The URL can be used to link to this page

2009-10430 GSLine: 1 jj 6s0 MANNING ENGINEERING, INC. 41892 Enterprise Circle South, Suite E Temecula. CA 92590 -4822 Phone(951)296 -1044 Fax (951) 296 -1047 Date: April 25, 2012 City of Encinitas Engineering Services 505 South Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA 92024 X03 /D�-r7 Re: Engineer's Final Grading Certification for Permit Number 10430 -SG at 1022 Saxony Road Encinitas, CA 92024. The grading under permit number 10430 -SG has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached `As Graded' plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1% to the street and /or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Encinitas Stormwater Manual were constructed and are operational, together with the required maintenance covenant(s). Engineer of Record: Bruce J. Manning Dated: April 25, 2012 Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility. Engineering Inspector: Dated: Final Certification for A.P.N. 254-362-26,1022 Saxony Road Encinitas, CA 92024. Dean and Debra Stewart c/o Mr. Todd Turman Turman Construction PO Box 496 San Luis Rey, California 92068 phis u DEC 3 0 2009 I j ^�J Submitted via e -mail ( info @turmanconstruction - design.com and dlstew @aol.com) May 2, 2009 Project No. 61000497 -02 Subject: Summary of Field Density Tests for Saxony Road Field Density Testing Project located at 1022 Saxony Road, Encinitas, California 92024 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request, Solid Rock Engineering, Inc. has provided field density testing services for Saxony Road Field Density Testing project located at 1022 Saxony Road in Encinitas, California. Our services for this phase of the work consisted of evaluation of previously placed compacted fill for the pad subgrade. This limited report summarizes our services and presents the results of the field and laboratory tests performed for this project. TESTING OPERATIONS Our services included one site visit on April 29, 2009. At the request of the property owner, our staff visited the site once and performed a total of seven field density tests. The tests were performed in general accor- dance with ASTM D1556 (Sand Cone Method). The results of the field density tests are presented in Appendix A to the rear of this document. Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples of the soil that was used for compacted fill and pad subgrade in order to evaluate the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. Soil Type No. 1, consisted of the onsite olive brown, silty SAND. The onsite soil was used in the completion of the grading operations. Laboratory testing of the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content was 61000997 -0I Saxony Road field Density Testing PMJe t Summary of FDT dOc STS ,SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING) INC. GEOIFCNNEGL x6002 7, SmEN6ao, CA G RNM 2160 PD 601600177, SAN DIFGD, LA[IfgRNIA 91160 619.851.9683 PH., 619.501.9511 Fax WWW.S0uDR"KENGINF ".MN v - i INtNU BvC 3 3 L w.rx e 7 s ' Our services included one site visit on April 29, 2009. At the request of the property owner, our staff visited the site once and performed a total of seven field density tests. The tests were performed in general accor- dance with ASTM D1556 (Sand Cone Method). The results of the field density tests are presented in Appendix A to the rear of this document. Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples of the soil that was used for compacted fill and pad subgrade in order to evaluate the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. Soil Type No. 1, consisted of the onsite olive brown, silty SAND. The onsite soil was used in the completion of the grading operations. Laboratory testing of the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content was 61000997 -0I Saxony Road field Density Testing PMJe t Summary of FDT dOc STS ,SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING) INC. GEOIFCNNEGL x6002 7, SmEN6ao, CA G RNM 2160 PD 601600177, SAN DIFGD, LA[IfgRNIA 91160 619.851.9683 PH., 619.501.9511 Fax WWW.S0uDR"KENGINF ".MN Turman Construction May 2, 2009 Saxony Road Field Density Road Project No. 61000497 -02 Summary of Field Density Testing Services .2- conducted in general accordance with ASTM D1557 -91. The results of the laboratory tests are presented in Table 1, Maximum Density Test Results. When a field density test was performed that resulted in less than the specified relative compaction, the area was generally reworked and a retest performed. The specified relative compaction was 90 percent of the maximum dry density for the compacted fill and pad subgrade. SUMMARY Our staff visited the site as requested by the properV owner. The field density tests performed in the previ- ously placed compacted fill indicated the fill tested meets or exceeds the specified allowable relative compaction, after retesting areas that were reworked. In addition, thefill parameters indicated above generally conformed to the approved documents. LIMITATIONS The backfill observation and compaction testing services outlined in this report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and standard of care exercised by soils engineering consultants performing similar tasks in this area at this time. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the opinions presented in this report. The reported test results represent the relative compaction at the loca- tions tested at that time. It is important to note that the precision of field density tests is not exact and variations should be expected with location and time. Further, we did not provide continuous observation of the earthwork operations and can therefore provide no opinion regarding the uniformity, consistency, or density of the soil beyond the specific test locations. The reported locations and depths of the density tests are estimated based on correlations with the improvement plans. Further accuracy is not implied. Please note that the services provided by Solid Rock Engineering, Inc. were limited to these services specifically described herein for the Saxony Road Field Density Testing Project. We have not provided any other services for any other portion of the project. 61000497 -01 Sa Y Road Fk/d DenS&Y TeOna Prof .Summary of FDT doc ' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,. INC. 6FDIECNNIGIX6 0277, SA ENGINEERINGCONSUL2160 PO eox 600277, SAN DIEGO, Grrwanu 92160 _ 619.851.8683 RN., 619.501.9511 Fer www.SOLIDRO KENGrNEERS.COM Turman Construction Saxony Road Field Density Road Summary of Field Density Testing Services May 2, 2009 Project No. 61000497 -02 -3- We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you for this project. Should you have any ques- tions regarding this report, please feel free to contact the undersigned at 619.851.8683. �.- `,\ Respectfully submitted, SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. O R . n ct R0.2563 m; R. Douglas Provins, PE, GE Principal Engineer — GE 2568, Expires December 31, 2010 Distribution: (3) Addressee Attachments: Appendix A — Field Density Test Results Table 1 — Maximum Density Test Results Figure 1 — Field Density Test Location Map 61 0 004 97-01 Saxony Road Field Density Testin0 Project Summary of FDT doc STEM SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING., INC. GEOTFCNNIULAND 0277, SA ENGINEERING CALL rONSULTANTS PO Box 600177, SaN DFEGO, GLtWRNG 91160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FN WWW.SOUDROCRENGENEERS.CON Turman Construction Saxony Road Field Density Testing Summary of Field Density Testing Services APPENDIX A Field Density Test Results May 2, 2009 Project No. 61000497 -02 61000497 -02 Saxony Road Field Density Testing Project Summary of FDT dOC ' SOLID ROuCAK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNLCALX 60027, SA DIEGO, CALIF CONSUL2160 P08or 600277, Sw DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 97160 SIN= 619.851.8683 m, 619.501.9511 F" WWW.SOLIOROCKENGINEER5.CON Summary of Field Density Test Data Project Name: Saxony Road Field Density Testing Project Project No.: 61000497 -02 Legend: AB= Aggregate Base. AC= Asphaltic Concrele. AD = Aggregate Drain, ATB= Asphalt Treated Base, CF= Compacted Fill, CG =Curt) and Gutter Subgrade, CTB= Cement Treated Base, CTS= Cement Treated Soil. FG= Finished Grade. LTS =Lime Treated Soil, NM= Natural Malenals, PD =Pad Subgrade, PL= Parking Lot Subgrade, SD =Storm Drain Backfill, SF =Slope Face. SL-Sewer Lateral Backfill. SM =Sewer Main Backfill, ST= Streel Su rade. SW= Sidewalk Subgrade, UL=Utility Lateral Backilil, UM=Ublity Main Backfill. WB =Wall Backlill, WL =Water Lateral Backfill WM =Water main Backfill WR= Reclaimed Water Pipeline Backfill Teat Test Test 126.1 Elevation Wet Percent Dry CorrectaO Sall Max. Relative 3pecifled Pass/ No. Date of Teat Lowtlon or Depth Denalty Moisture Denalty Type No Density Compaction Compaction Fail 10 130.4 10.1 118.4 (R.) (Pcf) (SI (Pcr) (pci) N h) See Field Density Test Location Map 4129/09 CF See Field Density Test Location Map 3.5 141.0 11.8 126.1 1 128D 99 90 Pass 4129/09 CF See Field Density Test Location Map 2.0 129.3 8.9 118.7 1 128.0 93 90 Pass 4/29/09 CF See Field Density Test Location Map 10 130.4 10.1 118.4 1 128.0 93 90 Pass 4129/09 CF See Field Density Test Location Map 1.0 127.4 9.8 116.0 1 128.0 91 90 Pass 4129/09 CF See Field Density Test Location Map 2.0 125.7 9.2 115.1 1 128.0 90 90 Pass 4129109 CF See Field Density Test Location Map 1.0 128.6 6.9 120.3 1 128.0 94 90 Pass 4129109 CF See Field Density Test Location Map 1.0 125.8 7.6 116.9 1 128.0 91 90 Pass Turman Construction Saxony Road Field Density Testing Summary of Field Density Testing Services Table 1 — Maximum Density Test Results May 2, 2009 Project No. 61000497 -02 Soil Maximum Optimum Type Description Dry Density Moisture Content No. (pcf) N 1 Olive brown, silty SAND 128.0 9.5 61000097 -02 Saxony Road Field Density Tesft Project Summary of FDT doc STEW SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,, INC. GEOTECNNTCAL AND 0277, SA ENGMEE a CON 92160 DO Box 600277, Sw DEEGOO 4�[EOrtxt� 92160 619.851.8663 Pty., 619.501.9511 fox N'WW.SaL RO KENGINEERs.CON W E s Legend 07 Approximate Location of Field Density Test Reference : Image modified from sketch provided by contractor. No Scale Shown MSOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. _ GEOTECHN"L AND MATERaLSENGENEERfNG CON5ULTAws PO Box 600277, SAN DMGO, CAumRwA 92160 _ 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 EAx Www.SO oRWKEmGrNEERs.com FIEaD DENSITY TEST LOCATION MAP ' Saxony Road Field Density Testing Project 27903 Saxony Road Encinitas, California 92024 PROJECTNO. DATE FIGURE r1 16 U `' '� 'CEIVED November 6, 2008 5'0 PR 2 9 2010 Project No. 61000497 -01 Mr. Dean Stewart 1315 El Encanto Drive F ENCINITAS Brea, California 92821 4UILDING INSPECTION DIVISION Subject Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report for Saxony Road Development Project, 1022 Saxony Road, Encinitas, California 92024 References: Ron's House Plans for Dean & Debra Stewart (12 Sheets), including Structural Drawings by Manning Engineering Inc 'Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report for Saxony Road Development Project, 1022 Saxony Road, Encinitas, California 92024' 2008, Prepared by Solid Rock Engineering, Inc., Project No. 61000497 -01, dated November 6 Dear Mr. Stewart, In accordance with the request of Mr. Tod Turman, we have reviewed the referenced drawing. The purpose of the review was to evaluate whether or not the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical report were incorporated into the design and drawings. Based on our review of the indicated drawings, it is our opinion that the recommendations presented in the referenced report appear to have been adequately incorporated into the drawings. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this prgject If ou have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact the undersigned at 619.851. \ Respectfully, 3 alaj 1 R. Douglas P ins, PE, GE Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2568, expires December 31, 2010 61000497 -01 Sarum Road Pan Review BAUD ROCK ENGIN zxG Comm F INC. MEM Gfa1EC POB x 0 0277, SAA EBW1'F C4um,B10l21B0 Po Bas 600177, SIB 01fao, Guf9ew 91160 619.851.B683 en., 619.501.9511 Fu WWW.5DUDR0C1EBWBf fl9.00X MR LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORT FOR SAXONY ROAD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1022 SAXONY ROAD, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 PREPARED FOR: Mr. Dean Stewart 1315 El Encanto Drive Brea, California 92821 RECEIVED JAN 112010 CITY Of E=NCINITAS BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION PREPARED BY: SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -111� \wr� Cq SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. I4 -a'�. GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CAuFomu 92160 619.851.8683m, 619.501.9511 FAY W .SOLIORoC ENGINEERS.COM November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 Mr. Dean Stewart 1315 ElEncanto Drive Brea, California 92821 Subject: Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report for Saxony Road Development Project, 1022 Saxony Road, Encinitas, California 92024 Dear Mr. Stewart, 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 h estigns regarding this report, please feel free to contact the undersigned at 619.851.8683. a S!n Respectfully, R. Douglas Provin , PE, GE Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2568, expires December 31, 2008 Distribution: (4) Addressee 1 y N0.2568 u' EX P. 17 ' 2 1.7 61OW497 -01�Rwd Oeve� men! Projed Re�rt SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. _ GEOTECNPO B AND 0277, SA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAX DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 91360 SI 619.851.8683 m, 619 - 501.9511 FAX WWW.SounRocxENGINEER .CON Mr. Dean Stewart November 6, 2008 Saxony Road Development Project Project No. 61000497 -01 Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... ..............................1 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES .......................................................................................................... ..............................1 3. SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. ..............................1 4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................. ..............................1 5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION .............................................................................................. ..............................2 6. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................... ..............................2 6.1. UNDOCUMENTED FILL ....................................................................................................................... ..............................2 6.2. TERRACE DEPOSITS ......................................................................................................................... ..............................2 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 .................................................................................................................. ..............................3 7.4. LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREAD .............................................................................................. ............................... 3 7.5. LANDSLIDES ..................................................................................................................................... ..............................4 7.6. SEICHES AND EARTHQUAKE - INDUCED FLOODING ............................................................................... ..............................4 8. LABORATORY TESTING ...................................................................................................... ..............................4 9. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... ..............................4 10. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... ..............................5 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 ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 8 10.3.3. MATERIAL FOR FILL .................................................................................................................... ............................... 8 10.3.4. BULKISHRINK AND MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................ ............................... 9 10.3.5. TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS ......................................................................................................... ..............................9 1016. SLOPES ..................................................................................................................................... .............................10 10.3.7. ADDITIONAL EARTHWORK RECOMME NDATIONS .......................................................................... ............................... 10 10.4. SURFACE DRAINAGE ..................................................................................................................... ............................... 10 10.5. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... ............................. 11 10.5.1. BEARING CAPACITY FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ....................................................................... .............................11 10.5.2. LATERAL LOADS ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 11 10.5.3. FOUNDATION SETBACK ............................................................................................................ ............................... 12 10.6. SEISMIC PARAMETERS .................................................................................................................... ............................. 12 10.7. ON-GRADE SLABS ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 14 10.7.1. MOISTURE PROTECTION FOR SLABS ......................................................................................... ............................... 14 10.7.2. EXTERIOR SLABS AND WALKWAYS ............................................................................................ ............................... 15 10.8. SOIL CORROS IVITY ........................................................................................................... ............................... _..._...... 16 10.9. EARTH- RETAINING S TRUCTLIRES ................................................................................................... ............................... 16 10.10. PAVEMENTS .................................................................................................................................. ............................... 16 10.11. ARCHITECTURAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................ ............................... 16 11. LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................ .............................18 12. SELECTED REFERENCES .................................................................................................. .............................20 61000497 -01 Saxony Road Dewfopme t Project Report ' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECTWIUL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL TAMS PO BOX 600277, SAN DIEGO, GLIFORNIA 92160 _ 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAx W .SOLIORoC ENGINEERS.0 m Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Figures Figure 1 — Site Location Map Figure 2 — Test Pit 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 November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 61000497 -01 Saxony Read Development Project Report _ SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. _ GFOTECNNIUI AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING N PO BOX 600277, SAN DIEGO, GLIFoR DRNIA 921 91160 0 619.851.8683 RN., 619.501.9511 FAX W .SO DROCXENGINE£RS. CON Mr. Dean Stewart November 6, 2008 Saxony Road Development Project Project No. 61000497 -01 Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report 1 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the limited subsurface evaluation performed by Solid Rock Engineering, Inc. (SRE) for the Saxony Road Development Project in Encinitas, California. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our subsurface exploration, review of 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. 61000497 -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 exploratory excavations 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, maximum density, sieve analysis, corrosivity, and expansion index. • 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 corrosion. Recommendations for plan and specification review, earthwork, drainage, foundation design, seismicity, slabs, and corrosivity. 3. SITE DESCRIPTION The property consists of a irregular- shaped parcel located at 1022 Saxony Road in Encinitas, California. For the purpose of this report, the property is considered to face Saxony Road to the east. The property is bounded to the north and south by similarly developed properties. The property is bounded by a commercial nursery to the west. A site location map is included as Figure 1 4. PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS Based on discussions with you, we understand that the anticipated improvements include construction of a new single family residence. We understand that the improvements will be constructed with wood framing and supported on continuous perimeter footings and slab on grade floor. 61000497 -015awny 8Da0 Development Project Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. _ GEOTFCNN[UL AND MATERIALS DIO TS OfERINOCONSULTAN Dr[co, PO Hox 600777, SAN GLIFORNIA 97160 _ 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX N .SOL[DftC ENOINEFRS.com Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report November 6. 2008 Project No, 61000497 -01 2 5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION Our field exploration consisted of four test pits advanced on Thursday, October 23, 2008. The test pits were excavated using a CAT track mounted mini excavator. The test pits extended to a depth ranging from about three to five feet below existing grade. Logs describing the observed subsurface conditions are presented in Appendix A. Sample locations are indicated on Figure 2. Disturbed bulk samples were obtained at selected locations and returned to our office. 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. 6. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is generally located within the Califomia 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, Rose Canyon, and other faults. The site is approximately 1.1 miles (1.7 kilometers) northeast of 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 and compacted fill related to site landscaping, grading, and pre- existing conditions. The site is mapped as being underlain by Terrace Deposits. These materials are further described below. 6.1. Undocumented Fill Based on the observations performed during our field investigation, the soil observed at and near the surface of the four test pits is generally olive brown to dark brown, moist, loose, silty SAND. Clay was observed in some areas. Scattered construction debris were noted near the surface. The undocumented fill was observed to be about one to four feet thick in this area 6.2. Terrace Deposits Where observed, these materials were generally orangish brown and olive gray, moist, weakly cemented, silty SANDSTONE. The SANDSTONE was encountered at about one to four feet below surface in the test pits. The 61000497 -01 Saxony Road Develop e r PrQred Report ' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTFCNNICQ AND RLS ENGINEERING NSOLTRNr0 PO Box 6002770277, , SAN DIEGO, ULIfOR ORxp 91160 4"4= 619.851.8683 Rx., 619.501.9511 FAx WWW.SOLIDRO ENGINEERSmm Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnccal Engineering Evaluation Report November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 3 unit was observed to extend to the bottom of the excavations 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 because 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. A 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 nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone mapped approximately 3.1 miles (5.0 kilometers) southwest of the site. Specific ground motion parameters are presented in the Recommendations section of the report. 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 -Priolo 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. 61000997 -015arony Road Dewiopme r Rojed Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. SIR GEOTECNNIUL AND MA77, SAS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Po BOX 6QD2 %7 SAN DfFGO, GLIFORNIA 9I360 619.851.8683 RN., 619.501.9511 FAX www.SOUOROa ENGINFENS.toff Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 4 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 relafively shallow nature of the Terrace Deposits soil encountered, and the strength and age of the deposit, 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. 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 building pad is relatively flat. 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. The nearest body of water is the Pacific Ocean located approximately 1.1 miles (1.7 kilometers) southwest and 210 feet (65 meters) lower than the subject property. Accordingly, the risk of earthquake - induced flooding from seiches is considered very low. 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 test pit logs in Appendix A and are further described and summarized in Appendix B. 9. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this evaluation, it is our opinion that construction of the Saxony Road Development 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 61000497 -01 Saxony Road Development P o)ect Report ' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,, INC. GEOTECNNIGL AND 0277, SA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO BOX 600177, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 91360 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SOLIOROC ENGINE£RS.com Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 5 Canyon Fault Zone. It is our opinion that the site is not at greater seismic risk than adjacent properties or the immediate neighborhood. Fill soils derived from the undocumented fill and undedying Terrace Deposits should be adequate for reuse on site. • Gravel, cobbles, or boulders are not anticipated during grading as they were not encountered in the test pits. Construction debris should be removed and legally discarded, if and when encountered. It is possible that conditions between test pits could vary greatly from the conditions observed by our office. • 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 test pits 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. Oversized materials or debris, if encountered in the existing soils, may require extra effort to excavate. Cemented zones and concretions are possible within the underlying SANDSTONEs. • Groundwater is not anticipated to significantly affect construction of the proposed improvements as presently planned. Seepage was noted during the subsurface evaluation. Groundwater levels can vary from location to location and with the passage of time and weather cycles. • The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soils and differential movement of fill soils. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, slabs -on -grade placed on such conditions, and the structures they support may still exhibit cracking. Minor aesthetic cracking can occur in concrete, drywall, plaster, stucco, and other interior and exterior finishes. The other members of the design team should be consulted about ways to reduce such cracking. • The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and /or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack - control joints at periodic intervals, particularly where re -entry slab corners occur. 10. RECOMMENDATIONS The remainder of this report presents recommendations for grading and construction of foundations and basement walls. 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. For this project, we anticipate that earthwork will primarily consist of overexcavation and recompaction of the upper few feet of loose soil. Based on the available information, the Terrace Deposits SANDSTONE is anticipated to be suitable for support of compacted fill and foundations. Some remedial earthwork may be necessary at shallower depths. 61000497 -01 Sa %yW Road De )opm ! Proje[T Report ' .SDUD ROCK ENGINEERING,, INC. GEDIEOINTGL 0MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Po Box 608277, Six OTEGD, G[fFORNIA 92160 _ 619.851.8683 FN., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SDUDRoC ENGINEERS.coM Mr. Dean Stewart November 6. 2008 Saxony Road Development Project Project No. 61000497 -01 Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report 6 10.1. Plan and Specification Review We recommend that the final foundation, grading plans, and earthwork specifications be reviewed by SRE 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. 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. Sufficient testing of fill should be performed during grading, as specified herein, to support our professional opinion as to compliance with compaction recommendations. The geotechnical engineer should be contacted to provide observation and testing during the following stages of rough grading: • During the clearing and grubbing of the site. • During the demolition of any existing structures, buried utilities, or other existing improvements. • During excavation and overexcavation of compressible soils. • During the phases of rough grading, including overexcavation, recompaction, benching, filling operations, and cut slope evaluation. • When any unusual conditions are encountered during grading. A final geotechnical report summarizing conditions encountered during rough grading should be submitted upon completion of the rough grading operations. After the completion of rough grading, the geotechnical engineer should be contacted to provide additional observation and testing during the following construction activities: • During trenching and backfilling operations of buried improvements and utilities within the street right of way, utility easements, and lots to verify proper backfill and compaction of utility trenches. 61000997 -01 Saxony Read Development Pro)ect Report ' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,, INC. 6'EGIEIXPO9 AND 0277,IALS ENGINEERINGORNS 921 60 PO BOX 600277, SAX DIFGO, (JLIFORNIA 92760 4"41kw 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAx WW .SOLIORO KENGINEEF .CON Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report November 6. 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 7 • After excavation and prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete within footing trenches to verify that footings are properly founded in competent materials. • During fine or precise grading involving the placement of any fills underlying the driveways, sidewalks, walkways, or other miscellaneous concrete flatwork to verify proper placement, mixing and compaction of fills. When unusual conditions are encountered during construction. 10.3. Earthwork Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the applicable design manuals, local grading ordinance, and the 2007 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 For this project we recommend overexcavation and recompaction of the near surface soils. Removals should extend not less than 36 inches below existing and proposed final grades. Removals should extend not less than five feet laterally beyond the perimeter of the proposed structures. Upon completion of removals, the upper six inches of exposed soil may be scarified, moisture conditioned, blended to a uniform consistency, and recompacted to not less than 90 percent relative compaction as specified herein. General site preparation should include the removal of unsuitable and deleterious materials, existing structures, or other improvements from areas that will be subjected to structural 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 ten 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 61000097 -01 .Seuorry Road Development P o)M Report STE SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOfERINIGL x6 0277, SA ENGINEERINGCONSULTANTS F0 90Y 600577, SAN DIEGn, GLIFORNL19i16U 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAx WWW.SOLIORoc ENGINE£RS.com Mr Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 8 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. 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. Moderately expansive soils are anticipated as they were encountered during our evaluation. These 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 surficial soil and underlying Terrace Deposits) 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. Moderately expansive and other clayey soils were encountered in our initial investigation. We recommend that the clays be placed two or more percent above optimum moisture content. Soils with an Expansion Index of greater than 20 should not be placed as backfll 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. 61000997 -01 Saxony Reed Develop e ! ftied Report ' SOUD ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOJECHNIUL AND 0277,ISA DIEGO, C4N6 CON A 92160 M7 Box 6DOZ77, SAN DIEGO, Guroanu 92160 619.851.8683 PH, 619.501.9511 FAx W1VW.SOUDRO ENGINEEAs.0 m Mr. Dean Stewart November 6, 2008 Saxony Road Development Project Project No. 61000497 -01 Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report 9 10.3.4. Bulk/Shrink and Moisture Characteristics The existing surficial soils may shrink on the order of five to ten percent when over excavated and recompacted. Similarly, the underlying formational soils may bulk slightly when excavated and recompacted. It should be noted, however, that bulking and shrinking could 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 may vary from those anticipated herein. 103.5. 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. Similarly, 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 test pits, the design of trenches, temporary slopes, and benches for preliminary planning purposes may assume the following conditions. The conditions should be verified during construction. Summary of CallOSHA Soil Types Geological Unit CallOSHA Soil Type Compacted Fill Type C Terrace Deposits Type B to C Existing infrastructure that is within a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) line projected up from the bottom edge (toe) of temporary slopes should be monitored during construction. 61000497 -01 Saxony Road Development Project Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. Im GEOTECHNIGL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600577, SAN DIEGO, GLI£ORNIA 92160 SIB 619,851.8683 PH, 619.501.9511 FAX WN'W. SOLIDROCXENGINEERS.CON Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 10 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. 10.3.6. Slopes No significant new slopes were anticipated. Evaluation of slopes can be provided upon request. 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, 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 undedying soils. In addition to the recommendations presented herein, we recommend that the property owner or manager review the general property maintenance guidelines presented in Appendix D. 61000497 -01 Saxony Road Development P oleR Report ' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTE[HNIUL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN Dleco, GuEOrtxrA 92160 619.851.8683a ., 619.501.9511 FAx W .SOLIOROC ENGINEERSXOM Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report 10.5. Foundation Recommendations November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497.01 11 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 CLLmmam of Foundation Parameters for Compacted Fill Allowable 1,500 psf Bearing Capacity Allow a 1/3 increase for short -term wind or seismic loads. Estimated Safety Factor greater than 3 Bearing Capacity 300 psf increase for each additional foot of width and /or depth, up to a total Increase allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf Minimum Footing Width 12 inches (one story) 15 inches (two story) 24 inches (isolated spread footings) Minimum Footing Depth 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade (one to two stories) Reinforcement Not less than two no. 4 bars top and two no. 4 bars bottom in continuous footings. Not less than three no. 4 bars each way in spread footings. Estimated Settlement Foundations should be designed for a total and differential settlement of 1 -inch and I/rinch, respectively, over a distance of 20 feet. 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. 61000497-01 Saxon Road Development Project Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERINGF INC. _ GEOn?[NNIGL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERINGORNIA92160 PD 80Y 600277 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 RNv 619.501.9511 FAX wW ..SOLmRocKENGINE£R5.[oM Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 12 Summary of Allowable Passive Resistance (PSF per Foot of Embedment) Ground Conditions Properly Compacted Fill Terrace Deposits Level Ground 300 400 Descending Sloping Ground (2:1) 0.25 0.30 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 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 fictional 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 0.40 Base Friction and Passive Resistance 0.25 0.30 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 Hl3 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 2007 California Building Code (CBC) seismic parameters may be used for design of the proposed structure. 6100497 -01 SaXary Road Development Project Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,, INC. STEM GEOTECHNIGLAND0277R SA ENGINEERINGCONSULTANTS P080X 600177 SAN D1fG0, (;ALfFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 m., 619.501.9511 Fax WWW.SOLIDROO ENGINEERSXOM Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Summary of 2007 CBC Seismic Design Parameters November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 13 Parameter Value Reference Latitude (degrees) 33.067 Estimated from Google Earth Web App. Longitude (degrees) - 117.287 Estimated from Google Earth Web App. Site Classification C 2006 IBC Table 1613.5.2 0.2 Sec. Period Spectral Accel, Ss (g•) 1.314 USGS EHP' 1.0 Sec. Period Spectral Accel, S, (g.) 6493 USGS EHP' Site Coefficient, F. 1.0 USGS EHP' Site Coefficient, F, 1.307 USGS EHP' SMs = F. x Ss 1.314 USGS EHP` SM, = F, x Sr 0.645 USGS EHP' SDs = 213 x SMs 0.876 USGS EHP' SD, = 213 x SM, 0.430 USGS EHP` United States Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program Tabulated and Calculated Data In order to provide an estimate of the potential peak ground acceleration that structures founded at the site may experience in time, we performed a limited evaluation of the site seismic parameters. To estimate the design ground accelerations for this project, we reviewed 1996 and 2002 data made available by the United States Geological Survey, National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project. The data is primarily a compilation of probabilistic seismic hazard analyses (PSHA) that estimate ground motion for certain probabilities of exceedance at locations on a grid. Values between gridded locations are then interpolated. PSHA is a mathematical process based on probability and statistics that is used to estimate the mean number of events per year in which the level of some ground parameter at the site exceeds a specified value. For this study, the design parameter is peak ground acceleration. The peak ground acceleration is measured relative to the strength of the earth's pull of gravity (g). Results are typically reported as a percent of gravity in gs to the nearest 0.01g. The inverse of this Probability of Exceedance can be correlated to an average return period. For example, the 1997 Uniform Building Code indicates that the design ground motion for most standard projects should be measured as having a ten percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 years. This correlates to an estimated average return period of approximately 475 years. Accordingly based on this analysis, this design ground motion (measured in gs) will be exceeded at this site on an average of once every 475 years. The results are summarized below. 61000197 -0! Samw Road Development Project Report STS SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING., INc. GEOTECNNICAL ANO MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO BOX 600277, SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 91160 619.851.8683 RN., 619.501.9511 FAX RN., Mr Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Summary of Seismoloov and Seismic Parameters November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 14 Design Criteria Ground Acceleration (g) 1997 UBC Design Basis Earthquake Acceleration No. 3 bars at 16 inches on center, each way, centered in slab (10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years) 0.27 475 -Year Return Period _ 2007 CBC Upper Bound Earthquake Acceleration (10% Probability of Exceedance in 100 years) 038 950 -Year Return Period FEMA 302 Maximum Considered Earthquake Acceleration (2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years) 0.56 Z,.)[ U- Retum Period 10.7. On-Grade Slabs Interior slabs should be designed for the anticipated loading using procedures outlined in the 2007 CBC, or other effective methods. If an elastic design is used, a modulus of 200 pci can be used. We offer the following design criteria for the geotechnical conditions encountered. Slab thickness and reinforcement may be designed by the project structural engineer. Siimmary of Slab Parameters for Comoacted Fill' Net Slab Thickness (in.) 4 Slab Reinforcement No. 3 bars at 16 inches on center, each way, centered in slab Rock Base Below Slabs None specified. This may change if soils are deemed expansive. 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 61000497 -01 Saxony RWd oemropm nt Project Report _ ST SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING INC. GEOTECNNIGL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING N92160 Po Sox 600777, Sax DIEGO, CALIFORNIA ORA 91160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 F" WWW.SOLIOROC ENGINEERS.CON Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 15 stakes during concrete placement. It has been our experience that such systems will transmit on the order of 6 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 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 Subtloor 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 granular soils are not expected to experience significant differential movement related to volume changes of the near surface soil. Exterior slabs and walkways should be not less than four inches thick. Crack control joints should be used on exterior slabs, with a spacing of 4 -foot centers each way for sidewalks and 8 -foot centers each way for slabs. If minor differential movement at concrete joints can not be tolerated, then the flatwork should be reinforced with the same reinforcing schedule as the slabs. 61000497 -01 Saxony Road Development Proiect Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. _ GEOJECNNICAE AND 0277, SAN ENGINEERING aRwA 92160 PO BOX 600277, SAN DIEGO, GfIFORNIA 92160 sl= 619.851.8683 e , 619.501.9511 FAX NM1VW.5OUDROCKENGINEERS.COM Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 16 10.8. Soil Corrosivity We performed a limited evaluation of the relative comosivity of one sample of soil. Based an the results of our evaluation, the soil was not noted to be excessively corrosive. Accordingly, we recommend Type IIN cement and a water cement ratio of not more than 0.55 (Ib.11b.) for durable concrete supported in the on -site soils. In addition, an evaluation of the soil's potential corrosivity to metal culverts was estimated using procedures in California Test No. 643. Using the pH and minimum resistivity test results obtained in the lab testing to following metal culvert corrosion parameters are offered for preliminary consideration. A corrosion engineer should be consulted if additional corrosion- related design information is desired. r.us ... ;. T—f aea Gunman of vnars to Perforation for Metal Culverts` Metal Culvert Gauge Estimated Years to Perforation' 16 28 14 37 12 51 10 65 8 80 Sample obtained at TP -4 @ 0 - 2' below grade. 10.9. Earth - Retaining Structures New retaining walls are not anticipated. Retaining wall design parameters can be provided upon request 10.10. Pavements New pavements are anticipated to be limited to the driveway. The driveway can be designed using the exterior slab recommendations except that it should be not less than five inches thick. The driveway should be supported on not less than two feet of properly compacted fill. Compacted fill should be installed at or above optimum moisture content and compacted to not less than 90 percent relative compaction. The upper twelve inches of pavement subgrade should be installed at not less than 95 percent relative compaction. If pavers are used, pavers should be installed in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. 10.11. Architectural Considerations It has been drawn to our attention over the last 20 years in the industry that some designers and owners are not adequately informed about the imperfect nature of construction materials and techniques. For example, a crack or separation will develop in a concrete finish, painted stucco or plaster exterior, or painted drywall interior. The 61 004 9 7 -01 SaxOIy Road Dev to ment Pro- Re SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECNNIGL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL _ SIM Po BOX 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA RNIA 92160 2160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SOLIOROCKENGMEERS.COM Mr Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 17 vast majority of these cracks and separations are aesthetic in nature and do not indicate improper design or structural failure. There are many material factors that could cause or accelerate cracks and separations. For example, soil is an elastic, variable material that is expected to move. Most soil reports indicate that some movement should be expected e.g. "up to one inch of settlement is anticipated with up to %, inch of differential settlement over a 20 foot span" In addition to settlement, some soils are clayey and can expand and contract with moisture variations. Recommendations are presented herein to reduce the potential for those effects. However, those conditions can not be eliminated without removal of the clay soils. As a result, when soil moves as anticipated, the rest of the structure will move with it. When this happens, minor cracks and separations are likely to develop in interior and exterior finishes. Unlike soil, concrete is a relatively rigid material that can even be considered brittle. Concrete shrinks as it cures and dries, often resulting in cracks and separations. The potential adverse effects of concrete shrinkage can typically be reduced with good construction practices but are not generally eliminated. Shrinkage can be reduced with proper mix selection, such as 1 -inch maximum size aggregate as opposed to 318 -inch maximum sized aggregate, proper joint spacing that allows concrete to crack in convenient and predefined locations, and proper curing that seals in moisture for seven or more days while concrete gains strength prior to usage. Stucco and plaster are also cementitious materials that will shrink and crack. Performance of these materials can also be improved with proper mix selection, limiting excess moisture, and proper curing. Other materials that display evidence of cracks and separations include drywall, wood and lumber. Often the wood framing is relatively green when installed. As wood framing and larger lumber members cure and age, they also dry, twist, and change volume. This can result in cracks and separations at wall and ceiling joints, in taped drywall joints, and in exposed lumber elements such as open truss beams. Many of these features can be reduced or controlled somewhat with good material selection and proper construction technique. In our opinion, it is unreasonable to expect all such movements to be eliminated. We encourage designers and owners to talk about expectations with fellow designers and contractors prior to performance of the work. Many expectations and realities can be clarified prior to construction. Many expectations can be met or nearly met with improved design such as larger foundations, post- tensioned slabs, better material selection, and improved construction techniques. 61000497 -01 Saxon y Road Develo meat Pro e tReport SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. Im GEOTEIXNIGI 0 MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box x 600277, SAN DIEGO, CAIfFORNIA 92160 sr 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WW W.SmmRocKENGINEERS.com Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 18 11. LIMITATIONS The information presented in this report has been prepared for use in the design and construction of the proposed residential project in Encinitas, Califomia. 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, SIRE 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 SIRE. SIRE 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 SIRE. 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 SIRE will provide Quality Assurance services to assist the owner and contractor in seeing that these recommendations are incorporated into the project during construction. 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, SIRE 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 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. 61000997 -01 5axony Road Demiopment Riqtect Re poj SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. _ GEOTECNNIUL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL0 PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNU 92162160 619.851.8683 VN., 619.501.9511 FAx W .S0IIDRocxENGINEERS.00m Mr. Dean Stewart November 6, 2008 Saxony Road Development Project Project No. 61000497 -01 Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report 19 During site preparation and foundation construction, a qualified geotechnical consultant should observe slab -on- grade and pavement subgrade and utility trench backfill to check compaction. 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. SIRE 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 serve you. 610D0097 -01 SrxmY Road DeveMO+nmt Project Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GFOTFCHPO B AND 0277, SA DIEGO, N92160 PD BOX 600277 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA CALIGRA 95168 619.851.8683 RN., 619.501.9511 FAA W .Sour ROC ENGINEERS. COM Mr. Dean Stewart November 6, 2008 Saxony Road Development Project Project No. 61000497 -01 Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report 20 12. SELECTED REFERENCES Blake, Stewarts F., FRISKSP, Version 4.00 California Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, 2007 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, 1995, DMG Open -File Report 95 -04, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Califomia, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35 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 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 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, Califomia Test 643 Coduto, Donald P., 1994, Foundation Design, Principles and Practice, Published by Prentice -Hall, Inc. Day, Robert W., 1999, Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering, Published by McGraw Hill Day, Robert W., 2000, Geotechnical Engineer's Portable Handbook, Published by McGraw Hill Day, Robert W., 2002, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Handbook, Published by McGraw Hill Day, Robert W., 2006, Foundation Engineering Handbook, Published by McGraw Hill 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 61000997 -01 Saxony Road Development Prole t Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,, INC. GEOIECNNEUL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PD Box 600277 SAN DIEGO, GLIFORNIA 92160 SIM 619.851.8683 FN., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 21 Department of Defense, 1997, Soil Dynamics and Special Design Aspects: Norfolk, VA, United States Navy, MIL - HDBK- 100713. 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.Mapquest.com Maps.live.com "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 Intemational 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, Califomia 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 8 Co. www.Terraserver- usa.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 hnp://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 61000497 -01 Saxwy Read Development Project Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,, INC. GEOTEOINIUL x AND 0277, SAS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO eor 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 921 60 _ 619.851.9683v ., 619.501.9511 FAx W .SoITDRoC ENGTNE£RS.com NS S� Q1 �4 3 G r �tyav'� St �s Ii. ,, Iii 1j S r" I I I 'LJYIO�AL u•�i `i i Sao. X 'Ii I ,I it A lWtan)L e-__..... — -- t a t t. A� e1° Puebla SC a © 20{18 f.42PQues inc. , Reference: Mapquestwm fdia Blvd — I, is ' SOLID ROCI( ENGINEERING, INC. _ GEOTFCNNZUL ANO MA TERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL TANTS PO Box 600777, SAN OIFGO, CAUFORNU 97160 _ 619.851.8683 RN., 619.501.9511 FAx W SoUDRO ENGINEER COM O,nn N. E � ��7771111115 X 1022 Saxony Road, Encinitas, California 92024 d Goff �Te "x "andraln course u 6LI .Ntty' SITE LOCA noN MAP Saxony Road Development Project 1022 Saxony Road Encinitas, Cafrfomia 92024 ARaECTNO. DATE FIGURE 61000497 -01 November 2008 I 1 LEGEND W,-* E ®TP-4 Indicates approximate location of borings Q.„ Indicates undocumented fill s Qt Indicates Quaternary age Terrace Deposits (in parentheses where buried) Reference: Maps.INe com. Microsoft Virtual Earth software, 2007, Microsoft Corporation 9� I SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. _ GFOTECNNIUL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO BOY 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 _ 619.8S1.8683 Pn., 619.501.9511 FAX W NM1V. SOL I DROLI (ENGINFERS. CON EXCAVATION LOCATION MAP Saxony Road Development Project 1022 Saxony Road Encinitas, California 92024 PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 61000497 -01 November 2008 2 Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Appendix A Logs of Exploratory Excavations November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 61000497 -01 Saxony Road Development Project Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. SIM CiEOTECHNIGL x AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 RN., 619.501.9511 fax WWW.SouORo0 ENGINEERS.COM Drilling and Boring Log Explanation Sheet Primary Divuwns Secondary DWislona G.aq SymOd Group Wne 200 a0 10 a VV T 12- axis s cry. Clean GrevW I GnrN well- Veoeog y soulo.n Gnvar Leas Man 5% 10-M Poody-9nded gavel Medium Den. Moro Ian 50 %a come .ruse 83105 Dan. �� Ors. 50 IClron nlainad M NoA, Cear.Lnlned 100.150 lines Ovr 09 Gq Pare) Sole men Iw 12% Mon Man 50% CW r; PGP RenmM pre No sends leas Mm 5% wmvadad nano ftd it eded send 200 Sieve 50% oI mom of wane him. send. sr%b any send No. a fines cr"a"m on loan 12% G. aan Wy rlNamM Gaya Inorpanle LpuW Imil leas Man So% Is. an Orync OL Oryalac WYP alt Flre d Sara Sod. S MOm CX Fq d" P us. NO 200 1 9rr erW Crya InerperiF W EYi1a "t sieve LipM Ivnh 50% a mere Or9enq CH Oryanlc tlaY or mih Hghly Orynlc son. PI peat Relative Density of C"m Grained Solis and Non-plastic Was Grain Sizes lies &andrd Senea Seve Gear Soma se. opaMn9a 200 a0 10 a VV T 12- axis s cry. Send I GnrN CpOda soulo.n Fbe Medium Cores FIne I Cow Relative Density of C"m Grained Solis and Non-plastic Was SPL Ebw coeea C`UJ � elew Raiser. Osmi ty Typi Ory Dammam tool) Oi Od Vry LOO. 70.100 410 621 Loo. 80.115 10-M 21A Medium Den. 11D100 S(F50 83105 Dan. 110.140 Ors. 50 O M Very Dense 100.150 Cementation (sandstone, siltstoneylnduration (ciaystol.) Wea, Gumbrm p bream wKn nenoling o. hale fvgdr pnssuro Mpde'ate Cnumelea p Mesa -m wnadarapleS 101 Pressure stmng Will not crumble . break won ringer pnssure Molstu a Conditions prY vo ind�utwn Dt mptstun. dry m 1,wm Demin SIgM iMiuuon W mast... Moon Np nsiole wsrr we VmnM Ire. wrier sal.nnd- 6.MV wets. mbm symbol$ Q Groundwater at time of drilling 3F Groundwater after drilling or other specified time 9 Seepage noted during or after dnlling uL Indicates sample With modified split barrel TFamO mnavrea mom in. 1' With 2 42- by 1.0 -mch rings. sPT Indicates sample with standard SPT ThpM panebeles ai 1- split -spoon sampler SHEL Indicates sample with Shelby tube. Thumb" yAeM ei shoo tn' Indicates change in lithol)gy (fill to alluvium, etc.) 10.20 or end of boring. — — — — - Indicates change in soil type within same unit . 20.]9 e.g.: fill changes from silty SAND to clayey SAND. Consistency of Clays and PMStk sib $PT able ( -,pelt GwnuK aYAa Count (:MVataM1Y Typfy lnd o,m <2 13 Varyw TFamO mnavrea mom in. 1' 24 3s Solt ThpM panebeles ai 1- 49 5.10 Fimt Thumb" yAeM ei shoo tn' 615 10.20 star Thump wY vNaaI11 sine Peat soon 15-50 20.]9 Vary w TMm W wa raMiy tMent Orar 30 Ovr 09 Had I T mnonam w indpre wlh direr my Boring Explanation Sheet D ..a.e�cn r!Me...reLtinn Lab TestslOther i Ib a SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTEOINIGL ANO MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS _ PO Sox 600277, SAN DIEGO, GurortxlA 95160 Test Pit No. TP -T 619.85I,8683 EN.' 619.501.9511 EAx iv w.SOLrofto N&GINEERS.com SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL Olive brown, moist, loose, silty SAND. Scattered construction debris in fill. @ 2 ft.: Medium dense, Trace of clay. TERRACE DEPOSITS @ 4 ft.: Orangish brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty SANDSTONE. @ 5 ft.: Test pit terminated. SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. Saxony Road Development Project GcorEC"CAL AND MATERI&S EN01NEERwc CONSULTANTS 1022 Saxony Road, Encinitas, California 92024 PO Box 60027, SAN DIM, CAL"W 92+60 Project No: 6100!497 -01 Date: 10123106 d n Date Drilled: Thursday, October 23, 2006 Sampled by: RDP Ground Elev. feet, MSL : 210 x Estimated using le Earth Software Logged by: RDP E rn c � y o E S � Reviewed m Method of Drilling; CAT Track Mounted Mini Excavator b : RDP > m G o m' IT o 9 m 2 o A co Drive Wt. lbs.: 35 Drop (in.: 30i D ..a.e�cn r!Me...reLtinn Lab TestslOther i Ib a SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTEOINIGL ANO MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS _ PO Sox 600277, SAN DIEGO, GurortxlA 95160 s 1 619.85I,8683 EN.' 619.501.9511 EAx iv w.SOLrofto N&GINEERS.com SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL Olive brown, moist, loose, silty SAND. Scattered construction debris in fill. @ 2 ft.: Medium dense, Trace of clay. TERRACE DEPOSITS @ 4 ft.: Orangish brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty SANDSTONE. @ 5 ft.: Test pit terminated. Maximum Density Expansion Index Sieve Analysis Remarks: Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. 61000497 -01 Saxony Raid Develo menr Project Test Pit Lqq TP -1 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTEOINIGL ANO MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS _ PO Sox 600277, SAN DIEGO, GurortxlA 95160 _ 619.85I,8683 EN.' 619.501.9511 EAx iv w.SOLrofto N&GINEERS.com Descri ton l lnte retation Lab Tests?Other N 16 ,0 34 Test Pit No. TP -2 SM L LL UNDOCUMENTED FILL Olive brown, moist, loose, silty SAND. Scattered construction debris in fill. @ 2 ft.: Medium dense. TERRACE DEPOSITS @ 3 ft.: Orangish brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty SANDSTONE. @ 4 ft.: Test pit terminated. SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. Saxony Road Development Project GEOTECNNICAI AND RArERIALSENGINEEMNGCO NSILLTANT5 1022 Saxony Road, Encinitas, Calirfomia 92024 PO Box 600211, SAN DIEGO, G. mRNA 92160 Pro ect No: 61000497 -01 Date: 10/23/08 d w Date Drilled: Thursday, October 23, 2008 Sampled by: RDP U =' jrn E E N o Ground Elev. feet, MSL : 210 s Estimated using G le Earth Software Logged by: RDP 8 �. _ Reviewed y N _ d w Method of Drilling: CAT Track Mounted Mini Excavator by: RDP Drive Wt. Ibs.: 35 Drop in.: 30s x y O 0 m U Descri ton l lnte retation Lab Tests?Other N 16 ,0 34 no SM L LL UNDOCUMENTED FILL Olive brown, moist, loose, silty SAND. Scattered construction debris in fill. @ 2 ft.: Medium dense. TERRACE DEPOSITS @ 3 ft.: Orangish brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty SANDSTONE. @ 4 ft.: Test pit terminated. Remarks: Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. 61000497 -01 Saxony Road Development Project Test Pit Loo TP -2 _ SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEDiECNNILAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO 80X 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 SP 619.851.8683 PH, 619.SOI.9511 FAX WW W.SOLJDRoMENGINEEAS . COM n.....i..rion i inte..,renfinn Lab Tests /Other 16 30 Test Ph No. TP -3 SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL Olive brown, moist, loose, silty SAND. Scattered construction debris in fill. TERRACE DEPOSITS @ 1 ft.: Orangish brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty SANDSTONE. @ 3 ft.: Test pit terminated. SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. Saxony Road Development Project GF TECHWALANCVAiEPoALSEN EEMNGCoNSUfrunS 1022 Saxony Road, Encinitas, Califomia 92024 PO Box 600211, SAN Dim, CA{IFORW 92760 Project No: 61000497 -01 Date: 10/23108 u u^ Date Drilled: Thursday, October 23, 2008 Sampled RDP Ground Elev. o U d feel, MSL : 210 i Estimated using Go le Earth Software Logged by: RDP $ o ° ° Reviewed 13 k W o : Method of Drilling: CAT Track Mounted Mini Excavator b : RDP ° m 0 Y 2 Q T Drive Wt. Ibs.j: 35 Drop in.: 30x n.....i..rion i inte..,renfinn Lab Tests /Other 16 30 6.4 SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL Olive brown, moist, loose, silty SAND. Scattered construction debris in fill. TERRACE DEPOSITS @ 1 ft.: Orangish brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty SANDSTONE. @ 3 ft.: Test pit terminated. JO Remarks: Groundwater not enc ntered. Caving not observed. 61000497 -01 Saxony Road Development Project Test Pit Lop TP -3 — SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING INC- _ GFOTECNNEGL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL 2160 PO BOX 600277, Sax DIEGO, CALIFORNIA GLf 93160 !RNW 619.851.8683 RN., 619.501.9511 EAX WWW. SouDROCKENGmEFRS. com ., i !nte Lab TestslOther v Id 30 Test Pit No. TP -4 sM UNDOCUMENTED FILL Dark brown, moist, loose, silty, fine SAND, trace of clay. Scattered construction debris in fill. @ 2 ft.: Loose to medium dense. TERRACE DEPOSITS @ 3 ft.: Mottled olive gray and orangish brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty SANDSTONE. @ 4 ft.: Test pit terminated. SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. Saxony Road Development Project GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGNIEER0K3 CONSULTANTS 1022 Saxony Road, Encinitas, California 92024 PO Box 600277, SAN Drc O, CAUWRMA 92160 Pro'ect No: 61000497 -01 Date: 10/23/06 m in Date Drilled: Thursday, October 23, 2006 Sampled by: RDP Ground Elev. feet MSL : 210 t Estimated using Go le Earth Software Logged by: RDP E Reviewed L a o Method of Drilling: CAT Track Mounted Mini Excavator by: RDP Drive Wt. lbs.: 35 Drop in.: 301 C o 75 m' o O m O M 2" o � U ., i !nte Lab TestslOther v Id 30 9.3 sM UNDOCUMENTED FILL Dark brown, moist, loose, silty, fine SAND, trace of clay. Scattered construction debris in fill. @ 2 ft.: Loose to medium dense. TERRACE DEPOSITS @ 3 ft.: Mottled olive gray and orangish brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty SANDSTONE. @ 4 ft.: Test pit terminated. Cherni e l Analysis Remarks: Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. 61000497 -01 Saxony Road Devel ment Proect Test Pit L29 TP-4 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOM�Nr"L AND MATERIALS ENGrNEERZN6 CONSUL TAWS PO Box 600177, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 91160 STEW 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SOUDROCKENGINEERS.COM Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Appendix B Laboratory Testing November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 b1000497 01 Saxon RoadDewfopmentPwyed Report SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING INC. _ GEOTECNNIGL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, Guroaxu 92160 _ 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX W .SOLIDRO ENGTNEERS.COM Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Laboratory Testing Appendix Laboratory Testing November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 Page 1 of 2 Classification Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory 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. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (Proctor) Test The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of selected representative soil samples were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557 -91. The results of these tests are summarized below. Summary of Maximum Density Test Results Expansion Index Tests The expansion index of selected materials was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 4829 -95. Specimens were molded under specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation (plus or minus 10 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 results of these tests are summarized below. Summary of Expansion Index Test Results Sample Description Sample Maximum Optimum Moisture Sample Description Location Density N Olive brown, silty SAND TP -1 @ 0 —4' 1280 95 Expansion Index Tests The expansion index of selected materials was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 4829 -95. Specimens were molded under specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation (plus or minus 10 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 results of these tests are summarized below. Summary of Expansion Index Test Results Sample Description Sample Location Expansion Index Expansion Potential Olive brown, silty SAND TP -1 @ 0 — 4' 51 Medium 61000497 -01 Saxony Road Developnient Project Lab Testin2 Appendix SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING/ INC F GEOTECNNIUL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS G CO Box 600777, SAN DrEGO, LIFDRNfA 92160 619.851.8683 PH, 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SOLIOROCKENGINEERS.COM Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Laboratory Testing Appendix November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 Page 2 of 2 Grain Size (Sieve) Analysis Test The sieve analysis (grain size distribution) of selected representative soil samples were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM C 136 or D 422. The results of these tests are summarized below. Summary of Sieve Analysis Test Results (Percent Passing Per Sieve Size) Sample Location No.4 No. 10 No. 40 No. 100 No. 200 TP -1 @ 0 - 4' 95 94 76 45 37 Specification I - TP4 @0 -2' T5 - Soil Corrosivity (Chemical Analysis) Tests The sulfate content of selected was evaluated in general accordance with Caltrans Test Method 417. The chloride content of selected was evaluated in general accordance with Caltrans Test Method 422. The test results are presented below. Summary of Corrosivity Test Results 61000497 -01 Saxony Road Develupmenl Projed Lab Testing Appendix SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECNNILIL x 2S ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 6 PO Box 600027777, , SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 SIR 619.851.8683 m., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SOUVRO0 ENGINEERa.cOM Sulfate Chloride Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity (ohm -cm) Content Content N (Ppm) TP4 @0 -2' T5 640 0.016 90 61000497 -01 Saxony Road Develupmenl Projed Lab Testing Appendix SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECNNILIL x 2S ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 6 PO Box 600027777, , SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 SIR 619.851.8683 m., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SOUVRO0 ENGINEERa.cOM Mr. Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Appendix C Standard Specifications for Grading Projects November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 61000497 -0I Say Road DeveWmenf P rojed Report ' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING INC. GEOTELNNIUL x6 MATERIALS ENGINEERINGCONSULTANTS PD BOX 6DDZ77 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 91160 RIM 619.851.8683 w ., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SULfDRO ENGfNEERS.com Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 1 of 13 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 authorfies 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 Sbrdard Spea for Grading Dro^Js with Figures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING] INC. RZ GEOTEQ PO B AND 0277, SA ENGINEERING LONAA2160 PO Box 600277, SAN Oreea, GLffORNlA 92160 619.851.8683 m, 619.501.9511 Ear www.SouaROO ENGrNe S-row Standard SpecAcations for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 2 of 13 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, desilling 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 ,Spec for Grading Pros with Figures Rev Jan 07 ' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. _ Georeo PO Box x6 0277, SAND-- ,ER1Nf CoNSL92160 P08ox 600277, Sw DIEGO, CALWRNU 92160 61.9.851.8683M., 619.501.9511 FAI www.SO RoMENGMN S Standard Specifications for Grading Projects treatment of these conditions may be recommended. Revised January 2007 Page 3 of 13 Cut Slopes 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 bens drainage swale and /or an appropriate pad gradient. A gradient of two percent or greater is recommended away from the top -of- slopes. 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 Spec for Grading Projects with Floures Rev Jan 07 ST ' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERINGr INC. _ Groreoareu n80 0277, SAs DmGo, G4 [pNS 92160 PO Box 600177, SAN DfFGG, U[IlORNIA 91160 619- 851.8683m, 619.501.9511 ry W1VW.SoimRocx&cmf s.Ohl Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 4 of 13 Placement of Fill 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 oonducted 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 all ,Standard Spew for Grading Projects witlr Figures Rev Jan 07 STR SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GF01FO POB arm 0277, Sts DmGo,FR1NGCO8s 92160 PO Box 600177, $4N DtEGO, Gutroawu 91160 619.851.8683 m., 619.501.9511 rax www.Sou Roo Errcrxeeas.com Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 5 of 13 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 fifl 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. Al 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 interoore. During grading operations rare should be taken to extend compacbve 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 B— 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 jetfing, 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 tesfing 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 dose proximity to a buried conduit, the contractor Standard Specs for Grading Projects whir Figures Rev Jan 07 - ' ,SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING] INC. PO Sox 600277, S.�NOS -co, Gutaanu 92160 619.851.8683m, 619.501.9511 s�.r WWW.SO RoL ENGINE s L Standard Specicatlons for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 6 of 13 may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with dean 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 dean 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 - roofing 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 -and and and 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 Gad1n0 projects with Fgures Rev Jan 07 ' SOLID ROCK fNGINEfRINGF INC. _ Si G[orrawrcu AND 0277, SA DMW,tC CoKS 92160 FO Box 600227, SAn Dieeo, C' +urawx+A 92160 6I9.851.8683W, 619.501.9511 FAX www.Sa Roarfivcnrte¢s.rorr Standard Specifications for Grading Pojeds PROJECTED PLANE i TO 1 MAJONLIM FROM TOE OF eLOPE TO APPFKWED GROUND NATURAL -� GROUND — -_ Y MIN. � —15' MIN. KEY DFFfH LOWEST BENCH (KEY) NATURAL GROUND / 1S / / LOVYES - 2' M KEY DEPTH OVERBUILT TRIM BACK SLOPE PROJECTED PLANE 1 TO 1 MAxp" FROM TOE CF ML TO APPROV® OROUNO\ �15' MII�� 2' MIN. LOWEST BFJNCH KEY DEPTH (KEY) ID_OIIPACiEp_' _. "`�� •� ^� REMOVE cTYPW-4LL UNSUTTASL MATERIAL DFlICFI HEIGHT CUT FACE TO BE COr6T(MJCTEO PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT NATURAL OROUNO X/ 0 TYPICAL REMOVE NSUITADL MATERIAL =7 !T' TVPK'JLL NZ+@1I r— BENCH HEIGHT REMOVE INSURABLE MATERIAL Revised January 2007 Page 7 of 13 FILL SLOPE FILL-OVER -CUT I SLOPE CUT -OVER -FILL SLOPE For Subdralns See Standard Dotail C HEIGHT RENCHING BH&LL BE DONE VVHEN SLOPES ANGLE IS EGLIAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1 MOAN BENCH HEINfl' SHALL BE L FEET V4,11 M FILL WIDTH M-LAL L BE D FEET SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax STANDARD SPECIRCATIONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS Keying and Benching Detail JOe Na DA/E DETAIL Revised July 2005 A Standard Specs for Grading Pro ects with figures Rev Jan 07 s?z SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING? INC. G£oT[o PO t.x 6 Ma77, S S ENGINEERING CONSIATARTS 92160 PD Box 600277, SAN DISCO, GALffORNU 92160 619.851.8683 EN., 619.501.9511 FAY WWw.SO RDOIENGINE S Standard Specifications for Grading Projects SLOPE • Oversize rock Is larger than 8 kwW In largest dimerskxi • Excavate a trench In the compacted fill deep enough to bury all the rock • Ba&N with granular sell Jetted or hooded In place to fill all the voids. • Do not bury rock whhln 10 feet of finish grade. Revised January 2007 Page 8 of 13 FINISH GRADE --------------- - _.COMPACTED Fat __ : JETTED OR FLOODED -_ -- ULAN MATERIAL ELEVATION A -A' PROFILE ALONG WINDROW -- — JETTED OR FLOODED— GRANULAR MATERIAL STANDARD SREop:AmNS FOR GRADING PROJECTS SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 0y rsized Rock Disposal Detail PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax J011111110. DATE DETAIL Smndsrd Specs for GradinD Projects with Faures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING? INC. Sr" GFOJED PO x6 0277,rSA ENGINEERING CONST 92160 PpBOx 600277, SAN DrEGO, UuroanrA 92160 619.851.8683 w., 619.501.9511 FAX www.SOuoRoarFNG MS.mrr Standard Specifications for Grading Projects NATURAL GROUND Revised January 2007 Page 9 of 13 - — ----------------------------- — ----- ----------------------- — — COMPACTED FILL — — ---------------- --- — — --- REMOVE BENCHING -- -- - z —__ - -_ ------------------ -- UNSUITABLE ------------ — -- MATERIAL — ----- ------- — -------------- -= -- --------------- — 12' MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET CALTRA,NS CLASS R 6.4 PERMEABLE OR ir2 ROCK (qFT.3/FT.) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC FILTER FABRIC (MIRAF1 140 OR '-, APPROVED COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL EQUIVALENT) BE MINIMUM 6* DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL PIPE SEE STANDARD DETAIL PERFORATED PIPE FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION 6•+ MIN. DESIGN FINISHED GRADE I(Y MIN. BACKFILL FILTER FABRIC (MIRAF1 140 OR 2% •. •- . APPROVED 2: ; j EQUIVALENT) 20' MrN L NON -PERF RATED 5- M IN.. #2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTER 6'4 MIN. 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 S&Xfard som for aaft Projects wth Fqureg Revlan 07 SIR STANDARD SpmRcAvoiis FOR GRADING PROJECTS Canyon Subdrains Detail JOB No. DATE DETAIL Revised July 2005 C SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GECTFCH r AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL TANTS Po Box 600277, SAN DiE6a, CALimRNm 92160 619.951.8683 w., 619.501.9511 F" www.SouDlZoa Ewm .cow Standard Specifications for Grading Projects OUTLET PIPES 4•; NON - PERFORATED PIPE, 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY Revised January 2007 Page 10 of 13 IT MIN. BACKOUT 1:1 OR FLATTER ____- - - - - -- "BENCHING KEY 1•_ _ —_-__ _ _ — — DEPTH 2' 16• MIN. { / 12' MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP I KEY WIDTH EVE SEAL (HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET SHOULD BE `1 v PROVIDED AT ` ` FILTER FABRIC THE JOVT /� - • (MIRAF7 140 OR Y• • APPROVED 6g MIN. ° • EQUIVALENT) OUTLET PIPE (NONPERFORATE\_�--'� T- CONNECTION.FOR CALTRANS CLASS II COLLECTOR PIPE TO PERMEABLE OR PE ROCK PIPE (3FT.3/FT.) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC • SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe Shan be Installed with pedoratlons down or, unless otherwise designated by the geotoohnR*iI cotsaltanL Outlet pipes Shan be non - perforated pipe. The wibdraln pipe shall have at least 8 peAoratiau urVmn* spaced per foot. Perforation Shan be w to W 9 drilled holes are used. All subdrain pipes shat have a gradient at least 2% towards the WOOL • SUBDRAM PIPE - Subdrain pipe Shan be ASTM D2751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40, or ASTM 03034, SDR 23.5, Schedule 40 Polyvirryt Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe. • An outlet pipe shall be placed In a trench no wider than vice the subdrain pipe. Pipe Shan be In Soil of SE >30 Carted or flooded h place except for the outside 5 feet which Shan be native soil baci ll. SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, Cafilornia 92160 619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax Standard SDe6 for Grading ProicTs with Roures Rev Jan 07 STANDARD SPEDBi noms FOR GRADING PRO./ECTs Buttress or Replacement Fill Subdrans Detail JOB No. I DATE I DETAIL Revised July 2005 1 D SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,, INC. SIM GEOTEC rV AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SANDiwo, Cruroanu 92160 619.851.8683 m, 619.501.9511 Fax WWW.SIXIDRDorENGTNEE sS. Standard Specificatbns for Grading Projects RETAINING WALL WALL WATERPROOFING PER ARCHITECT''S SPECIFICATIONS FINISH GRADE WALL NOT TO SCALE Specifications for Caltrans Class 2 Permeable Material U.S. Standard Percent Sieve Size Passing 1 -inch 100 'G-inch 90 -100 3184nch 40 -100 ND.4 25-40 No. 8 18 -33 No.30 5 -15 No.50 0 -7 No.200 0 -3 Sand Equivalent > 75 Revised January 2007 Page 11 of 13 SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT, RELATIVE COMPACTION* MIN. COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT {BASED ON ASTM D1667 * *IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4'- 1 -1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT-,RELATIVE COMPACTIONA' NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR J —DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OF CLASS 2. INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORNED IN ACCORDANCE vMH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION& SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8663, 619.501.9511 fax STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADINO PROJECTS Retaining Wall Drainage Detail JOB ND. I DATE I DETAIL Revised Juy 2005 1 E 5prdard SPe6 for &adV ProfflM Iyith Figures Rev Jan 07 SI ' SOLID R A[A ENGINEERI C INC. _ GEOTEOMTCAL ANO 0277, SLS ENGIN, CR GJN 92160 POeDx 600277, S•N DIEGO, r,, .FOaeu 92160 619.851.8683 ar., 619.501.9511 FAx WWW.SOLIOROCaENGDVEERs. CON FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE OVERLAP' ____ (MfRAFI 140N OR APPROVED • ° EQUIVALENTS** t' MIN._ = = =' ;3/46- 1.112' CLEAN GRAVEL 4'dMIN'.j DIAMETER PERFORATED. ' • O HULE 400R =— _ 'PVC PIP� '(SCED • EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS ° e c == ORIENTED:DOWN AS DEPICTED MINUM 1 PERCENT GRA DIENT IM ° ___ TO SUITABLE OUTLET MIN. COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT {BASED ON ASTM D1667 * *IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF 3/4'- 1 -1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT-,RELATIVE COMPACTIONA' NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR J —DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OF CLASS 2. INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORNED IN ACCORDANCE vMH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATION& SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 619.851.8663, 619.501.9511 fax STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADINO PROJECTS Retaining Wall Drainage Detail JOB ND. I DATE I DETAIL Revised Juy 2005 1 E 5prdard SPe6 for &adV ProfflM Iyith Figures Rev Jan 07 SI ' SOLID R A[A ENGINEERI C INC. _ GEOTEOMTCAL ANO 0277, SLS ENGIN, CR GJN 92160 POeDx 600277, S•N DIEGO, r,, .FOaeu 92160 619.851.8683 ar., 619.501.9511 FAx WWW.SOLIOROCaENGDVEERs. CON Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 12 of 13 314 (am 19) Y, (N) NATIVE SOIL x PE NATIVE SOIL �_ w BASEMENT a Z x Ro F x 0 I Ko Tt H ASSUMED CONDITIONS: KO= (Assumes basement walls are cast neat against soil and are resisted from movement or rotation by ground floor y, = pcf (Total unit weight of "Native' or formational soil). a. = g (Peak acceleration at ground surface with 10% probability of exceedance in 50 yrs.) H = depth of basement g = earth's gravity NOTES: Groundwater assumed below basement Ro= (112) Koy,(HS) /F.S. F.S. = 1.0' PE = 318 (a ,,1g) yt (Hz) 'Designer should use factors of safety appropnate for bad conditbns. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. At Rest Earth Pressures - Basement Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Consultants PO Box 600277, San Diego, CA 92160 PROJECT No. DATE Detail 619.851.8683 ph., 619.501.9511 fax F Standard Specs G2dina FtOJe� w/tfr Fgures Rev Jan 07G•adbg Proje� w/tfr Fioures Rev Jan 07 VB SOLID ROCK E EG EERINGF INC. GEGlEaM1Ul ANO MA�Nra�s ENGSNFERING CoNpnrANrs PO BOX 600277_54N D-GO, C—u NU 92160 619.851.8683 r ., 619.501.9511 FAx www.5or RoarENGnvm ro Y Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 13 of 13 Slab and reinforcing per structural engineer or soil repon. 'Designer should use factors of safety appropnate for load ConditMS. 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 I PROJECT No. I DATE I DeW G Standard Specs for Grddino Frgwctr wltlr Figures Rev Jan 07 ' SOLID Roar E s fimr ERI C INC. Gwmawiw PO Bon 600177, SAN 0neo, GCUaeBU 91160 619.551.86&3m., 619.501.9511 Fox Nn V W. SOI LD ROIXENGIH£ERS. fQv Mr Dean Stewart Saxony Road Development Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report November 6, 2008 Project No. 61000497 -01 Appendix D General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners 6100497 -01 SaxpW Road Deu A*rwnt Project Report ' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERINGr INC. GEUTECHNIGL x 6 0277, TLS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, 5AN DIEGO, Guroanu 93160 _ 619.851.8683 RN., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SoaoRO ENGfN££RS.coM General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners Revised November 2006 iait�]�11I�i�[ ♦]: 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 RMsed 1006 ' ROCK ENGINEERING? INC. RSOLID _ GECTE NLUL AND MATERIALSENGINEERING CONsuLTAwn PO Box 600177, SAN DLEGo, CALIEDRNIA 91160 _ 619.851.8683 RN., 619.501.9511 FAx WWw.SOLIDRoO ENGINEERS.QIM General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES Revised November 2006 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 Ma Lena a Guidelines Renud 2006 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. ni GEOTECNNICAL AND MAMRIAL5 ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Po Sox 600177, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 FN., 619.501.9511 FAX www.SOLLDRO ENGINEERS.COM City of Encinitas DRAINAGE STUDY M M 19 2010 M. APN 254- 362 -26 (1022 Saxony Road) Prepared By: Thomas E. Engel Checked By: Bruce J. Manning, P.E. RCE No. 38456 Prepared for: Deon and Debra Stewart Report Date: April 6, 2010 Engel Technical Consulting Civil Design - Hydrology - Water Quality 29676 Yellow Gold Dr. - Canyon Lake CA 92587 (951) 440 -7319 - MrHydro@live.com City of Encinitas DRAINAGE STUDY FOR APN 254- 362 -26 (1022 Saxony Road) Prepared By: Thomas E. Engel Checked By: Bruce J. Manning, P.E. RCE No. 38456 Prepared for: Dean and Debra Stewart Report Date: April 6, 2010 SS17PH ASR Engel Technical Consulting Civil Design - Hydrology - Water Quality 29676 Yellow Gold Dr. - Canyon Lake CA 92587 (951) 440 -7319 - MrHydro@live.com CAI APR 1 4 2010 Google Meps 4/7/100..35 AM Goggle maps To see aAtherletWis tot are "bteonthe screen,ose the "Print" lirk ne# to the map. Gat Directions My Maps Take RoaksvokeM Link cmm� 5P� m s e Faith Nonn+aav Rd 5 3! &¢tanv Ave 5/TE A ��1 Ii.g,rvA Z aiwns Sr 0 i 0 to O ° r D Q < D e � m • Leucaaa BW Leuratlla Blvd Fean:.ne: f.. . Ar. My Blvc! j m u tt W1`aeR .r ¢ o Q o ! e m J p7K 1 � _ CMO NOW St Pueda 51 Prbda S s r• j 9armerES Pie a o s 1% 0 ®2010 C. - ww4 ie 02010 @owe - VICINITr A14p (Nagy ro Se41,, http: / /maps.gwglecom/ Page 1 of 1 Google Maps Goole maps To see all the details that are visible on the screen,use the "Print" link ne)d to the map. OF > Mrr-T-I= 4/7/104:45 AM http: / /mapzgoaglecom/ Page 1 of t INTRODUCTION This report is prepared in support of the minor grading plan for an existing residential lot located at 1022 Saxony Road (APN 254- 362 -26) in the City of Encinitas, CA. The project proposes the construction of a private residence on a lot comprising 0.34 acres (net). The minor grading plan is prepared by Manning Engineering of Temecula, CA. The purpose of this study is to determine the volumetric flow rate of stormwater discharge generated from the project in the existing and proposed conditions, and to design appropriate post - construction Best Management Practices to ensure water quality and to mitigate increased site runoff due to development. WATERSHED DESCRIPTION General The project site is a triangular parcel located at the west end of a private cul -de- sac which provides access to Saxony Road. The site is surrounded on 3 sides by what appears to be a concrete brow ditch with an 8" base and 8" high walls with a 1:1 side slope. Existing Condition The existing site is covered with grasses, and is sloped generally in a northeast - to- southwest direction at approximately 3 %. A small amount of runoff reaches the ditch from the property to the north, while onsite flows are picked up by the ditch on the western property line. The ditch along the southeast property line carries the runoff from the private street. The brow ditches converge at the southwest corner of the site, discharging stormwater downstream. Proposed Condition The goal of this project is the construction of an approximately 4,000 square -foot two -story residence, with adjoining driveway, flatwork, and landscaping. In the proposed condition, the flow direction and grade will remain substantially the same as before. The proposed design features a grassed swale running parallel to the existing brow ditch, which directs runoff to an infiltration /detention basin located in the southwest corner. The swale serves the dual purpose of cleansing roof runoff while preventing onsite flows from reaching the ditch before being directed to the basin for treatment. RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY Only onsite flows were analyzed since the project by design will not increase flows to the existing ditch. Other flows tributary to the ditch are assumed not to change when this project is developed. Due to the small size of the site, a simple Rational Method calculation was used to determine onsite discharge in the existing and proposed conditions. The standard formula was employed: Q =CIA where: Q= discharge rate (cu. ft. per second) C= runoff coefficient I = rainfall intensity at a given duration A= tributary area Per guidelines in the San Diego County Hydrology Manual, the 100 -year 6 -hour storm is used for analysis. Rainfall depth is derived from the Manual's rainfall isopluvials for the specified durations, as follows: 100 -year 6 -hour 2.5 in. 100 -year 24 -hour 4.2 in. The ratio of 6 -hr rainfall to 24 -hr = 2_5 = 59.5 %, which is acceptable. 4.2 Hydrologic soil type is determined from the soils group map to be "D ". In the existing condition, the site is 0% impervious. In the proposed condition, the site is 41 % impervious. Referring to Table 1, the runoff coefficient "C" is determined as follows: Existing: C =0.35 for Soil D with 0% impervious. Proposed: C= 0.58 (interpolated) for Soil D with 41 % impervious Referring to Figure 3-4, a minimum 5- minute initial time of concentration is assumed. Per the formula I = (7.44) (P6) (D-06t5) , I = 6.59 in /hr, confirmed by Figure 3 -1. The tributary area in both conditions comprises 0.34 acre. Accordingly, the Rational Method formula can be solved as follows: Existing: Q = C x I x A = 0.35 x 6.59 x 0.34 = 0.78 cfs Proposed: Q = C x I x A = 0.58 x 6.59 x 0.34 = 1.29 cfs HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - GRASSED SWALE The grass swale was designed using Haestad Flowmaster software. A conser- vative approach was employed, assuming all of Q100 being conveyed in each swale. The slope of the longest flowpath was used. Input data. slope: side slopes: n value: Peak Q,00-s: Results: depth: velocity 0.023 2:1 0.03 for grass channel 1.29 cfs 0.49 ft USE 0.50 ft (6 ") FOR DESIGN 2.72 ft/sec - OK, non - erosive BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) - INFILTRATION BASIN As recommended by City staff, the project design incorporates an infiltration basin at the downstream (southwest) corner of the site. Runoff is directed to the basin by the proposed grassed swales, the intention being the treatment of stormwater before it reaches the existing perimeter brow ditch. Per City guidelines and details, a basin is designed with surface area greater than or equal to 4% of the site impervious area. In this instance, 6200 sf of impevious area requires a minimum basin area of 248 sf. Since there is not enough grade to allow for an underdrain to the existing ditch, the design includes a spillway -type outlet instead, to discharge the water from the basin. All tables, figures, and program calculations referenced above are included with this report, along with existing- and proposed - condition hydrology maps. San Diego County Hydrology Manual Date: June 2003 Section: 3 Page: 6 of 26 Table 3 -1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR URBAN AREAS Land Use I Runoff Coefficient "C° Undisturbed Natural Terrain (Natural) Low Density Residential (LDR) Low Density Residential (LDR) Low Density Residential (LDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) High Density Residential (HDR) High Density Residential (HDR) Commercial/Industrial (N. Com) Commercial/Industrial (G. Com) Commercial/Industrial (O.P. Com) Commercial /Industrial (Limited 1.) Elements I Permanent Open Space Residential, 1.0 DU /A or less Residential, 2.0 DU/A or less Residential, 29 DU /A or less Residential, 4.3 DU /A or less Residential, 7.3 DU/A or less Residential, 10.9 DU /A or less Residential, 14.5 DU /A or less Residential, 24.0 DU /A or less Residential, 43.0 DU /A or less Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Office Professional /Commercial Limited Industrial Soil Type A B C D 0+ 0.20 10 0.27 20 0.34 25 0.38 30 0.41 0.60 0.48 45 0.52 50 0.55 65 0.66 80 0.76 80 0.76 85 0.80 90 0.83 90 0.83 95 0.87 0.25 0.32 0.38 0.41 0.45 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.67 0.77 0.77 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.30 0.36 0.42 0.45 0.48 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.69 0.78 0.78 0.81 0.84 0.84 0 'V:--xis�i / 0.41 0.46 0.49 0.52 topaj '101 o- Z 0.5 7& 0.60 E7y 0.63 �rf�trPe /dl'ion 0.71 0.79 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.85 0.87 `The values associated with 0% impervious may be used for direct calculation of the runoff coefficient as described in Section 3.1.2 (representing the pervious runoff coefficient, Cp, for the soil type), or for areas that will remain undisturbed in perpetuity. Justification must be given that the area will remain natural forever (e.g., the area is located in Cleveland National Forest). DU /A = dwelling units per acre NRCS = National Resources Conservation Service T fu ( pwija9L aYA = o.3�,4t- EQUATION AE = I11 90 0.385 Feet T` ` EE JJ 5000 Tc = Time of concentration (hours) L = Watercourse Distance (miles) 4000 AE = Change in elevation along effective slope line (See Figure 3- 5)(feet) 3000 Tc Hours Minutes 2000 4 240 3 180 r— 2�v5 ' � 200 !- 0 E L Tc SOURCE: California Division of Highways (1941) and Kirpich (1940) use 5.0 M07. r 1 li L x G Nomograph for Determination of Time of Concentration (TC) or Travel Time (Tt) for Natural Watersheds 3�q, 1000 900 2 120 800 t 100 `o 600 , 90 500 \ 80 400 \ \ 70 300 \�e \ 50 200 \ \ 40 \ \ L \ Mlles Feet 30 \t ,00 , 4000 201 \ 18 3000 16 50 4 40 2000 \ , 12 1800 \ 1600 \ 10 30 1400 \ 9 12010 8 10 EL I = 2 ��• 5 1000 7 ELZ = Z07. 8 am 6 roD 5 0 500 4 400 7.7 1300 3 r— 2�v5 ' � 200 !- 0 E L Tc SOURCE: California Division of Highways (1941) and Kirpich (1940) use 5.0 M07. r 1 li L x G Nomograph for Determination of Time of Concentration (TC) or Travel Time (Tt) for Natural Watersheds 3�q, Grassed Swale Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Worksheet Grassed Swale Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Slope 0.023000 ft/ft Left Side Slope 2.00 H : V Right Side Slope 2.00 H V Discharge 1.29 cfs Results Depth 0.49 ft Flow Area 0.5 ft' Wetted Perimeter 2.18 ft Top Width 1.95 ft Critical Depth 0.48 ft Critical Slope 0.024464 ft/ft Velocity 2.72 ft/s Velocity Head 0.11 ft Specific Energy 0.60 ft Froude Number 0.97 Flow Type Subcritical Project Engineer: Tom Engel c: \haestad \fmw\l 001- stewart.fm2 Markham Flow Master v6.1 1614k) 04/07/10 10:27.35 AM ® Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 7551666 Page 1 of 1 SITE So i ( &roar ENCINITA r VR �1 lo" S �3� 33 °30 33'16' 33'OD' 32'65 a2s3O. I RiverwielCounty F-q jtmvl+ 1 i 1, r I w ' f R_ e � 33'30 11'1& I I I 37.0& I 3 d 0 C J We County of San Diego Hydrology Manual Soil Hydrologic Groups Legend aw Gmups GM9 A &O.PB omw D ®_ Gm PD I UnE w ed Deb Unevelleble DIIV cis S iGIS N gyp.... ° 3 D 3 MIM b 3 7: 3: i b County of San Diego Hydrology Manual Rainfall Isopluvials 100 Yew R&W*H Event - 6 Noun ........ h"PhIw (tdrq i DPW S SaaI GIS N. a.wo ��n"T41wrw'"om °aru°On r�A°�w ar 7 0 9 Mlles E!gm= 33.33` 33.15' s/7 4.c 33 O TS °45' 33`>0 County of San Diego Hydrology Manual Rainfall Isophtvials 100 Year R&InW Event - 24 Haan 7- I ........ 1600 w (Imhw) � G S SanGIS N r"�'ru�u'AA4jrwu mm�:..�cm § e »� 0 3 Mllm 5' PRIVATE DRAINAGE EXIST PCC BROW DITC EXIST PCC / 5' PRIVATE BROW DITCH I DRAINAGE EASEMENT - I = j— �— EXIST AC \� / EXISTING PRIVATF ROAn °I ,� p� DRAINAGL� AREA BOU ARY EXIST PCC <� BROW DITCH O� 5 PRIVATE DRAINAGE // "' I EASEMENT i I \ 0100 (ONSITE) = 0.78 CFS �J Prepared by: Prepared under the supervision of: Prepared for: tC ENGEL TECHNICAL CONSULTING Dean and Debra Stewart Civil Design - Hydrology - Water Quality - ' 1315 El Enconto Drive 29676 Yellow Gold Dr. - Canyon Lake CA 92587 w Brea, CA 92821 (951) 440 -7319 - MrHydro@live.com Brucey. M nreng, PE ante RCE No. 38456 1p�C City of Encinitas Permit 09 -1422 COP 09 -203 HYDROLOGY MAP EXISTING CONDITION Site Address: 1022 Saxony Road Encinitas, CA 92024 0 a O r Z O X SHEET 1 OF 2 4 /Fr (2i0) --- y N o i (2i 5' PRIVATE } EXIST PCC -- .... ��— —� BROW DITCH xX EASEMENT PROPOSED \ I�i \GRASS SWALE EXIST AC / _ ClLRB ��(ISTING PRIVATE ROAD �I GARAGE 5' PRIVATE \ FG= 210.25 ' DRAINAGE FF= 210.92 EASEMENT � � II HOUS EXIST AC FG =21 5 PAVEMENT FF =211.4 ` / EXIST CURB INLET TO DITCH I EXIST PCC 11/ DRAINA I BROW DITCH I 'i AREA BOUNDARY I I PROPOSED (;BASS SWALE 0 N EXIST PCC BROW DITCH Uj I � i / 5' PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT I Q100 (IN SITE) = 1.29 cfs (PRE - DETENTION) / PROPOSED INFILTRATION BASIN WITH �i SPILLWAY OUTLETS TO BROW DITCH (250 SF MIN.) \ Q100 (ONSITE) < 0.78 cfs {POST - DETENTION) + / 06, J Prepared by: Prepared under the supervision of: Prepared for: etC ENGEL TECHNICAL CONSULTING Dean and Debra Stewart T Civil Design - Hydrology - on Water Lake Quality A 92 `�i� � Brea El 92821 Drive - - - -- 29676 Yellow bold Dr. - Canyon Lake CA 92587 Brea, CA 92821 (951) 440 -7319 - MrHydro @live.com BruceY. Manning, PE Date RCE No. 38456 SCALE: V =20' City of Encinitas Permit 09 -1422 CDP 09 -203 HYDROLOGY MAP PROPOSED CONDITION Site Address: 1022 Saxony Road Encinitas, CA 92024 SHEET 2 OF 2 A/5/20