HomeMy WebLinkAbout1941 ALGA RD; BLDG 10; CB891279; Permit.,-. L
BUILDING PERMIT Permit No: CB891279
12/20/90 11:15 Project No: A8902094 Page 1 of 1 Development No :
Permit Type: RESIDENTAL ADD/ALT (UNDR $1QK)
Valuation: Parcel No: 215-170-03-16 150,000
Construction Type: NEW Occupancy Group: Class Code: Status: ISSUED Description: FOUNDATION REPAIRS Applied: 08/25/89 Apr/Issue: 12/20/90
I Job Address: 1913 ALGA RD Str: F1: Ste:
: EXPIRED/REINSTATED: DATE: Validated By: CD
Applicant: STANLEY LIVINGSTON ' 619-484-4055
633 STATE ST
CI "_ -edits
1,356.00
.00
204.00
Ext fee "_
815.00
530.00 11.00 204.00
1560.00
2w5 Las Palmar Dr., Carlsbad CA 92009 (619) 438-1161
cm OF CARW
h**
Data
EXP/REIh
DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING SERVICES DIVISION 2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009-4859
(619) 438-1 161
MISCELLANEOUS FEE RECEIPT
Appllcani Please Prlnt And Flll In Shaded Ana Only
CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR'S
MAlLtNG
ADDRESS
CITY ZIP TEL.
STATE LICENSE NO. BUSINESS ,-.W$ENSE No. , ,. , .,
SUBDIVISION LOT@)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION OF WORK h(L
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE +Od\ DATE b/.rJ-
1
Whlte . File Yellow. Applicant
ESTMATED VALUATION +2.54 6-s3
PLAN CHECK FEE 00181040-00-8821
IF THE APPLICANT TAKES NO ACTION
WITHIN 180 DAYS, PLAN CHECK FEES
WILL BE FORFEITED.
CHECK IF SUBMITTED
0 2 ENERGY CALCS
0
0 2 STRUCTURAL CALCS
2 1987 ENERGY CALCS FOR NON RESIDENTIAL BLDGS
0 2 SOILS REPORTS
0 2 SELF ADDRESSED ENVELOPES
DATE GIVEN/ SENT TO APPLICANT DATE
LA COSTA LETTER
SCHOOL FEE FORM
pa E CORRECTIONS LIST
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
69
Plnk - Finance Gold. Assessor
DATE /+h?:/9 b INSPECTOR
PERMIT # vp y/J 7/ PLANCK #
JOB ADDRESS /7/3 -/f f 1 PLkP RD
TIME
CD
ha -
ARRIVE: TIME LEAVE:
LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
INSPECTION REQUEST PERMIT# CB891279 FOR 12/26/90 DESCRIPTION: FOUNDATION REPAIRS
JOB ADDRESS: TYPE: RAD CONSTR. TYPE NEW
APPLICANT: STANLEY LIVINGSTON CONTRACTOR: PHONE : OWNER : PHONE :
INSPECTOR AREA TP PLANCK# CB891279 EXPIRED/REINSTATED: DATE: OCC GRP
1913 ALGA RD STR: FL: STE : PHONE: 4844055
REMARKS: MH/STEVENS/260-1777 SPECIAL INSTRUCT:
TOTAL TIME:
CD LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS
19 ST Final Structural
29 PL Final Plumbing 39 EL Final Electrical
49 ME Final Mechanical
"
" -
"
***** INSPECTION HISTORY *****
DATE DESCRIPTION
052390 Ftg/Foundation/Piers 052190 Underground/Conduit-Wiring
050190 Ftg/Foundation/Piers
050190 Steel/Bond Beam 040290 Ftg/Foundation/Piers
030690 Ftg/Foundation/Piers
030690 Steel/Bond Beam
020990 Ftg/Foundation/Piers
020990 Ftg/Foundation/Piers
ACT
AP CA
AP AP AP
AP AP AP AP
INSP MP COMMENTS 1937 MP
TP TP
WM
TP BLDG 1913, UNITS E,F, & G
TP BLDG 1913, UNITS E,F, ti G TP TP NEEDS SOILS REPORTS FTNGS A,B,C,D,NDS SPEC.INSP
r' -.
United StatesTesting Company, Inc.
Engineering 81 Support Services
3467 KURTZ STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92110 (619) 225-9641 FAX (619) 224-8959
NEW YORK
ORLANDO
MEMPHIS
MODEST0
PENNSYLVANIA
SAN DIEGO
ATLANTIC CITY
HOBOKEN
Date: November 20, 1990
USTCo No.
CITY OF CARLSBAD INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Project: Casitas De La Costa
Carlsbad, Ca. 1919-1941 Alga Road
Permit No. 89-1279 Plan File No. N/A
Gentlemen:
United States Testing Company, Inc. has performed the Special Inspection of reinforce concrete as outlined in daily reports previously submitted for the above mentioned project. To the best
of our knowledge, this work is in conformance with the approved
plans and specifications and the applicable workmanship provisions
of the Uniform Building Code.
The signed reports of all inspections performed by United States Testing Company, Inc.. on this project have been sent to the City of San Diego Building Inspection Department.
Very truly yours,
United States Testing Company, Inc.
n C/L
Ed Bove, RCE to34041 Vice President United States Teati,q Company, Inc.
CC: File
B. Perron
noyco
FORMERLY TESTING ENGINEERS-SAN DIEGO
Job Nunber: 889561 &I@ Job Name: MITB DE LR COSTR 1919-1941 RLGR RORD CRRLSBAD CR
I Engineer: RENDINI, DAVID Permit # 87-1279
CITY OF CRRLSBRD BUILDING INSPECTIDN DEPRRTKNT CITY E CRRLSERD 12M €!A RVENUE CRRLSBAD CR 92M
UNITED STRTES TESTING, HDYCD CONSTRXTION
Report No: 73286 Date: 11/28/96 Tested To RSTM C-39 Concrete Compression Test
28 Da Cyl. Rgd Un Wt Strength PS\ Date of Mix Design Slump Made in of Cy1 This Temp Load Plant Time Tie
Numb. Test PCF TEt Desian Pour Desionatron Inch bv Mixer Dav Set/#ark F bbr. Code Rir - ""_ "" ""_ - ""_ """ """" "" ""_ ""_ "" """" "" ""_ "" _" -"" "" ""_ - "_ """ """" ""- ""- ""- ""_ """" "" "" ""_ "_
3888 5/25/98 89-181 5. 88 e8155 1:28 4 5 99 Location in Structure: EXTERIOR ML FWTINGS 7R44 7 2388 7R45 28 3776 7% ?8 7847 68 4M8 Discarded. hpliance:28 DRY TEST CDWnIES WITH SPECIFICRTIDNS
3M6 5/25/98 89-181 3.58 88155 3:38 4 Location in Structure: EXTERIOR WRLL FDDTINGS 7@8 7 28lb 7M9 28 768 28 417A
7651 68 4878 Discarded. kmpliance:28 DRY TEST CWLIES WITH SMCIFICRTIDMS
9 99
Page No: 1
United States Testing Company, Inc.
Engineering & Support Services
3467 Kurt2 Street, San Diego. CA 92110 (619) 225-9641
Job Nwber: 8$9561 88 Job Name: WITIIS DE LA cL1sTR 1919-1941 FILM m CRRLSBRD CR
CIN OF CRRLSBRD BUILDING IlISPECTION DEMRTPENT 1288 ELU RVENUE LMITED STRTES TESTING, CITY (y: [XIALSBIID
CRRLSBRD CR %sea HOYCO WNSTRUCTION
Perult # 87-1279 EngiTr: MDINI, WID
Report No: 67594 Date: 6/81/98 Tested TO RSTU C-39
Numb. Test F€F Tesxign Pour Designation Inch by Mlxer Day Set/Mark F Nnbr. Code Rir
Concrete colpression Test
Cyl. @E+ Un tit St th Pd Date of Sx Design Slurp bde in of Cy1 This Temp Load Plant 28 Da Tine Tine
" "" - "" "" "I-"" " " "" " """"_ " "_ "" - -" ""_ "_ "" "" "" "_" ""_ "" 3888 51W98 88891 2.58 BM9 4 299 Location in Structure: EXTENDED FT6. UNIT "R" MIDDLE SECTION
5924 28 5923 7 41@ 2658
5% 68 5925 28 Discarded. 4148
hpliam:28 DRY TEST CDllPLIES WITH SPECIFICRTIONS.
Lacation in Structure: EXTEHMD FT6. UNIT E 3888 5/83/98 88891 3n w9 4 7 99
5928 28 5927 7 2628 3898 5929 28 4m 5-93 6% Discarded. Ccepliam:28 DRY TEST CONPLIES WITH SPECIFICRTIDNS.
Page No: 1
ESGIL CORPORATION
9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208
SAN DIEGO. CA 92 I23
(619) 560-1468
DATE : I(! /;I /$5
JURISDICTION: C;{\'c; L,! 2
PLAN CHECK NO: A>- f275 SET: OUPS
FILE COPY
DDESIGNER
PROJECT ADDRESS: 15/: ALGA ,ZO
PROJECT NAME: .:JNr n i')J", <67,+,(
@ necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's
The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where
building codes.
0 with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficien-
The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply
cies identified are resolved and
checked by building department staff.
0 identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies
and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected The check list transmitted herewith is for your information.
plans are submitted for recheck.
The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the 0 jurisdiction to return to the applicant contact person.
0 The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to:
@ Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that plan check has been completed.
been completed. Person contacted:
Esgil staff did advise applicant that the plan check has
Date contacted: Telephone # 0 REMARKS : .
By : ? FtSCWK Enclosures: ESGIL CORPORATION. 1 o/zs-
I~GA OAA Ovw ODM
ESGIL CORPORATION
9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208
SAN DIEGO. CA 92123
(619) 5601468
DATE : 7/13 /At
JURISDICTION: QJZ LS 5 A2 UPLAN CHECKER
PLAN CHECK NO: 57 - 1279 SET: x ("JUPS
PROJECT ADDRESS: /?/X ALbA
PROJECT NAME: Frrvrrm&T)dN f245 Pa&
=FILE COPY
ODESIGNER
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.
. are resolved and
0 identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies
and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck.
The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the 0 jurisdiction to return to the applicant-contact person.
The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to:
Smui r ClvIN657VN La3 sw 53-
y/vv DIL60 '7zcor -..
@ plan check has been completed. Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that
been completed. Person contacted: Esgil staff did advise applicant that the plan check has
Date contacted: Telephone # 0 REMARKS:
By : ? hSCI*iR Enclosures: ESGIL CORPORATION &/q,
OGA OAA Ow ODM
PLAN CORRECTION SMET
Plans Check No. bS - IZ-??
Date plans received by the jurisdiction
Date plana received by plan checker 6 /ZE
Date initial plan check completed ’i /!3 /a>
BY
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
conservation, noise attenuation and access for
the handicapped. The plan check is based on
Department. You may have other corrections
regulations enforced by the Building Inspection
based rn lens and ordinances enforced 6y the
Planning Department, Engineering Department or
other departments.
The items circled below need clarification,
modification or change. All circled items have
to be satisfied before the plans will be in
conformance with the cited codes and regulations.
Per Sec. 303 (e), of the Uniform Building Code,
the approval of the plans does not permit the
violation of any state, county or city law.
A. PLrVJs
@ Please make all corrections on the original
tracings and submit two new sets of prints,
and any original plan sets that may have
been returned to you by the jurisdiction,
to: hS61c
@ To facilitate rechecking, please identify,
next to each circled item, the sheet of
the plans uprn:*hich each correction on
this sheet has been made end.,return this
check sheet with the revised plans.
-. .
Date I /bS Jurisdiction c*cs dA3
Prepared by I
PIT- VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE
0 Bldg. Dept.
0 Esgil
PLAN CHECK NO+ 67 - 1277
BUILDING ADDRESS 1713 4~6.4 12-3
APPLICANT/CONTACT PHONE NO.
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION NO^ GMA.J~& CONTRACTOR PHONE
BUILDING OCCUPANCY nk, cw6g DESIGNER PHONE
BUILDING PORTION VALUE VALUATION BUILDING AREA
~
MULTIPLIER
F.210 ebPA1K - 7 />a, om 1x4 Appucq Pdh)
Air CoxditioninE Commercial .
Residential
@ Fire Sprinklers
@
I '@
Res. or Corn.
Total Value I I
Building Permit Fee $-
Plan Check Fee $ s 5-2TY3
" "& y 9'
COMMENTS;
SHEET (OF I
12/87
r c
c *
c
c
r
c
r
c
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPONATION
GEOTECENICAL INVESTIGATION AND
REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
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) xm-w83
5755 Oberlin Drive-Suite 104-San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 457-2711
1240 Van Buren-Suite 210 -Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 661xx”
P
i
r
r
r
c
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA COKP(XiA~l~ll7ClN
August 23, 1989 File No. 20623.01
Ms. Maureen Jonas
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CASITAS DE LA COSTA
San Diego, California 92126
7920 Miramar Road, Suite 101
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
5755 Oberlin Drive-Suite kw-san Diego. CA QZIZI (619) 457-2711
I240 van Buren-Suite 210 -Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 666-2241
P
r
File No. 20623
August 23, 1989
Page Two
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CVRPOKATIVIV
r
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions regarding site conditions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
r Respectfully submitted
r f
r
c
t .
c
r
c
File No. 20623 August 23, 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA COHPOHAI'ION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.2 Scope 1.1 Purpose
1.3 Site Description
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
2.1 Observations 2.2 Manometer Surveys 2.3 Subsurface Investigation
2.4 Laboratory testing
3.0 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Overview
3.2 Improvement Possibility
3.3 Discussion of repair
4.0 DESIGN SOIL PARAMETERS
4.1 General 4.2 Foundation Design
5.0 CLOSURE APPENDICES
Figure 1 Figure 2
Figure 3
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
10
10
11
12
Location Map 2 Site Plan 3
Slab Foundation Repair Detail 8
r
c
r
r
r
File No. 20623
Page 1 August 23, 1989
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
American ceotechnical
A CAI.IFOKNIA CORPOHATlON
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
report, including: references, field excavation logs,
is compiled in the Appendices at the back of this
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
transitions, adjacent descending slopes. The slope
condominium buildings are constructed on cut/fill
below Building 1941 is confined at the toe by a
concrete retaining wall. The slope below Building 1931
but is also retained near the eastern end.' Adjacent
descends to Estrella de Mar Court for the most part,
grounds and improvements include landscape areas, walkways, artificial streams and ponds, and parking
areas. Building 1913 consists of seven condominium units and Building 1941 consists of six units.
USGS
ENClNlTAS
QUADRANGLE
I
SCALE: 1'- 2000' *
LOCATION MAP Figure 1
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20623 AUG 1989
P .
r
r
r
File No. 20623 August 23, 1989 Page 4
2.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
2.1 Observations
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA COKPOKATION
Site reconnaissance revealed cracking in the condominium units consisting primarily of wallboard and
stucco cracks, cracks/separations at heavy brick fireplaces, separations of fixtures such as kitchen and
bathroom cabinets, and porch and walkway
Units 1913-E and 1913-F, had tipped, bowed outward, and cracks/separations. Also, the retaining wall below
cracked. The movement at the top of the wall is on the order of five inches.
The stress features observed are indicative of
geotechnical influence in the form of expansive soil and slope creep.
2.2 Manometer Surveys
Manometer level surveys conducted on the condominium
slabs (Buildings 1913 and 1941) showed distinct patterns of tilt indicative of expansive soil and slope
influence. The maximum measured vertical differential
in building 1941 (Unit F) was 1.8 inches. Building 1913 (Unit A) exhibits a maximum tilt of 2.35 inches. The level of tilt exceeds what is considered the
maximum allowable. It was observed that stress
those units with the higher levels of measured tilt.
features within the condominium units increased in
Field notes of specific observations and the manometer surveys are contained in our files, and are available upon request.
r
r.
c
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 consisted of greenish to dark brown sandy clays, which
were found to be moist to wet, and firm. At Boring 1, adjacent Building 1913, black organic (clayey) topsoil was encountered underlying the fill. Bedrock
underlying the fill consisted typically of claystone of the Del Mar Formation. The claystone was damp to wet, and hard. Fill derived from the Del Mar Formation can
be expansive.
2.4 Laboratory testing
A laboratory testing program was developed for the soil samples recovered during the subsurface exploration.
The program was designed to estimate soil properties for use in subsequent engineering evaluations to determine the cause(s) of damage and provide repair recommendations. Appendix C provides a summary of the laboratory test results.
r
L
File No. 20623 August 23, 1909
Page 6
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
3.0 ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Overview
It is determined that geotechnical phenomenon has
affected the two condominium buildings. In our
opinion, the primary mechanisms of distress are
due to soil processes. Small scale construction expansive soil and slope creep. Not all cracking is
defects or normal shrinkage may have affected the site to' a limited degree.
Site fill and natural soils have high (UBC-29)
heave in some condominium units is characteristic of expansion characteristics. Measured concentric slab
expansive soil movement. Also, apparent subsidence of some units near the top-of-slope is indicative of slope
creep.
In the absence of mitigating measures, it is the
will gradually worsen. Some level of movement, causing
opinion of American Geotechnical that the conditions
damage, has occurred at Buildings 1913 and 1941, and there is no reason to expect the movement to stop of its own accord. In the event of some circumstance,
otherwise severe pipe leak, slope movement and the rate such as prolonged heavy rainfall and/or a prolonged or
of deterioration could increase. As such, it is
measures as soon as possible. desirable to proceed with some level of remedial
c
c
r-
r
File No. 20623
August 23, 1989 Page 7
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
3.2 Improvement Possibility
As is usually the case, a number of options exist with respect to how site conditions might be improved. The options range from cosmetic, to slope repair, to full structure replacement. Each option has attendant cost, benefit, and risk of future problems. Usually lowest 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
treatment, providing a low inordinate risk of future are considered a minimum positive and practical
problems. Following repair, some risk of future
problems will remain, as is always the case.
3.3 Discussion of repair
The mechanism of distress consists of expansive soil
At this time, the slope problem appears to be the
influence and yielding (creep) of the adjacent slope.
overriding cause of the damage. Risk associated with the slope movement relates to the slope itself as well as the buildings above and the retaining wall below
adopted. The areas could be substantially improved, (where applicable). Slope improvement could be
however, by simple underpinning of the buildings on the slope side. This level of treatment is considered a
middle-of-the-road, positive and practical treatment of which, budgetary constraints, benefits and risk were
previously discussed with homeowner's association representatives. Suggested details have been included in the accompanying Figure 3. The structural engineer for the project should develop the actual details.
It is suggested that the underpinning detail return at the edges of the building at least 10 feet. It should be kept in mind that stress concentrations will occur
at the end of the underpinning section. These stress
proximity to the end of the underpinning. The risk concentrations could result in some cracking in
be very low in relation to the improvement gained by
associated with this occurrence, however, is judged to
adding the underpinning.
or rock-base
@ Saw cut as near as possible to wall. : +,
@ Chip back flush with wall.
@ Excavate for thickened edge, sand, mistvre barrier and gravel base.
@ Drill 8" minimum for dowels C 16"o.c.
@ Apply epoxy bonding compound' between dowel holes and grade. Seal moisture barrier to
dodel holes. (*l,RC Co.. PR-940 or equal)
bonding agent but not closer than 2" to
@ Use 10-mil moisture barrier membrane sealed at a11 splices and around pipes.
0 Use 2" clean sand protective cover.
@ Use 5" minimum concrete slab; 8" minimum
@ At 1-2 hours prior to placmwnt of concrete,
3 Use 14 dowels Q 16"o.c. Alternate 36" and 60" into slab. Anchor with bonding grout.
0 Use 14 bars e 16"o.c. both ways. Use two
at thickened edges.
apply bonding canpound.'
bars within 6" of slab edges. Add 2-14 bars X 3' long P 4" and 8" from reentrant corners.
@ Primary excavation for underpinning.
@ At 48"o.c. maxinum spacing. excavate 12" X
plates. 12'' slots for st:pport jacks and bearing
@ Excavate continuous haunch.
@ Use 14 dowels @ 16'0.c.
@ Use 2-15 bars continuous.
@ Use 15 bars @ 12"o.c. both ways.
@ Use Y5 bars @ 18"o.c.
@. 'Where exterior flatwork is planned, add
@ At exterior edges, thicken to 8' minim'
dowels per note "J".
24" minimm depth cut-off wall with 2-14 and add 1-14 bar continuous. (*E" wide by
bars as shan. preferred at exterior edges.)
@ Slab subgrade should be presaturated to a
@ Interior underpinning option as detailed for
depth of 24" minimum prior to slab construction.
exterior foundation.
minimum. Type 11. 2000 psi minimun. For slab concrete. 4" maximum slump. Exterior flatwork
minimize shrinkage cracks. Deputy inSpeCti0n should be jointed at 8' maxinun spacing to
is recnnnded.
U General Note: Concrete should be 5-sack
SLAB FOUNDATION REPAIR DETAIL Figure 3
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20623 AUG 1989
c
c
L
r
File No. 20623
August 23, 1989
Page 9
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CURPOHATION
On the slope sides of these buildings, there are patios which are substantially undermined as a result of slope creep and associated settlement at the building edge.
As discussed with the structural engineer, it would be
a simple matter to provide structural deck replacements
between sections of underpinning adjacent to the
existing foundations. A relatively shallow grade beam
potential for gaps developing under the structural slab could be placed on the slope side of each patio so that
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.
c
r
File No. 20623
August 23, 1989
Page 10
4.0 DESIGN SOIL PARAMETERS
4.1 General
American Geotechnical
A CALIFOHNIA CVRPOHATION
The following presents soil parameters for the
recommended underpinning. Appendix D provides standard grading recommendations. In conjunction with his plan development, the structural engineer may require
information on certain soil engineering criteria. If the structural engineer requires additional information;this office should be contacted.
c
c
c
r
August 23, 1989
File No. 20623
Page 11
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
4.2 Foundation Design
It is anticipated that Buildings 1913 and 1941 will be supported on the slope side by grade beams or deepened footings. The repair foundations can be founded in properly compacted fill or firm natural soil. Footings should be designed accordance with the following criteria:
Foundation Embedment Minimum embedment depth Minimum width
2.5 ft
1.0 ft
Vertical Bearing (allowable)
a. Sustained loads 1500 psf
b. Total loads (including 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: 200 psf/ft
(projected from ground
surface)
b. Minimum depth/width 20 ft horizontal 2 ft vertical
bearing support should above which lateral to daylight
be ignored
c. Coefficient of sliding
on soil (dead load)
friction cast concrete
0.35
c
File No. 20623
August 23, 1989
Page 12
5.0 CLOSURE
r
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPOHATIO~V
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 client".
Geotechnical engineering is characterized by uncertainty and is often,described as an inexact
presented herein are based upon the evaluations of
science or art. Conclusions and recommendations
professional judgement. The conclusions and technical information gathered, experience, and
recommendations presented should be considered 88advice11. Other consultants could arrive at different
conclusions and recommendations. Typically, Yninimum8* 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
t
American Geotechnical
A CALlFORNlA CORPORATION File No. 20623 - August 23, 1989 Page 13
Observations and testing services during construction only allow for specific evaluation of a small percentage of compacted fill placed at the site. 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
construction should not relieve the grading contractor of his primary responsibility to perform work in accordance with the specifications.
' testing by the geotechnical consultant during
c
c
File No. 20623
August 23, 1989
r
r
American Geotechnical
A (,'ALIFOIINIA (:OI<POIIATIC)N
APPENDICES
August 23, 1989
File No. 20623
r
r
r
Aeri
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPOHATION
APPENDIX A: REFERENCES
a1 Photographs, Photo No. AXN-8M-13 & 14, dated April
Stabilization and Conservation Service. 11, 1953, by United States Department of Agriculture
"Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, Californiav9, by F. Harold Weber Jr., California
Division of Mines and Geology, County Report.No. 3, dated 1963.
"La Costa Valley Unit No. 1**, Plans for Improvement by Rancho la Costa, Inc., County of San Diego Map No. 5434
(!I" 2525), dated June 22, 1964.
"La Costa Condominium No. 1, Unit No. 219, Plans for
San Diego Map No. 5642 (TM 2569-2), dated December 9,
Improvement, prepared by Rick Engineering, County of
1964.
Wnifom Building Code, 1970, 1973,& 1976 Editions", by International Conference of Building Officials, dated
1070, 1073, and 1976, respectively.
9nCertification.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 County", by San Diego Association of Geologists, dated 1985.
r
.
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
California Division of Mines and Geology, p. 8-93. Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Bulletin 200,
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.
llReport of Soils Investigation, Casitas de la Costa
Wood and Associates, Project 4262, dated November 18,
Condominiums, La Costa, California", report by C.H.
1983.
Bardet, J.P., "Creep Deformation and Failure of Slopes1f, a
report to American Earth Technologies, dated May 1985.
IIGeotechnical Investigation, Casitas de la Costa
de mar Court, Carlsbad, California, File No. 20221,
Condominiums, Buildings 1913, 1927 and 1941, Estrella
dated October 15, 1986.
"Repair Parameters, Casitas de la Costa Condominiums,
Buildings 1913, 1927 and 1941, Estrella de Mar Court,
No. 20221, dated December 15, 1987.
Carlsbad, California", by American Geotechnical, File
c
r
r
L
August 23, 1989
File No. 20623
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
EXPLORATION LOGS
APPENDIX B
ProiectlClIent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/1 /e6
Location: South of 1913 F Estrella De Mar Court Sheet1 of 2 -
Estlmated Surface Elevatlon(ft.): -
Field Description KMJ 1 Sunace Condltlons:
Surface plants behind block retaining wall.
Subsurface Condltlons: FORMATION Classificatlon,
color. moisture. tlghtness. etc. Remarks I
BACKFILL: R 0'. Clayey Sand, gray brwn, damp, 1
loose, qreen siltstone fraqnents. roots. I
E 0.5'. Utv Clav. Orav. moist. firm.
siltstone fragments. roots. If" PVC ... .. Pipe ... ... .. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
\. E 1.7'. Gravelly Sand (import fill), medim
brown, damp, very loose, roots. ... -.. ..
~~~~
Several large brick chunks between 2' and 4'. ..
... ..
From 2.5'4.0'. Fill is Dry. :.:.: a 1::::' 3 .~
I I
D 4.1', Same as above except well compacted.
Import fill below 4.1' is dense with no roots.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL - Plate 1
proiect/CIIant: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, CR Date: 511 186
Location: 5nuth of 1913 F Estrella De mar Court Sheet: - of 2 2
Estimated Surface Elavatlon(ft.1: - -,Total Deoth(f1.k 8-0 Rig Type: Hand Excavation
Field Description BY: KNJ 1 Sunace Conditions:
Surface plants behind block retaining wall.
s
5 0
-
0 2 Subsurface Condillons: FORMATION Classiflcatlon. Remarks color. moisture. tlghtness. etc.
I ... ... ... ... ... ... t...l ... ... 1 I II 5.7'. Silty Clay, greenish gray, moist. firm, I I:::] ... ... ... ... ... ... ... scm roots, material covers retaining wall weep
holes. ... ... ... ...
.Notes:
~~
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate 2
ProjectlCIlent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, CA Date: 511 I86
Locat1on:~east corner of 194lA Estrella Oe mar Court Sheet:L of 1
Estimated Surface Elevatlon(1t.):
I
folal Oeplh(1t.k 5.5 Rlg Type: Hand Excavation
Field Description BY: Kml
Sutface Condllions:
: Barren ground under removed plant, against foundation.
P
a
0
d Subsurface Conditlons: FORMATION Classiflcatlon. I Color. moisture. tlahtnaar~ ete~ Remarks I - FILL: R 0'. Sandy Clay, gray brown, damp to FootingI: a'
moist, firm, mottled, siltstone fragments, roots. 14" wide
few oravel to 1/2". 30" deep,
10.8'. Sandy Clay. greenish gray with orange 12 a .a.
brow, (20%). moist. firm, mottled, green
II siltstone fragnents. I LI I I I
LI I
11 I
@ 5.5' End of Pit
No Water
No Caving
~01~~: 318" void between bottom of footing and soil. Void closes near mid-footing.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate 3
TEST EXCAVATION Log No.
proiectlcllent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, CA
Location: East side of 1913G Estrella De nar Court
F.N. 20221.01
Date: 511 /a6
Sheet:L of 1
Estimated Surface EIevatlon(l It.) Total Degth(ft.): 3.0 Rlg Type: Hand Excavation
~~
Field Descriotion BY: KRI I
Sunace Conditions:
Surface vegetation under removed plant, next to foundation
between building and artificial stream. -1
I 3.0' End of Pit
-No Water
No Caving
Notea: Under side of artificial stream exposed, 6 mil clear plastic moisture barrier observed
between concrete "stream" and foundinq soil.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate 4
-
TEST EXCAVATION Log NO. 4
F.N. 20221 -01
ProiectlClIent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Data: 5/20/86
- Locatlon: South side of 1913C Estrella De mar Court Sheet:- 1 of 1
Estimated Surface Elevatlon(ft.): - Total 0eothUt.k 4.0 Rlg Type: Hand Excauation
Field Description BY: KMJ
1 Sufface Condltlons:
11 I
p 4.0', End of Pit
~~ ~~
No Water
No Caving
- Notes:
AMEFllCAN GEOTECHNICAL - Plate
-
TEST EXCAVATION Log NO. 5
F.N. 20221.01
proiect,cltent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/20/86
- Location: Fast side of 1941E Estrella De mar Court Sheet:A of 1
Estimated Surface Elevatlon(ft.): -
c
i
Total Deoth(ft.): 3.9 Rlg Type: Hand Excavation . Field Description By: KmJ 1 Sunaca Condltlons: 1
L
In decorative gravel at top-of-slope. Porch near test pit
visually settled. I
a * Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION: Classiflcatlon,
color, moisture. tlghtness. etc. Remarks tl (I 0'. Gravel (3/4").
FILL: R O.Z', Sandy Clay, greenish gray brown, I 35"
I -.. Footing Depth
tI I I
E 3.9'. End of Pit
No Water I LI I
No Caving I I t3
Notes: Vertical tension crack mapped in test pit, about 1/4" wide.
I -41~. pia- 4".
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
L
TEST EXCAVATION Log NO. 6
F.N. 20221 .m
Pro,ect,Cllent:
Location: South of 1913C Estrella De Mar Court Sheet1 of 1
Casitas De La Costa. Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/20/06
Estlmated Surface Elevatlon(lt.k -
L
Field Description
1 Sufface Conditlons:
Located at base-of-slope below Test Pit No. 4.
D
0 i ; Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION: Classiflcation, color, moisture. tlghtness. etc. Remarks I - FILL: 0 D', Sandy Clay, green-gray, moist.
firm, mottled rust brown, siltstone fragnents.
some roots.
tl ~
I I
E 2.0' End of Pit
No Water
No Caving
LI I
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
TEST EXCAVATION Log No. - F.N. 20221 -01
project/~llent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/21/06
Location: East side of parking garage, Estrella De mar Court Shee1:L of 2
Eallmaled Surface Eievallon(lt.): - Total DeDlh(1t.k 7.5' Rlg Type: Hand
Field Description By: KIJ
5 Sunace Condillons:
In ivy east of supporting concrete pillar. against retaining wall. I
hbsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classiilcation. color. rnoislura~ tlohtnarr (I#* Remarks I
TOPSOIL: B D', Sandy Clay, dark brown, moist,
soft, mottled, roots from overlying ivy.
BACKFILL: B O.S'.Sandy Clay, green to dark
brm. damp to wet at depth, soft, mottled. .... .... ... ... .... ... ... .... ... .... ...
I
Notes:
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
TEST EXCAVATION Log No..- -
project/C1lent: Casitas De La Costa, tarlsbad. Ca
F.N. 20221.01
Date: 5/21/66
Location: continued Sheet:- 2 of 2
Estimated Surface Elevation(ft.): Total Oepth(lt.): 7S' Rig Type: Hand Excavation
Field Description BY: KMJ
Sunace Conditions: I
Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classification. color, moisture. tightness. elc. Remarks
P. I e.+ a? ..d . .;A
BASE OF
FOOTING
~~
' DEL RAR FORRATION: E 6.5', Sandy Clay, light
: green, wet, minor seepage. '
4- E 7.5'. End of Pit
Seepage at 6.5'
No Cavinq
Notes:
AME3ICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
TEST EXCAVATION Log No. - F.N. 20221 -01
proieot/C1lent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/21/86
Locatlon: Near intersection of El Camino Real and Alga Sheel: 1 of 1
Estimated Surface Elevatlon(lt.): Total Oeoth(1t.f: ~1~ T~~~: Hand Excavation
1 Field Description 8y:
Sufface Condltlons: I
Located against northwest corner of carport retaining wall.
Under surface vegetation.
Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION Classillcatlon. color, moisture, tlghtness. elc. Remarks
BACKFILL: I 0'. Silty Sand. medium brown, damp,
rnediun dense, decmosed qranite import.
Retaining wall moisture proofing consists of
6 mil plastic aqainst wall covered by emulsified
asohalt covered bv a second layer of 6 mil
plastic.
-
' @ 2.5'. End of Pit
No Water
No Cavino
Notes:
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
BORING LOG No. 1
F.N. 20221 .M
Client / Project: Casitas De La Cost, Carlsbad. Ca. Date: 5/M/86
ti^^; North side of 19130 Estrella De Mar Court Sheet:Lof 1 - Est. Surface Elev: -
FIELD DESCRIPTION BY: KMJ
Surface Condltions: ' I Located in depressed area near water main.
E
Z Subsurfoce Condltionr: Classification. color. moisture
U
0.
0 Remarks tightness; etc. 4 FILL: 8 0'. Sandy Clay, mottled greenish gray with
brwn. mist to wet, soft, no gravel. some roots. t tI I tw
t I: I I I I
TOPSOIL: P 2.2'. Silty Clay, medium to dark
brown, wet, soft.
, I -.
ALLUVIUm: P 3.6'. Sandy Clay, green, wet,
slick surtaces.
"ft I I
8 4.0'. End of Boring
No Water
No Caving
I
- ~~~
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL
"
Plot0
BORING LOG No.
F.N 20221 a01
Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Dote: s/20/86 cbl? / PFOIeC?:
~~~~tl~~: West side of 1941E Estrella De Mar Court Sket:Lof 1 - Est. Surface Elev: Total Depth 3.0' RIg Type: Hand Ruser
I i FIELD DESCRIPTION BY: KmJ
3 Surface Condltionr:
E. 0
W e Subsurface Condltionr: Clorrlflcotlon. color, rnolsture tightness; etc. Remarks
- FILL: I 0'. Sandy Clay, green gray brown. mist
t
to wet, soft, some surface roots.
I I
I I - ' DEL mAR FORAATION: 8 1 .St, Sandy Clay, light green
!with green siltstone, Mist. dense. r-
8 3.0' End of Boring
No Water
I
- "
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
- TEST'EXCAVATION - CORE NO. 1
FA. -zpw. 01
Prolect/Cllent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Data: 5/21/06
Locatlon:~e. end of Fstrella De Nar Court - Sheet:A of 1
Suf7acs Conditions:
In slab-on-grade, most westerly core. . : ; SubsUrfaCe Conditions: FORMATION Classificallon, color. moisture. tlghtness. OIC. Remarks
- SLAB: e 0'. Concrete Slab. 4.0' .pa. . SLAB .A. j?. , . 0 i'.
r t, loose.
B 0.33'. Silty Coarse Sand. medium brown, wet,
- FILL: e 0.75', Sandy Clay, green, wet. very
soft. mottled with rust brown. It I
I I
DEL NAR FORNATION: e 2.33', Siltstone, green,
moist, dense.
_.
-4
@ 2.5' End of Core 1 I
No Water - No Cavino
It I' ~
-Noles: 1) Slab thickness 3.95" (ASTN C174-82)
2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 gauge both directions, depth 3".
3) No moisture barrier.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate -
- TEST 'EXCAVATION - CORE NO. .i
F.N. 20221.01
ProlectlCllent: Casitas De La Costa. Carlsbad. Ca. Data: 5/21/86
Locallon: Parkinq garage, end of Estrella De mar Court Sheet: of 1 1
~
Ettlmated Surface Elevetlon(ft.):
i
Total Deoth(1t.): 2.4' Rig Type: Core Drill/Auger
Field Description BY: KNJ
Suflaca Conditlons: i
a .
I
: In slab, second most westerly core.
d ' Subsurface Conditlona: FORMATION Clasailicatlon.
-
color. moisture. Ilghtness. etc. Remarks
SLAB: R O', Concrete Slab ,;P'AsL*B: 2.
i. , ic 0 ,.a-
& a.
?
B 0.32', Silty Sand, medium brown, wet. loose. 1 I I t- FILL: 8 0.58'. Sandy Clay, green. wet, very
soft; mottled with brown.
Li I I
DEL PlAR FORNATION: R 2.3'. Clayey Siltstone. I YI qreen, moist, dense.
I
R 2.4' End of Core
No Water
No Caving
bI I
I1 I.
- Notes: 1) Slab thickness 3.88" (ASTm C174-82)
>I mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 qauqe both directions, depth 3".
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate -
- TEST 'EXCAVATION- CORE NO. 3
F.N. 20221 -01
prolect/Cllenl: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad. Ca. Dale: 5/21/86
Locallon: ParkinQ Qarase. end of Estrella De Mar Court Shae(:L of 1
Tolal OeDth(ft.): Rig Type: Core Orill/Auger
Field Description KMJ
1 Sunace Condlllons:
4 :I In slab, third most westerly core.
.- I
0 : Subsurface Condltlons: FORMATION Clasaiflcallon. L
color, moisture. Ilghtnaos, etc. Remarks
SLAB: E 0'. Concrete Slab. .'%.' SLAB in
>'# '%
a 2.
", ,. .
- -
3 8 0.28'. Silty Sand, medium brown, wt. loose.
LI I
II I I tu LI I
- Notes: 1) Slab thickness 3.38" (ASTR C174-62)
2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/6 gauge both directions. exposed in bottom of slab.
3) No moisture barrier.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate -
-TEST'EXCAVATION- CORE NO. 4
F.N. -1.01
Proled/Ollent: Casitat De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca.. Oat.: 5/21/06
Locntlon: Parkinq garage, end of Estrella De mar Court Sheet:- 1 of 1 - Esllmated Surface Elevsllon(lt.): -
4 : I In slab, fourth most westerly core. . * a
-
0 : Subsurface Conditions: FORMATION: Classilicatlon. color. moisture, flghtneos. etc. Remarks
t.. 2, . *p '. SLAB: P 0'. Concrete Slab. -ai 'SLAB * .-,A. , *: .ti.;
..
-
". E 0.39', Silty Sand, mediun brown. wet, loose.
I1 I' I
- Notes: 1 ) Slab thickness 3.85" (ASTN C174-82)
2) Steel msh in slab 6"x6"/8 gauge both directions. exposed and rusted out in bottom of slab.
3) Core through shrinkage crack.
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
L
- TEST 'EXCAVATION - CORE NO. .-,
F.N. 20221 -01
Pro(ecl/Cllent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. s/211e6
Locallon: Parking garage, end of Estrella De Mar Court Sheet: 1 01 1 -
R
Field Description By: KNJ
Sunace Condltlons: . In slab, most easterly core.
A .
0 I
d a Subsurlace Condillons: FORMATION Clasail1ca;lon.
color, rnoislure. Ilghtness. OIC. Remarks
- SLAB: B 0'. Concrete Slab. .; .., ;. -d.. SLAB :A
.x
- - . 4 e 0.28'. Silty Sand. medium brown. wet. loose. ' FILL: a 0.71'. Sandy Clay, green, wet, very soft. - -
more silt than previous core fill.
I DEL NAR FORPIATION: 8 2.42'. siltstone, green,
mist, dense.
0 3.0' End of Core
No Water
No Cavino
II I
It I I
- Notes: 1) Slab thickness 3.36" (ASTN C174-82)
2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 sauqe both directions, exposed in the bottom of slab and rusted almost complete:
3) No moisture barrier. OL
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate
Field Description BY: KNJ
1 . Southerly core in carport slab-on-grade.
Sunace Condlllons:
s_:
D 2.0' End of Core
No Water
No Cavino
.
I I I
- Notes: 1) Slab thickness 4-80'' (ASTfl C174-82)
2) Steel mesh in slab 6"x6"/8 gauge both directions. depth 34".
3) Core is next to pipe post footing, overpour extends into core hole (radius 23").
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL Plate - 4) No moisture barrier.
- TEST EXCAVATION - CORE NO. 7
F.N. 20221.01
Prolect/Cllent: Casitas De La Costa, Carlsbad, Ca. Date: 5/21/86
L0Catlon:mrt. near intersection of El Camino Real and Alga Sheel: 1 of 1 -
Estimated Surface Elevatlon(l1.):
Field Description I Sunace Condlllons:
Northerly core in carport slab-on-grade. . c -
0 ? Subsurface Condillons: FORMATION: Ctassilicatlon,
color. moisture. llghtness. ate. Remarks ti 4 I e 0.37'. Siltv Sand, medim brown, saturated, I I t I FILL: 0 0.58'. Sandy Clay, greenlrust, saturated4
very soft.
I I
I I
- ~~t~~: 1) Slab thickness 4.44" (ASTR 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
LABORATORY TESTING
APPENDIX C
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
File No. 20221.01
October 15, 1986
r
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
Moisture Content Determinations
Moisture content determinations were made in accordance with ASTM
method of test D2216.
Dry Unit Weisht
Dry unit weight (dry d ensity) testing of ring and “She samples was determined in accordance with conventional
ASTM 1587, and ASTM 2937. techniques and in conjunction with field method of tes labora t ASTM
be ltory 1556,
Particle Size Analysis !
Particle size analyses were performed inaccordance with ASTM
method of test D422. Mechanical sieve procedures were utilized.
Atterbers Limits
The liquid limit and the plastic limit were performed in
accordance with ASTM method of test D423 and D424.
Compaction Tests
were performed in accordance with ASTM method of test D1557-78A.
Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content determinations
r
File No. 20221.01
October 15, 1986
r Page C-2
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA COfWOfMTION
LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES continued - Expansive Soil Testinq
Two types of soil tests were performed.
1) Expansion tests were performed in accordance with Uniform
r Building Code 29-2 test procedures.
2) Expansion tests were performed on undisturbed "Shelby" tube samples in accordance with HUD criteria. The samples were air dried at 105 degrees F for about 48 hours and then the percent
distilled water (HUD). The samples were allowed to swell for
expansion was determined after the samples were submerged in
24 hours under varied vertical stress loads.
Consolidation Tests -
/- Condolidation test were performed on undisturbed "Shelby" tube
samples (ASTM 1587-83) in accordance with ASTM method of test
2435, except that time readings were not taken.
c
c
c
File .No. 20221.01 October 15, 1986
Page C-3
Field Lab Max Field
Drv Drv Relative Moisture Degree of SamDle
Location Density Density Compaction Content Saturation Type .,
(PCf) (PCf) (X) (X)
T-1 @ 1.5' T-1 @ 3.1'
T-1 @ 4.5' T-1 @ 5.5'
T-2 @ 1'
T-2 @ 3'
T-2 @ 2'
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 @ 3.5'
B-1 @ 2.5'
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
88.3 89.7
95.8 91.0
93.8
110.5
94.7 101 .o
94.1
97.1
99.4
94.1
102.9
114.5 136.0
136.0
114.5
114.5 114.5 114.5
114.5 114.5
;114.5
914.5
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
79
80
85.6
83
77 78
84 79
82
97
88 03
I
- -
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
39 34
48 58 61
93
93 39
92
82 a7
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
I
K = Knocker Bar (ASTM 2937-83)
T = Thin Walled "Shelby" Tube (ASTM 1587-83)
SC = Sand Cone (ASTM 1556-82)
I RI I I
I dl I I VI I
-. -
lnh
YI
,File No. 20221.01
October 15, 1986 - Page C-5
EXPANSION TESTS (U.B.C. 29-2)
Initial Initial
Location Type
Soil Density Content Dry Moisture Expansion Expansion Index Potential
(pcf 1 (%I
T-2 @ 2'-3' Fill T-2 @ 5'-5.5'
98.1 ,
Fill
14.2
97.5 12.3
78
111
Medium
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
4.
IHUD CRITERIA)
SWELL TESTS
INTACT "SHELBY" TUBE SAMPLES
(ASTM 1587-83)
Soil
Field Field
Dry
Pre-Test Final
Moisture Moisture Moisture Percent
Location Type Deniity Content Content Content Expansion
(pcf) ($1 ($1 ($1
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
Location
T-4 @ 3'-3.5' T-5 @ 2.5'-3.5' T-7 @ 6.5'-7.5'
B-1 @ 0.66'-3.0'
B-1 @ 2.5'-3.25'
c-1 @ l.O"l.5'
c-1 c 2.01-2.3'
C-2 @ 0.58"l.O' C-2 @ 2.27'-2.4'
C-3 @ 1.25'-1.67'
C-3 @ 2.08'-2.2'
c-4 @ l.O"l.4'
c-5 @ l.O"l.33' C-5 @ 1.58'-1.92'
C-5 @ 2.25'-2.4'
C-6 @ l.O"l.25'
C-7 @ 0.67"l.O'
C-7 @ 1.25'-1.62' C-7 @ 1.83'-2.2'
SUMMARY OF BULK SAMPLES
MOISTURE CONTENT
(ASTM D2216)
Moisture Content (%I
12.9
13.0
20.1
24.7
21.8
,2 5.5 :27.2 *
26.5
20.1
26.5
23.3
21.6
22.3
22.9
21.4
20.7
27.2
18.9 15.9
Soil Type
Fill: Sandy Clay
Fill: Sandy Clay
Natural: Sandy Clay
Topsoil: Silty Clay Fill: Sandy Clay
Fill: Sandy Clay
Fill: Sandy Clay
Natural: Siltstone
Fill: Sandy Clay
Fill: Sandy Clay Fill: Sandy Clay
Fill: Sandy Clay
Fill: Sandy Clay
Fill: Sandy Clay
Fill: Sandy Clay
Fill: Sandy Clay
Fill: Sandy Clay
Natural: Clayay Sand
Fill: Sandy Clay
L
Plasticity Chart
AlTERBERG LIMITS AND PLASTICITY CHART . Plate
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20221 OCT 1986 c-1
PERCENT PASSING 0 I! 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 'm -. n N I!
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 a Ir v n N I! 0 -
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION Plate
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20221 c-2 OCT 1986
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION Plate
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL F.N. 20221 OCT 1986 c-3
-
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
I I Plate
0.10
NORMAL PRESSURE (ksf)
1.00 10.00 I
Symbol/ No. I (Feet)
Exca. Depth Description
CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE Plat e
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL ' F.N. 20221 OCT 1986 c-5
\NlT\AL DRY DENSITY = 98.5
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT = E3.I %
CONSOLIDATION - PRESSURE CURVE Plate
AMERICAN GEOTECHNICAL ' C-6 OCT 1986 F.N. 2022 1
r
c
c
c
r
c
August 23, 1989
File No. 20623
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA COHI’OHATION
STANDARD GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX D
r
r
GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. GENERAL
6. DEFINITION OF TERMS
C. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES
0. SITE PREPARATION
E. SITE PROTECTION
F. EXCAVATIONS
-
-
F1. UNSUITABLE MATERIALS
F2. CUT SLOPES
F3. PAD AREAS
-
G. COMPACTED FILL -
G1. PLACEMENT
62. MOISTURE
63. FILL MATERIAL
64. FILL SLOPES
-
65. OFF-SITE FILL
H. DRAINAGE
I. STAKING
. ”
.-
5. SLOPE MAINTENANCE
51. LANDSCAPE PLANTS
52. IRRIGATION
53. MAINTENANCE
54. REPAIRS
K. TRENCH BACKFILL
L. STATUS OF GRADING
STANDARD DETAILS NOS. 1-9
*
.. 1
1-4
5
5-6
6-8
8
8
8-9
9
9
9-11
11-12
12-14
14-15
15-16
16
16-17
17
17
17
17-18
18
18
19
GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS
L
A. GENERAL
A1 The guidelines contained herein and the standard details attached
and other associated operations on construction projects. These hereto represent this firm's standard recommendations for grading
guidelines should be considered a portion of the project specifi-
. cations.
A2 All plates attached hereto shall be considered as part of these guidel i nes.
recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant and the approval of the Client or his authorized representative. Reconnnendations by the Geotechnical Consultant and/or Cl.ient shourd not be considered to preclude requirements for approval by the .control 1 ing agency
prior to the execution of any changes.
A3 The Contractor should not vary from these guidelines without prior
A4 These Standard Grading Guide1 ines and Standard Details 'may be
modified and/or superseded by recomnendations 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 gradi ng .
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.
85 BEDROCK - a more or less sol id, relatively undisturbed rock in place either at the surface or beneath superficial deposits of soil.
86 BENCH - a relatively level step and near vertical rise excavated into sloping ground on which fill is to be placed.
Page Two
B7
Ba
B9
BLO
Bll
B12
813
814
B15
816
B17
B18
819
BORROW (Import) - any fill material hauled to the project site from off-site areas.
BUTTRESS FILL - a fill mass, the configuration of which is designed by engineering calculations to stabilize. a slope exhibiting adverse
key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A buttress geologic features. A buttress is generally specified by minimum
normally contains a backdrainage system.
CIVIL ENGINEER - the Registered Civil Engineer or consulting 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 (a1 so see S1 ope Wash).
COMPACTION - is the densification of a fill by mechanical means.
CONTRACTOR - a person or company under contract or otherwise retained by the Client to perform demolition, grading and other site improvements.
DEBRIS - all products of clearing, grubbing, demolition, contami- nated soil material unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill and/or any other material so designated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST - a Geologist holding a valid certificate of registration in the specialty of Engineering Geology.
ENGINEERED FILL - a fill of which the Geotechnical Consultant or
enable him to conclude that the fill has been placed in substantial his representative, during grading, has made sufficient tests to
compliance with the recomnendations of the Geotechnical Consultant and the governing agency requirements.
EROSION - the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water and/or ice.
EXCAVATION - the mechanical removal of earth materials.
EXISTING GRADE - the ground surface configuration prior to grading.
€ page Three
820
82 1
822
623
824
825
826
827
828
FILL - any deposits of soil, rock, soil-rock blends or other
similar materials placed by man.
FINISH GRADE - the ground surface configuration at which time the
surface elevations conform to the approved plan.
GEOFABRIC - any engineering textile utilized in geotechnical applications including subgrade stabilization and filtering.
GEOLOGIST - a representative of the Geotechnical Consultant educated and trained in the field of geology.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT - the Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering .Geology consulting firm retained to provide technical servi.ces 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
Geotechnical Consultants.
those performed by persons employed by and responsible to the
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER - a licensed Civil Engineer who applies
experience to the acquisition, interpretation and use of knowledge scientific methods, engineering principles and professional
of materials of the earth's crust for the evaluation of engineering
problems. Geotechnical Engineering encompasses many of the engineering aspects of soil mechanics, rock mechanics, geology, geophysics, hydrology and related sciences.
GRADING - any operation consisting of excavation, fi'lling or
combinations thereof and associated operations.
LANDSLIDE DEBRIS - material, generally porous and of low density,
produced from instability of natural or man-made slopes.
MAXIMUM DENSITY - standard laboratory test for maximum dry unit weight. Unless otherwise specified, the maximum dry unit weight shall be determined in accordance with ASTM Method of Test D 1557-78.
829 OPTIMUM MOISTURE - test moisture content at .the maximum density.
830 RELATIVE COMPACTION - the degree of compaction (expressed as a percentage) of dry unit weight of a material as compared to the maximum dry unit weight of the material.
631 ROUGH GRADE - the ground surface configuration at which time .the surface elevations approximately conform to the approved plan.
Page Four
E32 SITE - the particular parcel of land where grading is being
833 SHEAR KEY - similar to buttress, however, it.is generally
perfoned.
constructed by excavating a slot within a natural slope in order to stabilize the upper portion of the slope without grading encroach-
ing into the lower portion of the slope.
834 SLOPE - is an inclined ground surface the steepness of which is generally specified as a ration of horizontal: vertical (e.g., 2:l).
835 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 Col 1 uvi um) .
E36
837
838
839
E40
E41
E42
E43
E44
SOIL - naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt, clay, etc. or combinations thereof.
mechanics (also see Geotechnical Engineer). SOIL ENGINEER - licensed Civil Engineer experienced in soil
STABILIZATION FILL - a fill mass, the configuration of which is
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 wid.th and depth and by maximum backcut angle.. A stabilization fill may or may not have a backdrainage system specified.
SUBDRAIN - generally a pipe and gravel or similar drainage system placed beneath a fill in the alignment of canyons or former drain- age channel s. . .
SLOUGH - loose, noncompacted fill material generated during grading 'operations.
TAILINGS - nonengineered fill which accumulates on or adjacent to equi vent 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.
r
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 recommendations to the Client or his authorized representative.
C2 The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the
bility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the project. He or his authorized representative.has the responsi-
Geotechnical Consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his' autho- rized representative should remain on-site or should remain.
decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make
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 control 1 ing 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.Client, prior to any site preparation or grading, should arrange and attend a meeting among the Grading Contractor, the Design Engineer, the Geotechnical Consultant, representatives of the appropriate' governing authorities as well as any other concerned parties. All parties should be given at least 48 hours notice.
D2 Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, roots of trees and
graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of a1 1 otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be
proposed excavation and fill areas.
03 Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.) and other man-made surface and subsurface improve- ments from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should
perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the include proper capping and/or rerouting pipelines at the proj.ect
Page Six
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 demol i ti on opera-
tions should be wasted from areas to be graded and disposed off-
performed under the observation of the Geotechnical Consultant. site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be
The C1 ient or Contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and/or after demol i tion, site preparation and removals, etc. The appro-
grading operations. priate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with
E. SITE PROTECTION
El Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the Contractor. Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until such.time as the entire project is complete as
identified by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Client .and the
regul ati ng agencies.
E2 The Contractor should be responsi ible for the stability of all
Consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g., backcuts) are temporary excavations. Recomnendations r by the Geotechnical
made in consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibil i-
Consultant should not be considered to preclude more restrictive ties of the Contractor. Recomnendations by the Geotechnical
requirements by the regulating agencies.
clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface
drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy
work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the
on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall.
E3 Precautions should be taken during the pqrformance of site
Page Seven
E4
E5
E6
E7
E8
-
E9
During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting should be kept reasonably accessible to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary during periods of rainfall, the
Contractor should install checkdams, desilting basins, rip-rap, sand bags or other devices or methods necessary to control erosion
and provide safe conditions.
During periods of rainfall , the Geotechnical Consultant should be kept informed by the Contractor as to the nature of remedial Or
preventative work being performed (e.g., pumping, placement of
sandbags or plastic sheeting, other labor, dozing, etC.1.
Geotechnical consultant and arrange a walkover of the site in order Following periods of rainfall, the Contractor should contact the
tant may also recomnend excavations and testing in order to aid in
to visually assess .rain related damage. The Geotechnical Consul-
his assessments. At the request of the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor shall make excavations in order to evaluate the
extent of rain related-damage.
limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural Rain-related damage should be considered to include, but may not be
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.
gullies exist to depths of greater than 1.0 foot, should be
Relatively level areas, where saturated soils and/or erosion
overexcpvated,to unaffected, competent material. Where less than 1 .O foot in depth, unsuitable materials may be processed in-place
recompacted in accordance with the applicable specifications. If
to achieve near-optimum moisture 'conditions, then thoroughly
be overexcavated, then replaced in accordance with the applicable the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials should
specifications.
to depths of greater than 1.0 foot, they should be overexcavated
In slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist
and repl aced as compacted fill in accordance with the appl icable
specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1 .O
foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by mol sture condi tionni ng i n-pl ace, fol 1 owed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein may be
attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be overexcavated and repl aced as compacted fill in
Page Eight
accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein. As fie1 d 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 recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be
limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and nonengi neered or otherwi se del eteri ous f i 11 materi a1 s .
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 Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:l (horizonta1:vertical).
F2.2 If excavations for cut slopes espose loose, cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, overexcavation and rep1 acement of the unsi.table materials with a compacted, stabil ization fill should be accomplished
as recommended by the Geotechnical consultant. Unless otherwise specified by the Geotechnical Consultant,
stabilization fill construction should conform to the requirements of the Standard Details.
F2.3 The Geotechnical Consultant should review cut slopes during excavation. The Geotechnical Consultant should be notified by the contractor prior to beginning slope excavations.
F2.4 If, during the course of grading, adverse or potentially adverse geotechnical conditions are encountered which were not anticipated in the preliminary report, the Geotechnical Consultant should explore, analyze and make recommendations to treat these problems.
Page Nine
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 tQ
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
cal conditions may require greater depth of overexcavation. at least a 3-foot thick compacted fill blanket. Geotechni-
The actual depth should be delineated by the Geotechnical
Consul tant during grading.
F3.2 For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive
drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and/or an
appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away 'from, the top-of-slopes of 2 percent or greater is recomnended..
6. 'COMPACTED FILL
A1 1 fill materials should be compacted as specified below or by other
methods specifically recomnended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Unless otherwise specified, the minimum degree of compaction (relative compac- tion) should be 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density.
61 PLACEMENT
61.1 Prior to placement of compacted fill, the Contractor should request a review by the Geotechnical Consultant of the exposed ground surface. Unless otherwise recommended, the
minimum), watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to exposed ground surface should then be scarified (six inches
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.
L
Page Ten
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 1 ike manner
until the desired finished grades are achieved.
G1.3 The Contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipnent and watering apparatus On the job site to hand1.e the amount of fill 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.
sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal :vertical 1, horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least six-foot wide benches and a minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the fin natural ground, fin bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area subsequent to keying and benching until the area has been reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Material
sufficiently away from the bench area to allow for the
placement of fill. Typical keying and benching details recomnended review of the horizontal bench prior to . .. ..
have been included within the accompanying Standard Details.
. consideration of moisture retention properties of the
61.4 When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas
' generated by the benching operation should be moved
61.5 Within a sing1 e fill area where grading procedures dictate
may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes)
slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as
be established within the firm core of adjacent approved above described. At least a 3-foot vertical bench should
compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill.
increments until the desired finished grades are achieved.. Benching should proceed in at least 3-fOot vertical
61.6 Fill should be tested for compliance with the recommended re1 ative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density
Page El even
G1.7
G1.8
G1.9
testing should confonn to ASTM Method of Test 01556-64, 02922-78 and/or 02937-71. Tests should be provided for
about every two vertical feet or 1,000 cubic yar.ds of fill placed. Actual test interval may vary as field conditions
dictate. Fill found not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or otherwise
handled as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Contractor should assist the Geotechnical Consultant
determinations and/or for testing compacted fill . and/or his representative by digging test pits for removal
As rectnnnended by the Geotechnical Consultant, the Contractor should "shut down" or rqove grading equipment
from an area being tested.
The Geotechnical Consultant should maintain a plan with
estimated locations of field tests. Unless the client
provides for actual surveying of test locations, the estimated locations by the Geotechnical Consultant should only be considered rough estimates and should not be utilized for the purpose of preparing cross sections
after-the-fact evaluating of the sequence of fill showing test locations or in any case for the purpose of
placement.
..
62 MOISTURE
62.1 For field testing purposes, "near optimum" moisture will
vary with material type and other factors including
be evaluated during grading. As a prel iminary guide1 ine recmended in Preliminary Investigation Reports and/or may
"near optimum" should be considered from one percent below to three percent above optimum.
previously compacted fill should be processed by scarifica-
an overnight or other grading delay, the exposed surface or
tion, watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended to near-optimum moisture conditions, then recompacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density.
Where wet or other dry or other unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot, the unsuitable materials should be overexcavated.
. .~ compaction procedure. "Near optimum" may be specifically
62.2 Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following
Page Twelve
62.3 Following a period of flooding, rainfall or ovematering by other means, no additional fill should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading perfomed as described under Section E6 herein.
63 FILL MATERIAL
~-
63.1 Excavated on-site materials which are acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant may be uti1 ized 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 1 east 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 smaller may be utilized within the compacted fill, provided they are placed in such manner that nesting of the rock is avoided. Fill should be placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the 3/4-inch sieve size. The 12-inch and 40 percent recomnendations herein may vary as field conditions dictate.
.
63.5 During the course of grading operations, rocks or similar irreducible materials greater than 12 inches maximum dimension (oversized material), may be generated. These rocks should not be placed within the compacted fill unless placed as recomnended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension 63.6 Where rocks or similar irreducible materials of greater
- 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-site. Rocks up to four feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper 10 feet of any
face. These reconendations could vary as locations of fill and should not be closer than 20 feet to any slope
should not be placed below areas where structures .or deep improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material
utilities 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 recommended by the
Consultant should. not be uti1 ized in the compacted fill,
63.9 During grading operations, placing and mixing the materials from the cut and/or borrow areas may result in soil mix- tures which possess unique physical properties. Testing may be required of samples obtained directly from the fill areas in order to verify conformance with the specifica-
or more working days. The contractor may elect to move the tions. Processing of these additional samples may take two
operation to other areas within the project, or may continue placing compacted fill pending laboratory and 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: 1 (Horizontal : vertical 1.
64.2 Except as specifically recmended 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
inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as
field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of the Geotechnical Consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted slope surface conai tion is achieved. Care should be taken by the Contractor to
provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbui 1 t slope .surface.
64.3 Although no construction procedure produces a slope free from risk of future movement, overfilling and cutting back
.constraints, the most desirable procedure. Other of slope to a compacted inner core is, given no other
constraints, however, must often be considered. These. constraints may include property 1 ine 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 alternative by conventional construction procedures
including backroll i ng techniques upon speci fic 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-established, where necessary, during the period between successive 1 i fts. Selected 1 ifts 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
Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ul timatelY establish desired grades. Grade during construction should
may be helpful to elevate slightly the outer edge of the not be a1 lowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It
lifts should not be allowed to drift down over previous slope. Slough resulting from the placement of individual
lifts. At intervals not exceeding four feet in vertical
whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly slope height or the capability of avail able equipment,
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
The use of a side-boom roller will probably be necessary again be moisture conditioned and thoroughly backrolled.
and vibratory methods are strongly recommended. Without delay, so as to avoid (if possible) further moisture conditioning, the slopes should then be grid-rol led 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.
in a recomnendation by the Geotechnical Consultant to overexcavate the slope surfaces followed by reconstruction
of the slopes Utilizing over-filling and cutting back procedures and/or further attempt at the conventional backrolling approach.' Other recomnendations may a1 so be provided which would 'be 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.
be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be
2 percent in soil areas. accomplished utilizing a benn and pad gradients of at least
.
64.5 For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should
65 OFF-SITE FILL
G5.1 Off-site fill should be treated in the same manner as
excavation, drains, compaction, etc. recomnended in these specifications for site preparation,
. Page Sixteen
65.2 Off-site canyon fill should be placed in preparation for future additional fill, as shown in the accompanying Standard Details.
65.3 Off-site fill subdrains temporarily terminated (up canyon) should be surveyed for future relocation and connection.
H. DRAINAGE
H1 Canyon subdrain systems specified by the Geotechnical Consultant should be installed in accordance with the Standard Details.
H2 Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilizations or sidehill masses, should be installed in
Details. accordance with the specifications of the accompanying Standard
and areas of structures to sui table disposal areas via non-erodibl e devices (i .e., gutters, downspouts; concrete swales).
H3 Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes
H4 For drainage over soil areas immediately away from structures, (i.e., within four feet) a minimum of 4 percent gradient should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent should be maintained over soil areas. Pad drainage may be reduced to at least 1 percent for projects where no slopes exist, either natural 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 (backrolled). If stakes must be placed prior to the completion of compaction procedures, it must be recognized that they will be removed and/or demo1 ished at such time as compaction procedures resume.
include overexcavations or slope stabilization, appropriate staking offsets should be provided. For finished slope and stabilization
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. - 5. MAINTENANCE
51 LANDSCAPE PLANTS
In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope pl anting shoul d consi st of deep-rooti ng vegetation requiring 1 i ttl e watering. Plants native to the southern California area. and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native
Landscape Architect would be the best party to consult regarding to other semi-arid and arid areas may.also be appropriate. A
actual types of plants and planting configuration.
52 IRRIGATION
52.1 Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces.
devices are utilized on irrigation systems, provisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during periods of rainfall.
52.2 Slope irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timing
52.3 Though not a requirement, consideration should be given to
. . control devices. Such devices can aid in the maintenance .. the installation of near-surface moisture monitoring
of relatively uniform and reasonably constant moisture conditions. . .. . .
32.4 Property owners should be made aware that overwatering of slopes is detrimental to slope stability.
53 MAINTENANCE
53.1 Periodic inspections of landscaped slope areas should be
weeds and enhance growth of the landscape plants. Some planned and appropriate measures should be taken to control
areas may require occasional replanting and/or reseeding.
53.2 Terrace drains and downdrains should be periodically
drainage improvements should be repaired immediately. inspected and maintained free of debris. Damage to
Page Eighteen
53.3 Property owners should be made aware that burrowing animals can be detrimental to slope stability. A preventative program should be established to control burrowing animals.
53.4 As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged' rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period of time prior to landscape planting.
54 REPAI'RS
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 slope failures occur as a result of exposure to periods of heavy rainfall, the failure area and currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against additional saturation.
54.3 In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are illustrated for superficial slope failures (i.e., occuring typically within the outer one foot to
three feet of a slope face).
K. TRENCH BACKFILL
K1 Utility trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recomnended, the degree of compaction should be a minimum of 90 percent of the
. " 1 aboratory maximum density .
K2 . &s an alternative, granular material (sand equivalent greater than 30) may be thoroughly jetted in-place. Jetting should only be considered to apply to trenches no greater than two feet in width
backfill should be thoroughly mechanically compacted and/or and four feet in depth. Following jetting operations, trench
wheel roll ed from the surface.
K3 Backfill of exterior and interior trenches extending below a 1:l projection from the outer edge of fundations should be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum 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
means. If on-site materials are utilized, they should be
wheel-roll ed, tamped or otherwise compacted to a fi nn 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, cl ose proximity to a buried conduit, the
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.
, Contractor may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical
K6 In cases where clean granular materials are proposed fop 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
with at 1 east two working days notice in advance of comnencement .of a grading operation, the Geotechnical Consultant should be provided
addi.tiona1 grading operations.
...
Dozer Trench : Geofabric AJternaWe
Backhoe Trench // Geofabric Alternative
.. " -.
FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE .: i ." . ". ~
STABILIZATION FILL
BUTTRESS FILL
STANDARD DETAIL NO. 3" . .. .
. BUTTRESS BACKDRAIN SYSTEM
I
Geofrabic Alternative
&&brm : &bnIrnM
-’ .FUTURE CANYON FILL
.. .... ...... .. -~
I_ . ......
View Along Canyon ”- /+@&d /ufurcbruds? -
.......... .... - ...
... ...... - - - ... .~.
STANDARD DETAIL NO.. 5 “
.. TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION "_ . . . .. "_ __ ." .
. ..
Cut-Fill Lot ''. /
Windrow Section
STANDARD DETAIL NO. 7 1
STANDARD DETAIL N0.8
IS NQT APPLICABLE
. .,".._.-. ... . ..
Q 2
0 3
5
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
March 26, 1990 File No. 20623.02
Mr. Gary Robinson
HOYCO CONSTRUCTION
2050 Hancock Street San Diego, California 92110
Subject: REVIEW OF REPAIR FOUNDATIONS Building 1941 Final Casitas de la Costa Condominiums Carlsbad, California
Reference: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION/REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS Casitas de la Costa Condominiums
Estrella de Mar Court Carlsbad, California Dated August 23, 1989
Dear Mr. Robinson:
At the request of the Casitas de la Costa Homeowners, we have provided geotechnical consulting services in the form of obsehation of embedment conditions for the repair foundation at Building 1941, Casitas de la Costa Development.
The epair footing on the eastern side of Building 1941 has been excavated and the placement of steel reinforcement has begun. Our office reviewed the repair excavation and found
geotechnical consultant and the geotechnical report.
it to be in general accordance with the intentions of the
The excavation for the continuous footing exposed dense sandstone/claystone bedrock in all areas. The foundation embedment, therefore, will be into competent bearing material for the entire length of the east repair footing at Building
t-
1941.
25202 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 101, Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 539-9983 FAX (213) 539-7267
5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 104, San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 457-2711 FAX (619) 457-0814
1250 North Lakeview Avenue, Suite T, Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 970-0255 FAX (714) 970-0142
File No. 20623.02
March 26, 1990
Page 2
American Geotechnical
A CALJFORNIA CORPORATION
Care should be taken to keep the excavation free of debris
during the placement of reinforcing steel and prior to the
placement of concrete. Our review does not preclude review
by others, such as the structural engineer or City inspectors.
Should you have any questions regarding geotechnical conditions at the site, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Respectfully submitted,
c R.C.E. 44011
cc: Maureen Jonas, la cos .ta David Chavez, CASA Construction
American Geotechnical
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
March 21, 1990 File No. 20623.02
Mr. Gary Robinson
HOYCO CONSTRUCTION 2050 Hancock Street San Diego, California 92110
Subject : REVIEW OF REPAIR FOUNDATIONS Buildina 1941 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 1941, Casitas de la Costa Development.
The repair footing on the eastern side of Building 1941 has been excavated. Our office reviewed this side of the repair excavation and found it to be in general accordance with the intentions of the geotechnical consultant and the geotechnical report.
The excavation for the continuous footing exposed dense sandstone/claystone bedrock in all areas. The foundation embedment, therefore, will be into competent bearing material for the entire length of the east repair footing at Building 1941.
be undertaken in the form of trench widening. We recommend It is our understanding that some additional excavation will
that the excavation be reviewed again prior to steel and concrete placement.
25202 Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 101, Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 539-9983 FAX (213) 539-7267
5755 Oberlin Drive, Suite 104, San Diego, CA 92121 (619) 457-2711 FAX (619) 4574814
1250 North Lakeview Avenue, Suite T. Anaheim, CA 92807 (714) 970-0255 FAX (714) 970-0142
American Geotechnical
A CALSFORNlA CORPORATION
March 21, 1990
File No. 20623.02
Page 2
Care should be taken to keep the excavation free of debris prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. Our review does not preclude review by others, such as the structural engineer or city inspectors.
Should you have any questions regardina aeotechnical conditions, please-do not hesitate to .-
Respectfully submitted,
contact this office. d/
cc: Maureen Jonas, Casitas de la Costa
David Chavez, CASA Construction
United States Testing Company, Inc.
Englneerlng 111 Support Services . - . . -"
3467 Kuru Street, San Diego. CA 92110 (619) 225-9641 ZC" ' .- - , .. - - .. ."I, , . ,,,
-1
Job No:
Job Name: CASITAS BE LA COST4
lob Iddrmss: 1919-1941 ALGA ROAD
9561 00
CARLSDAB
CA
HDYCO CONSTRUCTION 2050 HANCOCX ST.
SAW BIEGO cn 92110
CITV OF CAPLSBhD UNITED STATES TESTIWS. HDYCO CDYSTRUCTIOY
Di5trib.t.d To:
n9ine.r: RENDINX, DAVID
rrmit t 87-1279
It4 4/13/90
CONCREIS XNICECTIOW REPORT NRllXT 089-l2?9
01/02/90 - Perforwed ulsnaL Inspection of r.inforcims -t*.L and obs.rv.d ?he rlac...nt of 116 csbic vrrds of
concreto at continuous footings of building #1941 mits A through F.
Fabricated tu0 set¶ of folr. ConCr*ts tmst cylinders 1s follorr:
Smt cl sa8pI.d at unit F. .lamp 4 1/2*.
Sat B SamP1.d at unit D. sllmv S 112'.
Hit $88-091 Mar-Con Products, 3000 ~8i.
Mort mas rwrform.d in bccord&nc. with th. vL&n.
Arrivad 10:45, 4epart.d 6:55.
Senmary of Activity """"""""_"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Service ("""""" R*,O,TC. """""") nrt. Task Abbrrviat*d DmsCriPtion Cod. Nrme/Description Units
"""" ""_ """"""""""""""" ""- """"""""""""""" """
4/02/90 03228 REGISTERED ItkSPECTOR/CONCRETE 0006s SU1)H. SAYED 9.00
United States Testing Company, Inc.
Engineering & Support Services
3467 Kurtz Street, San Diego. CA 92110 (619) 225-9641
Job Name: CffiITffi DE LR CUSTR Job Nwber: $89561 @8
CARLSBRD 1919-1941 RLW RORD
CA
28% HANWM ST. WCO WNSTRUCTION
CR 92118 SRN DIEeO CITY DF CAkSBRD UNITED STATES TESTING, HOYW CWTliKTION
Engineer: RENDINI, DRVID Pemit C 87-1279
Report No: 66517 Date: 5/W98 Tested To RSTN C-39
Numb. Test PCF Test %sign Pour Desigdlon Inch by Mixer Day SetMark F Nrbr. Me Rir - " - ===== -e== "-=E ="-e- ===== -e= -zz -=r- "-- "c _E_ -E 5-
~ .. ~~~ ~ P.D. t Concrete Canpression Test
28 Da Cyl. age@ Un Wt Stren th PSI Date of Mix Design Slump lbde in of Cy1 This Temp Load Plant
Ti* Tine
3@88 4/82/98 88-891 5.5 68865 2:48 4 699 Lofation in Structure: FOOTINGS SRMPLED @ UNIT D BUILDING 1941
4589 28 4588 7 237s 3636
4591 68 4598 2e! Discarded. 3668
Cmpliam:28 DRY TEST U)IIPLIES UlTH SPECIFICATIONS
Page No: 1
\
United States Testing Company, Inc.
Engineering & Support Services
3467 Kurt2 Street. San Diego. CA 92110 (619) 225-9641
r
Job Nwber: 889561 88 Job Naae: WITtlS DE LR COSTA 1919-1941 NGR RMlD CARLSBRD CR
HOYCO CONSTRUCTION
SRN UIEGO 2858 HPNllCK ST.
CA 92118
CITY OF CARLSBRD UNITED STATES TESTING, HOYCU WNSTRETION
Permit # 87-1279 Engipeer: RMDINI, DGVID
Re rt No: 66741 P.O. a
Dag: Concrete Compression Test 5/89/98 Tested To RSTM C-3
Cyl. Rge@ Un Wt Stren 28 th Da5 PS Date of lnix,Design Slump lnade in of Cy1 This Te#p Load Numb. Test PCF Test Besign Pour Deslgnatlon Inch by Hixer Day SetlWark F Nnbr.
Time Tim
""_ "" "" """ "" ""_ "" "- "-" ""_ "" ""_ ""_ " "" "" "_ " "" "" ""
3w 4/@/98 8&@1 4.58 Ma l2:35 4 Loocation in Structure: FWTINGS, SRMPLED @ WIT F BLDG. 1941 1
4585 28 4584 7 2688
4586 28 4488
4587 68 Discarded. 4688
Conpliance:28 DRY TEST COWLIES WITH SPECIFICRTIONS.
Page No: 1
Plant Cale
99
_"" "_ " "_ Rir