The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1781 BLACKBIRD CiR; ; CB060483; Permit12-18-2006 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Occupancy Group: # Dwelling Units: Bedrooms: Project Title: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Residential Permit Permit No: CB060483 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 1781 BLACKBIRD CR CBAD RESDNTL Sub Type: 2156027300 Lot#: $38,540.00 Construction Type: Reference #: 0 Structure Type: 0 Bathrooms: BATCHELLER RES 286 SF LIV SPAC 152 SF COVERED DECK RAD 0 NEW Status: Applied: Entered By: Plan Approved: Issued: Inspect Area: Orig PC#: Plan Check#: ISSUED 02/22/2006 SB 07/17/2006 07/17/2006 MC Applicant: MONTELLO GEORGE 471560THST SAN DIEGO CA 92115 619229-0642 Owner: BATCHELLER EDWARD J&TINA M J 1781 BLACKBIRD CR CARLSBAD CA 92011 Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Plan Check Discount Strong Motion Fee Park in Lieu Fee Park Fee LFM Fee Bridge Fee Other Bridge Fee BTD #2 Fee BTD #3 Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee HMP Fee Pot. Water Con. Fee Meter Size Add'l Pot. Water Con. Fee Reel. Water Con. Fee $293.03 Meter Size $0.00 Add'l Reel. Water Con. Fee $190.47 Meter Fee $0.00 SDCWA Fee $0.00 CFD Payoff Fee $3.85 PFF (3105540} $0.00 PFF (4305540) $0.00 License Tax (3104193) $0.00 License Tax (4304193) $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee (3105541) $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee (4305541) $0.00 Sidewalk Fee $0.00 PLUMBING TOTAL $0.00 ELECTRICAL TOTAL $0.00 MECHANICAL TOTAL $0.00 Housing Impact Fee $0.00 Housing InLieu Fee $0.00 Housing Credit Fee Master Drainage Fee $0.00 Sewer Fee $0.00 Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $27.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $514.35 Total Fees:$514.35 Total Payments To Date:$514.35 Balance Due:$0.00 IN s; o A T'v" A >"f\ I i /S i,. ; FLANS UAGE 'BED Inspector: FINAL APRROV/ Date: _ PROVALm±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 attach, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which vou have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 FOR OFF PLAN CHECK NO.. EST. VAL. *^-CJ / J Plan Ck. Deposit Validated By /2006 001 15 JJ3 Address (include Bldg/Suite #)Business Name (atthis address) Q Contractor Q Agenifor Contractor Q Owner Q Agent for Owner (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code] or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not mote than five hundred dollars ($5001). Jama State License # Address License Class r\ ^>/?i / City State/Zip .City Business License #-8070 Designer Name State License # Address City Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: Q I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided bv Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. Q I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company _ Policy No. _ Expiration Date _ {THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$100] OR LESS) C^T CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as 'to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars ($ 1QD j6(K», inAddjtiQQto the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees. SIGNATURE ^J^A^^i^ DATE I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason: Q I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). Q I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). Q I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason; 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. Q YES dNO 2. I (have / have 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): 4. 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 / phone number / contractors license number): 5. I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type of work): PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE MHliT6!:fHlS §ECf KJN fOR fffi«rflfiSfl>£tf?»li BUilDiNQffiRMlTS GNfcY H; :i' v J i ' s- f ^ r » i I ; Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley- Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? Q YES £] NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? fj YES Is the facility to be constructed within 1 ,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? Q YES Q 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. NO 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 CitV of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property lot 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 excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION-. Every permit issued by the building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void il 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 such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for &fy$$Q ISO days (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code).»—,/ ffsrn /j/iAPPLICANT'S SIGNATURE WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance Inspection List Permit*: CB060483 Date Inspection Item 12/19/2006 89 Final Combo Type: RESDNTL RAD BATCHELLER RES 286 SF LIV SPAC 152 SF COVERED DECK 12/19/2006 89 11/22/2006 89 11/16/200689 09/13/2006 17 09/12/2006 17 09/08/2006 16 09/08/2006 18 09/05/2006 14 09/05/2006 24 09/05/2006 34 09/05/2006 44 08/22/2006 21 08/22/2006 23 08/22/2006 31 08/08/2006 15 07/28/2006 14 07/19/2006 11 Final Combo Final Combo Final Combo Interior Lath/Drywall Interior Lath/Drywall Insulation Exterior Lath/Drywall Frame/Steel/Bolting/Weldin Rough/Topout Rough Electric Rough/Ducts/Dampers Underground/Under Floor Gas/Test/Repairs Underground/Conduit-Wirin Roof/Reroof Frame/Steel/Bolting/Weldin Ftg/Foundation/Piers 07/18/2006 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers Inspector MC - MC RB MC MC PC PC i MC MC MC MC MC MC fi MC MC i PY MC MC Act FI Rl CO CO AP CO AP AP AP we AP AP AP AP AP AP PA AP CO Comments INCLUDES GAS TO BBQ & FIRE PIT & FP INCLUDES GFI AT BBQ SEE NOTICE ATTACHED SEE NOTICE NO ACCESS, NO CONTRACTOR ON SITE BBQ, FIREPIT & OVER HEAD HEATER CONDUIT & WIRE OK TO DRY IN & LOAD ROOF FLOOR NAILING RECEIVED OBSERVATION REPORT FOR FOUNDATION COMPLETE ALL TRADES Wednesday, December 20, 2006 Page 1 of 1 City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For. 12/19/2006 Permit* CB060483 Title: BATCHELLER RES 286 SF LIV SPAC Description: 152 SF COVERED DECK Type:RESDNTL Sub Type: RAD 1781 BLACKBIRD CR Inspector Assignment: MC Lot Job Address: , Suite: Location: APPLICANT MONTELLO GEORGE Owner: BATCHELLER EDWARD J&TINA M J Remarks: Total Time: Phone: 6197236700 Inspector: Requested By: NICK Entered By: CHRISTINE CD Description 19 Final Structural 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical 49 Final Mechanical Act Comment Pit"* Comments/Notices/Holds Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# Date 11/22/2006 11/16/2006 09/13/2006 09/12/2006 09/08/2006 09/08/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 08/22/2006 08/22/2006 08/22/2006 Inspection History Description 89 Final Combo 89 Final Combo 17 Interior Lath/Drywall 17 Interior Lath/Drywall 16 Insulation 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding 24 Rough/Topout 34 Rough Electric 44 Rough/Ducts/Dampers 21 Underground/Under Floor 23 Gas/Test/Repairs 31 Underground/Conduit-Wiring Act CO CO AP CO AP AP AP we AP AP AP AP AP Insp MC RB MC MC PC PC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC Comments SEE NOTICE ATTACHED SEE NOTICE NO ACCESS, NO CONTRACTOR ON SITE BBQ, FIREPIT & OVER HEAD HEATER CONDUIT & WIRE City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 11/22/2006 Permit* CB060483 Title: BATCHELLER RES 286 SF LIV SPAC Description: 152 SF COVERED DECK 1781 BLACKBIRD CR Lot 0 Type:RESDNTL Sub Type: RAD Job Address: Suite: Location: APPLICANT MONTELLO GEORGE Owner: BATCHELLER EDWARD J&TINA M J Remarks'. Inspector Assignment: MC Phone: 6197236700 Inspector: Total Time: CD Description 19 Final Structural 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical 49 Final Mechanical Requested By: NICK Entered By: CHRISTINE Act Comment Comments/Notices/Holds Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# Inspection History Date 11/16/2006 09/13/2Q06 09/12/2006 09/06/2006 09/08/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 08/22/2006 08/22/2006 08/22/2006 08/08/2006 Description 89 Final Combo 17 Interior Lath/Drywall 17 Interior Lath/Drywall 16 Insulation 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding 24 Rough/Topout 34 Rough Electric 44 Rough/Ducts/Dampers 21 Underground/Under Floor 23 Gas/Test/Repairs 31 Underground/Conduit-Wiring 15 Roof/Reroof Act CO AP CO AP AP AP we AP AP AP AP AP AP Insp RB MC MC PC PC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC Comments SEE NOTICE NO ACCESS, NO CONTRACTOR ON SITE BBQ, FIREPIT & OVER HEAD HEATER CONDUIT & WIRE OK TO DRY IN & LOAD ROOF CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT OTICE LOCATION PERMIT NO. (760) 602-2700 1 635 FARADAY AVENUE TIME. 7- IM ? LJFOR INSPECTION CALL (760) 602-2725. RE-INSPECTION FEE DUE? YfeS H X PHONE \FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT BUILDINQ INSPECTOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 11/16/2006 Permit* CB060483 Title: BATCHELLER RES 286 SF LIV SPAC Description: 152 SF COVERED DECK Inspector Assignment: MC 1781 BLACKBIRD CR Lot 0 Type:RESDNTL Sub Type: RAD Job Address: Suite: Location: APPLICANT MONTELLO GEORGE Owner: BATCHELLER EDWARD J&TINA M J Remarks: Phone: 6197236700 Inspector: Total Time: CD Description 19 Final Structural 29 Final Plumbing 39 Final Electrical 49 Final Mechanical Requested By: NICK Entered By: CHRISTINE Act Comment Comments/Notices/Holds Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# Inspection History Date Description Act Insp Comments 09/13/2006 17 Interior Lath/Drywall 09/12/2006 17 Interior Lath/Drywall 09/08/2006 16 Insulation 09/08/2006 18 Exterior Lath/Drywall 09/05/2006 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding 09/05/2006 24 Rough/Topout 09/05/2006 34 Rough Electric 09/05/2006 44 Rough/Ducts/Dampers 08/22/2006 21 Underground/Under Floor 08/22/2006 23 Gas/Test/Repairs 08/22/2006 31 Underground/Conduit-Wiring 08/08/2006 15 Roof/Reroof 07/28/2006 14 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding AP MC CO MC NO ACCESS, NO CONTRACTOR ON SITE AP PC AP PC AP MC WC MC AP MC AP MC AP MC BBQ, FIREPIT & OVER HEAD HEATER AP MC AP MC CONDUIT & WIRE AP MC OK TO DRY IN & LOAD ROOF PA PY FLOOR NAILING NOTICECITY OF CARLSBAD (760)602-2700 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 FARADAY AVENUE DATE LOCATION / PERMIT NO. L FOR INSPECTION CALL (760) 602-3725. RE^INSPECTIQN FEE DUE? I i YES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT i^TO&i^*^ PHONE BUILDING INSPE#rOft*^T CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 8788 Balboa Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123 Spec/a/ Inspections for Construction Projects DVBE o SB (619) 583.6633 Fax (619) 583.6654 August 21,2006 G-Force Project No. GF11952 Nick Bowman Construction 7040 Ivy Street Carlsbad, CA 92011 RE: Testing and Inspection Batcheller Residence 1781 Blackbird Circle Carlsbad, CA Dear Mr. Bowman, In accordance with your authorization, a representative(s) of "G"-Force performed visual inspections, observations, and testing for the above referenced project. The observations were performed by our inspector Dan Cascino on August 7, 2006. Copies of our inspector's field inspection reports are attached. To the best of our knowledge, the above reported work, unless otherwise noted, is in conformance with the approved plans and specifications, and the applicable workmanship provisions of the governing standards. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (619) 583 - 6633. Respectfully submitted, MG"-Force Thomas Estes City of San Diego #757 ICC #5012806 "GEFORCE DAILY INSPECTION REPORT DSA FILE NO.: N/A DSA APPLICATION NO.: N / A PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: OWNER: ARCHITECT: ENGINEER: CONTRACTOR: SUB CONTRACTOR: PERMIT NO: PLAN FILE NO: JOB NO: GF11952 Batcheller Residence 1781 Blackbird Circle, Carlsbad, CA Batcheller T.M.B. N/A Nick Bowman Construction Top Mark Construction CBOG0483 N/A REPORT NO: 01 WEEK ENDING: 08/13/06 ****************************** TYPE OF INSPECTION Reinforced Concrete -Eooxv Date: Monday, August 7,2006 Hour: Four Hour Minimum Inspector: Materials/Equipment Used: DanCascino ICC #5103641-49 Simpson Set 22 Batch #6076706GG Expiration Date 09/07 A307 AH Threads COMMENTS: Arrived on site. Observed the preparation and installation of three 5/8 inch all threads. PHD2 hold downs at line 4 between I - 2. Holes inspected for diameter, depth, brushed and blown clean per manufacturer's specification ER-S279. Installation per plan detail 3/A-8 and manufacturer's specifications. Paid COD check #450 $300.00 Certificate of Compliance: To the best of my knowledge, the abow reported worK wless omewise noted, is fn confbrmance with, the approved plans and specifications, and the applicable workmanship provisions of the governing standards. _ £1_YES _ NO _gl Inflate DSA Certificate of Compliance: The work summarized above was performed in accordance with the DSA approved documents, unless otherwise noted. The work indicated above was inspected in accordance with the DSA approved documents for the project Inspections were performed in accordance wtth the requirements of the DSA approved documents. _ YES _ NO _ Initials Technician Disclaimer: Services were limited to sampling, testing and other similar services in general accordance with standard procedures. Inspection, if provided, was performed by others. _ „ YES _ NO _ Initials This report does not relieve the contractor of his responabfltty to bufld per the plans, specifications and aR applicable codes. Distribution: Nick Bowman Construction City of Carlsbad T.Y.M. 8788 Balboa Avenue * Son Diego, CA 92123 * 619-583-6633 # Fax 619-563-6654 3536 Coneours Avenue, Suite HO # Ontario. CA 91764 * 9O9-4S1-6833 * Fax 90^483. 4642 wtvw.sjforceca.amt 'City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 07/19/2006 Permit# CB060483 Title: BATCHELLER RES 286 SF LIV SPAC Description: 152 SF COVERED DECK Sub Type: RAD 1781 BLACKBIRD CR Lot 0 Type: RESDNTL Job Address: Suite: Location: APPLICANT MONTELLO GEORGE Owner: BATCHELLER EDWARD J&TINA M J Remarks: Inspector Assignment: NIC Phone: 6197236700 Inspector: 21 Total Time: CD Description 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers Act Comment Requested By: NICK Entered By: CHRISTINE Comments/Notices/Hold Associated PCRs/CVs Original PC# Inspection History Date Description Act Insp Comments GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 17 July 2006 Nick Bowman Construction, Inc. Job No. 06-9245 7040 Ivy Street Carlsbad, CA 92011 Attn: Mr. Nick Bowman Subject: Document Review and Geotechnical Recommendations Batcheller Residence Proposed Additions 1781 Blackbird Circle Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Bowman: As requested, we have reviewed documents pertaining to the proposed project and our project geologist, Mr. Jay Heiser, has visited the property and evaluated the exposed surface soils where the room addition is planned. The reviewed documents include the 16 sheets of project plans, dated May, June, and July 2005, prepared by Thomas B. Morley Designer and Nader Hedjran Civil Engineer, and the text only of the "As Graded Geotechnical Report, Unit A through E, Aviara, Carlsbad, California, Volume I", dated January 18, 1990, by Irvine Consulting Group, Job No. 04-3179- 007-02-10, Log No. 0-1094. We have also reviewed a plan check correction by Esgil, Carlsbad 060483, dated July 10, 2006, where the City of Carlsbad required that a letter from the soils engineer confirm that the foundation plan, grading plan, and specifications were reviewed and that it was determined that the recommendations in the soils report were properly incorporated into the construction document, as required by the soil report in pages 21, 24, 26, etc. 7420 TRADE STREET • SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX; (858) 549-1604 • E-MAIL: geotech@lxpres.com Batcheller Residence Additions Job No. 06-9245 Carlsbad, California Page 2 The reviewed soils report does not include any plans and the location of the different areas discussed in the report could not be discerned. However, after our geologist's visit on July 13, 2006, we can tell that the existing residence addition is located in a cut area including sandstone formational soils. Once foundation excavations are made, we will be able to confirm this assumption. We have reviewed the foundation plans, site plan (no grading plan is included in the project plans), and the specifications in the plans. The plans call for foundation excavations to extend up to 30 inches below the lowest adjacent subgrade. However, it is our opinion that foundation excavations for two-story structures in dense sandstone (with low expansive soils) can be excavated to only 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for proper soil bearing support. The plans also indicate that the footings may range from 18 to 30 inches, as specified in different cross section details. We understand that the structural engineer may revise the 30-inch-deep foundation embedment. The plans indicate that the slab on grade should be 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 steel bars at 18 inches on center each way. The slab should be supported by a 4-inch-thick layer of clean sand including a 10-mil vapor moisture plastic layer. The plans specifications are in general agreement with the soils report by Irvine Consulting Group. We understand that the foundations have been designed for 1,000 psf soil bearing capacity. The soils report indicates that foundations on low expansive soils may be designed for 2,500 psf allowable soil bearing, passive pressure of 350 pcf and friction coefficient of 0.35. Therefore, in our opinion, the proposed addition foundations have been conservatively designed for a very low soil bearing capacity. A note required by the plan reviewer has been incorporated in the plans, as follows: nPrior to the contractor requesting a Building Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that: a) the building pad Batcheller Residence Additions Job No. 06-9245 Carlsbad, California Page 3 was prepared in accordance with the soils report; and b) 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." RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our site observations, review of the project plans, and a report by Irvine Consulting Group, and our experience with similar projects in that area of the County, we recommend the following: 1. We recommend that the area to receive the proposed addition be observed by a representative of our firm after foundation excavations are cleaned of loose soils and prior to placing any forms and steel reinforcing. The same is applicable for areas to receive slabs on grade. If clayey soils are observed in the foundation excavations, the foundation excavations should be deepened as recommended by our firm, and the soils pre-moistened to at least 5 percent over the optimum. 2. Any fill or backfill placed in the room addition area should be properly compacted prior to concrete placement. The fill and/or backfill should be properly compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density, and be placed under the observations and testing by a representative of our firm. 3. The footing should penetrate at least 18 inches into firm ground, and be at least1 12 inches wide unless the foundation excavations are specified differently by the structural engineer due to some structural requirement or if highly expansive soils are encountered. Foundation excavations close to slope tops should be deepened to provide the minimum required setback distance of 7 feet to daylight. Batcheller Residence Additions Carlsbad, California Job No. 06-9245 Page 4 4. We recommend that a representative of our firm provide observations and soil testing during the implementation of our soil related recommendations. LIMITATIONS The findings, opinions, and recommendations presented herein have been made in accordance with current generally accepted principles and practice in the field of geotechnical engineering in the County of San Diego. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 06-9245 will help to expedite a response to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC, SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING GROUNDWATER • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY FIELD REPORT ON OBSERVATION OF FOUNDATIONS CLIENT: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: /?// -/" The footing excavations listed below were bottomed on material for which the bearing values J recommended in the foundation report are applicable. e The cast-in-place drilled friction piles listed below penetrated material for which the allowable supporting capacities recommended in the foundation report are applicable. The piles were excavated to diameters at least as large as specified and the excavations extended at least to the depths indicated on the Foundation Plans. The excavations for the cast-in-place belled piers listed below were bottomed on material for which the bearing values recommended in the foundation report are applicable. The excavations were at least as large as specified on the Foundation Plans. The driven piles listed below were observed to be driven to the specified lengths and/or driving resistances to obtain the supporting capacities recommended in the foundation report. Based upon observations, it is our opinion that the foundation recommendations presented_in the report of the foundation investigation, Job No. @fo*~j'2J/%~. date< applicable to the conditions observed. Foundation Plans dated _ " — "Dl* -" _ were used as a reference for our observations. NOTE: The observations reported above do not constitute an approval of foundation location, footing size or depth, reinforcement, or foundation design. Loose, soft, or disturbed soils TnLTsToe removed prior to placement of reinforcement or concrete. The opinions and recommendations presented in this report were based upon our observa- tions and are presented in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice. We make no other warranty, either ex|^Jie*ss~orNmpli( 7420 Trade St. San Diego, Ca. 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX: (858) 549-1604 M99CS001128M 1/00 EsGil Corporation In (PartnersAip witA government for(BuiCding Safety DATE: July 10, 2006 \RJRIS. JURISDICTION: Carlsbad a^PLAN~REV)EWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 060483 SET: III PROJECT ADDRESS: 1781 Blackbird Circle PROJECT NAME: SFD Add. for the Batcheller Residence The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. XI The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified in the attached list 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 fora 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: XI 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 REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 6/30 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 ^ (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 tion excavations. questing a Building II advise the building official Carlsbad O60483 July 10, 20O6 • The soils engineer recommended that he/she n Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the c( Department foundation inspection, the soils ej in writing that: o The building pad was prepared in accordance with the soils report, o The utility trenches have been propeny backfilled and compacted, and o 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 repor/are properly incorporated into the construction documents (required by the soil report - pages: 21, 24, 26, etc.). EsGil Corporation In (partnersnip witR government for <Bui&fing Safety DATE: June 21, 2006 OAgEUCANT JURISDICTION: Carlsbad CTPCAFTREVIEWER Q FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 060483 SET: II PROJECT ADDRESS: 1781 Blackbird Circle PROJECT NAME: SFD Add. for the Batcheller Residence 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. X] 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. XI The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Terry Montello 4715 60th St., San Diego, CA92115 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: Terry Montello Telephone #: (619) 994-5557 Date contacted:^/3' fob (by^0) Fax #: (619) 229-0642 Mail Telephone Faxy^ In Person REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA D MB n EJ D PC 6/14 tmsm«.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diego, California 92123 + (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 060483 June 21, 2006 RECHECK PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 060483 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1781 Blackbird Circle SET: II DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 6/14 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela DATE RECHECK COMPLETED: June 21, 2006 FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and 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. A. 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. B. 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. C. 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? QYes QNo Carlsbad 06O483 June 21, 20O6 ,1. 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. 3. If special inspection is required, the designer shall complete the attached Special Inspection Notice. The City will resolve this correction. 11. 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. a) According to the City of Carlsbad "Special Code Requirements": all new residential buildings, including additions, require a soils report. An update letter is required if the report is more than 3 years old. If a room addition is less than 1000 sq. ft. in area and only one story, then a soils report is not required. Under this condition, Esgil staff should advise the City (upon final transmittal) to place their "soils notice" stamp on the plans. Carlsbad has ruled that a stand-alone accessory dwelling unit, if under 1000 square feet, may also qualify for this exception. The correction response reads: "SEE REPORT FOR SUB-DIVISION", however, the required report was not provided. Original correction is still applicable. 15. Please show in the calculations how the redundancy was determined, per Section 1630.1.1. The correction response reads: "SEE CALCULATIONS", however, the required calculations were not provided. Original correction is still applicable. 16. In Seismic Zone 4, aspect ratios are limited to 2:1 for wood shear panels. Table 23-ll-G. Please show it on plans for the 3' panel in line 1 at the first floor. The correction response reads: "SEE SHEETS 5 AND 6", however, the required information for the shear wall 2:1 ratio was not shown. Original correction is still applicable. Carlsbad 060483 June 21, 2OO6 ,17. 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. Please show it on plans for the new attic space, over the new proposed addition. 20. Please revise the plans and also the energy calculations to include 286 SF of addition (77 SF on the first floor + 209 SF at the second floor), instead of 154 SF. The correction response reads: "SEE ATTACHED", however, there was no attachment provided to justify this correction. Original correction is still applicable. • All sheets of plans must be signed by the person responsible for their preparation. (California Business and Professions Code). » Structural plans deviating from conventional wood frame construction shall have the structural portions signed and sealed by the California state licensed engineer or architect responsible for their preparation, along with structural calculations.. (California Business and Professions Code). If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Sergio Azuela at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. .Carlsbad 060483 June 21, 20O6 City of Carlsbad ^ ••^^^MIMMB^^^^^HHWi^H^M^^^^^^^MH^^^^MBuilding Department BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION Do Not Remove From Plans Plan Check No. 060483 Job Address or Legal Description 1781 Blackbird Circle Owner Address You are hereby notified that in addition to the inspection of construction provided by the Building Department, an approved Registered Special Inspector is required to provide continuous inspection during the performance of the phases of construction indicated on the reverse side of this sheet. The Registered Special Inspector shall be approved by the City of Carlsbad Building Department prior to the issuance of the building permit. Special Inspectors having a current certification from the City of San Diego, Los Angeles, or ICBO are approved as Special Inspectors for the type of construction for which they are certified. The inspections by a Special Inspector do not change the requirements for inspections by personnel of the City of Carlsbad building department. The inspections by a Special Inspector are in addition to the inspections normally required by the County Building Code. The Special Inspector is not authorized to inspect and approve any work other than that for which he/she is specifically assigned to inspect. The Special Inspector is not authorized to accept alternate materials, structural changes, or any requests for plan changes. The Special Inspector is required to submit written reports to the City of Carlsbad building department of all work that he/she inspected and approved. The final inspection approval will not be given until all Special Inspection reports have been received and approved by the City of Carlsbad building department. Please submit the names of the inspectors who will perform the special inspections on each of the items indicated on the reverse side of this sheet. (over) Carlsbad 060483 June 21, 2006 SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN CHECK NUMBER: OWNER'S NAME: I, as the owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may not employ the special inspector), certify that I, or the architect/engineer of record, will be responsible for employing the special inspector(s) as required by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 1701 .1 for the construction project located at the site listed above. UBC Section 106.3.5. Signed I, as the engineer/architect of record, certify that I have prepared the following special inspection program as required by UBC Section 106.3.5 for the construction project located at the site listed above. Engineer's/Architect'* S*al & Signature Hera Signed 1. List of work requiring special inspection: Q Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection G Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI O Prestressed Concrete G Structural Masonry G Designer Specified O Field Welding Q High Strength Bolting d Expansion/Epoxy Anchors D Sprayed-On Fireproofing Q Other _ 2. Name(s) of individual(s) or firm(s) responsible for the special inspections listed above: A. B. C. 3. Duties of the special inspectors for the work listed above: A. B. C. Special inspectors shall check in with the City and present their credentials for approval prior to beginning work on the job site. EsGil Corporation In (Partnership witH government for (Buihfing Safety DATE; March 7, 2006 JOJkREUANT JURISDICTION: Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: 060483 SET: I PROJECT ADDRESS: 1781 Blackbird Circle PROJECT NAME: SFD Add for the Batcheller Residemce 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. XI 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. XI The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Terry Montello 4715 60ht St., San Diego, CA 92115 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. X Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Terry Montello Telephone #: ((619) 994-5557 Date contacted^-l-0^ (by: K*J Fax #: (619) 229-0642 Mail Telephone ^ Fax ^ In Person REMARKS: By: Sergio Azuela Enclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 2/24 tmsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diego, California 92123 + (858)560-1468 4 Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 060483 March 7, 2006 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 060483 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1781 Blackbird Circle DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: ESGIL CORPORATION: 2/24 March 7, 2006 REVIEWED BY: Sergio Azuela ____ FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and 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. • 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? Q Yes Q No Carlsbad 060483 March 7, 2006 1. 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. Provide a statement on the Title Sheet of the plans stating that this project shall comply with the 2001 editions of the California Building/Plumbing/Mechanical Codes and the 2004 edition of the California Electrical Code, which adopt the 1997 UBC. 2000 PMC. 2000 UPC and the 2002 NEC. a) Please revise the plans to show the correct editions for the CODES shown under the CODE DATA, provided on sheet T-1. 3. 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. 4. Show locations of permanently wired smoke detectors with battery backup: a) Inside each bedroom. Please show the required smoke detectors for all (E) bedrooms on the Floor Plans. b) Centrally located in corridor or area giving access to sleeping rooms. Please show the required smoke detectors for all (E) hallways and areas giving access to (E) bedrooms on the Floor Plans. c) On each story. d) When sleeping rooms are upstairs, at the upper level in close proximity to the stair. e) 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. Carlsbad 060483 March 7, 2006 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. Specify on the plans the following information for the roof materials, per Section 106.3.3: a) Manufacturer's name. b) Product name/number. c) ICBO approval number, or equal. 7. Balconies and decks exposed to the weather and sealed underneath shall be sloped a minimum of % inch per foot for drainage. Section 1402.3. 8. Show the required ventilation for attics (or enclosed rafter spaces formed where ceilings are applied directly to the underside of roof rafters). The minimum vent area is 1/150 of attic area (or 1/300 of attic area if at least 50% of the required vent is at least 3 feet above eave vents or cornice vents). Show area required and area provided. Section 1505.3. 9. . Where eave vents are installed, insulation shall not block the free flow of air. A minimum of 1" of air space shall be provided between the insulation and the roof sheathing. To accommodate the thickness of insulation plus the required 1" clearance, member sizes may have to be increased for rafter-ceiling joists. Section 1505.3. 10. Note on the plans: "Attic ventilation openings shall be covered with corrosion-resistant metal mesh with mesh openings of 1/4-inch in dimension." Section 1505.3. 11. 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. a) According to the City of Carlsbad "Special Code Requirements": all new residential buildings, including additions, require a soils report. An update letter is required if the report is more than 3 years old. If a room addition is less than 1000 sq. ft. in area and only one story, then a soils report is not required. Under this condition, Esgil staff should advise the City (upon final transmittal) to place their "soils notice" stamp on the plans. Carlsbad has ruled that a stand-alone accessory dwelling unit, if under 1000 square feet, may also qualify for this exception. 12. 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. 13. Note on plans that surface water will drain away from building and show drainage pattern. Section 1804.7. 14. Please clarify why? The 25% reduction factor is been used in the design of beam 1. Please note that this is a floor beam and not a roof beam. Additional corrections may follow. Carlsbad 060483 March 7, 2006 15. Please show in the calculations how the redundancy was determined, per Section 1630.1.1. 16. In Seismic Zone 4, aspect ratios are limited to 2:1 for wood shear panels. Table 23-ll-G. Please show it on plans for the 3' panel in line 1 at the first floor. 17. 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. 18. Please show on plans the ridge beam size. Section 106.3.3. 19. The regulations require a properly completed and properly signed Form CF-1R (4 pages) to be either imprinted on the plans, taped to the plans or "sticky backed" on the plans, to allow the building inspector to readily compare the actual construction with the requirements of the approved energy design. Owner signature is missing. 20. Please revise the plans and also the energy calculations to include 286 SF of addition (77 SF on the first floor + 209 SF at the second floor), instead of 154 SF. 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. 86/19/2006 07:35 16192318871 TVTOS B ^tv PfteE „ Cfttttftd 060498 City of Carlsbad n t f t> e- i BttLOXNC DEPARTMENT TOSKCTIOK DoNotRctnov*Frttf»Phmi Plan Check HP. OC04A8 17*1 BtociMtel Circle OlSi You are hereby ooUftod ttua in addition to tbe Incpection of cowrtniction pmvidod by the BulMing Department «J tppraved Regitf«z«d Sp«i»l lospector is required to provide ocntinww* m^>ection during lbeRe«i»unHl Special Jnspador ahMl tec approved by the City of O«W)«1 Building D^tttmeat prior 'to *be iwuanM of Ox«bvttdmgpemriL special tosp«aori havine a ourrtarf certification frwn A* City vfSMi Die^ Loe Aag<4e«, <w ICBO a« «pprove4 feTthDtil>«ofcattstn^^ Th« tn^octtciifi liy » Special Inspector do act cfc«i^tl*i^uiwaw«W tor inspections by p«r«cinBel of 4e Ci^rof CaHsbad tmfldtag dtT«tm«LTi«m8t*cftcn*b>-sSjicci3j ic^pcctor are in Addition to the Laspectionft nona»Uy required by (he CottntvBtiMiBg Code. The Special Inspector it not wtboniged to teipect and approve any -worit otbnr than thtt is specifically assigned to topecl. Th« Spocbl bqpttor i* not ewhorizcd to accept ihcnuttt stn»UiK«t obaBges, cr any requests fcr plan changes. Tlw Special bwpcctw » required to submit written reports to the City of CftH&tad buiWing depAiinwnt of aS work thai he/ato io^ected and apiuovcd. The final impectioc appr6val will not b* pv-m umtl all Sperail Tnspection reports hav« beea received and approved by the City of Carlsbad building departmcot Fleioc submit the naxuea of thtf tnapoctonj who will perronn The specnJ nnp*ctioiw oa «»h «f ttao tarns 06/19/2006 07:35 16192318071 B MORLEY PAGE 02 Cwteb*4 06O483 SPECIAL PLANCHCCKHUMBGII:'6*e5 OWNER'S NAME: f, as th« owner, or^wrtof irw owrw (contracte* may ng| emptoy the special fnspeczor). oertfVttwt f. or the arttttoettengln««r & r&cort, VWB i» responsible for *mptoyinjj th« sp*aa Irapeewt («) as r by uniform Building Code (UBC) S*cHor» 17011 fortte corwtnjctton prefect toettad at the site tfeted •bowe Prior to Fow $tnidtentf Concrete Over 2500I»8J Conerate Fi*WW»fc«ofi High Strength Structural llWMwy DntgnorSpMHiMt 2. N»M<ft) of lr>dKWu«I(33 x B. 0. fipr^wl-On Otter nvponafbto for tho speow* in^xctionc IMml 3. D«l*a of the spccW (rejector* tof#»«wtfctt»t^ above: A. B c. too; Carlsbad O6O483 March 7, 2O06 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 060483 PREPARED BY: Sergio Azuela DATE: March 7, 2006 BUILDING ADDRESS: 1781 Blackbird Circle SFD Add./Batcheller Residence BUILDING OCCUPANCY: R-3 & U-l TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-N BUILDING PORTION Dwelling Add. Patio Add. Deck Add. Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code AREA (Sq.Ft.) 286 152 152 286 cb Valuation Multiplier 121.94 4&64 S^2& M^S By Ordinance Reg. Mod. 9.00 - \5.CO -3#$ tf VALUE ($) o mi 34,875 I2>C?S 'ttftT ^SxSO 2r§28 /-^^\eyf 1,330 — — -4U,43U 35,5^3 $304.15 ———-. i ) J Plan Check Fee by Ordinance Type of Review: 0 Complete Review $197.70 I I Repetitive Fee Repeats D Other Hourly Esgil Plan Review Fee Structural Only Hour* $170.32 Comments: Valuation Multipliers for Patio, Deck and AC were increased 20% for Addition. Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc PLANNING/ENGINEERING APPROVALS PERMIT NUMBER CB V<F3 ADDRESS DATE 7. RESIDENTIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR (<$10,000.00) PLAZA CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES VILLAGE FAIRE OTHER COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING PLANNER ENGINEER DATE DATE DoGs/Misforms/Plannlng Engineering Approvals Plan Check No. Planner Erin Endres PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Address Phone (760) 602-4625 APN: Type of Project & Use:. Zoning:-P^ General Plan: Net Project Density:,DU/AC Facilities Management Zone: CFtMijyout) #_Date of participations H / ^ | Remaining net dev acres: Circle One (For non-residential development: Type of land used created by this permit: ) Legend: ^ Item Complete D Item Incomplete - Needs your action Environmental Review Required: YES NO \ TYPE DATE OF COMPLETION: Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Discretionary Action Required: APPROVAL/RESO. NO. PROJECT NO. YES NO DATE TYPE OTHER RELATED CASES: Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES V NO CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES 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): pS Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed? YES. Nl If NO, complete Coastal Permit Determination Form now. Coastal Permit Determination Log #: n Follow-Up Actions: 1) Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum Floor Plans). 2) Complete Coastal Permit Determination Log as needed. Incluslonary Housing Fee required: YES NO > (Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21,1993.) Data Entry Completed? YES NO (A/P/Ds, Activity Maintenance, enter CB#, toolbar, Screens, Housing Fees, Construct Housing Y/N, Enter Fee, UPDATE!) H:\ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPlnchkRevChklst Rev 9/01 n Site Plan: 1. Provide a fully dimensional site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines, 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). 2. Provide legal description of property and assessor's parcel number. EH Policy 44 - Neighborhood Architectural Design Guidelines 1. Applicability: YES. NO \ 2. Project complies YE Zoning: 1 . Setbacks: Front: Interior Side: Street Side: Rear: Top of slope: 2. Accessory structure Front Interior Side: Street Side: Rear: Structure separation 3. Lot Coverage: 4. Height: S NO f Reauired ^-O Required S~ ' Reauired Reauired |*f" ' Reauired setbacks: Reauired Reauired Reauired Reauired : Reauired Reauired — ^f" D ( I ReauiretP^o wHW Shown -> 2jD Shown ^5 f Shown Shown [&Z sSt Shown ^ Shown Shown Shown Shown Shown i Shown "^ I jfa Shown I i C^ 5- Parking:Spaces Required Shown (breakdown by uses for commercial and industrial projects required) Residential Guest Spaces Required _ Shown OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER H:\ADMIN\COUNTER\BldgPlnchkRevChklst Rev 9/01 ( ^^ Ax? 4, s - //2_X AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT UNITS A THROUGH E AVZARA CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA VOLUHE 1 PREPARED FOR AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD, SUITE 206 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92130 PREPARED BY ICG INCORPORATED 9240 TRADE PLACE, SUITE 100 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92126 JANUARY 18, 1990 JOB NO. 04-3179-007-02-10 LOG NO. 0-1094 SanDtogo County OWe*: 9240 Trade Place, - Suite 100 San Diego, CA 921 26 619/536-1102 lax: 619/536-1306 " Corporate Office; 5 Mason Irvine, CA 92718 714/951-8666 • fax: 714/951-6813 Inland Empire Office: 1906 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 240 "Redlands,CA 92374 714/792-4222 |CG incorporated January IB, 1990 Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership 2011 Palomar Airport Road Suite 206 Carlsbad, California 92130 Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Log No. 0-1094 . Orange County Office: 15 Mason Irvine. CA 92718 714/951-8886 fax: 714/951-7969 Attention: SUBJECT: Gentlemen: Mr. Tony German AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, VOLUME Units A through E Aviara Carlsbad, California This report presents a summary of the as-graded geotechnical conditions for Aviara, Units A through E, based on our observations and testing performed during earthwork construction. The text is presented in the following Volume 1. The As-Graded Geotechnical Maps make up Volume 2. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience. This opportunity to be of continued professional service is sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, ICG INCORPORATED W. Lee vanderhurst President WLV/pb l Rarviro* HnnRtnintlnn InsiWfitinn and Testlna TABLE OF CONTEHTS VOLUME 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Authorization 2 1.2 Scope of Services 2 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING 4 3.1 Delmar Formation (Map symbol Td) 5 3.2 Torrey Sandstone (Map Symbol Tt) 6 3.3 Lindavista Formation (Map Symbol Qlv) 7 3.4 Sweitzer Formation (Map Symbol Qs) 7 3.5 Alluvium/Colluvium (Map Symbol Qal) 8 3.6 Geologic Structure 8 3.7 Surface and Subsurface Water 9 4.0 GRADING OPERATIONS . . . 10 4.1 General 10 4.2 Preparation of Natural Ground 11 4.3 Soil Types 12 4.4 Fill Placement 12 4.5 Disposal of Oversize Material and Debris 13 4.6 Cut/Fill Transitions 14 4.7 Fill Slopes 14 4.8 Cut Slopes 15 4.9 Buttress and Stability Fill Slopes 15 4.10 Natural and Off-site Slopes 16 4.11 Subdrains 16 5.0 GENERAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 17 5.1 General 17 5.2 Slope Stability 17 5.3 Settlement 19 5.4 Surface and Subgrade Drainage 20 5.5 Trench Backfill 21 5.6 Fopt.ing.jg subsequent Grading Operations 6.0 PLANNING AREAS 1 AND 10 22 6.1 Foundation Recommendations 22 6.2 Reactive Soil 24 6.3 Plan.. Review 24 7.0 PLANNING AREA 2 24 7.1 Foundation Recommendations 24 7.2 Reactive Soil 26 7.3 Plan Review 26_ TABLE OP CONTENTS VOLUME 1 (Continued) 8.0 PLANNING AREAS 3 AND 4 27 8.1 Foundation Recommendations 27 8.1.1 General 27 8.1.2 Expansive Soil Conditions 27 8.1.3 Allowable Bearing Pressure for Footings . 28 8.1.4 Lateral Load Resistance 29 8.1.5 Footing Setback 29 8.1.6 Moisture Protection for Slabs 30 8.1.7 Settlement 31 8.2 Earth Retaining Structures 31 8.3 Reactive Soil 32 9.0 PLANNING AREAS 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 16 33 9.1 Foundation Recommendations 33 9.2 Expansive Soil 33 9.3 Reactive Soil 34 9.4 Plan Review 34 10.0 PLANNING AREA 11 35 10.1 Foundation Recommendations 35 10.2 Reactive Soil 36 10.3 Plan Review 36 11.0 PLANNING AREA 13 36 11.1 Foundation Recommendations 37 11.2 Expansive Soil 37 11.3 Reactive Soil 37 11.4 Plan Review 38 12.0 LIMITATIONS 3 ATTACHMENTS Figures 1 Location Hap 2 Foundation and Slab Recommendations 3 Retaining Wall Backdrain Detail Appendices A References B As-Graded Geologic Conditions of Slopes C Settlement Monument Data, Figures C-l to C-5 D Laboratory Test Results, Tables D-l to D-3 Plates (See Volume 21 1 Index Map 2-38 As-Graded Geotechnical Maps 39 Geotechnical Cross Sections AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT UNITS A THROUGH E AVZARA CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA VOLUME 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of our testing and observation services performed during earthwork construction at the subject site from April 20, 1989 through November 15, 1989. Included are recommendations for site development which supersede those provided in our geotechnical investigations. This report does not include grading performed for Alga Road. This report first discusses the general physical character- istics of the site including the pregraded topography and the major geologic units encountered during grading. The grading operations and as-graded conditions are discussed in general terms, and recommendations are then provided. Engineering evaluations of as-graded conditions are provided in Sections 5.0 through 11.0. Recommendations have been grouped and divided into Planning Areas. The attached Geotechnical maps (Plates 2 through 38, Volume 2} show the as-graded conditions and approximate field density test locations of the site. Plate l is an index map for Plates 2 through 38. The maximum density and optimum moisture test results are presented in Table D-l of Appendix D, and field density test results are provided in Table 2 of Appendix E. The grading contractor for this project was Sukut Construction, Inc. General Engineering Contractors of Santa Ana, California. civil Engineering staking services were provided by P and D Technologies. Grading plans for Units A and B were prepared by Crosby, Mead, Benton and Associates. Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 3 Observation and mapping of the geologic conditions exposed during construction in cut slopes, subgrades and keyways. Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained from the field conditions, slope stability, settlement, expansive soils, and sulfate content. Providing updated geotechnical recommendations for site improvements based on the as-graded conditions encountered during grading. Preparation of this report which summarizes our findings, opinions and recommendations. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located along the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon (Figure 1, Location Map) . The site was part of a mostly undeveloped area, with the exception of a residential development along the eastern property boundary and nurseries along the northern property boundary. The site is bounded by the undeveloped Aviara Phase II property on the west and north. Batiquitos Lagoon borders the site on the south. Topographically, the site is characterized by a series of north-south trending ridges and valleys, with drainage to the south into Batiquitos Lagoon. Natural slopes on-site are moderate to steep. The maximum topographic relief across the subject area is approximately 300-feet, with elevations from ADAPTED FROM U.S.Q.8. 7.6* ENCINITA8 QUADRANGLE MAP SCALE IN FEET LOCATION MAP JOB NO.: O4-3179-OO7-O2-10 DATE: JANUARY 1990 FIGURE: Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 4 approximately 10-feet to approximately 310-feet above sea level. Prior to grading, the existing improvements on-site consisted of desilting basins and unpaved segments of Alga Road and Batiquitos Drive from grading last year (San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Incf 1989) A sewer line crosses the site from east to west along the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon, a water easement, two high tension transmission line easements on the eastern and northern portions of the site, numerous unpaved roads, and previously cultivated fields are also present. Grasses, chaparral, oak, sumac, and eucalyptus trees comprised most of the vegetation. The marsh areas along the perimeter of Batiquitos Lagoon support grasses and reeds. 3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING The subject site is situated in the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Province, a California Geomorphic Province. In general, the province consists of rugged mountains underlain by Cenozoic marine and nonmarine sediments. The distribution of the bedrock and surficial units is shown on the Geotechnical Maps, (Plates 2 through 38, Volume 2). Specifically, the site is underlain by two Eocene sedimentary bedrock units, the Delmar Formation and the Torrey Sandstone. The formation names assigned to this site are based on the La Jolla Group stratigraphy (Kennedy, 1975) and determined by a comparison of the lithology of the bedrock materials and the type-section lithologies of the formations. Fossil data collected on the site during grading were also used to confirm Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 5 stratigraphic relationships (Paleoservices, Tom Demere, personal communication, 1990). The Eocene sedimentary units are capped at the higher elevations by the Quaternary age Linda Vista Formation and at lower elevations in Planning Areas 3 and 4 by the Quaternary age sweitzer Formation. Surficial units consisting of alluvium and colluvium mantle the slopes and canyon bottoms. The geologic units are described, in order of decreasing age, in the following paragraphs. 3.1 Delmar Formation (Map Symbol Tdl The Eocene age Delmar Formation was encountered at the lower elevations on the southern portion of the site, generally below elevation 140. The Delmar Formation conformably underlies the Torrey Sandstone, with the contact between the units being gradational to interfingering. For purposes of this report, the Delmar Formation included all sediment with yellow sulfide staining or gypsum. The contact with the overlying Sweitzer Formation at the lower elevations in Planning Areas 3 and 4 is unconformable. The DeIraar Format ion , as observed dur ing grad ing consisted of interbedded claystones and fine grained siltstones and sandstones. In general, the lowest portion of the Delmar Formation is composed of claystone. The claystone is overlain by a variable thickness of sulfate rich mudstone and sandstone. This coarser grained sequence appears to thicken to the west and represents the upper bound of the Delmar Formation. The Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 6 claystone portions are typically green to dark green, fractured, massive and contain gypsum seams. The claystone exposed in Unit C, Planning Areas 3 and 4 was locally sheared, remolded, very moist and was found to have a potential for slope instability in cut slopes. The expansion potential of the claystone was found to be high whereas the sandstone was moderate to low. High sulfate content was found in samples of the Delmar Formation exposed between the claystone and the contact with the Torrey Sandstone (mudstone and sandstone sequence). 3.2 Torrev Sandstone (Man Symbol Ttl The Eocene Torrey Sandstone conformably overlies the Delmar Formation, with the contact between the units being gradational to interfingering. In general, the Torrey Sandstone is found above elevation 140 feet. The contact with the overlying Lindavista Formation is unconformable. The Torrey Sandstone, as observed during grading consists of a light brown to light gray, silty, fine to medium grained sandstone, with occasional cross bedding and channel infilling. From Planning Area 2 toward the western portion of the site, numerous dusky red to olive green siltstone and claystone interbeds and locally cemented sandstone and concretions were exposed. The siltstone and claystone beds are relatively thin, continuous, and comprise a small portion of the sandstone bedrock. cemented sandstone and concretions were Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 7 encountered in the central and western portion of the site (Planning Areas 2 and 13). An olive-gray to light brown claystone bed up to approximately 50-feet thick was exposed during grading operations in Planning Areas 23 and 15. The claystone is interpreted to be a tongue of the Ardath Shale (map symbol Ta) (usually found overlying the Torrey Sandstone) within the Torrey Sandstone. The bedding of the claystone is generally massive with continuous shear zones paralleling bedding. The expansion potential of the Torrey Sandstone is typically low. Where exposed in cut slopes, the siltstone and claystone beds were mapped and analyzed for their effects on slope stability. The locally cemented sandstone zones encountered during excavation in Planning Areas 2 and 13 required heavy ripping and created oversized materials. 3.3 Lindavista Formation (Map Symbol Olvl The Pleistocene age Lindavista Formation unconfonnably caps the higher ridges of Torrey Sandstone, above roughly elevation 285 feet. It consists of a red-brown, fine to coarse grained sandstone with occasional cobbles. The formation is a minor component of the materials encountered during grading. 3-4 Sweitzer Formation (Map Symbol Qal The Pleistocene age Sweitzer Formation unconformably overlies the Eocene sediments at the lower elevations of Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 8 Planning Areas 3 and 4. The Sweitzer Formation consists of light brown silty sandstone with occasional interbeds of dark brown claystone. The sandstone is generally medium to fine grained, locally cemented, and contains gypsum at the contact with the claystone beds. The claystone beds exposed on the cut slopes descending toward the southwest below lots 101 and 102 were mapped and analyzed for slope stability. The sandstone is not expansive whereas the claystone exhibited a high expansion potential. 3.5 Alluvium/Colluvium (Map Symbol Qall Alluvial and colluvial materials consist of a light to dark brown, silty to clayey, fine to medium-grained sand, with some organic component. These materials were located in canyon and slope drainages, with depths varying from 2 to approximately 26 feet in graded areas. The upper 5 to 10 feet of alluvium was found to be unsuitable for support of additional fill or structural loads because of its compressibility. Removals of colluvium and alluvium were made to expose moist, dense alluvium or bedrock materials within the areas affected by grading. 3.6 Geologic Structure The geologic structure at Aviara can be characterized as gently tilted and normally faulted Eocene bedrock unconformably overlain by flat lying Pleistocene sediments. Bedding attitudes taken throughout the site suggest a 3 to 5 degree, west to southwest regional dip. Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 9 Local erosional and cross-stratification surfaces can create steeper bedding. However, in the north-central portion of the site (Planning Areas 13 and 15) bedding is anomalously steeply dipping to the west, suggesting a north-south trending monoclinal structure. This structure is truncated by the Pleistocene unconformity created by the Clairemont marine terrace on which the Pleistocene Lindavista Formation was deposited. Within the subj ect site, faulting was observed in Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 15, and 23. The steeply dipping faults trend north-northeast and show normal separations of less than 20 feet. The location of faulting at the site is shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps (Plates 2 through 38, Volume 2) . Based on field evidence, the faults mapped do not appear to have offset the Lindavista Formation. No evidence of recent fault movement (within 11,000 years) was observed during field mapping. Topsoil, colluvium and alluvium are the only geologic units on- site that are younger than 11,000 years, the time division between active and potentially active faulting. A review of aerial photographs following geologic mapping did not indicate topographic expression typical of active faulting on the faults discovered during grading. 3.7 Surface and Subsurface Water Several instances of subsurface seepage or flow were observed during grading of Planning Areas 4, 9, and 10. Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 10 Drainage systems were installed in Planning Area 4 to facilitate removal of the water. Surface drainage within the site normally flows into storm drain systems and desilting basins. Brow ditches and terraces direct surface water on perimeter slopes to dissipators at the slope toes. 4.0 GRADING OPERATIONS 4.1 General The site grading operations are shown on the 40-scale plans developed by P and D Technologies and Crosby, Mead, Benton and Associates. Copies of these plans serve as a base map for our attached As-Graded Geotechnical Maps, (Plates 2 through 38, Volume 2). Site grading was performed using normal cut and fill mass grading techniques with heavy earth-moving equipment. Site grading began with alluvium removals in canyon areas. once alluvium was completely or partially removed, subdrains were constructed in canyon or removal bottoms. Bedrock cuts were then made with the resulting material generated being placed as compacted fill in the canyons. The mass grading generally progressed from the southeast towards the northwest portions of the site. Excess fill material was generated from cuts made in Planning Areas 2 and 13. The excess fill material was placed in Planning Areas 23 , 24 and in a temporary stockpile in Planning Area 27, Phase 2. The excess fill Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 11 placed in Planning Areas 23 and 24 was observed and tested by ICG Incorporated. The temporary stockpile in Planning Area 27, Aviara Phase 2 was used as an over- sized rock disposal area as well. 4.2 Preparation of Natural Ground The site was cleared of surface obstructions and stripped of vegetation. Except in the golf course areas, topsoil, dry and loose alluvium, existing uncompacted fill, soft soils and highly weathered bedrock were removed to materials which were considered suitable to support proposed fills or structures. Removals of dry and loose alluvium, cdiluvium and topsoil were made to expose moist and dense alluvium or bedrock before fill placement. Prior to placing fill, the exposed subgrade soils were moisture conditioned, scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, and compacted. In general, except as noted below, removals of topsoil, colluvium, and alluvium were not made in the golf course areas. Preparation for fill placement consisted of removal of vegetation and debris, scarification to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, and recompaction. However, in the areas where water features are proposed, and where pipelines are to cross the golf course, remedial grading was performed as discussed for structural fill areas. Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 12 4.3 goil Types The various materials used as fill are tabulated in Table D-l of Appendix D. All fill materials were derived from on-site or immediately adjacent sources. The fills generally consist of sandy clay or silty, fine to medium sand. 4.4 Fill Placement Fill soils were placed in 6 to 8 inch lifts, brought to approximate optimum moisture content and compacted. The equipment used for compaction consisted of self- propelled rubber tired compactors, sheepsfoot compactors, and other heavy earthmoving equipment. The specification for fill compaction in structural fill areas (including water feature areas, pipeline easements in the golf course) was 90 percent of ASTM D1557-78. In the golf course area, except as noted above, the specification was 85 percent of ASTM D1557-78. In-place moisture and density tests were made in accordance with ASTM D1556-82 (Sand Cone Method), and ASTM D2922-81 and D3018-78 (Nuclear Methods). Density test results are tabulated in Table 2 of Appendix E. The locations and elevations indicated for the tests presented on the Geotechnical Maps, are based on field survey stakes, hand level measurements, and estimates from the grading plan topography, and should only be considered rough estimates. The estimated locations and elevations should not be utilized for the purpose of preparing cross sections showing test locations, or in Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 13 any case, for the purpose of after-the-fact evaluating of the sequence of fill placement. Results of the maximum density and optimum moisture content determinations of the various soils encountered are tabulated in Table D-l of Appendix D. 4.5 Disposal of Oversize Material and Debris No oversized material (particles larger than 2 feet in maximum dimension) or debris were placed in structural fill areas. In the golf course, oversized material was placed in the "oversize rock disposal area", and debris was placed in the "stump disposal site". These areas are outlined on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps, Plates 2 through 38. In the "oversize rock disposal area", rocks ranging from 2 to 4 feet in maximum dimension were placed in crude windrows, in a matrix of fine material. Little effort was made to prevent nesting of rocks, and the creation of voids. In some cases, windrows were placed directly on top of each other without an intervening layer of compacted fine grained material. It is our opinion that some voids may be present between nested rocks, creating the potential for settlement due to piping into these voids. The debris placed in the "stump disposal site" consisted primarily of tree stumps (with root-balls, and/or trunks up 4-6 feet in maximum dimension) with minor amounts of other organic debris. The stumps were placed in a random manor with little attempt to prevent nesting and the Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 14 creation of voids. Soil was placed over the area and wheel-rolled and track-walked with heavy earth moving equipment. It is likely that voids, and areas of loose fill raateria are present, creating the potential for settlement. 4.6 Cut/Fill Transitions When transitions or contacts from a cut to fill were located across building pads, the pads were overexcavated 5 feet below finish pad grade in Planning Areas 3, 4, and 14. Transitions were not similarly eliminated on the remainder of the project. Cut/fill contacts shift during grading as a result of topsoil, alluvium and weathered bedrock removals, and the construction of fill keys or buttress/stabilization fills. The approximate as-graded cut/fill contacts are shown on the attached As-Graded Geotechnical Maps. Daylight cut transitions were also not treated. Where the relatively flat cut pad daylights into a natural slope, a variable width band of topsoil or colluvium is left exposed on the pad. 4.7 Fill Slopes Slopes of up to 45 feet high were constructed at a slope ratio of approximately 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Keyways and benches for fills slopes were mapped by our geologist to evaluate adverse geologic conditions which could affect the stability of the slope. Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 15 4.8 Cut Slopes Cut slopes were graded at a slope ratio of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter with a maximum height of approximately 70 feet. Sections of all cut slopes were mapped during grading by our geologist to evaluate any adverse geologic conditions. 4.9 Buttress and Stability Fill Slopes A buttress fill is a fill mass, the configuration of which is designed by engineering calculations to retain slope conditations containing adverse geologic conditions. A buttress fill was constructed in Planning Area 4. The initial cuts in this area exposed remolded, sheared, and wet clay with out-of-slope dipping bedding features that would potentially decrease the slope? s stability. A stability fill is a fill mass, the configuration of which is typically related to slope height, and is specified by the standards of practice for enhancing the stability of locally adverse conditions. Stability fills were constructed on the remainder of Planning Area 4, on the slope adjacent to the SDG&E easement in Planning Area 3, and on the southeast facing slope in Planning Areas 9 and 10. Appendix B contains a physical description of the slopes where either buttress or stability fills were constructed and the geologic conditions present that required remedial grading. Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 16 4.10 Natural and Off-site Slopes Off-site slopes were analyzed where their stability would directly affect the slopes and building pads constructed for this development. Natural slopes exist in Planning Areas 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 15. These slopes are considered grossly stable in their present conditions and are not expected to adversely affect the development. 4.11 Subdrains Subdrains were placed in major canyon drainages after removals were completed, and in buttress and stabilization fill keyways. The drains consisted of open graded crushed rock, approximately 3/4" to 1" diameter, perforated PVC pipe and a geofabric wrap consistent with the recommendations in our referenced geotechnical reports. Approximate subdrain locations are shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical maps (Plates 2 through 38, Volume 2). The subdrains are outletted into existing canyon subdrains nearby storm drain systems or discharged to surface grades. Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 17 5.0 GENERAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 general The recommendations contained in this section (Section 5) apply to all of the planning areas. Recommendations specific to individual planning areas or to groups of planning areas are presented in sections 6 through 11. The as-graded condition (pads or sheet graded) are presented on Table 1. In our opinion, grading and compaction was performed in general accordance with the intent of the recommenda- tions presented in our geotechnical investigations (Appendix A) and with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad. The conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based on our observations and testing performed from April 20, 1989 through November 15, 1989. No representations are made as to the quality and extent of materials not observed. 5.2 glope Stability Fill and cut slopes were constructed as discussed in Sections 4.6 and 4.7, to maximum heights of 45 and 70 feet respectively. All slopes were constructed at slope ratios of approximately 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. Slope stability was evaluated based on our referenced geotechnical investigations, and observations and geologic mapping of conditions exposed during grading. Analysis of selected slope cross-sections was preformed using the STABL5 computer program. The program TABLE 1 Index to Planning Areas Planning Area 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Finish Grade Conditions Golf Sheet Pads Pads Sheet Sheet Sheet (not Sheet Course Graded Graded Graded Graded to plan) Graded Driving Range Sheet Sheet Pads Sheet (not Sheet Sheet Graded Graded Graded to plan) Graded Graded Plate Nos. 4-6, 9-14, 26, 28-30, 32-38 7, 16, 17 18 21, 23 19-21 20, 22, 24 2, 3 4, 5, 7 9 8 20, 27 26, 28-30 31, 37, 38 26, 32, 33 15 Recommendation Sections 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and 6. 7. 8. 8. 9. 9. 9. 9. 6. 10 9. 11 9. 9. 9. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 .0 0 0 0 Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 18 searches for the critical failure surface, and calculates the minimum factor of safety by Spencerfs Method of Slices. The cross-sections analyzed, and the soil properties used in the analyses are shown on the "Geotechnical Cross-Sections" (Plate 39, Volume 2). In general, slopes should be stable with regard to deep- seated and surficial failure with a factor of safety of at least 1.5. Slope analysis was based on our best estimate of the prevailing geologic conditions, groundwater conditions and strength characteristics. It should be realized that site conditions can be complex and variable due to changes in stratigraphy and geologic structure such as faulting. It is possible that conditions can differ from those anticipated in our analysis. During slope analysis, surcharge loads such as retaining walls or fill added to slope tops were not considered. In addition, cuts made at the toe of slopes could decrease slope stability. Any changes to constructed slope heights, slope ratios, or the addition of surcharge loads should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Han-made and natural slopes will weather over time as a result of wetting and drying, biologic forces and gravity. As a result, the outer two to three feet of slope face may undergo minor down-slope creep over the years, while it is not possible to completely eliminate this effect, it can be minimized by establishing deep- rooted vegetation on the slope, maintaining the drainage patterns established during construction, and rodent Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 19 control. We recommend vegetation which is adapted to semi-arid climates, therefore requiring minimal irrigation. We recommend that any hardscape (flatwork, driveways), which are settlement sensitive, be set back at least five feet from the top of the slope. Foundations should be set back as recommended in a later section of this report. 5.3 Settlement In areas where the alluvium was not completely removed to bedrock, settlement monuments were installed to monitor the settlement of the alluvium under the fill loads. Four shallow settlement monuments were installed in the following areas: Lot 230 of Unit D (Planning Area 12), Lot 318 of Unit E (Planning Area 14), Lot 98 of Unit C (Planning Area 5), and Lot 90 of Unit B (Planning Area 16). A deep (approximately 40-feet) settlement monument was installed at the property line between Lots 210 and 211 in Unit C (Planning Area 4). The monuments were situated near the top of large fill slopes or in areas of deeper fill to allow on-going monitoring of areas where the maximum amount of settlement was likely to occur. Monitoring of the settlement indicated a total settlement of the alluvium of up to approximately 10 inches (settlement measurements are generally accurate to within 0.2 inches) . The settlement data is presented on Figures C-l through C-5 in Appendix C. In general, most of the settlement appears to have occurred within l to 2 months of the completion of grading. Provided that no Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 20 additional fill is placed in the area, it is our opinion that no significant additional settlement is likely to occur. Compacted fills normally settle under their own weight by 1/4 percent to 1/2 percent of their original height. This is of greatest concern where structures will cross changes in fill depth of 20 feet or more, resulting in potentially adverse differential settlement. In these areas, we recommend overexcavation of the bedrock, or special foundation design to reduce the risk of differential settlement. 5.4 Surface and Suburade Drainage The performance of foundations is highly dependent upon maintaining adequate surface drainage both during and after construction. The ground surface around structures should be graded so that surface water will be carried quickly away from the lots without ponding. The minimum gradient within five feet of the building will depend upon surface landscaping. In general, we suggest that paved or lawn areas have a minimum gradient of 2 percent, while heavily landscaped areas should have a minimum gradient of 5 percent. Roof drain outlets should discharge at least five feet away from structures, care should be taken not to discharge outlets over utility trench backfill. Planters should be constructed so that moisture is not allowed to seep into the foundation areas or beneath slabs and pavements. Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 21 No groundwater conditions were encountered during grading that might affect the finished pads. The impact of heavy irrigation can artificially raise existing groundwater tables or create perched water tables. This may result in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none existed. The nature of mass earthwork fills often mixes soil of different permeabilities and makes prediction of seepage impossible. Where conditions are predictable (cut slopes) appropriate subdrains have been installed. Attention to surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly reduce the potential for future groundwater problems. However, in the event that seepage or saturated ground does occur, it has been our experience that they are most effectively handled on a case-by-case basis. 5.5 Trench Backfill Trench backfill should be placed by mechanical compaction to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D1557. 5.6 Footing Observation All excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete, to determine that the foundation soils are as anticipated. All excavations should be trimmed neat, level, and square. All loose or sloughed material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. Materials Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 22 from footing excavations should not be spread in slab- on-grade areas unless compacted. 5.7 Subsequent Grading Operations Prior to the commencement of additional grading operations on-site, including backfilling of trenches and retaining walls, the Geotechnical Consultant should be notified at least two working days in advance in order to schedule appropriate observation and testing services as needed. A pregrading meeting should be held prior to commencement of grading operations. 6.0 PLANNING AREAS 1 AMD 10 6.1 Foundation Recommendations Foundation recommendations for the Golf Clubhouse and the Maintenance Shed will be given in the forthcomming report of the geotechnical investigation for these structures. The following recommendations are intended for any proposed structures in Planning area 1 not covered in above report. Because the site conditions may change due to subsequent grading operations, these recommendations are preliminary for use in planning, and are not for final design purposes. Foundation and slab recommendations should be made specifically for each lot and building location by the geotechnical consultant. It should be noted that most fill placed in Planning Area 1 and 10 was not placed in accordance with the standard- of-practice for structural fill. Because Planning Areas Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership January 18, 1990 Job NO. 04-3179-007-02-10 Log No. 0-1094 Page 23 1 and 10 are a gol f course and driving range respectively, the specification for fill in most of these areas was a minimum of 85 percent of ASTM D1557. If, in the future, structures are to be placed in these areas, the fill will need to be removed and recompacted. For nonexpansive soils typical of the site, the following foundation design criteria should be applicable for typical commercial buildings. Allowable Soil Bearing: Minimum Footing width: Minimum Footing Depth: Minimum Reinforcement: Passive Pressure: Friction Coefficient: 2,50O psf (allow a one-third increase for short-term wind or seismic loads) 12 inches 18 inches one no.4 bar at both top and bottom in continuous footings, or design as simply supported beam capable of supporting the applied loads over a span of 5 feet, whichever is greater. An equal amount of steel should be placed at both the top of the stemwall and bottom of the footing. 350 pcf 0.35 Footings located adj acent to utility trenches should extend below a one-to-one plane projected upward from the inside bottom corner of the trench. Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log Mo. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 24 6.2 Reactive Soil Based on sulfate testing in other planning areas, and our experience in this planning area, it is expected that soils with high concentrations of sulfates will be present. In a high sulfate environment, normal Type I cement will be susceptible to deterioration. In areas where the soil has a sulfate content between 1000 ppra and 2000 ppra, the use of Type II cement is recommended. Where the sulfate content exceeds 2000 ppm, the use of Type V cement or reducing the maximum water/cement ratio, and using a pozzolanic or other admixture in the concrete is recommended. 6-3 Plan Review The Geotechnical Consultant should review plans for subsequent grading to see that the as-graded conditions will not adversely affect existing conditions. The review may require additional subsurface exploration. The plans should be reviewed for conformance to the preliminary reports for Aviara, this as-graded report and the requirements of the City of Carlsbad. 7.0 PLANNING AREA 2 7.1 Foundation Recommendations Foundation recommendations for the Four Seasons Hotel and Garden Wings are presented in the report of the geotechnical investigation for those structures (Reference 5). The following recommendations are Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 26 7.2 Reactive SojJ, Laboratory testing of soil samples indicates that in general, the site soils contain low concentrations of sulfates. However, localized areas of soils with high concentrations of sulfates are present. Results of sulfate tests are presented on Table D-3 in Appendix D. In a high sulfate environment, normal Type I cement will be susceptible to rapid deterioration. In areas where the soil has a sulfate content between 1000 ppm and 2000 ppm, the use of Type II cement is recommended. Where the sulfate content exceeds 2000 ppm, the use of Type V cement or reducing the maximum water/cement ratio, and using a pozzolanic or other admixture in the concrete is recommended. Additional sulfate testing should be in the individual investigations for each lot or structure, 7.3 Plan Review The Geotechnical Consultant should review plans for subsequent grading to see that the as-graded conditions will not adversely affect existing conditions. The review may require additional subsurface exploration. The plans should be reviewed for conformanee to the preliminary reports for Aviara, this as-graded report and the requirements of the City of Carlsbad. Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership January 18, 1990 Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Log No. 0-1094 Page 25 intended for any proposed structures in Planning area 2 not covered in Reference 5. These recommendations are preliminary and are not for final design purposes. Foundation and slab recommendations should be made specifically for each lot and building location by the soils engineer. For nonexpansive soils typical of the site, the following foundation design criteria should be applicable for typical commercial buildings. Allowable Soil Bearing! Minimum Footing Width: Minimum Footing Depth: Minimum Reinforcement: Passive Pressure: Friction Coefficient: 2,500 psf (allow a one-third increase for short-term wind or seismic loads) 12 inches 18 inches one no.4 bar at both top and bottom in continuous footings, or design as simply supported beam capable of supporting the applied loads over a span of 5 feet, whichever is greater. An equal amount of steel should be placed at both the top of the stemwall and bottom of the footing. 350 pcf 0.35 Footings located adjacent to utility trenches should extend below a one-to-one plane projected upward from the inside bottom corner of the trench. Aviara Land Associates Job No. 04-3179-007-02-10 Limited Partnership Log No. 0-1094 January 18, 1990 Page 27 8.0 PLANNING AREAS 3 AND 4 8.1 Foundation Recommendations 8.1.1 General The following recommendations are based upon the as-built geotechnical conditions observed during earthwork operations and should supersede those contained in our preliminary reports (Appendix A, references l and 4). Our recommendations are considered to be generally consistent with the standards of practice. They are based on both analytical methods and empirical methods derived from experience with similar geotechnical conditions. Reinforcement recommendations are considered the minimum necessary for the likely soil conditions and are not intended to supersede the design of the structural engineer or criteria of governing agencies. 8.1.2 Expansive Soil Conditions Foundations, slabs and moisture conditioning of slab subgrade are provided in the following Figure 2. The purpose of moisture conditioning the slab subgrade is to pre-expand the soil so that expansion after construction is less likely. These recommendations should be used for lots with the expansion potentials shown TYPICAL FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS (ONE AND TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS) EXPANSION INDEX 0-20 VERT LOU EXPANSION EXPANSION INDEX 21-50 LOW EXPANSION EXPANSION INDEX 51-90 MEDIIM EXPANSION EXPANSION INDEX 91-130 HIM EXPANSION 1-STORY ALL FOOTINGS 12 INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. 4 BAR TOP WO BOTTOM IN CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS. ALL FOOTIII6S 12 INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. 4 BAR TOP AW BOTTOM IN CONTINUOUS FOOTIWS EXTERIOR FOOTINGS 18 INCHES DEEP. INTERIOR FOOTINGS 12 INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. « BAR TOP AND BOTTOM IN CONTINUOUSFoorims. EXTERIOR FOOTINGS 24 INCHES DEEP. INTERIOR FOOTINGS 12 INCHES DEEP. 2-NO. 4 BARS TOP AW BOTTOM IN CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS. Z-STORlf ALL FOOTINGS 18 INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. 4 BAR TOP AND MITCH IN CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS. ALL FOOTINGS IB LKHES DEEP. I •«• 4 BAR TOP AND BOTTOM » CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS. ALL FOOTINGS 18 INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. 4 BAR TOP AND BOTTOK IN CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS. EXTERIOR FOOTDHB 24 INCHES DEEP. INTERIOR FOOTINGS 18 INCHES DEEP. 2-NO. 4 BARS TOP AND BOTTOM IN CONTUIIOUS FOOTINGS. GARAGE 000ft GRADEBEAN 12 INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. 4 BAR TOP MO BOTTOH. 12 INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. 4 BAR TOP ANOeOTTOM. 18 INCHES DEEP. 1-NO. 4 BAR TOP AHO BOTTOM. 24 INCHES DEEP. 2-NO. 4 BARS TOP AW BOTTOM. UVMG AREA FLOOR SLABS 4 INCHES THICK. NOMINAL. NO MESH REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION FORCES. 4-INCHES THICK. NOMINAL 6Xf-HI.4 X HI.4 IMF AT MID-HEIGHT. *-INCHES THICK, NOMINAL. 6X6-N1.4 X VI.4 WF AT MIO-HEIGKT. 4 INCHES THICK. ACTUAL 6X6-N2.4 X W.4 IMF AT HIO-MEIGHT. NO. 3 DOWELS FROM FOOTING TO SLAB AT 36 INCHES ON CENTER. OARAGE FLOOT SLABS 4 INCHES THICK. NOMINAL HO MESH REWIRED FOR EXPANSION FORCES. 4 INCHES THICK. KM I ML WMI1.4 IW.«MHF. ISOLATE FROM FOOTING STEM HALL. 4 INCHES THICK. NOMINALfeXV*t.« I UI.4 WF. ISOLATE FROM FOOTING STffl WALL. 4 INCHES THICK. ACTUAL6KMB.4 1 W.4 WF. ISOLATE FROM FOOTINGSTENKALL. PRE-SOAKIN6 OF LIVING AREA AND GAUGE SLABS NOT REQUIRED, MOISTEN PRIOR TO POUR1N8 CONCRETE. SOAK TO 12 INCHES DEPTH TO 4X ABOVE OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT. SOAK TO 18 INCHES DEPTH TO SI ABOVE OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT. SOAK TO 24 INCHES DEPTH TO SI ABODE OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT. NOTES: I) ALL DEPTHS ARC RELATIVE TO LOWEST ADJACENT SOIL. 2) SPECIAL DESIGN IS REQUIRED FOR VERT HI6HL) EXPANSIVE SOILS (E.I. GREATER THAN 130). 3) THESE ARE TYPICAL MINIMUM RECOMMENDATIONS. LOCAL CONDITIONS MM DICTATE OTHER CONTROLLINGSSCOMMEMOAIIOKS. REFER TO BOOT OF REPORT FOR SITE SPECIFIC ftECONHENDATIONS. 4) THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BASED ON SOIL CONDITIONS AW SHOULD MOT BE CONSIDERED A STRUCTURAL DESIGN. FOUNDATION AND SLAB DETAIL (NOT TO SCALE) WELDED WIRE FABRIC SLAB SUBGRADE QQUEl HOOK TO LOWER REINFORCING BARS 1 1/2 INCH SAND LAYERMOISTURE BARRIER (10 MIL MINIMUM) CWU.URY BREAK; * IMCHES OF -3/8"GRAVEL. OR HASHED COARSE SAND REINFORCING BAR(S) (AS REQUIRED) INTERIOR FOOTING •EXTERIOR FOOTING 12/87 FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS (JOB NO.:04-3179-OO7-O2-1 o|DATE:JANUARY 1990 FIGURE: