2001-7034 G rGIN EERING SER VICES DEPAR TMENT
City 0
Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
September 4, 2003
Attn: Wells Fargo Bank
276 North El Camino Real
Encinitas, California 92024
Attn: Greg White
RE: Schibler, David and Loraine
3533 Fortuna Ranch Road
Grading Permit 7034 -G
APN 261 - 101 -14
Final release of security
Permit 7034 -G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion
control, all as necessary to build the described project. A portion of this work has been
complete, therefore, release of one of the security deposits is merited.
Assignment of Account 3000460653, in the amount of $17,522.40, has been cancelled
by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released in its entirety. The
document original is enclosed.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-
2779 or in writing, attention this Department.
Sincerely,
Masih Maher lie S elter
Senior Civil Engineer inancial IS Manager
Field Operations Financial Services
CC: Leslie Suelter, Financial Services Manager
Debra Geishart
David and Loraine Schibler
File
TEL 760 - 633 -2600 1 FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TDD 760 -633 -2700 recycled paper
01 --H
E� GINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
City , f
�- Capital Improvement Projects
Encinitas District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Replenishment /Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
March 14, 2002
Attn: Wells Fargo Bank
276 North El Camino Real
Encinitas, California 92024
Attn: Greg White
RE: Schibler, David and Loraine
3533 Fortuna Ranch Road
Grading Permit 7034 -G
APN 261 - 101 -14
Final release of security
Pen 7034 -G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion
control, all as necessary to build the described project. A portion of this work has been
complete, therefore, release of one of the security deposits is merited.
Assignment of Account 3000460646, in the amount of $70,089.60, has been cancelled
by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released in its entirety. The
document original is enclosed.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-
2779 or in writing, attention this Department.
Sincerely, r r
Mas> h
Maher Le lie Suelter
Senior Civil Engineer Financial Services Manager
Field Operations Financial Services
CC: Leslie Suelter, Financial Services Manager
David and Loraine Schibler
File
IM) (lr_(03 -2 -1 C1 ��: recycled paper
Leppert
Engineering
C O R P OR AT 1 O N
Drainage Study for
schib/er Residence
Encinitas, CA
APN; 264 - 101 -14
Prepared:
October 10, 2001
Job No. ENC 12.01 -09.01
John D. Leppert
RCE 26283 Exp. 03 -31 -02
5190 Governor Drive Suite 205 • San Diego, California 92122 -2848 • (858) 597 -2001 Fax (858) 597 -2009
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Method of Calculation 1
Site Drainage Calculations 2-4
Appendix
Hydraulic Analysis Results - (Existing Conditions) A
Hydraulic Analysis Results - (Proposed Conditions) B
Run -off Intensity Duration Curve C
Run -off Time Chart D
Exhibits
200 -Scale Topographic Survey - (Existing Conditions) A
30 -Scale Hydrology Study - (Proposed Conditions) B
Schibler Residence
Drainage Study
Job No. ENC 12.01 -09.01
October 10, 2001
Page 1
Introduction
The purpose of this drainage study is to estimate the storm water runoff
from the development of the project site as a single family dwelling and to
show the adequacy of pipe size of a private storm drain system for the
estimated runoff.
Existing Hydrologic Conditions
Existing basin consists of 3.77 acres of rural and undeveloped land and is
currently being sheet flow directed to a natural drainage swale crossing the
North West corner of the property preceding out the West side of the
property flowing in a South West direction. A calculated 100 -year peak flow
runoff of 6.43 cfs is anticipated.
Method of Calculation
This study proposes to calculate the total runoff from the site using
guidelines set forth in the County of San Diego's Design and Procedure
Manual, dated April 1993. The study will also determine the pipe capacity
for each length of pipe. The specific method used is the Rational Formula
for watersheds under 0.5 square miles.
This study will consist of two sections: I) Hydrologic and, II) Hydraulic
analysis. The report output will contain the hydraulic results. The entire
report will determine the factors based on a 100 -year storm.
Procedure for Calculating Time of Concentration and Rainfall
Intensitv
For the purposes of this study, the time of concentration for the anticipated
rainfall intensity will be calculated by taking the furthest distance to the
point of interception for each sub - basin. The assumed rainfall intensity,
which will be used for the calculations, will be 3.10 inches per hour. This
factor was derived from Figure No. 1 (RUNOFF INTENSITY DURATION
CURVE), (See Appendix C) and the calculated time of concentration from
Figure No. 2 (RUNOFF TIME CHART), (See Appendix D).
The report output will contain the calculated time of concentrations and
rainfall intensities for each basin.
Schibler Residence
Drainage Study
Job No. ENC 12.01 -09.01
October 10, 2001
Page 2
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
DRAINAGE BASIN (1): (See Exhibit B)
Runoff into Proposed D -75 Brow Ditch:
Drainage Basin Area, A = 1.267 Ac.
Coefficient of runoff, C = .55 (See Appendix `C').
Length of watershed, L = 790.00 ft. = 0.150 miles
Height Difference, _H = 443.50 — 372.00 = 71.50 ft.
Time of Concentration (See Appendix `D'):
T = x 60
T= 3.36 min. (Calculated); 13.36 min. (Used)
Point of Concentration D -75 Concrete Brow Ditch
Using I = 3.1 in /hr,
Q = CIA, where C =.55, 1= 3.1 in /hr, A =1.267 ac.
Q = 2.16 c.f.s
DRAINAGE BASIN (2): (See Exhibit B)
Runoff into Private Storm Drain :
The proposed storm drain for Basin 2 is a 12" PVC pipe with a 3'x 3'
Quikset DB -3636 drain box.
Drainage Basin Area, A = 1.262 Ac.
Coefficient of runoff, C = .55 (See Appendix 'C').
Length of watershed, L=527.05 ft = 0.0998 miles
Schibler Residence
Drainage Study
Job No. ENC 12.01 -09.01
October 10, 2001
Page 3
Height Difference, _H = 443.50 - 420.00 = 23.50 ft.
Time of Concentration (See Appendix 'D'):
T,= x 60
T= 3.22 min. (Calculated); 13.22 min. (Used)
Point of Concentration: 3'x 3' Quikset DB -3636 drain box
Using I = 3.10 in /hr,
Q = CIA, where C =. 55, 1= 3.10 in /hr, A =1.262 ac.
Q= 2.15 c.f.s
DRAINAGE BASIN (3): (See Exhibit B)
Runoff into Natural Drainage Swale:
The Natural Drainage Swale is crossing the North West corner of the
property, exiting the West Side of the property, flowing in a South East
direction.
Drainage Basin Area, A = 1.412 Ac.
Coefficient of runoff, C = .55 (See Appendix 'C').
Length of watershed, L=770.83 ft = 0.0134 miles
Height Difference, _H = 443.50 - 367.00 = 76.50 ft.
Time of Concentration (See Appendix 'D'):
T = x 60
T= 3.18 min. (Calculated); 13.18 min. (Used)
Point of Concentration : Lowest point of property
Schibler Residence
Drainage Study
]ob No. ENC 12.01 -09.01
October 10, 2001
Page 4
Using I = 3.1 in /hr,
Q = CIA, where C=.55, 1= 3.1 in /hr, A =1.412 ac.
Q = 2.41 c.f.s
Appendix 'A'
Acreoge Run -afr LerWh Of UPW Lower Averep 1100 WOO
Web"hed (A CoWncient Wdershed Elev. (it) flew. 00 Sk" (%) TO (ruin) t (CAS)
lit) ,
Basin 1 3.77 0.55 675.35 443.50 367.00 11.3% 2.73 3.1 6.43
Run-off C
Run -off Coefficient (from Figure No. 1, County of San Diego Design Standards)
C = Residential, Single Family Dwelling
Time of Concentration
Tc is calculted with the formula on Figure No. 2, Runoff Time Chart,
of the County of San Diego Design Standards Manual.
1100 is obtained from the Runoff Intensity Duration Curve for a 100 Year storm.
This curve is on Figure No. 1 of the County of San Diego Design Standards.
When the times of concentration were computed, 10 minutes were added.
Appendix 'B'
P: rtdtM
Basin 1 1.267 0.55 789.92 443.50 372.00 9.1% 3.35 3.10 2.16
Basin 2 1.262 0.55 527.05 443.50 420.00 4.5% 3.22 3.10 2.15
Basin 3 1.412 0.55 770.83 443.50 367.00 9.9% 3.18 3.10 2.41
Note: Where Tc was obtained by calculation, 10 minutes was added to determine runoff intensity.
Ron-oft Cal"040"
I n7
Run -off Coefficient (from Figure No. 1, County of San Diego Design Standards)
C = Residential , Single Family Dwelling
Time of Concentration
To is calculted with the formula on Figure No. 2, Runoff Time Chart,
of the County of San Diego Design Standards Manual.
1100 is obtained from the Runoff Intensity Duration Curve for a 100 Year storm.
This curve is on Figure No. 1 of the County of San Diego Design Standards.
When the times of concentration were computed, 10 minutes were added.
Appendix 'C'
l og
pj
r
O _F.: �.. / *�� � -- •.`. �� � Wit•. =• ...�
�— — t• 41t -T•
r �
all �r 1 .r 1 I � .i t•
I i I 1_ Z
�
Q O i . -L— I Ii1.
V1 I' r � 1 i . � 1 + ' — r � — � _ — r— lT � -- ��0
L N i i,... •1 I l t f a♦ T �. N . A
OF
W
1 1 I 1 Z
!
==Td= " - -- �- -
:L_A i s ' JL Z_
O O O O o► o F.. 40 on e N
A A N �O O O O O O O O
is nOH b3 d S3H:)
(00310 NVS) All SN3INI
RAINFALL
v _
go CUR
INTENSITY - DURATION- FREQUENC'
� O N Q �0 � � o • CUR
- - - - - s e
= for
0 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
J _ —
W
O O C C p In °p o s
o o E APPENDIX ► -g
83
Appendix 'D'
Fcef Tc
\\ H f
S000 Tc � Time of concenfi -afore (� - -)
4000 y , pi /Pe�ence in a %va /ion a/on � '
e1/'ctfire slave 1117 (Ste Appendix YX T
,Ni /es Fcet .�Yod�s M :n�fes
Z000 4 ?a0
/0
lava
900 2 /20
BOO
700 /DD
i00 ♦\ S 90
SOO \ 60
4 70
2 QD .
\` 30
/OO / 7"
S000
% 4Q00 p p
3000 \ /6
SO Q3 \ 1Q
Ap ?000 \ 12
30 /6G0 /O
ADO 9
NOTE:
ZD ' A00 TEN MINUTES TO /000 7
COMPUTED TIME OF CON 800 L
�CENTRATION. _
100
600 S
/O SOD ¢
400
3
300
2O0
N � r
SAN DIEGO COUNTY NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINATION
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION (7c)
FOR NATURAL. WATERSHEDS
DESIGN MANUAL
APPROVED r7 l- DATE APPENDIX
84
EXHIBIT 'A'
w
CHRISTIAN WHEELER t: \
ENGINEERING
REPORT OF MAY Q $ 1001
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SCHIBLER RESIDENCE
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 264 - 101 -14
FORTUNA RANCH ROAD
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
rJ�
SUBMITTED TO:
DAVID SCHIBLER
3403 DOVE HOLLOW ROAD
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024
SUBMITTED BY:
CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING
4925 MERCURY STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111
4925 Mercury Street f San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858 - 496 -9760 ♦ FAX 858- 496 -9758
W
CHRISTIAN WHEELER-
EN G I N EF R ING
May 4, 2001
David Schibler CWE 201.236.1
3403 Dove Hollow Road
__. Olivenhain, California 92024
SUBJECT: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION,
PROPOSED SCHIBLER RESIDENCE, APN 264 - 101 -14,
FORTUNA RANCH ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA.
Dear Mr. Schibler,
In accordance with your request and our Proposal dated April 2, 2001, we have completed a geotechnical
investigation for the subject property. ��1e are presenting herewith our findings and recommendations.
In general, we found the subject site suitable for the proposed construction provided the recommendations
presented herein are followed. The site was found to be predominantly underlain by very dense volcanic rock,
- which has high strength characteristics and very low expansion potential. The most significant geotechnical
condition that will affect the proposed construction is the presence of the volcanic rock that will most likely be
difficult to excavate in those areas of construction requiring deep excavations, such as the building pads,
sw immin g pool, and utility trenches. As such, these areas may require splitting and /or blasting operations to
achieve the necessary removals. In addition, the residual soil mantling the volcanic rock in the proposed
improvement areas was found to be moderately to highly expansive. As such, select grading will be required or
conventional spread footings will need to extend through this material and any on -grade slabs supported on this
material will require more steel reinforcement and a greater than normal slab thickness.
If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This
opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING
Charles H. Christian, R.G.E. #00215 Curtis R. Burdett, C.E.G. #1090 �� GE
l
CHC:CRB:cgc p�pFESSiG /�LC�� F1\5 3. �f y
cc: (3) Submitted =RTIFIEG
(3) Leppert Engineering N�Q J�1�� 1 ENGINEE
GEOLOGIST
w U ?'a0. GF0002 ='
Ex;
Gc w~ GF CA�ZF'
h �ECF CAU�
4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA ♦ 858- 496 -9760 ♦ FAX 858 - 496 -9758
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction and Project Description ................................................................................ ..............................1
ProjectScope .......................................................................................................................... ..............................2
Findings.................................................................................................................................. ............................... 3
SiteDescription .............................................................................................................. ............................... 3
General Geology and Subsurface Conditions ........................................................... ............................... 3
Geologic Setting and Soil Description ................................................................... ............................... 3
SlopeWash ........................................................................................................... ..............................4
ResidualSoil ........................................................................................................ ............................... 4
Santiago Peak Volcanic Rock ............................................................................ ..............................4
Groundwater.............................................................................................................. ............................... 4
TectonicSetting ......................................................................................................... ............................... 5
GeologicHazards .......................................................................................................... ............................... 5
General........................................................................................................................ ............................... 5
GroundShaking ........................................................................................................ ............................... 5
SeismicDesign Parameters ...................................................................................... ............................... 6
Landslide Potential and Slope Stability .................................................................. ............................... 6
SurfaceRupture ......................................................................................................... ............................... 7
Liquefaction............................................................................................................... ............................... 7
Flooding...................................................................................................................... ............................... 7
Tsunamis.................................................................................................................... ............................... 7
Seiches......................................................................................................................... ............................... 7
Conclusions............................................................................................................................ ............................... 7
Recommendations................................................................................................................ ............................... 8
Gradingand Earthwork ................................................................................................ ............................... 8
General........................................................................................................................ ............................... 8
Observationof Grading ........................................................................................... ............................... 8
Clearingand Grubbing ............................................................................................. ............................... 8
SitePreparation ......................................................................................................... ............................... 8
TransitionConditions ............................................................................................... ............................... 9
TemporaryExcavations ........................................................................................... ............................... 9
Processingof Fill Areas ............................................................................................ ............................... 9
Compaction and Method of Filling ........................................................................ ............................... 9
Disposal of Oversize Rock ...................................................................................... .............................10
SelectGrading ............................................................................................................ .............................11
ImportedFill Material .............................................................................................. .............................12
Cut and Fill Slope Construction ............................................................................. .............................12
SurfaceDrainage ....................................................................................................... .............................12
SlopeStability ................................................................................................................. .............................13
General........................................................................................................................ .............................13
ErosionControl ........................................................................................................ .............................13
Stability of Temporary Slopes .......................... ...............................
FoundationRecommendations ................................................................................... .............................13
General........................................................................................................................ .............................13
ConventionalFoundations ...................................................................................... .............................14
FootingReinforcing .................................................................................................. .............................14
LateralLoad Resistance ............................................................................................ .............................14
Foundation Excavation Observation ..................................................................... .............................14
00VE 201.236
Single Family Residence
Fortuna Ranch Road
Olivenhain, CA
On -Grade Slabs ............................................................................................................. .............................14
General ........................................................................................................................ .............................14
InteriorFloor Slab .................................................................................................... .............................14
Moisture Protection for Interior Slabs .................................................................. .............................15
ExteriorConcrete Flatwork ..................................................................................... .............................15
EarthRetaining Walls ................................................................................................... .............................15
PassivePressure ......................................................................................................... .............................15
ActivePressure .......................................................................................................... .............................16
Waterproofing and Subdrain Observation ............................................................ .............................16
Backfill ........................................................................................................................ .............................16
Limitations ............................................................................................................................. .............................16
Review, Observation and Testing ............................................................................... .............................16
Uniformityof Conditions ............................................................................................. .............................17
Changein Scope ............................................................................................................ .............................17
TimeLimitations ............................................................................................................ .............................17
ProfessionalStandard .................................................................................................... .............................17
Client's Responsibility .............................................................................. .............................18
FieldExplorations ................................................................................................................. .............................18
LaboratoryTesting ................................................................................................................ .............................18
ATTACHMENTS
TABLES
Table I Maximum Bedrock Accelerations, Page 6
Table II Seismic Design Parameters, Page 6
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1
PLATES
Plate 1 Site Plan
Plates 2 -6 Trench Logs
Plate 7 Laboratory Test Results
Plate 8 Retaining Wall Subdrain
APPENDICES
Appendix A References, Topographic Maps, and Photographs
Appendix B Recommended Grading Specifications
CWE 201.236
Single Family Residence
Fortuna Ranch Road
Olivenhain, C-1
W
CHRISTIAN WHEELER-
EN G IN EER, ING
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED SCHIBLER RESIDENCE
FORTUNA RANCH ROAD
OLIVENHAIN- CALIFORNIA
A.P.N. 264101 -14
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation performed for the construction of a
proposed new single- family residence and swimming pool. The vacant lot is located approximately 1000 feet
south of Fortuna Ranch Road in the Olivenhain area of Encinitas, California and is accessed via an un -named
road easement. It is our understanding that the proposed construction will consist of a new one- or two- story,
wood - frame, single - family residential structure with an attached garage, swimming pool, and other associated
improvements. The new residential structure and garage are expected to be constructed using conventional
shallow foundations with on -grade concrete slabs. Based on the conceptual grading plan prepared by Leppert
Engineering, cuts of up to approximately eight feet and fills of up to approximately 16 feet from existing grades
will be necessary to develop the site as currently planned The resulting cut slopes will range up to approximately
five feet high with a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) ratio; the fill or combination fill over cut slopes will range up to
approximately 40 feet high with a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) ratio. Imported fill soils will be required to construct
the proposed building pad. The following Figure No. 1 presents a site vicinity map showing the location of the
property.
To aid in the preparation of this report, we were provided with a copy of the conceptual grading plan prepared by
Leppert Engineering. This map was used as the base map for our Site Plan, on which the locations our
exploratory excavations are shown, and is included herewith as Plate Number 1.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. David Schibler and his design consultants for specific
application to the project described herein. Should the project be modified, the conclusions and
recommendations presented in this report should be reviewed by Christian Wheeler Engineering for
conformance with our recommendations and to detem ine if any additional subsurface investigation, laboratory
4925 Mercury Street ♦ San Diego, CA 92111 ♦ 858- 496 -9760 ♦ FAX 858- 496 -9758
A.P.N. 264- 101 -14 FIGURE N0. 1
/ 71
-
,
r nom"
9 �
-� - � -/ ; O � �_; - � / � ,vim /j,rY \ - i- / � ��- i✓ %/j A� i, � � _
'
— i � N 11T 123
/ qq
sit
- , v � i n •' � � - -- �� ° _° :� `�;,�� z �% Vii`: .
� t;� ;�_ ,� / = > d� l --�'� �_/' � J am•
k Dierguito tt ; ••
5
J
lteaervoir
13X° FEET 0 100 t000m 700007
Prb&W from TOPO! 01999 WUdnDwer PmdwtiDw (www.topozW
C%VE 201 236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 2
testing and /or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed, our findings
obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and
practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied.
PROJECT SCOPE
The scope of our preliminary investigation included: surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, obtaining
representative soil samples, laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data, review of readily available,
pertinent aerial photographs, and review of relevant geologic literature. Our scope of service did not include
assessment of hazardous substance contamination. Based on the scope of the proposed project, five test
trenches were excavated across the site in order to explore the subsurface soil conditions and to obtain soil
samples for laboratory testing. More specifically, the intent of this investigation was to:
• Explore the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed
construction;
• Evaluate, by laboratory tests, the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence
the proposed construction, including bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement
potential;
• Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic factors that could have an
effect on the site improvements, and provide the seismic design parameters as required by the
most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code;
• Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions,
groundwater, or geologic hazards, and provide recommendations concerning these problems;
• Develop soil engineering criteria for site preparation and grading;
• Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structures and associated
improvements anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended
foundation design;
CWE 201.236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 3
• Present our professional opinions in a written report, which includes, in addition to our
conclusions and recommendations, a plot plan, exploration logs, and a summary of the
laboratory test results.
It was not within the scope of our services to perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of
the on -site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on -grade concrete and below grade
improvements. If desired, we can obtain samples of representative soils and submit them to a chemical
laboratory for analysis. Further, it should be understood Christian Wheeler Engineering does not practice
corrosion engineering. If such an analysis is necessary, we recommend that the client retain an engineering firm
that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter.
FINDINGS
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site consists of a nearly square, vacant lot, approximately 2.5 acres in size. The site is located
approximately 1000 feet south of Fortuna Ranch Road in the Olivenhain area of Encinitas, California and is
accessed via an un -named road easement. The portion of the easement providing access to the site is
unimproved and enters the northwest corner of the lot. A legal description of the property is: Assessor's
Parcel Number 264 - 101- 14 -00. The property is bounded on the north and south by low - density residential
property and on the east and west by vacant land.
The site is located on the west side of a knoll with moderately to steeply sloping sides. An incised drainage
course crosses the northwest corner of the property. Based upon the provided plan, elevations across the
property range from approximately 370 feet above Mean Sea Level along the southern portion of the western
property line to approximately 427 feet along the northern portion of the eastern property line. Vegetation
on the site consists primarily of a moderate to heavy growth of grass, weeds, and native shrubs. The site
location is shown on Figure Number 1. Refer to the Site Plan, Plate No. 1, for the site topography and the
proposed grading.
GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located in the Foothills
Physiographic Province of San Diego County. Based on the results of our limited exploration and analysis of
readily available, pertinent geologic and geotechnical literature, the site was determined to be underlain by
C%VE 201 236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 4
Cretaceous - age /Jurassic -age metavolcanic rock with associated slopewash and residual soil. The encountered
geologic units that were found to underlie the subject property are described below in order of increasing age:
SLOPE WASH: The site is overlain with an approximate one -foot layer of slope wash material. The
slope wash consisted of dark reddish brown, soft, very moist, sandy silt (NIL,) with occasional small- to
medium -size rock fragments.
RESIDUAL SOIL: The slopewash is underlain with a residual soil profile approximately one foot in
thickness. The residual soil generally consisted of dark reddish brown, stiff, very moist to wet, sandy clay
(CH), with occasional rock fragments.
SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS (KJsp): The site is underlain at depth by the Cretaceous -
age /Jurassic -age Santiago Peak Volcanics, which consist of mildly metamorphosed volcanic,
volcaniclastic, and interbedded sedimentary rock. This bedrock material was encountered at a depth of
approximately 2 feet below the existing ground surface. Typically, the bedrock encountered underlying
the building area of the site consisted of "fresh" to slightly weathered material. Excavating refusal was
generally reached with our standard -size backhoe at depths ranging from 3 to 4 feet below the existing
grade. Although this solid bedrock underlies the building area of the site, the material was moderately
fractured, and therefore can probably be ripped with normal heavy excavating equipment to the
maximum intended removal depths of approximately 5 feet. Excavations into the bedrock (without
blasting or splitting) are anticipated to produce approximately 20 to 50 percent oversize material (rocks
greater than 12 inches) with a few of the fragments ranging to over 24 inches in size.
It should be noted that Test Excavation No. 4, placed at the northwest portion of the site, encountered
highly weathered and decomposed bedrock to the maximum depth exploration of 9 feet. However, this
area is not planned to receive any significant excavation.
Based upon our experience with similar soils in the general vicinity of the site, we have visually classified the
encountered volcanic rock material as possessing a "very low" expansion potential. Laboratory testing of the
residual soil indicated that the material ranged from "medium" to "high" expansion potential (based upon ASTM
D 4829 -95).
GROUNDWATER: Groundwater was not encountered in our subsurface explorations and we do not
anticipate any significant groundwater related problems, either during or after construction. However, it should
be recognized that minor groundwater seepage problems might occur after development of a site even where
CWF 201 236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 5
none were present before development. These are usually minor phenomena and are often the result of an
alteration in drainage patterns and /or an increase in irrigation water. Based on the permeability characteristics of
the soil and the anticipated usage and development, it is our opinion that any seepage problems which occur will
be minor in extent. These potential "nuisance" problems can be mitigated by the use of proper landscaping
techniques.
TECTONIC SETTING: No major faults are known to traverse the subject site but it should be noted that
much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age
fault zones that typically consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to
northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zones) are classified as
active. Active fault zones are those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch
(the most recent 11,000 years).
A review of available geologic maps indicates that the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located approximately
eight miles west of the subject site. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site
include the Coronado Bank Fault Zone to the southwest, the Newport - Inglewood and Palos Verdes Fault Zones
to the northwest, and the Elsinore, Earthquake Valley, San Jacinto, and San Andreas Fault Zones to the
northeast.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
GENERAL: No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude development of the site as we presently
contemplate it are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is
suitable for the proposed development.
GROUND SHAKING: A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as result of movement
along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above. The maximum bedrock accelerations that would
be attributed to a maximum magnitude earthquake occurring along the nearest fault segments of selected fault
zones that could affect the site are summarized in Table I on the following page.
CWE 201 236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 6
TABLE I
Fault Zone Distance Maximum Magnitude Maximum Bedrock
Earthquake Acceleration
Rose Canyon 8 miles 6.9 magnitude 0.22 g
Newport- Inglewood 15 miles 6.9 magnitude 0.14 g
Coronado Bank 23 miles 7.4 magnitude 0.13 g
Elsinore Qulian) 24 miles 7.1 magnitude 0.11 g
San Jacinto (Anna) 47 miles 7.2 magnitude 0.07 g
Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate, depending on such factors as the
magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the
effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed care facility.
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS: In accordance with the evaluations provided above, the Maximum
Bedrock Acceleration at the site is 0.22 g (based upon a Maximum Magnitude Seismic Event of 6.9 Magnitude
along the Rose Canyon Fault Zone). For structural design purposes, a damping ratio not greater than 5 percent
of critical dampening, and Soil Profile Type SB are recommended (UBC Table 16-J). Based upon the location of
the site at approximately 13 kilometers from the Rose Canyon Fault (Type B Fault), Near Source Factors N,
equal to 1.0 and N, equal to 1.0 are also applicable. These values, along with other seismically related design
parameters from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 edition, Volume II, Chapter 16, utilizing a Seismic
Zone 4 are presented in tabular form below.
TABLE II
UBC Chapter 16 Seismic Recommended
Table No. Parameter Value
16 -1 Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40
16-j Soil Profile Type Ss
16-Q Seismic Coefficient C, 0.40 N,
16 -R Seismic Coefficient C,. 0.40 N,-
16 -S Near Source Factor N, 1.0
16 -T Near Source Factor N,- 1.0
16 -U Seismic Source Type B
LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL AND SLOPE STABILITY: A detailed, deterministic slope stability analysis
was not included within our scope of services. However, based on our experience with similar geologic
C``(/E 301 236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 7
conditions, it is our opinion that the risk of deep - seated slope instability problems at the site should be considered
to be very low.
SURFACE RUPTURE: No active or potentially active faults are present at the subject site, so the site is not
considered subject to surface rupture. Earthquakes on the major, active fault zones in the Southern California
region should not result in soil cracking at the subject site.
LIQUEFACTION: The near - surface soils encountered at the site are not susceptible to liquefaction due to
underlying bedrock conditions.
FLOODING: The site is located outside the boundaries of the 100 -year and 500 -year Iloodplains, according to
the maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. Due to
the site's elevation and location, it will not be affected by a tsunami.
SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays or reservoirs.
Due to the site's location, it will not be affected by seiches.
CONCLUSIONS
In general, we found the subject site suitable for the proposed construction provided the recommendations
presented herein are followed. The site was found to be predominantly underlain by fresh, metavolcanic rock,
which has high strength characteristics and a very low expansion potential. However, the metavolcanic rock will
most likely be difficult to excavate in those areas of construction requiring deep excavations, such as utility
trenches and building pad cuts. It is recommended that the cut areas of the building pad be undercut to a depth
of at least three feet. It may also be desirable to undercut the pool area to facilitate construction in this area.
Fracturing patterns observed in our test trenches indicate that the bedrock will possibly be rippable to the
intended depths of removal with conventional heavy excavating equipment. However, areas of non - rippable
bedrock may be encountered that require splitting and /or blasting operations to achieve the necessary removals.
It is possible that excavations into bedrock may produce an imbalanced mixture of rock to fines. Therefore, it
may be necessary to import soil or mine fine materials from other areas of the site in order to achieve an
acceptable mix. Excavations into the bedrock will produce over -sized rock material that will require special
handling and placement (see the heading "Disposal of Oversize Rock ", page 10 of this report).
C"vyv'E 301 236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 8
In addition, the residual soil mantling the volcanic rock in the proposed improvement areas was found to be
moderately to highly expansive. Therefore, special care should be taken with the placement of expansive residual
soil into compacted fills (see the heading "Select Grading ", page 11 of this report). Expansive soils located near
finish grade elevations typically require more steel reinforcement in the foundation system and a greater than
normal footing depth and slab thickness.
RECOMMENDATIONS
GRADING AND EARTHWORK
GENERAL: All grading should conform with the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the
Uniform Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Encinitas, and the Recommended Grading
Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto as Appendix B, except where specifically superseded in
the text of this report. Prior to grading, a representative of Christian Wheeler Engineering should be present
at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if necessary, and to review the
earthwork schedule.
OBSERVATION OF GRADING: Continuous observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is essential
during the grading operations to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in
design criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general
accordance with the recommendations contained herein.
CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Site grading should begin with the removal of all vegetation and other
deleterious materials from the portions of site that will be graded and /or will receive improvements. This
should include all root balls from shrubs, all natural brush and all significant root material. The resulting
materials should be disposed of off -site. It is anticipated that no underground utilities or structures that will
require removal exist on the property.
SITE PREPARATION: After clearing and grubbing, site preparation should begin with the removal of all
slopewash and residual material, not removed by planned site grading, from the areas that will support
settlement- sensitive improvements or receive fill soils. All removal areas should be approved by a representative
of our office prior to filling or the construction of improvements.
CNVE 201 236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 9
TRANSITION CONDITIONS: As presently planned, grading for the site will produce a transition (cut -
fill) condition. These varying soil bearing conditions can result in cosmetic distress to the proposed residence
as a result of differential settlement. A common method to mitigate a transition condition is to over - excavate
the building pad to a depth of three feet below the proposed finish grade. This undercut should extend laterally
a minim horizontal distance of five feet from the building footprint perimeter. The surface of the undercut
should be sloped at least one percent toward an adjacent slope face to allow for adequate drainage. The
undercut should then be replaced with properly compacted fill. The overexcavation operation will also
facilitate the placement of utility and foundation excavations.
As an alternative to the over - excavation operation the transition condition may be mitigated by extending all
foundation excavations into the hard bedrock.
TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS: The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable,
temporary excavations and may need to shore, slope, or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to
maintain the stability of the excavation sides. The contractor's "responsible person ", as defined in the OSHA
Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations
as part of the contractor's safety process. Temporary cut slopes should be constructed in accordance with the
recommendations presented in this section. In no other case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation
depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety
regulations.
PROCESSING OF FILL AREAS: Prior to placing any fill soils or constructing any new improvements in
areas that have been cleaned out to receive fill, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches,
moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. In areas to support fill slopes,
keys should be cut into the competent supporting materials. The keys should be at least ten feet wide and be
sloped back into the hillside at least two percent. The keys should extend at least one foot into the competent
bedrock materials. No other special ground preparation is anticipated at this time.
COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING: All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted
to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory
Test D1557 -91. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content, in lifts six to eight inches
thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of
trash or debris, roots, vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or
project geologist. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of twelve inches in maximum
CWE 201 236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 10
dimension. However, in the upper two feet of pad grade, no rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches
should be allowed.
Our preliminary findings indicate that the excavated rock material may possess an insufficient amount of fine
material to be used as structural fill. However, fine material may be mixed with the rock fill material to create a
material suitable to be used as structural fill. A minim of 40 percent of the resulting mixture should be finer
than one - quarter -inch. Imported soil or on -site mining may be required to obtain the necessary quantity of fine
material. Any mix of fine material and the existing rock fill material should be approved by the Geotechnical
Consultant prior to being used as structural fill.
Fills should be benched into all temporary slopes and into competent natural soils when the natural slope is
steeper than an inclination of 5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Keys should be constructed at the toe of all fill slopes
as recommended above. Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structures and beneath all
pavements and concrete flatwork should be compacted to a minim of 90 percent of its maximum dry
density.
DISPOSAL OF OVERSIZE ROCK Oversize rock in grading operations is defined herein as rocks over 12
inches in diameter. Oversize rocks may be placed around the site in landscape areas, broken down into rocks
smaller than 12 inches and used in fills, placed in specially designated, pre- approved non - structural fill areas,
placed in structural fills, or disposed of off site. If the oversize rock is placed in a designated non - structural fill
area, it should be placed in uniform lifts across the fill area in an un- nested manner. Prior to placing each lift,
granular material with a Sand Equivalent (SE) of at least 25 should be spread over the rock. This material should
be flooded into the voids between the rocks and should cover the rock by at least sit inches.
The following provides our recommendations for placement of oversize rock in structural fills.
1) No oversize rock should be placed within ten (10) feet, measured horizontally, from the face of
fill slopes.
2) No oversize rock should be placed within five (5) feet of finish pad grade on fill pads. In
addition, no rock should be placed within one (1) foot of the bottom of the lowest utilities on
the lot and within street areas, and below proposed pool areas.
3) Oversize rock up to two feet in average dimension may be placed in uniform lifts across the fill
area in an un- nested manner. Prior to placing each subsequent lift, decomposed granitics with a
C`XT 201 236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 11
Sand Equivalent (SE) of at least 25 should be spread over the rock. This material should be
flooded into the voids between the rocks and should cover the rock by at least six inches. The
top of each lift should be smoothed out with a dozer and be wheel rolled with a loaded scraper
or other suitable heavy compaction equipment approved by the geotechnical consultant.
4) Rocks two to four feet in average dimension may be placed in windrows. The windrows should
be at least 12 feet apart to allow compaction equipment to move between the rows. As the fill is
brought up between the windrows, decomposed granitics with a SE of at least 25 should be
flooded between and around the rocks to fill all voids. There should be at least one foot of
cover over the top of windrows before the next windrows are started. The windrows placed
above previously placed windrows should be staggered halfway between the lower windrows.
5) Rocks larger than two feet in average dimension may also be individually placed. This placement
should consist of excavating a trench or ditch to a depth of at least one -third the diameter of the
rock and rolling the rock into the excavation. Such rocks should be spaced at least 12 feet apart
in order to allow compaction equipment to move around the rock. As the fill is brought up
around the rock, decomposed granitics with a SE of at least 25 should be flooded against the
lower third of the rock. Above this, the compaction equipment should compact the fill against
and over the rock.
6) Sufficient compaction effort should be made such that all fill material placed around and
between the oversize rocks is compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as
determined by ASTM D1557 -91.
7) The placement of all fill and all oversize rock disposal, including flooding, should be
- continuously observed by a representative of Christian Wheeler Engineering. This is required to
allow us to provide a professional opinion after grading that the fill and rock disposal was done
in accordance with the recommendations contained herein.
SELECT GRADING: The existing on -site soils were found to possess a "medium" to "high" expansive
potential., In order to use conventional spread foundations and on -grade floor slabs, the expansive on -site soils
that are to be used as fill material should be mixed with other select fills to produce a nondetrimentally
expansive mixture of soil, or should be placed at least five (5) feet below finish pad grade. The select fill material
should consist of a granular soil with an Expansion Index of less than 50. The select fill may be mined from
CWE 201 236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 12
existing, nondetrimentally expansive on -site soils, or may be imported from other sites. The select soil should be
approved by our engineering staff prior to importing.
In addition, wherever detrimentally expansive soil is determined to occur naturally within four (4) feet of finish
pad grade, it should be removed and replaced with nondetrimentally expansive material. The bottom of the
over - excavated areas should be sloped in such a manner that water does not become trapped in the over -
excavated zone. Where the mixture of soil does not produce a nondetrimentally expansive fill material or
detrimentally expansive soil is not removed, special consideration for heaving soil will need to be incorporated
into the foundation design.
IMPORTED FILL MATERIAL: All import fill material should be evaluated and approved by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to being imported. At least two working days notice of a potential import source
should be given to the Geotechnical Consultant so that appropriate testing can be accomplished. The type of
material considered most desirable for import is a non - detrimentally expansive granular material with some silt or
clay binder. We anticipate that import material will be necessary to attain the proposed grades. All imported fill
materials should be evaluated and approved by the geotechnical consultant prior to being imported. The type of
material considered most desirable for import is granular material containing some silt or clay binder, which has
an expansion index of less than 50, less than 25 percent larger than the standard #4 sieve, and less than 25
percent finer than the standard #200 sieve.
CUT AND FILL SLOPE CONSTRUCTION: Cut and fill slopes may be constructed at an inclination of
2:1 or flatter (horizontal to vertical). Compaction of fill slopes should be performed by back - rolling with a
sheepsfoot compactor at vertical intervals of four feet or less as the fill is being placed, and track - walling the
face of the slope when the slope is completed. As an alternative, the fill slopes may be overfilled by at least
three feet and then cut back to the compacted core at the design line and grade. Keys should be made at the toe
of fill slopes in accordance with the recommendations presented above under "Compaction and Method of
Filling."
SURFACE DRAINAGE: Surface runoff into graded areas should be minimiz Where possible, drainage
should be directed to suitable disposal areas via non - erodible devices such as paved swales, gunited brow
ditches, and storm drains. Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from
proposed structures and the top of slopes, and toward approved drainage areas. For earth areas, a minimum
gradient of one percent should be maintained.
CW'E 201.236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 13
The ground around the proposed homes should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the
buildings without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to buildings slope away at a
gradient of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired should have a minimum
gradient of five percent within the first five feet from the structure.
SLOPE STABILITY
GENERAL: Cut and fill slopes at the subject development may be constructed at a slope ratio of 2.0
horizontal units to 1.0 vertical unit (2:1) or flatter. Based on the plans provided to us, maximum cut slope
heights are anticipated to approximately eight to ten feet, while maximum planned fill or combination fill over
cut slopes will be up to about 40 feet in height. Based on the relatively high strength parameters of the on -site
volcanic rock, it is our opinion that the proposed cut slopes will be stable in regards to deep- seated slope failure
- and surficial slope failure. All fill slopes should be constructed in accordance with the grading recommendations
presented above.
EROSION CONTROL: The placement of cohesionless soils at the face of slopes should be avoided. Slopes
should be planted as soon as feasible after grading. Sloughing, deep rilling and slumping of surficial soils may be
anticipated if slopes are left unplanted for a long period of time, especially during the rainy season. Irrigation of
slopes should be carefully monitored to ensure that only the minim amount necessary to sustain plant life is
used. Over- irrigating could be extremely erosive and should be avoided.
STABILITY OF TEMPORARY SLOPES: Temporary slopes constructed during the proposed
improvements, should have a minimum slope ratio of 1 /2: ('/2 unit horizontally to 1 unit vertically). This
minim ratio is based on the slope being constructed in competent volcanic rock as determined by our
project geologist.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL: Based on our investigation, the proposed single- family residence may be supported by
conventional continuous and isolated spread footings embedded in the competent volcanic rock material
and /or properly compacted fill. These recommendations assume no concentrated pockets of expansive soil are
placed within the upper five feet of finish grade. Modified recommendations may be required for expansive
conditions at the end of grading.
CAVE 201.236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 14
CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS: Spread footings supporting the one- and two -story portions of the
proposed structures should have minimum depths of 12 inches and 18 inches, respectively. Continuous and
isolated footings should have minim widths of 12 inches and 24 inches, respectively.
BEARING CAPACITY: Conventional spread footings with the above recommended minim dimensions
may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. Additionally, the bearing
capacity may be increased by one -third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic
loads.
FOOTING REINFORCING: Reinforcement requirements for foundations should be provided by a
structural engineer. However, based on the existing soil conditions, we recommend that the minimum
reinforcing for continuous footings consist of at least two No. 5 bars positioned three inches above the bottom
of the footing and two No. 5 bars positioned approximately two inches below the top of the footing.
LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the
bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient
of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.4. The passive resistance may be considered to
be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 400 pounds per cubic foot. This assumes the footings are poured tight
against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should
be reduced by one - third.
FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: All foundation excavations should be observed by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of reinforcement steel and formwork to determine if the
foundation recommendations presented herein are complied with and to confirm the soil conditions are as
anticipated by our investigation. All footing excavations should be excavated neat, level and square. All loose or
unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete.
ON -GRADE SLABS
GENERAL: It is anticipated that most of the on -grade concrete flatwork will be supported on soil found in
our investigation to be moderately to highly expansive. The recommendations contained herein reflect this
condition.
INTERIOR FLOOR SLAB: A minim slab thickness of four inches (actual) is recommended. The garage
slab should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars placed at 24 inches on center each way and felt material should
CWE 201 236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 15
be placed along the slab's sides and rear face. Slab reinforcing should be supported by chairs and be positioned
at mid - height in the floor slab. The garage slab may be constructed independent of the garage perimeter
footings.
MOISTURE PROTECTION FOR INTERIOR SLABS: Where the concrete on -grade floor slabs will
support moisture - sensitive floor covering, it should be underlain by a moisture barrier. We recommend that
the minimum configuration of the subslab moisture barrier consist of a four - inch -thick blanket of coarse,
clean sand. The moisture barrier material should have less than ten percent and five percent passing the No.
100 and No. 200 sieves, respectively. A visqueen vapor barrier should be placed in the center of the moisture
protection blanket.
Our experience indicates that this moisture barrier should allow the transmission of from about six to twelve
pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day through the on -grade slab. This may be an excess amount
of moisture for some types of floor covering. Following the placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient
drying time must be allowed prior to the placement of floor coverings. Prior to installation of the floor
covering, moisture emission tests may need to be performed to deternzine whether the slab moisture
emissions are below the limits recommended by the manufacturer. If additional protection is considered
necessary, additional recommendations can be provided.
EXTERIOR CONCRETE FLATWORK Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of four inches.
To reduce the potential for cracking and movement, reinforcement should consist of at least of No. 3 bars
placed at 24 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcing should be supported by chairs and be positioned at
mid - height in the floor slab. Control joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the
location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with the American Concrete
Institute specifications. When patio, walks and porch slabs abut perimeter foundations they should be doweled
into the footings.
EARTH RETAINING WALLS
PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 400
pounds per square foot per foot of depth for the select grading soils. This pressure may be increased one -third
for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.4 for the resistance to
lateral movement for those areas where select grading is performed. When combining frictional and passive
CWE 201.236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 16
resistance, the friction should be reduced by one - third. The upper 12 inches of exterior retaining wall footings
should not be included in passive pressure calculations where abutted by landscaped or unpaved areas.
ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of "unrestrained" and "restrained" earth retaining
structures with level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 45 and 60
pounds per cubic foot, respectively. An additional 13 pounds per cubic foot should be added to these values for
2:1 (horizontal to vertical) sloping backfill. These pressures does not consider any other surcharge. If any are
anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. This value assumes a
drained backfill condition.
WATERPROOFING AND SUBDRAIN OBSERVATION: The project architect should provide
waterproofing details. The geotechnical engineer should be requested to verify that waterproofing has been
applied. A suggested wall subdrain detail is provided on the attached Plate Number 12. We recommend that the
Geotechnical Consultant be retained to observe all retaining wall subdrains to verify proper construction.
BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Expansive or
clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has
reached an adequate strength.
LIMITATIONS
REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING
The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications.
Such plans and specifications should be made available to the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist so
that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the Uniform Building Code.
It is recommended that Christian %Y/heeler Engineering be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services
during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or
recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those
anticipated prior to start of construction.
CkVE 201.236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 17
UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements
based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and
on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be
recognized that the performance of the foundations and /or cut slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or
unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any
unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be
brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary.
CHANGE IN SCOPE
This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may
determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or
modified by a written addendum.
TIME LIMITATIONS
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur
with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent
properties. In addition, changes in the Standards -of- Practice and /or Government Codes may occur. Due to
such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control.
Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying die
suitability of the conclusions and recommendations.
PROFESSIONAL STANDARD
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by
members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client
recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our test pits,
surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations be based solely on
the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but
shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of
professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is
C\VE 201.236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 18
made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for
consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.
CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY
It is the responsibility of Mr. and Mrs. David Schibler, or their representatives, to ensure that the information and
recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the
project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the
necessary measures to insure that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations during
construction.
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
Five subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on the site plan, included herewith as Plate
Number 1, on April 6, 2001. These explorations consisted of test trenches excavated with a backhoe and a 24-
inch bucket attachment. The fieldwork was conducted by or under the observation of our engineering geology
personnel.
The test trench logs are presented on the following Plate Numbers 2 through 6. The soils are described in
accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color,
the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are provided. The density of granular soils is given as either
very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense. The density of cohesive soils is given as either very soft,
soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, and hard.
Disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and returned to the
laboratory for testing. Bulk samples of disturbed soil were also collected in bags from the test trench locations.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed is presented
below.
a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The
final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.
C``(JE 201.236 May 4, 2001 Page No. 19
b) MOISTURE - DENSITY: In -place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for
representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of
variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic
foot, and the in -place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results
of these tests are summarized in the exploration logs.
c) DIRECT SHEAR TEST: One direct shear test was performed to determine the failure envelope of
the sample based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having
a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. The sample was tested at different
vertical loads and saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of
approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The results of this test are presented on Plate Number 7.
d) COMPACTION TEST: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the residual
soil was determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D- 1557 -91. The results
of this test are presented on Plate Number 7.
e) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION: The grain size distribution was determined from a representative
sample of the residual soil in accordance with ASTM D422. The results of this test are presented on
Plate Number 7.
f) EXPANSION INDEX TESTS: An expansion index test on a remolded sample was performed on
two representative samples of the clayey subsoil found near the surface of the site. The test was
performed on the portion of the sample passing the #4 standard sieve. The sample were brought to
optimum moisture content and then dried back to a constant moisture content for 12 hours at 230 + 9
degrees Fahrenheit. The specimens were then compacted in a 4 -inch- diameter mold in two equal layers
by means of a tamper, then trimmed to a final height of 1 inch, and brought to a saturation of
approximately 50 percent. The specimens were placed in a consolidometer with porous stones at the top
and bottom, a total normal load of 12.63 pounds was placed (144.7 ps�, and the samples were allowed to
consolidate for a period of 10 minutes. The samples were saturated, and the change in vertical
movement was recorded until the rate of expansion became nominal. The expansion index is reported
on Plate Number 7 as the total vertical displacement times the fraction of the sample passing the #4
sieve times 1000.
LOG OF TRENCH NUMBER T -1
Date Excavated: 4 /6/01 Logged By: JBR
Equipment: Backhoe w/18" Bucket Project Manager: CHC
Existing Grade: ± 424 feet Depth to Water: N/A
Finish Grade: ±419 feet Drop of Hammer: N/A
SAMPLE x
u G TYPE ^o
a �1
U w O
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
W F cn z O H
Slopewash: Dark reddish brown, very moist, soft SANDY SILT (NIL)
with occasional rock fragments.
1
Residual Soil: Dark reddish brown, very moist to wet, stiff SANDY CLAY (CL) EI
with occasional rock fragments.
2 -
- Santiago Peak Volcanic Bedrock Gray- brown, very hard, fine grained
ss FF
— — FRESH VOLCANIC BEDROCK.
3
Slight to moderately fractured, with silt and clay infilling.
Over 40 % of excavated material + 12 inch
Excavation Refusal at 3.5 Feet
4
No Groundwater Encountered
5
_ 6
7
I
8
9
1
Proposed Single Family Residence
Fortuna Ranch Road, Olivenhain, CA
CHRISTIAN WHEELER A.P.N. 264- 101 -14
Engineering PROJECT NO. 201.236 PLATE NO. 2
LOG OF TRENCH NUMBER T -2
Date Excavated: 4 /6/01 Logged By: JBR
Equipment: Backhoe W/18" Bucket Project Manager: CHC
Existing Grade: ± 424 feet Depth to Water: N/A
Finish Grade: N/A Drop of Hammer: N/A
SAMPLE x
TYPE W o
x SUMNLARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
W CIO C) a
Q Q ° o �,
z z Q
Slop wash: Dark reddish brown, very moist, soft SANDY SILT (NIL)
with occasional rock fragments.
1
Residual Soil: Dark reddish brown, very moist to wct, stiff SANDY CLAY (CL)
with occasional rock fragments.
2
- - Santiago Peak Volcanic Bedrock Gray- brown, very hard, fine grained
— — FRESH VOLCANIC BEDROCK.
— —
Slig to moderate! fractured, with silt and cl infillin
3 1 -1 g Y Y g
Over 40 % of excavated material + 12 inch
Excavation Refusal at 3.5 Feet
5 No Groundwater Encountered
6
7
8
9
10
W Proposed Single Family Residence
Fortuna Ranch Road, Olivenhain, CA
CHRISTIAN WHEELER A.P.N. 264- 101 -14
Engineering PROJECT NO. 201.236 PLATE NO. 3
LOG OF TRENCH NUMBER T -3
Date Excavated: 4/6/01 Logged By: JBR
Equipment: Backhoe w /18" Bucket Project Manager: CHC
Existing Grade: ± 414 feet Depth to Water: N/A
Finish Grade: N/A Drop of Hammer: N/A
SAMPLE x
ILI C7 TYPE W
U w� 0E-+
x SUNRvL -= OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
z 0 0
o w s
Q z Q
Slope ash: Dark reddish brown, very moist, soft SANDY SILT (ML)
with occasional rock fragments.
1
Residual Soil: Dark reddish brown, very moist to wet, stiff SANDY CLAY (CL)
with occasional rock fragments.
2
- - Santiago Peak Volcanic Bedrock:
I —I
Light brown, very hard, fine grained, slighdv weathered VOLCANIC BEDROCK.
3
Moderately fractured, with silt and clay infillin .
Excavation Refusal at 3.0 Feet on Fresh Rock
4 No Groundwater Encountered
5
6
7
I
8
9
i
10
i
Proposed Single Family Residence
Fortuna Ranch Road, Olivenhain, CA
� CHRISTIAN WHEELER
A.P.N. 264- 101 -14
Engineering PROJECT NO. 201.236 PLATE NO. 4
LOG OF TRENCH NUMBER T -4
Date Excavated: 4/6/01 Logged By: JBR
Equipment: Backhoe w/ 18" Bucket Project Manager: CHC
Existing Grade: ± 403 feet Depth to Water: N/A
Finish Grade: N/A Drop of Hammer: N/A
SAMPLE � x
TYPE o C7
U F�
SUNIIN -CRY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Q �� Z O F
Q Q O Q
Slopewash: . Dark reddish brown, very moist, soft SANDY SILT (NIL)
with occasional rock fragments.
1
Residual Soil: Dark reddish brown, very moist to wet, stiff SANDY CLAY (CL)
with occasional rock fragments.
2
Santiago Peak Volcanic Bedrock: Light brown, moist, very hard,
SANDY SILT (TML). Highly weathered and decomposed.
3
9.0 119.0
NIDC
..' ; DS
5
`� =� <' "� 11.3 118.3
6
ff
I.
10.7 121.7
8
{{
Excavation Bottom at 9.0 Feet
No Groundwater Encountered
10
Proposed Single Family Residence
Fortuna Ranch Road, Olivenhain, CA
CHRISTIAN WHEELER A P.N. 264- 101 -14
Engineering PROJECT NO. 201.236 PLATE NO. 5
LOG OF TRENCH NUMBER T -5
Date Excavated: 4/6/01 Logged By: JBR
Equipment: Backhoe w /18" Bucket Project Manager: CHC
Existing Grade: ± 403 feet Depth to Water: N/A
Finish Grade: N/A — Drop of Hammer: N/A
SAMPLE
TYPE x
o x
U
SUINE -1RY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Q
P. a z OH
� q
Slo�ewash: Dark reddish brown, very moist, soft SANDY SILT (NIL)
with occasional rock fragments.
1
Residual Soil Dark reddish brown, very moist to wet, stiff SANDY CLAY (CL)
with occasional rock fragments.
2
Santiago Peak Volcanic Bedrock: Light brown, moist, very hard,
SANDY SILT (ML). Highly weathered and decomposed.
3
Light brown, very hard, fine grained, slightly weathered VOLCANIC BEDROCK.
Moderately fractured, with silt and clay infilling.
4
Excavation Refusal at 3.5 Feet on Fresh Rock
No Groundwater Encountered
5
6
7
8
I
9
i
10
Proposed Single Family Residence
Fortuna Ranch Road, Olivenhain, CA
CHRISTIAN WHEELER A.P.N. 264- 101 -14
Engineering PROJECT NO. 201.236 PLATE NO. 6
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PROPOSED SCHIBLER RESIDENCE
FORTUNA RANCH ROAD
OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Sample Number Trench No. 4 @ T- 9'
Description Remolded to 90%
Angle of Friction 34 Degrees
Apparent Cohesion 100 psf
MAXIMUM DENSITY/ OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
Sample Number Trench No. 4 @ T- 9'
Description Clayey Silt (ML)
Maximum Density 115.5 pcf
Optimum Moisture Content 13.2 Percent
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
Sample Number Trench No. 1 @ 1'- 2'
Description Clay /Sandy Clay (CH)
Initial Moisture Content 12.6%
Initial Dry Density 94.6 pcf
Final Moisture Content 34.2%
Expansion Index 95
Classification High
CWE 201.236 May 4, 2001 Plate No. 7
CWTE 201.236 May 4, 2001 Appendix A, Page Al
REFERENCES
Anderson, J.G.; Rockwell, R.K. and Agnew, D.C., 1989, Past and Possible Future Earthquakes
of Significance to the San Diego Region, Earthquake Spectra Volume 5, No. 2, 1989.
Blake, T.F., 2000, EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from
3 -D Fault Sources, Version 3.0, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software, Thousand Oaks,
California.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near - Source Zones in
California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada
Countywide Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map No. 06073C1054F (panel 1054 of 2375), prepared by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, effective date June 19, 1997.
Jennings, CAV., 1975, Fault Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Map
No. 1, Scale 1:750,000.
Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geology Map of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, San Diego
County, California; California Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open -File Report 96 -02.
Kern, P., 1989, Earthquakes and Faults in San Diego County, Pickle Press, 73 pp.
Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, "Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazards in California," in
Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 91, No. B12, pp 12,587 to 12,631, November 1986.
TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
County of San Diego, 1960, Topographic Map Sheet 326 -1707, Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet.
County of San Diego, 1982, Topo -Ortho Map Sheet 326 -1707, Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet.
CWE 201.236 May 4, 2001 Appendix A, Page A2
PHOTOGRAPHS
San Diego County, 1953 -59, Flight 4M, Photograph 73, Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate).
San Diego County, 1970, Flight 5, Photographs 21 and 22; Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate).
San Diego County, 1973 -75, Flight 30, Photographs 40 and 41, Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate).
San Diego County, 1978 -79, Flight 19, Photographs B28 and B29, Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate).
San Diego County, 1983, Photographs 608 and 609, Scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet (approximate).
- San Diego County, 1989 -90, Photographs 1 -173 and 1 -175, Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet (approximate).
CWE 201.236 May 4, 2001 Appendix B, Page B -1
PROPOSED SCHIBLER RESIDENCE
FORTUNA RANCH ROAD
OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS
GENERAL INTENT
The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground,
preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the
accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and /or
the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede
the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in
conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications
will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed
by the Geotechnical Engineer.
OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Christian Wheeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the
earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his
representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the
work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical
Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he
may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions
or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer
shall be contacted for further recommendations.
If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as
questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.,
construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend
rejection of this work.
Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following
American Society for Testing and Materials test methods:
C' % 201 236 May 4, 2001 Appendix B, Page B -2
Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - ASTM D- 1557 -91
Density of Soil In -Place - ASTM D- 1556 -90 or ASTM D -2922
All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM
testing procedures.
PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL
All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of
All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris.
After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 12 inches,
brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of
compaction. All loose soils in excess of 12 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground, which is
defined as natural soil that possesses an in -situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density.
When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit),
the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil.
The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1 -1/2 times the equipment width, whichever is greater, and
shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should
be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as
specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when
considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All
underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10
feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure
should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer.
This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water
lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the
Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary.
All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements
set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3
0XTE 201.236 May 4, 2001 Appendix B, Page B -3
feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the
well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and /or a qualified Structural Engineer.
FILL MATERIAL
Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of
vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill
the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered
in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low
strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only
with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the
Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site.
PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in
compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the
compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be
uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to
economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil
compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either
the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation
report.
When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be
carefully filled with soil such that the minim degree of compaction recommended in the Special
Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non-
structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable.
Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the
Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than
the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical
Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained.
CWE 201.236 May 4, 2001 Appendix B, Page B -4
Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by
sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of
two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over -built and cut-
back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all
fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at
least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions
section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the
Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable.
Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to
determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems
arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the
Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report.
If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the
necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction
is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer.
CUT SLOPES
The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during
the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the
preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse
nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions
shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating
measures are necessary.
Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than
that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency.
ENGINEERING OBSERVATION
Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and
compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with
acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or
CWE 201 236 May 4, 2001 Appendix B, Page B -5
the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to
the specified degree of compaction.
SEASON LIMITS
Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain,
filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can
be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before
acceptance of work.
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS
RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minim degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural
ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot
subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of
50 or greater when tested in accordance with the ASTM Test D 4829 -95.
OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil
over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of
placement of such material are provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils
shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve.
I
I
i
i
v °
5
NJ
m o
CL
Z
v CD
000 M r
. z �.
cn cn cn ,..
0 I I
o r I I
n � 4 N co a N00 °52'7 4 "E J29.2 I I
n o ° o OD rn
W (77 N
(n CL 0
=3 ., -h
m
w w w < /
0 0 0
I �
m �
z p W W m
_ � O N
O O O ..(
3 ..'
• L��
=3 co w , 380 ✓�
0
rn 390
W q `� co N Cn ��� C�
W
400
� �
V) o0o � 410 �
(r, 0) w
CD z
;0 my 1
0 c
rn Lo
M
A
Q
� a v° z
A�
z co
O 3 =
rn
I
O t7
< <`
N00 °47'52 "E 328.50'
ti
m
V
p -Ti
rn
zv �-j�
a
(> ��
0
I �
-0 N
0 0
o
-_ - -
I
o
n (J)
Z
� C
= m �1
CA Z
r
m
rn 5
� rn
O v
rn
Z D
o
m rn
rn
I
z
O
o
i
LEPPERT ENGINEERING CORPORATION
5 190 GOVERNOR DRIVE SUITE 205 SAN DIEGO, CA. 92 922
858 - 597 -2001
I
____ — -
-----.--- - - __ ___ .
F___
. -
I
.
. U-1
S 'I.
�� :11
I:- (=)
1_�, (_,�
cn riil..�
__ -
, . , 1`J - __ - - - ---------,-___/ \ \ I , I __ I �_ - "
-
__ I - , , " � , , - 1 - - 1, I , I , - " _�, � � ` _____i , I _ � , � , , �, � " ,
"I \ I I ,� " "N ,�� 2 ,-) �
-, I 0-1
, - I , - - _� - - --- -- I - -
I I I -_
I
I ,___ _ '. , n, ,,,- `, ,,, � , ", , " '-� -_ ; N, � I ��_ - 11 �
I � .., , , I "� - 1 -.---- - _ -- - I �. � , l ,, , , "_ ,,- . N, , -, 11
I \ , /
- -_ ----- - -, I � 1 - 17-
1 __ __ , ''I I . ____ -, " I/ � -7 ___ - - " I ", � 11
1 , � - ,. - - I�T . , >'� �,_ ,
. . � i � , " " � I 1. , � \ \, � , f--,: ___ , � I
" o - , l� ,� � �v I LCI , ,-�, - 1 . __ -------- � ,� , I � �,'. � � :, " -, -, � �� , -, ,
N, I I'll, I\ - __
- , i� 1 .11 - I _ ,
1 1.4 --- --"- s , _- I �� \ , i . _ ,� >--��,_,_,__ N, `N, ,,�\ \ "\,-,\ , \ ii) 'r I I _:
; 1 0 -
, ------ \ I , I �
,
- - ", � �� I __ __ _"_=_�:_�_ - . � I ___ - � i " — . '__ , � I \ ' I I '' \
"t
,
..... , , ,
,
- , I ___ , - -, \ IN, V I ,� ;f ,� (i .
_�--
- -, - � , , , I � , , � - -�: - -- ___ '_ I � ! ; -, �, " '��, - , \, (z) 'N \\ i I
; � . " ," ,� I I
,�
,� I , I __
- 7 � � - - - - - , �, , , � , \ \ , ! i 1, �
___� � ____'N1 , - - - - - _1 __ __ - - ,
�__ - _ - � � , , - - - - I f� I \ I �
I .
- � ---. . \ - - - _ - - \ 'I I ll� 0 ,� , - � � � , - __ , _ - __ � I I ! \
- 1\ � k z
I I ,
I ___1 % -- , , w-,, I I �_, - - " / _ , '' ; ,
z I ,- ----- - - ...- '' �, , I , , ____ I I I 1�� ,I ) .-,
,--, �D�- , - _,,� - � il �1. I I (� , -
I
t \ __ - I , , \f, . I I . .- I -,.-- - I I : ,i - -�, I I , �
- � I.- I � 1 __: ,�__ -- _- - , - ", ,� \� \,. � N "' ", \ _., _ , , - , __ __ . - I "
1� , , Q) � , � 11 N, " ___ , I Q) I ,I . \ � �\� C�
1 \ - , - \�.. I �, � ', I - I
,
�
_ - .1 - - __ - - 11 - I , __ _ 1. " " " , � 1\ I I I , , '_� " "" ` I � ____ __ -1 - -1 � I-
, % , ! .! ,,,,, -,- ----- 1' '-- � , \L� I Z cr
-, , - , ,�� I _ 1� " - � %;I . 1, \ � IC .:
1. ___ ,/,-,\ I � . - ___ _�_ I I y 11. I 16 � �, . , , �, --__�- - 7- 7-- v \, I ., , -,
- " \ � 1 1�14 .:.
, - - . ,- __ I . .1 1�) . -- - ''I V� - _��, - , "77--_ - e "I" , ." i _-, I I
, -_ ", i � 1, \ " "I , ��\�' � '.
, , - � , I I - __ - 'I
- , - , I I . , � ,,:��',
I 1,; it 'L I - , �_ - , I - � : I 11 � I
I , I --- I , --- I , � , f I "llit-1 , I -1 \0 I I 1. .0
7 - �� i � \ �� I . I I I \ I 1 � I , _,� - - - , z , , , ; , � 1 `� ,. "
" ,\ , , , �', C � I
� , - , - '. - I ,
� " 7 � � I- - � I I � - -- - , , . _:� \ \ v
i " " -.-"- __ __ I �`� - I, � 1, � � \ ,� ,,, " -, -- _: � , a, , , " '- , , ' �C,
\n , D 0
I , � I \1 ,!, I - , , I - , ,�,,�� ___ I _ - ZI: -- .. - -- ,� I ,� . '. I � ____, "� �,� "
,_ , \ �', \ \ ' IN ,� C, 1 4
, , - I 1�1, I I 1 � - ,_ --- , . / " , \ , ,� Q� Ci I �
I ::� " i 1_)� ____ ------- . _ - I � " ,,, , , I, \ L , *,, � , , '. I . I I , - ", 'i � . -_ -
� � I - , , , ". yi, 'r�
::. I - - , I I l , , � . I �-_ 1� I - _,� ---, .� , , �\ X
\, ___� - - - 1 � , � o , , " I , , \ , �.\ I , '--"- .-,: . - I ,� " , � , \., 7
*4 _\
I , , , 1, �\`\ I 1, __ -1-.1- . , i . , �� , �-, I , \ , \ �1,
__ __ - , , . U[) \ , � '- � - " , � I I ,
�, __
,
- __ I 1 1, , � I , I , % " - - 1'� , , ",N , 1\��:S � ______ ------------ - - . , , �.. " , I
, I , �_ , 1 1 ." \ 1 \ \ \ 0
� . \ \
-
i ,_ - ,I , -), .— _ - _____ .�� - I I � � 0 � � - - k � I '. I � \ " �, \ I 11 ,
- I \ \ � . 0 uL
I" I : -,\I _.. _1 I i 1i " k W . I i \,�, � , ", - . -_ "I "' , _� —
, " ,� - _, I I , _. I 1, I I , , , \ -.��-- - ___ -..-- - -- - = - _1�_- - - -__ - - .. it I -1 I" 11
I �_ -_ " ) - \ __ � .
____ � - ` '\', I __ � \\ I ., ,
� i', � , -,: - - \, , , _
, ': I I
-- , , - I
- _____ __1 .
"I , , '' , — - I , , I � I _-, I � - � I " , , " � I - , , K L �i, I
_____ - , � --: ----- - / - � \ I
I N / I I � , ,., N \11 �
11 I ^ I ii � , � ,
I - - . �,�\ , " ;. �,� q I il , ., , . � , , : � , , - \ �. \ , , , I l c� --�__ -- -- ---- __
- - __ - - , �\\ \
___ - , __::i:_ -
\ , ,�, , � � , - , , , - -
I ' I I __ , I ____ _-, " , \ , \
- - ___7_ ,----- __ , , it 11 I -, I i , - , " / ,
) L - I � � \ " , I \ - -
i Wi 1 1 � � , ,�: " �\ \ \, , \ - .
11 11 I it, , -_ � , \ 1 1 - .- , \ , \ I � ��
.- - -- - - _ ___ " , I , , - :_ i \ " \ \ \ (:�� ,1 � �7 -, ,. __ �� _� ::---- - __ -,,, - \ � ,
I , I .. 0
. - ------_.------- __�_ I , I \1 " " � I I � , 'I � , , ,,� � I " � ,z - 1� �_::__ I , \,
, I \ I . .J
, _: / ii, , - - -- �, -- , "\\ ____.___ � 1, _ , . A
" _ ___________ �'', , , - _ , ____ . I , � I I " - 1. ,�,\ -�_ " / , , \ � ""-- — �
\\\ , � � .
,!;��___.`___ " I , I , -- -- -- -- i t, � I I \ \ \ I _ LL: -'----'- N, �� ,
I _ � __ ___ I / " ",\ : % I , 11, � " -, , _:� - " - � I I I 1, \ , 1, , --- , " ,� — � ,
� " , ,
,'�, ,\ - - " " , , - 1, I , I , t I I " __ 1__ , 1 � '-- - � , —_ X
'i _� , , , ,_____� __ - � I , I\_ I ,
, ", 1, I I --, ____
" I , , I 'h I _� ,--- - ____ - � " . i, � I i 1 , 1� \ \ l --- - �\ \ '11, 1� \"' 1/1
\ \, "-- -- '---- ---- I 1 �6 ' I N
I ,
- . \' \ I \\ , .- — - _: - � --- -_ . , I , � I ,, ", \ , - 1, ---____ " 11, I--,--,----
___ � T , I
" , I -
1� - / �' , , llfz� - , - - �
, ____._ ---. __ __ \, , , ", " " , L - �S
, p 11 — .. . \\\ ,\ , _ " �, I \
I ", - 0 %�\ l,"'k __ . I I
.
, _.__� _ _______� "I" I ��� ___:�_:�� -�-�,, / I / : I \\, ____-----, -,>- � I __ ", \
)I--
? CD\\ IN ", , '\ \' I __', I" -, , _', " \ '\� --- I � \ ,�, I ,\ X ,��, � , ,______\11_1 ,
�___ X\ I 1, , ,
' -.-�- , \ " __ " / " - - I ; i � 'i � " \ 11 \ �' \ 11.01 ( N
� \ v \ _____1_1 , "I" \ \ , `\1 N, . \ \ _.�I�:! , ____ \ --.-- �
11 ", \�\ \ ) <
0 , 1, 1, Ni\
�
_ � , , 1, . I I
\ �, 1i \ \11 , - - ,
I ____ , 11 � , _____ 0 0
1 I ,\) -, . '_� � " " -_ \ �_ " - x I I di�
III I , �\ __ _� � ___ --' , ,�, I � � , .\ " I C-111, "' "' , , . ____ ��: - �Z�_ , -I: - - ,- - .-- 1 ( I 1 1 "t
\ \ I � --- -,,�, \ � 11,\ ,_--i'l�_ \ �\ � I I N i( wy ,
-\ �,�/ N , 1, - _�_ - --- --- _ -_ '_,�- , I f 11 , , , , I �_, 1*1 - >0 N Y N -, '7�
- -\ , I - —, ; V
� ..0y. ________ , - ,_______:�, " / / i r � I'll, , ll , \ , <�' , - �'- , , - \�
� I I - - , ,
, � , � � � I . , A , , , � _� - - - � -_ � 1, \ , \ \ - � " I, , __1 , _-,
`1::S1_, N, �
NN, " , I I I " - - - "I / , � .I - , , I , -,---- " , , ", - 1-1 '\�\ \\ \\,�� \Z�' -, \V,,,'- \ /
/ - -, I (D
/11 / � , - ." , . : I 7\
I I I ` " " ,�� 11 � 'L \ \ I I I- 1 ,,,, ,v \ I . �
.( / -;�,----� - , �\ I \, §J % , A -
� 11 , , " ___�� ��: � , - - — - , � \ 1� -1 , N i , I I , , ri , - I
A I - �
."", _,� \ ,_ \ � \
� \, - , 1 . I � '. \, N, ", " " 1� - _,�\ ; \ _i` �, . . i,
l -, � ,,,,� .'_ � � ! i ; � \ � \ ,
1 - . --- - ." ,6\ . ,_ __:��-__ ---, � - - --,-,, , '-, iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_iii_ N\ \ J i 11 - _____
�\ --- ,
I ) i / - _____ ,�. I " , ,� ,It iM \ I I -__:- --- I ,1L 7' �_' \\ , \\ '\\\
�, �, " " " I i r \\
, \
, �
_
" "' ... /-, / C I , 0-\ , , I . - - 1 -1, 1, 11 11,iiii" : , ", --,, - -"\" , \ ,��,
) \ � \ \ � \ \ \ \ A LIJ
I I I . - - ,
�
, �
- _��_ _ _:�_, 11 11 I "L k ; ; � \ I I-_ \ . \A " ; I \
� �---,` I , . �` ( - , , , �_" � / / I I 1 1 \ , \\' 1 4� - I - _, , - , '*---- .� �, , \ I \ %,�
) , \ "i ) ( / 1' , -",\\ , ,\ \ I \ .. , " '' I I
� - �# � , �� "i N -1/111 - , iii-i'll- I 1 1 ; 11 'i ,\ \'��, I ______ __ __ --__ �1, , I _� ____ - , , \
� A
_____ - /I , , ---__-, - -� ---, `-, , ,_ " '-- "I , � - \
I . I I I '11\ ------- __ -, , , ,5: 1" - , ____ " , - , I'll, - - - _ - I ) N, \ I -11 \1
I \ it \ /)) Ak � \ 1 �
: _-, -_ I �__ - x " �, , ! I I
I " I 11 I I -_ --_ , , 11 1-__ .. I 01 \
I'll . , '� _ /I iii� I. , ��n=_- - , - - � , � I I �, (' , -, / . , , \ ,
� .�� 0 .. � ii " , 1_� ,-, I/ - �� � � I � � q � . 1_�, -I_ , , ) -
0
11 , J, z
,
,
, \ I , - \"`��. .- " zi, __�__ _ , \ N I
�� - �_ �___ - I e - - , , - I I 11 NN ,
9 __ �� ) I 1 � I I Il \ I �,-<, /
I r, 11 - 1��\ 1 _- 4�\ , , / . I 1, \ , � '�, - - I / 'i i I I 11� 1�_ \ \ ------- �
, ., 111. -
1 4
. -__- , � , i - , � - .. , \ I I - I n I � I \ \ �, 1 1 . �
I .1. - - . 1, - - , - �__ ---I j � N!:�� __ ==:= , �--- __ I - . ::_� I - __ . �41
,
,
,
,
I., x, _� ___,�__`� , �,, , 1, 1�� , -1 ---. __ I , - ) , / ) ; - , \ --' / ill"ii
,
,
,
,
,
, , -1 I _ , " -Ill � ����� ,__ , � , , , , \ _�,_.__, . .1 I
. A �, ___� ,,��, - - . � - ----:- I � � '-< �< I " - �1/ / i I , j ) / ) q_1 � ') \11 '\ _.,�,
, � , N
::7 ::-- �� , - I � i
I , , , / I
,
, � , - � - . 1 1-1 , " " i \ \ _� L "
I �� --- 1:��_ -� � I --- " 0 � � - - - -.-,-. -_ _�. " / / / / ,,, , � ti , " / , , � ,
> il,i 1�)� � I I C) � I
I 11 I I- _ I - - . - . -1 — - _ --- ____ ---' - , \ \ L� � \ \ ,\ , 1 � . I
""I - , �, I r I I -- -- ', ____ --.,-- --- -- / ! , \ , 1. , � .
I 'All, _�� , I -,- � ,�i - — '�� - , / � � / \__1 \ .- I 'i z
�
- ;� �, --i , I (' / \ x I - - .1- �
\ 11 " ��, 5' i .�, ;n�_715q_ I _ , -, . , \ � 11
V z� _,�, lr '� , , 10 . .1 - - ,-,. / ___� w
::�-_�.�- 1)� I I I . 0 / -�' - _-1, / , I , � , _ � - � I I I I
"
�
. X, I . _ - " ---"-------- - � � \ 7 , , I
\\ , i -1 I 1\ '\ . t__il , - - 4 Z5 ___ I- \ N, iz" � I �
M N t I , - .1 , �,7' 1 ���_ , rq �' � �i,' \\t(') L
, I � lil.�,� 4 --- ______,1'_1i - 1, Zz— � . I , I \_ -,, \ `� -- � �
� llil��, -ti_'_ I --I �' _\ - � " � --------- — / ( ; i � ( L�� - ,\\\ � \ .
"",.",..::::::::..::::::::::::�� �� , , � I ,, , ____ , _,__� - / � � i, \ \ , - ___ ,
, , , , ,
- 1� � 1� , " " - , \� -\ ., I \ , � � I ,_ , -.". I \ x i I : , ,
LL 'N, V , \, -,C III -, . ,. -, -1 � - — _��_ ., I -_ —_ -_ ---- "______i_ - -_ __ ____ ____ . . �
)i , / 1-1.
= N, I I � I';:- I I -1 -- -_ -- 1 I 1 1) \�'�\, 'llill, 1 � � �__ N� I ) � 1/1, )
11
I I 1 ,i 1 -_ -, - _ __ , � - -_ - -- - ____� ��__ - ___ _____- I I ), , ii , 1 I � n
\ ', . I - __:��_ .. __ - � � , \ ,l\, it I , 7�1� � , / I I , , � � ) I
. 1; . __ � _ , , f , �_) � ! , , ��
"ll �_ . : , - "- � , ll � , ) � � \ , / ��
:___, , ii- I -_ \ � I � i I, _1� "
-J \ -I � ____ : _� - I- - I _ , ,� I ii � , 1. I - "i __ -------I---- / , , . I I \ \ � � 1 1
f k c) ( � ; . I
, - '_____� . - \ �_�_ -_ , I .
1, 1, \ \ ____ - - I , -, , � , . - , , �
r \ , \ ----_ � ii, - -1 ,� 1-1 __ - io / ) , J �, \ \ 1� I (NI � I I i �,
� " . , I __ ------- ___�__�_ 11 � - . - I � I / . , , / ) n � I I 0 �� ��
\ - __ 11 - ____ X\ , I � % I \ \ ,� f � . � � I tn . �
L- 1 . "L - " � - I - z� � - I , - a00 / / / � -_ "
I I --- , , I '1� ' 7_1 __ - / I /// / , , /) I I . \ i , rr) ll� q
- >_ ��\,_ , " " " -, I N � - I
- ,� I , ,
___ , I __ , , -
\� " IrV, � -- \ - / ll �
1, , , 7 , . I - � I , - / I , , 1.
,
,
��
" I __ I - - it, \ \ ,\ I , - - __________.,_� . -, ,.,- , I CO (n C
7-' ill - I 1 in I , , , I / , ( / , / I ,
- F�,` _ I 1 ,� , / ------------- - - � � I C _ = �__ � 1-1 , 1 11 I " �
i " C / I , ___�__ 11 ,_ " I \ � "1 , / I I / � " � -,
l l� , \ \ . r __ ___ ,,,