Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2202-2214 PLAZA DE LAS FLORES; ; CB091589 - 91; PermitCITY OF CARLSBAD. Building Permit Application 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-602-2717 / 2718 / 2719 Fax: 760-602-8558 www.ca rlsbadca.g Dr. Plan Check No. Plan Ck. Deposit Date /}<JBArJDRE6S SUITES/SPACES/UNIT* # OF UNITS # BEDROOMS # BATHROOMS TENANT BUSINESS NAME CONSTR. TYPE OCC. GROUP DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Include Square Feet of Affected Area(s) dy of EXISTING USE PROPOSED USE GARAGE (SF)PATIOS (SF)DECKS (SF)FIREPLACE YESD #NOD AIR CONDITIONING YES D NOD FIRE SPRINKLERS YES D NOD CONTACT plicant)APPLICANT NAME ADDRES:ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP PHONE FAX PHONE FAX EMAIL / EMAIL - PROPERTY OWNER NAME RACTORJUS. NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE . JA ZIP PHONE PHON EMAIL EMAIL l^Eb ARCH/DESIGNER NAME & ADDRESS STATE LIC.# (Sec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuancejelso requiresThe appjicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (Chapter 9, commending with Section 70DO of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code] or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to acivil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars {$500}). Workers' Compensation Declaration: / hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. ' • ' i I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as reauired by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued. My workers' compensation insurance_cafrier and poli number are: Insurance Co. £gV«rfg-gSy > I <T( »-/-«!. | JT>\ < C^,^> Policy No. ~7&>0£)r>OC> "7^*7^^ / Expiration Date /^5 // &j - -y No. This section need not be completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars ($100) or less. / O Certificate of Exemption: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars (&100.000), in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees. ^CONTRACTOR SIGNATURE '^ ""TrDATE / hereby affirm that I am exempt from Contractor's License Law for the following reason: O I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). D I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). O I am exempt under Section Business and Professions Code for this reason: 1.1 personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement, n Yes D No 2.1 (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. 3.1 have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name address / phone / contractors' license number): 4.1 plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (incl ude name / address / phone /contractors' license number): 5.1 will provide some of the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone / type of work): ) PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE ,V" *-'>",^f A j •%**i,; %j\ *<£ ,,& ;A $,3 *;&& £ •V y^ST'*fe»»?t|i Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 25505,25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? O Yes D No Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? d Yes O No Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? O Yes O No IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, / EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work this permit is issued (Sec. 3097 (i) Civil Code). Lender's Name Lender's Address I hereby authorize representative of the City of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0'deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the Building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of 180 days (Section 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code). ^APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE ' >^""(< , A , f, DATE SEE 2202 & 2212 PLAZA DE LAS FLORES CB091589/CB1591 FOR MORE INFO S3NO 3 a VZVld 33S SEP-28-2009 09:19 ESGIL 858 560 1576 P. 001 EsGil Corporation ' In Partnefs&ip vntH government for <BuiGfing Safety DATE: 9/11/2009 a APPLICANTa JURIS. JURISDICTION: city of Carlsbad a PLAN REVIEWER a FILE PLAN CHECK NO.: pc09-26 SET: I PRO JECT ADDRESS: 2202-22 14 Plaza De Las Flores PROJECT NAME: La Costa Village Foundation Repair Transmitted herewith are plans for proposed foundation repairs, to attempt to mitigate continued settlement of the existing foundation and to further prevent resulting structural damage. Esgil Corporation cannot offer any guarantees that the proposed system will resolve the present problems, nor should the City offer such representation. However, acceptance of the proposed remedies may result in an enhanced foundation support system from the current situation. At the time of permit issuance, the following should be noted on the plans: "Prior to the City building inspector approving final inspection, the responsible design professional shall notify the building official, in writing, that the proposed foundation repairs have been installed in accordance with the design". Sincerely, ESGIL CORPORATION By: David Yao 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858)560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 SEP-28-2009 09:20 ESGIL 858 560 1576 P. 002 [DO NOT PAY-THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE] VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: pc09-26 PREPARED BY: David Yao DATE: 9/11/20O9 BUILDING ADDRESS: 22O2-2214 Plaza De Las Flores BUILDING OCCUPANCY: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: BUILDING PORTION foundation repair Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE Jurisdiction Code AREA ( Sq. Ft) cb Valuation Multiplier By Ordinance Reg, Mod. estimate VALUE ($) 100,000 100,000 Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance Wan Check Fee by Ordinance Type of Review D Repetitive Pec"^1 Repeats Complete Review D Other i—i Hourly EsGil Fee Q Structural Only Hr. @* $596.251 $387.561 $333.901 Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 macvalua.doc + 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 * San Diego, California 92123 + (858)560-1468 * Fax (858) 560-1576 TOTAL P.002 City of Carlsbad Public Works — Engineering BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST DATE: BUILDING ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION* ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: PLANCHECK NO.: C EST. VALUE: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT _ APPROVAL /" ] DENIAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in suspension of permit to build. D A Right-of-Way permit is required prior to construction of the following improvements: Please see/tfie attached list of outstanding issues marked wjtfi Q^Make necessary corrections to plans or specifreatitJfis for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to the Building Dept. for resubmittal to the Engineeringx&ept. Only the applicable sheets have been se By: By: By: Date: Date: Date: By: 7~/ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY /^ENGINEERING AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMIT: I , M/^A^v^^ Date: ^A (/ ft 9 D D D D D D D ATTACHMENTS Engineering Application Dedication Checklist Improvement Checklist Neighborhood Improvement Agreement Grading Submittal Checklist Right-of-Way Permit Application and Info Sheet Storm Water Applicability Checklist/Storm Water Compliance Exemption Form ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON Name: Address: Phone: KATHLEEN M. LAWRENCE City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 602-2741 NOTE: If there are retaining walls associated with your project, please check with the Building Department if these walls need to be pulled by separate RETAINING WALL PERMIT. 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-T314 • (760) 602-2720 • FAX (76O) 602-8562 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST ,ST D SITE PLAN 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: A. North Arrow B. Existing & Proposed Structures C. Existing Street Improvements D. Property Lines (show all dimensions) E. Easements 2. Show on site plan: F. Right-of-Way Width & Adj Streets G. Driveway widths H. Existing or proposed sewer lateral I. Existing or proposed water service J. Existing or proposed irrigation service K. Submit on signed approved plans DWG No. A. Drainage Patterns 1. Building pad surface drainage must maintain a minimum slope of one percent towards an adjoining street or an approved drainage course. 2. ADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE: "Finish grade will provide a minimum positive drainage of 2% to swale 5' away from building." B. Existing & Proposed Slopes and Topography C. Size, type, location, alignment of existing or proposed sewer and water service (s) that serves the project. Each unit requires a separate service; however, second dwelling units and apartment complexes are an exception. D. Sewer and water laterals should not be located within proposed driveways, per standards. 3. Include on title sheet: A. Site address B. Assessor's Parcel Number C. Legal Description/Lot Number For commercial/industrial buildings and tenant improvement projects, include: total building square footage with the square footage for each different use, existing sewer permits showing square footage of different uses (manufacturing, warehouse, office, etc.) previously approved. EXISTING PERMIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION Show all existing use of SF and new proposed use of SF. Example: Tenant Improvement for 3500 SF of warehouse to 3500 SF of office. . ST D D oRD D BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 8. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way. Types of work include, but are not limited to: street improvements, tree trimming, driveway construction, tying into public storm drain, sewer and water utilities. Right-of-Way permit required for: D D 9. INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMIT If your facility is located in the City of Carlsbad sewer service area, you must complete the attached Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit Screening Survey. Fax or mail to Encina Wastewater Authority, 6200 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92011, (760) 438-3941, Fax (760) 476-9852. STORM WATER COMPLIANCE D 10a.(res Project Storm Water Permit: PSP ier II (Requires SWPPP) - Please_cgmplete attached forms. Exempt - Please complete attached exemption form D D D D D D STORM WATER APPLICABILITY CHECKLIST 10b. D Priority Project D Not required FEES 11. D Required fees are attached D Drainage Fee Applicable Added Square Fee Added Square Footage in last two years? Permit No. Permit No. .yes.no n n Project Built after 1980 yes no Impervious surface > 50% yes no Impact unconstructed fac. yes no Fire Sprinklers required yes no (is addition over 150' from CL) Upgrade yes no No fees required (X§ .u <'Si C/5Ig" i I go« H <3%^*gj| s^2l# — </3 B 5°§«O1" (JJ 00 U C bu >7 >. <*> O S SgggS^wpr893 1 ^* H^ QuH 5<« § : PQ 3o3 w 3 S ,s^iu o w g isE^£y °oillS J U Qs.o < oS pi fc 2opcggw 2 H BL,P8SS Q5fclp^e; !> ^ j • <» o il' SoHW IS 2w 5! c« d g 8pel I OH zm^LU ?^om ^|i^ |||§ llll SjkjJJQzb:ppils'i oo^QLSzt^ai5fes^B8o(Mf ls>o l*llj'jjiii* filial.illfill a til 5- S a K : [Mfj y5<S o » ! S.3 a ? l[l X 'XXIi'fil EC-7 EC-8 A EC~9 EC-11x SE-1 SE-3 SE-4 >< SE-5 SE-6 SE-7 SE-8 SE-10 TR-1 TR-2 NS-1 NS-3 NS-7 NS-8 WM-1 WM-2 ^( WM-3 WM-4 WM-5 WM-6 3 WM-8 :::Best Management Practice(BMP) Description •*Geotextiles & Mate Wood Mulching Earth Dikes and Drainage Swales Slope Drains £tTAM/ jpA<Jc-«) Sift Fence Sediment Trap Check Dam Fiber Rolls ^tffcMl^c Gravel Bag Berm Street Sweeping and Vacuuming Sandbag Barrier Storm Drain Inlet Protection Stabilized Construction Ingress/Egress Stabilized Construcion Roadway Water Conservation Practices Paving and Grinding Operations Potable Water/Irrigation Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning Material Delivery and Storage Material Use Stockpile Management Spill Prevention and Control Solid Waste Management Hazardous Waste Management Concrete Waste Management j TrackingControl BMPs£ If i1 _ s Mt\ Sf ' ii-1 PLANNING/ENGINEERING APPROVALS PERMIT NUMBER PC 09-26 DATE 9/1/09 ADDRESS 2202-2214 PLAZA DE LAS FLORES RESIDENTIAL ADDITION- POOL/SPA MINOR (< 17,000.00) TENANT IMPROVEMENT RETAINING WALL COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING VILLAGE FAIRE OTHER FOUNDATION REPAIR ONLY-NO EXPANSION OF ANY STRUCTURES AS PART OF THIS PERMIT PLANNER GINA RUIZ DATE 9/3/09 ENGINEER DATE H:\ADMIN\COUim/PUNI«/ENGINEEIUNG APPROVALS ENGINEERS Structural Engineering • Civil Engineering • Surveying 3434 Fourth Ave. San Diego, CA 92103 Phone (619) 299-5550 • Fax (619) 299-9934 www.burkett-wong.com • info@burkett-wong.com , •LandPlannmg Engr: Mark B. Batten Date: July 2009 Job No: 10574A STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR La Costa Villages Foundation Underpinning Carlsbad, CA Ho. S 3235 Exp. 3-31-11 DATE BURKETT&WONGr M/? i M c c D c SHEET_ — '**««w PROJECT i^CA/ €!-^4T(XljA __&£££;_-- t> Rp PKJ = Fr2"Witx = CCW \vw\^ - JOB NO K^-J "74 AT ^ 1- t> Pcf =1,5 K I Fi«44A^ -3.3 3;O ^iNi^- -.^^ CTtce\ Z'^ ' \A.O '<2~fQ l \n,Jt- l^> - 4o u-o & BURKETT&WONGn.Tr tDATE - i_ - ENGINEERS SHEET ENGR _ JOB NO ? tf ^ 7 PROJECT (i z. + i -2-] ^0^25*)"' - i ej - 3V s ^^ ' V - t 1.([ Uf^ 2- O(^\ r *? - 7^~ -1*"' l "l "" " ' / - ifi d = DATE BURKETT&WONG ENGINEERS SHEET- ENGR "JOB NO I^S"74/f~ PROJECT 7v4-D 4-o n ' i « <-> L MIK i Vjft. JS'i'VcH.'-i AX- ~Kc c.£ i>p,4-Ci APPENDIX A STRUCTURAL PIPE PILE CALCULATIONSPAGE . HOTE:1) - a) - 3) - 4) - 5} - MELD IS £70,000 HIRE 70 K YIELD S7R CI%.«I%JL STRUCT SHAPES - fl-36 SHEAR STRENGTH - .4Fy Fv WELD - {.4) (70k) - 28 KSI Fv MEMBER (.4) (36 KSi) - 14.4 KSi THEREFORE FAILURE WOULD OCCUR IN PARENT METAL, NOT HELD Moments about WELD OH TOP OF PIPE IT (3.125) WELD OH < 3" + 3" 18.000 v S jjLOOP X, S A (J4"> i 9.3" 6430 < (i) (14,400) OK 4 (13.8'} * 15.8". - 5696 < (i) (14,400) OK STRESSES ON PILE CAP WELDS ARE LESS THAN t ALLOWABLE STRESS. THEREFORE, ONLY PERIODIC INSPECTION IS REQUIRED. THE PIPE CONNECTORS AND SCREW JACKS HAVE HO STRESS IMPOSED ON THE WELDS AS ARESULT OF STRUCTURAL LOADS SUPPORTING THE RESIDENCE, THEREFORE SPECIAL IHSPECTIflH NOT REQUIRED. APPENDIX A STRUCTURAL PIPE PILE CALCULATIONS PAGE CHECK PIPE COLUMN FOR BENDING FIND ALLOWABLE ECCEHTRICITY t» SCH. 80 PIPE ASS GRADE B OR A501 Fy - 3S KSI Fy - 36 KSI T,-•1 MAX BENDING CAPACITY 8 % Fy MOMENT APPLIED TO PIPE COLUMN AT BOTTOM OF CAP APPLIED MOMEHT - TO PILE CAP 13,000 e APPLIED MOMENT TO PIPE PILE AT 12" FRQK END 18.000 e" 12° l.SK e s - -731 Fy = E3.3 Ksi s - m/f » .731 » e « (.73H f23.31_H..f23 (J.S)11* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 • 1 1 1 LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORT FOR LA COSTA VILLAGE PHASE II EVALUATION PROJECT 2208 AND 2212 PLAZA DE LAS FLORES, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009 PREPARED FOR: Mr. Robert Levine La Costa Village Homeowner's Association 2207 Plaza de las Flores tn^, Carlsbad, California 92009 ^ 9*^,^^NGDF^ PREPARED BY: SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160 August 31 , 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61 000268-02 PCt^PD ^JT*** a& I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I August 31,2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Mr. Robert Levine La Costa Village Homeowner's Association 2207 Plaza de las Flores Carlsbad, California 92009 Subject: Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report for La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project, 2208 and 2212 Plaza de las Flores, Carlsbad, California 92009 Dear Mr. Levine, 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, a previous phase of work by our staff indicated that the two subject units had suffered from local failure of the footings. In addition, patios had moved and settled that had related to slope creep associated with steep slopes and clay soils. Our report concludes that the soil conditions at the site can be mitigated provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please feel free to contact the undersigned at 619.851.8683. Respectfully, R. Douglas Pibvins, PE, GE Principal Georechnical Engineer GE 2568, expiVes December 31,2010 Distribution: (6) Addressee 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MA TEKIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL TANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Cosfa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 3. SITE DESCRIPTION 1 4. BACKGROUND AND DOCUMENT REVIEW 2 5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION 5 6. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 6.1. UNDOCUMENTED FILL 5 6.2. SANTIAGO FORMATION 6 6.3. SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER 6 7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 6 7.1. SURFACE RUPTURE 6 7.2. SEISMICITY AND GROUND MOTION 6 7.3. ALQUIST-PRIOLO ZONES 7 7.4. LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREAD 7 7.5. LANDSLIDES 7 7.6. SEICHES AND EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED FLOODING 7 8. LABORATORY TESTING.. 8 9. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 8 10. RECOMMENDATIONS 10 10.1. PLAN AND SPECIFICATION REVIEW 11 10.2. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING 11 10.3. REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS 11 10.3.1. SLAB REPAIR AND FOUNDATION UNDERPINNING 11 10.3.2. PATIO SLAB REPAIR 12 10.3.3. DEEP FOUNDATIONS 12 10.4. RETAINING WALLS 13 10.4.1. SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS (SRWs) 13 10.4.2. LATERAL LOADS ON RIGID WALLS 14 10.4.3. PSUEDOSTATIC (SEISMIC) EARTH PRESSURE PARAMETERS 15 10.4.4. DRAINAGE FOR RIGID WALLS 16 10.5. EXCAVATION AND GRADING OBSERVATION 16 10.6. EARTHWORK 17 10.6.1. SITE PREPARATION 17 10.6.2. FILL COMPACTION 17 10.6.3. CUT/FILL TRANSITIONS 18 10.6.4. MATERIAL FOR FILL 18 10.6.5. BULK/SHRINK AND MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS 19 10.6.6. TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS 19 10.6.7. SLOPES 20 10.6.8. ADDITIONAL EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS 20 10.7. SURFACE DRAINAGE 20 10.8. SEISMIC PARAMETERS 21 10.9. SOIL CORROSIVITY 23 10.10. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 23 11. LIMITATIONS 24 61000268-02 Plaza cte las F/ores Phase // Eval Reportetoc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAH DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 12. SELECTED REFERENCES 26 Figures Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Boring Location Map Appendices Appendix A - Logs of Exploratory Excavations Appendix B - Laboratory Testing Appendix C - Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Appendix D - General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners 61000268-02 Plaza de las ftores Phase II Eval Reportctoc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page? 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the limited subsurface evaluation performed by Solid Rock Engineering, Inc. (SRE) for the La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project in La Costa, California. The purpose of the evaluation was to better characterize the existing soil conditions in an effort to make repair recommendations for the two units. We have specifically focused on mitigation of the footing failure and patio distress that has been related to slope creep. 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. 61000268-02, 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 three 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, density, maximum density, expansion index, sieve analysis, shear strength, consolidation, and corrosivity. * 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 structure, landslides, flooding, soil liquefaction, and expansion/settlement. + Recommendations for plan and specification review, earthwork, drainage, foundation design, seismicity, slabs, corrosivity, and retaining walls. 3. SITE DESCRIPTION The property consists of two two-bedroom units within a medium sized condominium complex in La Costa, California. The two units in question include 2208 and 2212 Plaza de las Flores, on the west side of Alicante Drive. A site location map is included as Figure 1. Figure 2 indicates the approximate locations of the units within the complex. Both units open up to the Plaza de las Flores courtyard on the north, and both are bounded by a compacted fill slope that descends about eight to twelve feet down from the units toward the south property boundary. The units are 61000268-02 Plaza de (as Flores Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 2 separated by a breezeway on the east side of 2212, as well as a similar condominium at 2210 Plaza de las Flores. 2210 Plaza de las Flores was not included in this evaluation. Plaza de las Flores is one of three courtyards associated with La Costa Village and is approximately the southeast quadrant of the development. The units are referred to as 2208 and 2212 for the remainder of this report. For the purpose of discussion in this report, Plaza de las Flores is considered to run east to west. The two units are located on the south side of the courtyard. They are each accessed from the courtyard to the north. Each unit has dual sliding glass door openings on both floors of the south wall that offer a view to the south. The units are split level with four separate levels. The main entrance and garage are at about the same elevation as the courtyard. Two bedrooms on the lower level are situated four to five feet below the main entrance. The main floor level, including kitchen, dining room, and living room, are situated about four to five feet above the main entrance elevation. In addition, there is a small loft in the northwest corner of both units that is situated about four to five feet above the main living area. The existing structures appear to be supported on shallow, continuous perimeter footings that are supported in the near surface compacted fills. Abundant evidence was observed at the site to indicate that the units had experienced significant movement. Evidence of movement included horizontal and vertical cracks and separations in concrete flatwork and walls, and racking of doors, windows, cabinets, and other features. A relatively higher concentration of distress was noted on the lower floor near the wall and patio. 4. BACKGROUND AND DOCUMENT REVIEW This section has been repeated from the previous report by our office and is reiterated herein for easy reference. The early history of the La Costa Village Development has been adapted and abbreviated from the referenced Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. (SEC), reports. According to our review of the project documents and these reports, La Costa Village underwent two different periods of grading prior to construction. Prior to grading, there was a southwest trending knoll that peaked at about 125 feet above sea level. The first period of grading prior to 1969 generally consisted of cutting of the top of the knoll and ridge down to about elevation 110 feet above sea level. Grading that was specific to La Costa Village was performed between 1969 and 1972. It generally consisted of further cutting down the knoll and placing compacted fill soil primarily along the western and southern portions of the property. This included filling soils beneath 2208 and 2212 Plaza de la Costa, and filling in a small drainage on the east side of 2212 (between 2208 and 2212). An excerpt from the 1969 grading plan is included herein. Construction of the complex was substantially complete by 1972. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eva! Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX www. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 3 ^^r^i^jfTTiTfi^', ^wi* ****™ BfZKZZZZ1 ~*\\~~t£Ls y 7 /// / > V -»** *?«* etf^ft*1 ]\^y-11 V^n-a x<i / / / * / ' '"* •-- S; / *-t / ^^^Wi\ "X"^^^/•KyKA// /s-*'/ 1.-.L, ,Mu.«i>i/-i •••X Significant damage was noted as early as 1975 or 1976, resulting in a lawsuit and subsequent repairs in 1981 and 1982. The general consensus of the soils experts was that the damage was a result of fill settlement, fill slope creep, and expansive soil heave. Repairs at that time generally consisted of four foot deep concrete cut off walls and a system of four to five foot deep subsurface drains, to collect and reroute moisture at various locations, including around unit 2212. It does not appear that any remedial foundation repair or foundation enhancement work was performed during this phase of improvements. Damage and distress apparently continued to occur, resulting in a subsurface investigation being performed by Leighton & Associates in 1984. According to the SEC summary, Leighton concluded that fill settlement and expansive soil heave were causing the distress and that slope creep may be a contributing factor. The remainder of the background section of this report will focus specifically on 2208 and 2212. Further review of the documents has indicated that 2212 has apparently suffered relatively more distress than 2208 and has had some remedial foundation work performed. The 1984 Leighton report included a floor level (manometer) survey that displayed evidence of about 1.5+ inches of tilt sloping down to the northwest in 2212. It is interesting to note that this is also the area of relatively least fill (on the order of three to four feet below the northwest corner of the lower level). In their 1989 field notes, SEC indicated that they had identified about 1.5 inches of tilt in the 2212 floor in the same northwesterly direction that Leighton had identified 1.5+ inches in 1984. SEC indicated that their opinion of primary causes of distress were the settlements of retaining walls at the north end of the lower level units. SEC indicated that "repair of this condition will involve installation of reinforced concrete piers directly under the existing wall foundation." They indicated that it would also be necessary to support adjacent sections with pipe piles. A review of the as-built repair drawings by SEC dated 1990 (Stamped "as-built" June 26, 1991) indicated that five concrete piers were installed along the south and west walls of the 2212 garage and one additional concrete pier was installed near the center of the south wall at the lower level of 2212. Seven additional pipe piles were installed along the south and west perimeter walls of the lower level of 2212. On July 31,2006, Chester A. Carville, PE of Carville Engineering & Construction (CEC) visited 2212 for an inspection at the request of Granite Management for La Costa Village Homeowner's Association. CEC noted minor to moderate 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eval Reportctoc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLWROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 4 distress in the patio slab and a minor to moderate crack separation at the building foundation and under the privacy wall. We interpreted this to be the separation at the edge of the patio where it supports a short wall and butts up against the south edge of the lower level foundation, adjacent to and beneath the sliding glass doors. The CEC report stated that "no structural deficiency exists in the building." On November 3, 2006, Mr. Robert Chappell, PE of Inspect Rite-Encinitas (IRE) visited 2208 to address concerns about the foundation, and to render an opinion of the condition of the foundation as it affects the use or serviceability of the property. IRE made reference to an inspection of 2208 by CEC on May 25, 2006 where they mentioned exterior distress to patio and privacy wall but did not observe cracking. IRE reported that CEC noted the sliding glass bedroom doors were observed to be plumb during his visit. We had no benefit of the review of this document. The IRE report noted some signs of distress. The IRE report indicated that the patio slab had significantly separated from the rear foundation wall of the building. According to IRE, similar distress was noted on adjacent properties. Interior distress included cracks and separations in the upper level walls. Interior doors were found to be slightly out of square. The two rear sliding glass bedroom doors along the south lower level were noticeably out of square, and their operation was adversely affected. IRE noted a one inch wide crack in the slab, parallel and adjacent to the south wall, between the glass doors. Results of the floor level survey indicated about 1.8 inches of tilt with relatively higher elevations near the southwest corner of the lower level and a tilt down to the low point at the northeast corner of the lower level. IRE concluded that the crack in the lower slab should be considered significant. Further, IRE noted that the distress may be recent, not historical. It is worth noting that several significant documents were mentioned or identified in our document review that were not located or otherwise available for review. Specifically, we did not locate but would like to review the following data, if available. 4 The 1977 Geocon, Inc. report that initially addressed the distressed properties and soil conditions. We believe this report was identified as Lot 1, Buildings 1 through 13 at La Costa Village, dated September 9, 1977. * The 1984 Leighton and Associates Report that evaluated additional distress that had occurred at the site. We did identify one floor level survey from that report that was for 2212. 4 We observed one slope inclinometer tube on the east side of 2212. We understand that several others have been installed and monitored at the property over the years. We have not located a single piece of inclinometer data. It would be helpful to review that data. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eval ReporUoc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 5 5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION Our field exploration consisted of three borings advanced on Tuesday, July 10, 2007. The borings were excavated using a limited-access, tri-pod, "beaver" drill rig. Borings B-1 through B-3 extended to depths of 25 1/2, 28, and 10 % feet below existing grade, respectively. Logs describing the observed subsurface conditions are presented in Appendix A, and the approximate excavation locations are indicated on Figure 2. Disturbed bulk and relatively undisturbed ring samples were obtained at selected locations and returned to our office. Sample locations are indicated on the logs. The lines designating the interface between soil units on the soil logs were estimated by interpolation and are rough approximations. The actual transition between the materials may be abrupt or gradual. Further, soil conditions between the excavations may be substantially different from those observed. It should be recognized that soil conditions could change with the passage of time. Excavation locations and elevations were established in the field by pacing and taping from existing improvements. The locations shown should not be considered more accurate than the precision implied by the method of measurement used. 6. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is generally located within the California Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This province is characterized by northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys. The ranges and valleys trend northwest, subparallel to the San Andreas, Elsinore, Rose Canyon, Palos Verdes, Coronado Banks, and other faults. The site is located near the top of a southwesterly facing ridge southeast of Carlsbad, northeast of La Costa Resort and Spa, at an average estimated approximate elevation of 90 feet above sea level. The site is approximately 2.9 miles (4.7 km) east of the Pacific Ocean shoreline and about .6 miles (.9 km) northeast of Bataquitos Lagoon. Based on our observations at the site and review of available geologic literature, it appears that the site is mantled by compacted fill related to site landscaping, grading, and pre-existing conditions. The fill appears to be a wedge that increases in thickness to the south toward the rear of the structures. The site is underlain by Santiago Formation to the depths explored. 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 is generally olive gray and olive brown, damp to moist, firm to very stiff, CLAY and clayey SAND. The fill 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX www. SOUDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Coste Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 6 thickness was approximately 24 feet thick in boring no. B-1, 25 feet thick in boring no. B-2, and about 5 feet thick in boring no. B-3. 6.2. Santiago Formation Where observed, these materials were generally yellowish gray and olive brown, moist, weakly to moderately indurated, clayey SANDSTONE and sandy CLAYSTONE, as well as olive gray, weakly cemented, silty SANDSTONE. The formational soil unit was observed beneath the undocumented fill and was noted to extend to the bottom of the excavations. 6.3. Surface Water and Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during our investigation. Groundwater is not expected to affect the grading operations at the site. Fluctuations in future groundwater levels and perched water could develop as a result of rainfall, irrigation, or changes in site drainage. These conditions are typically mitigated on a case by case basis when they occur, not before. 7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The site is located in an active seismic region. Seismic hazards may be induced by ground shaking during seismic events on nearby or distant active faults. A summary of the seismic and geologic hazards is presented below. More detailed analysis can be provided upon request. 7.1. Surface Rupture Surface rupture is the result of movement on an active fault reaching the surface. No faults were observed during our exploration of the site. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is mapped by CDMG in Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones (1998) at about 5.9 miles (9.5 km) southwest 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 5.9 miles (9.5 km) southwest of the site. Specific ground motion parameters are presented in the Recommendations section of the report. 61000288-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 7 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. Sand boils, lateral spread, and post-liquefaction settlement often accompany liquefaction as the pore pressures dissipate. Soils susceptible to liquefaction typically consist of cohesionless sands and silts that are loose to medium dense and saturated. To liquefy, soils must be subjected to a ground shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration. Clayey soil deposits typically do not liquefy because the soil skeleton is not supported by grain-to- grain contact and is therefore not subject to densification by shaking. Given the relatively dense nature of the soil encountered, the strength and age of the deposit, and the relative lack of groundwater, the results of our evaluation indicate that the risk of liquefaction from ground shaking caused by either the Design Basis Earthquake or the Maximum Considered Earthquake is remote. 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 slopes behind the pads descend on the order of ten to twelve feet at about a 1.5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). The slopes are primarily compacted fill. The underlying formationa! soils are ten to fifteen feet below the bottom of slope elevation on the rear slope. While we believe that the rear pads and patios are susceptible to soil- related slope creep, it is our opinion that the potential adverse effect of deep-seated landslides and related slope failure within the limits of the building pads on this project is very low. 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 site is positioned about 90 feet above and over 1/2 mile northeast of Bataquitos Lagoon. Accordingly, 61000268-02 Plaza de las Horns Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 PageS there are no known bodies of water that pose a significant seiche or earthquake-induced flooding risk to the site. Accordingly, the risk of earthquake-induced flooding from seiches is considered remote. 8. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the exploratory excavations to further characterize the geotechnical conditions encountered at the site. The results of our laboratory tests are incorporated into the boring logs in Appendix A and are further described and summarized in Appendix B. 9. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this evaluation, it is our opinion that repair operations at the La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation 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 this project include the following: * It is difficult to provide an ideal, economical foundation system for a structural repair when the original structure is supported on shallow foundations in undocumented compacted fills that have a history of soil- related movement. A viable option that we recommend includes repairing and stiffening the localized damaged foundations along the back wall, between and beneath the sliding glass doors on the lower level. While this option will not transfer loads to the underlying SANDSTONE, it is our opinion that underpinning the footing on the south wall with a substantial shallow footing, as well as modifications to the rear patio and possible slope repair, is a viable combination of options. The repair will stiffen the existing footing to allow adequate load transfer from the existing footings to the fill soil. The patio recommendations will adequately stiffen the patio to allow it to reduce the potential for movement and distress associated with downslope soil movement. * A second option, and a more conservative recommendation would include extending existing and new foundations through the existing undocumented fills into the underlying formational soils. This would provide relatively uniform support in suitable soils. If it is desired to essentially reduce the potential for future movement of the soils to a negligible level, then we recommend retrofitting existing foundations to be extended into the formational soil. Alternatives for deepened foundations can be provided. * It is possible to reduce the stress to the patio slabs associated with slope creep by installing a deepened footing system. We recommend that the deepened footing be three feet deep along the outer edge of the patio, parallel to the back slope. In addition, we recommend two foot deep footings perpendicular to the back slope. Further, we recommend anchoring the patio slab to the new underpinning footing along the back wall of the residence. The reinforcement recommendations for the footing, slab, and anchors are provided herein. * A common and conservative way to significantly reduce slope creep and its adverse affects, including lateral and downslope soil movement, is to eliminate or significantly reduce the slope. This can be accomplished by installing retaining walls. Recommendations are presented herein for both segmental and rigid retaining wall options. It should be noted that we may be able to limit the effects of slope creep without installation of the wall. If the board and property manager desire, we may consider performing the structural footing repair and 61000268-02 Plaza cte /as Ffores Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Cosfa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 9 patio slab repair and follow up with a monitoring program as described below. We may discover that the deepened footing on the patio is enough to resist the adverse affects associated with slope creep, and the wall alternatives discussed below are not necessary. It was noted in our previous document review that 2212 may have already received deepened foundation improvements. If so, then the local footing failure observed may have occurred between the reported pipe pile improvements. Recommendations presented herein may need to be modified once the actual conditions are exposed and identified. Regardless of the foundation type or bearing conditions selected, minor movement and differential movement should be anticipated during and following construction. This movement will likely result in minor cracks and separations in exterior and interior walls, slight movements at doors, windows and other openings. These conditions are common and should be anticipated as the new and existing loads adjust and transfer to the new and existing foundations. These conditions are not anticipated to compromise the structural integrity of the residence. The undocumented fills supporting the structure and comprising the slope are and will continue to be sensitive to moisture intrusion and moisture variations. Accordingly, it is very important to manage rain and surface water runoff and discharge. Positive drainage should be maintained away from structure and slopes. A complete system of rain gutters and area drains should be installed that collects and discharges runoff to a suitable outlet. There are no known surface expressions of active faults underlying the site. Potential seismic hazards at the site will likely be associated with ground shaking from an event along nearby active faults, such as the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. It is our opinion that the site is not at any more seismic risk than adjacent properties or the immediate neighborhood. Fill soils derived from the existing, undocumented fill and underlying Santiago Formation were fine grained and expansive and generally should not be adequate for reuse on site beneath structures or slabs, or behind walls. Significant quantities of gravel and cobbles are not anticipated during grading as they were not encountered in the borings. Cobbles larger than approximately six to eight inches, boulders, and construction debris should be removed and legally discarded, if and when encountered. It is possible that conditions between borings 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 borings could vary greatly from the conditions observed by our office. In general, excavation of fill soils at the site should be achievable using standard earthmoving equipment in good-working order with experienced operators. 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 SILTSTONEs or CLAYSTONEs. Groundwater is not anticipated to significantly impact construction of the proposed improvements as presently planned. Groundwater levels can vary from location to location and with the passage of time and weather cycles. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eval ReporUoc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGMEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 10 10. RECOMMENDATIONS The remainder of this report presents recommendations for grading and construction of foundations. 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. The recommendations presented herein are intended to improve conditions and significantly reduce the potential for soil related distress associated with foundation and soil movement. We have prepared these recommendations with the specific intent of improving the strength, durability, and performance of the shallow foundations in the vicinity of the lower rear wall, as well as reduce the potential for slope movement and associated patio distress. We believe that we can achieve the goal of a stable foundation and solid performance with adequate shallow foundation improvements and an improved patio slab. These improvements may not be adequate if moisture at the site is not managed. It will be important to maintain plumbing, irrigation, and drainage systems. Failure or malfunction of any or a combination of these will likely result in adverse soil movement and distress to the structures. It may be necessary to stabilize the slope with a retaining wall. However, if desired, this can be a second phase of work that is postponed and may not be necessary. That choice can be made by your board. The wall can be installed now. However, as an alternative can to make the foundation, patio slab, and drainage repairs as specified herein, and then simply monitor the performance of these repairs. Monitoring may include visual observations, surveying or floor level surveys of slabs, and possible other techniques. For preliminary estimating purposes, you may consider site visits at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months from project completion, and then annually. A plan, scope and fee can be developed upon request. Based on the information developed during monitoring, we can make an educated decision regarding whether stability improvements to the rear slope are necessary. It walls are not constructed, it will likely still be necessary to perform maintenance of the slopes including mitigating soil that may have pulled away from the patio slabs. In summary, our recommendations include the following; * Foundation underpinning and localized slab repair along the back wall of the residence. 4 Replacement of the existing patio slabs with structural slabs and deepened footings. * A monitoring program, if desired, to see if a wall is needed to stabilize the slope. * Design parameters for segmental retaining wall and rigid retaining wall options, if a wall is deemed desirable. * Recommendations for earthwork, drainage improvements, seismic parameters for structural design, soil corrosivity, and structural engineering. 6)000268-02 Plaza cte las Flores Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX www. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COMSTs I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Cosfa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 11 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. Preconstruction Meeting We recommend that a preconstruction site meeting be arranged by the owner and/or client. Attendees should include the general contractor, grading contractor, the design engineer, the geotechnical consultant, owner's representative and representatives of the appropriate governing authorities, as needed. 10.3. Repair Recommendations The following recommendations are generally consistent with methods typically used at similar projects. We anticipate that footing dimensions presented herein may be increased to carry the anticipated wall and footing loads. Other alternatives may be available. 10.3.1. Slab Repair and Foundation Underpinning As discussed, we believe that slab and foundation repair can be achieved with patching, reinforcement, and underpinning with a shallow foundation. The slab repair should commence with sawcutting neat lines beyond the edge of distress in the area of repair near the center of the lower wall footing. After the slab has been removed, the new six inch thick slab patch should be reinforced with no. 4 bars at 12 inches on center. The bars should be doweled into the existing slab six inches deep, at 12 inches on center. The concrete should be a 4,500 psi concrete with a maximum water to cement ratio of 0.45 (pounds of water to pounds of cement). The foundation should be underpinned in accordance with the underpinning detail presented on sheet S.7.1 details 3,4, 7, and 8 of the plans prepared by Burkett & Wong dated July 1,2009. In addition, an interim grade beam shall be constructed in accordance with Sheet S.7.1 details 1, 2, and 6. The purpose of the underpinning is to increase the footing size and reduce the bearing pressure along that wall, as well as improve the resistance to future rotation that may otherwise occur. The recommendations for underpinning are intended to improve bearing and reduce the potential for minor additional movement. If it is desired perform some releveling of the residence floor, then it may be necessary to underpin a larger portion of the footing, such as around the entire lower floor, as well as under the wall separating the bedrooms. An experienced, qualified contractor should be consulted for additional information. It should be noted that the foundation and residence could still move if additional moisture were introduced into the soil. 6)000268-02 Plaza de las Floras Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MA TERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL TANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLWROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 12 10.3.2. Patio Slab Repair Design values presented herein are for patio slabs that will be founded in compacted fill. To resist movement of the patio slab associated with slope creep, we recommend perimeter footings on the patio slab. The perimeter footing parallel to the slope should be one foot deep and reinforced with not less than two no. 3 bars, with one each at the bottom of the footing. The patio slab should be should be doweled with no. 4 bars into the existing slab six inches deep, at 12 inches on center, each way. Based on our evaluation and our understanding of the anticipated foundation loads, we recommend the following parameters. Summary of Foundation Parameters for Compacted Fill Allowable Bearing Capacity Bearing Capacity Increase Minimum Footing Width Minimum Footing Depth Reinforcement Estimated Settlement 1,500psf Allow a 1/3 increase for short-term wind or seismic loads. Estimated Safety Factor is greater than 3. 250 psf increase for each additional foot of width and/or depth, up to a total allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf 12 inches 36 inches deep at outer edge, parallel to slope 24 inches for perimeter and interior footings perpendicular to slope Not less than two no. 5 bars top and two no. 5 bars bottom in continuous footings. Foundations should be designed for a total and differential settlement of 1-inch and 1/2-inch, respectively, over a distance of 40 feet. In an effort to reduce the potential for differential movement and cracking of the patio slabs, we recommend that they be constructed not less than five inches thick with no. 4 bars installed at 12 inches on center, each way. 10.3.3. Deep Foundations We have reason to believe that 2212 has already been modified so that it is supported on deep foundations. Based on the results of our observations, lab testing, and engineering analysis, we have reason to believe that the shallow foundation recommendations presented herein are adequate for future support of existing footing loads, if the moisture-related improvements are made and maintained. Recommendations for deep foundations such as pipe piles are provided in the plans by Burkett & Wong sheet S.7.1 details 3, 4, 7, and 8. Pipe piles should be driven to refusal using two-inch schedule 80 pipe. Each pipe pile should be field tested to support a static load of 24 kips for 30 min or 18 kips for 24 hours. A driving log shall be reviewed by our office. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eva! Reportdoc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 13 10.4. Retaining Walls As discussed, retaining walls would buttress the slope, reducing the effective slope height and effectively eliminating slope creep. While we believe that there is moderate to high likelihood that the adverse affects of slope creep can be substantially reduced with patio slab and drainage improvement recommendations presented herein, it is our opinion that either a segmental retaining wall or rigid retaining wall constructed now or later would further reduce the potential for distress, if desired. We offer the staged construction of the retaining wall in the interest of budget management and with the belief that the wall may not be necessary. Design parameters for both primary types of walls are presented herein. It may be necessary to retain a structural engineer or other wall consultant to complete wall design as that is beyond our area of expertise at this time. We can coordinate these services upon request. 10.4.1. Segmental Retaining Walls (SRWs) The allowable foundation pressure and lateral bearing of segmental retaining wall (SRW) foundations should be designed and located as recommended herein. The design of subsurface drainage should consider the recommendations in this report, along with specific requirements of the SRW manufacturer. The SRW wall designer should provide an estimate of the lateral deformation of the outer portion of the wall to help civil and structural engineers design surface improvements (e.g. fences and exterior flatwork) in these areas. Design for segmental retaining walls should be based on the following parameters. Soil Units Design Parameters for Use in Segmental Retaining Wall Design Soil Unit Imported, Granular Compacted Fill for Reinforced Zone Existing Fine Grained Compacted Fill for Retained and Foundation Zones Approximate In-Place Density (pcf) 125 125 Phi Angle (degrees) 30 11 Cohesion (psf) 0 500 Drainage systems for SRWs should be specified by the SRW manufacturer. At a minimum, one four inch diameter perforated pipe should be located at or near the heal of the wall and a similar drain near the heal of the back cut. The pipe should be installed in not less than three feet of open graded gravel per linear foot of pipe. The gravel and pipe should be enveloped within a filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N, or similar, unless it can be 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GSOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 14 shown that the retained and reinforced soils will not pipe or otherwise migrate into the drainage gravel. The drain pipes should be sloped to drain not less than one percent along the pipe. Drainage pipes should be tightlined to a suitable discharge outlet. 10.4.2. Lateral Loads on Rigid Walls As an alternative to segmental retaining walls (SRWs), rigid walls such as reinforced masonry walls are also an option. Lateral loads on walls are induced as a result of differential movement of walls and soil relative to one another. Quantitative analysis of lateral earth pressures is necessary to design retaining walls. There are three categories of earth pressure - earth pressure at rest, active earth pressure, and passive earth pressure. Earth pressure at rest refers to lateral pressure caused by earth that is prevented from lateral movement by an unyielding wall such as a basement wall. However, some wall movement often occurs resulting in either active or passive earth pressure as explained below. If a wall moves or rotates away from soil, the surface above and behind the wall will tend to be lowered and the lateral pressure on the wall will be decreased. The earth pressure exerted on a wall at this state is known as active earth pressure, and it is at its minimum value. If a wall moves towards a soil such as with a tied-back wall, the earth surface will tend to be raised and the lateral pressure on the wall will be increased. The design earth pressure in this state is known as the passive earth pressure and is at its maximum value. Lateral loads behind cantilevered retaining walls occur from the weight of the soil behind the wall. Additional loads may occur as a result of surcharge loads on the surface behind the wall, seismic loads on the wall, or hydrostatic pressures behind the wall that may develop as a result of build up of moisture. For this project, we anticipate that the wall will be designed for active earth pressures (wall should be expected to rotate out slightly). We recommend that the wall be backfilled with granular soils and suitable drainage. The imported backfill soils should meet the imported fill requirements indicated in the project report and should have an angle of internal friction (phi) of not less 30 degrees. Cantilevered retaining walls backfilled with materials that meet these requirements can be designed with the following design parameters. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Ftores Phase /(Eval Report.ctoc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM 1 La Cosfa Village Homeowner's Association August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Project No, 61000268-02 _ Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 15 I • | •• 1 • 1 Summary of Allowable Active Pressure Parameters (PSF per Foot of Embedment) Ground Conditions Granular Properly Compacted Soil Level Ground 40 2:1 Slope 60 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. Lateral load parameters for foundations 1 • were provided in the referenced report. Due to the nature of cantilevered retaining walls designed for active conditions, the walls should be anticipated to rotate laterally outward a distance of up to approximately M> percent of the wall height. For example, a ten foot I tall cantilevered wall designed for active earth pressure conditions may rotate outward on the order of 1/2- to %- |^H |• |• 1 • 1 inch. This movement can be detrimental to rigid improvements attached to or adjacent to the tops of walls and should be considered during design. Please note also that walls designed for active conditions are not typically adequately designed at the ends of walls where 90 degree bends are made in the walls. Due to the resistance of the wall return from allowing the main portion of the wall to rotate, walls often crack at or near the angle in the wall. To significantly reduce the potential for this distress, we recommend that the at-rest pressures provided below be used for wall designs for the portion of the wall located within a horizontal distance of 2 x H from the angle in the wall (where H is the height of the wall). Summary of Allowable At-Rest Pressure Parameters (PSF per Foot of Embedment) Ground Conditions Granular Properly Compacted Soil Level Ground 65 2:1 Slope This can be provided upon request. 10.4.3. Psuedostatic (seismic) Earth Pressure Parameters To design active (allowed to rotate) retaining walls to resist seismic loading during a seismic event, the following equation may be used to estimate the psuedostatic force (?£«*«) acting on the retaining wall under active oading conditions: p^o.so.^r^, 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eval Report.doc | fl • ^H ^ I ^^^l - •fHKHjjjJI SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. B ^B^HHI GEOTECHNICAL AND MA TERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL TANTS RA ^KfllHI PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 |B m!BH| 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX^^ ^R^^^H www. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Cosfa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 16 To design at-rest (not allowed to rotate) retaining walls to resist seismic loading during a seismic event, the following equation may be used to estimate the psuedostatic force (PEat-nst) acting on the retaining wall under active loading conditions: Where Peacf/ve = the horizontal psuedostatic force acting on active condition walls (Ib) PEat-rest = the horizontal psuedostatic force acting on at-rest condition walls (Ib) amax= the ground motion as a decimal (g). H = height of the retaining wall (ft) Yt= total unit weight of backfill soil (pcf) The location of the psuedostatic force can be assumed to act at a distance of 0.6H above the base of the wall for active conditions and 0.65H above the base of the wall for at-rest conditions. For this report we recommend that amax= 0.27 g and yt= 130 pcf for design purposes. 10.4.4. Drainage for Rigid Walls Successful wall performance is dependent upon adequate drainage so that excessive hydrostatic pressures do not build up behind the wall. For this application, we offer two options. The first alternative would be a gravel chimney drain as outlined in Appendix C. The second alternative we recommend would be use of drainage composite behind the wall such as Mirafi G100N, J Drain, or other product with equal or superior performance traits. The drain should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Moisture should be collected and discharged to a suitable outlet. 10.5. Excavation and Grading Observation An experienced geotechnical consultant should observe foundation excavations and site grading. During grading, the geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services. Such observations are considered essential to identify field conditions that differ from those anticipated from the geotechnical evaluation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to determine that the grading is accomplished in general accordance with the geotechnical recommendations and contract documents. The geotechnical consultant should perform sufficient observations and testing during grading to support their professional opinion as to compliance with grading recommendations. Recommendations presented in this report are presented with the understanding that SRE will be performing such services, or at a minimum, providing oversight and review of the field-testing during the grading operations. Sufficient testing of fill should be performed during grading, as specified herein, to support our professional opinion as to compliance with compaction recommendations. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Floras Phase II Eval Report.doc _ SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL. AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 17 10.6. Earthwork Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the applicable design manuals, local grading ordinance, and the current 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. 10.6.1. Site Preparation We anticipate that site preparation will generally be limited to the removal of the existing concrete patios, pavement, topsoil, and organics. We may also include removal of enough soil to install one of the two wall options presented herein if a wall option is selected. Fine grading should be performed as recommended herein to support new slabs and pavement. We anticipate that foundations will extend into properly compacted fill. As foundation excavations are exposed, it may be necessary to perform remedial grading such that the exposed soil beneath the patio foundations has been recompacted to not less than 90 percent relative compaction. 10.6.2. Fill Compaction The near surface soils are undocumented and of variable consistency. Recommendations are presented in the following sections for mitigating this condition. Due to the loose and unpredictable nature of the upper few feet of undocumented fill, special treatment recommendations are presented herein. Based on our experience, we anticipate that the patio subgrade may overexcavation and recompaction. The overexcavation should extend not less than three feet below grade. Deeper removals may be necessary in localized areas. General site preparation should include the removal of unsuitable and deleterious materials, existing structures, pavements, or other improvements from areas that will be subjected to structural, pavement or fill loads. Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation including brush, grass, weeds, wood, stumps, trees, tree roots, and otherwise deleterious materials from areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend laterally five or more feet beyond the limits of grading, where possible. 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. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Bores Ptese II Evsl Reportctoc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MA TERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL TANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 18 Structures, foundations, pavements, 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 removing within the project perimeter. Existing utilities that are to be removed should have the resulting trenches compacted as described herein. 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. Upon completion of the overexcavation and removals, the exposed ground surface may be compacted in place by scarifying to a depth of approximately twelve inches, brought to optimum moisture content, or above, blended to a uniform consistency, and compacted to not less than 90 percent relative compaction at or above optimum moisture content, as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The excavations may then be brought up to the desired grade with soil compacted as recommended herein. Other recommendations for overexcavation and recompaction can be provided upon request. 10.6.3. 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. Where such conditions are encountered, foundations should be supported in properly compacted fill, or deepened so that they are supported uniformly in the underlying SANDSTONE. 10.6.4. Material for Fill In general the on-site, fine-grained materials (derived from the existing compacted fill and Santiago Formation) may not be used in the on-site fills beneath the structures where not already in place. Further, the existing soils are expansive and not suitable for use in the reinforced zones of segmental walls or in the wedge of soil measuring up and out at a 45 degree angle from the base of rigid walls. Deleterious materials, construction debris, rocks more than six inches in greatest dimension, the organic materials near the surface, and contaminated soils should not be used. Expansive soils were encountered in our initial investigation. When encountered during grading, we recommend that the clays be placed at two or more percent above optimum moisture content. Soils with an expansion index of greater than 20 should not be placed as backfill behind retaining walls and segmental retaining walls without special design considerations. Imported fill sources, if needed, should be evaluated prior to hauling onto the site to determine their suitability for use. Representative samples of imported materials and on-site soils should be tested to evaluate their 6)000268-02 Plaza de las Floras Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MA TERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL TANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 19 engineering properties for the planned use. Imported fill soils should have a remolded phi angle of not less than 30 degrees, 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. 10.6.5. 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 can vary considerably with the variability of the type and in-place density of the soil being evaluated. This bulking and shrinking estimate does not take into account oversized materials that may be encountered and removed from the soil. The existing near surface soils are likely to demand some moisture addition to be brought to, or above, optimum moisture content. Our observations indicate that the near surface materials are below optimum moisture content. The actual moisture conditions may vary from those anticipated herein. 10.6.6. 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 borings, the design of trenches, temporary slopes, and benches for preliminary planning purposes may assume the conditions summarized below. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eva! Repoit.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 20 Summary of Cal/OSHA Soil Types Geological Unit Surficial Soil Santiago Formation Cal/OSHA Soil Type Type C TypeB Existing infrastructure that is within a 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) line projected up from the bottom edge (toe) of temporary slopes should be monitored during construction. 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. Finally, the contractor is the party responsible for maintaining slope and excavation safety. The contractor's competent person should monitor slope and excavation safety as required by law. 10.6.7. Slopes We discussed the alternatives of stabilizing and reducing the slopes with a wall as summarized below. If this wall is chosen, the wall will be on the order of six to eight feet tall. The resulting slope above the wall will be on the order of two to four feet tall, or less. The resulting slope should be constructed at 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The soil should be moisture conditioned and compacted as specified herein and the attached appendices. 10.6.8. 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. 10.7. Surf ace Drainage Surface drainage deficiencies were noted during our first phase of work, including an inadequate rain gutter system, deficient and inadequate area drains, and poor drainage traits. 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 61000268-02 Plaza de las Floras Phase II Eval Reportdoc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Cosfa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 21 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 underlying soils. Several downspouts were noted to discharge adjacent to the structures. All buildings should have raingutters installed and maintained. All raingutters should be connected to downspouts that are tightlined and discharged to a suitable outlet away from structures or slopes. Several area drains in the vicinity of the structures and adjacent to the patios were noted to be in disrepair. The area drains should be evaluated and upgraded as needed. All area drains and patio drains should be connected to downspouts that are tightlined and discharged to a suitable outlet away from structures or slopes. 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. 10.8. Seismic Parameters The following 2007 California Building Code (CBC) seismic parameters may be used for design of the proposed structure. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Floras Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Cosfa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 22 Summary of 2007 CBC Seismic Design Parameters Parameter Latitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees) Site Classification 0.2 Sec. Period Spectral Accel, Ss (g.) 1.0 Sec. Period Spectral Accel, Si (g.) Site Coefficient, Fa Site Coefficient, Fv SMS = Fa x Ss SMi = Fv x 81 SDS = 2/3 x SMs SDi = 2/3 x SM, Value 33.0949 -117.2958 D 1.257 0.473 1.0 1.527 1.257 0.723 0.838 0.482 Reference Estimated from Google Earth Web App. Estimated from Google Earth Web App. 2006 IBC Table 161 3.5.2 USGS EHP* USGS EHP* USGS EHP* USGS EHP* USGS EHP* USGS EHP* USGS EHP* 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. The results are summarized below. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eval Repoitdoc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MA TERZALS ENGINEERING CONSUL TANTS POBox 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costs Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 23 Summary of Seismology and Seismic Parameters Design Criteria 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years 475-Year Return Period 10% Probability of Exceedance in 100 years 950-Year Return Period 2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years 2,375-Year Return Period Ground Acceleration (g) 0.27 0.37 0.53 10.9. Soil Corrosivity We performed a limited evaluation of the relative corrosivity of one sample of soil. Based on the results of our evaluation, the soil was noted to be severely corrosive to concrete when evaluated using California test procedures and the California Build Code. Accordingly, we recommend Type V cement, a 4,500 psi, 28-day compressive strength, and a water cement ratio of not more than 0.45 (Ib./lb.) 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. California Test 643 Summary of Years to Perforation for Metal Culverts* Metal Culvert Gauge 16 14 12 10 8 Estimated Years to Perforation B-1 @ 5 1/2 • 7' 9 11 16 20 24 Estimated Years to Perforation B-2 @ 5 1/2 - 7' <5 6 8 11 13 10.10. Structural Engineering It should be reiterated that our firm does not practice in the field of structural engineering. A structural engineering consultant should be retained to evaluate the existing structures and to identify whether remedial structural work may be warranted. We want to draw particular attention to the lower wall separating the two 61000268-02 Plaza de las Floras Phase II EvalReport.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MA TERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL TANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Cosfa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 24 bedrooms in 2212. Evidence of distress was observed at the top of the wall, where it attached to the ceiling. The structural engineering consultant may be necessary for final wall design depending on the availability of standard wall details within the project jurisdiction. It is possible that the repair contractor will have a qualified engineer on staff or as a consultant. References to structural engineers with experience in these types of projects can be provided upon request. 11. LIMITATIONS The information presented in this report has been prepared for use in the design and construction of the proposed residential project in La Costa, California. The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the described project information and our interpretation of the data collected during the subsurface exploration. The recommendations apply only to the specific project described in this report. If the project changes from the description contained in the Introduction section of this report, SRE should be contacted to review the conclusions and recommendations in relation to any new project requirements. In the event that changes in the design or location of the facility are planned from those described herein, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report verified or modified in writing by SRE, SRE is not responsible for claims, damages, or liability associated with interpretation of subsurface data or reuse of the subsurface data or engineering analyses without the express written authorization of SRE. 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. It is the responsibility of the client or the client's representative to insure that the information and recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The client or his/her representative must ensure that the contractor and/or subcontractor carry out the recommendations during construction. It is our understanding that SRE will provide Quality Assurance services to assist the owner and contractor in seeing that these recommendations are incorporated into the project during construction. During final design, SRE should review the final construction documents and specifications for the proposed project to assess their conformance with the intent of our recommendations. If changes are made in the project documents, 61000268-02 Plaza de las F/ores Phase // Eva/ Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.8S1.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COMSTs I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Coste Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 25 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. During site preparation and foundation construction, a qualified geotechnical consultant should observe repair operations and test soil conditions, as appropriate. The consultant should observe subgrade preparation beneath areas to receive fill and observe and test fill compaction. The consultant should also observe building foundation or pile installation excavations to verify the presence of a firm bearing surface. SRE should be retained to observe earthwork and pile construction to help confirm that our assumptions and recommendations are valid or to modify them accordingly. SRE cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of recommendations if we do not observe construction. 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. We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Bores Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 26 12. SELECTED REFERENCES Blake, Thomas F., FRISKSP, Version 4.00 California Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, 2001 California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, Scale 1:750:000 California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, an Exploratory Map to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, Scale 1:750:000 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Special Publication 42, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, with Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999 California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in California: Sacramento, CA, Special Publication 117 California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, DMG Open-File Report 96-02, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California California Department of Transportation, 1990, Highway Design Manual, Fourth Edition, dated July 1 California Department of Transportation, 1995, Engineering Service Center, Office of Materials Engineering and Testing Services, Interim Corrosion Guidelines Caltrans, 1995, Memo to Designers, dated July Caltrans, 1993, California Test 643 Coduto, Donald P., 1994, Foundation Design, Principles and Practice, Published by Prentice-Hall, Inc. Day, Robert W., 1999, Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering, Design and Construction, Published by McGraw-Hill Day, Robert W., 2000, Geotechnical Engineers 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, Design and Construction with the 2006 International Building Code, 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 Department of Defense, 1997, Soil Dynamics and Special Design Aspects: Norfolk, VA, United States Navy, MIL- HDBK-1007/3. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Page 27 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 8. Tan, 1977, Geology of National City, Imperial Beach, and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, Map Sheet 29 Kramer, Steven L, 1996, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering: Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice-Hall www.Maporama.com "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," 1998, Prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, Published by International Conference of Building Officials, dated February Peterson and others, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, United States Geological Survey: Sacramento, CA, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 96-08 Portland Cement Association, Thickness Design for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements Robertson and Campanella, Guidelines for Geotechnical Design using the Cone Penetrometer Test and CPT with Pore Pressure Measurement: Fourth Edition: Columbia, MD, HogentoglerS Co. www.Topozone.com Transportation Research Board, 1996, Landslides Evaluation and Mitigation, Special Report 247, Prepared by National Research Council Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, 1997, Prepared by International Conference of Building Officials United States Geologic Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project at http://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 61000268-02 Plaza cfe las Bores Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I „*, » — «, -v ' < """ <* / >' "•'„•*» l -"-' J f ) I * . • j. i -* l •* X f ' t I ^/ ' ' t ? N , \ / / . x x^ i/-«^ X -, \V // // t*^<A»>^SS,'M !J\T4*?^Cr-.\ '?*^fv, //v-— ^ // .'/•--** ***sssnC*-/ • •• i». '* /' jiF •' xp',; *;V»?^S.^ > >&/!}&!/ **ii-»</?Kfeff ** f »*W/ // %f/^t^Jft" * / / / « / //^f j »<?>- of '"' " ' ."." , 1200 mit°< ... . ^r'eoffftl Bf .,» ^ «r, . iw ,:., F-" ^< //nf-^%Q Jf/ !jf <8f ,t&^: /A1.-»•-*--" ^ ^x^vr<t' //y 2208 and 2212 Plazade las Flores, Carlsbad, California ^tw ©20O7MapQue«t)rvc Reference: www.Mapquest.com 5o£/D j?oc/r ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHHICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.SO1.9S11 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM SITE LOCATION MAP La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project 2208 and 2212 Plaza de las Flores Carlsbad, California 92009 PROJECT No. 61000268-02 DATE August 2007 FIGURE 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LEGEND 4-B-3 Qudf Tsa Indicates approximate location of boring Indicates undocumented fill Indicates Santiago Formation (In parentheses where buried) 6udf/(Tsa) SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOLIDKOCKENGINEERS.COM BORING LOCATION MAP La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project 2208 and 2212 Plaza de las Flores Carlsbad, California 92009 PROJECT No. 61000268-02 DATE July 2007 FIGURE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Coste Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Appendix A Logs of Exploratory Excavations 61000268-02 Plaza cfe las Ffores Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW. SOLWROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Drilling and Boring Log Explanation Sheet Coarse-Grained; Soils More than: 50% Retained on N:o., 200 Sieve Flne-Gralnett Sails 50% or Mate Passes, (to. 200 Sieve Primary Divisions Grrawets More than 50^ of coarse fraction retained an Nto. 4 sieve Sands 50% of more af coarse fraction: passes Mb>. 4 sieve Sills, and Clays Liquid: liraB less than 50* Silts and Clays Liquid lirat 50% or nnare Clean Gravels less than 5% fines Gravel with fines more trtam 1:2%. Clean Sands: lass than 5% fines Sands with fines. more than 1!2% lroQrg,aniffi Organic Inorganic Organic Highly Organic Soils Secondary Divisions Group Symbol: GW GP GIM GC SW SP SB* sc Cl. ML OL CHI MH OH Pt Group. Name Weli-siiadedgrasel Pooriy^graded graweli Sity gravel Clayey gravel Welt-graded sand Poofly-gfadett sand aiysand: Clayey sand Lean: clay Silt Organic clay or silt Fat day Elastic silt. Qrgarde. day of silt peat: Dry. Damp: Motet: Wet; Saturated; Moisture Conditions No indication of moJsture; dry to touch Slight indication of moisture No visible water Visible free, water Below water table Symbols \/ Groundwater at time of drilling 9 Grain Sizes. U'.S Standard Series Siev® Clear Square Stone Openings 200 40 10 4 3ff 3" 1Z* Silts & Clays Sand: Rne [Medium: I Coarse Grant Fine Coarse Cobble Boulders Groundwater after drilling or other specified time. Seepage noted during or after drilling Indicates sample with modified split barrel with 2.42- by 1.0-inch rings. Indicates sample with standard SPT split-spoon sampler. Indicates sample with Shelby tube. —^— Indicates change in lithology (fill to alluvium, etc.) or end of boring. — — — — -Indicates change in soil type within same unit Relative Density of Coarse Grained! Soils and Non -plastic Sills SPT blow counts 0-4 4-10' 10-30 30^50 Over 50 CAL/Geamalic EJCow Count M 8-21 21-83: 63-1S5 Over 105 Relatwa Dansi% Very Loose Loese Mtetflifijm Dense Dense Very E3ense Typical 0ry Densities, (pcf) 70-180: se-iis H10-130 11*140 130-160 e.g.: fill changes from silty SAND to clayey SAND. Consistency of Clays and Plastic Silts SPT Blow Geomaiic _. _ .„ , „, Consistency Typical ndioatorsCount Blow Count < 2 < 3 very Soft Thumb penetrates more than 1" 2-4 3-5 Soft Thumb penetrates about 1" 4-8 5-10 Firm Thumb will indent soil about 1/4" 8-15 1:0-20 Stiff Thumbwill indentwith greateffort 15-30 20-39 Very SOT Thumbnail will readily indent Cemertafco {sandstone, sltsjonsjatidurafciii: f dtystan*} Weak Moderate Strong Grumbles Q* breafes with: frandliirs Of littte ingsr pressure Crtimfelfes or br©ate wift conskterabte ffnger pressure Will: not eranbfe or breaJs with fingeir pressure Caltrans Criteria: SPT (BlOWSflt? 0-4 5-9 1:0-13 20-34 3S-69 >70 Coftsistsncy ol CohBsiontess Soifc. Very Loose. Loose Sligrttly Compact Compact Dense Very Bsns© Consistency of Coftesi^e Soils VerstSof Soft Stiff tfeiy, Stiff Hard: Very Hard Modified: Split Barrel (rjloins*) 0-7 8.18 1S-38 37-S9 8O-110 > 110 Over 30 Over 39 Hard Thumbnail will indent with difficulty ROCK WEATHERING (J gneaus Roeta) Fresh: Slightly Weathered Moderately Weathered Intensely Weathered Decomposed |No dfecaloraion:;: not osddized. IDIsiaotoraitoni and oxMHitei (D & O) limited ta ItaetaEed' surface. ID & 0 on all ftactatedi sutfaees and! extends from tacfures. Partial; chemical alteration of some minerals. p & O firougiiQtii; chemical afflenaftott of raost minefals, Fracfuped! surfaces are friable. jRsck decoraposedl; iresetnnBWs soil ROCK HARDNESS: Extremely Hard: Very Hard Hard Moderately Hard Moderately Soft Soft Very Soft ICan? t be^ serafcfredi win: fenffie. Can; only be chipped: wift: repeated heavy hammer blows. ICarfl be. sctaJehed! wift taife. Can only be broken: wift repeated heavy hammer blows. Can be scratched witt knife wift diHfcuHy,. Cote can be broken with heavy hammer blow. Can be scratched wflhi fafe with ligiit to moderate pressare. Core: can be broken wfth light hammer blows. Can be g:rooiffid l/IS-lfich deep! by feiie wiih moderate io. heavy press. Core broken with light hammer blows. Cam be grooved: easily wih tale wlih llgttt pressure. Cone breafe wif h manual pressure. jean be easily grrjowedi wife Unite or tftigernnai. Core breaks, with ligfi! manual pressure. Boring: Explanation Sheet I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN Dmao, CALIFORNIA 92160 Boring Log No. B-1 La Costa Village Phase II Subsurface Evaluation 2208 Plaza de Las Flores, Carlsbad, CA 92009 Project No:61000268-02 Date:7/10/07 .Q. I 8 CDQ Date Excavated:Tuesday, July 10,2007 Sampled by: RDP/FB Ground Elev. (feet, MSL):90 ± (Estimated using Google Earth Software)Logged by: RDP/FB Method of Excavation:6" dia. Solid stem auger with limited access rig. Reviewed by:RDP Drive Wt.(lbs.):140 Drop (in.):30 Description / Interpretation Lab Tests/Other 19 13 24 43 53 35.1 31.4 14.7 17.0 21.0 87.5 88.7 110.4 102.8 105.0 CH+ SC UNDOCUMENTED FILL Olive gray and olive brown, moist, firm to stiff, CLAY and clayey SAND Stiff. Scattered iron oxide stains in fill. Firm. Stiff. Gray brown, moist, very stiff, silty CLAY. @ 13 7z ft.: Driller switched to 4 in. diameter auger. Olive tan, moist, hard, sandy CLAY Maximum Density Sieve Analysis Consolidation Chemical Analysis Shear Strength Expansion Index Remarks: Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Boring Log B-1 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.8S1.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1i SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTKHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 Depth (feet/meters)COoo. w J* Z5no 1O Blows per footMoisture (%)Dry Density (pcf)Classification (USCS)Boring Log No. B-1 La Costa Village Phase II Subsurface Evaluation 2208 Plaza de Las Flores, Carlsbad, CA 92009 Project No: 61000268-02 Date: 7/10/07 Date Excavated: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Sampled by: RDP/FB Ground Elev. (feet, MSL): 90 ± (Estimated using Google Earth Software) Logged by: RDP/FB Method of Reviewed Excavation: 6" dia. Solid stem auger with limited access rig. by: RDP Drive Wt.(lbs.): 140 Drop (in.): 30 Description / Interpretation Lab Tests/Other 20/6.1 25/ 7.6 30/ 9.1 35/ 10.7 41V 12.2 ^ *~^ ^ 20 63 15.9 119.2 CH UNDOCUMENTED FILL (CONTINUED) Predominately yellowish gray, moist, stiff to very stiff, fine sandy CLAY; some mottled gray brown and orangish iron oxide staining. SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 24 ft.: Yellowish gray, moist, weakly cemented clayey SANDSTONE. @ 25 1/2 ft.: Boring terminated. Shear Strength Remarks: Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. 67000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Boring Log B-1B SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 Boring Log No. B-2 La Costa Village Phase II Subsurface Evaluation 2208 Plaza de Las Floras, Carlsbad, CA 92009 Project No:61000268-02 Date:7/10/07 &CD fCD Q 1a 1 'o CDQ Date Excavated:Tuesday, July 10,2007 Sampled by: RDP/FB Ground Elev. (feet, MSL):90 ± (Estimated using Google Earth Software)Logged by: RDP/FB Method of Excavation:6" dia. Solid stem auger with limited access rig. Reviewed by:RDP Drive Wt.(lbs.):140 Drop (in.):30 Description / Interpretation Lab Tests/Other 11 13 23 24.3 27.2 15.6 96.0 98.0 110.7 CH UNDOCUMENTED FILL Olive gray and olive brown, moist, firm to stiff, CLAY Firm. Stiff. Trace of silt. Few iron oxide stains. Slightly micaceous. Very stiff Maximum Density Maximum Density Expansion Index Sieve Analysis Consolidation Shear Strength Remarks: Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Floras Phase II Boring Log B-2st:SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 Depth (feet/meters)20/6.1 25/ 7.6 30; 9.1 35/ 10.7 101 12.2 "& CL W J^ ^CO I Q 1 ii CO 55 Moisture (%)Dry Density (pcf)Classification (USCS)Boring Log No. B-2 La Costa Village Phase II Subsurface Evaluation 2208 Plaza de Las Flores, Carlsbad, CA 92009 Project No: 61000268-02 Date: 7/10/07 Date Excavated: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Sampled by: RDP/FB Ground Elev. (feet, MSL): 90 ± (Estimated using Google Earth Software) Logged by: RDP/FB Method of Reviewed Excavation: 6" dia. Solid stem auger with limited access rig. by: RDP Drive Wt.(lbs.): 140 Drop (in.): 30 Description / Interpretation Lab Tests/Other v, M .'**s "tife^J1 ' " iV,^»i£ 5*S, 28 38 21 25.8 21.0 98.3 104.0 CH UNDOCUMENTED FILL (CONTINUED) Olive gray and yellowish brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, fine sandy CLAY. SANTIAGO FORMATION @ 25 ft.: Olive gray, damp to moist, weakly cemented, silty SANDSTONE to sandy SILTSTONE. Some iron oxide stains. @ 28 ft: Boring terminated. Shear Strength Remarks: Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Fbres Phase II Boring Log B-2B SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOUDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92*60 Boring Log No. B-3 La Costa Village Phase II Subsurface Evaluation 2212 Plaza de Las Flores, Carlsbad, CA 92009 Project No:61000268-02 Date:7/10/07 O> I £ CO CO I Q o>o.05Q £•Q Date Excavated:Tuesday, July 10, 2007 Sampled by: RDP/FB Ground Elev. (feet, MSL):90 ± (Estimated using Google Earth Software)Logged by: RDP/FB Method of Excavation: Reviewed 6" dia. Solid stem auger with limited access rig.RDP o Drive Wt.(lbs.):140 Drop (in.):30 Description / Interpretation Lab Tests/Other 15 34 19.1 21.3 99.5 104.0 CH UNDOCUMENTED FILL Olive brown, moist, firm to stiff, CLAY SANTIAGO FORMATION Olive brown and olive gray, moist, stiff, silty CLAYSTONE and clayey SANDSTONE. Caliche stringers and iron oxide stains noted. Thin laminations or bedding observed. @ 10 Yz ft: Boring terminated. Expansion Index Sieve Analysis Consolidation Expansion Index Sieve Analysis Remarks: Groundwater not encountered. Caving not observed. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Boring Log B-3 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Appendix B Laboratory Testing 61000268-02 Plaza de las Bores Phase II Eval Repott.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Cosfa Village Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eval Project Laboratory Testing Appendix July 27, 2007 Project No. 61000268-01 Page 1 of 2 Laboratory Testing 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 D1557-91. The results of these tests are summarized below. Summary of Maximum Density Test Results Sample Description Olive gray and olive brown, stiff clayey SAND Olive gray and olive brown, stiff CLAY Sample Location B-1atO-5' B-2atO-f Maximum Density (pcf) 110.5 112.0 Optimum Moisture (%) 15.0 13.0 Expansion Index Tests The expansion index of selected materials was evaluated in general accordance with U.B.C. Standard No. 18-2. Specimens were molded under specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation (plus of minus 1 percent). The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens were loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and were inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours. The results of these tests are summarized below. Summary of Expansion Index Test Results Sample Description Olive tan, sandy CLAY Olive gray and olive brown, stiff sandy CLAY and clayey SAND Olive brown, stiff CLAY Olive gray and olive brown, silty CLAY Sample Location B-1at16-18' B-2at4-8' B-3atO-5' B-3at7-9' Expansion Index 72 131 98 19 Expansion Potential Medium Very High High Very Low 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Lab Testing Appendix SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Costa Village Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eval Project Laboratory Testing Appendix July 27, 2007 Project No. 61000268-01 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 C136 or D 422. The results of these tests are summarized below. Summary of Sieve Analysis Test Results (Percent Passing Per Sieve Size) Sample Location B-1atO-5' B-3atO-5' B-3at7-9' Specification No. 4 100 100 100 - No. 10 96 97 96 - No. 40 84 82 88 - No. 100 69 61 53 - No. 200 37 52 36 - Direct Shear Tests Direct shear tests were performed on undisturbed and remolded samples in general accordance with ASTM D 3080- 90 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of selected materials. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. Results are shown below. Summary of Direct Shear Test Results Sample Description Stiff sandy CLAY Weakly cemented, clayey SANDSTONE Stiff CLAY Weakly cemented, silty SANDSTONE Sample Location B-1at8-91/2' B-1at24-251/2' B-2at8-91/2" B-2at25-261/2' Cohesion (psf) 600 300 550 100 Phi Angle (deg.) 11 30 12 31 Soil Corrosivity (Chemical Analysis) Tests Soil pH and resistivity tests were performed on representative soil samples in general accordance with Caltrans Test Method 643. The sulfate content of selected was evaluated in general accordance with Caltrans Test Method 417. The test results are presented below. Summary of Corrosivity Test Results Sample Location B-1at51/2-7' B-7at51/2-7' PH 6.5 6.9 Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm) 260 240 Sulfate Content (%) 0.224 0.224 Chloride Content (ppm) 850 540 Consolidation Tests The consolidation, collapse and expansion characteristics were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2435. The test results are presented on the attached figures. 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Lab Testing Appendix SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Cosfa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26,2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Appendix C Standard Specifications for Grading Projects 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 representSRE'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 mairtain 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 wft the project plans, specifications and controlling agency requirements. SECTION 3- PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING A preconstruction site meeting shall be arranged by the owner and/or client and shall include the grading contractor, the design engineer, the geotechnical consultant, owner's representative and representatives of the appropriate governing authorities. SECTION 4 - SITE PREPARATION The client or contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, diring 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, iumps, 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 manmade 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 demotion. 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 gaded and Standard Specs for Grading Projects with Figures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Standard Specifications 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 responsibilityof 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 tie geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable materials and should be subject to over excavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g., back cuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed project and therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the regulating agencies. When deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant or governing agencies the contractor shall install check dams, desilting basins, and bags or other drainage control measures. In relatively level areas and/or slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depth of greter 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 fll materials. Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture conditions should be overexcavated, moisture conditioned as needed, at or above optimum moisture condition prior to placement as compacted fill. If during the course of grading, adverse geotechnical conditions are exposed which were not anticipated in the preliminary soils report as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, additional exploration, analysis and Standard Specs for Grading Projects with Figures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9S11 FAX WWW.SOUDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 3 of 13 treatment of these conditions may be recommended. 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 beim 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 specific 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 mateials are removed prior to placement. All import materials anticipated for use on-site should be sampled, tested and approved prior to placement in conformance with the requirements outlined below in Section 7.2. Rocks 8 inches in maximum and smaller may be utilized within compacted fill provided sufficient fill material is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock to effectively fill rock voids. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the % inch sieve. The geotechnical consultant may vary those requirements as field conditions dictate. Where rocks greater than 8 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill, they may require special handling in accordance with attached Plates and described below. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken down or disposed legally off-site. Standard Specs for Grading Projects with Figures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCKENGINgERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 exceedng 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 treted 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 aid benching should be sufficient to provide at least six-foot wide benches and a minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area subsequent to keying and benching until the geotechnical consultant has reviewed the area. Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away form the bench are to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to placement of fill. Typical keying and benching details have been included within the accompanying Plates. With a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a three-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least three- foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification, moisture conditioning as needed to at or slightly above optimum moisture content, thoroughly blended and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Where unsuitable materials exist to depths of geater 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 asdescribed 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 impcvements 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 gound surface. Select native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around all Standard Specs for Grading Projects with Figures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.8S1.8683PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOUDROCKENGIHEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 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 D155682, D2922-81. Tests should be conducted at a minimum of two vertical feet or 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Fill found not to be the minimum recommended degree of compaction should be removed or otherwise handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Fill Slopes Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Except as specifically recommended in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes should be overbuilt and cut back to grade, exposing thefirm, 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 guidelinesof the geotechnical consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted slope surface condition is achieved. Care should be taken by the contractor to provide thorough mechanical compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface. At the discretion of the geotechnical consultant, slope face compaction may be attempted by conventional construction procedures including backrolling. The procedure must create a firmly compacted material throughout the entire depth of the slope face to the surface of the previously compacted fill intercore. During grading operations care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately established desired grades. Grade during construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should be trimmed to expose competent compacted fill. Fill slope faces should be thoroughly compacted at intervals not exceeding four feet in vertical slope height, or the capacity of available equipment, whichever is less. Where placement of fill above a natural slope a above a cut slope is proposed, the fill slope configuration should be adopted as presented in the accompanying Standard Details. For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and pad gradients of at least 2 percent. SECTION 8-TRENCH BACKFILL Utility and/or other trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Wlhin slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical means. If onsite materials are utilized, they should be wheel rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during construction by the geotechnical consultant If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, the contractor Standard Specs for Grading Projects with Figures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619,851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Standard Specifications 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 clean ganular 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 timeof construction. In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the geotechnical consultant. Clean granular backfl 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 subtfain 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 fee) a minimum of 5 percent gradient away from the structure should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent gradient should be maintained over the remainder of the site. Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the lift of the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns could be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance. SECTION 11 - SLOPE MAINTENANCE Landscape Plants In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the completion of grading. Slope planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation requiring little watering. Plants native to the Southern California area and plants relative to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi-arid and arid area may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect should be the best party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration. Irrigation Irrigation pipes should be anchored b 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 evaluationand repair. Standard Specs for Grading Projects with Figures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.8S1.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCXENGIHEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 7 of 13 POOJECTEO PLANE 1TO1 MAHMUMFBOMTOe OF SIO** TO APPtfoWEO GflQWiO NATURAL GROUND 4'TYPICAL •—BENCH HEKJHT REMOVE UNSUfTABLE MATERIAL FILL SLOPE 2'MIN. ISBftSEPTEM «v*^ f.*—«'«««—«4 LOWEST BENCH (KEYJ NA11IRAL GROUND FILL-OVERJCUT SLOPE -2-MIN. KElf DEPTH cairi8Ace —^ - 6HAUBeC»NSTRUCTEDPR(On At^dmreQcomaocoMxrem TOB£csof«rrRUotEOpnKW TO FILL PLACEMENT v OVERBUILT AND TRIM BACK APPFtOVED GROUND SLOPE For SubdraJns See Standard Detail C PROJECTED PLANE T TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM HEIQHT BENCMNO SHALL BE DONG WHEN ELOPES ANGLE B EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1 MNMUM- BENCH HEK3KT SHALL BE 4 FEET MtMMUMFTa WIDTH SHALL BE 0 FEET (KSfJ GeffiEct&a&L Am mami&.s BWSWEBWK COMSWITMTS P0 Bosr 190277, Saw ffiep, Ca/fowla Jt2f 60 Keyhg and Benching Deteil Jos No.DATE Revised: Juiy 2005 DETA/L Standard Specs for Grading Projects with Figures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOJECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 8 of 13 SLOPE •FACE' ,x> FINISH GRADE i<i<^^T TTr.-TT^1-"' .^rTir^rTr-T^iw!^ iT!!^T^^!T^"-T^-Trr'^?'-^' £r=r5<rMH4£ ****** T_T y^^^'^roiafF'Rsiyf*' s^^^^rrTTrr^^-itri^^ - s=52?rrrr^£WIIIDROW rrmr^m: * Overafe® rack 13'• lager than 8 Inches in largest dimenskxi. * Excavate a trench in the compacted fitt deep enough to bury all the rock. « Backfill with granular soil jetted or flooded In place to fill alt the voids. « Do not bury rock within 10 feet of finish grade. * Windrow of buried rock shall be parafleJ to the finished slope fifl. JETTED OB FLOODED QEIAMULAR MATEHtAL ELEVATION A-A' PROFILE ALONG WINDROW OR- FLOODED— GRANULAR MATERIAL . Sous ROCK ENGMiEMm, fee, is EMSiMEBiK CQMSULTAWFS PQ Box 601277, Sm Dlegof California 921&I STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS JOB No. Revted July 2005 0E1M. B Standard Specs for Grading Projects with Figures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOUDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 9 of 13 NATURAL •GROUND BENCMKG REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL =sr™rrrrtrrnr. COMPACTED FILL trrzr^r^r^t^: CALTRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE OR «K ROCK WRAPPED M FILTER FABRIC FILTER FABRIC MIH. OVERLAP FROM THE TW HOG FHNG TIED EVERY 6 FEET APPROVED ^COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL EQUtVALEND BE MINIMUM 6' DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATEDCANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION DESIGN FINISHED GRADE PERFORATED PtPE 6"<|> MIN. |—— 20' MM4- FILTER FABRIC (MIRAF1140 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) .NON-PERFORATED. 6"* MIN. - S' MIN X ^2 ROCK WRAPPED W FILTER FABR(C OR CM.TRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE. PQ Box emffl, San K&Q&, California S21SO SHM1.MS3, S1§M1,S511 fer STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS Canyon Subdrairts Detail Joe No.OWE OETAffi. Standard Specs for Grading Projects with Figures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOJECHNICU. AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683m., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCKENGINeeRS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 10 of 13 •tsr tatt. OUTLET PIPES 4"<| MOM-PERFORATED PIPE, 100* MAX. O.C, HORIZONTALLY, 30* MAX O.C. i BACKCUTId OR FLATTER KEY DEPTH 2* MM. PGSnWESEAL SHOULD BE PROVIDED AT IT MM. OVERtAP FROM THE TOP G RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET ftVI OUTLET PIPE (NON-PERFORATED) CALTRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCKpFi^/Fqi WRAPPED m FILTER FABRIC FILTER FABRIC (MIRAF1 140 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)f X / T-COIfNECTJON.FOR COLLECTOR PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE * SUBDRA1N INSTALLATION - Subdraln collector pipe shafl be Installed wfth perforatkxis down or,unless otherwisa desigr^ed by the gecxochnlcal consultant Outtet pipes shall be non-perforated pipe. The subdraln pipe shafl have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot Perforation shafl be W to WI drilled holes are used Ait subdraln pipes shafl have a gradient at least 2% towards the outlet « SUBBRAfl* PIPE - Subdraftl pipe Steffi ba AffW D27S1, SDR 23,6 or AStM 01^7, Sehedute 40, or ASTM 08034^ SDR 23l$ ScteMS 40 Po%vfiw« GttoWe Pfaslte 0n«J| pipe. of SE.>30 fated! or flooded In place except for the outside & feet which shall be native soil backfill. QWECHUKAL Am MAtERIALS BNTSMB?*© CQWSMJMfS PO B&x 600277, S» flfego, Cffiforn/a 92fS0 ©fi.50195f f te Jos No.Okie DETAIL Standard Specs for Grading Projects with Figures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 11 of 13 SOIL BACfSPILL. COMPACTED TO .«0 PERGENT'-RELAtWE COMPACTION* FABWC (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT*** p3/4*-t:1/2" CtEAN SRAVEL** WALL MOT TO SCALE Specifications for Caltrans U.S. Standard Percent 1-inch 100 %-hteh 80-108 3/8-foch 40-100 No. 4 2540 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 5§ 0-7 N0i2DO 0-3 SandBphiafent>7S , DIAMETEK PtpCtsdHEOWiE 40 OR WITH PEKPOBATtOKS ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED MINIMUM f PBReENT QRAOJEMT TO SUITABLE OOTLE.T ; 3" MIN. COMPEtEKT jBEDftOCk OR MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE QEOTECHNiCAt CONSULTANT *BASEO 0« ASTM 0166? **IP CALTRANS CLASS. 2 PERyEABLE MATERJAL (SEE GRADATION TO LEPTJ fS O8EO IN PLACE OF 3/4*-1-t/2* QRAVEL, FfLTER FABRIC MAY BEDELCTEO. CALTRAII6 CLAS$ & PERMEABLE MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 8Q PERCEHf; RELATIVE COMPACTfOH * MOTECOMPOSITE OfiAWAQE PKO0UC5TS SUCH AS MRAOB/W , OR J-ORAIN y^Y BE USS3 AS AM ALTERATIVE TO GRAVEL OF ! CLASS a«®TALLAW»l SHOULD BE PEFFORM0D IN ACCORDANCE WTH yAmJFACTUREe'S SPEORCAT»ON& SOUD ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. PO te mm, Sw Dleg^ Catiomfa §2im fax JOB No. Standard Specs for Grading Projects with Figures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SOLtDROCKENGINEERS.COM Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 12 of 13 h H NATIVE SOIL BASEMEtfF ASSUMED CONDmONS: y{ = pel (Total UK! vseigttf of "Niatwe" or formafional soB), a^ = g (iPeafe aeeefeFafon at groundi sarfece wii 10% probability of ejcceedance in 50 yrs.) H = depttii of basement MOTES: PO Box 60Q277,Sar Diego, CA 92160 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS At Rest Earth Pressures - Basement PROJECT*!.BATE Standard Specs for Grading Projects with Figures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOJECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOLIDKOCXENGIHEERS.COM Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised January 2007 Page 13 of 13 Moisture barrier per architect or soil report Soil improvemenl for slab support per sail report. ALLUVIUM, UNDOCUMENTED FILL SOIL, OR OTHER UNSUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL. OLDER ALLUVIUM, FQRMATfQNAL SOIL OR OTHER SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL Footing embedment into competent soil per soil report Not less than six inches. SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. PO Ete 600277, San Diego, CA 92160 619,851.8683 ph., 019,501.9511 fax STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS PtOIECTNo.DATE Detail Standard Specs for Grading Projects with Figures Rev Jan 07 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOUDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I La Cosfa Village Homeowner's Association La Costa Village Phase II Evaluation Project Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report August 31, 2007 (Revised August 26, 2009) Project No. 61000268-02 Appendix D General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners 61000268-02 Plaza de las Flores Phase II Eval Report.doc SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683 PH., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW. SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners Revised November 2006 INTRODUCTION 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: 4 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. 4 Foot traffic on slopes, which destroys vegetation and increases erosion potential. EROSION REDUCTION GUIDELINES Erosion potential is increased when bare soil is left exposed to weather. Care should be taken to provide ground cover at all times, but particularly during the winter months. Some suggestions for soil-stabilizing ground covers are provided below: * Grass or other fast growing, ground-covering plants may be an inexpensive and effective material for erosion control. The optimum goal of planting slopes is to achieve a dense growth of vegetation (which includes plants of varying root depths) requiring little irrigation. Plants having shallow root systems and/or requiring abundant water (many types of ice plant) are poor choices for slope-stabilizing ground covers. To find the best seed mixtures and plants for your area, check with a landscape architect, local nursery or the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. * Mulches help retain soil moisture and provide ground protection from rain damage. They also provide a favorable environment for starting and growing plants. Easily obtained mulches include grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips and straw. Commercial application of wood fibers combined with various types of seed and fertilizer (hydraulic mulching) may also be effective in stabilizing slopes. * Mats of excelsior, jute netting and plastic sheets can be effective temporary covers, but they should be in contact with soil and fastened securely to work effectively. General Property Maintenance Guidelines Revised 2006 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.851.8683m., 619.501.9511 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners Revised November 2006 MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES The following maintenance guidelines are provided for the protection of the property owner's investment, and should be observed throughout the year: 4 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. 4 Landscaping watering should be limited to the minimum necessary to maintain plant vigor. 4 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. 4 Whenever property owners plan significant topographic modifications of their lots or slopes, a geotechnical consultant should be contacted. Over-steepening of slopes may result in a need for expensive retaining devices, while undercutting of the base of slopes may lead to slope instability or failure. These modifications should not be undertaken without expert consultation. * If unusual cracking, settling or soil failure occurs, the property owner should consult a geotechnical consultant immediately. General Property Maintenance Guidelines Revised 2006 SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PO Box 600277, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92160 619.8S1.8683PH., 619.S01.9S11 FAX WWW.SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM Check a License or Home Improvement Salesperson (HIS) Registration - Contractors Stat... Page 1 of 1 "• CGOV Contractors LiqenseTBoard Contractor's License Detail - License # 655527 alia DISCLAIMER: A license status check provides information taken from the CSLB license database. Before relying on this information, you should be aware of the following limitations. » CSLB complaint disclosure is restricted by law (B&P_Z124J5). If this entity is subject to public complaint disclosure, a link for complaint disclosure will appear below. Click on the link or button to obtain complaint and/or legal action information. » Per B&P..707.1,17, only construction related civil judgments reported to the CSLB are disclosed. * Arbitrations are not listed unless the contractor fails to comply with the terms of the arbitration. '» Due to workload, there may be relevant information that has not yet been entered onto the Board's license database. License Number: Business Information: Entity: Issue Date: Reissue Date: Expire Date: License Status: Classifications: Bonding: Workers' Compensation: Miscellaneous Information: Extract Date: 09/30/2009655527 RAD CONSTRUCTION INC 3479 CITRUS ST STE A LEMON GROVE, CA 91945 Business Phone Number: (619) 698-4621 Corporation 10/01/1992 11/01/1994 11/30/2010 This license is current and active. All information below should be reviewed. i DESCRIPTION r B GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR D30 PILE DRIVING/PRESSURE FOUNDATION JACKING C-8 CONCRETE CONTRACTOR'S BOND This license filed Contractor's Bond number SC6302765 in the amount of $12,500 with the bonding company AM£RJCAN.mNJRACTQRaMDEMNJIY.CQM£ANY, Effective Date: 03/02/2009 C_ojit]3£tQr|s_BondJng_yistory BOND QE QUALIFYING INDIVIDUAL 1. The Responsible Managing Officer (RMO) RUSSELL LEE BURDENO certified that he/she owns 10 percent or more of the voting stock/equity of the corporation. A bond of qualifying individual is not required. Effective Date: 11/01/1994 This license has workers compensation insurance with the EVE REST. NAJJQ N AL.. IN S URANC E C O.M PAN Y Policy Number: 7600000739091 Effective Date: 01/01/2009 Expire Date: 01/01/2010 WQrkerslCQmBensat!.Qn....Hjs.to.[y 11/01/1994 DESCRIPTION LICENSE REISSUED TO ANOTHER ENTITY ConditiQns..of..U.se. | PrivacyJMicy. Copyright © 2009 State of California https://www2. cslb.ca.gov/OnlineServices/CheckLicense/LicenseDetail.asp 09/30/2009 2 Z Q D\ •^r sP o D 3