2004-1563 G Cif'01NGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT
Encinitas
Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field
Sand Replenishment/Stormw ter Compliance
an e
Subdivision Engineering
May 7, 2007 Traffic Engineering
Attn: Bank of America
500 Newport Center Drive
Suite 333
Newport Beach, California 92660-7004
RE: Doug Samples
3701 Fortuna Ranch Road
APN 264-451-10
02-086
Grading Permit 1563-GI
Final release of security
Pen-nit 1563-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion
control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has finaled the
project. Therefore, release of the remainder of the security deposit is merited.
The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial
Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor.
Account# 10204-00504 in the amount of$15,683.00.
The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or
contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention Engineering
the En n er ng' please
Department.
Sincerely,
Debra Geishart
Engineering Technician y Le bach
Subdivision Engineering Finance Manager
Financial Services
CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager
Doug Samples
Debra Geishart
File
Enc.
TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700
recycled paper
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Project No. 06895-52-02
June 22, 2004
The Blydin Company
1106 Second Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Attention: Mr. Stretch Storer
Subject: SAMPLES PROPERTY
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION
SERVICES PERFORMED DURING SITE GRADING
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request and our Proposal No. LG-02527 dated November 6, 2002, we have
provided compaction testing and observation services during the grading of the subject site. Our
services were performed during the period of November 5, 2002 through January 9, 2003. The
grading for the building pad has been completed and is the subject of this report. The scope of our
services included the following:
• Observing the grading operations, including the removal and/or processing of undocumented
fill, topsoil, alluvium, and undercutting of the Santiago Peak Volcanics.
• Performing in-place density tests in fill placed and compacted at the site.
• Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating the maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content and shear strength of the compacted fill soils. Additionally, laboratory tests
were performed on samples of soil present at finish grade to evaluate expansion
characteristics and water-soluble sulfate content.
• Preparing an As-Graded Geologic Map.
• Preparing this final report of grading.
GENERAL
The grading contractor for the project was Charlie's Tractors. Grading plans for the project were
prepared by Civcom & Associates and are entitled Grading and Erosion Control Plans for: Samples
6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121-2974 ■ Telephone (858) 558-6900 ■ Fax (858) 558-6159
Slopes
Cut and fill slopes have a design inclination of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter with maximum
heights of approximately 23 and 15 feet, respectively. All slopes should be planted, drained and
maintained to reduce erosion. Slope irrigation should be kept to a minimum to just support the
vegetative cover. Surface drainage should not be allowed to flow over the top of the slope.
Finish Grade Soil Conditions
Observations and laboratory test results indicate that the prevailing soil conditions within the upper
approximately 3 feet of finish grade have an Expansion Index of 50 or less and are classified as
having a "very low"to "low" expansion potential as defined by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table
18-I-B. The results of the expansion index tests are summarized on Table IV.
The samples obtained for laboratory Expansion Index testing were also subjected to laboratory
water-soluble sulfate content tests. The results of the water-soluble sulfate tests are summarized on
Table V. The test results indicate that concrete structures exposed to soils at the location tested have a
"negligible"water-soluble sulfate exposure as defined by UBC Table 19-A-4.
Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, if
improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned, it is recommended that further
evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed.
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be similar to those
described in the project geotechnical investigation. Removal of the existing undocumented fill,
topsoil and alluvium was performed and extended to formational Santiago Peak Volcanics.
Undocumented fill soils (Qudf) remain adjacent to Fortuna Ranch Road and should be considered
non-structural and not be used to support settlement-sensitive improvements. Very dense to hard
volcanic rock (Jsp) was exposed at the bottom of the removals prior to placing fill and is exposed on
the cut slope northwest of the building pad. Compacted fill soil (Qcf) was placed within the building
pad and south of the pad to create a fill slope. The northwest side of the pad was undercut
approximately 3 feet and replaced with completed fill (Quc).
The enclosed As-Graded Geologic Map (Figure 1) depicts the general geologic conditions observed.
No soil or geologic conditions were observed during grading that would preclude the continued
development of the property as planned.
Project No.06895-52-02
-3-
June 22,2004
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-- 1.0 General
1.1 Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the
grading, to which this report pertains, has been performed in substantial conformance with
the recommendations of the previously referenced project geotechnical investigation and
the geotechnical requirements of the grading plans. Soil and geologic conditions
encountered during grading that differ from those anticipated by the project soil reports are
not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant modification to the
recommendations of the project soil reports, they have been described herein.
2.0 Seismic Design Criteria
2.1 The subject site is located within Seismic Zone 4 according to UBC Figure 16-2. For
seismic design, the site is characterized as soil type Sc and the parameters listed on Table 2
should be used for seismic design. The values listed on Table 2 are for the Rose Canyon
Fault, which is identified as a Type B fault and is more dominant than the nearest Type A
fault due to its proximity to the site, according to the computer program EQFAULT. The
Rose Canyon Fault is located approximately seven miles west of the site.
TABLE 2
-- SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value
UBC Reference
Seismic Zone Factor 0.40
Soil Profile Table 16-I
Sc Table 16-J
Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.40
Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient,C,, 0.56
Near-Source Factor,Na Table 16-R
1.0 Table 16-5
Near-Source Factor,N, 1.0
Seismic Source Table 16-T
B Table 16-U
R 2.2 Conformance to the above criteria for seismic design does not constitute any kind of
guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if
a maximum level earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life
and not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
Project No.06895-52-02
-4-
June 22,2004
3.0 Future Grading
3.1 Any additional grading performed at the site should be accomplished in conjunction with
our observation and compaction testing services. Grading plans for any future grading
should be reviewed by Geocon Incorporated prior to finalizing. All trench and wall backfill
should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to
slightly above optimum moisture. This office should be notified at least 48 hours prior to
commencing additional grading or backfilling operations.
-- 4.0 Temporary Excavations
4.1 Temporary excavations should be made in conformance with OSHA requirements. The fill
-- soils should be considered a Type B soil and the formational soils can be considered a
Type A soil. In general, no special shoring requirement will be necessary if temporary
excavations will be less than 4 feet in depth. Temporary excavations greater than 4 feet in
depth, however, should be laid back in accordance with OSHA requirements and the soil
type listed above. These excavations should not become saturated or be allowed to dry.
Surcharge loads should not be permitted within a distance equal to the depth of the
excavation from the top of the excavation. The top of the excavation should be a minimum
of 15 feet from the edge of existing improvements. Excavations steeper than those
recommended or closer than 15 feet to an existing surface improvement should be shored
in accordance with applicable OSHA codes and regulations.
4.2 Excavations that extend below a 1:1 from the outside edge of a building foundation for an
-- existing building should be properly shored to maintain foundation support for the existing
structure where necessary. Backfill for the excavations should be compacted to a dry
density of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above
Optimum moisture content as stated in the above-referenced report. If compaction is not
possible due to the location to an existing structure, the excavation may be backfilled with
-- a two-sack cement slurry.
4.3 Excavations that extend through the fill soils and encounter the volcanic rock on the pad or
the cut slope will require very heavy effort and possible refusal may be encountered.
5.0 Foundations
5.1 The foundation recommendations that follow are for the proposed residential structure and
are dependent on the geometry of the underlying soils as well as the Expansion Index of the
prevailing subgrade soils.
Project No.06895-52-02
-5-
June 22,2004
5.2 We recommend conventional continuous or isolated footings have a minimum embedment
depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. The footings should be at least 1 foot
wide for continuous footings and 2 feet wide for isolated footings.
5.3 Footings proportioned as recommended above may be designed for an allowable soil
bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). This soil bearing pressure may be
increased by 300 psf and 500 psf for each additional foot of foundation width and depth,
respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. The allowable
bearing pressures recommended above are for dead plus live loads only and may be
-- increased by up to one-third when considering transient loads such as those due to wind or
seismic forces.
5.4 For continuous footings, a minimum reinforcement consisting of four No. 5 steel
reinforcing bars is recommended, two placed near the top of the footing and two near the
bottom.
5.5 The recommended minimum foundation dimensions and reinforcement are based upon soil
conditions only and are not intended to be used in lieu of those required for structural
Purposes. Actual steel reinforcement should be designed by the project structural engineer.
5.6 When located next to a descending 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) fill slope or steeper, the
foundations should be extended to a depth where the minimum horizontal distance is 7 feet.
The horizontal distance is measured from the outer, deepest edge of the footing to the face
of the slope.
5.7 Foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of Geocon Incorporated
prior to the placement of reinforcing steel and concrete to verify that the exposed soil
conditions are consistent with those anticipated and have been extended to appropriate
r bearing strata. If unanticipated soil conditions are encountered, foundation modifications
may be required.
5.8 No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, as necessary, to
maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
6.0 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
6.1 Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be at least 5 inches thick. As a minimum, slab
reinforcement should consist of at least No. 3 steel reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches on
Project No.06895-52-02
-6 June 22,2004
center in both directions placed in the middle of the slab. The slabs should be underlain by
— at least 3 inches of clean sand and, where moisture-sensitive floor coverings are planned or
where slab moisture would be objectionable, a visqueen moisture inhibitor should be
placed in the middle of the sand blanket.
6.2 All concrete slabs should be provided with adequate construction joints and/or expansion
— joints to control unsightly shrinkage cracking. The spacing should be determined by the
project structural engineer based upon the intended slab usage, thickness and
reinforcement. The structural engineer should take into consideration criteria of the
-- American Concrete Institute when establishing crack-control spacing patterns.
— 6.3 The concrete slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support characteristics
only. The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural requirements of the
concrete slabs for supporting equipment and storage loads.
6.4 The recommended minimum foundation dimensions and reinforcement are based upon soil
conditions only and are not intended to be used in lieu of those required for structural
purposes. Actual steel reinforcement should be designed by the project structural engineer.
-^ 6.5 No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placement of concrete.
However, the slab and foundation subgrade should be moisturized, as necessary, to
maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any concrete placement.
— 6.6 As an alternative to the conventional foundation recommendations, consideration should be
given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of
the proposed structure. The post-tensioned system should be designed by a structural
engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and the design criteria of the
Post-Tensioning Institute (UBC Section 1816). Although this procedure was developed for
r expansive soils, it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due to
differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should incorporate the geotechnical
parameters presented on Table 6.
6.7 UBC Section 1816 uses interior stiffener beams in its structural design procedures. If the
-- structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than UBC
Section 1816, we recommend interior stiffener beams be used and the depth of the
perimeter foundation should be at least 24 inches. Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer.
Project No.06895-52-02
-7- June 22,2004
6.8 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at doorways or garages, the exterior slab should
be dowelled into the structure's foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to
reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement
or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project
.— structural engineer.
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute(PTI)Design Parameters
1. Thornthwaite Index
-20
2. Clay Typ TK%4 ntmorillonite Yes
3. Clay Portion(Maximum)
70%
4. Depth to Constant Soil Suction
7.0 ft.
5. Soil Suction
'— 3.6 ft.
6. Moisture Velocity
0.7 in./mo.
7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance
2.6 ft.
S. Edge Lift
1.15 in.
9. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance
5.3 ft.
_. 10. Center Lift
4.74 in.
-- 6.9 Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs are susceptible to excessive edge lift,
regardless of the underlying soil conditions, unless reinforcing steel is placed at the bottom
of the perimeter footings and the interior stiffener beams. Current PTI design procedures
primarily address the potential center lift of slabs but, because of the placement of the
reinforcing tendons in the top of the slab, the resulting eccentricity after tensioning reduces
the ability of the system to mitigate edge lift. The foundation system should be designed to
reduce the potential of edge lift occurring for the proposed structure.
6.10 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to expansive soils (if present) or differential settlement of fills of varying
thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented
herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still
exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete
shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence
may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete
placement and curing, and the placement of crack-control joints at periodic intervals,
particularly where re-entrant slab corners occur.
Project No.06895-52-02
-8 June 22,2004
6.11 All exterior concrete flatwork not subject to vehicular traffic should be constructed in
accordance with the following recommendations. Slab panels should be a minimum of
4 inches thick and when in excess of 8 feet square should be reinforced with
6 x 6 -W2.9/W2.9 (6 x 6 - 6/6) welded wire mesh to reduce the potential for cracking. In
-- addition, all concrete flatwork should be provided with crack-control joints to reduce
and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack-control spacing should be determined by the
project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the
American Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration when establishing
crack-control spacing. Subgrade soils for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads
should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading section prior to
concrete placement. Subgrade soils should be properly compacted and the moisture content
of surficial soils should be verified prior to placing concrete.
7.0 Retaining Walls
7.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density
of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper
than 2:1(horizontal:vertical), an active soil pressure of 45 pcf is recommended. These soil
pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1
plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of 50 or less.
For those lots with finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or
where backfill materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should
be consulted for additional recommendations.
7.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.00111 (where H equals
the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where walls are
restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf should be
added to the above active soil pressure.
7.3 All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the
buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project
architect. The soil immediately adjacent to the backfilled retaining wall should be
composed of free draining material completely wrapped in Mirafi 140 (or equivalent) filter
fabric for a lateral distance of 1 foot for the bottom 2/3 of the height of the retaining wall.
The upper 1/3 should be backfilled with less permeable compacted fill to reduce water
infiltration. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not
recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the
property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly
compacted granular (EI of 50 or less) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic
Project No.06895-52-02
-9-
June 22,2004
forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are
anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be
contacted for additional recommendations.
— 7.4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of 1 foot may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 4 feet below
— the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of 50 or less. The proximity of the foundation
to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure.
Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated.
7.5 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the desi
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In theeventrthat
walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls (such as crib-type walls) are planned,
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
8.0 Lateral Loads
8.1 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluff
density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure
assumes a horizontal surface extending away from the base of the wall at least 5 feet or
three times the height of the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater.
The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be
included in the design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may be
used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be
combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral
loads.
— 9.0 Slope Maintenance
9.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) may, under conditions that are difficult
to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near-surface (surficial) slope instability. The
instability is typically limited to the outer 3 feet of a portion of the slope and usually does
not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the slope. The
occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is generally preceded
by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of subsurface seepage.
The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result from root growth,
soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may also be a
significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recommended that, to
the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or
�" Project No. 06895-52-02
10-
June 22,2004
properly recompacted; (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to
eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation; and(c) surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be
periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. It should be noted that although the
incorporation of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope
instability, it will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to
rebuild or repair a portion of the project's slopes in the future.
10.0 Drainage
10.1 Adequate drainage provisions are critical to the future performance of the project. Under no
circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads
should be properly finish graded after the buildings and other improvements are in place so
that drainage water is directed away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and
slope tops to controlled drainage devices.
10.2 All underground plumbing utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should
be checked for leaks periodically for early detection of water infiltration and detected leaks
should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if water is allowed to
infiltrate the soil for a prolonged period of time.
10.3 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for
-- surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. We
recommend that drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage
structures or impervious above-grade planter boxes be used. In addition, where landscaping
is planned adjacent to the pavement, we recommend construction of a cutoff wall along the
edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom of the base material.
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect
grading, and represent conditions at the date of our final observation on January 9, 200 . ny
-- subsequent grading should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing services. As used
herein, the term "observation"implies only that we observed the progress of the work with which we
agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the potential
presence of hazardous or corrosive materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether the work
essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our observations, experience, and test
-- results. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions, can vary
greatly at any time. We make no warranty, express or implied, except that our services were
performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location.
Project No.06895-52-02
- 11 -
June 22,2004
We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the
K uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the
uncontrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated
wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCONINCORPORATED
/ QPOF ESS��
PAN W�FO
JOHN 0
HOOBS Q
Shawn Weedon UJ C61803 obs NO. 1524 (P
RCE 61803 UP:06/30/05 G 1524 'k ENG CERTIFIED -4
NEERING
* (P GEOLOGIST
SW:JH:bjl s'j� CIVIL .yam 12-31-04
�OFCAUFOP �
8/ icku �CFCAL\FC�
� p p) Addressee
Project No.06895-52-02
- 12-
June 22,2004
a U " m rn rn rn rn ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
rn 0 0 0 0
C11 O1 O1 LT of 0) 0) Ol O1
I
-ri N O op I M M H H O H M H ri H O H -4 O O w v O O O
�. Lia LYi U I Ol Ol Ol 01 tT of 0\ Ol Ol O\ 01 Ol o\ of M m 0) 0) m of M al m m
I
ri Ul 41
' A O O o\o M N OD M N h O) Ln L.() N N H M O lr, lD LC) H 00 LIl Lfl Ol d'
+' LL U �- rOi of M N M �O N N N Ln d' v M V' W O r-I O O N N M
r-I H rl H r-I H H H
• I
Ln L� M �o N 00 Lo
Ra m r H M L L W M �r �r M co rr Ln H M M
H H r-1 H H H H r-I rl ri r-I H H H H H O N N N N H H H
H H H H H r-I ri H H rl H H
JJ 1
Ul 1J I
a O O o\ 00 CO 00 00 O O Ln M N Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln O N N N N Ln Ln Ln
O U o I (` C� h l� LT of H H O H H H H H rl H M O O D
I H H r-1 H ri H
H H H H H H H H H H H H
I
r. U U1 LI. In Ln H H N N N N N N N N N N co L- r- (\
A A a to to l0 M M to �D Ol 1D to l0 to lD l0 l0 O o1 Ol of N N N
H H r-I H rM-I rM-I rN-I (N N N N N N N N N N N N N E
-- Ey H r-4 H r l H ri H H H H r-1 H E
�7 �4
co
v
W r-q \ U
O ovo I O O O O 0 0 0 0
CL a M a' i l0 lD to w Ln Ln M M 0 0 0
F cM V1 d' [11 M M M O
H W N I U
W FI > 44
,..� H U Z H r-I H H H H H H H H H H H H H O
q
F O
Q4 JJ N 4-I 1 00 00 00 O M l0 m 00 O N M M 00 O
A �• I Lr�j co O� Ol of Ol of m O O O O O O N dl t` rl Ln 00
W M M M M M M d' 'd' 'G' cr H H H Q4
H
1
I
4.4
p I � q
U i qq qq gq qq qq qq qq qq a � 1
Irl
O
I a1 01 a a a a a Q a H L,4
Q
a I � H H H H
I W a4 w
O O O Cl) Ul CO co rcn O
u I O O O O
W I O f�
N I W W W W W W W W �
E-+ i AH HA q A A Q A q A AW Q F F F F F 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 R
m co u] vl ul m m m H to F4 z z z z W W W W w w > D rn
H W W W W
p W W W W W W W W W W U U U U U H H H H H H H H
Ul cn Cl) Ul Cl) M Ul co m W Ul W CO co M a: LL
Ln g A A A A A A q
Ln
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N
I N N N N
N 1 \ \ \ \ O O O O O O O O O O O O
co 4J I Ln Ln Ln Ln Lp l0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \
co O O O O
(O I O O O O O O O O Lo 0 0 N N N N N
°•° p A I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O r--I M d1 00 CO
H v
H ri H H
H H H H H H H H H H r-i H H r-I H H H H H H O
z H H H H H H H H H H rl H z
I
^ � I
H N M d1 Ln l0 L- 00 m H H H d' Ln w L- W 01 O H N M V�
•O H H r-i H H H N N N N N
N ELI
a Z
I
_ I
rd ,
• al ,
01 61 01 m
01 01 01 01 Ol 001 001 001 001 001 001 01 Ol 01 Ool 001
0 01 001 001 c
— w a U M 0) rn rn rn rn rn rn rn 0 rn rn r� o o - r I N ri I
rn rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
TJ 4J
U •r-I q .-. I
— �+ U °� M 00 C` ri l0 OJ Ln H 10 M O L� N co Ln LD ri N 01
N H r-I N ri d> N
H H rI rl H H ri ri H r-i H ri r-I r-I ri r--I N N r-i N M N M VI
ri r--I rl rl ri rl ri ri
4J z U I O l0 01 l0 In N O In l0 L� M ri L� N r-I OJ M L� Ln ri d' lD r-i Ln
•r{ $-I N Qa I V' cf' M M dl dl d' 'c4
ri) J
O � U ,° I Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln M Ln Ln In Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln w �o
I rH-I rH-I cH-I rH-I r-I rH-i r�-I r�-i r�-I r�-i r�-I ��{ r•-i ri r-I r-I r-I ri rl r-1 ri r-i M M
_ ri � ri ri ri r♦ ri ri ri ri ri ri
vU i N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
(4 LD "0 k N N N N N N ri _j
Q Q I N N N N N N N N W l0 l0 lD to lD l0 1D 10 to l0
C/) I r-I ri r-1 ri r-I r-I ri rN-I rN-I rN-I rNi rN-I .N1 rN-I rN-I rN-i rN-I rN-I rN-I cN-I I�-I r�-I
�D _
U
O °V° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
H a M �' I M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 0
O
~ Q1 U
44
H
U Z I r-I ri r-I r-4 I ri r-I ri ri ri ri ri ri ri r--I ri ri r-I 0
r{ r{ M M
Ei Cl) p
w > 4.)! .
JJ I M 10 'cH 'dl ctl V' Ln Ln !~i
d' 14 'V d' cr cr d' M M O O O O VO' V' c}I cr N O O
Cr
H x
fs+ I N
�4
— I O
�y I
4-4
-H O
1J I
I
a i124 114 gq q q q
w Q ACQ
0 wa g Q Q n Q a ,
�W a a w o
0
w w p �
>1 oo wo oo rq 44rJ4 w Q)
H v I HE 00 w
a a a 0 w o 124 04 w
H a Q Q g Q Z a Q � Q 0
w W o w w u vw Xw wsxz - � n
N
Ln I
N I N N N N p N N N N N CO o O O O O O p
.� I r1 r-1 o) CY) 01 01 O O O O O O p r q r-I \ \ \ \ \ \r-j
:2; ri ri ri ri r-I r-I ri ri ri H r-I H H H r�i rH-I H -1-1 rte-{
ri ri ri ri
I
1.1
•n 4 j N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M zM '41' N M q4 In �D t` �
O Cr '� 'Cr
a
Ei Z
I
va Ln CO Cl) E-4�
73
Cx fk
o ooi o0i ooi rn rn rn rn ° o o 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0
— rn rn rn
rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
a) �
U Er.
a °w ' r-I
44
-- Ol O)
Ol Ol 0)o'I � DD O) Dl H H r-I r-i r•i r--I M N
(7) O1 Ol � O) O1 Ol O1
10 4
r Ul 1J
aJ ri M O r I [M Q1 M O M M cl 01 In p
Cta U ' Ln Ln Lf) Lf) Ln Lf) Ol M 1 Ol N Lf)
a
r-I r-I r--I ri r-I r-i r-I r-I H H Ln H O
U] W M , Ol
Q, l0 Lf) Ln Ln Lf. r-1 OD N r, M L" O
Qq 0O0 0 0p00 0o00 Or � � to �DOr
' r-1 H r-i rl r-i r1 r-i rl r•-I H H H 0-I r CD r01 H O O 0 0
rMi rM-I rM-I rM-I rM-i rM-I rM-I rMi rM-1 rMi rM-I M M M M M M M f`'1
_ ri r•i ri
�4 a) ID4 !` r r-I r-i r-i H r-I H
t` r
' r-I r-I r--I r•I rH-1 ��1 rHl rH-I H rH H
-I rHi rHi' rH-1 rr-I r-I H H r-I r-I
� �
W U i 41
— a a r\i a ow ; o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H
I °
� O
H W aJ i U
w H >
W
m z i M M M M M M
U M M M M M M M M M
a z °
w _1
a -LJ
a W O a1 4-I I V d' O °CO 0 0 0 0 0 �o O N C)
Q q ° ° ° o
;T VI d' V' M M M �i' d' w cr ka
a)
�4
O
I W
O
tj i H
a° rL4 04 a� a� a� a� a� Lu
u w 04 a a a a a o
la4 a4 Q4
w w
g Q H Q W w w w W o o 0 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 0 rn I 0 0 o 5 rx 4
o a a
Cl) n Q u 0 Q H H Q Hn- H a o o Q Q A w 0
W c� 3 3 g H co co co Cl) u] W � W aj Z m
En S 3Cl) U co v]
Ln
Ln i ON ON ON ON N N N \ 0 0 0 0 N° ON ON N N fM rn Cl)
OD 4j OD O I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ° O
w lO \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
t` t`
N N N N O1
.... 00 H r-i r-I r-i r-I r-1 r-i r•-I O
z HHHH Hr� ° ° z
— � 1
•n J-) V' Ln LO Lf) Ln Lt) Lf) Lf) Ln LLf) co Ln ° r-I N M cM L11 �D 1,
In Ln LD lD l0 l0 l0 l0 l6 L0
a) O i
a z I
I
m C w w
E °
E �4
- 1 o
4 A
aro
U .-1 O
P; H r0 'a3
_ a) -H �4 O
CE-1 .0• H v m
b� v 3 a) u)i w N � ro
O d O ) N
P -A r-j 1� rtS r6 r0 m ro
O Cl) Cl) CO p g 3 3 b a te)
Q) a) Cn
ri TJ
H H 3 N H Pa a
3
�D 3 3 3 v
O
U O rd E 41
N v r1 O
O O E U
A in
v >1 OU 1-)
r ri
O
E QJ .� O ?a N
4-4
� A
d O o "'
a)a'
O > i N r1 m CO
O 4j -r1 O
N U m E4-) m 3
ro q � 3 r4 ( •r �rd a) rt ro v w w
O q Q rd rtS > rti
U -H � a l -W -r♦ E � � �a H j � a,
1z, ul ro
w 44
ro � -H H O g 3 3 H ro � r. Q) a)
O O O a) 41 a1 a) a) 1 �
P.) P4 CO Cl) 41 -W
HI I I I I I J.-1 a) O O
FI u r1 H H 3
H ° U
41 �' m > a, o
Cl) 0 � M
�1 r
V2 .1i
i u
F W O C w V) p
rl 0- W u1 O 0 E
U r
E
-rl �
O T3
O 4J � H E a ate) E a)
rt U w U u)
> ro O ro W v rn x
a) ro a H E U a v
_ ° °
ro a o o �+ i 41
oro b V) 41
o > a v ro�
H m
V) 0 r�i p � i � 3 N > y H
-- ° a) \ ,-1 U H 41 1 H � -H 0 V) 3 i 4j 4J s4 v
a H
N , 't1 r1 O P; 11 U m rt a l 4) U) m -rl a)ri 41
w a c� �
(d LO CD(U r' ro a) v a) H v m
q H 2J 3 3 .: rd w >Y TS q A �> O
OD rd _Q 01 CD k rd x ro
wU A d PQ U U A W H E � H E H U r-1 > a al
(] 1 I 1 I I I I -rEr Q rO J-) E w Cl) Z Q \
Cl) C7 3 3 O �4 K U H X H
Pa U U A w H W U E v U rs, E E p u U H aJ
n w W x Q H H
H a U a
a
U 0 >H .wa
I H W
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-00
Sample Maximum Optimum
No. Description Dry Density Moisture Content
1 Light brown, Clayey, fine-to coarse-grained SAND (Act (% dry weight)
116.0 15.9
2 Reddish brown, fine-grained, Sandy CLAY
120.8 13.0
3 Yellowish brown, Silty, fine-to medium-grained SAND 117.1
4 Olive brown, fine-grained, Sandy CLAY 13.6
114.1 14.6
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D3080-98
Sample Dry Density Moisture Content Unit Cohesion
No. (pc fj (%) Angle of Shear
(Psf) Resistance(degrees)
3 109.7 21.7
— 600 23
* Remolded to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density at near-optimum moisture content.
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPA SION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-95
Sample No. Moisture Content
—
Before Test % o Dry Density(pcf) Expansion Index
( ) After Test(/°)
E-1 10.8 20.7
106.2 39
TABLE V
SUMMARY OF WATER SOLUBLE SULFATE LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Water Soluble Sulfate— lf ( ) Sulfate Exposure
S-1 0.023
Negligible
S-2 0.049
Negligible
-- Project No.06895-52-02
June 22,2004
� II
i '
ti � , j41f
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
' E
p k i
SAMPLES PROPERTY
i y
` COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
ii
I NiC!OER P@ i 2,!T!E'I7 i
GEQTEC��IC �
i
CoNsu TITS + ; p ( PREPARED FOR
THE BLYDIN COMPANY
p E ' ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
E C p
f '
i .
I f I s {
i lii f
t ! i
(
i r f I
{ i i6jEf � € I
t ! ' APRIL 19, 2002
E CON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Project No. 06895-52-01
April 19, 2002
The Blydin Company
1106 Second Street, Suite 233
Encinitas, California 92024
Attention: Mr. Stretch Storer
Subject: SAMPLES PROPERTY
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request and authorization of our proposal No. LG-02056 dated February 7,
2002. we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project. The accompanying
report presents the findings of our study, and our recommendations relative to the geotechnical
aspectS of developing the property as presently proposed. The property can be deveioped as proposed
provided the recommendations included in this report are incorporated into site development.
Shouid you have any questions regarding this report. Or if we may be of further- service. please
contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
f
ii
Troy K:ReistLi shn Hoobs
Senior Staff Geologist CEG 1524 Shawn
RCE 61803 803
TKR:JH:SW:dmc �CRED GFO
pFE5S10
(6/del) Addressee O�� JOHN �� WEB��fiy
HOOBS --
NO 1524
CERTIFIED 061803
1k ENGINEERING k 06�301b5
N GEOLOGIST -1 Exp:
�T 12-31-02
�OF CA���O CM'S t�`r
5 OF CA` 4,
6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121-2974 ■ Telephone (858) 558-6900 ■ Fax (858) 558-6159
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................................1
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................1
3 . SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS.........................................................................................2
3.1 General...................................................................................................................................2
3.2 Santiago Peak Volcanics (Jsp)...............................................................................................2
3.3 Alluvium(Qal).......................................................................................................................2
3.4 Undocumented Fill (Qudf).....................................................................................................3
3.5 Topsoil (Unmapped)..............................................................................................................3
4. RIPPABILITY AND ROCK CONSIDERATIONS.........................................................................3
5. GROUNDWATER...........................................................................................................................4
6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS..................................................................................................................4
6.1 Faulting..................................................................................................................................4
6.2 Seismicity—Deterministic Analysis....................................................................................4
6.3 Liquefaction...........................................................................................................................5
6.4 Landslides..............................................................................................................................5
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................6
7.1 General...................................................................................................................................6
7.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics ......................................................................................6
7. Corrosion ...............................................................................................................................6
7.4 Grading..................................................................................................................................7
7.5 Slope Stability........................................................................................................................8
7.6 Earthwork Grading Factors....................................................................................................8
7.7 Seismic Design Criteria.........................................................................................................9
7.8 Foundations............................................................................................................................9
7.9 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads......................................................................................12
7.10 Drainage and Maintenance..................................................................................................13
7.11 Plan Review.........................................................................................................................14
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Geologic Map (Map Pocket)
Figure 3, Slope Stability Analysis—Cut Slopes
Figure 4, Slope Stability Analysis—Fill Slopes
Figure 5, Surficial Slope Stability Analysis
Figure 6,Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-1 —A-12,Logs of Trenches
APPENDIX B
Table B-I,Summary of Laboratory Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content Test Results
Table B-II, Summary of Laboratory Direct Shear Test Results
Table B-III, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results
Table B-IV, Summary of Laboratory Water-Soluble Sulfate Test Results
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
LIST OF REFERENCES
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
We have performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Samples Property located in the
County of San Diego, California. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate subsurface soil
and geologic conditions and, based on conditions encountered, provide recommendations pertaining
to the geotechnical aspects of developing the site as presently proposed.
Our field investigation included a site reconnaissance, review of aerial photographs, published and
unpublished reports, and the excavation of 12 exploratory backhoe trenches. A discussion of the field
investigation and logs of the exploratory trenches are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory tests
were performed on soil samples obtained from our exploratory trenches to evaluate pertinent
physical properties. Appendix B presents a summary of the laboratory test results.
As part of the geotechnical investigation, we reviewed the Grading Plans for Samples Property,
scale I-inch equals 40 feet, provided by Civcom&Associates, progress print date April 2, 2002.
2. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Samples Property encompasses approximately 2.3 acres of undeveloped land located in the
County of San Diego, California. The property is situated on the south side of Fortuna Ranch Road,
east of Lone Jack Road. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1.
In general, the topography of the site consists of gently sloping terrain towards the southwest.
Drainage generally flows to the south and southwest towards the corner of the property, where it
flows under a small bridge for a private driveway of an adjacent property. Elevations range from
approximately 365 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) to approximately 420 feet MSL. Vegetation
consists of minor grasses and shrubs.
Proposed development consists of cut and fill grading to create a single-family residential lot with
associated underground utilities. The finish pad will have an elevation 405.0 MSL with a cut slope
proposed below Fortuna Ranch Road and a fill slope on the south and east sides. It is understood that
the sewer will be pumped to the existing line on Fortuna Ranch Road. Cut and fill slopes of up to
approximately 25 feet in height are proposed, with maximum slope inclinations of 2:1
(horizontal:vertical).
The above locations and descriptions are based on a site reconnaissance and review of the map
provided by Civcom & Associates. If final development plans differ significantly from those
Project No.06895-52-01 - 1 - April 19,2002
described herein, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for review and possible revisions to this
report.
3. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
3.1 General
One geologic formation and three surficial soil types were encountered during the investigation. The
Jurassic-age Santiago Peak Volcanics is exposed on site and underlies the surficial units of alluvium,
topsoil, and undocumented fill. The formational and surficial units are discussed below in order of
decreasing age. The approximate lateral extent of the formation and surficial soils is presented on the
Geologic Map,Figure 2.
3.2 Santiago Peak Volcanics (Jsp)
The Upper Jurassic-age (possibly Lower Cretaceous) Santiago Peak Volcanics is exposed throughout
most of the site. This formation consists of mildly metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rocks
that appear relatively dark-colored where exposed. The metavolcanic rock ranges from rhyolite to
basalt and commonly includes tuff, tuff-breccias and andesites. Very fine-grained, silicified
sandstones, slate and other types of metasedimentary rocks also occur within this formation. The
rock is typically extensively jointed/fractured and can exhibit areas of highly weathered rock.
This formation generally exhibits adequate bearing capacity characteristics. The near-surface highly
weathered material typically possesses a "medium" to "high" expansive potential. Cut slopes in fresh
rock with an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter should be stable if free from adversely
oriented fractures or bedding attitudes. High- and low-angle clay filled fractures can occur, however,
and may result in localized instability. In the event that adverse conditions are observed, stabilization
measures may be necessary. The fractured nature of the metavolcanic rock can also increase the
potential for water migration and seepage conditions.
3.3 Alluvium (Qal)
Alluvial soils are stream-deposited materials found in the canyon drainages that generally vary in
thickness depending on the size of the canyon. The depth of alluvium encountered in the exploratory
trenches was approximately 31/2 feet. Due to the relatively unconsolidated nature of the alluvial
deposits, removal and compaction will be necessary in areas to receive fill or improvements. The
alluvium mapped along the southern property line exhibits only a thin veneer of material within a
small eroded channel derived from the storm drain outlet located in the northwest corner of the
property. The alluvium generally has a"very low"to"medium"expansive potential.
Project No.06895-52-01 -2- April 19,2002
3.4 Undocumented Fill (Qudf)
Undocumented fill consisting of large oversize rock and soil is present along the northern boundary
of site adjacent to Fortuna Ranch Road. These deposits appear to have been placed during the
grading of Fortuna Ranch Road. Removal of these deposits may be necessary if planned utilities
and/or cut slopes could be adversely impacted. Further evaluation of these deposits will be made
during the grading phase for the project.
3.5 Topsoil (Unmapped)
Topsoil is present as a thin veneer overlying formational soils across the site. The topsoil has an
average thickness of approximately 1 foot, and is characterized as loose, dry to damp,reddish brown,
silty to clayey sand. Removal and compaction of the topsoil will be necessary in areas to receive fill
or to support structures. The topsoil generally has a "very low" to "medium" expansion potential.
Due to the relatively thin thickness, topsoil is not mapped in Figure 2.
4. RIPPABILITY AND ROCK CONSIDERATIONS
The rock materials observed on site have a variable weathering pattern ranging from completely
weathered rock to fresh extremely strong hard rock present at deeper elevations. The possible high
and low angle joints/fractures associated with the Santiago Peak Volcanics may present slope
stability issues if encountered, however, it is our opinion that adverse geologic structures do not
present a significant geologic hazard to the proposed development of the site.
Very heavy excavation effort with possible refusal should be anticipated during grading and
trenching for planned improvements wherever formational rock is encountered. Proposed
excavations may require blasting and can be expected to generate oversize material that will
necessitate special handling and placement procedures during grading operations.
Based on this study and experience with this formational unit, it is anticipated that proposed cuts will
encounter very hard rock. The results of the field investigation indicate that the Santiago Peak
Volcanics is characterized by a rippable weathered mantle, varying from 2 to 10 feet thick, underlain
by relatively unweathered hard rock. Therefore, with the anticipated maximum cuts of 10 feet,
excavations in the northern portion of the site may be extremely difficult to excavate. These areas
can expect to generate oversized rock (rocks greater than 12 inches in dimension). Earthwork should
be carefully planned to efficiently utilize available rock placement areas. Consideration should be
given to undercut the cut portion of the pad that contain marginally to unrippable rock to facilitate
foundation and utility trench excavations.
Project No.06895-52-01 -3- April 19,2002
5. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory trenches and is not anticipated to adversely
impact development of the property. It is not uncommon for groundwater seepage conditions to
develop where none previously existed due to the permeability characteristics of the fractured rock.
During the rainy season, perched water conditions are likely to develop within the drainage areas that
may require special consideration during grading operations. Groundwater elevations are dependent
on seasonal precipitation and irrigation. Control of surface drainage will be important to future
performance of the project.
6. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
6.1 Faulting
A review of geologic literature indicates that there are no known active or potentially active faults at
the site. The Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately 7 miles west of the property, is the closest
known active fault. An active fault is defined by the California Geologic Survey (CGS) (formerly the
California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG]) as a fault showing evidence for activity roughly
within the last 11,000 years. The CGS has included portions of the Rose Canyon Fault within an
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. This site is not located within such a zone. An inactive fault
was found in three of the exploratory trenches located along the western portion of the site as shown
on the Geologic Map, Figure 2. The fault trace does not appear to offset Holocene deposits and
therefore is classified as inactive. The inactive fault should not adversely impact on the proposed
development of the property.
6.2 Seismicity— Deterministic Analysis
Earthquakes that might occur on the Rose Canyon Fault or other faults within the southern California
and northern Baja California area are potential generators of significant ground motion at the site.
The computer program EQFAULT (Blake, 1998) was utilized to determine the distance of known
faults to the site. Within a search radius of 62 miles (100 kilometers) from the property, 16 known
active faults were identified. The results of the seismicity analyses indicate that the Rose Canyon
Fault is the dominant source of potential ground motion at the site and has a maximum credible
magnitude of 6.9. The "maximum credible magnitude" is defined as the maximum earthquake that
appears capable of occurring under the presently known tectonic framework (California Geologic
Survey, Number 43). The estimated maximum credible ground acceleration expected at the site was
calculated to be approximately 0.32g. Presented in Table 6.2 are the earthquake events and site
accelerations for the faults considered most likely to subject the site to ground shaking. The seismic
risk at the site is not considered significantly greater than that of the surrounding developments or
the Rancho Santa Fe area in general.
Project No.06895-52-01 -4- April 19,2002
TABLE 6.2
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS FOR SELECTED ACTIVE FAULTS
Fault Name Distance From Site Maximum Maximum Credible
(miles) Credible Magnitude Site Accelerations(g)
Rose Canyon 7 6.9 0.32
Newport-Inglewood (Offshore) 15 6.9 0.17
Coronado Bank 22 7.4 0.15
Elsinore—Julian 25 7.1 0.11
Elsinore—Temecula 1 25 6.8 0.09
6.3 Liquefaction
Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is located in a zone with seismic activity, onsite soils are
cohesionless, groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface, and soil relative densities are
less than about 70 percent. If all four previous criteria are met, a seismic event could result in a rapid
pore water pressure increase from the earthquake-generated ground accelerations. The potential for
liquefaction is considered to be very low due to the dense formational units encountered.
6.4 Landslides
No landslides were encountered during the site investigation, and none are known to exist on the
property or at a location that would impact the proposed development.
Project No.06895-52-01 -5- April 19,2002
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General
7.1.1 No soil or geologic conditions were encountered that would preclude the development of
the property as presently planned, provided the recommendations of this report are
followed.
7.1.2 The surficial soils consisting of undocumented fill, topsoil, and alluvium are not
considered suitable for the support of fill or structural loads in their present condition and
will require remedial grading in the form of removal, moisture conditioning as necessary,
and compaction.
7.2 Soil and Excavation Characteristics
7.2.1 Based on the results of this field investigation, and experience in the general area, it is
anticipated that the surficial soils can generally be excavated with moderate to heavy effort
using conventional heavy-duty excavation equipment. Excavating within the Santiago Peak
Volcanics rock material will generally vary in difficulty with the depth of excavation and
may result in oversize material. Blasting may be necessary for excavations deeper than 5
feet in the bedrock. Oversized material should be placed in accordance with Recommended
Grading Specifications (Appendix Q. Since proposed fill areas and depths are relatively
limited, oversize rock may require breakage to acceptable sizes or exportation from the
property. Placement of oversize rock within proposed underground utility areas should not
be permitted.
7.2.2 The majority of the on-site soils are anticipated to possess a "very low" to "medium"
expansion potential as defined by the Uniform Building Code 1997 (UBC) Table 18-I-B. It
is recommended that the expansion potential be evaluated for the building pad once final
grade is achieved.
7.3 Corrosion
7.3.1 Laboratory tests performed on two soil samples indicate that the exposure to water-soluble
sulfate is negligible. Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion
engineering. Therefore, it is recommended that a corrosion engineer be consulted if
improvements are planned that are susceptible to corrosion.
Project No.06895-52-01 -6- April 19,2002
7.4 Grading
7.4.1 All grading should be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading
Specifications contained in Appendix C and the County of San Diego Grading Ordinance.
Where the recommendations of Appendix C conflict with this report, the recommendations
of this report should take precedence.
7.4.2 Prior to commencing grading, a preconstruction conference should be held at the site with
the owner or developer, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in
attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can be discussed at that time.
7.4.3 Site preparation should begin with the removal of all deleterious material, debris, and
vegetation. The depth of removal should be such that material exposed in cut areas or soils
to be used as fill is relatively free of organic matter. Material generated during stripping
and/or site demolition should be exported from the site. Extensive debris may be present
within the undocumented fill.
7.4.4 All topsoil and alluvium within proposed development areas should be removed to firm
formational soil prior to placing compacted fill. The formational material should then be
scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted.
7.4.5 The site should then be brought to final finish grade elevations with structural fill
compacted in layers. In general, soil and rock native to the site are suitable for use as fill if
free from vegetation, debris and other deleterious material. Layers of fill should be no
thicker than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. All fill, including trench and
wall backfill and scarified ground surfaces, should be compacted to a dry density of at
least 90 percent of maximum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture content, as
determined in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D 1557-00. Fill materials placed
below optimum moisture content or fill excessively above optimum will require further
moisture conditioning prior to placing additional fill.
7.4.6 To reduce the potential for differential settlement, it is recommended that the cut portion
of the pad be undercut at least 3 feet and replaced with properly compacted fill soils.
7.4.7 The upper 3 feet of the pad (cut or fill) should be composed of properly compacted fill soil
with a "very low" to "low" expansion potential. Fill soils with an Expansion Index above
50 should be placed at least 3 feet below finish grade. Low-expansive soils are defined as
those soils that have an Expansion Index of 50 or less as indicated in UBC Section 18-I-B.
Rock greater than 1 foot in maximum dimension should not be placed within 5 feet of
Project No.06895-52-01 -7- April 19,2002
finish grade or 3 feet of the deepest utility. Rock greater than 6 inches in maximum
dimension should not be placed within 3 feet of finish grade.
7.5 Slope Stability
7.5.1 Slope stability analysis, utilizing average drained direct shear strength parameters based on
our experience with similar soil types in nearby areas, indicates that the proposed cut and
fill slopes should have calculated factors of safety of at least 1.5 under static conditions for
both deep-seated failure and shallow sloughing conditions. Deep-seated slope stability and
surficial slope stability calculations are presented in Figures 3, 4, and 5.
7.5.2 The outer 15 feet (or a distance equal to the height of the slope, whichever is less) of fill
slopes should be composed of properly compacted granular "soil' fill to reduce the
potential for surficial sloughing. In general, soils with an Expansion Index of less than 90
or at least 35 percent sand size particles should be acceptable as "granular" fill. Soils of
questionable strength to satisfy surficial stability should be tested in the laboratory for
acceptable drained shear strength. Slopes should be compacted by backrolling with a
loaded sheepsfoot roller at vertical intervals not to exceed 4 feet and should be
track-walked at the completion of each slope such that the fill soils are uniformly
compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density to the face of the
finished slope.
7.5.3 All slopes should be landscaped with drought-tolerant vegetation, having variable root
depths and requiring minimal landscape irrigation. In addition, all slopes should be drained
and properly maintained to reduce erosion.
7.6 Earthwork Grading Factors
7.6.1 Estimates of embankment shrink-swell factors are based on comparing laboratory
compaction tests with the density of the material in its natural state and on experience with
similar soil types. Variations in natural soil density, as well as in compacted fill, render
shrinkage value estimates very approximate. As an example, the contractor can compact
fills to any dry density of 90 percent or higher of the laboratory maximum dry density.
Thus, the contractor has at least a 10 percent range of control over the fill volume. Based
on the work performed to date and considering the above discussion, the following
earthwork factors may be used as a basis for estimating how much the on-site soils may
shrink or bulk when removed from their natural state and placed in compacted fills.
Project No.06895-52-01 -8- April 19,2002
TABLE 7.6
Soils Unit Shrink-Bulk Factors
Surficial Soils 5 to 10 Percent Shrink
Santiago Peak Volcanics(Rippable) 5 to 15 Percent Bulk
7.7 Seismic Design Criteria
7.7.1 Table 7.7 summarizes the seismic design parameters obtained from the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC) Table 16-J for the Soil Profile Type that is prevalent on this project.
The corresponding parameters listed in Table 7.7 should be used for seismic design for the
subject property. The values listed are for the Rose Canyon Fault, which is identified as a
Type B fault and is more dominant than the nearest Type A fault due to its proximity to
the site.
TABLE 7.7
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter UBC Reference Sc
Seismic Zone Factor Table 16-1 0.40
Soil Profile Type Table 16-J SC
Seismic Coefficient,C,, Table 16-Q 0.40
Seismic Coefficient, C, Table 16-R 0.56
Near-Source Factor,N, Table 16-S 1.0
Near Source Factor,N,, Table 16-T 1.0
Seismic Source Table 16-U B
7.8 Foundations
7.8.1 The following foundation recommendations are based on the assumption that the
prevailing soils within 3 feet of finish grade will consist of"very low" to "low" expansive
soils as defined by UBC Table 18-I-B, and that the proposed building will be placed on
compacted fill soils.
7.8.2 It is recommended that conventional continuous or isolated footings have a minimum
embedment depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. The footings should be at
least 1 foot wide for continuous footings and 2 feet wide for isolated footings.
Project No.06895-52-01 -9- April 19,2002
7.8.3 Footings proportioned as recommended above may be designed for an allowable soil
bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). This soil bearing pressure may be
increased by 300 psf and 500 psf for each additional foot of foundation width and depth,
respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. The allowable
bearing pressures recommended above are for dead plus live loads only and may be
increased by up to one-third when considering transient loads such as those due to wind or
seismic forces.
7.8.4 For continuous footings, a minimum reinforcement consisting of four No. 5 steel
reinforcing bars is recommended, two placed near the top of the footing and two near the
bottom.
7.8.5 Interior concrete slabs-on-grade should be at least 5 inches thick. As a minimum, slab
reinforcement should consist of at least No. 3 steel reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches on
center in both directions placed in the middle of the slab. The slabs should be underlain by
at least 3 inches of clean sand and, where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned or
where slab moisture would be objectionable, a visqueen moisture barrier placed into the
middle of the sand blanket should also be provided.
7.8.6 All concrete slabs should be provided with adequate construction joints and/or expansion
joints to control unsightly shrinkage cracking. The spacing should be determined by the
project structural engineer based upon the intended slab usage, thickness and reinforce-
ment. The structural engineer should take into consideration criteria of the American
Concrete Institute when establishing crack control spacing patterns.
7.8.7 The recommended minimum foundation dimensions and reinforcement are based upon soil
conditions only and are not intended to be used in lieu of those required for structural
purposes. Actual steel reinforcement should be designed by the project structural engineer.
7.8.8 No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placement of concrete.
However, the slab and foundation subgrade should be sprinkled as necessary, to maintain a
moist condition as would be expected in any concrete placement.
7.8.9 Footings that must be located within 7 feet of the top of a slope should be extended in
depth such that the outer bottom edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the
face of the finished slope.
Project No.06895-52-01 - 10- April 19,2002
7.8.10 Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of fill slopes are not recommended.
Where such a condition cannot be avoided, it is recommended that the portion of the
swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed assuming that the adjacent
soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation applies to fill slopes up to 30 feet in
height.
7.8.11 Although other improvements that are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete flatwork
or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, it is
generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to
incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil movement without
causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific
recommendations.
7.8.12 As an alternative to the conventional foundation recommendations, consideration should
be given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support
of the proposed structure. The post-tensioned system should be designed by a structural
engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post-
Tensioning Institute (1997 UBC Section 1816). Although this procedure was developed
for expansive soils, it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress due
to differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should incorporate the
geotechnical parameters presented on Table 7.8 entitled Post-Tensioned Foundation
System Design Parameters.
TABLE 7.8
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute(PTI)
Design Parameters
1. Thornthwaite Index -20
2. Clay Type—Montmorillonite Yes
3. Clay Portion(Maximum) 70%
4. Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft.
5. Soil Suction 3.6 ft.
6. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in./mo.
7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft.
8. Edge Lift 1.15 in.
9. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 5.3 ft.
10. Center Lift 4.74 in.
Project No.06895-52-01 I 1 - April 19,2002
7.8.13 The UBC Section 1816 uses interior stiffener beams in its structural design procedures. If
the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than
UBC Section 1816, it is recommended that interior stiffener beams be used and the depth
of the perimeter foundation should be at least 24 inches. Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer.
7.8.14 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at doorways or garages, the exterior slab
should be dowelled into the structure's foundation stemwall. This recommendation is
intended to reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from
differential settlement or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be
designed by the project structural engineer.
7.8.15 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to expansive soils (if present), or differential settlement of fills of varying
thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented
herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still
exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete
shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence
may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete
placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in
particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
7.9 Retaining Walls and Lateral Loads
7.9.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density
of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper
than 2:1(horizontal:vertical), an active soil pressure of 45 pcf is recommended. These soil
pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1
plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than
90. For those lots with finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or
where backfill materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should
be consulted for additional recommendations.
7.9.2 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.00111 (where H equals
the height of the retaining portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where walls
are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf should
be added to the above active soil pressure.
Project No.06895-52-01 - 12- April 19,2002
7.9.3 All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the
buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project
architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not
recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the
property adjacent to the base of the wall. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is
presented on Figure 6. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular
(Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed
surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific
drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional
recommendations.
7.9.4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 4 feet
below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 50. The proximity of the
foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing
pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is
anticipated.
7.9.5 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure
a:,sumes a horizontal surface extending away from the base of the wall at least 5 feet or
three times the height of the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater.
The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be
included in the design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may
be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be
combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral
loads.
7.9.6 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls,
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
7.10 Drainage and Maintenance
7.10.1 Establishing proper drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil
movement, erosion and subsurface seepage. Positive measures should be taken to properly
finish grade the building pads after the structures and other improvements are in place, so
Project No.06895-52-01 - 13- April 19,2002
that the drainage water from the lots and adjacent properties are directed off the lots and to
the street away from foundations and the top of the slopes. Experience has shown that even
- with these provisions, a shallow groundwater or subsurface water condition can and may
develop in areas where no such water conditions existed prior to the site development; this
is particularly true where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from an
increase in landscape irrigation. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed into
conduits which carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
7.10.2 All underground plumbing utilities should be absolutely leak free. Utility and irrigation
lines should be checked for leaks periodically for early detection of water infiltration and
detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil movement could occur if
water is allowed to infiltrate the soil.
7.10.3 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for
surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. It is
recommended that drains to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage
structures, or impervious above-grade planter boxes be used. In addition, where
landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, it is recommended that a cutoff wall be
constructed along the edge of the pavement that extends at least 6 inches below the bottom
of the base material.
7.11 Plan Review
7.11.1 A review of the grading and foundation plans should be performed prior to finalization to
verify their compliance with the recommendations of this report and determine the need
for additional comments, recommendations and/or analysis.
Project No.06895-52-01 - 14-
April 19,2002
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon
the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the
investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during
construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon
A Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The
evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was
not part of the scope of services provided by Geocon Incorporated.
?. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are
brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the
plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry
out such recommendations in the field.
3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the
conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural
processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in
applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the
broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly
or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Project No.06895-52-01
April 19,2002
-
�
-
-
2 go
81 Qj
C RLS 'A'
DOON
LA COSTA D
CANYON
TER
HBONE WY
om
ED CA LL
O'� COUNTRY ROSF 3500
CINJ
LN
��MQSA CT CA
4�g JACK
CA
ANAL
DL B
2500 'INQ
's L17TLE s C444t
OAKS cl
FA
PARK
BR
RD Nx
SOURCE : 2002 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP '10 64&--0
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION GRANTED BY THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS,
THIS MAP IS COPYRIGHTED BY THOMAS BROS. MAPS IT IS UNLAWFUL TO Copy
OR REPRODUCE ALL OR ANY PART THEREOF.WHETHER FOR PERSONAL USE OR
RESALE,WITHOUT PERMISSION
NO SCALE
GEOCON VICINITY MAP
INCORPORATED (low)
GEOTE'HNICAL CONSULTANTS SAMPLES PROPERTY
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
- --
PROJECT NO. 06895-52-01
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
Slope Height H = 20 feet
Slope Inclination 2:1 (Horizontal :Vertical)
Total Unit Weight of Soil y, = 130 pounds per cubic foot
Angle of Internal Friction 0 = 35 degrees
Apparent Cohesion C = 500 pounds per square foot
No Seepage Forces
ANALYSIS:
Yco = YH tanO Equation(3-3),Reference 1
C
FS = NciC Equation(3-2),Reference 1
yH
yco = 3.6 Calculated Using Eq. (3-3)
Ncf = 18 Determined Using Figure 10,Reference 2
FS = 3.5 Factor of Safety Calculated Using Eq. (3-2)
REFERENCES:
(1) Janbu,N., Stability Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters,Harvard Soil Mechanics,
Series No.46, 1954.
(2) Janbu,N.,Discussion of J.M. Bell,Dimensionless Parameters for Homogeneous Earth Slopes,
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Design,No. SM6,November 1967.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS - CUT SLOPES
SAMPLES PROPERTY
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 3
PROJECT NO.06895-52-01
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
Slope Height H = 25 feet
Slope Inclination 2:1 (Horizontal :Vertical)
Total Unit Weight of Soil yt = 130 pounds per cubic foot
Angle of Internal Friction = 30 degrees
Apparent Cohesion C = 250 pounds per square foot
No Seepage Forces
ANALYSIS:
7cq = YH tan Equation(3-3),Reference 1
C
FS = N tC Equation(3-2),Reference 1
YH
Yco = 8 Calculated Using Eq. (3-3)
Ncf = 27 Determined Using Figure 10,Reference 2
FS = 2.1 Factor of Safety Calculated Using Eq. (3-2)
REFERENCES:
(1) Janbu,N., Stability Analysis of Slopes with Dimensionless Parameters,Harvard Soil Mechanics,
Series No.46, 1954.
(2) Janbu,N.,Discussion of J.M. Bell,Dimensionless Parameters for Homogeneous Earth Slopes,
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Design,No. SM6,November 1967.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS -FILL SLOPES
SAMPLES PROPERTY
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 4
PROJECT NO.06895-52-01
ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
Slope Height H = Infinite
Depth of Saturation Z = 3 feet
Slope Inclination 2:1 (Horizontal :Vertical)
Slope Angle i = 26.6 degrees
Unit Weight of Water YW = 62.4 pounds per cubic foot
Total Unit Weight of Soil Yt = 130 pounds per cubic foot
Angle of Internal Friction 0 30 degrees
Apparent Cohesion C = 150 pounds per square foot
Slope saturated to vertical depth Z below slope face.
Seepage forces parallel to slope face
ANALYSIS:
FS — C+(Y,—Y,,,)Z cos'i tan
= 1.6
Y Zsinicosi
REFERENCES:
(1) Haefeli,R. The Stability of Slopes Acted Upon by Parallel Seepage, Proc. Second International
Conference, SMFE,Rotterdam, 1948, 1,57-62.
(2) Skempton,A. W., and F. A. Delory,Stability of Natural Slopes in London Clay,Proc.Fourth
International Conference, SMFE,London, 1957,2, 378-81.
SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
SAMPLES PROPERTY
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE 5
12„ MIN. GROUND
SURFACE
/COMPACTED
/SOIL/
BACKFILL
RETAINING /
WALL
'° 0.°• q 3/4" CRUSHED
O GRAVEL
°:0. o. . . o. o�. . 0 2/3 H H/
°,6. .o...:°.Q.'.b. ':°,o. / MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC
o '
C). . 0•'°. .,'p. 0' EQUIVALENT
"o' 4" DIA. PERFORATED
°•o •Q. :°.o. .o. ":°,d.' ABS OR ADS PIPE
o°.;O '0
.o ..q
/
1"
NOTE:
1.....PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE PANELS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN 6000 OR EQUIVALENT
MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF PLACING GRAVEL
2.....DRAIN SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY SLOPED AT 0.5% OR GREATER TO GRAVITY
OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING
NO SCALE
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS SAMPLES PROPERTY
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121-2974 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
TKR/TA DSK/G000D DATE 04/19/02
PROJECT NO. 06895-52
RWDDIA -01 FIG.6
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on April 9, 2002, and consisted of a site reconnaissance and
the excavation of 12 exploratory trenches. The trenches were excavated to maximum depths of
approximately 10 feet using a John Deere 510-rubber tire backhoe. As trenching proceeded, the soil
and geologic conditions encountered were logged and sampled.
The soil conditions encountered in the excavations were visually examined, classified, and logged in
general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) practice for
Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D 2488). Logs of the trenches are
presented on Figures A-1 through A-12. The logs depict the general soil and geologic conditions
encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. The approximate locations of the trench
excavations performed are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 2.
Project No.06895-52-01
April 19,2002
PROJECT NO. 06895-52-01
TRENCH T 1
DINT" SAMPLE p 03 SOI L O W^
2 Z CLASS Hz- _ �^ LL
FEET N0 ►— ° ELEV. (MSL.) 405 DATE COMPLETED 4/9/02 �in:\ w W
FA 0 (USCS)
° EQUIPMENT ~H 3 °� U)
JD 510 BACKHOE Zino ��
0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SC
TOPSOIL
Loose, dry, reddish-brown, Clayey, fine to
medium SAND, with silt
2 SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS
Moderately to slightly weathered, gray to brown,
strong METAVOLCANIC ROCK; V thick grayish
brown, sa rolite lense present at contact
REFUSAL AT 3 FEET
Figure A-1, Log of Trench T 1
SAMP
S SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND ATORTHESEEPAGE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06895-52-01
LLJ
TRENCH T 2
DEPTH SAMPLE SOIL C:)U �^
S Z CLASS H Z F- H W
FEET NO. f-- � ELEV. (MSL.) 418 DATE COMPLETED 4/9/02 ��� LU H
H O (USCS)
0 EQUIPMENT JD 510 BACKHOE w w_j >_� 0
p T2-1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SC TOPSOIL
Loose, dry to damp, reddish-brown, Clayey, fine
2 to medium SAND, with silt
SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS
Moderately weathered, gray to light brown, strong
to moderately strong, METAVOLCANIC ROCK;
1' thick reddish-brown saprolite lense present at
4 contact
-Very difficult trenching at 5 feet
6
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
Figure A-2, Log of Trench T 2
SAMP
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL U ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE 3F ... WATER TABLE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION
AND ATORTHESEEPAGE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06895-52-01
LD TRENCH T 3
DEPTH J <C SOIL Z W^ }
IN SAMPLE O O Z W
2 z CLASS
FEET
NO. �- 0 ELEV. (MSL.) 413 DATE COMPLETED 4/9/02 W inN w�
H p (USCS)
-j H U Cn
CD EQUIPMENT JD 510 BACKHOE z w� a off
EL 0
0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SC
TOPSOIL
Loose, dry to damp, reddish-brown, Clayey, fine
to medium SAND, with silt
2 SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS
Moderately weathered to weathered, gray to light
brown, strong to weak, METAVOLCANIC ROCK;
1' thick gray-green saprolite lense present at
4
contact
-Highly fractured from 1' to 6' with in fault trace
6
T3-1
Fault trace -N70W, 81N
8
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8 FEET
Figure A-3, Log of Trench T 3
- SAMP
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL C ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06895-52-01
CD W TRENCH T 4
DEPTH 3 SOIL Z W� }
IN SAMPLE p p HRIZH H^ W
LL
2 Z CLASS
FEET N� F- ELEV. (MSL.) 403 DATE COMPLETED 4/9/02 ��co w�
H p (USCS)
J H H3 OV �j
EQUIPMENT JD 510 BACKHOE z w-j >-CL off
W Wm o`" r-i
��v o �
0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
1 SM TOPSOIL
Loose, dry, reddish-brown, Silty, fine to medium
SAND, with some clay
2 SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS
Moderately weathered, light gray to brown, strong,
METAVOLCANIC ROCK
REFUSAL AT 2 FEET
Figure A-4, Log of Trench T 4
SAMP
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL U ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 0 ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06895-52-01
W TRENCH T 5
DEPTH SAMPLE OJ :1 SOIL pu . F^
2 Z CLASS H¢U_ En Cr
FEET ND' H o= (uscs) ELEV. (MSL.) 416 DATE COMPLETED 4/9/02 ��-� WL` ►_-
J EQUIPMENT F-H3 0� �
JD 510 BACKHOE w W m 0!
a.W.m o i
i
0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
1 SM TOPSOU.
Loose, dry, reddish-brown, Silty, fine to medium
SAND, with some clay
2 SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS
Moderately weathered, gray to brown, strong to
weak, METAVOLCANIC ROCK; fault present on
N &S sides of trench, highly fractured and
weathered with in fault trace
4
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 4.5 FEET
Figure A-5, Log of Trench T 5
SAMP
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
0 ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION
AND AORTHEEPAGE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06895-52-01
LLI
LD TRENCH T 6
DINT" SAMPLE _j 30 SOIL O V F^
= Z CLASS �,ZQLL W�
FEET N0. F- ELEV. (MSL.) 411 DATE COMPLETED 4/9/02 ��-c r� W F--I
F..i 0 (USCS)
J
EQUIPMENT F-H 0 0 (n!
JD 510 BACKHOE I?w m a 0 i
0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SC TOPSOIL
Loose, dry, reddish-brown, Clayey, fine to
medium SAND, with silt
2 SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS
Moderately weathered to weathered, gray to
reddish-brown, strong, METAVOLCANIC ROCK;
highly weathered, fractured and weak with in fault
4 trace
6 -Fault trace N75W, 74N
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6.5 FEET
Figure A-6, Log of Trench T 6
SAMP
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION
AND ATORTHEEPAGE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06895-52-01
W TRENCH T 7
DINT" SAMPLE _j SOIL p V'� �^ Lij
2 Z CLASS Z
FEET N0' F- ° ELEV. (MSL.) 415 DATE COMPLETED 4/9/02 ��� w�
H (USCS)
J EQUIPMENT ~H 3 °C�
JD 510 BACKHOE z Uj.°j >.� o
aWm iv Z:
0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
SC Loose, dry to damp, reddish-brown, Clayey, fine
2 T7-1 to medium SAND
-
SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS
Weathered to moderately weathered, light brown,
strong to weak, METAVOLCANIC ROCK; highly
4 T7-2 fractured throughout
6
8
10
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10 FEET
Figure A-7, Log of Trench T 7
SAMP
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION
AND AORTHEEPAGE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06895-52-01
TRENCH T 8
D INTH SAMPLE 0 03 SOIL p V�
= Z CLASS H Z F' H^
W
FEET ND. F- -D ELEV. (MSL.) 414 DATE COMPLETED 4/9/02 ��� WIL ~
H 0 (USCS)
F-H3 00
JD 510 z w m
LD EQUIPMENT BACKHOE Ce
CL
0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
1 SM TOPSOIL
Loose, dry to damp, Silty, fine to medium SAND
T8-1 SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS
2 Moderately weathered to slightly weathered, gray
to brown, strong to very strong,
METAVOLCANIC ROCK; 1' thick grayish-brown
saprolite lense present at contact
4
-Highly fractured from 2 to 5 feet
6
-Very difficult trenching at 6 feet
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
i
Figure A-8, Log of Trench T 8
SAMP
[ESAMPLE:SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE ... WATER TABLE NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION
AND ATORTHESEEPAGE
DATE INDICATED. IT 1S NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06895-52-01
LLJ
LD TRENCH T 9
DEPTH SAMPLE -J 3 SOIL 0 W^ }
IN = z CLASS �ZL~_ �^ ul
FEET N0 F 0 ELEV. (MSL.) 406 DATE COMPLETED 4/9/02 ��(n WL` �!
H p (USCS)
J
EQUIPMENT ~H3 °� �i
JD 510 BACK OE w ui m_i o a 0 i
O �
0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
` ALLUVIUM
/ Loose, moist, dark reddish-brown, Clayey, fine to
2
r SC medium SAND, with 2" to 6" rock
4 SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS
Moderately to slightly weathered, gray, strong,
METAVOLCANIC ROCK
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 5 FEET
Figure A-9, Log of Trench T 9
SAMP
SAMPLE SYMBOLS ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 0 ... CHUNK SAMPLE
- 1 -.. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
~ NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06895-52-01
F_ TRENCH T 10
DEPTH SAMPLE 0 � SOIL p V F_
= Z CLASS Z U_
FEET N0 F- � ELEV. (MSL.) 415 DATE COMPLETED 4/9/02 �¢N W� �!
H p (USCS)
J F_ pV pj
EQUIPMENT JD 510 BACKHOE wcn° 0.
w w m �'
C3 �
p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
1 SM TOPSOIL
Loose, dry, reddish-brown, Silty, fine to medium
SAND
2 SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS
Slightly weathered, gray, very strong to strong,
METAVOLCANIC ROCK
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 3 FEET
Figure A-10, Log of Trench T 10
El SAMP
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
1 ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06895-52-01
0 w TRENCH T11
DEPTH J <E SOIL Z W 7;1 }IN SAMPLE
= Z CLASS H Z H^ W FEET Nc F— ELEV. (MSL.) 393 DATE COMPLETED 4/9/02 ��
LL wL'
in(USCS)
EQUIPMENT ~H0� H
JD 510 BACKHOE z�° >.(L o
WWm W`- E
0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
ALLUVIUM
T11-1 Loose, dry to damp, Silty, fine to medium SAND,
2
SM with clay
T11-2
4
SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS
Weathered, gray to brown, weak,
METAVOLCANIC ROCK; highly fractured with
6 1' thick saprolite lense present at contact
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 FEET
Figure A-11, Log of Trench T 11
SAMP
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 10 ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
® ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Q ... CHUNK SAMPLE
--- __ •.. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
PROJECT NO. 06895-52-01
LLI
TRENCH T 12 _
DIN H SAMPLE OJ :1 SOIL H U� F"-. W
2 Z CLASS Z H
FEET ND• �- n ELEV. (MSL.) 387 DATE COMPLETED 4/9/02 �¢� wW
J 0 (USCS)
LD EQUIPMENT JD 510 BACKHOE z LU° }o- o!
CL_
v
0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SC TOPSOIL
Loose, dry to damp, reddish-brown, Clayey, fine
2 to medium SAND, with silt
SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS
Weathered to moderately weathered, gray to
reddish-brown, strong, METAVOLCANIC ROCK;
highly fractured with 6" saprolite lense present at
4 contact
6
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 FEET
Figure A-12, Log of Trench T 12
El SAMP
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL ❑ ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
9 ... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE D ... CHUNK SAMPLE
t ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE
DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected soil samples were
analyzed for maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion potential, water-
soluble sulfate, and shear strength characteristics. The results of the laboratory tests are presented in
Tables B-I through B-N.
TABLE B-1
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-91
Sample Maximum =dry
No. Description Dry Density
(Pcf)
T7-2 Light brown, Clayey, fine to coarse
SAND, with some silt 11 ..0 15.9
TABLE B-11
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080-98
Sample Dry Density Moisture') Unit Cohesion Angle of Shear
No. (pcf) (%) (psf) Resistance (degrees)
T7-2 105.3 15.1 570 41
Soil sample remolded to a dry density of 90 percent of the maximum dry density at near optimum moisture
content.
Project No.06895-52-01 -B-1 -
April 19,2002
TABLE B-III
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-95
Sample Moisture Content
Dry Density Expansion
No. Before Test (%) After Test(%) (Pcf) Index Classification
T11-1 10.6 22.0 110.8 23
Low
T 11-2 12.6 34.0 102.4 111
High
TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Water-Soluble Sulfate Content (percent) Exposure
T11-1 0.033 "Negligible"
TI 1-2
0.050 "Negligible"
Project No. 06895-52-01 _B-2
April 19,2002
APPENDIX >I
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
SAMPLES PROPERTY
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 06895-52-01
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. GENERAL
1.1. These Recommended Grading Specifications shall be used in conjunction with the
Geotechnical Report for the project prepared by Geocon Incorporated. The recom-
mendations contained in the text of the Geotechnical Report are a part of the earthwork and
grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case
of conflict.
1.2. Prior to the commencement of grading, a geotechnical consultant (Consultant) shall be
employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for
substantial conformance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and these
specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and
observation services so that he may determine that, in his opinion, the work was performed
in substantial conformance with these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the
Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes
so that personnel may be scheduled accordingly.
1.3. 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 or agency
ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable soil materials, poor moisture
condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, and so forth, result in a quality of work
not in conformance with these specifications, the Consultant will be empowered to reject
the work and recommend to the Owner that construction be stopped until the unacceptable
conditions are corrected.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1. Owner shall refer to the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the grading
work is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have grading
performed.
2.2. Contractor shall refer to the Contractor performing the site grading work.
2.3. Civil Engineer or Engineer of Work shall refer to the California licensed Civil Engineer
or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans, surveying and verifying
as-graded topography.
GI rev. 8/98
2.4. Consultant shall refer to the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm
retained to provide geotechnical services for the project.
2.5. Soil Engineer shall refer to a California licensed Civil Engineer retained by the Owner,
who is experienced in the practice of geotechnical engineering. The Soil Engineer shall be
responsible for having qualified representatives on-site to observe and test the Contractor's
work for conformance with these specifications.
2.6. Engineering Geologist shall refer to a California licensed Engineering Geologist retained
by the Owner to provide geologic observations and recommendations during the site
grading.
2.7. Geotechnical Report shall refer to a soil report(including all addenda) which may include
a geologic reconnaissance or geologic investigation that was prepared specifically for the
development of the project for which these Recommended Grading Specifications are
intended to apply.
3. MATERIALS
3.1. Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil excavated from the cut areas or
imported to the site that, in the opinion of the Consultant, is suitable for use in construction
of fills. In general, fill materials can be classified as soil fills, soil-rock fills or Jock fills, as
defined below.
_. 3.1.1. Soil fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps greater than 12
inches in maximum dimension and containing at least 40 percent by weight of
material smaller than 3/4 inch in size.
3.1.2. Soil-rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 4
feet in maximum dimension and containing a sufficient matrix of soil fill to allow
for proper compaction of soil fill around the rock fragments or hard lumps as
specified in Paragraph 6.2. Oversize rock is defined as material greater than 12
inches.
3.1.3. Rock fills are defined as fills containing no rocks or hard lumps larger than 3 feet
in maximum dimension and containing little or no fines. Fines are defined as
material smaller than 3/4 inch in maximum dimension. The quantity of fines shall
be less than approximately 20 percent of the rock fill quantity.
GI rev.8/98
3.2. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise unsuitable nature as determined by the
Consultant shall not be used in fills.
3.3. Materials used for fill, either imported or on-site, shall not contain hazardous materials as
defined by the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 30, Articles 9
and 10; 40CFR; and any other applicable local, state or federal laws. The Consultant shall
not be responsible for the identification or analysis of the potential presence of hazardous
materials. However, if observations, odors or soil discoloration cause Consultant to
suspect the presence of hazardous materials, the Consultant may request from the Owner
the termination of grading operations within the affected area. Prior to resuming grading
operations, the Owner shall provide a written report to the Consultant indicating that the
suspected materials are not hazardous as defined by applicable laws and regulations.
3.4. The outer 15 feet of soil-rock fill slopes, measured horizontally, should be composed of
properly compacted soil fill materials approved by the Consultant. Rock fill may extend to
the slope face, provided that the slope is not steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and a soil
layer no thicker than 12 inches is track-walked onto the face for landscaping purposes.
This procedure may be utilized, provided it is acceptable to the governing agency, Owner
and Consultant.
3.5. Representative samples of soil materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory
by the Consultant to determine the maximum density, optimum moisture content, and,
where appropriate, shear strength, expansion, and gradation characteristics of the soil.
3.6. During grading, soil or groundwater conditions other than those identified in the
Geotechnical Report may be encountered by the Contractor. The Consultant shall be
notified immediately to evaluate the significance of the unanticipated condition
4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1. Areas to be excavated and filled shall be cleared and grubbed. Clearing shall consist of
complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush, vegetation, man-made
structures and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of stumps, roots, buried
logs and other unsuitable material and shall be performed in areas to be graded. Roots and
other projections exceeding 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet
below the surface of the ground. Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to
provide suitable fill materials.
GI rev. 8/98
4.2. Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly
disposed at an approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments which are free of reinforcing
steel may be placed in fills, provided they are placed in accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3
of this document.
4.3. After clearing and grubbing of organic matter or other unsuitable material, loose or porous
soils shall be removed to the depth recommended in the Geotechnical Report. The depth of
removal and compaction shall be observed and approved by a representative of the
Consultant. The exposed surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of
6 inches and until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent
uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
4.4. Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6:1 (horizontal:vertical), or
where recommended by the Consultant, the original ground should be benched in
accordance with the following illustration.
TYPICAL BENCHING DETAIL
-------Finish Grade Original Ground
2
Finish Slope Surface
Remove All
Unsuitable Material
As Recommended By
Soil Engineer Slope To Be Such That
Sloughing Or Sliding
Does Not Occur I Varies �I
eel 1 See Note 2
No Scale
DETAIL NOTES: (1) Key width "B" should be a minimum of 10 feet wide, or sufficiently wide to
permit complete coverage with the compaction equipment used. The base of the
key should be graded horizontal, or inclined slightly into the natural slope.
(2) The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or unsuitable surficial
material and at least 2 feet into dense formational material. Where hard rock is
exposed in the bottom of the key,the depth and configuration of the key may be
modified as approved by the Consultant.
GI rev. 8/98
4.5. After areas to receive fill have been cleared, plowed or scarified, the surface should be
disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods. The area
should then be moisture conditioned to achieve the proper moisture content, and compacted
as recommended in Section 6.0 of these specifications.
5. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
5.1. Compaction of soil or soil-rock fill shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot or segmented-steel
wheeled rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be
capable of compacting the soil or soil-crock fill to the specified relative compaction at the
specified moisture content.
5.2. Compaction of rock fills shall be performed in accordance with Section 6.3.
6. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
6.1. Soil fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.1, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.1.1. Soil fill shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, should
generally not exceed 8 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be
thoroughly mixed during spreading to obtain uniformity of material and moisture
in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit in nearly level lifts.
Rock materials greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension shall be placed in
accordance with Section 6.2 or 6.3 of these specifications.
6.1.2. In general, the soil fill shall be compacted at a moisture content at or above the
Optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557-91.
6.1.3. When the moisture content of soil fill is below that specified by the Consultant,
water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is in the range
specified.
6.1.4. When the moisture content of the soil fill is above the range specified by the
Consultant or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the soil fill shall be aerated by
the Contractor by blading/mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture
content is within the range specified.
GI rev. 8/98
6.1.5. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly
compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place
dry density of the compacted fill to the maximum laboratory dry density as
determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-91. Compaction shall be continuous
over the entire area, and compaction equipment shall make sufficient passes so that
the specified minimum relative compaction has been achieved throughout the
entire fill.
6.1.6. Soils having an Expansion Index of greater than 50 may be used in fills if placed at
least 3 feet below finish pad grade and should be compacted at a moisture content
generally 2 to 4 percent greater than the optimum moisture content for the material.
6.1.7. Properly compacted soil fill shall extend to the design surface of fill slopes. To
achieve proper compaction, it is recommended that fill slopes be over-built by at
least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. This procedure is considered
preferable to track-walking of slopes, as described in the following paragraph.
6.1.8. As an alternative to over-building of slopes, slope faces may be back-rolled with a
heavy-duty loaded sheepsfoot or vibratory roller at maximum 4-foot fill height
intervals. Upon completion, slopes should then be track-walked with a D-8 dozer
or similar equipment, such that a dozer track covers all slope surfaces at least
twice.
6.2• Soil-rock fill, as defined in Paragraph 3.1.2, shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance
with the following recommendations:
6.2.1. Rocks larger than 12 inches but less than 4 feet in maximum dimension may be
incorporated into the compacted soil fill, but shall be limited to the area measured
15 feet minimum horizontally from the slope face and 5 feet below finish grade or
3 feet below the deepest utility, whichever is deeper.
6.2.2. Rocks or rock fragments up to 4 feet in maximum dimension may either be
individually placed or placed in windrows. Under certain conditions, rocks or rock
fragments up to 10 feet in maximum dimension may be placed using similar
methods. The acceptability of placing rock materials greater than 4 feet in
maximum dimension shall be evaluated during grading as specific cases arise and
shall be approved by the Consultant prior to placement.
GI rev. 8/98
6.2.3. For individual placement, sufficient space shall be provided between rocks to allow
for passage of compaction equipment.
6.2.4. For windrow placement, the rocks should be placed in trenches excavated in
properly compacted soil fill. Trenches should be approximately 5 feet wide and 4
feet deep in maximum dimension. The voids around and beneath rocks should be
filled with approved granular soil having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater and
should be compacted by flooding. Windrows may also be placed utilizing an
"open-face" method in lieu of the trench procedure, however, this method should
first be approved by the Consultant.
6.2.5. Windrows should generally be parallel to each other and may be placed either
parallel to or perpendicular to the face of the slope depending on the site
geometry. The minimum horizontal spacing for windrows shall be 12 feet
center-to-center with a 5-foot stagger or offset from lower courses to next
overlying course. The minimum vertical spacing between windrow courses shall
be 2 feet from the top of a lower windrow to the bottom of the next higher
windrow.
6.2.6. All rock placement, fill placement and flooding of approved granular soil in the
windrows must be continuously observed by the Consultant or his representative.
6.3. Rock fills, as defined in Section 3.1.3., shall be placed by the Contractor in accordance with
the following recommendations:
6.3.1. The base of the rock fill shall be placed on a sloping surface (minimum slope of 2
percent, maximum slope of 5 percent). The surface shall slope toward suitable
subdrainage outlet facilities. The rock fills shall be provided with subdrains during
construction so that a hydrostatic pressure buildup does not develop. The
subdrains shall be permanently connected to controlled drainage facilities to
control post-construction infiltration of water.
6.3.2. Rock fills shall be placed in lifts not exceeding 3 feet. Placement shall be by rock
trucks traversing previously placed lifts and dumping at the edge of the currently
placed lift. Spreading of the rock fill shall be by dozer to facilitate seating of the
rock. The rock fill shall be watered heavily during placement. Watering shall
consist of water trucks traversing in front of the current rock lift face and spraying
water continuously during rock placement. Compaction equipment with
compactive energy comparable to or greater than that of a 20-ton steel vibratory
roller or other compaction equipment providing suitable energy to achieve the
GI rev. 8/98
required compaction or deflection as recommended in Paragraph 6.3.3 shall be
utilized. The number of passes to be made will be determined as described in
Paragraph 6.3.3. Once a rock fill lift has been covered with soil fill, no additional
rock fill lifts will be permitted over the soil fill.
6.3.3. Plate bearing tests, in accordance with ASTM D1196-64, may be performed in
both the compacted soil fill and in the rock fill to aid in determining the number of
passes of the compaction equipment to be performed. If performed, a minimum of
three plate bearing tests shall be performed in the properly compacted soil fill
(minimum relative compaction of 90 percent). Plate bearing tests shall then be
performed on areas of rock fill having two passes, four passes and six passes of the
compaction equipment, respectively. The number of passes required for the rock
fill shall be determined by comparing the results of the plate bearing tests for the
soil fill and the rock fill and by evaluating the deflection variation with number of
passes. The required number of passes of the compaction equipment will be
performed as necessary until the plate bearing deflections are equal to or less than
that determined for the properly compacted soil fill. In no case will the required
number of passes be less than two.
6.3.4. A representative of the Consultant shall be present during rock fill operations to
verify that the minimum number of "passes" have been obtained, that water is
being properly applied and that specified procedures are being followed. The
actual number of plate bearing tests will be determined by the Consultant during
grading. In general, at least one test should be performed for each approximately
5,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of rock fill placed.
6.3.5. Test pits shall be excavated by the Contractor so that the Consultant can state that,
in his opinion, sufficient water is present and that voids between large rocks are
properly filled with smaller rock material. In-place density testing will not be
required in the rock fills.
6.3.6. To reduce the potential for "piping" of fines into the rock fill from overlying soil
fill material, a 2-foot layer of graded filter material shall be placed above the
uppermost lift of rock fill. The need to place graded filter material below the rock
should be determined by the Consultant prior to commencing grading. The
gradation of the graded filter material will be determined at the time the rock fill is
being excavated. Materials typical of the rock fill should be submitted to the
Consultant in a timely manner, to allow design of the graded filter prior to the
commencement of rock fill placement.
GI rev.8/98
............ ..
6.3.7. All rock fill placement shall be continuously observed during placement by
representatives of the Consultant.
7. OBSERVATION AND TESTING
7.1. The Consultant shall be the Owners representative to observe and perform tests during
clearing, grubbing, filling and compaction operations. In general, no more than 2 feet in
vertical elevation of soil or soil-rock fill shall be placed without at least one field density
test being performed within that interval. In addition, a minimum of one field density test
shall be performed for every 2,000 cubic yards of soil or soil-rock fill placed and
compacted.
7.2. The Consultant shall perform random field density tests of the compacted soil or soil-rock
fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material is compacted
as specified. Density tests shall be performed in the compacted materials below any
disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion
thereof is below that specified, the particular layer or areas represented by the test shall be
reworked until the specified density has been achieved.
7.3. During placement of rock fill, the Consultant shall verify that the minimum number of
passes have been obtained per the criteria discussed in Section 6.3.3. The Consultant shall
request the excavation of observation pits and may perform plate bearing tests on the
placed rock fills. The observation pits will be excavated to provide a basis for expressing
an opinion as to whether the rock fill is properly seated and sufficient moisture has been
applied to the material. If performed, plate bearing tests will be performed randomly on
the surface of the most-recently placed lift. Plate bearing tests will be performed to provide
a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the rock fill is adequately seated. The
maximum deflection in the rock fill determined in Section 6.3.3 shall be less than the
maximum deflection of the properly compacted soil fill. When any of the above criteria
indicate that a layer of rock fill or any portion thereof is below that specified, the affected
layer or area shall be reworked until the rock fill has been adequately seated and sufficient
moisture applied.
7.4. A settlement monitoring program designed by the Consultant may be conducted in areas of
rock fill placement. The specific design of the monitoring program shall be as
recommended in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the project
Geotechnical Report or in the final report of testing and observation services performed
during grading.
GI rev. 8/98
7.5. The Consultant shall observe the placement of subdrains,to verify that the drainage devices
have been placed and constructed in substantial conformance with project specifications.
7.6. Testing procedures shall conform to the following Standards as appropriate:
7.6.1. Soil and Soil-Rock Fills:
7.6.1.1. Field Density Test, ASTM D1556-82, Density of Soil In-Place By the
Sand-Cone Method.
7.6.1.2. Field Density Test,Nuclear Method,ASTM D2922-81,Density of Soil and
Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
7.6.1.3. Laboratory Compaction Test, ASTM D1557-91, Moisture-Density
Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using 10-Pound Hammer
and 18-Inch Drop.
7.6.1.4. Expansion Index Test, Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2, Expansion
Index Test.
7.6.2. Rock Fills
7.6.2.1. Field Plate Bearing Test, ASTM D1196-64 (Reapproved 1977) Standard
Method for Nonrepresentative Static Plate Load Tests of Soils and Flexible
Pavement Components, For Use in Evaluation and Design of Airport and
Highway Pavements.
8. PROTECTION OF WORK
8.1• During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide
Positive drainage and prevent ponding of water. Drainage of surface water shall be
controlled to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas until
such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. Areas
subjected to erosion or sedimentation shall be properly prepared in accordance with the
Specifications prior to placing additional fill or structures.
8.2. After completion of grading as observed and tested by the Consultant, no further
excavation or filling shall be conducted except in conjunction with the services of the
Consultant.
- GI rev.8/98
9. CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTS
9.1. Upon completion of the work, Contractor shall furnish Owner a certification by the Civil
Engineer stating that the lots and/or building pads are graded to within 0.1 foot vertically of
elevations shown on the grading plan and that all tops and toes of slopes are within 0.5 foot
horizontally of the positions shown on the grading plans. After installation of a section of
subdrain, the project Civil Engineer should survey its location and prepare an as-built plan
of the subdrain location. The project Civil Engineer should verify the proper outlet for the
subdrains and the Contractor should ensure that the drain system is free of obstructions.
9.2. The Owner is responsible for furnishing a final as-graded soil and geologic report
satisfactory to the appropriate governing or accepting agencies. The as-graded report
should be prepared and signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer experienced in
geotechnical engineering and by a California Certified Engineering Geologist, indicating
that the geotechnical aspects of the grading were performed in substantial conformance
with the Specifications or approved changes to the Specifications.
GI rev.8/98
LIST OF REFERENCES
I. Blake (2000), T. F., EQFAULT, A Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of
Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults.
2. Tan, Siang S. and M.P. Kennedy, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego
County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 96-02,
1996.
3. Unpublished reports, aerial photographs, and maps of file with Geocon Incorporated.
Project No. 06895-52-01 April 19,2002
DIE C E WE
h1l A R 5
ENGINEERING SERVICES
CITY OF ENCINICAS
DRAINAGE STUDY
FOR
SAMPLES PROPERTY
CITY OF ENCINITAS
DRAINAGE STUDY
FOR
SAMPLES PROPERTY
CITY OF ENCINITAS
MARCH 2004
Job No. 125
cc
E.r. u t F d
.. ?�
R. BHATIA, M.S.
R.C.E. #051348
Exp. 6 - 30 - 06
Prepared By:
CwcOM & ASSOCIATES
3665 RUFFIN ROAD, Suite
Phone: (619) 505 - 8800 Fax: (619),
05-8866 92123
66
1255DS.PM5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction Page
Vicinity Map 1
Hydrology Methodology 2
.. 3
Hydrology Results
Hydraulic Methodology 5
References 9
10
Appendices
_ Maps
A. County of San Diego Topographic Map Sheet No. 326-1707
B. City of Encinitas Drawing No. 6242-G
C. Grading Plan-Sample Property-Proposed Condition
100-year,six hour strom event
INTRODUCTION
This report presents a preliminary drainage study for the Sample is
located approximately 2.2 miles easterly of Rancho Santa Fe Road n the The area c
County of San Diego (see Vicinity Map) he City of Enci nitas,
This drainage study includes a Hydrology Study for the basin 100. se
The basin 100 is located along the south side (see Hydrology Maps)
condition,this basin consists of a de of Fortuna Ranch Road. In the pre-development
- runoff to a natural drainage swale proximately 2.36 acres which currently contributes storm
i
z Q)
v OLIVENHAIN
LEUC p�plA
BLS R
Ul X92 �P�G G� si rE
v
F` Z SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 2.2 MI.
FROM RANCHO SANTA FE RD..
CONE
I
CA MIN J CK RD
0 DEL NpRTE
VICINITY
MAP
I NOT TO SCALE
_. I
I
_ I
�drology Methodolo for Onsite
The rational method (Q=CIA) is used to determine the onsite runoff.
Runoff coefficient, ("C") is:
Existing rural area 0.45
Single residential units 0.55
Impervious areas 0.90
A soils group of"D" is assumed.
100 year 6 hour precipitation:
Time of concentration,Appendix"D"is derived from equation
Tc=(11.9 L3/H).385 X 60 minutes.
For basins where time of concentration is less than 10 minutes, a minimum value
10 minutes is used. of
Travel time in pipes is calculated by equation L/(V*60).
Each sub area is calculated individually for time of concentration with longest a
time being the total time for the site. g aggregate
Intensity is derived from the equation in Intensity chart.
= 7.44 P6D-.sae
-3 -
.............
Confluence Method
Let Q, T and I correspond to the tributary with the largest discharge.
Let q, t, and i correspond to the tributary with the smallest discharge.
Let Q, and T correspond to the discharge and the time of concentration when peak flow
If T>t, the peak discharge is corrected by the ratio of the intensities:
Q =Q +q(I/i) and
T=T.
If T<t, the peak discharge is corrected by the ratio of the times of concentration:
Q = Q + q(T/t) and
T = T.
-4 -
CONCLUSION:
The existing natural drainage swale is capable to accept the Pre-development
Post-development condition 100 year storm peak discharge s approximately conditions. The
Per second. Therefore, it is concluded that the post development condiion does adversely
affect the existing drainage pattern. ely
_. -9 -
REFERENCES
1• Hydrology Manual for the County of San Diego, Revised 1993.
2. Hydrology data shown on City of Encinitas Engineering Department Drawing
No. 6242-G. wing
-10-
�- N
CO
0 cu(6 U N
w N U
2 Q r _Q
o coc
cV c0
CO CO
U O CV co OD
N (O QO 00
O O O O
e- r-
O M
O C�
Lq U')
O It
O
fn
w O
U �-
Q Z (V
O LO U) O ° °
it Z
4 'i F= U-) U-)
z v
Z
O
W U
cn a w
w 0 o ° a
� i- Woo Ooo
> O � J O O
Z W r- r WOO
Q > r e-
W
_ Z rn Q
a to
° w�
`t a
o° o
C) °
It o
>- M M
W C)
W o
a � o
0 't o
M
a
LL ° a°oo° o
a zoM o
y v cv
m 'r
cm
o
e—
V -- c° cM O O
W
CL
O 0 � 00
X
Ati N
U)
N
rF�-- O Z
00 O
O ~
0
0
0 <
C)
co
Z
v W
2 J, 0 =
Q a.
ti
O 1110
00 W
LU
a
W
cc
LL. °
W p �\
J
�o. _
\ �61 N
n90
u
CO
;
W LO
co
O
Of
i�
Q ? 7 tt Q) N N 00 v
w ; g VJ�A 1 (l�'�
p \ O °
W O ��, �� Q in.0 X
O DLO o
m m \ O 0 L I
04-
w
Z
of Z O W
L'i Z Q O
0- Q W /� CUo z
O W p N Z N
x O Z W X Q --_ � O_ v C
� o � OD
r
C)
oLn
o-
m
-N
0i /IO C°J >
0--) (D 0 L i
3,n v)
N
00o Z
O
o �
� 00 0
LLJ
" Z
� � O
U Z -� O V
C) W
Q 0 a •'�
Q a
- W
4 co 11
W
l
� _ a
CL
luit
W a b
io
Ln
LU� o
u. C LU Q
i a N
..1
}.
W o
Q O J I Z
Q \
0-i
O
oqj U)
Oo ii �•, r C� � �" -� O _
r" � u '� �� v � � � ®lb
,VAV
i r i i i X
CO)
co
r r Z O Ln
(V N
�j �M
Z O�v� A N— o
>. �, O N N 00 v
m.Ln
Z o ° o z° % NN o�
Of o \dp o0L
W
Z � Z J N \y /
oa 04-
W \/ F
00 z
O _
LaJ > O � O Q \ / 1 N �4- uN
O
N U O L 0
— Ln
0 LO
� 'w ON i
U o')
Gf/afcrshc o� D.'v,ode \
Wa�ers/�ec1 L
.9recz :9"
y Area. B'
E��ecfive S/o�oe Lime Desi9� Pa,�f
�WQfersfieo' Ovf/e/�
S11-e47177
L
f�reQ y" = Area. B•,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES COMPUTATION OF EFFECTIVE SLOPE
DESIGN MANUAL FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS
APPROVED
DATE APPENDIX X- 8
APPENDICES
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD)
DEVELOPED AREAS URBAN
Coefficient C
Soil Group r'i
Land Use
A B C D
Residential:
_,. Single Family
.40 .45 .50 .55
Multi-Units
.45 .50 .60 .70
Mobile Homes
.45 .50 .55 .65
Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre)
.30 .35 .40 .45
Commercial 121
80% Impervious
.70 .75 .80 .85
Industrial 121
90% Impervious
.80 .85 .90 .95
NOTES:
_. r11 Soil Group maps are available at the offices of the Department of Public
121 Works.
Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated imperviousness
values of 80% or 90%, the values given for coefficient C, may be revised by
multiplying 80% or 90% by the ratio of actual imperviousness to the
imperviousness. However, in no case shall the final coefficient be Iessathant0�50.
For example: Consider commercial property on D soil group.
Actual imperviousness = 50%
Tabulated imperviousness = 80%
Revised C = 50 x 0.85 = 0.53
80
IV-A-9
APPENDIX I
'�'� EG?LIAT/ON
( 1 .3BS
Sacra ` )
Tc ' Tinc a/conCe17frQ1'1,017
¢DDO z Le179/h of watershed
y ' Dif1''rrenCe iii e%vafia� a/0179
3000 el�cctive s/o oe /ine "SCe .9,oPend�k f'B�T
L c
iLli/es Feef /sours
ZDOD Minu/�es
¢ Z�0
3 /BO
/ODD /O
� 900
Boa
700
60o
500 \ S 90
4 BD
��. 70
200 \ So
2
\
40
\ 3o
/00 /
� SDOD
20
So
/B
.TODD
o s \ /6
2000 �
30 /Boa
NOTE 16ao /o
wt -- /ADO 9
NFOR NATURAL WATERSH%DS� /100
210 ADD TEN MINUTES TO 11 B
COMPUTED TIME OF CON- 90000 7
CENTRATION_ BOO
/0 600 5
500
4t
ADD
5 300
H 200
z T
SAN DIEGO COUNTY C
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES O TIME OF COONRCENTRAMINATION DET
DESIGN MANUAL FOR NATURAL WATERSHOEDS Tc)
U�'B,9it/ ,9 Zws OvE�PL.9N0 T// z- OF FLOW CU�Q(/ES
sa,
_ Q 60
zd ,`VV
_� 9S /D
Ex ornP
Gi v.cn L c-ny/h o� F%w 300 ft
Cacf�ic�en� o� .Pono/r C -.SO
cad <i3 c�/ard 10wl"1rne :1-9
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES URBAN AREAS OVERLAND TIME
DESIGN MANUAL of FLOW CURVES
r
ti
C.:9 ice% � '7
fermi J ,J L-3
CD
LA
- I Cri- _
CD
N N
brv/ C-4
w o
W w
R. c.i
o/ v W ti <
W Cr ? ° trl
Q <
p v y
~ U
O f� I
_ LLJ
N Q 4 °
0 O - - _.- _ _ c O -• 00
M Lrl c F
2 LL- _J Ul C^1 < v
Q O O 4 o o co
to C
E- E- M
,<J O
t, p U
lzc O V1 O V
c7 W J
gn
' O
H
' F w
a
. F
J
C
V
r
b•--d � U ! � io J / /• .�f .o
CD
co
ci-
CN
Cu
cm
zrl
Ln
CD
0
r c
Q'
QC=)
W
-'
_W z �
< G O <
O , _ a <
z
O }
E � U z u
O �
ca •-• I I I � �' J
tct I I c O
Z '
N
T ry Ln O {Y < U
O w o - M Ljl\ - a
rn
C u
` 4 p • L-1 0 �
(� p L M L
O a
-- n
z �
ti
' J
�t
G:4-3
O
04- O S-
C .C N O at--+ O
rO > S , Q) Q) 4-
C U ' - t7 O Q7 k
a) z a �w R) c 4-3 > a
2
.0 rb U _ S- �•-i
r N O r > > X
Q) 4L- � C U� C _O X
C "'_. Q) In r;, •f- S-
(-.) O 11
C V' rrJ � •d- C O W
Q) G O Q) [1 f0 101 (V Ck' 0.
U -C E..-� ` O`:: a i i-) j a CL Q
Q) + r Q) rC _0
Z7 N C L � C c O -= 1 N
V) Z3 rJ 4) S_ O
O its
CL 4a)
C-0 O i b •� O r O
c b
b L c1+� +-31 4) r C rJ it
4... c b U = cX to r CD c n
C L rJ of U S- -- U U O () •r C V- .E C U
CL. a-J 4-.t S_ L7 O G 4-) Q) O t Q) (D '•- r
0 U O to C> t7 L [n .^ f- QJ C r O i0.. tlLO ^'
S- ri7 0, �D C u r r Q) {-j t� 41
E a) U r p�ra
C R S_ Q1 rt3 C: -r GT vl l0 Q) ^ U C Q)
O E C y N N O _C O O 4-) is
Z3 4-j N N
-... LL- N F-- C5, G -tJ - •1-t r- 4- S_. t -� b r Qj
11 •`' 11 11
CL
d ^ d
CL
U u') Q CD N ^ ^
M
CD 6-Hour Precipitation (inches)
oIn o Lno�
—,- *- �— t, to •rh ° o o
In C\I
--1
ILL
Lu
CA
v 4-) S' r3 � , , I t
F / 1
C I N �
11 q tl� 11 _=T
O
Cd
1......._ _ -_r_ - .- -- - - O
W
--+- - - - - - - --- - - —�- r
- - - -- - — _.a----
C
T-
-7
}-
r
Worksheet
Worksheet for Triangular Channel
Project Description
Project File s:lcivcom112551workshtldave.fm2
Worksheet test
Flow Element Triangular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Channel Depth
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.022
Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft
Left Side Slope 5.000000 H : V
Right Side Slope 5.000000 H : V
Discharge 2.70 cfs
Results
Depth 0.46 ft
Flow Area 1.07 ft2
Wetted Perimeter 4.73 ft
Top Width 4.63 ft
Critical Depth 0.45 ft
Critical Slope 0.011916 ft/ft
Velocity 2.51 ft/s
Velocity Head 0.10 ft
Specific Energy 0.56 ft
Froude Number 0,92
Flow is subcritical.
08/06/02
08:39:14 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708
FlowMaster v5.13
(203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Cross Section
Cross Section for Triangular Channel
Project Description
Project File s:lcivcom112551workshtldave.fm2
Worksheet test
Flow Element Triangular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
_ Solve For Channel Depth
Section Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.022
Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft
Depth 0.46 ft
Left Side Slope 5.000000 H : V
Right Side Slope 5.000000 H : V
Discharge 2.70 cfs
0.46 ft
1
V N
H 1
NTS
08/06/02
08:37:51 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury,CT 06708
FlowMaster v5.13
(203)755-1666 Page 1 of 1
GENERAL NOTES
Pow 12 A r% 1, K1, f! o
1. APPROVAL OF THIS GRADING PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF
VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT OF ANY PRIVATE ROAD SHOWN
HEREON FOR COUNTY ROAD PURPOSES.
=4
2. FINAL APPROVAL OF THESE GRADING- PLANS IS SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL PARCEL
OF THE ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENT PLANS WHERE APPLICABLE, FINAL CURB
GRADE ELEVATIONS MAY REQUIRE CHANGES IN THESE PLANS. o
WORK TO BE DONE.
3. IMPORT MATERIAL SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM A LEGAL SITE.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE WORK CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING WORK TO BE .DONE
4, A CONSTRUCTION, EXCAVATION OR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM THE ACCORDING TO THESE PLANS, THE CURRENT SAN DIEGO AREA REGIONAL STANDARD
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE COUNTY DRAWINGS AND THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION,
RIGHT OF WAY. 1997 EDITION AND PER SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRADING ORDINANCE.
5. ALL SLOPES OVER 3 FEET IN HEIGHT WILL BE PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAN LEGEND
DIEGO COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS.
LOTLINE ----------------------------------------------------
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PAD ELEVATION------------------------------------ ---------
BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED WORK SHALL BE GIVEN EXIST. SEWER -- --------------------------------- -----------
TO THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES EXIST SEWER MANHOLE-------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - --
SDIEGO UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (800) 422 -4133 EXIST SEWER LATERAL--------------------------------- - - - - -- -- —_
SAN DIEGO GAS. AND ELECTRIC 232 -4252 EXIST STORM DRAIN---------------------------- ------ -- ---- EXISTING 20' PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT
PACIFIC TELEPHONE 293 -0595 EXIST HDWL -------------------------------------- -- ---- ---- GRANTED TO ALBERT M. DISTEFAN BY_ DEED
SEWER: EXIST CURB INLET------------- - - - - -- -----------------------
_ REC AUGUST 3, 1976 FILE PG NO 76- 246431
WATER: EXIST RIP RAP PAD------------------- - - - - --
7, A SOILS REPORT MAY BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. EXISTING CONTOUR------------------------------------ - - - - -- PROPOSED STORM DRAIN-------------------------------------
8• APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DOES NOT AUTHORIZE
ANY WORK OR GRADING TO BE PERFORMED UNTIL THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PERMISSION PROPOSED RIP RAP PAD - -- -------------------------- -------
HAS BEEN OBTAINED AND A VALID GRADING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED. PROPOSED CONTOUR---------------------------------- - - - - -- —350 —
FINISH ELEVATION------------- ---- --- ---- ------ --- ---- --- - -- _S-
EXIST. ELEVATION -- --_
9• THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE -------- "- `----- "---- '---- ' -' --' (350.)
COUNTY BUILDING OFFICAL APPROVAL OF ANY FOUNDATIONS FOR STRUCTURES TO BE STREET GRADE ------------------------ - - - - -- 2.00x
PLACED ON THE AREA COVERED BY THESE PLANS. NO WAIVER OF THE GRADING TOP OF CURB ELEVATION ----------------------------------- TC G
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING MINIMUM COVER OVER EXPANSIVE SOILS IS KEYSTONE RETAINING- -WALL - - - -- - -_w�
MADE OR IMPLIED (SECTIONS 87.403 &87.410). ANY SUCH WAIVER MUST BE OBTAINED CUT SLOPE ( 2: 1)----------------------- - - - - -- -------- ------
FROM THE DIRECTOR OF DPL.� ,
FILL SLOPE ( 2: 1 )- -------- ----- ------- -- - - - - - --
10. ALL OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES, INCLUDING THE WARMING UP, REPAIR, DESCRIPTION: CHISELED SQUARE ON TOP OF HEADWALL !
ARRIVAL, DEPARTURE OR RUNNING OF TRUCKS, EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT, CONSTRUCTION BENCH MARK ,C
PERIOD BETWEEN 7:00 A.M. AND 6:00 P.M. EACH DAY, MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, /
EQUIPMENT AND ANY OTHER ASSOCIATED GRADING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE ,\
/
LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EL CAMINO
AND NO EARTHMOVING OR GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED ON THE DEL NORTE & RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD. T-�'
PREMISES ON SUNDAYS OR HOLIDAYS. RECORDED: COUNTY BENCH LEVELS NO.00 0073 �
ELEVATION: 119.476 DATUM: -U.S.C. & G.S. / QU �`1A
11. ALL MAJOR SLOPES SHALL BE ROUNDED INTO EXISTING TERRAIN TO PRODUCE A N 3
CONTOURED TRANSITION FROM CUT OR FILL FACES TO NATURAL GROUND AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION jl _
ABUTTING CUT OR FILL SURFACES. PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6594, BEING A PORTION OF THE SWI /4 - _ OF THE SEI /4 OF THE SWI /40F SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, = ;
12. NOTWITHSTANDING THE MINIMUM STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE GRADING ORDINANCE RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF ,
AND NOTHWITHSTANDING THE APPROVAL OF THESE GRADING PLANS, THE PERMITTEE CALIFORNIA.
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. NO SOILS ENGINEER CERTIFICATE
PERSON SHALL EXCAVATE ON LAND SO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS TO ENDANGER
ANY ADJOINING PUBLIC STREET, SIDEWALK, ALLEY, FUNCTION ANY SEWAGE DISPOSAL I, A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER IN i
SYSTEM OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT SUPPORTING AND THE STATE OF ,CALIFORNIA, PRINCIPILLY DOING BUSINESS IN THE FIELD OF
PROTECTING SUCH PROPERTY FROM SETTLING, CRACKING, EROSION, SILTING, SCOUR APPLIED SOIL MECHANICS, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A SAMPLING AND STUDY OF _ /4
OR OTHER DAMAGE WHICH MIGHT RESULT FROM THE GRADING DESCRIBED ON THIS THE SOIL CONDITIONS PREVALENT WITHIN THIS SITE WAS MADE BY ME OR UNDER /^
MY DIRECTION BETWEEN THE DATES OF
AND -
PLAN. THE COUNTY WILL HOLD THE, PERMITEE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECTION OF NON- ONE COMPLETE COPY OF THE . SOILS REPORT COMPILED FROM THIS STUDY, /�
DEDICATED IMPROVEMENTS WHICH DAMAGE ADJACENT PROPERTY. WITH MY RECOMMENDATIONS, HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE /
CITY ENGINEER. FURTHERMORE, I HAVE REVIEWED THESE GRADING PLANS
13. SLOPE RATIOS: AND CERFIFY THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED IN THE SOILS REPORT EXISTING PRESSURE
CUT - 1 1/2: 1 FOR MINOR SLOPES; 2:1 FOR MAJOR SLOPES FOR THIS PROJECT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE GRADING PLANS AND REDUCING VAULT
FILL - 2:1 SLOPES DEVIATING FROM THE ABOVE WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR SPECIFICATIONS.
EXISTING 30' EASEMENT TO O.M. W.D.
OF PUBLIC WORKS AFTER REVIEW OF A REPORT FROM A SOILS ENGINEER. SIGNED: PER DOC 88 -63038 REC 12 -8 -88
EXCAVATION: 3900 C.Y. FILL: 3600 C.Y. SHRINKAGE 8%
WASTE /IMPORT: -------- C.Y. A SEPARATE PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FOR WASTE OR RCE NO.:
IMPORT AREA. DATE: EXPIRATION DATE
14. SPECIAL CONDITION: IF ANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ARE DISCOVERED ON THE SITE
OF THIS GRADING DURING GRADING OPERATIONS, SUCH OPERATIONS WILL CEASE SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY
IMMEDIATELY, AND THE PERMITEE WILL NOTIFY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE
DISCOVERY. GRADING OPERATION WILL NOT RECOMMENCE UNTIL THE PERMITEE HAS TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WAS GENERATED BY
RECEIVED WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO DO SO. DIGITIZING THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 200 SCALE TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP.
15, ALL GRADING DETAILS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAN DIEGO STANDARD DRAWING PROJECT LOCATION
DS -8, DS -10, DS -11, D -75.
THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER(S)
16. TEMPORARY FENCES SHALL BE PLACED AROUND ANY REQUIRED OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS APN• 264- 451 -10
WHICH PRECLUDE GRADING, OR BRUSING, OR CLEARING AS SHOWN ON THE TENTATIVE THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE INDEX OF THIS PROJECT IS
MAP. SAID FENCNG SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCING GRADING OR BRUSHING N 328 E1709
AND CLEARING, SHALL REMAIN UNTIL GRADING AND /OR CLEARING AND BRUSHING ARE
COMPLETED, AND MUST BE REMOVED UPON COMPLETION OF SUCH ACTIVITIES.
OWNER
PARCEL MAP No, 0504
EXISTING 8 "PVC SEWER PER DWG. NO. CS 183.
10' WIDE SEWER EASEMENT
GRANTED TO CARDIFF SANITATION
10' WIDE SEWER EASEMENT DISTRICT PER DOC. NO. 1994 - 0655271
GRANTED TO CARDIFF SANITATION REC. 11 -10 -94
DISTRICT PER DOC, NO. 1994- 0655275
REC. 11 -10 -94 EXISTING 60' PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT
& PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC.
----- -- --- - - - - - - ` — - - - - NO. 19804 FILED 1-31= 64, KNOWN AS
FOPTUNA RANCH ROAD. SEE DWG
- ` - - - - _ - - - _ NO. 6242 -G SHT 5 FOR EXIST IMPROVEMENTS.
tK
1 16638' 18
- _ - 1-0
R T NA
-�; ~ - - -- T9 RELQCATE EXIST.. TYPE B CUED-`---. -
JE EXIST. RIP -RAP j,' INLET FROM 18.00 TO 18 +84.2 - - - -_
LND CULVERT
,� gyp,•,
T2 JsP
X
' -I
\\ wJ
JSP
T -4
16010
2:1
5'x10' RIP RAP PAD PER D -4
1 TON ROCK, T -4.3'
FILTER BLANKET PER SOIL'
ENGINEER. Q100 -12.1 CFS
r. AVG. V -15.6 FPS
1N1OVERLAP V MII
Q TYPE B BROW
o PER SDRSD D-
0 10.9% MIN.
,�,//��
GEOCON LEGEND
QUCIf .......UNDOCUMENTED FILL
" Oa .........ALLUVIUM
I
17. GRADING INDICATED ON THE FINAL GRADING PLANS OR IMPROVEMENT PLANS SHALL BE I JOI% ......... SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCAMCS
�. w, 60'ROAD EASEMENT (3.5)T -12
IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THAT SHOWN ON THE APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, ........
MR &MRS DOUG SAMPLES Qo� z 1 ---I (u 1. APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
72351 RIDGEBROOK I 30' 30, 1 z (Showing Approx. Thickness OT AMmum)
DATED ---------------- ANY DEVIATION FROM THE TENTATIVE MAP GRADING PLANS IN .MISSION VIELO CA 92692 v - -'
EXCESS OF 10' /. OF THE TOTAL GRADING QUANTITIES PER LOT MAY REQUIRE THE NEED a(� �, W' 18 .24' ig ��........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
TELE N0.949- 588 -6317 z
FOR ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. ANY DEVIATION IN MAXIMUM SLOPE HEIGHTS ,,,...ttt... z
CVO. SITE N I i I w �.���•.•.....APPROX. LOCATION OF -IN- ACTIVE FAULT TRACE
FROM THE APPROVE TENTATIVE MAP IN EXCESS OF THREE (3') FEET MAY ALSO REQUIRE e
W. I I W (Queried Where Uncertain)
THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. PERMITEE Y F � \ I
DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE STRETCH STORER9� � i i w
IHEREBY DECLARE THAT IAM THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, THE BYLOIN COMPANY, LLC ! _
THAT I HAVE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF THE 940 SEA LANE, UNIT *8 Lott _
PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6703 OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS TELE TAS, CA 92024 R0 EXIST AC PVMN'T�'
CODE AND THAT THE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS. TELE N0. 760- 634 -1124 C�Np 0a fP EXIST. GROUND
IN ASSUMING RESPONSIBLE CHARGE I ACCEPT FULL RESPONSIBILITY, FOR THE EXIST AC ROLLED BERM 2 \
ENTIRE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. QUANTITIES fi F �( \
VICINITY MAP
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS CUT 4172 CY NOT To SCALE
BY THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DOES NOT RELIEVE 'ME, AS ENGINEER OF WORK, FILL 7273 CY
OF MY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE PROJECT DESIGN. IMPORT 3 101 CY
R. BHATIA R.C.E. 051348 DATE pFE$S
REGISTRATION EXPIRATION DATE: 6-30-02
CIVCOM & ASSOCIATES
PARCEL 2
[PARCEL MAP WlO. 85 4
N .
.�I
P
40 20 0 40 80 120
GRAPHIC SCALE 1 40'
CIVCOM & ASSOCIATES
3665 Ruffin Road, Suite 230
San Diego, California 92123
(858),505-8800 Fax: (858) 505-8866
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
No. 51346 m DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE
cl� Exp.6 -30 -02
OF ch0\
SECTION A -A
NOT TO SCALE
COUNTY APPROVED CHANGES
NO DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY I DATE
"PERMITS
ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT AD 88 -133
REZONE PERMIT NUMBER
MAJOR USE PERMIT NUMBER
TENTATIVE MAP NUMBER
BENCH MARK
GEOLOGIC MAP
SAMPLES PROPERTY
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
GEOCON `E V=40' ' 04/19�a2
RRDIECT= 6895 - 0 1 FlWflE
Illl'flN, . FNf itl lMt 9T]I -3Y1� n
SHEET 1 Of 1 L
F
PRIVATE CONTRACT
SHEET COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1
1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS I [SHEET]
GRADING PLANS FOR:
SAMPLES PROPERTY
CALIFORNIA COORDINATE INDEXt 328 1709
APPROVED BY: DOUGLAS M.ISBELL ENGINEER OF WORK
COUNTY ENGINEER
— R. BHATIA CE 51 48
GRADING PERMIT NUMBER f'
DATE iii 21,3102
GENERAL NOTES
Pow 12 A r% 1, K1, f! o
1. APPROVAL OF THIS GRADING PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF
VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT OF ANY PRIVATE ROAD SHOWN
HEREON FOR COUNTY ROAD PURPOSES.
=4
2. FINAL APPROVAL OF THESE GRADING- PLANS IS SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL PARCEL
OF THE ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENT PLANS WHERE APPLICABLE, FINAL CURB
GRADE ELEVATIONS MAY REQUIRE CHANGES IN THESE PLANS. o
WORK TO BE DONE.
3. IMPORT MATERIAL SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM A LEGAL SITE.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE WORK CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING WORK TO BE .DONE
4, A CONSTRUCTION, EXCAVATION OR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM THE ACCORDING TO THESE PLANS, THE CURRENT SAN DIEGO AREA REGIONAL STANDARD
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE COUNTY DRAWINGS AND THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION,
RIGHT OF WAY. 1997 EDITION AND PER SAN DIEGO COUNTY GRADING ORDINANCE.
5. ALL SLOPES OVER 3 FEET IN HEIGHT WILL BE PLANTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAN LEGEND
DIEGO COUNTY SPECIFICATIONS.
LOTLINE ----------------------------------------------------
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PAD ELEVATION------------------------------------ ---------
BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED WORK SHALL BE GIVEN EXIST. SEWER -- --------------------------------- -----------
TO THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES EXIST SEWER MANHOLE-------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - --
SDIEGO UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (800) 422 -4133 EXIST SEWER LATERAL--------------------------------- - - - - -- -- —_
SAN DIEGO GAS. AND ELECTRIC 232 -4252 EXIST STORM DRAIN---------------------------- ------ -- ---- EXISTING 20' PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT
PACIFIC TELEPHONE 293 -0595 EXIST HDWL -------------------------------------- -- ---- ---- GRANTED TO ALBERT M. DISTEFAN BY_ DEED
SEWER: EXIST CURB INLET------------- - - - - -- -----------------------
_ REC AUGUST 3, 1976 FILE PG NO 76- 246431
WATER: EXIST RIP RAP PAD------------------- - - - - --
7, A SOILS REPORT MAY BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. EXISTING CONTOUR------------------------------------ - - - - -- PROPOSED STORM DRAIN-------------------------------------
8• APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DOES NOT AUTHORIZE
ANY WORK OR GRADING TO BE PERFORMED UNTIL THE PROPERTY OWNER'S PERMISSION PROPOSED RIP RAP PAD - -- -------------------------- -------
HAS BEEN OBTAINED AND A VALID GRADING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED. PROPOSED CONTOUR---------------------------------- - - - - -- —350 —
FINISH ELEVATION------------- ---- --- ---- ------ --- ---- --- - -- _S-
EXIST. ELEVATION -- --_
9• THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL OF THESE PLANS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE -------- "- `----- "---- '---- ' -' --' (350.)
COUNTY BUILDING OFFICAL APPROVAL OF ANY FOUNDATIONS FOR STRUCTURES TO BE STREET GRADE ------------------------ - - - - -- 2.00x
PLACED ON THE AREA COVERED BY THESE PLANS. NO WAIVER OF THE GRADING TOP OF CURB ELEVATION ----------------------------------- TC G
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING MINIMUM COVER OVER EXPANSIVE SOILS IS KEYSTONE RETAINING- -WALL - - - -- - -_w�
MADE OR IMPLIED (SECTIONS 87.403 &87.410). ANY SUCH WAIVER MUST BE OBTAINED CUT SLOPE ( 2: 1)----------------------- - - - - -- -------- ------
FROM THE DIRECTOR OF DPL.� ,
FILL SLOPE ( 2: 1 )- -------- ----- ------- -- - - - - - --
10. ALL OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES, INCLUDING THE WARMING UP, REPAIR, DESCRIPTION: CHISELED SQUARE ON TOP OF HEADWALL !
ARRIVAL, DEPARTURE OR RUNNING OF TRUCKS, EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT, CONSTRUCTION BENCH MARK ,C
PERIOD BETWEEN 7:00 A.M. AND 6:00 P.M. EACH DAY, MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, /
EQUIPMENT AND ANY OTHER ASSOCIATED GRADING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE ,\
/
LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EL CAMINO
AND NO EARTHMOVING OR GRADING OPERATIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED ON THE DEL NORTE & RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD. T-�'
PREMISES ON SUNDAYS OR HOLIDAYS. RECORDED: COUNTY BENCH LEVELS NO.00 0073 �
ELEVATION: 119.476 DATUM: -U.S.C. & G.S. / QU �`1A
11. ALL MAJOR SLOPES SHALL BE ROUNDED INTO EXISTING TERRAIN TO PRODUCE A N 3
CONTOURED TRANSITION FROM CUT OR FILL FACES TO NATURAL GROUND AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION jl _
ABUTTING CUT OR FILL SURFACES. PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6594, BEING A PORTION OF THE SWI /4 - _ OF THE SEI /4 OF THE SWI /40F SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 13 SOUTH, = ;
12. NOTWITHSTANDING THE MINIMUM STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE GRADING ORDINANCE RANGE 3 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF ,
AND NOTHWITHSTANDING THE APPROVAL OF THESE GRADING PLANS, THE PERMITTEE CALIFORNIA.
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. NO SOILS ENGINEER CERTIFICATE
PERSON SHALL EXCAVATE ON LAND SO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS TO ENDANGER
ANY ADJOINING PUBLIC STREET, SIDEWALK, ALLEY, FUNCTION ANY SEWAGE DISPOSAL I, A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER IN i
SYSTEM OR ANY OTHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT SUPPORTING AND THE STATE OF ,CALIFORNIA, PRINCIPILLY DOING BUSINESS IN THE FIELD OF
PROTECTING SUCH PROPERTY FROM SETTLING, CRACKING, EROSION, SILTING, SCOUR APPLIED SOIL MECHANICS, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A SAMPLING AND STUDY OF _ /4
OR OTHER DAMAGE WHICH MIGHT RESULT FROM THE GRADING DESCRIBED ON THIS THE SOIL CONDITIONS PREVALENT WITHIN THIS SITE WAS MADE BY ME OR UNDER /^
MY DIRECTION BETWEEN THE DATES OF
AND -
PLAN. THE COUNTY WILL HOLD THE, PERMITEE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECTION OF NON- ONE COMPLETE COPY OF THE . SOILS REPORT COMPILED FROM THIS STUDY, /�
DEDICATED IMPROVEMENTS WHICH DAMAGE ADJACENT PROPERTY. WITH MY RECOMMENDATIONS, HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE /
CITY ENGINEER. FURTHERMORE, I HAVE REVIEWED THESE GRADING PLANS
13. SLOPE RATIOS: AND CERFIFY THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED IN THE SOILS REPORT EXISTING PRESSURE
CUT - 1 1/2: 1 FOR MINOR SLOPES; 2:1 FOR MAJOR SLOPES FOR THIS PROJECT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE GRADING PLANS AND REDUCING VAULT
FILL - 2:1 SLOPES DEVIATING FROM THE ABOVE WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR SPECIFICATIONS.
EXISTING 30' EASEMENT TO O.M. W.D.
OF PUBLIC WORKS AFTER REVIEW OF A REPORT FROM A SOILS ENGINEER. SIGNED: PER DOC 88 -63038 REC 12 -8 -88
EXCAVATION: 3900 C.Y. FILL: 3600 C.Y. SHRINKAGE 8%
WASTE /IMPORT: -------- C.Y. A SEPARATE PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FOR WASTE OR RCE NO.:
IMPORT AREA. DATE: EXPIRATION DATE
14. SPECIAL CONDITION: IF ANY ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ARE DISCOVERED ON THE SITE
OF THIS GRADING DURING GRADING OPERATIONS, SUCH OPERATIONS WILL CEASE SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY
IMMEDIATELY, AND THE PERMITEE WILL NOTIFY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE
DISCOVERY. GRADING OPERATION WILL NOT RECOMMENCE UNTIL THE PERMITEE HAS TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WAS GENERATED BY
RECEIVED WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO DO SO. DIGITIZING THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 200 SCALE TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP.
15, ALL GRADING DETAILS WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAN DIEGO STANDARD DRAWING PROJECT LOCATION
DS -8, DS -10, DS -11, D -75.
THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER(S)
16. TEMPORARY FENCES SHALL BE PLACED AROUND ANY REQUIRED OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS APN• 264- 451 -10
WHICH PRECLUDE GRADING, OR BRUSING, OR CLEARING AS SHOWN ON THE TENTATIVE THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE INDEX OF THIS PROJECT IS
MAP. SAID FENCNG SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCING GRADING OR BRUSHING N 328 E1709
AND CLEARING, SHALL REMAIN UNTIL GRADING AND /OR CLEARING AND BRUSHING ARE
COMPLETED, AND MUST BE REMOVED UPON COMPLETION OF SUCH ACTIVITIES.
OWNER
PARCEL MAP No, 0504
EXISTING 8 "PVC SEWER PER DWG. NO. CS 183.
10' WIDE SEWER EASEMENT
GRANTED TO CARDIFF SANITATION
10' WIDE SEWER EASEMENT DISTRICT PER DOC. NO. 1994 - 0655271
GRANTED TO CARDIFF SANITATION REC. 11 -10 -94
DISTRICT PER DOC, NO. 1994- 0655275
REC. 11 -10 -94 EXISTING 60' PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT
& PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PER DOC.
----- -- --- - - - - - - ` — - - - - NO. 19804 FILED 1-31= 64, KNOWN AS
FOPTUNA RANCH ROAD. SEE DWG
- ` - - - - _ - - - _ NO. 6242 -G SHT 5 FOR EXIST IMPROVEMENTS.
tK
1 16638' 18
- _ - 1-0
R T NA
-�; ~ - - -- T9 RELQCATE EXIST.. TYPE B CUED-`---. -
JE EXIST. RIP -RAP j,' INLET FROM 18.00 TO 18 +84.2 - - - -_
LND CULVERT
,� gyp,•,
T2 JsP
X
' -I
\\ wJ
JSP
T -4
16010
2:1
5'x10' RIP RAP PAD PER D -4
1 TON ROCK, T -4.3'
FILTER BLANKET PER SOIL'
ENGINEER. Q100 -12.1 CFS
r. AVG. V -15.6 FPS
1N1OVERLAP V MII
Q TYPE B BROW
o PER SDRSD D-
0 10.9% MIN.
,�,//��
GEOCON LEGEND
QUCIf .......UNDOCUMENTED FILL
" Oa .........ALLUVIUM
I
17. GRADING INDICATED ON THE FINAL GRADING PLANS OR IMPROVEMENT PLANS SHALL BE I JOI% ......... SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCAMCS
�. w, 60'ROAD EASEMENT (3.5)T -12
IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THAT SHOWN ON THE APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, ........
MR &MRS DOUG SAMPLES Qo� z 1 ---I (u 1. APPROX. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY TRENCH
72351 RIDGEBROOK I 30' 30, 1 z (Showing Approx. Thickness OT AMmum)
DATED ---------------- ANY DEVIATION FROM THE TENTATIVE MAP GRADING PLANS IN .MISSION VIELO CA 92692 v - -'
EXCESS OF 10' /. OF THE TOTAL GRADING QUANTITIES PER LOT MAY REQUIRE THE NEED a(� �, W' 18 .24' ig ��........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
TELE N0.949- 588 -6317 z
FOR ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. ANY DEVIATION IN MAXIMUM SLOPE HEIGHTS ,,,...ttt... z
CVO. SITE N I i I w �.���•.•.....APPROX. LOCATION OF -IN- ACTIVE FAULT TRACE
FROM THE APPROVE TENTATIVE MAP IN EXCESS OF THREE (3') FEET MAY ALSO REQUIRE e
W. I I W (Queried Where Uncertain)
THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. PERMITEE Y F � \ I
DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE STRETCH STORER9� � i i w
IHEREBY DECLARE THAT IAM THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT, THE BYLOIN COMPANY, LLC ! _
THAT I HAVE EXERCISED RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OVER THE DESIGN OF THE 940 SEA LANE, UNIT *8 Lott _
PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 6703 OF THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS TELE TAS, CA 92024 R0 EXIST AC PVMN'T�'
CODE AND THAT THE DESIGN IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT STANDARDS. TELE N0. 760- 634 -1124 C�Np 0a fP EXIST. GROUND
IN ASSUMING RESPONSIBLE CHARGE I ACCEPT FULL RESPONSIBILITY, FOR THE EXIST AC ROLLED BERM 2 \
ENTIRE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. QUANTITIES fi F �( \
VICINITY MAP
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CHECK OF PROJECT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS CUT 4172 CY NOT To SCALE
BY THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DOES NOT RELIEVE 'ME, AS ENGINEER OF WORK, FILL 7273 CY
OF MY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE PROJECT DESIGN. IMPORT 3 101 CY
R. BHATIA R.C.E. 051348 DATE pFE$S
REGISTRATION EXPIRATION DATE: 6-30-02
CIVCOM & ASSOCIATES
PARCEL 2
[PARCEL MAP WlO. 85 4
N .
.�I
P
40 20 0 40 80 120
GRAPHIC SCALE 1 40'
CIVCOM & ASSOCIATES
3665 Ruffin Road, Suite 230
San Diego, California 92123
(858),505-8800 Fax: (858) 505-8866
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
No. 51346 m DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND LAND USE
cl� Exp.6 -30 -02
OF ch0\
SECTION A -A
NOT TO SCALE
COUNTY APPROVED CHANGES
NO DESCRIPTION APPROVED BY I DATE
"PERMITS
ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT AD 88 -133
REZONE PERMIT NUMBER
MAJOR USE PERMIT NUMBER
TENTATIVE MAP NUMBER
BENCH MARK
GEOLOGIC MAP
SAMPLES PROPERTY
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
GEOCON `E V=40' ' 04/19�a2
RRDIECT= 6895 - 0 1 FlWflE
Illl'flN, . FNf itl lMt 9T]I -3Y1� n
SHEET 1 Of 1 L
F
PRIVATE CONTRACT
SHEET COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1
1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS I [SHEET]
GRADING PLANS FOR:
SAMPLES PROPERTY
CALIFORNIA COORDINATE INDEXt 328 1709
APPROVED BY: DOUGLAS M.ISBELL ENGINEER OF WORK
COUNTY ENGINEER
— R. BHATIA CE 51 48
GRADING PERMIT NUMBER f'
DATE iii 21,3102
PARCEL_ I
PARCEL 4
C435
`;
PARCEL- MAP 65
f�
N
430)
o
'
425
RELOCATE
EXIST, TYPE
B CURB
�
INLET
1g+
FROM 00 T[118+84,2
•
C
0 4 2 0
za o 20 40 60
24
406
GRAPHIC SCALE 1'= 20'
�1
2
1
/
I
23 is
/ •
O
� ��
22
. 40 • 'd
405
Q u c
Z
< 41 S
52
ST -37
•
409, 3
65
• ��
/
zi 60' ROAD EASEMENT
1
�0
/
30' 30'
18'
/^ v J `
48 •
•
C 4 1 0 7�
i ?
64
f
�02
10
•
N
J
Q w
w l j
>
ZO
• •15
5/
W
39
Qd 396
____ - - - _-
�
W
` 405 57A
•
/
4OCj�
C
EXIST AC PVMN' �
� �� EXIST, GROUND
EXIST AC ROLLED BERM)
CL
o OZ 47 •57
Sp
27 •28
�1
J o,
41 59 :2
PARCEL
2
W
-- _ — - 405
_n
SECTION ,A A
?
/ 51 Q Lj C
r
DETAIL ' A' 12
S -62
/
\
l __
4 0 0 l
NOT T❑ SCALE
E ❑RTUNA RANCH ROAD
❑
•� FG -66
nSEE
16 397 33' N R I G H T55 •
•
W
Q •
• • 49.4 9, X92 L ST 36
387
CL
38
PAD 48 0 63
s. o'
Q
F
•
/
• 2
I) y
31
O
53
/58
• /`
n
9
C�
DETAIL_ A TYP, GRASS SWAL_E
Qcf
:
NOT T❑ SCALE
�
ZF''
407 FL 401
/50
11
• 7 ST-60
O
W
o
4
GEOCON LEGEND
o
X19
O O•
• •14
58
/
F� 1
•
Gf FILL
n
co
•
•
2 1 2
ST -35
q • 385
.......COMPACTED
Q U C
-
m co
aL I
ST
• ST-45 30
46 18 ST-44• 416 • •
134
•
COMPACTED FILL IN UNDERCUT AREA
�' U d FILL
Q LLJ
o
•
• 17 43
6 w f
5 •
........UNDOCUMENTED
::D L`
��j
/
•
(C
JSP ........SANTIAGO PEAKVOLCANICS
LLJ
Z
0
3 ST
Q F7i OU
-61
9 • •
— �......APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
0
• 10' x 10' I P RAP PAD
P R D -40
• DENSITY TESTS
c/� U co
°
-
—
38
N❑, 3
ACKING, T =1
,
0 - FILTER
FG... iin s Grade, Slope Test _
z co
Q��
��
-
��
B L A N
10' RIP RAP PAD PER D-40
T. PER S O I L S
E N I N E E R,
.......APPROX. BOTTOM ELEVATION
_D � CD
O Uj�
� Iv
x101
N❑, 3 B CKING, T
1. 0
AS- GRADED GEOLOGIC MAP Q?ZF E SS1041
> � z: co
co
ti� 2
O Ul
�
PROPERTY
FILTER BLANKET P
R SOILS
SAMPLES ��,BHajI9lF�
I
ENGINE R. Q100=
7 CFS
M _
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA No. 51348 m
�'
- t Exp. 6 -30 06
v Lj
w" z
LLJ
O
y_ / ' ^
V A V G, V=2 FPS L J
QD
(�
SCALE 1" 20� DATE 06 -22 -2604 t/, C Q
GEOCON ���� �9 TVs
O
�C
INCORPORATED iNKALCONS PROJECT NO. 06895 - 5"02 FIGURE .F
N 8 7 ° 5 5' " �/
O R
6960 RANDERSDRIVE - SAN
85855"159 N492121 2974 SHEET 1 OF
W
`
CIVC ❑M & ASSOCIATES
3665 Ruf fin Road, Suite 230
PARCEL 2
N 87 ° 55' 22" E
657 14'
z
San Diego, California, 92123
PRELIMINARY
z
C858> 505 -8800 Fax; C858> 505 -8866
PARCEL MAP 11 8 5
W
W, 0. NO
REVISIONS
APPROVED
DATE
REFERENCES
DATE
BENCH MARK
SCALE
PLANNING
& BUILDING
Designed By
Drawn By
Checked By
APPROVALS
CITY
❑ E E N C I N I T A S ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTM
Npraw i ng No,
P t
DescriptioC11. OF S D. H -0028
D i zonta l
R. B.
I T. N. / I. J.
R. B.
RECOMMENDED
BY DATE
PLANS FOR THE GRADING OF
1563 -�
Locat ion L. l M1 -SW HODGES DAM 15' P
OF CL HWY. BENEATH CONC,
ns Prepared Under Supervision Of
FLUME CENTER, HDWL, CONC,
Date
SAMPLES PROPERTY
CULVERT STD. TAB M' KD
ert i ca l
R, C. E. No. 51348
R. BHAT I A EXP.
APPROVED
BY;
DATE:
3701 F
❑RTUNA RANCH RD ENCINITAS, CA 92024. APN - 264
-
Recorded From 1 1938 -H28 -148
By Date
E [ovation ; 148, 221 Datum M. S,
2 of
Micaela\Dmv ings\geotechnical \06895- 52- 02(Samples Property)