2008-726 SG RANCHO COASTAL ENGINEERING
Single Source Development Consultant
January 20, 2009
City of Encinitas
Engineering Services Permits
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION
McCABE WORKSHOP - DRAWING NO. 726-SG
The grading under permit number 726-SG has been performed in substantial
conformance with the approved grading plan or as shown on the attached "as-graded"
plan.
Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved
grading plan and that swales drain at a minimum of I% to the street and/or an appropriate
drainage system.
All the Lo ;m pact Development, Source Control and Treatment Control Best
Manage ent'Practices as sho on the drawing and required by the Best Management
=Logao.C.E.-T9-726,er constructed and are operational, together with the required
.
ROFESS7o
. 39726, er of 0 Date
2
w C9g 2
N� a�
CF CALIFCP�
Verif ication by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature
hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve
the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility:
Engineering Inspector: _
Dated:
Planning • Civil Survey Structural
Rancho Coastal Engineering, Inc.
1635 S. Rancho Santa Fe Rd.,Ste.204,San Marcos, CA 92078 Phone(760)510-3152, Fax:(760)510-3153
www.rcesd.com
,�• = DOC # 2007-0469008
° I lilllll 1111 11111 11111 11111 11111 llllf 11111 11111 Illll llfff 11111 1111 1111
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO JUL 12, 2007 4:40 PM
OFFICIAL RECORDS
Streeter Law Group,A PC SAN DIEGO COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE
2385 Camino Vida Roble,Suite 101 GREGORYJ.SMITH,COUNTY RECORDER
III(' FEES: 10.00
Carlsbad,California 92011 OC: OC
PAG E S: 2
Attn: Debra Leffler Streeter 11118111111N1N1NN111111U11D1111111UI1U111111111
A.P.N. Sq-�ao-jgb - i 315 0
_20oL_0469008
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
QUITCLAIM DEED
(Excluded from Reappraisal Under Proposition 13,i.e.,Calif.Const.Art. 13A§1 et seq.)
The undersigned Transferors,PHILIP MICHAEL MCCABE and CAROL FOUNTAIN MCCABE,declare
under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the following is true and correct:
This conveyance is a Trust Transfer under Section 62 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. By
this Quitclaim Deed,the Transferors transfer their interest in the property described below to Transferors'
revocable inter vivos trust. There is no consideration given for this transfer. Accordingly,there is no
documentary transfer tax per California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 11911.
Documentary transfer tax is$NONE.
TRANSFERORS: PHILIP MICHAEL MCCABE and CAROL FOUNTAIN MCCABE,husband
and wife,as community property,hereby FOREVER QUITCLAIM to
TRANSFEREES: PHILIP MICHAEL MCCABE and CAROL FOUNTAIN MCCABE as Trustees
of the Philip and Carol McCabe Family Trust dated June 20,2007
all that real property situated in an unincorporated area in the County of San Diego,State of California,
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by ference.
Dated:June 20,2007
Phil' tchael McCabe
Carol Fountain McCabe
'STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
On June 20,2007,before me,Debra Leffler Streeter,Notary Public,personally appeared Philip Michael McCabe and Carol
Fountain McCabe,personally known to me(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the persons whose names are
subscribed to the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized c acities,and hat by
their signatures on the instrument the persons,or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acre WOCOA"FE
WITNESS my hand and official scat. 011"W4
PUBLIC-CAIIFORNN DIEGO COUNT/N AR BLIC EV•MARM 2'�,
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO:
Philip and Carol McCabe, 1596 Avenida de los Lirios,Encinitas,California 92024
I
131.51
EXHIBIT A
LOT 26 OF ENCINITAS ESTATES UNIT NO. 1, IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFONRIA, ACCORDING TO MAP
THEREOF NO. 7662, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON JUNE 13, 1973. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL OILS,
MINERALS, COALS, PETROLEUM, GAS AND KINDRED SUBSTANCES UNDER
AND IN SAID LAND, BUT WITHOUT RIGHT OF ENTRY OF THE SURFACE
THERETO, BUT WITH THE RIGHT, HOWEVER,TO DRILL IN,THROUGH OR
UNDER SAID LAND OR TO EXPLORE, DEVELOP OR TAKE ALL MINERALS,
COALS, OILS, PETROLEUM, GAS AND OTHER KINDRED SUBSTANCES IN
AND FROM SAID LAND,ALL SUCH OPERATIONS TO BE CONDUCTED ONLY
BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE THEREOF.
SGC Southland Geotechnical Consultants
January 10, 2007 ; , iOroject No. 147G72
0 vT 1 5 207
To: Mr. Phil McCabe I
1 596 Avenida de los Lirios ---�
Encinitas, California 92024
Subject: Addendum to Soils Investigation, Proposed Auxiliary Structures to
Existing Residential Property, 1596 Avenida de los Lirios, Encinitas,
California
Reference: Soils Investigation, Proposed Auxiliary Structures to Existing Residential
Property, 1596 Avenida de los Lirios, Encinitas, Califonaia, dated
February 24, 2006, by Southland Geotechnical Consultants
Introduction
Southland Geotechnical Consultants has prepared this addendum to our above-
referenced soils investigation report to provide alternative foundation recommendations
for the proposed auxiliary structures to be constructed at the existing residential
property located at 1596 Avenida de los Lirios in Encinitas. To assist in preparing this
letter, we have reviewed our referenced report and have spoken with you.
Alternative Foundation Recommendations
From our conversations with you, we understand that you desire alternative foundation
recommendations to those provided in our referenced report. Our previous
recommendations assumed that the existing unsuitable soils would be removed and
recompacted in accordance with the recommendations of our referenced report. As
encountered in our exploratory borings, the potentially compressible soils ranged in
depth from approximately 16 to 27 inches below the existing ground surface.
However, localized deeper accumulations of the compressible soils may exist at the
site.
If site earthwork to mitigate the potentially compressible soils is not performed,
footings should extend through the potentially compressible soils and be founded in
the underlying dense Torrey Sandstone. The proposed structures could then utilize a
foundation system consisting of a combination of continuous, spread, and/or drilled
pier footings. Raised-wood floors or a concrete structural slab system may be used.
The potentially compressible fill soils should not be relied upon for support of the
structural slab (or other fill/structural loads).
1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021
(679)442-8022 • FAX (619)442-7859
Project No. 147G72
These recommendations assume that the soils encountered during foundation
excavation will have a very low to low expansion potential.
Continuous/Spread Footings - Continuous footings for the proposed one-story
structures should extend through the existing fill soils and bear entirely in the
underlying Torrey Sandstone. Continuous footings should have a minimum
depth of 18 inches beneath the lowest adjacent grade and be embedded a
minimum of 18 inches into the dense, formational soils of the Torrey
Sandstone. Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches
and be reinforced, at a minimum, with two No. 4 rebars (one near the top and
one near the bottom). Spread footings should be designed in accordance with
structural considerations and have a minimum width of 24 inches. For footings
designed in accordance with the above recommendations, an allowable soil-
bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be assumed. This value
may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration such as wind and
seismic loads.
- Drilled Pier Foundations - Drilled, reinforced, cast-in-place concrete caissons
may be considered for the auxiliary structures. The caisson foundation system
should be designed by a structural engineer based on the following geotechnical
criteria. Caissons should extend through the fill soils and have a minimum of
3 feet of embedment into dense, formational materials. Caissons should be
connected with grade beams. Caissons so founded may be designed for an
allowable end-bearing capacity of 6,000 pounds per square foot. This value
considers downdrag due to the loose fill soils. A design passive lateral bearing
pressure of 600 psf per foot of depth may be used (and increased by an
additional 200 psf per foot of depth) for that portion of the caisson founded in
dense, formational materials (below the fill soils).
We recommend that the center-to-center spacing of the caissons be a minimum
of three caisson diameters. Differential settlement of caissons designed in
accordance with these recommendations should be less than 1 /2 inch. Caisson
depths may vary and can only be finalized upon field observations of the
conditions encountered during caisson drilling.
Careful construction of caissons is of great importance. Care in drilling and
placement of steel and concrete are essential to avoid excessive erosion of the
caisson boring walls. The bottom of all caisson borings should be as clean as
practicable prior to concrete placement. Caisson borings should be observed by
the geotechnical consultant prior to installation of the reinforcement. Concrete
placement by pumping or tremie tube to the bottom of the caisson boring is
recommended. Caisson boring cleanout and concrete placement should be
addressed in the project specifications. Caisson borings should not be drilled
2
Project No. 147G72
immediately adjacent to a completed caisson until the concrete of the completed
caisson has attained its initial set.
Additional Comments
Raised-wood floors or a concrete structural slab may be used with these deepened
foundation alternatives. The potentially compressible fill soils should not be relied
upon for support of structural foundation/slab elements (or other fill/structural loads).
Please note that our recommendations for foundations are minimum design
parameters. The project structural engineer is responsible for final design of the
foundations, structural slab system, and/or raised floors.
The geotechnical recommendations provided in our referenced report remain pertinent
and applicable to the proposed project.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact our office. We
appreciate the opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
C arles Corbin, PE 36302
Proje t Engineer QVLOFE33/p,
mc`n
M/ No. 6302
E
OF Cle��40
Distribution: (3) Addressee
3
SGC
SG C Southland Geotechnical Consultants
SOILS INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED AvXiLIAQV S?RvvTVRES TO
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
1596 AVENIDA DE LOS LIRIOS
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
Project No. 147G72
February 24, 2006
Prepared for;
MR, PHIL McCABE
1 596 Avenida De Los Lirios
Encinitas, California 92024
. 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021
(679)442-8022 s FAX (619)442-7859
SGI Southland Geotechnical Consultants
February 24; 2006 Project No. 147G72
To: Mr.. Phil McCabe
1596 Avenida de los Lirios
Encinitas, California 92024
Subject: Soils Investigation; Proposed Auxiliary Structures to Existing Residential
Property, 1 596 Avenida de los Lirios, Encinitas, California
Introduction
Southland Geotechnical Consultants has performed a soils investigation for the
proposed auxiliary structures to be constructed at the existing residential property
located at 1 596 Avenida de los Lirios in Encinitas. This report presents the results of
our, soils investigation and provides our conclusions and recommendations, from a
geotechnical standpoint, relative to the proposed project.
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of our soils investigation was to evaluate the soil conditions at the
property and provide recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, regarding the
design and construction of the proposed project. The scope of our soils investigation
included the following:
Review of geotechnical maps and literature pertaining to the site and general
vicinity. A list of the documents reviewed is included in Appendix A.
Review of a preliminary project plan by Ms. Chris Campbell, Architect.
Field reconnaissance to observe the existing surficial soil conditions at the
subject property and nearby vicinity.
Investigation of the subsurface soil conditions by manually excavating, logging
and sampling five exploratory borings at the site.
Laboratory expansion index, sulfate and chloride content testing of soil samples
obtained from the exploratory borings.
Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained.
F 7238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92027
(679)442-8022 - FAX (679)442 7859
Project No. 147G72
Preparation of this report summarizing the results of our soils investigation and
presenting conclusions and recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint,
regarding design and construction of the proposed project.
Project Description
The subject property is located at 1 596 Avenida de los Lirios in Encinitas, west of the
north end of the cul-de-sac (see Figure 1 ). The property is bounded to the east, west
and southwest by developed residential properties, and by Encinitas Boulevard to the
iiorui, n single-family ieSiuciiuc exists on the edStelll portion of the roughly triangular
lot. A slope descends from the relatively level property to Encinitas Boulevard.
We understand that the proposed project will consist of two, one-story auxiliary
structures. These structures are proposed to be constructed northwest of the existing
residence. Some relatively minor site grading may be considered to prepare the
building area and attain design finished grades. Building loads are assumed to be
typical of .residential construction.
Subsurface Investigation
On February 8, 2006, five exploratory borings were manually excavated at the site to
a maximum depth of approximately 49 inches below the existing ground surface. The
borings were logged by a geologist from our firm and samples of the soils encountered
during the subsurface investigation were obtained for laboratory testing. The soils
were visually and texturally classified in the field in general accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Subsequent to logging and sampling, the
borings were backfilled. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are
shown on Exploratory Boring Location Map (Figure 2). Logs of the exploratory borings
are presented in Appendix B.
Soil/Geologic Units
Based on our review of geologic maps and as encountered in our soils investigation,
the subject property appears to be underlain by fill soils and the geologic unit known
as Torrey Sandstone. Brief descriptions of these units follow:
Fill Soils _ Fill soil~ apparentl,/ associated with the [existing cite imprn\'ementq,
were encountered in all of our exploratory borings. As encountered, the fill soils
generally consisted of dark brown, silty fine sand and mottled gray, yellow-
brown and orange silty fine to medium sand with occasional subrounded gravel.
2
SGC
Pro ect No. 147072
The fill soils were encountered to a maxir-num depth of approximately 27 inches
below the existing ground surface. Localized deeper accumulations of these
soils may exist at the site. The fill soils are considered potentially compressible
arid, in their present state, should not be relied upon for the support of fill
and/or structural loads. A sample of the fill soils (Boring 4 at 4 to 12 inches)
was tested in general accordance with UBC test standard 18-2 and was found
to have a very low expansion potential (expansion index = 6),
Torrey Sandstone - The Torrey Sandstone was encountered underlying the fill
soils in all of our exploratory borings and is the geologic unit that appears to
ullderlle the entire site. As encountered in our exploratory borings, the Torrey
Sandstone generally consisted of orange- and yellow-brown, silty fine sand with
occasional subrounded gravel. The Torrey Sandstone in the general site vicinity
is known to be locally well cemented and hard. Based on our visual and textural
evaluation, the dense Torrey Sandstone typically exhibits favorable bearing
characteristics. The Torrey Sandstone is similar to soils in the general site
vicinity found to have a very low to low expansion potential when tested in
general accordance with UBC test standard 18-2.
Groundwater and Surface Water
Indications of a static, near-surface groundwater table were not encountered in our
exploratory borings. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a constraint to the proposed
construction. However, our experience indicates that near-surface groundwater
conditions can develop in areas where no such groundwater conditions existed prior
to development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water
infiltration results from landscape irrigation or unusually heavy precipitation.. It is
anticipated that the proposed project will include appropriate drainage provisions for
control and discharge of surface runoff.
3
`7 V C
Project No. 147672
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the results of our soils investigation, it is our opinion that construction of the
proposed auxiliary structures is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The following
sections discuss the geotechnical factors affecting the site and provide
recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, which should be considered for
design and construction of the proposed project.
Earthwork
1 ro� � our Understanding of the project, some relatively minor site grading may be
performed 'to prepare the site and attain finished design grades. Site earthwork should
be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the
Recommended Earthwork Specifications included in Appendix C. In the event of
conflict, the recommendations presented herein supersede those of Appendix C.
Site Preparation - Prior to grading and construction activities, the site should be
cleared of vegetation, debris and loose soils. Vegetation and debris should be
properly disposed of off site. Holes resulting from removal of buried
obstructions which extend below finished site grades should be filled with
properly compacted fill soils.
Removal/Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils - The existing fill soils
are considered potentially compressible and unsuitable for the support of fill
and/or structural loads in their present condition. We recommend that these
soils be removed in areas planned for structures, surface improvements or fill
placement. As encountered in the exploratory borings, these soils apparently
underlie the majority of the project site. In our exploratory borings, the fill soils
ranged in depth from approximately 16 to 27 inches below the existing ground
surface. However, localized deeper accumulations of the compressible fill soils
may exist at the site. The thickness and extent of these soils may vary and
should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during removal of these
unsuitable soils. In general, the limits of removal/recompaction should extend
a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeters of the proposed structures. These
soils are considered suitable for re-use as compacted, structural fill. provided
they are free of organic material, deleterious debris and oversized materials
(rocks with a rnaximum dimension greater than 6 inches).
Excavations - It is anticipated that excavation of the onsite soils can be
anrnmrrn,li.charr h..,\y i conventional grading equipment in good operating Coiiu it:
on.
However, well-cemented zones in the Torrey Sandstone may be encountered
and may require extra effort for excavation.
4
e.7 G
Project No "147G372
Structural Fill Placement - Areas to receive fill and/or other surface
improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to
near-optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction, based on laboratory standard ASTM D1557. Fill soils
should be brought to near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in
uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1 557). The
optirnum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the
size and type of construction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed
in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Placement and compaction
of fill should be observed and tested by the geotechnical consultant. In general,
placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local
grading ordinances, sound construction practices, and the Recommended
Earthwork Specifications included in Appendix C.
Transition (Cut/Fill) Condition) - The potential for a transition (cut/fill) condition
underlying the area of the proposed structures should be checked when project
plans are finalized and in the field during grading so that appropriate
recommendations can be provided to reduce the potential damage due to
differential settlement across the transition. Typically, we recommend that the
cut (or natural) portion of the building area be overexcavated to a minimum
depth of 3 feet and replaced with moisture-conditioned fill soils compacted to
at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The overexcavation
and recompaction typically extends for a distance of at least 5 feet beyond the
perimeter of the proposed building,
Trench Backfill - The onsite soils are generally suitable as trench backfill
provided they are screened of organic matter and clasts over 6 inches in
diameter. Trench backfill should be compacted by mechanical means to at least
90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557).
Foundations
Project plans are not finalized, however, we understand that the proposed development
will include construction of two one-story, auxiliary structures and associated
improvements. It is anticipated that the proposed structures will be supported by
continuous perimeter and/or isolated footings with slab-on-grade floors. Foundations
should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following
recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils encountered during
foundation excavation vvill have a very lo-vv expansion potential, and the existing fill
soils have been removed and recompacted in accordance with our previous
recommendations. The potentially compressible fill soils should not be relied upon for
support of fill and/or structural loads.
5
G
Project No. 147072
The proposed one-story structures may be supported by continuous and/or isolated
footings bearing entirely in properly compacted fill soils (or entirely in dense,
formational soils) at a minimum depth of 18 inches beneath the lowest adjacent grade.
Continuous footings should have a rninirnurn width of 12 inches and be reinforced, at
a minirnum, \niith two No, 4 rebars (one near the top and one near the bottom).
Spread footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and
have a minimum width of 2.4 inches.
For footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations, an allowable
soil--bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be assumed. This value
inay be increased by one-third for loads of short duration such as wind and seismic
loads.
Slabs on Grade
Concrete slab-on-grade floors should be designed in accordance with structural
considerations and the following recommendations. Concrete slabs on grade underlain
entirely by properly compacted fill soils (or entirely by dense, formational soils) with
a very low expansion potential should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be
reinforced at midheight with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way (or No. 4
rebars at 24 inches on center each way). Care should be taken by the contractor to
insure that the reinforcement is placed at slab midheight.
Slabs should be designed with crack control joints at appropriate spacings for the
anticipated loading. Slabs should be underlain by a 2--inch layer of clean sand (sand
equivalent greater than 30) which is underlain by a 10-mil moisture barrier which is
underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand. The potential for slab cracking may be
lessened by careful control of water/cement ratios. The use of low slump concrete is
recommended. Appropriate curing precautions should be taken during placement of
concrete during hot weather. We recommend that the upper approximately one foot
of soil beneath concrete slabs-on-grade be moistened prior to placing the sand blanket,
moisture barrier and concrete. We recommend that a slipsheet or equivalent be used
if crack-sensitive flooring is planned directly on concrete slabs,
Please note that our recommendations for slabs are minimum design parameters. The
project structural engineer is responsible for final design of the concrete slabs on
grade. In addition, our recommendations are not intended to eliminate the possibility
of cracks due to concrete shrinkage. Shrinkage cracks develop in nearly all slabs
V,';Ch are Ct Speclfically designed to prevent tiler i, We recormend that a structural
consultant or qualified concrete contractor be consulted to provide appropriate design
and workmanship requirements for mitigation of shrinkage cracks.
6
Project No, 147G72
Lateral Resistance
Footings and slabs founded in properly compacted fill soils or dense, formational soils
may be designed for a passive lateral pressure of 350 pounds per square foot per foot
of depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soil of
0.35 may be assumed. These values may be increased by one-third when considering
loads of short duration, such as wind or seismic forces.
Seismic Considerations
The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southern California are
damage caused by surface rupturing of fault traces, ground shaking, seismically-
induced ground settlement or liquefaction. The seismic hazard most likely to impact
the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the major active
regional faults. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered minimal
since no active faults are known to cross the site. The potential for liquefaction or
seismically-induced ground settlement due to an earthquake is considered low because
of the dense nature of the underlying Torrey Sandstone and anticipated lack of a near-
surface groundwater table.
The effects of seisrnic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition
of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers
Association of California. Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions, the seismic design parameters from the 1997 Uniform Building Code,
Section 1636, Tables 1 6-J, 16-S, 16-T and 1 6--U are provided below.
UBC Table 16-J - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and our review of UBC Table 16-J, the soil profile type for the
subject property is SD ("Stiff Soil Profile").
- UBC Table 1 6-U - Based on our review of the Active Fault Near-Source Zones
maps (0-37) prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, the
nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone. The site is located
easterly and within approximately 7.5 kilometers of the Rose Canyon fault: The
fault is considered a seismic source type B based on UBC Table 16-U.
UBC Table 16-S - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault (Rose
Canyon fault .one), the I\Vear-Source Factor (NJ% Is 1 .V.
7
JG
Project No. 147072
UBC Table 16-T - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and minimum distance to the nearest kno\nm active fault (Rose
Canyon fault zone), the Near-Source Factor (NJ is 1 .1
Sulfate/Chloride Content
Samples of the onsite soils (Boring 2 at 0 to 9 inches deep and Boring 3 at 16 to
24 inches feet deep) were tested to evaluate the degree of sulfate attack on ordinary
(Type II) concrete, The tests were performed in general accordance with California
Test IMIethod No. 41, and yielded soluble sulfate contents of 0,009 percent and
0.057 percent, respectively. The test results indicate a "negligible" degree of sulfate
attack on concrete based on UBC Table 1 9-A-4 criteria. Additional testing of the pad-
grade soils may be warranted during grading.
Samples of the onsite soils (Boring 2 at 0 to 9 inches deep and Boring 3 at 16 to
24 inches feet deep) were tested to evaluate the degree of chloride attack on ordinary
(Type II) concrete. The tests were performed in general accordance with California
Test Method No. 422 and yielded soluble chloride contents of 0.003 percent and
0.023 percent, respectively. The type of concrete specified and used should be
determined by the structural engineer.
Site Dr ail cage
Drainage at the site should be directed away from foundations, collected and tightlined
to appropriate discharge points. Consideration may be given to collecting roof drainage
by eave gutters and directing it away from foundations via non-erosive devices.
Water, either natural or from irrigation, should not be permitted to pond, saturate the
surface soils or flow over the tops of slopes. Landscape requiring a heavy irrigation
schedule should not be planted adjacent to foundations or paved areas.
Plan Review/Construction Observation and Testing
The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the
project and interpolated subsurface conditions disclosed in our widely-spaced
exploratory borings. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface
condition at a project site. Final project drawings for the proposed auxiliary structures
should be rC NN/iok yierI by CnutWOnr4 r--°C+ecl-, ;cal Consultants i pi for to col istr uction to
check that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the
project plans. Subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during
construction. Geotechnical observation during any site grading and field density
8
SG�
Project No 147G72
testing of compacted fill should be performed by Southland Geotechnical Consultants.
Geotechnical observation of footing excavations should also be performed by the
geotechnical consultant to check that construction is in accordance with the
recommendations of this report.
If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact our office.. We
appreciate the opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Susan E. Tanges, CEGf1386 Charle o r b i PE 36302
Engineering Geologist �99%0NAL q Projeo Engineer
0
No.1398 4 i
ENGINEERING,
of CALIF-0
Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 Exploratory Boring Location Map
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Geotechnical Boring Logs
Appendix C - Recommended Earthwork. Specifications
Distribution: (3) Addressee
9
SG
T
fI I_ l 7,
�.TI
LnC
r
If
LV
r4�R "J SITE
'.�'a"�
0.
.`l/ty'. ... � `-�� it b II ✓� ,• \�_I _y I fir' r-...JT �� art-' li
fi
S i
II
/ l �I: I ill, •'r.'@ .�.rc ` I I!. '"\ ,��1\1\�\i .�� Gi e�
�/
_ u,l" ��, 11 '� x'11 ' �II�� �'` --`,-- C"� `"�� � � '��:,(a" \ `' J� �u=�%1•
Ir tills
r SITE LOCATION MAP
N
Project No. 147G72
1596 Avenida de los Lirios
Encinitas, California
Scale (approximate): 1 inch = 2,000 feet
Base Map: Geologic maps of the northwestern part
of San Diego County, California, CDMG OFR 96-02,
by S.S Tan and M.P Kennedy, "1996 FIGURE 1
SG
LL
LL
C C
S LL
4. C
y z �
C.) w
T
n w
J
LLJ �
CL
O z
L_O
r
Q
U
O
J
0
z
N
�m
O m
v
a in O
o Qm
O
X
W
a
a
� a
m p CO
C
co S x 7
CL Cn
C C +
— U
7` 8 E
< U U
J
� U O CL �
C FD n
CD _U U
V)
W U7 co U
i
f
APPENDIX A
SGC
Project No 147672
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1 . California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault activity map of California
and adjacent areas: CDMG Geologic Data Map No. 6.
2, Eisenberg, L.., 1983, Pleistocene and Eocene geology of the Encinitas and
Rancho Santa Fe quadrangles, in Abbott, P.L., ed., On the manner of deposition
of the Eocene strata in northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of
Geologists, fieldtrip guidebook,
3, Hart, E.W., 1991, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, revised.
4, Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide hazards in the northern part of the
San Diego metropolitan area, San Diego County, California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Open-file Report 95-04,
5. Southland Geotechnical Consultants, in-house geologic/geotechnical
information.
S�
APPENDIX B
z7 G
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
McCabe/1596 Avenida de cos Lirics Manually Excavated Boring No 1
Project No. 147G72 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1
February 8, 2006 Logged by ST
Sampled by LM
De th Blows Dry —b"dater USCS
Graphic Sample
in — Pei Density Content Soil Geotechnical Description
I �.og No
Feet Foot (pcf) (%) Type
@ 0-2" - grass lawn
FILL
SM @ 2" - Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty
fine sand; with roots
N
1
SM @ 16"- Mottled gray, yellow-brown and orange, moist,
medium dense to dense, silty fine to medium sand
@ 18" - subrounded gravel
@ 22" - subrounded gravel
2
27" - subrounded gravel
— TORREY SANDSTONE
Bulk 1 SM @ 27" - Orange-brown, moist, dense, silty fine sand; with
iron-oxide staining, slightly micaceous
@ 36"-- less weathered
Total depth = 36 inches
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 8 Feb 06
4
5
L6LI
SGC
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
McCabe%1596 Avenida de los Drics Manually Excavated Boring No. 2
Project No 147G72 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1
February 8, 2006 Logged by ST
Sampled by LM
Depth 7,eDersrty Dry Water USCS i
Graphic Sample
in Content Soil Geotechnical Description
i og N�
Feet Foot (pcf) (%) Type
0. @ 0.1" grass lawn
FILL
Bulk ,l SM @ 1" - Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty i
fine sand; with roots
IIIon 4" lighten-. in color
- SM @ 9" - Yellow-brown, moist, medium dense to dense,
silty fine sand; with occasional subrounded gravel,
iron-oxide staining
18""4" subrounded gravel
y
— TORREY SANDSTONE
T SM @ 18" - Orange-brown, damp, medium dense to dense,
silty fine sand; with iron-oxide staining, occasional
2 _ subrounded gravel
3 _
Total depth = 36 inches
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 8 Feb 06
4
I
5
I
VGC
GEOTECHNICAL BONING LOG
McCabe/1596.Avenida de fcs Lirios Manually Excavated Boring No, 3
Project No 147G72 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet '. of 1
February 8, 2006 Logged by S7
Sampled by LM
Depth I-o "s Dry '.hater USCS
Graphic Sample
n a ��o Per Density Content Soil Geotechnical Description
Feet Foot (pcf) (%) Type
0 — i @ 0.1" grass lawn _ `-- L
FILL
s @ 1" - Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty
fine sand, with roots
Cad 4" - liahtens in color
1
TORREY SANDSTONE s
SM @ 16"- Orange-brown, damp, medium dense to dense,
Bulk 1 silty fine sand; with iron-oxide staining, occasional
subrounded gravel
2 @ 25" - subrounded gravel
@ 26"- becoming very dense
Total depth =26 inches
Refusal on cobble?
— No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 8 Feb 06
3
4
5
SGC
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
[AcCabel1596 Avenida de los Linos Manually Excavated Boring No 4
Project No 147G72 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet I of 1
February 8, 2006 Logged by ST'
Sampled by LM
Depth Blows Dry— VVater
Gr'aphi;; Sample
�n _o NO Per Density Content Soii Geotechnical Description
Feet 9 FOOt (pcf} (°/) Type
@ 0-1" - grass lawn
FILL
SM @ 1" Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty
T_
fine sand; with roots, subrounded gravel
Bulk 1
@ 9" - 4" subrounded cobble
1 @ 12" - lightens in color, iron-oxide staining
gradational to:
TORREY SANDSTONE
SM @ 16" Mottled orange- and yellow-brown, moist, medium 1—
dense to dense,silty fine sand
SM @ 18" - Light yellow-brown, damp to moist, dense, sillty
fine sand; with iron-oxide staining
2
@ 34" 1-2" subrounded gravel
3 @ 36" - 1" subrounded gravel
I
Bulk 2
4
Total depth = 49 inches
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 8 Feb 06
5
i
I
SG
GEOTECHNICA.L BORING LOG
McCabe/1596 Avenida de ios i_Irios Manually Excavated Boring No, 5
Project No 147G72 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1
February 8, 2006 Logged by ST
Sampled by LM
r"P, Graphic Sample th Blows Dry Water usC5 Per Density Content Soil Geotechnical Description
Feet Lop c Foot (pcf) (%) Type
0 —
@ 0-1" - grass lawn
FILL
SM @ 1" - Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty
_ fine sand, with roots, 1" brick chunk
I I I @ d" - lightens in color; occasional iron-oxide staining and
white chunks
1
TORREY SANDSTONE
2 SM @ 20" -Yellow-brown, dry to damp, dense, silty fine sand;
with iron-oxide staining, small concretions
@ 32"- more dense with depth
Total depth = 33 inches
3 No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 8 Feb 06
I
4
5
6 -----
SGG
APPENDIX C
SGC
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
1 .0 General Intent
These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations
for grading and earthwork to be used in conjunction with the approved grading
plans. These general earthwork specifications are considered a part of the
recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and are superseded by
recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations
performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new
recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the
contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the
geotechnical report and approved grading plans.
2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testing
Prior to grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the
purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing fill placement for
conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these
specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to keep the
geotechnical consultant apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24
hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No
grading operations shall be performed without the knowledge of the
geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical
consultant is aware of all site grading operations.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate
equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable
grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations of the geotechnical
report, and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical
consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a
quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the
specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and
recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
3.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
3. 1 Clearing and Grubbing; Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots, and all other
deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a
method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies
and the geotechnical consultant.
SGC
The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals
depending on specific site conditions, In general, no more than one
percent (by volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials.
In addition, nesting of these materials should not be allowed.
3,2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be
scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not
satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following
section, Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and
free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is
reasonably uniform, flat, and free of features which would inhibit uniform
compaction.
3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or
otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface
processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be
overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining pay quantities of
materials overexcavated, the services of a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer should be used.
3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be
watered, dried, or blended as necessary to attain a uniform near-
optimum moisture content as determined by test method ASTM D1557,
3.5 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been
properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture-
conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent as determined by test method ASTM D1557.
3.6 Benching: Where fills are placed on ground sloping steeper than 5:1
(horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The
lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, excavated at least
2 feet into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical
consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or
otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical
consultant.
3,7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed
areas, areas of removal, and fill benches should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant prior tin fill placement,
V
4.0 Fill Material
4. 1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic
matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor gradation,
expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended
by the geotechnical consultant.
4.2 Oversize Material: Oversize fill material, defined as material with a
maximum dimension greater than 6 inches should not be buried or placed
in fills unless the location, materials, and methods are specifically
recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
4.3 Import: If grading operations include importing of fill material, the import
material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1 . Sufficient time
should be given to allow the geotechnical consultant to test and evaluate
proposed import as necessary, prior to importing to the site.
5,0 Fill Placement and Compaction
5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas properly prepared and
evaluated as acceptable to receive fill. Fill should be placed in near-
horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each
layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity
of material and moisture content throughout.
5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried or blended as
necessary to attain a uniform near-optimum moisture content as
determined by test method ASTM D1557.
5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture
conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less
than 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by test method
ASTM D1557. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and
be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability
to efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction.
5.4 Fill Slopes: Compaction of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to
normal compaction procedures, by backrolling slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other
methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading,
the relative compaction of the fill, including the embankment face should
be at least 90 percent as determined by test method ASTM D1 557.
G
5,5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of
compaction of the fill soils should be performed by the geotechnical
consultant. The location and frequency of tests should be at the
consultant's discretion based on observations of the field conditions. In
general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in
elevation gain and/or each 1 ,000 cubic yards of fill placed, In addition,
on slope faces, as a guideline, one test should be taken for each 5,000
square feet of slope face and/or each 10-foot interval of vertical slope
height.
6,0 Subdrain Construction
Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be constructed in areas evaluated
for suitability by the geotechnical consultant. The subdrain system should be
constructed to the approximate alignment in accordance with the details shown
on the approved plans or provided herein. The subdrain location or materials
should not be modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant,
The consultant may recommend modifications to the subdrain system depending
on conditions encountered. Completed subdrains should be surveyed for line
and grade by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer.
7,0 Excavations
Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant
during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation,
overexcavation, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (i,e.; stability fills or slope
buttresses) may be recommended.
8.0 Quantity Determination
The services of a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer should be retained to
determine quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or the limits of
overexcavation.
G
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
FrINLSH GRALDE
SLOPE FACE-
E
------- ------
E E:
j:-Z-
0 ACTED
---E ----- -----------F ILL:
___===__=zE_ - __ _ ------ Z-Z
ZL
)AIN
15, MIN.- -Z:t-----
---
--------------------------
8- MAX.
OVERSIZE WINDROW
GRANULAR SOIL (S.2:30) 70 BE
CENSIFIEZ) IN PLACE BY FLOODING
DETAIL
b:
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches should not be used within IQ feet
vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever is greater),
and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces.
2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills,
3) Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by the
geotechnical consultant.
4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above details
Width of windrow should not exceed 4 fleet. Windrows should be staggered
vertically (as depicted).
5 R c C k s M--ul d -- ;�J'a c e,-44 in -3 x�:av a 1,ed ♦tre-ch a s. uJI a,� 5Z.E. gr e a t e r t Mi an 0 r 9 a
to 30) should be flooded in the windrow to completely fill voids around and beneath
rocks.
SGC
KEY AND SENCHING DETAILS
------------
--
FILL SLOPE
PROJECT 1 70 1 LINE ---
FROM TOE OF SLOPE -0 M -A7_-Tn,
10 COWPE 7ENT MATERIAL
EA1i27jNG
----------
GROUND NO 3LRFACE--,
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
BENCH
MIN.
21 MIN. 7 51 M11
KEY LOWEST
DEPTH BENCH
Ix=Y)
-----------
------------
PAC TED_: _
FILL—OVER—CUT SLOPE FILL
i KA
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
BENCH
�REMOVE
1'' �—1 5' WIN UNSUITABLE
:2 LOWEST
T
MA ERIAL
MIN. BENCH
DEPTH KEY (KEY)
CUT SLOPE
(TO BE EXCAVAT=-O
PRIOR TO FILL
PLA CEMENT)
EXISTING
GROUND "(811( 7111
SURFACE
CUT SLOPE
CUT—OVER—FILL SLOPE (70 BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR 70 FILL
PLACEMENT)
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
PROJECT I TO I MATERIAL
LINE FROM TOE
OF SLOPE 70
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
BENCH
-Z-Z
151 MIN
21 WIN. LCWE3�;- i
KEY 0 EP7tf BENCH
(KEY)
NO 7=—: Back drain may be recarnmer-,ded by the ;eo*,qC?jnical consultant based On
act-jai field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may
also be altered based cn field ccr7diticn3 encountered.
SGC
TRANSITION LOT DETAILS
CUT—FILL L07
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
MIN.
--------------- - --- ---------------
------------- -
C 7 E
-- ----- ---------
--- -------- ------------ 36" WN.
014
OVEREXCAVA7E
AND RECOMPACT
COMPETENT BEDROCK
OR MATERIAL EVALUATED
BY THE GE07ECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
CUT LOT
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
......................................................................................
_� REMO V
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL , M I N.
------------
---------------
0 PA 7 ---
�3_!LM
-------- 36, MIN-*
---------===`1----- ---
_H
OVEREXCAVA7E
AND RECOMPAC7
COMPE7ENT BEDROCK
OR MATERIAL EVALUATED
BY THE GE07ECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
*N07E:
Deeper or laterally rnare extensi-,je vY n Win':a ;
'
recom,oaction may be recommended by the gectec"I''nica-I
consultant based On actual field conditions encountered
and locations of proposed improvements
SIL7 Co-
STABILITY FILL / EUTTRESS DETAIL
OUTLET PIPES
4' 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE, _
/ 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
BACK CUT
tf 1:1 OR FLATTER
- Z% MINA
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION*
- --------- -
2::F
RETAINING WALL
C
8' MIN.
WALL WATERPROOFING OVERLAP FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
PER ARCHITECT'S (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
SPECIFICATIONS
EQUIVALENT)
o 0
I MIN.
3/4'-1.1/2' CLEAN GRAVELf'
FINISH GRADE
lD 4' (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED
PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
-_=-===r=====______________________ ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED
------ --- MINIMUM I PERCENT GRADIENT
------ - TO SUITABLE OUTLET
WALL FOOTING FI-1
3' MIN.
NOT TO SCALE COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
SPECrFICATIONS FOR CAL7RANS CONSULTANT
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
Standard'p EC rF 1'A 7 FOR
PE L� ,
"S
U.S.U.ILAS'F2 ,1101E A I A�L
S. S taida rd
T.�3 I
Sieve Size *BASED ON ASTM 01557
PaSS7na
100 IF CAL7RANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
31411 90-100 (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF
31311 40-100 3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE
No, 4 25-410 DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
No. 3 "8-33 MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO go
No, 30 5-" j PER-ENT RELATIVF:
No, 50 0-7
No, 200 0_3 N07E:C0MP()SI7E:' DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH, AS "RADRAiN
LS "E -
Sand Eau OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE 70 GRAVEL OR
CLASS Z INS7ALLA70N SHOULD BE PERFOR"M IN ACCORDANCE
WrM-q MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
SGC
FROM PHONE NO. : 619 442 7859 Mar. 24 2009 11:32AM P2
SUMN,ARY OF GEOTECHNICAL OBSERV. . w ION
OF FOUNDATION EXCAVATION
Project Name: Auxiliary Structure on McCabe Property
Location: 1596 Avenida de los Lirios, Encinitas, California
Referenced Geotechnical Reports by Southland Geotechnical Consultants
1. Soils Investigation, Proposed Auxiliary Structures to Existing Residential Property, 1596 Avenida de los Lirios,
Encinitas, California, dated February 24, 2006
2. Addendum to Soils Investigation, Proposed Auxiliary Structures to Existing Residential Property,
1596 Avenida de los Lirios, Encinitas, California, dated January 10, 2007
3. Report of Field Density Tests, Proposed Auxiliary Structure on Existing Residential Property, 1596 Avenida
de los Lirios, Encinitas, California, dated January 24, 2008
Soil and Footina Observation Summary LOCATION: f( �JX t 1l�t"a r�/ IOy t C� ►n C�
INITIAL: fiOtJnc�Q01� eXCotV A 01'1 S
_ A representative of Southland Geotechnical Consultants(SGC)has observed the onsite soil conditions
and the soil conditions are substantially in conformance with those assumed in the soils investigation
�{ report (#1).
`1 Compacted fill soil placement was observed and tested by a SGC representative. A summary of our
geotechnical observations and testing are provided in our report of field density tests (#3). The fill
soils were placed and compacted in general accordance with the soils investigation report and
addendum (#1 and #2).
A representative of SGC has observed and measured the footing excavation width and depth.
Footing excavations extend to the minimum recommended depths and bearing strata (#1).
The soils that the foundations were excavated into were evaluated to have a very low expansion
potential (#1). The foundation excavations are generally in accordance with the recommendations
for foundations provided in our soils investigation report (#1).
OTHER:
•Footing excavations should be cleaned of loose soil and debris and thoroughly moistened prior
to placing concrete. �-~ --
-In the event of a significant change to the site conditions or foundation excavations subsequent
to our inspection and prior to placing concrete, we should be contacted to make additional
observations. Such changes could be due to natural (i.e. heavy rain, etc.), or manmade causes.
,
_ CERTIFIED G
Southland Geotechni Consuhtants ' k E £ R�yIRN; u
Date
1238 Greenfield Drive, Suite A s
El Cajon, CA 92021 619-442-8022
tea; 1.1�Q
SGC Project No. 147(372 CA
SGC Southiand Geotechnical Consultants
January 24, 2008 Project No. 147G72
To: Mr. Phil McCabe
1596 Avenida de los Lirios
Encinitas, California 92024
Subject: Report of Field Density Tests, Proposed Auxiliary Structure on Existing
Residential Property, 1596 Avenida de los Lirios, Encinitas, California
References: 1 . Soils Investigation, Proposed Auxiliary Structures to Existing
Residential Property, 1596 Avenida de los Lirios, Encinitas, California,
dated February 24, 2006, by Southland Geotechnical Consultants
2. Addendum to Soils Investigation, Proposed Auxiliary Structures to
Existing Residential Property, 1596 Avenida de los Lirios, Encinitas,
California, dated January 10, 2007, by Southland Geotechnical
Consultants
Introduction
Southland Geotechnical Consultants has performed geotechnical observation and
testing services during grading activities for the proposed auxiliary structure to be
constructed at on the existing residential property at 1596 Avenida de los Lirios in
Encinitas. This report presents a summary of our geotechnical observations and field
and laboratory test results to date.
Summary of Grading Operations
This report addresses site grading that was accomplished during the period of
January 15 through 18, 2008. Geotechnical observation and testing of compacted
fill were performed by a representative from our firm on an as-needed basis during
grading.
Grading of the site generally consisted of the removal and recompaction of the upper
approximately 3 feet of soils below finished grade in the area of the proposed
structure. The removal limits generally extended a minimum of approximately 5 feet
beyond the perimeter of the proposed structure. The dense, formational soils exposed
in the bottom of the excavation generally consisted of the geologic unit known as
Torrey Sandstone.
. 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021 .
(619)442-8022 9 FAX (619)442-7859
Project No. 147G72
Prior to grading, the site was generally stripped of surface vegetation (grass lawn).
The existing soils were removed and recompacted. The fill soils were near/above
optimum moisture conditions, and were placed in lifts and compacted by mechanical
means to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by
ASTM D1557.
Field and Laboratory Tests
Field density tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D1556 (Sand-
Cone Method). The results of the field density tests are presented in Table 1
(Summary of Field Density Tests). The approximate locations of the field density tests
are shown on Figure 1 (Field Density Test Location Map).
The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a representative
sample of the fill soils placed at the site were determined in general accordance with
ASTM test designation D1557. The results of the laboratory test are summarized in
Table 2 (Laboratory Test Results).
Conclusions
Our geotechnical observations and field and laboratory test results indicate that the fill
soils placed to date have been compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction,
as evaluated using test methods ASTM D1 556 and ASTM D1557. The onsite fill soils
generally consist of yellowish brown, silty fine sand (SM). The fill soils were derived
on site, and these soils were found to have a very low expansion potential when
tested in general accordance with UBC test standard 18-2 during our above-referenced
soils investigation. Field density testing of any additional compacted fill backfill,
should be performed by the geotechnical consultant.
2
SGC
Project No. 147G72
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office. We
appreciate this opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Susan E. Tanges, CEG 386 Croj harl s R-: Corbin, PE 36302
Engineering Geologist ct Engineer
,S\0NAL GF
S �V tOFESOIJU
4 �o Mo.1886 �W
CERTIFIED
# ENGINEERING
GEOLOraw
`i
r CIVIL !,
9rFOF CA`1FOP� �IFOf CALIE4`��\
Attachments: Table 1 - Summary of Field Density Tests
Table 2 - Laboratory Test Results
Figure 1 - Field Density Test Location Map
Distribution: (3) Addressee
3
SGC
Project No. 147G72
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
APPROX FIELD DRY MAXIMUM FIELD OPTIMUM RELATIVE
TEST LOCATION SOIL DRY
DATE ELEVATION DENSITY MOISTURE MOISTURE COMPACTION NOTES
NO. (feet) (see Figure 1) TYPE (Pcf) DENSITY (off) I%) (%)
(Pcf)
1 1/18/08 236 SE PAD (FG-1') A 112.9 120.8 14.0 10.8 92 CF
2 .1/18/08. 237 NW PAD (FG) A 110.9 120.8 14.4 10.8 90 1 CF/FG
NOTES:
CF - Compacted Fill
FG - Finished Grade
TABLE 2
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Sample Sample Maximum Optimum
Number Description Dry Density Moisture Content
A Yellowish brown 120.8 pcf 10.8%
silty fine sand (SM)
SGC
0 �-- -TF
• 2
PROPOSED
GARAGE/WORKSHOP
�` PAD = 236.80'
`. F.F. 237.50'
I f
I
-rn a-
rn >
nn �
FIELD DENSITY TEST LOCATION MAP
N LEGEND
Project No. 147G72 A r
• pp oximate location of
1 596 Avenida de los Lirios 2 field density test
Encinitas, California
Approximate limits of fill
placed and compacted
Scale (approximate): 1 inch = 10 feet t during grading and
! reported herein
Base Map: Simplified Grading Plan
for The McCabe Garage/Workshop
Drawing No. 726-SG, sheet 2 of 2
prepared by Rancho Coastal Engineering
dated December 6, 2007
FIGURE 1
SGC
RANCHO COASTAL ENGINEERING
Single Source Development Consultant
January 21, 2008
City of Encinitas
Building & Planning / Engineering Department
RE: PAD CERTIFICATION - THE MCCABE RESIDENCE
1596 AVENIDA DE LOS LIRIOS - DRAWING NO. 726-SG
Pursuant to Section 23 . 24 . 310 of the Encinitas Municipal Code,
this letter is hereby submitted as a Pad Certification Letter for
the subject residence . As the Engineer of Record for this
project , I hereby state all rough grading for this residence has
been completed in conformance with the approved plans and
requirements of the City of Encinitas, Codes and Standards .
23 . 24 . 310 (B) . The following list provides the pad elevations as
field verified on January 21, 2008 and shown on the approved
grading plan :
0 236 . 80 PAD ELEVATION PER PLAN: 236 . 75 FEET SURVEYED
23 . 24 . 310 (B) 1 . Construction of line and grade for all engineered
devices have been field verified and are in substantial
conformance with the subject grading plan.
23 . 24 . 310 (B) 5 . The location and inclination of all manufactured
slopes have been field verified and are in substantial
conformance with the subject grading plan.
23 . 24 . 310 (3) 6 . The construction of earthen berms and positive
building ad drainage have been field verified and are in
substan ial conformance with the subject grading plan.
Sinc ely,
RAN O ;COASTAL GINEERING, INC.
QAOFESS/
� F
ouglas E . Logan, R. C. E. 39726 w Q� z
Principal cc shRW31.00 rr,
L
CALIF
Planning Civil Survey Structural
Rancho Coastal Engineering, Inc.
1635 S. Rancho Santa Fe Rd.,Ste.204, San Marcos, CA 92078 Phone(760)510-3152, Fax:(760)510-3153
www.rcesd.com
SOILS INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED AUXILIARY STRUCTURES TO
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
1596 AVENIDA DE LOS LIRIOS
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
f
JA M 9 2003
Southland
Geo technical
Consultants
I
GC South/and Geotechnical Consultants
SOILS INVESTIGATION
°,OPOSED AUXILIARY STRUCTURES TO
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
1596 AVENIDA DE LOS LIRIOS
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
Project No. 147G72
February 24, 2006
Prepared for:
MR. PHIL MCCABE
1596 Avenida De Los Lirios
Encinitas, California 92024
• 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CA✓ON, CALIFORNIA 92021 •
(619)442-8022 . FAX (619)442-7859
SG C .South/and Geotechnical Consultants
February 24, 2006 Project No. 147G72
To: Mr. Phil McCabe
1596 Avenida de Jos Lirios
Encinitas, California 92024
Subject: Soils Investigation, Proposed Auxiliary Structures to Existing Residential
Property, 1596 Avenida de los Lirios, Encinitas, California
Introduction
Southland Geotechnical Consultants has performed a soils investigation for the
proposed auxiliary structures to be constructed at the existing residential property
located at 1596 Avenida de los Lirios in Encinitas. This report presents the results of
our soils investigation and provides our conclusions and recommendations, from a
geotechnical standpoint, relative to the proposed project.
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of our soils investigation was to evaluate the soil conditions at the
property and provide recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, regarding the
design and construction of the proposed project. The scope of our soils investigation
included the following:
Review of geotechnical maps and literature pertaining to the site and general f
vicinity. A list of the documents reviewed is included in Appendix A.
Review of a preliminary project plan by Ms. Chris Campbell, Architect.
- Field reconnaissance to observe the existing surficial soil conditions at the
subject property and nearby vicinity.
Investigation of the subsurface soil conditions by manually excavating, logging
and sampling five exploratory borings at the site.
Laboratory expansion index, sulfate and chloride content testing of soil samples
obtained from the exploratory borings.
Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained.
1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021 .
(619)442-8022 FAX(619)442-7859
Project No. 147G72
- Preparation of this report summarizing the results of our soils investigation and
presenting conclusions and recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint,
regarding design and construction of the proposed project.
Proiect Description
The subject property s located at 1596 Avenida de to
Y s Linos in Encinitas, west of the
north end of the cul-de-sac (see Figure 1). The property is bounded to the east, west
and southwest by developed residential properties, and by Encinitas Boulevard to the
north. A single-family residence exists on the eastern portion of the roughly triangular
lot. A slope descends from the relatively level property to Encinitas Boulevard.
We understand that the proposed project will consist of two, one-story auxiliary
structures. These structures are proposed to be constructed northwest of the existing
residence. Some relatively minor site grading may be considered to prepare the
building area and attain design finished grades. Building loads are assumed to be
typical of residential construction.
Subsurface Investigation
On February 8, 2006, five exploratory borings were manually excavated at the site to
a maximum depth of approximately 49 inches below the existing ground surface. The
borings were logged by a geologist from our firm and samples of the soils encountered
during the subsurface investigation were obtained for laboratory testing. The soils
were visually and texturally classified in the field in general accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Subsequent to logging and sampling, the
borings were backfilled. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are
shown on Exploratory Boring Location Map (Figure 2). Logs of the exploratory borings
are presented in Appendix B.
Soil/Geologic Units
Based on our review of geologic maps and as encountered in our soils investigation,
9 ,
the subject property appears to be underlain by fill soils and the geologic unit known
as Torrey Sandstone. Brief descriptions of these units follow:
- Fill Soils - Fill soils, apparently associated with the existing site improvements,
were encountered in all of our exploratory borings. As encountered, the fill soils
generally consisted of dark brown, silty fine sand and mottled gray, yellow-
brown and orange silty fine to medium sand with occasional subrounded gravel.
2
SG r
Project No. 147G72
The fill soils were encountered to a maximum depth of approximately 27 inches
below the existing ground surface. Localized deeper accumulations of these
soils may exist at the site. The fill soils are considered potentially compressible
and, in their present state, should not be relied upon for the support of fill
and/or structural loads. A sample of the fill soils (Boring 4 at 4 to 12 inches)
was tested in general accordance with UBC test standard 18-2 and was found
to have a very low expansion potential (expansion index = 6).
- Torrey Sandstone - The Torrey Sandstone was encountered underlying the fill
soils in all of our exploratory borings and is the geologic unit that appears to
underlie the entire site. As encountered in our exploratory borings, the Torrey
Sandstone generally consisted of orange- and yellow-brown, silty fine sand with
occasional subrounded gravel. The Torrey Sandstone in the general site vicinity
is known to be locally well cemented and hard. Based on our visual and textural
evaluation, the dense Torrey Sandstone typically exhibits favorable bearing
characteristics. The Torrey Sandstone is similar to soils in the general site
vicinity found to have a very low to low expansion potential when tested in
general accordance with UBC test standard 18-2.
Groundwater and Surface Water
Indications of a static, near-surface groundwater table were not encountered in our
exploratory borings. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a constraint to the proposed
construction. However, our experience indicates that near-surface groundwater
conditions can develop in areas where no such groundwater conditions existed prior
to development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water
infiltration results from landscape irrigation or unusually heavy precipitation. It is
anticipated that the proposed project will include appropriate drainage provisions for
control and discharge of surface runoff.
3
SGC
Project No. 147G72
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the results of our soils investigation, it is our opinion that construction of the
proposed auxiliary structures is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The following
sections discuss the geotechnical factors affecting the site and provide
recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, which should be considered for
design and construction of the proposed project.
Earthwork
From our understanding of the project, some relatively minor site grading may be
performed to prepare the site and attain finished design grades. Site earthwork should
be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the
Recommended Earthwork Specifications included in Appendix C. In the event of
conflict, the recommendations presented herein supersede those of Appendix C.
Site Preparation - Prior to grading and construction activities, the site should be
cleared of vegetation, debris and loose soils. Vegetation and debris should be
properly disposed of off site. Holes resulting from removal of buried
obstructions which extend below finished site grades should be filled with
properly compacted fill soils.
Removal/Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils - The existing fill soils
are considered potentially compressible and unsuitable for the support of fill
and/or structural loads in their present condition. We recommend that these
soils be removed in areas planned for structures, surface improvements or fill
placement. As encountered in the exploratory borings, these soils apparently
underlie the majority of the project site. In our exploratory borings, the fill soils
ranged in depth from approximately 16 to 27 inches below the existing ground
surface. However, localized deeper accumulations of the compressible fill soils
may exist at the site. The thickness and extent of these soils may vary and
should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during removal of these
unsuitable soils. In general, the limits of removal/recompaction should extend
a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeters of the proposed structures. These
soils are considered suitable for re-use as compacted, structural fill provided
they are free of organic material, deleterious debris and oversized materials
(rocks with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches).
- Excavations - It is anticipated that excavation of the
p onsite soils can be
accomplished by conventional grading equipment in good operating condition.
However, well-cemented zones in the Torrey Sandstone may be encountered
and may require extra effort for excavation.
4
SGC
Project No. 147G72
- Structural Fill Placement - Areas to receive fill and/or other surface
improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to
near-optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction, based on laboratory standard ASTM D1557. Fill soils
should be brought to near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in
uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The
Optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the
size and type of construction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed
in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Placement and compaction
of fill should be observed and tested by the geotechnical consultant. In general,
placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local
grading ordinances, sound construction practices, and the Recommended
Earthwork Specifications included in Appendix C.
- Transition (Cut/Fill) Condition) - The potential for a transition (cut/fill) condition
underlying the area of the proposed structures should be checked when project
plans are finalized and in the field during grading so that appropriate
recommendations can be provided to reduce the potential damage duueto
differential settlement across the transition. Typically, we recommend that the
cut (or natural) portion of the building area be overexcavated to a minimum
depth of 3 feet and replaced with moisture-conditioned fill soils compacted to
at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The overexcavation
and recompaction typically extends for a distance of at least 5 feet beyond the
perimeter of the proposed building.
- Trench Backfill - The onsite soils are generally suitable as trench backfill
provided they are screened of organic matter and clasts over 6 inches in
diameter. Trench backfill should be compacted by mechanical means to at least
90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557).
Foundations
Project plans are not finalized, however, we understand that the proposed development
' will include construction of two one-story, auxiliary structures and associated
improvements. It is anticipated that the proposed structures will be supported by
continuous perimeter and/or isolated footings with slab-on-grade floors. Foundations
should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following
recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils encountered during
foundation excavation will have a very low expansion potential, and the existing fill
soils have been removed and recompacted in accordance with our previous
recommendations. The potentially compressible fill soils should not be relied upon for
support of fill and/or structural loads.
5
SGC
Project No. 147G72
The proposed one-story structures may be supported by continuous and/or isolated
footings bearing entirely in properly compacted fill soils (or entirely in dense,
formational soils) at a minimum depth of 18 inches beneath the lowest adjacent grade.
Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches and be reinforced, at
a minimum, with two No. 4 rebars (one near the top and one near the bottom).
Spread footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and
have a minimum width of 24 inches.
For footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations, an allowable
soil-bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be assumed. This value
may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration such as wind and seismic
loads.
Slabs on Grade
Concrete slab-on-grade floors should be designed in accordance with structural
considerations and the following recommendations. Concrete slabs on grade underlain
entirely by properly compacted fill soils (or entirely by dense, formational soils) with
a very low expansion potential should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be
reinforced at midheight with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way (or No. 4
rebars at 24 inches on center each way). Care should be taken by the contractor to
insure that the reinforcement is placed at slab midheight.
Slabs should be designed with crack control joints at appropriate spacings for the
anticipated loading. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand (sand
equivalent greater than 30) which is underlain by a 10-mil moisture barrier which is
underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand. The potential for slab cracking may be
lessened by careful control of water/cement ratios. The use of low slump concrete is
recommended. Appropriate curing precautions should be taken during
concrete during hot weather. We recommend that the u approximately placement of
p
of soil beneath concrete slabs-on-grade be moistened prior to placing the and blanket,
moisture barrier and concrete. We recommend that a slipsheet or equivalent be used
if crack-sensitive flooring is planned directly on concrete slabs.
IPlease note that our recommendations for slabs are minimum design parameters. The
I project structural engineer is responsible for final design of the concrete slabs on
grade. In addition, our recommendations are not intended to eliminate the possibility
of cracks due to concrete shrinkage. Shrinkage cracks develop in nearly all slabs
which are not specifically designed to prevent them. We recommend that a structural
consultant or qualified concrete contractor be consulted to provide appropriate design
and workmanship requirements for mitigation of shrinkage cracks.
6
a.7 G C
Project No. 147G72
Lateral Resistance
Footings and slabs founded in properly compacted fill soils or dense, formational soils
may be designed for a passive lateral pressure of 350 pounds per square foot per foot
of depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soil of
0.35 may be assumed. These values may be increased by one-third when considering
loads of short duration, such as wind or seismic forces.
Seismic Considerations
The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southern California are
damage caused by surface rupturing of fault traces, ground shaking, seismically-
induced ground settlement or liquefaction. The seismic hazard most likely to impact
the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the major active
regional faults. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered minimal
since no active faults are known to cross the site. The potential for liquefaction or
seismically-induced ground settlement due to an earthquake is considered low because
of the dense nature of the underlying Torrey Sandstone and anticipated lack of a near-
surface groundwater table.
The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition
of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers
Association of California. Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions, the seismic design parameters from the 1997 Uniform Building Code,
Section 1636, Tables 16-J, 16-S, 16-T and 16-U are provided below.
UBC Table 16-J - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and our review of UBC Table 16-J, the soil profile type for the
subject property is So ("Stiff Soil Profile").
- UBC Table 1 6-U - Based on our review of the Active Fault Near-Source Zones
maps (0-37) prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, the
nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone. The site is located
easterly and within approximately 7.5 kilometers of the Rose Canyon fault. The
fault is considered a seismic source type B based on UBC Table 1 6-U.
- UBC Table 16-S - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault (Rose
Canyon fault zone), the Near-Source Factor (NJ is 1 .0.
7
SGC
Project No. 147G72
- UBC Table 16-T - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault (Rose
Canyon fault zone), the Near-Source Factor (NJ is 1 .1 .
Sulfate/Chloride Content
Samples of the onsite soils (Boring 2
at 0 to 9 inches deep and Boring 3 at 16 to
24 inches feet deep) were tested to evaluate the degree of sulfate attack on ordinary
(Type II) concrete. The tests were performed in general accordance with California
Test Method No. 417 and yielded soluble sulfate contents of 0.009 percent and
0.057 percent, respectively. The test results indicate a "negligible" degree of sulfate
attack on concrete based on UBC Table 19-A-4 criteria. Additional testing of the pad-
grade soils may be warranted during grading.
Samples of the onsite soils (Boring 2 at 0 to 9 inches deep and Boring 3 at 16 to
24 inches feet deep) were tested to evaluate the degree of chloride attack on ordinary
(Type ll) concrete. The tests were performed in general accordance with California
Test Method No. 422 and yielded soluble chloride contents of 0.003 percent and
0.023 percent, respectively. The type of concrete specified and used should be
determined by the structural engineer.
Site Drainage
Drainage at the site should be directed away from foundations, collected and tightlined
to appropriate discharge points. Consideration may be given to collecting roof drainage
by eave gutters and directing it away from foundations via non-erosive devices.
Water, either natural or from irrigation, should not be permitted to pond, saturate the
surface soils or flow over the tops of slopes. Landscape requiring a heavy irrigation
schedule should not be planted adjacent to foundations or paved areas.
Plan Review/Construction Observation and Testing
The recommendations provided in this report are based o
p n our understanding of the
project and interpolated subsurface conditions disclosed in our widely-spaced
exploratory borings. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface
condition at a project site. Final project drawings for the proposed auxiliary structures
should be reviewed by Southland Geotechnical Consultants prior to construction to
check that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the
project plans. Subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during
construction. Geotechnical observation during any site grading and field density
8
SGC
Project No. 147G72
testing of compacted fill should be performed by Southland Geotechnical Consultants.
Geotechnical observation of footing excavations should also be performed by the
geotechnical consultant to check that construction is in accordance with the
recommendations of this report.
If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact our office. We
appreciate the opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
f E �
Susan E. Tanges, CEe1386 Charles orbi PE 36302
Engineering Geologist SgXorvaL Proje Engineer
CERTIFIEp
EN a
OLO(P " N o. 3 0 2
cOe`�P � a
Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Exploratory Boring Location Map
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Geotechnical Boring Logs
Appendix C - Recommended Earthwork Specifications
Distribution: (3) Addressee
9
SC
I �, tI .,�- rr� ',t,5 \' �/L ;/-!•� � ^.r_ _ � f����i J/ T� IJ7/�'C\/ ���1,
Wt
if �.L�V ` "`• —�'�/ ./`��`\ , I
®� ( f f�l� -'i �, �� tM L1M � / 11 I C ••i�`�i�y, � j'`� ���
:✓" S i '', r.-= i lam" �• d L r.
/ ''! � I �:, CIJt'ii �r (\ �? ��• I-l. 1, n:`.I✓ �/. i 9} II N \,�� � ✓'� �� �
W.
SITE
- � `
f�I :Y-i')�isi I 1_ , .T" �Jrl ,I I, J) t V\ •v 1
San'!7i
II I Z; I I I,� I I IG �..II••. °��t \'/� ` �"1 .��\il / )ti rf •u �;
•�VJT 6f f } I 327:
�I � I~l��' ...�I�� 7�' •�`�(Y I''jl m_ \\ plc `. ,� � (( fit,•;
`\ •,W I )I` L�J f ✓_/�'^ t:L ! 200 '�/ �S�u� ./
rl
C- - �`l / �l `. 1 1. ,32
i . I
s r� {�.� i i'TV`�Y..,>-�(i ,� I�u�t��7 1li'��r fi i . s^,"�}'`'�. ,!!ni ,. ' ( ��.c-:�7Z���, •i n _
r SITE LOCATION MAP
N
Project No. 147G72
1596 Avenida de los Lirios
Encinitas, California
Scale (approximate): 1 inch = 2,000 feet
Base Map: Geologic maps of the northwestern part
of San Diego County, California, CDMG OFR 96-02,
by S.S. Tan and M.P, Kennedy, 1996 FIGURE 1
SGC
WL
O N
C W
O �
O D
O Q
LL
cc
N
O
X c0
O �
aXa
Q ai
z Ln
0) U'
_C C: 0 m
W
>< J
W O
CC.
G
Z
O
U
O
O
Z
N N
7:1 a)'
r' W
N 0 m �-
n
o •
CL D.
O
o
F-
0
C a.
X �
N
W
a
ai a
M � = N
m
t U o
a U)
r o �
0 U
� � N
J r
•to
m a7 C
N (0 E
� "O O
'X N N
c U °-
o am ° a E
z > ° m m
Q) m C: a' (D Cn
p CD U 0 to
LZ IL , w cn mU
Yr} L .. - _
1. .
i
y b
,T
lx!�
I ;K 4r r l y -1-, '-"'J / s J
'9� .ytil Ka r -v i' f 1" 41116-1
s }s �. 7 y t., t
t.y 1 11 x, r .'r s + t - ' s. F w 1.yy a{ h s Y 4P f Y r -yr� - y I I r; 6+ $ h 11
q7 1-Irtd< QQ�; 11 :. i F ri l l 2 i r F �, Ir f i 1. ,i a � 3w r
4.1• t ^r t :r x r L ,a l r.l,'!r I a I }` d l r%k ^tF+ {yy H r� l - 4 l^i r r -'' y y�
A �, -r
rr j', "Si,_ ilk I a t t ° i.�r �' i' ?J F r l IP J 4rT 5 rt.4 yl `t 3 i,r
h���1 F r t r ,� , .a 3 b � e 3 d k L 14�a,' 3 r t
fQfr•ii' �'y-.n ¢. } �J t { t .y r t r - } r S A; r i.'9 !{� L.: x, n.+44
��L',1'�l { Y - I - r c �. �4d. f' 14 1r R9,1 tl"r �1 a }v Y ,,ft 1,1 I �� ����r I f r r '' v s 4S t r }.R.v'Y '3
° ;y r {4 . 1 z tc..r{ y s � � _ ,-,-r`� r �Sj r s�4'k�,� 9n Gkr s ,s
11 a Lr':7F�f.. K i J ° ti� y r� .r e d a a r x+-'f-�,,, nr '1 - �', t°r
�:i 1 t, r t r � s �� l J 'Y v s F r o �i i _ r ,�L _ i
bTr 9 ' .� 1 .1 J— 7 h _ l > r n 3{ g a i I*� �t� �:i � t k I '�{�n Jzt�l
5 7 a3 r.i y a t t
^"` >)' '+ �k'-:,skF F `I f- r J {a � Y � i � �,��� ✓ � + � � { t f,~rt A d"Xi`TF
Yt�, - � r` t. a 1 i r:•r c' 4 �. - it t 1 r l: V��
_I �F.7 y ' 1 tt r i t' tii. r f - 9r d•SO e j r t r c r "e .3 t r a; r rI .
' ,'�. 'fir k ( ''v., r�>.- F r R :'{ 1( "(.. 3 .,;� �4J. r Y 1. ,r 7 ,� r 3 }.r-�5 v ✓{ t w 1. lry:
fiJ �� 1�, 3+ { "� r { 6 n t 1.
U ,kt r #. r 'J' 3 i f rf ti l 1 r i VYE 4�. .. a
+'".�.t&I+§ s t f :l� t 7 't,^f -II '`C`n .,�. r*, ( ". y�'I c
t..,;r. [ St i , {r S °`' `k w y �t3.•t t ,r, , ,, f d. Y 4 5
I 'O' 4 r r� -y �) "' .r rS I Y t ,�y N l:. :� �- } r f�
k5 ', ,�P " % r fiy. I a :� r . . "' .v. J �; J>- t J 7 -
+h F,��tY{ 1 {l r vy rr E -` f�. +try. r, } S 7 i L ;l ,L.. � t
1 x Yfi ' �3 y 1
t $ " r
4� tr -;, z r w t- `r
A'v✓ }f<2,,,.r "'3�r 1 kIs �" !� 7 £ q t.� r L �, r f`;,i o r�F f iW;x fa r j 7 ', v r }Fi^',
F! -':sr:yJ3 ,, r. T 7 r 'v- Y x °a `l
.—r "11-.r�t "i t t s .fi'� k` Y t, l 'S 4 a` ✓' j _o-
�-;,�-.*,'.? ,,�'.';�,-,,-:,,`��-—�-�..��,--." r,��, . . ,��,-!��,-�) I:,z " -,�-;'PY:,�� --'��...... ,
r#
APPEN
- DIX A � =
10,,j.,.
, .
u
F P
-
F
0�:, , -: . ,". I I I I . I � ,:., - .. I � I
•
. -
I$ ;r.I��,, ,- ., , I � I� 11 � I I I I .I � j I I I, I I I I I. . .: I I -", I, I I I ,. . I I I I.�. .,- -
. �l,,.I
. .
0-,., '.t.,I I: . r . . - . � �I . � I
O�i.i 1.',��l - - .. � 1 . 1. I I I , . 1 I I � � . I I � . - I � ' ' .I
.
s�E
Project No. 147G72
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1 . California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault activity map of California
and adjacent areas: CDMG Geologic Data Map No. 6.
2. Eisenberg, L., 1983, Pleistocene and Eocene geology of the Encinitas and
Rancho Santa Fe quadrangles, in Abbott, P.L., ed., On the manner of deposition
of the Eocene strata in northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of
Geologists, fieldtrip guidebook.
3. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, revised.
4. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide hazards in the northern part of the
San Diego metropolitan area, San Diego County, California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Open-file Report 95-04.
5. Southland Geotechnical Consultants, in-house geologic/geotechnical
i
information.
SG C
l-xyr t + i N i to N AT
. W IS
W a
``�
f n rJ
4 ISO,
-yw
7kt ti A t
MA
MCI 04
� `YVl d t r '�' A ,.o- 7 •P 4_ 's t q"' ,r,t 3•`A W{''
r a H 4
n. y
1 +
APPENDI" B
r: r
t
S.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Manually Excavated Boring No. 1
McCabe/1596 Avenida de los Lirios 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1
Project No. 147G72 Logged by ST
February 8, 2006 Sampled by LM
Depth Graphic Sample Blows Dry Water uscs
in Per Density Content Soil Geotechnical Description
Log No.
Feet Foot (pcf) (%) Type
0 @ 0-2" - grass lawn
FILL
y SM @ 2"- Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty
fine sand; with roots
1
SM @ 16" - Mottled gray, yellow-brown and orange, moist,
medium dense to dense, silty fine to medium sand
@ 18" - subrounded gravel
@ 22" - subrounded gravel
2
@ 27" - subrounded gravel
TORREY SANDSTONE
_ B�ik SM @ 27" - Orange-brown, moist, dense, silty fine sand; with
iron-oxide staining, slightly micaceous
— @ 36" - less weathered
3
Total depth = 36 inches
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 8 Feb 06
4
5
6
SGC
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
McCabe/1596 Avenida de los Lirios Manually Excavated Boring No. 2
Project No. 147G72 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1
Logged by ST
February 8, 2006
Sampled by LM
Depth Graphic Sample Blows Dry Water USCS
in Per Density Content Soil Geotechnical Description
Log No.
Feet Foot (pcf) (%) Type
0 @ 0-1"- grass lawn
FILL
Bulk 1 SM @ 1" - Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty
fine sand; with roots
@ 4"- lightens in color
SM @ 9" -Yellow-brown, moist, medium dense to dense,
1 silty fine sand; with occasional subrounded gravel,
iron-oxide staining
a18"=4"subroundedd ravel_
TORREY SANDSTONE
SM @ 18" - Orange-brown, damp, medium dense to dense,
silty fine sand; with iron-oxide staining, occasional
2 subrounded gravel
3
Total depth = 36 inches
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 8 Feb 06
4
5
6
VGC
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Manually Excavated Boring No. 3
McCabe/1596 Avenida de los Linos Y g
Project No. 147G72 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1
February 8, 2006 Logged by ST
Sampled by LM
Depth Graphic Sample Blows Dry Water USCS
in Log No. Per Density Content Soil Geotechnical Description
Feet Foot (pct] (%) Type
0
@ 0-1"- grass lawn
FILL
SM @ 1"- Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty
fine sand; with roots
@ 4"- lightens in color
1
TORREY SANDSTONE
SM @ 16"- Orange-brown, damp, medium dense to dense,
Bulk 1 silty fine sand; with iron-oxide staining, occasional
2 subrounded gravel
@ 25"- subrounded gravel
@ 26" - becoming very dense
Total depth =26 inches
Refusal on cobble?
No groundwater encountered
— Backfilled 8 Feb 06
3
4
5
1
6
SGC
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Manually Excavated Boring No. 4
McCabe/1596 Avenida de los Lirios Sheet 1 of 1
4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Logged by ST
Project No. 147G72 Sampled by LM
February 8, 2006
Depth Blows Dry Water USCS
Graphic Sample Geotechnical Description
in Per Density Content Soil
Feet dog No. Foot (pcf) (%) Type
0 @ 0-1" -grass lawn
FILL
S @ 1"- Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty
fine sand; with roots, subrounded gravel
FT
Bulk @ 9"-4"subrounded cobble
1 @ 12"- lightens in color, iron-oxide staining
gradational to:
TORREY SANDSTONE
SM @ 16"- Mottled orange- and yellow-brown, moist, medium
dense to dense,silty fine sand
SM @ 18"- Light yellow-brown, damp to moist, dense, sillty
fine sand; with iron-oxide staining
2
@ 34"- 1-2" subrounded gravel
@ 36"- 1" subrounded gravel
3
T
Bulk 2
4
Total depth =49 inches
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 8 Feb 06
5
6
SC
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
' Manually Excavated Boring No. 5
McCabe/1596 Avenida de los Lirios 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1
Project No. 147G72 Logged by ST
February 8, 2006 Sampled by LM
Depth Blows Dry Water USCS
Graphic Sample
in Per Density Content Soil Geotechnical Description
Feet Log No. Foot (pcf) (%) Type
0 @ 0-1" - grass lawn
FILL
SM @ V - Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty
fine sand; with roots, 1" brick chunk
@ 4"- lightens in color; occasional iron-oxide staining and
white chunks
1
® — TORREY SANDSTONE
I■1 2 SM @ 20" -Yellow-brown, dry to damp, dense, silty fine sand;
with iron-oxide staining, small concretions
@ 32"- more dense with depth
— Total depth = 33 inches
3 No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 8 Feb 06
A
4
5
6
SGCO"
�,` q 4 � -
3
s y' Yr}'t r' + .
"`
r s. a a r .
.d.., k'! `,. 1 I
sad r�M r � - s- `
I I t rib ' tw 1.
w`# 'fib I , , , s �' ++ +' v{ `"- 1F z . 1 p.
Y Y
.� .l n _,J 1 J ) 7 I=Y 1 � )ipl y tt it J �,._a l 4 I-1 V��� h s �Y * K cr .� �'r ,: t.
A r¢-L{K r" 1 k ✓ t r !�!p _ r r Y f 4 5 -Lf-J
.7., ,, r 4 r - k -I y �-O.a Ji N'a
9
- = y y W, j, l- ! ,4 ,� 1� 1 1 Yl
r 'Y '1T£, i f - J �h i f
a t, y r
' A uF'� N_.. 1
s
all_j$""��
�_ ,,� � . ,- -, _1 I' ,, '` ,. �'� _'z;� ,
I� 4 `r r
1
,r i - � J r t
S+�"W' c� 'S�£ s- - t - - -�` v 1 f t.i-*h x I a 11
.rl.- - 0.r
a�j 3 J� r t:
w
a
). - ,,
APPEN DID C
r`
,K
u�� --- I �: I . ..l . � ' 'I - � . I I ,,I-, I I - I � - . , � - . " , , . .. I �..
i
..
... J, _ -
r
-..yr .. _:. - 1
-: "t
L�ll"I�' I I �� . �- . I I I.. . f .I . . I I �. � I I , I. I 1-1 . - � I ,��- -. � ., :
t; "': - I 11 . I I I .�I .� ' �i �, ,,�, �I I I � I.I I I I � I I - I I I I, , ",", � , I'll I.,I
_ .
. I
' - - -
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
1 .0 General Intent
These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations _
for grading and earthwork to be used in conjunction with the approved grading
plans. These general earthwork specifications are considered a part of the
recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and are superseded by
recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations
performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new
recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the
contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the
geotechnical report and approved grading plans.
2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testing
Prior to grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the
purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing fill placement for
conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these
specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to keep the
geotechnical consultant apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24
hours in'advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No
grading operations shall be performed without the knowledge of the
1 geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical
consultant is aware of all site grading operations.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate
equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable
grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations of the geotechnical
report, and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical
consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.,. are resulting in a
quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the
specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and
recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
3.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
3.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots, and all other
deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a
method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies
and the geotechnical consultant.
S(0-31 h C
f .
The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals
' depending on specific site conditions. In general, no more than one
percent (by volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials.
In addition, nesting of these materials should not be allowed.
3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be
scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not
satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following
section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and
free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is
reasonably uniform, flat, and free of features which would inhibit uniform
compaction.
3.3 Over excavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or
otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface
processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be
overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining pay quantities of
materials overexcavated, the services of a licensed land surveyor or civil
fengineer should be used.
3,4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be
watered, dried, or blended as necessary to attain a uniform near
optimum moisture content as determined by test method ASTM D1557.
3,5 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been
properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture-
conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent as determined by test method ASTM D1557.
3.6 Benching: Where fills are placed on ground sloping steeper than 5:1
(horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The
lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, excavated at least
2 feet into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical
consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or
otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical
consultant.
3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed
areas, areas of removal, and fill benches should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement.
SG
4.0 Fill Material
4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic
matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor gradation,
expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended
by the geotechnical consultant.
4.2 Oversize Material: Oversize fill material, defined as material with a
maximum dimension greater than 6 inches should not be buried or placed
in fills unless the location, materials, and methods are specifically
recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
4.3 Import: If grading operations include importing of fill material, the import
material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1 . Sufficient time
should be given to allow the geotechnical consultant to test and evaluate
proposed import as necessary, prior to importing to the site.
5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas properly prepared and
evaluated as acceptable to receive fill. Fill should be placed in near-
horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each
layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity
of material and moisture content throughout.
f5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried or blended as
necessary to attain a uniform near-optimum moisture content as
determined by test method ASTM D1557.
5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture
conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less
than 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by test method
ASTM D1557. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and
be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability
to efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction.
5.4 Fill Slopes: Compaction of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to
normal compaction procedures, by backrolling slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other
methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading,
the relative compaction of the fill, including the embankment face should
Ibe at least 90 percent as determined by test method ASTM D1557.
JCC
l
I
5.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of
compaction of the fill soils should be performed by the geotechnical
consultant. The location and frequency of tests should be at the
consultant's discretion based on observations of the field conditions. In
general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in
elevation gain and/or each 1 ,000 cubic yards of fill placed. In addition,
on slope faces, as a guideline, one test should be taken for each 5,000
square feet of slope face and/or each 10-foot interval of vertical slope
height.
6.0 subdrain Construction
Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be constructed in areas evaluated
for suitability by the geotechnical consultant. The subdrain system should be
constructed to the approximate alignment in accordance with the details shown
on the approved plans or provided herein. The subdrain location or materials
should not be modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
The consultant may recommend modifications to the subdrain system depending
on conditions encountered. Completed subdrains should be surveyed for line
t and grade by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer.
1
7.0 Excavations
IExcavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant
during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation,
t overexcavation, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e., stability fills or slope
( buttresses) may be recommended.
8.0 Quantity Determination
The services of a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer should be retained to
determine quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or the limits of
overexcavation.
SGC
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
FINISH aRAOE
ELOPE FACE
------- ----- -------------
----------
0, WIN.—
5 )A I N.:-
----
- - - ------ -- ----
-- - ----- -
-- --------
-------- --
_-- --- -- ---- --- - -
iA-K.7--E- is, WIN.-
-------------------------
---------------
- -------------------- -
a' MAX.
--
--- ----------
---------------
_----- z r
KEY AN[) BENCHING DETAILS
--------------
FILL SLOPE
PROJECT I TO I LINE -- ----------
FROAA TOE OF SLOPE _0#AP
To COMPETENT MATERIAL
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
REMCVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
BENCH
2' MIN- is, MIN----}`
3
KEY (=
--iLOWES j
DEPTH BENCH
(K ZY)
------------
P A C TED=�_
FILL-OVER-CUT. SLOPE
EXISTIN(3
GROUND SURFACE -----
BENCH
2
REIACYE
21 LOWEST UNSUITABLE
MIN. BENCH MATERIAL
KEY (KEY)
DEPTH
CUT SLOPE
(70 BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
EXISTING
GROUND
SURFACE
CUT SLOPE
ED
CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE W (70 BE EXCAVAT
PRIOR TO FILL
PLACEMENT)
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
ppCjECT I TO I 'MATERIAL
LINE FROM TOE
OF SLOPE TO
AC
COMPETENT F I
MATERIAL --------- BENCH
MIN_
2' WIN. _t
KEY 0EPTH BENCH
(KEY)
NOTE: Sack drain may be recommended by the geatechnical consultant based an
actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recornmendations may
also be altered based an field conditions gricountered-
SGC
TRANSITION LOT DETAILS
CUT-FILL LOT
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
R 0 U'
MI
MIN.
------------
- -------------------
(OVEREXCAVATE
0 . AND RECOMPACT
------- COMPETENT BEDROCK
OR MATERIAL EVALUATED
BY THE GECTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
CUT L07 EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
REMOVE
U N S U I TA 3 L E M 51N.
MATERIAL_.-
ff 71
-
COMPACTED_--- -
--- --
F I L L--------
----------------- ------- OVEREXCAVA7E
AND RECOMPAC7
------ -------
COMPETENT BEDROCK
OR MATERIAL EVALUATED/
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
*NOTE:
Deeper or laterally more extensive overexcavation and
recompaction may be recommended by the geotechnical
consultant based an actual field conditions encountered
and locations of proposed improvements
SGC
STABILITY FILL BUTTRESS DETAIL
OUTLET PIPES ------- -
4- 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY ------ - BACK CUT
1:1 OR FLATTER
Ak
--------- ---- - BENCH
MIN
SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH
--- ------- DETAIL
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
-------------------- -- LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD
---------------------
---------------------- -
--------------------- -
---------------------- BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
------ POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
-FILL*- ------- -
---------------------- - SUITABLE OUTLET
------------------
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO
BO PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION*
- - - -- --------------
- -- - ------- - ----------
- --- --------
21 Typ.:--:-Zl--;
- -- - ----- --------
RETAINING WALL
o a, MIN. FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
WALL WATERPROOFING OVERLAP
(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
PER ARCHITECT'S EQUIVALENT)
SPECIFICATIONS
1' MIN. 3/4'-1-112' CLEAN GRAVEL
FINISH GRADE 4- (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED
PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED
-- - - ---------------- MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT
-- - ----------- --- --
- - ------ --------- -----------
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
-OMPACTED
WALL FOOTING
1 3 MIN.
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
NOT TO SCALE AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2, PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard *BASED ON ASTM 01557
Sieve Size A Passing **IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
111 100 (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4" 90-100 3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE
3/811 40-100 DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
No. 4 25-40 MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90
No. 8 18-33 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION
No. 30 5-15
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3 NOTE:COMPOSITE [DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS "RADRAIN
Sand Equivalent>75 OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR
— CLASS Z INSTALLA71ON SHOULD BE PERFORNIED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS
-SGC
SGC South/and Geotechnical Consultants
January 10, 2007
Project No. 147G72
C'CT 1 5 (.uj7
To: Mr. Phil McCabe
1 596 Avenida de los Lirios ______._......
Encinitas, California 92024
Subject: Addendum to Soils Investigation, Proposed Auxiliary Structures to
Existing Residential Property, 1596 Avenida de los Lirios, Encinitas,
California
Reference: Soils Investigation, Proposed Auxiliary Structures to Existing Residential
Property, 1596 Avenida de los Lirios, Encinitas, California, dated
February 24, 2006, by Southland Geotechnical Consultants
Introduction
Southland Geotechnical Consultants has prepared this addendum to our above-
referenced soils investigation report to provide alternative foundation recommendations
for the proposed auxiliary structures to be constructed at the existing residential
property located at 1 596 Avenida de los Lirios in Encinitas. To assist in preparing this
letter, we have reviewed our referenced report and have spoken with you.
Alternative Foundation Recommendations
From our conversations with you, we understand that you desire alternative foundation
recommendations to those provided in our referenced report. Our previous
recommendations assumed that the existing unsuitable soils would be removed and
recompacted in accordance with the recommendations of our referenced report. As
encountered in our exploratory borings, the potentially compressible soils ranged in
depth from approximately 16 to 27 inches below the existing ground surface.
However, localized deeper accumulations of the compressible soils may exist at the
site.
If site earthwork to mitigate the potentially compressible soils is not performed,
footings should extend through the potentially compressible soils and be founded in
the underlying dense Torrey Sandstone. The proposed structures could then utilize a
foundation system consisting of a combination of continuous, spread, and/or drilled
pier footings. Raised-wood floors or a concrete structural slab system may be used.
The potentially compressible fill soils should not be relied upon for support of the
structural slab (or other fill/structural loads).
1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021
(679)442-8022 • FAX (619)442-7859
Project No. 147G72
These recommendations assume that the soils encountered during foundation
excavation will have a very low to low expansion potential.
Continuous/Spread Footings - Continuous footings for the proposed one-story
structures should extend through the existing fill soils and bear entirely in the
underlying Torrey Sandstone. Continuous footings should have a minimum
depth of 18 inches beneath the lowest adjacent grade and be embedded a
minimum of 18 inches into the dense, formational soils of the Torrey
Sandstone. Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches
and be reinforced, at a minimum, with two No. 4 rebars (one near the top and
one near the bottom). Spread footings should be designed in accordance with
structural considerations and have a minimum width of 24 inches. For footings
designed in accordance with the above recommendations, an allowable soil-
bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be assumed. This value
may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration such as wind and
seismic loads.
Drilled Pier Foundations - Drilled, reinforced, cast-in-place concrete caissons
may be considered for the auxiliary structures. The caisson foundation system
should be designed by a structural engineer based on the following geotechnical
criteria. Caissons should extend through the fill soils and have a minimum of
3 feet of embedment into dense, formational materials. Caissons should be
connected with grade beams. Caissons so founded may be designed for an
allowable end-bearing capacity of 6,000 pounds per square foot. This value
considers downdrag due to the loose fill soils. A design passive lateral bearing
pressure of 600 psf per foot of depth may be used (and increased by an
additional 200 psf per foot of depth) for that portion of the caisson founded in
dense, formational materials (below the fill soils).
We recommend that the center-to-center spacing of the caissons be a minimum
of three caisson diameters. Differential settlement of caissons designed in
accordance with these recommendations should be less than 1 /2 inch. Caisson
depths may vary and can only be finalized upon field observations of the
conditions encountered during caisson drilling.
Careful construction of caissons is of great importance. Care in drilling and
placement of steel and concrete are essential to avoid excessive erosion of the
caisson boring walls. The bottom of all caisson borings should be as clean as
practicable prior to concrete placement. Caisson borings should be observed by
the geotechnical consultant prior to installation of the reinforcement. Concrete
placement by pumping or tremie tube to the bottom of the caisson boring is
recommended. Caisson boring cleanout and concrete placement should be
addressed in the project specifications. Caisson borings should not be drilled
2
J
Project No. 147G72
immediately adjacent to a completed caisson until the concrete of the completed
caisson has attained its initial set.
Additional Comments
Raised-wood floors or a concrete structural slab may be used with these deepened
foundation alternatives. The potentially compressible fill soils should not be relied
upon for support of structural foundation/slab elements (or other fill/structural loads).
Please note that our recommendations for foundations are minimum design
parameters. The project structural engineer is responsible for final design of the
foundations, structural slab system, and/or raised floors.
The geotechnical recommendations provided in our referenced report remain pertinent
and applicable to the proposed project.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact our office. We
appreciate the opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
C arles Corbin, PE 36302
Proje t Engineer oQ�0FESS/p
�S R C0 tea+
rn
No. 86302
CC
o ,
C1V1�-
QrE OF CAL�4���
Distribution: (3) Addressee
3
SGC
SGC Southland Geotechnical Consultants
SOILS INVESTIGATION
nononSEn n i 1XILI n ov STg��nTi �o�S -rn
I tV1 VJLV r%V/%J Ir►Il I I VC 1 UIRE O
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
1596 AVENIDA DE LOS LIRIOS
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
Project No. 147G72
February 24, 2006
Prepared for;
MR, PHIL McCABE
1596 Avenida De Los Lirios
Encinitas, California 92024
1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021
(619)442-8022 s FAX (619)442-7859
SGC Southland Geotechnical Consultants
February 24 2006 Project No. 147G72
To: Mr. Phil McCabe
1596 Avenida de los Lirios
Encinitas, California 92024
Subject: Soils Investigation, Proposed Auxiliary Structures to Existing Residential
Property, 1 596 Avenida de los Lirios, Encinitas, California
Introduction
Southland Geotechnical Consultants has performed a soils investigation for the
proposed auxiliary structures to be constructed at the existing residential property
located at 1 596 Avenida de los Lirios in Encinitas. This report presents the results of
our soils investigation and provides our conclusions and recommendations, from a
geotechnical standpoint, relative to the proposed project.
Purpose and Scope
The purpose of our soils investigation was to evaluate the soil conditions at the
property and provide recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, regarding the
design and construction of the proposed project. The scope of our soils investigation
included the following:
- Review of geotechnical maps and literature pertaining to the site and general
vicinity. A list of the documents reviewed is included in Appendix A.
Review of a preliminary project plan by Ms. Chris Campbell, Architect.
Field reconnaissance to observe the existing surficial soil conditions at the
subject property and nearby vicinity.
Investigation of the subsurface soil conditions by manually excavating, logging
and sampling five exploratory borings at the site.
Laboratory expansion index, sulfate and chloride content testing of soil samples
obtained from the exploratory borings.
Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained.
1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92027
(619)442-8022 9 FAX (619)442.7859
Project No. 147G72
Preparation of this report summarizing the results of our soils investigation and
presenting conclusions and recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint,
regarding design and construction of the proposed project.
Project Description
The subject property is located at 1 596 Avenida de los Lirios in Encinitas, west of the
north end of the cul-de-sac (see Figure 1 ). The property is bounded to the east, west
and southwest by developed residential properties, and by Encinitas Boulevard to the
north. r sinlgle Iamily residence exists on th easterrl portion of tl1C roughly triangular
lot. A slope descends from the relatively level property to Encinitas Boulevard.
We understand that the proposed project will consist of two, one-story auxiliary
structures, These structures are proposed to be constructed northwest of the existing
residence. Some relatively minor site grading may be considered to prepare the
building area and attain design finished grades. Building loads are assumed to be
typical of residential construction.
Subsurface Investigation
On February 8, 2006, five exploratory borings were manually excavated at the site to
a n"iaXililum ueptil of approximately •+9 iiICIIeJ uelOV'V the existing ground Surface. The
borings were logged by a geologist from our firm and samples of the soils encountered
during the subsurface investigation were obtained for laboratory testing. The soils
were visually and texturally classified in the field in general accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Subsequent to logging and sampling, the
borings were backfilled. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are
shown on Exploratory Boring Location Map (Figure 2). Logs of the exploratory borings
are presented in Appendix B.
Soil/Geologic Units
Based on our review of geologic maps and as encountered in our soils investigation,
the subject property appears to be underlain by fill soils and the geologic unit known
as Torrey Sandstone. Brief descriptions of these units follow:
Fill Dolls - Pill soils, apparentl\/ qq zo fated l/�lith the existing cite impro v m en t S,
were encountered in all of our exploratory borings. As encountered, the fill soils
generally consisted of dark brown, silty fine sand and mottled gray, yellow-
brown and orange silty fine to medium sand with occasional subrounded gravel.
2
JV�+�°+
C
Project No, 147(372
The fill soils were encountered to a maximum depth of approximately 27 inches
below the existing ground surface. Localized deeper accumulations of these
soils may exist at the site. The fill soils are considered potentially compressible
and, in their present state, should not be relied upon for the support of fill
and/or structural loads. A sample of the fill soils (Boring 4 at 4 to 12 inches)
was tested in general accordance with UBC test standard 18-2 and was found
to have a very low expansion potential (expansion index = 6),
Torrey Sandstone - The Torrey Sandstone was encountered underlying the fill
soils in all of our exploratory borings and is the geologic unit that appears to
Underlie the entire site. %Hs encountered Iri our exploratory I rings, the Torrey
Sandstone generally consisted of orange and yellow-brown, silty fine sand with
occasional subrounded gravel, The Torrey Sandstone in the general site vicinity
is known to be locally well cemented and hard. Based on our visual and textural
evaluation, the dense Torrey Sandstone typically exhibits favorable bearing
characteristics, The Torrey Sandstone is similar to soils in the general site
vicinity found to have a very low to low expansion potential when tested in
general accordance with UBC test standard 18-2.
Groundwater and Surface Water
Indications of a static, near-surface groundwater table were not encountered in our
exploratory borings. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a constraint to the proposed
construction. However, our experience indicates that near--surface groundwater
conditions can develop in areas where no such groundwater conditions existed prior
to development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water
infiltration results from landscape irrigation or unusually heavy precipitation. It is
anticipated that the proposed project will include appropriate drainage provisions for
control and discharge of surface runoff.
3
S
Project No. 147G72
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the results of our soils investigation, it is our opinion that construction of the
proposed auxiliary structures is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The following
sections discuss the geotechnical factors affecting the site and provide
recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, which should be considered for
design and construction of the proposed project.
Earthwork
I rom our understanding of the project, some relatively minor site grading may be
performed to prepare the site and attain finished design grades. Site earthwork should
be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the
Recommended Earthwork Specifications included in Appendix C. In the event of
conflict, the recommendations presented herein supersede those of Appendix C.
Site Preparation - Prior to grading and construction activities, the site should be
cleared of vegetation, debris and loose soils. Vegetation and debris should be
properly disposed of off site. Holes resulting from removal of buried
obstructions which extend below finished site grades should be filled with
properly compacted fill soils.
Removal/Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils - The existing fill soils
are considered potentially compressible and unsuitable for the support of till
and/or structural loads in their present condition. We recommend that these
soils be removed in areas planned for structures, surface improvements or fill
placement. As encountered in the exploratory borings, these soils apparently
underlie the majority of the project site. In our exploratory borings, the fill soils
ranged in depth from approximately 16 to 27 inches below the existing ground
surface. However, localized deeper accumulations of the compressible fill soils
may exist at the site. The thickness and extent of these soils may vary and
should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during removal of these
unsuitable soils. In general, the limits of removal/recompaction should extend
a minimum of 5 feet beyond the perimeters of the proposed structures. These
soils are considered suitable for re-use as compacted, structural fill provided
they are free of organic material, deleterious debris and oversized materials
(rocks with a maximurn dimension greater than 6 inches).
Excavations _. It is anticipated that excavation of the onsite soils can be
�ccompliShed her conventional grading equipment iii good operaLfllg �;olld ltloli•
However, well-cemented zones in the Torrey Sandstone may be encountered
and may require extra effort: for excavation.
4
JGC
Project No 147G72
Structural Fill Placement - Areas to receive fill and/or other surface
improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to
near-optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction, based on laboratory standard ASTM D1557, Fill soils
should be brought to near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in
uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The
optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the
size and type of construction equipment used: In general, fill should be placed
in uniform lifts riot exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Placement and compaction
of fill should be observed and tested by the geotechnical consultant. in general,
placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with local
grading ordinances, sound construction practices, and the Recommended
Earthwork Specifications included in Appendix C.
Transition (Cut/Fill) Condition) - The potential for a transition (cut/fill) condition
underlying the area of the proposed structures should be checked when project
plans are finalized and in the field during grading so that appropriate
recommendations can be provided to reduce the potential damage due to
differential settlement across the transition. Typically, we recommend that the
cut (or natural) portion of the building area be overexcavated to a minimum
depth of 3 feet and replaced with moisture-conditioned fill soils compacted to
at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). The overexcavation
and recompaction typically extends for a distance of at least 5 feet beyond the
perimeter of the proposed building,
Trench Backfill - The onsite soils are generally suitable as trench backfill
provided they are screened of organic matter and clasts over 6 inches in
diameter. Trench backfill should be compacted by mechanical means to at least
90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557).
Foundations
Project plans are not finalized, however, we understand that the proposed development
will include construction of two one-story, auxiliary structures and associated
improvements. It is anticipated that the proposed structures will be supported by
continuous perimeter and/or isolated footings with slab-on-grade floors. Foundations
should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following
recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils encountered during
foundation excavation vviii have a very low expansion potential, and the existing fill
soils have been removed and recompacted in accordance with our previous
recommendations. The potentially compressible fill soils should not be relied upon for
support of fill and/or structural loads.
5
G
Proiect Igo. '147G72
The proposed one-story structures may be supported by continuous ard!'or isolated
footings bearing entirely in properly compacted fill soils (or entirely in dense,
formational soils) at a minimum depth of 18 inches beneath the lowest adjacent grade.
Continuous footings should have a minirnurn width of 12 inches and be reinforced; at
a minimum, with tvvo No. 4 rebars (one near the top and one near the bottom).
Spread footings should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and
have a minimum width of 24 inches.
For footings designed in accordance with the above recommendations, an allowable
soil--bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be assumed. This value
rnay be increased by one-third for loads of short duration such as wind and seismic
loads.
Slabs on Grade
Concrete slab-on-grade floors should be designed in accordance with structural
considerations and the following recommendations. Concrete slabs on grade underlain
entirely by properly compacted fill soils (or entirely by dense, formational soils) with
a very low expansion potential should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be
reinforced at midheight with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way (or No. 4
rebars at 24 inches on center each way). Care should be taken by the contractor to
insure that the reinforcement is placed at slab midheight.
Slabs should be designed with crack control joints at appropriate spacings for the
anticipated loading. Slabs should be underlain by a 2--inch layer of clean sand (sand
equivalent greater than 30) which is underlain by a 10-mil moisture barrier which is
underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand. The potential for slab cracking may be
lessened by careful control of water/cement ratios. The use of low slump concrete is
recommended. Appropriate curing precautions should be taken during placement of
concrete during hot weather. We recommend that the upper approximately one foot
of soil beneath concrete slabs-on-grade be moistened prior to placing the sand blanket,
moisture barrier and concrete. We recommend that a slipsheet or equivalent be used
if crack-sensitive flooring is planned directly on concrete slabs.
Please note that our recommendations for slabs are minimum design parameters. The
project structural engineer is responsible for final design of the concrete slabs or)
grade In addition, our recommendations are not intended to eliminate the possibility
of cracks due to concrete shrinkage. Shrinkage cracks develop in nearly all slabs
,P,,, 1! uiE not specifically iii ucSigiieu L prevent t11eiiii, VV
(ecornrllend that a StrUCTUraI
consultant or qualified concrete contractor be consulted to provide appropriate design
and workmanship requirements for mitigation of shrinkage cracks.
6
L
Project No. 147G72
Lateral Resistance
Footings and slabs founded in properly compacted fill soils or dense, formational soils
may be designed for a passive lateral pressure of 350 pounds per square foot per foot
of depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soil of
0.35 may be assumed. These values may be increased by one-third when considering
loads of short duration, such as wind or seismic forces.
Seismic Considerations
The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southern California are
damage caused by surface rupturing of fault traces, ground shaking, seismically-
induced ground settlement or liquefaction. The seismic hazard most likely to impact
the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the major active
regional faults. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered minimal
since no active faults are known to cross the site. The potential for liquefaction or
seismically-induced ground settlement due to an earthquake is considered low because
of the dense nature of the underlying Torrey Sandstone and anticipated lack of a near-
surface groundwater table.
The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering to the most recent edition
of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers
Association of California. Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions, the seismic, design parameters from the 1997 Uniform Building Code,
Section 1636, Tables 16-J, 16-S, 16-T and 1 6-U are provided below.
UBC Table 16-J - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and our review of UBC Table 16-J, the soil profile type for the
subject property is SID ("Stiff Soil Profile").
UBC Table 1 6-U - Based on our review of the Active Fault Near--Source Zones
maps (0-37) prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, the
nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone. The site is located
easterly and within approximately 7.5 kilometers of the Rose Canyon fault, The
fault is considered a seismic source type B based on UBC Table 1 6-U.
UBC Table 16-S - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault (Rose
Canyon fault zone), the Nc^ar-v^vurce Factor (INIJ Is 1 .v.
7
SG
Project No. 147672
UBC Table 16-T - Based on our understanding of the onsite geotechnical
conditions and minimum distance to the nearest known active fault (Rose
Canyon fault zone), the Near-Source Factor (N„) is 1 . 1
Sulfate/Chloride Content
Samples of the onsite soils (Boring 2 at 0 to 9 inches deep and Boring 3 at 16 to
24 inches feet deep) were tested to evaluate the degree of sulfate attack on ordinary
(Type II) concrete, The tests were performed in general accordance with California
Test Method No. 4 17 and yielded soluble sulfate contents of 0.009 percent and
0.057 percent, respectively. The test results indicate a "negligible” degree of sulfate
attack on concrete based on UBC Table 1 9-A-4 criteria. Additional testing of the pad-
grade soils may be warranted during grading.
Samples of the onsite soils (Boring 2 at 0 to 9 inches deep and Boring 3 at 16 to
24 inches feet deep) were tested to evaluate the degree of chloride attack on ordinary
(Type ll) concrete. The tests were performed in general accordance with California
Test Method No. 422 and yielded soluble chloride contents of 0.003 percent and
0.023 percent, respectively. The type of concrete specified and used should be
determined by the structural engineer.
Site Drainage
Drainage at the site should be directed away from foundations, collected and tightlined
to appropriate discharge points. Consideration may be given to collecting roof drainage
by eave gutters and directing it away from foundations via non-erosive devices.
Water, either natural or from irrigation, should not be permitted to pond, saturate the
surface soils or flow over the tops of slopes. Landscape requiring a heavy irrigation
schedule should not be planted adjacent to foundations or paved areas.
Plan Review/Construction Observation and Testing
The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding of the
project and interpolated subsurface conditions disclosed in our widely-spaced
exploratory borings. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface
condition at a project site. Final project drawings for the proposed auxiliary structures
should he reyiie,nied by Southland v°-nv te chnical Consultants pilot to construction LU
check that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the
project plans. Subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during
construction. Geotechnical observation during any site grading and field density
8
SG
Project No 147G72
testing of compacted fill should be performed by Southland Geotechnical Consultants
Geotechnical observation of footing excavations should also be performed by the
geotechnical consultant to check that construction is in accordance with the
recommendations of this report.
If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact our office. We
appreciate the opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Susan E. Tanges, CEG 1 386 Charles . Corbi PE 36302
Engineering Geologist 99%0NAL Projer/t�Engineer
�
DER:eFaEa :4 e
ENGtNEERINQ
Attachments: Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 Exploratory Boring Location Map
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Geotechnical Boring Logs
Appendix C - Recommended Earthwork. Specifications
Distribution: (3) Addressee
9
SGC
T
4t'u
p 'r _
i
Zip
Tf •� .—/— r t
r i$
4 - SITE
�i nk1 {
g�1 i �,.
—1 °i m.S High"&—r-
-7, ' J ✓\ U`r y
i r. it 4 i z J
• � y k
��I_ ..i `y0 i��� �e�i �'• \�__ �� I '' � � I'( .i � � � v,,-��_l� C� l� k�r'�j/- `7�-'
.i fs San FYi Wb
t�i,
_ �, cinrc�,✓ q ''��°°—! ��!JiN L
— 27
k i'♦ ,P,! j-. i� Ili �i IN i
t MW
", —I it � I i i � �;1 rf •'�'� !,y~ d i �` I ter✓ 1'tiF'�� �" '/� '
/7 r
I✓�/�%.. �/r ��� `` �� -^�i ti�� '+--y n: �,i i ',h�1 � .ice.� �., /
JiI Iii 7II``; � -I�� / �:.( �,y
I SITE LOCATION MAP
N
Project No. 147G72
1596 Avenida de los Lirios
Encinitas, California
Scale (approximate?: 1 inch = 2,000 feet
Base Map: Geologic maps of the northwestern part
of San Diego County, California, CDMG OFR 96-02,
by S.S Tan and M.P. Kennedy, 1996 FIGURE 1
SGC
w
LL
-cZ i
X `
G
n
� z �
� 0 J ico
c�
w
J
LL
y Z
_O
H
Q
V
O
J
Z
N �y
CO 0
a r m
o �
" 1 0
c X �
W ti
CD
' } a
N
co
Lo U) L
-0 O _
Rt C _ N
X
U o
z Q c ti � U
co a
.� CL w cn CLJ
I
{
4
APPENDIX A
s��
Project No 147672
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1 . California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault activity map of California
and adjacent areas: CDMG Geologic Data Map No, 6.
2, Eisenberg, L., 1983, Pleistocene and Eocene geology of the Encinitas and
Rancho Santa Fe quadrangles, in.Abbott, P.L., ed., On the manner of deposition
of the Eocene strata in northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of
Geologists, fieldtrip guidebook.
3. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, revised.
4, Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide hazards in the northern part of the
San Diego metropolitan area, San Diego County, California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Open-file Report 95-04.
5. Southland Geotechnical Consultants, in-house geologic/geotechnical
information.
SG
APPENDIX B
SGC
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
McCabe/1596 Avenida de los Lirios Manually Excavated Boring No 1
Project No. 147672 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Logged Sheet 1
by of I
February 8, 2006
Sampled by LM
--- — — - – —
Depth Blows Dry Nater i i
Graphic Sampie � r,
n Per Density 'content Soil Geotechnical Description
I og No
Feet Foot (pcf) (%) Type
@ 0-2" - grass lawn
FILL
SM @ 2" - Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty
fine sand; with roots
–1
1
SM @ 16" - Mottled gray, yellow-brown and orange, moist,
medium dense to dense, silty fine to medium sand
@ 18" - subrounded gravel
@ 22" - subrounded gravel
2
— —_T -
@ 27"subrounded gravel — — —
TORREY SANDSTONE
Bulk SM @ 27" - Orange-brown, moist, dense, silty fine sand, with
iron-oxide staining, slightly micaceous
I
@ 36" - less weathered
3 --
Total depth = 36 inches
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 8 Feb 06
4
5
I
VG
GEOTECHNIGAL PORING LOG
r✓1cCabe!1596 Avenida de los Drics Manually Excavated Boring No. 2
Project No 147G72 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1
February 8, 2006 Logged by ST
Sampled by LM
Depth _ Blows Dry %Hater USCS
Graphic Sample
n r Per Density Content Soil Geotechnlcal Description
Feet Foot (pcf) (%) Type
0____T_ @ 01" grass lawn
FILL
Bulk 1 SM @ "1" - Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dens7silty
fine sand; with roots
rot 4" - lightPng in color
SM @ 9" - Yellow-brown, moist, medium dense to dense,
1 silty fine sand; with occasional subrounded gravel,
iron-oxide staining
(d)_L8" -4" subrounded ravel_ r
— _ TORREY SANDSTONE
SM @ 18" - Orange-brown, damp, medium dense to dense,
silty fine sand; with iron-oxide staining, occasional
2 subrounded gravel
3 _
Total depth = 36 inches
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 8 Feb 06
4
I
I
J
-1
i
l
l -
1
S`7 C
GEOTECHNICAL BODING LOG
McCabe/1596 Avenida de los Lmos Manually Excavated Boring No. 3
Project No 147G72 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1
February 5, 2006 Logged by S7
Sampled by LM
Depth Blows Dry 'JVater USCS
Graphic Sample
in r!r Per Density Content Soil Geotechnical Description
Feet Foot (pcf) n) Type
@ 0--1" grass lawn
FILL
SM @ 1" - Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty
fine sand, with roots
an 4" - liahtens in color
1
v � — TORREY SANDSTONE
SM @ 16"- Orange-brown, damp, medium dense to dense,
Bulk 1 silty fine sand; with iron-oxide staining, occasional
subrounded gravel
2 @ 25"- subrounded gravel
@ 26" - becoming very dense
Total depth = 26 inches
Refusal on cobble?
No groundwater encountered
�i Backfilled 8 Feb 06
3
4
5
6 — — -- —
V GC
GE®TECHNICAL BORING LOG
McCabe/1596 Avel de los Linos Manually Excavated Boring No 4
Project No 147672 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1
February 8, 2006 Logged by S-f
Sampled by LM
CeGtn Blo,vv�— Cry lNater USCS
Graphic Sample
11-11 Per Density Content Soil Geotechnical Description
Log o
Ft Foot (Pcf) (`%) Type
@ 0-1" - grass lawn
FILL
_ SM @ 1" Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty
fine sand-, with roots, subrounded gravel
Bulk 1 H—� @ 9" -4" subrounded cobble
1
@ 12" - lightens in color, iron-oxide staining
gradational to:
TORREY SANDSTONE — -
SM @ 16" - Mottled orange- and yellow-brown, moist, medium
dense to dense,silty fine sand
SM @ 18"- Light yellow-brown, damp to moist, dense, sillty
2 fine sand-, with iron-oxide staining
—I
@ 34"- 11-2" subrounded gravel
3 - @ 36" • 1" subrounded gravel
Bulk 2
4
TTolal depth = 49 inches
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 8 Feb 06
i
�JJ J
II p
SGC
GEOTECHNICA.L BODING LOG
McCabe/1596 Avenida de los t_irios Manually Excavated Boring No, 5
Project No 147G72 4-inch Diameter Hand Auger Sheet 1 of 1
February 8.. 2006 Logged by ST
Sampled by LM
Depth ra
g� phi c Sample Blows Dry Water us's
n Per Density Content soil
Log f" Geotechnical Description
Feet Foot (pcf) (°/p) Type
0
@ 0.1" grass lawn
FILL
SM @ V - Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty
fine sand, with roots, 1" brick chunk
@ d" _ lightens in rnlnrr nnnacinnal irnn_nxinlc Stalnlnn and
y u
white chunks
1
TORREY SANDSTONE — —
SM @ 20"- Yellow-brown, dry to damp, dense, silty fine sand;
with iron-oxide staining, small concretions
@ 32"- more dense with depth
3 Total depth = 33 inches
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 8 Feb 06
I
4
.5
I
I _
SGT
APPENDIX C
sGC
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
1 .0 General Intent
These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations
for grading and earthwork to be used in conjunction with the approved grading
plans. These general earthwork specifications are considered a part of the
recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and are superseded by
recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations
performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new
recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the
contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the
geotechnical report and approved grading plans.
2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testing
Prior to grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the
purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing fill placement for
conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these
specifications, It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to keep the
geotechnical consultant apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24
hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No
grading operations shall be performed without the knowledge of the
geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical
consultant is aware of all site grading operations.
It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate
equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable
grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations of the geotechnical
report, and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical
consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a
quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the
specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and
recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified.
3.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
3. 1 Clearing and Grubbing; Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots, and all other
deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of in a
method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies
and the geotechnical consultant.
SGC
The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals
depending on specific site conditions, In general, no more than one
percent (by volume) of the fill material should consist of these materials.
In addition, nesting of these materials should not be allowed.
3,2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be
scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not
satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following
section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and
free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is
reasonably uniform, flat, and free of features which would inhibit uniform
compaction.
3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or
otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface
processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be
overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant. For purposes of determining pay quantities of
materials overexcavated, the services of a licensed land surveyor or civil
engineer should be used.
3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be
watered, dried, or blended as necessary to attain a uniform near-
optimum moisture content as determined by test method ASTM D1557,
3.5 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been
properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture-
conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent as determined by test method ASTM D1557.
3.6 Benching: Where fills are placed on ground sloping steeper than 5:1
(horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The
lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, excavated at least
2 feet into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical
consultant. Ground sloping flatter than 5:1 should be benched or
otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical
consultant.
3,7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed
areas, areas of removal, and fill benches should be evaluated by the
Potechnica) consultant nripr to fill nlnr..i-.MP_nt
G
4.0 Fill Material
4, 1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic
matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor gradation,
expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended
by the geotechnical consultant.
4.2 Oversize Material: Oversize fill material, defined as material with a
maximum dimension greater than 6 inches should not be buried or placed
in fills unless the location, materials, and methods are specifically
recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
4.3 Import: If grading operations include importing of fill material, the import
material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1 . Sufficient time
should be given to allow the geotechnical consultant to test and evaluate
proposed import as necessary, prior to importing to the site.
5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
51 Fill Lifts,: Fill material should be placed in areas properly prepared and
evaluated as acceptable to receive fill. Fill should be placed in near-
horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each
layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity
of material and moisture content throughout.
5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried or blended as
necessary to attain a uniform near-optimum moisture content as
determined by test method ASTM D1557.
5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture
conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less
than 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by test method
ASTM D1557. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and
be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability
to efficiently achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction.
5.4 Fill Slopes.: Compaction of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to
normal compaction procedures, by backrolling slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other
methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading,
the relative compaction of the fill; including the embankment far_.e s`?ould
be at least 90 percent as determined by test method ASTM D1 557.
UGC
5,5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of
compaction of the fill soils should be performed by the geotechnical
consultant. The location and frequency of tests should be at the
consultant's discretion based on observations of the field conditions. In
general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in
elevation gain and/or each 1 ,000 cubic yards of fill placed, In addition,
on slope faces, as a guideline, one test should be taken for each 5,000
square feet of slope face and/or each 10-foot interval of vertical slope
height,
6,0 Subdrain Construction
Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be constructed in areas evaluated
for suitability by the geotechnical consultant. The subdrain system should be
constructed to the approximate alignment in accordance with the details shown
on the approved plans or provided herein. The subdrain location or materials
should not be modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant,
The consultant may recommend modifications to the subdrain system depending
on conditions encountered. Completed subdrains should be surveyed for line
and grade by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer,
7.0 Excavations
Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant
during grading. If directed by the geotechnical consultant, further excavation,
overexcavatlon, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes di,e stability fills or Slone
buttresses) may be recommended.
8.0 Quantity Determination
The services of a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer should be retained to
determine quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or the limits of
overexcavation.
SGC
ROCK CISPOSAL CETAIL
FINISH GRAZE
ZLCPE FACE-
0,
7�
--:7
----------
---E-ZC0MPACfff0 FILL:
-------- - -
a- MAX.
----- ------------
OVERSIZE WINDROW
GRANULAR 3CIL (3.Z2:30) 70 BE
DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY FLOCOING
DETAIL
..............
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
1) Rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches should not be used within 10 feet
vertically of finish grade (or 2 feet below depth of lowest utility whichever is greater),
and 15 feet horizontally of slope faces.
2) Rocks with maximum dimensions greater than 4 feet should not be utilized in fills.
3) Rock placement, flooding of granular soil, and fill placement should be observed by the
geotechnical consultant.
4) Maximum size and spacing of windrows should be in accordance with the above details
Width of windrow should not exceed 4 feet. Windrows should be staggered
vertically (as depicted).
5" R--c k 3 M c ul d b e N J'a c e 1-44 in G x c a,,a*1 G d tre r,ch e s. r-nn,ul ar $ E. grouter :H a n o r e qu
to 30) should be flooded In the windrow to --omoleraly 'H] voids around and beneath
rocks.
SGC
KEY AND BENCHING DE(AILS
FILL SLOPE --------
PROJECT 1 70 1 LINE
':ROW TOE OF SLOPE
70 (:CWPE-, E,47 WA-, -=R1AL
E-,'S73NG I
N
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
ABLE
WA7-'7RIAL
BENCH
2' A411N.
KEY
DEPTH BENCH
Ch-=Y)
FILL—OVER—CUT SLOPE
EXISTING = KA
GROUND SURFACE
BENCH
R EM C V E
S' UNSUITABLE
2 LOWEST
MIN. BENCH MA 7=-,R JAL
KEY (,K E Y)
Ili DEPTH
CUT SLOPE
(70 BE EXCAVATE:)
PRIOR TO FILL
PLA CEMENT)
EXISTING
GROUND
SURFACE
CUT SLOPS
CUT—OVER—FILL SLOPE (70 BE EXCAVATED
PRIOR 70 FILL
PLACEMENT)
REMOVE
PROJECT I TO I U,NSU17ASL=
LINE FROM TOE --- ---- MATERIA(.
CF SLOPE TO
COMPETEN-1 (Z.WP A C 7-E5
MATERIAL F I
i 5, MIN
WIN. LO W E 3 7
KEY oeprrH KEY)
Z Y)
Back drain may be recommended by the georechnical Consultant based cn
actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recornrnendaticrI3 ,nay
also be altered based an field COnditiOns encountered.
TRANSITION LOT DETAILS
CUT-•FILL LOT
EXIS71NG
GROUND SURFACE
ED ------------
------- 3 a" MIN.
0 VER EX CA VATE
AND RECOMPAC7
COMPETENT BEDROCK
OR MATERIAL EVALUATED
BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
CUT LOT
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
REMOVE
S U 17A 3 L E 5
MATERIAL MIN.
3
0 PA 7
----------------
L
(OVEREXCAVA7E
AND RECOMPAC7
COMPP=7ENT BEDROCK
MATERIAL EVALUA7ED
BY THE GE07ECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
Deeper cr iaterally snore extensive ove,,�Ccava';c-
reccmpacticlr may be recornmenled �y ttle
consultant based On actual field conditions encountered
and locations of prcoozed imarovements
SGC
STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL
OUTLET PIPES
4' Sri NONPERFORATED PIPE, _
/ 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY -
__ BACK CUT
u1 1:1 OR FLATTER
-
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
/,- SOIL BACKPILL, COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION*
RETAINING WALL
a- MIN.
WALL WATERPROOFING OVERLAP FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
0
PER ARCHITECT'S 0 # (MIRAFI 140M OR APPROVED
SPECIFICATIONS
0 EQUIVALENT)
V MIN. 3/4'-1.1/2' CLEAN GRAVEL**
FINISH GRADE
o 4' (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED
PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED
--------- --- ----- MINIMUM I PERCENT GRADIENT
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
WALL FOOTING r r _ \-
3 MIN.
NOT TO SCALE COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CONSULTANT
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
Standard *BASED ON ASTM 01557
Sieve Size Passing
I
U.S.U
L
S
Sieve 1 F!'A T'-
' 2 PERMEABLE
S talda
S'ev e S7 Ze
1 100 IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
3"1 F4" 90-100 (SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF
40-100 3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE
No. 4 25-40 DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
No. 3 18-- MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 9C
;'.- PERCENT RELATIVE COMPAC-7!ON
No 1 4" i5
No. �o 0-7
Nc' 200 13-3 NC7E:COMPOSJ7= DRAINAGE PRODUCT'S SUCH AS MIRADRAIN
o
Sana va en t>7 5 OR J—DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE To GRAVEL OR
CLASS 2 INS7ALLA70N SHOULD BE PEpFORNIED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
SGC