HomeMy WebLinkAbout2787 James Dr; ; CBR2018-0952; PermitCcityof
Carlsbad
Residential Permit
Print Date: 11/30/2018 Permit No: CBR2018-0952
Job Address:
Permit Type:
Parcel No:
Valuation:
Occupancy Group:
# Dwelling Units:
Bedrooms:
2787 James Dr
BLDG-Residential
1561425800
$21,445.50
Work Class:
Lot#:
Reference#:
Construction Type:
Bathrooms:
Orig. Plan Check#:
Retaining Wall Status:
Applied:
Issued:
Permit
Finaled:
Inspector:
Closed -Finaled
04/20/2018
07/09/2018
Plan Check#:
Final
Inspection: 11/30/2018 2:40:32PM
Project Title:
Description: DELAFUENTES: 870 SF RETAINING WALL
Applicant:
AJ CRISS INDUSTRIES
ANTHONY J CRISS
760-489-5120
BUILDING PERMIT FEE ($2000+)
BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEE (BLDG)
581473 GREEN BUILDING STATE STANDARDS FEE
STRONG MOTION-RESIDENTIAL
SWPPP INSPECTION FEE TIER 1-Medium BLDG
SWPPP PLAN REVIEW FEE TIER 1-MEDIUM
Total Fees: $674.17
Owner:
COOWNER DE LA FUENTE ISAAC &SERBAS
JEANNffiE N
2787 James Dr
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
Total Payments To Date: $674.17
Co-Applicant:
AJ CRISS INDUSTRIES INC
1418 Golden Crest Dr
Escondido, CA 92029-4314
760-489-5120
Balance Due:
Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter
collectively referred to as "fees/exaction." 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 Munfcipal 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 as to which the
statute of limitation has previously otherwise expired.
$0.00
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 I 760-602-2700 I 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov
$221.40
$154.98
$1.00
$2.79
$238.00
$56.00
THE FOLLOWING APPROVALS REQUIRED PRIOR TD PERMIT ISSUANCE: 0 PLANNING 0 ENGINEERING
('city of
Carlsbad
I JOB ADDRESS
!
Building Permit Application
1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ph: 760-602-2719 Fax: 760-602-8558
email: building@carlsbadca.gov
www.carlsbadca.gov
SUrTEf/SPACE#/UNIT#
2787 James Dr
•BUILDING •FIRE •HEALTH 0 HAZMA TIAPCD
Plan Check No.
Est. Value
Plan Ck. Deposit
Date SWPPP
1 ,~e,o,ecr. Carlsbad I 'a" I '"AS"
~DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Include Square Feet of Affe<ted Area(s)
# OF UNITS # BEDROOMS # BATHROOMS TENANT BUSINESS NAME CONSTR. TYPE occ. GifolfVl
I
[ IJ,tLV} (b4U."-Lu4LtS t,i-0 r
I ~o~-tto-nda.rd !
EXISTING USE I PROPOSED USE I GARAGE (SF) PATIOS (SF) I DECKS (SF) I FIREPLACE IAIR CONDITIONING I FIRE SPRINKLERS
1 YES[], NoO vesONoO vrnONoO 1
,APPLICANT NAME Anthony J Criss PROPERTY OWNER NAME Isaac DelaFuentes I
I Prlnar' "'~nh ... .. ..... -a
iADDRESS ADDRESS
I 1418 Golden Crest Dr. 2787 James Dr. I
' :
CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP i Escondido CA 92029 Carlsbad CA 92009 -I FAX IFAX I PHONE PHONE I
760-489-5120 619-618-8681 !
EMAIL ---,
I EMAIL
I contact@ajcriss.com profesor@gmail.com
'DESIGN PROFESSIONAL Alison Wellinton-T oth CONTRACTOR BUS. NAME AJ Criss Industries ' ! -------------
iADDRESS ADDRESS 1418 Goldent Crest Dr.
------------------------------------·· --CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP
Escondido CA 92029
PHONE --------I FAX
----PHONE IFAX ··-···-----------
760-300-9761 760-489-5120 -----·---------
EMAIL EMAIL
awt@welllngton-toth.com contact@lajcriss.com I STATE LIC, # --STATE LIC.# -Ir~? rl' 1Cl1YBUS "'1208454 695830
1Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or Coun_ty which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, pnor to its issuance, also requires the
applicant for such per_m1t to file a signed statement that he is hcensed pursuant to the prov1s1ons of the Contractor's License lawjChapter 9, comme_nding with Section 7000 of D1vis1on 3 of the Business and Professions Code} or that he is exem_P.t therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a
c1v1l penalty of not more than five hundred dollars {$500)).
'
I
--
,WORKERS' COMPENSATION , /;;
Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations·
[Z] 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.
12] I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by SecUon 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for whK:h this permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance carrier and policy
number are: Insurance Co, Berkshire Hathaway Guard Policy No. AJWC679235 Expiration Date 6/23/18
This section need not be completed if the permit is I [Z] Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in th rfo ance 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 w ers' 1s 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, dam 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees.
2S CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE
I hereby affirm /hat I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason:
0
0
•
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 himsetf 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)
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)
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. 0Yes 0No
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 I phone I 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 (inclLJde name I address I phone/ 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 I address / phone I type of work)
2S PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE •AGENT DATE
COMPLET,,,E THIS SECTION FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUii.DiNG PERMITS ONLY ."
Is the appl1j,Jnt or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program tmder Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the
Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? • Yes D No
Is the apphca11t or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? • Yes • No
Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? D Yes • 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 certify that I have read the application and state that the above infonnation is correct and that the infonnation on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction.
I hereby authorize "'presenlative of the Ci~ of Carlsbad to enter upoo the above mentioned propeny for ospection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, CO D EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CfTY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT.
OSHA: /v1 OSHA permit is required for excav s 5'0' deep and demflition or struction of structures over 3 stories in height
EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the Bu' ing · I under the · · Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void W the building or work authorized by such pennit is not commenced within
180 days from the date of such permit or [ bui u permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a pericxl of 180 days (section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code)
,,8$ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY REPORT (CBR2018-0952)
Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 04/2012018 Owner:
Work Class: Retaining Wall Issue Date: 07/09/2018 Subdivision:
Status: Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 05/29/2019 Address:
IVR Number: 10841
Scheduled
Date
Actual Start Date Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector
11130/2018 11/30/2018
November 30, 2018
BLDG-Final
Inspection
077630-2018
Checklist Item
BLDG-Building Deficiency
Passed Paul Burnette
COMMENTS
N plans or contractor on site. Left door
hanger
COOWNER DE LA FUENTE ISAAC
&SERBAS JEANNETTE N
2787 James Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re inspection Complete
Complete
Passed
No
Page 2 of2
PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY REPORT (CBR2018-0952)
Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 04/20/2018 Owner: COOWNER DE LA FUENTE ISAAC
&SERBAS JEANNETTE N
Work Class: Retaining Wall Issue Date: 07/09/2018 Subdivision:
Status: Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 05/29/2019 Address: 2787 James Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
IVR Number: 10841
Scheduled Actual
Date Start Date Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Status Primary Inspector Relnspection Complete
07(1012018 07/10/2018 BLDG-11 063650-2018 Failed Michael Collins Reinspectlon Complete
Foundatlon/Ftg/Pier
I (Rebar)
Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed
BLDG-Building Deficiency Not per approved plan No
09/12/2018 09/12/2018 BLDG-66 Grout 069816-2018 Failed Michael Collins Reinspectlon Complete
Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed
BLOG-Building Deficiency No
BLDG-Building Deficiency Footing poured without inspection No
09/14/2018 09/14/2018 BLDG-66 Grout 070067-2018 Partial Pass Michael Collins Relnspection Incomplete
Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed
BLDG-Building Deficiency No
BLDG-Building Deficiency Footing poured without inspection No
BLOG-Building Deficiency 9/14/18, Upper wall only, north end to south Yes
at end of pool wall only.
09/28/2018 09/28/2018 BLDG-11 071403-2018 Passed Tim Frazee Complete
Foundatlon/Ftg/Pier
a (Rebar)
Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed
BLOG-Building Deficiency Not per approved plan Yes
Rebar on southern portion of foundation of
retaining wall
10/0412018 10/0412018 BLDG-66 Grout 072155-2018 Failed Chris Renfro Reinspection Complete
Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed
BLOG-Building Deficiency No plans on site. No detail showing No
retaining wall. Call for reinspection when the
stamped set is on site.
10/05/2018 10/05/2018 BLDG-66 Grout 072173-2018 Partial Paas Chris Renfro Reinspectlon Incomplete
Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed
BLOG-Building Deficiency Wall drains need to be 4 inches in diameter. Yes
Callback for reinspection
10/10/2018 10/10/2018 BLOG-66 Grout 072627-2018 Passed Chris Renfro Complete
Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed
BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes
11/29/2018 11/29/2018 BLDG-Final 077302-2018 Failed Michael Collins Reinspectlon Complete
Inspection
Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed
BLDG-Building Deficiency N plans or contractor on site. Left door No
hanger
November 30, 2018 Page1 of2
FIELD REPORT
VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC.
2450 Auto Park Way
DATE
II)/'\/ ,, :::J -'
I JOB NO. >\--:.'>I-,=: / I ....
PROJECT ,
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92029-1229 ., ., r 1/\(:,~.11d1?)\ It" • .J ., I "j \' ' , I I ,,.
LOCATION j
Phone: (760) 743-1214 2 7 ~ 1 :>cf,1' j 7\ , e . /~II'/ ~ L
Fax: (760) 739-0343 CONTRACTOR
ro f\ . J . C r : s s. I"'\ 01..:\, , @ ~ OWNER
,-\ .\ ...\ ,, )e 11i 1'1f t"'( ,Jc\ I P1t"t 1111-' PRESENT AT SITE
,l)r; 11 ~ v
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED:
> () ,"\
i \ J \ \
r , I r \ I
If ..-1 , ~-, I -I '( V
3 )~--}')lb. Lrl 6 ~1• I \v1 I
>
f) r f-1 J.., -
+511
,
+ 5 fl
-F. G-.
I 11
S J .,-L, , ,, ) ~
I t•t ~I .-I 1\/ 1"),1/
/ l 7. ~ 'i, {>
} 1-:j 2 /. f;
I
✓
I y) r, J11r,1 f> r 'i J ·J pc-), JI ;c ,'c-, II\
/
~, + 10
r 1 NI
,")}, /1'1 , .... 'j I' (_
I
I I . /\
I J. '6
SOILS TECHNICIAN/STAFF GEOLOGIST/ENGINEER/ENG. GEOLOGIST ACE/GE/CEO NUMBER CLIENT REIIRESENTATIVE
HOURS
LEAVE HOURS ON SITE HOURS TRAVEL TOTAL HOURS r.' ') I
I WEATHER
I • I' t.,\,
G ' t
-f , }/{-' 1 \
l~\~/f-cL,.
J
I , ,pA-, k1 I~ ) ( z I
I
REGULAR
THIS REPORT DOES NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO BUILD
PER THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ALL APPLICABLE CODES
r )
V I,;(
•) • I I ,
+'
PHOTOS
✓• EsG1I
. ·----·' .. ,,,_ -----
DATE: June 20, 2018
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
D APPLICANT
D JURIS.
PLAN CHECK#.: CBR2018-0952
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2787 James Dr.
PROJECT NAME: Site Retaining Walls
SET III
•
•
•
•
•
[?SJ
•
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
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 c;orrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at EsGil
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 staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed.
EsGil staff did advis7th applicant that the plan check has been completed.
Person contacted: ftl Telephone#:
Date contacted: (by: QI) Email:
Mail Telephone Fax In Person
0 REMARKS:
By: Kurt Culver
EsGil
log
Enclosures:
9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576
DATE: June 15, 2018
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
PLAN CHECK#.: CBR2018-0952
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2787 James Dr.
PROJECT NAME: Site Retaining Walls
✓• EsG1I
SET: II
• APPLICANT
~URIS.
D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply
with the jurisdiction's codes.
D The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's
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.
~ The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at EsGil
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.
~ The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to:
Anthony Criss
D EsGil staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed.
~ EsGil staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed.
Person contacted: Anthony Criss Telephone#: 760-489-5120
Date contacted: lo/15Jti (by~il: contact@ajcriss.com
e..Mail vielephone/ Fax In Person
0 REMARKS:
By: Kurt Culver
EsGil
6/12/18
Enclosures:
9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576
Carlsbad CBR2018-0952
June 15, 2018
•,--·•-·-----------
NOTE: The items listed below are from the previous correction list. These
remaining items have not been adequately addressed. The numbers of the items
are from the previous check list and may not necessarily be in sequence. The
notes in bold font are current.
PLANS
1. Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit THREE
new complete sets of plans. 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 and the Carlsbad Planning,
Engineering and Fire Departments.
2. Bring TWO corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil, 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 only will not be reviewed by the
City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil is complete.
4. Provide a copy of the project soil report. The report shall include foundation
design recommendations based on the engineer's findings and shall comply with
Section R401.4.
Make sure the report provides retaining wall recommendations.
5. 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 (when required by the soil report).
6. Show on the plans the required drainage behind the retaining walls (check with
the soils report for specifics).
Carlsbad CBR2018-0952
June 15, 2018
MISCELLANEOUS
To speed up the review process,.note on this list (or a copy) where each
correction Item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet, note or detail number,
calculation page, etc.
Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a
result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly
describe them and where they are located in the plans.
Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list?
Please indicate:
Yes • No •
The jurisdiction has contracted with EsGil, 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 Kurt Culver at EsGil. Thank you.
DATE: May 17, 2018
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
PLAN CHECK#.: CBR2018-0952
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2787 James Dr.
PROJECT NAME: Site Retaining Walls
✓• EsG1I
A SAl-l.tJL,1lt Curnp,11:v
SET: I
• APPLICANT • JURIS.
D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply
with the jurisdiction's codes.
D The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's
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.
IZ] The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at EsGil
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.
IZ] The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to:
Anthony Criss
D EsGil staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has,been completed.
IZ] EsGil staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed.
Person contacted: Anthony Criss Telephone#: 760-489-5120
-.........1.!!ai!!t~e contacted: 5/1~ (bydf:) Email: contact@ajcriss.com
\111\Mail Telephone Fax In Person
REMARKS:
By: Kurt Culver
EsGil
Enclosures:
5/10/18
9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576
Carlsbad CBR2018-0952
May 17, 2018
PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES
PLAN CHECK#.: CBR2018-0952
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2787 James Dr.
DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY
JURISDICTION:
DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW
COMPLETED: May 17, 2018
FOREWORD (PLEASE READ):
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY
ESGIL CORPORATION: 5/10/18
PLAN REVIEWER: Kurt Culver
This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the California version of
the International Residential Code, International Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code,
Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy
conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled. This plan review is based on
regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on
laws and ordinance by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or
other departments. Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
Present California law mandates that construction comply with the 2016 edition of the California
Code of Regulations (Title 24), which adopts the following model codes: 2015 IRC, 2015 IBC,
2015 UPC, 2015 UMC and 2014 NEC.
The above regulations apply, regardless of the code editions adopted by ordinance.
The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied
before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 105.4 of
the 2015 International Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of
any state, county or city law.
To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list (or a copy) where each
correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet number, specification section, etc.
Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans.
Carlsbad CBR2018-0952
May 17, 2018
PLANS
1. Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list. Submit THREE
new complete sets of plans. 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 and the Carlsbad Planning,
Engineering and Fire Departments.
2. Bring TWO corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil, 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 only will not be reviewed by the
City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil is complete.
2. The locations of the proposed walls on the cover sheet conflicts with that shown
on sheet ASP, which conflicts with that shown on the civil plan. Please omit all
conflicts.
3. It appears that the retaining wall footing will cross the property line in some
cases, which is prohibited. Please review.
4. Provide a copy of the project soil report. The report shall include foundation
design recommendations based on the engineer's findings and shall comply with
Section R401.4.
a) Make sure the report provides retaining wall recommendations.
5. 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 (when required by the soil report).
6. Show on the plans the required drainage behind the retaining walls (check with
the soils report for specifics).
Carlsbad CBR2018-0952
May 17, 2018
MISCELLANEOUS
7. To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each
correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet, note or detail number,
calculation page, etc.
8. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a
result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly
describe them and where they are located in the plans.
• Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list?
Please indicate:
Yes • No •
9. The jurisdiction has contracted with EsGil, 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 Kurt Culver at EsGil. Thank you.
Carlsbad CBR2018-0952
May 17, 2018
[DO NOT PAY -THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE]
VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
PREPARED BY: Kurt Culver
BUILDING ADDRESS: 2787 James Dr.
BUILDING OCCUPANCY:
BUILDING AREA Valuation
PORTION ( Sq. Ft.) Multiplier
Rel. Wall
Air Conditioning
Fire Sprinklers
TOTAL VALUE
Jurisdiction Code cb By Ordinance
--
1997 UBC Buildin Permit Fee ____ g ...
1997 UBC Plan Check Fee ___ ..,.~I
Type of Review: Complete Review
D Repetitive Fee __3 Repeats
Comments:
D Other
D Hourly
EsGil Fee
PLAN CHECK#.: CBR2018-0952
DATE: May 17, 2018
Reg. VALUE ($)
Mod.
21,446
21,446
D Structural Only
1-------11 Hr. @ •
$125.991
Sheet 1 of 1
•
•
•
GeoTek, Inc.
13&4 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, CA 92081-l!SOS
(760) 599-0509 (760) 599.0593 www.geotekusa.com
"a:,~~'. i
.. -•·-------··---------· -·~----~l
Mr. William King
5120Avenida Encinas Suite 100
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: Geotechnical Update and Plan Review
Proposed Parcel Map Residential Lot
TPM 13-02
Carlsbad, California
February 3, 2014
Project No.: 3438-SD3
Reference: I ) "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Parcel Subdivision, Buena
Vista Drive (sic) and James Drive, Carlsbad, California", By GeoTek. Inc. dated
November 19, 2004 (PN 2643-SD3)
2) "Tentative Parcel Map No. 13-02, 4 Lots and a Remainder Parcel", By Robert
0. Sukup, The Sea Bright Company, undated
Dear Mr. King:
In accordance with your request. this report is to update the 2004 "Preliminary Geotechnical
Evaluation" (Reference I) for the subject property and to review the referenced Tentative
Parcel Map (Reference 2). In preparing this letter we reviewed the referenced report and plan,
performed a brief site reconnaissance and reviewed aerial photographs available on Google
Earth dated October 2004, December 2005, January and June 2006. January, February and N"\
March 2008,June 2009, August and September 2010, and November 2012. • • J
Discussion
Site conditions are substantially similar to those at the time of our prior study. The only notable
difference is the apparent removal of vegetation south of the existing residence that apparently
occurred before the 2005 aerial photograph and near the northwest section of the site that
apparently occurred before the June 2006 aerial photograph.
Our review of the plan indicates that grading and development will be create new four parcels
and a remainder parcel, all zoned as R-1. Additional right of way will be dedicated for James
Drive, Buena Vista Way and Arland Road. Street widening will occur on Both James and Buena
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
• 0 z
~
0 w ::c
CJ z
:5
D..
•
•
•
Mr. Wllllam King
Carlsbad, California
Geotechnial Update and Plan Rt!Ylew
February 3, 201-4
Project No.: 3"'38-S03
Page 2 of 7
Vista. Plans indicate that 1450 cubic yards of cut and fill grading will occur to create level
building pads with associated slopes. All slopes are designed at gradients of 2: I or flatter. The
highest proposed slope is a fill over cut approximately I 5 feet high descending from Parcel 4 to
Parcel 3. Slopes to this height were addressed in Reference I and expected to meet or exceed
1.5 factor of safety. The deepest planned fill is approximately IO feet at the northeast corner of
parcel 4. The deepest planned cuts are about S'/, feet of Parcels 1-3. All four parcels are
planned as transition (cut/fill) lots.
Geotechnical conditions are relatively straight forward with paralic deposits (aka terrace
deposits) blanketed by up to two (2) feet of material considered to be "slopewash". The
slopewash and the upper portion of the paralic deposits are considered to be potentially
compressible. Testing indicated that site soils display very low expansion, although more
expansive soils may be encountered.
Recommendations
In general, the recommendations in our referenced report are considered valid and remain
applicable unless specifically modified herein. Based on the current plan and codes some
modifications are warranted. These are offered below:
Building Codes and Standards
Various sections of the prior Geotechnical Evaluation referred to codes or test procedures that
change over time. Example are: the 200 I California Building Code was referenced and ASTM
Standards have been updated. All such dated references should be considered updated to the
current code or procedure. As such, the 2013 California Building Code should be applied. With
respect to updated test procedures for ASTM Standards these changes are not considered
significant enough to warrant retesting at this time. ASTM standards referenced with dates are
subject to the current standards. Testing during construction should be consistent with the
then current standards.
Grading Procedures
The enclosed grading guidelines present general recommendations for site grading operations
and should be considered as part of this report.
Approximately three (3) of slopewash and weathered paralic deposits are anticipated to require
removal and recompaction. This may vary and some locally deeper areas may be encountered.
On transition lots or those with fill less than ten ( I 0) feet in depths, the base of the fill should
slope at a gradient no stepper than 3 (horizontal) to I (vertical). Cut areas and shallow fill areas
GEOTEK
•
•
•
Mr. William King
Carlsbad, California
Geotedmlcal Update and Plan Review
February 3, 201-4
Project No.: 3'438-S03
Page 3 of 7
on building pads should be over-excavated a minimum of 5 feet of below finish grade and
returned to grade as engineered fill.
Septic systems, buried foundations or other features associated with the existing residence on
the remainder parcel could be encountered during grading if so appropriate recommendations
can be offered at that time.
Care should be taken not to impact adjacent properties during site grading this particularly true
during needed removals.
Seismic Design Parameters
Current ground accelerations determined from the USGS Website, Earthquake Hazards
Program vary from the values presented in our prior report. Current values are provided
below. The site is located at latitude 33.1690 and longitude 117.3381. Site spectral
accelerations (Ss and SI), for 0.2 and 1.0 second periods and 2 percent probabRity of
exceedance in 50 years (MCE) was determined from the USGS Website, Earthquake Hazards
Program, Interpolated Probabilistic Ground Motion for the Conterminous 48 States. The site is
considered a Site Class "C". The results are presented in the following table:
SITE SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Man,...,1 0.2 sec Period -, .I Acceleration, Ss I 0 \ 1.030
Man=d 1.0 sec Period -, .I Acceleration, SI lo\ 0.434
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.00
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.00
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration
Parameter at 0.2 Second, SMS lo\ 1.030
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration
Parameter at I second, SM I lo\ 0.593
Des1= Snertr.o( Resr,onse Acceleration Parameter for 0.2 Second, SDS lo\ 0.753
Desi= S-ctral Res..,..nse Acceleration Parameter for 1.0 Second, SD I lo\ 0.395
Seismically resistant structural design in accordance with local building ordinances should be
followed during the design of the structures. The California Building Code (CBC) has been
developed to reduce the potential for structural damage. However, as the result of ground
shaking generated by nearby earthquakes some level of damage and associated economic
consequences are considered likely in this general area.
GEOTEK
•
•
•
Mr. Wilnam King
Carlsbad, California
Geotechnical Update and Plan Review
Foundation Design Criteria
F~rua,y 3, 2014
Project No.: 3438-SDl
Page 4 of 7
Preliminary foundation design criteria for a conventional foundation sysa,m, in general
conformance with the 2013 CBC and California Residential Code, are presented herein. These
are typical design criteria and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural
engineer. These recommendations also due not apply to areas that are delineated to have
structural setbacks.
Per the CBC site soils tested are not considered to be expansive soils. Below are preliminary
foundation recommendations assuming these conditions. If soils that are considered to be
expansive are placed in the upper portions of the fill then modified recommendations would be
required. Additional laboratory testing should be performed at/near the completion of site
grading to verify the expansion potential of the subgrade soils.
A summary of our preliminary foundation design recommendations are presented in the table
below:
TABLE I -MINIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
DESIGN PARAMETER E1<20 & P1<20
Foundation Depth or Minimum Perimeter Beam Supporting I Floor -12
Depth ~nches below lowest ~cent grade) Supporting 2 Aoors -18
Minimum Soil Embedment (Inches) 12
Foundation Width (Inches) Supporting I Floors -12
Supporting 2 Floors -15
Minimum Slab Thickness (Inches) 4 (actuaQ
Mlnimum Slab Reinforcing No. 3 rebar 24" on-center,
placed in middle third of slab
Minimum Footing Reinforcement Two (2) No. 4 Reinforcing Bars
One (I) top and one (I) bottom
Presaruratlon of Subgn,de Soll NotSpecltlc
/Percent of nn.lmum/De""" In Inches\ Wetted prior to pouring concrete
It should be noted that the above recommendations are based on soil support characteristics
only. The structural engineer should design the slab and beam reinforcement based on actual
loading conditions.
The following criteria for design of foundations should be implemented into design:
GEOTEK
•
•
•
Mr. WIHiam King
Carlsbad, California
Geotechnical Update and Plan Review
February 3, 2014
Project No.: 3-438-SO3
P3ge 5 of7
I . An allowable bearing capacity of 2000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for
design of continuous and perimeter footings at least 12 inches deep and 12 inches wide.
and pad footings 24 inches square and 12 inches deep. This value may be increased by
200 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in depth and 100 pounds per
square foot for each additional 12 inches In width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf.
Additionally, an increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live
loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads).
2. The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of
250 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf for footings
founded on engineered fill. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.25
may be used with dead load forces. The upper one foot of soil below the adjacent
grade should not be used in calculating passive pressure. When combining passive
pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced
by one-third.
3. A grade beam, 12 inches wide by 12 inches deep (minimum), should be utilized across
large opening or garage entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same
elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings.
4. Isolated exterior footings should be tied back to the main foundation system in at least
one (I) orthogonal directions.
It should be noted that additional recommendation may be needed in the event that deepened
foundations (i.e. piers/caissons) are determined to be needed in setback areas.
Miscellaneous Foundation Reconnnendatlons
I. To minimize moisture penetration beneath the slab on grade areas, utility trenches
should be backfilled with engineered fill, lean concrete or concrete slurry where they
intercept the perimeter footing or thickened slab edge.
2. Soils from the footing excavations should not be placed in the slab-on-grade areas unless
properly compacted and tested. The excavations should be free of loose/sloughed
materials and be neady trimmed at the time of concrete placement.
3. Under-slab utility trenches should be compacted to project specifications. Compaction
should be achieved with a mechanical compaction device. If backfill soils have dried out,
they should be thoroughly moisture conditioned prior to placement in trenches. •. Utility trench excavations should be shored or laid back in accordance with applicable
CAUOSHA standards.
5. On-site materials may not be suitable for use as bedding material, but will be suitable as
backfill. Jetting of native soils will not be acceptable.
GEOTEK
•
•
•
Mr. WIiiiam King
Carlsbad, California
Geotechnial Update and Plan Review
Settlement
February 3, 2014
Project No.: 3438-S03
Page 6 of7
The anticipated total and differential settlements are estimated less than I inch and In inch
over 40 feet of horizontal distance, respectively.
Foundation Set Backs
Minimum setbacks to all foundations should comply with the 2010 CBC. Any improvements
not conforming to these setbacks may be subject to lateral movements and/or differential
settlements:
• The outside bottom edge of all footings should be set back a minimum of H/3 (where H
is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setback should be at
least 7 feet and need not exceed 40 feet.
• The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls should be deepened so as
to extend below a I: I projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall stem.
• The bottom of any existing foundations for structures should be deepened so as to
extend below a I : I projection upward from the bottom of the nearest excavation .
Moisture and Vapor Retarding System
A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below slabs-on-grade where moisture
migration through the slab is undesirable. As a minimum, the capillary break and moisture
retarder should be in conformance with the 2013 CBC Section 1907.1 or, if adopted by the
local agency, the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Section 4.505
It should be realized that the effectiveness of the vapor retarding membrane can be adversely
impacted as the result of construction related punctures (e.g. stake penetrations, tears,
punctures from walking on the aggregate layer, etc.). These occurrences should be limited as
much as possible during construction. Thicker membranes are generally more puncture
resistant than thinner ones. Products specifically designed for use as moisture/vapor retarders
may also be more puncture resistant. It is GeoTek's opinion that a minimum 10 mil thick
membrane with joints properly overlapped and sealed should be used.
Moisture and vapor retarding systems constructed in compliance with Code minimums provide
a certain level of resistance to vapor and moisture transmission through the concrete, but do
not eliminate it. The acceptable level of moisture transmission through the slab is to a large
extent based on the type of flooring used. Ultimately, the vapor retarding system should be
comprised of suitable elements to limit migration of water and reduce transmission of water
GEOTEK
•
•
•
Mr. William King
Carlsbad, California
Geotechnical Update and Plan Review
February 3, 201-4
Project No.: 3438-5D3
Page 7 of 7
vapor through the slab to acceptable levels. The selected elements should have suitable
properties (i.e. thickness, composition, strength, and permeance) to achieve the desired
performance level. Consideration should be given to consulting with an individual possessing
specific expertise in this area for additional evaluation.
Pavement Design
The plans indicate 1hat pavement widening will be performed on both James Drive and Buena
Vista Way. Four (4) inches of asphaltic concrete (AC) on six (6) inches of aggregate base (AB)
is shown for both widenings. Per the City of Carlsbad Standards as indicated in Table A Street
Design Standards based on the right of way width both streets would be considered to be cul-
de-sacs having traffic indices (Tl) of 4.5. However, it is our understanding that the City has
indicated both streets are considered as having a Tl of 5.0. The indicated 4"AC on 6"AB is
likely more than sufficient for the anticipated R-Value conditions. Assuming an R-Value of 25
with a traffic index of 5.0 a section of 4"AC on 4"AB would be sufficient and meet City
minimum standards. The 4"AC on 6"AB section would accommodate a subgrade condition
with and R-Value of 13 or greater. R-Value testing when the subgrade is exposed should be
performed to assess the actual condition and final required sections.
The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning
this report, please do not hesitate to call the undersigned.
Respectfully Submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.
Distribution: I addressee
I Mr Robert 0. Sukup via Email
GEOTEK
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1•
I
I
I
I
I
RECEIVED
MAR 2 1 2013
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DIVISION .
UPDATE GEOTECH!'<1CAL Ev ALUATIO"i
FOR -.. ,
PROPOSED PARCEL SUBDMSIO"i
Bl'E'.'IA VISTA DRIVE AA'D JAl'1ES DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFOR.1"1A
PROJECT No.: 2643SD3
PREPARED FOR
WALTERS LAND SURVEYING
606 CASSIDY STREET, SUITE B
OCEA."ISIDE, CALIFOR.mA 92054
PREPARED BY
GE0TEK, INC.
1384 POINSETTIA AVEr-.TE
VISTA, CALIFOR.'°'11A 92081
NOVEMBER 19, 2004
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1384 Poinsetta Ave., Suite A
Vista, CA 92081-8505
(760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593
EK, INC.
Walters Land Surveying
606 Cassidy Street, Suite B
Oceanside, California 92054
Attention:
Subject:
Mr. John Walters
Update Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Parcel Subdivision
Buena Vista Drive and James Drive
Carlsbad, California
Geotechnical
Environmental
Materials
November 19, 2004
Project No.: 2643SD3
As requested and authorized, GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek) is pleased to provide herewith an
updated geotechnical report for the parcel located northwest of the intersection of Buena Vista
Drive and James Drive, in the City of Carlsbad, California. This report presents the results of
our investigation, discussion of our findings, and provides geotechnical recommendations
for foundation design and construction. In our opinion, the proposed development of the site
appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included
herein are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. Our previous
reports regarding the same subject may be considered superseded and are no longer referenced
or considered to be required for review.
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call our office.
Project Manager
( 4) Addressee
G:~Projectsl.Projects 1000 to 2999\Projects 2600 10 2649\.2643 Walters Land Surveys\Updte'Georpt.doc
-•, •-....... •11 ll H"'\J\ Uf"\
I
I ••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WALTERS LAJ\'U SURVEYING
Update Geotecbnical Evaluation
Proposed Parcel Subdivision
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project ~o.: 2643SD3 ·
November 19, 2004
Pase i
!. L'liTENT .................................................................... -.......•....••.•.•...........•.•..........•.•..•...........••••.......•.....•••.••........ 1
2. Pl"RPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ....•....•...•..•....•..•...............•...........••..........•...........•....•...........•••.•........ !
3. SITE DESCRIPTION A."'t'U PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...•........••................•..................•.•........••....•...... 2
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................. 2
4. FIELD EXPLOR.ATIO!'i A .. 'ID LABORATORY TESTING ...•.....•...•....•.......•...................•.....•..........•........... 2
4.1 FIELDEXPLORATION ...................................................................................................................................... 2
4.2 L'J!ORATORY TESTING .............................................................. : .................................................................... 3
5. GEOLOGIC A1'\'D SOILS CONDITIONS ......................................... ·----········--········--··--·······••0000000, 3
5.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
5.1.J Slopewash............................................... . ................................................................................. 3
5.1.2 Ten-ace Deposits ................................................................................................................................. 3
5.l SURFACEANDGROL'NDWATER .................................................................................................................... 3
5.3 FAULTrNG AND SCISMICITY ........................................................................................................................... 4
5.4 OTI!ER SEISMIC HAZARDS ................. -••. , ........................................................................................................ 4
6. CONCLUSIONS A.'\1) R.ECOMMENDATIO!'iS ........................................... ~ •.................•..•..•.•...•...•.......•..... 6
6.l EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS ............ , ............................ , ........................................................................... 6
6.1.1 General Grading Guidelines· .... : .......................................................................................................... 6
6.2 DESIGN RECOM:-12'1)ATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 7
6.2.1 Foundation Design Criteria ................................................................................................................ 7
6.2.2 Foundation Set Backs .......................................................................................................................... 8
6.2.3 Slab·On•Grade .................................................................................................................................... 9
6.3 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 9
6.3. I General. ............................................................................................................................................... 9
6.3.2 Cement Type ..................................................... : .................................................................................. 9
6.3.3 Concrete Flatwork .............................................................................................................................. 9
6.3.4 Concrete Cracking .............................................................................................................................. 9
6.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN ANDCONSTRUC10N ...... :.: . .' .............................................................................. 10
6.4.1 General Design Criteria .................................................................................................................... 10
6.5 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERA TJONS ........................................................................................ 11
6.5.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting .............................................................................................. 11
6.5.2 Drainage............................................................................................. . ...................................... 12
6.6 PLAN REVIEW A.l'<D CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................... 12
7. LTMIT~TIONS ................................................................. ____ ............................................................. 13
8. SELECTED REFERE'.\'CES ............................................................................................................................ 14
ENCLOSURES
Fieure 1 -Site Location Map
Fie:ure 2 -Trench Location Plan
Appendix A-Logs of Exploratory Borings
Aooendix B -Results of Laboratory Testing
I
I ,.
I
f
I
I
I
I
re
I
I
r
WALTERS LAND SURVEYING
Update Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Parcel Subdivision
1. INTENT
Project No.: 2643SD3
November 19, 2004
Pa2e l
It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and construction of the proposed
development. Implementation of the advice presented in Section 6 of this report is intended
to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and
geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of
the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or
after construction.
The scope of our evaluation is limited to the area explored that is shown on the Boring
Location Plan (Figure 2). This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to
encompass any areas beyond the spec_ifi_c area of the proposed construction as indicated to us
by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvemen\s is included. The scope
is based on our understanding of the project and the client's needs, and geotechnical
engineering standards normally used ori similar projects in this region.
2. PURPOSE A.\TD SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of this study was to provide a geotechnical evaluation based on current site
conditions and an updated site plan. Our previous report dated August 2, 2004 regarding the
same parcel should be considered superseded and no longer required for review with the
governing authorities on this project. Our eyaJuation for this site consisted of the following:
• Research and review of available published data regarding geologic and soil conditions at
the site.
• Site exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, a.'1d s:impling of 4 exploratory
borings.
• Review and evaluation of site seismicity, and
• Compilation of this report, which presents our findings, conclusions, and
recornrnendations for site development.
I
I ,•
•
•
WALTERS LA1'<1) SURVEYING
Update Geotecbnical Evaluation
Prooosed Parcel Subdivision
Project ::-,o.: 2643SD3
November 19, 2004
Page 2
3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOP.lVIEKT
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located to the northwest of the intersection of Buena Vista Drive and
James Drive, in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. An existing single-
family residence currently occupies the western portion of the site. This evaluation is specific
to the eastern portion of the site planned for the development. The project area is mostly
vacant land that measures approximately one acre. Access to the site is readily available off
of Buena Vista Drive. The site topography gently slopes to the east. Site vegetation is
relatively sparse with a few large trees.
3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENJ' .
' It is our understanding that the site is proposed for three new single-family residences as part
of a four parcel developments. Grading plans provided by Walters Land Surveying (Figure
2), untitled and undated were provided for this update report. Cuts and fills depths ofup to 12
feet ;viii be required to achieve finish grades. Cut and fill slopes up to 15 feet in height are
planned. It is assumed that the proposed residences will be one or two-story wooden frame
structures with conventional slab on grade type foundations.
4. FIELD EXPLORATION A.\1D LABORATORY TESTil\'G
4.1 flELD EXPLOR\TION
The field exploration was conducted on July 16, 2004. The four exploratory borings were
excavated with a limited access drill rig to a maximum depth of 11.5 feet and terminated
primarily due to encountering dense formational materials. A geologist from our firm logged
the excavations and collected representative soil samples for further laboratory testing. The
logs of the exploratory borings are included in Appendix A. The locations of the exploratory
borings are shown on Figure 2 .
I
r
r•
r
I
I
I
I
I
re
I
I
I
l
I -.
l
I.
WALTERS LAND SURVEYING
Update Geotecbnical Evaluation
Proposed Parcel Subdivision
4.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Project No.: 2643SD3
November 19, 2004
Page 3
Laboratory testing was performed on selected·disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples
collected during our field investigation. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confinn ·
the field classification of the soil materials encountered and to evaluate their physical
properties for use in the engineering design and analysis. The results of the laboratory-testing
program along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures
are included in Appendix B.
5. GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CO~'DITIONS
5.1 GENER.\!.
A brief description of the earth materials encountered is presented in the follo\ving sections
of this report. A more detailed description of these materials is provided on the exploratory
borings included in Appendix A.
5.1.1 Slopewash
The slopewash layer constitutes up to 2 feet of the surficial materials. The slopewash is
described as bro\vn silty sand. Based on our experience and testing on similar soils, these
materials posses a very low expansion potential (EI<21) in accordance with Table 18-I-B of
the 2001 California Building Code (CBC).
5.1.2 Terrace Deposits
The Pleistocene aged Terrace Deposits underlie the surficial materials at this site. These
sedimentary materials were encountered to the maximum depths explored of 11.5 feet below
existing grade and consisted primarily of reddish-brown silty sand. Based on our experience
and laboratory testing, these materials posses a very low expansion potential (EI<2 l).
-' :, .. SURFACE A.i'iD GROUND WATER
No surface water or ponding was observed at the time of the field investigation. Overall site
drainage is generally to the east. All site drainage should be reviewed and designed by the
project civil engineer.
\.~: ... ·•.;m). E .. • ... ,,, ' .EK
I
' I •• I
•
•
WALTERS LAND SURVEYING
Update Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Parcel Subdivision
Project No.: 2643SD3
November 19, 2004
Page4
Groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory excavation. No natural groundwater
condition is known to be present which ..yould impact site development. However,
groundwater or localized seepage can occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation practices,
and other factors not evident at the time of this investigation.
5.3 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
The site is in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is knov.11 to exist
at this site nor is it situated within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Special Studies
Zone). The Newport-Inglewood (offshore) Fault is the nearest known active fault located
approximately 5.6 miles west of the site.
The computer program EQFAULT, version 3.00 (Blake 1989, updated 2000) was used to
determine the distance to known f~ul_ts and estimate peak ground accelerations. The
1'iewport-Inglewood (offshore) Fault is considered to represent the hjghest risk to generate
ground shaking. A maximum seismic_ event of magnitude 6.9 is postulated based on a
deterministic analysis. The estimated peak site acceleration is 0.42g .
Seismically resistant structural design in accordance with local building ordinances should be
followed during the design of all structures. Building Codes have been developed to
minimize structural damage. However, some level of damage as the result of ground shaking
generated by nearby earthquakes is considered likely in this general area.
'
For the purpose of seismic design a Type B seismic· source at a distance of 9.0 km from the
site may be used. Shown in Table 5.3.l below are seismic design factors in keeping with the
criteria presented in the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), Division IV & V, Chapter 16.
TABLE 5.3.1-SEISMIC DESIGN PARA.WETERS
Soil Profile
I I
Seismic
Parameters TYJJe C, C, N, N, Source Tyue
Source Table 16J 16Q 16R 16S 16T I 16U I
Value Sc 0.40 0.56 1.0 1.1 I
I B
5.4 OTHER SEISMIC HAZARDS
The liquefaction potential on the site is considered to be very low due to the dense nature of
the subsurface soils and Jack of a shallow groundwater.
\.,·_:·-. . ,.,
' ", ,,
I
I
I
I
re
I
•
WALTERS LA.'\"D SURVEYING
Update Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Parcel Subdivision
Project No.: 2643SD3
November I 9, 2004
Pa•e 5
The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as seiche and tsunami are considered to be
negligible due site elevation and distance from an open body of water.
Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at this site was not observed du.ring our
investigation. Accordingly, the potential for landslides is considered low.
I
I
I
I
•
WALTERS LAJl<"D SURVEYING
Update Geotecbnical Evaluation
Proposed Parcel Subdivision
Project No.: 2643SD3
November 19, 2004
Page 6
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECO1"1MENDATIONS
The proposed development of the site appears feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint
provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and
construction phases of development.
6.1 EARTH\VORK CONSIDERATIONS
6.1.1 General Grading Guidelines
6.1.1.1 Grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the local grading
ordinances, applicable provisions of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), and
our recommendations presented herein.
6.1.1.2 Prior to site grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site to
discuss earthwork considerations and compliance with the recommendations
presented herein. At a minimum, the o,vner, grading contractor, civil engineer and
geotechnical engineer should be in attendance.
6.1.1.3 The grading contractor should take all precautions deemed necessary during site
grading to maintain adequate safety measures and working conditions. All
applicable safety requirements of CAL-OS!L.\ should be met during construction.
6.1.1.4 Site preparation should start with the removal of deleterious materials and vegetation
and disposed properly off site.
6.1.1.5 Temporary excavations within the onsite formational materials should be stable at
lH: IV inclinations for short durations during construction, and where cuts do not
exceed IO feet in height.
6.1.1.6 The top 2 to 3 feet of alluvial materials are relatively dry and potentially
compressible, thus they should be removed and recompacted beneath all settlement-
sensitive structures. Depending on actual field conditions encountered during
grading, locally deeper areas of removal may be necessary. The lateral extent of
removal beyond the outside edge of all settlement-sensitive structures/foundations
should be equivalent to that vertically removed. Similarly, all compacted fill should
extend laterally from the outside edge of foundations to a distance equal to the depth
of filling .
\~'••·.~ , I
.EK
I
I • I
I
I
I
I
•
WALTERS LAND SURVEYDiG
Update Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Parcel Subdivision
Project No.: 2643SD3
November 19, 2004
Page 7
6.1.1.7 Excavations in the on site materials within the depth explored of 11.5 feet should be
generally accomplished with heavy-duty earthmoving or excavating equipment.
6.1. l.8 The on-site materials are considered suitable for reuse as compacted fill provided
they are free from vegetation, roots, and cobbles and boulders greater than 6 inches
in diameter. The earthwork contractor should ensure that all proposed excavated
materials to be used for backfilling at this project are approved by the soils engineer.
6.1.1.9 Any undercut areas should be brought to final grade elevations with fill compacted in
layers no thicker than 8 inches compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry
density at near optimum moisture content, as determined in accordance with ASTM
Test Method D1557-00. Prior to receiving fill, the bottom of excavation should be
scarified to a depth of 6 inches; moisture conditioned, and recompacted to at least 90
percent of maximum dry density.
6.1.1.10 Where fill is being placed on __ slopes steeper than 5:1, the fill should be property
benched into the existing slopes and a sufficient size keyway shall be constructed in
accordance with the recommendations of the soils engineer. ;
6.1.1.11 Proposed cut and fill slopes on the site are designed to a maximum height of
approximately 15 feet. Based on 2:1 gradients or flatter, these slopes should exhibit a
minimum factor of safety of 1.5: 1 for an overall gross stability. All cut slopes or
backcut excavations should be geclogically mapped during grading to check for the
presence of potentially adverse geologic conditions.
6.2 DESIGN RECOl\DIEl'll)ATIONS
6.2.1 Foundation Design Criteria
Foundation design criteria for conventional slab-on-grade system in conformance with the
2001 CBC are presented in Table 6.3.1, below. These are typical design criteria and are not
intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer.
The majority of the onsite materials are classified as very low expansion soils. Laboratory
testing of soils near finish grade should be performed at the completion of site grading to
verify the actual conditions. We anticipate that the compacted fill soils will typically possess
very low (0<EI<2 l) and Plastic Index (PI) of less than 15. Thus, we recommend that
drawings be prepared for the soil conditions presented in the Table 6.3.1 below. Actual as
graded conditions will determine the applicable foundation design criteria .
I
[
r
r
[
[
••
WALTERS LAND SURVEYING
Update Gcotecbnical Evaluation
Proooscd Parcel Subdivision
Project No.: 2643SD3
November 19, 2004
Paee 8
T ,\BLE 6 3 1 -MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA . .. .
,
DESIGN PAIU..c'l-!ETER E.I. < 20
P J . .::: 15
I Foundation Depth or Perimeter Beam depth One Story-12
I (inches below lowest adjacent grade) Two story-18
I One Story -12 Foundation Width (Inches) Two story-15
Maximum Beam Spacing (feet) NA
I l' I NA (Cantilevered length as soil function)
Minimum Slab Thickness (inches) 4
I Presaturation of sub grade soil(% of Subgrade to be well wetted before pouring concrete Optimum/Depth in inches)
.A..n allowable bearing capacity of2500 pounds per square foot (psf), including both dead and
live loads, may be used if footings are designed in accordance with the above criteria. The
allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third when considering shon-term live
loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads).
The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 150
psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2000 psf. A coefficient of friction
between soil and concrete of 0.30 may be used with dead load forces. When combining
passive pressure and fi.ictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced
by one-third.
6.2.2 Foundation Set Backs
\\There applicable, the following foundation setbacks should apply to all foundations. Any
improvements not conforming to these setbacks may be subject to lateral movements and/or
differential settlements:
6.2.2.1 The outside bottom edge of all footings should be set back a minimum of H,3 (where
H is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setback should be
at least 7 feet and need not exceed 20 feet.
6.2.2.2 The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls should be deepened so
as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the ~-an
stern.
I
I
I
r
r
[
[
[
•
WALTERSLA.'WSURVEYING
Update Geotecbnical Evaluation
Proposed Parcel Subdivision
Project No.: 2643SD3
November 19, 2004
Page 9
6.2.2.3 The bottom of any existing foundations for structures should be deepened so as to :
extend below a 1: 1 projection upward from the bottom of the nearest excavation.
6.2.3 Slab-On-Grade
vVhere applicable, concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with
No. 3 steel bars placed at 24 inches on center, both ways. The slab reinforcement should be
positioned at mid-height within the concrete slab. Control joints should be provided to help
minimize random cracking. Where moisture condensation is undesirable, all slabs should be
underlain with a minimum 10 mil polyvinyl chloride membrane, sandwiched between t\vo
layers of clean sand, S.E. 30 or greater, each being at least two inches thick. Care should be
taken to adequately seal all seams and not puncture or tear the membrane. The sand should be
proof rolled.
6.3 CO!\'CRETE CONSTRUCTION
6.3.1 General
Concrete construction should follow the CBC and ACI guidelines regarding design, mix
placement and curing of the concrete. If desired, we could provide quality control testing of
the concrete during construction.
6.3.2 Cement Type
Laboratory testing indicates that the sulfate content of the soil tested is less than 0.10%,
which is considered to be negligible in accordance with Table 19-A-4 of the CBC. Cement
Type II or equivalent may be used.
6.3.3 Concrete Flatwork
Exterior concrete flatwork (patios, walkways, driveways, etc.) is often some of the most
visible aspects of site development. They are typically given the least level of quality control,
being considered "non-structural" components. Cracking of these features is fairly common
due to various factors. ·while cracking is not usually detrimental, it is unsightly. We suggest
that the same standards of care be applied to these features as to the structure itself.
6.3.4 Concrete Cracking
Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are essentially
unnoticed to more than 1/8 inch in widtn. Most cracks in concrete while unsightly do not
significantly impact long-term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper
concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks
I
I
I
I
I
WALTERS LAND SURVEYING
Update Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Parcel Subclivisjon
Project No.: 2643SD3
November 19, 2004
Paee 10
that occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to minimize it. Concrete
undergoes chemical processes that are depen1ent on a wide range of variables, which are
difficult, at best, to control. Concrete, while seemingly a stable material, also is subject to
internal expansion and contraction due to external changes over time.
One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened joints for cracking to
occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point
for the stresses that develop. These joints are widely accepted means to control cracks but are
not always effective.
Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced. We would suggest that control
joints be placed in two directions spaced the numeric equivalent of two times thickness of the
slab in inches changed to feet (e.g. a 4 inch slab would have control joints at 8 feet centers).
As a practical matter, this is not alwa~s_vossible nor is it a widely applied standard.
6.4 RETAINING \VALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
, • 6.4.1 General Design Criteria
•
Recommendations below may be applied to typical. masonry or concrete vertical retaining
walls to a maximum height of 10 feet. Additional review and recommendations should be
requested for higher walls.
6.4. 1. 1 Recommendations were developed assuming that wall backfill placed within a 1 to 1
projection behind any wall is comprised of onsite soils with a very low expansion
potential. The backfill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than 8-inches in
thickness and compacted at 90% relative compaction at optimum moisture content or
higher. Backfill soil should be properly drained to prevent buildup of hydrostatic
pressures.
6.4.1.2 Retaining walls embedded a IIllillillUm of 18 inches into compacted fill or
formational materials should be designed using a net allowable bearing capacity of
2,500 psf. An increase of one-third may be applied when considering short-term live
loads (e.g. seismic and wind loads).
6.4.1.3 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density
of250 psfper foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of3,000 psf. A coefficient
of friction between soil and concrete of 0.40 may be used with dead load forces.
When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third.
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
WALTERS LAND SURVEYING
Update Geotecbnical Evaluation
Proposed Patee! Subdivision
Ptoject No.: 2643$D3
November 19, 2004
Pa2e 11
6.4.1.3 The passive earth pressure may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density
of 250 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 3,000 psf. A coefficient
of friction between soil and concrete of 0.40 may be used with dead load forces.
When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third.
6.4.1.4 An equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal active
pressure against the wall. The appropriate fluid unit weights are given in Table 6.5.1
below for specific slope gradients of retained materials.
6.5
6.5.1
TABLE 6.5.1-ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES
Surface Slope of Retained Materials Equivalent Fluid Pressure
(H:V) (PCF)
Level 33
2:1 ... 45
The above equivalent fluid weights do not include other superimposed loading
conditions such as expansive soil, vehicular traffic, structures, seismic conditions or
adverse geologic conditions.
POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Landscape :Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent ~trength of soil, and slope stability 1s
significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded
slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life
should be provided for planted slopes. Controlling surface drainage and runoff, and
maintaining a suitable vegetation cover can minimize erosion. Plants selected for landscaping
· should be lightweight, deep-rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving
the prevailing climate.
Over watering should be avoided. The soils should be maintained in a solid to semi-solid
state as defined by tl1e materials Atterberg Limits. Care should be taken when adding soil
amendments to avoid excessive watering. Leaching as a method of soil preparation prior to
planting is not recommended.
An abatement program to control ground-burrowing rodents should be implemented and
maintained. This is critical as burrowing rodents can decreased the long-term performance of
slopes.
····.·_ .... J.__ ,: :EK
I
'• I
I
I
r
I
I
WALTERS LA."ID SURVEYING
Update Geotecbnical Evaluation
Proposed Parcel SubdMsion
Project No.: 2643SD3
November I 9, 2004
Pa2e 12
It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to structures in planter or lawn areas. This
will result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to the foundation. This type
of landscaping should be avoided. If used, then extreme care should be exercised with regard
to the irrigation and drainage in these areas. Waterproofing of the foundation and/or
subdrains may be warranted and advisable. We could discuss these issues, if desired, when
plans are made available.
6.5.2 Drainage
The need to maintain proper surface drainage and subsurface systems cannot be overly
emphasized. Positive site drainage should be 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 or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed
toward approved area(s). Positive drainage should not be blocked by other improvements.
Even apparently minor changes or modifications can cause problems. '
6.6 PLA."I REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS
We recommend that site grading, specifications, and foundation plans be reviewed by this
office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this
report. We also recommend that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and
foundation construction to check for proper implementation of the geotechnical
recommendations. These representatives should perf'orrn at least the following duties:
• Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable
materials.
• Observe bottom of removals prior to fill placement.
• Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement, and collect soil
samples for laboratory testing where necessary.
• Observe the fill for uniformity during placement including utility trenches. Also, test the
fill for field density and relative compaction.
• Observe and probe foundation materials to confirm suitability of bearing materials and
proper footing dimensions.
• If requested, GeoTek will provide a construction observation and compaction repon to
comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction oYer the
I
•• I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
•
WALTERS LAND SURVEYl.'IG
Update Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Parcel Subdivision
project. We recommend that these agencies be notified prior
construction so that necessary grading permits c~ be obtained.
7. LIMITATIONS
Project No.: 2643SD3
November 19, 2004
Paee 13
to commencement of
The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however,
soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or
conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal
changes or other factors. GeoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing
or recommendations performed or provided by others.
Since our recommendations are based the site conditions observed and encountered, and
laboratory testing, our conclusion and _recommendations are professional opinions that are
limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during constipction are important to
allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. 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.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WALTERS LAND SURVEYING
Update Geotechnical Evaluation
Prooosed Parcel Subdivision
8. SELECTED REFERENCES
Project No.: 2643SD3
November 19, 2004
Pa,e 14
1. ASTM, 200, "Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing and Materials," vol. 4.08 for
ASTM test methods D-420 to D-4914, 153 standards, 1,026 pages; and vol. 4.09 for
ASTM test method D-4943 to highest number.
2. Blake, T., 1989, "EQFAULT, version 3.00, updated 2000", a Computer Program for
Deterministic Estimation ofMa.ximum Earthquake Event and Peak Ground Acceleration.
3. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 1998 "California Building Code," 3 volumes.
4. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating
and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," Special Publication 117.
5. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault
Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of':t-<evada: International
Conference of Building Officials.· ·
6. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1996, Geologic Maps of the
Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, Plate I-Oceanside, San Luis Rey,
and San Marcos 7.5 Quadrangles, Plate 2-Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5
Quadrangles
7. GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information,
8. Seed, H.B., and 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, vol. 111, no. GT12, pp.1425-
1445.
9. Youd, T. Leslie and Idriss, Izzmat M., 1997, Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on
Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -.
I
Source: The Thomas Brothers Guide, 2004 Edition.
Walters Land SurHYino . ::,
Proposed Residential Project
Buena \·istaDrive and James Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
GeoTek :\umber: 2643-SDJ
.2: -~
Fi~ure 1
Site
Location
lVlap
.. --:.;.•'
1384 Poinsettia AYenue, Suite A
Vista, California 92081-8505
I
I
I
"'alters Land SurveYina . " Proposed Residential Project
Buena Vista Drive and James Dri,·e
Carlsbad, California 92008
GeoTek l1/umber: 2643SD3
___ ,701i-------f--~
-· ----AA'fr--Ho :e......,_._) -
___,.
LEGEND
B-4.
Exploratory
Boring Location
Plan
· Approximate location of exploratory boring
1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A
Vista, California 92081-8505
.----·-__ , ____
I
I ••
I
I
I
I APPENDIX A
I LOGSOFEXPLORATORYBORL~GS
I ,.
l
I
I
l
Proposed Parcel Subdivision
Carlsbad, California
I Project No.: 2643SD3
I
le
I
I
\GfiK
I
I ,•
I
I
I
I
I
I
'• I
WALTERS LA..'ID SURVEYING
Update Geotechnical Evaluation
Pronosed Parcel Subdivision
A -FIELD TESTING Al"1> SAl'\1:PLING PROCEDURES
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
APPENDIX A
November 19, 2004
Pa~e A-1
The SPT is performed in accordance with ASTh1 Test Method D 1586-99. The SPT sampler is
typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height
of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of
boring. The split-barrel sampler has an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter
of 1-3/8 inches. The samples of earth materials collected in the sampler are typically classified in the
field, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for further testing.
The Modified Split-Barrel Samnler rRin[)
The Ring sampler is driven into the ground in accordance with AS1M Test Method D 3550-84. The
sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with !-inch long, thin brass r.ngs with inside
diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or I 8
inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded
for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the
sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and .transported to the laboratory for testing.
Lar[e Bulk Samples
Bulk samples are normally bags of representative earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected
from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings.
Small Bulk Samples
Plastic bags samples are normally airtight and contain less than 5 pounds in weight of representative
earth materials collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. These
samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and classification indices.
B -BORING LOG LEGE::'l'D
The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and
rock on the logs of borings:
SOILS
L'SCS Unified Soil Classification System
f-.: Fine to coarse
f-m Fine to medium
GEOLOGIC
B: Anitudes
J: Anitudes
C:
Bedding: strike/dip
Joint: strike.:dip
Contact line
Dashed line denotes approximate USCS material change
Solid Line denotes approximate Wlit I formational change
Thick solid line denotes approximate end of boring
(Additional denotations and s1mbols are provided on the logs of borings)
1-
:•
I
I 1•
I_
le
I
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
CLIENT: Walters Land Surveys DRILLER: _ _;S"":::"'=Coas=t:,D::ritt:,:i:,no,___
DRILL METHOD: _ _,6"c.e,Soe,l~e_eSte,,m"'-'A,e,!i!i'o.'-
HAMMER: _ _:;1':,0c,IO,;w::1-'3::,0"_;d:cn>,:oc..._
LOGGED BY: ____ -::TC::;S:c_ __ _
PROJECTNAME~, _ _,e,,,:::ena"'-'V,,=tai::J:::am="':.=Driv=•--
PROJECT NO.: 26438D3
OPERATOR: ____ _,Ro°"""-----
RIG TYPE: __ _,u,c·m,:lt,:ed"-"A"'="'=.:"::,'"=~::":::'--
LOCATION• See Site Plan DATE· 7M&1).t
SAMPLES c Laboratorv Testina
~ ~ g ; t BORING NO.: B-1 .. " . ' !"' . t ... ~ t.g ., •= • • l ., • • 15. iii :; u l: ii c~ 5 C E ., z ., g • " ~ ., MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS tJ
Slopewash
SM Bl'O'M'I, dry, loose to medium dense, silty fine SAND; abundant gopher . holes .
Terrace Deposits . SM Reddish•brown, dry to moist, medium dense, silty f·m SANO; orange . mottling, manganese staining, 1Neakly cemented
16
22
5 27 81·1 6.2 113 SHE.4.R
18
27 @ 5.5 feet becomes dense; moist
32 B1·2 8.3 112 -.
-.
-. . .
10 17
25 . . 31 B1·3 6.2 115 . .
. . HOLE TERMINATED AT 11.5 FE:T . -No groundwater observed
15 , • Hole backfilled with soil cuttings
. .
.
.
----
20 • ---.
-. -.
25 •
-.
-. . . . . . .
C, Samele n'.ee: • 1-sPT 0-smaUBulk [8J D -No Recovery ~ z Ring Large B~lk Water Tanle
"' "' A.l = Attertierg Limns El = Expansion lnaex SA ,. Sieve AnalysiS ~ Lab testing: RV"' R•Value Test
SR• Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH • Shear Test CO = Consolidation test MD ,. Maximum Density
I GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
CLIENT: Watters Land Surveys
PROJECT NAME:0 -..:•:::uena="-v•=""=J=•:ama:,.:c°"""='--
PROJECT NO.: 2643803
LOCATION• See Sile Plan
DRILLER: SoulhCoast Drilling
DRILL METHOD: r Solid Stem Auger
HAMMER: 140 lb wl 30" drop
LOGGEO BY: ____ -:"TC::,S:..... ___ _
OPERATOR: ____ -'R='i!'=-----
RIG TYPf: __ ~U~m,~·"~'"'"""'""'c-'c,w~l-="='--
DATe:· Tt1BI04
I
SAMPLES ~ Laboratorv Testina ~ g § s II [ BORING NO.: B-2 bl ~ l 0 " §'i • • l " -.. l ... " lj o_ E " '5 0 • " ~ ., MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ANO COMMENTS "
I
·IX 82-1 Sloeewash
SM Brown, dry, loose to medium dense, silty fine SAND: abundant gophe . 12 h,.,_l•c:
27 Terrace neoosits
50-4" B2-2 SM Reddish-brown, dry, very dense, silty fine SAND 2.9 117 .
I . @ 3.5 feet• difficult drilling .
s:I 30
42 82-3
I . HOLE TERMINATED AT 5.5 FEET .
'
. -No groundwater observed
I
• Hole backfilled with soil cuttings . . . -.• .
10 ·
I . . . . .
. . .
.
I 15 •
. -.
.
I . .. .
. .
I .
20 •
I . . .
. .
25 • . .
. . .
. . .
0 Samgle~ee: • l-sPT IZ]-sman Bulk l:8J-Larve Sulk • ~ "' RJag No Recovery Water Table "' Iii Lab te!t[!'.l g: Al • Attertier; Limits El "' Expansion Index SA • Sieve AnalysiS RV. R-Value Test ...
SR == Suffat~esiStlvtty Test SH = Shear Test CO • ConsOlidalion tesl MD = Maximum Density
L GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
CLIENT: Walters Land Surveys DRILLER: SoulhCoast Crllling LOGGED BY: ____ __,_TC::,S,:_ ___ _
PROJECT NAME0: _ _,Be,u<:::"':::-=\/btal=:::'""=es::..::cOn:::,e~-
PROJECT NO.: 2643S03
CRILL METl-1OO: e-Sofid Siem Auger
HAMMER: 140 lbw/ 30-droD
OPERATOR: ____ --'-Ro=•::.•----
RJG TYPE: __ :LI:::m,=lled=A=ca,=ss'-'w:::lca=th=,a~d--
LOCATION· See SIie Plan OATE• 7/16/04
SAMPLES ~ Laboratorv Testina
I
g ! s • • t BORING NO.: 8-3 ;; ~
& ~ "' ·= • ;; ~ ! J 11 "' ... !R & ~ E " ~6 ~-0 "'Z "' • ::, a "' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS " SIOl?!Wash
SM Sl'O\Yll, dry, loose to medium dense, silty fine SANO; abundant gopher
I 5 "-1--
8
14 B3-1 Terrace Deposits 3 .. 5 114
SM Reddish-brD'NTl, dry to moist, dense, silty f-m SAND; orange mottling,
I
. ~ manganese staining, weakly cemented . . B3·2 E!, Sulfate
.
5 18
I
. 22
34 B3-3 8.8 117
-
I . . -" -
I
10 • 14 -. . 18 -22 B3-4 . . HOLE TERMINATED AT 11.5 FEET . . -No groundwater observed . -Hole backfilled with soil cuttings .
( 15 • . . --I -
-
I 20 --.
I .
.
-.
25 •
-.
-.
-.
• . . . .
l Q Samele b;Qe: • -Ring 1-sPT [Zl-sma11 Bulk ~ D -No Reeovery g. -Water Tabte z l.arge Bulk
"' " Al. "' Attertlerg Limits El = ExpansiOn Index SA = Sieve Analysi.s Ill Lab testing: RV• R•Value Test .. SR "' Suttale/ResiStivity Test SH ~ Shear Test CO • ConsoUdallcn 1est MO • Maximum Density
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'• I
GeoTek, Inc.
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING
CLIENT: We,llers Land Sutveys
PROJECTNAME::__,B="~""'"'-'V~l•=lal~J=,m,:,ee~•~em,~-~•--
DRILLER! SouthCoast Drilling
tlRILL METHOD: 6" 50110 Stem Auger
LOGGEO BY: _____ T"c"'s ___ _
PROJECT NO.: 26435D3 HAMMER: 140 lb wl30" drop
OPERATOR: __ :--.,-CR:oog<:°'C.,---,---
RIG TYPE: __ _,Liaa'ma,,t"'od"A"'c":e","'"'w"/ca"'l" .... ='--LOCATION· See Site Plan DATE· 7f16/04
SAMPLES " Laboratorv Testina
~ ~ ;; -• •• i BORING NO.: B-4 f i ~ ~ !1 "' •= ii;i e • ] ., ~u ~ • ..,. " ;: . 0" 0 ; "'% "' 0 ~ 0 "' ~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS " C
' S109:ewash
'' 5
Brown, dry, medium dense, silty fine SAND; abundant gopher holes
6
8 84-1 T ernce nep0s1ts . Reddish-brown, dry to moist, medium dense, silty f-m SAND; orange
mottling, manganese staining, weakly cemented
.
5. I 7 . 13
14 84-2 SA .
. . . . . .. . @ 10 feet .. becomes very dense 10 • 18
26 ' 37 84-3 . . HOLE TERMINATED AT 11.5 FEET . . -No ground'Nater observed
'
-Hole backfilled with soil cuttings
15 • . .
. .
' . . .
20,
'
' . . . .
-
.
25 • .
' .
.
'
'
'
0 Samele 3i'.ce: • 1-sPT 0-sma!IBulk ~-Large Bulk • ~ z Ring Ne Reeonry Water Table "' " Al = Atterberg Umils El= Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV= RNaJue Test "' Lab testlngi .,
SR = Sulfate/ResiSlivlly T esl SH= Shear Tes! co = consclldatlon tes1 MO= Maximum Density
I
I ••
I
I
I
I
I
I
le
I
I
I
I
I
I
'• I
APPENDIXB
LABORA.J'ORY TESTING RESULTS
Proposed Parcel Subdivision
Carlsbad, California
Project No.: 2643SD3
I
I ••
I
I
I
I
I
I ,.
I
I
I
•
WALTERS LA.'l'D SURVEYDIG
Update Geotechnical Evaluation
Proposed Parcel Subdivision
SUM:"\L-IBY OF LABOR,\TORY TESTL"IG
Classification
APPE"<l)IX B
November 19, 2004
Paee B-1
Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test
Method D2487). The soil classifications are shown on the logs of exploratory trenches in
Appendix A.
Grain size distribution (particle size analysis) was performed on a selected sample m
accordance with ASTM D422. Results of grain size analysis are shown included herein.
Expansio11 Index
Expansion Index testing was perfonned on a representative soil sample. Testing was
performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. Results are included
herein.
Direct Skear
Shear testing was performed in a direct shear machine of the strain-control type in general
accordance with ASTM Test Method D3080. The rate of defonnation is approximately 0.03
inches per minute. The samples were sheared under varying confining loads in order to
determine the coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. The
tests were perfonned on ring samples collected during our subsurface exploration. The shear
test results are included herein.
Sulfate Content
The water-soluble sulfate content is measured in accordance with California Test No. 417.
The results indicate a sulfate content less than 0.1, which is considered negligible as per Table
19-A-4 of the CBC.
In Situ Moisture and Unit Weight
The field moisture content was measured in the laboratory on selected samples collected
during the field investigation. The field moisture content is detennined as a percentage of the
dry unit weight. Results of these tests are presented on the logs of exploratory borings in
Appendix A. The dry density was measured in the laboratory on selected ring samples. The
results are shown on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A.
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
'• I
I
0:: w z u:::
I-z w u
0:: w
CL
I
Particle Size Distribution Report
• • • • • ~ ; ~ ;: ! ~ ~ ~ • " 5 • • • = ~ . " --" ~ 100 ' I 1:1
I
; I' ! 11 l I I ful' I
'i I"'. ' I ' I I !:\ I
. I-' I \: I I I ' I 'i :· I I i I i I 'I I.
:1 I·: ', I ' ::' I I I : I :I j: "I ' i ! ' ! I I ,,
90 I I , Ii:
I! !Jlli :; ' I i, i
I
i ,,
I i l ' ii ' ' ' I 11 I i i I I I I I I! I i I I •1' I .I I i ;
80 I I I I" F ' Ii
I !I i' I i :: I::: ! I
' ., I I i 11
i I .: I,,, I '
1:i ! I I I I I I
I ' i ' I I i I i •11 ! ' I I I: i I ' .:. I I ' I
70 I' , I ! I
I I
I
! I ! I I I i\ ! . I ' Iii I I I ! ! : I I 1:I I i: I I .; I'' i ' ' i I I I I i1: I ! i I I I i I iii! ' i\ ! I I I I ! I ! ' I : '
! i ' ' ' 60 Ui I I' I' I ' I! I ' i ;I i:i ' i I i; I I I I i ' ' ' I , I i 'I ' ; F: I I Ii I ! :I I : ' :; ! ::, : : ! I ' : :[ ",: ' I I : i:i i F ' : ' I i :1 : i I ! I ,, "' ' 50
' I ' : I I ! i ,. ,.
I I' I 'I :\1 :1!:1! ; ! I
' I I I I I i I ' : ' I.' \: I . I
I ! I" i
1: I! l : I Ii I : l ::ii:: I' I
! !! I 1: " I I' I ' : . I I 40 ' I I !:i i I: " \ i
1 ·
I ':\ \ !j]!: II 'i I ,· ' I'
I ' 1:1 I !: ' : ' 11 i :I : 'I !
' i : i I iii i ' i I: Ii I ! I : i ·' r1,I, I I I I i i
I I ': : I,
30 I I 11 1 I : I i I I •'8·: ' ; ' I ! ' i i :
I I 1, I ! ! I: I; i : I . •-... : ' i ' I I ' f] : il: rn l i ' ' 'I :
i
'' I '" ]: i I : ' ! '' ' ' ' 1:: I I : '' ' ! 20 ii:i I !: I 1:
ii : i ! ~ l i 1 i I I! ! I i ,, I 1, ' I: I
i
' Ii. 1 i' I ' I : I I i I
i ; i' I I ! : I :! I i:i I \
I I' I ! I : I :1, 1:1 I ! ! i ' ! ' I 10 I I"' I I 11 I i
I
I
I I I :i:1:1' I I ! I ''! r ! : i
1:1 I 11i: !
I .. ! , I,
I 1!
'' I I :1 ;; ' I'! I ! I !I :I I I I' I i
0 ! :1 ! I' ' ,, ! ; 'i ! :: ' ! ! ! !
500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE -mm
¾ COBBLES I %GRAVEL 'lo SAND I 0/, SILT I 'lo CLAY I
0,0 I 0.0 I 75,3 I 24.7 I
SIEVE PERCENT
I
SPEC.* PASS? Soll Descri11tion
SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO) Reddish brown silty medium to fine SA,"<D
#16 100,0
#30 95.6
#40 79,7
#50 55,8 Atterberg Limits
#]00 31.4 PL= LL= Pl= #200 24.7
Coefficients
Das= 0.468 Dea= o.320 Dso= 0.272
D30= 0.137 D15= D10=
Cu= Cc=
Classification
uses= SM AASHTO= A-2-4(0)
Remarks
. (no specification provided)
Sample No,: Source of Sample: B4-2 @6.5' Date: 07'23/04
Location: B4-2@ 6.5' Elev ./Depth:
I
Client: Walters Land Surveys
GeoTek, Inc. Project: Buena Vista
Prolect No: 2643-SD3 Plate SA-I
---
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
--• ------• ---•
. 0 . Iii EK, INC . EXPANSION INDEX TEST
Project Name: Buena Vista
Project Number: 2643-SD3
Project Location:
Ring Id: ___ Ring Oia. " :_4_"_ Ring 1_1: ..
1oadlng_v;~igbt:Ji5i6,__grams _
DENSITY DETERMINATION
Weight of compacted sample & ring
Weight of ring
Nel weight of sample
Wei Density, lb/ 113 (C•0.3016)
D~ Densilv, lb/ fl3 ID/1 .Fl
SATURATION DETERMINATION
Moisture Content, %
(E•F)
(E/167.232)
(1.-H)
(62.4.1)
(G/J)= L % Saturation
Initial Moisture
Wei Wgl ~~§,~L
DryWgt ~?2.2L
Tare _ 8.30
1.9%
803.63
369.87
433.76
130.8
120.8
8.3
998.2
0.72
0.28
17.3
57.T
Tesled.Q£_
.
(ASTM D4829>
Tested/ Checked By:
Date Tested:
Sample Source:
Sample Description:
READINGS
DATE TIME READING
7/22/2004 8:27 0.161
7/22/2004 8:37 0.161
7/22/2004 8:38 0.160
7/22/2004 8:43 0.160
7/23/2004 7:24 0.158
DC Lab No 1354
7/22/2004
B3-2.@. 2.5'
Reddish brown silty medium to fine SAND
Initial
10 min/Dry
1 min/Wei
5 min/Wei
Random
Final
FINAL MOISTURE
•• eigm 01 We\ samp1e •• e19m 01 ary samp1e
& tare & tare Tare % Moisture
179.57 166.49 8.14 8.3%
EXPANSION INDEX= 0
~0% SATURATION
Reviewed By DC
PLATE El -1
I
~
\.1-lio
\~.:me, INC.
1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083
(760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593
Project Name:
Project Number:
Project Location:
SOIL SULFATE TEST
(California Test 417)
___ B..,u'='e...,na'-Vi""'I"'st,.c..a ___ Tested/ Checked By:
___ ..;;2cc64.;.;3c..-S;;;..;D;;.;3;...._ __ Date Tested;
_________ Sample Source;
DC Lab No 1354
7/20/2004
B3-2 @2.5' I
I
I
I
I
Sample Description: Reddish brown silty medium to fine SANO
A
B
C
D
Turbidity of standard equal to
Turbidity of standard equal to
Turbidity of standard equal to
Turbidity of standard equal to
0
1
2
3
Blank Sample Corrected
Readlno Readlna Turbiditv
mgSO4 0.1 0.15 0.1
mgSO4 0.23 8.74 8.5
mgSO4 0.22 23.55 23.3
mgSO4 0.38 57 56.6
E 1sample size (ml) -before diluting to 100ml & adding regents
F 1mg of SO4 present in sample (from calibration curve)
!Water Soluble Sufate = •• I Calibration Curve
1.0
' ' I -en
I ::,
I-z -~ I :a :c ...
:::i I-
I
0.5 I 0
I
mg of S04
,•
I
NTUs
NTUs
NTUs
NTUs
0.001%
Blank= 1.56 ------1 w/ BaCI = 1-...;;2;.;.3~4--1
Actual = 1-_;o.;.;.7.;.8 _ _.
Sample Graph
20
0.09 1
o 0.78
1 3 0.78
-+-Callibration
-Test Sample
0.1
Plate SL-1
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
le
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ae9 .iK, INC.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Project Name: ___ _;:;B.:."':::".:." _;_V;:~ta::;_ __ _ Sample Source: __ ;:B.;.1·...;1_,@a.::S_' __
Project Number: 2643-SDJ Date Tested: 07123/04 -----------------
Lt reddish brown silty medium
Soil Description: to fine SAND
S.5
•
y-= 0.83x + 1.35
4
2.S
2
1.5
11------------------------+---+-----I 0 0.5 1.5 2
Shear Strength:
Test No. Load (ksf
1 1.4
2 2.8
3 5.6
2.5 3 3.5
NORMAL STRESS lksfl
4 4.5 5
<I>= 39.7 ° , C = 1.35 ksf
Water Content Dry Density
(%) (ocn
6 107
6 107
6 107
Notes: I -The soil specimen used in the shear box were ~ring" samples collected during the field investigation.
2 • Shear strength calculated at maximum toad.
3 -The tests were ran at a shear rate of0.05 in/min.
5.5 •
I
PLATE SH-1
STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION NOTES
1. ALL NECESSARY EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SHALL BE
AVAILABLE ON SITE TO FACILITATE RAPID INSTALLATION
OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs WHEN RAIN
IS EMINENT.
2. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL EROSION
CONTROL DEVICES TO WORKING ORDER TO THE SA Tl SF ACTION
OF THE CITY INSPECTOR AFTER EACH RUN-OFF PRODUCING
RAINFALL.
3. THE OWNER/CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ADDITIONAL EROSION
CONTROL MEASURES AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY
INSPECTOR DUE TO INCOMPLETE GRADING OPERATIONS OR
UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY ARISE.
4. ALL REMOVABLE PROTECTIVE DEVICES SHALL BE IN PLACE
AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHEN THE FIVE (5)
DAY RAIN PROBABILITY FORECAST EXCEEDS FORTY PECENT
(40%). SILT AND OTHER DEBRIS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER
EACH RAINFALL.
5. ALL GRAVEL BAGS SHALL CONTAIN 3/4 INCH MINIMUM
AGGREGATE.
6. ADEQUATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND PERIMETER
PROTECTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE MEASURES MUST
BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED.
7. THE CITY INSPECTOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALTER
THIS PLAN DURING OR BEFORE CONSTRUCTION AS NEEDED
TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STORM WATER QUALITY
REGULATIONS.
OWNER'S CERTIFICATE:
I UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST: (1) IMPLEMENT
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) DURING CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE TO AVOID
THE MOBILIZATION OF POLLUTANTS SUCH AS SEDIMENT AND TO
AVOID THE EXPOSURE OF STORM WATER TO CONSTRUCTION
RELATED POLLUTANTS; AND (2) ADHERE TO, AND AT ALL TIMES,
COMPLY WITH THIS CITY APPROVED TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP
THRO~G T THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
UNTIL E ONSTRUCTl9HJ,'IORK IS COMPLETE AND APPROVED
BY E Cl ~F ,,<;I\R,lt.,6/(D.
0 PRINT
OWNER(S)/OWNER'S AGENT NAME (SIGNATURE)
E-29
1/(zo/o ATE
STORM WATER COMPLIANCE FORM
TIER 1 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP c.8~018' -09'5d--
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) SELECTION TABLE
Erosion Control Sediment Control BMPs Tracking Non-Sbnn Water Waste Management and Materials
BMPs Control BMPs Management BMPs Pollution Control BMPs
C: C: -C: 0 -.Q .Q :;:; C: C: -0 " -0
"' C: --"' C E C: " -0 0 0 C: "' E C: -C -:::, :::, 0 .!. ·c C. C C C E L L :;:; -0 " :::;; -0 ., "' L " --·E L ·5 >, "' C: "
L C: " <: "'"' "' §;! ' <T L C C: "' C. " 'E C: L §? 0
Best Management Practice* <'11 C: Cc C ·g--C: "' L (!) w C: CD 0 " 0 " :;:; "'., "' ,0: -C C: 0 " -~ " 0 -., .c: C: E " "' "CJ C
OL "' -0 "' ~ -0 "' :::;; ~ " C: (BMP) Description • 0 "(/) -~ "' "' CD "' C: C: Cl -" ~ " 0 ., C: al~ C: C: ::::, :, ~ Q) 0 -C c L 0 -0 >, 0"' 0 "' " [3 E :;:; C: Cl CD (/) ·-"' O:p 0 " Co " X :::;; Cl c,, Cl C: " er _E 0 ~~ i!lc 0 o,:P " ~.£ ca, c = L-;;i: " " 0 " E "" ~ .D E g == 3 t:;:; Li ·cg -~ C. CL 0 "' -0 .c: C: " LL L " :::, -0 :.a e ·--0 C: 0 0 C: "" L -0 0 -0 -·-~ 'o 0 " " :::, L-.D 0 _o -~~ C ·-0 Q) L 0 --0 LO -" .D 0 LO C: 00 0 "' ..8 0 co -.c: " -o -0 = C ~§ " 0 0L = " .c: L -o 0 -L en " ;;i: ct 0 ~o c_ C -C. 0
(!) ;;i: WC:, (/) (/) (/) 0 r:;: (!) (/) > (/) (I) CL (/) er CLO CL :::;; (/) :::;; (/) (/) 0 (/) :::;;
CASQA Designation • r--00 ~ .... '° a N "' r--00 N "' .... '° "' 'T "' <O r--ro I I I 'T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 0 0 0 w w w w w w w w ~ ~ (/) (/) (/) (/) i i i i :::;;
Construction Activity w w w w (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) (/) z z z z ;;i:
Grad in a /Soil Disturbance T
Trench inn /Excavation L
Stockoilina
Drillinn /Borina
Concrete/Asphalt Sawcuttinq
Concrete Flatwork
Paving
Conduit/Pipe Installation
Stucco/Mortar Work
Waste Disposal
Staaina/Lav Down Area
Eauioment Maintenance and Fuelina
Hazardous Substance Use/Storaae
Dewaterinq
Site Access Across Dirt
Other (list):
Instructions: 1. Check the box to the left of all applicable construction activity (first column) expected to occur during construction.
2. Located along the top of the BMP Table is a list of BMP's with it's corresponding California Stonmwater Quality Association (CASQA) designation number. Choose one
or more BMPs you intend to use during construction from the list. Check the box where the chosen activity row intersects with the BMP column.
3. Refer to the CASQA construction handbook for information and details of the chosen BMPs and how to apply them to the project.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Address: ____________ _
Assessor's Parcel Number: ________ _
" -"' C ,._
C:
"' " :::, E
0 "
-0 "' 60 N C: oo :,::::;;
<O I :::;; ;;i:
Emergency Contact: / )
Name: /+ J Cl?c½ (.....,1..,r-rn1c( l T.,,..,1
. '
24 Hour Phone, ·?{;,a-53'2.-~Z.~ (
Construction Threat to Storm Water Quality
(Check Box)
• MEDIUM ~ow
" -"' o-
;;i: iii
" E -" ~ "' oo
C: C: oo o:::.
00 I :::;; ;;i:
Page 1 of 1 REV 11/17
Revision Permit I
Print Date: 08/31/2018
Job Address:
{city of
Carlsbad
Permit No: PREV2018-0193
Permit Type:
2787 James Dr
BLDG-Permit Revision
1561425800
Work Class: Residential Permit Revisic,n Status: Closed -Denied
Parcel No: Lot#:
Valuation: $0.00 Reference#:
Occupancy Group: Construction Type:
# Dwelling Units: Bathrooms:
Bedrooms: Orig. Plan Check#: CBR2018-0952
Plan Check#:
Project Title:
Description: DELAFUENTES: CHANGED LOCATION OF WALLAND CALCULATIONS
Applicant:
AJ CRISS INDUSTRIES
ANTHONY J CRISS
760-489-5120
FEE
MANUAL BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEE
Total Fees: $300.00
Building Division
Owner:
COOWNER OE LA FUENTE ISAAC &SERBAS
JEANNETTE N
2787 James Dr
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
Total Payments To Date: $0.00
Applied:
Issued:
Permit
Finaled:
Inspector:
Final
Inspection:
Contractor:
0
08/31/2018
AJ CRISS INDUSTRIES INC
1418 Golden Crest Dr
Escondido, CA 92029-4314
760-489-5120
Balance Due:
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 I 760-602-2700 I 760-602-856[ f I www.carlsbadca.gov
AMOUNT
$300.00
$300.00
·{cicyof
Carlsbad
PLAN CHECK REVISION OR
DEFERRED SUBMITTAL
APPLICATION
Development Services
Building Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
760-602-2719
www.carlsbadca.gov B-15
Original Plan Check Number C l?JL ZO'tl/095 2
Project Address 'l-71 7 J:c< "-(£ Dr
Plan Revision Number PBfY2 Olg'-0193
General Scope of Revision/Deferred Submittal: 12c .,,,,·,,_J Loc.-..J,·oo a. nch C4{crdciJlon
CONTACT INFORMATION:
NameAn+~7 {,r,~5 Phone eto)i/..r/-020 Fax,__ ______ _
Address !!tiff GoLdt.o Lf'esf 0 1 City &caaJ,vfo Zip 9Zo'2:t
Email Address CD.-,hcf@ t\:Yc,-,'p, Co,-,
Original plans prepared by an architect Jr engineer, revisions must be signed & stamped by that person.
1 . Elements revised: 0 Plans [SJ' Calculations D Soils D Energy D Other
2.
Describe revisions in detail
W ~ L l >--.., ~ M"V-~,/,
C 0-./ ru I,.,+ ,·,.ft df-..r~-j ,' .. h~~ cl _/ -J c7
4. Does this revision, in any way, alter the exterior of the project?
5. Does this revision add ANY new floor area[s)? D Yes
6. Does this revision affect any fire related issues? D Yes
7. Is this a complete set? efYes D No
£$'Signature,~ ~c.~
D Yes
~o
~o
3.
List page(s) where each
revision is shown
I
-~
~No
Date 7-IZ-I~
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 760-602-2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 Email: building@carlsbadca.gov
www.carlsbadca.gov