The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1845 CANYON PL; ; CB960861; PermitPERMIT 07/24/96 09:19 Parcel No: 205-080-88-00 Valuation:234,033 Reference*: SF HOUSE AND 654 GARAGE Appl/Ownr : WORTHING, BROOKS P.0.1041 CARLSBAD, CA. 92018 Permit No: CB960861 Project No: A9601198 Development No: 8708 07/24/96 0001 01 02 C-PRHT 15926-00 Construction Type: VN Status: ISSUED Applied: 05/10/96 Apr/Issue: 07/24/96 Entered By: MDP 619 729-3965 ** *Fees Required ** lected & Credits Fees: Adjustments: Total Fees: Fee description Number of Bedroom Number of Bathroo Building Permit Plan Check Strong Motion Fee Enter Number of ED Enter !'Y" to Autoc " * BUILDING TOTAL Enter "Y" for Plumbing I Each Plumbing Fixture or Each Building Sewer Each Install/Repair Water Line Each Water Heater and/or Vent Gas Piping System Each Vacuum Breaker * PLUMBING TOTAL Enter "Y" for Electric Issue Fee Single Phase Per AMP * * . 00 675.00 15,826.00 Ext fee Data > .r issue Fee> install Furn/Ducts/Heat Pumps > Each Install Fireplace > Each Exhaust Fan Each Install/Reloc Vent * MECHANICAL TOTAL Construct Housingf Y/N) ? Enter Impact Fee 200 1 1 3 2 25 9 . 00 6 . 50 6. 50 4. 50 4, 3 1112 723 23 2400 4259 3932 395 445. 13289. 20. 98. 15. 7. 7. 7. 14. 168, 10 50 60 15 9 6 19 9 59 292,5. CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 9200! 2925 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Y 00 , 00 . 00 . 00 . 00 Y . 00 .00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Y . 00 00 00 Y 00 50 50 00 00 N ,00 INSR (HBHWFttE APPROVAL .DATE V PERMIT APPLICATION City of Carlsbad Buildir* Department 2075 Las Pal*as Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-1161 1. PERMIT TYPE From List 1 (see back) give code of Permit-Type: For Residential Projects Only: From List 2 (see back) give Code of Structure-Type: Net Loss/Gain of Dwelling Units PLAN CHECK NO. EST.VAL PLANCK DEPOSIT^ VALID. BY DATE Gy~l ^ 2. PROJECT INFORMATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Address Nearest Cross Street Building or Suite No. 7481 05/10/96 0001 01 02 LcOAL UbSCiKlPTlON Subdivision Name/Number CHECK BhiXJW IF SUBMllTED: *B2 Energy Gales B? Structural Gales O 2 Soils Report D 1 Addressed Envelope ASSESSOR'S PARCEL *- /*>fig>_EXIS vfGUSE PROPOSED USE DESCRIPTION OF WORK SQ.FT.# OF STORIES *Z_#sCf BEDROOMS # OF BATHROOMS vJUNiAL.1 rcKSUN or airrerent rr NAME (last name first) CITY n applicant; STATE ADDRESS ZIP CODE DAY TELEPHONE 4. APPLICANT fi CONTRACTOR LJ AGENT FOR CONTRACTOR U OWNER Q AGENT FOR OWNER NAME (last name first) WORTHING, B.A. ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1041 CITY CARLSBAD STATE CA ZIP CODE 92018 DAY TELEPHONE 729-3965 5. PROP NAME (last name first) CITY ., i STATED-ZIP CODE / _- , _.j , ADDRESS SD ft)0£>)<. \Oe\\ DAY TELEPHONE O. UUN1KALT1UK NAME Oast name first) WORTHING, INC. B.A. . ... CITY CARLSBAD STATE CA ZIPCODE 92018 DAY TELEPHONE 729-3965 STATE LIC. # 398764 LICENSE CLASS B- 1 CITY BUSINESS LIC. # 549200 ADDRESS P.O. BOX 1041 Oast name CITY CARLSBAD STATE CA INC>B>A> ZIPCODE92018 AUUKISS BQX>> DAYTELEPHONE 729-396%rATOIJC.jp-1 392894 7. WORKERS' UDMPENSATION Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby altirm that 1 have a certificate ot consent to selt-insure issued by the Director ot Industrial Relations, or a certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance by an admitted insurer, or an exact copy or duplicate thereof certified by the Director of the insurer thereof filed with the Building Inspection Department (Section 3800, Lab. C). INSURANCE COMPANY STATE FUND POLICYNO. 2 2 9 - 6 5 ISPIRATION DATE 1/96 Certificate of Exemption: 1 certify that in the performance ot the work tor 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. SIGNATURE DATE 8. OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION uwner-uuiiaer Declaration: i nereDy arnrm mat l am exempt trom tne (jontractors License Law lor the roiiowing reason: D I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale.). D 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^) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). D I am exempt under Section _ Business and Professions Code for this reason: (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish, or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (Chapter 9, commencing with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$500]). SIGNATURE DATE THIS SEC.T1UN FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ONLY: Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? D YES O NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? D YES D NO Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? D YES D NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED AFTER JULY 1, 1989 UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. 9. UUNSTKIHJUUN LtNlJlNU AGENCY 1 hereoy ariirm that there is a construction lending agency tor the pertormance ot the work tor which this permit is issued (Sec 3097(0 civil codej. LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS It). APPUCANTUiHTU'lUVllUN I certify that I have read tne application and state that the above information is correct. I agree to comply witn all city ordinances and state laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. \ ALSO AGREE TO SAVE INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CTTY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABIIXnES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. Expiration. Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 365 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abaidpnedyrt any. time afterdje-work is commenced for a period of 180 days (Section 303 (d) Uniform Buil" " APPLICANTS SIGNATURE)Jf/f/,./hJ 1/J /. ^ DATE: WHITE] File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance "-' FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION DEPT: BUILDING ENGINEERING FIRE PLANNING U/M WATER PLAN CHECKf: CB960861 DATE: 12/12/96 PERMIT*: CB960861 PERMIT TYPE: SFD PROJECT NAME: 3142 SF HOUSE AND 654 GARAGE ADDRESS: 1845 CANYON PL CONTACT PERSON/PHONE*: MW/GAIL/729-3965 SEWER DIST: CA WATER DIST: CA I I /996 INSPECTED / „ <*" BY : •%£>£: '• INSPECTED BY: INSPECTED BY: DATE INSPECTED: DATE INSPECTED: DATE INSPECTED: /£*^«/v^APPROVED * w 9 APPROVED APPROVED DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED COMMENTS : * FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION DEPT: BUILDING ENGINEERING FIRE PLANNING U/M PLAN CHECK*: CB960861 DATE: 12/12/96 PERMIT*: CB960861 PERMIT TYPE: SFD PROJECT NAME: 3142 SF HOUSE AND 654 GARAGE DEC I I 1996ADDRESS: ***4S CANYON PL CONTACT PERSON/PHONE*: MW/GAIL/729-3965 SEWER DIST: CA WATER DIST: CA INSPECTED / <_ BY: -J&eT f- INSPECTED BY: INSPECTED BY: DATE / j INSPECTED: 6yjL/fC APPROVEDf f DATE INSPECTED: APPROVED DATE INSPECTED: APPROVED V DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED COMMENTS : f CITY OF CARLSBAD INSPECTION REQUEST PERMIT* CB960861 FOR 12/18/96 DESCRIPTION: 3142 SF HOUSE AND 654 GARAGE TYPE: SFD JOB ADDRESS: 1845 CANYON PL APPLICANT: WORTHING, BROOKS CONTRACTOR: OWNER: REMARKS: MW/GAIL/729-3965 SPECIAL INSTRUCT: PHONE: PHONE: PHONE: INSPECTOR AREA TP PLANCK* CB960861 OCC GRP CONSTR. TYPE VN STE: LOT: 619 729-3965 INSPECTOR TOTAL TIME: —RELATED PERMITS— 19 29 39 49 PERMIT* TYPE STATUS CB911380 SFD EXPIRED SE960057 SWRSD ISSUED CB962084 RETAIN ISSUED CD LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS ST Final Structural PL Final Plumbing EL Final Electrical ME Final Mechanical £ ***** INSPECTION HISTORY ***** DATE DESCRIPTION 121296 Final Combo 120596 Gas/Test/Repairs 102196 Exterior Lath/Drywall 101796 Interior Lath/Drywall 101796 Gas/Test/Repairs 101796 Exterior Lath/Drywall 101196 Insulation 100896 Rough Combo 100796 Rough Combo 100296 Rough Combo 092596 Shear Panels/HD's 092496 Shear Panels/HD's 091096 Roof/Reroof 090996 Roof/Reroof 090496 Const. Service/Agricultural 073196 Ftg/Foundation/Piers 072596 Underground/Under Floor ACT CO AP AP AP AP CO AP AP CO PI AP CO AP CO AP AP AP INSP TP TP TP PD PD PD TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP COMMENTS AFTER D.W. SEE LIST (PARTIAL) PART WALK THRU EXT SHEAR OK TO WRAP NLNG B.N. TSPB ND SOILS LETTER CITY OF CARLSBAD INSPECTION REQUEST PERMIT* CB960861 FOR 12/12/96 DESCRIPTION: 3142 SF HOUSE AND 654 GARAGE TYPE: SFD JOB ADDRESS: 1845 CANYON PL APPLICANT: WORTHING, BROOKS CONTRACTOR: OWNER: REMARKS: MW/GAIL/729-3965 SPECIAL INSTRUCT: PHONE: PHONE: PHONE: INSPECTOR AREA TP PLANCK* CB960861 OCC GRP CONSTR. TYPE VN STE: /) LOT: 619 729-3961 INSPECTOR TOTAL TIME: —RELATED PERMITS-- 19 29 39 49 PERMIT! TYPE STATUS CB911380 SFD EXPIRED SE960057 SWRSD ISSUED CB962084 RETAIN ISSUED CD LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS ST Final Structural PL Final Plumbing EL Final Electrical ME Final Mechanical ***** INSPECTION HISTORY ***** DATE DESCRIPTION 120596 Gas/Test/Repairs 102196 Exterior Lath/Drywall 101796 Interior Lath/Drywall 101796 Gas/Test/Repairs 101796 Exterior Lath/Drywall 101196 Insulation 100896 Rough Combo 100796 Rough Combo 100296 Rough Combo 092596 Shear Panels/HD's 092496 Shear Panels/HD's 091096 Roof/Reroof 090996 Roof/Reroof 090496 Const. Service/Agricultural 073196 Ftg/Foundation/Piers 072596 Underground/Under Floor ACT AP AP AP AP CO AP AP CO PI AP CO AP CO AP AP AP INSP TP TP PD PD PD TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP COMMENTS AFTER D.W. SEE LIST (PARTIAL) PART WALK THRU EXT SHEAR OK TO WRAP NLNG B.N. TSPB ND SOILS LETTER NOTICECITY OF CARLSBAD " ^ ^^ • " ^^ ^™ 438-3550 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE TIME. PERMIT NO._ <: x^ FOR INSPECTION CALL 438-3101. RE-INSPECTION FEE DUE? I I Yl FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT -PHONE_-r- , ^ \\ BUILDING INSPECTOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERL NOTICECITY OF CARLSBAD • ^ ^^ • • ^^ ^^ 438-3550 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS RALMAS DRIVE ' DATE It.i- TIME_ I LOCATION PERMIT NO._ 2) FOR INSPECTION CALL 438-3101. RE-INSPECTION FEE DUE? I I YES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT _PHONE _ BUILDING INSPECTOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CITY OF CARLSBAD DATE, LOCATION. PERMIT NO.. OTICE 438-3550 2075 LAS PALKUS DRIVE TIME. v /. /x . f *'^ ./ \ PCfi INSPECTION CALL. 438-3101. RE-INSPECHON FEE vis FOR INFORMATION, CONTACT. •' EsGll Corporation frofcssionaC Thai IReview "Engineers DATE: 7/19/96 a APPLICANT 'jUmsh Q FIRE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad Q FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 96-861 SET: III PROJECT ADDRESS: 1845 Canyon PI PROJECT NAME: Little Residence | | The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's *********** codes. H The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. | | The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. | | The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: • Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check Has been completed. | | Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: (by: ) Telephone #: H REMARKS: The engineer assuming design responsibility must sign and seal the structural parts of the plans. ( Sheets 1, 5 & 6 ) By: CHUCK MENDENHALL Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA Q CM D EJ D GP D PC 7/15/96 trnsmtLdot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diego, California 92123 * (619)560-1468 * Fax (619) 560-1576 EsGll Corporation Professional flan 3(eview "Engineers DATE: 5/17/96 OAEEiJCANT sTjLIBia a FIRE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 96-861 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 1845 Canyon PI PROJECT NAME: Little Residence | | The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's *********** 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 corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. H The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. ^] The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. H The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Worthing, Inc P.O. Box 1041, Carlsbad, Ca 92018 H Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. | | Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: (by: ) Telephone*: REMARKS: By: Chuck Mendenhall Enclosures: Esgil Corporation GA n CM D EJ D GP D PC 5/13/96 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 4 San Diego, California 92123 * (619) 560-1468 * Fax (619) 560-1576 Carlsbad 96-861 5/17/96 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLAN REVIEW No. : 96-861 II DATE : 7/5/96 NOTE: THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW REFER TO THE CORRECTION NUMBERS FROM THE PREVIOUS LIST. THESE ITEMS HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED. • FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS 7. Provide an updated copy of the project soil report prepared by a California licensed architect or civil engineer. The report submitted is 9 yrs old and page 16 of the report dated May 27, 1987 indicates that the report is valid for only a two year period. A. Provide a legal description on the plans that is consistent with the location legal description on the updated soil report by Cardiff Geotechnical. B. Note on the plans that the soil engineer will inspect the foundations and notify the building official in writing that the foundations, steel placement and pad preparation comply with the recommendations in his report. C. Provide a letter from the soil engineer indicating that he has reviewed the plans and that they comply with the requirements of the updated soil report. See pages 13 and 14 of the updated report. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL 18. The letter from the truss manufacturer indicating that the trusses have been designee to comply with the new grading requirements of the 1994 UBC must be signed and sealed by the Calif licensed engineer responsible for the design of the trusses. The response to this item indicates " see the attached" There was no letter attached from the truss engineer indicating that the design of the trusses complies with the '94 UBC grading standards. 19. Cross reference the truss details to the roof framing plan. It is not clear from the plan provided which truss applies in what location on the roof plan. The truss details provided do not apply to the plans as detailed on the roof framing plan. A. There are no stub scissor truss details for the area above the Master bed Rm. B. Girder truss GR 44-29-6-28 was not designed for the concentrated load from the hip girder. 22. Is there a post support for RB-4 within the attic storage area? RB-4 appears to stop where the hips intersect but there is no support for RB-4. Show on the floor plans the posts within the office area. EsGll Corporation frofessionafflan 1(f.vitw "Engineers DATE: 5/17/96 OAPPLJCANTflnroRiJ? a FIRE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad briAN REVIEWER Q FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 96-861 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 1845 Canyon PI PROJECT NAME: Little Residence The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's *********** codes. _J 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 corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. I The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. | | The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. I The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Worthing, Inc P.O. Box 1041, Carlsbad, Ca 92018 H Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. | | Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: (by: ) Telephone #: REMARKS: By: Chuck Mendenhall Enclosures: Esgil Corporation GA n CM D EJ D GP D PC 5/13/96 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 *• (619) 560-1468 * Fax (619) 560-1576 Carlsbad 96-861 5/17/96 PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES PLAN CHECK NO.: 96-861 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 1845 Canyon PI FLOOR AREA: 2645 STORIES: two REMARKS: DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED: 5/17/96 HEIGHT: 24' per UBC DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 5/13/96 PLAN REVIEWER: Chuck Mendenhall FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinance by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or other departments. Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Present California law mandates that residential construction comply with Title 24 and the following model codes: 1994 UBC (effective 12/28/95), 1994 UPC (effective 12/28/95), 1994 UMC (effective 2/23/96) and 1993 NEC (effective 12/28/95). The above regulations apply to residential construction, regardless of the code editions adopted by ordinance. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1994 Uniform 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 vou submit the revised plans. LIST NO. 1, GENERAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES WITHOUT SUPPLEMENTS (1994 UBC) rtforw.dot Carlsbad 96-861 5/17/96 • PLANS 1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new sets of prints, to: Esgil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123, (619)560-1468. 2. Plans, specifications and calculations shall be signed and sealed by the California state licensed engineer or architect responsible for their preparation, for plans deviating from conventional wood frame construction. Specify expiration date of license. (California Business and Professions Code). 3. Provide a statement on the Title Sheet of the plans that this project shall comply with Title 24 and the 1994 UBC, UMC and UPC and the 1993 NEC. 4. The walls and soffits of the enclosed usable space under interior stairs shall be protected on the enclosed side as required for one hour fire-resistive construction. Section 1006.12. 5. Windows within the Master Bath at the spa must be tempered • GARAGE AND CARPORTS 6. All elements supporting floor above garage, including walls supporting floor joists, must have one-hour fire-resistive protection on the garage side. Section 302.2. The enclosed usable storage space above the garage is considered part of the R3 occupancy. The entire garage must be protected for 1 Hr construction as an occupancy separation from the storage attic. • FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS 7. Provide an updated copy of the project soil report prepared by a California licensed architect or civil engineer. The report submitted is 9 yrs old and page 16 of the report dated May 27,1987 indicates that the report is valid for only a two year period. 8. Investigate the potential for seismically induced soil liquefaction and soil instability in seismic zones 3 and 4. This does not apply to detached, single- sjojy dwellings. Section 1804.5 9. If cut or fill slopes exist, show distance from foundation to edge of cut or fill slopes and show steepness and heights of cuts and fills. Chapter 18. Carlsbad 96-861 5/17/96 • MECHANICAL (UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE) 10. Show I.C.B.O. approval number for prefab fireplace. Show height of chimney above roof per I.C.B.O. approval or Table 31-B. 11. Note on the plans that approved spark arresters shall be installed on all chimneys. UBC, Section 3102.3.8. • ELECTRICAL (NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE) 12. Show on the plan the amperage of the electrical service, the location of the service panel and the location of any sub-panels. If service is over 200 amps, submit single line diagram, panel schedule and load calculations. • ENERGY CONSERVATION 13. All energy items shown on the plans must be in agreement with the information shown on the properly completed Form CF-IR. A. Note on the plans that all windows and glass doors are to be vinyl framed dual glazed. B Show flourescent lighting in the bath rooms (toilet areas) 14. Provide a note on the plans stating "All new glazing (fenestrations) will be installed with a certifying label attached, showing the U-value." • CARLSBAD S.F.D. & DUPLEX SUPPLEMENT 15. New residential units must be pre-plumbed for future solar water heating. Note that two roof jacks must be installed where the water heater is in the one story garage and directly below the most south facing roof (City Ordinance No. 8093). 16. Note that two 3/4" copper pipes must be installed to the most convenient future solar panel location when the water heater is not in a one story garage and is not directly below the most south facing roof. (City Ordinance No. 8093). 17. All piping for present or future solar water heating must be insulated when in areas that are not heated or cooled by mechanical means (city policy). • MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURAL 18. The letter from the truss manufacturer indicating that the trusses have been designee to comply with the new grading requirements of the 1994 UBC must be signed and sealed by the Calif licensed engineer responsible for the design of the trusses. Carlsbad 96-861 5/17/96 19. Cross reference the truss details to the roof framing plan. It is not clear from the plan provided which truss applies in what location on the roof plan. 20. Where on the roof plan does RB-4B ,4C and RB-5 apply? These beams are designed on sheet 4REV & 4A of the calc's but they are not shown on the framing plan. Please clarify. 21. Clarify the roof framing above the attic storage. It is not clear where the bearing walls or support beams occur. Show on the framing plan where the bearing walls and support beams occur. 22. Is there a post support for RB-4 within the attic storage area? RB-4 appears to stop where the hips intersect but there is no support for RB-4. 23. The floor system above the garage must be designed for general storage which is a min of 100 PSF live load. Table 16-A UBC 24. FB-1 must be a 5 1/4 X 14 but the plans show the beam as a 3 1/2 X 14. See page 6 of the design calculations. 25. Why was bean FB-2 omitted from the calculations? This beam is still shown over the garage on the floor framing plan. 26. Include in the design calc's the floor beam over the kitchen pantry and kitchen entry door. This beam is shown as 3 1/2 X 11 7/8 on the plans. 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 Q No Q The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 619/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Chuck Mendenhall at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. Carlsbad 96-861 5/17/96 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PREPARED BY: Chuck MendenhaU BUILDING ADDRESS: 1845 Canyon PI BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R3/U1 PLAN CHECK NO.: 96-861 DATE: 5/17/96 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VN BUILDING PORTION dwelling garage storage attic Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE BUILDING AREA (ft.2) 2645 663 594 VALUATION MULTIPLIER 78 23 21 VALUE ($) 206,310 15,249 12,474 234,033 n 199 UBC Building Permit Fee • Bldg. Permit Fee by ordinance: $1112.00 n 199 UBC Plan Check Fee • Plan Check Fee by ordinance: $ 722.80 Type of Review: n Complete Review n Structural Only Q Hourly Q Repetitive Fee Applicable Q Other: Esgil Plan Review Fee: $ 578.24 Comments: Fire Services Review: D Fire Alarm Complete Review Other: Suppression System Esgil Fire Services Review Fee: Comments: $ Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc 5196 City of Carlsbad Engineering Department BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST ^ 9/ , ____ „ , . JNCHECK NO. CB 7 & Qo& f BUILDING ADDRESS: / ff 4~S PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: EST. VALUE APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. to ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DENIAL Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked Right-of-Way permit is required prior construction of the following improvements: with I I. Make necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. By:.Date: By:.Date: By:.Date: FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ENQIHEEftING AUTHORIZATKJN TO JSSUt BUILDING PERMIT; ; DA' ATTACHMENTS I—I Dedication Application LJ Dedication Checklist I—I Improvement Application I—I Improvement Checklist I—I Future Improvement Agreement I—I Grading Permit Application I—I Grading Submittal Checklist I—I Right of Way Permit Application I—I Right of Way Permit Submittal Checklist and Information Sheet I—I Sewer Fee Information Sheet ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON NAME: City of Carlsbad ADDRESS: 2075 Las Palmas Dr.. Carlsbad. CA 92009 PHONE : (619) 438-1161. Ext. *^"5 A-S* A-4 P:\DOCSVCHKLST\BPOOQ1 .FRM REV 04/30/96 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92OO9-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-O894 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST SITE PLAN EJ D D 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: A. North Arrow D. Property Lines Easements B. Existing & Proposed Structures E. Easements C. Existing Street Improvements F. Right-of-Way Width & Adjacent Streets D 2. Show on site plan: A. Drainage Patterns C. Existing Topography B. Existing & Proposed Slopes t/D LJ 3. Include note: "Surface water to be directed away from the building foundation at a 2% gradient for no less than 5' or 2/3 the distance to the property line (whichever is less)." [Per 1985 UBC 2907(d)5J. On graded sites, the top of any exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved drainage device a minimum of 12 inches plus two percent" (per 1990 UBC 2907(d)5.). D 4. Include on title sheet A. Site address B. Assessor's Parcel Number C. Legal Description For commercial/industrial buildings and tenant improvement projects, include: Total building square footage with the square footage for each different use, existing sewer permits showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, warehouse, office, etc.) previously approved. EXISTING PERMIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION P:\roCSVCHKLST\BP0001.FRM Page 1 Of 4 flEVMOVM BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 1 st/ 2noV D D D DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE 5. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No. _ Conditions were complied with by:_Date: DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS 6. Dedication for all street Rights-of-Way adjacent to the building site and any storm drain or utility easements on the building site is required for all new buildings and for remodels with a value at or exceeding $ -pursuant to Code Section 18.40.030. Dedication required as follows: n Dedication required. Please have a registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor prepare the appropriate legal description together with an 8-1/2" x 11" plat map and submit with a title report. All easement documents must be approved and signed by owner(s) prior to issuance of Building Permit. Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the dedication process. Provide the completed application form and the requirements on the checklist at the time of resubmittal. Dedication completed by Date: IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS 7a. All needed public improvements upon and adjacent to the building site must be constructed at time of building construction whenever the value of the construction exceeds $ -pursuant to Code Section 18.40.040. Public improvements required as follows: Please have a registered Civil Engineer prepare appropriate improvement plans and submit them together with the requirements on the attached checklist for a separate plancheck process through the Engineering Department. Improvement plans must be approved, appropriate securities posted and fees paid prior to issuance of permit. Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the public improvements requirements. Provide the completed application form and the requirements on the checklist at the time of resubmittal. Improvement Plans signed by:Date: P:\DOCS\CHKLST\BP0001 .FRM Page 2 of 4 REV 04/30/96 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 1stv/2ndv/artiV D D D 7b. Construction of the public improvements may be deferred pursuant to code Section 18.40. Please submit a recent property title report or current grant deed on the property and processing fee of $ so we may prepare the necessary Future Improvement Agreement. This agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the City prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Future public improvements required as follows: Improvement Plans signed by: Date:. D D CD 7c. Enclosed please find your Future Improvement Agreement. Please return signed and notarized Agreement to the Engineering Department. Future Improvement Agreement completed by: D D 7d. No Public Improvements required. SPECIAL NOTE: Damaged or defective improvements found adjacent to building site must be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Inspector prior to occupancy. £ y£ fa '3'~)3>—(2 GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The conditions that invoke the need for a grading permit are found in Section 11.06.030 of the Municipal Code. O CD 8a. Inadequate information available on Site Plan to make a determination on grading requirements. Include accurate grading quantities (cut, fill import, export). O Q 8b. Grading Permit required. A separate grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer must be Submitted together with the completed application form attached. NOTE: The Grading Permit must be issued and rough grading approval obtained prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Grading Inspector sign off by: Date: D 8c. No Grading Permit required. Q(Ji)Gl P:\CXXSVCHKLSt\BP0001.FRM Page 3 Of 4 FEVM/3CVM BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST D D 9. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work In City Riaht-of-Wav and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way. Types of work include, but are not limited to: street improvements, trees, driveways, tieing into public storm drain, sewer and water utilities. Right-of-Way permit required for _ A separate Right-of-Way permit issued by the Engineering Department is required for the following: ; . 10. A SEWER PERMIT is required concurrent with the building permit issuance. The fee is noted in the fees section on the following page. 11. INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMIT is required. Applicant must complete Industrial Waste Permit Application Form and submit foe, City approval prior to issuance of a Permit. G&U&'i' - Industrial waste permit accepted by:__£ Date: P:\DOCS\CHKLST\BP0001 .FRM Page 4 of 4 REV 043008 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING REVIEW SECTION FEE CALCULATION WORKSHEET D Estimate based on unconfirmed information from applicant. D Calculation based on building plancheck plan submrttal. BkJg. Pern* No. 'CJ&Address: Prepared /K,Date:^ Checked by:Date: EDU CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Types of Use:So-Ftrtfrrtts:EDU's: Total EDU's: APT CALCULATIONS: List types and square footages for all uses. Types of Use: ^o /tO StrTOUnte: /ADTs: Total ADTs FEES REQUIRED; PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE REQUIRED D YES D NO (See Building Department for amount) WITHIN CFD: D YES (no bridge & thoroughfare fee, D NO reduced Traffic Impact Fee) ITARK-IN-UEU FEE FEE/UNIT: I&2.TRA PARK AREA:. X NO. UNITS: 2.TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ADTs/UNITS:FEE/ADT: t. BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE FEE ADTs/UNITS: E*s FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE SQ.FT.: 5. SEWER FEE PERMIT No. EDU's: _| BENERTAREA: EDU's: \ DRAINAGE FEES ACRES: X FEE/ADT: ZONE: I X FEE/SQ.FT.:. LATERAL ($2,500 DEPOSIT) WATER FEE EDU's: / TOTAL OF ABOVE FEES*: V 3 "NOTE: This calculation sheet Is NOT a complete list of all fees which may be due. Dedications and Improvements may also be required with Building Permits. P:\DOCS\MISFORMS\BP0002.FRM REV 01/04/95 fcl1 B'n PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check No. CB ?6-&6f Address / 8 Planner Van Lynch _ Phone (619) 438-1161 ext. 4325 (Name) Type of Project and Use: Zone: /^-v Facilities Management Zone:. CFD (i (If property in, complete SPECIAL TAX CALCULATION WORKSHEET provided by Building Department) Legend *• £* s> rsn Item Complete Item Incomplete - Needs your action — \!—•V — £/ °" SLJ D D Environmental Review Required: YES NO X> TYPE DATE OF COMPLETION: Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval D Discretionary Action Required: YES NO J\ TYPE APPROVAL/RESO. NO. DATE PROJECT NO. OTHER RELATED CASES: Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval D D California Coastal Commission Permit Required: YES NO DATE OF APPROVAL: San Diego Coast District, 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 521-8036 Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval D D Inclusionary Housing Fee required: YES X NO n [Yen n n n n E^D n IM n n n n n (Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21, 1993). Site Plan: D 1 • Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensioned setbacks and existing topographical lines. 2. Provide legal description of property, and assessor's parcel number. Zoning: 1. Setbacks: Front: Int. Side: Street Side: Rear: 2. Lot Coverage: 3. Height: 4. Parking: Guest Additional Comments Required *-e) Required ~7f Required Required / V" ^~ ^//^ c?Required — ' u a • -i ^-Vi'Required — *0 Spaces Required 2— Spaces Required ' Shown 2e? Shown £ ' Shown Shown / *J ' _. / L//-I Q^Shown *— HC/ <o Shown 2-0 Shown "2— Shown OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER DATE K:\ADMIN\COUNTER\PLANCK.FRM 1-17-96 Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vfota Lago Terrace Escondldo, CA 92029 (610)746-5112 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS PROJECR BRENT LITTLE RESIDENCE 1845 CANYON PL., CARLSBAD H TH&A, INC. Engineering and Code Consultant* 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB.tf SHEET NO.. CALCULATED BV_ CHECKED BY SCALE OF DATE. DATE. D4M*dtl * 2-# : : I i ! .T?LJ 4 S4 * j w • ' : • • --» ! : <•!'•>! TH&A, INC. Enclneerinf and Cod* Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029(619) 746-5112 MB. SHEET NO CALCULATED BY. CHECKED BY SCALE OF DATE. DATE. ~r-x-i fofl. U It M ; y 10 it >i « II f ,,.^,.. ,, 12.40 i R u ?X IZ « If 5,1 M t, la-X.-*^ r*. 12 (lt*»)(t.<>)(l°) fort. f>x LUM gglC b': fa •^r^3cgg/v^g.j> TH&A, INC. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB. SHEET NO CALCULATED BY_ CHECKED BY SCALE. ^- .a | '!{_•_BATE DATE *OaiCTIWtMklM*IIIB-l|«MM>£i5l7«M lnM.Mw Oliri left*BOXTOUR»!H»»««C TH&A, INC. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029(619) 746-5112 JOB. SHEET NO..Of. CALCULATED BY_ CHECKED BY SCALE DATE. 15 [|JI " ' J f ' { ""J ,10*' : .joiSTe?., TH&A, INC. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029(619) 746-5112 Bfrfci* J24 - a inn i < if in inn /m P«OOllCT»4-MS«gl!S««ll!»l(Pl««ll/^™?,HK &*» MKS 01471 ToOnkiPHOW1011 Hltt TH&A, INC. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029(619) 746-5112 JOB. SHEET NO CALCULATED BY_ CHECKED BY SCALE T-tf. OF DATE. DATE. JT rrr i rrrrrri TTTTM n 4 IWCUCI iM-1 (Single ShMt) 206-1 (MM! /RSi?* He. Onloo M» 01«l to Ortlr PHOW TOLL fflt! HWZ25O80 Microliam ' LVL & Parallam^ PSL Design Properties Design values shown are for 100% load duration W 1.8E WS MICROLLAfVT LVL DESIGN PROPERTY Moment (ft. Ibs.) Shear (Ibs.) Monvoflt of liMrtw (Hi*) WetatttutaJtaJLW .«. DEPTH .«*M, 2.190 1,830 25 2.8 .w . 3.520 2,410 55 3.7 9W 5.885 3,160 125 4.6 11%" .. 8.940 3,950 245 6.0 14" 12.125 4,655 400 7.1 ir 15,495 5,320 595 8.1 ir 19.365 5,985 850 9.1 1.8EWSMICROLLAM"LVL ALLOWABLE DESIGN STRESSES GENERAL NOTES: • Lateral support of beam compression edge is required at Intervals of 24* o.c. or closer. • See NER-126 lor additional design Information. Shear modulus of elasticity Modulus of elasticity Rexural stress Compression perpendicular to grain parallel to glue line Compression parallel to grain Horizontal shear perpendicular to glue line G - 11 2.500 psi E • 1.8x10* psi Fb . 2600 psi1" Fci . 750 psi'" Fe|| . 2460 psi Fy . 285 psi (1) For 12-Inch depth. For others, multiply by F—1 (2) Fcl shall not be increased for duration of load. 0.136 2.0E WS PARALLAM" PSL 2 W 2.0E WS PARALLAM" PSL DESIGN PROPERTY Moment (It. Ibt.) Shear (Ibs.) Moment of Ins flu (In*) W«t8hl (IbMtrvn,), DEPTH 9W 6.530 3.215 125 5.2 11V 9.950 4.020 245 6.5 14" 13.580 4,735 400 7.7 16" 17.475 5.415 595 8.8 ir 21.830 6,090 850 9.8 DESIGN PROPERTY Moment (ft* IDA.) ShMr (Ibt.) MOfTWfn Of HtOnW (I^J .wetghtXtbMKfU DEPTH 9W 10,025 4.935 190 8.0 11%" 15.280 6.170 375 10.0 14" 20.855 7.275 615 11.8 ir 26.840 B.31S 915 13.4 ir 33,530 9.350 1.305 15.1 3 Vfc" 2.0E WS PARALLAM00 PSL 5%" 2.0E WS PARALLAM- PSL DESIGN PROPERTY • •fiaaj^afci Iff tt-j. tNvuiiioni \FU ivv >| Shear (Ibt.) Moment of Inertia (Ire) Weight (IbeJHfUfg DEPTH 9W 13,055 6.430 250 10.4 11W 19,900 8.035 490 13.0 14" 27.160 9,475 800 15.3 16" 34.955 10,825 1.195 17.5 18" 43,665 12,180 1.700 19.7 DESIGN PROPERTY Mofflwit (ft. IDS*) Shear (Iba.) Moment of Inertia (Ire) Wetoht (itMJIIn.fi) DEPTH 9W 19,585 9.645 375 15.6 11%" 29.855 12.055 735 19.5 14" 40,740 14.210 1.200 23.0 16" 52.430 16,240 1,790 26.3 ir 65,495 18.270 2.550 29.5 7" 2.0E WS PARALLAM* PSL DESIGN PROPERTY Moment (ft. Ibs.) Sheer (ttw.) Moment of motue (Mr) ***r*Biit mmTft^iu DEPTH ft£ 26.115 12,855 500 208 JUll 39.805 16,070 975 260 .JAT 54,325 18,945 1.600 306 16" 69.905 21.655 2.390 350 ir 87.325 24.360 3,400 394 GENERAL NOTES: • Lateral support ol beam compression edge Is required at Intervals of 24* o.c. or closer. • See NER-292 for additional design information. 2.0E WS PARALLAM* PSL ALLOWABLE DESIGN STRESSES Shear modulus ol elaslicity G • 125.000 psi Modulus of elasticity E - 2.0x10« psi Flexural stress Fb • 2900 psi"1 Compression perpendicular to grain parallel to wide face of strands Fu • 650 psi"1 Compression parallel to grain F£ - 2900 psi Horizontal shear perpendicular to wide face of strands F, - 290 psi WS indicates Western Species. Western Species may Include Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, western hemlock or white fir. (1) For 12-Inch depth. For others, multiply by (2) Fcl shall not be increased for duration of load. Tj0.111 Microllam" LVL & Parallam* PSL - Allowable Holes t t 21 Dlwmtw of ttw tegm hoto (minimum) HMpttl I L _T Jf"o D '!~TAItew«dHot«Zont , \-i — I-- ...~.^— ;—i- F S) / AlkNMdHetoZOM V4«P«l GENERAL NOTES: 1 The Allowed Hole Zone In this char) Is suitable tor uniformly loaded beams using maximum loads for any tables listed In this guide. For other load conditions or hole configurations, please contact your Trus Joist MacMillan Representative. 7 II more than one hole is lo be cut in beam, the length ol the uncut beam between holes must be a minimum of twice the diameter of the largest hole. 3 Rectangular holes are not allowed. 4 Holes in cantilevers require additional analysis. Page<»6 DO NOT cut, notch or drM hotel In D**^MMM* BQt an nanl — —roTamfTP rOL VXCoJVl V n In chwt And IniBtrMfon. ROUND HOLE CHART BEAM DEPTH SW MAXIMUM ROUND HOLE SIZE MICRO=LAI\/r LVL & PARALLAM" PSL HEADERS & BEAMS ALLOWABLE UNIFORM APPLIED LOAD - ROOF (PLF) Refer to page 22 for General Notes for this table. I 31/2" 2.0E DF PARALLAM* PSL Table can be used lor 3Vz," 5V<" or 7" width, 2.0E DF Parallam* PSL beams. Use the following multipliers to calculate the allowable load lor each width: 3 Vz" width beam * : Use values in table 5V«" width beam : Use values in table x 1.5 7" width beam : Use values in table x 2.0 •Table is for one 3'fe" beam. When properly fastened together, double the values for two 3'fc" beams. When top loaded, fasten together with a minimum of two rows of 'fe" bolts at 24" o.c., staggered. When side loaded see page 20 for connection of multiple pieces. RIDGE BEAM SIZING TABLE Non-shaded portion indicates areaof load on beam. 36'-0' MM. Assumed. GENERAL NOTES: 1. Table assumes beam supports a tributary width of 18 feet. 2. Table is based on worst case of simple or continuous span. 3. Deflection limited to L/240 at live load or U180 at total load. 4. Selection of 3V?" and 5V<" width beams is based on 1.6E DF MICRO-LAM* LVL design values. Selection of 21 Vi e" width beams is based on 2.1E DF Parallam* PSL design values. 5. Reduction in live load has been applied in accordance with UBC 2306, NBC 1110.2 and SBC 1203.6, for the beam sizes listed in the non-snow (125%) columns. 6. Support beam ends with double trimmers (3" bearing). At intermediate supports ol continuous spans use 5 trimmers (7.5' bearing). InljjJjj^Mtgdjportion of table, use 3 trimmers (4.5" bearing) at beam ends and 7 trimmers (105" bearing) at intermediate supports of continuous spans. 7. For loading conditions not shown refer to allowable uniform load table above and on page 22 or contact your Trus Joist MacMillan representative for assistance. 8. Beam widths of 31/?" and 5'AT may be one piece or multiple pieces as shown in the following chart: One 5V«" or Three One 31/2"& One I3/.." When top loaded, fasten multiple pieces together with a minimum of two rows of 16d nails at 12" o.c. Use three rows of 16d nails at 12" o.c. for 14," 16" and 18" beams. When side loaded see page 20 for connection of multiple pieces. Page 23 Microllam M LVL and Parallam" PSL Headers and Beams ALLOWABLE UNIFORM APPLIED LOAD - FLOOR (PLF) GENERAL NOTES: 1. Values shown are the maximum uniform loads, in pounds per lineal foot (plf), that can be applied to the beam in addition to its own weight. 2. Tables are based on uniform loads and the most restrictive of simple or continuous span. The MMM* shaded areas represent load conditions controlled by a continuous span condition. 3 Microllam" LVL and Parallam' PSL beams are made without camber; therefore, in addition to complying with the deflection limits of the applicable Building Code, other deflection considerations, such as long term deflection under sustained loads (including creep) and aesthetics, must be evaluated. 4 Lateral support of beam compression edge is required at intervals of 24" o.c. or closer. 5 Lateral support of beams is required at bearing points. 6. Bearing area to be calculated for specific application; see table on page 20. FLOOR BEAM SIZING: • To size a beam for use in a floor it is necessary to check both live load and total load. Make sure the selected beam will work in both columns. When no live load is shown, total load will control. • Total load column limits deflection to L/240. Live load column is based on deflection ol L/360. Check local code for other deflection criteria. • For deflection limits of L/240 and L/480 multiply loads shown in live load column by 1.5 and 0.75 respectively. The resulting live load shall not exceed the total load shown. 13/4" 1.8E WS MICROLLAM" LVL SPAN (Fl.| 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 On* 1 WxSW LIVE LOAD L/360 275 120 63 37 23 16 TOTAL LOAD 410 178 91 52 32 21 On* 1 Vx7%" LIVE LOAD L/MO 594 266 140 83 S3 35 25 IB TOTAL LOAD *7^r396 207 120 75 49 34 24 On* IWrtW LIVE LOAD Lfl60 566 304 181 116 78 56 41 31 24 19 TOTAL LOAD JK?.731 451 267 169 113 78 56 41 31 23 On* IVVxIIW uvE LOAD UMO 566 341 220 150 107 78 59 46 36 29 24 TOTAL LOAD 1424 kJQ|^700 490 325 219 154 112 83 63 48 38 30 On* 1Wx14" LIVE LOAD .UMO 883 539 351 241 172 127 96 74 59 47 39 TOTAL LOAD 1795 1207 JW- 667 488 354 251 183 137 105 81 64 51 1K*iir«nd1Wxir teMiw mlob* uMd to imiMpI* NMHiotf units only* On* 1WX16" LIVE LOAD L/360 775 510 351 252 186 142 110 87 70 57 TOTAL LOAD 2193 1443 1074 »ess. 627 478 370 272 204 157 123 97 78 On* IWxir UVE LOAD L/360 703 488 351 261 199 155 123 99 81 TOTAL LOAD 2651 1701 1251 782 596 469 378 289 223 175 139 1t2 Table is for one 1W beam. When properly connected together, double the values for two 1%" beams, triple for three. See pages 19 and 20 for connection details. 31/2" 2.0E WS PARALLAM00 PSL (For 1%", 2W, 5VV and r beams, see multiplier below) Table can be used for 1 W, 2"/ie". 3V4". 5VV or T width beams. Use the following multipliers to calculate the allowable load for each width: SPAN <".) 6 8 ~(W} 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 On* 3Wx»Vi" LIVE LOAD U380 1258 676 402 257 174 123 90 68 53 42 33 27 TOTAL LOAD 2163 jai, 1003 592 376 251 175 125 92 69 52 40 30 On*3W»11W LIVE LOAD JJ3JP r^i258; 758 490 334 237 174 132 102 81 65 53 TOTAL LOAD 2898 1991 ffsiL 1093 722 488 343 249 185 140 108 64 66 On* 3Vi"x14" LIVE LOAD JU360 1198 781 535 382 282 (fit, VT66 131 105 86 TOTAL LOAD 3652 2456 1848 J4BO, 1093 788 558 407^ /305; ^181 143 113 On* 3V4"x16H LIVE LOAD M3W 1722 1132 781 560 414 315 244 194 156 127 TOTAL LOAD 4463 2935 2185 Vi«l 1409 1075 822 604 455 349 273 216 173 On*3Wx16" LIVE LOAD V38?! 1561 1084 781 580 442 344 273 220 180 TOTAL LOAD 5394 3460 2545 2010 1660 1345 1058 850 643 496 390 310 250 1 %" width beam: Use values in table x 0.50 2"/i6" width beam: Use values in table x 0.77 3'/2B width beam1"1: Use values in table SVi" width beam: Use values in table x 1.50 7" width beam: Use values in table x 2.00 (a) Table is for one 3'// beam. When properly connected together. double the values for two 3V?" beams. See pages 19 and 20 lor connection details. MM! cult on Mtcrotafn1* L PSL buoms must not ov*rh«ng knttt IK* of support fn*mb*r. Page 22 TH&A, INC. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido. California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB. SHEET NO.. CALCULATED BY_ CHECKED BY •CALE DATE. InH MM Dlffl l«(M»f«M TOU Wt 1«l m-CM TH&A, INC.Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB. SHEET NO.. CALCULATED BY_ CHECKED BY SCALE ^Sfcl' ^4tJi./JJfM >r ^ 2J Am-Mn. P^- *U.)***A Joist Allowable Uniform Load - Floor Values shown are In pounds per lineal foot (PLF) JOIST CLEAR SPAN (Ft.) 6 a 10 12 I*-.("/M 20 22 24 26 28 ^*L^ TJI«/Pro~ 9W TJIVPro" LIVE LOAD L/480 131 80 52 36 26 TOTAL LOAD 245 185 148 109 80 62 49 11%"TJI"/Pro" LIVE LOAD L/480 88 61 44 32 25 TOTAL LOAD 245 185 148 124 106 82 65 53 44 TJP/18 DF »V4"Tjrvi5DF LIVE LOAD L/480 143 88 57 39 28 21 16 TOTAL LOAD 247 186 149 125 107 79 56 42 32 11%" TJI-/15 DF LIVE LOAD L/480 96 67 48 36 27 TOTAL LOAD 247 186 149 125 107 94 84 71 54 TJI-/25 DF 914" Tjr/25 DF LIVE LOAD L/480 100 65 45 32 24 18 14 11 TOTAL LOAD 264 199 160 134 115 90 65 48 36 29 23 11%" TJI-/25 DF LIVE LOAD L/480 109 (TS) 54 41 31 24 19 15 13 TOTAL LOAD 264 199 160 134 115 (joij 89 81 62 48 38 31 26 14" TJIV25 DF LIVE LOAD L/480 80 59 45 35 28 23 19 TOTAL LOAD 264 199 160 134 115 101 89 81 73 67 56 46 38 16" TJI 725 DF LIVE LOAD L/480 80 62 48 39 31 26 TOTAL LOAD 264 199 160 134 115 101 89 81 73 67 62 58 51 JOIST CLEAR SPAN (Ft.) 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 . JOIST CLEAR SPAN (Ft.) 6 a 10 12 14 16 18 *> ^22/Ss 26 28 30 32 34 . je TJI-/35DF IWTjmSDF LIVE LOAD L/480 95 68 51 39 30 24 20 16 14 TOTAL LOAD 302 228 183 153 131 115 102 92 78 61 49 39 32 27 14" TJIV35 DF LIVE LOAD L/480 99 74 /V ^35 29 24 20 TOTAL LOAD 302 228 183 153 131 115 102 92 fa)Sf 71 57 47 39 16"TJW35DF LIVE LOAD L/480 77 60 48 39 32 27 TOTAL LOAD 302 228 183 153 131 115 102 92 84 77 71 66 62 53 TJIfBDF 11%TJr»/55 DF LIVE LOAD L/480 136 99 74 57 45 36 29 24 20 17 TOTAL LOAD 437' 329* 265* L 221* 190* 166* 148* 133' 114* 89 71 58 47 40 33 14"TJI'/55DF LIVE LOAD L/480 141* 107 82 65 52 42 35 29 24 20 TOTAL LOAD 437' 329' 265* 221' 190' 166* 148* 133* 121* 111* 103* 84 69 57 48 41 16" TJI'/55 DF LIVE LOAD L/480 110' 87 69 56 47 39 33 28 TOTAL LOAD 437' 329* 265' 221* 190* 166* 148* 133* 121* 111* 103' 95' 89' 77' 65 56 JOIST CLEAR SPAN (Ft.) 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 34 GENERAL NOTES: 1 Load capacity assumes no composite action provided by sheathing. 2. These values reflect the most restrictive of simple span or multiple span applications. 3. Web stiffeners are required if the sides of the hanger do not laterally support the TJI"1 joist top flange. Web stiffeners are also required at all TJI-/55 DF joist hanger locations where joist reactions exceed 1200 pounds. FLOOR JOIST SIZING: 4. To size a joist for use in a floor, it is necessary to check both live load and total load. When live load is not shown, total load will control. 5. Total Load column limits joist deflection to L/240. Live load column is based on joist deflection of U480. 6. For live load deflection limits of L/360 (minimum code criteria), multiply value in live load column by 1.33. The resulting live load shall not exceed the total load shown. PSF TO PLF CONVERSION TABLE Load In pounds per lineal foot (PLF) o.c. SPACING 12" 16" 19.2" A£M ^ _ <»*— '».iJ)t-«-. LOAD IN LBS. PER SQUARE FOOT (PSF) 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 20 27 32 L 40 25 34 40 SO 30 40 48 60 35 47 56 70 40 54 64 80 45 60 72 90 50 67 80 100 55 74 88 110 60 80 96 120 Page 14 TH&A, me. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029(619) 746-5112 JOB. SHEET NO CALCULATED BY_ CHECKED BY OF DATE. DATE. TH&A, INC. Engineering and Code Consultant* 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB.I34< SHEET NO..T* CALCULATED BY. CHECKED BY SCALE OF DATE. DATE. :^«jp^*wtf MB (1471 T» ft* PHWITOIIIW1 WHS-OKI TH&A, INC. Enfineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB. SHEET NO.. Vlad CALCULATED BY. CHECKED BY SCALE OF DATE. DATE. miiEM1"f ir KiU»**' »T s^ f-wss '4 4< l 245-' 21'1 >t*i-j7;...a0k^..£fj»*rl »/i$)&**f£) -:*-: 3oo4^L./k... l'<1/^.^ iiMii4?i T« OKU Hume niumt TH&A, me. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB. SHEET NO CALCULATED BV_ CHECKED BY •BALE OF DATE. DATE. il. ••••I ! K4 * ' 'l l '' ' * """' ^ -iff!k 6m* on -j-mi TTTfniJ Jo' 014fl llM*MIMCnUFKII-M-2»«)K TH&A, INC. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029(619) 746-5112 JOB TH&A, me. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB . 6n«l. MBS 01471 ToOrtlcPHOW TOLL FKf t«0-225««0 TH&A, INC. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB. SHEET NO..OF CALCULATED BY. CHECKED BY _ SCALE _ -r-tf. OATE ffrD v ifra-o \jjguu • 2'^u>m/ Mfc*v TH&A, INC. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB. SHEET NO.. CALCULATED BY_ CHECKED BY SCALE OF DATE. DATE. TH&A, INC.Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB. TH&A, INC. Engineering end Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB. SHEET NO.. CALCULATED BY. CHECKED BY SCALE T-Jf. OF DATE. DATE. TH&A, INC. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB. SHEET NO.. CALCULATED BV_ CHECKED BV SCALE OF. DATE. DATE. TH&A, INC. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB. SHEET NO.. CALCULATED BY. CHECKED BY •CALE T-iL OF DATE. DATE. TH&A, INC. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029 (619) 746-5112 JOB. SHEET NO.. CALCULATED BV_ CHECKED BY SCALE OF DATE. DATE. p^i^gro:-ig;^»i-.n:i'»tff^) TH&A, INC. Engineering and Code Consultants 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, California 92029(619) 746-5112 -i V SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE SYM MATERIAL NAILING SHEAR VALUE TRANSFER NAILING ANCHOR BOLTS 1/2" Gyp Bd Sd Cooler Nails © T OC 50#/FT Unblocked F.N. & EN. 5/8" Gyp Bd 6d Cooler Nails @ T OC 50#/FT Unblocked F.N. & EN. 1/2" Gyp Bd 5d Cooler Nails @ 4' OC 75#/FT Unblocked EN. & EN. 5/8" Gyp Bd 6d Cooler Nails @ 4" OC 75#/FT Unblocked F.N. & EN. 7/8" Stucco w/ 16 GA Staples 6" OC 180#/FT Paper Backed Top & Bottom Plates, Edges Wire Lath & Field of Shear Panel 16d @ 12" OC or A35 @ 32" OC 16d @ 12" OC or A35 @ 32" OC 16d @ 8" OC or A35 @ 32" OC 16d @ 8" OC or A35 @ 32" OC 16d @ 8" OC or A35 @ 32" OC 5/8"xlO" @ 48" OC (1) 5/8"xlO" @ 48" OC (1) 5/8^10" @ 48" OC (1) 5/8"xlO" @ 48" OC (1) 5/8"xlO" @ 48" OC (1) 3/8" Struct II C-D or C-C Plywood 3/8" Struct II C-D or C-C Plywood 3/8" Struct II C-D or C-C Plywood 8d @ 6" OC EN. & B.N. 12" OC F.N. 8d @ 4" OC EN. & B.N. 12" OC F.N. (3) 8d @ 3" OC EN. & B.N. 12" OC F.N. (3) 3/8" Struct II 8d @ 2" OC EN. & B.N. C-D or C-C 12" OC F.N. (2) (3) Plywood 1/2" Struct II lOd @ 3" OC EN. & B.N. C-D or C-C 12" OC F.N. (2) (3) Plywood 1/2" Struct I C-D or C-C Plywood lOd @ 2" OC EN. & B.N. 12" OC F.N. (2) (3) 260#/FT 380#/FT 490#/FT 640#/FT 600#/FT 770#/FT 16d @ 6" OC or A35 @ 24" OC 16d @ 4" OC or A35 @ 16" OC 16d @ 3" OC or A35 @ 12" OC 16d @ 2" OC or A35 @ 9" OC 16d @ 3" OC or A35 @ 12" OC 16d @ 2" OC or A35 @ 8" OC 5/8"xlO" @ 24" OC (1) 5/8"xlO" @ 24" OC (1) 5/8"xlO" @ 16" OC (1) 5/8"xlO" @ 12" OC (1) 5/8"xlO" @ 12" OC (1) 5/8"xlO" @ 8" OC (1) NOTE (1) Spacing of anchor bolts and shear transfer nailing shall be reduced by half if shear wall materials are required on both bees of wall. (2) Framing at adjoining panel edges shall be 3-inch nomimal or wider and nails staggered (3) Where plywood is on both sides of wall, framing member for panel joints shall be 3-inch nomimal or wider and nail on each side is staggered EDGE NAIL (LN.) 16d NAILS SPACED PER SCHEDULED PLYWOOD SHEATHING 2x RIM JST. OR BLK'G, NAILS SCHEDULE E.N. DBL TOP PLATE A35 FRAMING ANCHOR SPACED PER SCHEDULE SHEAR TRANSFER W/ 2x4 BLOCKING SHEAR TRANSFER W/ METAL CUPS TABLE 23-l-O-NAILINO SCHEDULE CONNECTION 1. Joisi to sill or girder, toeruil 2. Bridging to joisi. toenail each end 3. I " x 6" (25 mm x 152 mm) subfloor or less to each joist, face nail 4. Wider than 1 " x 6" (25 mm x 152 mm) subfloor to each joist, face nail 5. 2" (51 mm) subfloor to joist or girder, blind and face nail 6. Sole plate to joist or blocking, typical face nail Sole plate to joist or blocking, at braced wall panels 7. Top plate to stud, end nail 8. Stud to sole plate 9. Double studs, face nail 10. Doubled top plates, typical face nail Double top plates, lap splice 1 1 . Blocking between joists or rafters to top plate, toenail 12. Rim joist to top plate, loenail 13. Top plates, laps and intersections, face nail 14. Continuous header, two pieces I6datl6" 15. Ceiling joists to plate, toenail 16. Continuous header to stud, toenail 1 7. Ceiling joists, laps over partitions, face nail 1 8. Ceiling joists to parallel rafters, face nail 19. Rafter to plate, toenail 20. 1" (25 mm) brace to each stud and plate, face nail 21. I" x 8" (25 mm x 203 mm) sheathing or less to each bearing, face nail 22. Wider than 1" x 8" (25 mm x 203 mm) sheathing to each bearing, face nail 23. Built-up comer studs NAILING1 3-8d 2-8d 2-8d 3-8d 2-16d lodat 16" (406 mm) o.c. 3-16dper 16" (406 mm) Mod 4-8d. toenail or 2-16d. end nail 16dai 24" (61 Omm) o.c. 16dal 16" (406 mm) o.c. 8-16d 3-8d 8d at 6" (152 mm) o.c. 2-16d (406 mm) o.c. along each edge 3-8d 4-8d 3-l6d 3-l6d 3-8d 2-8d 2-8d 3-8d I6dat 24" (610 mm) o.c. 24. Built-up girder and beams 20d at 32" (813 mm) o.c. at top and bottom and staggered 2-20d at ends and at each splice 25. 2" (51 mm) planks 26. Wood structural panels and panicleboard:2 Subfloor, roof and wall sheathing (to framing): (1 inch = 25.4 mm) 'A" and less »lK-3/4"V-i" l'/r-l'/4" Combination subfloor-underlaymem (to framing): (1 inch = 25.4 mm)3/4* and less V-i"I'/s'-lV 27. Panel siding (to framing): '/2" (13 mm) or less Vdomm) 28. Fiberboard sheathing:7 '/2"<l3mm) Z5/jj"(20mm) 29. Interior paneling 1U"3/B" 2-l6d at each bearing 6d' 8d*«6ds 8d' lOd4 or 8d< 6d' 8d5 10d*or8d! 6d« 8d* No. llga.8 6d4 No. I6ga.9 No. llga.8 8d4 No. 16 ga.' 4d'° 6d" 'Common or box nails may be used except where otherwise staled.2Nails spaced at 6 inches (152 mm) on center at edges. 12 inches (305 mm) at intermediate supports except 6 inches (152 mm) at all supports where spans are 48 inches (1219 mm) or more. For nailing of wood structural panel and panicleboard diaphragms and shear walls, refer to Section 2314.3. Nails for wall sheathing may be common, box or casing. 'Common or deformed shank. 'Common. 'Deformed shank. 'Corrosion-resistant siding or casing nails conforming to the requirements of Section 2325.1. ^Fasteners spaced 3 inches (76 mm) on center at exterior edges and 6 inches (152 mm) on center at intermediate sup- ports. BCorrosion-resisiant roofing nails with 7/|6-inch-diameter (11 mm) head and I '/2-inch (38 mm) length for Vj-inch (13 mm) sheathing and 13/4-inch (44 mm) length for 25/32-inch (20 mm) sheathing conforming 10 the requirements of Section 2325.1. 'Corrosion-resistant staples with nominal 7/i*-inch (11 mm) crown and 1 Vg-inch (29 mm) length for Vi-inch (13 mm) sheathing and 1 '/2-inch (38 mm) length for -s/32-inch (20 mm) sheathing conforming to the requirements of Section '"Panel supports at 16 inches (406 mm) [20 inches (508 mm) if strength axis in the long direction of the panel, unless otherwise marked]. Casing or finish nails spaced 6 inches (152 mm) on panel edges. 12 inches (305 mm) at inter- mediate supports. "Panel supports at 24 inches (610 mm). Casing or finish nails spaced 6 inches (152 mm) on panel edges. 12 inches (305 mm) at intermediate supports. TH&A Engineering and Code Consultants 1941 Continental Lane EsconAte.CA.9B02? (610)7464112 JO» •HCeTMO—_ CALCULATfO «r. CNCCKtO iV__ DATE. 0»TI. SPECIFICATIONS/NOTES: GENERAL: ALL DETAILS* SECTIONS AND NOTES SHOWN ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED TO BE TYPICAL AND SHALL APPLY TO SIMILAR SITUATIONS ELSEWHERE U.N.O. ALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WtTH THE LATEST ADOPTED EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. ALL OMISSIONS OR CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE WORKING DRAWINGS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BEFORE PROCEEDING 'WITH ANY WORK INVOLVED. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SHORING AND BRACING TO SUPPORT ALL LOADS DURING CONSTRUCTION. DURING CONSTRUCTION AND PRIOR TO THE INCORPORATION OF* ALL CHAN- GES* REVISIONS* MODIFICATIONS AND/OR DEVIATIONS FROM THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF* AND OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE ARCHITECT* STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND THE GOVERNING BUILDING DEPARTMENT. LUMBER/FRAMING: 1 ALL 2X HORIZONTAL RF/CLG LUMBER TO BE MIN DF»2 U.N.O. 2 ALL 2X HORIZONTAL FLR LUMBER TO BE MIN DF^ U.N.O. 3 ALL 4X & LARGER HORIZONTAL LUMBER TO BE MIN DF #1 U.N.O. A ALL GLULAMS TO BE DF/DF COMB 24F-V4 DRY USE U.N.O. 3 ALL 2X VERTICAL LUMBER TO BE MIN DF tt2 U.N.O. 6 ALL AX & LARGER VERTICAL LUMBER TO BE MIN DF*1 U.N.O. 7 ALL PLYWD TO BE MIN CD-CC STRUCT XI OR CDX. 8 TYPICAL NAILING SCHEDULE AS PER UBC 23-P. ' 9 BUILT-UP BEAMS: DBL 2*X MEMBRS TO BE FACE NAILED W/ MIN 164 9 121n OC STAGGERED TOP/BOT. 3 OR MORE 2X LAMINATIONS TO BE CONN W/ l/2in DIA MB & WASHER MIN B 24in OC STAGGERED TOP/BOT * 2 EA END, 10 CARRY .ALL POSTS & DBL STUDS DOWN TO FOUNDATIONS. BLOCK SOLID AS REfc'D FOR FULL BRG B FLR LINES. CONCRETES PROVIDE MINIMUM BAR COVERAGE OF 3in FOR CONCRETE CAST AGAINST EARTH.OR MINIMUM 2in FOR ALL FORMED CONCRETE. CONCRETE AS PER ASTM C-130 (AGGREGATES PER ASTM C-33>» TYPICAL PORTLAND CEMENT TYPE X. USE GRADE ' C' MIX 1:2-1/2:3-1/2 W/ MAX 7-1/2 GAL WATER PER SACK OF CEMENT. TM & A ,HKT NO __ or Engineering and Code Consultants CttrSental Lane e"eu"T" " EtcondUo, CA. 9202? «Mtc«p»r O*TI. (819)746*112 CONCRETE: •* 3 ALL CONCRETE TO REACH MIN ULT COMPRESSIVE STRESS OF 25*00 PSI d 2B DAYS U.N.O. • MASONRY: • 1 CONCRETE MASONRY WITS TO BE NORMAL WEIGHT HOLLOW LOAD BEARING TYPE CONFORMING TO ASTM C-90. MASONRY UNITS SHALL BE CLEAN AND FREE OF ALL SUBSTANCE THAT MIGHT IMPAIR BOND AND SHALL BE STORED UNDER COVER ON THE JOB. 2 ALL CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS TO BE GRADE N-II U.N.O. 3 MIN COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF ALL MASONRY UNITS SHALL BE 1500 PSI. 4 TYPICAL TYPE 'M* MORTAR: 1 PART CEMENTi 3-1/2 PARTS SANDi 1/4 PART LIME PUTTY* CONFORM W/ ASTM C-270. WATER CONTENT SHALL BE MIN RE'i'D FOR WORKING CONSISTENCY. MIN 2000 PSI. 5 GROUT MIX SHALL BE 1 PART CEMENTi 3 PARTS SAND AND (OPTIONAL) 1/10 PART LIME PUTTY. ADD UP TO 2 PARTS PEA GRAVEL WHERE SPACES EXCEED 2in MIN. 28 DAY ULT STRENGTH OF GROUT SHALL BE 2000 PSI. * USE SUFFICIENT WATER TO PRODUCE POURING CONSISTENCE W/0 SEGREGATION, REINF STL: 1 ALL REINF STL TO BE MIN ASTM-AA13 GRADE 40 U.N.O. 2 WELDED WIRE MESH: ASTM-A183? USE MIN 6X6-ttl0/ftl0 U.N.O. LAP ALL MESH MIN 2 MODULES. 3 ALL REINF BARS SHALL BE ACCURATELY & SECURELY PLACED BEFORE POURING CONC OR APPLYING MORTAR OR GROUT. • STRUCT STL: 1 ALL STEEL TO CONFORM TO ASTM-A36 U.N.O. 2 DETAILING & FABRICATION PER AISC - LATEST EDITION. 3 ALL STEEL PIPES TO CONFORM TO ASTM A23 GRADE B U.N.O.f FASTENERS: 1 ALL CONNECTORS NOTED TO BE SIMPSON OR EQUIVALENT. 2 ALL BOLTS TO BE MIN ASTM-A307. 3 BOLT HOLES: MAX l/16in LARGER "THAN BOLT DIA. 4 ALL BOLTS BRG ON WOOD TO USE M.I. WASHER UNDER HEAD L NUT. 3 LAG BOLTS: LEAD HOLES FOR SHANK TO BE SAME AS SHANK; THREADED PORTION TO BE 60-70% OF SHANK DIA. 6 ALL NAILS TO BE COMMON U.N.O. EnoinMnno MM Code Gonsuunts 1941 Continental Une EKOndkto, CA, 9202? (61 0) 746-51 1 2 tHUTNO. eteuuw. •».MI. FASTENERS: 7 USE FULL NAILING/BOLTING S ALL CONNECTORS U.N.O. 1 FOUNDATIONS: PROVIDE MIN CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL FOUNDATIONS U.N.O.ALL CONT/ ISOLATED FTG5 TO BE PLACED MIN I2ir> INTO COMPETENTBRG SOIL OR BEDROCK.ACQUISITION OF A SOILS REPORT IS RECOMMENDED FOR ALL JOBS.IF NO SOILS REPORT IS AVAILABLE. ASSUM'D SOIL TYPE & BRS VALUEUSED IN CALCULATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO BUILDING DEPT APPROVAL.ENGR WILL NOT BE H£j.D RESPONSIBLE FOR BLDG DEPT APPROVED VALUES.SEE FOUNDATION PLAN FOR ALLOWABLE SOIL BRG PRESSURE. RETAINING WALLS: 1 CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS & CONDITIONS ON THE JOB. 2' RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACCURATELY DESCRIBING THE SITE CONDITIONS RESTS ON THE CLIENT. REVIEW CALCULATIONS IMMEDIATELY TO DETERMINE WHETHER CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN IN WALL DESIGN FOR ADJACENT FTGi VEHICLE OR BACKSLOPE SURCHARGES. CONTACT THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION REGARDING THIS MATTER. 3 IF NO SOILS REPORT IS AVAILABLEi ASSUM'D SOIL TYPE fc BRG VALUE USED IN CALCULATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO BUILDING DEPT APPROVAL. 4 VERIFY INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS W/ BLDG DEPT PRIOR TO CONSTR. 5 SEE RETAINING WALL SCHEDULE FOR BLOCK INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS. 6 ALL RETAINING WALL FTGS TO EXTEND MIN 12in INTO COMPETENT BRG SOIL AS DEFINED BY SOILS REPORT OR APPROVED STANDARD PRACTICE. RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOILS REPORT TO SUPERCEDE THIS MIN REQUIREMENT 7 BOTTOM OF PAD TO BE MIN 3' FROM DAYLIGHT* MEASURED IN A HORI2 DIRECTION FROM THE NEAREST BOTTOM EDGE OF PAD. 8 PROVIDE EITHER A MIN 12in x 12in GRAVEL POCKET 8 BASE OF WL UITH 4in DIA PVC PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE TO DAYLIGHT, OR MIN 2 SQ IN WEEP HOLES B BASE OF WALL STEM TO ADJACENT GRADE a 481 n OC. 9 BACKFILLING SHALL NOT BE STARTED FOR AT LEAST2I DAYS AFTER THE FILLING OF THE CELLS WITH GROUT. 10 DO NOT BACKFILL UNTIL ALL WORK HAS PASSED REQ'D INSPECTIONS. BACKFILLING MUST BE THOROUGHLY TAMPED TO PREVENT FURTHER SETTLING. 11 IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL SHORING DURING CONSTRUCTION AS REQ'D. 12 ALL BACKFILL MATERIALS TO BE GRANULAR, i.*. SAND, GRAVEL* OR . SOIL APPROVED BY PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER. i - n I K> e> 9 Oil 2 M N -t W ii •K fi fl A 8 -V *;-.ONI s 9e6i -n 'i^ aaidoosiai xoaaxiAa «* ; IIs • •i~ R^6. . afcl822 I |ss..." S 3-^ f51 ... I ^ I a H i j "! "! tftf •9 *4 ^ *« • » Uf ni N * 3 3 R K £0-IO«lT i- • III 1 i • af'hi 9 * U ai |Jj » * * WW5 A A A aa i! I vI* •"h 1 1UUlift)...'« r»* m *m mi ~ ti i .1 .(, :J ! I!1 jiii, !l iliii |^rt 1(4 rf • ^ « 2 2 I'l «l I9 m ij ; 5 ^* "* IsrSiAA4* g^|^AAB m BB,«ae~«"•'1TT • !M.AA4* ^ l""" Ii«J< JS^u cw -— =J?iiiSJi i • t t OON 2 i i f E n m •15 = i f3 SSSSoo rr i§;;; wM N uj -r « * 2: S S fi fi "B * I,iii ffl I r Hui!!tir fii! S -*+ ten — — <aS A SK 40 S ft HB • B I5S2?' kft•:!" '•«gSB?? ^ gjj***** 5 g$Rg • • B > S 3 ' *«x^i i»bO ID P|il!IAA «in ni l"flfi20O IB -< «gss:§ tf??T?? 9 55 ilAAiJii " B "•MB '* • 88 ii•W _ 9O9O II D » 9 A *• *» §3 ss SS55 -- ^K ^K WS fefefel5ii i i i ft IS «4 §='a a|§y ; :: 8*-i; aft § *" *&l?« I *§* b ^ Jj ? a ' ' » 33 slsli>• It H * u o ' ~ <* • • • «.« t I I Sit I 8 «^.d M ••K"{hfa.Sift H J! isa a * * *s fi « A +. • iiill I I * 'it J ji< ! « * 1 L w«ffi1 I! H Ji Ii II-H ! 1 IIi ri »• « -' 3 t I E «• H SiOs • * A 1 Iff i ,.wol (I I STRUCTURAL TRUSS INC. P.O. BOX 334 2847 INDUSTRY ST, OCEANSIDE, CALIF,, 92049 THE TRUSS DESIGNS SUPPLIED TO BA WORTHING INC. BY STRUCTURAL TRUSS INC. FOR THE MB JOB ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 1994 UBC. ALLAN J.LAHMANN STRUCTURAL TRUSS .-, STRCTURAL TRUSS INC. Cl CERTIFIED INSPECTION f ICBO #AA-513 IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH UBC 29-17 PREFABRICATED «^QO*E*^li!m I,•It •I H litpill•« « 1 til s 8 1*4 i i Itp KB, g « III M (4 8H B S!;i i II i$ 11 wI i 8 s i j «I CM 8 s r»*rg i DO D I i I W o ou u o n <r rirj CM ^ •a <nm <M <M !M?s is Q « LL u_ % oa:O o s! < uju. Q tt OCOUJQzoo\d.o UJ O< CE O Q tna:O aoc o I•* COtrUJm UJ mUJ atrO5 IOm ! i ii 222 222 ss O ft UL OCCLU Ob!ICOo ocr O COIUo £ J, * r* I u. OUJ UJtr to STRUCTURAL TRUSS INC. P.O. BOX 334 2847 INDUSTRY ST. OCEANSIDE, CALIF., 92049 THE TRUSS DESIGNS SUPPLIED TO B A WORTHING INC. BY STRUCTURAL TRUSS INC. FOR THE JWP* JOB ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 1994 UBC. ALLAN J. LAHMANN STRUCTURAL TRUSS '« .r //..-I sltJ it ''(I s g •» 8 ' .-V'v'h».••':..'•',•»»'"!'9* -H •.. '.... ^ "• ,\ '-»'jfJ u *^j'^^^ff;:-.-H f- w^Mm :•/, a ......I- <»•»..'•:• •!;•• ,1 »-. •;•• ft. "•• '' ' •.^./VV.»;:-,» ' .V '•':-• CLIHS1 6EOTECHN1CHL Fax : 619-755-9126 Jul 11 '96 08:30 PO. July 11, 1996 COAST GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS Brent and Laura Little c/o Brooks A. Worthing BA Worthing, Inc. P.O. Box 1041 Carlsbad, CA 92018 Subject: FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Proposed Single-Family Residence Lot 7, Canyon Place Carlsbad, California Reference: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single-Family Residence Lot 7, Canyon Place Carlsbad, California Prepared by Cardiff Geotechnical Dated June 2O, 1996 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Little: As requested, we have reviewed the project foundation plans prepared by B Worthing Plan Service, and observed that they have, in general, included the recommendations presented in our Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, (Job No. P-236066), 770 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOI.ANA DEACH » CAL1TORNIA H2075 (619) 755-B022 • FAX (019) 75.V9120 -CORST GEOTECHMICRL Fax : 619-755-9126 Jul 11 '96 08=30 P03 July 11, 1996 W.O. P-236066 Page 2 COMMENTS 1) Proposed footings should be founded a minimum depth of 12 or 18 inches for single and two story structures, respectively, below the lowermost adjacent grade at the time of foundation excavation. 2) All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm prior to placement of steel. LIMITATIONS The findings and opinions presented herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional principals in the fields of geotechnical engineering. No warranty is provided. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact our office. Reference to our Job No, P-236066 will help expedite a response to your inquiry. Respectfully submitted, COAST GEOTKCHNICAL Mark Burwell Vithaya Singhanet, P.E. Geologist Geotechnical Engineer CARDIFF GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS June 20, 1996 Brent and Laura Little c/o Brooks A. Worthing BA Worthing, Inc. P.O. Box 1041 Carlsbad, CA 92018 Subject: GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE Proposed Single-Family Residence Lot 7, Canyon Place Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. Little: In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated June 4, 1996, we have performed an updated geotechnical investigation on the subject site for the proposed single-family residence. The findings of the investigation, laboratory test results and recommendations for foundation design are presented in this report. From a geotechnical point of view, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented during the design and construction phases. However, alluvial deposits are present on the site which will require special consideration during the design and grading phase. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at 753-3697. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CARDIFF GEOTECHNICAL Mark Burwell Geologist fclix. K Vithaya Singhanet, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer 135 LIVERPOOL DRIVE • SUITE A • CARDIFF • CA 92OO7 (619) 753-3697 • FAX (619) 753-4158 GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE Proposed Single-Family Residence Lot 7, Canyon Place Carlsbad, California Prepared For: Brent and Laura little c/o Brooks A. Worthing BA Worthing, Inc. P.O. Box 1041 Carlsbad, CA 92018 June 20, 1996 W.O. P-236066 Prepared By: CARDIFF GEOTECHNICAL 135 Liverpool Drive Suite A Cardiff, California 92007 TABLE OF CONTENTS VICINITY MAP INTRODUCTION 5 SITE CONDITIONS 5 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND DEVELOPMENT 5 PRE-DEVELOPMENT TOPOGRAPHY 6 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6 SITE INVESTIGATION 7 LABORATORY TESTING 7 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 8 CONCLUSIONS 10 RECOMMENDATIONS 11 A. REMOVALS/GRADING/RECOMPACTION 11 B. FOUNDATIONS 11 C. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR) 12 D. DRAINAGE 13 E. OBSERVATIONS AND DENSITY TESTING 13 F. PLAN REVIEW 14 G. LIMITATIONS 14 H. REFERENCES 16 APPENDICES APPENDIX A IABORATORY TEST RESULTS BORING LOGS PORTION OF GRADING PLAN APPENDIX B GRADING GUIDELINES VICINITY MAP Mag 16.00 Fri Jun21 10:161996 Scale 1:7,812 (at center) 500 Feet Secondary SR, Road, Hwy Ramp Interstate/Limited Access June 20, 1996 W.O. P-236066 Page 5 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our updated geotechnical engineering investigation on the subject property. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the surficial deposits underlying the property and their influence on the construction of a single-family residence. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located west of Canyon Street, along the terminus of Canyon Place, in the city of Carlsbad. The site includes a level graded lot. The property is bounded along the west by a 5.5 foot high 2:1 slope which ascends to an undeveloped lot. The eastern portion of the site is bounded by a concrete drainage channel and an undeveloped residential lot. The lot is covered by a sparse growth of weeds. Drainage is generally by sheet flow to the street and the concrete drainage channel along the eastern property line. PREVIOUS STUDIES AND DEVELOPMENT A preliminary geotechnical investigation for the eight lot subdivision was prepared by Ketchum Engineering on May 27, 1987. The study included the excavation of five exploratory trenches. However, no exploration was conducted on Lots 6, 7, and 8 along the south side of Canyon Place. June 20, 1996 W.O. P-236066 Page 6 The tract was developed in the latter part of 1988 and 1989 under the supervision of Alton Ruden, civil engineer. Based on a review of the compaction report by Ruden, only limited amounts of fill, up to 4.5 feet, was placed for the development of the tract. Three density tests were performed on Lot 7 indicating that the fill placed was compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. The grading plan suggests that 0.5 to 3-4 feet of fill was placed on Lot 7. PRE-DEVELOPMENT TOPOGRAPHY Prior to development, the subject property was part of a gentle north trending drainage swale. The pre-development topographic expression is shown on the enclosed grading plan and topographic maps reviewed. The drainage swale extends north to Lot 3 and possibly Lot 2 along the north side of Canyon Place. The drainage swale was addressed, in part, in the preliminary geotechnical investigation. PROPOSED nFVF.T.OPMF.TVT Plans for the development of the site were prepared by B. Worthing Plan Service. The project will include the construction of a two-story residence and attached garage in the central portion of the lot. The residence will be supported on continuous wall footings with slab on grade floors.' June 20, 1996 W.O. P-236066 Page 7 SITE INVESTIGATION Four exploratory borings were drilled on the site to a maximum depth of 9-5 feet. Earth materials encountered were visually classified and logged by our field geologist. Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples of earth materials were obtained at selected intervals. Samples were obtained by driving a thin walled steel sampler into the desired strata, where possible. The samples are retained in brass rings of 2.5 inches outside diameter and 1.0 inches in height. The central portion of the sample is retained in close fitting, waterproof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and analysis. LABORATORY TESTING Classification The field classification was verified through laboratory examination, in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the enclosed Boring Logs. Moisture/Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the undisturbed soil samples. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the soil consistency or variation among exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Both are shown on the enclosed Appendix A. June 20, 1996 W.O. P-236066 Page 8 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The subject property is underlain by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The sedimentary unit, in general, is weathered in the upper 0.5 to 1.0 foot but becomes increasing dense with depth. The terrace deposits are overlain, in part, by fill and alluvial deposits. A brief description of the earth materials encountered on the site is discussed below. Artificial Fill Approximately 2.0 feet of reddish brown slightly clayey, silty and fine-grained sand was encountered in Boring Nos. B-l, B-3 and B-4. The fill deposits are slightly moist and dense. Alluvium Approximately 1.5 to 7.0 feet of brown silty sand was encountered below the fill deposits. The apparent alluvial deposits are generally loose to moderately dense and moist. Terrace Deposits The site is underlain by Pleistocene terrace deposits. The sedimentary unit is exposed near the surface in the vicinity of Boring No. 2. The terrace deposits are composed of reddish brown slightly clayey, fine and medium-grained sand. June 20, 1996 W.O. P-236066 Page 9 Expansive Soils Based on a review of testing in the referenced reports and our experience in the area, the surficial materials and terrace deposits have a potential expansion in the low range. Ground Water No evidence of perched or high ground water tables were observed to the depth explored. However, it should be noted that minor seepage problems may occur after development, as a result of drainage alterations and/or over-irrigation. In the event that seepage or saturated ground does occur, it has been our experience that they are most effectively handled on an individual basis. Faults/Seismicity Based on a review of published geologic maps, no faults are located on the site. Active faults which could affect the site include the Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults. These faults are located 24 to 75 miles east of the site. Off-shore faults, including the active Rose Canyon fault zone are located approximately 6 miles west of the site. Although the likelihood of ground rupture on the site is remote, it is almost a certainty the property will be exposed to moderate levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy, should an earthquake occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the region. June 20, 1996 W.O. P-236066 Page 10 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction is a process by which a fine sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and flows. The temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mass is often associated with ground motion resulting from an earthquake. Owing to the moderately dense nature of the underlying terrace deposits and the anticipated depth to groundwater, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and soil instability is considered very low to non-existent. CONCLUSIONS 1) Based on site exploration, the apparent alluvial deposits were not completely removed on the subject property prior to placement of fill. Limited laboratory testing suggests that these deposits are potentially compressible. Consolidation within the alluvial deposits could result in differential settlement within the proposed structure. 2) In order to reduce potential adverse affects from consolidation, the surficial deposits in the building footprint and areas of exterior improvements should be removed and replaced as compacted fill. 3) Proposed remedial grading should anticipate the removal and recompaction of June 20, 1996 W.O. P-236066 Page 11 variable depths of alluvium and undercutting the western portion of the building pad in order to provide a more uniform soil condition for the support of proposed footings and concrete flatwork. RECOMMENDATIONS Removals/Grading/Recompaction As previously indicated, the variable depth of alluvium should be removed to the underlying terrace deposits. The western portion of the building pad should be undercut a minimum of 3-0 feet, such that a minimum of 1.5 feet of fill is located beneath the base of proposed footings and concrete floor slabs. Removals should extend a minimum of 5.0 lateral feet beyond the building footprint. The existing earth deposits are generally suitable for reuse provided they are cleaned of all roots, vegetation, debris and thoroughly mixed. Fill should be placed in 6.0 to 8.0 inch loose lifts, moistened as required to 2.0-3.0 percent above optimum moisture, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Additional recommendations will be presented should any unforeseen conditions be encountered during grading. Imported fill, if necessary, should be composed of granular deposits approved by this firm. Foundations The following design parameters are based on an anticipated expansion potential in the low range. Footings for the proposed residence and attached garage should be a June 20, 1996 W.O. P-236066 Page 12 minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 and 18 inches below the lower most adjacent subgrade for single and two-story structures, respectively, at the time of foundation construction. A 12 inch by 12 inch grade beam should be placed across the garage opening. Footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 bars, two placed along the top of the footing and two placed 3.0 inches above the base. Footing recommendations provided herein are based upon underlying soil conditions and are not intended to be in lieu of the project structural engineer's design. Footings founded as recommended may be designed for a bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot. The bearing value indicated above is for the total dead and frequently applied live loads. This value may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the effects of wind and seismic forces. Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead- load forces. A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth of fill penetrated to a maximum of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used. Slabs on Grade (Interior and Exterior) Slabs on grade should be a minimum of 4.0 inches thick and reinforced in both June 20, 1996 W.O. P-236066 Page 13 directions with No. 3 bars placed 18 inches on center. Slabs should be underlain by a minimum 4.0-inch sand blanket. Where moisture sensitive floors are used, a minimum 6.0-mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be placed in the center of the sand blanket. Utility trenches underlying the slab may be backfilled with on-site granular materials, compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. However, sufficiently compacting the backfill deposits may damage or break shallow utility lines. Therefore, minor settlement of the backfill in the trenches is anticipated in these shallow areas. In order to reduce the possibility of cracks occurring, the slab should be provided with additional reinforcement to bridge over trenches. It is suggested that slabs be provided with contraction/expansion joints, as recommended by the project structural engineer. All slabs should be cast over dense compacted subgrades. Drainage Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project designer. However, in general, pad water should be directed away from foundations and around the structure to the driveway or street. Roof water should be collected and conducted to the street, via non-erodible devices. Pad water should not be allowed to pond. Observations and Density Testing Structural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior to the placement of steel. Fill should be placed while a representative of this firm is present to observe and test. June 20, 1996 W.O. P-236066 Page 14 Plan Review A copy of the final building plans should be submitted to this office for review, prior to the initiation of construction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time. UMITATIONS This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to the attention of the project's architects and/or engineers so that they maybe incorporated into plans. If conditions encountered during construction appear to differ from those described in this report, our office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications are needed. No responsibility for construction compliance with design concepts, specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed unless on-site review is performed during the course of construction. The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure described herein are based on individual exploratory excavations made on the subject property. The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic structure discussed should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur among the exploratory excavations. June 20, 1996 W.O. P-236066 Page 15 Please note that fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made and reported herein. Cardiff Geotechnical assumes no responsibility for variations which may occur across the site. The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In time, however, changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature on this or adjoining properties. Additionally, changes in professional standards may be brought about by legislation or the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the conclusions and recommendations of this report may be rendered wholly or partially invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied upon after the passage of three years. The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. Our engineering work and the judgments given meet present professional standards. However, in no respect do we guarantee the outcome of the project. June 20, 1996 W.O. P-236066 Page 16 REFERENCES 1) Compaction Report, Canyon Street, Carlsbad, California, Prepared by Alton Ruden, Dated September 9, 1989 2) Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Eight Lot Subdivision, Canyon Street, Carlsbad, California, Prepared by Ketchum Engineering, Dated May 27, 1987 3) Grading Plan for Canyon Place, C.T. 85-13, Prepared by Alton Ruden, Dated October 12, 1987 APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE I Field Dry Density and Moisture Content Sample Location B-l 6 1.2' B-l B-l B-l B-l B-l 6 2.0' 6 3.51 @ 5.5' @ 7.3' @ 9.0' Field Dry Density (pcf ) 102.1 120.5 79.0 96.0 Lost Sample 106.2 B-2 B-2 B-3 B-3 1.5' 2.2' 2.0' 3.51 111.6 101.2 101.2 Sample Disturbed Field Moisture Content 7.0 10.0 7.3 6.2 9.6 6.4 8.3 12.1 9.5 Earth Materials Fill Fill Alluvium Alluvium Terrace Deposits Terrace Deposits Terrace Deposits Alluvium Terrace Deposits P-236066 LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE AUGER BORING DIAMETER: 4" SURFACE ELEV: 164.5' PROJECT NO. P-236066 DATE DRILLED: 6-12-96 LOGGED BY: M.B. 1 1 1 ouO.DRY DENSITY (102.1 120.5 79.0 96.0 LOST 106.2 /— N *~s H HHas MOISTURE CO7.0 10.0 7.3 6.2 SAMPLE 9.6 u a. V z.o H DEPTH/ELEVA164.50 0.00 162.50 2.00 160.50 4.00 158.50 6.00 156.50 8.00 GRAPHIC LOG- F:F -F:= ~ if-i:__ _ __ ~ Z*-E: •'. •*•' :: ::- - •". ': :;- • '.' '. •'. - •• • «" :• :'• DESCRIPTION FILL: Sand, slightly clayey, reddish brown, moist, dense ALLUVIUM: Brown, silty sand, moist, loose TERRACE DEPOSITS: Reddish brown fine and med.-grained sand, slightly clayey, moist LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 2 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE AUGER PROJECT NO. P-236066 BORING DIAMETER: 4" DATE DRILLED: 6.12.96 1 SURFACE ELEV: 164.5' LOGGED BY: M.B. J J J J J J J J J J J J J j i ij u (H*c z Q Q 111.6 101.2 £ Hz; H Oua H $O S 6.4 8.3 J CO Z 0 J> 3 i&. Q 164.50 0.00 162.50 2.00 160.50 4.00 O O Oas o v'K,:£r"-:'/-:".' ".•+.•«•"'. *.'. M vN'V: "." •••." •!•. » i • • '••.-*:* ffil •'.t-'.t- '• 'f- '•'. m If '•'?!•"?! .: .;.: .;. •-" •!"•-" •!• ||| 1 ."•!• ."v,•• •,•. v 1 P"'P" P*V": "•": "•"".•:>::>"•• •••. •••m HI •&& ^:^:V DESCRIPTION TERRACE DEPOSITS: Reddish brown fine and med.-grained sand, slightly clayey, moist J LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 3 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE AUGER BORING DIAMETER: 4" PROJECT NO. P-236066 DATE DRILLED: 6-12-96 I SURFACE ELEV: 164.5' LOGGED BY: M.B. I J J J J J J J J J J J J J J oua 1zEd Q Q 101.2 DISTRUBED g H HH o wpfi Bo5 12.1 9.5 Ed ft. S<|en sH Ed H K £ Ed Q 164.50 0.00 162.50 2.00 160.50 4.00 U O Us0 __ _- —r:F:F IE 1=11 -:F:F -:F:F fjifjc -:;-:;. •::•::• i-^ij: "•.*•• I .j|.|j. || riv.S \*.* •!• •I*." •!•• •V-V!-: tfv/K DESCRIPTION FILL: Sand, slightly clayey, reddish brown, moist, dense ALLUVIUM: Brown, silty sand, moist, loose TERRACE DEPOSITS: Reddish brown fine and med.-grained sand, slightly clayey, moist LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 4 DRILL RIG: PORTABLE AUGER PROJECT NO. P-236066 BORING DIAMETER: 4" DATE DRiLLED: 6.12.96 SURFACE ELEV. 164.5' LOGGED BY: M.B. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 & £j S3zwQ O £ H W Ou OS£> H MO W-1 OH2.4w zONNH WJM K ft,HQ 164.50 0.00 — 162.50 2.00 160.50 4.00 — 158.50 6.00 — 156.50 8.00 OO y Xft. ^O - F:F - F:? I BEr zrji: f jf:i: "• "• i H| •• '"^ DESCRIPTION !: >i-. -.. :•' :-; •- •-, :' :'• •• :-: -• ••! :• -j: ;. ;.' •| -|: FILL: Sand, slightly clayey, reddish brown, moist, dense ALLUVIUM: Brown, silty sand, moist, loose to moderately dense TERRACE DEPOSITS: Reddish brown fine and med. -grained sand, clayey *sy-U^s>J i: *|*vAWT ^ /*?--**<:• ^ *» ./^ ^/&- .^> S,I^<rt'v •:-. : . S t^ '•. ''. r*F*VT*fyttT&?5S?ft ^*** £ _ *T^ APPENDIX B GRADING GUIDELINES Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing agencies, Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code and the guidelines presented below: Site Clearing Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. Non-organic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas under direction of the Soils engineer. Subdrainaae 1. During grading, the Geologist should evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains. 2. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Geologist and Soils Engineer during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill. 3. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Outlets should be located and protected. Treatment of Existing Ground 1. All heavy vegetation, rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed of off site. 2. All surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium should be removed unless otherwise indicated in the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. Fill Placement 1. Most site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see report). Highly organic or contaminated soil should not be used for compacted fill. (1) 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by the Soils Engineer. 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soils engineer, the Contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre- watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. b) Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In this case, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91. 4. Side-hill fills should have an equipment-width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil and into competent material and tilted back into the hill (Plate A). As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial soil and slopewash, and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by the Soils Engineer. 5. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; c) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer. 6. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. 7. In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break the up blocks. (2) 8. The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Finish grade testing of the slope should be performed after construction is complete. Each day the Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's "Daily Field Engineering Report" which would indicate the results of field density tests that day. 9. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner: a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut-fill interface. b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide and tipped at least 1 foot into slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed by the Soils Engineer or his representative. c) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to fill placement to evaluate if stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation. 10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped with a three foot thick compacted fill blanket. 11. Cut pads should be observed by the Geologist to evaluate the need for overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones,and/or due to differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in some cases. (3) 12. Exploratory backhoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. Grading Observation and Testing 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. 2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the fill. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate if the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils Engineer. 4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations,subdrains and rock disposal should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for observation. 5. A Geologist should observe subdrain construction. 6. A Geologist should observe benching prior to and during placement of fill. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1. Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material is used as backfill. 2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded into place. No specific relative compaction would be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary, testing may be required. 3. Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, until it is similar to the inplace fill, should not be allowed in these trench backfill areas. Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. (4) COMPACTION REPORT Located on: Canyon Street Carlsbad, California Prepared For: p ia> nc Yrt fa * c a September 9, 1989 W.O. G-1013 Prepared By: ALTON!. RUPEN REGISTERED CIVIL ENr.rittR 170* i/iOUNT^-. v;;;v fyE. OC£ANS:DE. CA'.if. ?Z;U (619)757-311? September 9, 1989 W.O. G-1013 Page 2 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our field density testing and observations during the rough grading operations on the subject tract. Field density test results are presented in Table 1 at the end of this report. The approximate locations of the tests are plotted on the enclosed Grading Plan, Plate 1. The project essentially entailed the development of eight level pads by gently grading and cutting east- and southeast-facing slopes. The fill is intended to support continuous-wall footings and slabs on grade for two-story single-family residences. •* LABORATORY TEST DATA The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557-78. Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556-82. The results of the laboratory maximum dry density testing of the soil used as compacted fill on the subject tract are listed below: Description Maximum Dry Optimum Density (pcf) Moisture (%) Orange-brown silty sand 132 8.5 * •• Expansion The surface and near-surface soils are non-expansive, sandy materials. September 9, 1989 W.O. G-1013 Page 3 DISCUSSION 1. The site was cleared of surface vegetation and debris prior to compaction. 2. Surface deleterious material was disposed of off site prior to placement of fill. 3. Fill was placed in lifts approximately 8.0 inches thick, moistened as required and compacted with heavy earth-moving equipment. 4. During the course of grading, loose or porous material was V, removed to a competent bottom. The areas were then processed and filled to pad grade with compacted fill. 5. Lot No. 2 is a cut/fill transitional lot. Fill underlies lot Nos. 3 and 7. Lot Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 8 are cut lots. The cut lots expose sandy materials at the surface. 6. The maximum depth of fill on the site is approximately 4.5 feet. 7. As indicated by our test results/ the fill was placed in a satisfactory manner. September 9, 1989 W.O. G-1013 Page 4 RECOMMENDATIONS Foundations Footings for the proposed two-story residences should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowermost adjacent grade. A 12- inch by 12-inch grade beam should be used across garage door openings. Recommended footing reinforcement is shown on Plates A and B. All footings should be maintained a minimum of 5.0 feet from the face of the nearest slope. A bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used for the sandy terrace deposits or compacted fill deposits. •* The bearing value indicated above is for the total of dead and frequently applied live loads and may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the effects of wind and seismic forces. Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead-load forces. A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth of fill penetrated to a maximum of 1500 pounds may be used. September 9, 1989 W.O. G-1013 Page 5 Slabs On Grade " Residential slabs on grade should be a minimum of 4.0 inches thick and reinforced with 6x6-10x10 welded wire fabric -placed near the center of the slab. The slab should be underlain by a minimum 4-inch sand blanket which incorporates a minimum 6-mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier. Utility trenches underlying the slab may be backfilled with the on-site granular materials. However, sufficiently compacting the backfill deposits may damage or break shallow utility lines. Therefore, minor settlement of the backfill in the trenches is anticipated. To reduce the possibility of cracks occurring, the slab should be provided with additional reinforcement to bridge over the trenches. Drainage Pad water should be directed around the residences and to the street or approved location. Roof water should be collected and transferred to a suitable location via non-erodible devices. Pad water should not be allowed to pond. Plants Fill slopes are generally composed of sandy materials which are susceptible to erosion. Plants should be of a drought-resistant and erosion-controlling variety. Watering of these plants should September 9, 1989 W.O. G-1013 Page 6 be limited to the amount necessary to sustain them. Overzealous watering may result in raveling or surficial failures. Plants and trees should not be planted adjacent to foundations. Sealed planter boxes should be used instead. LIMITATIONS 1) This office assumes no responsibility for alterations made to the slope or pad grades on the subject lots, subsequent to the issuance of this report without our knowledge and written approval. All ramps made through slopes and pads, and other areas of disturbance which require the placement of compacted fill to restore them to the original condition, will not be reviewed unless such backfilling operations are performed under our observation and tested for required compaction. Loose material cast over compacted slopes will negate our certification of slope-face compaction unless the material is removed in accordance with our instructions. 2) We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fill all the voids around the conduit. On-site material compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding. September 9, 1989 W.O. G-1013 Page 7 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Cuts, fills or processing of original ground under the purview of this report have been completed under the observation of, and with selective testing by ft.R &£'CrY J A^oc' and are fot»nd to be in compliance with the Grading Code of the city of Carlsbad, California. No certification of compacted fill beyond the limits and grades indicated in this report is intended or implied. Our findings were made and recommendations prepared in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices, and no further warranty is implied or made. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, September 9, 1989 W.O. G-1013 TEST TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY RELATIVE DATE NO. LOCATION CONTENT DENSITY COMPACTION PERCENT P.C.F. PERCENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Lot 3 {Natura} W.side of Cyn. Dr. Lot 7 Lot 2 Lot 2 Lot 3 Cyn. Place Lot 7 Lot 7 Cyn. Place Street 156 167 163 161 162 162 163 163.5 164.5 S.G. S.G. 5.0 8.2 8.0 7.7 8.8 9.1 9.6 10.7 9.8 9.0 10.3 99.0 128.7 123.7 121.5 119.6 120.6 122.6 120.1 124.8 120.9 120.3 85.3 97.0 93.0 92.0 90.0 91.0 93.0 91.0 94.0 91.0 91.0 10-12-88 10-12-88 10-13-88 10-14-88 10-18-88 10-18-88 10-19-88 10-25-88 10-28-88 10-28-88 10-28-89 Py September 22, 1989 SUBJECT: COMPACTION REPORT FOR STREET DTILITY LINES Canyon Street Carlsbad, California REFERENCE: COMPACTION REPORT Canyon Street Carlsbad, California Prepared by Al Ruden Dated September 9, 1989 Dear This report presents th^ results of our field density testing and observations during the backfilling operations for utility lines along Canyon Place and Canyon Street. Testing was also conducted in the fill deposits placed behind the crib wall located in the southeastern portion of the site. Field Density test results are presented at the end of this report in Table I. Approximate location of the tests are plotted on the enclosed Site Plan, Plate I. September 22, 1989 W.O. SG1013A Page 9 LABORATORY TEST DATA The laboratory standard for determining the maximum dry density was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557-78. Field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 1556-82. The results of the laboratory maximum dry density for the soil used as compacted fill are summarized below. Maximum Dry Density Optimum Description (p.f.c.) Moisture % Orange- to brown- silty sand 132 8.5 DISCUSSION 1. Fill was place in 8.0- to 10.0-inch lifts above the conduit bedding. The fill was moistened as required and compacted with a sheepsfoot attached to a tractor-mounted backhoe and by wheel-rolling with heavy earthmoving equipment. 2. The fill was compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. CONCLUSIONS 1. The fill was placed in an adequate manner, as indicated by our test results. September 22, 1989 W.O. #G1013A Page/0 2. It is our understanding that only minor grading will be necessary to establish subgrades for Canyon Place." The subgrade should be inspected by a representative of this firm prior to the placement of base materials. This opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, TABLE I September 22, 1989 W.O. IG1013A Page 4 Test No. 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 7A 8A 9A 10A 11A 12A 13A 14A Test Location See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map Depth Surface 8" 3" 1" 8" Sur face 8" 1Q," Surface Surface Sur face Surface 17" 24" Moisture Content % 9.0 10.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 12.0 9.0 12.0 9.0 9.0 11.0 9.0 11.0 7.0 Density (p.c.f.) 108 122 128 121 124 123 104 98 114 129 112 117 117 118 Relative % Compaction 83* 93 98 93 95 94 80* 75* 88* 99 86* 90 90 91 * Removed, recompacted, and retested to greater than 90% of the laboratory maximum density. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED EIGHT LOT SUBDIVISION CANYON STREET CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: Alton L. Ruden 2733 Mesa Drive Oceanside, California PREPARED BY: KETCHUM ENGINEERING, INC. 7818 Quebrada Circle Carlsbad, California 92009 May 27, 1987 KETCHUM^ENGINEERING INC. Alton L. Ruden 2733 Mesa Drive Oceanside, California KE 8738 Report No. 1 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation for a Proposed Eight Lot Subdivision, Canyon Street, Carlsbad, California. Gentlemen: We are pleased to present the results of our geotechnical invest- igations for the subject project. This study was performed in accordance with your request and our proposal dated April 1, 1987 The results of our field investigation and laboratory tests, as well as our conclusions and recommendations, are presented in the accompanying report. '*», We appreciate this opportunity to be of professional service. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact this office at your convenience. Respectfully Submitted, KETCHUM ENGINEERING, INC. E. N. Ketchum, R.C.E. 26267 President ENK/ct cc: (5) Submitted TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF PROJECT 2 FIELD INVESTIGATION 3 LABORATORY TESTING 4 FINDINGS 5 Site Description 5 Subsurface Soil Conditions 6 Groundwater 6 CONCLUSIONS 6 RECOMMENDATIONS . 7 Site Preparation * 7 Cut and Fill Slopes 9 Foundations and Concrete Slabs-On-Grade 10 Pavement 12 Drainage 12 Earth Retaining Structures 12 LIMITATIONS 15 PLATE 1 Vicinity Map PLATE 2 Site Plan PLATE 3 Unified Soil Classification PLATES 4-8 Trench Logs PLATE 9 Maximum Density 6 Optimum Moisture Content/Direct Shear Test Results/ Expansion Test Results PLATE 10 Recommendation for Filling on Sloping Ground APPENDIX A Recommended Grading Specifications KE 8738 . Page 2 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED EIGHT LOT SUBDIVISION CANYON STREET CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investi- gation for the subject site. The vicinity map for this project is presented on Plate Number 1. Plate Number 2 shows the site configuration and the locations of our subsurface explorations. To assist in the preparation of this report, we were provided with a preliminary lot layout that was prepared by Mr. Ruden. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONi»5i This project is located on the west s*^de of Canyon Street just north of Basswood, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, Calif,i The site is presently undeveloped and in its natural state. Development of this site is proposed to consist of constructing eight residential lots with a cul-de-sac access road. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF PROJECT The purpose of this investigation is to develop information re- garding the on-site soil conditions to determine their suitability to receive the proposed development. The scope of this study includes the following: KETCHUM ENGINEERING KE 8738 ' Page 3 a) Explore the subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. b) Evaluate, by laboratory tests, the pertinent en- gineering properties of the various strata which will influence the development, including their bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential. c) Define the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards which could have an ef- fect on the site development. d) Develop soil engineering criteria for site grading and provide design information regarding the sta- bility of cut and fill slopes. e) Determine potential construction difficulties and provide recommendations concerning these problems. i f) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structures anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundations design. I g) Prepare a report that presents our findings, conclu- • sions and recommendations. : I FIELD INVESTIGATION Our field investigation was conducted on April 27, 1987 and consisted of visual observations of the existing surface condi- tions and completion of five subsurface excavations. These KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC KE 8738 - Page 4. excavations were made by means of a backhoe under the observation of our technical personnel. All soils encountered were visually classified in accordance with Unified Soil Classification System that is presented on Plate Number 3. The representative soil samples obtained were transported to the laboratory for testing. Please refer to Plates Numbers 4 through 8 for the field logs. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing on selected soil samples were completed in conformance with the general practices and procedures as recom- mended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (A.S.T.M.). These tests are briefly outlined below: • ( a. Soil Sample Classification; By visual examination, the sampled soil classifications made in the field were further evaluated in accordance with the Unified I Soil Classification System. The final classifications i are presented on the exploratory logs.> b. Field Moisture Content and Dry Soil Density; The moisture content in percent of the soil dry weight and the dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot were determined for selected soil samples. Please refer to the exploration logs for the results of these tests. I c. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content; Int —^• • - ~m^^—m i^M»^__«^M«_w*l^^^__MM .^—^^ i accordance with the A.S.T.M. Standard Test D-1557-70.i ' | Method A, the maximum dry density, (pounds per cubic foot), and the optimum moisture content, (percent of the dry density), were established on typical samples. Plate Number 9 presents the results of these tests. KETCHUM ENGINEERING IN KE 8738 - Page 5 d. Direct Shear Test; Direct shear tests were performed to determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having diameters of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. Samples were tested at different vertical loads and at saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inches per minute. The results of these tests are presented on attached Plate Number 9. e. Expansion Index; The expansion index was determined for selected soil samples in accordance with the Uni- form Building Code Standard No. 29-2 to determine their expansive potential. Please refer to Plate Number 9 for the results of these tests. FINDINGSj ' - SITE DESCRIPTION The site is an irregular parcel of land that is characterized by a drainage swale that runs south to north across the central portions of the site. The eastern and western side of the swale is drained by sheet flow towards the swale. Residential property is present to the south and west with open -land to the north. Canyon Street provides the eastern border. The site is capped with a moderate growth of grass. No man-made structures are present on-site. KETCHUM ENGINEERING IN< KE 8738 ' Page 6 SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS This parcel is capped with from about one (1) to three (3) feet of a reddish-brown, silty sandy topsoil/slopewash material that is dry to humid and loose in consistency. Medium dense to dense silty sandstones, typical of the local Terrace Deposits, are present beneath the topsoils and slopewash. These materials are several tens of feet in thickness and have a low expansive potential. GROUNDWATER Based on our investigation, we do not believe that a shallow groundwater table exists at the site. No water table was en- countered in any of the test trenches. We do not, therefore, anticipate any major groundwater related problems, either during or after construction. However, it should be recognized that minor groundwater seepage problems may occur after development of a site even where none were present before development. These are usually minor phenomena and are often the result of an alteration of the permeability characteristics of the soil, an alteration in drainage patterns and an increase in irriga- tion water. Based on the permeability characteristics of the soil and the anticipated usage of the development, it is our opinion that minor seepage problems may occur at random locations. It is further our opinion that these problems can be most effect- ively corrected on an individual basis if and when they develop. CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings of this study, we conclude that with res- pect to geotechnical aspects, the subject site is suitable for the proposed project provided the recommendations contained in KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC KE 8738 ,. page 7 this report are fully complied with. The on-site soils were determined to have a low expansive po- tential and, therefore, should not require special foundation design consideration. The upper topsoils and slopewash materials are loose and not suitable to receive structural loads. We, therefore, recommend that they be removed and replaced as an engineered fill prior to the placement of any new fill or structural building loads. RECOMMENDATIONS SITE PREPARATION PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE; We recommend that a preconstruction conference be held at the site with theMeveloper, civil engineer, contractor, and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and the grading plans can be discussed at that time. SPECIFICATIONS; We recommend that all earthwork be done in ac- cordance with the attached "Recommended Grading Specifications." Ketchum Engineering, Inc., should observe the grading and test compacted ^ills. All special site preparation recommendations presented in this report will supercede those in the standard Recommended Grading Specifications. All embankments, structural fill and fill should be compacted to not less than 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density. Utility trench backfill within five (5) feet of the proposed structures and beneath asphalt pavements should be com- pacted to not less than 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The maximum dry density of each soil type should be determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. Test Method 1557-70. KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC KE 8738 ,. Page 8 DEMOLITIONS, CLEARING AND GRUBBING; During site preparation, all debris and deleterious materials derived from demolition, clearing and grubbing operations should be legally disposed of off-site prior to grading. Any existing utilities that will not be utilized should be removed and properly capped at the proper- ty lines. The removal of trees should include the removal of their roots. The depressions resulting from the above opera- tion should be backfilled with soil that has been compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. GENERAL; Beneath all areas to receive fill, structural loads, sidewalks, or pavements, we recommend that the topsoils.and fill be removed to firm, natural ground and stockpiled for future use. It is anticipated that firm, natural ground will be encountered from about one (1) to three (3) feet below the existing surface. Firm, natural ground is defined as soil that possesses an in-place density equal to,'*»pr greater than, 85% of its maximum dry density. The bottom of the excavation should be scarified to a depth of at least six (6) inches, watered as required, and densified to at least 90%. The stockpiled soils may then be replaced and compacted to at least 90% in six (6) to eight (8) inch lifts to desired grade. TRANSITION AREAS; We recommend that the cut area beneath struc- tures be undercut to a minimum depth of one (1) foot below the base of the deepest footing. This recommendation is submitted in an attempt to reduce the potential distress that could arise from footings founded partially on cut and partially on fill. MOISTURE CONTENT OF FILL SOILS; All fill soils placed should have moisture contents of at least 2% over optimum moisture content. KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC KE 8738 Page 9 AREAS TO BE PAVED; All areas to be paved should have the sub- grade soils densified to at least 90% relative compaction to a minimum depth of 12 inches. It is suggested that the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils be comprised of granular select, non- expansive materials. IMPORT MATERIALS: Any fill material to be imported on-site should consist of granular, non-expansive soil that contains no organic or deleterious materials. It should have sufficient cohesion to hold a vertical or near vertical cut for footing excavations. It should have at least 85% of the material passing the Number 4 sieve with no rocks or chunks larger than one and one-half (1£) inches. The import fill should be approved by our office prior to on-site delivery. CUT AND FILL SLOPES '* It is our opinion that the cut and fill slopes constructed from the native on-site materials will be stable with relation to deep- seated failures if constructed at or flatter than the following recommended slope ratios expressed in the horizontal or vertical units for the indicated heights: Cut Slopes to 20 Feet in Height 2:1 Fill Slopes to 20 Feet in Height 2:1 The above maximum heights were determined by using a factor of safety of 1.5- It is also recommended that footings not be founded nearer than eight (8) feet measured horizontally inward from the face of the slopes. Slopes should be planted with erosion resisting plants and natural drainage should be directed away from the top of all slopes such that no water is allowed to flow over the top. KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC KE 8738 Page 10 TEMPORARY SLOPE STABILITY; The following table presents recom- mendations relative to temporary construction excavations. These slopes should be relatively stable against deep-seated failures but may experience localized sloughing. Slope Ratio (Horizontal to Vertical) Maximum Height of Temporary Excavation (Feet) 0.25 : 1 Vertical 12 5 It should be the contractor's responsibility to provide safe support for the excavation. No heavy equipment should be al- lowed adjacent to the top of the temporary cuts. FOUNDATIONS AND CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE; '* GENERAL; We recommend the structure proposed for this project be supported by a continuous spread footing foundation system as recommended below. The following recommendations are sub- mitted provided the soils within the upper three (3) feet from finish grade have a low expansive potential. a) All footings for one and two story structures should be founded a minimum of 12 and 18 inches, respectively, below adjacent finish grade. Footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. b) Both exterior and interior continuous footings should be reinforced with one No. 4- bar positioned three (3) inches above the bottom of the footings and one No. 4- bar positioned three (3) inches clear below finish floor. KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC KE 8738 ' Page 11 c) Interior slabs should be not less than three and one-half (3i) inches in thickness, underlain by a four (4) inch blanket of clean concrete sand or crushed rock, reinforced with 6"x6"-#10/#10 welded wire mesh and completely surrounded with a continuous footing. Number 3 ties should be placed at 4.8 inches on center from the slab to the footing. d) Exterior slabs should be a minimum of three and one-half (3i) inches in thickness and should be reinforced with 6"x6"-#10/#10 welded wire mesh. e) Surface drainage should be directed away from the proposed foundation. Planters should be constructed so that water is not allowed to seep beneath founda- tions or slabs. Over-irrigation of areas adjacent to foundations and slabs should be avoided. f) Prior to placing steel or concrete, the foundation excavations should be inspected by a representative of this office to insure that the above recommenda- tions have been followed. BEARING VALUE; An allowable soil bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot for spread footing foundations may be used for design of the on-site structures. This bearing value should be verified for all soil conditions under all building pads. In our opinion this value can be increased by one-third for loads that include wind or seismic forces. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS; The anticipated total and/or dif- ferential settlements for the proposed structure may be consid- ered to be within tolerable limits provided the recommendations in this report are followed. KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC Ke 8738 - Page 12 PAVEMENT After the site is graded and the subgrade soils are exposed in the parking and driveway areas, we recommend that these soils be sampled and tested so that pavement recommendations may be made. However, the following recommendations are submitted as prelim- inary guidelines for pavement construction. The subgrade soils to a depth of at least 12 inches should be densified to at least 90%. Paved areas should be protected from moisture migrating under the pavement from adjacent water sources such as planted or grass areas. Saturation of the subbase soils could result in pavement failures. Further, all paving materials and methods of construction should conform with good grading practices and with the minimum require- ments of the governing agency. DRAINAGE We recommend that positive measures be taken to properly finish grade the pads once improvements and landscape are in place so that drainage waters are directed off the pads and away from possible foundations, floor slabs, and slope tops. No areas of ponded water should be allowed to exist." EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES GENERAL; It is our understanding that the small retaining struc- tures that are proposed for this project will be of masonry con- struction. KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC. KE 8738 - Page 13 ULTIMATE ACTIVE PRESSURE; The ultimate soil pressure for the design of earth retaining structures with level backfills may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 36 pounds per cubic foot for walls free to yield at the top (unrestrained walls). For walls restrained at the top, a fluid pressure of 46 p.c.f. may be used. These pressures do not con- sider any surcharge loading. If any surcharge -loadings are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. All earth retaining structures should have adequate weep holes or a subdrain system to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. ULTIMATE PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 360 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased one- third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 01*4.0 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the latter should be reduced by one-third. ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING PRESSURE; The foundation for the proposed retaining structures should consist of spread footings founded in the firm, native soils or compacted fill. Firm, natural ground is defined as soil having an in-situ density of at least 85% of its maximum dry density. Footings may be designed for an allow- able bearing pressure of 2000 p.s.f. FACTOR OF SAFETY: The above values, with the exception of the allowable soil bearing pressure, do not include a factor of safety. Appropriate factors of safety should be incorporated into the design of all earth retaining structures to reduce the possibility of overturning and sliding. KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC. KE 8738 - Page U BACKFILL; All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material within a distance of five (5) feet from the back of the wall. The retaining structure should not be backfilled until the materials in the wall have reached an adequate strength. KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC ' KE- 8738 Page 15 LIMITATIONS The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. The soil engineer should review and verify the compliance of the final grading plan with this report. It is recommended that Ketchum Engineering, Inc., be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earth- work operations. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project,requirements based on an eval- uation of the subsurface soil conditions'encountered at the sub- surface exploration locations and the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unex- plored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the soil engineer so that he may make mod- ifications if necessary. This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that it may be determined if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the Passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC. KE 8738 Page 16 in the state-of-the-art and/or government codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability, the con- clusions, and recommendations. In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface con- ditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations and recommendations are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations and recommendations, but shall not be res- ponsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, expressed or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. It is the responsibility of the owners, or their representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the engineer and arch- itect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to ensure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construc- tion. Inspection services allow the testing of only a very small per- centage of the fill placed at the site. Contractural arrange- ments with the grading contractor should contain the provision KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC KE 8738 Page 17 that he is responsible for excavating, placing and compaction of fill in accordance with the project specifications. In- spection by the geotechnical engineer during grading should not relieve the grading contractor of his primary responsibility to perform all work in accordance with the specifications. This firm does not practice nor consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of other than our own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC 1- SITE VICINITY MAP BY: ENK JOB NO. 8738 KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC. 7818 QUEBRAOA CIRCLE. C A RLSBAD (619)944-1836 92008 DATE: 6/1/87 PLATE NO. 1 r Backhoe Trench SITE PLAN BY: ENK KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC. 7818 QUEBRADA CIRCLE. CARLSBAD '619)944-1836 92008 JOB NO. 8738 DATE: 6/1/87 PLATE NO. 2 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION MAJOR DIVISIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS IMORE THAN HALF OF MATERIALIS LARGER THAN NO. 200SIEVE SIZEUJ "3 «• * s-J Q U t/I 8 si?FINE GRAINEDMORE THAN HAMATERIAL IS SfcTHAN NO. 200 SMGRAVELS MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE FRACTION IS LARGER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE SANOS MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE FRACTION IS SMALLER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE CLEAN GRAVELS (LESS THAN 5* FINES) GRAVEL \AJlTU FINES CLEAN SANOS (LESS THAN 5* FINES) SANOS WITH FINES SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS LESS THAN 60% SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS GREATER THAN 50% HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS CROUP SYMBOL GW GP GM GC SW SP SM sc ML CL OL MH CH OH Pt TYPICAL NAMES Well graded gravels, giavel-sand matures, little ot no lines. Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand miiiures. little orno lines. Silly gravels, gravel-sand-sill miiiures. non-plastic lines. Clayey gravels, gravel- sand -clay miiiures. plastic lines. Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no lines. Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fine*. Silly sands, sand-sill miiiures. non- plastic lines. Clayey sands, sand-clay miiiures. plastic lines. Inorganic silts and very line sands, rock Hour, silly orclayey line sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity. Inorganic clays ol low to medium plasticity, gravellyclays, sandy clays, silly clays, lean clays. Organic silts and organic sifty clays of low plasticity. Inorganic silts, micaceous or diaiomaceous line sandy orstay soils, elastic silts. Inorgarac clays of high plasticity, lat clays. Orgarac clays ol medium to high plasticity, organic sills. Peal and other highly organic soils. 200 GRAIN SIZE U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE 1- 40 X) 4 CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 3/»" 3" 12" SILTS AND CLAYS SAND FINE MEDIUM COARSE GRAVEL FINE COARSE COBBLES BOULDERS RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY SANDS.GRAVELS AND NON -PLASTIC SILTS VERY LOOSE LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE BLOWS/FOOT 0-4 4-10 10 - 3O 30 - SO OVER so CLAYS AND PLASTIC SILTS VERY SOFT SOFT FIRM STIFF VERY STIFF HARD STRENGTH 0-1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 1 - 2 2-4 OVER 4 BLOWS/FOOT 0-2 2-4 4 - 8 " 8-16 16-32 OVER 32 4- Water level at time of excavation or as indicated /\ Undisturbed driven ring or chunk sample (""] Disturbed bulk sample BY: ENK JOB NO. 8738 KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC. 7818 OUEBRADA (619)944-1636 CIRCLE .C A RLSB AD 92008 DATE: 6/1/87 PLATE NO. 3 • i X UlO • l _. 2 - • 3 - t 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - H - • i; -I SAMPLE TYPEA P SOILCLASSIFICATIONSM SM - TRENCH NUMBER T-1 ELEVATION DESCRIPTION Red. fine sands (slight day bird.) QAF Red. med. sands w/ferous nodules BOTTOM APPARENTMOISTUREDry Moist Humid .,APPARENTCONSISTENCYOR DENSITYMed. Dens Med. Dens Dense x _ 0 « K O » 1U.1 •MOISTURECONTENT 1*18.8 • '" -"^~i RELATIVECOMPACTION 1*1• '.> -1 *- — - — —• — — - - - — - — — - BY: ENK JOB NO. 8738 KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC-fT"^ DATE: 6/1/87 7818 OUEBRADA CIRCLE. C A R L SB A D I lr=Sa _ < 6 19) 944-1836 92OQailll B PLATE NO. 4 ^T * £ Z*• w 1 - 2 - •3 _3A " 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - • 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - tua. ^»• Ui a. 2 IA "Ef A 1 — z0 ^•J ^ « MM U SM ML SM ML SM **"**— -^ TRENCH NUMBER T-2 ELEVATION DESCRIPTION Red/brown silty sand w/trace clay Red/brown silty sand porous Choc. brown silty sand (alluv.) Red sand w/ferous nodule Slightly porous NG. Red/gray fine to med. sand BOTTOM »• uZ ffs =s5 '£ 5^B **< a Dry Damp Damp s Moist ^ Moist •»• ? H X * —W « Mc Jr z^ w m ^ d O * 0 o0 Loose Med. Dense Med.Dens« Med.Dens* Med. Dens H ••5 0 ^B ^co 89.8 112.4 * w 5c "" 3 fea• J 5 L. > 0u 5.6 10.1 TT .•; hi o> • 5 °j ? c a u - - ^*«*^^^™"^^BI — _ _ .• •• - - - - — : ENK JOB NO.8738 KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC. 7818 OUEBRADA CIRCLE. C ARLSBAO (619)944-1836 92008 DATE:6/1/87 PLATE NO. 5 , • £ X ftlit 1 - 2 - 3 - • 5 - 6 — 7 - 8 - 9 __ 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - Ul 2 M A SOILCLASSIFICATIONTRENCH NUMBER T-3 ELEVATION DESCRIPTION Red med. sands (alluv.) Red w/gray streaks NG. BOTTOM APPARENTMOISTURE\Dry Damp Humid t APPARENTCONSISTENCYOR DENSITYDense Dense Dense DRY DENSITY .Ipefl116.9 MOISTURECONTENT 1*1. 6.2 RELATIVE „:COMPACTION!*!- . - - - - • - - - - - - — BY: £NK JOB NO. 8738 KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC-HTST DATE: 6/1/37 7818 OUEBRADA CIRCLE, C A RLSBAp||=^pB (619)944-1836 9 ? Q n fl (I l|| IB PLATE NO. 5 . £ X \tta 1 _X 2 - 3 - . 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - L3 - 14 - Jo -1 SAMPLE TYPEA Z ISOILCLASSIFICATIOTRENCH NUMBER T-4. ELEVATION DESCRIPTION Red med. sand (alluv.) Red w/gray streaks NG. BOTTOM •APPARENTMOISTURE\Dry Damp Humid .% -APPARENTCONSISTENCYOR DENSITYDense Dense Dense • " >»- *!>• Q MOISTURECONTENT 1*1•• tt RELATIVECOMPACTIONI'». ,' ~ ^^ .^ - - - - - - - - — BY: ENK JOB NO. 8738 KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC. 7818 OUEBRADA CIRCLE. CARLSBAD (619)944-1836 92008 DATE: 6/1/87 PLATE NO. 7 c X o 0 - 1 - . 2 - 3 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 -SAMPLE TYPEA SOILCLASSIFICATIONSM CH SM • TRENCH NUMBER T-5 ELEVATION DESCRIPTION Red/brown QAF Red clay w/sand (colluv.) Red/orange med. sand/ sandstone (refer to T-1 samples) (N.G.) BOTTOM APPARENTMOISTURE\Dry Moist Humid .. ',APPARENTCONSISTENCYOR DENSITY>.Loose Dense Dense • _ *, . -t- «"i•o 116.4 "*"-." ••;MOISTURECONTENT 1*110.7 •• „:.:-• 3'..RELATIVE ]COMPACTIONI.. '. ..- .,!,._ ^ — ' ^ ^ - * - - - - •» ^ ^ •• BY: ENK JOB NO. 8738 KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC-fTK °ATE 6/1/37 7818 OUEBRADA CIRCLE, C A R LSB ADJ jf=» (619)944-1836 9 2 0 0 8 BJIL_S PLATE NO. Q . MAXIMUM UtNSIIT &UKIIMUM MUlbTUKt UUMItNT ASTM: Sample T1 @ 3-4 Description Reddish brown silty fine to med. sand Maximum DansltyIpcO 116.0 Optimumsp" 12.0 • DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Sample T1 9 3-4 Description Remolded to 90% '* Angla of Intarnal Friction ( *) 31 Conation Intarctpl (pet) 50 EXPANSION TEST RESULTS Sample CONDITION INITIAL M.C. IX) INITIAL DENSITY (pel) FINAL M£. U) NORMAL STRESS Ipsl) EXPANSION INDEX T1 9 3-4 17 Bv: ENK KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC. 7818 QUEBRAOA CIRCLE. CARLSBAD (619)944-1836 920O8 iDikrti JOB NO. 8738 DATE: 6/1/87 PLATE NO. 9 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE COMPACTED FILL ZONE OF LOOSE SURFACE SOIL TOE KEY 2 FT. MIN. INTO FIRM GROUND HORIZONTAL BENCHES INTO FIRM GROUND, 6 FT. MIN. kTOE KEY WIDTH TO BE DETERMINED BY SOIL ENGINEER, BUT NOT LESS THAN 10 FT. RECOMMENDATIONS SLOPING FOR FILLING GROUND ON Schematic only net to scale BY: ENK KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC.fO? 7818 QUEBRADA CIRCLE. C A R L SB AD I Ipfe I (619)944-1836 9 2 0 0 8 ULJ3 JOB NO. 8738 DATE: 6/1/87 PLATE NO. 10 APPENDIX A RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS General Intent The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled and placing and compacting fill soil to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations con- tained in the preliminary soil investigation report are a part of the recommended grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. Inspection and Testing A qualified soil engineer shall be employed to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the soil engineer or his representative pro- vide adequate observations so that he may provide a memorandum that the work was or was not accomplished as specified. Deviations from these specifications will be permitted only upon written authorization from the soil engineer. It shall be the responsi- bility of the contractor to assist the soil engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provide the memorandum to the owner and govern- mental agency, as required. If in the opinion of the soil engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable soil, poor moisture control, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., the contractor shall stop construction until the conditions are remedied or corrected. Unless otherwise specified, fill material shall be compacted by the contractor while at a moisture content near the optimum KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC. moisture content to a density that is not less than 90Z of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. Test No. D 1557-70, or other density test methods that will obtain equivalent results. Clearing and Preparation of Areas to Receive Fill All trees, brush, grass, and other objectionable material shall be collected, piled, and burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor so as to leave the areas that have been cleared with a neat and finished appearance free from unsightly debris. All vegetable matter and objectionable material shall be removed by the contractor from the surface upon which the fill is to be placed, and any loose or porous soils shall be removed or com- pacted to the depth determined by the soil engineer. The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches until the surface is free from uneven featiires that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20% (5 horizontal to 1 vertical), the original ground shall be stepped or benched as shown on the attached Plate A. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent soil condition. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide and all other benches at least 6 feet wide. Ground slopes flatter than 20% shall be benched when considered necessary by the soil engineer. i Fill Material j ! i Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any material import- t | ed or excavated from the cut areas that, in the opinion of the soil I engineer, is suitable for use in constructing fills. The material j shall contain no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in size KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC and shall contain at least 40Z of material'smaller than 1/4 inch in size. (Materials greater than 6 inches in size shall be placed by the contractor so that they are surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks shall be permitted.) No material of a perish- able, spongy, or otherwise improper nature shall be used in filling, Material placed within 36 inches of rough grade shall be select material that contains no rocks or hard lumps greater then 6 inches in size and that swells less than 3% when compacted as hereinafter specified for compacted fill and soaked under an axial pressure of 150 psf. Potentially expansive soils may be used in fills below a depth of 36 inches and shall be compacted at a moisture content greater than the optimum moisture content for the material. Placing Spreading and Compacting of Fill '*. Approved material-shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed six inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction to a minimum spec- ified density with adequately sized equipment, either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and the equipment shall make sufficient trips to insure that the desired density has been obtained throughout the entire fill. When the moisture content of the fill material is below that speci- fied by the soil engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by the contractor by blading, mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified. KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC The surface of fill slopes shall be compacted and there shall be no excess loose soil on the slopes. Inspection Observation and compaction tests shall be made by the soil engin- eer during the filling and compacting operations so that he can state his opinion that the fill was constructed in accordance with the specifications. The soil engineer shall make field density tests in accordance with A.S.T.M. Test No. D1556-70. Density tests shall be made in the com- pacted materials below the surface where the surface is disturbed. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below the specified density, the particular layer portion shall be reworked until the specified density has been obtained. '*. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the soil engin- eer's discretion. In general, the density tests will be made at an interval not exceeding two feet in vertical rise and/or 500 cubic yards of embankment. Protection of Work During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all exca- vated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of. water. He shall control surface water to avoid damage to adjoin- ing properties or to finished work on the site. The contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas and until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC I Unforeseen Condition ] In the event that conditions are encountered during the site pre- ) paration and construction that were not encountered during the pre- liminary soil investigation, Ketchum Engineering, Inc., assumes no responsibility for conditions encountered which differ from those conditions found and described in the preliminary soil investiga- tion report. KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC June 30, 1987 KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC. 7818 OUEBRAOA CIRCLE, CARLSBAD (619)944-1836 CALIF.,92009 Alton Ruden 2733 Mesa Drive Oceanside, California 92054 KE8738 Report #2 Subject: Pavement Section Recommendations for Canyon Place, an Access Road for an Eight Lot Subdivision, Carlsbad, California. Gentlemen: As per your request, we have obtained a sample of the subgrade soils and tested them in accordance with California Test Method 301 in order to determine their R-value (resistance value). Please refer to the attached plate No. 1. *<* Assuming a Traffic Index (T.I.) of 4.5, which is typically used for parking lot design, we present the following pavement sections for this lot. Alternative I II Asphalt Pavement Thickness (inches) 2.5 3.0 Base Thickness (inches) 6 5 ' . The base material may be class III base. to at least 95% relative compaction. It should be compacted The subgrade soils to a depth of at least 12 inches should be densified to at least 90%. Paved areas should be protected from KE 8738 Page 2 moisture migrating under the pavement from adjacent water sources such as planted or grass areas. Saturation of the subbase soils could result in pavement failures. Further, all paving materials and methods of construction should conform with good grading practices and with the minimum require- ments of the governing agency. We appreciate this opportunity to be of professional service to you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, KETCHUM ENGINEERING, INC. E. N. Ketchum, R.C.E. 26267 President ENK/lk KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTION CALCULATIONS ALTERNATIVE I - DESIGN CRITERIA: Traffic Index (T.I.) R-Value of subbase (R .5 SB)= 29 R-Value of base (R b) Minimum A.C. thickness (t) Gravel Equivalent Asphalt Concrete (G., Nlac) Base (G;Jfb) Subbase (G = 2'5 = 2.50 - 1.1 fsb)= 1 .0 CALCULATIONS; Required GE = 0.0032 x T.I. x (100 - = 0.0032 x '4. 5 x (100 - 29 )= 1.022 GEAC = Gfac 12 x 2.5 = 0.521 12 GE, = G,,, x t, = 1.1 xb fb b -6 = 0.55 12 12 GEsb = Gfb 12 12 TOTAL GE PROVIDED = 1-071 RECOMMENDED ASPHALT SECTION Asphalt thickness Base: Class II Subbase(NATIVE) = 2.5 " = 6 " = 12 8V: ENK KETCHUM ENGINEERING INC.||rW 7818 QUEBRADA CIRCLE, c A RLSB ADI r-4^ (6l9)9441U3b 92008 UH "^ JOB NO. 8?38 DATE: 6/30/87 PLATE NO. 1 A:;PHAI.T I^AVKHKNT .SKI'.TION I'.ALCULATIONS ALTERNATIVE II DESIGN CK1TK1UA: Traffic Index (T.I.) R-Value of subbase (hol.x tJU I R-Value of base (Kfa) Minimum A.C. thickness (t) Gravel Equivalent Asphalt Concrete (G, * X ti v* / 29 = 3.0 Base (Gfb) Subbase (Gfab)= 1 .0 CALCULATIONS; Required GE = 0.0032 x T.I. x (100 - = 0.0032 x 4.5 x (100 - 29 ) = 1.022 3 = 0.625GEAP = G,. x t = 2.50 xAC tac uc — 12 GE, = Gf.K x t. = 1.1 x'fb GEsb = Gfb 12 5_ = O.A58 12 12 12 12 TOTAL GE PROVIDED = 1.083 RECOMMENDED ASPHALT SfcCTlUN Asphalt Base: Class II Subbase(NATIVE)= 12 : ENK JOB MO. 8738 KETCHUM ENGINEERING ]NC. ?ai« QUEBRADA CIRCLE . CARLSBAD (6l9)9441b3b &20Ofl DATE: 6/30/87 PLATE NO. #1 TEST SPECIMAN DATE TESTED SPECIMENFABRICATIONCompactor Air Pressure pal Initial Molature % Moisture at Compaction % Briquette Height la Density pet EXUDATION PRESSURE pel EXPANSION PRESSURE DIAL 8TABIL-OMETERPh atlOOOpounde pel Ph at 2000 pounda pal Displacement turna "R" Value CORRECTED "R" VALUE A 6/8/87 200 8.3 11. Q I?/ .? 362 38 89 3.60 36 38 B 6/8/87 135 8.3 12.8 121 .1 279 AS 108 3.83 24 25 c 6/8/87 350 8.3 m .n T?«;.n 521 28 60 3.32 56 56 D E "R" VALUE AT 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE 29 CHAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION SIEVE 3 2*2 1% 1 \ \ \ #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 .05mm ,006mm .001mm AS RECEIVED LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SAND EQUIVALENT AS TESTED 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 EXUDATION PRESSURE psi ^Testing i£aboAalo/iy , BY ENK JOB NO. 8738 DATE 6/30/87 Plate 3 Testing Engineers—San Diego 3467 Kurtz Street, P.O. Box 80985. San Diego, CA 92138 (619) 225-9641 2956 Industry St., Oceanside. CA 92054 (619) 757-0248 Job No: 8873 M Job Name: CANYON PLfiCE Job Address: OSPHflLT CONCRETE INSPECTION CftNYON PLACE J CflNYON STREETCARLSBAD Cfl ALTON RUDEN, R.C.E. C W63 17*4 MOUNTAIN VIEW AVENUE OCEANSIDE Cfl 92S54 Distributed To: TESTING ENGINEERS - SAN DIEGO ALTON RUDEN, R.C.E. C 19163 Engineer: RENDINI, DfiVIDPermit # 85-13Report No: 56333 Date: 5/63/89 TEST* m m m m m m mi m m ASPHfiLT D TEST DATE LOCATION CftNYON PLflCE, CUL-DE-SflC '&!$£ Southeast section $5/w£ Middle area 35/92 North side of road 39' east of drainage ditch 95/92 South side 49' east of drainage ditch 95/92 85' west of east end on center line 95/92 South side 129' west of eastend WEST HALF OF CANYON STREET 95/92 North end 8' north of curb 95/w£ 15' north of Canyon Place 95/92 129' north of Canyon Place E N 3 I T Y WET DENSITYP.C.F. 142,9 142.8 141.6 142.6 .141.3 147.8 141.9 139.7 149.9 TEST STANDARDDENSITY 149.8 149.8 149.8 149.8 149> 149.8 149.8 149.3 149.8 :=======: R E 3 U L ^DENSITY REQUIRED 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 TS XDENSITY OBTAINED 95 95 95 95 95 99 95 93 94 TEST RESULTS COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES DOES NOT COMPLY DOES NOT COMPLY Testing Engineers—San Diego 3467 Kurtz Street, P.O. Box 80985, San Diego, CA 92138 (619) 225-9641 2956 Industry St., Oceanside. CA 92054 (619) 757-0248 Siuwary of flctivity Service . < ---- Resource --- Date Task flbbreviated Description Code Naiae/Description Units 5/K/B9 9226« FIELD DENSITIES s$iE4 BflRELfl, MAX w 5/ee/89 S2261 FIELD DEHSITIES/OVERTIJC «^4 BflRELfl, MX 2.5* Testing Engineers—San Diego 3467Kurtz Street, P.O. Box 80985, San Diego. CA 92138 (619) 225-9641 2956 Industry St.. Oceanside, CA 92054 (619) 757-0248 ' Job No: 8873 M PiTON RUDEN, R.C.E. C 10163 Job NaKe: CflNYON PLACE 1784 MOUNTfllH VIEW flVENUE Job fiddress: ftSPHflLT CONCRETE INSPECTION OCEflNSIDE CflNYON PLflCE 1 CftNYQN STREET Cft 92854 CflRLSBflDca Engineer: RENDINI, DfiVID Permit 3 85-13 Reoort No: 56S33 Distributed To: TESTING ENSIhEERS - SAN DiEGQ ftLTON SUDEN, R.C.E. C 19153 Dab; 5/83/39 TEST TE3T» DflTE i m ss/ee MS. &5/*2 •m 95/82 gijii S5/S2 6*5 i<5/82 $TO TO/^c' $87 §5/82 888 «5/«£ 899 *5/ts£ flSPHftLT DENS LC-CATION CfiNYCN PLflCE, CUL-DE-SftC Southeast section Middle area North side of road 88' east of drainage ditch South side 48' east of drainage ditch 85' west of east end on center line South side 1£8' nest of east end WEST HfiLF OF CflNYON STREET North end 6' north of curb 15' north of Canyon Place 128' north of Canyon Place I T Y WET . DENSITY P.C.F. 142. 8 142.3 141.5 142.5 141.9 147.8 141.9 139.7 148.9 TEST STflNDfiRD DENSITY 143.8 143.3 143.8 143.S 143.8 149.8 143.8 143.8 149.8 R E 3 UL ^DENSITY REQUIRED 35 35 95 95 35 35 35 95 35 TS tiOSITY CBTfilNED 55 35 35 35 35 39 35 93 34 TEST REE-UTS COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES COMPLIES DOES NOT COMPLY DDES NOT CO?!PIY g Engineers—San Diego ,;'urtz Street, P.O. Box 80985, San Diego, CA 92138 (619) 225-9641 Industry St., Oceanside, CA 92054 (619) 757-0248 Suasary of Activity Service { Resource ) Date Task Abbreviated Description Code Name/Description Units 57*2/89 62£5* FIELD DENSITIES %m* BflRELfl, MfiX 8.W -/8S/S9 ^2261 FIELD DENSITIES/OVERTIME W§^4 BflRELfl, MAX 2.5* CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: RESIDENTIAL Page 1 CF-1R Date 05/09/96******* *v4.50******** Project Title Brent Little Residence Project Address 1845 Canyon Place Carlsbad, CA. 92008 Documentation Author... T. Q. H. TH&A, Inc. 2581 Vista Lago Terrace Escondido, CA 92029 619-746-5112 Climate Zone 07 Compliance Method MICROPAS4 v4.50 for 1995 Standards by Enercomp, Inc. Building Permit # Plan Check / Date Field Check/ Date MICROPAS4 v4.50 File-LITTLE Wth-CTZ07S92 Program-FORM CF-1R User#-MP0820 User-TH&A, Inc. Run-New House GENERAL INFORMATION Conditioned Floor Area 2551 sf Building Type Single Family Detached Construction Type New Building Front Orientation. Number of Dwelling Units... Number of Stories Floor Construction Type.... Front Facing 0 deg (N) 1 2 Slab On Grade Glazing Percentage 16.8 % of floor area Average Glazing U-value.... 0.59 Btu/hr-sf-F BUILDING SHELL INSULATION Component Type Wall Roof Door Frame Type Wood Wood n/a Cavity Sheathing Assembly R-value R-value U-Value Location/Comments R-13 R-19.7 R-0 R-0 R-0 R-n/a 0.088 0.051 0.330 Exterior Wall, Attic Front Doors Garage Wall FENESTRATION Orientation Window Window Window Window Window Window Window Door Window Window Window Window Window Window Window Window Window Window Window Front Front Front Front Back Back Back Back Back Back Back Back Right Right Right Right Right Right Right (N) (N) (N) (N) (S) (S) (S) (S) (S) (S) (S) (S) (W) (W) (W) (W) (W) (W) (W) Area (sf) 12 12 20 24 40 30 14 20 15 30 21 20 15 6 20 17 16 8 16 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .8 .0 .0 .0 U- Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .600 .570 .600 .600 .600 .600 .600 .550 .570 .600 .600 .600 .600 .600 .600 .570 .600 .570 .600 # of Pan- es 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Interior Shading/ Description Drape s.Wht Drapes. Wht Drape s.Wht Drapes . Wht Drapes . Wht Drape s.Wht Drape s.Wht Drape s.Wht Drape s.Wht Drape s.Wht Drapes. Wht Drapes. Wht Drape s.Wht Drape s.Wht Drapes. Wht Drapes. Wht Drapes. Wht Drapes . Wht Drapes . Wht Exterior Shading None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None Over- hang/ Framing Fins Type None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl None Vinyl CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CITY OF CARLSBAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DR., CARLSBAD, CA 92009 (619)438-1161 Plan Check No. This form shall be used to determine the amount of school fees for a project and to verify that the project applicant has complied with the school fee requirements. No building permits for the projects shall be. issued until the certification is signed by the appropriate school district and returned to the City 'of Carlsbad Building Department. SCHOOL DISTRICT: K Carlsbad Unified 801 Pine Avenue Carlsbad CA 92009 (434-0661) Encinitas Union 101 South Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Encinitas CA 92024 (944-4300) San Marcos Unified 1290 West San Marcos Blvd. San Marcos CA 92024 (744-4776) San Dieguito Union High School 710 Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas CA 92024 (753-6491) Project Applicant: Project Address: RESIDENTIAL: ft- U^O r-44\ V APN:Zo£" - C~Arr W SQ. FT. of living area 3>(MZ_ SQ. FT. of covered area COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL: Prepared by _ number of dwelling units SQ. FT. of garage area _ Date FEE CERTIFICATION (To be completed by the School District) Applicant has complied with fee requirement under Government Code 53080 Project is subject to an existing fee agreement Project is exempt from Government Code 53080 Final Map approval and construction started before September 1, 1986. (other school fees paid) Other Residential Fee Levied: $ 5,781.28 Comm/lndust Fee Levied: $ based on 3142 based on sq. ft. @ sq. ft. @ 1.84 Assistant Superintendent Business Services 7/24/96 Title Date