The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-6019 GT Y O F E N C I N I T INEERING SERVICES DEPARTI 505 S. VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO.: 6019GI ------------------------------------------------------- ---- --- ----------- - - - - -- PARCEL NO. : 264 - 451 -2200 JOB SITE ADDRESS: 3710 LONE DOVE LN. APPLICANT NAME MAC GREGOR (SCOTT & SARA) MAILING ADDRESS: 2669 VANCOUVER ST. CITY: CARLSBAD STATE: CA ZIP CONTRACTOR : COLE DEVELOPMENT INC. LICENSE NO.: 738113 ENGINEER : SOUTH COAST CIVIL ENGINEERING INC. PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 8/20/99 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 8/20/00 PERMIT ISSUED BY --IN�. � �w 4 -- --------------------- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS PLAN NO.: 6019—G PHONE NO.: 760 - 720 -0824 92008— PHONE • LAENSE 'E e )'j •�-. 9 /�•7�' 1. PLAN CHECK FEE 700.00 4. INSPECTION DEPOSIT: .00 2. INSPECTION FEE 1,405.00 5. SECURITY DEPOSIT 19,893.50 3. PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: .00 ------------------- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------------- EARTHWORK /STORM DRAINAGE /EROSION CONTROL TO ENABLE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITHIN TRACT 95 -249, MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 2EA LOT. DIRT: 2,000CY CUT /2,950CY FILL /950CY IMPORT. DRAIN: 105LF PIPE /2EA AREA /3CY RIP —RAP. ROUGH GRADING APPROVAL REQUIRES CIVIL /SOIL ENGINEER TO CERTIFY PAD & SOIL COMPACTION. FINAL GRADING INSPECTION REQUIRED. - - -- INSPECTION ---------- - - - - -- DATE -- - - - - -- INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE - - -- INITIAL INSPECTION COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION _ FINAL INSPECTION I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF ANY PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION.. SI ATURE 222?,v4Er eoL� PRINT NAME CIRCLE ONE: 1. OWNER 2. AGENT 3. DATE 6IGNft (609) 256 rovgc;z_ TELEPHONE NUMBER ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT city Of Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Encinitas Field Operations Slormwater ComplaintslSand Replenishment Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering December 1, 1999 Bank of America N.T. &S.A. Branch 1182 "Rancho Encinitas" 1340 Encinitas Boulevard Encinitas, CA 92024 Re: Tract 95 -249 (TPM) 'Lone HIII Estates East: East End' N '11 reg (3"if0 one Dove Cn/NlseGregor, Sara J.} A.P.N. 264451 -22 Partial release of security Permit 6019GI authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all needed to build a single family dwelling within the named subdivision. The Field Operations Division has approved the rough grading. Therefore, a reduction in the posted security deposit is merited. Certificate of Deposit Account 11825- 02020, in the amount of $14,920.00, has been endorsed by the Financial Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor. The original document is enclosed. A separate instrument guarantees completion of finish grading. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Jeff Garami at (760) 633 -2780 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, re hi Ids e Senior Civil Engineer Field Operations 4ethe velter Financial Services Manager Financial Services cc Leslie Suelter, Financial Services Manager Scott & Sara MacGregor, Property Owners (point of delivery) enc PGS 1jsg/gi6019r.doc 1 TEL 760-633 -2600 1 FAX 760 - 633.2627 505 S. Vulun Avenue, Enciniras. California 92024 -3633 TDD 760633 -2700 0 recycled paper HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS REPORT MacGREGOR RESIDENCE PARCEL 1 OF ENCINITAS PM 95 -249 OLIVENHAIN, CA. Russell Bergener Date RCE: 44641 Exp. 3/31/02 11315 Rancho Bernardo Rd. , Ste. 130, San Diego, California 92127 (619) 675 -9097 MU-87'11'W 1 S.63' NO /' 40' .2'- l —Alt C— — R 4990 OC L ARi PA PI "SCE—Dmi'B• CC ro 1/101 � 0 Ia fIkX f MR J AM 4645 �'�� !F /' NID• 491.0 N A /� 6 �nrc�m ✓�� ✓� uNZ Is ac gu+ , SCMOYIf dVl(O/� DD olci'dH� a3 HYDROLOGY F HYoftYlCS 511SIN M4P M9c6REGOR 1fCS1PfNCE PAR 1 W ENCINI MS PM 9S Z49 SC/3CE III = (00, Lk* 00 L 5CJISTIW 3' sActc.. Uses r du fIL c Na nsz.taz 1 1 J IN mf � oudrn j "we Y `J 5° \ f� �N o` CC e � 2 �! I / i N 0 v O M�cG,�GGO�P IPfSIIFNCE 3 of /0 R D 0•S 0.8(0 — — l0 3.l SZo 2.44 B D 10.90 X0.03 — — to 3. ISZo 10.•/¢ c I D 0.55 .071 — — to 31 15.Zol0.Z0 D D 0.600.321 — — /0 3.1 SZo l /.00 E PT5 / d. /¢ O. /,l F PT 7 I r l i t PT8 i 6P,5/P /S I 0". F PT 1 A 2. ¢6 2.4•( PT2 C 0. zo 0.20 PT3 D /•00 /.00 PT4 0.1¢ o /4- PT5 / d. /¢ O. /,l PT 6 PT 7 PT8 PT-9 APF/I PT15 I — - - - - -- PT 1 d PT n _- PT I3 PTZo i (Tv PT-ZZ � I 40"r-f0 SOUTH COAST CIVIL ENGINEERING INC. POINT #1 INSTALL Y X 5' MAT OF NO.2 RIP RAP (1.0' THICK) PER D-40, TYPE 2 ON NIIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC. ( FRACTURED NATIVE ROCK IS ACCEPTABLE). POINT #2 INSTALL 5'X Y MAT OF NO.2 RIP RAP (1.0' THICK) PER D -40, TYPE 2 ON MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC. (FRACTURED NATIVE ROCK IS ACCEPTABLE). POINT #3 NONE REQUIRED; FLOWS INTO CUL -DE -SAC. POINT #4 INSTALL 5'X 5' MAT OF NO.2 RIP RAP (1.0' THICK) PER D -40, TYPE 2 ON MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC. (FRACTURED NATIVE ROCK IS ACCEPTABLE) 11315 Rancho Bernardo Rd. , Ste. 130, San Diego , Califomia 92127 (619) 675 -9097 57//6ET S of 1,59 Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name: MacGregor Residence Comment: 4" P.V.C. Storm Drain at Point #4 Solve For Actual Depth Given Input Data: Diameter.......... Slope ............. Manning's n....... Discharge......... Computed Results: Depth ............. Velocity.......... Flow Area......... Critical Depth.... Critical Slope.... Percent Full...... Full Capacity..... QMAX @.94D........ Froude Number..... 0.33 ft 0.0760 ft /ft 0.012 0.02 cfs 0.04 ft 3.06 fps 0.01 sf 0.08 ft 0.0070 ft /ft 13.00 % 0.55 cfs 0.60 cfs 3.14 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.3 (c) 1991 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 CAPACITY OF 6" DIAMETER AREA DRAIN MacGregor Residence Parcel 1 of Encinitas PM 95 -249 Assume 50% Clogging 1) Qcne = CLH 32 QcAr = 1.37 CFS 2) Qcnr = [1/2]537 AH1/2 QcAP = 0.22 CFS A) For `Basin B" there are two, 6" Diameter area drains. Therefore Max. Capacity is 0.22 X 2 = 0.44 CFS Verified @ PT. 5 Q,00=0.14<0.44 Therefore OK 6 a/- /o C = 3.0 L = Perimeter /2 L = 1.57/2 = 0.78 H = Sump =0.70 A= Area /2 A = 0.10 SF 11315 Rancho Bernardo Rd. , Ste. 130, San Diego , California 92127 (619) 675 -9097 i MACOPEOR RESIDENCE P100 - //B SHT 7 OF /p CALC DATE CHKD DATE STATION ! AREA REFERNECE BAS /Nj 4-,q .057 (50 scale) AREA x .918 (200 scale) = ACRES 91.8 ('2000) COEFFICIENT OF RUNOFF: C (consider probable development) I Development Areas (Urban) Coefficient "C" I $ Land Use Residential: A B C /00t Single Family .40 .45 .50 Multi -Units .45 ,50 .60 D 70= Mobile Homes .45 .50 .55 .65= Rural (lots greater than 'S acre) .30 .35 .40 .45= I Commercial (2) 80$; Impervious .70 .75 .80 .85= i Industrial (2) _ 90% Impervious .80 .85 .90 .95= TIME OF COMCENTRATION T (chart B -1) c Hi.Pt. H. 1 Lo.Pt. L. T min hr c (10 min. minimum) RUNOFF: 10= 1xCA = . rs ` CA =_ *I c =r11.9(L3)I .385 T =Time in Hours C L= Distance in Miles H= Height in Feet *Add 10 minutes to computed time of concentration 1 ' _ . " /hr cfs USE Q CFS ' 1100= CA cfs USE Q100 CFS Reference: San Diego County Flood Control Design and Procedure Manual. (1) Obtain soil type form Appendices IX -C1 thru IX -C4 INTENSITY-DUAM ioN DESIGN CHART Mwe050)f 'PES /LANCE riTdTMilrihT rrrmh-mTr r.mimrrr-- 7-r- �R- j Equation: I :a 7,44 P D'-•645 "r' ' Directions for Application: 6 1) From precipitation reaps determine 6 hr. and I 4 Intensity (In. /Hr.) 24 hr. amounts for the selected frequency. �1 �n Hiilll11, � P6 6 Hr, Precipitation (In.), These maps are printed Manual (10 rD 1nd 100 in the County Hydrolog. I j III jil A - po b _ ra d x - Memeee Y1 - - -- p 10 15 20 D - Duration (Min,) ,.. �i \�LLi•l 30 40 50 1 2 3 M 11 yr. maps Included in t Design and Procedure Hanua1). 2) Adjust 6 hr. precipitation (if necessary) so that it is within the range of 45% to 65% of the 24 hr. precipitation. (Itot applicable to Desert) 3) Plat 6 hr. precipitation on the' right side of the chart. 4) Draw a line through the point parallel to the P. I:;;II J plotted lines. v 5) This line is the intensity - duration curve for 6.0 °+ the location being analyzed. �5,0 A.S .-. Ii4.0 , Application Form: 3,5 � 0) Selected Frequency /pp yr. \j!LA 3.0 1) P 3•/ in., P 6.1 Ili 2.0 P24 �!! ..1! 2) .Adjusted *P6= 3•/ in. i 4 5 6 A 3) tc /0 minUSE /O Mi.VUTE MiN /M�/M 4) I S ZO in /hr. *Not Applicable to Desert Region APPENDIX XI TV -A -14 uOU11rY OF SAN DIEGO MacG,PfGOR �ESII NCE FLOOD DEPARTMENT OF SANITATION E 100 -YEAR 6 -1 YO�9 PRECIPITA DEN FLOOD CONTROL t I�f "� ��1 ''20,/ ISOPLUVIALS OF 100 -YEAR 6 -IIOUR PRECIS I "i A 7ION IPI J UMNS OF AN, 13%CII 451 57 �° -- /J I LAG: A REACII I a 71a ,) 35 \ l 30I I 30 °\ 5 Si S. r. I".�t035�� SAN CL VENTS I i \ \ • _ (�, • •� 30 1 ,e J 'I� U 151: X35 \ `2., 30 1 1 r11•AW 25 c �% f 33 °OS' i 25 E IC014DIDO 33' ( �is•.,NS — 3/ 43��ra�4 It )EL 45' L PnP. ,4 by U.S. DEPARTMEk C OF COMMERCE 1 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND AT. OSPIICNIC ADMINISTRATION SPECIAL STUDIES BRANCH, OFFICE OF 11 UROLOGY. NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE A 110 301 N N y 1181 1151 j01 15' 117° 1 1170 fZ' d11 O 1151 30' 151 IACCCA 116° Me GBMIC ,PES/DBICE COUNTY OF DIEGO DEPARTMENT SAN SANITATION b. 100-YEAR 24- I,I0I R PRECIPITATION FLOOD CONTROL '•20./IS0PLUUIALS OF 100 -YEAR 22 -HOUR 1151 PRECIPITATION I1•1 TENTHS OF AN INCH 100 �.•�tlo 5pr� SCOW ,' .. ilAG I U 0 .CI 80 '/ / . l ' SAGf. I (GO da i `.. "ICI. �A � Ira 100 7p 50 — — SANCt uENIE ° 1 a�,r I �� . r �I -� r 1 too _45 <q . U ., •A� I 151 04 1 aNSUUI , 33•aS' QO E ..I� I.4.1+ . r.,too AS i ^1( ONE 65"' 3� gCt.a1 1 �5.4 I 33 IrLr rr 1)1.\J/ � _ (130 - �, r (7D'Jl. � ./' •� Imo_ i 45 l'''' 100•• —_ .. _ °b —f —. 80 P,.P. •a by U.S. DCPARTAf[ N 1' OF COMMERCE I 10..I ail C �� AM. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND AT OSVIIERIC ADSIINISTRATIOH r11� _ 50— p O SPECIAL STUDIES DRANCII, OPPICE OP 11 DI:OLOCY, NATION AL E'L'ATIIER SERVICE A ""•,p jlf- �% ('-' `•i �J - - L--=•S aS�Gd 11"OOi°�5 +10�70'�"65GD - JO� 301 — o H j H �• I l It" 451 30' o , 11) '_j 117' 1160 W //7 /2 Y SOUTH COAST CIVIL ENGINEERING INC City of Encinitas Engineering Dept. 505 S. Vulcan Ave Encinitas, CA 92024 Site: MacGregor Residence Grading Plan #6019 -G Subject: Capacity of Existing Brow Ditch to the South of The MacGregor Residence Attention Tamara O'Neil: Per your request I have reviewed the potential storm water run off for the above referenced site with particular emphasis on the off site brow ditch that exists south of the subject property. Based upon my review the post development of the MacGregor property will produce less run off to the property to the south than the pre - development run off (see attached basin maps). The capacity of the brow ditch to the south is 10.8 cfs. And the capacity of the 10" pvc that this brow ditch flows into is 4.7 cfs (see attached). The 100 year storm water runoff to this brow ditch is approximately 1.2 cfs therefore the brow ditch should have no problem handling the storm water run off from the MacGregor site. If you have any questions on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you, L 270/ Russel. Bergener Date RCE 44641, EXP 3/31/02��1 No. C044641 EV.3id11n2 ..t 1 2 2001 11315 Rancho Bernardo Rd, ste. 130, San Diego, CA 9 127 (858) 675 -9097 / BAS•IN E'(1) INDICATES THE PRE- DEVELOPMENT BASIN THAT FLOWED TO THE SOUTH OF THE MACGREGOR SITE WHICH IS 0.66 ACRES "i Q (El) =CIA Po) Q (El)= (0.55)(5.20)(0.66) Q (El) =1'.9 CFS N^ 41 FRDCK 5 ej Y 1q ao 4 16 Ag3 h�ti �v AA ci '� hS _ _ ��0 �• � SjALI 1N �{ �y. iE 4g03 N �AqL . °. • Q, t( Ti I ti S n k. 1�.i 00 k V .0 44�61 LIU •fP� E PS iS /y �5�� // � 1y VAU� /•/ a �3, e `^��% // �'; BASIN E (2) INDICATES THE POST DEVELOPMENT BASIN THAT FLOWS TO�Q� THE SOUTH OF THE MACGREGOR SITE WHICH IS 0.39 ACRES / Q (E2) =CIA I k9ol ' Q (E2)= (0.60)(5.20)(0.39) i Q (E2) =1.2 CFS jN'rKJN an I ",'gift �+ b a \• 9 04 y • V , AAA'� op I ; f Afsf YF 4q�' o � qp. w J A ' 9i51 9- �g i a LO O F O k b• h .� Al�S�9G 0; 1 pR R F ALL ST OV X aC / Ulf ST ` i.� e �s its A . .., �. e. FEB -26 -01 TUE 11:42 AN 619 4873241 Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow t Worksheet Name: mcgregor Comment: Solve For Actual Discharge Given Input Data: Diameter.......... 2.00 ft Slope.. ........... 0.0200 ft /ft Manning Is n....... 0.016 Depth ............. 0.90 ft Computed Results; Discharge......... Velocity.......... Flow Area......... Critical Depth.... Critical Slope.... Percent Full...... Full Capacity... . AMAX Q.94D........ Froude Number..... • 10.83 cfs 7.90 fps 1.37 sf 1.18 ft ♦ 0.0081 ft /ft 45.00 W 25.99 cfs 27.96 cfs 1.68 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.3 (c) 1991 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 s f P.01 FEB-:r7-01 WED 11:52 AM 619 48732%1 F.01 Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name: mcgregor Continent: exist. 10 " p.v.c. Solve For Full Flow Capacity Given Input Data: Diameter.......... 0.83 ft Slope ............. 0.0400 ft /ft Manning'$ n....... 0.012 Discharge......... 4.70 ofs Computed Results: Full Flow Capacity..... 4.70 cfs Full Flow Depth........ 0.83 ft velocity.......... 8.68 fps Flow Area......... 0.54 sf Critical Depth.... 0.81 ft Critical Slope.... 0.0359 ft /ft Percent Full...... 100.00 % Full Capacity..... 4.70 cfs QMA @.94D........ 5.05 cfs Froude Number..... FULL 0 I 9 Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.3 (c) 1991 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 SOUTH COAST CIVIL ENGINEERING INC. City of Encinitas Engineering Services Dept. 505 South Vulcan Ave. Encinitas, CA. 92024 RE: MacGregor Residence Lone Dove Ln., Encinitas, CA. 92024 Subject: As Graded Geotechnical Report To Whom It May Concern: ,J Page ENGINEERING SERVICE t P/o ll," Six South Coast Civil Engineering Inc. has performed grading observation and compaction testing during the rough grading operations at the above referenced site. I certify that the rough grade pad is in substantial conformance to the recommendations made in the preliminary soils report which was performed by South Coast Civil Engineering Inc., the approved grading plan 6019 -G, the "Red- line Construction Changes" dated 10/8/99 for 6019 -G and the applicable ordinances of the City of Encinitas. Attached to this report is a summary of the compaction tests and laboratory results from this project. Geology Geologically, the site is located in the foothills of the peninsular range mountains of the western margin of the Southern California Batholith. The underlying soil is weathered rock of the cretaceous age. Ct[ TTIGT�� . The following grading occurred from 8/31/99 to 10/1/99. Prior to the placement of fill all vegetation and debris were removed from the grading envelope. A key trench was cut along the toe of the fill slope. This trench was then inspected by a representative of this firm. As the filling operation proceeded, the original ground was "benched in" and scarified in order to rework the top soil layer. Using a D -8 bulldozer, the existing on site soils from the cut area were then spread into 8 inch lifts, watered, and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative density. 11315 Rancho Bernardo Rd, ste 130, San Diego, CA 92127 (858)675 -9097 Page Two of Six As the filling proceeded, periodical sand cone tests were performed to verify the 90% minimum relative density. All testing laboratory analysis and maximum density curves were performed in accordance to ASTM methods. Attached is a summary of this data. A quality granular material was imported to the site to be used as a 3' thick non - expansive cap, and obtain the final building pad line and grade. All fill slopes are 2:1 or flatter and their maximum height is 10± feet. The cut slopes are stable, cemented decomposed granite, and their maximum height is 6t feet No ground water was uncovered during the grading operations. No oversized rock was placed in the fill. Rock Disposal Area Note: the rock disposal area as shown on the original plan for 6019 -G and the specifications as detailed in the Preliminary Soils Investigation prepared by South Coast Civil Engineering, Inc. for placement of oversized rock in the fill to the northeast of the proposed residence no longer applies to this project. Instead, per the recommendations of City Geologist, Jim Knowlton, oversized rock were placed in a large uncompacted pile on the north end of the site with no fill dirt placed over them ( see "Red -line Construction Changes" for 6019 -G dated 10/8/99 ). It is anticipated that many of these rocks will be used for landscaping purposes once construction of the proposed residence has been completed. Future Work & Additional Testing Additional compaction testing will be required in the future for the paving of the proposed driveway. A minimum of 4" of Portland Cement Concrete ( PCC ) on 6" of class II base shall be used for the driveway. The base, and the top P of subgrade shall be compacted to a minimum of 95 %, and be to the satisfaction of the soils engineer prior to paving. 14TOTNUIF 0 In general no soil or geological conditions were encountered which would preclude the proposed development of the site. The anticipated total and /or differential settlements for the proposed structures may be considered to be within the tolerable limits. The top 3' of soil on the surface of the building pad is to be considered non - expansive, and no special design considerations will be necessary. Page Three of Six The foundations system for the proposed structure shall be designed by the project architect or structural engineer. The following recommendations are based upon soil considerations only. They shall be considered a minimum design, and shall be reviewed by the project structural engineer for their adequacy. For two story construction, the minimum foundation shall be 12 inches wide and founded 12 inches below grade. For the single story construction, the minimum foundation shall be 12 inches wide and founded 12 inches below grade. Both types of construction shall have four 94 bars of reinforcing steel. Two bars shall be placed 3 inches below the top of foundation, and the other two bars shall be placed 3 inches from the bottom of foundation. These recommendations are based upon soil characteristics only and do not reflect any special considerations imposed by the building design which may require a stronger foundation. The proposed foundations may be designed utilizing an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 lb /sf. This value may be increased by 1/3 for the design of loads that include wind and seismic analysis. Slab on grade and exterior flat work shall be at least 4" thick and reinforced with number 3 rebar placed in a grid on 24" centers. The interior house slab shall be poured on four inches of clean washed bedding sand (native sands are not acceptable) with a 6 mil. visqueen vapor barrier placed at mid -depth in the bedding sand. In addition, in order to avoid drying shrinkage cracks or minor settlement cracks from occurring in aesthetically or structurally sensitive areas the architect for this project should provide a schematic diagram of the locations of the saw cut control joints in the house. The maximum allowable square footage of monolithic concrete for the interior slab (with out saw cuts) should not exceed 144± sf. (These sections shall be more or less square in shape with the length not exceeding 1.5 times the width). The depth of these saw cuts should be 1/5 of the thickness of the slab, and be installed within 24 hours of the pour. Tooled control joints (as opposed to saw cut) are preferable for garage slabs and exterior flat work. All utility trenches shall be properly backfilled and compacted with mechanical compacting device prior to placement of any concrete. All foundation excavations shall be inspected by this engineer prior to placement of concrete. Page Four of Six The following values should be used in the design of retaining walls for this project. Retaining walls, which are not fixed at the top and have a level backfill are to be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to a fluid pressure of not less than 30.0 pcf. Where the backfill is inclined at no steeper than 2:1, an active soil pressure of 50.0 pcf is recommended. These values are based on the assumption of a drained backfill condition. Wall drainage details are to be provided by the project architect. When retaining walls are restrained at the top an at -rest soil pressure of not less then 50.0 pcf shall be used for design of the wall. A passive soil pressure value not greater than 250 pcf shall be used. A coefficient friction of not greater than 0.35 may be used for resistance of sliding between concrete and soil. This compaction report only covers the observations and testing for the grading of the pad area as is shown on the attached test location plat. This grading occurred between 8/31/99 to 10/1/99. The opinions presented herein are based on observations and test results, and are limited by the scope of services that South Coast Civil Engineering Inc. agreed to perform. Recommendations made on site during the grading operation, and those contained in this report are in accordance with current generally accepted engineering practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, is given or intended with respect to the services which were performed. If there are any questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me at (858) 675 -9097. Sincerely, Russell Bergener Date RCE 44641 Exp. 3/31/02 Nc. C 044641 Exp. 3131t02 PAGE `J OF(o COMPACTION TESTING SUMMARY SHEET MacGregor Residence Lone Dove Lane Encinitas, CA. A.P.N. 264 -451 -2200 ELEVATION TEST RESULTS TEST NO. MAXIMUM DENSITY SUMMARY FROM ORIGINAL GROUND TO FINISH PAD WET DENSITY LBS/FT3 NO. DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM WET DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY 1 DG, Very Silty, Slightly Clayey, Rocky, Tan/Brown 137.7 11.5% 123.5 2 Sand, Sandy, Yellowrran (IMPORT) 134.1 9.0% 1230 3 Sand, Sandy, Red (IMPORT) 136.9 9.5% 125.0 4 Sand, Sandy, Tan (IMPORT) 139.2 10.5% 1260 5 91.2% 3 9/13/99 6 -7.0 127.8 13.9% 112.2 ELEVATION TEST RESULTS TEST NO. DATE FROM ORIGINAL GROUND TO FINISH PAD WET DENSITY LBS/FT3 MOISTURE % DRY DENSITY LBS/FT3 MAX. DRY DENSfTY LBS.IFT3 OPTIMUM MOISTURE RELATIVE DENSITY% 1 9/1199 -1.0 -11.0 128.6 13.1% 113.7 123.5 11.5% 92.1% 2 y +1.0 -9.0 127.1 12.6% 112.7 91.2% 3 9/13/99 +3.0 -7.0 127.8 13.9% 112.2 90.9% 4 9/17/99 +4.5 -5.5 1205 . 8.3% 111.3 123.0 9.0% 90.5% 5 y +6.0 -4.0 122.3 9,1% 112.1 1 91.1% 6 920/99 -2.0 -2.0 129.1 11.2% 116.1 125.0 9.5% 92.9% 7 -2.0 -1.0 126.5 9.8% 115.2 92.2% 8 929/99 -0.5 -05 124.4 83% 114.9 91.9% g +1.0 -0.0 127.2 8.9% 116.8 93.4% 10 9r3099 +8.0 -2.0 125.7 102% 114.1 126.0 10.5% 90.5% 11 10/499 +10.0 -0.0 128.5 9.0% 1179 93.6% 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 O I F Y A0 W7i ". a L ,n i;0 93.0 \I gW -x N Wig � 0 WIM1L- cur Rare PRCE C 8313 l3 /ICLEPe / --- mow— z / NI OW W' �"lNDlCA7F5 nPPf?DA . 7T-3 7- L04 *770N SCACL I / y• ,J/ Y -� �VEd /RD RRrOI � GD 111 PffiG770 N =7 :PLjq G0 /7 -G /nA-C GA EG-0K R ES l DOVCE l AA/E MUE IN. ENCINITAS, CA. r I it Grueor, / 6 IN. E ,/ �a \I gW -x N Wig � 0 WIM1L- cur Rare PRCE C 8313 l3 /ICLEPe / --- mow— z / NI OW W' �"lNDlCA7F5 nPPf?DA . 7T-3 7- L04 *770N SCACL I / y• ,J/ Y -� �VEd /RD RRrOI � GD 111 PffiG770 N =7 :PLjq G0 /7 -G /nA-C GA EG-0K R ES l DOVCE l AA/E MUE IN. ENCINITAS, CA. r I it Grueor, / 6 IN. E ,/ SOUTH COASST CIVIL ENGINEERING INC. xc/ Zy� A PRELIMINARY SOILS REPORT PREPARED FOR: MACGREGOR RESIDENCE PAR 1 OF ENCINITAS PM 17967 OLIVENHAIN, CA 4r vv Fter ,e is f _1315 Rancho Bernardo Rd, ste 130, San Diego, CA 92127 (6_9) 675 -9097 49 Revised: July 29, 1999 Scott MacGregor 2669 Vancouver Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 720 -0824 RE: Parcel 1 of Encinitas TPM 95 -249 (PM 17967), Lone Hill Estates, Olivenhain, CA Work Order #99 -118 SUBJECT: Preliminary Soils Investigation Per the request of Scott MacGregor this firm has performed a subsurface investigation of the soils found at the above referenced rite. mhis report contains the findings of that investigation and makes recommendations for the development of the site. 1 SCOPE OF REPORT Explore the subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. Evaluate, by laboratory tests, the pertinent engineering properties of the various strata which will influence the development, including their bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential. Define the general geology at the site. Develop soil engineering criteria for the site grading and provide design information regarding the stability of cut /fill slopes. Determine potential construction difficulties and provide recommendations concerning these problems. Develop soil engineering criteria to be used by the structural engineer to design an appropriate foundation system. 2 THE SITE The project site is an irregularly shaped parcel of 2 ± acres. It is located on the top of a knoll, north of the cul -de -sac of Lone Dove Lane in 0livenhain, Ca. The topography of the site is best described as a saddle shaped parcel, with the proposed building site located near the center of the saddle. The northerly portion of the parcel slopes to the east. The southerly portion slopes to the south. Geologically, it is within the foot hills of the Peninsular range mountains of the western margin of the Southern California Batholith. The underlying soil is weathered rock of the cretaceous age. Slope gradients range from 0% to 20 %. The high point on the parcel lies on the westerly property line at 501± MSL. The low point lies near the westerly corner of the parcel along the frontage of the cul -de -sac at 477± MSL. The parcel takes access from the cul -de -sac of Lone Dove Lane. vegetation on the lot consists of grasses and shrubs that are typical of this region. The existing land use is vacant residential. The surrounding parcels are being developed with large single family estates. 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION In April of 1999, I conducted a field investigation of the subject site. Exploration excavations were made to depths of 4'± in the proposed fill and cut locations on the site utilizing a tractor mounted back hoe with an 18" bucket. Soil profiles were visually examined. Soils encountered, in general, consist of light brown, very silty sand (slightly clayey), changing to a very dense, fractured, meta volcanic formation at -0' to -2'± from the existing grade. Excavation became increasingly more difficult with depth with refusal being met at -2' to -4'. Bulk samples were taken for laboratory analysis to help evaluate pertinent soil characteristics. These boring logs are included at the end of this report. No ground water was encountered during this investigation, and naturally occurring ground water is not likely to be a problem during or after the grading operation. (See recommendations for perched ground water due to over- irrigating in "Grading Recommendations "). Rock was encountered in the borings, and there is visual evidence of rock out croppings on the site. There is a strong possibility that non - rippable rock will be encountered during the grading operation. If blasting becomes ne a special blasting permit shall berreau— i e v the city o Fn 'n�taa. In the event that as ing becomes necessary, a special blasting permit will be required by the City of Encinitas. All existing structures within 500' of the proposed blast shall be notified and surveyed to document existing conditions prior to the commencement of blasting; and have seismic monitoring stations to verify that the blast does not cause ground acceleration in excess of 0.5 fps . c LABORATORY TESTS Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). A Proctor Analysis was performed on the predominate on site soil (occurring below the top soil layer) according to ASTM D1557. The maximum dry density was determined to be 122.5 lbs /ft at an optimum moisture of 11.5 %. A direct shear test was performed on the sample remolded to 90% relative density. The friction angle was determined to be 32 °. and the cohesion was 201 psf. A summary of these tests are contained at the end of this report. Although the sample of soil taken has a "very low" potential for expansion (see attached UBC 18.2), certain soils within the area of this site are known to be expansive. Care must be taken during the grading operation that expansive soils (if encountered) are not placed within the upper 3' of the pad surface. 3 GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS The site shall be cleared of all vegetation and foreign debris within the grading envelope shown on the approved grading plan. This debris is to be removed from site prior- to rough grade approval. As is typical with this region., the site has relatively thin lens of loose top soil which will need to be removed and recompacted prior to placing fill. The anticipated depth of removal is 0.5' to 3' for the majority of the site, but the actual depth shall be determined by the soils engineer at time of grading. A key trench is to be excavated along the toe of the fill to the depths as mentioned above. This key trench is to be inspected and approved by the soils engineer prior to placement of any fill material. All fill material is to be compacted into a dense uniform embankment of 90% minimum relative density. The moisture content of the soil should be between 2% and 4% over optimum moisture. Due to the presence of very shallow meta volcanic rock formation it may be very difficult to excavate footing and plumbing trenches on the cut side of the building pad. In addition to this, the soils obtained from the cut side of the pad will likely be either very rocky or very clayey. Both of which make a poor quality building pad. It will be prudent to import a quality sand material to cap (2.5' thick) the building pad. This will allow for much more precise finish grading, ease of trenching, and an over -all better foundation for the structure. Cut and fill slopes are to be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and landscaped with drought - tolerant, slope - stabilizing vegetation as soon as possible in order to minimize potential for erosion. Berms are to be provided at the top of all slopes and lot drainage directed such that runoff on slope faces is minimized. Over irrigation is a catalyst for many soils related problems. Particular care should be taken on this site to avoid over - irrigation of any portion of the improved area of this project and to allow for positive drainage away from the structure. Positive drainage (to a day light point) out of the bottom of "over - excavated" areas should be provided in order to minimize the potential of trapped sub - surface water under the proposed foundation. All grading shall be performed in accordance with the attached "Recommended Grading Specifications" and the City of Encinitas grading ordinance. U FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following foundation recommendations shall be considered a minimum, and shall be reviewed by the project structural engineer for their adequacy. These recommendations are based upon the assumption that a 2.5' thick non - expansive, sand cap is placed on the building pad for all areas to receive structures. For two story construction, the minimum foundation shall be 15 inches wide and founded 18 inches below grade. For the single story construction, the minimum foundation shall be 12 inches wide and founded 12 inches below grade. Both types of construction shall have four #4 bars of reinforcing steel. Two bars shall be placed 3 inches below the top of foundation, and the other two bars shall be placed 3 inches from the bottom of foundation. These recommendations are based upon soil characteristics only and do not reflect any special considerations imposed by the building design which may require a stronger foundation. The proposed foundations may be designed utilizing an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 lb /sf (provided that the non - expansive cap as stated in the grading recommendations is high quality, granular material). This value may be increased by 1/3 for the design of loads that include wind and seismic analysis. Slab on grade and exterior flat work shall be at least 4" thick and reinforced with number 3 rebar placed in a grid on 24" centers. The interior house slab shall be poured on four inches of clean washed bedding sand (native sands are not acceptable) with a 6 mil. visqueen vapor barrier placed at mid -depth in the bedding sand. In addition, in order to avoid drying shrinkage cracks or minor settlement cracks from occurring in aesthetically or structurally sensitive areas the architect for this project should provide a schematic diagram of the locations of the saw cut control joints in the house. The maximum allowable square footage of monolithic concrete for the interior slab (with out saw cuts) should not exceed 144 sf. (These sections shall be more or less square in shape with the lengths not exceeding 1.5 times the width.) The depth of these saw cuts should be 1/5 of the thickness of the slab, and be installed within 24 hours of the pour. Tooled control joints (as opposed to saw cut) are preferable for garage slabs and exterior flat work. All utility trenches shall be properly backfilled and compacted with a mechanical compacting device prior to placement of any concrete. All foundation excavations shall be inspected by this engineer prior to placement of concrete. Additional or final foundation recommendations will be made and contained in the final "As Graded Report" when a more complete evaluation of foundation soils can be made. F DRIVEWAY RECOPLMENDATIONS A minimum of 6" of class II base shall be used under cement and asphalt driveways. The base, and the top 1' of the subgrade shall be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative density, be within 1% of optimum moisture content, and display no signs of yielding under a loaded water truck. Cement driveways shall be at least 4" thick and reinforced with #3 rebar placed on 24" centers. Tooled control joints shall be placed at 16'± on centers. Asphalt shall be at least 2" thick. RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS The theoretical laboratory soils data for the following retaining wall recommendations is contained at the end of this report. However due to non - uniformity of soil conditions throughout a site and the inexact nature of soils engineering the following, more conservative, values should be used in the design of retaining walls for this project. Native fill is not to be used within the back fill zone of the retaining wall. A quality granular soil (or gravel) is to be imported to the site and used for retaining wall back fill. Retaining walls, which are not fixed at the top and have a level backfill are to be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to a fluid pressure of not less than 30.0 pcf. Retaining walls, which are not fixed at the top and have a 2:1 sloping backfill are to be designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to a fluid pressure of not less than 50.0 pcf. This value is based on the assumption of a drained backfill condition. Wall drainage details are to be provided by the project architect. When retaining walls are restrained at the top an at- rest soil pressure of not less than 50.0 pcf shall be used for design of the wall. A passive soil pressure value not greater than 250 pcf shall be used. A coefficient of friction not greater than 0.35 may be assumed for resistance of sliding between concrete and soil. 91 a ROCK DISPOSAL The following recommendations are for the specified rock disposal area as is shown on the grading plan for the above referenced site. All other recommendations in the approved soils report shall still apply to the remainder of the site. On the grading plan this area is designated as a non - structural, rock disposal area. 1) Prior to placing fill or rock, a key trench shall be cut along the toe of fill in accordance with the City of Encinitas grading ordinance. This key trench shall be inspected and approved by a representative of this firm. 2) All filling and rock disposal shall be performed to the satisfaction, and under the constant supervision, of the soils engineer. 3) Rock and earth shall be placed within the designated rock disposal area in a fashion that all material is stable from eroding or rolling down the slopes which surround this area. During the filling procedure no rock greater than 1' in diameter shall be placed within 5' of the fill slope or 2.5' of the surface of the pad. After the filling procedure has been completed rock may be embedded (at least 1/3 of the rock's diameter deep) in the surface soils to be left as landscaping features. No rock shall be placed on slopes greater than 4:1. 4) Within the disposal_ area rock shall be placed in a fashion to minimize nestling and large voids around the rock (see attached sketch). A combination of ponding and jetting, and track rolling shall be used to densify the earth around the rock. All soils in this area shall be placed with at +3% to +6% over optimum moisture content. Although no specific minimum relative compaction specifications have been established, it shall be the responsibility of the soils engineer to verify that these criteria are met. 5) After the lines and grades of the rock disposal have been established the top 1' of the pad and slope surface soils are to be tracked rolled to a minimum of 90% relative density. 6) Prior to rough grade approval a covenant of restriction shall be recorded over the rock disposal area prohibiting the installation of any structure or utility within this area. F SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA This site, as well as most of California, is considered to be in a seismically active area (seismic zone 4). No Active, or potentially active, faults are documented in the immediate area of the site. The nearest potentially active, documented fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 11 kilometers west of the site. The Elsinor Fault is approximately 40 kilometers north east of the site. Due to the relative distance to the known faults, ground rupture is not considered a potential hazard for the site. The presents of medium dense bedrock, combined with the absence of shallow ground water, make the potential for liquefaction very low. The following table summarizes site specific seismic design criteria for the design of the residential structure. The design criteria was obtained form the Uniform Building Code (1997 edition). Parameter Value Reference Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.40 Table 16 -I Soil Profile Type Sc Table 16 -J Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.40 Na Table 16 -Q Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.56 Nv Table 16 -R Near Source Factor, Na 1.0 Table 16 -S Near Source Factor, Nv 1.2 Table 16 -T Seismic Source A Table 16 -U 10 5'AIMMING POOL RECOMMENDATION A review of the location of the proposed swimming pool indicates that the bottom of the pool will extend into the original ground. There are several rock out croppings in the area of the proposed pool. During the rough grading operation the pool area should be over - excavated to at least 1.5' below the proposed bottom of the pool and suitable material is to be recompacted to 90% minimum. This will allow ease of excavation during pool construction. Extra care should be taken to ensure that no expansive soil_ is placed within 2' of the pool bottom or walls. CONCLUSIONS In general no soil conditions were encountered which would preclude the proposed development of the site, provided that the recommendations of this report are followed and that this firm monitors the grading operation. The predominant soils to be encountered by residential grading are considered to be non - expansive and no special design considerations will be necessary. The anticipated total and /or differential settlements for the proposed structures may be considered to be within the tolerable limits provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. Rock was encountered in the exploration excavations, and it is likely that unrippable rock will be encountered during the grading operation. 11 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 variation or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, South Coast Civil Engineering Inc must be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. 2. 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 other engineers for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that their 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 be 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 of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a_period of two years. Russell Bergener Date RCE 44641 Exp. 3/31/02 12 NO.Co", EV.301102 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1. General These specifications have been prepared for the MacGregor Residence, Parcel 1 of Encinitas PM 95 -249, Olivenhain, CA. 1.2 The grading contractor shall be responsible for performing the grading operation in strict conformance with these specifications. All fill placement shall be done under the observation of the Soil Engineer. Soil Engineer shall be consulted if the contractor or owner wishes to deviate from these specifications. 1.3 The grading shall consist of clearing, grubbing, and removing from the site all material the Soil Engineer designates as "unsuitable ": preparing areas to be filled; properly placing and compacting fill materials; and all other work necessary to conform with the lines, grades, and slopes on the approved plans. 2. Preparation of Areas to be Graded 2.1 All trees and shrubs not to be used for landscaping, structures, weeds, and rubbish must be removed from the grading envelope prior to commencing any excavating or filling operations. This debris must be removed from site prior to rough grade approval. 2.2 All buried structures (such as tanks, leach lines, and pipes) not designated to remain on the site shall be removed, and the resulting depressions must be properly backfilled and compacted prior to any grading or filling operations. 2.3 All water wells shall be treated in accordance with the requirements of the San Diego County Health Department. The owner shall verify the requirements. 2.4 All vegetation and soil designated as "unsuitable" by the Soil Engineer shall be removed under his observation. The exposed surface must then be plowed or scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches until the surface is free from ruts, hummocks, or other uneven features that would prevent uniform compaction by the equipment used. 2.5 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical, or where recommended by the Soil Engineer, the bank shall be benched in accordance with the following illustration: 13 2.6 After the areas have been plowed or scarified, the surface shall be disced and bladed until they are free from large clods; brought to the proper moisture content by adding water or aerating; and compacted as specified in Section 4 of these specifications. 3. Materials Suitable for Use in Suitable for Use in Compacted Fill 3.1 Material that is perishable, spongy, contains organic matter, or is otherwise unsuitable must not be used in compacted fill. 3.2 The Soil Engineer shall decide what materials, either imported to the site or excavated from on -site cut areas, are suitable for use in compacted fills; the Soil Engineer shall approve any import material before it is delivered to the site. During grading, the contractor may encounter soil types other than those analyzed for the soils investigation. The Soil Engineer shall be consulted to evaluate the suitability of such soils. 3.3 Any material containing rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in diameter must be placed in accordance with Section 6 of these specifications. 3.4 The Soil Engineer is to perform laboratory tests on representative samples of material to be used in compacted fill. Such tests are to be performed to evaluate the maximum dry density and moisture content of the samples. The tests are to be performed in accordance with the accepted test methods of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). 4. Placing, Spreading, and Compacting Fill Material Spreading, and Compacting Fill Material 4.1 Unless otherwise specified, fill material shall be compacted while at +1% to +4% of the optimum moisture content and to a 14 FILL SLOPE 2:1 MAXIMUM SLOPE RATIO ORIGINAL NOTES GROUND \ (1) "A" should be 2' wider than the compaction equipment (10' min.). \ (2) "B" should be 1.5 the L width of the compaction A equipment (15' min.). 1 The outside toe should be should B SEE NOTE 2 at least 2' into dense, formational material 2.6 After the areas have been plowed or scarified, the surface shall be disced and bladed until they are free from large clods; brought to the proper moisture content by adding water or aerating; and compacted as specified in Section 4 of these specifications. 3. Materials Suitable for Use in Suitable for Use in Compacted Fill 3.1 Material that is perishable, spongy, contains organic matter, or is otherwise unsuitable must not be used in compacted fill. 3.2 The Soil Engineer shall decide what materials, either imported to the site or excavated from on -site cut areas, are suitable for use in compacted fills; the Soil Engineer shall approve any import material before it is delivered to the site. During grading, the contractor may encounter soil types other than those analyzed for the soils investigation. The Soil Engineer shall be consulted to evaluate the suitability of such soils. 3.3 Any material containing rocks or hard lumps greater than 12 inches in diameter must be placed in accordance with Section 6 of these specifications. 3.4 The Soil Engineer is to perform laboratory tests on representative samples of material to be used in compacted fill. Such tests are to be performed to evaluate the maximum dry density and moisture content of the samples. The tests are to be performed in accordance with the accepted test methods of the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). 4. Placing, Spreading, and Compacting Fill Material Spreading, and Compacting Fill Material 4.1 Unless otherwise specified, fill material shall be compacted while at +1% to +4% of the optimum moisture content and to a 14 4.2 Fill materials shall be placed in 8" layers so that, when compacted, they have a relative compaction in conformance with the project specifications. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to provide uniformity of materials in each layer. 4.3 Fill slopes shall be compacted by sheepsfoot rollers or by track - walking with a dozer. Compaction tests shall be taken on the slope face to verify the 90% minimum relative density. 5. Observation of Grading Operations 5.1 The Soil Engineer shall be on site during all filling and compaction operations. 5.2 The Soil Engineer is to perform in -place density tests at 2 foot elevation intervals in accordance with accepted ASTM test methods; such density tests are to be made in the compacted materials below the disturbed surface. When results of tests taken within any layer indicate a relative compaction below that recommended, that layer or portion thereof shall be reworked until the recommended relative compaction is obtained. 6. Disposal of Oversize Rock 6.1 Rock greater than 12" in diameter is considered oversized and shall either be exported, or used for landscaping or rip -rap. 6.2 If rock blasting is necessary a special blasting permit will be required by the City of Encinitas. 7. Protection of Work 7.1 During construction, the contractor is to grade the site to provide positive drainage away from structures and to prevent water from ponding adjacent to structures. Water should not be allowed to damage adjacent properties or finished work on the site. Positive drainage must be maintained by the contractor until permanent drainage and erosion control facilities are installed in accordance with project plans. 7.2 No additional grading shall be done, except under the observation of the Soil Engineer. 15 BORING LOG #1 MACGREGOR RESIDENCE, PAR 1 OF ENCINITAS PM 95 -249 3/24/99 DATE DEPTH BELOW EXISTING GROUND DESCRIPTION DENSITY 0' to -3' Silt, sandy, tan with fractured rock very dense Refusal @ -3' BORING LOG #2 MACGREGOR RESIDENCE, PAR 1 OF ENCINITAS PM 95 -249 3/24/99 DATE DEPTH BELOW EXISTING GROUND DESCRIPTION DENSITY 0' to -4' Sand, very silty, tan with fractured rock very dense Refusal @ -4' BORING LOG #3 MACGREGOR RESIDENCE, PAR 1 OF ENCINITAS PM 95 -249 3124/99 DATE DEPTH BELOW EXISTING GROUND DESCRIPTION DENSITY 0' to -3' Silt, sandy, tan with fractured rock very dense Refusal @ -3' ' VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 Vineyard Avenue, #102 Escondido, CA 92029 -1229 Phone: (760) 743 -1214 Fax: (760) 739 -0343 )B # :99 -102L DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATE : 4 -8 -1999 10901 1B NAME: SOUTH COAST CIVIL ENGINEERING SAMPLE: ,CGREGOR RESIDENCE / LONE HILL ESTATE SOIL TYPE: :SCRIPTION: BROWN SANDY SILT * CAUTION * ** THE BEARING CAPACITY SHOWN BELOW IS JUST fE TOOL OF SEVERAL USED BY. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DETERMINE IF THE FOUNDATION IS ADEQUATE! •iction Angle (degrees) = 32 �t Density(pcf) = 121.100 )isture content( %) = 10.600 .TERAL LOAD PARAMETERS :TIVE PRESSURE (psf) = 37.2 ,SSIVE PRESSURE (psf) = 394.1 ' REST PRESSURE (psf) = 56.9 i = 0.31 Kp =3.25 Ko =0.47 )EFFICENT OF FRICTION = 0.39 TARING CAP(psf) Cohesion (psf) = 201 Dry Density (pcf) = 109.4937 Factor of Safety = 3 DEPTH /FTG. WIDTH /FTG. .491.715 1 1 .530.706 1 1.25 .569.696 1 1.5 _608.686 1 1.75 .647.676 1 2 L699.565 1.5 1 .738.555 1.5 1.25 _777.545 1.5 1.5 L816.535 1.5 1.75 ,6855.526 1.5 2 _907.414 2 1 _946.404 2 1.25 _985.395 2 1.5 '.024.385 2 1.75 ?063.375 2 2 = 20.6 NQ = 10.3 NG = 7.7 )B # :99 -102L LOCATION :MACGREGOR RESIDENCE/ LONE HILL ESTATE L= 80 X2= 149 X3= 269 24.8 F2= 46.19 F3= 83.39 807.4756 T2= 1503.924 T3= 2715.137 TB= 1443.363 )OT MEAN SQUARE ERROR IS : 28.03414 :RCENT AGREEMENT T2 AND TB = 95 FR2= 32 C2= 171 ZOVING RING SERIAL NUMBER = 13012 ZICTION ANGLE = 32 COHESION = 201 f VERTICAL (KSF) DIRECT SHEAR TEST Remolded 0 Undisturbed ❑ JOB NO. ' C) — 180 Rate of displacement __ inches /min. JOBINAME 5&UIV COA57 C11011- EEO. DATE SAMPLE h1AGC,11EGoR ✓.c.uE NrLL E57Ai E TEST SPECS. REMOLD TO 90% SOIL TYPE 210 )41-b AT ) .5 PCF DESCRIPTION Dn13- 5 ANt)4 $ ILT 3. 154.3 AT ) 1 OMC RING NO. #1 D #2 D #3 #4 INITIAL SOAKED INITIAL SOAKED INITIAL SOAKED INITIAL SOAKED Ws + Ww + r wx + ww 68,o 6.8 139 5 15 ).'-. t 53 5 I �} 1? 14 #1 #2 #3 #4 aMM�MQMM__ Hor. Ver. � Hor. Ver. Hor. Ver. I Hor. Ver. 40C 30C J 20C J 10C [us 50 60 70 80 90 00 10 40 w.)y1,0 )53.3 30x1.164 x 12.5 x 1. 115 = 1q3,1 w Initial Initial ws +ww= 50 o.essxll�fl•G ) w = 10.6 10= 1�I.1 = Ic9.5 1 •)0l7 NEW VERTICAL (KSF) 170 s Average Ww + Ws 180 190 iitial Soaked 200 13q -5 1. 15) 210 )41-b 2.153.5 220 141. 7 3. 154.3 230 w.)y1,0 )53.3 30x1.164 x 12.5 x 1. 115 = 1q3,1 w Initial Initial ws +ww= 50 o.essxll�fl•G ) w = 10.6 10= 1�I.1 = Ic9.5 1 •)0l7 NEW FAS7 �� INK74,30 � Mm_ aMM�MQMM__ SNM `r % Fml ®�� FRAMMM iZ1R iL7F-ml l fff �� w Soaked Ws +Ww= ISG,I Ws = IzI 3 w = 3•? �o= 1,17 Soaked o.ass x (153 • j ) Summary 131.7 Cc = D/ PSF VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 Vineyard Avenue, Suite 102 Escondidio, California 92029 -1229 • 619.743 -1214 Fax 619- 739 -0343 EXPANSION TEST t u:w, it A r• Clv nriarrl i"lA 71 JOB NO, JOB NAME jGi jfi CGA� Cwj- EEG DATE (2 SAMPLE 7hAG REGGR RES W1uE jju L�STjqE.FECHNICIAN DESCRIPTION i,)fLN , -GAIrD 51j A. Initial Moisture Content 3. Water Loss. (1.2) A. Weight of (Rine) I 200.1 S. Dry Wright. (2-4) 1 B. Compacted Moisture Content, Near Optimum 6 Final Moisture, 3.S .x 1C0 1 ,IZ 10.1110,7 110 . 1 10. C. Initial Bulk Sample Weight D. Weight of Sample Passing No. 4 Sieve I I F. Compacted Weight. Ring + Seil I U 605 E.51405 7• I { I G. Weight of Ring 14 [ .7 ii3�4 1— 1 �—I ` -I H. Specimen Weight. (F) -G 1114- 1)J Ljo5.5I39& 051J397. 1 I I L CcmpaCed We! Density [ X0.3017J Iii .aa I�.>_�! I�za31[ic. I[a13 I Ina J. Compacted Dry Density[I!(t +EIJ I��I •V I 1, I Q�i, I �[.G I�� K. Degree of Saturation. (E(E2 44.0 37C41 ( •S_IIS Q. II� —[G -5 �,�.• I I S� S� �j L� ��• ., ��) �1- II 11- ./I- 9�431.zo4�I.i9i2J•aca6l I I S'vVELL DATE I DATE TIME DAL STATIC LOAD = 144 PS L. FINAL READING I VII?QC% 17 /A• I ,e%Jr( Nt. INITIAL READING: I q _ 6. I I • 124 0. EXPANSION READING LAI =C I I I •(�` UNCORRECTED EXPANSION INDEX = (Ox 101) UNCORRECTED EXPANSION POTENTIAL CORRECTED EXPANSION INDEX = 1.000 X 0 X E CORRECTED EXPANSION FOTE:NTIAL I I I FiNAL MOISTURE C 1. We! Weight + Rinc 16y�.z 2. Cry Weight +Ring 3. Water Loss. (1.2) A. Weight of (Rine) I 200.1 S. Dry Wright. (2-4) 1 362.8 6 Final Moisture, 3.S .x 1C0 .2 1 .9 N ee• er n'v ss ar 0 �O rCS y ♦ T. 0� a INDICR TFS _ BRaHOE .SUCE� .Ver Op 1401. 4d' PAR 1 PiYI 4a45 488 J8 1: .F fdD• 491.0 1 �\Y1j ff• 414.5 W-493.7 nrL Llxl d1lNK IS 9d dr��N� •,�\ � � v / v a'fcr V ♦� z V7QN a u °r M' nuu r M&GREGOR RESIDENCE M71 OF ENCINITAS PM 95 -219 a1VCNt119 /N CA• scACE s"= �o �e c�ulsT'w y sdcic uRU r l VL[ cNC NO. 11-s(4141 1( �_ N M, W.7 i L J 4 � ell dR C` W.7 i wo IL .,B" ROCX Dd PDSfJL NO 9 CHLE DET19 /L