HomeMy WebLinkAbout1730 CALAVO CT; ; CB890355; PermitDECLARATIONS WORKER'S COMPENSATION OWNERIBUILDER CONTRACTOR I1 LENDER I1 I 6
White - Inspector Green - (1) Finance Yellow - Assessor Pink - Applicant Gold - Temporary File
cn I rn 3 I z D 0 9 0 0 n 0 v, I rn D n - - -
Ii
CITY OF CARLSBAD INSPECTION REQUEST
FOR 10/20/89 PERMIT# CB890355 INSPECTOR AREA PD - DESCRIPTION: RES ADD 231 SF PLANCK# CB890355 OCC GRP
CONSTR. TYPE NEW
JOB ADDRESS: 1730 CALAVO CT STR: FL: STE :
CONTRACTOR: KAMAR BUILDERS INC PHONE :
OWNER: PHONE :
REMARKS: Tl/RS/JERRY INSPECT0
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
APPLICANT: ROMBOTIS, JERRY PHONE: 729-5080
TOTAL TIME:
CD LVL DESCRIPTION
19 ST Final Structural
29 PL Final Plumbing 39 EL Final Electrical 49 ME Final Mechanical
ACT COMMENTS
DATE DESCRIPTION
***** INSPECTION HISTORY *****
ACT INSP COMMENTS
ESGIL CORPORATION
9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208 V&Q. eCc 3-1 1 CQ~ 8 9
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
(619) 560-1468
DATE : 3 !SS
JURISDICTION: CWLLSO913
PLAN CHECK NO: SET: 1
PROJECT ADDRESS : \ 7 3 O C*LF+dQ Co "%I-
PROJECT NAME: n-s .14.90. E-3
17 APPLICANT U SDICTI~ WN CHECKER FILE COPY
OUPS cf DES IGNER
The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where 0 necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. V
The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply @ with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor def icien- cies identified obl M. 3 ++wW are resolved and
checked by building department staff.
The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies
and resubmitted for a complete recheck. 0 identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected
The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck.
The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the 0 jurisdiction to return to the applicant contact person.
0 The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to:
@ Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that plan check has been completed.
Esgil staff - did advise applicant that the plan check has
Date contacted: Telephone #
REMARKS :
a been completed. Person contacted :
TS pni w coyz~~.no~L~ cq.K) 8 e I
couflT.tkFY2
-
By: ~VVI G (LS *I m') Enclosures :@ & r3y& ESGIL CORPORATION
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS1 NG SERVICES DlVlSl ON
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859
(619) 438-1161
MISCELLANEOUS FEE RECEIPT
Applicant Please Prlnt And Fill In Shaded Area Only
PLAN ID NO.
5415 03/15/89 m1 01 05 Hisc 111 = 00
ESTMATED VALUATION
PLAN CHECK FEE 001-810-00-00-8821
IF THE APPLICANT TAKES NO ACTION WITHIN 180 DAYS, PLAN CHECK FEES
WILL BE FORFEITED.
STATE BtlStN ESS
LtCENSE NO. $65 c 8 LICENSE NO. z"f c/L7/ - -_
SU5DWISION LOT@)
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
White - File Yellow - Applicant Pink. Finance Gold - Assessor
Prepared by1 Jw
BUILDING PORTION
VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE
BUILDING AREA VALUATION VALUE MULTIPLIER
D Bldg. Dept.
0 Esgil
PLAN CHECK NO.Bq r. 3 s5
BUILDING ADDRESS Irl% CflLFh 10 VrLr
APPLICANT/CONTACT -nu 0 VIA mns PHONE NO 72.7 19 1 (
BUILDING OCCUPANCY C&TL) DESIGNER PHONE 94-2102, I
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR PHONE
1 Air - Conditionina I I I I I Commercial . j
Residential i
Res. or Comm.
@
@
I Total Value
Building Permit Fee s- rq\loo s
Plan Check fee $ \ 11.1 5 $
COMMENTS;
SHEET OF
12/87
8 c, 2
.. >
U
Q) > aJ PI
m
.-
Q, c, d
.. >. m
B s aJ >
Q) p?
.-
do
ENGINEERING CHECKLIST
Date: 3/4/89 I LT Item Complete
Item Incomplete - Needs 0 Your Action
1,2,3 Number in circle
p I a n c hec k
Plan ChecG No. f?90 3 55
Project Address: /73D ~a
Project Name: 5GR- &PO l~ta4
Field Check Date: indicates
By : number that. deficiency
was identified
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Site Plan
1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: North
arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed
structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way
width and dimensioned setbacks.
2. Show on Site Plan: Finish floor elevations, elevations of finish
grade adjacent to building, existing topographical lines, existing
and proposed slopes, driveway and percent (%) grade and drainage
patterns.
3. Provide legal description of property.
4. Provide assessor's parcel number.
PERMITS REQUIRED
U
0
0 6.
7.
n
il
0
0
Grading permit required. (Separate submittal to Engineering
Department required for Grading Permit).
Grading plans in plan check PE
Need the following completed prior to building permit issuance:
A. Grading plans signed.
B. Grading permit issued.
C. Grading completed.
D.
E. Grading inspected and permit signed off by City Inspector.
Right-of-way Permit required for work in public right-of-way
(e.g., driveway approach, sidewalk, connection to water main,
etc) .
Industrial Waste Permit application required. To be filled out
completely and returned to Development Processing.
Certification letter and compaction reports submitted.
FEES REQUIRED
10. Park-in-Lieu fees required. Efno Quadrant: , Fee Per Unit: , Total Fee:
doo 11. Traffic impact fee required.
Fee Per Unit: , Total Fee: .
12. Bridge and Thoroughfare fee required.
Fee Per Unit: , Total Fee: e- .
dUU 13. Public facilities fee required.
do 0
0'0 a
14. Facilities management fee required. Fee:
15. -Additional EDU's required: -&?- .
Sewer permit no. Sewer connection fee :
16. Sewer lateral required: & fyF . do 0
REMARKS:
O.K. to issue:& Date: 3/4/ 87 //
If you have any questions about any of the above items identified on this' plan
check, please call the Development Processing Department at 438-1 161.
dn 0 do 0 dc7 CI
PLANNING CHECKLIST
Plan Check No. @0355 Address /730 &Q@m CZ.
Type of Project and Use nm,~h=p3
Zone R- / Use Allowed? YES Q NO
Setback: Front OK- Side o[< Rear
Facilities Management Zone I
School District: San Dieguito
Car Is bad x - Enci ni tas
San Marcos
Discretionary Action Required YES NO Type
No 4-
No * Environmental Required YES
Landscape Plan Required YES
Comments
dn Coastal Permit Required YES No L
Additional Comments
DATE
a ' WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
WESTERN REGION
3467 Kurtr Street June 14, 1977 San Diego Project -No. 76-1 21 F .Cslilornis 921 10 Phone (7 14) 224-291 1
Karnar Construction Cornpany
325 Elm Street Carl sbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Jerry Rombotis
FINAL REPORT OF ENGINEERING OBSERVATION AND COMPACTION TESTING
LOTS 1 AND 3 THROUGH 10
CALAVO COURT
CARLSBAD , CAL I FORN I A
CARLSBAD TRACT 74-6
In accordance with your request we have provided soil engineering services
in conjunction with the grading of the subject site. These services included:
(1 )
(2)
Engineering observation of the grading operation.
Observation of the preparation of areas to receive fill.
(3) Observation of the excavation of loose surface and/or alluvial soils in accordance with recommendations prior to placing fill within the building pad areas.
(4)
(5)
Taking field density tests in the fill placed and compacted.
Performing laboratory tests on representative samples of the material used for fill.
GENERAL SITE GRADING
Site preparation, compaction, and testing were done between May 2 and
May 27, 1977. It is our opinion, based on our observations and testing during this period, that this work was performed'in general accordance with the "Specifications for Controlled Fill" in our report entitled
"Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Carl sbad Tract 74-6, Carlsbad, California," dated April 23, 1976.
Woodward=Clyde Consultants
Fill was placed, compacted, and tested on Lots 3 through 10. operation essentially consisted of constructing 9 building pads to designed grades on portions of Lots 1 and 3 through 10. and/or alluvial soils, encountered within the building pads, were excavated to depths ranging from 2 feet (in the case of Lots 3, 4 and 5), and to 5
feet (in the case of Lots 6 through lo), and replaced with compacted and
tested fill. Lot 1 required no undercut. Lot 2, which contains an
existing residence, was provided with a driveway along the east side of the structure.
The grading
Loose surface
As the site grading progressed, the compaction procedures were observed,
and field density tests were made to determine the relative compaction of the fill in place. Field observations and field density test results indicate that the fill has been compacted to 90 percent or more of
maximum laboratory density. The approximate locations of field density tests and the limits of coiiipacted fill have been recorded on a copy of the grading plan for reference. The results of field density tests and of relative compaction, expressed as a percent of maximum laboratory density, are given on the attached forms.
Laboratory tests to determine moisture-density relationships, maximum
dry density, optimum moisture content, grain size distribution, plasticity characteristics, and strength and swell characteristics were performed on representative samples of the material used for fill. laboratory tests are given on the attached forms. The results of
FINISH GRADE SOIL CONDITIONS
Laboratory tests and visual inspection indicate that nonexpansive fill
was placed within 2 feet of rough grade on all fill building pads,
A visual inspection of cut Lot 1 and on the cut portions of cut-fill Lots 3 through 6 at completion of grading indicates that potentially expansive soil is not evident at rough grade surface.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS LOTS 1 AND 3 THROUGH 0 n
(1) Foundations for single or 1 structures placed on nonexpansive undisturbed
fill may be designed for a bearing
loads) at a depth of 12 inches lot grade. Footings should
properly compacted
(dead plus live
cut
bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for loads that include wind or seismic forces.
..
. KdIIIh t' Cous t t'I1C 11 ot\ cc)l\l()cllly June 14, 1977
Project No. 76-121F Page 3
WoodwardoClyde Consultants
(2) In the case of Lots 7 through 10, it is reconmended that
foundations be desiqned to withstand settlements on the order of 1 to 2
inches (total) and i/2 to 1 inch (differential).
It is also recommended that structures that will not tolerate differential settlements (such as foundations, swimming pools, concrete decks, walls, etc.) should not be located within 5 feet of the top of a
slope. Footings located closer than 5 feet from the top of a slope should be extended in depth until the outer bottom edge of the footing
is 5 feet horizontally from the outside face of the slope.
(3)
LIMITATIONS
Except for Pads 6 and 7 which were raised approximately 1 and 4
feet respectively, the elevations of compaction tests shown as finished
grade (FG) tests correspond to the elevations shown on the "Grading Plan
and Plot Plan CT 74-6," dated Apri 1 11. 1977, prepared by Raymond R.
Hibal, Brea, California. Elevations and locations shown in this report are based on field surveys established by others.
This report covers the fill placed under our observation during the
dates specified herein. Additional fill placed after these dates, as
well as the backfill in utility trenches located within 5 feet of a building and greater than 12 inches deep, or any trench 5 feet or niore from a building and in excess of 5 feet in depth, should be compacted
under the observation of this office and tested to assure compliance with the earthwork specifications for the project. This office should be contacted at least 24 hours prior to backfilling operations.
service trenches within 5 feet of a building that are perpendicular to
the building footings and are less than 12 inches wide and less than 3
feet deep are not subject to this recommendation.
Utility
The inspections of foundation preparation, types of materials and soil placement and compaction, as well as tests of compaction made during the period of our services on the subject site, were in accordance with the local acceptable standards for this period. The conclusions or opinions drawn from the tests and site inspections apply only to our work with
respect to grading, and represent conditions at the date of our final
inspection.
WoodwardsClyde Consultants Project NO. 7G-lZll: Page 4
We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the
site by others, or by uncontrolled action of water, or by failure of others to properly repair damages caused by uncontrolled action of water .
WOODWARD- C L Y DE CONSUL TAN TS
Richard P. While, R.E. 21992
RPW/EHP/l km
At t ac hiiien t s
(5) ' Kamar Construction Company (1) Raymond R. Ribal
PLASTICITY CHARACTEIIISTICS I I
FILL SUITABILITY TESTS
CARLSDAD TRACT 74-6
DRAWN BY: A1-S I CHECKED BY:m PROJECT NO: 76-1 21 I DATE: 3-26-76 FlOUnENO: 7 .
- I -.-- I --- Id Liciuitl Liini 1, 3: I _*-.-._- I I I4 Plristicily Iirclox, XI -----.--_.-_I_- -I - I Classification by Unified Soil I ~~assification Systcin I I I I
100
I- $ 40 0 a 2 20
0 1000 100 10 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001
, GRAIN SIZE, mm
hl E C H AN IC A L AN A LYSIS
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA 1
Dry Density, pcl
Final Water Content, (yo .. -.----
Apparent Cohesion, psf 120 I Appclrcnt Friction Angle, dcgrccs I 33 1 1 I
SWELL TEST DATA
Initial Dry Dcnsity, pcf
Initial Water Content, %
Final Dry Density. pcf
I Final Water Content. % I I I I
Load, psf
Swell, percent
---
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
JUNC 14, 1977 OATS RrPonrro Joe NAMC CARLSRAD TRACT 74-6
MAY 2
MAY 3
MAY 4
MAY 5 -
MAY 6
MAY 10
MAY 20
MAY 25
1 21
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18
19 20 21
22
23 24 25
26
27 28 29
30 31 32 33 34 35
LOT 10 LOT 10
LOT 10 LOT 9 LOT 8 LOT 6
LOT 7 LOT 8
LOT 7
LOT 6 LOT 9 LOT 8
LOT 10 LOT 9 LOT 8 LOT 7 LOT 6
LOT 7
LOT 10 LOT 9 LOT 8
LOT 10
43' 40 I
42 ' 46 I 52 ' 69 I
63' 54 '
65 I 71 ' 48 ' 56 '
44' 50
58 67 '
73' t9 '
46 ' 53' 60 I
48'
LOT 10 UPPER LEVEL FG 49.3' LOT 9 UPPER LEVEL FG 55.0' LOT 7 FG 70.3'
LOT 6 75 I
LOT 6 77'
LOT 9 45 ' LOT 8 . 51'
LOT 3 LOT 3 LOT 6 LOT 6
LOT 6
LOT 7
78 I
FG 72.0' 79 ' 81 '
83 I
72 '
3.6 12.3
10.5
10.5 9.3
9.3 9.9 9.3
9.3 12.3 10.5
10.5
8.7 13.0 10.5 11.7
12.3 9.9
9.9 10.5 11.1
10.5
9.9 9.9 9.3
12.3
11.1 9.3 9.9
10.5
8.3 10.5 9.9 10.5 10.5
99.9 121 .a
122.1
120.1 222.2 118.5
117.2 113.6
116.3 115.5 115.9
115.5
118.9 115.5 114.7
118.8
117.9 115.5
113.5 114.2 112.7
118.0
116.1 112.6 113.3
110.6
112.1 113.7 113.6
114.3
115.0 113.5 115.0 117.7 116,.8
125.0 126.0
126.0
126.0 126.0 125.5
126.0
126.0
126.0 126.0 125.5
126.0
126.0 126.0 126.0 126.0
126.0 126.0
126.0 126.0 121.5
121.5
121.5 121.5 121.5
121.5
121.5 1 26'. 0
126.0
126.0
126.0 121.5 126.0 126.0 126.0
79.9 96.6
97.3 95.7 97.3 94.0
93.4 90.5
92.3 91.6 92.3 91.7
94.4
91.6 91 .o 94.3
93.6 91.7
90.1 90.6 92.7
97.1
95.5 92.6 93.3
91 .o
92.2 90.3
90.1
90.7
91.3 93.4 91.3 93.4 92.7
.
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
JOB NAMR CARLSBAD TRACT 74-6
JOB NUMBER 76-1 21 F
DATC~COVCRCD MAY 2 - 27, 1977
YOI~TUIIC IlCLO UDOIATOIY ISLATIVC OATC T8.T 11CTC.T LOCAllON KLKVATION CONTCNT DCNOIlT OCNlITY COYPACTION % 01 UD. Dum NUYDCI O? 9b OR1 wr. UC ccc OI TKlT
MAY 26 36 LOT 7 74 ' 8.7 117.4 126.0 93.2
37 LOT 7 FG 74.8' 9.9 114.2 126.0 90.6 38 LOT 6 FG 84.5' 9.3 116.4 126.0 92.3 39 LOT 7 FG 68.0' 10.5 114.6 126.0 90.9
MAY 27 40 41 42
43 44 45
LOT 8 LOT 8 LOT 4 LOT 6 LOT 5 LOT 10
FG 63.0' 9.3 111.3 121.5 91.6 FG 57.5' 8.7 112.4 121.5 92.5 FG 79.0' 9.9 110.1 121.5 90.6 FG 75.5' 8.7 117.3 126.0 93.1 FG 83.0' 9.9 115.3 125.'5 91.8 FG 45.5' 9.9 111.9 121.5 92.1
io00 io0 io 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE, mm
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
FILL SUITABILITY TESTS
CAfiLSBAD TRACT 74-6
DRAWN BY: mrk [ CHECKED BY: [ PROJECT NO: 76 - 12 1 F [ DATE: 6/14/77 [ FIGURE NO: 1 ,
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
Dry Density, pcf
Initial Water Content. %
.-- -. Final Water Content, %
Apparent Cohesion, psf
Apparent Friction Angle, degrees
SWELL TEST DATA 1 7 13
Initial Dry Density, pcf I 1112 1114 1
Initial Water Content, % 11 11
Final Dry Density, pcf 111 117 I .. I 1 Final Water Content. % I 116 116'1
-- Load, psf I 160 i~
Swell, percent 0.7 1.1 ,