HomeMy WebLinkAbout2535 GLASGOW DR; ; CB162013; Permit...#.. r
14 :, ••.,
:..i
City Carlsbad of
1635 FaradayAv Carlsbad, CA 92008
07-19-2016 Pool Permit Permit No: CB162013
r . Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725
I,.
Job Address: 2535 GLASGOW DR CBAD
Permit Type: - POOL Status: ISSUED
.Parcel No: 2081911500 . Lot #: 60 Applied: 05/20/2016
Valuation: $40,517.00 Construction Type: NEW Entered By: RMA
Reference #: CT130003 Plan Approved: 07/19/2016 l
. PC#.......... Issued: 07/19/2016
Project Title: . THE BLUFFS- MODEL-743 SF POOL, Inspect Area:
21 SF RETAIN WALL NEAR POOL
t Applicant Owner
TOLL BROTHERS RANCHO COSTERA, LLC
STE 200 • . STE 200
725 W. TOWN AND COUNTRY RD . 725 W. TOWN AND COUNTRY RD
ORANGE CA 92868 ORANGE CA 92868
. 760-87779885 .'. - 760- 720-5485 .
- . -
A- -Building Permit $348.89
Add I Building Permit Fee $0.00
Plan Check $244.22 -,
Add'l Plan Check Fee $0.00 •.
Electrical Fee ' . $35.00 •'
Plumbing Fee - '- ' . . $35.00
Strong Motion Fee . $5.27
Green Bldg Standards (5B1473) Fee $2.00
Renewal Fee '
. $0.00
Add'l Renewal Fee $0.00
Other Building Fee $0.00
. Additional Fees •. , $0.00
TOTAL PERMIT FEES $670.88
Total Fees:.$670.38 Total Payments To Date $670.38 Balance Due $0.00
I- .
- •
- ,
' -. . - - .
p.., . . S.
•-t
FINAL APPROVAL
Inspector Date 9' 2' "4 Clearance
NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of.your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively
referred to as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must
.' follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, - -
-. review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. - V
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and ser connection fees and capacity -
' changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any
fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired.
.2 •
,
• ... V . - V -
. - • - • S
JTHE I 'FOLLOWING APPROVALS REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE: PLANNING ENGINEERING J BUILDING FIRE HEALTH EJ HAZMAT/APCD
- Building Permit Application
City of 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008
Plan Check No J/ ij73
Est. Value 1/ 7' tCarlsbad t) /I ISWPPP I
JOB ADDRESS
. Bluffs Model - 2535 GLASGOW DR, Carlsbad
SUITE#/SPACE#/UNIT# APN
208 - 191 - 150 - '0 ., ,
CT/PROJECT # - ,. LOT P B BATHROOMS TENANT BUSINESS NAME TYPE
CTI3-03 60
IPHASE #
1
J #OFUNITS J #BEDROOMS
Toll Brothers
[ONSTR. [OCC.GROUP
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Include Square Feet of Affected Area(s) t'5f ?- (4 4 N4~ .'Bluffs Model, (pools/backyards) Permits for Lot 60 i g 2e11184,olltdoor kitchens, retaining wall poolaii~w
'1i_w. ,.L. •'-... - -
EXISTING USE - PROPOSED USE GARAGE (SF) PATIOS (SF) DECKS (SF) FIREPLACE AIR CONDITIONING
Graded Pad ' SFD 350 YES# I NO YES IJNO M
IFIRESPRINKLERS
YES LNOE
APPLICANT NAME IIL , (. t1 irr Rancho Costera, LLC PROPERTY OWNER NAME Rancho Costera, LLC Prtnary Contact
ADDRESS ' . .
. , 725 W Town and Country Rd, Ste 200 ADDRESS 4 725 W Town and Country Rd, Ste 200 '
CITY STATE - ZIP CITY STATE ZIP
Orange ,. CA 92010 Orange CA 92010
PHONE ., FAX PHONE FAX
760-720-5485 . 760-720-5485
EMAIL - EMAIL
msteffen(toll broth ersinc.com msteffen(tollbrothersinc.com
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL
* Summers Murphy & Partners CONTRACTOR BUS. NAME Toll Bros., Inc. -
ADDRESS , . . ADDRESS
-: 34197 .Cdast Highway, Suite 200 725 W Town and Country Rd, Ste 200' -
CITY,' - ' . - , STATE -. ZIP CITY STATE ZIP
Dana Point . CA, 92629 Orange CA 92010
PHONE - FAX PHONE FAX -
. '949-443-1446 . 760-720-5485
EMAIL EMAIL
wpinaroccsmpinc.net msteffen@tollbrothersinc.com
STATE LIC. B STATE LlC.# CLASS CITY BUS. LIC.#
1708 683543 B 1238689
(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, commending 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 ($500)),
øDl1(JOQ° ØO1Z)3?OØ()
Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations:
. 4 [] Ihave and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. (71) have nd will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance carder and policy
number are: Insurance CO. ESISiOId Republic Insurance Co Policy No. MWC30267700 Expiration Date 91112016
This section need not be completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less.
[] Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject 10 the Workers' Compensation Laws of,
California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars (&100,000), in
addition to the cost of compensation, d s pro d d for in Section 3.106-of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees,
CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE AGENT DATE c-(23 / )o\
sooaoøoo oQG4aeo
I hereby affirm that I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason:
[] 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 loan owner of properly 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).
[] I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors Is construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to anowner of
property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). -
I am exempt under Section -Business and Professions Code for this reason: .
' 1. I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. EYes ENO
I (have! have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. ' 4
I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name address / phone / contractors' license number): -
I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name / address / phone /contractors' license number): t.
I will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name! address / phone! type of work):
d . '
PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE - ' , - . , []AGENT DATE --
"1
I
r
. ..5 -
..•.--
4 -- 5. * 4, 4
5, . 5•' •_5
S
••, . S.'.
.4. - 5..
' 4' •. ..' . , •4.. ' 4 •
-
.•• •• ' '- , '5- 4
• .5 5 _4.44• 4 1' . ..
. 4 _4 ' ' S A • ..
a
4
4 5 ::
1', •.p., . , 5 5
5'_• .4-' S. S - • S - '.4 -. . •. .r -. . .4
.
- .5 '.4 1
. S ,
£ ...' ST
-A •''
4 •' •: -
-
'S•.•_ "
'
l4
' .44;. ''5- * -.• - .5
f.S _,
4,.,
- . 54.5, .4 4 S • S
44 • 4 -4 4 '
... 'S
5S_• '
45
, . •44• S; , - . •
S .-•,.
- ' :-'- .,
. 4 5
.
.5
5•
.,
.5
- 1
.4 - 5, • ._ 'I.
• 4. .
- .5 ,
•
T .',_
S.. * . S - ..' '4,
S " •
. S . . . -
.55
•. - 1
.5..-, '.• .
S k
' :
'-' '
5 -- 5- ' T •
'.r ••'
•,4I * ., . -
GamcwUmmoo 830O1 goo majoMMOGGOV00alamolimajo I?Ot1003 ø1
,Jan, 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? 0 Yes 0 No . •
Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? 0 Yes 0 No
Is the facility In be constructed within 1,000 feet at the outer boundary of a school site? 0 Yes 0 No
IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT.
G)O9OW9QOD O(ZJDOD@ @I3OC7 ' Th
hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (i) Civil Code).
Lender's Name . . - Lender's Address
i certify that l have readthe application and state that the above inforinahon is correct and that the information on the plans inaccurate. I agree to corn ply with all City onlinancesand State laws relating to building construction.
I hereby authorize representative of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned properly for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGAINST ALL LIABILfl]ES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAiNST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERM IT.
1OSHA An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 50' deep and demolition orconslniclion of stnicluresover 3 stories in height.
EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within -
18Odays from the date of such permit orif the building orwork authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code).
4 .APPLICANTSSlGNATURE 'fll.jjtjt.. DATE 05/18/2016
Is 1hp.nnlirantnr future building occupant required to submit business n 1.4
5.
4
-
jb.
Inspection List
-Permit# CB162013 Type POOL THE BLUFFS MODEL 743 SF POOL,
21 SF RETAIN WALL NEAR POOL
Date Inspection Item Inspector Act Comments
09/29/2016 55 Fence/Pre-Plaster PB AP
09/29/2016 59 Final Pool - RI TCO MODEL
09/29/2016 59 Final Pool PB AP
09/19/201655 Fence/Pre-Plaster - RI EARLY AM PLEASE
09/19/2016 55 Fence/Pre Plaster PB AP
08/23/2016 66 Grout PB AP
08/17/2016 11 Ftg/Foundation/Piers PB AP
. •.: 07/27/201621 Underground/Under Floor PB AP
07/27/2016 31 Underground/Conduit-Wirin PB AP
- 07/27/2016 51 Excav/Steel/Bonding/Fence PB AP
•
¼
•
- • 'S.-.... - • •
S -
t (-n•S.. -, U ,. k •" •'
.4
4..
'5,- • ,•- _r..- -
-'.. .••_, -•••.1•
:-'..
4'
4 -,'4,-•4. 4.4.. -
44 1
.4 - 45
. .4 ,
4 .4 -•'4.,
- ,
.• ,• - •- - • ••
-
4, * . . '- •4,
' •_,
Friday, September 30, 2016 Page 1 of 1
.1
4-,
I-
4.
'-4-
-. CITY O
INSPECTION RECORD -RuiIdung Division
..........i INSPECTION RECORD CARD WITH APPROVED
PLANS MUST BE KEPT ON THE JOB
l CALL BEFORE 330 pm FOR NEXT WORK DAY INSPECTION
0 FOR BUILDING INSPECTION cALl..: 7606022725
OR GO TO: www.Carlsbadca.gov/Buildinçp AND CLICK ON
i "Request Inspe •tIon"
DATE:
C8162013 2535 GLASGOW DR
THE BLUFFS- MODEL-743 SF POOL,'
21 SF RETAIN WALL NEAR POOL
POOL
Lot#: 60 TOLL BROTHERS .
RECORD CIOPN",,.-
.
i :
If "YES" is checked below that Division's approval is required prior to reguestiRg a Final
please call the applicable divisions at the phone numbers provided below. After all
760-602-8560, email to bIdinspections@carlsbadca.ov or bring in a COPY of
1)1' l:rac1:-i f( ô a•a n laap-ec10 ccl 7-f30-: . 00 bawac a 7:.30a7
Required Prior to Requesting PBuilding fTP17fliIf ClheckedTI'44
Building Inspection. If you have any questions
required approvals are signed off- fax to
this card to: 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad.
-a -- :00cm tha day 0-1 '[0 U I fl3 0 0 loll.
j•izT - 'fl
tT4EThT1.I- It'Zf:Iir.1i
MM CM&I (Engineering Inspections) 70Yf:i:1 1Ibefore 4.I..RAM
Fire Prevention 76G-6024660 Allow 48 hours
--I--
./ I Type of Inspection ivpe or rnspecuon
f1]-.:pIJI)II[.
#11 FOUNDATION
Date
,
Inspector .U('Il;1["1.1 Date
#31 D ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND DUFER
Inspector
#12 REINFORCED STEEL '- f7'( 1 k4 ) #34 ROUGH ELECTRIC
..#66 MASONRY PRE GROUT _________ #33 D ELECTRIC SERVICE 0 TEMPORARY
C 0 GROUT 0 WAil. DRAINS #35 PHOTOVOLTAIC
#10 TILT PANELS #39 FINAL
'#11 POURSTRIPS
#11 COLUMN FOOTINGS . #41 UNDERGROUND DUCTS & PIPING
#14 SUBFRAME 0 FLOOR DCEILING #44 EJDUCT&PLENUM DREF.PIPING
#15 ROOFSHEATHING . . #43 HEAT-AIRCOND.SYSTEMS
#13 EXT. SHEAR PANELS #49 FINAL
016 INSULATION
#18 EXTERIOR LATH #81 UNDERGROUND(il,12,21,31)
#17 INTERIOR LATH & DRYWALL #82 DRYWALL,EXr LATH, GAS TES (17,18,23)
#51 POOLEXCA/STEEL/BOND/FENCE " Z.ij 1> #83 ROOF SHEATING, EXT SHEAR (13,15)
#55 PREPLASTER/FINAI. . #84 FRAME ROUGH COMBO (14,24,34,44)
#19 FINAL - - #85 T-Bar (14,24,34,44)
r.- J II'I:lI(. momDate Inspector #89 FINAL OCCUPANCY (19,29,39,49)
#22 0 SEWER&BL/CO DPI/CO - 0 11 Date Inspector
#21 UNDERGROUND DWASTEDWTR.
#24 TOP OUT 13 WASTE 13W1TR A/S UNDERGROUND VISUAL
#27 TUB &SHOWER PAN - A/S UNDERGROUND HYDRO
#23 DGASTEST DGASPIPING A/S UNDERGROUND FLUSH
#25 WATER HEATER A/S OVERHEAD VISUAL
#28 SOLAR WATER A/S OVERHEAD HYDROSTATIC
#29 FINAL - A/S FINAL
wME! tt. STORMI'A'F..I F/A ROUGH-IN -
#600 PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING F/AF1NAL
#603 FOLLOW UP INSPECTION FIXED EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM ROUGH-IN
4605 NOTICE TO CLEAN' - FIXED E(T1NGSYSTEM HYDROSTATIC TEST
#607 WRITTEN WARNING • . FIXED EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM FINAL
#609 NOTICE OF VIOLATION MEDICAL GAS PRESSURETEST
#510 VERBALWARNING - - MEDICALGAS FINAL -
REV 1012012 . -
-. • •'
SEE BACK FOR SPECIAL NOTES
City-of Carlsbad Valuation Worksheet Building Division
- Permit No: •' '
Address - Assessor Parcel No Date By
Type of Work Area of Work Multiplier VALUE
SFD and Duplexes $139.52 $0.00
Residential Additions . $16681 .40.00
Remodels! Lofts $45.78 $0.00
Apartments &. Multi-family $124.35 $0.00
Gárages/Sunrooms/Solariums $36.40 $0.00
Patio/Porch 140 $12.13 $1,698.20
Enclosed Patio . $19.71 . $0.00
Decks/Balconies/Stairs .. $19.71 $0.00
Retaining Walls, concrete, masonry 21 $24.26 . $509.46
Pools/Spas-Gunite 743 $51.56 $38,309.08
TI/Stores, Offices . $45.78 . $0.00
TI/Medical, restaurant, H occupancies $63.70 $0.00
Photovoltaic Systems/ # of panels $400.00 $0.00
$0.00
$0•.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00. . $0.00
Fire Sprinkler System S
. $3.94 $0.00
Air Conditioning - commercial . $6.37 $0.00
Air Conditioning - residential $5.31 $0.00
Fireplace/ concrete, masonry . $4,883.11 $0.00
FirepIace/.prefabricatedMetal . . - $3,319.61 . / $0.00
$0.00.
$0.00
. TOTAL $40,516.74 .• . - -,
Valuation $40,517
. Comm/Res (CIR): , R
Building Fee $348.89
- . - Plan Check Fee . $244.22
Strong Motion Fee $4.00 -
Green Bldg. Stand. Fee $1.00
Green.Bldg PC Fee' $150.00
License Tax/PFF $1,418.09
License Tax/PFF (in CFD) $737.40
CFD
, 1st hour ofPIanCheckije Expedite
Plumbing TBD
Mhl . TBD -
Electrical TBD
-S.
-. \S•j, •. .
S.
5,
-.
_'.;.L 44'' • 54 ' - . • -.
. 7 7 .• . S • ' • - 5-
-
-. 5- 4 , 5. - . . S . • , - S., S
p
- ' -
EsGil Corporation
In Partnership with government for(Building safety
DATE July 14, 2016 U APPLICANT
OJURIS
JURISDICTION.Carlsbad U PLAN REVIEWER
U FILE
PLAN CHECK NO 16-2013 SET II
I - -
PROJECT ADDRESS Bluffs Model - 2535 Glasgow Dr
PROJECT NAME Swimming Pool, Trellis, Retaining Walls, Outdoor Kitchen
The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply,
, - with the jurisdiction's building codes -'
-Li The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's
ôde when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building '- •
:1-de6arthient staff.
Li -.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
Li The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to
-
EsGiL Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed
Li EsGil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed
Person contacted
-
Telephone #
Date contacted (by ) Email
MaiV Telephone Fax In Person
Li REMARKS
By Abe Doliente Enclosures
EsGil Corporation
- LI GA LI EJ LI MB LI PC 7/8/16
,• -. _,i_.
, .- - ----- -
.-. -- ',', •-
-. 1468 Fax (858) 560-1576 9320 Chesapeake Drive Suite 208 • San Diego, California 92123 • (858) 560 •
,
r --
4. '•) - .
EsGil Corporation
In(Partnership with governmentforBuz[ding Safety
DATE: May 31, 2016 UPPLICANT
AJ JURIS.
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad U PLAN REVIEWER .
U FILE
-'-PLAN CHECKNO.: 16-2013 SET: I
.-
PROJECT ADDRESS: Bluffs Model - 2535 Glasgow Dr.
.:
9ROJECT NAME Swimming Pool, Trellis, Retaining Walls, Outdoor Kitchen
-4-..
. The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply
with the jurisdiction's codes. •:.
'
The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's
codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building
department staff.
4
-
-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 of the check list has been sent to
'.Mike Steffen . .
EsGil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed
.4.. . •-
.. EsGil Corporation staff dud advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed
Person contacted Mike Steffen Telephone # 760-720-5485
Aate contacted ( \ (by Email msteffen@tollbrothersinc.com
- t_/Mail \./eiephone Fax in Person
' F. ,.REMARKS:
By Abe Doliente Enclosures
-' . •. EsGil Corporation
E GA E EJ L] MB El PC 5/24/16
9320 Chesapeake Drive Suite 208 San Diego California 92123 • (858) 560-1468 • Fax (858) 560-1576
. . . .4 .
-- •,r.-. - - - . - .-
;
4 •. ''.- ' .
,. ,,,.a.,
Carlsbad 16-2013
May 31, 2016
PLAN REVIEW CORRECTION LIST
,;• •, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DUPLEXES
PLAN CHECK NO.: 16-2013 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
PROJECT ADDRESS: Bluffs Model - 2535 Glasgow Dr.
FLOOR AREA: Swimming Pool = 743 SF STORIES:
Trellis = 140 SF
HEIGHT
REMARKS
DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY
JURISDICTION ESGIL CORPORATION 5/24/16
-. DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW PLAN REVIEWER: Abe Doliente
COMPLETED May 31, 2016
-
FOREWORD (PLEASE READ)
- This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the California version of
the International Residential Code, International Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code
Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy
.conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled This plan review is based on
regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on
laws and ordinance by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or
other departments. Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of
a building permit
'\ Present California law mandates that construction comply with the 2013 edition of the California
Code of Regulations (Title 24), which adopts the following model codes: 2012 IRC, 2012 IBC,
2012 upc, 2012 UMC and 2011 NEC.
The above regulations apply, regardless of the code editions adopted by ordinance
The following items listed 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. 105.4 of
the 2012 International Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of
any state, county or city law. '
•. To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list (or a copy) where each
correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet number, specification section, etc.
Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans
C . •. ' ' •
44
— . •,' • •,
t 8 • .' - • S ,
t -
Carlsbad 16-2013
May 31, 2016
Please make all corrections, as requested in the correction list Submit FOUR new
complete sets of plans for commercial/industrial projects (THREE sets of plans for
residential projects). For expeditious processing, corrected sets can be submitted
in one of two ways:
1 Deliver all corrected sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of
Carlsbad Building Department, 1635 Faraday Ave.,Carlsbad CA 92008 (760)
602-2700. The City will route the plans to EsGil Corporation and the Carlsbad
Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments.
-
2. Bring TWO corrected set of plans and calculations/reports to EsGil Corporation, '+
9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, CA 92123, (858) 560-1468
Deliver all remaining sets of plans and calculations/reports directly to the City of
Carlsbad Building Department for routing to their Planning, Engineering and Fire
Departments
NOTE Plans that are submitted directly to EsGil Corporation only will not be
reviewed by the City Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments until review by
EsGil Corporation is complete
. PLANS
11,-All sheets of plans must be signed by the person responsible for their
preparation Structural portions and structural calculations must be signed and
sealed by the California state licensed engineer or architect responsible for their
preparation (California Business and Professions Code)
2 Specify on the Title Sheet of the plans the extent of this project, including
swimming pool, trellis, and retaining walls Section R106.2.
3. Permit application lists outdoor kitchen in existing California room. Clearly show
the location of this
4 Permit application also lists 21 SF of retaining wall Clearly show the location of
this
4
5 Provide a statement on the Title Sheet of the plans stating that this project shall
comply with the 2013 California Residential Code, which adopts the 2012 IRC,
r 2012 UMC, 2012 UPC and the 2011 NEC Section R106.1.
:-
'S S
. MISCELLANEOUS
6 Provide gas isometric for the pool and spa heaters Show the location of gas
•
-, meter, gas demand for all gas appliances, development length for all gas
appliances, gas line sizing, etc
4 4
44
:
V Càrlsbâd 16-2013 V
May 31,2O16
V
V 7• Please include the attached "Requirement for Pool Safety" as part of the plan
V package. V
V
8. Special inspection is required for the use of epoxy. Use the city special
. V
inspection form. See attached at the end of this list. V
V
9. To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each
correction item has been addressed, i.e., plan sheet, note or detail number, V
.. V calculation page, etc.
V
V:. 10. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a : V V result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly V V
describe them and where they are located in the plans
. Have bhanges been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list?
V V
V Please indicate: V
V
YesU No U
VV V VP
V -
11 The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320
Chesapeake Drive Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123, telephone number of
858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project If you have any
questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Abe Doliente at •V
EsGil Corporation Thank you
V!
V •V
V
V
V
V V
V V . . •
V •
4V -
V V V V
. •- V
V
- -
---
•
V V
V • * V V
- V - •V• • - V
'V -• V
VV
5 V
V V
, ,-'•
- Carlsbad 16-2013
May 31, 2016
REQUIREMENTS FOR POOL SAFETY
Title 24, Part 2, CBC Section 3109.4.4 outlines swimming pool barrier requirements to.
help prevent accidental drowning. The requirements apply to all new pools and spas built
in the State. The CBC now requires a physical barrier to completely separate a pool from
a house as well as from neighboring properties. This handout is intended to inform owners
and contractors of the various options available ••• .' .
when considering the appropriate barrier. -
- All elements of the barrier must be installed, inspected and approved prior to plastering of
filling the pool with water. Pool barriers must meet city zoning setback requirements
Definitions
* 3109.4:4 Private swimming pools (statewide).
' These standards become applicable commencing SWIMMING POOL or POOL means any structure
January 1, 1998,: to a private, single-family home intended for swimming or recreational bathing that
- for which a construction permit for a new swimming contains water over 18 inches deep. Swimming
Y pool has been issued on or after January 1, 1998. pool includes in-ground and above-ground
structures and includes but is not limited to hot
3109 4 4 Definitions as used in this division the tubs spas portable spas and nonportable wading
following items have the following meanings: pools.
,
APPROVED SAFETY POOL COVER means a
•
3109.4.4.2 Construction permit; safety features
manually or power-operated safety pool cover that required. Commencing January 1, 2007, except as
meets all of the performance standards of the provided in Section 3109.4.4.5, whenever a building
American Society for Testing Material (ASTM), in permit is issued for construction of a new swimming
,compliance with Standard F 1346-91. pool or spa or any building permit is issued for
remodeling of an existing pool or spa at a private
ENCLOSURE means a fence, wall or other barrier single-family home, it shall be equipped with at -- -
thatsolates a swimming pool from access to the least one of the following seven drowning
home..,prevention safety features
EXIT ALARMS means devices that make audible, 1. The pool shall be isolated from access to
. .• .. . continuous alarm sounds when door or window that home by an enclosure that meets the
- permits access from the residence to the pool area requirements of Section 3109.4.4.3. , •
' that is without any intervening enclosure is opened
• or is left ajar. Exit alarms may be battery operated 2. The pool shall incorporate removable mesh
or may be connected to the electrical wiring of the pool fencing that meets American Society
- building. . • for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Specifications F 2286 standards in
PUBLIC SWIMMING POOL means a swimming conjunction with a gate that is self closing
pool operated for the use of the general public with and self-latching and can accommodate.a
or without charge, or for the use of the members key lockable device.
. and guests of a private club. Public swimming pool -
does not include a swimming pool located on the
.: grounds of a private single-family home.
- • -- • 4. The residence shall be equipped with exit
3. The pool shall be equipped with an approved alarms on those doors providing direct access
safety pool cover that meets all requirements to the pool.
. of theASTM Specifications F 1346. •
' * - : .. 5. All doors providing direct access from the,
- - home to the swimming pool shall be equipped
- • -.
-• • • .1 ,
with a self-closing, self-latching device with a
•
6
'.- • •
-'
Carlsbad 16-2013
..May.31,2016
: .. [DO NOT PAY— THIS IS NOTAN INVOICE]
' ._•f -
VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE
- JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 16-2013
PREPARED BY: Abe Doliente DATE: May 31, 2016
BUILDING ADDRESS: Bluffs Model - 2535 Glasgow Dr.
' BUILDING OCCUPANCY: U
BUILDING
PORTION -
AREA
(Sq. Ft.)
Valuation
Multiplier
Reg.
Mod.
VALUE ($)
Swimming Pool 643 51.56 33,153
Trellis 140 15.16 2,122
Air Conditioning
Fire Sprinklers
JOTAL VALUE 35,275
.4
4.
.3
4
Jurisdiction Code cb By Ordinance _________
Bldg Permit Fee by Ordinance
$316 891
- - t2598 Plan Check Fee by Ordinance V W 0
f ..,Type of Review.. Complete Review Structural Only
., 3
- - - *
- LI Other U Repetitive Fee Repeats • Hourly Hr. @ *
EsGul Fee
-.Comments:
- - Sheet 1 of 1 - •.
- macvalue.doc +
...... -. I •_
' ..
-
. .
I -: .h • -
PLANNING DIVISION Development Séri'kes BUILDING PLAN CHECK Planning Division
APPROVAL 1635 Faraday Avenue
(760) 602-4610
/ P29 www.crIsbidca.gov
DATE: 07/07/2016 PROJECT NAME: Bluffs PROJECT ID: PUD 13-06
- 0
PLAN CHECK NO CB 16-2013 SET# 2 ADDRESS 2535 Glasgow Dr APN 208-191-150-00
This plan check review is complete and has been APPROVED by the PLANNING
Division
,. By CHRISTER WESTMAN
A Final Inspection by the PLANNING Division is required Z Yes fl No
You may also have corrections from one or more of the divisions listed below. Approval
from these divisions may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Resubmitted plans should include corrections from all divisions
I
This plan check review is NOT COMPLETE. Items missing or incorrect are listed on
the attached checklist Please resubmit amended plans as required
'Plan Check APPROVAL has been sent to: msteffen@tollbrothersinc.com
For questions or clarifications on the attached checklist please contact the following reviewer as marked: - - -
PLANNING ENGINEERING FIRE PREVENTION
7606024610 760-6022750 7606024665
Christer West'man fi. Chris Glassen fi Greg Ryan
760-602-4614 - ' 760-602-2784 760-602-4663
Christer.westman@carisbadca.gov Christopher.Giassen@carlsbadca.gov Gregory.Ryan@cansbadea.gov
fl. Gina Ruiz VaiRay Marshall fi Cindy Wong *
760-602-4675 760-602-2741 760-602-4662
Gina.Ruiz@carisbadca.gov VaIRay.Marshaii@carlsbadca.gov Cvnthia.Wone@carIsbadca.gov
IF] Veronica Morones fi Linda Ontiveros Dominic Fieri
0 760-602-4619 760-602-2773 760-602-4664
Veronica.Morones@carisbadca.gov Linda.Ontiveros@carisbadca.gov Dominic.Fieri@carlsbadca.gov
Remarks
0 • -
r
-- •.'t- ,• .-
•0
00 •00 -. 0
p
/t PLAN CHECK Community & Economic
Development Department
CITY OF '! ! 1635' Faraday Avehue-
f A fl I CD A D TRANSMITTAL Carlsbad CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
' DATE 07/19/2016 PROJECT NAME ROBERTSON RANCH LOT 60 MODEL POOL/YARD PROJECT ID ÔB162013
PLAN CHECK NO 3 SET# 2 ADDRESS:,2535 GLASSGOW DR APN 208191150
- VALUATION/SCOPE OF WORK 40517
Thisplan check review IS complete and has been APPROVED by the ENGINEERING
V Division
- -
By VALRAY NELSON -
: -
'Alfinal Inspection by the ENGINEERING Division is required Dyes R- No
This plan check review isNOT COLfrTE Items missing or incorrect are listed on the
. V
'attached checklist. Please resubmit amended plans as required.
NOTE: ONLY ITEMS THAT NEED CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION ARE MARKED X. ::;
Plan Check Comments have been sent to MSTEFFEN®TOLLBROTHERSINC COM
-•-'- 0
tpj5 teqçpsffoTh OimbrOf thei sIitëd bIöIV ApVäIj
romtiie offiffii6n rna3' be a biiilthñg p[rit
UbNff d5IAs shId ,ffIudcorrectI5ILcfFoThfihI divissoffi
0.. I
•0
For questions or clarifications on the attached checklist please contact the following reviewer as marked
PLANNING ENGINEERING FIRE PREVENTION
760-602-4610 760-602-2750 7604602-4665
Chris Sexton Kathleen Lawrence Greg Ryan ' r [J - 760602-4624 76060-2741 760-602-4663 -
Chris.Sexton@carisbadca.gov, Kathieen.Lawrence@carisbadca.Eov Gregory.Ryan@carisbadca.gov
LIII Gina Riiiz - Linda Ontiverós Cindy Wong
760-602-4615 - 760-602-2773 760-602-4662
Gina.Ruiz@carisbadca.Eov 0 Linda.Ontiveros@carisbadca.gov Cvnthia.Wong@carlsbadca.Eov
VaiRay Marshall Ijj Dominic Fieri
760-602-2741 760602-4664
ValRay.Marshall@carlsbadca.gov Dominic.Fieri@carisbadca.gov
a-
- a -
0
•.•0
0
3 2
Any outstanding issues will be marked with an . Make the necessary corrections for.
'compliance with pplicabie codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications t
the Building division for re-submittal to the Engineering divisions.
Items that conform to permit requirement are marked with IZI
..
1. SITE PLAN
-'. .. . .
NO CITY OWNED Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale
EASEMENTS Show:
EJ EflNorth arrow
Property lines EIZJ Existing & proposed structures
shown on back jJ fjJ Property line dimensions
sheets LJ =Easements
Show on site plan:
rlii r:i Drainage patterns .
5 ..-
LJ LII Existing & proposed slopes
[21 [] Existing topography
LZIII Retaining Walls (location 'and height)--
Lii [2 Indicate wlat will happen with soil excavated from pool are. IL
. - . V . ' ' -
Include on title sheet: 2. .
LOT NUMBER LIII [III Site address
IS SUFFICIENT LII LIII Assessors parcel number '.
LII E12111 Legal description/lot number -
LIIIII LIII Grading Quantities of
Cut Lii Fill LIII Import [11111] Export=
+
-
LI LIII Project does not cothply with the following engineering conditions of approval-
for project no 4
12111 Elil Conditions were complies with by: . -, Date: + -.
q • - ' -- n •
I I
LOT NO. 60
MAP NO 16092 -
REF. NO. CT 13-03-02
+ E-37 Page 2of4 .. •. -. REV6/2012
4
2
: 1
2 GRADING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The conditions that require a grading permit are found in Section 11 06 030 of the Municipal
Code
NEED FULL driadeqüate information available'on site plan to make a dtermination on grading /
RELEASE O1HE
. . . . . requirements. Include accurate grading quantities in cubic yards (cut, fill, import, export and.
. •. THIS PAD PAD remedial). This information must be included on the plans. If no grading is proposed
CERT REVED write "NO GRADING"
- O5/11I6 WAS
., FOR! •. LII Grading Permit required. NOTE: The grading permit must be issued and rough grading
FOj4'NDATION approval obtained prior to issuance of a building permit A separate grading plan prepared a
oiv registered civil engineer must be submitted together with the completed application form attached
11111 L1 PAD CERT RECIEVED 07/11/2016
LII No grading permit required )
- . -
•
3 MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS r
E1 'RI'GHT-O'F-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in city right-of-way and/or private work
adjacent to the public right-of-way.
LII LII A separate right-of-way issued by the engineering division is required for the following
-
•• . . Eli J Please complete attached right-of-way application form and return to the engineering :
l department together with the requirements on the attached right-of-way checklist at1
the time of resubmittal
Right-of-way permit and pool permit will be issued simultaneously.
• .1.
..•. i•:. -
E-37
-. - , • •
• Page 3of4 REV6/2012. •
3
E-37
4 •1. - ---.
*
- -
2
4 - F
.-.
4. STORM WATER
-
Construction Compliance
.• -4. . .. - - . - -
LII Project Threat Assessment Form complete[] incomplete LIII
J Requires Tier I Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; Please complete attached form.
and return (SW 14-
LII-- Requires Tier 2 Storm Water Pollutiór P}evèntióh Plan.' Requires submittal of Tier 2
SWPPP, payment of processing fee and review by city. '
Post-Development (SUSMP) Compliance
LIII LII Storm Water Standards Questionnaire complete LJ incomplete LII
LJ LIII Project is subject to Standard Storm Water Requirements. See city Standard Urban
Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP) for reference.'. -
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/business/buildinp/Documents/EngStandsw-stds-vo14-ch2.pdf
LIIJ Project needs .to incorporate low impact development strategies throuhout in one or
more4of the following ways: - '. . ; : •-.
- - :.---.
LII Rainwater harvesting (rain barrels or istern)
EIII Vegetated Roof
LII] Bio-retentions cell/rain garden
[III Pervious pavement/payers
LII Flow-through planter/vegetated or rock drip line-,
J Vegetated swales or rock infiltration swales , r
LII Downspouts disconnect and discharge over landscape
- 1111111 Other:
-4 . . - . . •*-4 _. . '_ , ¶. .' .
- 4 *
c AflfllTlflMAl flMMNT
El U -U- .--- -- U-
p--.
Page 4of4 -4: '. '. - REV 6/2012
RECEIVED
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GRADING INSPECTION CHECKLIST iJUL 112016
' FOR PARTIAL SITE RELEASE
PROJECTINSPECTOR A DATEt CM&I DIVISION
PROJECT ID C/3-o3 GRADING PERMIT NO
LOTS REQUESTEDFOR RELEASE: 7AS_Li61/A g/,a L/13-3
N/A .= NOT APPLICABLE
'1= COMPLETE
0 _Incomplete or unacceptable
1st 2nd. *
I Site access to requested lots adequate and logically grouped
2. Site erosion control measures adequate' including basins and lined
.• ditches installed.
3 Overall site adequate for health, safety and welfare of public
4 4 Letter from Owner/Oev requesting partial release of specific lots, pads
or bldg.
5. 8/ x 11 site plan (attachment) showing requested lots submitted.
6 Compaction report from soils engineer submitted
7. EOW certification of work done with finish pad elevations of specific lots
to be released
IA 8. Geologic engineer's letter if unusual geologic or subsurface conditions * - exist.
9 Fully functional fire hydrants within 350 feet of building combustibles
and an all weather roads access to site is required
/ 10 Retaining walls installed
V' ii. Ad\equate progress on installation of slope irrigation and landsape.
12 Minimum 20 wide all weather road
13 Sewer installed and available for use
Partial release of grading for the above stated lots is approved for the purpose of building
permit issuance. Issuance of building permits is still subject to all normal City
requirements required pursuant to the building permit process
Partial release of the site is denied for the following reasons:
4
7
;4pector Date
* niAl Projects Manager Dat /
Partial Site Rel Checklist —UPDATED 11/2015
.,
rr
LGC Valley, Inc.
Geotechnical Consulting RECEIVED
. April 27,2016 Project No. 133023-06
yMr. Mike Steffen MAY 20 2016
Toll Brothers, Inc.
.' 725 Town & Country Road
'
Suite 200 CITY OF CARLSBAD
. Orange, California 92868 BUILDING DIVISION
Subject Geotechnical Review and Recommendations Relative to the Proposed ModelLot Pool and Spa,
- Lot 60 of the Bluffs and Lots 320 through 322 of the Terraces, Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad,
California
References: •LGC Valley, Inc., 2014, Geotechnical and Environmental Recommendations for Robertson Ranch
West, Carlsbad Tract No 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project Number 133023-03, dated April 29,
2014 , •4.r . - -
- LGC Valley, Inc., 2015, Preliminary foundation design for the single-family residential
. structures, Planning Areas PA-3, PA-5, PA-6, PA-9, PA-b, and PA-13, Robertson Ranch,
, . Carlsbad Tract No 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No 1.33023-06, dated April 14, 2015
LGC Valley Inc., 2016, As-Graded Report of Rough Grading, Lots 59, 60, 216 through 225, 234
through 244,299 through 301, 308 through 310, and 320 through 324, Planning Areas PA-5, PA-
and PA-9&10, Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, February 3
2016
- SMP Landscape Architects, 2016a, Landscape Drawings for Terraces Models, Lots 320-322 at
Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Drawing No 480-3P, 26 Sheets, dated March 28, 2016
:'•"• • - - ' •-- SMP Landscape Architects, 2016b, Landscape Drawings for Robertson Ranch West Village -
p.-.: * Bluffs, Lots 59&60 at Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Drawing No. 480-3Q, 18 Sheets,
dated April 7, 2016
'in accordance with your request, LGC Valley, Inc. (LGC) has performed a geotechnical review of the proposed
• rear yard improvements at the subject model lots (Lot 60 of Planning Area PA-5 - The Bluffs and Lots 320 through
322 ofPA-9&10 - The Terraces) within the Robertson Ranch project located in Carlsbad, California This report
presents the results of our review and provides our findings, conclusion, opinions, and recommendations relative to
-' the proposed improvements on the subject lots. As part of study, we reviewed the applicable project as-graded
geotechnical report and the landscape architectural plans referenced above.
-- .
,
. • .
Proposed Improvements
.T Jhe focus of this review is the proposed pool and spa located in the rear yards of the proposed model lots. The
proposed pools and spas range is depth from approximately 1 to 6 feet below grade Associated improvements in
;the rear yards include BBQ counter, sunken lounge, fire pit, entertainment wall, outdoor kitchen, seating areas,
patio cover/cabana, decorative sculptures, masonry pilasters, pot pedestals, payers, block and retaining walls, and
concrete flatwork. - - -
2420 Grand Avenue Suite F2 Vista CA 92081 (760) 599-7000 Fax (760) 599-7007
- - -
13
As-Graded Site Conditions
LGC performed geotechnical observation and testing services during rough grading operations for the Robertson
Ranch project including the model lots of Planning Areas PA-5 (Lot 60) and PA-9&10 (Lots 320 through 322).
The rough grading for the subject lots was performed between September 2014 and October 2015 in general
accordance with the project preliminary geotechnical report (LGC, 2014). The grading operations were performed
.: under the observation and testing services of LGC. Our field technician was onsite on a full-time basis and our field
geologist was onsite on a part to full time basis during the rough grading operations.
.., Rough grading operations for the subject lots included: 1) removal and off-site disposal of vegetation and
miscellaneous debris; 2) overexcavation of unsuitable/compressible soils down to competent bedrock; 3)
overexcavation of Lot 60 due to cemented sandstone and Lots 320 through 322 due to expansive soils; 4) construction
-•' . . of stability fills of the descending slope at the rear of Lot 60 and the ascending slope at the rear of Lots 320 through
r 322; 5) placement of subdrains along the heel of the stability fill keys; 6) preparation of areas to receive fill; and 7)
placement of compacted fill soils creating the graded pads and adjacent slopes. The depth of the compacted fill on Lot
60 ranges from approximately 5 to 10 feet (along the top of the slope/rear of the building pad) and approximately 5
' feet in depth on Lots 320 through 322. . S.
Expansion potential tests performed on representative finish grade soils of the lots indicate that the finish grade soils
on the lots have a medium expansion potential. Corrosion and soluble sulfate testing performed on representative
finish grade soils show that the near surface soils have a negligible soluble sulfate content (per ACT 318R-08 Table
- 4.3.1); are corrosive to severely corrosive to buried metals based on the minimum soil resistivity values; and are
corrosive to buried metals and reinforcing steel in concrete based on the chloride concentrations
S Conclusions and Opinions .. :.
Based on our review of the site soils, proposed improvements, and geotechnical and experience, it is the opinion of
this firm that the proposed site improvements will not negatively affect the subject residence or adjacent properties
provided the recommendations contained within this report are implemented into the appropriate site designs.
I.. S
S•S S
- Swimming Pool and Spa Recommendations .,. .
The proposed pool, spa and associated improvements should be constructed in accordance with the attached
Figure 1, Geotechnical Guidelines for Swimming Pool Construction. Based on the existing fill depth, proposed
pool locations, and anticipated pool excavation depths, it is anticipated that all four of the proposed pool
•
: .excavations will have a cut/fill transition conditions and fill thickness differentials beneath the pools of 3 feet or
less. . S
Colisideration should be given to the medium expansive potential of onsite soils in design of the pool and
. - associated decking, payers, and concrete flatwork. The subject pools should be designed using a minimum lateral
S.., equivalent fluid pressure of 85 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). With respect to the pool on Lot 60, the pool shell
designwithin 10 feet of the top-of-slope should be designed assuming total loss of soil support (i.e. a free
S standing wall) for the portion of the pool located within the assumed slope creep area, as discussed below. Also
concrete in contact with onsite soils should be designed in accordance with the negligible category of ACT 318R_
08 Table 4.3.1. - ..
_1•.
Project No. 133023-06 Page 2 April 27, 2016
'I--
- Due to inherent differences in supporting capacity and expansive potential of fill and cut ground, it is undesirable
- to have structures partially supported on soils having different geotechnical characteristics or materials having
* different engineering characteristics. Due to the presence of a cut/fill transition condition, the cut portion of the
transition should be excavated and converted to compacted fill (usually impractical for pool/spa construction), or
I the pool/spa can be designed with additional reinforcement and/or a thicker shell in order to cope with potential
differences in supporting capacity and expansive potential.
. Excavation and subsequent fill placement for pool and spa, including the placement of drains, outlets, water-
proofing, etc. should be performed under the observation and testing of a geotechnical consultant. Observation and
. testing should be performed by the geotechnical consultant during pool excavation to verify that the exposed soil
i conditions are consistent with the design assumptions.
-
Bearitw Capacity
Shallow foundations may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 lb/ft2 (gross), for
. continuous footings a minimum of 12 inches wide and 18 inches deep, and spread footings 24 inches wide and 18
-; inches deep, into certified compacted fill or bedrock. A factor of safety greater than 3 was used in evaluating the
above bearing capacity value. This value maybe increased by 250 psf for each additional foot in depth and 100 psf
for each additional foot of width to a maximum value of 3,000 psf.
Lãterl forces on footings may be resisted by passive earth resistance and friction at the bottom of the footing
Foundations may be designed for a coefficient of friction of 0.35, and a passive earth pressure of 250 lb/&/ft to a
maximum value of 2,500 psf. The passive earth pressure incorporates a factor of safety of greater than 1.5.
- - All footing excavations should be cut square and level as much as possible, and should be free of sloughed
-. .. materials including sand, rocks and gravel, and trash debris. These allowable bearing pressures are applicable for
level (ground slope equal to or flatter than 5H: IV) conditions only. -
'. • . Bearing values indicated above are for total dead loads and frequently applied live loads. The above vertical bearing
-
, may be increased by on-third for short durations of loading which will include the effect of wind or seismic forces.
4f_ • •
PooUFoundation Setback/Clearance
' All foundations located close to slopes should have a minimum setback per Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2013 California •, 2 Building Code or to account for slope creep, whichever is greater. The setback distances should be measured from
competent materials on the outer slope face, excluding any weathered and loose materials. Based on our review of
,the landscape plans, for Lot 60 with an approximately 20-foot slope descending from the rear of the property, the *
- proposed pool is setback beyond the CBC setback for pools; however, in consideration of potential slope creep, the
-. outer pool wall designed within 10 feet of the top of slope should be designed assuming total loss of soil support
for the portion of the pool located within this area, and foundations should be embedded below a depth of 3.5 feet
at the southern edge of proposed pool/foundations locations. •
- -
- ;- Section 1808.7.1 of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) provides recommendations/discussion with regards
to the building clearance from ascending slopes The intent of this section of the code is that the proposed building
structure below slopes shall be set a sufficient distance from the slope to provide protection from slope drainage,
erosion, and shallow failures The code clearance for building foundations below slopes is equal to the smaller of
• . - the height of slope divided by 2 or 15 feet. - .•.
.
Project N: 133023-06 Page April 27 2016
The constructed slope ascending from the rear of Lots 320 through 322 is approximately 20 feet or less in height
and at a slope gradient of 2H: 1V. The slope was constructed with a stability fill with a 15 foot keyway. A retaining
wall is proposed at the toe of slope and will have a freeboard above the toe of slope, behind the wall, and will have
a v-ditch behind the-wall. Based on our review of the landscape plot plans, the closest portion of the proposed
improvements are setback approximately 10 feet from the proposed retaining wall to be located along the toe of
slope. Therefore, it is our opinion that the design clearance is acceptable from a geotechnical point of view.
Nonstructural Concrete Flatwork
Concrete flatwork (such as walkways, patio slabs, etc.) has a high potential for cracking due to changes in soil
volume related to soil-moisture fluctuations. To reduce the potential for excessive cracking and lifting, concrete
- may be designed in accordance with the minimum guidelines outlined in the table below. These guidelines will
reduce the potential for irregular cracking and promote cracking along construction joints, but will not eliminate all
cracking or lifting. Thickening the concrete and/or adding additional reinforcement will further reduce cosmetic
distress. S
Nonstructural Concrete Flahvork
Homeowner Sidewalks Private Drives Patios/Entryways
Minimum
Thickness (in.) 4 5 5
Presaturation . Wet down Presoak to 12 inches Presoak to 12 inches
Reinforcement - No. 3 at 24 inches on- No. 3 at 24 inches on-
__________________ centers centers
Thickened Edge - 8 x 8 -
(in.)
Crack Control Saw cut or deep open tool Saw cut or deep open tool Saw cut or deep open tool
Joints . joint to a minimum of 1/3 joint to a minimum of 1/3 joint to a minimum of 1/3
the concrete thickness the concrete thickness the concrete thickness
Maximum Joint - 10 feet or quarter cut
Spacing 5 feet whichever is closer 6 feet
Aggregate Base - 2 2
(in)
Payers r
-
Pavers should be installed per manufactures recommendations. The following are considered minimum
recommendations for the payers and are not meant to supersede more restrictive manufactures recommendations.
Payers should be designed to be underlain by approximately 1 to 2 inches of leveling sand over approximately 4-
inches of compacted aggregate base for walkways/patios, and 6-inches of compacted aggregate base for driveways.
-. The subgrade soils should achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. The base material should be
compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. Base and subgrade materials should be
p moisture-conditioned to a relatively uniform m6isture content at or slightly over the optimum moisture content
* - - - -, I . ,
•-•
S
- -
* •-. -5- --
Project No. 133023-06 Page 4 April 27, 2016
.•
.5
,• • - .
S -
Closure
* Our findings, conclusions, opinions, and recommendations were prepared in accordance with generally accepted
professional geotechnical engineering and geologic principles and practice We make no other warranty, either
express or implied.
If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of
- service.
Respectfully Submitted,
K.
CL ENGINU ING No. 2734
f7//J4
Randall Wagner, CEG 1612 Basil Hattar, GE 2734 ,. wie ) JJ Senior Project Geologist
.0 EXP. 3131/21118
Principal Engineer
Attachment Figure 1 Geotechnical Guidelines for Swimming Pool Construction
1- Distribution (1) Addressee (via e-mail)
- (1) Toll Brothers, Attention Ms JoAnn Epstine (via e-mail)
(1) Universal Engineering, Attention Mr. Freddy Figueroa (via e-mail)
-
, -
- -
- I
-.
5- .. * -
1'
'
'. - I - • - -
.)I• I* .-. --
-
• •• -.•- •. * --
- •.. -
.•-- .
, - .- .
- .-.. -- .....•- .
Project No 13302306 Page 5 April 27 2016
•e•-•---• • .-. -.• S..
Depth of Slope creep Lateral
- Lot Number Expansion moisture cut-off zone distance Equivalent
Index footing from Top of Fluid Pressure
Slope (pcf)
60 Medium 12 inches 10 feet 85
320-322 Medium 12 inches - 85
- . - Portion of pad most susceptible to slope creep.
10 (per table above)
.-.,,. -k-
Pool shell to be
—
-
'slope creep zone
.
/<_designed for any added
-. - - I load of adjacent
- structures. * Pool Shell
For pools adjacent to descending slopes, the pool shell should be designed assuming total loss of soil support for the portion of the
pool located within the assumed "creep zone". The pool should be founded below the slope creep projection line.
'All pool design should be performed by a qualified designer, using the equivalent fluid pressures shown in the table above.
The pool shell should be designed to account for any additional loading due to improvements (building, raised planters, etc.)
41
- • ., Fire 1
,VE33[
Geotechnical
Guidelines for
Swimming Pool
Construction
Project Name Bluff/Terraces Models
Project No. 133023-06
Eng. / Geol. BII{/RKW
Scale Not to Scale
Date 4/27/16
A
-
*4 ••:'l
- .
LGC Valley, Inc
- Geotechnical Consulting
/
-:
AS-GRADED REPORT OF ROUGH-GRADING,
LOTS 59, 60, 216-225, 234-244, 299-301,
308-310, AND 320-324,
PLANNING AREAS PA-5, PA-6, AND PA-9&10,
- ROBERTSON RANCH,
CARLSBAD TRACTNO.13-03,
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNJA
* -c• • - . *
-- •4 - ,
I
Project No 133023-03
- Dated February 3, 2016
4
S • -- •l •
Prepared For
Toll Brothers
- - - 725 Town and Country Road, Suite 200
Orange, California 92868
-.- --., * -
-. -
- 2420 Grand Avenue, Suite F2 • Vista • CA 92081 • (760) 599-7000 • Fax (760) 599-7007
. - -•
LGC Valley, Inc.
Geotechnical Consulting
February 3, 2016 Project No. 133023-03
Mr. Greg Deacon
Toll Brothers
725 To'.vn and Country Road, Suite 500
-
Orange, California 92868
Subject. - As-Graded Report of Rough Grading, Lots 59, 60, 216 through 225, 234 through 244, 299
' through 301, 308 through 310, and 320 through 324, Planning Areas PA-5, PA-6, and PA-
.9&10, Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No 13-03, Carlsbad, California
I
In accordance with the request and authorization of Toll Brothers, LGC Valley, Inc. (LGC) has provided F
geotechnical services during the rough-grading operations for Lots 59 and 60 of Planning Area PA-5; Lots 216
through 225 and 234 through 244 of Planning Area PA-6; and Lots 299 through 301, 308 through 310, and 320
-
.. through 324 of Planning Areas PA-9 and PA- 10; part of the Robertson Ranch project (Carlsbad Tract No. 13-
03) located within the City of Carlsbad, California. The accompanying as-graded report of rough-grading
sdñimarizes our observations, field and laboratory test results, and the geotechnical conditions encountered
during grading of the subject lots. . .
The rough-grading operations for the subject lots were performed in general accordance with previously
published project geotechnical reports (Appendix A), geotechnical recommendations made during the course of
-,grading, and the City of Carlsbad grading requirements. It is our professional opinion that the subject lots are
suitable for the intended use provided the recommendations included herein and in the project geotechnical
eports are incorporated into the fine-grading, design, and construction of the proposed development and
•
.•• . ssociated improvements. As of the date of this report, the rough-grading operations for the subject lots are
essentially complete.
If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be
of service.. *
., ,- • -
Respectfiully Submitted,
01 CERTMED
.
LGC Valley, Inc. ONAL 0~, S1 vo
LK
7 0, 47 No. 1612
':-:aIdaciW11e:CEG 1612 * ENGINEERIN No. 27 GEOLOGIST Basil Lar,t2734 Ev. a
-•-..
Senior Project Geologist Principal Engineer
RKW/BIH -OF
••• - • *
Distribution: (7) Addressee •.
(1) Toll Brothers; Attention Ms. JoAnn Epstine (via e-mail) -
- (1) Toll Brothers, Attention Mr. Kevin Brickley (via e-mail)
(1) Toll Brothers, Attention Mr. Mike Steffen (via e-mail)
,_:-,_- 4! - - • . . -
' - 2420 Grand Avenue, Suite F2 • Vista • CA 92081 . (760) 599-7000 • Fax (760) 599-7007 -
-, 4 •* * - . -i •/
*
. . TABLE OF CONTENTS -. •
Section Page
-. 10 INTRODUCTION I
.. ,*..
-2.o SUMMARY OF ROUGH-GRADING OPERA TIONS ................................................................................. 2 -'
2.1 As-Graded Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Site Preparation and Removals.........................................................................................................3 -
• -. 2.3 Stability Fills.....................................................................................................................................4 24 Subdrain Installation 4
2.5 Overexcavation of Cut/Fill Transition Conditions ............................................................................4
2.6 Overexcavation of Cut Lots...............................................................................................................5
2.7 Fill Placement and Compaction 5
- 2.8 Laboratory Testing............................................................................................................................5
29 Field Density Testing 5
210, Graded Slopes 6
30 CONCLUSIONS 7
31 General 7
3 2 Summary of Conclusions 7
1,4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 9 . 4.1 Earthwork 9
4.2 Site Preparation 9
4.3 Excavations 9
4.4 Fill Placement and Compaction 10
4 5 Preliminary Foundation Recommendations 10
4.6 Control of Surface Water and Drainage 11
5.0 LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 12
Appendices
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
- *..
. .
1 •
.1
Project No 133023 03 Page i February 3 2016
V •
;-•'' . -
VV• -
•.
V.- -
1.0 INTRODUCTION
- I
•d -
-
• •, In accordance with the request and authorization of Toll Brothers, LGC Valley, Inc. (LGC) has provided
' geotechnical services during the rough-grading operations of Lots 59 and 60 of Planning Area PA-5; Lots 216
through 225 and 234 through 244 of Planning Area PA-6; and Lots 299 through 301, 308 through 310, and
320 through 324 of Planning Areas PA-9 and PA-10; part of the Robertson Ranch project (Carlsbad Tract No.
1 13-03) located within the City of Carlsbad, California. This as-graded report summarizes our observations,
field and laboratory test results, and the, geotechnical conditions encountered during grading of the subject
lots. The subject rough-grading operations were performed in general accordance with previously
published project geotechnical reports (Appendix A), geotechnical recommendations made during the
IV .
• course 'of grading, and the City of Carlsbad grading requirements. As of this date, the rough-grading
operations for the subject lots are essentially complete
The Rough Grading Plans for the Robertson Ranch project, prepared by O'Day Consultants (O'Day, 2014b),
-
••= were utilized as a base map to present the as-graded geotechnical conditions and approximate locations of the
field density tests. The As-graded Geotechnical Map and the Field Density Test Location Map will be . * V provided in the final' as-graded report for Robertson Ranch upon completion of all of the rough-grading
operations. -
V c... Lots 59 'and 60 of Planning Area PA-5 are located in the western portion of Robertson Ranch along the south
- side of Glasgow Drive while Lots 216 through 225 and 234 through 244 of Planning Area PA-6 and Lots 299
through 301, 308 through 310, and 320 through 324 of Planning Areas PA-9 and PA-10 are located in the
east-central portion of the project along Wadsworth Street, Chase Court and Kentner Court. Ultimately,
'development of Planning Area PA-5, PA-6, and PA-9 and 10 will include the construction of 36, 87, and
V
• 75 single-family residential lots, respectfully; along with associated retaining walls, slopes, storm water
retention basins, and adjacent streets. The rough-grading operations for Lots 59 and 60 of Planning Area
PA-5; Lots 216 through 225 and 234 through 244 of Planning Area PA-6; and Lots 299 through 301, 308 ' V
V through 310, and 320 through 324 of Planning Areas PA-9 and PA-10 were performed as a part of grading V
- operations 'for the entire Robertson Ranch Development between September 2014 and October 2015. V -
- V V V V •,V - V V V V V
V '' V -
V • V
-.
VVIV. • • I
. .1 •- V - -
- - -
I, •-, • • - V V V
V
I- •'•_ • - •- - - V
V
V V ':
•
•'• V V V
- - --
•
Project No 133023-03 Page] February 3, 2016
'-' _, VV - • -- • -
VV •_,_
..
2.0 SUMMARY OF ROUGH-GRADING OPERATIONS
Rough-grading of the subject site began on September 5, 2014 and was essentially completed as of October
22, 2015. The grading operations were performed under the observation and testing services of LGC Valley,
; Inc.. Our field technicians were onsite on a full-time basis during the grading operations while our field
geologist was onsite on a periodic basis. The rough-grading operations included:
Removal and off-site disposal of vegetation and miscellaneous debris;
The removal of potentially compressible soils including colluvium, topsoil, undocumented fill, and
weathered soils to competent formational material;
. 3) Overexcavatiôn of cut/fill transition conditions within the lots;
4) Overexcavation of buried cut/fill transition conditions such that the resulting fill differential beneath
- , the proposed building pads was less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill
thickness);
* 5) Overexcavation of cut lots due to expansive soils;
6) Preparation of areas to receive fill; :
.; 7) = The placement of subdrains in the canyon bottoms and along the heel of the stability fill keys; •
Excavation of formational material; and
The placement of compacted fill soils creating the graded pads and adjacent slopes.
* 4
The rough-grading operations consisted of the placement of fill up to approximately 45 feet in depth and
cuts up to approximately 20 feet within the subject lots During the rough-grading operations, remedial
grading was also performed so that the fill differentials beneath the proposed building pads were less than a -
3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness).
2.1 As-Graded Conditions . :..
- •
The as-graded conditions encountered during grading of the lots were essentially as anticipated In the
-
vicinity of the Lots 234 through 244, 299, 308, 309, 323, and 324, minor alluvium and colluvium
. -
were encountered on the upper hillsides and small tributary ravines of the main canyon running in a
northwest-southeast between Planning Areas PA-6 and PA-9/PA-10 and in the small canyon in the,
• - vicinity of Lots 323 and 324. Formational material was encountered on the slopes and at design cut
. grade below a thin veneer of topsoil and weathered soils on the remainder of the lots. •
All unsuitable and potentially compressible soils were removed prior to fill placement. This included
- - alluvium, colluvium, undocumented fill (associated with the past agricultural operations), and '
weathered formational materials. The alluvium, colluvium, and topsoil typiôally consisted of light
brown to brown silty fine sands, sandy clays and clayey sands derived from on-site soils and were •.
-'found to be very low to highly expansive, porous, and contained sbattered organics. Removals of , •
alluvium and colluvium up to approximately 5 to 15 feet in depth were made in the vicinity of Lots
234 through 244, 299, 308, 309, 323, and 324 Removals of the topsoil and weathered formational
material that was on the order of 2 to 6 feet were made in the other areas of the site. •
- -
I
•_• . .. _!• • - -
,. Project NJ 13302303 Page 2 February 3, 2016
*
S.
...
The formational material encountered on the subject lots consisted of the Santiago Formation. The
material was found to be massively bedded to cross-bedded silty sandstones and minor clayey
- -. sandstones, silty claystones and sandy siltstones. The claystones and siltstones generally were olive
• green and orange brown, damp to moist, stiff to hard, moderately fractured and sheared. The
sandstone generally consisted of light olive green, light brown and pale orange brown (where iron-
oxidized stained), damp to moist, dense to very dense, silty very fine to medium grained sandstone.
The majority of the Santiago material encountered within Robertson Ranch consisted of silty fine
sands. Bedding within the Santiago Formation was highly variable, but overall, generally dipped 2
-to 15 degrees to the west-southwest.
A zone of two to three minor inactive faults was geologically mapped trending in a north-south
direction in the middle of Planning Areas PA-9 and PA-b. Geologic mapping indicated the faults
trended N30E to N16°E steeply dipping 60 to 85 degrees to the west. The faults were only observed
within the Santiago Formation and the fault zone appeared to die out to the south. Based on our
• geologic analysis during the current grading operations and review of the applicable geotechnical V
reports referenced in Appendix A, it is our professional opinion that the faults are not active; and • therefore are not a constraint to development. .
No groundwater was encountered during the grading of the subject lots However, unanticipated
V seepage conditions may occur after the completion of grading and establishment of site irrigation
V
V and landscaping. If these conditions should occur, steps to mitigate the seepage should be made on
V a case-by-case basis.
V S 555 S
22 Site Preparation and Removals
• - V Prior to grading, the site was cleared of light vegetation and other miscellaneous debris and the V
V
V V material was disposed of at an offsite facility. Undocumented fill, topsoil, alluvium, colluvium, and
- V -. weathered formational material were removed down to competent material (i.e. dense unweathered
T V formational material). Remedial removals on site, below the existing ground surface, ranged from
• approximately 2 to 20 feet in depth. The thickness of compacted fills placed during this recent rough-
V •
- - grading operation, to achieve design rough grades (or sheet-graded pad elevations), ranged from 0 to
approximately 45 feet.. -
V
V ,Following the remedial removals or overexcavations, areas to receive fill were scarified V
V - approximately 6-inches, moisture-conditioned, as needed, to obtain a near-optimum moisture content
• and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (for fills of approximately 40 feet or. V V
• less from design grades) or 93 percent relative compaction (for engineered fill below approximately S
-:. '. * 40 feet from design finish grades), as determined by ASTM Test Method D6938 (i.e. the nuclear
V gauge method). • • •• V •
- • V S. V
- •• V .-
V -•
I
Project No 133023-03 Page 3 February 3 2016
-4,
5 .
-. .5
.. 2.3 Stability Fills
- - - - Stability fills were constructed to stabilize the exposed blocky claystone/siltstone and/or adverse (i.e.
'out-of-slope) geologic conditions present within the Santiago Formation. The stability fill keys were
excavated to a width of approximately 15 feet and a minimum depth of 3 to 5 feet below the toe-of-
- - slope. The keyway bottom was angled at least 2 percent into-the-slope.
-. -,
44 - The stability fill front cuts were excavated near vertical while the back-cuts were excavated at an
approximate 1:1 to 1.5 (horizontal to vertical) slope inclinations. Stability fills were excavated along
the proposed slopes on: 1) the southwest side Lot 60; 2) the southeast side of Lots 59 and 60; 3) the
- - -. west side of Lots 216 through 225; 4) the north side of Lots 299 through 301; and 5) the north side of
:'- - .-.
Lots 320 through 323.
-; -. 2.4 Subdrain Installation
- . - Canyon and stability fill subdrains were installed under the observation of a representative of LGC in
- general accordance with the planned locations of the approved geotechnical report, and the standard
. details (LGC, 2014a). After the potentially compressible material in the canyons were removed to
4. competent material or when compacted fill was placed over competent material to obtain flow to a,
suitable outlet location, a subdrain was installed along the canyon bottom.
.•. -_ 'The ,canyon subdrains consisted of a 6-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by a minimum of 9-'. - - -
cubic feet (per linear foot) of crushed 3/4-inch gravel wrapped in Mirafi 140N filter fabric In addition
- -- to the canyon subdrains, subdrains were also installed along the bottom backside of the stability fill -
- - - f keys. The stability fill subdrains consisted of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by a - -
-minimum of 3-cubic feet (per linear foot) of clean 3/4-inch gravel wrapped in Mirafi 140N filter -. - -
fabric..'
'-- .'-- - The canyon and stability fill subdrains were placed with a minimum 1-percent fall (2-percent or
.
- greater where possible) to a suitable outlet location. The location of the subdrains placed during the
mass grading operations for the project were surveyed by the project civil engineer.
2.5 ,,, Overexcavation of Cut/Fill Transition Conditions
Based on the as-graded conditions, the cut/fill transition condition present within the lots, as shown on
- "
-
.the rough grading plans (O'Day, 2014b), were overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet in depth beneath -
- -. the proposed finish grade surface of the lot. The overexcavation extended to a distance of at least 10
feet outside the planned building limits. Lots that were overexcavated due to the cut/fill 'transition - - -
condition include Lots 244, 300, 301, 310, 322, and 323. During the rough-grading operations,
-
-. - remedial grading was also performed so that the fill differential beneath the proposed building pads -
- -. - -. - was less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum fill thickness). - -- - - 5 - ,-
•-'..:• ..- . ..
- -• . ''.4 -. S - , . -- .. -
- .
:'
- .,. 5 t. . 5'
- 'Project No. 133023-03 - Page 4 February 3, 2016
'¼
Z6 Overexcavalion of Cut Lots
During the rough-grading operations, the overexcavation of cut lots was performed in order to
mitigate potential adverse conditions due to expansive soils. The entire portion of the cut lots were
* overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet below finish pad grade and replaced with compacted fill having a
. lower expansion potential. In order to minimize potential ponded ground water conditions on the
overexcavation bottom, the bottom was sloped toward the street with a minimum fall of one percent. r - Cut lots that were overexcavated included Lots 60, 320, and 321.
2.7 Fill Placement and Compaction
. After processing the areas to receive fill, native soil was generally spread in approximately 8-inch
loose lifts, moisture-conditioned as needed to attain near-optimum moisture content, and compacted
to at least 90-or 93 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test
Method D1557. Fill soils less than 40 feet below the design finish grades were compacted to a
minimum 90 percent relative compaction while fill soils greater than 40 feet below the design finish
grades were compacted to a minimum 93 percent relative compaction. Compaction was achieved by
P -
use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Areas of fill in which either field density tests indicated
less than 90 or 93 percent relative compaction or the soils exhibited nonuniformity and/or showed an
inadequate or excessive moisture content, were reworked, recompacted, and retested until a minimum
90 or 93 percent relative compaction and near optimum moisture content was achieved
2.8. Laboratory Test,nL'
, .; Maximum dry density tests of representative on-site soils were performed (by others during the
previous investigation and by LGC during the current rough-grading operations) in general
accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Expansion potential, soluble sulfate content, and
corrosion testing of representative finish grade soils within the subject lots were performed Based on
the laboratory testing, Lots 59 and 234 through 244 have a very low expansion potential; Lots 216
through 225 have a low expansion potential; and Lots 60, 299 through 301, 308 through 310, and 320
through 324 have a medium expansion potential Laboratory testing also indicated that the near
surface soils have a negligible soluble sulfate content; are corrosive to severely corrosive to buried,
metals based on the minimum soil resistivity values; and are corrosive to buried metals and - -
- . reinforcing steel in concrete based on the chloride concentrations. The laboratory test results are
presented in Appendix B.
- 2.9 Field Density Twin,-
Field density testing was performed using the Nuclear-Gauge Method (ASTM Test Method.
D6938) The approximate test locations and the results of the field density tests will be provided in
- - . the final as-graded report for Robertson Ranch upon completion of the rough grading operations.. -
The field density testing was performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM standards
Project No. 133023-03 Page February 3, 2016
;
•
-.. .',
I
and the current standard of care in the industry. In-situ soil density testing is intended to verify the
effectiveness of the earthmoving operation in general and is performed on a spot-check basis; as
such, some variations in relative compaction should be expected from the results documented
herein..
2.10 Graded Slopes
-.. Manufactured fill slopes within the subject lots were surveyed by the civil engineer and constructed
with slope inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Permanent graded fill slopes adjacent
-• to. or within the subject areas range from approximately 5 to 50 feet in height. There are no
permanently graded cut slopes within or adjacent to the subject areas. The on-site fill slopes are
- considered grossly and surficially stable from a geotechnical standpoint (under normal
irrigation/precipitation patterns) provided the project geotechnical recommendations are
-. incorporated into the fine-grading, post-grading, construction, and post-construction phases of site
: . •-
.. development.
. . .. :
-.
-.
-.
•
. -
. .-_
.. -
,_• - - .
.'.
- ., • •• -.. -'
;•_••__.•
.
-. : . .•-
--,..' I ._ •
.-' . .
_-\ *
-. .s -- •• • •- ••-•
Project No. 133023-03 - - Page 6 February 3, 2016
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
3.1 General
The rough-grading of Lots 59 and 60 of Planning Area PA-5; Lots 216 through 225 and 234 through
244 of Planning Area PA-6; and Lots 299 through 301, 308 through 310, and 320 through 324 of
Planning Areas PA-9 and PA-10 of the Robertson Ranch development located within the City of
Carlsbad, California was performed in general accordance with the project geotechnical report
(LGC, 2014a), geotechnical recommendations made during the course of grading, and the City of:
Carlsbad grading requirements. It is our professional opinion that the subject lots are suitable for
the intended use provided the recommendations of the referenced geotechnical reports (LGC,
2014a and 2015a through 2016b) are incorporated into the design and construction; and that proper
landscaping, irrigation, and maintenance programs are implemented. V
-
3.2 Summary of Conclusions
The following is a summary of our conclusions concerning the rough-grading of Lots 127 through
149 of Planning Area PA-3:
Rough-grading of the lots is essentially complete
- Geotechnical conditions encountered during the rough-grading operation were generally as
. ' - • . anticipated.
The geologic units encountered during the rough-grading of the site consisted of undocumented
-. . fill soils, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, and the Santiago Formation.
. • Unsuitable undocumented fill soils, topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, and desiccated and/or weathered
formational material were removed to competent formational material within the limits of - *
- . grading.
Landslides or surficial slope failures were not encountered during the grading operations
No evidence of active faulting was encountered during the rough-grading operations; however,
a zone of two to three minor inactive faults was encountered trending in north-south direction - -
in the middle of Planning Areas PA-9 and PA-10 (i.e. in the vicinity of Lots 310 and 320)
Based on our geologic analysis, it is our professional opinion that the faults are not active, and
- •. ., therefore are not a constraint to development.
V - • Ground water seepage conditions were not encountered during the subject grading operations.
V.
-•
Stability fills were constructed to improve the gross stability of the cut slope exposing fractured
and blocky fomiational material and/or adverse geologic conditions on the site and were
excavated in accordance with the project geotechnical recommendations Stability fills were
excavated along the proposed slopes on 1) the southwest side Lot 60, 2) the southeast side of
.
. Lots 59 and 60; 3) the west side of Lots 216 through 225; 4) the north side of Lots 299 through
301, and 5) the north side of Lots 320 through 323
J
-V
V
V • Project No. 133023-03 Page 7 February 3, 2016T
V
V * •
V
. Subdrains were placed in the canyon bottom and along the heel of the stability fill keys. The
subdrains were (or will be) outlefted into suitable storm drain facilities or near the toe-of-slope
: of the stability fill slopes.
. The cut/fill transition conditions present within the limits of Lots 244, 300, 301, 310, 322, and 323
• were overexcavated a minimum of 5 feet beneath the finish grade surface and to a distance of at
least 10 feet outside the planned building limits.
Overexcavation of Lots 60, 320, and 321 was performed in order to mitigate potential adverse
IL conditions due to expansive soils. The entire portion of the cut lots were overexcavated a
minimum of 5 feet below finish pad grade and replaced with compacted fill having a lower -
4 expansion potential.
During the rough-grading operations, remedial grading was performed so that the fill differential
-. beneath the proposed building pads was less than a 3:1 (maximum fill thickness to the minimum
fill thickness)
Fill soils were derived from on-site soils. Where tested, the fill soils within the site were
-':
compacted at least a 90 or 93 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method
D1557) and near-optimum moisture content in accordance with the recommendations of the
. - -' project geotechnical report (LGC, 2014a) and the requirements of the City of Carlsbad. Fill
soils less than 40 feet below the design finish grades were compacted to a minimum 90 percent
- relative compaction while fill soils greater than 40 feet below the design finish grades were
.
compacted to a minimum 93 percent relative compaction.
,•••. . Due to the dense nature of the on-site soils, it is our professional opinion that the liquefaction
.. . hazard at the site is considered low. .
• Representative testing of the finish grade soils on the building pads of the subject lots indicated
that the near-surface soils on Lots 59 and 234 through 244 have a very low expansion potential;
-
Lots 216 through 225 have a low expansion potential; and Lots 60, 299 through 301, 308 through -'
310, and 320 through 324 have a medium expansion potential. The test results are presented in
Appendix B.
• The potential for soluble sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the finish grade soils of the
J subject lots is considered negligible based on ACI Criteria (ACT 318R-05 Table 4.3.1). The
soluble sulfate content test results are included in Appendix B. • -.
;. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples indicated that the near surface soils are corrosive
to severely corrosive to buried metals. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. •
. It is our professional opinion that the slopes of the development are considered to be grossly •
-. '•. -. and surficially stable, as constructed, under normal irrigation/precipitation patterns, provided
. • the recommendations in the project geotechnical reports are incorporated into the post-grading, .
construction and post-construction phases of site development. -
H.. - •..
- ..
.S .
_4
- .- 40 RECOMMENDATIONS
S
:4.1 Earthwork
We anticipate that future earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, fine-grading, utility
7 trench excavation and backfill, retaining wall backfill, and street/driveway and parking area
pavement section preparation and compaction. We recommend that the earthwork on site be
:' -• performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations presented in the project
preliminary geotechnical report (LGC, 2014a) and the City of Carlsbad grading requirements
42 Site Preparation
During future grading (if any), the areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures should be
cleared of surface obstructions, potentially compressible material (such as desiccated fill soils or
Y •.
. .' weathered formational material), and stripped of vegetation. Vegetation and debris should be
removed and properly disposed of off-site Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions that
extend below finish site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material Areas to
- receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 - -.
inches,, brought to optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative
- compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557)
If the length of time between the completion of grading and the construction of the development is
longer than six months, we recommend that the building pads be evaluated by the geotechnical
consultant and, if needed, the finish grade soils on the building pads should be scarified a minimum
of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to optimum moisture-content and recompacted to a minimum
90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557)
55 .
43 Excavations
--
S Excavations of the on-site materials may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty
earthwork equipment It is not anticipated that blasting will be required or that significant quantities of
: oversized rock (i.e. rock with maximum dimensions greater than 8 inches) will be generated during
future grading However, localized cemented zones within the cut areas may be encountered on the
- .: • site that may require heavy ripping and/or removal. If oversized rock is encountered, it should be.
- placed in accordance with the project geotechnical recommendations (LGC, 2014a), hauled offsite, on
placed in non-structural or landscape areas.
Temporary excavations maybe cut vertically up to five feet Excavations over five feet should be slot-
cut, shored, or cut to a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope gradient. Surface water should be diverted•
C . away from the exposed cut, and not be allowed to pond on top of the excavations. Temporary cuts
:- should not be left open for an extended period of time. Planned temporary conditions should be
reviewed by the geotechnical consultant in order to reduce the potential for sidewall failure The r geotechnical consultant may provide recommendations for controlling the length of sidewall exposed
r i - .'
Project No 133023-03 Page 9 February 3, 2016
Fill Placement and Compaction
- The on-site soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free or organic
material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension. We do not
recommend that high or very high expansive soils be utilized as fill for the building pads or as
retaining wall backfill.
* .• • All fill soils should be brought to 2-percent over the optimum moisture content and compacted in -
- uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on the laboratory maximum dry density
(ASTM Test Method D1557). The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted
fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed
•
• in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be
performed in general accordance with current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound
- '. .•,
construction practices, and the project geotechnical recommendations. .
If import soils are to be used as fill, they should be 1) essentially free from organic matter and other
- . deleterious substances; 2) contain no materials over 6 inches in maximum dimension; 3) have a very
low to low expansion potential (i.e. an Expansion Index ranging from 0 to 50); and 4) have a
negligible sulfate content Representative samples of the desired Import source should be given to the
••
Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing grading begins so that its
suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. . . .
•' 45 Foundation Recommendations S
The preliminary foundation design recommendations applicable to the construction of the residential
structures on the subject lots were previously provided in the our letter report entitled "Preliminary
' Foundation Design for the Single-Family Residential Structures, Planning Areas PA-3, PA-5, PA-6,
PA-9, PA-b, and PA-13, Robertson Ranch", dated April 14, 2015 (LGC, 2015a) and our letter
entitled "Deepened Footing Recommendation of Building Foundation Adjacent to Proposed Nexus
eWater Recycler System, Planning Areas PA-3, PA-5, PA-6, PA-9, PA-b, and PA-13, Robertson •.
- - 'Ranch" dated July 23, 2015 (LGC, 2015c). The previous recommendations remain applicable for the •-
design of the proposed structures on the subject lots
Based on the expansion potential and corrosion laboratory testing of representative soils on the
. - sübject lots, Lots 59 and 234 through 244 have a very low expansion potential; Lots 216 through 225
have a low expansion potential, and Lots 60, 299 through 301, 308 through 310, and 320 through 324
have 'a medium expansion potential The finish grade soils on these lots are considered to have
-.
.. negligible sulfate content and are corrosive to severely corrosive to buried metals. The results of the .
expansion potential and corrosion testing are presented in Appendix B
. -• : • • • .
ProjectNo 133023-03 Page 10 February 3, 2016
-- .••.- • •.-. '.,* 4!, •
-. -
4 6 Control of Surface Water and Drainage
Surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during fine-grading, landscaping, and
building construction. Positive drainage of surface water away from structures is very important. No
water should be allowed to pond adjacent to buildings or the top of slopes. Positive drainage may be
- accomplished by providing drainage away from buildings at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a
distance of at least 5 feet, and further maintained by a swale of drainage path at a gradient of at least 1
percent Where limited by 5-foot side yards, drainage should be directed away from foundations for a
minimum of 3 feet and into a collective swale or pipe system. Where necessary, drainage paths may
•. .- be shortened by use of area drains and collector pipes. Eave gutters also help reduce water infiltration
into the subgrade soils if the downspouts are properly connected to appropriate outlets
The impact of heavy irrigation or inadequate runoff gradient can create perched water conditions,
resulting in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none existed Maintaining
adequate surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly reduce the potential for
-
nuisance-type moisture problems To reduce differential earth movements (such as heaving and
shrinkage due to the change in moisture content of foundation soils, which may cause distress to a
structure or improvement), the moisture content of the soils surrounding the structure should be kept
as relatively constant as possible.
4 - All area drain inlets should be maintained and kept clear of debris in order to function properly.
Rerouting of site drainage patterns and/or installation of area drains should be performed, if necessary.
A qualified civil engineer or a landscape architect should be consulted prior to rerouting of drainage
- -
' .4. .• -
4
S-I S
.
• I •
.• -
-S.-
..- p.-.
* . .5 _I
,- I.•
..-.,
- S . p1
.4
(S
-: Project No. 133023-03 Page 11 February 3, 2016 •
• :
4! -
- 1•
..
4
5.0 LIMITATIONS
-. - Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty,
%. expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The
- samples taken and submitted for laboratory testing, the observations made and the in-situ field testing
performed are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions revealed by
excavation may be different than our preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be *
- evaluated by the project soils engineer and geologist and design(s) adjusted as required or alternate design(s)
recommended.
This reportis issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the
attention of the architect and/or project engineer and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps
- are taken to see that the contractor and/or subcontractor properly implements the recommendations in the
- field. The contractor and/or subcontractor should notify the owner if they consider any of the
recommendations presented herein to be unsafe.
- - -
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date However, changes in the conditions of a
-; property can and do 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
4
4\
-. - ,-_ • - '-
4 - - .
-4-.
4 .. *
-• -' -. -
--
-a! .._
,-
4 Project No. 133023-03 Page 12 February 3, 2016
,
I
.',
APPENDIXA
-.
References
: American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2013, Minimum design loads for buildings and other
structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10, Third Printing, 2013.
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2013a, California Building Code, California
I Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 and 2 of 2 (based on the 2012 International
- Building Code).
' CBSC, 2013b, California Residential Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part
-
-
.i,oaseu on we LUlL internationai i'c,esiuentiai uoue).
CBSC, 2013c, California Green Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
:; Part 11.
GeoSoils, Inc, 2002, Geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch Property, City of Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-Al-SC, dated January 29, 2002
*
'. •' ' 'GeoSoils, Inc., 2004, Updated geotechnical evaluation of the Robertson Ranch property, Carlsbad,, .
41. San Diego County, California, W.O. 3098-A2-SC, dated September 20, 2004.
GeoSoils, Inc., 2010, Updated geotechnical investigation for Robertson Ranch West Village,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 6145-A-SC, dated October 10, 2010.
.,;_ •:
GeoSoils, Inc., 2011, Supplement to the updated geotechnical investigation for Rancho Costera
(formerly Robertson Ranch West Village), Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O.
6145-Al-SC, datedJune'6.
:• : GeoSoils, Inc., 2012, Preliminary geotechnical review of "vesting master tentative map for Rancho
Costera," 40-scale plans, sheets 1 through 21, Job No. 101307, Revised May 1, 2012, by
O'Day Consultants, W.O. 6145-A9-SC, dated May 24, 2012.
GeoSoils, Inc., 2013, Addendum to the updated and supplemental geotechnical investigations for
- ' Rancho Costera (formerly Robertson Ranch West Village), Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California, W.O. 6145-A1O-SC, dated July 16, 2013
LGC Valley, Inc., 2014a, Geotechnical and environmental recommendations for Robertson Ranch .e -West, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project Number 133023-03, dated
April 29, 2014.
LGC Valley, Inc., 2014b, Change of géotechnical consultant, Robertson Ranch West Project,
. -. 'Carlsbad Tract No. 13-0, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-03, dated May 6, 2014.
- LGC Valley, Inc., 2015a, Preliminary foundation design for the single-family residential structures,
Planning Areas PA-3, PA-5, PA-6, PA-9, PA-b, and PA-13, Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad
Tract No 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No 1.33023-06, dated April 14, 2015
ProjetNo. 133023-03 Page A-] February 3, 2016
I.
VS
-
- . References (continued)
-
LGC Valley, Inc., 2015b, Preliminary Review of Building Setbacks for the Proposed Residential
Planning Areas 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 13, Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad,
California, Project No. 133023-03, dated February 27, 2015, revised June 24, 2015.
LGC Valley, Inc., 2015c, Deepened Footing Recommendation of Building Foundation Adjacent to
Proposed Nexus eWater Recycler System, Planning Areas PA-3, PA-5, PA-6, PA-9, PA-10,
-
•and PA-13, Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No.
133023-03, dated July 23, 2015.
LGC Valley, Inc., 2015d, Geotechnical Post-Tension Foundation Plan Review for The Vistas
- Development within Planning Area 6 (PA-6), Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03,
Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-06, dated August 4, 2015.
.' -LGC Valley, Inc., 2015e, Geotechnical Post-Tension Foundation Plan Review for The Vistas
- Development within Planning Area 6 (PA-6), Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, V
Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-06, dated October 21, 2015.
LGC Valley, Inc., 2015f, Geotechnical Post-Tension Foundation Plan Review for The Terraces
S
• Development within Planning Areas 9 and 10 (PA-9 and PA-b), Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad
. Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-06, dated November 23, 2015.
-V V
LGC
•
Valley, Inc., 2015g, Presaturation Recommendations Concerning the Proposed Single-Family
Residential Structures of The Vistas Development, Lots 1 through 23 of Planning Area PA-
13 and Lots 158 through 244 of Planning Area PA-6, Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. •
- 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-06, dated December 2, 2015.
V.. .,
LGC Valley, Inc., 2015h, Presaturation Recommendations Concerning the Proposed Single-Family
Residential Structures, The Bluffs, Lots 25 through 60 of Planning Area PA-5, Robertson
V • • Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-06, dated
December 9, 2015.
LGC Valley, Inc., 2015i, Presaturation Recommendations Concerning the Proposed Single-Family
5
.,
-' •
I Residential Structures, The Terraces, Lots 252 through 326 of Planning Areas PA-9 and PA- :-
10, Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-
V • . 06, dated December 9, 2015.
LGC Valley, Inc., 2015j, Geotechnical Post-Tension Foundation Plan Review for The Bluffs
. Development within Planning Area 5 (PA-5), Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03,
.' V
Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-06, dated December 22, 2015.
LGC Valley, Inc., 2016a, Updated Corrosivity Results, Planning Areas PA-5, PA-9, and PA-b, - -
Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-09,
dated January 27, 2016. -•
- LGC Valley, Inc., 2016b, Geotechnical Post-Tension Foundation Plan Review for The Terraces V
'V'• •' - Development within Planning Areas 9 and 10 (PA-9 and PA-b), Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad •
V
Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-11, dated February 1, 2016.
V
Project No. 133023-03 V Page A-2 February 3, 2016
V
•,
V
•
V
5.
References (continued)
Nexus eWatr, 2015, Recycler System Standard Drawings, 9 Sheets, dated April 30, 2015.
O'Day Consultants, 2014a, Vesting tentative map for Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03-2, 23 Sheets, dated
January 16, 2014.
O'Day Consultants, 2014b, Grading plans for Rancho Costera, Robertson Ranch West Village,
Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Drawing No. 480-3A, 44 Sheets, dated August 25, 2014.
. Post-Tensioning Institute, 2006, Design of post tensioned slabs-on-ground, Third Addition,
Addendum 1 dated May 2007, and Addendum 2 dated May 2008, with errata February 4, 2010
Specialty Steel, 2015, Post-Tension Plans,Details, and General Notes for The Bluffs (PA-5)5at
Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Reference No. 4302, dated December 17, 2015.
Specialty Steel, 2016, Post-Tension Plans, Details, and General Notes for The Terraces at Robertson
Ranch, PA-9 and PA-b, Carlsbad, California, Reference No. 4301, dated November 20, 2015
with Delta 1 Dated January 29, 2016
Suncoast Post-Tension, 2015, Post-Tension Plans, Details, and General Notes for The Vistas at
Robertson Ranch, PA-6, Carlsbad, California Project No 15-6428, dated August 3, 2015 Delta
1 dated October 8, 2015.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008a, "2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault
Parameters" retrieved from
http://aeohazards.usps.gov/cfusion/hazfauIts search/hf search main cfm
USGS, 2008b, "2008 Interactive Deaggregations (Beta)," retrieved from
https:Haeohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/
USGS, 2013, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, retrieved from
http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/batch.php#csv
5-
. .••g - ' - S
7
1.
S 5
V
•
-S
- . -
V V V
Project No 133023-03 Page A-3 February 3 2016
APPENDJXB
Laboratory Teslinj' Procedures and Test Results
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion
. Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 18-I-B. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to
approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately
90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to
- an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is
reached The results of these tests are presented in the table below
.-
........
••t
S.
- '•\_
+
+_, •
r
-+- .-:
Test Representative Lots .
n Sample Description Expansion Expansion
'Location Index Potential
Lot 55 Lots 55-59 Pale brown fine SAND 11 Very Low
Medium brown silty to clayey Lot 60 : Lots 60 68-70 SAND 70 Medium
'
Pale orange brown silty fine Lot 22U L5 214-225 SAND 34 Low
Lot 240 Lots 234-244 Pile gray brown silty fine SAND 10 Very Low
-Làt302 Lots 299307 Olive green sandy CLAY/clayey 89 Medium SAND
Pale olive green silty to clayey
Lot 309: -
Lots 308-316 SAND 86 Medium
-
Medium olive brown clayey fine Lot 321 - Lots 317-326 76 Medium
-
Laboratory TestinR Procedures and Test Results (continued)
* *
- Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard
geochemical methods (Caltrans 417). The test results are presented in the table below:
Test
Location Sample Description Sulfate Content
(% by Weight)
Potential Degree
of Sulfate
Attack*
PA-5 Pale gray silty fine SAND 0.016 Negligible
PA-5 Light grayish brown silty fine SAND 0.033 Negligible
PA-6 Medium brown silty clayey SAND 0.025 Negligible
PA-9 Pale yellow brown clayey SAND 0.071 Negligible
PA-10 Olive green silty to sandy CLAY 0.056 Negligible
4.
*Per ACT 318R-08 Table 4.3.1.
: Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with Caltrans Test Method (CTM)
422. The results are presented below:
Test
Location Sample Description Chloride Content
(ppm)
Potential Degree of
Chloride Attack*
PA-5 Pale gray silty fine SAND 110 Negligible
PA-5 Light grayish brown silty fine SAND 220 Negligible
PA-6 Medium brown silty clayey SAND 205 Negligible
PA-9 Pale yellow brown clayey SAND 175 Negligible
PA-b 0 Olive green silty to sandy CLAY 230 Negligible
Extrapolation from California Test Method 532, Method for Estimating the Time *
-. - to Corrosion of Reinforced Concrete Substructures and previous experience
- - - 4
- - Project No. 133023-03 Page B-2 February 3, 2016 -
I
H
; -
-
T•
'S ••' •
1- ,..'
•
Test Sample Description
Minimum
Resistivity Potential Degree
Location (ohms-cm) of Corrosivity*
PA-5 Pale gray silty fine SAN]) 1500 Corrosive
PA-5 - Light grayish brown silty fine SAN]) 570 Severely
Corrosive
PA-6 Medium brown silty clayey SAND 640 Severely
Corrosive
S&verely PA-9 Pale yellow brown clayey SAND 800 Corrosive
PA-10 Olive green silty to sandy CLAY 360 Severely
Corrosive
" Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results (continued)
Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general
accordance with CTM 643 and standard geochemical methods. The electrical resistivity of a soil is a
measure of its resistance to the flow of electrical current. As results of soil's resistivity decreases
corrosivity increases The results are presented in the table below
LGC Valley, Inc
Geotechnical Consulting
December 9, 2015 Project No. 133023-06
Ms. JoAnn Epstine
Toll Brothers
725 Town and Country Road, Suite 500
Orange, California 92868
Subject: Presaturalion Recommendations Concerning the Proposed Single-Family Residential
'- - -. Structures, The Bluffs, Lots 25 through 60 of Planning Area PA-5, Robertson Ranch,
Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California
Reference LGC Valley, 2015 Preliminary Foundation Design for the Single-Family Residential
Structures, Planning Areas PA-3, PA-5, PA-6, PA-9, PA-b, and PA-13, Robertson Ranch,
- Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 133023-06, dated April 14,
2015
In accordance with your request, LGC Valley, Inc., (LGC) has prepared this letter to provide an update of the
I 'presaturation recommendations for the single-family residential foundations of The Bluffs Development (i.e.
Lots 25 through 60 of Planning Area PA-5) part of the Robertson Ranch project located in the City of
Carlsbad, California. The updated presaturation criteria presented herein are based on expansion potential
: testing of representative finish grade soils, geotechnical analysis, and our review of the referenced letter and
- foundation plan. Addendum and/or final geotechnical recommendations, if applicable; will be presentedin. -
.our as-graded report that will be prepared upon completion of the rough and fine grading operations
Single-Family Residential Foundations Presaturation Recommendations
The slab subgrade soils underlying the single-family residential foundations should be presoaked in accordance
with the recommendations presented in Table I prior to the placement of the sand, moisture barrier, and
concrete slab.
.The subgrade soil moisture content should be checked by a representative of LGC prior to slab construction.
Presoaking Or moisture conditioning may be achieved in a number of ways, but based on our professional'
experience, we have found that minimizing the moisture loss of pads that have been completed (by periodic -,
wetting to keep the upper portion of the pad from drying out) and/or berming the lot and flooding for a short
period of time (a few days to a week) are some of the more efficient ways to meet the presoaking requirements..
If flooding is performed, a couple of days to let the upper portion of the pad dry out and form a crust so
equipment can be utilized should be anticipated. • .
--.-. -. -
•
t__ . . .-•
- - . -• -
- -;:•' .•.-. . - . .
- 3 • ..
2420 Grand Avenue, Suite F2 • Vista • CA 92081 • (760) 599-7000 • Fax (760) 599-7007
'F
-
Table 1
- Presaturation Recommendations Based on Finish Grade Soil Expansion Potential
Expansion Potential (per UBC 18-I-B)
Presaturation
Criteria Very Low Low Medium High
(0-20) (21-50) (51-90) (91-130)
PT Foundation. IA I II III
Category*
Location Lots 25 through 59 NONE Lot 60 NONE
Minimum 12 12 18 24
Presoaking Depth
(in inches)
Minimum At least optimum 1.2 times optimum 1.2 times optimum 1.3 times
Recommended moisture moisture moisture optimum
Moisture Content moisture
* Categories are based on the post tension foundation plans prepared by Suncoast Post Tension Limited for Planning
Areas PA-3 PA-6 and PA-13
. -
Closure
This letter is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the
attention of the structural/foundation engineer and the necessary steps are taken to see that the information is
implement in the structural/foundation design, as necessary.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us The undersigned can be reached at
'.'-(661)702-8474.
Respectfully submitted,
-
... LGC Valley, Inc. o 4, (
COM
MGM RG No. '734 GEOMST UP IA6
Randall Wagner, CEG 1612
-.
CAL O Basil H:GE 2734
Senior Project Geologist
Principal Engineer
Attachment Figure 1
- Lot Expansion Potentials
Distribution (1) Addressee
Project No. 133023-06 Page 2 December 9, 2015
F -
IT
(j I r' is
-,
--- 4 - .
- - t - -t - • - - - - I - A,^ - - - -
Wj
.16
Robertson Ranich
'1 Carlsbad California
l'
)'/
\lt v i—
25 Project 2-42- 0.2 • - 3707006 -
- 2 26 / • \' 266 267 262 260 270-. 273 272 270 275
FI VT Low Expansion (Suncoast PT Category IA)
Low Expansion (Suncoast PT Category 1) 0'
29 47 F~ Medium Expansion (Sunc""
P, Category "I
NIS
F High Expansion (Suncoast-PT Category I'll 2
Medium Expansion (Specialty Steel Categ.'
'A' Expansion Index 51-9D) /
— 51 1 $5
132
K PAl - -- _. • I " 232 232 I' ' _-. 12 . - - - - -
67 7 p 233 \\ 232 I 1 12 I 3 315
- —21
Is U
PA-
-
173
2.
soo
21.
Oo
Th i Robeod ,, ------ 41
135 14
137 Ic
24 B6 Li
—
25 3f3/22 /JJ0/3/[
21. P1-
I I -
-- -. ' - -. .- a - - - - -• -5 1r-,_ - • t_ - -' .
12 - _.2 •
-. - - - •f3 • - - 5 •- - -, • •50 - i'-; . -.-k •. - -- - - • •• • 51. • I- - I - - • - - - ' -- - - - - - - - - - I
-:. .
Table!
Corrosion Test Results
Sample Sulfate Chloride Minimum
Location Sample Description Content Content pH Resistivity
(b/ppm) (ppm) (ohms-cm)
Pale gray silty fine SAND , 0.016 110 8.32 1,500 Lot 38
Light grayish brown silty fine SAND 0.033 220 7.58 570 Lot 60
Pale yellow brown clayey SAND , 0.071 175 5.23 800 Lt 271
.-PA-10 Olive green silty to sandy CLAY 0.056 230 7.45 360
•.€ ..• - 4 .
,. .' , • I'
LGC Valley, Inc. '
Geotechnical Consulting
•
January 27, 2016 Project No. 133023-09&-11
Mr. Mike Steffen
. Toll Brothers ••
- - 725 Town and Country Road, Suite 500
Orange, California 92868
•?.., .
.
.
4. •.:• •i. ,. .
4
4.
Subject: . Updated Corrosivity Results, Planning Areas PA-5, PA-9, and PA-b, Robertson Ranch,
Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad, California
Reference LGC Valley, Inc 2015, Preliminary Foundation Design for the Single-
Family Residential Structures, Planning Areas PA-3, PA-5, PA-6, PA-9, PA-
-
. . .
'. 10, and PA-13, Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad Tract No. 13-03, Carlsbad,.
1 California, Project No 133023-06, dated April 14, 2015
/ -In accordance with your request, LGC Valley, Inc., (LGC) has prepared this letter to update the corrosivity
7., 'results of the finish grade soils on Planning Areas PA-5, PA-9, and PA-10 of the Robertson Ranch project
- , :.
• located in the City of Carlsbad, California. Preliminary corrosivity results and recommendations were
presented in our letter dated April 14, 2015 (referenced above). Upon completion of the site rough- and fine-
: grading operations of Lots 25 through 60 of PA-5 and Lots 252 through 326 of PA-9 and PA-10
confirmatory sampling and testing of representative finish grade soil samples was performed. The test results
are presented on Table 1. • •
,'
'1
4,
a *
.4 4..
a 2420 Grand Avenue Suite F2 Vista CA 92081 (760) 599-7000 Fax (760) 599-7007
:- •-,,a!•
-.
'.
N • ,, 4- t . . ' . .
4..
-4 • 1,
H
The National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE) defines corrosion as "a deterioration of a
substance or its properties because of a reaction with its environment." From a geotechnical viewpoint, the
"environment" is the prevailing foundation soils and the "substances" are the reinforced concrete foundations
or various buried metallic elements such as rebar, piles, pipes, etc., which are in direct contact with or within
. close vicinity of the foundation soil.
In general, soil environments that are detrimental to concrete have high concentrations of soluble sulfates
- and/or pH values of less than 5.5. ACT Criteria (ACT 318R-08 Table 4.3.1), provides specific guidelines for
the concrete mix design when the soluble sulfate content of the soils exceeds 0.1 percent by weight or 1,000
,. ppm. The minimum amount of chloride ions in the soil environment that are corrosive to steel; either in the
form of reinforcement protected by concrete cover, or plain steel substructures such as steel pipes or piles, is
500ppri per California Test 532.
-
Based on the finish grade soil testing within Planning Areas PA-5, PA-9, and PA-b, the on-site soils are
classified as having a negligible sulfate exposure condition in accordance with ACT 318R-08 Table 4.3.1.
' * Concrete in contact with on-site soils should be designed in accordance with AC! 318R-08 Table 4.3.1 for the
-
negligible category. It is also our opinion that the on-site soils should be considered corrosive to severely
corrosive to buried metals in contact with the on-site soils based on the low soil resistivity values. It should
be noted that LGC is not a corrosion consultant and does not provide recommendations related to corrosion.
-: r 'If needed, consultation with a competent corrosion engineer can be initiated, as necessary, to evaluate the
actual corrosion potential of the site and to provide recommendations to reduce the corrosion potential with
respect to the proposed improvements.
if you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. The undersigned can be reached at
.(661) 702-8474.
Respectfully submitted,
LGC Valley, Inc
it No. 1612 9X CER ED -4 ENGINEERING No. 27
/3~ A14
'-. . Randall Wagner, CEG 1612 t.
Basil Hattar, GE 2734
Senior Project Geologist Principal Engineer OF
RKWBIH
- -
j,. Distribution: (1) Addressee - - -
(1) Mr. Greg Deacon, Toll Brothers
-
- - rn
--
-
.4-.
Project No 133023-09&11 Page 2 January 27 2016
- , -.- - _•., •.$ - - . . . 4