2004-9001 G t.r. NGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT
bty°f,
Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
February 3, 2006
Attn: Branch Manager
Bank of America
4380 La Jolla Village Drive
San Diego, CA 92122
RE: Deborah and Brian McDonnell
3305 Poppy Hills Lane
APN 264-091-91
Grading Permit 9001-GI
Final release of 25% security deposit
Permit 9001-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion
control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the
rough grading and finaled the project. Therefore, release of the remaining 25% of the
security deposit is merited.
The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial
Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor.
Account# 11026-55448 in the amount of$ 12,038.50.
The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please
contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering
Department. /
Since
6
e ra Geisha Ja e ach
Engineering hnician Fi ante Manager
Subdivision Engineering Financial Services
CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager
McDonnell, Brian and Deborah
Debra Geishart
File
Enc.
TEL 760-633-2600 l FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avcnuc, Encinitas, California 9202-4-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 740 recycled paper
a SOIL 8 TESTING, INC.
2
C9 PHONE P.O. Box 600627
O
F (619) 280-4321 San Diego, CA 92160-0627
TOLL F R E E
z
(877)215-432't 6280 Riverdale Street
W San Diego, CA 92120
F A X
S
(619)280-4717 wwwscst.com
o
VI
I�
a4 1 I
` 1
UPDATE REPORT in
MAYO SUBDIVISION, TPM-207 ENGi,NEERiNG SERVICES
WILDFLOWER DRIVE CITY OF ENCINITAS
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
MR. ALVIN F. MAYO
1007 EMERALD BAY
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92651
PREPARED BY:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
6280 RIVERDALE STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120
Providing Professional Engineering Services Since 1959
SOIL & TESTING, INC.
Z P H O N E P.O. Box 600627
c r (619)280-4321
. { San Diego, CA 92160-0627
T O L L F R E E 6280 Riverdale Street
(877)215=4321
z San Diego, CA 92120
W F A X
S
� (619)280-4717 wwwscst.com
o
N
January 22, 2001
Mr. Alvin F. Mayo SCS&T 9911139.1R
1007 Emerald Bay
Laguna Beach, California 92651
SUBJECT: Update Report, Mayo Subdivision,TPM-207,Wildflower Drive,Encinitas,California.
Dear Mr, Mayo:
3
In accordance with your request, we have prepared this update report for the subject project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject project will consist of a residential subdivision, located at the southern terminus of Wildflower
Drive(projected), in the City of Encinitas, California. The project consists of the construction of a five lot
residential subdivision as well as associated utilities, and access streets. Only four of the lots will be
developed. Grading will consist of cuts and fills up to about 18 feet and 15 feet,respectively. Proposed cut
and/or fill slopes will be constructed at a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical)or flatter inclination,up to a maximum
height of about 24 feet and 17 feet, respectively.
To assist in the preparation of this report we were provided with an undated tentative parcel map prepared
by San Dieguito Engineering, Inc. In addition, we have reviewed the following reports prepared by
Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.:
1) "Rippability Analysis for Deep Sewer Trench, Rancho De Mayo Subdivision;" May 21,
1990 (SCS&T 8921055 Report No. 4).
2) "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Rancho De Mayo Subdivision, Tract 88-351 RPL;"
May 24, 1989 (SCS&T 8921055 Report No. 1).
SCS&T 9911139.1R January 22, 2001 Page No. 2
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the aforementioned grading plan and reports, as well as a site reconnaissance, it is
our opinion that the recommendations provided in the referenced geotechnical report are still applicable and
should be implemented. The site is underlain by metavolcanic rock and fill. The geotechnical issues
associated with the presence of rock are discussed in the referenced report, and are further discussed
herein. Since the subject subdivision is only a portion of the original subdivision, rock related issues are
magnified. It is strongly suggested that additional explorations(air tracks or seismic lines)be performed in
proposed deep cut areas to further define the rippability of the underlying metavolcanic rock.The following
additional recommendations are intended to provide updated recommendations where appropriate. The
following recommendations take precedence over any conflicting recommendations contained in the
referenced report.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
ROCK DISPOSAL: It should be recognized that due to the reduced size of the subdivision, the potential
rock disposal areas are greatly reduced. In addition, the amount of fines required to mix with rock in
structural fills is diminished. This may result on a substantial excess of large rock, depending on the
hardness of the rock encountered.
SLOPE STABILITY: It should be recognized that cut slopes in metavolcanic rock are often difficult to
grade due to the hardness and fracturing of the rock. The presence of fractured rock sometimes requires
mitigation measures such as buttressing, netting and/or rock anchors. It is recommended that all cut slopes
be observed by the engineering geologist to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions are
encountered..
SELECT GRADING: Highly expansive soils should not be placed within four feet from finish pad grade
and within a horizontal distance of ten feet from the face of fill slopes.
SURFACE DRAINAGE: The drainage around the proposed buildings should be designed.to collect and
direct surface water away from proposed structures and the top of slopes toward approved draining
facilities. Rain gutters on the structures that discharge runoff away from the building are recommend
SCS&T 9911139.1R January 22, 2001 Page No. 3
The ground around the proposed structures should.be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from
the structures without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to structures slope
away at a gradient of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired should
have a minimum gradient of at least five percent within the first five feet from the structure.
The client should be advised that drainage patterns approved at the time of fine grading should be
maintained throughout the life of the proposed structures. They should also be advised to limit site
irrigation to the minimum necessary to sustain landscape growth. Should excessive irrigation, impaired
drainage, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones of perched groundwater conditions may occur.
EARTHWORK: All earthwork and grading contemplated for site preparation should be accomplished in
accordance with the attached Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions. All special site
preparation recommendations presented in the sections above will supersede those in the standard
Recommended Grading Specifications. All embankments, structural fill and fill should be compacted to at
least 90 percent relative compaction at or slightly over optimum moisture content. Utility trench backfill
within five feet of the proposed structures and beneath pavements should be compacted to a minimum of 90
percent of its maximum dry density. The upper twelve inches of subgrade beneath paved areas should be
compacted to 95 percent of its maximum dry density. This compaction should be obtained by the paving
contractor just prior to placing the aggregate base material and should not be part of the mass grading
requirements. The maximum dry density of each soil type should be determined in accordance with ASTM
Test D-1557-91, Method A or C.
FOUNDATION
HORIZONTAL SETBACKS: Retaining wall footings located adjacent to or within slopes should be
extended to a depth such that a minimum horizontal distance of ten feet exists between the face of the slope
and the bottom of the footing.
CONCRETE SLAB REINFORCEMENT: Minimum concrete slab reinforcement 'should consist of at
least No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way.
SCS&T 9911139.1R January 22, 2001 Page No. 4
EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS:The recommendations contained in this report, and the referenced
geotechnical report reflect a nondetrimentally expansive condition resulting from a select grading operation.
If such an operation is not performed revised recommendations will be needed.
EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES
PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be
350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased by one-third for seismic
loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.3 for the resistance to
lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the latter should be reduced by one-
third. The upper 12 inches of soil should not be included in passive pressure calculations.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This
opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
SOUTHERN
CA RNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
P. q Fy .
niel B. dler .C.E. 6037 EXP.6 30-04
DBA:m J'X CW_
cc: (1) Submitted FOF CAt\\F .
(5) San Dieguito Engineering, Inc.
C
SCS&T 99111139.1R January 22, 2001 Appendix A, Page 1
MAYO SUBDIVISION, TPM-207
WILDFLOWER DRIVE, ENCINITAS, 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
Southern California Soil&Testing, Inc., 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 provided 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
recommended rejection of this work.
.SCS&T 99111139.1R January 22, 2001 Appendix A, Page 2
Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following
American Society for Testing and Materials test methods:
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 (he 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 6 inches,
brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of
compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground-which is
defined as natural soils which 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 soils.
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 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 GeotechnipaIN
_SCS&T 99111139.1R January 22, 2001 Appendix A, Page 4
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
Geotechnicat 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.
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 adve
C
SCS&T 99111139.1R January 22, 2001 Appendix A, Page 5
nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading„ these
conditions shall be analyzed by the.Engineering Geologist and Soil 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'the 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
the observation and testing shall not 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 i
RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum 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 Uniform Building Code Standard 29-C.
,SCS&T 99111139.1R January 22, 2001 Appendix A, Page 6
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 is provided by the geotechnical engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils
shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve.
TRANSITION LOTS:Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad,the
cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and
recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report,
special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be
required.
!I'
EN I:!
CI?Y 0�
REPORT OF
GE01MCMIICAL INVESTIGATION
RANCFD DE MAYO SUBDIVISION
TRA V 88-351 RPL
ENCINITA.S, CALIFURNIA
PREPARED FOR:
Mr. Al F. Mayo
1682 Kettering Street
Irvine, California 92714
PREPARED BY:
Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc.
Post Office Box 20627
6280 Riverdale Street
San Diego, California 92120
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A S O I L A N D T E S T I N G , I N C .
6280 RIVERDALE ST. SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 921213 TELE 280.4321 P.O. BOX 20627 SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120
6 7 8 E N T E R P R I S E S T. E S C D N D I D 0, C A L I F. 9 2 0 2 5 T E L E 7 4 6 - 4 5 4 4
May 24, 1989
Mr. Al F. Mayo
1682 Kettering Street SCS&T 8921055
Irvine, California 92714 Report No. 1
SUBJECT: Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Rancho De Mayo Subdivision,
Tract 88-351 RPL, Encinitas, California.
Dear Mr. Mayo:
In accordance with your request, we have completed a geotechnical
investigation for the subject project. The findings and recammendations of
our study are presented herewith.
The findings of this study indicate that the site is suitable for the
proposed development provided the reconvendations presented in the attached
report are followed. The most significant geotechnical conditions affecting
the proposed development is the presence of metavolcanic hardrock in various
degrees of decomposition, highly expansive topsoils and expansive
formational soils intermixed with nonexpansive soils. These conditions will
require special grading consideration as described herein.
If you have any questions after reviewing the findings and reconvendations
contained in the attached report, please do not hesitate to contact this
office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely
appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC.
Charles H. Christian, R.G.E. #00215 ohn R. High, C.E. #1237
CHC:JRH:mw OFESS1
cc: (3) Submitted ��Q g N. Cy Nql ��E D G EOM
(3) San Dieguito Engineering Inc. y�Q ��' �is9F�� \go�,N R. H/�y Off,
(1) SCS&T, Escondido � `' Na 13E000215 z � NO. 1237 NJ
Exp. 9-30-89 CERTIFIED
*
GQ\ 't CP ENGINEERING Q�
`P cF0 \ ' �Q A GEOLOGIST
9 =
qlF C`\� � j� 6-30-90
O
OF CA
S U T H E R N r' G I I c n o AI I w _ - _ _ 1-�F.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PACE
Introduction and Project Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
ProjectScope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
SiteDescription. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
General Geology and Subsurface Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Geologic Setting and Soil Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Artificial Fill (Quaf/Qcaf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Topsoilsand Subsoils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Alluvium (Qal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Lusardi Formation (Kl) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Santiago Peak Metavolcanics (isp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
TectonicSetting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
GeologicHazards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Groundshaking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Grading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
SitePreparation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Rippability Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
RockDisposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Undercutting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Select Grading for Expansive Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
SurfaceDrainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Earthwork. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
SlopeStability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Allowable Slope Height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Fillslope Constructions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Foundations and Interior Slabs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Reinforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
ConcreteSlabs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
SpecialLots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Settlement Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
ExpansiveCharacteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
FoundationPlan Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
EarthRetaining Walls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
PassivePressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
ActivePressure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Backfill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Factorof Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
TAaE OF CCNI'IINTS (continued)
PACE
Review, Observation and Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Uniformity of Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
ChangeIn Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
TimeLimitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
ProfessionalStandard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Client's Responsibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
FieldExplorations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
LaboratoryTesting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
ATTACHMENTS
FIGURE
Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1
PLATES
Plate 1 Plot Plan
Plate 2 Subsurface Exploration Legend
Plates 3-17 Trench Logs
Plate 18 Grain Size Distribution
Plate 19 Rock Disposal
APPF.NDI K
Recommended Grading Specification and Special Provisions
S O U T H E R N 4-S -rm*
� 17
C A L I F O R N I A S O I L A N D T E S T I N G , I N C .
6280 RIVERDALE ST. SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120 TELE 280-4321 P.O. BOX 20627 SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120
6 7 B E N T E R P R I S E S T. E SA C 0�N7-F 0 1 1 0 0. CC A►}L7�I F7. 99 27 0 2 5 T E L E 7 4 6 - 4 5 4 4
l7C/�Jll llll�ll..[]I-1 J1`I YI.:..711tY111CN
RANCHO DE MAYO SUBDIVISION
TRACT 88-351 RPL
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
imIxXX CTIM AMID PROJECT DES(�tIPTI(R�i
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the
proposed Rancho De Mayo Residential Subdivision to be located south of
Bumann Road, in the City of Encinitas, California. The site location is
shown on the vicinity map provided as Figure Number 1 on the following page.
It is our understanding that the site will be developed to receive a 23 lot
residential subdivision. Proposed structures will be one and/or two stories
high and of wood-frame construction. Shallow foundations as well as
conventional slab-on-grade floor systems are anticipated. The proposed
grading concept is to construct the interior streets and to construct
individual building pads on each lot. Based on this, the grading will
consist of cuts and fills less than about 20 feet deep. Proposed cut and
fill slopes will have a maximum height of about 25 feet and 20 feet,
respectively, and will have an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical)
or flatter.
To assist in the preparation of this report we were provided with a
tentative map prepared by San Dieguito Engineering Inc. , dated November 28,
1988. We were also provided with a new undated tentative map by San Dieguito
S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A S 1 L A N D T E B T I W r 1 AI r
E- X�"efl3� r.,fra♦ s Ak4`'E�. ,�„ I eo i� •, .w.w.n i i � � I � i�`
-
a oI' _`:°.c+•,•�`��• o'S� _E.riw, s. I j � ~"Q
� I
j/� i� °.aQii� WVO i SFM►. _ Nf r 1LND
/ pUf
I f I AVFN: ` M
- __ - - �_-_ - I"�- • .s O 4W_. .. _ Ate.. p -- r - � +--- _—_
3u Fr.9� � a ?r� Y«Tib�'T r
'4 oo ! PPj /
a nwu`r cM•. TpTJA yr i a � 1
ozax Avg .} �W ► j v', r ��
Y CARIE—Av w s AASTwo N� �' ca ve M i `JFT imi•`` - r-'"1l f
MAIN 3 ..c.w RD
awrTwcr� try I ! , � S8if1�—Y --
oAO f
xx •y '�� •
elan
n ■■ `
b\ w. 7Tww T WF, rI CA' J
p ~rj
JAN:
.f[�«ur,11G O -'a•r c ��F�E��„•_ °�:� �� �, raM =° uELL A �j � � 1 ' �—
G �■r w r>f�.�_• T rr.aa.�.war i�I J L `�A LJ
I �
__" 74 ri 1 L E i N
s�nuns E°�� 4:. rT°=r...
r sr
St AL
o
ur 't) j�+ rEl TA�•G �'�� ,I% /y��) DE
TTT.... a e� -x. •.:~ 6y_ ,;,r /j am p[la�.�Vy'
NT '
40—
`L W IA■N /
J[
so
``j �4•s ?._—_ _ M N
au■rt u ::o.�,e.�.:a � � a f� 'V Erc c4 I of
K F,,.,,.w c....nr..w M■
9 F PT ,t
lwwuwu
c S9 `
w wiu..rie.uu� q _\ I 104,q
s•
04 `�� d
M F f
.iu. 2 r�� c_ B9 el v tON'AV pO R.
SOUTHERN R.
r SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL A TESTING, INC. BY: CHC/EM DATE: 5-25-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Flqure No. 1
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 2
Engineering that shows one less lot and a slightly smaller area within the
subdivision. This map was used for our base map for our geologic map
presented herewith as Plate Number 1. The site configuration, proposed
grading and approximate locations of our subsurface explorations are shown
on Plate Number 1 of this report.
PR(JJECT SCOPE
The investigation consisted of: surface reconnaissance, subsurface
explorations, obtaining representative disturbed and undisturbed samples,
laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data, research of
available geological literature pertaining to the site, and preparation of
this report. More specifically, the intent of this analysis was to:
a) Explore the subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the
proposed construction.
b) Evaluate, by laboratory tests, the pertinent engineering
properties of the various strata which will influence the develop-
ment, including their bearing capacities, expansive characteris-
tics, settlement potential and rippability characteristics.
c) Describe the general geology at the site including possible
geologic hazards which could have an effect on the site
development.
d) Address potential construction difficulties such as rippability of
rock materials and provide recommendations concerning these
problems.
e) Develop soil engineering criteria for site grading and provide
design information regarding the stability of cut and fill slopes.
f) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of
structures anticipated and develop soil engineering design
criteria for the recommended foundation design.
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 3
FINDINGS
SITS D UMC1N
The subject site is an irregular shaped parcel of land located near the
southern terminus of Rancho De Mayo in the Olivenhain area of Encinitas,
California. The site covers approximately 52.5 acres and is bounded by
undeveloped land on the south and east and residential property as well as
undeveloped land on the north and west. Topographically, the site is
comprised of hilly terrain with well incised drainage courses located on the
eastern, western, southern and central portions of the site. Elevations
range from approximately 315 feet (MSL) at the southern boundary to
approximately 110 feet (MSL) at the most eastern boundary of the site.
Slopes range from very gentle to relatively steep, with some inclination
being on the order of 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) . Drainage is
accomplished via sheetflow and in the well incised drainage courses. It
should be noted that an earthen dam and a few earthen dikes have been
constructed across two of the drainage courses on the central and eastern
portions of the site, respectively. In addition, another earthen dam exists
immediately off-site and adjacent to the northern property boundary. The
locations of the dam and dikes are indicated on Plate Number 1. No water was
noted in the drainage courses, but dense vegetation which would indicate
near surface moisture exists within the two water retention areas which have
been dammed. Vegetation consists of native grasses and weeds with the denser
brush and trees located within drainage courses.
The site was previously used for agricultural purposes and large boulders
cleared from the cultivated areas have been placed in piles throughout the
site. These piles of large boulders and soil are indicated on Plate Number 1
as undocumented fill (Quaf) . Previous grading on site has also resulted in
two large pads being constructed on the southern portion of the site.
No structures were nc.ted on site, however overhead utility lines wens noted
along the western property line and a sewer manhole was noted on the
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 4
western portion of the site. The sewer manhole is located in a concrete slab
and the location is shown on Plate Number 1. The direction in which the
sewer main traverses was not determined.
CSI, CE)OLOGY AM SC SUIRFAM CONDITICUS
GECLOGIC SEiTIM AM SOIL The subject site is located near the
boundary between the Coastal Plains and Foothills Physiographic Province of
San Diego County and is underlain by Jurassic-age Santiago Peak Meta-
volcanics, Cretaceous-age Lusardi Formation, Quaternary-age alluvium,
associated residuum and artificial fill. A brief description of soil units
are presented below and the approximate limits of them are indicated on
Plate Number 1.
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Quaf/Qcaf) : The fills noted on site consist of
nonengineered agricultural fill (Quaf) and engineered fill (Qcaf) . The
engineered fill is located on the two large pads located on the southern
portion of the site. We understand that the fill was placed in 1982
under the observation of San Dieguito Soils, Inc., however, we have not
been provided with documentation verifying this understanding. The
engineered fill appears to range up to approximately ten feet in
thickness and is comprised of humid, medium dense, brown to light brawn,
silty sand and clayey sand with some rock fragments.
The agricultural fills consists of an earthen dam and small dikes as
well as stockpiles of soils and large boulders which have been cleared
from the cultivated areas. Some of this fill has been indicated on Plate
Number 1. However, isolated areas of unidentified agricultural fills are
anticipated to exist on site and should be exposed during the
development of this site. These fills appear to range up to
approximately seven feet in thickness and are not suitable, in their
present condition, to receive settlement sensitive structures or fills.
TOPSOILS Aim SUBSOILS: The topsoils and subsoils range to depths of
approximately six feet below the existing ground surface. The topsoils
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 5
typically consist of loose, humid, brown to dark brown, silty sand and
clayey sand. The underlying subsoils are generally highly expansive,
humid and medium stiff to stiff, brown to grey brown clay and sandy
clay.
ALLUVIM (Qal): The alluvium noted on site is located in the narrow
confines of the drainage courses and in the water retention reservoirs
behind the two earthen dams shown on Plate Number 1. The thicknesses of
alluvium is anticipated to be between approximately two feet and eight
feet and comprised of loose, humid, mixtures of gravels, cobbles, sands
and clays.
LUSARDI FORMATION (Kl) : The central northern and, central western
portions of the site are underlain by the Lusardi Formation. The Lusardi
Formation was encountered underlying the topsoils and subsoils at depths
ranging from approximately one foot to 5.5 feet below the existing
grades. The Lusardi Formation on site consists of dense to very dense,
greenish tan, grey and rusty brown, silty sand and clayey sand to sandy
clay. The silty sands typically have relatively good strength
parameters, however, the sandy clays have relatively low shear
strengths. If the clays are exposed in cut slopes shallow, surficial
slope stability will need to be addressed. It is recommended that a
qualified engineering geologist observe all cut slopes during the
proposed development.
SANTIAGO PEAR 14ETAVOLCANICS (Jsp) : The approximate limits of the
Santiago Peak Metavolcanic bedrock is indicated on Plate Number 1. The
upper contact of this formation was encountered at depths ranging from
the ground surface to approximately six feet below the existing grades.
The Santiago Peak Metavolcanic bedrock is comprised of fractured
hardrock which weathers to a fine, silty, clayey soils with angular rock
fragments. The highly fractured weathered bedrock ranges from
approximately one fcot to eleven feet in thickness. Underlying the
highly fractured and weathered metavolcanics, the bedrock becomes less
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 6
fractured and very dense hardrock. Excavation refusal with the backhoe
was encountered at depths as shallow as three feet below the ground
surface. Unless the Santiago Peak Metavolcanic bedrock is highly
fractured and weathered, typically light trenching equipment cannot
excavate this bedrock material. It should be noted that isolated
hardrock floaters within rippable materials are anticipated to exist on
site. The size or locations of these hardrock floaters are not readily
identifiable but should be anticipated to be encountered during grading.
TDCIC�IIC �: No 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
which typically consist of several en echelon faults that generally strike
in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and
the individual faults within the zone) are classified as active while others
are classified as only potentially active according to the criteria of the
California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those
which have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch
(the most recent 11,000 years) while potentially active fault zones have
demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 2 million
years before the present) but no movement during Holocene time.
A review of available geologic maps indicates that the site is approximately
10 miles east of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Recent earthquake activity
along faults in the southern extension of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone
indicate that this zone could be classified as active. The recent seismic
events along a small portion of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone generated
earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 or less. Other active fault zones in the region
that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Banks and San
Clemente Fault Zones to the west and the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault
Zones to the northeast.
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 7
G E01=C HAZARDS
GENERAL: The site is located in an area which is relatively free of
potential geologic hazards. Hazards such as tsunamis, seiches, and
landsliding should be considered negligible or nonexistent.
GROUNDSHAKING: The most likely geologic hazard to affect the site is
groundshaking as a result of movement along one of the major, active fault
zones mentioned above. The maximum bedrock accelerations that would be
attributed to a maxi.num probable earthquake occurring along the nearest
portion of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in
the following table.
TABLE I
Maxie m Probable Bedrock Design
Fault Zone Distance Earthquake Acceleration Acceleration
Rose Canyon 10 miles 6.0 magnitude 0.26 g 0.18 g
Elsinore 23 miles 7.3 magnitude 0.21 g 0.14 g
San Jacinto 44 miles 7.3 magnitude 0.14 g 0.10 g
Earthquakes on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is expected to be relatively
minor. Major seismic events are likely to be the result of movement along
the San Jacinto or Elsinore Fault Zones.
GROUNDNATER: No groundwater was encountered during our subsurface
exploration and we do not anticipate any major groundwater related problems,
either during or after construction. However, depending on the season of
the year when grading is accomplished, saturated soils may be encountered
within the drainage courses and within the water retention areas which are
dammed at the present. In addition, it should be recognized that minor
groundwater seepage probltim may occur after development of a site even
where none were present before development. These are usually minor
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 8
phenomena and are often the result of an alteration of the permeability
characteristics of the soil, an alteration in drainage patterns and an
increase in irrigation water. Based on the permeability characteristics of
the soil and the anticipated usage of the development, it is our opinion
that any seepage problems which may occur will be minor in extent. It is
further our opinion that these problems can be most effectively corrected on
an individual basis if and when they develop.
CCNCLIISICNS
Based on the results of this investigation, it is our opinion that the site
may be developed as proposed, provided the recommendations presented in this
report are complied with. The most significant geotechnical conditions
exposed that will affect site development is the presence of hard rock in
portions of the site that may require blasting or difficult excavation, and
the presence of moderately to highly expansive topsoils and some strata of
moderately expansive sedimentary deposits. These conditions are discussed
further in the appropriate sections below. In addition, two pads have
already been constructed that contain what we believe to be engineered fills
(Qcaf) . In order for these fills to be allowed to remain, it will be
necessary to obtain documentation, by the soils engineer who tested and
observed the placement of these fills, that the fills were properly placed
and are suitable to support settlement sensitive structures. If this
documentation cannot be obtained, the fills will need to be removed and
replaced under our observation.
MCOMMENDATIONS
GRMIM
SITE PREPARATICNS: The site preparation should begin with the removal of all
vegetation and other materials determined by the soil engineer to be
detrimental to structural fills, from areas to be graded and/or to receive
improvements. This material should be disposed of off-site. once this is
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 9
accomplished, the areas to be graded should be stripped of all loose
topsoils, subsoils and alluvial deposits to firm formational soils and be
replaced as structural fill. The existing undocumented fills should also be
removed, including the small dikes and drainage retention structures.
RIPPABILITY CHARACTERISTICS: Several of our backhoe trenches encountered
refusal on hard rocky materials at relatively shallow depths. These trenches
were in the areas mapped as being underlain by metavolcanic rock (Jsp) . The
shallowest hard rock appears to be located in two general areas. One area is
the knoll in the vicinity of Hats 11, 15 and 16 (see Trench Numbers 6, 7 and
11) . The second area is now off-site in the knoll in the vicinity of Trench
Number 14. Cuts in these areas will require heavy ripping and may require
some blasting.
The materials generated by blasting and where heavy ripping is necessary
will most likely consist of fractured rock with few fines. Some of the rock
produced by blasting may be oversized for use in structural fills and may
need to be placed in nonstructural fill areas, or be split into smaller
sizes. Placement of oversize rock in fills is discussed below.
ROCK DISPOSAL: It is anticipated that oversize rock will be generated during
grading operations. Oversized rock is defined as rock over 24 inches in
diameter. This material may be utilized for landscaping purposes, exported
from the site or be split into pieces smaller than two feet in maximnun
dimension, and incorporated in structural fills. Rock between six inches and
two feet in maximum dimension should be placed in accordance with the
specifications presented on Plate Number 19 and should be placed such that
no nesting occurs and the soil surrounding the rock is properly compacted.
In addition, oversized material may be placed in structural fills as
indicted on Plate Number 19.
: It is recommended that the cut portions of daylight lots and
all lots that required blasting and/or heavy ripping be undercut to a depth
of three feet below finish grade. Further, streets that pass through hard
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 10
rock areas should be undercut such that the underground utilities can be
installed. As an alternative to undercutting the entire street, selected
areas may be undercut and the deepest trenches may be concentrated there.
All undercut areas should be filled with properly compacted,
nondetrimentally expansive soils.
SELECT GRADING FOR EXPANSIVE SOILS: The topsoils and subsoils overlying the
Lusardi Formation (K1) were found to have high to very high expansive
potential. In addition, some of the soils within the Lusardi Formation and
some of the highly weathered metavolcanic rock material were found to be
moderately expansive. In order to use standard foundation and slab design,
we recommend that soils with high and very high expansive potential not be
allowed within four feet of finish pad grade. Moderately expansive soils
should not be allowed within three feet of finish grade. Where expansive
soils occur naturally within these limits, they should be removed and be
replaced with nondetrimentally expansive soil. When used in fill, expansive
soils should be placed only below the limits recommended above. If it is
desired not to use select grading to mitigate the expansive soil conditions,
special foundation and slab design will be necessary. Such design
recommendations should be made on a lot by lot basis after grading when it
can be determined to what extent the expansive soils will exist.
SUHF!ACE DRAIINAM: It is recommended that all surface drainage be directed
away from the structures and that ponding of water not be allowed adjacent
to their foundation.
EAR'ItS URK: All earthwork and grading contemplated for site preparation
should be accomplished in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading
Specifications and Special Provisions. All special site preparation
recommendations presented in the sections above will supersede those in the
standard Recommended Grading Specifications. All embankments, structural
fill and fill should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction at or
slightly over optimum moisture content. Utility trench backfill within five
feet of the proposed structures and beneath asphalt pavements should be
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 11
compacted to miniirnun of 90% of its maxinnun dry density. The upper twelve
inches of subgrade beneath paved areas should be compacted to 95% of its
maximum dry density. This compaction should be obtained by the paving
contractor just prior to placing the aggregate base material and should not
be part of the mass grading requirements. The maximum dry density of each
soil type should be determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. Test Method
D-1557-78, Method A or C.
SLGIPE SPABIEXTY
GENERAL: The native soils on-site are predominantly sandy and/or rock like
materials of sedimentary or metavolcanic origin. The rock materials will
have extremely high strength parameters in both cut and fill slopes.
However, with the metavolcanic rock, fines will probable need to be mixed
with the rock fragments to produce a compactable material. The stability of
fill slopes will therefore be affected by the strength of the matrix
material. The sands of the Lusardi Formation have relatively high strength
parameters in both cut and fill slopes. The clayey topsoils and subsoils
have relatively weak strength parameters and should not be allowed within a
distance from the face of fill slopes equal to three-fourths the slope
height. The clayey portions of the Lusardi Formation also have relatively
weak strength parameters. These soils should not be placed in fills near the
face of the slope and should not be allowed in cut slopes over 15 feet high.
If exposed in higher cut slopes, buttressing may be necessary. It should be
determined during grading if buttressing is necessary and what the shape of
the buttress should be.
ALTOWAME SUIPE HEIR: Cut slopes made in the metavolcanic rock to the
maximum planned height of 25 feet will have a factor-of-safety well above
the standard of 1.5 in regards to deep-seated failure or surficial failure.
All cut slopes in this material should, however, be observed by a member of
our engineering geology staff for evidence of adverse joint patterns or
unstable rock loosened by the excavation. The proposed cut slopes in the
Lusardi Formation, for the height of 15 feet or less at an inclination of
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 12
2:1, will also have a factor-of-safety in excess of the minimum friction of
1.5. Fill slopes constructed on the silty sands and clayey sands of the
Lusardi Formation and/or the rocky materials obtained from cuts in the
metavolcanic rock, that are made at a slope inclination of 2.0 horizontal to
1.0 vertical for the maximum proposed height of 20 feet, will have a
factor-of-safety of at least 1.5 for deep seated (rotational) and surficial
failures.
FILL SLOPE CCMIW=CNS: All fill slopes should be compacted by back-
rolling with a sheepsfoot roller at intervals of four feet or less. Once
completed, the fill slopes should be track-rolled to compact the near
surface soils. No surface run-off should be allowed to flow aver the top of
slopes and the slopes should be planted with erosion resistant landscaping.
Iceplant types of groundcover should not be used on slopes.
FOUNDATIONS AND INTERIOR SLABS
GENERAL: Provided no detrimentally expansive soils will exist on the
building pads, within the limits discussed above under "Select Grading",
conventional shallow footings can be used for the support of the proposed
structures. Footings should be founded at least 12 inches and 18 inches
below lowest adjacent finished pad grade for one and two-story structures,
respectively. The minimum width for continuous and isolated footings should
be 12 inches and 24 inches, respectively. Such footings may be designed for
an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2000 psf.. The bearing pressure may be
increased by one-third when considering wind and/or seismic loading.
: It is recommended that minimum reinforcement consist of at
least two No. 5 reinforcing bars, one located near the top of the footings
and one near the bottom. This reinforcement is based on soil characteristics
and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy
structural considerations.
CONCRETE SLABS: Concrete on-grade slabs should have a minimum actual
thickness of four inches and be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 13
placed at 36 inches on center each way. A 6"x6"-W1.4xW1.4 welded wire mesh
may be utilized in lieu of the reinforcement bars. It is imperative that
slab reinforcing be properly placed near the middle of the slab in order to
be effective. A four-inch-thick layer of coarse, poorly graded sand or rock
should be placed underneath the slab. Where moisture-sensitive floor
coverings are planned, the slab should also be underlain by a visqueen
moisture barrier over the sand blanket with one-inch-thick layer of clean
sand provided above the visqueen to allow proper concrete curing.
SPDCIAL IOM's: Special lots are defined as daylight lots where the fill
thickness exceeds 10 feet, and fill lots where the fill differential exceeds
15 feet. For these lots, minimum foundation reinforcement should be
increased to two No. 5 reinforcing bars near the top of the footing and two
near the bottom. In addition, minimum slab-on-grade reinforcement should be
increased to No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches on center each way
or a 6"x6"-W2.9xW2.9 welded wire mesh.
SETrTEMWr C ARACIEEZSTICS: The anticipated total and/or differential
settlements for the proposed structure may be considered to be within
tolerable limits provided the recommendations presented in this report are
followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in
concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or
redistribution of stresses and some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks
are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements.
EXPANSIVE C ARAC.LERISTICS: The recommendations contained in this report
assume that nondetrimentally expansive conditions will exist after grading
is complete. If this is not the case, revised recommendations will be
necessary.
FOUNDATICN PLAN REVIEW: The foundation plan should be submitted to this
office for review to ascertain that the recommendation provided in this
report have been implemented end the assumptions utilized in preparing this
report are still applicable.
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 14
EAF1TH RETAINING WALIS
PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions
may be considered to be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This
pressure may be increased one-third for seismic loading. The coefficient of
friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.40 for the resistance
to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the
friction value should be reduced by one-third. The upper six inches of soil
adjacent to exterior retaining wall footings should not be included in
passive pressures calculations.
ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of earth retaining
structures with level backfills may be assumed to be equivalent to the
pressure of a fluid weighing 35 pounds per cubic foot for walls free to move
at the top (unrestrained walls) . An additional 15 pounds per cubic foot
should be assumed for 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) sloping backfill. These
pressures do not consider any other surcharge. If any other are anticipated,
this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure.
This value assumes a drained backfill condition. Waterproofing and wall
drainage details should be provided by the project architect.
BAf KF EL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90% 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.
FACTOR OF SAFETY: The above values, with the exception of the allowable soil
friction coefficient do not include a factor of safety. Appropriate factors
of safety should be incorporated into the design to prevent the walls from
overturning and sliding.
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 15
LIMTTATIMS
REVIEW, U=CN AMID TESTING
The recomuendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review
of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be
made available to the soil engineer and engineering geologist so that they
may review and verify their compliance with this report and with Chapter 70
of the Uniform Building Code.
It is recommended that Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. be retained
to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork
operations. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts,
specifications or recomrendations and to allow design changes in the event
that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of
construction.
OF ClQ�IDITICfl�S
The recomrendations 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 the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate
appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the
4 performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced
by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may
occur in the interrediate 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 soils engineer so that he may make
modifications if necessary.
CMIM IN SCE
This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or
proposed site grading so that it may be determined if the ions
i
contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or
modified by a written addendum.
t
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 16
TDE LIMI'P MCNS
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 be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or
adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the State-of-the-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 the suitability of the
conclusions and recommendations.
PAX17ESSIONAL SMEAM
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 borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and
that our data, interpretations, and recommendations are 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 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.
fir'S RESPCNSIBMITY
- It is the responsibility of Mr. Al F. Mayo, or his representatives to ensure
W that the information and recommendations contained herein are wrought to the
attention of the engineer and architect for the project and incorporated
i
-a
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 17
into the project's plans and specifications . It is further his
responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor
and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during constriction.
FIELD FXPf f 1RATIONS
Fourteen subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on the
attached Plate Number 1 on April 13 and 14, 1989 . These explorations
consisted of trenches dug by means of a backhoe. The field work was
conducted under the observation of our engineering geology personnel.
The explorations were carefully logged when made. These logs are presented
on the following Plates Number 3 through 17. The soils are described in
accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System as illustrated on
the attached simplified chart on Plate 2. 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 consistency of
silts or clays is given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very
stiff, or hard.
Disturbed and "undisturbed" samples of typical and representative soils were
obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing.
LABORATORY TESTIM
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted
American Society for Testing and Materials (A.S.T.M. ) 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.
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 18
b) NDISIURE-DENS=: Field moisture content and dry density were
determined for representative samples obtained. 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 field
moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry
weight. The results are summarized in the trench logs.
C) (MAIN SIZE The grain size distribution was
determined for representative samples of the native soils in
accordance with A.S.T.M. Standard Test D-422. The results of
these tests are presented on Plate Number 18.
d) CUWAMCN The maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content of typical soils were determined in the laboratory in
accordance with A.S.T.M. Standards Test D-1557-78, Method A. The
results of these tests are presented below.
COMPAMCK TEST RESULTS
optimum
Sample Maximum Moisture
Number Description Density Content
T 1 @ 2'-3' Clayey Silty Sand 116.7 pcf 13.3%
T11 @ 6'-7' Very Silty Sand 109.0 pcf 18.1%
T12 @ 7'-8' Sandy Clay/Clayey Sand 123.1 pcf 10.5%
e) ESPAIZSICN INIM TEST: Expansion index tests on remolded samples
were performed on representative samples of soils likely to be
present at finish grade. The tests were performed on the portion
of the samples passing the #4 standard sieve. The samples were
bi.rnzght to optimum moisture content then dried back to a constant
moisture content for 12 hours at 230 +/- 9 degrees Fahrenheit.
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 19
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%. 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 psf) , and the samples were allowed to
consolidate for a period of 10 minutes. The samples were allowed
to become saturated, and the change in vertical movement was
recorded until the rate of expansion became nominal. The
expansion index test results are reported below as the total
vertical displacement times the fraction of the sample passing
the #4 sieve times 1000.
CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION
1-20 very low
21-50 low
51-90 medium,
91-130 high
Above 130 very high
EXPANSICN INDEX TEST RESULTS
Initial Interior Final
Sample Moisture Density Moisture Expansion
Number % pcf % Index Classification
T1 @ 2'-3' 10.8 106.1 21.4 20 Very Low
T3 @ 3'-4' 11.2 105.5 26.5 70 Medium
T4 @ 2'-3' 14.0 95.6 35.6 145 Very High
T8 @ 4'-5' 9.6 111.5 19.8 40 Low
T12 @ 1'-2' 13.4 98.2 31.3 127 High
T12 @ 7'-8' 10.3 108.8 22.8 63 Medium
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1988 Page 20
f) DIRECT SHEAR TESTS: Direct shear tests were performed on
samples of the native soils remolded to 90 percent relative
compaction to determine the failure envelope based on yield shear
strength. The shear box was designed to accomodate a sample
having diameters of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of
1.0 inch. Samples were tested at different vertical loads and a
saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a
constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute.
The results of these tests are presented below.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Sample Angle of Apparent
Number Condition Internal Friction Cohesion
T1 @ 2'-3' Remolded 31 degrees 200 pcf
T10 @ 6'-7' Remolded 26 degrees 375 pcf
T12 @ 7'-8' Remolded 11 degrees 275 pcf
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES
I. COARSE GRAINED, more than half
of material is la� rger than
No. 200 sieve size.
GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels, gravel-
orF(a than half of sand mixtures, little or no
coarse fraction is fines.
larger than No. 4 GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel
sieve size but sand mixtures, little or no
smaller than 3". fines.
GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels, poorly graded
(Appreciable amount gravel-sand-silt mixtures.
of fines) GC Clayey gravels, poorly
graded gravel-sand, clay
mixtures.
SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand, gravelly
More than half of sands, little or no fines.
coarse fraction is SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly
smaller than No. 4 sands, little or no fines.
sieve size.
SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, poorly graded
(Appreciable amount sand and silty mixtures.
of fines) Sc Clayey sands, poorly graded
sand and clay mixtures.
II. FINE GRAINED, more than
half of material is smaller
than No. 200 sieve size.
SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very
fine sands, rock flour, sandy
silt or clayey-silt-sand
mixtures with slight plas-
ticity.
Liquid Limit CL Inorganic clays of low to
less than 50 medium plasticity, gravelly
clays, sandy clays, silty
clays, lean clays.
OL Organic silts and organic
silty clays or low plasticity.
SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous
or diatomaceous fine sandy
or silty soils, elastic
silts.
Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of high
greater than 50 plasticity, fat clays.
OH Organic clays of medium
to high plasticity.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly
organic soils.
-_ — Waufr level at time of excavation CK Undisturbed chunk sample
or as indicated BG — Bulk sample
US — Undistu,'bed, driven ring sample
SP — S+3ndard penetration sample
or tube sample
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL A TESTING, INC. BY: CHC DATE: 5-22-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plat 2
t
Z } ae
Wa ° TRENCH NUMBERI w ►}- ae z
Ul N cc
~ U W H N z _ 7 f f'
` J_
= LL ELEVATION z �" V
f- ¢
J O < y < y W O ° to W < <
CL N y a 0 d y G L 9L Z
Ul
N v DESCRIPTION
0
SM/ SANTIAGO PEAK FORMATION, Humid Very
SC Brown to Light Brown, Frac- Dense
1 tured Rock With Localized
Weathering to SILTY CLAYEY
SAND, METAVOLCANIC BEDROCK
2
BG
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
End of Trench at 1100'
No Refusal
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
< > SOIL & TESTINGjINCi. LOGGED BY: JBR DATE LOGGED: 4-13-89
JOB NUMBER'. 8921055 Plate No. 3-
Z
}
LU ° TRENCH NUMBER 2 = W Z Z �_ W �? W o
F, < W W W fA N f. > -
.. J U M — 2 H U
= J 0 LL ELEVATION < y < N W 0 N W < <
~ a y 0 as 0 a y G —ex _ a
C < < < 0 0 oc O at O
U
N U DESCRIPTION U V
0
SC/ FILL, Brown to Light Brown, Humid Medium
SM CLAYEY SILTY SAND With Rock Dense
1 Fragments
BG
2
3
4
5
6
7
SANTIAGO PEAK FORMATION, Very
Brown to Light Brown, Frac- Dense
8 � � tured, METAVOLCANIC BEDROCK
9 ��
Near Refusal
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
SOIL & TESTING,INC. LOGGED BY: JBR DATE LOGGED: 4-13-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plate No. 4
2
CL ° TRENCH NUMBER 3 W v z
J V W ? W W N y _ ; O
a ELEVATION ¢ Cr ~ Z z - r ~
= J _ < to < Nl W W v f- Z F- U
F- N1 a a C G a N W < <
d U) N J 0.
o < < < a < 0 00 ¢ zp cc 0
N V DESCRIPTION U
0 V U
SM TOPSOIL, Dark Brown, SILTY Dry Loose
SAND
1
CH SUBSOIL, Dark Reddish Brown, Humid Stiff
BG SANDY CLAY
2
CL/ SANTIAGO PEAK FORMATION, Humid Stiff
CH Brown, Highly Weathered,
3 SANDY SILTY CLAY, METAVOL
CANIC BEDROCK
BG
4i
5
SC Brown to Light Brown, Frac- Humid Very
tured, NETAVOLCANIC BEDROCK Dense
6
7
End of Trench at 7.0'
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
SOIL do TESTING,INC. LOGGED BY: JBR DATE LOGGED: 4-13-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plate No. _5
z aQ
W °
a TRENCH NUMBER4 W �_ ' _� ae z
Q z ~ W W
_ } W = W N °
F U ¢ W z _ ►" ►-
` J
= J O LL ELEVATION t y ` N W W w � Z F- U
_ _ U
CL a y y d O IL to a N f- J a
LLI I Q = Q z W
0 ` ° ° ° °
0 y V OESCRIRTION V V V
SM TOPSOIL, Dark Brown, SILTY Humid Loose
SANDY, With Rock Fragments
1
2 CH SUBSOIL, Greyish Green, Medium Stiff
SANDY CLAY
3
CK 94.5 27.4
4 ( BG
5
6 SM LUSARDI FORMATION, Greenish Humid Dense
Tan, SILTY SAND
CK 121.2 12.2
7 BG
End of Trench at 7.0'
1
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
SOIL TESTING,INC. LOGGED BY: JBR DATE LOGGED: 4-13-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plate No. 6
Z
W ° TRENCH NUMBERS r
=r }
U r< W p N
Z
Z Z Z t: O
W W W
CC ZW Z J ELEVATION y a o y W
N a y a N a F-
CL <
r J a
ul I W < _ } Z W
< < < ° O It O O
N v OESCRIPTION V ° V v
0
TOPSOIL, Dark Brown, SILTY Dry Loose
SAND
1 rLs'M SANTIAGO PEAK FORMATION, Humid Stiff
Brown, SANDY SILTY CLAY,
2
Highly Weathered
Brown to Light Brown, Frac- Humid Very
tured Rock With Localized Dense
3 Weathering to SILTY SAND,
METAVOLCANIC BEDROCK
1/
4
BG �\
5
�\ J
6
7
t
8 }/~
End of Trench at 8.0'
TRENCH NUMBER 6
0
SM TOPSOIL, Dark Brown, SILTY Dry Loose
SAND
1
SM SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS, Humid Dense
BG tBrown to Reddish Brown, Wea-
1 thered to SILTY SAND, META_
VOLCANIC BEDROCK
3 UNWEATHERED, Brown �o Grey, Very
Fractured, METAVOLCANIC BED- Dense
ROCK
Refusal at 3.0'
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
SOIL A TESTING,INC. LOGGED BY: dBR DATE LOGGED: 4-13-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plate No. 7
z
a ° TRENCH NUMBER 7 W ►- v '' ►'- ae z
Z Q Z z F- _ W — W O
Q N
~ U W = W W Z z _ f'
J 2 H y Z
_ ELEVATION t N W W �.. z F- U
a v°i ° a y o °a y � a
CL < a O= Q ¢ Z 0
O p V O
0 v DESCRIPTION V
SM TOPSOIL, Dark Brown, SILTY Dry Loose to
SAND Medium
1 Dense
i
BG
i .
2
SM/ SANTIAGO PEAK FORMATION, Humid Very
CL Brown to Light Brown, Weath- Dense
3 ering to SILTY SAND to SANDY
CK CLAY, METAVOLCANIC BEDROCK
4
Fractured Rock
Near Refusal at 5.0'
i
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
SOIL & TESTING,INC. LOGGED BY: JBR DATE LOGGED: 4-13-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plate No. 8
z
a °- TRENCH NUMBERS �- w F- v z
Y ~ Z z z ~ w — w O
_ Q
= J O LL ELEVATION Q y a to G o a �-. Z U
a cn N a (a y a
CL U) Q a Z cc > z w 2
o Q Q Q 0 O c 0 O
0 v DESCRIPTION V U v
SM TOPSOIL, Dark Brown, SILTY Dry Loose
SAND
1 CH SUBSOIL, Brown to Greyish Humid to Stiff
Brown, SANDY CLAY Moist
2
3
4 SC LUSARDI FORMATION, Greenish Humid Dense
Tan With Rust Stains, CLAY-
CK EY SAND 107.6 13.7
5 BG
6
End of Trench at 6.0'
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
SOIL & TESTING,INC■ LOGGED BY. JBR DATE LOGGED: 4-13-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plate No. 9
z ,Q
CL
Uj ° TRENCH NUMBER9 ►- w i- v —
z
z oc z z ~ — w W O
_ a w cc
= J u ELEVATION t to W w Z F- U
(n a a o ° a y w -C 41C
a. 0 a IL
u < < Q z Q z W 2
t 0 0 O O
0 U DESCRIPTION V O V v
SM TOPSOIL, Dark Brown, SILTY Dry Loose
SAND
1 CH SUBSOIL, Grey to Brown, Humid to Stiff
BG SANDY CLAY Moist
2
3
4 SM LUSARDI FORMATION, Greenish Humid Dense
Tan to Brown, SILTY SAND
5
JLBG
6
K 110.6 18.4
7
8
9
10
End of Trench at 10.0'
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
SOIL & TESTING,INC. LOGGED BY: JBR DATE LOGGED: 4-14-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plate No. 10
z
a ° TRENCH NUMBER 10 �- w v z
} < Z z z W — W O
F- W W W to N Q
J V < y C y Z Z � M �_ H
= J O ELEVATION W f. Z 1- V
0 - a < - w o ° N W < <
a a 0 N a O
o < < < OZ C z0 x
N v DESCRIPTION V V v
O CH SUBSOIL, Dark Brown, SANDY Humid Firm
CLAY
1 SM LUSARDI FORMATION, Greenish Humid Dense
Grey With Rust Stains Weath-
2 ered to SILTY SAND
Occasional Caliche Stringers
to 7'
3
4
5
6
BIG
7
8
9
10
CK 118.6 6.2
11
End of Trench at 11.0'
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
SOIL S TESTING,INC. LOGGED BY: JBR DATE LOGGED: 4-14-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plate No. 11
z
a ° TRENCH NUMBER 11 �- w v } z
Y ~ Z Q Z = ~ � w L" O
Q co tL
-� � ►' Z Z — O F- H
= J O LL ELEVATION Q y cA w o y W
CL a
to (n a 0 a y c a r- � a
Vf = � O Z w
w Q Q Q Q O Q pC O CC
O
N v OESCRIPTION
0
SM TOPSOIL, Dark Brown, SILTY Dry Loose
SAND
1
SM SANTIAGO PEAK FORMATION, Tan Humid Dense to
With Rust Stains, Weathering Very
2 to SILTY SAND, METAVOLCANIC Dense
BEDROCK
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 Near Refusal at 9.0'
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
SOIL ATESTING,INCi. LOGGED Br: JBR DATE LOGGED: 4-14-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plate No. 12
Z
_ a ° TRENCH NUMBER 12 W
Z 2 W _ W
Q W = W W co N ' O
J V � f- CC F- Z Z _ Z E- U
= J O LL ELEVATION < U) t W W G v y W
r-
a N x a 0 d y G .J a
a 0 n z aC
ui ` a 0 0 ¢ O W. O
N U
U DESCRIPTION U O U
0 SM TOPSOIL, Dark Brown, SILTY Dry Loose
SAND
1
CL/ SUBSOIL, Dark Reddish Brown Humid Stiff
CH to Greyish Brown, SANDY CLAY to Moist
2 , BG
3
CK 109.6 17.2
4
SC/ LUSARDI FORMATION, Grey to Humid Dense
CL Rust, CLAYEY SAND to SANDY to Moist
5 CLAY
6
7
BG
8
CK 122.3 10.2
9
10
End of Trench at 12.0'
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
SOIL & TESTING,INC. LOGGED BY: JBR DATE LOGGED: 4-14-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plate No. 13
z ;e
a ° TRENCH NUMBER 13 ►- W I.- z
Z z ~ W W
- � Q
N Q
.. � U W � W W <A
= J O LL ELEVATION t N z ►- V
_ aC
►- a y N a ~ a y G °
IL a = ¢ y O z W 2
w t < a 0 0 cc O cc O
y v OESCRIPTION V O U v
0
CH SUBSOIL, Dark Brown to Brown Humid Firm
SANDY CLAY to Moist
1
2
SC/ LUSARDI FORMATION, Grey With Humid Dense
CL Rust Stains, SANDY CLAY to to Moist to Hard
3 CLAYEY SAND
4
5
6
End of Trench at 6.0'
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
4
SOIL A TESTING,INC. LOGGED Br: dBR DATE LOGGED: 4-14-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plate No. 14
z � > 3Q
W ° TRENCH NUMBER14 �- W v t ae z
H Z M z z - - W - W O
N
J U ` N M Z z _ F H
_ W O LL ELEVATION W
_ W W
a N to a 0 d N O G a '�CL
N U U U
v DESCRIPTION
0 CL/ SUBSOIL, Dark Brown to Brown Moist Stiff
CH SANDY CLAY
1
2
3
CK 117.4 23.4
4 ! BG
5
6 SC/ SANTIAGO FORMATION, Grey to Humid Dense
SM Brown, Weathering to SILTY
7 SAND to CLAYEY SAND, META-
CK VOLCANIC BEDROCK 113.8 17.3
BG
Fractured Rock Very
L/\ Dense
9
Near Refusal at 8.0'
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
SOIL A TESTING,INC. LOGGED BY: ,JBR DATE LOGGED: 4-14-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plate No. 15
z
a ° TRENCH NUMBER 1S W ae z
f' z z F' W — W
W W W
} <
} U O N N } > f-
J_ 2 F.. � F- Z z
= u. ELEVATION z E- U
< W
J O < N O y W < <
~ a y y a ° a N G a
CL a =
ui < < < O p O O
N V OESCRIRTION U O U V
0
CH SUBSOIL, Dark Reddish Brown, Humid Firm
SANDY CLAY to Moist
1
BG
2
SC LUSARDI FORMATION, Greenish Humid Dense
Tan to Rust, CLAYEY SAND
3
4
5
6
, CK 142.7 6.7
7
8
End of Trench at 8.0'
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
SOIL a[ TESTING,INC. LOGGED BY: JBR DATE LOGGED: 4-14-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 P1 a to Nn IA
Z
_ a ° TRENCH NUMBER 16 ►- w v Z
< w Z Z - v1 owC — w O
.. -J U � F- � f-UA
Z Z '
= J LL ELEVATION
CL 0 <a y a y o 0 a H w <
CL a 0 y _ f- a
U1 t < Q Z } O Z w
N v
0 OESCRIRTION v U v
CL/ SUBSOIL, Dark Grey to Brown, Humid Firm to
CH SANDY CLAY to Moist Stiff
1
2
CK 104.8 17.3
3
4 SM SANTIAGO PEAK FORMATION, Tan Humid Dense
With Rust, Highly Weathered, to Very
SILTY SAND, METAVOLCANIC Dense
5 BEDROCK
6
CK 142.2 6.6
7
1.1BG
8
9
End of Trench at 9.0'
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG
SOIL & TESTING,INC. LOGGED BY: JBR DATE LOGGED: 4-14-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plate No. 17
7 v o ,w�laaJJO� moos.
Q
o �aui� {uasJad
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I o0 m m r a....,, u d ro N - 0-
-
o I O
ol
i i I
/ N
I ^'
_ O Ix
m
o
' M
I
r N W
8
OI �! t/1
0 77
•
N
O 4 W
a`f? o >
iI o ? W
O ..,. 1
.. o
I O' .... .N 0 Z y
y ,� r° Z E
.... .... .........:o
W Q
� ° '
0 O I l �N
... ...'
(J� ... ...�....i....i.. ...i....i. ... I 0 » Z Z
m
_ .. ... .. .... .... .... .... ....'....
IC �
. �
i.... .... .... .... ....'r
.............. Q M
' i.. I... I....I....I......... .........I Li ^ 00
_
.j!
... .... ......... .... .... ....
Q M 1 1
N -• N V N CJ IMP
C (PP
-i -4 r-4
--—!—+— -- Imo I-
o y
J
( I N m
N I
m v W
N �imo
0 � 1
i
0 0 0 0` o g o 0 o0
0 0, aD r co n a
Jggl-y �Uo�JJ�7d
<*> SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRACT 88-351
SOIL & TESTING, INC.
By DBA DATE 5-25-89
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION JOB NO.
C I •• • • • N
ICY • • • Q .
Y ` C
^ • O
cl LL U a. oaN
D _
Y
w
C
C Z 72 E Y p
Q. . O • �o V O Y Y
N = c
v
Q o
O ; ~ V C
•
Z —
o • O c C W p ^ E
Sy • ° E0
• Q z o
�+ C • • 6W0 O t E C • P V
V1 Q W 8_
� E O
c Y u
'� O • • • O Y C —m
_ V �[
V
' V
L
r � O Y
�p vC ~ M ! V
0 • O • i s V E
0 t ° p
•` O 0 0 ` Y
• � e u o
• Om 0 0
QN N N •..I
• Z O
N O
Cc .0
N i o
Y
• •
A. • v j
bb r+w
w i o
y
I ISE f,
M
C M
• l' yu �
E w
Z = ' • :
-• M r
.. E
M • L f
Y A Y •—
•p O Y •�
y�•
O r C
V ME Mt
•r N
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Rancho De P1ayo Subdivision, Tract 83-351
�•— SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: CHC DATE: 5-24-89
JOB NUMBER: 8921055 Plate No. 19
RANCM DE MAYO SUBDIVISION, TRACT 88-351 RPL, ENCINITAS
REC IDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GEMM 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 Recomriended
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 soil report or in other written communication
signed by the Soil Engineer.
NATION AMID TESTING
Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. , shall be retained as the Soil
Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these
specifications. It will be necessary that the Soil Engineer or his
representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide an
opinion that the work was or was not accomplished as specified. It shall be
the responsibility of the contractor to assist the soil 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 soil report
are encountered during the grading operations, the Soil Engineer shall be
contacted for further recommendations.
If, in the opinion of the Soil Engineer, substandard conditions are
encountered, such as; questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture
(R-8/87)
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1989 Appendix, Page 2
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.
Test methods used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed
in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials
test methods:
Ma= m, Density & Optimum Moisture Content - A.S.T.M. D-1557-78.
Density of Soil In-Place - A.S.T.M. D-1556-64 or A.S.T.M. D-2922.
All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as
determined by the foregoing A.S.T.M. testing procedures.
PREPARATICN OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL
All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall
be renmved, 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 in areas to be filled shall
be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content,
compacted and tested for the minimum degree of compaction in the Special
Provisions or the reconuendation contained in the preliminary geotechnical
investigation report. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be
removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soils which
possesses an in-situ density of at least 90% of its maxinmm dry density.
When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20% (5
horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped
(R-8/87)
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1989 Appendix, Page 3
or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent soil condition. The
lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1 1/2 times the the equipment
width which ever 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% shall be benched when considered necessary by
the Soil 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
procedures should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to
the requirements of the Soil 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 Soil 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 Soil Engineer. The top of
the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 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 Soil Engineer and/or a
qualified Structural Engineer.
FILL L MATERIAL
Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Soil Engineer
and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances.
(R-8/87)
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1989 Appendix, Page 4
Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The
definition and disposition of oversized rocks, expansive and/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 soil
engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Soil 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 a minimum specified
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 copaction
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
minimum 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 canu-ection
of the fill will be taken by the Soil Engineer or his representative. The
(R-8/87)
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1989 Appendix, Page 5
location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Soil Engineer's
discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is
less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to
the satisfaction of the Soil Engineer and until the desired relative
compaction has been obtained.
Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other
suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot rollers shall be at vertical
intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at ratios
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% of maximm dry
density or that specified in the Special Provisions section of this
specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued
until the Soil Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be stable in
regards to surficial stability.
Slope tests will be made by the Soils 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 Soil
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 Soils Engineer.
(R-8/87)
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1989 Appendix, Page 6
CUT STAPES
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 Soil 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.
Et024EERING OBSERVATIM
Field observation by the Soil Engineer or his representative shall be made
during the filling and compacting operations so that he can express his
opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards
of practice. The presence of the Soil Engineer or his representative or the
observation and testing shall not release the Grading Contractor from his
duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction.
SEASC)i LA3=
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 vxj k.
(R-8/87)
SCS&T 8921055 May 24, 1989 Appendix, Page 7
Fd=MMED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS
RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimtm degree of compaction to be obtained in
compacting natural ground, in the compacted fill, and in the 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% 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 Uniform Building Code Standard 29-C.
OVERSIZED MA RIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as
rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversize materials should
not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material
is provided by the soils engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils
shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve.
TRANSITION IU15: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the
proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a mininum of one
foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural
backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical
report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing
reinforcement and undercutting may be required.
(R-8/87)
NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
City O)
-�
Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Replenislunent/Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
July 8, 2004
Attn: Branch Manager
Bank of America
4380 La Jolla Village Drive
San Diego, CA 92122
RE: Deborah and Brian McDonnell
3305 Poppy Hills Lane
APN 264-091-91
Grading Pen-nit 9001-GI
Final release of 75% security deposit
Pen-nit 9001-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion
control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the
rough grading. Therefore, release of 75% of the security deposit is merited.
The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial
Services Manages- and is hereby released for payment to the depositor.
Account# 11026-55448 in the amount of$ 36,115.50.
The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns,please
contact Debra Geishart at(760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering
Department.
i
Sinc ely,
Masih Maher Le ach
Senior Civil Engineer finance Manager
Subdivision Engineering Financial Services
CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager
McDonnell, Brian and Deborah
Debra Geishart
File
613 TDD ?60-633-2700 recycled paper
TEL 760-633-2600 1 FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:37 COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL (FAX)858 6956826 P. 002/018
rlowm COMM
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING, INC.
March 23,2004
Proj ect No.CE-5693
Brian&Debbic McDonnell -
3767 Sage Canyon Dr.
Encinitas,CA 92024
Subject: Update Letter
Proposed Single Family Dwelling _
3305 Poppy Hills Lane
Parccl 3 ofTPM 99414 ;
Encinitas,California
References: 1.) -Report of Geoteehnieal Investigation,Rancho de May
Subdivision,'Tract 8&351 RPL"prepared by Southern California and
and Testing,Inc.dated May 24, 1989
2.) -Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground,Parcels 1,2 and 3 '
of Mayo Subdivision"prepared by North County Compaction Engineering,Inc.
dated January 30,2003
Dear Mr.&Mrs.McDonnell:
Pcr your requcst,we have inspected the subject site for the purpose of updating the above
referenced soils reports and to provide additional information requested by the City of Encinitas
with regard to the planned construction.
Briefly,our site inspection of March 19,2004 revealed that the existing building pad and soil
conditions at the site remain as certified in Referenced Report#2. Therefore,it is our opinion the
existing building pad is ready to accommodate the proposed residence as constructed. In the
event the existing building pad is modified in any way to accommodate the proposed dwelling-
we should be contacted to inspect and test grading operations.
fommdation-recommendations and conclusions-should-ba-incorporated nte4he
planning,design,and construction phase of the proposed residence.
1.) The prevailing soils at finish grade have an expansive index of 53 and arc
classified as being"moderate"in expansion potential.
P.O.BOX 302002 ESCONDMO,CA 92030 " (760)480-H16 FAX(760) 741-6568
1
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:37 COLBOURN-CURRIER.NOLL (FAX)858 6956826 P. 003/018
nor rm tourmr
COMPACTION
ENGINEERING. INC. March 23,2004
Project No.C&5693
Pagc 2
2.) In our opinion,soil liquefaction at the site is unlikely to occur due to the
following on-site soils conditions:
A).Groundwater was not encountered at the time of grading
B).Fill ground and loose topsoils were compacted to a minimum of
ninety percent(90%)of maximum dry density
C.) The dense nature of the formation underlying the site
D.) On-site soils possess relatively high cohesion characteristics.
3.) Seismic Design Considerations (Soil Parameters)
Soil Profile=SD(Table 16-J of the 1997 Uniform Building Code)
Typc`B'Fault(Rose Canyon)
Distance=11 km (California Department of Conservation,
Division of Mines and Geology(maps],in conjunction with Tables
16-S and 16-T of the 1997 Uniform Building Code).
Foundations
All continuous or isolated footings should be founded a minimum of 24 inehcs
below lowest adjacent grade. Continuous footing should be reinforced with one#5
bar to and bottom. Steel should be positioned 3 inches above bottom of footing
and 3 inches below top of footing. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 1500
pounds per square foot may be utilized for design purposes.
Interior slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and reinforced with#3 bars
on 18 inch centers both ways. Slab reinforcement should be placed new the center {
of slab and extended through joints to provide a tension tie with perimeter
footings. Garage slabs should be free floating.
s
APR-07-2004(WEED) 10:37 COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL (FAX)858 6956826 P. 004/018
NORTH C0014W
ENGINEERING, INC. March 23,2004
Project No,CE-5693
Page 3
Slab underlaymcnt should consist of visquccn installed at mid-point within a 4
inch sand barrier(2 inches sand,visqueen,2 inches sand). Sand should be tested
in accordance with ASTM D-2419 to insure a minimum sand equivalent of 30.
Clayey soils should not be allowed to dry prior to placing concrete. Thcy should '
be watered to insure they are kept in a very moist condition or at a moisture
content exceeding optimum moisture content by a minimum of five percent(5%).
Prior to pouring of concrete,North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING,INC.should be
contacted to inspect foundation recommendations for compliance to those set forth.
If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us.This opportunity to be of service I'
is sincerely appreciated.
t
Respectfully submitted,
4j%0FCSS;0,yq
t
North County Cl) \.� R RFC Fyc
COMPACTION ENGINEERING,INC.
o �E 713
cc FXP- 9130105
Ronald K.Adams Dale R Real 9TF up Ire
President Registered Civil)✓n L
Geotechnieallrnzinecr 000713
RKA:paj
cc_ (4)submitted
t
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:37 COLBOURN-CURRIER-MOLL (FAX)858 6956826 P. 005/018
COM'Acnori ,
ENCI,IE-M-M INC.
1\ January 30,2003
Project No.CE-5693
Al Mayo
1007 Emerald Bay
Laguna Beach,CA 92651
Subject:. Report of Certification of Compacted Fill Ground
Proposed Single Family Dwelling's
Parcels 1,2 and 3 of Mayo Subdivision,Tract No.99-207 and
Parcels F-1 and G-I of Wildflower South
Encinitas,California
Reference: 1.)"Report of Geotechnical Investigation",Rancho de Mayo Subdivision,
Traci 88-351 RPL prepared by Southern California and Testing,Inc.
dated May 24, 1989
2.) "Preliminary Soils Investigation,Parcels F-1 and G-1 Wildflower South"
prepared by North County Compaction Engineering,Inc. dated
December 11, 1998
Dear Mr.Mayo:
In response to your request,,the follou7ng report has been prepared to indicate results of soil
testing,observations,and inspection of earthwork construction at the subject site.
Testing and inspection services were performed from July 16,2001 through January 21,2003.
Briefly,our findings reveal filled ground has been compacted to a minimum of ninety percent
(90%). Therefore,we recommend construction continue as scheduled,
Our firm was retained to observe grading operations with regard to current standard practices
and to determine the degree of compaction of placed fill.
Grading plans for parcels F-1 and G-1 wcre prepared by K&S Engineering of San Diego.
Grading plans for Mayo subdivision,Tract No. 99.207 were prepared by San Dieguito ,.
Engineering of Rancho Santa Fe,California. •'�
�L
P.0. 00X302002 " E5C0N0(0q CR 92030 - (760)460-1116 FAX(7r00) 741-e66'5
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:38 COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL (FAX)858 6956826
P. 0-0.'6/018
no*rH%COCUt'1y"-"'.
.L.+ Project No. C&5693
Page 2
Grading operations were performed by Greg Whillock(GWG)of Vista,California.
Approximate locations and depth of filled ground and extent of earthwork construction covered
in this report are indicated on the attached Plate No.One entitled,"Test Ucation Sketch".
Subdivision grading operations were performed to
oadwa s. Should the pads
ished pads be altered
the proposed dwellings and to construct interior y
in any way,we should be contacted to provide additional recommendations.
The site was graded in accordance with the recommendations set forth in referenced reports
No.'s 1 and 2.
The site was graded to approximately conform to project plans. Actual pad size and elevation
may differ.Finish grade operations are to be completed at a later date.
Y ABORAOIt'Y TESTING
Representative soils samples were collected and returned to the laboratory for testing.The
following tests were performed and are tabulated on the attached Plate No. Three.
1. Optimum Moisture/Maximum Density(ASTM D-1557)
2.Expansion Potential'Test(FHA Standard)
3.Direct Shear Test (ASTM D-3080)
SOII !QQhDJ TYONS
Native soils encountered were silty-sands,clayey-sands, gravcAy-clays and.0ty-clays. Fill soils
were gencmted from on-site excavation.
The building sites contained a transition from cut to fill.However, out areas located within the
building area were over excavated a minimum of 3 feet and brought to grade with compacted
soil. Over excavation was carried throughout the realm of the building pad(s)surface.
3 {
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:38 COLBOURN-CURRIER-MOLL (FAX)858 6956826 P,007/0.1.8
ACMOr
....IENOMEMN
G. INC.
Project No. CF,5693
Page 3
Expansive soils exist at finish gmdc on all parcels. The expansion index for each lot is as
follows-
Ind= Cl caification
F-I &G-1 82 High
No. 1 66 Moderate
No, 2 32 LOW
No.3 53 Moderate
Prior to constructing fill slopes,keyways were constructed to depths varying between 2 feet
and 12 feet in depth into firm formational soils. The bottom of the keys were a minimum Of-15
feet wide and inclined a minimum of 2%back into slope. During earthwork construction,native
areas to receive fill were scarified,watered,and compacted to a minimum of ninety percent
(90%)of maximum density. Subsequent 0 soils wore placed,watered,and compacted.in 6 inch.
lifts.Benches were constructed in natural ground at intermediate levels to properly support the
fill.To determine the degree of compaction,field density tests were performed in accordance
with ASTM D-1556 or D-2922 at the approximate horizontal locations designated on the
attached Plate No. One entitled,"Test Location Sketch". A tabulation of test results and their
vertical locations are presented on the attached Plate No.Two entitled"Tabulation of Test
Results".Fill soils found to have a relative compaction of less the ninety percent(901%)were
reworked until proper compaction was achieved
During grading,water seepage. was encountered at the toe of the cut slope on parcel F-I. A
subsurface drain was constructed adjacent and parallel to the toe of slope a minimum of 3 feet
below finish pad grade. The drain has a minimum.of one percent(10/9)fall and daylights off the
pad to the south. Drain materials consisted of 4 inch perforated pipe centered in 3 cubic feet of.
ItInu.S I inch crushed rock-per linear foot of pipe. The pipe and rock were wrapped. in filter
fabric to reduce future soil siltation of drain materials.
RECOMM"ATIONS AND CONCLUSION
-0ontinuous,inspection was not.roquested to verify fill soils are placed in accordance with current
-standard practices regarding grading operations and earthwork construction-Therefore,as
economically feasible as possible,part-time inspection was provided.Hence,the following
recommendations are based on the assumption that all areas tested are repr6sentative of the
entire project.
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:38 COLBOURN-CURRIER-MOLL (FAX)858 6956826 P. 008/018
z
=zr
- A ,rIC=II`IEER,YI`1Cx, INC.
project No. CE-5693
page 4
1.)Compacted fill and natural ground within the defined building areas have
adequate strength to safely support the proposed loads.
S.) Slopes maybe considered stable with relation to deep seated faiiurc provided
they are properly maintained. Slopes should be planted with light.groundcover
(no gorilla ice plant)indigenous to the area.Drainage should be diverted away
from the slopes to-prevent water flowing on the face of slope.This will reduce the
probability of failure as.a result of erosion.
3)Continuous footings having a minimum width of 12 inches and founded a
minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grads,will have an estimated
allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot.
4.) Footings located on or adjacent to slopes should be founded at a depth such
that the horizontal distance from the bottom outside face of footing to the face of
the slope is a minimum of 8 fees.
5.)Plumbing trenches should be backfilled with a non-expansive soil'having a
swell of less than two percent(2%)and a minimum sand equivalent of 30.
Bacldxll soils should be:inspected and compacted to•a minimum of ninety percent
(90%).
6.)Unless requested,recommendations for future improvements(additions,
pools,recreation slabs,additional grading,etc.)Were not inahuled in this report.
Prior to consttuctioil,we should be'contacted to update conditions and provide
additional recommendations.
7.)Completion of grading-operations was left at rough grade.Therefore,we
recommend a landscape architect be contacted to provide finish grade and
drainage recommendations.Drainage recommendations should include a two
percent-(2.W)-minimum-fall-away-&om4a L-foundatioa-zones
&)-Expansive soil conditions observed during grading operations will require
Special recommendations to reduce structural damage occurring from excessive
subgrade and foundation movement.
APR-07-2004(WED) 1039 COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL, A r:,r_ :.••, 8 6956$26
(FAX)85 ,.may , 4�,t_yQP.t009/01.,8f
i
F Ij� nCs, 1'I`I Project No. CE 75093
�. Page 5
For Pareel'F-1 and G-1 (High Expansive Soils)
Recommendations set forth will reduce the probability of future damage and should be strictly
adhered to:
All isolated or continuous footings should be founded a minimum of 24 inches
below lowest adjacczit grade. Continuous footings should be reinforced with
two#5 bars top and`tiottom(total of 4 bars). Steel should be positioned 3 inches
above bottom.of footing and 3 inches below top of footing.
Interior slabs should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and reinforced with #3 bars
on I8 inch centers both ways. Slab.reinforcement should be placed near the . -
center of slab and-extended through joints to provide a tensiontie witb.perimeter
footings.Game-slabs should be free Hoaxing.
Slab underlayment should consist of.visqueen installed at mid-point within a 4
'inch sand barrier(2.inches sand,visqueen,2 inches sand). Sand should be tested
in accordance with'ASTM D=2419 to insure a minimum sand equivalent of 30.
Clayey soils should not be allowed to dry prior to placing concrete.They should
be watered to insure they are-kept in'a very moist condition or at a moisture
content exceeding-optimum moisture content by a minimum of five percent(5%).
Parcels 1,2 and 3(Low to Moderate Expansive Soils) .
All continuous or isolated footings should be founded a minimum of 24 inches
below lowest adjacent grade. Continuous footing should be reinforced with one
#5 bar top and bottom. -Steel should be positioned 3 inches above bottom of footing
and 3 inches below top of footing.
Interior slabs should be a minimum of inches thick and reinforced with 93 bars
on 18 inch centers both ways. Slab reinforcement should be placed-near the center
of slab_and extendcd_tFuough�oints to�rovide a tension tie with peziu�ctcr fcwtings.
Garage slabs should be.free floating.
Slab underlayment should consist of visqueea installed at mid-point within a 4
inch sand barrier(2-inches sand,visqueen,2 inches sand). Sand'should be tested
in accordance with ASTM D-2419 to insure a minimum sand equivalent of 30. '
Clayey soils should not be allowed to dry prior to placing concrete. They shotild:
be watered to insure they are kept in a very.moist condition or at a moisture
content exceeding optimum moisture content by a minimum of five.percent(5%).
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:39 COLBOURN-CURRIER-MOLL (FAX)858 6956826 P.j010/018
,..vn .vt tY:.: r..I:I.J.,i ''•Y:,.•.',il: r�i?}''1.1..�;'�.,91!Fh.;+"f _:'.•"'�i{):i:_Il:- ',.,�,'.
. 1. •tom.... —
,.'. ',o-,.r' .,1�:,-..tr'f.. _ .fir: '•. ,.. .. ...._"V '.S•` _ _ `;�.
�r���y ..I,..I'i'.i :i s ��• ^.tom-4•
roc Nc
Project No.CE.5693:.'
Page 6
Prior to pouring of concrete,North County COMPACTION ENGINEERING,INC.sbould be
contacted to inspect foundation recommendations for compliance to those set forth
in the event foundation excavation and steel placement inspection is required and/or requested,
an additional cost of$170,00 will be invoiced to perform the field inspection and prepare a
:"Final.Conformance Letter".-If-foundations are constructed in more than one phase,•S 120.00,for
each-additional inspection will be invoiced.
It is the responsibility of the owner nd/or his representative to carry our recommendations set
forth in this report.
San-Diego County is located in a.high risk area with regard to earthquake.Earthquake resistant
projects are economically unfeasible:Therefore, damage as a result of earthquake is probable
'and-we assume no liability.
We assume the on-site safety of.our personnel only. We cannot assume liability of personnel
other than our own,It is the responsibility of the owner and contractor to insure construction
operations:are conducted in a safe manner and in conformance with regulations.governed by
CAL-OSHA and/or local'agencies. .
if you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us. This opportunity to be of service
is sincerely appreciated
Respectfully submitted, qp,G F E s sIL
North County ,��� �,� R• �fi�, �y�
COMPACTION ENGMERING,INC. GE 713 �-- m
rM
� Exp 91 105
-Ronald K Adams Dale TL r IAk,0 �
Iresident Registered Cr 393 '
Geotechnical Engineer 000713 -A
RKA,.pai
ee: (4)submitted
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:40 COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL (FAX)858 6956826 P. 011/018•
'COWA
CTIoN ENGMERING iIN
SOILESTIG
A. .PPROX:. SbAL.t
p.kRCZL of 99-207' Jig 50:1
WILMOVER ESTATES
-:ENCjVTtAS, CALIFORNXA-
N Oro \ I
TEST-
1145:
1106
107TEST C4.
, PAREP6 PAD
1)7-TEST
0
• 89
10
0)�U�tE u RET RN
PPPR' �IS .PND
I REM cOt4[OURS
6V�
ORI
TEST
120.'
Or
12/TES
TEST LOCATION SIKETCH
:PROJECT NO. CE- 5693
PLATE N-0.ONE-C
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:40 COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL i(FAX)858 6956826 P. 012./01.8
V
-TABULAIION DE IE
dd Pet .of
IA
Field 1,�iztwo Dfypws!tY S
Tof 0', Date vardcal
Location• Ld6wbo 0%
07116101 Sea- 26.8.0 11.7 122-1 n9
94.9.
Plate.' 270.0 .11.1 1220: i 2 .
3 . 07/17/01 One - .272.0' 133 119.7 I • 3
274.0 12.9, 90.9
:S 07/19101 275.0. 13.0.
276.0
15.3 109.1 11 :..90,1
14.0
22-7
. .,9 07126/01 229.0 15.9 149.9, A,
10 231.0
14.3 '110.1 II -.90.9
41
229;o 15.9
J,'.
231.0
TV 91.7 -
233.0 .1510 . 1-11;0. .
13 081-16/01 sil. -
234,0 14.5 1101 5,:
14
233.-0- 14.6
15
,4
234.0
93
.235.0 13,6 1138
0=0101
17. 1 14A 91,6
: ..
19 235.0 13.3 1144-
, . 90.4
20 217.0 14.4 1
.1.29.
.13,5 11310,
21 081=01 239.'0 923
13.0 .115.3
.227 .241.0
239.0 12.9 115.3•- •
93.9
12.1
2-0.0
• 24 25 08124/01 143.0 19.4 99.3 92.3
100:0 IV .93.0 ,
-26 24.5.:0 -
.27 .243-0 99.1 .921
. )01.5 9414 .
29 .245.0 19.3 IV
29 ' osol 246.0 22.0 98.2:
.30 247.5 20.9 98.6 TV 91.3
19.9 'IV 9`7.&
31 4.
26,0
.07-7 IV.' 90'.3.
27;5 19.7
32 4
WNW- -249;0 19.3
.33 7.�
, - --. - 97-0
14 250.0 21.0' IV
98.0
99,1 IV
249.0 . 20.3
100.9 N 93.9
250.0 21.0
36
REMARKS: See page 6
PROJECT NO.- CE-5693
PLATE.'NO..TWO
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:40 COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL (FAX)858 6956826 P. 013/018
�v. r•f.i\.rnu.1,•�;. d((tYS•!1., �h. .,.,.„'.,',. s.r. .fr,r ;_i.': .sv.' Y,EN 4:
... lit:: r.Ii r.,.v..:.+ ._� .. �:,.!J:.'......_. :.I:'.:.1�•'.-z•!..,...,•.:'.. ,.'t :.4.
ate.
.-*n-O i
T ARUX,,ATYOI�T OF TEST'�R TT:' �8
'Cesi# Date Horixo0ta1 Vertical Fidd Maistare, Dry.Densky. . soil '26ua of '
Location':.:.:' Location. ; %Dry Wt.- LB Cui Ft. Type. ::" compacdon'
.'37 09!04!01 See ' •349:0 19.9 N 92:8.
38' " Putt 350.0 20.9 98:6 Iir .' .91'.7 -
39 09/05101 One . '. . 349.0 . 19,3 102.2 1V 95.0 ,
40 " " 350.0 17.6 ' IOl.I' N '. 94:0
41 " 349.0 '203 101,3 1V 94.2 r
42 " " . 350.0 18.9 ' 98.7 N' :91.8
43 09/06/01 . . . . 180,0 12.9. 113.E V: 90:8
44 ]52.� 1].9: 113.7: V` 91.3
45 184:4 11.9. 11'4.9 V :_. . .92,2 '
,� V; 9z.b
47 " 188;0. 13.3 1 T4:4.,':.: ' V:• 91.8
48. N 186.0 12.9,'• 113.9' ':.. • .V
"49 " 188.0 13.4 114.6. . . '• ..V'`
•!50 09/07/0I 25±00 '• 245.0 13.7 109.5 ' .:: YI
' :.gl _N. +02 . 256.0 12.8 . 110.1
S2 25+a5 253.0 13.4 114:2 1T .' . 94x3
190.0 . '14.2. :112.8 V :K. :.
54 . plate,, 19.2:0 '12.7 116;5 V 93:5' . .
Onc' 1'90.0 13.7 1:13.4':•: : y . 91,0:.'.
]+32.0 V.; '92 2
-s7 . " " 194.0 12,7 ' ' .1153 V .•- 92.6
13.5
59. . .. " 194.0 14.1 114.0 V 91.5
196.0 13.2 . 1-]3:] V 90.8
fit 09/10/01 198.0. 13..6 116.4 V 93.8
62 " • : 20E1.0 14.5 1]6.7 V 93."1
63 " 198.0 14.4 113.1 V. .90.8
64 " " .'.200,0 13,7. ]15.6 J Y 9Z.8
G5 09!11!0] 202.0 -13.1 114,4... ' V 91.$
66 " 203,0 13,0' 116.8 •V 93.8
67 " 202.0 131 114.9 V 912
68 " 205.0. 12.1 ' ' 113.9 V 91.4
69. " 206.0 13.4 '113.3
:70 " 208.0 14.1• 115.3 Y
206.0 13.1 115.1 V 92.4
;: •. " ". 206,0 l].9 115.2• , V :92:5
RMARiZS: See.page 6
'PROJECT. NO.• E-5693..
PLATE .NO.' .W. -O (page 2)
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:41 COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL (FAX)858 6956826 ��•y�,�P. 014/018 _
. .,s�•.,:.i,.:.' 1' `i.^7•.qr nr...+.. .....-.,:. ..•I.se:�:. •1"r.a::• �•i'rl•y_ d'^ [',�T:, e. `T�-i sI�M..::
M:•r*',..nA••ap'0,.• .,h*R-1'HS:.:•s... .h,. , s �:'!5'�k `;ate nw:,, �I:'`•7r�1.>'�:,�: �d. ✓. !;"! rah-'i�L.:�,Y�.. �-�.
.kr_!illAi�:.,.7-r. .ir!i'L.> _ 1!n 1. �1�1', .l i
:• •.'::;' ..a.-•... arr .... '.J Z;::.[,•._i:' .2�k.� `ri"C.° :c... li J..l."yS r :Ht.r•tr CM_4:.��: 'x:r. �I•Fr4'o:!<: i.? cl'.�=
•'
, yy- •.�:ti'tkk.IS'•+k+Y`:j�i',,•!].r,- .ry.{i.>w•i. 7-. `:M, ::r:•.'xY'"I�1�:! .I.�i" :^,!•'':.:.!.�'.�Y:,r.i.(:. 1..
.•k..: :h Yl.0 '.L, :.�.: �.^I'i..." '•,w. �_ .f 1.:�:!'..:.y-'.,,1..'•:.-�u.;.:::s�. :�_:�.is H
• �'C7".t'ihf. y.a. 'nf. ',}.� ,..lY.,'�i.) Y...::'.:�_:1.....•%":..,.h...l
:.: !-:� ..�^1,"�.!.a:-0., •" ••.•...:� .tom....�a;`..:-� :.SI. ;'ati
:n
N
. .. '. Soil.':..::;
Test# Date Hopzontel. Vertical Field Moisture Dry Density
1.ocatioa : : I,QCatign, !!o:Dry Wt.. LB Cu.Ft. ': ' 'Coinpacuori
110 09/26/01 SeG• - 250.0 17.3 108:4 VI[` :94.4
i1'� PlatC' 251.0 1$.5 106:8 '': 92.8
T12 INC 250:0. 18,8 104.8 . _ VII: ::: . :.91.9
:l i3 ' u " 251.0 17.5 105.0 VII 92.1
114 . •lO/0I/Ol 252.0 1910 103.8 VII
115 253.0 17:7. 106.3 ��. 92,a
-ij6 " " 252.0 i8.0 105.3 ' VII• 9I:5
1.j:7 " . :: 253,0 18.8 105.6' VII:
118. . 10/02/01 .. 252.0: 17.8 1.08:3.'. VII.
l 19' " 253.0 19p.xc 104.6 VII 9y0S
..120' . " 252.0 18.5 106.8 .' .• . 92.8
9'x1 M 253'.0 19:2 104.8 VY( 91.1.
122: 10/15/01 30.4.0 12.6' .117.4 VIQ'.' 92;a . .
123 .304.0 1 Z.5 1]8:3 Ym. .. :93.1
:'124 .f 30.4.0 11.6 1.18.1. ' 'V
12/11/61 • 23 70 258.5: 1$.3 101.7 ':.: : 883•'
"126 . 22'+40 269;5
20.5' 100.i . :. 13C •°': .:.:86.9
'12T
21+90 •. 272.0, 18.5 103.5
'.128 20: ..`.'::: 274.0 19.0 103.4.- . IX 89:8
129 ,• 24 4.75. ' 249.5 17.2' 101.9 IX.', . ..,89.3
•`130 12/13/01 .29+75, 249.5 15.1 . 104.1. . '' 1X :90.4
'131 23+70. ''258.5 14.3 104.8 .' IX 9i:0
,132 22±'40 : ' 269:5 1611 103.9 . IX: : 90,2 .
!.133 21+90' 272.0 15.6 104.4 1�C 90.7
0134 20+-SO i74.0 , 14.0 106:7 DI 92.7
0135 12/17/01 .25.+'j'0 250:0 17.8 103:9'' 13C 90.2 ,
ill' . 23±97. . 258.6 15:6 104.1 IX '90,4
22+'k :271.0 15:9' 105.2 ... IX .' 91'.3 '
•138 21+•00 27,5.5 `14.1 105.8 DC 91.9
*139 12119/01 24+5 ' =1'. 15.4• 109.7 II 90:6 .
0140 " 23+00 •1' 17.2 104,1 IT' .,90:1
x'141 71 + 0 -�' 149 112,6 II 93.0
•142 20+50. , -1' 16.6. . 109.6 , II 90.5
243...: al/Z2/02 See: . . '215:0 14.1 114.7'. Y 42.1
Plate One 215.0 15.0 . 112.5 V
:....REMARKS- Soo 13age 6
-PROJECT NO. CE-5691
'
PLATE NO. TWO (page 4)
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:41 COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL (FAX)858 6956826 P.015/018
r:. '-:•-.::'!.. p''.z:.:: ...rr.'r,•xr_e L;, ':••"Ci.^°_ :•YY Z.;,r-:. .e.ra 1;;. 'ar'••'�i'. :4r. :'t� r:r<�:� `:iri•$?'i°. :'ii..��`MV ,! C`:;'CL r-?::
':i .:
.,.::::•:�,. :���-:'.::!••• .+f'`� ..•.;:;.:t. ::.rs. .., �, _;;:_: ::jai..;,. .i.-.,.� .,�?,.:, •�.`. '.'s5..._ y 7�•"�<y'`.,;.;i' C,;;'i:,�,,:,�5•
y:',_,.•. - ., x
MTH`. � ... .......,.. - •.:•.•.;..:�. `:J'''. ;:'i�.. .C•t- C,,.'..::���is
st;,
..AC T1
I`II
INC.
'fesi•# Date' HAtizontal .' VM*A•. Field Moisture' 'Dry 1.poty... Soil :Pervert of
Location.' % :.:. .
Locanon 3�ry tiVt. . .. LB Cu,Ft:. `.:.. 'P6 .`' :. aatpact�on
+145 0II74l02 24+'S0. . .252.0 14.0 109.1 X: 93.2;' .
$146 23+.00 : 266.0 13.8 110.2 ' . X :94.1
:+.147 21+.SO`: 276.0 12.3, 1Q9.9 X' 93.9
'I48 02/28/02 .24+50 254.0 12x2 110,6'.' ' X:': : ;94.5 '
-23 +00 268.0 10.9 '111.4 7
.'!150 71±50.' '278.0 12.3 1]0.5 . . : : X:.: . .
"151 07!04/02 24+80 252.0 15•3 . 109.1 1I ,:' 90.1'
•152 07,!04/02 22+75.' . : 272.0 1.1.0 1x9.7 II: R30.0
'153
21'+60 277.0 •15.8 112.7 :
15.4 02/I9/02 • .15+40. :. FSG . 12.9 1]8.2`. : TI '97:6,
"F 55 24.+60 :' FSG 15.0 117.1 II 96'.7
!156 " 24+75: FSG 14.6 118.0 II =': 97.5 ..'
'TS'l 23'+ 10 FSG 12.8 119:2''. Tl 98.5
22+..70*'- FSG 13.2 117:4 lr'.:.:' .97.0..
*159: 22+40 . FSG 11.7 116.9 . ; Il . :9.6.6. '
'. ''•160 :'. 2141.2$' FSG 13.x4 1.19.b.
.20460 .FSG' 12.8 119.2::.. '.:. . II ..98:5 ;
«162..'. 20.+50 >~SG 12.6 118.4.
163' OZ/22J02 20*75: F,.GB 075: 133.5 ' Xl 9b.7
•164 21.T:25.: .'.. ::•FG13 08.1 . 135.7` XI
22 x.75 FOB 07.5 134.1 3CI 97.1
:166:'' 23'+75 FGB D6.8 133:4 XI' :9.7.3. .
25+10 FGB 07.2 ' . 132.8, Xa 96:2
' •'lfi8 :: 03/13/02 2I X25 FOR ' 07.1 135:4 XI.
22 70' ' F xm 06.9 136.3 XI: 98:7 ,
"176 23+81 FOB 06.4 134.0
!171
25+ 1 0 -FGB.. 07.4 133.7 Xi 96.8
. '*17. 2 04/16/02 '20:+ 14' ' PSG 15.2
4173 04/18/02 •20+,15• PGB' 06.8 x31.9 7Q" : 95:9
:A74 06/12/02 Sec' 304.0 12:1 116.8
. 175 Plate 305.0 1118 118.3 VIII : 93:1
176 " One 304.0 12.5 :115.9 V!II `'' 91:2
177 305.0 10.9 120.1 Vl>"t 94.5
0.6/13/02 �' "` 304.0 13.0 116,5 . VIII . 91,.7
305.5 12.2 118.1 V11I' 92:9
80 304,0 11:5 119.2 . VAI :.. .:.93:8 .
]`8,1. '°: 305 5. 11.9 11b:7 .: VIII
REMARKS:. Sec page 6
FRO CT Iv 0. CE-5693. . :
PLA'C'E 'NO.TWO (page.'5)
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:42 COLBOURN-CURRIER-MOLL (FAX)858 6956826 P. 016/018 _
:... .5iz.,�...�:^."}r.••�',:;�:..._f•^" „ .,,.....1.•• ,�..:«nrd •-;.e•rr-r.rr•..,,,,�.�,•C;...,,.•,•••:,..;,:r« M;8�4•:.. .-a,.:•.• Y;;;a r��:�r�ir,••�'i!�:, .!k�'t?"
�f�;lp.c^. •,�'
..,: .. .�"r.•'.,T�}.�%..�o- ..:_yr.., ..� .-::,.. ..•;r^,.r�r, .��'.5:.,..F.rY.�o'a �ir1�% �'.�(. .�t.. �•..r�, % �,: `.'s:...,Ma::%:++�-.a.�
.�, „(y7;.•... ...: .- ..._.5' :a...:,..:..•. ::✓f.,�n•. •��. L•.$`; '�.•:� i,: .,-:��: yn,q'SN%„,7��?(! 'SP•.,.' `_i+';
•.t:',.;. ..r .."9••... ., .,t^.;:.,, ........:.l;: . .r-+•s. -. .. . ...7:.:i-�'' �•cl: ,�'fY!-.r. 'ii•'i ,.xkt`i .:!w„9.�.:��',{,,.., .k.'%;•"'•^-:,'
.:....�..;,. .:..,. .• [,ia..r7....;Y.r..E�. .. ....,.. . .�•::... „:. .:..r:: : ...:.�, "4`: .,t✓ fL�l'`'%.HK ter•.:• J,.._ - .? �F,.
., ... ,i d .••<,:.i.r'�.'•r{i:.•:,; ":1.•:.i' ...:. , ... ,...;_..,:... :_t A •).�.c'i":'��f'+'. '.: x;.,;:.; -^�:%�,j,.r'.2. ..r::'c:.'•::'...,.:_;s!'.:�,i.::�.,>..:.,
.. � ,..r.., R=•,,.,... .."o�:;.r�r t..�.f Y,'o,. r.4 ,n c_,.._ _ - ;.�.,.;% `1�,.,. :tr.�>•,:.�: :i«•K=;;:,`�,.�.s..a ,yin.:'-J:.,,..7,
a a
���*�7`ia ....' ..
V Vim!
Qc
.1 f
ULTS•••
'1'cst# Date Horimntei: Verpcal Fisid Maisturo.' Dry De�tsi;y.
Soil
Peireaf.nf
I:ocati4a:. Location. °k Ihy Wt LB Q,Ft ;Cctnpacb
Type'
�on
182 03!11103 See 204,0 RFG'. 11.8 114.5 11:. 91:9
2U4,01G 10.1 1.13.9 .' V' 91:4.
184 '� do .:. 217.0 RFG .09.3 1a5.S V
217.0 RFG 10,2 l I2:8 .. V.: �90.�6
186. 25.1,0 RPG 15.5 99.9 IV..'
251.0 RFG l b.2 101:8 �1V•. 94,6
1'88 " Z51.0ItFG • 16.8. :N' 96.2
189 •� 254.0'R>:G 14;8 107.8 ' VIV .' 93.7
1.90 " '' 254.0 RFG 13,1 109.3:' :` VII :''95.0
191 " 3.06:0 RFG 10:5 118,3 VIII 93.I
..'192. 306:0.R1:G 11:2' 117.E Vi1I- 92.'2
REMAFKS: 1rT0'T>;:.Tetfs"marked
Within (")are not'a,partaf't1�is Ye�ort.•;..:'
:...
They.were t�ikea on:sabd'Ni3ioit.road iinpmvgnests-adi gtiiitiei'and ere pcescn�ted in'.:'.
: • . our report 8atea January'29,2003
RFG .Rough Fruuab.Grade
PROJECT' NO.:CE-5693
FLATS.
NO. .(Cage
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:42 COLBOURN-CURRIER-NOLL (FAX)858 6956826 P. 017/018
-'.4 '••M �-0ii•:�Y:•' 7:':x.5:1.�:'.•.`.:
�Rw:. r•,r. �:. °r ¢ ��:,, :. _.Y'. 'r. «rry ::"i ^4{i` �w7
•1 .�yyt l.�y' ,1�... ,;;,..,U�.�y, t. r,L`�'—,.?--;,..1 ri ''eh%�. y.•. <€%�, . "i'%'C'+':�:%.:
:'..itl•i:•::•, T':;�':•°'•.`✓.. n-':�. r'•.�.•.. .� `.�,;a .•;.:t: a..1;t.:�i...,4'!�+a w::i.'.•�'� ..S-
.6;:'r,.`•:'•�t;•,"C^ ..r•.i-."F'f,�i�a :rr''."'.. _:r,:. .1: .��:� �t!.',t:..f,�;;_'•.,•.'r..i ,
ERIN
•_. ::•.' .,t•!:w,•..':.r•:`, .. L...,✓f -.�. .... s R .�,r�.v...,. rt'.: — ..y,..,IW,1... .,1 a/. `.1:.
• �.y •.r .
. •:" ..
( ,•„g. 1r,A1N OF TEST: In;Ts ::
bs T:YP MAX.DRY pENSTTY OPT.IviOISTCIRE. '
B.W.FTS :. °�° :' ..
Bi�ovvsrBcigc Silty
iGiavclly pay I 128.5 0 9.4
Tan Blown Silty Sandy C* II 121.0 .12.8
-4&:'Tan•Beigc Silly
fiTayey Sand .8• :I1.0
.124
,Light Beip,Finc Sandy Silo: IV
Tan Brown Silty Gravelly
•
clayey San 124.E > .�:11'.4. •
a
Dirk Brown Silty Sandy{;lay'.': ,'.V i: 118.3. . 13'•0 .
I,isht Brown McdiUm.Coiisc.
.415.0
'sil cia
pc Gravelly.Sandy pay VIII 127.0
Light Brown Silty Sand. : 'IX
m gc
Tan Medium Coarse 12,0
Saari;(import) X . 1 k7.0
UgbfBcig;-QFivcUy Silty
Saz►d °(Class-H Base) XI 138.0 Og.O
,PROJEC T NO. CE-563
PLATE'NO:TREE..
APR-07-2004(WED) 10:43 COLBOURN-CURRIER-MOLL 956826
(FAX)858 Y
• _ -,�.. rr.* .,�;.. .x=�' °w�r,cz.- ;.�4;::� - �7•-' .�;'- ::,•T°r:i - spy's? i"F„ '`j,,:.�::�-:��';
�r.,..''f,S�k ¢ �•�. .N ..f .:1.i: �.sK•. :'�I ..��.r A'• T�::Kj�,.,�.- ..�+�..s,-T
f. ':aT ry.n yL...L. ��. �.Ye,. ♦�1,� >:', "-`nl.� n•bl�:5.,. y f.i...' �h,
., �4• ..r- sy'`�n•.,� ;i:'^ �:�4r•;r��� y� .,� ry�:n�..•A•"'.t°re m, i.7!Y'."�c 1�..Qi T:r
J'
il.,ln ��'d•'
M 9;
� •y.f,
,
?.
OW. f.. '
i m■�TK
■t40 ' -` -
j. J . T e uT ir:..�►:`>f'°f ON �F TESL":RESIJLTS
F" �NSIOI�kQIEEUAL.
NO TV v
G4NDMON ..'Remold.90% Remold 90% '•.R OtO90-0/6. 90%
IMTIAL 1VIOISTLTRE(%)
18.9 11.5 1.x:4
AIR-DRY '(°/a): 14.4 9.S : 8:2 :. :.6,9
'FINAL MOISTURE(%) .. . :: 30,1 21.5 2fr:0 : :. :19.7
DRY DENSII Y(PCF� 90
LOAD(PSG.. 150 158. 1.50
SWELL{%), :6:6 g:2 . • ''5:3 „ . :.? '3:2'
EXp'ANSION II�1DEX. 6� . 82. ,53..:. 32 ..
EONDII'ION Rcaibld M. Rciraald;
ANGLE AuTERNAI:FRICTYON.: :26 ' : `:30•.
COMIONTRTERCEPT(I.. .. 260 250' .32Q.,' ;200. '
PROJECT NQ:,CE-Sb93 .
PIA`Y'E'NO,'THREE (continued)
RoSAN DIEGUITO ENGINEERING,INC.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
Ivan R.Fox.P.E.
Barry L.Munson,P.E.
Gordon L.McElroy,P.L.S.
Laurie Simon,Principal Planner
CIVIL ENGINEERING May 25, 2004
Engineering St"'I", SDE 5012
Site Development
Grading Plans
le,prr eat P nn, City of Encinitas Engineering Department
Drz"nage plu"' 505 S. Vulcan
Sewer,Water Line Pleas
I,ydr „tiy;H,dra,,,i,, Encinitas, CA 92024
Constructi-Administration
Pavement Rehabihtat,on Subject: Statement of New Impervious Surface Area,
Porensir I�ngineering
Grading Plan for Parcel 3, PM 18730
LAND PLANNING
Prc-Acyuieition Analysis To Whom It May Concern,
Land l',,C'onsultatlon
E,,,it tal Analysis
Gorermnent Reiatit,ns As a result of the architect's site plan, this project has approximately 20,300 square feet of
band Divi, new impervious surface area outside the building footprint, consisting of approximately
lentxucc Mops
Map,Use permit, 4,900 sf of driveway, 7,000 sf of tennis court, and 8,400 sf of patio areas and walks.
Specific plan.
Re'° If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
V'arianccs
Actnut-rat-Permit,
Anncxatirnts Thank
A ne-ary Adjustments (�''Q�
LAND SURVEYINGO �
R� /E
Properlc�m,e,, Steven R. Crosby, PE ���TTTT���,P ;p_ ,
"''xtpriphic:d snr,:e,' Senior Engineer y
C onstr-0011 Staking
Records of Surv.N Ha 41875
Legal Dea iptio„s EV. 3-31-06 Q
Snbdisisi.,n Maps �9t Ci V 1�
Easement ,C,�l
rti
11ci^_hi Cct-ino- 4
Csulastr.d Sunccs
Photogrammetric Surveys
� I
:.
J
(760)753-5525•EAx(760)943-8236
4407 Manchester Avenue•Suite 105•Encinitas,California 92024
", SAN DIEGUITO ENGINEERING,INC.
ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS
Ivan R.Fox.P.E.
Barry L.Munson,P.E.
i
Gordon L.McElroy,P.L.S. ( !
Laurie Simon,Principal Planner' !�
CIVIL ENGINEERING April 21, 2004 ._
Engineering Swdies SDE 5012
Site Develop m ent
Gradin.,plans
ln,pntva„-t plan., City of Encinitas Engineering Department
Drainage plans
Se—'Water plans 505 S. Vulcan
Hydrology%Hydraulics Encinitas, CA 92024
('onstructiom Administration
Pa,e,ncntRehahllitat Subject: Hydrology/Hydraulic Study,
1=orcnslc F,m_incrrine
Grading Plan for Parcel 3, PM 18730
LAND PLANNING
Pre-Acq,-ou Analysis Gentlemen;
Land Use Conndtat ion
F,,,ironmental Analy.is
Go-mtn-i Relation, As part of the requirements for the above referenced project, we have performed a
Hydrologic/Hydraulic review of the proposed grading plan.
1-tat”,Maps
Ma'lor Use Permits
Specific plane This lot was originally constructed per grading plan 6789-G, in accordance with
Hydrology/Hydraulics Study for City of Encinitas Tract 99-207,dated may 9,2001 prepared
Variances
Adminismafive Perini„ by San Dieguito Engineering.
Annexations
B-„,d`'ry A`''"'t,,-,t' The proposed precise grading per this grading plan does not significantly alter the drainage
LAND SURVEYING patterns or quantities of the existing lot grading per 6495-G. In addition, the proposed
Prol-t,Surveys private improvements will adequately carry the anticipated storm runoff. Attached is a
opogr`ph1'al s"r`ey' calculation sheet for the proposed private 10” storm drain.
Construction Staking
Records of Swticy
Legal Descriptions If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Subdivision Maps
Ememm"ts
Heiaht Certifications Th0 R.
u,
Cadastral SL-eys
Pholoeranvnctric Surveys EW
teven R. Crosby, PE -911
Senior Engineer y
N0. 41915
to W. 3-31- �
f0^ CJvl%.
F 0 f C A`,�O
(760)753-5525•FAx(760)943-8236
4407 Manchester Avenue•Suite 105•Encinitas,California 92024
HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
PROJECT NAME: MCDONNELL RESIDENCE
PROJECT NUMBER: SDE 5012
COMMENT: PRIVATE STORM DRAIN ANAYLSIS
COORD: N33-03-00 E117-12-45
100 YEAR STORM
P6 (IN): 3.00 P6/P24: 0.60
P24 (IN): 5.00 ADJUSTED P6: 3.00
HYDRO SOIL GROUP: D
BASIN I EVENT AREA AREA C Tc I Q
(year) (sf) (acre) (min) (iph) (cfs)
A 100 20764.33 0.48 0.71 5.00 7.90 2.68
TOTAL Q (CFS) = 2.68
DRAINAGE BASINS IN TOTAL Q
STDR A 2.68
STORM DRAIN.tXt
Manning Pipe calculator
Given Input Data:
Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . circular
Solving for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Depth of Flow
Diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0000 in
Flowrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6800 cfs
Slope . ; . . . . . . 0.0100 ft/ft
Manning s n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0100
computed Results:
Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7115 in
Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5454 ft2
wetted Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4513 ft2
wetted Perimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4397 in
Perimeter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.4159 in
velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9381 fps
Hydraulic Radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0313 in
Percent Full . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.1151 %
Full flow Flowrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8483 cfs
Full flow velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2223 fps
critical Information
critical depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2934 in
critical slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0054 ft/ft
critical velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6947 fps
critical area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5709 ft2
critical perimeter . . 24.2947 in
critical hydraulic radius . . . . . . . 3.3836 in
critical top width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.0000 in
Specific energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1875 ft
Minimum energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1617 ft
Froude number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4545
Flow condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . supercritical
Page 1