1996-4749 CN/EX/G
__~L{Q5
Category
Street Address
I
-----------.--------.--- --._u. -_.--
5?J 81/0
Serial #
Description
Year
-- ---'---"
'-/1t.f1 9
Name
Plan ck. #
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
SUMMARY OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND
TESTS FOR RELATNE COMPACTION
PARCEL 1 AND WEST PORTION OF PARCEL 2
COLE RANCH
COLE RANCH ROAD AND JENNIFER LANE
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
Du VNER CUSTOM HOMES
POST OFFICE BOX 230638
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92023-0638
PREPARED BY:
'-,
~\~@~~W\~!J
IJ\J fEB 25\991
G SERVICES
ENŒNEERFINENC\N\1 AS
C\TY 0 .
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INc.
6280 RNERDALE STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120
Providing Professional Engineering Services Since 1959
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ SOUTIlERN CALIFORNIA
~ SOIL & TESTING, INc.
6280 Riverda1e Street, San Diego, CA 92120
P.o. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160-0627
619-280-4321, FAX 619-280-4717
February 18, 1997
DuViver Custom Homes
SCS&T 9611038
Post Office Box 230638
Encinitas, California 92023-0638
Report No.4
SUBJECT:
Summary of Field Observations and Tests for Relative Compaction, Parcell and
West Portion of Parcel 2, Cole Ranch, Cole Ranch Road and Jennifer Lane,
Encinitas, California.
REFERENCE:
"Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation;" Southern California Soil and
Testing, Inc.; April 4, 1996.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, this report has been prepared to summarize the results of field
observations and tests for relative compaction performed at the subject site by Southern California
Soil and Testing, Inc. These services were performed between January 22 and February 14, 1997.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is a nearly rectangularly shaped parcel of land located between Cole Ranch Road
and Rancho Santa Fe Road in Olivenhain, California. The site covers approximately three acres
and is bounded by Rancho Santa Fe Road on the west, Cole Ranch Road on the east and residential
properties on the north and south. Jennifer Lane extends into the site from cole ranch Road. The
area which is the subject of this report comprises approximately the northern and west central half
of the property. This area is also described as Parcell and the western half of Parcel 2.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
This phase of the project will consist of the construction of three one and/or two story residential
structures. Shallow foundations and conventional slab-an-grade floor systems are anticipated.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCS&T 9611038
February 18, 1997
Page 2
A V AILABLE PLANS
To assist in determining the locations and elevations of our field density tests and to define the
general extent of the site grading for this phase of work, we were provided with a grading plan
prepared by Pasco Engineering, dated November 1, 1996.
SITE PREPARATION
Site preparation began with the removal of existing alluvial/colluvial deposits from the eastern
portion of Parcell. The soils removed were stockpiled for later use. Portions of the bottom of
the excavation were observed by a member of our engineering geology staff. Bottom of removal
elevations and horizontal limits are indicated on the attached Plate Number 1. The bottom of the
excavation was scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least
90 percent as determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-91. Soils generated from removal
operations at the western portion of Parcell were then placed in the excavation in thin compacted
layers until finish grade elevations were reached.
The removal of alluvial/colluvial deposits
underlying the western portion of Parcell continued in a similar manner as previously described.
Due to the proximity of the proposed structure to the northern property line the temporary cut
slope associated with the removal operation was extended to the property line. Therefore, the
proposed cut slope was actually graded as a fill slope (see detail on Plate Number 1).
Site
preparation for the western portion of Parcell included the removal of weathered formational soils
as well as removals recommended due to a geologic transition between said soils and alluvi-
al/colluvial deposits, and expansive soils (see Plate Number 1).
In addition, site preparation
operations were performed for the western portion of Parcel 3. A summary of this work is not
included in this report since grading was not finished due to lack of soil. However, in order to
preserve the original testing sequence, in-place density tests associated with this operation are
included in this report. Due to the presence of weathered formational soils a buttress fill was
constructed, replacing the proposed cut slope between Parcels 2 and 3 (see Plate Number 1). The
buttress extends horizontally five feet beyond the top of the slope. The bottom of the buttress is
at elevation 65 feet MSL.
All fill slopes steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) were overfilled and cut back to finish grade
contours. The minor cut slopes along the western property lines of Parcels 1 and 2 exposed fill
and alluvial/colluvial soils. In general, these deposits appear to be in a medium dense to dense
condition and were left undisturbed. The face of said slopes was track walked. Minor zones of
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
SCS&T 9611038
February 18, 1997
Page 3
friable soils were encountered in said slopes as well as the minor cut slope at the northern property
line of the eastern portion of Parcell. These soils are susceptible to erosion. Prompt and proper
landscaping as well as proper maintenance should mitigate this condition.
FIELD OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Field observation and density tests were performed by a representative of Southern California Soil
and Testing, Inc. during the mass grading operations. The density tests were taken according to
ASTM D1556-90 (sand cone) and D2922-91 (nuclear gauge). The results of those tests are shown
on the attached plates. The accuracy of the in-situ density test locations and elevations is a function
of the accuracy of the survey control provided by other than Southern California Soil and Testing,
Inc. representatives. Unless otherwise noted, their locations and elevations wen~ determined by
pacing and hand level methods and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by
the method used.
As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of work we
agreed to be involved with, and performed tests, on which, together, we based our opinion as to
whether the work essentially complies with the job requirements, local grading ordinances and the
Uniform Building Code.
LABORATORY TESTS
Maximum dry density determinations were performed on representative samples of the soils used
in the compacted fills according to ASTM D1557-91, Method A. This method specifies that a four
(4) inch diameter cylindrical mold of 1/30 cubic foot volume be used and that the soil tested be
placed in five (5) equal layers with each layer compacted by twenty-five (25) blows of a lO-pound
hammer with an 18-inch drop. The results of these tests, as presented on Plate Number 3, were
used in conjunction with the field density tests to determine the degree of relative compaction of
the compacted fill.
The expansive potential of the soils within the upper four feet of finish grade was determined using
UBC Test Method 29-2. The results of these tests as shown on Plate Number 4 indicate a
nondetrimentallyexpansive soil conditions.
I
I
I
I
I
SCS&T 9611038
February 18, 1997
Page 4
REMAINING WORK
Additional backfill operations will be required for the backfilling of utility trenches.
It is
recommended that field observations and relative compaction tests be performed during these
operations to verify that this operation was performed in accordance with job requirements and
local grading ordinances. In addition, mass grading for the remainder of the subdivision will be
performed at a later date.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our field observations and the in-place density test results, it is the opinion of Southern
California Soil and Testing, Inc. that the grading work was performed substantially in accordance
with the recommendations contained in the referenced geotechnical report, the City of Encinitas
grading ordinance, and the Uniform Building Code. Recommendations for the minimum design
of foundations, as presented in the referenced report, remain applicable.
FOUNDATIONS
GENERAL: Conventional spread foundations may be utilized for the support of the proposed
structures. The footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish
grade. A minimum width of 12 and 24 inches is recommended for continuous and isolated
footings, respectively. An allowable soil bearing capacity of 2000 psf may be used for footings
with these minimum dimensions. This bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when
considering wind and/or seismic forces. A minimum setback of seven feet should exist between
the bottom of footings and the face of slopes. For retaining walls the minimum setback should be
ten feet.
REINFORCEMENT: Both exterior and interior continuous footings should be reinforced with
at least two No.5 bars positioned near the bottom of the footing and at least two No.5 bars
positioned near the top of the footing. This reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is
not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural considerations.
FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION:
It is recommended that all foundation
excavations be approved by a representative from this office prior to forming or placement of
reinforcing steel.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCS&T 9611038
February 18, 1997
Page 5
SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and/or differential settlements for
the proposed structures may be considered to be within tolerable limits provided the recommenda-
tions presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally
occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses
and some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive
vertical movements.
EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The foundation soils underlying the proposed structures
are nondetrimentally expansive (see Plate Number 4). The recommendations of this report reflect
this condition.
SLABS-ON-GRADE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
II
INTERIOR CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS: The interior concrete on-grade floor slab should
have a thickness of at least five inches and be reinforced with at least No.3 reinforcing bars placed
at 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcement should be placed approximately at mid-height
of the slab and should extend at least 12 inches down into the perimeter footings. The slabs should
be underlain by a four-inch blanket of clean, poorly graded, coarse sand or crushed rock. This
blanket should consist of 100 percent material passing the two-inch screen and no more than ten
percent and five percent passing the #100 and #200 sieves, respectively. Where moisture-sensitive
floor coverings are planned, a visqueen barrier should be placed over the sand layer. To allow for
proper concrete curing, the visqueen should be overlain by at least two inches of sand.
EXTERIOR ON-GRADE SLABS: Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of four
inches. Walks or slabs five feet in width should be reinforced with at least 6"x6"-W2.9xW2.9
(6"x6"-6/6) welded wire mesh and provided with weakened plane joints. Any slabs between five
and ten feet should be provided with longitudinal weakened plane joints at the center lines. Slabs
exceeding ten feet in width should be provided with a weakened plane joint located three feet inside
the exterior perimeter as indicated on attached Plate Number 5. Both transverse and longitudinal
weakened plane joints should be constructed as detailed in Plate Number 5. Exterior slabs adjacent
to doors should be connected to the footings by dowels consisting of No.3 reinforcing bars placed
at 24-inch intervals extending 12 inches into the footing and 24 inches into the exterior slab.
I
SCS&T 9611038
February 18, 1997
Page 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW
The .foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review to ascertain that the
recommendations contained in this report are implemented and no revised recommendations are
necessary due to changes in the development scheme.
LIMITATIONS
This report covers only the services performed between January 22 and February 14, 1997. As
limited by the scope of the services which we agreed to perform, our opinion presented herein is
based on our observations and the relative compaction test results. Our service was performed in
accordance with the currently accepted standard of practice and in such a manner as to provide a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
reasonable measure of the compliance of the grading operations with the job requirements. No
warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to the services which we have
performed, and neither the performance of those services nor the submittal of this report should
be construed as relieving the contractor of his responsibility to conform with the job requirements.
If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INc.
~~
DBA:mw
cc: (6) Submitted
I OB NAME: COLE RANCH JOB NO: 9611038
I
IN- PLACE DENSITY TESTS I
I ELEVATION MOISTURE I DRY DENSITY I SOIL I REL. COMPo I
I I
TEST i DATE LOCATION (feet, MSL) (percent) (p.d.) TYPE (percent) i
1 1/28/97 See Plate Number 1 61.0 14.8 111.7 2 94.0 I
I 2 1/28/97 See Plate Number 1 63.0 9.4 107.8 2 90.7
3 1/28/97 See Plate Number 1 65.0 9.3 108.6 2 91.4
4 1/28/97 See Plate Number 1 67.0 9.9 108.9 1 93.5
I 5 1/29/97 See Plate Number 1 57.0 10.0 106.0 1 91.0
6 1/29/97 See Plate Number 1 59.0 11.6 108.0 1 92.7
7 1/29/97 See Plate Number 1 61.0 11.2 106.5 1 91.4
I 8 1/29/97 See Plate Number 1 63.0 11.8 105.0 1 90.1
9 1/29/97 See Plate Number 1 65.0 9.2 107.8 2 90.7
10 1/29/97 See Plate Number 1 66.5 10.4 111.6 2 93.9
I 11 1/29/97 See Plate Number 1 68.0 11.2 106.1 1 91.1
12 1/29/97 See Plate Number 1 70.0 12.2 107.4 1 92.2
13 1/30/97 See Plate Number 1 71.5 12.4 108.6 1 93.2
I 14 1/30/97 See Plate Number 1 66.0 14.8 108.5 1 93.1
15 1/30/97 See Plate Number 1 68.0 12.1 109.9 2 92.5
16 1/31/97 See Plate Number 1 70.0 13.3 115.1 2 96.9
I 17 1/31/97 See Plate Number 1 71.5 13.4 110.2 2 92.8
18 1/31/97 See Plate Number 1 73.0 12.0 108.6 3 93.5
I 19 1/31/97 See Plate Number 1 75.0 12.7 109.3 3 94.1
20 1/31/97 See Plate Number 1 77.0 12.5 110.1 3 94.8
21 1/31/97 See Plate Number 1 69.5 10.1 114.3 2 96.2
I 22 1/31/97 See Plate Number 1 71.5 10.8 113.6 2 95.6
23 1/31/97 See Plate Number 1 72.5 9.8 110.6 2 93.1
24 2/4/97 See Plate Number 1 73.0 14.6 110.8 3 95.4
I 25 2/4/97 See Plate Number 1 74.0 11.8 114.0 2 96.0
26 2/4/97 See Plate Number 1 70.5 14.3 113.0 2 95.1
27 2/4/97 See Plate Number 1 60.5 14.4 115.6 2 97.3
I 28 2/4/97 See Plate Number 1 63.5 15.0 108.8 2 91.6
29 2/5/97 See Plate Number 1 69.5 17.4 105.7 3 91.0
30 2/5/97 See Plate Number 1 70.5 15.8 104.8 3 90.2
I 31 2/5/97 See Plate Number 1 71.5 13.2 107.4 3 92.4
, 32 2/5/97 See Plate Number 1 66.5 16.4 110.8 3 95.4
,
I 33 2/6/97 See Plate Number 1 68.5 11.8 112.5 3 96.8
I 34 2/6/97 See Plate Number 1 56.0 17.6 108.6 3 93.5
35 2/6/97 See Plate Number 1 58.0 17.4 108.1 3 93.0
36 2/6/97 See Plate Number 1 70.5 12.4 107.7 3 92.7
I 37 2/6/97 See Plate Number 1 72.0 12.3 111.6 2 93.9
38 2/6/97 See Plate Number 1 69.0 15.6 103.1 2 86.8
39 2/6/97 See Plate Number 1 74.0 17.0 108.0 3 92.9
I *40 2/7/97 See Plate Number 1 58.0 13.6 110.6 3 95.2
*41 2/7/97 See Plate Number 1 72.5 F.G. 13.6 114.8 3 98.8
42 2/10/97 See Plate Number 1 70.0 I 14.1 115.0 2 96.8
I
PLATE NO: 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
SOIL TYPE
I
I 2
I 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OBNAME: COLE RANCH
I
I
I
¡TEST DATE
I 43 2/10/97
44 2/10/97
45 2/10/97
46 2/14/97
47 2/14/97
48 2/14/97
IN-PLACE DENSITY TESTS
LOCATION
See Plate Number 1
See Plate Number 1
See Plate Number 1
See Plate Number 1
See Plate Number 1
RETEST OF 38
Sand Cone Test
ELEVATION
(feet, MSL)
67.0
76.0 F.G.
76.2 F.G.
72.0 F.G.
72.0 F.G.
69.0
MOISTURE
(percent)
14.3
10.0
9.2
11.3
9.0
12.8
DRY DENSITY
(p.d.)
110.4
111.9
111.4
111.5
107.6
107.0
MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE SUMMARY ASTM D1557
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Olive, Fine to Medium
Silty Sand
Brown, Fine to Medium
Silty Sand
Light Brown, Fine to Medium
Silty Clayey Sand
OPTIMUM MOISTURE, %
12.0
9.7
11.3
JOB NO: 9611038
I
SOIL REL. COMPo
TYPE! (percent)
2 92.9
2 94.2
2 93.8
2 93.9
2 90.6
2 90.1
MAXIMUM DENSITY, pet
116.5
118.8
116.2
PLATE NO: 3
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SAMPLE LOCATION
Parcel # 2 West Lot
Parcel # 1 West Lot
Parcel # 1 East Lot
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
EXPANSION INDEX
46
18
4
Low Expansion
Very Low Expansion
Very Low Expansion
Plate # 4
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1...IJMGITU[J8(
TRANSVERSE
JOtNTS
LOHGI11J()WA l
CONTROL
JOINT
TRANSVERSE
COHllÐL
JOtNTS
W (11)
3'
TRANSVERSE
CONTROL
JO8NTS
W (11) - JOINT
Sf» ACtNG
3'
SLAB ON GRADE 10 FEET OR GREATER IN WIDTH
t
I
}
}wI>
~
W/2
W/2
SLAB ON GRADE 5 FEET TO 10 FEET IN WIDTH
NOTE: 1. .W. SHOULD NOT EXCEED 15 fEET.
2. JOtNT PATTERH SHOULD BE NEARLY SQUARE.
D~
-T 1- "D
9T/4
REINFORCEMENT
PER REPORT
(T MIN. COVER)
.J
.
9T = THICKNESS PER REPORT
CONTROL dOINT DETAIL
NO SCALE
~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
~
,"'/ SOIL & TESTING, INC.
BY:
DBA
PROJECT: Cole Ranch Rd
JOB NUMBER: 9611038
DATE: 2-20-97
Plate No: 5
,r:...~./
.
.
PASCO ENGINEERING, INC.
535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101. SUITE A
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
(619) 259-8212
FAX (619) 259-4812
cÇc:!t'f C>rwM:N')
b~ ~I<H-\JI~ A '
,
WAYNE A. PASCO
R.C.E. 29577
June 27, 1996
,,~ ì i
:\-;
96P6~f 1996
, ' ,,' "\ .ì-~"\
\ \ \ \ .~\ \ \
-, (\' '\-) '\1 \t \..J \'\1 ",
. ',' \" L ,U .. ,
\ ,c, n L.:J U ," ;
\ \)~ \s J. ..-';
City ofEncini\~"" 2.1 199G ,-
505 So. Vulcan AvenJ~~ .,',\(:, S'é.B\j\~~;:-;
Encinitas, CA 9~\~'å~'~ÑC\~\\ þ.;;;
Attn: Blair Knoll
F1'i(;¡,¡\jEERiNC:
-- 'ÒITY OF
RE:
COLE RANCH PROJECT GRADING PLANIHYDROLOGY
Dear Mr. Knoll:
The purpose of this report is to address the impact of the proposed grading for the above
mentioned project, as it relates to storm runoff.
The grading as proposed is intended to create six (6) residential building pads on the
existing parcels of both P.M. 15392 and P.M. 15393. All lots take access off of Jennifer
Lane which connects to Cole Ranch Road, a public road. All lots are owned by Daniel T.
Shelley.
The current drainage pattern for the site is sheet flow until it is intercepted by either
Jennifer Lane or Cole Ranch Road. A portion of Parcels 2 & 3 of P.M. 15393, currently
drains south across 5th Street and through the yards of existing residences until it collects
in a more defined swale flowing easterly. Another portion of those same parcels currently
drains southeasterly and directly into the existing drainage course near the outlet of a
culvert passing beneath Rancho Santa Fe Road.
The proposed grading as shown on the above referenced grading plan provides for pad
drainage along swales at 1 % minimum. For Parcell of P.M. 15393 and Parcels 1 and 2 of
P.M. 15392, the swales discharge onto Jennifer Lane and ultimately flow along Cole
Ranch Road in a southerly direction as in the existing condition. The runoff generated for
Parcel 3 P.M. 15392 is collected in a 12" x 12" catch basin and conveyed through a 6"
diameter PVC pipe and discharged onto a rip-rap energy dissipater as shown on Exhibit A
and the grading plan. The runoff from Parcel 2 and 3 of P.M. 15393 is individually
collected in 12" x 12" catch basins and conveyed southeasterly toward the existing
drainage course mentioned above. Each of these pipes also discharge onto rip-rap energy
dissipaters as shown on Exhibit A and the grading plan.
City ofEncinitas/PE 687
June 27, 1996
Page 2
The capacity for the 12" x 12" catch basin is calculated as follows:
Q cap = 3.0 PD 1.5 +2*
* used as an allowance for the grate
D = depth = 0.5 ft. (typical) - provides 0.5' freeboard
P = perimeter length of 12" x 12" catch basin = l'x 4'= 4'
therefore Q cap = 3.0 (4)(0.5 1.5) +2 = 2.12 cfs
Since Q max. = 0.76 cfs (see calculations attached), therefore the 12" x 12" catch basin as
proposed will be adequate to intercept QlOO. The pipe sizes shall be as follows: (refer to
calculations and Exhibit A attached)
Node 2.1
Node 2.2
Node 2.3
to
to
to
1.1 =
1.2 =
1.3 =
6" PVC
9" PVC
9" PVC
It is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering that the drainage structures as
proposed on the above mentioned grading plan and further defined herein, is adequate to
intercept, contain, and convey QlOo to the historic point of discharge.
If you have any questions in reference to the above, please do not hesitate to contact us.
w~p~
~-"" (', ,.,::,;-~...
'XC:'\\ft;)')¡,O/111"~, .
\'" - ".'; / '\.
~ ""--'"--~~- '.... 0""-:"
¿':';ífj',,',,', . X. A. f.?;},"',", '<"'~~~""\'\" ~:,
1...",- \'\;'" 1.\1'\ "(,1.\;,
r L', '-' ,- t", ",\ <". \','
;"' "'.. t'" ~.,:... ",
if) ... -< 0'"'\\ lot' 'I),
. -- ¡ ":" , ' ,.-'n I)'
j 8 ç:NO. 2P,",/677, '=Jji},:
~c:,~ Exp. ,3/3'!í99*,,}
, ""'- Ii
lr).., -9IV\\" <)'<:~\f
\:t, (~ ,:;.\:"::~~~¿
Very truly yours,
PASCO ENGINEERING, INC.
Wayne Pasco, President
RCE 29577
WP/js
* **************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1388
Analysis prepared by:
Pasco Engineering, Inc.
535 North Highway 101, Suite A
Solana Beach, CA. 92075
Ph. (619) 259-8212 fax: (619) 259-4812
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
_8JIr£¡f:::!!~J:PI!'IIi~:~2::!_ill
**************************************************************************
FILE NAME: 687A.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 12:56
6/26/1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) =
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
2.800
FOR FRICTION SLOPE =
.95
***************************************************************************
:: m#% Q. ~¡~}::': g ¡;M? q:~ $.: $'::: :flt)f{ Q. M:::: ~g þ~::::::::::::::::::: 1#:::~: ~ 9:: JjJþ:::: N. Þ@)3)::::::'::::::::::::::::::::gq:W:Q:::]t.:$.::::Y4 9: ø:m:::: F::::::::@)::?::::::::?:t:::::::::::::::"'?"":"::::"',:::::,:,,:..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<
===========================================================================
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 260.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 64.80
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 62.20
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.60
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW (MINUTES) =
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.133
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .55
::::::w,pwÄï;iJ::g~I:(ÆçR~~J':\::§:"""")':ê\~::::::.w,PWÄPj:s.WNPi:F(:ÇW$.:)-\\::':§¡' . .....
18.866
"".............
""""""'5""5""""'"
....... . ....
::'::\.:....::.:::}(
.......
.......
****************************************************************************
:::: E@Q¥í:::::ERQ@§§§::::::f:R9J1:::::ij 9 p~;:::
:?::[.);:p:::::wÞ::[N'QW$::i::::::::::::::;tiwp'!ì:s:pppj1:p:$)
.....'"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««<
»»>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)««<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
::::'þ~~i}:ø.~:::::gm:::::F:ÞQW:::::+N::::::::::::¥?/~ø:::::~~øttJ::g:fmm::;"::f$.::::::::::Þ:@?::::+N:~~~$% "".'.'........::::'" .. .. .
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEETjSEC.) = 4.6
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 61.20
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 60.20
FLOW LENGTH (FEET) = 40.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER (INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES =
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA (CFS) = .55
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .14 TC(MIN.) = 19.01
..,..,.,
. .. ..... . .,
..................
1
***************************************************************************
:::::::¥@QW:::::::Eg9@E§:§::::F:Rg~::::ftJ?P§/::" '.'.'..... ::'~~::gQ:::Wg:::n:QPJ~!::::::::::::i: ::::g@g::9::::::!ì:§::@9Rm.::F:::%:~:::::::::::::::::::m:::. ...:.:.::::::.......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 200.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 64.80
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 62.80
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW (MINUTES) =
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCHjHOUR) = 3.409
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .69
::::W:9m~p::g(t!;~m~ø~~$,}::g? .. . ".:::::::::::~4?::::::::::::W:9m~p:::::);{U~9rtmK£nr)$,}~
16.546
:u:~:g) ..... ... ..........
...,... ....... """""""""....,.
***************************************************************************
::%:: ~pg W:::::: P,);{W, ~:rø $. $,::::: :fftJ1 9 I % ~ @Þrø:::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~::~::: 4.þ:::::::W: 9::::::: N: ø Þ~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: %:::~:: l:~:: Þ:::::::: f: $.:::::: ~ 9 Þ:m::::::: F:::::::::::::::::: ~::::::::::::::::::::::: =:::::::::'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: r r::::::
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««<
»»>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)««<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
:::::R@~?j¥Hr:p;i::::mIQN:wm'::::~:~q:!ì::ij@~:!::::g~gW;:~$::::!i!igwm'qH§§..' .......
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEETjSEC.) = 4.7
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 61.80
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 60.00
FLOW LENGTH (FEET) = 80.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES =
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA (CFS) = .69
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .28 TC(MIN.) = 16.83
.......
... ..
...,
'...............
1
. '.
***************************************************************************
..,.."""""""."".. , " '. "., .......... ...., ",..............'.'.'.'.......'.'.'.....'......,','...............'.'.'...'.'.'.'...'.'...'.-...-,'..,'...'...............'.'.'.:.:.:.:.:.:.'.,...".............................,....................'.' '.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:-:,:-:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:..
:::ar:MgW:::::F:R9g~§:$j:::f!gQ~::::j~tgp~':':::':::i1~:'~P\W9:N9J?:§\",::?'@§:g'::~:§j"qgq@:::'E)2: """,..'........".... . .........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 210.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 72.40
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 70.30
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.10
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) =
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCHjHOUR) = 3.356
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .76
: ,$9 WX~lf~{:: ~ #; l~\ (Ã P j;{ ~ $!),:: 5: "'::::: l $'9:$9$ Ã(9::: :gU~ øJîJt (: þ r;, :$1:: 5::
16.955
~:Z:ß:\
".,..
.......
***************************************************************************
: (tt@gJ!:::]1 ~ Q pm $ $: ~ ~Q ~~ Q þ"mJ:
~@§:Þ::$9H:qÞ~:r::¡:~~øq:+$pgÞJ::E" §.
"..
"".."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA««<
»»>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)««<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: ¡ ¡¡:: m@iWH.;::::::9:f!:::¡'¡::mmW:::¡¡:::WNY¡:¡:::::¡::::::J: i:: ¡~:::g::;:::'; m: N91(:::::: g: ~: g@:::::::~: $3::::¡::::::::::::: q: @ ~ ¡::::: ¡: W N 9.Hi i): §:::::::: :::: ¡::::¡:::: ¡::::::: ¡:: ¡::::;:::::::::::::::::::,::;: J:':'::,:¡::::::;::::,::: ¡:::: ¡:;:::::::::::::¡: ¡:::::::::¡::,:::;:: ::::::;:: ¡:::¡: ¡::::::¡::: ¡:'::: ::::::::::::::::;: ¡,:::::: ;:¡: I:
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEETjSEC.) = 4.3
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 69.30
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 68.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 80.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER (INCH) = 9.00 NUMBER OF PIPES =
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA (CFS) = .76
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .31 TC(MIN.) = 17.26
1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
,---,
,
;-
,-
-
.---,
~
I
-
~
,. . ".
"
i
.
COUIITY OF SAN DIEGO
DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION &
FLOOD CONTROL'
--'---'" ---, ""_0 .-- -
45'
3D' I
I
15' ~
I
33°
45'
Prepn f:d by
;
1-.-
¡/12ðJCCT
!ðCA nOM
u.s. DEPARTòIEi\'lr OF Cm.1MERCE
.- .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NATIO:-l^1.. OCEM~IC MID ^T~lDSPlI£HIC ^D~:I:-IISTRATIDN
SPECIAL STUDIES URA~CH, OfflC£ OF lIillRDI..OGY, NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
H
H
I
:Þ
,
'-J
3D'
1181
451
3D'
) 16°
3D'
15'
11 7°
IS'
..--- . -
-' ~. -.. ---...,'
.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION &
FLOOO CONTROL
IfS '
301
] 51
l
,'-
\ fJj "
I r
), '"J
'j /í/
\
//
330
451
-.
P¡¿OJE(.r
(OCA-nCJ
,-0-
- N r33°Cì2. ,~.. ¿A--l':
, II
IV /7014 ¿) ttJ,<).
u.s. DEPARTMENlr OF CŒr1MERCE
Prcp" f'.j by
NATIONAL OC"^:\IC AND ^rJu~I'II~~IC AIHIlr;I~Tn^TlUN
"'C,,, nOD'"~ u""C"'3::'" D' ~D"D"'GY' N'n~^, "'AT"" ...",c,
t-i
<-<
).
I
-
w
IIW
I, ~ I
11]0
I ~ I
IIG"
J ~j I
1 t¡
)01
)01
h'"
4\ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
'w SOIL&TESTING,INc.
6280 Riverdale Street, San Diego, CA 92120
Po. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160-0627
619-280-4321, FAX 619-280-4717
August 27, 1996
\Õ) ~ ~ ~ ~ 'I!J ~\ID
\j\.1 NOV 01 1996
ENGIN E E R INEGNCS ~~~ ~~ ES
CITY OF
SCS&T 9611038
Report No.3
Duviver Custom Homes
285 North EI Camino Real
Suite 212
Encinitas, California 92024
SUBJECT:
Proposed Subdrains, Cole Ranch Project, Cole Ranch Road and Jennifer Lane,
Encinitas, California.
REFERENCE:
"Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Six Lot Subdivision;" Southern
California Soil and Testing, Inc.; April 4, 1996.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with a request from Pasco Engineering, we have prepared this letter to address the
subdrains recommended on Page 8 of the referenced report. Based on a review of the undated
grading plans prepared by Pasco Engineering, it is our opinion that the subject subdrains will not
be necessary. However, a final determination will be made during grading operations.
If you should have any q:.Iestions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to conta(;t this office.
This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
IFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
DBA:mw
cc: (4) Submitted
(2) Pasco Engineering
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
SUMMARY OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND
TESTS FOR RELATIVE COMPACTION
MASS GRADING OPERATIONS
EAST PORTION OF PARCEL 2 AND 3
COLE RANCH PROJECT
COLE RANCH ROAD AND JENNIFER LANE
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
b';,,;.,~,¡: ¡:~W\N\TAS
" ,( _J ,.,
PREPARED FOR:
Du VIVIER CUSTOM HOMES
POST OFFICE BOX 230638
ENCINIT AS, CALIFORNIA 92023-0638
PREPARED BY:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
6280 RNERDALE STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120
Providing Professional Engineering Services Since 1959
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
~ SOIL & TESTING, INc.
6280 Riverda1e Street, San Diego, CA 92120
P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160-0627
619-280-4321, FAX 619-280-4717
October 30, 1997
DuVivier Custom Homes
Post Office Box 230638
Encinitas, California 92023-0638
SCS&T 9611038.8R
SUBJECT:
Summary of Field Observations and Tests for Relative Compaction, Mass
Grading Operations, East Portion of Parcel 2 and Parcel 3, Cole Ranch Project,
Cole Ranch Road and Jennifer Lane, Encinitas, California.
REFERENCES: 1)
"Summary of Field Observations and Tests for Relative Compaction,
Parcell and West Portion of Parcel 2;" by Southern California Soil &
Testing, Inc., dated February 18, 1997.
2)
"Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation;" by Southern California
Soil & Testing, Inc., dated April 4, 1996.
Ladies/Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, this report has been prepared to summarize the results of field
observations and tests for relative compaction performed at the subject site by Southern California
Soil and Testing, Inc. These services were performed between August 19 and September 2, 1997.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is a nearly rectangular shaped parcel of land located between Cole Ranch Road and
Rancho Santa Fe Road in Olivenhain, California. The site covers approximately three acres and is
bounded by Rancho Santa Fe Road on the west, Cole Ranch Road on the east and residential
pròperties on the north and south. Jennifer Lane extends into the site from Cole Ranch Road. The
area of the project which is addressed by this report comprises all of Parcel 3 and approximately
the eastern approximate one-half of Parcel 2.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
This phase of the project will consist of the construction of three one and/or two story residential
structures of wood-frame construction. Shallow foundations and conventional slab-on-grade floor
systems are anticipated. Subsurface utility lines and associated hardscape paving areas are also
planned for construction.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCS&T 9611038
October 30, 1997
Page 2
A V AILABLE PLANS
To assist in determining the locations and elevations of our field density tests and to define the
general extent of the site grading for this phase of work, we were provided with a grading plan
prepared by Pasco Engineering of Solana Beach, California, bearing an approval date of November
21, 1996.
SITE PREPARATION
GRADING CONTRACTOR:
The earth working operations addressed in this report were
performed by Sims Grading, Inc., of Vista, California; California Contractor License Number
416914.
LOT GRADING: Site preparation began with the demolition of existing structures and removal
of the materials detrimental to the proposed development. Subsequent to this, the western portion
of Parcel 3 had the existing topsoil, fill and colluvial/alluvial deposits removed until contact with
medium dense to dense Friars Formation was made. The removal operations continued to the
eastern portion of Parcel 2, where nondetrimentally expansive alluvial/colluvial deposits were
removed to at least ten feet below pad grade, and to a depth such as to generate sufficient material
to "cap" all three lots. The nondetrimentally expansive material was first used to cap the upper four
feet of the western portion of Parcel 3 and the remaining nondetrimentally expansive soils were
stockpiled on top of said pad for later use. Operations then continued to the eastern portion of
Parcel 3 where removals were performed in the same manner as for the western portion. The
material generated from the removals was potentially expansive, and was used for filling the deeper
areas of the eastern portion of Parcel 2, to eliminate cut/fill transitions from beneath the proposed
dwellings and/or to accommodate for the four foot cap of nondetrimentally expansive select
material. The western and eastern portions of Parcel 3 were overexcavated approximately four feet
below their respective finish pad grades. The lateral extents of the removal and overexcavated areas
are approximately depicted on the attached Plate Number 1. The nondetrimentally expansive
stockpiled material was then placed and compacted on the upper four feet of the eastern portions of
Parcels 2 and 3. Due to a shortage of nondetrimentally expansive material and to the lowering of
the pad on,. the eastern portiònof Parcell, the nondetrimentally expansive soils from said pad were
used to 'fill the remainder of the eastern portions of Parcels 2 and 3. It should be noted that the
eastern portion of Parcell still had a nondetrimentally expansive fill cap of at least four feet after
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SCS&T 9611038
October 30, 1997
Page 3
it was lowered by approximately two feet. The fill soils were typically placed in thin, moisture
conditioned lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Compaction was
achieved by means of heavy construction equipment.
Chunks of concrete generated from the pre-existing improvements were placed on the eastern
portion of Parcel 2, immediately parallel to the adjacent easement. The concrete was placed at a
depth of approximately 20 feet below finished pad grade and in such a manner as to prevent nesting.
Compacted soil was placed around and over the concrete chunks. The approximate area where the
concrete was placed is depicted on Plate Number 1.
A concrete cistern was encountered on the eastern portion of Parcel 3. Said cistern was removed
in its entirety and the loose soils associated with the removal were excavated. The resulting
excavation was filled in the manner previously described. The approximate location of the cistern
is as noted on the attached plot plan.
FIELD OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Field observation and density tests were performed by a representative of Southern California Soil
and Testing, Inc. during the mass grading operations. The density tests were taken according to
ASTM D2922-91 (nuclear gauge). The results of those tests are shown on the attached plates. The
accuracy of the in-situ density test locations and elevations is a function of the accuracy of the
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
survey control provided by other than Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. representatives.
Unless otherwise noted, their locations and elevations were determined by pacing and hand level
methods and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.
As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of work we
agreed to be involved with, and performed tests, on which, together, we based our opinion as to
whether the work essentially complies with the job requirements, local grading ordinances and the
Uniform Building Code.
LABORATORY TESTS
Maximum dry density determinations were performed on representative samples of the soils used
in the compacted fills according to ASTM D1557-91, Method A. This method specifies that a four
il
I
I
SCS&T 9611038
October 30, 1997
Page 4
(4) inch diameter cylindrical mold of 1/30 cubic foot volume be used and that the soil tested be
placed in five (5) equal layers with each layer compacted by twenty-five (25) blows of a 10-pound
I
I
hammer with an 18-inch drop. The results of these tests, as presented on Plate Number 2, were
used in conjunction with the field density tests to determine the degree of relative compaction of the
compacted fill.
REMAINING WORK
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Additional grading and backfill operations will be required for the backfilling of utility trenches.
It is recommended that field observations and relative compaction tests be performed during these
operations to verify that these operations are performed in accordance with job requirements and
local grading ordinances.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our field observations and the in-place density test results, it is the opinion of Southern
California Soil and Testing, Inc. that the grading work was performed substantially in accordance
with the recommendations contained in the referenced geotechnical investigation, the City of
Encinitas grading ordinance, and the Uniform Building Code. Recommendations for the minimum
design of foundations, as presented in the referenced geotechnical investigation, remain applicable
and for ease of reference, have been reproduced below.
FOUNDATIONS
GENERAL: Conventional spread foundations may be utilized for the support of the proposed
structures. The footings should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish
grade. A minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches is recommended for continuous and isolated
footings, respectively. An allowable soil bearing capacity of 2000 psf may be assumed for footings
with these minimum dimensions. This bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when
considering wind and/or seismic forces. A minimum setback of seven feet should exist between the
bottom of footing and the face of slopes. For retaining walls the minimum setback should be ten
feet.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
SCS&T 9611038
October 30, 1997
Page 5
REINFORCEMENT: Both exterior and interior continuous footings should be reinforced with at
least two No.5 bars positioned near the bottom of the footing and two No.5 bars positioned near
the top of the footing. This reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to be
in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural considerations.
FOUNDATION EXCA V A TION OBSERVATIONS: It is recommended that all foundation
excavations be approved by a representative from this office prior to forming or placement of
reinforcing steel.
SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and/or differential settlements for
the proposed structures may be considered to be within tolerable limits provided the recommenda-
tions presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur
in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses and
some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical
movements.
EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The foundation soils underlying the proposed structures are
nondetrimentally expansive. The recommendations presented in this report reflect this condition.
SLABS-ON-GRADE
INTERIOR CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE: Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should have a
thickness of at least five inches and be reinforced with at least No.3 reinforcing bars placed at 18
inches on center each way. Slab reinforcement should be placed approximately at mid-height of the
slab and should extend at least 23 inches down into the perimeter footings. The slabs should be
underlain by a four-inch blanket of clean, poorly graded, coarse sand or crushed rock. This blanket
should consist of 100 percent material passing the two-inch screen and no more than ten percent and
five percent passing the #100 and #200 sieves, respectively. Where moisture-sensitive floor
coverings are planned, a visqueen barrier should be placed over the sand layer. To allow for proper
concrete curing, the visqueen should be overlain by at least two inches of sand.
I
I
I
SCS&T 9611038
October 30, 1997
Page 6
FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW: The foundation plans should be submitted to this office for
review to ascertain that the recommendations contained in this report have been implemented and
no revised recommendations are necessary due to changes in the development scheme.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIMITATIONS
This report covers only the services performed between August 19 and September 2, 1997. As
limited by the scope of the services which we agreed to perform, our opinion presented herein is
based on our observations and the relative compaction test results. Our service was performed in
accordance with the currently accepted standard of practice and in such a manner as to provide a
reasonable measure of the compliance of the grading operations with the job requirements. No
warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to the services which we have
performed, and neither the performance of those services nor the submittal of this report should be
construed as relieving the contractor of his responsibility to conform with the job requirements.
If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
DBA:DH:GET:rr
cc: (6) Submitted
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JOB NAME:
Cole Ranch Project
JOB NUMBER
9611038
I
.."" ............ ......
....... ........'" .......
'.'...'.....'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'...'...'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'...'.'...'.'.'.'.'.'...'...........'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'...'.'...'.'...'.'.'.'.'.".'.'.'.'.'.'...'.'.'.'."'."'.'.'.'.....'.'.'.
.........................................................................................................
.. ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ........... ........... ..........................................................
. ..... ............/:r::::::i:}}@"...!i.!ii:lliBlllïiii!:¡fill§ÎÎÎ:iiE$ilii:
it
"'.."
......
TEST ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DENSITY SOIL REL.COMP.
NO. DATE LOCATION (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f.) TYPE (percent)
*49 8-19-97 Parcel 3, West Pad 63.0 15.6 106.4 1 91.3
50 8-20-97 Parcel 3, West Pad 65.0 11.7 107.7 1 92.4
51 8-22-97 Parcel 2, East Pad 42.0 12.7 109.2 2 91.9
52 8-22-97 Parcel 2, East Pad 44.0 14.4 107.5 2 90.5
53 8-22-97 Parcel 2, East Pad 46.0 13.7 108.7 2 91.5
54 8-22-97 Parcel 2, East Pad 48.0 14.8 106.9 2 90.0
55 8-22-97 Parcel 2, East Pad 50.0 14.1 107.9 2 90.8
56 8-22-97 Parcel 2, East Pad 52.0 15.3 108.2 2 91.1
57 8-22-97 Parcel 2, East Pad 54.0 14.4 107.4 2 90.4
58 8-22-97 Parcel 2, East Pad 56.0 15.2 108.1 2 90.4
59 8-25-97 Parcel 2, East Pad 58.0 16.9 111.7 2 94.0
60 8-26-97 Parcel 2, East Pad 60.0 15.8 107.8 2 90.7
61 8-27-97 Parcel 2, East Pad 62.0 17.5 108.9 2 91.7
62 8-27-97 Parcel 3, East pad 62.0 12.3 108.2 1 92.9
63 8-28-97 Parcel 2, East Pad 66.0 12.7 107.7 1 92.4
64 9-2-97 Parcel 3, West Pad F.G. 65.0 10.5 109.0 I 93.6
65 9-2-97 Parcel 3, East Pad F.G.64.0 9.4 109.5 I 94.0
66 9-2-97 Parcel 2, East Pad F.G.68.0 13.3 108.3 1 93.0
* Preceeding in-place density tests were previously reported in Reference Number 1.
F.G. = Finish Pad Grade
MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OYI'IMUM MOISTURE SUMMARY (ASTM D1557)
Soil
Type
Optimum Maximum
Moisture, % Density, pcr
12.0 116.5
9.7 118.8
11.3 116.2
Soil Description
Yellow Brown, Silty Sand
2
Yellow Brown, Clayey Sand
3
Light Brown, Fine to Medium,
PLATE NO.2
i . - - I . - -_ _ - , - _ - I - 11 - I
. . 11 I I I � � I � - I I _ !_ � j , . I I I � , : I.. 7 , 11 ". I—". - � -
� _�__ , _ � ;jjjw ft "._ I . . . . . . - . L - . . , � .5-.,, ! .. � .. . I . ., : '... I , 11- , -, . ,' ,..�-
mi.;� * �i
� � I � _111 I � - I � It � ,� : � - I �_ �� - �- -�� - , _�# , �_ __ � ,_ _, - - � � ____ - - � ---,---
- � ___ - . __ . . % . � , . . . I ,� �4. t .. - , . �
11 � . I I 1. . . . . a I- , . , I , , : -.'� , � . , .. . I �
I 1� ________ --- _. � 11-1 - - I—- -_ __-, ____ . _ - I � - 1. 11 - - . - I - -1. -_ - , -.-- _ ____�11�
____ IN I � I I . . , I , .. . � I 4
I I _. � I I � ., I I � , . , I _ --------, _____ I - - ,__ _. ____ .- - � � I . . I L-1
_� . 0 . I . I . i .. . � . � ; . � .. I . � , �_:� " .., �. . I , ,, .�, . . . I *�. ; q
.. -.10 I *",: � -. , . �
I I � - �
� I � I . :_ , . , I . ; - . �_ . I . ,. . . . . .
I - � I I I I . � I I , I _____ _____ -_ -_ - - - -_ � -, . .1 1 . . . .
. I , I . : . . . I . I I ,� " � ; .:.. - , I . � . I .;- '.
I I- ... IA. I 10 I I I p4impow � __ _____ ,,,', , __ 11 i - __ Aw - - ____wmdm� ___ - I 1�111111 . ..
�� - � --- . . ., � . I . . ,. . : t . . . I . . I .. I , . . . . . . , , I I �
, _'� I - 11 , ,:� , ..." , - �
016���t . . I I . . I I I I . . .1 . � � . I . . I , � . �
, -,% '. . I , ..� "; ., - �, . . . 4 . .., � , .� . .1 ., , . . "' . " . . . , . .,
04 -1 I - .--. � I' I , . . . . . � . I . . I. I . . I I I , .
'. - * I . . I . I ... , . . . . 'A. I . . I ,
* I I I . I . � . I . . . . � I . � . . 1 1 1 , I � . . I . I � .
. I . � . . � - i � . . I , , I - - , , I I � I " .1 . . . I . I I . I � . . , , - I .. ..� .
� �'. .� 4, - - I � � � ... . , I : - ,.,.. � � � , " " .. . . 'i I �, '. �
; I , I . I . , . I , � � v . . I. . . . t I .! , I I I . ; . I � i
I . . . � . � . , . I . . . � - *. . I , I I ; . I ., 11 � 1. f. !
� . , . �,� . I ; � . I . . . I I I . . . . . , .
, : , . : .r �` � 4 , -, � . . 1 , .. ., . I
, , I . , , �
I � � I I � , , _� . 1, . " _, - -,L� �. ,%* - 1 , .�,, -
- . ? ,
. , , . . , � . - . ` . . I I , - . . I . '' . . "I . . . . , I
. . . , . � I - , .. � I , � .. .. - . .; 4 '. . . 'e, . 4 '.. 4 . 1
� , t I . . - __ - - _ -, - - j I I .. I . - , . �. $ 1 1 � I I ., � . 9 , ". I . . �# . I... .
. . � � 11 I # I � . . .. �. I . : I . . .1 I I . . . - I . � I ; . . I . ..
. _ . .,. . I . � � I � . ; , '.' � , � . L -.-- _-, , - ,
� . __ . - . - I I . . I . I � -_ I . 0k. . , 2, � � . . - - , _. - _* - � - -
, 1 2 + -_ I r ,- I .. , , - ,; .1 � I 4 1 � 1. � :!. . , . '. . . , .
__ � I . - -_ I . I _ . .,Jq _w;a;m _ � - - - _____ - , ,.
. I 1. . , .
. . , . - - - I . . I - , - 1y_____v , : . -, ''. 'j. :
-
- I - - 1111111011ANIA20106 . I . - � - - - . - __ - .- - - � - --- - a -_ ANN , . - - .. - -
__ _1 I . . � . *� , 1 . . . I . �, L ; I � I , - 1 I , - , - , - . , . - , - � . - , . �: t! "'. -ki- I - -11
� N - ���_ - .1 ! . .
.. . I , ! -, � , 0 - . . . . 1111111100196111101 . I . I � � , . . I �
t N= poli�
. : mm" , i i - _= - ___ __ 1 � , , , , I , � . __ I' . . . I I . . 11 . . ., I.
I . . � I - -
- I . - - - .�
I I . I I , . . ''. I ,j ..' � , 1. . I . __ � '' .. __ . - - __ � - --i- - __ . __ .
_ . - � I - 611111111111111111111111111wh MoNWASOMMOU� - - _ :! _i&;k::;4i%g - , I 1, I . .
4 ', 0 , , - ., . 4; , . ': -, �, k. - .-, , . *. -, " ., -- j � % I . . . . -
I
, , �% " i , . "I: . �1 , ,. , '. , . . I . . . . I . . . . I . . . . � I , , ,. I ... . . . .
I I - - dmbmmmmmwAmo 11- . + I I . . , .. � . .. 1�1 . .,�, . . I . I � I . � . . .
. � I .." f , .., , � , . , , ,
..�� I .; , . ..!; ,� * ,11 , I, � , ,. a , . I , � . � � . I . I 1�_ ., ; , � . . i . . � . I I I I I
. . . I . . I � � I I � I I I . . . . : . :. I . . . . � . . . I . .
. � . � 1. , I ". I %. , I I . . � , j � - . ..
-�� ? , . . . .1 I 11 , � . � I I �. I . I I I I . . . i . I . . . I
� I . I I I . ! � . I � I I I I : , - * I - . ; I . . . . . , * . ,
� .. . �;, , , . . . I . , . . , . I . . I I I I . � I I I . . 1 I
� � . I
. 4 � 'X , . . - , I � . . � . I . . . . � . 1 4 - I : k . . I I
I . I . . I . I . I I . . .
, . � . . � I . . + . I I : - I . � - � . . , . � . . � I I '. . 11 � . I
. . I . . I , . , , � . I 1 . . . . . I . 4 . I : , �
, .� *I- - - - , - I � . I .. I I '. . . , � I . . � I . , - ... I . � . . . I I . I . . . I . .
I . I � . + . . � i . I � I � I I - I I I . . . . I � . p � � . I , . .
. . I . � . I . I , I , � � . I I . I . I I ; , ! I .. " , . : , . - . . ; : 1� 4 I . . I I
I . I . .. , I , I I , . . 7 , 1. I �� . . �
- . . . � I I . . I . I . I . . . I I . � 1, . I I . "'
, � , 'i , , + 0 ' I I I , � . , - , I . I , _ �
I I . I I I I . . � * q " k, - A � �r - I � : I , , , � , � ,
!_ _", -A I ., .� .I �:, . I . . . � . - . � . 4 : , � . I � I - . . I .. � I I . .
. . , . . . � . I . . � I . .. . . � - .A- I , - I � I - AA , , , , , .
. . , -
I I -_ - _ . . 6 � . I . ". : ,f. � ..
, . I .0 . , 11 . . � . . . i . . , 0 t " * * , , , i -
� * , 1 ,.. * .
. �,w 4 �. .. ,-1 . ., �, , , . " , , " , . i. .1 . I . � . , . . . . r I . i I . I . . I
� I - �
I *. . � w I � , . ��. . . . . I . . . - . , I . '. . I . I I � I I . . � . : . I , I
1. � I . __ I . . I ., . , z .w, . . ,
. . I . . , , . .i I . . '. . . , . . . 'A . . vk, � I 0
- - , I . I . , � , . . .. I.. I � . I I . . . I I � . . .. . . . lv`
. � I 1 � I . . : 't � N . .
� .1� I . , * _� - - - -4 .. r. . .1 il. I '. .
I
I _. . . I . � . . I I I I . . . . . . � . � AL bm ; .3 P P 4
� .1 .,�# I 11. � . .1 I �, . .. . . .. . . . . " ... I � . . . i
I L91 I '' "RA ' "` , �6
.-!-#,, _. * % . I , .. . ..,;,.__. 4 *1 .1. � . . � . � . . . .+ I I I .
I � � 1 74", M. A lip , . f.j . ,
I � I T I . I . . . . . . . . . . - . I . I I � I . I
- ". po' ` 11
� . . . . . . - , I 1. . . . .. . . � . . . I 11, . . I I I .
I , 5LLt� 1.
. . � . . . . i ,� I -` I I . ' .. 1. I
. -, � . . �. . . � . I : . . . . . '', I . I � . I . . I I I � .
I � I 'i -,W A 5 3'�-. j .' I � , , 4 i '; ,. '. . ,�.. " -
1 .
. . ��. , � * O Fjow Jim.. . - . . . ,� , .-,��- , I . .. . 1. I - I . I I I . I . ..
I . . I% .. . _. . A- . . I I . I . . . . I . . I I - PA U C"'L 34 : , , 6 . I I
� , .
, ; . I." ; - - � . ._ ... . I . ". i I ' - I � . N(MFCAr04' . I I �, I . . . . .. 1 . I .
I ". , . I . I . I I . � . . . . " I I . . . -f . ur F .0 I I . I .
� � . .
A.'') . It , � . � .. . . I ., I .1 I 1. .. � � � . . . 1, . I .� 1. . � '. I I
' . I � I I .! . � I . R ��.' ", I . I I " I . .;:, ". ;
. I . . I . . � .. I . . � . 1. � . : 11 I I I I I � . . . I I .*). . '
I I . 6 , , . ... I I I '.1 � . . . I � I . I . .. I . .. . .., I I . ''
I , .. I I . I. I , I I . . I . I � I . I . I � I I , � . . . !,
1. . .. . � + � . I . I �
. " . I I . . I . .1 . � .. . . � � I i I - . 1, � 11 . . I 1. - . .
. . . I � 1. . ..� . . I . I . I � . . . . . I �11.1 * *., - 4 , , , 1.1 I
� : 1 4 '' � I � . I . � I . . , .1 . . . . + ; . . . . * .. I LEGNS40 .
I I I . I I . . � . . . i ..
;,�. , , . . I I . � i . I I � .. . I . I . 1, . .. .. . . 1i +. . . '' ' ' .
I .. , I � .11 � I I . - . I 11 1. . � . - I .. . I . . . I . . . . I
. I . I . ..
* :,.. e� , ", I ; , I * , . . . . . . . , 1. , I , . I I I : - �.. . � . I I . . i .
. . . . . e� I I I . . . . . . I . 1. I . . . I " . I . I I .
. I . , '� I . .. .., 1, , . . . .. � . . I . . . . . I . sou OWFICATE . . . r -
. 1. I � . . .. . I � . I t. ., I I �. . . I . ... 1 .
� . . _.. . 1, I .. - i 1�_ � � . . I 'a 1- I . ., I . . . .. I
. I . . . . . I - 4I , � .�
, . . . .11, ''. _. � � . . . ., I � I I . I I t . . � . I .. . . I .
. . . . : . . :- I . . . I . I . . . . I I � 1 - I
**Iij - -,, . . . I I . . - . - I . I . . I I I . I I � . �, � . I �
. I I . I I _�, , . : ,
- . . . . � . , I I I . . . , - ,
_ . . . � � . ' . . . .. I I
- ''. , - I . � .. .. . .,�, : .. . .. I I . I . . 1 . . ,�. . . . . I I � . . . .
. I ' . I I . I I . . . . . .. I. . . � I- i-11: . op � _._l I
.- . . - . � . � . . , . �. . . � � . ..... . I . . , I . . .
I I . . I .
, � .. . 1. . I ' . . , . I � _. . . . , I ,
: - � V: .." `� ' . . I . I . - , . . I . I � �, 4 . I .! 4 , . .
I ! ; . . . . . . .. I 1 .. . .,.. I .. I , .. , � � I .
. ". I - :. THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION . 1 -) . I I � � 11 # . . . ..
1. " I . I �� : : .%. ,, ._ ,., . . . ".! ". .1
, , , , . . � . 1. ; I S_. 0. i me SAN - � I .
- -
�;%--; Z,k.� :* - *:' `-, -"ALL WNV% SHA` `eS DONE - .3 �4 _At� * 11 . . . O� UNDEPGFKMO UTILITY..PIPES - `.' . I 1. , -.0 A No 11 �`_.(?
.. t fw- t_ 1� I S.0'.1R. DIEGO O 'DRAWINGS .. I I I _ 4 1 . . .. I . I . � .1 . . . .
. . � I .1 . ... �
� � I . . . � . I � . . . I . . 1. I ..,.- - .. .
�.. I :%".... �1_ 1, - PLANS, - - - A REGISTEPED CIVIL'ENGINEtR IN THE STATE OF - ' , ' . � � I
I I.: � � I . * I
. _. , !. I I �(. w . NCE ITH�THESE I � 1 . i . I . I I I . . + . I I
. � . I � " . 11. i., . I I ..I 1. I . .* 11 I .
, * ... ,. .. . i - I . . . ; ! I . I . . � . . I I �
-.., . 4. . I y
I "".�!-.�`. ..; I . � 1� , , I . . I i I. � I I I . I . . I . � � I , I . I I I . �
. . - . I . . � . . . . . . ; � I I . . . F I . . I � I I . . . . � . . . . , , . I k $ ' I . . .
, - . �. . - , ',�.., 1 , .-,;" . . . . , I I I I - . . . . � ! I .
. I . . . . I . . I .1 . + , . . � � . : 4 I .
, " " � - � .. , � i, . � ' - ' . . 1, . 1 . � . . . . � I I . . � '..
I . I . . I . I . � ., . I
- � I I L I I . . I . . I : . . , � I . . . . I I p . I .
.. . I
I , , , . . � - , t I I . . . . I � . i , I . . '. . I . . . . .
.
r � . , '. A : , , t . , , I . I . I . � � . . . I . . . � I - � . I � .
.1 . I I , . , , " . � . .4 1 1 $ *
6 . � , I ! . - I I , I � *. . I I - ': : I I . - . - I ,
. - , " - ,* 1, I .
I . . .� I . . . 1, � . _821--qJ1 8 ,, St. 84- A .-4.06. ' - - -.
, / . .. .. _
4. 1,� I I . t . � I - I , I , I � .1 . .. . �. 1 25g %
I ;. . , , DS OF THE.' . . � I " . ... . . 0. I . . I � . I . .
0 6 0 . ,�,...* �. , . , . - .
1;_,�; '' .. � - �- Y.CERTIFY THAT,I,.HAVE REVIEWED THE SO rLS ;EPCM i , I I I . . . .1 . ,
I " : , .� '. . .
I . . � I I I FR PUBLIC WORKS ,- -1 . � I ..� OWN ON T4ESE' PLANS WERE OBTAINED BY A . +'. ' CALIFORNIA. PRIN OF
APPLIED SOTL ' " � � . I , �
,�.,��. % i. !;� I CONSTRUCTION . I SEARCH-OF AVAILAB BEST, OF' OUR -, :
. I I':- I.,. - . . � . I ., � 0 . � . . I . , I 1 I . ., . "
I � I . � . , '.
1. ,,.,,,,,-, " I , f. I I � , - . ' � . I . Aft . I I - I
. . � 1. . .
. ,;,: . I kr . I I � I I . I , . , 4
� " CITY OF ENCINITAS AND 'T�"-':SAN DIEGO A PE A REGIONAL . . 1TEM1, SYMBOL- . .. I
I . .
- I a*,'-$ I �. .?
,
I .
" .. i+ G - UT I L I T I ES - EXCEPT AS SHOWN ' - - -. D T�<MOGY',` . I NO., � ..
....; .
. " � ..,:. - .*-, � --�, :, - - .
. � - . . . . . . . . i 1. - . I . 1. - . � � . I .1, .
� I. . . I � . . ,. . �. I . � I .� .1 .. I . ,� 1. 1
. I , . ' . I . I ..,
..'�;", ,:�: . .. , .�, I � + . + . L L � i I - - 1 - � . - � - - . -_ I ... . ! .
. I I . I I I . ." + . . � �� , . ": .-. , _., 1 .
+. 1. I . .".. : - '. - i '� . . . . .. , 'HOWVER � �, - . -. . � , . . I I "
. I � .. I ' /., "
I , . _., . I : �
_ - '.
�
. " . .1, � . � . I . � . � , . I . . .. . A . 01-� -
* " 1. 1. . _ 11 .1 .,
: I . , . � . .
" . . , I . . , I I I . . . . � �, . : 6 . , � . . � . . I . - 1.
' I'V E k F', A 1 14, ` , -, . . : 1 � ? : r. . 4 . I
+�,_.� - ": . . .. ' ' 'STANOARD OPAWIN'S.' ANY � . . I � . . . . . . I . I I . . TAINED THEREIN.
ONE CNPLEIE I � . . N OL CA � , . .
i. . �_. 0 R
:. ',,,.,,-�,:� . . ''. � ., I .. . . . . I
. , . . ., I . � I . . . I . �, .
. I , . . . � 1 6 dm 4w im�� . I i . . . . 1 I .: . .� I . I .
. . - 1' . � , - � � " .. , I
. � 3 ""' ...; 4 - - ,, - , . . . . .. . . . I .. I '. ' - PR . . . ! , I .
.,. . SM ADDAeft , . I . . � . I . . ., � . - . _
- �., _ - - - -APPROVEG BY. THE CITY ,ENGI,'11
NoText
NoText