2005-6 G LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION REPORT FOR
URA NIA AVENUE POOL EVALUATION
1289 URANIA AVENUE, ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
® Mr. Brennan Warde
Artificial Rock Concepts
1289 Urania Avenue
Encinitas, California 92024
PREPARED BY.
SOLD ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160
D r d
` December 11, 2005
DEC 2 J 20"" Project No. 61000102-01
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Poo/Evaluation Limited Geotechnicai Report
' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECNNIGIL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600177,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
December 11,2005
Project No. 61000102-01
Mr. Brennan Wardle
Artificial Rock Concepts
1289 Urania Avenue
Encinitas, California 92024
Subject: Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report for
Proposed Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation,
Encinitas, California 92024
Dear Mr. Wardle:
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 pool project. Specifically,our report addresses
geotechnical aspects of the proposed project including earthwork,foundation design, and retaining wall earth
pressures.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report,
please feel free to contact the undersigned at 619.851.8683.
Respectfully, F ESSion
F til
2 568
u `r 00.GtL
R. Douglas Provins, PE, GE
Principal Geotechnical Engineer OTECN� 0
GE 2568,expires December 31,200 lgTE OF e
Distribution: (4)Addressee
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Poo/Eva luation Limited Geotechnical Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
STEM GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600177,SAN DIEGO,CAUFORMm 91160
619.851.8683 PH,619.501.9511 FAx
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................1
2. SCOPE OF SERV ICES..............................................................................................................................................1
3. SITE DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................................................1
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.................................................................................................................................1
5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION..................................................................................................................................2
6. SITE GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................................2
6.1. TOPSOIL/UNDOCUMENTED FILL...............................................................................................................................2
6.2. BAYPOINT FORMATION............................................................................................................................................2
6.3. SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER.....................................................................................................................3
7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS..............................................................................................................................................3
7.1. SURFACE RUPTURE................................................................................................................................................3
7.2. SEISMICITY AND GROUND MOTION...........................................................................................................................3
7.3. ALQUIST-PRIOLO ZONES.........................................................................................................................................4
7.4. LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREAD................................................................. ...............................4
7.5. LANDSLIDES..........................................................................................................................................................5
7.6. SEICHES AND EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED FLOODING.......................................................................................................5
8. LABORATORY TESTING..........................................................................................................................................5
9. CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................................................................5
10. RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................................................................6
10.1. PLAN AND SPECIFICATION REVIEW...........................................................................................................................7
10.2. EXCAVATION AND GRADING OBSERVATION................................................................................................................7
10.3. POOL CONSTRUCTION............................................................................................................................................7
m 10.4. EARTHWORK.........................................................................................................................................................7
10.4.1. SITE PREPARATION...........................................................................................................................................8
10.4.2. FILL COMPACTION.............................................................................................................................................9
10.4.3. MATERIAL FOR FILL...........................................................................................................................................9
-- 10.4.4. BULK/SHRINK AND MOISTURE CHARACTERISTICS.................................................................................................10
10.4.5. TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS...............................................................................................................................10
10.4.6. ADDITIONAL EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................11
10.5. SEISMIC PARAMETERS...........................................................................................................................................11
10.6. SURFACE DRAINAGE..............................................................................................................................................11
10.7. SOIL CORROSIVITY................................................................................................................................................12
10.8. RETAINING WALLS.................................................................................................................................................12
11. LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................................................12
12. SELECTED REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................14
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Limited Geotechnical Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
!RRM GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTAN75
PO Box 600277,SAN DIEGO,CAUFoRNIA 92160
619.851.8683PH,619.501.9511 FAx
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
-- Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report
Figures
Figure 1 —Site Location Map
Figure 2—Test Pit Location Map
Appendices
Appendix A—Logs of Exploratory Excavations
Appendix B—Laboratory Testing
Appendix D—Standard Specifications for Grading Projects
Appendix E—Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners
61000101-01 Urania Avenue Poo/Evaluation Limited Geotechnica/Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECHNicAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO Box 600277,SAN DIEGO,CAUFoRNfA 91160
619.851,8683PH,619.501,9511 FAx
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
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 proposed Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation project in Encinitas, California. The conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report are based on our subsurface exploration, review of available geological
reports and plans, evaluation of soil samples collected from the site, and our experience with similar soil and geologic
conditions. The scope of services provided during this evaluation was generally as described in our Proposal No.
61000102-01, 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 geologic hazard maps.
■ Performance of a subsurface geotechnical evaluation including excavation, sampling and logging of two
shallow exploratory test pits at the site.The purpose of the subsurface work was to better characterize the
subsurface materials for evaluation of relevant geologic and geotechnical parameters.
■ Evaluation of the samples obtained to characterize the following parameters:soil classification,expansion
index and grain size analysis.
■ Geotechnical analysis of the field and laboratory data obtained.
■ Preparation of this geotechnical report which includes the following discussions,conclusions and
recommendations***UPDATE***:
o A limited assessment of geologic conditions and hazards including seismicity and the effects of
earthquakes on the proposed structure, landslides,flooding, soil liquefaction, and subsidence.
Recommendations for plan and specification review,earthwork,drainage,foundation design,seismicity,
slabs,corrosivity, and retaining walls.
3. SITE DESCRIPTION
The property consists of a rectangular parcel located at 1289 Urania Avenue in Encinitas, California. The property is
bounded by Urania Avenue to the north, a wholesale nursery operation to the south, and similarly developed
properties to the east and west. The residence is typically accessed from the north of the property on Urania Avenue.
A Site Location Map is included as Figure 1.
4. PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS
Based on discussions with you and review of the available documents, we understand that the anticipated
construction for the proposed pool is expected to consist of installation of a short retaining wall parallel to and near
the south property line and construction of the pool near the rear of the yard. Due to the nature of the undocumented
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Limited Geotechnical Report
= SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO Box 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619,851.8583Pri,619.501,9511 FAx
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
— Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 2
soil at the rear of the property, as well as the close proximity of the wall and pool to one another, our firm was
retained to provide design parameters for the pool that considered the existing soil and proposed wall conditions.
5. SUBSURFACE EVALUATION
_ Our field exploration consisted of two shallow test pits on November 9, 2005. The test pits were excavated to depths
of approximately five feet below existing grade. Logs describing the observed subsurface conditions are attached as
Appendix B. The approximate test pit locations are presented in Figure 2.
Disturbed bulk and relatively undisturbed ring samples were obtained at selected locations and returned to our office.
Sample locations are indicated on the logs.
The lines designating the interface between soil units on the soil logs were estimated by interpolation and are rough
approximations. The actual transition between the materials may be abrupt or gradual, Further, soil conditions
between the excavations may be substantially different from those observed. It should be recognized that soil
conditions could change with the passage of time.
Excavation locations and elevations were established in the field by pacing and taping from existing improvements
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 site is located at an approximate elevation of 200 feet above sea level, within approximately 1 mile (12/3 km)of
the Pacific Ocean coastline and 3 3/4 miles(6 km)of the Rose Canyon Fault to the west. Based on our observations
at the site and review of available geologic literature, it appears that the site is mantled by shallow topsoil and
undocumented fill related to site landscaping and grading. The site appears to be underlain at depth by Baypoint
Formation. These materials are further described below.
6.1. Topsoil/Undocumented Fill
Based on the observations performed during our field investigation, the soil observed at and near the surface is
generally olive brown, gray brown and greenish gray, moist to wet, loose to medium dense, silty SAND.
Landscape-related organics were noted near the surface.
6.2. Baypoint Formation
The Baypoint Formation was not encountered during this limited evaluation, These materials are typically brown
to olive brown,damp to moist, weakly to moderately cemented, silty,fine to coarse grained SANDSTONE.
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Limited Geotechnical Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO Box 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
— Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 3
6.3. Surface Water and Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered during our investigation. Groundwater is not expected to effect 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
A detailed evaluation of geologic and seismic hazards was beyond the scope of this evaluation. However, 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. Several general, applicable comments are provided below. More detailed analysis can
be provided upon request.
7.1. Surface Rupture
Surface rupture is the result of movement on an active fault reaching the surface. No faults were observed
#" during our exploration of the site.
Based on our observations, experience and review of the referenced geotechnical and geologic literature, it is
our opinion that there is little probability of surface rupture due to faulting beneath the site. However, lurching
and ground cracking are a possibility as a result of a significant seismic event on a regional active fault.
— 7.2. Seismicity and Ground Motion
The subject site is located at approximate latitude of 32.0720 north and an approximate longitude of 117.2890
-- west. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately six kilometers west 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 gridded locations are then interpolated.
_ PSHA is a mathematical process based on probability and statistics that is used to estimate the mean number of
events per year in which the level of some ground parameter at the site exceeds a specified value. For this
study, the design parameter is peak ground acceleration. The peak ground acceleration is measured relative to
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Limited Geotechnical Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,ANC,
_ GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO Box 600177,SAN DIEGO,CAUFoRmm 91160
619.B51.8683PH,619.501.9511 FAx
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
-- Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No, 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 4
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 0.01 g.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.
Summary of Seismology and Seismic Parameters
USGS
Design Criteria Ground Acceleration
(g)
FEMA 302 Maximum Considered Earthquake Acceleration 0.55
(2%Probability of Exceedance in 50 years)
2001 CBC Upper Bound Earthquake Acceleration
(10%Probability of Exceedance in 100 years) 0.40
1997 UBC Design Basis Earthquake Acceleration 0.27
(10%Probability of Exceedance in 50 years)
7.3. Alquist-Priolo Zones
The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act is to regulate development near active faults so as to mitigate
the hazard of surface fault rupture. Based on our review of the referenced literature, the site is not located within
an Alquist-Priolo special study zone.
7.4. Liquefaction and Lateral Spread
Liquefaction is a process in which saturated soils lose grain-to-grain contact due to earthquakes or other sources
of ground shaking. The soil deposit temporarily behaves as a viscous fluid. 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.
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Limited Geotechnical Report
-- SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
STE GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600177,SAN DIEGO,CALiFoRNIA 92160
619.851,8683 PH,619,501,9511 FAx
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
— Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 5
Given the relatively dense nature of the soil encountered, the strength and age of the deposit, and the relative
lack of groundwater, the results of our evaluation indicate that the risk of liquefaction from ground shaking
caused by either the Design Basis Earthquake or the Maximum Considered Earthquake is remote.
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon that typically occurs on very gently sloping ground or on flat ground adjacent
to bodies of water. Due to the relative lack of nearby bodies of water, the risk of liquefaction-related lateral
spreading is considered remote.
Please note that this liquefaction opinion is preliminary based on the observed conditions in the upper seven feet
of soil, review of mapped geologic data, and our experience. A more complete evaluation can be provided upon
request.
7.5. Landslides
The site was generally flat or gently sloping with a small slope and grade break via retaining wall at the south
side of the property. It is our preliminary opinion that the potential failure of slopes on this project is very low. A
thorough landslide or slope stability evaluation was beyond the scope of services indicated in this evaluation.
More complete services can be provided upon request.
— 7.6. Seiches and Earthquake-Induced Flooding
Seiches are defined as earthquake-induced waves that develop in enclosed bodies of water during seismic
events. Nearby enclosed bodies of water are not observed or mapped. Accordingly, the risk of earthquake-
induced flooding from seiches is considered remote.
— 8. LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on selected bulk and relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the exploratory
excavations to further characterize the geotechnical conditions encountered at the site. The results of our laboratory
tests are incorporated into the test pit logs in Appendix A and are further described and summarized in Appendix B.
9. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this evaluation, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed Urania Avenue Pool
Evaluation project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the following recommendations and applicable
building codes are followed. Geotechnical considerations for the design and construction of the project include the
following;
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Poo/Evaluation Limited Geotechnical Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO Box 600277,SAN DrEGo,CAUSoRNIA 91160
619.851.9683 PH,619.501.9511 FAX
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
— Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 6
■ 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.
■ The existing topsoil and undocumented fills were generally silty SAND. One expansion index test indicated
low expansion potential. The pool design engineer should be provided with this information to acknowledge
that the pool is designed for this condition.
■ Due to the undocumented nature of the fill soil at the site, and the varying conditions of the proposed wall,
we recommend that the pool be designed as if it were a vanishing-edge pool. A grade beam or other footing
— should be constructed on the down slope (south) side of the pool. Further, the pool shell should be
reinforced and constructed as if it were to receive no support from the soil on the down slope (south)side of
the pool,
— ■ Many cantilevered retaining walls are designed for the "active" condition where they are allowed to rotate
out at the top of the wall up to approximately 0.2 to 0.5% of the wall height. Due to the sensitive nature of
the rigid swimming pool proposed above and behind the wall, it is our opinion that the wall should be
— designed for the"at-rest' condition. The "at-rest" condition would be designed to adequately resist induced
earth pressures without measurable wall rotation. The "at-rest" earth pressures used in wall design are
higher(more conservative)than the"active"earth pressures.
— ■ Due to the close proximity to the Rose Canyon Fault Zone and other significant seismic sources, the 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 and pool system to
resist loads from either design earthquake event, the additional seismic design loads will be measurable.
— ■ Abundant gravel and cobbles should generally not 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
the existing soils, may require extra effort to excavate. Cemented zones and concretions are possible within
the underlying terrace deposits.
■ Wall foundation and earth pressure design parameters were beyond the scope of this evaluation. These
services can be provided upon request.
■ 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 foundations, retaining walls
and pool. These recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard of practice
— at similar facilities in Southern California. If a specific subject is not addressed in this report, or if something is
unclear,we encourage the reader to contact our office for clarification.
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Limited Geotechnical Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
!RE GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 91160
619.851.8683 PH,619.501.9511 FAx
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No, 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 7
10.1.Plan and Specification Review
We recommend that the final foundation, grading plans and earthwork specifications be reviewed by SRE to
evaluate conformance with the intent of the recommendations of this report. Significant changes in the locations
or layout of the proposed improvements may require additional geotechnical evaluation.
_ 10.2.Excavation and Grading Observation
An experienced geotechnical consultant should observe foundation excavations and site grading. 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.Pool Construction
Due to the undocumented nature of the fill soil at the site, and the varying height and conditions of the proposed
wall,we recommend that the pool be designed as if it were a vanishing-edge pool.A grade beam or other footing
should be constructed on the down slope (south)side of the pool. The grade beam should extend approximately
one foot below the bottom of pool elevation. The grade beam should be supported in the same soil type as the
remainder of the pool. If Baypoint Formation SANDSTONE or other differing soils are encountered during
construction of the grade beam, our office should be contacted for direction.
._ Further, the pool shell along the south side of the pool should be reinforced and constructed as if it were free
standing and to receive no support from the soil on the down slope (south) side of the pool. The intention of this
recommendation is to limit the dependency of the pool on the wall and to reduce the potential adverse affect of
wall movement on the pool shell.
10.4.Earthwork
Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the applicable design manuals, local grading
ordinance, and the 2001 California Building Code. The following recommendations are provided regarding
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Limited Geotechnical Report
-- ' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERINGf INC.
- GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO Box 600177,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851,8683 PH.,619,501.9511 Fax
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
-- Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 8
specific aspects of the proposed earthwork construction. These recommendations should be considered subject
to revision based on field conditions observed by the geotechnical consultant during grading.
10.4.1. Site Preparation
Due to the limited nature of the proposed grading, we anticipate that site preparation will generally be limited to
removal of the existing undocumented fill soils to expose the bottom of pool elevations.
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 ten or more feet
beyond the limits of grading.
Unsuitable materials include vegetation, trash, construction debris, topsoil, rocks more than 12 inches in greatest
dimension, contaminated soils, abandoned pavements, other soil in structural areas subject to settlement due to
'y 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 wall and pool system. Loose, soft areas may be improved by the use
of stabilization fabrics or gravels or by combination of both. The foundations may need to be deepened locally if
w the undocumented fill is found to be deeper than the conditions described in this report.
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Poo/Eva luation Limited Geotechnicar Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
a GEOTECHNICAL AND MA mas ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CA[rroRmA 91160
619.851.8683,PH,619.501.9511 PAX
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
— Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No, 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 9
We anticipate that the compacted fill that will be placed will generally be minor and will likely be installed above
and behind the footing and wall. If compacted fill is supported on native soils, we offer the following additional
— recommendations.
As indicated, we anticipate that the pool may be supported on shallow compacted fills while the retaining wall
— foundation will penetrate through the compacted fills into the underlying Baypoint Formation soils. Where the soil
will be processed to support compacted fills, such as the north or back side of the pool subgrade, the exposed
soil ground surface should be compacted in place by scarifying to a depth of approximately 6 inches, brought to
not less than optimum moisture content, blended to a uniform consistency, and compacted to not less than 90
percent relative compaction at or above optimum moisture content, as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D
1557. The excavations may then be brought up to the desired grade with soil compacted as recommended
_- herein.
10.4.2. Fill Compaction
Fill and backfill should be placed at or above optimum moisture content using equipment that is capable of
compacting the entire fill lift. Fill materials at less than optimum moisture should have water added and the fill
mixed to result in material that is uniformly at or above optimum moisture content. Expansive soils 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 8 inches in loose thickness. The relative compaction recommended for fill and
backfill is not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density based on ASTM D 1557. When evaluating in place
density and relative compaction, gravel content and rock correction procedures should be appropriately
considered.
10.4.3. Material for Fill
° In general, the on-site soils may be used in the on-site fills behind the structures. Deleterious materials, rocks
more than 12 inches in greatest dimension, the organic materials near the surface, and contaminated soils
should not be used. Wet and saturated soils will need to be dried back prior to re-use.Accordingly,we anticipate
that some of the near surface organic topsoil and undocumented fills may not be suitable for reuse.
° Soils with an Expansion Index of greater than 30 should not be used in the upper five feet beneath structures
supported at or near grade,flatwork, or wall backfill. Soils with an Expansion Index of greater than 20 should not
-- be placed as backfill behind retaining walls or beneath the swimming pool without special design considerations.
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Limited Geotechnical Report
STE SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
°- Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 10
Imported fill sources, if needed, should be evaluated prior to hauling onto the site to determine their suitability for
use, Representative samples of imported materials and on-site soils should be tested to evaluate their
engineering properties for the planned use. Imported fill soils should have an Expansion Index of not more than
20 and should generally not have more than 15 percent passing the no. 200 sieve. During grading operations,
soil types other than those evaluated in the geotechnical report may be encountered. The geotechnical
consultant should be contacted to evaluate the suitability of these soils for use as fill or backfill.
10.4.4. Bulk/Shrink and Moisture Characteristics
The existing soils may shrink on the order of 0 to 10 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 below optimum moisture content.
The actual moisture conditions may vary from those anticipated herein.
10.4.5. Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations in soil, such as those for the foundations and swimming pool, are anticipated to be
_. generally stable up to depths of four feet. 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 test pits and test pits, the design of temporary slopes and
benches for planning purposes may assume the conditions summarized below.
Summary of CallOSHA Soil Types
Geological Unit Cal/OSHA Soil Type
Surficial Soil Type C
Baypoint Formation Type A to B
Existing infrastructure, including the residence, that is within a 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) line projected up from
the bottom edge (toe)of temporary excavations should be monitored during construction.
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Limited Geotechnical Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
!am GEOTECNNIca AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,SAN DIEGO,CAuFoRNU 92160
619.851.8683PI.,619.501.9511 FAX
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
-- Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No, 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 11
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
during excavation. The professional should evaluate the stability of temporary slopes, as necessary. Similarly,
professional should observe and monitor temporary support systems.
10.4.6. 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.
10.5.Seismic Parameters
-- The following 2001 California Building Code seismic parameters may be used for design of the proposed project.
The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is mapped approximately six kilometers northeast of the site.
Summary of CBC Seismic Design Criteria
Parameter Value 2001 UBC Reference
Seismic Zone Factor,Z 0.40 Table 16-1
Soil Profile Type Sc Table 16-J
Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.40 Na Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient,C,, 0.56 N, Table 16-R
Near Source Factor, Na 1.0 Table 16-S
- Near Source Factor, N, 1.16 Table 16-T
Seismic Source Type* B Table 16-U
*Rose Canyon Fault
1.5 mm/year slip rate
6.9 MG Max
-' 10.6.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
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Limited Geotechnical Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING?INC.
_ GEOTwnwrAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAX
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 12
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, 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 property maintenance guidelines presented in Appendix D.
10.7.Soil Corrosivity
Evaluation of the corrosion hazard at the site was beyond the scope of this limited evaluation. Without further
information, we recommend Type IIN cement and a water cement ratio of not more than 0.55 (lb/lb)for durable
— concrete supported in granular soils. A corrosion engineer should be consulted if additional corrosion-related
design information is desired.
10.8.Retaining Walls
Design of geotechnical aspects of retaining walls was beyond the scope of our limited evaluation. Due to their
relatively small nature, we anticipate that walls may be designed and constructed in accordance with regional
standards. Our office is available for retaining wall consultation upon request.
11. LIMITATIONS
The information presented in this report has been prepared for use in the design and construction of the proposed
— wall and Pool Evaluation 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 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
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Limited Geotechnical Report
--
!RE SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEommNicAL AND AM rm LB ENGINEERING CONSUL TANTB
PO Box 600177,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 91160
619.851.8683PN.,619,501.9511 FAx
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
�- Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No, 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 13
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.
Our evaluation has been performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar
circumstances by geotechnical consultants with experience in the Southern California area in similar soil conditions.
No other warranty either expressed or implied is made as to the conclusions and recommendations contained in this
report.
Changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the
work of man on this or adjacent properties, In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards of practice
may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated
wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied
— upon after a period of three years.
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.
51000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluatlon Limited Geotechnical Report
' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600177,SAN DIEGO,GILlfomm 91160
_ 619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
-- Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 69000902-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 14
12. SELECTED REFERENCES
California Building Code,Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions,2001
California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and
Adjacent Areas with Locations of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, Scale 1:750:000
California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, an Exploratory Map to Accompany the
Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, Scale
1:750:000
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Special Publication 42, Fault-Rupture
Hazard Zones in California,with Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999
California Department of Conservation:Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluation and
Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in California: Sacramento,CA, Special Publication 117
California Department of Conservation: Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, DMG Open-File Report 96-02,
w Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California
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 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
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
www.Topozone.com
Transportation Research Board, 1996, Landslides Evaluation and Mitigation,Special Report 247, Prepared by
National Research Council
Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, 1997, Prepared by International
Conference of Building Officials
United States Geologic Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project at
http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/
61000101-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Limited Geotechnical Report
' SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC,
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO Box 600177,SAN DIEGO,GuFoRNIA 91160
619,851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
-- Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report Page 15
Youd and others,2001 Liquefaction Resistance of Soils:Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
NCEERINSF workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils in Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvi ron mental Engineering
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Limited Geotechnical Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
STE GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
Po BOX 600177,SAN DIEGO,CAUfoRNIA 91160
619.851.8693 PH,619.501,9511 FAx
,
1 l i , I . I i i N
Gost;a Ave E
i
AV,ew�S Gy e
; itdf eW St c3 1
MT
irc Cap Rd f
Tn (n CL M rra
k anicrYd 9�
Regal Road, Encinitas,California 92024
c4r T
Narma dye
p W RA h Gaff
Wad 15,vd
lid is
GQ U Pu bl st
Union St
Dr
02005,talapo ma,NAVTEIpI r1l y
Reference www.Maporarna.com
SITE LOCATION MAP
A '
SOLID ROcKENGINEERING,INc. Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 1289 Urania Avenue
PO Box 600277,San Diego,Califomia 92160 Encinitas,California 92024
_ 619.851.8683 PH.,619,501,9511 FAx
PROJECT N0. DATE FIGURE
61000102-01 December 2005 1
N
s
s
Lan
=P-2 IndlapW opprmlmats-loobw onset piL
/
? p i
a rU
CD
Q 1 X='7403
X,
r' T
l e t ru L
�? ¢ 03rP-2 � t rl�lQ SAS
Wa
' ------ --_
Reference:Sketch provided by pool contractor.Approximate scale shown 1-inch=20-feet
TEST PIT LocAnoN MAP
STEM SOLID ROCKENGINEERING,INc. Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 1289 Urania Avenue
PO Box 600277,San Diego,Califomia 92160 Encinitas,California 92024
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
PROJECTNO. DATE FIGURE
61000102-01 December 2005 2
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report
Appendix A
Logs of Exploratory Excavations
61000101-01 Urania Avenue Poo/Eva luation Limited Geotechnica/Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
STE GEOTECNxrcAL AND AM TERULS EMammiNG CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
519,851.86B3 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
Test Pit No.TP-1
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Proposed Urania Avenue Pool Project
PO Box 600277 1289 Urania Avenue,Encinitas,California 92024
SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
-- I Project No: 61000102-01 Date: 11/09/05
<n Date Drilled: 11/09/05 Sampled by: RDP
CL C1
E Ground Elev.
E "' g feet,MSL: 201 Logged by: RDP
° o
V5 Reviewed
Q
�E Method of Drilling: By others by: RDP
A N
Z > 0 0
W o Drive Wt. lbs. : 35 Drop in. : 30±
Description I Interpretation Lab Tests/Other
"° sM UNDOCUMENTED FILL—Mottled olive brown and gray brown,
moist,loose to medium dense,silty,fine to medium SAND;trace of
clay. Few rootlets near surface.
96 200 Wash
(26%passing no.200)
i>
is
Bottom of Boring
,a
3.°
Remarks:
Total Depth=5 feet
Groundwater not encountered
Caving not observed.
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Eval Test Pit Loo TP-1
ME SOLID ROCK ENGINEERIN M G,f INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND ATERULB ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600177,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 91160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAX
Test Pit No.TP-2
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Proposed Urania Avenue Pool Project
PO Box 600277 1289 Urania Avenue,Encinitas,California 92024
SAN DIEGo,CALIFORNIA 92160
—° I Project No: 61000102-01 Date: 11/09/05
V) o, Date Drilled: 11/09/05 Sampled by: RDP
o- U
Z Ground Elev.
E � g feet,MSL: 201 Logged by: RDP
o
0
N Reviewed
L Method of Drilling: B others by: RDP
C ([� N
1 � $ fn � N
— N 7 ? OO �' N
° 00 ° 00 ° 0 Drive Wt. lbs. : 35 Drop in. : 30±
Description/Interpretation Lab Tests/Other
"° sM UNDOCUMENTED FILL—Mottled olive brown,greenish gray,and
gray brown,moist,loose to medium dense, silty,fine to medium
SAND;trace of clay. Few rootlets near surface.
Expansion Index
85 (El=29,Low Expansion Potential)
v
1s
Bottom of Boring
is
3.0
Remarks:
Total Depth=5 feet
—" Groundwater not encountered.
Caving not observed.
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Eval Test Pit Log TP-2
ME= SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.GE07FCHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSDL TAINTS PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH,619.501,95.11 tax
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report
Appendix B
Laboratory Testing
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Poo/Eva luation Limited Geotechnica/Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC,
STE GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600177,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 91160
619.851.8683PN,619.501.9511 FAx
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Laboratory Testing Appendix Page 1 of 1
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.
200 Wash Tests
200 Wash tests were performed on selected samples in general accordance with ASTM C 117 to evaluate the
percent of the soil sample finer than the no.200 sieve. Results are shown below.
Summary of 200 Wash Test Results
Sample Percent Finer
Location N
TP-1 @ 04 26
Expansion Index Tests
The expansion index of selected materials was evaluated in general accordance with U.B.C. Standard No, 18-2.
Specimens were molded under specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation (plus of minus 1
percent). The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens were loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per
square foot and were inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours.The
result of these tests are summarized below.
Summary of Expansion Index Test Results
Sample Description Sample Expansion Expansion
Location Index Potential
Olive brown and greenish gray silty SAND; TP-2 @ 0-4' 29 Low
trace clay
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Laboratory Testing Appendix
na SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,51.9.501.951.1 FAX
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
-- Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report
Appendix C
Standard Specifications for Grading Projects
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Poo/Evaivatian Limited Geotechnicai Report
--
STEM SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GE07ECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO BOX 600277,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 92160
619.851.8683 PH.,619.501.9511 FAx
Standard Specificagons 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
GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,San Diego,Cafifomia 92160
619.851.8683 ph.,619.501.9511 fax
Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised August2005
Page 2
disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be performed under the observation of the
geotechnical consultant.
SECTION 5—SITE PROTECTION
Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the contractor. Unless other provisions
are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties, completion of a portion of the project should not be
considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas form the requirements for site protection until such time as the entire
project is complete as identified by the geotechnical consultant,the client and the regulating agencies.
Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the work site
_. from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage.Temporary provisions should be made during
the rainy season to adequately direct surface drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be
avoided,pumps should be kept on had to continually remove water during periods of rainfall.
Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling,
structural distress and other adverse conditions as determined by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected
should be classified as unsuitable materials and should be subject to over excavation and replacement with compacted fill
or other remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the geotechnical
consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g., back cuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed
project and therefore, should not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by
the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the regulating
agencies. When deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant or governing agencies the contractor shall install
check dams,desilting basins,and bags or other drainage control measures.
In relatively level areas and/or slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depth of greater than 1.0
foot,the soil should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with applicable specifications.Where
affected materials exist to depths of 1.0 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture
conditioning in-place, followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with applicable grading guidelines herein maybe
attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be overexcavated and replaced as
compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair recommendations herein. As field conditions dictate, the geotechnical
consultant may recommend other slope repair procedures.
-- SECTION 6—EXCAVATIONS
Unsuitable Materials
Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and recommendations of the geotechnical
consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible
natural soils and fractured,weathered,soft bedrock and non-engineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials.
— Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture conditions should be
overexcavated, moisture conditioned as needed, at or above optimum moisture condition prior to placement as
compacted fill.
If during the course of grading, adverse geotechnical conditions are exposed which were not anticipated in the
preliminary soils report as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, additional exploration, analysis and
Standard Specs for Grading Projects Template
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,San Diego,California 92f60
619.851.8683 ph.,619.501.9511 fax
Standard Specifications 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.
CutlFill 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'/4 inch sieve. The geotechnical consultant may vary
those requirements as field conditions dictate.
Where rocks greater than 8 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are generated during grading,
or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill,they may require special handling in accordance with
attached Plates and described below. Rocks greater than four feet should be broken down or disposed legally
off-site.
Standard Specs for Grading Projects Template
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,San Diego,Calithmia 92160
619.851.8683 ph.,619.50f.95fI fax
Standard Specificafions 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 ENGtNEERiNG,1NC
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEEPJNG CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,San Diego,Caiifomia 92160
619.851.8683 ph.,619.501.9511 fax
Standard Specifications for Grading Projects Revised August 2005
Page 5
all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized material should be staggered so that
— successive strata of oversized material are not in the same vertical plane. It may be possible to dispose of
individual larger rocks as field conditions dictate and as recommended by the geotechnical consultant at the time
of placement.
The contractor should assist the geotechnical consultant and/or his representative by digging test pits for
removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill.The contractor should provide this work at no additional
— cost to the owner or contractor's client.
Fill should be tested by the geotechnical consultant for compliance with the recommended relative compaction
and moisture conditions. Field density testing should conform to ASTM Method of Test D1556-82, D2922-81.
Tests should be conducted at a minimum of two vertical feet or 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. Fill found not to
be the minimum recommended degree of compaction should be removed or otherwise handled as
recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
Fill Slopes
Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the regulating agencies,
permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Except as specifically recommended
in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes should be overbuilt and cut back to grade, exposing the firm,
compacted fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired
results are not achieved,the existing slopes should be overexcavated and reconstructed under the guidelines of
the geotechnical consultant. The degree of overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted 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, slope face compaction may be attempted by conventional construction
procedures including backrolling.The procedure must create a firmly compacted material throughout the entire depth of the
slope face to the surface of the previously compacted fill intercore.
During grading operations care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer edge of the slope. Each lift should
extend horizontally to the desired finished slope surface or more as needed to ultimately established desired grades.Grade
during construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful to elevate slightly the outer
edge of the slope.Slough resulting from the placement of individual lifts should be trimmed to expose competent compacted
fill. Fill slope faces should be thoroughly compacted at intervals not exceeding four feet in vertical slope height, or the
capacity of available equipment,whichever is less.
Where placement of fill above a natural slope or above a cut slope is proposed, the fill slope configuration should be
adopted as presented in the accompanying Standard Details. For pad areas above fill slopes,positive drainage should be
established away from the top-of-slope.This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and pad gradients of at least 2 percent.
SECTION 8–TRENCH BACKFILL
Utility and/or other trench 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 backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting,flooding or by mechanical means. If on-site materials are
utilized, they should be wheel rolled, tamped or otherwise compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches,density testing
may be deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary,based on review of backfil 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 Gradhg Projects Template
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,1Nc.
— GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,San Diego,California 92160
619.851.8683 ph.,619.501.95f f 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 dean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding or jetting is proposed, the
procedures should be considered subject to review by the geotechnical consultant. Clean granular backfll 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 sol parameters are determined. Retaining
wall backfill should consist of well-drained,very low expansive soil. Drains should be installed behind the walls to reduce the potential
for build up of hydrostatic pressure.Retaining wall drain details are provided in the attached Plates.
Retaining wall backfll should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the most recent version of
ASTM D1557.Compaction should be accomplished by light hand-operated or walk-behind equipment.
SECTION 10—DRAINAGE
Where deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, canyon subdrain systems should be installed in accordance with the
attached plates. Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope 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 dope stability and foundation performance.
SECTION 11—SLOPE MAINTENANCE
Landscape Plants
In order to enhance surficial 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-and and and area may also be
appropriate. A Landscape Architect should be the best party to consult regarding actual types of plants and planting
configuration.
-- Irrigation
Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces,not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces.
— Repair
As a precautionary measure,plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand, to protect all slope areas from
saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This measure is strongly recommended,beginning with the period of
time prior to landscape planting.If slope failures occur,the geotechnical consultant should be contacted for a field review of
site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair.
Standard Specs for Grading Projects Template
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC
— GEOTECNNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277,San Diego,California 92!60
619.851.8683 ph.,6!9.501.9511 fax
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
PROJECTED PLANE
OF BLOPE TO APPACNED GROUND REMOVE FILL SLOPE
UNSUITABLE
NATURAL v TYPICAL MATERIAL
GROUND BENCH T—BENCH
HEIGHT
KEY LOWEST BENCH
SLOPE
NATURAL C TYPICAL
GROUND BEN BENCH
HEIGHT
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
LOWEST
KEY DEPTH
CUT FACE
SHALL BE CONSTFK)OTED PRIOR
TO FILL PLACEMENT TO ASSURE CUTFACE
ADEQUATE GEOLOW CONDITIONS TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR
TO FILL PLACEMENT
NATURAL CUT-OVER-FILL
GROUND SLOPE
OVERBUILT AND
TRIM BACJKC
For Subdrains See
DESIGN SLOPE REMOVE Standard Detail
PROJECTED PLANE NSUITABLE
TOE OF GLOPE TO
APPR(7*1ED GROUND V TYPICAL
PA
13ENCH BENCH HEIGHT
BENCHING SHAIL BE DONE WHEN SLOPES
ANGLE IS ECKJAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1
2" [--IV MI MMM BENCH MEOW NiALL,BE 4 FEEr
KEY DEPTH LOWEST ENCH MlN1lMUM FILL WIDTH 04ALL BE 9 FEET
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEoTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Ke�ng and Benching Detail
PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160
Joii No. DATE DETAIL
Re�lsed July 2005 A
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
FINISH GRADE
PACE ----------------f_:
or
_EE�E3—— ------ --------------
OVERSIZE -------------- GRANULAR MATERIAL
* Overste rock Is larger than 8 Inches
In Impest dimension.
a Excavate a trench In the compacted
fill deep enough to bury all therock.
* Backfill with.granular soll jetted or
flooded in place to fill all the vokt&
a Do not bury rock within 10 feet of
finish grade.
* Windrow of buried rock shall be
parallel to the finished Mope fill. ELEVATION A-A
PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
D OR FLOODED—
GRANULAR MATERIAL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 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. DATE DETAIL
Revised July 2005 B
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
NATURAL
GROUND
COMPACTED FILL
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
age
24 IN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP
HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET
CALTRANS CLASS 11
PERMEA13LE OR#2 ROCK
(9FT.3/FT.) WRAPPED IN 0
FILTER FA13RIC
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAF1 140 OR
APPROVED '--,COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL
EQUIVALENT) BE MINIMUM So DIAMETER
SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORAI ED
CANYON SUBDIWN OUTLET DETAIL PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL
PERFORATED PIPE FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION
DESIGN
FINISHED
GRADE 10' MIN. BACKFILL FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140 OR
2% APPROVED
20' MI
,NON-PER RATED S' MIN.7��ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTIER
6-4 MIN. FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS 11
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,Imc.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Canyon Subdrains Detail
PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160
619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax JOB No. DATE DE'mL
Revised July 2005 C
_
�
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
OUTLET PIPES
4-4o NON-PERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAXL O.C. HORIZONTALLY, — ------ BACKCUT1:1
30' MAX O.C.VERTICALLY OR FLATTER
BENCHING
DEPTH L 2%
2# MIN. 15' MIN. 0 /,�12' MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP
KEY WIDTH
POSITIVE SEAL HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET
SHOULD BE
PROVIDED AT FILTER FABRIC
THEJO (MIRAFl 140 OR
6 " APPROVED
OUTLET PIPE EQUIVALENT)
T-0 TION.11FOR
CALTRANS CLASS 11 COLLECTOR PIPE TO
OUTLET PIPE
PERMEABLE OR#2 ROCK
(3FTNFT.) WRAPPED IN
FILTER FABRIC
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdraln collector pipe shall be installed with perforations down or,
unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant. Outlet pipes shall be non-perforatod
pipe. The subdrain pipe"have at least 8 parlbrations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shall
be Ve to%4 If drilled holes are used. All subdrain pipes shag have-a gradient pt least 2%towaids:the
• SUBDRAIN:PIPE-Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2761, SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1627,Schedule 40, Or
ASTM D3034, SDR 23.5. Schedule 40 Polorryl Chloride Plastic (PM pipe.
• All outlet pipe shall be placed In a trench no wider than twice the subdrain pipe. Pipe shall be In soft
of SE>30 jetted or flooded In place except for the outside 5 foot which shall be native soil backfill.
STANDARD SPECIFICA77ONS FOR GRADING PROJECTS
SOLID RocK ENGINEERING,In.
GEoTECHNICAL AND MA TERIALs ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Buttress or Replacement Fill Subdrains Detail
PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160
619-851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax JOB No. DA TE DETA&
Revised July 2005 D
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,SOIL QACKFIJLL. COMPACTED TO
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE'
WALL;WATERPROOFING -(MfRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
FINISH GRADE. 0 4--(MINS DIAMETER PERFORATE-b
# 0 PIPIE—(66RJEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
MINIMUM 1' PERCENT GRADIENT
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
WALL FOOTING
30 MIN.
COMPEfENf 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 D1667
Sieve Size Passing
1-inch 100 *IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEA13LE MATERIAL
(SEE. GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4-inch 90-100 3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE
3/8-inch 40-100 DELETED. CALTRAN6 CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
No.4 25-40 MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO Qq
No.8 18-33 PERCEFif.-RELATIVE COMPACTION*
No.30 5-15 NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN
OR J—DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVr=L OF
No.50 0-7 CLASS Z INSTALLA11ON SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE
No.200 0-3 V14TH MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS.
Sand Equivalent>75
STANDARD SpEcfRcA77oNsr-oRGRADiNc;PRojEcTs
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERiNG CONSULTANTS Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
PO Box 600277, San Diego, Califomia 92160
619.851.8683, 619.501.9511 fax JOB NO, DATE DETAIL
Revised July 2005 E
314(a,,,.Ig)yt(H)
.tom
NATIVE SOIL
x PE
-- NATIVE SOIL w
BASEMENT a
Ro
Z
x
� F■ x
so
a
KoYtH �
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) K0 yt(H2)/F.S. F.S. = 1.0*
PE= 3/8(am,)g)yt(1-12)
"Designer should use factors of safety appropriate for bad 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
0 or soil report.
Moisture barrier per architect or soil report.
nt for slab support
rep
OCUMENTED FILL SOIL,OR
. . . . . . . . . . . . . OTHER UNSUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL.
OLDER ALLUVIUM,FORMATIONAL SOIL OR
------ OTHER SUITABLE BEARING MATERIAL.
Footing embedment into competent soil
-------- 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
_
Artificial Rock Concepts December 11, 2005
Urania Avenue Pool Evaluation Project No. 61000102-01
Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Report
Appendix D
General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners
61000102-01 Urania Avenue Poo/Evaluation limited Geotechnicai Report
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
_ GEOTECHNICAL AND MA TERMS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
_ PO BOX 600177,SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA 91160
619,851.8683PH,619.501.9511 FAx
General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners Revised August 2005
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 2005
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
— GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160
619.851.8683 ph.,619.501.9511 fax
General Property Maintenance Guidelines for Property Owners Revised August 2005
MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES
The following maintenance guidelines are provided for the protection of the property owner's investment,
and should be observed throughout the year:
♦ In general, roof and yard runoff should be directed away from structures and conducted to the
street or 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)
a provided for proper lot drainage are not disturbed. Drainage behind retaining walls should also be
maintained as well and designed. Drainage systems should not be altered without professional
consultation.
♦ Drains, including rain gutters and downspouts, should be kept clean and unclogged.Terrace
drains and concrete-lined brow ditches should be kept free of debris to allow proper drainage.
Drain outlets and weep holes in retaining walls should also be routinely checked and cleared of
debris.The performance of these drainage systems should be periodically tested. Problems, such
as erosive gullying, loss of slope-stabilizing vegetation or ponding of water, should be corrected
as soon as possible.
♦ Check before and after major storms to see that drains, gutters, downspouts and ditches are
clear and that vegetation is in place on slopes. Spot seed any bare areas. Check with a
landscape architect or local nursery for advice.
♦ Leakage from swimming or decorative pools,water lines, etc, should be repaired as soon as
possible. Wet spots on the property may indicate a broken line.
♦ Landscaping watering should be limited to the minimum necessary to maintain plant vigor.
♦ Animal burrows should be filled with compacted soil or sand-cement slurry since they may cause
diversion of surface runoff, promote accelerated erosion or cause shallow slope failures.
♦ Whenever property owners plan significant topographic modifications of their lots or slopes, a
geotechnical consultant should be contacted. Over-steepening of slopes may result in a need for
expensive retaining devices,while undercutting of the base of slopes may lead to slope instability
._ or failure. These modifications should not be undertaken without expert consultation.
♦ If unusual cracking, settling or soil failure occurs,the property owner should consult a
geotechnical consultant immediately.
General Property Maintenance Guidelines Revised 2005
SOLID ROCK ENGINEERING,INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
PO Box 600277, San Diego, California 92160
619.851.8683 ph.,619.501.9511 fax