The URL can be used to link to this page

1991-2815 G Street Address / 5- �: Category Serial # Name Description Plan ck. # Year recdescv SAN DIEGUITO ENGINEERING, INC. John B., Fox - P. E. Stephen D. Dillemuth - P.E. 4407 MANCHESTER, SUITE 105 CIVIL ENGINEERING Gordon L. McElroy - P.L.S. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 PLANNING (619) 753 -5525 SURVEYING FAX (619) 943 -8236 HYDROLOGY STUDIES AND HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS For GRADING PLAN FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CITY OF ENCINITAS Prepared by: SAN DIEGUITO ENGINEERING, INC. OCTOBER 17, 1991 SDE 3987 NOV 2 2 1991 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DEPT. FESSS © �� D. D� !� .� Engineer of Work: u co vi NO-28479 m r EX 3 -31 -94 V ` Cl1tIL��Q OF CAL* -�-- ' Stephen D. Dillemuth, R.C.E. 28479 E F 7r� Ca C O'?/Jr , .? "F PRA P65f- T/l/ oc-?' 4-c 0 r a in. Ac. 7. c, 0 CAL' Tc- Too Z. 1 6 MP P) - , t D. ow Ca G w CO E:. cr 284 . 3-31 OF c S H Co . T ji 5 -D ( i IM Cyl. 7 o -F PRop4eTy 7Z C-FS F-Z 50-Z' C��y � � � � �S' /cam.. 1'-3� 1�� -�'� l,�` r �� .,� GIL 4- 7 ?YGFE I s k% D. co OF RL a u 0 k r cr- /.kJ 0 I k, 14F T 9 rjESS/O,� Pb.2347 rr) Exp. 3-3 4 F c P o1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD) LAND USE Coefficient, C Soil Group (1) A B Undeveloped — — C D D Residential: .30 .35 .40 .45 Rural .30 .35 .40 .4 Single Family .40 ,43 .SO .55 Multi -Units .45 .50 .60 70 Mobile Homes (2) .45 .50 .55 .65 Commercial (2) .70 .75 80% Impervious •80 .85 Industrial (2) .80 .85 90% Impervious • •95 NOTES: (1) Obtain soil group from maps on file with the Department of'Sanitat�om and Flood Control. (2) Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated imperviousness values of 80% or 900, the values given for coefficient C, may be revised by multiplying 80% or 90% by the ratio of actual imperviousness to the tabulated imperviousness. However, in no case shall the final coefficient be less than 0.50. For example: Consider commercial property on D soil group. Actual imperviousness = 50% Tabulated imperviousness = 800 Revised C = X 0.85 = 0.53 „c�4 ��`A D• V.) ZC u? .3 31 -94,� UF APPENDIX IX A/ EQ�AT /-� PpFNn1X �„ /ON J ief Tc 9L.�1 •38S 5000 Tc = Tine of ConCenf,} ion �DDO Len9fh o/ wafef-.shed H = D /f�erenca in a %vaficn along 3000 el�ecfire s /ooe line Set Append�X X-B) 7e- ?49 3 /BO /DOD /O 9D0 800 2 /20 700 600 � /DO SOO \ S 90 ¢OD \��3 4 70 \ SO 20D \ 2 \ A0 14-)o SD os \ /a /Z 30 NOTE aao /O /QDO 9 QFOR NATURAL WATERSFiEDS 12D10 8 ZD ADD TEN MINUTES TO /000 7 rT MPUTE D TIME OF CON- 900 NRATION_ 10 60D s /O �Q?,OF ESS / p�S' SOO D. con Lu .28479 m 5 a Exp. 3 -31 -94 L z 7 � 200 SAN DIEGO COUNTY NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINATfON DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc) D E S I G N MANUAL FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS APPROVED _'� /� /rti Q`w DATE APPENDIX X -A V -A -10 Rev. 5/81 (11 h J •. II�N 1 X { >, r C: + Cu i � C N O r O C �O iU3 b -) 4-3 > i OS� (0 V i �-- t O N O •r { p U Q Qf E Cn 4-1` O 4- O •r- CJ U r •r. b ° it Cy�� .�� .a t •� O C -Cr i b -N to N 4. Cu CL CL tn O 4J CU 0 G 4- 4- O L j ` w No. / m +•J QJ 4. E r QJ i " 4) Ri C C'. p O t Cu \ - O CJ C i O O C IC. +J N N N •r b 4j L. C C -� 0 c Q aJ -v O to .° ,o m N 4,< L1w a O ro -C 411 O +-3 aJ ++ -� C res +J +J QJ C • •r 4-3 +.J .— QJ •r .0 ro fo +.J to 11 Y •*' L) OO V =a c c > a C •r' •r 4 - 0- m 4J tL `r •r . C V O O •r- •� - 'r- tZ r Vf Q C- o C- d C.) t � -0 Q1 Q- +J +j 1. L7 CL r i i 4j H O II. i- a 0 N O C7 .>= N .^ s aJ c -r O S - i •� C� ¢ Ri >� •.- •r O LJ # }J - V C -r- C -r- i 4-) i r r- aJ {-J l Q" 4 - ro rC — ro tD r i .0 V E_ a' O •C3 - V C CU 'a all C d i C.; ro t7 f y N d tn LO 1:1) to Cj -C r O O {•J 4J • r - O QJ C N to +J N 4-) O ti O Il r0 d - 0 r r O r 4- S- s C r-- •n It V LL- N !- D C +� +J 4J C- O 0 G F— i-► • u O to Z7 V O u) d Q +•► a-r C' ¢ to Q O r N M eT U M 6 -Hour Precipitation (inches N O to O Ln p LO O Ln O Lt 1 O Cl LC; ' • • ate. _— (A • 1-4 � �" r`�` --, � f I t `J .p.t ``" I 1 �i, I : I • — � - � 1 I r r; 11 • I V U v i'II Ii I'1 'lll 1 I 1 I t ( ip O l i I - 1 I /�� l 1 1 1 III I N Z 4.J it .P•t as �1 a >;• 0. id N S v 4J = ri H \o n It n It Ca CL Lf) rr M ' I i ( %saU7uL) X:1LsualuT Revised 1/85 APPENDIX XI -A p F'r X h _ -f i: • • Y h CM -W� Ln , I ./ : : � '� �. CD C (n \ ' •[ LM Mr ammm X90 .1 C �-.t. jam c z LL. LZJ • J e � J o I L I ; / - 'tom '.1 ` ; N �.. W 7 C CC3 F-0 w O < i� z F 3 I. o V V H Z - s J CS z a ZF Z �. p U >; O h _ ( ( v O O - .o a � co W Z _ - - a O N M r. - 4 °O O LL- -1 zw M Qc: < N O U to 0 LA- z o �J �RpFESS /Q,� Q CL C) M COD zm v o c-Ji El(p 3 -31-94 < E z� F 0 W 4 N Revised 1/85 APPENDIX XI -E •• 1 ti I z i o a o U v: CD Ni ' yea �" ✓ `��' "� o � ) D _o. �� C { 4j L v� a G P"" • o y 4< G uj V ;n } F- u a v i I t I G z c ^ N LL. -1 a ac < o o _ < U_ Ln c:: LL z z • cn V `-� �' V a o a owo p nn t CIA et�K ®F y 0 u o < W L rr,V,NT,O.2Z479 m E Exp. 3-31- I Z F r^. ; N ♦ 4 C� �OF CA1 �t I , toc nnnCNTnTY YT_U � 1► MONISM ONE FM so Iq m14RI Milk � m � 111■■. : IN ZUNI MEN ►\ORRIS�.E► i Miami 0 AIMED ■ ■■ \fin i \��1�� \ \►`,� \l►l�ll�;�,11��1�� ■ ■r.�� IN W 01 P �� ■■ - - �� ► \��`►1►�1�.�� \111► \; \�►1�►�11�. ��' • ■11■ - _'t�� \iii►: �1��. CiC��' ►nn��1��. 11.. . �■ ■■■�■■�■■■ 1l:� \ \1 \!, \'Ali \►\ �►�� ' \'l 1� � ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■milli 1 • t the following table to Section 200 -1.6 (P 1) in the Standard Spec=— P=ov isions_ �_ - n _ -� OIX Selection of Riprap and Filter Elar.ket Material Filter 31arket C3) UP per Layar(s) '.'elocity ` Rock Riprap ;option I 1 0ption 2 Option 3 Lcu__ i Ft /Sec. (1)! Class Thickness T 4)Sec.200((.1 Sec_ :00 ; (5) L t 6 -7 No.3 Back= _6 3/16" C2 D. G. r ino 7- - : ? -S No .2 Sack- 1.0 1/4" 23 ino D. G. i j Facing 1.4 3/3" - D. G. 9_3 -11 Light 2.0 1/2" - 3/4'0,1,'2" P.B - t i f :I1 =13 '%, Ton 2.7 3/4" - �� „ ,► .. S i 13 -15 i Ton 3.4 1" _ „ P. B. it I5-17 I Ton 4.3 12" - Type B s? '' 17 -20 2 Ton 5.4 2 - it it s =z? o F P_actical use of t;. table is li -`__cd to situa i ~e T o's .. _ is less ts;*_ D. \G S_ (l)_ Average telocity in pipe or bottom velocit i* e er�y dissipator,::;_ic�z- ever is greater. (See "Riprap. Selection 1 1 ' thods ", D. S$FC, Count; of S.D_; ('). If desired riprap and filter blanket class is not available, use larcer (3). Filter blanket thickness = 1 Foot or T, S• ;hichever is less_" (T) Standard specifications for public corks construction of Southern C? :i- fornia Chapter of APPIA and AGC. $P_e { . 4. - + (S) . D. G. = Decomposed Granite, 1 MN to 10 ? ° :•f P_ B_ = Processed Miscellaneous Base T }pe B = Type_E bedding material, usually available loci in =- 75% crushed particles, 100 passing 2'1" p� {6), Sand 75% retained on 0 sieve hb.28479 ` s Exp. 3-31--94 a r F OF CALF ' REPORT OF GEOTECIINICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE EAST OF LONE JACK ROAD ' ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: Mr. Al Mayo ' 1772 Kettering Street Irvine, California 92714 Nov 2 2 1991 CITY OF ENCINITAS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DEPT. PREPARED BY: ' Southern California Soil and Testing, Incorporated 6280 Riverdale Street ' San Diego, California 92120 Post Office Box 600627, Zip Code 92160 + SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA T SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, San Diego, CA 92120 P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160 619 - 280 -4321, FAX 619 - 280 -4717 November 19, 1991 ' Mr. Al Mayo SCS &T 9121103 1772 Kettering Street Report No. 1 ' Irvine, California 92714 SUBJECT: Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Single Family Residence, East of Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, California. ' Dear Mr. Mayo: In accordance with the request of San Dieguito Engineering, e have performed g p ed a geotechnical 1 investigation for the proposed project. We are presenting herewith our findings and recommendations. In general, we found the site suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations ' presented in the attached report are followed. The upper portions of the site were found to be underlain by weathered metavolcanic rock which at a depth of about eight feet consists of fractured rock. This ' material will be difficult to excavate with conventional trenching equipment. However, eight feet is the maximum cut proposed. In addition, the site is capped with expansive soils that will require special ' grading procedures. If you should have any questions after reviewing the findings and recommendations contained in the attached report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. ' Respectfully submitted, �� s R • a�90 00,/ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. Q NO. 1090 _ -+ CERTIFIED ENGINEERING —� OQ ApFESS /p N GE6- OLO�GIIST Charles H. Christian, R.G.E. #00215 `� ��S H. Cy 1 UP 2 Burdett, C.E.G. OF f�o. CA � 15 CHC:CRB:mw GE0002 M � Exp. 9 -30 -93 cc: (2) Submitted (4) San Dieguito Engineering (1) SCS &T, Escondido gTF OFCA0 4e' ' TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction and Project Description ...................................... 1 Project Scope 1 ' Findings 2 Site Description ............... ............................... 2 ' General Geology and Subsurface Conditions 3 Geologic Setting and Soil Description ............................ 3 ' Tectonic Setting .......... ............................... 3 Geologic Hazards .............. ............................... 4 General 4 Ground s h aking........... ............................... 4 Groundw ater............ ............................... 4 Conclusions and Recommendations 5 ' General 5 Gradin g .... ................ ............................... 5 Site Preparation 5 ImportSoils ............. ............................... 6 Select Grading ........... ............................... 6 Undercuttin g............ ............................... 7 ' Surface Drainage ......... ............................... 7 Earthwork .............. ............................... 7 Slope Stability 7 Foundations ................. ............................... 7 ' General 7 Reinforcement ............... ............................... 8 Concrete Slabs -on -Grade ..... ............................... 8 Settlement Characteristics 8 Earth Retaining Structures ......... ............................... 8 ' Passive Pressure .......... ............................... 8 Active Pressure 8 Backfill 9 Factor of Safety .......... ............................... 9 ' Grading and Foundation Plan Review .. ............................... 9 Limitations 9 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) PAGE Review, Observation and Testing .... ............................... 9 ' Uniformity of Conditions 9 Change in Scope .............. ............................... 10 ' Time Limitations ............. ............................... 10 Professional Standard ........... ............................... 10 ' Client's Responsibility ..... ............................... 11 Field Explorations ................. ............................... 11 ' Laboratory Testing ................ ............................... 11 ATTACHMENTS ' FIGURE Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1 ' PLATES Plate 1 Plot Plan Plate 2 Unified Soil Classification Chart ' Plates 3 -7 Trench Logs Plate 8 Direct Shear Test Results ' Plate 9 Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail ' APPENDIX Recommended Grading Specifications - Special Provisions �+ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA T SOIL & TESTING, INC. ' 6280 Riverdale Street, San Diego, CA 92120 P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160 619 - 280 -4321, FAX 619 - 280 -4717 ' GEOTECIINICAL INVESTIGATION ' PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE EAST OF LONE JACK ROAD ' ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the site of a proposed single family residence, located on a private road easement east of Lone Jack Road, in the Olivenhain area of Encinitas, ' California. The site is legally described as Parcel No. 3 of Parcel Map 1918, filed in the Office of the County Recorder. The site location is shown on the following Figure Number 1. ' Although plans are not firm at this time, it is our understanding that the site will be developed to receive ' a one or two story residential structure of wood -frame construction. The structure will be supported by shallow foundations and will have a conventional concrete slab -on -grade floor system. Grading will consist of cuts and fills of less than eight feet and 14 feet, respectively. We also understand that fill ' material will be imported from a hilltop located south of the subject site. ' To assist in the preparation of this report we were provided with a grading plan prepared by San Dieguito Engineering, Inc., (undated). The site configuration, topography and approximate locations of our ' subsurface explorations are shown on Plate Number 1 included in the pocket of this report. ' PROJECT SCOPE This investigation consisted of. surface reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, obtaining representative disturbed and undisturbed samples, laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data, research ' of available geological literature pertaining to the site, and preparation of this report. More specifically, the intent of this analysis was to: a Explore p ore the subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. � tFAI PL 5"tr�q t \?:q ��;` \� `\ :A ^ • 'e a � �•`! ,uuanu J I ! l .� 0. Cygry C'iiH rt`� a DL ii + ca wv 1 ,k I c�i cEK lFV'�N +•� OS'q FNC I I a"y � �,/ r U s ': Is SEAP• s APNL :y rt'. ' P r r '[a.•wro lr.s.0 _ _ T12L yW ie +c..ANnoas,.,•,• T114 — _ OVIA �NtE I _ i ,L >bo7iv `7 '[.•Nw si!'w• ? V aD O RTE STAGfCOACN• _ V7 `- SFE ®A• \ _° � r° a cwn _� `r 0 4 AMrry pE �qO,w F i -- • I I w sr lA At. „o lA 0 A rc ."- DUTY F Tp I ute d x °�:ar3 1 L (. Pr7 sr So %� P F Ti 55 '' l4 "";A • C1A . O wERkSP P ¢$ - P� /I is !a3 ✓SU L EL eOSWf AV lx 5 i LIEN '+ P� ¢I O "` 41�Of �KU • ] "''''��``��"`�� °!. • w� :(p 4 (LE : PP El ` 2 � J a '' Alio �€ E LA TINADA CT A6 OAA t s 6 t � A " la LUravO rrfwrt O i I LA M.CMEN AV ii l RASTRO ; cOerE { � M1N p p ° q.% J E9 ';< I ` WV �.• V H`� --'• ```�: :ncaA.NO. ]A AKA. 1,n1 � p�y��E n � � 1 ��' ' o E\ N. H i n iowe.eeN�C °"R ORD 9 V^ S TECV 1 � ALL . AV I ni COR 1 rPVA I / t T� ORCNARo� 9 j • _ V S WOOD A — D ° 1�'+ I _ ^ �P { .. 1 9 i AOE RO ') ¢ � CO NTRV ROSE R m SCOtI 0 `! ODFNI • ° LP r0 iA 10,A,ttppS c _ AC_ERVQ \ IN r•r ^Ptyrr L,4PN` J ]EiA pP' ` II 21 N H Y_ -J A MM KNI S I �o 3 s 9, 1 , T �: _ " " ", 'f AS j�e• F RT NA LE` NU -r � w y • / . 9 ,.•� r - °] U ir3 ' [NUN' Pp P ` + E SJVI se4P T� >Ewl i•'s 9 t r � 3i? moo. ^F I m T I i o > •� HCit I.� JR s >!+s OIQ rV'N ^IR A=\\ ^' Lim. t• 0iT - j . Nu A N. ■ OR _ _v L �r LN 1 1N r + N , J•a°ss t. tt'N ` N +'O ` rN� CPLLE ••� I I .. rE•' ! I t EL l �a Y • _ y • C•lI*. J¢ r Cgy NA RA C. L, TSE A P B 7 N � __ Z •r} yn' .SSC29 G + 4 �f A 5 Ns dr' � -I' �b SEE M •' � E `u�, I s � �r t• 'tS # �t '?. ♦ N +au p Q LIroA� a r N PTN ;� rS CN•. 'w•oowc rr. sA c] A � r A 7 R•EI.uTlr ^�3 1 —�I M01/ •` g L tN .. POE 0 . t 1lS • OP ' M [ _ CRN` /� / `� i "Ip 1 c Q _ ` +r:E VL N_.-1 : '. s4 'S 1 .rnr m ,V • � �'• e3 d'; 'T LD L i I HIELD AV M IENA \ l EO e r'^ •• ' "� CI R ? s.•nr 5KO e r d "N L.� LA tt _' - 11TAASK� i�P ` \ \ CP f ♦ N !ter ,E • r n.riICKER? LN \ `y` rP� K r•T13 H / P KAw CE P S A I L \PC 0 9. \ \ .�` ` •` N P N q f ERE.N .,• F 1 y r BLVD • -3 _ ;j` • ❑ t. a. `9` h N RT •1��1.,, � �� IZ. M a ! ' _ � •>•',. Y ± "� N r or � oP4' JP ' \ \�� .� • � � S wr• fir. /+r" 3 t °j ^"R' . •7r °-'' c _ \ °- ; _•, n s• `rs �Z..,f� 9t n ,.n ��'" AN n� a � /y oE[�..'r��.� j I f r F 9 �/VO O •��4��'" P�� CA PP v � •� ` LS`Tii �k .af �t �nNor� � 2 j / 'F . �r ;' � yJ V, Y= �' a. '��- �E � ` ° � b" ••,,., � / •.sfo crFlai: t t. cr0 E °KEn %',��. [ 2 •• �7 JENNMFF r�� l W ' •,ryr• ' oRANq •{ ER Or ��, s=y / MOryr EVlDEO tx s v �'� Q Z � E' C`Er �'L2 i Ot RIIY.IG EM n Etlll+w, oNn M`t l BG,En C LU E r ' 4 C/ N f. OR k� ER f l � W 9 F PT�PP 290 MIRlO P rf 1 $1VYNFRKYI (M i - YaRnln c• �R 4 i _ c0 <o F 59) MO • .t fl uE VA � ;1�'' e 9 VEFV i e tjLl S SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SOIL & TESTING, INC BY' CHC /WDW DATE: 11 -19 -91 JOB NUMBER: 9121103 FIGURE 1 CNCiS00•- VJp•1hY ' SCS &T 9121103 November 19, 1991 Page 2 b) Evaluate, by laboratory ests, the pertinent engineering Y p g neermg properties of the various strata which ' will influence the development, including their bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential. ' c) Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards which g could have an effect on the site development. d) Address potential construction difficulties and provide recommendations concerning these ' problems. ' e) Develop soil engineering criteria for site grading and provide design information regarding the stability of cut and fill slopes. f) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structure anticipated and ' develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation design. FINDINGS ' SITE DESCRIPTION ' The subject site is a nearly square parcel of land encompassing approximately 2.78 acres in area. Access to the site is via a 60- foot -wide private road easement that includes the western 30 feet of the subject site and an additional 30 feet on the adjacent property. The road surface is unimproved. The subject lot is basically in its natural condition and is void of structures except for a wooden fence that encloses the ' property. Topographically, the site slopes towards the south, varying from about 15:1 (horizontal to vertical) in the low areas to 2.25:1 in the upper extremes. On an average, the site slopes at an inclination ' of about 10:1. A few large rocks crop out in the northeast corner where the site becomes steepest. The site had been stripped of most surface vegetation prior to our investigation. Several small trees had ' recently been planted along portions of the perimeter of the site. -- ' The site is surrounded by developed and undeveloped residential parcels. ' SCS &T 9121103 November 19, 1991 Page 3 ' GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located in the near the boundary between the Foothills Physiographic Province and the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain by Jurassic age Santiago Peak metavolcanics, the Cretaceous Lusardi Formation, and associated residuum. Specific soil conditions as encountered in our exploration consist of approximately one foot of silty to clayey, silty sands and topsoils underlain by clayey subsoils. These soils are generally underlain by Santiago Peak metavolcanic bedrock; however, a veneer of Lusardi ' Formation clay and gravel fingers into the site in the lower areas. The subsoils are comprised of moist, humid to medium stiff, reddish brown, clayey sands and sandy clays. The uppermost two to five feet of ' the underlying metavolcanic bedrock is highly weathered and fractured. This portion of the bedrock consists of mixtures of medium dense to dense, clayey sands; medium stiff, sandy clays; and fractured rock. The metavolcanic bedrock becomes less weathered and less fractured with depth and becomes generally fractured rock at depths of approximately eight to eleven feet and below. Test Trench Numbers 4 and 5 exposed clays and clayey gravels of the Lusardi Formation below the subsoils. These materials were medium stiff to stiff and medium dense to dense. The clays were very moist while the gravels were ' found to be moist. More details of the soil conditions exposed can be found on the attached trench logs, Plates Numbers 3 through 7. ' TECTONIC SETTING: No faults were encountered in our exploratory trenches but it should be noted ' that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary -age fault zones which typically consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally ' strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone) are classified as active while others are classified as only potentially active according to the ' criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those which have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years) while ' potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 2 million years before the present) but no movement during Holocene time. A review of available geologic maps indicates that the site is approximately 10 miles east of the off-shore PP y sore extension of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Recent earthquake activity along faults in the southern extension of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone indicate that this zone could be classified as active. The recent seismic events along a small portion of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone generated earthquakes of magnitude ' 4.7 or less. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado SCS &T 9121103 November 19, 1991 Page 4 Banks and San Clemente Fault Zones to the west and the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones to the ' northeast. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS GENERAL: The site is located in an area which is relatively free of potential geologic hazards. Hazards such as tsunamis, seiches, liquefaction, or landsliding should be considered negligible or nonexistent. ' GROUNDSHAKING: The most likely geologic hazard to affect the site is groundshaking as a result of movement along one of the fault zones mentioned above. The maximum bedrock accelerations that ' would be attributed to a maximum probable earthquake occurring along the nearest portion of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in the following table. TABLE I ' Maximum Probable Bedrock Design Fault Zone Distance Earthquake Acceleration Acceleration Rose Canyon 10 miles 6.5 magnitude 0.30 g 0.20 g ' Coronado Banks 22 miles 7.0 magnitude 0.18 g 0.12 g Elsinore 24 miles 7.3 magnitude 0.18 g 0.12 g San Jacinto 46 miles 7.8 magnitude 0.13 g 0.10 g ' Earthquakes on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone are expected y p ted to be relatively minor. Major seismic events ' are likely to be the result of movement along the Coronado Banks, San Jacinto, or Elsinore Fault Zones. ' Experience has shown that structures that are constructed in accordance with Uniform Building Code - Standards are fairly resistant to seismic related hazards. It is, therefore, our opinion that structural damage is unlikely if such buildings are designed and constructed in accordance with the minimum standards of the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code. GROUNDWATER: No groundwater was encountered during our subsurface exploration and we do not anticipate any major groundwater related problems, either during or after construction. However, it SCS &T 9121103 November 19, 1991 Page 5 should be recognized that minor g o groundwater seepage problems may occur after development of a site even where none were present before development. These are usually minor phenomena and ar often the result of an alteration of the permeability characteristics of the soil, an alteration in drainage patterns and an increase in irrigation water. Based on the permeability characteristics of the soil and the anticipated usage of the development, it is our opinion that any seepage problems which may occur will be minor in extent. It is further our opinion that these problems can be most effectively corrected on an individual basis if and when they develop. ' CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' GENERAL In general, no geotechnical conditions were encountered which would preclude the development of the site as presently proposed provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. The subject site was found to be underlain by compressible topsoils and expansive subsoils, extending from two to five and a half feet below the surface. These deposits are considered unsuitable, in their present condition, for the support of settlement sensitive improvements and will require removal and replacement as compacted fill. An additional consideration is the weathered metavolcanic rock which underlies the cut area. In general, this material is fractured and should be rippable with conventional ' grading equipment. However, the metavolcanic rock becomes denser with depth and it will be difficult to excavate with conventional trenching equipment below a depth of 8 to 12 feet. This condition should only affect a relatively small portion of the pad. The subsoils and some of the formational soils were found to be highly expansive. This condition will require special foundation consideration unless select ' grading is performed. The following recommendations assume that select grading will be performed. GRADING ' SITE PREPARATION: Site preparation should begin with the removal from the areas of the site to be graded of all existing vegetation and deleterious matter detrimental to the proposed development. Existing loose surficial deposits and the expansive subsoils should be removed to formational soils. It is anticipated that the maximum removal depth will be approximately 5.5 feet. The soils exposed at the bottom of the ' excavation should then be scarified to a depth of six inches, be moisture treated to at least two percent over optimum and densified to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The stockpiled soils and any SCS &T 9121103 November 19, 1991 Page 6 additional approved fill may then _ PP y be replaced �n six-to-eight-inch lifts, be moisture conditioned and compacted as indicated above. IMPORT SOILS: We understand that soils will be imported to construct the majority of the proposed fill. We also understand this material will be imported from the property to the south where a hilltop will ' be cut down to extend the rear yard of an existing residential lot. (See SCS &T Report No. 1, Project No. 9121098, dated October 16, 1991.) This hilltop was believed to be underlain by weathered metavolcanic rock and residual topsoils. A backhoe trench was excavated in the borrow area as part of this ' investigation and it was found that the hill is capped with a silty sand material that could be as thick as 18 to 28 feet. This material is nondetrimentally expansive and will make an excellent select fill material, especially for capping building pads and constructing slopes. This material is underlain by metavolcanic rock, which should be low to moderately expansive in the transition zone and should be suitable for use as fill material below a depth of three feet from finish grade. ' SELECT GRADING: The subsoils underlying the site and some of the formational soils were found to be highly expansive. In order to use conventional foundations, it will be necessary to restrict the soils ' within three feet of finish grade to select, nondetrimentally expansive soils, which are defined herein as soils with an expansion index of less than 50 when tested by UBC Method 29.2. Therefore, where ' detrimentally expansive soils exist in cut areas within three feet of finish grade, they should be removed and be replaced with nondetrimentally expansive soils. In fill areas, only nondetrimentally expansive soils ' should be within the upper three feet. The minimum horizontal limits of this recommendation should include the entire level pad, so that exterior improvements such as driveways, sidewalks, patios and decks are also underlain with select soils. The proposed import material, as discussed above, will basically consist of select nondetrimentally expansive soils that can be used to cap the building pad. In addition to the building pad cap of nondetrimentally soil, consideration should be given to using select soils within ten feet of the face of fill slopes. This will help prevent lateral extension of the soils near the face of the slope as a result of ' expansion. -- If not enough select fill material is available to cap the pad as recommended above, special foundation and slab design will be required. Recommendations for foundations and slabs where expansive soil ' conditions exist should be made after site grading when the extent of expansive soil and degree of expansion potential can be determined. ' SCS &T 9121103 November 19, 1991 Page 7 ' UNDERCUTTING: Structures founded artl on cut p y and partly on fill could experience differential ' settlement. To reduce the possibility of excessive differential settlement, it is recommended that the cut portion of the pad be undercut to a depth of three feet from finish grade. The material removed should be replaced with select compacted fill. The minimum horizontal limits of this recommendation should include the area within a perimeter of five feet outside the proposed structure. ' SURFACE DRAINAGE: It is recommended that all surface drainage be directed away from the proposed structure and the top of slopes. Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to their ' foundation. ' EARTHWORK: All earthwork and grading contemplated for site preparation should be accomplished in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions. All special site preparation recommendations presented in the sections above will supersede those in the standard Recommended grading Specifications. All embankments, structural fill and fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at or slightly over optimum moisture content. Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structures and beneath asphalt pavements should be compacted ' to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The maximum dry density of each soil type should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test D- 1557 -78, Method A or C. ' SLOPE LO E STABILITY ' Although no significant g g cant slopes are anticipated, it is our opinion that cut and /or fill slopes constructed at ' a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter inclination will possess an adequate factor of safety with respect to surficial and deep - seated rotational failure to heights of at least twenty feet. FOUNDATIONS ' GENERAL: Provided the building pad is capped with select soil PP as recommended above, shallow foundations may be utilized for the support of the proposed structure. The footings should have a ' mum depth of 12 and 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for one and two-story structures, y to es, ' respectively. A minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches is recommended for continuous and isolated footings, respectively. A bearing capacity may be increased by one -third when considering wind and /or seismic fores. Footings located adjacent to or within slopes should be extended to a depth such that a ' minimum horizontal distance of five feet and seven feet exists between the footing and the face of cut and ' SCS &T 9121103 November 19, 1991 Page 8 ' fill slopes, respectively. Retaining wall footings adjacent t g ] o or within slopes should be reviewed by this ' office. ' REINFORCEMENT: Both exterior and interior continuous footings should be reinforced with at least one No. 4 bar positioned near the bottom of the footing and one No. 4 bar positioned near the top of the footing. This reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural considerations. ' CONCRETE SLABS -ON- GRADE: Concrete slabs -on -grade should have a thickness of four inches and be underlain by a four -inch blanket of clean, poorly graded, coarse sand or crushed rock. The slab should ' be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 30 inches on- center each way. As an alternative, 6 "x6" -10/10 welded wire mesh may be substituted for the No. 3 bars. It is imperative that the slab ' reinforcing be placed near the middle of the slab. Where moisture- sensitive floor coverings are planned, a visqueen barrier should be placed one to two inches below the top of the sand layer. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and /or differential settlements for the ' proposed addition may be considered to be within tolerable limits provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in ' concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses and some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. ' EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the existing fill conditions may be considered to be ' 400 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased one -third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.40 for the resistance to ' lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction value should be reduced by one - third. When considering passive pressure on exterior footings, the upper six inches of footing should be disregarded unless pavement abuts the wall. ' ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of earth retaining structures with level backfills may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 30 pounds per cubic foot and 45 pounds per cubic foot for unrestrained and restrained walls, respectively. For 2:1 (horizontal to ' vertical) backfills, 15 pcf should be added to the aforementioned value. These pressures do not consider any other surcharge loads. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary ' SCS &T 9121103 November 19, 1991 Page 9 ' increase in soil ressure. The recommended ed pressures also assume a drained and level backfill. A ' suggested subdrain detail is provided on Plate Number 9. ' BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. FACTOR OF SAFETY: The above values, with the exception of concrete to soils friction coefficient ' do not include a factor of safety. Appropriate factors of safety should be incorporated into the design to prevent the walls from overturning and sliding. GRADING AND FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW The grading and foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review to ascertain that the recommendations of this report have been implemented and the assumptions utilized for their preparation are still appropriate. LIMITATIONS REVIEW, OBSERVATION - AND TESTING ' The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and ' specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with ' Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. ' It is recommended that Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. ' UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ' The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface ' SCS &T 9121103 November 19, 1991 Page 10 exploration locations and on the assumption p on that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and /or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. CHANGE IN SCOPE This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may ' determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. r TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards -of- Practice and /or Government Codes may ' occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. ' PROFESSIONAL STANDARD ' In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations be based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those - data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not b e responsible for the interpretations by others ' of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work ' performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. ' SCS &T 9121103 November 19, 1991 Page 11 ' CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY ' It is the responsibility of Mr. Al Mayo, or his representatives p es to ensure that the information and ' recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further his responsibility to ' take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. FIELD EXPLORATIONS ' Five subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on the attached Plate Number 1 on November 18, 1991. These explorations consisted of trenches dug by means of a backhoe. The field work ' was conducted under the observation of our engineering geology personnel. ' The explorations were carefully logged when made. These logs are presented on the following Plates Number 3 through 7. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System as illustrated on the attached simplified chart on Plate Number 2. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are provided. The density of granular soils is given as either very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense. The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, or hard. Disturbed an d undisturbed samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and returned to ' the laboratory for testing. ' LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed is presented below: ' a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil ' Classification System. SCS &T 9121103 November 19 1991 Page 12 ' b) MOISTURE-DENSITY: S TY: In -place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for ' representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is ' determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in -place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the trench logs. C) COMPACTION TEST: The maximum dry density nd optimum moisture content Y P o tent of typical ' soils were determined in the laboratory in accordance with A.S.T.M. Standard Test D -1557- 78, Method A. The results of these tests are presented below Sample Number: Proposed Import Maximum Density: 125.4 pcf Optimum Moisture Content: 10.7 % d) EXPANSION INDEX TEST:An expansion index test on remolded samples was performed on representative samples of soils likely to be present at finish grade. The test was performed on the portion of the sample passing the #4 standard sieve. The sample was brought to optimum moisture content then dried back to a constant moisture content then ' dried back to a constant moisture content for 12 hours at 230 ± 9 degrees Fahrenheit. The specimen was then compacted in a 4- inch - diameter mold in two equal layers by means of 1 a tamper, then trimmed to a final height of 1 inch, and brought to a saturation of approximately 50 percent. The specimen was placed in a consolidometer with porous stones ' at the top and bottom, a total normal load of 12.63 pounds was placed (144.7 psf), and the sample was allowed to consolidate for a period of 10 minutes. The sample was allowed to ' become saturated, and the change in vertical movement was recorded until the rate of expansion became nominal. The expansion index reported below as the total vertical displacement times the fraction of the sample passing the #4 sieve times 1000. Sample Number: T2 cQ 1' -5' Initial Moisture Content: 13.0% ' Initial Dry Density: 99.3 pcf Final Moisture Content: 33.6% Normal Stress: 144.7 psf Expansion Index: 165 1 ' SCS &T 9121103 November 19, 1991 Page 13 CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL ' EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION 1 -20 very low ' 21 -50 low 51 -90 medium ' 91 -130 high Above 131 very high ' e) DIRECT SHEAR TESTS: A direct shear test was performed to determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a ' sample having a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. Samples were tested at different vertical loads and a saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The results of this test are presented on the attached Plate Number 8. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND NIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART ' SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES I. COARSE GRAINED, more than half ' of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size. GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels, gravel - orll re than half of sand mixtures, little or no coarse fraction is fines. ' larger than No. 4 GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel sieve size but sand mixtures little or no smaller than 3 ". fines. GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels, poorly graded ' (Appreciable amount gravel- sand -silt mixtures. of fines) GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel -sand, clay mixtures. ' SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand, gravelly More than half of sands, little or no fines. coarse fraction is SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly smaller than No. 4 sands, little or no fines. sieve size. SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, poorly graded (Appreciable amount sand and silty mixtures. of fines) Sc Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures. II. FINE GRAINED, more than half of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size. ' SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt or clayey- silt -sand mixtures with slight Alas- ' ticity. Liquid Limit CL Inorganic clays of low to less than 50 medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays or low plasticity. SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous ' or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of high greater than 50 plasticity, fat clays. OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils. -_ — Water level at time of excavation CK — Undisturbed chunk- sarxlple or as indicated BG — Bulk sample US — Undisturbed, driven ring sample SP — Standard penetration sample ' or tube sample SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SOIL S TESTING, INC. BY: CHC DATE: 11-19 -91 JOB NUMBER: 9121103 Plate No. 2 ' W Z ., a O �- J v TRENCH NUMBER 1 W a w W y Q` > o ' = W -- Q Q H Z Z D Z E- F- I.- a ELEVATION 136 < N < o D a y w ' w < J o o Q 2 0 � m p co v DESCRIPTION v p v O 0 v ' SM TOPSOIL, Light Brown, SILTY Humid Loose SAND, Porous 1 CL/ SUBSOIL, Medium Brown, SANDY Humid to Stiff ' Sc CLAY /CLAYEY SAND, Vertical Moist 2 Fractures, Rootlets, Trace BG of Gravel ' 3 ' 4 SC HIGHLY WEATHERED METAVOLCANIC Moist Medium BG ROCK, Light Brown to Orange Dense Brown, CLAYEY SAND with ' S CK Blocky Rock Fragments 105.9 17.9 ' 6 GC/ MODERATELY WEATHERED META- Moist Dense SC VOLCANIC ROCK, Orange Tan, BLOCKY ROCK FRAGMENTS THAT 7 BG BREAK DOWN INTO CLAYEY SAND 8 ' GP METAVOLCANIC ROCK, Orange Moist Dense to Gray, Rock Fragments with Very 9 Clay in Fractures Dense B 10 G 11 Refusal at 11 Feet SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROJECT: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE T SOIL & TESTING INC. LOGGED BY: JWR DATE LOGGED: 11 -08 -91 JOB NUMBER - 9121103 PLATE NUMBER: 3 W ►� d O } J v TRENCH NUMBER 2 w¢ w w t > o S W a nJ. ELEVATION 130 < y a N o D a N w ' W < < co < < o o ¢ o a 0 N V DESCR v p v O 0 ' BG SM TOPSOIL, Light Brown, SILTY Dry Loose SAND, Porous 1 ' CL/ SUBSOIL, Medium Brown, SANDY Humid Medium SC CLAY /CLAYEY SAND, Vertical Stiff/ 2' Fractures, Rootlets, Trace Stiff of Gravel 3 ` BG CK 105.3 18.0 ' 4 ' S CL HIGHLY WEATHERED META- Moist Medium 6 CK VOLCANIC ROCK, Light Brown Stiff 117.2 14.5 ' , to Orange Brown, SANDY CLAY with Rock Fragments 7 8' BG 9 10' Mottled Coloring, Clay in Fracture, Very Slick 11' 12 GP WEATHERED METAVOLCANIC ROCK, Orange Gray, Rock Fragments with Clay in Fractures ' 13 Bottom at 13 Feet S� SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PRO O. TESTING, INC. ECT : SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE T SOIL Q LOGGED BY: �JWR DATE LOGGED: 11 -08 -91 ' JOB NUMBER: 9121103 PLATE NUMBER: 4 7 a Z W O �. ^. J ' TRENCH NUMBER 3 w¢ W W N v W= W z ' W - > > O I-- a CO F) ELEVATION 125 < co La W W ► — W c w a a0 D O a N C W < .7 < O Cr_ >- O ¢ .7 V DESCRIPTION v O p U O 0 0 ' SM TOPSOIL, Light Brown, SILTY Humid Loose SAND, Porous 1 CL/ SUBSOIL, Medium Brown, Moist Medium SC SANDY CLAY /CLAYEY SAND, Stiff 2: Vertical Fractures, Rootlets, BG Trace of Gravel 3� CK 106.1 15.8 4 5' ' 6 CL/ WEATHERED METAVOLCANIC ROCK, Very Medium CK SC Orange Gray, Mottled Moist Dense Colored SANDY CLAY TO CLAYEY 7 SAND ' BG GC Grades to Blocky Rock Very 8 Dense ' Refusal at 8 Feet SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROJECT: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ' T SOIL & TES LOGGED BY: JWR TING, INC. DATE LOGGED: 11-08-91 ' JOB NUMBER: 9121103 PLATE NUMBER: 5 W Z C a ' v TRENCH NUMBER 4 Z aa: w w N Q` w Z x j > o a a OIL ELEVATION 119 a 22 W W `o z ~ Q IL F a a 0 0 C a H Q ' < 2 X 0 0 M 2 0 Q 2 J 0 v DESCRIPTION v� p v O ' SM/ TOPSOIL, Medium Brown, Humid Loose SC CLAYEY SILTY SAND 1 ' CL/ SUBSOIL, Red Brown, SANDY Humid/ Medium SC CLAY /CLAYEY SAND, Vertical Moist Stiff 2 Fractures ' 3 CL HIGHLY WEATHERED LUSARDI Moist to Medium BG FORMATION, Orange Gray, Very Stiff ' SANDY CLAY with Rounded Moist 4 CK Gravel and Cobbles 100.5 21.7 ' 5 6 CK ' 7 8 9 Bottom at 8.5 Feet SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROJECT: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE T ' 1 T ESTING, INC C► SOIL Q LOGGED BY: JWR DATE LOGGED: 11 -08 -91 1 1 . ' JOB NUMBER: 9121103 PLATE NUMBER: 6 ' 2 W ., a O TRENCH NUMBER 5 W Q W W m W - W z = W > O a a 00 6 ELEVATION 125 < y < G o a N W a W O < < < O 0 Q O CC .1 O v DESCRIPTION v 0 v O ' SM TOPSOIL, Medium Brown, Dry Loose SILTY SAND 1 CL/ SUBSOIL, Red Brown, SANDY Humid Medium ' Sc CLAY /CLAYEY SAND, Porous Stiff 2 SC/ WEATHERED LUSARDI FORMATION, Humid/ Medium ' 3 BG CL Light Red Brown, VERY Moist Dense CLAYEY SAND CK ' 4 GP/ Light Red Brown, BLOCKY Moist Medium Sc GRAVEL WITH CLAYEY SAND Dense/ 5 BG Dense 6 7 Bottom at 6.5 Feet �s c� SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROJECT: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE T SOIL & T ESTING, INC. LOGGED BT: JWR DATE LOGGED: 11 -0$ -91 ' JOB NUMBER: 9121103 PLATE NUMBER: 7 ■N ■■1 �■q■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■so ■■ EssN ■N ■ ■� ■� ■NNNW ■ ■ ■ / ■qq� Nm ■ oNgoE/■■ ■m ml mn m■mgmq■■ E■ ■ooN=ME ■qNB■ ■� ■m mi now 0 ■ q ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ mm ■ ■ / ■ ■ ■w■■ m n ■ s■Nmq ■ ■ ■ sns ■W ■ ■ /W■ ■ /■■■W ■ ■qq■ Nq■I �q ■■ ■ ■ ■N ■ ■qN ■ ■m ■q■■■■■ ■ NNEI ■ ■ ■■ ■ s■m■mmE ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ESN ■q■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ mms s■■S ■I one a ■ ■ ■W Room NNWq ■q ■NNq■ ■mgml Wn ■ ■ ■ ■W ■ N ■ ■ ■WNN ■ ■N ■ ■ ■■q ■■ N ■ ■I ■ ■N■ gN■gq/ ■ ■ ■■■/ ■ ■■ ■ ■q■ ■N■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■q m mossmi ■■■■■ ■ ■ ■N ■m■ ■ ■ ■■ ■MEMO ■m ■ ■m ■ ■ ■s ■N■■■■ ■N ■ ■1 ■■■■ ■■Nmsouon ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Mason ■mmmmgmm ■ ■ ■■■ ■q■■ mN■sl BEEN ■ ■NWN ■N ■■s ■ ■ Mason ■■ ■SEEN■■■ ■ ■N7smm■ sm ■I lmsmm ■ ■ N OESE is s■ ■SOMEONE ■ nmNo■s q ■�� ■ / ■q ■■ ■W ■I gym■ WN ■■S ■■ ■m ■ ■m ■ ■ ■N ■q ■■■ ■ ■�L ■ ■ ■N ■ ■M ■■ s ■m ■SI ■ ■ ■■ ■■mmommom ■■ssNSESENSmmumml- /mm■ ■monsoon ■ ENE■ SEEN ■■■ o■ m■ onsom ■sEn■■mo■ /rAmm■ ■m ■m ■ ■■■■s■mmm snood Non ■mm■NN ■N■ snmsNgm.NN ■um ■m ■mm■■mms nom ■sl�m■Sm ■NOSO ■N was ■ ■mo ■m ►1 ■s■■ MN ■osm ■ ■mm■■ ■■NEM AMEN ■ mso ■■ ■■■suos.m■ ■o ■mm■ou ■ ■sm■■■■■m ■Wmll=m■ ■onsoNN B■mom /LmsmEmomoN■N ■mmmammon • ou■■I WE ■m oN■ onset ■► mum ■m ■mN ■Wm ■ ■mum■m ■■ mq Boom a ■ml ■EE■ ■m■mw ■ /.s ■s ■ ■SqS ■■q ■N ■q■m ■SEEM ■ ■■■ ■smu /. %o ■ ■Nnn ■S ■ ■ ■so■ommomo■ ■ ■mom■oss ■EU ■ man s ■ ■ ■ ■ WANE ■■ N■om■oo■■ ■mom ■m ■m om■soonmmum■ ■■NEST ■moon teammo moomm■ ■m ■ ■ENS■NES■ ■■om■■q■■ ommo ■In man ■ /LS mom ■osommonso ■o■■om ■■nSno■msmm ■n set■■ I NS■ w■ ■s ■ ■ ■ ■sn ■ ■NSEgs ■ ■ ■N■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■NS ■soNs ESN ■I �s ► %■ ■ ■s ■ ■ ■NNN osoN ■ ■ ■ ■unSNNgmssNNm■ ■ N■ nwtt . / ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ S ■ ■NNEw ■S ■uE ■NSN ■s ■set ■ ■ ■mN ■mso ■■ moomp , ■■■■■ wNNNN wool sN ■S ■ ■Nw ■ ■ ■mo ■ ■ ■s■ESon /mom ■NmpArd NONE ■NNNS ■NN■ ■mss ■Nom ■nmm■■Nmm■ss swim ■I �NmoN ■s q■NNS ■ ■mnmN NONE NNN■ ■N ■S ■mN ■MEMOS ►0111N■ ■1 tNEWS a ■ ■ /NNmRoom N ■N ■s MEMO SN ■ ■s ■NNo mmml Wm■ ■■gmW■a on Man Nom■ Nol ■Sq ■ ■■mmS■ ■gmmmgmmNEE ■ ■ ■ ■qqSM SOUTHE • 1 SOIL '' • TE STING. INC. • • •` 912110 r r r 1% SLOPE MINIMUM 6' MIN. W MAX. WATERPROOF BACK OF WALL PER °. ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS ,o ° 3/4 INCH CRUSHED ROCK OR MIRADRAIN o' 6000 OR EQUIVALENT •o GEOFABRIC BETWEEN ROCK AND SOIL o, ° i •o2 "a o : e TOP OF GROUND r - OR CONCRETE SLAB o • o' o 6' MIN. c 0 r MINIMUM 4 INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE r r RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL ' NO SCALE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SOIL & TESTING, INC •r: CHC DATE: 1 -19 -91 r �o• NUYsE11: 9121103 Plate No. 9 r SCS &T 9121103 November 18, 1991 Appendix, Page 1 ' SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, EAST OF LONE A J CK ROAD, ENCINITAS RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS ' GENERALINTENT The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural round g , preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on ' the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and /or the attached Special provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications ' and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only he used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OBSERVATION AND TESTING Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that my may provided his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, ' changes and new information and data so that he may provided these opinions. in the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations. The Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical c,hnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.; construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommended rejection of this work. SCS &T 9121103 November 18, 1991 Appendix, Page 2 Tests used to determine the degree of g compaction should be performed in accordance with the ' following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods: ' Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - ASTM D- 1557 -82 Density of Soil In -Place - ASTM D- 1556 -64 or ASTM D -2922 ' All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined b the foregoing going ASTM testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally ' disposed of. All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of ' 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ' ground which is defined as natural soils which possesses an in -situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. When the slope of the natural ground receiving till exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical ' unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soils. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1 -1/2 times the equipment width, whichever is greater, and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (20 percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. ' An abandoned buried structures ctures encountered during grading operations must he totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described ' procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the SCS &T 9121103 November 18, 1991 Appendix, Page 3 ' Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, ,but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or ' leach lines, storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities no to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special ' recommendation will be necessary. All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend ' on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and /or a q ualified Structural Engineer. FILL MATERIAL Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of ' vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils ' are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide ' satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. ' PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL Approved fill material pp a shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches ' in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each ' layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be ' specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the ' preliminary geotechnical investigation report. SCS &T 9121103 November 18, 1991 Appendix, Page 4 ' When the structural fill material include rocks, ocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must ' be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non- ' structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable. ' Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer ' is at less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction ' by sheepsfoot rollers hall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall ' be over -built and cut -back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope ' having a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation ' on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. ' Density tests is in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication ' from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report. ' If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of ' compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. ' SCS &T 9121 103 November 18, 1991 Appendix, Page age 5 CUT SLOPES The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or 1' p �thified formational material ' during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially ' adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading„ these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soil Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or ' steeper than the allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. ' ENGINEERING OBSERVATION ' Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading ' with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or the observation and testing shall not release the Grading Contractor from his duty ' to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. SEASON LIMITS Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill ' materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. ' RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative ' compaction. ' SCS &T 9121 103 November 18, 1991 Appendix, Page 6 ' EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimental) expansive soil is defined as clayey Y p soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 29 -C. ' OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations ' of placement of such material is provided by the geotechnical engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve. ' TRANSITION LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required. S� � T ' SUMMARY OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND TESTS FOR RELATIVE COMPACTION ' SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE EAST OF LONE JACK ROAD ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA . ' PREPARED FOR: ' MR. AL MAYO 1772 KETTERING STREET ' IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 PREPARED BY: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. ' 6280 RIVERDALE STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120 q Providing Professional Engineering Services Since 1959 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA i SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, San Diego, CA 92120 E0. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160 619 - 280 -4321, FAX 619 - 280 -4717 June 19, 1992 ' Mr. Al Mayo Y SCS &T 9121103 ' 1772 Kettering Street Report No. 2 Irvine, California 92714 1 SUBJECT: Summary of Field Observations and Tests for Relative Compaction, Single Family p � g Y ' Residence, East of Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, California. REFERENCE: "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Single Family Residence, East of Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, California," Prepared by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., dated November 19, 1991. Dear Mr. Mayo: In accordance with your request, this report has been prepared to summarize the results of the field t observations and tests for relative compaction performed at the subject site by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. These services were performed between May 18 and June 10, 1992. 1 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is a nearly square parcel of land encompassing approximately 2.78 acres in area. Access ' to the site is via a 60 foot -wide private road easement that includes the western 30 feet of the subject site and an additional 30 feet on the adjacent property. The road surface is unimproved. The subject lot was basically in its natural condition and was void of structures. A wooden fence encloses the property. Topographically, the site sloped towards the south. A few large rocks crop out in the northeast corner ' where the site becomes steepest. The site has been stripped of most surface vegetation prior to our investigation. Several small trees had recently been planted along portions of the perimeter of the site. The site is surrounded by developed and undeveloped residential parcels. SCS &T 9121103 June 19, 1992 Page 2 ' PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The site is being developed to receive a one or two -story residential structure of wood -frame construction. The structure will be supported by shallow foundations and will have a conventional concrete slab -on- grade floor system. ' AVAILABLE PLANS ' To assist in determining the locations and elevations of our field density tests and to define the general extent of the site grading for this phase of work, we were provided with a grading plan prepared by San Dieguito Engineering, dated October 17, 1991. ' SITE PREPARATION As outlined in the referenced report, the site was found to be underlain by compressible topsoils and expansive subsoils, extending from two to five and a half feet below existing grade. These deposits were ' considered unsuitable from the support of settlement sensitive improvements. Therefore, it was recommended that these soils be removed and replaced as uniformly compacted fill. The subsoils and ' some of the formational soils were found to be highly expansive. It was also recommended that select grading be performed by capping the proposed building pad and other exterior improvements with a three ' foot layer of compacted nondetrimentally expansive soils. In addition, it was also recommended to use select soils within ten feet of the face of the fill slopes in order to help preventing lateral extension of the soils near the face of the slope as a result of expansion. In the areas of the proposed southern and western fill slopes, keyways were cut into firm natural ground at the toes of the proposed slopes. The approximate limits and bottom elevations and /or depths of the ' removals to firm natural ground are shown on Plate Number 1. The exposed soils at the bottom of the removals were then prepared to receive fill by scarifying to an approximate depth of twelve inches, ' moisture conditioned, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. The fill material, which was obtained from the stockpile was placed in six (6) to eight (8) inch layers, ' moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture content, and then compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. As the depth of fill increased, the existing slopes were benched in a stair -step method to remove any unsuitable soils. As the depth of the fill increased the face of the fill slopes were ' SCS &T 9121103 June 19, 1992 Page 3 rolled with a 5x5 sheepsfoot roller at vertical intervals of approximately four feet. At the completion of ' the fill operations, the slopes were trimmed to finish grade. Unsuitable soils throughout the fill portion of the building pad were removed as recommended. The preparation of the bottom of the excavation and the placement of the fill material were performed as previously described. The cut portion of the pad was undercut to a depth of approximately three (3) feet from finish grade. The approximate horizontal limits and depth of the undercut are shown on Plate Number 1. The exposed surface was scarified to an approximate depth of twelve (12) inches and the soils replaced with import, ' in six (6) to eight (8) inch layers, moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. However, unsuitable soils in sections of the cut portion ' were removed in conjunction with the removed soils from the fill portion. The entire building pad was capped with a three foot layer of compacted nondetrimentally expansive soils. Nondetrimentally expansive soils are defined as soils with an expansion index of less than 50 when tested by UBC Method 29.2. The mass grading operation was performed by Mike Scott Grading of Encinitas, California, using the following equipment: ' 1 - DBCat 2 - D6 Cat 1 _ 5x5 Sheepsfoot 2 950 Loaders 1 - Motor Grader 1 - JD 762 Scraper 1 623 Scraper 2 - Water Trucks ' FIELD OBSERVATION AND TESTING ' Field observation and density tests were erformed b a representative P y of Southern California Soil and ' Testing, Inc. during the mass grading operations. The density tests were taken according to ASTM D1556 -82 (sand cone). The results of those tests are shown on the attached plates. The accuracy of the ' in -situ density test locations and elevations is a function of the accuracy of the survey control provided by other than Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. representatives. Unless otherwise noted, their ' SCS &T 9121103 June 19, 1992 Page 4 locations and elevations were determined by pacing and hand level methods and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. ' As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of work we agreed to be involved with, and performed tests, on which, together, we based our opinion as to whether th work essentially complies with the job requirements, local grading ordinances and the Uniform Building ' Code. LABORATORY TESTS ' Maximum dry density determinations were performed on representative samples of the soils used in the compacted fills according to ASTM D1557-78, Method A. This method specifies that a four (4) inch ' diameter cylindrical mold of 1/30 cubic foot volume be used and that the soil tested be placed in five (5) equal layers with each layer compacted by twenty-five (25) blows of a 10 -pound hammer with an 18 -inch drop. The results of these tests, as presented on Plate Number 3, were used in conjunction with the field density tests to determine the degree of relative compaction of the compacted fill. The expansive potential of existing soils within the upper three feet of finish grade was determined using UBC Test method 29 -2. The results of the tests are shown on Plate Number 3. CONCLUSIONS Based on field observations and relative compaction tests results, it is the opinion of Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. that the grading was performed basically in accordance with the job requirements ' and local grading ordinances. t EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The prevailing foundation soils were found to be nondetrimen- tally expansive. Therefore, the foundation recommendations provided in the referenced report remain ' applicable and should be implemented. ' FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATIONS: All footing excavations should be observed by a member of our engineering geology staff to verify that the foundation excavations extend into a suitable bearing stratum. SCS &T 9121103 June 19, 1992 Page 5 ' LIMITATIONS ' This report covers only the services performed between May 18 and June 10, 1992. As limited b y the ' scope of the services which we agreed to perform, our opinion presented herein is based on our observations and the relative compaction test results. Our service was performed in accordance with the currently accepted standard of practice and in such a manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the mass grading operation with the job requirements. No warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to the services which we have performed, and neither the performance ' of those services nor the submittal of this report should be construed as relieving the contractor of his responsibility to conform with the job requirements. If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This ' opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully Submitted, ' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. q &9 e- 'n - I ` o fESS ph T. biab, Staff Engineer ' Reviewed by: L „ ° No.GE000215 m Cr Exp. 9 -30-93 *�� 9T6 OF C A ``FpQ` Charles H. Christian, R.G.E. /00215 CHC:JTD:mw cc: (2) Submitted ' (4) San Dieguito Engineering (1) SCS &T, Escondido ACS &T' 9121103 I COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 0 ' s DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE COOES 01V1 ❑ San Oipo Office ❑ North Countv Office –' 5201 Ruffin Road. Suns 03 134 Via Vera Cruz R ETURN TO: San Oiego, CA 92123 San Mmreoa. CA 920M 5664WM 741 -42361 pm)sct Location Lone Jack R oad - M o e of Pez9ittee .y Encinitas, CA Grading Permit `1o. 28 15GR This report fare for a "minor grading project is to be completed and signed by the Registered Civil Engineer (Or Architect) who has been designated on the Grading Plan and Permit as the Engineer who will furnish the compaction report for wort authorized by a grading permit issued by the Department of Planning and Land Use. The intent of the format is to provide information to the Department of Planning and Lad Use as to din q ' coeplisnee with the approved Grading Plan and Permit. Where the gr questions below refer to locati configuration or quantity of cut and /or fill areas, it is understood that you on, response will not normally be based on an actual land survey or detailed earthwork quantity calculations. It should be noted, however, that the Department is particularly concerned where there are possible infractions with respect to over - steepened slopes, encroachments of required setbacks, uncospacted fills placed, or where the quantity of fill placed differs substantially from that authorized. The Depertment of Planning and Land Use requires that all fills authorized by a Grading Permit be compacted to a aini— of 90% of naximm density with the exception that not more thin 12" of uncompactd and untested fills may be dispersed over the land parcel. The need to compact all fills that are beyond the present limits of the ' present proposed construction is to insure that future proposed construction of roan additions or swimming pools or similar structures will not require that uncompactd fills be removed or recaepaet d, or that extensive foundation work be installed. ' Compaction reports will not be accepted unless this farm is completed and signed by the registered person. A. CLIOATIBILM VTM GRADING PLAN AND PERMIT 1. Was the caepaetd fill placed only in the approximate locations desi plan as arms to be filled? gnated on the grading Yes No 2. Did the quantity of fill material placed approximately conform to the grading plan? X Yes_ b 3. Did the toe of fill or the top of cut appear to meet the prescribed property line setback Yes X ' (I-S' for fill: 3.0' for cuts)? — Yo s. were the finished fill slopes equal to or less than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical? X Yes S. If the fill material was obtained by cuts on the site, were the cuts Made in the proper Yes X vo ' location and to the proper slope approximately as shown on the approved grading plan? 6. Were brow ditches constructed approximately as shown on the grading plan? Yes No X ' B. LOGITION AND A WNW OF COMPACTION TES73 — I. Have you attached a sketch and data shoring the location and relative elevation for all Yes X compaction tests! — NO WAS a eom4ettiem test made so that there is at least one test in each 2' thick lens of Yes X compacted matwl"? — Yo 3. As indicated by inspections, observations and eompection test results. was the fill, Yes X excluding the top 1.0 compacted to at lest 90% of nexiva dry density? `O — C. Q11ALI71f OF FILL CO VACTIOV OPERATION I. was the area to receive fill properly prepared in terms of brush removal, benching, Yes X ' wetting. removal of noncompactd fill or debris and related items? 30 2. was all detrimentally expansive soil placed in the fill at 3' or more below finish grade? Yes X Vo 3. Have you attached a cory of voice• curve showing the relationship between optimum moisture Yes X content and aaxisum semi ty? :a 4. ins all material used as fill (earth, rocks. ;ravel) smaller than 1_" in sa ie3 X '.c 3* are all areas of the fill suitable for support of structures +ere all existing fills on the site recomeacted in accordance witn the provisions of the `'es X '1;', �adiat ordinance' SCS &T 9121103 ' DATE NO. OF HOURS OUR REPRESENTATIVE 05 -18 -92 6.0 Lloyd Coffer t 05 -19 -92 7.0 Lloyd Coffer 05 -20 -92 8.0 Lloyd Coffer 05 -21 -92 7.0 Lloyd Coffer 05 -22 -92 8.0 Lloyd Coffer 05 -26 -92 8.0 Lloyd Coffer 05 -27 -92 8.0 Lloyd Coffer 05 -28 -92 7.0 Lloyd Coffer ' 05 -29 -92 7.5 Lloyd Coffer 06 -01 -92 8.0 Lloyd Coffer 06 -02 -92 8.0 Lloyd Coffer 06 -03 -92 6.0 Lloyd Coffer 06 -05 -92 4.5 Lloyd Coffer 06 -08 -92 3.0 Lloyd Coffer 06 -09 -92 2.5 Lloyd Coffer 06 -10 -92 2.0 Lloyd Coffer - • A Y M " r�4 -vii _ . -�•- ®■ ®■ L 9- - ■ ■1l1..� ■.lam ■D■ - _ , Ld ■ ■� ■�! ■111 ■i1 j - ,. -' � a , .. IN EM MIN ME mommmommmammomomm Ell MMIMM IME MIMEMEM ! ■■fit..! ■ ■! ■i■ ! ■ ■a■■O ■ ■Iw. ■A ■�7 !. ■111 ■ ■, ■ ■!■it ■■ ► •. n • ..■■ ■a ■■is■■� ■i! ■D ■its ■■ ■ ■N�■ ■Ili■ ■ilk ■�1!!,1i0+� ■►7 ■�!■ • . ■p■�� OWN= ■■= _ ■ ....� . �.� I■.■. l.L ■1l!■■N Ram- • i f ra ' I le MEN ■.s■■v■■e■■as ■�■ei - - ■ ■ ■ ■ ■O ■ ■ ■s ■ ■� ■i! ■o ■ice ■■ ■■ ■■ i �■ ■�l1 ■ ■111■ ■QI ■ ■ l� ■ d1 mammum SS��■ ®■■ ■■N■■i ■�r�■�Q■A ■■ . ME ME Sill ..SS S.S 5.... SSSS. • !Q l MISSION MISSION ■■D■■ %■i■■M ■ ■7 ■■M■■M■ ■r■ ■D ■W■ M■ ■a■■U■ ■1w■■MMU WMEMMOMMEMMIMMEM ■.■■■o■■e■■a■■a■ei ■■■a■■cw■aw■a■■a■�w► ■■■■■aa■ ■s■■a■a ■■v■ia NONE ■■7■■M■■PMEM■■MMIM ■■■■■■ MUM mMMOR:040■ INMIM■% ■ ■■■■ Grllwali ■D1S�'�� ■►7■Now � ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■s�■■v■■e■■a■ ■a■ ■ ■■ iis�■■�■ ■■v�■■aAV ■ �CiS�aS _ ■■■■■� ■��i%■KIMIN■O■is■ ■�■��■ ®■■ ■ ■mow ■i��,�:'■:Q.!\ ■■ ■■■ ■a ■■■■ ■■�■■ M ■■ IMMINIM ■ ■■ ■ ■�� ■ ■�_ ■ ■■ ■ ■ iii ■ ■��■ ■��■►1 �� Si �S1�C16r:ma .. moss �. SSS SS... SS�SSS:UMS:��r OB NAME: Lone Jack Road JOB NO: 9121103 PLATE NO: 2 EST DATE LOCATION ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DEN. SOIL REL.COMP. NO------------------------------------------ (percent)(p_c�f_)- TYPE - (percent) 1 05 -18 -92 South Side of Pad 119.0 PNG 14.3 119.6 1 95.4 2 05 -20 -92 South Side of Pad 119.0 14.3 115.6 2 92.5 3 05 -20 -92 South Side of Pad 121.0 16.3 115.5 2 92.4 4 05 -21 -92 South Side of Pad 121.0 6.1 98.4 2 78.7 5 05 -21 -92 South Side of Pad 122.0 14.3 116.5 2 93.2 6 05 -21 -92 Retest of No. 4 121.0 16.3 116.8 2 93.4 7 05 -21 -92 West Side of Pad 122.0 14.3 114.7 2 91.8 8 05 -22 -92 South Side of Pad 123.0 17.6 115.6 2 92.5 9 05 -22 -92 South Side of Pad 123.0 16.2 116.2 2 92.9 10 05 -26 -92 West Side of Pad 125.0 14.3 114.3 2 91.5 11 05 -26 -92 South Side of Pad 125.0 13.0 115.8 2 92.6 12 05 -27 -92 Center of Pad 127.0 14.3 110.6 2 88.5 13 05 -27 -92 Retest of No. 12 127.0 15.6 118.8 2 95.0 14 05 -27 -92 South /Center of Pad 127.0 17.6 116.8 2 93.4 15 05 -27 -92 West /Center of Pad 126.0 15.6 117.7 2 94.2 16 05 -28 -92 Center of Pad 128.0 14.3 119.6 2 95.7 17 05 -28 -92 South Side of Pad 128.0 17.0 115.9 2 92.7 18 05 -28 -92 South Side of Pad 128.0 17.6 116.0 2 92.8 19 05 -29 -92 North Side of Pad 126.0 15.6 117.0 2 93.6 20 05 -29 -92 South Side of Pad 128.0 14.3 117.2 2 93.8 21 06 -01 -92 South Side of Pad 129.0 14.3 119.1 2 95 3 22 06 -01 -92 Center of Pad 129.0 16.3 117.5 2 94.0 23 06 -01 -92 North Side of Pad 129.0 17.6 116.5 2 93.2 24 06 -01 -92 South Side of Pad 129.0 15.6 117.6 2 94.0 25 06 -02 -92 West Side of Pad 128.0 16.3 114.1 3 92.3 26 06 -02 -92 South Side of Pad 131.0 17.6 107.2 3 86.7 27 06 -02 -92 Center of Pad 131.0 16.3 115.6 3 93.6 28 06 -02 -92 Retest of No. 26 131.0 15.6 115.2 3 93.2 29 06 -03 -92 North Side of Pad 128.0 17.6 114.8 3 92.9 ' 30 06 -03 -92 West Side of Pad 130.0 17.0 117.0 3 94.7 31 06 -05 -92 North Side of Pad 130.0 11.1 114.5 3 92.3 32 06-05-92 West Side of Pad 130.0 14.3 117.3 3 94.9 33 06 -05 -92 North Side of Pad 132.0 FG 15.6 119.2 3 96.5 34 06 -08 -92 South Side of Pad 132.0 FG 11.1 116.1 3 93.4 35 06 -08 -92 Center of Pad 132.0 FG 14.3 118.2 3 95.6 36 06 -08 -92 North Side of Pad 132.0 FG 13.0 121.2 3 98.0 37 06 -10 -92 North Side of Pad 132.0 FG 13.6 116.4 3 94.6 38 06 -10 -92 West Side of Pad 132.0 FG 14.3 118.3 3 95.7 39 06 -10 -92 South Side of Pad 132.0 FG 13.6 116.9 3 94.6 PNG - Prepared Natural Ground FG - Finished Grade ' JOB NAME: Lone Jack Road JOB NO 9121103 PLATE NO: 3 MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS, ASTM 1557 -82 ----------------------------------------------------------------- SOIL DESCRIPTION OPTIMUM MAXIMUM TYPE MOISTURE DENSITY (percent) (pcf) 1 Tan, Sandy Silt 10.7 125.4 2 Red /Brown, Silty Clayey 9.9 125.0 Sand W /Gravel 3 Tan, Silty Sand 10.8 123.6 EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAMPLE NO. LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX CLASSIFICATION 1 Building Pad 47 Low 2 Building Pad 33 Low i , — ,3 •— =-- - L- - �° -_ �� - � ;yem _fi •++,aet� � J"' � � �� i / � / � OD Z3 , Aj Lj fv Ln O T Li CID C, lj t F r Y O � l \ J h rr l N Of f , i r li�hc r. INC Cl' i -y am f N w r r. Ln s r 30 C7, a � - t b I � it 1 -' �'`"•- �!V � O ` ; 'O Ul N 1 . I / it ~. � �V • -_ Ln. A hi to /� � � •�✓ _ it © Q a - 1,} : O PQ lu 1 . ' ' • ,...y'_. _ -. .. . -. ...,, i[ _. � ;t L.r�' -3 / v: C � �6..... .�:. .. rat4 .-w:- - £- -._.,. i r j c jo a IM w _ W. s t c =m �� O , ? , If • I — '�1 t �i L... L. fir• �11 1 `/r �•� • 1 •. 1 ................ �- rr , C) \ dp0 IWIM `�•�� p ` `ti 1 AC.. 2.27 AC. «• PAR. ► 4 � ,�, - � X- � .�• PAR, I — J 1372. W . TO W . N +. ( PER � � �-- � 1, 15 A 12 s FAR, 2 } , O Ck. CLA 2 w. ,. �.�. • AG 4 Z.25 AC. FILTER' B �.z L t�� pr � U PAR. 2 t qP�'R w 4 . • , � 1 Z . AC. 30.9 \r _ �- `3 �- .._._. �S \ \ X64 �"��• PAR. t I b • 15 %29.0 30 °'� 1 �� S H7. 2 0 ^''7�• 1 s, Prl � }, .':�� U � y \\� '` ,. ' 1 fi. � '•SCI' ' �it�" � • S R C • d % I t 0 6 Ia s • �►' r�jyf • •, ..�.. I. fib.., ry ... : ,, .. - A , .• ,• ... " ,. UT � R G _ .. .�' a c ,. , ., r y 1• a'ts t : c ) J► ' + 8 8 � A 1�: i, ! • ; , , - _ , :y. ,t,t.': •MI,,,,,,,� .�+"'- ' r 1. 17 . (' AR. ,. -qq D t , : _ f C , j s (D P A R . � ,., — ..• . If 17 Q) I I✓AT r RIOAD �r7� ��. Sc , \ PA R, 4' TZ i V J n "- ,DAYL ! : . • . t TE' • Ex STI PRI VA , � . �, D� � ,. c w Z l 8 T S E'N i Ah it , , AA R 3 _ ' , ?e } , R .. 77 4n t Yi o r K, "t 5 a. , 3 2. 1 ,:. :i �,. A . • .r , r r -. t" .�'�i+ a 'r^ �, t ` , s p -HOSE B1 • K , .;j +'e, <, .`i•..�r••1!'w"r'1"..�.t ,•, e�'.t't�`t a � y I.1,, , .+,.. �"'"� , , { ,.. z F w k .... . � •� -. , y tl �. ..., :. G4.. .:. � . .. «M,- `. r, �, . "±'' ;' �' I:' N `,.. � -`�:Y t '� J/ . V�. , , ,l `Ar: .� '��; • S ',t ,�§. �'�,4� It + ` "t , :r, ' rt 9Y,. r .. r , . , ` :t . y . r4 YF:a »a 3•� " °dr a. � .!"IMf Z ■ ,. sr ro �.�` , °. s x ! K. •,� ... F ,�' ..,,. ..< ° i..; � :t x„` � ti Lv, � - ' � • ti �. " � �: b t# •l ,,i. {'% 6#x!1 j ,. y F �r ,,,; 1,• r f .k: ",�# 41 ,¢•• "', w. �"'.`�� ,i'.,=t r :'�wtr'"r +. �'a: tiny "'�' t!•t • n. j/� - . , , j ,T• ,,,,... a. .' +' h,. : t i„,....$Y, k` t . - �. i tf1. ,,, 't:titi ,� ,,. .Y. / � ) a .� 'i»iSEy .,,�rh�;1,'1, • it "fit �fI✓ L 91 ,;� � �. • .::, «,,'' 3 � R RAP EN RGY Dl s A � X � X ,� �'Ei�l STA kED H1 H w ,� 6 R U P� ockctAss . , 'i� 7*ON wi 12 „ , T L SAND S C n° ° 4' AC 3/4 !NSA F1 L`1` �`�:A �� T • U AF?�R LAYER: , QRARY F cONTh OL FO R ?E NAP `''\ ' SAND; OR A PPR�D VED A' x • TOE OF FILL --- ,. , , w . I "-"" x"1.17 -' ..,,,, �w�r STIC , , --�•: 7000 L � � p g --. _ -� � r Y Cl i rrw- EX /5 T I EGEMW r_ h , //p -�, TRENCH LOCATION ; WL 1101 , , -'''�` DI FORMATION w / /0 KI LUSAR `q Lj \ !AGO PEAK- VOLCANICS TA ,� i Z p ---- .�.rr.••• •••■• GEOLOGiG CONTACT LIJ ,•.� •. 0 r Ll SCALE • Lj < YN , + • SOUTHERN OAtr1F+G►RIV1A C c SOIL & TESTING, INC. LLJ • � DATE 11.19•g 1 CHCIWDW 08 NO.," 9121103 PLATE *1 , , 1T.�`.� PUBLIC; WORKS DEPARTMENT DRAWING N0. APPR , MARK F RECOMMENDED � � CT s �.�. PLAN FOR � • �• TE BENCH MA S CAL E S DISTRICT A R SUPERVISION O APPROVED GRA DING • , REVISIONS APPROVED DATE REFERENCES D PLANS PREPARED UND BY: t DATE �a - 17- 1 BY: S I N G L. E FA M, l LY RESID HORIZONTAL R.C.E. NO.: 2$ PATE: DATE: SHEET OF DILL EMUTN WORK PROJECT N0. • t VERTICAL /A STEPHEN D• EE R -31 84 R .C.E. SDE 3� 8 R.C.E. EXP. ENS 1N -- • ?' C 0 0 F I.) TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY GFES 3987 III I 30 'A, r i A. el A 11116 I L Hof!zonto! M men f 4 !%. I ...... .... .. ... .... iI N or LEGEND- I 4� Vv t r n! wit- Mon.,rrpnt 11 11 1. _ A. 41f III 4 -4 _ I` on-o Mirl,).jrnent I r 0 t " I I 4 I k'4 0 Monurnel"It f J_ I c 0 W/ i Iv j41' I i t r I i I C.onti , L)l n, m e n f T_ �16 1 Aic I I Ana 4� i!� ii � ' : - �, 4 I .-i or :� I Mo li,% Rench Mork , Ce , w Settle- I I II -A 4 i 10 zn Conllir,)l Monument I -0 ilil, AT I I �4 I I Control M--,n H, Fienc?) Mork l rhire (),der V1 e7 t i IT _ 4 Renc Milt ii ..... 01 o � Ii I` \ _- Awl" li A ' e a e r f (-i' ontrol Mon�,ment I t A* f it% �,k i air, I Ill w 4 p 0( "F ond Se�tion, Grant Awl I I A i r ii 4 0 I I l, I i 4L %odir Point I F r '7q I+ T c, ubdiv slo n Corner JA C 4 Of I I q r 0 p h I I: I I, Iall L ilI i I _f7 10 low Ni:' I I J: PRE( EUI t rill 1* iI I I itk + T'l I tj n t V I o .,F T-ir T;f fie I I I 11 _ L "t I N (I r i n j I I111 I 40A4 I II I v se i 4# a I l e L I Hdry - T* II np C S e r v (.I I I 0 ri I AO _w Y , I ,AV 1, y , "' 4 .. " ill.?)e Within HL 1) IrG, `e or County Par K National, i L A K E ' it2 4 r j 7 I /V(77 , t , Witt) f, Lan(; '-ront ii f i 4 or /Vome of 5ubd1v151(,n withio ft'dry 1 — - T-)*nsriip , Range , ecT ton or T S i0 i, I t I I It I IA A 4� -10 ;f I I R if I I-,Of*.& I &A I iitiI I tie I I I10, i T H F) I R L. C T I 0 N F i t I CAL. I FOPI\j I A I l PARE UNDER il-I CO Lj N T Y FNGINL�_R OF THE I J N T Y f r itil A N 1) F G, IM l\j T J4 A T J., .A 4jA I146 I't l i lit I wow ol w 0 E G I I T �l F j NJ Y A N i v . I U R N I S H f f Y If _y iCABA41LO 4r 4 !j rill X 7 I D E 411I I T Iva 71 I N � I II of j � r R C A N DATUM T'k 0 II"i BASED ')N e l l R T V lj V4 47 # 1 Ilk p lit, I lL I A I 16 I i A N D HOW N AR E app pn/, im T L it I Ir Il aI I PON r ,Tj LA I I ow. P H Y M I 47 TT I r T - I A T F Il I I I I I I I X0 4 4, i It I M L T 1 S F R4 I I on ill,`0 'Op E D V ,t� MM E T m *i 1eit 'I , '46. K4� IM 0, i 0 11 \ l I I 1 1 11 1 itI/Ow 7 I IL II PPt P� v l H( M II 17 I I r I I P H( L I o / 4 �kj -14-7- 3 II T ii 'T 14, III% I I JIL / 4j I% i II NV 4 I A 10 VI, '1 11 dE I L I Tol l 322 N 17 01 E r T' I A I I b) SLCALE 1-2400 S A N F) I 0 UNTY Q Q'- S R V I 0 R S 0 0 A I IADJO DATE F S N 0. I N D E X TO I N QG S H EETS C A L '70 R IA M A KF_ NO H A h 81 T )i0()T �.QQ�ONQ J3_LL_Q_W__: I CONTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET DATE F3 Y i — IF 0 ODW/\)/ D 1:71 N 1 T I N ST� Dy 0 OT 3 iH, i695 3 1 7 0 TWO - 1 - HOUSAND F CALIFORNIA RECTANGULAR GRID ZONE V1 I IAS T T 11 H E E D I G I S' OF THE GRID NUMBERS ARE OMITTED LS ' DI I S H I.,Ili #4. It 1', fi ANNk H,) P#It0I0(,HAMMf I HIS T!, W,t WL�: T MAP�61N� 1 OL ARL N i ft, I N1 , A I i i IR NI A 926AA t 11 41 1:13.1, 24",k) v1V N N