HomeMy WebLinkAbout2528 LUCIERNAGA ST; ; CB941304; Permitted & Credits
S, ---------------------
.00
47.00
73.00
Ext fee Data
72.00
47.00
1.00
120.00
C)4'-3 q 41~-
BUILDING PERMIT
11/14/94 10:53
Page 1 of 1
Job Address: 2528 LUCIERNAGA ST Suite
Permit Type: RETAINING WALL
Parcel No: 215-250-24-01 Lot#:
Valuation: 4,320
Construction Type: NEW
Occupancy Group: Ref erence#:
Description: 320 SF CRIB WALL
Appl/Ownr : EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
1529 GRAND AVENUEB"
SAN MARCOS, CA 92069-
Permit No: CB941304
Project No: A9401896
Development No:
9542 11/14/94 0001 01 02
C-PRMT 73.00
Status: ISSUED
Applied: 10/14/94
Apr/Issue: 11/14/94
Entered By: DC
619 47116351
-
** * Fees Required -* * --- -utAr/ Fees: 12JLOO ) 'Q J(( (
Adjustments: / .00 Totedit
Total Fees: /2 Oo Tot Payrnez
I Balane
Fee -----
-
ts
-
Building Permit
Plan Check
Strong Motion Fee
* BUILDING TOTAL It -
EXPOIED PE
PERMIT HASEXPIRED IN ACORD
SECTION 03 / a- /
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-1161
T
U.B.0
Cowh
PERMiT APPUCATION
City of Carlsbad Building Department
2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (619) 438-1161
I. PERMIT TYPE
From List I (see back) give code of Permit-Type:
---------------------------------------------------------
For Residential Projects Only: From List 2 (see back) give
Code of Structure-Type:
PLAN CHECK NO. /4319 V
ESTVAL 52
PLAN CK DEPOSIT
VAUD. BY
DATE - 1
9128 10/14/94 0001 01 02
C-PRMT 47.00
Net Loss/Gain of Dwelling Units
2. PROJECT INFORMATION FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
4
-Address sS53 L4) Buildingor Suite No.
Nearest Cross Street
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot No. Subdivision Name/Number Unit No. Phase No.
CHECK BELOW IF SUBMIT-FED:
02 Energy Calcs 02 Structural Calcs 02 Soils Report 0 1 Addressed Envelope
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL . EXISTING USE PROPOSED USE
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Fr. # OF STORIES # OF BEDROOMS # OF BATHROOMS
LLJi tILI rrJt.JN IJI IJLL[IIL LIVIII appll(aIIL)
NAME (last.name first)-, ADDRESS ,5z? (stQJhM') Sk
CITY t1-A( STATE CA ZIP CODE ?Z-002 DAY TELEPHONE 'Y7/o3 5 1
APPUGANT U CONTRA1UR U AGENT FOR CONTRACIUR DOWNER U AGENT FOR OWNER
NAME (last name first) ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP CODE DAY TELEPHONE
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME (last name first) e)2J' ¶3eLct' &kAtk ADDRESS 1S'21 &tki A'c
CITY M VrR J STATE ZIP CODE DAY TELEPHONE , 9.-' Af 3j)S ô
WNTRACIDR
NAME (last name first) E' 41S DRISS 127 A"C ck.
CITY tlAiL .! STATE Cf,, ZIP CODE DAY TELEPHONE q i- 2. S I
STATE UC. # LICENSE CLASS CITY BUSINESS UC. #
DESIGNER NAME (last name first) ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP CODE DAY TELEPHONE STATE UC. #
f 7. WORKERS' CDMPENSATION
Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm that I have a certificate 01 consent to sell-insure issued by the Director 01 Industrial
Relations, or a certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance by an admitted insurer, or an exact copy or duplicate thereof certified
by the Director of the insurer thereof filed with the Building Inspection Department (Section 3800, Lab. Q.
INSURANCE COMPANY POLICY NO. EXPIRATION DATE
Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in the performance 01 the worT for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner
so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California.
SIGNATURE DATE
OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION
Owner-Builder Declaration: I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason:
0 I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or
offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds
or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended
or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden
of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale.).
o I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions
Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects
with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law).
0 I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason:
(Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish, or repair
any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the
provisions of the Contractor's License Law (Chapter 9, commencing with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code)
or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit
subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$5001).
SIGNATURE DATE
COMPLETE THIS SECTION FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ONLY:
Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and
prevention program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act?
DYES ONO
Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district?
DYES 0 N
Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site?
DYES 0 N
IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NCYF BE ISSUED AFTER JULY 1, 1989 UNLESS THE APPLICANT
HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRIcr.
WNS'fRUCIlON LENDING AGENCY
I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec 3097(1) Civil Code).
LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS
APPUCAN CERTIFICATION
I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State laws
relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection
purposes. I ALSO AGREE It) SAVE INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST All LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, CX)STS
AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CDNSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT.
0511k An OSHA permit is re ired or excavations over 5,0' deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height.
Expiration. Every permit issu d by iqBuildig 0 fici under the rovisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the
building or work authorized y lflpWmitiInot e ed wit n 365 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by
such permit is suspended or b d4!I ?f4 ti e af or is is, for a period of 180 days (Section 303(d) Uniform Building Code).
APPLICANTS SIGNATU ' (4\( IA , DATE:
4
to
INSPECTOR AREA PD
PLANCK# CB941304
0CC GRP
CONSTR. TYPE NEW
STE: LOT:
PHONE: 619 471-6351
PHONE:
PHONE:
INSPECTOI(, eU, L
CITY OF CARLSBAD
INSPECTION REQUEST
PERMIT# CB941304 FOR 12/08/94
DESCRIPTION: 320 SF CRIB WALL
TYPE: RETAIN
JOB ADDRESS: 2528 LUCIERNAGA ST
APPLICANT: EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
CONTRACTOR:
OWNER:
REMARKS: MW
SPECIAL INSTRUCT:
TOTAL TIME:
--RELATED PERMITS-- PERNIT# TYPE STATUS
RW940137 ROW ISSUED
CD LVL DESCRIPTION ACT COMMENTS,
65 MA Retaining Walls
**** INSPECTION HISTORY *****
DATE DESCRIPTION ACT INSP COMMENTS
120694 Footing CO PD
120294 Footing CO PD NO ONE THERE/SOILS WORK
DATE: 11/1/94
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
PLAN CHECK NO.: 94-1304
ESGIL CORPORATION
9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
(619) 560-1468
SET: II
U APPLICANT
SDICTION
U PLAN REVIEWER
U FILE
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2528-2530 Luciernaga Street
PROJECT NAME: Retaining Wall
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 deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff.
The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list
and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil
Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck.
The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant
contact person.
The applicant's copy, othe check list has been sent to:
Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed.
Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed.
Person contacted: •
Date contacted: (by: ) Telephone #:
REMARKS:
By: David Yao Enclosures:
- Esgil Corporation log in
GA • LICM [-]PC trnsmtl.dot
ESGIL CORPORATION
9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
(619) 560-1468
DATE: 10/25/94 Q APPLICANT
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad U PLAN CHECKER
U FILE COPY
PLAN CHECK NO.: 94-1304 SET: I
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2528-2530 Luciernaga Street
PROJECT NAME: Retaining Wall
U The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply
with the jurisdiction's building codes.
U The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes
when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff.
U The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list
and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil
Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck.
U The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant
contact person.
The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to:
Chris Post
1529 Grand Avenue Ste. B San Marcos, CA 92069
Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed.
U Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed.
Person contacted:
Date contacted: (by: ) Telephone #:
U REMARKS:
By: David Yao Enclosures:
Esgil Corporation 10/18
El GA 0CM is PC trnsmtl.dot
GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 94-1304
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2528-2530 Luciernaga
DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: :
ESGIL CORPORATION: 10/18/94 10/25/94 S
IREVIEWED BY: David Yao
FOREWORD (PLEASE READ):
This plan review is.Iimited to the 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 disabled access. This plan review is
based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections
based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department
or other departments.
The following items need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied
before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 303 (c),
1991 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any
state, county or city law.
Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new sets of prints to:
ESGIL CORPORATION.
To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans
upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet
with the revised plans.
Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of
corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and
where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this
list?
El Yes LI No
Per soils report, note on the plan the soil classification, whether or not the soil is
expansive and note the allowable bearing value
Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building
Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in
writing that:a) The building pad was prepared in accordance with the soils report
b) The foundation excavations, the soils expansive characteristics and bearing capacity
conform to the soils report."
JURISDICTION :Carlsbad
PLAN CHECK NO.: 94-1304
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2528-2530 Luciernaga Street
Provide cribwall calculations which comply with the soils report.
The calculations for cribwall shall be signed and sealed by the engineer.
The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake
Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 619/560-1468, to
perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan
review items, please contact david yao at Esgil Corporation. Thank you.
gencheck.dot
VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 94-1304
PREPARED BY: David Yao DATE: 10/25/94
BUILDING ADDRESS: 2528-2530 Luciernaga Street BUILDING OCCUPANCY:
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:'
BUILDING PORTION BUILDING AREA VALUATION VALUE
(sq.ft.)' MULTIPLIER ($)
retaining wall 1 320 113.5 1 4,320.00
Air Conditioning
Fire Sprinklers
I TOTAL VALUE I I 1 4,320.00
Building Permit Fee:
Plan Check Fee:
Comments:
$ 72.00
$ 46.8
Sheet I of I
valuefee.dot
4
4tC14
IFO:E
Carlsbad
/ 1 / BUILDING
DATE:
BUILDINAD6RSS: 2-5 ~71
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: MJ
ASSESSOR's PARCEL NUMBER:
PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
PLANCHECK NO._CB?
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
APPROVAL
The Item you have submitted for review has been
approved. The approval Is based on plans, Information
and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore
any changes to these Items after this date, Including field
modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure
continued conformance with applicable codes. Please
review carefully all comments attached, as failure to
comply with Instructions In this report can yesuft In
suspension of permit to build.
Xof
Right-of-Way permit is required prior to construction
he following improvements:
LJ 1e4)
DENIAL
Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked
with Cl Make necessary corrections to plans or
specifications for compliance with applicable codes and
standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications
to this office for review.
By: Date:________
By: Date:_________
By: Date:_________
O Dedication ApplicatIon.
0 Dedication Checklist
0 Improvement Application'
0 Improvement Checklist
0 Future Improvement Agreement
O Grading Permit Application
0 Grading Submittal Checklist
0 Right of Way Permit Application
O Right of Way Permit Submittal Checklist
and Information Sheet
0 Sewer Fee Information Sheet
P:D0CS\CHKLS1\0P0001.FRM
ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON
(
NAME:
City of Carlsbad
ADDRESS: 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009
PHONE: (619) 438-1161. Ext.
A4
REV 05/11/94
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576• (619) 438-1161 • FAX (61.9) 438-0894
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
SITE PLAN
1st"d/ 3rd/
,D 0 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show:
North Arrow . D. Property Lines Easements
Existing & Proposed Structures E. Easements
Existing Street Improvements F. Right-of-Way Width & Adjacent Streets
.4 0 0 2. Show on site plan:
I A. Drainage Patterns C. Existing Topography
B. Existing & Proposed Slopes
0 0 3. Include note: "Surface water to be directed away from the building foundation at a 2%
gradient for no less than 5' Or 2/3 the distance to the property line (whichever is less)." ff [Per 1985 UBC 2907(d)5].
On graded sites, the top of any exterior foundation shall extend above the elevation
of the street gutter at point of discharge or the inlet of an approved drainage device
a minimum of 12 inches plus two percent" (per 1990 UBC 2907(d)5.).
EEl" 0 0 4. Include on title sheet
Site address
Assessor's Parcel Number
Legal Description
For commercial/industrial buildings and tenant improvement projects, include: Total
building square footage with the square footage for each different use, existing sewer
permits showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, warehouse, office,
etc.) previously approved.
EXISTING PERMIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION
P:\D0CS\CHKLST\BP000I.FRM Page 1 of 4 REV 05/11/94
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST.
DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL COMPLIANCE
iSty' 2ndv' 3rdv' J4( 0 0 5. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for
Project No.
Conditions were complied with by:. Date:__________________
DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
0 0 6. Dedication for all Street Rights-of-Way adjacent to the building site and any storm
/11 drain or utility easements on the building site is required for all new buildings and for
remodels with a value at or exceeding $ . -pursuant to Code Section
18.40.030.
Dedication required as follows:
Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the dedication
process. Provide the completed application form and the requirements on the
checklist at the time of resubmittal..
Dedication completed by . Date:___________
IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS
O 0 0 7a. All needed public improvements upon and adjacent to the building site must be
constructed at time of building construction whenever the value of the construction
exceeds $ . -pursuant to Code Section 18.40.040.
Public improvements required as follows:
Please have a registered Civil Engineer prepare appropriate improvement plans and
submit them together with the requirements on the attached checklist for a separate
plancheck process through the Engineering Department. Improvement plans must be
approved, appropriate securities posted and fees paid prior to issuance of permit.
Attached please find an application form and submittal checklist for the public
improvements requirements. Provide the completed application form and the
requirements on the checklist at the time of resubmittal.
Improvement Plans signed by: Date:
P:\DOCS\cHKLS1\BP0001.FRM Page 2' of 4 REV 05/11/94
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
1 sW 2nd./ 3rd'
0 0 0 7b. Construction of the public improvements may be deferred pursuant to code Section
18.40. Please submit a recent property title report or current grant deed on the
property and processing fee of $_____________________ so we may prepare the
necessary Future Improvement Agreement. This agreement must be signed, notarized
and approved by the City prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Future public improvements required as follows:______________________________
Improvement Plans signed by: Date:___________
0 0 0 7c. Enclosed please find your Future Improvement Agreement. Please return signed and
notarized Agreement to the Engineering Department.
Future Improvement Agreement completed by:
Date:_________________
12" 0 0 7d. No Public Improvements required. SPECIAL NOTE: Damaged or defective
GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The conditions that invoke the need for a grading permit are found in Section 11.06.030
of the Municipal Code.
0 0 0 8a. Inadequate information available on Site Plan to make a determination on grading
requirements. Include accurate grading quantities (cut, fill import, export).
O 0 0 8b. Grading Permit required. A separate grading plan prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer must be Submitted together with the completed application form attached.
NOTE: The Grading Permit must be issued and rough grading approval obtained prior
to issuance of a Building Permit.
Grading Inspector sign off by:
M/ 0 0 8c. No Grading Permit required.
Date:
P:\DOcS\CHKLSt\BP000I.FRM Page 3 of 4 REV 05/11/94
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS .
1 2nd' 3rd./ .
, 0 0 9. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is. required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or
private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way. Types of work include, but are not
limited to: street improvements, trees, driveways, tieing into public storm drain, sewer
and water utilities.
Right-of-Way permit required for dL6Z&wo &-",9F-xJ
A separate Right-of-Way permit issued by the Engineering Department is required for
the following:
j, 0 0 10. A SEWER PERMIT is required concurrent with the building permit issuance. The fee
jill . is noted in the fees section on the following page.
IZj 0 0 ii. INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMIT is required. Applicant must complete Industrial
/4 Waste Permit Application Form and submit for City approval prior to issuance of a
Permit.
Industrial waste permit accepted by: Date:
P:DOcS\CHKLSt\8POOO1.FRM Page 4 of 4 REV 05/11 /94
PLANNING CHECXUST
Plan Check No. Z&Add L~fq-4v 4OL4=-
•
Planner DAVID RICK Phone 438-1161 ext. 4328
(Name)
APN: Z-L --9
Type of Project and Use LiJ 01 Y -
Zone Facilities Management Zone
CFD (in/out) #________________ circle (if property in, complete SPECIAL TAX CALCULATION
WORKSHEET provided by Building Department)
Legend
Item Complete
! .! [tern Incomplete - Needs your action
• 1, 2, 3 Number in circle indicates plancheck number where deficiency was
identid
4PE Envuoninenial Review Required: YES - NO
DATE OF COMPLETION:
Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action.
Conditions of Approval
""/D Discretionary Action Required: YES NO
APPROVAL/RESO. NO. ______ DATE:
PROJECT NO.
OTHER RELATED CASES:
Compliance with conditions of approval? If not,state conditions which require action.
Conditions of Approval
California Coastal ssion Permit Required: YES - NO
DATE OF APPROVAL:
San Diego Coast District, 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego, CA. 92108-1725
(619) 521-8036
Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action.
Conditions of Approval
C1 Inc1usionaxy Housing Fee required: YES __ NO 7
(Effective date of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance - May 21, 1993.)
Site Plan:
Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: North
arrow, property lines, easements, existing and proposed structures,
streets, existing street improvements, right-of-way width, dimensioned
setbacks and existing topographical lines.
Provide legal desription of property, and assessor's parcel number.
Zoning
Setbacks:
Front: Required Shown
Int. Side: Required Shown
Street Side: Required Shown
Rear: Required Shown
Lot coverage: Required Shown
Height: 'Required / expc5e4 A 2'1 Shown
44 S CA
4. Parking: Spaces Required Shown
Guest Spaces Required Shown
Additional Comments L/{11 t c1i;ck S44c4k5 m) 1) '
-e1 -' flepuc Skp-L f&.Lire.. /7Coc1Aj 1 *cdb', )4(t ±
a'e-. 'tI
OK TO ISSUE AND ENTERED APPROVAL INTO COMPUTER DATE I
PLNCK.FRM
1
REPORT OF LIMITED
SLOPE FAILURE INVESTIGATION
BECKER PROPERTY
2528 & 2530 LUCIERNAGA STREET
LA COSTA, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
MR. BOB BECKER
DATE:
DECEMBER 13, 1993
JOB NUMBER:
EE-0136
PREPARED BY:
I EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
1529 GRAND AVENUE
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92069
(619)471-6351
I
I. ..
I,
I
4 -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
94 ,,, ~-~o q
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
Specialists In Geotechnicat Remediation and Earth Retention Solutions
December 13, 1993
I
I Mr. Bob Becker
P.O. Box 232674
Leucadia, CA 92024
Subject: REPORT OF LIMITED SLOPE FAILURE INVESTIGATION
I Becker Property
2528 & 2530 Luciernaga Street
La Costa, California
I Dear Mr. Becker:
I
In accordance with your request, Earth Systems Engineering Group has performed a limited
I investigation of the surface and near-surface soil conditions at the failed portion of the subject
slope. It must be noted that this report is primarily a limited investigation of slope conditions with
I respect to repair alternatives for the failed portion of the slope, and is not to be construed as a
complete soil possible investigation or geologic report for the entire site or other areas of the site's
slopes, or as a report of analysis of the overall mass stability of the slope.
The subject slope was, apparently prepared for development by the use of in-filling operations to
obtain existing elevations and overall slope geometries. During and/or since initial grading
operations, the shallow slope-face soils have experienced disturbance and/or weathering to depths
I of approximately 3 to 4 feet (as measured inward, perpendicular to the slope face). The as-built
gradient of the slope is approximately 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical).
The subject failure is characterized by an approximately 20-foot high by 30-foot long failure mass.
I
The top-of-slope areas directly above this failure are yard areas for the duplex residences located at
2528 & 2530 Luciernaga Street in the La Costa area of Carlsbad, California.
I
1529 Grand Avenue, Suite B, San Marcos, Co. 92069, Phone (619) 471-6351, Fax (619) 471-7572
CIVIL. STRUCTURAL MO SOILS ENCII'EERINC - GEOLOGY - CEOTECHNICAL REMED[ATION - RECONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT - CERTIFIED INSPECTION - SOIL AND MATERIAL TESTING
I
I
Li
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
'Specialists In Earth Retention Solutions"
Page 2
EE-0136
I. SCOPE OF WORK
It is our understanding, based on communications with you, that the subject slope has existed in a
failed condition since winter rains earlier this year. The materials comprising the failed portion of
the subject slope consist primarily of disturbed fill soils which have apparently experienced
dislodgement and lateral deformation type down-slope movement. With the above in mind, the
Scope of Work for our limited investigation is briefly outlined as follows:
This firm surveyed and mapped the subject slope and the recently failed area. Our field
I investigation also included the formulation of a slope cross section. The purpose of the
slope map and cross section is to provide schematic illustrations of areal and vertical
extents of unstable materials and provide criteria for the formulation of possible repairs.
Two hand-excavated pits were placed on the site. These hand-excavated pits were
advanced to a maximum depth of 6 feet (as measured vertically from the uphill sides of the
I trenches) in the face of the subject slope. The pits were excavated in order to observe
existing soils conditions, to assess lateral extents of shallow unstable soils conditions, and
to assess depths to adequate-bearing and/or more stable slope soils in site areas where such
I
information would be necessary for design of any required repair systems or methods.
Observations were made of the subject slope, in addition to a cursory visual overview of
I
the adjacent lots and improvements.
The results of our limited field investigation, and our findings, conclusions and
I
recommendations are presented in this report.
II. SOIL AND SOIL MOISTURE INFORMATION
I The surface and subsurface materials observed on the subject slope consist of disturbed slope-face
fill soils, and relatively undisturbed mass fill soils which apparently comprise much of the subject
slope. Based on our field investigation, the general characteristics of the shallow slope-face soils in
u
the subject portions of the site are described below.
Disturbed Slopeface Soils: As mentioned above, our investigation revealed the presence of loose,
I disturbed fill soils at or near the face of the subject slope. Although these soils may have been of
better compaction when the slope fills were originally constructed, surficial slope-face materials
have apparently since experienced weathering, reduction in density, increase in permeability,
I disruption by propagating root systems, and reduction in general soil-strength characteristics.
Based upon results of our limited investigation, these looser, slope-face soils are approximately 2.5
feet in thickness, as measured vertically. Only the outer 6 feet (maximum) of the soils comprising
the slope were observed during our limited investigation.
The encountered, shallow slope-face soils consist primarily of intermittent light tan silty clay and
orange brown silty sand. These soils are loose to medium dense, and were moist to wet at the
time of our investigation.
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
Spi&t. I,, Earth R.tto,s So1,dio,,a
I Page
EE-0136
I Due to the presence of highly permeability soil layers overlying less permeable layers, together
with the loose (and weak) condition of these soils, (as well as the slope's steep 1.5:1.0
(horizontal:vertical)gradient), it is suspected that the slope's upper soils may have been only
I marginally stable prior to the failure. It appears that last rainy season's wetting of the upper-soils
may have provided the final triggering mechanism for failure.
Undisturbed Mass Fill Soils: Relatively undisturbed, loose to medium-dense slope fill soils
underlie the looser surficial slope soils below depths of approximately 2.5 feet in the slope area.
These soils are similar in composition to those observed at the slope face.
Two compaction tests were performed on the non-failed fill soils underlying the recent failure.
Results of these were 73 percent and 77 percent of maximum dry density, respectively.
I Formational Materials:- Underlying failed and non-failed fill soils comprising the subject slope are
dense formational materials, consisting of dark brown cobbly silt with clay. These materials were
I encountered at a shallow depth within Test Pit No. 2 (refer to plot plan). These materials are
considered to possess good bearing-strength characteristics. The encountered formational
materials have been correlated with the Jurassic-aged Santiago Peak Volcanics.
I III. SUMMARY
The soil conditions at the subject slope are characterized by a surficial veneer of loose to medium
I dense, disturbed fill soils underlain by loose to medium dense, relatively undisturbed fill soils
comprising the slope. The triggering mechanism of the slope face failure appears to be the
saturation of the looser slope-face soils by surface infiltration, exacerbating problems associated
with over-steepened slope conditions.
In addition inadequate drainage conditions were noted to exist in the top-of slope areas. These
include: lack of roof gutters, downspouts and subsurface drains to transport run-off waters away
from the backyard areas; and localized low and/or relatively level yard areas which appear to allow
for ponding of rain waters. It is possible (though unverifiable at this time) that inadequate drainage
I may have contributed to the subject failure through the infiltration of surface waters in top-of-slope
areas. Regardless, implementation and maintenance of adequate drainage in these areas is
necessary to provide for the longer-term adequate performance of planned slope remediations.
Based upon our limited investigation, the failure appears to be the result of a defect (via possible
lack of adequate densification, and over-steeping) in original slope construction, together with root
propagation of slope vegetation and/or local longer-term maintenance problems with the site's
slope areas and drainage maintenance. It further appears that the failed area does not possess soil
conditions unique to its area, but rather, it is suspected that other areas of the site's slope possess
similar characteristics (i.e., a shallow, veneer of looser, disturbed soils at the slope face, over
relatively more competent materials). It is thus suspected that other, as yet unfailed areas may also
have the potential for similar types of shallow failures if those areas are subjected to saturation in
the future.
I
I
I
I
I
I
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
Spci&iLa In Earth Retention Sohaona"
Page 4,
EE-0136
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
U As is usually the case, a number of options exists with respect to how the conditions at the subject
slope might be improved. The options range from cosmetic surficial "smoothing and planting" to
I full slope removal and replacement together with the construction of a retaining system. Each
option has its attendant cost, benefit, and risk of future problems. Usually the more
comprehensive the approach, the higher the cost. Conversely, a higher risk for future problems is
I usually associated with the lowest-cost repair, the lowest being no treatment.
Based on the results of our investigation it is our opinion that the surficial slope failures can be
I corrected, provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated during
construction.
The recommended repair of the distressed slope involves the following components, in order:
Removal of loose, failed fill soils from surface of slope.
I • Construction of a cribwall retaining system at the toe of the slope together with
reconstruction of the subject slope area.
I • Construction/installation of roof gutters, downspouts and subdrains to adequately
drain top-of-slope areas.
I • All elements of construction including earthwork should be observed and tested as
necessary by a representative of this office.
I Also during the repair and reconstruction, all open excavations should be observed
and mapped by a representative of Earth Systems Engineering Group in order to
I appropriate.
assure that the assumptions made as the result of the subsurface investigatiori are
Prior to and during the bidding process and actual construction, it is recommended
I that this office be contacted so that the intent of the recommendations contained in
this report can be implemented during construction.
I REMOVAL AND RECOMPACTION OF SLIDE MATERIALS
I Limits of Failure Repair
The recommended limits of slope repair are shown on the site plan map. These limits
incorporate all of the existing failure area and an additional distance of several feet on either
I side of the failure. The lower limit is defined by the location of the proposed retaining wall.
Adjustment of these limits may be necessary during construction based upon field
observations.
I
I
I
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
"SpeciafiaLR M £ffi Retantion Solu1o,,a
I Page
EE-0136
I Site Preparation and Earthwork
General Grading and Earthwork Specifications are included in Appendix D. All unsuitable
materials should be removed from the site. The failure materials which have accumulated
I on the lower portion of the slope should be removed from the slope. Fill should be
moistened or dried as necessary to optimum moisture condition, or greater, and compacted
to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent, as determined byASTM D1557. The failure
I materials are presently at or above optimum moisture content.
Sub-drainage
I It is essential that adequate sub-drainage be provided to prevent saturation of underlying
materials with resulting loss of shear strength and to prevent build-up of hydrostatic
pressures. Accumulated water should be drained to outlet pipes. The solid outlet pipe
I should be properly discharged from the property. Material specifications for gravel and
pipe materials are contained in the General Grading and Earthwork Specifications in
Appendix C.
I SURFACE DRAINAGE
I
Other provisions should be provided as necessary , possibly including: construction of an
earth berm or brow ditch at the top of the slope to prevent overflow of surface runoff and
any leakage found in watering systems placed over the slope should be mitigated;
installation of roof gutters, downspouts and subddrains; and installation of subdrain inlets
I in level/low areas of the top-of -slope rear yards. -
WALL FOUNDATION DESIGN
I Foundation
The recommended bearing material for a gravity type wall is undisturbed bedrock.
Foundations may be designed for a bearing value of 2,500 pounds per square foot, and
I should be a minimum of 12 inches in width, 12 inches in depth below the lowest adjacent
grade, and 12 inches into the bearing material. Increases for width and depth are allowable
as per the uniform building code. The footings should also be founded so that there is a
I minimum of five feet to daylight adjacent to any descending slope.
Lateral Design
I The bearing value indicated above is for the total of dead and frequently applied live loads,
and may be increased by one third for short duration loading, which includes the effects of
wind or seismic forces. Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting at
I the base of foundations and by passive earth pressure. An allowable co-efficient of friction
of 0.4 may be used with the dead load forces.
I The active earth pressure, utilizing the materials on-site (and/or imported, silty sand), shall
be based on an equivalent fluid weight of 43 pounds per cubic foot. Passive earth pressure
may be computed as an equivalent fluid pressure having a density of 250 pounds per cubic
I foot with a maximum earth pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot. When combining
passive and friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one
third.
H
I
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
"Speciatiata M Ru,-ih Raiantion So1,aio,i
I Page 6,
EE-0136
V. LIMITATIONS
This limited investigation was performed to identify the cause of the subject surficial slope failures,
and to provide the formulation of opinions as to repair of the slope face. The investigation and soil
conditions encountered reasonably explain the observed evidence of damage related to the slope-
face failure. Investigation of the overall stability of the fill masses or the general vicinity, which
could also contribute to current or future damage, is beyond the scope of our work. Deeper
excavations in the general vicinity of the site would be required to identify any deep-seated
geologic or other features that could affect stability of larger areas of the site, and/or areas of the
adjacent properties.
Our firm did not perform such an extensive investigation because on-site conditions did not imply
the existence of such features as a mechanism contributing to the shallow failure, and the scope of
our field investigation included only those soils associated with failure of the slope-face materials.
Our firm shall not be held responsible for any subsequent movement of deep-seated geologic
features that underlie the general vicinity of shallow slope-face failure which may occur in the
future. This report shall be considered valid for a period of two years or until significant additional
distress to the slope occurs in the future. At such time, this report is subject to review by our firm
and possible revision.
The firm of Earth Systems Engineering Group shall not be held responsible for changes to the
physical condition of the property, such as inappropriate repair measures or changed drainage
patterns, which occur subsequent to issuance of this report. If significant modifications are made
to the investigated area, especially with respect to the remedial repair of the slope and any changed
drainage conditions, this report must be presented to us for immediate review and possible
revision.
It must be emphasized that any eventual recommended slope-face stabilization does not increase
the stability of any existing slope areas outside of the actual failure area, or those slope soils deeper
than the slope-face materials which previously failed. All efforts must be taken to minimize
saturation of adjacent slope areas, since similar soil conditions probably exist in those areas.
Should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to contact our office. Reference
to our Job No. EE-0136 will help to expedite a reply to your inquiries.
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
I
I
Bruce 1. Taylor I Principal Geolog
I
Principal Engineer
RCE# 35007
2oFESS/017s..
!:7c rn
CIVIL I L N W 6 F C A 'tZ
11
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
ENCLOSURES
APPENDIXES
Sp&iat. M Erffi R,tio SoW.ho,i
Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3
Plates A-i and A-2
Appendix A
Appendix B
Vicinity Map and Plot Plan
Cross Section A-A
Laboratory Soil Data Summary
Exploratory Test Trenches
Exploration
Earthwork and Grading Guidelines
\ PALOMAR AIRPORT RD.
EL CAMINO SANTA FE FIE).
CORINTIA St.
SI
ALGA RD. LLrIERNACA
TE
ST. -
AIHA ST. FMTE ST..
LA COST AVE.
EXISTING DUPLEX - RES>DENC
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
A
I 2)
j
-
-
-
(13)
- /o.)- '0 C
(1/or
2 66
- TEST PIT LOCATION
PLATE 1
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP VOCNTY MAP & PLOT PLAN 'Speosulintn In Ear4h Retention SoLuiona'
1529 A Grand Avenue, San Ha.-'co, California 92069
Phone (619) 471-6351 Fn (619) 471-7572
DATE: 12-10-93 I DWG. NO.: A9101361.DWC EECKER SLOPE
PROJECT: EE0136 REVISION: 2528 & 25.30 LUCIERNAGA ST. LA COSTA, CA.
0
N)
0.
z
0o 0
(D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
</ z -i Ln
>>tJ Li 0 L _J .-. Li
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
SpiLietc In Earth Rqencn Sotutio,a
1529 A Grand Avenue, San Ma,cos, CaIIornJa 92069
Phone (619) 471-6351 Fox (619) 471-7572
DATE: 12-10-93 DWG. NO.: A9101361.DWG
PROJECT: EE0136 REVISION:
PLATE 2
CROSS SECTDO A-A'
BECKER SLOPE
2528 •& 2530 LUCIERNAGA ST. LA COSTA, CA.
TEST DATA 1* 2 3
ION (psf) 500
ION ANGLE 25a
FINES
Ii wN1111I
- I ii".
IIllIllhIIIINIIIIUhIIflhIIUIIIIII
IlNIHIIIIIHIIIIlIIIIIIIIUIIIII
III1IIIIIIIUIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIliIII1IIIIIIlIIIIIuuIIIlIIIuIIIIII
IIOhIlIIIIIIIliIIIIUHhIIflhlIIIII
IPIIHIIUflhIIIIIIIIINhIIIIIIII
IhIlINhIIIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi
III1IIIUIIUIIIiIIIlIIIIIIlIIIIIIIII
ul1IIIIIIIIIIl'IIIIuuIIIuuuuIuIIIII
IIuhIlIIIIIIIl'IIIIIIIIIIflh.IIIuII
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GRAIN DIAMETER (MM)
SPECIFIC GRAVITY '
ZERO AIR VOIDS CURVES
140
130
120
110
10 20 30 40
LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST
SOIL
TYPE SOIL CLASSIFICATION BORING
NO.
TRENCH
NO. DEPTH
1 CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND. DARK BROWN. 1 4'
2
3
SWELL TEST DATA 1* 2 3
INITIAL DRY DENSITY (pcf) 106.7
INITIAL WATER CONTENT (%) 11.9
LOAD (psf) 144
PERCENT SWELL 5.631
* - SAMPLES REMOLDED TO APPROXIMATELY
90% OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (WITH SWELL—
TEST SAMPLE RUN FROM APPROXIMATELY
OPTIMUM MOISTURE).
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
$peoaL(aa In Ciotechn(aal Re mediation and Earth Retention Solut(one
JOB NO. EEO 136 1 DATE: 12-13-93 1 1 PLATE 3
O -_ I
- SILTY F-M SAND -
- W/SOME CLAY. LOOSE.
- DENSE MOIST.
LLJ
- U ORANGE TAN. -
-
z -
i = I-
4
6 1 111111111
0 2
BASE OF V FAILURE
FAILED
MATER I ALA !1 ,
CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND
LOOSE TO MED. DENSE.
MOIST. DARK BROWN. ALL
SILTY F-M SAND WITH SOME
CLAY. LOOSE TO MED. DENSE.
MOIST. TAN AND ORANGE TAN. FILL
CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND. LOOSE TO
MED. DENSE. MOIST. DARK BROWN. ALL
SILTY F-M SAND WITH SOME
CLAY. MED. DENSE. MOIST.
ORANGE TAN. FILL I
4 6 8 10
LENGTH IN FEET
I
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
I .1529 B Grand Avenue, San Marcos, California 92069
Phone (619) 471-6351 Fax (619) 471-7572
I TT POT DATE: 11/29/93
PROJECT NAME: BECKER SLOPE JOB No.: EE0136
I TEST PIT #: 1 LOCATION: UPPER PORTION OF FAILURE
GROUND ELEV.: 129 METHOD OF EXCAVATION: HAND EXCAVATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Z
Z: w
w EL I.. DESCRIPTION
LJLJ w>. LJ ci
< .—. <
2 1 ML CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND. DARK BROWN. 31.6 86 13.2 117.8 73
4 2-ML -CLAYEY SILT WITH SAND. DARK BROWN. 31.1 91 13.2 117.8 77
- - --------------- PLATE A-i
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
1529 B Grind Avenue, San Marcos, Catiforniu 92069
Phone (619) 471-6351 Fax (619) 471-7572
ThST PT - DATE: 11/29/93
PROJECT NAME: .BECKER SLOPE JOB No.: EE0136
TEST PIT #: 2 LOCATION: TOE OF FAILURE
GROUND ELEV.: 113 METHOD OF EXCAVATION: HAND EXCAVATION
H
-
—SILTY SAND. LOOSE. DRY.
TAN BROWN.f9LL
_—COBBLEY SILT WITH CLAY
VERY STIFF. DAMP TO MOIS
DARK BROWN. FORMATION
_1IIIIIIII 111111111 IlLillil IIIHHII 111111111
2 4 6 8 10
LENGTH IN FEET
-I-
QL L'j
U
< (fl
zLd U
DESCRIPTION
Of :3 X .i-
o
-
U
PLATE AT2
ik
SpcL,.atI In £ffi Rtnton Sohtioni
APPENDIX A
EXPLORATION
Field exploration was performed using hand labor. The soils are continuously logged by our field
engineer/geologist and classified by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification system.
The location of test pits is determined by property lines furnished by the client. Elevations of
borings or test pits are determined by hand level or interpolation between plan contours. The
location and elevation of the boring should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the
method used.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
Split. In Earth R.oton Soo,i
APPENDIX B
EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES
I. GENERAL
These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading
as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled,
placement of fill, installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations
contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and
would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations
performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new
recommendations which could supersede these guidelines or the recommendations
contained in the geotechnical report.
The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance
with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and
engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide
observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the
project.
H. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
Geotechnical Consultant
Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer
and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork
procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the
geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and
ordinances.
The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination
may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of
the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work
schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly.
All clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be
observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to
placing any fill. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and
soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation.
Laboratory and Field Tests
Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in
accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D-
1557. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test method
ASTM designations D-1556-82, D-2937 or D-2922 & D-3017, at intervals of
approximately two (2) feet of fill height or every 1000 cubic yards of fill placed. These
criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The
location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
I,, £,-ffi fietantion Sel,oni
C. Contractor's Responsibility
All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted
by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval by the
governing agencies. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to
receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture
condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil
engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non-earth material considered
unsatisfactory by the soil engineer.
It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to
accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or
agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and
compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the
fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the
geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive
oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in
a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the
contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions
are satisfactory.
During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good
drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to
control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent
drainage and erosion control measures have been installed.
ifi. SITE PREPARATION
All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other
deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be
concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials
determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in-place
should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these
materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the
compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer.
Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic
tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or
treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured,
or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot
adequately improve the condition should be over excavated down to firm ground and
approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Over
excavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture-conditioned
should be recompacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these
guidelines.
Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be
scarified to a minimum depth of six (6) inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the
scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture or greater and mixed, the materials
should be compacted as specified herein.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
*Sp.cialiats In Earth Rtffion Sloni
I ll the scarified zone is greater than 6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the
excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about six (6) inches in compacted
I
thickness.
Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be over
excavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on-site soils engineer and/or
I engineering geologist. Scarification, discing, or other acceptable form of mixing should
continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working
surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven
I features which would inhibit compaction as described in Item ifi, C, above.
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical),
I the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key,
should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least two (2) feet deep into firm
material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist.
I In fill over cut slope conditions the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or
key is also 15 feet with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the
I
Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by
the Soil Engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to one-
half (1/2) the height of the slope.
I F. Standard benching is generally four feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable
material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood
that the vertical height of the bench may exceed four feet. Pre-stripping may be considered
I for unsuitable materials in excess of four feet in thickness.
G. All areas to ieceive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe of fill benches
I should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to
placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades are
I
attained.
IV. COMPACTED FILLS
I A. Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill
provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These
materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious
I materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil
engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength
characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending
I with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material.
Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area
I and blended with other bedrock-derived material. Benching operations should not result in
the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the
fill/bedrock contact.
Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum
dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location
of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer.
I
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
SpoiIia In Edrth Reiantion Sohtio,a
I Oversized material should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations
of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material
should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within 20 feet horizontally
I of slope faces.
To facilitate trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation
I excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by
the soil engineer and/or the developers representative.
I D. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the material to be
utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to
determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is
I encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted
by the soil engineer as soon as possible.
I
E. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near-horizontal
layers that when compacted should not exceed six (6) inches in thickness. The soil
engineer may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that
I
adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be
spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for
compaction.
I F. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet
fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material.
Moisture conditioning, blending, and mixing of the fill layers should continue until the fill
I materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture.
After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture-conditioned and mixed, it should be
I uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by
ASTM test designation; D 1557-78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer.
Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for
I soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of
compaction.
I Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the
required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or
portion shall be reworked until the required density and/or moisture content has been
attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been
tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the
soil engineer.
Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of three (3)
feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration.
I Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is
being developed.
I
Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone.
Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with
appropriate equipment.
17~
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
Spac..akata In Earth Retention Sohttona
A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or
testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than
2:1, specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, and special grading
procedures, may be recommended.
I I. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then
special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of
each lift of fill by undertaking the following:
I 1) An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy short-shanked sheepsfoot should
be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The
I sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend
out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope.
2) Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the. slope as each lift is I compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be
trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling.
I 3) Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) two (2) to eight (8)
feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction
I
operations.
After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor
and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face.
I Subsequent to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to
achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm
compaction after grid rolling.
I Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be
responsible to rip, water, mix and recompact the slope materials as necessary to
I achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify compaction.
Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil
I engineer in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental
agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or
engineering geologist.
I V. SUB-DRAIN INSTALLATION
I Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate
alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Sub-drain locations or
materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical.
I consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct
changes in sub-drain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions.
The location of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil engineer.
I
I
I
EARTH SYSTEMS ENGINEERING GROUP
Sp.0.atiat. In Earth Retention Sohftor.i
VI. EXCAVATIONS
Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering
geologist and/or geotechnical engineer. If directed by the engineer geologist, further
excavations or over-excavation and refilling of cut areas should be performed and/or
remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be
graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the
engineer geologist prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the
slope.
The engineer geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the
contractor when cut slopes are started.
If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potentially adverse geologic
conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate,
evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope
buttressing or stabilizing, should be based on in-grading evaluations by the engineering
geologist, whether anticipated previously or not.
Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated
higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies.
Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes or temporary excavation is the
contractors responsibility.
Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and
should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental
agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or
engineering geologist.
I
VII. COMPLETION
Observation, testing and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted
during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are
graded in accordance with the approved project specifications.
After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have
finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review
by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be
undertaken without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist.
All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in
accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect.
Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion
of grading.
H
I