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)