1991-2610 G/PE
Street Address
1;1~5
I
311 (,1
Category
Serial #
~~fO 8I
Name
I
Description
Year
Plan ck. #
recdescv
,
,
i
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
...
I
I
I
I
. .. . '-"... ....--..
-_.._.- _...... .._--_.. ....------......--..---.-----
--.........--.
--.-.
"
.
'~:'~~<'; ;\/~~'~~~> ~~r;¡:~~?
GeQSoil,,'~*r'1 ne~
'.~.;.;;:..""
\:'. ,;,~/
"-"'-4,I;,w/.'...,"'" ~
Geotechnical Engineering. Engineering Geology
5751 PalrnerWay, Suite D . Carlsbad, California 92008 . (619)438-3155 . FAX (619) 931-0915
September 30, 1988
W.O. 717.2-S0
SHEA HOMES
10721 Treena Street, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92131-1039
Attention:
Wes Popplewell
Subject:
Final Soils and Geologic Report,
Tract 4574, Phase II,
Lots 1-5, 14-15, 21, 25-26 and 28-71
City of Encini~as, San Diego County
\
Gentlemen:
This
report
presents
a
summary
of
the
engineering
testing
services and geologic observation provided by GeoSoils,
during the earthwork phase of the subject development.
Inc.
The
grading began on May 16, 1988 and ended on September 30, 1988.
The purpose of the grading was to construct level buildipg pads
!
and access roadways for proposed single family residential
structures.
Earthwork
recommendations
based
were
on
the
referenced
reports
and
on
evaluation
our
of
conditions
encountered during grading.
fõ)Œ Œ Œ ~ W Œ[ID
Uü JUL 2 2 1991
CITY OF ENCINITAS .
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
ENGINEERING DEPT.
Los Angeles Co. (818) 785-2158 . Orange Co. (714) 647-0277 . Riverside Co. (714) 677-9651
t
~:
.'-J
l
~J
l
~-
J~
,.
,.
I.
I
I
r
I
..------------..------....-----
.
.,
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-SD
SEPl'EMBER 30, :1988 .
PAGE 2 . "".
. ENGINEERING GEOLOGX
General
Geologic conditions exposed during the process of grading were
frequently observed by our staff geologist.
Fill keys, removals,
cut slopes, and general grading procedures were included in these
observations.
Geoloqic Units
\
Topsoil/Colluvium:
Topsoil/colluvial soils on site consist of generally dark brown
to dark reddish brown sandy clays with common rock fragments.
These
materials
are
porous
and
considered
unsuitable. for
structural support.
These soils were removed and recompacted
within pad and driveway areas to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction.
Alluvium:
Alluvial deposits were present in canyon bottoms. These deposits
consist of sandy and gravelly clays and clay. This material was
removed,
moisture
conditioned
and
recompacted as
fill within
driveways and building areas.
Bedrock:
Sedimentary rocks, mapped as the Lusardi Formation, were found to
underlie Lots 2,
36-39,
63,
67,
and 68.
These sediments are
GeoSofls, Inc.
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30,1988
PAGE 3
mainly weathered
clayey
sandstones
and sandy claystones with
fairly abundant volcanic rock fragments and boul~ers.
thls
unit
varies
significantly
due
to
weathering.
Density of
Partial
removal and recompaction of this material in structural areas was
performed prior to fill placement.
Metavolcanic and andesitic rocks of the Santiago Peak Volcanics
underlie Lots 1-5,
14-15,
21,
25-26,
28-36,
and 40-71,
These
rocks are typically gray with rust colored staining near the
surface,
becoming less stained with depth.
Density typically
increases with depth.
Hardness and rippability are related both
to the density and degrees of fracturing.
A zone of randomly intruded dense and blocky volcanic rocks and
friable,
slightly
dense
to
medium
dense
granitic
rocks
was
excavated on Lots 44, 45 and 53 (see Geotechnical Maps, Plates lc
and Ie).
This is thought to represent one of the feeder vents
. i
t
associated with the Jurassic Age Santiago Peak Volcanics and is
not a part of the younger Cretaceous Age granitic rocks located
to the east (Reference 1).
SOILS ENGINEERING
Preparation of Existing Ground
1.
Deleterious material such as concentrated organic matter and
miscellaneous
debris
was
disposed
of
offsite
prior
to
GeoSofls, Inc.
þ
¡\
. i ;;:
,',
SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
PAGE 4
SHEA HOMES.
W.O. 717.2-SD
2.
" ¡
:i
,.!
placing fill.
Minor dry grasses were thinly spread into the
fill so as not to create any concentrations.
All loose and compressible soil was removed to bedrock or
existing competent fill in driveway and pad areas to receive
fill.
The existing fill was placed under the supervision of
GeoSoils,
during
construction
the
roads.
Inc.
the
of
Removals were made as outlined in our referenced. report or
as field conditions warranted.
\
3.
A keyway at least 12 feet wide, 2 feet deep into competent
bedrock, and tipped into the slope was excavated at the toe
of all fill slopes.
4.
Benching was performed as nee~ed into competent bedrock as
fill proceeded.
5.
A cut-fill transition was exposed at pad grade across Lots
4-5, 14, 21, 28, 30-35, 38-39, 41, 44-45, 49-52, 54-66 ¡and
69-71.
The
cut
portion
building
envelope
and
of
the
(includes
five
foot beyond the building
footprint),
was
overexcavated to a depth of 36 inches and brought back to
grade with compacted fill to provide more uniform foundation
support conditions.
6.
cut
pads,
that
exposed
dense
volcanic
were
over
rock
excavated to a depth of three feet within the building
GeoSofls, Inc.
þ
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30,1988
PAGE 5
7.
envelope,
(includes five foot outside the building pad) and
replaced
trenching.
with
materials
facilitate
fill
to
compacted
The remaining portions of the graded area were
over shot three feet to also facilitate trenching.
When
overexcavations,
were
removals,
keys
benches
or
complete, the exposed surface was scarified to a minimum
depth of 6 inches, brought to at least optimum moisture
content, and compacted.
,
Fill Placement
1.'
Fill consisted of onsite materials
which were placed in
thin lifts, approximately six to eight inches in thickness,
brought to at least optimum moisture content and compacted
using
scrapers
and 834
rubber tire
dozers,
"Terex"
D-8
2.
compactor.
Rock fills, located on Lots 25. 26, 35. 37, 39.& 44, 4r,
47,
and 53 consisted of occasional boulders and rock
48,
fragments placed in 1 i fts one to two
(:t)
foot thick and
generously watered.
Each lift was compacted by a D-8 or D-9
dozer.
Rock fills within pad areas were capped with soil
fill materials approximately 3(:t) feet in thickness. A 12(z)
feet thick soil cap was built between the face of slo~e and
rock fill.
Subdrains were installed to drain rock fills.
GeoSoils, Inc.
.
. "':'.;;ii}"~:t.if':\>~
.. :.:; :..' '. '. ..
.¡- ,,':.
;
.:}
SHEA HOMES
w.o. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
PAGE 6
,!
.,:
.,
<I
~;
proj ect surveyors
(Hunsaker and Associates) were asked to
;'
1:.
located all subdrains.
Homeowners and landscapers should be aware of these drains
and should not cover or clog the outlets.
Due to the rocky nature of the fill materials generated,
placement of +ill was observed by excavating pits within the
rock fills by a representative of this office to check that
sufficient effort was used to compact the fill and to fill
,
1,
\
any voids.
This included monitoring lift size, moisture
conditioning.
Efforts were made to remove cobbles larger
~
"
than eight. inches in one dimension within the upper three
(:tJ feet of the' building envelope fir}~. Where possible,
,
density tests were taken to check compaction.
3.
Rocks greater than four feet in one dimension were broken to
smaller sizes or removed' from the fill. Rocks up to fo,ur
!
feet in one dimension placed within windrows or isolated
j.
f;
r
I
¡-
t.
"
,
H:
.
ì
Ii:
..
\;
within the soil fill are typically located approximately
five feet or more below pad grade.
:1,
F
,
I
!
4.
The approximate maximum depth of fill is 30I feet on Lot 53.
,.
I'
5.
Fill placed on surfaces having a slope gradient steeper than
5: 1 were keyed and benched into bedrock or compacted fill
"
.r.
'"
previously tested by this office (i.e. roadways slopes).
,Ii
01
;
.!
GeoSofls, 'nc.
þ
I
......----------- _.!
9.
10.
...-----------
.
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30,1988
PAGE 7 .
6.
Lots 29, 36, 37, 46, and 47 are fill lots.
7.
Pad areas exposing a cut-fill transition were overexcavated
and
capped
with
36-inch
fill
a
blanket,
in
proposed
structural areas as located by the project surveyors,
to
provide more uniform foundation support conditions.
This
was performed on Lots 4-5, 14, 21, 28, 30-35, 38-39, 41, 44-
45, 49-52, 54-66 and 69-71.
8.
On Lot 33 a large hard rock outcrop was left in place,
outside the limits of the ~roposed structure. It was located
by
the
project
surveyors,
being
as
approximately
eight
inches
below
finish
grade.
The
approximate
location
is
indicated on the enclosed map (see Plate 19). '
Lots 1, 2 and 3 are cut lots exposing hard volcanic rock.
The
proposed
building
foot
prints,
located
as
by
the
surveyors, were- overexcavated approximabÙy three (.:t), feet
i
and replaced with compacted fill materials.
As only the proposed building envelopes were overexcavated
on transition and cut lots, relocation of buildings would
create
differing
cut/fill
foundation
conditions
(i.e. ,
transitions,
shallow rock,
etc.).
We suggest that this-
office be notified prior to any relocation of any building,
for special foundation recommendations or additional grading
should be considered.
GeoSoils, Inc.
,==
-
.
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
PAGE 8
Field Testing
1.
Field density tests were performed using either the sand
cone method (ASTM D-1556-82) or the nuclear method (ASTM D-
2922-18).
Test results are enclosed as Table I at the end
of this report.
Estimated locations of the field density
tests are shown on the Compaction Test Location Map, Plates
1a
through
1j
which
utilizes
the
1"=40'
grading
plans
prepared by Hunsaker and Associates as a base map.
2.
Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and
random locations
to
check the compaction effort by the
contractor.
Due
to
the
granular
nature
of
the
fills
observation pits were excavated in some areas to see that
voids were filled and sufficient moisture was present. Where
test
results
indicated
less
than
90
percent
relative
compaction,
the contractor was notified and the area was
reworked
until
retesting
indicated
a
minimum
relative
compaction of 90 percent.
Based on the grading operàtions
observed, test results herein are considered representative
of the compacted fill.
3.
Visual classification of the soils in the field was the
basis for determining which maximum density value to use for
a given density test.
GeoSoils, Inc.
f
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717. 2,-SD
SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
PAGE 9
Slo\?es
1.
Cut slopes exposing weathered volcanic and sedimentary rocks
are considered to be subject to minor to moderate erosion.
Planting should reduce the maintenance r~quired for those
slopes.
A paved brown ditch,
along the top of all cut
slopes, should be considered to control erosion.
2.
Compactiqn on the face of all fill slopes was achieved by
building to grade and track walking with a D8, D9 or D6
dozer.
\
3.
All slopes are considered grossly stable and
should remain
so under normal rainfall conditions if an adequate program
of landscape maintenance is provided.
Localized
surficial erosion and raveling should be anticipated due to
the rocky nature of the slopes.
The cut slope Lots 1 and 2
are considered subject to raveling as portions of the slope
are over steepened.
4.
Slopes
should
be
planted
with
deep
rooting,
drought
resistant vegetation as soon as possible after construction
to aid erosion control and surficial stability.
Irrigation
for planted areas on and above slopes should be minimized to
just support the vegetation and avoid developing artificial
groundwater accumulations.
GeoSoils, Inc.
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
PAGE 10
LABORATORY TESTING
Compaction Tests
To determine compaction character of the site soils, compaction
tests were performed in accordance with ASTM test 0-1557-78 on
representative soil samples from the site.
The maximum density
and optimum moisture were determined and are summarized as below:
Soil Type
A-Reddish brown, gravelly
clayey SAND
.B-Medium to dark red brown,
silty SAND
C-Brownish orange, clayey SAND
D-Mottled greenish, CLAY
E-Sandy CLAY
F-Brown'CLAY
G-Orange brown, gravelly silty SAND
H-Medium olive brown, sandy CLAY
Maximum Dry
Densi tv (pet)
optimum Moisture
Content'
124.0
12.0
123.0
13.0
116.0
109.0
111. 0
116.0
122.0
112.0
17.5
21.0
16.5
17.5
14.5
18.5
Expansive Soils
Expansive soil conditions have been evaluated for each lot.
Representative samples of the soils near pad grade were recovered
for classification and expansion testing.
Based on laboratory
test results, soils on site varied from moderate to critically
expansive.
1.
Swell tests shall be performed on remolded samples compacted
to 90 percent maximum density at 80 percent of optimum
moisture in a brass ring having an inside diameter of 2.365
inches and a height of 1.0 inches.
Surcharge loads are to
þ
GeoSofls, Inc.
,
,i:
!
.'
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
PAGE 11
:r
:1
,;.
be applied and each sample will be Submerged in water for 24
"
!!
iÌ
hours.
The vertical swell is recorded as a percentage of
the original sample height.
2.
Expansion Index tests were performed for typical soil types.
Testing was in accordance with standard 29-2 of the Uniform
Building Code..
,j
, ~!
3.
\
Results of the swell and expansion index tests are presented
in Table II.
i
'!
, !
a
minimum
width
of
12
inches
and
a
minimum
depth 'in
it
! ¡
:¡
, t:
, ¡I
I
IiI
. J.
:1
; ¡
: :1
: :1
'J
I~
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Design
1.
An allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot
may be used for design of continuous footings which maintain
accordance with recommendations for construction, presented
below,
but
should
not
be
less
than
the
minimum
"
I,
1\
i,1
; ~
:f
:ï
í'l
' ,
d
, ,
¡ J
!'¡
I,
, I
!
j
recommendations of the Uniform Building Code and the City of
Encinitas.
2.
A friction coefficient for concrete on natural or compacted
soil of 0.4 and a lateral passive pressure value of 250
pounds per sqúare foot per foot of depth to a maximum value
GeoSofls, Inc.
þ
SHEA HOMES
w.O. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
PAGE 12
, ,
of 1,500 pounds per square foot may be employed to determine
resistance to lateral loads.
3.
When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance,
the passive pressure component should be reduced by one
third.
For design of isolated poles, the allowable passive
earth pressure may be increased by one hundred percent.
4.
The base of all footings should be at least 7 feet from the
face of any descending slope.
\
Construction
Initial laboratory test data indicates that the surface soils on
this site are moderately to critically expansive in nature.
The.
following recommendations take into consideration the expansion
potential of the underlying earth materials and the presence of
rock fills., Due to the presence of extremely hard rock on cut
lots or rock fills existing approximately 3 feet below grade on
fill
lots,
special construction methods will be required.
It
should also be noted that special construction methods will be
necessary
for
any
structures
not
shown
on
the
enclosed
Geotechnical Maps. Due to the large spans between walls for some
of
the
proposed
one story
structures we
recommend that the
project
structural
engineer
evaluate
carefully
the
loading
conditions.
The
following
construction
procedures
are
recommended:
GeoSoils, Inc.
þ
, ..' -'-'",.- "'-'.""'-'----.-.'--'--
'-"'."..'--..-...-..-.......--.... .
. .... ....-----.---..---...-
.
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30, 1988.
PAGE 13
Foundations - All Lots
Excavations
below
approximately
3
feet
will
be
extremely
difficult due to the presence of either hard rock or rock fills.
1.
Exterior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 24
inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface.
Interior footings may have a minimum embedment of 18 inches
below the top of the lowest adjacent concrete slab surface.
However, a minimum penetration of 12 inches into the soil is
required.
Interior isolated piers are not recommended.
All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No.
4
reinforcing bars,
two
near the top and two near the
bottom.
Isolated exterior post supports should be founded at a depth
of
30
inches below adj acent grade and tied to the main
foundation.
2.
A grade beam, reinforced as above and a minimum 12 inches in
width, should be utilized across garage entrances.
The base
of this grade beam should be at the same elevation as the"';-
bottom of the adjoining footings.
3.
Concrete slabs should be underlain with a minimum of four
inches of washed sand or crushed rock.
In addition, where
moisture
condensation
is
undesirable,
a
vapor
barrier
GeoSoils, Inc.
.- --- ,..,."""",c.-- . -,"-._--=-"""-,-=~,,,==-----
~'
~:::
.
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
PAGE 14
consisting of a minimum of' six mil polyvinyl chloride or
equivalent membrane with all laps sealed should be provided.
At least one inch of moist sand should be placed over the
membrane
to
aid
in
uniform
curing
of
the
concrete.
Consideration
should
be given
to placement of expansion
joints within Plan I slabs.
4.
six inch by six inch, No.6 by No.6 welded wire mesh or its
Concrete slabs, including garages, should be reinforced with
~
.
equivalent.
All slab reinforcement should be supported to
t
ensure placement near the vèrtical midpoint of the concrete.
5.
Garage slabs should be poured separately from the residence
footings and be quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts.
A positive separation from the footings should be maintained
d
¡ ,
with expansion joint material to permit relative movement.
6.
presaturation is recommended for ;these soil conditiòns. ¡ The
moisture condition of each slab area should be equal to or
;..,
greater than 120 percent of optimum for highly expansive
soils to a depth of 24 inches below slab grade and verified
. ¡
by this office within 48 hours of pouring slabs and prior to
placing visqueen or reinforcement.
7.
Alternatively, post tensioned foundations and slab systems
,
. ,
may be used.
120 percent of optimum moisture at 18 inches below slab
If these are used, presaturation to at least,
GeoSolls, Inc.
,
¡
. ¡ ,
j .
;
. ,
i '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_h_... _. ...- -- -----------_n___.__--
.
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-SD
-..- --_0_..
SEPTEMBER 30,1988
J>AGE 15 '
grade is recommended and perimeter cut off walls at least 18
inches deep should be constructed.
Post Tensioning
As an alternative to any of the above designs, a post tensioned
foundation system may be utilized.
If used, we recommend that'
perimeter cut-off walls consistent with the above footing depths,
be provided and presaturation to the above recommended moisture
contents be obtained.
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls may be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure
backdrain or weepholes Covered with a minimum of 12 inches of
as shown on the following table.
Surface Slope of
Retained Material
Horizontal to Vertica¡
Level
5 to 1
4 to 1
3 to 1
2 to 1
Retaining walls
should
be
provided
gravel,
a compacted
fill blanket at the surface,
and proper
surface drainage devices.
Equivalent
Fluid Weight
Lb./3
30
32
35
38
43
with
pipe
a
and
gravel"
section of this report.
Footings may be designed as per the "Foundation Recommendations"
GeoSoils, Inc.
-'-
.
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30,1988
PAGE 16
If the passive earth pressure is added to the friction, then the
passive pressure should be reduced by one third.
Additional
active
pressure
should
be
added
for
a
surcharge
condition.
UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL
Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the
following standards:
~
I
,
1.
Ninety
percent
of
the
laboratory
standard,
if
native
material is used as backfill.
2.
As an alterative, for the interior of the slab, clean sand
(SE>30) may be utilized and jetted in place.
Ninety percent
relative
compaction
is
recommended
regardless
of
the
,
I,
placement technique.
Observation, probing and testing to
I,
...
verify adequate results is recommended.
, I
3.
Exterior trenches paralleling a footing and extending below
a 1: 1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the
footing should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory
standard.
Sand backfill
should not be allowed in these
,
. !
trench backfill areas.
Density testing along with probing
should be accomplished to verify the desired results.
GeoSoils, Inc.
. ¡
I
!
f
i '
,
,
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30,1988
PAGE 17
j :
4. . All trench excavations should conform to CAL-OSHA and local
safety codes.
Foundation Observation
1. All footing excavations should be observed by a
representative of this office prior to placement of steel.
2. Soil generated from footing excavations to be used onsite
i
perimeters, or in parking or landscaped areas.
This
1
I
¡
should be compacted to at least a relative compaction of 90
percent, whether it i~ to be placed inside the foundation,
the structural area and towards the street.
,
~
\
~
. J
tl
1
~
material must not alter positive drainage patterns away from
Drainaqe
positive site drainage should be maintained at all times.
Water
should directed away from the foundation and descending slopes.
Water should not allowed to pond and seep into the ground.
Pad
drainage should be directed towards the street or other approved
areas.
At the time of this report, drainage from the tomato farm above
Lots 55 through 59, appears to be creating surficial seepage in
the natural swales above Lots 57 and 58.
We recommend placement
of a gravel cut-off drain behind the cut slopes on Lots 57 and 58
to hinder migration of seepage into the cut slope.
We suggest
the depth(s) of the drain(s) to correspond to the thickness of
GeoSoils, Inc.
þ
,
..
...-.--- --.. '---.----------
.
SHEA HOMES
W.o. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
PAGE 18
surficial soil plus one foot and the Upper porous zones of the
weathered bedrock.
(:t) feet deep.
We anticipate this to be no more than six
lowest point of the gravel drain, daylighting into the paved v-
ditch constructed along the top of the trench should be capped
A solid 4-inch pvc pipe should extend from the
with native
soils
to hinder
surficial
downward migration
of
surficial water.
Construction of the gravel drains should be
observed by a representative of this office.
'"
Considering the nature of the bedrock and presence of rock fills
~
local
seepage might occur on th'e lots.
Subdrains have been
constructed
to
accommodate
water
where
it
is
anticipated.
rainfall.
However, ,other zones could develop due to heavy irrigation or
If observed this office, should be consulted.
. ,
Additional Grading
Difficult excavating within the tract should be anticipated three
I
I
, :
feet
(i:)
below finish grade due to soil caps,
hard rock cut
'"
areas, and shallow rock fills.
Difficul t excavation should be
anticipated within driveway areas on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 28,
31, 33, 35, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, and 59 due to either shallow rock
I \
fill or cut portions not overexcavated.
The west facing fill slope off the driveway for Lot 32, and the
cut slope for Lot 49 have been locally constructed steeper than
i j
i ì i
I I
: i
. I
,j ¡
GeoSoils, Inc.
i
I \
.
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
PAGE 19
the recommended 2:1 gradient.
This should be corrected prior to
fine grading or paving of the driveway.
A one to three
(:1:)
foot high vertical slope has been created
along the southern edge of Rim Rock Circle from Station 9+00 to
Buman Road.
Unsuitable,
surficial materials have been exposed
which should be trimmed back or removed.
A portion of the cut slope in the cul-de-sac on Rim Rock Circle
below Lot 71 has been over-excavated creating loose rock and
'Clebris.
'We recommend removal of the loose material and trimming
back the unstable surficial soils.
We anticipate a large amount of sheet flow runoff to occur down
the driveway for Lots 64 and 65.
The design engineer should
review
this
for
installation
area
of
additional
erosion
protection.
This may include asphalt berms across the entrance
to Lot 64 and the bottom of the entrance to Lot 65.
All
rocks
which
have
the
potential
to
roll
down
slopes
to
adjacent properties should be stabilized.
This office should be notified in advance of any additional fill
placement,
regrading of the site,
or trench backfilling after
This includes enlarging pad
rough grading has been completed.
areas, extending slopes, realignment of driveways, utility trench
and retaining wall backfills.
GeoSoils, Inc.
~
¡ I
ì;
, ,
¡ ,
~ I
~.
,J
. !
.
. ,
¡
:. !
.
, ,
i ¡
, I
l i
i
. i I
i i I
'--'---.'---..
f
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-SD
SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
PAGE 20
REGULATORY COMPLIANCß
cuts, fills and processing of original ground under the purview
of this report have been completed under the periodic observation
of and with selective testing by GeoSoils, Inc., and are found to
be compliance with the grading còde of the City of Encinitas,
California and the County of San Diego.
Our findings were made
and the recommendations prepared in conformance with generally
accepted
professional
engineering
practices
and
no
further
warranty is implied nor made*.
!his report is subject to review
by the controlling authorities for this project.
*Refer to:
California Business and Professions Code, Sec.
3.
Section 6735.5 and Sec. 21. Section 8770.6.
GeoSoils, Inc.
~
..J
I
I :
I
,. ,
1
. '.--. ----.
. .
~
,
SHEA HOMES
W.O. 717.2-5D
-..-..
---..----...-
SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
PAGÉ 21
If
be of further service, please do not hesitate to
~is ~ortunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated,
you should have any questions
Very truly yours,
GeoSoils, Inc.
EPL/CEL/TEM/mlc
Ch is E. Lillback,
incipal Engineer
Enclosures: Plates la through lj - Co~action Test wcation Maps
Table I - Field Density Test Results
cc:
(6) Addressee
GeoSoils, Inc.
~
. I
I
:
i
..-?
, ..
,
! .
i
I
¡ .
I
!
- :
¡ I
INVESTIGATE
'w
RfPORT
SAN CARLOS ENGINEERING
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
7655 M ELOTTE ST.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92119
(619) 697-1967
SOIL
CiVIL
STRUCTURAL
BUILDING DESIGN
HOUSING INSPECTION
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER 17109
Mr. Bill Folsom
Folsom Tennis Enterprises
5803 Mission Gorge Road
San Diego, California 92120
Subject: Report of site preparation, grading and compaction of fills.
Tennis Court
3402 Bumann Road
Enci nitas, California
Dear Mr. Folsom:
Pursuant to your request, the undersigned civil engineer has completed
tests, inspections and surveillance required to for site preparation,
grading and compaction of fills on the subject project.
All trash and debris have been removed from the areas to be graded and
the site prepared and graded in accordance with my recommendations.
Keys were properly cut and topsoils recompacted under my surveillance. A
tennis court pad was developed on the property. The grading consisted of
excavating, mixing and recompacting rocky materials previously deposited
on the site and minor cuts and fills.
Laboratory tests performed in accordance with ASTM test method 0-1557
indicate a maximum dry density ot 116.0 pct and optimum moisture of
17.5 % for the representative soils compacted on the site. Bearing soils on
the site consist of stony clays with an Expansion Index of 102 @ 144.7
psf. The Unified Classification is (CL)/(ML).
As the grading progressed, compaction procedures were observed and
tests were made in accordance with ASTM test method 0-1556. Results of
these tests are presented on Page "A" and their approximate locations are
shown on Figure No.1.
Mon, Dec 23, 1991
-2000 C-
1
Bumann Road Tennis Court
Compactionllnspection Repo rt Co ntinued:
Based on the results of tests and observations, ! hereby certify that all
fills placed on the property have been compacted to within 90 percent of
maximum dry density. The site has been properly prepared and graded in
accordance with my recommendations. The site is suitable for its
intended use.
RECOMMENDA TIONS
The expansive nature of the surface soils should be carefully considered
in the design, construction and maintenance of a tennis court facility on
the site.
If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not
hesitate to call. We appreciate this opportunity to provide our
professional services.
Sincerely
SAN ARLOS ENGIN EERING
Attachments
Mon, Dec 23, 1991
-2000 C-
2
Bumann Road Tennis Court
Compaction/Inspection Report Continued:
[pj.\@rÆ ~j.\~
TABLE OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test De pt h Field Field Laboratory Relative
No ot Moisture Density Density Compaction
Fill (& dry wt) (pet) (pet) (% Lab Den)
---- ----- -------- ------ --------- ---------
1. Key 16.9 105.6 116.0 91. 03
2. Key 16.8 104.9 116.0 90.43
3. 21 17.1 106.2 116.0 91.55
4. 31 17.1 106.6 116.0 91.90
5. 41 17.6 106.5 116.0 91.81
6. 41 17.7 107.2 116.0 92.41
7. 41 17.2 107.0 116.0 92.24
8. 21 17.5 104.8 116.0 90.34
9. 11 17.3 106.8 116.0 92.07
Mon, Dee 23, 1991
-2000 C-
3
~ IlPPJ?ox /M87"E ¿O~;?'ÐN of
F£J £7£,,</5/T y Tcsr...s Æ
I
\
1
\
,
\
l
)
¡
~~ \
~ ;i~' I
en'
'(,
,,(¡\ \
i I \
.1 ~;: I
.., \
~A \
, ~}.. !
v8
t6¿A
po
,1
1(5
í& f-J t-
í
{L
{,Ov
-:r.
~
~
~
\:Q
F/ 6 (./ ¡;? é ,A/¿;. 2:
-