The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-494 C/G/H/R/T/U Street Address Category Serial # C% Z G Name Description Plan ck. # Year recdescv 1 MA 5T55 -a 1 SURFACE HYDR OLOG AN Y Y D H OR,9UL lC 1 CALCUtATION5 - 1 FOR �A 1N T JOHNS -A 22 LOT SuBDI I/ /5 /ON 1 E/V C11V / TA 5 SAN DIED COUNTY GA L I F01?NIA 1 PREPARED BY: LAND PLANNING 4877 Viewridge Avenue I HCH ARCHITECTURE San Diego, CA 92123 -1667 ENGINEERING (619) 278 -5750 PARTNERS SURVEYING FAX (619) 278 -9258 1 1 DATE AUGUST 16T11 1330 1 - I f� w 1 r C A L I J03 1V0. 12 382 1 � 9F,91(f 010 Y IYPRAUUG �C CATIONS "FDA. _ &(/ 70 9. . - -- -- _ VETHOl7 WY DESI (rlV S7A�V �Rf�5 LET /O/V MAP �" -__- 2 -- G_AC 4ULA77bN OF N vcr_ — - _ --- - -- - -- __ -- -- 5/ TE - _ -- COMPARlSaN_ DFEXIST STT� LDX W/Ti _INPRDw 577E - 19 - _ CPLCULA7 %ON OF - O1c7o f4OW //VTD 6MTE/NLFT .OF 7Y _ - - - IAGKYARD ► GgGGULA OF Qioo FGOIV /N LEG OF TY�ZOT - -_ - 5 5l Z //N TYP 69RTF_�/fT _. _ SI�W_& YhRD P/PF - FOR TYP. L OT 2 4 - ' F�ACX Poc4<ET GoNTEN ; 1 a-1 Y b ►zAt,o G-Y _ M V FO K_ S� W T J off N- h(IST, S 11la COP TIONS 2 -4TDP cWCTS _M 'P -ale• S iN7 JOHNS l 0C� NI C, _ _ - I. MPRoV15D Z E CONDIT -- - - - -- a \ aw -- h P f,v - f ....... LU LU W "�- Q a - • � M�NV " i �j � J �O'- °� �HiT -� { I Y � ' -� —*'–'_ .+ • w ` O �H p11ES � pV e� N -'-a a s j � ' ` I 1\ � �,• � >'ue...o � � '� �F+ CpN �� 700 �. ^� J N N 3 i `[{' W wz; 0 c a N T' O �m m 1 9 m I ! N -- - - - - -- ---------------- -! - - -~ 1 — - - - - -- - - - - - -- i - - � I CqL C4 m v Ln �o F} j 1' §HT= OF 24 5HT5 1 1 i 1 1 LEUCADIA � � EL p RtAL c 5T. n SITE I � � LNG � a a 3 T1 < MARCHS o -� C� 5T. m 1 1 Cr P C m A05ET`� Z ENCINITAS BLVD. VICINITY MAP NO SCALE I I 1� '1F: s-•'- `',�"y;�1,.a,s+ sty's'"." s-�.y� ;. at �_ -... � .. � 4 _. . ! j =Cost 1 Co ss a ` - If untry Iub 1 t ■' ,1 ON o .r - -�,• o� �\ T1 �= BA T IQUI TOS 51 4 ca•cosrr 35 F==T • Roaas de _ 3 — w — P OW I N � E ♦ -- - ``.-�� P r • � ji %a 4=L . j• }] I \ _ u t o I - y y � nit • ` C% _ • i \\ . " I � �� J� c II \ + o -- � ` •• • •• I�IU t .' l r - ~ ,\�•� _ \ � ~? 1 U . • r _. _ . ter 4• _ — `� c ' � . SPN I . I: _I 1\ �IJ II a I � S - - � fz S - •J- l _ IMP L ucadia t 1' - ,\ gi • � ` \,� ` -1 ?� r ■ � .�,_ �� f, =- --,- -- —r— . — VIA �\'\\ f c ate,• -' 'I�i ' � v ' Sc^ rotas Beacn` i ° - -.— C ou rty Park r \ —LS!, Enc tas ` — 1 � 1 \ �•: � Li na4n $� •� ♦ J � ! � � v,., � k 4 •� a _� �� •'\ � { 4.-. -y is -_ - -$�` ;,., r —1 < � I � _ � - - - 'x v -7 �'� n IN litr+ W 'a @\ i ''P�fk ` L „ Sea Garo rs -+ ; County Park a, \t. 1 , \� r. ' 1 P r�r-- - I - - -- - { _ ¢ j I 1Ii � )t !� - I � ♦ t � ' +�\ � � \•. �._ � t + ` + r 31C23L S2i�iDa 'ti - r�''� , R ( f 7; I l v1 \ ��V' ^ • • cr r ' I _ v i ? { I ill � I l n • rt \�. � � .�, - 'I +d �'� F Q � I •+ yid 1, i yi �S. ` l � ^� 1 ✓ - s Ow -�h10U \'LIGHT .t t1l'IE_ �_ - �`•'�\ � 'r ��: �r-,:= Iji' r_ _ _' STATE BEACH \ = l - wi Encinitas • (BM 91) 3 to ti �C J n "II i f s i i l`_I � t ■� rh N� CY '�� —�� q,I � n 11 1 \ • ,\ M I 5 r s. i �I , O� � ail .:•,. I � `..fir _ �2 �.I =__ -�_ 0 ,• , , �; a :• a _$ 1 San I),e¢tot •I Enc EhIS •- V I Oi! iHoImp_l • I t ��; � .� ryl.. II. j , •` 1 , Q w � 1 1 ANT Of 5/y T-5 LAND PLANMNG 4877 VWwddge Avenue ARCHRECTURE San Diego. CA 92123 -1667 ENGMEMNG (619) 278 -5750 �- SURVEYING FAX (619) 278 -9258 1 HCH PA M M SURI=AGE HYDRRXy �? HYDRAULIC 1 CALCOLAT/OA15 FX S19INT -101IN5 1 Job Name fjV CINI TA5 COUNTY OF 5Ai1/ D /EC-� GALIf. Job Number l2 382 Date: AU6U5T /G 1990 gr MIKE SFTAN UZ �, = 100 o 40 1 - A+rlk 1 METHODOLOGY gT DfS J&M STAIVD�RD5 1 . 1 .S-� • J � - �.ti.' s S�F2c� , 1� -P..e, Cam, 1 to SIGN . FKOc-V MUl2E. M13N VA (. p - i 4." i BHT 6 0F_2_ 5H T5 LAND PLANNING 4877 Vlewrddge Avenue ARCHUC1URE San Diego, CA 92123 -1667 ENGINEERING (619) 278 -5750 1 SURVEYING FAX (619) 278 -9258 HCH P,TNERS SURFACE HYDROLG�Y �' HYD 1 RAUL/C CALC LIZ A TIOA15 FOR S19INT AW5 1 Job Name EN C11VI TA5 COUNTY Of yR�4/ D /EC-z� CALIF. Job Number: 12382 Date: A06115T /G 199/7 S'L , cz, �i v� = 2� ,l�r rv, Br MIKE 5?TAN 1 LC Soo 4-* Soo q-c. to ccttudotc Gza I (_,04 %cz el� rl 1 _ i DEFERENCE MATERIAL5 9 PRQ69AM5: 1 ° s "p & PR- O CRWPe MAWAL 1 f 1 6H7 of Z4 5HT5 = LAND PLANNING 4877 Viewridge Avenue - ARCHRECTURE San Diego, CA 92123 -1667 = ENGINEERING (619) 278 -5750 1 SURVEYING FAX (619) 278 -9258 P MNM SURFACE RYDROM6Y f HYDRAUZ - 1 C>gLCUZAT/ON5 FOR - S19INT JOHNS 1 Job Name fNCINITAS CDU/VTY Of yA/V D /EC -r'J GAZ/f. Job Number: l2 582 Date. AUGUST /C /990 2 �►�� S vo a 25Y MW y?TAN 1 ,�E s 1 1 �-BZ I RV I HE 1 C, �2 r� 1 (714) 385 - 3546 i 1 R A T D Raton M -d"oL Ve+M� , 4.1 A 8-en, 1 - 1 VO') 1 - i - 1 _ �. r. M.-I �T r --� --� o Ln Qi act LAJ tf•7`n `� �� —��^, �. .tom 1� \ v N - c O ®� A !3 � C �-. tom?' ,'�" .. OJ v I �- ,�—• � / - M V� _ /? sr.} .V L A- Oct i' a ll ' 0 C4 cm c -� v C o ,�, C ` a.. o O it 11 F '.. - = z - z W /cn N 0 < Z � p c O p v } O � C z co O N 41 F LZ LL. V M o w o o d Op z Q O Lit -.J O V G LL. < C F < v m IL N Revised 1/85 APPENDIX XI -E i .t r} k3 jv w■ :� z s ` � 1 AS cm CD v cm CN 71 to .. - � �-- � to �• �� -.e � � � �' cc�`•' 16_ Cl per � i "� ,� � - -.'�• _ CO In r ' - � � � � _ i • \) v � � � -� �/ a J � � f � y _ SA �-- q Rs LU J 1 - O 11V• � p � v V 1 S a U z Cc. _t Q C < u LL Z Z M C4 � tt•1 U O u I- z< OC- O O uj —J U D LL r• W Z� N ' L W d N Revised 1/85 APPENDIX XI -H "Rt V i + ; j �iQ �- "` ai �` " • p N , . N nit a �i' .r 31. ✓` F �� Q - 9 T .S' r- f ull , O �- �.� .. _ O V M w3 i ce • w C3 CC d ' Cj p Q.. d ' 4a W tu 119 44 CU 4J t� d C .r 1 Q>f vaa>ci� a� ° O o •. N y � �r0 ij S_ O O O N� O" �I 4j C C- ly -O O i r r O oo = O O +J d 4J +� 4J d C O III Cm C a N r •r •r 4 F- C. 11= CJ 4) •tr- r .r V Q +2 +J L t.7 i �,r— S. i +1 N O i Cu Y n� C. ' ¢ a � go . a 3 c. CL 4J am N C d S_ �- O H C - a .0 to r. S_ C C 4- d U E C-r- C •.— S: +► S- t r # O+ li V l� •o O N Z 4 S- eo E R tp .0 U r •� V C d G! C 4J - N to QJ ' O -r O� O �+j 34J yr- 4J � 11 11 CU • '�' a .0 .0 O e- +- S-6-- C t U (U t0 ' U II U Li N F - IQ C +3 +-) 0-0 Cm V _ Cn 0- d iJ H CU i C O. Cr) tT t17 d o r- U ' 6 -Hour Precipitation (inches) r� o Ln o Ln o to o try o to o N • r� _ ---�- = -i-� - _ 1 - -- - - --- /�- - - _ � to Ln Lj Z 4-3 -1 �+ ii .I: •.Ii: - •.q I L]. 1A er a� s~ Ins ' 4J ' u If � _ r- O LE 41 Cd Cr OF y ' o 1 IT I LLIJ Pe r- N .snot Sa 7ll1. �(' tsua u - Revised 1/85 ( J�: 4 � �. } I APPENDIX XI -A 57T IL OF 2 5HT5 „ „ -- - - -- �o , STUDY NAME- ULCULA ?ION QF N = /A�1 �IC,1U� tYr -F ---------------------------==--------- < < Xl5T 5/TE CANDI T/ 5,,NS5 CALCULATED BY M /KE 5�'TAN� 1 CHECKED BY. , t "' � t - NU 1982 MBER - Bf — -1988 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SOFTWARE]--------- - - - - -- : ;CONCENTRATION; AREA (ACRES) :SOIL:DEV.1 Tt 1 Tc ; I : C : Q : 9 :PATH :SLOPE: V : HYDRAULICS ; ; 1 POINT NUMBER;SUBAREA: TOTAL :TYPE;TYPE :MIN.: MIN. :in /h; ;(SUB); TOTAL :(ft) :ft /ft :FPS.: AND N 1 1 ;- -- ---------- ;------- '- -- ---' ' ,__- -' , , , �t_____t -�. - - -- : 451.0160 .. :INITIAL SUBAREA ::. -- ' ' 110;.0036; .. ;INITIAL SUBAREA; r - ---- -, -- 37 FLOW , ,- - -, - , - - - -, - --- -; 125;.0091; 2.0t *gay 1.2cfs; - STREET; ; ; ; ; LOW TO PT. #; ; ; ; 1.2; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;DEPTH= .21 ft. 'FLOODWIDTH= 7.4; 1 ; ; ------------- 1 ------- ;------ ;---- ; - - - -; ;----- ;---- ;---- ;----- ;------ ; 901.0044: 1.3: *gay= 1.9rfs; ; ;lO.Oft- GUTTER; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; %FALL= ,02000; : 1. FLOW TO PT. #: ; ; ; ; 1.1: : :n =.0150 Dn= .2; ; t NI, i - l'1TL�tIERl - r '-------- - - - - -' - " - - - -' " " " - -' : - - - -- ;---- ;----- ;------ ; 3051.0040; 2.0; *gay= 5.3cfs: ; ; 32.ft- STREET; :: FLOC( TO PT. #; : ; 4; :DEPTH= 44 ft. : ; 2, x= 2 .4 1 ;FLOODWIDTH =15.5: ; 170 :.0040; .. ;INITIAL SUBAREA; : .7, -- -; 8.0; : : .9 : ---- : ----- ; ---- !STREAM SUMMARY : : 301 00' : - --- -,- , -,----,-----,----,----,-----,------:- -- - :----- :---- ;---------- - - - --, , , r r - -- -. -... -- - ------ - ------- - f - ---- °-- -�- - -_ -------- --- -- ----------------- --- - - - - - 1 , *DEVELOPMENT TYPES i Indust2=Cofnercial } 3- Multi- Units ' rial, SOIL TYPE: USER = SPECIFIED 4 f ; Mobile Hoee,54ingle , Fa®ilY,d =Rural Lots RUNOFF COEFFICIENT { : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5H T ? OF-Z! -614 T5 7U } i tt f tttt f# }} } }}}} } } # #fff# # f }# #ffffft#ffff#fffftttff #ftftff RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE 1985 1981 HYDROLOGY FLOOD M OL- D ISTRICT (c) Copyright 1982 -88 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. MA Release Date: 1/09189 Serial # 3472 Analysis prepared bys HCH PARTNERS SAN DIEGO, CALIFO R 2123-1667 TEL. :(619) 278 -5750 a DEaCR�P Tl( � �F�T( {D�.- #tt#fii # }fi#f #iffii}f #fff f CALCULATION OF N =100 YR.FREHUENCY FLOWS (D's) FOR EXIST. SITE CONDITIONS f f SAINT JOHNS ENCINITAS SAN DIEGO COUNTY CALIF. JOB #12382 08 -16 -90 f } PREPARED BY: HCH PARTNERS 4877 VIEWRIDGE AVE. SAN DIEGO CA92123 278 -5750 f i3### i ifi# i# ii### fi##f #ff # #f #iiffifff #f #fff #f #f ' FILE NAME: 12382.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 15:24 8/16/1990 USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ' ~ 85- SA"F- 891- MANUAL Y----------------------------- - - ---- -CRITEITI USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 IL 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIIEIINCH) = 3.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .95 -- SAN- MEGO-HYDROLG"ANUA ° -- ALUES -USE 110ii .PROCESS- FROM - NODE - 10000- TO-NODE -10 1.00 -IS. -CODE = -2 -- - - - - -- ------------ - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - -- . - -. __ _---- - - - - -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ) >>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« «< --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- _SOIirCLASSIFICATI.ON- IS_"_D_° MMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 45.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 66.37 - - - - - -- DOWNSTREAM — - ELEVATION ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = .72 - URBAN 'SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 1.642 TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 5-MINUTES --- - - - - -- - - -- -100_ YEAR RAINFALL- - MTENSI YiINCHIHOURJ -.. =- 6.587 ' SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .11 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .02 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) #{######{ f#### f#### t# f######## t######### t### t # # # #ffff##tfff #{ #{ #f #f # # # # #{ # ## -------------------------- ' - FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 200.00 TO NODE 201.00 IS CODE = 1 ------------- ----- --------- ---- ---- --------- -- -- ---- ------------------ __ » 1. ! } RATIONAL_ IJETNOD�NIIIAL_ SllBAREA�NALYSIS C< <CC------ -__ - -- - -- ' SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS 'D° COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 TNI TT - -__ - -- UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 66.00 - - "— -- - - -- DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 65.60 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = .40 --TIME nF F'Ok YES #CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 5.521 �H T OF L4- 94T5 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) .39 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .08 ;TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) fffff#}}}}}} f# ff# tf# fttfffffftfff# ftftfff# ff# #fffffff## #f#fffffffff # #ff}}ttf LON PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO MODE 202.00 IS CODE - =6 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- )))) )COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<< «< MTRW E L E VA T I O N = 6.0 ON A ELEVA = 6.9 STREET LENSTH(FEET) = 125.00 CURB HEIBTH(INCHES) = b. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 16.00 STREET CROSSFALL(BECINAL) = .0200 IF # #TRAVELTIME COMPUTED FFLOY - 1.16 STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .27 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 7.39 AVERAG FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.75 PRODUCT OFD TH &VELOCITY = .48 STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 1.19 TC(MIN) = 7.77 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS 'D' ' COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 37 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.56 SU MMED AREA(ACRES) _ .45 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.93 END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDR ULI ' DEPTH(FEET) = 31 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 9.20 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 2.00 DEPTHfVELOCITY .62 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 202.00 TO NODE 203.00 IS CODE = 9 _ ------------------------------------ - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- - - -- - -- >? ))COMPUTE 'V" GUTTER FLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA « {« - - - - - -- -- - -- - -- --___.___------- ----------------------------------------- UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 64.39 - - -- DOWNSTREAM_ NODE ELEVATION - -_, -- - 63.99 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU 5UBAREA(FEETJ = 94.00 --- �------ - " - - -- - - - -� °V° GUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 10.00 GUTTER HIKE(FEET) _ .080 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) = .010 MANNINGS N = .0150 _- .__ - -- __PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECI NO TATI O N) = .02000 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) _ .50 - -- - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9500 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.543 -_ - -_ *USER SFECIFIED(SUBAREA):_ -- -_ CCIMMERCIAI ➢EVELQPt1ENT RUNOFF GQEFFIGIENT = .95Q(� - - - - -- - -- - -- -------- _-------- - - - -__ TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET /SEC) = 1.33 AVERAGE FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = 16 FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 10.00 °V°- TTER_F.LOW TRAVEL- TIME(MIN) _= _ 1.13 TC(MIN) = 8.89__ SUBAREA AREA f ACRES) - . 00 SUBAREA Rl1NOFF (CFS) _ - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -_ _.__ SUMMED AREA(ACRES) .45 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.93 END OF SUBAREA `V' GUTTER HYDRAULICS: -_ - DEPTH (FEET) =- _ ,16 -.- FLOODWIDTH(FEET) 14.00 _ ' -- - -- - " - -- - - FLOW VELOCITY(FEEVSEC.) = 1.33 DEPTHfVELOCITY = __ ,2t FLDW PROCESS FROM NODE 2p3.00 TO�I ODE 204.00 IS CODE _ -- - -- _ ___ - - -- ------------ - - - - -- . -------------- ----------- ----------- ----- ------------- ---------- ------------ »)»COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< UPSTREAM ELEVATION 63.99 DOWFSTRFAM ELEVATION = 62.18 - -- -- - - - - -- - --"- STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 305.00 CURB HEIGTH(INCHES) = 6. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 16.00 STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .0200 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = I_ ffT 49ELTIME CBMPU - Tt USINS MEAN FLOW (CF - (S) = - - -- STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .44 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 15.55 AVER _F LOW VEL OCITY(FE ET /SEC.) = 2.07 PRODUCT OF DEPTHWEL'OC1TY = .91 ----- "- - - - - -- STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 2.45 TC(MIN) = 11.34 SHT-1-4 4F 5HT5 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.883 :COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ 2.03 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.70 SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 2.48 TOTAL'RUNOFF(CFS) - 8.64 DEPTH(FEET) _ .45 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 16.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.97 DEPTH *VELOCITY = .88 f* f# f ffffff fftffffffffffffffffftffffffffffffffffffffffff #fffff # } ffffff FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE .300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 2 ------------------------------------------- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS D COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8500 INITIAL SU UPSTREAM ELEVATION = DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION 65.32 . ELEVATION DIFFERENCE 2 .68 URBAN SUBAREA UVERLAND TIME OF F'' 11 li 11 c' ll li l! 1; *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.872 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) .22 . TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .91 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS 5HT 15 OF SHTS - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - + -+ 1 t STUDY N ION OFN = Knf Q ►1 TY , -- - --- --- - -- /K- - - - -_ 5�. CALCULATED BY: ,v/ E 5ZT,#N; 1 1 100.0 -YEAR STORM RATIONAL METHOD STUDY PAGE NUMBER UMBER : QF 1 ; ! ------------------ - - -1(c) 1982 -1988 ADVANCED ENGINEERING SOFTWARE] ------- ----------------- - ---- ; 1 ;CONCENTRATION! AREA (ACRES) !SOILlDEV.1 Tt 1 Tc 1 I ; C 1 g 1 9 ;PATHISLOP HYDRAULICS ; ' , 1 1 11 i 1 , 1• " , , 1 ' ft'F -! AN D NOTES -- e , ' ]01.40; ' .11 .11 D ; 5 ; ---- ; 11.513.861.550i 2' 2' - - - -' ' ' 1j YTTTAi ' SIIRA�EA 201.00; .11 .1; D '! 5 --; 9.2;4.45!.550; .Z! 30-ft-STREET,' Z;--- 1----- ;---- 1---------- -- - - -; ' r 7ll l ------ '° Z90 0050' 1.7; fgav= L Qcfs; ! , 1 1 , 1 1 !DEPTH= .28 ft. 1 ; 1 F► OY T[! PI-1 ! ; ; 3 5i ; L ' ! ' - - ' 'FLOODWIDTH _J fi; ; 202.00; L , .71 .8; D ; 5 ; - - - -; 12.1!3.60;.554; 1,5; T -- ,- 1 ,- -- - - - - -,- 1 1---- 1 - - - -- - -- " ` ! _ � ;_,._�.IHIIIAL_SUAAREA;� - -- 301.00! .01 .0; D ; 5 1 - - - -1 9.914.25!.550; .21 . 2 ;---- ; -- - - ---- ----- ; - - - -;- - - - - - -' ' " 1 ------------- ;------- 1------ ;---- 1 - - - -; ;----- ; --- -1 --- 1----- 1 --- -- 1501.0089; 1.91 *gay= 1 , , " , , 1 , !DEPTH= ft. 1 .lcfs; ; ! 32.ft- STREET; ; ' 11LOW.JO -PT. # 1_ _ L ! ! t , , 2 ! ; ! 302.00; .5; 1 _ -- - 1 ' 11.413.88;.550; -' -1 FLOODWIDTH:�.b1. 1 _ ' '---- ' - - - - -' - - ; ;------------- 1--- - - - -'- - -- 61 D 1 5 ---- '- - - 85 ;.0039; 1.21 {gay= 1.3cfs! ; 1 1 - - - 1 1 1 ;14.Oft- GUTTER! ; XFALL= .020001 1 - a.n =,4150_Dn =_._.1 -; 1 - -- 303.00! 0! 1 i - .6, D 5 , - - - - ; 12.5 13.64 1.554; ---- "----- ; -�- ;- 1 / z2.ft- STREET' 1 3051.00421 1.71 *gay= 2.lcfs1 1 � 1 1 1 , i , 1 !DEPTH= . 35 ft. ; ; L_L-FLOW_TO 304.001 1.0! 1.61 D ; ` 1 - - - -! " C1 ------ - - - - - _ _ � I5.7,�,.1,,1.5�t11 ].81 3. 41---- ; ---------- ----- ;---- ;- - - - -; 1 1 1 ' i i - - -i 1 1 - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -- 1 ! 1 I 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 _- L_IL01.OL42;- .,__'INITIAL SUBAREA ;- _; ! 1 401.00! .2! - .21 fl ! 5 ; - - - -1 11.5!3.851.5501 .41 '---- ' - - - - -' - ' - - - -' - - - -' - - -i i 1 .4 "---- ;---------- - - - - -! ; 401.001 ! .2� - - - -' 11.5; ; ! 1 .41 ---- 1 ---- -; ---- !STREAM SUMMARY 1 ; - ; ;- , -- ------ - - - - -' - -_ 1 _ ---- l---- L- - - - -'- - - -- ;- ; -- ; -; ; - ; ;------------ - - - - -- ------------------------------------- - - - - -- --- - _ - -- - - - -- 1 *DEVELOPMENT TYPES: 1 = Industrial,2= Coeeercial Multi- Units, SOIL TYPE: USER = SPECIFIED f 1 f 4= Mobile Hose,, Single Fasily,6 =Rural Lots RUNOFF COEFFICIENT f 1 + -+------------------ --- ----- - - - - -- c-------------------------- 514T 16 OF 24 5H T5 1 t#f# #ffft #fi #it }tffft#t }i}} }}}} }}}f fff# ftfft # # }# ##t##f # #fftftftttft ##t #f RATIONAL METHOD HYDRDLOSY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE References SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOG ONTROL DISIRICT 085 1981 .(c) Co 9 pyright 1982 -86 Advanced Engineerin SoftMare taes) Ver. 4.1A Release Date: 1/09189 Serial t 3472 M al ysis prepare y HCH PARTNERS 4877 VIEWRIDGE AVE. CA TEL: :(61 278 -5750 - 6 f #fffffffffff #t #t { } } #tfft DESCRIPTION OF STUDY # # ti #tit ##fttt }t }tt } } }i} ' # AL1rUL�TIOIF D = f SAINT JOHNS, ENCINITAS SAN DIEGO S COUNTY CALIF. JOB 82 -Ib -90 t # PREPARED BY: HCH,PAR5iRS 4877 VIEWRIDGE AVE. SAN DIEGO CA92123 278 -5750 # fffttfft# ftit tftfi tftffftff ftffttfff# } titift#tt #tt # # #ftffftfffffifft# ' FILE NAME: 12382IM.DAT TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 16: 2 8/16/1990 --------------------- - - - - -- -------- --- - -- ------------------------------ 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6 -HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.500 -- - -- SPECIFIED - MINIMUM FiPE 5IIE(INCH) - = - 00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF 6RADIENTS(DECIMAL) . TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .95 — SA DIE60 HYDROL06Y MANUAL 'C'- VALUES USED .#} ff# f}{{#{{}{} fi tffff{{}{} ff# fftiii#i fftffi ffffffftftf #ff { #fff #ff #ffff }ff ## FLOW PROCESS FROM NO 100.00 TO NODE 101. IS C ODE = 2 -------------------------------------- - - - - -- =-- - -- - - - -- — - - - -- — -------------- - - - - -- -- >) > >>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« «< -------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS 'D' SINGLE FAMILYiDEVELOPMENT - RUNOFF - COEFFICIENT _ :3500 - - - - -- -- INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 150.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 68.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 66.50 -- URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 11.453 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.859 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 23 ' TOTAL AREA (ACRES) - - 11 - TOTAL RUNOFF (CFS) = - _ _ _ _ .23 - - - i}{{{{{ ff} ffffffti ffi ffff}}{{} fft# f}{ ft# fffffff #ffffiif #ftfifiifif #f # #if # #i# ' - _FLOW PR0CESS FROM - NODE - -- 200:00 70 NODE ZOT:00 _IS CODE _ - - 2 - - -- - - -- _ _--- .----------- - - - - -- - -- - -------------------------------------------- )) >)> RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« <<< ---------- -------------- --- ----------------------------- ------ = --------- == — - - - - -- aOIt- Ci:ASSIFTCATTON- IS -'D'- _ _----- .----------------- - - - - -- ______ ' SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 — INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 125.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 68.70 " DONNSTREAM ECEVATIO = - -- - -— ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.77 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 9.197 _ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.446 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .24 5H T 17� of 24 5HT5 - volemm 21 fill 11111vit"ift... �!!lfttt*tltt!*ttftttt#tittt FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 201.00 TO NODE 202.00 IS CODE = 6 ------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- - » » >COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA «(« -------- --------------=--------------------- - - - - -- ----- - -- UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 65.93 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 64.48 STREET LEN6TH(FEET) - 290.00 CURB HEIGTH(INCHES) 2 6. STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 15.00 STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .0200 --- iPEURED NUMBER OF N Eu "TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING NEW FLOW _ 1.00 STREET FLONDEPTH(FEET) _ .28 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 7.83 IF f FLOW - VEEeHffiFEEffSf F PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 39 STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 3.55 TC(MIN) = 12.75 AM nAI NF:ALt: __ f#Tfffij , SOIL' CLASSIFICATION IS 'D` SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 SUBAREA AREAtACRES) _ .74 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) - 1.41 ' END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 32 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 9.52 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.67 DEPTH #VELOCITY = .53 ' tf# ttfftff# f# f### tf# tf## tffi# f# t# ft# ftffftfftff #fftftf #f#ftttftftt#t #tiff #ff FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 300.00 TO NODE 301.00 IS CODE = 2 >> » )RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS <<<<< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS `D' - - -- -- SINGLE - FAMILY - DEVEL RUNOFF EOEFFiC- TENT -= :5500 - --------------- - INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENOTH(FEET) = 125.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 67.71 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 65.7 EL - HFFfRENCE = ---1-. q URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 9.876 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 4.246 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .19 - DOTAL AREAfACRES ) = --- rE►B iOTA�UNOFF(EFSI = X 14 _ -- --- __ - - - -- FLOW - PROCESS FROM NODE -- 301 00 - Tff -- NODE 303:U0 - iS -CODE- = - 6 - - -- - - - - - - -- -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- >> » >COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA <((<( - - - - -- - UPSTREA"LEVATION - = -- 65:33 DOWNSTREAM - fL-EVATION = - 64.34 - - _ ____--------------------- - - -. -- STREET LENGTH (FEET) = 150.00 CURB HEIGTH(INCHES) = 6, STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 16.00 STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .0200 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 - - -- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - - -- tfTRAVELiiME COMPUTED USING - MEAN - FL - OW(CFS) _ -- , 72 - - - STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .24 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 5.58 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.6 - - - - - -- - PRODUCT OF - DEFTH&VELOENY- STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 1.48 TC(MIN) = 11.36 - 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.880 ---- SOit CtASSif iEAi -- - -_ - -- ' SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.07 SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 58 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1 .25 - MD -- SUBAREA- ETR W EETFL - HYDRAUM. DEPTH(FEET) = 27 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 7.39 i FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.89 DEPTH #VELOCITY = .51 ff###} ff # #ftf #ffftf #f #t t }} } ff #fftftfff# Eft## f #f #fff # # # #f ## } # #ff #} #f#f ## # #f #f FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 302.00 TO NODE 303.00 19 CODE = 9 5" T _JB_ 5p T9 ---------------------------------------------------- ca..... ass ssss_sss_s ____ :s___sssss_sssss sssss sssssa _ : °__ -_ = s- s= ssa -_. �_ UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 64.34 DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION 64.06 - 'V' BUTTER WIDTH(FEET) = 10.00 BUTTER HIKE(FEET) _ .080 PAVEMENT LIP(FEET) _ .010 MANNINBS N - .0150 PAVEMENT CROSSFALL(DECINAL NOTATION) _ .02000 100 YEAR RAINFIL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 3.634 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS 'D' SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 AVERAGE FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = 13 FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 10.00 'V' GUTTER FLOW TRAVEL TIME(MIN) = 1.14 TC(MIN) = 12.55 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CF_S) = .00 ' T'Hik RUNOFF(CFS) END OF SUBAREA 'Y' GUTTER HYDRAULICSt , DEPTH(FEET) = .13 FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 10.00 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) z 1.20 DEPTH #VELOCITY = .16 ' {}}}{ f# fffffff# ff#{ f### f# f# f# ff## f# ff# ff{{{{{ fff #fffff #ffff#ff ##fffff # # #ff ## FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 303.00 TO NODE 304.00 IS CODE = 6 ))) »COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA« «< ' UPSTREAM ELEVATION - 64.06 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = == = 6 2.78 -STREET - LENSTWFEET+ = 3 "��., - FO - - C URB- HE%TH(INCHES - =-6 -- - STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 16.00 STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .0200 SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1 } #TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 2.13 - ---- STREET FLOWDEP4ff4FEEI}- =- 35---- -.. - -- - - - - - -- - ----- - - - - -- -- HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 11.02 -- -- -- AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET /SEC.) = 1.60 PRODUCT OF DEPTHtVELOCITY = .55 - STREETFL&- TRAVE"E(q = ;;1 $ - TC - = -- 45:72 - -- - -- ------- - - -._. __ 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCHIHOUR) = 3.146 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS 'D' SINGLE FAKIL"EVR OPMENT RUNOFF COEFFIL--IENT - =- .5500----- - - - - -- _ - -- - __.___-- - - - - -- SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.02 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.76 - -_ SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 1.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.02 ENO OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS: -- - - DEPTH(FEET) B HAtf5TRffT FLflOOWif►TH(FEET)- -}2,83 - -- - -- .-------- _--- - - - - -- _ FLOW VELOCITY(FEETJSEC.) = 1.71 DEPTH }VELOCITY = .66 IF - - LOW PROCESS FROM NODE 400.00 TO NODE 401.00 IS CODE = 2 ---------------------------------------------------- > > >RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS((«< SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS - D' SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 160.00 -- - - - -- UPSTREAM fLEVAIt33N =- - -{r7: 59 -- - - - -- - - - -- -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - -.. - -- -- . ' DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 65.32 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.27 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 11.517 - .- 100- YERR- RATNFAEE -f# TENSI T' ftI NCHfH ()UR) - =- 3845----------- - - - - -- ------------ - - - - - -- ' SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .36 -- TOTAL AREA(ACRES) - = - - -- .17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .36 - END -OF- RATIONAL- METHOB-ANALyH.S ANT 1 Of 2¢ 5HT5 LAND PLANNNG 4877 Vlewrfdge Avenue - ARCHITECTURE Son Diego. CA 92123 -1667 = ENGINEERING (619) 278 - 5750 HCH SIXtVEYING FAX (619) 278 -9258 PAMERS SIfFgC.E HYPROLLY Y f HYDRAUZ/C GR G A T/ - S L UL ON5 fOQ DINT JOfI/VS Job Name f_ ICINI TA5 COUNTY Of 5 Ai1/ D /ECG, GALIf. Job Number: /2 382 COMPAR/50N OF EXIST, Date: AUGUST /G 19 -90 ' 5Y MIKE 5? TAN QiOa alp = OL GFS wt��k +-L 4 V / et a. Ave, fl D A = 2 4 ' $ ± A c) w-4� 1ytGtd 2- `f 0 0�.�. (A "�- A Kok, Poi. -t Zoo - uz 6,tj f 0,j.,Q,, CFS 6? GpS I I 6RT 2'0 OF_.?- 5HT.5 ' LAND PLANNING 4877 Viewddge Avenue - ARCHUC1URE Son Diego, CA 92123.1667 = ENGWEERING (619) 278 -5750 SURVEYING FAX (619) 278 -9258 HCH MERS 509596E HYDROLGYY f HYDRAULIC ' CALGULA TIOA15 FOR ; sfllNT J01/N5 Job Name fNCINI TAS COUNTY OF yA/�/ D /E� GALIf. Job Number: l2 382 Date: A06U5T 16 1990 b �a�( -+ti '' 6 ► 5r MIKE 5Z TAN 1 VA, A s -S �. ��c.,�� -� . c�- e- w,-. -� � �G /fly •�� 1 1 159T 21 OF 2 5HT.5 1 LAND PIANNNG 4877 Viewrklpe Avenue = ARCMECTURE Son Dfep . CA 921231667 = ENGINEERING (619) 278 -5750 SIXNEMNG FAX (619) 278 -9258 HCH P M SURFACE HYDROLGYY 41 HYDRAU 1 zj CALCUL A TION5 FX : SRINT J01IN5 Job Name ENGIN/ TA5 COUNTY Of yAN D /EC-� GALIf. Job Number: 12H2 1 Date AU6UyT /� /990 GALCULAT /OIY Of //I/LZ"T �Lo1T/ /rVTO 8r MIKE Sz�TAN 1 TYP. Co ''�4 PSG- YARD ORA /N a -� A I jl- _ � ¢3 1 0 03 q I N ) 00b� 50p -b 1 . J I - 03 Lb 1 o - 2 �3 �] i 4 1 " T _ 3 X ¢„ A:C.GF 71114 LAY 'OUT 1 59 OF -5Hr5 _ itffttttftt# ff# ff# ftff# ffft## fffff# ftff## fftf f##ft # #ffttff##ftt if* ftf # #ttttf Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 1985 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL Me (c) Copyright 1982 -9 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) er IT lease a, a era Analysis prepared by: PARINERS 4877 VIEWRIDGE AVE. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 -1667 TEL. :(619) 278 -5750 ' fffffftffffffffifffffffif* DESCRIPTION OF STUDY tff #ff #fffttftftff #tffffff f CALCULATION OF N =100 YR FLOW (0`s) INTO GRATE INLET OF TYP YARD DRAIN # , f SAINT JOHNS, ENCINITAS SAN DIEGO COUNTY CALIF JOB #12382 08 -16 -90 # 1 ffffffffffffftffffffff tfftffffffffftffffftffffftffffffffffffffftffffffffff FILE NAME: 12382YD.DAT USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 - b - HOUR - DURAT - ION - PRECiPiTAfiiflN tINCHE�) - = — 7:� ------ ._.- _- - - - - -- -- SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00 S PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FO FR ICTION SLOPE _ .95 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL 'C'- VALUES USED --- fffffffftfftfffffff ffFffftfFffti ifffifffffftftfftff #f4ff _._- _-- .- _--- ------- - - -- -- - - U FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 500.00 TO NODE 501.00 IS CODE = 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- )))))RATIONAL METH INI TIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<< «< --- --- SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS 'D' SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW- LENGTH(FEET) = 3 0.00 ------ UPSTREAM - ELEYATiON------ OO.-6 = - - -- _-- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 100.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE _ .60 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4.462 - - -- - - -- TIME - -OF- CONCENTRAT ION- ASSUK- D -AS-5- MINUTES- - - - - - -- 1 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH /HOUR) = 6.587 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 11 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .03 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) - --------------------------------- - 1 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS 1 APT 23 OF-M- 5HT5 PLANNNG 4877 Viewridge Avenue ARCHITECTURE Son Diego, CA 92123 -1667 ENGINEERING (619) 278.5750 1 SURVEYING FAX (619) 278 -9258 PAMERS SORFACE KPROLX )" e HYOR&W 1 CRLCOLATION5 FX - SKINT -101W5 Job Name: fNCINI TA5 COUNTY OF yWAI PIL'rO, CALIF. Job Number: 12362 1 Date A06-115T 161 GRATE INLET 51 &N6 Fog G "PYYG 8 M,l,�t 5?TAN 1 L_4NI25CRFE PgAI V 1 ® ro r 4-a r- - CARY PAL 3 H 3 /2 3 ( - l/ D 1 I Q = d Z4 C'�s�� -T D b x Pic (JI% 3 i Gas A, VA/7 E s11-Z I si, T 96 5 H T 24 OF 5HT5 tf #f #ft #tfff #ffff #ff# fff# ff# ff## f# tfffff# fffff #f } }}} } } } }ttfff #ftttff ##tftf #f HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I MORAN PACKAGE (C) Copyright 1982-89 Advanced En Software (aes) ase —Date 9L19Z8L5eu�i f zaoo Analysis prepared by: 4877 VIENRIDGE AVENUE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 (619) 278 -5750 ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ TIME /DATE OF STUDY: 19:24 8/16/1990 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY - f SIZING PRIVATE D =4' PVC PIPE FOR BACKYARD OF TYPICAL LOT # f PREPARED BY:HCH PARTNE S 4877 VVIEWR AVE SAN DIEGO CCA92123 27-5750 6 # ##### tf# ft # # #f#tf # t #f # # # # # #f #f # ## # #f # #f# fff # # # #f # # #fffffffff #fffff # #f # #f ## f fffffff } f} f} ffff f � ffssf � fffs � f faff f f}fff}}ffff#f. fff #f.fff}ff} #f�}fff}ff}__ -- _ » ))PIPEFLON HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATIONCC « n' P> LE G --------------- -- -- ---------------------------- ------------ PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = .330 LONDEPIHIFEEU— __._..330 PIPEFLOW(CFS) = .33 - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .011000 — _ — )) »> SOFFIT -FLOW PIPE SLOPE(FEET /FEET) _ .0227 = S� # #f{f #f# # #ff # # # # { # # # } # fff #f# fff # # #f #f # #ffffff #ffff #fff # }f #fffffffffff # # #ff# ��, -- ---------- _ » >)PIPEFLON -. HYDRAULIC- INPUT_.INFORMATIONCCC<...__ TYPIGAL L 'Gn PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = .330 FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = 330 _PIPEFLOW(CFS)- _ - - -- - ____, MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .011000 ) »»SOFFIT -FLOW PIPE SLOPE(FEET /FEET) _ .0101 fffff #ffff #f #ffffff #ff #ff { { { { {ff #fff # #ffffffff # #ff #f #ffffff# f #f #ff# #fff # #ff ) - - -- FLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION «< : T lPl Cj9L LEG .1) PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = 330 FLOWDEPTH(FEET) .330 PIPEFLOW(CFS) _ it -- — -- _ _ _ MANNINGS FRICTION - FACTOR— -- .D11000 -- - -- -- _- -- - - - -- >)> »SOFFIT -FLOW PIPE SLOPEIFEET /FEET) _ OTE N s� -- - - -- D =�" P Pvc L+1 ---- -- - - - -- 1' i ,r�#�{ t i` ,}'+p. i +y1' r 'q 3� � �',,('��1?�„ t�� j i l�•9�iQ y .� ri +,. ! • {+ir- § � `�7' . � 2� t.x,r°a.,, i ,�,((,, F•1Y�i, •RJ�,ts�'. ,# r r �`r "-�+ '�*t�3a: s � T + ` � � � r S h � ��' k � • 01' •' • J • ,}fir. r t �r �•6 r� j +Jz / �" rir�liµ, •. •�•��1� 1 • I � • `�• �A: • , , t t y ��', � ��* '� {� � R . 181 '.•� 81 It /• •,M 1 � - . + ..: J y tt: ON i a \ �,, t t" � F t r p r . s1�11i ♦ l 1l' � ri ��`+� t 1 '� i,' �" ; n�`Ix . / �r *� ` �R t:;�t�,r ";! �',t �+rrt fi }r; �',� + r j��.E1 ^ '-v °' j �' / jy.�� ar��}•r'r�' "'' �'� �� '!: �� 1�`.' -� �5.,� "i�� lx�F.+,,tatry%1'(7(� :) ;F.#`bt � :t;• }a t �!��S i} �G " f1�.. � 1,,��4�: ��! o x I l. �, 3. t �{ e1�y - ii Jtsyr<�J �i / ! , r�'f�L], it �.'��•J, c4il,',`��fJfy!,�' A �' u i t f lY y �,:� +�.i a L�fl, ;l �;�, .'l, V . r rt i } i .•.,+t 1 ,' l I i y - >�i t! r ! U� �� "i`"y+ i r' .} d ��,: y i •° � ! � ,ff'' {� [ r� y J j��(�^1 ,a h 1 , 1 t a � �y r � ` �j I r'7 •e. r. if�T, X: ' i t . ` 't �� - •/ t:dR� ',�,s - - jiL 1 . .r".+'•,'� { � (, }, ',�: " -.h, ,ff]' ''\7"' - t •f "i� . s 1{ ' r d 1 `r ` 1 f ` > S ��t �, ,•'� ►� t F• F YIA �� Y �F�, 4 ..L t i`► �, `( {� _ } ]t \� �'• 7 r ��7k� •�� "r. 1 �, r ,fy�}�,. ( t,!�� ` r *:� � `, '�f� - f��t � r i.,1'� ��1, �; !'� 1 ( /�T. � h . j t j �/ i y�k� .! i ` .'�:� + . ' {f� \� � �i p �!; �` �" # / r, �,� 3� Y j \ rr '; - � t ! } �','� � a� "ht�' t{ + �h,! yy a1 �Mfj� y { �1 '� � 7 A ; -P ' T, •t f 1 � / 1 � !. 1 ,.�R ► d , � ' 4 r Yr .3t A ; ? f 1, �'� ('.✓ i „,�✓ r{ .,1� +` }� i � Il . ,- { v ; �`!r•� t ,�', , (,.., �" , Y� ( t y: r �1,'t' �y t i r `r { •c�t� ('© �'% t' ri'. � � {;') i • ? �i ��f ;l '�9 � a.,,(►��l �f�1: : ,,.` ! �, a x �` '� '" v� , �I ' '.! + 1 �i �. � `'" �i . ,�. ,. f J T #I rf � � l 1 7 {:` (. �' �1 _ 't, �` �•'- Y� iL p, � �;e r ! ,✓ t ?•p{ i ( ��s ... '!( � � '�. � - �� ., r� ' �. � ,.;. ssr ;,,,� �•...'`� � �! %; tr' �� r I :•! � 91. ,` �'�{ ','" I. {Y:TI' �. + ` ♦ ��Ll�` + ��,:�fi ; s�"�` .r�4� a}. �',d � ��, �,�s t ` �y ",�y 1,` {.'1 �:r..yi R �': } T ? �� j "(, J.' t' x d s,F � � � �4�a';'R' �� ( ` L :+i t 'r .1 / =.r:�' -�.. ' F `�....� 3.i •.. . ) i +.1. +�1.r s �'f rrR,' 4 y'� - :tiT ?�`o; -ril ra�;�,l� +. J� 6j �r 3�� +. 1)' - .s �R.�:f r ' r.y _( x ✓•� 'r .7 I 4�. �Y, . S v. f� !{•Y.`: ♦��, f t 7 ',�'� +y ! X : G t a - Y's ;�.`�ar s y . tY �� j Y )�.�. • r it � �..':j �. y; j..;1l��(yj��Y- Y., ' -� / .� 1',' } � r Y r;'t, �� >��. Y-. �, �27 ,:r� C {F .f� c' • '�rF � '='r \ •. J'i rMMMMMM, 1'* � ?,,* �a'•a 1 • ��''r t Yx r;?+r.S i 1 ��,�"t S � , t � ,�;� °�}; �'rl�t',r� is >� '+:� •��>��,»7 (' .r. ��,�,^;�$ °: � : i; � ,rK��ti k..�:i�� b e e b S G '�1� ti s ,Y+ t o r:r r, :� • 7 r d( ir'- { `S� 7 ( 4!1 �',it f t �r,ss s�: ;i�r k� :.a'�t. .;y? }f, y ��4�� .I, } :l r/t ,�1 `�/. , 1�. q'�`F'4., "l+�' yy - ',s� 'i,�J 1��'�l'A�Sr ..i f �.,. � - S i'.•.} '�� N � 4q �� 1 >'? ; .1 � 1 ,. , �� S'd i,if�• '. :�. ,:,R ,$: ; r ,. i� ,� , ( 1, (;; ,.., f�. f�lt`,r�; lt• �!, + ., , r }�1'/ ,: `;,�,�r t ' f' v 74 ,, "3Y. 1 r ; r + -\. , r �Is ', L , L �':..� t• ".. `t } "r (t�l Nti •:(� r,� .3'. r� : }! a tl �..:1 , � ♦ . ` { � �, ��''� }a�f �.� l� } 1� �: � I r i � � �.�/k '� � d.lr � +a � �V:. . {}� .. t J .fat f Cvk. t 1; , / ?r 1: �� :i_ 1 F� ` ':� � � t i ,� ti - t 1 , ..l�rw� - t %'�5 1P41�i : �6�.��I: "P � •g •! {h 1 ' "' � 1 a�� '�i ` T. • ` � t �+ ,1r 5 # aS � < E { ta: iC J � ? •,`�! v � : .' ii }` � = r, f t, 2 r ��•• �, 1 ! a, r c S ! i t r Y'« la ,t • {��[ + c y_�. di. iL',��/,;�< e s�.�µw�.4ra�'' '�1�,+,roa�,�,,.: y , t , t c d t ' t_ l ; adJ / �` 7, `r -�'� �y k W . y$'{r�'r!4�P rrj ., r + !� � �_{}> �/' +, �t} iz:r . £ 1rs.'i j ``r� \7�� :� w ' � �S ` tl ` � . ".I P � c }ai ✓'r,J'.Y �!�S�dfiPh;} '•".rS, ' ` t +t..�- F °t Y - .'.e tQ r � r � µ ., � �t.��''�� ' / ��1,• T " 'f -! ��: :�" }' i1' + ?y '.. " i ,�� 1i�� a!,� S r t ��1 t - :y'r�'. i +�,��, r I at,,.•:� Yt } �L 1 �`i `�ed 8 •r-r ,Y.. k • 1;� 'af }. Y �,,. ..t 1 1 t L � t /° ' §. 4 �,'t. Y r y C.�✓ >;°�' , ,,;i: � r r' . �_° 1.v t+ . � <•lr , -:' r �,. %:'i 1j- ��rtf, , t I � ``• �i 4 e..` sl ` i }�� "'2' � <.t� � +# � i! „,,err f 'rr i!li... Lrl,r. !•S.. ., rem y ��[} 'S7 !r ' +.� � r i,��':;,/Y t, �� e r,rr t ( a `i y�4i r , 1t .J � � ��t A M f� � Jt � � '! i - !� f r��r' 4r ','�•! � I, (..; i. �'• ti 'li. f1 ,: � / -.Y ;!u;. f t � � � `r t �`, g r � r e .. }+ !�'�,�/ !�� ii 'tf. �t t; li` {' Y a �. �:• ,., � ,r. �, t / r `� � �.4 r t e J � r' ` ,rY. ,,1� �1 •4 �lf �a A' >; r d t k >wy 4 r t lrt y , :..cll j. � • �' r, K� r <1 �: -r ff .a ' t J !', .rr � kY ' S � :.. f � C ,� �, 4 `• 1 7' ,1'" ��f '� e� � + x i( -Y. It�"�+��}�v ,. �� , , �'. y f � f •e t ! , + /�f4 t + t f: � /�h Ie ,/' /` r L � Mme" • �r` y �t 1 `+. � ��, .L�rt1 - S �� -fi Sf ( dL a r �f :SL f(r t�d`ty� 1 1 ,_��'. :'i � r• � r� 1 �`1 i ', }'I. �t � ':} y� � d t! �� ,1 g,. � R .,� V,,,, k ,� ; � }� T , d ,: - I �'.. ��l � -. !1 }'�� At: A j!,, 1 � F l 'J !•• Trr •t: q 4fd`'r�$ '� !. ��t`.�. y r.' r }� t 'r d xYS. d, (Ir;� � t r p S � >r �.. } t g[ �j t ,' t �f •, r: ". _ S" ' i ` l � c:. f k u Y i „ r r 1- } f ; �}'i1" ( J _ � � } ' li'.' X, ��' Y r Jj ,� ''�.s, • tR .% �t r1 •1 . 4`pi rZ p ,� 1 [" y{ pia $ , P. t/ , .j 1• e �f :1�I �. �.i,' �j t:t ,1 t`P� . h ? '4� ; P t i� t i . , 'i r r d} �(111' ;'�a � kt i t t l m y I R.iyr A ,'_ 1 �,td � �i t INY f " $! w .+ ! , V • r t i t •` , s 4 F d „L ,, f r '!i YGi.�• t'. e .•,.t 1 d, 't a }' r.tYrr ,g>'• 101) ! ..rr,: j � .d S t r: ��,i s , } z•. a r s;., t p�,:r 1 1 V Y t,� ,t t't -,.'/ t 1 r ! � • t r o . � {ttl t r �' 1� "At '�t` �/, { }a �'' ,_,� k,. ;' ♦/r '� ti-r�,¢j�,� ,.f d'R s ! ti',' `' � .��° � r,r.. 1f1..,15, {�f - , i. e +',` t ` r(i, �..' t � , +.•tr!•�'it� g.i� +-�11 J� �s5r� ''1 �•rS; �� t��,r S f4;� ,r'`f� f r � -( J F r ,•r•t(ifi ^'`� 1, f r ;� y ' ' r 15 ' ! S� k.rt {v' �`� � l� ; }r,. t}r t � itft. +< {! a7 I, r ftY `t r ,��V♦ a i_r � ✓ e:t r r � )) ,)s !, tt �� r a X1 4+. i� ' / v ; ' t '�ii, �� +•�V� a ., - { �f i.;� �t .•f } / f tr - . ', .J { }' r h�i+f ,1.'� ly�r�iy' I1 ylr , P }`'� t , , 1 r „•�� ,rr'': : �t t. t ��`2�J "x } 1 'r� -' �.� S( +!. u+s"" ^^r +s' �:. ,+ i 't; r i' t r• .., .. tar '`I r � 'i {',. � � I�t}t � '51. . �i f (t ..,:'�� '� �an F+ - t'�; t f d''•, tit' s,tr:i r�,, /. ! f / �. ,. 4t�. �S.j') ►y s � K 1 ,, :51 Mi rtla� !r.' r.�i � ty. i + �'. t' r ,. T , .IS , 1 � ,i`I �, }1 ��t^ •':.i ��'1r j}- jyT,� .:�s � �' :Sz1 !�I,t "�� {, :��k!� • •� (� ti��r r } : (1i, A r , , �q , c ^.?t,yrr.��. r �.! y, °` l iir% �tl d �,• ( f/}� � ! , * 1'� < `L :� i 1'r'r .e': ( t.i e , •, 1 t.: i ..e t � 1 - �. r •�.. r � r ., , t r. )�i Y '' 1 � �! i �. k c 1� i it a .!'f N'.;f bf ,d Y tc• " . r' , 4 +' b 7 r.'y j'0 � �Yx X , i:.yld c + A t ° t � � � �� R s�r, �• 2f.�� #, 1, t 1{� ., k1 �{ �'1 i r t .l t�h ,'t �' „' �t;• i' ..h.� (:' ��•1 r��P k tb{j� y r * t REPOW OF GJO►PDOMCAL IlVVES1ZC;oMCIN PROPOSED SA= JCHNS 22 IIlTS MELRQ6E AVENUE ACID ETA STREET ENC—INITAS, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: Pacific Scene, Inc. 3900 Harney Street San Diego, California 92110 PREPARED BY: Southern California Soil & fisting , inc. Post Office Box 20627 6280 Riverdale Street San Diego, California 92120 1 S O U T H E R N 4-S M r C A L I F O R N I A SOIL A N D T E S T I N G , I N C. 6280 RIVERDALE ST. SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120 TELE 280 -4321 P.O. BOX 20627 SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120 6 7 8 E N T E R P R I S E S T. E S C D N D 1 D 0, C A L • T E L E 7 4 6 4 5 4 4 November 2, 1989 Pacific Scene, Inc. SCS &T 8921158 3900 Harney Street Report No. 1 San Diego, California 92110 SUBJECT: Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Saint Johns 22 Lots, Melrose Avenue and Marcheta Street, Encinitas, California Dear Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the subject project. We are presenting herewith our findings and recommendations. In general, we found the site suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations presented in the attached report are followed. If you have any questions after reviewing the findings and recommendations contained in the attached report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL &TESTING, INC. Charles H. Christian, R.G.E. #00215 Curtis R. Burdett, C.E.G. #1090 CHC:CRB:KAR:lc oQPOFESS1pNq FtED GEO ` � cc: (4) Submitted ��Q� PQ �,�s h. c»q� Fy�i �5�S R 8gRo Oc (2) HCH Partners c"' No.GE000215 m (1) SCS &T, Escondido a Exp. 9 -30 -93 70 O. C DIED ENGINEERING Q c!+) Or CNN �� '9 GEOLOGIST Z 6 -30.90 9TF OF CAQ1 Fo C A \-,�O S U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A S 1 L A N D T E S T I N G, I N C. TART E OF .'S PACE Introduction and Project Description ............. .1 ProjectScope ............................ ..............................2 Findings.. .... .2 Site Description ........ ..................... General Geology and Subsurface Conditions........... .......... ................. 2 2 Geologic Setting and Soil Descriptions ............................3 Tectonic Setting.. .3 Geologic Hazards ...... ............................... ............4 General....... ............. .............................. Groundshaking. ......... .4 Conclusionsand Reconv endations ............................. .... .5 General........... ............................... ...........5 Gradin g . ................................. ..............................6 Site Preparation ........................ . SurfaceDrainage .. ....................... Foundations.. ................ .............6 Earthwork ................... ..............................6 . General.................... ............................... .....7 Reinforcement......................7 Interior Concrete on -Grade Slabs.. .. ............................. .7 ExteriorSlabs-on-Grade .... ............................... ....... .7 Expansive Characteristics ............................... .8 Settlement Characteristics .......... ..... .........................8 Limitations. .........8 Review, Observation and Testing ............................. .8 Uniformity of Conditions .......... ... ..............................9 Change in Scope.. .... • .9 Time ...... ............................... .9 ProfessionalStandard... ............ o ............................... —10 Client's Responsibility .................. .............................10 FieldExplorations. ..... ............................... .10 LaboratoryTesting ........................... .............................11 FIGS Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1 PLAT'S Plate 1. Plot Plan 1 Plate 2 Subsurface Exploration Legend Plates 3 -9 Boring Logs Plates 10 -11 Grain Size Distribution Plate 12 Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture Content i Plate 13 Direct Shear Summary Plate 14 Single Point Consolidation Test Results Plate 15 Weakened Plane Joint Detail Cross- Section 1 APOWDE Recommended Grading Specification and Special Provisions 1 r ; S O U T H E R N 4�S -rm4 C A L I F O R N I A SOIL A N D T E S T I N G , I N C. 6280 RIVERDALE ST. SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120 TELE 280 -4321 P.O. BOX 20627 SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120 6 7 B E N T E R P R I S E S T. E S C O N D I D D. C A L I F. 9 2 0 2 5 T E L E 7 4 6 - 4 5 4 4 CATS INVESTIGATION I PROPOSED SAINT JOHNS 22 LOTS MELROSE AVENUE AND MARCHETA STREET ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA Il�I'RODUCTI�I AND PRLa7ECr DES(StIPTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for a proposed single family housing complex to be located northwest and southwest of the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Marcheta Street, in the city of Encinitas, California. The site location is illustrated on the following Figure Number 1. It is our understanding that the proposed structures will consist of twenty -two one and /or two story structures of wood frame construction. Shallow foundations as well as conventional concrete on -grade floor systems are anticipated. Grading should consist of cuts and fills up to about six feet from existing grade. To assist in the preparation of this report, we were provided with a site plan prepared by HCH Partners dated October 28, 1989. The site configuration and the approximate locations of our subsurface explorations are shown on Plate Number 1 of this report. S O U T H E R N C A L I F R N I A S 1 L A N D T E S T I N G, I N C. � T 1 1 YnMrJnl �?. N `:�� ._ , .. :� ..�.. :'' Nnar' \:li y/p.t9� IA•�� I ers.oreet d S ,S y �� s> �•.,... q. -_ __ � A Pi rt +•`y L�. " 1 �, 1',m 10 'V' . � t i�\��'n en � \ ~ I 3) �� '.r 112T - • IrEJ e'� , 5 1 Gr' • W f r �.10 ` 3 C 9 S� \v� � J . � >rl �t9 pN OV 1EW ! SI 1 .•`- l ■] GR VO`p00 .., Lg tw„ \ \u" GPG 4 - $ �1' i <m a 1 `� a41.po ao rA 1 JAS .tTp I MI(AAIfNA ! L fM TS 1 c ° PAAI. RITTAMY R • ti . ' { �. •� A EU A IA N 8L - � - cUNOPA\ rsl 1 + Z o ° CO VAprNE\'O ..zsc tP(•sr FN , A - C+ 51 Z r i CCURh PAR[ UNION OUAM r " - J(AS.G( GARGMJt S A 80rANK cc�Nrr PAAR GA MARGr•ET A < ST < _ � s 1 , r ' rLoRIA. 7Z I�R Nsr _ I 40iOIITA g 8$.s ;° � i^ •.,i .wu. " f'•9Se ". 1 LGO „ 1 Q T TEAtt ENONr> o t o- O VO .I ,?, sl qS. t � 1 CNEIE AV 5 ^'� uav rJ i , `I gs... F � ST R sL`i 6o0• r' �i = ISNNSI..y ter � cc ST 7 \ � Z N � - ST'< y� I '�• ? Yf.GFRWI I nw AN MP N a IIA tt < `I • c` nuo ro T < � K sc,I S EW N •♦ t 1 _ $ F A o ENC. YO S E < a p i JAN : ■SANTA GnGUro �.�r. `d . sr. cum\ ..._ m � _ _•' - C couNrr IARK \,\ 1 \9Z ;�� { °� � T F__r d �� "frr;�I� � �S � °_ + Ycs1 R 000.R . b WARWICK ' AY..." Y0.M r SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SAINT JOHNS 22 LOTS SOIL A TESTIN0 •y: CHC/EK DATE 10 -18-89 .108 NUM • E R : 8921158 FIGUM *1 r I SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 Page 2 PRaJECT SCOPE This investigation consisted of: surface reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, obtaining representative disturbed and undisturbed samples, laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data, research of available geological literature pertaining to the site, and preparation of this report. More specifically, the intent of this analysis was to: a) Explore the subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. b) Evaluate, by laboratory tests, the pertinent engineering properties of the various strata which will influence the proposed development, including their bearing capacities, and settlement potential. I c) Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards which could have an effect on the site development. i d) Develop soil engineering criteria for site grading. j e) Address potential construction difficulties and provide recommendations concerning these problems. 1 f) Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structures anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation design. FU0RX3S SIZE D IMON The project site consists of two rectangular lots located at the northwest and southwest corners of Melrose Avenue and Marcheta Street in the City of 7 I T SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 Page 3 Encinitas, California. The properties are presently occupied by various structures including classrooms, offices, church and playground areas consriting the Saint Johns School. Melrose Avenue borders the east property line, with Marcheta Street approximately splitting the two properties in an east/west direction. La Veta Avenue borders the west boundary of the northwest cornered property. An alley borders the west property line of the southwest cornered property. The surrounding properties consist primarily of residential structures with commercial properties to the east of Melrose Street. Topographically, the properties are relatively level terrain. On -site utilities include gas, water, sewer, and telephones in addition to apparent septic tanks. Vegetation includes trees, bushes and grass areas. GENERAL CAGY AND SUBSUR'FI C:E COND ' O S CEOiOGIC SETTING AND SOII, DESCR=CNS: The subject site is located within the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain by Quaternary Age terrace deposits and associated residual soils. Eight test borings were advanced to depths varying from approximately 11 to 16 feet below the existing ground surface. Within the upper 3 to 4 feet of jBorings Numbers 1, 3, 5 and 6, terrace and /or reworked terrace and topsoil materials consisting of light orange to red brown, humid to wet, loose to medium dense, silty sand was encountered. Within Boring Number 7, approximately 6 feet of fill consisting of dark brown to brown, moist to very moist, loose silty sand was encountered. Underlying these materials, terrace deposits consisting of brown, red to tannish brown, humid to very moist, medium dense to dense silty sand was encountered. The attached boring logs contain further details of the earth materials encountered within the respective boring locations. TECIMC SEITTNG: No faults are known to traverse the subject site but it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego 1 2 SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 Page 4 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 northwesterly direction. Some of these j 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 J 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 denanstrated mvemnt during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 2 million years before the present) but no movement during Holocene time. A review of available geologic maps indicates that the e Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located approximately 4 miles west of the site. Recent earthquake activity along faults in the southern extension of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone indicates that this zone, as well a the closely related La Nacion Fault Zone, could be classified as active. The recent seismic events along a small portion of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone generated earthquakes of j magnitude 4.0 or less. Other active fault zones in the region that could ! possibly affect the subject site include the Coronado Banks and San Clemente i Fault Zones to the west, the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones to the northeast, and the Agua Blanca and San Miguel Fault Zones to the south. GECE=C HAZARDS GENERAL: The site is located in an area which is relatively free of potential geologic hazards. Hazards such as tsunamis, seiches, liquefaction, or landsliding should be considered negligible or nonexistent. I GROUNDSHAKING: The most likely geologic hazard to affect the site is t groundshaking as a result of movement along one of the major, active fault zones mentioned above. The maximum bedrock accelerations that would be I attributed to a maximum probable earthquake occurring along the nearest portion of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in the following Table I. I j SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 Page 5 TAHLE I i Maximum Probable Bedrock Design Fault Zone Distance Earthquake Acceleration Acceleration Rose Canyon 4 miles 6.5 magnitude 0.52 g 0.35 g Coronado Banks 18 miles 6.5 magnitude 0.20 g 0.14 g La Nacion 22 miles 6.0 magnitude 0.13 g 0.09 g Elsinore 28 miles 7.5 magnitude 0.20 g 0.14 g San Jacinto 48 miles 7.8 magnitude 0.13 g 0.09 g Earthquakes on the La Nacion or Rose Canyon Fault Zone are expected to be relatively minor. Major seismic events are likely to be the result of movement along the Coronado Banks, Elsinore or San Jacinto Fault Zone. j Experience has shown that structures that are constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code are relatively resistant to seismic related hazards. It is, therefore, our opinion that structural damage should be minimi if such buildings are designed and constructed in accordance with t the minimum standards of the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL j In general, no geotechnical conditions were encountered which would preclude j the development of the proposed site as proposed, provided the recom- mendations presented in this report are followed. The subject site was found to be underlain by a layer of compressible topsoil /fill and reworked formational deposits, extending up to approximately six feet below existing grade. These materials are considered unsuitable in their present condition for the support of y settlement - sensitive improvements and will require removal and replacement as compacted fill. 1 SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 Page 6 GRADING SITE PREPARATION: Site preparation should begin with the demolition of the existing improvements, and the removal of the resulting debris, as well as any existing vegetation and deleterious matter from the site. Existing topsoil /fill and loose or reworked formational deposits should be removed to firm natural ground. This is defined as soil having an in -place density of at least 85 percent. Existing surficial soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned 'and recompacted to at least 90 percent as determined in accordance with ASTM D1557 -78, Method A or C. Minimum horizontal limits of removal should be five feet beyond the perimeter of the structure or property line, whichever is less. The septic tank as shown on Plate Number 1, and associated improvements should be removed. The excavated areas should be backfilled and recompacted in accordance with methods discussed above. SURFRM DRARDLE: It is recommended that all surface drainage be directed away from the structure. Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to the foundation. FAPT All earthwork and grading contemplated for site re �P preparation should be accomplished in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions. All special site preparation recommendations presented in the sections above will supersede those in the stand Recommended Grading Specifications. All structural fill and fill should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction at or slightly over optimum moisture content. Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structures and beneath asphalt pavements should be compacted to minimum of 90% of its maximum dry density. The upper twelve inches of subgrade beneath paved areas should be compacted to 95% of its maximum dry density. This compaction should be obtained by the paving contractor just prior to placing the aggregate base material and should not be part of the mass grading requirements. The maximum dry density of each soil type should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D- 1557 -78, Method A or C. 1 SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 page 7 FOUNDATIONS GENERAL: Shallow foundations may be utilized for the support of the proposed structure. The footings should have a minimum depth of 12 inches and 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish grade for single and two story structures, respectively. A minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches is recommended for continuous and isolated footings, respectively. A bearing capacity of 2000 psf may be assumed for said footings. This bearing capacity may be increased buy one -third when considering wind and /or seismic forces. RE12EU CEMENT: Both exterior and interior continuous footings should be reinforced with at least one #5 bar positioned near the bottom of the footing and at least one #5 bar positioned near the top of the footing. This reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural considerations. INMUCN COMM= CN -GRADE SLABS: Concrete on -grade slabs should have a thickness of four inches and be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 30 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcement should be placed near the middle of the slab. As an alternative, the slab reinforcing may consist of 6 "x6 " -10 /10 welded wire mesh. However, it should be realized that it is difficult to maintain the proper position of wire mesh during placement of the concrete. A four- inch -thick layer of clean, coarse sand or crushed rock should be placed under the slab. This layer should consist of material having 100 percent passing the one - half -inch screen, no more than ten percent passing sieve #100 and no more than five percent passing sieve #200. Where moisture- sensitive floor coverings are planned, -the sand or rock should be overlain by a visqueen moisture barrier. A one - inch -thick layer of silty sand should be provided above the visqueen to allow proper concrete curing. EXZERIOR SLABS-CN-GRADE: Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of four inches. Walks or slabs five feet in width should be reinforced with i SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 page 8 6 "x6 " W1.4xW1.4 (6 "x6 "- 10 /10) welded wire mesh and provided with weakened plane joints. Any slabs between five and ten feet should be provided with longitudinal weakened plane joints at the center lines. Slabs exceeding ten feet in width should be provided with a weakened plane joint located three feet inside the exterior perimeter as indicated on attached Plate Number 15. Both traverse and longitudinal weakened plane joints should be constructed as detailed in Plate Number 15. Exterior slabs adjacent to doors and garage openings should be connected to the footings by dowels consisting of No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 -inch intervals extending 18 inches into the footing and the slab. EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The foundation soils were found to be nondetrimentally expansive. The recommendations contained in this report are applicable to this condition. s r*rLEMENT C ARACffitISTICS: The anticipated total and /or differential settlements for the proposed structure may be considered to be within tolerable limits provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses and some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. T.TMT* WI CKS REVIM, ORSERVAT•I()N AND TESI'M The recommendations resen p ted 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 s g g geo og o that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork i SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 page 9 operations. This is to 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. U IIFCRrQTY OF COINDMCNS 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 may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. (EI3fI M IN SCOPE 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. This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. TIM L MITATI The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can,-however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards -of- Practice and /or Goverrm ent Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 Page 10 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. PROFESSSIONAL STANDARD In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. C:L UM I S RESPC NSIB It is the responsibility of Pacific Scenes, Inc,, 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 and specifications. It is further their responsibility to Po y take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. FM- EXPLORATIONS Eight subsurface explorations were made at the locations indicated on the attached Plate Number 1 on October 14, 1989. These explorations consisted of SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 Page 11 borings - g drilled utilizing a portable drill rig equipped with a continuous flight auger. The field irk was conducted under the observation of our engineering geology personnel. The explorations were carefully logged when made. These logs are presented on the following Plates Number 3 through 9. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System as illustrated on the attached simplified chart on Plate 2. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture, and the density or consistency are provided. The density of granular soils is given as either very loose, loose, medium dense, dense, or very dense. The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, or hard. Disturbed and undisturbed samples of typical and representative soils sere obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing. Representative undisturbed core samples were obtained by means of a split tube sampler driven into the soil by means of a 140 pound weight free falling a distance of 12 inches. The number of flows required to drive the sample is indicated on the boring logs as "sampling penetration resistance." Standard penetration sampling was also performed at selected locations. LABORATORY TESTIM Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed is presented below: • a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. b) I'DISTUBE -D aEM: Field moisture content and dry density were determined for representative samples obtained. This information SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 Page 12 was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the field moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the boring logs. C) CPJUN SIZE DISTRIBTITION: The grain size distribution was determined for representative samples of the native soils in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D -422. The results of these tests are presented on Plate Numbers 10 and 11. d) a1WACTI N TMT: The maxinm dry density and optimum moisture content of typical soils wire determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D- 1557 -78, Method A. The results of these tests are presented on the attached Plate Number 12. e) DIFWr SHEAR TEST Direct shear tests were performed to determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. Samples wa-re tested at different vertical loads and a saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inches per minute. The results of these tests are presented on Plate Number 13. f) CONSOLIDATION TEST: Single point consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples. The consolidation apparatus was designed to accommodate a 1 -inch high by 2.375 -inch or 2.500 -inch diameter soil sample laterally confined by a brass ring. Porous stones were placed in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore fluid during testing. Selected loads were applied to the samples and the resulting deformations were recorded. The percent r SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 Page 13 t consolidation is reported as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original sample height. The test samples were inundated to determine their behavior under the anticipated loads as soil moisture increases. The results of these tests are y presented on Plate Number 14. 1 g. R ° o c CD Z Q � a V co oo J W l � u = N V aD dd t -- r I I • W f!] 1 I IF W O z 2 z n co W J uj 1 a I I z m > __ • a 13381S V13HDHVP1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES I. COARSE GRAINED, more than half of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size. GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels, gravel - ri-o a than half of sand mixtures, little or no coarse fraction is fines. larger than No. 4 GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel sieve size but sand mixtures, little or no smaller than 3 ". fines. GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels, poorly graded (Appreciable amount gravel -sand -silt mixtures. of fines) GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel -sand, clay mixtures. SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand, gravelly 111 More than half of sands, little or no fines. coarse fraction is SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly smaller than No. 4 sands, little or no fines. sieve size. SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, poorly graded (Appreciable amount sand and silty mixtures. of fines) SC Clayey sands, poorly graded I sand and clay mixtures. J II. FINE GRAINED, more than half of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size. SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt or cl2 ey -silt -sand mixtures with slight plas- ticity. Liquid Limit CL Inorganic clays of low to less than 50 medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays or low plasticity. SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous 1 or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of high greater than 50 plasticity, fat clays. I OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils. Water level at time of excavation CK — Undisturbed chunk sample I or as indicated BG — Bulk sample US — Undisturbed, driven ring sample SP — Standard penetration sample I or tube sample SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ST. JOHNS 22 LOTS SOIL A TESTING,INC. BY: RF DATE: 10 -14 -89 JOB NUMBER: 8921158 Plate No. 2 I • W Z y BORING NUMBER 1 W Z 0 W - — UA < Z GC Z W~ z 9) W 2 J F J V ELEVATION W O W I- to << a Z f. > O _ cc CL CL O LL < V) < N W F- W W y N a a y C H H\ D V to W < 0 CL < < < O W W ; c Z a U DESCRIPTION U O a= —° o U O D U i SM REWORKED TERRACE DE- Humid Loose 2 BG POSITS( ?), Light Orange to Rust to Brown, SILTY Medium 1 US SAND Dense 18 107.1 2.9 4 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS, Brown, Humid Medium 1 US SILTY SAND Dense 6 to 41 116.0 4.4 Dense 8 10 US 45 112.0 6.7 12 14 16 US r SM Tannish Rust to Brown, Humid Medium 44 Mottled, SILTY SAND to Dense Moist to Dense End of Boring at 16.0' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG SOIL &TESTING, INC. LOGGED BY: RF DATE LOGGED: 10 -14 -89 JOB NUMBER: 8921158 Plate No. 3 W Z a BORING NUMBER 2 W _ o BOR - Z ¢ 2 W_ z� (0 cc - W Z H -j -j U ELEVATION W O W N << `a z F , > O a a OLL ¢ cc In ac �- w f O < N( a N d H a F- - \ D U to W < () N a 0 a z W y e a F J < < < < O ¢ Z W 3 > O Z W G. V DESCRIPTION v O a¢ C o cc U ¢ O 0 U f c ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 2 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS, Light Humid Loose US Reddish Brown, SILTY to SAND Moist Medium 10 110.3 6.0 4 Dense 6 US SM Reddish Brown, SILTY SAND Humid Medium 14 107.1 5.3 BG to Dense Moist SM Reddish Brown to Tannish Humid Medium $ Brown, SILTY SAND to Dense Moist to 10 Dense US 25 109.6 7.5 12 14 16 US SM Rust to Light Orange Tan, Humid, Medium 36 110.1 6.7 SLIGHTLY FRIABLE, SILTY to Dense SAND Moist to Dense End of Boring at 16.0' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG *> SOIL &TESTING, INC. LOGGED BY: RF DATE LOGGED: 10 -14 -89 JOB NUMBER: 8921158 1 Plate No. 4 W Z a O BORING NUMBER 3 W z> o W ' - S W z ►,. _ U � _. F - -+ "� U ELEVATION w j W �++ �- z y M w z a a p a ¢ �- ¢~ y c z > O_ z w W y� < y <; W 0 �% O < a a y p W y G v y W < U W y < a O a z = to e � n 1- J '� DESCRIPTION < < O W w 3 ¢ z w a 0 v v O a °c o c 2 O g a U O ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 2 SM REWORKED TERRACE Moist Loose US DEPOSITS( ?), Brown, SILT SAND 4 4 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS, Brown, Moist Medium 6 US SILTY SAND Dense 16 117.7 6.9 8 10 US 27 113.1 8.8 12 14 16 US SM Tannish Brown, SILTY Humid Medium 36 SAND to Dense Moist to End of Boring at 16.0' Dense 7 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG [ SOIL &TESTING IN LOGGED BY: RF DATE LOGGED: 10_14_89 1 SOS NUMBER: 8921158 Plate No. 5 W Z _ ° BORING NUMBER 4 W U > o_ W ' _� - W < Z Z W ~ ~ Z a 2 W 2 # _ _j J V ELEVATION w w � < < _ > O CL a 0 W < N1 <- W ~ �, W F- Z I- I - a a a o U' W\ c W 2 c, to W < v o < m a 0 a w „ a - F- _J OK N < < < 0 0 W W ; Q Z a 0 V DESCR IPTION V O CL cc —° U o U ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 2 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS, Brown, Humid Loose SILTY SAND BG Loose 4 to Medium us Dense 6 Medium 35 117.3 5.8 Dense/ Dense 8, LB 10 35 12 End of Boring at 11.0' BORING NUMBER 5 0 SM TOPSOIL, Dark Brown, Very Loose SILTY SAND Moist 2 SM REWORKED TERRACE Moist t Loose DEPOSITS( ?), Brown, fiery tedium 4 SILTY SAN Moist Dense SM Brown, SILTY SAND Very Medium 6 us Moist Dense 20 125.0 9.3 8 10 us __ 22 SM Orange Brown, SILTY SAND Very Medium 12 Moist Dense End of Boring at 11.0' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG SOIL &TESTING, INC. LOGGED BY: RF DATE LOGGED: 10_14_89 JOB NUMBER: 8921158 Plate No . 6 W Z > BORING NUMBER _ _ < F- W H = Fes- G U ` i- _ 2f J V ELEVATION W O W w y ~ Z° cn =- W Z a a O a w f. cr z << c z M I-- >_ o_ W w < y < y W H N` W C < co a a U) O W t N W < V U) < a. O a Z Z y e y a O < < O o� W 3 Z W a -j DESCRIPTION V O a ¢ o G O cc 0 U U O SM REWORKED TERRACE Very Loose � DE POSITS(? 2 ), Dark } Brown Moist to SILTY SAND to Medium Wet Dense 4 BG SM 'TERRACE DEPOSITS, Brown, Very Medium US FSILTY SAND Moist Dense 6 8 121.0 10.5 8 1 US — Moist 15 116.2 9.7 1 1 US SM Light Orange Tan, Moist Medium 31 106.4 9.7 1 SLIGHTLY FRIABLE, SILTY Dense SAND to Dense End of Boring at 16.0' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG SOIL &TESTING, INC. LOGGED BY: RF DATE LOGGED: 10_14_$9 JOB NUMBER: $921158 Plate No . 7 W z BORING NUMBER 7 W " 0 W - °� z¢ z W �' I-- Z v N W z _ � ' U ELEVATION cc F- Z << a a O LL < y < N W W W pJ a a y 0 W y\ G U y W < (� O < lA a O d= Z z W y e Y n O ~ < CL Nf < < < O CJ W � C O Cc 2 DESCRIPTION v a c v O U — U FG ASPHALTI C CONCRETE 2 FILL, Dark Brown to Moist t L 0 00se Brown, Mottled, SILTY SAND Medium 10 102.0 14.9 Dense 4 5 113.9 7.5 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS, Orange Moist Medium Brown, SILTY SAND Dense 8 � 10 US 25 109.4 8.4 12 14 Humid ?Dense edium to ense/ US Moist 37 16 End of Boring at 16.0' 1 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG SOIL &TESTING, INC. LOGGED BY: RF DATE LOGGED: 10 -14_89 JOB NUMBER: 8921158 Plate No . 8 W z i BORING NUMBER 8 W � U> o W' �e 1 = W < Z Q Z W~ f- Z V W W - W z F- J —— ELEVATION W O W t- << `o z O H > O a a Oa = I.- c c yz oc W Z: — W a lq a - a y OW W N\ G U fn W < U G y d O a z W N a - F- < < < o cc z W ; } o z W a -r DESCRIPTION U O a¢ o G O U a U O ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 2 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS, Brown, Moist Loose US SILTY SAND to Medium 11 113.6 5.5 4 BG Dense 6 US Medium 16 107.5 5.0 Dense 8 10 US SM Brown to Orange Rust and Moist Medium 31 110.9 6.7 12 Tan, Mottled, SILTY SAND Dense 14 16 US SM Tannish Orange, FRIABLE, Moist Medium 22 SILTY SAND Dense End of Boring at 10.0' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOG *> SOIL &TESTING, INC. LOGGED BY: RF DATE LOGGED: 10 -14 -89 JOB NUMBER: 8921158 1 Plate No. 9 o ,cv/ha��op a /ooS. 00 O O � O JaU /� JUaoJ2� y J N Q m t ... .m o° N n R o N W 0 I OI Ri y �.n N r O ^ W W I q) \ Q of W O N .......-- ...r... W N N « LC s N Q O Q j _ F- .... ..... of C n ....... .... ........................... ' a ,... O ... U W W . ci � .... N rn Q 6C N O � .... .... ... b V cc ci ... ......... N W i J i m O go N Lu r o n J I O pOj O o O m o Q O 0 0 m � N - ' uaui,,� luaaJad SOUTHEQN CALIFORNIA I SOIL do TESTING , INC. ST. JOHNS 22 LOTS By GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION °ATE 10 -18 -89 KAR roe No. 8921158 -- Plate No. 10 E ` a/oos� 00 O O O /uaoia" 00 f- =•� m n `� O 0 0 0 0 0- \ f N Q U m Z ! s� o r NI• N,..... - . ....... . . . . . . .. . y N J y o W of • C . O .... ... ........ LL 0 't n W Q w v W N o n 7: _ Ix \ O .... .............. 1Z o a J � a f L ... .. .. N � p Z m - W • e ui - _ j O J .... U C N Q ............. a C ( N 1 ivy .... .... V , o o M co - !A CD W in J • � I n V N m f W a W O op O 0 O O m m n � v O) N 0 0 J3U /� �uao�ad <* > SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. ST. JOHNS 22 LOTS GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION JOB NO. KAR DATE 10 -18 -89 8921158 Plate No. 11 MAXIMUM DENSITY & OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT A S T W.D1557. 78 Method:.._ A.....__ SAMPLE DESCRIPTION Im ximu Optimum nsity Moistyre cf) Cont.(•1. ) B2@ 5' -7' Reddish Brwon, Silty Sand 130.3 8.3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ST. JOHNS 22 LOTS 'X— SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY: KAR DATE: 10 - 1$-89 JOB NUMBER: 8921158 Plate No. 12 3 ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■q■ ■p / ■ �Now / ■■■ � q■v ■q ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ p w ■ ■ �t n■■ / /■■ �■■ ■■■■■■t a w■■■■■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■1■■ ■■nntr �■■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■v■■■wq/ mamma ■ ■ ■■■■■■ ■� ■■ ■■■ 1 �■■a ■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ii monsum■■■■■■�i■■ ■■■■■■■■q■ ■■ ■ ■ ■i� ■y ■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■■ ■■■ ■ ■.,,a■■■ .■■ ■■■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■p■ ■/■■ tl t■■■■■ t■■■■■ ■■■t■■ ■ ■■■■ttt■■■■t■■■ ■■t■■■ i�i ■■nn■I�nw ■■■■■ 1/■/■■/■ u■■■■ ■ ■ /■■t ■ ■ ■m ■ / ■ ■ ■ ■ ■o■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■ ■/■/■ I nnu ■■i ■■■ ■ ■ ■ % ■ ■ ■ ■=m ■■ /n■■ /■ was ■/ ■snl� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■� ■ / ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ / ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■n / moss ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■ % ■■ ■■■■■ 1/■■■■man ■■■/■■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■s■■o■t ■■■■■t ■ ■ ■■ ■■soul ■ ■■t / ■ ■ ■ ■ ■t ■ ■■ ■■ ■ / ■ ■ ■!• ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■p ■ /■■1 ■ ■■n■ nos ■■■■ ■■ sv ■■■ ■ ■■■ ■11 un ■ ■■■■■sons / ■ / ■ ■ ■ ■ ■t ■ ■ ■■ ■% ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■nn ■ ■I ■ ■ ■■t ■■ ■ q ■ ■ / ■■ ■■■ anamossummouns an ma v ■ ■ ■q■■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■■■ man ■nnnnl�n ■■ mmm= mmmnmmm ■■■ ■ ■ ■q■ on an man moninma unman anal �� an annomi ■nnn■t■■mman" EX=mmmmnw■vn■itu■t■■■■■r�� ■wimams t■■■■■■� n �iNunn snows ■ngnr■ ■ �■tt■r►r■t■■■■■■■ ■■to an •vnnl■ nvWq■ ■q�n■n■aa■■ in vINN w ■■ Wgnn■■■■■■■ ■■■■■1•■ / ■w ■�"�n■ ■■■n/ m no tWiiyia �� i �� ■i�� ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■t ■ ■t ■t man flip ■it ■ttt�■t■t■ ■■i■■t■■■ was ■■■g4 ■ ■qnl■ ■■■n/■ vt■■■.tt■■■■tt■■■■■■tt■■■n ■n p■r■■B■1 ■■ 'dA■■■■■a■ uw/ ■■n■■1• q■n �w■■■■■■ugo■ ■■q■r■■tp■■► w■■■■■/■wt■■■■oin ■■tpr■■t6� w■■/■pq ■■■■ ii■pr■ ■�:�na ■O p ■ so�Wow■ ■■tail ■n4�iN �■ ■■ ■tot■ ■t■►�r■/0■■tl■■q anvmois ■■t t■ ■■qtp aim ii■� /qty ■i ■vnii■ii■■�i■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ was ■■ • 1 • CALIF IA • 1 1 1 8 '-J wumevt: 89 2115,q Plate N . 13 4 SINGLE POINT CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULT F SAMPLE . B2 @ 2. 0' B2 @ 5.0' B6 @ 5.0' B6 @ 10.0' MOISTURE, °a 6.0 5.3 10.5 9.7 - INITIAL DENSITY PCF 110.3 107.1 121.0 - % CONSOLIDATION BEFORE WATER ADDED 1 1.75 1.16 1.86 1..14 14 - °' CONSOLIDATION AFTER WATER ADDED 2.02 1.44 1.89 1.19 - FINAL MOISTURE, 0 %, 15.5 16.1 11.0 13.0 AXIAL LOAD, KSF 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 SAMPLE NO. B7 @ 5.0' - INITIAL MOISTURE, 7.5 - INITIAL DENSITY, PCF 113.9 - o CONSOLIDATION BEFORE WATER ADDED 1.61 - % CONSOLIDATION AFTER WATER ADDED 1.62 = FINAL MOISTURE, °o 12.5 AXIAL LOAD, KSF 2.86 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ST. JOHNS 22 LOTS SOIL A TESTING, INC. Br: KAR DATE: 10-18 -89 JOB NUMBER: 8921158 Plate No. 14 i A TRANSVERSE 3' 3 WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS 0' ON CENTER (MAXIMUM) 5 W W/ W/ WEAKENED PLANE S JOINTS t 3' 1 10' 5' — SLABS IN EXCESS OF SLABS' b TO 10 l 10 FEET IN WIDTH FEET IN WIDTH PLAN NO SCALE TOOLED JOIN T ' T / *5 REBARS• AT 18 ON T /2 CENTER EACH WAY 5� S S j WEAKENED PLANE JOINT DETAIL NO SCALE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ST JOHNS 22 LOTS [> T SOIL._& . TESTING. INC. BY: KAR DATES.. 10 -18 -89 JOB NUMBER :. 8921158 Plate NO. 15 t e- M "4 k SAINT JCHNS 22 LOIS, MUJUSF AVENUE AND ETA STREET, ENCINITAS , GRADING SPE)CIFICATIMS - GENERAL PROVISICNS GENERAL ti INrBM?T�" '� rt The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing,w' compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The reconmendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation +. report and /or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained •�' hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be 2 used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written conuunication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OWERMICN AND TESTING Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with r these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It ,t shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical f Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further g.. recommndations. t R (R -9/89) i ` SAS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 Appendix, Page 2 If in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture f' content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc.; construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend rejection of this work. k Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods; Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - ASTM D- 1557 -78. Density of Soil In -Place - ASTM D- 1556 -64 or ASTM D -2922, r s } All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as k� determined by the foregoing ASTM testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FIZZ, F All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally dim � y posed of. All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soils which possesses an in -situ density of at least 90% of its maximum dry density. p (R-9/89) try. SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 Appendix, Page 3 n' a+ When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 205 (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped' or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soils. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1 -1/2 times the the i equ � Dent f width whichever is greater and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20% shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. �t Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed, All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any f proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedures should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary. All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and /or a qualified Structural Engineer. (R-9/89) SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 Appendix, Page 4 FILL MATERIAL Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special 4 Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide i satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. PLACING I'M COMPACTION OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minima degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. i When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted. in structural fills and in non - structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable. (R -9/89) cd SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 Appendix Page 5 Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot ro llers shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of two horizontal to one ver t i cal -A ical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over -built and cut -back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operati vn�a pe ons shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face Of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90% of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be stable surficially stable. Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved, Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written commu nication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall irk or rebuild such slopes until the required Pe r+equ' degree of compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. (R- 9/89) SCS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 C[Tr SCOFFS Appendix, Page 6 The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the Preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a Potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soil Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. OBSERVATION Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compacting operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of ractice. Neither P the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or the observation and testing shall not release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. SEASON LDEM Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. (R -9/89) CS &T 8921158 November 2, 1989 Appendix, Page 7 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PRMSIONS RELATIVE COMPAMON: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 29-C. OVERSIZED DIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversize materials should not be placed in fill unless reccnrwndations of placement of such material is provided by the geotechnical engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve. TRANSITION IM: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the Proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required. (8-9/89) FINAL REPORT OF - FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND RELATIVE COMPACTION TESTS PROPOSED SAINT JOHNS 22 LOT SUBDIVISION MELROSE AVENUE AND MARCHETA STREET ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA N�V 2 21 PREPARED FOR: CIN1S AS C� 0 F puBLlC W ARKS pEP Pacific Scene, Inc. G DEPT. 3900 Harney Street ENGINEER�N San Diego, California 92110 PREPARED BY: Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. Post Office Box 600627 6280 Riverdale Street San Diego, California 92120 I SC♦ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA i SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, San Diego, CA 92120 P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160 619 - 280 -4321, FAX 619 - 280 -4717 November 19, 1991 Pacific Scene, Inc. 3900 Harney Street SCS &T 8921158 San Diego, California 92110 Report No. 8 SOBJBCT: Final Report of Field Observations and Relative Compaction Tests, Proposed Saint Johns 22 Lot Subdivision, Melrose Avenue and Marcheta Street, Encinitas, California. RiCES: See Appendix A Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, this report has been prepared to present a summary of our field observations and the results of relative compaction tests performed at the subject site by Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. during rough grading work performed at the site. These services were performed between August 29 and November 18, 1991. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site consists of two rectangular lots located at the northwest and southwest quadrants formed by the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Marcheta Street in the City of Encinitas, California. The site is bounded on the east by Melrose Avenue, with Marcheta Street approximately splitting the two lots in an east /west direction. La Veta Avenue borders the west boundary of the northwest quadrant and an alley borders the west property line of the southwest quadrant. The surrounding properties consist primarily of residential structures with commercial properties to the east of Melrose Street. Prior to the subject SCS &T 8921158 November 19, 1991 Page 2 grading operations, the site was occupied by various structures including classrooms, offices, a church, and playground areas which comprised the Saint Johns School. Vegetation on the site consisted of landscape trees, bushes, and grasses. SCOPE OF WORK The summary of field observations and in -place density tests presented in this report represent four phases of grading work. The first phase, which included the remedial grading performed on Block 'N' and 1 0 ' and the grading on Lot 'N' to the originally designed elevations, was reported in Reference 2 of Appendix A. The second phase consisted of the lowering of Block 'N' to revised elevations, and the placement of additional fill on Block '0'. The backfilling of retaining walls along the south and west sides of Block '0' and along the north side of Block 'N', and the importation of soil to complete the grading on Block 1 0 ' constituted phases three and four. This report contains a summary of all four phases of work. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION It is our understanding that a 22 lot subdivision with associated driveway and utility improvements is planned for this site. Single family one and /or two- story structures of woodframe construction are anticipated. Shallow foundations and conventional concrete slab -on -grade floors are also anticipated. AVAILABLE PLANS To assist in determining the locations and elevations of our field density tests and to define the general extent of the site grading for this phase of work, we were provided with a grading plan prepared by HCH Partners of San Diego, California, dated August 3, 1990. It is our understanding that elevations of the building pads were revised with the approval of the City of Encinitas subsequent to the printing of this plan. The elevation changes consisted of lowering the 9CS &T 8921158 November 19, 1991 Page 3 lots on the order of one foot or less and did not significantly affect the configuration of the pads. SITE PREPARATION Prior to the subject grading operations, the existing structures on the site were demolished and the site was cleared of vegetation. The majority of the materials generated by the demolition and clearing operations was exported from the jobsite; however, portions of the existing concrete foundations were incorporated into the fills in several areas of the site. The grading operations began with the removal of existing fills and /or compressible topsoils to firm natural ground. The soils generated by the removal operations were stockpiled on site or placed as uniformly compacted fill in previously prepared areas. The soils exposed in areas to receive fill were scarified to a depth of approximately twelve inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted prior to the placement of fill. Fill soils were then placed in lifts approximately twelve inches in thickness, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction by means of a sheepsfoot roller and heavy construction equipment. The grading operations were performed by R.E. Hazard Contracting Company using a Caterpillar D6H crawler dozer, a Caterpillar 623 self loading scraper, a Komatsu PC200 backhoe /excavator, a sheepsfoot roller, and a water truck. During the site grading operations, seven seepage pits were unearthed in various areas of the site. The approximate locations of the seepage pits are shown on Plate No. 1 of this report. With the exception of the seepage pits located in the northern portion of lot 9 and the western portion of lot 4 of block "0 ", the seepage pits were removed in their entirety and the resulting excavations were backfilled with a uniformly compacted backfill. The seepage pit located in the northern portion of lot 9 was excavated to a depth of approximately 33 feet below finished grade elevation, capped with a three -foot thick concrete cap, and the resulting excavation was backfilled with a uniformly compacted backfill. The SCS &T 8921158 November 19, 1991 Page 4 seepage pit located in the western portion of lot 4 of block "0" was excavated to a depth of approximately nine feet below finished grade elevation, flooded, and subsequently backfilled with a uniformly compacted backf ill. The seepage pits were excavated by means of the Komatsu PC200 backhoe /excavator, generally resulting in narrow backhoe trench excavations. The backf ill placed in these trenches was compacted by means of a sheepsfoot wheel placed on the backhoe /excavator. A representative of our firm was present during the backfilling operations in order to observe the backfilling process; however, in -place density tests were not performed in the lower trench elevations due to safety concerns associated with entering a deep narrow trench. The excavation for the seepage pit on lot 9 extended beneath the proposed structures on lots 8 and 9. The large differential in fill depth which resulted will require additional foundation reinforcement for the structures to be founded on these lots. Revised foundation recommendations for these structures are contained hereinafter. OVERSIZED CONCRETE CHUNKS Oversized concrete chunks which were generated by the demolition operations on site were placed in a structural fill area in the southern portion of lot 8 and the northern portion of lot 9. The chunks placed in this area were generally no larger than two feet in greatest dimension. The chunks were placed un- nested, surrounded by fine grained soils, amply watered, and compacted in place. No oversized concrete chunks were placed within five feet of finished grade elevation. In addition to the oversized concrete chunks, chunks of concrete measuring generally no larger than six inches in greatest dimension were incorporated into the fills in several areas of the site. The approximate locations of these areas are shown on Plate No. 1 of this report. SCS &T 8921158 November 19, 1991 Page 5 RETAINING NAIL BA('KFILIS Between phases 2 and 4 of the rough grading work, masonry retaining walls were constructed on the south and west sides of Block '0' and the north side of Block W. Drains consisting of perforated drain pipe surrounded by crushed 3/4 inch rock and wrapped in geotechnical filter fabric were provided behind the walls. Backfills consisting of the native and imported silty sands were placed in four to six inch lifts by means of a skiploader, were watered to above the optimum moisture content, and were compacted by means of manually operated mechanical whackers and a vibratory roller. FIELD OBSERVATION AND TESTING Observations and field density tests were performed by a representative of Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. during the site grading operations. The density tests were taken according to ASTM D1556 -82 and ASTM D2922 -81. The results of those tests are shown on the attached Plates. The accuracy of the in- situ density test locations and elevations is a function of the accuracy of the survey control provided by other than Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. representatives. Unless otherwise noted, their locations and elevations were determined by pacing and hand level methods and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 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 complies with the job requirements, local grading ordinances, and the Uniform Building Code. LABORATORY TESTS Maximum dry density determinations were performed on representative samples of the soils used in the compacted fills according to ASTM D1557 -78, Method A. This method specifies that a four inch diameter cylindrical mold of 1/30 cubic foot volume be used and that the soil tested be placed in five equal layers with each SCS &T 8921158 November 19, 1991 Page 6 laler compacted by twenty -five blows of a 10 -pound hammer with an 18 -inch drop. The results of these tests, as presented on Plate No. 4, were used in conjunction with the field density tests to determine the degree of relative compaction of the compacted fill. CONCLUSIONS Based on our field observations and the density test results, it is the opinion of Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. that the grading was performed basically in accordance with the recommendations contained in the referenced Report of Geotechnical Investigation (Reference No. 3), and, except as modified hereinafter, the recommendations for the minimum design for foundations contained therein remain applicable to the subject site. FOUNDATIONS As a result of the excavation and backfilling of the seepage pit in the northern portion of lot 9, a large differential in the depth of fill exists beneath the proposed footings for the structures to be founded on lots 8 and 9. It is recommended that the footing reinforcement for the southern footing line for lot 8, the northern footing line for lot 9, the western footing line for lot 8, and the western footing line for lot 9, be increased to a minimun of two #5 bars near the top of the footing and two #5 bars near the bottom of the footing. LIMITATIONS This report covers only the services performed between August 28 and November 18, 1991. 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 manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the grading operations with the job requirements. No warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to services we have performed, and neither the performance of those services nor SCS &T 8921158 November 19, 1991 Page 7 the submittal of this report should be construed as relieving the grading contractor of his responsibility to conform with the job requirements. 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, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. �OQPpFESS /pH� � Q� QP �,ES H. C y9�s F,yG� NO.GE000215� m ug s Hicks, SCS &T Project Supervisor a Exp. 9-30-93 70 C N GP \P 9TF0 F CA0 " Charles H. Christian, R.G.E. #00215 CHC:DH:rr cc: (4) Submitted, (2) HCH Partners, (1) SCS &T Escondido JOB NAME: St. Johns 22 Lot Subdivision JOB NO: 8921158 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS, ASTM D1556 -82 PLATE NO: 2 TEST DATE LOCATION ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DEN.SOIL REL.COMP. NO. (feet,MSL) (percent) (p.c.f) TYPE (percent) ------------------------------------------------- 1 8 -9 -91 Lot 10, Block "N" 57.5 7.0 107.5 2 83.4 2 8 -9 -91 Retest of 1 57.5 9.9 118.9 2 92.2 3 8 -30 -91 Lot 13/14, Block "N" 63.0 PNG 9.3 121.0 1 92.9 4 8 -30 -91 Lot 17, Block "N" 62.0 PNG 9.9 121.6 1 93.3 5 8 -30 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 64.5 9.9 121.5 1 93.2 6 8 -30 -91 Lot 18, Block "N" 63.0 8.5 120.9 1 92.8 7 8 -30 -91 Lot 17, Block "N" 64.0 9.3 117.5 1 90.2 8 8 -30 -91 Lot 10, Block "N" 59.5 9.9 122.2 1 93.8 9 8 -30 -91 Lot 10, Block "N" 61.5 11.2 117.8 2 91.4 10 8 -30 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 62.0 NG 6.0 111.6 1 85.6* 11 8 -30 -91 Lot 16, Block "N" 61.5 NG 7.8 112.6 1 86.4* 12 8 -30 -91 Lot 15, Block "N" 63.5 9.7 123.5 1 94.8 13 8 -30 -91 Lot 17, Block "N" 64.5 9.8 121.8 1 93.5 14 9 -3 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 64.0 13.6 123.6 2 95.9 15 9 -3 -91 Lot 3/18, Block "N" 62.0 11.1 121.0 2 93.9 16 9 -3 -91 Lot 15, Block "N" 61.0 NG 7.0 111.1 1 85.3* 17 9 -3 -91 Lot 17/18, Block "N" 63.0 9.9 115.0 1 88.3 18 9 -3 -91 Retest of 17 63.0 13.6 124.9 1 95.9 19 9 -3 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 63.0 12.4 123.4 1 94.7 20 9 -3 -91 Lot 17/18, Block "N" 64.0 9.3 116.2 2 90.1 21 9 -3 -91 Lot 15, Block "N" 66.5 12.4 121.1 1 92.9 22 9 -3 -91 Lot 18, Block "N" 66.5 12.4 122.8 1 94.2 23 9 -4 -91 Lot 15/16, Block "N" 62.5 9.9 116.6 2 90.5 24 9 -4 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 64.5 9.9 116.2 2 90.1 25 9 -4 -91 Lot 4/5, Block "N" 62.0 12.4 123.7 1 94.9 26 9 -4 -91 Lot 8, Block "N" 63.0 11.7 121.0 1 92.9 27 9 -5 -91 Lot 5, Block "N" 62,5 12.4 116.4 2 90.3 28 9 -5 -91 Seepage Pit #4, Block "N "56.0 9.3 117.3 2 91.0 29 9 -5 -91 Seepage Pit #2, Block "N "56.5 14.9 124.5 1 95.5 30 9 -5 -91 Seepage Pit #5, Block "N "59.0 9.3 117.8 1 90.4 31 9 -5 -91 Seepage Pit #3, Block "N "60.0 11.1 118.9 1 91.3 32 9 -5 -91 Seepage Pit #1, Block "N "58.0 11.7 119.8 1 91.9 33 9 -5 -91 Lot 11/12, Block "N" 61.0 NG 7.0 117.4 1 90.1* 34 9 -5 -91 Lot 8/13, Block "N" 64.5 8.1 117.1 2 90.8 35 9 -6 -91 Lot 2/3, Block "O" 61.5 NG 6.4 112.4 1 86.3* 36 9 -6 -91 Lot 7, Block "N" 61.0 PNG 12.4 120.5 1 92.5 37 9 -6 -91 Lot 6/7, Block "N" 64.0 8.7 116.1 2 90.1 38 9 -6 -91 Lot 3, Block "O" 63.0 13.6 110.7 4 94.6 39 9 -6 -91 Seepage Pit #6, Block "N "57.0 13.6 117.5 1 90.2 40 9 -9 -91 Lot 5, Block "Oil 64.0 16.3 113.5 4 97.0 41 9 -9 -91 Lot 1, Block "O" 63.0 12.4 124.0 2 96.2 42 9 -9 -91 Lot 2/3, Block "0" 64.0 14.9 112.4 4 96.1 43 9 -9 -91 Lot 3, Block "O" 65.0 11.7 117.4 2 91.1 44 9 -10 -91 Lot 4/5, Block "O" 61.0 NG 7.0 113.4 1 87.0* 45 9 -10 -91 Seepage Pit #7, Block "0 "58.0 11.1 117.6 2 91.2 46 9 -10 -91 Seepage Pit #7, Block 11 0 "60.0 14.9 124.6 1 95.6 47 9 -10 -91 Lot 1/2, Block "0" 62.0 13.6 120.1 1 92.2 JOB NAME: St. Johns 22 Lot Subdivision JOB NO: 8921158 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS, ASTM D1556 -82 PLATE NO: 3 TEST DATE LOCATION ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DEN.SOIL REL.COMP. NO. (feet,MSL)(percent)(p.c.f) TYPE (percent) ------------------------------------------- 48 9 -10 -91 Lot 5, Block 11 0" 64.0 13.6 115.6 4 98.8 49 9 -10 -91 Lot 6, Block "0" 62.0 12.4 119.5 1 91.7 50 9 -11 -91 Lot 12, Block "N" 63.0 14.9 107.0 3 92.4 51 9 -11 -91 Lot 13, Block "N" 65.0 12.4 103.6 3 89.5 52 9 -11 -91 Retest of 51, Block "N" 65.0 12.4 106.7 3 92.1 53 9 -11 -91 Lot 11, Block "N" 64.0 13.0 104.5 3 90.2 54 9 -12 -91 Lot 12, Block "N" 66.5 13.6 107.4 3 92.7 55 9 -12 -91 Lot 3/4, Block "N" 62.0 14.9 106.2 5 90.0 56 9 -12 -91 Lot 9, Block "N" 62.0 11.1 101.9 5 86.4 57 9 -12 -91 Lot 7, , Block "N" 63.0 14.3 108.3 5 91.8 58 9 -12 -91 Retest of 56 62.0 17.6 106.8 3 92.2 59 9 -13 -91 Seepage Pit #7, Block "0 11 56.0 12.4 118.0 2 91.5 60 9 -13 -91 Seepage Pit #7, Block "0 "58.0 11.7 118.1 2 91.6 61 9 -13 -91 Lot 5, Blcok "N" 64.5 13.0 98.0 3 84.6 62 9 -13 -91 Lot 8, Block "N" 64.0 13.6 106.3 3 91.8 63 9 -13 -91 Seepage Pit #7, Block "0 11 60.5 12.4 118.6 2 92.0 64 9 -16 -91 Lot 9, Block "Nu 85.5 14.9 106.9 5 90.6 65 9 -16 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 67.0 11.1 123.8 1 95.0 66 9 -16 -91 Lot 11/12, Block "N" 66.0 16.3 115.3 5 97.7 67 9 -16 -91 Lot 17, Block "N" 67.5 12.4 108.8 5 92.2 68 9 -17 -91 Lot 6, Block 11 0" 61.5 11.1 117.6 1 90.3 69 9 -18 -91 Lot 18, Block "N" 68.5 FG 12.4 112.5 5 95.3 70 9 -18 -91 Lot 17, Block "N" 69.1 FG 11.0 110.4 5 93.6 71 9 -18 -91 Lot 16, Block "N" 68.8 FG 12.7 115.1 5 97.5 72 9 -18 -91 Lot 15, Block "N" 68.8 FG 14.6 113.5 5 96.2 73 9 -18 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 68.7 FG 11.9 113.0 5 95.8 74 9 -18 -91 Lot 13, Block "N" 68.6 FG 11.8 113.7 5 96.4 75 9 -18 -91 Lot 12, Block "N" 68.3 FG 12.1 111.4 5 94.4 76 9 -18 -91 Lot 11, Block "N" 66.8 FG 13.6 112.3 5 95.2 77 9 -18 -91 Retest of 61 64.5 14.7 109.2 5 92.5 78 9 -19 -91 Lot 10, Block "N" 66.5 FG 10.7 109.8 5 93.1 79 9 -19 -91 Lot 9, Block "Nn 67.0 FG 11.4 109.5 5 92.8 80 9 -19 -91 Lot 8, Block "N" 66.5 FG 12.0 111.3 5 94.3 81 9 -19 -91 Lot 7, Block "N" 66.5 FG 10.8 112.1 5 95.0 82 9 -19 -91 Lot 6, Block "N" 66.5 FG 12.5 114.1 5 96.7 83 9 -19 -91 Lot 5, Block "N" 60.0 FG 13.2 111.1 5 94.2 84 9 -19 -91 Lot 4, Block "N" 66.0 FG 11.3 108.4 5 91.9 85 9 -19 -91 Lot 3, Block "N" 65.5 FG 10.2 107.4 5 91.0 86 10 -7 -91 Lot 3, Block 11 0" 62.0 PEF 10.5 122.2 1 93.8 87 10 -7 -91 Lot 2, Block 11 0" 63.5 13.0 107.4 5 91.0 88 10 -7 -91 Lot 5, Block 11 0" 64.0 16.3 111.6 5 94.6 89 10 -8 -91 Lot 1/2, Block 11 0" 65.5 13.0 113.2 5 95.9 90 10 -8 -91 Lot 4, Block 110" 65.5 12.4 108.5 5 91.9 91 10 -8 -91 Lot 5/6, Block 11 0" 66.0 13.5 103.0 5 87.3 92 10 -8 -91 Lot 11, Block "N" 66.5 FG 11.3 115.3 5 97.7 93 10 -8 -91 Lot 12, Block "N" 67.5 FG 11.3 109.0 5 92.4 94 10 -8 -91 Lot 13, Block "N" 67.5 FG 10.7 113.6 5 96.3 95 10 -8 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 67.5 FG 8.7 122.9 1 94.3 JOB NAME: St. Johns 22 Lot Subdivision JOB NO: 8921158 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS, ASTM D1556 -82 PLATE NO: 4 TEST DATE LOCATION ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DEN.SOIL REL.COMP. NO. (feet,MSL)(percent)(p.c.f) TYPE (percent) ------------------------------------------- 96 10 -8 -91 Lot 15, Block "N" 68.0 FG 6.2 117.8 1 90.4 97 10 -8 -91 Lot 16, Block "N" 68.0 FG 10.9 120.5 1 92.5 98 10 -8 -91 Lot 17, Block "N" 68.0 FG 11.8 110.0 5 93.2 99 10 -8 -91 Retest of 91 66.0 14.0 106.3 5 90.1 100 10 -10 -91 Lot 10, Block "N" 66.0 FG 11.8 113.8 5 96.4 101 10 -10 -91 Lot 9, Block "N" 66.0 FG 10.5 109.4 5 92.7 102 10 -10 -91 Lot 8, Block "N" 65.5 FG 11.5 106.6 5 90.3 103 10 -10 -91 Lot 7, Block "N" 65.5 FG 12.4 109.7 5 93.0 104 10 -10 -91 Lot 6, Block "N" 65.0 FG 11.2 106.8 5 90.5 105 10 -10 -91 Lot 5, Block "N" 65.0 FG 11.1 113.1 5 95.8 106 10 -10 -91 Lot 4, Block "N" 65.0 FG 11.3 108.5 5 91.9 107 11 -14 -91 Lot 6, Block "0" 65.5 11.4 110.0 5 93.2 108 11 -14 -91 Lot 6, Block "0" 67.0 11.7 113.1 5 95.9 109 11 -14 -91 Lot 5, Block "0" 65.5 12.2 108.3 5 91.8 110 11 -14 -91 Lot 5, Block 11 0" 66.5 11.4 112.2 5 95.1 111 11 -14 -91 Lot 4, Block "0" 65.5 13.6 119.6 1 91.8 112 11 -14 -91 Lot 4, Block "0" 67.0 9.2 118.8 1 91.2 113 11 -18 -91 Lot 5, Block "0" 68.0 FG 9.9 119.3 1 91.6 114 11 -18 -91 Lot 3, Block "0" 67.0 FG 11.1 125.0 1 95.9 115 11 -18 -91 Lot 2, Block "0" 67.0 FG 8.1 118.0 2 91.5 116 11 -18 -91 Lot 1, Block "0" 66.0 FG 8.7 118.1 2 91.6 RETAINING WALL RW1 10 -18 -91 Lot 5, Block "0" 63.0 14.8 111.6 5 94.6 RW2 10 -18 -91 Lot 2, Block 11 0" 63.0 15.1 111.4 5 94.4 RW3 10 -18 -91 Lot 6, Block "0" 67.5 13.6 107.6 5 91.2 RW4 10 -18 -91 Lot 6, Block "0" 68.5 14.9 108.2 5 91.7 RW5 10 -21 -91 Lot 6, Block 11 0" 64.0 13.5 108.6 5 92.0 RW6 10 -21 -91 Lot 4, Block "0" 64.0 15.3 108.0 5 91.5 RW7 10 -21 -91 Lot 1, Block "0" 64.5 13.1 109.1 5 92.5 RW8 10 -21 -91 Lot 5, Block "0" 65.5 15.8 107.0 5 90.7 RW9 10 -22 -91 Lot 6, Block "0" 66.0 12.7 115.8 5 98.1 RW10 10 -22 -91 Lot 3, Block "0" 65.0 11.6 112.7 5 95.5 RW11 10 -23 -91 Lot 3, Block "0" 67.0 FG 13.9 114.2 5 96.8 RW12 10 -23 -91 Lot 1, Block "0" 65.0 FG 13.4 110.2 5 93.4 RW13 10 -23 -91 Lot 6, Block "0" 67.0 FG 13.8 112.9 5 95.7 RW14 10 -23 -91 Lot 3, Block "N" 64.0 10.0 118.2 2 91.7 RW15 10 -23 -91 Lot 18, Block "N" 64.5 10.9 117.8 2 91.2 RW16 10 -25 -91 Lot 18, Block "N" 65.5 14.0 111.6 5 94.6 RW17 10 -28 -91 Lot 18, Block "N" 66.5 14.0 112.6 5 95.4 RW18 10 -28 -91 Lot 18, Block "N" 66.5 13.3 108.6 5 92.0 RW19 10 -28 -91 Lot 3, Block "N" 65.0 14.5 111.4 5 94.4 RW20 10 -28 -91 Lot 3, Block "N" 65.0 13.0 113.0 5 95.8 PEF - Prepared Existing Fill FG - Finished Grade JOB NAME: St. Johns 22 Lot Subdivision JOB NO: 8921158 PLATE NO: 5 MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS, ASTM 1557 -78 -------------------------------------------- SOIL METHOD DESCRIPTION OPTIMUM MAXIMUM TYPE MOISTURE DENSITY (percent) (pcf) 1 A Reddish Brown, Silty 8.3 130.3 Sand (SM) 2 A Brown, Slightly Silty 8.7 128.9 Sand (SM) 3 A Yellow, Silty Clayey 13.5 115.8 Sand (SC) 4 A Light Brown /Tan, Slightly 12.0 117.0 Silty Sand (SM) 5 A Yellow, Silty Sand (SM) 12.4 118.0 APPENDIX A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL S TESTING, INC. APPENDIX A 1) "Second Interim Report of Field Observations and Relative Compaction Tests, Proposed Saint Johns 22 Lot Subdivision ", by Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., dated October 17, 1991. 2) "Interim Report of Field Observations and Relative Compaction Tests, Proposed Saint Johns 22 Lot Subdivision ", by Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., dated September 19, 1991. 3) "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Saint Johns 22 Lots, Melrose Avenue and Marcheta Street, Encinitas, California ", by Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., dated November 2, 1989. FINAL REPORT OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND RELATIVE COMPACTION TESTS PROPOSED SAINT JOHNS 22 LOT SUBDIVISION MELROSE AVENUE AND MARCHETA STREET ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA NOV 2 2 1991 CITY OF ENCINITAS PREPARED FOR: DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS Pacific Scene, Inc. ENGINEERING DEPT• 3900 Harney Street San Diego, California 92110 PREPARED BY: Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. Post Office Box 600627 6280 Riverdale Street San Diego, California 92120 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA \T/ SOIL & TESTING, INC. 6280 Riverdale Street, San Diego, CA 92120 P.O. Box 600627, San Diego, CA 92160 619-280-4321, FAX 619 - 280 -4717 November 19, 1991 Pacific Scene, Inc. 3900 Harney Street SCS &T 8921158 San Diego, California 92110 Report No. 8 SUBJECT: Final Report of Field Observations and Relative Compaction Tests, Proposed Saint Johns 22 Lot Subdivision, Melrose Avenue and Marcheta Street, Encinitas, California. RBEffiiENCES: See Appendix A Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, this report has been prepared to present a summary of our field observations and the results of relative compaction tests performed at the subject site by Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc, during rough grading work performed at the site. These services were performed between August 29 and November 18, 1991. SITS DESCRIPTION The subject site consists of two rectangular lots located at the northwest and southwest quadrants formed by the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Marcheta Street in the City of Encinitas, California. The site is bounded on the east by Melrose Avenue, with Marcheta Street approximately splitting the two lots in an east /west direction. La Veta Avenue borders the west boundary of the northwest quadrant and an alley borders the west property line of the southwest quadrant. The surrounding properties consist primarily of residential structures with commercial properties to the east of Melrose Street. Prior to the subject t SCS &T 8921158 November 19, 1991 Page 2 grading operations, the site was occupied by various structures including classrooms, offices, a church, and playground areas which comprised the Saint Johns School. Vegetation on the site consisted of landscape trees, bushes, and grasses. SCOPE OF WORK The summary of field observations and in -place density tests presented in this report represent four phases of grading work. The first phase, which included the remedial grading performed on Block 'N' and '0' and the grading on Lot 'N' to the originally designed elevations, was reported in Reference 2 of Appendix A. The second phase consisted of the lowering of Block 'N' to revised elevations, and the placement of additional fill on Block '0'. The backfilling of retaining walls along the south and west sides of Block 1 0 ' and along the north side of Block 'N', and the importation of soil to complete the grading on Block 1 0' constituted phases three and four. This report contains a summary of all four phases of work. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION It is our understanding that a 22 lot subdivision with associated driveway and utility improvements is planned for this site. Single family one and /or two- story structures of woodframe construction are anticipated. Shallow foundations and conventional concrete slab -on -grade floors are also anticipated. AVAILABLE PLANS To assist in determining the locations and elevations of our field density tests and to define the general extent of the site grading for this phase of work, we were provided with a grading plan prepared by HCH Partners of San Diego, California, dated August 3, 1990. It is our understanding that elevations of the building pads were revised with the approval of the City of Encinitas subsequent to the printing of this plan. The elevation changes consisted of lowering the SCS &T 8921158 November 19, 1991 Page 3 lots on the order of one foot or less and did not significantly affect the configuration of the pads. SITE PREPARATION Prior to the subject grading operations, the existing structures on the site were demolished and the site was cleared of vegetation. The majority of the materials generated by the demolition and clearing operations was exported from the jobsite; however, portions of the existing concrete foundations were incorporated into the fills in several areas of the site. The grading operations began with the removal of existing fills and /or compressible topsoils to firm natural ground. The soils generated by the removal operations were stockpiled on site or placed as uniformly compacted fill in previously prepared areas. The soils exposed in areas to receive fill were scarified to a depth of approximately twelve inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted prior to the placement of fill. Fill soils were then placed in lifts approximately twelve inches in thickness, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction by means of a sheepsfoot roller and heavy construction equipment. The grading operations were performed by R.E. Hazard Contracting Company using a Caterpillar D6H crawler dozer, a Caterpillar 623 self loading scraper, a Komatsu PC200 backhoe /excavator, a sheepsfoot roller, and a water truck. During the site grading operations, seven seepage pits were unearthed in various areas of the site. The approximate locations of the seepage pits are shown on Plate No. 1 of this report. With the exception of the seepage pits located in the northern portion of lot 9 and the western portion of lot 4 of block "0 ", the seepage pits were removed in their entirety and the resulting excavations were backfilled with a uniformly compacted backfill. The seepage pit located in the northern portion of lot 9 was excavated to a depth of approximately 33 feet below finished grade elevation, capped with a three -foot thick concrete cap, and the resulting excavation was backfilled with a uniformly compacted backfill. The SCS &T 8921158 November 19, 1991 Page 4 seepage pit located in the western portion of lot 4 of block "o" was excavated to a depth of approximately nine feet below finished grade elevation, flooded, and subsequently backfilled with a uniformly compacted backfill. The seepage pits were excavated by means of the Komatsu PC200 backhoe /excavator, generally resulting in narrow backhoe trench excavations. The backfill placed in these trenches was compacted by means of a sheepsfoot wheel placed on the backhoe /excavator. A representative of our firm was present during the backfilling operations in order to observe the backfilling process; however, in -place density tests were not performed in the lower trench elevations due to safety concerns associated with entering a deep narrow trench. The excavation for the seepage pit on lot 9 extended beneath the proposed structures on lots 8 and 9. The large differential in fill depth which resulted will require additional foundation reinforcement for the structures to be founded on these lots. Revised foundation recommendations for these structures are contained hereinafter. OVERSIZED CONCRETE CHUNKS Oversized concrete chunks which were generated by the demolition operations on site were placed in a structural fill area in the southern portion of lot 8 and the northern portion of lot 9. The chunks placed in this area were generally no larger than two feet in greatest dimension. The chunks were placed un- nested, surrounded by fine grained soils, amply watered, and compacted in place. No oversized concrete chunks were placed within five feet of finished grade elevation. In addition to the oversized concrete chunks, chunks of concrete measuring generally no larger than six inches in greatest dimension were incorporated into the fills in several areas of the site. The approximate locations of these areas are shown on Plate No. 1 of this report. 1 SCS &T 8921158 November 19, 1991 Page 5 RETAINING WALL BACRFILLS Between phases 2 and 4 of the rough grading work, masonry retaining walls were constructed on the south and west sides of Block '0' and the north side of Block W. Drains consisting of perforated drain pipe surrounded by crushed 3/4 inch rock and wrapped in geotechnical filter fabric were provided behind the walls. Backfills consisting of the native and imported silty sands were placed in four to six inch lifts by means of a skiploader, were watered to above the optimum moisture content, and were compacted by means of manually operated mechanical whackers and a vibratory roller. FIELD OBSERVATION AND TESTING Observations and field density tests were performed by a representative of Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. during the site grading operations. The density tests were taken according to ASTM D1556 -82 and ASTM D2922 -81. The results of those tests are shown on the attached Plates. The accuracy of the in- situ density test locations and elevations is a function of the accuracy of the survey control provided by other than Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. representatives. Unless otherwise noted, their locations and elevations were determined by pacing and hand level methods and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 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 complies with the job requirements, local grading ordinances, and the Uniform Building Code. LABORATORY TESTS Maximum dry density determinations were performed on representative samples of the soils used in the compacted fills according to ASTM D1557 -78, Method A. This method specifies that a four inch diameter cylindrical mold of 1/30 cubic foot volume be used and that the soil tested be placed in five equal layers with each SCS &T 8921158 November 19, 1991 Page 6 layer compacted by twenty -five blows of a 10 -pound hammer with an 18 -inch drop. The results of these tests, as presented on Plate No. 4, were used in conjunction with the field density tests to determine the degree of relative compaction of the compacted fill. CONCLUSIONS Based on our field observations and the density test results, it is the opinion of Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. that the grading was performed basically in accordance with the recommendations contained in the referenced Report of Geotechnical Investigation (Reference No. 3), and, except as modified hereinafter, the recommendations for the minimum design for foundations contained therein remain applicable to the subject site. FOUNDATIONS As a result of the excavation and backfilling of the seepage pit in the northern portion of lot 9, a large differential in the depth of fill exists beneath the proposed footings for the structures to be founded on lots 8 and 9. It is recommended that the footing reinforcement for the southern footing line for lot 8, the northern footing line for lot 9, the western footing line for lot 8, and the western footing line for lot 9, be increased to a minimum of two #5 bars near the top of the footing and two #5 bars near the bottom of the footing. LIMITATIONS This report covers only the services performed between August 28 and November 18, 1991. 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 manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the grading operations with the job requirements. No warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to services we have performed, and neither the performance of those services nor SCS &T 8921158 November 19, 1991 Page 7 the submittal of this report should be construed as relieving the grading contractor of his responsibility to conform with the job requirements. 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, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. �OQPpFESS11 L u H C a W "N .GE000215 m g s Hicks, SCS &T Project Supervisor Exp. 9 v v * � gT \6 - C F �F CAL�F� Charles H. Christian, R.G.E. #00215 CHC:DH:rr cc: (4) Submitted, (2) HCH Partners, (1) SCS &T Escondido JOB NAME: St. Johns 22 Lot Subdivision JOB NO: 892115E IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS, ASTM D1556 -82 PLATE NO: 2 TEST DATE LOCATION ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DEN.SOIL REL.COMP. NO. (feet,MSL)(percent)(p.c.f) TYPE (percent) --------------------------------------------------- 1 8 -9 -91 Lot 10, Block "N" 57.5 7.0 107.5 2 83.4 2 8 -9 -91 Retest of 1 57.5 9.9 118.9 2 92.2 3 8 -30 -91 Lot 13/14, Block "N" 63.0 PNG 9.3 121.0 1 92.9 4 8 -30 -91 Lot 17, Block "N" 62.0 PNG 9.9 121.6 1 93.3 5 8 -30 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 64.5 9.9 121.5 1 93.2 6 8 -30 -91 Lot 18, Block "N" 63.0 8.5 120.9 1 92.8 7 8 -30 -91 Lot 17, Block "N" 64.0 9.3 117.5 1 90.2 8 8 -30 -91 Lot 10, Block "N" 59.5 9.9 122.2 1 93.8 9 8 -30 -91 Lot 10, Block "N" 61.5 11.2 117.8 2 91.4 10 8 -30 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 62.0 NG 6.0 111.6 1 85.6* 11 8 -30 -91 Lot 16, Block "N" 61.5 NG 7.8 112.6 1 86.4* 12 8 -30 -91 Lot 15, Block "N" 63.5 9.7 123.5 1 94.8 13 8 -30 -91 Lot 17, Block "N" 64.5 9.8 121.8 1 93.5 14 9 -3 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 64.0 13.6 123.6 2 95.9 15 9 -3 -91 Lot 3/18, Block "N" 62.0 11.1 121.0 2 93.9 16 9 -3 -91 Lot 15, Block "N" 61.0 NG 7.0 111.1 1 85.3* 17 9 -3 -91 Lot 17/18, Block "N" 63.0 9.9 115.0 1 88.3 18 9 -3 -91 Retest of 17 63.0 13.6 124.9 1 95.9 19 9 -3 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 63.0 12.4 123.4 1 94.7 20 9 -3 -91 Lot 17/18, Block "N" 64.0 9.3 116.2 2 90.1 21 9 -3 -91 Lot 15, Block "N" 66.5 12.4 121.1 1 92.9 22 9 -3 -91 Lot 18, Block "N" 66.5 12.4 122.8 1 94.2 23 9 -4 -91 Lot 15/16, Block "N" 62.5 9.9 116.6 2 90.5 24 9 -4 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 64.5 9.9 116.2 2 90.1 25 9 -4 -91 Lot 4/5, Block "N" 62.0 12.4 123.7 1 94.9 26 9 -4 -91 Lot 8, Block "N" 63.0 11.7 121.0 1 92.9 27 9 -5 -91 Lot 5, Block "N" 62,5 12.4 116.4 2 90.3 28 9 -5 -91 Seepage Pit #4, Block "N "56.0 9.3 117.3 2 91.0 29 9 -5 -91 Seepage Pit #2, Block "N "56.5 14.9 124.5 1 95.5 30 9 -5 -91 Seepage Pit #5, Block "N "59.0 9.3 117.8 1 90.4 31 9 -5 -91 Seepage Pit #3, Block "N "60.0 11.1 118.9 1 91.3 32 9 -5 -91 Seepage Pit #1, Block "N "58.0 11.7 119.8 1 91.9 33 9 -5 -91 Lot 11/12, Block "N" 61.0 NG 7.0 117.4 1 90.1* 34 9 -5 -91 Lot 8/13, Block "N" 64.5 8.1 117.1 2 90.8 35 9 -6 -91 Lot 2/3, Block "O" 61.5 NG 6.4 112.4 1 86.3* 36 9 -6 -91 Lot 7, Block "N" 61.0 PNG 12.4 120.5 1 92.5 37 9 -6 -91 Lot 6/7, Block "N" 64.0 8.7 116.1 2 90.1 38 9 -6 -91 Lot 3, Block "O" 63.0 13.6 110.7 4 94.6 39 9 -6 -91 Seepage Pit #6, Block "N "57.0 13.6 117.5 1 90.2 40 9 -9 -91 Lot 5, Block "0" 64.0 16.3 113.5 4 97.0 41 9 -9 -91 Lot 1, Block "O" 63.0 12.4 124.0 2 96.2 42 9 -9 -91 Lot 2/3, Block "O" 64.0 14.9 112.4 4 96.1 43 9 -9 -91 Lot 3, Block "0" 65.0 11.7 117.4 2 91.1 44 9 -10 -91 Lot 4/5, Block "0" 61.0 NG 7.0 113.4 1 87.0* 45 9 -10 -91 Seepage Pit #7, Block "0 "58.0 11.1 117.6 2 91.2 46 9 -10 -91 Seepage Pit #7, Block 11 0 "60.0 14.9 124.6 1 95.6 47 9 -10 -91 Lot 1/2, Block "0" 62.0 13.6 120.1 1 92.2 JOB NAME: St. Johns 22 Lot Subdivision JOB NO: 8921158 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS, ASTM D1556 -82 PLATE NO: 3 TEST DATE LOCATION ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DEN.SOIL REL.COMP. NO. (feet,MSL)(percent)(p.c.f) TYPE (percent) ------------------------------------------------ 48 9 -10 -91 Lot 5, Block "0" 64.0 13.6 115.6 4 98.8 49 9 -10 -91 Lot 6, Block "0" 62.0 12.4 119.5 1 91.7 50 9 -11 -91 Lot 12, Block "N" 63.0 14.9 107.0 3 92.4 51 9 -11 -91 Lot 13, Block "N" 65.0 12.4 103.6 3 89.5 52 9 -11 -91 Retest of 51, Block "N" 65.0 12.4 106.7 3 92.1 53 9 -11 -91 Lot 11, Block "N" 64.0 13.0 104.5 3 90.2 54 9 -12 -91 Lot 12, Block "N" 66.5 13.6 107.4 3 92.7 55 9 -12 -91 Lot 3/4, Block "N" 62.0 14.9 106.2 5 90.0 56 9 -12 -91 Lot 9, Block "N" 62.0 11.1 101.9 5 86.4 57 9 -12 -91 Lot 7, , Block "N" 63.0 14.3 108.3 5 91.8 58 9 -12 -91 Retest of 56 62.0 17.6 106.8 3 92.2 59 9 -13 -91 Seepage Pit #7, Block "0 11 56.0 12.4 118.0 2 91.5 60 9 -13 -91 Seepage Pit #7, Block 110 1158.0 11.7 118.1 2 91.6 61 9 -13 -91 Lot 5, Blcok "N" 64.5 13.0 98.0 3 84.6 62 9 -13 -91 Lot 8, Block "N" 64.0 13.6 106.3 3 91.8 63 9 -13 -91 Seepage Pit #7, Block 110 1160.5 12.4 118.6 2 92.0 64 9 -16 -91 Lot 9, Block "N" 85.5 14.9 106.9 5 90.6 65 9 -16 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 67.0 11.1 123.8 1 95.0 66 9 -16 -91 Lot 11/12, Block "N" 66.0 16.3 115.3 5 97.7 67 9 -16 -91 Lot 17, Block "N" 67.5 12.4 108.8 5 92.2 68 9 -17 -91 Lot 6, Block "0" 61.5 11.1 117.6 1 90.3 69 9 -18 -91 Lot 18, Block "N" 68.5 FG 12.4 112.5 5 95.3 70 9 -18 -91 Lot 17, Block "N" 69.1 FG 11.0 110.4 5 93.6 71 9 -18 -91 Lot 16, Block "N" 68.8 FG 12.7 115.1 5 97.5 72 9 -18 -91 Lot 15, Block "N" 68.8 FG 14.6 113.5 5 96.2 73 9 -18 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 68.7 FG 11.9 113.0 5 95.8 74 9 -18 -91 Lot 13, Block "N" 68.6 FG 11.8 113.7 5 96.4 75 9 -18 -91 Lot 12, Block "N" 68.3 FG 12.1 111.4 5 94.4 76 9 -18 -91 Lot 11, Block "N" 66.8 FG 13.6 112.3 5 95.2 77 9 -18 -91 Retest of 61 64.5 14.7 109.2 5 92.5 78 9 -19 -91 Lot 10, Block "N" 66.5 FG 10.7 109.8 5 93.1 79 9 -19 -91 Lot 9, Block "N" 67.0 FG 11.4 109.5 5 92.8 80 9 -19 -91 Lot 8, Block "N" 66.5 FG 12.0 111.3 5 94.3 81 9 -19 -91 Lot 7, Block "N" 66.5 FG 10.8 112.1 5 95.0 82 9 -19 -91 Lot 6, Block "N" 66.5 FG 12.5 114.1 5 96.7 83 9 -19 -91 Lot 5, Block "N" 60.0 FG 13.2 111.1 5 94.2 84 9 -19 -91 Lot 4, Block "N" 66.0 FG 11.3 108.4 5 91.9 85 9 -19 -91 Lot 3, Block "N" 65.5 FG 10.2 107.4 5 91.0 86 10 -7 -91 Lot 3, Block "O" 62.0 PEF 10.5 122.2 1 93.8 87 10 -7 -91 Lot 2, Block 11 0" 63.5 13.0 107.4 5 91.0 88 10 -7 -91 Lot 5, Block "0" 64.0 16.3 111.6 5 94.6 89 10 -8 -91 Lot 1/2, Block "0" 65.5 13.0 113.2 5 95.9 90 10 -8 -91 Lot 4, Block 11 0" 65.5 12.4 108.5 5 91.9 91 10 -8 -91 Lot 5/6, Block "0" 66.0 13.5 103.0 5 87.3 92 10 -8 -91 Lot 11, Block "N" 66.5 FG 11.3 115.3 5 97.7 93 10 -8 -91 Lot 12, Block "N" 67.5 FG 11.3 109.0 5 92.4 94 10 -8 -91 Lot 13, Block "N" 67.5 FG 10.7 113.6 5 96.3 95 10 -8 -91 Lot 14, Block "N" 67.5 FG 8.7 122.9 1 94.3 JOB NAME: St. Johns 22 Lot Subdivision JOB NO: 8921158 IN -PLACE DENSITY TESTS, ASTM D1556 -82 PLATE N0: 4 TEST DATE LOCATION ELEVATION MOISTURE DRY DEN.SOIL REL.COMP. NO. (feet,MSL)(percent)(p.c.f) TYPE (percent) --------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 96 10 -8 -91 Lot 15, Block "N" 68.0 FG 6.2 117.8 1 90.4 97 10 -8 -91 Lot 16, Block "N" 68.0 FG 10.9 120.5 1 92.5 98 10 -8 -91 Lot 17, Block "N" 68.0 FG 11.8 110.0 5 93.2 99 10 -8 -91 Retest of 91 66.0 14.0 106.3 5 90.1 100 10 -10 -91 Lot 10, Block "N" 66.0 FG 11.8 113.8 5 96.4 101 10 -10 -91 Lot 9, Block "N" 66.0 FG 10.5 109.4 5 92.7 102 10 -10 -91 Lot 8, Block "N" 65.5 FG 11.5 106.6 5 90.3 103 10 -10 -91 Lot 7, Block "N" 65.5 FG 12.4 109.7 5 93.0 104 10 -10 -91 Lot 6, Block "N" 65.0 FG 11.2 106.8 5 90.5 105 10 -10 -91 Lot 5, Block "N" 65.0 FG 11.1 113.1 5 95.8 106 10 -10 -91 Lot 4, Block "N" 65.0 FG 11.3 108.5 5 91.9 107 11 -14 -91 Lot 6, Block "O" 65.5 11.4 110.0 5 93.2 108 11 -14 -91 Lot 6, Block "0" 67.0 11.7 113.1 5 95.9 109 11 -14 -91 Lot 5, Block "0" 65.5 12.2 108.3 5 91.8 110 11 -14 -91 Lot 5, Block "0" 66.5 11.4 112.2 5 95.1 111 11 -14 -91 Lot 4, Block "0" 65.5 13.6 119.6 1 91.8 112 11 -14 -91 Lot 4, Block "0" 67.0 9.2 118.8 1 91.2 113 11 -18 -91 Lot 5, Block " 0 " 68.0 FG 9.9 119.3 1 91.6 114 11 -18 -91 Lot 3, Block " 0 " 67.0 FG 11.1 125.0 1 95.9 115 11 -18 -91 Lot 2, Block "0" 67.0 FG 8.1 118.0 2 91.5 116 11 -18 -91 Lot 1, Block "0" 66.0 FG 8.7 118.1 2 91.6 RETAINING WALL RW1 10 -18 -91 Lot 5, Block "O" 63.0 14.8 111.6 5 94.6 RW2 10 -18 -91 Lot 2, Block "0" 63.0 15.1 111.4 5 94.4 RW3 10 -18 -91 Lot 6, Block "0" 67.5 13.6 107.6 5 91.2 RW4 10 -18 -91 Lot 6, Block "0" 68.5 14.9 108.2 5 91.7 RW5 10 -21 -91 Lot 6, Block "O" 64.0 13.5 108.6 5 92.0 RW6 10 -21 -91 Lot 4, Block "0" 64.0 15.3 108.0 5 91.5 RW7 10 -21 -91 Lot 1, Block "0" 64.5 13.1 109.1 5 92.5 RW8 10 -21 -91 Lot 5, Block "0" 65.5 15.8 107.0 5 90.7 RW9 10 -22 -91 Lot 6, Block " 0 " 66.0 12.7 115.8 5 98.1 RW10 10 -22 -91 Lot 3, Block "0" 65.0 11.6 112.7 5 95.5 RWll 10 -23 -91 Lot 3, Block "0" 67.0 FG 13.9 114.2 5 96.8 RW12 10 -23 -91 Lot 1, Block "0" 65.0 FG 13.4 110.2 5 93.4 RW13 10 -23 -91 Lot 6, Block "0" 67.0 FG 13.8 112.9 5 95.7 RW14 10 -23 -91 Lot 3, Block "N" 64.0 10.0 118.2 2 91.7 RW15 10 -23 -91 Lot 18, Block "N" 64.5 10.9 117.8 2 91.2 RW16 10 -25 -91 Lot 18, Block "N" 65.5 14.0 111.6 5 94.6 RW17 10 -28 -91 Lot 18, Block "N" 66.5 14.0 112.6 5 95.4 RW18 10 -28 -91 Lot 18, Block "N" 66.5 13.3 108.6 5 92.0 RW19 10 -28 -91 Lot 3, Block "N" 65.0 14.5 111.4 5 94.4 RW20 10 -28 -91 Lot 3, Block "N" 65.0 13.0 113.0 5 95.8 PEF - Prepared Existing Fill FG - Finished Grade r JOB NAME: St. Johns 22 Lot Subdivision JOB NO: 892115E PLATE NO: 5 MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS, ASTM 1557 -78 -------------------------------------------------------- SOIL METHOD DESCRIPTION OPTIMUM MAXIMUM TYPE MOISTURE DENSITY (percent) (pcf) 1 A Reddish Brown, Silty 8.3 130.3 Sand (SM) 2 A Brown, Slightly Silty 8.7 128.9 Sand (SM) 3 A Yellow, Silty Clayey 13.5 115.8 Sand (SC) 4 A Light Brown /Tan, Slightly 12.0 117.0 Silty Sand (SM) 5 A Yellow, Silty Sand (SM) 12.4 118.0 APPENDIX A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL S TESTING, INC. APPENDIX A 1) "Second Interim Report of Field Observations and Relative Compaction Tests, Proposed Saint Johns 22 Lot Subdivision ", by Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., dated October 17, 1991. 2) "Interim Report of Field Observations and Relative Compaction Tests, Proposed Saint Johns 22 Lot Subdivision ", by Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., dated September 19, 1991. 3) "Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Saint Johns 22 Lots, Melrose Avenue and Marcheta Street, Encinitas, California ", by Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., dated November 2, 1989. OW IHOH . ................ ...... ................................ .............. .. J7 0 Z 1 3 D H I C, - I %In --,r% I 0 9 A - --I - I r I �kl cl -4 0 1,4 0 i or, X. 0 G I JO 6_�o s 0 I ell t C 111A L IC A C), i t _.I, AI�10 I L I V.I. f c, i�, i v c i f00, D Gff 3SVE] �.4 0 'SIHO :DSM *('N 3NMV(1J-G SXi(\_j'0A 01 tI �j v 11N I avo 3 AA 3 )6 _T1 4 L# 3 -LV'1 d *:. I 80N eor - .�V, ' A, f It L6 mam/o An 31 A 40NI V 110 -0 VINUO.-J11VO NbIMH.LnOS I I Slid 30Vd33S :10 NOlIV301 31VWIXOUddV - IVAOW3U -40 Sl1W11 31VW1X01JddV I 1. 0 4 ;A I I (SS31 HO 133-4 Z) S)INnH3 313HONO3 a33VId -40 NOlIV301 3JLVWIXOUddV r L7 L D 0 0 I 4"" �kto OkOWA .W.W. -1 11 0 -) S)INnHo 31311ONO3 G93V1d :10 NOUV30 3.LVWIXOUdd (SS3 I0 r to I I I L io" A P, A A > 1VA0W38 :10 W01108 -40 NOIIVA313 31VWIXOUddV .............. ........... . ....... N A — �_l \1� j�, 0\cm��- *4 A \ AQ -- I -- - - , ... - I 11� r b I 4661l '/-L 130) NOlIV301 IS31 AlISN3a 33VId 10 A W , .A. - ei M *M, -NI pi I t `j *A _1d-N1 466L '61l ld3S) N011V30 ALS31 &.LISN3(3 30V I0 L4 � , At II I 000 * 01 6 .1, r\ 7., I Mom F _L" f , A O'Q 0 Lc�o Lc� c I 0 , p . CIO I 761 ov (A 0 S3l.Al1SN3a 33'V_1d-N1 a Abi I `A' 111"3V9 11VM :10 SIMI 31VWIX O*Ot '0HddV #00*()* I 466II'llZ AON) NOUV30 at a OL I 9 9 9 LM(A A CIN3031 I I I $ .1 I I I I t 3S too t 0: A A - Crg _x *3 x 0GO I 'I 17' 7 06 C6M * - I �N 4� .44 I U) 00 1,7 I I 9 I I , 9 LIMIN 0 L 6 9 I 9LW8 I- 6 9 z 0 0 f";4 -71 F 0, I (IV d - — "" 0 9 2 9 v d 0 2 R_ 9 c v d L A, -t 6' 4 j N \ Z 6 I 6 A 0 I Ck I II 01 09-LVAVOX3 V 6 M hi some 0:J GMM V' ELM8 Co I I —o..e Ilp LM ot _W i I ZM8 M 8 �r.\M , . 0 0)� % ox. i ft - --- I < , 1. no og OLM8 Ltmbl ZLMM LMN A "00 I. �, c I I C tI ;1. c 4) 90, 00 N1 i t-, - 01'091VAVDX3 I .0 4 _qq Ir tI ts kp - 0 t 00 0 9 9 Ell 0( I I o u�j 99=Gvd 6/_ r '0 9 99 d 09 *9 CA 9 9 C v d Leo COL I I u �A�9(.?==nvd 7 7T Q (_ I "'. \ d I'll, - p 11. - i I 4- 1 7 1 N 9 I - - 'I ), t I I .. q r �-,, I 4" -9 9 =J_ 9 9 ==AJ v 17 U cl ri n c n 10 ", %e 000 VOL 031VAVOX 1?M8 6 9 7:7: Ob I tt z "b-7 �, $� 1 9 ' ( I . 11 5 1 I 44 L6_ z 'Z 9 L9 ma . p. 9 9 , I W V I I t I r k P, ZOL to II I I 60L 0 L LT 94 1 1 �. . JI I *. I I -f -LOL I M 66 y;;- 9LL Lo 09 9*9 9 00 t cl Z9 67,: A 0 I I -Q9) r .4 I I A' .— 1 10 0 6 lo 4C 0", F- : IE 17' I o 00 ......... PO t 48 I I -el k 9 0 Flo T ry . eN je, 0 ......... .. 000 04QA i 7 T I Oro. I I *0 * JA It M M :t - 4 �v y , - I - -0 t o - o ---- > e.(: I J� . ......... n ZO*OJv r I A AI, )A N Y . Z- - - t — cy .1% 0 v N C ., rci xj I 0 or C,11 04 II01 1 7' A I M I I I :3�VOS SNOLLY001 2-0 N V H!) _ ITY"O 01 3nO DNLU*J�N L L N:,] iN I 9 00 01 5n 0 NOISICIIM PUZ . ri e9_0 O N 1,13 1� P; L 01 300 NOIS30_1 01. 011 �LLA60 AI01 Yo r' I W A w D 3 I oi. �jo!\,irj t ONU.33YI `9 "Y"O' G N 01 C 3 8XL 6 J.01 No IS:30 O'q*O 0 JO dn 01 0 IYNI�4r' Ir. Lt" I ft _T4_ NO r5D 0 o QJYN1Y1rM- W' aa NOISIA3 A NoText NoText NoText NoText