2007-475 SG o�PUVF9
� a
m m
1828
Lavia Residence March 13, 2007
968 Hygeia Avenue Contract No.: 148145
Encinitas, California 92024
Attention: Mr.Tom Lavia
Subject: Foundation and Grading Plan Review
Project: Proposed Residential Addition ! �
986 Hygeia Avenue j ` `!
Encinitas, California
E' its
References: 1. "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report For Lavia Residence, Proposed
Additions", Prepared by Testing Engineers – U.S. Laboratories, Contract No. 148145,
Dated January 17, 2007.
2. "Foundation and Grading Plans For Lavia Residence, 986 Hygeia Avenue,
Encinitas, California", Prepared by The Williams Company, Dated February 28,
2007.
Dear Mr. Lavia:
As per your request, Testing Engineers—San Diego, Inc. (TESD) has performed a plan review for
the above referenced project. Based on our review, the referenced plans appear to be in general
conformance with the intent of the recommendations presented in the above referenced
Geotechnical Investigation with the exception of the following items.
• The plans should reference the above listed geotechnical engineering investigation report.
• On page A8 of the referenced foundation plans, no. 1 under foundations states, "The contractor
shall review the plans to determine the width of the foundations." As listed in the geotechnical
engineering investigation report, page 9, section 8.5.1, under the heading allowable bearing
capacity – spread footings, TESD recommends that the footings should have a minimum width
of at least 12 inches.
• Also on page A8 of the referenced foundation plans, details 3 and 7 show footing depth below
the finish surface grade of 1.0 ft. and 2.5 ft. respectively. However, as listed on page A6 of said
plans, a notation at the bottom of the plans states that "All foundations founded in undisturbed
terrace deposits". This pertains to all foundations with exception to the proposed garage addition
which will be over-excavated to a minimum depth of 2 feet below proposed subgrade or existing
grade, which ever is greater, or as needed to remove undocumented fill. As listed in the referenced
engineering investigation report, page 9, section 8.5.1, under the heading allowable bearing
Testing Engineers San Diego, Inc.
A Bureau Veritas Company Main:(858)715-5800
7895 Convoy Court,Suite 18 Fax: (858 715-5810
San Diego,CA 92111 www.us.bureauveritas.com
Lavia Residence Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
capacity — spread footings, TESD recommends that the footings should be established to a
depth of at least 1.5 and 4.0 feet below the finish pad elevation for the garage and residence
additions, respectively. As an alternative, if the footing excavations exceeds the planned depth in
order to establish the footing on undisturbed terrace deposits, 3-sack slurry may be used to backfill
the footing excavation back up to the designed footing bottom elevation.
TESD does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy of the calculations or dimensions
represented in the above referenced plans.
The conclusions contained herein are contingent upon TESD providing observation and testing
during earthwork operations, and inspection of foundation excavations to verify compliance with
the referenced plans. It is the responsibility of the contractor and owner representative to contact
this office to schedule these activities.
If you have any questions regarding this letter please do not hesitate to contact one of the
undersigned. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
Testing Engineers—San Diego,Inc. ���� 04,1, E
A Bureau Veritas Company y No.C-60076
LU No.GE-2578
.__.., W Exp.6/30/08 �n
�. RCE.RGE
Charles B. McDuffie Van W. Olin, GE. 2 �!
Senior Staff Geologist Principal Geotechnica
CM/VO:mm
Distribution: (4)Addressee
*Includes copy for building department submittal.
2
l k ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
J Copitol improvement Projects -
rS Z ty 0� District Support Services
E Field Operations
Encinitas
Subdivision Engineering
.Traffic Engineering
ROUGH GRADING CONDITIONAL ,APPROVAL
TO: Subdivision Engineering 15fi
Public Service Counter (�
FRONi:. Field operations
Private Contract inspection'v
�^ C � /
RE: Grading Permit No. � ) u 13 ct,V)
1 ,
Name of Project t"�-� t . . t✓C�
Name of Developer
Site Location V 9 ,._. .
(address number sire n e : ...suffix). (lot! (bldg)
The..proposed ,grading:_of .the 'su°bject:site•:wiil:.req.uire• .construeti:oo. of':retaining'
•nspection•.;of the'site•retaining:waiisis tobe
:walls that are also.buidding (ails The i :
done by::the 'Field.-.operations Division.,of..*-the':Envihbering Services :Department;
However; the.inspection.-.of 'the.. building .retaining walls is'*.to :be:.done by the
Building inspection Division of the Community Development, Department..
Therefore, issuance of the necessary Building Permit is requested in order to
facilitate the completion of rough grading.
NO INSPECTIONS BEYOND FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATION ARE TO BE
PROVIDED BY BUILDING INSPECTION UNTIL A NOTICE OF ROUGH
GRADING APPROVAL, WITHOUT CONDITIONS AND SIGNED BY THE
ENGINEERING INSPECTOR, IS RECEIVED. FRAMING IS PROHBITED..
!signature of Engineering Inspector)
(Date) � •
(signature of senior civil Engineer., only if�appropiare) (Date)
Reference: Building Permit No.f/if 6 ---
Special Note: submit this form, if completed, to counter staff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering
technicians' in-boxes. Please remember to do a full rough grading approval and submit that paperwork, when
completed. Office staff will handle the appropiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination with Building
Inspection.Thank you.
JSG/fieldIdocl
TFi 760-633-2600 I FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycied paper
FLOREZ ENGINEERING
ji 10732 Charbono Terrace
E San Diego, CA 92131
Phone : (858)229-2493 Fax:(858)695-9492
E-mail: frank @florezengineering.com
May 25, 2007
City of Encinitas
505 South Vulcan Ave
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE: Pad Certification- Single Gargage/Workshop
Lavia Residence, 986 Hygeia Ave., Encinitas, CA
To whom it may concern:
On May 9th, 2007, field measurements were taken by a licensed surveyor at the
above reference site. The pad elevation for the New Single Car garage and
workshop is 82.2'. The pad elevation shown on the grading plan submitted to the
City of Encinitas on May 25th is 82.2'. 1 certify the as-built pad is in conformance
with the grading plan.
If you have any questions or require additional information regarding this matter,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (858) 229-2493.
Sincerely,
No.C0355SS
w
Frank Florez, P.E. W Exp. tZ-�1.OS
RCE 55555 Exp. 12-31-08 `
' 1 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
capital improvement Projects
r �'�J O District Support Services
it
" Field Operations
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL
TO: Subdivision Engineering
vw
Public Service counter o
FROM: Field Operations
Private Contract Inspection _
Grading Permit No. q73 S
Name of Project
Name of Developer
�C(o g
Site Location - -
(address:;: _..number .._street•name .
.. �„ ..._.�..suffrx)•:(kstJ '.; ,(bldg)
I have. the grad' t the and:have,verified°+rertificattc� tic f fxe pad:b�/
the:Engirlirer of Work,. ►i" 2 dated,:- _-- 07, `arts certification of..soil
dated a'am.hereby
compa.ctian by the Soil Engineer, '-
_ . ..
: .satisfieiTf°chat-the:-rough --gr-ading been cornMt s:irr:acco :dance With the:approved =
sfans nd speclficatiorts; Chapter. 3:21~of°tfte;Muniapal Code;>and-:any other`applicable
•errgifreering:standards and,.•speclfic project requirements.
Based--QR My observation and the•certifications,_l:-.taka no.-exception to the issuae
ne .of a
building permit for the lot(s) as noted or Phase , if any, but only in so far as grading is
concerned. However., this release is not intended to certify the project with respect to
other.engineering concerns, including .public road, drainage; water, sewer, park, and troll
improvements, and their availability, any other public improvements, deferred
monumentation;or final grading.
Prior to final inspection of the Building Permit(s) and legal occupancy, I need to be further
advised so that I can verify that final grading (i.e., finished precise grading, planting and
Irrigation) has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
Zeo7
(Signature of Engineering Inspector) (Date)
(signature of senipr Civil Engineer, only if appropiate) (Date)
Reference: Building Permit No.
Special Note: Submit this form, if completed, to counter staff merely by placing a copy of it in both engineering
technicians,in-boxes.Please remember to do a final inspection of the grading permit and submit that paperwork,
when completed. Office staff will handle the appropiate reductions in security, if any, and coordination with
Building inspection.Thank you.
JSG/field1docl
-,crva%-%,nn I FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700
11� recycled paper
C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
505 S . VULCAN AVE.
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
GRADING PLAN PERMIT NO. : 475SG
PARCEL NO. 254-325-1300 PLAN NO. : 475-SG
JOB SITE ADDRESS: 986 HYGEIA CASE NO. :
APPLICANT NAME TOM LAVIA
MAILING ADDRESS: 986 HYGEIA AVE. PHONE NO. : 760-484-0399
CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP: 92024-
CONTRACTOR : OWNER/BUILDER PHONE NO. : 760-484-0399
LICENSE NO. : LICENSE TYPE:
ENGINEER BRIAN WILLIAMS PHONE NO. : 818-808-8529
PERMIT ISS 07
PERMIT DATE: 4/2 PERMIT ISSUED BY:
INSPEC OR: NICK DEILE
--------- --------- --- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ----------------------------
1 . PERMIT FEE 900 . 00 2 . GIS MAP FEE: . 00
3 . INSPECTION FEE . 00 4 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT: . 00
5 . NPDES INSPECTION FEE: . 00 6 . SECURITY DEPOSIT . 00
7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE : . 00 8 . TRAFFIC FEE .. 00
8 . IN-LIEU UNDERGROUND: . 00 8 . IN-LIEU IMPROVEMENTS: . 00
---------------- --------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ---------------------------
SIMPLIFIED PERMIT ISSUED TO VERIFY PERFORMANCE OF GRADING AND DRAINAGE
PER APPROVED PLAN. CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL PER
W.A.T.C.H. STANDARDS OR CITY APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN.
---- INSPECTION ---------------- DATE -------- INSPECTO R?' SIGNATURE ---
INITIAL INSPECTION z Z� "0-1
COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED _ 5 - O :
ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION - - G5' - 0'7
FINAL INSPECTION
-------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE
INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE
LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF
ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION.
V
SIG URE DATE SIGNED
PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER
CIRCLE ONE: 1 . OWNER 2 . AGENT 3 . OTHER
C I T Y OF E N C I N I T A S
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
505 S . VULCAN AVE.
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PERMIT NO. : 552CN
PARCEL NO. 254-325-1300 PLAN NO. :
JOB SITE ADDRESS : 986 HYGEIA AVENUE CASE NO. :
APPLICANT NAME TOM LAVIA
MAILING ADDRESS : 986 HYGEIA AVENUE PHONE NO. :
CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP: 92024-
CONTRACTOR : ARROW PIPELINE REPAIR, INC. PHONE NO. : 760-476-9388
LICENSE NO. : 811016 LICENSE TYPE: A
INSURANCE COMPANY NAME: SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY
POLICY NO. CLS1235767 POLICY EXP. DATE: 5/08/07
ENGINEER PHONE t ,
PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 5/25/07 ,
PERMIT EXP. DATE: 5/08/07 PERMIT ISSUED BY:
INSPECTOR: NICK DEILE
------------------------- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ----------------------------
1 . PERMIT FEE 300 . 00
2 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT: . 00
3 . SECURITY DEPOSIT . 00
------------------------ - DESCRIPTION OF WORK - ---- --------------------------
PERMIT TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A
SEWER LATERAL. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIMES
PER APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN OR PER W.A.T. C.H. STANDARDS. TRENCH
REPAIR PER CITY OF ENCINITAS STANDARD TRENCH REPAIR DETAIL.
-- INSPECTION ---------------- DATE -------- INSPECTOR' S SIGNATURE
INITIAL INSPECTION
FINAL INSPECTION Co — 7 _ 0-2
----------------------------------------------------------------
I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COMPLETED PERMIT AND DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER
PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION IS TRUE.
z yet a'T
SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED
PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER
CIRCLE ONE: 1 . OWNER 5) AGENT 3 . OTHER
Florez Engineering,Inc. 10732 Charbono Terrace-San Diego_CA 92131
-Civl1 Engineering&Planning- Phone(958)229-2493-Fax(858)695-9492
January 12, 2009
J A I! 2 a 2000
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits -
505 South Vulcan Ave.
Encinitas,CA 92024
Re: Engineering Final Grading Certification for Simplified Grading Permit number
475-SG, located at 986 Hygeia Ave.
The grading under permit number 475-SG has been performed in substantial conformance with
the approved grading plan. The concrete driveway shown on the grading plans to the proposed
garage, will be constructed with the Building Permit.
Final grading inspection has demonstrated that the lot drainage conforms with the approved
grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1%to the street and/or appropriated drainage
inlet.
All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management
Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II
were constructed and are o tional o er 'th the required maintenance covenant(s), if any.
Engineer of Record:
Dated:
Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature heron
and will take place only after a above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer
of Record of the ultimate res ns' ity.
Engineering Inspector: pROFE
Dated: K f;
F .0 9<
NoL'p��� �N
"..31. 5 R►
0a
9 �
IL
. �p,U VF9
� a
� a
f9 fA
1 22 8
.luly
986 1 lvulela Avenue Contract No : 148:'85
1`1ncinitas. CA 801 1 1
Atte.rrtion. N1 I-. pout) Lavin
` uhjcca; As.-Graded Cone)actio)n Report F)r Detached
Sirwi C'ar Gara-e/Workshop Pad --
Project: Sinuic Farnily Residential Additions
986 1 lygeia Avenue
I'.ncinitas, California
Refere[ices. 1. "(;r��lcehnieul L;aa�inr�errin�; Invcslig(mon Report hear 1. aviu Rc,�idcm-r Pioh;>sCd
AoWlliun.�. kl-m iaaitaN C alil(Willea", Preparcd hr 7(.whig kl giamcrti lhur ui,wi,
('r.,nlrucl /Vu. 1 181 a J, T)ralrr�l.luaaaaurl' 1?. 200 .
"I�rrriu Rc,�i�./cnc c, 9NO llt s,hl Areaatre. k1 intlay. l'ulilorniea l'l(eaa" I'rcl urrc!br 7hc
It illiuraa,s ( 'nntlnaan', 1)1enVM,Q AO(1T04,-020, Derlcell chrtrur), ',1, 200?.
I)ea r M1'. 1,3 1a1
In accordance with vour request_ 'testing kilgineers San Diego. lnc. ("1'F.-SD) has amducted
grading ohservatloll and compaction testing during preparation of'the new detached single car garage
;trill workshop building pad at file ahove referenced project. Services described heroin were
provided by IV-1,d) I'rom May 4, 2007 to.luiv 2. 2007. The site is located at 986 1 lygeia Avenue. M
I.r city ol I.cucadia, California. Based on the current development plans, it is our understandiw.,
Owl p! garage and workshop huilding will be Supported on shallow spread footings with a
deepened colunlll footings located at each building corner. 'Ihe site location is provided in i'iguic
i_ and the approximate compaction test locations are presented on Figure 2, Plot Plan attached,
Summaries of laboratory and field compaction lest results are provided in Appendix A. rabic<; 1
mud 2, respectively;.
lr1 icw_ the garage workshop building pad was over-excavated a rninimurn of 2..`; feet bel,?w
tile' proposed pad grade into dense terrace deposit sandstone material of �.r lateral extent of a
lninirnr.un of 5 Feet outside the building Footprint. A representative of this office observed the.
uaritication oFthc undercut and tested the replacement of on-site hill roils within the building pad
over--excavation in accordance with the recommendation given in our above listed Geolechrrical
lo)vesti .align Report.
An existing vertical seepage pit was exposed at the; southeast corner ofthe garage/workshop pad.
Ilic vertical seepage pit measured about 3 feet in diameter at an approximate depth ()1- -'3 fetA
below the top of' fire concrete cap at the top of pit. I'he seepage pit was pumped out and
backIillcd with 3-sack slurry. A s(Inare excavation measuring 10.5 by I0.5 feet at a depth of 4 to
feet belo\s tyre adjacent ground surface was then excavated around tyre backhIled seepage pit.
The bottom of, the excavation was inspected to ensure that it was founded into dense terrace
Testing Engineers San Diego, Inc.
A Bureau Veritas Company Main: (858)715.5800
7895 Convoy Court,Suite 18 Fax: (858)715.5810
San Diego,CA 92111 www.us.burcauveritas.com
Tom Lavia Contract No.: 148285
Single Family Residence Proposed Additions
deposit sandstone material and a 1-foot thick concrete mat with no. 5 reinforcement bars at 12
inches on-center was constructed as a cap over the backfilled seepage pit. In addition, density
tests were performed on the sewer later trench backfill located within the private paved easement
located at the south side of the property.
On-site materials were used for the grading operations with exception to base material that was
imported for the base section of the sewer lateral within the paved easement. The fill placement
was compacted and tested for compliance with minimum 90% and 95% relative compaction
requirements, as applicable.
It should be noted that the precision of the field and laboratory maximum dry density test results
are subject to variation inherent with testing procedures and heterogeneous material
characteristics. Quantitative values of testing precision have been documented by the American
Society of Testing and Materials. For example, results indicate the accuracy of the ASTM D-
1557 test to be plus or minus 2 percent of the mean density. Based on this information, relative
compaction results should be interpreted as approximate values subject to variations in lateral and
vertical directions.
Survey lines and elevations relative to grade modifications, final design grades, locations of
various elements,etc., were established by others.
Field Monitoring services provided by this office, consisting of visual observation of compaction
operations and random in-place density test, are intended as assistance to the owner/client in
monitoring apparent reasonable compliance with the project earthwork specifications. The
presence of our field representative during the work progress did not involve any direct
supervision of the contractor/subcontractor. Technical advice and suggestions were provided
upon request based upon the results of the tests and observations. In any case, no warranty or
responsibility for the contractor's performance is intended or implied.
Based on the observations and testing made during construction by TE-SD representatives, it is our
opinion that the new detached garage/workshop pad was constructed in general conformance with
the recommendations in the referenced Updated Geotechnical Investigation Report and project
plans. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact
the undersigned at(858)715-5800.
Sincerely,
Testing Engineers—San Diego,Inc.
No.C40076
No.GE-2578
rte/ W
4P•6/30/08
# RCE,RGE
Charles M Duffie Van W. Olin,GE 25 ,pti
Senior Staff Geologist Principal Geotechnical P
�CAI.II�
CM/VO:cs
Distribution: *(3)Addressee
(1)The Williams Company, Brian Williams;Fax:(323)296-8392
*Includes copy for Building Department Submittal.
2
., B1 TOUI TOS LAGOON
It
PAW
a
} t A
r
r
y JZ 5 4 n}u 4ifI1 4
- r
9
zz _
r
ti _ Hg INC I N I TA. fNJr4_:
SITE LOCATION n p GOLF COARSE
NA
Vi` LEUCADIA
BLVD
43 J
gT
> <
a S z I W P
z ,DON th m
_ S
;
5 '
PAUL FGXfxut.
P,{CIF IC ; SPORTS 9Q Ati7CAt a c
PARK 6 P�cn3
REFERENCE:THE THOMAS GUIDE,2007,SAN DIEGO COUNTY STREET GUIDE,PAGE 1147
SCHEMATIC ONLY-NOT TO SCALE-NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
N
(F", Testing Engineers San Diego
el 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
`'>Y San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858)715-5800 Fax: (858)715-5810
Title
BG,ALE Site Location Map
1 INCH= 1,900 FEET
Project: LAVIA RESIDENCE
Drawn: MPP Contract No: 148285
NOTE:This figure may contain areas of color. TESD cannot be responsible Date: July 2007 Figure:
for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black
and white reproductions of this figure.
� z
Z p o
LO
v
co
1/✓�i✓�s'b'� SS���pr ° c-4
O D N ) w
fn=N .�
�
7 Q N Z z
z mo ,T g w
n Q > d a z
�t NL L J U
Q N Z Lu U N `6 O rf N
(` r J Q O m
Z
o d v g
6t a 2 ~ ~ CD
fi l S o CL °o
CL C14
w
� p
0
O
W LL N Qj
S N
F-
>- O
V ,
C, � w cr
a
w
a y L
CD
d d d
( Q < c
1
( o f 3 ( c 0
� ( •• ±'� ' z O 'may
to
R
W o =
a L M 1 W
2 I 0 N w
Q
a in >
I a = v
# 09 V
w O R
' z L y 'C
O
co E to
CL w
Q
ir z o
m W
w
co
� 0 I z
a z
uj
IL w Z z
W ao
u
w
U-
w
Tom Lavia Contract No.: 148285
Single Family Residence Proposed Additions
Appendix A
3
Tom Lavia Contract No.: 148285
Single Family Residence Proposed Additions
TABLE 1
RESULTS OF MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST
(ASTM-D-1557)
SAMPLE # DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM DRY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
DENSITY(PCF) CONTENT(%)
1 On-site: Brown Silty Sand(SM) 131.0 8.5
2 Import: Light Gray Base Material (GW) 139.0 9.0
4
oE E E E E E E
0 0 0
p c c c c c c c
c p U U U U U U U
U O
Z
O d
V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C) C)
E
p
U
> d o
0 0 0 0 0 0
a ° 0) rn rn a) a) a)
0
tl m 0 0 0 0 O O O
E"� a E rn
'R M M (M M M M M
A C
(l) U7 O I- (O a) h
W r d M N N N M N N
LL
O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N d E 0 U) U) U) o LO LO
W V a 00 ao ao CO r-- m ao
h 0
L - c 0 0 0 0 0
F d O M O U) N U) M
O LL r. c0 a) 00 M co OD
U
O 3 3
H °
O O W
aci v m a) Vi
W V v m m
U)
m m p )n )n
c > > x
c J N o d d= d N
a) o Lf
Q .m m m m w N_ LL m m
•E as U m m m 2 a) m N
L ) c aaamzm a- a
LL
O J a) J a)
Ln
N
0 (D j m m m 3 10 3 up) m m
m rn -j 0 (7 (7i) wU) Lu0 7
a) r-
m °O C) C) °o °o
N N N N N N N
a) a e O r N N N
U7 U) U) (O co co
(D
a
°' a o
Z E E Z N
v Z c y
co U
a)
COO d Z N M V U) O r
() a J H
Nick Deile
From: Nick Deile
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:10 AM
To: Greg Shields
Subject: RE: Request for your help, Mr. Murphy
Greg,
The City has two(2)active permits on this site 986 Hygeia Lavia Residence 475 SG for grading of a new garage room addition and
BMP's Arrow pipeline is installing a sewer lateral and abandoning the septic system. Pipeline work is taking place within a private
easement to connect to an existing Leucadia Wastewater sewer.
The contractor notified me 5-31-07 that they would be tying into the sewer,work was proceeding satisfactory,proper shoring was
installed, inspection was being provided by Jerod Coleman from Dudek(LEUCADIA). It is my understanding that the coupling
provided did not meet Leucadia's spec so,materials were rejected this happened on Thursday 5-31-2007 the contractor worked late to
backfill the trench the remainder of the was plated over the weekend,Two 40cy dumpsters were brought in to remove debris from the
home remodeling. They are located within the private easement a 12 ft lane remains.Dumpsters are scheduled to be removed today.
Tom Lavia Sr. who is managing this construction job has been once again reminded to work between 07:00 and 17:00 M-F.I spoke
with Mr. Reed 970 Hygeia regarding his complaint and he has my telephone number,he indicated in addition to his alleged access
problem he wasn't happy about having a new garage and driveway so close to his house.
NICK DEILE
Geopacifica Geotechnical
760-802-8147 Cell
760-420-0337 Mobile
760-633-2782 Office
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Shields
Sent: Tuesday, June 05,2007 8:22 AM
To: Nick Deile
Subject: FW: Request for your help,Mr. Murphy
Nick
Please read and review the situation for any action we may need to take.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marianne Buscemi
Sent: Monday,June 04,2007 11:36 AM
To: Patrick Murphy; Greg Shields
Cc: Joan Kling
Subject: RE: Request for your help,Mr. Murphy
There is a plan for a detached garage/accessory structure in plan check. I'll do a site visit to see what is going on and if any
construction has started today. I'll also let her know the hours of operation for construction.
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Murphy
Sent: Monday, June 04,2007 11:24 AM
To: Greg Shields;Marianne Buscemi
Cc: Joan Kling
Subject FW: Request for your help,Mr. Murphy
Greg—Looks like some grading within a private street. Might be extending a utility. There may be some grading in the back yard.
Marianne—can you check to see if there are any building permits for this property and check to see what is going on with the
property'? Construction of a structure does not appear to have started...just grading. Also,at the end of her e-mail she wants to know
the construction hours for this type of work.
1
Thanks.
Pat Murphy
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Bazan [mailto:kaylee315 @hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:37 PM
To: Patrick Murphy
Subject: Request for your help,Mr. Murphy
Dear Mr. Murphy:
My name is Kathryn Bazan. I live at 970 Hygeia Ave. I request your help on the following situation.
The neighbors at 986 Hygeia are in the middle of a construction project which involves their back yard,which borders our front yard.
At the current time,they have no permits posted on the property indicating that they have been given permission to build. Is this a
permitted action?
Currently,they have several large pieces of equipment in the cul-de-sac which are cutting a large trench across the cul-de-sac to bring
plumbing to their backyard. Our landlady,Alva Diaz,told us that she owned the cul-de-sac because she was thinking of repaving the
entire area. I do not know if this is true. The new neighbors contend that they own a slim strip outside their fence.
What is true is that the neighbors have cut a large path across the cul-de-sac,much further out than the slim strip they claim to own and
into land which is likely not theirs. I do not know if they have a legal right to be cutting into land which they probably do not own.
The Arrow Company,which is doing the digging,has left the construction equipment parked in our driveway for more than one week.
For the past several days,they have been cutting into the pavement,digging the trench and blocking our access to our driveway.At
times, we can't get into our driveway at all. On other occassions,it takes pretzel-like manuevers to get one car in.As we have explained
to the owner of 986,one member of our household is a disabled Viet Nam Marine with diabetes and I need to be able to get him to the
hospital at a moment's notice.Further,with his ankle injury,it makes it difficult, if not dangerous for him to walk around this
construction site to get to his car. At night,they cover the digging to large metal plates.
I am concerned that Arrow's work crew because they are predominantly not fluent in English,may be working in violation of health
and safety regulations simply because they do not know what is there to keep them safe.
As an editor of environmental health and safety books for the college market, I am aware that construction companies are supposed to
enforce safety regulations but may forget to do so on all occasions.
It is currently 8:21 PM as I write this and the men are still out there working. Is it a violation for them to be working this late at night in
the dark'?There are no outdoor lights for them to work by and that trench is quite deep. I am concerned that someone might get injured
out there.
Since April, they have worked on the weekends with large pieces of equipment in this small cul-de-sac. I realize that the City of
Encinitas has office hours and you might not be handling this until Monday.However, if you could look into these issues, I would
sincerely appreciate it.
I thank you in advance for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Bazan
(760)479-0902
Play games, earn tickets,get cool prizes.Play now—it's FREE!
http://club.live.com/home.aspx?icid=CLUB—hotmailtextlink1
2
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING
INVESTIGATION REPORT
Lavia Residence
Proposed Additions
986 Hygeia Avenue
Encinitas, California 92024
j—J11
Prepared for: f
Mr. Tom Lavia
986 Hygeia Avenue =°-----
Encinitas, California 92024
Prepared by:
Testing Engineers—U.S. Labs, Inc.
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, California 92111
CONTRACT NO. 148145
January 17, 2007
tuP U V -
A ¢ �
m N
1828
Lavia Residence January 17, 2007
986 Hygeia Avenue Contract No.: 148145
Encinitas, CA 92024
Attention: Mr. Tom Lavia
Subject: Geotechnical En ineering Investigation Report
Project: Proposed Addition
986 Hygeia Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Dear Mr. Lavia:
This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed
residential additions in Encinitas, California at the above referenced project site. Based on the
information obtained during this investigation, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the
proposed development, provided recommendations contained in this report are followed.
The portion of the project site where the additions are to be constructed is underlain by native
sandstone bedrock. Foundation elements for the proposed improvements should bear on
undisturbed sandstone bedrock.
-- Testing Engineers — San Diego, Inc., appreciates the opportunity to provide this geotechnical
engineering service for this project. We look forward to continuing our role as your geotechnical
engineering consultant on this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Ab.C,��
Testing Enginee s —;,San Diego, Inc. No.GE,?
Nick Tracy, Ell' Van W. Olin, GE 25 ¢CALIF '
Staff Engineer Principal Geotechnical Engineer
NJT/VWO:mm
1)1siributioll *(4)Addressee
* Includes copies t6r building department submittal
1:nginecring/Geotechnical/projects/contract 11umbers/148145 Lavia Gco Investigation
Testing Engineers San Diego, Inc.
A Bureau Veritas Company Main:(858)715-5800
7895 Convoy Court,Suite 18 Fax: (858 715-5810
San Diego,CA 92111 www.us.bureauveritas.com
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... l
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 1
3. SITE DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................2
_ 4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS............................................................................................2
5. FIELD EXPLORATION.........................................................................................................3
6. LABORATORY TESTING.................................................................................................... 3
7. GEOLOGY..............................................................................................................................3
7.1. GEOLOGIC SETTING.......................................................................................................... 3
7.2. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS..................................................................................................... 4
7.3. GROUNDWATER ...............................................................................................................4
7.4. FAULTS ............................................................................................................................4
7.5. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS........................................................................................................ 5
7.6. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................. 7
8. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................7
8.1. GENERAL ......................................................................................................................... 7
8.2. SITE PREPARATION........................................................................................................... 7
8.3. TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS............................................................................................. 8
8.4. UTILITY TRENCH EXCAVATIONS ...................................................................................... 8
8.5. FOUNDATIONS.................................................................................................................. 9
8.6. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS....................................................................................... 10
_ 8.7. RETAINING WALLS......................................................................................................... 10
8.8. CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE....................................................................................... 12
8.9. PAVEMENTS ................................................................................................................... 13
8.10. UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL ........................................................................................... 16
8.11. DRAINAGE CONTROL..............................................................................1 9
8.12. SOIL CORROSION............................................................................................................ 17
9. GENERAL SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................... 19
10. DESIGN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING............................................20
10.1. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS........................................................................................... 20
10.2. CONSTRUCTION MONITORING........................................................................................20
11. LIMITATIONS .....................................................................................................................20
i TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
12. SELECTED REFERENCES.................................................................................................22
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 —SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2—PLOT PLAN
FIGURE 3—WALL SURCHARGE LOADS
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A—LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
APPENDIX B—LABORATORY TESTING
APPENDIX C—SEISMIC ANALYSIS DATA
APPENDIX D—ASFE INFORMATION ABOUT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
�� TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed
residential addition construction at the subject site. The location of the subject project is
presented on Figure 1, Site Location Map. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the
subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and
construction of the proposed development. This report summarizes the data collected and
presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client and their consultants in the
design of the proposed new structures. In particular, it should be noted that this report has not
been prepared from the perspective of a construction bid preparation instrument and should be
- considered by prospective construction bidders only as a source of general information subject to
interpretation and refinement by their own expertise and experience, particularly with regard to
construction feasibility. Contract requirements as set forth by the project plans and specifications
will supersede any general observation and recommendations presented in this report.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services for this project consisted of the following tasks:
• Review of readily available background data, including in-house geotechnical data,
geotechnical literature, geologic maps, topographic maps, seismic hazard maps, and literature
relevant to the subject site.
• A site reconnaissance to observe the general surficial site conditions and to select test pit
locations.
• Subsurface exploration, including performing 3 test pits to depths up to 5 feet below existing
grades. Soil samples obtained from the test pits were transported to our in-house laboratory
for observation and testing.
• Laboratory testing on selected soil samples to evaluate the geotechnical engineering
properties of the on-site soils.
• An assessment of general seismic conditions and geologic hazards affecting the area and their
possible impact on the subject project.
• Engineering evaluation of the geotechnical data collected to develop geotechnical
recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed development. Specifically
addressing the following items:
o Evaluation of general subsurface conditions and description of types, distribution, and
engineering characteristics of subsurface materials.
1 TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
• General recommendations for earthwork, including site preparation, excavation, site
drainage, and the placement of compacted fill.
• Recommendations for temporary excavations.
-
• Evaluation of project feasibility and suitability of on-site soils for foundation support.
• Recommendations for design of suitable foundation systems including allowable bearing
capacity, lateral resistance, and settlement estimates.
• Determination of seismic design parameters in accordance with Chapter 16 of the
2001 California Building Code.
• Recommendations for design of retaining walls, including lateral earth pressures, passive
and frictional resistance, and applicable surcharge loads.
• Recommendations for parking lot pavements, building floor slabs, exterior slabs-on-grade
and hardscape including design sections.
• Evaluation of the corrosion potential of the on-site materials.
• Preparation of this report, including reference maps and graphics, summarizing the data
collected and presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the
design and construction of the proposed development.
3. SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located at 986 Hygeia Avenue in Encinitas, California. The site is currently
occupied as a single family residence which is located at the eastern portion of the property. The
site is somewhat rectangular in shape and slopes gently towards the western direction. The
elevation of the site ranges from 90 to 98 feet (AMSL). The site is bordered by Hygeia Avenue
to the east and by single family residences to the north, south, and west.
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
It is understood that the proposed construction will consist of single story additions to the north,
south, and west of the existing residence. The proposed construction also includes a detached
- single car garage located west of the existing residence. It is anticipated that the residence
additions will consist of wood wall construction supported with concrete piers and raised joist
supported floors, while the garage will be supported on shallow spread footings with a slab-on-
grade. Based on our experience with similar projects, maximum anticipated wall and column
loads will be in the order of 2 kips per lineal foot and 50 kips, respectively. Tolerable total and
differential settlements of 1-inch and %2 inch in 40 feet, respectively, were assumed for the
purpose of design. Appurtenant construction may also include asphalt concrete and Portland
2 TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
Cement Concrete paved driveway and parking area, landscape and hardscape areas, as well as
numerous underground utilities.
5. FIELD EXPLORATION
The soil and groundwater conditions beneath the site were explored by excavating, logging, and
sampling 3 test pits to depths of up to approximately 5 feet below the existing grades.
Before starting our field exploration program, a field reconnaissance was conducted to observe
site conditions and mark the locations of our planned explorations. In accordance with local
regulations, Underground Service Alert was notified of our operations for underground utility
marking at the locations of exploration.
Details of the test pit logs are presented in Appendix A. The approximate locations of the
exploratory test pits are shown on Figure 2, Plot Plan.
6. LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the test pits to aid in the soil
classification and to evaluate the engineering properties of the foundation soils. The following
tests were performed:
• Sieve analyses;
• In-situ density and moisture content;
• Chloride and Sulfate Content/pH and Resistivity
Testing was performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards and
California Test Methods. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. Details of
the laboratory testing program are also included in Appendix B.
7. GEOLOGY
7.1. Geologic Setting
The site is located on the coastal plain of San Diego County within the Peninsular Ranges
geomorphic province. This province is characterized by northwest-trending mountain ranges
bordered by relatively straight-sided, sediment-floored valleys. The northwest trend is also
reflected in the direction of the dominant geologic structural features, which consist of
northwest-trending faults and fault zones. Two major northwest-trending fault zones
traverse the San Diego metropolitan and the inland county areas: the Rose Canyon fault zone
3 TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
on the west and the Elsinore fault zone on the east. The Rose Canyon fault zone and other
associated faults traverse the downtown San Diego area in a predominant north to north-
northwest direction.
The specific local geologic setting of the site consists of Quaternary Terrace deposits. The
terraced material consists of slight to moderately cemented fine to medium grained
sandstone.
7.2. Geologic Materials
The geologic strata encountered during the subsurface exploration generally consisted of
artificial fill overlying Terrace Deposits. Generalized descriptions of the units encountered
in our field exploration are provided below. Detailed descriptions of the earth materials
encountered in our test pit explorations are presented on the test pit logs in Appendix A.
7.2.1. Artificial Fill
Artificial fill soils were observed in 1 of the test pits (i.e., TP 1). The artificial fill was
encountered in the test pit up to depths of 1 foot. The artificial fill generally consisted of
fine to medium grained silty sand with some gravel. The fill soils were brown and in a dry
to damp state.
7.2.2. Terrace Deposits
Terrace Deposits were encountered in each of the test pits within the project site. The
Terrace Deposits were found at the surface in the cut portion of the site and just below the
fill layer outside the cut area. This bedrock consists of a silty sandstone with gravel and
transitional siltstone zones, tan to light brown in color, dry to damp, loose to medium
dense consistency, friable and highly weathered to slightly weathered with depth.
7.3. Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pits; however, groundwater conditions
may vary based on weather conditions and localized irrigation.
7.4. Faults
7.4.1. General
The numerous faults in southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive
faults. As used in this report, the definitions of fault terms are based on those developed
for the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 and published by the California
Division of Mines and Geology (Hart and Bryant, 1997).
4 TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
` Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within
Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or have been included within
any of the state-designated Earthquake Fault Zones (previously known as Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zones). Faults are considered potentially active if they exhibit evidence
of surface displacement since the beginning of Quaternary time (approximately two
million years ago) but not since the beginning of Holocene time. Inactive faults are those
that have not had surface movement since the beginning of Quaternary time.
7.4.2. Active Faults
The closest known active fault to the site is the Rose Canyon fault zone, located
approximately 2 mile west of the site. Other important active faults in the San Diego
metropolitan area include in the Newport-Inglewood, Coronado Bank, and Elsinore Julian
fault zones. These fault zones are located approximately 12 miles west, 16 miles
northeast, 29 miles northeast, respectively, at their closest approach to the site. The San
Andreas Fault, which is generally considered to be capable of generating the largest
earthquake in California, is located approximately 72 miles northeast of the site.
7.5. Geologic Hazards
7.5.1 Fault Rupture
The site is not located within any Earthquake Fault Zone delineated by the State of
California for the hazard of fault surface rupture. The surface traces of any active faults
are not known to pass directly through, or to project toward the site. Therefore, the
potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design
life of the proposed structure is considered low.
7.5.2. Seismic Shaking
The site is located in a seismically active area, as is the majority of southern California.
The most significant seismic hazard at the site is considered to be shaking caused by an
earthquake occurring on a nearby or distant active fault. Active faults within a 60-mile
radius of the site include the Rose Canyon, Coronado Bank, Newport-Inglewood
(offshore segment), Elsinore-Julian, Elsinore-Temecula, Palos Verdes, Elsinore-Glen Ivy,
Earthquake Valley, San Jacinto-Anza, Newport-Inglewood (L.A. Basin), San Jacinto-San
Jacinto Valley, Elsinore-Coyote Mountain, San Jacinto-Coyote Creek and Chino-Central
Ave. Design considerations for the hazard of seismic shaking are presented in Section
8.8, Seismic Design Parameters.
7.5.3. Liquefaction and Seismically-induced Settlement
_ Liquefaction of soils can be caused by ground shaking during earthquakes. Research and
historical data indicate that loose, relatively clean granular soils are susceptible to
liquefaction and dynamic settlement, whereas the stability of the majority of clayey silts,
5 TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by ground shaking. Liquefaction is
generally known to occur in saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower than
approximately 50 feet. Dynamic settlement due to earthquake shaking can occur in both
dry and saturated sands.
The structural site areas are underlain predominately by dense to very dense formational
bedrock which is not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction. Therefore, the potential
for liquefaction and the associated ground deformation occurring beneath the structural
site areas is considered low.
Seismic settlement is often caused when loose to medium-dense granular soils are
densified during ground shaking. The formational and post-graded fill materials are not in
the loose to medium-dense category. Therefore, seismic settlement of unsaturated
deposits is not anticipated to affect the proposed structures.
7.5.4. Subsidence
The site is not located in an area of known ground subsidence due to the withdrawal of
subsurface fluids. Accordingly, the potential for subsidence occurring at the site due to
the withdrawal of oil, gas, or water is considered remote.
7.5.5. Landsliding and Lurching
Although the site is surrounded by moderately sloping topography, given the dense to
very dense, moderately cemented or cohesive character of the formational materials at
shallow depths, the potential for both gross slope stability problems and lurching (earth
movement at right angles to a cliff or steep slope during ground shaking) is considered
low. However, it should be noted that the surface soils overlying the formational
materials within sloping areas are considered susceptible to erosion and creep. Design
considerations to reduce surface soil erosion are presented in Section 8.11, Drainage
Control.
There are no known landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known
landslides.
7.5.6. Tsunamis, Inundation Seiches,and Flooding
- The site is located at an elevation of approximately 90 feet AMSL at its lowest point.
Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a hazard at the site.
The site is not located downslope of any large body of water that could affect the site in
the event of an earthquake-induced failure or seiche (oscillation in a body of water due to
earthquake shaking).
6 TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
Given the elevated nature of the property (i.e., 90 feet AMSL) the potential for flooding at
the subject property is considered low.
7.6. Conclusions
Based on the available geologic data, no known active faults with the potential for surface
fault rupture are known to exist beneath the site. Accordingly, the potential for surface
rupture at the site due to faulting is considered low during the design life of the proposed
structures. Although the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an
earthquake, this hazard is common in southern California and the effects of ground shaking
can be mitigated if the structures are designed and constructed in conformance with current
building codes and engineering practices.
The potential for other geologic hazards such as liquefaction, seismic settlement, subsidence,
tsunamis, flooding, and seiches affecting the site are considered low.
8. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1. General
Based on the results of the field explorations and engineering analyses, it is TESD's opinion
that the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the
recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design plans and implemented
during construction.
The structural site areas for the proposed additions are underlain predominately by dense
terrace deposits. In order to assure structural subgrade support uniformity, it is recommended
that the building additions should be bearing entirely on competent material by means of
shallow spread footings or piers.
The following sections present our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the
geotechnical engineering design for this project. The recommendations presented below are
based on finished floor elevations of about 95 feet for the residence and 91 feet for the
detached garage. If the finished floor elevations are substantially different than what was
assumed in our analyses, the development configuration changes or the foundation subgrade
conditions vary significantly; our recommendations may have to be modified accordingly.
8.2. Site Preparation
In order to create a uniform bearing condition for the proposed structures, the following
earthwork operations are recommended:
• Residence additions: In view of the anticipated joist supported floor systems, no
over-excavation earthwork is required.
7 TESD
'Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
• Garage, Paved Areas, and Flatwork: Should be over-excavated to a minimum depth of
2 feet below proposed subgrade or existing grade, whichever is greater, or as needed
to remove undocumented fill. These excavations should extend a horizontal distance
of at least 2.0 feet beyond the outside perimeter.
Fill placement associated with the removal and compaction of existing artificial fill, utility
trench backfill, and fill placed to achieve finish grade or subgrade should be moisture-
conditioned to within 3 percent of the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90
percent of the maximum dry density, as evaluated by the latest version of ASTM D1557.
Import soils should be sampled, tested, and approved by TESD prior to arrival on site.
Imported fill materials should consist of granular soils free from vegetation, debris, or rocks
larger than 3 inches maximum dimension. The Expansion Index value should not exceed a
maximum of 20 (i.e., essentially non-expansive).
8.3. Temporary Excavations
Excavation of the on-site soils may be achieved with conventional heavy-duty grading
equipment. However, moderate difficulties excavating in more cemented layers of the
sandstone formational materials should be anticipated, if reached. Temporary, unsurcharged,
excavation walls may be back sloped at an inclination of 1:1 (H:V) in existing compacted fill
and formational materials. Personnel from TESD should observe any temporary excavations
so that any necessary modifications based on variations in the encountered soil conditions can
be made. All applicable safety requirements and regulations, including CalOSHA
requirements, should be met.
Where sloped excavations are used, the tops of the slopes should be barricaded so that
vehicles and storage loads are not within 10 feet of the tops of excavated slopes. A greater
setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and
cranes. TESD should be advised of such heavy loadings so that specific setback
requirements may be established. If the temporary construction slopes are to be maintained
during the rainy season, berms are recommended along the tops of the slopes, to prevent
runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces.
8.4. Utility Trench Excavations
Temporary, shallow excavations with vertical side slopes less than 4 feet high will generally
be stable, although there is a potential for localized sloughing. Vertical excavations greater
than 4 feet high should not be attempted without proper shoring to prevent local instabilities.
Shoring may be accomplished with hydraulic shores and trench plates, trench boxes, and/or
soldier piles and lagging. The actual method of a shoring system should be provided and
designed by a contractor experienced in installing temporary shoring under similar soil
conditions. All trench excavations should be shored in accordance with CalOSHA
regulations. For your planning purposes, on-site fill soils and terrace materials may be
considered a Type B soil, as defined the current CalOSHA soil classification.
8 TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
For design of temporary shoring, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be
used. It may be assumed that the retained soils with a level, unsurcharged, surface behind the
shoring will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 35
pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
Unless reflected in the shoring design, stockpiled (excavated) materials should be placed no
closer to the edge of a trench excavation than a distance defined by a line drawn upward from
_ the bottom of the trench at an inclination of 1:1 (H:V), but no closer than 4 feet. All trench
excavations should be made in accordance with CalOSHA requirements.
8.5. Foundations
Assuming compliance with section 8.2 of this report, the structures may be supported on
shallow spread footings bearing entirely on undisturbed terrace deposits:, Recommendations
for the design and construction of shallow foundations are presented below.
8.5.1. Allowable Bearing Capacity—Spread Footings
The residence additions and garage structures may be supported on spread footings
founded in undisturbed sandstone bedrock materials. They may be designed for an
allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). Footings should be
established at a depth of at least 1.5 and 4 feet below the finished pad elevation for the
garage and residence additions, respectively. Footings should have a width of at least 12
inches. A one-third increase in the bearing value can be used for wind or seismic loads.
8.5.2. Settlement
Estimated settlements will depend on the foundation size and depth, the loads imposed,
and the founding soils. For preliminary design purposes, the total settlement for spread
footings with a maximum column load of 50 kips and an allowable bearing capacity of
2,500 psf founded on formational materials is estimated to be on the order of less than 1<
inch. t r.�_t?
Differential settlements will depend on the column spacing, the foundation size and
depth, and the loads imposed. However, based on our knowledge of the project,
differential settlements are anticipated to be 0.50 inches in 40 feet or less. In any case,
comprehensive settlement analyses can be performed when detailed foundation load
information is provided to evaluate total and differential settlement.
8.5.3. Lateral Loads
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction and by the passive resistance of the supporting
materials. A coefficient of friction of 0.40 may be used between foundations/slabs and
compacted soils; in the event that a vapor barrier is employed, a reduced coefficient of
9 TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
friction of 0.10 should be used for these slab-on-grade areas. The passive resistance of
compacted fills or terrace deposits may be assumed to be equal to the pressure developed
by a fluid with a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). A one-third increase in the
passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. The passive resistance of the
materials may be combined with the frictional resistance provided the lateral bearing
resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total lateral resistance.
8.5.4. Foundation Observation
To verify the presence of satisfactory materials at design elevations, footing excavations
should be observed to be clean of loosened soil and debris before placing steel or concrete
and probed for soft areas. If soft or loose soils or unsatisfactory materials are encountered,
these materials should be removed and may be replaced with a two-sack, sand-cement
slurry or structural concrete. Footing excavations should be deepened as necessary to
extend into satisfactory bearing materials; however, TESD should be notified to approve
the proposed change.
8.6 Seismic Design Parameters
The seismic design of the project may be performed using criteria presented in the 2001
California Building Code, Volume 2, Chapter 16, Divisions IV and V, using the following
seismic design parameters.
Table 1
2001 CBC Seismic Design Factor Value
Seismic Zone 4
Soil Profile Type Sp
Seismic Source/Type(') Rose Canyon fault/Type B
Distance to Source 2.6 Km
Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.4
Near Source Acceleration Factor, Na 1.2
Near Source Velocity Factor, N„ 1.5
Seismic Acceleration Coefficient, Ca 0.55
Seismic Velocity Coefficient, Cv 0.97
(1) Faults are designated as Type A, B or C, depending on maximum moment magnitude
and slip rates (Table 16A-U of 1997 Uniform Building Code).
8.7 Retaining Walls
Although not anticipated, the following section is provided in case that design requires the
construction of retaining walls or basement walls.
10 TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
8.7.1. Lateral Earth Pressure
Retaining walls should be designed to resist a triangular distribution or lateral earth
pressure plus surcharges from any adjacent loads. The recommended lateral earth
pressures for retaining walls free to rotate, with level and 2:1 (H:V) slope backfills, are 40
and 55 pounds per cubic foot (equivalent fluid pressure), respectively. For restrained
walls, at-rest lateral equivalent fluid pressures of 60 and 75 pounds per cubic foot may be
used. Simple surface surcharge pressures may be added to the active pressure
contribution from the backfill using the formulas shown in Figure 3, Lateral Surcharge
Loads. However, the geotechnical engineer should confirm the lateral magnitude and
distribution resulting from surcharge loads.
- The recommended earth pressure is calculated assuming that a drainage system will be
installed behind the retaining walls, so that external water pressure will not develop.
8.7.2. Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure
In addition to the above-mentioned lateral earth pressures, walls more than 6 feet in
height should be designed to support a seismic active pressure. The recommended
seismic active pressure distribution on the wall is an inverted triangular with the
maximum pressure equal to 24H psf, where H is the differential wall height in feet.
8.7.3. Drainage
Retaining wall and basement walls should be properly drained. Adequate backfill
drainage is essential to provide a free-drained backfill condition and to limit hydrostatic
buildup behind walls. In addition, drainage behind retaining walls that may exist along
the toe of on-site fill or cut slopes should provide a relief to the potential seepage from
the slope irrigation water.
Basement and concrete retaining walls should be appropriately waterproofed. Drainage
behind the retaining walls may be provided with a geosynthetic drainage composite such
as TerraDrain, MiraDrain, or equivalent, attached to the outside perimeter of the wall.
The drain should be placed continuously along the back of the wall and connected to a 4-
inch-diameter perforated pipe. The pipe should be sloped at least 2 % and surrounded by
- three cubic feet per foot of 3/4 -inch crushed rock wrapped in suitable non-woven filter
fabric (Mirafi 140NL or equivalent). The crushed rock should meet the requirements
defined in Section 200-1.2 of the latest edition of the Standard Specification for Public
Works Construction (Greenbook). The drain should discharge through a solid pipe to n
appropriate outlet using a gravity system.
TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
8.7.4. Backfill
Any wall backfill material should be non-expansive and free draining. On-site materials
were observed to be non-expansive and are considered suitable for wall backfill. Wall
backfill should be moisture conditioned to within 2% of optimum moisture content, and
recompacted in 8-inch lifts to 90 percent relative compaction(ASTM D1557).
8.8. Concrete Slabs-On-Grade
Recommendations for building floor slabs, as well as other exterior concrete slabs are
presented below.
8.8.1. Building Slabs
The slabs for all buildings may be supported at grade on a capillary break overlying,
undisturbed sandstone bedrock materials For design of these concrete slabs, a modulus
of subgrade reaction (k) of 200 pci may be used. Floor slabs should be designed and
reinforced in accordance with the structural engineer's recommendations. TESD
recommends that the concrete should have a thickness of at least 4 inches, a water cement
ratio of 0.50 or less, and a slump of,4 inched or less. Slabs should be at least reinforced
with No. 4 reinforcing bars spaced at 18 inches on-center, each way, placed in the middle
one-third of the section, to help control shrinkage cracking of concrete. Reinforcement
should be properly placed and supported on "chairs." Welded wire mesh is not
recommended. The concrete reinforcement and joint spacing should conform to the
minimum requirements of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) section 302.1R.
Table 2 provides recommendations for concrete floor slab support. The recommendation
selected should be based on the primary requirements of the particular building slab. The
subgrade should be prepared in accordance with recommendations provided in the
Section'8.2.
Table 2
Recommendations for Concrete Building Slab Support
Primary Objective Recommendation
Protection of floor covering Plastic membrane at least 10 mils in thickness;
from vapor infiltration Over 4 inches of clean gravel or 3/4-inch crushed rock.
2 inches of dry granular material;
Curing of concrete Over plastic membrane 6 mils in thickness;
Over at least 2 inches of granular material.
The granular material should have a minimum Sand Equivalent of 30. The gravel should
contain less than 10 percent of material passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 3 percent
passing the No. 200 sieve. The '/4-inch crushed rock should conform to Section 200-1.2 of
the latest edition of the Standard Specification for Public Works Construction
12 TESD
.Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
(Greenbook). All materials should be adequately compacted prior to the placement of
concrete.
Care should be taken during placement of the concrete to prevent displacement of the
granular material. The granular material should be dry and not be wetted or saturated
prior to the placement of concrete. The concrete slab should be allowed to cure properly
before placing vinyl or other moisture-sensitive floor covering.
8.8.2. Exterior Concrete Slabs
Exterior concrete flatwork should have a minimum concrete thickness of four inches. All
concrete should be supported on at least 6 inches of Class 2 aggregate base compacted to
at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. The upper 24 inches of subgrade soil
located below the aggregate base should reconditioned to achieve a moisture content of
about 1.2 times the optimum moisture content, and compacted to 90 percent relative
compaction (ASTM D1557).
The driveway slab areas connecting sidewalks should have a minimum concrete thickness
of six inches. The driveway concrete should be supported by at least 6 inches of Class 2
aggregate based compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. The upper
24 inches of subgrade soil located below the aggregate base should reconditioned to
achieve a moisture content of about 1.2 times the optimum moisture content, and
compacted to 95 percent relative compaction(ASTM D1557).
For exterior concrete flatwork, TESD recommends that narrow strip concrete slabs, such
as sidewalks, be reinforced with at least No. 4 reinforcing bars placed longitudinally at 30
inches on-center. Wide exterior slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 4 reinforcing
bars placed 30 inches on-center, each way. The reinforcement should be extended
through the control joints to reduce the potential for differential movement. Control joints
should be constructed in accordance with recommendations from the structural engineer
or architect.
8.9. Pavements
8.9.1. Flexural Asphalt Concrete (AC) Pavements
To develop preliminary recommendations for the pavement sections, an R-Value of 30
was considered appropriate based on the existing soil conditions. Pavement sections
corresponding to traffic index values ranging from 5.0 to 8.5 are presented in the table
below. The project civil engineer should select the appropriate pavement section based
on the anticipated traffic conditions. Based on these design parameters and analysis in
accordance with the current Cal-Trans Highway Design Manual, and assuming
compliance with site preparation recommendations, TESD recommends the following
pavement structural sections:
13 TESD
.Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
Table 3
Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
r
5.0 3.0'... 5.0, 4.5 J 4.0
5.5 3.5 6.5 5.0 4.0
6.0 4.0 6.5 4.5 4.0
6.5 4.5 7.5 4.5 4.0
7.0 5.0 7.5 4.5 4.0
7.5 5.0 9.5 6.5 5.0
8.0 5.0 10.5 7.5 6.0
8.5 5.0 12.5 9.5 7.5
(1) Asphalt Concrete;
(2) Crushed Aggregate Base(CAB),Green Book section 200-2.2,compacted to at least
95%relative compaction(ASTM D-1557);
(3) Aggregate Base section utilizing Tensar BX 1100 geogrid installed at the design
subgrade elevation;
(4) Aggregate Base section utilizing Tensar BX 1200 geogrid installed at the design
subgrade elevation.
Note: The upper 12-inches of subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 95%relative
compaction(ASTM D-1557).
It is recommended that R-value testing is performed on representative soil samples after
rough grading operations on the upper 2 feet to confirm applicability of the above
pavement sections.
The aggregate base should conform to the Crushed Aggregate Base per Greenbook
requirements, Section 200-2.2. The base course should be compacted to a minimum dry
density of 95% of the materials maximum density as determined by the ASTM D1557
test procedure. Field testing should be used to verify compaction, aggregate gradation,
and compacted thickness.
The asphalt concrete pavement should be compacted to 95% of the unit weight as tested
in accordance with the Hveem procedure. The maximum lift thickness should be two
inches. The asphalt concrete material shall conform to Type III, Class C2 or C3, 2001
edition of the Greenbook Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. An
approved mix design should be submitted 30 days prior to placement. The mix design
should include proportions of materials, maximum density and required lay-down
temperature range. Field testing should be used to verify oil content, aggregate gradation,
compaction, compacted thickness, and lay-down temperature.
14 TESD
-avia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
If the paved areas are to be used during construction, or if the type and frequency of
traffic is greater than assumed in the design, the pavement section should be re-evaluated
for the anticipated traffic.
8.9.2. Rigid Portland Cement Concrete(PCC)
Recommendations for Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement structural sections are
as follows:
Table 4
Ri id Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Sections
tl k
Parking stalls
for light-weight 5 120 4.5 4.0
vehicles
Driveways for
light-weight 25 120 5.5 4.0
vehicles
Driveways and
parking areas for 500 140 6.0 6.0
heavy trucks
1) ADTT values have been assumed for planning purposes and should be confirmed by the design team during
future plan development.
(2) Effective modulus at the finished rock base elevation considering subgrade soils and overlying rock base
section;
(3) Concrete shall have a minimum modulus of rupture MR > 600 psi based on ASTM C78. This analysis
assumes the construction of concrete shoulders. Slabs should be reinforced with No.3 reinforcing bars at 18
inches on center in both horizontal directions.
(4) Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB), Green Book section 200-2.2, compacted to at least 95% relative
compaction(ASTM D-1557).
Stresses are anticipated to be greater at the edges and construction joints of the pavement
section. A thickened edge is recommended on the outside of slabs subject to wheel loads.
Control joints should be provided at maximum of 15 feet spacing each way. Installation
of these types of joints should be made immediately after concrete finishing. Construction
jointing, doweling, and reinforcing should be provided in accordance with
recommendations of the ACI.
Subgrade soil should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction for
_ pavement constructed over low to medium expansive soils. Crushed Aggregate Base
(CAB) should conform to section 200-2.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public
Works Construction "Greenbook" and should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent
of the maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content.
15 TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
Rigid Portland cement concrete sections were evaluated using methods suggested by the
American Concrete Institute — Guide for Design and Construction of Concrete Parking
Lots (ACI 330R-92).
The performance of pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface
drainage away from the edge of the pavement. The ponding of water on or adjacent to
pavement areas will likely cause failure of the subgrade and resultant pavement distress.
Where planters are proposed, the perimeter curb should extend at least 6 inches below the
subgrade elevation of the adjacent pavement. In addition, our experience indicates that
even with these provisions, a saturated subgrade condition can develop as a result of
increased irrigation, landscaping and surface runoff. A subdrainage system should be
constructed along the perimeter of pavement subgrade areas to reduce the potential of this
condition developing. The sudrain system should be designed to intercept irrigation water
and surface runoff prior to entry into the pavement subgrade and carry the water to a
suitable outlet.
8.10. Utility Trench Backfill
All subsurface utility trench backfill, including water, gas, storm drain, sewer, irrigation,
telecommunication, and electrical lines should be mechanically compacted. Water jetting
should not be used for compaction. The pipe bedding should consist of free-draining sand or
small gravel with a minimum sand equivalent of 30. There should be sufficient clearance
along the side of the utility pipe or line to allow for compaction equipment. The pipe bedding
shall be compacted under the haunches and along side the pipe.
8.11. Drainage Control
The intent of this section is to provide general information regarding the control of surface
water. The control of surface water is essential to the satisfactory performance of the building
and site improvements. Surface water should be controlled so that conditions of uniform
moisture are maintained beneath the structure, even during periods of heavy rainfall. The
following recommendations are considered minimal.
• Berms, drainage swales, catch basins, and storm water drainage pipe should be
installed along all existing top-of-slope areas within the project limits, as a minimum
erosion control measure.
• Ponding and areas of low flow gradients should be avoided.
• If bare soil within 5 feet of the structure is not avoidable, then a gradient of
5 percent or more should be provided sloping away from the improvement.
Corresponding paved surfaces should be provided with a gradient of at least
1 percent.
16 TESD
Lavia Residence
. January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
• The remainder of the unpaved areas should be provided with a drainage gradient of at
least 2 percent.
• Positive drainage devices, such as graded swales, paved ditches, and/or catch basins
should be employed to accumulate and to convey water to appropriate discharge
points.
• Concrete walks and flatwork should not obstruct the free flow of surface water.
• Brick flatwork should be sealed by mortar or be placed over an impermeable
membrane.
• Area drains should be recessed below grade to allow free flow of water into the basin.
• Enclosed raised planters should be sealed at the bottom and provided with an ample
flow gradient to a drainage device. Recessed planters and landscaped areas should be
provided with area inlet and subsurface drain pipes.
" * Planters should not be located adjacent to the structure wherever possible. If planters
are to be located adjacent to the structure, the planters should be positively sealed,
should incorporate a subdrain, and should be provided with free discharge capacity to
a drainage device.
• Planting areas at grade should be provided with positive drainage. Wherever possible,
the grade of exposed soil areas should be established above adjacent paved grades.
Drainage devices and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent
pavement or walks into planted areas.
• Gutter and downspout systems should be provided to capture discharge from roof
areas. The accumulated roof water should be conveyed to off-site disposal areas by a
- pipe or concrete swale system.
• Landscape watering should be performed judiciously to preclude either soaking or
desiccation of soils. The watering should be such that it just sustains plant growth
without excessive watering. Sprinkler systems should be checked periodically to
detect leakage and they should be turned off during the rainy season.
8.12. Soil Corrosion
The corrosion potential of the on-site materials to steel and buried concrete was evaluated.
- Laboratory testing was performed on a representative sample of the existing on-site soil to
evaluate pH, minimum resistivity, and chloride and soluble sulfate content. Table 6 presents
the results of our corrosivity testing. General recommendations to address the corrosion
potential of the on-site soils are provided below. If additional recommendations are desired,
we recommend that a corrosion specialist be consulted.
17 TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
Table 5
Corrosivi Test Results
Boring No. TP-1
Depth (feet) 2
PH 5.4
Resistivity 10704
(ohm-cm)
Chloride Content(ppm) <11
Soluble Sulfate Content <11
(ppm)
Imported fill materials should be tested to confirm that their corrosion potential is not more
severe than those assumed.
8.12.1. Reinforced Concrete
Laboratory tests indicate that the potential of sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the
on-site fill soils is "negligible", based on 2001 California Building Code
Table 19-A-4. We recommend Type II cement be used. We further recommend that at
least a 3-inch thick concrete cover be maintained over the reinforcing steel in concrete in
contact with the soil.
Reinforcing steel in concrete structures and pipes in contact with soil should be protected
- from chloride attack. The level of protection should be for soil with a chloride content of
about 100 ppm. Possible methods of protection that could be used include increased
concrete cover, low water-cement ratio, corrosion inhibitor admixture, silica fume
admixture, waterproof coating on the concrete exterior.
8.12.2. Metal in Contact with Soil
Laboratory tests indicate that the existing on-site soils have a high minimum electrical
resistivity, which presents a low potential for corrosion to buried ferrous metals. As a
consequence of these conditions corrosions potential of metal piping is considered low.
Alternatively, a corrosion specialist should be consulted regarding suitable types of piping
and necessary protection for underground metal conduits.
18 TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
9. GENERAL SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
Site grading operations should conform with applicable local building and safety codes and to the
rules and regulations of those governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the subject
construction.
The grading contractor is responsible to notify governmental agencies, as required, and a
representative of TESD at the start of site cleanup, at the initiation of grading, and any time that
grading operations are resumed after an interruption. Each step of the grading should be
accepted in a specific area by a representative of TESD, and where required, should be approved
by the applicable governmental agencies prior to proceeding with subsequent work.
The following site grading recommendations should be regarded as minimal. The site grading
recommendations should be incorporated into the project plans and specifications.
1. Prior to grading, existing vegetation, trash, surface structures and debris should be removed
and disposed off-site at a legal dumpsite. Any existing utility lines, or other subsurface
structures, which are not to be utilized should be removed, destroyed, or abandoned in
compliance with current governmental regulations and with concurrence from TESD.
2. Subsequent to cleanup operations, and prior to initial grading, a reasonable search should be
made for subsurface obstructions and/or possible loose fill or detrimental soil types. The
contractor should conduct this search, with advice from and under the observation of a
representative of TESD.
3. Prior to the placement of fill or foundations within the building area, the site should be
prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the "Site Preparation" section
of this report. Any fill should be spread in 6-inch to 8-inch lifts and should be moisture
conditioned and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Section
8.2 of this report. All undocumented fill or disturbed soils within the building areas should be
removed and compacted under observation and testing of a representative of TESD.
4. The exposed subgrade and/or excavation bottom should be observed and approved by a
representative of TESD for conformance with the intent of the recommendations presented in
this report and prior to any further processing or fill placement. It should be understood that
the actual encountered conditions may warrant excavation and/or subgrade preparation
beyond the extent recommended and/or anticipated in this report
5. On-site inorganic granular soils that are free of debris or contamination are considered suitable
for placement as compacted fill. A representative of TESD should provide guidance for
-- acceptability and placement of on-site fill materials.
6. Observation and field tests shall be performed during grading by a representative of TESD in
- order to assist the contractor in obtaining the proper moisture content and required degree of
compaction. Where less than the required degree of compaction is indicated, additional
19 TESD
,Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
compactive effort and any necessary adjustments in the moisture content of the soil should be
made to obtain the required compaction.
7. To evaluate the presence of satisfactory materials at design elevations, footing excavations
should be observed to be clean of loosened soil and debris before placing steel or concrete
and probed for soft areas. If soft or loose soils or unsatisfactory materials are encountered,
these materials should be removed.
8. Wherever, in the opinion of a representative of TESD, an unsatisfactory condition is being
created in any area, whether by cutting or filling, then the work should not proceed in that
area until the condition has been corrected.
10. DESIGN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Geotechnical review of plans and specifications is of paramount importance in engineering
practice. The poor performance of many structures has been attributed to inadequate geotechnical
review of construction documents. Additionally, observation and testing of the subgrade will be
important to the performance of the proposed development. The following sections present our
recommendations relative to the review of construction documents and the monitoring of
construction activities.
10.1. Plans and Specifications
The design plans and specifications should be reviewed and approved by TESD prior to
bidding and construction, as the geotechnical recommendations may need to be reevaluated
in the light of the actual design configuration and loads. This review is necessary to evaluate
whether the recommendations contained in this report and future reports have been properly
incorporated into the project plans and specifications.
10.2. Construction Monitoring
Site preparation, removal of unsuitable. soils, assessment of imported fill materials, fill
placement, foundation installation, and other site grading operations should be observed and
tested. The substrata exposed during the construction may differ from that encountered in the
test borings. Continuous observation by a representative of TESD during construction allows
for evaluation of the soil conditions as they are encountered, and allows the opportunity to
recommend appropriate revisions where necessary.
11. LIMITATIONS
The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are based on TESD's review of
background documents and on information obtained from field explorations. It should be noted
that this study did not evaluate the possible presence of hazardous materials on any portion of the
site.
20 TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
Due to the limited nature of our field explorations, conditions not observed and described in this
report may be present on the site. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced
through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation and laboratory
testing can be performed upon request. It should be understood that conditions different from
those anticipated in this report may be encountered during grading operations, e.g., the extent of
removal of unsuitable soil, and that additional effort may be required to mitigate them.
- Site conditions, including ground-water level, can change with time as a result of natural
processes or the activities of man at the subject site or at nearby sites. Changes to the applicable
laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur as a result of government action or
the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over
time, in part or in whole, by changes over which TESD. has no control.
TESD's recommendations for this site are, to a high degree, dependant upon appropriate quality
control of subgrade preparation, fill placement, and foundation construction. Accordingly, the
recommendations are made contingent upon the opportunity for TESD to observe grading
operations and foundation excavations for the proposed construction. If parties other than TESD
are engaged to provide such services, such parties must be notified that they will be required to
assume complete responsibility as the geotechnical engineer of record for the geotechnical phase
of the project by concurring with the recommendations in this report and/or by providing
alternative recommendations.
This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself,
is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. TESD should be
contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content,
interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.
TESD has endeavored to perform our evaluation using the degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical professionals with experience in
this area in similar soil conditions. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made as to
the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report.
21 TESD
Lavia Residence January 17,2006
Proposed Additions Contract No.: 148145
12. SELECTED REFERENCES
ASTM, 2001, Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing and Materials: vol. 4.08 for ASTM test
methods D-420 to D-4914; and vol. 4.09 for ASTM test methods D-4943 to highest
number.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W., and Fumal, T.E., 1997, Equations For Estimating Horizontal Response
Spectra And Peak Acceleration Form Western North American Earthquakes - A Summary
Of Recent Work: Seismological Research Letters,Vol. 68,No. 1, pp. 128-153.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for
Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in California: Special Publication 117, 74 pp.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known
Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada:
International Conference of Building Officials, dated February, Scale
1"=4km.
Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps: California
Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, 38
PP.,
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code: Volume 2.
Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of Natural Deposits during Earthquakes: Proceedings, 11th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,Volume 1,pp. 321-376.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and
Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions: California Department of Conservation, Division of
Mines and Geology Geologic Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000.
Kennedy, M.P., 1977, Geology of LaJolla Quadrangle, San Diego Metropolitan Area, California:
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Map sheet 29,
map scale 1:24,000.
Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software, 2000, FRISKSP, Version 4.00, A Computer
Program for Probabilistic Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra
Using 3-D Faults as Earthquake Sources.
Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California," California Department
of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 93-02, 45 pp. plus 3
plates, map scale 1:100,000.
22 TESD
January 17,2006
L`avia Residence Contract No.: 148145
Proposed Additions
Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary report of NCEER
1996 and 1998 NCEER/SF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils:
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, dated April,pp. 297-313.
23 TESD
FIGURES
X
J
r
x
r.
SITE LOCATION
k
t
JI
t'
x
r
a
u• 7
ill ' s
"X
: 4 �
N SCHEMATIC ONLY-NOT TO SCALE-NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
a Testing Engineers San Diego
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Not to Scale Tel: 858 715-5800 Fax: 858 715-5810
Title
Site Location Map
Project: Lavia Residence
Ref:Google Earth Drwn: NJT Contract No: 148145
NOTE: This figure may contain areas of color. TE-U.S.Labs cannot be Date: Figure:
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information result-
ing from black and white reproductions of this figure.
N 8_
s
O,4
I
I TP-2 I
� I
I SCALE 1"=15'
I Al (Approx.)
o t
j % I
a LEGEND:
— —�----
ETP-$ Test Pit Locations(approx.)
�IccEsS E.ys6M6,vT O
SCHEMATIC USE ONLY-NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
Testing Engineers San Diego
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
® Tel: (858)715-5800 Fax: (858)715-5810
Plot Plan
ect: Lavia Residence
n: D.M.M. Contract No: 148145
?: January 2007 Figure No: 2
Reference: Site Plan, The Williams Company, Sheet Al, undate
0 _
0.2 1
LINE
POINT
;LOAD /'/ a 0.4 LOAD
u /
c
O /
uJ
POIN'T
H Z) 0.6
Ph _ /
M (ad hp // t m hp
- 0.2 0.78 0.59H i t 0.1 0.60 H
04 0.78 0.59H 0 8 t 0.3 0.60 H
0.3 0.45 0.48H 0.5 0.56 H
0.7 0.48H
t
1.0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
H p VALUE OF ah (ap) VALUE OF °h QL)
POINT LOAD QP
LINE LOAD QL
f
X=mH FOR m '- 0.4:
.... r--mH -
H 0.20 n
0
h QL (0.18+n2)2
_-nH z=nH PH=0.55 QL
a
h
H vh °h Ph FOR m > 0.4:
H
FOR m <_ 0.4:
(H\_ 1.28 m2n
--
hp ah H�= 0.28 n2 HP Qh `QL/ (m2+n2)2
Qp (0.18+n2)3
QL
FOR m > 0.4: RESULTANT PH= (m2
v H2 _ 1.77 m2 n2
h (9) (m2+n2)3 PRESSURE FROM LINE LOAD QL
1 (BOUSSINESQ EQUATION MODIFIED BY EXPERIMENT)
oh = vh ws 2(1.1 8)
-h QP
e
3 °h
X=mH
SECTION a-a
PRESSURE FROM POINT LOAD Qp
(BOUSSINESQ EQUATION MODIFIED BY EXPERIMENT)
Testing Engineers - U.S. Labs, Inc.
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
r Tel: (858)715-5800 Fax: (858)715-5810
Ref.:Navfac, DM 7.02, Chapter 3,Analysis of Walls and Retaining Title
Structures, Figure 11, Horizontal Pressures on Rigid Wall from Lateral Surcharge Loads
Surface Loads,pg.7.2.74, September, 1986.
Project.- Lavia Residence
Drwn: NJT Contract No: 148145
NOTE:This figure may contain areas of color. TESD cannot be responsible Date: Figure
for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black January 2007 3
and white reproductions of this figure.
APPENDIX A
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
Logs of Exploratory Test Pits
Bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained in the field during the subsurface
evaluation by TESD and others. The samples were tagged in the field and transported to
the laboratory for observation and testing. The drive samples were obtained using the
California Modified Split Barrel Drive sampler as described below.
California Modified Split Barrel Drive Sampler
The split barrel drive sampler was driven with hand equipment. The sampler has
external and internal diameters of approximately 3.0 and 2.4 inches, respectively, and
the inside of the sampler is lined with 1-inch-long brass rings. The relatively
undisturbed soil sample within the rings is removed, sealed, and transported to the
laboratory for observation and testing.
LOG SYMBOLS:
' _ Water level
Bulk/Bag sample = (level after completion)
Q Water level
Modified California sampler (level where first encountered)
(2-1/2 inch outside diameter)
Abbreviations:
e California sampler SA-(38%SAND analysis(percent
(3 inch outside diameter) passing#200 sieve)
WA-(38%)-One point grain size analysis
Standard penetration (Percent passing#200 sieve)
Split spoon sampler PI-Plasticity index
(2 inch outside diameter)
LL-Liquid limit
NX size core barrel DS-Direct shear test
(2-5/8 inch outside diameter) 'R'-R-value test
CORR-Corrosivity test
El-UBC expansion index
Shelby tube LC-Laboratory compaction test
General Notes:
1. Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only.Actual transitions may be gradual.
2. No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil conditions between individual sample locations.
3. Logs represent general soil conditions observed at the point of exploration on the date indicated.
4. In general,unified soil classification designations presented on the logs were evaluated by visual methods only.
Therefore,actual designations(based on laboratory tests)may vary.
Consistency criteria based on field tests Pocket**
Torvane penetrometer
Undrained Unconfined
Relative SPT* Relative Consistency SPT shear compressive
density (#blows/ft) density(off) (#blows/ft) strength(tsf) strength
Very Loose <4 0-15 Very soft <2 <0.13 <0.25
Loose 4-10 15-35 Soft 2-4 0.13-0.25 0.25-0.5
Medium Dense 10-30 35-65 Medium stiff 4-8 0.25-0.5 0.5-1.0
Stiff 8-15 0.5 1.0 1.0-2.0
Dense 30-50 65-85 Very stiff 15-30 1.0-2.0 2.0-4.0
Very dense >50 85-100 Hard >30 >2.0 >4.0
'Number of blows of 140 pounds hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2 inch C.D.
(1 3/8"I.D.)split barrel samler(ASTM-1386 standard penetration test)
**Unconfined compressive strength in Tons/ft2. Read from pocket penetrometer
Moisture content
Description Field test
Dry Absence of moisture,dusty,dry to the touch
Moist 775-m—p-55TE-ovisible water
Wet Visible free water,usually soil is below water table
Cementation
Description Field test
Weakly Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure
Moderately Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure
Strongly Will not crumble or break with finger pressure
SCHEMATIC ONLY-NOT TO SCALE-NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
Testing Engineers San Diego
j 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
® San Diego, CA 92111
Title:
Log Legend
Project: Lavia Residence
Drwn: Contract No:
NJT 148145
NOTE: This figure may contain areas of color. TE-U.S. Labs cannot be Date: January, Figure No: Chart 1
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information result- ry,
ing from black and white reproductions of this figure.
Soil Classification Chart
Major Divisions Symbols Typical
Graph Letter Descriptions
•
4•'M Well-Graded Gravel,Gravel
•�dl�X GW SAND mixtures,little of no
Clean = fines
Gravel Gravels ���
and Poorly-Graded Gravels,
Gravelly (Little or no fines) o� GP Gravel-SAND mixtures,little
soils or no fines
O
o
Coarse o GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-SAND-
Grained Gravels with Q Sift mixture
more than 50% fines
Soils of coarse o O
fraction (Appreciable amount
retained on No. of fines) GC Clayey Gravels,Gravel-SAND-
4 sieve Clay mixtures
SW Well-Graded SANDS,Gravelly,
SANDS,little or no fines
Clean SANDS
More than 508 Sand
of material is and (Little or no fines) Poorly-Graded SANDS,
larger than No. Sandy SP Gravelly SAND,little or no
200 sieve size Soils fines
More than 50% SM Silty SANDS,SAND-Silt
Sands wth mixtures
of coarse Fines
fraction
passing on No.4 (Appreciable amount
sieve of fines) SC Clayey SANDS,SAND-Clay
- mixtures
Inorganic Silts and very fine
ML SANDS,rock flour,Silty or
Clayey fine SANDS or clayey
Sills with slight Plasticity
Inorganic Clays of low to
Sifts Liquid Limit CL medium Plasticity,Gravelly
Fine and less than 50 Clays,Sandy Clays,Silty Clays,
grained
Clays Lean Clays
soils
OL Organic Silts and organic Silty
Clays of low Plasticity
Inorganic Silts,micaceous or
More than 50%
MH diatomaceous fine SAND or
of material is Silty Soils
smaller than
No.200 sieve size Silts
Liquid Limit Inorganic Clays of high
and Clays Greater than 50 CH Plasticity
OH Organic Clays of medium to
High Plasticity,organic Silts
Highly organic soils — — — PT Peat,Humus,swamp soils with
_ — High organic contents
NOTE:Dual symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classifications.
SCHEMATIC ONLY-NOT TO SCALE-NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
' Testing Engineers San Diego
7895 Convoy Court,Suite 18
San Diego,CA 92111
Title:
Soil Classification Chart
Project: Lavia Residence
Drwn: Contract No:
NJT 148145
NOTE:This figure may contain areas of color. TE-U.S. Labs cannot be Date: January, Figure No: Chart 2
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information result-
ing from black and while reproductions of this figure.
Log of Test Pit No. 1
Date Drilled: January 1, 2007 Drilling Equipment: Hand Dug Test Pit
Driving Weight: Surface Elevation (feet):±
N
m E y
li n c
Material Description Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
w mCO n
o y
m c H
D o m CO 0 M 0 o v 10 20 30 40 50
Fill:Silty SAND,Brown,Dry to Damp,Fine to dry to Fine to
medium grained.Encountered 1"size gravel SM brown damp medium
1'.Contains Roots and Rootlets. grained--
TERRACE DEPOSIT.Silty SAND, light loose to
HILight Brown,Dry to damp,loose to medium brown medium 82.3 •
dense.Fine to medium grained.Slight to dry to dense
Moderately Porous.Trace Roots and Rootlets damp 103.9 •
2.5'becomes moderately cemented,Dense,
Trace light orange-brown staining. 112.4 •
5
End of Test Pit@ 5'
10
15
20
25
Geologist:CBM
°E9 Testing Engineers San Diego
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 Lavia Residence
San Diego, CA 92111
82B
Tel: (858)715-5800 Fax: (858)715-5810 Contract No.:148145 Figure No.:A-1
Log of Test Pit No. 2
Date Drilled: January 1, 2007 Drilling Equipment: Hand Dug Test Pit
Driving Weight: Surface Elevation (feet):t
_ C
N C_ y c U
E n c
n Material Description w
r- to U o y y j n Moisture Content (/o Dry Weight)
C Y C
0 o m' 0 10 20 30 40 50
r—j Native:Silty SAND,Brown,Dry to Damp, dry to loose
loose,Fine to Medium grained.Contains sM brown damp
Rootlets,Moderately Porous. _--____ ---------
"TERRACE DEPOSIT.Silty SAND, light loose to
Light Brown,Dry to damp,loose to medium brown medium 92.6
dense.Slight to Moderately Porous.Fine to dry to dense 108.7
medium grained. @ Z becomes medium dense damp 0
to dense.Moderately Cemented,Friable.
End of Test Pit @ 3'
5
10
15
20
25
Geologist:CBM
.�P�VF9 Testing Engineers San Diego
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 Lavia Residence
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858)715-5800 Fax: (858)715-5810 Contract No.:148145 Figure No.-.A-2
Log of Test Pit No. 3
Date Drilled: January 1, 2007 Drilling Equipment: Hand Dug Test Pit
Driving Weight: Surface Elevation (feet):±
CL a)
a) T
L) a o C
N Material Description 2 y & Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
w N cn C y N °-
n > Y
oom
2 0 ° 10 20 30 40 50
NATIVE:Silty SAND,Brown,Damp to moist, damp
loose.Fine to medium grained.Moderately SM brown to moist looms
Porous.Trace roots/rootlets at 1S'.becomes
loose to medium dense.Slightly Porous.
90.6 •
-------------------------100.1 •
TERRACE DEPOSIT.Silty SAND light damp medium
5 Light Brown,Damp,medium dense to dense. brown dense
Fine to Coarse grained.Moderately Cemented to dense
Friable.Trace Dark colored Manganese Staining.
End of Test Pit @ 5'
10
15
20
25
Geologist:CBM
Testing Engineers San Diego
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 Lavia Residence
azs
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858)715-5800 Fax: (858)715-5810 Contract No.:148145 Figure No.:A-3
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Classification
Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory
test pits in Appendix A.
Particle-size Distribution Tests
An evaluation of the grain-size distribution of a selected soil sample was performed in
general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D136 (including—200 wash). These
test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System. The grain-size distributions are presented herein.
RESULTS OF SOIL CLASIFICATION TESTS
(ASTM D-136)
Sample T131 @ 2 ft.
Particle Size Percent Finer
Distribution
#4 100
#'10 100
#20 97
#40 61
#60 30
#100 21
#200 15.9
USCS (SM)
Classification
In-situ Moisture and Density Tests
The moisture contents and dry densities of selected samples obtained from the test pits
- were evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D-2216.
RESULTS OF NATURAL MOISTURE AND DENSITY
(ASTM D-2216)
Sample Location Moisture Content % Dry Density(pcf)
TP1 @ 3' 5.9 103.9
TP1 @ 4' 6.4 112.4
TP2 @ 3' 5.8 108.7
TP3 @ 4' 5.5 100.1
Soil Corrosivity Tests
Soluble sulfate, chloride, resistively and pH tests were performed in accordance with
California Test Methods 417, 422, and 643 to assess the degree of corrosivity of the
subgrade soils with regard to concrete and normal grade steel.
RESULTS OF CORROSIVITY TESTS
(CTM 417, CTM 422, CTM 643)
Sample Location TP 1 @ 2 ft.
H 5.4
Resistivity Ohm-cm 10704
Chloride m) <11
Sulfates m) <11
APPENDIX C
SEISMIC ANALYSES DATA
SEISMIC ANALYSES
An evaluation of the Seismicity of the site was made using a computer database of faults
and related seismic data. The programs were developed by Thomas Blake and are briefly
described below, and the output is included in this appendix.
UBCSEIS
UBCSEIS is a computer program for the estimation of 1997 Uniform Building Code
coefficients using three-dimensional faults as earthquake sources. UBCSEIS, which runs
in WINDOWS 95, reads a disk-data file that can contain information for up to 250 faults.
It uses data from that file to calculate the closest distances between a site and the surface
projection of each of the fault planes in the file, and the results are sorted and arranged by
distance. Then, the program uses the calculated distances from the closest faults to
estimate 1997 Uniform Building Code coefficients. The estimated coefficients can be
tabulated and written to disk-data files. Also, if desired, graphical plots of estimated
design response spectra can be created. The program allows for some user-modification
of the format of the plotted response spectrum. A sample file of 183, digitized, late-
Quaternary, California faults (each with assigned seismic parameters) is included for use
with UBCSEIS. That file was adapted and modified primarily from the California
Division of Mines & Geology fault-database for the state of California. Using UBC
criteria (slip rates and magnitudes), each of the faults in the file has been assigned a fault
type (A, B, or Q. In the program, the fault geometries are modeled as three-dimensional
articulated planar elements.
H II
I m II
I J 1 N II N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
I �Y O II N N N N N N N N N N N N N p N N N N p N p N p N N N N p N N p O p N O O N N N p N O N N N p
1 LL N II
N II
I II
L II0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I O.W T II l/+v+000000000000:/+000v+v+000�D001/�OIDO�+�+�/+O I/+O�OO�OO�Om OHO t00
I JQQE Ilrt rIM VI Vt mInNN rINR�rIN7N�ONl/1lnMOrIQM'-IOMOOOa Or101nO rI00000N
I N K E II r••i rl rI N M N N
1 VII
II _______________________________________
010t Vrlmrlmr NOl at m GO t`m 10 O O 10 9 L 4J kq O O vI�t\vt-n✓1M Vl-1'9 �0011�1�
C I �v11�tpt\n�n10 t0 i�lD�tG tD lO IO VJ�ntDnntO r\tDW w 1,1010O1ow0 t010n wn1pn w-ww t0
C
'• w i i w V II I F- I
W
f l U W
Ki imllmmmQmmmmQmmmmmmmmamm QmmmmmmmmmmmmQmmmmmmm mQmmm
DY iCl
dl I N 1-1 II 1 1 1 N
t1-------------------- ----------- I 1
H I N
J 1 I XU II IDmRNNOf�r101I�Ol1�OlONmN Oml01n V110 v1h MMVt O10pm N10<eFmml�h MON mO:--IN I ? 1 ro
_ Q CQE IINm10hf�lOm plmlD lD-hrIl,ROIOCtD OOmm m..TID lO IO-ODN MM�lD 010Na1000r1m�T I� Q d
LL 11F-Y I rINR�10101Om00mmmOl 010 rI rINNNNN MMMMM MM����tF t{V1 ulllt to lD lD 1p lO
d '-1-I H LL
I I N�/I rl r-1:--I:--I.-I:--r-1'-I.i.--1'•I'•I.-1 ri r7 N N ri'-1'-I'-I r-1 rl:--I:--I'•I N r•i rl N I I
o
C 11
f II Y o N ✓ 1-' f l
O II W N N ut Il i 0
N I
ii o ro> c z m 3 v ¢ •o°
II L m 2 Y•r H w w F- N b
It •OH W VI o C Z Z i+ p
ow 11 w ¢HQ wr- zc .— mQ0 o cl 3 ENc
Wg II 4- •ZHC'W pQL mr 0oQN N S a LL
HQ II O —u Hzu 172 N Vm JH H C ZY pJ W LLL
HZII QOw 2'Wa+ N NQJ J I, OV O m
> I p Q YY pnxFWK Wm= •c JN= D NO aZc
WH II p J WQ O>W O O Z N J a QF-m J H O�m
CJ II O Z� HJN8 z<W YQHmZN F-U HQLL LLHe-1 V C V N
m O I I 3 Q V JZ3F-O F Q Z x� x Z a H Q Y v
m Q II W Y H w Z Q Q W N O V J(- N H O J J 3 I m N 2 I W
Q LL I J Z J f N W> I J I Y <. a Z W x z Q Q ¢Q N Y H -1w
O I II Zl7¢�w WJ O17000a'x OON H Om VoQF-]L HNN H VN •JR'
IIOZ mnH cl WF••ZF-UF-F-3F HQ Z Hp •zHJzQ Z I Q W HOQ O¢p
F- I II Y H C I X Z H Z I Z Z 1 2 Z W O¢F Q Z Q 1- I O W O J W N W Z-1 O 0>4
N II Z t W W W W QH I HWHW WHHC W O V•HIFCH W S'dZ OCJ1' JO V J f
w ra II QQ H1 8ww>wn V F-Ua UU W V V COZ ZF- f I.- IYz W 00 N -4zo ¢zz
H IIUC000 OdQ a'¢Oa I OaQ20 ON� Woo QOZ Szu XW0 gOHOOQ
11 O 2 Z Z N Z x n o n z n o Z n n Q n O Y z H C C 2 x S O 2 N Q O Y W J Z Q m K N N K
N 1 II W ILOHHOHF- d H ZH F•Q W C 20 W HF-W l7 Hg pJp3 W~ H W CZC
OlI II N 3 C N N J N K Z Z N Z H N 2 2 Z Z Z U d W C f 0.N C C W C Q 2 C J Z Q-1Z J a W 2 W
ro l O W O J J Q J Q Q Q J Q x J a Q Q Q H O O H 7 J O J O 7 J QQ O JJJJ Q W O QQ K W a W Q E f O H
,L l II C Z U w W 0.w W N 2 N W N V W N N N N d V N N m W N W Z W U N Z U N>S J m=0 J f H W n N
I
is k tt is is k k a k
is tt
n is a
p a L N a
'. 1NID n �E TOHICE 01k
rl a ro vIr L rk
I k G)C T VI k
r1 k NE C NC V Na
p e V 0 7 C V Lea
k �1H r L7C
W k
'd a)N O V•rk a
H ktH VINal.l k
tt NCLErooa
.• N p u d-u T L 0.
isRkttttatt C a�F1 roV1 o7k 1
k W W u E•� E•r 4-N•tttr
is k
Clow a ul N L k
t. tt M V k O�d N•r N rok
l u YC i0C -V Ti
i< H tt LLZQ k�N V mNNNtt :--1
Oa k NNVIY LLLtt
p k VI N O V V k N
k * ZJ2 + O•r 4- a OI
N C OH1, tt NOa NTNa m
k O is HOHI k 0>O-I Lr La d
is u v
r tt F-mN k m NW—o
•In tt a w tt cLO�+L�4-a I '
m L k gp tt 1`0H4-Nk
is N k 5o k ac..VI It
k 7 > a SOH k O.0•• I L k
is tt qHH H •• k roHa+ m -tt I
k a OHF ¢ N tt ro VI V'O. I
a a UZN p F 4 VL .7L Nk I
k a 7 H Z k
MW •ro N 0 W I
u N C E°�d L N I
m O V k N-O E VI Cu I
U) H k N C v N O N
U) p LL tt 1•:
'0 m E
2 N r U VIk
N f lON N LL k C VA ro•r m mk
U O N Q Y W tt Y+•r
Cl E= m tt
C U O1� H O k ror ♦+�k
r
••2E •• O V u•�4)EI~i1 t0•r Nz
o U tt•O N N N IT,
VI g T J I nZ
N Q •• F
OW- O Z 7 Ot E tt N E id N>N'rlk
? C Z ••••W •• aC QatO Q OI H k L•r VL NL tt
rl N W W W LL OIL LL V LL Ot H a F-r VI I.1 Vf l-1 ro k
00 ro W won Z J Z IT N Ol W k
J ♦-OF- O H QH mW V N a a
r N > H QF-H N LL N N 01N k •• tt
ro LL Z HL7 O W J•• w0•• W v,-- OC tt Z
p¢~¢O H d Y W U amw CL m U Y V m ut Ol l�rl att O k
r w •• H CJJ a H Z F- Z F- Z -1.10000 tt tt
N m W a N J ••Q ••a ••Q O tt k
W E f O O W W
H O Q U F H W O N N N N N N k 11
z z F- H H N N W H W Z H W H b..
ro>v1 O
m m O H N 0 U V a 2 0 a Z c' Q ZZZ O J Z Z V V H H k a k a k k u k a
O O LL N 7 Z Z 2 N
n
dNIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN IJCNII
�OIINOpONONpNNNONNONNONONNONNNONNNNNNNONNOOpppOOOO 10))O II
N II 1 Q F II
v II 1 LL N 11
N II
II
�00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 � LII
W TIIOONVI ✓�OInOOr-IInO OI+ , 00000mOO�000001nO000n OtD x+10X00 11w T11
avr\II Hr\II
II✓�'-ION.�OO�OMe-IONCMO�nN.99 OmOOt tO m0�O e-I t00�.-IO tO Ol 0l00,01tD OtO(1)�n�n O�+ONOOr-I Ja E II
N W V II
l73 II Om1cn OltONNOln ml001m✓1M O1 V1�/tn.-Im010101/1m Q101 V1 r-1.-1 rlm✓1n 01�0.•IMOM41O rl I II
as III:1o�c1o�c1oln1:I:1o�1ol:1clo1:1o1o1e�r:�o�olcl��c�c�o�c�laa:�c�o�c�l�l:l:ool�l:�l:r� I aaf ii
f�u
n N1 ff�u
-------------------------------- I----
U II r 1
W I W U II
I f ?;m
F- ii lal i0 F-
I
Q -I-i SD NtD IOm{fMa'ri LO tp NIOnnMnNQ1 VlN Vt ml/1 lOnNlO Z imn l000 V n - 9 I Q J I I 1 mX _E E a V 11 O
I O.
rY
av Iii I n�-crmQ1.•iMMM�{{vinnnn0 •I moornmrnrno'�oN oH o.--I o.--I 0H 0.i 0N 0 N 1 1 LL _F-Y II
Q
H II
-------------------------- l 01 1 O_II
II --
II
11 010 C 1 II
m 11
II OV
II E L O b Q I I
II
3z O/r N w
H 1I
Ow 11 V N ICU Z C t nt W y m O L NO L I OW II
r II m 00 Hr J m LL ZQW O 0 I W II
N2 ii 0o UM zv cv a w N 5z— 0 a ii
> n oN c ¢C a > m wNC H 4_ H u
w r u '� o ; w F--
If
mJ IIZW NOr l W Ol NN 41}JO Z 171C r1Z HrS mJ 11
m�llvv XWr W IL zL,ty mJ G mDll
HO"p w v W O W jy 2 m W W O m C�}YNmQO mJ p mQ II
O IIWWSW mvQQ m N mH QWQOV 17W NWO SOJOWWQWLLf �J JLLf aLL II
IIJJ17Waa mmWW Q VmWrN>v m Wm NvVJWrJ J NH JLLJ 11
IIJJ7mrNN Om>WW OJ N-/ N ' U----H JmZJOQm HOQ II
N 11aQOVH aYJQIYI 217 JH W QQ g QU�H2NWQ OSJN
w II»J J}y'W ON W QQOro W H>OdON .-p"Q OI-Q Q> O>H >H W Q m II
r II N ZQ W W m V r J 2 Z N m> m O m W m m Z Z Y W W f m�1JJ W H O J O W W
II S O O H J>W Z Z Q W 2 U 2 W Q J Q>Q O W r H Q J��O J W O J m a Z H J W J It
II r2SrHrgrO W QO WH WF gW T35QZ V r 2 111111111 Jr111111111111 Z r W mp VJHZYJr '
IIa7NJrmQJQZJH Q¢}2ZmmZWTYr aJZ2 NH JF- QQ Or QYm2I.O QN HzVm CTI II
II awlL 2oSUf aC, m VQ11Q/1 K1Q/1W QS V l7 UOC36 SF8<M W M55FJf VFr LLr J a II
I
1 II
1 m II 1
1JdNIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN Ir
IO�OIIpNNN00000NNONO00NpNNpONONNNONO000NONONNNNONpNO i7
ILL N11 1Q
v II I LL
I II
1 LIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrvO00u100000000000
I CLW TI10010 tOOVOO Olp 1D000VOOOmOOOOI••InOVfOOnOONONV1 v1ar11/10 ONOn O00 I y
I J E Il ml•i0O�+01-•I��OO O.•�NI-ION�DNOnrINNOONN'•I�OO�OI-10'iON NI-i v+O�O.-10 i J
�Q( gg; IIMO''1 rIIO V1n O1m01 Qtm 000n m.-ImnMO1N01 rIn V. . .p. . . .lO 0pMOMN010 V11-•I tp 1
.. 1 g�v11nnnntG�o 10101010101on10 1010 n101on1onlo n�o lonlo to 10 l01on n�onlonnn No ullonlo j � '.
I I N f
W U II W 1
WFI 1w
im)am_iimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm¢mmammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm¢mmmmm
� O~QII
N 0 0 IQi i
I v lal INm
-W—�I-----------------------—-------------------
I —
XU II�NV10pM N.--INnMtpm vin nvl pin,-IO rInN�rl y�pp pt)Iy plpp Alm mOlVl pl�mNC�MnNm J X Of
10211 O 01 .
01 0, N m n
N m O
I mQ E 1100 NlONri n m M1An Nl0 Ola 01 v10n Or^/tY 0101 O1 OIOMNMM 0101�N I Q m a
11 O 00
1 QrY II10nnn00M Q101OONNN MMMt{v1fltp 1pnnmmmm01011-IMM��{a V1n n00010101�t�lAn I LL 1 1 1
IN•IV II I••I�'•I.--IN1"ICI"INNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMMMMMMMMMMMMMer��{� 1 I 1 D_
o n . ol
-----
---------------
a
u 1 } �
Q ial
II J z
it w 1 I r Q 1 1
11 w
Y 2
r n LL W N 1
II
d c J
a J
O W II W W L It > C
.. W f n 2 m r a z Im c
F,Q 11 W Z O M cm O W 01 C
1 >Z II ' L m O m L J C! L Z t
I Wr 11 O O 2 �VQzQ Q2 VO OQ Lv LL
mm II ZJ IQ/IN I -OQ 0 5 Nj w 60<0 vW t N v L N
moll OQ OC 1-_W 41r NN 17 Z
QLL IIW HOQ MOON HvHOZNN V1H v= J }3 Y2 LY 1 YW QN
O 11 f J J H z QQ
I IIOWJSQ Q QJmaNNmavC WQLLNQQY 10JV10 JOO sJ Z J2aW�2
r IIOH7 N FWrHWIWOa �/NJWO:Q YJOQJ J FQJWWW�H
IIImm1O 2Z WSrQzml � �W O ZmJW ZQ WaNZQQN SOQOmmn
QCQm QSQONKN�Q}J3y�}UW17O((YJJO N�Y1JJK }HWaYaQ> S>HaH>O 6>2OUfa m l
NI IIV�V'QQHrNHmU�aW+QJYOQa�I QOraaOQWaNJJ SQ NSJn Qa$N O mW021Q2WN
IIQ 1a/f OH.V 1a/121Hi101Q/111700>IQ/INFCl7J mH 17a IQ/I VOI ~�OOONNUO OOMHWZ4/f OH0 0 ro
APPENDIX D
ASFE INFORMATION A13OU,['YOUR GEOTECBMCAL REPORT
Impoplont InAbout
0 M 0
Geotechnicel Enoineeping
Repopt
GMechnical Services Are PoMorined for • elevation,configuration, location,orientation,or weight of the
Spots Purposes, Persons, and PPoWft proposed structure,
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of • composition of the design team,or
their clients.A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- • project ownership.
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer.Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique,each As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
geotechnical engineering report is unique,prepared solelyfor the client.No changes---even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact.
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
—not even you—should apply the report for any purpose or project they were not informed.
except the one originally contemplated.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
Read the full Report A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical the time the study was performed.Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
engineering report did not read it all.Do not rely on an executive summary. ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by:the passage of
Do not read selected elements only. time;by man-made events,such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events,such as floods,earthquakes,or groundwater fluctua-
A Gootechnical Engineering Report Is Based on tions.Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
A Unique Set of PP01OCt-3I1OCIflC factors to determine if it is still reliable.A minor amount of additional testing or
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique,project-specific fac- analysis could prevent major problems.
tors when establishing the scope of a study.Typical factors include:the
client's goals,objectives,and risk management preferences;the general Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
nature of the structure involved, its size,and configuration;the location of Opinions
the structure on the site;and other planned or existing site improvements, Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
such as access roads,parking lots,and underground utilities. Unless the subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken.Geotechnical engi-
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
erwise,do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
• not prepared for you, site.Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly-
* not prepared for your project, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
• completed before important project changes were made. most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect: A Report's Recommendations Are Abt Final
• the function of the proposed structure,as when it's changed from a Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
to a refrigerated warehouse, neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion.Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
`subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical have led to disappointments,claims,and disputes.To help reduce the risk
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of
liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform explanatory provisions in their reports.Sometimes labeled"limitations"
construction observation. many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers'responsi-
bilities begin and end,to help others recognize their own responsibilities
A Goatechnical Engineering Report Is SubJect to and risks.Read these provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical
NRsinterpretatlon engineer should respond fully and frankly,
Other design team members'misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems.Lower that risk by having your geo- Geoenviroomentel Concerns Are Not Covered
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after The equipment,techniques,and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
submitti ng the report.Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.Contractors can study.For that reason,a geotechnical engineering report does not usually
also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report.Reduce that risk by relate any geoenvironmental findings,conclusions,or recommendations;
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction e.g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
conferences,and by providing construction observation. regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led
t to numerous project failures.If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-
Do Not Redraw the Engineers Logs vironmental information,ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data.To prevent errors or someone else.
omissions,the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,construction,
that separating logs from the report can elevate riskk operation,and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces.To be effective,all such strategies should be
Give Co1111111b"aMPS a Complete Report and devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-
GuidanCe prehensive plan,and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make mold prevention consultant.Because just a small amount of water or
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations,a num-
they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent costly problems,give con- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.
- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report,but preface it with a While groundwater,water infiltration,and similar issues may have been
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter,advise contractors that the addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the are conveyed in-this report,the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
report's accuracy is limited;encourage them to confer with the geotechnical project is not a mold prevention consultant;none of the services per-
engineer who prepared the report(a modest fee may be required)and/or to formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
need or prefer.A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
tors have sufficient time to perform additional study.Only then might you in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from
be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, growing in or on the structure involved.
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions. Rol on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial
Read Responsibility Provisions Close Engineer for Additional Assistance
IY Membership In ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical
Some clients,design professionals,and contractors do not recognize that engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
ASFE
The Best resifts on Eerth
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G1O6,Silver Spring,MD 20910
Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017
e-mail: info @asfe.crg www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE,Inc.Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part,by any means whatsoever,is strictly prohibited,except with ASFEs
specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE,and only for
purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report Any other
firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional(fraudulent)misrepresentation.
IIGER0e045.OM