HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 01-10; VILLAGE BY THE SEA; ROUGH GRADING CERTIFICATION; 2003-01-23JAN 29 2003 10:55AM HP:LAsERjET 3200 p.2
JID
ANA S TA SI
flEVE[DPMENT COMPANY; [IC
January 23, 2003 :
Mr. David Dates, City Inspector,
City of Carlsbad
5950 El Camino Real -
Carlsbad, CA 92008
.
Re Village by the Sea, C. T. 01-10, Dwg.403-4A. .
Dearr Dates
8ased on the survey, made onJanuary 13, 2003, the rough grading for land development has
-.been completed within standard tolerance (0.10 feet) in accordance with the approved plans
and that all embankments and cut slopes ad pad sizing areas shown on the approved plans..
We request release of pads for building permits for
(Bldg. 10) Units 150 through 169 inclusive •
(Bldgs. 3 & 8) Units 123 through 131 inclusive
(Bldgs. 4& 7) Units 132 through 140 inclusive
(Bldgs. 3 & 8) Units 141 through 149 inclusive • ..
(Bldg. 1) Underground parking and building adjacent to Washington Street
Very truly yours, . . ANASTASI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC ,
'<
I
General Supannten nt . : •
Cc: file; J. Simons, A. Galudet .. - . . .
1200 Aviation Blvd..- Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Tel. (310) 376-8077 Fax (3 10) 318-6649
f •- . .
CONSULTA N T S
Civil Engineering. Surveying
January 24, 2003
J.N.001029
Mr. David Dates, City Inspector
City of Carlsbad
5950 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Village by the Sea, C.T. 01-10, Dwg. 4034A
Dear David:
Based upon our survey on January 13, 2003, the rough grading for land development has
been completed within standard tolerance (0.10 feet) in accordance with the approved
plans and that all embankments and cut slopes and pad sizing are as shown on the
approved plans.
We request the release of pads for building permits for:
(Bldg. 10) Units 150 through 169 inclusive
(Bldgs. 3 & 8) Units 123 through 131 inclusive
(Bldgs. 4 & 7) Units 132 through 140 inclusive
(Bldgs. 5 & 6) Units 141 through 149 inclusive
(Bldg. 1) Underground parking and building adjacent to Washington Street
Very truly yours, -
OSSIO,, 0'DAY CONSULTANTS, INC.
No 32014 M George ~6ay
Project Man ger
CIVIV
GO pm OF CAL*
Enclosure
W:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\001029\030124 Dates.Itr.doc - - -
O'Day Consultants Inc. E-mail: oday@odayconsultants.com
2710 Loker Avenue West, Suite 100 Website: www.odayconsultants.com
- - Carlsbad, California 92008-6603 Tel: 760.931 .7700 Fax: 760.931 .8680
liTU I - IIL•
. i=.-L
BUI LDING ____________________
iii u1 iwra" 'iarnu !Imilli!NI ILI . irn irI ' iai ir IS iI" !JI IL!
jii1__I PIi'i IItiiJIflhliH ,iII illllllllllrlij liL
ti I1
milli 111111 I1a i• ir !1I I -IN 0-1 P-Mjj" iwji
4!
-Wi WI
—.--- -.------ -.- - -.-
02
CONSULT NTS
2710 Laker Ave Civil Engineering
Suite 100 Planning
Carlsbad. California 92008 Processing
760-931-7700 Surveying
Fax: 760-931-8680
www.odayconsultants.com
02003 O'Day Consultants, Inc.
—.—.
Ii:\JUBS\0010a9\0029P01,BWG 1-23-03 20235 pm EST
NorCal Engineering
§011s and Geotechnical Consultants
.I0641 Humbolt Street Los Alamitos,-CA 90720
:
(562) 799-9469 Fax (562) 799-9459
V V
V 4
December 18 2002 Project Number 8710-00
V -
Anastasi Development
1200 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 100 . .
V Redondo Beach, California 90278. V
V
V-.
V
V
. .V •
Attn Mr. Chuck Springfield
RE: Report of Geotechnical Observation .and Testing of Rough Grading
Operations - Proposed "Village By The Sea" Residential Development -
V
V Located at 2700 Carlsbad. Boulevard, in the City of Carlsbad, California V
V
V
V Dear Mr. Springfield:
V
. Pursuant to your request, this firm has provided this geote hnical reportto summarize
V
V the observation and testing performed during, rough grading operations atthe above
•
V
V
VVV referenced project. The geotechnical aspects of the rough 'grading were conducted in
accordance with our report titled Updated Geotechnical Investigation",dated April 8
V 2002, Project Number 8710-00. Our geotechnical services pertaining to the jrading of V V
V
V the project development are summarized in the subsequent sections of this report.
V
V V
Site Grading
The purpose-of the grading operations was for the placement of fill to provide structural V 'V
support of the proposed development All vegetation and demolition debris was stripped
V and removed from the fill area prior to the placement of any fill soils. The upper low
density surface soils--were removed: to competent native material, the exposed surface
V
V scarified, moisture conditioned and then recornacted to a minimum of90% relative V V V
V compaction.
V V •• • V • V "V • VV
V V V V * V
V V
V , V V VV,
•
V tV
V • •V• V• - V V V V
V V tV
V
December 18, 2002
0 Project Number 8710-00
Pagè2
In the opinion of this firm"-'the native soils are suitable to support the placement of fill
material. Grading extended 'a minimum of five 'horizohtal feet or. to the depth of fill
placed,whichever is greater,'beyond the edge of the proposed foundations.
An existing cesspool, loated near the center of the site, Was left in-place,backfilled with
sluFry and cut off at approximately 4 feet below proposed grade. The approximate
location of the cesspool is shown on the attached Site Plan:
Fill soils placed were compacted to,a minimum 90% of the laboratory standard in lifts not. *
in excess..of eight inches in thickness. The mximum depth of fill, soils placed was ,
approximately 6 feet Conventional earthmoving equipment was utilized for compaction
control A water truck provided moisture control Our services did not include any
surveying of excavation bottom building corners or subgrade elevations during
grading operations.:-
'I.
. Labóràtory/Field Testing .. - ..
The relative compaction was determined.by Sand'Cone Method (ASTM: D1556-00) and
by the Drive Tube Method (ASTM D2937-00) The maximum density of the fill soils was
obtained by the laboratory standard (ASTM D1557-00) and results are shown on Table
I Tests were performed a minimum of every 500 cubic yards placed and every two feet
in depth 'of fill placed. A summary of the compàction'tests of the rough grading
+ operations are described in Appendix B with locations shown on the accompanying plan
Additional laboratory tests were performed on representative bulk bag samples of the
near surface soils at'the completion of precise grading operations: The tests consisted'
of the following:
A. Expansion index tests in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard No.
29-2 were performed on remolded samples of the upper soils to deteimine the, '0
expansive characteristics and to provide any necessary recommendations for, 0 0
reinforcement of the slabs-on-grade and the foundations Results of these tests are
- : provided on Table II in Appendix A.
, • • .
0
-
..
NorCal Engineering 0
December 18, 2002 Project Number 871000
Page
B. Soluble sulfate tests in accordance with California Test Method 417 were performed
on representative sails samples to estimate the potential for corrosion of concrete in
contact with the on-site soils. Results are provided on Table Ill in Appendix A.
Foundation Design.
. ' '• . ' .
.."
All foundations may be designed utilizing a safe bearing capacity of 2,000 psf for an
embedded ,depth•of 18 inches into approved compacted fill soils or competent native
soils. The bearing value may be increased by 500 psf for each additional foot of depth
in excess of the 18 inch minimum depth, up to a maximum of 3,000 psf. A one third,
increase may be used when considering short term loading and seismic forces.
Slab Recommendations . .
•
All concrete slabs shall be a 'minimum of four inches in thickness and placed on
approved subgrade soils. A vapdr barrier sandwiched between four inches of select
'
sand shall be utilized beneath floor slabs which would be sensitive to the infiltration of
'
moisture.. All concrete slab areas to receive floor coverings should be moisture testedito
'
, meet all manufacturer requirements prior to placement. ' '
' ' • • '
Corrosion Design Criteria
Representative samples of the surficial soils, typical of the subgrade soils expected to be
•.
encountered within foundation excavations, revealed negligible sulfate concentrations.
'Therefore, all concrete in contact with on site soils shall be designed in: accordance with
Table 19A-A-4 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Sulfate test results may be found on
• • the attached Table UI.
Limitations
It should be noted that our work does not warrant or guarantee that the contractor
'
responsible for each phase,of the project has performed his work in accordance with the
project specifications.
'
' ' ' •'
NorCal, Engineering '
• • ;'
--
LIMITS OF
WASHINGTON STFLET
CARLSBAD BLVD -
1 "=50'
*
NorCal Engineering
SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
ANASTASI
PROJECT 8710-00 1 DATE DECEMBER 2002
LOCATION OF COMPACTION TESTS
December 18, .2002 .. . • Project Number, 8710-00
Page
.. -. .
- TABLE
-MAXIMUM DENSITY TESTS
(ASTM D1557 001
Optimum Maximum Dry
Sample Classification Moisture Density (lbs /cu ft)
Silty fine to medium grained SAND 10.0 126.0.
. SAND fine to mediun brained, .. 0. 5', 124.5
slightly silty
Ill Silty fine to medium grained SAND 95 , 1325
with gravel
. ..
. . •.
.
IV Silty fine to medium grained SAND 9.0 128 5
TABLE 11
EXPANSION INDEXTESTS. .. •.
(UBC STD 29-2)
$ Expansion
Sample Classification Index
SAND fine to medium grained 00
slightly silty
II Silty fine to medium grained SAND 04
. . I
- • :,.
.. ., .- . .•. . • .. . 0
0 . ..
0 •
• • TABLE III . •
SULFATETESTS
(CA TEST iMETHOD 4171
Sample Sulfate (% by Weight)
0.044
II 0.053
Ill - 0041, -
. • -. 0 .
. .. •.
0 • • 'S. •t 0
. . .. I •••, .
: •. S . -
. •.
-. . S
NorCal Engineering
. December 18, 2002 1 Project Number 8710-00
Pagê6
SUMMARY OF COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
Date of Test Percent Unit Wt;, Relative Soil Test
Test No. Location Elevation Moisture lbs./cu.ft. Compaction IQ LJ2
11/13/02 101 Site Grading 38.0 8.8 118.6 94 . I
11/13/02 102 Site Grading 38.5. 9.6 120.4 96 I . D
11/14/02 103 Site Grading 49.0 9.1 121.9 . 97 1 D
11/14/02 104 Site Grading 42.0 12.4 110.1, 88 II S
11/14/02 104A** Site Grading 42.0 11.8 114.5 . 92 ,. II D
11/14/02 105 SiteGrading 36.0 11.3 117.7 93 I - D 11/14/02 106 Site Grading 38.0 8.8 118.6 94 I D 11/14/02 107 Site Grading 40.0 9.2 118:6 95 II. S.
11/15/02 108 Site Grading 57.5 8.7 121.4 96 . 1 .
p
11/15/02 109 Site Grading 39.0 9.3 119.9 . 95 . I . D
11/18/02 110 Site Grading 56.0 5:3 117.2 93 . I •. S
11/19/02 110A**. . Site Grading 56:0 8.5 116.5 92 I S
11/18/02 111 Site Grading 54.5 4.7 105.0 83 l D 11/19/02 111A** Site Grading • 54.5 10.4 118.6 94 I
11/18/02 112 Site Grading 41.0 12.4 106.1 . 85 II D
11/19/02 1,12A** Site Grading 41.0 11.6 117.3 ... 93 I D •
11/19/02 113 • SiteGrading • 56.0 9.5 114.4 91 • I 5 11/19/02 114 Site Grading • 47.5 7.1 103.6 . 82 I. • D 11/19/02 114A** SiteGrading 47.5. 10.0 114.5 92. • • II D
11/20/02 115 Site Grading • . 38.5 8.8. . 125.0 . 94 III S
11/20/02 116 Site Grading .46.5 9.1 120.1 91 III • • D 11/20/02 117 Site Grading • 49.0 4.3. 104.5 84 • II • D 11/20/02 11.7A** Site Grading 49.0 9.6 . • . 115.0 92 II S 11/20/02 118 Site Grading 42.0 8.5 119.6 96 • . II • • D
11/21/02 . 1.19 Site Grading 43.0 • .11.3 117.4 • -93, I • D. 11/21/02 .120 Site Grading 51.0 9.1 • 122.0 .2 . 92 • III . 11/21/02 . 121 Site Grading 52.0 10.1 . 119.5 • 96 • II . D . 11/21/02 122 Site Grading 49.5 9.8 . 115.9 93 • !I •,
11/22/02 1,23, Site Grading 56.5 8.8 118.6 94 . I • D 11/25/02 124, Site Grading 58.5 9.6 . 117.7 94 . • II D • 11/25/02. 125 • SiteGrading 51.5 9.1 126.7 . 96 III, S 11/25/02 126 Site Grading • 44.0 9.9 . 116.5 94 . II D
**Retest of failing tests after area reworked
S= Sand Cone Method
D= Drive Tube Method •
NorCál Engineering
December 18, 2002 Project Number 8710-00
.,Page 7.
SUMMARY OF COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
Date of Test . . Percent Unit .Wt. . Relative Soil. , Test
Test h Lo: Location Elevation Moisture lbs./cu.ft. '- Compaction Type
11/26/02 127 Site Grading' . 36.5 9.2 120.0 . -' 95 - 'I D
11/26/02 128 Site Grading :40.5
- 9.6 . .119.5 95 .1 P
12/2/02 129 Site Grading -46.5 9.4 116.9 . 94 II S
12/2/02 130 Site Grading . 43.0 98 118.3 . 94 I D
12/3/02 131 Site Grading 43.0 9.2 115.4 93 . II D 12/3/02 132 Site Grading 45.0 8.6 117.7, 93 I 5 12/3/02 133 Site Grading 39.0 8.8 116.2 92. . . I P
12/3/02 134 . Site Grading 35.5 9.3 118.9 :94 I D
Y 12/3/02 135 Site Grading. 46.5 8.5 116.5 .92 I P 12/4/02 136 Site Grading 45.5 10.7 115.0 92. Il S 12/6/02 137 Site Grading 39.0 9.5 120.9 96 . I D
12/6/02 138 Site Grading 55.5 9.2 117.2 94 . II D
12/6/02 139 Site Grading 5 57.5 :9.1 117.3 93, Li D
12/6/02 140 Site Grading 59.0 9.4 117.1 94 . II S
12/9/02 .141 Site Grading. 44.5 8.9 123.0 . 93 III D
12/9/02 142 Site Grading 38.0 . 4.3 107.4 85 I D
12/10/02 142A** Site Grading 38.0 ' . 8.7 .' 116.2 92 I S 12/9/02 143 Site Grading 43.0 8.1 117.5 91 IV D 12/9/02 144 Site Grading 39.5 7.8 119.5 1 93 : IV s • 12/10/02 145 Site Grading 395 • 10.1 • 120.0 95 . I : S
12/10/02 146 Site Grading 39.5 • 9.9 117.4"; 94 II D *
fr, . 5' .
5 •• - : - S ,
- . Retest of failing tests after area reworked • ..
S= Sand Cone Method . • . *
• 0' D= Drive Tube Method ,
•
S
- - . S
. -•
NorCal Engineering