The URL can be used to link to this page

2005-9529 Gzl�-- �� City O�NGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering February 27, 2008 Attn: Bank of America 1340 Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Alex and Ronan O'Gorman 125 Avocado Street APN 254- 054 -65 Grading Permit 9529 -GI Final release of security Permit 9529 -GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, release of the remainder of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account # 11829 -01901 in the amount of $9,290.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633 -2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sincerely, / f � ( f Debra Geisha Engineering Technician Subdivision Engineering CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Alex and Ronan O'Gorman Debra Geishart File Enc. Financial Services TEL 760 - 633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 -633 -2700 1-0 recycled paper as -�7 City Of NGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Eminitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering January 19, 2006 Attn: Bank of America 1340 Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Alex and Ronan O'Gorman 125 Avocado Street APN 254- 054 -65 Grading Permit 9529 -GI Partial release of security Permit 9529 -GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved rough grade. Therefore, release of the remainder of the security deposit is merited. The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. Account # 11821 -01900 in the amount of $37,160.00. The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633 -2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering Department. Sinc ly, Q 4eVbAraGeishart Engineering Technician Subdivision Engineering CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Alex and Ronan O'Gorman Debra Geishart File Enc. Finance Manager Financial Services TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX 760 -633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 � recycled paper CITY ' ENCINITAS 2007 ENGINEERING I. _ c SCHEDUL DATE: - D `D NAMFJADDRESS: PERMIT NO. TECH INT. 2D� CODE SERVICE NAME FEE AMOUNT ACCOUNT NUMBER B1 Building Permit New /Addition 0 -500 SF $ 150.00 101- 0000 =345 -2210 B2 Building Permit New /Addition 500 -2000 SF $ 250.00 101 - 0000 - 345 -2220 B3 Building Permit New /Addition 2000 -5000 SF $ 450.00 101- 0000 - 345 -2230 64 Building Permit New /Addition >= 5000 SF $ 600.00 101 - 0000 - 345 -2240. EP Building Permit -Pool $ 250.00 101 - 0000 -345 -2600 B5 Bldg Permit Comm New /Add 0 to 500 SF $ 150.00 101- 0000 - 345 -2410 B6 Bldg Permit Comm New /Add 500 to 2000 SF $ 250.00 101- 0000 - 345 -2420 B7 Bldg Permit Comm New /Add 2000 to 10000 $ 550.00 101 - 0000 - 345 -2430 B8 Bldg Permit Comm New /Add. =10000 SF $ 750.00 101 -0000- 345 -2440 B9 Building Permit, Commercial, Remodel, TI $ 300.00 101 - 0000 - 345 -2800 C$ Certificate of Correction $ 110.00 101 - 0000 - 345 -2900 C4 Construction change - Minor - per sheet $ 200.00 101- 0000 - 345 -3210 C5 Construction change - Major - per sheet $ 350.00 101- 0000 - 345 -3220 PM Final Parcel Map- Sheet $ 2,000.00 101 - 0000 - 345 -3400 FM Final Subdivision Map - Sheet $ 1,600.00 101 - 0000 - 345 -3600 SG Simplified Grading Plan $ 900.00 101 - 0000 - 345 -4110 GR Grading Plan Check - Sheet $ 1,450.00 101 -0000- 345 -4120 NP NPDES Plan Check - Sheet $ 125.00 101- 0000 - 345 -4200 M1 Structural Plan Check - Sheet $ 240.00 101- 0000 - 345 -4400 EO Erosion Plan Check - Sheet $ 175.00 101 - 0000 - 345 -4600 GS GIS Map Fee $ 375.00 101 - 0000 - 345 -5000 TE Temporary Encroachment Permit $ 150.00 101- 0000 - 345 -5410 PE Permanent Encroachment $ 290.00 101- 0000 - 345 -5420 LP Landscape /Irr Plan Check Private - Sheet $ 130.00 101 - 0000 - 345 -5510 LV Landscape /Irr Plan Check Public - Sheet $ 260.00 101 - 0000- 345 -5520 CN ROW Construction Permit and Insp- Minor $ 300.00 101 -0000- 345 -5610 CJ ROW Construction Permit and Insp- Major $ 900.00 101 - 0000 - 345 -5620 EX Utility Construction Permit . $ 250.00 101- 0000 - 345 -5700 TB Temporary Encroachment Permit- Beach $ 1,500.00, 101- 0000 -345 -5430 VA Street Vacation Application $ 3,500,00 101- 0000 - 345 -5810 SN Street Name Change Application _ $ 3,500.00 101 - 0000 -345 -5820 GI Grading Inspection 101- 0000 - 345 -6010 II Improvement Inspection 101- 0000 - 345 -6020 NI NPDES - Inspection `" 101- 0000 - 345 -6200 IR Improvement Plan Check - Sheet $ 1,700.00 101- 0000 - 345 -4800 EV- Special Event $ 300.00 101- 0000 - 345 -7000 TR Traffic Control Plan $ 250.00 101- 0000 - 345 -7400 PP jSWPPP Project Disturbin > Acre $ 750.00 101- 0000- 345 -7600 TOTAL Formula to calc % of ACE did not change, fee is 5% of first $100,000 and 3% of each $100,000 above that level. This fee is new and must be phased (1 % of first $100,000 and 0.61/6 of each $100,000 above) then (1% of first $100,000 and 0.6% of each $100,000 over) CODE DEPOSITACCTS. (NO CREDIT CARDS) TOTAL MR Structural 101- 6010 - 451 -4240 SY Security Deposits. 1 101- 0000 - 218 -0000 Paoe 1 G:1RandaTnoineedno Fee Schadub PW7- fPAe actin form vtc LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORT FOR AVOCADO STREET RESIDENCE PROJECT 125 AVOCADO STREET, LEUCADIA, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: Mr. Ronan and Mrs. Alex O'Gorman 125 Avocado Street Leucadia, California 92024 PREPARED BY: SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Mr. Ronan and Mrs. Alex O'Gorman 125 Avocado Street Leucadia, California 92024 Subject: Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report for Proposed Avocado Street Residence, 125 Avocado Street, Leucadia, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. O'Gorman: This report presents the results of our limited geotechnical engineering evaluation performed on the subject project. The purpose of this limited study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide recommendations pertaining to geotechnical aspects of the project. Specifically, our report concludes that the soil conditions at the site will support the proposed improvements provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact the undersigned at 619.851.8683. Respectfully, oPa 4) ENo. G 2 6 N m R. Dougl ovins, PE, G *sT0 P`' � Principal Engineer v, rFCHw �P °- GE 2568, expires December 31, cAUfo Distribution: (2) Addressee (2) Mr. Dan Jensvold, Jensvold Associates, 2244 Carmel Valley Road, Del Mar, California 92014 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman August 3, 2005 Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project No. 61000011 -01 Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report ............................... 6 10.3. EARTHWORK .................................................................................................................................... TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... ..............................1 -- 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES ......................................................................................................... ..............................1 3. SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................. ..............................1 4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................... ............................... 2 5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION ............................................................................................ ............................... 2 6. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................ ............................... 2 6.1. TOPSOIL .......................................................................................................................................... ..............................3 6.2. TERRACE DEPOSITS ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 3 6.3. SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................ ............................... 3 7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ........................................................................................................ ............................... 3 7.1. SURFACE RUPTURE ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 3 7.2. SEISMICITY AND GROUND MOTION ................................................................................................... ............................... 3 _ 7.3. ALQUIST- PRIOLO ZONES ................................................................................................................. ............................... 4 7.4. LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREAD .............................................................................................. ............................... 4 7.5. LANDSLIDES ................................................................................................................................... ............................... 5 7.6. SEICHES AND EARTH QUAKE- INDUCED FLOODING .............................................................................. ............................... 5 8. LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................... ............................... 5 9. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... ..............................5 10. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ ............................... 6 10.1. PLAN AND SPECIFICATION REVIEW ................................................................................................... ............................... 6 10.2. EXCAVATION AND GRADING OBSERVATION ....................................................................................... ............................... 6 10.3. EARTHWORK .................................................................................................................................... ..............................7 10.3.1. SITE PREPARATION .................................................................................................................... ............................... 7 10.3.2. FILL COMPACTION ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 9 10.3.3. MATERIAL FOR FILL .................................................................................................................... ............................... 9 10.3.4. BULK/SHRINK AND MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................... ............................... 10 10.3.5. TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS ...................................................................................................... ............................... 10 10.3.6. SLOPES ..................................................................................................................................... .............................11 10.3.7. ADDITIONAL EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... ............................... 11 10.4. SURFACE DRAINAGE ..................................................................................................................... ............................... 11 10.5. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. ............................... 12 ® 10.5.1. BEARING CAPACITY FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ..................................................................... ............................... 12 10.5.2. LATERAL LOADS ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 13 10.5.3. FOUNDATION SETBACK ............................................................................................................ ............................... 14 _ 10.6. SEISMIC PARAMETERS .................................................................................................................. ............................... 14 10.7. ON -GRADE SLABS .......................................................................................................................... .............................15 10.7.1. MOISTURE PROTECTION FOR SLABS ......................................................................................... ............................... 15 10.7.2. EXTERIOR SLABS AND WALKWAYS ............................................................................................ ............................... 16 10.8. SOIL CORROSIVITY ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 17 10.9. EARTH - RETAINING STRUCTURES ................................................................................................... ............................... 17 10.10. PAVEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... .............................17 11. LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... .............................17 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman August 3, 2005 Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project No. 61000011 -01 -- Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report 12. SELECTED REFERENCES ................................................................................................. .............................19 Figures Figure 1 — Site Location Map Figure 2 — Boring Location Map Appendices Appendix A — Logs of Exploratory Excavations Appendix B — Laboratory Testing Appendix C — Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Appendix D — Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report 1. INTRODUCTION August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 1 This report presents the results of the limited subsurface evaluation performed by Solid Rock Engineering, Inc. (SRE) for the proposed Avocado Street Residence Project in Leucadia, California. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our subsurface exploration, review of readily available geological reports and plans, evaluation of soil samples collected from the site, and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. The scope of services provided during this evaluation was generally as described in our Proposal No. 61000011 -01, authorized by you. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES Our scope of services for this project consisted of the following: Coordination with you on this project. Review of readily available geologic and geotechnical documents, literature, and hazard maps. • Performance of a subsurface geotechnical evaluation including excavation, sampling, and logging of four shallow exploratory borings at the site. The purpose of the subsurface work was to better characterize the subsurface materials for evaluation of relevant geologic and geotechnical parameters. • Evaluation of the samples obtained to characterize the following parameters: soil classification, moisture, expansion index, strength, and sulfate content. • Geotechnical analysis of the field and laboratory data obtained. Preparation of this geotechnical report which includes the following discussions, conclusions, and recommendations: A limited assessment of geologic conditions and hazards including seismicity and the effects of earthquakes on the proposed structure, landslides, flooding, soil liquefaction, and subsidence. Recommendations for plan and specification review, earthwork, drainage, foundation design, seismicity, slabs, and corrosivity. 3. SITE DESCRIPTION The property consists of a rectangular parcel located at 125 Avocado Street in Leucadia, California. For the purpose of this report, the property is considered to face north. The property is bounded to the east and west by similar residential properties, to the south by an alley, and to the north by Avocado Street. The lot is relatively flat and likely drains slightly toward the north. The properties to the west and east are situated approximately four to six feet higher and lower, respectively. A site location map is included as Figure 1. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 2 4. PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS Based on discussions with the owner's representative and review of the available documents, we understand that the anticipated improvements include a new, two -story structure near the rear of the lot. Further, we understand that the owner is considering a second, smaller structure toward the front (north) of the lot. We anticipate that the residential project is likely to be constructed with continuous perimeter footings and slab on grade. 5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION Our field exploration consisted of four shallow borings advanced on Friday, June 24, 2005. The borings were excavated manually and extended to depths ranging from four to six feet below existing grade. Logs describing the observed subsurface conditions are presented in Appendix A, and the approximate excavation locations are indicated on Figure 2. Disturbed bulk samples were obtained at selected locations and returned to our office. Sample locations are indicated on the logs. The lines designating the interface between soil units on the soil logs were estimated by interpolation and are rough approximations. The actual transition between the materials may be abrupt or gradual. Further, soil conditions between the excavations may be substantially different from those observed. It should be recognized that soil conditions could change with the passage of time. Excavation locations and elevations were established in the field by pacing and taping from existing improvements. The locations shown should not be considered more accurate than the precision implied by the method of measurement used. The boring locations are described at the bottom of each of the boring logs. 6. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is generally located within the California Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This province is characterized by northwest - trending mountain ranges and valleys. The ranges and valleys trend northwest, subparallel to the San Andreas and other faults. The site is located on a terrace or mesa at an estimated approximate elevation of 70 feet above sea level, approximately 250 meters (750 feet) east of the Pacific Ocean shoreline. Based on our observations at the site and review of available geologic literature, it appears that the site is mantled by shallow topsoil related to site landscaping. The site is underlain by Terrace Deposits to the depths explored. These materials are further described below. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eva! SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman August 3, 2005 Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Project No. 61000011 -01 Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 3 w 6.1. Topsoil Based on the observations performed during our field investigation, the soil observed at and near the surface is generally a gray brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, silty SAND. The topsoil was approximately 1 % feet thick where observed in each of the four borings. Grass - related organics were noted near the surface. 6.2. Terrace Deposits Observed in each of the four borings, these materials were generally reddish brown, moist, weakly cemented, SANDSTONE with a trace of silt. The SANDSTONE was encountered beneath the topsoil. The unit was observed to extend to the bottom of the excavations (four to six feet below ground surface) and is expected to extend well beyond the lowest elevations of the proposed improvements. 6.3. Surface Water and Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during our investigation. Groundwater is not expected to affect the grading operations at the site. Fluctuations in future groundwater levels and perched water could develop as a result of rainfall, irrigation, or changes in site drainage. These conditions are typically mitigated on a case by case basis when they occur, not before. 7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The site is located in an active seismic region. Seismic hazards may be induced by ground shaking during seismic events on nearby or distant active faults. A summary of the hazards is presented below. More detailed analysis can be provided upon request. 7.1. Surface Rupture Surface rupture is the result of movement on an active fault reaching the surface. No faults were observed during our exploration of the site. Based on our observations, experience, and review of the referenced geotechnical and geologic literature, it is our opinion that there is little probability of surface rupture due to faulting beneath the site. However, lurching and ground cracking are a possibility as a result of a significant seismic event on a regional active fault. 7.2. Seismicity and Ground Motion The subject site is located at approximate latitude of 33,0750 north and an approximate longitude of 117.306° west. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault mapped approximately 5 kilometers (3 miles) southwest of the site. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project — Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 4 In order to provide an estimate of the potential peak ground acceleration that structures founded at the site may experience in time, we performed an evaluation of the site seismic parameters. To estimate the design ground accelerations for this project, we reviewed data made available by the United States Geological Survey, National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project. The results are summarized below. Summary of Seismology and Seismic Parameters Design Criteria Ground Acceleration (g) FEMA 302 Maximum Considered Earthquake Acceleration 0.58 (2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years) 2001 CBC Upper Bound Earthquake Acceleration 0.39 (10% Probability of Exceedance in 100 years) 1997 UBC Design Basis Earthquake Acceleration 0'27 (10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years) 7.3. Alquist - Priolo Zones The purpose of the Alquist - Priolo Fault Zoning Act is to regulate development near active faults so as to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture. Based on our review of the referenced literature, the site is not located within an Alquist -Paolo special study zone. 7.4. Liquefaction and Lateral Spread Liquefaction is a process in which saturated soils lose grain -to -grain contact due to earthquakes or other sources of ground shaking. The soil deposit temporarily behaves as a viscous fluid, pore pressures rise, and the strength of the deposit is greatly diminished. Sand boils, lateral spread, and post - liquefaction settlement often accompany liquefaction as the pore pressures dissipate. Soils susceptible to liquefaction typically consist of cohesionless sands and silts that are loose to medium dense and saturated. To liquefy, soils must be subjected to a ground shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration. Clayey soil deposits typically do not liquefy because the soil skeleton is not supported by grain -to- grain contact and is therefore not subject to densification by shaking. Given the relatively dense nature of the soil encountered, the strength and age of the deposit, and the relative lack of groundwater, the results of our evaluation indicate that the risk of liquefaction from ground shaking caused by either the Design Basis Earthquake or the Maximum Considered Earthquake is remote. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 5 Lateral spreading is a phenomenon that typically occurs on very gently sloping ground or on flat ground adjacent to bodies of water. Due to the relative lack of nearby bodies of water and the remote risk of liquefaction, the risk of liquefaction - related lateral spreading is considered remote. 7.5. Landslides The lot is relatively flat and/or gently sloping with no significant bluffs or slopes. Therefore, it is our opinion that the potential adverse effect of slope failure within the limits of the building pad on this project is remote. 7.6. Seiches and Earthquake- Induced Flooding Seiches are defined as earthquake- induced waves that develop in enclosed bodies of water during seismic events. Nearby enclosed bodies of water are not observed or mapped. Accordingly, the risk of earthquake - induced flooding from seiches is considered remote. 8. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the exploratory excavations to further characterize the geotechnical conditions encountered at the site. The results of our laboratory tests are incorporated into the boring logs in Appendix A and are further described and summarized in Appendix B. 9. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this evaluation, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed Avocado Street Residence project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the following recommendations and applicable building codes are followed. Geotechnical considerations for the design and construction of the project include the following: There are no known surface expressions of active faults underlying the site. Potential seismic hazards at the _ site will likely be associated with ground shaking from an event along nearby active faults, such as the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. It is our opinion that the site is not at any more seismic risk than adjacent properties or the immediate neighborhood. _ • Loose, undocumented, near surface soils are found within the surficial soils. Recommendations are presented in the following sections for mitigating this soil condition. Due to the loose nature of the upper approximately 1 % feet of topsoil, special treatment recommendations are presented herein. Based on our experience with addition projects in these types of conditions, we anticipate that leaving the majority of the loose soils in place and extending the footing excavations into deeper, more competent soils is as viable as removing and recompacting the loose soils in the areas where additions will be made to the existing residence. Accordingly, we have provided recommendations for both deepened footings and remedial grading. Other recommendations can be provided upon request. Fill soils derived from the topsoil should be adequate for reuse on site if treated properly. The fill soils were found to be neglibibly expansive and do not require special handling. Organic debris will need to be removed as described herein. 6 1000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman August 3, 2005 Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Project No. 61000011 -01 Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 6 • Significant quantities of cobbles or boulders are not anticipated during grading as they were not encountered in the borings. It is possible that conditions between borings could vary greatly from the conditions observed during our site evaluation. We generally expect the soil to be rippable and excavatable to the depths of excavation anticipated with suitable equipment in good operating condition. It is possible that conditions between borings could vary greatly from the conditions observed by our office. In general, excavation of fill soils at the site should be achievable using standard earthmoving equipment in good- working order with experienced operators. Oversize materials or debris, if encountered in the existing soils, may require extra effort to excavate. Cemented zones and concretions are not likely within the underlying Terrace Deposits. Groundwater is not anticipated to significantly impact construction of the proposed improvements as presently planned. Groundwater levels can vary from location to location and with the passage of time and weather cycles. 10. RECOMMENDATIONS The remainder of this report presents recommendations for grading, construction of foundations, and slab. These recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard of practice at similar facilities in Southern California. If a specific subject is not addressed in this report, or if something is unclear, we encourage the reader to contact our office for clarification. 10.1. Plan and Specification Review We recommend that the final foundation, grading plans, and earthwork specifications be reviewed by SIRE to evaluate conformance with the intent of the recommendations of this report. Significant changes in the locations or layout of the proposed improvements may require additional geotechnical evaluation. 10.2. Excavation and Grading Observation An experienced geotechnical consultant should observe foundation excavations and site grading. During grading, the geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services. Such observations are considered essential to identify field conditions that differ from those anticipated from the geotechnical evaluation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to determine that the grading is accomplished in general accordance with the geotechnical recommendations and contract documents. The geotechnical consultant should perform sufficient observations and testing during grading to support their professional opinion as to compliance with grading recommendations. Recommendations presented in this report are presented with the understanding that SRE will be performing such services, or at a minimum, providing oversight and review of the field- testing during the grading operations. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval Report "r SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 7 Sufficient testing of fill should be performed during grading, as specified herein, to support our professional opinion as to compliance with compaction recommendations. 10.3. Earthwork Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the applicable design manuals, local grading ordinance, and the 2001 California Building Code. The following recommendations are provided regarding specific aspects of the proposed earthwork construction. These recommendations should be considered subject to revision based on field conditions observed by the geotechnical consultant during grading. 10.3.1. Site Preparation Loose, silty, near surface soils are found within the surficial soils. Recommendations are presented in the following sections for mitigating this soil condition. Due to the loose nature of the upper approximately 1 '/z feet of topsoil, special treatment recommendations are presented herein. Based on our experience, we anticipate the homeowner may consider either leaving the undocumented soil in place and deepening the foundations or overexcavating and recompacting as discussed below. Accordingly, we have provided recommendations for both alternatives. Other recommendations can be provided upon request. -- If foundations are deepened, we anticipate that site preparation will generally be limited to removal of pavement, topsoil, organics, and the upper 12 inches of pavement and pad subgrade soil. Fine grading should be - performed as recommended herein to support new slabs and pavement. We anticipate that foundations will extend into competent Terrace Deposits soils. Accordingly, the footings may need to be deepened so that the foundations are uniformly supported in competent Terrace Deposits. For preliminary budgeting and design purposes, the contact with the Terrace Deposits should be expected to be approximately two feet below existing grade. A detail for deepening the foundations is presented in Appendix C. In summary, the excavations should extend through the topsoil and other undocumented soils not less than six inches into the underlying Terrace Deposits. The excavations may then be filled with 2 -sack slurry, lean concrete or structural concrete up to the bottom of footing elevation. The structural footings may then be constructed as designed. As an alternative to the localized deepened foundations, the pad may be over excavated and recompacted. _ Recommendations for over excavation and recompaction would include complete removal of the topsoil and other undocumented soils, up to approximately three feet below grade, and then recompacting as specified herein. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval Reoort SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 8 General site preparation should include the removal of unsuitable and deleterious materials, existing structures, pavements, or other improvements from areas that will be subjected to structural, pavement or fill loads. Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation including brush, grass, weeds, wood, stumps, trees, tree roots, and otherwise deleterious materials from areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend laterally five or more feet beyond the limits of grading. Unsuitable materials include vegetation, trash, construction debris, topsoil, rocks more than 12 inches in greatest dimension, contaminated soils, abandoned pavements, other soil in structural areas subject to settlement due to bio- degradation, or other undesirable materials. The removal of unsuitable materials should be conducted under the observation of the geotechnical consultant to evaluate the competency of the exposed materials for support of structural and fill loads. The excavation of unsuitable materials should be conducted in a way that minimizes the disturbance of competent materials. Unsuitable materials should be hauled off -site and legally disposed. Structures, foundations, utilities (above and below ground), and ancillary improvements within the grading limits that are not to be saved, should be demolished, hauled off -site and disposed of legally. Demolition of pipelines may consist of capping or rerouting at the project perimeter and removal within the project perimeter. Existing utilities that are to be removed should have the resulting trenches compacted as described in Section 10.3.2. If appropriate, abandoned utilities should be filled with grout or slurry cement as recommended by and under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor should protect trees or man -made improvements from damage. If the footings are not deepened into the underlying Terrace Deposits, we recommend that the existing materials be over - excavated to expose competent Terrace Deposits soils in areas designated to support foundations, slabs, pavements or receive compacted fills due to the presence of soft, loose materials within the upper four to five feet. The over - excavation will likely extend approximately three feet deep and should extend to a distance of five feet beyond the building footprint or improvement areas. After making the recommended removals and prior to fill placement, the exposed ground surface should be _ examined and probed by the geotechnical consultant to identify that a stable, firm, unyielding base has been achieved to place compacted fill. Loose, soft areas may be improved by the use of stabilization fabrics, gravels, or by combination of both. In areas not intended to support foundations, the exposed ground surface may then be compacted in place by scarifying to a depth of approximately six inches, brought to optimum moisture content, or above, blended to a 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, Califomia 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 9 uniform consistency, and compacted to not less than 90 percent relative compaction at or above optimum moisture content, as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The excavations may then be brought up to the desired grade with soil compacted as recommended herein. 10.3.2. Fill Compaction Fill and backfill should be placed at or above optimum moisture content using equipment that is capable of compacting the entire fill lift. Fill materials at less than optimum moisture should have water added, and the fill mixed to result in material that is uniformly at or above optimum moisture content. Expansive soils were not identified. If encountered, expansive soils should be compacted to not less than two percent over optimum moisture content. Fill materials that are too wet should be aerated or mixed with dryer material to achieve uniformly moisture - conditioned soil. The fill and backfill should be placed in horizontal lifts at a thickness appropriate for the equipment processing the material. The lift should generally not exceed eight inches in loose thickness. The relative compaction recommended for fill and backfill is not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density based on ASTM D 1557. When evaluating in place density and relative compaction, gravel content and rock correction procedures should be appropriately considered. 10.3.3. Material for Fill In general the on -site, granular materials (derived from the underlying topsoil and other undocumented soils) may be used in the on -site fills beneath the structures. Deleterious materials, rocks more than six inches in greatest dimension, the organic materials near the surface, and contaminated soils should not be used. Expansive and other clayey soils were not encountered in our initial investigation. If encountered, we recommend that clays should be placed two or more percent above optimum moisture content. Soils with an Expansion Index of greater than 20 should not be placed as backfill behind retaining walls and segmental retaining walls without special design considerations. Imported fill sources, if needed, should be evaluated prior to hauling onto the site to determine their suitability for use. Representative samples of imported materials and on -site soils should be tested to evaluate their engineering properties for the planned use. Imported fill soils should have an Expansion Index of not more than 20 and should generally not have more than 30 percent passing the no. 200 sieve. During grading operations, soil types other than those evaluated in the geotechnical report may be encountered. The geotechnical consultant should be contacted to evaluate the suitability of these soils for use as fill or backfill. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval Reoort SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project -- Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report 10.3.4. Bulk/Shrink and Moisture Characteristics August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 10 The existing surficial soils may shrink on the order of five to ten percent when over excavated and recompacted. Similarly, the underlying Terrace Deposit soils may bulk slightly when excavated and recompacted. It should be noted, however, that bulking and shrinking can vary considerably with the variability of the type and in -place density of the soil being evaluated. This bulking and shrinking estimate does not take into account oversized materials that may be encountered and removed from the soil. The existing near surface soils are likely to demand some moisture addition to be brought to, or above, optimum moisture content. Our observations indicate that the near surface materials are below optimum moisture content. The actual moisture conditions encountered during grading may vary from those anticipated herein. 10.3.5. Temporary Excavations Temporary excavations, such as those for the foundations and utility trenches, are anticipated to be generally stable up to approximately four feet. Due to the loose nature of the near surface soils, some of the loose soils may need to be laid back. If uncemented zones of raveling sands or gravels are encountered in the exposed cut faces, remedial action may be necessary to stabilize them prior to proceeding with construction. The geotechnical consultant should evaluate temporary excavations that encounter seepage, loose or raveling soils, or other potentially adverse conditions during grading. Remedial measures may include shoring or reducing (laying back) slope inclinations. Excavations should conform to OSHA guidelines, and workmen should be protected in accordance with OSHA guidelines. Based on the available data developed from the borings, the design of trenches, temporary slopes, and benches for preliminary planning purposes may assume the conditions summarized below. Summary of Cal /OSHA Soil Types Geological Unit CallOSHA Soil Type Surficial Soil Type C Terrace Deposits Type B to C Existing infrastructure that is within a 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) line projected up from the bottom edge (toe) of temporary slopes should be monitored during construction. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 11 The contractor should note that the materials encountered in construction excavations could vary significantly across the site. The above assessment of Cal /OSHA soil type for temporary excavations is based on preliminary engineering classifications of material encountered in widely spaced excavations. A geotechnical or geological professional should observe and document mass excavations and temporary slopes at regular intervals during excavation and evaluate the stability of temporary slopes, as necessary. Similarly, a geotechnical or geological professional should observe and monitor temporary support systems. As discussed previously, we understand that new foundations may be constructed adjacent and parallel to existing continuous footings. Given that the new foundations will likely be deeper than the existing foundations, we would recommend that the foundations be excavated and construted in stages so as not to undermine existing foundations. If new foundations will be constructed adjacent and parallel to existing continuous footings, we recommend that our office is contacted to provide input relating to construction staging. 10.3.6. Slopes No significant slopes were observed or anticipated. 10.3.7. Additional Earthwork Recommendations Additional earthwork recommendations can be found in Appendix C, Standard Specifications for Grading Projects. Site preparation recommendations contained in the main part of this report shall supersede those contained in Appendix C. The geotechnical consultant should be contacted for clarification of the project specifications. 10.4. Surface Drainage Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well the runoff waters drain from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the structure. The ground surface around structures should be graded so that water flows rapidly away from the structures without ponding. The surface gradient needed to achieve this depends on the predominant landscape. In general, we recommend that pavement and lawn areas within ten feet of buildings slope away at gradients of not less than two percent. Densely vegetated planter areas should slope away from buildings at a gradient of not less than five percent in the first five feet. Densely vegetated areas are considered those in which the planting type and spacing are such that the flow of water is impeded. Planters should be built so that water from them will not seep into the foundation, slab, or pavement subgrade areas. Roof drainage should be channeled by pipe to storm drains, discharged to paved areas draining off -site, 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman August 3, 2005 Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Project No. 61000011 -01 4 Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 12 and /or discharged not less than ten feet from building lines in landscaped areas. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation, surface water intrusion, -- water line breaks, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones or "perched" groundwater might develop in the underlying soils. In addition to the recommendations presented herein, we recommend that the property owner or manager review the property maintenance guidelines presented in Appendix D. 10.5. Foundation Recommendations °- The following recommendations are generally consistent with methods typically used at similar projects. We anticipate that footing dimensions presented herein may be increased to carry the anticipated wall and footing -- loads. Other alternatives may be available. 10.5.1. Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundations Bearing capacity values presented herein for building foundations that will be founded in competent, native, Terrace Deposits or on properly compacted fill. Based on our evaluation and our understanding of the anticipated foundation loads, we recommend the following parameters. Summary of Foundation Parameters for Compacted Fill Allowable 1,250 psf Bearing Capacity Allow a 1/3 increase for short -term wind or seismic loads. Estimated Safety Factor greater than 3 Bearing Capacity 250 psf increase for each additional foot of width and /or depth, up to a total Increase allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf Minimum Footing Width 12 inches (one story) 15 inches (two story) Minimum Footing Depth 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade Reinforcement Not less than two no. 4 bars top and two no. 4 bars bottom in continuous footings. The structural engineer should design reinforcing steel. Estimated Settlement Foundations should be designed for a total and differential settlement of 1 -inch and 1/2-inch, respectively, over a distance of 40 feet. 1 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Summary of Foundation Parameters for Terrace Deposits August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 13 Allowable 2,000 psf Bearing Capacity Allow a 1/3 increase for short-term wind or seismic loads. 250 Estimated Safety Factor is greater than 3. Bearing Capacity 400 psf increase for each additional foot of width and /or depth, up to a total Increase allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 psf Minimum Footing Width 12 inches (one story) 15 inches (two story) Minimum Footing Depth 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade Reinforcement Not less than two no. 4 bars top and two no. 4 bars bottom in continuous footings. The structural engineer should design reinforcing steel. Estimated Settlement Foundations should be designed for a total and differential settlement of 1 -inch and '/z -inch, respectively, over a distance of 40 feet. Note that these recommendations are provided with the understanding that the foundations are extended through the topsoil or other undocumented soil into the underlying Terrace Deposits. Our primary goal with this option is to extend the footing loads into the underlying Terrace Deposits. It should be noted that the reinforced portion of the footings does not need to be full depth. Reinforcement should be designated by the project structural engineer. The lower portion of the deepened footings may be filled with 2 -sack slurry, lean concrete, or structural concrete up to the bottom of structural footing elevation. 10.5.2. Lateral Loads Resistance to lateral loads on the shallow foundations may be provided by passive resistance along the outside face of footings and frictional resistance along the bottom of the footings. The following allowable lateral bearing per foot of depth below the lowest adjacent grade or slab -on -grade may be used for the design of concrete footings that are placed neat against properly compacted fill or undisturbed formational materials. Summary of Allowable Passive Resistance (PSF per Foot of Embedment) Ground Conditions Properly Compacted Fill Terrace Deposits Level Ground 250 350 Descending Sloping Ground (2:1) can oe provided upon request The upper 12 inches of soil should be neglected in passive pressure calculations in areas where there will be no hardscape that extends from the outside edge of the footing to a horizontal distance equal to three times the 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project — Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 14 footing depth. The resistance from passive pressure should be neglected where utilities or similar excavations may occur in the future. The resistance from passive pressure should only apply to reinforced portions of the foundations. The following allowable friction coefficients may be used with the dead load to compute the frictional resistance of footings. If frictional and passive resistance is combined, the friction coefficient should be reduced as shown. Summary of Allowable Friction Coefficients Ground Conditions Properly Compacted Fill Terrace Deposits Base Friction Alone 0.35 0.4 Base Friction and Passive Resistance 0.25 0.3 10.5.3. Foundation Setback Foundations constructed near the tops of slopes should be deepened as necessary so that the minimum — distance between the outer bottom edge of foundations and the surface of the adjacent slope is H/3 and not less than seven feet, where H is the height of the slope. It should be recognized that the outer few feet of slopes are -° susceptible to gradual down -slope movements due to slope creep. This will affect hardscape such as concrete slabs. We recommend that settlement sensitive hardscape not be constructed within five feet of the top of slopes. 10.6. Seismic Parameters The following 2001 California Building Code (CBC) seismic parameters may be used for design of the proposed residence. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is mapped within approximately five kilometers of the site. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project — Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Summary of CBC Seismic Design Criteria August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 15 Parameter Value 2001 CBC Reference Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.40 Table 16 -1 Soil Profile Type Sc Table 16 -J Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.40 Na Table 16 -Q Seismic Coefficient, C, 0.56 NY Table 16 -R Near Source Factor, Na 1.0 Table 16 -S Near Source Factor, N,, 1.2 Table 16 -T Seismic Source Type* B Table 16 -U *Rose Canyon Fault 1.5 mm /year slip rate 6.9 MG Max 10.7. On-Grade Slabs Interior slabs should be designed for the anticipated loading using procedures outlined in the 2001 CBC or other effective methods. If an elastic design is used, a modulus of 150 pci can be used. Slab thickness and reinforcement should be designed by the project structural engineer and should conform to the requirements of the 2001 CBC. Garage floor slabs should be placed separately from adjacent wall footings with a separation maintained by felt expansion joint material not less than 3/8 -inch thick. Garage floor slabs should be quartered with weakened plane joints. A 12 -inch wide grade beam founded at the same depth as the adjacent footings should be provided across the garage entrance. The grade beam should be reinforced in the same fashion as the garage footings. 10.7.1. Moisture Protection for Slabs Concrete slabs constructed on soil ultimately cause the moisture content to rise in the underlying soil. This results from continued capillary rise and normal evapotranspiration. Normal concrete is permeable. Accordingly, the moisture will eventually penetrate the slab. Excessive moisture may cause mildewed carpets, lifting or discoloration of floor tiles, or similar problems. To decrease the likelihood of problems related to damp slabs, suitable moisture protection measures should be used where moisture sensitive floor coverings, moisture sensitive equipment, or other factors warrant. A commonly used moisture protection consists of about two inches of clean sand or gravel, overlain by 10 -mil polyethylene plastic sheeting, overlain by two inches of clean sand. These systems are often punctured with 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 16 stakes during concrete placement. It has been our experience that such systems will transmit on the order of six to 12 pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day with typical groundwater conditions. This may be excessive for some applications, particularly for sheet vinyl, wood flooring, vinyl tiles, or carpeting with impermeable backing that use water - soluble adhesives. Additional reduction in vapor transmission through concrete floor slabs may be achieved by the placement of a dense concrete section without joints. Achieving such a concrete section may be facilitated by the use of low water - cement ratios and a low slump concrete mix with thorough curing. The concrete mix selected should have a history of good performance within the specification parameters that it is trying to achieve. The concrete slab should be thoroughly cured for not less than seven days using an accepted curing compound or water. No surfacing should be placed on the slab until the excess water within the slab has been dissipated. The project architect should review the moisture requirements of the proposed flooring system and incorporate an appropriate level of moisture protection as part of the floor covering design. For example, moisture sensitive floor coverings such as vinyl may develop discoloration or adhesive degradation due to excessive moisture transmission. Wood flooring may swell and dome if exposed to excessive moisture transmission. In such cases, the architect should specify an appropriate moisture barrier based on the allowable moisture transmission rate for the flooring to be used. This may include waterproofing the slab. The recommendations provided in this section may be waived, including elimination of visqueen and the sand layers, if there are no moisture transmission concerns such as in exterior slabs and garage floors. If desired, more specific services can be provided upon request. If additional information is desired, the moisture vapor emission being transmitted through the concrete can be monitored in general accordance with ASTM F 1869 -98, Standard Test Method for Measuring Moisture Vapor Emission Rate of Concrete Subfloor Using Anhydrous Calcium Chloride. This simple, affordable three -day test provides additional information as to the moisture vapor emission being transmitted by or through the slab. These services can be provided upon request. 10.7.2. Exterior Slabs and Walkways Exterior slabs and walkways placed on the on -site soils may experience minor differential movement related to volume changes of the near surface soil over time. To reduce the potential for excessive differential movement across joints, exterior slabs and walkways should be not less than four inches thick. Crack control joints should 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 17 be used on exterior slabs, with a spacing of 4- to 5 -foot centers each way for sidewalks and 8- to 10 -foot centers each way for slabs. 10.8. Soil Corrosivity We performed a limited evaluation of the relative corrosivity of one sample of soil. Based on the results of our evaluation, the sulfate content of the soil was not noted to be excessively corrosive. Accordingly, we recommend Type IIN cement, a water cement ratio of not more than 0.55 (lb. /lb.), for durable concrete supported in the on- site soils. A corrosion engineer should be consulted if additional corrosion - related design information is desired. 10.9. Earth - Retaining Structures Earth- retaining structures are not anticipated. Design parameters can be provided upon request. 10.10. Pavements Significant pavements are not anticipated. Design parameters can be provided upon request. 11. LIMITATIONS The information presented in this report has been prepared for use in the design and construction of the proposed Avocado Street Residence project in Leucadia, California. The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the described project information and our interpretation of the data collected during the subsurface exploration. The recommendations apply only to the specific project described in this report. If the project changes from the description contained in the Introduction section of this report, SRE should be contacted to review the conclusions and recommendations in relation to any new project requirements. In the event that changes in the design or location of the facility are planned from those described herein, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report verified or modified in writing by SRE. SRE is not responsible for claims, damages, or liability associated with interpretation of subsurface data or reuse of the subsurface data or engineering analyses without the express written authorization of SRE. It is the responsibility of the client or the client's representative to insure that the information and recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The client or his /her representative must ensure that the contractor and /or subcontractor carry out the recommendations during construction. It is our understanding that SRE will provide Quality Assurance services to assist the owner and contractor in seeing that these recommendations are incorporated into the project during construction. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman August 3, 2005 Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Project No. 61000011 -01 Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 18 Our evaluation has been performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by geotechnical consultants with experience in the Southern California area in similar soil conditions. No other warranty either expressed or implied is made as to the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. Changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards of practice may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied — upon after a period of one year. During final design, SRE should review the final construction documents and specifications for the proposed project to assess their conformance with the intent of our recommendations. If changes are made in the project documents, the conclusions and recommendations represented in this report may not be applicable. Therefore, SRE should review any changes to assess whether the conclusions and recommendations are valid and modify them if necessary. During site preparation and foundation construction, a qualified geotechnical consultant should observe slab -on- grade, pavement subgrade, and utility trench backfill to check compaction. In addition, the consultant should observe subgrade preparation beneath areas to receive fill and observe and test fill compaction. The consultant should also observe building foundation or pile installation excavations to verify the presence of a firm bearing surface. SRE should be retained to observe earthwork and pile construction to help confirm that our assumptions and recommendations are valid or to modify them accordingly. SRE cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of recommendations if we do not observe construction. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report 12. SELECTED REFERENCES Blake, Thomas F., FRISKSP, Version 4.00 August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 19 California Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, 2001 California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, Scale 1:750:000 California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, an Exploratory Map to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, Scale 1:750:000 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Special Publication 42, Fault- Rupture Hazard Zones in California, with Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999 California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in California: Sacramento, CA, Special Publication 117 California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, DMG Open -File Report 96 -02, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California California Department of Transportation, 1990, Highway Design Manual, Fourth Edition, dated July 1 California Department of Transportation, 1995, Engineering Service Center, Office of Materials Engineering and Testing Services, Interim Corrosion Guidelines Caltrans, 1995, Memo to Designers, dated July Caltrans, 1993, California Test 643 Coduto, Donald P., 1994, Foundation Design, Principles and Practice, Published by Prentice -Hall, Inc. Department of the Army, 1987, General Provisions and Geometric Design for Roads, Streets, Walks, and Open Storage Areas, TM 5- 822 -2, AFM 88 -7, dated July Department of the Army, 1992, Pavement Design for Roads, Streets, Walks, and Open Storage Areas, TM 5- 822 -5, AFM 88 -7, dated June Department of the Navy, 1979, Civil Engineering Pavements, Alexandria, VA, Design Manual 5.4 Department of the Navy, 1982, Soil Mechanics, Alexandria, VA, Design Manual 7.1 Department of the Navy, 1986, Foundations and Earth Structures, Alexandria, VA, Design Manual 7.02 Department of Defense, 1997, Soil Dynamics and Special Design Aspects: Norfolk, VA, United States Navy, MIL - HDBK- 1007/3. Dibblee, T.W., 1954, Geology of Southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 170, Ch. 2, pp 21 -28 Kennedy, Michael P., and Siang S. Tan, 1977, Geology of National City, Imperial Beach, and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, Map Sheet 29 Kramer, Steven L., 1996, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering: Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice -Hall www.Maporama.com 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval Report �- SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman August 3, 2005 Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Project No. 61000011 -01 Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 20 "Maps of Known Active Fault Near - Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," 1998, Prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, Published by International Conference of Building Officials, dated February Peterson and others, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, United States Geological Survey: Sacramento, CA, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open -File Report 96 -08 Portland Cement Association, Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements Robertson and Campanella, Guidelines for Geotechnical Design using the Cone Penetrometer Test and CPT with Pore Pressure Measurement: Fourth Edition: Columbia, MD, Hogentogler & Co. www.Topozone.com Transportation Research Board, 1996, Landslides Evaluation and Mitigation, Special Report 247, Prepared by National Research Council Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, 1997, Prepared by International Conference of Building Officials United States Geologic Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project at hftp://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/ United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1998, Seismic Design for Buildings, Technical Instructions 809 -04: Washington D.C., United States Army Youd and others, 2001 Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils in Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax A, r pt Aiv Reference: www.Maporama.com SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax 7 4 aped TaalniRa F PROJECT No. 61000011 -01 5Z SITE LOCATION MAP Avocado Street Residence 125 Avocado Street Leucadia, CA DATE August 2005 �a s'z cJ FIGURE Reference: "'Shabeen' O'Gorman Residential Project, 125 Avocado Street, Leucadia, California," 2005, Prepared by Jensvold Associates, dated April 20 Approximate Scale 1 -inch = 20 -feet North is at top of page SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax BORING LOCATION MAP Avocado Street Residence 125 Avocado Street Leucadia, CA PROJECT No. DATE FIGURE 61000011 -01 August 2005 2 Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval Appendix A Logs of Exploratory Excavations August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Descrintion I Intemretatinn I ah Tactclrlthar Oro Boring No. B -1 S SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. Avocado Street Residence Project GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO BOX 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 125 Avocado Street Sulfate Content 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 Fax Leucadia, California 1.6 1m 3.0 Project No: 61000011 -01 Date: 06/24/05 Bottom of Boring 6i Date Drilled: 06/24/05 Sampled by: RDP CL E Ground Elev. E o —c feet, MSL : 70 t Est. to nearest 10 ft. Logged by: RDP -O W c Y . O Reviewed U Method of Drilling: Hand excavation by: RDP To o m m o 0 Drive Wt. lbs.: Drop (in.): Descrintion I Intemretatinn I ah Tactclrlthar Oro S TOPSOIL — Gray brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND; abundant organics near the surface. v TERRACE DEPOSITS — Reddish brown, damp to moist, weakly cemented, silty, SANDSTONE. Slightly micaceous. Sulfate Content 1.6 1m 3.0 Bottom of Boring Remarks: Boring location indicated on Boring Location Map. Total Depth = 5 feet Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Project Boring Log B -1 uescn non tinter retatlon Lab I sM TOPSOIL - Gray brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND; abundant organics near the surface. I tKKAUE DEPOSITS – Reddish brown, damp to moist, H cemented, fine grained SANDSTONE; trace of silt. Slightly micaceous. I= Bottom of Boring Remarks: Boring location indicated on Boring Location Map. Total Depth = 5 feet Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Project Boring Log B -2.doc Boring No. B -2 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. Avocado Street Residence Project GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 125 Avocado Street PO BOX 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 FAx Leucadia, California Project No: 61000011 -01 Date: 06/24/05 6i Date Drilled: 06/24/05 Sampled by: RDP CU Ground Elev. O — a C feet, MSL : 70 ± Est. to nearest 10 ft. Logged by: RDP c .T. O Reviewed a) LE Method of Drilling: Hand excavation by: RDP t Y O ) ° n N O ° 00 ° 00 : ° " I Drive Wt. Ibs.: Drop (in.): uescn non tinter retatlon Lab I sM TOPSOIL - Gray brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND; abundant organics near the surface. I tKKAUE DEPOSITS – Reddish brown, damp to moist, H cemented, fine grained SANDSTONE; trace of silt. Slightly micaceous. I= Bottom of Boring Remarks: Boring location indicated on Boring Location Map. Total Depth = 5 feet Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Project Boring Log B -2.doc Description I Interpretation Lab Tests /Other oro Boring No. B -3 SM SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. Avocado Street Residence Project GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 1.6 125 Avocado Street PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 TERRACE DEPOSITS — Reddish brown, damp to moist, weakly cemented, fine grained SANDSTONE; trace of silt. Slightly micaceous. Expansion Index 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 FAx Leucadia, California 10, 3.0 Project No: 61000011 -01 Date: 06/24/05 Bottom of Boring in Date Drilled: 06/24/05 Sampled by: RDP c c C) C/) Ground Elev. Remarks: Boring location indicated on Boring Location Map. Total Depth = 6 feet Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. E `° o feet, MSL : 70 t Est. to nearest 10 ft. Logged by: RDP ° o Z ° Reviewed CL Method of Drilling: Hand excavation by: RDP n Y 3 0 o m o m O T o c4 0 Drive Wt. lbs.: Drop (in.): Description I Interpretation Lab Tests /Other oro SM TOPSOIL — Gray brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND; abundant grass - related organics near the surface. 1.6 TERRACE DEPOSITS — Reddish brown, damp to moist, weakly cemented, fine grained SANDSTONE; trace of silt. Slightly micaceous. Expansion Index 10, 3.0 Bottom of Boring Remarks: Boring location indicated on Boring Location Map. Total Depth = 6 feet Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Project Boring Log 8 -3 Description I Interoretation Lab TestsiOther 0/0 Boring No. B -4 SM SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. Avocado Street Residence Project GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 125 Avocado Street PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 TERRACE DEPOSITS — Reddish brown, damp to moist, weakly cemented, fine grained SANDSTONE; trace of silt. Slightly micaceous. 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 FAx , Leucadiadia California C Project No: 61000011 -01 Date: 06124105 u, Date Drilled: 06(24/05 Sampled by: RDP a @ � � U) Ground Elev. Remarks: Boring location indicated on Boring Location Map. Total Depth = 4 feet Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. co o feet, MSL : 70 ± Est. to nearest 10 ft. Logged by: RDP Reviewed ° Method of Drilling: Hand excavation by: RDP F n a o Y m o 0 m o it ° @ C) Drive Wt. lbs.: Drop (in.): Description I Interoretation Lab TestsiOther 0/0 SM TOPSOIL — Gray brown, damp to moist, very loose to loose, silty fine to medium SAND; abundant grass - related organics near the surface. TERRACE DEPOSITS — Reddish brown, damp to moist, weakly cemented, fine grained SANDSTONE; trace of silt. Slightly micaceous. 6. 16 10! 3.0 Bottom of Boring Remarks: Boring location indicated on Boring Location Map. Total Depth = 4 feet Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Project Boring Log B -4.doc Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Limned Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Appendix B Laboratory Testing August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval Report.doc SOLID BOCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project Lab Testing Appendix Laboratory Testing Classification August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 Page 1 of 1 Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory excavations. In -Place Moisture and Density Tests The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the exploratory excavations were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937 -83. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory excavations. Expansion Index Tests The expansion index of selected materials was evaluated in general accordance with U.B.C. Standard No. 18 -2. Specimens were molded under specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation (plus of minus 1 percent). The prepared 1 -inch thick by 4 -inch diameter specimens were loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and were inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours. The result of these tests are summarized below. Summary of Expansion Index Test Results Sample Description Sample Location Expansion Index Expansion Potential Gray brown, silty SAND; trace clay TP -4 @ 14 0 Very Low Soil Corrosivity Tests Soil pH and resistivity tests were performed on representative soil samples in general accordance with Caltrans Test Method 643. The sulfate content of selected was evaluated in general accordance with Caltrans Test Method 417. — The test results are presented below. Summary of Corrosivity Test Results Sample Location PH Minimum Resistivity Sulfate Content Chloride Content (ohm -cm) ( %) (PPm) TP 1 @ 1'/z -3' 0.017 - 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Lab Testing Appendix.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, Califomia 92160 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax Ronan and Alex O'Gorman Proposed Avocado Street Residence Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Appendix C Standard Specifications for Grading Projects 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eva! Reoort.doc August 3, 2005 Project No. 61000011 -01 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, Califomia 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised August 2005 Page 1 SECTION 1— GENERAL The guidelines contained herein and the standard details attached hereto represent SRE's standard recommendations for grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be considered a portion of the project specifications. Recommendations contained in the body of the previously presented soils report shall supersede the recommendations and /or requirements as specified herein. Disputes arising out of interpretation of the recommendations contained in the soils report, or specifications contained herein, shall be interpreted by the project geotechnical consultant. SECTION 2 — RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROJECT PERSONNEL — The geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services sufficient to assure that geotechnical construction is performed in general conformance with project specifications and standard grading practices. The geotechnical consultant should report any deviations to the client or is authorized representative. The client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and /or provide services. During grading the Client or his authorized representative should remain on -site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project. The contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other associated operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to, earthwork in accordance with the project plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements. SECTION 3 — PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING A preconstruction site meeting shall be arranged by the owner and/or client and shall include the grading contractor, the design engineer, the geotechnical consultant, owner's representative and representatives of the appropriate governing authorities. SECTION 4 — SITE PREPARATION The client or contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during and / or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations. Clearing and grubbing should consists of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, root of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas. Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.) and other man -made surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping and/or rerouting pipelines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the governing authorities and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of demolition. Trees, plants, or man -made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished, should be protected by the contractor from damage or injury. Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and /or demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded and Standard Specs for Grading Projects Template SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised August 2005 Page 2 disposed off -site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. SECTION 5 —SITE PROTECTION Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the contractor. Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas form the requirements for site protection until such time as the entire — project is complete as identified by the geotechnical consultant, the client and the regulating agencies. Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be kept on had to continually remove water during periods of rainfall. Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions as determined by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable materials and should be subject to over excavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g., back cuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed project and therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the regulating agencies. When deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant or governing agencies the contractor shall install check dams, desilting basins, and bags or other drainage control measures. In relatively level areas and /or slope areas, where saturated soil and /or erosion gullies exist to depth of greater than 1.0 foot, the soil should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture conditioning in- place, followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with applicable grading guidelines herein maybe attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein. As field conditions dictate, the geotechnical consultant may recommend other slope repair procedures. SECTION 6 — EXCAVATIONS Unsuitable Materials Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft bedrock and non - engineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials. Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture conditions should be overexcavated, moisture conditioned as needed, at or above optimum moisture condition prior to placement as compacted fill. If during the course of grading, adverse geotechnical conditions are exposed which were not anticipated in the preliminary soils report as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, additional exploration, analysis and Standard Specs for Grading Projects Template SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, Califomia 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Standard Specifications for Grading Projects treatment of these conditions may be recommended. Cut Slopes Revised August 2005 Page 3 The geotechnical consultant should observe cut slope excavations. If these excavations expose loose cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, the material should be overexcavated and replaced with a compacted stabilization fill. When extensive cut slopes are excavated or these cut slopes are made in the direction of the prevailing drainage, a non - erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided at the top of the slope. Cut/Fill Transitions Cut/fill transitions are defined as areas where the indicated structure is founded on or over the transition between cut or native soil and compacted fill. All pad areas, including side yard terrain, containing both cut and fill materials, transitions, should be over - excavated to a depth of H/3 feet and replaced with a uniform compacted fill blanket where H is measured as the deepest fill from the bottom of the foundation down to native material. The minimum depth of over - excavation shall be three feet. Actual depth of over - excavation may vary and should be delineated by the geotechnical consultant during grading. For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top - of- slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm drainage swale and /or an appropriate pad gradient. A - gradient in soil areas was from the top -of- slopes of 2 percent or greater is recommended. SECTION 7 — COMPACTED FILL `- All fill materials should have fill quality, placement, conditioning and compaction as specified below or as approved by the geotechnical consultant. Fill Material Quality Excavated on -site or import materials which are acceptable to the geotechnical consultant may be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. All import materials anticipated for use on -site should be sampled, tested and approved prior to placement in conformance with the requirements outlined below in Section 7.2. Rocks 8 inches in maximum and smaller may be utilized within compacted fill provided sufficient fill material is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock to effectively fill rock voids. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the % inch sieve. The geotechnical consultant may vary those requirements as field conditions dictate. Where rocks greater than 8 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill, they may require special handling in accordance with attached Plates and described below. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken down or disposed legally off -site. Standard Specs for Grading Projects Template SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS -� PO Box 600277, San Diego, Califomia 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Placement of Fill Revised August 2005 Page 4 Prior to placement of fill material, the geotechnical consultant should inspect the area to receive fill. After inspection and approval the exposed ground surface should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches. The scarified material should be conditioned (i.e. moisture added or air dried) to achieve a moisture content at or slightly above optimum moisture conditions and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density or as otherwise recommended in the soils report or by appropriate government agencies. Compacted fill should then be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be moisture content at or slightly above optimum and thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. The contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and watering apparatus on the job site to handle fill being placed in consideration of moisture retention properties of the materials and weather conditions. When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least six -foot wide benches and a minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area subsequent to keying and benching until the geotechnical consultant has reviewed the area. Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away form the bench are to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to placement of fill. Typical keying and benching details have been included — within the accompanying Plates. With a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a three -foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least three - foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification, moisture conditioning as needed to at or slightly above optimum moisture content, thoroughly blended and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Where unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot, the unsuitable materials should be overexcavated. Following a period of flooding, rainfall or over - watering by other means, no additional fill should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading performed as described herein. Rocks 8 inches in maximum dimensions and smaller may be utilized in the compacted fill provided the fill is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. No oversize material should be used within 5 feet of finished pad grade or within 2 feet of subsurface utilities. Rocks 8 inches up to four feet maximum dimension should be placed below the upper five feet of any fill and should not be closer than 10 feet to any slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures or deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean, overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around Standard Specs for Grading Projects Template SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS ~ PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised August 2005 Page 5 all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so that successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane. It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rocks as field conditions dictate and as recommended by the geotechnical consultant at the time of placement. The contractor should assist the geotechnical consultant and /or his representative by digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. The contractor should provide this work at no additional cost to the owner or contractor's client. Fill should be tested by the geotechnical consultant for compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test D1556 -82, D2922 -81. ® Tests should be conducted at a minimum of two vertical feet or 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Fill found not to be the minimum recommended degree of compaction should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Fill Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Except as specifically recommended in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes should be overbuilt and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of the geotechnical consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted slope surface condition is achieved. Care should be taken by the contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface. At the discretion of the geotechnical consultant, slope face compaction may be attempted by conventional construction procedures including backrolling. The procedure must create a firmly compacted material throughout the entire depth of the slope face to the surface of the previously compacted fill intercore. During grading operations care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately established desired grades. Grade during construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should be trimmed to expose competent compacted fill. Fill slope faces should be thoroughly compacted at intervals not exceeding four feet in vertical slope height, or the capacity of available equipment, whichever is less. Where placement of fill above a natural slope or above a cut slope is proposed, the fill slope configuration should be adopted as presented in the accompanying Standard Details. For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top -of- slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and pad gradients of at least 2 percent. SECTION 8 — TRENCH BACKFILL Utility and/or other trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical means. If on -site materials are utilized, they should be wheel rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during construction by the geotechnical consultant. If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, the contractor Standard Specs for Grading Projects Template SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHN/CAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised August 2005 Page 6 may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean granular material, which should be thoroughly jetted in -place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review of the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction. In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the geotechnical consultant. Clean granular backfill and /or bedding are not recommended in slope areas. SECTION 9 – RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls should be designed on a project -by- project basis when wall heights and soil parameters are determined. Retaining wall backfill should consist of well- drained, very low expansive soil. Drains should be installed behind the walls to reduce the potential for build up of hydrostatic pressure. Retaining wall drain details are provided in the attached Plates. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the most recent version of ASTM D1557. Compaction should be accomplished by light hand - operated or walk - behind equipment. SECTION 10 – DRAINAGE Where deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, canyon subdrain systems should be installed in accordance with the — attached plates. Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilizations or sidehill masses, should be installed in accordance with the specifications of the accompanying attached plates. Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and structures to suitable areas via non - erodible devices (i.e., gutters, down spouts, concrete swales). — For drainage in extensively landscaped areas near structures, (i.e., within six feet) a minimum of 5 percent gradient away from the structure should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent gradient should be maintained over the remainder of the site. Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the lift of the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns could be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance. SECTION 11– SLOPE MAINTENANCE Landscape Plants In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope _ planting should consist of deep- rooting vegetation requiring little watering. Plants native to the Southern California area and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi -arid and arid area may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect should be the best party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration. Irrigation Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces. Repair As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period of time prior to landscape planting. If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant should be contacted for a field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. Standard Specs for Grading Projects Template SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHN/CAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS — PO Box 600277, San Diego, Califomia 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax NATURAL GROUND mmL LOV&ST SENCH 2' MIN_ KEY DEPTH CUT FACE SHALL BE CONSTAUC7E3) PRfOR fl�s� • • c r •e •r •• • ¢ a , 4' TYPICAL — BEM' BENCH HEIGHT REMOVE UNSWABL.E MATERIAL FILL SLOPE C FILL -OVER -CUT SLOPE TO FILL PL1UC� / NATURAL / CUT -OVER -FILL — GROUND / SLOPE OVERBUILT AND '�= — TRIM BACK — _ - -_ For Subdrains See - DESIGN SLOPE �_ -- —_ REMOVE Standard Detail C — PROJECTED PLANE ��-- --- _= NSUrrABL.E 1 TO i MkXMJM FROM ,C' =�?_' MATERIAL TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND X — V TYPICAL MPAGTED BENCH BENCH HEIGHT =2%111E -_• _ BENCHING SHAL-L BE DONE WHEN SLOPES ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN N 5:1 z' MIlL �1S' MI • M"MLPM BENCH HEIGHT 8HALL BE < FEET KEY DEPTH I LOWEST MIN ML*A FILL WIDTH SWILL BE 9 FEET STANDARD SPECIRCA77ONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS SOLID BOCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 Keying and Benching Detail 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax — Jos No. DATE DETAIL Revised July 2005 A ==- COMPACTED 7 PROJECTED PLANE — -- -- _.?„` --r — 1 TO 1 MA>�Al1M Fi'±Ot+�t TOE - - - - — _ — OF SLOPE TO A&V;0VED GROUND - _.? -= —_ -- REMOVE NATURAL =- ? =_` —_— _= 4'TYPICAL UNSUITABLE GROUND — — �' '"j— MATERIAL -- - -`_ BENCH j —BENCH -- — _ 7G MIN.- — HEIGHT 11 C —15, MIN. --- .4 2- MLN. KEY DEPTTi LOWEST BENCH (KEY) NATURAL GROUND mmL LOV&ST SENCH 2' MIN_ KEY DEPTH CUT FACE SHALL BE CONSTAUC7E3) PRfOR fl�s� • • c r •e •r •• • ¢ a , 4' TYPICAL — BEM' BENCH HEIGHT REMOVE UNSWABL.E MATERIAL FILL SLOPE C FILL -OVER -CUT SLOPE TO FILL PL1UC� / NATURAL / CUT -OVER -FILL — GROUND / SLOPE OVERBUILT AND '�= — TRIM BACK — _ - -_ For Subdrains See - DESIGN SLOPE �_ -- —_ REMOVE Standard Detail C — PROJECTED PLANE ��-- --- _= NSUrrABL.E 1 TO i MkXMJM FROM ,C' =�?_' MATERIAL TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND X — V TYPICAL MPAGTED BENCH BENCH HEIGHT =2%111E -_• _ BENCHING SHAL-L BE DONE WHEN SLOPES ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN N 5:1 z' MIlL �1S' MI • M"MLPM BENCH HEIGHT 8HALL BE < FEET KEY DEPTH I LOWEST MIN ML*A FILL WIDTH SWILL BE 9 FEET STANDARD SPECIRCA77ONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS SOLID BOCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 Keying and Benching Detail 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax — Jos No. DATE DETAIL Revised July 2005 A FINISH GRADE ---------------------------- --------- - -------------------- - - - __-= - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- o' MIN._-_.00MPACTED FILL------ SLOPE ---- Z ------------- --- FACE -- - - -- ------ -------------- ----------------- ------------------------- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------------------------------- -------------- :; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1Z --e - ------ EE --------- HE H M 0' -------------------- - --- - - - ------------ -- ------- - -- =_ =_ -- -- --------- - ------------------ --- NATURAL GROUND — -------------------------------- -- ------------------------------- — -- — ------------------------------ — -- — ------------------------ COMPACTED FILL ------- BENCHING :MOVE -- -- ------------- — UNSUITABLE -------- -- — MATERIAL --- ----------- -- ---------- — --- -------------- -- Q 120 MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET '20 HOGIN RING I G TIE CALTRANS CLASS If • PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (gFT.-'/FL) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC FILTr=R FABRIC (MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED *",COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL EQUtVALEN7) BE MINIMUM 6• DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORAII ED CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL PERFORATED PIPE FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION 6-4 MIN. DESIGN FINISHED GRADE - 10' MIN. BACKFILL 2% 20, MIN. --+ - .NON-PERFORATED 6-4 MIN.. FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) 5' MIN. #2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS 11 PERMEABLE. SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEoTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619,851,8683, 619.501.9511 fax STANDARD SPECIRCA77ONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS Canyon Subdrains Detail Joe No. DATE DETAIL Revised July 2005 C KEY 1± DEPiH� 15' MIN. OUTLET PIPES �_-- 4'4 NON - PERFORATED PIPE, __- 100' MAX,. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, — — ___= BACKCUT IA 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY _ _ -- = -= OR FLATTER ------------ BENCHING _.._ 2%. ----------- ----------- -------------- - - - ------------ -- ----------- ---------- 'r ---------- -------- -------- 2% --____- -_ -- — = = =201 MIN. _�— — 15' MIN. ' IN. O 12' MVERLAP FROM THE TOP 2' MIN. Y WIDTH POSITNE SEAL HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET SHOULD BE PROVIDED AT FILTER FABRIC THE JOI ,%� - • (MIRAFI 140 OR • . APPROVED 596 Miry.:,. EQUIVALENT) OUTLET PIPE (NON - PERFORATED) T- CONNECTION .FOR CALTRANS CLASS tl COLLECTOR PIPE TO PIPE PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK OUTiOUTLET (3FT!IFT.) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC • SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe shall be Installed with perforations down or, unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultanL Outlet pipes shall be non- perforated pipe. The suWraln pipe shalt have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shag be y1 to he if dro?d holes are used Alt subdrain pipes shalt have .a gradient at least 2% towards the outlet • SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40, or ASTM D3034, SDR 215, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe. • An outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench no wider than twice the subdrain pipe. Pipe shall be In soil of SE >30 jetted or flooded In place except for the outside 5 feet which shall be native soil backfilt. STANDARD SPECIRwwNs FOR GRADING PRolECTs SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. — GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Buttress or Replacement Fill Subdrains Detail PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax _ Jos No. DATE DETAIL Revised July 2005 D RETAINING WALL WALL- WATERPROOFING PER ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS ----__ FINISH GRADE - OMPACTED WALL FOOTING_ L=31 t= NOT TO SCALE Specifications for Caltrans Class 2 Permeable Material U.S. Standard Percent Sieve Size Passing 1 -inch 100 3/ -inch 90 -100 318 -inch 40 -100 No.4 25 -40 No. 8 18 -33 No.30 5 -15 No.50 0 -7 No.200 0 -3 Sand Equivalent > 75 SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT;RELATIVE COMPACTION* 2' Typ _=- - 06 _ M:AP' - FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE- { OVERLAP: • -(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED 1 EQUIVALENT):** - a 1' MIN. - == 3/4'- 1-112' CLEAN GRAVEL` ° O • _� 4-.(MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED o ° _ "PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR _= EQUIVALE.NT) WITH PERFORATIONS ORIENTED:DOWN AS DEPICTED MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET 1 = II S' MIN. COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT *BASED ON ASTM 1315657 * * IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4'- 1 -112' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90 PERCEN'f,RELATIVE COMPACTION* NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR J -DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OF CLASS 2. INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE: WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax STANDARD SPECIRCA77ONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS Retaining Wall Drainage Detail JOB NO. DATE j DETAIL Revised July 2005 E Soil improvement for slab support per soil report. 1• Slab and reinforcing per structural engineer or soil report. Moisture barrier per architect or soil report. OLDER ALLUVIUM, FORMATIONAL SOIL OR OTHER SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL. Footing embedment into competent formational soil per soil report. Not less than six inches. *Designer should use factors of safety appropriate for load conditions. SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Consultants PO Box 600277, San Diego, CA 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS Deepened Footing Detail PROJECT No. I DATE I Detail G Ronan and Alex O'Gorman August 3, 2005 Proposed Avocado Street Residence Project No. 61000011 -01 Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Appendix D General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners 61000011 -01 Avocado Street Residence Geo Eval Re ort.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners INTRODUCTION February 2005 Building sites, in general, and hillside lots, in particular, require regular maintenance for proper up -keep and retention of value. Many property owners are unaware of this and inadvertently allow deterioration of their properties. In addition to damaging their own properties, property owners may also be liable for damage caused to neighboring properties as a result of improper property maintenance. It is therefore important for property owners to be familiar with some common causes of property damage, as well as general guidelines for the maintenance of properties. COMMON CAUSES OF SOIL- RELATED PROPERTY DAMAGE Most soil- movement problems are associated with water. Some common causes of erosion, shallow slope failures, soil settlement and soil expansion are outlined below: ♦ Sparse and /or improper planting and maintenance of slopes and yards. ♦ Improper maintenance of drainage devices. ♦ Leaking of pressurized and non - pressurized water and sewer lines. ♦ Over watering of slopes and yards, diversion of runoff over slopes, alteration of finish grade and removal of drainage slopes and swales. ♦ Foot traffic on slopes, which destroys vegetation and increases erosion potential. EROSION REDUCTION GUIDELINES Erosion potential is increased when bare soil is left exposed to weather. Care should be taken to provide ground cover at all times, but particularly during the winter months. Some suggestions for soil - stabilizing ground covers are provided below: ♦ Grass or other fast growing, ground- covering plants may be an inexpensive and effective material for erosion control. The optimum goal of planting slopes is to achieve a dense growth of vegetation (which includes plants of varying root depths) requiring little irrigation. Plants having shallow root systems and /or requiring abundant water (many types of ice plant) are poor choices for slope - stabilizing ground covers. To find the best seed mixtures and plants for your area, check with a landscape architect, local nursery or the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. ♦ Mulches help retain soil moisture and provide ground protection from rain damage. They also provide a favorable environment for starting and growing plants. Easily obtained mulches include grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips and straw. Commercial application of wood fibers combined with various types of seed and fertilizer (hydraulic mulching) may also be effective in stabilizing slopes. ♦ Mats of excelsior, jute netting and plastic sheets can be effective temporary covers, but they should be in contact with soil and fastened securely to work effectively. General Property Maintenance Guidelines Revised 2005 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, iNc. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners February 2005 MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES The following maintenance guidelines are provided for the protection of the property owner's investment, and should be observed throughout the year: ♦ In general, roof and yard runoff should be directed away from structures and conducted to either the street of storm drain by appropriate erosion - control devices, such as graded swales, rain gutters and downspouts, sidewalks, drainage pipes or ground gutters. Discharge from rain gutters and downspouts should not be directed into existing sub - drains, as this may overload the drainage system. Care should be taken that the slopes, terraces and berms (ridges at the crown of slopes) provided for proper lot drainage are not disturbed. Drainage behind retaining walls should also be maintained as well and designed. Drainage systems should not be altered without professional consultation. ♦ Drains, including rain gutters and downspouts, should be kept clean and unclogged. Terrace drains and concrete -lined brow ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage. Drain outlets and weep holes in retaining walls should also be routinely checked and cleared of -- debris. The performance of these drainage systems should be periodically tested. Problems, such as erosive gullying, loss of slope - stabilizing vegetation or ponding of water, should be corrected as soon as possible. ` ♦ Check before and after major storms to see that drains, gutters, downspouts and ditches are clear and that vegetation is in place on slopes. Spot seed any bare areas. Check with a landscape architect or local nursery for advice. ♦ Leakage from swimming or decorative pools, water lines, etc, should be repaired as soon as possible. Wet spots on the property may indicate a broken line. - ♦ Landscaping watering should be limited to the minimum necessary to maintain plant vigor. ♦ Animal burrows should be filled with compacted soil or sand - cement slurry since they may cause diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion or cause shallow slope failures. ♦ Whenever property owners plan significant topographic modifications of their lots or slopes, a geotechnical consultant should be contacted. Over- steepening of slopes may result in a need for expensive retaining devices, while undercutting of the base of slopes may lead to slope instability or failure. These modifications should not be undertaken without expert consultation. ♦ If unusual cracking, settling or soil failure occurs, the property owner should consult a geotechnical consultant immediately. General Property Maintenance Guidelines Revised 2005 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax ,r HYDROLOGY STUDY O'GORMAN RESIDENCE 125 Avocado Street Encinitas, CA 92024 Planning Case No. 05 -097 CDP Prepared by: E RICCI, CIVIL ENGINEERING 1014 West Washington Street San Diego, CA 92103 -1808 For: Ronan & Alex O'Gorman 2124 Inverness Drive Henderson, Nevada 89074 Job No.: 05- 1012 i L September 23, 2005 E RICCI CIVIL ENGINEERING - 1014 West Washington St San Diego CA 92103 Civil Engineering - Land Planning - Surveying (619)296 -3183 Fax: (619)296 -8180 SUBJECT HYDROLOGY STUDY Table of Contents: BY Erick L. Ricci SHEET 1 OF 8 APPROVED E.L.R. JOB NO. 05 -1012 DATE 9 -23 -05 PROJECT NAME O'Gorman Residence 05 -097 CDP Introduction ........... ............................... Sheet 2 II Hydrology ........... ............................... Sheets 3 -6 III Hydraulics ........... ............................... Sheet 7 IV Conclusion ............ ............................... Sheet 8 Exhibits and Plates: Exhibit "A" (Existing conditions) .................... Left Pocket Exhibit "B" (Proposed conditions) .................... Right Pocket Plate 1 (Hydrologic Soil Classification Map) Plate 2 (Runoff Coefficients) Plate 3 (Overland Time of Flow) Plate 4 (10 -Year 6 -Hour Precipitation Isopluvials) Plate 5 (10 -Year 24 -Hour Precipitation Isopluvials) Plate 6 (Intensity Curves) Plate 7 (Capacity of Grate Inlet in Sump Graph) 4 /CC N6. X2103 EXP. � CIVIL OF 0AL�F� L. Ricci, R.C.E. 32103 Date E RICCI, CIVIL ENGINEERING 1014 West Washington St San Diego CA 92103 Civil Engineering - Land Planning - Surveying (619)296 -3183 Fax: (619)296-8180 SUBJECT HYDROLOGY STUDY I. Introduction: BY Erick L. Ricci SHEET 2 OF 8 APPROVED JOB NO. 05 -1012 DATE 9 -23 -05 PROJECT NAME O'Gorman Residence 05 -097 CDP The objective of this Hydrology Study is to calculate the runoff from the project site and to size the drainage structures needed to handle it. E RICCI, CIVIL ENGINEERING 1014 West Washington St San Diego CA 92103 Civil Engineering - Land Planning - Surveying (619)296 -3183 Fax: (619)296-8180 SUBJECT HYDROLOGY STUDY II Hydrology: Existing Conditions: BY Erick L. Ricci SHEET 3 OF 8 APPROVED E.L.R. JOB NO. 05 -1012 DATE 9 -23 -05 PROJECT NAME O'Gorman Residence 05 -097 CDP The project site, located at 125 Avocado Street, is a 0.19 acre site containing a single family residence. The site is relatively flat and is covered by some grass and contains 4 large trees. The property is surrounded by homes on all sides and does not appear to receive significant runoff from adjacent properties. No drainage structures are visible on -site and the runoff generated by the lot will find its way to a ditch adjacent to Avocado Street, a paved road. E RICCI, CW L ENGINEERING . BY: _ C,o/CX L - R /CC/ SHEET 4 OF S 1014 West Washington SL San Diego, CA. 92103 APPROVED BY: E.LR. DATE: q 2�/o5 (619) 2963183 Fmc (619) 2968180 JOB NO.: 0� -1012 PROJECT NAME: O'60IMAIV suBJi_cT ti �DR0006Y STc� D Y 0�7 - 0 9 7 C D,a �X /ST /N�j COicID17 - /OA/5 (COA17 A = o. 19 4c L = /&o S = /. �✓ = o, oo,?41 /!oo T- / = 2. /,v lyre 0 l = CIA = 60,�5 )(2- 4) (o. 15�) = 0, 25 CF5 E RICCI, CIVIL ENGINEERING 1014 West Washington St San Diego CA 92103 Civil Engineering - Land Planning - Surveying (619)296 -3183 Fax: (619)296 -8180 SUBJECT HYDROLOGY STUDY Proposed Conditions: BY Erick L. Ricci SHEET 5 OF 8 APPROVED E.L.R. JOB NO. 05 -1012 DATE 9 -23 -05 PROJECT NAME O'Gorman Residence 05 -097 CDP The project consists of the demolition of the existing home and the construction of a new residence served by a decomposed granite stabilized driveway. BY Erick L. Ricci SHEETT_ OF 8 E RICCI, CIVIL ENGINEERING APPROVED E.R. 1014 West Washington St San Diego CA 92103 JOB NO. 0J" -/O/2 DATE °I 23 Civil Engineering- Land Planning - Surveying (619)296-3183 Fax (619)2965180 PROJECT NAME O '&012M1QA1 12G5ID67A.,167E SUBJECT 05-097 COP P,eO,0056"T C0n1T.J 17_10^15 CC'O�VT, A = 0,15 4c t1N= X8.7 - -5 7.0 = A 7 S = /. 7 = O, 009y /82.5 n41N /A/ /fi'1Z )(z (o. /�� = 0, 24 ocs BY Erick L. Ricci SHEET % OF E RICCI, CIVIL ENGINEERING APPROVED E.R. 1014 West Washington St San Diego CA 92103 JOB NO. drj- AO /2 DATE Civil Engineering - Land Planning - Surveying (619)2963183 Fax: (619)296-8180 PROJECT NAME D'l j!✓t/I.9�Cl - /aE�l/CE SUBJECT /yYZ�/rC G�7Y STyT%Y 097 CaR = 0, o/ 0 i! 11 D. /S Fr2 o 027 V.k U5E /. �'x 0, 2' CDI313�E �•Lz7l� F-T 2 C LDG t'�Lh15 0.0/3 �O. OS 2�3 = D, O 9, Tdr1 'T "V e"qz� Ate ✓/J��•vT GTZAVG �,us7L)GL /oa ,pUe o Zvo E RICCI, CIVIL ENGINEERING 1014 West Washington St San Diego CA 92103 Civil Engineering - Land Planning - Surveying (619)296 -3183 Fax: (619)296 -8180 SUBJECT HYDROLOGY STUDY V. CONCLUSION: BY Erick L. Ricci SHEET 8 OF -8 APPROVED E.L.R. JOB NO. 05 -1012 DATE 9 -23 -05 PROJECT NAME O'Gorman Residence 05 -097 CDP The calculation presented in this Hydrology Study indicate that the net runoff to Avocado Street is approximately the same between existing and proposed conditions, therefore no special measures appear to be needed. LEGEND GROUP C IFILTRATI0N RATES WHEN THOROUGHLY WETTED, CONSISTING CHIEFLY LAYER THAT IMPEDES THE DOWNWARD MOVEMENT OF WATER, OR (2) Y FINE TO FINE TEXTURE AND A SLOW INFILTRATION RATE, THESE TE OF WATER TRANSMISSION, GROUP D OW INFILTRATION RATES WHEN THOROUGHLY WETTED, CONSISTING SOILS WITH A HIGH SWELLING POTENTIAL; (2) SOILS WITH A HIGH E; (3) SOILS WITH CLAY PAN OR CLAY LAYER AT OR NEAR THE LLOW SOILS OVER NEARLY IMPERVIOUS IMTERIALS, THESE SOILS E OF WATER TRANSMISSION, l a O 1 2 34 S 6 7 a 9 t0 no seat* io Miles SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPT. OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES FLOOD CONTROL DIVISION DESIGN MANUAL HYDROLOGIC APPROVED BY: DATE : APP. IX -C 2 N. /G'�-4T,E Z RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) LAND USE Coefficient, C Soil Group (1) A B C D Undeveloped 30 35 .40 .45 Residential: Rural 30 s"5 .40 .43 Single Family 40 .45 50 f ,'1 Multi -Units 45 .50 .60 -p Mobile Homes (2) .45' .50 .55 .65 Commercial (2) 80% Impervious 70 75 80 85 Industrial (2) 90% Impervious .80 .85 .90 .95 NOTES: Cl) Obtain soil group from maps on file with the Department of Sanitation and Flood Control. (2) Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated imperviousness values of 800 or 90 %, the values given for coefficient C, may be revised by multiplying 80% or 90% by the ratio of actual imperviousness to the tabulated imperviousness. However, in no case shall the final coefficient be less than 0.50. For example: Consider commercial property on D soil group. Actual imperviousness = 50% Tabulated imperviousness = 80% Revised C = S. X 0.85 = 0.53 _____, APPENDIX 1X i t I� I i Lei. L L cc c� _. .v Co C D Z O H F O � C7 N W Z H d D N d 0 0 N OC F- F- OLuO } � U F • C-- o w of u O li O M un 0 M Reno 0 � U - X G1 z w a. u� Q U7 00 M � a T a O M Lf� oo t11 4 �� ao 0 < U M Q <0 vi o u O <a z� o� F a < C F J u a a V1 Revised 1/85 APPENDIX XT-P COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION g f FLOOD CONTROL 33° 451 301 151 451 PreP, red U.S. DEPARTME T NATIONAL OCEANIC AND AT SPECIAL STUDIES BR NC I, OFFICE OF 1 fD6 301+- 1180 451 10 -YEAR 24- 110ljI. 0 PRECIPITATION ISOPLUVIALS F 10 -YEAR 24 -HOUR PRECIPITATION it) ENTHS OF AN 1 "Xi 301 151 117° c 0 `F51 30 . 15' 1 16° Revised 1/8S APPENDIX XI -F y s� F mod' X 9 1v INTENSITY,DUMTION DESIGN CHART 1U cu 30 40 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 Minutes Hours Duration rn 0 M 9. .o 0 � a .0 .0 5 s .0 N v ,5 n E 0 Directions for Application: 1) From precipitation maps determine 6 hr. and 24 hr. amounts for the selected frequency. These maps are printed in the County Hydrology Manual (10, 50 and 100 yr. maps included in the Design and Procedure Manual). 2) Adjust 6 hr. precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the ranee of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr. precipitation. (Not applicable to Desert) , 3) Plot 6 hr. precipitation on the rigi;t side of the chart. 4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the Plotted lines. 5) This line is the intensity- duration curve for the location being analyzed. Application Form: 0) Selected Frequency /O vr. 1) P6 = /. 7 i n . , P24= 2,8 *P6 2) Adjusted *P6= /,7 P24 in. 3) tc = 13 min. I) I = 2 u in /hr. *Not Applicable to Desert Region Revised 1/85 APPENDIX XI -A RI fi\ womm■■m ■EMMENE ■mvmmx ■omtott ■Mitt ■vmm ��/ «fit // .Ot�� ■!!'�1[t.« /�! �lt�t�t�te��s. iii��r�.■�ma �'�'iC ��t //! %fit ■ /I�� ■ ■�ttot■ �r • ��Qa� - �rt�t��tttta� ��tsl� ■ / ■�IS�t��stttil�� 6a Al