Loading...
1997-5333 G Street Address Category Serial # Name Description Plan ck. # Year NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. June 17, 1998 Project No. CE -5347 Brad Thornburgh P.O. Box 239005 -190 Encinitas, CA 92024 Subject: Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground Proposed Single Family Dwelling off Bumman Road Olivenhain, California (APN #264- 101 -40) Dear Mr. Thornburgh: In response to your request, the following report has been prepared to indicate results of soil testing, observations, and inspection of earthwork construction at the subject site. Testing and inspection services were performed from April 30, 1998 through June 13, 1998. Briefly, our findings reveal filled ground has been compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90 %). Therefore, we recommend construction continue as scheduled. SCOPE Our firm was retained to observe grading operations with regard to current standard practices and to determine the degree of compaction of placed fill. Grading plans were prepared by San Dieguito Engineering of Encinitas, California. Grading operations were performed by Jim Coner of Valley Center, California and Ben Halbig of Vista, California. Reference is made to our previously submitted report entitled, "Preliminary Soils Investigation ", dated February 19, 1997. Approximate locations and depth of filled ground and extent of earthwork construction covered in this report are indicated on the attached Plate No. One entitled, "Test Location Sketch ". Grading operations were performed in order to reconstruct a level building pad to accommodate the proposed dwelling. In addition, a playground pad was constructed below the house pad. Should the finished pads be altered in any way, we should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. P.O. BOX 302002 * ESCONDIDO, CA 92030 (760) 480 -1116 . r NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. June 17, 1998 Project No. CE -5347 Page 2 The site was graded in accordance with recommendations set forth in our previously submitted report. The site was graded to approximately conform to project plans. Actual pad size and elevation may differ. Finish grade operations are to be completed at a later date. LABORATORY TESTING Representative soils samples were collected and returned to the laboratory for testing. The following tests were performed and are tabulated on the attached Plate No. Three. 1. Optimum Moisture/Maximum Density (ASTM D -1557) 2. Expansion Potential Test (FHA Standard) SOIL CONDITIONS Native soils encountered were gravelly -clays and silty- clays. Fill soils were imported and generated from on -site excavation. The building site contained a transition from cut to fill. However, cut areas located within the building area were over excavated a minimum of 3 feet and brought to grade with compacted soil. Over excavation was carried a minimum of 5 feet beyond the exterior building perimeter. Hence, no consideration need be given this characteristic. Oversize material consisting of rock and boulders was left above ground as landscape material. Oversize material is defined as rock and boulders in excess of 12 inches in size, and should not be placed in structural fill. It may be placed in non - structural fill designated and supervised by North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. Expansive soils were observed during grading. However, they were capped with a minimum of 36 inches of non - expansive imported soils. Capping was carried a minimum of 5 feet beyond the exterior of the building perimeter. Therefore, conventional construction may be utilized. During earthwork construction, native areas to receive fill were scarified, watered, and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90 %) of maximum density. The key was approximately 20 feet wide, a minimum of 2 feet in depth, and inclined into the slope. Subsequent fill soils were placed, watered, and compacted in 6 inch lifts. Benches were NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. June 17, 1998 Project No. CE -5347 Page 3 constructed in natural ground at intermediate levels to properly support the fill. To determine the degree of compaction, field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D -1556 or D -2922 at the approximate horizontal locations designated on the attached Plate No. One entitled, "Test Location Sketch ". A tabulation of test results and their vertical locations are presented on the attached Plate No. Two entitled "Tabulation of Test Results ". Fill soils found to have a relative compaction of less than ninety percent (90 %) were reworked until proper compaction was achieved. All old fill was removed and recompacted. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Continuous inspection was not requested to verify fill soils are placed in accordance with current standard practices regarding grading operations and earthwork construction. Therefore, as a economically feasible as possible, part-time inspection was provided. Hence, the following recommendations are based on the assumption that all areas tested are representative of the entire prof ect. 1). Compacted fill and natural ground within the defined building areas have adequate strength to safely support the proposed loads. 2). Slopes may be considered stable with relation to deep seated failure provided they are properly maintained. Slopes should be planted within 30 days with light groundcover (no gorilla ice plant) indigenous to the area. Drainage should be diverted away from the slopes to prevent water flowing on the face of slope. This will reduce the probability of failure as a result of erosion. 3). In our opinion, soil liquefaction at the site is unlikely to occur due to the following on -site soils conditions: A). Groundwater was not encountered at the time of grading. B). Fill ground and loose topsoils were compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90 %) of maximum dry density. C). The dense nature of the formation underlying the site. 4). Temporary slopes to be retained and/or completed at a later date should be considered unstable and may prove to be a detrimental condition. Furthermore, we should be contacted to supervise backfill operations. Backfill materials should NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. June 17, 1998 Project No. CE -5347 Page 4 consist of non - expansive soils (having a swell of less than 2 %) placed at a width behind the wall equivalent to two- thirds of the retained height. Crushed rock (1 inch minus), approved by this office, may be an alternate method. All walls should be provided with drains. Drains should consist of 4 inch perforated pipe surrounded with crushed rock placed at a minimum of 1 cubic foot per lineal foot and have a minimum fall of one percent (1 %). A structural engineer should be contacted for a retaining devise recommendations. 5). Continuous footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and founded a minimum of 12 inches and 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade for one and two stories, respectively, will have an estimated allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot. 6). Footings located on or adjacent to slopes should be founded at a depth such that the horizontal distance from the bottom outside face of footing to the face of the slope is a minimum of 8 feet. 7). Rock outcroppings were left at or near grade. Should they interfere with foundation placement, we should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. 8). All continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of one #4 bar top and bottom. 9). Slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with 6X6, w 1.4 X w 1.4 welded wire mesh or #3 bars on 18 inch centers (both ways). Reinforcement should be placed near the center of slab and extended through joints to provide a tension tie with perimeter footings. Welded wire mesh is a UBC approved method when properly placed. However, it is the past experience of this office, wire mesh usually ends up below bottom of slab. Therefore, it is our opinion #3 bars placed on 18 inch centers is a more effective method with regard to concrete slab reinforcement. 10). Interior slab underlayment should consist of visqueen installed at mid -point within a 4 inch sand barrier (2 inches sand, visqueen, 2 inches sand). Sand should be tested in accordance with ASTM D -2419 to insure a minimum sand equivalent of 30. NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. June 17, 1998 Project No. CE -5347 Page 5 11). Plumbing trenches should be backfilled with a non - expansive soil having a swell of less than two percent (2 %) and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Backfill soils should be inspected and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90 %). 12). Completion of grading operations were left at rough grade. Therefore, we recommend a landscape architect be contacted to provide finish grade and drainage recommendations. Drainage recommendations should include concrete sidewalks placed on all sides of structures a minimum of 4 feet in width and have a minimum fall of two percent (2 %) away from foundation zones. To further protect water penetration of the zone, rain gutters should be installed to divert run- off. Landscape planter areas within 4 feet of the foundation should be avoided and/or designed with sealed bottoms and a drain system. 13). Unless requested, recommendations for future improvements (additions, pools, recreation slabs, additional grading, etc.) Were not included in this report. Prior to construction, we should be contacted to update conditions and provide additional recommendations. Prior to pouring of concrete, North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. Should be contacted to inspect foundation recommendations for compliance to those set forth. During placement of concrete North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. And/or a qualified concrete inspector should be present to document construction of foundations. Foundation recommendations presented in this report should be considered minimal. Therefore, we recommend the project architect and structural engineer review this report to assure recommendations presented herein will be suitable with regard to the type of construction planned. UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS It should be noted, foundation inspections on projects located within the county of San Diego jurisdiction may not require inspection by our firm. Therefore, the project owner and/or the general contractor may waive the inspection and assume responsibility to assure that all recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the construction phase of the project. However, North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. Cannot assume liability for projects not inspected by our firm. NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. June 17, 1998 Project No. CE -5347 Page 6 In the event foundation excavation and steel placement inspection is required and/or requested, an additional cost of $170.00 will be invoiced to perform the field inspection and prepare a "Final Conformance Letter ". If foundations are constructed in more than one phase, $120.00 for each additional inspection will be invoiced. It is the responsibility of the owner and/or his representative to carry out recommendations set forth in this report. San Diego County is located in a high risk area with regard to earthquake. Earthquake resistant projects are economically unfeasible. Therefore, damage as a result of earthquake is probable and we assume no liability. We assume the on -site safety of our personnel only. We cannot assume liability of personnel other than our own, It is the responsibility of the owner and contractor to insure construction operations are conducted in a safe manner and in conformance with regulations governed by CAL -OSHA and/or local agencies. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. _ �o G �R ° o. GE713 Ronald K. Adams Dale R. Regli C \�� President Registered Civi n Geotechnical Engi j \F� RKA:kIa cc: (3) submitted NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL TESTING 165.10 q _ ROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY � � ' MIry � DWELLING ff Bamman Road r—� r No- Scale livenhain, California �.. °8W 368.9 PCC DRIVE v I 9W 88.9 � e� MIN ` le 4� 366.3 1 , 30 i 34 I = 368.5 o D EPENED 1 ;! PE = 367 .8 'ly FOOTING 38 . . NP / 1 .r 4 AC DRIVE } 9Je FF = 36 5 / „- s PE = 366.8 32 39 T I n sss a o r o 0 o a i 28 /' �' y k I r 1 ,15 14 �/ a(8 � / w AF 7 _ 1 �r 3'7 TEST / 9 PlaYBrotrnd) \ --fit 145.0 � MIN i � ii ..r'� %• / / I END AC BERM NO N 89 - - - 165.32 TEST LOCATION SKETCH PROJECT No. CE -5347 PLATE No. ONE NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS Test # Date Horizontal Vertical Field Moisture Dry Density Soil Percent of Location Location % Dry Wt. LB Cu. Ft. Type Compaction 1 04/30/98 See 325.0 13.8 114.0 I 91.2 2 Plate 326.0 15.1 115.4 I 92.4 3 One 327.0 15.3 114.2 1 91.4 4 05/01/98 328.0 11.9 121.9 II 96.3 5 330.0 11.7 123.6 II 97.7 6 329.0 14.4 116.3 I 93.0 7 331.0 11.9 119.2 II 94.2 8 332.0 11.3 120.2 II 95.0 9 333.0 12.0 119.5 II 94.4 10 05/04/98 335.0 14.3 115.8 II 91.5 11 336.0 14.8 117.4 II 92.8 12 337.0 11.7 120.1 II 94.9 13 05/07/98 346.0 15.1 116.3 III 92.3 14 348.0 14.4 117.7 III 93.4 15 349.0 16.7 116.2 II 91.8 16 347.0 17.3 115.9 II 91.6 17 349.0 15.8 115.6 II 91.3 18 05/08/98 351.0 15.9 117.2 III 93.0 19 353.0 14.4 119.6 III 94.9 20 352.0 16.6 118.9 III 94.3 21 354.0 18.3 120.0 III 95.2 22 156.0 13.8 121.2 III 96.1 23 157.0 12.3 124.6 III 98.8 24 159.0 12.3 122.0 III 96.8 25 05/11/98 360.0 15.9 117.6 III 93.3 26 361.0 13.9 117.0 III 92.8 27 363.0 13.2 118.2 III 93.8 28 - 363.0 12.7 119.6 III 94.9 29 362.0 10.0 116.6 III 92.5 30 06/01/98 365.0 08.9 120.6 IV 94.2 31 365.0 10.2 119.4 IV 93.2 32 364.0 09.7 121.0 IV 94.5 33 365.0 10.7 119.7 IV 93.5 34 06/04/98 365.0 11.4 117.3 IV 91.6 35 11 366.0 10.7 118.8 IV 92.8 36 06/13/98 339.0 RFG 10.6 121.7 III 96.5 37 340.0 RFG 09.4 120.2 III 95.3 38 368.0 RFG 09.6 116.3 IV 90.8 39 367.0 RFG 08.3 117.4 IV 91.7 40 367.0 RFG 08.1 117.7 IV 91.9 41 366.0 RFG 07.8 116.6 IV 91.0 REMARKS: RFG = Rough Finish Grade. PROJECT NO. CE -5347 PLATE NO. TWO NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS OPTIMUM MOISTURE/MAXIMUM DENSITY SOIL DESCRIPTION TYPE MAX. DRY DENSITY OPT. MOISTURE (LB. CU. FT) (% DRY WT) Brown Red Gravelly Clay I 124.9 11.5 Light Brown Silty- Gravelly- Clayey -Sand II 126.5 11.0 Gray Brown Gravelly - Clayey -Sand 11I 126.0 10.3 Orange Tan Silty-Sand (Import) IV 128.0 10.3 EXPANSION POTENTIAL SAMPLE NO. III IV CONDITION Remold 90% Remold 90% INITIAL MOISTURE ( %) 10.7 09.9 AIR DRY MOISTURE ( %) 08.2 04.6 FINAL MOISTURE ( %) 20.1 16.5 FINAL DRY DENSITY (PCF) 113.5 115.2 LOAD (PSF) 150 150 SWELL ( %) 4.3 .1 EXPANSION INDEX 43 Less than 5 PROJECT NO. CE -5347 PLATE NO. THREE 0 Tounty . f 's". - DANIEL J. AVERA `P � OIRECTOR LARRY T. AKER �EPAR TMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSISTANT DIRECTOR P.O. BOX 85261. SAN DIEGO, CA 92186.5261 (619) 338 FAX (619) 338.2377 TURN TO: BUILDING DIVISION ❑ ❑ SAN DIEGO OFFICE ❑ 5201 RUFFIN ROAp, SUITE B, NORTH COUNTY OFFICE SAN DIEGO, CA 92123.1688 338 VIA VERA CRUZ EAST COUNTY OFFICE (619) 585-5920 SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 200 E. MAIN. 6TH FLOOR O (619) 471 -0730 EL CAJON CA 92020 Pro ect Location y,�ry yl (619) 441 -4030 -- � /Z-/D Name of Permittee Grading Permit No N� A viyiGA � t report form for a "tr nor" grading project is to be Completed and signed by the Registered Civil report for work been designated on the Grading Plan and permit as the Engineer who will furnish th eCompaction p l (Archltect) who has g permit issued by the Department of Environmental Health. authorized by a The ntent of the format is to provide information to the De app ved Grading Plan and Permit• Where the questions below refer to location, configuration or quantity of cut and/or fill partment of Environmental Health as to is an erstood that yo will not normally be based on an actual land survey or detailed earthwor grading � with the shoul be noted, however, that the De areas, it stee ned slopes, encroachments of required s c particularly concerned where there are possible infractions with respect lculations. It from at authorized. setbacks, uncompacted fills placed, or where the quantity of fill placed differs substantiall The Lepartment of Environmental Health requires that all fills authorized by a Grading Permit be compacted to a mini of m um density with the exception that not more than 12" of uncompacted and untested fills may be dispersed over parcel The need to compact all fills that are beyond the present limits of the present proposed construction • mum of 90% Proposed construction of room additions or swimming er the land nsure that future or rec mpacted, or that extensive foundation work be insttalled si structures will not require that uncompactedtfills be removed Come tion reports will not be accepted unless this form is completed and signed by the registered person. A. C WPA T1BlLT1'Y WTIH G1tADIIVG PLAN l/ _ AND PERMIT � i2.q p�,✓G � �.��. 1 tr S fr,✓ />it G e�r�' U 1. W&q the compacted fill placed only in the approximate locations designated on the grading plan YES - V as as to filled? NO 2. Did the quantity of fill material laced P approximately conform to the grading plan? 1. Did i he toe of-fill or the top of cut a ppear to meet the ES \ NO (1.5' for fill; 3.0' for cuts) ?e prescribed property line setback Were the finished fill slo pes equal to or l YES V11, NO ess than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical? If the fill material was obtained by cuts on the site, were the cuts made in the proper location YES V NO and to the proper location and to the proper slope approximately as shown on the approved plan? Were 1prow ditches constructed approximately as shown on the YES y NO grading plan? YES NO L OCA17ON AND AMOUNT OF COMPACTION TESTS Have you attached a sketch and data showing the location and relative elevation for all compa tion tests? ., YES V NO Prtu�ntwn Corms First" + s r Was a compaction test made so that there is at least one test in each 2' thick lens of j� NO compacted material? YES 2. As indicated by inspections, observations and compaction est results, was the fill, excluding the top 1.0', compacted to at least 90% of maximum dry density? YES NO C . QUALITY OF FILL COMPACTION OPERATION 1 Was -the area to receive fill properly prepared in terms of brush removal, benching, wetting / removal of noncompacted fill or debris and related items? M V NO 2 Was all detrimentally expansive soil placed in the fill at 3' or more below finish grade? YES NO 3 Have you attached a copy of your curve showing the relationship between optimum moisture content and maximum density? YES NO 4 Was all material used as fill (earth, rocks, gravel) smaller than 12" in site? YES,J�/ NO S Are all areas of the fill suitable for support of structures? YES V NO 6 Were all existing fills on the site recompacted in accordance with the provisions of the grading ordinance? YES V NO STATISTICAL DATA 1 Dates the grading work was performed: 2. Dates your representative was on site and number of hours on site for each date, and name of representative: S SI- 30 VHI .2"9. AS -BUILT DATA 5 7 — a' ,^ A� !ZS s —F-- o�g — /3 — 1. If the fill placement was not in accordance with the approved grading plan, did you notify YES NO /t--" / ,, q - 2. If the approved grading plan does not reflect the actual location, depth and type of fill, YES NO __4L /q- have you submitted for review and approval an as -built plan? A✓ 7 44Vt 0.5 - Yes, provided all areas tested are representative of the entire project. u v 1113ijUM1011 v "S not PFOV MCOMYRii0ndetiuns s tort In attached re should be w RTIFICATION I I ereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the information provided in this certification is true to the best of my knowledge and be •ef. Signature Date u �� f NORTH COUNTY (To be sign an y egistered E gmeer or tect COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC Registration or Certification Number P.O. Box 302002 Escondido, CA 92030 Address Pop 13 s X 3o -X 0 Z t S C c41 .92 3 0 (619) 480 -1116 Fax 741 -6568 Telephone Number ? Ga — D :BLD 3 -73 (Rev. 71961 NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. January 14, 1999 Project No. CE -5347 Brad Thornburgh 3448 Bumann Rd. Olivenhain, CA 92024 Subject: Response to City of Encinitas Geotechnical Consultant Review Letter Dated January 12, 1999, Proposed Thornburgh Residence Bumann Road Encinitas, California G.P. 5333 -G Reference is made to the following previously submitted reports prepared by our firm: 1. "Preliminary Soils Investigation" dated February 19, 1997 2. "Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground" dated June 17, 1998 Dear Mr. Thornburgh: Per the letter of the city's geotechnical consultant dated January 12, 1999, we are submitting herein clarification with regard to item No. 2. Regarding the city's concern with paragraph Nol 1 under Recommendations and Conclusions of our grading report dated June 17, 1998. Please be advised it is our opinion that this is a true statement and has been a standard statement in all of our part -time inspection grading reports since 1982. Furthermore, it has been submitted in our reports on other jobs within the City of Encinitas on numerous occasions. Per the owners request, continuous inspection was not provided to reduce cost at the subject project. However, tests were taken approximately every one foot increment in vertical elevation and the quantity of testing presented in the report is twice the amount required by the grading ordinance. It is our opinion, that all fill soils at the site were placed in accordance with standard current practices with regard to earthwork construction and the site is suitable for its intended use. In addition, paragraph one of page two of our grading report clearly states that the site was graded in accordance with the recommendations presented in our preliminary soils report. P. O. BOX 302002 * ESCONDIDO, CA * (760)480 -1116 FAX (760)741 -6568 "1 NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. CE -5347 Page 2 In closing, we feel our report is adequately prepared and is in accordance with guidelines set forth by geotechnical engineering practices. The statement is true with regard to part time inspection and testing services. It should be noted that the statement is excluded from our reports if continuos inspection is requested by the owner and/or is required by local ordinances or codes. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, �. y North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. Q'i e ;o0 -o/ Ronald K. Adams Dale R. Regl President Registered Ci E Geotechnical En RKA:paj cc: 2 submitted lip NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. April 13, 1999 Project No. CE -5347 Brad Thornburgh 3448 Bumann Rd. Olivenhain, CA 92024 Subject: Report of Utility Trench Backfill Compaction "� JUL i 3 11999 Sewer Extension - Proposed Thornburgh Residence t%` .. AS Bumann Road Olivenhain, California Dear Mr. Thornburgh: In response to your request, we are sending herewith results of laboratory and compaction tests performed on sewer trench backfill soils at the subject project. Test results indicate trench backfill soils were compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90 %). Therefore, we recommend construction continue as scheduled. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, North County SSIpq�� COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. ,,�'` R '?t<'.,'�' NZ N0. r E713 �f Ex 9 -30 Ronald K. Adams Dale R. Regli - 4 President Registered Civi n Geotechnical En r RKA:paj cc: (3) submitted P.O. BOX 302002 * ESCONDIDO, CA 92030 * (760)480 -1116 FAX (760)741 -6568 t NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS Test # Date Horizontal Vertical Field Moisture Dry Density Soil Percent of Location Location % Dry Wt. LB Cu. Ft. Type Compaction 1 03/05/99 12+90 -2' 14.1 117.2 I 98.5 2 11 12+85 -2 13.6 116.7 1 98.1 3 03/08/99 12+10 267.0 08.7 104.2 II iz 4 10+60 261.0 07.1 100.5 11 847 5 03/09/99 14+40 283.0 13.6 111.7 II 94.2 6 11 14+43 285.0 14.2 112.1 11 94.5 7 03/24/99 14+94 287.0 08.6 097.2 II 8 14+94 285.0 09.4 098.8 11 83.3 9 15+59 289.0 13.6 111.0 II 93.6 10 15+59 287.0 09.0 096.7 11 11-5- 11 16 +70 301.0 15.4 110.7 I 93.0 12 16+70 299.0 16.2 111.8 1 93.9 13 18+ 15 321.0 11.0 107.2 II 90.4 14 18+ 15 319.0 10.2 106.9 11 90.1 15 03/24/99 12+00 267.0 14.3 112.6 1 16 " 10 +53 261.0 15.8 112.0 1 17 03/30/99 14+90 287.0 10.4 107.1 I1 18 14+90 285.0 11.7 108.3 11 91. 19 15+58 289.0 11.7 109.1 II 42. 20 19+55 318.0 12.4 108.6 1I 91.6 21 19+55 316.0 10.0 106.9 II 90.1 REMARKS: Test No.'s 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are retest of Test No.'s 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10, respectively. Test No. 19 was taken at manhole #4. OPTIMUM MOISTURE /MAXIMUM DENSITY SOIL DESCRIPTION TYPE MAX. DRY DENSITY OPT. MOISTURE (LB. CU. FT) (% DRY WTJ Dark Red Brown Silty Sandy Clay I 119.0 14.8 Gold Tan-Brown Silty Sandy Clay II 118.6 14.3 PROJECT NO. CE -5347 PLATE NO. ONE NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. June 17, 1998 Project No. CE -5347 Brad Thornburgh P.O. Box 239005 -190 Encinitas, CA 92024' J Subject: Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground Proposed Single Family Dwelling �0 off Bumman Road Olivenhain, California (APN #264 - 101 -40) Dear Mr. Thornburgh: In response to your request, the following report has been prepared to indicate results of soil testing, observations, and inspection of earthwork construction at the subject site. Testing and inspection services were performed from April 30, 1998 through June 13, 1998. Briefly, our findings reveal filled ground has been compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90 %). Therefore, we recommend construction continue as scheduled. SCOPE Our firm was retained to observe grading operations with regard to current standard practices and to determine the degree of compaction of placed fill. Grading plans were prepared by San Dieguito Engineering of Encinitas, California. Grading operations were performed by Jim Coner of Valley Center, California and Ben Halbig of Vista, California. Reference is made to our previously submitted report entitled, "Preliminary Soils Investigation ", dated February 19, 1997. Approximate locations and depth of filled ground and extent of earthwork construction covered in this report are indicated on the attached Plate No. One entitled, "Test Location Sketch ". Grading operations were performed in order to reconstruct a level building pad to accommodate the proposed dwelling. In addition, a playground pad was constructed below the house pad. Should the finished pads be altered in any way, we should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. P.O. BOX 302002 * ESCONDIDO, CA 92030 (760) 480 -1116 NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. June 17, 1998 Project No. CE -5347 Page 2 The site was graded in accordance with recommendations set forth in our previously submitted report. The site was graded to approximately conform to project plans. Actual pad size and elevation may differ. Finish grade operations are to be completed at a later date. LABORATORY TESTING Representative soils samples were collected and returned to the laboratory for testing. The following tests were performed and are tabulated on the attached Plate No. Three. 1. Optimum Moisture/Maximum Density (ASTM D -1557) 2. Expansion Potential Test (FHA Standard) SOIL CONDITIONS Native soils encountered were gravelly -clays and silty- clays. Fill soils were imported and generated from on -site excavation. The building site contained a transition from cut to fill. However, cut areas located within the building area were over excavated a minimum of 3 feet and brought to grade with compacted soil. Over excavation was carried a minimum of 5 feet beyond the exterior building perimeter. Hence, no consideration need be given this characteristic. Oversize material consisting of rock and boulders was left above ground as landscape material. Oversize material is defined as rock and boulders in excess of 12 inches in size, and should not be placed in structural fill. It may be placed in non - structural fill designated and supervised by North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. Expansive soils were observed during grading. However, they were capped with a minimum of 36 inches of non - expansive imported soils. Capping was carried a minimum of 5 feet beyond the exterior of the building perimeter. Therefore, conventional construction may be utilized. During earthwork construction, native areas to receive fill were scarified, watered, and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90 %) of maximum density. The key was approximately 20 feet wide, a minimum of 2 feet in depth, and inclined into the slope. Subsequent fill soils were placed, watered, and compacted in 6 inch lifts. Benches were NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. June 17, 1998 Project No. CE -5347 Page 3 constructed in natural ground at intermediate levels to properly support the fill. To determine the degree of compaction, field density tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D -1556 or D -2922 at the approximate horizontal locations designated on the attached Plate No. One entitled, "Test Location Sketch ". A tabulation of test results and their vertical locations are presented on the attached Plate No. Two entitled "Tabulation of Test Results ". Fill soils found to have a relative compaction of less than ninety percent (90 %) were reworked until proper compaction was achieved. All old fill was removed and recompacted. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Continuous inspection was not requested to verify fill soils are placed in accordance with current standard practices regarding grading operations and earthwork construction. Therefore, as economically feasible as possible, part-time inspection was provided. Hence, the following recommendations are based on the assumption that all areas tested are representative of the entire project. 1). Compacted fill and natural ground within the defined building areas have adequate strength to safely support the proposed loads. 2). Slopes may be considered stable with relation to deep seated failure provided they are properly maintained. Slopes should be planted within 30 days with light groundcover (no gorilla ice plant) indigenous to the area. Drainage should be diverted away from the slopes to prevent water flowing on the face of slope. This will reduce the probability of failure as a result of erosion. 3). In our opinion, soil liquefaction at the site is unlikely to occur due to the following on -site soils conditions: A). Groundwater was not encountered at the time of grading. B). Fill ground and loose topsoils were compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90 %) of maximum dry density. C). The dense nature of the formation underlying the site. 4). Temporary slopes to be retained and/or completed at a later date should be considered unstable and may prove to be a detrimental condition. Furthermore, we should be contacted to supervise backfill operations. Backfill materials should f NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. June 17, 1998 Project No. CE -5347 Page 4 consist of non - expansive soils (having a swell of less than 2 %) placed at a width behind the wall equivalent to two- thirds of the retained height. Crushed rock (1 inch minus), approved by this office, may be an alternate method. All walls should be provided with drains. Drains should consist of 4 inch perforated pipe surrounded with crushed rock placed at a minimum of 1 cubic foot per lineal foot and have a minimum fall of one percent (1M). A structural engineer should be contacted for a retaining devise recommendations. 5). Continuous footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and founded a minimum of 12 inches and 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade for one and two stories, respectively, will have an estimated allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot. 6). Footings located on or adjacent to slopes should be founded at a depth such that the horizontal distance from the bottom outside face of footing to the face of the slope is a minimum of 8 feet. 7). Rock outcroppings were left at or near grade. Should they interfere with foundation placement, we should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. 8). All continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of one #4 bar top and bottom. 9). Slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with 6X6, w 1.4 X w 1.4 welded wire mesh or #3 bars on 18 inch centers (both ways). Reinforcement should be placed near the center of slab and extended through joints to provide a tension tie with perimeter footings. Welded wire mesh is a UBC approved method when properly placed. However, it is the past experience of this office, wire mesh usually ends up below bottom of slab. Therefore, it is our opinion #3 bars placed on 18 inch centers is a more effective method with regard to concrete slab reinforcement. 10). Interior slab underlayment should consist of visqueen installed at mid -point within a 4 inch sand barrier (2 inches sand, visqueen, 2 inches sand). Sand should be tested in accordance with ASTM D -2419 to insure a minimum sand equivalent of 30. NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. June 17, 1998 Project No. CE -5347 Page 5 11). Plumbing trenches should be backfilled with a non - expansive soil having a swell of less than two percent (2 %) and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. Backfill soils should be inspected and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90 %). 12). Completion of grading operations were left at rough grade. Therefore, we recommend a landscape architect be contacted to provide finish grade and drainage recommendations. Drainage recommendations should include concrete sidewalks placed on all sides of structures a minimum of 4 feet in width and have a minimum fall of two percent (2 %) away from foundation zones. To further protect water penetration of the zone, rain gutters should be installed to divert run- off. Landscape planter areas within 4 feet of the foundation should be avoided and/or designed with sealed bottoms and a drain system. 13). Unless requested, recommendations for future improvements (additions, pools, recreation slabs, additional grading, etc.) Were not included in this report. Prior to construction, we should be contacted to update conditions and provide additional recommendations. Prior to pouring of concrete, North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. Should be contacted to inspect foundation recommendations for compliance to those set forth. During placement of concrete North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. And/or a qualified concrete inspector should be present to document construction of foundations. Foundation recommendations presented in this report should be considered minimal. Therefore, we recommend the project architect and structural engineer review this report to assure recommendations presented herein will be suitable with regard to the type of construction planned. UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS It should be noted, foundation inspections on projects located within the county of San Diego jurisdiction may not require inspection by our firm. Therefore, the project owner and/or the general contractor may waive the inspection and assume responsibility to assure that all recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the construction phase of the project. However, North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. Cannot assume liability for projects not inspected by our firm. NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. June 17, 1998 Project No. CE -5347 Page 6 In the event foundation excavation and steel placement inspection is required and/or requested, an additional cost of $170.00 will be invoiced to perform the field inspection and prepare a "Final Conformance Letter ". If foundations are constructed in more than one phase, $120.00 for each additional inspection will be invoiced. It is the responsibility of the owner and/or his representative to carry out recommendations set forth in this report. San Diego County is located in a high risk area with regard to earthquake. Earthquake resistant projects are economically unfeasible. Therefore, damage as a result of earthquake is probable and we assume no liability. We assume the on -site safety of our personnel only. We cannot assume liability of personnel other than our own, It is the responsibility of the owner and contractor to insure construction operations are conducted in a safe manner and in conformance with regulations governed by CAL -OSHA and/or local agencies. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. r Ronald K. Adams Dale R. Regli Exp. 9 _ 30 ,_C, / . * President Registered Civil 19393 c Q� Geotechnical Eng ee, --'�'�� O CAS -�� RKA:kIa cc: (3) submitted NORTH coa.NTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL TESTING ie�_sb .7' MI -- — h c .. '.- ROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY. 3 _ DWELLING o ff Bamman Road , N4 Scale livenhain, California' 36e. Pcc DRNEh. ` Bw 9W 88.0 MIN 30 ti , i i tl�N 36 8.5 e D EP ENED I PE = 367.8 �`' FOOTING L t. HP 1 , �38 ° a ° 40 :.� I - AC DRIVE 9 Te FF = 36 s PE = 366.8 32 39 TES 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' t I 4 '. i 344 r 5 AF -37 TEST / (PlaYBrairnd) Q = 345.0 i - 3 . 3 < MIN j �l r S 3 ` /i' / / END AC BERM 7 N 89 E 165.32 — TEST LOCATION SKETCH PROJECT No. CE -5347 PLATE No. on NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS Test # Date Horizontal Vertical Field Moisture Dry Density Soil Percent of Location Location % Dry Wt. LB Cu. Ft. Type Compaction 1 04/30/98 See 325.0 13.8 114.0 I 91.2 2 Plate 326.0 15.1 115.4 I 92.4 3 One 327.0 15.3 114.2 I 91.4 4 05/01/98 328.0 11.9 121.9 II 96.3 5 330.0 11.7 123.6 II 97.7 6 329.0 14.4 116.3 I 93.0 7 331.0 11.9 119.2 I1 94.2 8 332.0 11.3 120.2 II 95.0 9 333.0 12.0 119.5 II 94.4 10 05/04/98 335.0 14.3 115.8 II 91.5 11 336.0 14.8 117.4 II 92.8 12 337.0 11.7 120.1 II 94.9 13 05/07/98 346.0 15.1 116.3 III 92.3 14 348.0 14.4 117.7 1II 93.4 15 349.0 16.7 116.2 II 91.8 16 347.0 17.3 115.9 1I 91.6 17 349.0 15.8 115.6 II 91.3 18 05/08/98 351.0 15.9 117.2 II1 93.0 19 353.0 14.4 119.6 III 94.9 20 352.0 16.6 118.9 III 94.3 21 354.0 18.3 120.0 III 95.2 22 156.0 13.8 121.2 lII 96.1 23 157.0 12.3 124.6 III 98.8 24 159.0 12.3 122.0 III 96.8 25 05/11/98 360.0 15.9 117.6 III 93.3 26 361.0 13.9 117.0 III 92.8 27 363.0 13.2 118.2 III 93.8 28 363.0 12.7 119.6 III 94.9 29 362.0 10.0 116.6 III 92.5 30 06/01/98 365.0 08.9 120.6 IV 94.2 31 365.0 10.2 119.4 IV 93.2 32 364.0 09.7 121.0 IV 94.5 33 365.0 10.7 119.7 IV 93.5 34 06/04/98 365.0 11.4 117.3 IV 91.6 35 11 366.0 10.7 118.8 IV 92.8 36 06/13/98 339.0 RFG 10.6 121.7 III 96.5 37 340.0 RFG 09.4 120.2 III 95.3 38 368.0 RFG 09.6 116.3 IV 90.8 39 367.0 RFG 08.3 117.4 IV 91.7 40 367.0 RFG 08.1 117.7 IV 91.9 41 366.0 RFG 07.8 116.6 IV 91.0 REMARKS: RFG = Rough Finish Grade. PROJECT NO. CE -5347 PLATE NO. TWO NORTH COUNTY COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC. TABULATION OF TEST RESULTS OPTIMUM MOISTURE/MAXIMUM DENSITY SOIL DESCRIPTION TYPE MAX. DRY DENSITY OPT. MOISTURE (LB. CU. FT) (% DRY WT) Brown Red Gravelly Clay I 124.9 11.5 Light Brown Silty- Gravelly- Clayey -Sand II 126.5 11.0 Gray Brown Gravelly - Clayey -Sand III 126.0 10.3 Orange Tan Silty -Sand (Import) IV 128.0 10.3 EXPANSION POTENTIAL SAMPLE NO. III IV CONDITION Remold 90% Remold 90% INITIAL MOISTURE ( %) 10.7 09.9 AIR DRY MOISTURE ( %) 08.2 04.6 FINAL MOISTURE ( %) 20.1 16.5 FINAL DRY DENSITY (PCF) 113.5 115.2 LOAD (PSF) 150 150 SWELL ( %) 4.3 .1 EXPANSION INDEX 43 Less than 5 PROJECT NO. CE -5347 PLATE NO. THREE ToLinfla of "San pirga LARRY T. AKER DANIEL J. AVERA DIRECTOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH P.O. BOX 65261, SAN DIEGO, CA 92186-5261 (619) 338 -2222 FAX (619) 338-2377 BUILDING DIVISION TURN TO: ❑ ❑ ❑ SAN DIEGO OFFICE NORTH COUNTY OFFICE EAST COUNTY OFFICE 5201 RUFFIN ROAD, SUITE B, 338 VIA VERA CRUZ 200 E. MAIN. 6TH FLOOR SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 -1886 SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 EL CAJON, CA 92020 (619) 565.5920 (619) 471 -0730 (619) 441 -4030 PrciectLocation Z3 v.✓] 1n,4A1 /Z/-') Name of Permittee TWO/'r ✓,G a l% G t`t G ,1 4 Grading Permit No. All-A-0# 2-46q-161-410 This report form 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 work authorized by a gmfing permit issued by the Department of Environmental Health. The intent of the format is to provide information to the Department of Environmental Health as to grading compliance with the ap ved Grading Plan and Permit Where the questions below refer to location, configuration or quantity of cut and/or fill areas, it is linderstood that your response will not normally be based on an actual land survey or detailed earthwork quantity calculations. It sh Id be noted, however, that the Department is particularly concerned where there are possible infractions with respect to over - st pened slopes, encroachments of required setbacks, uncompacted fills placed, or where the quantity of fill placed differs substantially fro that authorized. Th Department of Environmental Health requires that all fills authorized by a Grading Permit be compacted to a minimum of 90% of aximum density with the exception that not more than 12" of uncompacted and untested fills may be dispersed over the land p el. The need to compact all fills that are beyond the present limits of the present proposed construction is to insure that future pro sod construction of room additions or swimming pools or similar structures will not require that uncompacted fills be removed or ompacted, or that extensive foundation work be installed. Compaction reports will not be accepted unless this form is completed and signed by the registered person. 4 A. COMPATTBMM WITH GRADING PLAN AND PERMIT a rZA ►I 1. Was the compacted fill placed only in the approximate locations designated on the grading plan YES NO Is areas to filled? / 2. Did the quantity of fill material placed approximately conform to the grading plan? YES v NO 3. Did the toe of fill or the top of cut appear to meet the prescribed property line setback 1.5' for fill; 3.0' for cuts)? YES NO 4. Were the finished fill slopes equal to or less than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical? YES V NO S. ff the fill material was obtained by cuts on the site, were the cuts made in the proper location d to the proper location and to the proper slope approximately as shown on the approved ` / YES v NO p-ading plan? 6. ere brow ditches constructed approximately as shown on the grading plan? YES NO B. OCAT ION AND AMOUNT OF COMPACTION TESTS 1. lave you attached a sketch and data showing the location and relative elevation for all , / ompaction tests? YES V NO "Prevention Comes First" nF 11 RLDG -71 (Rev 7196) 2 Was a compaction test made so that thCre is at least one test in each 2' thick lens of NO compacted material? YES y 3 As indicated by inspections, observations and compaction est results, was the fill, excluding the top 1.0', compacted to at least 90% of maximum dry density? YES V NO QUALITY OF FILL COMPACTION OPERATION 1 Was -the area to receive fill properly prepared in terms of brush removal, benching, wetting _ / removal of noncompacted fill or debris and related items? Y$S 1� NO 2. Was all detrimentally expansive soil placed in the fill at 3' or more below finish grade? YES-Z NO 3. Have you attached a copy of your curve showing the relationship between optimum moisture content and maximum density? YES NO 4. Was all material used as fill (earth, rocks, gravel) smaller than 12" in site? YF-S NO S. Are all areas of the fill suitable for support of structures? YES 'V NO 6. Were all existinz fills on the site recompacted in accordance with the provisions of the grading ordinance? YES NO D STATISTICAL DATA 1. Dates the grading work was performed: 2. Dates your representative was on site and number of hours on site for each date, and name of representative: <2� S'Aa k E. AS -BUILT DATA S" 7 9 ,?- 4/'9 --Z 1. If the fill placement was not in accordance with the approved grading plan, did you notify YES NO A- q 2. If the approved grading plan does not reflect the actual location, depth and type of fill, YES NO have you submitted for review and approval as as -built plan? Rl MARKS: vSt' ,E'1 /� eq.✓ L�/ . ,o� ri► V�r� c> ��� L) rS�•K! l - - - -- - -- - — — 0.5 -Yes, provided all areas tested are reprosentative of the entire project. .. ns inspa m v . OL(ATI e.iions set tort CIR TOCA17ON I t ereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the information provided in this certification is true to the best of my knowledge and be 'ef. Signature e Date 1� NORTH COUNTY (To be signed an to y cgi;tered gineer or tecr COMPACTION ENGINEERING, INC Registration or Certification Number P.O. Box 302002 Escondido, CA 92030 Address /3e )c 30 o oz t SC 92-o 3 o (619) 480 -1116 Fax 741 -6568 Telephone Number 7 6a - D :BLDG -73 (Rev. 7/96)