HomeMy WebLinkAbout1937 ALGA RD; ; CB891279; Permit,..~ ..
Bl.lILDIN!; FERMlT Permit. No: CUti9127r
12,,'?lU/90 11:15 Project No: A8902094
LTob Address : 19 13 ALGA RD
Permit Type: RESIDENTAL ADD/ALT (UNDR. 31(1K)
Valuation:
Parcel No: 215-170-03-16
1 5 0 ~ 0 0 n
Cofistruction Type: NEW
Occupancy Group: Class Code: Status: ISSIJFD
1)escrj.ption: FOUNDATION REPAIRS Applied: l:l8./25/8'3 AprjIssue: 12/20/9(i
;'aye 1 of 1 Development No : str: F: : ste:
: EXPIHED/REINSTATED: DATE: Validated By: CD
Applicant: STANLEY LIVINGSTON 619-484-4055
633 STATE ST
CIN OF CARLSBAD
2W5 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad CA 92009 (619) 4381161
DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING SERVICES DIVISION 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859 (619) 438-1161
MISCELLANEOUS FEE RECEIPT
Appllcant Please Ptinl And Flll In Shaded Ana Only
~~ ~ ~ -~ - - ..
,., ., 1 0 2 SELF ADDRESSED ENVELOPES
,, I
Whlte . Flle Yellow. Applicant Plnk . Flnance Gold - Assessor
DATE /d&h 6 INSPECTOR
PERMIT pT/J PACK # 1
JOB ADDRESS
TIME
CD
&
ARRIVE: TIME LEAVE:
LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS
CITY OF CARLSBAD INSPECTION REQUEST
PERMIT# CB891279 FOR 12/26/90 INSPECTOR AREA TP DESCRIPTION: FOUNDATION REPAIRS EXPIRED/REINSTATED: DATE: PUCK# CB891279 OCC GRP
TYPE: RAD CONSTR. TYPE NEW
JOB ADDRESS : 1913 ALGA RD STR: FL: APPLICANT: STANLEY LIVINGSTON PHONE: 4844055 STE :
CONTRACTOR: PHONE : OWNER : PHONE : -
REMARKS: MH/STEVENS/260-1777 SPECIAL INSTRUCT:
TOTAL TIME:
CD LVL DESCRIPTION
INSPECTOR
ACT COMMENTS
19 ST Final Structural
29 PL Final Plumbing
39 EL Final Electrical
49 ME Final Mechanical -
” -
” -
” -
***** INSPECTION HISTORY *****
DATE
052190 052390
050190 050190
040290 030690
020990
030690
020990
DESCRIPTION Ftg/Foundation/Piers Underground/Conduit-Wiring
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 TP AP WM
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.
Englneering &?I Support Servlces
3467 KURT2 STREET SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92110 (619) 225-9841 FAX (619) 224-8950
NEW WRK
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 1919-1941, nlga 'Road
Carlsbad, Ca.
Permit NO. 89-1279 Plan File No. NfA
Gentlemen:
United States Testing Company, Inc. has performed the Special
previously submitted €or the above mentioned project. To the best Inspection of reinforce concrete as outlined in daily reports
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 #034041 .-
Vice President United States Testi,q Company, Inc.
CC: File
B. Perron
Ho yco
FORMERLY TESTING ENGINEERS-SAN DIEGO
Job Nunbet.: W561 &J Jab Nante: CffiITffi DE 1A COSTR 1519-1941 RLGR HORD CRRSBRD CR
Pemt f 87-1279 Engineer: RENDINI, DAVID
Report Date: ; No:
Numb. Cy1 . "_" _""
7&5 7M4
7846 7847 . . .-
7
2; 2a 68
28 7
Z8 68
11/28/98 73286
Un Wt Strength PSI PCF Test Design
28 Da
""_ - ""_ """ ""_ - "" """
3m6,
23~ 3778
Discarded. 48W8
CITY OF CRRLSBRD BUILDING INSPECTION DEPRRThENT CITY OF CRRLSBRD
CRRLSBRD CR 926W HilYCO CONSTRUCTION 12M Eill AVENUE UNITED STRTES TESTlNG!
Concrete Compression Test Tested TO ASTM C-39 Tim Timp
Date of Mix D-ign Sluap Made in of Cy1 This Pour Desioret.lon Inch by Mixer Day Set/Mark
. . . .
~~
"""" """""" :___ _"" ""- "" """" "" _"" ""_ """"
5/25/98 85-181 5.88 88155 1:2@ 4 Location in Structure: EXTERIOR WRLL FDDTIElGS
CMnpliance:28 DRY TEST CMPLIES WITH SPECIFICRTIONS
388W 5/25/98 85-181 3.58 88155 3:38 4 Location in Structure: EXTERIOR WRLL FOOTINGS
2818 4174 4878 Discarded. hspiiance:28 DAY TEST CCWLIES SIITH SPECIFICATIONS
Page No: 1
Temp Load F Nnbr. , "" "" - , "" "" -
5
Plant Code . ""_ . "_"
59
9 99
United States Testing Company, Inc.
Engineering & Support Services
3467 KURZ Street. San Diego, CA 92110 1619) 225-9641
Job Number: 889561 88 Job Name: WITRS DE LR CETA 1919-1941 kcdl m CAKSSBRD ca
Fer+it # 87-1279 Engineer: RENDINI, WID
Re rt No: DaE :
Nunb, Test Cyl. Rgee
"" "_ "" "_
5924 28 5923 7
5925 28 5% 68
5926 28 5927 7
5938 68 5929 28
CIPl OF ERRLSBRD BUILDING INF€CTION OWlRRlRlT 12B8 ELW RVENUE UNITED STRTES TESTING, CITY OF CARLSFAD
CRRLSBRD CR 92888 HOYCO CONSTRUCTION
675% Concrete bpression Test 61am Tested To ffiTM C-39
Un bit Stren th Pd Date of Hix,Design Slump kde in of Cy1 This Tenp Load PCF Test !Desi,n Pour Deslgnatlon lrrh by Mlxer Day SetIMark F hbr.
28 Da Tine Tie
=="" ==-"-=I== z==== ==-= == -"=="- ====
5/83/98 88891 Location in Structure: EXTENDED FT6. UNIT "A" NIDDLE SCTIDI 2.58 B869 4 2
- "_" - ""_ """ "" - "" "" - 3h88
4188 2658
4148 Discarded. Cmpliam:28 DRY TEST UYlPLfES WITH SPECIFICATIONS.
3888 5/83/98 88891 3" 88859 Location in Structure: EXTENDED FT6. UNIT E 4
2628 3898
Discarded. me
Cmpliam:28 DRY TEST CU4KIES WITH SPECIFIUITIONS.
7
Plant Code Rir _" "" "_" _" 99
99
Page )(o: 1
ESGIL CORPORATION
9320 CHESAPEAKE DR.. SUITE 208
SAN DIEGO. CA 92123
(619) 56fJ1468
DATE : 10 /2/ A5
JURISDICTION: i,.{\LCS L.! >
PLAN CHECK NO: 59- 1277 SET: -zi OUPS QFILE COPY
ODESIGNER PROJECT ADDRESS: 15/3 ALGA sg
PROJECT NAME: f L:d,vGK2jJm, <65'rfrt
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-
cies identified are resolved and checked by building department staff.
The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies
and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
The plans are being held at Esgil 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
@ necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's
0 identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected
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 Esgil staff did advise applicant that the plan check has
been completed. Person contacted:
Date contacted: Telephone # 0 REMARKS : .
By :
ESGIL CORPORATION- fO/zs
Enclosures :
:JGA OAA Ovw ODM
ESGIL CORPORATION
9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
(619) 5601468
DATE : ?/I3 /&S
JURISDICTION: cipz LS !5 113
PLAN CHECK NO: 57 - I279 SET: 1
PROJECT ADDRESS: /7/3 AL6A rr3
PROJECT NAME: FouHohn ON *.Pa&
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 0 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 . 0 identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck.
The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the 0 jurisdiction to return to the applicant-contact person.
The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to:
WG Y Lfv7#6SmN d33 IM 4"r .. .
T'/vy DlE6u $Z/O/ a Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that
0 Esgil staff did advise applicant that the plan check has
plan check has been completed.
been completed. Person contacted:
Date contacted: Telephone #
-
0 REMARKS:
By : ? hSC/tr;fi Enclosures:
ESGIL CORPORATION c/ry
OGA OAA Ow ODM
PLAN CORRECTION SHEET
Plan?. Check No. bS - lZ75
Date plans received by the jurisdiction
Date plans received by plan checker 6 /ZY,
Date initial plan check completed 9 /I3 /6>
BY P FrSLh5HF.C
FOREWORD: PLEASE READ
Plan check is limited to technical requirements
contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform
Plumbing Code, Uniform kchanical Code, National
Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy
conservation, noise attenuation and access for
the handicapped. The plan check is baskd on
regulations enforced by the Building Inspection
Department. You may have other corrections
based on laws and ordinances enforced tiy the
Planning Department, Engineering Department or
other departments.
The items circled belon need clarification,
modification or change. All circled items have
to be satisfied SeFore the plans will be in
conformance with the cited codes and regulations.
Per Scc. 303 (c), of the Uniform Building Code,
violation of any state, county or city law.
the approval of the plans does not permit the
0
A.
0
PLANS
Please make all correctims on the original
and any originel plan sets that may have
tracings and submit two new sets of prints,
been returned to you by the jurisdiction,
-
to: hS6rc (u~p
To facilitate rechecking, please identify,
next to each circled item, the sheet of
the plans upon:Ihich each correction on
check &et with the revised plans.,
this sheet has been made and,return this
..
Date 1 743 /bs Jurisdiction C'krLS dA3
Prepared by1
PF VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE
0 Bldg. Dept.
0 Esgil
PLAN CHECK NO. 85 - 1277
BUILDING ADDRESS /?I3 ficlff 12-2
APPLICANT/CONTACT PHONE NO.
BUILDING OCCUPANCY AJO cw66 DESIGNER PHONE
TYPZ OF CONSTRUC~TION Nd. CW6h CONTRACTOR PHONE
..
BUILDING PORTION BUILDING AREA 'VALUATION VALUE MULTIPLIER
I I
~
I I Commercial . I '@
Residential
~~ I ~~ I@ ~~
Res. or Corn. I
Fire. Sprinklers (@ I
I I 1 I I Total Value I I fsD.000 I
Building Permit Fee $ s elv
Plan Check Fee $ s 5-25-
9'
CON NENTS;
R 0
I ,
D
b
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND
REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
Estrella de Mar Court Casitas de la Costa
Carlsbad, California
File No. 20623 August 23, 1989
25202 Crenshaw Boulevard-Suile 101-Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 539-9883
5755 Oberlin Drive-Suile 104-San Diego. CA 92121 (619) 457-2711
1240 Van Buren-Suite 210 -Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 666-2241
b 0 I
D
c
B
D
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA COHPOHAJ'ION
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: 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
repair recommendations provided in the body of this report
conversation with the homeowners and in report form. The
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) 539-9983
5755 Oberlin Drive-Suite IW-San Diego. CA 92121 (619) 457-2711
1240 van Buren-Suite 210 -Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 666-2241
1 .
c
File No. 20623
August 23, 1989
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
b
Respectfully submittedr
Princ
C.E.G
D
D
b .
File -No. 20623
August 23, 1989
8
B
B
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATlON
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 PARAMETERS 4.1 General
4 :2 Foundation Design
5.0 CLOSURE
APPENDICES
Figure 1
Figure 3
Figure 2
LIST OF FIGURES
Location Map
Site Plan
Slab Foundation Repair Detail
Page
1
1 1
1
4 4
5 4
5
6
6
7
7
10
11
10
12
2
a 3
B
B
B
B
D
0
e
File No. 20623 August 23, 1989 Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
The purpose of this geotechnical report is to provide obtained geologic and engineering information regarding site conditions and provide minimum soil and foundation
Buildings 1913 and 1941.
criteria for remediation of problems experienced at
1.2 Scope
This report presents a discussion of site conditions
recommendations are the result of a subsurface
and recommendations for remediation. The
geotechnical investigation conducted in 1986 by this
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.
1.3 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 slab-on-grade with continuous concrete footings. The condominium buildings are constructed on cut/fill transitions, adjacent descending slopes. The slope below Building 1941 is confined at the toe by a concrete retaining wall. The slope below Building 1931
but is also retained near the eastern end. Adjacent descends to Estrella de Mar Court for the most part,
walkways, artificial streams and ponds, and parking grounds and improvements include landscape areas,
areas. Building 1913 consists of seven condominium
units and Building 1941 consists of six units.
USGS
ENClNlTAS
QUADRANGLE
I
SCALE: 1'- 2000' 1'
LOCATION MAP Figure 1
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20623 AUG 1989
B
B
B
B
B
D
B
August 23, 1989
File No. 20623
Page 4
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
2.1 Observations
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
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
1913 (Unit A) exhibits a maximum tilt of 2.35 inches. The level of tilt exceeds what is considered the maximum allowable. It was observed that stress features within the condominium units increased in those units with the higher levels of measured tilt.
Field notes of specific observations and the manometer
upon request. surveys are contained in our files, and are available
D
D
D
D
D
File No. 20623
August 23, 1989 Page 5
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA 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
six test pits and two small auger borings. Exploration specifically at Buildings 1913 and 1941 consisted of
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
adjacent Building 1913, black organic (clayey) topsoil was encountered underlying the fill. Bedrock 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 for 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
a
D
D
b
File No. 20623
Page 6
August 23, 1989
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
3.0 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Overview
affected the two condominium buildings. In our It is determined that geotechnical phenomenon has
opinion, the primary mechanisms of distress are expansive soil and slope creep. Not all cracking is due to soil processes. Small scale construction defects or normal shrinkage may have affected the site to' a limited degree.
Site fill and natural soils have high (UBC-29) expansion characteristics. Measured concentric slab
heave in some condominium units is characteristic of 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 its own accord. In the event of some circumstance,
such as prolonged heavy rainfall and/or a prolonged or otherwise severe pipe leak, slope movement and the rate of deterioration could increase. As such, it is desirable to proceed with some level of remedial
measures as soon as possible.
D
B
8
8
0
August 23, 1989
File No. 20623
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 risk is associated with the most rigorous (highest
problems is associated with a lower cost repair. cost) approach. Conversely, a higher risk for future
A list of repair options was previously provided by
this firm. The repair recommendations provided herein are considered a minimum positive and practical treatment, providing a low inordinate risk of future
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 (where applicable). Slope improvement could be
adopted. The areas could be substantially improved,
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 in the accompanying Figure 3. The structural engineer for the project should develop the actual details.
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
be very low in relation to the improvement gained by associated with this occurrence, however, is judged to
adding the underpinning.
\ @ Saw cut as near as possible to wall. @) Excavate continuous haunch.
@ Chip back flush with wall. @ Use $4 dowels e 16'0.C.
@) Excavate for thickened edge, sand, misture barrier and gravel base.
@ Drill 8" minimum for dwels C 16'0.c.
@ Apply epoxy bonding compound' between dowel holes and grade. Seal moisture barrier to tondinp agent bot not closer than 2" to doiel h6les. (*IN Co., PR-940 or equal)
@ Use IO-mil moisture barrier mmbrane sealed
@ Use 2" clean sand protective cover.
0 Use 5" minimum concrete slab; 8' minim
at all splices and around pipes.
at thickened edges.
@ ~t 1-2 hours prior to placement of concrete.
apply bonding compound..
9 Use 14 dowels @ 16"o.c. Alternate 36" and 60" into slab. Anchor with bonding grout.
@ Use $4 bars e 16"o.c. both ways. Use two bars within 6" of slab edges. Add 2-44 bars X 3' long P 4* and 8" frm reentrant cornrs.
@ Primary excavation for underpinning.
@ At ~"0.c. maxinun spacing. excavate 12. X
pl a tea. 12" slots for scpport jacks and bearing
@ Use 2-15 bars continuous.
@ Use (5 bars C 12"o.c. both ways.
@ Use $5 bars @ 18"o.c.
@ ' Where exterior flatwork dowels per note "J".
is planned, add
@ At exterior edges, thicken to 8" minimm' and add 1-14 bar continuous. (*8' wide by 24" mininlum depth cut-off wall with 2-44 bars as shown, preferred at exterior edges.)
@ Slab subgrade should be presaturated to 1
0 Interior underpinning option as detailed for
depth of 24" minimum prior to slab construction.
exterior foundation.
@ General Note: Concrete should be 3-sack mrninwl. Type 11. 2000 psi minimm. For slab
mnrrrtr. 4.' narinuli! slumo. Exterior flatwork
minimize shrinkage cracks.' Deputy inspection should be jointed at in maximum spacing to
is recannended.
~
SLAB FOUNDATION REPAIR DETAIL Figure 3
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL AUG 1989 F.N. 20623
b
b
B
B
August 23, 1989 File No. 20623
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 potential for gaps developing under the structural slab would be minimized.
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
Drainage should not be directed over slopes. It is reestablished to provide flow away from the structures.
suggested that when plans are developed, they be forwarded to this office for review and comment.
3
b
File No. 20623
Page 10
August 23, 1989
4.0 DESIGN SOIL PARAMETERS
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
information,' this office should be contacted.
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
File No. 20623
August 23, 1989 Page 11
4.2 Foundation Design
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
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: 200 psf/ft
(projected from ground surf ace)
b. Minimum depth/width above which lateral 20 ft horizontal 2 ft vertical
bearing support should to daylight
be ignored
c. Coefficient of sliding
on soil (dead load) friction cast concrete 0.35
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
August 23, 1989
File No. 20623
Page 12
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
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
proposed improvements. It should be understood that
advise our client on geotechnical matters involving the
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,
The client is the only party intended by this office to should be reported to this office in a timely fashion.
directly receive the advice. Subsequent use of this
report can only be authorized by the client. Any
the client should be considered "advice by client".
transferring of information or other directed use by
uncertainty and is often,described as an inexact Geotechnical engineering is characterized by
presented herein are based upon the evaluations of science or art. Conclusions and recommendations
technical information gathered, experience, and professional judgement. The conclusions and recommendations presented should be considered "advicev1. other consultants could arrive at different conclusions and recommendations. Typically, 18minimum*1 recommendations have been presented. Although some
risk will always remain, lower risk of future problems would usually result if more restrictive criteria were
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.
b
File No. 20623
August 23, 1989
American Geotechnical
A WLIFORNIA CORPORATION
APPENDICES
File No. 20623
August 23, 1989
b
b
b
D
D
b
Aeria
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
APPENDIX A: REFERENCES
.1 Photographs, Photo No. AXN-8M-13 & 14, dated April
Stabilization and Conservation Service. 11, 1953, by United States Department of Agriculture
"Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California", by F. Harold Weber Jr., California
Division of Mines and Geology, County Report.No. 3, dated 1963.
"La Costa Valley Unit No. l", 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 Improvement, prepared by Rick Engineering, County of San Diego Map No. 5642 (TM 2569-2), dated December 9,
1964.
"Uniform 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,
Krooskos and Associates, Job No. 72-3182, dated August San Diego County, California8I, report by William S.
9, 1972.
"Report of Soil Investigation, Casitas de la Costa, S.E. Corner El Camino Real and Alga Road, San Diego County,
California", report by William S. Krooskos and Associates, Job No. 72-3008, dated March 16, 1972.
"On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County", by San Diego Association of
Geologists, dated 1985.
B
D
D
.
August 23, 1989
File No. 20623
Page 16
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,
Bulletin 200, California Division of Mines and Geology,
p. 41-56.
IIReport of Soils Investigation, Casitas de la Costa
Wood and Associates, Project 4262, dated November 18,
Condominiums, La Costa, California", report by C.H.
1983.
Bardet, J.P., "Creep Deformation and Failure of Slopes1m, a
report to American Earth Technologies, dated May 1985.
"Geotechnical 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, California", by American Geotechnical, File
D
B
.
August 23, 1989
File No. 20623
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
EXPLORATION LOGS APPENDIX B
B
. F.N. 1
proiecl/Cllant: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/1/86
1 Locatlon: South of 1913 F Estrella De mar Court Sheet- 1 of 2
Eslimated Surface Elevallon(ft.): -
51 Surface plants behind block retaining wall.
; * Subsurface Condiiions: FORMATION Claasificallon. color, moisture, lightness. elc. Remarks I
BACKFILL: B 0'. Clayey Sand. gray brown, daw.
loose reen siltstone fra ments roots.
m ' t firm
14" PVC ... ... ... ... ... Pipe ..
0 1.7', Gravelly Sand (import fill), medium
brown, damp, very loose, roots.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ...
... ... ... .. ... .. .. i Several large brick chunks between 2' and 4'.
... .. I I.:.:.] ...
e 4.11, Same as above except well compacted.
Import fill below 4.1' is dense with no roots.
I
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL
b
Plate 1
Field Description BY: KMJ
SuHace Condilions:
Surface plants behind block retaining wall.
iubsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classilicaflon. Color, moisture. llghlness. efc. Remarks ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ...
~ ... ... ... ... ... ... I 5.7'. Silty Clay, greenish gray, moist, firm,
sme roots, material covers retaining wall weep ... ::: A
-I < ... ... ... ... holes. ...... ... - .:.:.: ... 3 ...
FOOTING
I .... . '. ; .. if .a& ....
No Caving
"
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL
~~~ ~
e
TEST EXCAVATION Log No. 2
F.N. 20221 -01
proiect/Cllent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, CA Date: SI1 /86
Lacatlon: Southeast corner of 1941A Estrella De mar Court Sheet- 1 of 1
Estimated Surface Elevatlon(ft.): Tolal Oeplh(ft.): ~5.5 Rig Type: and Excavation
Field Description BY: KM3
Suflace Condltions:
3arren ground under removed plant. against foundation.
iubsurface Condillons: FORMATION Classificatlon,
color. maisturn. llahlnear rln~
- FILL: R 0'. Sandy Clay, gray brown, damp to Footing 1 Y 'j.
mist, firm. mottled. siltstone fragments, roots, 14" wide
few oravel to 112". 30" deep,
(0.8'. Sandy Clay, greenish gray with orange >a .a.
brown (20%). moist. firm, mottled, green
siltstone fragments. *a
1. A'
AA.
~
1
I I- C "
, 318'' void between bottom of footing and soil. Void closes near midfooting.
Plate 3
TEST EXCAVATION Log No. 3
F.N. 20221.01
Proiecl,~l[en~ Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad. CR Date: 511 /BE
Locallon: East side of 1913G Estrella De Nar Court Sheet1 of 1
Esllmaled
T
Surface
I
". .
Field De
surface vegetation under removed plant, next to foundation
3 between building and artificial stream.
B - Subsurface Condillons: FORMATION. Classillcallon,
e c rn
-
color. moisture, tightness. elc. Remarks - FILL: P 0'. Sandy Clay, medium brown. dry,
r tl stiff, roots.
9 0.3'. Sandy Clay, greenish gray, moist, firm, I I
mttled, green siltstone fragments, sme roots.
L .
many man-made objects in fill including:
Plastic, brick, nails, paper. etc.
Exposed buiiding wall water proofed with
, I fiberqlass cloth and emulsified asphalt.
CL I
~01~~: Under side of artificial stream exposed, 6 mil clear plastic moisture barrier observed
between concrete "stream" and foundinq soil.
AMEFIICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate 4
TEST EXCAVATION Log NO. 4 - FN. 20221.01
ProjectlCllent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/20/86
, Location: South side of 1913C Estrella De mar Court Sheet1 of 1
Estimaled Surface Eievation(ff.): - Total Deoth(ll.): 4.0 Rig Type: Hand Excavation
Field Description BY: KmJ
Sutlace Condllions:
Barren ground against foundation, through large tension crack
against building, located at top-of-slope. I
@ 4.0'. End of Pit
No Water
No Caving
D Notes:
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL
D
Plate
TEST EXCAVATION Log NO. 5
F.N. 20221.01
Proiectl~~~en~ Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad. Ca. Date: 5/20/86
I Locallon: Fast side of 1941E Estrella De Mar Court Sheet1 of 1
Estimated Surface Elevatlon(1t.): Total Deoth(1t.k 3.9 Rlg Type: Hand Excavation
~ I Field Description
~ ~~~
KAJ
Sunace Conditions:
In decorative gravel at top-of-slope. Porch near test Pit
visually settled. I *o -5 ;: Subrurfaca Conditions: FORMATION: Classiilcallon.
color, moisture. tlghtness. etc. Remarks
I I
" / 0 3.9'. End of Pit -
No Water
No Caving
tI I I 1
b Notes: Vertical tension crack mapped in test pit, about 116" wide.
22" from fpptipp of 1941E. Pia-e R 4".
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
D
TEST EXCAVATION
F.N. 20221 -01
Proiect/CUenl: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Data: 5/20/86
, ~~~~~l~~: South of 191X Estrella De Mar Court Sheet:L of 1
Estlmaled Surface Eievatlon(ft.): -
Located at base-of-slope below Test Pit No. 4. I
a
d - SubsurfacaCondiii&: FORMATION: Classificallon.
color, moisture. lightness. elc. Remarks I - FILL: 0 0'. Sandy Clay, green-gray, Mist.
firm, mottled rust brown. siltstone fragments,
sm roots.
- .
LI I
0 2.0' End of Pit
No Water
No Cavins
tt I I
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plat e
36
TEST EXCAVATION Log No.
F.N. 20.221 -01
Proiectl~llenl: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ea. Date: 5/21 166
, Location: East side of parking garage, Estrella De flar Court SheekL of 2
Estimated Surface Elevation(ft.): Total Degth(ft.1: Rig Type: Hand
Field Description KRJ
Sunace Conditlons:
t ;
L
"
In ivy east of supporting concrete pillar, against retaining wall.
subsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classiflcatlon. color. moisture. flghtness. etc. Remarks
TOPSOIL: E O', Sandy Clay, dark brown. moist,
soft, mottled, roots from overlying ivy.
BACKFILL: E 0.5'.Sandy Clay. green to dark
brm. damp to wet at depth, soft, mottled. ... ... ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ...
~~~
I 1 1;; ... ... ...
PLAN - VIEW ll
RETAl N I NG
...
"ETE PI LLAA
(i" x 12")
... ... ... ... ... ... ' ... ... ...
'b '
~ ~~~
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL
-
TEST EXCAVATION Log No.
F.N. 20221.01
project/c~lent Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad. Ca
Locallon: continued
Date: 5/21/86
Sheet- of 2 2
I I Sunace Condlllons: I i r13 I I
Subsurface Canditlons: FORMATION Classilicallon, color. moisture. tlohlneas. etc. Remarks
I LI 4 I 11 I FOOTING
I tI I
" / DEL NAR FORRATION: 0 6.5'. Sandy Clay, light
:. green, wet, mimr seepage. '
I 11 -I 1 11 I I
Noles:
AMEFllCAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
TEST EXCAVATION Log No.
F.N. 20221 -01
proiect,~~lent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad. Ca. Date: 5/21 186
Estlmated Surface Elevation(lt.1:
Losatlon: Near intersection of El Camiro Real and Alga Shee(:L 01 1
Total Oeoth(1t.): ~1~ T~~~: Hand Excavation
Field Description By:
1 Suilaca Condillons: :I Located against northwest corner of carport retaining wall.
Under surface vegetation.
t 2 Subsurface Conditlons: FORMATION Classillcallon. color. moisture. tightness. etc. Remarks I
AMESICAN GEOTECHNICAL
D
Plate
-
BORING LOG No. 1
F.N. 20221 .a1
Client / Project: Casitas De La Cost, Carlsbad, Ca. Date:
Locctlon: North side of 19130 Estrella De Mar Court
Est. Surfoce Elev: Total Depth 4.0' Rig Type:Hand Auger
5/20/06
shcet:Lof 1
I I
"
"
"
FIELD DESCRIPTION BY: KNJ I
cD Surface Condltlons: '
I n ? Subsurfoce Condltlons: Closslflcatlon, color. moisture
Located in depressed area near water main.
0
c3 tightness; etc. Remarks
[w 8 0'. Sandy Clay, mottled greenish gray with
brm. moist to wet, soft, no gravel, some roots.
tI 1 -
RLLUVIU~; E 3.6'. Sandy Clay, green, wet,
slick surraces. -. i
0 4.0'. End of Boring . No Water
I I I No Cavina
I
Notes:
-
t "
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
~~
BORING LOG No.
F.N. 20221 -01
Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/20/86 Client / Project:
Locotlon~ West side of 1941E Estrella De lrhr Court Sheet-of 1
Est. Surface Elev: Total Depth 3.0' Rig Type: Hand Auaer
I I FIELD DESCRIPTION BY: Kml I ~
iurfoce Conditions:
. . .. ._
iubsurface Conditions: Classlficotlon. color, molrture Remarks
I I 1
' DEL NAR FORNATION: 9 1 .St, Sandy Clay, lipht green
with green siltstone, mist, dense.
8 3.0' End of Boring
No Water
No Caving
b --
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
TEST'EXCAVATION- CORE NO. 1
F.N. 31 .nl
prolect,~~len~: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. oat.: 5/21/86
Locallon: Parkino oarage. end of Estrella De Nar Court Shsec:& of 1
Esllmaled Surface Elavellon(1t.): - -
!6 --
27 96
16 82
Total Oeolh(1l.): 2.5 Rig Type: Core Orill/Auger
Field' Descriotion By: KNJ I
Sutlaca Condlllons:
In slab-on-grade, most westerly core.
4 .I . i
f Subsurface Condillona: FORMATION Classillcallon.
color. moisture. tlghtness. elc. Remarks
SLAB: P O', Concrete Slab. - &,, 4.A' 'pa. . SLAB .A.
;p..*., . :.,
b
0 0.33'. Silty Coarse Sand, mediun brown, wet.
loose.
- FILL: P 0.75'. Sandy Clay, green, wet. very
soft, mottled with rust brown.
DEL RAR FOF~ATION: e 2.33'. Siltstone. green.
mist, dense.
P 2.5' End of Core
No Water
No Cavina
I .
Notes: 1) Slab thickness 3.95" (ASTfl C174-82) I
2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 gauge both directions, depth 3''.
3) No moisture barrier.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
I
TEST 'EXCAVATION - CORE NO. 2
F.N. 20221.01
rrolect/c;1ent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, La. Dale: 5/21/86
.ocotfon: Parkinq garage, end of Estrella De h1 Court Sheaf:- 1 of 1
!sllma!ed Surface Elevallon(fl.1: -
,
Total Deolh(ft.1: 2.4' RI~ 1ypa: Core Drill/Auger
Field Description BY: KmJ I Sunace Condlllons:
In slab, second most westerly Core.
\
FILL: B 0.58', Sandy Clay, green, wet, very
soft; rottled with brm.
-
'DEL MAR FomATIoN: e 2.3'. Clayey Siltstones
qreen, mist, dense.
P 2.4' End of Core
No Water
No Caving
4
)Notes: 1) Slab thickness 3.88" (ASTN C174-82)
I Steel m-sh in slab 6"x6"/8 qawe both directions, depth 3".
3) Core through patched slab crack.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
D
TEST'EXCAVATION - CORE NO. 3
F.N. 20221.01
prolect/Cllent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. ~~1~: 5/21/86
Locatlon: Parking garage. end of Estrella De Mar Court
Eotlmated Surface Elevatlon(fl.1: -
1
Sunace Condltlons:
In slab, third mast wsterly core. r .I , "
i f Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION C!assilicatlon, ? color. moisture. tlghtness. etc. Remarks
- .- FILL: B 0.58'. Sandy Clay, green, wet, very soft,
mottled. -
L I' I
rtes: 1) Slab thickness 3.38" (ASTM 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
F.N. -1 .oi
prolecifCllent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca.. Data: 5/21/86
Locallon: Parkinq garage, end of Estrella Oe mar Court Sheet:L of 1
'Ettlmaled Surface Elavallon(l1.): ~~l~l OeDth(f1.): 1.7' RIg Type: Core OriWAwr
1
i
Field Description By: KNJ
Suilaca Condlllons:
In slab, fourth most westerly core.
subsurface Conditlona: FORMATION Classiflcatlon. color. moisture, llghlness. ole. Remarks
2.. 2, . w ',
.'A!- .. ;% -.ai.*
SLAB: R 0'. Concrete Slab. - pri .SLAB .. '.
- -
R 0.39', Silty Sand, mediun brown, wt, lOOSe.
I t - FILL: R 0.58'. Sandy Clay, green, wet, very soft,
E 1.7' End of Core
No Water
No CaviM)
I I
Notem: 1) Slab thickness 3.85" (ASTM C174-82)
b 2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 oauae both directions, exoosed and rusted out in bottom of slab.
3) Core through shrinkage crack.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL
b
Plate
TEST 'EXCAVATION - CORE NO. -5
F.N. 20221 so1
proiecifcllent: Casitas Oe La Costa, Carlsbad. Ca. Data: 5/21 I06
Locallon: Parking garage, end of Estrella De mar Court Shee(:L of 1
Suilacs Condlllons:
In slab, most easterly core. . I-
2 : Subsurface Conditlons: FORMATION Classification,
color. moisture. Hghtness. olc. Remarks
SLAB: e O', Concrete Slab. *; .., - SLAB *:" pi. - -
1 e 3.0' End of Core
~~~
No Water
No Cavino
-
res: 1) Slab thickness 3.36" (pmm c174-82)
awlete:
3) No moisture barrier. OL
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
D
TEST'EXCAVATION- CORE NO. 6
F.N. 20221.01
prolec~/c~lent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Dale: 5/21/06 -
Locallon: Caruort, near intersection of El Camino Real and Alga Sheel:- of 1 1
Estimated Surface Elevallon(fl.): - - Total Deolh(ft.): 2.0 Rfg Type: Core OrilllAuger
Field Description BY: KNJ I
Southerly core in carport slab-on-grade.
Sunace Conditions: .I . 1
0 Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION: Classificallon. color, moisture. tlghtness. elc. Remarks
SLAB: R 0'. Concrete Slab ,.A' ' .;.:2. ... : .". SLAB '. 0
, Ji, ,$A
.>' -
R 0.4'. Silty Sand, mediun brown, wet. loose. - / - FILL: R 0.79'. Sandy Clay, greenfrust, wet,
very soft. - ' EL NAR FOWrlATION: m 1'.25', Sandy Clay with
siltstone, green, mist, dense.
I I
R 2.0' End of Core
No Water
No CavinQ
t Notes: 1) Slab thickness 4.80" (ASTN C174-82)
2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 gauge both directions. depth 31".
3) Core is next to pipe post footing. overpour extends into core hole (radius 23").
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
B 4) No misture barrier.
TEST EXCAVATION- CORE NO. 7
F.N. 20221 e01
proiec~/C1len~: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad. Ca. Dele: 5/21/86
Locatlon:mrt. near intersection of El Camino Real and Rlqa Shee(:L of 1
Sunace Condltlons:
..
1) Slab thickness 4.44" (RSTPl C174-82)
2) Steel mesh in slab, 6"x6"/8 gauge bath directions, depth 34".
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.
Dry Unit Weight
b
Dry unit weight (dry density) testing of ring and "Shelby" tube samples was determined in accordance with conventional.laboratory techniques and in conjunction with field method of test ASTM 1556, ASTM 1587, and ASTM 2937.
Particle Size Analysis i.
Particle size analyses were performed inaccordance with ASTM method of test D422. Mechanical sieve procedures were utilized.
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.
File No. 20221.01
October 15, 1986
Page C-2 1
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES continued
b Expansive Soil Testing
Two types of soil tests were performed.
1) Expansion tests were performed in accordance with Uniform
B Building Code 29-2 test procedures.
2) Expansion tests were performed on undisturbed "Shelby" tube
dried at 105 degrees F for about 48 hours and then the percent samples in accordance with HUD criteria. The samples were air
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 "Shelby" tube
samples (ASTM 1587-83) in accordance with ASTM method of test 2435, except that time readings were not taken.
v
b
D
October 15, 1986 . File .No. 20221.01
Page C-3
Field Lab Max Field
Dry Dry Relative Moisture Degree of Sample
(PCf) (pcf) ' (a (X) (a
Location Density Density Compaction Content Saturation Type
T-1 @ 1.5' T-1 @ 3.1' 85.4 103.3
T-1 @ 4.5' 119.8
T-1 @ 5.5' 102.3
T-2 @ 1' T-2 @ 2'
T-2 @ 3'
T-2 @ 4' 90.9
T-2 @ 4.5-5'. .91.8
94.2 92.8
90.6
T-3 @ 1.5' 98.0
T-3 @ 3' 95.1
T-4 @ 1' T-4 @ 3.5'
T-5 @ 2'
T-5 @ 1' 91.0
T-5 @ 3' 93.8
T-5 @ 3.5' 110.5
T-7 @ 5' T-7 @ 2' 94.7 101 .o
T-7 @ 7.5' 94.1
B-1 @ 2.5' 97.1 B-1 @ 3.5' 99.4
89.7 88.3
95.8
c-1 @ 2' 94.1
C-4 @ 0.6' 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 44 76 Very Low
88
18
Very Low 37
89 12.5 54
82 17.9 63 81 21.3 72
79 14.1. 45
79 18.2 59
80 17.7 59
85.6 11.7 45
83 19.1 68
78 11.4 34 77 12.9 39
79 84 14.9 48 15.8 58
82 17.6 61
97 17.5 93
88 9.3 39' 83 26.1 93 - 26.4 92
- 21.9 82 - 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)
B
I ?I I mln
u u mm IO1
IOII m N IFIII m N
IelII cl el IUII u u
.File No. 20221.01
October 15, 1986 Page C-5 I
I
EXPANSION TESTS (U.B.C. 29-2)
Soil
Location Type Density Content Index
Dry Moisture Expansion Expansion
Potential
Initial Initial
(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-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
i.
SWELL TESTS
( HUD CRITERIA ) INTACT "SHELBY" TUBE SAMPLES
b
B
B
(ASTM 1587-83)
Soil Field Field Pre-Test Final
Dry Moisture Moisture Moisture Percent
(PCf (%I (%I (%I Location Type Density Content Content Content Expansion
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-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
I
File No. 20221.01
October 15, 1986
Page C-6
.-
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-l @ 2.5'-3.25'
C-1 1.01-1.5' 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 e l.O"l.4'
c-5 @ l.O"l.33'
C-5 @ 1.58'-1.92' 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'
SUMMARY OF BULK SAMPLES
MOISTURE CONTENT
(ASTM D2216)
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
22.9
22.3
21.4
20.7
27.2
18.9 15.9
Soil Type
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
Fill: Sandy Clay
Natural: Clayay Sand
b
D
D
Plasticity Chart
Number (feet) * 2.4-3.2
,< Liquid Limit (%I
Moisture Natural Liquid Limit Plasticity Passing index No. 200 partides Clem :ontent (96) (%I (%I Sieve (%I (%) Symbol
Unified Soil
AlTERBERG LIMITS AND PLASTlClTY CHART Plate AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20221 OCT 1986 c- 1
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION Plate
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20221 OCT 1986 c-2
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION Plate
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20221 OCT 1986 c-3
PERCENT PASSING
- ..
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
I I Plate
I 1
CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE Plate
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL ' F.N. 2022 1 c-5 OCT 1986
INITIAL DRY DENSITY = 96. S
WInAL MOISTURE CONTENT = a.l%
CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE
I Plate
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL' F.N. 20221 OCT 1986 C-6
File No. 20623 August 23, 1989
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
STANDARD GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX D
I GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A.
1 B.
C.
D.
1 E.
F.
G.
1
D H.
I.
5.
B
B
K.
L.
D
GENERAL
DEFINITION OF TERMS
OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES
SITE PREPARATION
SITE PROTECTION
EXCAVATIONS
F1. UNSUITABLE MATERIALS
F2. CUT SLOPES
F3. PAD AREAS
COMPACTED FILL
G1. PLACEMENT
62. MOISTURE
63. FILL MATERIAL
64. FILL SLOPES
65. OFF-SITE FILL ’
DRAINAGE
STAKING
SLOPE MAINTENANCE
J 1. LANDSCAPE PLANTS
52. IRRIGATION
53. MAINTENANCE
54. REPAIRS
TRENCH BACKFILL
STATUS OF GRADING
. ”
STANDARD DETAILS NOS. 1-9
c
*
1
1-4
5
5-6
6-8
8
8
8-9
9
9
9-11
11-12
12-1 4
14-15
1 5-1 6
16
16-1 7
17
17
17
17-18
18
. 18
19
GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS
A. GENERAL -
b
D
D
D
AI The guidelines contained herein and the standard details attached hereto represent this firm's standard recomnendations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the project specifi-
. cations.
A2 All plates attached hereto shall be considered as part of these gui del i nes .
A3 The Contractor should not vary from these guidelines without prior reconmendation by the Geotechnical Consultant and the approval of the Client or his authorized representative. Recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant and/or Cl.ient shourd not be considered to preclude requirements for approval by the 'control 1 ing agency prior to the execution of any changes.
A4 These Standard Grading Guidelines and Standard Details'may be modified and/or superseded by reconmendations contained in the text of the preliminary geotechnical report and/or subsequent reports.
..
A5 If disputes arise out of the interpretation of these grading guide1 ines or-standard details, the Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the governing interpretation.
E. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
E1 ALLUVIUM - unconsolidated detrital deposits resul ting from flow of water, including sediments deposited in river beds, canyons, flood plains, lakes, fans at the foot of slopes and estuaries.
82 AS-GRADED (AS-BUILT) - the surface and subsurface conditions at completion of grading.
83 BACKCUT - a temporary construction slope at the rear of earth retaining structures such as buttresses, shear keys, stabilization fills or retaining walls.
84 BACKDRAIN - generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system placed behind earth retaining structures such as buttresses, stabilization fills and retaining walls.
B5 BEDROCK - a more or less solid, relatively undisturbed rock in place either at the surface or beneath superficial deposits of soil.
86 BENCH - a re1 atively level step and near vertical rise excavated into sloping ground on which fill is to be placed.
Page Two
I
I
87
E3
B9
B10
D
B11
- 812
813
814
D 81 5
816
D
61 7
818
B19
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 stabilize. a slope exhibiting adverse
key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A buttress geologic features. A buttress is generally specified by minimum
normally contains a backdrainage system.
CIVIL ENGINEER - the Registered Civil Engineer or consulting fin
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 Client to perform demolition, grading and other
site improvements.
DEBRIS - a1 1 products of clearing, grubbing, demo1 i tion, contami- nated soil material unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill and/or
any other material so designated 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 his representative, during grading, has made sufficient tests to enable him to conclude that the fill has been placed in substantial compliance with the recommendations 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 GRAOE - the ground surface configuration prior to grading.
2 page Three
b
b
820
82 1
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
FILL - any deposits of soil, rock, soil-rock blends or other similar materials placed by man.
FINISH GRADE - the ground surface configuration at which time the surface elevations conform to the approved plan.
GEOFABRIC - any engineering textile utilized in geotechnical applications including subgrade stabilization and filtering.
GEOLOGIST - a representative of the Geotechnical Consultant educated and trained in the field of geology.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT - the Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering .Geology consulting firm retained to provide technical servites fofthe project. For the purpose of these guidelines,
observations by the Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the Soil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Geologi st and
Geotechnical Consultants. those performed by persons employed by and responsible to the
GEOTECHNICAL ENG.INEER - 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.
GRADING - any operation consisting of excavation, fi'lling or combinations thereof and associated operations.
LANDSLIDE DEBRIS - material, generally porous and of low density, produced from instability of natural or man-made slopes.
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.
OPTIMUM MOISTURE - test moisture content at -the maximum density.
RELATIVE COMPACTION - the degree of compaction (expressed as a
maximum dry unit weight of the material. percentage) of dry unit weight of a material as compared to the
ROUGH GRADE - the ground surface configuration at which time .the surface elevations approximately conform to the approved plan.
Page ‘Four
t
B
B32
B33
834
835
836
837
838
839
B40
841
B42
843
844
SITE - the particular parcel of land where grading is being
performed.
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.
SLOPE - is an inclined ground surface the steepness of which is
generally specified as a ration of horizontal: vertical (e.g., 2:l).
SLOPE WASH - soil and/or rock material that has been transported
down a slope by mass wasting assisted by runoff water not confined by channel s (a1 so see Coll uvi um) .
SOIL - naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt, clay, etc. or combinations thereof.
mechanics (also 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. width 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. . . - - . . .
SLOUGH - loose, noncompacted fill material generated during grading ‘operations.
TAILINGS - nonengineered fill which accumulates on or adjacent to
equipment haul-roads.
TERRACE - relatively 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 stri ng of 1 arge rock buried within engineered fill in accordance with guide1 ines set forth by the Geotechnical Consul- tant.
Page Five
I
C. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES
C1 The Geotechnical Consultant should provide observation and testing services and should make evaluations to advise the C1 ient on
his findings and recommendations to the Client or his authorized geotechnical matters. The geotechnical Consultant should report
representative.
C2 The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the
bil i ty 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 C1 ient or his’ autho- rized representative should remain on-site or should remain..
reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisfons 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
Dl. 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
concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 48 hours the appropriate’governing authorities as well as any other
notice.
D2 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. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of a1 1 proposed excavation and fill areas.
03 Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations reservoirs, uti 1 i ties ( including underground pi pel i nes,
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 pipe1 ines at the proj.ect perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the
i
Page Six
requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations
of the Geotechnical Consultant at the time of demolition.
.. 04 Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be protected by the Contractor from damage or injury.
05 Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demo1 i tion opera-
tions should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed off- site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be performed under the observation of the Geotechnical Consultant.
after'demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appro- the control1 ing authorities for the project prior, during and/or
grading operations. priate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with
D6 The C1 ient or Contractor should obtain the required approvals from
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
of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion
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
regul a ti ng agencies.
E2 The Contractor should be responsi ible for the stability of all
Consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g., backcuts) are temporary excavations. Recommendations r by the Geotechnical
made in consideration of stability of th? completed project and, therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibili-
ties of the Contractor. Recommendations by the Geotechnical Consultant should not be considered to preclude more restrictive
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 draipage 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 pqrformance of site
Page Seven
I
I
1
. .
1
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
E9
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.
During periods of rainfall, the Geotechnical Consultant should be kept informed by the Contractor as to the nature of remedial or preventative work being performed (e.g., pumping, placement of sandbags or plastic sheeting, other labor, dozing, etc.).
Following perlods of rainfall, the Contractor should contact the Geotechnical consultant and arrange a walkover of the site in order to visually assess.rain related damage. The Geotechnical Consul- tant may a1 so recomnend excavations and testing in order to aid in his assessments. At the request of the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor shall make excavations'in order to evaluate the extent of rain re1 ated-damage.
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 rep1 acement with compacted fill or other remdial grading as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot, should be overexcpvated,to unaffected, competent material. Where less than 1;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.
In slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist 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 moisture condi tionni ng i n-pl ace, foll owed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected material s should be overexcavated and reo1 aced as comoacted fi 11 in
Page Eight
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
D
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 deleterious f i 11 materi a1 s.
F1.2 Material identified by the Geotechnical Consultant as unsatisfactory due to it's moisture conditions should be overexcavated, watered or dried, as needed, and thoroughly
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,
overexcavation and replacement of the unsi-table materials with a compacted, stabilization fill should be accomplished as recomnended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified by the Geotechnical Consultant,
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.
D
Page Nine
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 Standar,d Details) stabilization fills or buttresses should be overexcavated to
of compacted fill over the entire pad area. pad areas with both fill and cut materials exposed and pad areas containing both very shallow (less than 3 feet) and deeper fill should be overexcavated to provide for a uniform compacted fill
Standard Details). Cut areas exposing significantly varying
blanker with a minimum of 3 feet in thickness (refer to
material types should also be overexcavated to provide for
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
Consul tant 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 recomnended..
6. 'COMPACTED FILL
A1 1 fill materials should be compacted as specified below or by other
methods specifically recomnended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified, the minimum degree of compaction (relative compac- tion) should be 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density.
61 PLACEMENT
61.1 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.
..
I
page Ten
I
b
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
conditions then thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods
needed, thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum moisture
density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry
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 hand1.e 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.
61.4 When placing fill in horizonta.1 lifts adjacent to areas 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, firm 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 Geotechnical 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
Details.
. consideration of moisture retention properties of the
% 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 (fa1 se slopes)
above described. At least a 3-foot vertical bench should
slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as
be established within the fin core of adjacent approved 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 relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density
Page El even
I
b
testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test 01556-64,
02922-78 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.
61.7 The Contractor should assist the Geotechnical Consultant
deteninations and/or for testing compacted fill and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal
..
61.8 As recomnended by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor should "shut down" or reqove grading equipment from an area being tested.
G1.9 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
after-the-fact evaluating of the sequence of fi 11 showing test locations or in any case for the purpose of
placement.
62 MOISTURE
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 guide1 ine recomnended in Preliminary Investigation Reports and/or may
"near optimum'' should be considered from one percent below to three percent above optimum.
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
minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. near-optimum moisture conditions, then recompacted to a
Where wet or other dry or other unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot, the unsuitable materials should be overexcavated.
- .- compaction procedure. "Near optimum" may be specifically
62.2 Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following
Page Twelve
1
1
1
1
1
62.3 Following a period of flooding, rainfall or overwatering by
other means, no additional fill should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading
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 utilized as compacted fill,
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
materials from proposed borrow sites. No import materials hours in advance of importing, in order to sample and test
should be delivered for use on-site without prior sampling and testing by Geotechnical Consultant.
63.3 Where oversized rock or similar irreducible material is generated during grading, it is recomnended, where practical, to waste such material off-site or on-site in
areas designated as "nonstructural rock disposal areas". Rock placed in disposal areas should be placed with
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
Fill should be placed and thoroughly compacted over and placed in such manner that nesting of the rock is avoided.
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 recomnendations 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 recomnended 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
1
Page Thirteen
1
1
I
I
I
I
are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be
placed within an engineered fill, special hand1 ing in
accordance with the accompanying Standard Details is
down or disposed off-site. Rocks up to four feet maximum recommended. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken
dimension should be placed below the upper 10 feet of any
fill and should not be closer than 20 feet to any slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material
util.ities are proposed. Oversized material should be should not be placed below areas where structures .or deep
compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select placed in windrows 'on a clean, overexcavated-or unyielding
be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around a1 1 native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should
oversized material should be staggered so that successive windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of
strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical
plane.
The Contractor should be aware that the placement of rock
and may require additional equipment and/or special in windrows will significantly slow the grading operation
equipment.
G3.'7 It may be possible to dispose of individuai larger rock as
Geotechnical Consultant at the time of placement.
63.8 Material that is considered unsuitable by'the Geotechnical
. field conditions dictate and as reconmetided by the
Consultant should-not be utilized 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-
may be required of samples obtained directly from the fill tures which possess unique physical properties. Testing
areas in order to verify conformance with the specifica-
or more working days. The contractor may elect to move the tions. Processing of these additional samples may take two
operation to other areas within the project, or may
continue placing compacted fill pending laboratory and fie1 d 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
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
vertical I. slopes should not be steeper than 2:l (Horizontal:
64.2 Except as specifically recommended otherwise or as otherwise provided far in these grading guidelines
and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill (Reference G4.3),, compacted fill slopes should be overbuilt
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
Consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased reconstructed under the guidelines of the Geotechnical
until the desired compacted slope surface condition is achieved. Care should be taken by the Contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope .surface.
64.3 Although no construction procedure produces a slope free
of slope to a compacted. inner core is, given no other from risk of future movement, overfilling and cutting back
.constraints, the most desjrable procedure. Other
constraints may include property line situations, access, constraints, however, must often be considered. These.
the critical nature of the development and cost. Where such constraints are identified, slope face compaction on
alternative 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-establi shed, where conditioned and thoroughly compacted. The desired moisture
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.
' Page Fifteen
I
Each 1 ift should extend horizontally to the desired
finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately establish desired grades. Grade during construction should 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, whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly backrolled utilizing a conventional sheepsfoottype roller. 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 delay, so as to avoid (if possible) further moisture conditioning, the slopes should then be grid-rolled to
achieve a relatively smooth surface and uniformly. compact condition.
In order to monitor slope construction procedures, moisture
Failure to achieve the desired results will 1 ikely result and density tests should be taken at regular intervals.
in a recomnendation.by the Geotechnical Consultant to overexcavate the slope surfaces foll owed by reconstruction
of the slopes uti1 iz'iag over-fill ing and cutting back
procedures and/or further attempt at the conventional backroll ing 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.
64.5 For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away frm the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and pad gradients of at least
2 percent in soil areas.
65 OFF-SITE FILL
65.1 Off-site ffll should be treated in the same manner as recomnended in these specifications for site preparation,
excavation, drains, compaction, etc.
%Page Sixteen
I
I
65.2 Off-site canyon fill should be placed in preparation for
future additional fill, as shown in the accompanying Standard Details.
65.3 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.
HZ 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 sui table disposal areas via non-erodi ble
devices (i .e., gutters, downspouts; concrete swales).
H4 For drainage over soil areas imnediately away from structures, (i.e., within four feet) a minimum of 4 percent gradient should be
maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent should be maintained over soil areas. Pad drainage may be reduced to at
least 1 percent for projects where no slopes exist, either natural
are planned, either natural or man-made, steeper than 2:l or manmade, of greater than 10 feet in height and where no slopes
(horizontal :vertical slope ratio).
H5 Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be
maintained throughout the life of the project. Property owners
detrimental to SI ope stabi 1 i ty and foundation performance. should be made aware that altering drainage patterns can be
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. Slope 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
offsets should be provided. For finished slope and stabilization include overexcavations or slope stabilization, appropriate staking
Page Seventeen
1
1
backcut areas, we recmend at least a 10-foot setback from proposed toes and tops-of-cut.
5. MAINTENANCE
51 LANDSCAPE PLANTS
In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation requiring little watering. Plants native to the southern California area- and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native
Landscape Architect would be the best party to consult regarding to other semi-arid and arid areas may.also be appropriate. A
actual types of plants and planting. configuration.
52 IRRIGATION
52.1 Irrigation 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
the installation of near-surface moisture monitoring
’ . control devices. Such devices can aid in the maintenance *. 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 planned and appropriate measures should be taken to control weeds and enhance growth of the landscape plants. Some areas may require occasional replanting and/or 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
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'
with the period of time prior to landscape planting.
rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended, beginning
I
D
54 REPAIRS
54.1 If slope failures occur, the Geotechnical Consultant should be contacted for a field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair.
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 recommended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction should be a minimum of 90 percent of the
. " 1 aboratory maximum density .
K2 . As an alternative, 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
D
Page Nineteen
means. If on-site materials are utilized, they should be
For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot wheel-rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition.
testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review Of
backfill operations during construction.
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 util'ity 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
~5 If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to Use
lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
K7 C1 ean granul ar backfill and/or bedding are not recornended in slope areas unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate the potential build-up of seepage forces.
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.
L1 Prior to any signtficant 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 Following 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 comnencement.of
addItiona1 grading operations.
CANYON SUBDRAIN
................. ” .
Dozer Trench ; Geofabric Alternat.ive
~ . - . “ i
................. A” - .” ....
y Backhoe Trench
A / I /
i I
. . .. . . . . -. " . . . . - . . . - . .
STABILIZATION FILL - __. "" . .
BUTTRESS FILL
" "_ . " .-. " _" - . .- _.-
STANDARD DETAIL NO. 3: .-
BUTTRESS BACKDRAIN SYSTEM
m4.
I hd&/ff4/ ,
Geofrabic Alternative
STANDARD DETAIL NO. 4.
. - ............. -. - . - ....... - . - _. . .'.'. .FUTURE CANYON FILL'
.... .. .... ...
I_ .......... . . _.-,
I
... . ... ". - ". - "
STANDARD DETAIL NO.. 5
. ." . ... . .- . . - . - - - . -
TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION
.
STANDARD DETAIL N0.8
IS NQT APPLICABLE
.. .. . - .- .,. . .
.
0 z
0 7
5
c American Geotechniqal
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
May 17, 1990 File No. 20623.02
Gary Robinson HOYCO Construction Co.
2050 Hancock Street San Diego, CA 92110
Subject: REVIEW OF REPAIR FOUNDATIONS
Buildina 1937 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, American Geotechnical has provided geotechnical consulting services in the form of observation of embedment conditions
for the repair foundation at Building 1937, Casitas de la
Costa Development.
The repair excavation, which lies on the eastern side of
placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. The foundation Building 1937, has been reviewed by our office prior to
the intentions of the geotechnical consultant and the excavation has been found to be in general accordance with
geotechnical report.
The excavation for the continuous footing exposed competent
measured to be in accordance with geotechnical sedimentary bedrock in all areas. The excavation was
embedment/setback criteria and the construction plans. The foundation embedment, therefore, will be into competent bearing material for the entire length of the repair segment along the east side of Building 1937.
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) 457-0614
1250 North Lakeview Avenue, Suite T, Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 970-0255 FAX (714) 9700142
File No. 20623.02
May 17, 1990 Page 2
American Geotechnical
I
prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. Care should be taken to keep the excavation free of debris
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,
cc: Maureen Jon
David Chave
American Geotechnical : ,,
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ; I
it' ' ,'t',, ,' i 4 .~ . , ,
United States Testing Company, Inc.
Engineering & Support Services
3467 Kurt2 Street, San Diego. CA 92110 (619) 225-9641
ab No: 9561 00 ob Name: CIIITAI B& LA COSTA
tb Addre-s: 1919-1O4L MCI ROAD CARLSBID EA
nrlneer: RENlINI, DAVID wait + 07-1279
mor1 lo: 677i4 lie: 6/05/90
CITY OF CARLSSID IUILDINC INSPECTION 8EPIRTHENT
1200 ELH LVEHUE CARLSIAD CI 92008
PLRllIT : 09-1279
LOCATIO# OF YQRR I#O?ECTED: Exterlor r.11 iooilnr at ihe bact oi
brlldlnq 1937.
CMTRACTOR: HOYCO WPCLICR: Mar-Con Prodrclr MIX #EtXCl NO: 89-101 MIIM OlREICTW:3300 C.I.1. CUBIC YIRII CLICLI 80.0 PLACEHEIT (IElHOB PmP
z
CT I NOTES
PMCENENT IX I REIHFORCIlG STEEL I I I
I
I
BITCH TICKETS 11 I I COWOLIDITIOI I1 I I - ILT IEl I AIR X I UNIT 11.1 1LNP 1. 12 I 4 I 5L3 I I I I
Y6rk described above mar performed in accordance rllh rroiect plans and speclflcatlons.
......................................
......................................
UITCo. IIIPEClOR: Artsro Sevllla BO.: 42s
JOB HOURS: SThRT 9:30
This report does not relleve the coniractor of hls resronslbllltv io build per the plans. s~ecifIcltlons and all arpllc~hle codes.
Sramarr nf Acilvliv
""_""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" STOP a:30
................................................
Serv I cm Date TJSL Abbrevlaied DascrIPtlon Code #ame/Descrlpilom Units
5/25/90 OZ228 REGISTERED I#SPECTOR/CO#CRETE 00155 SEVILLI. ARTURO s.50
(""""-"- R.sosrc* ------------)
"""" _"" """"""""""""""" ""- """"""""""""""" """
United Stateslesting Company, Inc.
3467Yuliz Street, San Diego. CA 92110 (619) 225-9641
Engineering 8 Support Services
Job Nwber: 889561 BB Job k: MITE DE LA WSTR 1319-1941 RLGR RWlD CRRCSBRD CA
HOYW WNSTRUCTION
SRN DIEW 268 HANMCH ST.
CA 92118 UNITED STRTES TESTING, CITY OF CIIRLSWD
HDYCO MNSTRUCTION
Permit # 87-1279 Engineer: WINI, DAVID
Re ri No: 732e6 Dag: 11/28/98 Tested TO ffim C-39
Numb. Test PCF T& ksign Pour kignatlon Inch by Mixer Day Set/Mark F hbr. Code Rir
P.O. t Concrete kapressian Test
28 Da Cyl. Fig& Lin Ut Stren th PSI Date of Mix kign Slump Made in of Cy1 This Tap Load Plant Tile Time
"" _" "_ "_ "" ""- " "" "_ "" "_ "" - - - " "" " "- - "" - ""_ " "_ 3888 5/25/98 89-181 5. BB 88155 126 4 Location in Structure: EXTERIOR YRLL FOOTINGS 5 99
7844 7 2388 1845 20 7846 28 7847 68 Discarded. 4w 37778
~o*p1iance:28 DRY TEST MNBLIES WITH SPECIFIWTIONS
Laation in Structure: EXTERIOR URLL FOOTINGS 3w s/m98 eIF-181 3.58 BB155 3:38 4
7849 20 7848 7 2818
768 20 761 se 4878 Discarded.
4178
Conpliance:28 DRY TEST MNBLIES UITH SPECIFICATIONS
9 99
Page No: 1
r
September 20, 1993 Revised September 21, 1993
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 office 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 &man 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 determine 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.
-
456 N Oulnce Street Escondldo. CA92025 (619) 741-7645 FAX (619) 741-917
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 information 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 clod 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 thii 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 pipepile 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, overflow 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.
L
c
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 slop (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 significant 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
watedFrench 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 preliminary 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 22096 CA
CJWsr
cc: William Wyman Leslie Leonhardt &man Pekin
Roger Zmerman
i
EQRW NO. H-1 SOIL DESCRIPTON
concrete core 3 112"
y-11- wee.
Olive gray sandy silty day CL@l
kt saturated @ 3' soft
Dark Brown w/Olive clay silty clayey fine sands SC/CL
Bottom @ 6.5'
"1
Dace: 8-16-93 Field Rep.: c1'
Drill Rig: Hand Auper
H-3
rrPtP rnrP 1 I/)
BORN HO. SOIL DESCRIPTION
k~ow srown, Loose, Wet, SM
light Olive gray, soft, wet to saturated, cc/sc
Dark Brown, soft, saturated sc/cc
Bottom @ a I/.?'
I/ - II
H
Date: 8-16-93 Field Rep.: CT
Drill Rig: Hand AuRered
BORWQ NO. 1 SOIL DESCRIPTION
Fill (Generally loose)
Gray Brown Fine Sand, traces of clay moist
lUumerous Chunks of asphalt and concrete debris
Wet
Bottom of Boring 12 3'
D-(I = Drive Samples
BORW NO. L SOIL DESCRIPTION
Fill
Gray Brown Silty Fine Sand with trace of clay moist,
loose.
Bottom of boring 4 i/- feet
Refusal or chunks of asphalt and concrete debris
6"s' I t
I t-
L
5'4 112- i
3-E 112. I
."
u-2 Q
.. c
. e+' II
7- i i
17"6' I
i
t I3
1 NOTE8
c - ...... -. ........... - - ... -. ...................... ....
7
PLATE B
BORING LOCATIONS
conc. OAlIO
t
6"s. I
t
5'4 la' I ! t'
6"
This procedure requires four lateral drains be located below the existing
a controlled manner to the existing drains located in the parking lot.
southerly deepened tooting and be outletted through the southern slope.in -
c11 PLATE C
MINI-PILE/HYDRAUGER LOCATION:
"I
O m >
Z > 0 m
H
cr) d >
m r
"I 0
D r-
r
c3 Z m
Z 0 m "I It
11 0 Z
c Z
--I
H
cn m
I+
r-
Z+"> 0 "Iz -
rz- 0 m "I
I
z- oz fn
m> x+
rr mr
r- m-i <>
-0
0 zz
-rl -0 zm < om
mc <a3
00 "-I c 73 m
r-i
e
6" au cm
1.
c
-
3.
4.
The pipe pile design contained on this sheet is the property of Soil Engineering Construction. Inc. The details presented illustrate the patented Mini-PileTM system. This design is for the sole use of Soil Engineering Construction. Inc. and its clients.
Drive Mini-PileTM with properly operating 90 lb. pneumatic or hydraulic hammer.
Unless otherwise noted. all concrete shall attain a minimum strength of 2000
psi at 28 days.
Rebar shall be gr. 40 or better.
PLATE E - 2
LABORATORY RESULTS
Location
Cores H-1 @ 11"
58"
36"
72"
H-2 @ 21"
H-3 @ 16"
36"
6 5
84"
98"
Borings B-1 @ 56"
72"
B-2 @ 36"
DENSITY TESTS
Location
Boring B-1 @ 56"
87
83
M.C. UBC
(Exp. Index)
24.5 59
22.1
26.0
23.3
22.0
20.7
20.0
22.6
22.0
25.6
13.0
20.0
15.0
MAXIMUM DENSITY /OPTIMUM MOISTURE
Density Max. Den. Opt. Moist.
#/Cf #/cf %
108.2 121.3 13.0
PLATE F
I
Casitas de la Costa I-Inmeowners' kssn.
c/o William Wyman, Attorney at Law
6994 El Camino Real #20J
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.
Essentiillly, the results of our investigation reflect the continued moisture intrusion due to
a lack of adequate drainage, both surface and suhsurface, in and around the building which
is known as 1913 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
follows: March 7, 1987 :md December 7, 19x7, file No. 20221; file No. 20623 which is dated
Novemher 7, 1988, March 13, 1980 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 reported hy American Geotechnical across the rear portion
of the condominium lower floor has increased nominally, by possihly .25 inches, based on
our recent measurements.
Our investi@ion 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 the first and second floors of this unit.
The maximum 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).
The pro:llcm is a lack of adcquatc subsuifacc drainage aud surhce drainage controls. This
condition continues to influence the foundation system lor Unit F. Moisturc intrusion
continues throughout the basement area and is refleclcd in cxtrcnlely high saturated
moisture contents in three lccatiolls where concrete core:: \\"re cut 1!1:.ough ;!IC lowcr shb.
Upor, conlplction of the coring of the concretc a hand augcr was used to samplc to depths
varying from three to nine feet. All moisture contents wcx in cxccss of 20%. with some as
high as 26%. T!xx values are at, or near, saturation. To compound this condition, the soils
wilich iw.e bec:~ nxmrred reflcc: ;I high cr~a~~si-v-c 11c~vc p)!clrtiz!.
The fkst dica afcmccrc rc!ates to a drainage cutoCfsysten~ whic!1 will intercept both surfacc
and groundwa:cr to preveilt further pondiny at the easterly foundation stcmwall. This aewly
constructed 5yclem will require positwe connections to the area draiuage in o:dcr to cilsure
that tl!r subsurfxe flow wi!! be intcrccptcd and clirccted away from the fwndalioll system
fcr Ucit F a: EziXing 1913. Additiolially, coI:'3:cic: drainage swales will be reuuired 10
collcct nny :~r;facc watcr, ei:kr.from the roc!' >ystc!lI c!r ac~oss the ge"c:al :site, %:ea: . .
The. repair of !!IS settlement anti the cracked slab are essentially two-fold, wl!ercas the slab
shol~ld be removed and the gpper 2.1. inchcs of expansive soil be si~nilarly removed and taken
from the site. The foundation sten:wsll should then be jackcd back iu :o place ill
order to eliwiuate t rent mo';en1cp.: :lcross the dimnsions of the rear portion of the
living ucit. This may occ by the i:i~iaililiion Or d miai-piie system tu firm bearing
material.
Casitas de la Costa Homeowners' hsn.
August 24, 1993
Page 3
Ljou At"C/ ?-
This system'can then be constructed in a manner to acc mmodate a pile cap and, ultimately,
a new grade beam to be placed along the existing A y foundation stemwall. This new
structural system may then be jacked back to the appropriste elevaliona. It should be r?oted
that durizp :he jacking proccss cxt:emc cart should.-be taken..to assure tl~at.thc.structural -..-L-' .
member, i.e. exposed timber :oof system, nct ufidcrgo aiiy fu:ther dismss-and, with the
reestablishment of initial gralie, the IongiV~dinal stress cracks should be reduced. In the
event this stress is not relived within the timber StrUCtMd! system, further analysis should be
ultciertakctr to assure that tne members h;.vs. acieqcxte sir~clur~l capacity. Repairs in lhis
arca arc not .witIl.h tki:.purview of tflis report; howcvcr, thkis- not a :ignificsnt!y cspcnsive
rcpair should it be recpired.
The slab-on-grade may :hen De reconstructed on a system of xini-pilw drivcn to refusal at
approximately eight foo: on center grid pattern. The slab should be five inches in thickness
and reinforced according to the structural engineer's standsrds. This new slab will then be
constructed in such a maniier as to preclude any further distress from settlemertt and the
expansive soil mndition will be negated due to the removal to a depth of 24 inches and
replaccment with gravel.
Finally, the exterior slope and lower retaining wall which was previously recommended for
repair should not be overlooked. The lateral resistance to the 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!ich 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
representative 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 cxistizg St:UC:~i~.
Our final report wili be forthcoming; however, I hope this information will be adequate in
order to permit the Homeowners' Association to evaluate the conditions surrounding 1913-F
Alga Road and !he decision for renedial repair to be undertaken without furthe: delay.
In closing, 1 wish to indicate that I reviewed this property in the 1970s with similar drainag5 control recommendations. At that time the repairs were considered to be excessive and tog
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 will1 little or nothing having been done to cxscerhatc .the condition which
has been discussed herein. I hope that youi prudent evaluation of this informction and the
conditions surrounding Building 19i3 be reviewed in its entirety to ensure that the dist;ess
described in this ifiterim report can be promptly corrected.
Leslie '&onhart (2) -
- .- "
CPC: PATlD
'I
.
n rl
6 5
II i-i
Date:- Field Rep.:
Drill Rig: Hand Auger
CT
EORW NO. H-3 SOIL DESCRIPTION
Lmr~~t~ rnre '3 112" Yellow brown, Loose, Wet, SM
light Olive gray, soft, wet to saturated, cc/sc
Dark Brown, soft, saturated sc/cc
Bottom cd 8 1/2'