Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2004-9021 G
i i i v i " ar 1. i it i ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S . VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS , CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO . : 9021 PARCEL NO. 254-614-0700 PLAN NO. : JOB SITE ADDRESS : 1450 PASEO DE LAS FLORES CASE NO . : 04030 / C APPLICANT NAME MEYER (DAVID) MAILING ADDRESS : 1450 PASEO DE LAS FLORES PHONE NO. : 760-944-8 CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP : 92024- CONTRACTOR : SAN DIEGO GRADING PHONE NO. : 760-746-0 LICENSE NO. : 763651 LICENSE TYPE: B/C ENGINEER : AQUATERRA ENGINEERING PHONE NO. : 760-439-2 PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 8/20/04 PERMIT EXP . DATE: 8/20/05 PERMIT ISSUED BY : INSPECTOR: E VA S ------------------------- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ------------------------- 1 . PERMIT FEE . 00 2 . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT : 00 3 . INSPECTION FEE 3 , 550 . 35 4 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT: . 00 5 . PLAN CHECK FEE . 00 6 . SECURITY DEPOSIT 71 ,007 . 00 7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE 1 , 993 . 74 8 . TRAFFIC FEE .00 ------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ---------------------------- PERMIT TO PERFORM ON-SITE GRADING PER APPROVED GRADING PLAN 9021-G. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL PER APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL ?LAN AND W .A.T . C .H. STANDARDS . WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY REQUIRES TYPE A LICENSE CONTRACTOR AND LIABILITY INSURANCE . LETTER DATED JULY 28 , 2004 APPLIES. ---- INSPECTION ----------------- DATE -------- INSPECTOR' S SIGNATURE INITIAL INSPECTION _ B 2Y d 1-k, dam...' COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED o _ ENGINEER CERT . RECEIVED _� 7 kp ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND ST LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. iIGNATURE DATE SIGNED PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1 OWNER 2 . AGENT 3 . OTHER THE ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT Recording Requested By: ) WAS RECORDED ON AUG 12,2004 DOCUMENT NUMBER 2004-0766683• City Engineer ) GREGORY J.SMITH COUNTY RECORDER SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE When Recorded Mail to: ) TIME 1226 PM City Clerk ) City of Encinitas ) 505 South Vulcan Avenue ) Encinitas, CA 92024 ) SID PRIVATE STORM WATER TREATMENT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Assessor's Parcel No. 254-614-07 ProjectNo.: 04-030 CDP W.O.No.: 9021-G THIS AGREEMENT for the periodic maintenance and repair of that certain private storm water treatment facilities, the legal description and/or plat of which is set forth in Exhibit"B" attached hereto and made a part hereof, is entered into by Lizbeth A. Ecke and David C. Meyer, Co-Trustees of the Lizbeth A. Ecke and David C. Meyer Community Property Trust datetd Januart 12, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "Developer")for the benefit of future owners who will use the private storm water treatment facilities (hereinafter referred to as " owners"), which shall include the Developer to the extent the Developer retains any ownership interest in any land covered by this agreement. WHEREAS, this Agreement is required as a condition of approval by the City of Encinitas of Grading Permit 9021-G; and WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of certain real property described in Exhibit"A" that will use and enjoy the benefit of said storm water treatment facilities(s) (Said real property is hereinafter referred to as the "property"); and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Developer that said private storm water treatment system be maintained in a safe and usable condition by the owners; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Developer to establish a method for the periodic maintenance and repair of said private storm water treatment facilities and for the apportionment of the expense of such maintenance and repair among existing and future owners; and WHEREAS, there exists a benefit to the public the private storm water facilities be adequately maintained on a regular and periodic basis; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Developer that this Agreement constitute a covenant running with the land, binding upon each successive owner of all or any portion of the property. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The property is benefited by this Agreement, and present and successive owners of all or any portion of the property are expressly bound hereby for the benefit of the land. 2. A i y, The cost and expense of maintaining the private storm water treatment facilities shall be paid by thdif,ewner of the heirs, assigns and successors in interest of each such owner. 3. In the event any of the herein described parcels of land are subdivided further, the owners, heirs, assigns and successors in interest of each such newly created parcel shall be liable under J r" this Agreement for their then pro rata share of expenses and such pro rata shares of expenses shall be computed to reflect such newly created parcels. 4. The repairs and maintenance to be performed under this Agreement shall be limited to the following: reasonable and improvements and maintenance work to adequately maintain said private storm water treatment facilities to permit access to said facilities. Repairs and maintenance under this Agreement shall include, but are not limited to, repairing access roadbeds, repairing and maintaining drainage structures, removing debris, if any, and other work reasonably necessary and proper to repair and preserve the private storm water treatment facilities for their intended purposes. 5. If there is a covenant, agreement, or other obligation imposed as a condition of the development, the obligation to repair and maintain the private storm water treatment facilities as herein set forth shall commence when improvements have been completed and approved by the City. 6. Any extraordinary repair required to correct damage to said storm water treatment facilities that results from action taken or contracted for by the owners or their successors in interest shall be paid for by the party taking action or party contracting for work which caused the necessity for the extraordinary repair. The repair shall be such as to restore the storm water treatment facilities to the condition existing prior to said damage. 7. Any liability of the owners for personal injury to an agent hereunder, or to any worker employed to make repairs or provide maintenance under this Agreement, or to third persons, as well as any liability of the owners for damage to the property of agent, or any such worker, or of any third persons, as a result of or arising out of repairs and maintenance under this Agreement, shall be borne, by the owners as they bear the costs and expenses of such repairs and maintenance. Owners shall be responsible for and maintain their own insurance, if any. By this Agreement, the Developer does not intend to provide for the sharing of liability with respect to personal injury or property damage other than that attributable to the repairs and maintenance undertaken under this Agreement. g. Owners shall jointly and severally defend and indemnify and hold harmless City, City's engineer and its consultants and each of its officials, directors, officers, agents and employees from and against all liability, claims, damages, losses, expenses, personal injury and other costs, including costs of defense and attorney's fees, to the agent hereunder or to any owner, any contractor, any subcontractor, any user of the storm water treatment facilities, or to any other third persons arising out of or in any way related to the use of, repair or maintenance of, or the failure to repair or maintain the private storm water treatment facilities. Nothing in the Agreement, the specifications or other contract documents or City's approval of the plans and specifications or inspection of the work is intended to include a review, inspection acknowledgement of a responsibility for any such matter, and City, City's engineer and its consultants, and each of its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents, shall have no responsibility or liability therefore. 11. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land and shall be deemed to be for the benefit of the land of the owners and each and every person who shall at anytime own all or any portion of the property re�erred to herein. 12. It is understood and agreed that the covenants herein contained shall be binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assignees of each of the owners. 13. It is the purpose of the signatories hereto that this instrument be recorded to the end and intent that I eHobligation hereby created shall be and constitute a covenant running with the land and any subsequeYit'Purchaser of all or any portion thereof, by acceptance of delivery of a deed and/or conveyance regardless of form, shall be deemed to have consented to and become bound by these presents, including without limitation, the right of any person entitled to enforce the terms of this Agreement to institute legal action as provided in Paragraph 8 hereof, such remedy to be cumulative and in addition to other remedies provided in this Agreement and to all other remedies at law or in equity. 14. The terms of this Agreement may be amended in writing upon majority approval of the owners and consent of the City. 15. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby. 16. If the Property constitutes a "Common Interest Development" as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(c) which will include membership in or ownership of an "Association" as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(a), anything in this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, the following provisions shall apply at and during such time as (i) the Property is encumbered by a "Declaration" (as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(h), and (ii) the Common Area of the property (including the private storm water treatment facilities) is managed and controlled by an Association: (a) The Association, through its Board of Directors, shall repair and maintain the private storm water treatment facilities and shall be deemed the "agent" as referred to in Paragraph 7 above. The Association, which shall not be replaced except by amendment to the Declaration, shall receive no compensation for performing such duties. The costs of such maintenance and repair shall be assessed against each owner and his subdivision interest in the Property pursuant to the Declaration. The assessments shall be deposited in the Association's corporate account. (b) The provisions in the Declaration which provide for assessment liens in favor of the Association and enforcement thereof shall supersede Paragraph 8 of the Agreement in its entirety. No individual owners shall have the right to alter, maintain or repair any of the Common Area (as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351(b) in the Property except as may be allowed by the Declaration. (c) This Agreement shall not be interpreted in any manner, which reduces or limits the Association's rights and duties pursuant to its Bylaws and Declaration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement This `J �/� day of �«EGc,si 2004. Developer: Lr-zbeth A. Ecke David C. Meyer Signature of.pj=VELOPER must be notarized. Attach the appropriate acknowledgement. EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description of Property APN 254-614-07 and 254-614-07 1450 Paseo De Las Flores Lot 51 of City of Encinitas Tract No. 94-066 Units 4,5 and 6, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 13356, filed in the Office of the County Courder of San Diego County, September 4, 1996. .q TR A T NTTFACILITYER APNt 254-614-07 Q O� Q PRI qES oo WWAA C 7REATMENTTFACILITYER� 0 BL YD A gES SITE a o v S ROES m Xu z � N N\TA S �~ OLD ENCINITAS SANTA FE DRIVE LOT 51, MAP NO. 13356 APN, 254-614-03 ' ' VICINITY MAP NO SCALE 1 SCALES 1'=200' DRAWN BY- GARY LIPSKA PROJECT SHT, NAME SHT, DATES 7-19-05 MEYER RESIDENCE EXHIBIT "B" 1 LOT 51, MAP NO. 13356 PRIVATE STORM WATER DWG. NO., 1450 PASEO DE LAS FLORES TREATMENT FACILITIES APPROVED BYi OLIVENHAIN 2 LEUC DIA RD. BL D p AE S COUPTTrcY PABRK CH W 9th z tiN VIEW R D D SITE Q 2� r O � � m SEASIDE TY �c^ z °NPARK o AR '-ui MTN VSTA LP Ln R 0 x o Q NEW STATE BEGACH N�Tgs ' ENCINITAS - BLVD OLD ENCINITAS SANTA FE DRIVE SEA CUTS COUNTY PARK VICINITY MAP NO SCALE lq r. DRAWN BY: LIPSKA PROJECT SHT. NAME SHT, NO DATE: 7-19-04 MEYER RESIDENCE VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT 1 DWG. NO.+ LOT 51, MAP NO. 13356 of 1450 PASEO DE LAS FLORES APPROVED BY: ���p4..re...•q S^:IiRJ� '� •'�Il •:NIR a.•r•+�e�t�1!i a • l� / I CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT '1 State of California `�• ss. County of (L]�L11E'_ !� it On J% qa CiO � r- � _before me,_ ��� f�ro%,i-) � Da e Name and Title of Officer(e.g.,"Jane Doe,N Pu ic') t� personally appeared _��-��\�_�_�_,__N�C' �d CBrvCA -►2-�'th �C • k-C�� '>,� Na meO of Signers) _ personally known to me CI proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence �r MONICI'R'1R01NNI11 to be the perso rQ whose nameo were Commission#r 1425111 9 subscribed to the within instrument and Notary Public •Califomip e San Diego County acknowledged to me that.baA& /they executed I` My Comm.Expires Jul 16,2007? the same in hisith f/their authorized capacity es , and that by #iisfhea/their ' signaturon the instrument the persors , or the entity upon behalf of which the persoro acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. S i Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law,it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent S1 fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. S' Description of Attached Document r'. Title or Type of Document: Document Date: --- Nu r of Pages: R. Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: ' Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: [1 Individual Top of thumb here r• � Corporate Officer—Title(s): Partner—`:7 Limited i 1 Ge ral _l Attorney-in-Fact Trustee Guardian or C servator E-1 rthei: - Isi Sig s Representing: _ 1; ©1999 National Notary Association•9350 De Solo Ave..PO.Box 2402•Chatsworth.CA 91313-2402•www.nationalnolary.org Prod.No.5907 Reorder:Calf Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827 FLocation:ect Name: !` Project No.: Da Report No. Author: Day: M T W: T F S S tFifid ient/Contractor: 'I Supt/Foremant Weather: S upervisor: Geologist: Soil Engineer.; ' Observation/Testing of: z Tech Equipment Working: Hours . i Today's Yardage: Yardage to Date: Summary of Operations: r . / 'a^.. ✓� f.. b/ • iL � J"�( 1 �, -.� Lz t,if_-/ �� yam; J• 9 i i rJ I FEEEE f i l + C Page_of Received-by: D aily Field Report e ' L�L� g i hlr Print ht or,, r . 3910 0902 Fi e: Project No.: Date: Report No. Author: Day: 4lient/Contrac tor: M T W T F $ $ Supt/Forerpan: Weather: Field Supervisor: s Geologist: Soil Engineer: Observation/Testing of: Tech Equipment Working: ( P Hours -- Today's Yardage: Yardage to Date: Summary of Operations: Page_of 40 Receivedby;_ j" Daily Field Repo -- a Print 3910 0902 Project Name: Act Project No.: Date: Report No. Location: - Author: Day: ,,,Llient/Contractor: M T W T F S S x ` Supt/Foreman: Weather: Field Supervisor: R Geologist: Soil Engineer: Observation/Testing of: Tech Equipment Working: Hours Today's Yardage: Yardage to Date: Summary of Operations: Y � Page_of 40 Received-by: Daily Field Report Print 3910 0902 Project Name: Project No.: Date: - z Report No. Location: Author: i Day: � lient/Contractor: ''j' M T !�!� T F S S Supt/Foren)an: Weather: Field Supervisor: r c x_. . Geologist: JYardage er: Observation/Testing of:Equipment Working: hage: ate: Summary of Operations: e _ x f d-! Page— of WReceived by Daily Field Report Print _ 3910 0902 Project Name: Project No.: Date: ec Report No. Location:L L ti Author: Day: M T W T 'F 'S S ,Bent/Contractor: Supt/Foreman: Weather: F ie l d Sup e vis o r : Geologist: Soil E ngineer: Observation/Testing of: A Tech Equipment Working: Hours Today's Yardage: Yardage to Date: Summary of Operations: !T. Page of Re ce ived by: Daily Field Report Print 39100902 Project Name: Project No.: Date: Report No. t r Location: Author: Day: M T W T F S S .Gt l le nt/Contractor: Supt/Foreman. Weather: Field Supervisor: EntkrGeologist: Soil Engineer: Tech Hours Today's Yardage: Yardage to Date: 4 Page_of 0 Received.by: 7Dailyield Report Print 3910 0902 `~^ ffDATE I PR DJECT 10. LOC FIELD REPORT 'ROATION CONTRACTOR OWNER TO ::JTEMP. PRES �T AT SITE' SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: SIGNATURE GEOPACMCA GEOTECEM CAL CONSULTANTS FAX: (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST., SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 _ ^/ ___ DATE PROJECT NO. PROJECT FIELD REPORT LOCATION CONTRACTOR OWNER WEATHER TTEMP,PRESENT AT SITE -------- SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: A TE Ic ,.j ---------- -Icz REG�A1.IG1VS: M SIGNATURE GEOPACIFICA -------M� GEOTECBMCACCONSULTANTS TEL: (760) 721-5488 ,,`OPIES TO: FAX: (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST, SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 tr DATE PROJECT NO. . PRO JECT FIELD E P RT �o CATION �.. CONTRACTOR OWNER WEATHER TEMP. TO PRESENT AT SITE a ' SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: r' 1 1 J � -r- i i REGF311hAE� S; - f GEOPACMCA SIGNATURE GEOTECBMCAL CONSULTAN'T'S TEL: (760) 721-5488 )OPIES TO; FAX: (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST., SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 DATE PROJECT NO, it , FPROJECT Lo TIO FIELD REPORT LOCATION CONTRACTOR OWNER T W�EATHER TEMMP.p. TO PRESENT AT SITE Ilr SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: r. A4 -4 SIGNATURE GEOPACIFICA GEOTECBMCAL CONSULTANTS PIES TO: TEL: (760) 721-5488 FAX: (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST, SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 Project Name: Project No.: Date: ReporkNc Location: Author: Day: M T W T F S S Client/Contractor: Supt/Foreman: Weather: Field Supervisor: Geologist: Soil Engineer: Observation/Testing of: Tech Equipment Working: Hours Today's Yardage: Yardage to Date: Summary of Operations: F c Page_of AMT Received Icy Daily Field Report Print Leighton and Associates, Inc. A L"GHTON GROUP COMP-, 3910 0902 Project Name: i PI roject No.: Date: Report No. Location: Author: Day: _�Iient/Contractor: Supt/Forerr)an: Weather: Field Supervisor: I' Geologist: _Soil Engineer: Observation/Testing of: Tech Equipment Working: , Hours Today's Yardage: Yardage to Date: Summary of Operations: -... 4 y 1� t r r t Page of Recd ve"y: — Dail y Field Report Print 3910 0902 Project Name: Project No.: Date: e Report No. Location: Author: Day: M T W T F S S Client/Contractor: Supt/Foreman: Weather: Field Supervisor: Geologist: Soil Engineer: Observation/Testing of: Tech Equipment Working: Hours Today's Yardage: Yardage to Date: Summary of Operations: Page_of � Received Leighton and Associates, Inc. Daily Field Report Pnht A ECIGNTON GROUP COMsANV 3910 0902 i Project Name: Project No.: '... Dots: �No. R Location: Author: Day: SSHAf M T W T F S S Client/Contractor: Supt/Foreman: Weather. Field Supervisor: Geologist: Soil Engineer: Observation/Testing of: Tech Equipment Working: Hours Today's Yardage: Yardage to Date: Summary of Operations: k le s 5 Fa, S s Page_of � Rec e ,� _..y Daily Field Report Print Leighton and Associates, Inc. A I EIGHTON GROUP C6MpAr y 3910 0902 Project Name: Project No.: Date: Report No. 9 � Location: Author: Day: ClienUContractor: Supt/Foreman: Weather: f Field Supervisor: Geologist: Soil Engineer: Observation/Testing of: Tech Equipment Working: Hours Today's Yardage: Yardage to Date: Summary of Operations: al 7 - - i Page_of Received O)r' i ��`" - � ` `• Leighton and Associates, Inc. Daily Field Report Print A LEIGHT'ON GROUP COMPAkY 3910 0902 Project Name: Project No.: Date: Report No. Location: �'�.... Author: Day: <; MST W T F S S Client/Contractor: Supt/Foreman: Weather: Field Supervisor: Geologist: Soil Engineer: Observation/Testing of: g' Tech Equipment Working: Hours Today's Yardage: Yardage to Date: Summary of Operations: FEE EEE tL i u Page_of � Received by: i Daily Field Report Print �t r ? Leighton and Associates, Inc. A";G"UN GROUP COMPANY - ... 3910 0902 Project Name: Project No: Location: Author: Page Of FIELD MEMORANDUM LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Ipm White-File Copy Yellow-Client Copy Pink-Client/Agency Copy Gold-Field Copy _ DATE PROJECT NO. FIELD REPORT O CATON CONTRACTOR OWNER WEATHER TEMP. TOti/.r,: PRESENT AT SITE F. . SUMMARY OF INSPECTION: J / f ' . Al! l / - x,. RECOMMENDATIONS: i GEOPACMCA SIGNATURE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTAN'T'S TEL: (760) 721-5488 _, ,OPIES TO: FAX (760) 721-5539 3060 INDUSTRY ST„ SUITE 105 OCEANSIDE, CA 92054 HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR David Meyer 1450 Paseo de Las Flores Encinitas, Ca 92024 PROJECT Lot 51 , Map No. 13356 Plan Set XXXX-G Case No. 04-030 PREPARED BY: Aquaterra Engineering Inc. 1843 Campesino Place Oceanside, CA 92054 tele: 760-439-2802 fax: 760-439-2866 May 3, 2003 Pre ed der the su ervision of: Gary L' ska, R 23080 ate r Exp. 12/31/05 l Ai i Project Description The 16.2 acre project site is currently occupied by a single family home. The major portion of site is used for agricultural purposes. Bordering the site on the east, north and single family residences on large lots, on the south side is a residential development with 10,000 s.f. lots. The existing terrain predominately slopes in the westerly direction, with a portion of the building pad sloping easterly. The proposed work includes the removal of the existing residential structure and driveway pavement and construction of a new home at the same location. The site preparation will disturb approximately 1.4 acres. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to identify the proposed drainage patterns after the site as been developed and establish the calculated volumes of storm water discharge in the three drainage basins which are impacted by the development work. The attached report has studied the three drainage basins described as follows. Basin A drains easterly and covers the structure, rear yard Basin B drains westerly and covers the structure, front yard, driving surfaces Basin C drains westerly and covers the driveway pavement The storm flows in Basins A and B are directed to dispersion trenches to provide treatment control for the drainage from the proposed impervious surfaces within the development area. The dispersion trenches are detailed on the project plans and will act as infiltration trenches under low flow. During major storm events the trenches will spread the storm water for sheet flow discharge. The required capacity of the trenches has been calculated in the following sections of this report using the Volume Based Design Criteria. Basin C area is the entrance driveway pavement. The pavement is designed to have a 2% cross slope. The pavement drainage shall flow southerly into a 16' wide strip of cobble stone and follow the pattern of the existing terrain into a cultivated area. The minimum travel distance through the field is 480'. The cultivated field will provide the required cleansing of the storm water before leaving the site and entering the public drainage system. Conclusion The storm flows from the site shall be adequately treated to remove pollutants and debris with the treatment control features and devises described. Hydrology & Hydraulics Report City of Encinitas This Hydraulics and Hydrology Report was prepared using the following Manuals: Hydrology Manual, County of San Diego Drainage of Highway Pavements, U.S. Dept. of Transportation The Rational Method was used to determine the 100 yr. storm Q values. The Rational Method uses the following formula to establish 100 year flow: Q = CIA where, Q = the peak runoff in cubic feet per second C = Runoff coefficient representing the ratio of runoff to rainfall I = time average intensity in inches per hour A = Area of the subbasin in acres HYDROLOGY REPORT Aquaterra Engineering Inc. PROJECT l !•7 G DATE: 0/0 2L _ I I a 4 1 - - - �r-- Aquaterra Engineering Inc. PROJECT DATE: � f , -�-- - f I I T-- _ f H EG?Cl,grio�v 9L F�cf 7c ` J SDDD Tc = Tine a/ coi�cenfiar`ion ' 4D0 D L Lenylh cf K�afr�shed H Diflere�ce /n e%va fion a/ong ` ePipcclive s/ooe 1117 See /PgoendiX X-B) T 3000 L i iY1i/es Feel .yours M//7u/es i 2000 4 240 'fY� /D BDO 2 /20 " 600 4 70 90 a SD \ 40 fi \ } \ 30 /DD / SDDD 3000 � /6 /2 ,j /BDD NOTE /6DD /D 5 9 r fIFOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS 20 (� ADD TEN MINUTES TO II — /DOD 7 COMPUTED TIME OF CON- CENTRATION_ I —8,90 6 600 S /0 500 3' 400 R 300 f` 5 200 H L T SAN DIEGO COUNTY NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINATION DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc) FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS 0 04-C N O L O • +s LF. C N L 4,0 td -0 b U r L 7 p N O N U c �. O C-- Cl r C C a) 4- O a)to r- to o p a C U Q r U - CL d d -1-11 O U t E 4-3 (1) 4-2 Cl r r 1 D v w c s '` '✓' o o a) O C a 4--3 N N-r C -r t0 C C .r S~ CL 0 0 M-- m Z•Q •r0 L C r0 •O O rC L [ll O 4-11 O Z Q.+•► +-1 i-► 11 to C s T7 O 1~ L L CJ O O S. C is U C O. •L` j) r C1 CV "' \ tC u CL CL rJ N O U 5- U U Z .0 Q) (1 O G-4-1 Cu Cl L 4-J -0 p Q C3. � 4-) L LO Z Z i.a N Cr C 11 �- - 3 n -' a LD o O Z 4-3 4 S C r CU F► Il O tO t6 CD- .IC Z ..0 U r C ca 'O a T7 N E +� CJ r U C N L1 �— C 1 r- d N l0 N t0 N r O Q 4.3 O 1< CO Z Cu tC7 C71 N CV N ..0 -#-s U N O O C N '.� rt3 CJ s to 0 4.3 N 1') CL 11 � II +� 1- L tO �L C O r4- 5.-r0 LL � 10-C 0 U r LA-CV Cam: - .4-3 4-3 O rr-- N r- d 'n fl I-►aj to Z Ch U F 1r 1 '� N �) r� d' 6-Hour Precipitation (inches) ILO Ln LO N I- �. t. _-__ _f_ — LC Cd N H a to .rj I. -- - - I „ Cd P, +i w n n If EEE -_ - O 1-_ - - �— --�-- — N A I �-- I I T . cam, � Al Lj �• �•. ri'!.,, .,^` N` -� /4\ � `�•���` 1 �, �r cm Vf ftr u cm _ � u o J W O e o W E � + J z ` < z H — 0 V > wZ #.-, < _ �f zti.. � a co H ° � _ _ a c tA- CL Co w U — F- CC vi o O a O cn = < z O W J M• U O I— W � Q z � r+ N J V ni I ti ...� J ��^HMO. �r�t ' •' _ //� •' '' � r+ CD -> Cr stsms R� ,1 ���M/ �=� J ` i ins M ��,.,i,�" awes ;� � � -:1 , � � ,y �`• \_J��_ � �� �Z � `\`� ' �. • . ! �U Mro � �..w � �•'1, M/� l a j " c, N co tr3 pper�! t= � cz C? W W ~ 0W F: � s _ 7- u,� M N W G < woo c°z ►~-� I J3 O a O D LLJ N O __ ..._ _�_ - - a / F a OD ZLLJ IL H DO O N C> o t a' < V M M LL Z ~ j C6 U k OLIO W < 0 < O / kce- C vi ou ` CL. Q tOiaaU- o ° I z � WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS A qua terra Engineering Inc. PROJECT DATE: 15 h 1 �/� `„""�'- , - i - - - , - I I 1 , VI C --i-- - -- - - �i r , !t - I . I I - Aquatarra Engineering inc. F OJECT c GATE: rl - - -- i-- I a-- -- - , -i--i-- - --- _ o ----- - -- -- - - &10 r1 I I - LA -- - - I , -- ----- -- -I_ _ - f_F - �Iji fttl 4+4 Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY July 6,2006 To: Mr. David C. Meyer Project No. 040972-002 1450 Paseo De Las Flores Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Private Driveway Completion, Meyer Residence, 1450 Paseo De Las Flores, Encinitas, California Reference: Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2004, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, 1450 Paseo De Las Flores,Encinitas,California As requested, Leighton and Associates, Inc. has performed field observation and compaction testing during rough and fine grading for the proposed Meyer residence, the private driveway, and other associated improvements. As of this date grading of the building pad and driveway has been completed. The house is under construction, and the private driveway to the house area from the street has been paved. Some additional paving adjacent to the house and garage is still required. The purpose of this letter is to document the completion of the private driveway. At the completion of all construction, a final as-graded report for the entire project will be issued. During grading of the house pad, field density testing was performed by the nuclear method (ASTM D2922 and D3017). Our field observations and test results indicate relative compaction of at least 95 percent was attained for the compacted fill soils in the building areas. Fill soils outside the building area envelopes were compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density. During construction of the driveway, which does not contain any buried utilities, the soils exposed at subgrade consisted of dense, slightly to moderately well cemented terrace deposits. These soils were visually evaluated, probed, and then proof rolled with a loaded water truck to verify that they were firm and unyielding. Because of their dense nature, it was determined that scarification and recompaction was not necessary for this private driveway. Localized low areas were filled with Class 2 aggregate base and also proof rolled prior to placement of asphalt. Based on the testing performed and observations made, it is our professional opinion that the site and the private driveway have been prepared per the recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical investigation (Leighton, 2004) and are suitable to receive the proposed improvement. Density test summaries and locations will be included in our upcoming report of rough and fine grading. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact this office. We appreciate this to be of service. Respectfully submitted, OQROF E$ L �, PM D. 9� a 6 C N06 134O LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA � \ O�� � � ENts1Wa� � IVIA-d e� c� Ex No 4 2 z �' s� OEOL0�313I z OF CA William D. Olson RC �� E 45283 Jjq C�V�L \P ichael Stewart, CEG 1349 Senior Project Engineer �OF CAL1f��� Vice President/Principal Geologist Distribution: (2) Addressee 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 8205■San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030■Fax 858.292.0771 ■www.leightongeo.com Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY July 6, 2006 To: Mr.David C. Meyer Project No. 040972-002 1450 Paseo De Las Flores Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Private Driveway Completion, Meyer Residence, 1450 Paseo De Las Flores, Encinitas, California Reference: Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2004, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, 1450 Paseo De Las Flores,Encinitas,California As requested, Leighton and Associates, Inc. has performed field observation and compaction testing during rough and fine grading for the proposed Meyer residence, the private driveway, and other associated improvements. As of this date grading of the building pad and driveway has been completed. The house is under construction, and the private driveway to the house area from the street has been paved. Some additional paving adjacent to the house and garage is still required. The purpose of this letter is to document the completion of the private driveway.At the completion of all construction, a final as-graded report for the entire project will be issued. During grading of the house pad, field density testing was performed by the nuclear method (ASTM D2922 and D3017). Our field observations and test results indicate relative compaction of at least 95 percent was attained for the compacted fill soils in the building areas. Fill soils outside the building area envelopes were compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density. During construction of the driveway, which does not contain any buried utilities, the soils exposed at subgrade consisted of dense, slightly to moderately well cemented terrace deposits. These soils were visually evaluated, probed, and then proof rolled with a loaded water truck to verify that they were firm and unyielding. Because of their dense nature, it was determined that scarification and recompaction was not necessary for this private driveway. Localized low areas were filled with Class 2 aggregate base and also proof rolled prior to placement of asphalt. Based on the testing performed and observations made, it is our professional opinion that the site and the private driveway have been prepared per the recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical investigation (Leighton, 2004) and are suitable to receive the osed prop and fine grading. improvement. Density test summaries and locations will be included in our upcoming report of rough If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact this office. We appreciate this to be of service. S GFO Respectfully submitted, OQRO F E SS Ok�t, 'R'8rt,��0� . 0 9� No.1340 N LEIGHT'ON AND ASSOCIA F 4' CERU ED -i -4 /t�l� Z ENGINEERING • /1/ 4J.Q y Fk NO. 2 z • - 6 � z `t+J' �t3�.aL d -fin' rFOF CA1.�FC� William D. Olson, RICE E 45283 sj, C * ichael Stewart 1349 Senior Project Engineer �Q' �OF CALIF� Vice President/Principal Geologist Distribution: (2) Addressee 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205■San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030■Fax 858.292.0771 ■www.leightongeo.com Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY October 7,2004 Project No. 040972-002 To: Mr.David C.Meyer 1450 Paseo De Las Flores Encinitas,California 92024 Subject: Completion of Meyer Single Family Residence, 1450 Paseo De Las Flores, Encinitas, California Reference: Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2004, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, 1450 Paseo De Las Flores,Encinitas,California As requested, Leighton and Associates, Inc, has performed field observation and compaction testing during rough and fine grading operations at the proposed Meyer single family residence. As of this date grading of the building pad is complete. Field testing was performed by the nuclear method (ASTRZ D2922 and D3017). Our field observations and test results indicate relative compaction of at least 95 percent was attained for the compacted fill soils in the building areas. Fill soils outside the building area envelopes were compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density.Based on the testing performed and observations made, it is our opinion that the site has been prepared per the recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical investigation (Leighton, 2004) and is suitable to receive the proposed improvement.Density test summaries and locations will be included in our upcoming report of rough and fine grading. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to he of cPTV�P. Respectfully submitted, �GR'D �'FO LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES.I ' R. �F ESSf p� v NO.1349 P� D V, . 21 CERTIRED . U F ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST Jq— No 492,)'3 William D.Olson, RCE�� `x°�--9-��� •�'� Senior Project Engineer l4 ' Michael Stewart, CEG 1349 Vice President/Principal Geologist Distribution: (2) Addressee "°-'.. (2) Covenant Construction,Attn: M". Ross Hays 3934 Murphy Canyon Road,Suite 8205 r San Diego,CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030.Fax 858,292.0771:www.laightongeo.com Oct 08 04 06: 15a Rquaterra Engr, 760-439-2866 p. l ffl-gah' Am' w terra Engineering Inc, Civil Engineering • Land Planning October 7, 2004 1843 Campesino Place City of Encinitas Oceanside, CA 92054 Engineering Services Permits Tel,760.439,2802 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 Fax.760.439.2866 Re. Engineer's Pad Certification for Grading Permit Number 9021-G Pursuant to Section 23.24.310 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification for the subject lot. As the Engineer of Record for the subject project, I hereby state all rough grading for the building unit has been completed in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards. VII. The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the approved grading plan: Pad Elevation per Plan Pad Elevation per Field Measurement Building Pad 400.35 400.35 VIX. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. X. The construction of earthen berms and positive building pad drainage swales have been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. J/ FFSSJJov CO.z�c• �Ph`i LlP�n��'��n ary Lips RCE 2308 Expires 12/31/05 ha 230841 � sf CNiL ��' q OF CALIFo - - PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 1450 PASEO de las FLORES, -- ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 Prepared For: _ Mr. David Meyer 1450 Paseo de las Flores Encinitas, California Project No. 040972-002 February 20, 2004 (Revised February 24, 2004) — Leighton and Associates, A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY Apt Leighton and Associates, Inc. A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY February 24,2004 Project No. 040972-002 To: Mr. David C. Meyer 1450 Paseo de las Flores Encinitas, California 92024 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single Family Residence, 1450 Paseo de las Flores, Encinitas, California In accordance with your request and authorization, we have conducted a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed single family residence located at 1450 Paseo de las Flores in Encinitas, California. Based on the results of our geotechnical study, it is our professional opinion that the site is suitable to receive the proposed improvements provided the recommendations of this report are adhered to. The accompanying report presents a summary of the existing conditions of the site, the results of our field investigation and laboratory testing, and provides geotechnical conclusions and recommendations relative to the proposed site development. If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND XTES, INC. Sean Colorado, RCE 54033 Michael R. Stewart, CEG 1349 Associate Engineer Vice President/Principal Geologist Distribution: (6) Addressee 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205■San Diego, CA 92123-4425 858.292.8030■Fax 858.292.0771 .www.leightongeo.com 040972-002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SCOPE OF WORK ...................................... K SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED •• ".........""""""".."'" ' " ' DEVELOPMENT """ ...............1 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................1 ..... ............................ .. 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION.AND LABORATORY.TESTING 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 3.1 SITE GEOLOGY .................................................................5 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE AND """""""""" _. MASS MOVEMENT ""'••••••••••••••5 3.3 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER "".......""""""""""............••••• ............................................................... 4.0 FAULTING AND ".. 5 _ SEISMICITY 4.1 FAULTING .........................................................................................6 ............................................... 4.2 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ...............................................................6 4.2.1 Shallow Ground Ru ..........................................................................................6 4.2.2 Liquefaction ....................................................8 4.2.3 Earthquake-Inndu u. '.. ...Se...tt.....lement.................................................................................8 ced.. 4.2.4 Tsunamis and Seiches ..........................................................................8 -- .........................................8 4.3 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ON-SITE SOILS 4.3.1 Expansion Potential """" ••..............$ 4.3.2 Soil Corrosivity, ............................................................................................9 5.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................9 ................................................ 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 EARTHWORK ................................................................................................ 12 .............................................. 6.1.1 Clearing ........................................................... 12 6.1.2 Removal and Recompaction of Surficial Soils 6.1.3 Excavations and Oversize Material """"'"""""""""""•"..................•.•.•••• 12 6.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction '""""""..................•••• .-' paction ................. 13 6.1.5 Transition Lots ...................................................... ............................................ . 6.2 FOUNDATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 6.2.1 Conventional) R ................................................. Conventionally-Reinforced Foundations •••••••••••••......... 14 6.2.2 Moisture Conditioning of Foundation Subgrade Soils ............ 14 6.2.3 Foundation Setback from Slopes """"' •••••••••.... 15 ........................................................................ 16 6.2.4 Preliminary Floor Slab Design,,,,,,,,•• 6.2.5 Settlement ••••......................... 16 ................................................................................................... 17 -'- Leighton 040972-002 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 6.3 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES 6.4 SUBDRAINAGE ............................................................ 17 7.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................... 18 �-�- ............................................................................................................ 19 Tables Table 1 - Seismic Parameters For Active Faults (Blake, 2000) - Page 7 Table 2 - Minimum Foundation and Slab Design Recommendations - Page 15 Table 3 - Minimum Foundation Setback from Slope Faces - Page 16 Table 4 - Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) - Page 17 Figures Figure 1 - Site Location Map - Page 2 Figure 2 - Site Map - Rear of Text Appendices _ Appendix A - References Appendix B - Laboratory Testing Procedures and Results Appendix C - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications -"- Leighton 040972-002 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope of Work This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Proposed single family residence located at 1450 Paseo de las Flores in Encinitas. (Figure 1). The purpose of our investigation was to identify and evaluate significant existing geotechnical conditions present at the site and to provide preliminary conclusions and geotechnical recommendations relative to the proposed residence. Our sco of services included: scope Review of available pertinent, maps. A list of cited references its provided in Appendix A of this report. literature and • Field reconnaissance of the existing onsite geotechnical conditions. ' Subsurface evaluation consisting f the the site. g logging, and sampling of existing trenches at ' Laboratory testing of a representative soil samples obtained from the site. Results of our test is presented in Appendix B. ' Compilation and analysis of the geotechnical data obtained from the field investigation and laboratory testing. ' Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations with respect to the proposed design, site grading, and general construction considerations. 1.2 Site Descrintion and Proposed Development The site located within the Encinitas Ranch consists of a roughly 10 acre parcel in Encinitas, California (Figure 1). Proposed site development will include the demolition of the existing single family home and reconstruction of a new home at the same location (see Site Map, Figure No. 2). Topographically, the home site is located roughly near the ridgeline, with a relatively gentle slope to the west that is used for agricultural purposes and to the east a steeper natural slope down into a large open space area. The proposed home site is located away from the top of any steep slopes. The existing residence was previously served by an onsite septic system, however a new sewer line connection has recently been installed (Leighton 2003). Leighton % BARCELONA z COtRAD LAUREN �I0 NORTH OT a n LEUCA I '� A B� �D PROJECT SITE Z l F DR LAS d ��DRA LN P� W J SSIFI C PAS�� PL un v� m z � W CTjq v JtiP `P c t rn 9 ',t TM C _< rn GARDEN HILLS A w LA ENiRADA i� c Al d a FN �" HASDR TA RO v 6f CASCCOIA LA 5 A EN W 5 rn ` rk V E R 8Fy Z U �S m GRAN. PAS�CO V��� �3 Z FOR T AVENIDA r ym Y E FOXGLOVE t s RD ST Z .f 9 & H NG A y 99 BUSH ST m Qi p p > VIA 0 OUAIL v� w 1P e_ .a OR N NAYS z ? '� BUFF !ss Z Z X e � y N BASE MAP: 2003 Digital Edition Thomas Guide, San Diego County NOT TO SCALE Proposed SITE Project No. Single-Family Residence 1450 Paseo de Las Flores LOCATION 040972-002 Encinitas, California Date MAP February 2004 Figure No. 1 040972-002 1.3 Proposed Development Although final building plans are not currently available we understand that except for an existing "bomb shelter/cellar" the existing residence will be demolished and a new home constructed at the site. The proposed home will be two stories in height constructed with slab on grade and wood frame and stucco construction. The existing cellar, which we understand is constructed with 18-inch thick concrete walls, is to be incorporated into the new structure as a wine cellar. Only minor grading is anticipated, and will consist of building pad preparation and the slight (roughly 1 to 2 feet) raising of site grades. Currently it appears as though the current residence sits in a very slight topographic depression. There have been previously some minor seepage/drainage related issues and the raising of site grades is intended to mitigate this condition. Site grading plans are not yet available. -3 - Leighton 040972-002 2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our subsurface evaluation consisted of the logging, and sampling of a series of hand dug trenches that exist in a grid pattern below portions of the existing residence. It is our understanding that .— these trenches were hand dug in the 1950's to mitigate a water problem. It appears that minor seepage now accumulates in these roughly five foot deep trenches and is allowed to evaporate or seep into the underlying soils. The excavations did allow us to observe and evaluate the physical characteristics and engineering properties of the onsite soils pertinent to the proposed development. Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples to evaluate the expansion potential. A discussion of the laboratory test performed and a summary of the test results is presented in Appendix B. -4 - Leighton 040972-002 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 3.1 Site_ G_y The project is situated in the coastal section of the California Peninsular Range, a geomorphic province with a long and active geologic history. This region is more specifically known as the San Diego Embayment, an area that has undergone several episodes of marine inundation and regression during the last 54 million years. This has left a thick sequence of marine and non-marine sediments overlying the Southern California batholith. Recent topographic uplifts have lead to the erosion of these creating the canyon and ridgelines seen today. Based on our site visit and review of pertinent geologic and geotechnical literature (Appendix A), the entire site is underlain by dense to very dense Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits. This unit generally consists of orange brown to red brown, damp, medium dense to dense, silty to slightly clayey, fine to medium sand. This material was observed to be moderately-well indurated and has a very low to low expansion potential. Localized minor amounts of undocumented fills and topsoil may also locally exist 3.2 Geologic Structure and Mass Movement Based on our experience on projects in the area, bedding on the site is generally massive with no well defined structure. Regional dips in the area are generally flat lying to slightly dipping to the west. No evidence of any ancient landslides of mass movement was observed in the area proposed for the residence. 3.3 Surface and Ground Water As previously noted the site has a history of minor drainage related problems typically following a major storm. However, no indication of seepage was noted during our site visits. The moisture problems appear to all be related to poor surface drainage. - 5 - Leighton 040972-002 4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 4.1 Fainting Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and state 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) but that has not been proven to be active or inactive. This definition is used in delineating Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 and as most recently revised in 1997. The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development does not occur across the traces of active faults. Based on our review of the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones, the site is not located within any Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone as created by the Alquist- Priolo Act(Hart, 1997). San Diego, like the rest of Southern California, is seismically active as a result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional fault zones such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore Faults Zones, as well as along less active faults such as the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Our review of geologic literature pertaining to the site and general vicinity indicates that there are no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (Jennings, 1994). Evidence for faulting was not encountered during our field investigation. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 3.6 miles west of the site. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. 4.2 Seismic Considerations The site can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of Southern California. Table 1 indicates 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 for the site is included in Table 1 are the distances to the causative faults, earthquake magnitudes, and postulated ground accelerations as generated by the deterministic fault modeling software EQFAULT (Blake, 2000). Fault model revisions have been incorporated based on revision by the California Geological Survey (CGS, 2003) -6 - Leighton 040972-002 -- Table 1 Seismic Parameters for Active Faults (Blake, 2000 and CGS, 2003) Maxi Distance mum Magnitude Earthquake Fault from Fault to Moment Peak Ground One Standard Site (Miles) Magnitude Acceleration Deviation of PGA (Mw) (g) (g) ` Rose Canyon 3.6 7.2 0.43 0.23 Newport- Inglewood 8'9 7.1 0.24 0.13 As indicated in Table 1, the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is the `active' fault considered having the most significant effect at the site from a design standpoint. An earthquake of moment magnitude 7.2 on the fault could produce an estimated peak horizontal ground acceleration 0.43g at the site. The ground acceleration was modeled using the mean confidence interval of the attenuation relationship by Abrahamson & Silva (1995b/1997) for a soil site. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered a Type B Seismic source according to Table 16-U of the 2001 California Building Code (CBSC, 2001). The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the California Building Code (CBC) or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. The seismic parameters for the site per 2001 CBC are as follows: Soil Profile Type (Table 16-J)= So Seismic Zone (Figure 16-2) = 4 Seismic Source Type (Table 16-U) = B Na= 1.0 (Table 16-5) N,= 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. _ - 7 - Leighton 040972-002 4.2.1 Shallow Ground Ground rupture because of active faulting is not likely to occur on site due to the 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 L[qqgfqgUO 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. Liquefaction is typified by a total loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to flow as a liquid. This effect may be manifested by excessive settlements and sand boils at the ground surface. Due to the relatively dense nature of the underlying formational soils (i.e., clayey and silty sands), and the absence of groundwater,it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at the site due to the design earthquake is low. 4.2.3 Earthquake-Induced Settlement Granular soils tend to densify when subjected to shear strains induced by ground shaking during earthquakes. However, due to the low susceptibility of the site to liquefaction, the potential for earthquake-induced settlements is considered to be low during strong ground shaking. Earthquake-induced settlements tend to be most damaging when differential settlements result. Because of the very gently sloping nature of the site and the very minor fill depths that are anticipated, earthquake-induced total and differential settlements are expected to be negligible at the site. 4.2.4 Tsunamis and Seiches Based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water, and the elevation of the site with respect to sea level, the possibility of seiches and/or tsunamis is considered to be very low. 4.3 En ineerinn Characteristics of the On-s to Soil the �+���. JVIIJ Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation of the site, laboratory testing of representative on-site soils, and our professional experience on nearby sites with similar soils, the engineering characteristics of the on-site soils are discussed below. -8 - Leighton 040972-002 4.3.1 Expansion Potential The onsite soils have a low expansion potential (per CBC criteria). However, the actual expansion potential of finish grade soils should be verified upon completion of the grading. 4.3.2 Soil Corrosivitv Based upon the 2001 CBC, Table 19-A-4, and laboratory testing, these soils have a negligible soluble sulfate exposure. - 9 - Leighton 040972-002 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site, it is our professional opinion that construction of the proposed single family residence is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications and utilized during the grading and construction phases of site development. The following is a summary of the significant geotechnical factors that we expect may affect development of the site. Based on our subsurface exploration and review of pertinent geotechnical reports, the site is underlain by Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits which is overlain by thin veneer of topsoil/undocumented fill soils. Undocumented fill soils should be completely removed and recompacted during site grading and construction. Proposed site grading is anticipated to raise site grades one to two feet. ' The trenches which exist below the existing structure will require mitigation during demolition and grading g site ' Ground water was not encountered during our investigation however, poor drainage conditions have historically been present at the site. Laboratory testing of representative samples of the onsite soils indicates that the on-site soils possess a low expansion potential per CBC criteria. • It is anticipated that the near surface materials may be excavated with conventional heavy-duty construction equipment. Site grading may result in a localized differential fill thickness due to the backfilling of the existing trenches and may require overexcavation to minimize potential differential settlements. Also a potential for minor differential settlement may exist where the existing cellar is located because the cellar is founded on formational material and the remainder of the residence will be founded on fill soils. The existing on-site soils appear to be suitable material for use as fill provided they are fre organic material and debris. e of Active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The main seismic hazard affect the site is from ground shaking from one of the active regional faults. - 10 - Leighton 040972-002 • Due to the relatively dense characteristics of the onsite formation materials and the lack of a ground water table, the potential for liquefaction is considered low. ' Onsite septic systems exist at the site although they may not be present in the building area. If encountered additional recommendations may be required. y - 11 - Leighton 040972-002 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Fart_ - We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, demolition, excavation, and fill placement operations. We recommend that earthwork on the site be performed in accordance with the City of Encinitas requirements, the following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix C. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those presented in Appendix C. 6.1.1 Clearing Prior to grading, all areas to receive structural fill, engineered structures or hardscape improvements should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, including any existing foundations, debris, loose soils as described in the following section, and stripped of vegetation. Removed vegetation and debris should be properly disposed off site. Additional recommendations may be required if onsite septic systems are encountered. All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near-optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D 1557. 6.1.2 Removal and Site Preparation As discussed above, portions of the site are underlain by existing trenches and additional fill soils are proposed across the site. Prior to placement of the proposed fill soils all existing foundations, loose and potentially compressible soils that may locally exist should be removed and recompacted. These soils should be removed down to competent material determined by the geotechnical consultant, moisture- conditioned, and recompacted to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557)prior to placing fill. The existing trenches beneath the structure should also be cleaned of any loose soil or debris and be backfilled with compacted fill soils, or the area of the trenches completely overexcavated to the depth of the trenches and the area replaced with compacted fill soils. - 12 - Leighton 040972-002 6.1.3 Excavations and Oversize Material Excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. All excavations should be made in accordance with the current OSHA requirements. We do not anticipate that oversize material (i.e. rock fragments greater than 8 inches in maximum dimension) may be generated during excavation of the surficial and alluvial soils. Oversize material if encountered should be removed from the site. 6.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction The onsite existing soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension. All fill soils should be brought to near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM Test Method D1557. The onsite soils may require moisture conditioning prior to use as compacted fill. Fills placed on slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) should be keyed and benched into competent formational soils as indicated in the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading presented in Appendix C. If import soils are proposed for use they should be tested in advance and should have a very low expansion potential (EI less than 20). a Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with the local grading ordinances, sound construction practice, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading presented in Appendix C. 6.1.5 Differential Fill Thickness Site grading of the site will result in a differential fill thickness across the site due to the backfilling of the existing trenches. In order to reduce the potential for differential settlement, we recommend that the entire building pad be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet below finish grade and replaced with properly compacted fill of very low to low expansion potential. In addition, because of the potential for differential settlement adjacent to the existing cellar, we have recommended that all fill soils be compacted to 95% relative compaction to minimize the potential for differential settlement. -` - 13 - Leighton 040972-002 6.2 Foundation Design Considerations We understand the proposed residential structures will be one- to two-story, wood-frame construction utilizing a conventional slab-on-grade foundation system. Foundations and slabs should be designed by a structural engineer in accordance with appropriate building codes, structural considerations, and the following minimum recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils in the upper 5 feet of finish grade will have a very low to low expansion potential (an expansion index less than 50 per UBC 18-I-B). 6.2.1 Conventionally-Reinforced Foundations The proposed foundations and slabs of the single-family residential structures should be designed in accordance with appropriate building codes, structural considerations and the minimum recommendations contained on Table 2. - 14 - Leighton 040972-002 w Table 2 Minimum Foundation and Slab Desi2 Recommendations C.B.C.Expansion Index 0-50,Very Low to Low Expansion 1-Story and 2-Story Footings All footings 18"deep.Reinforcement for continuous footings:two No.5 (Continuous)(See Note I) bars top and bottom. Isolated Spread Footings All footings 18"deep.Reinforcement per structural engineer.Any exterior pad footings should be connected by tie beams in two directions. Minimum Footing Width Continuous: 12"for 1-story Continuous: 15"for 2-story _r. Isolated spread(column)footings:24" Garage Door Grade Beam A grade beam 12"wide x 18"deep (See Note 2) should be provided across the garage entrance. Living Area Floor Slabs Minimum 5"thick slab.No.3 bars g 18"or No.4 rebars g 24"on (See Notes 3,4 and 6) center each way at mid-height.2"clean sand over 10 mil moisture barrier over 2"clean sand. Garage Floor Slabs Minimum 4"thick concrete slab on 2"clean sand over 10 mil moisture (See Notes 4,5 and 6) barrier over 2"clean sand.No.3 bars g 18"or No.4 rebars g24"on center each way at mid-height. Slab should be quarter-sawn. Presoaking of Living Area and Garage Normal slab subgrade wetting to a depth of 6 inches. Slabs Allowable Bearing Capacity 2,000 pounds per square foot (one-third increase for short term loading) Notes: (1) Depth of interior or exterior footing to be measured from lowest adjacent ground surface excluding slabs and slab underlay mount. (2) The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as that of the adjoining footings. (3) Living area slabs should be tied to the footings as directed by the structural engineer. (4) 10-mil Visqueen sheeting is acceptable. Equivalents are acceptable. All laps and penetrations should be _ sealed. (5) Garage slabs should be isolated from stem wall footings with a minimum 3/8"felt expansion joint. (6) Sand base should have a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater(e.g.washed concrete sand). 6.2.2 Moisture Conditionin of Foundation Sub grade Soils The slab subgrade soils underlying the foundations should be normally wetted to a minimum depth of 6 inches prior to the placement of the moisture barrier and slab concrete. The subgrade soil moisture content should be checked by a representative of Leighton and Associates prior to slab construction. Additional waterproofing or - 15 - Leighton 040972-002 moisture vapor proofing as needed for serviceability of the building finished should be specified by the architect. 6.2.3 Foundation Setback from Slo es As previously noted, no grading plans are yet available, and no major slopes are anticipated. If slopes are proposed, we recommend a minimum horizontal setback -- distance from the face of slopes for all structural foundations, footings, and other settlement-sensitive structures as indicated on Table 3. This distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face and is based on the slope height and type of soil. However, the foundation setback distance may be revised by the geotechnical consultant on a case-by-case basis if the geotechnical conditions are different than anticipated. Table 3 Minimum Foundation Setback from Slope Faces Slope Height Minimum Recommended Foundation Setback 7 feet Ett��:: n 5 feet 10 feet Please note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement andlor differential settlement. Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade beam foundation system to support the improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback as described above. 6.2.4 Preliminary Floor Slab Design The slab-on-grade should be at least 5 inches thick and be reinforced with No. 3 rebars 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 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 - 16 - Leighton 040972-002 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 considerations. If heavy vehicle or equipment loading is proposed for the slabs, greater thickness and increased reinforcing may be required as determined by the structural engineer. -- 6.2.5 Settlement The recommended allowable-bearing capacity is based on a maximum total and differential settlements estimated at less than 1/2 of an inch, and 1/4 of an inch in 20 feet, respectively. Since settlements are a function of footing size and contact bearing pressures, some differential settlement can be expected between adjacent columns or walls where a large differential loading condition exists. However for most cases, differential settlements between adjacent footings are considered unlikely to exceed 1/4 of an inch. 6.3 Lateral Earth Pressures If retaining walls are proposed, we recommend for design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values for level or sloping backfill are recommended for walls backfilled with on-site soils or approved granular material of very low to low expansion potential. Table 4 Static Equivalent Fluid Weight(pcf) Conditions Level 2:1 Slope Active 35 55 At-Rest 55 65 Passive 350 150 (Maximum of 3 ksf) (sloping down) Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls up to 10 feet in height should be designed for an active equivalent pressure value provided above. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (nonyielding) such as basement walls, the at-rest pressures should be used. If conditions other than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual case basis by the geotechnical engineer. A surcharge load for a restrained or unrestrained wall resulting from automobile traffic may be assumed to be equivalent to a uniform pressure of 75 psf which is in addition to the equivalent fluid pressure given above. For other uniform surcharge loads, - 17 - Leighton 040972-002 a uniform pressure equal to 0.35q should be applied to the wall (where q is the surcharge pressure in psf). The wall pressures assume walls are backfilled with free draining - materials and water is not allowed to accommodate behind walls. A typical drainage design is presented in Appendix C. Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 95 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 10 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. The geotechnical consultant should approve any backfill materials that will be utilized prior to the backfill placement operations. It is the contractors responsibility to provide representative samples of the selected backfill material. 6.4 Subdue Because of the past history of water accumulation we recommend that a subdrain be installed in one of the trenches below the existing structure prior to backfilling. This drain should consist of a four inch diameter perforated pipe (Schedule 40) surrounded by _- 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of clean gravel wrapped in filter cloth (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). The drain should be outletted to a collective drainage system or into the adjacent open space. The final design of this drain should be based on plan reviews and observations during grading. - - 18 - Leighton 040972-002 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 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 and Associates has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. -- - 19 - Leighton CD O 10 N CL x i. �e 1�. 02 C: :.�y ..t -- �.! -_, -� r. - -.r.r .r' f O ♦+ V � � to LL Q OL 70 uj LLI w. ZU�� c a -. _ rt 2 W is o LU t _ .;�.,. W W E rr ru 0 v m Z W m _ i O ci o m _._ a` cnwo0 • - - IL co - �� �QU)O a LL W Q _ t r 0 _ F. r > —r a� -o - O Ca cu -t° ��� - - .. i w 040972-002 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Blake, 2000, EQFAULT, Version 3.0. California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2001, California Building Code, Volume I - Administrative, Fire- and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provisions, Volume II - Structural Engineering Design Provisions, and Volume III - Material, Testing and Installation Provision, ICBO. California Geologic Survey (CGS), 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, dated June 2003. CDMG, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open-File Report, 96-08. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997, Uniform Building Code, Volume I - Administrative, Fire- and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provisions, Volume - Structural Engineering Design Provisions, and Volume III II - Material, Testing and Installation Provision, ICBO. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas; California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map 6, Scale 1:750,000. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2003, Geotechnical Compaction Testing Report, Private Sewer Lateral 1450 Paseo De Las Flores, Encinitas, California, Project No. 040972-001, dated August 29, 2003. 1996, Geotechnical Investigation, Paul Ecke Ranch, Encinitas, California, Project No. 960179-001, dated August 1, 1996. Lindvall, S.C., and Rockwell, T.K., 1995, Holocene Activity of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone in San Diego, California: Journal of Geophysical Research, V. 100, No. B 12, p. 24, 124-24, 132. A-1 040972-002 APPENDIX B Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, CBC Standard No. 18-2 and/or ASTM Test Method 4829. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. Sample Location Expansion Index Expansion Potential House Location 35 Low Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods (Caltrans Test Method CT417). Sample Location Soluble Content% Potential Degree of Sulfate Attack House Location 0.0800 Negligable Maximum Da Densily 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 Location Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Density(pcf) Content(%) Sewer Line 132.0 9.0 C-1 Leighton and Associates,Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 1 of 6 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES,INC. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING 1.0 General 1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and 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). 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 recommendationsprior to the commencementof the grading. 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 Consultant shall inform 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. The Geotechnical Consultant shall 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 EARTI RVORK 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 conunencement 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 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,unsatisfactoryconditions,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. 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 1 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 Leightonand 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 uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. 2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the 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 Benching: 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 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 fi11. 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. 3.0 Fill Material 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 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 suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed. 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 4.1 Fill Lavers: 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 thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of 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 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 percentof 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 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 grading,relative compaction of the fill,out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557-91. 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 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. 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 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 determined 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 EARTEUVORKAND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 6 of 6 7.0 Trench BackfilIs 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 1 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 I foot above the top of the conduit to the surface. 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. 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. 3030.1094 FILL SLOPE PROJECTED PLANE 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO =_ APPROVED GROUND .z___-__ EXISTING _�-_-_ __-�______= REMOVE -_____ GROUND SURFACE __ - r== UNSUITABLE BENCH BENCH HEIGHT MATERIAL (4' TYPICAL) 15' MIN. 2' MIN. LOWEST KEY BENCH DEPTH (KEY) FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE -- ----- OMPACTED-=-==y EXISTING GROUND SURFACE _------- __- "---" BENCH BENCH HEIGHT (4 TYPICAL) T =_'z% MIN.--== i 15' MIN, LOWEST REMOVE 2' MIN. BENCH UNSUITABLE KEY (KEY) DEPTH MATERIAL CUT FACE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT TO ASSURE ADEQUATE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Z EXISTING- �� CUT FACE SHALL BE CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE GROUND _ CONSTRUCTED PRIOR SURFACE TO FILL PLACEMENT OVERBUILD AND -_- _ �-- TRIM BACK REMOVE PROJECTED PLANE DESIGN SLOPE - _ 0 PAC TED UNSUITABLE MATERIAL 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND __-- FINISH GRADE SLOPE FACE _=___= _____==-___===- 12_MIN. ___ _== _' =-_=-_ -' _-=-'=-__ (___ -_=_ =-4 _____________ _ -=15' MIN. -_'----------------- -- C=-="=-- =- _"=_- ___- _-----9-7-13 FJ LL _-_ ------- -------- --- -- - ---- -]5 MIN.-= - -- --=--=--=---- -------= --MIN_----_____-'__-" -- - OVERSIZE WINDROW -6" MAX • OVERSIZE ROCK IS LARGER THAN 8 INCHES IN LARGEST DIMENSION. - - - - • EXCAVATE A TRENCH IN THE COMPACTED - - - - FILL DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY ALL THE - ROCK. GRANULAR MATERIAL TO BE DETAIL DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY • BACKFILL WITH GRANULAR SOIL JETTED FLOODING OR JETTING. OR FLOODED IN PLACE TO FILL ALL THE VOIDS. • DO NOT BURY ROCK WITHIN 10 FEET OF FINISH GRADE. • WINDROW OF BURIED ROCK SHALL BE PARALLEL TO THE FINISHED SLOPE. JETTED OR FLOODED - - - - - GRANULAR MATERIAL TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW OVERSIZE GENERAL EARTHWORK AND ROCK DISPOSAL GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS B LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA \ _--EXISTING \ GROUND SURFACE / - --=--- -- 15' MIN. OUTLET PIPES 4" 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE, 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, __"_--- _-_-_ =f-= BACK CUT 30' MAX O.C. VERTICALLY _____ _____________ __ I 1:1 OR FLATTER BENCH % MIN. - ____ '- SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH - --- ---------------- -- -" ------------ DETAIL LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD ______ _-_ "-;?' BE SITUATED AS LOW AS _ _ -= POSSIBLE TO ALLOW ----== -=------ —__=2?= SUITABLE OUTLET ___________________ 1 ----- --- ----- =2%-MIN:==-______ ------------ - ..: =--------=---=--- MIN KEY WIDTH AS NOTED ON GRADING PLANS TKEY DEPTH (15' MIN.) 12•' MIN. OVERLAP (2' MIN.) FROM THE TOP HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET T-CONNECTION FOR COLLECTOR CALTRANS CLASS 11 PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE PERMEABLE OR #2 - ROCK (3 FT"3/FT) WRAPPED IN FILTER % 6" MIN, FABRIC COVER 4., 0 4.. 0 NON-PERFORATED ° °°°° PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE L PIPE - � J - 5% MIN, 4" MIN. PROVIDE POSITIVE FILTER FABRIC BEDDING SEAL AT THE ENVELOPE (MIRAFI JOINT 140 OR APPROVED EOUIVALENT) SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforation down or, unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant. Outlet pipes shall be non-perforoted pipe. The subdroin pipe sholl have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation sholl be 1/4" to 1/2" if drill holes ore used. All subdroin pipes shall have a gradient of at least 2% towards the outlet. SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdroin pipe sholl be ASTM D2751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40, or ASTM D3034, SDR 23.5, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe. All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench no wide than twice the subdroin pipe. Pipe sholl be in soil of SE >1=30 jetted or flooded in place except for the outside 5 feet which sholl be native soil bockfill. BUTTRESS OR GENERAL EARTHWORK AND REPLACEMENT FILL GRADING SPECIFICATIONS SUBDRAINS STANDARD DETAILS D LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA' SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION BASED ON ASTM D1557 72 TYP.____:_ RETAINING WALL -______--- _ —�_ . _ WALL WATERPROOFING 1.-'6- f 6" MIN OVERLAP _ FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE PER ARCHITECT'S o ' o• I=_ _-=_-- (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED SPECIFICATIONS I o ° ° - = EQUIVALENT)*' o o _ I1' MIN. 3/4" TO 1-1 0 - /2" CLEAN GRAVEL FINISH GRADE I=-==_ o .°• _= 4" (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED ° ,�—PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR ° i - EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS 0. - -_--_- K4O ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED PACTED FILL--==-_-_-_-_ o MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT :----=------ - '__=__-_="___ _ o TO SUITABLE OUTLET ------------- '--- 3" MIN, WALL FOOTING COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: UPON REVIEW BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT, COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR J—DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL. INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. RETAINING WALL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING DRAINAGE DETAIL STANDARD DETAILS SPECIFICATIONS LEICHTON AND ASSOC[