The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2641 OCEAN ST; ; CB043591; Permit03-25-2005 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No: CB043591 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 2641 OCEAN ST CBAD RESDNTL 2031400900 $313,747.00 0 0 Sub Type: Lot#: Construction Type: Reference #: Structure Type: Bathrooms: RAD 0 NEW PORTER RES 4557 SF REMODEL 1568 SF LIVING AREA ADDITION Status: Applied: Entered By: Plan Approved: Issued: Inspect Area: Orig PC#: Plan Check#: ISSUED 09/16/2004 SB 03/25/2005 03/25/2005 Applicant: KARNAK PLANNING AND DESIGN SUITE C 2802 STATE ST 92008 434-8400 .\c Owner: COOK JOAN D SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST 05-15-81 PO BOX 10549 SCOTTSDALEAZ 85271 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $1,205.68 Meter Size $0.00 Add'l Reel. Water Con. Fee $783.69 Meter Fee $0.00 SDCWA Fee $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $31.37 PFF $0.00 PFF (CFD Fund) $0.00 License Tax $0.00 License Tax (CFD Fund) $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee $0.00 Traffic Impact (CFD Fund) $0.00 Sidewalk Fee $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL $0.00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $0.00 MECHANICAL TOTAL $0.00 Housing Impact Fee $0.00 Housing InLieu Fee Housing Credit Fee $0.00 Master Drainage Fee $0.00 Sewer Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $160.00 $35.00 $43.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,259.24 Total Fees: $2,259.24 Total Payments To Date:$783.69 Balance Due:$1,475.55 B Inspector: .DING PL AN »33 03/25/c IN STORAGE ATTACHED CGP FINAL APPROVAL Date:Clearance:1 !• r~ -t i i NOTICE: Please take NOTICE trait approval of your project includes the "Imposition" 01 fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions." TOI have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you muyou must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which vou have nreviouslv been aiven a NOTICE similar to this or as to which the Statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 1475=55 PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 i. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK Plan Ck. Deposit Validated Date Address (include BIdg/Suite #)Business Name (at this addrj^3 09/16/04 0002 Qt Phase NSubdivision Name/NumberLegal Descripti -MO- ON (if different from applicant) Address Agent for Contractor Q Owner Address City State/Zip Telephone #Name 5. CONTRACTOR - COMPANY NAME (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law [Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Codel or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031 .5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$500]). Name State License # Address License Class City State/Zip City Business License # Telephone # Designer Name Address City State/Zip Telephone State License # 6. WORKERS' COMPENSATION Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: f~l I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. n I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company Policy No. Expiration Date (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$100] OR LESS) l~l 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: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees. SIGNATURE DATE ?, OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: l~l I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). Jrl I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The 'Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). l~l I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. Q YES QNO 2. I (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): 5. I will provide some of the work, byi^have contracted (hired) tb»-*pllowing persons to provijj of work): wo;k indicated (include name / address / phone number / type . PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR NONJtisJJENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ONLY Is the applicant or future building o<(cyjrant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? D YES D NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? l~l YES l"~l NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? l~1 YES (~l NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. TO***, CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(i) Civil Code). LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS 9. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the/tkiilding Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is c4rrtneficeafpr ameB«l qfc lfeOdaiyf6eclion 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE WHITE: Tile YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance eitytfGarlsbai Final Building Inspection PLANNING DEPT TRACKING DESK REC'D: Dept: Building Engineering Plan Check #: Permit #: Project Name: Address: Contact Person: Sewer Dist: Inspected By: X Inspected By: Inspected By: Phjpnir^ CMWD StLite Fire Date: CB053574 Permit Type: SMITH RES 9728 SF LIV 1 773 SF Sub Type: GAR, 462SF DECK.324SF PATIO COVER.224SF TERRA 7151 LATITUDE LN RICK CA <2^Z</%>*-^ f * Phone: 6198236650 Water Dist: CA 'inspected- C[t& Date Inspected: Date Inspected: Lot: 0 ?? VApproved: * Approved: Approved: 06/21/2007 Qz^zn Y^ RESDNTL ^ SFD >x Disapproved: Disapproved: Disapproved:. Comments: Inspection List Permit*: CB043591 Type: RESDNTL RAD Date Inspection Item 06/25/2007 89 06/25/2007 89 06/18/2007 89 06/18/200789 02/27/2007 98 12/15/2006 17 12/12/2006 18 12/11/2006 17 11/28/2006 13 11/28/200624 11/28/200644 11/22/2006 16 11/21/2006 16 11/14/200684 11/13/200684 11/01/200633 09/21/2006 21 09/21/2006 31 09/13/2006 13 09/13/200627 08/07/2006 11 07/13/2006 15 06/01/2006 11 03/02/2006 62 02/22/2006 11 02/22/2006 12 02/07/2006 62 01/31/2006 11 01/31/2006 51 01/23/2006 11 01/18/2006 11 12/13/200521 08/12/2005 11 Final Combo Final Combo Final Combo Final Combo BMP Inspection Interior Lath/Drywall Exterior Lath/Drywall Interior Lath/Drywall Shear Panels/HD's Rough/Topout Rough/Ducts/Dampers Insulation Insulation Rough Combo Rough Combo Service Change/Upgrade Underground/Under Floor Underground/Conduit-Wirin Shear Panels/HD's Shower Pan/Roman Tubs Ftg/Foundation/Piers Roof/Reroof Ftg/Foundation/Piers Steel/Bond Beam Ftg/Foundation/Piers Steel/Bond Beam Steel/Bond Beam Ftg/Foundation/Piers Excav/Steel/Bonding/Fence Ftg/Foundation/Piers Ftg/Foundation/Piers Underground/Under Floor Ftg/Foundation/Piers Inspector Act PY - - PY DB PD PC PD PY PY PY PY PY PY JM PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY AP Rl Rl CO PI AP AP PA AP AP we AP NR AP PA AP AP PA AP AP AP PA PA PA PA we PA CO we PA PA AP PA PORTER RES 4557 SF REMODEL 1568 SF LIVING AREA ADDITION Comments SEE NOTICE ATTACHED - NO GAS METER SEE NOTICE IN FILE LOWER LEVEL, NO CARD NO CARD ON SITE - NO SUPER ON SITE RAIDIENT HEAT TUBING NEED CERT. FOR CEILING UPPER FLOOR ONLY ISLAND @ LOWER LEVEL UFER GRND 2 POST FTG NEED SPECIAL INSPECTION OK TO COVER - SUBMIT CHANGES SLAB @ LOWERLEVEL & SLAB @ UPPER LEVEL NORTH WALL & SOUTH WALL NORTH END & SOUTH SIDE W/ELEVATOR wall section from elevator north along line A-B SEE NOTICE ATTACHED FOOTING ALONG SOUTH WALL NOTICE BASEMENT UNDERGROUND PLUMBING 3 PIERS AND 2 GRADE BEAMS Thursday, June 28, 2007 Page 1 of 1 City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 06/25/2007 Permit* CB043591 Title: PORTER RES 4557 SF REMODEL Description: 1568 SF LIVING AREA ADDITION Inspector Assignment: PY Type: RESDNTL Sub Type: RAD Job Address: 2641 OCEAN ST Suite: Lot: Location: Phone: 7607293965 Inspector: OWNER COOK JOAN D SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST 05-15-81 Owner: Remarks: Total Time: CD Description 19 Final Structural 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical 49 Final Mechanical Requested By: SHELLEY Entered By: KAREN Act Comments Comments/Notices/Holds Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# CV010663 CLOSED BIZ LICENSE NEEDED??; PCR05167 ISSUED PORTER RES-RECONFIGURE BATH ON; LOWER LEVEL, ENLARGE WINDOWS PCR05193 ISSUED COOK RES REVISE RETAINING ; FROM CMU TO POURED CONCRETE PCR06095 ISSUED PORTER RES- REVISIONS TO; WINDOWS , SLIDER DOORS AND OPENINGS Inspection History Insp PY Date Description Act 06/18/2007 89 Final Combo CO 02/27/2007 98 BMP Inspection PI DB 12/15/2006 17 Interior Lath/Drywall AP PD 12/12/2006 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall AP PC 12/11/2006 17 Interior Lath/Drywall PA PD 11/28/2006 13 Shear Panels/HD's AP PY 11/28/2006 24 Rough/Topout AP PY 11/28/2006 44 Rough/Ducts/Dampers WC PY 11/22/2006 16 Insulation AP PY 11/21/2006 16 Insulation NR PY Comments SEE NOTICE ATTACHED - NO GAS METER SEE NOTICE IN FILE LOWER LEVEL, NO CARD NO CARD ON SITE - NO SUPER ON SITE RAIDIENT HEAT TUBING NEED CERT. FOR CEILING City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 06/18/2007 Permit* CB043591 Title: PORTER RES 4557 SF REMODEL Description: 1568 SF LIVING AREA ADDITION Inspector Assignment: PY Type:RESDNTL Sub Type: RAD Job Address: 2641 OCEAN ST Suite: Lot: 0 Location: Inspector: OWNER COOK JOAN D SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST 05-15-81 Owner: Remarks: Phone: 7607293965 Total Time: CD Description 19 Final Structural 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical 49 Final Mechanical Requested By: SHELLEY Entered By: CHRISTINE Comments Comments/Notices/Holds Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# CV010663 CLOSED BIZ LICENSE NEEDED??; PCR05167 ISSUED PORTER RES-RECONFIGURE BATH ON; LOWER LEVEL, ENLARGE WINDOWS PCR05193 ISSUED COOK RES REVISE RETAINING ; FROM CMU TO POURED CONCRETE PCR06095 ISSUED PORTER RES- REVISIONS TO; WINDOWS , SLIDER DOORS AND OPENINGS Inspection History Insp DB Date Description Act 02/27/2007 98 BMP Inspection PI 12/15/2006 17 Interior Lath/Drywall AP PD 12/12/2006 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall AP PC 12/11/2006 17 Interior Lath/Drywall PA PD 11/28/2006 13 Shear Panels/HD's AP PY 11/28/2006 24 Rough/Topout AP PY 11/28/2006 44 Rough/Ducts/Dampers WC PY 11/22/2006 16 Insulation AP PY 11/21/2006 16 Insulation NR PY 11/14/2006 84 Rough Combo AP PY Comments SEE NOTICE IN FILE LOWER LEVEL, NO CARD NO CARD ON SITE - NO SUPER ON SITE RAIDIENT HEAT TUBING NEED CERT. FOR CEILING CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTM DATE , NOTICE (760) 602-2700 1635 FARADAY AVENUE TIME LOCATION, PERMIT NO. v/^C FOR INSPECTION CALL (7§0) 602-2725. RE-INSPECTION FEE DUE? FOR FTHER IN.FORMA//ON, CONTACT . YES PHONE BUILDING-INSPECTOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 07/13/2006 Permit* CB043591 Title: PORTER RES 4557 SF REMODEL Description: 1568 SF LIVING AREA ADDITION Inspector Assignment: PY Type: RESDNTL Sub Type: RAD Job Address: 2641 OCEAN ST Suite: Lot 0 Location: Inspector: OWNER COOK JOAN D SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST 05-15-81 Owner: Remarks: Phone: 7607293965 Total Time: CD Description 15 Roof/Reroof Comment Comments/Notices/Hold Requested By: SHELLEY Entered By: CHRISTINE Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# CV010663 CLOSED BIZ LICENSE NEEDED??; PCR05167 ISSUED PORTER RES-RECONFIGURE BATH ON; LOWER LEVEL, ENLARGE WINDOWS PCR05193 ISSUED COOK RES REVISE RETAINING ; FROM CMU TO POURED CONCRETE PCR06095 ISSUED PORTER RES- REVISIONS TO; WINDOWS , SLIDER DOORS AND OPENINGS Inspection History Comments SLAB @ LOWERLEVEL & SLAB @ UPPER LEVEL NORTH WALL & SOUTH WALL NORTH END & SOUTH SIDE W/ELEVATOR wall section from elevator north along line A - B SEE NOTICE ATTACHED FOOTING ALONG SOUTH WALL NOTICE BASEMENT UNDERGROUND PLUMBING 3 PIERS AND 2 GRADE BEAMS Date 06/01/2006 03/02/2006 02/22/2006 02/22/2006 02/07/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 01/23/2006 01/18/2006 12/13/2005 08/12/2005 Description 11 62 11 12 62 11 51 11 11 21 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers Steel/Bond Beam Ftg/Foundation/Piers Steel/Bond Beam Steel/Bond Beam Ftg/Foundation/Piers Excav/Stee I/Bonding/Fence Ftg/Foundation/Piers Ftg/Foundation/Piers Underground/Under Floor Ftg/Foundation/Piers Act PA PA PA we PA CO we PA PA AP PA lns| PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY PY CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE NOTICE (760) 602-2700 1635 FARADAY AVENUE TIME LOCATION PERMIT NO..(9y - FOR INSPECTION CALL (760) 602- FOR FURTHER INFO x >ING INSPEj RE-INSPECTION FEE DUE?YES PHONE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 01/31/2006 Permit* CB043591 Title: PORTER RES 4557 SF REMODEL Description: 1568 SF LIVING AREA ADDITION Inspector Assignment: PY Type: RESDNTL Sub Type: RAD Job Address: 2641 OCEAN ST Suite: Lot 0 Location: APPLICANT KARNAK PLANNING AND DESIGN Owner: Remarks: Phone: 7607293965 Inspector: Total Time:Requested By: NA Entered By: CHRISTINE CD Description 51 Excav/Steel/Bonding/Fence II Act Comment Comments/Notices/Hold Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# CV010663 CLOSED BIZ LICENSE NEEDED??; PCR05167 ISSUED PORTER RES-RECONFIGURE BATH ON; LOWER LEVEL, ENLARGE WINDOWS PCR05193 ISSUED COOK RES REVISE RETAINING ; FROM CMU TO POURED CONCRETE Inspection History Date Description Act Insp Comments 01/23/2006 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers PA PY 01/18/2006 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers PA PY FOOTING ALONG SOUTH WALL NOTICE 12/13/2005 21 Underground/Under Floor AP PY BASEMENT UNDERGROUND PLUMBING 08/12/2005 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers PA PY 3 PIERS AND 2 GRADE BEAMS CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE NOTICE (760) 602-2700 1635 FARADAY AVENUE TIME LOCATION PERMIT NO. Of ~ FOR INSPECTION CALL (760) 602-2725. RE-INSPECTION FEE DUE? FOR FURTHER INFORWlAlioN, CONTACT. YES PHONE CODE ENFORCEMENT OF.RCER City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 01/18/2006 Permit* CB043591 Title: PORTER RES 4557 SF REMODEL Description: 1568 SF LIVING AREA ADDITION Inspector Assignment: PY 2641 OCEAN ST Lot Type: RESDNTL Sub Type: RAD Job Address: Suite: Location: APPLICANT KARNAK PLANNING AND DESIGN Owner: Remarks: Phone: 7607293965 Inspector: Total Time:Requested By: TERESA Entered By: CHRISTINE CD Description 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers Act Comment Comments/Notices/Hold \ Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# CV010663 CLOSED BIZ LICENSE NEEDED??; PCR05167 ISSUED PORTER RES-RECONFIGURE BATH ON; LOWER LEVEL, ENLARGE WINDOWS PCR05193 ISSUED COOK RES REVISE RETAINING ; FROM CMU TO POURED CONCRETE Inspection History Date Description Act Insp Comments 12/13/2005 21 Underground/Under Floor AP PY BASEMENT UNDERGROUND PLUMBING 08/12/2005 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers PA PY 3 PIERS AND 2 GRADE BEAMS CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE NOTICE LOCATION PERMIT NO. &</ (760) 602-2700 1635 FARADAY AVENUE TIME j{ju^ ;/gg^gfef>, FOR INSPECTION CALL (760) 602-2725. RE-INSPECTION FEE DUE? FOR FURjfhi^R IllBbRMWON, CONTACT YES PHONE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER r vCity of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 08/12/2005 Permit* CB043591 Title: PORTER RES 4557 SF REMODEL Description: 1568 SF LIVING AREA ADDITION Type: RESDNTL Sub Type: RAD Job Address: 2641 OCEAN ST Suite: Lot 0 Location: APPLICANT KARNAK PLANNING AND DESIGN Owner: Remarks: Inspector Assignment: Phone: 76072939' Inspector: Total Time: CD Description 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers Act Comment Requested By: THERESA Entered By: JANEAN \ Associated PCRs/CVs CV010663 CLOSED BIZ LICENSE NEEDED??; Inspection History Date Description Act Insp Comments INC. Project Name: ~ fuK. GeoTekJnc. FIELD INSPECTION REPORT Page Report No. Of £ I D^SU I C GeoTek Project # City and State: Client , /)./) General Contractor Building Permit #: Structural Engineer: Plan# INSPECTION Concrete Prestress Concrete Masonry Structural Steel Rreprooflng Foundations Non-Destructive Batch Plant Soils Technician Mechanical Electrical V Epoxy Installation Roofing Waterproofing Inspector of Record Reinforcing Steel MATL SAMPLING QTY. Soil Base Subgrade Asphalt Concrete Concrete Cylinders Cone. Flex Beams Reinf. Steel Tendon (FT Strands) Mortar Samples Grout Samples Masonry Prisms Masonry Block Steel H. S. Bolts Fireproofing Roofing Other MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Cone: Mix #/psi Cone: Mix #/psi Cone: Mix #/psi RkrtRebar Rinf: W.W.F. Rinf: Tendons Grout: Mix #/psi Mortar: Type/psi Units: Block Units: Block Steel H. S. Bohs Metal Decking Electrodes Fireproofing Other CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY) .—!-. TW •'• *«,, •-1-- - Remarks:nF~£" T AFT/9//._i..-ir...r . r ....--- - /IT / THE WORK OBSERVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE WORKMANSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE. INSPECTOR'S NAME: INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE: FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: J9ATE: S ' 3 ) ~ / ~/ - 3ST?/ Project Name: Address: GeoTek, Inc. FIELD INSPECTION REPORT GeoTek Project # Page / of / Report No. V City and State: Client: General Contractor. Building Permit #: DSA# _ Structural Engineer Plan# OSHPDft INSPECTION Concrete Prestress Concrete Masonry Structural Steel Fireproofing Foundations Non-Destructive Batch Plant Soils Technician Mechanical Electrical Epoxy Installation Roofing Waterproofing Inspector of Record Reinforcing Steel MATL SAMPLING QTY. Soil Base Subgrade Asphalt Concrete Concrete Cylinders Cone. Flex Beams Reinf. Steel Tendon (PT Strands) Mortar Samples Grout Samples Masonry Prisms Masonry Block Steel H. S. Bolts Fireproofing Roofing Other MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Cone: Mix #/psi Cone: Mix #/psi Cone: Mix #/psi Rinf: Rebar Rinf: W.W.F. Rinf: Tendons Grout Mix #/psi Mortar Type/psi Units: Block Units: Block Steel M.S. Bolts Metal Decking Electrodes Fireproofing Other CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY) Remarks: 2 _ - */-' THE WORK OBSERVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE WORKMANSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE. INSPECTOR'S NAME: (Print Name) INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE: CERT. NO.: </? rf f fZ— DATE: ^-2 FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: / /; '.-^v'«--vv--.'-^v*v^&*fs*?*rVy,*B*.4^AFi,y^a'r,«t> me. j. Project Name: •*' 'Addrjess GeoTek, Inc.Page /^ of / Report No. GeoTek Project*'/ Q Gky and State: Client: General Contractor: Building Permit* DSA# / X?_ Structural Engineer Plan* OSHPD#: *^ *-*.'• ;v INSPECTION '/, Concrete Prestress Concrete Masonry Structural Steel Flreproofing Foundations V.. Non-Destructive Batch Plant ^ Soils Technteiah ••• ^ Mechanical Electrical ,s Epoxy Installation •: Rootofg .•-•••' :- .',••'• ' '•'.'• • .( i Waterproofing Inspector of Record Reinforcing Steel ' '• ' ^7. MATL SAMPLING QTY. So* -•-.," Base ,' -,i. Subgrade ' Asphalt Concrete Concrete CyRndars Cone. Flex Beam*, ReM. Steel • Tendon (FT Stands) . MottarSamptei Grout Samples Mason^ltMjL Masonry Oo^K^ Steel J _ - • - '". H. S. Bote '%*"' J Fireprooflrttv,,^;- ' ' ' Roofing , ^^ Other yf MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Cone: Mix »pst Cone: Mix f/psi Cone Mix «psi RinfRebar Rinf.W.W.F. Rinft Tendons Grout Mix Wpsi (^ - Mortar: Type/psi Units: Block Units: Block . Steel ., ' ' • ' '.-^fH> rti Bote •*: Metal Decking :^ -. ' Electrode* .;,. ' ••^•^Htl^M Fireproofing * ! Other CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY) r • -..•-••••• •• • \-?L "&• $- , «•. v' ' \^ irf",.,-^.. , ^J ,, . 4i> -• : Remarks: ? ffcsr •c THE WORK OBSERVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE '• WORKMANSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE. INSPECTOR'S NAME: (Print Name) INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE:t FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: _CERT. NO.: DATE: [-':: t INC. GeoTek, Inc. FIELD INSPECTION REPORT Page-~_ Report No. of General Contractor: Building Permit #: DSA# Structural Engineer Plan# OSHPD#: INSPECTION \ Concrete Prestress Concrete Masonry Structural Steel Fireproofing Foundations Non-Destructive Batch Plant Soils Technician Mechanical Electrical Epoxy Installation Roofing Waterproofing Inspector of Record Reinforcing Steel MATL SAMPLING QTY. Soil Base Subgrade Asphalt Concrete 5<, Concrete Cylinders Cj Cone. Flex Beams Reinf Steel Tendon (FT Strands) Mortar Samples Grout Samples Masonry Prisms Masonry Block . Steel H. S. Bolts Fireproofing Roofing Other MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Cone: Mix #/psi j5~G C>O Cone: Mix tt/psi Cone: Mix #/psi Rinf. Rebar Rinf: W.W.F. Rinf: Tendons Grout Mix #/psi Mortar. Type/psi Units: Block Units: Block Steel H. S. Bolts Metal Decking Electrodes Fireproofing Other CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY) Remarks: THE WORK OBSERVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE WORKMANSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE. INSPECTOR'S NAME: INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE: CERT. NO.: v5>D DATE: FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Project Name: Address: City and State;., Client: ofGeoTek, Inc. FIELD INSPECTION REPORT S*~f\ General Contractor: Building Permit #: DSA# _ Structural Engineer. Plan # OSHPD #: INSPECTION Concrete Prestress Concrete '. Masonry Structural Steel Fireproofing Foundations Non-Destructive Batch Plant ' Soils Technician Mechanical Electrical Epoxy Installation . Roofing Waterproofing Inspector of Record Y- Reinforcing Steel » . MATL SAMPLING QTY. Soil Base Subgrade Asphalt Concrete Concrete Cylinders Cone. Flex Beams Reinf. Steel Tendon (PT Strands) Mortar Samples Grout Samples Masonry Prisms ' •'". Masonry Block Steel H. S. Bolts Fireproofing Roofing Other MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Cone: Mix Wpsi Cone: Mix Mpsi Cone: Mix#/psi Rinf Rebar Rir* W.W.F. Rinf: Tendons Grout Mix #/psi Mortar Type/psi Units: Block Units: Block Steel H. S. Bolts Metal Decking Electrodes — ^_ Fireproofing ,- \ 'Other ' ' CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY) / '• , S V' •• ' f ; ' - - •' / . ; ? J ' C •'-- • - .... < • / T THE WORK OBSERVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE WORKMANSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE. INSPECTOR'S NAME: INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE .' I) IRE: .y^^b-'ytX t CERT. NO.:- 8 DATE: FIELD REPRESENTATIVE:. A • GeoTek, Inc. FIELD INSPECTION REPORT Page Report No. of Project Name: Address: "GeoTek Project # City and State: Client: .<. A/? Poll! OC General Contractor Building Permit*: <^I R 0 */ -S^T"? | DSA# Structural Engineer Plan# A ) OSHPD#: INSPECTION VI Concrete Prestress Concrete Masonry Structural Steel Fireproofing Foundations Non-Destructive Batch Plant Soils Technician Mechanical Electrical Epoxy Installation Roofing Waterproofing Inspector of Record Reinforcing Steel MATL SAMPLING QTY. Soil Base Subgrade Asphalt Concrete ^ Concrete Cylinders U Cone. Flex Beams Reinf. Steel Tendon (PT Strands) Mortar Samples Grout Samples Masonry Prisms Masonry Block Steel H.S. Bolts Fireproofing Roofing Other MATERIAL DESCRIPTION V Cone: Mix #/psi 5OOO Cone: Mix #/psi Cone: Mix Wpsi Rinf Rebar Rinf: W.W.F. Rinf. Tendons Grout: Mix Wpsi Mortar Type/psi Units: Block Units: Block Steel H.S. Bolts Metal Decking Electrodes Fireproofing Other CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY) Remarks:7//£"I F "7 C.U&I THE WORK OBSERVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE WORKMANSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE. INSPECTOR'S NAME: INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE: FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: 26 f/' :, INC. Project Name. Address: GeoTek, Inc. FIELD INSPECTION REPORT _GeoTek Project* Page Report No. of City and State: /Client: General Contractor Building Permit #: DSA# Structural Engineer. Plan# OSHPD #: INSPECTION Concrete Prestress Concrete Masonry Structural Steel Fireproofing Foundations Non-Destrucfive Batch Rant Soils Technician Mechanical Electrical Epoxy Installation Roofing Waterproofing Inspector of Record \^ Reinforcing Steelr"~ _,.-" MATL SAMPLING QTY. Soil Base Subgrade Asphalt Concrete Concrete Cylinders Cone. Flex Beams Reinf. Steel Tendon (PT Strands) Mortar Samples Grout Samples Masonry Prisms Masonry Block Steel H. S. Bolts Fireproofing Roofing Other MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Cone: Mix #/psi Cone: Mix Wpsi Cone: Mix #/psi Rint Rebar Rinf: W.W.F. Rinf: Tendons Grout Mix #/psi Mortar Type/psi Units: Block Units: Block Steel H. S. Bolts Metal Decking Electrodes Fireproofing Other CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY) Remarks.T/V/T /lJL<ML^fiT)/')/iJ OP Fftf I A J<.Fo/L 2.3 fit TbcoFL^ THE WORK OBSERVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE WORKMANSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE. INSPECTOR'S NAME:CERT. NO.:£/V INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE:/ JL*t-i*~'Cc*-r^<J' Xco *4- 4 ^ DATE: FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: C,INC. Project Name: Address: City and State: Client: General Contractor: Building Permit* DSA# GeoTek, Inc. FIELD INSPECTION REPORT GeoTek Project # -Page Report No. -SQ ( Of Cfi OH Structural Engineer: /,£T EjKJ<51 V\J Plan# OSHPD #: INSPECTION Concrete Prestress Concrete Masonry Structural Steel Fireproofing Foundations Non-Destructive Batch Rant Soils Technician Mechanical Electrical A V_ Epoxy Installation Roofing Waterproofing Inspector of Record Reinforcing Steel MATL SAMPLING QTY. Soil Base Subgrade Asphalt Concrete Concrete Cylinders Cone. Flex Beams Reinf Steel Tendon (FT Strands) Mortar Samples Grout Samples Masonry Prisms Masonry Block Steel H. S. Bolts Fireproofing Roofing Other MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Cone: Mix #/psi Cone: Mix (Wpsi Cone: Mix #/psi Rinf: Rebar Rinf: W.W.F. Rinf: Tendons Grout: Mix #/psi Mortar. Type/psi Units: Block Units: Block Steel H. S. Bolts Metal Decking Electrodes Fireproofing \y other SlmAS^W •3<£)~7 tJOrtXV' 1 CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY) Remarks:£> THE 7 HOLGS /JR/g>/e7c3 /s //?u>/r//^/us THE WORK OBSERVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE WORKMANSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE. INSPECTOR'S NAME: INSPECTOR'S SIGNATUR PrintTJame) L FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: INC. Project Name: GeoTek, Inc. FIELD IMSPEGTION^REPOR? GeoTek Project # Page / of f~_ Report No. r CHy and Stile: Client CA General Contractor g>. A Building Permit* __£__ DSA# _ Structural Engineer Plan* OSHPD#: INSPECTION A Concrete Prostfws Concrete Masonry Structural Steel FtroproofinQ Foundations Non-Destructive BatehPternt ^ Spite Technician Mechanic^ Electrical Epoxy Inst&IUriion - Root* ::-.••• Waterproofing ' Inspector of Record •Remforcina Steel MATL SAMPLING QTY. Sol Base Subgrade Asphalt Concrete y Concrete Cytidere H Cone. Ftex Beanjj Retnf. Steel Tendon (PT Strands) > Mortar Samples OroutSamnlesMa*wi^steL M^B^^ ' •Stoei ._' aClofe '-^r F1n*w»«*Urf Roofing TP" Other 'IWE?" MATERIAL DESCRIPTION X ConeMixWpS S&fO^ii Cone: Mix #/p*l Cone: Mix *p»i Rk* Rebar ^ Rint W.W.F. Rint Tondons Grout Mix «Ypsi Mortar. Type^si Un«s: Block Untts:«ock Staet ^b. H%.BoH» Metal Decking ' flaciwclet.,:. :i:,?}M^I^ J Flreproofmg Other • CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY) • ,• *•. . • ' - ,-j '; .; • \ '-•'&• ' -' ' ' •• ' • • >' > ' • • : --•-'.,-' ~&"& " :' 1'* .>, ; --•\.- i.„. . ^ , >. ,., f NO«±rt •.'/•' ' •'/•'JMM*u*r-" - .. • -^.^ .; . • : ' ' '•, *:•••...--.- ;/ Remarks:5/Tg"Tf<€./> O F X^A^-Q OAnfiC) 4 •• c tr"X? FO fc •*Sf<r A/ 6? -rue A SP ilo^c~D THE WORK OBSERVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATION? AND THE WORKMANSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE -f -" ; INSPECTOR'S NAME:fcQ Q ft-t CERT. NO.: (Print Name) INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE:DATE:^- Ob FIELD REPRESENTATIVE^. A) 0T A V N11fr INC. ProjectName: Address: HOUSE" GeoTek, Inc. FIELD INSPECTION REPORT .GeoTek Project* Page / Report No. of / C?CtAAJ Ctty and State: CA lLSfe/40. C A Client 0U GeneralContractor. Building Permit*: DSA# Structural Engineer Plan* OSHPD #: INSPECTION j( Concrete Prestress Concrete Masonry Structural Steel Fireproofiny FoundBtions NorvOestrxKttve Batch Plant Soils Technician Mechanical Electrical Epoxy Installation Roofing Waterproofing Inspector of Record X Reinforcing Steel MATL SAMPLING QTY. Soil Base Subgrade Asphalt Concrete , X Coocreto Cylinder* ^ Cone, Flex Beams Refof. Steel Tendon (PT Strands) Mortar Samples Grout Samples Masonry Prisms Masonry Block Steel H. S. Bolts Fireproofing Roofing Other MATERIAL DESCRIPTION X Cone Mix */psi 5"D00ft! Cone: Mix #/psi ConcMixiWpsi RinfRebar Rinf: W.W.F. Rint Tendons Grout Mix Wpsi Mortar Type/psi Units: Block Unto: Block Steel H.S.Botts Metal Decking Electrodes Fireproofing Other CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY) Remarks: 6?M <, ? rr rj)CT C 0 AJ 0 ' "H (?fO *s L. £' THC //MS TD TMT TT A /\j p f 0 A-)S D<- I Q /A c TX S/ - . THE WORK OBSERVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE WORKMANSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE. / CC INSPECTOR'S NAME: INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE CERT. NO.: DATE: FIELD REPRESENTATIVE:AlDT GeoTek, Inc. FIELD iNlP&hrrbN REPORT Page i Report No. of Project Name: PQgTgjC A/ ODE L-_ GeoTek Project # Address: 2(gM? QCTAAJ ST City and State: Client: Al} CA General Contractor: fe A t/J 0 £ BuHdlng Permit #: Ct DSA# _ Structural Engineer Ran# OSHPD#: INSPECTION Concrete Prostross Concrete Masonry Structural Steet FffiRproofing Foundations Non-Destructive Batch Plant SoBs Technician Mechanical Electrical Epoxy Installation Roofing Waterproofing Inspector of Record X Reinforcing Steel MATL SAMPLING QTY. Son Base Subgrade Asphalt Concrete Concrete Cylinders Cone. Flex Beams Rekrf. Steel Tendon (PT Strands) Mortar Samples Gf out Samples Masonry Prisms Masonry Block Steel H S. Bolts Fireproofing Roofing Other MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 'V._ • Conc:Mix#/psi Cone: Mix »pst Conc:Mix*/psi X Rinf: Rebar A \e(*Z Rir* W.W.F. Rinf Tendons Grout Mix */p«i Mortar. Type^si Units: Block Units: Block Steel H.S. Bote Metal Decking Etectrodes Fffeproofmg Other CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY) t>9 rOffT;H^t*. A/rFD5 T7) ^ dte7VA/no OUT ftiiot W cow. \ifur- ^LAcr^eTor Remarks: ON S I TE TQ /AJ <: f>e c~T llrV^U K UJALL .CTE"-p (rrvjQ Tt> A//AJ€I . //J AAJ eg" t/\n"«-f* - THE WORK OBSERVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, IS IN CONFORMANCE WtTH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE WORKMANSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE. V" tNSPECTOR'S NAME: INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE: FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: m' r* Project N • . f* ,-Ai Add/ess: T^Vame: JO Y* v ^,^v 't2&#3 sw^y?* ;KJ ^ 1 GeoTek, Inc. Page > of FIELD INSPECTION REPORT Report NO | — ,, . ~ -•'*•'. ^ , : ' ' '"••••-. ^ i^^-l/1/r£vC«^/- 1 . GeoTek Project #• ! *i ' , - OC&Qi^ ^-Wcy^'f •' V' -A - : ' A : S.Vl^V-i .' C*'A' :'•-••-, A, .'General-.Contractor: /Building Permit* DSA# : > H JofO ^ 3 5 Structural Engineer: _Plan # ' OSHPD #: "-— ^ ' INSPECTION .; :; ' /.'••. ••"• . ''•:•"•. ...i Concrete ' ' • t Prestress Concrete, '••'-. .. ' .Masonry . ••>...." ;. .-Structural Steel" ' •' Fireprobfing . ; . . Foundations K- Non^Destructive Batch Plant' ' ;: ...' ' Soils Technician Mechanical ; _0ectrical \S €poxy' Installation Roofing . • • '""" wkerprooting ' •' ••• ' Inspector of Record Reinforcing Steel • : . MATL SAMPLING QTY. Soil ; ; Base i '• i Subgrade ' Asphalt Concrete - Concrete Cylinders Cone. Flex Beams Reinf. Steel ; ; Tendon (PT Strands) - ;• ; Mortar Samples Grout Samples ' . Masonry Prism? . ••'••:[ MasonirV ffloct^i ** ,. ,; Steel , " as..Bofe >»r '"-\ • Fireprdofing i Roofing * Other • ' -«f"'' , -'• , -•'•• MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Cone: Mix #/psi . Cone: Mix #/psi . Cone: Mix #/psi Rinf: Rebar __;' Rinf: W.W.F. Rinf: Tendons Grout: M6« #/psi ' - .' Mortar Type/psi . • J ' Units: Block Units: Block '•Steel - H. S. Bolts , Metal Decking Electrodes ""'** Rreproofing ' ,•• Other CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY)•<'..•••;;•.. •lyufvvs-.^^ c»./vi«v r / ihe f c^T (<?±*;^ u-> •?/* / 1^ S>- <4? nL^Ab/^s -A- Ire- ' -i- • , rs^-W^«.v- ^4^•* ; , •• -.'v"Ca^CY—U- i^- " Remarks: : ; -o; ' ; \ T ,7 I ^ / - • - "'i?i e &&&\' i\* i-THE WORKbB8«WED:wi^S^OTHERWISE STATED^ (S IN CONFORMANCE WITttTHE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE T WORKMANSPHP PROVISVDN$>OF.THE APPLICABLE I 4INSPECTOR'S NAMEf INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: ' / City and State; V_ Client: GeoTek,lnc.Page Report No. of x GeoTek Project # General Contractor: Building Permit*: DSA# \ • Structural Engineer: Plan* OSHPD*: INSPECTION Concrete Prestress Concrete : Masonry 'strudSal Steel. . , > Rreproofing - • v :' Foundations • Non-Destructive ' Batch Rant Soils Technician -'• Mechanical y<i Epoxylrfetatetion" Rooflng . Waterproofing Inspectobof Record i=leinforcing Steel MATL SAMPLING QTY. .Soil : Base Subgrade .y . , , Asphalt Concrete '•••••,'.' .eoncreteCylindens Cone. Rex Beams Reirif. Steel *-- Tendon (PT Strands) Mortar Samples Grout Samples Masoni^Pnjms Mas6h»y B(6*jfcf'-' ;' ' SteetJ „ KS-Wfe"*^^ RreptoJl**).^ A ' • Roofing ""p* Other ^MF MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Cone: Mix #/psi Cone: Mix #/psi Cqrtc: Mix #/psi RMrRebar Hint: W.W.F. . Rinf: Tendons •"Grout: Mix #/psi V Mortar Type/psi Units: BtocS : Units: Block Steel ' ?* STs. Bolts Metal Decking Etectrtxtef - . ^«. ^* •*/^..J' . " * Breproofmg •X»her f£T ti~i<j£* ttjye/ CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY) i ' " .' - : •-:: ••-' ' ',-. ' . .,.-.- • - i . • - '•-"•*-' • ' " • ' ' . *?• ' ^ ' • : ','•*'•• -, • - '• **" ., ',' ''• " ': - : ' tfjfa^p- '•'•- - -.-:'-• - ' mfWaSb - ..-..• . - .::.--:- - .••'••• . • •• ,' ••/• . -. •••'/ v. - .. - •«; ^ /s ; ^ f—— ••-•'-:- •- •, -•-. • ,.;.. .-': ... ,-::•••' : .;—,.. . —— ~ ','[ • • if | ''THE WCfiK OBSERVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ANp THE ; 'iWORfKMANSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE. ; > - ; *; . / j -,.... IPIELCy REPRESENTATIVE: p. J *«i •' 1f '*. ' j ,4f rr-z< ' ~' . *':.' ':' . 'A^w ^ r.:'. '•••'•-•.-.,•• ••..,.-' x .,,- . y-' •.-*•• ~'"" — p ' _n, Project Name~>sdO&. ^ '*Ku S4<^ /7 f< • .-<>.;. ';'"' : ••'*'-' *. •;>,.,-,-• .-. \ $idress: 2;fe>Cf3» ; - CP^MP'CKX-; «5*''. " ' .•X"f'*~* ,' -:'-% -.' ' *- j§iry and State: : C^CV \ ^fe^ ,J /V |r • . ' ""A ' "" — -«y& ' ,-'•'• f ^, Client: vJj<£>C>v |?V<J| S<«? ( ( -P General Contractor: W $ \Aj>-^H U Building Permit #: ,C_ 12>O*/ "^ Q^ / DSA# , • ' - * ' ': ; /:' ;;.' -, • .. . . ' - -' , • \ ; ,.-> GeoTek, Inc. ;^ ." Page' of \ FIEliD INSPECTION^EP0RT : Report NO '" i *i' *''••&> '• J -/ ' ; v • '• '''. - " • "^hi?/* L/ :12. ;" '•=^">kf ' ' '''•*' ^>^-Vv K^H^'O'^ ' r GeoTe'k Project •$:-£$,\Dn''>:"- -^ O- ' t \ \ •-^U«Jrf •-"" -•'" "v" ^"-;-i:.>;^:/ ,::"::" ,'. : '•'•• \ ; / • '• ' ': ^'-^' '' _ -,'•'-! " ;• *-/;'', ' ;', ' .'-i.- . ;•.,/ ,>• • ' '•• • LsU'/ •.•-" X^->-^--'-':--.'.^ :'1:-'-;\;>i : : • ( ';'---*':' : ' ""•'.' .•: -'•" - '..*',«. "•• •" ".'•"f^?- ;: . <~? - '; . ''-..-. ; J ".-•' StruCtti'ral Engineer;-, X^vi C>A v ^^_ V^y^ 1 • \.'- . ; >- ; \Plan# • "~~-"; ..-,. >' f- ..-' -,/ '••'•' '''"'' -•-'.•"• 1 -'1- ' "•OSHPO#::; •fc— > ;; ; :, '•''•':'•• •-, • •,•'.. ^/Concrete; Prestress Concrete . Masonry "... Structural Steel 1 Fireproof ing '• :: :. s Foundations 5 • Non-Destructive '. ' >:Batch Plant ; • .. Soils Technician Mechanical = • • • ' i-s* iteStncai ; .,/ . _. iEpoxy Installation : ' ; Roofing -i$ f,' r '"'' s -.'N'/;' Waterproofing '•(" ; • , Inspector o» Record "fleinforoingiSteel :. . ) - •• " :' / MATL SAMPLING QTY. Soil Base Subgrade AjphaK Concrete j ^/Concrete Cylinders / $«-f • */ Cone. Flex Beams Reinf. Steel ; Tendon (PT Strands) :Morta^ Samples Grout Samples Masonry PrisrnS , '_ •' Masoflfy BlotSPP '•'• '*" ,•;,. Steel -,,, :. . HJS.'Bblts "W t ^ •"• j / Firepfomihg > ;? ",. ,i(* Roofing ^" / Other ifr ' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION i : Qohc: Mix #/psi ,:' • -' '" • •'bone; Mix<#?p^r) z£~> <Z?<3 ''• Rjhf: Rebar^^" . •;- ..•Rinf: W.W.F. Rinf: Tendons ' Grout: Mix #/psi Mortarjyoe/psi Units: Blodi Units: Block , Steel ; " ;H. S. Bolts- ' Metal Decking ^Electrodes ..-**..; ?1 % ~*FireproofirJj / '"* " — -7— — '; Other CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY) '.•' - • ' ' .-*'•.' ' •-• ... .....'.-- ^''^ r ./ . . " . -X / • • ' '' ft*'"''' ' '•-•-*#* -r-'-. "- .. ,-''.'•-.- ' ,! *-- .;' ' - •.-. -'-. ;...-•- ' •• • "x- ";': -• /:- rWUta* '»'.'! f~- «,~. fO~- .-a, -^— , . ~ - ; •'•• i~ ..,K. •- .;' J • • ' : .'''•• "' 'i ' :, . . •• 4 ?•-: ^T Remarks: ' ( C*tJiii.JVv>> -VijciJ ,Uu. 'O A/ g \ f\' *C <& <?^ 4-- f'^f &-r"'6Jc4_tt_ 4 A- L . l^/-.- (LlL V^&l^ y / ? "'' ' •'• , V THE WORK ORSFRyJp.'lJMIFSS OTHERWISE STATED, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS; AND SPECIFICATIONS AN^THE ' ; \ WORKMANSHIP.F'TOVlifofls^ TH§ APPLICABLE CODE. ;; . '"'">.. .* •. \ INSPECTOR'S NAME: :!.•>-•€• INSPECTOR'S SIGNAWRE\--'-I ' -• : ' ./'-.-: FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: ,1NC. Project Name: Address: >lnc- FIELD INSPECTION REPORT _GeoTek Project # Page / of / Report No. « City and State: Client: (Z- /? General Contractor: Building Permit #: DSA# _ StructuraMingineer: Plan* OSHPD #: -•V INSPECTION Concrete Prestress Concrete Masonry Structural Steel Fireproofing Foundations Non- Destructive Batch Plant Soils Technician Mechanical Electrical Epoxy Installation Roofing Waterproofing / Inspector of Record V Reinforcing Steel MAT! SAMPLING QTY. Soil Base Subgrade Asphalt Concrete Concrete Cylinders Cone. Flex Beams Reinf. Steel Tendon (PT Strands) Mortar Samples Grout Samples Masonry Prisms /Masonry Block Steel H. S. Bolts Fireproofing Roofing Other VV" ' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Cone:.. Mix #/psi Cone: hliX#/psi Cone: Mix #/psi V/ Rinf: Rebar ft £>!$- (,() Rinf: W.W.F. Rinf: Tendons Grout: Mix #/psi Mortar: Type/psi Units: Block Units: Block Steel H. S. Bolts Metal Decking Electrodes Fireproofing Other CORRECTIVE ACTION: (IF NECESSARY) Remarks:ft /»_ or /r THE WORK OBSERVED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE WORKMANSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE CODE. INSPECTOR'S NAME:CERT. NO.: (Print Name) INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE:/DATE: FIELD REPRESENTATIVE:fi/t Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic • Environmental W.O.J DATE NAME HOURS 3 Client Name: FOOTING TRENCH OBSERVATION SUMMARY ^ Project Name: _ Location/Tract:-f- Unit/Phase/Lot(s): Referenced Geotechnical Report(s): Observation Summary Initials Date Initials Date Initials Date Initials Date A representative of GeoSoils, Inc. observed onsite soil and footing trench conditions. Soil conditions in the trench are generally free of loose soil and debris, non-yielding and uniform, and plumb; and are in general conformance with those indicated in the geotechnical report. A representative of GeoSoils, Inc. observed and reviewed footing excavation depth/width. Footing excavatioi}s/generally extend to proper depth and bearing stpata, and are in general conformance with recommenaBSons of the geotechnical report. \ - v" i. .. A representativa^f GeoSoils, Inc. reviewed footing setbacks from slope face (if applicable). The setback was in general accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnteal report. Notes to Superintendent/Foreman ' ' ' .. ''' ; 1. Footing excavations should be cleaned of loose debris and thoroughly moistened just prior to placing concrete. 2. Based on expansion potential of underlying soils, presoaking of soil below slabs may be recommended. Consult the geotechnical report for presoaking recommendations. We note that clayey soils may take an extended period of time for such, and the contractor should schedule accordingly. 3. In the event of a site change subsequent to our footing observation and prior to concrete placement (i.e., heavy rain, etc.), we should be contacted to perform additional site observations and/or testing. 4. This memo does not confirm the minimum footing dimension as required by the project structural engineer's design, if different from the geotechnical report. Notes to Building Inspector Soil compaction test results, as well as depth of fill, relative compaction, bearing values, corrosivity, and soil expansion index test results are contained in the As-Graded Geotechnical or Final Compaction Report provided at the completion of grading. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 9200(1 - (760)438-3155 1446 E. Chestnut Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 647-0277, ntative of GeoSoils, Inc. 26590 Madison Ave. Murrieta.CA 92562 (951)677-9651 DATE NAME HOURS Geotechnical • Coastal • Geologic * Environmental Client Name: FOOTING TRENCH OBSERVATION SUMMARY ft P/T^ l^r/V/^Proiect Name: /CVfl#AA>4- /C Location/Tract:/ Unit/Phase/Lot(s):, Referenced Geotechnical Report(s): Observation Summary Initials A representative of GeoSoils, Inc. observed onsite soil and footing trench conditions. Soil conditions Date in the trench are generally free of loose soil and debris, non-yielding and uniform, and plumb; and are in general conformance with those indicated in the jifebtechnical report. SXri/vlnitials A representative of GeoSoils, Inc. observed and reviewed footing excavation depth/widih. Footing U Date excavation^ generally extend to proper depth^and bearjnj^strata, and are in general conformance with recornmendati^ of the gepte^rjipal report. f"f'- l/Unitials A representative of GeoSoils, Inc. reviewed footing setBaetfs from slope face (if applicable). The Date setback was in general accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. Initials . ; • Date • . - ; ' Notes to Superintendent/Foreman 1. Footing excavations should be cleaned of loose debris and thoroughly moistened just prior to placing concrete. 2. Based on expansion potential of underlying soils, presoaking of soil below slabs may be recommended. Consult the geotechnical report for presoaking recommendations. We note that clayey soils may take an extended period of time for such, and the contractor should schedule accordingly. 3. In the event of a site change subsequent to our footing observation and prior to concrete placement (i.e., heavy rain, etc.), we should be contacted to perform additional site observations and/or testing. 4. This memo does not confirm the minimum footing dimension as required by the project structural engineer's design, if different from the geotechnical report. Notes to Building Inspector Soil compaction test results, as well as depth of fill, relative compaction, bearing values, corrosivity, and soil expansion index test results are contained in the As-Graded Geotechnical or Final Compaction Report provided at the completion of grading. Representative of GeoSoHs, Inc. 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)438-3155 1446 E. Chestnut Ave. Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714)647-0277 26590 Madison Ave. Murrieta.CA 92562 (951) 677-9651 EsGil Corporation In fartnertnip tvitH government for Quitting Safety DATE: December 23, 2004 Q APPLICANT JURISDICTION: Carlsbad Q PUN REVIEWER ^ Q FILE PLAN CHECK NO.r O4-3591 SET:IH PROJECT ADDRESS : 2643 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: SFD Add. /Re model for Joan Porter Residence PI The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes! The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. f~1 The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. f~l The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. f~l The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. i I The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. D Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: Date contacted: (by: ) Fax #: Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS: All sheets of plans must be signed by the person responsible for their preparation. Sheets C1.0 to AD4.0 are missing the engineer signature. By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgfl Corporation D GA D MB P EJ- 'Q PC 12/16 tmsmtLdot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diegci* California 92123 + (858)560-1468 *• Fax (858) 560-1576 EsGil Corporation In fartiunltip witR govtrnmtntfor QtdMuig Saftty DATE: December 3, 2OO4 Q APPLICANT JURISDICTION: Carlsbad CTPtWTREVlEWER Q FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591 SET: II PROJECT ADDRESS: 3643 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: SFD Add. /Remodel for Joan Porter Residence [~l The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. I I 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. I I The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. 1X1 The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. 1~1 The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. EX] The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Karnak Planning and Design 2802 State St., Suite C, Carlsbad, CA 92008 F~) Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Mike Telephone #: (760) 434-8400 Date contacted:/^/6/oV (by:fa,x) Fax #: (760) 434-8493 Mail— --Telephone Fax^/ In Person REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 11/23 tmsmtLdot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 4 San Diego, California 92123 * (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 04-3591 December 3, 2O04 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 2643 Ocean St. DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 11/23 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591 SET: H DATE RECHECK COMPLETED: December 3, 2OO4 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. 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. B. 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. C. 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? QYes QNo Carlsbad 04-3591 December 3, 2004 1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports 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. 2. All sheets of plans must be signed by the person responsible for their preparation. (California Business and Professions Code). 9. Every opening into an elevator shaft enclosure shall be protected by a self-closing fire assembly having a one-hour fire rating. Section 711.4. • Poors other than the hoistwav door and the elevator car door are prohibited at the point of access to elevator car, except doors readily openable from the car side. Section 3007. 10. Elevator shafts extending through more than two floor levels shall be vented to the outside. The area of vent shall be not less than 3 1/2% of the shaft area and a minimum of 3 square feet per elevator. Section 3004. 11. When the elevator vertical travel is 25' or more, the elevator lobby or entrance area shall be provided with an approved smoke detector as required by Section 3003.2. • The required smoke detectors were not shown on plans. Original correction is still applicable. 17. The following windows shall be clearly shown on plans to have safety glass: • Windows adjacent to entry door. • Window G adjacent to door 4 at Street Level. • Windows O adjacent to door 5 at (E) Master Bedroom. • Window Type 7. • Clearly show on plans which particular doors and windows shall be provided with safety glass. General notes will not be adequate to resolve this correction. Carlsbad 04-3591 December 3, 2004 18. Guardrails (Section 509.1): a) Shall be detailed showing adequacy of connections to resist the horizontal force prescribed in Table 16-B. i) Provide complete construction details for each guardrail. Including: Specifications of size and spacing of all supporting posts: construction details for the connections, between the supporting posts and the house framing. Also provide cross-reference from details to plans for each one of the guardrails. 27. Show the retaining wall at the New Shower. See Foundation Plan and Section A/A5.0 of architectural plans. • Specify on plans the water proofing material, including ICBO or equal approved number. 28. 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 - page 25). Specify on plans the underlavment for the slab on grade. 33. Show location of attic access with a minimum size of 22"x30", unless the maximum vertical headroom height in the attic is less than 30". Access must be provided to each separated attic area, shall be located in a hallway or other readily accessible location and 30" headroom clearance is required above the opening. Section 1505.1. • Please show it on plans at the new attic spaces areas. 36. Note that passageway to the mechanical equipment in the attic shall be unobstructed and have continuous solid flooring not less than 24 inches wide, not more than 20 feet in length through the attic. UMC Section 908.0. • As shown on plans the FAU is located more than 20' away from the attic access. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. EsGil Corporation In fartntrsKip witK government for Quitting Safety DATE: October 1, 2004 J3_AP£LJCANT JURISDICTION: Carlsbad Q PLAN REVIEWER Q FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS:-O44»-Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: SFD Add./Remodel for Joan Porter Residence I I The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. I 1 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. I I The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. [/5 The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. f~l The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Kamak Planning and Design 2802 State St., Suite C, Carlsbad, CA 92008 [~1 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did, ad vise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: KamaKVarB Telephone #: (760) 434-8400 Date contacted: f%y0C/(ty$/) Fax #: (760) 434-8493 MalK-^Telephonep' Fax -'in Person REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA S MB O EJ D PC 9/20 tmsmB.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 > San Diego, California 92123 + (858)560-1468 4 Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 04-3591 October 1, 2OO4 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 2643 Ocean St. DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 9/20 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591 DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: October 1, 2004 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. • 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. • 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? Q Yes a NO Carlsbad O4-3591 October 1, 2004 1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports 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. 2. All sheets of plans must be signed by the person responsible for their preparation. (California Business and Professions Code). 3. Structural plans and specifications 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). 4. Provide a statement on the Title Sheet of the plans stating that this project shall comply with the 2001 edition of the California Building Code (Title 24), which adopts the 1997 UBC, 2000 UMC, 2000 UPC and the 1999 NEC. 5. When special inspection is required, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Please review Section 106.3.5. Please complete the attached form. 6. Show locations of permanently wired smoke detectors with battery backup: a) Centrally located in corridor or area giving access to sleeping rooms. i) Missing at Hall giving access to (E) Bedroom at the Street Level • NOTE: Detectors shall sound an alarm audible in ajl sleeping areas of the unit. Section 310.9.1. 7. When the valuation of a room addition or repair exceeds $1,000, or when sleeping rooms are created, smoke detectors shall be provided per the above, except that smoke detectors added at existing construction need only be battery powered. Section 310.9.1.2. 8. Elevators shall be enclosed in a one-hour shaft. Section 711. 9. Every opening into an elevator shaft enclosure shall be protected by a self-closing fire assembly having a one-hour fire rating. Section 711.4. Carlsbad O4-3591 October 1, 20O4 10. Elevator shafts extending through more than two floor levels shall be vented to the outside. The area of vent shall be not less than 3 1/2% of the shaft area and a minimum of 3 square feet per elevator. Section 3004. 11. When the elevator vertical travel is 25' or more, the elevator lobby or entrance area shall be provided with an approved smoke detector as required by Section 3003.2. 12. Sleeping rooms shall have a window or exterior door for emergency escape. Sill height shall not exceed 44" above the floor. Windows must have an openable area of at least 5.7 square feet with the minimum openable width 20" and the minimum openable height 24". The emergency door or window shall be openable from the inside to provide a full, clear opening without the use of separate tools. Section 310.4. a) Show it on plans for the (E) Bedroom adjacent to the (N) Laundry at the Upper Level. 13. Provide mechanical ventilation capable of providing five air changes per hour in bathrooms and water closet compartments if required openable windows are not provided. Section 1203.3. 14. Note that the discharge point for exhaust air will be at least 3 feet from any opening which allows air entry into occupied portions of the building. Section 1203.3. 15. Show that ceiling height for habitable rooms is a minimum of 7'-6". Section 310.6.1. 16. Show ceiling height for laundry rooms, hallways, corridors, and bathrooms is a minimum of 7'-0". Section 310.6.1. 17. Glazing in the following locations should be of safety glazing material in accordance with Section 2406.4 (see exceptions): a) Fixed or operable panels adjacent to a door where the nearest exposed edge of the glazing is within a 24-inch arc of either vertical edge of the door in a dosed position and where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches above the walking surface. • Windows adjacent to entry door. • Window G adjacent to door 4 at Street Level. • Windows O adjacent to door 5 at (E) Master Bedroom. b) Individual fixed or operable panels, other than those locations described above, that meet all of the following conditions: i) Exposed area of an individual pane is greater than 9 square feet, and: ii) Exposed bottom edge is less than 18 inches above the floor, and: iii) Exposed top edge is greater than 36 inches above the floor, and: iv) One or more walking surfaces are within 36 inches horizontally of the plane of the glazing. • Window Type 7. c) Glass railings, regardless of height, above a walking surface (including structural baluster panels and nonstructural in-fill panels). Carlsbad 04-3591 October 1, 2004 18. Guardrails (Section 509.1): a) Shalt be detailed snowing adequacy of connections to resist the horizontal force prescribed in Table 16-B. i) Provide complete construction details for each guardrail, including: Specifications of size and spacing of all supporting posts; construction details for the connections, between the supporting posts and the house framing. Also provide cross-reference from details to plans for each one of the guardrails. b) Openings between railings shall be less than 4". The triangular openings formed by the riser, tread and bottom element of a guardrail at a stair shall be less than 6". 19. Handrails (Section 1003.3.3.6): a) Handrails and extensions shall be 34" to 38" above nosing of treads and be continuous. i) Provide complete construction details and cross-reference details to plans. b) The handgrip portion of all handrails shall be not less than 1-1/4 inches nor more than 2 inches in cross-sectional dimension. Handrails projecting from walls shall have at least 1-1/2 inches between the wall and the handrail. i) Provide cross-reference from details to plans. c) Ends of handrails shall be returned or shall have rounded terminations or bends, i) Provide complete construction details and cross-reference details to plans. 20. Provide details of winding stairway complying with Section 1003.3.3.8.2: a) Minimum tread is 6 inches at any point and minimum 9 inches at a point 12 inches from where the treads are narrowest. b) Maximum rise is 8 inches. c) Minimum width is 36 inches. d) Provide complete construction details and cross-reference details to plans. 21. Specify on the plans the following information for the roof materials, per Section 106.3.3: a) ICBO approval number, or equal. 22. Per local ordinance, a Class A roof is required. 23. Provide skylight details to show compliance with Sections 2409 and 2603, or specify on the plans the following information for the skylight(s), per Section 106.3.3: a) Manufacturer's name. b) Model name/number. c) ICBO approval number, or equal. 24. Show the required ventilation for attics (or enclosed rafter spaces formed where ceilings are applied directly to the underside of roof rafters). The minimum vent area is 1/150 of attic area (or 1 /300 of attic area if at least 50% of the required vent is at least 3 feet above eave vents or cornice vents). Show area required and area provided. Section 1505.3. Carlsbad 04-3591 October 1, 2004 25. Where eave vents are installed, insulation shall not block the free flow of air. A minimum of 1" of air space shall be provided between the insulation and the roof sheathing. To accommodate the thickness of insulation plus the required 1" clearance, member sizes may have to be increased for rafter-ceiling joists. Section 1505.3. 26. Note on the plans: "Attic ventilation openings shall be covered with corrosion-resistant metal mesh with mesh openings of 1/4-inch in dimension." Section 1505.3. 27. Show the retaining wall at the New Shower. See Foundation Plan and Section A/A5.0 of architectural plans. 28. 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 - page 25). 29. Please clarify the soils report statement that an F'c = 4,000 PSI, is required per code, included on page 13 at "SOLUBLE SULFATES/PH RESISTIVITY". 30. Please include in the soils report the EFP values recommended for the retaining walls design. 31. If required, show size, embedment and location of hold down anchors on foundation plan. Section 106.3.3. 32. If hold downs are required, note on plan that hold down anchors must be tied in place prior to foundation inspection. Section 108.5.2. 33. Show location of attic access with a minimum size of 22"x30", unless the maximum vertical headroom height in the attic is less than 30". Access must be provided to each separated attic area, shall be located in a hallway or other readily accessible location and 30" headroom clearance is required above the opening. Section 1505.1. 34. Show source of combustion air to furnace, per Chapter 7, UMC. Specify the location and sizes of both of the combustion air openings. 35. Show an access opening to the equipment in attics to large enough to remove the largest piece of equipment by not less that 30" x 22". UMC Section 908. 36. Note that passageway to the mechanical equipment in the attic shall be unobstructed and have continuous solid flooring not less than 24 inches wide, not more than 20 feet in length through the attic. UMC Section 908.0. 37. Show a permanent electrical receptacle outlet and lighting fixture controlled by a switch located at the entrance for furnaces located in an attic or underfloor space. UMC Sections 908.0 & 909.0. 38. Note on plan: Gas vents and noncombustible piping in walls, passing through three floors or less, shall be effectively draft stopped at each floor or ceiling. UBC, Section 711.3. Carlsbad O4-3591 October 1, 2004 39. Detail the dryer exhaust duct design from the dryer to the exterior. The maximum length is 14 feet with (two) 90° elbows. UMC Section 504.2.2. 40. See attached list for electrical corrections. 41. See attached list for energy corrections. 42. If special inspection is required, the designer shall complete the attached Special Inspection Notice. 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 Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. ELECTRICAL AND ENERGY CORRECTIONS PLAN REVIEWER: Morteza Beheshti 43. All electrical sheets of the plans are required to be signed by the California licensed engineer responsible for the plan preparation. Please include the California license number, seal, date of license expiration and the date the plans are signed. Business and Professions Code. • ELECTRICAL (1999 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE) 44. Show or note on the plans the method used to limit fault currents to 10,000 amps on branch circuits. NEC 230-208 45. Provide GFI protected receptade(s) within 25 feet of HVAC equipment. NEC 210-8(b)2 & 210-63. 46. "All branch circuits that supply 125 - volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere receptacle outlets installed in dwelling unit bedrooms shall be protected by an arc-fault circuit interrupters)." Please show on unit panel schedule circuit(s). NEC 210-12 47. Show on the plan the location of the service. NEC 110-26,230-2. 48. Show the location of all panels and load centers. NEC 110-26,240-24,300-21. 49. Note the following requirements on the prints for panelboards supplying fire alarm equipment: Lockable cover, identified (red) circuit breaker, and the installation of a "lock off device. 50. Show exit signs on the lighting plan(s) at all required exits and specify them as being self-luminous or having a second source of power (battery or generator). This is required when two exits are required per the UBC. UBC 1013.4 and NEC 700-16. Carlsbad 04-3591 October 1, 2OO4 51. If utilizing a series-rated system, note on plans: "Overcurrent device enclosures will be identified as series-rated and labeled in accordance with NEC 110-22" and The overcurrent devices shall be AIC rated per manufacturers, labeling of the electrical equipment". 52. Rebar OR ground rods are not acceptable grounding electrodes for commercial applications in the City of Carlsbad. Please describe what the "UFER" ground will be. (footage, conductor material and size, depth in footing.) • ENERGY CONSERVATION 53. The energy form CF-IR imprinted on plans must be signed. 54. Provide fluorescent general lighting (40 lumens per watt minimum) in kitchen(s) and bathrooms. Note: If you have any questions regarding this Electrical or Energy plan review list please contact Morteza Beheshti at (858) 560-1468. To speed the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where the corrected items have been addressed on the plans. Carlsbad 04-3591 October 1, 2004 City of Carlsbad " ' ^ '"••'^••••••••••••^•^••••••••••••••HBuilding Department BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION Do Not Remove From Plans Plan Check No. O4-3591 Job Address or Legal Description 2643 Ocean St. Owner ._ Address You are hereby notified that in addition to the inspection of construction provided by the Building Department, an approved Registered Special Inspector is required to provide continuous inspection during the performance of the phases of construction indicated on the reverse side of this sheet. The Registered Special Inspector shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Building Department prior to the issuance of the building permit. Special Inspectors having a current certification from the City of San Diego, Los Angeles, or ICBO are approved as Special Inspectors for the type of construction for which they are certified. The inspections by a Special Inspector do not change the requirements for inspections by personnel of the City of Carlsbad building department. The inspections by a Special Inspector are in addition to the inspections normally required by the County Building Code. The Special Inspector is not authorized to inspect and approve any work other than that for which he/she is specifically assigned to inspect. The Special Inspector is not authorized to accept alternate materials, structural changes, or any requests for plan changes. The Special Inspector is required to submit written reports to the City of Carlsbad building department of all work that he/she inspected and approved. The final inspection approval will not be given until all Special Inspection reports have been received and approved by the City of Carlsbad building department. Please submit the names of the inspectors who will perform the special inspections on each of the items indicated on the reverse side of this sheet. (over) Carlsbad 04-3591 October 1, 20O4 {SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN CHECK NUMBER: OWNER'S NAME: I, as the owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may not employ the special inspector), certify that I, or the architect/engineer of record, will be responsible for employing the special inspectors) as required by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 1701.1 for the construction project located at the site listed above. UBC Section 106.3.5. Signed I, as the engineer/architect of record, certify that I have prepared the following special inspection program as required by UBC Section 106.3.5 for the construction project located at the site listed above. Signed 1. List of work requiring special inspection: Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection Q Field Welding Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI Prestressed Concrete Structural Masonry Designer Specified High Strength Bolting Expansion/Epoxy Anchors Sprayed-On Fireproofing Other 2. Name(s) of individual(s) or firm(s) responsible for the special Inspections listed above: A B. C. 3. Duties of the special inspectors for the work listed above: A • ____^__ B. C. Special inspectors shall check In with the City and present their credentials for approval prior to beginning work on the job site. Carlsbad O4-3591 October 1, 20O4 {VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PREPARED BY: Sergio Azuela BUILDING ADDRESS: 2643 Ocean St. BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R-3 & U-l PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591 DATE: October 1, 2004 SFD Add. /Rem./ Joan Porter House TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-N BUILDING PORTION Dwelling Add. Dwelling Rem. Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code AREA (Sq.FL) 1568 4557 cb Valuation Multiplier By Ordinance Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) 313,747 313,747 1994 UBC Building Permit Fee 1994 UBC Plan Check Fee H Type Of Review: D Repetitive Fee Complete Review Q Other r-i Hourly Structural Only Hour1 Esgll Plan Review Fee $1,205.68 $783.69 $675.18 Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc ESGIL CORP.Fax:1858S6D1576 Get 4 20M 15:01 P. U CtrUbad 0+3591 October I, 3004 SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS OR LEGAL DC8CMPT1ON: 2-^3 OO&tj _Sff PLAN CHECK NUMBER: * -If OWNER'S NAME; I. «• the wow, or agtnt of the owner (contractors may net employ the ipocial Inspector), ew«y*«i I, by LWferm BuMing Code (UBC) Section 1701.1 for tt* construction project located at the ate toted . U8C Section 106.9.5. 1,»the mttaeeriiiiehfoct of icoo^ required fcy UBC Sectioa 106 J.3 fer the construction project located at die dte listed above. 1. U Soil* CompMence Piter to Foundation InepMtfon Structural Concnto Over 2800 P» SpriyeoVOn ftotpnVKng Other 2. Nme(*) of »ndlvidu»Ki) or flnn(*) responsible for the •pecitf inspectlOM iMed »bov*: B. C, 3. A, B. C. tilf B'd VO SO DATE: BUILDING JjfoDR^SS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST PLANCHECK NO.: CB 'Q ty 3£F[/ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval Is based on plans, Information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. A Right-of-Way permit is required prior to construction of the following improvements: DENIAL Please sebthe^ attached report of deficiencies marked wfthJffMake necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. Dedication Application Dedication Checklist Improvement Application Improvement Checklist Future Improvement Agreement Grading Permit Application Grading Submittal Checklist Right-of-Way Permit Application Right-of-Way Permit Submittal Checklist and Information Sheet Sewer Fee Information Sheet ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON Name: JOANNE JUCHNIEWICZ City of Carlsbad Address: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (760) 602-2775 CFD INFORMATION Parcel Map No: ' Lots: Recordation: Carlsbad Tract A-4 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST SITE PLAN D D 1- Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: -A. North Arrow v F. Rightof-Way Width ^ B. Existing & Proposed Structures G. Driveway widths v v C. Existing Street Improvements H. Existing or proposed sewer lateral D. Property Lines I. Existing or proposed water service E. Easements J. Existing or proposed irrigation service 2. Show on site plan: A. Drainage Patterns 1 . Building pad surface drainage must maintain a minimum slope of one percent towards an adjoining street or an approved drainage course. 2. ADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE: "Finish grade will provide a minimum positive drainage of 2% to swale 5* away from building." B. Existing & Proposed Slopes and Topography C. 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. D. Sewer and water laterals should not be located within proposed driveways, per standards. 3. Include on title sheet: A. Site address B. Assessor's Parcel Number C. Legal Description For commercial/industrial buildings and tenant improvement projects, include: total building square footage with the square footage for each different use, existing sewer permits showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, warehouse, office, etc.) previously approved. EXISTING PERMIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION D D D BUILDING PLANCHECKCHEC^IST DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE t nnmnhf with the fnHnwing Engineering Conditions of a REQUIREMENTS P.fW:"- jication 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 $15^000, 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 Va* x 11" plat map and submit with a title report. All easement documents must be approved and signed by owners) prior to issuance of Building Permit. Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the dedication process. Submit the completed application form with the required checklist items and fees to the Engineering Department in person. Applications will not be accept by mail or fax. Dedication completed by:Date: an a IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS 6a. All needed public improvements upon and adjacent to the building site must be constructed at time of building construction whenever the value of the construction exceeds $75.000. 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 1ST 2ND 3'RD ODD 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 $3fc 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. Future public improvements required as follows: • . - • . •.. ^ • • 6c. Enclosed please find your Future Improvement Agreement. Please return agreement signed and notarized to the Engineering Department. Future Improvement Agreement completed by: • : __. • : ;'; .•'-•- Date: 6d. No Public Improvements required. SPECIAL NOTE: Damaged or defective improvements found adjacent to building site must be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Inspector prior to occupancy. D D D D D D 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 Grading Permit must be issued and rough grading approval obtained prior to issuance of a Building Permit. D D D Grading Inspector sign off by:Date: 7c. Graded Pad Certification required. (Note: Pad certification may be required even if a grading permit is not required.) WWOAOWOCKHKLSra BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST D D ^ an 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 1 not limited to: street improvements, tree trimming, driveway construction, tying into public storm drain, sewer and water utilities. Right-of-Way permit required for __^_ 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: 0. 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. Q 11. Q-Required fees are attached a No fees required WATER METER REVIEW Q 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 5/8" service. 3"° D BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKUST • 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). Atypical 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). Irrigation Use (where recycled water is not available) All Irrigation meters must be sized via irrigation 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 T, and potable water is typically a circled "W". The irrigation service should look like: STA1+00 Install 2" service and 3. 1.5: meter (estimated 100 gpm) If the improvement plans do not list the irrigation meter and the service/meter 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 gpm use per head) Include a 10% residual pressure at point of connection In general, all major sloped areas of a subdivision/project 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 6 Kw.T/MMB 8T >RD BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST service boundary, the City intends on switching services/meters to a new recycled water line in the future. 12c. Irrigation Use (where recycled water Is available) these irrigation 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. 3. Additional Comments; R*v. 7/1400 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check Planner APN:_ Type of Project & Use: Zoning: r^J General Plan:_ CFD (in/out) #_Date of participation^ _ Facilities Management Zone: / Remaining net dev acres: Circle One nonrresidential development: Type of land used created by this permit: _ ) Legend: £<] Item Complete Q Item Incomplete - Needs your action Environmental Review Required: YES NOVy TYPE DATE OF COMPLETION: / Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Q Discretionary Action Required: APPROVAL/RESO. NO. 5ji^ PROJECT NO. YES £_ NO DAJE TYPE OTHER RELATED CASES: Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state coBBfflon^-whlcTrrequire action. Conditions of Approval: Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES [C. INO CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES_ If California Coastal Commission Authority: Conta6t them at - 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego CA 92108-4402; (619) 767-2370 * - Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt): (—^(s/ ^ ^ Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed? YES NO If NO, complete Coastal Permit Determination Form now. Coastal Permit Determination Log #: Follow-Up Actions: 1) Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit RequirecT (at minimum Floor Plans). 2) Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed. Inclusionary Housing Fee required: YES NO (Effective date of Inclusionary Housjrjg-Ordinance - May^21, 1993.) v Data Entry Completed ?j£i8^ NO (A/P/Ds, Activity Mairrfenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, Housing Fees, Construct Housing Y/N, Enter Fee, UTOATE!) H:\ADMIN\COUNTER\adgPlnchkRevChklst Rev 9/01 Site Plan: [3 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). . CH CD 2. Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number. Policy 44 - Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines D D 1- Applicability: YES V A NO D D D D 2. Project complies YES Zoning: 1.Setbacks: Front: Interior Side: Street Side: Rear: Top of slope: Required Required Required Required Required Shown Shown Shown O' 3IIUWMT D D 2. Accessory structure setbacks: Front: Interior Side: Street D D D D D D ructure separation 3. Lot Coverage: 4. Height: >. Parking: Require, Squired Required Required Required Required Required Spaces Required Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown (breakdown by uses for commercial and industrial projects required) Residential Guest Spaces Required Shown Additional Comments OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER DATE H:\ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPlnchkRevChklst Rev 9/01 SUN Structural Engineering, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Joan Porter Remodel Date: 11/2004 By: C.Sun BUILDING DEPARTMENT CORRECTION ITEM NO. 3. 5. 27. 29. 31. 32. 42. EXPLANATIONS SEE STAMPED AND SIGNED STUCTURAL PLANS SEE ATTACHED SPECIAL INSPECTION FORM SEE REVISED STRUCTURAL PLANS S-2 AND S-3 SEE REVISED S-lf CONCRETE TO BE 4500 PSI SEE REVISED S-3 SEE FOUNDATION NOTE 2 ON S-3 SEE ATTACHED SPECIAL INSPECTION FORM ESGIL CORP.Fax:18585601576 Oct 4 2004 15:01 P. U Carlabad 04*3591 October 1,2004 SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS OR LEGAL DSSCWPTON: 2-£f5 OC&^l $t PLAN CHECK NUMBER:OWNER-SNAKE I. as the owiw, or agtnt of me ownor (contractors may us! «r^ the •oocW Inspector), corty that I. or the architoct/ertfrwor of record, wW bt naporaible «promploylripth«»p«cWin8p«*»<»)asriqub«l by Uniferm BuMng Code (UfiC) Section 1701.1 for thft oon»taictk>n project located at the site toted above. U8C 9«cti6n 106.3,9, requiftd by UBC Section 106.3.5 for the construction project located »t Ac ate listed above. 1. U« of work r»qulrlng *peeiai Msptetion: Structural Concrato Over 2600 PSI 2, Nanw(«) of lndivWu»H») or finn(*) responsible for th* BiMeitflfiflpoetlOM Hstotf »bovt; B. C. 3. Dutfe* of thesptciai Inspectors for the work llctod A. . B. . x C. " 70 tin BptoW impMiMl *•• *«K in wtti (h» City and pn«m ft* vrttntfcK for i to so Karnak Planning & Design, Inc. Robert Richardson, Planner 2802 State Street, Suite C, Carlsbad, Ca 92008 (760) 434-8400 Fax (760) 434-8493 e-mail: karnakarch@aol.com December 14,2004 To:ESGILCorp Attention: Sergio Azuela Reference: Plan Check #04-3591 SFD AddJRemodel for Joan Porter Residence 2643 Ocean Street. Carlsbad The following is a response to the Plan Review Comments, Dated December 3.2004 as sent to the City of Carlsbad and to Karnak P & D. All changes clouded and marked w/Delta 2 made to the plans are a result of the corrections listed in this plan check. There are no other revisions made to the plans. Item 1; Please refer to plans and documents included with this response. Item 2; See plan set for stamps and signatures on all sheets. Item 9; Please refer to the plans, sheets Cl .0 and A6.0 for added note. Item 10; Please refer to the plans, sheet A3.0 and to detail 6/ad3.0 for the revised size of the elevator shaft vent to a net opening of 3 square feet (vent housing approximately l'-5" high x 3 '-6" wide or as required). Item 11; Please refer to the plans, sheets E2 and E3 for smoke alarms at elevator doors. Items 17; Please refer to the plans, sheets Al .0 and Al. 1 for added "TEMP" notation at windows requiring safety glass. Item 18; Please refer to the plans, sheet A5.1 and to details 3 & 8/AD2.0 and 10,13 & 14/AD4.0. Item 27; Please refer to the plans, sheet A5.0, for foundation waterproofing note. The Liquid Boot waterproofing system has a Los Angeles LA Report RR24860 and has passed a multitude of ASTM tests. Please refer to attached specification sheets. We are using the Liquid Boot spray-on membrane protected by the Ultra Shield 6200 drain mat for vertical surface application that drains the water down to the French drain. Item 28; Please refer to the structural plans for slab underlayment. Item 33; Please refer to the plans, sheet Al. 1. There was already an attic access shown in the hallway of the main house as sheet note item 21. A second access has been added in the entry area of the one-bedroom unit above the garage if it is required. Item 36; Please refer to the plans, sheet Al. 1. The attic access for the new FAU above the ceiling level in the one-bedroom unit above the garage is located in the interior wall above a plant shelf/platform and leads to an attic that is only about 14'-0" in total length, end to end (above the vanity area of the bathroom plus the wet bar area. Beyond the wet bar and above the family room area and above the bedroom is a vaulted/cathedral ceiling. The HVAV plan is only schematic - the FAU unit cannot physically be more than lO'-O" or so from the access opening to allow the necessary FAU unit and space around it. The new ductwork will travel through a new attic area above the entry area for the above-garage unit and above the bridging platform/elevator-stair landing. Thank you, Mike Flintjer Project Manager Karnak Planning & Design PH.: 760-434-8400 FAX: 760-434-8493 SUN ngfitMrlng, Inc. 2525 ?w Pico Dr. CiAb«l.CA. TeJ/Fw: Date: December 13,20041 To: Mr. Mike Fax: (760)434-8493 From: ChanghuaSun Re: Guatdrail detail fooi Joan] Total Pages Including This: 12 Hi Mike: Please find (he included < revise your details accordingly.! 10:00 Please call me if you have any <niestioi& Thank yon. Sincerely, ChangouaSunJS.E. Russell Remodel | for guv 1-rail attachmcDt for the above-mentioned project Please j Will ha* B the signed plans ready far you to pick up by tomorrow o h-o Ld Oo Specifications - Waterproofing Fage 1 of3 1 1 htt[ SECTION 07100 FLUID APPLIED WATERPI version) PART 2 - PRODUCTS 2.01 MATERIALS - 384-0111. tOOl a**c j UHJBt Oil WATERPR> So« Burial DF fn *" ipi I * njl m i ^ j :Water Vapor Permeability ' Water Vapor Transmission GAS VAPOR 1M Hydrogen SuMde Gas PermeaMKy Benzene, Toufene, Ethytene, xytene,Ga9 Sodium Sutfate (2% water solution) Add £xposuva(l(Mb H^SQ^ juy on tfaygi Radon Permeability Micro Organism Resistance (Soil Burial)average weight change, average tei tensile stress change, average etortj methane permeability Methane Permeability «! i 4 i , i j :MBR/ *, Hew i ^^ i el "• weight change, average tensile stream ] K//www.licjmdboot.com/speci j ; tes^re tonjchi j the ^—Aiixvau •g 1 \ i *ng \\ mmt & VERSION 2.4 •d. Call LBI Tocbnetofltaev Inc. at (714) 384-O111 for moat recant hw miH Ir twm^at unnlbirl M NE lh change, average ge, bonded seams. !, average tensile wtr 2.4 2.html lanufactured by LBI Technologies, Inc. Santa Ana, CA (714) TEST METHOD ASTME154-88 ASTMD2434 ASTME96 ASTME96 TEST METHOD ASTM 01343 ASTM 0543, O412, D1434 (tested at 20,000 ppm) ASTM D543, 0412, O143 ASTM 0543 Tested by US Dept of Energy ASTM 06392 ASTM 04068-88 ASTM 1434-82 ASTMD543-87 VALUE Passed <7.75 x 10-9 cm/sec 0.24 perms 0.10 gratns/h-ft2 VALUE None Detected Passed In gas permeability and weight change Passed m gas permeaMNty and weight change Less than 1% weight change Zero permeabWty to Radon (222Rn) Passed Passed Passed Passed 12/14/200-1 Specifications - Waterproofing Page 2 of3 ( httf stress change, average elongation change, bo methane permeability { Heat Aging average elongation change, bondec 'eragetens seams Dead Load Seam Strength POTABLE WATER ToxWtyTest22 Potable Water Containment GENERAL INFORM Coefficient of Friction (with geotexttto bofcskte CoM Bend Test ! Freeze-Thaw Resistance (100 Cydes) ' \ - ' 1 - f Hydrostatic Head Resistance i Elongation Tensile Strength Tensile Strength wtth 8oz. non-woven ge « lv*ti 9textHc . : . • i 1 • ; i Flame Spread Bectric Volume Resbtivfty ; I i - Agency Approvals - j • Oty of Uw Angeles Research Report -iRR Approved for "LIQUID BOOT* Spray Appl )://www.liquidboot,com/specificati ided seams. lie stress change. ilATION r cklA< hnrh rHte t \ \ '. { :: MHflil[•HKH BdH I i hni sides snorvne for Below Grade wtr_2.4_2.htailj ASTMD4068-88 1 Oty of Los Angeles ASTM 01693-78 TEST METHOD CCR 66696 ANSVNSF61 TEST METHOD ASTM 05321 ASTMD146 ASTMA742 ASTMD822 ASTMD751 ASTMO412 ASTMD751 ASTHD412 ASTMD751 ASTMD413 ASTMD4833 ASTME10S ASTMD257 VtOUSI |MUUIHiy Passed Passed Passed VALUE Passed. CCR Btoassay-Fiathead Ifinnow NSF OrtMed for tanks > 300,000 gaBons VALUE 0.72 Passed. No cracking at -25°F Meets criteria. No spading orlUfttmmu itm»i **»ilcnSDonafnenc Tested to 138 feet or 60 p.s.1 1332% without reinforcement, 90% recovery 100% (same as geotextlle tested separately) SB p.s.1. wHnout remrorcement 196 p.s.1. (same as geotextHe tested separately) 2,556 lbs/tt2upHrt force 286 •». (travel of probe - 0.756Inches) (same as geobextfte tested separately) Class A wtth top coat (comparable toUL790) 1.91 xio10 ohms-cm 12/14/2004 OgV* J V/i J • United States Navy Approved for "LIQUID BOOT® for use Wqrtd Wkte to Waterproof Earth-Covered Steel Ammunitton Storage' • County of Kem Environmental HealthSaMceslDepartment Approved for "UQUn> BOOT* asp Methane Barrier* • NSF International \ ! NSF/61 approved tor "Potable Water Tank I • Canadian Construction Materials Board j Approved for "Waterproofing and Dampproofmg* • County of Los Angeles Department of PuWc Works Approved for "LIQUID BOOT* AppOc?Uo* as a| Methane Gas Barrier' D. LZQUIO BOOT* 500 - '•. • LIQUID BOOT 500 may be used In Men of LIQUID BOdjfe (described to section 2.01 B atove) where the membrane Is m* exposed to hydrostatic head pressure. The Agency Approvals In section 2JOIG above do not apply to LIQUID BOOT* 500. The physical properties of LIQUID BOOT* 500 are as follows: Note: LIQUID BOOT* 500 may tend to sag on vertical! at these locations. i. i: L I WATERPROOFING at higher ambient temperatures. When this condition occurs,useUQUID BOOT* E. Protection - On vertical surfaces, use: LIQUID architect or engineer. :.• On horizontal surfaces, use: LIQUID BOOT* UftraSh»ek engineer. ! M j of the LIQUID BOOT* U IffiraShiekl P-100 or other protections as approved by the manufacturer, project P-150 or other protections as approved by the manufacturer, project architect or t IM •ppnwed by tiw •, Including UM i F. Prefabricated Drainage Mat - On vertical surfaces, us^: LIQUID BOOT* UttraDrain 6200. : :' ! • I On horizontal surfaces, use: LIQUID BOOT* QttraPralri 9000 ''•• '- < ! G. Adhesive system for LIQUID BOOT* UftraShield andiuQUID BOOT* UttraDrain : Use LIQUID BOOT* UitraGrtp. H. Geotextte - Typar 3401 non-« be used as the application surface. Some projects igeotextHe, I. Cold Joints, Cracks, and Form Tie Notes: Co edwttti otherwls dried and approved by membrane manufacturer. The heat-rolled side shaB rjequire a heavier geotextte (Typar 3631 or 3801). Hardcast CRT 1602 Tape 3" wide. http://www.liquidboot.com/specificationsAvtr 2.4_2.html 12/14/2004 Q PLAN REVIEWER Q FILE EsGil Corporation In &utnm&ip Witt govtntmentftrQuili(aigS<rffty DATE: December 3, 20O4 | JURISDICTION: Carlsbad j PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591 i SET: II PROJECT ADDRESS: 2643 Ocean St.; ; 1 PROJECT NAME: SFD Add./Remodc 1 for Joan Porter Residence I I The plans transmitted herewith haves been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building cedes. Q 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. l~l The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and re&ubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plan s aie submitted for recheck. l"~l The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. |M| - 1 • ;! ";" < • "'1 The applicant's copy of the check Ii; it has been sent to: Kamak Planning and Design MM 2802 State St., Suite C, Carlsbad, CA 92008^ i? ii: 1: :' Esgil Corporation staff did not advi:>e the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise tt e applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Mike ! Telephone #: (760) 434-8400 Date contacted:j2-/6' oy (by:^^ Fax #: (760) 434-8493 MaiL^-Telephone Fax^/ In Person REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 Enclosures: 11/23 tmsmtLdot San Diego, California 92123 • (858)560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad O4-3591 December 3, 20O4 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 2643 Ocean St. DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 11/23 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Aznela PLAN CHECK NO.: O4-3591 SET: H DATE RECHECK COMPLETED: December 3, 2OO4 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. AH 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. 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. B. 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. C. 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? QYes QNo Carlsbad O4-3591 December 3, 2OO4 1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list Submit three sets of plans lor commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For! expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: : v 1. Deliver all connected sets of jplans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans tojEsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. i ; i 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 |nd 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. I ) ii i 2. All sheets of plans mustjjbe signed by the person responsible for their preparation. (California Business an| Professions Code). 9. Every opening into an elevator shaft enclosure shall be protected by a self-closing fire assembly having a one-lour fire rating. Section 711.4. Doors other than tfte holstwav door and the elevator car door are prohibited at the point of access to elevator car, except doors readily ooenabie from the car side. Section 3007. 10. Elevator shafts extending through more than two floor levels shall be vented to the outside. The area of ve|t shall be not less than 3 1/2% of the shaft area and a minimum of 3 square feet per elevator. Section 3004. ''i \ '- •• H : .! 11. When the elevator vertical travel is 25* or more, the elevator lobby or entrance area shall be provided with an app roved! smoke detector as required by Section 3003.2. • The required smok » detectors were not shown on plans. Original correction is still applicable. 17. The following windows shall be dearly shown on plans to have safety glass: • Windows adjacent to entry door. • Window G adjacent to door 4 at Street Level. • Windows O adjacent to door 5 at (E) Master Bedroom. • Window TypeT7. ! • Clearly show on plans which particular doors and windows shall be provided with safety glass. General notes will not be adequate to resolve this correction. Carlsbad O4-3591 December 3, 20O4 18. Guardrails (Section 509.1): a) Shall be detailed showing adequacy of connections to resist the horizontal force prescribed in Table 16-B. i) Provide complete construction details for each guardrail, including: Specifications of size and spacing of all supporting posts; posts anc construction details for the connections, between the supporting the house framing. Also provide cross-reference from details toioians for each one of the guardrails. 27. Show the retaining wall at the New Shower. See Foundation Ran and Section A/A5.0 of architectural plans. ; • Specify on plans the water proofing material, including ICBO or equal approved number. M 28. 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 byjthe soil report - page 25). Specify on plans the underiavment for the slab on grade, i 33. Show location of attic access with a minimum size of 22"x30", unless the maximum vertical headroom height in the attic is less than 30". Access must be provided to each separated attic area, shall be located in a hallway or other readily accessible location and 30" headroom clearance is required above the opening. Section 1505.1. • Please show it on plans at the new attic spaces areas. 36. Note that passageway to the mechanical equipment in the attic shall be unobstructed and have continuous solid flooring not less than 24 inches wide, not more than 20 feet in length through the attic. UMC Section 908.0. • As shown on plans! the FAU is located more than 20' away from the attic access. If you have any questions regarding these plan review Items, please contact Sergio Azuela. at Esgil Corporation, thank you. Specifications - Waterproofing Page 3 of3 • United States NavyApproved for "LIQUID BOOT® for use WprM WWe to Waterproof Earth-Covered Sted Ammunition Storage" • O>uiity of Kem Environmental HeaWSeivk^'Department Approved for "LIQUID BOOT® as a Methane Barrier' • NSF International i ' NSF/61 approvwl for 1>Dtable Water Tank Uner" • Canadian Construction Materials Board I -\ Approved for •Waterproofing and Dampproofine" • County of Los Angeles Department of PuNc Works Approved tor "UQUIO BOOT* AppteaHoB as a Methane Gas Barrier* -.- "- '-i 0. UQUXD BOOT* SOO M !LIQUID BOOT 500 may be used m lieu of LIQUID BOOT* (described In section 2.01 B above) where the membrane to not exposed to hydrostatic head pressure. Tht Agency Approvals in section 2|0l C above do not apply to UQAJIDBOCn* 500. The prryskal properties rfLK^IDJBOOT* 500^ Note: LIQUID BOOT* 500 may tend to sag oj)vertical surfaces at higher ambient temperatures. When this condition occurs.use LIQUID BOOT* at these locations. : ¥ I '\ WATERPROOFING Bongatlon Bond Seam Strength Tests Methane Permeability Wdter Vapor TEST METHOD ASTM (Ml?) ASTMD6392J ?M3« A5TMJE96 DIM to the <• Job. VALUE 800% Passed None detected 0.18 perms E. Protection - On vertical surfaces, use: LIQUID BOOT* UtraSNeld P-100 or other protections as approved by the manufacturer, projectarchitect or engineer. : On horizontal surfaces, use: LIQUID BOOT* Uttra$hield P-150 or other proterttons as aporwed by «ie marwracturer, projed architect or engineer. ; 5; i. must b« approved by th* of the) UQU1P BOOT* UftraStHeM prodncta. ) M- j; :• F. Prefabricated Drainage Mat - On vertical surfaces, use: LIQUID BOOT* UttraDram 6200. '• ( i :iOn horizontal surfaces, use: LIQUID BOOT* UttraDram 9000 -• • \ l G. Adhesive system for LIQUID BOOT* UtttaShtelr) and JUQ^ID BOOT* URraDnta : Use UQIHD BOOT* URraGrfp. H. GeotextM-Typar 3401 non-woven g^ofeextUe, Unless othervrisespedAed ami approved by m be used as the application surface. Some projects may ifeo^lre a heavier geotextte (Typar 3631 or 3801) I. CoM Joints, Cracks, and Form Tie Holes: Covered with Hardcast CRT 1602 Tape 3* wide. 1.4 2.html 12/14/2004 RESPONSE TO PLAN CHECK COMMENTS, REVIEW MEMORANDUM DATED OCTOBER 1,2004, PLAN CHECK NO. 04-3591 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION, 2643 OCEAN STREET CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR•> ic * MS. JOAN PORTER c/o KARNAK PLANNING AND DESIGN, INC. 2802 STATI=STOEETi SUITE toC* CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 f. W.O. 3512-A-SC NOVEMBER 10,2004 Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 November 10,2004 W.O. 3512-A-SC Ms. Joan Porter c/o Karnak Planning and Design, Inc. 2802 State Street, Suite "C" Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Robert Richardson Subject: Response to Plan Check Comments, Review Memorandum dated October 1, 2004, Plan Check No. 04-3591, Proposed Additional Construction, 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Dear Mr. Richardson: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is providing this response to the plan check comments, prepared by the EsGil Corporation (EC, 2004) for the project. The scope of our work has included a review of the referenced documents (see the Appendix), analysis of data, and preparation of this response. Unless specifically superceded herein, the conclusions and recommendations contained in GSI (2003) remain pertinent and applicable, and should be appropriately implemented during planning, design, and construction. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The study area is a coastal bluff located above the beach in Carlsbad, California. A single-family, three-story, wood-frame residence exists on a rectangular-shaped parcel that fronts on the beach. Access to the beach below the bluff on the site is via private stairs on the property. Slope gradient of the lower, approximately 8-foot high bluff is approximately 50 to 60 degrees. The lower bluff face is covered with dense landscape, and the lower 2 feet of the bluff is protected with rip-rap. No seepage was observed in the bluff face. The existing residence is terraced into the remaining approximately 50-foot high cliff. Based on a review of Kamak Planning and Design, Inc. (KPDI, 2004), proposed additional development to the site will consist of an extension of the existing basement floor and the construction of an elevator in the area of the existing open courtyard. It is anticipated that the planned structure is proposed to use continuous footings and slab-on-grade floors, with wood-frame and/or masonry block construction. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. BACKGROUND In 2003, GSI performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation and bluff study for the subject site. For that investigation, GSI performed a review of a preliminary geotechnical investigation performed by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. (GEI, 2002) for the adjoining property to the south of the subject site. The GEI report had been previously approved by the City of Carlsbad. Based upon the proximity of the adjacent site (within 50 feet), it was GSI's opinion that it was reasonable to assume that the geological conditions were the same, or similar, to the geological conditions at the subject site. Thus, GSI relied on findings presented in the GEI report, and utilized GEI's subsurface information and laboratory data in our independent preliminary geotechnical report for the subject site (GSI, 2003). A copy of the GEI report is provided in Appendix B in GSI (2003). GSI (2003) also provided a summary of our independent field investigation; laboratory and engineering analyses; and conclusions and recommendations with respect to earthwork construction and foundation design. Based upon our review of GEI (2002) and data compiled from our field investigation, it was the opinion of GSI that the proposed additional development at the subject site appeared feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the recommendations presented in the text of GSI (2003) were properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. REVIEW RESPONSE For ease of review, the comments, prepared by EC are repeated below in bold, followed by GSI's response, in the order they were raised in EC's review memorandum dated October 1,2004: EC Comment No. 28: 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 - page 25). Ms. Joan Porter W.O.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 Rte:e:\wp9\3500\3512axrtp Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. GSI Response to Comment No. 28: GSI has reviewed the foundation plans. However, it is our understanding that grading plans do not exist for the project as earthwork is to solely consist of an excavation to pad grade. If grading plans do exist, they should be provided to this office for review. A summary of GSt's foundation plan review for the project is provided later in the "Geotechnical Review of Foundation Plans" section of this response letter. EC Comment No. 29: Please clarify the soils report statement that an F'c = 4,000 PSI, Is required per code, Included on page 13 at "SOLUBLE SULFATES/[PH] RESISTIVITY". GSI Response to Comment No. 29: For clarity, GSI is providing revised recommendations with respect to concrete. According to Table 19-A-2 of the Uniform Building Code ([UBC], International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997), "For corrosion protection for reinforced concrete exposed to chlorides from deicing chemicals, salt, saltwater, brackish water, seawater or sorav from these sources [underlined for emphasis]," the minimum T0> normal weight and lightweight aggregate concrete, pounds per square inch (psj) should be 5.000 psi with a maximum water-cementitious materials ratio, by weight, normal-weight aggregate concrete = 0.40. EC Comment No. 30 Please Include In the soils report the EFP values recommended for the retaining wall design. GSI Response to Comment No. 30 GSI is providing the recommended EFP values for the currently proposed retaining wall in the "Wall Design Parameters" section of this letter. GEOTECHNICAL PLAN REVIEW Grading Plans It is the understanding of GSI that grading plans are not required for the project. However, based upon a review of the site plan, it is also the understanding of GSI that the proposed earthwork at the subject site is to primarily consist of an excavation to pad grade for a basement extension and elevator construction. It is anticipated that the removal of all unsuitable bearing soils (i.e., undocumented fill, colluvium, weathered terrace deposits, etc.) will be performed during the excavation, by plan. However, if unsuitable bearing soils Ms. Joan Porter : W.O.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 Fto:e:\wpSV3500\3512ax.rtp Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. are exposed at the basement pad grade, additional removals to expose competent terrace deposits will be necessary. The site plan also indicates the proposed construction of a slab-on-grade floor at or near the existing grade. For this area of proposed additional development, GSI recommends the removal of all unsuitable bearing soils to exposed competent terrace deposits. Removals depths could potentially exceed ±6 feet in this area. Due to the close proximity of the planned excavation to the existing structures, shoring will be necessary. Shoring recommendations are provided herein. Structural Plans The reviewed structural plans, notes, and details appear to be in general conformance with the recommendations provided by this office and presented in GSI (2003), from a geotechnica! viewpoint. Based on our review, the following comments are provided: 1. Foundation note No. 2, on sheet S-1, is incorrect with respect to the allowable bearing value. Please refer to page 18 of GSI (2003) for the correct allowable bearing value. 2. The minimum compressive strength of concrete at 28 days, indicated under Concrete note No. 3, should be revised to 5,000 psi as specified in Table 19-A-2 of the UBC (ICBO, 1997), due to the site being in close proximity to a saline environment (i.e., ocean). 3. The structural details, presented on sheets SD3 and SD4, indicate the presence of the slab underiayment but does not specify the construction. For clarity the slab underiayment should be constructed per the recommendations provided on page 20 of GSI (2003). SHORING RECOMMENDATIONS General Should insufficient space for constructing portions of the proposed addition be encountered, shoring may be required. Shoring should consist of cantilever steel soldier beams placed at a maximum of 6-foot on centers, with a minimum embedment below the bottom of the cut, equivalent to half the height of the cut. The ultimate embedment depth should be provided by the project structural engineer and/or shoring designer, based on the geotechnical parameters provided herein. Wood lagging should be installed as the cut progresses to its ultimate configuration. Ms. Joan Porter W.O.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 Rte:e:\wp9\350(A3512axrtp Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. Lateral Pressures For design on cantilevered shoring, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be used. It may be assumed that the retained undocumented fill soils and terrace deposits with a level surface behind the shoring will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 45 and 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), respectively. Retained soils with a 2:1 back slope ratio will exert a lateral pressure equal to a fluid with a density of 60 pcf. For design of shorings that are restrained at the top and retain a level surface, an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf and 65 pcf should be used for terrace deposits and undocumented fill, respectively. The lateral surcharge pressure, applied from floor loads, should be taken as a uniform pressure with a magnitude of 100 pounds per square foot (psf), applied throughout the shored profile. Design of Soldier Piles For the design of soldier piles spaced at least 2 diameters on centers, the allowable lateral bearing value (passive value) of the soils below the level of excavation may be assumed to be 350 psf per foot of depth, up to a maximum of 3,500 psf. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be taken to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed soils. The soldier piles below the excavated levels may be used to resist downward loads, if any. The downward frictional resistance between the soldier piles and the soils below the excavated level may be taken as equal to 200 psf. Lagging Continuous wood lagging will be required between the soldier piles. The soldier piles should be designed for the full anticipated lateral pressure. However, the pressure on the lagging will be less due to arching in the soils. We recommend that the lagging be designed for the recommended earth pressure, but limited to a maximum value of 800 psf. Internal Bracing Rakers may be required to internally brace the soldier piles. The raker bracing could be supported laterally by temporary concrete footings (deadmen) or by the permanent interior footings. For design of temporary footings, or deadmen, poured with the bearing surface normal to rakers inclined at 45 degrees, a bearing value of 2,000 psf may be used, provided the shallowest point of the footing is at least 1 foot below the lowest adjacent grade. Ms. Joan Porter W.O.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 Rle:e:\wp9\3500V3512ax.rtp Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. Deflection It is difficult to accurately predict the amount of deflection of a shored profile. It should be realized, however, that some deflection will occur. We anticipate that this deflection would be on the order of 1 inch at the top of the planned ± 12-foot shoring. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary to minimize deflection. If desired to reduce the deflection of the shoring, a greater active pressure leading to a more stiffer section could be used. Monitoring Some means of monitoring the performance of the shoring system is recommended. The monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of all the soldier piles and the lateral movement along the entire lengths of selected soldier piles. We suggest that photographs of the adjacent improvements be made prior to excavation. WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Conventional Retaining Walls The design parameters provided below assume that either non expansive soils (typically Class 2 permeable filter material or Class 3 aggregate base) or native onsite materials (up to and including an Expansion Index [E.I.] of 65) are used to backfill any retaining walls. The type of backfill (i.e., select or native), should be specified by the wall designer, and clearly shown on the plans. Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. The foundation system for the proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this and preceding sections of this report, and GSI (2003), as appropriate. Footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below adjacent grade (excluding landscape layer, 6 inches) and should be 24 inches in width. There should be no increase in bearing for footing width. Recommendations for specialty walls (i.e., crib, earthstone, geogrid, etc.) can be provided upon request, and would be based on site specific conditions. Restrained Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 65 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. For areas of male or re-entrant comers, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall (2H) laterally from the corner. Ms. Joan Porter W.0.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 Rle:e:\wp9\3500\3512axrtp Page 6 G«oSoiIs, Inc. Cantilevered Walls The recommendations presented below are for cantilevered retaining wails up to 10 feet high. Design parameters for walls less than 3 feet in height may be superceded by City and/or County standard design. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions due to traffic, structures, seismic events or adverse geologic conditions. When wall configurations are finalized, the appropriate loading conditions for superimposed loads can be provided upon request. * Level backfill behind a retaining wall is defined as compacted earth materials, properly drained, without a slope for a distance of 2H behind the wall. Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel wrapped in geofabric and outlets. A backdrain system is considered necessary for retaining walls that are 2 feet or greater in height. Details 1,2, and 3, present the back drainage options discussed below. Backdrains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC or ABS pipe encased in either Class 2 permeable filter material or 1/2-inch to %-inch gravel wrapped in approved filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent). Backdrains should be constructed to drain at a 1 percent gradient to a suitable outlet or sump. Sumps should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the project design engineer. GSI recommends that sump pumps be designed to not allow water to percolate into ground to prevent local saturation of onsite soils. For low expansive backfill, the filter material should extend a minimum of 1 horizontal foot behind the base of the walls and upward at least 1 foot. For native backfill that has up to medium expansion potential, continuous Class 2 permeable drain materials should be used behind the wall. This material should be continuous (i.e., full height) behind the wall, and it should be constructed in accordance with the enclosed Detail 1 (Typical Retaining Wall Backfill and Drainage Detail). For limited access and confined areas, (panel) drainage behind the wall may be constructed in accordance with Detail 2 (Retaining Wall Backfill and Subdrain Detail Geotextile Drain). Materials with an E.I. potential of greater than 65 should not be used as backfill for retaining walls. For more onerous expansive situations, backfill and drainage behind the Ms. Joan Porter 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad Rte:e:\wp9\3500\3512a>utp W.O.3512-A-SC November 10,2004 i7 GeoSoils, Inc. DETAILS N . T . S . Provide Surface Drainage (^Waterproofing Membrane (optional) Weep Hole Finished Surface 1 or Flatter (D WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. <8> ROCK: 3/4 to 1-1/2" (inches) rock. (3) FILTER FABRIC: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind core. ® PIPE: 4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet point. © WEEP HOLE: Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (Inches) above finished surface. (No weep holes for basement walls.) TYPICAL RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND DRAINAGE DETAIL DETAIL 1 Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental DETAILS N . T . S . Provide Surface Drainage ©Waterproofing Membrane (optional) Weep Hole Finished Surface -, 1 ® WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. <2> DRAIN: Mlradrain 6000 or J-draln 200 or equivalent for non-waterproofed walls. Miradraln 6200 or J-draln 200 or equivalent for waterproofed walls. ® FILTER FABRIC: Mlrafl 140N or approved equivalent; place fabric flap behind care. ® PIPE: 4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet point. ® WEEP HOLE: Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches) above finished surface. (No weep holes for basement walls.) RETAINING WALL BACKFILL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL 6EOTEXTILE DRAIN DETAIL 2 Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental DETAILS N . T . S . Provide Surface Drainage /T~® Waterproofing I .'. Membrane (optional) ® Clean Sand Backfill <D WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE (optional): Liquid boot or approved equivalent. <2> CLEAN SAND BACKFILL: Must have sand equivalent value of 30 or greater; can be denslfled by water Jetting. <3> FILTER FABRIC: Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent. <D ROCK: 1 cubic toot per linear feet of pipe or 3/4 to 1-1/2" (inches) rock. ® PIPE: 4" (inches) diameter perforated PVC. schedule 40 or approved alternative with minimum of 1% gradient to proper outlet point. <S) WEEP HOLE: Minimum 2" (inches) diameter placed at 20' (feet) on centers along the wall, and 3" (inches) above finished surface. (No weep holes for basement walls.) RETAINING WALL AND SUBDRAIN DETAIL CLEAN SAND BACKFILL DETAIL 3 Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental retaining wall should conform with Detail 3 (Retaining Wall And Subdrain Detail Clean Sand Backfill). Outlets should consist of a 4-inch diameter solid PVC or ABS pipe spaced no greater than ±100 feet apart, with a minimum of two outlets, one on each end. The use of weep holes, only, in walls higher than 2 feet, is not recommended. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted with native soil (E.I. <90). Proper surface drainage should also be provided. For additional mitigation, consideration should be given to applying a water-proof membrane to the back of all retaining structures. The use of a waterstop should be considered for all concrete and masonry joints. Wall/Retaining Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Should wall footings transition from cut to fill, the civil designer may specify either: a) A minimum of a 2-foot overexcavation and recompaction of cut materials for a distance of 2H, from the point of transition. b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that a angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center, in accordance with the structural engineer's/wall designer's recommendations, regardless of whether or not transition conditions exist. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non-shrink grout. c) Embed the footings entirely into native formational material (i.e., deepened footings). If transitions from cut to fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should follow recommendation "a" (above) and until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. TOP-OF-SLOPE WALLS/FENCES/IMPROVEMENTS Slope Creep Soils at the site may be expansive and therefore, may become desiccated when allowed to drv. Such soils are susceptible to surficial slope creep, especially with seasonal changes in moisture content. Typically in southern California, during the hot and dry summer period, these soils become desiccated and shrink, thereby developing surface cracks. The extent and depth of these shrinkage cracks depend on many factors such as Ms. Joan Porter W.0.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 Rle:e:\wp9\3500\3512ax.rtp Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. the nature and expansivity of the soils, temperature and humidity, and extraction of moisture from surface soils by plants and roots. When seasonal rains occur, water percolates into the cracks and fissures, causing slope surfaces to expand, with a corresponding loss in soil density and shear strength near the slope surface. With the passage of time and several moisture cycles, the outer 3 to 5 feet of slope materials experience a very slow, but progressive, outward and downward movement, known as slope creep. For slope heights greater than 10 feet, this creep related soil movement will typically impact all rear yard flatwork and other secondary improvements that are located within about 15 feet from the top of slopes, such as swimming pools, concrete flatwork, etc., and in particular top of slope fences/walls. This influence is normally in the form of detrimental settlement, and tilting of tine proposed improvements. The dessication/swelling and creep discussed above continues over the life of the improvements, and generally becomes progressively worse. Accordingly, the developer should provide this information to any homeowners and homeowners association. TOP of Slope Walls/Fences Due to the potential for slope creep for slopes higher than about 10 feet, some settlement and tilting of the walls/fence with the corresponding distresses, should be expected. To mitigate the tilting of top of slope walls/fences, we recommend that the walls/fences be constructed on deepened foundations without any consideration for creep forces, where the expansion index of the materials comprising the outer 15 feet of the slope is less than 50, or a combination of grade beam and caisson foundations, for expansion indices greater than 50 comprising the slope, with creep forces taken into account. The grade beam should be at a minimum of 12 inches by 12 inches in cross section, supported by drilled caissons, 12 inches minimum in diameter, placed at a maximum spacing of 6 feet on center, and with a minimum embedment length of 7 feet below the bottom of the grade beam. The strength of the concrete and grout should be evaluated by the structural engineer of record. The proper ASTM tests for the concrete and mortar should be provided along with the slump quantities. The concrete used should be appropriate to mitigate sulfate corrosion, as warranted. The design of the grade beam and caissons should be in accordance with the recommendations of the project structural engineer, and include the utilization of the following geotechnical parameters: Creep Zone: 5-foot vertical zone below the slope face and projected upward parallel to the slope face. Creep Load: The creep load projected on the area of the grade beam should be taken as an equivalent fluid approach, having a density of 60 pcf. For the caisson, it should be taken as a uniform 900 pounds per linear foot of caisson's depth, located above the creep zone. Ms. Joan Porter W.0.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 Hte:e:\wpSN3500\3512axj1p Page 12 GeoSoils, Inc. Point of Flxitv: Located a distance of 1.5 times the caisson's diameter, below the creep zone. Passive Resistance: Passive earth pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth per foot of caisson diameter, to a maximum value of 4,500 psf may be used to determine caisson depth and spacing, provided that they meet or exceed the minimum requirements stated above. To determine the total lateral resistance, the contribution of the creep prone zone above the point of fixity, to passive resistance, should be disregarded. Allowable Axial Capacity: Shaft capacity: 350 psf applied below the point of fixity over the surface area of the shaft. Tip capacity: 4,500 psf. DRIVEWAY. FLATWORK. AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS The soil materials on site may be expansive. The effects of expansive soils are cumulative, and typically occur over the lifetime of any improvements. On relatively level areas, when the soils are allowed to dry, the dessication and swelling process tends to cause heaving and distress to flatwork and other improvements. The resulting potential for distress to improvements may be reduced, but not totally eliminated. To that end, it is recommended that the developer should notify any homeowners or homeowners association of this long- term potential for distress. To reduce the likelihood of distress, the following recommendations are presented for all exterior flatwork: 1. The subgrade area for concrete slabs should be compacted to achieve a minimum 90 percent relative compaction, and then be presoaked to 2 to 3 percentage points above (or 125 percent of) the soils' optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches below subgrade elevation. If very low expansive soils are present, only optimum moisture content, or greater, is required and specific presoaking is not warranted. The moisture content of the subgrade should be proof tested within 72 hours prior to pouring concrete. 2. Concrete slabs should be cast over a non-yielding surface, consisting of a 4-inch layer of crushed rock, gravel, or clean sand, that should be compacted and level prior to pouring concrete. If very low expansive soils are present, the rock or gravel or sand may be deleted. The layer or subgrade should be wet-down completely prior to pouring concrete, to minimize loss of concrete moisture to the surrounding earth materials. Ms. Joan Porter W.0.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 Rle:e:\wp9V3500\3512ax.rtp Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. 3. Exterior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Driveway slabs and approaches should additionally have a thickened edge (12 inches) adjacent to all landscape areas, to help impede infiltration of landscape water under the slab. 4. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints are recommended to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two ways to mitigate such cracking are: a) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing tensile strength of the slab; and, b) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. In order to reduce the potential for unsightly cracks, slabs should be reinforced at mid-height with a minimum of No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center, in each direction. If subgrade soils within the top 7 feet from finish grade are very low expansive soils (i.e., E.I. £20), then 6x6-W1.4xW1.4 welded-wire mesh may be substituted for the rebar, provided the reinforcement is placed on chairs, at slab mid-height. The exterior slabs should be scored or saw cut, Vz to 3/a inches deep, often enough so that no section is greater than 10 feet by 10 feet. For sidewalks or narrow slabs, control joints should be provided at intervals of every 6 feet. The slabs should be separated from the foundations and sidewalks with expansion joint filler material. 5. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. Concrete compression strength should be a minimum of 2,500 psi. 6. Driveways, sidewalks, and patio slabs adjacent to the house should be separated from the house with thick expansion joint filler material. In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e., irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be additionally sealed with flexible mastic. 7. Planters and walls should not be tied to the house. 8. Overhang structures should be supported on the slabs, or structurally designed with continuous footings tied in at least two directions. If very low expansion soils are present, footings need only be tied in one direction. 9. Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long. These segments should be keyed or doweled together. 10. Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. Ms. Joan Porter W.0.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 Rle:e:\wp8\3SOOV3512axJtp Page 14 Inc. 11. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the lots should provide a minimum of 1 to 2 percent fall to the street, as indicated herein. It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not periodically maintained by the homeowner or homeowners association. 12. Air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste water lines should be drained to a suitable non-erosive outlet. 13. Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Slope Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of ail earth materials. Slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided as it adversely affects site improvements, and causes perched groundwater conditions. Graded slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute-type matting or other fibrous covers may aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, etc., to develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented. Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended. These recommendations regarding plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be provided to each homeowner. Over-steepening of slopes should be avoided during building construction activities and landscaping. Drainage Adequate lot surface drainage is a very important factor in reducing the likelihood of adverse performance of foundations, hardscape, and slopes. Surface drainage should be Ms. Joan Porter W.0.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 Rte:e:\wp9VJ500\3512ax.rtp Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. sufficient to prevent ponding of water anywhere on a lot, and especially near structures and tops of slopes. Lot surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine grading, landscaping, and building construction. Therefore, care should be taken that future landscaping or construction activities do not create adverse drainage conditions. Positive site drainage within lots and common areas should be provided and maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. In general, the area within 5 feet around a structure should slope away from the structure. We recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a minimum gradient of 1 percent sloping away from structures, and whenever possible, should be above adjacent paved areas. Consideration should be given to avoiding construction of planters adjacent to structures (buildings, pools, spas, etc.). Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area(s). Although not a geotechnical requirement, roof gutters, down spouts, or other appropriate means may be utilized to control roof drainage. Down spouts, or drainage devices should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall, and should be anticipated. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Erosion Control Cut and fill slopes will be subject to surficial erosion during and after grading. Onsite earth materials have a moderate to high erosion potential. Consideration should be given to providing hay bales and silt fences for the temporary control of surface water, from a geotechnical viewpoint. Landscape Maintenance Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over-watering the landscape areas will adversely affect proposed site improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open-bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed-bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. If planters are constructed adjacent to structures, the sides and bottom of the planter should be provided with a moisture barrier to prevent penetration of irrigation water into the subgrade. Provisions should be made to drain the excess irrigation water from the planters without saturating the subgrade below or adjacent to the planters. Graded slope areas should be planted with drought resistant vegetation. Consideration should be given to the type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon surface improvements (i.e., some trees will have an effect on concrete flatwork with their extensive root systems). From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Ms. Joan Porter W.O.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 Rle:e:\wp9\3500\3512axttp Page 16 Inc. Gutters and Downspouts As previously discussed in the drainage section, the installation of gutters and downspouts should be considered to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent to the structures. If utilized, the downspouts should be drained into PVC collector pipes or other non-erosive devices (e.g., paved swales or ditches; below grade, solid tight-lined PVC pipes; etc.), that will carry the water away from the house, to an appropriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the design civil engineer. Downspouts and gutters are not a requirement; however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that positive drainage is incorporated into project design (as discussed previously). Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities may not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities, and should be anticipated. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. Groundwater conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors. Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements (e.g., pools, spas, etc.) are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. Pools and/or spas should not be constructed without specific design and construction recommendations from GSI, and this construction recommendation should be provided to the homeowners, any homeowners association, and/or other interested parties. This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, grading of the she, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench and retaining wall backfills, flatwork, etc. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile, although small cracks in a conventional slab may not be significant. Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement for concrete slabs-on-grade where tile will be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) are recommended between tile and concrete slabs on grade. Ms. Joan Porter W.0.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 Flle:e:\wp9\3500\3512ax.rtp Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. Additional Grading This office should be notified in advance of any fill placement, supplemental regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes completion of grading in the street, driveway approaches, driveways, parking areas, and utility trench and retaining wall backfills. Footing Trench Excavation All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm subsequent to trenching and prior to concrete form and reinforcement placement. The purpose of the observations is to evaluate that the excavations have been made into the recommended bearing material and to the minimum widths and depths recommended for construction. If loose or compressible materials are exposed within the footing excavation, a deeper footing or removal and recompaction of the subgrade materials would be recommended at that time. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the site. Trenching/Temporary Construction Backcuts Considering the nature of the onsite earth materials, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a factor in subsurface excavations and trenching. Shoring or excavating the trench walls/backcuts at the angle of repose (typically 25 to 45 degrees [except as specifically superceded within the text of this report]), should be anticipated. All excavations should be observed by an engineering geologist or soil engineer from GSI, prior to workers entering the excavation or trench, and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA, state, and local safety codes. Should adverse conditions exist, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. The above recommendations should be provided to any contractors and/or subcontractors, or homeowners, etc., that may perform such work. Utility Trench Backfill 1. All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to at least 2 percent above optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow (12-inch to 18-inch) under-slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation, probing and testing should be provided to evaluate the desired results. 2. Exterior trenches adjacent to, and within areas extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, and all trenches beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should Ms. Joan Porter ~~W.0.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 FHe:e:\wp9V3500\3512ax.rtp Page 18 GeoSoils, Inc. not be used in these backfill areas. Compaction testing and observations, along with probing, should be accomplished to evaluate the desired results. 3. All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA, state, and local safety codes. 4. Utilities crossing grade beams, perimeter beams, or footings should either pass below the footing or grade beam utilizing a hardened collar or foam spacer, or pass through the footing or grade beam in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend that observation and/or testing be performed by GSI at each of the following construction stages: • During grading/recertification. • During excavation. • During placement of subdrains, toe drains, or other subdrainage devices, prior to placing fill and/or backfill. • After excavation of building footings, retaining wall footings, and free standing walls footings, prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. • Prior to pouring any slabs or flatwork, after presoaking/presaturation of building pads and other flatwork subgrade, before the placement of concrete, reinforcing steel, capillary break (i.e., sand, pea-gravel, etc.), or vapor barriers (i.e., visqueen, etc.). • During retaining wall subdrain installation, prior to backfill placement. • During placement of backfill for area drain, interior plumbing, utility line trenches, and retaining wall backfill. • During slope construction/repair. • When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction operations, subsequent to the issuance of this report. • When any developer or homeowner improvements, such as flatwork, spas, pools, walls, etc., are constructed, prior to construction. Ms. Joan Porter W.0.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 Rle:e:\wp9\3500\3512ax.rtp Page 19 GeoSoils, Inc. A report of geotechnical observation and testing should be provided at the conclusion of each of the above stages, in order to provide concise and clear documentation of site work, and/or to comply with code requirements. GSI should review project sales documents to homeowners/homeowners associations for geotechnical aspects, including irrigation practices, the conditions outlined above, etc., prior to any sales. At that stage, GSI will provide homeowners maintenance guidelines which should be incorporated into such documents. OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS The design civil engineer, structural engineer, post-tension designer, architect, landscape architect, wall designer, etc., should review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate those recommendations into all their respective plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part of their project plans. This report presents minimum design criteria for the design of slabs, foundations and other elements possibly applicable to the project. These criteria should not be considered as substitutes for actual designs by the structural engineer/designer. The structural engineer/designer should analyze actual soil-structure interaction and consider, as needed, bearing, expansive soil influence, and strength, stiffness and deflections in the various slab, foundation, and other elements in order to develop appropriate, design-specific details. As conditions dictate, it is possible that other influences will also have to be considered. The structural engineer/designer should consider all applicable codes and authoritative sources where needed. If analyses by the structural engineer/designer result in less critical details than are provided herein as minimums, the minimums presented herein should be adopted. It is considered likely that some, more restrictive details will be required. If the structural engineer/designer has any questions or requires further assistance, they should not hesitate to call or otherwise transmit their requests to GSI. In order to mitigate potential distress, the foundation and/or improvement's designer should confirm to GSI and the governing agency, in writing, that the proposed foundations and/or improvements can tolerate the amount of differential settlement and/or expansion characteristics and design criteria specified herein. PLAN REVIEW Final project plans (grading, precise grading, foundation, retaining wall, landscaping, etc.), should be reviewed by this office prior to construction, so that construction is in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report. Based on our review, supplemental recommendations and/or further geotechnical studies may be warranted. Ms. Joan Porter W.0.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad November 10,2004 Rte:e:\wp9V3500\3512ax.rtp Page 20 GeoSoils, Inc. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our recommendations have been property implemented. Use of this report constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of services for this portion of the project. Ms. Joan Porter W.0.3512-A-SC 2643 Ocean Street Carlsbad November 10,2004 Rle:e:\wp9\3500\3512ax.rtp Page 21 GeoSoils, Inc. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have^ questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully sub GeoSoils, Inc 'John P. Franklin X^CA^X David W. Skelly Engineering GeologisCCHal 340 Civil Engineer, RCE 47857 RB/JPF/DWS/jh/jk Attachment: Appendix - References Distribution: (4) Addressee (2) EsGil Corporation, Attention: Mr. Sergio Azuela (wet signatures) Ms. Joan Porter 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad Rte:e:\wp9\350CA3512ax.rtp GeoSoils, Inc. W.O. 3512-A-SC November 10,2004 Page 22 APPENDIX REFERENCES Geotechnical Exploration, Inc., 2002, Report of preliminary geotechnical investigation, proposed Kiko Residence, 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California, job no. 02-8201, dated June 5. GeoSoils, Inc., 2003, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, proposed addition, 2541-43 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 3512-A-SC, dated February 10. EsGil Corporation, 2004, Plan check comments, SFD add./remodel for Joan Porter residence, plan check no. 04-3591, dated October 1. Karnak Planning and Design, Inc., 2004a, Site plan, sheet AS1.0,10-scale, no drawing no., no project no., dated May 10. , 2004b, Sections, sheet A5.0, Vi-inch = 1 foot, no drawing no., no project no., dated May 10. International Conference of Building Officials, 2001, California building code, California code of regulations title 24, part 2, volume 1 and 2. , 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California, vol. 1,2, and 3. Sun Structural Engineering, Inc., 2004, Structural plans: Remodel for Joan Porter, 2643 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008, sheets S-1, S2, S3, SD3, and SD4, no drawing no., no project no., dated September 13. GeoSoils, Inc. Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PROPOSED ADDITION, 2641-43 OCEAN STREET CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR KARNAK ARCHITECTURE 2802 STATE STREET, SUITE C CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 W.O. 3512-A-SC FEBRUARY 10, 2003 Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way - Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 February 10, 2003 W.O. 3512-A-SC Karnak Architecture 2802 State Street, Suite C Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Robert Richardson Subject: Dear Mr. Richardson: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Addition, 2641-43 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI), is pleased to present the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation on the subject site. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the geologic and geotechnical conditions of the upper bluff to evaluate earth materials in the bluff for stability, so that recommendations for foundation design and earthwork parameters could be provided for the proposed addition. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our field exploration, geologic and geotechnical engineering analysis, the proposed development appears feasible from a soils engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The most significant elements of our study are summarized below: • Undocumented artificial fill was encountered during our investigation. These earth materials were moist to wet and loose, and may settle appreciably under additional fill, foundation, or improvement loadings. Recommendations forthe treatment of the undocumented artificial fill are presented in the earthwork section of this report. • Based upon our review of a preliminary geotechnical investigation performed by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. on the adjacent property to the south, the site and vicinity are underlain by terrace deposits, which are in turn underlain by the Santiago Formation. • Surficial and gross stability analyses indicate generally stable conditions for the existing slope. Based on a review of available published literature on coastal bluff retreat in the vicinity, the subject site is located in an area with a moderate shoreline risk and average erosion rate of 1.2 inches to 9.1 inches per year. It is our understanding that a sea wall is proposed for the lower bluff at the subject site. Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along fill/bedrock contacts and along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. The groundwater conditions observed and opinions generated were those at the time of our investigation. Conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors that were not obvious at the time of our investigation. Two alternatives for earthwork and foundation design have been developed, based on the site conditions. Alternative No. 1 consists of complete removal and recompaction of existing undocumented artificial fill and the construction of a conventional slab on grade foundation. Alternative No. 2 consists of minimal to no grading and the use of a pier and grade beam foundation system for structural support. It should be noted that Alternative No. 1 would require shoring and bracing for excavation adjacent to and below the existing foundation system. The geotechnical design parameters provided herein should be considered during construction by the project structural engineer and/or architect. i Karnak Architecture File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge W.O.3512-A-SC Page Two GeoSoils, Inc. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions pertaining to this report, please contact us at (760) 438-3155. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. Donna L Gooley Staff Geologist Reviewed by: John P. Franklin Engineering Geologist, DLG/BS/JPF/jh Distribution: (4) Addressee Reviewed by: Ben Shahrvini Geotechnical Engineer, GE' Karnak Architecture Rle:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge W.O. 3512-A-SC Page Three GeoSoils, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1 FIELD STUDIES 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 3 COASTAL BLUFF GEOMORPHOLOGY 4 SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS 4 Undocumented Artificial Fill 4 Beach Deposits 5 Terrace Deposits 5 Santiago Formation , 5 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE 5 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY 5 Faulting 5 Seismicity 7 Seismic Shaking Parameters 8 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS 8 GROUNDWATER 8 LONG TERM SEA-LEVEL CHANGE 9 SHORT TERM SEA LEVEL CHANGE 9 COASTAL-BLUFF RETREAT 10 Marine Erosion 10 Mechanical and Biological Processes 10 Water Depth, Wave Height, and Platform Slope 11 Marine Erosion at the Cliff-Platform Junction 11 Subaerial Erosion 11 Groundwater 11 Slope Decline 11 LABORATORY TESTING 12 Classification 12 Moisture-Density Relations 12 Laboratory Standard-Maximum Dry Density 12 GeoSoils, Inc. Expansion Index Testing 12 Direct Shear Tests 13 Soluble Su!fates/pH Resistivity 13 SLOPE STABILITY 13 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES 14 Gross Stability Analysis 14 Surficial Slope Stability 14 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 14 General 14 Earth Materials 15 Undocumented Artificial Fill 15 Subsurface and Surface Water 15 Slope Stability 15 Earthwork and Foundation Design 15 RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION 16 Grading 16 General 16 Site Preparation 16 Removals (Unsuitable Materials) 17 Fill Placement 17 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 17 General 17 CONVENTIONAL SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATIONS 18 Design 18 Bearing Value 18 Lateral Pressure 18 Foundation Settlement - Structural Loads 18 Construction 19 Setbacks 19 CONVENTIONAL CONCRETE SUBS ON GRADE 20 Conventional Floor Slabs 20 Exterior Flatwork 20 DRILLED PIER AND GRADE BEAM FOUNDATIONS 21 SHORING AND BRACING 22 CORROSION AND CONCRETE TESTS 23 Karnak Architecture Table of Contents Rle:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page ii GeoSoils, Inc. UTILITIES 23 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 23 Landscape Maintenance and Planting , 23 Site Improvements 24 Drainage 24 Footing Excavations 24 Trenching 25 Utility Trench Backfill 25 Grading Guidelines 25 PLAN REVIEW 25 LIMITATIONS 26 FIGURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map 2 Figure 2 - Earthquake Epicenter Map 6 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A - References Rear of Text Appendix B - Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation by GEIRear of Text Appendix C - Boring Logs Rear of Text Appendix D - Slope Stability Analysis Rear of Text Appendix E - Grading Guidelines Rear of Text Appendix F - Homeowner's Maintenance Guidelines Rear of Text Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map Rear of Text in Folder Plate 2 - Geologic Cross-Section X-X' Rear of Text in Folder i Karnak Architecture File:e:\wpA3500\3512a.pge Table of Contents Page iii GeoSoils, Inc. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PROPOSED ADDITION, 2641-43 OCEAN STREET CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 1. Review of readily available published literature and maps of the vicinity, including review of a preliminary geotechnical report prepared by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. for the adjacent residence to the south (Appendix A). 2. Geologic mapping of exposed conditions, including sea cliff bedding and joint/fracture attitudes. 3. Subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation of one exploratory hand auger boring to determine the soil/bedrock profiles, obtain relatively undisturbed and bulk samples of representative materials, and delineate earth material parameters that may affect the stability of the existing bluff and the proposed development. 4. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface exploration program. 5. Evaluation of potential areal seismicity and secondary seismic hazards. 6. Slope stability analyses. 7. Appropriate engineering and geologic analyses of data collected, and preparation of this report and accompaniments SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The study area is a coastal bluff located above the beach in Carlsbad, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). A single-family, three-story, wood-frame residence exists on a rectangular-shaped parcel that fronts on the beach. Access to the beach below the bluff on the site is via private stairs on the property. Slope gradient of the lower, approximately 8-foot high bluff is approximately 50 to 60 degrees. The lower bluff face is covered with dense landscape, and the lower 2 feet of the bluff is protected with rip-rap. No seepage was observed in the bluff face. The existing residence is terraced into the remaining approximately 50-foot high cliff. GeoSoils, Inc. 3-D TopoQuadi Copyrifht © 1»9 DeLorme Yarmouth, ME 044W Base Map: San Luis Rey Quadrangle, California—San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), 1968 (photorevised 1975), by USGS, 1"=2000' Base Map: The Thomas Guide, San Diego County Street Guide and Directory, 2002 Edition, byThomas Bros. Maps, page 1106,1"=1/2 mile Raproducad with parmi**ionjiranUd by Thomas Bros. Uapa. Thla map I* eopyrlghtad by Thomaa Bros. Maps. It la unlawfulto copy or nproduca all or any part thereof, whathar forpersonal uaa or raaala, without permission. Afl rights reserved.W.O. 3512-A-SC SITE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 Based on conversations with the client, proposed development on the site will consist of an addition in the area of the open courtyard (see Plate 1). It is anticipated that the planned structure is proposed to use continuous footings and slab-on-grade, with wood-frame and/or masonry block construction. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. BACKGROUND GSI has performed a review of a preliminary geotechincal investigation performed by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. (GEI, 2002) for the adjoining property to the south of the subject site. The GEI report has been approved by the City of Carlsbad. Based upon the proximity of the adjacent site (within 50 feet), it is GSI's opinion that it is reasonable to assume that geological conditions are the same or similar to geological conditions at the subject site. Thus, GSI is relying on findings presented in the GEI report, and has also utilized GEI's subsurface information and laboratory data in our preliminary geotechnical report for the subject site. A copy of the GEI report is provided in Appendix B. FIELD STUDIES Site specific field studies conducted by GSI consisted of geologic mapping of the existing geologic conditions in the bluff, and the drilling of one exploratory hand auger boring for evaluation of near-surface soil and geologic conditions. The boring was logged by a geologist from our firm who collected representative bulk and undisturbed samples from the boring for appropriate laboratory testing. The log of the boring is presented in Appendix C. The location of the boring is presented on Plate 1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The site is located in Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by northwest-trending, steep, elongated ranges and valieys. The Peninsular Ranges extend north to the base of the San Gabriel Mountains and south into Mexico to Baja California. The province is bounded by the east-west trending Transverse Ranges geomorphic province to the north and northeast, by the Colorado Desert geomorphic province to the southeast, and by the Continental Borderlands geomorphic province to the west. In the Peninsular Ranges, sedimentary and volcanic units diseontinuously mantle the crystalline bedrock, alluvial deposits have filled in the lower valley areas, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited/eroded in the coastal and beach areas. i Karnak Architecture W.O. 3512-A-SC 2641-43 Ocean Street February 10,2003 File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 3 GeoSotls, Inc. COASTAL BLUFF GEOMORPHOLOGY The coastal-bluff profile at the subject site may be divided into three zones: the shore platform, a lower bluff slope generally ranging in inclination between 50 to 60 degrees, and an upper near-vertical cliff surface termed the sea cliff. This bluff profile is generally indicative of an inactive erosional sea cliff stage (Emery and Kuhn, 1982). The bluff top is the boundary between the upper bluff and coastal terrace. Offshore from the sea cliff is an area of indefinite extent, termed the near-shore zone. The bedrock surface in the near-shore zone, which extends out to sea from the base of the sea cliff, is the shore platform. As pointed out by Trenhaile (1987), worldwide, the shore platform may vary in inclination from near horizontal to as steep as 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). The boundary between the lower bluff and the shore platform is the bluff-platform junction, or sometimes called the shoreline angle. Within the near-shore zone is a subdivision called the inshore zone, beginning where the waves begin to break. This boundary varies with time because the point at which waves begin to break changes dramatically with changes in wave size and tidal level. During low tides, large waves will begin to break further away from shore. During high tides, waves may not break at all or they may break directly on the lower cliff. Closer to shore is the foreshore zone, that portion of the shore lying between the upper limit of wave wash at high tide and the ordinary low water mark. Both of these boundaries often lie on a sand or cobble beach. In this case of a shoreline with a bluff, the foreshore zone extends from low water to the lower face of the bluff. SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS Three earth materials units were observed and/or encountered in the vicinity of the subject site. A general description of each material type is presented as follows, from youngest to oldest. Undocumented Artificial Fill Undocumented artificial fill was encountered to an approximate depth of 6 feet in the vicinity of the open courtyard. This material was moist to wet, loose to medium dense, silty sand, and may settle appreciably under additional fill, foundation, or improvement loadings. Recommendations for the treatment of the undocumented artificial fill are presented in the earthwork section of this report. Karnak Architecture W.O. 3512-A-SC 2641 -43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. Beach Deposits Beach deposits, located along the base of the bluff, are composed of recent unconsolidated sands. These materials are actively being deposited and may vary in amount and distribution over time. Terrace Deposits Our field review of a geotechnical report for adjacent property to the south, and literature review indicate that the upper sea bluff is composed primarily of Pleistocene-age terrace deposits consisting of relatively sandy sediments, weakly cemented with iron oxide, that rest upon a yet older wave-cut terrace, also Pleistocene in -age. The terrace deposits make up the sea bluff primarily between approximately 12 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) to near the top of the bluff. The existing residence has been terraced into this material. Santiago Formation The Eocene-age Santiago Formation underlies the terrace deposits on the site. These materials were observed in the lower portions of the coastal bluff. Onsite, this formation consists of silty, fine-grained sandstone. The materials were moderately cemented and micaceous. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE The terrace deposits are generally massively to thickly-bedded, and are relatively flat lying. The Santiago Formation is mapped in the vicinity with a gentle incline (dipping approximately 5 to 10 degrees) in a northeasterly direction (Weber, 1982). FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY Faulting The site is situated in an area of active as well as potentially-active faults. Our review indicates that there are no known active faults crossing the site (Weber, 1982), and the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant, 1997). There are a number of faults in the southern California area that are considered to be active and would have an earthquake effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake. These include-but are not limited to-the San Andreas fault, the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, the Coronado Bank fault zone, and the Newport- Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone. The location of these and other major faults relative to the site are indicated on the Earthquake Epicenter Map, Figure 2. The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. Karnak Architecture W.O. 3512-A-SC 2641 -43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge —*»-«» Page 5GeoSoils, Inc. EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP Karnak/Russell 1100 1000-- 900 - -. 800 -- 700 -- 600 -- 500 -- -100 400 -- 300 -- 200-- 100- -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 W.O. 3512-A-SC Figure 2 GeoSoils, Inc. The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could have a significant effect on the site should they experience significant activity. ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME Coronado Bank-Agua Blanca Elsinore Newport-lngelwood-Offshore Rose Canyon APPROXIMATE DISTANCE MILES (KM) 21 (33) 25(40) 5(8) 5(8) Seismicitv The acceleration-attenuation relations of Idriss (1994) and Campbell and Bozorgnia (1997), Horizontal-Random have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 1989). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean plus 1 - sigma attenuation curve and mean attenuation curve developed by Joyner and Boore (1982), Sadigh et al. (1987), and Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994). EQFAULT is a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1989), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a given site. If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from an upper bound ("maximum credible") earthquake on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by any of at least 30 user- selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Based on the EQFAULT program, peak horizontal ground accelerations from an upper bound event at the site may be on the order of 0.67g to 0.72g. Historical site seismicity was evaluated with the acceleration-attenuation relations of Campbell (1997) and the computer program EQSEARCH (Blake, 2000). This program was utilized to perform a search of historical earthquake records for magnitude 5.0 to 9.0 seismic events within a 100-mile radius, between the years 1800 to 2001. Based on the selected acceleration-attenuation relation, a peak horizontal ground acceleration has been estimated, which may have affected the site during the specific seismic events in the past. Based on the available data and attenuation relationship used, the estimated maximum (peak) site acceleration during the period 1800 to 2001 was 0.309 g. Karnak Architecture 2641-43 Ocean Street File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge W.O. 3512-A-SC February 10, 2003 Page? GeoSoils, Inc. Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997), the following seismic parameters are provided: UBC TABLE/FIGURE DESIGNATION Seismic zone (per Figure 16-2*) Seismic zone factor Z (per Table 1 6-I*) Soil Profile Types (per Table 16-J*) Seismic Coefficient Ca (per Table 16-Q*) Seismic Coefficient Cv (per Table 1 6-R*) Near Source factor Na (per Table 1 6-S*) Near Source factor Nv (per Table 16-T*) Distance to Seismic Source Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U*) Upper Bound Earthquake FAULT PARAMETERS 4 0.40 SD 0.44 Na 0.64 Nv 1.00 1.10 4.8 mi. (7.7 km) B MW6.9 * Figure and table references from Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS Potential secondary seismic related hazards such as ground rupture due to faulting, liquefaction, dynamic settlement, seiche and tsunami, are often associated with a seismic event. Since no active faults are known to cross the site, the potential for ground rupture is considered low. Based on review of available data, the potential for liquefaction to affect the site appears to be low. The potential for dynamic settlement to affect the site appears to be low to moderate. Due to the elevation of the residential structural in regard to the ocean elevation, the potential for seiche or tsunami to affect that area is considered low. However, significant tidal waves generated from a seismic event could affect the lower portion of the site and affect overall bluff stability, possibly even affecting the existing proposed structures. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not observed seeping from the bluff slope nor in exploratory borings performed by Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. (2002). However, this does not preclude the Karnak Architecture 2641-43 Ocean Street File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge W.0.3512-A-SC February 10, 2003 PageS GeoSoils, Inc. possibility localized perched groundwater, seepage may occur locally (due to heavy precipitation or irrigation) in areas where natural or fill soils overlie less permeable materials or soils. Such conditions may exist on the subject site at depth. Groundwater and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. LONG TERM SEA-LEVEL CHANGE Long-term (geologic) sea-level change is likely the major factor determining coastal evolution. Three general sea-level conditions are recognized: rising, falling and stationary. The rising and falling stages result in massive sediment release and transport, while the stationary stage allows time for adjustment and reorganization towards equilibrium. Major changes in sea level for the Quaternary period were caused by worldwide climate fluctuation resulting in at least 17 glacial and interglacial stages in the last 800,000 years and many before then. Worldwide sea-level rise associated with the melting of glaciers is commonly referred to as "glacio-eustatic" or "true" sea-level rise. During the past 200,000 years, eustatic sea level has ranged from more than 350± feet below the present to possibly as high as about 31 ± feet above. Sea-level changes during the last 18,000 years have resulted in an approximately 400-foot rise in sea level when relatively cold global climates of the Wisconsin ice age started to become warmer, melting a substantial portion of the continental ice caps. Sea-level data show a relatively rapid rise of about 1 meter per century from about 18,000 years before present to about 8,000 years ago. About 8,000 years ago, the rate of sea-level rise slowed, ultimately to a relatively constant rate of about 10 centimeters per century since about 6,000 years ago (Inman, 1976). More importantly, the world coastline, including that of California and the subject site, has been shaped largely within this 6,000-year period, with the sea at or within about 16 feet of its present level. SHORT TERM SEA LEVEL CHANGE There is no credible evidence that unfounded speculation of a significant "acceleration" in sea level rise will occur (Gerhard, et al, 2001; Harff, et al, 2001; Shinn, 2001; and Emery and Aubrey, 1991). In fact, the coastline has been affected more by the rate of adjustment to eustatic response to the removal of the ice sheets than by changes in sea level, within the past 6,000 years (Jenkins, 2001). Current data indicate a trend"... no greater in rate or magnitude, and probably less in both, than changes that have occurred in the recent geologic past (Blumle, et al, 2000)." The planet is now in a period of gradual cooling from the time of the post-glacial thermal optimum 6,000-9,000 years ago. Global temperatures are now on an irregular downward path, comparable to the Eemian interglacial, although Karnak Architecture W.O. 3512-A-SC 2641-43 Ocean Street February 10,2003 File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. at present, we are experiencing a minor temperature increase as a partial recovery from the "Little Ice Age," which ended 150 years ago (Jenkins, 2000). COASTAL-BLUFF RETREAT Most of San Diego County's coastline has experienced a measurable amount of erosion in the last 20 to 30 years, with more rapid erosion occurring during periods of heavy storm surf (Kuhn and Shepard, 1984). The entire base of the sea cliff portion of the coastal bluff is exposed to direct wave attack along most of the coast. The waves erode the sea cliff by impact on small joints/fractures and fissures in the otherwise essentially massive bedrock units, and by water-hammer effects. The upper bluffs, which often support little or no vegetation, are subject to wave spray and splash, sometimes causing saturation of the outer layer and subsequent sloughing of over-steepened slopes. Wind, rain, irrigation, and uncontrolled surface runoff contribute to the erosion of the upper coastal bluff, especially on the more exposed over-steepened portions of the friable sands. Where these processes are active, unraveling of cohesionless sands has resulted along portions of the upper bluffs. The subject site is located in an area with a moderate shoreline risk based upon reported unfavorable geology, inadequate setback, and a narrow beach by California Department of Boating and Waterways and San Diego Association of Governments ([CDBW and SDAG],1994). Moore, et. al, (1999), studied the coastal cliffs of San Diego County and indicated that for the Carlsbad State Beach area (located to the south of the subject property), the landward edge of the cliff top showed average erosion rates from 3 to 23 centimeters per year (1.2 inches to 9.1 inches) between 1932 and 1994. Marine Erosion The factors contributing to "Marine Erosion" processes are described below. Mechanical and Biological Processes Mechanical erosion processes at the cliff-platform junction include water abrasion, rock abrasion, cavitation, water hammer, air compression in joints/fractures, breaking-wave shock, and alternation of hydrostatic pressure with the waves and tides. All of these processes are active in backwearing. Downwearing processes include all but breaking- wave shock (Trenhaile, 1987). Backwearing and downwearing by the mechanical processes described above are both augmented by bioerosion, the removal of rock by the direct action of organisms (Trenhaile, 1987). Backwearing at the site is assisted by algae in the intertidal and splash zones and by rock-boring mollusks in the tidal range. Algae and associated small organisms bore into rock up to several millimeters. Mollusks may bore several centimeters into the rock. Chemical and salt weathering also contribute to the erosion process. Karnak Architecture W.O, 3512-A-SC 2641 -43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 File:e:\wpA3500\3512a.pge _ « . Page 10GeoSoils, Inc. Water Depth, Wave Height, and Platform Slope The key factors affecting the marine erosion component of bluff-retreat are water depth at the base of the cliff, breaking wave height, and the slope of the shore platform. Along the entire coastline, the sea cliff is subject to periodic attack by breaking and broken waves, which create the dynamic effects of turbulent water and the compression of entrapped air pockets. When acting upon jointed and fractured rock, the "water-hammer" effect tends to cause hydraulic fracturing which exacerbates sea cliff erosion. Erosion associated with breaking waves is most active when water depths atthe cliff-platform junction coincide with the respective critical incoming wave height, such that the water depth is approximately equal to 1.3 times the wave height. Marine Erosion at the Cliff-Platform Junction The cliff-platform junction contribution to retreat of the overall sea cliff is from marine erosion, which includes mechanical, chemical, and biological erosion processes. Marine erosion, which operates horizontally (backwearing) on the cliff as far up as the top of the splash zone, and vertically (downwearing) on the shore platform (Emery and Kuhn, 1980; Trenhaile, 1987). Backwearing and downwearing typically progress at rates that will maintain the existing gradient of the shore platform. Subaerial Erosion "Subaerial Erosion" processes are discussed as follows. Groundwater The primary erosive effect of groundwater seepage upon the formation at the site is spring sapping, or the mechanical erosion of sand grains by water exiting the bluff face. Chemical solution, however, is also a significant contributor (especially of carbonate matrix material). As indicated previously, as groundwater approaches the bluff, it infiltrates near-surface, stress-relief, bluff-parallel joints/fractures, which form naturally behind and parallel to the bluff face. Hydrostatic loading of bluff parallel (and sub-parallel) joints/fractures is an important cause of block-toppling on steep-cliffed lower bluffs (Kuhn and Shepard, 1980). Slope Decline The process of slope decline consists of a series of steps, which ultimately cause the bluff to retreat. The base of the bluff is first weakened by wave attack and the development of wave cut niches and/or sea caves, and bluff parallel tension joint/fractures. As the weakened sea cliff fails by blockfall or rockfall, an over-steepened bluff face is left, with the debris atthe toe of the sea cliff. Ultimately, the rockfall/blockfall debris is removed by wave action, and the marginal support for the upper bluff is thereby removed. Progressive surficial slumping and failure of the bluff will occur until a condition approaching the angle Karnak Architecture W.O. 3512-A-SC 2641 -43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 Fi!e:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 11 GeoSoils, Inc. of repose is established over time, and the process begins anew. Bluffs with slope angles in the 35 to 40 degrees range may indicate ages in the 75- to 100-year range. Steeper slopes indicate a younger age. Slopes at the site vicinity indicate a relatively older age, which are generally typical of inactive erosion. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of representative site earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil classification of onsite soils is provided in the exploration log in Appendix C. Moisture-Density Relations The maximum density and optimum moisture content was determined for the major soil type encountered in the boring. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D-1557. Results of this testing are presented on the boring log in Appendix C. Laboratory Standard-Maximum Dry Density To determine the compaction character of a representative sample of onsite soil, laboratory testing was performed in accordance with ASTM test method D-1557. Test results are presented in the following table: LOCATION B-1 @ 0-6 MAXIMUM DENSITY (pcf) 132.0 OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 9.0 Expansion Index Testing Expansion index testing was performed on a representative soil sample, according to UBC Standard 18-2 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). The test result is presented below: LOCATION B-1 @ 0-6' SOIL TYPE Sand EXPANSION INDEX 0 EXPANSION POTENTIAL Very Low i Karnak Architecture 2641-43 Ocean Street File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O.3512-A-SC February 10,2003 Page 12 Direct Shear Tests Remolded shear testing was performed on an undisturbed sample in genera! accordance with ASTM test method D-3080. Test results are presented on the following table. LOCATION B-1 @ 2' (fill) COHESION (psf) 105 INTERNAL FRICTION (Degrees) 32 Soluble Sulfates/pH Resistivity One sample of the site materials in the artificial fill was analyzed for soluble sulfate content and corrosion to ferrous metals. The results are as follows: LOCATION Artificial Fill SOLUBLE SULFATES (mg/kg) 56 PH 5.4 RESISTIVITY-SATURATED (ohms-cm) 2,900 Site soils have a negligible potential to concrete (i.e., 0.0056 soluble sulfate percent by weight in soil). Per code, 4,000 psi concrete is required. In addition, pH and resistivity tests were performed, which indicate site soils are acidic and are moderately corrosive to ferrous metals. Moderately corrosive soils are considered to range from 2,000 to 10,000 ohms-cm. In light of the salt environment of the site, the designer should consider the use of Type V concrete. SLOPE STABILITY The site and immediate vicinity is generally characterized by subaerial erosion and urbanization erosion. No geomorphic evidence for immediate gross slope instability was observed onsite, nor on the adjacent properties. However, this does not preclude the presence of conditions (structure, soil strength, etc.) contributing to a reduced gross stability. The slope faces, if left untreated, will likely continue to progressively erode and/or slump and may accelerate during strong seismic shaking, severe winter storms or other similar events. Accordingly, there is some potential that natural slopes may be subjectto instability during seismic shaking, heavy precipitation or strong storms, as would other similar existing slopes in the coastal southern California area. Mitigation would likely be necessary for all structures, including patios, spas, flatwork, etc., from being impacted. Karnak Architecture 2641-43 Ocean Street Fi!e:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge W.O. 3512-A-SC February 10, 2003 Page 13 GeoSoils, Inc. i SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Analyses were performed utilizing the two-dimensional slope stability computer program "XSTABL" The program calculates the factor of safety for specified circles or searches for a circular, block, or irregular slip surface having the minimum factor of safety using the Janbu, or general limit equilibrium (Spencer). A computer print-out of calculations and shear strength parameters used are provided in Appendix D. A representative cross section was prepared for analysis, utilizing data from our investigation and the map that depicts the existing slope. This cross section is provided as Plate 2. The location of the cross-section is shown on Plate 1. Gross Stability Analysis Based on the available data, the constraints outlined above, and our stability calculations of the most critical slopes shown in Appendix D, calculated factors-of-safety greater than code have been obtained for the existing slope on the subject site. This assumes that the slope remains in its current condition as depicted on the cross section shown on Plate 2 (i.e., no erosion, undermining, etc.). Surficial Slope Stability The surficial stability of the slope has been analyzed utilizing the shear strength parameters in Appendix D. Calculations are shown in Appendix D, which indicate a static surficial safety factor greater than code for the existing slopes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS General Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed residential development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development are: • Depth to competent bearing material. Slope stability. • Earthwork and design. • Potential for perched water. • Potential for corrosion. Karnak Architecture W.O. 3512-A-SC 2641 -43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 14 GeoSoils, Inc. Earth Materials Undocumented Artificial Fill These earth materials are typically loose and are considered potentially compressible in their existing state; thus, the undocumented artificial fill onsite may settle appreciably under additional fill, foundation, or improvement loadings, and is not recommended for the support of new structures. Recommendations for the treatment of the artificial fill are presented in the earthwork section of this report. Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water, as discussed previously, are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along fill/bedrock contacts and along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions. The groundwater conditions observed and opinions generated were those at the time of our investigation. Conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors that were not obvious at the time of our investigation. Slope Stability Surficial and gross stability analyses indicate generally stable conditions for the existing slope; however, based on a review of available published literature on coastal bluff retreat in the vicinity, the subject site is located in an area with a moderate shoreline risk and average erosion rate of 1.2 inches to 9.1 inches per year. It is our understanding that a sea wall is proposed at the toe of the existing slope. Earthwork and Foundation Design Two alternatives for earthwork and foundation design have been developed, based on the site conditions. Alternative No. 1 consists of complete removal and recompaction of existing undocumented artificial fill and the construction of a conventional slab on grade foundation. Alternative No. 2 consists of minimal to no grading and the use of a pier and grade beam foundation system for structural support. It should be noted that Alternative No. 1 would require shoring and bracing for excavation adjacent to and below the existing foundation system. Karnak Architecture W.0.3512-A-SC 2641-43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 File:e:\wp7\3500\35l2a.pge Page 15 GeoSoils, Inc. The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site. In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or modified in writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review. RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION Grading General The following earthwork recommendations are to be implemented if the removal and recompaction of existing fill is to be performed in lieu of piers and grade beams. All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code, the requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the Grading Guidelines presented in this report as Appendix E, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. During earthwork construction all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Site Preparation Debris, vegetation and other deleterious material should be removed from the improvement(s) area prior to the start of construction. Following removals, areas approved to receive additional fill should first be scarified and moisture conditioned (at or above the soils optimum moisture content) to a depth of 12 inches and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. This excludes the pavement areas, which should be compacted to 95 percent. Karnak Architecture W.O. 3512-A-SC 2641 -43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 16 GeoSoils, Inc. Removals (Unsuitable Materials) The artificial fill should be removed and recompacted or reprocessed in areas proposed for settlement-sensitive improvements. Removal depths are estimated to range from 3 to 6 feet below proposed grade. Materials generated during removal operations may be re- used as compacted fill provided the materials are suitably moisture conditioned prior to placement. When removals are completed, the exposed surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted per the GSI grading guidelines (Appendix E) and recommendations herein. Fill Placement Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (±6-inch) lifts, cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. If fill materials are imported to the site, the proposed import fill should be submitted to GSI, so laboratory testing can be performed to verify that the intended import material is compatible with onsite material. At least three business days of lead time should be allowed by builders or contractors for proposed import submittals. This lead time will allow for particle size analysis, specific gravity, relative compaction, expansion testing and blended import/native characteristics as deemed necessary. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS General In the eventthatthe information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct, or any changes in the design, location or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. The information and recommendations presented in this section are not meant to supersede design by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in structural design. Upon request, GSI could provide additional consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. Karnak Architecture W.O. 3512-A-SC 2641 -43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 Rle:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 17 GeoSoils, Inc. CONVENTIONAL SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATIONS Design Our field work and laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils are generally very low in expansion potential. Preliminary recommendationsforfoundation design and construction are presented below based on the assumption that low expansive materials will be used for support of structures. The foundation system should be designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines contained in the Uniform Building Code. Final foundation designs should be based upon conditions exposed following earthwork construction. Should higher expansive materials occur at pad grade, revised foundation recommendations would need to be provided by GSI. Conventional spread and continuous strip footings may be used to support the proposed structure, provided they are founded entirely in properly compacted fill or suitable terrace deposits. Bearing Value An allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot should be used for design of continuous footings 12 inches wide and 12 inches deep and for design of isolated pad footings 24 inches square and 12 inches deep, entirely into compacted fill or terrace deposits. This value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth to a maximum value of 2,000 pounds per square foot. The above values may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. No increase, in bearing, forfooting width is recommended. Residential footings should not simultaneously bear directly on suitable native and fill soils. Lateral Pressure Passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 250 pounds per cubic foot per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. An allowable coefficient of friction between earth material (fill) and concrete of 0.30 may be used with the dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. Foundation Settlement - Structural Loads Provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction phase of development, a majority (>50 percent) of the anticipated foundation settlement is expected to occur during construction. Maximum settlement is not expected to exceed approximately Va inch and should occur below the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not anticipated to exceed 1/4 inch between similar elements, in a 20-foot span. Karnak Architecture W.O. 3512-A-SC 2641 -43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 Rle:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge —-.-*» Pa9e 18 GeoSotls, Inc. Construction The following preliminary recommendations are for the proposed construction, in consideration of ourfield investigation, laboratory testing and engineering analysis. These construction recommendations are meant as minimums and are not intended to supersede the recommendations of the structural engineer or corrosion specialist: Due to the very low to low expansive soil conditions identified onsite, foundations should be constructed to a minimum depth of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade. Foundation widths and depths may be constructed per Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines (i.e., 18 inches deep for two-story loads). All footings should be minimally reinforced with two No. 5 reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom of the footing. Exterior post supports should be founded at a depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade and tied to the main foundation system with a grade beam in two directions. Reinforcement should be properly designed by the project structural engineer. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and a minimum of 1 square foot in cross section at least 12 inches wide should be utilized across large entrances, such as garages or double wide doorways. The base of the reinforced grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of adjoining footings. Setbacks Foundations for any structure (including pools, tennis courts, etc.) should be set back from the top of any adjacent descending slope, a distance equal to one-third the height of the slope. Foundations for any adjacent structures, including retaining walls, should be deepened (as necessary) to belowa 1:1 projection upward and awayfrom any proposed lowerfoundation system. This recommendation may not be considered valid, if the additional surcharge imparted by the upper foundation on the lowerfoundation has been incorporated into the design of the lowerfoundation. Additional setbacks, not discussed or superseded herein, and presented in the UBC are considered valid. Karnak Architecture W.O. 3512-A-SC 2641-43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 19 GeoSoils, Inc. CONVENTIONAL CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE Conventional Floor Slabs The following criteria are considered minimum design parameters for the slab and they are in no way intended to supersede design by the structural engineer. Slab criteria provided do not account for concentrated loads from heavy machinery. Floors in slab areas are assumed to be designed for typical residential floor slabs. Slabs subject to higher or concentrated loads (e.g., columns, walls, etc.) should be properly designed by the project structural engineer. The subgrade soil should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Moisture conditioning is recommended for these soil conditions. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to or greater than the soils optimum moisture, to a depth of 18 inches below pad grade in the slab areas and verified by this office within 72 hours of pouring slabs and prior to placing visqueen or reinforcement. Slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and be minimally reinforced with No. 4 reinforcing bars on 18 inches centers both ways, or equivalent reinforcement. Reinforcing should be properly supported on chairs or blocks to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the slab. Concrete slab weakened plane or expansion joints should be placed in accordance with current standards of practice and no greater than 12 feet apart. Concrete slabs should be underlain with a minimum of 4 inches of sand. In addition, where moisture condensation is undesirable, a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum 6 mil thick, polyvinyl chloride or equivalent membrane, with all laps sealed, should be provided at the mid-point of the sand layer. Exterior Flatwork Exterior walkways, sidewalks, or patios, using concrete slab on grade construction (excluding traffic pavements), should be designed and constructed in accordance with the following criteria. 1. Slabs should be a minimum 4 inches in thickness. A thickened edge should be considered (12 inches in depth and 4 to 6 inches in thickness) for all flatwork adjacent to landscape areas. 2. Slab subgrade should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction and moisture conditioned to at or above the soils optimum moisture content. 3. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints should be considered to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two of the best ways to control this movement is: 1) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel, increasing Karnak Architecture W.0.3512-A-SC 2641-43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 20 GeoSoils, Inc. tensile strength of the slab; and/or 2) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. We would suggest that the maximum control joint spacing be placed on 5- to 8-foot centers or the smallest dimension of the slab, whichever is least. 4. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength. 5. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Adjacent landscaping should be graded to drain into the street, parking area, or other approved area. All surface water should be appropriately directed to areas designed for site drainage. 6 In areas directly adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e. irrigation, planters, etc.), all joints should be sealed with flexible mastic. 7. Concrete used to construct flatwork should be at least ASTM 520-C-2500. DRILLED PIER AND GRADE BEAM FOUNDATIONS The proposed three-story addition may also be supported by drilled, cast-in-place, concrete piers. To improve performance, if retaining walls are proposed on site, they may also utilize a drill pier supported foundation. The drilled pier foundation forthe building should gain vertical support from friction and end bearing in suitable soils above the water table. The piers should extend 5 feet into the terrace deposits. The piers should be a minimum 18 inches in diameter and designed based on the vertical load with an allowable 1/4-inch of post construction settlement. The structural strength of the piers should be checked by the structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in structural analysis. Total loads may be increased by 1/3 for wind and seismic. Uplift capacities may be computed using 1/4 the allowable downward loads (including the concrete pier weight). For planning purposes, the piers may use a skin friction resistance of 250 psf (surface area of the pier). The top 3 feet should not be considered in design. The end bearing of the pier may utilize an additional 1,000 psf, if the bottom of the pier excavation is clean and free of loose debris prior to placing concrete. Lateral load resistance for the drilled pier foundation depends on the stiffness of the surrounding soil, stiffness of the pier shaft, allowable deflection at the pier top and induced moment in the pier. Lateral load will be provided by passive pressure acting at the pier cap. An equivalent fluid pressure of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting on artificial fill with a maximum of 2,000 psf can be considered for passive resistance. The upper 12 inches of passive resistance for the drilled piers should be neglected unless confined by slabs or pavement. A more refined lateral load capacity may be provided when the pier head conditions (fixed, free), layout and elevations are provided. Drilled piers should be spaced Karnak Architecture W.O.3512-A-SC 2641-43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 21 GeoSoils, Inc. a minimum of three pier diameters apart (center to center). The effects of pier groups should be evaluated when the preliminary foundation drawings are made available. Pier holes should be drilled straight and plumb. Locations (both plan and elevation) and plumbness should be the contractors responsibility. All loose materials should be removed from the bottom of each pier hole. Concrete and steel reinforcement should be placed in each pier hole on the same day that the hole is drilled. If a caving sand condition occurs (likely on the site), during or after drilling, the pier hole should be cased. The bottom of the casing should be at least 4 feet below the top of the concrete as the concrete is poured and the casing is withdrawn. Dewatering may be required for concrete placement if significant seepage or groundwater is encountered during construction. This should be considered during project planning. Alternately, tremie concrete placement should be considered. The tops of the drilled piers should be interconnected with grade beams which will aid in resisting differential foundation movement and lateral drift. In general the minimum grade beam size should be 18 inches in width and 12 inches below the finished soil subgrade. The actual design of the grade beams and reinforcement should be performed by the structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in structural analysis. The floor system above the pier and grade beams may be either a structural concrete floor (minimum 6 inches thick) or raised wood floor. Prior to construction, we should review the construction procedure proposed by the contractor. Pier excavations should be observed and approved by us prior to concrete and steel placement. Observations during pier excavations will allow us to correlate the subsurface conditions exposed during construction with that obtained from our borings and make necessary changes in the foundation support and other geotechnical design criteria, if necessary. Drilled pier steel reinforcement cages should have spacers to allow for a minimum spacing of steel from the side of the pier excavation. During pier placement, concrete should not be allowed to free fall more than 5 feet. Concrete used in the foundation should be tested by a qualified materials testing consultant for strength and mix design. SHORING AND BRACING If conventional slab-on-grade foundations are proposed (Alternative No. 1), the existing foundations located on the east and west side of the proposed addition (shown on Plate 1) will require additional support during planned construction at this site. Shoring and bracing for the adjacent building foundations should be evaluated further during design, after plans are made available to this office. Karnak Architecture W.O. 3512-A-SC 2641 -43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 ge Page 22 GeoSoils, Inc. CORROSION AND CONCRETE TESTS GSI conducted preliminary sampling of near-surface materials for soil corrosivity on the subject site. Laboratory test results indicate that the site materials have a negligible potential for corrosion to concrete and a moderate potential for corrosion to exposed steeL The design criteria presented in Table 19-A-2 and 19-A-3 of UBC (1997 edition) should be followed. However, based on the salt environment of the site, the designer should consider the use of Type V concrete. Upon completion of grading, additional testing of soils (including import materials) should be considered prior to the construction of utilities and foundations. Alternative methods and additional comments may be obtained from a qualified corrosion engineer. UTILITIES Utilities should be enclosed within a closed utilidor (vault) or designed with flexible connections to accommodate potential differential settlement. Due to the potential for differential settlement, air conditioning (A/C) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation (PT slab) or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste waterlines should be drained to a suitable outlet ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Landscape Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil materials and cause expansion. Slope stability is significantly reduce by overly wet conditions. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types which require little water and capable of surviving the prevailing climate. The soils materials should be maintained in a solid to semi-solid state as defined by the material's Atterberg Limits. Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over watering the landscape areas could aversely affect proposed site improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior fiatwork. From a geotechnical standpoint, leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed forthe purpose of adding amendments they should be recompacted to 90 percent compaction. For additional information refer to the Homeowner Maintenance Guidelines included in Appendix F. Karnak Architecture W.O. 3512-A-SC 2641^43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 File:e:\wp7\3500\35l2a.pge Page 23 GeoSoils, Inc. Top-of-bluff stability may be effected by the landscape configuration installed by the owner, architect, and/or landscape architect. Native plants should be selected with deeper taproots, which may improve the stability of the upper portion of coastal bluff and reduce the potential for subaerial erosion. If irrigation systems are utilized, the schedule should be reviewed by the landscape architect and should include moisture sensors (or other override devices) embedded into the soil. Landscape work should comply with AB325 and Ordinace 195. Within a period of seven years, existing landscape should be reviewed and renovated as deemed necessary by the landscape architect. Hand planting on the bluff face should be minimized or eliminated. Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This office should be notified in advance of any additional fill placement, regarding the site, ortrench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench, and retaining wall(s) backfills. Drainage Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundation systems and not allowed to pond and/or steep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area. Roof gutters and down spouts are recommended to control roof runoff. Down spouts should outlet or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. For additional recommendations about maintenance of site drainage refer to Appendix F. Footing Excavations All footing trench excavations should be observed by a representative of this office prior to placing reinforcement. Footing trench or pier spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM test method D-1557) if not removed from the site. Karnak Architecture W.O. 3512-A-SC 2641-43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 24 GeoSoils, Inc. Trenching All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1. All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to near optimum content and compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM test method D-1557). As an alternative for shallow (12? inches) under slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized. Jetted or flooded backfill as a method of placement is not recommended. Observation/probing/testing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. 2. Exterior trenches in structural areas, beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used adjacent to perimeter footings or in trenches on slopes. Compaction testing and observation, along with probing should not be performed to verify the desired results. Grading Guidelines Grading should be performed in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Grading Code of the City of Encinitas, and applicable and adopted chapters of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and the General Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix E of this report. PLAN REVIEW Final site development and foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review and comment, as the plans become available, for the purpose of minimizing any misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and any additional earthwork construction performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. Karnak Architecture W.O. 3512-A-SC 2641 -43 Ocean Street February 10, 2003 File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge —*•*«» Pa9e 25Inc. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory study are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site grading and construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. Inasmuch as our study is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing, and engineering analysis, the conclusion and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. Karnak Architecture 2641-43 Ocean Street File: e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O.3512-A-SC February 10,2003 Page 26 APPENDIX A REFERENCES APPENDIX A REFERENCES Blake, T.F., 2000a, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version. , 2000b, EQSEARCH, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal acceleration from California historical earthquake catalogs; Windows 95/98 version. , 2000c, FRISKSP, A computer program for the probabilistic estimation of peak acceleration and uniform hazard spectra using 3-D faults as earthquake sources; Windows 95/98 version. Bowles, J.E., 1988, Foundation analysis and design: McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. California Department of Boating and Waterways and San Diego Association of Governments, Flick, R.E., ed., 1994, Shoreline erosion assessment and atlas of the San Diego region, volume II, December. Campbell, K.W., 1993, Empirical prediction of near-source ground motion from large earthquakes, in Johnson, J.A. Campbell, K.W... and Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18,1994. , 1985. Strong motion attenuation relations, aten-year perspective, in, Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, T.F., eds., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. Clarke, S.H., Green, H.G., Kennedy, M.P., Vedder, J.G., and Legg, M.R., 1987, Geologic map of the inner-southern California continental margin in Green, H.G., and Kennedy, M.P., eds., California Continental Margin Geologic Map Series: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Cooper, W.S., 1959, Coastal sand dunes of California: Geological Society of America Memoir. Curran, S.A., and Abbott, P.L, 1994, Fire History of organic fragments Cretacious Point Loma Foundation at La Jolla Bay, in Rosenberg, P.S., ed., Geology and Natural History, Camp Pendelton, United States Marine Corps Base, San Diego County, California: by the San Diego Association of Geologists. Davis, J.F., 1997 Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards in Calfornia: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 117. GeoSoils, Inc. Eisenberg, L.T., 1985, Pleistocene faults and marine terraces, northern San Diego County, jn Abbott, P.L., ed., On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologists. Elder-Mills, D., and Artim, E.R., 1982, The Rose Canyon fault; a review, jn Abbott, P.L, ed., Geologic Studies in San Diego Association of Geologists. Emery, K.O., and Aubrey, D.G., 1991, eds., Sea levels, land levels, and tide changes. Springer-Verlag Publishers, New York, pp. 175-176 Emery, K.O., and Kuhn, G.G., 1982, Sea cliffs: their processes, profiles, and classification: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 93, no 7. , 1980, Erosion of rock shores at La Jolla, California, jn Marine Geology, v. 37. Fisher, P.J., and Mills, G.I., 1991, The offshore Newport-lnglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone, California: structure, segmentation, and tectonics, jn Abbott, P.L, and Elliott, W.J., eds., Environmental Perils - San Diego Region: San Diego Association of Geologists. Fulton, K., 1981, A manual for researching historical coastal erosion jn Kuhn, G.G., ed., California Sea Grant Report No. T-CSGCP-003. Gerhard, L.C., Harrison, W.E., and Hanson, B.M., eds., 2001, Introduction and overview, in Geological perspectives of global climate change, pp. 231-250. Greensfelder, R. W., 1974, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. Harff, J.A., Friscbutter, A., Lampe, R., and Meyer, M., 2001, Sealevel changes in the Baltic Sea: interrelation of climatic and geologic process,//? Gerhard, L.C., Harrison, W.E., and Hanson, B.M., eds., Geological perspectives of global climate change, pp. 231- 250. Hart and Bryant, 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Hausman, M.R., 1990, Engineering principles of ground modification: Mcgraw Hill, Inc., New York. Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D., Undated, An introduction to geotechnical engineering: Prentence-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Horrer, P.L., 1984, Wave action and related factors for proposed seawall at 6000 Camino de la Costa, dated November 28. Karnak Architecture Appendix A File:e:\wp7\3500\35l2a.pge Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. Housner, G. W., 1970, Strong ground motion in Earthquake Engineering, Robert Wiegel, ed., Prentice-Hall. Howell, D.G., Stuart, C.G., Platt, J.P. and Hills, D.J., 1974, Possible strike-slip faulting inthe southern California Borderland: Geological Society of America Geology, v. 2, no. 2. Inman, D.L, 1976, Summary report of man's impact on the California coastal zone; prepared for the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, State Of California. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California. Ishihara, K., 1985 Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering: A.A. Balkema Publishers Rotterdam, Netherlands. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1: 750,000. Joyner, W.B. and Boore, D.M., 1982a, Estimation of response-spectral values as functions of magnitude, distance and site conditions, in Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, T.F., eds., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. , 1982b, Prediction of earthquake response spectra, jn Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, T.F., eds., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. Kennedy, M.P., 1973, Sea-Cliff erosion at Sunset Cliffs, San Diego: California Geology, 26, February. Kern. J.P., 1977, Origin and history of upper Pleistocene marine terraces, San Diego California, Geological Society of American Bulletin 88. Kuhn, G.G., and Shepard, F.P., 1984, Sea Cliffs, beaches and coastal valleys of San Diego County: some amazing histories and some horrifying implications: University of California Press, Berkeley, California, and London, England. , 1983, Newly discovered Evidence from the San Diego County area of some principles of coastal retreat: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Shore and Beach, January. , 1981 .Should Southern California build defenses against violent storms resulting in lowland flooding as in records of past century: Geological Society of America Bulletin Karnak Architecture Appendix A File;e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. , 1980a, Greatly accelerated man-induced coastal erosion and new sources of beach sand, San Onofre State Park and Camp Pendleton, northen San Diego County, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Shore and Beach, October. , 1980b Coastal erosion in San Diego County, California, in Edge, B.L,ed., Coastal Zone '80, Proceedings of second Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management held in Hollywood, Florida, on 17-20 November, 1980: American Society of Civil Engineers, V. 111. , 1979a, Accelerated beach-cliff erosion related to unusual storms in southern California: California Geology, March. , 1979,. Coastal erosion in San Diego County, California, jn Abbott, P.L and Elliott, W.J., eds., Earthquakes and other perils San Diego region. Lambe, T.W., 1951, Soil testing for engineers: John Wiley & Sons, New York. Lambe, T.W., and Whitman., R.V., 1969, Soil Mechanics: John Wiley & Sons, New York. Lee, L.J., Schug, D.L and Raines, G.L 1990, Seacliff stabilization, Seacliff park (Swami's), beach access stairway, Encinitas, California, in Geotechnical Engineering Case Histories in San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologists., October 20, Field Trip Guide Book. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1983, City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study, June. Legg, M.R., 1985, Geologic structure and tectonics of the inner continental borderland offshore northen Baja California, Mexico, unpublished doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of California, Santa Barbara. , 1989, Faulting and seismotectonics of the inner continental borderland west of San Diego, in Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, Workshop on the Seismic Risk in the San Diego Region: Special Focus on the Rose Canyon Fault System. Legg, M.R., and Kennedy, M.P., 1991, Oblique divergence and convergence in the California Continental Borderland, in Abbott, P.L., Elliott, W.J., eds., Environmental Perils - San Diego Region: San Diego Association of Geologist. Lindivall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K.., and Lindivall, E.G., 1989, The seismic hazard of San Diego revised: new evidence for magnitude 6+ Holocene earthquakes on the Rose Canyon fault zone, jn Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, Workshop on The Seismic Risk in the San Diego Region: Special Focus on the Rose Canyon Fault System. Karnak Architecture Appendix A File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 4 GeoSoilSj Inc. Masters, P.M., 1996, Paleocoastlines, ancient harbors and marine archeology: Geology Society of America Bulletin, Shore and Beach, July. Matti, J.C., and Morton, D.M., 1993, Paleogeographic evolution of the San Andreas fault in Southern California: A reconstruction based a new cross-fault correlation, in Powell, R.E., Weldon, R.J. It, and Matti, J.C., eds., The San Andreas Fault System: Displacement, Palinspastic Reconstruction, and Geologic Evolution: Geological Society of America Memoir 178. Matti, J.C., Morton, D.M., and Cox, B.F., 1992, The San Andreas fault system in the vicinity of the central Transverse Ranges province, southern California, jn Sieh, K.E., and Matti, J.C., eds., Earthquake Geology San Andreas Fault System, Palm Springs to Palmdale. Mitchell, J.K., 1976, Fundamentals of soil behavior: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. Moore, L.J., Benumof, B.T., and Griggs, G.B., 1999, Coastal erosion hazards in Santa Cruz and San Diego Counties, California, in Crowell, M., and Leatherman, S.P., eds., Coastal erosion mapping and management: Journal of Coastal Research, spec, issue no. 28,121-139. Morton, D.M., and Matti, J.C., 1993, Extension and contraction within an evolving divergent strike-slip fault complex: The San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones at their convergence in southern California, in Powell, R.E., Weldon, R.J. II, and Matti, J.C., eds., The San Andreas Fault System: Displacement, Palinspatic Reconstruction, and Geologic Evolution: Geological Society of America Memoir 178. Munk, W.H., and Traylor, M.A., 1947, Refraction of ocean waves: a process linking underwater topography to beach erosion: Journal of Geology, v. LV, no. 1. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986a, Soil Mechanics, design manual 7.01, Change 1 September: United States Navy. , 1986b, Foundations and earth structures, DM 7.02, Change 1 September: United States Navy. , 1983, Soil Dynamics, deep stabilization, and special geotechnical construction, design manual 7.3, April: United States Navy. Nordstom, C.E., and Inman, D.L, 1973, Beach and cliff erosion in San Diego County, California, in Ross A., and Dowlen, R.J., eds., Studies on the Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Greater San Diego Area, California: the San Diego Association of Geologists, and Association of Engineering Geologists. Karnak Architecture Appendix A File:e:\wpA3500\3512a.pge Page 5 CeoSoilSj Inc. Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations reported m Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1988, "Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion", in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II, Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, J.L, ed.: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102. Schumm, S.A., and Mosley, P.M., 1973, Slope Morphology: Dowden,Hutchinson&Ross, Inc. Seed, H.B., 1976, Evalution of soil liquefaction effects on level ground during earthquakes, state-of-art paper, liquefaction problem: Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Preprint 2753, New York. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute monograph. , 1971, A simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential: American Society of Civil Engineers, JSMFD, v. 197. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Arango, I., 1983, Evaluation of liquefaction potential using feild performance data: American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, v. 109. Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., and Chung, R.M., 1985, Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations: Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 111, no. GR12, p. 1425-1445. Shepard, P.P., and Kuhn,G.G., 1983, History of sea arches and remnant stacks of La Jolla California, and their bearing on similar features elsewhere: Marine Geology, v. 51. Shepard, P.P., and Grant, U.S. IV, 1947, Wave erosion along the southern California coast: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 58, Shore and Beach, October. Shinn, E.A., Coral reefs and shoreline dipsticks, 2001 in Gerhard, L.C., Harrison, W.E., and Hanson, B.M., eds., Geological perspectives in global climate change, pp 251-264. Streiff, D., Schmoll, M., and Artim, E.R., 1982, The Rose Canyon fault at Spindrift Drive, La Jolla, California,, in Abbott, P.L., ed., Geologic Studies in San Diego: San Diego Association of Geologists. Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) jn Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York. Karnak Architecture Appendix A File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. Sunamura.T., 1977, A relationship between wave-induced cliff erosion and erosive forces of waves: Journal of Geology, v. 85. Terzaghi, K., and Peck. Ralph B., 1967, Soil mechanics in engineering practice: John Wiley and Sons, New York, second edition. Teriman, JA, 1984, The Rose Canyon fault zone, a review and analysis: The California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Cooperative Agreement EMF-83-k0148. Trenhaile, A.S., 1987, The geomorphology of rock coasts: Clarendon Press, Oxford. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1991, State of the coast report San Diego region, CCSTWS91. , 1989, Historic wave and sea level data report San Diego region, CCSTWS 88-6. , 1988, Coastal cliff segments San Diego region (1887-1947), CCSTWS 88-6. , 1984a, Shore protection manual. , 1984b, Nearshore bathymetric survey report, no 1, CCSTWS 84-2. Weber, F.H., 1982, Geologic Map of north-central coastal area of San Diego County, California, showing recent slope failures and pre-development landslides: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 82-12 LA. Wilson, K.L, 1972, Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas quadrangles, San Diego County, California: unpublished masters thesis, university of California, Riverside. Zeevaert, L, 1972, Foundation engineering for difficult subsoil conditions: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Regional Offices, New York. Ziony, J.I., 1973, Recency of faulting in the greater San Diego area, California, in Ross, A., and Dowlen,R.J.,eds., Studies on the Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Greater San Diego Area, California: San Diego Association of Geologists and Association of Engineering Geologists. Karnak Architecture Appendix A File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX B REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BYGEI REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Kiko Residence 2649 Ocean Street Carlsbad, California JOB NO. 02-8201 05 June 2002 Prepared for: Frederick and Jessica Kiko GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUND WATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 05 June 2002 Frederick and Jessica Kiko 3561 Donna Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 Job No. 02-8201 Subject: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Kiko Residence 2649 Ocean Street Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kiko: In accordance with your request and per our proposal dated January 23, 2002, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. has performed an investigation of the soil and geologic conditions at the subject site. The field work was performed on April 5, 2002. in addition, we previously issued a document titled, "Interim Report of Site Conditions, 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California/' dated April 17, 2002. Based on a review of site plans prepared by WOLF Design*Build, it is our understanding that the site is being developed to receive a single-family residence with a 3-car attached garage, swimming pool, and associated improvements. The residential structure is to be a maximum of two stories in height, with a mezzanine and below-grade basement area. The structure will be constructed of standard- type building materials utilizing slab-on-grade, with conventional continuous foundations and retaining wall foundation systems. Our investigation revealed that the site is underlain by medium dense to dense terrace and formational materials overlain by approximately I1/z to 41/2 feet of loose to medium dense fill soil. In order to reduce the effects of potential settlement, we recommend that the upper 2 to 5 feet of surflcial soils be removed and recompacted to provide a more uniform, firm soil base for the proposed structure and improvements. It is our understanding that the proposed construction of the two basement levels will result In the removal of all of the existing loose surface soils. In the seawall location, dense formational material was encountered at a relatively shallow depth. i 7420 TRADE STREET • SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX: (858) 549-1604 • E-MAIL: geotech@ixpres.com In our opinion, if the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are implemented during site preparation, the site will be suited for the proposed development. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions concerning the following report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Reference to our Job No. Q2-S201 will expedite a response to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. -- -^ cS^-'^^^-x- ^"' 7 Jatme'ArCerros, P.E. ( R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer JKH/JAC/LDR/pj ^Leslie D. Reed, President C.E.G. 999cexp. 3-31-D33/R.G. 3391 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. SCOPE OF WORK 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION 2 III. FIELD INVESTIGATION 3 IV. LABORATORY TESTS 4 V. GENERAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 6 VI. SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 7 VII. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 10 VIII. EARTHQUAKE RISK EVALUATION 15 IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 X. GRADING NOTES 33 XI. LIMITATIONS 34 FIGURES la. Vicinity Map Ib. Site Plan and Geologic Map Ic. Cross Section A-A' Ila-f. Exploratory Boring and Handpit Logs III. Laboratory Test Results IV. Foundation Requirements Near Slopes V. Retaining Wall Waterproofing and Drainage Schematic APPENDICES A. Unified Soil Classification System B. EQ Fault Tables and EQ Search Tables C. Modified Mercalli Index D. General Earthwork Specifications REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Kiko Residence 2649 Ocean Street Carlsbad, California JOB NO. 02-8201 The following report presents the findings and recommendations of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. for the subject project (for Vicinity Map, see Figure No. la). I. SCOPE OF WORK It is our understanding, based on communications with Mr. Wolfram Kalber, and a review of conceptual site plans provided by Wolf Design*Build, that the site is intended for the construction of a two-story, single-family residence (including an attached 3-car garage, a lower-level basement area, a new seawall, a swimming pool, and associated improvements (for Site Plan, see Figure No. Ib). It is our understanding that the site will be graded to create a level building pad. Construction of the basement levels will result in installation of permanent shoring and the removal of the loose surficial soils. The residence will utilize standard slab- on-grade foundations and retaining walls. With the above in mind, the scope of work is briefly outlined as follows: 1. Identify and classify the surface and subsurface soils in the area of the proposed structures conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Figure No. II and Appendix A). 2. Review the site geology and make note of any faults or significant geologic features which may affect the development of the site (refer to Appendix B). Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 2 3. Evaluate the condition of the existing fill soils, terrace deposits and formational material. 4. Recommend site preparation procedures. 5. Recommend an allowable bearing pressure for the existing dense native soils and any recompacted fill soils. 6. Evaluate the settlement potential of the existing bearing soils under the proposed structural loads. 7. Provide preliminary foundation design information, including active and passive earth pressures to be utilized in design of any foundation structures and retaining walls. II. SITE DESCRIPTION The property is known as: Assessor's Parcel No. 203-140-09 and 10, Lots 13 and 14 of Block A, according to Map No. 1221, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. The site, consisting of approximately 7,000 square feet, is located at 2649 Ocean Street, in the north Carlsbad beach area, in the City of Carlsbad, California. The property is bordered on the north and south by developed residential properties, on the east by Ocean Street, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 3 A two-story residential structure with a partial basement currently exists on the site. Presently, vegetation on the site consists primarily of mature trees, decorative shrubbery and iceplant. The property slopes gently to moderately down to the west from Ocean Street. Approximate elevations across the site range from a high of 40 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near the street, to approximately 11 feet MSL in the western portion of the site. Survey information concerning actual elevations across the site was obtained from a "topographical survey" map by San Diego Land Surveying and Engineers, Inc., dated February 14, 2002. III. FIELD INVESTIGATION Three auger borings and five exploratory handpit excavations were placed on the site in areas where the structure, a new seawall; a swimming pool, and improvements are to be located and where representative soil conditions were expected (see Figure No. Ib). The soils encountered in the exploratory borings and handpits were observed and logged by our field representative, and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout the field operation. Exploratory boring and handpit logs have been prepared on the basis of our observations and the results have been summarized on Figure No. II. The predominant soils have been classified in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix A). In-place samples were obtained by driving a 3-inch outside-diameter (O.D.) by 2- 3/8-inch inside-diameter (I.D.) split-tube sampler a distance of 12 inches. Also, the Standard Penetration Test was performed by using a 140-pound weight falling 30 Proposed Kiko Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 02-8201 Page 4 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D. by 1-3/8-inch I.D. sampler tube a distance of 12 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the given distance was recorded for use in density determination. The following chart provides an in-house correlation between the number of blows and the relative density of the soil for the Standard Penetration Test and the 3-inch sampler. Soil Sand and Silt Clay Density Designation Very loose Loose Medium Dense Very Dense Very Soft Soft Firm Stiff Very Stiff Hard Very Hard 2-inch O.D. Sampler Blows/Foot 0-4 5-10 11-30 31-50 Over 50 0-2 3-4 5-8 9-15 16-30 31-60 Over 60 3-inch O.D. Sampler Blows/Foot 0-7 8-20 21-53 54-98 Over 98 0-2 3-4 5-9 10-18 19-45 46-90 Over 90 IV. LABORATORY TESTS Field and laboratory tests were performed on the disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples in order to evaluate their physical and mechanical properties and their ability to support the proposed structure and improvements. The following tests were conducted on the sampled soils: Proposed Kiko Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 02-8201 Page 5 1. Moisture/Density Relations (A5TM D1557-98, Method A) 2. Moisture Content (ASTM D2216-92) 3. Standard Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling (ASTM D1586-99 and D1587-94) 4. Mechanical Analysis (ASTM D422-98) 5. Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080-90) The moisture content of a soil sample is a measure of the weight of water, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight of the sample. The relationship between the moisture and density of the soil gives qualitative information regarding the soil strength characteristics and soil conditions to be anticipated during any future grading operation. The mechanical analysis was used to aid in the classification of the soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System. The expansion potential of soils is determined utilizing the Uniform Building Code Test Method for Expansive Soils (UBC Standard No. 29-2). In accordance with the UBC (Table 18-1-B), expansive soils are classified as follows: •^^JE^parisio^ Oto20 21 to 50 51 to 90 91 to 130 Above. 130 Very low Low Medium High Very high I Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 6 Based on our experience with similar soils and our visual classification, it is our opinion that the on-site soils have a very low expansion potential, with an expansion index of less than 20. A direct shear test was performed on relatively undisturbed sample in order to evaluate the soil strength and support capacity of the existing dense natural soils. The shear test was performed with a constant strain rate direct shear machine. The test specimen was saturated and then sheared under various normal loads at a slow rate to allow for drainage of the sample. Based on laboratory test data, our observations of the primary soil types on the project, and our previous experience with laboratory testing of similar soils in this area of the County of San Diego, our Geotechnical Engineer has assigned conservative values for friction angle, coefficient of friction, and cohesion to those soils that will have significant lateral support or bearing functions on the project. The assigned values are presented in Figure No. Ill and have been utilized in determining the recommended soil bearing capacity, as well as active and passive earth pressure design criteria for retaining wall and foundation design. V. GENERAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION The San Diego County area is part of a seismically active region of California. It is on the eastern boundary of the Southern California Continental Borderland, part of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This region is part of a broad tectonic boundary between the North American and Pacific Plates. The actual plate - boundary is characterized by a complex system of active, major, right-lateral strike- slip faults, trending northwest/southeast. This fault system extends eastward to the San Andreas Fault (approximately 70 miles from Oceanside) and westward to Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 7 the San Clemente Fault (approximately 50 miles off-shore from Oceanside) (Berger and Schug, 1991). During recent history, the San Diego County area has been relatively quiet seismically. No fault ruptures or major earthquakes have been experienced in historic time within the San Diego area. Since earthquakes have been recorded by instruments (since the 1930s), the San Diego County area has experienced scattered seismic events with Richter magnitudes generally less than 4.0. During June 1985, a series of small earthquakes occurred beneath San Diego Bay; three of these earthquakes had recorded magnitudes of 4.0 to 4.2. In addition/ the Oceanside earthquake of July 13, 1986, located approximately 26 miles offshore of the City of Oceanside, resulted in a magnitude of 5.3 (Hauksson, 1988). In California, major earthquakes can generally be correlated with movement on active faults. As defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Hart, E.W., 1980), an "active" fault is one that has had ground surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). Additionally, faults along which major historical earthquakes have occurred (about the last 210 years in California) are also considered to be active (Association of Engineering Geologist, 1973). The California Division of Mines and Geology defines a "potentially active" fault as one that has had ground surface displacement during Quaternary time, that is, during the past 11,000 to 1.6 million years (Hart, E.W., 1980). VI. SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION A geologic investigation of the site was conducted to evaluate the on-site geology and potential of geologic hazards that might affect the site. Our investigation drew Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 8 upon information gathered from published and unpublished geologic maps and reports, as well as the results of our recent exploratory excavations. The subject site is located within a residential area along the west side of Ocean Street, along the edge of the coastal bluff in the City of Carlsbad. The subject site is located in an area with moderate to high geologic risk (as identified by Map 12b of the "Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region — Volume II" [California Department of Boating and Waterways and San Diego Association of Governments]) due to conditions identified as "unprotected, unfavorable geology, inadequate setback and inadequate design/' No faults were shown to cross the site. The Rose Canyon Fault is located approximately 5 miles west of the subject site. Our field investigation and review of pertinent geologic maps and reports indicate that the site is underlain by a limited amount of artificial fill soils, marine terrace deposits and the Santiago Formation. Artificial Fill (Qaf)\ A limited amount of fill (approximately !1/2 to 4 feet) was encountered on the surface mostly in the western portion of the site. The fill is loose to medium dense and consists of red-brown to gray-brown, silty, fine to medium sand with roots and sandstone rock fragments. The fills are considered to have a very low expansion potential. Refer to Figure Nos. II and III for details. Beach Deposits (Ob): The beach deposits encountered at the site consist of loose to medium dense, dry to damp, light gray, fine to medium sand with lenses of --cobble 1 to 6 inches in diameter. These materials range from 4 to 41/2 feet in thickness and were encountered at the western portion of the site. These soils are Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 9 considered to have a negligible expansion potential. Refer to Figure Nos. II and III for details. Marine-Terrace Deposits (Qt)\ The major portion of the site is underlain by Pleistocene-age marine-terrace deposits. These materials are medium dense to dense and consist of tan-gray to dark gray and red-brown, fine- to medium-grained and fine- to coarse-grained sand. These materials are poorly to moderately well cemented and susceptible to some caving. Due to the variable degree of cementation in the terrace materials, any temporary slopes should be cut back to a safe gradient. Some of the terrace materials are relatively low density, but have a low consolidation potential. The terrace deposits are considered to have a very low expansion potential. A review of several geologic maps for this area indicates that the marine-terrace deposits occur as thin, very gently dipping, mantle-like deposits within 2 to 3 miles of the coast. One of the older maps (Wilson, 1972) shows these deposits as part of the Lindavista Formation. However, a more recent map (Weber, 1982) includes these deposits as part of the Bay Point Formation. Review of the Shoreline Erosion Assessment report also indicates that these deposits are mapped as part of the Bay Point Formation. Santiago Formation (Tsb): The site is mapped as being underlain by the Eocene- age Santiago Formation (Weber, 1982). The encountered Santiago Formation consists primarily of dense, well-cemented, tan-gray and green, silty fine sand. The Santiago Formation is considered to have low expansion and consolidation potential. Refer to Figure Nos. II and III for details. Proposed Kiko Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 02-8201 Page 10 VII. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS A.Local and Regional Faults It is our opinion that a known "active" fault presents the greatest seismic risk to the subject site during the lifetime of the proposed structures. To date, the nearest known "active" faults to the subject site are the northwest-trending Rose Canyon Fault, Coronado Bank Fault and the Elsinore Fault. Rose Canyon Fault The Rose Canyon Fault Zone (Mount Soledad and Rose Canyon Faults), located approximately 5 miles west of the subject site, is mapped trending north-south from Oceanside to downtown San Diego, from where it appears to head southward into San Diego Bay, through Coronado and offshore. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered to be a complex zone of onshore and offshore, en echelon strike slip, oblique reverse, and oblique normal faults. The Rose Canyon Fault is considered to be capable of causing a 7.5-magnitude earthquake and considered microseismically active, although no significant recent earthquake is known to have occurred on the fault. Investigative work on faults (believed to be part of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone) at the Police Administration and Technical Center in downtown San Diego and at the SDG&E facility in Rose Canyon, has encountered offsets in Holocene (geologically recent) sediments. These findings have been accepted as confirmed Holocene displacement on the Rose Canyon Fault and this previously classified "potentially active" fault has now been upgraded to an "active" fault as of November 1991 (California Division of Mines and Geology — Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, 1994). Coronado Bank Fault: The Coronado Bank Fault is located approximately 20 miles southwest of the site. Evidence for this fault is based upon geophysical data Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 11 (acoustic profiles) and the general alignment of epicenters of recorded seismic activity (Greene, 1979). An earthquake of 5.3 magnitude, recorded July 13, 1986, is known to have been centered on the fault or within the Coronado Bank Fault Zone. Although this fault is considered active, due to the seismicity within the fault zone, it is significantly less active seisrnically than the Elsinore Fault (Hileman, 1973). It is postulated that the Coronado Bank Fault is capable of generating a 7.0- magnitude earthquake and is of great interest due to its close proximity to the greater San Diego metropolitan area. Elsinore Fault: The Etsinore Fault is located approximately 24 miles northeast of the site. The Elsinore Fault extends approximately 200 km (125 miles) from the Mexican border to the northern end of the Santa Ana Mountains. The Elsinore Fault zone is a 1- to 4-mile-wide, northwest-southeast-trending zone of discontinuous and en echelon faults extending through portions of Orange, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Individual faults within the Elsinore Fault Zone range from less than 1 mile to 16 miles in length. The trend, length and geomorphic expression of the Elsinore Fault Zone identified it as being a part of the highly active San Andreas Fault system. Like the other faults in the San Andreas system, the Elsinore Fault is a transverse fault showing predominantly right-lateral movement. According to Hart, et al. (1979), this movement averages less than 1 centimeter per year. Along most of its length, the Elsinore Fault Zone is marked by a bold topographic expression consisting of linearly aligned ridges, swales and hallows. Faulted Holocene alluvial deposits (believed to be less than 11,000 years old) found along several segments of the fault zone suggest that at least part of the zone is currently active. Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 12 Although the Elsinore Fault Zone belongs to the San Andreas set of active, northwest-trending, right-slip faults in the southern California area (Crowell, 1962), it has not been the site of a major earthquake in historic time, other than a 6.0- magnitude quake near the town of Elsinore in 1910 (Richter, 1958; Toppozada and Parke, 1982). However, based on length and evidence of late-Pleistocene or Holocene displacement, Greensfelder (1974) has estimated that the Elsinore Fault Zone is reasonably capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude as large as 7.5. Recent study and logging of exposures in trenches in Glen Ivy Marsh across the Glen Ivy North Fault (a strand of the Elsinore Fault Zone between Corona and Lake Etsinore), suggest a maximum earthquake recurrence interval of 300 years, and when combined with previous estimates of the long-term horizontal slip rate of 0.8 to 7.0 mm/year, suggest typical earthquake magnitudes of 6 to 7 (Rockwell, 1985). B. Other Geologic Hazards Ground Rupture: Ground rupture is characterized by bedrock slippage along an established fault and may result in displacement of the ground surface. For ground rupture to occur along a fault, an earthquake usually exceeds magnitude 5.0. If a 5.0-magnitude earthquake were to take place on a local fault, an estimated surface- rupture length 1 mile long could be expected (Greensfelder, 1974), Our investigation indicates that the subject site is not directly on a known fault zone, and, therefore, the risk of ground rupture at the site is considered remote. Ground Shaking: Structural damage caused by seismically induced ground shaking is a detrimental effect directly related to faulting and earthquake activity. Ground shaking is considered to be the greatest seismic hazard in San Diego County. The intensity of ground shaking is dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake, the Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 13 distance from the earthquake, and local seismic condition. Earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 Richter scale or greater are generally associated with significant damage. It is our opinion that the most serious damage to the site would be caused by a large earthquake originating on the nearby Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Although the chance of such an event is low, it could occur within the useful life of the structures. The anticipated ground accelerations at .the site from earthquakes on faults within 100 miles of the site are provided in Tables 1 and 2, Appendix B. Liquefaction: The liquefaction of saturated sands during earthquakes can result in major damage to buildings. Liquefaction is the process in which soils are transformed into a dense fluid that will flow as a liquid when unconfined. It occurs principally in loose, saturated sands and silts when they are shaken by an earthquake of sufficient magnitude. On this site, the risk of liquefaction of foundation material due to seismic shaking is considered to be remote due to the density of the natural-ground material. No loss of soil strength is anticipated to occur at the site due to the design seismic event. Landslides: According to our geologic reconnaissance and a review of the geologic map (Santa Ana Sheet - 1965) and aerial photographs (4-11-53, AXN-8M-99 and 100), there are no known or suspected ancient landslides located on the site. Tsunami: The site is located at an elevation between 11 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and 40 feet MSL immediately east of the active beach. Based upon historical information on tsunami activity in Southern California, it is our opinion that the risk to the site from a tsunami is minimal. In addition, since a vertical concrete seawall is proposed, adequate protection should be provided. Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 14 Groundwater: No groundwater problems were encountered during the course of our field investigation and we do not expect significant problems to develop in the future -- if the property is developed as planned and proper drainage is provided. It should be kept in rnind, however, that the proposed grading operations may change surface drainage patterns and/or reduce permeabilities due to the densification of compacted soils. Changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the appearance of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously. Positive drainage measures should be constructed to intercept and divert all surface runoff waters away from the structure and improvements planned for the site. The damage from such water is expected to be minor and cosmetic in nature, if good positive drainage is implemented and maintained at the completion of construction. Corrective action should be taken on a site-specific basis, if and when it becomes necessary. C Bluff Edge Evaluation As part of our geotechnical investigation, we excavated five test pits to help locate the existing coastal terrace bluff edge. As indicated on the geologic cross-section A-A', we determined that the bluff edge is located along contour elevation 18 feet above mean sea level (MSL). This point on the site is where the marine terrace deposits slope steeply down to the west and come in contact with the relatively flat surface of beach sand deposits. The bluff face is currently covered with iceplant, so ...it is not visible. We understand that the City of Carlsbad's preliminary assessment determined the bluff edge to be at approximately elevation contour 30 feet above MSL along the west side of the existing wood deck. However, our test pit at the 30- Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 15 foot MSL slope top encountered approximately 4.5 feet of artificial fill and topsoil over the terrace deposits. D. Summary It is our opinion that a significant geologic hazard does not exist on the site. No evidence of faulting or landslide activity was encountered during our investigation of the site. The site is situated in a developed neighborhood of Carlsbad and in the event that severe earth shaking does occur from major faulting within the area, compliance with Uniform Building Code requirements for construction should help reduce structural damage to a degree considered acceptable by the UBC. From a geotechnical standpoint, our investigation indicates that the proposed residence can be constructed at the site provided the recommendations in this report are followed, VIII. EARTHQUAKE RISK EVALUATION Evaluation of earthquake risk requires that the effect of faulting on, and the mass stability of, a site be evaluated utilizing the MIO seismic design event, i.e., an earthquake event on an active fault with less than a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. Further, sites are classified by UBC 1997 Edition into "soil profile types SA through SF." Soil profile types are defined by their shear velocities where shear velocity is the speed at which shear waves move through the upper 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of the ground. These are: Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 16 SA => Greater than 1500 m/s SB => 760 to 1500 m/s Sc =^> 360 m/s to 760 m/s SD => 180 to 360 m/s SE => Less than 180 m/s SF & Soil requiring specific soil evaluation By utilizing an earthquake magnitude M10 for a seismic event on an active fault, knowing the site class and ground type, a prediction of anticipated site ground acceleration, g, from these events can be estimated. The subject site has been assigned Classification "Sc." An estimation of the peak ground acceleration and the repeatable high ground acceleration (RHGA) likely to occur at the project site by the known significant local and regional faults within 100 miles of the site is included in Appendix B. Also, a listing of the known historic seismic events that have occurred within 100 miles of the site at a magnitude of 5.0 or greater since the year 1800, and the probability of exceeding the experienced ground accelerations in the future based upon the historical record, is provided in Appendix B. Both tables generated from computer programs EQ Fault and EQ Search by Thomas F. Blake (1989) utilizing a digitized file of late-Quaternary California faults (EQ Fault) and a file listing of recorded earthquakes (EQSearch). Estimations of site intensity are also provided in these listings as Modified Mercalli Index values. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Index follows the EQ Fault and EQ Search tables of Appendix B. For earthquake resistant design, the Uniform Building Code requires that the design earthquake acceleration correspond to the one produced by an event with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, and that is 0.28g. Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 17 IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the practical field investigation conducted by our firm, and resulting laboratory tests, in conjunction with our knowledge and experience with the soils in this area of the City of Carlsbad. Our investigation revealed that the site is underlain by medium dense to dense terrace and formational materials with approximately !1/2 to 41/z feet of variable density fill materials. The loose surface soils will not provide a stable soil base for the proposed structure and associated improvements. As such, we recommend that these loose surface soils be removed and recompacted as part of the site preparation prior to the addition of any proposed fill and/or structural improvements. It is our understanding that the site will be cut down to create the lower-level storage and basement areas. As such, the loose surface soils should be removed during the excavation process. Due to the poor cementation in the terrace materials, temporary cut slopes may have to be laid back to a safe gradient. Some of the deeper terrace materials may have some low in-place densities and require additional removal during the grading operation. The seawall location was found to be underlain by dense formational materials at a relatively shallow depth. Because of the depth of the basement level and the proximity to the property line improvements, it is very likely that shoring will be required. A. Preparation of Soils for Site Development 1. The existing structures and vegetation observed on the site should be removed prior to the preparation of areas to receive new fill and/or structural improvements. This includes any roots from trees and shrubbery that might Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 18 extend under the proposed structures or improvements. Large roots have been known to cause significant damage to foundations. Al! roots over 1/2- inch in diameter shall be removed from soils to be recompacted. 2. To provide a uniform soils base for the proposed structures and rigid improvements (such as the swimming pool, patios, walkways, decking, driveway, etc.)/ the existing loose fill materials across the site, should be excavated to expose firm native soil, or as per the indications of our field representative. Any other areas observed to include loose soils during grading shall be excavated to expose firm native soil. The depth of removal is expected to be approximately 2 to 41/2 feet over most of the site. The bottom of the excavation should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, watered to approximately optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. The excavated fill materials to be used as fill should be cleaned of any debris and deleterious materials, watered to approximately optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density, in accordance with ASTM D1557- 98 standards. Those areas supporting proposed improvements or retaining structures should be prepared in a like manner. 3. No uncontrolled fill soils should remain on the site after completion of any future site work. In the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils, the loose fill soils should be removed and/or recompacted prior to completion of the grading operation. 4. Any buried objects, utility lines, abandoned irrigation lines, subsurface disposal systems, etc., which might be discovered on the site during grading, Proposed Kiko Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 02-8201 Page 19 should be removed and properly backfilled with approved on-site or imported fill soils and compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. 5. Any backfill soils placed in utility trenches or behind retaining walls that support structures and other improvements (such as patios, sidewalks, driveways, pavements, etc.) should be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density for low-expansive soils. Note: Due to the generally poor cementation of the terrace materials and the potential for caving, special care should be taken during excavation of utility trenches and temporary slopes. Because of the depth and configuration of proposed temporary slopes, shoring will most likely be required. As a minimum, Cal-OSHA safety standards shall be followed. B.Design Parameters for Foundations The recommended allowable bearing value for design of foundations for the proposed residential structure is 2,000 pounds per square foot. This load- bearing value may be utilized in the design of continuous foundations and spread footings when founded a minimum of 18 inches (for the proposed structure) into dense natural ground or properly compacted fill, measured from the lowest adjacent grade at the time of foundation construction. We recommend that three-story portions of the structure be founded on at least 24-inch-deep footings. For wider and/or deeper footings, the allowable soil bearing capacity may be calculated based on the following equation: i o Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 20 Qa = 1000D+500W for footings in compacted fill Qa = 1500D+750W for footings in formation where "Qa" is the allowable soil bearing capacity (in psf); "D" is the depth of the footing (in feet) as measured from the lowest adjacent grade; and "W" is the width of the footing (in feet). This load-bearing value may be increased one-third for design loads that include wind or seismic analysis. In fill soils, an increase of 500 psf in the allowable bearing value may be allowed for every 1 foot of embedment and for every additional 1 foot in width over the minimum dimensions indicated above, up to a maximum of 5,000 psf. Foundations in formational soils may have an allowable bearing increase of 1,500 psf for each additional foot in depth, and 750 psf for each additional foot in width. The maximum bearing capacity shall not exceed 6,000 psf. 7. The passive earth pressure of the dense natural-ground soils (to be used for design of shallow foundations and footings to resist the lateral forces) shall be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot. This passive earth pressure shall only be considered valid for design if the ground adjacent to the foundation structure is essentially level for a distance of at least three times the total depth of the foundation and is comprised of properly compacted fill within the depth of the foundation. 8. An allowable Coefficient of Friction of 0.40 times the dead load may be used between the bearing soils and concrete foundations, walls, or floor slabs. Proposed Kiko Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 02-8201 Page 21 9. The following table summarizes site-specific seismic design criteria to calculate the base shear needed for the design of the residential structure. The design criteria was obtained from the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition) based on the soil characteristics and distance to the closest fault. Parameter Seismic Zone Factor, Z Soil Profile Type Seismic Coefficient, Ca Seismic Coefficient, Cv Near-Source Factor, Na Near-Source Factor, Nv Seismic Source Type Value 0.40 Sc 0.40NA 0.56NV 1.0 1.14 B Reference Table 16-1 Table 16-J Table 16-Q Table 16-R Table 16-S Table 16-T Table 16-U 10. Based upon our previous laboratory test results and our experience with the soil types on the subject site, the underlying properly compacted fill and/or dense natural soils should experience a total settlement of less than 1 inch and a differential settlement in the magnitude of approximately 1 inch, under a structural static load within the allowable bearing capacity. The angular rotation due to static differential settlement is anticipated to be less than 1/240. 11. Our experience indicates that for various reasons, footings and slabs occasionally crack causing ceramic tiles and other brittle surfaces to become damaged. Therefore, all footings and slabs should contain at least a nominal amount of reinforcing steel to reduce the separation of cracks, should they occur. Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 22 11.1 A minimum of steel for continuous footings should include at least four No. 4 steel bars continuous, with two bars near the bottom of the footing and two bars near the top. For footings up to 24 inches in depth, the minimum reinforcement shall consist of four No. 5 bars. 11.2 If isolated square footings are to be used, .they should contain, as a minimum, a grid of No. 4 steel bars on 12-inch centers, both ways, with no less than three bars each way. 11.3 Interior floor slabs on-grade on properly compacted soil should be a minimum of 5 inches actual thickness and be reinforced with at least No. 3 steel bars on 18-inch centers, in both directions, placed midheight in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 3-inch-thick layer of clean sand (S.E. = 30 or greater) overlying a vapor retardant such as Vapor Shield (3-mil, high density, cross laminated) or equivalent. Slab subgrade soil shall be properly moistened prior to placement of the vapor retardant and pouring of concrete. It is recommended that the moisture content of subgrade soil for slabs and footings be checked within 48 hours prior to concrete placement. Building slabs may be thicker and more heavily reinforced if the alternative structural mat slabs are utilized. If this option is chosen, the allowable bearing capacity for mat design may be 400 pci modulus of subgrade reaction for soil settlement not exceeding 1/2-inch under static loading. For a higher degree of protection against moisture- related problems, the basement level slab shall preferably be protected by a waterproof membrane (such as Parasea!) placed as indicated by the manufacturer. Paraseal membranes are usually placed on a gravel bas layer. Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 23 For exterior slabs, we recommend the project Civil/Structural Engineer incorporate isolation joints and sawcuts to at least one-fourth the thickness of the slabs. The joints and cuts, if properly placed, should reduce the potential for random exterior shrinkage cracking. In no case, however, shall control joints be spaced farther than 15 feet apart. Re-entrant corners shall also be provided with control joints or additional steel reinforcing. Due to a number of reasons (such as base preparation, construction techniques, curing procedures, and normal shrinkage of concrete), some cracking of slabs can still be expected. Control joints shall be placed within 12 hours after concrete placement or as soon as the concrete sets and may be cut without aggregate ravelling. Reinforced slabs on-grade shall have every other bar interrupted 3 inches before crossing control joints for an effective weak plane result. To prevent moisture infiltration, all exterior slab joints shall be sealed with elastomeric seal material. The sealant shall be inspected every six months and be properly maintained. Due to the proximity of the ocean, the structural engineer should consider the use of concrete with Cement Type II and a water-cement ratio no higher than 0.40 due to sea water chlorides. For concrete pavement, we recommend that the compressive strength fc be at least 4,500 psi at 28 days of age and the slab thickness be not less than 51/2 inches thick, with control joints no farther than 15 feet or the width of the driveway, whichever is less. Driveway subgrade soils shall be properly compacted and moisture conditioned before any base and/or concrete placement. Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 24 NOTE: The project Civil/Structural Engineer shall review all reinforcing schedules. The reinforcing minimums recommended herein are not to be construed as structural designs, but merely as minimum safeguards to reduce possible crack separations. 12. As a minimum for protection of on-site improvements, it is recommended that all nonstructural concrete slabs (such as patios, walkways, etc.) be underlain by at least 3 inches of clean sand, include No. 3 steel bars spaced every 18 inches apart at the center of the slab, and contain adequate isolation and control joints spaced no farther than twice the width of the reinforced slab, not more than 15 feet apart, and also at re-entrant corners. It should be noted that standard concrete improvements may not perform well, due to the loose surficial soil conditions. As such, each improvement should be designed to tolerate the on-site conditions. The performance of on-site improvements can also be greatly affected by soil base preparation and the quality of construction, and is therefore the responsibility of the designer and the contractor installing the improvements. Moisture content and verification of subgrade soils compaction for outside improvements is also recommended. A representative of our firm shall check that within 48 hours prior to concrete pouring and before steel reinforcing placement. C. Design Parameters for Proposed Seawall and Retaining Walls Our investigation revealed that, at the location of the proposed seawall, the site is underlain by dense formationai materials with a surface layer of beach sand .deposits that typically range from 2 to 5 feet below the existing beach grade. This loose surface soil will not provide a stable soil base for the proposed seawall. As such, recommendations have been made to embed the seawall foundation into the Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 25 underlying formational materials. We also recommend that the fill/backfill soils placed behind the seawall and patio/terrace area consist of beach/terrace sand-type material. 13. The seawall foundation shall be embedded a minimum of 4 feet into dense formational material due to concern for potential scouring by storm surf action. This depth is approximately 3 feet above mean sea level (depending on the beach sand thickness) and Is expected to be approximately 14 feet below the adjacent western patio/terrace area. 14. The recommended allowable load-bearing value (at a minimum depth of 4 feet into the dense native materials) is 3,500 pounds per square foot for a minimum footing width of 4 feet. This load-bearing value may be utilized in the design of the seawall foundation when founded a minimum of 4 feet into the firm natural ground, measured from the bottom of the footing to the lowest adjacent grade at the time of foundation construction. This load- bearing value may be increased one-third for design loads that include wind or seismic analysis. The soil bearing capacity may be increased 1,000 psf for each additional foot of embedment over 4 feet, and 750 psf for each additional foot in width over 4 feet. The total maximum soil end-bearing capacity shall not exceed 6,000 psf. AM other proposed retaining walls to be constructed should be founded on firm natural ground or properly compacted fills. All retaining walls shall be designed based on the following soil design parameters: 15. The active earth pressure (to be utilized in the design of the proposed seawall and other retaining walls, etc.) utilizing the on-site materials as Proposed Kiko Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 02-8201 Page 26 backfill should be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 38 pounds per cubic foot (for level backfill only). Any surcharge pressures applied within the potential failure block shall also be added to the soil lateral pressures. In the event that a retaining wall is surcharged by sloping backfill, the design active earth pressure shall be based on the appropriate Equivalent Fluid Weight presented in the following table: 44 48 50 52 *To determine design active earth pressure for ratios intermediate to those presented, interpolate between the stated values. In the event that a retaining wall is to be designed for a restrained condition, a uniform pressure equal to 9xH (nine times the total height of retained soil, considered in pounds per square foot) should be considered as acting everywhere on the back of the wall in addition to the design Equivalent Fluid Weight. Any surcharge applied within the failure block behind the retaining wall shall be considered in the wall design. For cantilever retaining walls, the lateral load conversion factor is 0.32. For restrained retaining walls, the lateral load conversion factor is 0.53. 16. The passive earth pressure of the encountered dense natural-ground soils or properly compacted fill (to be used for the design of shallow footings) should be based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot. CrCI Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 27 The passive earth pressure should only be considered valid for design if the ground adjacent to the foundation structure is essentially level for a distance of at least three times the total depth of the foundation. 17. A Coefficient of Friction of 0.40 times the dead load may be used between the bearing soils and concrete wall foundations. 18. Due to the possible buildup of groundvvater (derived primarily from rainfall and irrigation), excess moisture is a common problem in beiow-grade structures or behind proposed retaining walls. These problems are generally in the form of water seepage through slabs and/or walls, mineral staining, mildew growth and high humidity. In order to minimize the potential for moisture-related problems to develop at the site, proper ventilation and waterproofing must be provided for below-ground areas and the backfill side of all structure retaining walls must be adequately waterproofed and drained. Should water seeps be observed during grading, additional recommendations will be provided by our firm, as warranted. Proper waterproofing, protection board, subdrains and free-draining backwall material such as gravel or geocomposite (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent) shall be installed behind all retaining walls on the subject project, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will assume no liability for damage to structures, which is attributable to poor drainage. Subdrain shall be placed at least 12 inches below the surface elevation being protected (interior slab). If the subdrain is to be installed on top of the foundation heel, then the interior slab shall be at least 12 inches above the footing toe. Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 28 D. Slopes 19. The existing slopes on the site appear to be relatively stable. However, it is our opinion that the new cut and fill slopes may be subject to future erosion and surficial failure if left unprotected. In order to reduce the risk of future slope stability problems, we recommend that a program of proper landscaping and maintenance be effected as part of development of this site. 20. The soils that occur within 5 feet of the face of fill slopes often possess poor lateral stability and structures and other improvements (such as walls, fences, patios, sidewalks, swimming pools, driveways, etc.) that are located within 5 feet of the edge of any slopes could suffer differential movement as a result of the poor lateral stability of these soils, Conventional shallow foundations and footings of proposed structures, walls, etc., when founded 5 feet and farther away from the top of allowable slopes, may be of standard design in conformance with the recommended load- bearing value. If the proposed foundations and footings are located closer than 5 feet inside the top of allowable slopes, they shall be deepened to 1.5 feet below a line beginning at a point 5 feet horizontally inside the slopes and projected outward and downward, parallel to the face of the slope (see Figure No. IV). Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 29 E. Temporary Slopes 21. We anticipate that temporary slopes into the terrace material of approximately 10 to 22 feet in height may be required during excavation of the lower-level living areas. Based on the results of our field investigation; it is our opinion that the following temporary-slope design criteria may be considered in areas where the excavation slope top will be at least 18 feet away from any existing structures: The existing cemented formation materials may be cut vertical for the lower 5 feet and at a slope ration of 0.75 horizontal to 1.0 vertical for the remaining height (for an unsupported period not to exceed eight weeks). For the basement areas, the cuts shall be from the heel of the foundation and extend to at least 12 feet horizontally at the ground level. The basement wall backfill shall consist of non-expansive soil. Any plans for slopes in excess of the assumed 22-foot maximum must be presented to our office prior to grading to allow time for review and specific recommendations, if warranted, Proper drainage away from the excavation shall be provided at all times. Soil stockpiles shall not be placed within 6 feet from the top of the cuts. A representative of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. must observe any steep temporary slopes during excavation. In the event that soils and formational material comprising a slope are not as anticipated, any required — slope design changes would be presented at that time. If the temporary slopes as recommended herein are not developed, then shoring will be required. Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 30 22. Where not superseded by specific recommendations presented in this report, trenches, excavations and temporary slopes at the subject site shall be constructed in accordance with Title 8, Construction Safety Orders, issued by OSHA. 23. It is recommended that all compacted fill slopes and natural cut slopes be planted with an erosion resistant plant, in conformance with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad. F- Floor Slab Vapor Transmission 24. Vapor moisture can cause some problems to moisture sensitive floors, some floor sealers, or sensitive equipment in direct contact with the floor, in addition to mildew and staining on slabs, waiis and carpets. 25. The common practice in Southern California is to place vapor retarders made of PVC, or of polyethylene. PVC retarders are made in thickness ranging from 10- to 60-mil. Polyethylene retarders, called visqueen, range from 5- to 10-mil in thickness. The thicker the plastic, the stronger the resistance against puncturing. 26. Although polyethylene (visqueen) products are most commonly used, products such as Vaporshield possess much higher tensile strength and are more specifically designed for and intended to retard moisture transmission into concrete stabs. The use of Vaporshield or equivalent is highly recommended when a structure is intended for moisture-sensitive floor coverings or uses. Proposed Ktko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad; California Page 31 27. The vapor retarders need to have joints lapped and sealed with mastic or manufacturer's recommended tape for additional protection. To provide some protection to the moisture retarder, a layer of at least 2 inches of clean sand on top and 2 inches at the bottom shall also be provided. No heavy equipment, stakes or other puncturing instruments shall be used on top of the liner before or during concrete placement. In actual practice, stakes are often driven through the retarder material, equipment is dragged or rolled across the retarder, overlapping or jointing is not properly implemented, etc. All these construction deficiencies reduce the retarder's effectiveness. The vapor retarders are not waterproof. They are intended to help prevent or reduce capillary migration of vapor through the soil into the pores of concrete slabs. Other waterproofing systems must supplement vapor retarders if full waterproofing is desired. The owner should be consulted to determine the specific level of protection required, especially for basement- level areas. G. Site Drainage Considerations 28. Adequate measures shall be taken to properly finish-grade the site after the structures and other improvements are in place. Drainage waters from this site and adjacent properties are to be directed away from foundations, floor slabs, footings, and slopes, onto the natural drainage direction for this area or into properly designed and approved drainage facilities. Roof gutters and downspouts should be installed on all structures, with runoff directed away from the foundations via closed drainage lines. Proper subsurface and surface drainage will help minimize the potential for waters to seek the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings, and floor slabs. Failure Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 32 to observe this recommendation could result in undermining and differential settlement of the structure or other improvements on the site. The ground surface adjacent to building foundations shall be sloped at a gradient of at least 5 percent within 10 feet, draining away from the foundations. In addition, appropriate erosion-control measures shall be taken at all time during construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations and ponding on finished building pads or running uncontrolled over the tops of newly constructed cut or fill slopes. Particular care should be taken to prevent saturation of any temporary construction slopes. 29. Planter areas, flower beds, and planter boxes shall be sloped to drain away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs. Planter boxes shall be constructed with a sealed bottom and a subsurface drain, installed in gravel, with the direction of subsurface and surface flow away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs, to an adequate drainage facility. All landscaped areas shall be provided with proper area drains. H. General Recommendations 30. Following placement of any concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time should be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings could result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish-floor materials. Proposed Kiko Residence Job No. 02-8201 Carlsbad, California Page 33 31. In order to minimize any work delays at the subject site during site development, this firm should be contacted 24 hours prior to any need for observation of footing or caisson excavations or field density testing of compacted fill soils. If possible, placement of formwork and steel reinforcement in footing excavations should not occur prior to observation of the excavations; in the event that our observation reveals the need for deepening or redesigning foundation structures at any locations, any formwork or steel reinforcement in the affected footing excavation areas would have to be removed prior to correction of the observed problem (i.e., deepening the footing excavation, recompacting soil in the bottom of the excavation, etc.). X. GRADING NOTES Any required grading operations shall be performed in accordance with the General Earthwork Specifications (Appendix B) and the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. 32. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. recommends that we be asked to verify the actual soil conditions revealed during site grading work and footing excavations to be as anticipated in this "Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation." In addition, the compaction of any fill soils placed during site grading work must be tested by the soil engineer. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to comply with the requirements on the grading or building plans and the local grading ordinance. 33. It is the responsibility of the owner and/or developer to ensure that the recommendations summarized in the report are carried out in the field Proposed Kiko Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 02-8201 Page 34 operations and that our recommendations for design of the project are incorporated in the building and grading plans. Our firm should review the grading and foundation plans when they become available. 34. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations/ and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. XI. LIMITATIONS Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on all available data obtained from our field investigation and laboratory analysis, as well as our experience with the soils and native materials located in the City of Carlsbad. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. The actual soil conditions between exploratory excavations may differ. It is, therefore, necessary that all observations, conclusions, and recommendations be verified at the time grading operations begin or when footing excavations are placed. In the event discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued, if required. The work performed and recommendations presented herein are the result of an investigation and analysis that meet the contemporary standard of care in our profession with the County of San Diego. No warranty is provided. i Proposed Kiko Residence Carlsbad/ California Job No. 02-8201 Page 35 This report should be considered valid for a period of two (2) years, and is subject to review by our firm following that time. The firm of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to issuance of this report. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Reference to our Job No. 02-8201 will help to expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. Mf. Reiser, Senior Project Geologist C.E.G. 999cexP. 3-31-D33/R.G. 3391 Jaime A. Cerros, P.E. R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer JKH/LDR/JAC/pj «Ti No. 002007 j rn C£ V .-./->._- ..-, * -T, ? ! I REFERENCES JOB NO. 02-8201 June 2002 Association of Engineering Geologists, 1973, Geology and Earthquake Hazards, Planners Guide to the Seismic Safety Element, Southern California Section, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, Published July 1973, p. 44. California Division of Mines and Geology - Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Map, November 1, 1991. Clarke, S.H., H.G. Greene, M.P. Kennedy and J.G. Vedder, 1987, Geologic Map of the Inner-Southern California Continental Margin in H.G. Greene and M.P. Kennedy (editors),.California Continental Margin Map Series, Map 1A, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, scale 1:250,000. Crowed, 3.C., 1962, Displacement along the San Andreas Fault, California; Geologic Society of America Special Paper 71, 61 p. Greene, H.G., 1979, Implication of Fault Patterns in the Inner California Continental Borderland between San Pedro and Oceanside, in "Earthquakes and Other Perils, Oceanside Region," P.L. Abbott and W.J. Elliott, editors. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California; California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. Hart, E.W., D.P. Smith and R.B. Saul, 1979, Summary Report: Fault Evaluation Program, 1978 Area (Peninsular Ranges-Salton Trough Region), Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, OFR 79-10 SF, 10. Hart E.W., 1980, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, Rev. March 1980, p. 25. Hileman, J.A., C.R. Allen and J.M. Nordquist, 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California Region, January 1, 1932 to December 31, 1972; Seismological Laboratory, Cal-Tech, Pasadena, Calif. Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geology of the Oceanside Metropolitan Area, California; Bulletin 200, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, 1975. Kennedy, M.P., and S.H. Clarke, 2001, Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, California Geology, July/August 2001. Kennedy, M.P. and S.H. Clarke, 1997A, Analysis of Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 97-10A. Kennedy, M.P. and S.H. Clarke, 1997B, Age of Faulting in San Diego Bay in the Vicinity of the Coronado Bridge, an addendum to Analysis of Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 97-10B. Kennedy, M.P., S.H. Clarke, H.G. Greene, R.C. Jachens, V.E. Langenheim, J.J. More and D.M. Burns, 1994, A Digital (CIS) Geological/Geophyslcal/Seisrnological Data Base for the San Diego 30-x60' Quadrangle, California — A New Generation, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 26, p. 63. Kennedy, M.P. and G.W. Moore, 1971, Stratigraphic Relations of Upper Cretaceous and Eocene Formations, San Diego Coastal Area, California, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 55, p. 709-722. Page 2 Kennedy, M.P., S.S. Tan, R.H. Chapman and G.W. Chase, 1975, Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Special Report 123, 33 pp. Kennedy, M.P. and E.E. Welday, 1980, Character and Recency of Faulting Offshore, metropolitan San Diego California, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 40, 1:50,000. Kern, 3.P. and T.K. Rockwell, 1992, Chronology and Deformation of Quaternary Marine Shorelines, San Diego County, California in Heath, E. and L. Lewis (editors), The Regressive Pleistocene Shoreline, Coastal Southern California, pp. 1-8, Lindvall, S.C. and T.K. Rockwell, 1995, Holocene Activity of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone in San Diego, California, Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 100, no. B-12, p. 24121-24132. McEuen, R.B. and C.J. Pinckney, 1972, Seismic Risk in Oceanside; Transactions of the Oceanslde Society of Natural History, Vol. 17, No. 4, 19 July 1972. Moore, G.W. and M.P. Kennedy, 1975, Quaternary Faults in San Diego Bay, California, U.S.Geological Survey Journal of Research, v. 3, p. 589-595. Richter, C.G., 1958, Elementary Seismology, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, Calif. Rockwell, T.K., D.E. Millman, R.S. McElwain, and D.L. Lamar, 1985, Study of Seismic Activity by Trenching Along the Glen Ivy North Fault, Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California: Lamar-Merifield Technical Report 85-1, U.S.G.S. Contract 14-08-0001-21376, 19p. Simons, R.S., 1977, Seismicity of San Diego, 1934-1974, Seismological Society of America Bulletin, v. 67, p. 809-826. Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in Southern Part of San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 95-03. Toppozada, T.R. and D.L. Parke, 1982, Areas Damaged by California Earthquakes, 1900-1949; Calif. Div, of Mines and Geology, Open-file Report 82-17, Sacramento, Calif. Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 93-02, 45 pp, 3 plates. I SITE MAP ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY US » * ^ a CYPRESS^- \. - v SEE A H3 1 VIA DIEGO 2 VIA JUDY 3 VIA ROBERTO 4 VIA BOCAS 5 VIA SAB IHAS 6 VIA VERA7 VIA CARDEL8 VIA DEHISE9 VIA MERDE10 VIA TONAU11 CL HACIENDA12 VIA CAJITA Site otfftsaw. ^L&-- <2. oV•; *% J>v^A^> *^ x ^>^,0 Proposed Kiko Residence 2649 Ocean Street Carlsbad, CA. iii Figure No. la Job No. 02-8201 § r> oQQ. <Q.nno o"o o CO s o s TO xTO O) B gSis D3 53 &Qi .„ ,.-..) ~?.- n (D Q'(D tJ 31 ^Q O" _,., i',.-' r': -^ ,-O "'" • -" !•'- 2 S? >CD S Ss 1 ao ^ D' 1 I aCD T3 — 2 H.Q cr3' ^a3o(D TJOincf QCDO& fflCQ §Q. Ffr 03\W OP Q) OCEAN STREET r V mx cr> ! ^'] ; S O • <•*- HJ e:,! 0? S a>S, , _^ O . .*!+ oa ™ " ? X c^ 1 « ': ' -H J H* 1 ^1 ' XI i-O 'C " CO HE £0-^3 I ''EQUIPMENT Limited Access Auger Drill Rig SURFACE ELEVATION ± 20' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 6-inch diameter Boring GROUNDWATER DEPTH at 10 feet DATE LOGGED "N 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH ,_u.n:t—a.LUQ - 2- - 4- - 6- — o 10- 12 . - 14- dCD 5- Q, i FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) FILL (Qaf) :&•f ... . .. • i I I FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ slight silt and some roots, poorly cemented. Loose to medium Lj dense. Dry to damp. Tan-brown. • TERRACE DEPOSITS {Qt} Ixl\Ii n FINE TO COARSE SAND, w/ some rock fragments. Medium dense. Damp. Tan-gray and brown. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) '*' " IPill. jfl SILTY SANDSTONE, well cemented. Dense. — ^^-iDamp. Light tan-gray. I | \ SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsb) / Bottom® 11' t/3 O SP- SM SW SM — LULU CCo •=><, >--^ C/l 11 >~ Si?O fi. LJJ ^ §£ 3E751XZ 3" sg => 13 11 >-o; c*Q a2 ^ri| la Q i/i^Z o ~ s_ T- O a. 5 £S CJ t5? 2 om o 13 19 65/ 11" Qb LU CO 2 u•£2in =, 3" 2"*- 3li I i i £. WATER TABLE K3 LOOSE BAG SAMPLE LU IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE H SAND CONE/F.D.T. ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TESTv JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 .FIGURE NUMBER lla REVIEWED BY LDR;JAC Hr4£-u GeotecfimcalMP^irH Exptof «ton, Inc. ^^ LOG No. B-1 J ^EQUIPMENT Limited Access Auger Drill Rig SURFACE ELEVATION ± 34' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 6-inch diameter Boring GROUNOWATER DEPTH at 24 feet DATE LOGGED ^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH ,_ LL CLLU O - - - 2- - 4- 6- 8- •inIU 12- 14- den in I.; i.IT. &\\\ &$j. i.j-ji. Jittjj 1 • ' M ' > ' . * - ] . 9 • ,.'.. . • * «• ; •* '4 ,•, . '• UJ o. <V) I11 1 I1P FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size. Density, Moisture, Color) FINE TO COARSE SAND, w/ slight silt and some rock fragments. Medium dense. Damp. Tan-gray and red-brown. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) - same as above, becomes tan-gray and orange. . _ _^. , . . , .. . . FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, poorly to moderately cemented. Dense. Damp. Dark gray and red- brown. 1 TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) toP -* SW SP c? at-U fY CJ 13 ?« ±%£ S >!F Hi ^^ — Q ^uJ Zl Z)ss 3. 0o s cc ?? Q 8,II ^ UJs o Q >- O s'o oe- — . — + ' ± o<t T£ fe OUJ O & 11CD U 24 19 52 p ^Sll«=- 3" 2" 3"EXPLORATION LOG 8201 KIKO LCIGS G^ WATER TABLE Kl LOOSE BAG SAMPLE B IN-PLACE SAMPLE H DRIVE SAMPLE [s] SAND CONE/F.D.T. ffl STANDARD PENETRATION TESTV . JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER lib REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC IfadC. fi Geotecfmfcal^IP'fcrU Exptorrton, Inc. LOG No. B-2 J ""EQUIPMENT Limited Access Auger Drill Rig SURFACE ELEVATION ± 34* Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 6-inch diameter Boring GROUNDWATER DEPTH at 24 feet DATE LOGGED ^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH 1 — •LL fQ.UJQ 16- - 18- 20- 22- 26- 28- dCQS en . ;. •'- • • - ' •' T UJ 1 0 ^i ^% FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) FINE TO COARSE SAND, w/ some rock fragments, poorly to moderately cemented. Medium dense to dense. Dry to damp. Light gray-white. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) SANDSTONE, well cemented. Dense. Damp. Light tan-gray. A SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsb) f Bottom @ 25' UJoen sw SM ^UJU CL J (/) 11 >°E ^B -A UJ^ Q =5" UJ3 CC 31 oo s >; a § iSgzLUQ O = 2 S~o -j ^> . ? ° UJ CJ 1 1 D5 || CO O 24 50+ d^^ S?£ 2 Q< 2 2" 2" ™ atrio ION LOG 8201KIKOLC— 5<rO • -• u I WATER TABLE Kl LOOSE BAG SAMPLE [T] IN-PLACE SAMPLE B DRIVE SAMPLE [s] SAND CONE/F.DT. ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TESTv JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER lie RENEWED BY LDR/JA(; ffm t^i n Gevtecnnfcaf^IP^IrH Exptorstten, Inc. LOG No. B-2 V ^EQUIPMENT Limited Access Auger Drill Rig SURFACE ELEVATION ± 39' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 6-inch diameter Boring GROUNDWATER DEPTH at 16 feet DATE LOGGED "^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH LJ_:r CLLUo - - - 2- _ - A —•t 6- 8- •inIU 12- 14- dCD 5 <xx $<&<& 1•co< ^ I SAMPLEL 1 7 I •1F FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ some rock fragments and chunks of sandstone. Medium dense. Damp. Red-brown. FILL/ TERRACE (Qaf/Qt) -1' to 2' of fill at the surface. FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, poorly cemented. Medium dense. Damp. Tan-gray and orange. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) j FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ slight silt, moderately well cemented. Dense. Damp. Red-brown and tan. I TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)u.sc.s.SM SP SP- SM LLJi * rf IN-PLACfMOISTUFtr *& LU ^.I I 0o s It2 >-O *~ Q z"o •*^ 11 ^ ff) ' Q CO O 31 20 53 odLU «_J LUli 3" 2" 3"EXPLORATION LOG 8201 KIKO LOGS.GFX WATER TABLE I3 LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Q] iN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE [s] SAND CONE/F.D.T. M STANDARD PENETRATION TESTV_ . JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER lid REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC (f^4&-£ Gvotectmfcal*|p*fcrll expiorBtten, Inc. LOG No. B-3 J ^EQUIPMENT Limited Access Auger Drill Rig SURFACE ELEVATION ± 39' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 6-inch diameter Boring GROUNDWATER DEPTH at 16 feet DATE LOGGED ^\ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH DEPTH FT.16- _ 18- 20- 22- 24- 26- 28-SYMBOL^T • - V1 * i * ''.'':I SAMPLEI I FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) FINE TO COARSE SAND, w/ some rock fragments, poorly to moderately cemented. Dense. Damp. Tan-gray and orange. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) Bottom @ 21 .5' oto SM SW IN-PLACEMOISTURE (%)IN-PLACE DRYDENSITY (pcf)OPTIMUMMOISTURE (%)MAXIMUM DRYDENSITY (pd)DENSITY(%ofM.DD.)—EXPAN +CONSOL -BLOWCOUNTS/FT.30 54 q ILJV) /!=. 2" 2" - - I WATER TABLE K! LOOSE BAG SAMPLE B IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE B SAND CONE/F.D.T. ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TESTv JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER tie REVIEWED BY ^^ U«4£-8 GeotvctmlcalMF^irB Exptef «tonr Inc.i^ LOG No. B-3 J '"EQUIPMENT Hand Tools, Hand Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ±15' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 3'x3'x6' Handpit GROUNDWATER DEPTH at 5 feet DATE LOGGED ^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH DEPTH FT._ 1 -_ 2- 3~ 4~ 6~ 7-SYMBOL§ • ^^ -.— . , . "'. . \ ., T SAMPLEFIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS {Grain see, Density, Moisture, Colof) FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ lenses of cobbles (to 6" in diameter). Loose to medium dense. Dry to damp. Light gray. BEACH DEPOSITS (Qb) FINE TO COARSE SAND, w/ some rock fragments, poorly cemented. Medium dense. Moist to wet. Tan-brown. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) — hand-augered from 4' to 6'. SANDSTONE, well cemented. Dense. Damp. "l Light tan-gray. \ SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsb) Bottom @ 6' o VJ SP sw SM IN-PLACEMOISTURE (%)IN-PLACE DRYDENSITY (pd)OPTIMUMMOISTURE (%}MAXIMUM DRYDENSITY (pcf)DENSITY(%ofM.D.D.),-,EXPAN. + oCONSOL- (/BLOWCOUNTS/FT.SAMPLE O.D.(INCHES)XL WATER TABLE K[ LOOSE BAG SAMPLE Q] IN-PLACE SAMPLE B DRIVE SAMPLE [3 SANDCONE/F.D.T. M STANDARD PENETRATION TESTV . ... JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER llf REVIEWED BY L[)R/JAC ^ft-I^JI GeotectinfcalMr^ferU Exploration, Inc. ^^ LOG No. HP-1 J EQUIPMENT Hand Tools, Hand Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ±11' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 3'x3'x5' Handpit GROUNDWATER DEPTH Not Encountered DATE LOGGED "\ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH DEPTH FT._ — - - 1 - — 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- -^,SYMBa•'•*. vv '•;-.. :••"•• o.C•&\ •. 4 . >;• Tfr$ ai E U3 FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grsm see, Density, Moisture, Color) FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ lenses of cobble (to 6" in diameter). Loose to medium dense. Dry to damp. Light gray. BEACH DEPOSITS (Qb) -hand-augered from 4.5' to 5". SILTY SANDSTONE, well cemented. Dense. Damp. Light tan-gray. \ SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsb) / Bottom @ 5' tn p SP SM ~INPLACEMOISTURE ("f>- _IN- PLACE OR'DENSITY (pcf;—.OPTIMUMMOISTURE (H>- _MAXIMUM DRDENSITY (pcf]DENSITY(%ofM.D.D.)— . 0^ "Zs ^ L*3 cj ! BLOWCOUNTS/FT.aO UJVl-J LUQ-X 11 JL- WATER TABLE Kl LOOSE BAG SAMPLE 0 IN-PLACE SAMPLE B DRIVE SAMPLE [s] SAND CONE/F.DT. M STANDARD PENETRATION TESTV JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER "9 RENEWED BY ^^ (l«-4P-w Geotecrmical^IP^^B Exptoratten, Inc. LOG No. HP-2 -/ ^EQUIPMENT Hand Tools, Hand Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ± 20' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 3'x3'x4' Handpit GROUNDWATER DEPTH Not Encountered DATE LOGGED ^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH DEPTH FT.__ - - 1: 2- — - 3- 4_ 5-SYMBOL<XX; '& $j$ J^f 1 i i*. •. sv* ,; ; ;. i ; • .; ; :,SAMPLEFIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Maslure, Cola) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ abundant roots and sandstone fragments. Loose to medium dense. Dry to damp. Red-brown and gray-brown. FILL/ TOPSOIL (Qaf) FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ slight silt and some rock fragments. Medium dense (poorly cemented). Damp. Tan-brown and orange. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qbp) Bottom @ 4'uses.SM SW vJ»IN-PLACEMOISTURE (1> —IN-PLACE DRDENSITY (pcf*J>OPTIMUMMOISTURE p>; _MAXIMUM DPDENSITY (pcfDENSITY(%ofM.DD.),-. §^EXPAN. +CONSOL -BLOWCOUNTS/FT.d6UJ t/5£ uj ll I i i i • i i I y. WATER TABLE K| LOOSE BAG SAMPLE 0 IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE 0 SAND CONE/F.D.T. %% STANDARD PENETRATION TESTV JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER llh REVIEWED* L[)RyJAC Ifi4&w Geotectmfcai^_J E3tPtofatten' lne- ^^ LOG No. HP-3 J ^EQUIPMENT Hand Tools, Hand Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ??? DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 3'x3'x 3' Hand pit GROUNDWATER DEPTH Not Encountered DATE LOGGED "^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH k I i i i •• i i i DEPTH FT- — - 1 - 2 — - 3- 4-SYMBOL•!•: • > ;« -V- '•, • •:"•} '• ' •' SAMPLEFIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ some roots and rock fragments. Loose to medium dense. Dry. Tan-gray. FILU WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qaf) — poorly cemented. FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ slight silt, moderately well cemented. Dense. Damp. Red-brown and orange. \ TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qbp) / Bottom @ 3'U.S.C.S.SM SM IN-PLACEMOISTURE (%)IN-PLACE DRYDENSITY (pd)OPTIMUMMOISTURE (%)MAXIMUM DRYDENSITY (pcf)ci „EXPAN. +CONSOL - lllCD O Qd HI CO s y« =. 5 WATER TABLE Kl LOOSE BAG SAMPLE LU IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE LU SAND CONE/F.D.T. M STANDARD PENETRATION TESTv JOB NAME Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER HE REVIEWED BY L[)R/JAC Ifrl^ft GcotectmlcalW »»'jl Exploration, Inc. LOG No. HP-4 J '"EQUIPMENT Hand Tools, Hand Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ± 30' Mean Sea Level DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 3' x 3' x 6' Handpit GROUNDWATER DEPTH Not Encountered DATE LOGGED ^ 4-5-02 LOGGED BY JKH II i i" I I I ,_; LL t—a.UJa - — — •i 2- _ 3~ - - — _ 7- dCD >-to ^£ %£$ $$ "-^*'O V*_9' - 1 ;^<i V v.'s |5 ^•••."• * V •.• .* :•)!.* .* *. • LU L <Cto FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size. Density. Moisture, Color) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ abundant roots, cobbles and rock fragments. Loose to medium dense. Dry to damp. Gray-brown. FILL (Qaf) -Drain pipe encountered. SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ some rock fragments and large boulders {to 12" in diameter). Medium dense. Damp. Red-brown. FILL (Qaf) SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ some roots and organics. Loose to medium dense. Dry. -i n^Hf Hrnwn .-n LJCit i\ L/L LJ Wl 1 . \ TOPSOIL FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, w/ some coarse rock fragments. Medium dense. Damp. Tan-brown. WEATHERED TERRACE DEPOSITS -dense Terrace Deposits encountered on the east "\half of the excavation. / Bottom @ 6'^""^ CO CJ CO Z3 SM SM SM SM S1 LULU nfu n ±3^ s 5_cc'B1 St ig_5 S" m 13 Z3isa. OO S >- II il § ^S a a = i Z"Q as. -~. S^ , * _i ? cna- Sx; OUJ O ^t/] Som o ad LU tO i ^U7 5=. JL WATER TABLE E3 LOOSE BAG SAMPLE 0 IN-PLACE SAMPLE • DRIVE SAMPLE S SAND CONeF.D.T. ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST V JOBNAM£ Proposed Kiko Residence SITE LOCATION 2649 Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California JOB NUMBER 02-8201 FIGURE NUMBER IIJ REVIEWED BY ^^ IhVl^Ti Geotectinfcat_T Btptoratton, Inc. LOG No. HP-5 J 140 130 120 110 100 90 LABORATORY SOIL DATA SUMMARY so <*-uQ. i h- H-l K et0 \ \\\ \\ \ • \ \ \ \\ \\ . ' \ \ \ \i \ \ S \\ \\^ \ S \ \ \ ^\ MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT («) \ \ V\ \\1 V- 1 y \ \ vj~\\V \s N \\ \> 1 2 \ \ ^ ^\ 115 U.5 i . \ \\'• PERCENT FINER3 10 8 6 4 2 \ \ \ DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA APPARENT COHESION (psf) APPARENT FRICTION ANGLE 1 230 39° 2 3 Gravel SV — 2.70v >r" 2'6Q ^2's V K" * Sand Coarse To HedluiTi U. •; 2 ° 3= Z £ I 1 -1-- 1 1 1 1 \ ! 1 '1 1 r O 57^SF Fine . standard _ 00° ~ ° [-1 i V \ ] \ i i I -L..L I II"*" f -»- 1^,1 Fines 5: -t ieve sizes Clay O *J\ •-• ^ *— * i/> r •<M ^ • *K^ O O O 0 O O O O GRAIN DlAMETEr, MM 'ECIFIC GRAVITY ^RO AIR VOIDS CURVES 10 20 30 LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST 40 SOIL TYPE 1 2 3 SOIL CLASSIFICATION FINE TO MEDIUM SAND with slight silt. Tan- brown. TERRACE BORING No. B-1 TRENCH No.DEPTH 3' SWELL TEST DATA INITIAL DRY DENSITY (pcf) INITIAL WATER CONTENT {*} LOAD (psf) PERCENT SWELL £ , = 1 - - - <20 2 3 FIGURE NUMBER I I JOB NUMBER 02-8201 ID]Q FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS NEAR SLOPES Proposed Structure Concrete Floor Slab Reinforcement of Foundations and ROOT Slabs Following the Recommendations of the Architect or Structural Engineer. Concrete Founation 18" Minimum or as Deep as Required for Lateral Stability TOP OF COMPACTED FILL SLOPE (Any loose soils on the slope surface shall not be considered to provide lateral or vertical strength for the' footing or for slope stability. Needed depth of imbedment shall be measurec from competent soil.) COMPACTED RLL SLOPE WITH MAXIMUM INCLINATION AS PER SOILS REPORT. Total Depth of Footing Measured from Finish Soil Sub-Grade Outer Most Facev*. of Footing TYPICAL SECTION (Showing Proposed Foundation Located Within 5 Feet of Top of Slope) 18" FOOTING/5'SETBACK Total Depth of Footing 1.5:1.0 SLOPE #ZO: 1.0 SLOPE a>2 ait o <D CO o a•fi o 0 T 2 3' 4' 5' 58" 51" 42' 34" 26" Iff1 48" 42' 36" 30" 24" 18" # when applicable Figure No. IV Job No. 02-8201 Geotechnlcal Exploration, Inc. RECOMMENDED BASEMENT/SUBGRADE RETAINING WALL/EXTERIOR FOOTING DESIGN Exterior /Retaining Footing / Wall Lower-level Slab—on-grade Crawlspace Sealant X Proposed Exterior Grade To Drain at A Win. 2% Fall Away from Bldg Miradrain 6000 Av^V^ " V'"' Properly Waterproofing Compacted To Top Of Wai! Backfill Perforated PVC (SDR 35) 4" pipe with 0.5% mln. slope, with bottom of pipe located 12" below slab or Interior (crawlspace) Sealant ground surface elevation, with 1.5 (cu.ft.) of gravel 1" diameter max, wrapped with filter cloth such as Miradrain 6000 T Between Bottom 12" of Slab and I Pipe Bottom Miradrain Cloth NOTE: As an option to Miradrain 6000, Gravel or Crushed rock 3/4" maximum diameter may be used with a minimum 12" thickness along the interior face of the wall and 2.0 cu.ft/ft, of pipe gravel envelope. Figure No. V Job No. 02-8201 Geotechnlcal Exploration, Inc I-S7JO-V APPENDIX A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL DESCRIPTION Coarse-grained (More than half of material is larger than a No. 200 sieve) GRAVELS, CLEAN GRAVELS (More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve size, but smaller than 3") GRAVELS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount) SANDS, CLEAN SANDS (More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than a No. 4 sieve) SANDS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount) GW Well-graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little or no fines. GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little or no fines. GC Clay gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures SW Well-graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures. SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures. FINE-GRAINED (More than half of material is smaller than a No. 200 sieve) SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit Less than 50 Liquid Limit Greater than 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt and clayey-silt sand mixtures with a slight plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, silty clays, clean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. PT Peat and other highly organic soils APPENDIX B EQ FAULT TABLES AND EQ SEARCH TABLES i I i Kiko TEST.OUT ft * -it ft * * * -it * * * A •A ft ft ft * ftftft * * ft * * * EQFAULT * * ** Version 3.00 * * * DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS DOB NUMBER: 02-8201 DATE: 06-05-2002 JOB NAME: Kiko Test Run CALCULATION NAME: Ki ko Test Run Analysis FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES:SITE LATITUDE: 33.1600SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3500 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 15) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1997 Rev.) - Soft Rock UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, s=sigma): M Number of sigmas: 0.0 DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist SCOND: 1 Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 1 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3,0 EQFAULT SUMMARY Page 1 Kiko TEST.OUT DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS page 1 ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) ROSE CANYON CORONADO BANK ELSINORE-TEMECULA ELSINORE-JULIAN ELSINORE-GLEN IVY PALOS VERDES EARTHQUAKE VALLEY NEWPQRT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin)SAN :ACINTO-ANZA SAN 3ACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) WH FITTERSAN IIACINTO-COYOTE CREEK COMPTON THRUST ELYSIAN PARK THRUST ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN SAN HACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO SAN ANDREAS - san Bernardino SAN ANDREAS - Southern SAN 3ACINTO - BORREGO SAN 3OSE SIERRA MADRE PINTO MOUNTAIN CUCAMONGA SAN ANDREAS - coachella NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) CLEGHORN BURNT MTN. RAYMOND NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) SAN ANDREAS - MOJave SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture EUREKA PEAK CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT VERDUGO SUPERSTITION MTN. (San 3acinto) HOLLYWOOD ELMORE RANCH LANDERS APPROXIMATE DISTANCEmi (km) 5.0C 8.0)5.0( 8.0) 20. 9( 33.6) 24. 4( 39.2) 24. 7C 39.7) 33. 4( 53.8) 35. 2( 56.6) 44. 5( 71.6) 45. 4( 73.0) 46. 9( 75.5) 47. 3( 76.1) 47. 3( 76.1)50, 8( 81.7) 52. 9( 85.1)55. 1( 88.6) 58. 0( 93.4) 58, 7( 94.5) 59. 5C 95.8) 64. 9( 104.5) 64. 9( 104.5) 66. 9( 107.7) 68. 1( 109.6) 71. 8( 115.5) 71. 9( 115.7) 72. 1( 116.0) 73. 3( 117.9) 75. 5( 121.5)77. 2( 124.2)78. 2( 125.9) 79. 7( 128.3) 80. 2( 129.1) 80. 2( 129.1) 80. 2( 129.1) 81. 0( 130.4) 81. 5( 131.2)82. 4( 132.6) 83. 4( 134.3) 84. 2( 135.5) 87. 0( 140.0) 87. 9( 141.4) ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKE MAG . (MW) 6.9 6.9 7.4 6.8 7.1 6.8 7.1 6.5 6.9 7.2 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.86.7 6.8 6.7 7.3 7.4 6.6 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.5 6.4 6.5 6.7 7.1 7.8 6.4 6.5 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.6 7.3 PEAK SITE ACCEL, g 0.447 0.447 0.163 0.083 0.105 0.053 0.064 0.027 0.037 0.046 0.035 0.029 0.029 0.0270.025 0.021 0.023 0.021 0.031 0.034 0.016 0.014 0.019 0.021 0.019 0.022 0.018 0.012 0.011 0.011 0.013 0.019 0.036 0.010 0.011 0.012 0.0120.009 0.011 0.020 EST. SITE INTENSITY MOD. MERC. X X VIII VII VII VI VI V V VI V V V V V IV IV IV V V IV IV IV IV IV IV IVIIIIIIIIIIII IV VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IV DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS I Page 2 ABBREVIATED APPROXIMATE DISTANCE Page 2 [ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT MAXIMUM PEAK EST. SITE Kiko TEST.OUT FAULT NAME SUPERSTITION HILLS (San 3acinto) HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT SANTA MONICA LACUNA SALADA MALIBU COAST LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) EMERSON SO, - COPPER MTN . SAN GABRIEL ANACAPA-DUME ft **************** ft*** ft ********** mi (km) 88. OC 141.7) 88. 2( 141.9) 88. 9( 143.0) 90. 1C 145.0) 91. 4( 147.1) 92. 3 ( 148.5) 95. 6( 153.8) 95. 6( 153.9) 95. 9( 154.4) 96. 2( 154.8) 96. 2( 154.8) 96. 4( 155.2) 98. 0( 157.7)*************** EARTHQUAKE MAG . (Mw) 6.6 7.1 6.6 7.0 6.7 7.3 6.7 6.9 6.4 6,7 6.9 7.0 7.3 r ******* -A** SITE ACCEL, g 0.011 0.017 0.010 0.015 0.010 0.019 0.010 0.011 0.008 0.009 0.012 0.013 0.015it ********* * INTENSITY MOD. MERC. Ill IV III IVIII IVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IV -END OF SEARCH- 53 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.0 MILES (8.0 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4470 g Page 3 Kiko TEST.OUT * EQFAULT * •h ft * Version 3.00 * * * *********************** DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OFPEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS DOB NUMBER: 02-8201 DATE: 06-05-2002 30B NAME: Kiko Test Run CALCULATION NAME: Kiko Test Run Analysis FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES:SITE LATITUDE: 33.1600SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3500 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi ATTENUATION RELATION: 15) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1997 Rev.) - Soft RockUNCERTAINTY (M=Median, s=sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0DISTANCE MEASURE; cdistSCOND: 1Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 1 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE RHGA HORIZ. ACCEL. (FACTOR: 0.65 DISTANCE: 20 miles) FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 EQFAULT SUMMARY Page 1 Kiko TEST.OUT DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 1 ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) ROSE CANYON CORONADO BANK ELSINORE-TEMECULA ELSINORE-JULIAN ELSINORE-GLEN IVY PALOS VERDES EARTHQUAKE VALLEY N EW PORT-INGLEWOOD SAN JACINTO-ANZA SAN 3ACINTO-SAN ItCHINO-CENTRAL AVE.WHITTIER SAN 3ACINTO-COYOTE CREEKCOMPTON THRUSTELYSIAN PARK THRUSTELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAINSAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINOSAN ANDREAS - San BernSAN ANDREAS - Southern SAN JACINTO - BORREGO SAN JOSE SIERRA MADRE PINTO MOUNTAIN CUCAMONGA SAN ANDREAS - Coachella NORTH FRONTAL FAULT CLEGHORN BURNT MTN. RAYMOND NORTH FRONTAL FAULT SAN ANDREAS - MOJave SAN ANDREAS - 1857 R EUREKA PEAK CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT VERDUGO SUPERSTITION MTN. (S HOLLYWOOD ELMORE RANCH LANDERS fshore) A. Basin) TO VALLEY Isinore) EEK 'AIM ^RDINO •nardino •n) la :ONE (west) :ONE (East) jpture an Jacinto) APPROXIMATE DISTANCE mi (km) 5.0C 8.0)5.0( 8.0) 20. 9( 33.6) 24. 4( 39.2) 24. 7( 39.7) 33. 4( 53.8) 35. 2( 56.6) 44. 5( 71.6) 45. 4( 73.0) 46. 9( 75.5)47. 3( 76.1) 47. 3( 76.1) 50. 8( 81.7) 52. 9( 85.1) 55. 1C 88.6)58. 0( 93.4)58. 7( 94.5) 59. 5( 95.8) 64. 9( 104.5) 64. 9( 104.5) 66. 9( 107.7) 68. 1( 109.6) 71. 8( 115.5) 71. 9( 115.7) 72. 1( 116.0) 73. 3( 117.9) 75. 5C 121.5) 77. 2( 124.2) 78. 2( 125.9) 79. 7( 128.3) 80. 2( 129.1) 80. 2( 129.1) 80. 2( 129.1) 81. OC 130.4)81. 5( 131.2)82. 4( 132.6) 83. 4( 134.3) 84. 2( 135.5) 87. 0( 140.0) 87. 9( 141.4) ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKE MAG . (MW) 6.9 6.9 7.4 6.8 7.1 6.8 7.1 6.5 6.9 7.2 6.9 6.7 6.8 6,8 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.7 7.3 7.4 6.6 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.5 6.4 6.5 6.7 7.1 7.8 6.4 6.5 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.6 7.3 RHGA SITE ACCEL, g 0.291 0.291 0.163 0.083 0.105 0.053 0.064 0.027 0.037 0.046 0.035 0.029 0.029 0.027 0.025 0.021 0.0230.021 0.031 0.034 0.016 0.014 0.019 0.021 0.019 0.022 0.018 0.012 0.011 0.011 0.013 0.019 0.036 0.010 0.011 0.012 0.0120.0090.0110.020 EST. SITE INTENSITY MOD. MERC. IX IX VIII VII VII VI VI V V VI V V V V V IV IV IV V V IV IV IV IV IV IV IVIIIIIIIIIIII IV VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IV DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 2 ABBREVIATED APPROXIMATE DISTANCE |ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT MAXIMUM Page 2 RHGA EST. SITE Kiko TEST.OUT FAULT NAME SUPERSTITION HILLS (san 3acinto) HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT SANTA MONICA LACUNA SALADA MALIBU COAST LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSJOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE SIERRA MAORE (San Fernando) EMERSON SO. - COPPER MTN . SAN GABRIEL ANACAPA-DUME * * * ** if * ft * ft * ft ft * ft ft ft * * * rt ft it ** * -ft * ft * A * mi (km) 88. 0( 141.7) 88. 2( 141.9) 88. 9( 143.0) 90. 1C 145.0) 91. 4( 147.1) 92. 3( 148.5) 95. 6( 153.8) 95. GC 153.9) 95. 9C 154.4) 96. 2( 154.8) 96. 2( 154.8) 96. 4( 155.2) 98. 0( 157.7)^*A *********** * EARTHQUAKE MAG . (Mw) 6.6 7.1 6.6 7.0 6.7 7.3 6.7 G.9 6.4 6.7 6.9 7.0 7.3 SITE ACCEL, g 0.011 0.017 0.010 0.015 0.010 0.019 0.010 0.011 0.008 0.009 0.012 0.013 0.015 INTENSITY MOD. MERC. Ill IV III IV III IVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IV -END OF SEARCH- 53 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOQD (Offshore) FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.0 MILES (8.0 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.2905 g I Page 3 Kiko TEST.OUT V( * * * *** * * * * if* * * ft** * * * ** * * A * * EQSEARCH * * ** Version 3.00 * * * ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS DOB NUMBER: 02-8201 DATE: 06-05-2002 JOB NAME: Kiko Test Run EARTHQUAKE-CATALOG-FILE NAME: ALLQUAKE.DAT MAGNITUDE RANGE:MINIMUM MAGNITUDE: 5.00MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE: 9.00 SITE COORDINATES:SITE LATITUDE: 33.1600SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3500 SEARCH DATES:START DATE: 1800 END DATE: 2001 SEARCH RADIUS: 100.0 mi160.9 km ATTENUATION RELATION: 25) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1997 Rev.) - soft Rock UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0ASSUMED SOURCE TYPE: DS [SS=Strike-slip, DS=Reverse-slip, BT=B~Hnd-thrust] SCOND: 0 Depth Source: A Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 1 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 i Page 1 Kiko TEST.OUT EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS Page 1 FILE CODE LAT. NORTH LONG. WEST DATE TIME | (UTC) DEPTH QUAKEH M Sec| (km) MAG. SITE SITE APPROX. ACC. | MM | DISTANCEg INT. mi [km]--— — ] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — __ — | DMG MGI MGI PAS DMG T-A T-A T-A DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG MGI DMG DMG DMG DMG MGI DMG DMG DMG DMG PAS DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG MGI DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG T-A MGI -DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG 33.0000 33.0000 32.8000 32.9710 32.7000 32.6700 32.6700 32.6700 33.7000 33.7000 33.7000 33.2000 33.6990 32.8000 33.2000 33.7100 33.7500 33.7500 33.5750 33.8000 33.6170 33.8000 33.6170 33.9000 33.5010 33.6830 33.0000 33.5000 33.7000 33.7000 34.0000 34.0000 33.7500 33.7500 33.7500 33.7500 33.7500 33.3430 33.9500 33.7830 32.8170 33.4000 32.2500 34.1000 33.4080 33.2000 33.9760 33.7830 33.2830 33.2830 33.2830 33.2830 33.9940 117.3000 117.0000 117.1000 117.8700 117.2000 117.1700 117.1700 117.1700 117.4000 117.4000 117.4000 116.7000 117.5110 116.8000 116.6000 116.9250 117.0000 117.0000 117.9830 117.6000 117.9670 117.0000 118.0170 117.2000 116.5130 118.0500 116.4330 116.5000 118.0670 118.0670 117.2500 117.5000 118.0830 118.0830 118.0830 118.0830 118.0830 116.3460 116.8500 118.1330 118.3500 116.3000 117.5000 117.3000 116.2610 116.2000 116.7210 118.2500 116.1830 116.1830 116.1830 116.1830 116.7120 11/22/1800 09/21/1856 05/25/1803 07/13/1986 05/27/1862 10/21/1862 05/24/1865 12/00/1856 05/13/1910 04/11/1910 05/15/1910 01/01/1920 05/31/1938 10/23/1894 10/12/1920 09/23/1963 06/06/1918 04/21/1918 03/11/1933 04/22/1918 03/11/1933 12/25/189903/14/1933 12/19/1880 02/25/1980 03/11/1933 06/04/1940 09/30/1916 03/11/1933 03/11/1933 07/23/1923 12/16/1858 03/11/1933 03/11/1933 03/13/1933 03/11/1933 03/11/1933 04/28/1969 09/28/1946 10/02/1933 12/26/1951 02/09/1890 01/13/1877 07/15/1905 03/25/1937 05/28/1892 06/12/1944 11/14/1941 03/23/1954 03/19/1954 03/19/1954 03/19/1954 06/12/1944 2130 0.0 730 0.0 0 0 0.0 1347 8.220 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 620 0.0 757 0.0 1547 0.0 235 0.0 83455.4 23 3 0.0 1748 0.0 144152.6 2232 0.0 223225.0 518 4.0 2115 0.0 154 7.8 1225 0.019 150.0 0 0 0.0 104738.5 658 3.0 1035 8.3211 0.0 51022.0 85457.0 73026.0 10 0 0.0 230 0.0 910 0.0 131828.0 323 0.0 2 9 0.0 232042.9 719 9.0 91017 . 6 04654.0 12 6 0.0 20 0 0.0 2041 0.0 1649 1.8 1115 0.0 104534.7 84136.3 41450.0 95429.0 102117.0 95556.0 111636.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 13.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 6.50 5.00 5.00 5.305.905.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 5.50 5.70 5.30 5.00 5.00 6.80 5.20 5.00 6.30 6.40 5.106.00 5.50 5.50 5.10 5.00 5.10 5.10 6.25 7.00 5.10 5.10 5.30 5.005.00 5.80 5.00 5.40 5.90 6.30 5.00 5.30 6.00 6.30 5.10 5.40 5.10 6.20 5.50 5.00 5.30 0.208 0.023 0.016 0.017 0.028 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.011 0.011 0.024 0.011 0.016 0.017 0.011 0.008 0.008 0.034 0.009 0.008 0.021 0.0220.008 0.015 0.009 0.009 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.015 0.027 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.005 0.007 0.010 0.014 0.005 0.006 0.010 0.012 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.011 0.006 0.004 0.005 VIII IV IV IV VIIIIIIIIIIIIIII VIII IV IVIIIIIIIII VIIIII IV IVii IVininiiiiiiii IV VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11. 4( 18.4)23. 1( 37.1) 28. 8( 46.3)32. 8( 52.8) 32. 9( 53.0) 35. 4( 57.0) 35. 4( 57.0) 35. 4( 57.0) 37. 4( 60.2) 37.4C 60.2) 37. 4( 60.2) 37. 7( 60.6) 38. 3( 61.7) 40. 4( 65.0) 43. 4( 69.9) 45. 2( 72.7) 45. 4( 73.1) 45. 4( 73.1) 46. 4( 74.7) 46. 5( 74.8) 47. 5( 76.5) 48. 6( 78.2) 49. 7( 80.0)51. 8( 83.4) 53. 7( 86.4) 54. 1( 87.1) 54. 2C 87.2) 54. 4C 87.5) 55. 6C 89.6) 55. 6( 89.6) 58. 3C 93.8) 58. 6C 94.4) 58. 7C 94.4) 58. 7C 94.4) 58. 7( 94.4) 58. 7C 94.4) 58. 7C 94.4) 59. 3C 95.5)61. 7( 99.2) 62.3C100.3) 62.6(100.7) 62.8(101.1) 63.4(102.1) 65.0(104.5) 65.1(104.8) 66.5(107.0) 67.0(107.8) 67.4(108.4) 67.9(109.3) 67.9(109.3) 67.9(109.3) 67.9(109.3) 68.3(109.9) Page 2 Kiko TEST.OUT EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS Page 2 FILE|CODE] DMG MGI DMG GSP DMG DMG DMG PAS DMG DMG DMG DMG GSP DMG PAS DMG PAS DMG DMG DMG DMG GSP DMG DMG T-A T-A T-A MGI DMG GSN DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG DMG GSP MGI GSP DMG DMG GSP DMG DMG DMG „ _ ... DMG GSP PDG ' MGI DMG I GSP DMG 1 LAT. NORTH | 32.7000 34.0000 33.2170 34.1400 33.1900 33.8500 34.2000 33.9980 34.1000 34.2000 34.1800 34.1800 34.1630 34.1000 34.0610 33.1130 34.0730 34.0170 34.0170 34.0170 34.0170 34.1950 33.9330 34.2700 34.0000 34.0000 34.0000 34.1000 33.2310 34.2030 34 . 2000 34.3000 32.9670 32.9670 32.9670 32.9670 34.2670 33.8760 34.0000 33.9020 34.3000 32.9830 34.2390 32.0000 32.0000 32.2000 32.2000 33.9610 34.2900 34.0800 32.5000 34.0290 32.0830 1 LONG. WEST 116.3000 118.0000 116.1330 117.7000 116.1290 118.2670 117.4000 116.6060 116.8000 117.1000 116.9200 116.9200 116.8550 116.7000 118.0790 116.0370 118.0980 116.5000 116.5000 116.SOOO 116.5000 116.8620 116.3830 117.5400 118.2500 118.2500 118.2500 118.1000 116.0040 116.8270 117.9000 117.5000 116.0000116.0000 116.0000 116.0000 116.9670 116.2670 118.3000 116.2840 117.6000 115.9830 116.8370 117.5000 117.5000 116.5500 116.5500 116.3180 116.9460 118.2600 118,5500 116,3210 116.6670 DATE 02/24/1892 12/25/1903 08/15/1945 02/28/1990 04/09/1968 03/11/1933 07/22/1899 07/08/1986 10/24/1935 09/20/1907 01/16/1930 01/16/1930 06/28/1992 02/07/1889 10/01/1987 04/09/1968 10/04/1987 07/26/1947 07/25/1947 07/25/1947 07/24/1947 08/17/1992 12/04/1948 09/12/1970 09/23/1827 03/26/1860 01/10/1856 07/11/1855 05/26/1957 06/28/1992 08/28/1889 07/22/1899 10/22/1942 10/21/194210/21/194210/21/1942 08/29/1943 06/29/1992 09/03/1905 07/24/1992 07/30/1894 05/23/1942 07/09/1992 06/24/1939 05/01/1939 11/05/1949 11/04/1949 04/23/1992 02/10/2001 07/16/1920 02/24/1948 08/21/1993 11/25/1934 TIME | (UTC) H M Sec 720 0.0 1745 0.0 175624.0 234336.6 22859.1 1425 0.0 046 0.0 92044.5 1448 7.6 154 0.0 034 3.6 02433.9 144321.0 520 0.0 144220.0 3 353.5 105938.2 24941.0 61949.0 04631.0 221046.0 204152.1 234317.0 143053.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 415 0.0 155933.6 150530.7 215 0.0 2032 0.0 181326.0 162519.0 162654.0162213.034513.0 160142.8 540 0.0 181436.2 512 0.0 154729.0 014357.6 1627 0.0 2353 0.0 43524.0 204238.0 045023.0 210505.8 18 8 0.0 81510.0 014638.4 818 0.0 DEPTH (km) 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 11.10.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.00.06.0 0.0 9.5 5.0 8.2 0.00.00.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 1 QUAKE MAG. 6.70 5.00 5.70 5.20 6.40 5.00 5.50 5.60 5.10 6.00 5.10 5.205.30 5.30 5.90 5.20 5.30 5.10 5.20 5.00 5.50 5.30 6.50 5.40 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.30 5.00 6.70 5.50 6.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 6.50 5.505.20 5.30 5.00 6.00 5.00 5.305.00 5.00 5.10 5.70 6.10 5.10 5.00 5.30 5.00 5.00 SITE ACC. 9 0.016 0.004 0.007 0.005 0.012 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.008 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.004 0.012 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.010 0.003 0.013 0.005 0.011 0.003 0.003 0.0030.011 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.007 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.008 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.003 SITE MM INT. | IV I II II III I II II I III I I II II II I I I I I II I III II I I I III I III II III I I I III II I I I II I I I I I II II I I I I I APPROX . DISTANCE mi [km] 68.6(110.5) 69.0(111.0) 70.4(113.3) 70.6(113.6) 70.6(113.6) 71.1(114.4) 71.9(115.6) 72.0(115.8) 72.2(116.2) 73.2(117.8) 74.6(120.1) 74.6(120.1) 74.9(120.5) 74.9(120.5) 75.0(120.7) 76.0(122.3) 76.3(122.8) 76.8(123.5) 76.8(123.5) 76.8(123.5) 76.8(123.5) 76.8(123.5) 77.1(124.1) 77.4(124.6) 77.7(125.1) 77.7(125.1) 77.7(125.1) 77.9(125.4) 77.9(125.4) 78.0(125.6) 78.4(126.2) 79.2(127.4) 79.2(127.5) 79.2(127.5) 79.2(127.5)79.2(127.5)79.5(128.0) 79.6(128.0) 79.7(128.2) 79.9(128.6) 80.0(128.8) 80.0(128.8) 80.1(128.9) 80.6(129.6) 80.6(129.6) 81.0(130.3) 81.0(130.3) 81.1(130.6) 81.4(131.0) 82.3(132.4) 83.2(133.9) 84.3(135.6) 84.3(135.7) Page 3 Kiko TEST.OUT EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS Page 3 FILECODE! GSP GSP GSP DMG GSP DMG DMG GSP DMG GSP DMG MGI DMG PAS DMG DMG GSN DMG PAS PAS T-A DMG PAS GSP DMG GSP DMG DMG DMG GSP PAS DMG DMG DMG GSP PAS GSP LAT. NORTH 34.0640 34.2620 34.1080 34.3700 34.3400 34.0670 34.0670 34.1390 33.1830 34.3690 34.0830 34.0000 34.000033.0130 33.0000 33.0330 34.2010 33.2160 33.9190 33.0820 33.5000 33.9500 33.9440 34.2680 31.8110 34.3410 32.9830 33.2330 32.950034.332034.3270 34.0000 34.0000 32.9000 34.2310 33.0980 34.2130 LONG. WEST 116.3610118.0020 116.4040 117.6500 116.9000 116.3330 116.3330 116.4310 115.8500116.8970 116.3000 118.5000 118.5000 115.8390115.8330 115.8210 116.4360 115.8080 118.6270 115.7750115.8200 118.6320 118.6810 116.4020 117.1310116.5290 115.7330 115.7170 115.7170 116.4620 116.4450 116.0000 116.0000 115.7000 118.4750 115.6320118.5370 DATE 09/15/199206/28/1991 06/29/1992 12/08/1812 11/27/1992 05/18/1940 05/18/1940 06/28/1992 04/25/1957 12/04/1992 05/18/1940 11/19/1918 08/04/1927 11/24/198701/08/194609/30/1971 06/28/1992 04/25/1957 01/19/1989 11/24/1987 05/00/186808/31/1930 01/01/1979 06/16/1994 12/22/1964 06/28/1992 01/24/1951 10/22/1942 06/14/1953 07/01/1992 03/15/197904/03/1926 09/05/1928 10/02/1928 03/20/1994 04/26/1981 01/17/1994 TIME | (UTC) | H M Sec 084711.3 144354.5 141338.8 15 0 0.0 160057.5 55120.2 72132.7 123640.6 222412.0 020857.5 5 358.5 2018 0.0 1224 0.0 131556.5185418.0224611.3115734.1 215738.7 65328.8 15414.5 0 0 0.004036.0 231438.9 162427.5 205433.2 124053.5 717 2.6 15038.0 41729.9 074029.9 21 716.520 8 0.0 1442 0.0 19 1 0.0 212012.3 12 928.4 123055.4 DEPTH (km) 9.0 11.0 9.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.08.0 1.0 -0.3 11.9 4.9 0.0 0.0 11.3 3.0 2.3 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 2.5 0.00.0 0.0 13.0 3.8 18.0 1 QUAKE j MAG. 5.20 5.40 5.40 7.00 5.30 5.20 5.00 5.10 5.10 5.305.40 5.00 5.00 6.00 5,405.107.60 5.20 5.00 5.80 6.30 5.20 5.00 5.00 5.60 5.20 5.60 5.50 5.50 5.40 5.20 5.505.00 5.00 5.30 5.70 6.70 SITE ACC.g 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.015 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.0030.0030.004 0.004 0.003 0.0030.0060.004 0.003 0.022 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.0030.0040.004 0.004 0.0030.0030.004 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.009 SITE MM INT. — - — iI I I IV I I I I I I I I I II I I IVIIIIIII- - IIIIIIII- -IIIII APPROX. DISTANCE mi [km] 84.4(135.9) 84.8(136.5) 85.1(136.9) 85.3(137.3) 85.5(137.5) 85.7(137.9) 85.7(137.9) 85.8(138.0) 86.7(139.5) 87.4(140.7) 87.8(141.3) 88.0(141.6) 88.0(141.6) 88.0(141.6) 88.5(142.3) 88.9(143.0) 89.0(143.2) 89.2(143.5) 90.3(145.2) 91.2(146.8) 91.3(147.0) 91.7(147.6)93.8(150.9) 93.9(151.1) 94.0(151.3) 94.2(151.6) 94.3(151.8) 94.5(152.0)95.6(153.9) 95.6(153.9) 95.9(154.3) 96.9(156.0)96.9(156.0)97.2(156.4) 98.2(158.0) 99.4(160.0) 99.7(160.4) -END OF SEARCH- 143 EARTHQUAKES FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH AREA. TIME PERIOD OF SEARCH: 1800 TO 2001 LENGTH OF SEARCH TIME: 202 years THE EARTHQUAKE CLOSEST TO THE SITE IS ABOUT 11.4 MILES (18.4 km) AWAY. LARGEST EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE FOUND IN THE SEARCH RADIUS: 7.6 LARGEST EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION FROM THIS SEARCH I 0.208 g COEFFICIENTS FOR GUTENBERG & RICHTER RECURRENCE RELATION:a-value= 1.518b-value= 0.381 beta-va1ue= 0.877 Page 4 Kiko TEST.OUT TABLE OF MAGNITUDES AND EXCEEDANCES: Earthquake | Number of Times | Cumulative Magnitude | Exceeded | NO. / Year 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 1 143 143 143 50 27 11 3 1 0.70792 0.70792 0.70792 0.247520.13366 0.05446 0.01485 0.00495 I Page 5 I I APPENDIX C MODIFIED MERCALLI INDEX APPENDIX C MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931 (Excerpted from the California Division of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology DMG Note 32) The first scale to reflect earthquake intensities was developed by deRossi of Italy, and Forel of Switzerland, in the 1880s, and is known as the Rossi-Fore! Scale. This scale, with values from I to X, was used for about two decades. A need for a more refined scale increased with the advancement of the science of seismology, and in 1902, the Italian seismologist Mercalli devised a new scale on a I to XII range. The Mercalli Scale was modified in 1931 by American seismologists Harry O. Wood and Frank Neumann to take into account modern structural features. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale measures the intensity of an earthquake's effects in a given locality, and is perhaps much more meaningful to the layman because it is based on actual observations of earthquake effects at specific places. It should be noted that because the damage used for assigning intensities can be obtained only from direct firsthand reports, considerable time - weeks or months -- is sometimes needed before an intensity map can be assembled for a particular earthquake. On the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, values range from I to X!!. The most commonly used adaptation covers the range of intensity from the conditions of "/ -- not felt except by very few, favorably situated," to "XII -- damage total, lines of sight disturbed, objects thrown into the air." While an earthquake has only one magnitude, it can have many intensities, which decrease with distance from the epicenter. It is difficult to compare magnitude and intensity because intensity is linked with the particular ground and structural conditions of a given area, as well as distance from the earthquake epicenter, while magnitude depends on the energy released at the focus of the earthquake. Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing. Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration like passing of truck. Duration estimated. 111 IV During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows, etc., broken; a few instances of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop. VI Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors, damaged chimneys. Damage slight. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster or Vll Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in building of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well- built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving motor cars. VIII Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving motor cars disturbed. IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked. Rails bent. Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed (slopped) over banks. XI Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly. Underground XII Damage total. Practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or destroyed. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown upward into the air. M^ 4^ fl I APPENDIX D GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX D GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS General The objective of these specifications is to properly establish procedures for the clearing and preparation of the existing natural ground or properly compacted fill to receive new fill; for the selection of the fill material; and for the fill compaction and testing methods to be used. Scope of Work The earthwork includes all the activities and resources provided by the contractor to construct in a good workmanlike manner all the grades of the filled areas shown in the plans. The major items of work covered in this section include all clearing and grubbing, removing and disposing of materials, preparing areas to be filled, compacting of fill, compacting of backfills, subdrain installations, and all other work necessary to complete the grading of the filled areas. Site Visit and Site Investigation 1. The contractor shall visit the site and carefully study it, and make all inspections necessary in order to determine the full extent of the work required to complete all grading in conformance with the drawings and specifications. The contractor shall satisfy himself as to the nature, location, and extent of the work conditions, the conformation and condition of the existing ground surface; and the type of equipment, labor, and facilities needed prior to and during prosecution of the work. The contractor shall satisfy himself as to the character, quality, and quantity of surface and subsurface materials or obstacles to be encountered. Any inaccuracies or discrepancies between the actual field conditions and the drawings, or between the drawings and specifications, must be brought to the engineer's attention in order to clarify the exact nature of the work to be performed. 2. A soils investigation report has been prepared for this project by GEI. It is available for review and should be used as a reference to the surface and subsurface soil and bedrock conditions on this project. Any recommendations made in the report of the soil investigation or subsequent reports shall become an addendum to these specifications. Authority of the Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist The soils engineer shall be the owner's representative to observe and test the construction of fills. Excavation and the placing of fill shall be under the observation of the soils engineer and his/her representative, and he/she shall give a written opinion regarding conformance with the specifications upon completion of grading. The soils engineer shall have the authority to cause the removal and replacement of porous topsoils, uncompacted or improperly compacted fills, disturbed bedrock materials, and soft alluvium, and shall have the authority to approve or reject materials proposed for use in the compacted fil! areas. The soils engineer shall have, in conjunction with the engineering geologist, the authority to approve the preparation of natural ground and toe-of-fill benches to receive fill material. The engineering geologist shall have the authority to evaluate the stability of the existing or proposed slopes, and to evaluate the necessity of remedial measures. If any unstable condition is being created by cutting or filling, the engineering geologist and/or soils "eng"ine"e~r shall advise the contractor and owner immediately, and prohibit grading in the affected area until such time as corrective measures are taken. The owner shall decide all questions regarding: (1) the interpretation of the drawings and specifications, (2) the acceptable fulfillment of the contract on the part of the contractor, and (3) the matter of compensation. Appendix D Page 2 Clearing and Grubbing 1. Clearing and grubbing shall consist of the removal from all areas to be graded of all surface trash, abandoned improvements, paving, culverts, pipe, and vegetation (including -- but not limited to -- heavy weed growth, trees, stumps, logs and roots larger than 1-inch in diameter). 2. All organic and inorganic materials resulting from the clearing and grubbing operations shall be collected, piled, and disposed of by the contractor to give the cleared areas a neat and finished appearance. Burning of combustible materials on-site shall not be permitted unless allowed by local regulations, and at such times and in such a manner to prevent the fire from spreading to areas adjoining the property or cleared area. 3. It is understood that minor amounts of organic materials may remain in the fill soils due to the near impossibility of complete removal. The amount remaining, however, must be considered negligible, and in no case can be allowed to occur in concentrations or total quantities sufficient to contribute to settlement upon decomposition. Preparation of Areas to be Filled 1. After clearing and grubbing, all uncompacted or improperly compacted fills, soft or loose soils, or unsuitable materials, shall be removed to expose competent natural ground, undisturbed bedrock, or properly compacted fill as indicated in the soils investigation report or by our field representative. Where the unsuitable materials are exposed in final graded areas, they shall be removed and replaced as compacted fill. 2. The ground surface exposed after removal of unsuitable soils shall be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, brought to the specified moisture content, and then the scarified ground compacted to at least the specified density. Where undisturbed bedrock is exposed at the surface, scarification and recompaction shall not be required. 3. All areas to receive compacted fill, including all removal areas and toe-of-fill benches, shall be observed and approved by the soils engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placing compacted fill. 4. Where fills are made on hillsides or exposed slope areas with gradients greater than 20 percent, horizontal benches shall be cut into firm, undisturbed, natural ground in order to provide both lateral and vertical stability. This is to provide a horizontal base so that each layer is placed and compacted on a horizontal plane. The initial bench at the toe of the fill shall be at least 10 feet in width on firm, undisturbed, natural ground at the elevation of the toe stake placed at the bottom of the design slope. The engineer shall determine the width and frequency of all succeeding benches, which will vary with the soil conditions and the steepness of the slope. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent (5.0:1.0) shall be benched when considered necessary by the soils engineer. Fill and Backfill Material Unless otherwise specified, the on-site material obtained from the project excavations may be used as fill or backfill, provided that all organic material, rubbish, debris, and other objectionable material contained therein is first removed. In the event that expansive materials are encountered during foundation excavations within 3 feet of finished grade and they have not been properly processed, they shall be entirely removed or thoroughly mixed with good, granular material before incorporating them in fills. No footing shall be allowed to bear on soils which, in the opinion of the soils engineer, are detrimentally expansive - unless designed for this clayey condition. However, rocks, boulders, broken Portland cement concrete, and bituminous-type pavement obtained from the project excavations may be permitted in the backfill or fill with the following limitations: Appendix D Page 3 1. The maximum dimension of any piece used in the top 10 feet shall be no larger than 6 inches. 2 Clods or hard lumps of earth of 6 inches in greatest dimension shall be broken up before compacting the material in fill. 3. If the fill material originating from the project excavation contains large rocks, boulders, or hard lumps that cannot be broken readily, pieces ranging from 6 inches in diameter to 2 feet in maximum dimension may be used in fills below -final subgrade if all pieces are placed in such a manner (such as windrows) as to eliminate nesting or voids between them. No rocks over 4 feet will be allowed in the fill. 4. Pieces larger than 6 inches shall not be placed within 12 inches of any structure. 5. Pieces larger than 3 inches shall not be placed within 1 2 inches of the subgrade for paving. 6. Rockfills containing less than 40 percent of soil passing 3/4-inch sieve may be permitted in designated areas. Specific recommendations shall be made by the soils engineer and be subject to approval by the city engineer. 7. Continuous observation by the soils engineer is required during rock placement. 8. Special and/or additional recommendations may be provided in writing by the soils engineer to modify, clarify, or amplify these specifications. 9. During grading operations, soil types other than those analyzed in the soil investigation report may be encountered by the contractor. The soils engineer shall be consulted to evaluate the suitability of these soils as fill materials. Placing and Compacting Fill Material 1. After preparing the areas to be filled, the approved fill material shall be placed in approximately horizontal layers, with lift thickness compatible to the material being placed and the type of equipment being used. Unless otherwise approved by the soils engineer, each layer spread for compaction shall not exceed 8 inches of loose thickness. Adequate drainage of the fill shall be provided at all times during the construction period. 2. When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the engineer, water shall be added to it until the moisture content is as specified. 3. When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the engineer, resulting in inadequate compaction or unstable fill, the fill material shall be aerated by blading and scarifying or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified. 4. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than the density set forth in the specifications. Compaction shall be accomplished with sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other approved types of acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such design that it will be able to compact the fill to the specified relative compaction. 1 Compaction shall cover the entire fill area, and the equipment shall make sufficient trips to ensure that the desired density has been obtained throughout the entire fill. At locations where it would be impractical due to inaccessibility of rolling compacting equipment, fill layers shall be compacted to the specified requirements by hand'directed compaction equipment. Appendix D Page 4 5. When soil types or combination of soil types are encountered which tend to develop densely packed surfaces as a result of spreading or compacting operations, the surface of each layer of fill shall be sufficiently roughened after compaction to ensure bond to the succeeding layer. 6. Unless otherwise specified, fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical. In general, fill slopes shall be finished in conformance with the lines and grades shown on the plans. The surface of fill slopes shall be overfilled to a distance from finished slopes such that it will allow compaction equipment to opsrste freely within the zone of the finished slope, and then cut back to the finished grade to expose the compacted core. Alternate compaction procedures include the backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers in increments of 3 to 5 feet in elevation gain. Alternate methods may be used by the contractor, but they shall be evaluated for approval by the soils engineer. 7. Unless otherwise specified, all allowed expansive fit! material shall be compacted to a moisture content of approximately 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content. Nonexpansive fill shall be compacted at near-optimum moisture content. All fill shall be compacted, unless otherwise specified, to a relative compaction not less than 95 percent for fill in the upper 12 inches of subgrades under areas to be paved with asphalt concrete or Portland concrete, and not less than 90 percent for other fill. The relative compaction is the ratio of the dry unit weight of the compacted fill to the laboratory maximum dry unit weight of a sample of the same soil, obtained in accordance with A.S.T.M. D-1557 test method. 8. The observation and periodic testing by the soils engineer are intended to provide the contractor with an ongoing measure of the quality of the fill compaction operation. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to utilize this information to establish the degrees of compactive effort required on the project. More importantly, it is the responsibility of the grading contractor to ensure that proper compactive effort is applied at all times during the grading operation, including during the absence of soils engineering representatives. Trench Backfill 1. Trench excavations which extend under graded lots, paved areas, areas under the influence of structural loading, in slopes or close to slope areas, shall be backfilled under the observations and testing of the soils engineer. All trenches not falling within the aforementioned locations shall be backfilled in accordance with the City or County regulating agency specifications. 2. Unless otherwise specified, the minimum degree of compaction shall be 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. 3. Any soft, spongy, unstable, or other similar material encountered in the trench excavation upon which the bedding material or pipe is to be placed, shall be removed to a depth recommended by the soils engineer and replaced with bedding materials suitably densified. Bedding material shall first be placed so that the pipe is supported for the full length of the barrel with full bearing on the bottom segment. After the needed testing of the pipe is accomplished, the bedding shall be completed to at least 1 foot on top of the pipe. The bedding shall be properly densified before backfill is placed. Bedding shall consist of granular material with a sand equivalent not less than 30, or other material approved by the engineer. 4. No rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter will be allowed in the backfill placed between 1 foot above the pipe and 1 foot below finished subgrade. Rocks greater than 2.5 inches in any dimension will not be allowed in the backfill placed within 1 foot of pavement subgrade. Appendix D Page 5 8. Material for mechanically compacted backfill shall be placed in lifts of horizontal layers and properly moistened prior to compaction. In addition, the layers shall have a thickness compatible with the material being placed and the type of equipment being used. Each layer shall be evenly spread, moistened or dried, and then tamped or rolled until the specified relative compaction has been attained. Backfill shall be mechanically compacted'by means of tamping rollers, sheepsfoot rollers, pneumatic tire rollers, vibratory rollers, or other mechanical tampers. Impact-type pavement breakers (stompersi will not be permitted over clay, asbestos cement, plastic, cast iron, or nonreinforced concrete pipe. Permission to use specific compaction equipment shall not be construed as guaranteeing or implying that the use of such equipment will not result in damage to adjacent ground, existing improvements, or improvements installed under the contract. The contractor shall make his/her own determination in this regard. Jetting shall not be permitted as a compaction method unless the soils engineer allows it in writing. Clean granular material shall not be used as backfill or bedding in trenches located in slope areas or within a distance of 10 feet of the top of slopes unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate the potential buildup of seepage forces into the slope mass. Observations and Testing 1. The soils engineers or their representatives shall sufficiently observe and test the grading operations so that they can state their opinion as to whether or not the fill was constructed in accordance with the specifications. 2. The soils engineers or their representatives shall take sufficient density tests during the placement of compacted fill. The contractor should assist the soils engineer and/or his/her representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. In addition, the contractor should cooperate with the soils engineer by removing or shutting down equipment from the area being tested. 3. Fill shall be tested for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should be performed by using approved methods by A.S.T.M., such as A.S.T.M. D1556, D2922, and/or D2937. Tests to evaluate density of compacted fill should be provided on the basis of not less than one test for each 2-foot vertical lift of the fill, but not less than one test for each 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. In fill slopes, approximately half of the tests shall be made at the fill-slope, except that not more than one test needs to be made for each 50 horizontal feet of slope in each 2-foot vertical lift. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. 4. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the soils engineer. Site Protection It shall be the grading contractor's obligation to take all measures deemed necessary during grading to maintain adequate safety measures and working conditions, and to provide erosion-control devices for the protection of excavated areas, slope areas, finished work on the site and adjoining properties, from storm damage and flood hazard originating on the project. It shall be the contractor's responsibility to maintain slopes in their as-graded form until all slopes are in satisfactory compliance with the job specifications, all berms and benches have been properly constructed, and all associated drainage devices have been installed and meet the requirements of the specifications. CHEHi Appendix D Page 6 All observations, testing services, and approvals given by the soils engineer and/or geologist shall not relieve the contractor of his/her responsibilities of performing the work in accordance with these specifications. After grading is completed and the soils engineer has finished his/her observations and/or testing of the work, no further excavation or filling shall be done except under his/her observations. Adverse Weather Conditions 1. Precautions shall be taken by the contractor during the performance of site clearing, excavations, and grading to protect the worksite from flooding, ponding, or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions shall be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the worksite. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. 2. During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting shall be kept reasonably accessible to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary during periods of rainfall, the contractor shall install checkdams, desilting basins, rip-rap, sandbags, or other devices or methods necessary to control erosion and provide safe conditions. 3. During periods of rainfall, the soils engineer should be kept informed by the contractor as to the nature of remedial or preventative work being performed (e.g. pumping, placement of sandbags or plastic sheeting, other labor, dozing, etc.}. 4. Following periods of rainfall, the contractor shall contact the soils engineer and arrange a walk-over of the site in order to visually assess rain-related damage. The soils engineer may also recommend excavations and testing in order to aid in his/her assessments. At the request of the soils engineer, the contractor shall make excavations in order to evaluate the extent of rain-related damage. 5. Rain-related damage shall be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress, and other adverse conditions identified by the soils engineer. Soil adversely affected shall be classified as Unsuitable Materials, and shall be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading, as recommended by the soils engineer. 6. Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot, shall be overexcavated to unaffected, competent material. Where less than 1.0 foot in depth, unsuitable materials may be processed in place to achieve near-optimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly recompacted in accordance with the applicable specifications. If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials shall be over-excavated, then replaced in accordance with the applicable specifications. 7. In slope areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot, they shall be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture-conditioning in place, followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein presented may be attempted. If materials shall be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill, it shall be done in accordance with the slope-repair recommendations herein. As field conditions dictate, other slope-repair procedures may be recommended by the soils engineer. I i I APPENDIX C BORING LOG BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. PROJECT: KARNAK 2641-43 Ocean Street, Carlsbad f0)Q Sample *to fl 1 5- - 1 Bfows/ft.8lsi SP/SIV Dry Unit Wt.(PCf)129.8 Moisture (%)8.8 Saturation {%)84.7 W.O. 3512-A-SC BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF 1 DA TE EXCA VA TED 1 - 1 7-03 SAMPLE METHOD: HAND AUGER m i Standard Penetration Test -^- Groundwater Undisturbed, Ring Sample Description of Material ?: v. • . *-•" • ARTIFICIAL FILL: @ 0' SAND TO SILTY SAND, dark brown to yellow brown to olive gray, moist to wet, loose to medium dense. Total Depth = 6' No Ground water/Caving Backfilled 1-17-03 Did not observe conventional footing. Excavation indicated subterranean blockwall probably for crawl space 2641-43 Ocean Street. Carlsbad oeOOOIIS, IHC. PLATE C-1 APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS •oo o Q.OJC(03 •o M l» Eito£ "-*C4 CD > -o N. O•*• *J-i nCD "5si«3 °£< £ onu_ In CO Plate D-1 APPENDIX E GRADING GUIDELINES GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractors^ responsibility to notify the engineering geologistand soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D- 1557-78. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test method ASTM designation D-1556-82, D-2937 or D-2922 and D-3017, at intervals of approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. GeoSoils, Inc. iii Contractor's Responsibility Alt clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non-earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration forthe fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in-place should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition should be overexcavated down to firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture Karnak Architecture Appendix E File: e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. conditioned should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is broughtto optimum moisture content or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is grater that 6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be overexcavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on-site soils engineer and/or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollow, hummocks, or other uneven features which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to 1/2 the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toe of fill benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength Karnak Architecture Appendix E File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other bedrock derived material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material shou Id be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces. To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developers representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers that when compacted should not exceed 6 inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material. Moisture condition, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation, D-1557-78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Karnak Architecture Appendix E File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. Afinal determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, and special grading procedures, may be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 1. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy short shanked sheepsfoot should be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicu lar to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. 3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 2 to 8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix and re-compact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify compaction. Karnak Architecture Appendix E File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 5 GeoSoils, Inc. 6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and re-filling of cut areas should be performed and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potential adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractors responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. Karnak Architecture Appendix E Rle:e:\wp7\3500\35l2a.pge Page 6 GeoSoils, Inc. COMPLETION Observation, testing and consultation by the geotechnicai consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. JOB SAFETY General At GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading and construction projects. GSi recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnicai testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects; Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractors regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at all times when they are working in the field. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. Karnak Architecture Appendix E File:e:\wp7\3500\35l2a.pge Page 7 GeoSoils, Inc. Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacon, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel notfollowing the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location. Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technicians's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative (dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration which typically decreased test results. When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g., 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of ail changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. in the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractors failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. However, in the Karnak Architecture ~~ Appendix E Fite:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 8 GeoSoils, Inc. interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill place can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor brings this to his/her attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors representative and the soils technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which: 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back; 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench; or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL-OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill nottested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper authorities. Karnak Architecture Appendix E File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 9 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX F HOMEOWNER'S MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES GUIDELINES FOR THE HOMEOWNER Tips for the Homeowner Homesites, in general, and hillside lots, in particular, need maintenance to continue to function and retain their value. Many homeowners are unaware of this and allow deterioration of their property. In addition to one's own property, the homeowner may be subject to liability for damage occurring to neighboring properties as a result of his negligence. It is, therefore, important to familiarize homeowners with some guidelines for maintenance of their properties and make them aware of the importance of maintenance. Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such as construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2,000 times that amount. When vegetation or other objects are removed that hold soil in place, the soil is exposed to the action of wind and water and increase its chances of eroding. The following maintenance guidelines are provided for the protection of the homeowner's investment, and should be employed throughout the year. 3. Care should be taken that slopes, terraces, berms (ridges at crown of slopes), and proper lot drainage are not disturbed. Surface drainage should be conducted from the rear yard to the street by a graded swale through the side yard, or alternative approved devices. 4. In general, roof and yard runoff should be conducted to either the street or storm drain by nonerosive devices such as sidewalks, drainage pipes, ground gutters, and driveways. Drainage systems should not be altered without expert consultation. 5. All drains should be kept cleaned and unclogged, including gutters and downspouts. Terrace drains or gunite ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage. During heavy rain periods, performance of the drainage system should be inspected. Problems, such as gullying and ponding, if observed, should be corrected as soon as possible. 6. Any leakage from pools, water lines, etc. or bypassing of drains should be repaired as soon as possible. 7. Animal burrows should be filled inasmuch as they may cause diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion, and even trigger shallow soil failures. 8. Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever a homeowner plans a significant topographic modification of the slope, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be contacted. GeoSoils, Inc. 9. If plans for modification of cut, fill or natural slopes within a property are considered, an engineering geologist should be consulted. Any oversteepening may result in a need for expensive retaining devices. Undercutting of the bottom of a slope might possibly lead to slope instability or failure and should not be undertaken without expert consultation. 10. If unusual cracking, settling, or earth slippage occurs on the property, the homeowner should consult a qualified soil engineer or an engineering geologist immediately. 11. The most common causes of slope erosion and shallow slope failures are as follows: * Gross neglect of the care and maintenance of the slopes and drainage devices. * Inadequate and/or improper planting. (Barren areas should be replanted as soon as possible). * Excessive or insufficient irrigation or diversion of runoff over the slope. * Foot traffic on slopes destroying vegetation and exposing soil to erosion potential. 12. Homeowners should not let conditions on their property create a problem for their neighbors. Cooperation with neighbors could prevent problems, and also increase the aesthetic attractiveness of the properties. Winter Alert It is especially important to "winterize" your property by mid-September. Don't wait until spring to put in landscaping. You need winter protection. Final landscaping can be done later. Inexpensive measures installed by mid-September will give you protection quickly that will last all during the wet season. Check before storms to see that drains, gutters, downspouts, and ditches are not clogged by leaves and rubble. •-• Check after major storms to be sure drains are clear and vegetation is holding on slopes. Repair as necessary. • Spot seed any bare areas. Broadcast seeds or use a mechanical seeder. A typical slope or bare area can be done in less than an hour. Karnak Architecture Appendix F File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 2 GeoSoils, Inc. Give seeds a boost with fertilizer. • Mulch if you can, with grass clippings and leaves, bark chips or straw. • Use netting to hold soil and seeds on steep slopes. • Check with your landscape architect or local nursery for advice. • Prepare berms and ditched to drain surface runoff water away from problem areas such as steep, bare slopes. • Prepare bare areas on slopes for seeding by raking the surface to loosen and roughen soil so it will hold seeds. CONSTRUCTION 1. Plan construction activities during spring and summer, so that erosion control measures can be in place when rain comes. 2. Examine your site carefully before building. Be aware of the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site design will help ypu avoid expensive stabilization work. 3. Preserve existing vegetation as much as possible. Vegetation will naturally curb erosion, improve the appearance value of your property, and reduce the cost of landscaping later. 4. Use fencing to protect plans from fill material and traffic. If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable asphalt or porous paving blocks. 5. Minimize the length and steepness of slopes by benching, terracing, or constructing diversion structures. Landscape benched areas to stabilize the slope and improve its appearance. 6. As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation on all areas that are not paved or otherwise covered. TEMPORARY MEASURES TO STABILIZE SOIL Grass provides the cheapest and most effective short-term erosion control. It grows quickly and covers the ground completely. To find the best seed mixtures and plants for your area, check with your local landscape architect, local nursery, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Karnak Architecture — Appendix F File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. Mulches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection from rain damage. They also provide a favorable environment for starting and growing plants. Easy-to-obtain mulches are grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips, and straw. Straw Mulch is nearly 100 percent effective when held in place by spraying with an organic glue or wood fiber (tackifliers), by punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tacking a netting over it. Commercial applications of wood fibers combined with various seeds and fertilizers (hydraulic mulching) are effective in stabilizing sloped areas. Hydraulic mulching with a tackifier should be done in two separate applications: the first composed of seed fertilizer and half the mulch, the second composed of the remaining mulch and tackifier. Commercial hydraulic mulch applicators—who also provide other erosion control services—are listed under "landscaping" in the phone book. Mats of excelsior, jute netting, and plastic sheets can be effective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with the soil and fastened securely to work effectively. Roof drainage can be collected in barrels or storage containers or routed into lawns, planter boxes, and gardens. Be sure to cover stored water so you don't collect mosquitos. Excessive runoff should be directed away from your house. Too much water can damage trees and make foundations unstable. STRUCTURAL RUNOFF CONTROLS Even with propertiming and planting, you may need to protect disturbed areas from rainfall until the plants have time to establish themselves. Or you may need permanent ways to transport water across your property so that it doesn't cause erosion. To keep water from carrying soil from your site and dumping it to nearby lots, streets, streams and channels, you need ways to reduce its volume and speed. Some examples of what you might use are: 1. Rip-rap (rock lining) - to protect channel banks from erosive water flow. 2. Sediment trap - to stop runoff carrying sediment and trap the sediment. 3. Storm drain outlet protection -to reduce the speed of waterflowing from a pipe onto open ground or into a natural channel. 4. Diversion dike or perimeter dike - to divert excess water to places where it can be disposed of properly. Karnak Architecture Appendix F Re:e:\wp7\3500\35l2a.pge Page 4GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5. Straw bale dike - to stop and detain sediment from small unprotected areas (a short term measure). 6. Perimeter swale - to divert runoff from a disturbed area or contain runoff within a disturbed area. 7. Grade stabilization structure - to carry concentrated runoff down a slope. Karnak Architecture File:e:\wp7\3500\3512a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix F PageS City of Carlsbad~ "" "*•" ^^— i^^a^^aiMa^^M^aa^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Mi ^» • Building Department CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PAYMENT OF SCHOOL FEES OR OTHER MITIGATION This form must be completed by the City, the applicant, and the appropriate school districts and returned to the City prior to issuing a building permit. The City will not issue any building permit without a completed school fee form. Project Name: Building Permit Plan Check Number: Project Address: A.P.N.: Project Applicant (Owner Name): Project Description: Building Type: Residential: Second Dwelling Unit: Residential Additions: Z&HV Number of New Dwelling Units Square Feet of Living Area in New Dwelling Square Feet of Living Area in SOU Net Square Feet New Area i 0 Commercial/Industrial: Square Feet Floor Area City Certification of Applicant Information:Date: SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD School Districts f "6225 El Camino Real *¥ Carlsbad CA 92009 (331-5000) San Marcos Unified School District 215MataWay San Marcos, CA 92069 (290-2649) Contact: Nancy Dolce (By Appt. Only) Encinitas Union School District 101 South Rancho Santa Fe Rd Encinitas, CA 92024 (944-4300 ext 166) San Dieguito Union High School District 710 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 (753-6491) Certification of Applicant/Owners. The person executing this declaration ("Owner") certifies under penalty of perjury that (1) the information provided above is correct 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 buildi that (2) the Owner is>' authorized to sign o Signature: if the initial determination of units or square footage is found to be incorrect, and the above described project(s), or that the person executing this declaration is Date: Revised 4/20/00 1635 Faraday Avenue Building Counter Carlsbad, CA 92OO8-7314 • (76O) 6O2-270O (76O) 6O2-2719 • FAX (76O) 602-8558 SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FEE CERTIFICATION (To be completed by the school district(s))************************************************* 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 GAYLEN FREEMAN DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT CARLSBAD UNinEDSCHOOLDlSIRICT 6225 a CAMINO REAL £L Revised 4/20/00 \CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT [ | JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY \ | AVIARA OAKS ELEMENTARY r~}cARLSBAD HIGH SCHOOL [^MAGNOLIA ELEMENTARY [^AVIARA OAKS MIDDLE SCHOOL j~ '] CARLSBAD VILLAGE ACADEMY [^] CAMVERA HILLS SCHOOL [^ RACFfC RIM [^r| l«LL£V M/DOLF SCHOOL [^] KO LfVSCHOOL [ BOTHER I j BUENA VISTA SCHOOL j^_J HOPF SCHOOL Receipt No. 15824 RECEIVED FROM: (If Applicable) PARENT OF 305- S"V • DATE: -CO ACCOUNT NUMBER AMOUNT RECEIVED BY:CASH CHECK TOTAL $ KARNAK PLANNING & DESIGN, INC. ROBERT RICHARDSON, PLANNER 2BO2 STATE STREET, SUITE C, CARLSBAD, CA 92OOB (7fiQ) 434-B4QD FAX (V6D) 434-B493 E-MAIL; KAR NAKARCH@AO L.CDM June 21,2007 To: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Mike Peterson Building Department Re: Joan Porter Residence The Joan Porter residence project was a remodel from a 2 unit project to a 1 large custom home. The owners have ADA issues. We have installed an elevator from the basement to have good access from the basement, main living quarters, upstairs master suite, bedrooms, and media center. In the upstairs media center we took out the complete kitchen and put in an under counter microwave, under counter refrigerator, and one on- counter BBQ for snacks. The downstairs basement was expanded for a large family room that would have a refrigerator, under counter microwave, BBQ grill and sink to facilitate the basement family room and also people using the beach, since the beach is at full access. There is no intention of making the lower or upper floors a separate livable unit. If you have any questions please give me a call. Respectfully Submitted Robert Richardson Project Manager 07-10-2006 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Check Revision Permit No:PCR06095 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Reference #: Project Title: 2641 OCEAN ST CBAD PCR 2031400900 Lot#: $0.00 Construction Type: CB043591 0 NEW PORTER RES- REVISIONS TO WINDOWS , SLIDER DOORS AND OPENINGS Applicant: MIKE FLINTJER STEC 2802 STATE ST CARLSBAD CA 92008 Status: ISSUED Applied: 06/08/2006 Entered By: LSM Plan Approved: 07/10/2006 Issued: 07/10/2006 Inspect Area: Owner: COOK JOAN D SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST 05-15-81 7098 ECOCHISERD #202 SCOTTSDALEAZ 85253 Plan Check Revision Fee Additional Fees $240.00 $0.00 Total Fees:$240.00 Total Payments To Date:$240.00 Balance Due:$0.00 Inspector: FINAL APPROVAL Date:Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this. or_gs_tp_ which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired, PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 Business NameYat this address) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK EST. VAL, Plan Ck. Deposit Validated By Date Address (include Bldg/Suite if) Legal Description Lot No.Subdivision Name/Number Unit No.Phase No.Total # of units Assessor's Parcel #Existing Use Proposed Use ascription of Work SO. FT.#of Stories Name Liiplill^ERIPiFOilVllllR^;! Address # of Bedrooms *# of Bathiooms City State/Zip " telephone # Name Address City State/Zip Telephone # (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$500]). Name State License # Address License Class City State/Zip City Business License # Telephone # Designer Name' State License # Address City StateJZip Telephone Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: Q I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. Q I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company Policy No. Expiration Date (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$100] OR LESS) d 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: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage Is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for In Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees. SIGNATURE _^^__ DATE I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: Q I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). Q I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). Q I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. Q YES QlMO 2. ) thave I have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the fallowing person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): A. 1 plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address I phone number / contractors license number): 5. I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type of DATE NO PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE ^6o0^iMlj^|il)(S|SE6iw0Hl0t is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? fj YES Q NO is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? Q YES Q is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? Q YES Q NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(i) Civil Code). LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS I certify that t have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICHMAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavation? EXPIRATION: Every permit issiferrby thelbuildinc ( authorized by such permit is not (wnnNencea witr- \J at any time after the work is comr V^APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE ir 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. tial under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work ys from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned i days (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). DATE WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance EsGil Corporation In Partnership witR government for <Bui(d~ing Safety DATE: June 26, 2006 a AEEUQANT JURISDICTION: Carlsbad a PLAR"REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR06-095 SET: II (REV) PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: SFD Add./Rem./Joan Porter/Plan Change The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. X] The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: Date contacted: (by: ) Fax #: Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS: All sheets of plans must be signed by the person responsible for their preparation. (California Business and Professions Code). By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation n GA D MB n EJ D PC 6/19 trnsmtl.dot EsGil Corporation In PartnersHip witfi government for Quitting Safety DATE: June 16, 2006 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: O4-3591-PCR06-O95 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: SFD Add. /Rem./ Joan Porter/Plan Changes a APPLICANT a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE SET: I (REV) 3 The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. 2\] The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Karnak Planning and Design, Attn: Mike Flintjer 2802 State St., Suite C, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Mike Flintjer Date contacted:6//^/^by^^) Mail Telephone v^Fa>v^ In Person REMARKS: Telephone #: (760) 434-8400 Fax #: (760) 434-8493 By: Sergio Azuela Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC Enclosures: 6/12 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suile 208 * San Diego, California 92123 4 (858)560-1468 * Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR06-095 June 16, 2006 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 6/12 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR06-095 DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: June 16, 2006 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. • 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. • 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? Q Yes Q No Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR06-095 June 16, 2006 1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports 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. 2. Provide a complete list of the proposed plan changes, including: a) A brief description of each one of the proposed plan changes. Description shall be specific, general descriptions as: "Dimensional Changes" or "Structural Changes", etc. will not be adequate. b) The sheet or sheets which have been modified because each one of the proposed plan changes. c) The identification number and symbol used to identify the proposed plan changes on the plans. d) Please be aware that without this information is not possible to check the plans. 3. Provide a new set of energy calculations including the new glassing areas. 4. All sheets of plans must be signed by the person responsible for their preparation. (California Business and Professions Code). 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 Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR06-095 June 16, 2006 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR06-095 PREPARED BY: Sergio Azuela DATE: June 16, 2006 BUILDING ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. SFD Add./Rem./Joan Porter/Plan Changes BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R-3&U-1 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-N BUILDING PORTION Time Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code AREA ( Sq. Ft.) cb Bldg, Permit Fee by Ordinance "V Valuation Multiplier By Ordinance Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) Plan Check Fee by Ordinance $240.00 Type of Review: CU Repetitive FeeRepeats D Complete Review D Other m Hourly Structural Only Hours Esgil Plan Review Fee $192.00 * Based on hourly rate Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc PLANNING/ENGINEERING APPROVALS PERMIT NUMBER ADDRESS c2. (rA\ PATE DENTIAL RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR « $10,000.00) TENANT IMPROVEMENT PLAZA CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES VILLAGE FAIRE COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING OTHER PLANNER DATE ENGINEER DATE in ENGINEERING SUN Structural Engineering, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers 2525 Pio Pico Dr. Suite 102 Carlsbad, CA. 92008 Tel/Fax: 760-434-7928 Structural Calculations Joan Porter Remodel Revision TiUe: Dsgnr: Description : Job# I>ate: 2:35PM, 26 MAY 06 Scope : Rev: 5BDOD4 User: KW-0603410, Ver 5.6.0. 1-0ec-2003 (c)1983-2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software General Timber Beam vertical2.ecw:Calculations | Description FB-A Stress Calcs Bending Analysis Ck 21.298 Le Cf 1.000 Rb 0.000 ft Sxx 224.000 in3 Area 84.000 in2o.ooo a o.ooo Max Moment Sxx Reo'd ©Center @ Left Support @ Right Support Shear Analysis Design Shear Area Required Fv: Allowable Bearing @ Supports Max. Left Reaction Max. Right Reaction Query Values 42.26 0.00 0.00 Allowable fb k-ft 174.86 In3 2,900.00 psi k-ft 0.00 in3 2,900.00 psi k-ft 0.00 in3 2,900.00 psi @ Left Support @ Right Support 15.93k 10.20k 54.939 in2 35.174 in2 290.00 psi 290.00 psi 10.62 6,80 M,V, & D@ Specified Locations @ Center Span Location = @ Right Cant. Location = (§J Left Cant. Location = Sketch & Diagram >_^J*i.. .j. V . T f I1 » k Bearing Length Req'd 3.113 in k Bearing Length Req'd 1.993 in Moment Shear Defloctton 0.00 ft 0.00 k-ft 3.21 k 0.0000 in 0.00 ft 0.00 k-ft 0.00 k 0.0000 In 0.00ft 0.00 k-ft 0.00k 0.0000 In i -I!!1-: !I' It »«H it RU n 4Z.*-ft 41.28 » sa 1 M J - - ! ' ^ 1 33 B1HT tii it Mi 51BWtt MJSa M.M |n« «.«0 ' J 846 1 433 — — .^ j. ^ — __ . ~~ — •[ — -—-" j|^ - — - - -|^ — — — ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^g--- - -• -~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^K>-A Ra^\SI!S!^*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^r^ Vmax Q left = 10.6k Rmax« 88k Vrnot © i" B.Bk rtfe Title: Dsgnr; Description Job# Date: 2:35PM, 26 MAY 06 Scope : Ftev; 580004User: KW-0606410, Ver 5.6.0, 1-Dsc-2003 {01983-2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software General Timber Beam wrtica!2.ecw:CBlcuJatlons | Description FB-A General Information Code Ref: 1997/2001 NDS. 2000/200318C, 2003 NFPA 5000. Base allowables are user defined Section Name Prllm: 5.25x16.0 Beam Width 5.250 In Beam Depth 16.000 In Member Type Manuf/So.Pine Bm Wt. Added to Loads Load Dur. Factor 1.000 Beam End Fixity Pin-Pin Wood Density 50.000 pcf Center Span 17.00 ft Lu Left Cantilever ft Lu Right Cantilever ft Lu Truss Joist - MacMillan, Parailam 2.0E Fb Base Allow 2.900.0 psi Fv Allow 290.0 psi Fc A/low 650.0 psi E 2,000.0 ksi 0.00ft 0.00ft 0.00ft Full Length Uniform Loads Center DL Left Cantilever DL Right Cantilever DL Point Loads Dead Load 2,320.0 Ibs Live Load 5,800.0 tbs ,. .distance 4.500ft 148.00 m#/ft#ffi Ibs Ibs 0.000ft Ibs Ibs 0.000 ft LL LL LL 370.00 #/ft #/ft#m Ibs tbs Ibs Ibs Ibs Ibs 0.000ft 0.000ft 0.000ft 1 1 Ibs Ibs 0.000ft | Summary | Span= 17.00ft, Beam Width = Max Stress Ratio Maximum Moment Allowable Max. Positive Moment Max. Negative Moment Max @ Left Support Max® Right Support Max. M allow fb 2,263.82 psi Fb 2,900.00 psi Deflections 5.250lnx Depth = 16.in, 0.781 ; 1 42.3 k-ft 54.1 k-ft 42.26 k-ft at 0.00 k-ft at 0.00 k-ft 0.00 k-ft 54.13 fv 189.67 psi Fv 290.00 psi Ends are Pin-Pin Maximum Shear * 1 4.556ft 17.000 ft Reactions... LeftDL Right DL Allowable Shear: Camber: 3.21 k 2.12k .5 ©Left @ Right @Left ©Center @ Right Max Max Beam Design OK 15.9 k 24.4 k 10.62k 6.80k 0.000 in 0.264 in 0.000 in 10.62k 6.80k 1 Canter Span- Deflection ...Location ...Length/Defl Camber (using 1.5 @ Center @Left @ Right Dead Load -0.176 in 8.024ft 1,159.8 D.L. Defl)... 0.264 In 0.000 in 0.000 in Total Load -0.578 In 8.024 ft 353.22 Left Cantilever... Deflection ...Length/Defl Right Cantilever... Deflection ...Length/Defl Dead Load 0,000 In 0.0 0.000 In 0.0 Total Load 0.000 In 0.0 0.000 in 0.0 Title : Dsgnr: Description : Job* Date: 2:34PM, 26 MAY 06 Scope R«v: 580000 User KW-Ofl06410,Ver5,8.0, l-Dec-2003(0)1983-2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Square Footing Design verticals.ecw: Calculations Description Pad Footing-A General Information Dead Load UveLoad Short Term Load Seismic Zone Overburden Weight Concrete Weight LL & ST Act Separately Load Duration Factor Column Dimension Code Ref: ACI 318-02, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 j 5.200 k 12.400k 0.000 * 4 0.000 psf 145.00 pcf 1.000 4.00 in Footing Dimension Thickness # of Bare Bar Size Rebar Cover fc Fy Allowable Soil Bearing 4.000ft 18.00 In 4 5 3.250 2 500 0 DSI 60,000.0 psi 1,500.00 psf Note: Load factoring supports 2003 IBC and 2003 NFPA 5000 by virtue of their references to ACI 318-02 for concrete design. Factoring of entered loads to ultimate loads within this program Is according to ACI 318-02 C.2 Reinforcing Rebar Requirement Actual Rebar "d" depth used 200/Fy As Req'd by Analysis Min. Reinf % to Req'd 14.438 In 0.0033 0.0003 In2 0.0014 % As to USE per foot of Width Total As Req'd Mln Allow % Reinf 0.243 In2 0.970 In2 0.0014 \ Summary \Footing OK 4.00ft square x 18.0in thick with 4- #5 bars Max. Static Soil Pressure Allow Static Soil Pressure Max. Short Term Soil Pressure Allow Short Term Soil Pressure Mu : Actual Mn * Phi : Capacity 1,317.50 psf 1,500.00 psf 542.50 psf 1,500.00 psf 3.49 k-ft / ft 19,63 k-ft/ft Vu : Actual One-Way Vn*Phi: Allow One-Way Vu : Actual Two-Way Vn'Phi : Allow Two-Way Alternate Rebar Selections... 5 #4's 4 #5's 2 #7'S 2 #8'S 7.56 psl 85.00 psi 26.61 psl 170.00 psi 3 #6's 1 #9'S 1 #10'S fv ENGINEERING SUN Structural Engineering, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Joan Russell Remodel Date: 06/2004 By: Sht- L = ^ • S' -f f Q '~M6 0-"T-H - (SO U5€ f ^ m .ENGINERING SUN Structural Engineering, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Joan Russell Remodel Date: 06/2004 By: Sht- /<fe ML. L - 22.' - 365" R^ f*W3 fT~t-Q 'cjyLFr-us 3^3 *-£ m SUN Structural Engineering, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Joan Russell Remodel Date: 05/2006 By: MAIuIa Sht- ,-i.2^ T ENGINEERING SUN Structural Engineering, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers 2525 Pio Pico Dr. Suite 102 Carlsbad, CA. 92008 Tel/Fax: 760-434-7928 Structural Calculations -5 I for Joan Porter Revision APPROVED AU6 17 2006 City of CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPT. in ENGINEERING SUN Structural Engineering, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Joan Russell Remodel Date: 08/2006 By: MAlula Sht- V' LKfc' CHEck. op use ft , LIENGINEERING SUN Structural Engineering, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Joan Russell Remodel Date:08/iee>6 By: Sht- L* LIENGINEERING SUN Structural Engineering, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Joan Russell Remodel Date: 03/^oi?4 By: Sht- "\> = n/it*r = "* ^r LJSfc CM16 n ENGINEERING SUN Structural Engineering, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers -© Joan Russell Remodel Date: 08/2006 By: M.Alula S ^ 23. e/uc$ > V* 11-16-2005 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Check Revision Permit No:PCR05193 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address: 2641 OCEAN ST CBAD Permit Type: PCR Parcel No: 2031400900 Lot#: Valuation: $0.00 Construction Type: Reference*: CB043591 Project Title: COOK RES REVISE RETAINING FROM CMU TO POURED CONCRETE 0 NEW Status: ISSUED Applied: 10/11/2005 Entered By: KG Plan Approved: 11/16/2005 Issued: 11/16/2005 Inspect Area: Applicant: KARNAK P&D STEC 2802 STATE ST 92008 Owner: COOK JOAN D SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST 05-15-81 7098 ECOCHISERD #202 SCOTTSDALEAZ 85253 Plan Check Revision Fee Additional Fees $240.00 $0.00 Total Fees:$240.00 Total Payments To Date:$240.00 Balance Due:$0.00 Inspector: FINAL APPROVAL Date:Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED thai your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water arid sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which vou have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PERMIT PPLICATION CITY OFtARL$BAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK MD/JU1" EST. VAL. Plan Ck. Deposit Validated By Address (include Bldg/Suite #) -" Legal Description Assessor's Parcel # A "Inscription of Work ^^_ Business Name (at this address) Lot No. Subdivision Name/Number Unit No. Phase No. Total # of units Existing Use Proposed Use SQ. FT. #ot Stories # of Bedrooms # of Bathrooms Name Address State/Zip TelephoneCity (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law [Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code] or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($5001). Name State License # Address License Class City State/Zip City Business License # Telephone # Designer Name State License # Address City State/Zip Telephone Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: CD I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. Q I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company Policy No. Expiration Date (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$1001 OR LESS) Q 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 tho Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: FaNura to secure worker*' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shaft subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand doBars (*100,000», in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for In Section 3706 of the Labor coda. Interest and attorney's fees. SIGNATURE DATE I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: G l> as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business artd Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). Q I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). Q I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. Q YES QNO 2. I (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the following'person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): . 6. I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type of work): PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE.DATE Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? Q YES Q NO is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? Q YES Q NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feat of the outer boundary of a school site? Q YES Q NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. ,' .,,,^ ,::„, ,. 1 hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(0 Civil Code). LENDER'S NAME . LENDER'S ADDRESS I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void If the building or work authorized by such permit is not cqjmmenced wit)fli\180 days fiflm tye dale of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the worK is com APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE ,4 Uniform Building Code). DATE E: File W YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance EsGil Corporation In Partnership witR government for (Butfding Safety DATE: November 7, 2005 JURIS^ JURISDICTION: Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR05193 SET: II (REV2) PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: SFD Add./Rem./Joan Porter/Plan Changes X] The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: Date contacted: (by: ) Fax #: Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 11/1 trnsmtl.dot EsGil Corporation In (Partnership witfi government for <Buiftfing Safety DATE: October 20, 2005 Q APPLICANT JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR05193 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: SFD Add./Rem./Joan Porter/Plan Changes PLAN REVIEWER Q FILE SET: I (REV) The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: . -, - Karnak Planning and Design, Attn: Mike Flintjer 2802 State St., Suite C, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Mike Flintjer Telephone #: (760) 434-8400 Date contacted: Mail Telephone REMARKS: ' / (by:|gO Person Fax #: (760)434-8493 By: Sergio Azuela Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC Enclosures: 10/13 tmsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 *• (858)560-1468 * Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR05193 October £0, 2005 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 10/13 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR05193 DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: October 20, 2005 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. Al! 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. • Please make all corrections on the originaltracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports 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. • 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. • 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? Yes a NO Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR05193 October 20, 20O5 1. Provide a complete list of the proposed plan changes, including: a) A brief description of each one of the proposed plan changes. Description shall be specific, general descriptions as: "Dimensional Changes" or "Structural Changes", etc. will not be adequate. b) The sheet or sheets which have been modified because each one of the proposed plan changes. c) The identification number and symbol used to identify the proposed plan changes on the plans. 2. Please provide the foundation details 9/SD7 referenced on the Foundation Plan and the new 2/SD5 referenced on the Lower Floor Framing Plan. Additional corrections may follow, 3. Special inspection is required for concrete with F'c > 2,500 PSl. If special inspection is required, the designer shall complete the attached Special Inspection Notice. 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 Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR05193 October 30, 20O5 City of Carlsbad i^ 1P**H^HV^HV^M^^^HPHIH^^^HHH^^IHHMHH1BBuilding Department BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION Do Not Remove From Plans Plan Check No. 04-3591-PCR05193 Job Address or Legal Description 2641 Ocean St. Owner Address You are hereby notified that in addition to the inspection of construction provided by the Building Department, an approved Registered Special Inspector is required to provide continuous inspection during the performance of the phases of construction indicated on the reverse side of this sheet. •-...•• The Registered Special Inspector shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Building Department prior to the issuance of the building permit. Special Inspectors having a current certification from the City of San Diego, Los Angeles, or ICBO are approved as Special Inspectors for the type of construction for which they are certified. The inspections by a Special Inspector do not change the requirements for inspections by personnel of the City of Carlsbad building department. The inspections by a Special Inspector are in addition to the inspections normally required by the County Building Code. The Special Inspector is not authorized to inspect and approve any work other than that for which he/she is specifically assigned to inspect. The Special Inspector is not authorized to accept alternate materials, structural changes, or any requests for plan changes. The Special Inspector is required to submit written reports to the City of Carlsbad building department of all work that he/she inspected and approved. The final inspection approval will not be given until all Special Inspection reports have been received and approved by the City of Carlsbad building department. Please submit the names of the inspectors who will perform the special inspections on each of the items indicated on the reverse side of this sheet. (over) ESGIL CORP.Fax:18585601576 Oct 20 2005 11^59 P.06 CuUbad October 20, 2005 SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION! _ . PLAN CHECK NUMBER: OWNER'S NAME: I. OG tho owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may not employ the special Inspector), certify that f, or tho architect/engineer of record, will be responsible for employing the special inspector^) as required by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 1701.1 for the construction project located at the site WsteO above. UBC Section 106.3.5. Signed I, as the engineer/architect of record, certify that I havt prepared the following special inspection program as required by UBC Section 106 3.5 for** construction project located At the titt listed Above. 1. List of work requiring special Inspection: iit Compliance Prior to foundation Inspection Q Field Welding D Mi[^structure] Concrete Over 2500 PSi U Prestreswd Concrete Structural Masonry Designer Specified LJ B _ High Strength Bolting D Expansion/Epoxy Anchors D Sprayeo^On Flrcpnofing D Other 2. Name<s) of inoividuaHs) or flrm(s) responsible for the special Inspections listed above: A. O. c. 3. Duties of the special inspector* tor the work listed above; A. 8. C. fcthaC^flnd[*»*t^^ uospuegoiy so 02 Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR05193 October 20, 20O5 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PREPARED BY: Sergio Azuela BUILDING ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R-3&U-1 PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR05193 DATE: October 20, 2005 SFD Add./Rem./Joan Porter/Plan Changes TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-N BUILDING PORTION Time Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code AREA ( Sq- Ft.) cb Valuation Multiplier By Ordinance Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) -\,-.-- :-...,.-•. . - :--:yi- -. •• ; V Plan Check Fee by Ordinance $240.00 Type of Review: Repetitive Fee Repeats Complete Review D Other m Hourly Staictural Only Hours Esgll Plan Review Fee $192.00 * Based on hourly rate Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc PLANNING/ENGINEERING APPROVALS PERMIT NUMBER CB ADDRESS DATE RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR « $10.000.00) TENANT IMPROVEMENT PLAZA CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES VILLAGE FAIRE COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING OTHER PLANNER ENGINEER DATE /g//7A) IDENGINEERING SUN Structural Engineering, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers 2525 Pio Pico Dr. Suite 102 Carlsbad, CA. 92008 Tel/Fax: 760-434-7928 Structural Calculations JOAN RUSSELL REMODEL REVISION 2 Title : Joan Russell Remodel Dsgnr: M. Alula Description: Data: Job # 24035 9:38AM, 28 SEP 05 Scope: Rev: 580004 User KVi-Q60e4ia. Vei 5.8.Q, 1-Dec-20QZ (c)1983-2003 6NERCALC Engineering Software General Timber Beam 5 \\T--L. vertical.eCwlOWER FLOOR Description EXIST. HEADER [Query Values M, V, & D @ Specified Locations @ Center Span Location = @ Right Cant. Location = @ Left Cant. Location = 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0.00 ft Moment 0.00 k-ft 0.00 k-ft 0.00 k-ft Shear 0.97k 0.00k 0.00k Deflection 0.0000 in 0.0000 in 0.0000 in Sketch & Diagram | Title : Joan Russell Remodel Dsgnr: M. Alula Description : Job # 24035 Date: 9:38AM, 28 SEP 05 Scope : Rev 580D04 User: KW-D606410, Ver 5.8.0, 1-Dec-2003 (c)1983-2003 ENERCALC Engineering...Software General Timber Beam vertical.eew:LOWER FLOOR Description EXIST. HEADER General Information Section Name 6x10 Beam Width Beam Depth Member Type Bm Wt. Added to Loads Load Dur. Factor Beam End Fixity Wood Density 5.500 In 9. 500 in Sawn 1.000 Pin-Pin 35.000 pcf Code Ref: 1997/2001 NDS, 2000/2003 Center Span Left Cantilever Right Cantilever Douglas Fir -Larch, No.1 Fb Base Allow Fv Allow Fc Allow E IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000. 4,00ft Lu ft Lu ft Lu 1, 350.0 psi 85.0 psi 625.0 psi 1, 600.0 ksi Base allowables are user defined 000 ft 0.00 ft 0.00 ft Full Length Uniform Loads Center DL Left Cantilever DL Right Cantilever DL 474.00 #/ft LL 820.00 #/ft #/ft LL #/ft LL #/ft#/ft j summary \ Span= 4.00ft, Beam Width Max Stress Ratio Maximum Moment Allowable Max. Positive Moment Max. Negative Moment Max @ Left Support Max @ Right Support Max. M allow fb 379.08 psi Fb 1,350.00 psi = 5.500in x Depth = 9.5in, 0.883 ; 1 2.6 k-ft 9.3 k-ft 2.61 k-ft at 0.00 k-ft at 0.00 k-ft 0.00 k-ft 9.31 fv 75.03 psi Fv 85.00 psi Ends are Pin-Pin Maximum Shear * 1 2.000 ft 4.000 ft Reactions,., LeftDL Right DL Allowable Shear; Camber: 0.97 k 0.97k 5 @Left ©Right @Left @ Center @ Right Max Max Beam Design OK 3.9 k 4.4 k 2.61k 2.61k 0.000 In 0.007in 0.000 in 2,61k 2.61k Defections \ Center Span... Deflection ...Location ...Length/Defl Camber ( using 1.5* D.L. @ Center ©Left @ Right Stress Calcs Bending Analysis Ck 27.920 Le Cf 1 .000 Rb @ Center @ Left Support @ Right Support Shear Analysis Design Shear Area Required Fv; Allowable Bearing @ Supports Max. Left Reaction Max. Right Reaction Dead Load -0.004 in 2.000 ft 10,765.7 Defl ) ... 0.007 in 0.000 in 0.000 in 0.000 ft 0.000 Max Moment 2.61 k-ft 0.00 k-ft 0.00 k-ft @ Left Support 3.92k 46.119 in2 85.00 psi 2.61 k 2.61 k Total Load Left Cantilever... -0.01 2 in Deflection 2.000ft ...Length/Defl 4,009.84 Rjght cantilever- Deflection ...Length/Defl Sxx 82.729 in3 Area Cl 0.000 Sxx Rea'd 23.23 in3 0.00 in3 0,00 in3 @ Right Support 3.92k 46.119in2 85.00 psi Bearing Length Req'd Bearing Length Req'd Dead Load Total Load 0.000 in 0.000 in 0.0 0.0 0.000 in 0.000 in 0.0 0.0 I 52.250 in2 Allowable fb 1,350.00 psi 1,350.00 psi 1,350.00 psi 0.760 in 0.760 in ENGINEERING SUN Structural Engineering, Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Joan Russell Remodel Date: 09/2005 By: M.Alula Sht- fy 2.o' .* / 4 x f» V J!f T- ~ K Job # 24035 Date: 9:55AM, 28 SEP 05 Title ; Joan Russel Remodel Dsgnr: M. Alula Description : Scope : Code Ref: ACI 318-02, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 Rev: 580011User KW-0606410, Vw 5.8.0,1-D8C-2003 {c)1953-2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Restrained Retaining Wall Design retaining wall .ecw:Calculations Description 9.5' Retaining Wall Summary of Forces on Footing : Slab RESISTS sliding, stem is FIXED at footing Forces acting on Footing for soil pressure Load & Moment Summary For Footing ; For Soil Pressure Gales >» Sliding Forces are restrained by the adjacent slab Moment @ Top of Footing Applied from Stem = Surcharge Over Heel = Axial Dead Load on Stem = Soil Over Toe = Surcharge Over Toe = Stem Weight = Soil Over Heel = Footing Weight = Total Vertical Force ~ Ibs Ibs 11 0.0 Ibs Ibs 1,377.5 Ibs 1 ,045.0 tbs 1,1 60.0 Ibs 3,692.5 fbs ft ft 1.00ft ft 2.50 ft 3.50 ft 2.00ft Base Moment = -4,843.5 ft-# ft-* ft* 110.0ft-# ft-# 3,443.8 fi-# 3,657.5 ft* 2,320.0 ft-# 4,687.8 ft-# Soil Pressure Resulting Moment -Z,697.2ft-# _ Job # 24035 Date: 9:55AM, 28 SEP 05 Title : Joan Russel Remodel Dsgnr: M. Alula Description : Scope: Code Ref; ACI 318-02, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 Rev 560011 User KW-0606410, Ver 5.8.0, 1 -Dec-2003 (c}1983-2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software Restrained Retaining Wall Design rel ei nlng wal t. ecw:C a I cula tlons Description 9.5' Retaining Wall Criteria | Retained Height = 9.50 ft Wall height above soil = 0.00 ft Total Wall Height = 9.50ft Top Support Height = 9.50 ft Slope Behind Wall = 0.00 : 1 Height of Soil over Toe = 6,00 in Soil Density = 110.00pcf Wind on Stem = 0.0 psf Surcharge Loads | Surcharge Over Heel = 0.0 psf »?NOT Used To Resist Sliding & Overturn Surcharge Over Toe = 0.0 psf NOT Used for Sliding & Overturning ] Axis) toad Applied to Stem k Axis' Dead Load = 0.0 Ibs Axial Live Load = 0.0 Ibs Axial Load Eccentricity = 0.0 in Design Summary Total Bearing Load = 3,693 Ibs .. .resultant ecc. = 8.77 in | Soil Data | Allow Soil Bearing = 2,000.0 psf Equivalent Fluid Pressure Method Heel Active Pressure = 65.0 Toe Active Pressure = 0.0 Passive Pressure = 250.0 Footing||Soil Friction = 0.300 Soil height to ignore for passive pressure = 0.00 in | Uniform Lateral Load Applied to Stem | Lateral Load = 100.0#/ft ...Height to Top = 9.50ft ...Height to Bottom = 0.00ft H Concrete Stem Construction Footing Strengths & Dimensions fc = 4,500 psi Fy Min. As % Toe Width = Heel Width ~ Total Footing Width = Footing Thickness - Key Width Key Depth a Key Distance from Toe = Cover® Top = 3. 00 in Adjacent Footing Load Adjacent Footing Load =* Footing Width = Eccentricity = Wall to Ftg CL Dist * Footing Type Base Above/Below Soil at Back of Wall ~ - 60,000 psi 0.0014 2.00ft 2.00 4.00 24.00 in 0.00 in 0.00 in 0.00ft @ Btm.= 3.00 in l 0.0 Ibs 0.00ft 0.00 in 0.00 ft Line 0.0ft Thickness = 12.00 in Fy = 60,000psi Wall Weight = 145.0 pcf fc = 3,000 psi Soil Pressure @ Toe = 1,939 psf OK Soil Pressure @ Heel = 0 psf OK Allowable = 2,000 pgf Soil Pressure Less Than Allowable ACI Factored @ Toe = ACI Factored @ Heel = Footing Shear @ Toe = Footing Shear @ Heel = Allowable = Reaction at Top = Reaction at Bottom = 2,715 psf 0 psf 12.2 psi OK 7.7 psi OK 114.0 psi 942.9 Ibs 4,305.3 Ibs Sliding Calcs Slab Resists All Sliding i Lateral Sliding Force = 4,303.3 tbs ("Footing Design Results | Factored Pressure = Mu' : Upward = Mu' : Downward = Mu: Design = Actual 1-Way Shear = Allow 1-Way Shear = Toe 4,479 994 3,485 12.23 114.04 0 psf Oft-# 942 ft-# 942 ft-# 7.65 psi 114.04 psi Stem is FIXED to top of footing Design height Rebar Size Rebar Spacing Rebar Placed at Rebar Depth 'd' Design Data fb/FB + fa/Fa Mu....Actual Mn*Phi A Shear Force Shear Actual Shear Allowable Rebar Lap Required Rebar embedment into footing = Other Acceptable Sizes & Spacings: Toe: None Spec'd -or- Not req'd, Mu < S Heel: None Spec'd -or- Not req'd, Mu < S Key: No key defined -or- No key defined @ Top Support Stem OK 9.50ft # 5 = 16.00 in t = Center V = 6.00 in 0.000 0.0 ft-# wable = 6,038.3 ft-* this height = 0.0 Ibs i = 0.00 psi able = 93. 11 psi uired = 21.36 in Mmax Between Top & Base Stem OK 5.46ft # 5 16.00 In Center 6.00 in 0,642 3,874.0 ft-# 6,038.3 ft-# 21 .36 in @ Base of Wall Stem OK 0.00ft # 6 16.00 In Edge 8.50 in 0.678 8,233.9 ft-# 12,1 40.6 n-# 4,998.4 Ibs 49.00 psi 93. 11 psi 6.00 in Fr Fr LJJ Q W2crooOZ Z t-zO« ^ o CCHco2m LU Sw o: o 11-17-2005 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Plan Check Revision Permit No:PCR05l67 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Reference #: Project Title: 2641 OCEAN ST CBAD PCR 2031400900 Lot#: $0.00 Construction Type: PORTER RES-RECONFIGURE BATH ON LOWER LEVEL, ENLARGE WINDOWS VN Applicant: KARNAK PLANNING 760 434-8400 Status: Applied: Entered By: Plan Approved: Issued: Inspect Area: ISSUED 08/17/2005 RMA 11/17/2005 11/17/2005 Owner: COOK JOAN D SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST 05-15-81 7098 E COCHfSE RD #202 SCOTTSDALEAZ 85253 Plan Check Revision Fee Additional Fees $240.00 $0.00 Total Fees:$240.00 Total Payments To Date:$240.00 Balance Due:$0.00 Inspector: FINAL APPROVAL Date:Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the 'Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 6602Q(a}, and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which vou have orsviousls been aiven a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PERMIT APPLICATION A, CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLAN CHECK NO. EST. VAL. Plan Ck. Deposit Validated By Date L Address (include Bldg/Suite Business Name (at this address) legal Description tot Ho.Subdivision Name/Number Unit No.Phase No.Total It of units Assessor's Parcel Existing Use Proposed Use Description ofWork SQ. FT.(of Stories 00 of Bedrooms # of Bathrooms Name Address City State/Zip Telephone *Fax (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law [Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code] or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars I$500]). Name State License # Address License Class City State/Zip City Business License t Telephone # Designer Name State License * Address City State/Zip Telephone Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: Q I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. Q I have and will maintain workers' compensation, a* required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company ^ Policy No. ; Expiration Date (THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS 1*100] OR LESS) Q 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: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil tinea up to one hundred thousand dollars (* 100.0001. In addition to the coat of compensation, damage* as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code. Interest and attorney's fees. SIGNATURE __ __ DATE I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: Q I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is told within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). Q I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project {Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractors) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). Q I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. Q YES QNO 2. I (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the following person {firm} to piovide the proposed construction {include name / address / phone number / contactors license number): 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone number I contractors license number): 6. I will piovide some of the work, but I have contracted (hiied) the following persons to piovide the wotk indicated (include name / address / phone number t type of work): . . PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 2S505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? Q YES Q NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? Q YES Q NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? Q YES Q 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 ftEQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(1) Civil Code). LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS _ „ 1 certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. 1 agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE. INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES. JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0' deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit Issued by the building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is noteornmenced*ithin 180jdays frorrtthe date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is cojTJrHepceqTfofjatoflaaoloiim daW flection 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE 1I\^/W4*U &t\MjUjl/J DATE YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance EsGil Corporation In <Partnersliip -with government for (BuiMing Safety DATE: November 14, 2005 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR05167 SET: V (REV) PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: SFD Add./Rem./Joan Porter/Plan Changes JURIS. U PLAN REVIEWERa FILE The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Xj Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: Date contacted: (by: ) Fax #: Mail Telephone Fax In Person REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D E Enclosures: D PC 11/7 tmsmtl.dot EsGil Corporation OAEPLICANT Q PLAN REVIEWER Q FILE In Partnersfcip with government for Staffing Safety DATE: November 7, 2005 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR05167 SET: IV (REV) PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: SFD Add./Rem./Joan Porter/Plan Changes The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. X] The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Karnak Planning and Design, Attn: Mike Flintjer 2802 State St., Suite C, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Mike Flintjer Telephone #: (760) 434-8400 Date contacted: u| -7J05 (by: *3\) Fax #: (760) 434-8493 Mail Telephone /" Fax^/* In Person REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ Q PC Enclosures: 11/3 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diego, California 92123 * (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR05167 November 7, 2005 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 11/3 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR05167 SET: IV (REV) DATE RECHECK COMPLETED: November 7, 2005 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, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports 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, 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? QYes QNo Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR05167 November 7, 2005 4. From the list of proposed plan changes provided the following corrections are applicable: b. Proposed plan change 2 on the Street Level of sheet A1.0 can't be approved, unless the size and type of the proposed windows are clearly shown on the plans. • Applicant shall include the type and size of all windows proposed to be changed on the plans, before the approval of the plans. c. Proposed plan change 4 on the Street Level of sheet A1.0. Please provide the ICBO or equal approved number for the proposed fireplace. • ICBO # or UL # were not shown on the plans. Original correction is still applicable. d. Proposed plan change 2 on the Upper Level of sheet A1.1 can't be approved, unless the size and type of the proposed windows are clearly shown on the plans. • Applicant shall include the type and size of all windows proposed to be changed on the plans, before the approval of the plans. e. Proposed plan change 3 on the Upper Level of sheet A1.1. Clearly show on plans the size and type for the proposed window. • Applicant shall include the type and size of all windows proposed to be changed on the plans, before the approval of the plans. g. Provide a complete set of new energy calculations including all new proposed glassing areas. Additional corrections may follow. • The required energy calculations were not provided. Original correction is still applicable. • The energy calculations provided shall be checked after the corrections b, d and e above have been resolved. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. EsGil Corporation APPLICANT Q PLAN REVIEWER a FILE In (Partnership with government for (Bui&fing Safety DATE: October 31, 2005 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR05167 SET: III (REV) PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: SFD Add./Rem./Joan Porter/Plan Changes The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Karnak Planning and Design, Attn: Mike Flintjer 2802 State St., Suite C, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Mike Flintjer Telephone #: (760) 434-8400 Date contacted: ii/p (by:/^-?6) Fax #: (760) 434-8493 Mail Telephone Fax^in Person REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ PC Enclosures: 10/24 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diego, California 92123 * (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR05167 October 31, 2005 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION; Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St, DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 10/24 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR05167 SET: III (REV) DATE RECHECK COMPLETED: October 31, 2005 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, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports 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. 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? QYes QNo 1 Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR05167 October 31, 2005 4. From the list of proposed plan changes provided the following corrections are applicable: b. Proposed plan change 2 on the Street Level of sheet A1.0 can't be approved, unless the size and type of the proposed windows are clearly shown on the plans. • Applicant shall include the type and size of all windows proposed to be changed on the plans, before the approval of the plans. c. Proposed plan change 4 on the Street Level of sheet A1.0. Please provide the ICBO or equal approved number for the proposed fireplace. • ICBO # or UL # were not shown on the plans. Original correction is still applicable. d. Proposed plan change 2 on the Upper Level of sheet A1.1 can't be approved, unless the size and type of the proposed windows are clearly shown on the plans. • Applicant shall include the type and size of all windows proposed to be changed on the plans, before the approval of the plans. e. Proposed plan change 3 on the Upper Level of sheet A1.1. Clearly show on plans the size and type for the proposed window. • Applicant shall include the type and size of all windows proposed to be changed on the plans, before the approval of the plans. g. Provide a complete set of new energy calculations including all new proposed glassing areas. Additional corrections may follow. • The required energy calculations were not provided. Original correction is still applicable. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. EsGil Corporation In (PartMrsfrip -with government for Quitting Safety DATE: September 26, 2O05 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: O4-3591-PCR05167 SET: II (REV) PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: SFD Add./Rem./Joan Porter/Plan Changes The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. XI The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. X] The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Karnak Planning and Design, Attn: Mike Flintjer 2802 State St., Suite C, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. X] Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Mike Flintjer Telephone #: (760) 434-8400 Date contacted:0?/Xu>(0>(by: t*^) Fax #: (760)434-8493 Mail Telephone ^-" Fax^ In Person REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA [H MB D EJ D PC 9/19 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 4 (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR05167 September 26, 2005 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 9/19 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR05167 SET: II (REV) DATE RECHECK COMPLETED: September 26, 2005 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, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver alt corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports 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. 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? QYes QNo Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR05167 September 26, 2005 4. From the list of proposed plan changes provided the following corrections are applicable: a. For plan change 5 on the Lower Level of sheet A1.0. Shower enclosure glass shall be safety glass, b. Proposed plan change 2 on the Street Level of sheet A1.0 can't be approved, unless the size and type of the proposed windows are clearly shown on the plans. c. Proposed plan change 4 on the Street Level of sheet A1.0. Please provide the ICBO or equal approved number for the proposed fireplace. d. Proposed plan change 2 on the Upper Level of sheet A1.1 can't be approved, unless the size and type of the proposed windows are clearly shown on the plans. e. Proposed plan change 3 on the Upper Level of sheet A1.1. Clearly show on plans the size and type for the proposed window. f. Proposed plan change 2 of sheet A4.0. Provide complete structural plans including all framing members and connections as well as the applicable structural design calculations. Additional corrections may follow. This correction is applicable for all changes proposed to add eyebrow and canvas awnings. g. Provide a complete set of new energy calculations including all new proposed glassing areas. Additional corrections may follow. PLEASE PROVIDE TWO COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS (INCLUDING ONLY THE SHEETS AFFECTED FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN CHANGES) THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED ONLY SHEET S3 OF THE STRUCTURAL PLANS, SOME STRUCTURAL SHEETS WERE MISSING. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. EsGil Corporation In (PartneTsfUp -with government for QluibRng Safety DATE: August 25, 20O5 Q JURISDICTION: Carlsbad Q PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-359 1-PCR05 167 SET: I (REV) PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. PROJECT NAME: SFD Add./Rem./Joan Porter/Plan Changes The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. XI The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. : X] The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Karnak Planning and Design, Attn: Mike Flintjer 2802 State St., Suite C, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Xj Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Mike Flintjer Telephone #: (760) 434-8400 Date contacted: gfefc/oS^by: ^- ) Fax #: (760)434-8493 Mail -^Telephone *-^ Fax -^ In Person REMARKS: By: Sergio Azueia Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 8/18 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR05167 August 25, 2005 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 8/18 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR05167 DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: August 25, 2005 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. • Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports 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. • 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. • 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? Q Yes a NO Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR05167 August 25, 2005 1. Provide a complete list of the proposed plan changes, including: a) A brief description of each one of the proposed plan changes. Description shall be specific, general descriptions as: "Dimensional Changes" or "Structural Changes", etc. will not be adequate. b) The sheet or sheets which have been modified because each one of the proposed plan changes. c) The identification number and symbol used to identify the proposed plan changes on the plans. 2. Please provide a copy of the original set of structural design calculations. 3. The maximum allowable opening for Simpson Strong Wall Portal is 16'-4". Please clearly show it on plans or provide justification for any larger opening and clearly show it on plans. 4. Additional corrections may follow. 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 Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. Carlsbad 04-3591-PCR05167 August 25, 2005 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 04-3591-PCR05167 PREPARED BY: Sergio Azuela DATE: August 25, 2005 BUILDING ADDRESS: 2641 Ocean St. SFD/Add./Rem./Joan Porter/Plan Changes BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R-3 & U-l TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-N BUILDING PORTION Time Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code AREA (Sq.Ft.) cb Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance "V Valuation Multiplier •- By Ordinance Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) Plan Check Fee by Ordinance $240.00 Type of Review: [U Repetitive FeeRepeats D Complete Review D Other m Hourly Structural Only Hours * Esgil Plan Review Fee $192.00 * Based on hourly rate Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc PLANNING/ENGINEERING APPROVALS PERMIT NUMBER CBT ADDRESS DATE 6-23-05 RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR « $10,000.00) TENANT IMPROVEMENT PLAZA CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES VILLAGE FAIRE COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING OTHER PLANNER ENGINEER Docs/Mitromu/Planning Engineering Approvals