The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2301 ALTISMA WAY; RET WALL; CB900330; PermitBUILDING PERMIT 04/25/90 14:12 Page 1 of 1 Job Address: 2301 ALTISMA WY Permit Type: RETAINING WALL Parcel No: Valuation: 108,000 Construction Type: NEW Occupancy~Group: Class Code: Description: 9000 SF LA COSTA VALLEY TERR Str : RETAINING WALL Project No: A9000417 Permit No: CB900330 F1: Ste : Development No: 5024 04/25/90 0001 01 02 C-PRMT 676 a $(Q ctf*m3 Status: ISSUED Apr/Issue : 04/25/90 Applied : 02/23/90 Validated By: DC CONTRACTOR : 619 436-8700 OWNER : UNITED PRO 714 250-7010 x** Fees R & Credits *** """""""""- """""""-" Fees : Adjustments: .oo Total Fees: 434.00 676.00 Fee description Ext fee Data """"""""" Building Permit Plan Check 434.00 Strong Motion Fee 8.00 * BUILDING TOTAL 1110.00 ""~"""""" 668.00 I ANAL APPROVAL I [IN*. DATE J+\ CWANCE crpl OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Dr., CarIsbad CA 92009 (619) 4381161 .. PERMIT 'APPLICATION ' ,, .. City of Carlsbad Building Department 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlrbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-1161 1. PERMIT TYPE I A . UCMERCiAL UYEU UTEWAN1 iMPRWEUEY1 2. PROJrCT INFORMATION PLAN CHECK NO. FOR OFFICF US ONLY lddrers p 01 Altiema Way, Carlsbad c Building OF Suite YO. SlGYlrUE 8. OWNER-,BUILBER DECLA DAlE R4TION OmelrBullder Declaratim: 1 her& affirm fhaf I m exnpf frm the Cmfrs~for'~ License Law for the follaring reason: CITY OF CARLSBAD INSPECTION REQUEST PERMIT# CB900330 FOR 09/26/90 DESCRIPTION: 9000 SF LA COSTA VALLEY TERR TYPE: RETAIN APPLICANT: FALLON DEVELOPMENT, INC. JOB ADDRESS: 2301 ALTISMA WY PHONE : OWNER : UNITED PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT PHONE: RETAINING WALL CONTRACTOR: FALLON DEVELOPMENT PHONE : INSPECTOR AREA TP OCC GRP PLANCK# CB900330 CONSTR. TYPE NEW STR: FL: STE : 619 436-8700 619 436-8700 714 25 - REXARKS: Tl/MH/431-9075 SPECIAL INSTRUCT: INSPECTOR + TOTAL TIME: --RELATED PERMITS-- PERMIT# TYPE CB900999 -Do STATUS ISSUED CD LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS ***** INSPECTION HISTORY ***** DATE DESCRIPTION 092090 Footing 091990 Footing 091090 Footing 083190 Footing 083090 Footing 081790 Grout 081490 Footing 081390 Steel/Bond Beam 071390 Grout 072090 Grout 071290 Grout 070690 Grout 070390 Footing 062990 Footing 062290 Footing 062890 Grout 062290 Steel/Bond Beam 062090 Footing 061890 Ftg/Foundation/Piers 060490 Grout 053090 Footing 052990 Steel/Bond Beam 052990 Ftg/Foundation/Piers 052590 Footing 052290 Grout 052190 Footing 052190 Grout 051790 Footing 051790 Grout ACT AP NR AP AP AP NR AP NR AP AP AP NR AP AP PA AP AP CA CA AP AP NR AP NR AP NR AP NR NR INSP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP PD TP TP TP TP TP TP TP WM TP WDM WDM WDM TP TP COMMENTS RET WALL G WALL BLDG 9 FND BLX WALL BLDG 9 FND WALL BLDG B FND WALL BLDG B 2ND LIFT WALL G & E 1ST LIFT WALL "F" 1ST LIFT OK WALL "E" WALL B C D WALL B,C,D 3250PSI REQ BLDG 5&6, TOP LIFT BLDG 5-6 FIRST LIFT TOP LIFT BLDG 1,2,3 May 15, I990 Mr. James Levindofske Project Manager Fallon Development, Inc. 2235 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 21 5 Encinitas, CA 92024 LA COSTA VALLEY TERRACE CONDOMINIUMS, CARLSBAD Dear Mr. Levindofske: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your correspondence of May 9. 1990. After having staff review your request, your request has been approved to use . non-metallic sheathed cable (1 2-2awg/l4-2awg for lighting) for use in the above referenced project. If you have any furVler questions regarding the above, please contact Tony Mata, Principal Building Inspector, at 4381 161. Sincerely, n L!Fbk!? TIN ORENY Community Developmeit Director M0:bjn 2075 Las Palmar, Drive-Carlsbad. California 920094659-(819) 436-1 161 PRI JOB NO. 4574 REPORT # 2 "RRN CALIFORNIA MIL AND TIETINO, I-. see0 RIVERDALE STREET. R 0. BOX 20627 BAN OIEQO. CALIFORNIA 8~n~ [me) -321 878 ENTERPRISE STREET. ESCONOIW. CALIFORNIA 92025 [SlE] 7484B44 LODRESS: Villa at La Costa 8912051 I 3 I 07-09-90 IPLAN FILE NO. BLW. PERMIT NO. 2301 Altisma Way CB90-330 ARC:iITECT: 'YPE INSPECTION: Reinforced Concrete Reinforcing steel R3" A615 Gd 60 Concrete. 3250 mi AATERIAL INBPECTEO: ENGIIJEER: Humaker and Associates CONTRACTOR: Fallen Develomnt 05-30-90 ?;y# Tirne Arrived: 1130 Tim Departed: 1400 Inspected reinforcing steel in msmq wdl foothqs. Provided -cated one set of three test cylinder and took one slunp test, inspection for the placement at 19 cubic yards of concrete. result was 4-3/4". All wrk inspected appeared acceptable per plans and specifications. OISTRIBUTION: (3) Professional Registered Inspectors, Inc. (1) City of San Diq . ESGIL CORPORATION 9320 CHESATEAKE DR., SUITE 208 SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (619) 5601468 PLAN CHECK NO: 46 - 330 SET: PROJECT ADDRESS: a-l P/hirm.. LU, FILE COPY DESIGNER The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficien- cies identified checked by building department staff. - are resolved and The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies and resubmitted for a complete recheck. identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to return to the"1icant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: FaJLoM velop,eurre&T @ plan check has been completed. 0 Esgil staff advise applicant that the plan check has Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: Telephone # 0 REMARKS: By: &he$ kmt= Enclosures: ESGIL CORPORATION DGA OAA Ovw ODM ESGIL CORPORATION 9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208 SAN DIEGO, CA 92 123 (619) 56014438 0 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 check list transmitted herewith is for your informatioh. The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. jurisdiction to return to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the. The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Jlm Le/ 1 haL6fsh plan check has been completed. Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that 0 Esgil staff did advise applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: Telephone # $I. REMARKS : "k5e are 4%e/ C-*W& ld kc? - 5.-+ to des *n . csreA& 13 4 Pceuate - a"L ShPe.T By:' rniChse/) k -t? Enclosures: ESGIL CORPORATZON .- i -I r JURISDICTION: Grk Dote Y- 9- 90 PROJECT &RES: z3&/ AOl-fisrU~, bU - . .. .. 10: Leu.0 d&ke -3r ~-i~~%~ alud fb7Uallt~ . c4 a=+ PLAN CORRECTION SHEET 76- 3330 Planr Check No. . . -. ". . . . . FOREWORD: PLEASE READ Plan check is limited to technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code., Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform kchanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the handicapped. The plan check is based on regulations enforced by tha Building Inspection Department. You may hava other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. 1 The items circled below need clarification, modification or change. All circled items have 9 .to be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with.tha cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 303 (c), of the Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. A. 9 Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new sets of orints. - 99- C&q,~& a- *&x$ Son Dr;pg*). cLT 3 To faCilitate"rc~hccklng, pIesse Identify, next to each circled item, the ahcet of the plans upon which each correction on check aheet with tho revised plans. this ahcet has been made and return this @ The follwing items have not been resolved from previous plan reviews. The Original correction number has been me if You have any questions regarding given for your reference. Please contact these items. - ~. "" i . . , Date planp reeelved by plan checker +- 9 Date plan check cDnpleted B~ mt&J ,t=,t, -3 . .. . ~~ A . " ESGIL CORPORATION 9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208 SAN DIEGO, CA 92 123 (619) 5601468 0 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 checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. jurisdiction to return to the applicant contact person. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the are resolved and 0 identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected 03 a The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: TI&? hulnd&skF? ,. 7 2. 3r;- Eb4Cl,jit+-c; AIuJ &-VT\ EP~C CA ci ZUZY w Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that plan check has been completed. 0 Esgil staff - did advise applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: Telephone # 0 REMARKS: By : OfGheJ kt=& Enclosures: ESGIL CORPORATION ... I &itp of QCarInrbab JURI~ICTION: G~S& Date 4 - 4- 70 PROJECT ADORES: 2.301 RI~~sM~ k, TO: rlh I PU,n&&kp J 7 2 3 T F- -~nr;tr R/ud. eLfT .. 17" . rA ,=h?KSzY PLAN CORRECTION SHEET Plan? Check No. c8 %-330 Date plans received by the jurisdiction Date plans received by plan checker 7-26 Date i ittal plan check completed 4" BY h&d 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 regulations enforced by the Building Inspection Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. modification or change. All circled items have The items circled below need clarification, to be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 305 (c), of the Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. A. pLANs @ Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new sets of prints, baen returned to you by the jurisdiction, and any original plan sets that may have to: E-ij 6.w. /e 4320 Ch-k & *a 5abL Q'&CJO, CA 9- 0 To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each circled item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on check aheet with the revised plans. this aheat has been made end return this t I I L I I . . , ,. , " . ESGIL CORPORATION 0320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208 SAN DIEGO. CA 02123 (619) 560-1468 DATE: 3 - -7. 90 JURISDICTION: Gk-Js bad PLAN CHECK NO: so- 330 SET: 1 OUPS PROJECT ADDRESS : 2-01 h-/t/;q~q PROJECT NAME: &'&$* & keb -tBrr*ce &? f.d=lk ODESIGNER Lu, 1 J 0 necessary and substantially comply with the .jurisdiction's The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply 0 with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficien- cies identified are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the 0 identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected Ea 0 jurisdiction to return to the applicant contact person. @ The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: & IlOH ~~~dopm en f- hc. gplan check has been completed. Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that Esgil staff did advise applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Date contacted: Telephone # - ~. ' 0 REMARKS: Enclosures: ESGIL CORPORATION ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ contained in the Uniform Building Cod., Uniform I& CDPC < Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws resulatina enemy r ~ .I uL+, Pein r,>-,n CT ST*”/ . ccucrpJ7cp - - conservation, noise attenuation and access for -. I SOLI l-eo&Ii-ewlen K ecr.~ I the handicapped. The plan check is based on regulations enforced by the Building Inspection Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by 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 (c), of the Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the ‘dation of any state, county or city law. A- - PLANS @ Please make all correctiono on the original tracings and aubmit two new sets of prints, and any original pian seta that may have been returned to you by the jurisdiction, to: Esqil mA-0 c kP& a2m ’ next to each clr:lcd Item, the ahcct of TO racilitatc rcche:king. plenac Identify, the Pima upon which each correctlon on check sheet with the reuiocd plana. this Sheet haa been mode and return thla The in9 item8 have not been these items. - ~ d Date plan? receIvcd by plan checker %-2> Dab -7 plan BY Ihrch+ml - .. Date1 5-7-90 Jurisdiction CLirk hid Prepared by: 0 Bldg. Dept. Kw-k VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE 0 Esgil PLAN CHECK NO. 40- 730 BUILDING ADDRESS 2101 &I fi-7 In- hu APPLICANT/CONTACT ~LL, L, PHONE NO. q.6- 87- BUILDING OCCUPANCY MZ DESIGNER PHONE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION - CONTRACTOR PHONE BUILDING PORTION VALUE VALUATION BUILDING AREA MULTIPLIER R*.t Ldl 1053 ca3. R, 00 ?Le7 , .. Res. or Corn. To tal Value Building Permit Fee S z 667. Plan Check Fee S s 433.57 t ENGINEERING CHECKLIST BUILDING PLANCHECK DATE: y//z/m ITEM COMPLETE PLANCHECK NO. 96 - 330 0 ITEM INCOMPLETE - NEEDS YOUR ACTION 1 2 3 2301 /9LP*,4 LCw SNR TOO C C C PROJECT ID: 4 Gum Gusy7~ Bawt W-. HHH E E E LEGAL REOUIREMENTS kL /, Site Plan, LITEM SELECTED 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: north arrow, property 1 ines, easements, existing and proposed way width and dimensioned setbacks. structures, streets, existing street improvements, right-of- E60 2. Show on site plan: Finish floor elevations, pad elevations, elevations of finish grade adjacent to building, existing topographical lines, existing and proposed slopes, driveway with percent (%) grade and drainage patterns. 3. Provide legal description and Assessors Parcel Number. Di scretionarv ADDroval Comol iance I 4. No Discretionary approvals were required. 5. Project complies with all Engineering Conditions of Approval for Project No. C7S-28 - 6. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of Approval for Project No. Conditions complied with by: Field Review Date: 7. Field review completed. No issues raised. 8. Field Review completed. The following issues or discrepancies with the site plan were found: - A. Site lacks adequate public improvements. 8. Existing drainage improvements not shown or in conflict with site plan. C. Site is served by overhead power 1 ines. D. Grading is required to access site, create pad or provide for ultimate street improvement. FRM0010.DH 08/29/89 E. Site access visibility problems exist. Provide onsite turnaround or engineered solution to problem. F. Other: Dedication Reouirementp x 9. No dedtcation required. 10. Dedication required. Please have a registered Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor prepare the appropriate legal description together with an 84" x 11" plat map and submit with a title must be approved and signed by owner(s) prior to issuance of report and the required processing fee. All easement documents Building Permit. The description of the dedication is as fol 1 ows : Dedication completed, Date: By : JmDrovement Reauirementp 211. No public improvements required. SPECIAL NOTE: Damaaed or defective imDrovements found adjacent to buildino site must be reoaired to the satisfaction of the Citv inspector orior to OccuDancY. '12. Pub1 ic improvements required. construction of public improvements pursuant to Section 18.40 This project requires of the City Code. Please have a registered Civil Engineer prepare appropriate improvement plans and submit. for separate plancheck process through the Engineering Department. posted and fees paid prior to issuance of permit. The required Improvement plans must be approved, appropriate securities improvements are: Improvement plans signed, Date: By : i ! FRM0010.DH 08/29/89 FRMOOlO. DH 13. Improvements are required. Construction of the public improvements may be deferred in accordance with Section 18.40 of the City Code. Please submit a letter requesting deferral of the required improvements together with a recent title report on the property and the appropriate processing fee so we may prepare the necessary Future Improvement Agreement. The Future Improvement Agreement must be signed, notarized and approved by the City prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Future Improvement Agreement completed, Date By : Gradina Reauirm 13a. Inadequate information available on site plan to make a determination on grading requirements. Please provide more detailed proposed and existing elevations and contours. Include accurate estimates of the grading quantities (cut, fill, import, export). -14. No grading required as determined by the information provided on the site plan. x15. Grading Permit required. A separate grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer must be submitted for separate pE2&m plan check and approval through the Engineering Department. NOTE: The Gradino Permit must be issued and sradinq substantiallv comolete and found acceotable to the Citv Insoector arior to issuance of Buildina Permits. Pfi-17 ~ssu@ ~AJ i/7/fO JWW& ~-4.413 A&/U~W&@/u&"& Grading Inspector sign off. Date: By : Mi scel 1 aneous Permits A16. Right-of-way Permit not required. - 17. Right-of-way Permit required. A separate Right-of-way Permit issued by the Engineering Department is required for the following: "18. Sewer Permit is not required. - 19. Sewer Permit is required. A Sewer Permit is required concurrent with Building Permit issuance. The fee required is noted below in the fees section. "20. Industrial Waste Permit is not required. 08/29/89 - 21. Industrial Waste Permit is required. Applicant must complete Industrial Waste Permit Applicantion Form and submit for City approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. Permits must be issued prior to occupancy. Industrial Waste Permit accepted - Date: By : keLkmiM 4332. Park-in-Lieu Fee Quadrant:= Fee per Unit: - Total Fee:” &23. Traffic Impact Fee Fee Per Unit: - Total Fewo& Total Fee: mr& w4. Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee Fee per Unit: - a25. Public Facilities Fee required. &26. Facilities Management Fee Zone: b Fee: +&27. Sewer Fees Permit No. EDU’s ,&@ + Fee: rc- &2a. Sewer Lateral required: Ah&’ Fee: - - REMARKS: @iWddG WAUS A& L?? 7 6 /dc&e Gt%x?&. ENGINEERING AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE PERMIT -6 Date: FRM0010.DH PLANNING CHECKLIST P1 anner / (Name) Type of Project and Use . Zone Faci 1 ius Management Zone h lenenp a Item Complete @ Item Incomplete - Needs your action 1, 2, 3 Number in Circle indicates plancheck number that deficiency was identified Environmental Review Required: YES - NO - TYPE DATE OF COMPLETION: Compl'iance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval Discretionary ktion Rquired: YES - NO - TYPE APPROVALIRESO. NO. DATE : OTHER RELATED CASES: PROJECT NO. - Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval Coastal : YES - NO - DATE OF APPROVAL: Compliance with Conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which Conditions of Approval require action. 00 0 Landscape Plan Required: YES NO - See attached submittal requirements for '1 andscape plans Sits Plan: 1. 2. ,017 0 3. '00 0 4. 030 a 1. . Zoning: 00 0 no 0 00 0 2. 3. 4. Provide a fully dimensioned Site plan drawn to scale. show North arrow, property lines, easements, existing and propose, structures, streets, existing street improvements. right-of-wa, width and dimensioned setbacks. grade adjacent to building, existing topographical lines, existim Show on Site Plan: Finish floor elevations, elevations of finis1 and proposed slopes and driveway. Provide legal description Of property. Provide assessor's parcel number. A' Setbacks: Front: Required Shown Int. Side: Street Side: Required Requi red Shown Shown Rear : Required Shown Lot coverage: Required Shown . . Height: Required Shown - Parking: Spaces Required Shown Guest Spaces Required Shown - Addftional cmnts and reaarlrr have been made on the bullding plans. These marked-up plans uy be picked up at the Building Departmint. These aarked- up plans must be iesuhitted with the revisad plans for this project. Have plans been marked up? YES NO - 00 0 Additional Comnts I ! GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE SOIL INVESTIGATION AND FOR LOTS 240 AND 241, LA COSTA VALLN, UNIT 5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA i FOR M.C.&D. CAPITOL CORPORATION c/o RICK ENGINEERING Sm Marcos, California I GEOCON. INCORPORATED San Diego, California January, 1985 INDOSIORATmD Geotechnical En ineers and Engineering GeoyogisW May 5, 1989 File No. D-3370-TO2 Chapparal Estates Corporation 3511 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 500 San Dlego, California 92108 Attention: Mr. Jon Cloud Sub j ect : LOTS 240 AND 241, LA COSTA VALLEY, UNIT 5 LA COSTA VWEY TERRACE ' ALTISMA AND CARINGA WAY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SOILS INVESTIGATION UPDATE LETTER Gentlement: Plan & Erosion Control Plan for La Costa Valley Terrace" prepared by Hay In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the undated "Grading Engineering and Surveying, Incorporated and the report entitled "Soil Investigation and Geologic Reconnaissance for Lot Nos. 240 and 241, La Costa Valley, Unit 5" prepared by Geocon'Incorporated, dated January 11, 1985. In addition to the review of the above, the site was visited by a geologist from our firm on May 4, 1989 to observe the present surface site conditions. The purpose of the review was to determine if the conclusions and recommendations of our original report were still applicable to the development of the site as presently proposed. have not changed significantly since the date of our report. It is Based upon our observations of the property, the conditions at the site further our opinion that the plans have been prepared in substantial conformance with the geotechnical recommendations of our report. The maximum height and the steepness of the proposed slopes have been reduced and therefore, additional slope stability analysis is not warranted. It is, however, recommended that the reinforcement of the proposed footings be changed from "one No. 5 bar top and bottom" to two No. 4 bars top and welded wire mesh" to No. 3 bars spaced at 18 inches on center in both two No. 4 bars bottom and the slab reinforcement be changed from "6x6-6/6 directions. If there are any questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, RCE 20427 ef rter Project Geologist "mQv4 JW: TVL: lmp 619 M&BBM) FAX 019 5588159 ' GEOCON I N c 0 R p 0 R A T E D ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS CONSULTANTS IN THE APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 M.C.6D. Capitol Corporation c/o Rick Engineering 365 South Rancho Santa Fe Road San Marcos, California 92069 Attention: Mr. Barry Bender Subject: LOTS 240 AND 241, LA COSTA VALLEY, UNIT 5 ALTISMA WAY AND CARINGA WAY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SOIL INVESTIGATION AND GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have performed a soil investigation and geologic reconnaissance for the subject site. The accompanying report presents the findings of our study and our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site development. Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the site can be developed as proposed, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. If you have any questions or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, GEOCON, INCORPORATED i I . Hart I RCE 20427 CEG 706 I JW:"H:lm (5) addressee (1) John Ash A.I.A. Associates I I 9530 DOWDY DRIVE SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92126 PHONE (619) e SS8- &'?OS TABLE OF CONTENTS I Page SOIL INVESTIGATION AND GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE Purpose and Scope. ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Site and Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Soil and Geologic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fill........................... 2 Topsoil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Delmar Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Groundwater......................... 3 Faulting and Seismicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Landsliding......................... 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Potential Geologic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Grading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Groundwater......................... 8 Subdrains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Soil and Excavation Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Slope Stability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Foundations......................... 9 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Lateral Loading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Retaining Walls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 SiteDrainage........................ 12 Grading Plan Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFOPAITY OF CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 1, Site Plan Figure 2, Slope Design Chart APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A-1 - A-8, Logs of Test Borings A??SX’DIX B LABORATORY TESTING Table I, Moisture-Density and Direct Shear Test Results Table 11, Compaction Test Results Table 111, Expansion Index Test Results Figures B-1 - B-5, Consolidation Curves APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS n ' ' File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 SOIL INVESTIGATION AND GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE Purpose and Scope This report presents the results of our soil investigat ion. and gea llog [iC reconnaissance for a proposed 40-unit condominium development. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the surface and subsurface soil and geologic conditions encountered and to provide recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed site development. The scope of the investigation consisted of a site geologic reconnaissance, reviewing previous reports and aerial photographs (1953) and excavating seven large-diameter borings. Samples representative of the soils encountered were obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing. A more detailed description of the procedures and findings of the field and laboratory investigation is presented in Appendices A and B, respectively. The conclusions and recommendations which follow are based on an analysis of the data obtained and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. As part of our study. we have xeviewed the following reports and plans: a ' ."Sire Inspection and Recommendations for Construction on Expansive Soils, Lots 240 and 241 of La Costa Valley, Unit No. 5, Carlsbad, California," prepared by Benton Engineering, Incorporated and dated January 15. 1981. 0 "Land Use Study Plat" prepared by Rick Engineering Company and data November 14, 1984. -1- GEOCON ~NEOIPOIATLD I ., ‘I File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 Site and Project Description The site is irregularly-shaped, roughly resembling a triangle and is bounded by Altisma Way, Caringa Way and an existing residential development in the La Costa area of Carlsbad, California (see Site Plan, Figure 1). Elevations range from a low of approximately 100 feet MSL at the southern end of the property to a high of approximately 160 feet MSL at the northern end of the property. Existing 1.5:1 cut and fill slopes up to 45 feet in height border the site which was previously graded as two relatively level pads. Sparse vegetation consisting of native grasses and chaparral cover .portions of the property. Available plans indicate that the site will be graded to form building pads for construction of 40 condominium units. We anticipate that the units will be one- or two-story wood-frame and stucco construction over one and two levels of parking. Excavations on the order of 25 feet and fills on the order of 15 feet are proposed. Soil and Geologfc Conditiops Three general soil types and/or geologic units were encountered diring the invzrtigation. These included, in order of increasing age, fill. topsoil and formational soils of the Eocene Delmar Formation. Each of the soil types is discussed below. I I - Fill. The majority of the site is covered by existing fill which was placed under the purview of Benton Engineering, Incorporated during 1970. -2- , ! .. 'I File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 i i The fills consist predominantly of sandy clays and clayey sands, which are very moist and moderately stiff to dense. Varying amounts of silty material and rock and gravel fragments occur within the fill. The maximum depth of the fill encountered during the investigation was 17 feet occurring in Boring 1. Topsoil. A zone of topsoil was encountered in Borings 1, 2, 5 and 7 underlying the existing fill. The topsoil encountered was 2 to 5 feet in thickness and ranged from a sandy clay to a silty sand. Generally, the topsoil was dark brown, slightly moist, moderately dense and maloderous. . The topsoil zone tends to be subject to soil creep. Underlying the topsoil was a zone of very weathered material of the Delmar Formation. Delmar Formation. On-site formational soils are of the Eocene-age Delmar Formation and consist of dense, moist, pale yellow-green, silty claystones and sandstones when into the unweathered portion. The Delmar material encountered was typically moderately to highly expansive. Groundwater No groundwater was encountered during the investigation and we do not expect groundwater to presenc a significant geologic hazard eo the proposed deveiopment. Seepage was encountered in Boring 5 at a depth of approxi- mately 49 feet. Random seeps are common in the Delmar Formation and cut slopes and the bottoms of overexcavations should he observed by a geologist during grading. -3- GEDCON ', , . 'I File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 I I' t i I i Faulting and Seismicitv No active faults are known to exist at the site or in the immediate vicinity, and none were encountered during the course of the investigation. The nearest active faults are the Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults, which lie approximately 25 and 49 miles, respectively, to the northeast (Map No. 1, CDMG). An offshore trace of the potentially active Rose Canyon Fault lies approximately 6 miles to the southwest. It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake along either of the above-mentioned faults. However, seismic risk at this site is not considered to be significantly greater than that of the surrounding area in general. Landsliding No evidence of landslides was observed during the field investigation or noted in the review of previous reports or aerial photos. Partial regrading of the existing slopes is proposed and they should be observed during grading by a geologist. I' -4- GEDCON INCO~PO~ATOD ' File No. D-3370-TOl January 11, 1985 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General 1. No soil or geologic conditions were encountered which would preclude the development of the site as presently proposed provided the recommendations of this report are followed. 2. The presence of moderately to highly expansive soils and areas underlain by topsoil prone to soil creep will require special consideration during site development. 3. It is recommended that the existing fill and topsoils 6e removed and recompacted to mitigate the potential for soil creep which typically occurs within the zone of topsoil. Potential Geologic Hazards 4. No faults or indications of faults were observed on the site during the field investigation. However, the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking In .the event of a major earthquake along any of the active faults in the Southern California area. It is our opinion that :he seismic -risk at the site is not significantly different than that of the surrounding area or tlia Carlsbad area in general. 5. The dense formational soils and the compacted fill soils have a very low liquefaction potential. That, combined with the absence of a permanent -5- GEOCON ,. 2' . 'I File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 groundwater tabla within the site, renders the potential for liquefaction extremely low. ! 6. No landslides or topographic features suggestlvr of ancient landslides or slope instability were noted on the site. It is our opinion that the potential for landsliding is low and should not be a constraint to site development. Grading 7. All grading should be performed in accordance with the "Recommended Grading Specifications" presented in Appendix C. Where the recommendations of this portion of the report conflict with those of Appendix C, this section of the report takes precedence. 8. Site preparation should begin with the removal of all vegetation and other deleterious debris from areas to be graded. Such materials should be exported from the site. Material to be used in fills should be free of organic material. 9. All existing fill and topsoil should be removed and recompacted in areas which will support structures or settleaent sensitive improvements. Bemovals shouid extend a minimulr. af 5 ieet beyond the structure or a distance equal to the depth of the recompacted fill below finish grade, whichever is greater. -6- ,' b. 'I File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11. 1985 I I i ! 10. Structures founded partially on cut and partially on fill are not recommended due to the increased potential for differential settlement. The cut portion of cut-fill building pads should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet below finished grade and replaced with properly compacted fill material. 11. Where removal and recompaction is not practical, a pier and grade beam foundation system should be considered. Recommendations for this type of foundation can be provided when more specific grading and floor plans are available. 12. The bottom of overexcavated areas and all other natural ground to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of approximately 12 inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and recompacted. Fill should then be placed and compacted until final elevations are reached. All fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density, as determined by ASTEI Test Procedure D1557-70. 13. As discussed earlier, the site is overlain by moderately to highly expansive fill and topsoil. In addition, much of the formational material underlying the surficial deposits is likewise expansive. For this reason, special grading and/or foundation recommendations will be necessary. Tt is I I recommended that, where possible, and more expansive materials should be I placed in deeper fills such that the least expansive materials are present -7- I. ' File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 i within 3 feet of finish grade. In addition, cut areas where expansive soils are exposed at finish grade, should be undercut to a depth of 3 feet and replaced with material possessing low expansive potential. Rased on the results of the exploratory excavations, it is unlikely that a sufficient quantity of material possessing low expansive potential is available on- site to "cap" a significant amount of the proposed building areas. Hence, special. foundation recommendations for expansive soil conditions are presented hereinafter. Groundwater -14. No groundwater table was encountered during the field investigation. Seepage was observed in Boring 1 and cut excavations should be observed by a geologist during grading to provide recommendations for mitigation of seepage if present at that time. Subdrains 15. No subdrains are anticipated for the project, however;if seepage or other conditions requiring drains are encountered during grading, recorn3enda:ions can then be made. Soil and Excavacicn Characteris= 16. The soils on the sire vary from low ta high expansive. The materials I i required for capping of building pads to provide a very low to low I I' expansive condition at finished grade will have to be "mined" selected zones of the formational soils or imported. -8- GEOCON I. '' File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 17. In our opinion, the existing fill soils, topsoils and formational soils can be excavated with light to moderate effort with conventional I i heavy-duty grading equipment. 1 I Slope Stability ! 18. The stability of the existing slopes on and adjacent to the property I was analyzed utilizing the Slope Design Chart presented on Figure 2 and the findings of the field and laboratory investigation. The results of the I analysis indicate that 1.5:l cut and fill slopes will possess a factor of safety of at least 1.5 if limited to a maximum height of 90 feet and 26 feet, respectively. The maximum slope condition affecting the site occurs near the southerly property corner where a 45-foot-high, 1.5:l fill over cut slope exists. The fill portion, as disclosed by Boring 1 and field mapping of the exposed slope, is approximately 20 feet high. Proposed site grading for the parking structures will reduce portions of the fill slope height by from 6 to 22 feet. It is, therefore, our opinion that the existing slopes including the combination cut/fill slope possess a factor of safety If st leest 1.5 under present, as well as future loading and ! geometry conditions. j Foundations I 19. The following foundation recommendations assume that highly expansive I soils will be present within the upper 3 feet of finish 'pad grade. The I actual expansion condition and corresponding foundation requirements would I be presented in the final compaction report. 1 -9- GEOCON INCORPOIA~KD 'L ', File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 i i soils as a means of reducing the occurrence of stress-related cracking in 20. It is recommended that consideration be given to using a post- tensioned slab and foundation system in areas underlain by highly expansive I I foundations and floor slabs. ! 21. If it is desired to utilize conventional continuous strip footings and concrete floor slabs, such footings should be at least 12 inches wide and should extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. We i recommend minimum foundation reinforcement to consist of two continuous No. 5 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, one near the top and one near the bottom. This recommendation is based on soil characteristics only and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary for structural considerations. j 22. The allowable bearing capacity for foundations designed as recommended above is 3,000 psf for dead plus live loads. This value may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 23. If conventional foundations and concrete slabs-on-grade are used, the slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and should be underlain by 4 inches of clean concrete sand. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, and a visqueen moisture barrier should be provided and at least 2 inches of the sand blanket should overlie the visqueen to allow for proper concrete curing. i i -1 0- GEOCON INCOI?OIATED - : .I i I ! i ! i I .. File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 24. Slab reinforcement should consist of 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh placed within the upper one-third of the slab. It has been our experience that the mesh must be physically pulled up into the slab after the placement of concrete in order to provide proper positioning of the mesh. As an alternative to the wire mesh, No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on-center in both directions should be considered. Lateral Loading 25. Lateral loads may be resisted by a passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weight of 300 pcf for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular soils or undisturbed formational soils. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance. 26. If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, a coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.35 is recommended. 27. Footings should not be located closer than 7 feet from the top of fill slopes. Footings that mcst be located in this zome, should be extended in depth until the outer bottom edge of .the footing is at least 7 feet horizonts!.ly Crom the face of the slope. Retaining Walls 28. It is recommended that retaining walls be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to a fluid weight of 35 pcf. This value assumes that -1 1- GEOCON 'I " 1 File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 t ! ! ! the walls are unrestrained from movement at the top, have a drained granular backfill and a level backfill surface. For walls with backfill surfaces inclined at no steeper than 2.0 to 1.0, an active pressure of 42 pcf is recommended. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, such as basement walls, a uniform horizontal pressure of 7H psf (where H is the height of the wall in feet) should be applied in addition to the active pressures recommended above. 29. All retaining walls should be provided with a backfill drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces. Site Drainage 30. Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The lots and building pads should be properly finish graded after buildings and other improvements are in place such that surface drainage is directed away from foundations, floor slabs and the top of slopes to controlled drainage structures. 31. Present plcns call for severel walls and portions of structures to be placed below grade. These areas should .be carefully waterproofed and evaluated for placement of drains when detailed plans are available. 32. Our experience indicates that ev'en with these provisions, a groundwater condition can and may develop as a result of increased irrigation, -1 2- I. . s. ., ' File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 I landscaping and upslope 'surface runoff, particularly in residential developments. Grading Plan Review 33. The soil engineer and engineering geologist should review the grading plans prior to finalizing. Additional engineering analysis, commerits or recommendations may be necessary. . -13- File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 ! LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that planned at the present time, Geocon, Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recom- mendations can be given. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations.in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with, the passage'of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. -14- .. File No. D-3370-TO1 Januarv 11. 1985 .L . 10 135 so 125 _..' .I15 05 IO :.I20 Td LEGEND &.-A.PPROX. LOCATION OF TEST BORING 0 .____.... PROPOSED STRUCTURE Qcf _______ COMPACTED FILL Td.-------DEL MAR FORMATION @ ___._-___ APPROX. DEPTH OF FILL -0 " 100' < SCALE SITE PLAN LOTS 240 AND 241, LA COSTA VALLEY. UNIT 5 CARLSBAD. CALIFORVIA Figure 1 GEOCON INCOIPOIATKD ! j i I i i ! ! i . f i I I I 1 I b.. January 11, 1985 File No. D-3370-TO1 cniidrl Figure 2 GEOCON APPENDIX A : ! .I File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was performed on January 3 and 4, 1985 and consisted of the excavation of seven large-diameter borings to a maximum depth of 53 feet. The approximate iocations of our exploratory excavations are shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 1. The exploratory borings were drilled utilizing an ED-70 bucket auger drill rig equipped 'with 30-inch-diameter bucket. As drilling proceeded, relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 3-inch O.D. split-tube sampler into the undisturbed soil mass with blows from the Kelly bar falling 12 inches. Disturbed bulk samples of representative soil types were also obtained and returned to our laboratory. GEOCON INCOIIOIATID ,. ' File No'. D-3370-TO1 'I . . January 11, 1985 BORIXG 1 ELEVATION DATE DRILLED EOUIPMENT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Loose, very moist, tan to yellow-brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAh3 t " "- Moderately dense, very moist, tan to yellow- brown, Sandy CLAY/Silty CLAY - Moderately dense, very moist, dark brown, Silty CWS .-- t 3 " becomes mixed with gray-brown, Sandy CLAY and maloderous with minor gravel and rock fragments f. TOPSOIL Moderately dense, moist, dark brown. Sandy CLAY with minor gravel and rock fragments \ F -"- DEXXR FGPXITIGN Moderately dense, moist, gray-brown. Silty. fine to coarse SAID with gravel. very weathered " Dense. moist, pale yellow-green. Silty I LLAYSTONE/Clayey SILTSTONE 3uLK .09. .07. Lll. BUL!: - 118. WLl 18.3 20.0 10.7 MPL - - 8.7 ANPl 10.5 Figure A-1, Log of Test Boring 1 Continued next pace .. . File No. D-3370-TO1 . ’4 Janaurv 11. 1985 BORING 1 CONTINUED gu . &E :LEVATIO-DATE DRILLED :OUIPMENT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Dense, slightly moist, pale yellow-green. Clayey SILTSTONE, friable t 2s ~~ Dense, slightly moist, tan to gray-brown. Sandy SILTSTONE, friable - - Dense, moist, tan to gray-brown, Silty SAXDSTOIIE, fine- to medium-grained and coarser with depth __ Contact x-S 85J with seepage .. .I File No. 0-3 I. January 11. )-TO1 BORING 2 %3 ELEVATIO-DATE DRILLED qq; gw EQUIPMENT WEE n CgL $E= MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL I ~- Loose, very noist. pale yellow-green, Silty CLAY ,rModerately loose, very moist, red-brown, "" Sandy CLAY Moderately dense, very --- moist, pale yellow j3 to brown, slightly Sandy, Clayey SILT with occasional pebbles - Medium dense, moist, brown, Clayey SAXD with abundant gypsum crystals. very weathered "" Dense, slightly moist. pale yellow-green, Clayey SILTSTONE Break in log L - - TOPSOIL CLAY. maloderous - Moderately dense, moist, dark brown, Sandy 4 - DEL?= FOR"L4TION -6 - . - - .- 5 - - - - - 20 - - - 251 BORING TERNINATED AT 36.0 FEET 9" .09 BL'I .16 - - .11 16, 16.8 - 17.0 ;XPI 2G.C 15 .O 11.8 - Figure A-3, Log of Test Boring 2 SAMPLE,SYMEOLS 0 - SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL m-ST*NOARO PENETRATION TEST - DRIVE SAMPLEIUNOISTURBED) ~-OISTUREEDORs*GSAMPLE 0-CHUNNSAMPLE - WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE THELOGOFSUBSURFICECON~~T~ONSSHOWN~EREONAPPLIESONLVA~TYESPECIFICBOR~NGORTRENCULOCAT~ONAN~ ATT~EDATEINDICATEOITISNOTWARRAN~EOTOBEREPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONO~T~ONSA~OTHERLOUTIONSAND~ME~ GEOCON IHCORPORATID 37( 191 BORING 3 ELEVATIONDATE DRILLED EOUIPMENT ~~~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL Loose, very moist, brown to dark brown, Sandy CLAY and Clayey, fine to medium SAND - - DELMAR FORXATION Dense, moist, pale yellow-green, Sandy SILTSTONE. friable 12 BORING TER\lINATED AT 11.0 FEET I I BORISG 4 FILL Loose, very moist, tan to dark brown, Silty, - fine to medium SAIiD - \ DELX4R FOICiATIOS ' Dense, moist, tan, Silty, fine to coarse . SANDSTOE - - - - - BORING TERIIINATED AT 10.0 FEET - - - S6. - - 11 .! Figure A-4, Log of Test Borings 3 and 4 SAMPLE SYMBOLS -SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ~-STANOARO PENETRATION TEST - DRWE SAMPLE IUNDISTLIRBEOI - DISIU~BEDORBAGSAMPLE W-CHUNX SAMPLE - WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTETMELOGOFSUBSURFACECOND~T~ONSSHOWNYEREONAPPLIESONLVA~THESPECIFICBOR~NOORTRENCMLOCATION~ND ATl~EOATElNDlCAlEDlTlSNOTWARR~NrEOlOBEREPRESENlAlIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDlTlONSAlOTHERLOUllONSA~~TlM~~ GEOCON INCORPOlATLD I : File No. D-3370-TO1 . . " .lanuarv 11. 1985 i i ! i I I i ; I i : I I BORING 5 ILEVATION DATE DRILLED w-0 iOUlPMENT $?d na MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I FILL Loose, moist to very moist, yellow-brown, Clayey, fine to medium SASD and dark brown. Sandy CLAY with occasional rock fragments becomes moderately dense __ becomes orange-brown, I3 I, 4 . - TOPSOIL Moderately dense, dry to slightly moist, dark brown, Clayey Silty, fine to medium -4 SAXD, maloderous - - . DECM .FORYATIO:: Moderately dense, moist, gray-brown, Sandy CLAY .- 8 - """" " Slightly moist, tan to bray-brown. Silty, fine to cosrse SAXDSTONE - - """" Moderately dense, moist. pale yellow-green, 13 Clayey SAK'STOIIE - - r Dense, slightly moist, yellow-brown, Sandy ""- - SILTSTONE, massive - Figure A-5, Log of Test Boring 5 Continl I next page SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0- SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL m-STANOARD PENETRATSON TEST -DRIVE SAMPLEIUNOISTURBEO hll-OISTU.BEDORBIGSAMPLE m-CHUNKSAMPLE ' r - WATER lA0LE OR SEEPAGE 1 *. File No. 0-3370-TO1 15 v)- BORING 5 CONTINUED :zL =w . 2; wzo 0- oY EOUIPMENT $$ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION v) 2:: ELEVATIONDATE DRILLED z5g 25 I BORING TEFXINATED AT 39.5 FEET (Stopped drilling due to very dense SILTSTONE) Figure A-6, Log of Test 3oring 5 Continued - . SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0-SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL m-STANDARD PENETRATION TEST - DRM SILlPLElUNMSURBEO) B- ~~~~~REEDoR~G~~~PLE R-cnuw sawL~ - WAlER TABLE OR SEEPAGE I ATTHEDATEINOCAIED ITlSNOTWIRRINlEDlOBEREPRESENTAllVEOFSUsSUR~ACEC~N~ITIONSAlOTHERLOCATlONSANDTlHES NOTE THELOOOFSUBSURFACECOND~~~ONSSWOWN~EREONAPPL~ESONLYAT~IIESPEC~F~CBOR~NGOR~RENCULOCATIONAND GEOCON File No; D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 iLEVATI0-DATE DRILLED iOUlPMENT MATERIAL DE$CRlPTlON FILL Moderately loose, moist to very moist. brown to orange-brown, Sandy CLAY - - . I. I 3 " DELMAR FDRMATION - Dense. slightly moist, yellow-brown to tan, Silty, fine to medium SANDSTOSE. massive . - I 131 - 9" . . . BORING TER!!IPlATED AT 15 .O FSET - Figure A-7, Log of Test Boring 6 I I SAMPLESYMBOLS 0 7 YMPLING UNIUCCEISPUL fl-STANDARD PENETRATION TEST - DRM SAMPLE IUNDISTURBEB ~-OISTUR~EDORBAGSAYPLE o-CWUNISAMPLE 5 - WAlLR lABLE 011 SEEPAGE 1 ' NOTE TWELOGOISUBSURFACECONDlTlONSSWOWNWEREONAPPLIESONLVATTHESPECIFICIK)11INGORT11ENCULOCATIONAND 1 A~T~EDATEINO~CI~EO.AISNOTWA~RANIEDTOBEREPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURIACECONDITIONSA~OT~~RLOCAIIONSANDTIMES ! GEOCON IWCOIPOIATLD File No. D-3370-TO1 Janua 11. 1985 BORING 7 iLEVAT1O-DATE DRILL€- LOUIPMENT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL Loose, very moist. brown to orange-brown. Sandy CLAY and Clayey, fine to medium SAND with occasional rock fragments TOPSOIL Moderately dense. damp. dark brown, Silty. fine to medium SAND L- DELMAR FORI'ATION - Dense, slightly moist, yellow to gray-brown, silty, fine to medium SIU;DSTONE BORIXG TERMINATED AT 19.0 FEET Figure A-8. Log of Test Boring 7 - '3 -!r € cn zli !$ a 0 10.6 Tr - 5.4 - i APPENDIX B I 1 I ! File No. D-3370-TOl January 11. 1985 'i i .I ; 1; -3 i -G APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected relatively undisturbed samples were tested for their in-place dry density and moisture content. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of selected bulk samples were determined in accordance with AS'IU Test Procedure D1557-70, A. Portions of the bulk samples were then remolded to selected densities and subjected to direct shear tests and expansion tests. Consolidation tests were performed on selected samples of existing fill to determine their compressibility characteristics. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in tabular form herein- after. The in-place density and moisture characteristics are also presented n the logs of 'test borings. I' .. Pile No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 I i TABLE I Summary of In-Place Moisture-Density and Direct Shear Test Results Sample No. 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-6 1-8 1-9 1-11 2-1 1-12 2-3 2-4 2-6 2-7 2-8 3- 1 3-2 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-5 5-6 5-7 6-1 6-2 7-1 7-2 *1-1 *1-10 Depth ft. - 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 5 10 20 15 25 35 5 10 5 10 15 20 25 3c 5 1LJ 2 7 4 31’ DW pcf Density 109.4 107.1 111.3 125.3 118.4 114.4 117.7 109.0 98.5 116.4 111.3 116.5 120.5 118.9 116.0 104.4 106.9 117.7 120.1 111.9 1!E.8 124.0 11’3.5 110.6 121.3 109.4 103.2 103.9 Mof sture Content x 18.3 20.0 10.7 8.7 10.5 15.8 23.3 14.8 16.8 12.2 17.0 20.0 15.0 11.8 11.5 19.0 13.2 18.1 7.2 12.2 15.9 12.6 7.8 12.0 16.4 Angle of Unit Cohesion Shear Resistance usf Demees 260 40G 600 38 28 36 11.0 12.3 220 17.0 220 25 28 *Sample remolded to approximately 90 percent of maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content. .. 5 File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 TABLE I1 Summary of Laboratory Compaction Test Results ASTM D1557-70 ! Sample Maximum Dry Density Optimum No. Description pcf X Dry We. Moisture 1-1 Tan to yellow-brown, Clayey 121.5 fine to medium SAND 12.2 1-7 Gray-brown, Silty, fine to 124.8 coarse SAND 10.7 1-10 Yellow-green, Clayey SILT 115.1 15.4 TABLE I11 Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results Sample No. 1-1 5-1 Mof.sture Content Before After Test Test Dry x z Density Expansion FHA 9LL . . Index _- Sweil .X 12.0 23.8 102.5 32 19.0 25.9 104.4 8.2 GEOCON INCOIIOIAT~D '.File No'. D-3370-TO1 January 11. 1985 CONSOLIDATION CURVE \ APPLIED PRESSURE (in KIPS /ft*' 1 Figure B-1 ’. File No. D-3370-TO1 Januatv 11. 1985 CONSOLIDATION CURVE Figure B-2 CONSOLIDATION CURVE SAMPLE 0.1 File No. D-3370-T01' 'Januarv 11, 1985 - 9 Figure B-4 GEOCON INCOMPOMATCD APPLIED PRESSURE (in KIPS Iff* . .. ! I I I I i i i ! I i i 1 .i i I ! -I I. I- I" I . File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11. 1985 CONSOLIDATION CURVE SAMPLE N91 B 1-4 APPLIED PRESSURE (in KIPS 111' 1 Figure B-3. GEOCON INCOII?OIIATZD File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 CONSOLIDATION CURVE \ SAMPLE Ne: B I-A APPLIED PRESSURE (in KIPS /ft* 1 Figure B-5 ~~ '. . APPENDIX C .. .." .. .. .% File No. D-3370-TO1 January 11, 1985 RECOHHENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. General 1.1 1.2 1.3 2. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 These specifications have been prepared for grading of'lots 240 and in Carlsbad, California. They shall be used only in conjunction with 241, La Costa Valley, Unit 5 located at Altisma Way and Caringa Way Geocon, Incorporated. the soil report for the project dated January 11, 1985 prepared by The contractor shall be responsible for placing. spreading, watering, and compacting the fill in strict conformance with these specifica- tions. All excavation and fill placement should be done under the observation of the Geocon, Incorporated. Geocon, Incorporated should be consulted if the contractor or owner wishes to deviate from these specifications. The grading ahould consist of clearing, grubbing,.and removing from the site all material the Soil Engineer designates as "unsuitable"; materials; and all other work necessary to conform with the lines, preparing areas to be filled; properly placing and compacting fill grades, and slopes shown on the approved plans. Preparation of Areas to be Graded , All trees and shrubs not to be used for lsndscaping, structures, weeds, and rubbish should be removed from the site prior to commencing any excavating or filling operations. All buried structures (such as tanks, leach lines, and pipes) not designated to remain on the site should .be removed. and the resulting depressions should be properly backfilled and .compacted prior to any grading or filling operations. All water wells should be treated in accordance with the requirements of the San Dlego County Health Department. Thr? owner shall verify the requirements. All vegetation and soil designated as "unsuitable" by the Soil Engineer should be removed under his observation. The exposed surface until the surface is free from ruts, hummocks, or other uneven should then be plowed or scarified to a depth of st least 12 inches features that would prevent uniform compaction by the equipment used. .. GEOCON ,HCOI?OI*T.D .. 2.5 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical, or where recommended by the Soil Engi- neer, the bank should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. NOTES FIN I SHED SLCPE SUCH WT SLCUGHING OR SLIDING WES NOT CCCJR 1 .. I NOTE REC?XRuENDiD 31 SOIL ENGINEER (NOTE I1 (1) "B" should be 2 feet wider than the com- and should be a min- paction equipment, imum of 10 feet wide. (2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or slopewash and at least 3 feet into dense formational ma- 2.6 3. 3.1 3.2 .. 3.3 3.4 terials. After the areas have been plowed or scarified, the surface should be disced or bladed until they are free from large clods; brought to the specified in Section 4 of these specifications. proper moisture content by adding water or aerating; and compacted as Materials Suitable for Use in Conpacted Fill Material that is perishable, spongy, contains organic matter, or is otherwise unsuitable should not be used in compacted fill. Material used for compacted fill should consist of at least 40 percent fines smaller than 3/4-inch diameter. The Soil Engineer should decide what materials, either imported to conpacted fills: the Soil Engineer shauld approve any import material the site or excavated from on-site cut areas, are suitable for use in before it Is delivered to the site. During grading, the &tractor may encounter soil types other than tho?e .analyzed for the soil investigation. The Soil Engineer shculd be consulted to evaluate the suitrbility of such soils. Any material containing rocks or hard lumps greater than 6 inches in diameter should be placed in accordance with Section 6 of these specifications. The Soil Engineer should perform laboratory tests on representative samples of material to be used in compacted fill. Such tests should of the samples. The tests should be performed in accordance with be perforned to evaluate the maximum dry density and moisture content Materials (ASTM). accepted test methods of the American Society of Testing and GEOCON 4. 4.1 I I 4.3 i 4.4 4.5 i ! i i i 1 I' I I 4.6 4.7 5. 5.1 5.2 Placing, Spreading, and Compacting Fill Material Unless otherwise specified, fill material should be compacted while at a moisture content near the optimum moisture content and to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent as determined by accepted ASTM test methods. Fill materials should be placed in layers that, when compacted, have a relative Compaction in conformance with the project specificatfons. Each layer should be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to provide uniformity of materials in each layer. When the moisture content of the fill material is less than that recommended by the Soil Engineer, water should be added until the 'moisture content is as reconmended. When the moisture content of the fill material is more than that recommended by the Soil Engineer, the fill material should be aerated by blading, mixing, or other methods until the moisture content is as recommended. After each layer is placed, nixed, and spread evenly, it should be thoroughly compacted to the recommended minimum relative compaction. The fill should be compacted by sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pheumatic-tired rollers, or other types of compacting rollers that sre capable of compacting the fill at the recommended noisture content. Each layer should be rolled continuously over its entire area until the recommended minimum relative compaction is achieved throughout the fill. The fill operation should be continued in layers, as specified above, until the fill has been brought to the finished slopes and grades shown on the approved plans. Fill slopes should be compacted by sheepsfoot rollers, by track- walking with a dozer, or by other suitable equipment. Conpaction operations should continue until the slopes are properly compacted least 90 percent at a horizontal distance of 2 feet from the slope (that is, in-place density tests indicate a relative compaction of ac face). Observation of Grading Operati2 The Soil Engineer should make field observations and perform field and laboratory tests during the filling and compaction operations, so that he can express his opinion whether or not the grading has been performed in substantial compliance with project recommendations. The Soil Engineer should perform in-place density tests in accordance with accepted ASTM test methods; such density tests should be made in the conpacted materials below the disturbed surface. When results of tests taken within any layer indicate a relative compaction helorr that recommended, that layer or portion thereof should be reworked until the recommended relative compaction is obtained. GEOCON INCOI?OIATCD 6. 6.1 ! 6.4 7. 7.1 E Oversize Rock Placement "Oversize" rock is defined as material that is greater than 6 inches and less than 4 feet in maximum dimension. Material over 4 feet in maximum dimension should not be used in fills; such material should be exported from the site, broken into acceptably sized pieces, used for landscaping purposes, or placed in areas designated by the Soil Engineer and/or approved by appropriate governing agencies. The Soil Engineer should continuously observe the placement of over- size rock. Oversize rock should be placed in lifts not exceeding the maximum dimension of the rock, and should be placed in a manner that will not result in "nesting" of the rocks. Voids between rocks should be completely filled with properly compacted (minimum relative com- paction of 90 percent), fine granular material. within 10 feet of street subgrade, or within 2 feet of the bottom of Oversize rock should not be placed within 5 feet of finish pad grade, the proposed utility lines, whichever is deeper. Protection of Work During construction, the. contractor should grade the site to provide positive drainage away from structures and to prevent water from age adjacent properties or finished work on the site. Positive ponding adjacent to structures. Water should not be allowed to dan- drainage should be maintained by the contractor until permanent drainage and erosion control facilities are installed in accordance with project plans. No additional grading shall be done, except under the observation of the Soil Engineer. I I GEOCON IYCOIPOIATID GEOCON INCORPORATED Geotechnicai En ineers and Engineering Geoyogists May 5, 1989 File No. D-3370-TO2 Chapparal Estates Corporation 3511 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 500 San Diego, California 92108 Attention: Mr. Jon Cloud . Subject : LOTS 240 AND 241, LA COSTA VALLEY, UNIT 9 LA COSTA VALLEY TERRACE ALTISMA AND CARINGA WAY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SOILS INVESTIGATION UPDATE LETTER Gentlement: Plan & Erosion Control Plan for La Costa Valley Terrace" prepared by Hay In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the undated 'Grading Engineering and Surveying, Incorporated and the report entitled "Soil ' Investigation and Geologic Reconnaissance for Lot Nos. 240 and 241. La Costa Valley, Unit 5" prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated January 11, 1985. In addition to the review of the above, the site was visited by a conditions. The purpose of the review was to determine if the conclusions geologist from our firm on May 4, 1989 to observe the present surface site and recommendations of our original report were still applicable to the development of the site as presently proposed. Based upon our observations of the property, the conditions at the site have not changed significantly since the date of our report. It is further our opinion that the plans have been prepared in substantial conformance with the geotechnical recommendations of our report. The maximum height and the steepness of the proposed slopes have been reduced and therefore, additional slope stability analysis is not warranted. It be changed from "one No. 5 bar top and bottom" to two No. 4 bars top and is, however, recommended that the reinforcement of the proposed footings welded wire mesh" to No. 3 bars spaced at 18 inches on center in both two No. 4 bars bottom and the slab reinforcement be changed from "6x6-6/6 directions. If there are any questions regarding this letter, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, RCE 20427 JW:TVL:lmp FAX 619 558-6159 Project Geologist