The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1095 HOOVER ST; ; CBR2018-1253; PermitBuilding Permit Finaled Residential Permit Print Date: 03/16/2023 Job Address: 1095 HOOVER ST, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Work Class: Parcel #: 2061720100 Track#: Valuation: $125,862.90 Lot#: Occupancy Group: #of Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Bathrooms: Occupant Load: Code Edit ion: Sprinkled: Project#: Plan#: Construction Type: Orig. Plan Check #: Plan Check#: Project Title: VIOLA RESIDENCE HOOVER STREET Description: VIOLA: RETAINING WALL FEE BUILDING PERMIT FEE ($2000+) BUILDING PLAN CHECK FEE (BLDG) Property Owner: THEODORE VIOLA 4858 PARK DR, # 110 CARLSBAD, CA 92008-3811 (760) 613-8333 SB1473 GREEN BUILDING STATE STANDARDS FEE STRONG MOTION-RESIDENTIAL Retaining Wall DEV2017-0112 Total Fees: $1,243.47 Total Payments To Date: $1,243.47 Permit No: Status: (city of Carlsbad CBR2018-1253 Closed -Finaled Applied: 05/25/2018 Issued: 08/22/2018 Finaled Close Out: 03/16/2023 Final Inspection: 03/15/2023 INSPECTOR: Kersch, Tim Krogh, Andy Burnette, Paul Balance Due: AMOUNT $718.30 $502.81 $6.00 $16.36 $0.00 Please take NOTICE that approva l of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exaction." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposit ion of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitation has previously otherwise expired. Building Division Page 1 of 1 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad CA 92008-7314 I 442-339-2719 I 760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov {city of Carlsbad JOB ADD Building Permit Application 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 Ph: 760-602-271.9 Fax: 760-602-8558 email: bulldlng@carlsbadca.gov www.carlsbadca.gov SUITE#/SPACE#/UNIT# Plan Check No.C6~ d() Est. Value Plan Ck. Deposit Date o ;is ;-g- APN Z Db-l'l2 -O 0 LOT H PHASE# # OF UNITS # BEDROOMS # BATHROOMS TENANT BUSINESS NAME CONSTR. "TYPE DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Include Square Feet of Affected Area(s) C 7 ADDRESS CITY STATE PHONE FAX EMAIL NII-JG WALL- 008 ZIP Cl STATE LIC. # STATE LIC.# (l Q 00 113- AIR CONDITIONING YES □ NO □ FIRE SPRINKLERS YES □ NO □ (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law /Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code} or {hat he is exempt therefrom. and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($5001). Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby afflrm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: 0 I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensalion as provided by Seclion 3700 of lhe Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. 0 I have and will maintain work mpen ation, as required by ection 37. 0 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation ·nsur ce carrier and policy number are: Insurance Co._..1..,L.~.e:'.:l=~J..J.l<!.<'.Lc::~:...+"-..c_...!!:...!,:,0.,£d...,,,,.-4, __ Policy No. C / rt/ e,_ Q 07 .cJ. 7 '9 Expiration Date CI-7 This seclion need not be completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less. 0 Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in the performance of lhe work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as lo become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers· c ·on coverage is unlawful, and shall subjecl an employerto criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars (& 100,000), in addition to the cost of compensation, damag or in S~ Labor code, interest and attorney's fees. ~ CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE L □AGENT DATE & -/fa ./'. I hereby afflrm that I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: O I, as owner of lhe property or my employees wilh wages as their sole compensalion, will do lhe work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Conlractor'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 sa~,.!!6wever, the building or improvement is sold within one year of complelion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). ~s owner of the property, am exclusively contracling with licensed conlractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Conlractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and conlracts for such projects wilh conlractor(s) licensed pursuant to lhe Contractor's License Law). □ I am exempt under Section _____ Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construclion of the proposed property improvement. 0 Yes O No 2. I (have / have not} signed an applicalion for a building permit for the proposed work. 3. I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construclion (include name address / phone I contractors' license number): 4. I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired lhe following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name/ address/ phone/ contractors' license number): 5. I will provide some of the work, but I have cont acted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name I address/ phone/ lype of work): ~ PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE ~ □AGENT DATE J--I? -/ f 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 D No Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? 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 UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (i} Civil Code}. Lender's Address I certify that I have read the application and state that the above infonnation isconectand that the infonnation on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representative of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permtt 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 W the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or Wthe building or work authorized by such tt is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for ape· of 180 days (Section 106.4.4 UnWorm Building Code). _,1$ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE t '25 f 8 PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBR2018-1253) Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Work Class: Retaining Wall Status: Closed -Finaled Application Date: 05/25/2018 Owner: THEODORE VIOLA Issue Date: 08/22/2018 Subdivision: BELLAVIST A Expiration Date: 12/17/2019 IVR Number: 11584 Address: 1095 HOOVER ST CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Reinspection Inspection Date Start Date Thursday, March 16, 2023 Checklist Item BLDG-Building Deficiency BLDG-Plumbing Final BLDG-Mechanical Final BLDG-Structural Final BLDG-Electrical Final COMMENTS Status Passed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Page 2 of 2 Building Permit Inspection History Finaled (City of Carlsbad PERMIT INSPECTION HISTORY for (CBR2018-1253) Permit Type: BLDG-Residential Application Date: 05/25/2018 Owner: THEODORE VIOLA Work Class: Retaining Wall Issue Date: 08/22/2018 Subdivision: BELLAVISTA Status: Closed -Finaled Expiration Date: 12/17/2019 Address: 1095 HOOVER ST IVR Number: 11584 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 Scheduled Actual Inspection Type Inspection No. Inspection Primary Inspector Reinspection Inspection Date Start Date Status 09/07/2018 BLDG-66 Grout 069454-2018 Cancelled Andy Krogh Reinspection Incomplete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 4' pour in place wall as noted on plans Yes 08/23/2018 08/23/2018 BLDG-11 067902-2018 Partial Pass Paul Burnette Reinspection Incomplete Foundation/Ftg/Piers (Rebar) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 08/31/2018 08/31/2018 BLDG-66 Grout 068789-2018 Partial Pass Andy Krogh Reinspection Incomplete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 4' pour in place wall as noted on plans Yes 09/11/2018 09/11/2018 BLDG-66 Grout 069583-2018 Partial Pass Paul Burnette Reinspection Incomplete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 4' pour in place wall as noted on plans Yes 09/13/2018 09/13/2018 BLDG-66 Grout 069920-2018 Passed Paul Burnette Complete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency 4' pour in place wall as noted on plans Yes 09/25/2018 09/25/2018 BLDG-24 RoughfTopout 070995-2018 Partial Pass Paul Burnette Re inspection Incomplete Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency No 06/20/2019 06/20/2019 BLDG-84 Rough 095242-2019 Passed Paul Burnette Complete Combo(14,24,34,44) Checklist Item COMMENTS Passed BLDG-Building Deficiency Yes BLDG-14 Yes Frame-Steel-Bolting-Welding (Decks) BLDG-24 Rough-Topout Yes BLDG-34 Rough Electrical Yes BLDG-44 Yes Rough-Ducts-Dampers 03/15/2023 03/15/2023 BLDG-Final Inspection 205588-2023 Passed Tim Kersch Complete Thursday, March 16, 2023 Page 1 of 2 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING GROUNDWATER • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY FIELD REPORT ON OBSERVATION OF FOUNDATIONS DATE: //--Z.,,, / f? M99CSOOJ128 11/JS TIME: ----'-g:►.~J:_M __ _ CLIENT: fe d 1//o/cz JosNo. lt-/l!fl PROJECT NAME: _...J.....11,...L-J..,.:.m~• ...JL.0....::::e...r ___ ___,_s:=_:_~--=---~----=e:t::::......!..._----C:.6=-=..:f-::...;_,,,.,---=-d.......:{_,,:.........,_<-e--____ _ PROJECT ADDRESS: /fl C/,L //Do ~-f <: +. uL/.rfu. J; C1- □ □ □ The footing excavations listed below were bottomed on material for which the bearing va lues recommended in the foundation report are appl icable. The cast-in-place dril led friction piles listed below penetrated material for which the allowable supporting capacities recommended in the foundation report are applicable. The piles were excavated to diameters at least as large as specified and the excavations extended at least to the depths indicated on the Foundation Plans. The excavations for the cast-in-place belled piers listed below were bottomed on material for which the bearing values recommended in the foundation report are applicab le. The excavations were at least as large as specified on the Foundation Plans. The driven piles listed below were observed to be driven to the specified lengths and/or driving resistances to obtain the supporting capacities recommended in the foundation report. C[ls-t.J I!'.' I ,i II ""'-11;,. vuvr ,., "/ . /1'"'-" ,r .f,,01-, "J k, Y r,( YA h CU I :> Jo /2 C... --rr> v-1 /c. / ·..-1 fo ;;/.&tt 5' .e:,_ , Mfi.-'ho ., ( ,' ltt -/4_, 1/4 I c r ( Co,.., ,,),u:.fr / r E ~ re-1.-,c t' I tt u { ?~/ 5t11/2- I NOTE: I (" Jt)iJ/' 1 The obsefvations reported above do not constitute an approval of foundation location, footing size or depth, reinforcement, or foundation design. 2 3 Loose, soft, or disturbed soils must be removed prior to placement of reinforcement m concrete. The opinions and recommendations presented in this report were based upon our observaa tions and are presented in accordance with_,.,,ge n rally accepted professional engineeri ng practice. We make no other warranty, either e pres 7420 Trade St. San Diego, Ca. 92121 .J Structural Ins ections LLC *SPECIAL INSPECTION SERVICES* P.O. Box 2415 El Cajon, CA 92021 Cell: (619) 770-9559 • Fax (619) 588-5955 Inspection Report Project Name:_{J_..Q.._v' ____ ~(2e_-~_' ______________ _ Page: ____ of ____ Report#:. _____ _ ProjectAddress:_l_0_0\_45" __ ~)~ __ 0-J_-U ___ <,_.\_, ________ _ Permit#: ________________ _ Architect W (\~~ \)p5,. ~ [\ File #: _________________ _ Engineer: _________________________ _ DSA #: ________________ _ Contractor: ________________________ _ Other:._~_\_':>_h>_C'\ _________ _ INSPECTION MATERIAL SAMPLING QTY MATERIAL DESCRIPTION INSPECTION CHECKLIST - Structural Steel --H.S. Bolts --H.S. Bolts ~Plans/Specs _dMasonry Prisms Cone.PSI k Clearances --Concrete ~Mor~ / Grout PSI "=,,')o() 11, S'I) ~ Positions , ~ Sizes --Fireproofing --Cone. Cylinders --Mortar PSI --Epoxy --Fireproof --Steel __L Laps --Other: --Other: --Elect./Wire ~ Consolidation --Other: --Other: --Fireproof __ Torque Ft. Lbs: --Other: --O ther: --Other: 17 3,1.3 --Other: --Other: --Other: --Other: --Other: ~,l\.(~-+-, (v0~u\'.~ cA ~0 1' .2f ~ ~~ l ·,~+ ~f ,, I ' .-{. tt C zl, -i1 ~ Sv\lY)? 1:1·~ 5\A, ~,(_( ,;)(, CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE: All reported work, unless otherwise noted, complies with approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the building codes. This report covers the locations of the work inspected and does not constitute opinion or project control. I hereby certify that I have observed to the best of my knowledge all of the above reported work unless otherwise noted. I have found this work to comply with the approved plans, specifications, and applicable sections of the governing building laws. ~~~ Inspector: GIANNI BATTAGLIA Cert ICC 8219469 ~ q /'J A <I 1gnature Date Approved By: ___________________ _ Project Superintendent Structural Inspections LLC Project Name: A/ €f,// KI:;; ) *SPECIAL INSPECTION SERVICES* P.O. Box 2415 El Cajon, CA 92021 Cell: (619) 770-9559 • Fax (619) 588-5955 Inspection Report Page: Project Address:. __ f_O_q_._.~"'------.,_-'--"-""-'"'-"......._.,___ Hoo tfr ,i Sr. Permit#: Architect: _________________________ _ File #: Engineer: _________________________ _ DSA #: Contractor: ________________________ _ Other: ~' of Report#: 5 ~ INSPECTION MATERIAL SAMPLING QTY MATERIAL DESCRIPTION INSPECTION CHECKLIST H.S. Bolts . ~!ans/Specs --Structural Steel ----H.S. Bolts ~ Masonry --Prisms --Cone. PSI _ Clearances --Concrete --Mortar/Grout Grout PSI fLrrrQ --Positions --Fireproofing --Cone. Cylinders ✓ Mortar PSI t'J . _---Sizes I --Epoxy --Fireproof ~Steel ~ 61-~ ~ Laps --Other: --Other: --Elect./Wire --Consolidation --Other: --Other: --Fireproof __ Torque Ft. Lbs: --Other: --Other: --Other: --Other: --Other: --Other: --Other: --Other: I ?~yCU\ r:,,_ ~ t' (; C 'ft <'t (lY\ 11--<-,('YI~ 1 ;). 1 l 0-, 'Jk CMu ' A! W1' I I. V . I' ) f1.~_Jm l-i <;; U , le ('--hcrvl , Chi I .P--11 ' r, r L, Fr ( L? C _] r· t'\f 51) ~ ~ s AN 1 " Q~e i. (, .,, ~ C)L CJ, 1~,. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE: All reported work, unless otherwise noted, complies with approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the building codes. This report covers the locations of the work inspected and does not constitute opinion or project control. I hereby certify that I have observed to the best of my knowledge all of the above reported work unless otherwise noted. I have found this work to comply with the approved plans, specifications, and applicable sections of the governing building laws. Inspector: MARIO BATTAGLIA Cert: -----350 Approved By: ___________________ _ Project Superintendent ,: , Structural Inspections LLC *SPECIAL INSPECTION SERVICES* P.O. Box 2415 El Cajon, CA 92021 Cell: (619) 770-9559 • Fax (619) 588-5955 Inspection Report Project Name: _...,_~__,__...;:ti_:W __ Ji-1--+-"½~('-'-,_,_{),c...~__,_:........:.ll,=----------'--- ProjectAddress:. _ ___,_/--=O-?(_,_,_( __ _,_f_,_/ .... o=--O_._V_~._ __ __.(i""-!_· _____ _ Page: ___ /..,.. of / Report#:. _____ _ Permit #:_CJ_ij=--,ZJ:i...::.::.::....,_/-=-?_--'-/--=z--=5:;.__? __ _ Architect: _________________________ _ File#: _________________ _ Engineer: _________________________ _ DSA #: ---::---,-------,7'fh,--.t------- Other:._.::;._/;-7.;__;;;_5_,71),,-'---'----'-/-V/4_t -=j_, __ Contractor: __ &~(]~------------------·-;, .. _~_,-~-'-~ INSPECTION Structural Steel 7 Masonry Concrete Fireproofing Epoxy Other: Other: Other: Other: MATERIAL SAMPLING H.S. Bolts __ Prismstz ✓ Morta Grout __ Cone. Cy inders Fireproof Other: Other: Other: Other: QTY MATERIAL DESCRIPTION H.S. Bolts / Cone.PSI ~ :::;;;--Grout PSI~ u c) t __ Mortar PSI / Steel ' Ele'ct./Wire Fireproof Other: INSPECTION CHECKLIST / Plans/Specs -✓Clearances "i' ~ Positions ~Sizes __ .-taps ~nsolidation __ Torque Ft. Lbs: Other: Other: CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE: All reported work, unless otherwise n6tetl, complies with approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the building codes This report covers the locations of the work inspected arld does not constitute opinion or project control. I hereby certify that f have observed to the best of my knowledge all of the above reported work unless otherwise noted. I have fou~d thi or o comply with the approved plans, specifications, and applicable sections of the governing building la= Inspector: MARIO BATTAGLIA · Cert: 350 r tl / . 7; 1/ / ½ u~~P.: [)a,ce: ' j Time Start: !Time Stop: Approved By: ___________________ _ Project Superintendent Signature ' Structural lnsp'ections LLC *SPECIAL INSPECTION SERVICES* P.O. Box 2415 El Cajon, CA 92021 Cell: (619) 770-9559 • Fax (619) 588-5955 Inspection Report Project Name:--'--~_.Q_\>.) ____ ~1---"--·l_,~""""....::_---"--'Q __________ _ Project Address:_),.__._.Q'--°'---'--'5"'----B~o=--o'-~--'---Vf"-=---'s=--+--'---. ------- Architect: :>t¼n,J\...0 \ '1) v,.){ ; i:,~ \-' Engineer: ________________________ _ Contractor: _______________________ _ Page: __ -.-~ of ___ Report#:. _____ _ Permit #:_c_'&l __ Z.._o__;_\ ~-~ _l_~,_2._45 ___ _ File #: ________________ _ DSA #: _______________ _ Other:.----""f--'l'---'5:......,fu---=...:....n__,___ _____ _ INSPECTION MATERIAL SAMPLING QTY MATERIAL DESCRIPTION INSPECTION CHECKLIST s:;; ?tructural Steel --H.S.Bolts Masonry --Prisms Concrete Mortar/Grout ---- __ Fireproofing --Cone. Cylinders __ Epoxy --Fireproof =:::=2' Other: )4"1:,c:L,{ --Other: Other: Other: ---- Other: Other: ---- Other: Other: ---- (\-tV("o,._,D S' H.S. Bolts -- Cone. PSI -- Grout PSI -- Mortar PSI / Steel ;ff Elect./Wire -- --Fireproof Other: -- Other: -- Dl/sD?> () I lA \ I V Plans/Specs Clearances -- Positions -- Sizes -- __ Laps Consolidation -- __ Torque Ft. Lbs: Other: -- Other: -- \Ocod-i<:> " CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE: All reported work. unless otherwise noted, complies with approved plans, specifications and applicable sections of the building codes. This report covers the locations of the work inspected and does not constitute opinion or project control. I hereby certify that I have observed to the best of my knowledge all of the above reported work unless otherwise noted. I have found this work to comply wici, ,h, appro~d pl'"'• ,poclficatlo"'• '"' applkabl, ,octio"' of m, go"'"'"' b,lldi"g I,~. ~ /? /.. , / Inspector: GIANNI BATTAGLIA Cert: ICC8219469 ~ ~OL.!~ !_i~i:~~t~: Time Start: [Time Stop: Day I: • Day 2: ?:.P.<?. .. L3:~~- Approved By: __________________ _ Project Superintendent Signature Date ,Day 4: , Day 5: GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING GROUNDWATER • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY FIELD REPORT ON OBSERVATION OF FOUNDATIONS DATE: tg )o/J~ M99CS001128 11/15 TIME: CfA--: CLIENT: -,..--:--~1-~tJ_Vi_lO_~-----~-JOB NO. , 6-/JI ~7 PROJ ECT NAME: Hoovet ;t 12~Jer,~{ fro2<2c'1' PROJECT ADDREss: / o'/5 )Ir;; V4" ,5} -(tilt/f b1r) □ □ □ The footing excavations listed below were bottomed on material for which the bearing values recommended in the foundation report are applicable.)< The cast-in-place drilled friction piles listed below penetrated material for w hich the allowable supporting capacities recommended in the foundation report are applicable. The piles were excavated to diameters at least as large as specified and the excavations extended at least to the depths indicated on the Foundation Plans. The excavations for the cast-in-place belled piers listed below were bottomed on material for which the bearing values recommended in the foundation report are applicable. The excavations were at least as large as specified on the Foundation Plans. The driven piles I isted below were observed to be driven to the specified lengths and/or driving res istances to obtain the supporting capacities recommended in the foundation report. Based upon observations, it is our opinion that the .fAundation recom end w;esented in the report of the foundation i nvestigation, Job No. /6,-//J'/,7 , dated 6 ~ (~/(are not) applica le to the conditions observed. Foundation Plans by-lC!:-'-'-':+.:...CL-...L.J..:.:~i.<....;..:...· _____ _ dated---+-1-9-1-1.-----were used as a reference for our observations. NOTE: 1 The observations reported above do not constit ute an approval of foundation location, footing size o r depth, reinforcement, or foundation design. 2 3 Loose, soft, or disturbed soils must be removed prior to placement of reinforcement or concrete. The opinions and recommendations presented in this report were based upon our observaa tions and are presented in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. BY:______,.,._£ __________ _ 7420 Trade St. San Diego, Ca. 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX: (858) 549-1604 ,~~.-,,...,1r1 Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 15 August 2018 Mr. Ted Viola 4958 Park _Drive, Unit 110 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Revised Building Plan Review Hoover Street Residential Project 1095 Hoover Street Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Viola: Job No. 16 -11187 As requested and as required by the City of Carlsbad reviewer, we have reviewed the revised foundation structural plans (15 sheets total) for the proposed residential project to be built at the subject address. The structural plans were prepared by Mike Suprenant and Associates. We have also reviewed the revised architectural plans provided by Wright Design (10 sheets total). The revised architectural and structural plans are dated June 10, 2018. The plans were reviewed from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint. A~er suggested corrections were made, we found the revised plans to be in accordance with the recommendations presented in our "Update Report of Geotechnical Investigation," for the subject project dated February 21, 2018. A copy of our report and this letter should be provided to all pertinent contractors involved with the grading and foundation construction. Any soil compaction should be as required by the City of Carlsbad and per our soils report. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 16-11187 will help expedite a response to your inquiry. Respectfully submitted, ECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. e A. Cerros, P.E. R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer cc: Wright Design Mike Suprenant a Richard A. Cerros, E.I.T. Staff Engineer 7420 TRADE STREET• SAN ......... ~~-~::;.!!;:::~~~-7222 e FAX: (858) 549-1604 • EMAIL: geotech@gel-sd.com REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION UPDATE Hoover Street Residential Project 1095 Hoover Street Carlsbad, California JOB NO. 16-11187 11 January 2018 Prepared for: Mr. Ted Viola CBR2018-1253 1095 HOOVER ST VIOLA: RETAINING WALL 2061720100 5/25/2018 CBR2018-1253 Geotechnica Exploration, Inc. SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING e GROUNDWATER • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 11 January 2018 Mr. Ted Viola 4858 Park Drive, Unit 110 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Job No. 16-11187 Subject: Report of Geotechnical Investigation Update Hoover Street Residential Project 1095 Hoover Street Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Viola: In accordance with your request, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. has performed a geotechnical investigation update for the subject property. The original fieldwork was performed on August 12, 2016. If the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed residential structures, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the project. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions concerning the following report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Reference to our Job No. 16-11187 will expedite a response to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. # .. f' r--:1, ! ~. \ l -Ja_i_m_e_A_. C-er_r_o-s,-P-.-E-. -----c:u~~:'1--, ~!+-'.. ~· .• :._ ,. .•. R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 . ./' Senior Geotechnical Engineer Jo an A. Browning P.G. 9012/C.E.G. 2615 Senior Project Geologist 7420 TRADE STREET• SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121 e (858) 549-7222 • FAX: (858) 549-1604 • EMAIL: geotech@gel~.com TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT SUMMARY AND SCOPE OF SERVICES II. SITE DESCRIPTION III. FIELD INVESTIGATION IV. SOIL DESCRIPTION V. GROUNDWATER VI. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS VII. LABORATORY TESTS & SOIL INFORMATION VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS IX. GRADING NOTES X. LIMITATIONS FIGURES I. IIa-b. IIIa-h. IV. V. VI. VII. Vicinity Map Plot Plan and Geologic Cross Section Exploratory Test Pit Logs Laboratory Test Results Geologic Map and Legend Foundation Requirements Near Slopes Retaining Wall Drainage Schematic APPENDICES A. Unified Soil Classification System B. USGS Design Maps Summary Report PAGE 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26 26 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION UPDATE Hoover Street Residential Project 1095 Hoover Street Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 The following report presents the findings and recommendations of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. for the subject proposed residential structures. I. PROJECT SUf-liMARY AND SCOPE OF SERVICES It is our understanding, based on information provided by Mr. Viola, that the residential property is to be split into two lots and the construction of a new single- family residential structure and associated improvements. We understand that the planned project will consist of a two-story structure with a basement that will utilize conventional foundations. We have reviewed the grading plans by the Sea Bright Company. Additional or modified recommendations have been provided. The scope of work performed for this investigation included a site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration program, laboratory testing, geotechnical engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data, and the preparation of this report. The data obtained and the analyses performed were for the purpose of providing design and construction criteria for the project earthwork, building foundations, slab on- grade floors, and concrete driveways. II, SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located in the City of Carlsbad, State of California. For the location of the site, refer to the Vicinity Map, Figure No. I. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 2 The vacant lot is bordered on the north by Hoover Street; on the east by Adams Street; on the south by similar undeveloped residential property; and on the west by open space property adjacent to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Access to the lot is along the south side of Hoover Street, a cul-de-sac. Refer to the Plot Plan, Figure No. II. Vegetation at the site consists primarily of native weeds, ice plant and sparse shrubbery. A relatively deep erosion gulley exists in the southern portion of the property. A storm drain pipe discharges onto the southeast portion of the property from under Adams Street. The lot slopes moderately down to the north and west. Elevations across the property range from approximately 67 feet above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) along the eastern property line, to approximately 25 feet AMSL at the southwest corner of the property. Information concerning approximate elevations across the site was obtained from a topographic survey prepared by The Sea Bright Company, dated August 25, 2016. 111. FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program using hand tools to investigate and sample the subsurface soils. Eight exploratory test pits were advanced in the vicinity of the proposed residential structures and improvements. The trenches were excavated to a maximum depth of 3 to 4 feet in order to obtain representative soil samples and to define a soil profile across the residential property. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 3 The soils encountered in the exploratory test pit were continuously logged in the field by our geologist and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix A). The approximate locations of the exploratory trenches are shown on the Plot Plan, Figure No. II. Representative samples were obtained from the exploratory trenches at selected depths appropriate to the investigation. All samples were returned to our laboratory for evaluation and testing. Exploratory trench logs have been prepared on the basis of our observations and laboratory test results. Logs of the exploratory test pits are attached as Figure Nos. IIIa-h. IV. SOIL DESCRIPTION Existing fill/topsoil, consisting of loose to medium dense, silty sands, were encountered in all test pits to a depth of 1 to 2 feet. Medium dense to dense formational materials, comprised of silty sand, terrace materials referred to as Old Paralic Deposits (Qopz.4), underlie the fill/topsoil as encountered in the eight exploratory test pits. These formational materials are generally massive and horizontal. In our opinion, the silty sand fill/topsoil and the silty sand formational soils possess a low potential for expansion. The exploratory test pit logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific locations shown on the site plan and on the particular date designated on the logs. Also, the passage of time may result in changes in the subsurface conditions due to environmental changes. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California V. GROUNDWATER Job No. 16-11187 Page 4 Free groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory test pits at the time of excavation. It must be noted, however, that fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, rainfall, and other possible factors that may not have been evident at the time of our field investigation. It should be kept in mind that grading operations can change surface drainage patterns and/or reduce permeabilities due to the densification of compacted soils. Such changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the appearance of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously. The appearance of such water is expected to be localized and cosmetic in nature, if good positive drainage is implemented, as recommended in this report, during and at the completion of construction. It must be understood that unless discovered during initial site exploration or encountered during site grading operations, it is extremely difficult to predict if or where perched or true groundwater conditions may appear in the future. When site fill or formational soils are fine-grained and of low permeability, water problems may not become apparent for extended periods of time. Water conditions, where suspected or encountered during construction, should be evaluated and remedied by the project civil and geotechnical consultants. The project developer and property owner, however, must realize that post-construction appearances of groundwater may have to be dealt with on a site-specific basis. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California VI. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Job No. 16-11187 Page 5 The San Diego area, as most of California, is located in a seismically active region. The San Diego area has been referred to as the eastern edge of the Southern California Continental Borderland, an extension of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The borderland is part of a broad tectonic boundary between the North American and Pacific Plates. The plate boundary is dominated by a complex system of active major strike-slip (right lateral), northwest trending faults extending from the San Andreas fault, about 70 miles east, to the San Clemente fault, about 50 miles west of the San Diego metropolitan area. Based on our review of some available published information including the California Geologic Survey and United States Geological Survey "Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30'x60' Quadrangle, California," by Michael P. Kennedy and Siang S. Tan (2007), the bedrock geologic materials underlying the site are referred to as the "Old Paralic Deposits-Reddish brown, silty, sandstone interbedded with brown, clayey sandstone." According to the aforementioned map, there are no faults known to pass through the site. Refer to Figure No. V, Geologic Map. The prominent fault zones generally considered having the most potential for earthquake damage in the vicinity of the site are the active Rose Canyon and Coronado Bank fault zones mapped approximately 5 and 21 miles southwest of the site, respectively, and the active Elsinore and San Jacinto fault zones mapped approximately 24 and 47 miles northeast of the site, respectively. Although research on earthquake prediction has greatly increased in recent years, geologists and seismologists have not yet reached the point where they can predict when and where an earthquake will occur. Nevertheless, on the basis of current Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 6 technology, it is reasonable to assume that the proposed residence may be subject to the effects of at least one moderate to major earthquake during its design life. During such an earthquake, the danger from fault offset through the site is remote, but relatively strong ground shaking is likely to occur. In our opinion, there is no probability of soil liquefaction occurrence at the site due to the lack of shallow groundwater and the presence of very dense soils at shallow depth. The on-site soils are not anticipated to lose shear strength due to a seismic event. VII. LABORATORY TESTS & SOIL INFORMATION Laboratory tests were performed on relatively undisturbed and bulk samples of the soils encountered in order to evaluate their index, strength, expansion, and compressibility properties. Test results are summarized on Figure Nos. III and IV. The following tests were conducted on the sampled soils: 1. Laboratory Compaction Characteristics (ASTM D1557-12) 2. Determination of Percentage of Particles Smaller than No. 200 Sieve (ASTM D1140-14} 3. Expansion Index (ASTM D4829-11) Moisture content measurements were performed to establish the in situ moisture of samples retrieved from the exploratory borings. Moisture content and density measurements were performed by ASTM methods D2216 and D2937. These density tests help to establish the in situ moisture and density of samples retrieved from the exploratory borings. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 7 Laboratory compaction tests establish the laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the tested soils and are also used to aid in evaluating the strength characteristics of the soils. The test results are presented on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. The particle size smaller than a No. 200 sieve analysis aids in classifying the tested soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and provides qualitative information related to engineering characteristics such as expansion potential, permeability, and shear strength. The test results are presented on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. The expansion potential of soils is determined, when necessary, utilizing the Standard Test Method for Expansion Index of Soils. In accordance with the Standard (Table 5.3), potentially expansive soils are classified as follows: Exnansion Index Potential Exoansion Oto 20 Very low 21 to 50 Low I 51 to 90 Medium 91 to 130 Hiah Above 130 Verv hiah Based on this table, the existing silty sand formational soils have a very low expansion potential, with an expansion index of less than 20. VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based on the field investigation conducted by our firm, our laboratory test results, and our experience with similar Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 8 soils and formational materials. The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. being retained to review the final plans and specifications as they are developed and to observe the site earthwork and installation of foundations. Our subsurface investigation revealed that the proposed residential structures are underlain by loose to medium dense, silty sand fill/topsoil over medium dense to dense, good-bearing sandstone formational materials. The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. being retained to review the final plans and specifications as they are developed and to observe the site earthwork and installation of foundations. Accordingly, we recommend that the following paragraph be included on the grading and foundation plans for the project. If the geotechnical consultant of record is changed for the project, the work shall be stopped until the replacement has agreed in writing to accept the responsibility within their area of technical competence for approval upon completion of the work. It shall be the responsibility of the permittee to notify the City Engineer in writing of such change prior to the recommencement of grading and/or foundation installation work. A. Preparation of Soils for Site Development 1. Clearing and Stripping: The areas of new construction should be cleared of any miscellaneous debris that may be present at the time of construction. Alter clearing, the ground surface should be stripped of surface vegetation as well as associated root systems. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions that extend below the proposed finished site grades should be Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 9 cleared and backfilled with suitable material compacted to the requirements provided under Recommendation Nos. 4, 5, and 6 below. Prior to any filling operations, the cleared and stripped vegetation and debris should be disposed of off-site. 2. Removal and Recompaction of Existing Surface Fill Soils: In order to provide suitable support for the proposed new structures and associated improvements such as decking, sidewalks and driveways, we recommend that all existing surface fill soils be removed and properly compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent. The limits of recompaction should extend at least 10 feet beyond the perimeter limits of all new improvements, where feasible. The recompaction work should consist of: (a) removing the existing surface fill/topsoil to a depth of 2 feet; (b) scarifying, moisture conditioning, and compacting the exposed subgrade soils; and (c) replacing the materials as compacted structural fill. The areal extent and depths required to remove the existing fill/topsoil should be determined by our representative during the excavation work based on their examination of the soils being exposed and physical constraints. There should be no cut/fill transition line under any of the two building pads. The minimum fill thickness under any building pad should be not less than 3 feet. In addition, the existing erosion gulley should be backfilled and compacted during site grading. The existing drainage pipe under Adams Street should be re-directed to an approved discharge location. Grading along Adams Street will consist of the addition of 8 to 10 feet of fill for the widening of Adams Street. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 10 In addition, we recommend that removals be selectively stockpiled low expansion soil from the required for use as capping material and wall backfills as recommended below in Recommendation Nos. 4 and 8. 3. Subgrade Preparation: After the site has been cleared, stripped, and the required excavations made, the exposed subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 2 percent above the laboratory optimum, and compacted to the requirements for structural fill. Areas where highly expansive soils are exposed, (if encountered) should be moisture conditioned to at least 5 percent over optimum moisture content. 4. 5. Material for Fill: All on-site soils with an organic content of less than 3 percent by volume are in general suitable for reuse as fill. Any required imported fill material should be a low-expansive granular soil. In addition, all fill material should not contain rocks or lumps over 6 inches in greatest dimension and not more than 15 percent larger than 2½ inches. No more than 25 percent of the fill should be larger than ¼-inch. All materials for use as fill should be approved by our representative prior to filling. Fill Compaction: All structural fill should in general be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent at a moisture content at least 2 percent above the optimum based upon ASTM 01557-12. Fill material should be spread and compacted in uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Before compaction begins, the fill should be brought to the recommended moisture content by either: (1) aerating and drying the fill if it is too wet, or (2) moistening the fill with water if it is too dry. Each lift should be thoroughly mixed before compaction to ensure a uniform distribution of moisture. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 11 6. Permanent Slopes: We recommend that any required permanent cut and fill slopes be constructed to an inclination no steeper than 2.0:1.0 (horizontal to vertical) where feasible. The project plans and specifications should contain all necessary design features and construction requirements to prevent erosion of the on-site soils both during and after construction. An earth berm should be constructed at the top of fill slopes, per the County of San Diego requirements and designed according to their standard drawings. Slopes and other exposed ground surfaces should be appropriately planted with a protective groundcover. Existing, properly compacted fill/cut slopes should possess a factor of safety of at least 1.5 against gross and sh al low failure potential. New fill slopes should be constructed to assure that the recommended minimum degree of compaction is attained out to the finished slope face. This may be accomplished by "backrolling" with a sheepsfoot roller or other suitable equipment as the fill is raised. Placement of fill near the tops of slopes should be carried out in such a manner as to assure that loose, uncompacted soils are not sloughed over the tops and allowed to accumulate on the slope face. 7. Temporary Slopes: Based on our subsurface investigation work, laboratory test results, and engineering analysis, temporary slopes should be stable for a maximum slope height of up to 12 feet and may be cut at a slope ratio of 0.75:1.0 in properly compacted fill soils, and vertical in the lower 5 feet and 0.5: 1.0 in the upper 8 feet in cemented, stiff natural soils. Some localized sloughing or raveling of the soils exposed on the slopes, however, may occur. If the encountered soils are not cemented, the temporary slope ratio should be no steeper than 0.75:1.0. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 12 Since the stability of temporary construction slopes will depend largely on the contractor's activities and safety precautions (storage and equipment loadings near the tops of cut slopes, surface drainage provisions, etc.), it should be the contractor's responsibility to establish and maintain all temporary construction slopes at a safe inclination appropriate to his methods of operation. No soil stockpiles or surcharge may be placed within a horizontal distance of 10 feet from the excavation. The contractor should follow all Cal-OSHA guidelines at all times. If these recommendations are not feasible due to space constraints, temporary shoring may be required for safety and to protect adjacent property improvements. Similarly, footings near temporary cuts should be underpinned or protected with shoring. No soil stockpiles or surcharge may be placed within a horizontal distance of 10 feet from the excavation. If these recommendations are not feasible, off- site stockpiling may be required. 8. Slope Top/Face Performance: The soils that occur in close proximity to the top of slope or face of even properly compacted fill or dense/stiff natural ground cut slopes often possess poor lateral stability. The degree of lateral and vertical deformation depends on the inherent expansion and strength characteristics of the soil types comprising the slope, slope steepness and height, loosening of slope face soils by burrowing rodents, and irrigation and vegetation maintenance practices, as well as the quality of compaction of fill soils. Structures and other improvements could suffer damage due to these soil movement factors if not properly designed to accommodate or withstand Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 13 such movement. New fill or cut slopes should be constructed at a 2.0: 1.0 slope gradient. 9. Slope Top Structure Performance: Rigid improvements such as top-of-slope walls, columns, decorative planters, concrete flatwork, swimming pools, and other similar types of improvements can be expected to display varying degrees of separation typical of improvements constructed at the top of a slope. The separations result primarily from slope top lateral and vertical soil deformation processes. These separations often occur regardless of being underlain by cut or fill slope material. Proximity to a slope top is often the primary factor affecting the degree of separations occurring. Shallow foundations close to descending slopes should be provided with a setback of 8 feet measured from the top of the foundation. Foundations within this setback distance should be deepened as shown on Figure No. VI, Foundation Requirements Near Slopes. Typical and to-be-expected separations can range from minimal to up to 1 inch or greater in width. In order to minimize the effect of slope-top lateral soil deformation, we recommend that the top-of-slope improvements be designed with flexible connections and joints in rigid structures so that the separations do not result in visually apparent cracking damage and/or can be cosmetically dressed as part of the ongoing property maintenance. These flexible connections may include "slip joints" in wrought iron fencing, evenly spaced vertical joints in block walls or fences, control joints with flexible caulking in exterior flatwork improvements, etc. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 14 In addition, use of planters to provide separation between top-of-slope hardscape such as patio slabs and pool decking from top-of-slope walls can aid greatly in reducing cosmetic cracking and separations in exterior improvements. Actual materials and techniques would need to be determined by the project architect or the landscape architect for individual properties. Steel dowels placed in flatwork may prevent noticeable vertical differentials, but if provided with a slip-end they may still allow some lateral displacement. 10. Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill: All backfill soils placed in utility trenches or behind retaining walls should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent. Backfill material should be placed in lift thicknesses appropriate to the type of compaction equipment utilized and compacted to a minimum degree of 90 percent by mechanical means. In pavement areas, that portion of the trench backfill within the pavement section should conform to the material and compaction requirements of the adjacent pavement section. In addition, the low-expansion potential fill layer should be maintained in utility trench backfill within the building and adjoining exterior slab areas. Trench backfill beneath the level of the low- expansion fill layer should consist of on-site soils in order to minimize the potential for migration of water below the perimeter footings at the trench locations. Our experience has shown that even shallow, narrow trenches, such as for irrigation and electrical lines, that are not properly compacted can result in problems, particularly with respect to shallow ground water accumulation and migration. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California B. Foundation Recommendations Job No. 16-11187 Page 15 11. Footings: We recommend that the proposed new structures be supported on conventional, individual-spread and/or continuous footing foundations bearing on recompacted fill soils prepared as recommended above in Recommendation No. 2. All footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade. At the recommended depths, footings may be designed for allowable bearing pressures of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for combined dead and live loads and 3,300 psf for all loads, including wind or seismic. The footings should, however, have a minimum width of 12 inches. 12. General Criteria For All Footings: Footings located adjacent to the tops of slopes should be extended sufficiently deep so as to provide at least 8 feet of horizontal cover between the slope face and outside edge of the footing at the footing bearing level. Footings located adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing surfaces situated below an imaginary 1.0 to 1.0 plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the adjacent utility trench. All continuous footings should contain top and bottom reinforcement to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. We recommend that a minimum of two No. 5 top and two No. 5 bottom reinforcing bars be provided in the footings. A minimum clearance of 3 inches should be maintained between steel reinforcement and the bottom or sides of the footing. In order for us to offer an opinion as to whether the footings are founded on soils of sufficient load bearing capacity, it is essential Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 16 that our representative inspect the footing excavations prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. NOTE: The project Civil/Structural Engineer should review all reinforcing schedules. The reinforcing minimums recommended herein are not to be construed as structural designs, but merely as minimum reinforcement to reduce the potential for cracking and separations. 13. Seismic Design Criteria: Site-specific seismic design criteria for the proposed structures are presented in the following table in accordance with Section 1613 of the 2016 CBC, which incorporates by reference ASCE 7-10 for seismic design. We have determined the mapped spectral acceleration values for the site, based on a latitude of 33.1483 degrees and longitude of - 117.33 degrees, utilizing a tool provided by the USGS, which provides a solution for ASCE 7-10 (Section 1613 of the 2016 CBC) utilizing digitized files for the Spectral Acceleration maps. Based on the observed soils conditions, we have assigned a Site Soil Classification of D. TABLE I Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values and Design Parameters s, Fa 01.135 0.436 1.046 1.564 1.187 0.682 0.792 0.454 14. Lateral Loads: Lateral load resistance for the structures supported on footing foundations may be developed in friction between the foundation bottoms and the supporting subgrade. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.40 is considered applicable. An additional allowable passive resistance equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf acting against the foundations may be used in design provided the footings are poured neat against the adjacent properly Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California compacted fill or dense formational materials. Job No. 16-11187 Page 17 These lateral resistance values assume a level surface in front of the footing for a minimum distance of three times the embedment depth of the footing and any shear keys. 15. Settlement: Settlements under building loads are expected to be within tolerable limits for the proposed structure. For footings designed in accord- ance with the recommendations presented in the preceding paragraphs, we anticipate that total settlements should not exceed 1 inch and that post- construction differential settlements should be less than 1/240. 16. Retaining Walls: Retaining walls must be designed to resist lateral earth pressures and any additional lateral pressures caused by surcharge loads on the adjoining retained surface. We recommend that unrestrained ( cantilever) walls with level, low-expansive backfill be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 38 pcf. We recommend that restrained walls (i.e., basement walls or any walls with angle points that restrain them from rotation) with level backfill be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 56 pcf. Unrestrained walls with up to 2.0:1.0 sloping, low-expansive backfills should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 52 pcf. Restrained walls with up to 2.0: 1.0 sloping backfills should be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 76 pcf. Wherever walls will be subjected to surcharge loads they should also be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-third the anticipated vertical surcharge pressure for unrestrained walls and an additional one-half the anticipated vertical surcharge pressure for restrained walls (all using low-expansive backfill soils). Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 18 For seismic design of unrestrained walls, we recommend that the seismic pressure increment be taken as a fluid pressure distribution utilizing an equivalent fluid weight of 14 pcf. For restrained walls, we recommend the seismic pressure increment be waived. The preceding design pressures assume that the walls are backfilled with low expansion potential materials (Expansion Index less than 50) and that there is sufficient drainage behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface water infiltration. We recommend, in addition to waterproofing, that back drainage be provided by a composite drainage material such as Miradrain 6000/6200 or equivalent. The back drain material should terminate 12 inches below the finish surface where the surface is covered by slabs or 18 inches below the finish surface in landscape areas. Waterproofing should continue to 6 inches above the top of the wall. A subdrain (such as Total Drain or perforated pipe in an envelope of crushed rock gravel a maximum of 1 inch in diameter and wrapped with geofabric such as Mirafi 140N), should be placed at the bottom of retaining walls. Subdrains should discharge at an approved drainage facility. Backfill placed behind the walls should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent using light compaction equipment. If heavy equipment is used, the walls should be appropriately temporarily braced. Shoring walls, if required, may be designed for the same soil pressure indicated above. The soldier piles' passive resistance may be calculated as 750 pcf applied in the embedment depth of the pile below the cut surface, times the diameter of the pile. Surcharge load effect on shoring walls may be calculated similarly to retaining walls. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California c. Concrete Slab-on-grade Criteria Job No. 16-11187 Page 19 Slabs on-grade may only be used on new, properly compacted fill or when bearing on dense natural soils. 17. Minimum Floor Slab Reinforcement: Based on our experience, we have found that, for various reasons, concrete floor slabs occasionally crack. Therefore, we recommend that all slabs-on-grade contain at least a minimum amount of reinforcing steel to reduce the separation of cracks, should they occur. Interior floor slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches actual thickness and be reinforced with No. 3 bars on 18-inch centers, both ways, placed at midheight in the slab. Slab subgrade soil moisture should be verified by a Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. representative to have the proper moisture content within 48 hours prior to placement of the vapor barrier and pouring of concrete. Shrinkage control joints should be placed no farther than 20 feet apart and at re-entrant corners. The joints should penetrate at least 1 inch into the slab. Following placement of any concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials. 18. Slab Moisture Protection and Vapor Barrier Membrane: Although it is not the responsibility of geotechnical engineering firms to provide moisture protection recommendations, as a service to our clients we provide the Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 20 following discussion and suggested minimum protection criteria. Actual recommendations should be provided by the architect and waterproofing consultants or product manufacturer. Soil moisture vapor can result in damage to moisture-sensitive floors, some floor sealers, or sensitive equipment in direct contact with the floor, in addition to mold and staining on slabs, walls, and carpets. The common practice in Southern California is to place vapor retarders made of PVC, or of polyethylene. PVC retarders are made in thickness ranging from 10-to 60- mil. Polyethylene retarders, called visqueen, range from 5-to 10-mil in thickness. These products are no longer considered adequate for moisture protection and can actually deteriorate over time. Specialty vapor retarding products possess higher tensile strength and are more specifically designed for and intended to retard moisture transmission into and through concrete slabs. The use of such products is highly recommended for reduction of floor slab moisture emission. The following American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) sections address the issue of moisture transmission into and through concrete slabs: ASTM E1745-97 (2009) Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact Concrete Slabs; ASTM E154-88 (2005) Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth; ASTM E96-95 Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials; ASTM E1643-98 (2009) Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact Under Concrete Slabs; and ACI 302.2R-06 Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 21 18.1 Based on the above, we recommend that the vapor barrier consist of a minimum 15-mil extruded polyolefin plastic (no recycled content or woven materials permitted). Permeance as tested before and after mandatory conditioning (ASTM E1745 Section 7.1 and sub-paragraphs 7.1.1-7.1.5) should be less than 0.01 U.S. perms (grains/square foot/hour/inch of mercury [Hg]) and comply with the ASTM E1745 Class A requirements. Installation of vapor barriers should be in accordance with ASTM E1643. The basis of design is 15-mil StegoWrap vapor barrier placed per the manufacturer's guidelines. Reef Industries Vapor Guard membrane has also been shown to achieve a permeance of less than 0.01 perms. Our suggested acceptable moisture retardant membranes are based on a report entitled "Report of Water Vapor Permeation Testing of Construction Vapor Barrier Materials" by Dr. Kay Cooksey, Ph.D., Clemson University, Dept. of Packaging Science, 2009-10. The membrane may be placed directly on properly compacted subgrade soils and directly underneath the slab. Proper slab curing is required to help prevent slab curling. A 4-inch-thick crushed rock layer may be placed under the plastic membrane. 18.2 Common to all acceptable products, vapor retarder/barrier joints must be lapped and sealed with mastic or the manufacturer's recommended tape or sealing products. In actual practice, stakes are often driven through the retarder material, equipment is dragged or rolled across the retarder, overlapping or jointing is not properly implemented, etc. All these construction deficiencies reduce the retarder's effectiveness. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 22 In no case should retarder/barrier products be punctured or gaps be allowed to form prior to or during concrete placement. 18.3 As previously stated, following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of any floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials. 19. Concrete Isolation Joints: We recommend the project Civil/Structural Engineer incorporate isolation joints and control joints (sawcuts) to at least one-fourth the thickness of the slab in any floor designs. The joints and cuts, if properly placed, should reduce the potential for and help control floor slab cracking. We recommend that concrete shrinkage joints be spaced no farther than approximately 20 feet apart, and also at re-entrant corners. However, due to a number of reasons (such as base preparation, construction techniques, curing procedures, and normal shrinkage of concrete), some cracking of slabs can be expected. 20. Exterior Nonstructural Concrete Slabs: As a minimum for protection of on- site improvements, we recommend that all nonstructural concrete slabs (such as patios, sidewalks, etc.), be founded on properly compacted and tested fill or dense native formation and be underlain by 2 inches ( and no more than 3 inches) of compacted clean leveling sand, with No. 3 bars at 18- inch centers, both ways, at the center of the slab. Exterior concrete slabs should be at least 4 inches thick. Exterior slabs should contain adequate isolation and control joints as noted in the following paragraphs. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 23 The performance of on-site improvements can be greatly affected by soil base preparation and the quality of construction. It ls therefore important that all improvements are properly designed and constructed for the existing soil conditions. The improvements should not be built on loose soils or fills placed without our observation and testing. The subgrade of exterior improvements should be verified as properly prepared within 48 hours prior to concrete placement. A minimum thickness of 2 feet of properly recompacted soils should underlie exterior slabs on-grade for secondary improvements. 21. Exterior Slab Control Joints: For exterior slabs with the minimum shrinkage reinforcement, control joints should be placed at spaces no farther than 12 feet apart or the width of the slab, whichever is less, and also at re-entrant corners. Control joints in exterior slabs should be sealed with elastomeric joint sealant. The sealant should be inspected every 6 months and be properly maintained. Concrete slab joints should be dowelled or continuous steel reinforcement should be provided to help reduce any potential differential movement. D. Pavements 22. Concrete Pavement: We recommend that concrete driveway pavements, subject only to automobile and light truck traffic, be 5 inches thick and be supported directly on properly prepared/compacted on-site subgrade soils. The concrete for areas subject to occasional heavy truck traffic (such as fire truck access) should have a minimum thickness of 6 inches. The upper 8 inches of the subgrade below the slab should be compacted to a minimum Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 24 degree of compaction of 95 percent just prior to paving. The concrete should be f'c=3,500 psi at 28 days of age. In order to control shrinkage cracking, we recommend that sawcut, weakened-plane joints be provided at about 12-foot centers, both ways, and at re-entrant corners. The pavement slabs should be saw-cut as soon as practical but no more than 24 hours after the placement of the concrete. The depth of the joint should be one-quarter of the slab thickness and its width should not exceed 0.02-feet. Reinforcing steel is not necessary unless it is desired to increase the joint spacing recommended above. IE. Site Drainage Considerations 23. Surface Drainage: Adequate measures should be taken to properly finish- grade the site after the improvements are in place. Drainage waters from this site and adjacent properties should be directed away from the footings, floor slabs, and slopes, onto the natural drainage direction for this area or into properly designed and approved drainage facilities provided by the project civil engineer. Roof gutters and downspouts should be installed on the new improvements, with the runoff directed away from the foundations via closed drainage lines. Proper subsurface and surface drainage will help reduce the potential for waters to seek the level of the bearing soils under footings and floor slabs, or other extensive improvements. Failure to observe this recommendation could result in undermining and possible differential settlement of the structure or other improvements or cause other moisture-related problems. Currently, the 2016 CBC requires a minimum 1 percent surface gradient for proper drainage of building pads Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California unless waived by the building official. Job No. 16-11187 Page 25 Concrete pavement may have a minimum gradient of 0.5-percent. Surface gradient adjacent to structures must drain away as indicated in the 2016 CBC. 24. Erosion Control: Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken at all times during and after construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations or ponding on finished building pad areas. 25. Planter Drainage: New planter areas, flower beds, and planter boxes should be sloped to drain away from the footings and floor slabs at a gradient of at least 5 percent within 5 feet from the perimeter walls. Any planter areas adjacent to the structures or surrounded by concrete improvements should be provided with sufficient area drains to help with rapid runoff disposal. No water should be allowed to pond adjacent to the residence or other improvements. 26. Drainage Quality Control: It must be understood that it is not within the scope of our services to provide quality control oversight for surface or subsurface drainage construction or retaining wall sealing and base of wall drain construction. It is the responsibility of the contractor to verify proper wall sealing, geofabric installation, protection board (if needed), drain depth below interior floor or yard surface, pipe percent slope to the outlet, etc. F. General Recommendations 27. Pro;ect Start Up Notification: In order to minimize any work delays during site development, this firm should be contacted 24 hours prior to any need for observation of footing excavations or field density testing of compacted Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 26 fill soils. If possible, placement of formwork and steel reinforcement in footing excavations should not occur prior to observing the excavations; in the event that our observations reveal the need for deepening or redesigning foundation structures at any locations, any formwork or steel reinforcement in the affected footing excavation areas would have to be removed prior to correction of the observed problem (i.e., deepening the footing excavation, recompacting soil in the bottom of the excavation, etc.). IX. GRADING NOTES Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. recommends that we be retained to verify the actual soil conditions revealed during site grading work and footing excavation to be as anticipated in this "Report of Geotechnical Investigation Update" for the project. In addition, the compaction of any fill soils placed during site grading work must be observed and tested by the soil engineer. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor to comply with the requirements on the grading plans and the local grading ordinance. All retaining wall and trench backfill should be properly compacted. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will assume no liability for damage occurring due to improperly or uncompacted backfill placed without our observations and testing. X. LIMITATIONS Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on available data obtained from our document review, field investigation and laboratory analysis, as well as our experience with similar soils and formational materials located in this area of the City of Carlsbad. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations. It is, therefore, necessary that all observations, Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 27 conclusions, and recommendations be verified at the time grading operations begin or when footing excavations are placed. In the event discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued, if required. The work performed and recommendations presented herein are the result of an investigation and analysis that meet the contemporary standard of care in our profession within the County of San Diego. No warranty is provided. This report should be considered valid for a period of two (2) years, and is subject to review by our firm following that time. If significant modifications are made to the building plans, especially with respect to the height and location of any proposed structures, this report must be presented to us for immediate review and possible revision. It is the responsibility of the owner and/or developer to ensure that the recommendations summarized in this report are carried out in the field operations and that our recommendations for design of this project are incorporated in the grading and structural plans. We should be retained to review the project plans once they are available, to see that our recommendations are adequately incorporated in the plans. This firm does not practice or consu lt in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be . responsible for the safety of personnel other t han our own on the site; the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if any of the recommended actions presented herein are considered to be unsafe. Hoover Street Residential Project Carlsbad, California Job No. 16-11187 Page 28 The firm of Geotechnica/ Exploration, Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to issuance of this report and the changes are made without our observations, testing, and approval. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Reference to our lob No. 16-11187 will expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC ........ - Jaime A. Cerros, P.E. R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 . Senior Geotechnical Engineer _··n ,--., "" r . , : .., :~ . .:. /J L--· ., v ·· J_w:i.athan A. Browning P.G. 9012/C.E.G. 2615 Senior Project Geologist VICINITY MAP Viola Residence Hoover Street Property Southwest Corner of Hoover Street and Adams Street Carlsbad, CA. Figure No. I Job No. 16-11187 . ' ~ }J :,-· , . .,,,...~ . . / . <· ·-'~•.:.·~ ' .. ·~~ •, ~ .. · .... .,,.; -~ --' Scale: 1" • 40' (approximate) ., J\"I .. LEGEND ... A . <:re. ~~~~'.iit-~• • '.;...I . --' ',. / •' :• nr Approxlmole Locatton ID HP.B of Exploratory Hondpil A A' Approxlmole Locotton 1---t of 00$$ Section GEOLOGIC LEGEND Qop 2-4 Tsa 1'-11111-p1.d Otd Parole Deposits Sonliogo FomlOtlon .. , · .. , \: ··\\~;>-~:;· )·:,/ ). ,' NOTE:llal'SCllf'Wl•IIOlbbeUMdD .... •· ~l..ooltbw-~ ... ~ ldlll/l~~andloollol'llld...._ ,,-,t»otiuhld '-1 .,,.~9\M,g .... orh•.-...eutt·o,~~ Qop2-4 HP.5 Tsa 6 RUVIENCC: ,,,.,.,,,.._,,,..,.,.,._ .... GMOWOl'IJWdlilld~I,_,.,_...,.,,_, ~,,.,..,,._byOO. PLOT PLAN Viola Ros/dence Hoovor Slreel Propetty Southwest Corner ol Hoover Street and Adams Street Cart.bad, Ca. Figure No. II Job No. 16-11187 Geotechnlcal EJ<ploratlon, Inc. ~ (,JfuHMry2018) A 70 so Retaining Woll Fvhxe Retolmg Wal \ I G EOLOGIC CROSS SECTION Viola Residence Southwest Corner of Hoover Street and Adams Street Carlsbad.CA. PROPOSED RESIDENCE 55.0 FF s9.o __ 1W Eldsl"1g Grode Proposed • Grode Existing A' \ Grode ,,,,----1---·:.:::--7 ,,,," -----.,,. ... ~.,,. _,,,. AC8erm Oop 2-4 40 --------------------------------------------- Taa Taa Taa 30-l-------------,,----,----,------.------,-----r-----.-----.------,----,,----,-----, 10 20 30 GEOLOGIC LEGEND Qop2_4 Old Porolc Deposits Taa Sonllogo Fo!moflon >,ppro~mole Geologic Contact so 60 70 80 Relottve Hotlrontol Distance !foe!) Scole:r• 10' !Horizontal and Vortlcol) 90 100 110 120 130 140 Figure No. /lb Job No. 17-11187 ;, Geo-hnlc•I lil<ploratlon, Inc. ~ .Jenuary2018 ., ~ !ii ti (!J .J ~ w 0 w (!J 'EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION Hand Tools 3' X 3' X 4' Handplt SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH ± 52' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered - 2- - - 3- -- - 4 - - - - 5 - - - - FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained, with some roots, rock fragments and debris. Loose. Dry. Brown. FILL (Qaf) --21% passing #200 sieve. SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained; moderately well cemented. Medium dense to dense. Damp. Red-brown. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop24} Bottom@4' r/2 (.) r/2 :;;i SM SM ... c UJ UJ 0:: u~ :5(/l n.-,o <i::E DATE LOGGED 'I 8-12-16 LOGGED BY JKH :,!1 0 >-.,::-l i;:; 'tl ~ 0:: <> ci I-' ci oa ::.~ Cl o. c:i ~~ ::.~ >-0 + ~ :::,~ :::, >-_j w 1i, :5 en ::!i: !:: !:::~ z 0 s::~ JW ;,; en -en ~o <C en n. :r: c..z ,__ i~ c.. z 0 :::) ::;;o • LJ.J n. 0 ~c X 0 __,o ~$ ~o 0 :;; w u CD<..> 8.5 131.0 a'.'----'---'--.L.----------------------'---'----'----'--....... ----''----'---....... -..J....___. (!J Iii I :c ~ _y JOB NAME PERCHED WATER TABLE Hoover Street Project !Zl BULK BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION [I] IN-PLACE SAMPLE SW Corner Hoover St. & Adams St., Carlsbad, CA ■ MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No. 0 NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST 16-11187 -~·-···· HP-1 FIGURE NUMBER _ Eiq,Joratlon, Inc. ~ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST Illa # '-,, I 15 5 ~ @ I:> rEQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION Hand Tools 2' X 2' X 3' Handpit SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWA TERI SEEPAGE DEPTH ± 53' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered -- - - - 2 - - - - 3 - - - - 4 - - - - _, 0 a, :::; >-en UJ _, Cl. :::; c( (J) FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) SILTY SAND , fine-to medium-grained, with some roots and rock fragments. Loose. Dry. Brown. FILL (Qaf) SILTY SAND , fine-to medium-grained. Medium dense to dense. Damp. Red-brown. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop24) Bottom@3' <ri u cri :;:; SM SM l w WO::: ~~ ,o ~:::. DATE LOGGED ' 8-12-16 LOGGED BY JKH ~ :,!;? ir'u "o i'x: 'ts e_., e::. ci ...,: ci o.e, :::. I½! 0 a. 0 ~ ~~ ::;;-~ci + _j ~ :::;) i2 ~~ LI.JC/) :5cn -::i1 ~£ ?;!z ....JW ;i (J) _(J) ~'5 0.. ::c u.z I--§~ Cl. z o::::, ::. (.) 'w o..O UJ* ~8 a::8 <Z ~o 0 ::E 0 -w= ii'.L-_....__......_. ________________________ ...._ ______ ___. ______ .__ _ _.__ _ _.___, I:> t;; er I ~ JOB NAME PERCHED WATER TABLE Hoover Street Project ~ BULK BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION [I] IN-PLACE SAMPLE SW Corner Hoover St. & Adams St., Carlsbad, CA ■ JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No. MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE 0 NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST 16-11187 ;Ji·---HP-2 FIGURE NUMBER Exploratfon, Inc. ~ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST lllb _) \.. "' ~ 15 <!) .J ~ w @ <!) r EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION Hand Tools 3' X 3' X 3' Handpit SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH ± 54' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered - -- - 2 - - - 3- - - - 4 - - - FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMA.RKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained, with some roots and rock fragments. Loose. Ory. Brown. FILL (Qaf) SILTY SAND, fine-to medium-grained. Medium dense to dense. Damp. Red-brown. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop2-4) Bottom@ 3' (/) ti (/) :;j SM SM ~ LU LU a: <.) i= .Sc.r., ~o _::!E DATE LOGGED ..., 8-12-16 LOGGED BY JKH -~ ~~ 0 ~E l ~ c:i ::.!I:! 0 C. c:i ' o_ ~/'.: ~->-c:i + _j ~ i= ::, /'.: t::~ ~ 0 :;::~ '::J C.f.J .Sm ::. -en a. LU -V) -en en-~~ a..z to i~ zo ~ z 0::, • LU ~~ 0 _,o ~o 0::0 LU <.) CD(.) en= §L--..J.....-1...-L--------------------'---"--....... -----..J.---'--'----...J...-...j....--J J-U) a: ~ ~ " _y [gJ OJ ■ II] ~ PERCHED WATER TABLE BULK BAG SAMPLE IN-PLACE SAMPLE MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST STANDARD PENETRATION TEST JOB NAME Hoover Street Project SITE LOCATION SW Corner Hoover St. & Adams St., Carlsbad, CA JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No. 16-11187 w·-.. HP-3 FIGURE NUMBER Ellplor.atlon, Inc. Ille ~ ,) rEQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION Hand Tools 3' X 3' X 3' Handpit SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH ± 45' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered ~ w Cl -- - - - 2 - - - -- 3 - - - -·- 4 - - - FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION g ~ ~ a: DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ~ ~ (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) en en SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained, with some roots and rock fragments. Loose. Dry. Brown. FILU TOPSOIL (Qaf) SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained; moderately well cemented. Medium dense to dense. Damp. Red-brown. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop24) Bottom@3' uj c,j uj =i SM SM ~ w WO: (.)~ :5 (I) a,.-~~ DATE LOGGED .... 8-12-16 LOGGED BY JKH ir'u l 1r 'ii' ~ t;: c:i 0..9, ::dl! O.s, ci + ci-~~ ~~ ~~ _j en ;:) ~ § 0 3: l.z ~ffi :5cn ~(/) ::;;-(I) Q.:,:: o..Z .... -i~ ~"5 z o::> :::.u • w o..O ~c 0 _,o <CZ ~Cl 0~ (.) a:, (.) CD::::,. a'.1..-_..,___...._. __________________ _. _ _,_ _ _,_ _ ___..____. __ .....___.___----,L. _ __.___, Cl ti; rr: § _y JOB NAME PERCHED WATER TABLE Hoover Street Project [gl BULK BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION m IN-PLACE SAMPLE SW Corner Hoover St. & Adams St., Carlsbad, CA ■ JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No. MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE ~ NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST 16-11187 ;!"'°"""""" HP-4 FIGURE NUMBER Exploratlon, Inc. ~ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST llld ~ '-., 'EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION Hand Tools 3' X 3' X 4' Handpit SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWA TERI SEEPAGE DEPTH ± 35' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered --2- - - 3-- - - - 4- - - 5- --- 5 ~ Ill a.. ::;; ::;; in c& FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) SIL TY SAND , fine-to medium-grained, with some roots, rock fragments and debris. Loose. Dry. Brown. FILL(Qaf) SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained; moderately well cemented. Medium dense to dense. Damp. Red-brown. OLD PARA UC DEPOSITS (Qop 2-4) Bottom @4' en u (/) :::i SM SM ~ LU LU 0:: ~~ a..-zo _::;; DATE LOGGED ' 8-12-16 LOGGED BY JKH ,.-... ii2 'n ... ii2 'u ~ E ~ ci O.& ::;;~ Cl a. ci d~ LU>-::;;-~q + _J (.) I-:::, ¢ :::,~ ~ 0 :,:lz: ~ ff1 :5 cii ~(/) ~(/) ~~ (/) a..:x: a..z I--xz ~8 o:::i ::;;o 'w o..O <w ~c _,o ~~ ~Cl o:a: ::;; Cl CD(.) ;;:L...-...1...-.1-.l-------------------'-_._ _ _._ __ L...---J'------'--._---1._-L.----I Cl ~ a:: ! ,.._ E _y: JOB NAME PERCHED WATER TABLE Hoover Street Project [8J BULK BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION IT] IN-PLACE SAMPLE SW Corner Hoover St. & Adams St., Carlsbad, CA ■ MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No. 0 NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST 16-11187 ~-'"' HP-5 FIGURE NUMBER Exploration, Inc. ~ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST Ille ~ ,J '- <D ~ b (!) _J D. X w @ (!) EQUIPMENT DIMENSION 8 TYPE OF EXCAVATION Hand Tools 3' X 3' X 4' Handpit SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH ± 33' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered - 2- - - 3 - - - - 4 - - - - 5 -- - -- FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION c5 ~ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ! i {Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) SILTY SAND , fine-to medium-grained, with some roots, rock fragments and debris. Loose. Dry. Brown. FILL (Qaf) SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained; moderately well cemented. Medium dense to dense. Damp. Red-brown. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop24) Bottom@4' (/) u (/) :::i SM SM DATE LOGGED ... 8-12-16 LOGGED BY JKH -g ~I l 1'i: 'u ~ c:i ~ c:i w ::::E~ C.s, + ci -w er: ~~ ?§ ~ ~c:j _J t.):::, :::,~ ~ff3 :5 t; ~~ ::.-_::::i; ·o :: !z ~Cl) -~ C/l-~ Cl) a.r ~5 >--~ UJ zo ~8 o=> ~~ ' UJ a. 0 ~~ _,o _:::i; ,!!;c O::::E ::::EC [I) t.) ;;:,L-_....__...._,__ _________________ _. _ __,__....._ __ ,___,__ _ _.._....__.....1.._-1..----1 (!) ,_ CJ) QC ~ ~ ~ § z 0 ~ g D. 1;'.i ' .Y. PERCHED WATER TABLE lZl BULK BAG SAMPLE m IN-PLACE SAMPLE ■ MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE ~ NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST ~ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST JOB NAME Hoover Street Project S!TE LOCATION SW Corner Hoover St. & Adams St., Carlsbad, CA JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No. 16-11187 ";&-· HP-6 FIGURE NUMBER Exploratfon. Inc. lllf ~ ~ r EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION Hand Tools 3' X 3' X 3' Handpit SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH ± 50' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered - - 2 - - - - 3 -- - - 4 - - - - - - FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) SILTY SAND, fine-to medium-grained, with some roots and rock fragments. Loose. Dry. Brown. FILL (Qaf) SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained. Medium dense to dense. Damp. Red-brown. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop24) Bottom @3' cri c.5 cri :::i SM SM ~ UJ w ex: ~~ ~5 -::. DATE LOGGED "' 8-12-16 LOGGED BY JKH ,-.. ~'.R l >-C ~i ci ,-: ci :. ~ + I.!:: 0-~?:: ~?:: Ec.j _j :::, :::, cn ~ fil ·o ~!z 5ci5 ::, ... ~U) en~ ~ en "-::I: -en C\-5:j li:o ~z zo ~8 o:::> ~~ ~c _,o ~o 0 :::!: ::. ~ a,(.) en= -..L--...i...-....__. __________________ ....... ______ ......._ _____ .______. __ _.___.___.......__.......____. fl; ... "' ! \.. .!- ~ m ■ 0 ~ PERCHED WATER TABLE BULK BAG SAMPLE IN-PLACE SAMPLE MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST STANDARD PENETRATION TEST JOB NAME Hoover Street Project SITE LOCATION SW Corner Hoover St. & Adams St., Carlsbad, CA JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No. 16-11187 ◄r.."---HP-7 FIGURE NUMBER --·· Exploration, Inc. lllg ~ " <O ~ !:i Cl _J a. r;i 0 w (!) 'EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION Hand Tools 3' X 3' X 4' Handpit SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH ± 48' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered -- - 3- - - -- 4 - - - 5 ---- FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained, with some roots and rock fragments. Loose to medium dense. Dry. Brown. FILU TOPSOIL (Qaf) u; <.) u; =i SM SILTY SAND, fine-to medium-grained; SM moderately cemented. Medium dense to dense. Damp. Red-brown. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop2-4) Bottom@4' ~ w UJ a: ~i? CL ~ ,o ~::;; DATE LOGGED -... 8-12-16 LOGGED BY JKH ~ i;: 'ts ~ ik:= e.., ;;-c:i c.s, ::.~ C-5 + ~ ci-~i'.:: ~~ !'.:~ ..J ::> i? ·o 3: !z ~(I.) 500 ;;:/; en ::;; ci5 ~'l5 ~ en ::.~ CLZ ~ ~ i~ ~8 0 ::> • w ~~ _,o ~s. ;!;c a:iu ~·L---L..-.1.-L.....--------------------1-..J..-....L..--i......-L....--l..-.l..----'----'-.......J ti a: I _y_ JOB NAME PERCHED WATER TABLE Hoover Street Project ~ BULK BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION m IN-PLACE SAMPLE SW Corner Hoover St. & Adams St., Carlsbad, CA ■ JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No. MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE 0 NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST 16-11187 f!ii1'•-HP-8 FIGURE NUMBER ___ Exploratloit. Inc. r@ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST lllh ~ ~ 0 Q, ~ en z w □ ?x: □ ~ ~ "' l:i C) 8 ID w u. iii C) & :;; 0: ~ ~ ... ~ r C ii: C) "' g iii ♦ z 0 ~ ::, 0 u 135~-+--+-+.--1-+-+---1.-11-\\~ ' \ \ ' j •. ' ~ 1301-+-4---+--1-l-+-+--,~~,~+,--A ' \ 1 I \ ' . \ \ 1251-+-+--t-i-+-+-+-i-+-+-++!-\..lj,-.;\ \ \ \ \ 120H-t--+-+-+-+--H-l---1-+-4-l-l\~~\ I--+--+-+-+-l-+-+---1-1--+-+--+--+--iµ._j,,-\ \ \ \ \ \ Source of Material Description of Material Test Method HP-1 @1.0' SIL TY SAND (SM), Brown ASTM D1657 Method A 115t---+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-~1-i--4--!--l-l~'l,l-ll,...I\ \ ' 11 0 10 5 10 0 90 85 80 75 \ \ TEST RESULTS \ \ Maximum Dry Density 131.0 PCF \ ' \ \ Optimum Water Content ~ % Expansion Index (El) \ \. \ \ \ \. \ \ ' \ I'\ \ " Curves of 100% Saturation "-\ 'I\. for Specific Gravity Equal to: H-t-t-t-t--t-t-t-f-H-1-+-ll-+++-+-1----1--l----l---l-W~.f:,....J.~ '\ '\ . I\. \ I\. '\ '\ '\. '\ I\. I\. ' \. ' I'. I\. 2.80 2.70 2.60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 WATER CONTEl'.'T, % 45 Geotechnlcal Exploration, Inc. MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Figure Number: IV Job Name: Hoover Street Project Site Location: SW Corner Hoover St. & Adams St., Carls d, C Job Number: 16-11187 • .... ,-....... ....=-----=r::-..:.-::::.-~--:----- ~7-... __ · . --'. Hoover..St-200S-geo.ol Hoover Street Property Southwest Comer of Hoover Street ond Adams Street Carlsbad. CA. EXCERPT FROM GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE OCEANSIDE 30' X 60' QUADRANGLn, CALIFORNIA ONSHORE J\lAP SYMBOLS ---~--....,,.·---. -L-f-_.,.. _____ ,,_.,......., ___ _ -, _____________ ., __ __ ,...,., ... (_ +----------+---___ _.,.,_~---.. .: ..:, .::. .......,,::::..-::~i ... ~--~::::::.~:: ...... "_ ... , ......... -·--·-···,.•--.-. ... -- DESCRIPTION OF MAP UNITS r::::""7 Old p•r•lk deJ>ftlU. Urut$ 2__, 11adi•id"' (la~ to .,lddlit ~ Plak1oce1u•)-Moftly poor!)' soni:d, rnodcn!t!ly Pfflt'l"b~, reddub-b.o.,,,, UUC'rfmso:red •twi.dlillC', k11c:h, ntuaiM I.IKI colhrvii:ll depo.tit1 i:ou,po,cd of 1ilt.wrw, Andltone arid coa1)Qmep.tci. ln11NC"hoflM!cui:aano.~cu,,,Jrl,ejr plnl.lK: ikpotlts i:iau not t,,. dfl.1<Md u 1bay mcrae witb lrlCl °"' ~lcly eoYeTcd by ono anothn Their JlOysic-11 1M tco,ponl r.t1tioMhips •~ dlilg.nttl)ltil:-,Uy 1lh1str111cd 1,, Flg1rr•l Figure No. V Job No. 16-11187 ~=~·--:1:~:·1l)16 • FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS NEAR SLOPES Proposed Structure Concrete Floor Slab Setback -------t'I I , :J< :;<~: _:··\)>--.-<···,. ·., ... ~?(~C(··~"'~?,;('>7.: !. ., , ' . -~ :·1. :',I . Reinforcement of ', ·. '} :-\ •·:. Foundations and Floor ', ... ·. _ Slabs Following the · '.·.i;".v_ _'· Recommendations of the ·, · · . : ·, TOP OF COMPACTED FILL SLOPE (Any loose soils on the slope surface shall not be considered to provide lateral or vertical strength for the footing or for slope stability. Needed depth of embedment shall be measure from competent soil.} COMPACTED Fill SLOPE WITl,-l MAXIMUM INCLINATION AS PER SOILS REPORT. Architect or Structural Engineer. COMPACTED FILL Total Depth of Footing Measured from Finish Soil Subgrade Concrete Foundation 18" Minimum or as Deep as Required for Lateral Stability ' ' ' ' "-- Outer Most Fac'e--.----8'-----' of Footing TYPICAL SECTION ( Showing Proposed Foundation Located Within 8 Feet of Top of Slope} E Q.) e a. u... 0 Q) V) u-c 0 0 Q. t; 0 51- 18" FOOTING/ 8' SETBACK Total Depth of Footing * 1.5:1.0 SLOPE 2.0: 1.0 SLOPE 0 82'' 66" 2' 66" 54" 4' 51" 42" 6' 34" 30" 8' 18" 18" * when applicable Figure No. VI Job No. 16-11187 t!;-4" Geotechnlcal Exploration, Inc. ~ • SCHEMATIC RETAIN ING WALL SUBDRAIN RECOMMENDATIONS Retaining Wall Lown or Patio NOTE: As on option to Mirodroin 6000, Grovel or Crushed rock 3/ 4" maximum diameter moy be used with o minimum 12" thickness along the interior face of the wall and 2.0 cu.ft./ft. of pipe grovel envelope. 16-11187-VII Proposed Exterior Grode \ ------__ -----:-___ __,,,.,. ____.~.------- ------- Miradrain 6000 r Properly Compacted Waterproofing Backfill ~ To Top Of Woll Sealant SCA E Perforated PVC (SOR 35) 4" pipe with 0.5% min. slope, with bottom of pipe located 12" below slob or Interior (crawlspace) 9round surface elevation, with 1.5 (cu.ft.) of grovel 1" diameter max, wrapped with filter cloth such as Miradrain 6000 Ameridrain, Quickdroin or equivalent may be used as on alternative. T Between Bottom 12" of Slab and 1 Pipe Bottom ~adrain Cloth Figure No. VII Job No. 16-11187 ~;1.-Wad ,111" /Explor•fl•a, Inc. 3,-_/2 ~ Sept 201 6 • APPENDIX A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL DESCRIPTION Coarse-grained (More than half of material is larger than a No. 200 sieve) GRAVELS, CLEAN GRAVELS (More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve size, but smaller than 3") GRAVELS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount) SANDS, CLEAN SANDS (More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than a No. 4 sieve) SANDS WITH FINES (Appreciable amount) GW Well-graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little or no fines. GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little or no fines. GC Clay gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures SW Well-graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures. SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures. Fine-grained (More than half of material is smaller than a No. 200 sieve) SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit Less than 50 Liquid Limit Greater than 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS (rev. 6/05) ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt and clayey-silt sand mixtures with a slight plasticity CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, silty clays, clean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. PT Peat and other highly organic soils APPENDIX B USGS DESIGN MAPS SUMMARY REPORT • Design Maps Summary Report !IUSGS Design Maps Summary Report User-Specified Input Report Title Hoover Street Property Tue August 30, 2016 20:11:04 UTC Bultding Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard (which utilizes USGS hazud data available In 2008) Site Coordinates 33.1483°N, 117.33°W Site Soil Classification Site Class D -"Stiff Soll" Risk Category I/II/III USGS-Provided Output S5 = 1.1?5 g S1 = 0.436 g SMS = 1.187 g SM1 = 0.682 g 'Vist.J S05 = 0.792 g S01 = 0.454 g t' J E:scondido-• For Information on how the SS and S1 values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document. -;, -IV Ill MCE" Response Spectrum 1.20 1.08 o.,, 0.8', o.n 0.60 0.48 0.3& 0.24 0.12 0.00 +---i1---+--+---il---+-+--r--t---t----l 0.00 0.20 0.40 O.GO 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.GO l.80 2.00 Period, T (l;ac) -.! ~ 0.89 Design Response Spectrum 0.80 0.72 0.'4 0.56 0.48 0.40 0.32 0.24 0.16 0.08 0. 00 -+---+--+---+----t---1---+----+-_.____.____. 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 l.00 l.20 1.40 l.E.O 1.110 2.00 Period, T ( sec) For PG~, TL, cRS, and CR1 values, please yiew the detailed report. Although thfs information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical !iUbject-matter knowledge. hllp://Eq)2-ea1hquake.wr.usgs.gov/deslgmaps/us/s1n1 mary~?templafs:::m irimal &Jalitud&=33. 1483&1ongitud&=-117.33&sitec:lass-3&riskr.ategory=O&ecfitlo... 1/1 GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL AGREEMENT Project ID # DEV 2017-0112 NAME OF APPLICANT: DATE OF AGREEMENT: Theodore D. Viola, Trustee, The Agmish Toff Trust, Dated June 23, 1995 (referred ~s "A_Pflicant") l 4ly_ 1 Z 20/<i GRADING PERMIT NO.: GR2017-0035 (refe'rred to as "Grading Permit") LOCATION: Southeast corner ofHoover Street and Adams Street (referred to as "Grading Site") OFFSITE LOCATION {IF ANY): n/a NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: (referred to as "Offsite Grading Location") Viola Residence Hoover Street (referred to as "Development") GRADING PLAN NUMBER: DWG 504-6A --------------------------(referred to as "Grading Plans and Specifications" SURETY/FINANCIAL INSTITUTION: SURETEC INSURANCE COMPANY ADDRESS: 3131 Camino Del Rio North, Ste. 1450, San Diego, CA 92108 TOTAL AMOUNT OF SECURITY: $173,000.00 --....:......---------~----------- TAXPAYER 1.0. NO: AMOUNT OF SECURITY POSTED AS CASH DEPOSIT: $17,300.00 RECEIPT NO. 30973 AMOUNT OF SECURITY POSTED OTHER THAN CASH: $155,700.00 ---'------------- SECURITY FORM FOR AMOUNT' OTHER THAN CASH: _S_u_re_,_ty_B_o_n_d ________ _ (Surety Bond, Letter of Credit) This agreement is made and entered into by and between the City of Carlsbad, California, a Municipal Corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as City, and the Applicant. RECITALS A. The Applicant has applied for a Grading Permit, pursuant to Chapter 15.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (hereinafter referred to as "Code"), to perform grading work including excavation, fill, installation of drainage facilities, installation of desiltation/retention basins, landscaping, erosion control or any combination thereof and storm damage protection, within the City of Carlsbad, State of California, more specifically described in the application for Grading Permit referred to above and incorporated by reference herein. 1 \IFILES01V\Oepanments\CEO\Land0ev\PROJECTS\DEV\DEV201710EV2017-0112 Viola Residence Hoover Street -RicklB&AIGAAOING AND EROSION CONTROL AGREEMENT.doc REV 01/25113 condition exists due to erosion, or to work being done, applicant shall take immediate action to construct or install additional erosion control devices or repair the existing erosion control devices or correct the hazardous condition upon notification by the City Engineer. Notification will be made by telephone to the 24 hour emergency telephone number shown on the plans. If there is no answer at the emergency phone number or the contact person fails to initiate corrective action within the time specified by the City Engineer, then the City Engineer may cause corrective action to be taken and the costs of said corrective action shall be deducted from the cash deposit posted by the applicant. Funds withdrawn by the City Engineer from the cash deposit required under the terms of this agreement shall be replaced by the applicant within five working days of notice from the City Engineer to do so. The City Engineer may order all work on the project stopped until such time as the cash deposit is restored to its original balance. This provision shall also apply to any existing offsite desiltation basins which in the opinion of the City Engineer are impacted by siltation originating from the Applicant's development site. c. Make an inspection of the desiltation basin(s) and other erosion control devices after each runoff producing rainfall and repair or restore the basin or device when the accumulation of silt reduces the design performance below acceptable levels in the opinion of the City Engineer. d. Give good and adequate warning to the public of each and every dangerous condition present in or adjacent to the grading work and take all reasonable actions to protect the public from such dangerous conditions. e. Pay any investigation fee imposed by the City Engineer pursuant to Code Section 15.16.180. 2. Securing of Property Rights. The applicant shall not commence any off-site grading until proof of all necessary and proper written legal permission or title is furnished to the City Engineer. 3. Security. Applicant shall at all times guarantee Applicant's performance of t111s agreement by furnishing to City and by maintaining good and sufficient security as required by Code on forms approved by City, in the types and amounts set forth on page 1. In accordance with Section 15.16.140 of the Code, the Applicant shall submit one or more forms of security in an amount up to 100 percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the grading work. The securities required by this agreement shall be kept on file with the City Clerk. The terms and conditions of the security posted with this agreement are incorporated into this agreement by this reference. 3 \\FILES01V\0Gpartments\CE0'Land0ilv\PROJECTS\DEV\DEV2017\0EV2017-0112 Viola Residence Hoover Street· Rick\O&A\GRAOING ANO EROSION CONTROL AGREEMENT.cJoc REV. 01125/13 J property is owned by the United States or any agency thereof, or the State of California or any agency or district or political subdivision thereof, or any public or private corporation, or by any person, or by any combination of such owners. Any such repair or replacement shall be to the satisfaction and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. Permits. At Applicant's expense, Applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and licenses for the construction and installation of the improvements, give all necessary notices and pay all fees and taxes required by law. 8. Default of Applicant. In the event Applicant fails to perform any work required by this agreement. City may perform work twenty (20) days after mailing written Notice of Default to Applicant and to Applicant's Surety. Applicant agrees to pay the entire cost of such performance by City. The sums provided by this security agreement may be used by City to complete the worl< in accordance with the Grading Plans and Specifications referenced herein. If Applicant does not perform the work in a timely manner as determined by the City Engineer, City may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or by any other method City deems advisable, for the account and at the expense of Applicant. Applicant's Surety shall be liable to City for any excess cost or damages occasioned by City. In such event, City, without liability for so doing, may take possession of and utilize in completing the work such materials, appliances, plant and other property belonging to Applicant as may be on the site of the work and necessary therefor. Applicant agrees not to remove such property from the site. In the event Applic.ant fails to perform any obligation hereunder, Applicant agrees to pay all costs and expenses incurred by City in securing performance of such obligations, including cost of suit and reasonable attorney's fee. 9. Applicant Not Agent of City. Neither Applicant nor any of Applicant's agents or contractors are or shall be considered to be agents of the City in connection with the performance of Applicant's obligations under this agreement. 10. Indemnity/Hold Harmless. Neither the City nor any officer, agent or em ployee thereof shall be liable for any injury to persons or property occasioned by reason of the acts or omissions of Applicant, or their agents or employees, in the performance of this agreement. Applicant further agrees to defend and hold harmless City, its offlcials and employees from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liability or loss of any sort, because of, or arising out of, acts or omissions of Applicant. its agents 5 \IFILES01V\Oepsnmenls\CED\Land0ev\PROJECTSIOE\IIDEV201710EV20I7-01 12 v;ola Residence Hoovoc Street· R~klB&A\GRADtNG AND EROSION CONTROL AGREEMENT.doc REV. 01125/13 f novation shall relieve the Applicant of the obligations under Paragraph 10 for the work or improvemen t done by Applicant. 12. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this agreement. 13. Time for Commencement of Work· Time Extensions. Applicant shall commence substantial construction of the grading and erosion control work not later than three months prior to expiration of the Grading Permit. In the event good cause exists as determined by the City Engineer, the time of commencement of construction may be extended. The expiration of the Grading Permit may also be extended by the City Engineer upon a showing of good cause and payment of a Grading Permit Extension Fee in the amount established by City Council Resolution. Neither extension shall be effective unless and until provided to Applicant in writing by the City Engineer. Any such extension may be granted without notice to the Applicant's Surety and shall in no way affect the validity of this agreement or release the surety on any bond given for the guarantee of performance of this agreement. As a condition of such extension, the City Engineer may require Applicant to furnish new security guaranteeing performance of this agreement as extended in an increased amount as necessary to compensate for any increase in construction cost as determined by the City Engineer. 14. No Vesting of Rights. Performance by Applicant of this agreement shall not be construed to vest Applicant's right with respect to any change in any zoning or bu ilding law or ordinance. 15.-Notices. All notices required or provided for under this agreement shall be In writing and delivered in person or sent by mail, postage prepaid and addressed as provided in this paragraph. Notice shall be effective on the date It is delivered in person, or, If mailed, on the date of deposit in the United States Mail. Notices, security releases and refunds shall be addressed as follows unless a written change of address is filed with the City: Notice to City: Notice to Appllcant: (760) 613-8333 (Print Phone Number Here) Notice to Surety: (619) 400-4104 (Print Phone Number Here) City Engineer 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Theodore D. Viola 4858 Park Drive, Unit 110 Carlsbad CA 92008 (Print Name and Address Here) Suretec Insurance Company 3131 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 1450 San Diego, CA 92108 (Print _Name and Address Here) tedviolanbs@yahoo.com (Print Email Address Here) David Melman dmelman@MarkelCorp.com (Print Email Address Here) \If ILES01V\Oeportm,nl>ICED\LondOovlPROJECTSIDEVIDEV2017'0EV2017 ·0112 Viola R .. ldeneo Hoover Slro,1 • Rltl<IBaAIGRAOING AND EROSION CONTROL AGREEMENT.doc REV. 01nsm ' . Executed by Applicant this _9_TH ___ day of ____ J~U~L_Y _____ , 20 18 Applicant: Theodore D. Viola, Trustee, The Agmish Toff Trust, Dated June 23, 1995 (Name of Applicant) By: By: fL-t-_J& (sign here) Theodore D. Viola (print name here) Trustee (title and organization of signatory) (sign here) (print name here) (title and organization of signatory) CITY OF CARLSBAD, a municipal corporation of .t State of California By: ti, T, P.E. y Engineer (Proper notarial acknowledgment or execution by APPLICANT must be attached) (Chairman of the Board, President, or any Vice-President and secretary, any assistant secretary. the Chief Financial Officer, or any assistant treasurer must sign for corporations. If only one officer signs, the corporation must attach a resolutlon certified by the secretary or assistant secretary under corporate seal empowering that officer to bind the corporation.) APPROVED AS TO FORM: CELIA BREWER ::cyA~ C12 RO R'Eif Assistant City Attorney 9 \\FILES01\/\0ep8rlmtntt\CEOU.endOev\PROJECTS\OEV\OEV2017\0EV2017-0\ 12 Viol& Residence Hoover Street· Rlck\8t5.A\GRAOING ANO EROSION CONTROL AGREEMENT.do< REIi, 01/25/13 ~-'-: Sea Bright tsarpyLJ c o m p a n y I & June 13, 2018 RECFl\7ED . ·i •I !1 ·, ,..._ •l . • ,,1 ' : " " EXHIBIT A LAND OEVLLOPMENT VIOLA RESIDENCE GRADING PLAN ESTIMATE ENGINEERING 1095 HOOVER STREET DWG 504-6A DEV2017 -0112 APN 206 -172 -01 & 02 1. Excavation and Fill 2,610 CY @ $18.52 2. Overexc. and Recompact 680 C.Y. @ 18.52 3. 15% Contingency on above 4. Adjusted Grading Cost 5. Trench Drain 19 L.F. @ 25.00 6. 4" Drain Pipe 433 L.F. @ 10.00 7. 9" x 9" Drain Boxes 17 EA. @ 75.00 8. 12' x 12" Cone. Drain Boxes 4 EA. @ 500.00 9. Rip Rap Basin Entry 32 S.F. @ 15.00 10. Drainage Basins 356 S.F . @ 10.00 11 . Driveways(A.C . or Cone.) 1,545 S.F. @ 11.55 12. Entry Walkways 433 S.F. @ 8.00 13. Landscape Slopes 11 ,050 S.F. @ 1.50 14. Masonry Retaining Walls 1,067 S.F . @ 37.95 15% Contingency Sub Total • 100% X $5,000 + 50% ($70,070.42 -$5,000) = $37,535.21 Sheet 1 of 2 = $48,337.20 = 12,593.60 = 9,139.62 = 37,535.21* = 475.00 = 4,330.00 = 1,275.00 = 2,000.00 = 480.00 = 3,560.00 = 17,844.75 = 3,464.00 = 16,575.00 = 40,492.65 $128,031 .61 $19,204.74 $147,236.35 . ;,.;.:..:.._;_, 0 ! ·+.:v1-;:~ .)IO 3\~\\ ... :.::: > :~ ' /~. ,. 'i ~ 1,-. .. ,~1"-· Rrrkd~ Engineering • Management • General Contracting • Development 4322 Sea Bright Place • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • Telephone/FAX 760-720-0098 EROSION CONTROL 1. Gravel Bags 2. Stabilized Construction Ent. 3. Silt Fence 4. Fiber Rolls 5. Hydroseed Slopes 15% Contingency Sub Total 200 EA. 500 S.F. 490 L.F. 840 L.F. 11,050 S.F. @ 1.82 @ 8.66 @ 2.64 @ 3.71 @ 0.33 IMPROVEMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY 1. A.C. Berm Type E 2. 1" Water Service 3. 4" Sewer Lateral 4. Trench Repair 15% Contingency Sub Total 405 L.F. 1 EA. 1 EA. 66 S.F. @ 10.45 @ 2,478.00 @ 1,788.90 @ 25.73 = = = = = = = = = $364.00 4,330.00 1,293.60 3,116.40 3,646.50 $12,750.50 $1 ,912.58 $14,663.08 $4,232.25 '2,478.00 1,788.90 1,698.18 $10,197.33 1,529.60 $11,726.93 GRAND TOT AL ------------------------------------------------------------------$173,626. 361 Sheet 2 of 2 Violagest3