The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1913 ALGA RD; ; CB891279; PermitConstruction Type: NEW Occupancy Group: Ciass Code: Description: FOUNDATION REPAIRS : EXPIRED/REINSTATED: DATE: Applicant: STANLEY LIVINGSTON 633 STATE ST 619-464-4055 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Wbad CA 9u)o9 (619) 4381161 CrrYOFcAwsBAD DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING SERVICES DIVISION 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1 161 MISCELLANEOUS FEE RECEIPT Appllcant Please Print And Flll In Shaded Ana Only APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE White . Flle Yellow. Applicant Plnk . Flnance ,q3:7,9 UNSCHEDULED INSPECTIT DATE INSPECTOR PERMIT d wpT/d ?y PLANCK # JOB ADDRESS /7/3 -/$ f / Md’@ TIME ARRIVE: TIME LEAVE: LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS INSPECTION REQUEST CITY OF CARLSBAD PERMIT# CB891279 FOR 12/26/90 DESCRIPTION: FOUNDATION REPAIRS TYPE: RAD JOB ADDRESS: 1913 ALGA RD APPLICANT: STANLEY LIVINGSTON OWNER: PHONE : INSPECTOR AREA TP PLANCK# CB891279 CONSTR. TYPE NEW EXPIRED/REINSTATED: DATE: OCC GRP STR: FL: STE : PHONE: 4844055 CONTRACTOR: PHONE : REMARKS: MH/STEVENS/260-1777 SPECIAL INSTRUCT: TOTAL TIME: CD LVL DESCRIPTION 19 ST Final Structural 39 EL Final Electrical 29 PL Final Plumbing 49 ME Final Mechanical ACT COMMENTS F - ***** INSPECTION HISTORY ***** DATE 052390 052190 050190 050190 040290 030690 020990 030690 020990 DESCRIPTION Underground/Conduit-Wiring Ftg/Foundation/Piers Steel/Bond Beam Ftg/Foundation/Piers Ftg/Foundation/Piers Ftg/Foundation/Piers Steel/Bond Beam Ftg/Foundation/Piers Ftg/Foundation/Piers ACT INSP COMMENTS AP MP 1937 CA MP AP TP AP TP AP WM AP TP BLDG 1913, UNITS E,F, & G AP TP BLDG 1913, UNITS E,F, & G AP TP AP TP NEEDS SOILS REPORTS FTNGS A,B,C,D,NDS SPEC.INSP United StatesTesting Company, Inc. Engineering & Support Services 3467 KURT2 STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 (619) 225-9641 FAX (619) 224-8950 NEW YORK ORLANDO MEMPHIS MODEST0 PENNSYLVANIA SAN DIEGO ATLANTIC CITY HOBOKEN Date: November 20, 1990 USTCo No. CITY OF CARLSBAD INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Project: Casitas De La Costa Carlsbad, Ca. 1919-1~9a2 . TiZga,'-Road Permit No. 89-1279 Plan File No. N/A Gentlemen: United States Testing Company, Inc. has performed the Special Inspection of reinforce concrete as outlined in daily reports previously submitted €or the above mentioned project. To the best of our knowledge, this work is in conformance with the approved plans and specifications and the applicable workmanship provisions of the Uniform Building Code. The signed reports of all inspections performed by United States Testing Company. Inc., on this project have been sent to the City of San Diego Building Inspection Department. Very truly yours, United States Testing Company, Inc. Ed Bove, RCE to34041 .- Vice President United States Teati<q Company, IRC. CC: File Hoyco B. Perron FORMERLY TESTINQ ENGINEERS-SAN DIEGO Uni,tedStatesTestingCornpany, Inc. 3467 Kurt2 Street, San Diego, CA 92110 (619) 225-9641 Engineering & Support Services Job Number: 8u9561 M Job Name: CffiITffi M LA COST4 19194941 RLGR RtxN) CRASBRD CR CITY !X CfiRLSBRD 12M ELM RVENUE BUILDING INSPECTION DEPRRTkENT LIMITED 5TRES IESTING, CITY OF WRLSBRD CRRLSBRD CR 92H HOYCO CONSTRLKTIDN Pewit R 87-1279 Engineer: REMINI, MUID Repart No: 73286 Date: 11/28/98 Concrete hpression Test Tested To ASTM C-39 Cy]. On Wt Sttv.ength PSI Date of Mix Design Slump Made in of Cy1 Thjs TeNp Load Plant 28 Day Time Time Numb. Test PCF 1st Design Pour Designltian Inch by Mixer Day Set/Mark F timbr. Air -"" "" ""- - "- """ """" ""_ "" ""_ ""_ """" "" ""_ "" "" -"" "" -"" - "" """ ""_ "" "" ""_ """" "" ""_ ""_ "_ Location in Structure: EXTERIOR WRLL FOOTINS ~BHB 5/25\99 eg-l(ri 5. ea ea155 1:2(r 4 5 99 7844 7 a@@ 7)45 2a ine 7846 2e 7@7 68 Discarded. 4888 hpliam:28 IK)y TEST WblPLIES WITH SPECIFICRTIUNS 3w 5/25/98 8-3-181 3.54 SI3155 3:34 4 4 99 Location in Structure: EXTERIOR ML FOOTINGS 7848 7 7849 28 281@ 4178 7968 28 4878 7851 68 Discarded. Compliarice:28 DRY TEST COMPLIES UITH SKCIFICRTIONS Page Ho: 1 United States Testing Company, Inc. Engineering & Support Services 3467 Kurtz Street, San Diego, CA 92110 1619) 225-9641 Job Number: 889561 80 Job Nme: CRSITAS DE LR COSTR 1919-1941 ALGR m CRRLSBRD CR Engineer: RENDINI, WID Permit t 67-1279 Reprt b: Date: Numb. Test Cyl. Age _" - " _" 5923 7 5924 26 5926 68 5925 28 CITY OF CRRLSBRD BUILDING INSPECTION WRRMENT 1288 ELH WE CRRLSWD CR 92888 CITY OF CRRLSBRD WITED STRTES TESTING, HOYCO CDNSTRUCTION 6/81/98 67594 Concrete Corpression Test Tested To ASTM C-39 Un Ut Stren th Pd Date of Nix Design Slurp Made in of Cy1 This Tmp Load PCF Test 4ksign Pour kignatlon Inch by her Day SetlHark F Nmbr. 26 Da Tire Tim "" - "" "_ " "" " - "" ""_ "" _"" "_ "_ ""_ 3w 5/83/98 8BB91 2.58 8M9 4 2 Location in Structure: EXTENDED FT6. WIT "R" RIDDLE SECTION 4180 2658 4148 Discarded. hplianm26 DRY TEST COllPLIES UITH SPECIFICRTIDNS. Plant Code 99 "" "" 3888 5/83/98 88891 3" BBcLi9 4 799 Lacation in Structure: EXTEHW) FT6. UNIT E 5927 1 5920 26 2628 3898 5929 26 5938 6@ 4258 Discarded. Cmpliam:26 DRY TEST UMPLIES WITH SPECIFICRTIohls. Page No: 1 " - Rir ESGIL CORPORATION 9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208 SAN DIEGO, CA 92 123 (619) 560-1468 DATE : /o /;r A5 JURISDICTION: i,-{,cC5 L, 12 PLAN CHECK NO: 59- f277 SET: 3 PROJECT ADDRESS: 15/3 4cGA ,Zd PROJECT NAME: [ IliN>/! o;", F26QJ,,f FILE COPY OUPS ODESIGNER The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply 0 with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficien- @ necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's cies identified are resolved and checked by building department staff. 0 identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The plans are being held at Esqil Corp. until corrected The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the 0 jurisdiction to return to the applicant contact person. 0 The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: .. @ Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that plan check has been-completed. 0 Esqil staff did advise applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: Telephone # 0 REMARKS : . By : ESGIL CORPORATION. lO/zs- P FtSLtffd Enclosures: ~GA C~AA Uvw ODM ESGIL CORPORATION 9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (619) 560-1466 DATE : 9/13 /&7 JURISDICTION: -2LS 5lr13 PLAN CHECK NO: 8.7 - 1279 SET: I nups PROJECT ADDRESS: /7/3 Ac6A i'L3 PROJECT NAME: ~~nm~-P JN W.PK C)FILE COPY QDESIGNER 0 necessary and substantially comply with the .jurisdiction's The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply c] 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 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 0 identified on the .enclosed check list and should be corrected .. 0 jurisdiction to return to the applicanticontact person. . The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Y Clcnw65n)N 6% S.M q/vv DIE60 '7rcor 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: Telephone # 0 REMARKS: By : /J hSC/f.iR Enclosures: ESGIL CORPORATION &/ry OGA OAA Ovw ODM PLAN CORRECTION SMET Plan? Oleck No. b5 - 1-275 Date plana received by the jurisdiction Date plans received by plan checker 6 /U Date initial plan check completed 'i 113 h> BY P f75chv.c TOREW[IRD: PLEAS READ Plan check is limited to 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 access for the handicapped. The plan check is based on regulations enforced by the Building Inspection Deparht. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced 6y the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. The items circled belon need clarification, modification or change. All circled items have to be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per See. 303 (c), of the biform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. A. PLANS 0 Plea? make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new sets of prints, been returned to you by the jurisdiction, and any original plan sets that may have - to: 4561~ @ To facilitate rechecking, please Identify, next to each circled item, the sheet of the plans upon:.hich each correction on this sheet has been made and.,return this check sheet with the revised plans: .. Date I /as Jurisdiction c* cs bA3 PreDared bYt .~. PF VALUATTON AND PLAN CHECK FEE Q Bldg. Dept. 0 Esgil PLAN CHECK NO. 87 - 127s BUILDING ADDRESS 1715 AL6.4 123 APPLICANT/CONTACT PHONE NO, TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION M: CH.W~L CONTRACTOR PHONE BUILDING OCCUPANCY M cwbg DESIGNER PHONE WILDING PORTION BUILDING AREA VALUATION VALUE MULTIPLIER Residential I I@ Fire. Sorinklers @ Res. or Corn. ~~ Total Value I I I Building Permit Fee f “Sf y 9’ Plan Check Fee $ s 57-5y3 COH HENTS; D I American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS B D Estrella de Mar Court Casitas de la Costa Carlsbad, California File No. 20623 August 23, 1989 25202 Crenshaw Boulevard-Suite 101-Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 539-9983 5755 Oberlin Drive-Suite 104-San Diego. CA 92121 (619) 457-2711 1240 van Buren-Suite 210 -Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 666-2241 b 0 J D D B B American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORP0RATIC)N August 23, 1989 File No. 20623.01 Ms. Maureen Jonas HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CASITAS DE LA COSTA 7920 Miramar Road, Suite 101 San Diego, California 92126 Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION/REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS Casitas de la Costa Condominiums Buildings 1913 and 1941 Estrella de Mar Court Carlsbad, California Dear Ms. Jonas: At your request, we have provided information obtained from subsurface investigation and repair recommendations at the Casitas de la Costa Development. The subsurface investigation, and .subsequent recommendations, were the result of reported problems at the site, this report addresses conditions and recommendations at Buildings 1913 and 1941. Several repair alternatives have been explored, both in conversation with the homeowners and in report form. The repair recommendations provided in the body of this report are considered a minimum alternative for remediation. The recommendations provided are intended to provide support for the referenced buildings constructed adjacent yielding slopes. 25202 Crenshaw Boulevard-Suite 101-Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 539-9963 5755 Oberlin Drive-Suite 104-San Diego. CA 92121 (619) 457-2711 1240 van Buren-Suite 210 -Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 666-2241 I . L' August 23, 1989 File NO. 20623 Page Two American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions regarding site conditions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. B Respectfully submitted, D b . File -No. 20623 August 23, 1989 1 D D D D American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATIOA' TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Scope 1.3 Site Description 2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION 2.1 Observations 2.2 Manometer Surveys 2.3 Subsurface Investigation 2.4 Laboratory testing 3.0 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Overview 3.2 Improvement Possibility 3.3 Discussion of repair 4.0 DESIGN SOIL PAWLMETERS 4.1 General 4.2 Foundation Design 5.0 CLOSURE APPENDICES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 LIST OF FIGURES Location Map Site Plan Slab Foundation Repair Detail Page 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 10 10 11 12 2 8 3 0 I D i D 0 0 August 23, 1989 File No. 20623 Page 1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION Purpose The purpose of this geotechnical report is to provide obtained geologic and engineering information regarding criteria for remediation of problems experienced at site conditions and provide minimum soil and foundation Buildings 1913 and 1941. Scope This report presents a discussion of site conditions and recommendations for remediation. The geotechnical investigation conducted in 1986 by this recommendations are the result of a subsurface firm. Pertinent information regarding site conditions is compiled in the Appendices at the back of this report, including: references, field excavation logs, and laboratory test results. Site Description The Casitas de la Costa development is located at the southeast corner of Alga Road and El Camino Real, The specific buildings addressed in this report are located along Estrella de Mar Court, within the development site. Figure 1 presents a general location map. Figure 2 presents a site plan. The condominium buildings are two-story, wood framed structures with stucco exterior. The foundations are condominium buildings are constructed on cut/fill slab-on-grade with continuous concrete footings. The below Building 1941 is confined at the toe by a transitions, adjacent descending slopes. The slope descends to Estrella de Mar Court for the most part, concrete retaining wall. The slope below Building 1931 but is also retained near the eastern end.' Adjacent walkways, artificial streams and ponds, and parking grounds and improvements include landscape areas, units and Building 1941 consists of six units. areas. Building 1913 consists of seven condominium USGS ENClNlTAS QUADRANGLE SCALE: 1'- 2000' + LOCATION MAP - Figure 1 AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20623 AUG 1989 b b b D D B B File No. 20623 August 23, 1989 Page 4 American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION 2.1 Observations Site reconnaissance revealed cracking in the condominium units consisting primarily of wallboard and stucco cracks, cracks/separations at heavy brick fireplaces, separations of fixtures such as kitchen and bathroom cabinets, and porch and walkway Units 1913-E and 1913-F, had tipped, bowed outward, and cracks/separations. Also, the retaining wall below cracked. The movement at the top of the wall is on the order of five inches. The stress features observed are indicative of geotechnical influence in the form of expansive soil and slope creep. 2.2 Manometer Surveys Manometer level surveys conducted on the condominium slabs (Buildings 1913 and 1941) showed distinct patterns of tilt indicative of expansive soil and slope influence. The maximum measured vertical differential in building 1941 (Unit F) was 1.8 inches. Building The level of tilt exceeds what is considered the 1913 (Unit A) exhibits a maximum tilt of 2.35 inches. maximum allowable. It was observed that stress those units with the higher levels of measured tilt. features within the condominium units increased in Field notes of specific observations and the manometer surveys are contained in our files, and are available upon request. 1 B D D August 23, 1989 File No. 20623 Page 5 American Geotechnical ACALIFORNIA CORPORATION 2.3 Subsurface Investigation Subsurface exploration was conducted at the site to reveal the subsurface conditions and determine the exploration consisted of eight test pits, two small factors causing the observed distress. Site parking garage and carport. Exploration conducted auger borings, and seven slab cores in the adjacent specifically at Buildings 1913 and 1941 consisted of six test pits and two small auger borings. Exploration logs are contained in Appendix B of this report. The subsurface exploration revealed fili overlying natural soil in most areas. The fill typically were found to be moist to wet, and firm. At Boring 1, consisted of greenish to dark brown sandy clays, which was encountered underlying the fill. Bedrock adjacent Building 1913, black organic (clayey) topsoil underlying the fill consisted typically of claystone of the Del Mar Formation. The claystone was damp to wet, be expansive. and hard. Fill derived from the Del Mar Formation can 2.4 Laboratory testing A laboratory testing program was developed €or the soil samples recovered during the subsurface exploration. The program was designed to estimate soil properties for use in subsequent engineering evaluations to determine the cause(s) of damage. and provide repair recommendations. Appendix C provides a summary of the laboratory test results. D 1 b B B B B August 23, 1989 File No. 20623 Page 6 American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 3.0 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Overview It is determined that geotechnical phenomenon has affected the two condominium buildings. In our opinion, the primary mechanisms of distress are due to soil processes. Small scale construction expansive soil and slope creep. Not all cracking is defects or normal shrinkage may have affected the site to' a limited degree. Site fill and natural soils have high (UBC-29) heave in some condominium units is characteristic of expansion characteristics. Measured concentric slab expansive soil movement. Also, apparent subsidence of some units near the top-of-slope is indicative of slope creep. In the absence of mitigating measures, it is the will gradually worsen. Some level of movement, causing opinion of American Geotechnical that the conditions damage, has occurred at Buildings 1913 and 1941, and there is no reason to expect the movement to stop of such as prolonged heavy rainfall and/or a prolonged or its own accord. In the event of some circumstance, otherwise severe pipe leak, slope movement and the rate of deterioration could increase. As such, it is measures as soon as possible. desirable to proceed with some level of remedial D D e 0 File No. 20623 August 23, 1989 Page 7 American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 3.2 Improvement Possibility As is usually the case, a number of options exist with respect to how site conditions might be improved. The options range from cosmetic, to slope repair, to full structure replacement. Each option has attendant cost, benefit, and risk of future problems. Usually lowest cost) approach. Conversely, a higher risk for future risk is associated with the most rigorous (highest problems is associated with a lower cost repair. A list of repair options was previously provided by this firm. The repair recommendations provided herein treatment, providing a low inordinate risk of future are considered a minimum positive and practical problems. Following repair, some risk of future problems will remain, as is always the case. 3.3 Discussion of repair The mechanism of distress consists of expansive soil At this time, the slope problem appears to be the influence and yielding (creep) of the adjacent slope. overriding cause of the damage. Risk associated with the slope movement relates to the slope itself as well as the buildings above and the retaining wall below adopted. The areas could be substantially improved, (where applicable). Slope improvement could be however, by simple underpinning of the buildings on the slope side. This level of treatment is considered a middle-of-the-road, positive and practical treatment of which, budgetary constraints, benefits and risk were previously discussed with homeowner's association representatives. Suggested details have been included for the project should develop the actual details. in the accompanying Figure 3. The structural engineer It is suggested that the underpinning detail return at the edges of the building at least 10 feet. It should be kept in mind that stress concentrations will occur at the end of the underpinning section. .These stress proximity to the end of the underpinning. The risk concentrations could result in some cracking in associated with this occurrence, however, is judged to be very low in relation to the improvement gained by adding the underpinning. @ Saw cut as near as possible to wall. ; I @ Chip back flush with wall. @ Excavate for thickened edge, sand. misture @I Drill 8" minimum for dowels P 16"O.c. @ Apply epoxy bonding compound' between dowel holes and grade. Seal moisture barrier to dodel h'les. (*l'RC Co.. PR-940 or equal) bonding agent but not closer than 2" to @ Use 10-mil moisture barrier membrane sealed 0 Use 2" clean sand protective cover. @ Use 5" minimum concrete slab; 8' minimm @ At 1-2 hours prior to placement of concrete, a Use 14 dowels @ 16"o.c. Alternate 36" and 60" into slab. Anchor with bonding grout. @ Use 14 bars P 16"o.c. both ways. USC two barrier and gravel base. at all splices and around pipes. at thickened edqes. apply bonding campound.' bars within 6. of slab edges. Add 2-14 bars X 3' long Q 4" and 8" from reentrant corners. 0 Primary excavation for underpinning. @ At 48"o.c. maxinlun spacing. excavate 12' X 12" slots for support jacks and bearing plates. @ Excavate continuous haunch. @ Use 14 dowels P 16'0.c. @ Use 2-15 bars continuous. @ Use 15 bars @ 12"o.c. both ways. @ Use 15 bars @ 18"o.c. @ 'Where exterior flatwork is planned. add @ At exterior edges. thicken to 8" minimum. doaels per note "J". and add 1-14 bar continuour. (*E" wide by 24* mininux depth cut-off wall with 2-14 bars as shown, preferred at exterior edges.) @ Slab subqrade should be presaturated to 8 @ Interior underpinning option as detailed for exterior foundation. @ minisunt. Type 11. 2000 psi minimm. For Slab General Note: Concrete should be 5-sack concrete, 4" maximusl slump. Exterior flatwork minimize shrinkage cracks. Deputy inspection should be jointed at 8' maximum spacing to Is reccnnended. depth of 24" minimum prior to slab construction. SLAB FOUNDATION REPAIR DETAIL Figure 3 4MERICAN GEOTECHNICAL AUG 1989 F.N. 20623 b D D File No. 20623 August 23, 1989 Page 9 American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION On the slope sides of these buildings, there are patios which are substantially undermined as a result of slope creep and associated settiement at the building edge. As discussed with the structural engineer, it would be a simple matter to provide structural deck replacements between sections of underpinning adjacent to the existing foundations. A relatively shallow grade beam could be placed on the slope side of each patio so that would be minimized. potential for gaps developing under the structural slab Our experience with.underpinning in the fashion described leads us to the conclusion that this form of underpinning is cost effective in areas which are relatively accessible. For the Buildings 1913 and 1941, the area is judged to be fairly accessible. Following the repair, site drainage patterns should be reestablished to provide flow away from the structures. Drainage should not be directed over slopes. It is suggested that when plans are developed, they be forwarded to this office for review and comment. D D File No. 20623 August 23, 1989 Page 10 4.0 DESIGN SOIL PAWETERS 4.1 General American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION The following presents soil parameters for the recommended underpinning. Appendix D provides standard grading recommendations. In conjunction with his plan development, the structural engineer may require information on certain soil engineering criteria. If the structural engineer requires additional info.rmation,'this office should be contacted. August 23, 1989 File No. 20623 Page 11 B D D B D D American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 4.2 Foundation Design It is anticipated that Buildings 1913 and 1941 will be supported on the slope side by grade beams or deepened footings. The repair foundations can be founded in properly compacted fill or firm natural soil. Footings should be designed accordance with the following criteria: Foundation Embedment Minimum embedment depth Minimum width 2.5 ft 1.0 ft Vertical Bearing (allowable) a. Sustained loads 1500 psf b. Total loads (including seismic or wind) 2000 psf c. increased capacity for 500 psf/ft each additional foot of depth, deeper than minimum, to 3000 psf maximum Lateral Bearing (allowable) a. Pa'ssive soil pressure: (projected from ground surf ace) 200 psf/ft b. Minimum depth/width 20 ft horizontal 2 ft vertical bearing support should above which lateral to daylight be ignored c. Coefficient of sliding on soil (dead load) friction cast concrete 0.35 B B D D B D File No. 20623 August 23, 1989 Page 12 American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 5.0 CLOSURE Only a portion of subsurface conditions have been reviewed and evaluated. conclusions and recommendations and other information contained in this report are based upon the assumption that subsurface conditions do not vary appreciably between and adjacent observation points. Although no significant variation is anticipated, it must be recognized that variations can occur. This report has been prepared for the sole use -and benefit of our client. The intent of the report is to advise our client on geotechnical matters involving the proposed improvements. It should be understood that the geotechnical consulting provided and the contents of this report are not perfect. Any errors or omissions noted by any party reviewing this report, and/or any other geotechnical aspect of the project, should be reported to this office in a timely fashion. The client is the only party intended by this office to directly receive the advice. Subsequent use of this report can only be authorized by the client. Any transferring of information or other directed use by the client should be considered "advice by client". Geotechnical engineering is characterized by uncertainty and is often described as an inexact science or art. Conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based upon the evaluations of technical information gathered, experience, and professional judgement. The conclusions and recommendations presented should be considered conclusions and recommendations. Typically, 81minimumt8 "adviceI8. Other consultants could arrive at different recommendations have been presented. Although some would usually result if more restrictive criteria were risk will always remain, lower risk of future problems adopted. Final decisions on matters presented are the responsibility of the client and/or the governing agencies. No warranties in any respect are made as to the performance of the project. i August 23, 1989 File No. 20623 Page 13 American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION Observations and testing services during construction percentage of compacted fill placed at the site. only allow for specific evaluation of a small Conditions will vary between points evaluated. Contractual arrangements made with a contractor should contain a provision that he is responsible for excavating, placing, and compacting fill in accordance with the project specifications. Observation and testing by the geotechnical consultant during construction should not relieve the grading contractor of his primary responsibility to perform work in accordance with the specifications. File No. 20623 August 23, 1989 APPENDICES American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION August 23, 1989 File No. 20623 B B B D D D American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION APPENDIX A: REFERENCES Aerial Photographs, Photo No. AXN-8M-13 & 14, dated April 11, 1953, by United States Department of Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service. lvGeology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, Californiam8, by F. Harold Weber Jr., California Division of Mines and Geology, County Report.No. 3, dated 1963. "La Costa Valley Unit No. 111, Plans for Improvement by Rancho la Costa, Inc., County of San Diego Map No. 5434 (TM 2525), dated June 22, 1964. "La Costa Condominium No. 1, Unit No. 2", Plans for San Diego Map No. 5642 (TM 2569-2), dated December 9, Improvement, prepared by Rick Engineering, County of 1964. IWniform Building Code, 1970, 1973,& 1976 Editions", by International Conference of Building Officials, dated 1070, 1073, and 1976, respectively. "Certification.of Suitability for Intended Use, Casitas de la Costa, S.E. Corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road, San Diego County, California", report by William S. Krooskos and Associates, Job No. 72-3182, dated August 9, 1972. "Report of Soil Investigation, Casitas de la Costa, S.E. Corner El Camino Real and Alga Road, San Diego County, Associates, Job No. 72-3008, dated March 16, 1972. Californiatt, report by William S. Krooskos and "On the Manner of'Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County", by San Diego Association of Geologists, dated 1985. . File No. 20623 Page 16 August 23, 1989 b D D D B B American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION REFERENCES, continued Kennedy, M.P.! 1975, Geology of the Western San Diego Metropolitan Area, California; in Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Bulletin 200, California Division of Mines and Geology, p. 8-93. Kennedy, M.P., and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the Eastern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California; in .Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, p. 41-56. Bulletin 200, California Division of Mines and Geology, "Report of Soils Investigation, Casitas de la Costa Wood and Associates, Project 4262, dated November 18, Condominiums, La Costa, Californiag1, report by C.H. 1983. Bardet, J.P., "Creep Deformation and Failure of Slopes81, a report to American Earth Technologies, dated May 1985. 8fGeotechnical Investigation, Casitas de la Costa de mar Court, Carlsbad, California, File No. 20221, Condominiums, Buildings 1913, 1927 and 1941, Estrella dated October 15, 1986. "Repair Parameters, Casitas de la Costa Condominiums, Buildings 1913, 1927 and 1941, Estrella de Mar .Court, No. 20221, dated December 15, 1987. Carlsbad, California1*, by American Geotechnical, File . August 23, 1989 File No. 20623 D D i B I American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION EXPLORATION LOGS APPENDIX B 1 TEST . EXCAVATlONLOg NO. 1 F.N. 20221 .Dl proiect/Ctlent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/1 /e6 ) Location: South of 1913 F Estrella De Plar Court Sheet:L of 2 Estlmated Surface Elevallon(ft.): - IX I 3E a A . I Surface plants behind block retaining wall. I - a z ; Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION: Classification. color. moisture. tlghtness, etc. Remarks Several large brick chunks between 2' and 4'. I .. From 2.5'-5.0'. Fill is Dry. :.:.:: .. a :.:.:: ... ::: 0 i::::: z -::.:.: .. a :.:.: + .:.I. w .... :I::: a ... ... ... .. ... .:.:.: .. .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1.. ... ... ... E 4.1'. Same as above except well compacted. Imort fill below 4.1' is dense with no roots. ... AME9ICAN GEOTECHNICAL t Estimated Surface Elevation(f1.k - L r iubaurface Conditlons: FORMATION Classiflcatlon. Remarks color, moisture. Ilghtness, elc. ... ... ... I ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. ... ... ... I' -. 12 n 2 I 8.0'. lop of Concrete Footing - End of Pit . .'. 4 ' - .. '. . FOOTING .-e a:. j. .;'e .: .. 5 I b,. >Water' No Caving I .Notea: AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate 2 TEST EXCAVATION Log No. 2 F.N. 20221 -01 proiect/C1lent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad. CA Date: 511 I86 Location:- corner of 1941A Estrella De Nar Court Sheet1 of 1 Estimated Surface Elevatlon(1 - '1.1 Sufface Condltlons: 3arren ground under remved plant, against foundation. hbsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classiflcatlon. color. moisture. tlohtneas. ate. Remarks I - FILL: 0 0'. Sandy Clay, gray brown, damp to Footing I ";.' ':. moist, firm, mottled, siltstone fragments. roots, 14" wide few sravel to 112". 30" deep, m. moist. firm. mottled. areen I I -I siltstone fragments. i a a. A' Y' I j4 8 2.7'. Downspout drain trench, 12" wide. 1 I I 0 3.1I.Drain Pioe. black plastic corrasated 5" dia. 16" from wall. e 4.8'. Silty Clay, medium brown, moist but wetter than above, firm, mottled with above -nish arav sandv clav. mav be derived from ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ topsoil. 0 5.5' End of Pit No Water No Caving - , Notes: 318'' void between bottom of footing and soil. Void closes near mid-footing. AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate 3 b TEST EXCAVATION Log No. 3 - proiect,~l~en~ Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, CR Location: East side of 1913G Estrella De Nar Court Sheet1 of 1 F.N. 20221 .Dl Date: 5/1/86 Estimated Surface Elevatlon(ft.): - m Total Depth(1t.k 3.0 Rlg Type: Hand Excavation Field Description BY: KNJ I 1 Sutlace Condltions: 1 Surface vegetation under removed plant, next to foundation between building and artificial stream. I ,: is Subsurface Conditlonr: FORMATION: Classification. color, moisture. tlghtness. etc. Rernarkr I FILL: 8 0'. Sandy Clay, medim brown. dry. stiff, roots. 8 0.3'. Sandy Clay, greenish gray, moist. 'firm, mottled, green siltstone fragments. some roots. - ~ I Nany man-made objects in fill including: I I Plastic, brick, nails, paper, etc. & - i fiberslass cloth and emulsified asphalt. b Notes: Under side of artificial stream exposed, 6 mil clear plastic moisture barrier observed between concrete "stream" and foundinq soil. AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL B Plate 4 TEST EXCAVATION Log NO. 4 F.N. 20221 .m Proiecl/Cllent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad. Ca. Data: 5/20/66 , Location: South side of 1913C Estrella De mar Court Sheet1 of 1 Esllrnaled Surface Elevallon(1f.): - Sufface Condlllons: Barren ground against foundation. through large tension crack against building, located at toP-Of-sloPe. I I Subsurface Condillons: FORMATION Classillcallon, a color, moisture, tlghtness, etc. Remarks - FILL: 8 0'. Sandy Clay, gray brown, damp to a 4.0', End of Pit No Water No Caving tI I I B Notes: AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL B Plate TEST EXCAVATION Log NO. 5 F.N. 20221.01 proiect,client: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5120186 I Locatlon: East side of 1941E Estrella De mar Court Sheet1 of 1 Estlmated Surface Elevatlod ft.1 Total beoIh(1t.): 3'9 Rlg Type: Hand Excavation Field Description \ By: KPlJ I In decorative gravel at top-of-slope. Porch near test Pit Sunace Condltlons: : visually settled. ; 0 D Subsurface Conditlons: FORMATION Classillcallon. color, moisture, tlghtness. etc. Remarks , , C 0'. Gravel (314"). 1.4 Footing Depth FILL: C 0.2', Sandy Clay, greenish gray brown, 35" .. .. damp to mist. firm, mottled, qreen siltstone Width not ._ fragments, sme fine surface roots. measured 'i .". NG m" It I I - / I 3.3'. End of Pit -. No Water No Caving b Notea: Vertical tension crack mapped in test pit. about 114' wide. I mated 27" plast- @ 4". AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL ~ ~~~~ Plate TEST EXCAVATION Log NO. p F.N. 20221 -01 Date: 5120186 Proisc,,Cllenl~ Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. , Location: South of 1913C Estrella De Mar Court Sheet: of 1 Esflmated Surface Efevatlon(ft.): - Total Deolh(1l.k 2.0 Rlg Type: Hand Excavation Field Description BY: Km 1 Sunace Condlllons: I Located at base-of-slope below Test Pit No. 4. :I I D I E : Subsurface Condlllons: FORMATION Classiflcallon, color. moisture. tlahtneas~ atc. Remarks 1 - FILL: 0 0', Sandy Clay, green-gray, mist. firm. mttled rust brown, siltstone fragments. - som roots. - 0 2.0' End of Pit No Water 1 LI I AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate c Estlmated Surface Elevation(1t.): - Total Deoth(ft.): Type: Hand Excavation Field Descriotion BY: KMl I Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION: Classificatlon. Remarks color, moistde. tlghtnesa. otc. I tt Notea: AMERlCAN GEOTECHNICAL t Plate TEST EXCAVATION Log No. F.N. 20221.01 Projecl~~~~enl: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca Dale: 5/21/86 Lacallon: continued Sheet- 2 of 2 r L juflace Condillons: I 1 Iubsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classillcallon, color. moisture. tlahtncrs. elc. Remarks I I BASE OF I I FOOTING DEL RAR FORMATION: II 6.5', Sandy Clay, light green, wet, rnirar seepage. ' II 7.5'. End of Pit Seepage at 6.5' No Cawinq Noles: AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate Eatlmated Surface Elevetlon(lt.): - TEST EXCAVATION Log No. F.N. 20221 -01 proiect,cl[ant: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: sl2l/B6 Location: Near intersection of El Camino Real and Alga Sheet2 of 1 Total OeDth(ft.): Rlg Type: Hand Excavation 7 Field Description By: I Sunace Condltlons: I I Under surface vegetation. Located against northwest corner of carport retaining wall. I - c 2 Subsurface Condillons: FORMATION: Classificatlon. 0 n color, moisture, tlghtness. etc. Remarks I BACKFILL: I O', Silty Sand, medium brown. damp, medium dense, decwosed qranite import. Retaining wall misture proofing CMSiStS Of 6 mil plastic against wall covered by emulsified asohalt covered bv a second laver of 6 mil plastic. - LI I I l ZS', End of Pit I I No Water No Caviw tl I I LI I Notes: AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate B BORING LOG No. F.N. 20221 .a1 Client / Project: Casitas De La Cost, Carlsbad. Ca. Dote: ~ocotlon~ North side of 19130 Estrella De Mar Court Est. Su:foce Elcv: Toto1 Depth 4.0' RIg Type:- Hand Auger 5/20/86 Sheet:"of 1 I I i c ! t Mace Condltlons: Located in depressed area near water main. iubsurface Condltions: Classlflcotlon. color. moisture tightness; ctc. Remorks I FILL: I 0'. Sandy Clay, rmttled greenish gray with brwn, moist to wet, soft, no gravel, sm roots. TOPSOIL: I 2.2'. Silty Clay, medium to dark brm, wet, soft. I I J RLLUVIUm: I 3.6'. Sandy Clay, green, wet, sllck surtaces. I - I 4.0'. End of Boring ~ No Water No Cavins ~ I 1 " AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate BORING LOG No. F.N 20221 -01 Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Dote: 5/20/06 l%Xlt / PFOjeC?: ~~~~tl~~: West side of 1941E Estrella De br Court Sheetxof 1 Est. Surfoce Elev: Total Depth: 3.0' Rlg Type: Hand Auoer - I - 1 c Y v0,c &E 32.8- P : ao - I n=:m ;i c - FIELD DESCRIPTION BY: KAJ B Surface Conditions: -J E V 0- Subsurface Condltions: Closslflcatlon. color. moisture Remarks (3 tightnewi etc. - FILL: B 0'. Sandy Clay, green gray brown, moist to wet, soft, sm surface roots. DEL MAR FORAATION: P 1.5'. Sandy Clay, light green - with green siltstone, moist, dense. 8 3.0' End of Boring No Water No Caving ~~ B " AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate TEST'EXCAVATION- CORE NO. 1 FN. -1 .fl1 prolecl/tllen(: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. ~ara: 5/21 186 Locallon: Parkino oaraoe. end of Estrella De mar Court Sheet: 1 1 Eallmaled Surface Elevatlon(f1.): Total Deoth(fl.1: 2.5 Rlg Type: Core DrillIAuger I Field Description By: KMJ Sutfacs Condlllono: In slab-on-grade, most westerly core. Subsurfaca Condillona: FORMATION Classificallon. color. moisture. Ilghlnesa. elc. Remarks - SLAB: 0 0', Concrete Slab. A'.. ..a. .PA. f' SLAB :a. ;... e,., . e Z'. 8 0.33'. Silty Coarse Sand, mediun brown, wet, loose. r I 1 \. - FILL: # 0.75'. Sandy Clay, green, wet. very soft. mottled with rust brown. I I DEL flAR FORflATIDN: I 2.33', Siltstone, green, moist, dense. " , R 2.5' End of Core I I - No Cawino Notes: 1) Slab thickness 3.95" (ASTM C174-82) 1 2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 gauge both directions, depth 3". 3) No moisture barrier. AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate b I II I B Notes: 1) Slab thickness 3.88" (ASTm Cl74-82) a 3) Core through patched slab crack. AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate B TEST'EXCAVATION - CORE NO. 3 Fa. 20221.01 proiec~~c~len~: Casitas De La Costa. Carlsbad, ta. oate: 5/21/86 Locallon: Parkina garaae. end of Estrella Oe Nar Court Shae(:L of 1 Estlmaled Surface Elevatlon(lt.): Tolal Oeolh(f1.): Rlq Type: Core DrilllRuger Field Description KPlJ I I Sunace Condlllons: Pes: 1 ) Slab thickness 3.38" (ASTN C174-82) 2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 gauge both directions. exposed in bottom of slab. 3) No moisture barrier. AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate b 'TEST 'EXCAVATION - CORE NO. 4 'Esllmalsd Surface Elevatlon(fl.): - - 23 " I " " Total Deplh(l1.): 1.7' RIq Type: Core Drill/Auger Field Description By: KPU % Sunaca Condlllons: I - 4 2 I In slab, fourth most westerly core. . i d - Subsurface Condlllons: FORMATION: Classilicallon. color. moisture. !lghlness. ale. Remarks 2'. 9, . y!' SLAB: e ut, Concrete Slab. - .. ~'i .!Ati '.SLAB *, ~ - 7 0 0.39', Silty Sand, mediun brm, wet, loose. LL 1 LL I Notes: 1) Slab thickness 3.85" (RSTl'l C174-82) b 2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 gauge both directions, exposed and rusted out in bottom of slab. 3) Core through shrinkage crack. AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate 1 TEST 'EXCAVATION- CORE NO. 5 F.N. 20221 prolecl/~llent: Casitas Oe La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. ate: 5/21 106 Locatlon: Parking garage, end of Estrella De Mar Court Shset:1 of 1 Estimated Surface Elsvstlon( Total Deoth(ll.): 3.n Rlg Type: Core Drill/Auger L Field Description By: KmJ Sunace Conditions: . In slab, most easterly core. . c e - t Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classillcallon, color, moisture. Ilghtness. etc. Remarks SLAB: B Dl, Concrete Slab. - .: .., SLAB :# i. -4.. -.a .a - - 0 0.28'. Silty Sand, mdiun brown, wet, loose. / FILL: e 0.71'. Sandy Clay, green. wet, very soft. - - more silt than previous core fill. CI I DEL MAR FORMATION: e 2.42', siltstone, green, I mist. dense. tI I I I E 3.0' End of Core No Water res: 1) Slab thickness 3.36" (ASTPI Cl74-82) 21 Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 sauqe both directions, exposed in the bottm of slab and rusted almost canpletel 3) No moisture barrier. 01 AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate Sunass Condlllons: Southerly core in carport slab-on-grade. . a .I . I I - Subsurface Conditlons: FORMATION Classilicallon. d color. moisture. tlghlness. efc. Rernarka I'l' ' ..' e:. .'" SLAB .. 4, SLAB: R 0'. Concrete Slab tI .. , 2' . 9b. R 0.4'. Silty Sand, medium br - DEL MAR FORNATION: R 1'.25', Sandy Clay with siltstone, green, mist, dense. i. I 2.0' End of Core No Water No Caving - - II I I Northerly core in carport slab-on-grade. Subsurface Conditlons: FORMATION Clossiiicallon, calor. moisture. Ilahtness. etc. Remarks e 0.37'. Silty Sand, medium brown. saturated, \ loose. FILL: e 0.58'. Sandy Clay, greenhust. saturated very soft. - DEL NAR FOR~ATION: e 1.83',Clayey sand, greenish white, mist. dense. ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ \ R 2.5' End oftore Saturated Condition DNotes: 1) Slab thickness 4.44" (ASTPl C174-82) 2) Steel mesh in slab, 6"x6"/8 gauge both directions, depth 3y. 3) No moisture barrier. AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate D File No. 20623 August 23, 1989 American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX C File No. 20221.01 October 15, 1986 American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES Moisture Content Determinations Moisture content determinations were made in accordance with ASTM method of test D2216. b Dry Unit Weight Dry unit weight (dry density) testing of ring and "Shelby" tube samples was determined in accordance with conventiona1,laboratory ASTM 1587, and ASTM 2937. techniques and in conjunction with field method of test ASTM 1556, Particle Size Analysis method of test D422. Mechanical sieve procedures were utilized. Particle size analyses were performed inaccordance with ASTM Atterberg Limits The liquid limit and the plastic limit were performed in accordance with ASTM method of test D423 and D424. Compaction Tests Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content determinations were performed in accordance with ASTM method of test D1557-78A. B File No. 20221.01 October 15, 1986 Page C-2 American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES continued Expansive Soil Testing Two types of soil tests were performed. 1) Expansion tests were performed in accordance with Uniform Building Code 29-2 test procedures. 2) Expansion tests were performed on undisturbed "Shelby" tube samples in accordance with HUD criteria. The samples were air dried at 105 degrees F for about 48 hours and then the percent expansion was determined after the samples were submerged in distilled water (HUD). The samples were allowed to swell for 24 hours under varied vertical stress loads. Consolidation Tests Condolidation test were performed on undisturbed "Shelbyqq tube samples (ASTM 1587-83) in accordance with ASTM method of test 2435, except that time readings were not taken. File .No. 20221.01 October 15, 1986 Page C-3 b b b b Field Lab Max Field Dry Dry Relative Moisture Degree of Sample (pcf 1 (pcf) ' (X) (X) (X) Location Density Density Compaction Content Saturation Type T-1 @ 1.5' T-1 @ 3.1' T-1 @ 4.5' T-1 @ 5.5' T-2 @ 1' T-2 @ 2' T-2 @ 3' T-2 @ 4' T-2 @ 4.5-5' T-3 @ 1.5' T-3 @ 3' T-4 @ 1' T-4 @ 3.5' T-5 @ 1' T-5 @ 3' T-5 @ 2' T-5 e 3.5' T-7 @ 2' T-7 @ 5' T-7 @ 7.5' B-1 @ 2.5' B-1 @ 3.5' c-1 e 2' C-4 @ 0.6' 103.3 85.4 119.8 102.3 94.2 92.8 90.6 90.9 91.8 98.0 95.1 88.3 89.7 95.8 91.0 93.8 110.5 94.7 101 .o 94.1 97.1 99.4 94.1 102.9 114.5 136.0 136.0 114.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 -114.5 b14.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 114.5 Bedrock Topsoil Alluvium 114.5 114.5 75 15.6 76 44 Very Low 88 18 89 Very Low 37 12.5 54 82 81 17.9 63 79 21.3 72 14.1 45 79 18.2 59 80 17.7 59 85.6 11.7 45 83 19.1 68 78 77 11.4 34 12.9 39 79 14.9 84 48 82 15.8 58 97 17.6 6.1 17.5 93 88 83 9.3 39 26.1 93 - 26.4 92 - 21.9 82 I 21.9 87 82 27.3 96 90 23.0 100 K sc sc sc K K K K T sc K sc K sc sc sc K K K T T T T T K = Knocker Bar (ASTM 2937-83) T = Thin Walled "Shelby" Tube (ASTM 1587-83) SC = Sand Cone (ASTM 1556-82) IOII m N INII m N b file No. 20221.01 October 15, 1986 Page C-5 b EXPANSION TESTS (U.B.C. 29-2) Initial Initial Soil Location Type Density Content Index Potential Dry Moisture Expansion Expansion b (pcf (%I T-2 @ 2'-3' Fill 98.1 , 14.2 78 Medium T-2 @ S"5.5' Fill 97.5 12.3 111 High T-7 @ 6.5'-7.5' 'Natural 95.6 14.2 93 High B B-1 @ 2.5'-3.25' Topsoil 102.8 10.6 107 High C-2 @ 0.58'-1.0' Fill . 100.7 13.7 110 High D 1 HUD CRITERIA ) SWELL TESTS INTACT "SHELBY" TUBE SAMPLES b (ASTM 1587-83) Field Field Pre-Test Final soil Location Dry Moisture Moisture Moisture Percent Type Density Content Content Content Expansion (pcf (%I (%I (%I B T-2 @ 4.5'-5' I (650 psf) Fill 91.8 17.7 7.7 27.0 0.60 B-1 @ 2.5'-3' (60 psf) Topsoil 100.0 29.9 . 8.0 26.5 8.01 B B-1 @ 2.5'-3' I (144 psf) Topsoil 101.6 20.1 7.6 23.7 6.47 B-1 @ 2.5'-3' (650 psf) Topsoil 97.9 22.9 12.8 23.6 1.32 b File No. 20221.01 October 15, 1986 Page C-6 SUMMARY OF BULK SAMPLES MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D2216) .- Location T-4 @ 3'-3.5' T-5 @ 2.5'-3.5' T-7 @ 6.5'-7.5' B-1 @ 0.66'-3.0' B-1 @ 2.5'-3.25' C-1 @ l.O"l.5' C-1 @ 2.0'-2.3' C-2 @ 0.58"l.O' C-2 @ 2.27'-2.4' C-3 @ 1.25'-1.67' C-3 @ 2.08'-2.2' C-4 @ l.O"l.4' c-5 @ l.O"l.33' C-5 @ 2.25'-2.4' C-6 @ l.O"l.25' C-7 @ 0.67"l.O' C-7 @ 1.25'-1.62' C-7 @ 1.83'-2.2' c-5 @ 1.58'-1.92' Moisture Content (%I 12.9 13.0 20.1 24.7 21.8 ,2 5.5 j27.2 26.5 20.1 26.5 23.3 21.6 22.3 22.9 21.4 20.7 27.2 18.9 15.9 Soil Type Fill: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay Natural: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay Topsoil: Silty Clay Fill: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay Natural: Siltstone Fill: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay Natural: Clayay Sand Plasticity Chart I 9 c - I ! - - 8 c I * PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION Plate AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20221 OCT 1986 c-2 0 c 0 0 m a 0 0 0 0 0 b a Io v N P 0 0 .. 0 0 0 m a 0 0 0 0 m 0 N 0 * 0 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION Plate AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20221 OCT 1986 c-4 NORMAL PRESSURE (ksf) 0.10 1 .oo 10.00 I CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE Plate AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL ' c-5 OCT 1986 F.N. 20221 INITIAL DRY DENSITY = 58.5 pc~ \NIT\AL MOISTURE CONTENT = a.I% CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE I Plate AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20221 OCT 1986 C-6 b August 23, 1989 File No. 20623 American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION STANDARD GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL GUIOELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS TABLE OF CONTENTS A. 1 5. C. 0. b E. F. 1 1 H. I. J. D B K. L. B GENERAL DEFINITION OF TERMS OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES SITE PREPARATION SITE PROTECTION EXCAVATIONS F1. UNSUITABLE MATERIALS F2. CUT SLOPES F3. PAD AREAS COMPACTED FILL 61. PLACEMENT 62. MOISTURE 63. FILL MATERIAL 64. FILL SLOPES 65. OFF-SITE FILL ’ DRAINAGE STAKING SLOPE MAINTENANCE J 1. LANDSCAPE PLANTS 32. IRRIGATION 53. MAINTENANCE 34. REPAIRS TRENCH BACKFILL STATUS OF GRADING . ”. . STANDARD DETAILS NOS. 1-9 Page - 1 1-4 5 5-6 .. 6-8 a 8 8-9 9 9 9-11 11-12 12-14 14-1 5 15-1 6 16 16-1 7 17 17 17 17-18 18 . 18 19 I 1 A. B. b b b b GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS GENERAL A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 The guidelines contained herein and the standard details attached hereto represent this firm's standard recommendations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the project specifi- cations. All plates attached hereto shall be considered as part of these gui del i nes . The Contractor should not vary from these guidelines without prior recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant and the approval of the Client or his authorized representative. Recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant and/or C1,ient shoul'd not be considered to preclude requirements for approval by the tontroll i ng agency prior to the execution of any changes. These Standard Grading Guidelines and Standard Details 'm,ay be modified and/or superseded by recommendations contained in the text of the preliminary geotechnical report and/or subsequent reports. If disputes arise out of the interpretation of these grading guidelines or-standard details, the Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the governing interpretation. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS B1 82 B3 e4 B5 e6 ALLUVIUM - unconsolidated detrital deposits resulting from flow of water, including sediments deposited in river beds, canyons, flood plains, lakes, fans at the foot of slopes and estuaries. AS-GRADED (AS-BUILT) - the surface and subsurface conditions at completion of grading. BACKCUT - a temporary construction slope at the rear of earth retaining structures such as buttresses, shear keys, stabilization fills or retaining walls. BACKDRAIN - generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system placed behind earth retaining structures such as buttresses, stabilization fills and retaining walls. BEDROCK - a more or less solid, relatively undisturbed rock in place either at the surface or beneath superficial deposits of sol 1 . BENCH - a relatively level step and near vertical rise excavated into sloping ground on which fill is to be placed. Page Two 87 Ea I I 89 810 811 b - 812 813 814 b 815 816 817 818 819 BORROW (Import) - any fill material hauled to the project site from off-site areas. BUTTRESS FILL - a fill mass, the configuration of which is designed by engineering calculations to stabi1ize.a slope exhibiting adverse geologic features. A buttress is generally specified by minimum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A buttress normally contains a backdrainage system. CIVIL ENGINEER - the Regis'tered Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded topographic conditions. CLIENT - the Developer or his authorized representative who is chiefly in charge of the project. He shall have the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations made by the Geotech- nical Consultant and shall authorize the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. COLLUVIUM - generally loose deposits usually found near the base of slopes and brought there chiefly by gravity through slow continuous downhill creep (also see Slope Wash). COMPACTION - is the densification of a fill by mechanical means. CONTRACTOR - a person or company under contract or otherwise retained by the C1 ient to perform demo1 i tion, grading and other site improvements. DEBRIS - all products of clearing, grubbing, demolition, contami- nated soil material unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill and/or any other material so desi.gnated by. the Geotechnical Consultant. ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST - a Geologist holding a valid certificate of registration in the specialty of Engineering Geology. ENGINEERED FILL - a fill of which the Geotechnical Consultant or enable him to conclude that the fill has been placed in substantial his representative, during grading, has made sufficient tests to compliance with the recornendations of the Geotechnical Consultant and the governing agency requirements. EROSION - the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water and/or ice. EXCAVATION - the mechanical removal of earth materials. EXISTING GRADE - the ground surface configuration prior to grading. %Page Three I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 820 FILL - any deposits of soil, rock, soil-rock blends or other ' similar materials placed by man. 821 FINISH GRADE - the ground surface configuration at which time the surface elevations conform to the approved plan. 822 GEOFABRIC - any engineering textile uti1 ized in geotechnical applications including subgrade stabilization and filtering. educated and trained in the field of geology. 823 GEOLOGIST - a representative of the Geotechnical Consultant 824 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT - the Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering .Geology consulting fin retained to provide technical servtces for'the project. For the purpose of these guidelines, observations by the Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the Soil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Geologist and those performed by persons employed by and responsible to the Geotechnical Consultants. 825 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER - a licensed Civil Engineer who applies experience to the acquisition, interpretation and use of knowledge scientific methods, engineering principles and professional of materials of the earth's crust for the evaluation of engineering problems. Geotechnical Engineering encompasses many of the engineering aspects of soil mechanics, rock mechanics, geology, geophysics, hydrology and related sciences. 826 GRADING - any operation consisting of excavation, fi'lling or combinations thereof and associated operations. 827 LANDSLIDE OEBRIS - material , generally porous and of low density, produced from instability of natural or man-made slopes. 828 MAXIMUM DENSITY - standard laboratory test for maximum dry unit weight. Unless otherwise specified, the maximum dry unit weight shall be determined in accordance with ASTM Method of Test D 1557-78. 829 OPTIMUM MOISTURE - test moisture content at .the maximum density. B30 RELATIVE COMPACTION - the degree of compaction (expressed as a percentage) of dry unit weight of a material as compared to the maximum dry unit weight of the material. B31 ROUGH GRADE - the ground surface configuration at which time .the surface elevations approximately confonn to the approved plan. Page 'Four B b B b 832 SITE - the particular parcel of land where grading is being performed. 833 SHEAR KEY - similar to buttress, however, it.is generally constructed by excavating a slot within a natural slope in order to stabilize the upper portion of the slope without grading encroach- ing into the lower portion of the Slope. 834 SLOPE - is an inclined ground surface the steepness of which is generally specified as a ration of horizontal: vertical (e.g., 2:l). 835 836 E37 838 839 840 E41 E42 e43 844 SLOPE WASH - soil and/or rock material that has been transported down a slope by mass wasting assisted by runoff water not confined by channels (a1 so see Col1uvium). SOIL - naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt, clay, etc. or combinations thereof. mechanics (a1 so see Geotechnical Engineer). SOIL ENGINEER - licensed Civil Engineer experienced in soil STABILIZATION FILL - 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 condi- tions. A stabilization fill is normally specified by minimum key may or may not have a backdrainage system specified. wid.th and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A stabilization fill SUBDRAIN - generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system placed beneath a fill in the alignment of canyons or former drain- age channel s. . ." 'operations. SLOUGH - loose, noncompacted fill material generated during grading TAILINGS - nonengineered fill which accumulates on or adjacent to equi pnent haul-roads. TERRACE - relative1.y level step constructed in the face of a graded slope surface for drainage control and maintenance purposes. TOPSOIL - the presumably fertile upper zone of soil which is ,usually darker in color and loose. WINDROW - a string of large rock buried within engineered fill in accordance with guide1 ines set forth by the Geotechnical Consul- tant. t Page Five C. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES t t t t I b t c1 The Geotechnical Consultant should provide observation and testing services and should make evaluations to advise the Client on geotechnical matters. The geotechnical Consultant should report his findings and reconmendations to the C1 ient or his authorized .. representative. C2 The Client .should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the bility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the project. He or his authorized representative.has the responsi- Geotechnical Consultant. He shall authorize or cause to.have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his' autho- rized representative should remain on-site or should remain.. reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. C3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other associated operations on consruction projects, including, but not limited to, earth work in accordance with the project plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements. During grading, the Contractor or his authorized representative should remain on-site. Overnight and on days off, the Contractor should remain accessible. D. SITE PREPARATION 01. The.Client, prior to any site preparation or grading, should arrange and attend a meeting among the Grading Contractor, the Design Engineer, the Geotechnical Consultant, representatives of the appropriate' governing authorities as well as any other concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 48 hours notice. 02 Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, roots of trees and graded. C1 eating and grubbing should extend to the outside of a1 1 proposed excavation and fill areas. D3 Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, ments from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should tunnels, etc.) and other man-made surface and subsurface improve- include proper capping and/or rerouting pipelines at the proj.ect perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the Page Six b D4 D5 D6 i b 1 t 1 t requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant at the time of demolition. Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be protected by the Contractor from damage or injury. Debris generated during clearing , grubbing and/or demo1 i ti on opera- tions should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed off- site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be perfoned under the observation of the Geotechnical Consultant. The C1 ient or Contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appro- grading operations. priate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with E. SITE PROTECTION El Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the Contractor. Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until such.time as the entire project is complete as identified by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Client .and the regulating agencies. E2 The Contractor should be responsiible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations .by, the Geotechnical Consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g., backcuts) are made in consideration of stability of thy completed project and, therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibil i- Consultant should not be considered to preclude more restrictive ties of the Contractor. Recomnendations by the Geotechnical requirements by the regulating agencies, clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. E3 Precautions should be taken during the performance of Site t Page Seven E4 During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting should be kept reasonably accessible to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary during periods of rainfall, the Contractor should install checkdams, desilting basins, rip-rap, sand bags or other devices or methods necessary to control erosion and provide safe conditions. kept infoned by the Contractor as to the nature of remedial or sandbags or plastic sheeting, other labor, dozing, etc.). preventative work being performed (e.g., pumping, placement of E6 Following periods of rainfall, the Contractor should contact the E5 During periods of rainfall, the Geotechnical Consultant should be Geotechnical consultant and arrange a walkover of the site in order to visually assess.rain related damage. The Geotechnical Consul- his assessments. At the request of the Geotechnical Consultant, tant may also recomnend excavations and testing in order to aid in the Contractor shall make excavations. in order to evaluate the extent of rain related-damage. E7 Rain-related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions identified by the Geotech- nical Consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as Unsuitable Materials and should be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remdial grading as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. E8 Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1 .O foot, should be -. . overexcgvated,to unaffected, competent material. Where less than 7;O foot in depth, unsui.table materials may be processed in-place to achieve near-optimum moisture'conditions, then thoroughly recompacted in accordance with the applicable specifications. If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials should be overexcavated, then replaced in accordance with the applicable specifications. to depths of greater than 1 .O foot, they should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1 .O foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moi sture condi tionni ng i n-pl ace, foll owed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein may be material s should be overexcavated and rep1 aced as compacted fill in attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected E9 In slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gull ies exist Page Eight t t 1 1 accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein. As field conditions dictate, other slope repair procedures may be recom- mended by the Geotechnical Consultant. F. EXCAVATIONS F1 UNSUITABLE MATERIALS F1.l Materials which are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recomnendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and nonengi neered or otherwi se del eteri ous f i 11 materi a1 s . F1.2 Material identified by the Geotechnical Consultant as overexcavated, watered or dried, as needed, and thoroughly unsatisfactory due to it's moisture conditions should be blended to a uniform near optimum moisture condition (as per guidelines reference 7.2.1) prior to placement as compacted fill. F2 CUT SLOPES F2.1 Unless otherwise recomnended by the Geotechnical Consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:l (horizonta1:vertical). F2.2 If excavations for cut slopes espose loose, cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, with a compacted. stabilization fill should be accomplished overexcavation and replacement of the unsi-table materials otherwise specified by the Geotechnical Consultant, as recomnended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless stabilization fill construction should conform to the requirements of the Standard Details. F2.3 The Geotechnical Consultant should review cut slopes during excavation. The Geotechnical Consultant should be notified by the contractor prior to beginning slope excavations. F2.4 If, during the course of grading, adverse or potentially adverse geotechnical conditions are encountered which were not anticipated in the preliminary report, the Geotechnical Consultant should explore, analyze and make recomnendations to treat these problems. Page Nine b b b b b b F2.5 When cut slopes are made in the direction of the prevailing drainage, a non-erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the top-of-cut. F3 PAD AREAS F3.1 All lot pad areas, including side yard terraces, above provide for a minimum of 3 feet (refer to Standard Details) stabilization fills or buttresses should be overexcavated ti of compacted fill over the entire pad area. pad areas with both fill and cut materials exposed and pad areas containing both very shallow (1 ess than 3 feet) and deeper fill should be overexcavated to provide for a uniform compacted fill blanker with a minimum of 3 feet in thickness (refer to material types should also be overexcavated to provide for Standard Details). Cut areas exposing significantly varying at least a 3-fOOt thick compacted fill blanket. Geotechni- cal conditions may require greater depth of overexcavation. The actual depth should be delineated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading. F3.2 For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and/or an appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away 'from the top-of-slopes of 2 percent or greater is recoritnended.. G. 'COMPACTED FILL All fill materials should be compacted as specified bel ow or by other methods specifically recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified, the minimum degree of compaction (relative compac- tion) should be 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. G1 PLACEMENT Gl.1 Prior to placement of compacted fill, the Contractor should request a review by the Geotechnical Consultant of the exposed ground surface. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed ground surface should then be scarified (six inches minimum), watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, then thoroughly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density. The review by the Geotechnical Consultant should not be considered to preclude requirement of inspection and approval by the governing agency. 'Page Ten 1 1 b b b 61.2 Compacted fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts compaction. Each lift should be watered or dried as not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness prior to needed, thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum moisture conditions then thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. 61.3 The Contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and watering.apparatus On the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed in materials. If necessary, excavation equipment should be "shut down" temporarily in order to permit proper compaction of fills. Earth. moving equipment should only be considered a supplement and not substituted for conven- tional compaction equipment. sloping steeper than 5:l (horizontal :vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least six-foot wide benches and a minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the fin natural ground, fin bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area subsequent to keying and.benching until the area has been reviewed by the Geotechntcal Consultant. Material sufficiently away from the bench area to allow for the recomnended review of the horizontal bench prior to . placement of fill. Typical keying and benching details have been included within the accompanying Standard Detai 1 s. ' consideration of moisture retention properties of the 61.4 When placing fill in horizonta.1 lifts adjacent to areas ' generated by the benching operation should be moved 61.5 Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as be established within the firm core of adjacent approved above described. At least a 3-fOOt vertical bench should compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill. increments until the desired finished grades are achieved.. Benching should proceed in at least 3-foot vertical 61.6 Fill should be tested for compliance with the recommended re1 ative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density Page El even D b D D D b D D G1.7 G1.8 61.9 62 MOISTURE testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test D1556-64, D2922-78 and/or 02937-71. Tests should be provided for about every two vertical feet or 1,000 cubic yar.ds of fill placed. Actual test interval may vary as field conditions . dictate. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recomnendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor should assist the Geotechnical Consultant deteninations and/or for testing compacted fill. and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal As recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor should "shut down" or remove grading equipment from an area being tested. The Geotechnical Consultant should maintain a plan with estimated locations of. field tests. Unless the client provides for actual surveying of test locations, the estimated locations by the Geotechnical Consultant should only be considered rough estimates and should not be utilized for the purpose of preparing cross sections showing test locations or in any case for the purpose of after-the-fact evaluating of the sequence of fill placement. 62.1 For field testing purposes, "near optimum" moisture w.ill vary with material type and other factors including be evaluated during grading. As a preliminary guideline recommended in Preliminary Investigation Reports and/or may to three percent above optimum. "near optimum" should be considered from one percent below - .. compaction procedure. "Near optimum'' may be specifically 62.2 Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by scarifica- tion, watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to near-optimum moisture conditions, then recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Where wet or other dry or other unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot, the unsuitable materials should be overexcavated. Page Twelve 1 1 1 1 1 1 62.3 Following a period of flooding, rainfall or overwatering by damage assessments have been made and remedial grading other means, no additional fill should be placed until performed as described under Section E6 herein. 63 FILL MATERIAL 63.1 Excavated on-site materials which are acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant may be uti1 i zed as compacted f i 11 , provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. 63.2 Where import materials are required for use on-site, the Geotechnical Consultant should be notified at least 72 hours in advance of importing, in order to sample and test materials from proposed borrow sites. No import materials should be delivered for use on-si te without prior sampling and testing by Geotechnical Consultant. 63.3 Where oversized rock or similar irreducible material is generated during grading, it is recommended, where practical, to waste such material off-site or on-site in Rock placed in disposal areas should be placed with areas designated as "nonstructural rock disposal areas". sufficient fines to fill voids. The rock should be compacted in lifts to an unyielding condition. The disposal area should be covered with at least three feet of compacted fill which is free of oversized material. The upper three feet should be placed in accordance with the guidelines for compacted fill herein. 63.4 Rocks. 12 inches in maximum dimension and smaller may be ' utilized within the compacted fill, provided they are placed in such manner that nesting of the rock is avoided. Fill should be placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the 3/4-inch sieve size. The 12-inch and 40 percent recommendations herein may vary as field conditions dictate. . . "- 63.5 During the course of grading operations, rocks or similar irreducible materials greater than 12 inches maximum dimension (oversized material), may be generated. These rocks should not be placed within the compacted fill unless placed as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. 63.6 Where rocks or similar irreducible materials of greater than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension Page Thirteen I B B B B are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered f ill , Special hand1 i ng in accordance with the accompanying Standard Details is reconnnended. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken down or disposed off-site. Rocks up to four'feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper 10 feet of any face. These recommendations could vary as locations of fill and should not be closer than 20 feet to any slope improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures .or deep uti1,ities are pr.oposed. Oversized material should be compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select " placed in windrows 'on a clean, overexcavated.or unyielding native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around a1 1 windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so that successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane. The Contractor should be aware that the placement of rock in windrows will significantly slow the grading operation and may require additional equipment and/or special equipment. 63.7 It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as Geotechnical Consultant at the time of placement. ' field conditions dictate and as reconnnended by the 63.8 Material that is considered unsuitable by'the Geotechnical Consultant should. not be uti1 ized in the compacted fill. 63.9 During grading operations, placing and mixing the materials from the cut and/or borrow areas may result in soil mix- tures which possess unique physical properties. Testing may be required of samples obtained directly from the fi 11 areas in order to verify confonnance with the specifica- tions. Processing of these additional samples may take two or more working days. The contractor may elect to move the operation to other areas within the project, or may continue placing compacted fill pending laboratory and field test results. Should he elect the second a1 terna- tive, fill placed is done so at the Contractor's risk. 63.10 Any fill placed in areas not previously reviewed and evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant, and/or in other areas, without prior notification to the Geotechnical Page Fourteen b b b b b b b Consultant may require removal and recompaction at the Contractor's expense. Determination of overexcavations should be made upon review of field conditions by the Geotechnical Consultant. 64 FILL SLOPES 64.1 Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:l (Horizontal: vertical 1. 64.2 Except as specifically recommended otherwjse or as otherwise provided far in these grading guidelines (Reference G4.3)., compacted fill slopes should be overbuilt and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of the Geotechnical Consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased achieved, Care should be taken by the Contractor to until the desired compacted slope surface condition is provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbui 1 t slope .surface. 64.3 Although no construction procedure produces a slope free from risk of future movement, overfilling and cutting back of slope to a compacted inner core is, given no other .constraints, the most desirable procedure, Other constraints, however, must often be considered. These. constraints may i ncl ude property 1 i ne si tuati ons, access, the critfcal nature of the development and cost. Where such constraints are identified, slope face compaction on aldernative by conventional construction procedures slopes of 2:l or flatter may be attempted as a second best including backrolling techniques upon specific recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placement should proceed in thin lifts, (i.e., six to eight inch loose thickness). Each lift should be moisture condition should be maintained and/or re-establ ished, where conditioned and thoroughly compacted. The desired moi Sture Selected 1 ifts should be tested to ascertain that desired necessary, during the period between successive lifts. compaction is being achieved. Care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. b b .. ~ Page Fifteen b b I I B I B Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired establish desired grades. Grade during construction should finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the Slope. It may be helpful to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should not be allowed to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals not exceeding four feet in vertical slope height or the capability of available equipment, backrolled utilizing a conventional sheepsfoottype roller. whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly Care should be taken.to maintain the desired moisture conditions and/or reestablishing same as needed prior to backrolling. Upon achieving final grade, the slopes should again be moisture conditioned and thoroughly backrolled. The use of a side-boom roller will probably be necessary and vibratory methods are strongly recommended. Without conditioning, the slopes shou1.d then be grid-rol led to delay, so as to avoid (if possible) further moisture condition. achieve a relatively smooth surface and uniformly. compact In order to monitor slope construction procedures, moisture and density tests should be taken at regular intervals. Failure to achieve the desired results will likely result in a recomnendation by the Geotechnical Consultant to overexcavate the slope surfaces followed by reconstruction of the slopes utiliziag over-filling and cutting back procedures and/or further attempt at the conventional backrolling approach.' Other recomnendations may a1 so be provided which would 'be comnensurate with field conditions. - 64.4 Where placement of fill above a natural slope or above a. cut slope is proposed, the fill slope configuration as presented in the accompanying Standard Details should be adopted. be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished uti1 iring a berm and pad gradients of at least 2 percent in soil areas. 64.5 For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should 65 OFF-SITE FILL 65.1 Off-site fill should be treated in the same manner as recommended in these specifications for site preparation, excavation, drains, compaction, etc. I Tage Sixteen b b b .. b b 65.2 Off-site canyon fill should be placed in preparation for future additional fill, as shown in the accompanying Standard Details. G5.3 Off-site fill subdrains temporarily terminated (up canyon) should be surveyed for future relocation and connection. H. DRAINAGE H1 Canyon subdrain systems specified by the Geotechnical Consultant should be installed in accordance with the Standard Details. H2 Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope accordance with the specifications of the accompanying Standard stabilizations or sidehill masses, should be installed in Details. H3 Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to suitable disposal areas via non-erodibl e devices (i .e., gutters, downspouts; concrete swales). H4 For drainage over soil areas imnediately away from structures, maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent should be (i.e., within four feet) a minimum of 4 percent gradient should be maintained over soil areas. Pad drainage may be reduced to at or manmade, of greater than 10 feet in height and where no slopes least 1 percent for projects where no slopes exist, either natural are planned, either natural or man-made, steeper than 2:l (horizonta1:vertical slope ratio). H5 Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life of the project. Property owners should be made aware that a1 tering drainage patterns can be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance. I STAKING I1 In all fill areas, the fill should be compacted prior to the placement of the stakes. This particularly is important on fill slopes. S1 ope stakes should not be placed until the slope is thoroughly compacted (backrolled) . If stakes must be placed prior to the completion of compaction procedures, it must be recognized that they will be removed and/or demo1 ished at such time as compaction procedures resume. I2 In order to allow for remedial grading operations, whi,ch could include overexcavations or slope stabilization, appropriate staking offsets should be provided. For finished slope and stabilization Page Seventeen B J. b B B B B B D backcut areas, we recommend at least a 10-foot setback from proposed toes and tops-of-cut. MAINTENANCE 31 LANDSCAPE PLANTS should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation requiring 1 i ttle watering. Plants native to the southern California area.and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi-arid and arid areas may.also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect would be the best party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting. configuration. 52 IRRIGATION 52.1 1rrigati.on pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces. 52.2 Slope irrigation should be minimized. If. automatic timing devices are utilized on irrigation systems, provisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during periods of rainfall. 52.3' Though not a requirement, consideration should be given to ' . control devices. Such devices can aid in the maintenance the installation of near-surface moisture monitoring of relatively uniform and reasonably constant moisture conditions. . .. . 52.4 Property owners should be made aware that overwatering of slopes is detrimental to slope stability. 53 MAINTENANCE 53.1 Periodic inspections of landscaped slope areas should be weeds and enhance growth of the landscape plants. Some planned and appropriate measures should be taken to control areas may require occasional replanting andlor reseeding. 53.2 Terrace drains and downdrains should be periodically drainage improvements should be repaired immediately. inspected and maintained free of debris. Damage to page Eighteen b I I 53.3 Property owners should be made aware that burrowing animals can be detrimental to slope stability. A preventative program should be established to control burrowing animals. 53.4 As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged' rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period of time prior to landscape planting. 54 REPAIRS 34.1 If slope failures occur, the Geotechnical Consultant should development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. be contacted for a field review of site conditions and 54.2 If ;lope failures occur as a result of exposure to periods of heavy rainfall, the failure area and currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against additional saturation. 54.3 In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are illustrated for superficial slope failures (i.e., occuring typically within.the outer one foot to three feet of a slope face). K. TRENCH BACKFILL K1 Utility trench backfill should, unless otherwise recomnended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recomnended, the degree of compaction should be a minimum of 90 percent of the " laboratory maximum density. K2 . As an a1 ternative, granular material (sand equivalent greater than 30) may be thoroughly jetted in-place. Jetting should only be considered.to apply to trenches no greater than two feet in width backfill should be thoroughly mechanically compacted and/or and four feet in depth. Following jetting operations, trench wheel roll ed from the surface. K3 Backfill of exterior and interior trenches extending below a 1:l compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum projection from the outer edge of fundations should be mechanically density. K4 Within slab areas, but' outside the influence of foundations, with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical trenches up to one foot wide and two feet deep may be backfilled page Nineteen b b means. If on-site materials are utilized, they should be wheel-rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review Of backfill operations during construction. ~5 If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable tO use compaction equipment in,close proximity to a buried conduit, the Contractor may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with Clean, granular material, which should be thoroughly jetted in-place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review by the Geotechnical Consultant at the time of construction. K6 In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for? use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the Geotechnical Consultant. K7 Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope the potential build-up of seepage forces. areas unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate L STATUS OF GRADING Prior to proceeding with any grading operation, the Geotechnical Consultant should be notified at least two working days in advance in order to schedule the necessary observation and testing services. Ll Prior to any significant expansion or cut back in the grading operation, the Geotechnical Consultant should be provided with adequate notice (i.e., two days) in order to make appropriate adjustments in observation and testing services. L2 Foll owing completion of grading operations and/or between phases of a grading operation, the Geotechnical Consultant should be provided with at least two working days notice in advance of commencement -of addi.tiona1 grading operations. Dozer Trench : G,eofabric Alternat.iye- Backhoe Trench / Geofabric Alternative . - ............ -. - . - ........ - . - _. . "" .FUTURE CANYON FILL' ... > . - ........ __ .... . . ""_ - ' View of Canyon Sidewall ... ... ... - __ . . - - . . " STANDARD DETAIL. NO., 5 . .~ .. . .. . . .. -. - . .. . TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION "_ . . . __ "_ "_ .. - . ." . ROCK DISPOSAL \ . .. .. STANDARD DETAIL NO.. 7 .. . . . STANDARD DETAIL N0.8 IS NOT APPLICABLE ... " " . J 4 L L . - ............. -. - . - ......... - . - " _'" .FUTURE CANYON FILL' View Along Canyon fiomcd fvfuH 6vude - -.-" ....... ........ ... ... - ". .. - - . ... STANDARD DETAIL NO., 5 " . . ... .. . .- .- . .- . TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION .. . .. ' . cut Lot STANDARD DETAIL NO.. 7 . . .STANDARD DETAIL N0.8 IS NQT APPLICABLE . 0 z a I-. a . .- ............ -. - . - ....... " . - -. _''" FUTURE CANYON FILL' . .... .... .... ..... .. % ......... View Along Canyon /$~-KV~UPC ~V&L - -.-.-.- .... ... ... - . . - - . " ..STANDARD DETAIL NO., 5 . "- . ... . . - . - - - . - ,. TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION ... .. STANDARD DETAIL NO.. 7 ,STANDARD DETAIL NO.$ IS NQT APPLICABLE .. .. ". - ._: ... . American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION February 27, 1990 File No. 20623.02 Mr. Gary Robinson 2050 Hancock Street San Diego, California 92110 HOYCO CONSTRUCTION Subject : REVIEW OF REPAIR FOUNDATIONS Building 1913 Casitas-de la Costa Condominiums Carlsbad, California Reference: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION/REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS Estrella de Mar Court Casitas de la Costa Condominiums Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Robinson: At the request of the Casitas de la Costa Homeowners, we have provided geotechnical consulting services in the form of observation of embedment conditions for the repair foundation at Building 1913, Casitas de la Costa Development. At this time, the western half of the repair foundation repair foundation has been excavated. This eastern segment of Building 1913 has been constructed. The eastern half of the the repair excavation has been reviewed by our office prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. The foundation excavation has been found to be in general accordance with the intentions of the geotechnical consultant and the geotechnical report. The excavation for the continuous footing exposed compacted fill. The excavation was measured to be in accordance with geotechnical setback criteria and the construction plans. The material for the entire length of the east repair segment at foundation embedment, therefore, will be into competent bearing Building 1913. 25202 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 101, Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 539-9983 FAX (213) 539-7267 5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 104, San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 457-2711 FAX (619) 457.0814 1250 North Lakeview Avenue, Suite T, Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 970.0255 FAX (714) 970-0142 File No. 20623.02 February 27, 1990 Page 2 American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION Care should be taken to keep the excavation free of debris prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. Our review does not preclude review by others, such as the structural engineer or City inspectors. Should you have any questions regarding geotechnical conditions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, qRICAN GEOTECHNICAL KMJ/GWA: Id David Chavez/Casa Construction American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION January 18, 1990 File No. 20623.02 Mr. Gary Robinson San Diego, California 92110 2050 Hancock Street HOYCO CONSTRUCTION Subject : REVIEW OF REPAIR FOUNDATIONS Building 1913 Casitas de la Costa Condominiums Carlsbad, California Reference: RECOMMENDATIONS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION/REPAIR Casitas de la Costa Condominiums Estrella de Mar Court Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Robinson: At the request of the Casitas de la Costa homeowners, we have provided geotechnical consulting services in the form of observation of embedment conditions for the repair foundation at Building 1913 of the Casitas de la Costa Development. The western half of the repair foundation for Building 1913 has been excavated. Our office reviewed this segment of the repair excavation prior to placement of reinforcing steel been in general accordance with the intentions of the and concrete. This foundation excavation was found to have geotechnical consultant and the geotechnical report. The excavation for the continuous footing exposed competent natural material in the form of weathered bedrock and natural soil, and was measured to be in accordance with geotechnical setback criteria and the construction plans. The foundation embedment, therefore, will be well into competent bearing material for the entire length of the west repair segment at Building 1913. 25202 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 101, Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 539-9983 FAX (213) 539-7267 5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 104, San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 457-2711 FAX (619) 4574814 1250 North Lakeview Avenue, Suite T, Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 9704255 FAX (714) 970-0142 c .. American Geotechnical A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION File No. 20623.02 January 18, 1990 Page 2 Care should be taken to keep the excavation free of debris prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. Particularly at the eastern end of the excavation, where embedment into natural material is relatively shallow, and attachment to the remaining eastern repair footing will be conducted. Our review does not preclude review by others, such as the structural engineer or City inspectors. Should you have any questions regarding geotechnical conditions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Respectfully submitted, R.C.E. 44011 KMJ/GWA: Id cc: Maureen Jonas David Chavez, Casa Construction Engineering (I Support Sewices 3467 Kurt2 Street, San Diego, CA 92110 (619) 225-9641 f 9561 00 C1SITAS DE L1 COSTA ob 1ddrm.s: 1919-1941 &LC1 RO1D CARLSBAI Inqinew: RENDIMI, MVID 'mrmlt e 87-1279 ?.?O?t Io: hi.: 2/19/90 64781 wow0 CONSTRUCTION 1050 WAYCOCI ST. 911 DIEGO EA 92110 I 02/09/90 - Inspmctmd ibe rlacmamni of r.inforcing simml at rea.dia1 (mxiendmd) footinqs at brllling 1913, 8nli. A.1.C. b D. Uorb conforms to arprovod rlans and swcifications. 1rrivmd 1O:OO A.N./Dmpart.d 12:OO NOON ""-"""""""""""""""""""""""""""~"""~"""""""""""""" Smmmary of Activity smrvic. ("""""" R..oarc. """"""1 8.i. Task kbbrmvlatmd Description Cod. Namm/Dmscri?iion """" ""_ """"""""""""""" ""_ """"""""""""""" """ Unlis 2/09/90 03230 REGISTERED INSPECTOR OOOS7 BRINDLE, JOSEPH 2.00 y 3467 Kurtr Street, San Diego, CA 92110 (619) 225-9641 Englneerlng & Support Setvices Job Yo: Job Name: CASITA5 DE LA COSTA Job Address: i9i9-1941 ALGA ROAD 956i 00 CARLSBAD HOYCO CONslUUClION 2050 HANCOIX ST. SAY DIEGO CA 92110 CITY OF CIRLSBAD UNITED 8TATES TESTINC, NOYCO CONSTRUCTION Dlstrlbmted To: inrlneer: PENDIHI, DAVID 'ermit b 87-1279 7e~ort lo: 3.t.: 2/19/90 64782 02/lS/PO - 1nwect.d the rlaceeeat of 12i-112 cablc yards of concrete (Mix *UP1 at reeedlal (extended) footings at bmlldlng i9tS, snlts 4,B.C h D. Prerared three sets of (4) of concrete test samples. Yorh COePtIes with anrroved CIans a~d Sreclfications. Lrrived 7:OO A.M./Derarted 12:SO P.M. Smmmarr of Actlvit)r """""""_"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Servlcm ("""""" R..o.rc. ------------ > Da te Task Abbrevlated Deserlrtloa Code Namm/D~scrlQtlon Uni 1s 2/14/90 03230 REGISTERED INSPECTOR 00057 BRINDLE. JOSEPH s.so """" ""_ """"""""""""""" ""_ """""""""""""" """ I United States Testing Company, lnc. 6IECEivku riAK 3 U i99b Engineering & Support Services 3467 Kurt2 Street, San Diego, CA 92110 (619) 225-9611 r WE0 COKTSTRUCTIDN 2858 WIHXlCK ST. SRN DIEGO CR 92118 UNITED STATES TESTING, CITY OF CARLSBW) HOYCO CONSTRUCTIDN Permit It 87-127g Engineer: RENOINI, DAVID I Re rt No: 65568 Dag: Nueb. Test PLY Test Besign Pour Designat~on Inch by hxer Day SetlMark F kbr. Code Rir Concrete CoRpression Test 3/26/98 Tested TO ASTU C-39 28 Da Cyl. Age@ Lin Ut Stren th PSI Date of nix kign Slump Hade in of Cy1 This Temp Load Plant Time Tiw -- "" "_ - " "_ " ""_ ""_ " "" "- "" - ""- "" "" "I-" ""_ " "_ 3W 2/14/98 I@ 6M557 9:15 4 62 Location in Structure: REMEDIRC FOOTING-ELM. 912 1949 2a 1948 7 1938 2748 1958 28 1951 68 me Cmpliance:NUTIFIEU 28 DAY TEST FRILS TO CDIIPLY UIM SPECIFICATIONS. Page No: i . United States Testing Company, Inc. Engineering & Support Services 3467 Kunz Street, San Diego. CA 92110 (619) 225-9641 Job Number: 889561 8$ Job Name: CRSITRS DE LR L1]STR 1919-1'341 EliR WID CRRLSBAD CR Peratlt R 87-1279 Engineer: RENDINI, DRYID geeport Nc: 65568 Date: 5/18/38 tested io RSTK C-39 Nwb. TEt PCF Test Design Pour Desiqn?.tm inch by her Day SetMark F hbr. Code Air Cowpte Compression iest Cy!. Rge@ Un Ut Strength Pd Date of Mix Design Slli~p Hade in of Cy! This TQZp Load Plant 28 Da Time Time ""_ "- _" - "" "" _"" "_ "" "" "" _"" "_ " - ""_ """" _"" " "_ " -"" "" "" ----- 26.13% 2:14199 !6P 6 "57 9::5 4 kcation in Structure: R€VUXRL FOCTING-BLDG. 913 6 32 193 3 :sa 7 2748 133 i351 3Q !95$ 28 3@8 ?E?@ hp!ianre:98 DRY EST CCMKIES YIiii 28 NY SPECiFICRTINNS. Page No: 1 United States Tasting Company, Inc. , Engineerlng & Suppofl Services 3467 Kurt2 Street, San Diego. CA 92110 (619) 225-9641 Job Nunber: W561 @ Job Naw: CRSITRS DE LR ClSTR 1919-1941 RL6R RWD CRRLSBRD CA Pemit # 87-1279 Engineer: ENDINI, WID P.O. t Report No: E5465 Date: 3/26/98 Nmb. Test PCF Test kip" Cyl. Rge@ Un tit Stren th Pd 28 Da - "" " "_ - "_ ""- " " - "_ """ ?I%@ 1945 26 1944 7 x@@ 24E8 1947 68 1946 28 Discarded. 3368 HOYCO WTRUCTION 26@ HwycocK ST. SRN DIEGO CA 92118 Cancrete Capreasion Test Tested To ASTN C-39 CITY OF CRRLSBRD WITU) STRTES TESTING, HOYCO COffiTRUCTION Time Time Date of flix,Design Slwp Made in of Cy1 This Tewp Load Pour Designation Inch by Nixer Day Setlllark F bbr. 2/14/99 16P "" "_ - "_ "" ""_ _" "" "_ "" Location in Structure: REMEDIM.. FOOTING BLD6 913 4 6M7 7:15 4 2 Cospliance:28 MY TEST WLIES UITH SPECIFICRTIONS. Code Air Plant . "_ "_ "" "_ 32 3~ 2/14/9a 16~ 4HoA57 11:15 4 11 22 Location in Structure: fEEDIRL FUOTIN6-BU)G 913 1952 7 nee 1953 28 3178 1954 28 1955 68 3348 Discarded. Compliance:?8 DRY TEST COMPLIES UITH SPECIFICATIONS. United States Testing Company, Inc. Engineering & Support Sewkes 3467 Kurt2 Street. San Diego, CA 92110 (619) 225-9641 RECEIVED MAR 1 6 1990 Job lo: Job !lase: CkSITkS DE Ln COSTL Job nddrsss: 1919-1941 ALCk ROkD 9SAi 00 HOYCO CONSTRUCTION 2050 HkNCOCK ST. SkN DIESO CA 921iO CARLSDkD Ch CONCRETE INSPECTION lEPORT CERNIT 189-1ZW CITY OF CIIRLSJkD UNITED STkTES TESTINC, HOYCO COWSTRUCTIOW Oistribrted To: 03/06/90 - Inspected placesent of h8TII A6iS wade 40 rebrr and 85 crbic ysrds of 3000 ?si concrete for footing resadiat murk, snits E, F k 5. Four test cylinder. ware cast and 3.S' SIusP uecsred fro# trsck 1206, ticket N41821. Location unit G. Forr tsai cylinders Mer. cast Jnd 4.5' slrsp secured fro. tr8ck #Si4, ticket #341831, location unkt F. k11 work conforms to specifications, Prolect ~11~s and code. Arrived 9:OO. departed 3:OO. Saseary of bctivity Service ("""""-- Re,orrc. """""--) Dr te Task kbbreviated Description cod8 Wase/Descrlrtion Units 3/06/90 03228 REGISTERED INSPECTOR/CONCRETE 00083 IIILLER. FRANK 6.00 """" ""_ """"""""""""""" ""_ """"""""~"~""""" """ I United States Testing Company, Inc. Engineerlng a Support Services 3467 Kurtz Street, San Diego. CA 92110 (619) 225-9641 Job .%ne: @SITRS DE L4 CDSTR Job Nuaber: Bg(j561 88 &F$LSWD 19!9-i941 RLGi) RORD CR CISY OF C!WLSB!Xl Engineer: RENDINI, DGVID krait It 87-1279 Report No: 65884 Date: 4/84/98 Tested TU GSTM C-39 Nunb. Test PCF Test %sign Pour Designation Inch by nixer Day SeURark i Nabr. %de Rir P.O. # Concrete Con~pressian Test Cyi. kg& Un Wt Stren th PSI Date of Mix Design Slump Made in of Cy1 This Temp Load Plant 28 Day iiae Ti@ ""_ "" _"" - ""- "" ""- "_ "" "_ """" "_ "" ""_ "_ ""- "" ""- - "" "" "- ""_ "" "" """" "_ ""_ "" "_ ma z!w9a 16-P 2.5 m3 l:% 4 Location in Stiwture: FOOTING LINE 'G' 2 32 2968 7 2969 28 248 315% 297M 28 2971 68 Discarded. 3i8B Cmpliance:28 DRY TEST COWi!LS GlITH SFECIFiCRT!Ot& United States Testing Company, Inc. Engineering & Support Services 3467 Kurtz Street. San Diego. CA 92110 (619) 225-9641 ~ 2er881it It 87-1213 Engineer: RENDINi, WID Page No: ! MIL Casitas de la Costa Homeowners Association c/o William Wyman, Attorney at Law 6994 El Camino Real, #201 Carlsbad, CA 92029 RE: Summary of Findings at 1913 and 1937 Alga Rd., La Costa, CA Ref. No. 93-283 Dear Mr. Wyman: The following report presents additional information which has been developed since our interim report dated August 24, 1993. Also as a part of this transmission is an estimate to construct three areas which are deemed necessary for first phase repair. Since our meeting of August 24, 1993 this ofice has advanced four observation wells located across the northerly perimeter of the building 1913 .and they were located in such a manner as to incorporate units D, E, F, and G. An additional two borings (i.e. observation wells) were located at the southerly end of building 1937 unit G. As of this date moisture is beginning to collect within these wells with exception of the well located in front of the Ross residence (1913-F). In this observation well water was located an approximate 5.5 feet below grade. Due to the nature of the impervious soil material the observation wells will be reflective of the actual groundwater conditions within the coming two to three weeks. Structural observations were conducted within units E, F, and G at building 1913 on September 17, 1993 by the undersigned and Oman Pekin, PE, PhD. the primary reason for our site visitation was to evaluate the conditions of the adjacent units to the Ross condominium and more particularly to detefinine the conditions of the timber roof system consisting of roof joists and a ridge beam, which is common to both units F and G. However, unit E is constructed on a separate system of bearing walls and has little or no common support systems with units F and G. . September 20, 1993 Revised September 21, 1993 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ 456 N. Qulnce Street * Escondido. CA 92025 * (619) 741-7645 FAX (619) 741-9170 September 20, 1993 Casitas de la Costa Page two Conclusions based upon visual observations by Dr. Pekin, P.E. indicate that the structural capabilities of the roof system is adequate at the present .time. There is no cause for immediate repairs or associated danger to the residents or the structure. However, it is important to recognize that the continued observation of the two units F and G should be considered relative to the forthcoming several months. This particularly relates to the wood support structures and additional items which will be mentioned later in the text of this report. A system of two survey monuments were established at the front and rear of the condominium unit F. The second check on September 15, 1993 reflected no movement. Based on this relatively stable condition it has been determined that the continued monuments evaluation will be done on a monthly basis, pending any change in movement detected at either the north or southerly foundation. The extent of repairs summarized here for your infomation will be further expanded upon within the text of this report. The first and probably foremost requirement will be the installation of a "French drain" cut off wall constructed across the northerly wall system for units F and G. A detail for this construction work is also attached for your edification (see plate D). The approximate length of this French drain system will be on the order of fifty lineal feet constructed to a depth of at least 6 feet (contingent on the location of the footings for units F and G.) The easterly terminus of the French drain will require connection to a closed system which will then run underground to the southerly parking lot and be outletted in such a manner as to not create any erosion and align with existing drainage. The estimated cost for this type of drain system is attached in Appendix G. Installation of four 4" diameter hydraugers, entering beneath the footing are further recommended to be located as noted in exhibit C, where as these borings will be installed horizontally beneath the deepened footing along the southerly wall. This system will then be incorporated to a closed drain system to be outletted through the slopes and ultimately to toe of the slope and into existing drainage facilities. The interior slab in the lower portion of the Ross condominium should be removed in its entirety. Measured from the southerly rear patio door approximately 14 feet into the condominium. The removal of this slab and of course ultimate replacement is necessitated due to the extensive cracking and ground water intrusion through the slab concrete mass either by capillary action or in some areas where the cracks are wide enough to provide a conduit for moisture intrusion. However, portions of the slab reflected a rather heavy concentration of mildew parallel to and adjacent to the slab on grade patio door way. The results of core boring tests reflected the water conditions throughout the sub-slab area in the Ross unit. September 20, 1993 Casitas de la Costa Page three To further assure that the gross foundation stability of the condominium units can be relied upon a system of mini-piles are recommended to be placed around the periphery of the load bearing footing within the lower half of the split level unit F. These piles should be driven to refusal and will be designed to withstand well in excess of the design loads of the wood frame condominium structure. These piles will logically be spaced at or about 5 feet center to center and then be connected in a manner as to assure vertical support for the existing bearing foundation structure. Please be advised mini-piles are for vertical support only and at this particular plan of repair, lateral support appears to be unnecessary. In the event this situation develops lateral supports may simply be the inclusion of a tieback located at the condominium unit to depths necessary to obtain the ability to withstand any lateral movement. These tiebacks can either become a part of the pipe-pile system or some manner of grade beam system which may have to be constructed at a later date. However, based on our 'evaluation of the surrounding site and the report which has been previously provided to the homeowners association by American Geotechnical, it becomes evident that the degree of the stress relates almost entirely to the excessive water which has been noted throughout our investigation. To further determine the source of the underground water problems it is highly recommended that existing ponds and waterways throughout the development be tested with a dye to trace the course of any waters which may have leaked through the waterway system either through cracks, overtlow or other means of water loss. Regarding the continuing source of water movement throughout the condominium project, alternate aesthetic landscape methods should be thoroughly evaluated by the homeowners association. The undersigned and several of my associates who have consulted with me on this project conclude that the constant exposure to water and moisture does nothing but precipitate the problem and in fact works almost in a catalytic manner. In order to maintain the apparently well received aesthetic value which incorporates the running water, appropriate means should be employed to ensure that this system i.e. waterfalls and streams are not involved in any leaks. In summary the work necessary in a phase I approach to the repair of unit F and parts of unit G relates to the removal of the conditions causing the settlement, unacceptable moisture conditions and essential differential movement throughout the structure; this specifically relates to groundwater control. September 20, 1993 Casitas de la Costa Page four Requirements for repair of the slab in the Ross condominium is necessitated by the significant . amount of water encountered during our investigation. Normally adequate drainage would solve this type of excessive moisture content. However, the impervious nature of the soils and the medium to highly expansive nature of these soils which comprise the foundation system for building 1913 will be slow to give up water thus a system of drains or other means would not provide a prompt solution to the over wet conditions. Therefore it is prudent to remove the slab and a minimum of 24 inches of sub slab soil to be replaced with coarse gravel (not sand) and compacted to an equivalant 95% of relative compaction. The gravel shall be covered with a visqueen 6 mil. minimum membrane overlain with at least 2 inches of sand. The concrete slab shall be at least 5 inches in thickness, all edges shall be constructed to prevent bond with the existing footings. Minimum slab reinforcement shall be #4 bars at 12" O.C. each way placed at the mid point. Finally some effort will be made to release any additional water which has collected beneath the zone measuring 24 inches below the bottom of the proposed new slab. These corings and drainage instruments will aid in the final correction to the groundwater conditions which are so prevalent at unit F. This procedure requires four lateral drains be located below the existing southerly deepened footing and be outletted through the southern slope in a controlled manner to the existing drains located in the parking lot. The basis of this report initially was to direct our attention. to the conditions surrounding the condominium owned by Ms. Ross mainly unit F ,within building 1913. However, in light of the surrounding conditions which has been previously reported by American Geotechnical and our visual observations of the slopes (the trees leaning significantly downslope) indicate that there is an underlying problem within the immediate area which require prompt attention. This consideration may best be handled by the installation of slope monitoring devices to assure that the slope stability is adequate and will not affect the structures. Further observations of the water wells is recommended to ensure that the groundwater conditions do not reach unacceptable limits. The monitoring which is recommended for the timber structural members in units F and G could very easily be accommodated by the inclusion of "tattletale" monitoring tapes which will be installed at various critical areas. Constant observation and measurement of these devices will indicate the continued movement and/or distress. Additionally measurements should be taken to ensure that the structural members are not undergoing any sigmfmnt differential settlement. At first observation it would appear that the large structural members have undergone some form, of torquing from front to back (i.e. from north to south). The movement apparently is significant enough to create the crack observed. However, it is difficult to establish the exact direction of the movement September 20, 1993 Casitas de la Costa Page five when structural members undergo both rotational and settlement deformations. We have included a compilation of construction costs which have been developed by our firm for your board of directors review and hopeful approval of this work. It is the undersigned's opinion that the extent of work be limited to the proposed water/French drain system along the northern wall, slab replacement and the monitoring devices. The work necessary to auger and create additional drainage facilities will be an important part of the repair; however, this might be set aside or become a part of Phase I1 operations contingent on the results of continued monitoring, evaluations of the slope stability and determination of the extent of water caused throughout the system. We look forward to your review of this report and the attached preliiinary report. Our sketches and recommended corrective procedures are all attached as Plates A through G. Thank you for this opportunity to provide our service to your organization. Charles J. Randle, PE RCE 220% CA CJWsr cc: William Wyman Leslie Leonhardt &man Pekin Roger Zimmennan Dark Brown w/0live clay silty clayey fine sands SC/CL Bottom @ 6.5' I ... 14 Edhdmu~ Loose. wet. siltv Vw CC Olive gray, soft, very wet, CL fine sand I I I kefusal or concrete debris c Ii Dace: 8-16-93 Field Rep.: CY $ dri Drill Rig: Hand Auner BORmQ NO. B-3 SOIL DESCRiPTION nnrrpre rnrP + l/l CC light Olive gray, soft, wet to saturated, cc/sc x-kellow brown, Loose, Wet, SM CC Dark Brown, soft, saturated sc/cc Bottom @ a 1/2' I I FiELD LOG II i7 Dace: 8-16-93 Field Rep.: CT Drill Rig: Hand Augered BORM NO. 1 SOIL DESCRIPTION Fill (Generally loose) Gray Brown Fine Sand, traces of clay moist Numerous Chunks of asphalt and concrete debris Wet Bottom of Boring 12 3' = Urive Samples FIELD LOG * JUIVE SAYPLC !3.S.l k Bottom of boring 4 t/- feet Refusal or chunks of asphalt and concrete debris t- OU" c PLATE B BORING LOCATIONS I?' I t t i f ! t- -0 0 7D "I 0 m 0 < > m r cn m O r CI Z m 0 c "I r m "I 7 0 Z c Z --I cn H "iz rz- 0 m 1 I - - GENERAL NOTES 1. The pipe pile design contained on this - Engineering Construction. Inc. The sheet is the property of Soil details presented illustrate the patented Mini-PileTM system. This - design is for the sole use of Soil Engineering Construction. Inc. and its clients. - 2. Drive Mini-PileTM with properly hammer. operating 90 lb. pneumatic or hydraulic - 3. Unless otherwise noted. all concrete shall attain a minimum strength of 2000 psi at 28 days. 4. Rebar shall be gr. 40 or better. PLATE E - 2 Cores LABORATORY RESULTS Location M.C. UBC (Exp. Index) H-1 @ 11" 24.5 58" 36" 22.1 26 .O 7 2" 23.3 H-2 @ 21" 22.0 H-3 @ 16" 20.0 65" 36" 20.7 22.6 84" 22.0 98" 25.6 72" 13.0 20.0 B-2 @ 36" 15.0 Borings B-1 @ 56" 59 a7 a3 DENSITY TESTS MAXIMUM DENSITY /OPTIMUM MOISTURE Location Density Max. Den. Opt. Moist. #/Cf #/Cf % Boring B-1 @ 56" 108.2 121.3 13.0 PLATE F Casitns de In Costa Momeowncrs' Assn. c/o William Wyman, Attorney at Law 6994 El Camino Real #201 Carlshad, CA 92009 Suhject: Investigative Report, subsurface conditions and associated settlement Reference: SEC. Inc. and distress noted at 1913 Alga Rd., Unit F, La Costa, CA Bid No. 93-283 Dear Mr. Wyman: The following report is considcred to be interim, pending our complete report which will include all soil data information and horing logs relative to our investigation of the subject sitc. Essentially, the results of our investigation reflect the continued moisture intrusion due to a lack of adequate drainage, Imth surface and subsurface, in and around the building which is known as 1013 Alga Road. Our investigation was directed only at Unit 1913-F. Prior to our investigation we reviewed the reports by American Geotechnical, which are as fnllows: March 7, 1987 and December 7, 1987, file No. 20221; file No. 20623 which is dated November 7, 1988, March 13, 1989 and Allgust 23, 1989. Information presented hy American Geotechnical is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the findings which we encountered during our investigation. It is possibly significant to recognize that the measured differential settlement repnt-!ed hy American Geotechnical across the rear portion of the condominium lower floor has increased nolninally, by possihly .X inches, based on our recent measurements. Our investigation involved the mapping of the numerous cracks noted within the slab-on- grade and is reflected in the attachment to this report. In addition to this original survey of the cracked areas, a manometer was run throughout thc first. and second floors of this unit. The mnximtlm settlement appears to be on the order of two inches at the sliding glass door exit to the concrete patio, measured relative to the gradient observed at the laundry entrance area (see sketch). Casitas de la Costa Homeowners' ;~s:I. Acggst 14, i993 Patie 2 Casitas de la Costa Homeowners’ Assn. August 24, 1993 Page 3 A QL’ Atac/ This system can then be constructed in a manner to acc mmodate a pilc cap and, ultimately, a new grade beam to be placed along the existing y foundation stemwall. This new structurai system may then be jacked back to the approprisie elevations. It should be aoted that duriiig tl~c jacking proccss cxtrenwcarz should-be tr?ken..tci assure that.thc strbctural -’.-’:-’ . member, i.e. exposee;! limber :oof system, act udcrgo aiiy fu:ther distress-and, with the reestablishment of initial grace, the longitudinal Sties cracks should be reduced. In the event this stress is not relived within the timber structural system, further analysis should be ullciertakcrr to assure that the ntemhers h;.vs. arteqcx!e sirxtural capcity. Repairs in this arc:l arc not within C;e.i;urvies of this report; iiuwcvcr, thisisnot a significantly cspcnsive rcpair sh~)uld it be req:uircd. The slnb-on-grade may then De reconstructed on a system of nlni-piles driven to refusal at approximately eight foo: on center grid pattern. The slab should k five inches in thickness and reinforced according to the structural engineer’s standards. This new slab will then be constructed in such a maniier as to preclude any further distress from settlemect and the expansive soil zondition will be negated due to the removal to a depth of 24 inches and repiacement with gravel. Finally, the exterior slope and lower retaining wall which was previously recommended for rcpair should not be overlooked. The lateral resistance to thc structure’s stability is dependent on a dense and adequately constructed engineered slope. This will require removal of the expansive materials and replacement with materials w!lich are approved by the soil engineer. These materials should be nonexpansive and granular in nature. Adequate drains will be required behind the cut areas where the slope has been removed and drained in a positive manner away from the building and into the cn-site drainage system. The replacement should be done according to accepted engineering practices relative to proper and adequate compaction. This operation should be reviewed by a rcpresentative of this office in order to ensure that the work is completed according to applicable standards. Thc lower retaining structure should be replaced with an adequate masonry wall and footing system placed at such a depth as to ensure the structural integrity of the wall against overturning, as noted within the existing st:uc:u:c. Our final report wili be forthcoming; howcver, I hope this information will be adequate in order to permit :he Homeowncrs’ Association to evaluate the conditions surrounding 1913-F Alga Road and !he decision for remedial repair to be undertaken without furihe: delay. In closing, 1 wish to ir.dicate that’I reviewzd this property in the 1970s with similar drainags control recommendations. At that time the repairs were considered to be excessive and too expensive. Casitas de la Costa Homeowners’ Assn. August 24, 1993 Page 4 Approximately 10 years later, American Geotechnical has reported the situation and made recommendations which again were not followed by the Homeowners’ Association. It is now August, 1993, approximately two to three months away from a new rainy season and the distress continues with little or nothing having been done to exacerbatcdhe canriition which -’ has been discussed herein. I hope that youi prudent evaluation of this iniormction and the conditions surrounding Building 1913 be reviewed in its entirety to ensure that the disr:ess- described in this interia report can IX promptly corrected. - -L Y-W t I i. 3 . . .. . "_ R - I' B I/ I I Dark Brown w/Ulive clay silty clayey fine sands SC/CL ' Bottom @ 6.5' i Date: 8-16-93 Field Rep.: CT Drill Rig: Hand Auner BORN NO. fl-3 SOIL DESCRIPTlOH t;nnrrptp rnrP '3 I/?'' Yellow Brown, Loose, Wet, SM light Olive gray, soft, wet to saturated, cc/sc Dark Brown, soft, saturated sc/cc Bottom @ 0 1/2' Dace: 8-16-93 Field Rep.: $j CT rill Rig: Hand Auger H-2 BORYK) NO. SOIL DESCRIPTION Concrete core 3 1/2 " K-. wet. siltv fine sand C Olive gray, soft, very wet, CL Kefusal or concrete debris I FiELD LOG