Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1743 MALLOW CT; ; CB054027; Permit
City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 08-14-2006 Residential Permit Permit No: CB054027 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: 1743 MALLOW CT CBAD RESDNTL Sub Type: RAD 2155162200 Lot #: 0 $76,842.00 Construction Type: NEW Reference #: 0 Structure Type: 0 Bathrooms: 0 SMITH RES 550 SF RAD,LOFT,FAM RM, LAUNDRY,& MASTER BATH-REMODEL KITCHEN Status: ISSUED Applied: 11/22/2005 Entered By: SB Plan Approved: 08/14/2006 Issued: 08/14/2006 Inspect Area: Orig PC#: Plan Check#: Applicant: BRUCE DUGGAN 426 ANDREW AV ENCINITASCA 92024 942-8287 Owner: SMITH STEVEN S&MARY CARRINGTON 1743 MALLOW CT CARLSBAD CA 92011 Building Permit $458.01 Meter Size AddI Building Permit Fee $0.00 Add'l Red. Water Con. Fee $0.00 Plan Check $297.71 Meter Fee $0.00 Add'l Plan Check Fee $0.00 SDCWA Fee $0.00 Plan Check Discount $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $0.00 Strong Motion Fee $7.68 PFF (3105540) $0.00 Park in Lieu Fee $0.00 PFF (4305540) $0.00 Park Fee $0.00 License Tax (3104193) $0.00 LFM Fee $0.00 License Tax (4304193) $0.00 Bridge Fee $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee (3105541) $0.00 Other Bridge Fee $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee (4305541) $0.00 BTD #2 Fee $0.00 Sidewalk Fee - $0.00 BTD #3 Fee $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL - $90.00 Renewal Fee $0.00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $20.00 AddI Renewal Fee $0.00 MECHANICAL TOTAL $24.00 Other Building Fee $0.00 Housing Impact Fee $0.00 HMP Fee ?? Housing lnLieu Fee $0.00 Pot. Water Con. Fee $0.00 Housing Credit Fee $0.00 Meter Size Master Drainage Fee $0.00 AddI Pot. Water Con. Fee $0.00 Sewer Fee $0.00 Red. Water Con. Fee $0.00 Additional Fees $0.00 TOTAL PERMIT FEES $897.40 Total Fees: $897.40 Total Payments To Date: $897.40 Balance Due:' $0.00 FINALOà/AL Inspector: Date: Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the"Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as fees/exactions. You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad 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 0532601-1 0042 11/22/2005 001 FOR PLAN CHECK NO. z.7 EST. VAL t 7 (d2 PERMIT APPLICATION Plan ' cii. Deposit Z 751 CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Validated 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad CA 92008 Date . CONTACT PERSON (if different from applicant) 4I/t ffA2JN/71 c,92ort 7o-942-7 -, Name Address city Stale/Zip Telephone# Fax# 3. APPUCANT O Contractor O Agent for contractor - 0 Owner 5gentfcr Owner 1 Name Address City State/Zip Telephone # Name Address city ' State/Zip ' Telephone # - COMPANY NAME (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County wtiith requires a permit to canalnict, 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 that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any vicalron of Section 7031.5 by' re than five hundred dollars [00]). any subjects the ara oaf penalty of not aó 7 L3' ç Name Address ' City - 'Stale/Zip State License # 3 )00 License Class /IS City Business License # _/2o Designer Name Address City Slate/Zip Telephone # State License # WORKER'S COMPENSATION _J Workers' Corn pensalim Dedaralion: I hereby affirm under penalty of pequry one of the following declarations: 0 I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the wait I which this permit is issued. I have and will maintain worker's compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the labor Code, for the performance of the wait for which this rrnit is issued. My worker's compensation insurance carner and policy number are: Insurance Company (!_-i' f Policy No._- C279iT Expiration Date / (IHIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1001 OR LESS) O CER'IlRCAlEOFEXEMP'RON: I oeffily that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, l shall not employ any person in any manner soasto bnesut*ectto the Workers' on of WARNING: Failure to eecia'e -a Is Lmlawful, and sha subject dollarS10O,000), In addmo coot ,d.O H ;et'•lnScn , to nt TC~ th 3706 of the Labor Code. treereotmdotto - -- SIGNATURE ___________________ 1. OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: 0 I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will d the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractors License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale If, however, the hulking or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). I] I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to conalniot the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Cafliatar's License Law does not apply tom owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). . 0 I an exempt under Section Buatness and Professions Code for this reason: 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials forccxiuction of the proposed property improvement 0 YES 0 NO a I (havelhave not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3 I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number/ contractors license number: & I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name/address I phone number/ /ontractors license number): 5. I will provide some of the work, hull have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name I address I phone number/type of wait): PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance the air pollution control district or air quality management district? 0 YES 0 NO Is the facility to bàonsrruc edwithin.1,0O0 feet of the outer boundary of a school Site? 0 YES 0 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. ON LENbENcV I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(i) Civil Code). LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS _______________________________________________ I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building Construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the Citr 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 permit is required for excavation's'over 5'0 deep and demolition or Construction of structures over 3 stories in height, EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by suci) permit ip'suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is cJlenced for a rio f d ys (Section 106,4.4 Uniform Building Code). APPLICANT'S SIGNATUR9f( DATE File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance occupant required to City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request LU.~* - For: 07/08/2009 Permit# CB054027 Inspector Assignment: JM Title: SMITH RES 550 SF RAD,LOFT,FAM Description: RM, LAUNDRY,& MASTER BATH-REMODEL KITCHEN Type: RESDNTL Sub Type: RAD Job Address: 1743 MALLOW CT Suite: Lot: 0 Location: OWNER SMITH STEVEN S&MARY CARRINGTON Owner: SMITH STEVEN S&MARY CARRINGTON Remarks: Total Time: CD Description Act Comments, 19 Final Structural 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical 49 Final Mechanical Phone: 7604384946 Inspector: Requested By: MARY SMITH Entered By: CHRISTINE Comments/Notices/Holds Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# Inspection History Date Description Act Insp Comments 01/23/2009 31 Underground/Conduit-wiring AP JM TO KIT ISLAND 01/23/2009 34 Rough Electric WC JM 10/30/2008 17 Interior Lath/Drywall AP JM 10/30/2008 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall AP JM 10/30/2008 23 Gas/Test/Repairs AP JM (2) PANS 10/24/2008 16 Insulation AP JM 10/24/2008 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall WC JM 10/22/2008 23 Gas/Test/Repairs PA JM LAUNDRY ROOM 10/22/2008 84 Rough Combo AP JM 09/30/2008 13 Shear Panels/HD's AP JM 09/22/2008 13 Shear Panels/HD's CO JM LIST AT SIGHT 09/22/2008 15 Roof/Reroof AP JM OK TO COVER 07/08/2008 / 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers AP JM PST FTGS Hcrkf Pr1i- OcNLj e(L-' 600 (0/ Ib/o- ON STRONG WALL D LAN IG WALL POST )R SHEATHING & NAILING PLAN SIMPSON MSTC66133 STRAP TIED AROUND THE BEAM BEAM PER PLAN 18) SECTION ___ 4jp5:-r EsGil Corporation In Partnership with Government for Building Safety DATE: August 9, 2006 JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 05-4027 SET: IV PROJECT ADDRESS: 1743 Mallow Court PROJECT NAME: SFD Add./Remodel for the Smith Residence LI NT JURIS LI PLAN REVIEWER LI FILE The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where, necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. LI The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. LIII The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone #: Date contacted: (by: ) Fax #: Mail Telephone Fax In Person Lii REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation El GA [1 MB El EJ [1 PC 8/8 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax(858)560-1576 EsGil Corporation In Partners/lip with government for gui(&ng Safety DATE: July 31, 2006 U APPLICANT JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad U PLAN REVIEWER U FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 05-4027 SET: III PROJECT ADDRESS: 1743 Mallow Court PROJECT NAME: SFD Add./Remodel for the Smith Residence The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. El The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. El The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for. recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Chereskin Architecture, Attn: Bruce Dullan 426 Andrew Ave., Encinitas, CA 92024 LI Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: P ruce Dullan Telephone #: (760) 942-8287 Date contacted: Fax #: (760) 942-1415 Mail Telephone Fax Person Lii REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation EGA LIMB EEJ EPC 7/28 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax(858)560-1576 'ity of Carlsbad 05-4027 July 31, 2006 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 1743 Mallow Court DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 7/28 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): PLAN CHECK NO.: 05-4027 SET: III DATE RECHECK COMPLETED: July 31, 2006 This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revised plans. The following items have not been resolved from the previous plan reviews. The original correction number has been given for your reference. In case you did not keep a copy of the prior correction list, we have enclosed those pages containing the outstanding corrections. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these items. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this list? UYes UNo City of Carlsbad 05-4027 July 31, 2006 Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. 10. From the soils report provided the following corrections are applicable: Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction documents (required by the soil report - page 13). The letter provided addresses two sheets of plans dated as follow: Sheet SI.I — dated June 14, 2006 Sheet SD-1 - dated July 4, 2006 The sheets of plans provided are dated as follow: Sheet SI.1 - dated June 15, 2006. Sheet SD-I - dated June 15, 2006. Please provide the sheets included in the letter or provide a letter to match the dates of the sheets provided. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. EsGil Corporation In (Partnership with government for cBui(iing Safety DATE: June 29, 2006 U APPLICANT RIS. JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad (U PLAN REVIEWER U FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 05-4027 SET: II PROJECT ADDRESS: 1743 Mallow Court PROJECT NAME: SFD Add./Remodel for the Smith Residence 1111 The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. Lii The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. LII The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Chereskin Architecture, Attn: Bruce Dullan 426 Andrew Ave., Encinitas, CA 92024 LI Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted I: Bruce Dullan Telephone #: (760) 942-8287 Date contacted: Fax #: (760) 942-1415 MaiI_.'Iephone Fax In Person F] REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation [-I GA LIMB []EJ LIPc 6/22 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576 City of Carlsbad 05-4027 June 29, 2006 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 1743 Mallow Court DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 6/22 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): PLAN CHECK NO.: 05-4027 SET: II DATE RECHECK COMPLETED: June 29, 2006 This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revised plans. The following items have not been resolved from the previous plan reviews. The original correction number has been given for your reference. In case you did not keep a copy of the prior correction list, we have enclosed those pages containing the outstanding corrections. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these items. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this list? DYes DNo City of Carlsbad 05-4027 June 29, 2006 Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760)602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. 10. From the soils report provided the following corrections are applicable: The foundation plan does not comply with the soils report recommendations for this project. Please review the report and modify design, notes and details as required to show compliance: The minimum thickness for the visqueen shall be 10 Mill, instead of 6 Mill. The soils engineer recommended that he/she review the foundation excavations. Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that: The building pad was prepared in accordance with the soils report, The utility trenches have been properly backfilled and compacted, and The foundation excavations, the soils expansive characteristics and bearing capacity conform to the soils report." Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction documents (required by the soil report - page 13). If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. •. EsGil Corporation In (Partnership with Government for Building Safety DATE: December 8, 2005 JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 05-4027 I SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS:. 1743 Mallow Court PROJECT NAME: SFD Add./Remodel for the Smith Residence El ECANT U PLAN REVIEWER U FILE LIII The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. LII The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Chereskin Architecture, Attn: Bruce Dullan 426 Andrew Ave., Encinitas, CA 92024 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Bruce Dullan Telephone #: (760) 942-8287 Date contacted: V-1,111 (by: -'() Fax #: (760) 942-1415 Mail Telephone / Fax /In Person LII REMARKS: . . By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation LIGA LIMB LIEJ F-1 PC 11/28 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax(858)560-1576 City of Carlsbad 05-4027 December 8, 2005 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 1743 Mallow Court DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 11/28 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): PLAN CHECK NO.: 05-4027 DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: December 8, 2005 This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. To facilitate rechecking, please identify, .next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revised plans. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this list? El Yes LI No City of Carlsbad 05-4027 December 8, 2005 Please make all corrections on the original tracings, as requested in the correction list. Submit three sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (two sets of plans for residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted in one of two ways: 1. Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. 2. Bring one corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468. Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments. NOTE: Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by EsGil Corporation is complete. 2. When special inspection is required, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program which shall be submitted to the building official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Please review Section 106.3.5. Please complete the attached form. a) If special inspection is required, the designer shall complete the attached Special Inspection Notice. 3. Show on the title sheet all structures, pools, walls, etc. included under this application. Any portion of the project shown on the site plan that is not included with the building permit application filed should be clearly identified as "not included." Section 106.3.3. a) Please revise the Wall Symbols used in the Wall Legend provided on sheet A-2 to match the symbols used on the plans for the "New Walls". 4. Show locations of permanently wired smoke detectors with battery backup: Centrally located in corridor or area giving access to sleeping rooms. i) At the Loft giving access to the Bedroom # 3 on the second floor. When sleeping rooms are upstairs, at the upper level in close proximity to the stair. In rooms adjacent to hallways serving bedrooms, when such rooms have a ceiling height 24 inches or more above the ceiling height in the hallway. NOTE: Detectors shall sound an alarm audible in all sleeping areas of the unit. Section 310.9.1. 5. When the valuation of a room addition or repair exceeds $1,000, or when sleeping rooms are created, smoke detectors shall be provided per the above, except that smoke detectors added at existing construction need only be battery powered. Section 310.9.1.2. 6. Window area must be at least 1/10 of the floor area and a minimum of 10 square feet per Section 1203.3. Clearly show it on plans for the Den adjacent to the New Family Room. City of Carlsbad 05-4027 December 8, 2005 Openable window area in habitable rooms must be 1/20 of the floor area and a minimum of 5 square feet. In bathrooms and water closet compartments, 1/20 of area is required and minimum is 1.5 sq. ft. Section 1203.3. Clearly show it on plans for the Den adjacent to the New Family Room. At least 1/2 of the common wall must be open and have an opening not less than 25 sq. ft., nor one tenth of the floor area of the interior room, if light and ventilation is being supplied from an adjacent room. Section 1203.1. Clearly show it on plans between the Kitchen and the New Family Room. Glazing in the following locations should be of safety glazing material in accordance with Section 2406.4 (see exceptions): a) Doors and enclosures for hot tubs, whirlpools, saunas, steam rooms, bathtubs and showers and in any portion of a building wall enclosing these compartments where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches above a standing surface and drain inlet. Window F at Master Bathroom. d) Fixed or operable panels adjacent to a door where the nearest exposed edge of the glazing is within a 24-inch arc of either vertical edge of the door in a closed position and where the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 60 inches above the walking surface. Window C adjacent to Door I at New Family Room. Provide a copy of the project soil report prepared by a California licensed architect or civil engineer. The report shall include foundation design recommendations based on the engineer's findings and shall comply with UBC Section 1804. According to the CITY OF CARLSBAD SPECIAL CODE REQUIREMENTS, all new residential buildings, including additions, require a soils report. Show distance from foundation to edge of cut or fill slopes ("distance-to-daylight") and show slope and heights of cuts and fills. Chapter 18. Note on plans that surface water will drain away from building and show drainage pattern. Section 1804.7. Note on the plans that an A.I.T.C. Certificate of Compliance for glued laminated wood members shall be given to the building inspector prior to installation. Section 2304. Show location of attic access with a minimum size of 22"x30", unless the maximum vertical headroom height in the attic is less than 30". Access must be provided to each separated attic area, shall be located in a hallway or other readily accessible location and 30" headroom clearance is required above the opening. Section 1505.1. Show the location, type and size (BTU's) of all heating and cooling appliances or systems. Show source of combustion air to furnace, per Chapter 7, UMC. Specify the location and sizes of both of the combustion air openings. City of Carlsbad 05-4027 December 8, 2005 Show on the plan the amperage of the electrical service, the location of the service panel and the location of any sub-panels. If service is over 200 amps, submit single line diagram, panel schedule and load calculations. Show water heater size (1 hour rating), type, and location on plans. UPC, Section 501.0. Show T and P valve on water heater and show route of discharge line to exterior. UPC, Section 608.5. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, show that water heater is adequately braced to resist seismic forces. Provide two straps (one strap at top 1/3 of the tank and one strap at bottom 1/3 of the tank). UPC, Section 510.5. The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. City of Carlsbad 05-4027 December 8, 2005 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 05-4027 PREPARED BY: Sergio Azuela DATE: December 8, 2005 BUILDING ADDRESS: 1743 Mallow Court SFD Add./Rem./Smith Residence BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R-3 & U-i TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-N BUILDING PORTION AREA (Sq. Ft.) Valuation Multiplier Reg. Mod. VALUE ($) Dwelling Add. 550 121.94 67,067 Dwelling Rem. 210 34.37 7,218 Air Conditioning 550 4.65 2,558 Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE 76,842 Jurisdiction Code 1cb 113y Ordinance Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance IV I $449.01 Plan Check Fee by Ordinance 1W I $291.861 Type of Review: Complete Review Structural Only 0 Other F-1 RepetitiveFee Repeats El Hourly Hour * Esgil Plan Review Fee I $251 Comments: NC valuation multiplier was increased by 20% for addition. Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc PLANCHECK NO.: CB 0 Cit BUILDING P of Carlsbad DATE: f I - -055- BUILDING ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NV1V1BER: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. O A Right-of-Way permit is required prior to construction of the following improvements: DENIAL Please see e attached report of deficiencies marked wit 0. ake necessary corrections to plans or specificbtia6s for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. By: —Date: By: Date: By: Date: FOR OFFI IAL USE ONLY RING AUTHOWATiON TO ISSUE BUILDIN:PERMI By: ATTACHMENTS LI Dedication Application EJ Dedication Checklist LII Improvement Application LI Improvement Checklist 0 Neighborhood Improvement Agreement LI Grading Permit Application LI Grading Submittal Checklist LI Right-of-Way Permit Application fl Right-of-Way Permit Submittal Checklist and Information Sheet ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON Name: Taniya Barrows City of Carlsbad Address: 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (760) 602-2773 CFD INFORMATION. Parcel Map No: Lots: Recordation: Carlsbad Tract: A-4 . Carlsbad, CA 9200817314 • (760) 602-2720. FAX (760) 602-' BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST ST ND RD 16, 2 3 SITE PLAN 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: North Arrow F. Right-of-Way Width & Adjacent Streets Existing & Proposed Structures G. Driveway widths Existing Street Improvements H. Existing or proposed sewer lateral Property Lines (show all dimensions) I. Existing or proposed water service Easements J. Existing or proposed irrigation service 2. Show on site plan: (2~i ainage Patterns 1. Building pad surface drainage must maintain a minimum slope of one percent towards an adjoining street or an approved drainage course. 2. ADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE: "Finish grade will provide a minimum positive drainage of 2% to swale 5' away from building." Existing & Proposed Slopes and Topography Size, type, location, alignment of existing or proposed sewer and water service (s) that serves the project. Each unit requires a separate service, however, second dwelling units and apartment complexes are an exception. Sewer and water laterals should not be located within proposed driveways, per standards. 3. Include on title sheet: Site address Assessor's Parcel Number Legal Description For commercial/industrial buildings and tenant improvement projects, include: total building square footage with the square footage for each different use, existing sewer permits showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, warehouse, office, etc.) previously approved. EXISTING PERMIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION Show all existing use of SF and new proposed use of SF. Example: Tenant Improvement for 3500 SF of warehouse to 3500 SF of office. F:BUILDING PLANCHECK CKLST FORM.doc 2 Rev. BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 1ST 2ND 3RD DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE 0 4a. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No.___________________________________________________________ 0 0 4b. All conditions are in compliance. Date: / DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS 0 5. Dedication for all street Rights-of-Way adjacent to the building site and any storm drain or utility easements on the building site is required for all new buildings and for remodels with a value at or exceeding $_16,330 , pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.030. ç Dedication required as follows -QC : c ,2( Dedication required. Please have a registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor prepare the appropriate legal description together with an 8 %" x 11" plat map and submit with a title report. All easement documents must be approved and signed by owner(s) prior to issuance of Building Permit. Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the dedication process. Submit the (J completed application form with the required checklist items and fees to the Engineering Department in person. Applications will not be accept by mail or fax. Dedication completed by: Date: IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS 0 0 0 6a. All needed public improvements upon and adjacent to the building site must be constructed at time of building construction whenever the value of the construction exceeds $_81,650 , pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40.040. Public improvements required as follows: Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the public improvement requirements. A registered Civil Engineer must prepare the appropriate improvement plans and submit them together with the requirements on the attached checklist to the Engineering Department through a separate plan check process. The completed application form and the requirements on the FBUfl.DING PLANCHECK CKLST FORMA= 3 • Rev. 7114100 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 1ST 2ND 3RD E E El checklist mist be submitted 'in person. Applications by mail or fax are not accepted. Improvement plans must be approved, appropriate securities posted and fees paid prior to issuance of building permit. Improvement Plans signed by: Date: fl L 6b. Construction of the public improvements may be deferred pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 18.40. Please submit a recent property title report or current grant deed on the property and processing fee of $_400.00 so we may prepare the necessary Neighborhood Improvement Agreement. This agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the City prior to issuance of a Building permit. Future public improvements required as follows: D LI 6c. Enclosed please find your Neighborhood Improvement Agreement. Please return agreement signed and notarized to the Engineering Department. '• Neighborhood Improvement Agreement completed by: Date: U/1-0 fl 6d. No Public Improvements required. SPECIAL NOTE: Damaged or defective improvements found adiacent to building site must be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Inspector prior to occupancy. GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS The conditions that invoke the need for a grading 'permit are found in Section 15.16.060'of the Municipal Code. LI 0 0 7a. Inadequate information available on Site Plan to make a determination on grading requirements. Include accurate grading quantities in cubic yards (cut, fill import, export and remedial). This information must be included on the plans. 0 0 0 7b. Grading Permit required. A separate grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer must be submitted together with the completed application form attached. NOTE: The Grading Permit must be issued and rough grading approval obtained prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Grading Inspector sign off by: Date: LI LI 0 7c. Partial Site Release from Engineering Inspector. F:BUILDING PLANCHECK CKLST FORMA= 4 Rev. 7114100 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 1ST 2ND 3RD El El El 7d. Graded Pad Certification required. (Note: Pad certification may be required even if a grading permit is not required.), 0 El 7e. No Grading Permit required. El El El 7f. If grading is not required, write "No Grading" on plot plan. MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS El El El 8. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way. Types of work include, but are not limited to: street improvements, tree trimming, driveway construction, tying into public storm drain, sewer and water utilities. Right-of-Way permit required for: El El El 9. INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMIT If your facility is located in the City of Carlsbad sewer service area, you need to contact the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, located at 5950 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008. District personnel can provide forms and assistance, and will check to see if your business enterprise is on the EWA Exempt List. You may telephone (760) 438-2722, extension 7153, for assistance. Industrial Waste permit accepted by: Date.: NPDES PERMIT El El El 1 0a. Storm Water Requirements Applicability Checklist Completed El El El lOb. Priority Determination and Compliance: ci Priority Project ci Subject to Standard Permanent Storm Water BMPs - ci Exempt El El 11. FEES ci ftuired fees are attached -'No fees required WATER METER REVIEW. El El El 12a. Domestic (potable) Use Ensure that the meter proposed by the owner/developer is not, oversized. Oversized meters are inaccurate during low-flow conditions. If it is oversized, for the life of the meter, the City will not accurately bill the owner for the water used. All single family dwelling units received "standard" 1" service with 5/8" service. F:BUILDING PL.ANCHECK CKLST FORMA= 5 Rev. 7114100 ci BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 1ST 2ND 3RD If owner/developer proposes a size other than the "standard", then owner/developer must provide potable water demand calculations, which include total fixture counts and maximum water demand in gallons per minute (gpm). A typical fixture count and water demand worksheet is attached. Once the gpm is provided, check against the "meter sizing schedule" to verify the anticipated meter size for the unit. Maximum service and meter size is a 2" service with a 2" meter. If a developer is proposing a meter greater than 2", suggest the installation of multiple 2" services as needed to provide the anticipated demand. (manifolds are considered on case by case basis to limit multiple trenching into the street). 0 0 0 12b. Irrigation Use (where recycled water is not available) All irrigation meters must be sized via irrigation calculations (in gpm) prior to approval. The developer must provide these calculations. Please follow these guidelines: If the project is a newer development (newer than 1998), check the recent improvement plans and observe if the new irrigation service is reflected on the improvement she If so, at the water meter station, the demand in gpm may be listed there. IrrigatiOn services are listed with a circled "I", and potable water is typically a circled "W'. The irrigation service should look like: ,- STA 1+00 Install 2" service and 1.5: meter (estimated 100 gpm) If the improvement plans do not list the irrigation meter and the service/meter will be installed via another instrument such as the building plans or grading plans (w/ a right of way permit of course), then the applicant must provide irrigation calculations for estimated worst-case irrigation demand (largest zone with the farthest reach). Typically, Larry Black has already reviewed this if landscape plans have been prepared, but the applicant must provide the calculations to you for your use. Once you have received a good example of irrigation calculations, keep a set for your reference. In general the calculations will include: Hydraulic grade line Elevation at point of connection (POC) Pressure at POC in pounds per square inch (PSI) Worse case zone (largest, farthest away from valve Total Sprinkler heads listed (with gpm use per head) Include a 10% residual pressure at point of connection 3. In general, all major sloped areas of a subdivision/project are to be irrigated via separate irrigation meters (unless the project is only SFD with no HOA). As long as the project is located within the City recycled water F:8ULOING PLANCHECK CKLST FORMA= 6 Rev. 7114100 1ST 2ND 3RD BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST service boundary, the City intends on switching these irrigation services/meters to a new recycled water line in the future. U 0 0 12c. Irrigation Use (where recycled water is available) Recycled water meters are sized the same as the irrigation meterabove. If a project fronts a street with recycled water, then they should be. connecting to this line to irrigate slopes within the development. For subdivisions, this should have been identified, and implemented on the improvement plans. Installing recycled water meters is a benefit for the applicant since they are exempt from paying the San Diego County Water Capacity fees. However, if they front a street which the recycled water is there, but is not live (sometimes theyare charged with potable water until recycled water is available), then the applicant must pay the San Diego Water Capacity Charge. If within three years, the recycled water line is charged with recycled water by CMWD, then the applicant can apply for a refund to the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) for a refund. However, let the applicant know that we cannot guarantee the refund, and they must deal with the SDCWA for this. OEI . 13. *Additiona Comments: .0 1 -OA LA V1 VM ' WOW DA (0 U U - - F:SUILDING PLANCHECK CKLST FORM.doc 7 Rev. 7114100 MR PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check No. CB 0 c42-7 Address . 114S Akdj ovo Gt.A Tk Planner Erin Endres Phone(760)602- 4625 APN: _,Q 1 $ -22- 00 Type of'roject & Use: 49L fiVX Net Project Density: DU/AC Zoning:r- ( General PIan:I'-LJ Facilities Management Zone: CFD (In/out) #_Date of participation: Remaining net dev acres:______ Circle One (For non-residential development: Type of land used created by this permit: Legend: Z Item Complete O Item Incomplete - Needs your action Environmental Review Required: YES N9?rYPE DATE OF COMPLETION: Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Discretionary Action Required: YES NO X,1 TYPE APPROVAL/RESO. NO. DATE / PROJECT NO. OTHER RELATED CASES: Compliance with conditions or approval? if not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: El EI Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance , Project site located in Coastal Zone? YESj NO____ CA Coastal Commission Authority? YE____ NO____ If California Coastal Commission Authority: Contact them at - 7575 Metropolitan Drive, Suite 103, San Diego CA 92108-4402; (619) 767-2370 Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt): Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed? YES NO____ If NO, complete Coastal Permit Determination Form now. Coastal Permit Determination Log #: Follow-Up Actions: Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum Floor Plans). Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed. 0 0 Inciusionary Housing Fee required: YES ____ NO / (Effective date of lnclusionary Housing Ordinance - May21, t'993.) Data Entry Completed? YES ____ NO (AIP/Ds, Activity Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, Housing Fees, Construct Housing Y/N, Enter Fee, UPDATE!) H:ADMlN\COUNTER\8ldgPlnchkRevChkIst Rev 9/01 Site Plan: El 1. Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North. arrow, property lines, Z ' easements, existing and proposed structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensional setbacks and existing topographical lines (including all side and rear yard slopes). El El 2. Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number. Policy 44— Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines El 1. Applicability: YES NO_______ El El 2. Project complies YES NO_______ Zoning: ,, El 1. Setbacks: Front: Required ,Q ('V)' Shown t •4) / Interior Side: Required C' ¶ Shown Street Side: Required - (i' Shown Rear: Required (-2- S) Shown 1- Top of slope: Required Shown JF' El 0 2. Accessory structure setbacks: Required Shown nterior Required Shown Street Shown Rear: Re l Shown Structure separation: Required Shown El 0 3. Lot Coverage: Required ____________ L El El 4. Height: Required <3 Shown ,)1 0 El 5. Parking: Spaces Required Shown (breakdown by uses for commercial and industrial projects required) Residential Guest Spaces Required Shown 0 0 0 Additional Comments________________________________________________________ OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER DATE I ( H:ADMIN\COUNTERBIdgPInchkRevChkISt Rev 9/01 PC 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A Vista, CA 92081-8505 (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593 K, INC. Geotechnical Environmental Materials July 21, 2006 Project No:2993SD3 Mr. Steve Smith 1743 Mallow Court Carlsbad, California 92011 Subject: Geotechnical Review of Foundation Plans and Details Proposed Residential Addition 1743 Mallow Court Carlsbad, California References: I) Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Residential Additon, 1743 Mallow Court, Carlsbad, California, by GeoTek, Inc., dated March 30, 2006. 2) Foundation Plans and Details, Smith Project, 1743 Mallow Court, Carlsbad, California, Sheets S1.1 and SD- 1, by Consulting Engineers, Corp., dated June 14, 2006 and July 4, 2006. ~J Dear Mr. Smith: In accordance with your request, we have perfomed a geotechnical review of the referenced foundation plan and details for the proposed residential addition located in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of our review is to check that the referenced plans and details properly incorporate the recommendations presented in the project geotechnical report. Based on our review, it is our opinion that the above-referenced plans and details have been prepared in accordance with the intentions of the findings and recommendations contained in the soils report. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, GeoTek, Inc. William R. Morrison, GE 2468, Exp. 12/31/06 Senior Engineer (~Ess/o CD LU NO. 2468 ' Excp..12131/ICJI cc LU I- No. E6224 €EG 2248, Ex p. 10/31/0 Senior Engineering Geologist Distribution: (4) Addressee - G:\Projects\Projects 2000 to 2999\Projects 2950 to 2999\2993 SSmith Res\pian review_Smith.doc ARIZONA cALIFORNIA IDAHO 0. ~ - 0&016 NEVADA GeoTék, Inc. 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A,Vista, CA 92081-8505 760-599-0509 Office 760-599-0593 Fax www.geotekusa.com September 5, 2007 Project No: 29935D3 Mr. Steve Smith 1743 Mallow Court Carlsbad, California 92011 Subject: Foundation Observation Proposed Residential Addition 1743 Mallow Court Carlsbad, California References: Preliminary Geoteclmical Evaluation, Proposed Residential Addition, 1743 Mallow Court, Carlsbad, California, by GeoTek, Inc., dated March 30, 2006. Foundation Plans and Details, Smith Project, 1743 Mallow Court, Carlsbad, California, Sheets Si.! and SD-1, by Consulting Engineers, Corp., dated June 14, 2006 and July 4, 2006. Dear Mr. Smith: In accordance with your request, on August 28, 2007, a representative of GeoTek, Inc. performed foundation excavation observations for the proposed residential addition at 1743 Mallow Court, Carlsbad, California. Foundation excavations were found to be at depths and widths conforming with the above- referenced plans and details. Excavation bottoms were found to be generally firm and exposed soils were consistent with soils encountered during our referenced geotechriical evaluation. Foundation recommendations presented in our referenced report remain ajp1icable. Footing excavations should be cleaned and any loose soils should be removed prior, to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. I A representative soil sample was obtained for laboratory testing to evaluate the expansive characteristics of subgrade soil. Expansion index testing performed in general accordance with UBC Standard 18-2, yielded expansion indices of less than 20, which indicates a low expansion potential. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Distribution: .(4) Addressee G:WrojectsWrojects 2000 to 2999\Projects 2950 to 2999'2993 55mith Res\2993foundationobservation.doc GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS . V V,- Respectfully submitted, GeoTek, Inc. ,4hnA.Dra e, GE 285, Exp. 03/31/08 Senior GeotechnicalEngineër. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1743 MALLOW COURT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR• MR. STEVE SMITH 1743 MALLOW COURT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92007 PREPARED BY GEOTEK, INC. 1384 POINSETTIA AVENUE VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92081 PROJECT No.: 2993SD3 MARCH 30, 2006 t EKINC 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A / Vista, CA 92081-8505 (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593 'S'K9 INC. Geotechnical Environmental Materials U . . March30, 2006 Project No.: 2993 SD3 MR. STEVE SMITH I 1743 Mallow Court . Carlsbad, California 92007 I Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Addition,, I . 1743 Mallow Court Carlsbad, California I Dear Mr. Smith: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoTek, Inc. has performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the subject project. We' are pleased to submit the accompanying I report that presents the results of our evaluation along with our recommendations relative to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed site development. In our opinion, the proposed I residential addition is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the recommendations included herein are incorporated into the design and construction phases of I the project. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully sub F-SS/0,V C13 4 No. EG LLJ No. 2468 Exp. OrEcli William R. Mo F C Ak_* Todd C. Schmitz, ey P. Blake, I GE 2468, Exp. 12/31/06 Project Geologist CEG 2248, Exp. 10/31/07 Senior Engineer Senior Engineering Geologist U (5) Addressee ' G:ProjectsProjects 2000 to 29991Projects 2950 to 29992980 -Amber Homes - Tremont2980georpt.doc U M Dy201-A @(f-A - O44 o-i ARIZONA CALIFORNIA' IDAHO NEVADA MR. STEVE SMITH PROJECT No.: 2993SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 I Proposed Residential Development Pape I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTENT .............................................................. . .................................................................................................... 1 2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 1 3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT..........................................................................2 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................ ................... ................................................................. 2 I 4. 3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................................2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................. 3 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION...............................................................................................................................3 I 4.2 LABORATORY TESTING ..........................................................................................................................3 5. GEOLOGIC AND SOIL CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................4 5.1 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .........................................................................................................................4 1 '5.1.1 General Site Geology...........................................................................................................................4 5.1.2 Faulting & Seismicity .......................................................................................................................... 4 5.1.3 Other Geologic Hazards ...................................................................................................................... 4 5.2 SOIL PROFILE.............................................................................................................................................5 I 5.2.1 Fill....................................................................................................................................................... 5.2.2 Santiago Formation.............................................................................................................................5 5.3 GROUNDWATER ........................................................................................................................................ 5 I 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 6 6.1 GENERAL ....................................................................................................................................................6 I 6.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS ..........................................................................................................7 6.2.1 Site Clearing........................................................................................................................................7 6.2.2 Fills......................................................................................................................................................7 6.2.3 Removals..............................................................................................................................................7 I 6.2.4 Excavation Characteristics..................................................................................................................8 6.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................8 6.3.1 Foundation Design Recommendations................................................................................................8 I 6.3.2 Settlement .............................................................................................................................................. 9 6.3.3 Seismic Design Parameters .................................................................................................................9 6.3.4 Foundation Set Backs ........................................................................................................................JO I 6.3.5 Slab-on-Grade Construction ................................................................................................................ 10 6.3.6 Subgrade Moisture ............................................................................................................................. 11 6.3.7 Soil Corrosivity .................................................................................................................................. 11 6.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................11 I 6.4.1 General..............................................................................................................................................11 6.4.2 Cement Type ......................................................................................................................................11 6.4.3 Concrete Flatwork.............................................................................................................................11 I 6.5 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................12 6.5.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting ............................................................................................... 12 6.5.2 Drainage............................................................................................................................................13 I 6.6 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS..................................................................13 7. LIMITATIONS...................................................................................................................................................14 8. SELECTED REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 1 I ' WEK, INC. MR. STEVE SMITH PROJECT NO.: 2993SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 I Proposed Residential Development Page ii I TABLE OF CONTENTS I ENCLOSURES: Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Exploratory Boring Location Plan Appendix A - Logs of Exploratory Excavations Appendix B - Results of Laboratory Testing I I I I I I . 1 I. ' WEK, INC. MR. STEVE SMITH Project No.: 2993 SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 Proposed Residential Development Page 1 1. INTENT It is the intent of this report to aid in the design and construction of the proposed development. Implementation of the advice presented in Section 6 of this report is intended to reduce risk associated with construction projects. The professional opinions and geotechnical advice contained in this report are not intended to imply total performance of the project or guarantee that unusual or variable conditions will not be discovered during or after construction. The general location of the overall site is shown on the Site Location Map (Figure 1). The scope of our evaluation is limited to the area explored, which is shown on the Exploratory Excavation Location Plan (Figure 2). This evaluation does not and should in no way be construed to encompass any areas beyond the specific area of the presently proposed for construction as indicated to us by the client. Further, no evaluation of any existing site improvements is included. The scope is based on our understanding of the project and the client's needs, and geotechnical engineering standards normally used on similar projects in this region. 2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of this study was to evaluate the overall geotechnical conditions on this site as they relate to the proposed residential addition. Services provided included the following: > Research and review of available geologic data and general information pertinent to the site; > Site exploration consisting of 2 exploratory borings utilizing a limited access drill rig to observe and sample the prevailing shallow subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the proposed building addition. In addition, a test pit was excavated adjacent to the existing footing in an accessible area in order to observe the embedment of the existing footings; > Laboratorytesting on representative samples of the subsurface materials collected during the field evaluation; Review and evaluation of site seismicity; > Geotechnical evaluation of field and laboratory data; and MR. STEVE SMITH Project No.: 2993 SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 Proposed Residential Development Page 2 > Compilation of this geotecbnical report which presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed construction. 3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I I 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located in Carlsbad, California. Current access to the property is afforded I by Mallow Court, which bounds the site to the North. The subject site is bound by existing single-family residences the south, east, and west. The existing residential lot encompasses approximately 7,500 square feet and is currently occupied by a two-story residence and related site improvements. The existing residence appears to be supported by a conventional slab-on-grade foundation system. Our observations made during our field exploration indicate that the existing foundation system appears to be performing adequately. We understand that the subject residence was constructed in approximately 1976 - 1977 as part of Tract 72 - 34. Review, of a previous geotechnical report for the original development (Pacific Soils Engineering, 1974) indicates that grading for the existing development included the placement of up to 17 feet of fill at the subject property. A majority of the site topography is generally level. A descending slope on the order of 10 to 15 feet in height is located adjacent to the southern property boundary, Although no site plans or recent site-specific topographic base maps were provided at the time of this report, our review of regional topographic maps indicates the approximate ground surface elevation of the site to be approximately 104 feet above mean sea level (MSL). 3.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on our review of preliminary project information for the construction provided, we understand that the proposed development will include the construction of a 176 square foot addition to the second story, along with a single story addition of approximately 374 square feet to the rear of the existing single-family residence. We anticipate that the additions will be of wood framed construction with slab on grade foundations. No grading or foundation plans were available at the time of our review. However, the proposed building addition is MR. STEVE SMITH Project No.: 2993 SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 Proposed Residential Development Page 3 anticipated to be constructed at grades similar to those currently existing. We assume that I building loads will be typical for the planned type of construction. I 4. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Ii 4.1 FIELD EXPLORATION I The field evaluation consisted of drilling, logging, and sampling of two (2) exploratory borings (utilizing a limited, access drill rig), which extended to a maximum depth of 24.5 feet below the existing ground surface. In addition, one (1) test pit was excavated adjacent to the I existing perimeter foundation supporting the residence in order to observe existing footing depths. The subsurface exploration was performed on February 28, 2006 with the excavations I . located as shown on Figure 2. A geologist from our firm logged the excavations and collected representative samples for use in laboratory testing. The logs of exploratory borings and additional information regarding field sampling and testing procedures are included in I Appendix A. 4.2 LABORATORY TESTING I Laboratory testing was performed on selected samples collected during the field exploration. The purpose of the laboratory testing was to confirm the field classification of the soil materials encountered and to evaluate their physical properties for use in the engineering I design and analysis. The results of the laboratory-testing program along with a brief description and relevant information regarding testing procedures are included in Appendix i B. MR. STEVE SMITH Project No.: 2993 SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 Proposed Residential Development Page 5. GEOLOGIC AND SOIL CONDITIONS .5.1 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 5.1.1 General Site Geology San Diego County's landscape has been shaped by many factors, including the nature of the surface material, the tectonic processes of large-scale movements of the earth's crust, sea level changes, etc. Our review of regional geologic maps (CDMG, 1996) indicates that the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation underlies fill materials at the subject site. 5.1.2 Faulting & Seismicity I The site is in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at this site. The computer program EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a) was used to approximate the distance to known faults and estimate peak ground accelerations based on a deterministic I analysis. The Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 5.7 miles offshore to the west of the site is considered to generate the highest risk of ground shaking. A maximum earthquake I magnitude of 6.9 and an estimated peak site acceleration of 0.35 g are postulated based on the analysis. I 5.1.3 Other Geologic Hazards > The potential for dynamic settlement a.ndlor liquefaction at the site is considered to be low I due to the relatively competent nature of the Santiago Formation that underlies the site, along with the observed lack of shallow groundwater. I > Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at this site was not observed during our evaluation. I . >The potential for secondary seismic hazards such as seiches and tsunamis are considered to. be relatively low due to the site's elevation and distance from an open body of water. W, EK, INC. MR. STEVE SMITH Project No.: 2993 SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 Proposed Residential Development Page 5 5.2 SOIL PROFILE A brief description of the earth materials encountered during our subsurface exploration is presented in the following sections. A more detailed description of these materials is provided on the logs of the exploratory borings included in Appendix A. Based on our site reconnaissance, subsurface excavations, and review of published geologic maps, the site is underlain by Fill materials which are in turn underlain by the Santiago Formation. 5.2.1 Fill The fill materials that were encountered at this site were found to be up to approximately 24.0 feet thickness. These materials generally consist of yellow to yellow brown, moist, silty fine sand and clayey fine to medium sand. These materials were found to be medium dense. Results of our laboratory testing (Appendix A) indicate that the encountered upper soils possess a low expansion potential. After reviewing documentation prepared by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., it appears that the fill materials associated with the surrounding lots and tracts had been placed during the middle to late 1970's. However, we have not been provided with a compaction report that summarizes the observation and testing of the fill placement pertaining to this specific lot. 5.2.2 Santiago Formation The Santiago Formation directly underlies the fill soils at the site. The formational materials, which were encountered at an approximate depth of 24.0 feet below the existing ground surface in our exploratory boring B-i, were observed to generally consist of yellow, moist, medium dense, silty fine sand. 5.3 GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered in any of our exploratory excavations. No natural groundwater condition is known to be present which would impact site development. However, groundwater or localized seepage can occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation practices, tidal variations and other factors not evident at the time of this evaluation. MR. STEVE SMITH Project No.: 2993 SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 I Proposed Residential Development Page 6 I 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I 6.1 GENERAL I The proposed development of the site appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and I construction phases of development. As discussed previously, fill having an approximate thickness of 24 feet was encountered I during our subsurface exploration. The fill materials appear to be generally medium dense and free of deleterious materials at the locations of our exploratory excavations. It is likely U that given the age of the fill materials, a majority of the post-construction settlement has likely occurred. In addition, our observations indicate that the existing structure, which appears to be supported by shallow foundations bearing upon the fill, appears to be performing I reasonably well. However, no geotechnical literature that documents the placement methods and field density testing of the fill at the subject property was available for our review at the 1 time of our geotechnical evaluation. As is the case with fill placed without geotechnical documentation, the possibility exists that the fill may contain concentrated amounts of deleterious material and soft compressible zones not disclosed by our exploratory excavations. Accordingly, there are certain risks associated I with construction on these types of fill. The risk primarily consists of non-uniform settlement caused by extensive zones or pockets of soft, loose or uncompacted material. The risk could be reduced with documentation concerning the placement methods and I compaction of the fill. We do not recommend relying on fill placed without technical observation for building support. However, if the owner understands and is willing to accept I the possibility of some settlement, a shallow foundation may be used for the support of the building if the recommendations contained in the following sections of this report are followed. I MR. STEVE SMITH S Project No.: 2993 SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 Proposed Residential Development Page 7 6.2 EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS Earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with the appropriate grading ordinances of the City of Carsbad and our recommendations contained in this report. 6.2.1 Site Clearing In areas of planned grading or improvements, the site should be cleared of vegetation, roots and other deleterious debris, which should be properly disposed of offsite. Any holes resulting from site clearing, tree removal, and the removal of buried improvements should be backfihled with properly compacted fill materials. 6.2.2 Fills The onsite soil materials are considered suitable for reuse as compacted fill provided they are free from vegetation, debris, oversize rock greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension, and other deleterious material. Any import fill materials should consist of very low expansion soils (EI<21) that are evaluated by our firm prior to arrival at the site. The fill materials should be compacted in layers no thicker than 8 inches to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density with a moisture content of at least optimum, as determined by ASTM D1557-00. Those areas to receive fill (including over-excavated areas) should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density (based on ASTM D1557). 6.2.3 Removals The results of our geotechnical evaluation indicate thai the upper portions of the fill materials at the site are relatively loose in their current condition. Therefore, we recommend that the I upper 12 inches of fill soils be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill (placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations present in section 6.2.2 above). I Following the removal of the upper soils, the bottom of the resulting excavation(s) should be observed by a representative of GeoTek to check that the potentially compressible materials have been sufficiently removed. Localized deeper removals may be recommended based on I our observations made during these operations. I It should be noted that the lateral extent of removal from the outside edge of all settlement- sensitive structures/foundations should be equivalent to that vertically removed. Similarly, all I compacted fill should extend laterally from the outside edge of all settlement-sensitive structures or foundations to a distance equal to the depth of filling. JfEK, INC. MR. STEVE SMITH Project No.: 2993 SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 Proposed Residential Development Page 8 6.2.4 Excavation Characteristics Excavations in the fill materials within the depths explored can be expected to be performed using conventional earthwork equipment in good operating condition. All temporary excavations for grading purposes and installation of underground utilities should be constructed in accordance with OSHA guidelines. Temporary excavations within the onsite materials should be stable at 1:1 inclinations for cuts less than 10 feet in height. 6.3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 6.3.1 Foundation Design Recommendations Foundation design recommendations for a conventional shallow foundation system are presented herein. These are typical design considerations and are not intended to supersede the design by the structural engineer. Our subsurface evaluation indicated that the foundations for the existing structure are bearing upon compacted fill material with an embedment of approximately 15 inches below existing grade. It is not known whether the footings are reinforced. An evaluation of the suitability of the existing foundations to receive any second-story loading should be performed by. a structural engineer. Based on the results of this evaluation and our past experience, the majority of the onsite soils may be classified as having a very low expansion potential (0<EI<21) with a Plasticity Index (PT) of less than 15. However, testing of soils near finish grade should be performed at the completion of site grading to check the actual conditions. At that time supplemental recommendations may be warranted. The proposed residential addition can be supported on conventional continuous or isolated spread footings entirely bearing upon compacted filimaterials. Foundations supporting single I story structures should be constructed with an embedment of at least 12 inches below finish grade. Those foundations that will support two-story structures should be constructed with an I embedment of at least 18 inches below finish grade. At these depths, footings may be designed for an allowable soil bearing value of 2,000 psf. This value may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration, such as wind and seismic forces. Continuous footings supporting single-story structures should have a minimum width of 12 inches, while those supporting two-story structures should have a minimum width of 15 inches. Based on - geotechnical considerations, footings should be provided with reinforcement consisting of two I S WEK, INC. MR. STEVE SMITH Project No.: 2993 SD3 Preliminary Geotecimical Evaluation March 30, 2006 Proposed Residential Development Page 9 No. 4 rebars, one top and one bottom. We recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for isolated spread footings. I The passive resistance may be computed as an equivalent fluid pressure having a density of 250 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 psf. A coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. Attention should be given to designing the foundation for the addition adjacent to the existing building. It is advisable to place the foundations for the addition at the same level as the foundations of the existing building so that the new footings will not undercut the soil beneath the existing footings. In spite of these precautions, small differential movements between the adjacent structures may be experienced. Construction joints should be provided between the existing building and the addition. 6.3.2 Settlement Based on the anticipated loading conditions described in Section 3.2 and the geotechnical recommendations presented herein, total settlement is expected to be less than one half inch. It is anticipated that the majority of the settlement will occur during construction. Differential settlement between adjacent columns is expected to be less than one-half of the total settlement. 6.3.3 Seismic Design Parameters Seismically resistant structural design in accordance with local building ordinances should be followed during the design of all structures. Building Codes have been developed to reduce structural damage. However, some level of damage as the result of ground shaking generated by nearby earthquakes is considered likely in this general area. For the purpose of seismic design a Type B seismic source (Rose Canyon Fault) located approximately 9.2 km from the site may be assumed. Table 6.3.2 below presents seismic design factors in keeping with the criteria presented in the 2001 CBC, Division IV & V, Chapter 16. MR. STEVE SMITH Project No.: 2993 SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 Proposed Residential Development . Page 10 TABLE 6.3.2 - SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Soil Profile Seismic Source Parameters Type Ca Cv Na N Type Source Table 16A-J 16A-Q 16A-R - 16A-S 16A-T 16A-U Value SD 0.44 0.66 1.00 1.03 B 6.3.4 Foundation Set Backs Where applicable, the following setbacks should apply to all foundations. Any improvements not conforming to these setbacks may be subject to lateral movements and/or differential settlements: > The outside bottom edge of all footings should be set back a minimum of H/3 (where H is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The setback should be at least 7 feet and need not exceed 40 feet. > The bottom of all footings for structures near retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall stem. > The bottom of any existing foundations for structures should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection upward from the bottom of the nearest excavation. 6.3.5 Slab-on-Grade Construction Concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with at least No. 3 steel bars placed at 18 inches on center, both ways. The slab reinforcement should be positioned and maintained within the middle one-third of the concrete slab. Control joints should be provided to help reduce random cracking. Slabs should be underlain by a 4-inch thick capillary break layer consisting of clean sand (SE above 25). Where moisture condensation is undesirable, all slabs should be underlain with a minimum 10-mil polyvinyl chloride membrane, sandwiched between two layers of clean sand (SE above 25) each being at least two inches thick. Care should be taken to adequately seal all seams and not puncture or tear the membrane. Slabs to be supported by soils possessing an expansion index of more than 20 should be designed in accordance with Chapter 18, Division III of the 2001 CBC. It should be noted that the above recommendation is based on soil support characteristics only. The structural engineer should design the actual slab based on actual loading conditions and possible concrete shrinkage. MR. STEVE SMITH Project No.: 2993SD3 I Preliminary Geotecimical Evaluation March 30, 2006 Proposed Residential Development Page 11 I 6.3.6 Subgrade Moisture The subgrade should be properly moisture conditioned prior to placing concrete. The moisture content of subgrade soils should be at least optimum moisture to a minimum depth of 12 I inches below finish pad grade for the encountered very low expansive soils. Moisture conditioning can require an extended period of time to achieve. Our representative should I check moisture content prior to placing the vapor barrier or reinforcing steel. If the subgrade is not reasonably sealed within 24 hours by placing the vapor barrier or concrete or the concrete is not poured within 96 hours of testing, the moisture tests should be considered I invalid unless evaluated otherwise by this office. The foundation contractor should be responsible to request additional verification/testing. I 6.3.7 Soil Corrosivity I The soil resistivity at this site was tested in the laboratory on a representative sample collected during the field exploration. The results of the testing (Appendix B) indicate that the upper soils are extremely corrosive to buried metallic structures. It is recommended that a 1 corrosion engineer be consulted to provide recommendations for proper protection of buried metal pipes at this site. 6.4 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION I 6.4.1 General I Concrete construction should follow the UBC and American Concrete Institute (ACT) guidelines regarding design, mix placement and curing of the concrete. If desired, we can I provide quality control testing of the concrete during construction. I 6.4.2 Cement Type The sulfate content was determined in the laboratory for a representative onsite soil sample. The results indicate that the water-soluble sulfate is 0.015 percent by weight, which is I considered negligible as per Table 19-A-4 of the CBC. Based upon the test results, Type II cement or an equivalent may be used in those concrete elements that will be in contact with I the upper soils. 6.4.3 Concrete Flatwork Exterior concrete flatwork (patios, walkways, driveways, etc.) is often some of the most visible aspects of site development. They are typically given the least level of quality control, I WEK,INC. MR. STEVE SMITH Project No.: 2993 SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 I Proposed Residential Development Page 12 being. considered "non-structural" components. Cracking of these features is fairly common I due to various factors. While cracking is not usually detrimental, it is unsightly. We suggest that the same standards of care be applied to these features as to the structure itself. One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened joints for cracking to occur along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the stresses that develop. These joints are widely accepted means to control cracks but are not always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced they are. Therefore, we recommend that control joints be provided in accordance with ACI guidelines. 6.5 POST CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 6.5.1 Landscape Maintenance and Planting I Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Controlling surface drainage and runoff, and I maintaining a suitable vegetation cover can reduce erosion. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep-rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving I the prevailing climate. Overwatering should be avoided. The soils should be maintained in a solid to semi-solid state I as defined by the materials' Atterberg Limits. Care should be taken when adding soil amendments to avoid excessive watering. Leaching as a method of soil preparation prior to I planting is not recommended. An abatement program to control ground-burrowing rodents should be implemented and I maintained. This is critical as burrowing rodents can decrease the long-term performance of slopes. I It is common for planting to be placed adjacent to structures in planter or lawn areas. This will result in the introduction of water into the ground adjacent to the foundation. This type of landscaping should be avoided. If used, then extreme care should be exercised with regard to the irrigation and drainage in these areas. Waterproofing of the foundation and/or subdrains may be warranted and advisable. We could discuss these issues, if desired, when plans are made available. I WEK, INC. MR. STEVE SMITH Project No.: 2993 SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 Proposed Residential Development Page 13 6.5.2 Drainage The need to maintain proper surface drainage and subsurface systems cannot be overly emphasized. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward approved area(s). Positive drainage should not be blocked by other improvements. Even apparently minor changes or modifications can cause problems. It is the owner's responsibility to maintain and clean drainage devices on or contiguous to their lot. In order to be effective, maintenance should be conducted on a regular and routine schedule and necessary corrections made prior to each rainy season. 6.6 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend that site grading, specifications, and foundation plans be reviewed by this office prior to construction to check for conformance with the recommendations of this report. We also recommend that GeoTek representatives be present during site grading and foundation construction to check for proper implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. These representatives should perform at least the following duties: . Observe site clearing and grubbing operations for proper removal of all unsuitable materials. . Observe and test bottom of removals prior to fill placement. . Evaluate the suitability of on-site and import materials for fill placement, and collect soil samples for laboratory testing where necessary. Observe the fill for uniformity during placement including utility trenches. Also, test the fill for field density and relative compaction. Observe and probe foundation materials to confirm suitability of bearing materials and proper footing dimensions. If requested, GeoTek will provide a construction observation and compaction report to comply with the requirements of the governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the project. We recommend that these agencies be notified prior to commencement of construction so that necessary grading permits can be obtained. MR. STEVE SMITH Project No.: 2993 SD3 Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 I Proposed Residential Development S Page 14 7. LIMITATIONS I The materials observed on the project site appear to be representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GeoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or-provided by others. I Since our recommendations are based the site conditions observed and encountered, and laboratory testing, our conclusion and recommendations are professional opinions that are I. limited to the extent of the available data. Observations during construction are important to allow for any change in recommendations found to be warranted. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or I implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. I S . I S U fK, INC. MR. STEVE SMITH Appendix A Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 Proposed Residential Development Page A-i 8. SELECTED REFERENCES ASTM, 2004, "Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing and Materials," vol. 4.08 for ASTM test methods D-420 to D- 4914, 153 standards, 1,026 pages; and vol. 4.09 for ASTM test method D-4943 to highest number. Blake, T., 2000a, "EQFAULT, version 3.00," a Computer Program for Deterministic Estimation of Maximum Earthquake Event and Peak Ground Acceleration. Blake, 1., Hollingsworth, R., and Stewart, J. (Editors), 2002, "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of CDMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California," Southern California Earthquake Center. Boore, D., Joyner, W., and Fumal, T., 1997, "Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work," Seismological Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 128-153. Bowles, J., 1996, "Foundation Analysis and Design," McGraw-Hill, Fifth Edition. 2001 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," Special Publication 117. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1996, Geologic Maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: International Conference of Building Officials." California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-08 and U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-706, 1996, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California." GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information. Hart, E., and Bryant, W., 1997, "Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Ishihara, K., 1985, "Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes," Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, CA, Volume 1. Jennings, C. W., 1994, "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions," Scale: 1: 750,000. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., "Final Engineering Geologic Grading Report; Tract 72-34, Lots 99 & 106-126 inclusive (Unit 2), in the City of Carlsbad," Dated October 29, 1976. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., "Preliminary soil engineering and Engineering Geologic Report & Grading Plan Review, Carlsbad Tract No. 72-34 in the City of Carlsbad, California," Dated July 5, 1974. US Army Corps of Engineers, 1994, "Settlement Analysis," Technical Guidelines, No. 9, ASCE Press. Walawender, M. J., 2000, "The Peninsular Ranges, A Geological Guide to San Diego's Back Country." Youd, T. Leslie and Idriss, Izzmat M., 1997, "Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils," National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022. J 0 SX-fK, INC. Source: Site plan provided by Chereskin Architecture Smith Residence Proposed Addition with 2nd Story 1743 Mallow Court Carlsbad, California 92011 GeoTek Number. 2993SD3 Exploratory Excavation Location Plan '7 -.---. II I NORTH t Legend Approximate location B .2 of exploratory boring Approximate TP-1 location of test pit 0 20 (Approximate Scale) ITO J4EK, INC. 1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A Vista, California 92081-8505 APPENDIX A LOGS OF EXPLORATORY EXCAVATIONS (B-i and B-2) (TP-1) Proposed Residential Addition Carlsbad, California Project No.: 29935D3 WEY"INC. I MR. STEVE SMITH Appendix A Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation March 30, 2006 I Proposed Residential Development Page A-2 LEGEND TO FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING I A - FIELD TESTING AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) I The SPT is performed in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1586-99. The SPT sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of I boring. The split-barrel sampler has an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1-3/8 inches. The samples of earth materials collected in the sampler are typically classified in the field, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for further testing. I The Modified Split-Barrel Sampler (Ring) The Ring sampler is driven into the ground in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 3550-84. The I sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler is typically driven into the ground 12 or 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free falling from a height of 30 inches. Blow counts are recorded I for every 6 inches of penetration as indicated on the log of boring. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. I Large Bulk Samples These samples are normally cloth bags of representative earth materials over 20 pounds in weight collected from the field by means of hand digging or exploratory cuttings. I Small Bulk Samples These samples are normally airtight plastic bags that are typically less than 5 pounds in weight of I representative earth materials collected from the field by means of the split spoon sampler, hand digging or exploratory cuttings. These samples are primarily used for determining natural moisture content and classification indices. I . B-BORING LOG LEGEND ' The following abbreviations and symbols often appear in the classification and description of soil and rock on the logs of borings: SOILS USCS Unified Soil Clasiflcation System I f-c Fine to coarse f-rn Fine to medium GEOLOGIC I B: Attitudes Bedding: strike/dip J: Attitudes Joint: strike/dip Contact line I C: Dashed l ine denotes USCS material change Solid Line denotes unit / formational change Thick solid line denotes end of boring I . (Additional denotations and symbols are provided on the logs of borings) I INC. GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING CLIENT: Steve Smith DRILLER: Pacific Drilling LOGGED BY: PROJECT NAME: Proposed Smith Residence Addition DRILL METHOD: 6"SolidStemAuger OPERATOR: PROJECT NO.: 2993S03 HAMMER: 140 lb / 30 inch RIG TYPE: LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA DATE: LG Brian LimitedAccessBeaverRig 2/28/2006 - SAMPLES - LaboratoryTesting - CL el ' E ., BORING NO.: B-I a , rn 0 a MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONAND COMMENTS Fill • / 1211-1 SC Yellow-brown, moist, medium dense, clayey fine to medium SAND El, SR, I 8 9 SM Yellow, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND; trace clay; with roots; SH - 10 B1-2 pinhole size voids 16.4 108 : x : SC Yellow, moist, medium dense medium mottled F 10 B1-3 light gray SA . 10 .. -• @7.5: becomes a mixture of red, yellow, green, brown, moist, medium - I 12 SC-CL dense, silty fine SAND and sandy CLAY chunks - 21 B1-4 20.7 10 - - 8 SM @10: becomes yellow-brown, moist, medium dense, silty fineSAND - I 9 B1-5 with chunks of gray, green, orange, black - 14 19.5 15 15': becomes mixed yellow, orange, gray, brown, medium dense, silty j 12 SM-SC fine to medium SAND to clavev SAND 25 131-6 18.1 20 3 SM @20.5: becomes gray-black, very moist, loose, silty fine to medium - 4 B1-7 SAND orqanic odor 17.4 - 5 - 11 I8 Formation 25 SM Yellow, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND; iron oxide - -HOLE TERMINATED AT 24.5 FEET- - No groundwater encountered - Hole backfilled with bentonite chips 30 - Sampletype: —Ring —SPT Z_-S?nall Bulk n_-Large Bulk —No Recovery —Water Table Lab testing: AL - Atterberg Limits El = Expansion Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV = R-Value Test SR = Suifate/Resisitivity Test SH = Shear Test HO = Hydro-Collapse MD = Maximum Density GeoTek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING CLIENT: Steve Smith DRILLER: Pacific Drilling PROJECT NAME: Proposed Smith Residence Addition DRILL METHOD: 6' Solid Stem Auger PROJECT NO,: 2993SD3 HAMMER: 140 lb /30 inch LOCATION: Carlsbad, CA LOGGED BY: LG OPERATOR: Brian RIG TYPE: LimitedAccessBeaverRig DATE: 2128/2006 -- - SAMPLE - Laboratory Testing BORING NO.: B-2 E E CL o 6 D _____________________________________ -' MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ANDCOMMENTS - • / SC Fill Yellow, gray-black, moist, medium dense, clayey fine to medium SAND 132-1 3 -same SA - I 3 B2-2 16.8 - 8 - I 15 SM Yellow, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND * 30 B2-3 18.6 110 • 6 - 6 B2-4 Yellow-brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND and clayey fine 16.9 8 SM-SC SAND; mottled green, orange, gray 10 : 10, • U 12 26 1312-5 ----__ -same 15.51 114 -HOLE TERMINATED AT 11.5 FEET- No groundwater encountered - Hole backfilled with soils cuttings 15: 20 - 25 - 30 Sample type: —Ring t—SPT Z —Small Bulk —Large Bulk —No Recovery —Water Table Lab testing: AL = Atterberg Limits El ExpansIon Index SA = Sieve Analysis RV R-Value Test SR Sulfate/Resisitivity Test SH - Shear Test CO = Consolidationtest MD = Maximum Density Geolek, Inc. LOG OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH PROJECT NO.: 2993SD3 LOGGED BY: L:G PROJECT NAME: Proposed Smith Residence/Mallow Court EQUIPMENT: By Client CLIENT: Steve Smith DATE: 3/6/2006 LOCATION: See Site Plan - SAMPLES - Laboratory Testing 0 PIT TP-1 co TEST L. CL M EE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS U) Fill Yellow-brown and gray, moist, loose to medium dense, clayey fine to sc medium SAND with roots Test Pit Terminated at 24 Inches No groundwater encountered Excavation excavated by client Existing Ground Surface 5 Residence Slab PVC irrigation line Footing 91. 10 15 1Sample Type: *-- Small Plastic Bag -- Ring Sample —Water Table Q Laboratory Testing: AL = Atterberg Limits El = Expansion Index MD = Maximum Density SA Sieve Analysis LLJ SR = Sulfate/Resistivity Test SH = Shear Testing RV= R-Value Test co = consolidation I 1~ I I I I I. I I I I. I . I I I I . 1 • I. I I.. I I I I APPENDIX B RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING Proposed Residential Addition Carlsbad, California Project No.: 29935D3 I I I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING Classification I Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM Test Method D2487). I Grain size distribution (particle size analysis) was performed on selected samples in accordance with ASTM D422. Results of grain size analysis are shown on Plate 1. I Direct Shear Shear testing was performed in a direct shear machine of the strain-control type in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D3080. The rate of deformation is approximately 0.03 I :inches per minute. The sample was sheared under varying confining loads in order to determine the coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. The tests were performed on a sample of the upper soils that was remolded to 90 percent of the I maximum dry density (based on ASTM D 1557). The shear test results are included herein (Plate SH-1). In Situ Moisture and Unit Weight I The field moisture content was measured in the laboratory on selected samples collected• during the field evaluation. The field moisture content is determined as a percentage of the I dry unit weight. Results of these tests are presented on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A. The dry density was measured in the laboratory on selected ring samples. The results are shown on the logs of exploratory borings in Appendix A. I Sulfate Content Analysis to determine the water-soluble sulfate content was performed in general accordance I with California Test No. 417. The results of the testing are included herein (see Plate SL-1). pH and Resistivity I Representative surficial soil samples were collected and tested for pH and resistivity in general accordance with California Test 643. The results of the testing are included herein (see Plate SR-1). I Expansion Index Expansion Index testing was performed on a representative near-surface sample. Testing was I performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. The results indicate an Expansion Index (El) of < 50 for the soil tested. This is considered a low potential for expansion in accordance with Table 18A-1-B of the 2001 CBC. The results are included I herein (see Plate El-i). I WEK INC-. SIEVE ANALYSIS of COARSE & FINE AGGREGATE '-tEK, INC. CLIENT: Steve Smith LAB NO.: 2170 PROJECT: Smith Residence PROJECT: NO.: 2993 SD3 MATERIAL LOCATION: B1 @ 5' DATE: 3/16/2006 SAMPI P flPSrPIPTICThI I irihf YIIrwkh Rrr,n Silty Finp tr r'.rircp SnrI TOTAL WT. SAMPLE (DRY) - 236.2 Dry JWT.COARSE (+)#44.2 Dry WT COARSE % 1.8 Wet Wt. Before Wash (-)#4 278.2 Wet IWT. FINE (-) #4 278.2 Wet WT FINE % 98.2 Dry Wt. Before Wash (-)#4 232.0 Dry 232.0 Dry -200% 25 0.199 Moisture Cohtent (-#4) - Sieve Size WEIGHT RETAINED Combined % Passing Specs. kid Cum I 3/75mm 0 100 2/50mm 0 100 1.5/37.5mm 0 100 1/25mm 0 100 .75/19mm 0 100 5/12.5mm 0 100 .375/9.5mm 0 100 #4/4.75mm 4.2 98 #8 5.6 96 871 #16 11.1 94 #30 14.5 92 #50 25.9 #100 74.9 . 67 #200 172.5 25.2 PAN WASH 59.5 cI :]uirniiiimri!!!!!!uIII1IIItl .JFIlIIIIIIlOIIIllIAIIIIIi1hUIIllI _HUIIIIItiIHHIIIIIIIIIIIILIIIi HIIIIIIUI1IIIIIII1I1IHIIIIIIIIIO _________mlllllllillllllllllllluhlllklllltl _______ • III IIII1IIl}I IIIlIIIIIIIIi1IIIIiINI uuuiiiiiu iiiunuiiiiiau I ul OIIIIIIIIIHIOIIIHIIOIHIIUIII liiiiiilmiiiiiiilmiii1.1111millI UIIEI 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS HYDROMETER 0.001 0.0001 SIEVE ANALYSIS of COARSE & FINE AGGREGATE - , NOR` IMF, K, IN C. 4 AASHTOf. CLIENT: Steve Smith LAB NO.: 2170 PROJECT: Smith Residence PROJECT: NO.: 2993 SD3 MATERIAL LOCATION: B2 © 2.5 DATE: 3/16/2006 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Lioht Yellowish Brown Clavev Fine to Medium Sand TOTAL WT. SAMPLE (DRY) 246.0 Dry JWT.COARSE (+)#40 Dry WT COARSE % 00 Wet Wt. Before Wash (-)#4 1 293.7 Wet JWT. FINE (-) #4 293.7 Wet WT FINE % 100.0 Dry Wt. Before Wash (-)#4 1 246.0 Dry 246.0 Dry -200% 40 0.194 Moisture. Content (- #4) - Sieve Size WEIGHT RETAINED . Combined % Passing Specs. Ind Cum 3/75mm 0 100 2/50mm 0 100 1.5/37.5mm 0 100 1/25mm 0 100 .75/19mm 0 100 .5/12.5mm 0 100 .375/9.5mm 0 . 100 #4/4.75mm . 0 . 100 #8 2.1 99 - #16 4.3 98 #30 7.9 97 #50 25.9 89 #100 94.1 62 #200 146.6 40.4 PAN WASH 99.41 HYDROMETER oIIIIIrnIIIIl.nmIIIIiIhi1IIllI _________IIIIIIlIIIIiIIllhIlMIIIIllhIIIllhi _______ 11111111111 IIIllhIlIIIOIIII IlI ________I 11111111 oiiiinmiouiu iii o I 11111111 IIIHIHlIIIIIiIl Ullil hum 1111111 IIIIIIIIIIIllhiII UOhi ,uIII IIII11iIIIHIIIIIIIIHII UO! 100 10 1 . 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Shear Strength: = 29.7 ° C = 0.28 ksf Note: Saturated in shear box I Test No. Load (ksf) Water Content (%) Dry Density (p cf) L 1 0.7 16.4 105.5 2 1.4 16.4 106.3 3 2.8 16.4 104.8 DIRECT SHEAR TEST Project Name: Smith Residence Sample Source: Bi @ 2 Project Number: 2993 SD3 Date Tested: 03/14/06 Soil Description: Yellowish Brown Silty Fine Sand 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 NORMAL STRESS (ksf) Notes: I - The soil specimen used is the shear box were ring samples collected during the field investigation. 2- Shear strength calculated at 5% of load. 3 - The tests were ran at a shear rate of 0.03 in/mm. PLATE SH.1 From: Lea Shannon To: Geotek, Inc. Date: 3/17/2006 Time: 11:24:08 AM Page LABORATORY REPORT Telephone (619) 425-1993 Fax 425-7917 Established 1928 CLARKSON LABORATORY AND SUPPLY INC. 350 Trousdale Dr. Chula Vista, Ca. 91910 www.c1arkson1ab.com ANALYTICAL AND CONSULTING CHEMISTS Date: March 17, 2006 Purchase Order Number: 2993SD3 Sales Order Number: 83110 Account Number: GEOT To: * -------------------------------------------------* GeoTek, Inc. 1384 Poinsetta Avenue, Suite A Vista, CA 92083 Attention: David Cliff Laboratory Number: S09891 Customers Phone: 760-599-0509 Fax: 760-599-0593 Sample Designation: * ------------------------------------------------- One soil sample received on 3/16/06 taken from Smith Residence marked as follows: ANALYSIS: Water Soluble Sulfate California Test 417 Sample SO4% E1@0-2 0.015 IN Wzl,'Wa~M-4L Ej7f'jShdnnon rF I I•K7INC. I I Project Name: Project Number: 1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite A, Vista, CA 92083 (760) 599-0509 FAX (760) 599-0593 SOIL RESISTIVITY (California Test 643) Smith Residence Tested! Checked By: 2993 SD3 Date Tested: Sample Source: Sample Description: DC Lab No 2170 3/15/2006 Bi @ 0 -2- Yellowish Brown Silty Fine Sand A Determing the soils pH I:B C D I E F G Measured Res Water Added from Nil. 400 rnU (ohms-cm) I 100 I I 1100 Minimum Resistivity = I 925 I I 18.8 years to perforation for a 18 gauge metal culvert. 24.4 years to perforation for a 16 gauge metal culvert. 30.0 years to perforation for a 14 gauge metal culvert. I 41.3 years to perforation fora 12 gauge metal culvert. 52.5 years to perforation for a 10 gauge metal culvert. 63.8 years to perforation for a 8 gauge metal culvert. READINGS________ DATE TIME READING 2/14/2006 11:20 0.105 2/14/2006 11:30 0.105 2/14/2006 11:31 1 0.105 2/14/2006 11:36 0.107 2/14/2006 1:10 0.109 2/15/2006 8:00 0.121 Initial 10 mm/Dry 1 mm/Wet 5 mm/Wet Random Final FINAL MOISTURE Weight of wet sample & tare Weight of dry sample & tare Tare % Moisture 258.9 228.1 24.3 15.1% 'JEK, INC. EXPANSION INDEX TEST (ASTM D4829) Project Name: Smith Residence Tested/ Checked By: DC Lab No 2170 Project Number: 2993 SD3 Date Tested: 2/14/2006 Sample Source: 131 @0-2- Sample Description: Yellowish Brown Silty Fine Sand I- G H J K Ring Id 12 Ring Dia. ' 4" Ring Ii" Loading weight: 5516. grams DENSITY DETERMINATION A Weight of compacted sample & ring 751.2 B Weight of ring 370 C Net weight of sample 381.2 D Wet Density, lb/ft3 (C*0.3016) 115.0 E Dry Density, lb/ft3 (D/1.F) 104.4 SATURATION DETERMINATION Moisture Content, % (E*F) (E/167.232) (1.-H) (62.4*1) 0 (G/J)= L % Saturation 10.1 1054.7 0.62 0.38 23.4 45.0 EXPANSION INDEX = 14 SATURATION) reCe-!!!J City of Car sbad Building Department CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PAYMENT OF SCHOOL FEES OR OTHER MITIGATION This form must be completed by the City, the applicant, and the appropriate school districts and returned to the City prior to issuing a building permit. The City will not issue any building permit without a completed school fee form. Project Name: Trkl-(+- ic'sdevic.e Building Permit Plan Check Number: Project Address: A.P.N.: Project Applicant (Owner Name): Project Description Building Type: hL13 Mallow &r. C) Vt° Sm -1-A q YY a r rden4-ta.( ?4d-on v/ti. Crrtcj +OP) Residential: Square Feet of Living Area in New Dwelling Second Dwelling Unit: Square Feet of Living Area in SDU Residential Additions: Net Square Feet New Area Commercial/Industrial: Square Ft Floor Area City Certification of Applicant Information: Date: Carlsbad Unified School District San Marcos Unified School District 6225 El Camino Real 215 Mata Way Carlsbad CA 92009 (331-5000) San Marcos, CA 92069 (290-2649) Contact: Nancy Dolce (By Appt. Or Encinitas Union School District San Dieguito Union High School District 101 South Rancho Santa Fe Rd 710 Encinitas Blvd. Encinitas, CA 92024 (944-4300 ext 166) Encinitas, CA 92024 (753-6491) Certification of Applicant/Owners. The person executing this declaration (Owner") certifies under penalty of perjury that (1) the information provided above is correct and true to the best of the Owner's knowledge, and that the Owner will file an amended certification of payment and pay the additional fee if Owner requests an increase in the number of dwelling units or square footage after the building permit is issued or if the initial determination of units or square footage is found to be incorrect, and that (2) the Owner is the owner/developer of the above described project(s), or that the person executing this declaration is authorized to sign on behalf of the Owner. Signature: Date: 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-2700 Revised 4/20/00 Building Counter • (760) 602-2719 • FAX (760) 602-8558 SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL FEE CERTIFICATION (To be completed by the school district(s)) THIS FORM INDICATES THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE SATISFIED. SCHOOL DISTRICT: The undersigned, being duly authorized by the applicable School District, certifies that the developer, builder, or owner has satisfied the obligation for school facilities. This is to certify that the applicant listed on page 1 has paid all amounts or completed other applicable school mitigation determined by the School District. The City may issue building permits for this project. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICIAL TITLE NAME OF SCHOOL DISTRICT DATE PHONE NUMBER cALuLil) C YLEN FREEMAN DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT CARLSBAD UMFED SCHOOL DISTRICT 6225 EL CAMINO REAl. CARLSBAD, CA 920U9 766- &(-5000 Revised 4/20/00