2006-58 G O�/._ z�`
x
City O(ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT
Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
October 24, 2008
Attn: World Savings Bank
6998 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, California 92024
RE: Gregory J. Rollinson and Patricia Trauth
1638 Edilee Drive
APN 260-552-04
Grading permit 58-G
Final release of security
Permit 58-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion
control, all as necessary to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has
finaled the grading. Therefore, a full release of the security deposited is merited.
Assignment of Account 419394093, (in the original amount of$20,200.00), reduced
by 75% to $5,050.00, is hereby released in entirety. The document original will is
enclosed.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-
2779 or in writing, attention this Department.
Sincerely,
? �.
Debra Geis rt J Let ach
Engineering Technician mane Manager
Subdivision Engineering Financial Services
CC Jay Lembach,Finance Manager
Gregory Rollinson and Patricia Trauth
Debra Geishart
File
Enc.
TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 ��� recycled paper
Ci
,,ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ty
Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
April 18, 2007
Attn: World Savings Bank
6998 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, California 92024
RE: Gregory J. Rollinson and Patricia Trauth
1638 Edilee Drive
APN 260-552-04
Grading permit 58-G
Partial release of security
Permit 58-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion
control, all as necessary to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has
approved the rough grading. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposited is merited.
Assignment of Account 419394093, in the amount of$20,200.00, may be reduced by
75% to $5,050.00. The document original will be kept until such time it is fully
exonerated. The retention and a separate assignment guarantee completion of finish
grading.
Should you have any questions or concerns,please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-
2779 or in writing, attention this Department.
Since y, j
j
Debra Geishart J Lembach
Engineering Technician Finance Manager
Subdivision Engineering Financial Services
cc Jay Lembach,Finance Manager
Gregory Rollinson and Patricia Trauth
Debra Geishart
File
TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 ��� recycled paper
701 B STREET,SUITE 800 619.235.6471 TEL j WWW.PROJECTDESIGN.COM
PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS I SAN DIEGO,CA 92101 6i9.234 0349 FAX
0
February 2, 2006
Peter Cota-Robles
City of Encinitas
505 S. Vulcan Street
Encinitas, CA 92024
SUBJECT: Drainage Effects of Trauth/Rollinson Residence Proposed Grading
Dear Mr. Cota-Robles:
This letter summarizes my evaluation of the Trauth/Rollinson proposed grading's minimal
effects on drainage characteristics. The project involves grading on a single residential lot to
support an addition to the existing house and enhancements to the outdoor space.
The proposed grading does not alter existing drainage patterns; the front and side yards will
continue to drain towards Edilee Drive at the front of the house and the backyard will
continue to drain down a slope away from the house. The replacement of the existing
concrete driveway with permeable pavers will help offset the increase in impermeable area
resulting from the house addition. Including considerations for a future pool, which would
retain runoff, the overall project effect on runoff coefficient should be minimal.
The proposed retaining wall in backyard has weep holes and an emergency overflow pipe
connected to a storm drain pump. Typically, runoff in the backyard will be collected in yard
drains and allowed to percolate through gravel to one of the weep holes where it would be
discharged down the slope. Given the small backyard area and the multiple two-inch weep
hole openings, concentration of discharge down the slope does not appear to present a
problem. The pump acts as a backup to help prevent a buildup of hydrostatic pressure
behind the wall should the weep holes become clogged.
This project has minimal implications on drainage characteristics. Significant changes in
peak discharges, diversions of existing drainage patterns and concentration of flows are not
anticipated. Please contact me if there are any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS U V
FEB 3 �U06
Richard P Hall RCE 62034
Assistant Vice President Ery ^''- C''C SERb'ICES
CITY U� E�Jt,IrJITAS
U:\Trauth&Rollinson.doc
SAN DIEGO PHOENIX TEMECULA BAKERSFIELD
701 B STREET,SUITE 800 I 619.235.6471 TEL WWW PROJECTDESIGN.COM
® PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS SAN DIEGO,CA 921o1 619.234 0349 FAX
March 6, 2006 E C E X11 E
PD V Peter Cota-Robles MAR 7 2006
City of Encinitas
505 S. Vulcan Street ENGINHRING SERVICES
Encinitas, CA 92024
SUBJECT: Drainage Effects of Trauth/Rollinson Residence Proposed Grading
Dear Mr. Cota-Robles:
This letter summarizes my evaluation of the Trauth/Rollinson proposed grading's minimal
effects on drainage characteristics. The project involves grading on a single residential lot to
support an addition to the existing house and enhancements to the outdoor space.
The proposed grading does not alter existing drainage patterns; the front and side yards will
continue to drain towards Edilee Drive at the front of the house and the backyard will continue
to drain down a slope away from the house. The replacement of the existing concrete driveway
with permeable pavers will help offset the increase in impermeable area resulting from the house
addition. Including considerations for a future pool, which should retain runoff, the overall
project effect on runoff coefficient is minimal; existing runoff coefficient is 0.69 and the
proposed is 0.73. Assuming a six-minute time of concentration for both existing and proposed
conditions,this change in runoff coefficient resulting from the proposed project would produce a
0.04cfs increase in peak 100-year runoff.
The proposed retaining wall in backyard has weep holes and an emergency overflow pipe
connected to a storm drain pump. Typically, runoff in the backyard will be collected in yard
drains and allowed to percolate through gravel to one of the weep holes where it would be
discharged down the slope. Given the small backyard area and the multiple two-inch weep hole
openings, concentration of discharge down the slope does not appear to present a problem. The
pump acts as a backup to help prevent a buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall should
the weep holes become clogged.
This project has minimal implications on drainage characteristics. Significant changes in peak
discharges, diversions of existing drainage patterns and concentration of flows are not
anticipated. Please contact me if there are any questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely, 4ROFESS1
PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS ����4 PRO p yy�`Fyy
C 62034
* EXP.09130107
Richard P Hall, PE, CFM
Assistant Vice President tTq OFCA1�FO��`P
UAchent letterffrauth&Rollinson-rev.doc
SAN DIEGO PHOENIX•TEMECULA BAKERSFIELD
THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT
WAS RECORDED CN MAR,28.2006
Recording Requested By: ) DOCUMENT NUMBER 2006-0214240
City of Encinitas ) GREGORY-1 SMITH COUN?-f RECORDER
SAN DIEGO COON )'RECORDER'S OFFICE
When Recorded Mail To: ) TIME 4 10 PM
City Clerk )
City of Encinitas )
505 South Vulcan Avenue )
Encinitas, CA 92024 ) SPA
COVENANT REGARDING REAL PROPERTY:
HOLD CITY HARMLESS FOR GRADING/DRAINAGE
Assessor's Parcel
No. 260-552-04 Project No.:0058-G
A. J. Gregory Rollinson and Patricia Trauth, husband and wife as joint tenants,
("OWNER" hereinafter) is the owner of real property which is commonly known as
1638 Edilee Drive
("PROPERTY" hereinafter) and which is described as follows:
See Attachment A which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
B. In consideration of 0058-G
by the City of Encinitas ("CITY" hereinafter), OWNER hereby covenants and agrees for the
benefit of CITY, to do the following:
See Attachment B which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
C. This Covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon and inure to the benefit
of the future owners, encumbrancers, successors, heirs, personal representatives, transferees
and assigns of the respective parties.
T-633 P.003/007 F-996
Fab-1-06 01:09pm From—
I
�I
p_ OVINER agrees that WNER's duties and obligations under this Covenant are a
lien upon the PROPERTY- Upon notice and opportunity to respond, CITY may add to the
property tax bill of the PROPERTY ny past due financial obligation owing to CITY by way of
this Covenant.
E. if either party is requ red to incur costs to enforce the provisions of this
Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to full reimbursement of all costs, including
reasonable attorneys'fees, from th other party-
E_ f=ailure of OWNER to comply with the terms of this Covenant shall constitute
consent to the fling by CITY of a N Aice of Violation of Covenant_
ACCEPTED AIJD AGREED: 4J. G WNER
Dated E' q
` R` linson
Dated O V
Patricia Trauth
(Notarization cf OWNER signature is attached.)
CITY OF ENCINITAS
Dated by
(NofJd z or rot rre) fired) Peter Cota-Robles
Director of Engineering Services
i
i
T-833 P.004/007 F-996
Feb-15-06 01 :09pm From—
ATTACHMENT A
Legal Description
APN 260-552-04
, STATE
LOT 276 OF POINSETTIA HEIGH FS UNIT COUNTY
F!ED SN THE IOFOFICE OF
OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING MA P THEREOF NO.
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF $ N DIEGO COUNTY, JUNE 23, 1960.
T-633 P.005/007 F-996
Feb-15-06 01:09pm From—
ATTACHMENT B TO
COVE RMLESSD
HOLD C FOR GRADING/DRAINAGE
PROJECT NO. 0058-G
OWNE 'S DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS
1, If or claims that are Ileged to have arisen, directly or indirectly, from any grading
or drainage runoff a ssociated wi h the PROPERTY or the plans, design, construction or
maintenance of OWNER' s improvements, OWNER unconditionally waives all present and
future claims against CITY and CI s officers, officials, employees, and agents. This waiver
does not apply to claims that are alleged to have arisen out of the sole, active negligence or
deliberate,wrongful act of CITY.
t od and agreed that all of OWNER'S rights under §9542 of
2_ It is further unders
the Civil Code of, the State of California and any similar law of any state or territory of the
Unified States are hereby express) waived. 9 1542 reads as follows:
1542. Certain clai is not affected by eneral release. A general release does
not extend to claim which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his
favor at the time o executing the rele �ich if known by him must have
materially affected is settlement with th e debto
3. OWNER agrees to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's officers, officials,
employees and agents harmless from, and against any and all liabilities, claims, demands,
causes of action, losses, damagee and costs, including all costs of defense thereof, arising out
of, or in any manner connected di ectly or indirectly with, any acts or omissions of OWNER or
OWNER's agents, employees, s bcontractors, officials, officers or representatives_ Upon
demand, OWNER shall, at its own expense, defend CITY and CITY's officers, officials,
employees and agents, from and against any and all such liabilities, claims, demands, causes
of action, losses, damages and co ts.
OWNER' s obligatic n herein includes, but is not limited to, alleged defects in the
plans, specifications and design o the improvements; but does not extend to liabilities, claims,
Fab-15-06 01 :lOpm From- T-833 P.006/OOT F-996 ;
demands, causes of action, losse , damages or costs that arise out of a defect in the plans,
specifications or design that is a re ult of a change required by CITY to the OWNER's proposed
s
p
plans, specifications or design so ng as such change is objected to, in writin g, by OWNER,
and the writing is fled with the City Engineer more than ten days prior to the commencement of
work_
OWNER'S obligatior herein includes, but is not limited to, alleged defects in the
construction of the improvements; alleged defects in the materials furnished in the construction
of the improvements; alleged iiijury to persons or property; and any alleged inverse
condemnation of property as a cor sequence of the design, construction, or maintenance of the
improvements.
By approving the irr provement plans, specifications and design or by inspecting
or approving the improvements, CITY shall not have waived the protections afforded herein to
CITY and C1lY's officers, officia s, employees and agents or diminished the obligation of
OWNER who shall remain obligatEd in the same degree to indemnify and hold CITY and CITY's
officers, officials, employees and a pents, harmless as provided above_
OWNER's obligatio herein does not extend to liabilities, claims, demands,
causes of action, losses, damag es or costs that arise out of the CITY's intentional wrongful
acts, CITY's violations of law, or C TY's sole active negligence.
4_ OWNER hereby afire s not to develop in any manner the PROPERTY except as
authorized by CITY's ordinances and then only in accordance with issued permits. Among
other things, l)ut without limitat"so , this shall prohibit the alteration of land forms, removal of
vegetation anti the erection of strictures of any type, except as permitted or authorization by
CITY.
5. This Covenant doe not Preclude OWNER taking emergency, protective
measures as approved by CITY.
T-833 P.007/007 F-996
Feb-15-06 O1:10pm From—
Peter Cota-Robles, City Engi eer
City of Encinitas
505 S Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Mr. Cota-F;obles:
J.
Grego Roilinson an Patricia Trauth husband and wife as joint tenants,
("OWNER" hereinafter)are the wners of real property which is known as 1638 Edilee
Drive in Encinitas, California, APN 260-552-04, (PROPERTY hereinafter). OWNER
hereby states that, to the be t of OWNER's knowledge, the August 23 2002 Title
by Fidelity National Title Com an (TITLE
Report Policy No. 02-109 6 prepared
REPORT hereinafter)for sai J PROPERTY describes all loans, liens, easements, or
encumbrances existing
on tt PROPERTY. OWNER has not approved of any loans,
liens, easements, or encumt rances on the PROPERTY since the date TITLE
REPORT was issued. Fuith rmore, OWNER unconditionally waives all present and
future claims against CITY and CI Y's officers, officials, employees, and agents resulting
from an loans, liens, ease ents, or encumbrances on the PROPERTY not
y
described in TITLE REPORT WNER agrees to indemnify and hold the City of Encinitas
.
and its officers, officials, emplo ees, and agents harmless from and against any and all
liabilities, claims,demands, cai isas of action, losses, damages and costs, including all costs
of defense thereof, arising out f, or in any manner connected directly or indirectly with
inaccuraci'?s or omissions frorr TITLE REPORT.
� lX
,f Gregor Ili on, OWNER a e
atricia Trauth, OWNER ate
(Notarization of OWNER sign ure is attached.)
CALIFORNIA ALL—PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
(�
} SS.
COUNTY OF 'S" ^Dj OVO }
On 1 ob 1E, 60& before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for
said State personally appeared Rctr a ra u` -h a JOY,
Name(s) of signer(s)
❑ Personally known to me OR 114 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)
whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the
entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
PATRIZIA RUS O
Convr"Ww# 1634768 Witness my hand and official seal.
Nof xy Public-CaNtornlo
tan Dkogo County
mvConvn. Jm5,201 Signature of Notary
MfT—1 z I cc,
(Area above for official notarial seal)
Name(Typed or Printed)
Capacity Claimed by Signer Description of Attached Document
(Although this information is optional, it could prevent fraudulent
[J IndIVIdU81(S) attachment of this certificate to another document.)
• Corporate Officers) - Title(s)
This certificate is for attachment to the document
described below:
Title or type of document
pv Gcr-din d"'(;Q-i -p1'�D rfTV = �Idld
• Partner(s) rlc )n i'a
• Attorney-in-Fact C a i I SL r
• Trustee(s) Number of pages
❑ Guardian/Conservator
❑ Other: Date of document )gLbto
Signer(s) other than named above
Signer is Representing: Name of person(s) or
Entity(ies)
SAV-191A(7/98)
C I T Y O E N C i T A S
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
505 S. t!U.LGRN 4.�'trE
ENCINITAS , :fCA 9 '2 G?4
GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NC. :
; . X60_552-0400 PLAN NO. : 4058 -G!
PARCEL NO . EDILEE DR. CASE NO .-
. .
JOB SITE ADDRESS: 1638
APPLICANT NAME; GREG RQLLINSON" & PA'I'RICIA TRAUTH PHONE NO. : 760-943-68117
`;MAMING ADDRESS. 163$ EDILEE DR.
' EITY» ..,ENCINITAS 'ATE: ' CAP �224-
.,
PHONE NO. : 760-343-617
CONTRACTOR GREG ROLLINSON LICENSE TYPE: B
`LICENSE NO- : 463213 PHONE NO. : £19-881-21526
ENQI;NEER : PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS
:pERM?T ISSUE DATE: -5 12/06
PERMIT: El'p. PERMIT ISSUED
r +��N�PE : T4UD BAUMBACH
----------------- PERMIT EES & DEPOSITS
_____________ ___ _ -
PERMIT FEE
.00 2 . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: '
INSPECTION FEE 1 ,506 . 04 4 . INSPECTIO N DEPOSIT: .00
0(3 6 , SECURITY DEPOSI-T
. PLAN CHECK FEE 0/700570
X901) CONTROL FEE : 0 0 L . TRAFFIC FEE
------------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK
` RMIT` ISSUED TO VERIFY PERFORMANCE OF GRADING AND DRAINAGE &E nPRO��u'i
v f ADING 58-G. OWNER TO MAINTAIN TRAP
Ir CDN`IROL, PER 'vd
AN 3 1 iD'S:'dR CI TX API'FOVED TRA ` `TC CONTaRO I'L21 FETTER DATE
D 4/5/06
- - AI?PLIES ; 9 b8
C�2 Cell �7�0
� 2fCl r� c r �7Coo) gS�—13
�-- . DATE --- INSPECTOR' S SIGNA
INSPECTION -------_ __ UIiE`
INifirAL INSPECTION rte --
-�/
� ACTION REPORT RECEIVED 3 _p"�
P1GNEEN CERT: RECEIVED ~`" k
RCSG1i GRADNG , INSPECTION 07 ,
FINAL INSPECTION
- - ----- -- -- ------ ---------------------------------HAT TIIE
TEKEBY: ACKN(7WLEDGE THAT`'I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE T ;
.INFORMATION. -IS CORRECT AND ,AGREE TO ;,GOMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STA'I
'LAWS 1tGEILITIN EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PR
EX
AND CONT)ITIt1NS O
ANY' PEFtMTT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS ,APPLICATION .
URE DATE S T NEI}
t
Pi INT NAME LEPHONE NUMBER
r `l C
CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ACTIVITY REPORT
DATE:
PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER:
STREET LOCATION• PERMIT NUMBER:
CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: L
`r4 ey 'cl C`e,.(/ rn —3
,Jev.of hear/ �'/ wr, c� .�o v/S,.rEr� S /TZ lbn
—x�5 r;,,-/& /_I. L,s e- t" s SAS l( /y, '1r(e ��e�ss oy�
O-ZZ- Al. Icni.?
Smart/ �/��!(.� o, S tTL�• /�/E S ��inov/n< vEbr9'r74
cow 647"
oa: rx
eI 2 -oe /175pa� z�c�Ti/+/� 'rz�
4v,
sp
qf
�o-/z-r��, �nrsoEz.r� �/..�--� l:�r►a.� �v��/.�Ot�-�+r„ Cell_ nA-, ..
�i 1.S " 17N
7�-rE 0.,t. -rte AW 2Ot c�
uJ rltz�j_ ?=i;07;'A.IV S i L=c.77v,tiS o z: T�/E
y/ s ACS. vrn-e`�- v-- ex C,& /t y, C7�Ve e o fa �ne�-
.3 � V7 a,,�/rJcl��Vin' Y@ f ` w�r[ s jf?.Uf'• 7{„U.Sr c"Q' S l�c. e'er
bc*q"f vt c ► c. s n spechv,
`'J/7/07 40L) 604 / ►NV S� V�ieDle . ofi�
Y118107
Fint 4L
o Lr9Zc�N
Gvl-sic/� 7`�r •n j�� 10/17,0 f r� . —c �o r9s-9
XICY III -t.
bu,P .� -
6 'Yi
m14429
rt` Project No.:
Date: Report N.O.
project Name: � � 1;
t f t d
Author: Day:
Location: M T W T F S S
tAl
Supt/Foreman:
O Weather:
ClientlContract �I�
1 Soil Engineer.
Field Supervisor:
Geologist:
Tech
observati n/Testing of: C�
Hours
Equipment Working: � � ,
Today's Yardage:
Yardage to Date:
Summary of operations:
r Ain T
`5I Fiiul
t
l
(PA 3
C ex
I
I
I
r
I
G
Page_of
Received by:
Daily Field Report Print
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
I 3910 R 1-05
PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS 701 B STREET,SUITE 800 6119.235.6471 TEL
SAN DIEGO,CA 921o1 619.234.0349 FAX W W W.PROJECTDESIGN.COM
October 9, 2008
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits 505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Project No 05-985
And Grading Permit Number 58GI
The grading under permit number 58GI has been performed in substantial conformance
with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached `As Graded' plan.
Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved
grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of I%to the street and/or an appropriate
drainage system.
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 operational,together with the required
maintenance covenant(s).
Engineer of Record 1 0«•Cr f#�.4�� . }
Dated_ 10
Up
^. �r'Ap
Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspec r s signature
hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve
the Engineer of Record fo the ultimate responsibility:
Engineering Inspector:
Dated:
SAN DIEGO-PHOENIX-TEMECULA-BAKERSFIELD
AS-GRADED REPORT
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
1638 EDILEE DRIVE,
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For
Mr. Greg Rollinson
1638 Edilee Drive
Cardiff by the Sea, California 92007
Project No. 042058-001
May 3, 2007
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
May 3, 2005
Project No. 042058-001
To: Mr. Greg Rollinson
1638 Edilee Drive
Cardiff by the Sea, California 92007
Subject: As-graded Report, Proposed Residential Structure, 1638 Edille Drive, Cardiff by the
Sea, California
References: Leighton and Associates, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed
Residential Structure Addition, Cardiff by the Sea, California 92007, Project No.
041498-001, dated March 30,2005.
In accordance with your request and authorization, we have provided geotechnical observation and
testing services during the grading operations for the project located at 1638 Edilee Drive, located
in the City of Encinitas, Cardiff by the Sea, California (Figure 1). The project consisted of
demolishing the existing single-family residence for the purpose of constructing a new larger two-
- story residence with swimming pool and associated retaining walls located in the rear yard. The
accompanying as-graded report summarizes our observations, field and laboratory test results, and
the geotechnical conditions encountered during grading at the site. As of the date of this report,
the grading at the site is essentially complete.
Grading at the site was performed in general accordance with the project geotechnical report
(Leighton, 2005), and geotechnical recommendations made during the course of grading. It is our
professional opinion that the site is suitable for its intended use provided the recommendations
included herein and in the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 2005) are incorporated into the
design and construction of the structure and associated improvements.
3934 Murphy Canyon Road,Suite 8205■San Diego, CA 92123-4425
858.292.8030■Fax 858.292.0771 ■www.leightongeo.com
042058-001
If you have any questions regarding our letter, please contact this office. We appreciate this
opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
SAL Gk
C. sr�o�o�
or NO.2M
CL CERT�IED
Robert Stroh, CEG 2099 EN N ERM
GEOL
Senior Project Manager/Geologist T
OF CA�-�F
Sean Co o , GE 2507
Director of Engineering QAOFESS/pN
COLO9o�y�
C y m
No.2507 M
Distribution: (4) Addressee s Exp: 12/31/07
VOTECH't4NG P
F�F CALJF
Leighton
042058-001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1
2.0 SUMMARY OF FINE GRADING OPERATIONS.....................................................................2
2.1 SITE PREPARATION AND REMOVALS................................................................................2
2.2 FILL PLACEMENT.......................................................................................................2
2.3 FIELD DENSITY TESTING.............................................................................................3
2.4 LABORATORY TESTING """""""'...3
..........................................................................."
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC SUMMARY ..............................................................................4
3.1 AS-GRADED GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ..............................................................................4
_. 3.2 GEOLOGIC UNITS......................................................................................................4
3.3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE...............................................................................................4
3.4 LANDSLIDES AND SURFICIAL FAILURES............................................................................4
3.5 FAULTING...............................................................................................................4
3.6 GROUND WATER.......................................................................................................5
4.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................6
4.1 GENERAL................................................................................................................6
4.2 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................6
4.3 TRANSITION CONDITION AND BUILDING PAD...................................................................7
_N 4.4 PRE-MOISTENING OF SLAB SUBGRADE...........................................................................7
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................8
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP- REAR OF TEXT
FIGURE 2- DENSITY TEST LOCATION MAP- REAR OF TEXT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A-SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
APPENDIX B- LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND TEST RESULTS
Leighton
042058-001
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and authorization, we have provided geotechnical observation and
testing services during the grading operations for the project located at 1638 Edilee Drive, located
in the City of Encinitas, Cardiff by the Sea, California (Figure 1). The project consisted of
demolishing the existing single-family residence for the purpose of constructing a new larger two-
story residence with swimming pool and associated retaining walls located in the rear yard.
This as-graded report summarizes our geotechnical observations, geologic mapping, field and
laboratory test results, and the geotechnical conditions encountered during grading operations
relative to the building pad, building foundations, and retaining walls at the site. As of the date of
this report, the grading operations for the project are essentially complete. However, the fine
grading operations for the driveways and landscape areas are yet to be performed and will be
summarized in a subsequent letter report upon request.
- 1 - Leighton
042058-001
2.0 SUMMARY OF FINE GRADING OPERATIONS
Grading at the site began on August 29, 2006 and is essentially complete as of the date of this
report. The grading operations were performed under the observation and testing services of
-- Leighton and Associates. Our field technician and geologist were on site on a periodic basis during
the grading operations. Grading operations included 1) excavation and removal of existing soils
along the west facing descending slope for the purpose of excavating retaining wall foundations; 2)
the preparation of areas to receive fill; 3) the placement of compacted fill soils for retaining wall
backfill; and 4) removal and recompaction of pad areas where soft fill soils were observed. We
also performed the observation of footing excavations to confirm that the soil conditions were in
conformance with those anticipated in the geotechnical report (Leighton, 2005). Up to
approximately 8 feet of compacted fill was placed behind portions of the lower retaining wall, and
up to 3 feet of fill was placed locally within the building pad area during grading operations.
2.1 Site Preparation and Removals
w During demolition operations of the existing residence and general construction activities,
the upper 1-foot of the existing graded pad was disturbed. As a result,where these soils were
-- observed, they were then processed, moisture-conditioned, and reworked to obtain a
relatively homogeneous fill mix with a near-optimum moisture content. The soil was then
recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method
- D1557. Locally, within the limits of the building pad, removals were made to a depth of
approximately 3 feet below the proposed finish building pad grade to remove loose and/or
saturated soils in the garage area. Site preparations were performed in accordance with the
recommendations of the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 2005) and geotechnical
recommendations provided during the grading operations.
2.2 Fill Placement
After processing the areas to receive fill and/or retaining wall backfill, native soil was
generally spread in 4-to 8-inch lifts, moisture conditioned to attain a near-optimum moisture
content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with
-a ASTM Test Method D1557. Compaction was achieved by use of heavy-duty construction
equipment in the building pad area, and by the use of hand operated whackers behind the
retaining wall areas. Areas of fill in which field density tests indicated less than 90 percent
relative compaction, the soils exhibited non-uniformity and/or showed an inadequate or
excessive moisture content, were reworked, recompacted, and retested until a minimum 90
percent relative compaction and near-optimum moisture content was achieved.
- 2 - Leighton
042058-001
2.3 Field Density Testing
Field density testing was performed using the Nuclear-Gauge Method (ASTM Test Methods
D2922 and D3017). The results of the field density tests are summarized in Appendix A. The
field density testing performed was in general accordance with the applicable ASTM
standards,the current standard of care in the industry, and the precision of the testing method
itself. Variations in relative compaction should be expected from the results documented
herein.
2.4 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory maximum dry density tests of representative onsite soils were performed in
general accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557 (Appendix B). W4
- 3 - Leighton
042058-001
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC SUMMARY
3.1 As-graded Geologic Conditions
The as-graded conditions encountered during grading at the site were essentially as
anticipated, with the exception that the cut fill line which was located farther toward the east.
A summary of the geologic conditions including geologic units, geologic structure and
faulting is presented below. The as-graded geologic conditions are also presented on the As-
Graded Geotechnical Map (Figure 2).
3.2 Geologic Units
The geologic units encountered during grading at the site included existing fill and the
Delmar Formation. Our observations of the native cut materials at the site indicated a
strongly indurated clayey siltstone, having a low plasticity, generally interbedded with
moderately cemented sandstone. Generally, the sandstone was observed in the western
portions of the site and the siltstone in the eastern portions of the site. Where loose
undocumented fill and/or the disturbed upper portion of the Delmar Formation were
encountered within the limits of grading they were removed to competent material and/or
scarified and moisture-conditioned prior to fill placement and compaction.
3.3 Geologic Structure
Based on our field observations, a review of published geologic maps of the site and
vicinity, the bedrock units underlying the site consist of generally interbedded sandstone
and siltstone. Geologic maps and our site observations indicate that these interbedded
units are generally flat lying in the site area.
3.4 Landslides and Su ficial Failures
Based on our review of the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 2005), other pertinent
geologic literature, and our geologic mapping during grading, there is no indication of
landslides or other surficial failures within the subject property.
3.5 Faulting
No evidence of active or inactive faulting was observed during grading operations at the site,
and no faults have been mapped projecting toward or adjacent to the site. V4
-4 - Leighton
042058-001
3.6 Ground Water
Ground water or subsurface seepage was not encountered nor observed during grading
operations. However, on other sites with similar geologic conditions, ground water seepage
sometimes occurs in localized areas after the completion of grading and establishment of site
irrigation and landscaping. In particular, due to the well indurated and cemented nature of the
bedrock units underlying the site, perched ground water conditions should be anticipated at
this contact. If these conditions occur and become problematic, recommendations to
- mitigate seepage (by providing a subdrain system to collect ground water or other
appropriate methods) can be made on a case-by-case basis. W4
- 5 - Leighton
042058-001
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 General
Grading for the building pad and retaining walls was performed in general accordance
with the project geotechnical report (Leighton, 2005), geotechnical recommendations
made during the course of grading, and the City of Encinitas requirements. It is our
professional opinion that the building pad (including retaining walls) is suitable for its
intended use provided the recommendations included herein and in the project
geotechnical report, referenced above, are incorporated into the design and construction of
the residence and associated improvements.
4.2 Summary of Conclusions
• Geotechnical conditions encountered during grading operations were generally as
anticipated.
• Potentially compressible and/or disturbed soil materials were removed to competent
materials during grading.
• Site preparation and removals were geotechnically observed.
• Fill soils were derived from on-site soils. Fill soils were tested to have at least
90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557) and a near-
optimum moisture content in accordance with the recommendations of the project
geotechnical report (Leighton, 2005) and the requirements of the City of Encinitas. A
summary of the results of the field density tests is presented in Appendix A.
• Footing excavations for site retaining walls and the subject structure had soil
conditions and setback distances from slope faces that were in substantial
- conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report.
• Landslides or surficial slope failures were not encountered during the grading
—` operations.
• Evidence of inactive or active faulting was not encountered during grading.
• Ground water was not encountered during the grading operations.
- 6 - Leighton
042058-001
W 4.3 Transition Condition and Building Pad
Based on observations made during grading, a shallow transition from cut to fill is present
within the building pad. Formational materials were observed in the northeast portion of
the pad (Figure 2). Compacted fill materials less than 5 feet in depth were encountered
along the east portion of the pad. Due to the gradual nature of the transition, no deepening
of the footings to formational materials is needed as was presented in Section 6.1.4 of the
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Leighton, 2005).
4.4 Pre-Moistening of Slab Subgrade
w It is recommended that the upper 6 inches of the building pad be pre-moistened to the
optimum moisture content prior to placement of the slab underlayment. V4
- 7 - Leighton
042058-001
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
W Recommendations concerning the post grading and construction phases for the project have been
presented in our preliminary geotechnical report (Leighton, 2005). Since site grading was
performed in general accordance with the project geotechnical recommendations, and the as-graded
conditions are essentially as anticipated, the recommendations presented in the Leighton (2005)
report are considered applicable and should be followed during the post grading and construction
�- phases of site work.
- 8 - Leighton
Figures
(
WINDY w ��
Z HILL a o °
A 1FE, pRon TER m pL w� r- }
FAITH AV MACKIN• 0 C' D o
NON Ix (� O
o Z A CT ;; MUNEVAR `�p ,lam rn f---
-. .-...... _ J
CATHY RD LN °` m w x m
OCEAN CREST R GRANGE 0 3
HALL RD TORREY j
Q KINGS CROSS OR Cr DR DR
E e.,
y = CROSS CT �jQpO�P 7P Q
IGHTS o� wlNDSOR PROJECT
r J BRIDGE Q`� cR EEK CT
oDDGROVE SITE
3
j N CARETTA ¢ SANDCASTLE DR z CARDIFF
QC WAR CK AV z m
�' NOLBEY DR
z J]
po= o
SHEFFIELD .— 8 Y � FALCON HILL ED
N ? AV V) ° cr Z J JUDY
4 z
SRI 0 c7 �,fi W , p u.l LN
p AV �o N BUR HIRE AV o w o Q o
: �c AV M ,Q���,� j J W O
' `,` L BIRMINGiAM
Tniv F DR
Q �
y 9` -'o w p DR g o
Qo 0 a DEAN
o o GENT LIY DR o
� a HURST• H _
9G LAS DALE AV o -w
BRISAS ,� 8 :SEq
0
WY
w 0.
09 p
C-- u-
cn
x SE VI��P WY '
IND DR
DR r
O� G
BASE MAP: 2003 Digital Edition Thomas Guide, San Diego County, CA
NOT TO SCALE
Figure t
SITE LOCATION MAP Proj: 042058-001 Date: 05/07 4 TRAUTH RESIDENCE Eng/Geol: RCS Scale: NTS
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA Leighton and Associates, Inc.
__ P:\DRAFTING 1002050\0011OF07-05-011FIGURE 2.DWG(05-01-07 11:48:32AM)Pl Oe Cy:—.phy Ata.....-^Y UNDUV Cf.MPa!:r
RW-11 RW-9 RW-1S
LEGEND
113-3 Af ARTIFICIAL FILL
RW-3 RW-16
F Td TERTIARY DEL MAR FORMATION
O (CIRCLED WHERE BURIED)
c RW-10• _
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
— --r ~ GEOLOGIC CONTACT (DASHED
R W-14
RW-12 WHERE APPROXIMATE, DOTTED
" • '� �' WHERE BURIED, QUERIED WHERE
CF-S UNCERTAIN)
► I RW-13 CF-2— g-S APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
GEOTECHNICAL BORING
l CF-9 • APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
Af o I + FIELD DENSITY TEST
i �
CFA
I RW-2
• •R W-8 CF-6 I
W-S
CF-4
RW-7 I �`
CF T
RW-1
i
R W-4 i
R W-6 - N
0 10 20
FM I
_. SCALE FEET Figure 2
DENSITY 01 Scale: 1 "=1o' Date: 05/07
Drafted By: MAM CP By:
CARDIF
OF_OT-05-01\FIGURE 2DWG(05-02-0T 3 30:4tPM) PtaKe&by=MAx"
Appendix A
Summary of Field Density Tests
042058-001
APPENDIX A
Explanation of Summary of Field Density Tests
Test No. Test of Test No Test of
Prefix Test of Abbreviations Prefix Test of Abbreviations
(none) GRADING
Natural Ground NG (SG) SUBGRADE
Original Ground OG (AB) AGGREGATE BASE
Existing Fill EF (CB) CEMENT TREATED BASE
Compacted Fill CF (PB) PROCESSED BASE
Slope Face SF (AC) ASP1 ALT CONCRETE
Finish Grade FG
(S) SEWER Curb C
(SD) STORM DRAIN Gutter G
(AD) AREA DRAIN Curb and Gutter CG
(W) DOMESTIC WATER Cross Gutter XG
(RC) RECLAIMED WATER Street ST
(SB) SUBDRAIN Sidewalk SW
(G) GAS Driveway D
(E) ELECTRICAL Driveway Approach DA
(T) TELEPHONE Parking Lot PL
(J) JOINT UTILITY Electric Box Pad EB
(I) IRRIGATION
Bedding Material B
Shading Sand S
Main Backfill M
Lateral Backfill L
Crossing X
Manhole MH
Hydrant Lateral HL
Catch Basin CB
Riser R
Invert I
Check Valve CV
Meter Box MB
Junction Box JB
(RW) RETAINING WALL (P) PRESATURATION
(CW) CRIB WALL
(LW) LOFFELL WALL Moisture Content M
(SF) STRUCT FOOTING
Footing Bottom F
Backfill B
Wall Cell C
(IT) INTERIOR TRENCH
Plumbing P
Electrical E
N represents nuclear gauge tests that were performed in general accordance with most recent version of ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017.
S represents sand cone tests that were performed in general accordance with most recent version of ASTM Test Method D1556.
15A represents first retest of Test No. 15
15B represents second retest of Test No. 15
in Test Elevation Column represents test was taken at the ground surface(e.g.finish grade or subgrade)
in Test Elevation Column represents test was taken one foot below the ground surface
A-1
L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ri
3333333333333333 ¢ o
v� E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R 1 tlz (I-: N V)i
�. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a0+
o O
o O
ai v vi [� [� "p 00 ^ N N ^ N v N 7 7 r- 'IT r
> ca O� D, Q\ O� C, C,
R E
Z O
9 U
.. o 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0
e O. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
L
7
r� 00 O\ v1 O\ N r r
^
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Cl) ca I'0 �c �O �o �O
^ ^ .-.
Zol
G .-.
C
oo 011 N W) O
O O O N O,
Qw
I—
W O M M O O 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q w M M N M O O O M M rV CV N N N N O
Q y y bD
W it
M o
Li
O
Q
0
C0 o
a (,
U
33333333 C°'
.b :O b y y bq to b0 to W to to to
c c c c c c D (L) 0
♦+ V V V Y V -W - '
33333333wwc w C) � �
m L
o
FAO mmmaammaaa�`a � � c mmmo maaLL,
�O �O �O �O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO �O L O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 CO \O C� [� l� G1
0 0 0 0 0 0 aj .+
0 0 0 0 — — — N —
E c
N G C)
Z Z J
Q V V V w+
O 0 4D 0 C
.O .O 62D
0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 L L L =
E-. z as act
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
nO- N
. M
33333333333 0
E E E E E E E E E E E
L O O O O O O O O O O O
> > > > > > > > > > >
o C
e O
O� Q, O, O, D1
a� O
G: U
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c N N - - - - - - - N
v
L
7
O, M O, M O M N
O O O O O O O O O O O
W 0 .� r- [- Cl O�
O O7 N
ZH .-. ,-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .--�
W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O
� N
y 0 a
J Fw
W
LL o
LL
O
Q
a
0
u
0
a
aaa° a° a° a° a.
c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N
V V V � N
O p
O p)
�
5 L LO
V) c° c° c° c° V) cn° C7 C7 x o
ca
c
a 1- U) H
FO UUUUUUUULT. r" "
L
O
Cl O
F A ^ Z Z J
^ NM V v'i oornO ^ d G1 C
fi- u.. U- LT. m a ate
F Z U U U U U U U U U U U
Appendix B
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
042058-001
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials
were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. The results of these tests are presented in
the table below:
Sample Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture
Sample Description Density( cf) Content(%)
Number
1 Tan-brown silty sand 116.0 12.0
B-1
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION,
.i PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ADDITION,
1638 EDILEE DRIVE,
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, CALIFORNIA
Ala
J
»fi, 11
Prepared For
Patricia Trauth/ Mr. Greg Rollinson "
� Mrs.
-- x! 1638 Edilee Drive
Cardiff by the Sea, California 92007
I
L
t
i
Project No. 041498-001 j
- March 30, 2005
OL
_ L
1f C: l
.. -
cE
Leighton and Associates, Inc
t A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
— � (March 30, 2005
----- Project No. 041498-001
di
To:
Mrs. Patricia Trauth/Mr. Greg Rollinson
1638 Edilee Drive
Cardiff by the Sea, California 92007
-- Preliminary Geoteclinical Investigation, Proposed Residential Structure Addition,
Subject:
1638 Edilee Drive, Cardiff by the Sea, California
p eotechnical
/In accordance with your request and authorizuac on, addition loca�edtatdl638 Edilee, by the
investigation for the proposed residential
Sea, California (Figure 1). The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the existing
g
eotechnical conditions at the site, and to provide preliminary
d on the results of our study,it s
j recommendations relative to the proposed development.
our opinion that the proposed addition and site alterations are feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint provided the recommendations provided herein are incorporated into the design of our
construction of the proposed ddeslOeotechniclal conc up ons and reocommendations relative to the
current investigation and prove g
proposed site development.
rt, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We
If you have any questions regarding our repo
appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
� `QED G
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. BRIAN J. Q
QRp FESS/ EG ONq of G 23 cn�
� . 2333
�p.Cot del s CERTIFIED �
�O � ENGINEERING
cv No.2501 �+ Brian J. Olson, CEG 233 �� GEOLOGIST
Sean Colorado, GE 2507 Project Geologist 9Ac�OF CAl-�FOQ
Director of Engineering Up.12131/0 * J
*l CF�IECHN�GP���P Expires 02/28/
9j£OF%J fi'
Distribution: (4) Addressee
3934 Murphy 292.8003 0.Fax 858.292.0771 Dlwww.le 9 9ongeo.com
041498-001
I
w � TABLE OF CONTENTS
? Pie
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................... 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE................................................................................... 3
1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION...................................................................... 3
1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.....................
2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TEST ...........................................
...4
TESTING
3.0 SUMMARY OF
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS......................................
3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING.....................................................................................................5
.........................................................................5
3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY ..................... „•5
Symbol —Af)
3.2.1 Artificial Fill Materials (Map Symbol Td ....................................................6
3.2.2 Tertiary Del Mar Formation (Map 6
3.3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE....................................................................... ............6
3.4 GROUND WATER ........................................................................................................6
CHARACTERISTICS.........................................
.................................
3.5 EXCAVATION
3.6 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS .........................................................................• 7
3.6.1 Expansion Potential ...................
3.6.2 Soil Corrosivity ........................................................................... 8
I
4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY..................................................................................
4.1 FAULTING ............................................................................................................. 8
............................................................ 10
4.2 SEISMICITY ..........m......•••••'
4.2.1 Shallow Ground Rupture ................................................................................. 10
4.2.2 Liquefaction ..............
...................................................................................
Tsunamis and Seiches..................................................................................... 1
4.2.3 ......... 11
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................
........................................
.................
6.0 RECOMMENDATION .•.•,•• 12
6.1 EARTHWORK..............
....................................
6.1.1 Site Preparation—......................................................................................... 12
6.1.2 Removals and Recompaction...........................................................................
Compaction ........................................................................ 13
6.1.3 Fill Placement and Comp .......M.. 13
6.1.4 Transition Condition and Building Pad.........•..••••••••••• 13
6.2 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND EROSION.......................................................................
SLAB CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 14
6.3 FOUNDATION AND ...................................................... 15
6.3.1 Preliminary Foundation Design................... ............ 15
6.3.2 Preliminary Floor Slab Design .........................
......................................... 16
6.3.3 Settlement.................................... ............................
.......... 16
6.3.4 Foundation Setbacks.................................................
Leighton
041498-001
l
TABLE OF CONTENTS
j Page
_Section 16
1 6.4 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES........................................................................................ 17
6.5 CONCRETE FLATWORK................................................................................................ 18
ON OBSERVATION ........ is
6.6 CONSTRUCTION
6.7 PLAN REVIEW, ADDITIONAL EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS 19
7.0 LIMITATIONS........................................................................
I
Tables
Table 1 - Seismic Parameters for Active Faults - Page 9
Table 2 - Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) - Page 16
Table 3 - Recommended Wire-Mesh Reinforcement of Concrete Flatwork - Page 17
_i
Figures
Figure 1 - Site Location Map - Page 2
Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map - Rear of Text
Appe_ ndiC
i
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Boring Logs
Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Appendix D - Seismic Analysis
Appendix E - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
i
ii
Leighton
041498-001
l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope
-.-� This report presents the results of our limited preliminary geotechnical investigation for
the proposed residential stricture addition locatede til at on was too evaluatdelfthey existing
�i The purpose of our in g
California (Figure 1).
geotechnical conditions at the site, and provide preliminary conclusions geotechnical
of servi esncluded
recommendations relative to the proposed developm
l ublished and unpublished geotechnical reports, maps and aerial
Review of p
photographs (Appendix A).
Site reconnaissance and geologic mapping.
in and sampling of 5 exploratory hand-auger borings. The boring
■ Excavation, logging
logs are presented in Appendix B.
■
Limited laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from the subsurface exploration
program (Appendix C).
■
and analysis of the geotechnical data obtained from our review, field
Compilation
investigation and laboratory testing.
geotechnical
■ Preparation of this report presenoti the° ro findings,
proposed design,clsite grading and general
recommendations with respect P P
construction considerations.
1
i
-1 Leighton
` 041498'001
_l
`
\
--/
Site Location Y�---^un
(
-_/
/ |
'
_\
/ |
} �
)
_\
_)
` >
__\
\
-_`
\
}
_-'
_\
|
--'
i
/
|
!
-2-
Leighton
�� �
,
041498-001
�l
1.2 Site Location and Description
The approximately 6,800 square foot generally flat site is situated located
betwe n residential
Edilee Drive in Cardiff by the Sea, California. The
buildings to the north and south, Edilee Drive to g the a asha shaped a arocel is currently occupied
site as the western boundary. The roughly rectangular p P
by a single-story residential structure with associated hardscape and landscaping.
I, 1.3 Proposed Development
We understand the proposed site development will include an approximately 240 square
I
foot lower level addition extendinm add t on. We also understand that a below
appr xio mately 840 square foot second-story
ground pool with associated ha is proposed
for the western portion of the site. For
- � the purposes o is report, we have assumed the proposed structure wi I-be a wo-story
wood-framed structure, utilizing conventional shallow foundations with slab-on grade.
i
1
,
i
-3- Leighton
- 041498-001
—� 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
—� As part of our investigation, 5 exploratory hand-auger borings (B-1 through B-5) were excavated,
sampled, and logged by a geologist from our office. The purpose of these excavations was to
evaluate the physical characteristics of the onsite soils and assess their lateral and vertical extent.The
Representative samples were obtained for laboratory en 1A'Appendix approximate
logging and
borings are shown on Figure 2. Logs are presented pP
— sampling, the excavations were backfilled with native material.
-` Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples to evaluate the settlement and
7 expansion potential of the subsurface soils. A discussion of the laboratory tests performed and a
summary of the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C.
_ i
f
i
i
--t
--I
- -4 Leighton
041498-001
_ I
- 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
3.1 Geologic Setting
— � The site is located in the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Province, a geomorphic
province with a long and active geologic history throughout Southern California.
l Throughout the last 54 million years, the area known as "San Diego Embayment" has
} undergone several episodes of marine inundation and subsequent marine regression,
resulting in the deposition of a thick sequence of marine and nonmarine sedimentary
rocks on the basement rock of the Southern California batholith with native material.
Gradual emergence of the region from the sea occurred in Pleistocene time, and numerous
-- wave-cut platfornls, most of which were covered by relatively thin marine and nonmarine
terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded from the land. Accelerated fluvial erosion
during periods of heavy precipitation, coupled with the lowering of the base sea level
during Quaternary times, resulted in the rolling hills, mesas, and deeply incised canyons
- ' which characterize the landforms we see in the general site area today.
3.2 Site-Specific Geology
Based on our subsurface exploration, aerial photographic analysis, site d review
consists of
pertinent geologic literature and maps, the geologic unit underlying
ficial fill materials were also observed during the
Tertiary Del Mar Formation. Arti
I ription of the geologic units encountered on the site
subsurface investigation. A brief desc
is presented below.
i -
3.2.1 Artificial Fill Materials (Map Symbol - At)
l Artificial fill materials were encountered in all of the exploratory borings. The
' artificial fill depths varied from as shallow as 6 inches below ground surface (bgs)
in the eastern portion of the site to at least 13 feet (bgs) in the southwestern
- i corner. The range in artificial fill depths is related to the filling of a pre-existing
drainage located near the southwestern portion of the site. As encountered, these
materials generally consist of brown to yellow brown, fine to medium grained,
e sand. These materials were judged to be loose at the surface to medium
clayey
dense and moist with depth. These materials are generally expected to possess a
very low to medium expansion potential.
i
-5 Leighton
l 041498-001
-- 1
3.2.2 TerdaEy Del Mar Formation (Map Symbol —Tdl
As encountered in our test pits, the Tertiary-aged Del Mar Formation underlies the
-- ( entire site. This sedimentary formation primarily consists of gray-green to light
green, dense to very dense, fine grained, massive, micaceous clayey sandstone
with red and orange staining. The Del Mar Formation is anticipated to be the
` primary geologic unit encountered during site construction.
3.3 Geologic Structure
W The native materials encountered were massive with no apparent bedding, but can be
I
assumed to be generally flat-lying. Based on our field explorations and a review of
no fau
published geologic maps of the site and vicinity the site.lts or landslides have been
mapped, nor were any encountered, on or adjacent to
3.4 Ground Water
Minor ground water seepage was encountered at approximately 3 feet (bgs) in exploratory
ro
-i boring ro during our investigation. These conditions are believed to be locally perched
conditions associates with adjacent landscaping. If groundwater seepage conditions are
encountered during site development, recommendations to mitigate the conditions can be
made on a case-by-case basis at that time.
3.5 Excavation Characteristics
During our investigation artificial fill material was encountered at depths of
- r 13 feet (bgs). The underlying Tertiary Del Mar
approximately 6 inches (bgs) to ove
j Formation materials were found to be dense to very dense.. with some cementation of
materials. We anticipate excavations of the existing soils should generally be
accomplished using heavy-duty earthwork equipment, with local areas of difficult
excavation at depth.
-6- Leighton
041498-001
l
3.6 Engineering Characteristics
Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation of the site, laboratory testing of
�.y
representative on-site soils, and our professional experience on near-by sites with similar
soils,the engineering characteristics of the on-site soils are discussed below.
3.6.1 Expans on
I
The majority of the onsite soils are expected to have a very low to medium
-- � expansion potential (per UBC criteria). Geotechnical observation and/or laboratory
I testing upon completion of the anticipated fine grading operations is recommended
to determine the actual expansion potential of finish grade soils on the site.
i
-li 3.6.2 Collapse Potential
Laboratory tests carried out on selected soil samples collected during our field
investigation indicate that the soils have a low potential for collapse under loading.
i
i
-� Leighton
1 ,
041498-001
i
4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
__. 4.1 Faulting
} Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation
and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By
definition of the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault which has
had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The state
geologist has defined a potentially active fault as any fault considered to have been active
during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000 years). This definition is used in delineating
Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of
1972 and most recently revised in 1997 (Hart, 1997). The intent of this act is to assure that
unwise urban development and certain habitable strictures do not occur across the traces of
I
active faults. The subject site is not included within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created
by the Alquist-Priolo Act.
Our review of available geologic literature (Appendix A) indicates that there are no
- ! known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The nearest active
fault is the onshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately
3.1 miles west of the site.
4.2 Seismici
J The site can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of Southern
California. Table 1 (below) identifies potential seismic events that could be produced by
the maximum moment magnitude earthquake. A maximum moment magnitude
earthquake is the maximum expectable earthquake given the known tectonic framework.
Site-specific seismic parameters included in Table 1 are the distances to the causative
-- faults, earthquake magnitudes, and expected ground accelerations as generated by the
deterministic fault modeling software EQFAULT (Blake, 2000).
i
-8- Leighton
i
l �
041498-001
Table 1
Seismic Parameters for Active Faults (Blake, 2000)
_-.-) Peak One
i Distance Horizontal Standard
from Fault Moment Ground
Potential Causative to Site Magnitude Deviation
_..� Fault Acceleration (g)
(Miles) (g)
i Rose Canyon 11 7.2 0.44 0.23
Newport-Inglewood 12.7 1 0.19 0.09
-- (offshore)
I 0.1 7
Coronado Bank 17.7
7.6 0.09
1
' As indicated in Table 1, the onshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is the
`active' fault considered having the most significant effect at the site from a design
standpoint. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered a Type B seismic source
according to Table 16-U of the 2001 California Building Code (CBSO Blake,
summary of the deterministic analysis performed using EQFAULT software
2000) is provided in Appendix D.
The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the California Building
ismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers
Code or state-of-the-art se
Association of California.
I
The seismic parameter setting for the site per 2001 CBC (2002, CBSC) are as follows:
Soil Profile Type (Table 16-J) = Sc
Seismic Zone (Figure 16-2) =4
- Seismic Source Type (Table 16-U) = B
Na= 1.0 (Table 16-S)
NV= 1.2 (Table 16-T)
Secondary effects that can be associated with severe ground shaking following a
relatively large earthquake include shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction and dynamic
settlement, seiches and tsunamis. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are
' discussed in the following sections.
- -9- Leighton
041498-001
4.2.1 Shallow Ground Rupture
Ground rupture because of active faulting is not likely to occur on site due to the
_ l absence of known active faults. Cracking due to shaking from distant seismic
events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site.
4.2.2 Liquefaction
i
Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory
motion due to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose,
saturated, granular soils are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settlement.
Due to the lack severe shallow ground water and relatively dense nature of the
underlying formational materials, the potential for liquefaction and dynamic
settlement of the site are considered unlikely
4.2.3 Tsunamis and Seiches
Based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water, and the
j elevation of the site with respect to sea level, the possibility of seiches and/or
tsunamis is considered to be very low.
I�
— i
i
i
I
I
-10-
Leighton
041498-001
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Mme eotechnical investigation of the site, it is our opinion
—� Based on the results of our preliminary e eotechnical standpoint, provided the following
that the proposed development is feasible from a g design and construction. The
conclusions and recommendations n ficant geopd during
echnicalfactors that may affect development of the
following is a summary of th g
site.
i
round water was encountered during development,ment, re investigation. if groundwater omitigat seepage the
Minor g �
conditions are encountered during site de p
conditions can be made on a case-specific basis at that time.
I The potential for liquefaction and dynamic settlement of the site are considered low.
■ leared of vegetation, oversize material, existing
prior to gr ading, the site should be c
foundations, and other debris.
■ Based on the results of our recently conducted subsurfa del deposits of artificial fill related to the
consist of Tertiary-aged Del Mar Formation overlain by p
prior development of the site. We anticipate that the soils present on the site will be generally
rippable with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment, with a potential for local areas
� of difficult excavation at depth.
_ In order to found the structure addition on formational materials, some footings will need to be
■ dee ened. Deepening of footings below the design bottom of footing elevation may be
p
accomplished by filling the additional depth with a 2-sack sand/cement slurry.
■ Based on laboratory testing and visual classification,
the onsite fill soils possess a medium
'
expansion potential. However, soils of higher expansion P°be n be encountered during
needed.
P
site grading. If encountered,revised recommendations may
mend
Retaining wall drains are recomed'
If cut to fill transition conditions are exposed below the bottom of the pool, an additional foot of
_ material should be excavated and recompacted in the bottom of the excavation. The purpose of
such an excavation is so that the entire pool structure is founded on a minimum of 1 foot of
compacted fill.
low or low expansion potential should be utilized as retaining wall
a■ Only materials with very
or pool excavation backfill.
-11- Leighton
041498-001
I
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Earthwork
Earthwork at the site should be performed in accordance the following General ecommendations. The
Grading Specifications presented in Appendix E and
Appendix E are general grading specifications provided for
-� recommendations contained in App
typical projects. Some of the recommendations e may °ob oiisl relport plupersede tt Ze general
his project.
-� The specific recommendations contained in th
i recommendations in Appendix E. The contract between the owner and earthwork contractor
i
should be worded such that it is the responsibility f tlhiscoreport t and place
he specifilcations properly
- and in accordance with the recommenda
Appendix E,not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant.
6.1.1 Site Preparation
Prior to grading of areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures potentially
- should be cleared of surface obstructions, uvium/slo existing pum, and
compressible material (such as topsoil, of vegetation. Ve etation and debris
w. weathered formational materials) and stripped g
g
should be removed and properly disposed of offsite. Holes resulting from the
removal of buried obstructions, which extend below finished site grades, should be
i replaced with suitable compacted fill material. in Areas t mum depthlof 81inches,brought
surface improvements should be scarified to
- to at least 2 percent above the optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at
least 90 percent relative compaction (based on American Standard of Testing and
Materials [ASTM] Test Method D1557).
— I
6.1.2 Removals and Recomgaction
The upper 1 t9.2.f_eet of fill soils that occur on site are potentially compressible in
their present state and may settle under the surcharge of fills or f lamed on to excavation.
j In general, we anticipate this material will be removed by p
� Where not removed or, in areas that will receive additional fill soils that will support
settlement-sensitive structures or other improvements,
--
- oved down to competent material, as determined by the geotechnical consultant,
v
moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a minimum 90 percent relative
compaction (based on American Standard of Testing and Materials [ASTM] Test
Method D1557). The removal limit should be established by a 1:1 projection from
e edge of fill soils suppo 1ng se ement-sensitive structures downward and
outward to compe en-mat
i'e �c�°Tt e ge echnical consultant. Fill soils
-12-
Leighton
041498-001
I should be free of debris and organic materials (trees, shrubs, stumps, roots, leaves,
and mulch derived from vegetation). Actual depths and limits of removals should be
evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading.
6.1.3 Fill Placement and Compaction
The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are
_ free of organic materials and debris. Areas to receive fill and/or other surface
improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, brought to at
least 2 percent above optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90
percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). The optimum
lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size
of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not
exceeding 8 inches in thickness. d on ASTM Test il
Method minimum
a moo tore
percent relative compaction (base
content at least 2 percent above the optimum moisture content.
Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with
the current City of Encinitas grading ordinances, sound construction practice, and
j the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading presented
in Appendix E.
6.1.4 Transition Condition and Building Pad
We recommend that all building foundations be deepened to bear a competent
formational materials. Deepening of the footing excavation is anticipated to reach
competent formational materials. To accomplish the deepening, the footing
- excavation should be carried to a depth at least 1 foot into competent fornzation.
Any additional depth below the design bott om footing may be backfilled with a 2-
sack sand/cement slurry mix.
6.2 S urface Drainage and Erosion
Our experience indicates that surface or near-surface ground water conditions can develop in
in areas where ground water conditions did not exist prior to site development,m especially
areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration
irrigation. This sometimes occurs where relatively impermeable formational materials are
overlain by granular fill soils. We recommend that an engineering d. Dro geologist s devices
during grading operations to evaluate seepage areas, if encoun
reduction of water accumulation can be recommended if these conditions occur.
-13- Leighton
-� 041498-001
Surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during precise grading,
S
w�
landscaping, and construction of site improvements. Positive drainage (e.g., roof gutters,
downspouts, area drains, etc.) should be constructed to direct surface water away from
structures and improvements and towards the street
Roof �utterse downspouts,d viand area drains
—� water adjacent to structures should be avoided.
!� I should be aligned so as to transport surface water to a minimum distance of 5 feet away
aintaining
from structures. The performance of structural foundations is dependent upon m
j adequate surface drainage away from strictures. or unobstructed
� Water should be transported off the site in approved drainage devWices e 1We recommend that
i swales and should consider long-term settlement as discussed ab o
the minimum flow gradient for the drainage be 2 percent for area drains and paved drainage
swales. We recommend that the minimum flow gradient for unpaved drainage swales and
paved drainage swales within 5 feet of structures (sloping away) also be 2 percent.
The impact of heavy imgation or inadequate runoff gradient can create perched water
conditions, resulting in seepage or shallow groundwater conditions where previously none
existed. Maintaining adequate surface drainage and controlled irrigation will significantly
reduce the potential for nuisance-type moisture problems. To reduce differential earth tent of
te change In movements such as heaving and shrinkage due to a structure and improvoementsc on
foundation soils, which may cause distress
- i content of the soils surrounding the structure should be kept as relatively constant as
possible.
6.3 Foundation and Slab Considerations
i
The foundations and slab should be designed in accordance with structural considerations
and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils
encountered within 5 feet of pad grade have a very low to medium potential for expansion
per 1997 UBC Standard. If soils with an expansion index greater than 70 are encountered ese
during site grading, additional ed after the dCOmpletionlofbgrading based onhthe
recommendations should be confirm
actual as-graded geotechnical conditions.
i
-14- Leighton
041498-001
i
6.3.1 preliminary Foundation Design
The proposed building may be supported by
conventional, continuous or
isolated spread footings. The minimum recommended width of footings is
18 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for square or round footings.
Footings should extend a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent
le
grade. At these depths, footings may be designed for a maximum founded bin
bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (p fl
undisturbed formational material. Footings should be designed in accordance
with the structural engineer's requirements and continuous footings should
reinforcement of four No. 4 reinforcing bars (two top and two
have a minimum
bottom). The allowable pressures may be increased by one-third when
considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces.
t 6.3.2 Preliminary Floor Slab Design
The slab-on-grade should be at least 4 inches thick and be reinforced with No.
3 rebars at 18 inches on center or No. 4 rebars at 24 inches on center, each way.
- All reinforcing should be placed at mid-height in the slab. Slabs should be
underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand (SE>30), underlain by a 10-mil
visqueen moisture barrier and an additional 2 inches of clean sand. We
recommend control joints be provided across the slab at appropriate intervals as
designed by the project architect.
The potential for slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of
water/cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions
during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs.
We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if grouted tile,
marble tile, or other crack-sensitive floor covering is planned directly on
concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural
s. If heavy vehicle or equipment loading is proposed for the slabs,
consideration
i greater thickness and increased reinforc oofmgy to ragCCO pli determined nl d the
the structural engineer. Moisture p
serviceability of the building finishes is the purview of the project architect.
-i
-15- Leighton
....... . . _. ..
041498-001
6.3.3 _Settlement
The recommended allowable-bearing capacity is based on a maximum total and
differential settlement of competent formational materials. The maximum total
and differential settlements are estimated at less than 1/2 of an inch for the
building addition.
L
- 6.3.4 Foundation Setbacks
- Foundations should be setback in accordance with the minimum City of
Encinitas code requirements or the following criteria, whichever is greater. We
i
_ recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes or
all structural footings and settlement-sensitive structures. This distance is
measured from the outside edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face
- ! (or to the face of a retaining wall) and should be a minimum of H/2, where H is
the slope height (in feet). The setback should not be less than 7 feet. Please
note that the- soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral
stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, and
other improvements) constructed within this setback area may be subject to
lateral movement and/or differential settlement.
6.4 Lateral Earth Pressures
For design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values for level or sloping
backfill are recommended for walls backfilled with onsite soils of very low to low
- expansion potential as indicated on Table 2.
Table 2
Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (Pcf)
Conditions Level 2:1 Slope
Active 35 55
At-Rest 55 85
300 150
Passive (Maximum of 3 ksf) (Sloping Down)
The wall pressures assume walls are backfilled with free draining materials and water is
not allowed to accumulate behind
hould belcompacted ea v
bymechanical methods to at contained least90
Appendix E. Wall backfill s
_. -16-
Leighton
i a WINDY wQ _ �z w`
I HILL 2 o of w
z
I i °m TER w¢ m PL o L;77
T A F DR r J �o _
RACKIN- '• 'j w
FAITH AV NON -'
CT :;I MUNEVAR w
`�
S
o=� 4
V
CATHY RD LN
1
GRANGE � o Z7 TORREY }
E ` ° OCEAN CREST R N HALL RD DR
Qi KINGS CROSS DR CT
n
CKS cT WINDSOR W000�
IGHTS PROJECT
BAJC�` a IDG ���p REE�oGD
C
B GROVE
7 SITE
N CARETTA WY <9 SANDCASTLE DR m CARDIFF
m 01 WAR OK AV NOLBEY o ; C DR
o =0 3 FALCON HILL ED JUDY
^„ SFIEFFIELD F N U ` CT z °� ?
N AV Q N o LN
��., D P „°, °
SRI TO T
�p pv o N BUR IR9 AV a °w
o Q
D�•. SRI
_
AV BIRMINGHAM
PL OR
TAFF
CD W o DRZ �' o
n a w DEAN
V aoy O` Q GENI LN DR CD
\ o
iJ O s HURST _
LAS DALE AV o � "� c
$� \ BR I SAS s Eq
WY
m O
U-
\
!� F 70 = SE VI\�Q�
o IN'D r� DR
DR
Q�
3
9G NORTH
BASE MAP: 2003 Digital Edition Thomas Guide,San Diego County
NOT TO SCALE
Project No.
SSITE �
G 041498-04
Trauth Residence LOCATION
Cardiff by the Sea, California Date
MAP March 2005 Figure No. 1
_ ® N
p O
Z
_ J s -pis
p
LL
m
0= 03 0
o E o
� N C O
o o p,c E C 2jnlJ 30 '3�1d�
3 E U m� m Xs
N N C O
Z N N O
0. N N U a N
LU
Q - Qo33 � Qrn c7
IT,
Uj
pp _�— °° m N ° ca
N
Z
L) p d
US
j O Z Cl) Q s
1 r a
co
1 -- )
� acnwoo
Lo
a0 co
CD
LU
H
t W
s
-L Q
T
= r
Z
041498-001
l
percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557). Wall footings should be designed
in accordance with the foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance
with structural considerations. For all retaining walls, we recommend a minimum
horizontal distance from the outside base of the footing to daylight of 7 feet.
Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained
from the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, the
friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values
may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration including wind or
seismic loads. The total resistance may be taken as the sum of the frictional and passive
resistance provided that the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total
resistance.
Surcharge pressures should be accounted for in design of retaining structures. For
uniform surcharge equal to q, a lateral surcharge pressure of 0.35q should be considered
in design. Recommendations for other surcharge conditions can be provided on a case-by-
case basis.
i
6.5 Concrete Flatwork
m. 1
In order to reduce potential cracking of driveways, sidewalks, patios, other concrete
flatwork from differential movement, wire mesh reinforcement is recommended along
with keeping pad grade soils at an elevated moisture content. The recommended type of
wire mesh reinforcement is presented on Table 3.
i Table 3
Recommended Wire-Mesh Reinforcement of Concrete Flatwork
- i
Recommended Flatwork
Expansion Potential/Index
Reinforcement
Very Low to Medium (EI less than 70) 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh
— I
Additional control can be obtained by providing thickened edges and 4 or 6 inches of
granular base or clean sand, respectively, below the flatwork. Reinforcement should be
placed midheight in concrete. Even though the slabs are reinforced, some expansive soil-
related movement (i.e., both horizontal to vertical differential movement, etc.) should be
_ anticipated due to the nature of the expansive soils. A uniform moisture content on the lot
should be maintained throughout the year to reduce differential heave of flatwork such as
sidewalks, pool decking, etc.
-17-
Leighton
i
041498-001
I 6.6 Construction Observation and Testing
The geotechnical consultant should perform construction observation and testing during
the rough, fine, and post grading operations, future excavations and foundation or
retaining wall construction at the site. Additionally, footing excavations should be
I observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to the placing steel or pouring of concrete.
Foundation design plans should also be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant prior to
excavations.
I
6.7 Plan Review Additional Exploration and Analysis
Final project drawings should be checked by Leighton and Associates, Inc. before grading
to see that the recommendations in this provided report are incorporated in project plans.
We recommend additional studies be performed once actual building locations are
I known.
i
1
j
- I
� J
_ -18-
Leighton
041498-001
7.0 LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were
obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests. Such
`i information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing
geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and under varying
climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if
Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and
f construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative
for the site.
i
i
i
i
i
i
_ -19- 'Leighton
041498-001
1
APPENDIX A
l
REFERENCES
'1
i
Blake, Thomas F., 2000, EQFAULT, Version 3.0.
I California Building and Safety Commission (CBSC), 2001, California Building Code.
CDMG, 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San
Diego County, California, Open-File Report 95-04.
Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning with Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, Division of
Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, with Locations and
Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions: California Division of Mines and Geology, California
Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000.
Tan, S.S. and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego
County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-02,
Scale 1:24,000
Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California: California Division of
Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 93-02, 45 p.
_ I
�I
A-1
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Date 1-26-05 Sheet 1 of 1
Project Trauth Residence Project No. 041498-001
Drilling Co. Type of Rig Hand Auger
Hole Diameter 3" Drive Weight 33.5 pounds Drop 30"
Elevation Top of Elevation Location Edilee Drive
_� DESCRIPTION
1 (7 Z .. V)^ Vl
to
m� a ca' 0 3° r-4.. we `°ti °
0 ai o �-
LU a M 00a.. L 2 0 o� Logged By AJB m
C/) v tn-- CL
Sampled By AJB I—
7Backfilled CIAL FILL
la ey SAND:Brown,very moist,loose;fine to medium
_ ed,few rootlets
s ..
37/6"
�� 1 —_7% R FORMATION --———————————————
•• _'. layey SANDSTONE:Gray-green,moist,very dense;fine
d some oxidization and red stainin 7 mica resent throe hout
pth=1.5 Feet
2 d water encountered
d on 1/26/05
1
3
— I
4
i
1
— I
7
8
i
9
� l
i
10
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
i
:l
Date 1-26-05 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Project
I Drilling Co. Trauth Residence Sheet 1 of 1
Hole Diameter Project No. 041498-001
3" Drive Weight Type of Rig _Hand Auger
Elevation Top of Elevation 33.5
' Location ounds Drop 30"
I Edilee Drive
c
- I ;LL )
LL m o Q a° p 6- �� DESCRIPTION
w Q E ma Aa oc Ud
a D �U a#i� Logged By AJB o co
0 Sampled By AJB (1)
�.
SC TTHCIAL FILL
0': Clayey SAND:Brown,wet loose;fine to medium
rootlets grained;few
I 1
45/6"
DEL MAR FORMATION ————— __
Clayey SANDSTONE:Green-gray,moist,very dense;some —
_ oxidization,red and orange staining;mica present throughout
j 2
Total Depth=2 Feet
No ground water encountered
Backfilled on 1126/05
i 3
J�
i
f 4
I
l
l 5
i
6
I
i
7 I
i
8
i
9
I
I
110
;AMPLE TYPES:
SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS:
RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY T SIEVE ANALYSIS
TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION AT EXPANSION LIMITS
CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX RV LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.E
I �
GEOTECHNICA
Date 1-26-05 L BORING LOG g_3
J Project
Drilling Co. Trauth Residence Sheet 1 of 1
I Project No. 041498-001
a Hole Diameter 3 —
ll Elevation Top of Elevation Drive Weight Type of Rig Hand Aug er
Location 33.5 ounds
Edilee Drive Drop 30"
= y o
w "ra)m a Z m y
y Wo >,
o, N
30 cw. �^
0 CL DESCRIPTION p 0>LL oa m �o)
a o �Cj cn°p Logged By AJB °
0 Sampled By
-- AJB a
'( — SM ARTTHCLAL FILL
@ 01: Silty SAND with some clay:Yellow-brown,very medium dense;fine to medium nine - 4'moist,loose to
— o' brown minor clayey clasts;dens added to increase edblb;h Llreen depth d
3 h'J g
a 's•• s
2
3 0
1 6••• •
i, •.
j4
Total Depth=4 Feet
No ground water encountered
Backfilled on 1126105
! 5
i
6
i
7
8
9
I
10
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB DS DIR SAMPLE TYPE R ECT SHEAR
TESTS:
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE
3 BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION AT ATTER13URG LIMITS-
CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,RV NCUE
1 �
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4
Date 1-27-05
Project
Drilling Co. Trauth Residence Sheet 1 of 1
Hole Diameter Project No. 041498-001
T) 3" Drive Weight Type of Rig Hand Au er
Elevation Top of Elevation 33.5 ounds
Location Drop 40"
Edilee Drive
0 rn C �•
0
� d � Z° ° ` o W
DESCRIPTION
0,
10
OV-
r`i!
W Q � m� 0Q .0a —Ed
c a o *U v°>> Logged By AJB °
o Sampled By
AJB
ARTIFICIAL FILL
I :,: ,• SM 0". Silty SAND: Yellow-brown,very moist loose to medium dense;
diameter;density judged to increase and brown clay to 1/2 inch in
J 2 , .
' 14/6" SM
@ 2': Sample is:Silty SAND:yellow-brown to brown,
loose to medium dense;fine to medium grained; ica present
'..� throughout;few clay clasts to 2 inches in diameter
3 �•''.•.
4
-1 V.
6,
� 6
e O I7
I 8
DEL
-----------------
MAR FORMgT10N
Clayey SANDSTONE.-Light
ained red staining green,moist,very dense;fine
9—� I Total Depth=8.5 Feet
I No round water encountered
Backfiilled on 1/27/05
10
SAMPLE TYPES:
I SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS:
RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE DS DIRECT SHEAR #.
BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
El EXPANSION INDEX
CR CORROSION
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INCUE
i
I
Date 1-27-05 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B_5
Project
i Drilling Co. Trauth Residence Sheet 1 of 2
Hole Diameter Project No.
" 3" Lan Weight Type of Rig 41498-
Elevation TOP of Elevation ounds 33.5 g —Hand Au er
ocation
_ Edilee Drive Drop 40"
a
°+� o .. o
>°°' m ao 3:O C4.. DESCRIPTION
dU_ dLL R� .� a oLL m U �.
W C7 Q E m� Ott o� UC0
v0 a o ZOO u°-i? Logged By AJB °
0 Sampled By c
_ I AJB
? AR7 TFICL4L FILL
SM R 0': Silty SAND:Yellow-bro
o' to coarse grained-clasts of a moist,loose to medium dense;fine
diameter;mica present throughouut density judged tlo increase with
1 depth inc
2 0 .f
3 '
I s
1216" 3': Sample is Silty SAND:Yellow-brown to brown,very moist,
SM loose to medium dense;i'me to medium
throughout;few clay clasts to 112 inch in diameter
� grained,mica present
j 4
@ 4': Seepage,moderate amount through a minimum of 5 feet
b'
6
7 °
8
b 8.5': C
9 ^` • '; LAY content increases through total depth
� I10
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS:
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE DS DIRECT SHEAR
B BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
r TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
LE I G H TO N AN p CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX
ASSOCIATES, INCUE
I i
4
Date 1-27-05 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5
�
Project Sheet 2
Drilling Co. Trauth Residence Of 2
.� Hole Diameter 3�.
Project No. 041498-
Elevation Top of Elevation Drive Weight Type of Rig _ Hand Auger
Location 33.5 ounds
Edilee Drive Drop 40"
= N O �+
O U �+ o
-�) �o 30 =w 3= '.Cq DESCRIPTION N
dLL LL L J " tZ off- d V U
-� LU U Q m mc, % g°o •o0) H
a o U 00) Logged By AJB °
1p Sampled By m
AJB
C organics apparent oI 1 to material,locally sandy;no roots or
CL a 10.5': Gray-brown sandy CLAY(CL)
12
� ! 13 ���-
1 13': Maximum de th of au er artificial fill throu h total de th
Total Depth=13 Feet
- see
14 ppage at 4 Feet
Backfilled on 1/27/05
15
I
i16
I
17 i
I
18
i
I
19 I
I
i
I
20
SAMPLE TYPES:
I SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE TYPE OF TESTS:
RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE DS DIRECT SHEAR
BULK SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
TUBE SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION AT EXPANSION LIMITS
CR CORROSION El EXPANSION INDEX
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,RV
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Sheet 1 of 1
Date 1-26-05 Project No. 041498-001
Project Trauth Residence Type of Rig Hand Auger
�
Drop 30"
Drilling Co. 33.5 pounds
3, Edilee Drive Drive Weight
Hole Diameter Location
Elevation Top of Elevation
DESCRIPTION
C ycy�
am'
l C v W Z rn o cr- �+� O
o ,.c U
ti ul Q
AJB CL
�, °' 'o Logged By
U- >> E m
w ly M a AJB
Sampled By
-� 0 ARTIFTCIALFILL
S SC @ 0': Clayey SAND:Brown,very moist,loose;fine to medium
grained,few rootlets
_ ——————————
-------
1 37/6" DEL MAR FORMATION
Clayyey SANDSTONE:Gray green moist very dense;fine
i _ aired some oxidization and red Stamm mica resent throu hout
Total Depth=1.5 Feet
No ground water encountered
Backfilled on 1/26/05
2
i
�I
3
4
°- 5
6
�j
7
i
8
9
� 10
TYPE OF TESTS:
SAMPLE TYPES: DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS MAXIMUM DENSITY
S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
SH SHELBY TUBE MD El EXPANSION INDEX
B BULK SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R•VALUE
T TUBE SAMPLE
LEI ON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1
j GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
sheet 1 of 1
Date 1-26-05 Project No. 041498-001
-] Project Trauth Residence
Type of Rig Hand Auger
Drilling Co. 33.5 pounds Drop 30"
Hole Diameter 3" Drive Weight
l Edilee Drive
Elevation Top of Elevation
Location
m
DESCRIPTION
y o 41
tU Z (no
r�-
—� w�, ❑
o
oy y n.o ❑C m � Q
� d g o 0=) Logged By
R a Q rn ❑ U U) Sampled By AJB ~
0 ARTIFICIAL FILL
SC a 0': Clayey SAND:Brown,wet,loose;fine to medium grained;few
rootlets
`-! — - ----------------
1 45/6" DEL MAR FORMATION
@ I'
v — : Clayey SANDSTONE:Green-gray,moist,very dense;some
_ oxidization,red and orange staining;mica present throughout
—
2 Total Depth=2 Feet
No ground water encountered
Backfilled on 1/26/05
� I
3
�I
_1
4
5
7J
G
I
� I
8
I
10 !'
TYPE OF TESTS:
SAMPLE TYPES: DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX
CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
T TUBE SAMPLE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3 sheet 1 of 1
Date 1-26-05 Project No. 041498-001
Project Trauth Residence
Type of Rig Hand Auger
Drilling Co. 33.5 ounds Drop 30"
3 Drive Weight
�.� Hole Diameter Edilee Drive
of Elevation Location
J Elevation Top un)
DESCRIPTION
l i a u'Z o �
o
=CD a a 7
' ° � CL
> . o ' Logged By fl
wLL cn a
N m
Sampled By AJB
i
0 ARTIFICIAL FILL
SM @ 0': Silty SAND with some clay:Yellow-brown,very moist,loose to
medium dense;fine to medium grained;oxidized blebs;green and
— brown minor clayey clasts;densin fudged to increase with depth
1
'a
a
i -
2 _
3
0
I a.' •-
4 Total Depth=4 Feet
No ground water encountered
Backfilled on 1/26/05
I
5
6 II
_!I
I i I
-_I
8
9
I
10-1 1
TYPE OF TESTS:
SAMPLE TYPES: DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE
CN
SH SHELBY TUBE MAXIMUM DENSITY El AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
EXPANSION INDEX
R RING SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION
B BULK SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
T TUBE SAMPLE
L EI NTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4'Sheet 1 of 1
Date 1-27-05 Project No. 041498-001
- � Project Trauth Residence
Type of Rig Hand Auger
Drilling Co. 33.5 pounds Drop 40"
Hole Diameter 3" Drive Weight
i Elevation Top of Elevation
Location Edilee Drive
N
DESCRIPTION
y Z NO (n �++' R� 4-
O++ ++ CC1 O d 30 dU Zr 6 O
1 Ry Cy ao a 011- 17 CL 41 Ufq m
> �' f°� E and > 20o 'off Logged By AJB T
1° a AJB ~
wLL oLL Q cn v �-- Sampled By
p ARTIFICIAL FILL
v: SM a 0': Silty SAND: Yellow-brown,very moist,loose to medium dense;
fine to coarse grained;clasts of gray and brown clay to 1/2 inch in
diameter;density judged to increase with depth
y-
2 14/6" SM 2': Sample is:Silt),SAND:Yellow-brown to brown,very moist,
1 % ' loose to medium dense;fine to medium grained;mica present
throughout: few clay clasts to 2 inches in diameter
.o
i
3
4
i e •
5
i
_.� 6
�j
I
7
•b I+
__ 8 ';•.. �' DEL1\IARFORIvfATION ------------
-' Cla),ev SANDSTONE:Light green,moist very dense;fine
J gained:red staining
Total Depth=8.5 Feet
No ground water encountered
9 Bacicfilled on 1/27/05
l
l 10
TYPE OF TESTS:
SAMPLE TYPES:
S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT El EXPANSION LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION ON INDEX
CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
T TUBE SAMPLE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5 Sheet 1 of 2
Date 1-27-05 Project No. 041498-
Project Trauth Residence
Type of Rig Hand Auger
Drilling Co. 33.5 pounds Drop 40"
j Hole Diameter 3" Drive Weight
Elevation Top of Elevation
' Location Edilee Drive
l N
y o DESCRIPTION
_I T U y Z wo V) ��+' �N 4-
�Q1 fl N �O NU Nd UV O
Ou- .+J E m`m 2 o o� Logged By AJB T
`° a AJ B
w Q N � U �-- Sampled By
i ARTIFICIAL FILL
0 SM @ 0': Silty SAND:Yellow-brown,moist,loose to medium dense;fine
to coarse grained;clasts of gray and brown clay to 1/2 inch in
_ diameter;mica present throughout;density judged to increase with
• •` dept
a .
1 • •e '
2
3 0 ' @ 3': Sample is Silty SAND:Yellow brown to brown,very moist,
12/6" SM loose to medium dense;fine to medium grained,mica present
throughout;few clay clasts to 1/2 inch in dianeter
41. . @ 4': Seepage,moderate amount through a minimum of 5 feet
i
c .
6
7 �_e •a
@ 8.5': CLAY content increases through total depth
9 0 .
10
TYPE OF TESTS:
SAMPLE TYPES:
M DIRECT SHEAR AT SIEVE ANALYSIS
S SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE D MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
R RING SAMPLE SH SHELBY TUBE M
CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX
B BULK SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R-VALUE
T TUBE SAMPLE
LEIGH ON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
i� GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5
Sheet 2 of 2
Date 1-27-05
Trauth Residence Project No. 041498-
Project Type of Rig Hand Auger
J Drilling Co. Drop 0"
Hole Diameter
3" Drive Weight 33 5 pounds _ p
Elevation Top of Elevation
Location Edilee Drive
�, o
w � �� DESCRIPTION in
0 Z 00 y tea:
�ao Q a d o o a tNCN U w O= d y U
Cu d ad � m� g .GO Logged By AJB to 2 0 0:3 a�
Sampled By AJB
I
10 @ 10': Dark brown color to material;locally sandy;no roots or
organics apparent
i
CL
@ 10.5': Gray-brown sandy CLAY(CL)
_i
12
a 13': Maximum depth of auger.artificial 611 through total de th
13
Total Depth=13 Feet
Seeppagge at 4 Feet
Backfilled on 1/27/05
14
I
i
15
—' 16
I
°-I 17
18
I
19
20
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS:
G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
S SPLIT SPOON
R RING SAMPLE G SHELBY TUBE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY AT ATTERBURG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV R•VALUE
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
041498-001
APPENDDC C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
J Swell/Collapse Potential: Swell/Collapse potential of soil for selected materials was evaluated.
Sample was placed in a consolidometer under a confining load. The sample was wetted and the
amount of swell/collapse was measured. The percent swelUcompression for the load cycle was
_j
recorded as the ratio of the amount of vertical change to the original 1-inch height.
Percent Swell (+)
Sample Location Sample Description or
Compression (-)
-- B-1 @ 1-1'/z' Green Gray Clayey SAND + 1.3 8 @ 1000 psf
B-5 @ 3-3'/z' Yellow-Brown Silty SAND + 0.20 @ 1000 psf
I
C-1
' .
}
- |
�
\
CALIFORNIA FAUL.lNIAP
- / 041490-001 Trautb/RoUinsooResidence
, 3OO
` \
- .
._ .
~ \
-/ 2OO
dab
- `
-
|
` 1OO
iSITE
_ .
- /
' .
- ! O
' |
-|
' -1OO
_.
|
-/ -2OO
_
) -3OU
-(
_)
4OO
-|
_|
'100 U 100 200 300 400 500 GOO
|
_.
�
_.
i
l
J
***********************
* E Q F A U L T
' * Version 3.00
* *
J DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
jl PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
1f
I JOB NUMBER: 041498-001
DATE: 03-28-2005
JOB NAME: 041498-001 Trauth/Rollinson Residence
CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis
a
I
i
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CGSFLTE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.0272
j SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2719
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
i
ATTENUATION RELATION: 23) Abrahamson & Silva (1995b/1997) Horiz. - Soil
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma) : M Number of Sigmas : 0.0
-� DISTANCE MEASURE: clodis
SCOND: 1
Basement Depth: 5.00 km -Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR:
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
�1
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CGSFLTE.DAT
.1
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km) : 0.0
i
i
1
.I
i
I
---------------
i
EQFAULT SUMMARY
---------------
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
-----------------------------
Page 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
(ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
1 APPROXIMATE -------------------------------
ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST. SITE
FAULT NAME I mi (km) (EARTHQUAKE( SITE ( INTENSITY
1 I MAG. (Mw) I ACCEL. g 1MOD.MERC.
ROSE CANYON 1 3 .1 ( 5.0) 1 7.2 1 0.440 1 X
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 12.7 ( 20.5) ( 7.1 I 0.187 1 VIII
CORONADO BANK 1 17.7 ( 28.5) 1 7.6 I 0.171 I VIII
- } ELSINORE (JULIAN) i 28 .3 ( 45.6) 1 7.1 I 0.098 1 VII
ELSINORE (TEMECULA) 1 28.5 ( 45.8) 1 6.8 1 0.086 1 VII
_ EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 41.4 ( 66.6) 1 6.5 I 0.053 1 VI
PALOS VERDES 42 .5 ( 68 .4) 1 7.3 1 0.077 VII
ELSINORE (GLEN IVY) 1 42.8 ( 68 .8) 1 6.8 1 0.060 1 VI
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS 1 44.5 ( 71.6) 1 6.6 1 0.065 1 VI
SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 51.1 ( 82 .2) 1 7.2 1 0.062 VI
ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN) 1 52 . 9 ( 85.1) 1 6.8 1 0.049 1 VI
" 1 SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 53.3 ( 85.8) 1 6.6 I 0.044 VI
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 53 .4 ( 85.9) 1 6.9 1 0.051 1 VI
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 55.1 ( 88 .6) 1 7.1 0.056 1 VI
! CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 57.4 ( 92 .3) 1 6.7 0.054 1 VI
WHITTIER 60. 9 ( 98 .0) 1 6.8 1 0.043 VI
- � SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 63 .6 ( 102 .3) 1 6.6 1 0.037 1 V
1
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 68 .4 ( 110.1) 1 6.7 0.036 V
PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST 1 71.1 ( 114 .5) 1 7.1 1 0.055 VI
SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino M-11 72.3 ( 116.4) 1 7.5 I 0.055 1 VI
SAN ANDREAS - Whole M-la 1 72.3 ( 116 .4) 1 8.0 0.073 1 VII
SAN ANDREAS - SE-Coach. M-1b-2 72 .3 ( 116.4) 1 7.7 1 0.062 VI
SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-2b 1 72 .3 ( 116.4) 1 7.7 1 0.062 VI
SAN ANDREAS - Coachella M-1c-5 1 77.4 ( 124.5) 1 7.2 1 0.044 1 VI
SAN JOSE 1 77. 7 ( 125.1) 1 6.4 0. 034 1 V
PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 77 . 9 ( 125 .3) 1 7.2 1 0.043 VI
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 1 78 .2 ( 125 .9) 1 6.6 1 0.030 V
- CUCAMONGA 1 79. 7 ( 128.2) 1 6.9 0.045 1 VI
SIERRA MADRE 1 80.4 ( 129.4) 1 7.2 1 0.053 I VI
BURNT MTN. 1 80. 8 ( 130.1) 6.5 1 0.027 V
i ELMORE RANCH 1 82 .1 ( 132 .2) 1 6.6 0.029 V
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) ( 83.1 ( 133 .7) 1 6.6 0.028 1 V
LAGUNA SALADA 83.2 ( 133 .9) 1 7.0 1 0.036 1 V
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 83 .3 ( 134.1) 1 7.2 1 0.051 1 VI
EUREKA PEAK 1 84.0 ( 135.2) 1 6.4 0.025 V
CLEGHORN 86 .2 ( 138 .7) 1 6.5 0. 026 I V
UPPER ELYSIAN PARK BLIND THRUST 1 86 .5 ( 139.2) 1 6.4 0.030 1 V
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 1 87.1 ( 140.1) 1 6.7 0.036 1 V
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture M-2a 1 88.2 ( 141.9) 1 7"8 1 0.056 1 VI
SAN ANDREAS - Cho-Moj M-1b-1 1 88 .2 ( 141. 9) 1 7.8 0.056 1 VI
a
i
-----------------------------
i DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
-----------------------------
Page 2
JESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
APPROXIMATE -------------------------------
ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST. SITE
FAULT NAME I mi (km) IEARTHQUAKEI SITE JINTENSITY
1 MAG. (Mw) I ACCEL. g JMOD.MERC.
SAN ANDREAS - Mojave M-lc-3 1 88.2 ( 141.9) 1 7.4 1 0.044 1 VI
RAYMOND 1 88.8 ( 142.9) 1 6.5 1 0.031 1 V
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 89.9 ( 144.6) 1 6.5 0.031 i V
VERDUGO 1 91.8 ( 147.7) ) 6.9 I 0.039 1 V
- � LANDERS 1 92.3 ( 148.6) 1 7.3 1 0.040 1 V
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 93.3 ( 150.2) 1 6.4 1 0.022 I IV
-- � HOLLYWOOD J 93 .6 ( 150.7) 1 6.4 0.028 I V
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT I 95. 7 ( 154.0) 1 7.3 I 0.038 1 V
SANTA MONICA 1 97.6 ( 157.0) 1 6.6 1 0. 030 V
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 98.8 ( 159.0) 1 7.5 1 0.042 1 VI
IMPERIAL 1 99.0 ( 159.4) 1 7. 0 1 0.031 J V
-END OF SEARCH- 51 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 3.1 MILES (5.0 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4403 g
I
i
i
I
i
I
E Q F A U L T
* *
* Version 3 .00
***********************
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
�J PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
�j JOB NUMBER: 041498-001
DATE: 03-28-2005
JOB NAME: 041498-001 Trauth/Rollinson Residence
_j
CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis
_i
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CGSFLTE.DAT
I
SITE COORDINATES :
SITE LATITUDE: 33 .0272
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2719
SEARCH RADIUS : 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 23) Abrahamson & Silva (1995b/1997) Horiz. - Soil
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma) : S Number of Sigmas: 1.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: clodis
�I SCOND: 1
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR:
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
�j
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CGSFLTE.DAT
I
�I MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km) : 0. 0
t
l
---------------
EQFAULT SUMMARY
j ---------------
a -----------------------------
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
-----------------------------
Page 1
1 (ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
APPROXIMATE 1 -------------------------------
ABBREVIATED 1 DISTANCE i MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST. SITE
FAULT NAME I mi (km) JEARTHQUAKEJ SITE JINTENSITY
J J MAG. (Mw) I ACCEL. g MOD.MERC.
ROSE CANYON 1 3 .1 ( 5.0) 1 7.2 I 0.677 1 XI
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 12.7 ( 20.5) 1 7.1 1 0.287 I IX
CORONADO BANK 1 17.7 ( 28.5) 1 7.6 1 0.264 1 IX
ELSINORE (JULIAN) 1 28.3 ( 45.6) 1 7.1 0.151 1 VIII
_ ! ELSINORE (TEMECULA) 1 28 .5 ( 45.8) 1 6.8 1 0.136 1 VIII
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 41.4 ( 66.6) 1 6.5 1 0.087 1 VII
PALOS VERDES 1 42.5 ( 68.4) 1 7.3 1 0.118 1 VII
ELSINORE (GLEN IVY) 1 42 .8 ( 68.8) 1 6.8 1 0.094 1 VII
SAN JOAQUIN HILLS 1 44.5 ( 71.6) 1 6.6 1 0.106 1 VII
SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 51.1 ( 82.2) 1 7.2 0.096 1 VII
ELSINORE (COYOTE MOUNTAIN) I 52. 9 ( 85.1) 1 6.8 J 0. 078 1 VII
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 53 .3 ( 85.8) 1 6.6 1 0.071 1 VI
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 53.4 ( 85.9) 1 6.9 1 0.080 1 VII
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 55.1 ( 88.6) 1 7.1 I 0.085 1 VII
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 57.4 ( 92.3) 1 6 . 7 1 0.087 1 VII
WHITTIER 1 60.9 ( 98.0) 1 6. 8 1 0.068 VI
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO I 63 .6 ( 102.3) 1 6.6 1 0.060 1 VI
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 68 .4 ( 110.1) 1 6. 7 1 0.058 1 VI
PUENTE HILLS BLIND THRUST 1 71.1 ( 114.5) 1 7.1 1 0. 085 1 VII
SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino M-11 72 .3 ( 116.4) 1 7.5 1 0.084 1 VII
SAN ANDREAS - Whole M-la 1 72.3 ( 116.4) 1 8 .0 1 0.112 1 VII
-I SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-lb-2 1 72 .3 ( 116.4) 1 7. 7 1 0.095 1 VII
SAN ANDREAS - SB-Coach. M-2b 1 72.3 ( 116.4) 1 7 .7 1 0.095 1 VII
�j SAN ANDREAS - Coachella M-1c-5 1 77.4 ( 124.5) 1 7.2 1 0. 067 1 VI
SAN JOSE 1 77. 7 ( 125.1) 1 6.4 1 0.056 1 VI
PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 77.9 ( 125.3) 1 7.2 0.067 1 VI
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 1 78 .2 ( 125.9) 1 6 .6 1 0.049 1 VI
CUCAMONGA 1 79. 7 ( 128.2) 1 6 .9 1 0.069 1 VI
SIERRA MADRE 1 80.4 ( 129.4) 1 7 .2 1 0.081 1 VII
BURNT MTN. 80. 8 ( 130.1) 1 6.5 0.045 VI
ELMORE RANCH 1 82 .1 ( 132.2) 1 6.6 0.046 VI
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 1 83 .1 ( 133.7) 1 6 .6 1 0.046 1 VI
LAGUNA SALADA 1 83 .2 ( 133.9) 1 7 .0 0.056 1 VI
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 1 83 .3 ( 134.1) 1 7.2 1 0.079 1 VII
EUREKA PEAK 1 84 . 0 ( 135.2) 1 6 .4 1 0.041 1 V
CLEGHORN 1 86 .2 ( 138.7) 1 6.5 1 0.042 1 VI
UPPER ELYSIAN PARK BLIND THRUST 1 86. 5 ( 139.2) 1 6.4 1 0.051 1 VI
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 1 87. 1 ( 140.1) 1 6 .7 1 0. 058 1 VI
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture M-2a 1 88 .2 ( 141.9) 1 7.8 1 0.086 1 VII
SAN ANDREAS - Cho-Moj M-lb-1 1 88 .2 ( 141.9) 1 7. 8 0. 086 I VII
-----------------------------
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
-----------------------------
_.l
l Page 2
-------------------------------------------
1 (ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
".J I APPROXIMATE J -
ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK JEST. SITE
FAULT NAME 1 mi (km) EARTHQUAKE) SITE JINTENSITY
J MAG. (Mw) J ACCEL. g JMOD.MERC.
SAN ANDREAS - Mojave M-lc-3 1 88.2 ( 141. 9) 1 7.4 1 0.067 J VI
RAYMOND 1 88 .8 ( 142.9) 1 6.5 J 0.052 J VI
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 89.9( 144.6) 1 6.5 J 0.051 1 VI
'I VERDUGO 1 91.8 ( 147.7) 1 6.9 1 0.061 1 VI
LANDERS 1 92.3 ( 148.6) 1 7.3 1 0.061 1 VI
—j BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 93.3 ( 150.2) 1 6.4 1 0.037 J V
HOLLYWOOD J 93.6 ( 150.7) 1 6.4 1 0.047 J VI
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 95.7 ( 154.0) 1 7.3 1 0.059 J VI
SANTA MONICA J 97.6 ( 157.0) 1 6.6 1 0.049 J VI
_ LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSJ 98.8 ( 159.0) 1 7.5 0.065 J VI
IMPERIAL 1 99.0 ( 159.4) 1 7. 0 0.047 VI
-END OF SEARCH- 51 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
THE ROSE CANYON
FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 3.1 MILES (5.0 km) AWAY.
—, LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.6769 g
I�
O
_ I
z � O
V I
LO
O
�, LJ
_, Way o
m m
CA
15
LO
U
O O
N
N
O 00 00 00 O
O O
W O 00 (C) Ict N
(sa�C) poiaad uanja�j
i
Leighton and Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 1 of 6
1
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC.
�I
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
�J 1.0 General
i
1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and
_i earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical
report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the
geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the
—! earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result
in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
I
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work,the owner shall
employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The
Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical
report(s)and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings,conclusions,
and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
�i
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work
—! plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor(Contractor)and schedule sufficient personnel
to perform the appropriate level of observation,mapping,and compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe,
map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design
assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the
interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical ConSU Itant shall inform
i the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed
conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be
_ geotechnically observed,mapped,elevations recorded,and/or tested include natural ground
after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial
— removal"areas,all key bottoms,and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
—1 The Geotechnical Consultantshall observe the moisture-conditioningand processing of the
subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the
attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to
the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
3030.1094
Leighton and Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 2 of 6
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified,
experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of
ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill.
-- The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these
Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a
work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of
work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to
commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical
Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in
advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware
of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and
j agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved
geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical
_ Consultant,unsatisfactory conditions,such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition,
inadequate compaction,insufficient buttress key size,adverse weather,etc.,are resulting in
_ a quality of work less than required in these specifications,the Geotechnical Consultant
shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until
the conditions are rectified.
_i
1 2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious
material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to
_ the owner,governing agencies,and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on
specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than I percent of organic
-- materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter.
Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the
affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper
evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California,most refined petroleum products(gasoline,
diesel fuel, motor oil, grease,coolant,etc.)have chemical constituents that are considered
- to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids
onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor,punishable by fines and/or imprisonment,
and shall not be allowed.
3030.1094
Leighton and Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 3 of 6
2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the
Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing
_) ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section.
Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or
clods and the working surface is reasonably unifonn, flat, and free of uneven features that
would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the
J approved geotechnical report(s)and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,
organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to
—� competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
- 2.4 Benchinu: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal
to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details
for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and
_ at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as
rj otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping
flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade
for the fill.
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and
processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations
recorded,and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable
to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical
Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for
determining elevations of processed areas,keys,and benches.
_I
I
3.0 Fill Material
_I
3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high
—I expansion potential,or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical
Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock,or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location,
materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical
Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not
occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified
fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within
2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.
3030.1094
Leighton and Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
_ ) Page 4 of 6
3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading,proposed import material shall
-- � meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the
Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours(2 working days) before importing begins so that
its suitabilitycan be deterninedand appropriate tests performed.
i
4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The
Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading
procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly
and mixed thoroughlyto attain relative uniformityof material and moisture throughout.
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered,dried back, blended,and/or mixed,
as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum.
Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in
j accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method
D1557-91).
4.3 Compaction of Fill.- After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly
spread,it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently
i
achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above,
compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing
satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of
_ I grading,relative compaction of the fill,out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of
maximum density per ASTM Test Method D 1557-91.
I
4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill
soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests
shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction
test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be
selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to
inadequate compaction(such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
3030.1094
Leighton and Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 5 of 6
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in
vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition,as a
l guideline,at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope
- face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill
construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical
Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these
minimum standards are not met.
ji 4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate
elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate
_ with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the
Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a
minimum,two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than
5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.
— 5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the
grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional
subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions
encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for
line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the
i Contractor for these surveys.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans
are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be detennined by the Geotechnical
Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut
_ slopes are to be graded,the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated,and accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the
slope,unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
3030.1094
Leighton and Associates,Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORKAND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 6 of 6
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench
excavations.
--- ' 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material
- shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to I
foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and
densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the
1 conduit to the surface.
i 7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least
' one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
I
7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the
Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative
compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
J
1
i
3030.1094
rf FILL SLOPE
PROJECTED PLANE -- ___-_ ==
'
FINISH GRADE
OVERSIZE WINDROW
* OVERSIZE ROCK IS LARGER THAN
8 INCHES IN LARGEST DIMENSION.
* EXCAVATE A TRENCH IN THE COMPACTED
FILL DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY ALL THE GRANULAR MATERIAL TO BE DETAIL
ROCK. DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY
* BACKFILL WITH GRANULAR SOIL JETTED FLOODING OR JETTIN&
OR FLOODED IN PLACE TO FILL ALL THE
* DO NOT BURY ROCK WITHIN 10 FEET OF
FINISH GRADE.
L * WINDROW OF BURIED ROCK SHALL BE
L I PARALLEL TO THE FINISHED SLOPE.
GRANULAR MATERIAL
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
OVERSIZE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
ROCK DISPOSAL STANDARD DETAILS B
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
____ _
i
_---EXISTING
\ GROUND SURFACE
- -
---- ____ _ ________ __=�_0MPACTED FILL:----___-__-__=-_-__-___
=--_-_-=-__---_- -- '--__-=_ _-_-
--- -�_________________________
i
15' MIN.
OUTLET PIPES __-_ -
4" 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE,
I 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, __________� BACK CUT
30' MAX O.C. VERTICALLY ___ ______ 1: 1 OR FLATTER
1
__ __ ___ BENCH
SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH
DETAIL
--------
. I
SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION
- BASED ON ASTM D1557
RETAINING WALL = _-- _