the upper pad encountered approximately two feet of topsoil overlying terrace deposits and the Santiago Formation. The topsoil consisted of brown, humid, loose, silty sand. The terrace deposit materials generally consisted of rust to brown to gray to white to tan, humid, very dense, silty sand to sand with silt. The Santiago Formation, which was encountered 17 feet below the existing grade, consisted of yellow to white, humid, very dense silty to clayey sand and rust brown, hard, sandy clay. The single boring advanced from the lower pad area encountered eight feet of artificial fill over the Santiago Formation. The artificial fill consisted of brown, humid, medium dense, silty sand with trace amounts of concrete, wood, and asphalt. A clayey layer of the Santiago Formation material consisting of grayish green. moist, hard, silty clay was encountered between 8 to 12 feet labout 34 to 38 feet MSL) below the existing grade. Underlying the clayey layer to the bottom of the boring was a yellow to white, humid, very dense, silty sand to sand with silt. I I SCS&T 9221004 March 27. 1992 Page 4 of 15 More detailed information can be obtained from the subsurface exploration logs presented at the end of the repon. Groundwater: No groundwater was encountered during our subsurface exploration and we do not anticipate any major groundwater related problems either during or after construction. However, it should be noted that minor groundwater seepage problems may occur after development of a site even where none were present before development. These are usually minor phenomena and are often the result of an alteration in drainage patterns and increased irrigation. These types of problems can most effectively be corrected on an individual basis if and when they develop. Since the residence will be constructed about 15 feet below the present grade, the retaining walls should be properly waterproofed and a subdrain installed at the base of the walls. Tectonic Setting: No faults are known to traverse the subject site, but it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized by a series of Ouaternawage fault zones which consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone1 are classified as active, while nthersacr ilassified as only boteittialiy active according IO the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those which have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 1 1,000 years) while potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch I1 1,000 to two million years before the present), but no movement during Holocene time. A review of available geologic maps indicates that the site is approximately six miles east of the off-shore extension of the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone. The recent seismic events along a small portion of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone generated earthquakes of magnitude 4.7 or less. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Banks and San Clemente Fault Zones to the west and the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones to the northeast. SCS& T 922 1004 Msrch 27. 1992 Pago 5 of 15 Geologic Hazards General: The site is located in an area which is relatively free of geologic hazards. Hazards such as tsunamis, seiches, liquefaction, or landsliding should be considered to be negligible or nonexistent.. Groundshaking: One of the more likely geologic hazards to affect the site is groundshaking as a result of movement along one of the fault zones mentioned above. The maximum bedrock accelerations that would be attributed to a maximum probable earthquake occurring along the nearest portions of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in Table 1 on the following page. This table also summarizes our opinion of the maximum and "design" accelerations. Design accelerations are commonly a fraction (usually 2/31 of the peak bedrock accelerations. Table 2 summarizes our opinion of the probability of events which would result in the associated maximum and 'design" accelerations. Probability of occurrence is defined as the probability of any given event octurring during the life of the proposed structure (50 years1 which would result in accelerations of that level. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of,at least one rnodprptp ?o Isry etr,h.~uzk? d~:in~ the life nf *he proposed strf*f:"-n Cd~~~fl ucili)n in acw&ue v;id, ',:,e Ithirrlurit sraridards oi me unitorm Building Code and othe governing agencies should minimize damage due to seismic events. Slope Stability: The subject site is situated in an area that has not been mapped as having slop instability problems. The terrace deposits and the Santiago Formation at the subject site were tound to be relatively dense and hard, and should not pose an undue hazard due to deep seater slope failure. However, the loose colluvial material along the slope face may creep with changt in moisture variation. A slope stability analysis was performed for the site, and will be discussed later in this report. SCS&T 9221001 March 27. 1992 Pa~s 6 of 15 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General In general, no geotechnical conditions were encountered which would preclude the construction of the proposed residences provided the recommendations contained in this report are followed. The prevalent geotechnical conditions affecting the proposed construction at the site are the relatively steep slopes between the upper and lower pads and the relatively high temporary cuts required for construction. The foundation for the residences will have to be set back from the slope or deepened,such that the foundation for the structures will not affect the stability of the near vertical slope. The temporary cuts along the northern and southern sides may require either off-site grading or temporary shoring. - - Additional considerations are the presence of loose topsoil and artificial fill. Any remaining loose topsoil remaining after the excavation for the residences are completed will have to be removed and replaced as compacted fill in areas to support settlement sensitive improvements. If any structures will be constructed on the lower pad area, the artificial fill will have to be removed and replaced as comnnctod fill ,' \ '. ..,-. Grading Site Preparation: Site preparation should begin with the removal of any vegetation ~ .~ and all ... other deleterious matter detrimental to the proposed construction. Any topsoil that remains after the cuts are made that underlies settlement sensitive improvements, .......... including sidewalks, patios, and driveways, should be removed to firm natural ground and stockpiled for future use as fill. The depths of removal are anticipated to be approximately two feet from existing grade. The limits of removal should extend horizontally two feet beyond the perimeter of the settlement sensitive improvements. ~. .. .. --.- ........... ~... . .......... .. __ - .- . . ........... ... ....... ___-~ ~- / ....... ~ ~. ............... Surface Drainage: All surface drainage should be directed away from the structures and the top of slopes. Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to any foundations. It is recommended that rain gutters be installed and the ensuing water piped directly into the storm .. SCS&T9221004 March 27. 1992 Earthwork: Earthwork and grading for site preparation should conform to the recommendations contained in the attached Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions. All special site preparation recommendations presented in the above sections will supersede those in the standard Recommended Grading Specifications. All structural fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent compaction at or slightly above optimum moisture content. Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structures and beneath pavements should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. Page 7 Of 5 _-- - Grading Plan Review: The grading plans should be provided to the geotechnical engineer for review in order to ascertain if the recommendations presented in this report have been implemented and that the assumptions utilized in the preparation of this report are valid. Slope Stability General: The factor-of-safety of a slope against deep-seated failure is defined by the driving forces acting to destabilize the slope divided by the resisting forces acting to stabilize the slope. A factor-of-safety equal to one defines a slope that is on the. verge of failing !.e., the clriving fL.ces equal the resisting forces. The standard practice at this time is to provide a minimum static factor-of-safety of 1.5, i.e., the resisting forces are 50% higher than the driving forces. Computer Program Overview: The slope stability analysis program STABR/G is the PC version of STABR developed at the University of California, Berkeley. The program was originally written on Guy Lefebvre in 1971 and subsequently modified by S. Chirapuntu in 1972. The program was converted to PC use by Geosoft (Orange, California) in 1983. STABR/G searches for the circular slip surface having the minimum factor-of-safety using the Modified Bishop Method. The geometry of the slope is described in an X-Y coordinate system. The X-coordinate increases from the top to the toe of the slope, and the Y-coordinate increases downward (elevations are inputted as negative numbers). Tension cracks, pore pressure, and a water table can be inputted into the program if desired. A maximum of 11 soil layers can be specified. The soil characteristic inputs include the total unit weight in pcf, friction angle in degrees, and the cohesion in psf. I I SCS&T 922 1004 March 27. 1992 Pago 8 of 15 The program searches for the lowest factor of safety by either specifying a point through which the circle passes (usually near the toe of the slope) or a depth to which the circle must be tangent (such as a soil layer boundaryl. An initial circle center and the radius of the search is inputted. The search starts with calculations of factor-of-safety for the specified circle center and for 8 circle centers spaced symmetrically around the specified center. If the factor-of-safety less than at the center is found at any point, this point becomes the new center of rotation. This process continues until a minimum factor-of-safety is found. Usually, a large radius of search lusually 5 or 10 feet, depending on the size of the slope) is inputted until the lowest factor-of-safety is determined. Then a small radius of search (usually 0.5 to 2.0 feet1 is inputted to refine the analysis and for presentation in a repon. Depending on the slope geometry, this procedure is repeated with a different initial circle center. For example, if the slope is benched, two or three initial circle centers are analyzed for each specified failure point or tangent: one for the lower portion of the slope below the bench, the other for the upper portion of the slope above the bench, and one for the entire slope. The point where all circles pass or the tangent for all circles is then modified, if desired, and the procedure is repeated again. The lowest factor-of-safety is usually reponed for each slope configuration. Slope Material Strength Parameters: The soil strength parameters used in the analysis are derived from the direct shear test results and the density from the measured unit weights of the ring samples. The "residual" shear Strength parameters from the direct shear test, rather than the "peak" strength values, are utilized. The following lists the Strength parameters for each type of material: ynit Weioht in E Material cohesion in PSF Friction Angle in Deorees Upper Terrace Deposits 150 31 115 Lower Terrace Deposits 100 34 110 Santiago Sandstone 200 38 130 Santiago Claystone 600 28 130 Artificial Fill 100 30 110 The contacts between the native materials are assumed to be horizontal. It has been our experience that the terrace deposits and the Santiago Formation in the general vicinity dip at less than 5 degrees from horizontal. . I \' SCSET9221004 March 27. 1991 Page 9 of 15 Slope Geometry: Two cross-sections, AA' and BB', were analyzed, as shown on the attached Plate Number 1. Each cross-section was analyzed for overall stability of the slope from Jefferson Street to the lagoon, for the stability of &e existing condition of the upper slope, and for the stability of the slope after the cuts are made for the residences. Results of the Slope Stability Analysis: The input and output tables for the STABRIG program ,is contained in Appendix B, and the Appendix C contains the graphical output from the program. The analyses indicate that the overall slope has a factor-of-safety against a deep-seated failure of over 2.0. The existing, relatively steep, upper slopes had factors-of-safety between 1.3 and 1.6. The upper slopes, after excavating for the residences, had factors-of-safety in excess of 2.0. Unshored Temporary Slopes: Temporary cuts up to 20 feet high may be required for construction of the residences. Unshored excavations up to 15 feet high exposing the terrace deposit materials should be constructed with a continuous inclination no steeper than 0.75H:l .OOV (horizontal to vertical). Temporary cuts between 15 to 25 feet in height should '\ \\ be constructed with a continuous inclination no steeper than 1.OH:l.OV . Surcharge loads ' should not be placed at the top of the slope within a horizontal distance equal to the height of / the slo-" i i Cut Slope Observation: All cut slopes should be observed by a member of our engineering BeOlOgy Staff in order to verify that the conditions exposed in the cut are as anticipated. Shallow Foundations Shallow Foundations: In our opinion, the proposed structures may be founded on shallow spread footings. The footings should be founded a minimum depth of 10 inches below lowest Y adjacent fiwrade. A minimum widthof 1B-and 24 inches is recommended for - continuous -- . and isolated footings, respectively. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf may be assumed for these footings. The bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when considering temporary wind andlor seismic forces. __ .-- - .. _- ---... .. . . --. - - -. . -. - .~.. . _-- .. .- .- . Footing Setback: The footings should be deepened such that there is a minimum horizontal 4- distance Of at least six feet from the bottom of the footing to the slope face. - iP . ~. ~.. . . .... .. - -. -~ '-- _._ .- .~ ~ ~ . . SCSBT 9221004 March 2 7. 1992 Pa00 loof 15 ’ Continuous Footing Reinforcement: Exterior and interior continuous footings should be ,/ reinforced with at least one No. 5 bar positioned near the bottom and one No. 5 bar positioned near the top of the footing. This reinforcement is based solely on soil characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu of structural reinforcement. ’. .. Expansive Characteristics: The prevalent foundation materials are expected to be nondetrimentally to moderately expansive. The recommendations contained in this reflect a moderately expansive condition. Settlement Characteristics: The anticipated total andlor differential settlements for the proposed structure rnay be considered to be within tolerable limits provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses; hence, some cracks rnay be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. Foundation Plan Review: The foundation plans should be provided to the geotechnical engineer for review in order to =.vm-i-. i: ;k,e teco;nmeniiaiions ,,resented icb ,Le’6? report have been implemented and that the assumptions utilized in the preparation of this report are valid. ...... - Foundation Excavation Observation: All foundation excavations should be observed by a representative from this office prior to the placement of forms or reinforcement. Concrete Floor Slabs Floor Slabs: Concrete floor slabs should have a minimum, actual thickness of four inches. The concrete slab should be reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches on center each way. extending at least 12 inches down into the perimeter footings. The rekforcement should bepositioned near the center of the slab. / ........... __ ................ ............. .... .. .. .- . ~__------- --.. -- - . - ..... - . - ...... -~ - - ....... Sand Blanket and Moisture Barrier: A minimum four-inch thick layer of coarse, poorly graded sand or crushed rock should be placed underneath the interior slabs. This layer should consist of material with 100 percent passing the 1/2-inch sieve, and not exceeding ten and five percent /~-- -. ... .... _c_-.. ._ .. ---- -- - ..... ; I i 1 i i i i I I I I t i I 1 1 1 I E I SCSBT 9221004 Mwch 27. 1992 Pa00 11 of 15 passing the #lo0 and #ZOO sieves, respectively. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, the slab should be also underlain by at least a 6 mil, visqueen mojstureparrier. This ,- -\ barrier should be placed one to two inches below the top of the sand blanket to allow proper .- curing of the concrete. Earth Retaining Walls ~ -__-- ~ . .. ~. .. ... . , -_ .. . . . . - Passive Earth Pressure: The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth up to a maximum of 2,000 psf. This pressure may be increased by one-third for seismic loading. The upper foot of passive resistance should.be neglected unless the ground is covered by concrete or asphalt for a distance of ten feet horizontally in front of the retaining wall. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.35 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the former should be reduced by one-third. Retaining wall footings located parallel and adjacent to or within slopes should be extended to a depth such that a minimum distance of eight feet exists between the bottom of the footing and the face of slopes. -.. Active Et!: r.,ssuie: ,ilC active soil pressure for the design of earti; 12.aininF struct ires w: '1 level backfills may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 32 and 50 pounds per cubic foot for unrestrained and restrained walls, respectively. These pressures do not consider any surcharge loads. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. Waterproofing details, if required, should be provided by the project architect. A recommended subdrain detail is provided on the attached Plate Number 11. Retaining Wall Backfill Material: All backfill Soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry or concrete, if applicable, has reached an adequate Strength. Factor-of-Safety: The above values, with the exception of the allowable soil bearing Pressure. do not include a factor-of-safety. Appropriate factors-of-safety should be incorporated into the desipn to prevent the walls from overturning and slidinp. . SCSB T 9221 004 March 27. 1992 Paus 12 of 15 I Review, Observation, and Testing The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of the final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the soil engineer andlor engineering geologist so that they rnay review and verify their compliance with the report and Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that Southern California Soil and Testing, Incorporated be retained to provided continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. i Uniformity of Conditions The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the I: ’- ”;.’ .i, ‘.j I, ients based on an evkluation of rhe suhzd8ce soil can&i;r.; eteountereo the subsurface exploration locations and the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably form those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations andlor cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the soils engineer so that modifications can be made if necessary. .. __... . .... -. Change in Scope This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading SO that it rnay be determined if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. ,,. -.. .-. i I SCS& T 922 1 OM March 27, 1991 h#e 13 of 15 Time Limitations The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the conditions of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the State-of-the-Practice andlor Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. Professional Standard In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsiblaf,or ~h- int-rl)r@-:*i--.= b; orners of the.!nformarir?n de i:aped. Our servicss. ,;!.- P:. .'x! I .; .. . consist of professional consultations and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, expressed or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. Client's Responsibility It is the responsibility of the client or their representatives to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the engineer andlor architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. i SCSbT9221004 March 27. 1992 Pag. 14 Of 15 FIELD EXPLORATIONS Three subsurface explorations were made at the locations shown on the attached Plate Number 1 on February 5, 1992. These explorations consisted of borings advanced with a drill rig. The field work was conducted under the supervision of our engineering geology personnel. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, as illustrated on the attached simplified chart on Plate Number 2. A verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture condition, and the apparent density or consistency are also provided. The moisture condition is given as dry, humid, moist, very moist, or wet. The density of granular soil is given as very loose, loose, medium dense, dense, or very dense. The consistency of silt and clay is given as very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, or hard. Disturbed and relatively "undisturbed" samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing. Bulk samples of disturbed soil samples were collected in bags from the auger cuttings collecting at the top of the boring during auger advancement. The relatively "undisturbed" samples were collected by driving a nominal 2.5- inch diameter split tube sampler with one-inch thick sampling rings. All samples were carefully transported.to thr? Sr!-thern Sali+r--:- ?I;! -.nri Testing, Inc. geotechnical I; :at.:?. I SCS&T 9221004 March 27. 1992 Pone 15of 15 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Uniform Building Code [UBCI, and other suggested test methods. A brief description of the tests performed is presented below: 11 Classification: Field classifications are verified in the laboratory by a visual examination per ASTM D2487. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. 21 Moisture-Density: In-situ moisture contents and dry densities are determined for representative soil samples. This information is an aid to classification and permit recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in-situ moisture content is determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. The results are summarized in the exploration logs. r 31 Grain Size Distribution: The grain size distribution is determined for representative samples of the native soils in accordance with ASTM D422. The results of the sieve analyses are contained in Plate Number 6. ........ ~,_. -. ... It', .. , ..:,. r L 41 Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests are performed to determine the failure envelope based on yield shear Strength. The shear box is designed to accommodate a sampl@ having a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.5 inches, and a height of 1 .O inch. Samples are tested at saturation and at different vertical loads. The shear stress is applied at a constant rate of strain of approximate!y 0.05 inches per minute. The results of the direct shear test are contained in Plate Number 7 r through 10. L .. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TEStlNG,IWC. . . SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND UNlFlEO SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE WRS obTE: 2-26-92 BY: 9221004 Plate No. 2 - SOIL OESCRIPTION GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES 1. COARSE GRAINED. more than half of material 1s larger than No. 200 sieve size. ;RAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS man half of :oarre fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve sire but smaller than 3". GRAVELS UITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fines) :ANDs CLEAN SANDS =than half of :oarse fraction is smaller than No. 4 sieve size. SANOS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount of fines) XI. FINE GRAINED. more than half of matekial is smaller than No. 200 sieve ST SILTS AN0 CLAYS .- Liquid Limit less than 50 SILTS AN0 CLAYS Liquid Limit greater than 50 GU GP GH GC sw SP SH SC HL ii OL HH CH OH HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Vel 1 gradeC gravel I, gravel - sand mixtures, little or no fines. Poorly graded gravel 5, gravel sand mixtures, little or no fines. Si1 ty gravels, poorly graded gravel -sand-silt mixtures. Clayey gravels. poorly graded gravel-sand, Clay mixtures. Well grade6 sand. gravelly sands, little or no fines. Poorly grad?d sands, gravelly sands, litile or no fines. Silty sands. poorly graded sand and silty mixtures. Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures. Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt or clyey-silt-sand miztures ci:* slight plas- ticity. Inorganic c'iays of low to mdium DlasticitY. sravellv _. - clays. iandy clays. silty clays, lean clays. Organic silts and organic silty clays or low plasticity Inorganic -ilTS, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Organic clays of medium to high plastidty. Peat and omer highly organic soils. 1. - - Water level at time of excavation or as indicated US - Undisturbed, driven ring sample or tube sample CK - Undisturbed chunk sample BG - Bulk sample SP - Standard penetration sample ORING NUMBER 1 .EVATION 69 I c -I - ulm > a. In z 2 0 - .us c w* SF =I- st; < UEii -I rl'l LZ w= I-2 siw n Ok CEW nu Inw 0% >- 0: g< *0g U a0 nu u 0 0 4d W -n -> =I- IW w a InIn 0- In In u- I- t=I- n ~mo LZ 68 - - rr "V 15.4 6.6 - 64 1 us 08.8 4.6 - 6- - - 62 - BG 8- - - 60 - 10 a - 58 us - 12 - - - 56 - 14 54 SP - - -- 4 5: - us 110.2 1.6 16 - I .,, sc ' 1% .- - - 50 - 48 119.9 8.5 - 20 us - - - - 22 - - 46 CL 24 - ad - 124.5 9.8 47 - I - L I I I I I SUB SUR FACE EXPLORATION LOG DATE LOGGED: 2-05-92 LOGGEDBY: RF JOB NUMBER: 9221004 Plate No. 3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL &TESTING,OI)Bf. f 1 t DESCRIPTION - - - - - TOPSOIL, Brown, SILTY ;AND Dense -- Very Dense rERRACE DEPOSITS, Rust 3rown. SILTY SAND to SAND WITH SILT loo+ .. __. ._ loot - Gray to Rust Brown White to Tan SAND - '.,41IkGO r-3!?!,T!Ul:, Yellow to White, SILTY to CLAYEY SAND Rust Brown SANDY CLAY iumi d - Humid KUIiii i - Humid Humid I White SAND - .oose - Very Dense Bottom of Boring at 25.5 Feet 2 b- BORING NUMBER2 0 ELEVATION 69 < BG 'u - 1 us - - - BG - I us - - - -_ --. DESCRIPTION 0 68 - - "1. cc 3.2 - 64 - - 62 - - 60 - 5.0 - 58 - - 56 - 54 - 1.5 - '<, 1 M TOPSOIL, Brown, SILTY SAND - Humid Very Dense - U! lCO+ - - loo+ I* 101.7 7.7 >- Feet - Bottom of Boring at 24.5 - - - ~~~ ~ IM I TERRACE DEPOSITS. Rust 52 - - 50 - 48 - 46 - - - - - - - - - . lrown SILTY SAND 'to ;AND with SILT sou SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG LOGGED BY: RF DATE LOCOED: 2-05-92 H E R N CALIFORNIA SOIL &TESTING, INC. 9221004 Plate No. 4 Tan to White SAND __ . SANTIAGO FORMATION, Yellow to White SILTY to CLAYEY SAND Yellow to White -? ?- Yellow to White SILTY SAND to SAND with SILT t @ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING 1 'SCALE CORRECTION' a PROJECT: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE BY: WRS DATE: 2-24-92 JOBNUMB-. 9221004 Plate No. 6 - ,. - 0 I $8 . I I n ......... ......................... . . 0 ; .,.. ,.. .',.. e- .. II 4) ....;....I .... I .... I .... .... .... . II n 1 D I . ,. n 2 :g t ! I 1 L v) Y cn" v) w K I- v) K w I v) a .. . - __ . DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY 5 4 3 2 1 0 2M 1 L 2 2L 3 4 5 10.6741 11.1501 l2.30Cl NORMAL STRESS, KSF (2 'A'' SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL INTERCEPT PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE BY: WRS DATE: 2-24-92 JOB NUMBER. 9773 or)& PLATENo: 7 j 8 SoUTHERNCALIFoRNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. . - -_ SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION (PSFI B2 at 10 Feet, Natural, Terrace Deposits, Silty Sand Peak 32 200 Residual 31 150 --- PROVING RING No. I 1- , ! , i i t L € By: WRS LL v) Y DATE: 2-24-92 ._ DlRECT SHEAR SUMMARY 5 4 3 2 1 -. .I I . .. _. . ... 0 2M 1 L 2 ZL 3 4 5 10.5741 11.1501 12.3001 NORMAL STRESS, KSF (2 'h" SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL INTERCEPT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION IPSF) 82 at 15 Feet, Natural, Terrace Deposits, Sand Peak 40 100 34 100 --- Residual PROVING RING N~. 22808 I LL v) Y BY. WRS JOB NUMBER: 9221004 I SOIL & "J3STING, INC. cn' v) W U I- v) U W I v) a DATE 2-26-92 PLATENo.: 9 : . ,. DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY 2M 1 L 2 2L 3 4 5 10.6741 11.1601 l2.3001 NORMAL STRESS, KSF (2 'A'' SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL INTERCEPT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION (PSFI 83 at 10.0 to 10.5 Feet, Natural, Santiago Formation, Silty Clay Peak 42 600 28 600 Residual --- PROVING RING NO. 22888 SOUTHERN CALWWKN~- DATE 2-26-92 BY. WRS I SOIL&TESTINc- nrf- L v) Y tn w K c v) K W I tn Cn' a I .-__ DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY 5 4 3 2 1 ,.- __ ,. . . 0 2M 1 L 2 2L 3 4 5 10.5741 l1.1501 IZ.3001 NORMAL STRESS, KSF (2 3h'1 SAMPLE) ANGLE OF COHESION INTERNAL INTERCEPT SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION (PSFI 83 at 15 Feet. Natural, Santiago Formation, Silty to Clayey Sand Peak Similar to Residual 38 200 PROVING RING No. 22888 '*.:D - .- o. .e > .a. 5. .. , .. 0' v- .O . . 0 \0.. . ' .O .o. 30 . 0: 20. . 3. .e - 12" - *E * . .o '-0:: RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL NO SCALE WATERPROOF BACK OF WALL PER ARCHITECT'S SPECYlCATlONS 314 INCH CRUSHED ROCK OR MlRADRAlN - 6000 OR EQUIVALENT GEOFABRIC BETWEEN ROCK AND SOIL TOP OF GRouwo OR CONCRETE SLAB < SCWTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE IT: WRS 011~: 2-24-92 JOB wummcn: 9221004 Plate No. 11 SCS& T 922 1004 March 27. 1992 Appendix A. 1 of 5 APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS General Provisions General Intent: The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing and compacting natural ground. preparing areas to be filled, and placing the fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans, The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinaher in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Observation and Testing: Soi*rh~:r, Caiiiolnia Soil and Testing, Inc. !:hall bc retinid a: ..., L Geo.c”’l.,i,cal‘~ngineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or the assigned representative provide adequate observation so that opinions can be provided as to whether or not the work was accomplished IS specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep the Geotechnical Engineer appraised of work schedules, changes. and new information and data so that these opinions may be provided. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. .. . -. - L I If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. substandard conditions are encountered. such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate COmPaCtiOn. adverse weather, etc.; construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend rejection of this work. i Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials IASTM) test methods: 1 i c SCS&T 922 1004 March 27. 1992 Appandix A. 2 of 5 Maximum Density and Qitiinwl Q4wisnure Content - AS?M D5557. Density of Soil In-Place - ASTM D1556 or ASTM D2922. All densifies shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM testing procedures. Preparation of Areas to Receive Fill: All vegetation, brush, and debris derived from clearing Operations shall be removed and legally disposed of. All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. After clearing or benching the natural ground, the fill areas shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted, and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground, which is defined as natural soils which possesses an in-situ density Of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. .. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 cc:cez* !five horizoctzl UG!:: fq , . ont a firm competent formational soil. The lower bench shall be at least ten feet wide or 1-112 times the equipment width, whichever is greater, and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a pradient of not less than two 12) percent. All other benches shot'!? 1.0 at leasf six feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. ... . . . .- . . . .. . zrti:al yit' me or+?l ~rn-rd Gc!! bs >:;io-steppeo ur bencneo. Benches shall be cut to . ., . .... -. ..- -_ I I Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All undergruund utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within ten feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedures should be backfilled with acceptable soil that iS compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to. septic tanks. fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains, and water lines. Buried Structures or utilities not to be abandoned should he bmught to the mention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that it ma\c be. detwmincd if any spetid recommendation will be necessary. scs&T9221004 March 27. 1992 Appendix A. 3 of 5 All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance with the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least four feet below finish grade or three feet below the bonorn of footing, whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer andlor a qualified Structural Engineer. Fill Material: Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed,with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. Placing and Compaction of Fill: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed six inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to 'twspecifiecl r '?.r de: e'* r ' c~mna+tion.,.Comnar?i~~ e:.zlp,,ieni should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. .. ,., . . _. ... ... , . :. .. ., . . , ,' , When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in Structural fills and in non-structural fills is discussed in the preliminary geotechnical report, when applicable. i Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer or the assigned representative. The locahon and freQUenCy of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. I . SCS&T 9221004 March 27. Y992 Appendix A. 4 of 5 Unless the slopes are over-built and cua-back. *:lice ot fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheeps foot rollers or other suitable equipment. ChrQaction by shaepsfoot rollers shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of 2H:l V (two horizontal to one vertical) or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut-back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density, or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the siopes will be surficially stable. Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer or the assigned representative during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication in the form of a daily field report. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to .prod,uc" th? T.keSsPry ieAti, the Contractor shall rework or reblJild ::tr!, slo?~: Ltntil thc required degree of compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. Cut Slopes: Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report, such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints, or faults planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist andlor the Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigation measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or Steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencv. Engineering Observation: Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or the assigned representative shall be made during the filling 04 compacting operations so that opinions regarding the conformance of the ~'JIRLIQ wjth acceptable standzrds of practice can be 1 I i t t I L I i ..,,..- - 1 i I I c E k f SCSB T 922 1004 March 27. 1992 Appendix A. 5 of 5 provided. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or the assigned representative, nor the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. Season Limits: Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of the work. Special Provisions Relative Compaction: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground. compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative comDaction. Expansive Soils: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or great-' wh-n '0-t-d i:. ~:~~,SIIW ,wii?, rne tiniform Cr;:.ling Cdr? Stsndard '3- ,,., - - . ' :!. .- /I. I L. Oversized Material: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over six inches in diameter. Oversize matcrials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material is provided by the geotechnical engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a #4 U. S. Standard Sieve. Transition Lots: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad. the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercuning may be required. ............................................. * * * ************** S T A B R G ***************** * * * * * GEOSOFT * * * * ALL RIGHTS RESERVED * * * ............................................. * SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS * * PORTIONS (c) COPYRIGET 1985, 1986 * e Lot, 9221004, Section AA', Existing, Lower Slope Toe, cfn=muhl II TROL DATA NUMBER OF SPECIFIED CENTERS 0 NUMBER OF DEPTH LIMITING TANGENTS 0 NUMBER OF VERTICAL SECTIONS 12 NUMBER OF SOIL LAYER BOUNDARIES 7 NUMBER OF PORE PRESSURE LINES 0 NUMBER OF POINTS DEFINING COHESION PROFILE 0 SMIC COEFFICIENT 51.52 = .oo .oo .RCH STARTS AT CENTER ( 260.0,-200.O),WITH FINAL GRTn OF 5.0 .. . . ."- , CIRCLES PASS THROUGH THE POINT ( 263.0,-104.0) )METRY :TIONS 50.0 123.0 124.0 138.0 161.0 164.0 169.0 172.0 177.0 200.0 209.0 263 CRACKS ~170~0~170.0~170.0-169.0-155.0-152.0~146.0~143.0-139.0~137~0~129~0~104 CN CRACK-170.0-170.0-170.0-169.0-155.0-152.0-146.0-143.0-139.0-137.0-129.0-104 JNDARY 1-170.0-170.0-170.0-169.0-155.0-152.0-146.0-143.0-139.0-137~0~129.0-104 JNDARY 2~155.0~155.0~155.0-155.0-155.0-152.0-146.0-143.0-139~0~137~0~129~0~104 JNDARY 3~152.0~152.0~152.0-152.0-152.0-152.0-146.0-143.0-139~0~137~0~129~0~104 JNDARY 4-146.0-146.0-146.0-146.0-146.0-146.0-146.0-143.0-139.0-137.0~129.0-104 JNDARY 5~143.0~143.0~143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0-139.0~137~0~129~0~104 JNDARY 6~143~0~143.0~143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0-139.0~132~0~129-0~104 JNDARY 7 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80.0 -80 IL PROPERTIES Y ER COHESION FRICTION ANGLE QENSITY 1 2 3 4 150.0 100.0 200.0 600.0 31.0 34.0 38.0 28.0 115.0 110.0 130.0 130.0 MUHE LOTS 9221004 PAGE B1 OF 812 . 15 100.0 '6 200.0 30.0 38.0 110.0 130.0 I; 3 7 I: 10 c l4 -104.0 -103.7 -103.9 -103.1 -104.0 -104.0 -104.0 -104.0 -103.9 -103.6 -104.0 -103.6 -103.7 -104.0 96.0 96.3 86.1 96.9 106.0 96.0 91.0 91.0 86.1 91.4 86.0 86.4 96.3 96.0 260.0 270.0 260.0 250.0 260.0 265.0 260.0 265.0 260.0 255.0 265.0 255.0 255.0 265.0 -200.0 -200.0 -190.0 -200.0 -210.0 -200.0 -195.0 -195.0 -190.0 -195.0 -190.0 -190.0 -200.0 -200.0 2.358 2.565 2.367 2.500 2.386 2.388 2.356 2.427 2.367 2.381 2.501 2.368 2.400 2.388 F.S. MINIMUM= 2.356 FOR THE CIRCLE OF CENTER ( 260.0,-195.0) ****************** ****************** STABRG * I 2.266 2.504 2.266 2.383 2.302 2.308 2.260 2.346 2.266 2.271 2.423 2.251 2.296 2.308 .. .. MUHE LOTS 9221004 PAGE 82 OF B12 .. . ',... .:* $ . .. , ............................................. * * * SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS * * * ************** S T A B R G ***************** * * * PORTIONS (C) COPYRIGHT 1985, 1986 * * GEOSOFT * * ALL RIGHTS RESERVED * * * * * * ............................................. he Lot, 9221004, Section AA‘, Existing, Upper Slope Toe, cfn=muh2 NTROL DATA NUMBER OF SPECIFIED CENTERS 0 NUMBER OF DEPTH LIMITING TANGENTS 0 NUMBER OF VERTICAL SECTIONS 10 NUMBER OF SOIL LAYER BOUNDARIES 6 NUMBER OF PORE PRESSURE LINES 0 NUMBER OF POINTS DEFINING COHESION PROFILE 0 :ISMIC COEFFICIENT S1,S2 = .oo .oo ARCH STARTS AT CENTER ( 190.0,-200.O),WITH FINAL GRID OF 1.0 JL CIRCLES PASS THROUGH THE POINT ( 177.0,-139.0) :OMETRY SCTIONS 100.0 123.0 124.0 138.0 154.0 161.0 164.0 169.0 172.0 177.0 CRACKS ~170~0~170~0~170~0~169.0~162.0~155.0~152.0~146~0~143~0~139~O IN ~~CK~170~0~170~0~170~0~169.0~162.0~155~0~152~0~146~0~143~0~139~O )UNDARY 1~170~0~170.0-170.0~169.0-162.0-155.0-152.0-146.0~143.0~139~0 )UNDARY 2~155~0-155.0-155.0-155.0-155.0-155.0-152.0-146.0-143.0-139~0 )UNDARY 3~152~0~152~0~152.0~152.0~152.0~152.0-152.0-146.0~143~0~139~0 IUNDARY 4~146-0~146~0~146~0~146.0~146.0~146.0~146.0~146~0~143~0~139~0 IUNDARY 5~143~0~143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0~143.0~139~0 IUNDARY 6~100~0~100.0-100.O-100.0-10O.O-~O0.O-~OO.O-~OO.O-100.0~100.0~100~0 31L PROPERTIES AY ER COHESION FRICTION ANGLE DENSITY 1 2 3 4 5 I 150.0 100.0 200.0 600.0 200.0 31.0 34.0 38.0 28.0 38.0 115.0 110.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 MUHE LOTS 9221004 PAGE 83 OF 812 ;TMBER TANGENT RADIUS (X) CENTER (Y) CENTER FS(BISH0P) FS(0MS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 11 -137.6 -137.2 -137.6 -137.4 -137.6 -137.8 -137.6 -137.3 -137.8 -137.8 -137.4 62.4 62.8 60.4 60.6 59.4 60.2 61.4 59.7 59.2 61.2 61.6 190.0 192.0 190.0 191.0 189.0 190.0 191.0 189.0 189.0 191.0 190.0 -200.0 -200.0 -198.0 -196.0 -193 -5 -198.0 -199.0 -197.0 -197.0 -199.0 -199.0 1.608 1.609 1.607 1.609 1.608 1.608 1.607 1.611 1.608 1.610 1.608 1.S. MINIMUM= 1.607 FOR THE CIRCLE OF CENTER ( 190.0,-198.0) 1.553 1.557 1.551 1.555 1.552 1.551 1.552 1.557 1.550 1.553 1.554 ****************** * STABRG * ****************** MUHE LOTS _. 9221004 PAGE 84 OF 812 ............................................. * * * SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS * * * ************** S T A B R G ***************** * * PORTIONS (C) COPYRIGHT 1985, 1986 * * * * G EO S 0 FT * * ALL RIGHTS RESERVED * * * * ............................................. le Lot, 9221004, Section AA', With Residence, Upper Slope Toe, Cfn=1nuh3 NTROL DATA NUMBER OF SPECIFIED CENTERS 0 NUMBER OF DEPTH LIMITING TANGENTS 0 NUMBER OF VERTICAL SECTIONS 10 NUMBER OF SOIL LAYER BOUNDARIES 6 NUMBER OF PORE PRESSURE LINES 0 NUMBER OF POINTS DEFINING COHESION PROFILE 0 :ISMIC COEFFICIENT S1,S2 = .oo .oo ARCH STARTS AT CENTER ( 175.0,-160.O),WITH FINAL GRID OF 1.0 JL CIRCLES PASS THROUGH THE POINT ( 177.0,-139.0) ZOMETRY ECTIONS 100.0 123.0 124.0 138.0 154.0 162.0 164.0 169.0 172.0 177.0 I. CRACKS ~170~0~170~0~154.0~154.0~154.0-154.0-152.0~146.0~143~0~139~0 IN CRACK~170~0~170.0~154.0-154.0-154.0-154.0-152.0~146.0~143~0~139~0 PUNDARY 1~170~0~170~0~154.0~154.0~154.0-154.0-152.0~146.0~143~0~139~0 PUNDARY 2~155~0~155~0~154.0-154.0-154.0-154.0-152.0~146.0~143~0~139~0 OUNDARY 3~152.0~152.0~152.0-152.0-152.0-152.0-152.0-146.0~143.0~139~0 OUNDARY 4~146~0~146~0~146.0~146.0~146.0-146.0-146~0~146~0~143~0~139~0 UNDARY 5~143.0~143.0~143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0-143.0~143~0~139~O UNDARY 6~100~0~100~0~100.0-100.0-100.0-~00.0-100.0~100.0~100~0~100~0 5 COHESION FRICTION ANGLE DENSITY 150.0 100.0 200.0 600.0 200.0 31.0 115.0 34.0 38.0 28.0 38.0 110.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 MUHE LOTS 9221004 PAGE BS OF 812 r !BER TANGENT RADIUS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 -138.9 21.1 -139.0 21.0 -139.0 21.0 -139.0 20.0 -139.0 21.0 -139.0 22.0 -139.0 20.0 -139.0 20.0 -139.0 22.0 -139.0 22.0 -138.9 22.1 -139.0 23.0 -138.9 21.1 -139.0 21.0 -139.0 23.0 -138.9 23.1 (X) CENTER 175.0 177.0 178.0 177.0 176.0 177.0 178.0 176.0 176.0 178.0 179.0 178.0 179.0 177.0 177.0 179.0 (Y) CENTER -160.0 -160.0 -160.0 -159.0 -160.0 -161.0 -159.0 -159.0 -161.0 -161.0 -161.0 -162.0 -160.0 -160.0 -162.0 -162.0 FS (BISHOP) 2.174 2.097 2.104 2.098 2.122 2. I04 2.121 2.112 2.138 2.097 2.121 2.099 2.145 2.097 2.116 2.109 S. MINIMUM= 2.097 FOR THE CIRCLE OF CENTER ( 178.0,-161.0) f FS (OMS) 2.067 2.005 2.014 2.001 2.024 2.015 2.027 2.010 2.043 2.012 2.036 2.017 2.056 2.005 2.031 2.028 ****************** * STABRG * ****************** MUHE LOTS 8221001 PAGE B6 OF 812 . ............................................. * * * * ************** s T A B R G ***************** * * SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS * PORTIONS tC] COPYR3GW 1985, 1986 * GEOSOFT * * ALL RIGHTS RESERVED * * * * * * ******************************************e** he Lot, 9221004, Section BB', Existing, Lower slope Toe, cfn=muhll 1NTROL DATA NUMBER OF SPECIFIED CENTERS 0 NUMBER OF DEPTH LIMITING TANGENTS 0 NUMBER OF VERTICAL SECTIONS 13 NUMBER OF SOIL LAYER BOUNDARIES 7 NUMBER OF PORE PRESSURE LINES 0 NUMBER OF POINTS DEFINING COHESION PROFILE 0 1ISMIC COEFFICIENT S1,SZ = .oo .oo ?ARCH STARTS AT CENTER ( 200.0,-260.O),WITH FINAL GRID OF 10.0 ;L CIRCLES PASS THROUGH THE POINT ( 278.0,-104.0) 30METRY ECTIONS 50.0 121.0 122.0 127.0 147.0 154.0 156.0 161.0 167.0 197.0 210.0 218 CRACKS ~169~0~169.0~169.0-169.0~167.0-155.0-152.0~147.0~146.0-144~0~138~0~134 IN CRACK~169.0~169.0-169.0-169.0-167.0-155.0-152.0~147.0~146.0-144.0~138~0~134 3UNDARY 1~169.0~169.0-169.0-169.0-167.0-155.0-152.0~147.0~146.0-144~0~138~0~134 3UNDARY 2~155~0~155.0-155.0-155.0-155.0-155.0-152.0~147.0~146.0-144~0~138~0~134 OUNDARY 3~152~0~152.0~152.0-152.0~152.0-152.0-152.0~147.0~146.0~144~0~138~0~134 OUNDARY 4~152~0~152.0~152.0-152.0~152.0-152.0-152.0~147~0~138~0~138~0~138~0~134 OUNDARY 5~138~0~138.0-138.0-138.0-138.0-~38.0-138.0~138.0~138.0~138~0~138~0~134 OUNDARY 6~134~0~134.0~134.0-134.0~134.0-134.0-134.0~134~0~134~0~134~0~134~0~134 OUNDARY 7 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50 I OIL PROPERTIES FER 1 4 I COHESION FRICTION ANGLE DENSITY 150.0 100.0 100.0 200.0 31.0 34.0 30.0 38.0 115.0 110.0 110.0 130.0 9221004 PAGE 87 OF 812 MUHE LOTS 5 6 JMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 600.0 28.0 130.0 200.0 38.0 130.0 TANGENT -85.6 -93.6 -99.4 -103.0 -104.0 -103.5 -102.5 -103.5 -102.4 -103.5 -104.0 -102.2 -104.0 -104.0 -102.5 RADIUS 174.4 166.4 160.6 157.0 156.0 156.5 157.5 146.5 147.6 136.5 146.0 137.8 136.0 156.0 157.5 (X) CENTER 200.0 220.0 210.0 260.0 280.0 290.0 300.0 290.0 300.0 290.0 280.0 300.0 280.0 280.0 300.0 (Y) CENTER -260.0 -260.0 -260.0 -260.0 -260.0 -260.0 -260.0 -250.0 -250.0 -240.0 -250.0 -240.0 -240.0 -260.0 -260.0 FS (BISHOP) 3.664 3.045 2.615 2.480 2.402 2.309 2.357 2.292 2.723 2.302 2.352 2.984 2.309 2.402 2.357 1.S. MINIMUM= 2.292 FOR THE CIRCLE OF CENTER ( 290.0,-250.0) I I i E I t ****************** * STABRG * ****************** FS (OMS) 3.313 2.793 2.433 2.361 2.346 2.264 2.322 2.245 2.426 2.254 2.293 2.667 2.247 2.346 2.322 F MUHE LOTS ... .: .,~ . . 7: ., . 9221004 PAGE 88 OF 812 .............................................. * * * SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS * * * ************** S T A R R G *******A********* * * * PORTIONS (C) COPYRIGl?T 1985, 1986 * * GEOSOFT * ALL RIGHTS RESERVED * * * * * * * ............................................. uhe Lot, 9221004, Section BB', Existing, Upper Slope Toe, cfn=muhl2 3NTROL DATA NUMBER OF SPECIFIED CENTERS 0 NUMBER OF DEPTH LIMITING TANGENTS 0 NUMBER OF VERTICAL SECTIONS 13 NUMBER OF SOIL LAYER BOUNDARIES 7 NUMBER OF PORE PRESSURE LINES 0 NUMBER OF POINTS DEFINING COHESION PROFILE 0 EISMIC COEFFICIENT S1,S2 = .oo .oo EARCH STARTS AT CENTER ( 17~.0.-1P5.?),XiTH FINAL ~filn OF 1 I. f!-. - , ., . . ---- - L, LL CIRCLES PASS THROUGH THE POINT ( 161.0,-147.0) EOMETRY ECTIONS 50.0 121.0 122.0 127.0 147.0 154.0 156.0 161.0 167.0 197.0 210.0 218 - CRACKS ~169.0-169.0-169.0-169.0-167.0-155.0-152.0~147.0~146.0~144~0~138~0~134 IN CRACK~169.0~169.0-169.0-169.0-167.0-155.0~152.0~147.0~146.0~144~0~138~0~134 XJNDARY 1~169~0~169.0~169.0-169.0-155.0-152,0~147.0~146.0~144~0~138~0~134 SUNDARY 2~155~0~155.0-155.0-155.0-155.0-1~5.0-155.0-152,0~147.0~146.0~144~0~138~0~134 3UNDARY 3~152~0~152.0~152.0-152.0-152.0-152.0-152~0~147.0~146~0~144~0~138~0~134 3UNDARY 4~152~0~152.0-152.0-152.0-~52.0-152.0-152.0~147.0~138.0~138~0~138~0~134 3UNDARY 5~138~0~138.0-138.0-1~8.O-~38.0-138.0-138.0~138.0~138.0~138~0~138~0~134 SUNDARY 6~134~0~134.0-134.0-134.O-134.O-~~4.0-134.0~134.0~134.0~134~0~134~0~134~0~134 DUNDARY 7 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -5OdO -50.0 -50.0 -50 DIL PROPERTIES 9Y ER COHESION FRICTION ANGLS DENSITY 1 2 83 4 150.0 100.0 100.0 200.0 31.0 115.0 34.0 110-.0 30.0 110.0 38.0 I 130.0 MUHE LOTS r 600.0 28.0 6 200.0 38.0 130.0 130.0 1 i2 3 1: 4 7 1: 10 -144.5 -143.8 -143.4 -143.7 -143.3 -143.6 -144.1 -143.2 -144.0 -143.9 -144.4 -143.5 -144.3 -144.4 -143.7 40.5 41.2 41.6 40.3 40.7 39.4 39.9 39.8 39.0 38.1 38.6 38.5 37.7 39.6 40.3 175.0 177.0 178.0 177.0 178.0 177.0 176.0 178.0 176.0 176.0 175.0 177.0 175.0 175.0 177.0 -185.0 -185.0 -185.0 -184.0 -184.0 -183.0 -184.0 -183.0 -183.0 -182.0 -183.0 -182.0 -182.0 -184.0 -184.0 1.284 1.272 1.273 1.272 1.277 1.275 1.272 1.285 1.271 1.273 1.273 1.282 1.271 1.277 1.272 .S. MINIMUM= 1.271 FOR THE CIRCLE OF CENTER ( 176.0,-183.0) I i P 1.256 1.246 1.248 1.245 1.251 1.247 1.245 1.258 1.243 1.244 1.243 1.254 1.241 1.249 1.245 ****************** * STABRG ****************** MUHE LOTS 9221004 PAGE 810 OF 812 I ............................................. * * * * ************** S T A B R G **e************** * * * SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS * * PORTIONS IC) COPYRIGHT 1385, 1986 * * * * GFQSOFT * * ALL RIGHTS RESERVED * * * * * ............................................. uhe Lot, 9221004, Section BB', With Residence, Upper Slope Toe, cfn=muhl3 r CONTRrUMrOF SPECIFIED CENTERS 0 NUMBER OF DEPTH LIMITING TANGENTS 0 NUMBER OF VERTICAL SECTIONS 13 NUMBER OF SOIL LAYER BOUNDARIES 7 NUMBER OF PORE PRESSURE LINES 0 NUMBER OF POINTS DEFINING COHESION PROFILE 0 .oo .oo %EARCH STARTS AT CENTER ( 160.0,-160.O),WITH FINAL GRID OF 1.0 &L CIRCLES PASS THRWJGH THE POINT ( 161.0, -147.0) 50.0 121.0 122.0 127.0 147.0 155.0 156.0 161.0 167.0 197.0 210.0 23 TONS CRACKS ~169~0~169~0~154.0-154.0-154.0-154.0-152.0-147.0-146.0~144~0~138~0~1~ * W IN CRACK~169~0~169~0~154.0-154.0-154.0-154.0-152.0-147.0-146.0~144~0~138~0~1I UNDARY 1~169~0~169~0~154~0-154.0-154.0-154.0-152.0-147.0-146.0~144~0~138~0~1~ UNDARY 2~155~0~155~0~154.0-154.0-154.0-154.0-152.0-147.0-146.0~144~0~138~0~1~ OUNDARY 3~152~0~152~0~152.0-152.0-152.0-152.0-152.0-147.0-146.0~144~0~138~0~1~ OUNDARY 4~152~0~152~0~152.0-152.0-152.0-152.0-152.0-147.0-138.0~138~0~138~0~1~ UNDARY 5~138~0~138~0~138.0-138.0-138.0-138.0-138.0-13~.0-138.0~138~0~138~0~1~ & UNDARY 6~134~0~134~0~134.0-134.0-134.0-134.0-134.0-134.0-134.0~134~0~134~0~1~ BOUNDARY 7 -50-0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -50.0 -! SOIL PROPERTIES WYER COHESION FRICTION ANGLE DENSITY 150.0 100.0 100.0 200.0 31-0 34.0 30.0 38.0 115.0 110.0 MUHE LOTS 110.0 130.0 9221004 PAGE 811 OF 812 4 . 5 6 600.0 200.0 28.0 38.0 130.0 130.0 I'MBER TANGENT RADIUS (X) CENTER (Y) CENTER FS(BISH0P) FS(0MS) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -147.0 -147.0 -146.7 -147.0 -146.8 -147.0 -147.0 -147.0 -146.8 -147.0 -147.0 -146.8 13.0 13.0 13.3 11.0 11.2 10.0 11.0 12.0 10.2 10.0 12.0 12.2 160.0 162.0 164.0 162.0 163.0 162.0 161.0 162.0 163.0 161.0 161.0 163.0 -P&rl..O .-PbO. 01 -160.0 -158.0 -158.0 -157.0 -158.0 -159.0 -157.0 -157.0 -159.0 -159.0 3 -018 2.734 2.735 2.672 2.725 2.681 2.730 2.694 2.830 2.692 2.783 2.690 .S. MINIMUM= 2.672 FOR THE CIRCLE OF CENTER ( 162.0,-158.0) ****************** * STABRG * ****************** .. , .... .. . ,.. .. . I< ~. . .. -.... . i I 2.911 2.658 2.668 2.584 2.643 2.586 2.630 2.612 2.740 2.585 2.689 2.615 MUHE LOTS gzzioo4 PAGE 812 OF 812 / I 9 0 m I - I 9 c I 9 0 0 r-J 0 9 - c I I 0 0, c-4 0 0 r) c-4 0 9 0 pc - 9 O F r 9 0 ro 9 0 pc I \ 99999 Y)oooo --or)*) -c-c- I 9 0 Q, I - I 9 v) 0 c I 9 In I I 9 0 * - - 9 0 0 r) 9 0 In N 9 0 0 N 0 In '0 c -8 0 7 31YNIaM003 A I i N r 9 9 0 In m 3lVNIOt1003 A I I 0 ui 9 c c c 0 I I 9 0 0 m 9 0 U-J N 9 0 0 N 9 0 10 c .8 0 c i i i i' E 3 I B 1 U 6 z 0 999999 000000 ---NwN g v)ooooo E -c.Jo*lnID 9 9 T 9 !n * I - I I 4 In b I 9 0 I c - 3VNlW003 A I I I I I c I I I i ! 1 a t I 9 c v) P E z ul W I 0 0 Q E 4 9 rn 0 I - I 0 I 9 c - 31VNlat1003 A w t- < E 0 0 0 X z a h '", I.. 0 z 0 999999 0 .-.-.-NIn)N y 000000 u-)ooooo 0 I 9 0 I r - 31VNIQt1003 A 9 I ln h ? 3 1 9 9 0 u) c-4 9 0 cn - 0 N 0 c .% ln 9 0 * I X - Project Name: Building Permit Plan Check Number: GZ- Tq'I g&oKcE w s;9/y3.cff Q75-i Project Address: 231 7 JeSTeSo, s+ \ <s. \go- 3703 \- - A.P.N. : Project Applicant (owner Name(s): Project Description: S(?>IL 42 .i \J fiwel\42c 2,zm p CLse; 7.23 '7 b L&m.GP tl'4 S@ 13 QC BUILDING TYPE: Residential: Number of New Dwellina Units Square Feet of Living Area in New Dwelling Square Feet of Living Area in SDU . Second Dwelling Unit: , ffnd 4 Residential Additions: Net Square Feet New Area Commercial/lndustriaI: Square Feet Fhor Area City Certification of applicant's information: Date: 7/C/n t ----SCtK)oL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ed School District San Marcos Unified School District 215 Mata Way San Marcos, CA 92069 (290-2649) San Dieguito Union High School District 710 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 (7534491) Carlsbad CA 92009 (72 Encinitas Union School District 101 South Rancho Santa Fe Rd Encinitas, CA 92024 (944-4300) Certification of ApplicanffOwners. The person executing this declaration ('Owner) certifies under penalty of perjury that (1) the Information provided above is wrrec4 and true to the best of the Owner's knowledge, and that the Owner will file an amended certification of payment and pay the additional fee if Owner requests an increase in the number of dwelling units or square footage after the building permit is issued or if the initial determination of units or square footage IS found to be incorrect, and that (2) the Owner is the owned developer of the above described project(s), or that the person executing this declaration is authorized to sign on behalf of the Owner. Signature: /g- Date: 07-22-02- / SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FEE CERTIFICATION (To be completed by the school district(s)) 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-2700 - FAX (760) 602-8560 @ Rwicsrl A1'17Mn t ................................................................................................... ’ THIS FORM INDICATES THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE SATISFIED. SCHOOL DISTRICT: The undersigned, being duly authorized by the applicable School District, certifies that the developer, builder, or owner has satisfied the obligation for school facilities. This is to certify that the applicant listed on page 1 has paid all amounts or completed other applicable school mitigation determined by the School District. The City may issue building permits for this project. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIAL TITLE NAME OF SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE PHONE NUMBER 7 2%.a 74 d - 9/5-30 3 6 RECORDING REQUESTED BY WHEN RECORDED MAILTO: City Clerk CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA. 92008 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.: 155-180-39-00 PROJECT NO. & NAME: 2377 JEFFERSON ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 PETRI RESIDENCE ENCROACHMENT AGMT NO: PR 02-78 ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT This ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement“) is entered into between the ClTYOF CARLSBAD (“City”) and George and Sandra P. Petri (“Owner“), in accordance with Chapter 11.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 1. Owner is the owner of that certain real property located at 2377Jefferson Street, within the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, Assessor‘s Parcel Number 155-180-39-00, and more particularly described in Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Prooerty. 2. The Easement. City currently owns an existing easement over, under, and across Owner’s property for public use which easement is described in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. The Encroachment. City hereby covenants and agrees and grants its permission to Owner to allow construction of 120’ of 6 high masonary screen wall and 60’ of perforated drain pipe to remain in a portion of the public use easement. A plat showing the location of the encroachment is attached as Exhibit “C“ attached hereto and incorporated by reference. This Agreement is subject to the following terms and conditions: (A) The encroachment shall be installed and maintained in a safe and sanitary condition at the sole cost, risk, and responsibility of the owner and its successors in interest. The Owner shall agree at all times to indemnify and hold the City free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses, damages, or expenses resulting from the construction, maintenance, use, repair or removal of the structure installed hereunder, including any loss, damage, or expense arising out of (1) loss or damages to property and (2) injury to or death of persons. (B) 1 HJOEVELOPMENT SERVICEYMASTERSIAGREEMENTS. OTHEWENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT REV 12124191 The Owner must remove or relocate any part of the encroachment within ten (IO) days or such other time as specified in the notice after receipt of it from the City Engineer, or the City Engineer may cause such work to be done and the reasonable cost thereof shall constitute a lien upon the property. Whatever rights and obligations were acquired by the City with respect to the easement shall remain and continue in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected by City's grant of permission to construct and maintain the encroachment structure. Entire Aqreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and replaces all other agreements, oral or written, between the parties with respect to the subject matter. 5. Notices. Any notice which is required or may be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent in writing by United States mail, first class, postage pre-paid, registered or certified with return receipt requested, or by other comparable commercial means and addressed as follows: If to the City: If to the Owner: City Engineer City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 George and Sandra Petri 2377 Jefferson St. Carlsbad CA 92008 which addresses may be changed from time to time by providing notice to the other party in the manner described above. Waiver. City's consent to or approval of any act or omission by Owner shall not constitute a waiver of any other default by Owner and shall not be deemed a waiver or render unnecessary City's consent for approval to any subsequent act by Owner. Any waiver by City of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of the Agreement. 6. 7. Successors and Assiqns. This Agreement shall be binding and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns. Owner agrees to incorporate this agreement by reference in any subsequent deeds to the property, but any failure to do so does not invalidate this provision. 111 111 VI 111 111 2 H:/DNELOPMENT SERVICESIMASTERSIAGREMENTS. OTHEPJENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT REV 12/24/97 8. CaDacity. Each party represents that the person(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of such party have the authority to execute this Agreement and by such signature(s) thereby bind such party. this parties hereto have executed this Agreement on this ,20*. OWNER CITY OF CARLSBAD LLOYD B. HUBBS, P.E. City Engineer APPROVED AS TO FORM: RONALD R. BALL City Attorney 3 I HIDEVELOPMENT SERVICESIMASTERSIAGREEMENTS, OTHERIENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT REV. 12i24I!31 State of California ) 1 County of San Diego 1 personally appeared &Yw-CX3 . ?@?&I L?/d c.llrdra 13. &t/-,t - , (Narnw of Signer[s]) personally known to me - OR- (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) & subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that executed the same in &e@ authorized capacity(ies), and that by t&/!x&@ignature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal (This area for official notary seal) 4 I HJOEVELOPMENT SERVICESIMASTERSIAGREEMENTS, OTHEFUENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT REV. 12121197 EXHIBIT "A" That portion of Tract 2 of Laguna Mesa Tracts, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1719, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 20, 1921. together with a portion of County Road Survey No. 135, as shown on Map No. 1719, said portion having been closed to vehicular traffic only by order of the Board of Supervisors on June 28, 1948, a copy of which said order filed July 1, 1948, as File No. 65377 of Official Records of San Diego County. EXHIBIT “B” Easement for public use purposes per Map No. 1719. Road closed to vehicular traffic only by resolution of Board of Supervisors dated June 28, 1948, recorded July 1, 1948, as file no. 65327. PLAT OF PROJECT 'ROJECT NAME PETRI RESIDENCE 2377 JEFFERSON STREET APN 155- 180-39 EASEMENT FOR PUBLlC PURPOSES - CLOSED PROJECT EXHIBIT NUMBER PR02- 78 C TO VEHICULAR TRAFFlC I NEW RESIDENCE SCALE I" = 20'