2006-178 G City of NGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT
Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Rep lenishment/S tormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
February 14, 2008
Attn: La Jolla Bank
390 West Valley Parkway
Escondido, CA 92025
RE: Bonanno, Joseph and Diane
1372 Bello Mar Drive
APN 216-500-05
Grading Permit 178-GI
Final release of security
Pen-nit 178-GI authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion
control, all as necessary to build the described project. The Field Inspector has finaled
the project. Therefore, a full release of the remaining security deposited is merited.
Letter of Credit 28, (in the original amount of$141,019.10), reduced by 75% to
$35,254.78, is hereby released in entirety. The document original is enclosed.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-
2779 or in writing, attention this Department.
Sincerely,
Debra Gei art Ale h
Engineering Technician Finance Manager
Subdivision Engineering Financial Services
Cc: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager
Joseph and Diane Bonanno
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
C I T Y O F E Nf C I N I T P.
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ti
505 S . VULCAN :AVE
ENCINITAS, , CA 92024
GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO : 178GI
PARCEL NO. 216-500-0500 PLAN NO.
JOB SITE ADDRESS 1372 BELLO MAR DR CASE NO. :
APPLICANT NAME JOSEPH & DIANE BONANNO
MAILING ADDRESS : 3278 AVENIDA. DEL ALBA PHONE NO, :
CITY: CARLSBAD STATE: CA ZIP : 92009-
CONTRACTOR : R. E. HUGHES CONSTRUCTION CO PHONE NO. : 760-727-4125
LICENSE NO, : 33441 LICENSE TYPE: B
ENGINEER : SAM MALHAS PHOr �O.
PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 111'09/06 ,
PERMIT EXP. 606 PERMIT ISSUED BY: ,
INSPECTOR' GREG ELDS
_-----__ _ --- MIT FEES & DEPOSITS ------------------------------
1 , PERMIT FEE .00 2 . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT": . 00
3 , IN`SPECT'ION FEE 7 ,050 . 96 4 . IN-SPECTION DEPOSIT, . 00'
5 . PLAN CHECK FEE . 00R 6 . SECURITY DEPOSIT 0
7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE : 362 . 25 8 . TRAFFIC FEE
------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF T40RK.
PERMIT TO GUARANTEE BOTH PERFORMANCE AND LABOR AND MATERIALS FOR
EARTHWORK, DRAINAGEE, PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS, AND EROSION CONTROL.
CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL TIMES PER. W .A.T . C.H
STANDARDS OR CITY APPROVED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN . LETTER DATED AUGUST 31
2006 APPLIES, S
— INSPECTION -- --- --- — DA `E ---- -- �lYSPECT{3R'S SI"GNAT.IJRE
INITIAL INSPECTION !f
COMPACTION REPORT .RECEIVED
W151-NEER CERT. k=I'tfED irz 4 Ob
ROUGH. C3RAD'ING iSkTIQN ` - '�
INSPECTION f
T .HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE` THAT I HkV.E RE HE �!�'PD�CATTOIi AND, STATE. THAT '-T
TINFORMATION "IS CORRECT AND.".AGREt TO CO i�L� "�TITH ALL',+C1TY ORDtt og � "ST 'T
LAWS RE( Vii, "EXCAVATING,' 3Y , I2 DINC, AN,I? N"H"L PRtJ�F` ISI0N5 AND CONPiI'TIC3NS OP,
AYX E. I '; St7ED. P" TAN�, 'TO TINS APP�xTCAT,�f�N.
I" NATt3IE'" AE S T C13
RtT �
n
74LJ�P- ONE
s,, I I� . ONE i 4 9R ;- :2- AGENT 3 O' HE�t
CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ACTIVITY REPORT
DATE: �� �.�-O 4
PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER:
STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER:
CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE:
//-/S=AE; er� �c,,► /G:is �vy� Q f s i jam. e-e hErrrlo -'s lilacs
ZS Qr�c,� "� ✓a c a u.�! c�c5 fer c y rS ; s i T� 7`U a
e&,< rzu .
Zo,'l-5 frCG,, r1n 5.7Zt:- 7-&-S
��r�L%t'Sfi'Cf GJ� dcl,
l5c�t� 4� Ct� 7G�-'"► S�QtP--- �i,r�.'f- lrI1P .
/y►ET Ti,-r, l P ffc,u i o�, S T� 4T-
7-c— r=V/z r4 ko&7l,N 6yelf-oi -5,6 ,u c>�ii
,e&t `o PA-,O e-&727--
Qn 5 r o
/- ZZ-0 /IZ&�" -Td t�sc�cSS 1�7NflL
4mulg-cw 5 , 5 ea�- e4.ezr /T ono .fl y •�� 'ram
-rr1S `-7►�.�
&,Lwt t S T ��v F-bi"� occ vDr4� c", '� ,
a,j'r7a- ,4t.u►t7 T7r —
z-/3-og 7D F,AjRi,
m14429
MCE
Ilrt/l7tts 0)11sultinty I tt,;;tneers
6839 Convoy Court
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel. 858.571.1514
Fax. 858.571.1799
malhasengineers(c�aol.com
www.malhaseng.com
December 4, 2006
City of Encinitas
Engineering Service Permits
505 South Vulcan Ave.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Engineer's Pad Certification for Project# 99-001TM and grading permit number 178-GI
Pursuant to section 23.24.310 of the Encinitas Municipal Code, this letter is herby submitted as
Pad Certification Letter for Lot 5 located at 1330 Bellomor Dr Encinitas, Ca 92024. As the
Engineer of Record for the subject project, I herby state all rough grading for these units has been
completed in conformance with the approved plans and requirements of the city of Encinitas,
Codes and Standards.
23.24.3 10 (B). The following list provides the pad elevations as field verified and shown on the
approved grading plan.
Lot No Pad Elevation per plan Pad Elevation per Field Measurement
5 333.70 333.70+/- 1"
23.24.3 10 (B) 1. Construction of the line and grade for retaining walls has been field verified and
are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan. Drainage devices installed per
BMP/City inspector agreement.
23.24.310 (B) 5. The location and inclination of all manufactured slopes has been field verified
and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan.
23.24.310 (B) 6. The Construction of the earthen berms and positive building pad drainage has
been field verified and are in substantial conformance with the subject grading plan.
Sincerely,
Sam Z. Malhas;PE
a ;
Report of Field Observation and
Relative Compaction Tests Results
Proposed Bonanno Single Family Residence
1330 Bello Mar—Lot 5 of Tact No. 8-326
Encinitas, CA
Job No. 05-4 777-FC
December 1, 2006
Prepared for:
Dr. Joseph A. Bonanno
% R. E. Hughes Construction Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 1146
Vista, Ca. 92085
Prepared by:
C. W. La Monte Company, Inc.
4350 Palm Avenue, Suite 25
La Mesa, California 91941
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROPOSEDCONSTRUCTION................................................................................................ 3
SITEDESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 3
SOILCONDITIONS...................................................................................................................4
GROUNDWATER.....................................................................................................................4
SITEPREPARATION................................................................................................................4
FIELDOBSERVATION AND TESTING................................................................................ 5
SEISMICDESIGN PARAMETERS......................................................................................... 5
Uniform Building Code Design hiformation......................................................................... 5
Maximum Bedrock Acceleration............................................................................................ 5
LABORATORY" TESTS.............................................................................................................6
CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................................................6
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................ 6
Foundations..............................................................................................................................6
General.................................................................................................................................6
Dimensionsand Embedment..............................................................................................6
SoilBearing Value.............................................................................................................. 6
LateralLoad Resistance......................................................................................................7
FoundationReinforcement .................................................................................................7
AnticipatedSettlements.........................................................................................I............7
Foundations Setback from Top of Slopes..........................................................................7
Foundation Excavation Observation.................................................................................. 8
ConcreteSlabs-on-grade.......................................................................................................... 8
General................................................................................................................................. 8
SlabReinforcement............................................................................................................. 8
InteriorSlab Curing Time................................................................................................... 8
Design Parameters for Earth Retaining Structures ................................................................ 8
ActivePressure.................................................................................................................... 8
PassivePressure ..................................................................................................................9
Backfill.................................................................................................................................9
Site Drainage Considerations..................................................................................................9
SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... 10
Attachments
Figure No. 1 Plot Plan
Figure No. Z Field Density Test Results
Figure No. 3 Laboratory Test Results
Appendix A Wet Weather Maintenance
C. ® a Monte Company Inc.
Soil and Foundation Engineers
4,1. 1-1-11_:14 ,�11 �f.�:�'( �E , ,�'l ��f7 '; 1. �l 11/,�. 1, � 11.�'Ft`�K,�`IA 11041
Phalle: (0/1)1 402-�)N(r 1 Fax:
December 1. 2006 Job No. 05-4777-FC
TO: City of Encinitas
Department of Public Works
Engineering Service Permits
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, Ca. 92024
SUBJECT: Report of Field Observation and Relative Compaction Tests Results
Proposed Bonanno Single Family Residence
1330 Bello Mar- Lot 5 Tract 88-326
Encinitas, California
REFERENCE: Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Bonanno Residence, Bello
Mar Drive. Lot 5 of Tract 88-326, Encinitas, California, Dated January
11, 2005
Dear sirs:
In accordance with the contractors" request, this report has been prepared to present the
results of the field observations and relative compaction tests performed at the subject site
by C.W. La Monte Company, hie. These services were performed between November 21
through 29, 2006 and included observation and testing during grading of the structures
building pad.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
It is our understanding that the site is being developed to receive up to a two-story single
family residence and garage. The residential structure will be of wood-frame construction
and will be founded on conventional shallow foundations with concrete slab-on-grade
floors.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site consists of an irregular shaped parcel of land at the northwest corner of the
cul de sac for Bella Mar in the city of Encinitas county of San Diego. The property is
fiirther bounded on the north by low-density residential development.
Job No. 05-4777-FC December 1, 2006
The project site, prior to grading, consisted of undeveloped hillside terrain with moderately
sloping sides. Elevations on the site in the area of proposed construction range from
approximately 328 to 331 feet above mean sea level.
AVAILABLE PLANS
To assist in determining the location and elevations of our field density tests and to define
the general extent of the site grading for this phase of work, the contractor provided us with
a Site Plan by J. P. Engineering, Inc.
SOIL CONDITIONS
Prior to grading, the site was overlain with approximately 1 to 2 feet of loose topsoil,
consisting of dark brown, silty sands. The topsoils are underlain with decomposed bedrock
consisting of light brown, silty medium sand.
GROUND WATER
No groundwater was encountered during site grading. However, it should be kept in mind
that any required grading operations may change surface drainage patterns and/or reduce
penneability due to the densitication of compacted soils. Such changes of surface and
subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in
rainfall, may result in the appearance of surface or near-surface water at locations where
none existed previously. The damage fi•onn such water is expected to be minor and
cosmetic in nature, if good positive drainage is implemented at the completion of
construction. Corrective action should be taken on a site-specific basis if, and when, it
becomes necessary.
SITE PREPARATION
Prior to grading, vegetation in the proposed building area was removed. Minor amounts of
vegetation that remained aver the clearing operation was mixed with the on site soils in
such a manner as not to leave any clumps of deleterious matter or to be detrimental to the
struehlral fill. Prior to the placement of fill soil a "key" excavation was constructed along
the toe of the building pad fill slopes. The keys were approximately 10 feet in width and
excavated into firm formational materials. The loose surficial materials were removed as
the key areas were raised in elevation. Removal excavations were prepared to receive fill
by scarifying to a depth of approximately 6 inches, moisture conditioning, and
recompacting the soils to at least 90 percent of their maximum dry densities.
All fill material was obtained from a legal borrow sit or on-site excavation and consisted
primarily of very low expansive, silty sands. The fill was placed in approximate eight inch
layers, watered to above optimum moisture contents, and compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction by means of track rolling with heavy construction equipment. As the
fill was raised in elevation, benches were placed into the hillside to remove any loose top
soils and expose dense natural ground. Refer to the attached plot plan for the location of
4
Job No. 05-4777-FC December 1. 2006
placed slopes and fill materials.
FIELD OBSERVATION AND TESTING
A representative of C.W. La Monte Company, Inc. while present during the grading
operations performed observations and field density tests. The density tests were taken
according to A.S.T.M. Test 1556-90 guidelines and the results of these tests are shown on
the attached Table 1 of Figure 2. The accuracy of the in-situ density test locations and
elevations is a fiinction of the accuracy of the survey control provided by other than C.W.
La Monte Company Inc. representatives.
As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of work
we agreed to be involved with, and performed tests, on which, together, we based our
opinion as to whether the work essentially compiles with the job requirements, San Diego
County grading ordinances and the Uniform Building Code.
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Uniform Building Code Design Information
Seismically related design parameters obtained fi-om the Uniform Building Code (LBC)
1997 edition, Volume lI, Chapter 16, are presented below in Table. These design factors
are based on subsurface soil and bedrock conditions and distance of the site from known
active faults.
SEISMIC DESIGN P 4R.—IWETERS
UBC Chapter 16 Seismic. Recommended
Table No. Parameter t'alue
16-1 Seismic Zone Factor 4 0.40
16-J Sol] Profile Type S,
16-Q Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.40 Na
16-R Seismic Coefficient C, 0.56 N„
16-5 Near Source Factor Na 1.0
16-T Near Source Factor N, 1.2
16-U Seismic Source Type B
Maximmu Bedrock Acceleration
Based upon a Maximum Magnitude Earthquake of 6.9 magnitude along the nearest portion
5
Job No. 05-4777-FC December 1. 2006
of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, the Maximum Bedrock Acceleration at the site is estimated
to be 0.50 g. For structural design purposes, we recommend a damping ratio not greater
than 5 percent of critical dampening.
LABORATORY TESTS
Maximum dry density detenninations were performed on representative samples of the
soils used in the compacted fills according to A.S.T.M. Test 1557-91, Method A guideline.
The results of these tests, as presented on Table 2 of Figure 2, were used in conjunction
with the field density tests to determine the degree of relative compaction of the compacted
fill.
The Expansion Index of the foundation soil was evaluated by UBC 18-1. The expansion
potential of foundation soils was visually classified as possessing a very low expansion
potential.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on field observation and the density test results, it is the professional opinion of C.W.
La Monte Company Inc., that the grading was performed basically in accordance with the
city of Encinitas ordinances.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our observations and testing during the sut1jeet grading operations we offer the
following recommendations concerning the proposed development.
Foundations
General
Based on the findings of our investigation, it is our opinion the proposed structure may be
supported by conventional continuous and isolated spread footings. The on-site materials
are anticipated to possess a very low expansive potential of the prevailing soils, and
therefore, no special consideration and design for heaving soils due to extreme temperature
and moisture variations will be required.
Dimensions and Embedment
Conventional shallow foundations may be utilized in the support of the proposed structures.
Footings supporting the structures should be embedded at least 12 inches below finish pad
grade. Continuous and isolated footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches and 24
inches, respectively. Two story strictures require an 18 deep footing and 15-inch minimum
width per the Uniform Building Code.
Soil Bearing Value
A bearing capacity of 2500 psf may be assumed for said footings when founded a uniniunum
of 12 inches into properly compacted fill or firm natural ground. This bearing capacity may
be increased by one-third, when considering wind and/or seismic loading.
6
Job No. 05-4777-FC December 1. 2006
Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the
footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The
coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.45. The passive
resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 375 pounds per
cubic foot. This assumes the footings are poured tight against undisturbed soil. If a
combination of the passive pressure and friction is used.the friction value should be
reduced by one-third.
Foundation Reinforcement
It is recommended that continuous footings be reinforced with at least two No. 5 steel bars;
one reinforcing bar shall be located near the top of the foundation, and one bar near the
bottom. The steel reinforcement will help prevent damage due to post construction
settlement and heaving, resulting from variations in the subsurface soil conditions. This
recommendation does not supersede reinforcement required for structural considerations.
Anticipated Settlements
Based on our experience with the soil types on the subject site,the soils should experience
settlement in die magnitude of less than 0.5 inches.
It should be recognized that minor hairline cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and
foundations due to shrinkage during curing mid/or redistribution of stresses and some
cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive
vertical movements.
Foundations Setback from Top of Slopes
Soils comprising a compacted fill slope face are subject to down slope creep mid/or lateral
"relaxation", even though properly placed and compacted. For this reason foundations and
footings when located within seven feet from the top of slopes, require special foundation
design. Foundations and footings of proposed structures, walls, et cetera, when located
witihui seven feet from the top of slope, shall be deepened so the bottom, outside edge of the
foundation is 7 feet to "daylight" (the ground surface) in the slope face. The table below
provides a sample of recommended foundation embedments, based on the distance of the
footing from the top of slope, the angle of the slope face, and a minimum required
embedment depth of 12 inches.
TABLE 1
Foundation Distance Slope Ratio
From Top of Slope 1.5.1 2:1
0 70" 54'
2 5a° 42'
4' 40" 30"
5 NY 24'
7'or more r 18" 16'
7
Job No. 05-4777-FC December 1. 2006
Transition Conditions
A transition condition occurs when a structure is partially founded on cuts into dense
bedrock, and partially on compacted till. Structures founded on such transition conditions
can undergo minor distress as a result of differential settlement between portions of the
structure founded on undisturbed natural ground and portions on till materials. Although
the fills may be properly placed and compacted, they possess a considerably greater
potential for anticipated post construction settlement then the denser, natural ground. Such
distress can matnifest itself as minor wall, slab and foundation cracking.
Foundation Excavation Observation
The General Contractor, prior to placing reinforcing steel and formwork in order to verify
compliance with the foundation recommendations presented herein, should observe all
foundation excavations. All footing excavations should be excavated neat, level and
square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of
concrete.
Concrete Slabs-on-grade
General
Concrete floor slabs, if used, shall be a mininnum thickness of four inches and shall be
underlain by two inches of clean, washed sand overlying 10 nnil visqueen, overlying an
additional two inches of clean sand.
Slab Reinforcement
The slab should be reinforced with a minimum of #3 reinforcing bars placed at 18-inch
centers, each way. The reinforcement should be placed on concrete "chairs" or spacers, to
within the middle third of the slab.
Interior Slab Curing Time
Following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to
placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in
degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials. Prior to
installation standardized testing can be performed to determine if the slab moisture
emissions are within the limits recommended by the manufacturer of the specified floor-
covering product.
Design Parameters for Earth Retaining Structures
Active Pressure
The active earth pressure to be used in the design of retaining walls with level backfill, shall
be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 30 pef(pounds per cubic
foot) for unrestrained condition. An additional 15 pounds per cubic foot should be added
to said value for 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) sloping backfill. These pressures do not
consider any other surcharge. If any are and anticipated.this office should be contacted for
the necessary increase in soil pressure. These values assume a drained backfill condition
8
Job No. 05-4777-FC December 1. 2006
using on-site silty material. The pressure value can be lowered if approved granular
material is used as baekfill.
The prgject architect should provide waterproofing details. Retaining walls that are not
waterproofed and properly drained are potentially subject to cosmetic staining (such as
efflorescence), surficial spalling and decomposition and excessive moisture emissions. It is
the contractor's responsibility to ensure that extreme care is exercised during placement of
foundation steel and/or waterproofing materials.
Passive Pressure
The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 375 pounds
per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased one-third for seismic
loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.4 for the
resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the
friction should be reduced by one-third. The upper 12 inches of exterior retaining wall
footings should not be included in passive pressure calculations where abutted by
landscaped areas.
Barkfill
All baekfill soils should be compacted to at least 90°4 relative compaction. Expansive or
clayey soils should not be used for baekfill material. The wall should not be backfilled
until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. The use of gravel as back fill soils will
eliminate the requirement for back fill testing.
Site Drainage Considerations
Adequate measures shall be taken to properly finish-grade the site after the additions and
other improvements are in place. Drainage waters from this site and adjacent properties are
to be directed away from foundations, floor slabs and footings, onto the natural drainage
direction for this area or into properly designed and approved drainage facilities. Proper
subsurface and surface drainage will ensure that no waters will seek the level of the bearing
soils under the foundations, footings and floor slabs. Failure to observe this
recommendation could result in uplift or undermining and differential settlement of the
structure or other improvements on the site.
In addition. appropriate erosion-control measures shall be taken at all tunes during
construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations, ponding on
finished building pad or pavement areas, or running uncontrolled over the tops of newly-
constructed cut or till slopes.
Planter areas and planter boxes shall be sloped to drain away from the foundations,
footings, and floor slabs. Planter boxes shall be constructed with a subsurface drain,
installed inn gravel, with the direction of subsurface and surface flow away from the
foundations, footings, and floor slabs, to an adequate drainage facility.
9
Job No. 05-4777-FC December 1. 2006
SUMMARY
This report covers only the services performed from November 21 through 29, 2006. As
limited by the scope of the services which we agreed to perform, our opinions presented
herein are based on our observations and the relative compaction test results. Our service
was performed in accordance with the currently accepted standard of practice and in such a
maimer as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the graduig operations
with the job requirements. No warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with
respect to the services which we have performed, and neither the performance of those
services nor the submittal of this report should be construed as relieving the grading
contractor of his responsibility to conform with the job requirements.
The firm of C.W. La Monte Co., Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the
physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage
patterns. which occur subsequent to the issuance of this report.
If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY, INC.
Clifford W. La Monte, R.C.E. 25241. G.E. 0495
"4 ?IOE3S1l,L,_la
12/31107 ,C
12/31/07
1kcas" No. 495 m .�
1 qL �
CAL��O
10
Job No. 05-4777-FC December 1, 2006
11
H
1 �
Al
pzE 699 �$
As
a
1
DOE V
1
ol ti
A 1
M
4
L� $M >MO r
a
1 9R omo !
m
3 l Cm
� Z
t
I °�Z r
o m
r7? P
tA
If
r m3 - Mato
a, o
OA A wf' •ch N,' �' N
Fn
I. \ �. .-,nab°,�- ;� ?• �� �o
y cr)' l o
I
a
r�
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Project: Proposed Bonanno Residence
Lot 5, 1330 Bello Mar Drive, Encinitas, California
TABLE 1
Test No. Date Location Elev. (feet) or Soil Type Moisture Dry Max. %Relative
Fill Thickness (%o) Density Density Compaction
(pcf) (pcf)
1 11/28/2006 See Figure 1 2' 1 9.1 108.4 120.0 90.3
2 11/28/2006 See Figure 1 2' 1 9.5 117.2 120.0 97.7
3 11/28/2006 See Figure 1 FG 1 9.8 117.1 120.0 97.6
4 11/28/2006 See Figure 1 FG 1 9.3 114.8 120.0 95.7
5 11/28/2006 See Figure 1 4' 1 9.5 116.0 120.0 96.7
6 11/29/2006 See Figure 1 FG 1 9.8 118.9 120.0 99.1
TABLE 2
Soil Type Description USCS Optimum Moisture Maximum Dry Density
Class (%) (pc fl
1 Brown slightly silty sand SP 9.5 120.0
Job No. 05-4777-FC Figure No. 2
MAXIMUM DENSITY CURVE
145 2.9
140
135
SOIL TYPE 1
130
125
120
115 1 T I \
105
100
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Optimum Maximum
Soil Type Description Moisture (%) Density(Pcf)
1 Brown fine to medium silty sand 9.5 120.0
PROJECT: Proposed Bonnano Residence
Lot 5,1330 Bello Mar Drive
C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY INC. Encinitas,California
Soil and Foundation Engineers
-- —- Job No. 054777-FC — -Figure No.3
loth
o ID �•
n CL
CD
C.
0
CA Er Cm
n
CD
Na
p m m O
m0 z
m y
m
a
n �
H
d tz
n
� x
� O
3
3
TO
zc rn
o _
n Q� ,
38M
z y �n
i
4 -IM
x
APPENDIX "A" Page 1
WET WEATHER MAINTENANCE AT RESIDENTIAL SITES*
Southern Californians,unlike other residents of the nation,are unaccustomed to heavy rainfall. Whenever unusually wet
weather occurs, San Diegans, particularly those living on slopes of filled land, become concerned (often unduly) about
the conditions of their building site.
They should not be,generally. The grading codes of the County of San Diego, and the various incorporated cities in the
County, concerning filled land, excavation, terracing, and slope construction, are among the most stringent in the state,
and adequate to meet almost any natural occurrence. This is the opinion of the San Diego Chapter of the California
Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors,whose membership help prepare and review the codes.
In 1967, the local Chapter of the California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors compiled a list of some
precautions that homeowners can take to maintain their building sites. This updated pamphlet reiterates those
precautions.
Everyone is accustomed to maintaining his house. Everyone realizes that periodic termite inspections are a reasonable
precaution, and that homes require a coat of paint from time to time. Homeowners are well used to checking and
replacing wiring and plumbing,particularly in older homes. Roofs require occasional care.
However, the general public regards the natural ground as inviolate. They ought to realize that Nature is haphazard in
creation of all land, some of which becomes building sites. Nature's imperfections have been largely compensated
through careful engineering design and construction and enforcement of rigorous building and lot development
ordinances. It is only reasonable to assume that an improved building site requires the approximate same care that the
building itself does. In most instances, lot and site care are elementary steps that can be taken by the homeowner at
considerably less cost than building maintenance.
As a public service, engineers in private practice of the San Diego Chapter of the California Council of Civil Engineers
and Land Surveyors have compiled this pamphlet of pertinent Do's and Don'ts as a guide to homeowners.
The CCCELS respectfully advises that, in offering these guides, it accept no responsibility for the actual performances
of home sites or structures located thereon.
*Pamphlet prepared by the San Diego Chapter of the California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors
4350 Palm Ave., Suite 25,La Mesa, CA 91941 —(619)462-9861
APPENDIX "A" Page 2
DO'S
Do clear surface and terrace drains with a shovel, if necessary,and check them frequently during the rainy season. Ask
your neighbors to do likewise.
Do be sure that all drains have open outlets. Under the right conditions, this can be tested simply on a dry day with a
hose. If blockage is evident,you may have to clear the drain mechanically.
Do check roof drains gutters and down spouts to be sure they are clear. Depending on you location, if you do not have
roof gutters and down spouts, you may wish to install them because roofs and their wide, flat space will shed
tremendous quantities of water. Without gutters or other adequate drainage,water falling from the eaves ponds
against foundation and basement walls.
Do check all outlets at the top of slopes to be sure that they are clear and that water will not overflow the slope itself,
causing erosion.
Do keep drain openings(weep-holes)clear of debris and other material that could block them in a storm.
Do check for loose fill above and below your property if you live on a slope or terrace.
Do watch hoses and sprinklers. During the rainy season, little, if any irrigation is required. Over-saturation of the
ground is not only unnecessary and expensive,but can cause subsurface damage.
Do watch for backup in interior drains and toilets during a rainy season,this may indicate drain or sewer blockage.
Do exercise ordinary precaution. Your house and building site were constructed to meet certain standards that should
protect against any natural occurrences,if you do your part in maintaining them.
DONT'S
Don't block terrace drains and brow ditches on slopes or at the tops of cut slopes on sloping ground. These are designed
to carry away runoff to a place where it can be safely distributed. Generally, a little shovel work will remove
any accumulation of dirt and other debris that clogs the drain. If several homes are located on the same terrace,
it is a good idea to check with your neighbors. Water backed up in surface drains will tend to overflow and
seep into the terraces,creating less stable slopes.
Don't permit water to gather above or on the edges of slopes (ponding). Water gathering here will tend to either seep
into the ground, loosening fill or natural ground, or will overflow on the slope and begin erosion. Once erosion
is started,it is difficult to control and severe damage may result rather quickly.
Don't connect roof drains and roof gutters and down spouts to sub-drains. Rather, arrange them so that they will flow
out onto a paved driveway or the street where the water may be dissipated over a wide surface. Sub-drains are
constructed to take care of ordinary subsurface water and cannot handle the overload from roofs during heavy
rain. Overloading the sub-drains tends to weaken the foundations.
Don't spill water over the slopes,even where this may seem a good way to prevent ponding. This tends to cause erosion
and,in the case of fill,can eat away carefully engineered and compacted land.
4350 Palm Ave., Suite 25,La Mesa, CA 91941 —(619)462-9861
APPENDIX "A" Page 3
Don't drop loose fill slopes. It is not compacted to the same strength as the slope itself and will tend to slide with heavy
moisture. The sliding may clog terrace drains below, or may cause additional damage by weakening the slope.
If you live below a slope,try to be sure that no loose fill is dumped above your property.
Don't discharge water into French drains close to slopes. French drains are sometimes used to get rid of excess water
when other ways of disposing water are not readily available. Overloading these drains saturates the ground
and,if the drains are located close to slopes,may cause slope failure in their vicinity.
Don't discharge surface water into septic tanks (leaching fields). Not only are septic tanks constructed for a different
purpose, but because of their size will tend to naturally accumulate additional water from the ground during
heavy rain. Overloading them artificially during the rainy season is bad for the same reason as sub-drains and
French drains,and is doubly dangerous because their overflow can pose a serious health hazard.
Don't over-irrigate slopes. Naturally, ground cover of ice plant and other vegetation will require some moisture during
the hot summer months, but during the wet season, irrigation can cause ice plant and other heavy ground cover
to pull loose,which not only destroys the cover,but also starts serious erosion. Planted slopes acquire sufficient
moisture when it rains.
Don't let water gather against foundations, retaining walls, and basement walls. These walls are built to withstand
ordinary moisture in the ground and are, where necessary, accompanied by sub-drains to carry of excess. If
water is permitted to pond against them, it may seep through them, causing dampness and leakage inside the
basement,more important,the water pressure can cause heavy structural damage to walls.
Don't try to compact backfill behind walls near slopes by flooding. Not only is flooding the least efficient way of
compacting fine-grained soil,but will also undermine or tip the wall.
Don't leave a hose and sprinkler remaining on or near a slope, particularly during the rainy season. This will enhance
ground saturation and may cause damage.
Don't block swales that have been graded around your house or the lot pad. These shallow ditches have been put there
for the purpose of quickly removing water toward the driveway, street or other positive outlet. By all means,do
not let water pond above blocked swales.
4350 Palm Ave., Suite 25,La Mesa, CA 91941 —(619)462-9861
MALHAS CONSULTING ENGINEERS
6839 Convoy Court
San Diego, CA. 92111
Phone Number: (858)571-1514
Fax Number: (858)571-1799
January 22, 2008
RE: As-Graded Certificate for Lot 5 Bonnano Residence, 1330 Bello Mar, Encinitas, CA 92024
Permit#178-G
Dear Sir or Madam:
The grading under Permit No. 178-G has been performed under substantial conformance with the approved
grading plan.
Sincerely,
Sam Z. Malhas, PE
l
t
City Of ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
December 7, 2006
Attn: La Jolla Bank
390 West Valley Parkway
Escondido, CA 92025
RE: Bonanno, Joseph and Diane
1372 Bello Mar Drive
APN 216-500-05
Grading Permit 178-GI
Partial release of security
Permit 178-GI authorized earthwork, storm drainage, site retaining wall, and erosion
control, all as necessary to build the described project. Therefore, a reduction of the
security deposited is merited.
Letter of Credit 28, in the amount of$141,019.10, may be reduced by 75% to
$35,254.78. The document original will be kept until the project is finaled. The
retention and a separate assignment guarantee completion of finish grading.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-
2779 or in writing, attention this Department.
Since ly,
Debra Geish J Lembach
Engineering Technician Finance Manager
Subdivision Engineering Financial Services
Cc: Jay Lembach,Finance Manager
Joseph and Diane Bonanno
Debra Geishart
File
TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 recycled paper
inCall
..:off CVREY
Soil and Foundation Engineers
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Bonanno Residence
Bello Mar Drive
Lot 5 of Encinitas Tract No. 88-326
Encinitas, California
Job No. 054777
January 11,11,2005
3R
iJ 't, i t''ON
E
;ES
PREPARED FOR:
R.E. Hughes Construction, Inc.
P.O. Box 1146
Vista, CA 92085
PREPARED BY:
C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY INC.
4350 Palm Avenue #25 ♦ La Mesa, CA 91941 ♦ 619-462-9861 ♦ Fax 619 462-9859
cl� W4� La MWte
Soil and Foundation Engineers
4350 PALM AVENUE, SUITE 25 • LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91941
Phone: (619) 462-9861 • Fax: (619) 462-9859
January 11, 2005 Job No. 05-4777
TO: R.E. Hughes Construction, Inc.
P.O. Box 1146
Vista, CA 92085
SUBJECT: REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Bonanno Residence
Bello Mar Drive
Lot 5 of Encinitas Tract No. 88-326
Encinitas. California
In accordance with your request,we have performed a geotechnical investigation
for the proposed residential project. In general, we found the site suitable for the
proposed development provided that the recommendations contained herein are
adhered to. The site consists primarily of an undeveloped, level building pad.
The eastern portion of the pad consists of cut ground into competent
sedimentary bedrock. The west end of the pad is overlain with undocumented
fill and loose topsoil materials that range to over 7 feet in combined thickness.
These unsuitable materials should be removed and recompacted prior to
receiving structures and improvements. Recommendations for site development
are provided in the ensuing report.
If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not
hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is
sincerely appreciated.
Respectfully bitted, 4 � � 9
P Y sum W. `F
C.W. La Monte Company Inc. '� o` 7�S� � � ���•� 4� Z/p �c
- 11 v N°.C 25241 j No. 495
GrJ 41
Cliff W. La Monte,
OF
R.C.E. 25241, G.E. 0495 ( a-At.1�� F
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECTDESCRIPTION...............................................................................................1
SCOPEOF WORK............................................................................................................ 1
FINDINGS.........................................................................................................................3
SiteDescription.................................................................................................................3
Description of Site Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions.................................... 3
GroundWater...................................................................................................................4
TECTONICSETTING......................................................................................................5
SEISMICDESIGN PARAMETERS................................................................................5
Uniform Building Code Design Information...............................................................5
Maximum Bedrock Acceleration...................................................................................6
GEOLOGICHAZARDS..................................................................................................6
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................... 7
RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................. 8
EarthWork and Grading................................................................................................ 8
General........................................................................................................................8
FillSuitability.............................................................................................................8
Observationof Grading............................................................................................8
Clearingand Grubbing............................................................................................. 9
SitePreparation.......................................................................................................... 9
Processingof Fill Areas ............................................................................................ 9
Compaction and Method of Filling......................................................................... 9
Excavation Characteristics.....................................................................................10
Transition Conditions.............................................................................................10
SlopeConstruction..................................................................................................11
TemporaryCut Slopes............................................................................................11
SurfaceDrainage .....................................................................................................12
ErosionControl ..............................................................................................................12
GradingPlans Review............................................................................................12
FOUNDATIONS............................................................................................................ 12
General......................................................................................................................12
Dimensions and Embedment................................................................................ 12
SoilBearing Value................................................................................................... 13
Lateral Load Resistance.......................................................................................... 13
FoundationReinforcement.................................................................................... 13
Anticipated Settlements.......................................................................................... 13
Foundations Setback from Top of Slopes ............................................................ 14
Foundation Excavation Observation.................................................................... 14
FoundationPlans Review ...................................................................................... 14
Concrete Slabs-on-grade............................................................................................... 14
InteriorFloor Slabs.................................................................................................. 14
MoistureProtection................................................................................................. 15
Interior Slab Curing Time ......................................................................................15
Exterior Concrete Flatwork.................................................................................... 15
Design Parameters for Earth Retaining Structures...................................................15
PassivePressure....................................................................................................... 15
Active Pressure for Retaining Walls.....................................................................15
Retaining Wall Foundations..................................................................................16
Waterproofing and Subdrain Observation..........................................................16
Backfill.......................................................................................................................16
FIELD INVESTIGATION..............................................................................................16
LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION...............................................16
CONSTRUCTIONNOTES ...........................................................................................17
LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................17
ATTACHMENTS
FIGURES
Figure No. 1 Site Location Map
Figure No.2 Plot Plan
Figure No.3 Log of Cut Slope
Figure No.4 Rock Disposal
APPENDICIES
Appendix"A"-Standard Grading Specifications
Appendix"B"-Unified Soil Classification Chart
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 2
REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Bonanno Residence
Bello Mar Drive
Lot 5 of Encinitas Tract No. 88-326
Encinitas, California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following report presents the results of a limited geotechnical investigation
performed for the proposed residential construction. The project site is located on
the west side of Bello Mar Drive in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego. Figure
Number 1 (attached) provides a vicinity map showing the approximate location of
the property. The site consists of a relatively level and vacant graded building pad.
It is our understanding the site is being developed to receive a new single-family
residence with a swimming pool. The residential structure will be a maximum of two
stories in height and will be of typical wood-frame construction. The residence will
be founded on conventional shallow spread footings with a slab-on-grade floor. The
structure will be constructed approximately at the existing pad grade and therefore
proposed grading will be minor.
To aid in the preparation of this report, we were provided with a Site Plan for
Bonanno Residence, Lot #5, Encinitas CA by Architect Scott M. Grunst dated August
26, 2004. A copy of this plan was used as the basis for our Site Plan preparation and
mapping and is included herewith as Figure Number 2.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the stated client and his design
consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the
project be changed in any way, the modified plans should be submitted to C.W. La
Monte Company, Inc. for review to determine their conformance with our
recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation,
laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services
have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in
accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This
warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of this investigation was limited to: surface reconnaissance, research of
readily available geotechnical literature pertinent to the site, subsurface exploration,
laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analysis of the field and laboratory data
and preparation of this report. More specifically, the intent of this investigation was
to:
• Identify the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the
proposed grading and construction.
• Based on laboratory testing and our experience with similar sites in the area,
identify the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the
proposed construction, including the allowable soil bearing pressures,
expansive characteristics and estimated settlement potential.
• Describe the general geology of the site including possible geologic factors
that could have an effect on the site development, and provide seismic design
parameters established in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code
(Tables 16-J, Q, R, S, T and U).
• Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil
conditions, groundwater, and provide recommendations concerning these
problems.
• Develop soil engineering criteria for site grading.
• Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structure
anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended
foundation designs.
• Provide design criteria for the design of earth retaining walls.
• Present our opinions in this written report, which includes in addition to our
findings and recommendations, a site plan showing the location of our
subsurface explorations, logs of the test trenches and a summary of our
laboratory test results.
We did not evaluate the site for hazardous materials contamination. Further, we
did not perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on-site
soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on-grade concrete and below
grade improvements.
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 2
FINDINGS
Site Description
The project consists of a vacant and irregular shaped parcel of land and located on
the west side of Bello Mar Drive in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego. The
property is also bounded on the north with a similar vacant lot, on the south with a
single family home and on the west with undeveloped canyon terrain. The property
has about 42 feet of frontage along Bello Mar Drive and is a bout 314 feet deep. The
back (west) property line is about 169 feet wide. Vegetation on the building pad
consists of scattered grass and weeds. The undisturbed canyon wall terrain has a
heavy growth of native shrubs.
The property consists of a relatively level lot located on the east rim of a major
canyon, draining to Batiquitos Lagoon to the north. The northern portion of the
property extends out onto to the undisturbed, moderately to steeply sloping canyon
wall terrain. However, most of this canyon wall area is in an"open space" easement.
A review of the referenced grading plan indicates that the lot was developed
primarily by a cut and export grading operation, which lowered the site elevation up
to 5 feet. However, our investigation encountered undocumented fill soils located at
the northerly perimeter of the building pad. These fills were placed as "slivers" and
obtain a maximum thickness of about 5 feet. The current elevation of the pad is on
the order of 331.5 feet (MSL).
Description of Site Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions
The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego
County. The site is underlain with Quaternary-aged terrace deposits with associated
topsoils, Tertiary-aged formational materials and artificial fills. These soil types are
described individually below in order of increasing age. Also refer the attached Test
Excavation Logs, Figure No. 3.
Artificial Fill: The western portion of the building pad is overlain with minor
amounts of undocumented fill soils. The location of the fill area is estimated
on the attached Site Plan, Figure No. 2. The fills appear to be derived from
on-site or nearby excavations into terrace materials and consist of dark
reddish brown to brown, loose to medium dense, silty sands with some rock
fragments of sandstone. Test Excavations 1 through 3 encountered fills
ranging from 1.5 to 2 feet in thickness, remaining excavations encountered less
than one foot. The fills obtain their maximum thickness at the western edge of
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 3
the building pad, forming a short fill slope approximately of 4 feet in
maximum height. Numerous oversize sandstone rocks are exposed in the
slope face. The fills were placed as a "wedge-shaped" sliver at this location
and thin in thickness to the east. The fills are undocumented and therefore,
not considered suitable for the support of structures and improvements
without reprocessing as properly compacted fill.
Topsoil/Slope Wash: The fills overlie natural ground topsoil/slope wash
materials at the north end of the property. The topsoils in this area are
typically 2 to 5 feet in thickness and consist of brown, loose to medium dense,
slightly silty sands. The slope wash and fills are not present or very thin in
section over the southern portion of the lot.
The topsoils are moderately compressible and should be removed and
recompacted prior to receiving structures and improvements.
Terrace Deposits (Qt): The site is underlain at depth with competent
Quaternary-aged terrace deposits. The terrace materials are exposed near or
at the ground surface over the southern portion of the lot. The terrace was
encountered at depths ranging from 4 to 7 feet below the ground surface at the
north end of the building pad.
The terrace consists primarily of massively bedded, silty sandstone materials.
The terrace is moderately cemented and reddish brown in color. These
materials are considered very dense in consistency. The terrace can be
surfically weathered to clayey sand or sandy clay material.
Santiago Formation (Tsa): Although not encountered in our explorations the
Santiago Formation is mapped underlying the terrace and forming much of
the adjacent canyon wall terrain. The Santiago typically consists of silty sands,
clayey sands and claystones.
Ground Water
Localized perched groundwater was encountered in Test Excavation 3 at a depth of
approximately 6.5 feet below the existing pad grade. The water was perched on the
impervious terrace sandstone. This perched water is probably a temporary feature
related to the recent heavy rainfall. No groundwater was encountered in any of the
other excavations.
It should be kept in mind, that any required grading operations might change surface
drainage patterns and/or reduce permeabilities due to the densification of
compacted soils. Such changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus
irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 4
appearance of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed
previously. The damage from such water is expected to be minor and cosmetic in
nature, if good positive drainage is implemented at the completion of construction.
Corrective action should be taken on a site-specific basis if, and when, it becomes
necessary.
TECTONIC SETTING
No major faults are known to traverse the subject site but it should be noted that
much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized
by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones, which typically consist of several
individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to north-westerly
direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zones) are
classified as active while others are classified as only potentially active, according to
the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are
those which have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch
(the most recent 11,000 years) while potentially active fault zones have demonstrated
movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 1.6 million years before the
present) but no movement during Holocene time.
A review of available geologic maps indicates that the site is located about 7
kilometers east of the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Other active fault zones in the
region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Bank, San Diego
Trough and San Clemente Fault Zones to the southwest and the Elsinore, Earthquake
Valley, San Jacinto and San Andreas Fault Zones to the northeast. However, the Rose
Canyon Fault Zone is considered the most significant nearby fault with respect to the
potential for seismically induced ground shaking (due to its closer proximity to the
site). Therefore, we recommend the structure be designed for at least a 6.9
earthquake on the Elsinore Fault Zone.
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Uniform Building Code Design Information
Seismically related design parameters obtained from the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) 1997 edition, Volume II, Chapter 16, are presented below in Table. These
design factors are based on subsurface soil and bedrock conditions and distance of
the site from known active faults.
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 5
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
UBC Chapter 16 Seismic Recommended
Table No. Parameter Value
16-I Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40
16-J Soil Profile Type Sc
16-Q Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.40 Na
16-R Seismic Coefficient C, 0.56 N,
16-S Near Source Factor Na 1.0
16-T Near Source Factor N, 1.2
16-U Seismic Source Type B
Maximum Bedrock Acceleration
Based upon a Maximum Magnitude Earthquake of 6.9 magnitude along the nearest
portion of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, the Maximum Bedrock Acceleration at the
site is estimated to be 0.50 g. For structural design purposes, we recommend a
damping ratio not greater than 5 percent of critical dampening.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
General: No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude development of
the site as we presently contemplate it are known to exist. In our professional
opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed
development.
Ground Shaking: A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as a
result of movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above.
Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to severe,
depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to
the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one
moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed structure. Construction
in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the
Structural Engineers Association of California lateral force design requirements, and
local governing agencies should minimize potential damage due to seismic activity.
Landslide Potential and Slope Stability: As part of this investigation we reviewed the
publication, "Landslide Hazards in the Southern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan
Area' by Tan and Giffen, 1995. This reference is a comprehensive study that classifies
San Diego County into areas of relative landslide susceptibility. The subject site is
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 6
located in an area classified as 3-1. The 3-1 classification is assigned to areas generally
susceptible to slope movement. Slopes within the 3-1 classification are considered at or
near their stability limits due to steep slopes and can be expected to fail locally when
adversely modified. Sites Within this classification are located outside the boundaries
of known landslides and are not underlain with landslide prone formations.
The building site consists of level terrain, underlain with stable terrace bedrock.
Therefore, the potential landslide hazards at the building site are low. We did not
evaluate the condition of the geologic formation composing the adjacent canyon wall
terrain. However, even if potentially unstable, the building site should be adequately
protected with the cemented terrace cap.
Liquefaction: The materials at the site are not subject to liquefaction due to such
factors as soil density, grain-size distribution, and groundwater conditions.
Flooding: The site.is located outside the boundaries of both the 100-year and the 500-
year floodplains according to the maps prepared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Tsunamis: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or
volcanic eruptions. Based on the project's bayside location, the site is considered to
possess a low risk potential from tsunamis.
Seiches: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes,
harbors, bays or reservoirs. Due to the geology and configuration of the San Diego
Bay, the site is considered to have a relatively low risk potential for damage caused
by seiches.
CONCLUSIONS
In general, our findings indicate that the subject property is suitable for the proposed
development, provided the recommendations provided herein are followed. Our
conclusions regarding major site development considerations are listed below:
• The western portion of the existing building pad is capped by loose slope wash
and undocumented fill materials. These soils range from about 2 to over 7 feet in
combined thickness and are considered unsuitable in their present condition to
support new fills or improvements. As such, all topsoil / slope wash and fill
materials not removed by planned site grading will need to be removed from
areas to support fills and/or settlement sensitive improvements and, where
necessary to achieve planned site grades, be replaced as compacted fill (in
accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report). Remaining fill areas
that are not removed and recompacted will be designated as non-buildable.
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 7
TM5
I
• Based our estimated site grades, the building pad may be traversed by a cut/fill
transition. In order to mitigate for the potential differential settlement of the
proposed structure, the cut portion of the lot should be undercut as
recommended in the "Transition Conditions" section of this report. As an
alternative to undercutting, recommendations are provided for additional
reinforcing steel to be placed in foundations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Earth Work and Grading
General
All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of
the Uniform Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Encinitas, and
the Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto,
except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a
representative of C.W. La Monte Company Inc. should be present at the
preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if necessary, and
to review the earthwork schedule.
Fill Suitability
On-site excavated materials may be used as compacted fill material or backfill. The
on-site materials, typically, posses a very low to low expansion potential. Any
potential import soil sites should be evaluated and approved by the Geotechnical
Consultant prior to importation. At least two working days notice of a potential
import source should be given to the Geotechnical Consultant so that appropriate
testing can be accomplished. The type of material considered most desirable for
import is a non-detrimentally expansive granular material with some silt or clay
binder.
Observation of Grading
Observation and testing by the soil engineer is essential during the grading operations.
This observation can range from continuous to an as-needed basis, based on the project
situation. This allows the soil engineer to confirm the conditions anticipated by our
investigation, to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect the actual field
conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general accordance
with the recommendations contained herein.
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 8
Clearing and Grubbing
Site preparation should begin with the removal of the all vegetation and other
deleterious materials from the portion of lot that will be graded and that will receive
improvements. This should include all root balls from the trees removed and all
significant root material. The resulting materials should be disposed of off-site.
Site Preparation
After clearing and grubbing, site preparation should begin with the removal all
existing loose fill and slope wash material in areas that will support settlement-
sensitive improvements or receive fill. As the project is presently planned, soil
removals are expected to extend to depths of approximately 2 to 8 feet but thicker
removal areas may be encountered in localized areas. The soil removals should be
limited to the western portion of the existing building pad as estimated on the
attached Figure No. 2. The loose soil shall be removed to expose competent natural
ground as determined by our field representative during grading. The excavations
shall extend a minimum of 5 feet outside the structure perimeter or to distance equal
to the depth of removal, whichever is greater. All removal areas should be approved
by a representative of our office prior to the placement of fill or improvements.
In areas to support fill slopes, keys should be cut into the competent supporting
materials. The keys should be at least ten feet wide and be sloped back into the
hillside at least two-percent. The keys should extend at least one foot into the
competent bedrock material. All removal areas should be approved by a
representative of our office prior to the placement of fill or improvements.
Processing of Fill Areas
Prior to placing any fill soils or constructing any new improvements in areas that
have been cleaned out to receive fill, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth
of approximately 6 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90
percent relative compaction.
Compaction and Method of Filling
All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at
least 90 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test
D1557-91. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content, in
lifts six to eight inches thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills
should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris, roots,vegetation, or
other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project
geologist. All material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of twelve
inches in maximum width. However, in the upper two feet of pad grade, no rocks or
lumps of soil in excess of six inches should be allowed.
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 9
Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structure and beneath all
pavements and concrete flatwork should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
of its maximum dry density. The upper one-foot of pavement subgrade and base
material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative density. All grading and
fill placement should be performed in accordance with the local Grading Ordinance,
the Uniform Building Code, and the Recommended Grading Specifications and
Special Provisions attached hereto as Appendix A.
Excavation Characteristics
The on-site fill and slope wash materials will excavate with easy to moderate effort.
However, abundant over size rock fragments (greater than 12 inches) are present in
the fill slope face.
Rock material less than 12 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided; 1.)
They are not placed in concentrated pockets, 2.) There is a sufficient percentage of
fine-grained material to surround the rocks and 3.) The Soils Engineer shall
supervise the distribution of rocks. Rocks greater than 12 inches and less than 18
inches in diameter shall be disposed of off site, used as landscape features or be
placed in proposed fills in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils
Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. A typical rock disposal
detail is provided as Figure No. 4.
Deeper excavations into the cemented terrace deposits will be difficult and may
require specialized equipment.
Transition Conditions
Our review of the project indicates that structures may be partially founded on cuts
into dense natural ground, and partially on compacted fill. Structures founded on
such transition conditions can undergo minor distress as a result of differential
settlement between portions of the structure founded on undisturbed natural ground
and portions on compacted fill materials. Although the fills may be properly placed
and compacted, they possess a considerably greater potential for anticipated post
construction settlement then the denser, natural ground. Such distress can manifest
itself as minor wall, slab and foundation cracking.
The cut portion of any building pad that will be traversed by a cut/fill transition line
should be undercut at least three feet below finish grade. As an alternative,
additional reinforcing steel may be placed in footings supported by fill material to
mitigate the potential for differential settlement for transitions that do not exceed 15
feet of differential. Specific reinforcement recommendations are provided in the
"Footing Reinforcement" section of this report.
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 10
Due to the hard rock conditions, consideration should be given to undercutting the
utility alleys to below the bottom of the utilities and replacing the excavated material
with compacted fill material.
The bottom of all over-excavated areas should be sloped in such a manner that water
does not become trapped in the over-excavated zone. Prior to replacing the
excavated materials, the soils exposed at the bottom of the excavation should be
scarified to depth of six inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90
percent relative compaction.
Slope Construction
Fill slopes that may be constructed, should be constructed at an inclination of 2:1 or
flatter (horizontal to vertical). Compaction of slopes should be performed by back-
rolling with a sheepsfoot compactor at vertical intervals of four feet or less as the fill
is being placed, and track-walking the face of the slope when the slope is completed.
As an alternative, the fill slopes may be overfilled by at least three feet and then cut
back to the compacted core at the design line and grade.
Temporary Cut Slopes
We anticipate temporary slopes placed in bedrock may be cut at a minimum
inclination of 0.5: 1, (horizontal to vertical) for heights of up to 10 feet. Any surficial
topsoil, fill, or residual soil overlying the bedrock should be inclined at a 1.0:1.0 slope
angle. Actual safe slope angles should be verified by the geotechnical consultant at
the time of excavation.
It should be noted that the contractor is solely responsible for designing and
constructing stable, temporary excavations and may need to shore, slope, or bench
the sides of trench excavations as required to maintain the stability of the excavation
sides where friable sands or loose soils are exposed. The contractor's "responsible
person", as defined in the OSHA Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR,
Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the
contractor's safety process. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or
excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in
local, state, and federal safety regulations.
In addition, wherever detrimentally expansive soil is determined to occur naturally
within four (4) feet of finish pad grade, it should be removed and replaced with non-
detrimentally expansive material. The bottom of the over excavated areas should be
sloped in such a manner that water does not become trapped in the over excavated
zone. Where detrimentally expansive soil is not removed, special consideration for
heaving soil will need to be incorporated into the foundation design.
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 11
Surface Drainage
Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from the
proposed structure and toward approved drainage areas. For earth areas, a
minimum gradient of one percent should be maintained. The ground around the
proposed building should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from
the building without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent
to buildings slope away at a gradient of at least two percent
Erosion Control
In addition, appropriate erosion-control measures shall be taken at all times during
construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations,
ponding on finished building pad or pavement areas, or running uncontrolled over
the tops of newly-constructed cut or fill slopes. Appropriate Best Management
Practice (BMP) erosion control devices should be provided in accordance with local
and federal governing agencies.
Grading Plans Review
i
The finalized, grading plans should be submitted to this office for review to ascertain
that the recommendations provided in this report have been followed and that the
assumptions utilized in its preparation are still valid. Additional or amended
recommendations may be issued based on this review.
FOUNDATIONS
General
Based on the findings of our investigation, it is our opinion the proposed structures
may be supported on conventional continuous and isolated spread footings. The on-
site foundation level soils generally possess a very low expansive potential, and
therefore, it is anticipated that no special consideration and design for heaving soils
will be required.
Dimensions and Embedment
Conventional shallow foundations may be utilized in the support of the proposed
structures. Foundations should be constructed in accordance with the
recommendations of the project structural engineer. An excerpt from Table 18-I-C of
the Uniform Building Code is provided below, which suggests minimum foundation
dimensions:
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 12
Number of Floors Width of Footing Embedment Depth
Supported by (Inches) Below Undisturbed
The Foundation Ground Surface
Inches
1 12 12
2 15 18
3 18 24
Isolated pad footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches.
Soil Bearing Value
A bearing capacity of 2500 psf may be assumed for said footings when founded a
minimum of 12 inches into firm natural ground or properly compacted fill. This
bearing capacity may be increased by one-third, when considering wind and/or
seismic loading.
Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of
the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing.
The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.45.
The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of
375 pounds per cubic foot. This assumes the footings are poured tight against
undisturbed, natural ground soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and
friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one-third.
Foundation Reinforcement
It is recommended that continuous footings be reinforced with at least two No. 5
steel bars; one reinforcing bar shall be located near the top of the foundation, and one
bar near the bottom. The steel reinforcement will help prevent damage due to post
construction settlement and heaving, resulting from variations in the subsurface soil
conditions. This recommendation does not supersede reinforcement required for
structural considerations. If there is no transition undercut, we recommend the steel
be upgraded to four No. 5 steel bars (two top and two bottom).
Anticipated Settlements
Based on our experience with the soil types on the subject site, the soils should
experience settlement in the magnitude of less than 0.5 inches under proposed
structural loads.
It should be recognized that minor hairline cracks normally occur in concrete slabs
and foundations due to shrinkage during curing and/or redistribution of stresses
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 13
and some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of
excessive vertical movements.
Foundations Setback from Top of Slopes
If footings for structures are proposed adjacent to the top of slopes,ootin to the adjacent
that a minimum horizontal setback from the
minimum setback from the slope face
euge of the
slope face be provided. In general,
recommended is 5 feet from slopes 0 to 15 feet high and 10 feet for slopes 15 to 30 feet
high. The building setback distance from the top of measured from comyetent modified
o hand should
deepened footings. Footing setback is p
neglect any loose or soft native soils that may occur at the top of a natural slope.
Plans for any footings that will not comply with the specified setbacks should be
submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for specific review and approval prior to
construction.
Foundation Excavation Observation
All foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior
to placing reinforcing steel and formwork in order to verify compliance with the
foundation recommendations presented herein. All footing excavations should be
excavated neat, level and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed
prior to the placement of concrete.
Foundation Plans Review
The finalized, foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review to
ascertain that the recommendations provided in this report have been followed and
that the assumptions utilized in its preparation are still valid. Additional or
amended recommendations may be issued based on this review.
Concrete Slabs-on-grade
Interior Floor Slabs
It is our opinion that the minimum floor slab leasthickness No. 3 bars be
placed rat 18e aches on
The floor slab should be reinforced with at
center each way. The slab reinforcing bars should extend at least six inches into the
perimeter footings and be integrally tied to the foundation steel. However, the
garage slab may be constructed independent of the perimeter foundations. Slab
reinforcing should be supported by chairs and be positioned at mid-height in the
floor slab.
11, 2005 Page 14
Job No. 05-4777 January
Moisture Protection
Where the concrete on-grade floor slabs will support moisture-sensitive floor
coverings, it should be underlain by a moisture barrier. The slab shall be underlain
with two inches of clean sand overlying a 6 mil Visqueen moisture barrier, overlying
an additional 2 inches of sand material. Joints in the Visqueen sheeting should
overlapped at least 12 inches.
Interior Slab Curing Time
Following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed
prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may
result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor
materials. Prior to installation, standardized testing can be performed to determine if
the slab moisture emissions are within the limits recommended by the manufacturer
of the specified floor-covering product.
Exterior Concrete Flatwork
On-grade exterior concrete slabs for walks and patios should have a thickness of four
inches and should be reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24
inches on center each way. Exterior slab reinforcement should be placed
approximately at mid-height of the slab. Reinforcement and control joints should be
constructed in exterior concrete flatwork to reduce the potential for cracking and
movement. Joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the
location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with
the American Concrete Institute specifications. Where slabs abut foundations they
should be doweled into the footings.
Design Parameters for Earth Retaining Structures
Passive Pressure
The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 375
pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased one-third
for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to
be 0.45 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive
resistance, the friction should be reduced by one-third.
Active Pressure for Retaining Walls
The active soil pressure for the design of "unrestrained" and "restrained" earth
retaining structures with level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the
pressure of a fluid weighing 30 and 45 pounds per cubic foot, respectively. These
pressures do not consider any other surcharge and assume proper drainage and
select backfill material.
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 15
Retaining Wall Foundations
Retaining walls associated with the structure should be supported by foundations
with the minimum dimensions as recommended in the "Foundations" section of this
T
report.
Waterproofing and Subdrain Observation
The project architect should provide waterproofing and wall drainage details for the
retaining walls. However, a suggested wall drainage detail is provided as Figure No.
5. Waterproof seals should be provided for utilities directed through the retaining
walls.
g
4
Backfill
N' All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Expansive
it
or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be
backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength.
k
k
k'
FIELD INVESTIGATION
A total of 4 test explorations were placed on the lot, using manual excavation
methods. The excavations were placed specifically in areas where representative soil
conditions were expected and/or where the proposed structures will be located. Our
investigation also included a visual site reconnaissance included logging cut slopes
exposures. The excavations were visually inspected and logged by our field
geologist, and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout the field
operation. Test excavation logs have been prepared on the basis of our inspection
and the results have been summarized on Figures No. 3 (a through c). The
predominant soils have been classified in conformance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (refer to Appendix B).
LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested
procedures. Empirical evaluations were performed based on the soil characteristics
and our past experience. A brief description of the tests performed is presented
below:
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 16
1
CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual
examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System.
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content of a typical soil were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM
Standard Test D-1557, Method A. The results of this test are presented on the
following page.
Sample Type: Topsoil/ Slope wash (Typical)
Sample Description: Brown,slightly silty sand (SM-SP)
Maximum Density: 120 pcf
Optimum Moisture: 9.6 %
DIRECT SHEAR DATA:
Sample Type: Topsoil/ Slope wash (Typical)
Angle of Friction 31 degrees
Apparent Cohesion 70 psf
EXPANSION INDEX: The expansion potential of the subgrade soil was visually
classified according to the UBC Expansion Index Test method and texturally
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
It is the responsibility of the Owner and/or Developer to ensure that the
recommendations summarized in this report are carried out in the field operations.
This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not
direct the Contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of
Personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of other is the responsibility of
the Contractor. The Contractor should notify the Owner if he considers any of the
recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe.
LIMITATIONS
The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of
final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made
available to the Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist so that they may
review and verify their compliance with this report and with Appendix Chapter 33 of
the Uniform Building Code.
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 17
It is recommended that C.W. La Monte Company Inc. be t ns. to
This is to
continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork op erae
verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and
to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those
anticipated prior to start of construction.
The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate
of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions
encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the
soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be
recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be
influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may
occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any o development unusual conditions of
covered in this report that may be encountered during site be
brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may make
modifications if necessary.
This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site
grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are
appropriate. It should be verified in writing if the recommendations are found to be
appropriate for the proposed changes or our recommendations should be modified
by a written addendum.
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a
property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to
natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition,
changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to
such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by
changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a
period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the
conclusions and recommendations.
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care
and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing
under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that
subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our
borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and
recommendations are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be
responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be
responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our
services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty
of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with
i
j
Page 18
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005
the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or
other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.
It is the responsibility of the stated client or their representatives to ensure that the
information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of
the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the
project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the
necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out
such recommendations during construction.
The firm of C.W. La Monte Co. Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the
physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage
patters,which occur subsequent to the issuance of this report.
Job No. 05-4777 January 11, 2005 Page 19
SITE LOCATION MAP
Proposed Residence
Lot 5, Bello Mar Drive
Encinitas, California
x
Kro 0. ,.•* �,� .� � � _ ,�- e tl d�,i �4�,� ^� �":Y �"a.are,^ �� fir`�,�,,,, -' ._,s :,;,
�'4. 1-
"� ft 4 `L.✓, °° 4 �I g ,-rx:; � k; `�vb ��'^ ,_,,.r2�y dH_a,,,.•.,x• ��.�'kZ -
"Y k� fi 7b "r✓ n 'mx t
fi �,, "x• � 'y' R''�
s�.g ..K
d _ •' $T
1b. "3"4
k pSa
"51 �°�zt3 5
-
___I•>r r.'v
t a�f
,
7� .rw,:y ,..yx,� i
- ' xt.
( 'y � . c'+.
vo-
� 1 _� r�°+� '} `b'�� a G•`'k� 4. q `�'*
''4. :ar�X.S, ..:'� 4d• J �r t. xY #'?s r4&rt
Fi
orb ,�� may{ � 4 � kj i➢f � � _.� !r 1>�.�"f..^..w�, � �� � �f�4" � � ���� �.�
,a •� � pF._ -wt �"'. � .� c �`9 �S �t �-:�` y`?'�-. X Stew �.i � r�
7 � r -} � i� r�r'- p s• j � 5- = � �`u 13�� �Y� �},a��f �r '��aw�� � _ --
N� ..�,� f, xi. .SpSf �`! >M.." as R 8 �`, �• ay �h ray r „. ,�."'`#sd ,-:t �1„�.� , ' C>
Y"v 4 xa�: C, "�,'4^r "•�� iak'�'I�t � 4 ^'.it +4�( L 9�i�m'W. w�}�t`� �(II{L �., p""" � .-'.�e ,�.- .. I
- .� i #y 11 :!.� M E1;::. • YcsS, q. �t` 4 t yet!
�,r��
i2 1 ML
O ppp 1 di�Q 200Q 7.i E66 QOO FEET
;
Printed from Topoi @199 i W4idt w Prr-duc#ions��to o.eQrc
C.W. La Monte Company Inc.
Soil and Foundation Engineers Job No. 05-4777 Figure No. 1
ugssl wW+M,seal paypro ar to peen eq wll We1SNf1l1•J'W llO�S 1J311H�21VW e4l area upMelp ye
MOISIAa2I J OZ
170/9Z/8 a LHQ aDNEIQIM Ol NVNOg�� I
ai
rn
ca
o ca
b U'
TOM
I n ca
I
N
. 3 6
(D Z
o N
a z ¢
F w w O ° (0 -a
? Q Q a LL¢
Z O w lw- X $`�� V CM- N LL
W w Y ° ¢z w� z<zo aZ< �e� rY
z v (_9 aiw ¢vii xO� Xoxv °- % 'd' `��
Zw m Z O! -1 O F w d.q� ,op ry�y 0.0—� cn w 0 t4 u.0 n O LL a p w \ N ca
w0(n ¢�O QJ1- / V-
/ O
/ I N
"Z / I a- O
a I
/ 4n° 11> 1 2 CL
I I ° U Z
-JIM"ma W
1 I I t? `� ° �
w W
1 d I z z o �-
% u)
Q O CL
5
- w 1
Z ,,n 1
/ O W
F
U)
Ul
f
sf �-
113 41
i-
—Cf
cn
w
I � w
O o
W
;3
MM
� p
e ,
^ AMPLE TEST EXCAVATION NO. I
.n Elevation:1330' Date: 1/09/05 Excavation Method:Hand Huger
H SOIL DESCRIPTION
d
SM FILL
1 Dark brown,wet,loose to medium dense,silty sand
with some rock fragments
2 SM TOPSOIL/SLOPE WASH
SP Brown,moist to very moist,loose to medium dense,slightly silty sand
3
4
TERRACE DEPOSITS
SM
5 Reddish brown, moist,very dense,silty sand.Moderately cemented
Practical Excavating Refusal
EXCAVATION BOTTOM
6
7
SAMPLE o TEST EXCAVATION NO. 2
Elevation* 330 Date: 1/09/05 Excavation Method:Hand Auger
d
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SM FILL
Dark brown,wet,loose to medium dense,silty sand
1 with some rock fragments
2 103 10.9 SM TOPSOIL/SLOPE WASH
3 SP Brown,moist to very moist,loose to medium dense,slightly silty sand
4
5
6
SC TERRACE DEPOSITS Reddish brown, moist,very dense,clayey sand.
7 EXCAVATION BOTTOM
PROJECT' Lot 5,Encintas Tract No.88-326
• Bello Mar Drive
C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY Encinitas,CA
PROJECT NO. 05-4777 FIGURE NO. 3a
AMPLE TEST EXCAVATION NO. 3
Z ;n Elevation::k 330' Date: vogm Excavation Method:Hand Auger
y�
d SOIL DESCRIPTION
SM FILL
1 Dark brown,wet,loose to medium dense,silty sand
with some rock fragments
2 SM TOPSOIL/SLOPE WASH
3
104 13..5 SP Brown,wet,loose to medium dense,slightly silty sand
4
5
@ 6 feet becomes saturated.Perched groundwater @ 6.5'
SC TERRACE DEPOSITS
7 Reddish brown, moist,very dense,clayey sand.
EXCAVATION BOTTOM
SAMPLE
d d TEST EXCAVATION NO.
,mod o 002 z C y (Log of Cut Slope Exposure)
y y nUn�0 o yy
C o Elevationf 330' Date: 1/09/05 Excavation Method:Hand Auger
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SM TOPSOIL/SLOPE WASH
Brown,moist to very moist,loose to medium dense,slightly silty sand
1
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
Z Reddish brown, moist,very dense,silty sand. Moderately Cemented,Massively bedded
3 EXCAVATION BOTTOM
4
5
6
7
PROJECT' Lot 5,Encintas Tract 7NO.
Bello Mar Drive
C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY Encinitas,CA
PROJECT NO. 05-4777 FIGb
i
SAMPLE d o o TEST EXCAVATION NO. 5
y y CA n
?n Elevation:f 330' Date: vogm Excavation Method:Hand Auger
y SOIL DESCRIPTION
d
FILL Dark brown,wet,loose to medium dense,silty sand
SM with some rock fragments
1
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS
2 Reddish brown, moist,very dense,silty sand.Moderately cemented
Practical Excavating Refusal
3 EXCAVATION BOTTOM
4
5
6
7
I
h
i
T' Lot 5,Encintas Tract No.88-326
PROJEC
C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY Enc n tasrCAive
PROJECT NO. 05-4777 FIGURE NO. 3C
TYPICAL ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW
FINISHER GRABS SLOPE FACE'
CLEAR AREA FOR FCKJNBAT113 NS, io
UTILITIES, AND SWIMMING POOLS
10,
15' 5' OR BELOW DEPTH
WHICHEVER I SGREATER
WINDROW
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (END VIEW)
i
-- HORIZONTAL PLACED
.�— -- COMPACTED FILL
6 TO 8 INCH LIFTS
k
i
f- - , •:..:- r
GRAN U FILL S13IL DS ODED
i
I
PROFILE VIEW j
'I
`i
1
,i
FIGURE NO.4
I q
r-i% SLOPE MINIMUM -- 6 MIN
i
6„ MAX
WATERPROOF BACK OF WALL.
* PER ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS
0
314 INCH CRUSHED ROCK or
MIRADRAIN 6{X00 or EQUIVALENT
• GEOFABRIC BETWEEN ROCK AND SOIL Ir
`2"
o ' `fQP OF GROUND
a or CONCRETE SLAB S
6"MIN
MINIMUM
4 INCH DIAMETER
PERFORATED PIPE
,
RETAINING WALL SUBDRAIN DETAIL
(No Scale)
f'r
ii
i�
C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY
Soil and Foundation Engineers
Figure No. 5 I+
1!
i
� b
7
Appendix "A"
STANDARD GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for projects on which C.W. La Monte
Company is the geotechnical consultant. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where
specifically superseded in the preliminary geology and soils report or in other written communication signed by
u
the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist of record. l'
GENERAL
A. The Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist is the Owner's or Builders' representative on the Project. For
the purpose of these specifications, participation by the Soils Engineer includes that observation performed
by any person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Civil Engineer signing the soils
reports.
B. All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted by the Contractor
under the supervision of the Soils Engineer.
's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the
C. It is the Contractor p tY P P
Soils Engineer
and to lac e spread,mix,
water, and compact the fill in accordance with the specifications ecifications of'
the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall
also remove
all material consid ered unsatisfactory rY Y the Soils
Engineer.
D. It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site
to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit
completion of compaction. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due
consideration for the fill material,rate of placement,and time of year.
E. A final report shall be issued by the Soils Engineer attesting to the Contractor's conformance with these
specifications.
SITE PREPARATION
A. All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off site. This removal shall be concluded prior to
placing fill.
B. Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Engineer, as being unsuitable for placement in
compacted fills shall be removed from the site. The Soils Engineer must approve any material incorporated
as a part of a compacted fill.
C. After the ground
surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by the
Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may
prevent uniform compaction.
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted
as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed
in lifts restricted to 6 inches.
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be inspected, tested as necessary, and approved
by the Soils Engineer.
D. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe
lines, or others are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soils Engineer and/or governing
agency.
E. In order to provide uniform bearing conditions in cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in
soil, colluvium, or un-weathered bedrock materials,the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 3
feet outside of building lines shall be over excavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill.
I
i
Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 2
COMPACTED FILLS
A. Any material imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill,provided each material
has been determined to be suitable by the Soils Engineer.Roots,tree branches,and other matter missed
during clearing shall be removed from the fill as directed by the Soils Engineer.
B. Rock fragments less than 6 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill,provided:
1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets.
2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks.
3. The Soils Engineer shall supervise the distribution of rocks.
C. Rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter shall be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the
recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal.
D. Material that is spongy, subject to decay or otherwise considered unsuitable should not be used in the
compacted fill.
E. Representative samples of material to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory
of the Soils Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously
tested is encountered during grading,the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the
Soils Engineer as soon as possible.
F. Material used in the compaction process shall be evenly spread, watered processed, and compacted in
thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed
and compacted on a horizontal plane,unless otherwise approved by the Soils Engineer.
G. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that required by the Soils Engineer, the
Contractor should re-work the fill until the Soils Engineer approves it.
H. Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing
method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (In general,ASTM D-1557-91,the five-layer
method will be used.)
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a
specific land use or expansive soils condition, the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent
shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soils
report.
H. All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium or creep material, into
sound bedrock or firm material except where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal '
to one vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer. a
I. The key for hillside fills should be a minimum of 15 feet in width and within bedrock or similar
materials,unless otherwise specified in the soil report.
K. Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling
governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist.
L. The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish €
slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either overbuilding r
the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable ;
equipment,or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction.
Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 3
M. All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion or by other methods specified in the soils
report.
N. Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or
firm materials,and the transition shall be stripped of all soil prior to placing fill.
CUT SLOPES
A. The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding 10 feet.
B. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or
confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are
encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soils
Engineer,and recommendations shall be made to treat these problems. t.
C. Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a
non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope.
Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geological report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or
steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies.
Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental
agencies, or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist.
GRADING CONTROL
A. Observation of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading.
B. In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 feet of fill height or every 500 cubic ('
yards of fill placement. This criteria will vary, depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any s
event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verily that the required compaction is being
achieved.
f
C. Density tests may also be conducted on the surface material to receive fills as determined by the Soils l
Engineer.
D. All clean-outs, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals must be I
inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist prior to placing any fill. It shall be
the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for inspection.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
A. The Contractor shall provide necessary erosion control measures, during grading and prior to the completion
and construction of permanent drainage controls.
B. Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Soils Engineer, no further filling or
excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other
features shall be performed without the approval of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist.
C. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces,
interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property.
D. In the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils during a future grading
operation, the location and extent of the loose fill soils shall be noted by the on-site representative of a
qualified soil engineering firm. These materials shall be removed and properly recompacted prior to
completion of grading operations.
E. Where not superseded by specific recommendations presented in this report, trenches, excavations, and
temporary slopes at the subject site shall be constructed in accordance with section 1541 of Title 8,
Construction Safety Orders, issued by OSHA.
Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 4
1
i .
APPENDIX " B"
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
SOI L DESC RI PTI ON
1. COARSE GRAINED: More than half of material is larger than No.200 sieve size.
GRAVELS: More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No.4 sieve size but smaller than 3".
GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES
CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels,gravel-sand mixtures,little or no fines.
GP Poorly graded gravels,gravel sand mixtures,little or no fines
GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels,poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures
(Appreciable amount of fines)
GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel sand, clay mixtures.
SANDS:More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than No.4 sieve size
CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand,gravelly sands,little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands,gravelly sands,little or no fines
SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands,poorly graded sand and silty mixtures.
(Appreciable amount of fines
SC Clayey sands,poorly graded sand and clay mixtures
}
i I
II. FINE GRAINED: More than half of material is smaller than No.200 sieve size
f
. 5
SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands,rock flour,sandy silt
-or clayey-silt with slight plasticity. j
a
Liquid Limit CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, 1
Less than 50 gravelly clays,sandy clays,silty clays,lean clays
OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity
# i
SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts,micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty
soils,elastic silt
�i
Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fat clays. !
greater than 50 fi�!
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
#I
PT Peat and other highly organic soils.
N
MCE
t'rrClcrrs C 01'sultinC;L'ngineers
6839 Convoy Court
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel. 858.5 71.1514
Fax. 858.571.1799
malhasengineers @aol.com
www.malhaseng.com
Engineering Department
City of Encinitas Building Department and Planning
Aug 17, 2006
RE: Lot 5 of city of Encinitas Tract No. 88-326 in the City of Encinitas, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 12918, filed in the
office of the County recorder of San Diego County,February 4, 1992.
To Whom It May Concern:
We submit to you the following documents for review:
-6 sets of grading plans
-2 sets Cost Estimate ®
-2 copies Hydrology letter AUG 18 2006
-Soils study
ENC�TY OFEG CINITAIZ
Sincerely,
d
Sam Z. Malhas, PE
b •i i�
4
N'111
MCE
Malhas Consulting L`ngincjers
6839 Convoy Court
San Diego, CA 92111
TeL 858.571.1514
Fax. 858.571.1799
malhasengineers @ aol.com
www.malhaseng.coin
Engineering Department
City of Encinitas Building Department and Planning
Aug 15, 2006
RE: Lot 5 of city of Encinitas Tract No. 88-326 in the City of Encinitas, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 12918, filed in the
office of the County recorder of San Diego County, February 4, 1992.
To Whom It May Concern:
With respect to the hydrology requirements this property will not receive runoff from
adjacent properties, the existing Q and the proposed Q will not be affected. Any increase
is runoff will drain into the street.
Sincerely, k C rg
AUG 1 8 2006
Sam Z. Malhas, PE ENCI"JFE I !C SERVICES
CITY OF ENCINITAS
�!� L/al.
itCE �'----
�.
,tltrftrra,s C"crrr.srri`irrrt;f'r�;;iuec�r•.� ` �� � ;�„ ;;
6839 Convoy Court ' ''�----- !
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel 858.571.1514 �f 1�y
Fax. 858.571.1799 t g 2006
malhasengineers @aol.com
www.malhaseng.com f
G-ES
Engineering Department
City of Encinitas Building Department and Planning
May 3, 2006
RE: Lot 5 of city of Encinitas Tract No. 88-326 in the City of Encinitas, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 12918, filed in the
office of the County recorder of San Diego County, February 4, 1992.
To Whom It May Concern:
With respect to the hydrology requirements this property will not receive runoff from
adjacent properties, the existing Q and the proposed Q will not be affected. Any increase
is runoff will drain into the street.
Sincerely,
Sam Z. Malhas, PE