HomeMy WebLinkAbout2422 BADAJOZ PL; B; CB930104; PermitBUILDING PERMIT Permit No: CB930104
04/07/93 os: 49 Project No: A9300140
Page 1 of 1 Development No:
Job Address: 2422 BADAJOZ PL Suite :
Parcel No: 216-190-50-01 Lot#:
Construction Type: NEW
Occupancy Group: Reference#: Status: ISSUED
Description: 138 SF WITH CALCS Applied: 01/26/93
Apr/Issue: 04/07/93
Permit Type: RETAINING WALL 1795 04/07/93 0001 01 02
Valuation: 1,802 c-mw 44 moo
Entered Ry: DC
Appl/Ownr : SHORELINE GENERAL CONTRACTOR 619 491-9282
, .u0
28.00
44.00
Ext fee Data .----------------
43.00
28.00
1.00
72, 00
INS
CLEA
CcfYoF~ #n5 Lep W Dr., clrlsbd, CA 92009 (619) 438-1161
PERMIT AppLIcAnON
City of Carlsbad Buildim Department 207'5 Las Palms Dr., Carlsbed, CA g2009 (619) 438-1161
A - U Commercml U New Building U Tenant Improvement
B - 0 Industrial 0 New Building 0 Tenant Improvement
C - 0 Residential 0 Apartment 0 Condo 0 Single Family Dwelling 0 Addition/Alteration
0 Duplex 0 Demolition 0 Relocation 0 Mobile Home 0 Electrical 0 Plumbing
0 Mechanical OPool 0 Spa metaining Wall 0 Solar OOther
2 PR~INpoRMAnoN
~~
Em. VAL
PIANCKDEPOSIT
VAUD. By we- ,_
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Nearest 6- Street La
LEGAL Dm Lot No. Subdiwsion NamdNumber Unit No. Phase No.
0 2 Energy Calcs Structural Calcs &2 Soils Report 0 1 Addressed Envelope
-OM l2~~~~~eN w:* -?%yf?JdA
# OF SToRlES
(it airrerent from applicant)
sQ.FT. /3f
NAME ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP CODE DAY TELEPHONE UtmmmCmR
NAMEpAi)L.e$kWU
-_ --
STATE c G zip CODE C)I q+-z DAY nmwoNE 5%3-& =ATE uc. x z 'I ZLF
Workers' Compensation Declaration: 1 hereby attirm that I have a cemticate of consent to selt-insure issued by the Director ot Industnal Relations, or a certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance by an admitted insurer, or an exact copy or duplicate thereof certified by the Director of the insurer thereof filed with the Building Inspection Department (Section 3800, Lab. C).
INSURANCE COMPANY &&#& e mum No. U~\UC 16°3mm0N DATE \ /z& 7 Ceruticate ot Exemptlon: 1 ceruty that in me pertormance ot the work tor which this permit 1s mud, 1 shall not employany person in any manner
so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California.
SIGNATURE DATE
Owner-Builder Declaratlon: 1 hereby attirm that I am exempt trom the Contractor's License Law tor the following reason:
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.).
I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and FVofessions 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 contiactor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law).
I am exempt under Section
(Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish, or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (Chapter 9, commencing with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjecu the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$500]).
0
0
0 Business and Professions Code for this reason:
SIGNATllRJI DATE
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?
Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution connol district or air quality management district?
Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site?
IP ANYOF THE ANSWERS AREYES. A FINALCERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED AFIWJULY 1,1989 UNLPSS THE"T HAS WOR 1s WG THE REQ- OFTHE OFFICE OF EMERCENCY SERm AND THE AIRpoILuTKlN OONlROL~.
1 hereby attirm that there is a construction lending agency tor the pertormance ot the work tor which this permit is lssued [Set 309 mim~ code).
0 YES 0 NO
0 YES 0 NO
OYES 0 NO
LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS
1 certity that I have read the application and state that the above intormation is correct. 1 agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. IALSOM;REETOSAVEIWDEMNIFYANDKEEP~THE<TIYOFCARISBADAGAIN~AU.~,JUDGMEHIS,ODSIS ANDEXPENSESWHICH MAY IN ANYWAY ACCRUEAGAIN!XSAID<TIYINCONSIQUENCEOFTHEGRA"G OFTHIS m.
OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height.
Expiration. Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 365 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE/
ime after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days (Section 303(d) Uniformpuilding Code).
'J WHITE: Flle YELLOW: Applicant PINK FllliLnCe
' -_
0 4 ,
V- CITY OF CARLSBAD
INSPECTION REQUEST
PERMIT# CB930104 FOR 06/14/93 INSPECTOR AREA PY
DESCRIPTION: 138 SF WITH CALCS PLANCK# CB930104
TYPE: RETAIN CONSTR. TYPE NEW
JOB ADDRESS: 2422 BADAJOZ PL STE: LOT:
APPLICANT: SHORELINE GENERAL CONTRACTOR PHONE: 619 491-9282
CONTRACTOR: PHONE :
OWNER: PHONE :
OCC GRP
REMARKS: RS
SPECIAL INSTRUCT: m INSPECTOR
TOTAL TIME:
--RELATED PERMITS-. PERMIT$ TYPE STATUS
PE293005 GRADING ISSUED
CD LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS
31 EL Underground/Conduit-Wiring @- -- g-w-4- AP -
***** INSPECTION HISTORY *****
DATE DESCRIPTION ACT INSP COMMENTS
061093 Frame/Steel/Bolting/Welding AP PY NEED GFI
052793 Ftg/Foundation/Piers AP PY OR TO POUR SLAB
051493 Steel/Bond Beam AP PY ND PLANS/REV FOR DECK
050693 Ftg/Foundation/Piers AP PY ND SPEC INSP ACCODING TO PLAN
Job NO: 01073601
Job Name: KIESCHNICK RESIDENCE CITY OF CARLSBAD Address : 2422 BADAJOZ PLACE "B" BLDG. INSPECTION DEPT. LA COSTA, CA 00000 2075 LA8 PALMAS DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
Plan Number: Permit: CB930104 Application:
Report No: 115261
Date: June 28, 1993
ENGINEER: 9. FRANKUM RCE CA37766
MASOWRY PRISM COMPRBSSIO8
Job Name: Kieschnick Residence
Location in Structure: Retaining wall at rear of structure top of footing to 3'4"
Date of Fabrication: 5-17-93 Design PSI: 1500
Grout Mix Design: 6658 Mortar Design:
PRISM a AGE (DAYS) DIMENSIONS AREA LOAD (LBS) COMPRESSIVE
( INCHES ) (SO. INCJiJ3S) STRENGTH (PSI)
02042 28 7.66x7.63 58.45 100500 1720
02043 28 7 - 58~7.65 57 f 99 111000 1910
02044 28 7 -69~7.66 58.91 100500 1710
COMPLIANCE: AVERAGE OF FIVE 28 DAY TESTS COMPLIES WITH SPECIFICATIONS
Distributed To:
SHORELINES GENERAL CONTR
CITY OF CARLSBAD CH&A CORPORATION
CH&A @ CORPORATION 3467 Kurtz Street, San Diego, CA 921 10 (61 9) 225-9641 \
Job No: 01073601 Job Name: KIESCHNICK RESIDENCE Address : 2422 BADAJOZ PLACE "B" LA COSTA, CA 00000
CITY OF CARLSBAD BLDG. INSPECTION DEPT. 2015 LAS PALMS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009
Distributed To:
SHOWLINES GENERAL CONTR CITY OF CARLSBAD CH&A CORPORATION
Plan Number: Permit: CB930104 Application:
Report No: 115267 Date: June 28, 1993 ENGINEER: 5. FRANKUM RCE CA37766
MASONRY GROUT COMPRESSION TEST REPORT
JOB NAHE: Kieschnick Residence
LOCATION IN STRUCTURE: Retaining wall at rear of structure top of footing to 3'4"
CAST DATE: 5-17-93 DESIGN PSI: 2000 MIX DESIGN: 66513
TIME OF DAY: 9:30 LOAD #: 1 PLANT CODE: 30
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, PSI SAMPLE AGE @ DIWERSIONS, AREA, LOAD, TEST INCHES SQ. INCHES LBS . . . .. . x . .. .
02038 7 3.06X3.00 9.18 22250 2420 02039 28 3.02~3.08 9.30 31590 3400 02040 28 3.04X3.15 9.58 30920 3230
COMPLIANCE: AVERAGE OF TWO 28 DAY TESTS COMPLIES WITH SPECIFICATIONS
Job No: 01073601
Job Ware: KIESCHNICK RESIDENCE CITY OF CARLEIBAD Addresf4 : 2422 BADhJOZ PLACE "B" BLDO. 1ILI;WCTION DEFT.
LA COSTA, CA 00000 2075 LAS PAMA8 DRIVE
CARLBBAQ, WL 92009
DidttibUtecl TO :
SIIORBILINBB GENERAL WNTR
CITY OF CARL83AD
CH&A WEIWRATION
Plan Number: Ferkitr CB 93-104 Application:
Report Wo: 117x2 Datet mcty 29, 1993
EWGINEER: 8. FRAWRIJH RCE CA37766
LoultIoll OF WORK -: Inspected the grQUting of masonry retaining wall in rear of exi6ting structure from top of footing to 3'4". Obtained
grout samples €or test.
-: shorelines General
BwpEtBB: Eseondido Ready Kix
MIX DXSIGII "lR: 665P DESXGU STEEHGFf#: 2000 psi
CWIC rmm -: 6.0 PrAaxmRwBRIEB): pump
I-: Joe Blakely
JOB HOURS: 4.0
iRlH3RIt: 266
srm X'IXE: 9:oo STOF TIHE: 11:30
Job No: 01073601
Job N-: KIE8CHNICX RESIDENCE CITY OF CARLSBhD
Address : 2422 BADAJOZ PLACE "B*' BLDG. IlSPECTION DEPT.
LA COSTA, CA 00000 2075 LAS PALUAB DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
DistriLnrted To:
SIIORELIWES GEHEIWL CONTR
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CH&A CORWBATION
Plan Nuabet: Permit: 93-104 CB Application:
Report No: -39 Date: Nay 29, 1993
EWGINEER: 8. FRANKUH RCE a37766
BIL'ZE OB IHSPXCTION: 05/13/93
Ilxa'lIolT OF IISPECIBID: Inspected the lay-up of loeednry retaining wall at rear of existing structure ae per detail 112 of plans from top of footing to 3'4". Obtained laortar saap1e~;s for test.
a"R&CTOR: Shorelines General
DESIoIl STRE": 1500 psi
lloIyluR 'I1IpB/sl!lu3E6ni: s
Placmlemt X
Reinforcing Steel X
Mortar Proportions X
THE WmK DEscareED ABOVE UAB PERmRMm fl ACuJRDMa UIZH MB PIWlM PLMB AQ, sPEcIPIcA?I~.
ImSPECRXl: Joe Blakely
Jf3B KIIRF): 5.0
HII(BER: 286
SYm Tm: 7:OO SmP TI=: 12:oo
Job No: 01073601 Job Name: KIESCHNICK RESIDENCE CITY OF CARLSBM Address : 2422 BADAJOZ PLACE “B” BLDG. INSPECTION DEFT. LA COSTA, CA 00000 2075 LAS PALHAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009
Distributed TO:
SHORELINES GENERAL CONTR CITY OF CARLSBAD CHdA CORPORATION
Plan Number: Permit: CB930104 Application:
Report No: 114999 Date: June 28, 1993 ENGINEER: S. FRANKUM RCE CA37766
MASONRY MORTAR COWPRESSION TEST REPORT
JOB NAHE: Kieschnick Residence
LOCATION IN STRUCTURE: Retaining wall at mar of existing structure
CAST DATE: 5-13-93
DESIGN PSI: 1800
NIX DESIGN: Type S
. .. .
02002 28 3.14 7250 2310
COMPLIANCE: AVERAGE OF TWO 28 DAY TESTS COHPLIES WITH SPECIFICATIONS
CH&A CORPORATION
(800) 998-9588
c MIX DESIGN NUMBER
FIELD INSPECTON REPORT
(Concrete / Masonry)
DESIGN STRENGTH
Date
0 PRESTRESS CONCRETE 0 REINFORCED CONCRETE REINFORCED MASONRY 0 REWORK
Location of Work Inspected
Qd#K ,Yrnh/e, I WELDER NAME &,hd m CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK
I r$7 /5 00 P.S.I. c
CUBIC YARDS PLACED I PLACEMENT MbTHOD
I I I
BYES 0 NO To the best of my knowledge, work inspected was in accordance with the building department approved design drawings, specifications and applicable workmanship provisions of the U.B.C. except as noted above.
See DNR Number Dated
1.
THIS REPORT DOES NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO BUILD
PER THE PLANS, SP#iCIFICATIONS AND ALL APPLICABLE CODES
# 1009 (Z93) WHITE - CH&A Company CANARY - Contractor PINK - Building Official G'ROD - Responsible Engineer
ATION OBSERVATION REPORT
JOB NAME: FILE NO.: 0 y86/-01 -0 z,
PERMIT NO.:
LOCATION:: DATE: 9-27-73
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATION REQUIRED PLAN FILE NO.:
FOUNDATION LOCATION (if not entire building)
0 PURPOSE OF OBSERVATION: E&
0
Other:
Verify soil conditions exposed are similar to those anticipated. Verify footing excavations extend to minimum depth recommended in soil report.
Verify foundation reinforcement complies with minimum recommended in soil report. Verify slab reinforcement, sand bedding and moisture barrier comply with minimum recommended in soil report.
4 -
0 APPLICABLE SOIL REPORT mZE:6€n&h icAc C hlcl u tEcpIM IU Qd e a 2q22 -$ 6MrnOZ PLPCCC. \ DATE: (,-7-cfc
0 Expansion Condition; VERY LOW LOW OMEDIUM O~HIGH - -*-Y ,- 0 VERY HIGH
0 SOIL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON.
a of, 7 io 0 4 f3 cc i xi Fill Geometry Wf'L - .. . Other: - .
Footing Depth: 0 12 INCHES 0 18 INCHES 0 24 INWES OTHER: DsftAtb 73 7"J" Footing Reinforcement: 0 NO. 4 T&B 0 2-N0.4 T&B 0 NOS T&B OTHER
Slab Bedding Material and Thickness:
Foundation Width:
If yes, identify and describe:
r 0 MINIMUM FOUmATION' RECOMMENDATION:
QWGl WT. !
I Interior Slab Reinforcement: 0 6x6-10/10 0 6x66/6 0 NO. 3 @ 24 INCHES Cl NO. 3 @ 18 INCHES
Vapor Barrier:
d
.I 0 FOUNDATION PLAN ,REVIEWED: YES NO9
0 COMMENTS:
/
NOTE: IT IS ASSUMED THAT ALL FOOTING EXCAVATIONS WILL BE CLEANED OF LOOSE MATERIAL PFUOI
PLACING CONCRETE AND THAT THE SOIL MOI!XURE C0"ENT WILL BE MAINTAINED.
rc\wppb\dralt\fdnobrpt.frm (2/27/91) ...
ESGIL CORPORATION
0320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUlTE 208
SAN DIEGO, CA 02 123
(619) 5-14-68
DATZ : arch - Lp L 43
JURISDICTION: LIZ 03 CwISsbJ
PLAN CHECK NO: LSct.3 c In* SET: EUPS n DZSIGNER
0
0
0
m
0
a
r rhe 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 ininor deficien- - cies identified e.! &a are resolved and checked by building department staff.
The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck.
The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to return to the applicant contact person.
The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to:
Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that plan check has been completed,
Esgil staff - did advise applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted:
\. Date contacted: Telephone #
By: n\t 3&&L Enclosures: *&
CIGA 0 CM
ESGIL CORPORATION
31
GEOCON
1 N CO R P OR AT E D
Geotechnical Engineers and Engineering Geologists
Project No. 04861-01-02 January 18,1993
Melvin and Jane Kieschnick 35 Deerfieid Avenue Eastchester, New York 10707
Subject: 2422-B BADAJOZ PLACE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RETAINING WALL PLAN REVIEW
Dear Dr. and Mrs. Kieschnick:
In accordance with your request we have reviewed a schematic drawing of the proposed
retaining wall behind the subject residence. The drawing was sent by facsimile to our office
on January 11,1993 by Mr. Rick Reese, with Structural Design Consultant, In addition, we
have reviewed our report entitled GeotedvticaI Engineering Investigation for 2422-B Wjoz
Phce, catlsbaci, Calfomia, dated June 2,1992 and discussed the wall construction with Mr.
Lloyd Palmaymesa, with Shoreline General Contractors.
It is understood that the wall construction will consist of excavating the existing fill soil
behind the existing railroad tie retaining wall to create a backcut at an approximate
inclination of 1 to 1. The 4-foot-high backcut will extend from the base of the Walt to the
concrete patio located adjacent to the residence. A visqueen moisture barrier will be placed
on the backcut surface to reduce the potential for saturation of the soil in the event of a
rainstorm. After the existing wall has been removed, an l&inch-wide, 10-foot-deep trench
will then be excavated for the foundation of the new waU An &inch masonry wall will then
be construded to a height of approximately 4 feet. Bafl behind the wall will consist
of 3/4-inch washed graveL A six-inch, steel reinforced patio slab, underlain by 2 inches of
clean sand will then be constructed on the ground surface and extend to the top of the wall.
It is our opinion that the following recommendations should be incorporated into the wall
design and construction plan:
1. The second st badcat.
1*
should be tempor* P*.tCr be@Xhg the
- :r
6960 Flanders Drive San Diego, CA 92121-2974 619 558-6900 FAX 619 5586159
Project No. 04861-01-02
January 18,1993 Page 2
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
In accordance with Paragraph No. 15 of the referenced geotechnical report, an
isolated spread footing should be constructed beneath the existing balcony support
pst, if one does not currently dt. The footing should be a minimum of 24 inches
square and extend a least 24 inches below the lowest adjacent pad grade.
The backcut should be obsewed by a representative of Geocon Incorporated prior
to the eJrcavation of the wall foundation trench.
Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to observe the bottom of the foundation
excavation prior to the placement of steel and concrete.
Filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent, should be placed along the backcut prior to placing the gravel backfill. The fabric should then be wrapped over the gravel prior to placing the Zinch sand layer.
The referenced geotechnical report recommended removing and recompacting 3 feet
of the existing fill soils between the concrete patio and the retaining wall. The
majority of this soil will be removed during the proposed backcut. The recommenda-
tion to remove and recompact the remaining soil above a depth of 3 feet will be
reevaluated during the backcut and wall construction based on observed conditions.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further Service, please
contact the undersigned at your convenience.
M@ Steven J. Greenfield
Senior Staff Engineer
SJGSELslc
Attention: Mr. Rick Reese
(1) Shoreline General Contractors Incorporated
Attention: Mr. Lloyd Palmaymesa
,1
m
J Y ESGIL CORPOMTION
9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208
SAN DIEGO, CA 92 123
(619) 56Cb14643
CANT DATE : GL 3 c 93
JURISDICTION: CL a Gd\Sbab
PLAN CHECK NO: ccs c\3 - 104 SET: LZ> sups
PROJECT ADDRESS: d4aA -b X5A.>bZ 'r'trccc.
PROJECT NAYE: t4eT*4,4 ,ad
GFIL" c COPY
DDESIGNER
3
0
0
0
m
0
E
The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes.
The glans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficien- cies identified are resolved and checked by building department staff.
The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. %eL&\~,~
The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to return to the applicant contact person.
The applicant's COPY of the check list has been sent to:
Hi[ ha - &TL3&C 23 aJLn,Ak =Lam4
Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that ' plan check has been completed.
0 Esgil staff - did advise applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted:
Date contacted:
wo : 7WdL 0 \cxr
By: QL 5Aat-L Enclosures:
+.a ESGIL CORPORATION
DGA 0 CM
DatcA\s!43
Prepared byt
SUILDING PORTION BUILDING AFZEA
I tcL, %\&
Jurisdiction c Ar \sbbrd
VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE
VA LU A TI ON MU LT I PLI ER VALUE
7 r I t??a / 1344 /*
0 Bldg. Dept.
D/Esgil
Air Conditioning Conmercial .
Residential
Fire SDrinklers
Total Value
Res. or Cam.
-
PLAN CHECK NO C6 43- b 4
c
@
@ I t,l? ol
BUILDING ADDRESS a4 Ax - B RLbcdaSu'L 'P\&L
APPLTCANT/CONTACT t41b AT3& PHONE NO. 45'? -87 I!
BUILDING OCCUPANCY -F* I I yl-r DESIGNER PHONE -
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 3- AI CONTRACTOR PHONE -
.. .: .
-.
Building Permit Fee S- - J 43'0
Plan Check Fee J s d7C
COHMENTS;
SBEET 0 OF flJ
12/87
i
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
DATE: 2- Fm q-sf
BUILDING ADDRESS: 24 BF)woz PLAGE= =B
PIANCHECK NO.W3 -or04
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: eL\I F?mN1* w4u
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: a 6 - (90 - 50 EST. VALUE
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
APPROVAL
The item you have submitted for review has been
approved. The approval is based on plans,
information and/or specifications provided in your
submittal; therefore any changes to these items after this date, including field modications, must
be reviewed by this office to insure continued
conformance with applicable codes. Please review
carefully all comments attached, as failure to
comply with instructions in this report can result in
suspension of permit to build.
DENIAL
Please see the attached report of deficiencies
marked withaMake necessary corrections to
plans or specifications for compliance with
applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected
plans and/or specifications to this office for review.
By: Date:
ATTACHMENTS 0 Dedication Application 0 Dedication Checklist 0 Improvement Application
CONTACT PERSON
0 Improvement Checklist NAME: 0 Future Improvement Agreement
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
P\doc8.\ch~bpOOOl .frm REV 6/5/92
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 61 FAX (61 9) 438-0894 @
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
0
0
d
SITE PIAN
A. North Arrow
B. Existing & Proposed Structures
C. Existing Street Improvements
1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show:
D. Property Lines Easements
E. Easements
F. Right-of-way Width & Adjacent Streets
2. Show on site plan:
A. Drainage Patterns
B. Existing & Proposed Slopes
C. Existing Topography
3. Show on a section drawing or inc,Jc.a a note stating that there is a ~l~~~~~~num of 6"
difference between the finished floor and the finished grade elevation adjacent to the
structure.
4. Include note: "Surface water to be directed away from the building foundation at a 296
gradient for no less than 5' or 2/3 the distance to the property line (whichever is less)."
[Per 1985 UBC 2907(d)5].
On graded sites, the top of any exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation
of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved drainage device
a minimum of 12 inches plus two percent" (per 1990 UBC 2907(d)5.).
5. Include on title sheet
A. Sie address
B. Assessor's Parcel Number
C. Legal Description
For commercial/industriaI buildings and tenant improvement projects, include: Total
building square footage with the square footage for each different use, existing sewer permits showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, warehouse, office,
etc.) previously approved.
MISTING PERMIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Page 1 of 4 REV WSOZ
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
dA DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE
lstJ 2ndJ 3rdJ 0 0 0 6. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for
Project No.
Conditions were complied with by: Date:
y,&) DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
0 0 7. Dedication for all street Rights-of-way adjacent to the building site and any storm
drain or utility easements on the building site is required for all new buildings and for remodels with a value at or exceeding $ -pursuant to Code Section
18.40.030.
Dedication required as follows:
Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the dedication process. Provide the completed application form and the requirements on the
checklist at the time of resubmittal.
Dedication completed by Date:
IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS
8a. All needed public improvements upon and adjacent to the building site must be
constructed at time of building construction whenever the value of the construction
exceeds $ -pursuant to Code Section 18.40.040.
0 0 0
Public improvements required as follows:
Please have a registered Civil Engineer prepare appropriate improvement plans and
submit them together with the requirements on the attached checklist for a separate
plancheck process through the Engineering Department. Improvement plans must be approved, appropriate securities posted and fees paid prior to issuance of permit.
Attadred please find an application form and submittal checklist for the public
improvements requirements. Provide the completed application form and the requirements on the checklist at the time of resubmittal.
Improvement Plans signed by: Date:
Page 2 of 4 REV 6/5/92
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST 'z
1stJ 2ndJ 3rdJ 0 0 0 8b. Construction of the public improvements may be deferred pursuant to code Section
18.40. Please submit a recent property title report or current grant deed on the
property and processing fee of $ so we may prepare the necessary Future improvement Agreement. This agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the City prior to issuance Of a Building Permit.
Future public improvements required as follows:
0 0 0 8c. Enclosed please find your Future Improvement Agreement. Please return signed and
notarized Agreement to the Engineering Department.
Future Improvement Agreement completed by:
Date: d 0 0 8d. No Public improvements required. SPECIAL NOTE: Damaaed or defective
immovements found adiacent to buildina site must be rer>aired to the satisfaction of
the Citv Inspector prior to occuDancv.
GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The conditions that invoke the need for a grading permit are found in Section 11.06.030
of the Municipal Code.
0 9a. Inadequate information available on Site Plan to make a determination on grading
requirements. Include accurate grading quantities (cut, fill import, export).
0 9b. Grading Permit required. A separate grading plan prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer must be Submitted together with the completed application form attached.
NOTE: The Gradina Permit must be issued and rouah aradina approval obtained prior
to issuance of a Buildina Permit.
Grading Inspector sign off by: Date:
0 0 c] 9c. No Grading Permit required.
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
Page 3 of 4 P:\docs\chkl.l\bp0001 .frm
.
wfi MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS
1stJ 2ndJ 3rdJ
0 0 10. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-way and/or
private work adjacent to the public Right-of-way. Types of work include, but are not
limited to: street improvements, trees, driveways.
A separate Right-of-way permit issued by the Engineering Department is required for
the following:
Please complete attached Right-of-way application form and return to the Engineering
Department together with the requirements on the attached Right-of-way checklist, at
the time of resubmittal.
0 0 0 1 1. A SEWER PERMIT is required concurrent with the building permit issuance. The fee
is noted in the fees section on the following page.
0 0 0 12. INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMIT is required. Applicant must complete Industrial
Waste Permit Application Form and submit for City approval prior to issuance of a
Permit.
Industrial waste permit accepted by: Date:
Page 4 of 4 REV 6/5/92
ADT CALCULATIONS:
rc
1
ADT's:
CALCULATIONS WORKSHEET
EDU CALCULATIONS: EDU's:
I\L/rF) FEES REQUIRED:
WITHIN CFD:
0 YES (NO BRIDGE & THOROUGHFARE FEE, REDUCED TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE)
0 NO
1. PARK-IN-LIEU FEE
PARK AREA: FEWUNIT:
0 2.TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
ADT's: FEWADT:
0 3. BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE FEE
ADTs: FE E/ADT:
4. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT FEE
ZONE:
.5. PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE
0 6. SEWER FEES PERMIT No.
EDU's: FEWEDU:
BENEFIT AREA: FEE:
0 7. SEWER LATERAL REQUIRED (2,500 DEPOSIT)
-.
REMARKS: pmaa w.. PEO~GOF
L(ls FOE sL7(d& QF -0 77636. VErnyq. t=$U>Xt
eFaor)/wc G l2w& ' PFRNILT.
FEE/EDU:
Type of Project and Use PBTbVb CL
p-2 -
Zone &e- Facilities Management Zone 6
Lamd
@I Item Complete
Item Incomplete - Needs your action
1,2,3 Number in circle indicates plancheck number where deficienq
identified was
EnVGonmental Review Requimk YES - NO 4 TYPE
DATE OF COMPLETION:
Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action.
Conditions of Approval
APPROVAWRESO. NO. DATE:
PROJECT NO. OTHER RELATED CASES:
Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action.
Conclitions of Approval
a fitgo Coast Disaict, 3111 -0 Dd Rio North, SuitC 200, QXI Mtgo, CA. 92108-1725 (619) 521-8036
compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require actio% Conditions of Approval
LandscapePlanRrquircd: YES-NOK
See attached submittal requirements for landscape plans
Site Plan:
zoning: /
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures,
streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width and
dimensioned setbacks.
Show on Site Plan: Finish floor elevations, elevations of finish grade
adjacent to building, existing topographical lines, existing and proposed
slopes and driveway.
Provide legal description of property.
Provide assessois parcel number.
Setbacks :
-cc Front: Required Shown
tnt. Side: Required WShown 7(6"
Street Side: Required - Shown --
Rear: Required (zc/ Shown'-
Lot coverage: Required dvo%hown
Height: Required L6' Shown c/'
Parking: Spaces Required Zccshown L
Guest Spaces Required - shown-
0 0 a Additionalcomments
OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER d +wJ- DATE.iBLL
...................................................
YIELD STRESS OF STEEL, Fy = 60 KSI
COMP. STRESS OF CONC., f'c - 2 KSI
MOMENT, MU 6.1642 K-FT.
SHErSR, VU = 0 KIPS
WIDTH OF BEhM = 12 IN.
DEPTH OF BEAM = 6
Pmax =
Pmin =
Preq =
rSs req
As min ._
0.01 19
0.0033
0.0034
,d - 0.24 SQ.IN
0.24 SQ.IN*
- A Tm Structural Design Consultant
'* s D c Structural Design Consultant
b S D C Structural Design Consultant & Associates
.. . I
S D C Structural Design Consultant & Associates
8265 COMMERCIAL STREET SUITE 11 LA MESA, CALIFORWIA 91942-2391
I
MAY 2 1 1993
..
,S D C Structural Design Consultant I? Associates
-
3
p"4
.. .
4
I
AP&ED
BY
MAY 2 4 l993 i
L
GEOTEXXNICAL ENG-RING INVESTIGATION
FOR
2422-B BADAJOZ PLACE
cARzsBAD,cALIFoRNIA
MELVIN AND JANE KlEsCHNIcK
EAmxEsmR, NEW YORK
PREPARED BY
GEOCON INCORPORATED
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 1m
GEoccgJ
GeatechnicalE neersand Engineering 0 e3 ogists
Project No. 04861Xl1-01
June2,1592
Mehrin and Jane Kieschnick
35 Deerfield Avenue Eastchester, New York 10707
Subject: 2422-B BADAJOZ PLACE cARLsBAD,cALIFoRNIA GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGA'XION
Dear Dr. and Mrs. Kieschnidr:
In accordance with your verbal authorization and our acknowledgement dated May 4,1992,
we have perfoamed a ptdmical enginariag investigation for the subject reaideace. The accompanying report presents the findings of our study and our collclusioLu and recommendations pertaining to the significance of existing distress and the potential for future distress. Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the potential for future settlement can be reduced if the recommendations of this repoft are implemented.
If there are any questions regarding this report, or if we may bc of further mice, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your convenience.
GEOCON INCORPORATED n
ea E. Likins ' Steven J. Greenfield
Senior Staff Engineer
(2) Addrc#a (2) Mr.Art Vdenzula
(1) McInnL, Fikgerald, Rea, Sharkey 8c McIntyre Attention: Mr. James E. Chodzko
8980 Flanders Drive an ~iego;'C~ 92121-2974 619 558-69w FAX 619 5586159
,;I c"' '!: TABLE OF COFRXNTS
f"
I.
c
,111 'i I
PURPOGEANDSCOfE .............................................. 1
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS .................................. 2
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .................................. 5 Fillsoits ...................................................... 5 DelmarFormation .............................................. 6
FLOORLEVELSURVEYRESULlS .................................... 6
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS .......................................... 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 9 Remedial Grading .............................................. 10
Foundations ................................................... 12 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads ................................. 14 SiteDrainage ................................................. 15
Foundation and Grading Plan Review ............................... 16
LlMITATIONS AND UMFORMITY OF C0"s
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATONS Figure 1, Site Plan and Manometer Floor Level Swey Results Figure 2, Remedial Grading and Retaining Wall Detail
APPENDIXA FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A-1 - A-3, Logs of Hand Pits
APPENDIXB LABORATORY TESTING
Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture
Content Test Results
Table B-11, Summary of In-Place Moisture-Density and Direct Shear Test Results
Table B-111, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
APPENDIX c RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
h
-.'. ... .. .. .* .
Project No. M8614191 June 2,1992
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
PURPOSE AM) SCOPE
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation at 2422-B Badajoz
Place in Carhd, California. The purpose of the investigation was to conduct a visual
inspection of the interior and exterior of the existing residence and to evaluate the surface and
subsurface soil and geologic conditions at the site and, based on conditions encountered, to
provide condwions pertaining to the sisnificana of any observed distress and
recommendations to reduce the potential for future distress.
The scope of the field investigation consisted of a visual inspection of the interior and exterior
of the residence, the performance of a manometer floor level JUTVY, the excavation of three
hand pits and a review of the following reports:
Final Report on ComprrctcdFillcd Gm La cartrr South Unit No. I,
Ran& La Cw Wfoomia, prepared by Benton Engineering
Incorporated, dated June 23,1969.
Final Report on Cornpaced FiUed Gmu& Lot 156, La Costa South Unit No. 1, Budiiijoz Place, Whc& California, prepared by Benton Engineering Incorporated, dated May 1, 1974.
RNircdRd * ICs fwE;lpuuuive soil condicionr, Lot 154 La carta
South U' No. 1, Ba&joz Pke, Carlsw California, prepared by Benton Engineering l[ncorporated, dated May 6, 1974.
-1-
No. 0486181-01
June5 1992
Amended Recommcndatiom for Minimum Footing Depth in Eqxmsive
Soils, Lot 156 La Costa South Unir No. I, Badajoz Phe?
CarLrbaCi, Catif&, prepared by Benton Engineering Incorporated, dated May 7, 1974.
Inspection report for 2422-B Badajoz Place, prepared by RJB Inspection
Service, dated August 17, 1988.
Consultation letter regarding preliminary visual inspection of 2422-B
Badajm Place, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Richard A. Reynolds,
undated.
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained at various depths in the
hand pits to evaluate pertinent physical properties. Details of the field investigation and
laboratory tests are presented in Appendices A and B, respectively.
The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on an analysis of the data
obtained from the hand pits and floor level survey, laboratory tests, and experience with similar
soil and geologic conditions.
SITE AND PROJECX‘ DESCRIPTIONS
The subject property is located at 2422-B Badajoz Place in Carlsbad, California. Existing
improvements consist of the northerly one-half of a two-story, timber-framed duplex with a
detached garage. The back of the lot contains an approximately 22-foot-high fill slope placed
in 1974. An approximately 4-foot-high retaining wall constructed with railroad ties is located
at the top of the dope to create a larger backyard area. This wd extends toward the south
-2-
No. 048619141
June% 1992
on to the property of the other half of the duplex and extends to the north where it abuts a 5-
foot-high block retaining wall. A 7%-foot-wide concrete patio extends along the back side of
the residence and a 5-foot-wide brick patio is located adjacent to the concrete patio and
extends to the top of the retaining wall. A self standing wood deck extends approximately 11
feet beyond the retaining wall. The second story contains a 22-foot-long balcony along the
back side of the residence supported by bearing walls at each end and in the center by a 4x4
timber post. Figure 1, Site Pian, depicts the configuration of the residence and associated
improvements, as well as, the approximate locations of the hand pits and the results of the
manometer survey.
A visual inspection of the residence and the surrounding improvements suggests that some sooil
movement has occurred and, subsequently, caused distress. The concrete dab-on-grade is
covttod with floor tile or carpeting and was not observed during the visual inspection. The
obsuvcd distress generally consists of the following:
1. The railroad tie retaining wall is signif'i'intly bulging toward the backyard
slope. It appears that the wall is not adequately retaining the fill soil behind it. Additional evidence of wall movement, based on conversations with Mr. Art Valenzula, consists of a reduction of the magnitude of sway
in the free-standing deck due to pressure being exerted on the deck from
the retaining wall.
2. The brick patio has exhibited significant separations along grout joints
parallel to the retaining wrrll. Separations varying in size up to approximately 13 inches. Several areas of the brick patio have also exhibited evidence of settlement where bricks were okrved to be lower
than the majority of the patio. This was especially evident at the entrance
to the deck.
-3-
r
S
I
Project No. 048f5191-01
June 2,1992
3. A crack was observed in the stem wall of the footing below the sliding
glass entrance adjacent to the fireplace.
4. A crack with a horizontal and vertical separation on the order of %inch was observed in the concrete slab-on-grade was observed beneath the
decorative tile in front of the fireplace. Carpeting covered the majority of
the crack in the living room, therefore it is unknown how far across the
slab this crack projects.
5. Hairline drywall cracks were noted at the comers of the living room
window.
6. Cracks were observed in the exposed stucco of the fireplace inside the residence on the first and second floor.
7. The concrete patio in the backyard area has a crack beneath the balcony
support pt.
It is understood that preliminary plans of repair and renovation of the residence and
Bssociatcd improvements include the constdon of a new Hock retaining wall in front of the
existing railroad tie retaining wall, the repair of cracks in the dry wall and stucco, replacing the
brick patio, and the addition of tile to the upstairs balcony.
The above descriptions are based on a site reconnaissance and conversations with yourself and
Mr. Valenzula. If significant areas of known distress have not been described herein, Gcocon
Incorporated should be notified for review and possiUe revision of the conclusions and recom-
mendrtions presented herein.
-4- C
No. Iw861-01-01
1992
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
As evidenced by the material encountered within the hand pits, the site is underlain by fa soils
and natural soils of the Delmar Formation. These materiais are described in order of
increasing age below.
EiUQib
Fill soils were encountered at the ground surface in the hand pits and were found to extend
to approximately 11 feet below the ground surface in Hand Pit No. 1 and to 7 and 5 feet in
Hand Pit Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, the maximum depths of explontion. It is estimated, based
on a review of the referenced reports, that the fill soil extends to depths on the order of 12
and 8 feet in Hand Pit Nos. 2 and 3, respectively.
The fill soils encountered can be generally classified into two different strata. The upper
stratum generally consists of firm, very moist, dark brown, silty and sandy clay in the upper 6
to 7 feet of Hand Pit Nos. 1 and 2 and the upper 1 foot in Hand Pit No. 3. These soils are
considered to have a "medium" potential for expansion as defined by the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) Standard Table 29-C. The underlying stratum of fd soil generally consisted of
very stiff, moist, dark brown, clay intermixed with pale green to olive, clayey sand. Small
-5 -
c1
Projsct No. 0486101-01
June 2,1992
pieces of white sandstone were also observed to be mixed within this portion of the fill. Based
on a review of the referenced reports the fill soil extends beneath the western portion of the
residence to a cut/fill transition located near the eastern edge of the structure. The fill soils
will require remedial grading, as discussed under Conclusions and Recommendations, to reduce
the potential for future settlement.
F-
Natural soils of the Delmar Formation were encountered underlying the fd soils in Hand Pit
No. 1 and consisted of hard, damp, white, silty cloystone, with fine sand. Evidence of remolded
shear zones or out of slope bebdmg were not observed in the handpit. The massive portions
of the Delmar Formation typkztlly provide satisfactory foundation support characteristics
FLOOR LEVEL SURVEY RESULTS
The results of the manometer floor level survey are presented in Figure 1. The data is
presented as current relative elevations of the floor slab. It is unknown to what degree of
"level" the slab was originally constructed. The results of the survey indicate a differential
elevation of approximately 1.5 inches within the living room/dining area. The low spot is
-6-
Projact No. 04861-01-01
June& 1992
located at the extreme northwest corner of the residence. The kitchen, fust floor bedroom and
entryway are considered to be relatively level and within construction tolerances.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The majority of the distress at the residence can be attributed to the failure of the railroad tie
retaining wall. This is evidenced by the separation and settlement of the brick patio, the
apparent settlement of the northwest corner of the residence and the bulging of the retaining
wall. The crack in the slahn-grade and footing stemwall is most likely related to the
settlement of the fill soil; however, it may also be somewhat related to the moderately
expansive nature of the fill soil. wansion of the soil is dependent on the clay and moisture
content within the soil. Fluctuations of the moisture content may cause the boil to shrink, as
it dries, or swell, as it is moistened. Dry zones within the fill soil were not observed, indicating
that the potential for future expansion and/or shrinkage is relatively low, assuming that the
moisture contents within the soil is maintained.
The magnitude of distress within the residence is not considered unrepairable. If the
recommendations presented in this report are implemented the potential for future movement
should be reduced to a level where cosmetic repairs to cracks in the drywall, fueplace stucco,
-7-
Pmjea No. 04861-0161
lune21992
and tile can be repaired. It is our opinion that the 1.5-inch elevation difference across the
living room slab may be repaired, if desired, for cosmetic purposes only. Repairs to "level" the
slab would generally consist of installing pipe piles, or an equivalent, around a portion of the
perimeter and jacking up the foundation and slab. This is relatively costly and is not
considered necessary assuming that the movement of the fill soils is reduced to tolerable levels
as a result of implementing the recommendations of this report.
Based on the site reconnaissance it appears that the balcony support post bears directly on the
concate patio and k not properly supported by a footing. Bccause of the additional might
planned for the balcony and the relatively wide span supported by the post, recommendations
are included under Foundaaons for a footing if it is determined that one das not &.
-8-
Project No. 0486141-01
Junc2,1992
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Fill soil, ranging in depth on the order of 11 to 12 feet below the existing patio, was
encountered during the investigation. Fill soil below the deck is anticipated to be on
the order of 8 feet deep.
2. The fill soils encountered are considered to have a medium potential for expansion as
&fined by UBC Standard Table 29-C (Expansion Index [EI] less than 90). The
recommendations presented herein assume that moderately expansive soil will be
present within 3 feet of finish pde. If hiehty apansive soils are encounterad dwing
remedial pding revised recomtions may be required.
3. The signifikant distress obscwcd inside and outside the residence consisted of apprd-
mately 1.5 inches of elevation difference across the living room slab-on-grade, a crack
in the slab-on-grade and footing stemwall, separations in the brick patio and settlement
of the brick patio. It is our opinion that the observed distress is generally due to the
failure of the railroad tie retaining wall leading to lateral movement and settlement of
the retained so&
R.cljsct No. 0186191-01
June51992
4. Construction of a new retaining wall and the incorporation of the recornmendations
presented in this report should help to reduce the potential for future significant soil
movement. It is our opinion that leveling the floor slab and foundation would be
necessary for cosmetic reasons only. Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for
additional recommendations if this alternative is desired.
5. It is unknown if the balcony support post is underlain by a properly designed footing.
Recommendations are provided under G&g and Foun&ations for determining the
presence of a footing and the construction of one if absent.
..
6. Remedial grading should be performed in accordance with the Recmended Gmding
Specificarionr contained in Appendix C and the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance.
Where the recommendations of Appendix C conflict with this section, the
recommendations of this section take precedence.
7. Site preparation should begin with removal and exportation of the brick patio and any
additional deleterious matter and vegetation. The depth of removal should be such that
- 10-
Projaa No. 01861-01-01 June5 1992
material to be used in fill is free of organic debris. The presence of a balcony support
post footing should be confumed by excavating beneath the concrete patio at the post
location.
8. In order to reduce the potential for additional distress to occur during remedial grading
it is recommended that the remedial grading be conducted in sections that do not
arcced 10 feet in width. The recommendations that follow are presented for the entire
length of the backyard with the assumption that they will be implemented in dons.
9. The new retaining wall'should be constructed prior to proceeding with the demolition
of the existing wall and remedial grading. Recommendations for the new wall are
presented in the following sections.
10. 'Ihe upper 3 feet of fill soil beneath the brick patio should be removed. The railroad
tie retaining wall should then be demolished and the fill soil should be excavated from
the bottom of the 3 foot excavation to the base of the new retaining wall at an
inclination of 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter as shown in Figure 2.
- 11 -
Pnjsa No. 0486141-01
June 2,1992
11. Properly compacted fd soil should then be placed behind the new retaining wall in
horizontal layen that are no thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and
compaction. 'Ibe previously excavated soil may be used as compacted fill soils provided
it is free of debris and organic material. Fill soils should be properly benched into the
slope and Compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent at, or up to 3
percent over, optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM Test D1557-78.
12. Imported fill soils should consist of predominantly granular material with a low"
potential for expansion (E1 c 50). Import mated should be approved by Geooon
Incorporated prior to delivery to the site.
13. The retaining wall foundation should consist of a continuous strip footing and be at
least 12 inches wide and extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent fhh grade;
however, the footing should be deepened, as necessary, such that the outside edge of
the key is at least 7 fcet horizontally from the face of the slope as shown in Figure 2.
A structural engineer should be consulted for structural and stability design of the
footing and wall. Continuaus footing steel reinforcement should consist of at least four
- 12 -
PlrOjsLt Na 048619191 June% 1992
No. 4 reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footing, two near the top and two near
the bottom.
14. The minimum reinforcement recommended above is for soil characteristics only and is
not intended to replace reinforcement required for structural considerations.
IS. If it is determined that there is not a footing supporting the balcony support post, it is
recornmended that an isolated spread footing be constructed This footing should be
at least 24 inches wide and atend at least 24 inches bdarv the lowest adjacent pad
grade and should not be constnrcted until the remedial gading is complete. It is the
tractor's responsibility to adequately support the bgk.rony during the constdon of
this footing. Steel reinforcement for this footing should be designed by a structural
engineer.
16. The recommended allowable bearing capacity for foundations designed as recommended
above is 1,500 psf. This dowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by an
additional 300 psf for each additional foot of depth and 200 @for each additional foot
of width, to a maximum bearing capacity of 2,000 psf. The values presented above are
1.
, -.
Rqjact No. 048616161
June2 1992
for dead plus Live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering transient
loads due to wind or seismic forces.
17. Foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of Geocon Incorporated
prior to the placement of reinforcing steel or pouring of concrete to verify that the
exposed soil conditions are consistent with those anticipated. If unanticipated soil
conditions are encountered, foundation modifications may be required.
18. The retaining wall should ‘be designed to resist an active earth pressure equivalent to
that perated by a fluid weighing 45 pcf. This value assumes an unrestrained wall. For
rigid, absolutely restrained walls, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf (where H
equals the wall height in feet) should be added to the above loading. Due to the
proximity of the residence, the wall should be design for an additional horizontal
uniform pressure of SO psf. These values assume a drained backfill condition with no
hydrostatic pressure behind the wall.
L
I c
L
L
- 14 -
CI
19. Lateral loads may be resisted by a passive pressure equivalent to that generated by a
fluid weighing 375 pd for foundations in properly compacted fiu or natural soils. The
upper 12 inches of soil not protected by pavement or floor slabs should not be included
in the design for lateral pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.55 may be used to
calculate the resistance to sliding along the concrete/soil interface. The values given
herein for passive pressure and coef5cient of friction are "ultimate" values. Propex
factors of safety should be applied when wing thest values in design.
C
20. The retaining wall should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the
buildup of hydrostatic forces as shown in Figure 2. If conditions different than those
described are anticipated, or if special drainage details are desired, Geocon
Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations.
21. Adequate drainage is imperative to reduce the potential for differential soil movement,
erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to
pond adjaant to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface
drainage is directed away from the residence, improvements and the top of slopes and
- 15 -
1.
R.ojscr No. 0(8(51-01-01 June2 1992
into swales or other controlled drainage devices. AU roof and pavement drainage should
be directed onto splashblocks or into conduits which carry runoff away from the
residence.
Gm Review
22. Geocon Incorporated should review the grading plans and foundation plans prior to
final design submittal to determine if additional analysis and/or recommendations are
required.
c..
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. ?he recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the
investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during
construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon
Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The
evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous materials was not part
of the scope of services provided by Gcocon Incorporated.
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of
his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein
are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated
into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and
subamtractors carry out such recommendations in thefield.
3. The fmdings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the
conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural
processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in
applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the
broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the frndings of this report may be invalidated wholly
or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
I ”
c
L
L
bEGEN0
~Z.APPROX. LOCATION OF HAND PIT
-I s *L,,,RELATIVE FLOOR SLAB ELEVATION ( INCHES 1
. SITE PLAN AND MANOMETER FLOOR LEVEL SURVEY RESULTS
2422-B BADAJOZ PUCE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Ch Fwe 1
NO SCALE
2422-B BADAJOZ PLACE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Figure 2