2007-524 SG V 1 1 1 V 1' 11i 14 \.. 1 1V 1. 1 h �j
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
505 S . VULCAN AVE.
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
GRADING PLAN PERMIT NO. : 524SG
PARCEL NO. 256-431-1500 PLAN NO. : 524-SG
JOB SITE ADDRESS: 192 PACIFIC VIEW LN. CASE NO. :
APPLICANT NAME CHRIS & ANNETTE GREGG
MAILING ADDRESS : 192 PACIFIC VIEW LN. PHONE NO. : 760-631-0064
CITY: ENCINITAS STATE: CA ZIP: 92024-
CONTRACTOR : ATLANTIS POOLS & SPAS PHONE NO. :
LICENSE NO. : LICENSE TYPE:
ENGINEER : TAQUINO ENGINEERING PHONE NO. : 619-464-0964
PERMIT ISSUE D 06/07 /
PERMIT EX 7**-
9 PERMIT ISSUED BY:
INSPECTO BEER
------------ --- --- RMIT FEES & DEPOSITS
1 . PERMIT FEE 900 . 00 2 . GIS MAP FEE . 00
3 . INSPECTION FEE . 00 4 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT: . 00
5 . NPDES INSPT FEE . 00 6 . SECURITY DEPOSIT . 00
7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE . 00 8 . TRAFFIC FEE . 00
9 . IN-LIEU UNDERGRND : . 00 10 . IN-LIEU IMPROVMNT . 00
ll . PLAN CHECK' FEE . 00 12 . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00
--------- ------------- - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------
------- ------------------
SIMPLIFIED GRADING PERMIT ISSUED TO VERIFY PERFORMANCE OF GRADING AND
DRAINAGE PER APPROVED PLAN 524-G (NEW RETAINING WALL) . CONTRACTOR TO
MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL PER W.A. T. C.H. STANDARDS OR CITY APPROVED
TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN.
---- INSPECTION ---------------- DATE
-------- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE ----
INITIAL INSPECTION �, - o/7YL✓
COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED =7
ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION
FINAL INSPECTION
--------------------------------
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE
INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE
LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF
ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION.
IG ATUR DATE SIGNED
PRINT NAME
EL HONE NUMBER
CIRCLE ONE: O OWNER 2 . AGENT 3 . OTHER
CITY OF ENCINITAS 2007 ENGINEE ING FEE SCHEDULE
DATF: NAME/ADDRESS:
PERMI O.
TECH IN
CODE SERVICE NAME FEE AMOUNT ACCOUNT NUMBER
B1 Building Permit New/Addition 0-500 SF $ 150.00 101-0000-345-2210
B2 Building Permit New/Addition 500-2000 SF $ 250.00 101-0000-345-2220
B3 Building Permit New/Addition 2000-5000 SF $ 450.00 101-0000-345-2230
B4 Building Permit New/Addition >= 5000 SF $ 600.00 101-0000-345-2240
EP Building Permit- Pool $ 250.00 101-0000-345-2600
B5 Bldg Permit Comm New/Add 0 to 500 SF $ 150.00 101-0000-345-2410
B6 Bldg Permit Comm New/Add 500 to 2000 SF $ 250.00 101-0000-345-2420
B7 Bldg Permit Comm New/Add 2000 to 10000 $ 550.00 101-0000-345-2430
B8 Bldg Permit Comm New/Add.=10000 SF $ 750.00 101-0000-345-2440
B9 Building Permit, Commercial, Remodel, TI $ 300.00 101-0000-345-2800
C$ Certificate of Correction $ 110.00 1Q1-0000-345-2900
C4 Construction change - Minor-per sheet $ 200.00 101-0000-345-3210
C5 Construction change Major- per sheet $ 350.00 101-0000-345-3220
PM Final Parcel Map-Sheet $ 2,000.00 101-0000-345-3400
FM Final Subdivision Map- Sheet $ 1,600.00 101-0000-345-3600
SG Simplified Grading Plan $ 900:00 -4110
G Grading Plan Check-Sheet $ 1,450.00 101-0000-345-4120
NP NPDES Plan Check -Sheet $ 125.00 101-0000-345-4200
M1 Structural Plan Check-Sheet $ 240.00 101-0000-345-4400
EO Erosion Plan Check - Sheet $ 175.00 101-0000-345-4600
GS GIS Map Fee $ 375.00 101-0000-345-5000
TE Temporary Encroachment Permit $ 150.00 101-0000-345-5410
PE Permanent Encroachment $ 290.00 101-0000-345-5420
LP Landsca e/Irr Plan Check Private - Sheet $ 130.00 101-0000-345-5510
LV Landsca e/Irr Plan Check Public - Sheet $ 260.00 101-0000-345-5520
CN ROW Construction Permit and Ins p- Minor $ 300.00 101-0000-345-5610
CJ ROW Construction Permit and Insp- Major $ 900.00 101-0000-345-5620
EX Utility Construction Permit $ 250.00 101-0000-345-5700
TB Temporary Encroachment Permit - Beach $ 1,500.00 101-0000-345-5430
VA Street Vacation Application $ 3,500.00 101-0000-345-5810
SN Street Name Change Application $ 3,500.00 101-0000-345-5820
GI Grading Inspection * 101-0000-345-6010
II Improvement Inspection * 101-0000-345-6020
NI NPDES - Inspection ** 101-0000-345-6200
IR Improvement Plan Check-Sheet $ 1,700.00 101-0000-345-4800
EV Special Event $ 300.00 101-0000-345-7000
TR Traffic Control Plan 1 $ 250.00 101-0000-345-7400
PP SWPPP Project Disturbin >Acre $ 750.00 101-0000-345-7600
TOTAL
Formula to calc%of ACE did not change,fee is 5%of first$100,000 and 3%of each$100,000 above that level.
This fee is new and must be phased(1%of first$100,000 and 0.6%of each$100,000 above)then(1%of first$100,000 and 0.6%of each$100,000 over)
CODE DEPOSIT ACCTS. (NO CREDIT CARDS) TOTAL
MR IStructural 101-6010-451-4240
SY Security Deposits 101-0000-218-0000
Receipt No. `?� /Check No. Ca 800 /Cashier Initials
CK (03 -
Page 1 GARanda\Engineering Fee Schedule 2007-fees action formAs
LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORT FOR
PACIFIC VIEW LANE WALL PROJECT
192 PACIFIC VIEW LANE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024
Iu L, APR 25 2001 PREPARED FOR:
Mr. Chris Gregg
192 Pacific View Lane
---- Encinitas, California 92024
a PREPARED BY:
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160
January 8, 2007
Project No. 61000228-01
January 8, 2007
Project No. 61000228-01
-- Chris Gregg
Mr. Chris Gregg
192 Pacific View Lane
Encinitas, California 92024
Subject: Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report for Pacific View Lane Wall Project
192 Pacific View Lane, Encinitas, California 92024
Dear Mr. Gregg,
This report presents the results of our limited geotechnical engineering evaluation performed on the subject project.
The purpose of this limited study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide
recommendations pertaining to geotechnical aspects of the project. Specifically, our report addresses geotechnical
aspects of the proposed project including earthwork, foundation design, and retaining wall design parameters.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you h n ions regarding this report,
please feel free to contact the undersigned at 619.851.8683.
Respectfully, ��OJGI.AS P9pG�Fy
co O
— w n` N0.2568 u' M
rs EXP. ' 1.2'w1g XM m
.— R. Douglas vins, PE, GE *���rECHN�G
Principal Geotechnical Engineer OF CAL�F�
GE 2568,expires December 31, 2008
Distribution: (4)Addressee
Mr Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................1
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES........................................................................................................................................1
3. SITE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................................1
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS...........................................................................................................................2
5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION............................................................................................................................2
6. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................................................2
6.1. UNDOCUMENTED FILL.....................................................................................................................................................3
6.2. NONMARINE SEDIMENTARY ROCK...................................................................................................................................3
6.3. SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER............................................................................................................................3
7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.......................................................................................................................................3
7.1. SURFACE RUPTURE....................................................................
7.2. SEISMICITY AND GROUND MOTION..................................................................................................................................4
77.3. CBC SEISMIC PARAMETERS...........................................................................................................................................5
.4. ALQUIST-PRIOLO ZONES.................................................................................................................................................5
-- 7.5. LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREAD..............................................................................................................................5
7.6. LANDSLIDES...................................................................................................................................................................6
7.7. SEICHES AND EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED FLOODING.............................................................................................................6
8. LABORATORY TESTING...................................................................................................................................6
9. CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................................6
10. RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................................................8
10.1. PLAN AND SPECIFICATION REVIEW..................................................................................................................................8
10.2. EXCAVATION AND GRADING OBSERVATION......................................................................................................................8
10.3. EARTHWORK..................................................................................................................................................................8
10.3.1. SITE PREPARATION...................................................................................................................................................9
10.3.2. FILL COMPACTION...................................................... .
10.3.3. MATERIAL FOR FILL.................................................................................................................................................10
10.3.4. BULK/SHRINK AND MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS......................................................................................................11
W 10.3.5. TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS.....................................................................................................................................11
10.3.6. ADDITIONAL EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................12
10.4. FOUNDATION AND WALL RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................12
10.4.1. BEARING CAPACITY FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS....................................................................................................12
10.4.2. LATERAL LOADS......................................................................................................................................................12
10.4.3. PSUEDOSTATIC(SEISMIC)EARTH PRESSURE PARAMETERS.......................................................................................15
10.4.4. WALL DRAINAGE.....................................................................................................................................................15
10.5. MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH RETAINING WALLS(MSEWS)...................................................................................15
1010.6. FOUNDATION SETBACK.................................................................................................................................................17
.7. SURFACE DRAINAGE.....................................................................................................................................................17
11. LIMITATIONS
12. SELECTED REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................19
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Re ort
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,lNC,
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683PH,619.501.9511 FAX
www.SoLrDRocKENGrNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report
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
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane wall Evaluation Re ort
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING coNSULTANTB
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683PH.,619.501.9511 FAX
www.SoLiDROcKENGzNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
_.� This report presents the results of the limited subsurface evaluation performed by Solid Rock Engineering, Inc.
(SRE) for the Pacific View Lane Wall Project in Encinitas, California. The conclusions and recommendations
m_ 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. 61000228-01,
authorized by you.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services for this project consisted of the following:
Review of readily available geologic and geotechnical documents, literature, and hazard maps. In addition to
the standard literature indicated in the back of this report, we also reviewed the following site specific
geotechnical evaluation as a part of our service.
o "Geotechnical Study, Quail Road Development, 201 Quail Road, Encinitas, California,"2002,
Prepared by American Geotechnical, Inc., File No. 22677.01,dated November 21
Performance of a subsurface geotechnical evaluation including excavation, sampling and logging of four
exploratory borings at the site. The purpose of the subsurface work was to better characterize the
subsurface materials for evaluation of relevant geologic and geotechnical parameters.
_. . Evaluation of the samples obtained to characterize the following parameters: moisture,soil classification,
maximum density, grain size(sieve)analysis,shear strength, and chemical analysis for corrosivity.
Geotechnical analysis of the field and laboratory data obtained.
. Preparation of this geotechnical report which includes the following discussions, conclusions and
recommendations:
4 A limited assessment of geologic conditions and hazards including seismicity and the effects of
earthquakes on the proposed structure, soil liquefaction, landslides, and flooding.
4 Recommendations for plan and specification review, earthwork, retaining wall design parameters, and
— drainage.
3. SITE DESCRIPTION
The property consists of a roughly rectangular shaped parcel located at 192 Pacific View Lane in Encinitas,
California. A site location map is included as Figure 1. The property is bounded by Pacific View Lane to the east,
similar residential property to north, and property easements to the west and south. The lot is at about the same
elevation as Pacific View Lane. The adjacent lot to the north is about five feet higher than the subject lot. The west
side of the subject lot slopes down about eight feet at about a 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) to a segmental wall that
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Re ort
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL rANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH,619,501,9511 FAX
www.SOLZDROCKENG.rNEERs.com
Mr Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 2
descends about another five feet. The south side of the property also descends a few feet at about a 2 to 1 to the
easement below.
4. PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS
Based on discussions with you, we understand that the owner wants to construct two new walls on the property to
improve the usable space in the rear yard. A mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall is being considered along the
south property line, south of the swimming pool and near the bottom of the compacted fill slope. A concrete masonry
unit (CMU) wall is being proposed near the north boundary of the residence to improve access to the rear yard. In
addition to the walls discussed herein, a vanishing edge swimming pool is being constructed near the northwest
corner of the rear yard.
5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION
Our field exploration consisted of four borings advanced on Thursday, November 9, 2006. The borings were
excavated to depths of between two and seven feet below existing grade. Excavations were made using a three inch
diameter hand auger. Logs describing the observed subsurface conditions are presented in Appendix A. The
approximate boring locations are presented on Figure 2. Disturbed bulk samples were obtained at selected locations
and returned to our office.
The lines designating the interface between soil units on the soil logs were estimated by interpolation and are rough
approximations. The actual transition between the materials may be abrupt or gradual. Further, soil conditions
-- between the excavations may be substantially different from those observed. It should be recognized that soil
conditions could change with the passage of time.
Excavation locations and elevations were established in the field by pacing and taping from existing improvements
shown on the referenced plans. 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 residence pad is situated at an estimated approximate elevation of 204 feet above sea level. The site is
approximately 1 mile(13/4 kilometers)east of the Pacific Ocean shoreline.
The focus of our efforts was the shallow soil conditions in the areas of the proposed walls. Based on our observations
at the site and review of available geologic literature, it appears that the site is mantled by undocumented fill related
to site landscaping and prior grading. This fill compaction was documented in the referenced report by American
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Revolt
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600177,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
61-9-851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
WWW.S0LIDR0CKENGINEER5.00M
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 3
Geotechnical, Inc. The lot is mapped by California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) as being underlain by
marine sedimentary deposits at depth. These materials are further described below.
6.1. Undocumented Fill
Based on the observations performed during our field investigation, the soil observed in the borings is generally
reddish brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense, silty SAND. Some angular gravel was observed in boring
no. B-1. Landscape-related organics were observed near the surface. The undocumented fill soils were
encountered in each of the borings and were not penetrated. The bottom of the undocumented fill and its contact
with the underlying formational soil was not identified.
6.2. Nonmarine Sedimentary Rock
The Nonmarine Sedimentary Rock soil unit is mapped as underlying the site at depth. However, it was not
encountered during our evaluation. These materials are likely to be reddish brown, damp to moist, weakly to
moderately cemented, silty, SANDSTONE. This unit is often referred to as Lindavista Formation. Clayey
deposits are not likely but may exist.
6.3. Surface Water and Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered during our investigation. Groundwater is not expected to affect the grading
operations at the site. Fluctuations in future groundwater levels and perched water could develop as a result of
rainfall, irrigation, or changes in site drainage. These conditions are typically mitigated on a case by case basis
when they occur, not before.
7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The site is located in an active seismic region. Seismic hazards may be induced by ground shaking during seismic
events on nearby or distant active faults. A summary of the hazards is presented below. More detailed analysis can
be provided upon request.
7.1. Surface Rupture
Surface rupture is the result of movement on an active fault reaching the surface. No faults were observed
during our exploration of the site. Based on our observations, experience and review of the referenced
geotechnical and geologic literature, it is our opinion that there is little probability of surface rupture due to
faulting beneath the site. However, lurching and ground cracking are a possibility as a result of a significant
seismic event on a regional active fault.
61000228-01 Pacific view Lane Wall Evaluation Re ort
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
�. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683PN.,619.501.9511 FAX
www.SoLiDROcKENGiNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 4
7.2. Seismicity and Ground Motion
The subject site is located at approximate latitude of 33.0507° north and an approximate longitude of 117.28190
west. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault. CDMG and the International Conference of
Building Officials(ICBO) have mapped the Rose Canyon Fault approximately 3 miles(5 kilometers)southwest of
the site.
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 gadded 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 g or in g's to the
nearest 0.01g. The inverse of this Probability of Exceedance can be correlated to an average return period.
For example, the 1997 Uniform Building Code indicates that the design ground motion for most standard projects
should be measured as having a ten percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 years. This correlates to an
average return period of 475 years. Accordingly based on this analysis, this design ground motion (measured in
gs)will be exceeded at this site on an average of once every 475 years. The results are summarized below.
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Remit
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851,8683PH,619.501.9511 FAX
www.SOLIDRocKENGxNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 5
Summary of Seismology and Seismic Parameters
Design Criteria USGS
Ground Acceleration
(g)
1997 UBC Design Basis Earthquake Acceleration
(10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years) 0.27
475 year Average Return Period
2001 CBC Upper Bound Earthquake Acceleration
(10% Probability of Exceedance in 100 years) 0.40
950 year Average Return Period
FEMA 302 Maximum Considered Earthquake Acceleration
(2% Probability of Exceedance in 50 years) 0.57
2,375 year Average Return Period
7.3. CBC Seismic Parameters
The following 2001 California Building Code (CBC) seismic parameters may be used for design of the proposed
project.
Summary of CBC Seismic Design Criteria
Parameter Value 2001 CBC Reference
Seismic Zone Factor,Z 0.40 Table 16-1
Soil Profile Type Sc Table 16-J
Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.40Na Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient, C, 0.56 Nv Table 16-R
Near Source Factor, Na 1.0 Table 16-S
Near Source Factor, N,, 1.2 Table 16-T
Seismic Source Type* B Table 16-U
*Rose Canyon Fault
1.5 mm/year slip rate
6.9 MG Max
7.4. 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.
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Re Dolt
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING INC.
.--. GEOTECHNICAI AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONsm TANTS
_ PD BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 91160
619.851.8683 PH,619.501.9511 FAX
www.SOLIDROcKENGrNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 6
7.5. 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. During the seismic event, 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 relative lack of groundwater and our experience in the vicinity of this property, 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 negligible potential for liquefaction, the
risk of liquefaction-related lateral spreading is considered remote.
7.6. Landslides
A thorough landslide evaluation was beyond the scope of our services. These services can be provided upon
request.
7.7. Seiches and Earthquake-Induced Flooding
_.. Seiches are defined as earthquake-induced waves that develop in enclosed bodies of water during seismic
events. It is our opinion that the risk of earthquake-induced flooding from seiches is considered remote.
�- 8. LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on selected bulk samples obtained from the exploratory excavations to further
characterize the geotechnical conditions encountered at the site. The results of our laboratory tests are incorporated
into the boring logs in Appendix A and are further described and summarized in Appendix B.
9. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this evaluation, it is our opinion that construction of the Pacific View Lane Wall Project is
feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the following recommendations and applicable building codes are
followed. Geotechnical considerations for the design and construction of the project include the following:
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Re ort
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MA TERIALSENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
WWW.SOLIDROcKENG.rNEERs.com
Mr Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 7
♦ Our evaluation was limited to the near surface soils in an effort to characterize the geotechnical design
parameters used in design of MSE and CMU walls for the project. In addition to the evaluation of wall design
-- parameters, we evaluated the soil conditions to provide recommendations to improve performance of the
vanishing edge swimming pool. Our pool comments were provided under separate cover and have been
reincorporated here for your convenience.
0 Reinforcing steel should be designed by professionals that are qualified and experienced in pool
design.
0 It should be noted that the segmental wall system on the west side of the property is providing
support for the swimming pool. Removal of the wall in the future would adversely affect the
performance of the swimming pool.
_.._ 0 It should be noted that it is possible that minor movement of the pool could occur following
completion of the pool. If it were to occur, it would likely occur during periods of wetting or drying of
the soils between the pool and the wall,soils on the slope, and the fill soils beneath and in the
vicinity of the pool. While this may not adversely affect pool performance, minor cosmetic cracks
and separations could develop in or around the concrete flatwork. The moisture content of the soil
on the slope should be kept relatively constant. Excessive wetting and drying should be avoided.
Irrigation should be kept to the minimum necessary to maintain plant vigor. We recommend that
you review the attached property maintenance guidelines in addition to this letter.
0 Our office should be contacted to observe the keyway excavation prior to steel installation, and
should be contacted if cracks,separations,or other signs of movement are identified.
♦ We did not evaluate the underlying soils for the slopes or residence pad. These services can be provided
upon request.
♦ 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.
♦ We anticipate that the site soils generally have very low expansion potential. The existing soils should be
considered suitable for retaining wall backfill once the organics are removed.
♦ Due to the close proximity of the site to the Rose Canyon Fault Zone and other significant seismic sources,
seismic design parameters for both the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) and Upper Bound Earthquake
(UBE)conditions are relatively high.Accordingly, if the homeowner desires to design the wall to resist loads
-- from either design earthquake event,the additional seismic design loads are provided herein.
♦ The existing compacted fill is generally suitable for support of the proposed walls where encountered in the
borings. The foundation excavations should be monitored by our staff prior to foundation construction.
Remedial grading may be necessary based on conditions observed during construction.
♦ Gravel and cobbles should generally be anticipated during grading. It is possible that cemented
SANDSTONE and/or SILTSTONE could be encountered in deeper excavations. We generally expect the
soil to rippable and excavatable to the depths of excavation anticipated. However, more competent rock
may exist.
-- ♦ In general, excavation of fill soils at the site should be achievable using standard heavy earthmoving
equipment in good-working order with experienced operators. Oversize materials or debris, if encountered in
61000228-01 Pacific New Lane Wall Evaluation Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC,
..-. GEOTECNNIC4L AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO Box 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683PN.,619.501.9511 FAx
www.SoLrDRoCKENGrNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 8
the existing soils, may require extra effort to excavate. Cemented zones and concretions are possible within
the underlying SANDSTONE.
♦ Groundwater is not anticipated to significantly impact construction of the proposed improvements as
presently planned. Groundwater levels can vary from location to location and with the passage of time and
weather cycles.
10. RECOMMENDATIONS
The remainder of this report presents recommendations for grading and construction of wall foundations and
retaining walls. These recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard of
practice at similar projects in Southern California. If a specific subject is not addressed in this report, or if something
is unclear,we encourage the reader to contact our office for clarification.
10.1.Plan and Specification Review
We recommend that the final foundation plans, grading plans, and earthwork specifications be reviewed by SRE
to evaluate conformance with the intent of the recommendations of this report. Significant changes in the
locations or layout of the proposed improvements may require additional geotechnical evaluation.
10.2.Excavation and Grading Observation
An experienced geotechnical consultant should observe foundation excavations and site grading. 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.
10.3.Earthwork
Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with this report, local grading ordinance, and the
2001 California Building Code. The following recommendations are provided regarding specific aspects of the
proposed earthwork construction. These recommendations should be considered subject to revision based on
field conditions observed by the geotechnical consultant during grading.
61000118-01 Pacific View Lane wall Evaluation Revolt
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC,
_ GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH,619.501.9511 FAX
www.SoLrDROCKENGzNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 9
10.3.1. Site Preparation
Due to the undocumented nature of the wall foundation subgrade, we recommend that the subgrade soils be
evaluated when the foundations are excavated to better characterize the foundation support soils. At a minimum,
the upper foot of foundation subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content
and compacted to not less than 90 percent relative compaction. Additional remedial work may be necessary
once the excavations have been made and the exposed soil conditions are evaluated.
General site preparation should include the removal of unsuitable and deleterious materials, existing structures,
and other improvements from areas that will be subjected to structural loads 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 five or more feet
beyond the limits of grading.
Unsuitable materials include vegetation,trash, construction debris, topsoil, rocks more than 12 inches in greatest
dimension, contaminated soils, abandoned pavements, other soil in structural areas subject to settlement due to
bio-degradation, or other undesirable materials. The removal of unsuitable materials should be conducted under
the observation of the geotechnical consultant to evaluate the competency of the exposed materials for support
of structural and fill loads. The excavation of unsuitable materials should be conducted in a way that minimizes
the disturbance of competent materials. Unsuitable materials should be hauled off-site and legally disposed.
Structures, foundations, utilities (above and below ground), and ancillary improvements within the grading limits
that are not to be saved, should be demolished, hauled off-site and disposed of legally. Demolition of pipelines
may consist of capping or rerouting at the project perimeter and removal within the project perimeter. Existing
` utilities that are to be removed should have the resulting trenches compacted as described in Section 10.3.2. If
appropriate, abandoned utilities should be filled with grout or slurry cement as recommended by and under the
-- observation of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor should protect trees or man-made improvements from
damage.
After making the recommended removals and prior to fill placement, the exposed ground surface should be
examined and probed by the geotechnical consultant to identify that a stable, firm, unyielding base has been
achieved and is adequate for support of the walls.
10.3.2. Fill Compaction
Fill and backfill should be placed at or above optimum moisture content using equipment that is capable of
compacting the entire fill lift. Fill materials at less than optimum moisture should have water added and the fill
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Report
SOLID ROCK ENGlNEERING�INC,
_ GEOTECNNIcm AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683Pri,619.501.9511 Fax
WWW.SOLZDROCKENGINEERS.COM
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 10
mixed to result in material that is uniformly at or above optimum moisture content. Expansive soils should be
compacted to above optimum moisture content. Fill materials that are too wet should be aerated or mixed with
dryer material to achieve uniformly moisture-conditioned soil.
The fill and backfill should be placed in horizontal lifts at a thickness appropriate for the equipment used. The lift
should generally not exceed eight inches in loose thickness. The relative compaction recommended for fill and
backfill is not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density based on the current version of ASTM D 1557. When
evaluating in place density and relative compaction, gravel content and rock correction procedures should be
appropriately considered.
It should be noted that compaction equipment can cause excessive pressures on retaining walls if operated in
the immediate vicinity of the back of the walls. Accordingly, we recommend that only light, walk-behind
equipment be operated within the five-foot wide zone measuring from the back face of the wall.
10.3.3. Material for Fill
In general, available on-site fill and formational soils materials may be used in the on-site fills behind the
structures while the existing organic topsoil generally should not be considered suitable. Deleterious materials,
rocks more than 6 inches in greatest dimension, the organic materials near the surface, and contaminated soils
should not be used due to their detrimental affect on soil reinforcement. Wet and saturated soils will need to be
dried back prior to re-use.
Soils with an Expansion Index of greater than 20 should not be used as wall backfill or in the upper five feet
beneath structures supported at or near grade. Soils with an Expansion Index of greater than 20 should not be
placed as backfill behind retaining walls without special design considerations.
Imported fill sources should be evaluated prior to hauling onto the site to determine their suitability for use.
Representative samples of imported materials and on-site soils should be tested to evaluate their engineering
properties for the planned use. Imported fill soils should have an Expansion Index of not more than 20 and
® should generally not have more than 20 percent passing the no. 200 sieve. In addition, if soils are imported for
the retained zone of the wall they should be evaluated to see that their strength parameters meet or exceed the
strength parameters assumed in the segmental wall design. 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.
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
www.SoLrDROCKENGiNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 11
10.3.4. Bulk/Shrink and Moisture Characteristics
The existing fill soils may shrink on the order of zero to ten percent when over-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 soil is likely to demand some moisture addition to be brought to, or above, optimum
moisture content. Our observations indicate that the near surface materials are currently near optimum moisture
content. The actual moisture conditions may vary from those anticipated herein.
10.3.5. Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations, such as those for the foundations, are anticipated to be generally stable up to depths of
four feet. Due to the loose nature of the near surface soils, excavations shallower than that may need to be laid
back. The geotechnical consultant should evaluate temporary excavations that encounter seepage 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 from
unstable excavation walls in accordance with OSHA guidelines.
Based on the available data developed from the borings, the design of temporary slopes and benches for
planning purposes may assume the conditions summarized below. Conditions should be verified by the project
geotechnical consultant and the contractor's competent person.
Summary of Cal/OSHA Soil Types
Geological Unit Cal/OSHA Soil Type
Surficial Soil Type C
Sedimentary Rock Type B to C
Existing infrastructure, including the residence, 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 homeowner and contractor should note that the materials encountered in construction excavations could
vary at 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 the foundation excavations and temporary slopes at regular intervals
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane wail Evaluation Re ort
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC,
.__. GEOTEcHNIcAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ Po BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNL7 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
www.SoLrDRocKENGiNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnccal Engineering Evaluation Report Page 12
during excavation. The professional should evaluate the stability of temporary slopes, as necessary. Similarly,
the professional should observe and monitor temporary support systems.
10.3.6. Additional Earthwork Recommendations
Additional earthwork recommendations can be found in Appendix C, Standard Specifications for Grading
Projects. Site preparation recommendations contained in the main part of this report shall supersede those
contained in Appendix C. The geotechnical consultant should be contacted for clarification of the project
specifications.
10.4.Foundation and Wall Recommendations
The following retaining wall foundation 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.
10.4.1. Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundations
The bearing capacity values presented herein are based on the understanding that the foundations will be
founded in competent compacted fill material. Based on our evaluation and our understanding of the anticipated
foundation loads,we recommend the following parameters.
Summary of Foundation Parameters for Compacted Fill
Allowable 1,500 psf
Bearing Capacity Allow a 1/3 increase for short-term wind or seismic loads.
-- Estimated Safety Factor greater than 3
Bearing Capacity 250 psf increase for each additional foot of width and/or depth, up to a total
Increase allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf
Minimum Footing Width 12 inches(one story)
15 inches(two story)
24 inches for isolated spread footings
Minimum Footing Depth 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade(12 inches acceptable for site walls)
Reinforcement Not less than two no. 4 bars top and two no.4 bars bottom in continuous
footings. The structural engineer should design reinforcing steel.
Estimated Settlement Foundations should be designed for a total and differential settlement of 1-inch
and 2/3-inch over a distance of 40 feet.
10.4.2. Lateral Loads
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
61000228-01 Pacific New Lane Wall Evaluation Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
._.. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING cONSVLTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH,619.501.9511 FAX
www.soLrDRocKENGrNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 13
rest refers to lateral pressure caused by earth that is prevented from lateral movement by an unyielding 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, 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) and that backfill soil will need to be imported as there was negligible soil available on site
for use as wall backfill. 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 section 10.3.3 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.
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. The following allowable lateral bearing
per foot of depth below the lowest adjacent grade or slab-on-grade may be used for the design of concrete
footings that are placed neat against undisturbed formational materials. Please note that the parameters
indicated below assume a factor of safety of 1.0. The designer should apply appropriate factors of safety and
may allow a 1/3 increase for short term wind or seismic loads. Further, note also that due to the close proximity
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Report
= SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEDTFCHNILAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO Box 600177,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
www.SoLrDRocKENGrNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 14
of the front face of the wall foundation to the adjacent drainage swale, we recommend that the passive
resistance be neglected for the amount of wall foundation located at or above the bottom of the swale elevation.
Summary of Allowable Passive Resistance(PSF per Foot of Embedment)
Ground Conditions Compacted Fill Formation Soil
Level Ground 300
2:1 Descending Slope 150
*This can be provided upon request.
—° The following allowable friction coefficients may be used with the dead load to compute the frictional resistance
of footings. If frictional and passive resistance is combined, the friction coefficient should be reduced as shown.
Summary of Allowable Friction Coefficients
Ground Conditions Compacted Fill Formation Soil
Base Friction Alone 0.35 0.45*
Base Friction and Passive Resistance 0.25 0.35*
*This should be verified if formational soil conditions are encountered.
The upper 12 inches of soil should be neglected in passive pressure calculations. The resistance from passive
pressure should be neglected where utilities or similar excavations may occur in the future.
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 Y2 percent of the wall height. For example, a ten foot
tall cantilevered wall designed for active earth pressure conditions may rotate outward on the order of to 3/4-
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
w 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 distance of 2 x H from the angle in the wall (where H is the height of the
wall).
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING INC,
"-- GEOTECHNMAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAX
www.soLrDROCKENGrNEERs.COM
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 15
Summary of Allowable At-Rest Pressure Parameters (PSF per Foot of Embedment)
Ground Conditions Granular Properly Compacted Soil
Level Ground 60
2:1 Slope 90
*Not provided as the slope is anticipated to be level behind the wall. This can be provided upon request.
10.4.3. Psuedostatic(seismic) Earth Pressure Parameters
If the homeowner desires to design the wall to resist seismic loading during either the DBE or UBE event, the
following equation may be used to estimate the psuedostatic force(PE)acting on the retaining wall:
PE= 3/8*(amax/g)*Hz*yt
Where PE=the horizontal psuedostatic force acting on the wall(lb)
Amax=the ground motion as a decimal(g). Typically either the DBE or UBE value
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 this report, we recommend that am,=0.27 g and yt= 130 pcf for design purposes.
- 10.4.4. Wall Drainage
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 G1 00N, 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.Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Walls(MSEWs)
The allowable foundation pressure and lateral bearing of segmental retaining wall (MSEW) foundations should
be designed and located as recommended in this report. MSEW foundations should also be positioned as
recommended herein. The design of subsurface drainage should consider the recommendations in the Wall
Drainage section of this report, along with any requirements specific to the MSEW manufacturer.
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Eva luation Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
WWW.SOL ZDROCKENGiNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 16
The MSEW 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 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Retaining Walls should be based on the following parameters.
Design Parameters for Use in Segmental Retaining Wall Design
Wall Approximate Phi Angle Cohesion
Parameter Lithology In-Place Density
(pcf) (degrees) (psi
Foundation Zone Compacted Fill 130 32 0
Reinforced Zone Compacted Fill 130 32 0
Retained Zone Compacted Fill 130 32 0
Drainage systems for MSEWs should be specified by the MSEW manufacturer. At a minimum, one four inch
diameter perforated pipe should be located at or near the heal of the wall. 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 shown that the retained and reinforced soils
will not pipe or otherwise migrate into the drainage gravel.
If there is reason to believe that water may migrate from the retained soil zone into the reinforced soil zone(such
as from landscape irrigation or similar), a second drain system should be installed at the face of the back cut for
the retained soil zone. This system should include a two-sided composite drainage fabric such as Miradrain. The
drainage fabric should be installed in a columnar orientation. The fabric should cover not less than 33 percent of
the cut face and should have clear spaces between drains of not more than eight feet. The fabric should be
installed to within four feet from the top of the back cut. The fabric should be secured to the back cut and sealed
at the top in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. The fabric should be constructed to discharge to
a four inch diameter perforated pipe at the toe 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 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.
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING INC.
_ GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92168
619,851.8683 PH,619.501,9511 Fax
www.SoLrDRocKENGrNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 17
10.6.Foundation Setback
Foundations and concrete flatwork constructed near the tops of slopes should be deepened as necessary so
that the minimum distance between the outer bottom edge of foundations and the surface of the adjacent slope
is not less than seven feet. It may be necessary to increase this lateral offset distance if clay soils are
encountered on the slopes. It should be recognized that the outer few feet of slopes are susceptible to gradual
down-slope movements due to slope creep. This will affect hardscape such as concrete slabs. We recommend
that settlement sensitive hardscape such as sidewalks, patios, or other rigid improvements are not constructed
within five feet from the top of slopes or walls.
10.7.Surface Drainage
Retaining wall, foundation, and slab performance depends greatly on how well the runoff waters drain from the
site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the structure. The ground surface around
structures should be graded so that water flows rapidly away from the structures without ponding. The surface
gradient needed to achieve this depends on the predominant landscape. In general, we recommend that flatwork
and lawn areas within ten feet of the wall slope away at gradients of not less than two percent. Densely
vegetated areas should have minimum gradients of not less than five percent away from buildings 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, wall backfill, 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, saturated zones or"perched" groundwater may
develop in the underlying soils if excessive irrigation, surface water intrusion, water line breaks,or unusually high
rainfall occur. 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.
11. LIMITATIONS
The information presented in this report has been prepared for use in the design and construction of the proposed
wall project in Encinitas, 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
61000228-01 Pacific view Lane Wall Evaluation Report
SOLID ROCK ENGlNEERING,INC,
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683PN.,619.501.9511 FAX
WWW.SOL.tDROCICENGINEERS.COM
Mr Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 18
and recommendations in relation to any new project requirements. In the event that changes in the design or location
of the facility are planned from those described herein,the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report
should not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report verified or modified in
writing by SRE. SRE is not responsible for claims, damages, or liability associated with interpretation of subsurface
data or reuse of the subsurface data or engineering analyses without the express written authorization of SRE.
It is the responsibility of the client or the client's representative to ensure 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 Construction Quality Assurance Management services to assist the design-build
team 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,
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 foundation
and slab subgrade. The consultant should also observe subgrade preparation beneath areas to receive fill and
observe and test fill compaction. SRE should be retained to observe earthwork 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.
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.
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.
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Report
' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING INC,
_ GEOTECHNIG4L AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
61-9-851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
www.SoLrDRocKENG.rNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
-- Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 19
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, 1966(Sixth printing, 1992), Geologic Map of
California, Santa Ana Sheet, Scale 1:250:000
California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and
Adjacent Areas with Locations of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, Scale 1:750:000
California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, an Exploratory Map to Accompany the
- Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, Scale
1:750:000
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Special Publication 42, Fault-Rupture
Hazard Zones in California, with Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999
California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluation and
Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in California: Sacramento, CA, Special Publication 117
California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, DMG Open-File Report 96-02,
Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California
California Department of Transportation, 1990, Highway Design Manual, Fourth Edition,dated July 1
California Department of Transportation, 1995, Engineering Service Center, Office of Materials Engineering and
Testing Services, Interim Corrosion Guidelines
Caltrans, 1995, Memo to Designers, dated July
Caltrans, 1993, California Test 643
Coduto, Donald P., 1994, Foundation Design, Principles and Practice, Published by Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Department of the Army, 1987, General Provisions and Geometric Design for Roads, Streets, Walks, and Open
-- Storage Areas, TM 5-822-2,AFM 88-7, dated July
Department of the Army, 1992, Pavement Design for Roads, Streets, Walks, and Open Storage Areas, TM 5-822-5,
AFM 88-7, dated June
Department of the Navy, 1979, Civil Engineering Pavements,Alexandria, VA, Design Manual 5.4
Department of the Navy, 1982, Soil Mechanics,Alexandria, VA, Design Manual 7.1
Department of the Navy, 1986, Foundations and Earth Structures, Alexandria, VA, Design Manual 7.02
Department of Defense, 1997, Soil Dynamics and Special Design Aspects: Norfolk, VA, United States Navy, MIL-
HDBK-1007/3.
Dibblee, T.W., 1954, Geology of Southern California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 170, Ch. 2,
pp 21-28
Kennedy, Michael P., and Siang S. Tan, 1977, Geology of National City, Imperial Beach, and Otay Mesa
Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, Map Sheet 29
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Report
' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC,
_ GEOTECNNICU AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
_ 619.851.8683PN.,619.501.9511 FAX
www.SoLrDRocKENGrNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
-- Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 20
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, Hogentogler&Co.
www.Topozone.com
Transportation Research Board, 1996, Landslides Evaluation and Mitigation, Special Report 247, Prepared by
National Research Council
Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, 1997, Prepared by International
Conference of Building Officials
United States Geologic Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project at
m 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
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2001, Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, Design and Construction Guidelines, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-00-43,
NHI Course No. 132042,dated March
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
61000228-01 Pacific view Lane Wall Evaluation Report
' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
'^ GEDTECNNIcAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL TAN7S
PO Box 600177,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNU 92160
_ 619.851.8683 PH,619.501,9511 FAx
www.SoLrDRocKENGrNEERs.com
z--St
Gu er°
N I f7anc CiZV „ �I'I E
Q nl on Stl -
he CourseI S a
Paaf' �;
r 1 Alviso -
-_ +�' S ,?�'� ;,� • s� 'tip
+•QyJia LindaL
�1a t�} f'auEcl�r v` ac— Foxglove S '—�•
71
,� t7 Ta
iw � n View Ter — "Elan Pky a
�' 7 Afroyor l +( I I o or I St — I
Seacrestww I x• ur ° r O
I I» ' �ti1 I X 192 Pacific View Lane, Encinitas, CA 92024
--
_ E
St
1V,` .:ti t(,t�frc Ocean aluflway ti
rW�l 11 r
a W
_ J d ` n O 0
=O-i LA �.
a I I
II tt v� 'a a ,,
J iL c �1 O0 eq i za a pa�.lnd;,n
�y,>, �a RislNlhon
C 70 .,
'
to
® a 0.i I sl�dQlt ® �• nP,�
s
m�
SO IM., eA
W yJ
..... 70 • //r�.
a Ij
�c
9
aQ 07 ..
Q .a a��ln•
CagY.on OPm��. non.<"
#ce
sy
a(se(ve / v
52
4Psy`ro aI a
r'
a
ReseNlnua
y L n^G va
Reference:www.Yahoo.com
N%�VTEQ
SITE LOCATION MAP
' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC, Pacific View Lane Wall Project
.... GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL TANTS 192 Pacific View Lane
Po BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
_ 619.851.8683PH.,619.501.9511 FAx Encinitas,California 92024
WWW.SOL.rDROCKENG.TNEERS COM
PROJECT No. DATE FIGURE
- 61000228-01 1 January 2007 1
LEGEND
y z
+ B-3 Indicates approximate location of boring
Qudf Indicates undocumented fill
Qi" Indicates Lindavista Formation
(in parentheses where buried)
_.. .. ._, ... _!G - -- _
*,B-
r
Qudf (Q �
+ B-f
L.."JTZI.S�� � L7'SF•fnrc•°!4: 1�.,�,.�.�.. .. .
L�►l�irvi?IiS.. Ct1
Qudf/
7.
I -Cie
Reference: Hand sketch provided by pool contractor.
BORING LOCATION MAP
' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING.INC, Pacific View Lane Wall Project
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALSENGINEERING CONSUL TANTS 192 Pacific View Lane
PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
_ 619.851.8683PH.,619.501.9511 FAX Encinitas,California 92024
www.Soi.zDRocKENGrNEERs.com
PROJECT N0. DATE FIGURE
__ 61000228-01 January 2007 2
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report
-- Appendix A
Logs of Exploratory Excavations
Boring No.B•1
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC. Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Project
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160 192 Pacific View Lane,Encinitas,California 92024
m Project No: 61000228-01 Date: 11/9/06
6i Date Drilled: Thursday,November 9,2006 Sampled by: RDP
CL-- a E U)Ground Elev.
E U) CL feet,MSL: 191'± est.with landscape construction Ian Logged by: RDP
o
(D o o o
(D Z5 En o Reviewed
° C) Method of Drilling: 3-inch dia.hand auger by: RDP
CL Y 3 cn
o m o m o Drive Wt. Ibs. : 35 Drop in.: 30±
Description I Interpretation Lab Tests/Other
° °'° SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL
@ 0 to 1 '/2 ft.: Reddish brown,damp to moist, loose to medium
dense,silty,fine to medium coarse SAND;some angular gravel.
@ 1 '/2 to 2 ft.: Soil is difficult to excavate with hand auger. Chemical Analysis
_ Possibly grading into reddish brown, moist,weakly cemented,
silty SANDSTONE.
@ 2 ft.: Practical refusal encountered with hand auger. Boring
terminated.
s,
101
3.0
Remarks:2'w of lower wall,approx.25'N.of S.residence wall.
Groundwater not encountered.
Caving not observed.
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Boring Log 8-1
' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC,
_ GEOTECHNIc4L ANO MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
_ 619.851.8683PH,619.501.9511 FAx
www.SoLrDRocKENGrNEERs..com
u_ Boring No.B-2
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC. Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Project
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIroRNIA 92160
192 Pacific View Lane,Encinitas,California 92024
Project No: 61000228-01 Date: 11/9/06
65 Date Drilled: Thursday,November 9,2006 Sampled by: RDP
U
a) E
co
Ground Elev.
o o a o feet,MSL: 200'± est.with landscape construction Ian Logged by: RDP
�, Reviewed
CL CL Y 3 N o :� Method of Drilling: 3-inch dia.hand auger b : RDP
O O — O O (d
D m � m U
Drive Wt. lbs. : 35 Drop in.: 30±
Description 1 Interpretation Lab Tests/Other
010 0 SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL
@ 0 to 3 ft.: Reddish brown,damp to moist, loose to medium
dense,silty,fine to medium SAND;scattered subangular to
angular gravel.
Maximum Density Direct Shear
@ 3 ft.: Soil is dense and difficult to excavate with hand auger.
Practical refusal with hand auger. Boring terminated.
51
,s
10/
3.0
Remarks:
Groundwater not encountered.
Caving not observed.
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Borin Log B-2
' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND NATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
_ 619.851.8683PH,619.501.9511 FAx
www.SoLrDRocKENGrNEERs..com
Boring No.B-3
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC. Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Project
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 92160
PO Box 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 192 Pacific View Lane,Encinitas,California 92024
Project No: 61000228-01 Date: 1119/06
Date Drilled: Thursday,November 9,2006 Sampled by: RDP
53' CL
a� E U) Ground Elev.
CL ±feet,MSL : 202' est.with landscape construction Ian Logged by: RDP
a� on
co C
E 0 o T o
Reviewed
°
. Method of Drilling: 3-inch dia,hand auger by: RDP
....... d Y j 3 N
N j O O c6
Drive Wt. lbs. : 35 Drop in.: 30±
Description 1 Interpretation Lab Tests/Other
Oro SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL
@ 0 to 2 ft.: Reddish brown,damp to moist, loose to medium
dense,silty,fine to medium SAND.
Grain Size(Sieve)Analysis
@ 2 ft.: Soil is increasingly well compacted. Practical refusal with
hand auger. Boring terminated.
5/
d_ 1.0
Iol
3.0
Remarks: 5'W of top of slope,2'N of north wall of residence,on slope.
Groundwater not encountered.
Caving not observed.
- 61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation SorIng Log 8-3
' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEO7ECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
_ 61-9.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAX
www.SoLiDRocKENGiNEERs..com
Boring No.B-4
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC. Pacific View Lane Wall Evaluation Project
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO BOX 600277,SAN DEGo,CAuroRNIA 92160 192 Pacific View Lane,Encinitas,California 92024
Project No: 61000228-01 Date: 11/9/06
a 65 Date Drilled: Thursday,November 9,2006 Sampled by: RDP
Z5 � c Ground Elev.
E "' (feet,MSL: 204'± est.with landscape construction Ian Logged by: RDP
0 c O
Z5 �, � 6 Reviewed
° Method of Drilling: 3-inch dia.hand auger b : RDP
:W
Cl- Y >- O O Co
N
o m o m o Drive Wt. lbs. : 35 Drop in.: 30t
Description I Interpretation Lab Tests/Other
0/0 SM UNDOCUMENTED FILL
@ 0 to 2 ft.: Olive brown, moist, loose to medium dense,silty,fine
to coarse SAND.
@ 5-7 ft.: Soil appears to transition into moist,weakly cemented,
-- 6 silty SANDSTONE.
@ 7ft.: Boring terminated.
,o Note: Depth measured from top of adjacent cut slope.
Remarks: 40'W 810'N of NE corner of house
Groundwater not encountered.
Caving not observed.
61000228-01 Pacific view Lane Wall Evaluation Boring Log 8-4
' 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
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report
Appendix B
Laboratory Testing
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Proposal for Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 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 D 1557-91. The results of these tests are summarized below.
Summary of Maximum Density Test Results
Maximum
Sample Description Sample Density ptimum Moisture
y
Location (PO (%)
(p
_ Brown, silty;fine to medium SAND B-2 at 0-3' 133.0 8.0
Grain Size(Sieve)Analysis Test
The sieve analysis (grain size distribution) of selected representative soil samples were evaluated in general
accordance with ASTM C 136 or D 422. The results of these tests are summarized below.
Summary of Sieve Analysis Test Results
(Percent Passing Per Sieve Size)
Sample Location No.4 No.10 No.40 No.100 No.200
B-3 @ 0-2' 99 99 81 32 26
Specification - - - - -
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Laboratory Testing Appendix
' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING INC.
_ GEDTECNNIca AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 91160
_ 619.851.8683 PH,619.501.9511 FAx
www.SoLrDRocxENGrNEERs.com
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Proposal for Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Page 2 of 2
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 Sample Cohesion Phi Angle
Location (psf) (deg.)
Fine sandy SILT B-2 at 0-3' 75 33
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
Minimum Resistivity Sulfate Chloride
Sample Location pH Content Content
(ohm-cm) N (ppm)
B-1 @ 1 %-2' 7.4 4700 0.005 10
61000228-01 Pacific View Lane Wall Laboratory TestIng Appendix
' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ CiEOTECNN c,4L AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
r 519.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
www.SOL IDROCKENGINEERS.LbM
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report
Appendix C
Standard Specifications for Grading Projects
Standard Speciftca6ons for Grading Projects Revised August 2005
Page 1
SECTION 1 —GENERAL
The guidelines contained herein and the standard details attached hereto represent SRE's standard recommendations
for grading and other associated operations on construction projects.These guidelines should be considered a portion of
the project specifications. Recommendations contained in the body of the previously presented soils report shall
supersede the recommendations and/or requirements as specified herein. Disputes arising out of interpretation of the
recommendations contained in the soils report, or specifications contained herein, shall be interpreted by the project
geotechnical consultant.
SECTION 2—RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROJECT PERSONNEL
The Qeotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services sufficient to assure that geotechnical
construction is performed in general conformance with project specifications and standard grading practices. The
geotechnical consultant should report any deviations to the client or is authorized representative.
The client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized representative has the
responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. He shall authorize or cause
to have authorized the Contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the
Client or his authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all concerned
parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project.
The contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading and other
associated operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to, earthwork in accordance with the project
plans,specifications and controlling agency requirements.
SECTION 3—PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING
A preconstruction site meeting shall be arranged by the owner and/or client and shall include the grading contractor, the
®' design engineer, the geotechnical consultant, owner's representative and representatives of the appropriate governing
authorities.
-- SECTION 4—SITE PREPARATION
The client or contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for the project prior, during
and / or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to
proceeding with grading operations.
Clearing and grubbing should consists of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees, root of
_ trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the
outside of all proposed excavation and fill areas.
Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including underground
pipelines,septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.)and other man-made surface and
subsurface improvements from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping and/or
rerouting pipelines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the
-- governing authorities and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of demolition.Trees, plants, or
man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished, should be protected by the contractor from damage
or injury.
Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demolition operations should be wasted from areas to be graded and
Standard Specs for Grading Projects Template
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,San Diego,Ca/ifomia 92160
619.851.8683 ph.,6!9.501.951!fax
— Standard Speciflcafions for Grading Projects Revised August 2005
Page 2
disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be performed under the observation of the
geotechnical consultant.
® SECTION 5-SITE PROTECTION
Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the contractor_ Unless other provisions
are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project should not be
considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas form the requirements for site protection until such time as the entire
project is complete as identified by the geotechnical consultant,the client and the regulating agencies.
Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site
from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage.Temporary provisions should be made during
the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be
avoided,pumps should be kept on had to continually remove water during periods of rainfall.
Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling,
structural distress and other adverse conditions as determined by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected
should be classified as unsuitable materials and should be subject to over excavation and replacement with compacted fill
or other remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the geotechnical
consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g., back cuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed
project and therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by
the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the regulating
agencies. When deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant or governing agencies the contractor shall install
check dams, desilting basins,and bags or other drainage control measures.
In relatively level areas and/or slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depth of greater than 1.0
foot,the soil should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with applicable specifications.Where
affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture
conditioning in-place, followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with applicable grading guidelines herein maybe
attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be overexcavated and replaced as
compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein. As field conditions dictate, the geotechnical
consultant may recommend other slope repair procedures.
SECTION 6-EXCAVATIONS
Unsuitable Materials
Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recommendations of the geotechnical
consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible
natural soils and fractured,weathered, soft bedrock and non-engineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials.
Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture conditions should be
overexcavated, moisture conditioned as needed, at or above optimum moisture condition prior to placement as
compacted fill.
If during the course of grading, adverse geotechnical conditions are exposed which were not anticipated in the
- preliminary soils report as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, additional exploration, analysis and
Standard Specs for Grading Projects Template
SOLID ROCK ENGINEEPiNG,INC.
GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,San Diego,Cafifomia 92160
- 619.851.8683 ph.,619.501.9511 fax
Standard Specificafions for Grading Projects Revised August 2005
Page 3
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.
CutfFill Transitions
Cut/fill transitions are defined as areas where the indicated structure is founded on or over the transition
between cut or native soil and compacted fill. All pad areas, including side yard terrain, containing both cut and
fill materials,transitions,should be over-excavated to a depth of H/3 feet and replaced with a uniform compacted
fill blanket where H is measured as the deepest fill from the bottom of the foundation down to native material.
The minimum depth of over-excavation shall be three feet.Actual depth of over-excavation may vary and should
be delineated by the geotechnical consultant during grading.
For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the top-
-- of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm drainage swale and/or an appropriate pad gradient. A
gradient in soil areas was from the top-of-slopes of 2 percent or greater is recommended.
SECTION 7—COMPACTED FILL
All fill materials should have fill quality, placement,conditioning and compaction as specified below or as approved by the
geotechnical consultant.
Fill Material Quality
Excavated on-site or import materials which are acceptable to the geotechnical consultant may be utilized as
compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. All
import materials anticipated for use on-site should be sampled, tested and approved prior to placement in
conformance with the requirements outlined below in Section 7.2.
Rocks 8 inches in maximum and smaller may be utilized within compacted fill provided sufficient fill material is
placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock to effectively fill rock voids. The amount of rock
should not exceed 40 percent by dry weight passing the 114 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 kr Grading Projects Template
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,San Diego,Califomia 92160
619.851.8683 ph.,619.501.9511 fax
Standard Specificaffons for Grading Projects Revised August 2005
Page 4
Placement of Fill
Prior to placement of fill material, the geotechnical consultant should inspect the area to receive fill. After
inspection and approval the exposed ground surface should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches. The scarified
material should be conditioned (i.e. moisture added or air dried) to achieve a moisture content at or slightly
above optimum moisture conditions and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum density or as
— otherwise recommended in the soils report or by appropriate government agencies.
Compacted fill should then be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness prior to
compaction. Each lift should be moisture content at or slightly above optimum and thoroughly compacted by
-° mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated
in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved.
The contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and watering apparatus
on the job site to handle fill being placed in consideration of moisture retention properties of the materials and
weather conditions.
When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), horizontal
keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope area. Keying and benching should be
sufficient to provide at least six-foot wide benches and a minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the
firm natural ground, firm bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area
subsequent to keying and benching until the geotechnical consultant has reviewed the area. Material generated
by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away form the bench are to allow for the recommended
review of the horizontal bench prior to placement of fill.Typical keying and benching details have been included
within the accompanying Plates.
With a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills, temporary slopes (false
slopes)may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false slope, benching should be conducted in the same
manner as above described. At least a three-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of
adjacent approved compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least three-
- foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved.
Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading delay,the exposed surface
or previously compacted fill should be processed by scarification, moisture conditioning as needed to at or
slightly above optimum moisture content, thoroughly blended and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of
laboratory maximum dry density. Where unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one foot, the
unsuitable materials should be overexcavated.
Following a period of flooding, rainfall or over-watering by other means, no additional fill should be placed until
damage assessments have been made and remedial grading performed as described herein.
Rocks 8 inches in maximum dimensions and smaller may be utilized in the compacted fill provided the fill is
placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. No oversize material should be used within 5 feet of
finished pad grade or within 2 feet of subsurface utilities. Rocks 8 inches up to four feet maximum dimension
should be placed below the upper five feet of any fill and should not be closer than 10 feet to any slope face.
These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate. Where practical, oversized material
should not be placed below areas where structures or deep utilities are proposed.Oversized material should be
placed in windrows on a clean,overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select
native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher)should be placed and thoroughly flooded over and around
Standard Specs for Grading Projects Template
SOUR ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,San Diego,Califomia 92160
619.851.8683 ph.,619.501.9511 fax
Standard Speciftcafions for Grading Pmjects Revised August 2005
Page 5
all Windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so that
successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane. It may be possible to dispose of
individual larger rocks as field conditions dictate and as recommended by the geotechnical consultant at the time
of placement.
The contractor should assist the geotechnical consultant and/or his representative by digging test pits for
removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill.The contractor should provide this work at no additional
cost to the owner or contractor's client.
Fill should be tested by the geotechnical consultant for compliance with the recommended relative compaction
and moisture conditions. Field density testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test D1556-82, D2922-81.
Tests should be conducted at a minimum of two vertical feet or 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Fill found not to
be the minimum recommended degree of compaction should be removed or otherwise handled as
recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
Fill Slopes
Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies,
permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Except as specifically recommended
in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes should be overbuilt and cut back to grade, exposing the firm,
compacted fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired
results are not achieved,the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of
the geotechnical consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted dope
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, dope 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 fit 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
_
fit. Fill dope faces should be thoroughly compacted at intervals not exceeding four feet in vertical slope height, or the
capacity of available equipment,whichever is less.
Where placement of fill above a natural slope or above a cut slope is proposed, the fill slope configuration should be
adopted as presented in the accompanying Standard Details. For pad areas above fill slopes,positive drainage should be
established away from the top-of-slope.This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and pad gradients of at least 2 percent.
SECTION 8—TRENCH BACKFIH
Utility and/or other trench backfil should, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means a minimum of 90
percent of the laboratory maximum density.Within slab areas,but outside the influence of foundations,trenches up to one foot wide
and two feet deep may be backfiled with sand and consolidated by jetting,flooding or by mechanical means. If on-site materials are
utilized, they should be wheel rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches,density testing
may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary,based on review of backfll operations during construction by the
geotechnical consultant.
If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, the contractor
Standard Specs for Grading Projects Template
w SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,San Diego,Calffomia 92160
�- 619.851,8683 ph.,619.501.9511 fax
- Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised August 2005
Page 6
may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean granular material,
which should be thoroughly jetted in-place above the conduit,prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures.Other methods of
utility trench compaction may also be appropriate,upon review of the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction.
In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the
procedures should be considered subject to review by the geotechnical consultant. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not
recommended in slope areas.
SECTION 9—RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls should be designed on a project-by-project basis when wall heights and soil parameters are determined. Retaining
wail backfill should consist of well-drained,very low expansive soil. Drains should be installed behind the walls to reduce the potential
for build up of hydrostatic pressure.Retaining wall drain details are provided in the attached Plates.
Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the most recent version of
ASTM D1557.Compaction should be accomplished by light hand-operated or walk-behind equipment.
SECTION 10—DRAINAGE
Where deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, canyon subdrain systems should be installed in accordance with the
attached plates. Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, dope stabiizations or sidehll masses, should be installed in
accordance with the specifications of the accompanying attached plates.Roof,pad and slope drainage should be directed away from
- slopes and structures to suitable areas via non-erodible devices(i.e.,gutters,down spouts,concrete swales).
For drainage in extensively landscaped areas near structures, (i.e., within six feet) a minimum of 5 percent gradient away from the
structure should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2 percent gradient should be maintained over the remainder of the site.
Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the lift of the project. Property owners
should be made aware that altering drainage patterns could be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance.
SECTION 11—SLOPE MAINTENANCE
Landscape Plants
In order to enhance surticial dope 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 and area may also be
appropriate. A Landscape Architect should be the best party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting
configuration.
Irrigation
Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces,not placed in trenches excavated into dope faces.
Repai r
As a precautionary measure,plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from
- saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended,beginning with the period of
time prior to landscape planting.If slope failures occur,the geotechnical consultant should be contacted for a field review of
site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair.
Standard Specs for Giadng Projects Template
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,San Diego,Califomia 92160
`° 6!9.851.8683 ph.,619.501.9511 fax
-----------
—_-_-_ — --tea_ .�_,�
PROJECTED PLANE
I TO I MAXM M FROM TOE
OF SLOPE TO A-00§OVED GROUND ____ ._' -- REMOVE FILL SLOPE
_�—_— —
NATURAL --?—" CTWWAL UNSUITABLE
GROUND — — -- MATERIAL
_ BENCH T—BENCH
. %MIN. — HEIGHT
r MIN.
KEY DEPTH LOWEST BENCH
(KEY)
--PACTEEQ
____emu_-!=-.�•' FILL-OVER-CUT
SLOPE
NATURAL -- _ -- — 4-TYPICAL
GROUND
13EN BENCH
—�� �• HEIGHT
'� —•2%MIN: ►-- REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
NCH
MATERIAL
LOWEST BE -
r MIN.
KEY DEPTH
CUT FACE
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR
TO FILL PLAcEmE IT TO ASSURE CUT FACE
ADEQUATE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS TO BE OONSTPA)=M PRIOR
TO FILL PLACEMENT j
NATURAL / CUT-OVER-FILL
GROUND SLOPE
OVERBUILT AND .f=
TRIM BACK �=—_
'`- — For Subdrains See -
_,�_�
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
FINISH GRADE
PACE E—— ------------------
--------30�
or
rii1Z-5-Z-- ----------------------- JE I I D OR FLOODED
In Largest dimensbm
• Excavate a trench In the compacted
fig deep enough to bury all the rock
flooded In place to fill all the volds.
• Do not bury rock within 10 feet of
finish grade.
• Windrow of buried rock shag be
parallel to the fir*9W slope fit ELEVATION A-At
PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
JETTED OR FLOODED—
GRANULAR MATERIAL
STANDARD SPECIFICA 77ONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Oversized Rock Disposal Detail
PO Box 600277, San Diego, Califomia 92160
619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax JOB No. DA TE DETAIL
Revised July 2005 B
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
NATURAL
GROUND
5 UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
2' MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP
HOG RING 77ED EVERY 6 FEET
CALTRANS CLASS 11
PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK
FILTER FA13RIC
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140 OR
APPROVED "'-COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL
EQUIVALENT) BE MINIMUM W DIAMETER
SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORAI ED
CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL
PERFORATED PIPE FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION
DESIGN 6-4,MIN.
FINISHED
GRADE 10' MIN. BACKFILL
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140 OR
APPROVED
NON-PERFORATED71 51 MIN. #2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTiER
64 FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS 11
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INc. STANDARD SPECIFICA T70NS FoR GRADiNG PRojEcTs
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERIN(;CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277, San Diego, Califomia 92160 Canyon Subdrains Detail
619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax
JOB No. DA TE DETA&
Revised July 2005 c
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
OUTLET PIPES
4-4o NON-PERFORATED PIPE, ------
100' MAYL O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX. O.C.VER71CALLY OR FLATTER
BENCHING
KEY
DEPTHIE - 2%
2' MIN. KEY WIDTH /,--'-�1�2- MIN�. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP
POSITIVE SEAL HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET
SHOULD BE
PROVIDED AT FILXER FABRIC
THEJO (MIRAFI 140 OR
0 APPROVED
OUTLET PIPE EQUIVALENT)
CALTRANS CLASS 11 COI-LECTOR PIPE TO
PERMEABLE OR#2 ROCK OUTLET PIPE
(3FT.3/FT.) WRAPPED IN
FILTER FABRIC
* SUBDRAJN INSTALLATION Subdrain colkxAor pipe shall be installed with perforations down or,
unless odwwwIse designated by the geotechnical consukanL Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated
pipe. The subdraln pipe shall have at least 8 perforations unifoffnly spaced per foot. Perforation shall
be Y40 to W I ddW holes am used. AD subdrain pipes shall have a gradent at least 2%towaids the
* SUBDRAIN-PIPE-Subdraln pipe shall be ASTM D2761. SDR 23.6-or ASTM D1627, Schedule 40, or
ASTM D3034,SDR 215. Schedule 40 PoWnyl Chloride Plastic QWC) pipe.
* All outlet pipe shall be pkwed In a trench no wider than twice the subdrain pipe. Pipe shall be In soil
of SE�>30 Wed or flooded In place except for the outside 6 feet which shall be native soil backfill.
STANDARD SPECIFICA77ONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS
SOLID RocK ENGINEERING,INc.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MA TERIALs ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Buttress or Replacement Fill Subdrains Detail
PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160
619-851.8683, 619,501.951
JOB No. DATE DETA&
_
Revised July 2005 D
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.601L BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO
REtAiNING
ob
WALL;WATERPROOFING . 6 -(MfRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
PIfR'ARCHIt_1ffC'TA4"IS EQUIVALENT)**
MIN, .3J4m-1-'1/2* CLEAN GRAVEL
FINISH GRADE,---- 0 FORATEb
4-4MINSDIAMETER PER
PIP'E_(d_CHEDULE 40 OR-
EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
ORIENTED:DOWN AS DEPICTED
MINIMUM 1' PERCENT GRADIENT
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
WALL FOOTING
fU�l 3a MIN.
COmVPEfENf BEDROck OR MATERIAL
NOT TO SCALE
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
Specifications for Caltrans
Class 2 Permeable Material
U.S.Standard Percent *BASED ON ASTM oi6wr
Sieve Size Passing
1-inch 100 **IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
(SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4-inch 90-100 3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVELs FILTER FABRIC MAY BE
3/8-inch 40-100 DELETED. CALTRAN6 CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
No.4 25-40 MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 99
No.8 18-33 PERCEWf_RELATIVE COMPACTION*
No.30 5-15 NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN
OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE To GRAVEL OF
No.50 0-7 CLASS 2.INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE
No.200 0-3
Sand Equivalent>75 WITH MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICA71ONS.
SOLID RoCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
PO Box 600277, San Diego, Califomia 92160 1
619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax JOB No. DATE DETAIL
Revised July 2005 E
3/4(a,,,.Ig)'yt(H)
NATIVE SOIL
PE
NATIVE SOIL w
BASEMENT
o
_
t0
/A\
K0ytH �
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
K0= (Assumes basement walls are cast neat against soil and are resisted from movement or rotation
by ground floor
yt= pcf(Total unit weight of"Native"or formational soil).
ama= g(Peak acceleration at ground surface with 10%probability of exceedance in 50 yrs.)
H =depth of basement
g=earth's gravity
NOTES:
Groundwater assumed below basement
Ro=(1/2) Koyt(H2)/F.S. F.S. = 1.0*
PE=3/8 (ama)g)yt(H2)
"Designer should use factors of safety appropriate for load conditions.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC. At Rest Earth Pressures-Basement
Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Consultants
PO Box 600277,San Diego,CA 92160 PROJECT No. DATE Detail
619.851.8683 ph.,619.501.9511 fax F
Slab and reinforcing per structural engineer
or soil report.
Moisture barrier per architect or soil report.
O O
Soil improvement rovem
ent for slab support per ort '
e soil report.ort.
® ® cturai:faotinc}diiriefisbnspe�:soll:report. . . .:. . .
: footing:reinfomefnent:perstryctraral:engineer::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -
or:soil.report
® 1. . ..tf.... . .. .a durierisidris: ersbp
. . . . . . . . . .
9. . . . . . . . .P. . . . . . . . . . .
_._ I? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
® i-''
d ALLUVIUM,UNDOCUMENTED FILL SOIL,OR
OTHER UNSUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL.
OLDER ALLUVIUM,FORMATIONAL SOIL OR"
—"" OTHER SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL.
xxsxxsM�ss:
sx�
Footing embedment into competent soils
^x xxxxsxssx-x sx�
--- per soil report.Not less than six inches.
*Designer should use factors of safety appropriate for load conditions.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC. Deepened Footing Detail
Geotechnical and Materials Engineering Consultants
PO Box 600277,San Diego,CA 92160 PROJECT No. DATE Detail
619.851.8683 ph.,619.501.9511 fax
G
Mr. Chris Gregg January 8, 2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report
Appendix D
General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners
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:
♦ Sparse and/or improper planting and maintenance of slopes and yards.
_. ♦ Improper maintenance of drainage devices.
♦ Leaking of pressurized and non-pressurized water and sewer lines.
♦ Over watering of slopes and yards, diversion of runoff over slopes, alteration of finish grade and
removal of drainage slopes and swales.
♦ Foot traffic on slopes, which destroys vegetation and increases erosion potential.
EROSION REDUCTION GUIDELINES
Erosion potential is increased when bare soil is left exposed to weather. Care should be taken to provide
ground cover at all times, but particularly during the winter months. Some suggestions for soil-stabilizing
ground covers are provided below:
-- ♦ Grass or other fast growing, ground-covering plants may be an inexpensive and effective material
for erosion control. The optimum goal of planting slopes is to achieve a dense growth of
vegetation (which includes plants of varying root depths) requiring little irrigation. Plants having
— shallow root systems and/or requiring abundant water(many types of ice plant) are poor choices
for slope-stabilizing ground covers. To find the best seed mixtures and plants for your area, check
with a landscape architect, local nursery or the United States Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service.
♦ Mulches help retain soil moisture and provide ground protection from rain damage. They also
provide a favorable environment for starting and growing plants. Easily obtained mulches include
grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips and straw. Commercial application of wood fibers
combined with various types of seed and fertilizer(hydraulic mulching) may also be effective in
_. stabilizing slopes.
♦ Mats of excelsior,jute netting and plastic sheets can be effective temporary covers, but they
should be in contact with soil and fastened securely to work effectively.
General Property Maintenance Guidelines Revised 1006
' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEOTECMMMU AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL TANTS
Po Box 600277,SAN DIEGO,GuFoRNU 91160
_ 619,851.8683PM,,619.501.9511 FAx
www.SoLrDRocKENGzNEERs.com
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:
♦ In general, roof and yard runoff should be directed away from structures and conducted to either
the street of storm drain by appropriate erosion-control devices, such as graded swales, rain
gutters and downspouts, sidewalks, drainage pipes or ground gutters. Discharge from rain gutters
and downspouts should not be directed into existing sub-drains, as this may overload the
drainage system. Care should be taken that the slopes, terraces and berms (ridges at the crown
of slopes) provided for proper lot drainage are not disturbed, Drainage behind retaining walls
should also be maintained as well and designed. Drainage systems should not be altered without
professional consultation.
♦ Drains, including rain gutters and downspouts, should be kept clean and unclogged. Terrace
drains and concrete-lined brow ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage.
Drain outlets and weep holes in retaining walls should also be routinely checked and cleared of
debris. The performance of these drainage systems should be periodically tested. Problems, such
as erosive gullying, loss of slope-stabilizing vegetation or ponding of water, should be corrected
as soon as possible.
♦ Check before and after major storms to see that drains, gutters, downspouts and ditches are
clear and that vegetation is in place on slopes. Spot seed any bare areas, Check with a
-- landscape architect or local nursery for advice.
♦ Leakage from swimming or decorative pools, water lines, etc, should be repaired as soon as
possible. Wet spots on the property may indicate a broken line.
♦ Landscaping watering should be limited to the minimum necessary to maintain plant vigor.
♦ Animal burrows should be filled with compacted soil or sand-cement slurry since they may cause
diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion or cause shallow slope failures.
♦ Whenever property owners plan significant topographic modifications of their lots or slopes, a
geotechnical consultant should be contacted. Over-steepening of slopes may result in a need for
expensive retaining devices, while undercutting of the base of slopes may lead to slope instability
or failure. These modifications should not be undertaken without expert consultation.
♦ If unusual cracking, settling or soil failure occurs, the property owner should consult a
geotechnical consultant immediately.
General Property Maintenance Guidelines Revised 2006
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECHNICAL ANDMATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSUL TANTS
PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
_ 619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAX
WWW.SbLIDROCKENGINEERS.COM
F60
December 7, 2007
Project No. 61000228-02
Mr, Chris Gregg
192 Pacific View Lane
Encinitas, California 92024
Submitted via hand delivery
Subject: Summary of Field Density Tests for Pacific View Lane Wall Project
located at 192 Pacific View Lane, Encinitas, California 92024
INTRODUCTION
-- In accordance with your request, Solid Rock Engineering, Inc. has provided field density testing services
for the Pacific View Lane wall project located at 192 Pacific .
--- View Lane in Encinitas, California. Our services for this
phase of the work consisted of on-call field density testing of
_- compacted fill for the masonry wall backfill in the rear and
side yard. This limited report summarizes our services and
-- presents the results of the field and laboratory tests
performed for this project. a
D-0
TESTING OPERATIONS
Our services included four site visits between October 2, 2007 and December 6, 2007. While on site, we
observed foundation dimensions and foundation preparation for conformance with the approved plans. In
addition, field technicians visited the site to perform field density tests. The tests were performed in general
accordance with ASTM D1556(Sand Cone Method). The results of the field density tests are presented in
Appendix A to the rear of this document.
Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples of the soil that was used for backfill in order
to evaluate the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. Soil Type No. 1, consisted of the on-
61000228-02 Pacific View Lane WaH Summary of FDT.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.SoLrDRocKENGiNEERs.com
Chris Gregg December 7,2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-02
Summary of Field Density Testing Services 2
site medium brown, silty, fine to medium SAND. The onsite soils were used in the completion of the backfill
- and grading operations.
Laboratory testing of the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content was conducted in general
accordance with ASTM D1557-91. The results of the laboratory tests are presented in Table 1, Maximum
Density Test Results.
When a field density test was performed that resulted in less than the specified relative compaction, the
area was generally reworked and a retest performed. The specified relative compaction was 90 percent of
the maximum dry density for the wall backfill.
SUMMARY
Our technicians visited the site as requested by the property owner. The field density tests performed in the
backfill indicated the fill tested meets or exceeds the specified allowable relative compaction, after retesting
areas that were reworked, In addition,the wall construction parameters indicated above generally conformed
to the approved documents.
LIMITATIONS
The compaction testing services outlined in this report have been conducted in general accordance with
current practice and standard of care exercised by soils engineering consultants performing similar tasks in
this area at this time. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the opinions presented in this
report. The reported test results represent the relative compaction at the locations tested at that time. It is
important to note that the precision of field density tests is not exact and variations should be expected
w with location and time. Further, we did not provide continuous observation of the earthwork operations and
can therefore provide no opinion regarding the uniformity, consistency, or density of the soil beyond the
specific test locations. The reported locations and depths of the density tests are estimated based on cor-
relations with the improvement plans. Further accuracy is not implied.
61000228-02 Pacific View Lane Wall Summary of FDT.doc
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO Box 600277,SAN DIEGO,CAUFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
wwW.SoLIDROcKENGINEvmcoM
_ Chris Gregg December 7,2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-02
Summary of Field Density Testing Services 3
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you for this project. Should you have any ques-
tions regarding this report, please feel free to contact the undersigned .8 83.
Respectfully submitted,
SOUDDRROCK ENGINEERING,INC. �Qti0 'QQ t`y
co C Z �
l v �` N0.2568 u' m
.r cc EXP. t•2.°"
R. Douglas Pro s, PE, GE �CFp GPI.
-- Principal Engine r �qr rECH�� Q�`P
GE 2568, Expires December 31, 2008 FOF CA1.�F�
- Distribution: (3)Addressee
Attachments:
Appendix A-Field Density Test Results
Table 1 -Maximum Density Test Results
61000228-02 Pacific View Lane Wall Summary of FDT.doc
— SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC,
GEOTECNNICAL AND NATERIALS ENGOYEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO Box 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAX
www.SOLIDROCKENGINEERS.cvm
Chris Gregg December 7,2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-02
Summary of Field Density Testing Services
APPENDIX A
Field Density Test Results
61000228-02 Pacific View Lane Wa#Summaiy of FDT.doc
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING INC.
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO Box 600277,SAN DIEGO,CAUFORNU 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAX
www.SoLrDRocKENGzivEERs.com com
Summary of Field Density Test Data
Project Name:Pacific View Wall Evaluation
Project No.:61000228-02
Test Test Test Elevation Wet Percent Dry Max. Relative Specified ass/
No. Date of Test Location or Depth Density Moisture Density Density Compaction Compaction
(ft.) (Pcf) NO (Pcf) (Pcf) 014 ON Fail
1 12/6/2007 WB 10'S and 12'W of SW Comer of House 0.0 134.8 10.2 122.3 133.0 92.0 90 Pass
2 12/6/2007 WB 15'W of NE Comer of House 0.0 137.2 10.4 124.3 133.0 93.4 90 Pass
Chris Gregg December 7,2007
Pacific View Lane Wall Project Project No. 61000228-02
Summary of Field Density Testing Services
Table 1 — Maximum Density Test Results
Soil Maximum Optimum
Type Description Dry Density Moisture
Content
No. (pco N
1 Medium brown, silty SAND 133.0 8.0
61000228-02 Pacific View Lane Wall Summary of FDT.doc
STE SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,.INC,
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
Po Box 600277,SAN DIEGo,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 m,619.501.9511 FAx
WWW.SOLTOROCKENGZNEERS.COM