The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2658 GALICIA WAY; ; CB951825; Permit-< B U J; L l) I N G PERr'lI1' Penni t No: CB.951825 . · · Project No: A9502665 Development No: Ul/17/97 10:51 . Page 1 of 1 Job Addr,~ss: 2658 GALICIA f'ermi t ~typ0: PATIO/DECR Parcei No: 216-1BU-26-ou Valuation: 15,994 Occupancy Group: R3 J;)enc!'iption: 1454 SF EXT · : TO HOUSE Suite: Lot#:· 1970 01/17/97 0001 -01 02 Reference#: . Const.ruction TYP&-f'RWfl 43.,00 Stdtus: ISSUED Applied: 12/13/9~ Apr/Issue: 01/17/97 Enterei:;i By: RMA 619.:..729-7656 DECK NOT ATTACHED fllll!-=;:::==------------~-... ~, ·FINAL APPROVAL f NSP._~/ ?--==· DATEc:3'~ 7· tt 7 Lqu::ARANCEc:::::::::i::::=:;:::::::===-- CITY OF CARLSBAD. 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (6l9) 43~~1161 I I . I I -- City of Carlsbad Building Department 2075 Las Palmas Dr .• , Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-1161 1. PERMIT TYPE · · VAIJD. BY--,..,1~~-..,....------ DATE'----,f-""""--,'""""'"+,~.,_.,.=----From Llst 1 (see back) give code of Permit-Type:-------,-----~ For Residential Projects Only: From Llst 2 (see back) give Code of Structure-Type:--------------------- 5137 12/13/95 0001 01. 02 C-PRMT Net Loss/Gain of Dwelling Units __________________ _ 2. PRClJECf INFORMATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY mt o. CHECK BELOW JP SOBM11 rnb: CJ 2 Energy Cales D 2 Structural Cales D 2 Soils Report CJ 1 Addressed Envelope ASSESSOR'S PARCEL EXISTING USE PROPOSED .USE ~..l~llt,i:a\mir~t) ADDRESS . Cl1Y STATE ZIP CODE DAY TELEPHONE s. PROPER1Y oWNEll NAME (last name first) Ol u .1. 0 -.. )~½_,~r_\-~~ ' r--C.n~~t.J ADDRESS SA'M E.. ,z.q -1resGe ZIP CODE DAY TELEPJiONE 6. CDNTRAC1'oR :.+-R r'- 'NAME--Elast name first) 1'[ ', 1{; ADDRESS CI1Y STATE ZIP CODE DAY TELEPHONE STATE UC.# DESIGNER NAME (last name {jt) t) CITI '\5\) C~AklA >s~ LICENSE CLASS . Cl1Y BUSINESS LIC. # A ~c.\\ff-~~~ . ZIP CODE DAY TELEPHQNE SA1'11;;. STATE LIC. # \S 3$4, 1. Wo1tRERs' CDMPENSATION Workers' Compensanon beclaranon: I hereby afhrm that I have a cernhcate of consent to self-msure issued by the Director of lndustnal Relations, or a certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance by an admitted insurer, or an exact copy or quplicate thereof certified by the Director of the insurer thereof filed with the Building Inspection Department (~ction 3800, Lab. C). INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. EXPIRATION DATE cernhcate of Exempnon: I certify friar m the performance of the work.for which this permit 1s 1ss~ed, I shall not employ any-person many manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. SIGNATURE . , . _ . . . _ DATE -·------wner-u1 er ara on: e e ya 1rm a am exemp rom e ontracto s cense w or e o owmg reason: · 'lb I, as owner of the property ormy employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or f'\ 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.). CJ I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to constr4ct 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). I am exempt under ~tion _______ Business and Professions Code for this reason: fessions Code: An City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish, or repair requir the applicant for suc4 permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the ~Q~,~.aw (Ch pter 9, commencing with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) the basi for the alleged exemption. 'Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit more than five hundred dollars [$500]). ;-DATE Is the applicant or future building oc pant 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? DYES CJ NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? DYES CJ NO . Is the facility to be constructea within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? DYES CJ NO IF ANY OF nm ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE QF cxx::upANCY MAY NOT BE~ AFTER.JULY 1, 1989 UNLESS nm ARPUCANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING nm REQUJREMENTS OF nm OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND nm A1R POU.UTION OONTilOL DISllUCT. 9. WNS'1RUCl10N Lf'.fWlNG AGENCY . . -. . 1 hereby affirm that there 1s a construcnon lendmg agency for the performance of th~ work for which this permit 1s issued (Sec 3097{1) CIVIi Code). LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS 10. APPLICAN I CfiltliFiCJmON . 1 certify that I have read the apphcanon and state that th~ above mformanon 1s correct. I agree to comply with all City ordmances and State laws relating to building con~truction. I hereby authorize repr~entatives of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS nm CITY OF CARISBAD AGAINSf AU. UABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, OOSfS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINSf SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF nm GRANTING OF TIIlS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is r Finance .. ,..____, PERMIT# CB951825 DESCRIPTION: 1454 SF EXT TO HOUSJ,s TYPE: PATIO CITY OF CARLSBAD INSPECTION REQUEST FOR 03/07/97 DECK NOT ATTACHED STE: INSPECTOR AREA DC PLANCK# CB951825 OCC GRP R3 CONSTR. TYPE VN LOT: JOB ADDRESS: 2658 APPLICANT: MAJ;TICO, CONTRACTOR: GALICIA WY RICHARD PHONE: 619-729-7656 PHONE: OWNER: REMARKS: MW/753-0259 PHONE: ~ INSPECTOR\ · SPECIAL INSTRUCT: FRI PM OR MONDAY ANYTIME ------------- TOTAL TIME: --RELATED PERMITS-- CD LVL DESCRIPTION 19 29 39 49 ST Final structural PL F-:inai?Wabing EL Final Electrical ME Final M6eLan4!cal PERMIT# CB910188 RW960100 TYPE RAD ROW STATUS EXPIRED ISSUED ACT COMMENTS AO (\ 7 tli.-~-',-\---'-J ..... lY'.-'-"-.A_C...-__________ _ ¥------------ ------------------,----------------_ ----_ ___,_ ______________________ _ -------,------------------------'------ ***** INSPECTION HISTORY***** DATE 061396 061296 060396 DESCRIPTION Ftg/Foundation/Piers Ftg/Foundation/Piers Ftg/Foundation/Piers A,CT INSP AP DC NR PY CO DC COMMENTS NO ONE THERE/NO PLANS OWNER REVSNG PLANS/WILL RECAL EsGil Corporation Professiona{ Pfan ~view 'Engineers DATE: DEC 21, 1995 JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD PLAN CHECK NO.: 95-1825 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2658 GALICIA WAY PROJECT NAME: SFR DECK ADDI'}:'ION SET:I Q Cl a ~ANT ~ JURIS. Cl FIRE Cl EVIEWER Cl FILE D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's *********** codes. i:g:J 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. D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. D The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. D The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: i:g:J 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: Date contacted: By: ALI SADRE Esgil Corporation (by: D G~ D CM D GP D PC ). b-0~ A•l Telephone#: 5· \ Enclosures: 12/14 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (619) 560-1468 + Fax (619) 560-1576 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: CARLSBAD PREPARED BY: SADRE BUILDING ADDRESS: 2658 GALICIA WAY BUILDING PORTION BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.) DECK 1454 Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE UBC Building Permit Fee: USC Plan Check Fee: Comments: 11 PLAN CHECK NO.: 95-1825 DATE: 12/21 BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R-3 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-N VALUATION MULTIPLIER VALUE 15,994 15,994 $ 171.00 $ 111.15 ($) Sheet 1 of 1 valuefee.dot 12/2_6/95 09: 12 Page 1 bf 1 BUILDING Job Address: 2658 GALICIA WY Permit Type: PATIO/DECK Parcel No: 216-180-26-00 Valuation: 15,994 PERMIT suite: Lot#: Permit No: CB951825• Project No: A9502665 Development No: Occupancy Group: R3 Reference#: .Construction Type: status: VN APPROVED 12/13/95 12/26/95 RMA Description: 145·4 SF EXT DECK NOT ATTACHED : TO HOUSE Applied: Apr/Issue: Appl/Ownr: MAITICO, RICHARD 2658 GALICIA WY CARLSBAD, CA 91009 *** Fees Requi:red *** ------------~---------------Fees: Adjustments: Total Fees: 304.00 .oo 304.00 *** Entered By: 619-729-7656 . Fees Collected & Credits Total Credits: Total Payments: Balance Due: .oo 94.00 210.00 *** Fee description Units Fee/Unit Ext fee Data -~------------------------------------~------------------------------------Building Penni t . Plan Check 171.00 111.00 2.00 f Strong Motion Fee Other * BUILDING TOTAL > 20.00 20.00 ELEC FE 304.00 f ., ., ., ... ... ... II II II Q Q Q I I I PLANNING CHECKLIST PlanChe,kiNo.q,,.:/t,7,~cfress ;;:UPS-£" ~ u)'4:b, . Planner~~ , Phone 438-1161 ext. _____ I/ __ ~-1 APN: . ;;;..__/ le -/g() ~ ~ ~ TypeofProjectandµse /?-/ ~ ~~~ ~- Zone~--_ Facilities Manag~ ----h ~ CFO (in( u # cir e (It property m, complete SPECIAL TAX CALCULATION WORKSHEET provided by Building Department.) Legend ~ ~ ~ -l ~ • ; ""' ""' ""' u u u ., ., ., .s:: .s:: .s:: u u u C i i II _, _, _, ~ ~ ~ ci'oo ,[2] Item Complete · D Item Incomplete -Needs your action 1, 2, 3 Number in circle indicates plancheck number where deficiency was identified Environmental Review Required: YES /4o ~E ___ ~ DATE OF COMPLETION: ( ,-" rf ~ '5' s' (_ ~ at ~) Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval---------------------- ~0 Discretiona,y Action Required: YES / NO _ 1YPE __ _ APPROVAI./RESO. NO. : DATE: /-? --9 l PROJECT NO. /t b p CJ,5"~ / Co OTHER RELATED CASES: _____________________ _ Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval---------------------- . lo O California~ Commission Pemdt Required: YES_ NO J DATE OF APPROVAL: ------------------------ San Diego Coast District, 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, CA. 92108-1725 (619) 521-8036 . Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval _____________________ _ . [rt] D ~o·· E(oo ErDo tfoo Inclusionary Housing Fee required: YES _ NO ~ (Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance -May 21, 1993.) Site Plan: Zoning: 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street iznprovements, right-of-way width, dimensioned setbacks and existing topographical line$ . Provide legal description of property, and assessor's parcel number. Setbacks: Front: Required Shown Int. Side: Required Shown Street Side: Required Shown Rear: Required Shown Lot coverage: Required Shown Height: Required Shown Parking: Spaces Required Shown Guest Spaces Required Shown · D (J D Additional Comments _______________________ _ OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER~~ATE PLNCK.FRM. American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION July 3, 1990 Mr. Richard Maiatico 2658 Galicia Way La Costa, CA 92009 File No. 20870.01 Subject: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ·Proposed Addition Maiatico Residence 2658 Galicia Way La Costa, California Dear Mr. Maiatico: Pursuant to your request, the accompanying report has been prepared for the purposes of providing soil bearing and foundation recommendations for the proposed single story addition. The addition is planned over an existing cut slope at the rear Of the. existing house. In general, the majority of the site was found to consist of sandy formatiohal soils ahd minor amounts of fill. Based on our findings, it is our opinion that the proposed addition is feasible and will be founded in competent formational soils. This geotechnical report should be reviewed in detail prior to proceeding with the planned development. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. When preliminary plans become available they should be-forwarded to this office for review and comment. Respectfully submitted, 5755 Oberlin Drive, Suit 12-?0 North Lakeview Avenue, S'ffii;;;;;:;~~, 2:7-rJ/lJ Edrid T. Marsh .Staff Engineer File July 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 s.o 6.0 No. 20870.01 3, 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS American Geotechnical INTRODUCTION .••••••... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Purpose ...................... . . . . .......... 1 ......... 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 Site Description ••• Proposed Improvement .•• . . . . . . •• 1 GEOLOGY •.•.•.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 3 2.1 General •• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 3 INVESTIGATION •..••.••••••••••• 3.1 Field Investigation •••••• 3.2 Laboratory Testing ••••••. • •••• 4 • • 4 • •••••••.••• 4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATION$ ••••••••• 4.1 Site Stability .•..••••.•• . . . . . . • •••• 5 4.2 Expansive Soils .••••••••••••• 4. 3 Fill Soils •••••••••••••• ••• CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS •. . . . . . 5.1 Basis ............... . . . . . . . ... . . . 5.2 Site Suitability •. . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . ... .5 • •••••••• 5 • •••• 5 . .... •• 6 . . . .. 6 . . . . . .. 6 5.3 Earthwork •••••••••••. . . .. . . . . . .. -· . . . . . . . .. •••• 6 5.4 Foundation Design ••• .. . . . . . . . . .7 5.5 Exterior Flatwork ••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .... ••• 9 5.6 Expansive Soil. •••• . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . • • 9 5.7 Foundation Details. . . .. .... . . . . . . . . . ... .••• 10 5.8 Drainage •••••••••••• . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .• 11 5.9 Utilities •.••.•••.•• . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .11 5.10 Plan and Agency Review •• . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... .• 12 5.11.Field Construction Review. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . • .12 CLOSURE •••••••••••.•••••••••••• . . . . . . ............ 13 APPENDICES .••..•......••...•......••.•.•........•. 14 . ' ) J File No. 20870.01 July 3, 1990 Page 1 1. 0 IN.TRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose American Geotechnical The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to obtain geologic and engineering data necessary to determine geotechnical conditions and provide soil/design criteria for the proposed addition. 1.2 Site Description The site is located on the north side of Galicia Way, in La Costa, California. Currently, the site consists of an existing two story wood framed structure on a flatly graded building pad. The toundation is slab-on-grade with continuous perimeter footings. An approximately 15 foot high, 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope descends -from the north side of the house to a level pad. Three hand excavated test pits and the building pad configuration indicate that·the building pad and slope are in cut (bedrock). Shallow fill ·c1 to 2 feet) was observed to cover the slope. The slope face is covered with low vegetation consisting of ice plant, grasses, and weeds. Figure 1 presents·the basi,c site plan. 1.3 Proposed.Improvement It is our understanding.that a single-story addition is planned. The addition will be attached to the north side of the existing structure, and extend over the slope. Raised wood construction is anticipated, supported by continuous perimeter footings. _Only minor grading and trenching is anticipated in conjunction with the proposed development. Basically, slope vegetation and loose surface soil should be removed prior to excavation of footing trenches. T--3 ........ ...---......... --B1-------.,....,,_.-1- T-1 .. I .J II ! ~~ t. '1f"c;,~ /•O ~~ ~ ... I l : I II / 1·P ~.~. ~--+-~~-----~---~-+-~~ 71?,,,,., -.h ,.~ --~ ... ) ~ , . . ~. SITE PLAN AMERICAN GEOTECHNl'CAL F.N. 20870 .. ·· -· Figure 1 JULY 1990 ) File No. 20870.01 July 3, 1990 Page 3 2. 0 GEOLOGY 2.1 General American Geotechnical · The regional geologic literature-indicates that the site is underlain by middle Eocene aged Scripps Formation. The·formation· is· described as medium-grained sandstone intarbedded. with siltstone and conglomerate. It is unstable to semi-stable; but in places has large/steep resistant slopes •. Several landslides are. mapped in the formation. No evidence of landsliding was identified on- _si,te. File No. 20870.01 July 3, 1990 P~ge 4 3.0 INVESTIGATION 3.1 Field Investigation American Geotechnical At our direction, three test pits were hand excavated by the homeowner to reveal. subsurface conditions. The test pits·were reviewed (visual.and tactile) by the registered engineer. Representative bulk samples and undisturbed .. · samples were· collected for subsequent laboratory testing . .. The locations of the test pits are shown on the Site Plan (Figure 1). The test pits revealed sandy ·bedrock (Scripps Formation) underlying the site. The existing structure is founded on 26 inch deep by 16 inch wide footings, embedded in this material. The test pit at the base of the slope revealed that shallow fill ( 1. 5 feet)· overlies the slope. 3.2 Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing was preformed on selected representative samples obtained during our field exploration. Samples were tested for the purpose of estimating material properties for use in subsequent engineering evaluations~ Brief descriptions O·f individual. tests and test re.sults have been included in · ------Appendix A of -this report. Significant findings are that the $andy forrnational soil exhibits good bearing characteri~tics. Expansion and consolidation tests indicate low (UBC 29-2) to moderate (FHA/HUD criteria) expansion po:tentia.1 and very low tendency for consolidation. ~ American Geotechnical File No. 20870.01 July 3, 1990 Page 5 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL.CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Site Stability The existing structure is founded in bedrock of the Scripps Formation. Based on the performance of the .existing house and neighboring developed lots, there do not appear to be any adver?e geotechnical phenomenon affecting the site. In other words, the site has performed well to date. Considering site performance and the shallow depth to bedrock, it is· our reconm1endat.ion that foundations for the proposed addition be founded in bedrock. 4.2 Expansive Soils Expansion tests conducted on intact and remolded indicate the soils on-site have a low (UBC 29-2) moderate (FHA/HUD criteria.) expansion potential. samples to Based on experience with the Scripps Formation and the possibility of localized zones possessing higher expansive characteristics,-we recommend that foundations be designed for at least medium (UBC 29-2) expansive soil conditions. · It is suggested in planning yard improvements and a .landscape scheme,. that maintaining uniform moisture .. conditions around in~ividual structures is desirable. Thi.s includes positive drainage gradients away from . structures and directing surface runoff via drains and non-erodible conduits to proper disposal areas. Preferably, soil should be kept .. on the moist side without allowing ponding. --~· ·4.3 Fill Soils The cut slope behind the existing house is overlain by shallow fill (1 to 2 feet). Observations of the·fill in the test excavation at the base-of-slope indicates that it is poorly to moderately compacted. A portion of this material is anticipated to be removed during removal of vegetation from the-slope face. The proposed new construction will not rely on support from the fill since the continuous foundations for the addition will ultimately penetrate the remaining shallow material. J File No. 20776.02 July 3, 1990 Page 6 American Geotechnical 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .5.1 Basis Conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon information provided, information gathered, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic evaluations, experience, and professional judgement. Recommendations contained herein should be considered minimums consistent with industry practice. More rigorous criteria could be adopted. 5.2 Site Suitabilitv The site is within an area including completed residential homes constructed similar to the addition anticipated for this site. Geotechnical exploration, analyses, and our experience with similar projects, indicate that the site is suitable for the proposed addition. 5.3 Earthwork Only minor e.arthwork is anticipated on-site, which will basically consist of scraping the slope free of vegetation and loose soil. The grading should proceed according to good construction practice. All debris and perishable material should be removed from the site. Foundation trenches.should penetrate surface fill and extend into competent bedrock. )' American Geotechnical File Nq. 20870.01 July 3, 1990 Page 7 5.4 Foundation Design The proposed development can be supported by a conventional continuous foundation. Due to the pad configuration and the superior support characteristics of bedrock, it is recommended that the addition be founded informational soi.l. Should unanticipated fill be .exposed during foundation trenching, it is recommended that foundations be deepened to bedrock to provide continuity in bearing materials. Structures founded in bedrock have superior performance records when compared .to those founded in fill. The foundation system can be \ designed according to the following criteria. These criteria have been developed with.consideration given to a recommended medium expansive potential (See Figure 2). Minimum Embedment Exterior footings Interior footings (me-asured from adjacent grade) · Minimum Width Reinforcement Allowable Bearing Pressures a) sustain~d loads b) .total lo~ds (including wind & seismic) Resistance to Lateral Loads 2.0 feet 1.5 feet 1.5 feet see Figure 2 "medium" cat. 2200 psf 290Q psf a) passive soil pressure 400 pcf within firm sedimentary bedrock (equivalent fluid pressure) b) coefficient of sliding friction 0~35 c) neglect passive resistance in fill d) minimum horizontal distance from 15 feet side of footing to any descending slope face (distance to daylight) EXPANSIVE CLASSIFICATION Non to LOIII l'ledi11n (7, e, 9) Hig.'1 {7, 8, 9) Very High (7, e, 9) DEPTH Cf' f'TG. 8£LOIII ADJ. GRAD£ 1 B" Exterior 12" Interior 24" Exterior 18" Interior 30" Exterior 24" Interior 36" Exterior 30" Interior FOOTING RE!r.-ORCEl'ENT 2 f4 bars, 1-top and 1 bottom Exterior: 4 #5 bars, 2-top and 2 bottom. Interior: 4 #4 bars, 2-top and 2 bottom. • Exterior: 4 #5 bars, 2-top ano 2-bottcrr,. Interior: A #5 bars, 2-top and 2-bottor.i. Exterior: 6 #5 bars 3-top and 3-bottcm. Interior: A #5 bars, 2-top and 2-bottc,n;. SLAB THICKNESS/ REINf"ORCEl'ENT "" Ncminal "'i th #3 bars at 16" 0/C, both "1ays 4" Net 111ith ·f3 bars at 12" 0/C, both ways or #4 bars at 21 " 0/C both "'a ys S" Net "1ith #4 bars at 16" 0/C, both ways. 6" Nc:,ninal 111ith #4 bars at 12" · 0/C, both 111ays PRESATURATION FRGS. & SLABS to 12" to 18" to 24" to 30" GRAVEL BASE 8£Lllll SLABS .Optinun a" 1) These reconmendations are intended to substar;tialiy reduce risk of significant foundation and slab cracking. It should be recognizeo that aoopting these rec:cmnendations may not prevent cracking in all cases. Criteria for special fC>llldations with a l0"1E!r risk potential can be developed~ reC1.Jest. Actual reccmnendations on individud sites may vary. Expansive soil reconrnendations should not be considered to preclude more restrictive·structural or code requirements. Also, these rec:cmnendations should not be considered to preclude structural eq..iivdents (e.g. 1 #6 bar in lie111 of 2 #4 bars). 2) Unless cracking can be tolerated, these reccmnendations should also be considered applicable to exterior fizt1110rk and foundations for other appurtenant ilrprovements. Slabs and foundations for exterior i~rovements which abut the main structure s.'iould be structurally continuous 111i th the main building or a distinct architectural separation should be provided. Si~le abutting can result in separation. Unless vertical differential at the outer edge of flitllJork can be tolerated, a mininun 8-inch 111ide cut-off "'811 should be constructed to the same de~th as specifieo for exterior footings. Reinforcement should consist of at least 2 #4 bars per foot encectnent plus slab ties as specified in Note 10. 3) Presaturation of footing areas may be omitted if footing excavations at the time of concrete placement are generally moist and free of desiccation cracks. ") Gravel or approved alternative. S) Vapor membrane such es "Visqueen," if adopted, should be installed to provide a continuous moisture barrier. The mencrane should be sealed ar01¥1d pipes and be overlain by a minifflJll of 1-inc::h of clean sand. 6) Unless otherwise specified, entietrnent near descending .slopes should be increased to provide at least 15-feet horizontal distance to daylight. Horizont11.l reinforcement shpuld consist of not less than 2 #4 bars per foot of ent:,ecinent, Deepened footings near slopes will require design as retaining 111alls, 7) Grade beam reconnended across garage entra'>Ces to similar depth and reinforcement as exterior footings. B) Isolated piers not recCYm1ended. 9) Approved alternative: Pest-tensioned slab construction or equivalent as de~igned by a structural engineer. · 10) Exceot in 911rage, slabs should be structurally tied to perimeter foptings by bar ties matching slab reinforcement ..tiich 111rap arCU"ld footing reinforcement and extend at least 3-feet into slabs. FOUNDATION AND.SLAB ILLUSTRATIONS EXPANStVE SOIL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N .. 20870 JULY 1990 Figure 2 File No.· 20870.01 July 3, 1990 Page 9 5.5 Exterior Flatwork American Geotechnical Exterior slabs may be limited· to four inches net thickness and be reinforced with minimum No. 4 bars at 21 -inches on centers, both ways. Movement of slabs adjacent structures can be mitigated by dowelling slabs to . perimeter footings. Dowelling should consist of No. 4 .bars· bent around exterior footing reinforcement. Dowels should be extended two feet and four feet in an alternating fashion into planned exterior slabs. Dowelling-should be spaced not farther than 36 inches on centers. As an option to dowelling, an architectural separation could be provided between the main structure and abutting appurtenant improvements. -Presaturation of exterior slab areas is also desirable. At exterior edges of patios and other flatwork, a cutoff wall (flatwork footing/thickened edge) is highly recommended. If no significant load is associated with the edge of the slab, the width of the cutoff wall may be limited to eight inches. To further minimize risk with:respect to appurtenances, the same minimum concrete sections and reinforcement adopted for the main structure could be applied to the appurtenances. 5.6 Expansive Soil The recommendations herein for expansive soil should be considered subject to review-of as-graded site conditions. Minimum expansive soil foundation guidelines have been included in .. the accompanying Figure 2. Use of the "medium" category is advised. These guidelines must be emphasized as minimums and, accordingly, some risk is a·ssociated with adopting the mi!}_imums. Lower risk is associated with more restrictive criteria. ) )· File No. 20776.02 July 3, 1990 Page 10 5.7 Foundation Details ,American Geotechnical Care should be taken in the placement of foundation arid flatwork reinforcement •... Pl.acement details should be in conformance with AC.I -specif icat.1.ons. Unless otherw:i.se specified by the structural engineer, continuous.footing reinforcement shoulrl--be pl-aced in the--upper-and 1-oi..'£:r one-third portions of the foundation sections. The botto1r.1 ·foundation steel ·should not be .closer ... than three inches. to. th.e underlying excavation.-Slab reinforcement should be placed in a positive fashion between the midpoint and upper one-third point of the slab section. "Lifting" slab steel into place following concrete pla.cement is not recommended. The contractor should be responsible for supplying to the owner concrete mix designs for both slab and foundation concrete. The contractor should provide designs, place, finish, and cure concrete in accordance with all ACI recommended procedures.· The contractor is referred to the ACI 1982 publication "Slabs on Grade." If a chemical curing compound is utilized, it Should be compatible with proposed floor coverings. As an alternative to a ·-chemical curing compound, the slab area should be kept thoroughly moistened by misting until the initial concrete sets after which the concrete surface should be co\rered with plastic sheeting for at least two weeks. Three to four weeks is preferred. Suitable joints should be provided to control cracking. !" File No. 20870.01 July 3, 1990 .Page 11 5.8 Drainage American Geotechrtical Positive drainage should be planned for the site. Drainage should be directed away from structures via non- erodible conduits to suitable disposal areas·. Five percent drainage is recommended directly away from structures ... -. Two percent minimum is recommended for .... drainage over soil areas. In pipes.or paved swales, one percent should be adopted as the minimum unless otherwise recommended by the project civil engineer. For yard drains, six-inch minimum pipe diameter is recommended -because experience has shown that three and four inch diameter pipes tend to clog. All enclosed planters should be provided with a suitably located drain or drains, and/or flooding protection in the form of weep holes or similar. Preferably, structures should have roof gutters and downspout tied directly to the yard drainage system. 5.9 Utilities It is not recommended that utilities be planned below a 1:1 projection extending down from the outer edge of foundations. Footings should be deepened to satisfy the foregoing recommendations. Backfilling for all utilities should be placed by mechanical compaction methods. Flooding and/or jetting of utility or other trench backfill should not be undertaken. F_ile No. 2os·10. 01 July 3, 1990 Page 12 5.10 Plan and Agency Review American Geotechnical When detailed grading and structural plans are developed, including cross-sections and foundation illustrations, they should be forwarded to this office for review and . cow~ent •. All soil, geologic,·and structural aspects of ·. . .. ·:.the-proposed ·development.. are·· subject ·to ·the review and · approval of the governing· agency ( s) • · · It should be ·· ··· recognized-that. the governing. ag-ency(s) can dictate the ·. rnanner ·in \;;hi ch the project . proceeds.· They could approve or deny any aspect of the ... proposed improvements and/or .could·dictate which foundation and grading options are acceptable. 5.11 Field Construction Review During construction, review by this office is recommended to verify site geotechnical conditions and conformance with the intentions of the recommendations for construction. Basically, this includes observation and testing during any grading and review of foundation excavations. Unless other arrangements are made, supplemental consulting will be on a time and expense basis·i.n-accordance with our schedule of fees. )· American Geotechnical File No. 20870.01 July 3, 1990 Page 13 6.0 CLOSURE Only a portion of subsurface conditions have been reviewed and evaluated. Conclusions and recommendations ·and other information contained in this report are based . upon the assumptions that s11bsu.rface conditions do not --· . vary appreciably between and udj acent observations points. _ Al though no significant variation is anticipated, it must be recognized that variations can -occur. This report has been prepared for the sole use and benefit of our client. The intent of the report is to advise our client on geotechnical matters involving the proposed improvements. It should be understood that the geotechnical consulting provided and the contents of this report are ·not perfect. Any errors or omissions noted by any party reviewing this report, and/or any other geotechnical aspect of the project, should be reported to this office in a timely fashion. The client is the only party intended by this office to directly receive the advice. Subsequent use of this report can only be authorized by the client. Any transferring of information or other directed use by the client should be considered "advice by the client." .Geotechnical engineering_ is-characterized by uncertainty. Geotechniqal engineering is. often described as an inexact science or·art. Conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based partly upon the evaluations of _ technical information gathered, partly on experience, and , partly on professional j·udgemenj;. The conclusions and recornmendations·presented should be considered "advice." Other consultants ·could arrive at different conclusions and recommendations. Typically "minimum" recommendations have been presented. Although some risk will always remain, lower risk of future problems would usually result if more restrictive criteria were adopted. Final decisions on matters present~d are the responsibility of the client and/or the governing agencies. No warranties in any respect are made as to the performance of the project. File No. 20870.0l July 3, 1990 Page 14 American Geotechnical APPENDICES J. File No. 20870.01 July 3, 1990 American Geotechnical APPENDIX A -LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES Moisture Content Determinations Moisture content determinations were made in accordance with · .ASTM· .meth(>d of tezt 02216-80. Dry Unit Weight -Dry unit-weight testing of samples was determined in accordance with conventional laboratory techniques. Expansive Soj.l 'I'e_sting: swell tests were performed in accordance with HUD/FF .... ~ crit~ria. Intact and remolded samples were saturated under a 144 psf load and allowed to swell for 24 hours. Consolidation Tests A simple collapse test was performed on a remolded ring sample in accordance with ASTM test method D2435-80, except that time-rate readings were not taken. File No. 20870.01 July 3, 1990 Location (in feet) T-1@ 2 1 T-2@ 2 1 Soil Type Formation Remolded \' Initial Dry Density (pcf) 100.0 98. o. SWELL TESTS (HUD/FHA) Initial Moisture Content (%) 14.3 10.1 Samples swelled under 144psf load for 24'hours. Final Moisture Content (%) 23.2 2i.3 *Equivalent expansion potential is low according to UBC 29-2. l Percent Expansion swell Potential (%) (HUD/FHA) 2.8 *Moderate 4.2-*Moderate File No. 20870.01 July 3, 1990 Field Dry Location Density (in feet) (pcf) T-1@ 2.5 1 100 T-2 ·@ 2.5 1 98 T-3@ 2.5 1 94 \ FIELD DENSITY TESTS Lab Max Field Dry Relative· Moisture Degree of Sample Density Compaction content Saturation Type (pcf) (%) (%) (%) FORMATION 17.4 71 Shelby ',rube FOR}ofATION 11.9 45 Shelby Tube FORMATION 11.4 40 Shelby Tube '-· ~ File No. 20870.01 July 3, 1990 Sample Location Type (in feet) T-1@ 2.5 1 Intact I. \; .. CONSOLIDATION SIMPLE COLLAPSE TEST DATA lnitial Load Strain Prior Collapse(-) or 'Dry Initial When H2 o To Addition Swell (+) after Density Moisture Added of H~O H2 o added (pcf) (%) (pcf) (% (%) 99.6 11.3 375 0.22 + 0.18 ·, .}J,-~ f 6-tl i c iA k1f -_ ----Gis) f-:is\ its l ti:i' f)z.ti(-1J dtC¼J.u/ R:J A~ At ,,.J, ·11. ~ I -~ ~ I :.??ROYALS /fUX/&'VJ ~ J-f°f¼-[vptA r c; \ ~~1 ~ t?\ ~ ;;,t/4_ ~ ~ .-:~'.) · / }) r' ,,,.--£J, 7 / r /UT ~ l ~f/~~ui!d~ /'J-//J rr-Tu w'tlLJ {/'L-/Ab )']-w JOll &1'-C-V-01/(__UC,,,-/)Mc_DfLc,.s . /.;/{m..,..i:.-::.~~:~~~ / ,e //Ii/ !l S /! -rr ux, h ~ ,;.-~ , ~ . Nl/1--~gmeormg ...._Fire J I Io I % -ri_ T 1:. w ;<fii re. ~ _ W ~er-,,___ "'-~--_ &.fi,,,._, o,uwfe,( "" ~=n,_· ----Coastal z ..,MLCYLS fZ> /vLL /~ ---Health · ()~ ;-/tc/ft, _ ---Assoc. Lf)2o/rb-~ ~ ,,G~ p ??7~ ---. I -f9b-~~ ~'*l~ 1/<t ~f-f f/~~cJ.; \ ) 7 . · · DATES -,--:::" ...:.::::; • ·r;p---- \ \. From To Aoolicant Aoolicanl HAZMATFORM IND WASTE APP SCHOOL FEE FORM PLAN CORR ENGRGCORR BUSLIC WCOMP FIRE PLANS ----1---____ ASSESSOR PLANS COFO Job Address: 2658 GALICIA WY Permit Type: RAD Citv of Carlsbad RESIDENTAL ADD/ALT (UNDR Status: Applied: Permit No: CB910188 EXPIRED 02/14/1991 Parcel No: 2161802600 Lot#: Approved: Reference No: Issued: PC#: Inspect Area: Project Title: ADD 907 SF DECK (90-1196) Applicant: PETAKOVICH, OEYAN 9769 LA MAR ST SPRING VALLEY, CA 619-589-2995 Owner: MAIATICO RICHARD A&MC KNIGHT-M -: 1---00136104885 :Plan Check I: $76.00 ; --------- · Fees: ! ' $76.00 ; Additional Fees: i $0.00 Total Fees: : $76.00 Balance: $0.00 . PERMIT APPLICATION City of Carlsbad Building D~partment •. -2-'-0Z--5~· _L_a_S_·P_a~l-m_a_s_D_r_._,.__C_ar_l_s_b_a_d_, -C-A~9-20_0_9_c_s1-sJ.__43_s--1~1s1 1. PERMIT A -0 COMMERCIAL NEW TENANT IMPROVEMENT . B -I;] INDUSTRIAL 0NEW 0TENANT IMPROVEMENT • ·. . · C ~ES!DENTIAL 0APARTMENT 0.CONDO, ~INGLE FAMILY DWELUNG ~ADDf.TlON/AL!ERAT.'ION 0DUPLEX 0DEMOL!T!ON 0RELOCAT!ON 0MOBILE HOME QELECTRICAL QPLUMBING 0MEi;.HAN[CAL 0POOL []SPA D'RETA!N[NG·WALL QsoLAR -[]OTHER __ -'-----' 0876 02/.1:4/91 0001 01 C ... ·PR11T O?. 2. Unit No.' Phase' No • .. BLDG. s~l!. ·:P~ 1 T1 q oNT~ :1:> EC--J~ 3. STATEt;4 SIGNl',TUR_E ADDRESS ZIP CODE DAY TELEPHONE ·6,!!;Ff ,zqqs · 4. APPLICANT ~CONTRACTOQ/ D AGENT FOR CONTRACTOR . D OIINER . . . . ~~_ENT FOR OWNER ,· NAME ~,+v" ti, ~J CITY 1'h vtev STATE ADDRESS t:?7t;:,q' ~ ~ ~ "7.. D_AY-TEL~PHONE 5 .. PROPERTY OWNER OWNER DTENANT 'NAME ,(2/~ /4-i.A-rl'.co i:pY .~ STATE DAY TELEPH(!NE 6. CONTRACTOR /4 , NAME ~.W,A/&ili?-'A,,/Loe,t::l.. ADDRESS ZIP CODE 7. CITY S!GNA_TURE 'DESIGNER NAME CITY STATE STATE L!C. # ____ _ STATE L!,CENSE CLASS ---'-'-~-'-- TITLE ADDRESS '1?:111 ZIP CODE 9'2D7 Cl.TY BUSINESS· LlC. # DAY TELEPHONE. STATE LlC. # _. __ WORKERS' COMPENSATION Workers• Compensation Declaration·: hereby affirm that l have a certifica'te of'consent·to se'lf-insure i~~ued by·the:Di'rector of lriqustri~l Relations,· or. a c.erti f i cate of Workers,· Compensation Insurance by an admitted insurer, or an exact copy or .duplicate thereof certi f ied·'by the Di rector of the insurer thereof filed with the e,uilding l-nspection Department (Section 3800, Lab. C>- INSURANCE COMPANY . POLICY NO. . EXPIRATION DATE Certificate of Exemption: l certify that in the performance of the work for which th.is permit is· issued; l shall riot employ' any per.son in ~ny mapner so as to become subject to the Worker.s' Compensation Laws of California. SIGNATURE DATE 8'. -OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION _Owner-B\lilder Declaration: I hereby affirm that l am exempt from the Contractor's License ~aw for· the fol lowing reasqn: ,· ~,. as owner of t~e property or my _employees wi-th ·wages as their _sole compensation, 11i l l, do th~ -l(o_rk ~nd oth~ structure i~-not fo:end,ed or offered Jar sate , ~Sec. 7044, Bus1ness and Profess1ons Code: The Contractor's L1cense taw does not apply to an owner· of property who bu1 lds or 1mproves thereon,, and-who does such work himself or through hi,s own employees, provided that such-improv~ments are not intended or offered for sale. Lf, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder wi l'l have the ·burden of proving that he d.icl not build or imgrove for the purpose of sale.). • · D I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (S~c .. 7044, Business and Professjons Cocle: D The Contractor's License Law does hot apply to an owner of property .who builds or improves ;hereon, and contracts for such projec.t's with contractor(s) ljcen~ed purs,4a . he Contractor's License Law). , . ... . . • · · h requires a permit· 1;0 COl)St-ruct, _alter, improye, ,demotish, or .i;epair any structure, it to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of tbe O of Division 3 of the Business aqd Professions Code) or that he is exempt-therefrom, _·on 7031.5 by any appl•ic~nt'fo(-,a permit subj~cts the .. aj5pHcant to a civi'l peni>lty of n'o): Is the applicant or future building occupant r uired to submit a business plan, acutely,hazardous materi<1ls registration. forni,or risk m?nagement and·preliention program under Sec ti ans 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Pres Ley-Tanner Haza'rdous S.ubstance Account Act? DYES ONO ls the applic~nt qr future building occupant required to obtain a permit frpm the air pollution control district or air qyaUty management district? DYES ONO ls the fac_i l ity to be constrU<;:ted within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? DYES ·IF ANY OF THE ANSIIERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ·MAY NOT BE ISSUED AFTER JUl.Y 1, 1989 UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET ·OR IS MEETiNG THE REQUIREMENTll OF THE OFFICE Of 1:MERGENCY S_ERVICES AND THE AIR. POI.LUTl9N CONTROL DISTRICT. ' 9. CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency f~r the performance of the work for which th,is permit is issued (Sec 3097(.j )· Civil' Code). LEN.DER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS 10. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE · . . . _ . . 1 certify that l halle read the application and stati, that the above information is correct. l agre·e t!.i·, comply with ·all City orai nances and State l·aws· ret·at i ng to· bui tding construction. I hareby authoriie r-epresentatives of the City of Carlsbad.to enter upon the above mentioned property for-jnsp~ction pur,poses. I Also· AGREE: TO SAVE INDEMNI AND KEEP HARMLESS THE· CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL L'IAIIILITiES, JOOGMENTS, COSTS 'AND EXPENSES IIHICH MAY IN ANY 1/AY ACCRUE: 'AGAIN~T SAID CHY C WENCE THE G Tl G OF THI ERMIT. ' I OBY PHONE APPROVED ·BY:: oArit·.-··.,.·,_·,,...--'-''"""--"---- YELLOW: Applicant· .PINK: Finance