HomeMy WebLinkAbout1939 ALGA RD; BLDG 11; CB891279; Permite.~ ..
H:.JILDTN!; PERMIT Permit. No: CB89127ij
I2,iZ0/90 11:15 Project Nu: A8902094
?age 1 of 1
;rc)b A~.ICI~~SS: 1913 ALGA RD
Development Nu :
Str: Fi: Ste:
Permit Type: RESIDENTAL APD/ALT (UNDF’ SlnK)
Farce1 No: 215-170-03-16
Valuation: 150 I 000
i3ccupancy Group:
Cc?nstruction Type: NEW
Description: FOUNDATION REPAIRS Applied: !)8,/25,.’8:;i Apr/Issue: l2./20/9l!
Cias s Code : 5tat.u.5: ISSUED
: EXPIHED/REINSTATED: DATE: Validated By: UD
Applicant.: STANLEY LIVINGSTCIN 619-484-4055
633 STATE ST
I
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 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 Print And Flll In Shaded Ana Only
NO.
2 ENERGY CALCS
2 SOILS REPORTS
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
Whlte . Flie Yellow. Applicant Plnk . Flnance Gold. Assessor
UNSCHEDULED INSPECTIW-",
PLANCK #
TIME ARRIVE: TIME LEAVE:
CD LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS
INSPECTION REQUEST CITY OF CARLSBAD
PERMIT# CB891279 FOR 12/26/90 INSPECTOR AREA TP DESCRIPTION: FOUNDATION REPAIRS PLANCK# CB891279
TYPE: RAD CONSTR. TYPE NEW
JOB ADDRESS: 1913 ALGA RD
APPLICANT: STANLEY LIVINGSTON
CONTRACTOR: PHONE :
OWNER: PHONE : ”-P-.
EXPIRED/REINSTATED: DATE: OCC GRP
STR: FL: STE : PHONE: 4844055
REMARKS: MH/STEVENS/260-1777 SPECIAL INSTRUCT:
TOTAL TIME:
CD LVL DESCRIPTION
INSPECTOR +
ACT COMMENTS
19 ST Final Structural
39 EL Final Electrical 29 PL Final Plumbing
49 ME Final Mechanical -
” -
” -
” -
***** INSPECTION HISTORY *****
DATE
052390 052190
050190 050190 040290
030690 030690
020990
020990
DESCRIPTION
Underground/Conduit-Wiring
Ftg/Foundation/Piers
Ftg/Foundation/Piers Steel/Bond Beam 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 WM
AP TP
AP TP BLDG 1913, UNITS E,F, & G AP TP AP TP BLDG 1913, UNITS E,F, & G
AP TP FTNGS A,B,C,D,NDS SPEC.INSP NEEDS SOILS REPORTS
United StatesTesting Company, Inc.
Englneering & Support Services
3467 KURT2 STREET SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92110 (619) 2259641
FAX (619) 224-8950
NEWYORK
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-l941 A%gijd:'liROad Carlsbad, Ca.
Permit No. 89-1279 Plan File No. N/A
Gentlemen:
United States Testing Company, Inc. has performed the Special Inspection of reinforce concrete as outlined in daily reports previously submitted €or the above mentioned project. To the best
of our knowledge, this work is in conformance with the approved plans and specifications and the applicable workmanship provisions
of the uniform Building Code.
The signed reports o€ all inspections performed by United States Testing Company, Inc., on this project have been sent to the City
of San Diego Building Inspection Department.
Very truly yours, United States Testing Company, Inc.
Ed Bove, RCE to34041 Vice President United States Testiilg Company, Inc.
CC: File
Hoyco B. Perron
FORMERLY TESTING ENQINEERS-SAN DlEOO
United,StatesTestingCompany, Inc.
Engkeering & Support Services
Job Number: 868561 @8 Job Naw CRSITRS DE LR COSTR 1919-1941 RLGR RORO
CR cRRLsmn
CITY OF CRRLSBRD BUILDIK INSPECTIDN DEPORTMENT 12M ELM RVENUE CRRLSBRD CR 9em
UNITED STRTES TESTING! CITY OF CRRLSBRD
HOYCO MINSTRUCTION
Permit # 87-1279 Engineer: RENDINI, WID
Repart No: 73286 Date: 11/2@/9@ Tested To PSTM C-39
Numb, Test PCF Test Design Pour Designation Inch by Mixer Day Set/Mark F Nmbr. Code Air
3@M 5/255/9@ 89-lfrl 5. M @e155 j:2@ 4 Location in Structure: EXTERIOR URLL FOOTINGS 5 99
Concrete Gmpression Test
Cyl. Age@ Un Wt Strength 28 Dar; PS Date of Mix Design Slump Made in of Cy1 This TeMp Load Plant Time Tilae
""_ "" ""_ - "" """ """" ""_ _"" "_" ""- """" "" ""- "" ""_ "" ""_ - "_ """" ""_ ""_ "" "_" """" "" ""- ""_ ""
7M5 28 7844 7 3778 23%8
7#7 68 7% 28 4888 Discarded. Cmpliame:28 DRY TEST CCNPLIES WITH SPECIFICRTION3
Location in Structcre: EXTERIOR WRLL FOOTINGS 3M8 5/25/98 89-181 3.58 88155 3:38 4 9 99
7MY 28 7M8 7 281@ 4178
7651 68 7558 28 Discarded. 48778
Conpliance:28 DAY TEST COMPLIES UITH SPECIFICATIONS
Page No: 1
United States Testing Company, Inc.
Engineering & Support Services
3467 Kurtr Street. San Diego. CA 92110 (619) 225-9641
Job Nwber: 889561 @? Job Nm: CASITAS DE LR CffiTR 1919-1941 KL6R RDRD CRRLSBRD CR
CIP/ OF CRRLSW BUILDIN6 INSPECTION DwlRRlENT 1298 ELM WEME CRRLSBAD CA 92w
UNITED STRTES TESTING, CITY OF CRRLSBAD
HOYCO WNSTRUCTION
Perrlt # 87-1279 EngiFr: RWDINI, WID
Report No: 67594 Date: 6/81/98 Tested To ASTM C-39
Nu&. Test PCF Test !Design Pour Deslgnatlon Inch by Mlxer Day Set/#ark F Nmbr. Code Air "_ """_E """""_ " " "" "" " "" "_ " "" ""_ "" ""_ ""_ "" "" ""- ""- "-
Cnrrete Capression Test
Cyl. Age@ Un Ut Stren th d Date of Mix,Design Sluap Made in of Cy1 This TRP Load Plant 28 Da Tine Tire
3W 5/W98 a891 Location in Structure: EXTENDED FT6. WIT "R" MIDDLE SECTION 2.58 Ws9 4 299
5922 7 2658 5924 28 4188 5925 28 4148 5926 68 Discarded. hpliam:28 MY TEST COMPLIES WITH SPECIFICRT1ONS.
3w 5/83/98 88891 3H 881159 4 Location in Structure: EXTENDED FT6. UNIT E 799
5920 28 5327 7 a* 3898 5929 28 4258 5938 68 Discarded. Capliance:28 DRY TEST COMPLIES WITH SPECIFICRTIONS.
Page No: 1
ESGIL CORPORATION
9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
(619) 560-1468
DATE : 10 /Z/ A5
JURISDICTION: i,j,LC> L. J~;
PLAN CHECK NO: 67- (275 SET: 3 DUPS
OFILE COPY
ODESIGNER
PROJECT ADDRESS : /5/3 f?LGll $2
PROJECT NAME: ::J,wufl'?)J,., z 6 %-fr x
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
checked by building department staff.
The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies
and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
The check list transmitted herewith is for your information.
plans are submitted for recheck.
The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the
@I necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's
are resolved and
0 identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected
0 The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until 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
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 :
ESGIL CORPORATION. I O,'z/zs-
? ftSCWK Enclosures:
IZGA DAA Ovw ODM
.
ESGIL CORPORATION
9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
(619) 560-1468
DATE : 7/13 /&S
JURISDICTION: *LS !SA3
PLAN CHECK NO: 57 - 1274 SET: x DUPS
OFILE COPY
DDESIGNER
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1513 AcbA e3
PROJECT NAME: PmN13A.n ON IWPK
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
checked by building department staff.
The plans transmitted herewith have siqnif icant deficiencies
and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
The check list transmitted herewith is for your information.
The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck.
The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the
are resolved and
0 identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected
0 jurisdiction to return to the applicantzontact person. .
The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to:
Wck Y L(vr#6fTVN k33 sm §r ..
T'/vv DJ.56- $zcor .,. a Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that
0 Esgil staff did advise applicant that the plan check has
plan check has been completed.
been completed. Person contacted:
Date contacted: Telephone # 0 REMARKS:
By : ? hSCltiA Enclosures: ESGIL CORPORATION c/q,
OGA OAA Ovw ODM
' Citp of CarIsbab
PLAN CORRECTION SHEET
Plan: Check No. b5 - I275
Date plans received by the jurisdiction
Date plans received by plan checker 6 /Z&
Date initial plan check completed 5 /r.j /8>
BY p fi3LfiFC
FOREWORD: PLEASE READ
Plan check is limited to technical requirements
contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform
Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National
Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy
the handicapped. The plan check is based on
conservation, noise attenuation and access for
Department. You may have other corrections
regulations enforced by the Building Inspection
baaed on laws and ordinances enforced tiy the
Planning Department, Engineering Department or
other departments.
modification or change. All circled items have
The itemo circled belw need clarification,
to be satisfied before the plans will be in
conformance with the cited codes and regulations.
Per Sec. 101 (e), of the Uniform Building Code,
the approval of the plans does not permit the
violation of any state, county or city law.
A- ? PLANS @ Please make all corrections on the original
tracings and subnit two new sets of prints,
been returned to you by the jurisdiction,
and any original plan sets that may have
to: 6S6~
0 To facilitate rechecking, plesse identify,
next to each circled item, the &et of
the plans upon:nhich 'each correction on
this sheet has been made and-return this
check sheet with the revised plans.
.
Date t 9h (4s Jurisdiction c*cs OA3
PreDared bYc " -I -
PF VALUATTON AND PLAN CHECK FEE
Bldg. Dept.
0 Esgil
PLAN CHECK NO* 87 - tZ7$
BUILDING ADDRESS 1413 AC 6.+ 12-3
APPLICANT/CONTACT PHONE NO.
BUILDING OCCUPANCY nlo cw6g DESIGNER PHONE
TYPE OF CONsTRUCTXbN w& CW6& CONTRACTOR PHONE
BUILDING PORTION VALUE 'VALUATION BUILDING AREA MULTIPLIER
FdO t%fA-tR - - in, OLIO f7LC &PL<C/l llJ4
1 I I I I
1 I I I I 1 -Air Conditionine I I Commercial . I _I lV
Residential
Fire. Sprinklers
@
To tal Value
@
Res. or Corn.
I I sp, 000
Building Permit Fee $- " 8fV *
Plan Check Fee S s P5yj
COH HENTS;
B I.
c
t American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND
REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
B
B
Estrella de Mar Court Casitas de la Costa
Carlsbad, California
File No. 20623 August 23, 1989
25202 Crenshaw Boulevard-Suite 101-Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 539-9963
5755 Oberlin Drive-Suite 104-San Diego. CA 92121 (619) 457-2711
1240 Van Buren-Suite 210 -Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 666-2241
B
B
c
B
B
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA COKPOHATIC)N
August 23, 1989
Ms. Maureen Jonas
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CASITAS DE LA COSTA
San Diego, California 92126
7920 Miramar Road, Suite 101
File No. 20623.01
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION/REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS Casitas de la Costa Condominiums
Buildings 1913 and 1941 Estrella de Mar Court Carlsbad, California
Dear Ms. Jonas:
At your request, we have provided information obtained from subsurface investigation and repair recommendations at the Casitas de la Costa Development. The subsurface
investigation, and .subsequent recommendations, were the result of reported problems at the site, this report addresses conditions and recommendations at Buildings 1913 and 1941.
Several repair alternatives have been explored, both in
conversation with the homeowners and in report form. The repair recommendations provided in the body of this report are considered a minimum alternative for remediation. The recommendations provided are intended to provide support for
the referenced buildings constructed adjacent yielding slopes.
25202 Crenshaw .Boulevard-Suite 101-Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 539-9983
575s Oberiin Drive-Suite 104-San Diego. CA 02121 (619) 457-2711
1240 Van Buren-Suite 210 -Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 666-2241
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.
D Respectfully submitted,
b . .
File No. 20623
August 23, 1989
b
B
B
B
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Scope
1.3 Site Description
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
2.1 Observations
2.2 Manometer Surveys
2.3 Subsurface Investigation
2.4 Laboratory testing
3.0 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Overview
3.2 Improvement Possibility
3.3 Discussion of repair
4.0 DESIGN SOIL PARAMETERS
4.1 General
4.2 Foundation Design
5.0 CMSURE
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
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
10
11
10
12
2
3 a
0
I
I
D
i
D
August 23, 1989
File No. 20623
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 and recommendations for remediation. The recommendations are the result of a subsurface 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
descends to Estrella de Mar Court for the most part, concrete retaining wall. The slope below Building 1931
but is also retained near the eastern end.' Adjacent
walkways, artificial streams and ponds, and parking
grounds and improvements include landscape areas,
areas. Building 1913 consists of seven condominium
units and Building 1941 consists of six units.
USGS
ENCINITAS
QUADRANGLE SCALE: 1'- 2000'
I
~
LOCATION MAP Figure 1
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20623 AUG 1989
"OlV
c
b
b
b
D
B
B
B
File No. 20623 August 23, 1989
Page 4
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
2.1 Observations
Site reconnaissance revealed cracking in the condominium units consisting primarily of wallboard and
stucco cracks, cracks/separations at heavy brick
bathroom cabinets] and porch and walkway fireplaces, separations of fixtures such as kitchen and
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
B
B
B
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
specifically at Buildings 1913 and 1941 consisted of six test pits and two small auger borings. Exploration logs are contained in Appendix B of this report.
The subsurface exploration revealed fill’ overlying natural soil in most areas. The fill typically
were found to be moist to wet, and firm. At Boring 1,
consisted of greenish to dark brown sandy clays, which
was encountered underlying the fill. Bedrock adjacent Building 1913, black organic (clayey) topsoil
underlying the fill consisted typically of claystone of the Del Mar Formation. The claystone was damp to wet,
be expansive.
and hard. Fill derived from the Del Mar Formation can
2.4 Laboratory testing
A laboratory testing program was developed for the soil
The program was designed to estimate soil properties samples recovered during the subsurface exploration.
determine the cause(s) of damage. and provide repair
for use in subsequent engineering evaluations to
recommendations. Appendix C provides a summary of the
laboratory test results.
B
D
B
B
August 23, 1989 File No. 20623
Page 6
American Geotechnical
ACALIFORNIA CORPORATION
3.0 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS AElD RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Overview
It is determined that geotechnical phenomenon has affected the two condominium buildings. In our opinion, the primary mechanisms of distress are
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)
heave in some condominium units is characteristic of expansion characteristics. Measured concentric slab
expansive soil movement. Also, apparent subsidence of some units near the top-of-slope is indicative of slope
creep.
In the absence of mitigating measures, it is the opinion of American Geotechnical that the conditions will gradually worsen. Some level of movement, causing. damage, has occurred at Buildings 1913 and 1941, and
there is no reason to expect the movement to stop of
such as prolonged heavy rainfall and/or a prolonged or its own accord. In the event of some circumstance,
otherwise severe pipe leak, slope movement and the rate
of deterioration could increase. As such, it is
measures as soon as possible. desirable to proceed with some level of remedial
D
D
b
D
0
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 influence and yielding (creep) of the adjacent slope. At this time, the slope problem appears to be the
the slope movement relates to the slope itself as well overriding cause of the damage. Risk associated with
as the buildings above and the retaining wall below
adopted. The areas could be substantially improved, (where applicable). Slope improvement could be
however, by simple underpinning of the buildings on the
slope side. This level of treatment is considered a middle-of-the-road, positive and practical treatment of which, budgetary constraints, benefits and risk were previously discussed with homeowner's association
representatives. Suggested details have been included 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
concentrations could result in some cracking in proximity to the end of the underpinning. The risk
associated with this occurrence, however, is judged to
be very low in relation to the improvement gained by adding the underpinning.
@ Saw cut as near as possible to wall. ;
@ Chip back flush uith uall. @ Use 14 dowels @ 16'o.c.
1 @ Excavate continuous haunch.
@ Excavate for thickened edge, sand. moisture barrier and gravel base.
@ Drill 8" minimum for dowels @ 16"o.c.
@ Apply epoxy bonding compound' betueen dowel holes and grade. Seal mistvre barrier to bonding agent bu: not closer than 2" to doiel h6les. (*l'RC Co., PR-940 or equal)
@ Use 10-mil moisture barrier membrane sealed
@ Use 2" clean sand protective cover.
@ Use 5" minimum concrete slab; 8" mininm
@ At 1-2 hours prior to placement of concrete.
3 Use 14 dowels @ 16"o.c. Alternate 36" and 60" into slab. Anchor with bonding grout.
at all splices and around pipes.
at thickened edges.
apply bonding compound.+
@ Use 14 bars e 16"O.c. both ways. Use two bars withln 6' of slab edges. Md 2-14 bars X 3' long P 4" and 8' from reentrant corners.
@ Use 2-15 bars continuous.
@ Use 15 bars @ 12"o.c. both uays.
@ Use 15 bars @ 18"o.c.
@ 'Where exterior flatwork is planned, add dowels per note "J".
@ At exterior edges, thicken to 8' miniInum* and add 1-14 bar continuous. (*E' wide by 24' ninimm depth cut-off wall uith 2-14 bars as shown. preferred at exterior edges.)
@ Slab subgrade should be presaturated to a
0 Interior underpinning option as detailed for
@ General Note: Concrete should be 5-sack
depth of 24" minimum prior to slab construction.
exterior foundation.
minimum. Type 11. 2OW psi mlninun. For slab concrete. 4" maximum slump. Extcrlor flatwork
minimize shrinkage cracks.' Deputy inSWCtiOn
should be jointed at 8' maximum spacing to
is rec.onnwnded.
@ Primary excavation for underpinning.
@ Pit 4~~~0.c. marimm spacing. excavate 12' X
plates. 12" slots for st:pport jacks md bearing
SLAB FOUNDATION REPAIR DETAIL Figure 3
AMERICAN GE~TECHNICAL F.N. 20623 AUG 1989
B
B
File No. 20623 August 23, 1989
Page 9
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
which are substantially undermined as a result of slope
On the slope sides of these buildings, there are patios
As discussed with the structural engineer, it would be
creep and associated settlement at the building edge.
between sections of underpinning adjacent to the
a simple matter to provide structural deck replacements
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
underpinning is cost effective in areas which are
described leads us to the conclusion that this form of
relatively accessible'. For the Buildings 1913 and
1941, the area is judged to be fairly accessible.
Following the repair, site drainage patterns should be
reestablished to provide flow away from the structures.
Drainage should not be directed over slopes. It is
suggested that when plans are developed, they be
forwarded to this office for review and comment.
D
August 23, 1989
File No. 20623
Page 10
4.0 DESIGN SOIL PARAMETERS
4.1 General
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
The following presents soil parameters for the
grading recommendations. In conjunction with his plan
recommended underpinning. Appendix D provides standard
development, the structural engineer may require
the structural engineer requires additional
information on certain soil engineering criteria. If
information,' this office should be contacted.
D
D
D
D
D
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
criteria: should be designed accordance with the following
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 2000 psf seismic or wind)
c. increased capacity for 500 psf/ft each additional foot of depth, deeper than minimum,
to 3000 psf maximum
Lateral Bearing (allowable)
a. Pa'ssive soil pressure:
(projected from ground surf ace)
b. Minimum depth/width above which lateral bearing support should be ignored
c. Coefficient of sliding
on soil (dead load) friction cast concrete
200 psf/ft
20 ft horizontal
2 ft vertical
to daylight
0.35
b
D
B
B
B
D
B
D
B
August 23, 1989
File No. 20623
Page 12
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
5.0 CLOSURE
Only a portion of subsurface conditions have been reviewed and evaluated. conclusions and
recommendations and other information contained in this report are based upon the assumption that subsurface conditions do not vary appreciably between and adjacent observation points. Although no significant variation is anticipated, it must be recognized that variations
can occur.
This report has been prepared for the sole use -and benefit of our client. The intent of the report is to advise our client on geotechnical matters involving the
proposed improvements. It should be understood that
the geotechnical consulting provided and the contents of this report are not perfect. Any errors or omissions noted by any party reviewing this report, and/or any other geotechnical aspect of the project, should be reported to this office in a timely fashion. The client is the only party intended by this office to directly receive the advice. Subsequent use of this
transferring of information or other directed use by report can only be authorized by the client. Any
the client should be considered "advice by clientft.
Geotechnical engineering is characterized by uncertainty and is often.described as an inexact
science or art. Conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based upon the evaluations of
professional judgement. The conclusions and
technical information gathered, experience, and
recommendations presented should be considered
ttadvicett. Other consultants could arrive at different conclusions and recommendations. Typically, tlminimumtl recommendations have been presented. Although some
would usually result if more restrictive criteria were risk will always remain, lower risk of future problems
adopted. Final decisions on matters presented are the responsibility of the client and/or the governing
the performance of the project. agencies. No warranties in any respect are made as to
File No. 20623 August 23, 1989
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.
D
D
D
File No. 20623 August 23, 1989
APPENDICES
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
August 23, 1989
File No. 20623
B
D
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
APPENDIX A: REFERENCES
Aerial Photographs, Photo No. AXN-8M-13 & 14, dated April
11, 1953, by United States Department of Agriculture
Stabilization and Conservation Service.
"Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, Californiavf, by F. Harold Weber Jr., California
dated 1963.
Division of Mines and Geology, County Report.No. 3,
"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.
Wniform Building Code, 1970, 1973,& 1976 Editions", by International Conference of Building Officials, dated
1070, 1073, and 1976, respectively.
"Certification.of Suitability for Intended Use, Casitas de la Costa, S.E. Corner of El Camino Real and Alga Road, San Diego County, California", report by William S. Krooskos and Associates, Job No. 72-3182, dated August
9, 1972.
"Report of Soil Investigation, Casitas de la Costa, S.E. Corner El Camino Real and Alga Road, San Diego County,
Associates, Job No. 72-3008, dated March 16, 1972.
California", report by William S. Krooskos and
"On the Manner of'Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego Countyav, by San Diego Association of Geologists, dated 1985.
b
B
B
B
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.
"Report of Soils Investigation, Casitas de la Costa
Wood and Associates, Project 4262, dated November 18, Condominiums, La Costa, CaliforniaI8, report by C.H.
1983.
Bardet, J.P., ITreep Deformation and Failure of Slopes", a
report to American Earth Technologies, dated May 1985.
"Geotechnical Investigation, Casitas de la Costa Condominiums, Buildings 1913, 1927 and 1941, Estrella de mar Court, Carlsbad, California, File No. 20221,
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, Californiat1, by American Geotechnical, File
.
August 23, 1989
File No. 20623
D
B
B i
D l
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
EXPLORATION LOGS
APPENDIX B
B
-
ProjectfCllent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Data: 5/1/06
1 Locatlon: South of 1913 F Estrella De mar Court Sheet:- 1 of 2
Surface plants behind block retaining wall. I
D r Subsurface Conditlons: FORMAT1ON Classification,
BACKFILL: I 0'. Clayey Sand, gray brown, damp,
loose, qreen siltstone fraqments, roots.
d color. moisture, tlghtness, etc. Remarks
. @ 0-5 - SiLtyClv av. moist. firm. I
... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ...
siltstone fragments. roots. 1p PVC
Pipe 1. I 1.7', Gravelly Sand (import fill), medium ... ... ...
brown, damp. very loose, roots.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ...
Several large brick chunks between 2' and 4'. ... .. ... .. ... I ... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... ... .. .. ... .. ... .. t
From 2.5'-5.0', Fill is Dry. ... :::.I: J
-x.:. a ::: J
.:.:.: ... .. 3
::.:.: g
... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ..
~ i.:.:. .. 5 ...
... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
..
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
-
I 4.1'. Same as above except well compacted.
Import fill belw 4.1' is dense with no roots.
.::. ... CI I:::I I1 I
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate 1
Project/Cllent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, CR Date: 5/1/86
Locatlon: Snuth of 1913 F EStrella De mar Court Sheet: of 2 2
Estlmated Surface Elevetion(lt.1: Total Depth(ft.): 8.0 Rlg Type: Hand Excavation
~
Field Description BY: KMJ
Sunace Conditions:
Surface plants behind block retaining wall. .
Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classiflcation. color, moisture. tlghtness. etc. Remarks ... ... I I ... ... ... I
0 5.7'. Siltv Clav. oreenish orav. moist. firm. 1 ... ... sm roots, material covers retaining wall weep
holes. ... ::: < .:.:.:
... ... j
... 3 ... -
..;.;.: ... < ........ + :::: w ... u ... ... ... . .' :.::. .... ... .... .. ._ ...
LI I II I I
AMESICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate 2
Project/C!lent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, CA Date: 511 186
Locatlon: Southeast corner of 1941R Estrella De mar Court Sheet- 1 of 1 - - v- ?< -
?5 .O - .d =: ?S 0- -
[115
94
(115
92
91
(115
91
(115
92
(115 - -
Estimated Surface Elevatlon(ft.1: DepIh(1t.k 5.5 RIg Type: Hand Excavation
Field Description BY: KPU
Sunace Conditlons: I
-8
: I Barren ground under removed plant, against foundation. I -
0
a 5 - d Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classification. Color. moisture. tlghtness, etc. Remarks
FILL: B 0'. Sandy Clay, gray brown, damp to
mist, firm, mttled, siltstone fragments, root%
30" deep. few aravel to 1/2". .
14" wide
- Footing 5.. .: .. -
80.8'. Sandy Clay. greenish gray with orange -. ?. .
brow (20%). moist, firm, mottled, green
L. siltstone fragments.
- - a
a. 4'
46.
bI I
$.. t . 4.
I 2.7'. Downspout drain trench, 12" wide.
4' rr
ti I
I
CI I
-VI No Water I I I I
No Caving I , Notes: 318" void between bottom of footing and soil. Void closes near mid-footing.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate 3
b
TEST EXCAVATION Log NO. 3
~
projectlcllent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, CA
Location: East side of 1913G Estrella De Mar Court
F.N. 20221.01
Date: 511 I86
Sheet1 of 1
Eslimaled Surface Elevatlon(ft.1: - -r Total OeDlh(1t.k 3.0 Rig Type: ~
Hand Excavation
Field Description BY: KMJ 1 Sunace Conditions: I
a between building and artificial stream. il Surface vegetation under remved plant, next to foundation I s -
Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classilicallon. d color. moisture. tightness. etc. Remarks I'
FILL: E 0', Sandy Clay, medim brown, dry, I I stiff. roots. I I LI I t 0 0.3'. Sandy Clay, greenish gray, mist. .firm.
mottled. green siltstone fragments. some roots.
~
I I Many man-made objects in fill including: I tl I I
Plastic, brick, nails, paper, etc.
Exposed buiiding wall water proofed with
i fiberqlass cloth and emulsified asphalt.
. E 3.0' End of Pit
, . No Water
No Cavino
-
b Notes: Under side of artificial stream exposed, 6 mil clear plastic misture barrier observed
between concrete "stream" and founding soil.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate 4
TEST EXCAVATION Log NO. 4
~ F.N. 20221.01
ProiectlCllent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/20/06
, Loearlon: South side of 1913C Estrella De Mar Court Shaet:L of 1
Esllmated Surface Elevatlon(ft.J: Total DEDth(1t.k 4.0 Rlg Type: Hand Excavation
1 Field Description BY: KmJ .
Sunace Condltlons: I
Barren ground against foundation, through large tension crack
against building, located at top-of-slope. I
5 * 2 Subsurface Conditlons: FORMATION CIassifkaIlon, color, moisture. tlghtness, etc. Remarks
I I I
CI I
tI LI I
# 4.0', End of Pit
No Water
No Caving
II I
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
-
i- 12 1: jo
.i
.I -
;i i;
i- -
91
115
96
115
-
115
94
111
115
Subsurface Conditlons: FORMATION Classillcation, 5 color. moisture, tlghlness, stc. Remarks
.a
8 0'. Gravel (3/4"). IFooting Depth . - -. t I- FILL: @ 0.2'. Sandy Clay, greenish gray brown, I 35" '.
damp to moist, firm, mottled, qreen siltstone Width not .
fragments, sane fine surface roots. measured 2
TEST EXCAVATION
F.N. 20221.01
proieot,~lienc: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/20/86
, Locatlon: East side of ~ 1941E Estrella De mar Court Shaetd of 1
Estlmated Surface Elevation(ft.k Total Deoth(f1.k 3.9 Rlg Type: Hand Excavation
Field Description KNJ I
!:
; -
J E
I I
- / e 3.99, End of Pit -.
No Water
No Caving
D Notes: Vertical tension crack mapped in test pit, about 1/4" wide.
I pcated 22" from f- e 4".
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL
D
Plate
Estimated Surface Elevatlon(rt.J:- Total Deplh(ff.): 2.0 Rlg Type: Hand Excavation
Field Description BY: KmJ 1 I Suffacs Condltlons: I
Located at base-of-slope below Test Pit No. 4. :I I D E
f Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classillcallon. i color. moisture. tlohtness. otc. Remarks I - FILL: 0 0'. Sandy Clay, green-gray, moist.
firm. mottled rust brown, siltstone fragnents.
som roots.
tl I
Notes:
AMESICAN GEOTECHNICAL
8
Plate
projeCt/c1ient: Casitas Oe La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/21/86
, Locatlon: East side of parking garage, Estrella De mar Court Shee(:L of 2
Estimated Surface Elevatlon(ft.1: - Total Deoth(ft.): Rlg Type: Hand Excavation
Field Description KNJ I Suflace Condltlons:
In ivy east of supporting concrete pillar, against retaining wall. I
D z
0 Subsurface Conditlons: FORMATION Classificatlon. color. moisture. tlohtness~ stc. Remarks
TOPSOIL: Of, Sandy Clay, dark brow, moist,
BACKFILL: R O.S',Sandy Clay, green to dark
brwn. damp to wet at depth, soft, mottled. .... .... ... .... ... .... ... .... .I ....... J J ... .... ... .... .... .... :::. a .:.:.:. 3
::::::: .... a
'. .... 2
.... ... ... ..... RETAINING
....... z ::; ... .... - ... ~... ...
... .... ... .... ... .... ... .... ... - PLAN '.t. I ?-,I .. 't .b .
- VIEW rt it; - ' !'FOOTING:
Notea:
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL
b
Plate
TEST EXCAVATION Log No.
~
proiect/C1lent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca
F.N. 20221.01
Date: 5/21/86
Location: continued 2 2 Sheet- of
Estimated Surface Elevatlon(1l.): - r Total Deoth(1t.): 73' Rig Type: Hand Excavation
. Field Description BY: KPlJ
Surface Condllions:
L
D
A
D : : Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classillcation.
color. moisture. tlghtness. etc. Remarks
+. I e.. . .;a
BASE OF
FOOTING
A? ..a.
DEL RAR FORPlATION: P 6.5'. Sandy Clay, light
green, wet, mimr seepage. '
P 7.5'. End of Pit
Seepage at 6.5'
No Cavinq
LI I tA LI I
Notes:
AMEgICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
TEST EXCAVATION Log No.
F.N. 20221 -01
pro,ectlCl~ent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad. Ca. Data: 5/21/86
Location: Near intersection of El Caminu Real and Alga Shaet:L of 1
Estlmated Surface
Located against northwest corner of carport retaining wall.
Under surface vegetation. I I I L ~~~~
I
Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classiflcatlon. 1 R~~~~~~ i color, moisture. tlghtness. ste. I t BACKFILL: 0 0'. Silty Sand, medium brown, damp,
medium dense, decornosed qranite import.
I I
Total Deoth(ft.): Hand Excavation
Field Description E y: .. I Sunace Condltlons: I
- - 1
i
"
" A / 9 2.5'. End of Pit
No Water
No Cavinq ..
-
Noter:
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
B
BORING LOG No. 1
F.N. 20221 .M
Clint / Project: Casitas De La Cost, Carlsbad. Ca. Date:
L~~~~~~~: North side of 19130 Estrella De Mar Court SheetLof 1
5/20/86
Est. Surface Elev: -
c C s a
E
I FIELD DESCRIPTION
jurfoce Conditions:
Located in depressed area near water main.
Subsurface Condltions: Classlfication. color. moisture
tightness; etc. Remarks
FILL: R 0'. Sandy Clay, mottled greenish gray with
brown, moist to wet. soft, no gravel, some roots.
- TOPSOIL: 0 2.2'. Silty Clay, medium to dark
brown, wet, soft.
,
RLLUVIUm: 0 3.6'. Sandy Clay, green, wet,
/ I slick surtaces. I
R 4.0'. End of Boring
No Water
No Cavina
I
I
Notes:
1 "
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
~~
BORING LOG No.&
F.N. 2D221.01
Casitas De La Costa. Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/20/86 ulmt Project:
~~~~tl~~: West side of 19cllE Estrella De Mar Court Sheet: 1 of 1
Ot- I
"
J
i i
"
Est. Surface Elev: Total Depth 3.0' Rig Type: Hand Auoer 1 I FIELD DESCRIPTION BY. KPU 1
1. !'
I I' I
I !
iurface Condnions:
~ .~ . 1
;ubsurfoce Conditions: Closslficatlon, color, moisture
tightness; etc. Remarks
I - FILL: a 0'. Sandy Clay, green gray brown. moist
to wet, soft, soire surface roots.
' OEL MAR FORNATION: I l.S', Sandy Clay, light green
i with green siltstone, moist, dense.
8 3.0' End of Boring
No Water
No Caving
Notes:
~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
D --
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
Field DescriDtion By: KPU I
Sunace Condlllons:
In slab-on-grade, most westerly core.
Subskirrace Condlllona: FORMATION wass
~~ ~
R 0.33'. Silty Coarse Sand, medium brown, wet, I
loose.
- FILL: I 0.75'. Sandy Clay, green, wet, very
soft, mottled with rust brown.
DEL NAR FO~ATION: e 2.33'. Siltstone, green,
mist, dense.
R 2.5' End of Core
No Water
No Cavino
I I
Notes: 1) Slab thickness 3.95" (R5TN C174-82) b
2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 gauge both directions, depth 3".
3) No moisture barrier.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
1
TEST 'EXCAVATION - CORE NO. .A
Esllrnaled Surface Elevatlon(ft.): Total Oeoth(lI.1: 2.4' Rig Type: Core DrillIAuger
Field Description By: KW
: I In slab, second most westerly core.
z * Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classiticatlon. 5 color. moisture. Ilghlness. elc. Remarks
SLAB: e 0'. Concrete Slab .:.?"'SLAB
L;. , de :.i
LI
'DEL mtw FORNATION: m 2.3'. Clayey Siltstom -.
qreen, moist, dense.
P 2.4' End of Core
No Water
No Caving -
LI
)Notes:
1) Slab thickness 3.88" (ASTm C174-82)
\ Sw mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 aauoe both directions, depth 3".
3) Core throuah Datched slab crack.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
D
TEST'EXCAVATION - CORE NO. 3
F.N. 20221 so1
prola,-~,c:~eni: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad. Ca. Dale: Sf 21 /e6
Locallon: Parkina aaraae. end of Estrella De mar Court Shaa(:L of 1
Estlmaied Surlaca Elsvallon(fl.): Total Oaoth(fl.1: Rlg Type: Core Drill/Auger * Field Description KNJ
Sut7ace Condlllonr:
In slab, third most westerly core. : 2 - . I
0
"
Subsurface Conditlons: FORMATION C:assilicallon, color, moisture. Ilghtneaa. atc. Remarks
FILL: I 0.58'. Sandy Clay, green, wet. very soft,
mottled.
LI I
DEL mm FO~RTION: a 2.21, Siltstone, green, "
moist, dense. -.
I 0 2.4' End of Core I
11 I t I
1
Pa=: 1) Slab thickness 3.38" (ASTN C174-82)
2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 gauge both directions, exposed in bottom of slab.
3) No moisture barrier.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL
b
Plate
'TEST'EXCAVATION- CORE NO. 4
F.N. 20221.01
prolect/~~~ent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca.- Data: 5/21 /86
~~~~tl~~: Parkinq garage, end of Estrella De mar Court Sheel:A of 1
'Es1ima:ed Surface Elevatlon(1t.): -
A
. In slab, fourth most wsterly core. I . * -
Subaurface Conditions: FORMATION Classificallon. 0 color. moisture, Ilghlness. etc. Remarks
2'. 9. . u9 '(
'p. , ;'r. .a;,. '- 'SLAB *. 4.
- 4
0 0.39', Silty Sand, medium brown, wet, loose. I I I LU I I t l- ~~ ~~
FILL: C 0.58'. Sandy Clay, green, wet, very soft] I LI I I
I 1.7' End of Core
No Water
No Cavins
LI I
LI I
HOI~~: 1) Slab thickness 3.85" (PSTN C174-62)
b 2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/6 gauge bath directions, exposed and rusted out in bottom of slab.
3) Core through shrinkage crack.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
b
TEST 'EXCAVATION- CORE NO. s
F.N. 20221 .M
proiectlryenl: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/21 106
Locallon: Parking garage, end of Estrella De Nar Court Sheel:L af 1
Eatlmaled Surface Elevatlon(ft.): Tala1 Oeoth(1t.k 3.0 Rlg Type: Core Drill/Auger
Field Descriotian av: KmJ
In slab, most easterly core. . 5
2 Subsurface Conditlons: FORMATION Clasaillcatlon, 0 Color. moisture. tlghlneao. elc. Remarks
SLAB: D', Concrete Slab. - a: ..I SLAB ;. .. . .J .a - -
LI 1 I ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ e 0.28', Silty Sand, medium brown. "t, loose.
/ FILL: e 0.71'. Sandy Clay, green, wet, very soft. - -
more silt than previous core fill. -
b1 1
DEL RAR FDRNATION: R 2.42'. siltstone, green,
mist, dense.
A
tI I 1
I 3.0' End of Core I
No Water
LI I
)Notes: 1) Slab thickness 3.36" (ASTN C174-82)
2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 qauqe both directions, exposed in the bottom of slab and rusted almost canplete:
3) No moisture barrier. OL
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
b
TEST'EXCAVATION- CORE NO. 6
F.N. 20221 -01
proiect/C!Ien(: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad. Ca. Data: 5/21/86 -
Locallon: Caroort, near intersection of El Camino Real and Alga Sheel:- 1 of 1
Estlrnaled SUI .lace Elevatlon(ft.): Total Deolh(ll.1: RIg Typo: Core Orill/Auger
~
; 7: .: zz :=
- Field Description BY: KRJ
5: :: I1 ;I
5; :d iz -5 92
Sunace Condlllons:
Southerly core in carport slab-on-grade.
"I MU i .a - - .I. .. I. vi L ' : Subsurface Condlllons: FORMATION: Classillcallon, color. moisture. Ilghlness. etc. Remarks
I.4' ' .: .', . .
.'.' SLAB . '.a.
'. 0 e . i. - . ci, <:a
SLAB: e O', Concrete Slab
8 0.4'. Silty Sand, mediun brm. wet. loose.
""" / - FILL: e 0.791. Sandy Clay, green/rust, wet.
21 - verv soft.
' DEL MRR FORRATION: e 1'.25'. Sandy Clay with
siltstone, green, mist, dense.
*.
E 2.0' End of Core
No Water
No Cavina
I I ~1 L I
I
b Notes: 1) Slab thickness 4.80'' (ASTPI C174-82)
2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 gauge both directions, depth 3p.
3) Core is next to pipe post fwting, owerpour extends into core hole (radius 23").
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
t 4) No moisture barrier.
TEST EXCAVATION - CORE NO. 7
F.N. 20221 e01
prolec~/cllen(: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad. Ca. Data: 5/21/86
Locatlon:Caroort. near intersection of El Camino Real and Rlga Sheel:L of 1
Estimated Surface - T Field Description
Suflaca Condillons: . Northerly core in carport slab-on-grade. . 4 . * -
d * Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION Clas~illcatlon,
Color. moisture. tlghtness. atc. Remarks
- SLAB: E 0'. Concrete Slab. p >,;, - .:*.e. .'e;.. +;
-
7 E 0.37'. Silty Sand, medim brown. saturated,
, loose.
FILL: E 0.58'. Sandy Clay, greedrust. saturated,
very soft. -
LC I I
tI DEL PlAR FORmATION: E 1.83' .Clayey sand, greenish I
white, moist, dense. I I I
E 2.5' End oftore
_. Saturated Condition
N-0
LI 1
II I. I
bNote3: 1 ) Slab thickness 4.44" (ASTM C174-82)
2) Steel mesh in slab, 6"x6"/8 gauge both directions, depth 34".
3) No moisture barrier.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
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
method of test D2216. Moisture content determinations were made in accordance with ASTM
Dry Unit Weight
Dry unit weight (dry density) testing of ring and "Shelby" tube samples was determined in accordance with conventional.laboratory
ASTM 1587, and ASTM 2937.
techniques and in conjunction with field method of test ASTM 1556,
Particle Size Analysis j,
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
b 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 b
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES continued
B Expansive Soil Testing
b
b
Two types of soil tests were performed.
1) Expansion tests were performed in accordance with Uniform
Building Code 29-2 test procedures.
2) Expansion tests were performed on undisturbed "Shelby" tube
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
D 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.
D
October 15. 1986 , File .No. 20221.01
b
'
b
'
'I
b 1
Field Lab Max Field
Dry Dry Relative Moisture Degree of Sample
(PCf) (pcf) * (I) (X) (X)
Location Density Density Compaction Content Saturation Type
T-1 @ 1.5' T-1 @ 3.1'
T-1 @ 4.5'
T-1 @ 5.5'
T-2 @ 1' T-2 @ 2'
T-2 @ 3'
T-2 @ 4' T-2 @ 4.5-5'.
T-3 @ 1.5' T-3 @ 3'
T-4 @ 1' T-4 @ 3.5'
T-5 @ 1 ' T-5 @ 2' T-5 @ 3'
T-5 @ 3.5'
T-7 @ 2'
T-7 @ 5'
T-7 @ 7.5'
B-1 @ 2.5' B-1 @ 3.5'
c-1 @ 2'
C-4 @ 0.6'
103.3 85.4
119.8 102.3
94.2
90.6 92.8
90.9
91.8
98.0
95.1
89.7 88.3
95.8 91.0
93.8
110.5
101 .o 94.7 94.1
97.1 99.4
94.1
102.9
114.5
136.0
136.0
114.5
114.5 114.5 114.5 114.5
114.5
-114.5
b14.5
114.5 114.5
114.5 114.5 114.5
114.5
114.5 114.5
Bedrock
Topsoil Alluvium
114.5
114.5
75 76
88
89
82 81 79
80
79
83
85.6
78 77
84 79
82
97
83
88
-
- -
82
90
15.6 Very Low Very Low
12.5
17.9 21.3 14.1
18.2
17.7
11.7
19.1
11.4 12.9
14.9 15.8 17.6
17.5
9.3 26.1 26.4
21.9 21.9
27.3
23.0
44 18
37
54
63
45 72
59
59
45
68
34 39
48 58 6.1
93
93 39'
92
82 87
96
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)
1
I
t
B
Io,! I m Im
I dl I d I VI I v
.File No. 20221.01
October 15, 1986 Page C-5 I
b
B
EXPANSION TESTS
(U.B.C. 29-2)
soil ~ry Moisture Expansion Expansion
Location Type Density Content Index Potential
Initial Initial
(PCf (%)
T-2 @ 2'-3' Fill 98.1 , 14.2 78 Medium
T-2 @ 5'-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
!.
SWELL TESTS
INTACT "SHELBY" TUBE SAMPLES (HUD CRITERIA)
(ASTM 1587-83)
Field Field Pre-Test Final
Soil Dry Moisture Moisture Moisture Percent
Location Type Density Content Content Content Expansion (pcf (%I (%) (%I
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
File No. 20221.01
October 15, 1986
Page C-6
SUMMARY OF BULK SAMPLES MOISTURE CONTENT
(ASTM D2216)
Moisture
Location Content Soil Type
(%)
T-4 @ 3'-3.5' 12.9 Fill: Sandy Clay
T-5 @ 2.5'-3.5' 13.0 Fill: Sandy Clay
T-7 @ 6.5'-7.5' 20.1 Natural: Sandy Clay
B-1' C 0.66'-3.0' 24.7 Fill: Sandy Clay .
B-1 @ 2.5'-3.25' 21.8 Topsoil: Silty Clay
c-1 @ l.O"l.5' .2 5.5 Fill: Sandy Clay
c-1 @ 2.01-2.3' i27.2 Fill: Sandy Clay
C-2 @ 0.58"l.O' 26.5 Fill: Sandy Clay
C-2 @ 2.27'-2.4' 20.1 Natural: Siltstone
C-3 @ 1.25'-1.67' 26.5 Fill: Sandy Clay
C-3 @ 2.08'-2.2' 23.3 Fill: Sandy Clay
c-4 @ l.O"l.4' 21.6 Fill: Sandy Clay
c-5 @ l.O"l.33' 22.3
C-5 @ 1.58'-1.92' 22.9
C-5 @ 2.25'-2.4' 21.4
Fill: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay
b C-6 @ l.O"l.25' 20.7 Fill: Sandy Clay
C-7 @ 0.67"l.O' 27.2 Fill: Sandy Clay
C-7 @ 1.25'-1.62' 18.9 Fill: Sandy Clay
C-7 @ 1.83'-2.2' 15.9 Natural: Clayay Sand
Plasticity Chart
,i Liquid Limit (%I
AlTERBERG LIMITS AND PLASTICITY CHART Plate AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL OCT 1986 F.N. 20221 c- 1
PERCENT PASSING
d.
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION Plate
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20221 OCT 1986 c-2
c d m
-L
0 e 0 0 0 0 0 L. 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 N - 0 a m 0'0 9
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION - Plate
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20221 c-3 OCT 1986
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION Plate
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20221 OCT 1986 c-4
i
NORMAL PRESSURE (ksf) I
0.10 1.00 10.00 I
CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE Plat e
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20221 c-5 OCT 1986
CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE Plate
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL' F.N. 20221 OCT 1986 C-6
File No. 20623
August 23, 1989
B
B
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
APPENDIX D
STANDARD GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
A.
I B.
C.
0.
1 E.
F.
G.
b
D H.
I.
J.
D
D
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
31. LANDSCAPE PLANTS
32. IRRIGATION
33. MAINTENANCE
54. REPAIRS
TRENCH BACKFILL
STATUS OF GRADING
STANDARD DETAILS NOS. 1-9
&
1
1-4
5
5-6
..
a
a
8-9
9
9
9-11
11-12
12-14
14-15
7 5-1 6
16
16-1 7
17
17
17
17-18
la
la
19
GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS
A. GENERAL ..
A1 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
A3 The Contractor should not vary from these guidelines without prior
guidel i nes.
recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant and the approval of the Client or his authorized representative. Recomnendations by
the Geotechnical Consultant and/or Cl.ient shouTd not be considered to preclude requirements for approval by the 'controlling agency
prior to the execution of any changes.
A4 These Standard Grading Guide1 ines and Standard Details 'mpy be
modified and/or superseded by recommendations contained in the text of the preliminary geotechnical report and/or subsequent reports.
..
A5 If disputes arise out of the interpretation of these grading guidel ines or-standard details, the Geotechnical Consultant shall
provide the governing interpretation.
B. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
B1 ALLUVIUM - unconsolidated detrital deposits resulting from flow of water, including sediments deposited in river beds, canyons, flood plains, lakes, fans at the foot of slopes and estuaries.
82 AS-GRADED (AS-BUILT) - the surface and subsurface conditions at compl eti on 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.
65 BEDROCK - a more or less sol id, relatively undisturbed rock in place either at the surface or-beneath superficial deposits of soi 1 .
86 BENCH - a relatively level step and near vertical rise excavated into sloping ground on which fill is to be placed.
Page Two
I
I
87
88
89
610
611 - 812
613
814
815
616
817
818
E19
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 geologic features. A buttress is generally specified by minimum key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A buttress
normally contains a backdrainage system.
CIVIL ENGINEER - the Registered Civil Engineer or consulting firm
responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and
verifying as-graded topographic conditions.
CLIENT - the Developer or his authorized representative who is chiefly in charge of the project. He shall have the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations made by the Geotech-
nical Consultant and shall authorize the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services.
COLLUVIUM - generally loose deposits usually found near the base of slopes and brought there chiefly by gravity through slow continuous
downhill creep (also see Slope Wash).
COMPACTION - is the densification of a fill by mechanical means.
CONTRACTOR - a person or company under contract or otherwise retained by the Client to perform demo1 i tion, grading and other
site improvements.
DEBRIS - all products of clearing, grubbing, demolition, contami- nated soil material unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill and/or
any other material so desi.gnated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST - a Geologist holding a valid certificate of
registration in the specialty of Engineering Geology.
ENGINEERED FILL - a fill of which the Geotechnical Consultant or 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 GRADE - the ground surface configuration prior to grading.
È page Three
1
1
820 FILL - any deposits of soil, rock, soil-rock blends or other
' similar materials placed by man.
821 FINISH GRADE - the ground surface configuration at which time the surface elevations confon to the approved plan.
822 GEOFABRIC - any engineering textile utilized in geotechnical applications including subgrade stabilization and filtering.
823 GEOLOGIST - a representative of the Geotechnical Consultant educated and trained in the field of geology.
824 GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT - the Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering .Geology consulting fin retained to provide technical services for'the project. For the purpose of these guidelines,
observations by the Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the Soil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Geologist and
those performed by persons employed by and responsible to the Geotechnical Consultants.
825 GEOTECHNICAL 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.
826 GRADING - any operation consisting of excavation, fi'lling or combinations thereof and associated operations.
827 LANDSLIDE DEBRIS - material , generally porous and of low density,
produced from instability of natural or man-made slopes.
828 MAXIMUM DENSITY - standard laboratory test for maximum dry unit weight. Unless otherwise specified, the maximum dry unit weight
shall be determined in accordance with ASTM Method of Test D 1557-18.
829 OPTIMUM MOISTURE - test moisture content at.the maximum density.
830 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
surface elevations approximately confon to the approved plan. 831 ROUGH GRADE - the ground surface configuration at which time .the
Page Four
B32
833
834
835
836
B37
B38
t
839
840
B41
842
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 Col1 uvi um) .
SOIL - naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt, clay, etc. or combinations thereof.
SOIL ENGINEER - licensed Civil Engineer experienced in soil mechanics (a1 so see Geotechnical Engineer).
STABILIZATION FILL - a fill mass, the configuration of which is
of practice for enhancing the stability of locally adverse condi- typically related to slope height and is specified by the standards
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
placed beneath a fill in the a1 ignment of canyons or former drain- SUBDRAIN - generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system
age channel s. . . - - . . .
ISLOUGH - loose, noncompacted fill material generated during grading operations.
TAILINGS - nonengineered fill which accumulates on or adjacent to equi went 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 string of large rock buried within engineered fill in accordance with guidelines set forth by the Geotechnical Consul- tant.
Page Five
C. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES
C1 The Geotechnical Consultant should provide observation and testing services and should make evaluations to advise the Client On
geotechnical matters. The geotechnical Consultant should report his findings and recomnendations to the C1 ient or his authorized
.. representative.
C2 The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the
project. He or his authorized representative'has the responsi- bility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the
Geotechnical Consultant. He shall authorize or cause to.have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work
and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his' autho- rized representative should remain on-site or should remain..
reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project.
1
I
C3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project
operations on consruction projects, including, but not limited to, and satisfactory completion of all grading and other associated
earth work in accordance with the project plans, specifications and
controlling agency requirements. .During grading, the Contractor or
on days off, the Contractor should remain accessible.
his authorized representative should remain on-site. Overnight and
0. SITE PREPARATION
Dl. The .C1 ient,, 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. C1 earing and grubbing should extend to the outside of a1 1 proposed excavation and fill areas.
03 Demo1 ition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines,
septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts,
ments from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utili ties 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
Page Six
i
b
b
04
D5
D6
requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant at the time of demolition.
Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be protected by the Contractor from damage or injury.
Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demo1 i 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.
The C1 ient or Contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and/or
after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appro- priate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations.
E. SITE PROTECTION
El Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the
responsibility of the Contractor. Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion
of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until such.time as the entire project is complete as identified by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Client .and the
regul ati ng agencies.
temporary excavations. Recornendations .by, the.Geotechnica1
made in consideration of stability of th? completed project and, Consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g., backcuts) are
therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibil i-
Consultant should not be considered to preclude more restrictive ties of the Contractor. Recornendations by the Geotechnical
requirements by the regulating agencies.
clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface
drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall.
E2 The Contractor should be responsiible for the stability of all
E3 Precautions should be taken during the pqrformance of site
Page Seven
. .
D
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 instal 1 checkdams, desil ti rig basins, ri p-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.).
Geotechnical consultant and arrange a walkover of the site in order Following periods of rainfall , the Contractor should contact the
to visually assess.rain related damage. The Geotechnical Consul- tant may also 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 replacement with compacted fill or other remdial grading as recomnended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths of greater than 1 .O foot, should be
overexcpvated, to unaffected, competent material. Where less than 1 ;O foot in depth, unsuitable 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 1.0 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 conditionning in-place, followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guide1 ines herein may be
materials should be overexcavated and rep1 aced as compacted fill in attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected
Page Eight
t
b
b
b
accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein. As field conditions dictate, other slope repair procedures may be recom- mended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
F. EXCAVATIONS
F1 UNSUITABLE MATERIALS
F1.l Materials which are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and reconendations 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 otherwise deleterious fi 11 materi a1 s.
overexcavated, watered or dried, as needed, and thoroughly unsatisfactory due to it's moisture conditions should be
blended to a uniform near optimum moisture condition (as per guidelines reference 7.2.1) prior to placement as compacted
fill.
F1.2 Material identified by the Geotechnical Consultant as
'.
F2 CUT SLOPES
F2.1
F2.2
F2.3
F2.4
Unless otherwise recomnended by the Geotechnical Consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:l (horizontal :vertical ) .
If excavations for cut slopes espose loose, cohesion1 ess, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material,
with a compacted, stabilization fill should be accomplished overexcavation and rep1 acement of the unsi-tab1 e materi a1 s
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.
The Geotechnical Consultant should review cut slopes during excavation. The Geotechnical Consultant should be notified by the contractor prior to beginning slope excavations.
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 reconendations to treat these problems.
Page Nine
1
1
1
1
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 tb
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
blanker with a minimum of 3 feet in thickness (refer to
material types should also be overexcavated to provide for Standard Details). Cut areas exposing significantly varying
at least a 3-foot thick compacted fill blanket. Geotechni- cal conditions may require greater depth of overexcavation. The actual depth should be delineated by the Geotechnical
Consultant during grading.
F3.2 For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and/or an
appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away 'from the top-of-slopes of 2 percent or greater is reconinended..
G. 'COMPACTED FILL
All 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.
'Page Ten
B
b
B
61.2 Compacted fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts
not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be watered or dried as
needed, thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum moisture conditions then thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner
until the desired finished grades are achieved.
61.3 The Contractor should have suitable and sufficient
mechanica! compaction equipment and watering apparatus on the job site to hand1.e the amount of f111 being placed in
materials. If necessary, excavation equipment should be
compaction of fills. Earth. moving equipment should only be "shut down" temporarily in order to permit proper
considered a supplement and not substituted for conven- tional compaction equipment.
. consideration of moisture retention properties of the
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
minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the sufficient to provide at least six-foot wide benches and a
firm natural ground, fin bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area subsequent to keying and benching until the area has been reviewed by the 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
Detai 1 s. have been included within the accompanying Standard
' generated by the benching operation should be moved
61.5 Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate
two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false
slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as
above described. At least a 3-fOOt vertical bench should be established within the fin core of adjacent approved compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill.
Benching should proceed in at least 3-fOOt vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved..
61.6 Fill should be tested for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density .
Page El even
I
1
1
testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test D1556-64, D2922-78 and/or 02937-71. Tests should be provided for about every two vertical feet or 1,000 cubic yar.ds of fill
dictate. Fill found not to be in conformance with the placed. Actual test interval may vary as field conditions
grading recomnendations should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
61.7 The Contractor should assist the Geotechnical Consultant
determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal
Contractor should "shut down" or rqove grading equipment from an area being tested.
..
61.8 As recomnended by the Geotechnical Consultant, the
61.9 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 showing test locations or in any case for the purpose of after-the-fact evaluating of the sequence of fi 11
placement.
62 MOISTURE
62.1 For field testing purposes, "near optimum" moisture w4ll 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.
. .. compaction procedure. "Near optimum" may be specifically
62.2 Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by scarifica- tion, watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to near-optimum moisture conditions, then recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Where wet or other dry or other unsuitable material s exi st to depths of greater than one foot, the unsuitable materials should be overexcavated.
Page Twelve
I
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 perfoned 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 hours in advance of importing, in order to sample and test materials from proposed borrow sites. No import materials
and testing by Geotechnical Consultant. should be delivered for use on-site without prior sampling
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
compacted fill which is free of oversized material. The disposal area should be covered with at least three feet of
upper three feet should be placed in accordance with the
guidelines for compacted fill herein.
63.4 Rocks. 12 inches in maximum dimension and mal 1 er may be uti1 ized 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 1, 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
I
1
1
1
Page Thirteen
are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill, special handling in accordance with the accompanying Standard Details is recommended. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken down or disposed off-si te. Rocks up to four feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper 10 feet Of any
face. These recommendations could vary as locations of fill and should not be closer than 20 feet to any slope
improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material
should not be placed below areas where structures .or deep uti1,ities are proposed. Oversized material should be
compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select " placed in windrows 'on a clean, overexcavated-or unyielding
native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around a1 1 windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so that successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane.
The Contractor should be aware that the placement of rock in windrows will significantly slow the grading operation and may require additional equipment and/or special equipment.
63.7 It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as
Geotechnical Consultant at the time of placement.
63.8 Material that is considered unsuitable by 'the Geotechnical
' field conditions dictate and as recommerided 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 speci fica- tions. Processing of these additional samples may take two
operation to other areas within the project, or may or more working days. The contractor may elect to move the
continue placing compacted fill pending 1 aboratory and field test results. Should he elect the second a1 terna- tive, fill placed is done so at the Contractor's risk.
63.10 Any fill placed in areas not previously reviewed and evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant, and/or in other areas, without prior notification to the Geotechnical
Page Fourteen
Consultant may require removal and recompaction at the Contractor's expense. Determination of overexcavations should be made upon review of field conditions by the
. Geotechnical Consultant.
64 FILL SLOPES
64.1 Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant
and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:l (Horizontal: vertical 1.
64.2 Except as specifically recornended otherwise or as otherwise provided for in these grading guidelines
and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill (Reference G4.3),, compacted fill slopes should be overbuilt
field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as
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 Althou.gh 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, however, must often be considered. These. constraints may incl ude property 1 i ne situations, access, the critical nature of the development and cost. Where such constraints are identified, slope face compaction on slopes of 2:l or flatter may be attempted as a second best al.ternative by conventional construction procedures
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
conditioned and thoroughly compacted. The desired moisture condition should be maintained and/or re-establ ished, where necessary, during the period between successive lifts. Selected lifts should be tested to ascertain that desired compaction is being achieved. Care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope.
Page Fifteen
1
1
1
1
Each 1 ift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately establ ish desi red grades. Grade during construction should
may be helpful to elevate slightly the outer edge of the not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It
slope. Slough resulting from the placement of individual
1 i fts 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
delay, so as to avoid (if possible) further moisture and vibratory methods are strongly recommended. Without
conditioning, the slopes should then be grid-rolled to achieve a relatively smooth surface and uniformly. compact condi ti on.
In order to monitor slope construction procedures, moisture
Failure to achieve the desired results will likely result and density tests should be taken at regular intervals.
overexcavate the slope surfaces followed by reconstruction in a recomendation.by the Geotechnical Consultant to
of the slopes utiliziflg over-filling and cutting back procedures and/or further attempt at the conventional backrolling approach.’ Other recomnendations may also be provided which would ’be commensurate 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 from 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 fill should be treated in the same manner as recomnended in these specifications for site preparation, excavation, drains, compaction, etc.
page Sixteen
65.2 Off-si'te canyon fill should be placed in preparation for
future additional fill, as shown in the accompanying Standard Detail s.
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.
H2 Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope
stabilizations or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications of the accompanying Standard
Details.
H3 Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices (i .e., gutters, downspouts; concrete swales).
H4 For drainage over soil areas imnediately away from structures,
maintained. Pad drainage of at 1 east 2 percent should be (i .e., within four feet) a minimum of 4 percent gradient should be
maintained over soil areas. Pad drainage may be reduced to at
least 1 percent for projects where no slopes exist, either natural or manmade, of greater than 10 feet in height and where no slopes are planned, either natural or man-made, steeper. than 2:l
(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 slope stability 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 (backrol led). If stakes must be placed prior to the completion of compaction procedures, it must be recognized
that they will be removed and/or demolished at such time as compaction procedures resume.
offsets should be provided. For finished slope and stabilization i ncl ude overexcavations or slope stabilization, appropriate staking I2 In order to allow for remedial grading operations, which could
Page Seventeen
backcut areas, we recommend at least a 10-foot setback from
proposed toes and tops-of-cut.
I 5 . MAINTENANCE
31
1
52
b
53
b
LANDSCAPE PLANTS
should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope
In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting
planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation requiring 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.
IRRIGATION
52.1 1rrigati.on pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces.
52.2 Slope irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timing devices are utilized on irrigation systems, provisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during
periods of rainfall.
52.3' Though not a requirement, consideration should be given to
' . control devices. Such devices can aid in the maintenance the install ation of near-surface moisture monitoring
of relatively uniform and reasonably constant moisture
conditions. . .. . .
52.4 Property owners should be made aware that overwatering of slopes is detrimental to slope stability.
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 inspected and maintained free of debris. Damage to drainage improvements should be repaired immediately.
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'
rainfall . This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period of time prior to landscape planting.
54 REPAIRS
54.1 If slope failures occur, the Geotechnical Consultant should
development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. be contacted for a field review of site conditions and
54.2 If ;lope failures occur as a result of exposure to periods
unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to of heavy rainfall, the failure area and currently
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 Uti1 ity trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recomnended, the
degree of compaction should be a minimum of 90 percent of the
. . laboratory maximum density.
K2 . As an a1 ternative, granular material (sand equivalent greater than 30) may be thoroughly jetted in-place. Jetting should only be considered.to apply to trenches no greater than two feet in width
backfill should be thoroughly mechanically compacted and/or and four feet in depth. Following jetting operations, trench
wheel roll ed from the surface.
K3 Backfill of exterior and interior trenches extending below a 1:l
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum projection from the outer edge of fundations should be mechanically
density.
K4 Within slab areas, but'outside the influence of foundations,
with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical trenches up to one foot wide and two feet deep may be backfilled
Page Nineteen
I
1
1
means. If on-site materials are utilized, they should be
wheel-roll ed, tamped or otherwise compacted to a fi m condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot
testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of
backfill operations during construction.
K5 If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in,close proximity to a buried conduit, the Contractor may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical Compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean,
granular material, which should be thoroughly jetted in-place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures.
Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review by the Geotechnical Consultant at the time of construction.
K6 In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
K7 Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recomnended in slope areas unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mi tigate 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 significant expansion or cut back in the grading
operation, the Geotechnical Consultant should be provided with adequate notice (i.e., two days) in order to make appropriate adjustments in observation and testing services.
L2 Following completion of grading operations and/or between phases of
a grading operation, the Geotechnical Consultant should be provided with at 1 east two working days notice in advance of comnencement .of addPti onal grading operations.
CANYON SUBDRAIN
". .....
".
Dozer Trench ; Geofabric Alternat.iye
1 Backhoe Trench
/ /
i i
.
/' Geofabric Alternative /
I FILL OVER NATURAL. SLOPE ' , - .- - - .. ........ .. .... - ._ ... __ . . - -. .. -
.... .. _. ^ ~.
STABILIZATION FILL
. ". ___. ..
BUTTRESS FILL
~. ..".. - .-
STANDARD DETAIL NO. - 3:
. BUTTRESS BACKDRAIN SYSTEM
Geofrabic Alternative
. . ..
STANDARD DETAIL NO. 4
"" .FUTURE CANYON FILL'
. ". ..... "
, STANDARD DETAIL. NO.. 5
. "- . ... .. .. . ~- .-
1
. ,STANDARD DETAIL NO. 6
.
,STANDARD DETAIL N0.8
IS NQT APPLICABLE
. .. .-.-. .. . ...
.
0 z
3) 0 8
a
.n
n
a n
a
I- W
U
Z
I-.
'. a
t
t
t
t’
t
b
t
t
t
1
b
\
I. m
2 *
May 2, 1990
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
File No. 20623.02
Mr. Gary Robinson
2050 Hancock Street
San Diego, California 92110
HOYCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Subject: REVIEW OF REPAIR FOUNDATIONS Building 1939 Casitas de la Costa Condominiums
Carlsbad, California
Reference: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION/REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS Casitas de la Costa Condominiums
Estrella de Mar Court
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. Robinson:
At the request of the Casitas de la Costa Homeowners, we
have provided geotechnical consulting services in the form of observation of embedment conditions for the repair
foundation at Building 1939 of the Casitas de la Costa development.
The repair excavation, which lies on the eastern side of
placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. The foundation Building 1939, has been reviewed by our office prior to
excavation has been found to be in general accordance with
the intentions of the geotechnical consultant and the
geotechnical report.
The excavation for the continuous footing exposed competent sedimentary bedrock in all areas. Near the middle portion of the repair excavation, an erosional/depositional contact
was identified. The contact was the result of erosion of
the formational claystone (Del Mar Formation), and
deposition of an overlying sandstone unit. The contact is not expected to effect the bearing conditions for the repair
footings.
25202 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 101, Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 539-9983 FAX (213) 539-7267
5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 104, San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 457-2711 FAX (619) 457-0814
1250 Nonh Lakeview Avenue, Suite T, Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 970-0255 FAX (714) 9700142
r
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION File No. 20623.02
May 2, 1990
Page 2
The excavation was measured to be in accordance with
plans. The foundation embedment, therefore, will be into geotechnical embedment/setback criteria and the construction
competent bearing material for the entire length of the repair segment along the east side of Building 1939.
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,
AMEFICAN GEOTECHNICAL __,,_ __
nstruction
KMJ/GWA/ JTZ : Id
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATlON
17 TRANSMITTAL FORM
0 INTER OFFlCE MEMO
,' ."r :< ";;. I, 9 !i " - 4 i
FIELD MEMO
TO: GaQ,d ReehA DATE: %APaqD
FILE NO: ZO623 .oZ
SUBJECT: 'DUIdL 1959 I
FROM:
OFFICE: 0 25202 Crenshaw Boulevard-Suite 101-Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 539-9963
0 5755 Oberlin DrlVe-SuiIe 104"San Diego. CA 92121 (619) 457-2711
0 1240 van Buren-Suite 210-Anaheim, CA 92607 (714) 666-2241
United States Testing Company, Inc.
Engineering & Support Services
3467 Kurtr Street. San Diego. CA 92110 (619) 225-9641
RECEIVED PlXf 1 4 1990 r43q
Job No: 9561 00
Job Yam.: CASITAS DE LA COST1
Job 1ddre.s: 1919-1941 &LC1 ROLD CIRLSIAD CL
YOYCO COMSTRUCTICN 2OSO HLMCOCX ST. S1N DIECO
C1 T2i10
CITY OF CIRLSDAI UWITED STATES TESTIYC. HOYCO CONSTRUCTION
llstrlbuted To:
Eogimeer: REMDINI, MVID Perelt # N?-12?T
Report Yo:
Date: S/09/90 66Ub
05/03/90 - Inspected reinforclnr stmel and the Placement of 64.S CubIc yards of Concrete ala tlBOTl'(SOO0 psi rt 28 days) for the extended footing at the east side of snits L. 1. C, D, E k F. Tro rets of four test cylinders were cast and slump tests were performed. Tbis wort comrlies to the approved ?Ian. and specs for this Job.
Arrived 9:00, departed 1:OO.
sS##JIY Of hCtlVitY """""_"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Servlce Date
(""""""
last bbbrwiated 6escrlptiom Code MmelDescriptloD
R.sourc. ----------- )
"""" ""_ ""~"""""""""""~" ""_ """"""""""""""" """
Unl ts
5/01/10 03228 RECISTERED IN6PECTORICOYCRETE 00059 CLROFALO, JOE 4.00
United States Testing Company, Inc.
Engineering & Support Services
3467 Kurtz Street, San Diego. CA 92110 (619) 225-9641
Job Nruber: 889561 (LB Job Name: CRGITRS DE W WSTR
CRKSBAD 1913-1%1 RLGA RWD
CR
WITED STATES TESTING, CITY OF WlitSWD
MIYCO WI(STRUCT1ffl
I Engineer: ENDINI, WID krait # 01-1279
Re rt No: 675% Da p" e: 6/81/% Tested TO RSTH C-39
Numb. Test PCF Test Design Pour DesigMtlon Inch by Mixer Day Setlbrk F Mr. Code Rir
P.O. # i Concrete co*pression Test
i Cyl. Rge@ Un ut Strength PSI Date of Mix Design Slwp Hade In of Cy1 This Terp Load Plant 20 Da Tis Tis
"" " " - " - "- - "_ - " - "_ "_ "" "" "_ " - " "" - " " " - - - - "- " - " "
3888 5/83/98 88891 2.58 88859 4 299 Location in Structure: EXTENW) FT6. WIT "R" MIDDCE SECTION 5923 1 2658 5924 20 5925 2B 4168 4148 59% 68 Discarded. Corpliance:28 WIY TEST WIPLIES WITH SPECIFICRTIONS.
3BBB 5/83/98 88891 3' 88859 4 799 Location in Structure: EXTENDED FT6. UNIT E 5927 1 W8 ?826 .E% 5929 20 3098 4258 5938 68 Discarded. I
cOruliance:2B aAY TEST CDlPLIES WITH SPECIFICRTIDHS.
I