The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2625 ACUNA CT; ; 77-9451; PermitI C."" SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMB- ING. HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC- TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120DAYS.OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK ISSUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COM- McNrFn S G THIS WCMMII UUCS NOT E. 0 _CfiNCEL THE ClFlEO GULATINC NOTICE r. ,DIII, 1 I I I I TOTAL FEES S INSPECTOR pplicant 20 complete numbered spaces only. Phone 729-1 18t JO. .DO"LS* Clsrrofwork: nNEW 0 ADDITION OALTERATION 0 REPAIR I s I TvDeof Fu%: Oil 0 Nat. Gar 0 LPG. 0 NOTICE THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONS TlON AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120DAYS CONSTRUCTION OR WORK ISSUSPENDED OR ABANDONED PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIP+ AFTER WORK IS MENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REA0 AN0 EXAMINED T APPLICATION AN0 KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AN0 CORRE ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING T TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIF HEREIN OR NOT THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES N PRESUME TO GlVk AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL T PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATI CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. '?r' % 5 vi INSPECTOR City of CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. Phone 729-1181 Permit No. 7d- hk2- ~~~ I 9 Osrcribe work: N*W P"* , ,: ( WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED IIN THIS SPACE1 THIS IS YOUR PERMIT PLAN CHECK VALIDATION CK. M.O. CASH PERMIT VALIDATION CK. M.O. . CASH INSPECTOR PECIAL CONDITIONS: THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC- TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120OAYS.OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANWNEO FOR A PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COM &NATURE OF OWN P IDATEI PLAN CHECK VALIDATION WHEN PRDPERLY VALIDATED IIN u1 M.O. CASU PERMIT FEES No. I Each I FN SWIMMING POOL WIRINC, NO INCREASE IN SERVICE ,- NEW CONSTRUCTION, FOR EACH AMPERES OF MAIN SERVICE, SWITCH, FUSE OR BREAKER rg NEW SERVICE ON EXISTING BLOG. , FOR EA. AMPERE OF INCREASE IN MAIN SERVICE, SWITCH, FUSE OR BREAKER . ., . ,'., REMODEL, ALTERATION, NO CHANGE IN SERVICE, FOR EA. AMPERE OF INCREASE I I I I TEMP. SERVICE UP TO AND INCLUD- ING 200 AMP. I 'I I bob I 4i TEMP. SERVICE OVER 200 'bd. PER 1M) I I I ..' ISSUANCE FEE TOTAL FEES +IS SPACE1 THIS IS YOUR PERMIT PERMIT VALIDATION CK. M.O. cun , .I I ., . INSPECTOR I REQUEST FOR TIME: . INSPECTOR PERMIT NO. DATE: OWNER ~ ADDRESS L BUILDING 0 FOUNDATION n REINFORCING STEEL 0 MASONRY 0 GROUT. GUNITE 0 FLOOR AND CEILING FRAME 0 SHEATHING 0 FRAME 0 EXTERIOR LATH 0 INSULATION 0 INTERIOR LATH OR DRYWALL 0 FINAL PLUMBING A 0 UNDERGROUND PLUMBING 0 UNDERGROUND WATER 0 ROUGH PLUMBING 0 TOP OUT PLUMBING 0 SEWER AND PL/CO 0 TUB OR SHOWER PAN 0 GAS TEST 0 WATER HEATER 0 FINAL I I ~LECTRICAL o TEMPPRARY SERVICE o ELEC~RIC UNDERGROUND o ROU~H ELECTRIC o ELEC~RIC SERVICE o CEILI~G HEAT u G.F.I./ 0 POOL! BONDING 0 COM$USTlON AIR 0 PATIO 13 GRA~ING 0 DRI~EWAY o REF~R PIPING 0 FINAL 0 SIGN 0 CON@lTlONED AIR SYSTEMS i READY FOR INSPECTION: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS REQUESTED BY HONE NO. %?q - @./o PERSON TAKING REPORT- REQUEST FOR INSPECTION TIME: . INSPECTOR kk PERMIT NO. DATE:% - - BUILDING 0 FOUNDATION 0 REINFORCING STEEL 0 MASONRY 0 GROUT. GUNITE 0 FLOOR AND CEILING FRAME 0 SHEATHING 0 FRAME 0 EXTERIOR LATH 0 INSULATION 0 INTERIOR LATH OR DRYWALL a FINAL /- PLUMBING 0 UNDERGROUND PLUMBING 0 UNDERGROUND WATER 0 ROUGH PLUMBING 0 TOP OUT PLUMBING 0 SEWER AND PL/CO 0 TUB OR SHOWER PAN 0 GAS TEST 0 WATER HEATER 0 FINAL I I ELECTRICAL 0 TEMPORARY SERVICE 0 ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND 0 ROUGH ELECTRIC 0 POOL BONDING 0 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0 CEILING HEAT U G.F.I. 0 SMOKE DETECTOR 0 FINAL r MISCELLANEOUS 0 PLENUM AND DUCTS 0 COMBUSTION AIR 0 PATIO 0 SIGN 0 GRADING 0 DRIVEWAY 0 CONDITIONED AIR SYSTEMS 0 REFER PIPING 0 FINAL READY FOR INSPECTION: OMONDAY OTUESDAY OWEDNESDAY OTHURSDAY 0 FRIDAY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS REQUESTED BY ON TAKING REPORT i I I REQUEST, 'OR INSPECTION TIME: INSPECTOR- /"'&& PERMIT NO. 4 DATE: -. L 0 REINFORCING STEEL 0 MASONRY 0 GROUT. GUNITE 0 FLOOR AND CEILING FRAME 0 SHEATHING 0 FRAME 0 EXTERIOR LATH 0 INSULATION 0 INTERIOR LATH OR DRYWALL OWNER ADDRESS -2- // (BUILDING o FOUND- FINAL /\ \ PLUMBING 0 UNDERGROUND PLUMBING 0 UNDERGROUND WATER 0 ROUGH PLUMBING 0 TOP OUT PLUMBING 0 SEWER AND PLKO 0 TUB OR SHOWER PAN 0 GAS TEST 0 WATER HEATER 0 FINAL ELECTRICAL 0 TEMPORARY SERVICE 0 ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND 0 ROUGH ELECTRIC 0 POOL BONDING 0 ELECTRIC SERVICE 0 CEILING HEAT L . .' U G.F.I. 0 SMOKE DETECTOR 0 FINAL MISCELLANEOUS 0 PLENUM AND DUCTS 0 COMBUSTION AIR 0 PATIO 0 SIGN 0 GRADING 0 DRIVEWAY 0 CONDITIONED AIR SYSTEMS 0 REFER PIPING 0 FINAL INTERDEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION SHEET RECEIVED ~ BUILDING DEPARTMENT i DATE : BUILDING ADDRESS: a 9 i y UNITS ALLOWED 4 UNITS PROVIDED 0.c. ; * 3- PARKING SPACES REQUIRED ~ 1 PROVIDED 4 % COVERAGE ALLOWED PROVIDED 2 BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED > PROVIDED ,. 2 FRONT SETBACK: SIDE SETBACK: REAR SETBACK: $ALLOWED O.Y. 0. ' : '' $3 'INTRUSIONS i ~ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 9e2"77 " R.O.W. INDUSTRIAL WASTE N/A . IMPROVEMENTS &Krs FNL. SEWER CONNECTION DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS &@57 j ', ' GRADING PERMIT E-/ EASEMENTS ~* d0 C%w&CfiDR NAGE/& &'I. s*/ea LEGAL DESCRIPTION ADDITIONAL COMMEN I I "" FIRE DEPARTMENT SPRIIiKLING SYSTEM FIRE PROTECTION EQUIP. FIRE ALARMS EXITS I FIRE HYDRANTS LOCATION i ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ii OK TO ISSUE: DATE OK TO FINAL DATE WATER DEPARTMENT .REQUIREMENTS OF APPROPRIATE DISTRICTS MET 4 6 _.- 'I 1.. .............. ~- . .. , .. ~L." .. ., ..... I . . ........... . ~ .*.. ........................ ................. .. ~. . ~. .. .... .. ., ~. ~ ~.. ~ ..................... .. .. I .. I .. .......... .... ~ - ... . I ... ... ...... .. .......... .. ....... ,, ..... ,. ~. .. .. .. .. . ............... .. . .~ .......................... ......... .. .~ .. ...... .~~ .~ .., .~ ...... . . ~~, . L .. ..,I ,. ~, ~. . :. .... ", ........ "_*" .. .. .......... ................... .. ~. .. . , .~ ., .. .. ,. ,. . ,. .,..~ ... ... ~. ~. .... .................... ......... ~~ . .. - .. -. ......... .... - ....... .. I , r* I, r- r r r r r r r r r r r r: r' r r r r - - ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES Consulting Sod, Foundorion 8 Geological Engineers August 24, 1977 221-2, 1797 Mr. Alan Mildwater I Director of Purchasing and Planning American Building Arts 2030 State Street Son Diego, California 92101 Re: Soil Investigation Lots 80 & 88 - Carlsbad Tract 754 La Costa, California Dear Mr. Mildwater: In accordonce with your request we have performed a sail investigation for the proposed residences to be located on Lots 80 and 88 of Carlsbad Tract 75-4 in La Costa. The purpose of this investigation wos to evaluate the foundation materials and to provide recommendations for site earthwork, building foundations, and slab-on-grade construction. It is our understanding that the proposed residences will probably be two-story, wood-frame structures. Structural loads will be typical far this type of relatively light construction. Although the site grading plans have not been established, it is anticipated that substantial cutting and filling may be required to construct building pods on the relatively steep terrain. The scope of work performed in this investigation included a site reconnaissance, subsurface explorotion, laboratory testing, engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data and the preparation of this report. The data obtained and the analyses performed were for the purpose of providing design and construction criteria for site earthwork, house foundations, slab-on-grode construction, and retaining walls. SITE CONDITIONS A. Surface Conditions Both lots are presently vacant and irregular in shape, each with a plan area of approximately one acre. Surface vegetation consists of a moderate to heavy growth of low grass and brush. 11585Sorrento Volley Rood, Suite 101. Son Diego, Calilornio 92121 . (7141 453-5605 r. i I r ! r r- r. August 24, 1977 Page 2 221-2, 1797 B. Subsurface Two exploratory brings were drilled on June 28, 1977 using o truck mounted continuous flight auger to investigate and sample the subsurface soils. The borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 10 feet at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plans, Figures 1 and 2. Logs of the borings together with the results of a laboratory direct shear test per- formed on a relatively undisturbed sample of the on-site soils are attached. The soils encountered in Boring 1 consisted predominontly of very dense sandy silts to the maximum depth of 8.5 feet. In Boring 2 very dense clayey sands were encountered from the ground surface to the maximum depth explored of 10 feet. Some thin lenses of potentially expansive clayey soils were encountered in both borings. Logs of the borings os well as o key for soil classification ore attached. Free groundwater was not encountered in either of the exploratory brings drilled on the lots. It must be noted, however, that fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in surface topography, subsurface stratification, rainfall, and other possible factors which may not have been evident at the time of our field investigation. C. Seismicity Based on available published information there are no faults known to exist at the site and the nearest known major active faults are the Elsinore and Son Jacinto Fault Zones located approximotely 24 and 47 miles northeast of the site, respectively. Although research on earthquake prediction has greatly increased in recent years, seismolo- gists have not yet reached the point where they can predict when and where an earthquake will occur. Nevertheless, on the basis of current technology, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed residential structures will be subject to at least one moderate earthquake during their design life. During such an earthquake, the danger from fault offset through the site is remote but strong shaking of the site is likely to occur. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From a soil and foundation engineering standpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed con- struction provided the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. A. Earthwork 1. 'Clearing and Stripping Those areas to be graded should be cleared of any miscellaneous debris that may be present at the time of construction and stripped of all surface vegetation. The cleared and stripped materials should be disposed of off-site. August 24, 1577 22 1-2, 1797 Page 3 2. Subgrade Preparation c r After the site has been cleared and stripped, the exposed subgrode soils in those areas to receive fill ond/or building improvements should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and compocted to the requirements for structural fill. Fills constructed on noturol slopes having an inclination steeper than 5 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) should be keyed and benched into firm noturol ground below any loose surface soils os illustrated on Figure 3. The actual width of the toe keys and extent of removal of any existing loose surface soil should be determined by the soil engineer's representative. 3. Excavation Based on the results of our exploratory borings and our past experience with similar mater- ials we anticipate that shallow cuts (on the order of 10 feet deep) may be made using ordinary heavy earthmoving equipment. However, some heavy ripping may be required and some hard blocks may be encountered. In oddition, some difficulty moy be experienced in making footing and utility trench excavations using ordinary light backhoe equipment. 4. Moterial for Fill All existing on-site soils with an organic content of less than 3 percent by volume are in general suitoble for use as fill. Any required imported fill material should be a non-expansive granular soil with a plasticity index of 12 or less. In addition, both imported and existing on-site materials for use as fill should not contain rocks or lumps over 6 inches in greatest dimension with no more than 15 percent larger than 2.5 inches. If during the site grading operations any pockets or seams of potentially expansive clayey soils ore encountered they should only be reused as fill below a depth of 18 inches below the finished subgrade level. 5. Treatment of Expansive Soils If potentially expansive clayey soils ore encountered at the finished subgrade surface in cut areas it will be necessary to overexcovote these moteriols and replace them with a layer of compocted non-expansive fill. The need for and depth of removal should be determined in the field by the soil engineer's representative based on an inspection of the materiols ex- posed at the finished subgrode surface. 6. Compaction All structural fill should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent . based upon ASTM Test Designation D1557-70. Fill material should be spread and compocted in uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness, r r r r r I- i r r I August 24, 1977 221-2, 1797 Page 4 7. *s We recommend that all proposed cut and fill slopes have a maximum inclination of 1.5 horizontal to 1 verticol. Fill slopes should be constructed so os to assure that o minimum degree..of compaction of 90 percent is attained to within 18 inches of the finished slbpe face and that a minimum degree of compaction of 85 percent is attained in the outer 18 inches. This may be accomplished by "backrolling" with a sheepsfoot roller or other suit- able equipment. Placement of fill near the tops of slopes should be carried out in such o manner as to assure that loose, uncompacted soils are not sloughed over the tops and allowed to accumulate on the slope face. The on-site soils will be moderately susceptible to erosion where used as compacted fill. Therefore, the project plans and specifications should contain all necessary design features and construction requirements to prevent erosion of the on-site materials both during and after construction. Slopes and other exposed ground surfaces should be appropriately planted with a protective ground cover. It should be the grading contractor's obligation to take all measures deemed necessary during grading to provide erosion control devices in order to protect slope areos and adjacent pra- perties from storm damage and flood hazard originating on this project. It should be made the contractor's responsibility to maintain slopes in their as-graded form until all slopes, berms, and associated drainage devices are in satisfactory compliance with the project plans and specifications. 8. Trench Backfill Pipeline trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill. Backfill material should be placed in lift thicknesses appropriate to the type of compaction equipment utilized and com- pacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 85 percent by mechanical means. In oll building and pavement areos, the upper portion of the backfill to a depth equal to 1.5 times the trench width, but not less than 3 feet, should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent. In povement areos, that portion of the trench backfill within the pavement section should conform to the material and compaction requirements of the ad- jacent pavement section. 9. Drainage Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to the houses so as to direct surface water away from foundations and slobs toward suitable dischorge focilities. Ponding of sur- face water should not be allowed adjocent to the houses. 10. Construction Observation Variations in soil conditions are possible and may be encountered during construction. In order to permit correlation between the preliminary soil doto and the actual soil conditions August 24, 1977 221-2, 1797 Page 5 r r I r r. r r encountered during construction, and so as to assure conformance with the plans and speci- fications as originally contemplated, it is essential that the sail engineer be retained to perform on-site review during the course of construction. 6. Foundations 1. Footings We recommend that the proposed houses be supported on conventional individual spread and/or continuous footings bearing in undisturbed natural soils and/or compacted fill soils. Footings should be founded at least 12 inches below rough pad grade or 16 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade, whichever is deeper. Footings located on or adjacent to the tops of slopes should be extended sufficiently deep so os to provide at least 5 feet of horizontal cover between the footing and the slope face at the footing bearing level. If potentially expansive clayey soils are encountered in the footing excavations it may be necessary to extend the footings deeper than recommended above. The need for deepening footings and the required depth should be determined in the.field by the sail engineer's representative based on an inspection of the soils exposed in the footing excavations. At the recommended depths footings may be designed for allowable bearing pressures of 3,500 pounds per squore foot (psf) for combined dead and live loads, and 4,700 psf for all loads, including wind or seismic. The footings should, however, have a minimum width of 12 inches. All continuous footings should contain top and bottom reinforcement to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregulorities. Settlements under building loads are expected to be within toleroble limits for the proposed houses. We estimate that post-construction differential settlements across either house will not exceed 1/2-inch. 2. Slabs-On-Grade Concrete slabs-on-grode may be supported directly on natural undisturbed non-expansive soils and/or compacted non-expansive fill. Slab reinforcing should be provided in accordance with the anticipated use of and loading on the slab. As a minimum, however, we recommend that the slobs be reinforced with 6x6-10/10 wire mesh for control of shrinkage cracks. In areas whe're moisture-sensitive floor coverings are to be utilized and in other areas where floor dampness would be undesirable, we recommend that consideration be given to providing an impermeoble membrane beneath the slabs. The membrane should be covered with 2 inches of sand to protect it during construction. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete. The thickness of the sand layer may be substituted directly for an equal thickness of the recommended non-expansive fill layer. 3. Retaining Walls Retaining walls must be designed to resist lateral eorth pressures and any additional lateral loads caused by surcharge loads on the adjoining slab surface. We recommend that unre- - r i r i c August 24, 1977 221-2, 1797 Page 6 strained walls be designed for on equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend that restrained walls be designed for an equivolent fluid pressure of 35 pcf PIUS on additionol uniform lateral pressure of 5H pounds per square foot where H = the height of backfill above the top of the wall footing in feet. Wherever walls will be subjected to surcharge loods, they should also be designed for an odditional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-third the anticipated surcharge pressure in the case of unrestrained walls and one-half the anticipated surchorge pressure in the case of restrained wolls. The preceding design pressures are for level backfills and assume that there issufficient drain- age behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface water in- filtration. Adequate dr,ainage may be provided by means of weep holes with permeable material installed behind the walls or by means of a system of subdrains. Backfill placed behind the walls should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent using light compaction equipment. If heavy equipment is used, the walls should be appropriately temporarily braced. Retaining walls should be supported on footing foundations designed in accordance with the recommendations presented previously under Item B.1., "Footings." Loteral load resistance for the walls can be developed in accordance with the recommendations presented under Item B.4., "Lateral Loads." 4. Lateral Loads Lateral load resistance for building foundations may be developed in friction between the base of the foundations and the supporting subgrade. An allowoble friction coefficient of 0.35 is recommended for use in design. An additional allowable passive resistance of 500 psf acting against the foundations may be used in design provided the footings are poured neat against undisturbed soil. Our services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordonce with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering principles ond practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either express or implied. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES Robert Prater, C . E. RP:jr Copies: Addressee (4) Buzard 8, Henning, Attention: Mr. Bill Henning (1) Taups Corporation, Attention: Mr. Gory Lipska (1) - c i ~~ I SITE PLAN ROBERT PRATER ASSOCfATES LOT 80 - CARLSBAD TRACT 75-4 Conwbtnp %,I, Fooundobon d Gcolopicol fngimn La Costa, California PROJECT NO. DATE r 22 1-2 I August 1977 Figure 1 r : r. i r r i- r r r r r r r r t r r r. r-. r r i ! I I SITE PLAN ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES LOT 88 - CARLSBAD TRACT 75-4 Conrulttnp h.1. foundohon 6 Gcolop;rol tnp;rmn La Costa, California I PROJECT NO. DATE 221-2 I August 155'7 Figure 2 __~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FILLING ON SLOPING GROUND ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES LOTS 80 8.88 - CARLSBAD TRACT 75-4 Conwlrmg hl. foovdolmn 6 Gcolopicd Enpineen La Costa, California PROJECT NO. DATE 22 1 -2 I August 1977 Figure 3 / Existing ground surface Toe key- 2-ft.min. into firm ground Horizontal benches into firm ground Toe key-width to be determined by Soil Engineer, Zone of loose but not less than surface soil 10 ft. Notes: 1) Fills to be keyed and benched as shown - into existing ground where the existing SCHEMATIC ONLY slopes are steeper than 5 horizontal to 1 vertical. NOT TO SCALE 2) Finished fill slope inclination to be no steeper than 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. PRIMARY DlVlSlOl GRAVELS MORE THAN HALF FRACTION IS OF COARSE LARGER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE SANDS MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE FRACTION IS SMALLER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE IS GROUP SYMBOL CLEAN GRAVELS GRAVEL WITH E FINES CLEAN SANDS E:: FINES SECONDARY DIVISIONS Well graded gravels. gravel-sand mixtures. little or no Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures. little w fines. no ftnes. Silty gravels. gravel-sand-silt mixtures. non-plastic fines. Clayey gravels. gravel-sand-clay mixtures. plastic fines. Well graded sands. gravelly sands. little or no fines. Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or w fines. Silty sandr. sand-silt mixtures. non-plastic fines. Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures,.plastic fines. I I I I Y ~~ 9 us- N SILTS AND CLAYS ML lnor anic silts and very fine sands, rock flour. si1t.y. or I cqayq, fme sands or clayRlstlts with slight plastlclty. LmIo LIMIT IS c L lnor anic clay, of low to medium plasticity. gravelly I c%ys. sandy clays, silty clays. lean clays. OL I Organic silts and organic silty claws of low plasticity, LESS THAN 50% Lu ~~ - - rno .. SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic sjlts. micacews or diatomaceous line sandy w .n shy so11s. elastac ~111s. " wgz LlauIo LIMIT IS Y GREATER THAN 50% I I HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS I Pt Inorganic clays of high plasticity. fat clays. Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. organic sills. Peat and other highly organic soil% ~~ DEFINITION OF TERMS 200 U.S. STANOARD SERIES SIEVE 40 CLEAR SOUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 10 4 3/4n 3" 12" SILTS AND CLAYS SAND I GRAVEL FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE I FINE I COARSE I COBBLES BOULDERS I I I I I I I GRAIN SIZES - SANDS.GRAVELS AND NON-PLASTIC SILTS BLOWS/FOOT + PLASTIC SILTS AND BLOWS/FOOT' STRENGTH* VERY LOOSE *MEDIUM DENSE 4 -10 LOOSE 0- 4 30 -50 DENSE 10 -.30 VERY SOFT FIRM SOFT 0-2 0 - 1/4 1/4 - 1R 2-4 STIFF v2-1 4-8 1-2 8 -16 VERY DENSE VERY STIFF OIlER 50 16 -32 2-4 OVER 32 OVER 4 HARD RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY 'Number of blows of 140 pwnd hammer falling X) inches IO drl~ a 2 inch 0.0. C1-3/8 inch 1.0.) split spoon CASTM 0-15861. *Lhconfined compressive nrength in tons/sq. It. as determined by laboratory testing cn approximated by the standard penetration test CASTM 0-15861. pocket penetrometer. torvane. or visual observation. KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS Unified Soil Classification System CASTM 0-2487) ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES LOTS 80 8 88 - CARLSBAD TRACT 75-4 Conwlanp hll. Foundown 6 Gcolopacol Enpmerrr La Costa, California PROJECT NO. DATE Figure 4 22 1-2 I Auaust 1977 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ;ANDY SILT, with some gravel 60 Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve) 'some interbedded lenses of SANDY CLAY) Bottom of Boring = 8.5 Feet Note: "s" denotes sock sample I COLOR CONSIST. I EXPLORATORY BORING LOG I LOTS 80 8 88 - CARLSBAD TRACT 75-4 La Costa. California PROJECT NO. DATE BORING 22 1-2 I August 1977 NO. DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ZLAYEY SAND-SANDY CLAY, with some gravel (50 Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve Bottom of Boring = 10.0 Feet - COLOR - rown - _.__ CONSIST. IRILLRIG Cont. Flight Auger DATE DRILLED 1 BORING DIAMETER 8 Inches )EPTH TO GROUNDWATER None ATD LOGGED BY WDH SURFACE ELEVATION 345 (approx) 2 DEPTH 2 E SOIL TYPE 2: (FEET) sc- CL-1- - - 8: - - -2- I - - -3- - - - 4 " - - 5- - - -6- - - -7- - - -8- - - -9- - - " " 10 - - - 11 - - - - 12 - - - - 13 - ' - - - 14 - - - - 15- - - - 16 - - - - 17 - - - - 18 - - - - 19 - - - - 20- 'cry tense EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES Cwwlmp Sod Foundoreon 6 Gcoloplcol Enpmeerr LOTS 80 8 88 - CARLSBAD TRACT 75-4 La Costa, California PROJECT NO. I DATE BORING 221-2 I August 1577 NO. 2 NORMAL PRESSURE (KSF) I SAMPLE DATA DESCRIPTION: SANDY SILT (ML), brown BORING NO.: EB-1 TEST DATA TEST NUMBER I1IzI3I4 I STRAIN RATE: 0.02 inches/minute (approx.) I Note: Sample was allowed to saturate before shearing I DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES LOTS 80 8, 88 - CARLSBAD TRACT 75-4 Conwl~mp Sod Fovndolmn 6 Gcolwicol bpimn La Costa, California PROJECT NO. DATE Figure 5 22 1 -2 I August 15'77 Page two October 14, 1977 C.ity of Carlsbad Re: La Costa Eskates North Lots 80 & 88 We are now very concerned that due to the additional time lapse, we may have our Sewer Permit revoked. May we please request that you give our Grading Plan and E.I.A. (to be hand delivered on Monday, October 17, 1977) ~ priority treatment. Very truly yours, AMERICAN BUI.LDING ARTS Alan 5. Mildwater Director of Purchasing & Planning ASM :dm 1. INSULATION CERTIFICATION This is to certify that insulation has been installed in ConfOrmanCe with the current energy regulations, California Administrative Code. Title 25, State of California, in the building located at: SITE ADDRESS !: Lot #88, 2625 Acuna. La Costa, Calif. Owens-Corning and Manufacturer Johns- Mansville ThicknessjType '3%" Friction R-value11 .. CEILINGS Owens-Corning and Batts: nanufacturer Johns-Manville Thickness/Type 6" Kraft R-value19 ~lown: Manufacturer Thickness/Type R-value- Wt ./Bag Sq. Ft. Covered R-value- FLOORS Manufacturer Thickness/Type R-value- GENERAL CONTRACTOR . ' LICENSE # BY TITLE f. . .. .. DATE LICENSE # 221517 c-2 -TITLE. Vice Presi.dent DATE INSULATION CERTIFICATION with the current energy regulations, California Administrative Code, This is to certify that insulation has been installed ir. conformance Title 25, State.of~ California, in the building located at: SITE ADDRESS Lot #88, 2625 Acuna, La Costa, Calif. WALLS Owens-Co'rning and Manufacturer Johns-Manville Thickness/Type 3%'' Friction R-value 11 CEILINGS Batts: ManufacturerJohns-Manville, Thickness/Typi 6" Kraft R-value l9 Blown: Manufacturer Thickness/Type R-value Wt . /Bag Sq. Ft. Covered .. R-value Owens-Corning and - FLOORS ' Manufacturer Thickness/Type R-value GEN~RAL CONTRACTOR LICENSE # BY TITLE DATE ACTORS, INC. LICENSE # 221517 C-2 TITLE Vice President DATE CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 Elm Avenue PUBLIC WORKS a BUILDING DEPARTMENT 26 2<&&* ,P Dl I lans by Civil Engineer R.C.E. ,I oil Enaineer R.C.E. rad i ng Contractor $ The following documents are required and shall become a part of the grading permit when they are approved. Grading p I ans - Specifications - ~~ - Soi I report Vicinity map - Drainage structures - Retaining walls - - Compaction report - Other Cut , FiI I 3. Adequate provisions shall be made for - erosion and siltation control. wo- '.W I gg? I "- 4. All slopes shall be planted per direction Tota I of Parks & Recreation Director. Compacted fills (yes or no) Proposed Schedule of Start Fi,nish Operations (dates) Dec, 77 Jan.78 - I hereby acknowledge that I have read the applica- - tion and state that the information I have provided is correct and agree to comply with all City DATE S IGNATURE ordinances and State laws regulating excavating and Ground preparation grading, and the provisions and conditions of any Rough grading permit issued pursuant to this application. Signature of Permittee ~.' ... Owner or authorized agent- GWJ ~. 3 Grading permit fee $ 54.00 c,Z?~,d Permit VaIjtlaJion *J"S - INSPECTION INSPECTOR'S ., Compaction report rec'd. ! , ... < I ", Planting & drainage Work completed Surety bond released by //,. . ,-.,,-p&&. &- ' ,:&y Date / S&Q?? Permit Expiration Date /,&,/y/ A kg THIS FORM WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED BY SIGNATURE IS A PERMIT TO DO THE WORK DESCRIBED THIS PERMIT IS VALID FOR A SIX (6) MONTH PERIOD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ """ ~ ." l..,l ,.......,. I.I~"- .. October 14, 1977 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, California 92008 Attn: Mr. Richard Osburn Building Director Re : La Costa Estates North Lots a0 E. aa Dear Mr. Osburn: This letter will confirm my telephone conversation with your Mr. Fred Leudtke of this morning regarding the issuance of the,, Building Permits for the above Project. When we submitted our plans for Plan Check, no mention was made that an Environmental Impact Assessment Application was needed, and in fact we were told that the Permits would be issued approximately October 21, 1977. Anticipating the commencement of construction by November I, 1977, we last week hired Mr. Ed Newbeck to superintend the work. Yesterday he visited your Department to inquire when he could expect the Permits, and found to his and our dismay (and cost) that'due to there being.more than 100 cubic yards of earth moved and cuts of over three feet, we are required to have a Also this could extend the time to Permit issuan'ce another four Grading Permit, and because of that we have to submit an E.I.A. to five weeks. As you may'know, a sixty (60) day time and this exp,ires October 31, 1977. Building Permit was imposed as a condit limit to issuance of ion of the Sewer Permit 2030 State Street, San Diego, California 92101 / (7141 239-3871 rnntr3rtnr'e I ipmnC0 hln 74~19~