Loading...
2001-7260 G NGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Cr t o E Capital Improvement Projects Encinitas District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering September 2, 2004 Attn: Wells Fargo 276A N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Roberts, Matthew 970 Via Di Felicita Grading Permit 7260 -G APN 264 - 540 -02 Final release of security Permit 7260 -G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, a full release in the remaining security deposit is merited. Certificate Deposit Account 3000460687, in the original amount of $60,892.00, is hereby released in entirety. The certificate was reduced to $15,223.00. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. J . Sincerely, - � .• Masih Maher fay mbach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Field Operations Financial Services cc Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Roberts, Matthew Debra Geishart File TEL 760 - 633 -2600 / FAX 760- 633 -2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024 -3633 TI)D 760 -633 -2700 TJ,,J recycled paper • • I a CZt- O,lNEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering October 14, 2002 Attn: Wells Fargo 276A N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Roberts, Matthew 970 Via Di Felicita \ C4rading Permit 7260 -G APN 264 - 540 -02 Partial release of security Permit 7260 -G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, single driveway, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the rough grading. Therefore, a reduction in the security deposit is merited. Certificate Deposit Account 3000460687, in the amount of $60,892.00, may be reduced by 75% to $15,223.00. The document original will be kept until such time it is fully exonerated. The retention and a separate assignment guarantee completion of finish grading. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, Z 6 0 Masih Maher ay L mbach Senior Civil Engineer Finance Manager Field Operations Financial Services cc Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Roberts, Matthew Debra Geishart File TEL 760- 633 -2600 / FAX � X 76o- 633 -2627 . 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas. California 92024 -3633 TDD 760- 633 -2700 t� recycled paper Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers /Surveyors/General- Fngineefing Contradors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive •Carlsbad, CA 92008 •Telephone (760) 753 -1453 •Fax (760) 635 -0839 JAN 2 9 2002 rs HYDROLOGY CALCULATION!9 l ' and HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS for ROBERTS RESIDENCE 1225 DESERT ROSE WAY ENCINITAS, CA APN 264- 151 -35 GRADING PLAN 7260 -G 1* of ESS, O K• p �� � � f 0 � No. 41021 d EXPIRES 3 -31 -2003 l V I IL l� OF AV %* Prepared: October 1, 2001 Revision 1: January 25, 2002 • Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Fn&eers/Surveyors /General - Engineering -HAZ Contractors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • Telephone (760) 753 -1453 • Fax (760) 635 -0839 INDEX INDEX Page 2 INTRODUCTION AND REPORT METHODOLOGY Page 3 TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCAULATIONS Page 5 TRIBUTARY BASIN HYDROLOGY COMPUTATIONS Page 11 STORM DRAIN SYSTEM DESIGN CALCULATIONS Page 16 ONSITE HYDROLOGY MAP (1 "=40', 8Y2 "z11") Page 30 (Basin C) OFFSITE HYDROLOGY MAP (1 =100 36 "x24 ") Enclosure (Basin A and Basin B) Page 2 • Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers/ Surveyors /General- Engineering -HAZ Contractors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive • Carlsbad. CA 92008 • Telephone (760) 753 -1453 • Fax (760) 635 -0839 INTRODUCTION AND REPORT METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of this report is to present the results of a hydrology study and hydraulic design analysis prepared by Conway and Associates, Inc. for the proposed Roberts Residence project. This report serves as the basis of design for the extension of the existing onite 18" RCP culvert, to evaluate the proposed grading modification to the existing drainage course running through the site, and miscellaneous site drainage improvements. The existing 18" RCP storm drain located within the project limits was installed as part of the sanitary sewer installation work shown on City drawing CS -289, Sheet 2 of 3. The developer will construct the proposed storm drain extension as part of the project's grading permit and it will be owned and maintained by the developer. It should be noted that a portion of the existing 18" storm drain and the inlet headwall shown on City drawing CS -289 were not constructed inside the 30 -foot wide utility easement as originally designed. Site Description The subject site address is 1225 Desert Rose Way, Encinitas, CA (APN 264- 151 -35). The subject site fronts on Via de Felicita to the south and abuts the City of Encinitas and City of Carlsbad boundary to the north. The subject site is an irregular quadrangle, encompassing 1.57 acres with large portions of the site consisting of relatively steep slopes. The subject site is roughly bisected diagonally by a natural drainage course running southwesterly through the site. The natural drainage course is seasonally active. The proposed site development consists of a single family residence with slope grading and paved driveway. Reference the 1" =100' scale hydrology map (36 "x24 ") located in this report for the site location and the relative limits of the offsite tributary basin. The site's proposed single family residence building pad is located adjacent to and northerly of the existing drainage course. A portion of the proposed grading will re- contour a portion of the existing drainage course located along the southerly limits of the proposed pad grading. Stone lining will be installed in the graded channel to address the erosion potential. General Basin Descriptions and Flow Characteristics The main offsite tributary basin lies north and east of the subject site and consists mainly of steep- sloped, naturally vegetated land fringed with moderate - density, fully developed single family residential areas. The storm flow runoff from the tributary basin is conveyed through a combination of overland flow, dirt trails and natural channel flow conditions. The outflow of the tributary basin runs through the modified channel located along the south edge of the residential pad. The modified channel terminates at the new 18" storm drain culvert extension as detailed on the grading plan. The new 18" storm drain culvert extension connects to the existing 18" RCP storm drain culvert, which in turn discharges to the existing offsite seasonal drainage channel located along the westerly boundary of the project. Page 3 Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers/ Surveyors/General - Engineering -HAZ Contractors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • Telephone (760) 753 -1453 • Fax (760) 635 -0839 Hydrology Study Methodology A rational- method format was used to evaluate runoff quantities for the tributary basins presented herein in accordance with the County of San Diego hydrology manual. This hydrology study used runoff coefficients appropriate to soil type 'D': 0.45 for the rural - residential zoned areas. Offsite Basin A - (11.8 acres) Tributary to the Rock -Lined Channel and 18" RCP SD Extension: A 100 -year return rainfall event yields a time of concentration of 16 minutes for the offsite tributary basin; a 6 -hour, 100 - year frequency rainfall event of 2.8 inches; and a peak rainfall intensity of 3.4 inches/hour. A 100 -year return design flow of 18 cfs was computed for the 18" RCP storm drain inflow. The storm drain data for the existing 18" RCP storm drain shown on City drawing CS -289 notes a Q100 design value of 7 cfs. A final build -out condition for the offsite tributary basin corresponding to rural residential single family development use was used. A majority of the offsite tributary basin is located within the City of Carlsbad's multi- species habitat area and is set aside in a perpetual open space easement and no future development of this area is anticipated. The runoff coefficient selected for the offsite tributary area yields a conservative design flow value. The hydraulics of the graded channel located along the south sided of the building pad was analyzed using the Army Corps of Engineers HEC -RAS computer program. The hydraulic analysis of the modified channel shows a hydraulics jump occurring near the inlet of the new 18" storm drain extension. The graded channel incorporates rip -rap lining along the side walls and invert of the channel to protect against channel erosion. A minimum of one foot of freeboard was maintained between the computed water surface elevations in the channel and the rough - graded pad elevations adjacent to the channel. Offsite Basin B - (0.23 acres) Tributary to D -75 Ditch: A 100 -year return rainfall event yields a time of concentration of 12 minutes for the D -75 ditch tributary basin; a 6 -hour, 100 -year frequency rainfall event of 2.8 inches; and a peak rainfall intensity of 4.2 inches/hour. A 100 -year return design flow of 0.5 cfs was computed for the D -75 ditch sub -basin outflow. Onsite Basin C - (0.36 acres) 6" & 8" PVC Storm Drain Collection System for Graded Area: A100-year return rainfall event yields a time of concentration of 12 minutes for Onsite Basin C, which encompasses the driveway and adjoining home site; a 6 -hour, 100 -year frequency rainfall event of 2.8 inches; and a peak rainfall intensity of 4.2 inches/hour. A 100 -year return design flow of 1.5 cfs was computed Onsite Basin C. A storm water filter system manufactured by Kristar Enterprises (`Flo -Gard' catch basin insert, Model FF- 24D) was specified for the most - downstream catch basin of Onsite Basin C in compliance with SUSMP requirements. All storm water runoff from Onsite Basin C is directed through this proposed filter system. The proposed storm water filter has a net flow capacity of 133 GPM, in excess of the computed design peak outflow rate of 43 CFM. Conclusion It is the professional opinion of Conway and Associates, Inc. that the proposed storm drain systems presented in the project's grading plans will adequately convey the Qloo design flows anticipated by the computation contained in this report. Page 4 Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers /Surveyo►s/Gaicral- Enginecring Contractors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • Telephone (760) 753 -1453 • Fax (760) 635 -0839 TIME OF CONCENTRATION AND DESIGN RUNOFF CALCAULATIONS s Conway & Associates, Inc. jivil Engineers /Surveyors/General- Engineering Contractors AB412412 135 Liverpool Drive • Suite D • Cardiff- -by- the -Sea, CA 92007 • Telephone (760) 753 -1453 • Fax (760) 635 -0839 /d O - Asa �vyle . Coe �-tc// C r o x CflS.Z1 ioc. R4 .e a 0 -'W7 )ewa it 1 4e-l' i'�1.� Z- ? r Job No. 40 Desc. 4 0'Wf Date Sht i� of !Y 1 N M o vi N M O 4, _ a > N� M N /� I1 � r a a w o �` q 00 mo + �R 0 V �� E I� Q r r N U j O N U? ta LL > 06 %4 J cc U \ p ` c W m v O M N O O N LO v Q _ g O O O O O O O O N N CO O U � o c E U U C7 W O O r- 00 M M tf') � M Q O w O M O O r � m N L 6 0 M N r r O z w j v L W C L � W E c c c= 11 II ~ N 00 N 0) 00 00 LO O O O Co LO O LO d 0 N N et 0) O - O m 0) 0) O M 0) M O 0 O O O O O O O O U U N U- N_ R t0 a c 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ° I° ca W w a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 0 W� O H = ZO If ¢ ¢ 0 U Qa�a L" m ~ N H CO o ¢ N W O- N CO c0 v w c Q Z W ¢ N N to LO N r*- I- V W t ° O Q W cn ch co r- M . w Z 0 ¢ Cj w w °¢ c NZ�o c') (9 z 0 U) z > Wz 2 r4 S cc c Co as ~ W O w w co Q Q m U o W IL U' = cv f—w ° E °� �0W mm w w1� �.scz_ 0caoo 0 o m w O c v U cc N a N O W U) °M° �i LO CO O i i i i i i > i Z (n 1 i= co i w O i i i i i Ir i M Q U) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z Q 1 1 1 1 1 (n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 yMj W 1 1 1 ~ J 1 (� O 1 1 Co 1 1 1 1 ' m 1 O Z j 1 1 1 1 1 1 , (� O 1 1 1 1 y Z C7 W F d Ur Q O (U (o (D cc) i c0 i co co O 0 0 W i i i i i i Is 1 o U) 1 ' I I 1 i i i i , N i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z UJ 1 1 1 1 1 O 1 O 1 O 1 p W W i i o i o o °O Lin W a 0 i 0 i 0 i 0 i� i I M ' O U d W-j N ; (%j 1 , N ; N In N N r T > (n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 W 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 p W Z ,^ i i 1 i N '=A a� In In c 1 0 1 I I ) 1 0 0 1 yy VI Z (p 1 ui i I(i 00 N U) a W W T 1 N N 1 to N 1 N , N 1, � i A/ U) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O i i i i i i 1 1 1 W , a _1 Z 0 O O OR In I c7 IA CO c? In O O O I O r r IA 3 1 In M W O O O r r r 0 r; T O O w 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q d 1 1 1 i i i i i i W 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i i i Z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W W d r , N i i lA co i t O I O E L W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N_ (n 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 7 = O co i 0 O i 0 O i 0 O i 0 O i 0 O i 0 O i 0 O i 0 O i U Z 1- C) i CO Uc i O I(•) M 00 i In to IA O 11 O O O N N U) ~ Q Q a' 4 4 i 4 -4 ' c 4 to o ' st N ' N N ' N r ' T � ' � r et i i d i et i i d i i M i CO c7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U (') 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ = O O 0 O i i i i i A co 0 1 0 O , O O, 1 , O O 1 0 O, O 0 1 0 O V , Fb t Z 't O O ") O Uf O O In N N IA 1 In "t O O Un i CO W C) V) I N I M N' et c7 I N r l r O 1 0 C I O f- ' 1-- co ' Q Q i i sfi i s7 i �fi i st d i eo i c) V) i co t0 i •/ly � � U 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r� W o Cl) I cc W = Z � C T N i N c) i M i In It i m co i (o ti i 1� OD i co O i 0 i N C Q Q N dddSSS F - • W W N C m o d _a � u v U a 8 M I _ 13 co 09+ kZ *is -� Z d1681a dO ld IH o+ L d r e G , D C 00 +OZ g c t t W� 0-4 N k H N Al I i U P4 LU C C I t. .. ......... , ,�.. .... .. ),..:. i - —� -- - - �-� - --�-� 00 +51 I � ! I x IF F ` � Q 9 .. w J j , F y EQLIAT /ON \ /�J •3es s'e :l I r ' N SODO re //m of [on[en /lion . ' L Zengfh of wale ^rhed ODDO � . D/lfereoce iA e10vah;00 a/aeg eller.0 rt s /oae /i ,7e (Sea AppCAdix X -QJ T 3000 z Mi /es f'e�f //,W" Minalea ZDOD 4 ?4p /0 /OOD 900 2 9G�0 700 JOO Sao SDO 4 70 300 � 3Z \ 2 �o �� 30 I00 I 1 .flood �dQDD PO .�000 /s So ♦ /a I Jo .�0 NOTE /,f 9 FOR WATE NATURAL RSHMDS /10o e 20 p ADD TEN MINUTES TO 9 oOG 7 / COMPUTED TIME OF CON- 800 CENTRATION. 101 L 6oD IWO 5 ' - H T SAN DIEGO COUNTY NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINATION DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc) DESIGN MANUAL FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS APPROVED '�� a DATE 6 APPENDIX X -A L-A-10 Rev. 5/81 Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers/ Surveyors /General- Engineering Contractors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive •Carlsbad CA 92008 •Telephone (760) 753 -1453 •Fax (760) 635 -0839 TRIBUTARY BASIN HYDROLOGY COMPUTATIONS Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers/Surveyors/General- Engineering Contractors AB412412 135 Liverpool Drive • Suite D • Cardiff -by- the -Sea, CA 92007 • Telephone (760) 753 -1453 • Fax (760) 635 -0839 61 � 7o L 6J1 W 2 GJaVt A A CAN f3a /8 S Zz /f 7f-00 5/S 7- Z. 270 Z48 . /2? 9G3 Z, 93 7-too // f o0 .4o0 z �0 92-5 346 . /39, cod 45'ilino _ 4OO 42s 2 7 /o..._ Zls_ 93 D oao ZA0 L4 /� ..:- d 7wr ice! /J ..GL /O � .... �. /!!�.'� �il /'>° �t c✓ d -� .. �t!� _ .. Gr, _ . ��', rtt� l � S sG o t t� ,. Z 3 �►.� , Job No. / ^ Desc. Date Sht of b r C N O C• O r n i4 r 17 4) it L Ln A C/> L %0 at �J O j � is C 4! +a U C7 L .� .p O Y C V 3Q C W In O A tZ 10. C •et L V N +� C ' it 4! C7 O :. +' � 7. L w 4) N r O N i O C •• N O di • 4) CL W"O pp r qq 4J 4! 44 4 4j A E 4j 4-b r d •r- t A to t C i0 ij C all N r A C L r� T • O 'r V d E C C ,_ ++ n a 0. c, b v+ a� c 41 0 c Al Cu w r L C.4 d `r �O .� C b a - 3 C. C vl C L d w L L 47 G w O ly K 4J i r 0 CA O Z7 .0 N . r 47 4j Z 4� A dr C r i4 LL Cr L1. 10 �' Q v A t0 .0 �C V r V C N M it 1. 0 r .. C +r+ r d N t0 C/ A� r � O N C C. N C! a II 4A c - '� a �c N++ 3+' r- 0) v a „p C v = A Cu Z7 .0 = O r V- L - •C = .r- N p. 4J 0-4 aj }.. �• 1 .� to en d � C ti 6 -Hour Precipitation (inches) z a N o %A o In o Ln o In o N 40 f V':111 .T Q t'7 en N N t0 Ln , 1: 1 i F T I 1'r p 4j i0+ 11 1 _ J I t 11 N Itt 44 ' ���1 • , li 1! 1 III ��II I.I t � 11 p A M __ zz Cl CD Cry 1--- .._.....• - - � .�- ._ — = _.. — r te 1 r - 1 9 4 4 r e j #4 (inotl 1s8434) 4 Usu 2 4uI Revised I /8S APPENDIX XI -A I � to r1r i lilt worm cz CZ uj ' LZJ C6 Ln cz u. O < CD ca .. C O - • I LJ, C Z 1 • _ Z N N c a LAJ NN W cm • M p�� ! •�.� � r y M x f U m i p / #A C) v U j e O LU Y • fl ..7 Ir1 4 c 00 O Z tL J • E v ��--, HOC M w 2 a uj < O _ °c°� vi ai 3 ~ �z a i o o t . OWJ < 1 Y J V W Y I tcc AADFNnTY YT_R Aw cm ca ..... - !'� 1 o r, ,`' `.. ✓ '° _ `--�� e > P.- - co CN cm P- 0 cm ne Cz �.1 °° • CZ C� oc-• _ /O -- r. N _ s ` 4 Z O V } O N 0`6 d4 00 Z U..t < u Q O O U . M x O ui-i `W J+ N - u W N /S Revised 1/85 APPENDIX XI -H Conway & Assoc, Inc. Civil Engineers /Surveyots/Geueral- Engineering Contractors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • Telephone (760) 753 -1453 • Fax (760) 635 -0839 STORM DRAIN SYSTEM DESIGN CALCULATIONS i 18" STORM DRAIN EXTENSION AND ROCK -LINED CHANNEL ii D -75 INTERCEPTING DITCH @ NORTH PROPERTY LINE iii ON -SITE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM (REAR YARD & DRIVEWAY) � !o Line 1 Q =18.2 Size =18 x 0 (Cir) Nv = 0.013 Len = 28.7 JLC = 0.10 1.1 Ex 18" RCP SD / Outfall Invert Depth HGL EGL Area Vel T -Wid Cover Dnstrm 130.20 18 131.70 133.35 1.77 10.30 0.00 N/A Upstrm 131.40 18 132.87 134.53 1.76 10.35 0.43 0.10 Drainage area (ac) = 0.00 Slope of invert ( %) = 4.181 Runoff coefficient (C) = 0.00 Slope energy grade line ( %) = 4.129 Time of conc. (min) = 0.24 Critical depth (in) = 18 Inlet Time (min) = 0.00 Natural ground elev. (ft) = 133.00 Intensity @ 100 yr (in/hr) = 0.00 Upstream surcharge (ft) = 0.00 Cumulative C x A = 0.00 Additional Q (cfs) = 0.00 Q = CA x I (cfs) = 0.00 Full -flow capacity (cfs) = 21.47 Q Catchment (cfs) = 0.00 Inlet Type = MH Q Carryover (cfs) = 0.00 Gutter slope (ft/ft) = 0.00 Q Captured (cfs) = 0.00 Cross slope (ft/ft) = 0.00 Q Bypassed to offsite = 0.00 Width of Flow (ft) = 0.00 Line 2 Q = 18.20 Size = 18 x 0 (Cir) Nv = 0.013 Len = 44.0 JLC = 1.00 1.2 18" RCP SD Extensi / Downstream line = 1 Invert Depth HGL EGL Area Vel T -Wid Cover Dnstrm 131.40 18 133.03 134.68 1.77 10.30 0.00 0.10 Upstrm 133.00 18 134.47 136.13 1.76 10.35 0.43 2.50 Drainage area (ac) = 0.00 Slope of invert ( %) = 3.636 Runoff coefficient (C) = 0.00 Slope energy grade line ( %) = 3.296 Time of conc. (min) = 0.00 Critical depth (in) = 18 Inlet Time (min) = 0.00 Natural ground elev. (ft) = 137.00 Intensity @ 100 yr (in/hr) = 0.00 Upstream surcharge (ft) = 0.00 Cumulative C x A = 0.00 Additional Q (cfs) = 18.20 Q = CA x I (cfs) = 0.00 Full -flow capacity (cfs) = 20.03 -------------------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------------- Q Catchment (cfs) = 0.00 Inlet Type = MH Q Carryover (cfs) = 0.00 Gutter slope (ft/ft) = 0.00 Q Captured (cfs) = 0.00 Cross slope (ft/ft) = 0.00 Q Bypassed to 1 (cfs) = 0.00 Width of Flow (ft) = 0.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COX. / C- IVS - 1011 9 �C? G � - /Nc C' �/� /�i✓[- L 17 H w ° o c 0 0 0 6 w a � Ln CD c o q CO C, M O ao U ° �v c �M mimeo CO n >� c m .. L t V m 0 � N O Nn N U o —0 c 00 co N CO A+ W� > C� c 6 mod' �-i Co 0 a L c O E 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln -W W r r N c o X N <L' f6 Y D1 T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (1) O 0000 tno0 LC) OOtn tO OOtO 0000 OD (O I� tO tO 1� O 00 00 O N r r N tO 14 4 to O 06 co O w u) 04 C M M M M M M M m '7 st It 1-t 1' LO 'w Nt LO w SO O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r = V "O N O O O O O C? M LO O V) M LO O V) M LO O O O r _r r u 6 N M (O Oo T M CO 06 r M (6 OD O CM 4 1� _ i m x r cn U- a� a M 0 LO 00 r M N C r O V 0 v (�j O (O (o M O O (p w r co to m a r N N 0 o� c 0 t M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD OOOO to 00 LO t000to to 00 u•)OOtO OOOO f- C 1 - 4 4 n 00 1 1,: Oo : O O r 4 CM (7 4 OD 1- I� 00 O 4 -4 (o M M M M M M M M d d st Nt tO t[) tf) ao O_ r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r (� 0 d O O Co O O M ('7 tO O M ('7 t0 O V) M t0 O M M LO 0 <Y' d r Q r r-: O (0 r M OD 00 r CM 00 O r M m oO r M o0 00 O N 4 4 () x r r r m a U C N ( 7 M a) V O O O tO Go O) N > LO Nr O m t O+ + + O+ + + V r r r N N M •a 0 a LO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L 0000 tOOOto t o OO tn tO tn OOto OOOOO N y1 1-�(O(O1 OO)(7;O MCV (V co 1-:(OOD1- m4NN C M co M M M M M M qt M M st et Iq le Nt M LO LO LO M 'v V N O O O O O c') M M O M M LO O M C? (O O M M N O to It O O - r r Oi N O r M (6 00 r M (0 00 r M OD Oo M (6 00 O uO 1 oi I- x y r (V r O O M 00 M (o L C O O tO 00 O (0 V O O M t(•) (3) 1` r m to + + + + + ++ r r r r N M N_ 7 N_ 7 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.- 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o �� o�� o � o � o � o LO O O tO 0 0 0 0 0 0 W tO LO O tO LO 00 OT N r 00 M 1- M 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 1- 0: tO (o r l� O t q (7 (cl d> m co (O LO (o v N O O N lqt G NN(o(O(o00Nd'N01--(o00� ���� tntO�Mt()tO � r r r r r r r r r r r c o r r r r r r r r r V U = o 00 qt q1t LO N ti n r r tO LO r- 1` O O Co O (? M to O O Go O M LO NN 00N OOMr rM(D OM toP-: >'+ J 6 00OmmO0)1 O4t0NOM r Vj C 03 ^ r r r r r r N N r N V is 3 •� O O O O Cl O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O co (0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O C', O O O O Co O m M 9 M 4 tO m 1` 0o O O r N M 4 Lc; (0 1� OO O N 4 r M m M M M co M M M'1 w 'T w-t "t W� "Q• tO tO t0 M Cl Q; W r � r r r r r t r r r r . - + + O N M O O O I-- tO O M O M O� O N M O M O r- 0 (o 0 T O N to O q r tO r 0 00 r eF q O d; 'Is: M (o M O r� O O W W CO M 0 to LO M O M 1l- r 1- O M M r N T W Q ++ O O r M* W 1- O O O) O r M Q t0 N O N it O + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + o) r r r r r r r r r �•- N N N N N N M M M � i9 MM MM p p� �Ny p pp �p pp p NN ��pp - O O C) v O Li �3�g�88883M�388��C�8383L� - p 1� In 0 In 'T M M M '7 v Ln Lri u) In Ln w Ln v v c v v In IA lA N In In In Ln Ln h 0 0 w Ln Ln I- 0) av 0 � N(� pp �p pp NN NN NN pp p 10 N f� O O N h Q N O (O (O f? n r� rz le h 8 8 d (V M M M CV N N N M m N N M M M M N N N N N (V fV N CV CV C7 M m m M M N N N N 0 0 Q � b . LL P! 69 Si'8.ul nco8'.83 W ` r2 93 6 fS 0 3. 09. LS.8.Lnu'ii8cn9 .R993 .R8 .2' c � <D t17 t0 In CD f0 !O tC In In (0 t0 In N U) In t0 f0 h I� r c0 (0 t0 t0 t0 � In to to N In !U (G (0 (O M fV L H U � Cp N In P. (OD N t� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LU F2 R 9 821 N N o N Q C � N N r r f Oo 7 Of (h �p to l� L0 � l� (O W Ul In In N N lA N C Q Q it C 9 f l�� l f'� f� (7 f7 l� f� w oi M O (� Q� Cp QO f'? l � ? p L�� CO L6r0� CD f'? L N C p O � f p ? � �CpD CD N N �� L CD IA L�� CeD� lNn, C 03 InNN R' R 88c� C 89 9 9 8 t�pp L� N po 1� ��pp ��pp ��pp 8 00 N O R O � � N 8 � N � 8 (0 t0 � � � O � � � aD Q 1� l0 q � CD 8 M W In d ?: 9 a 93 2 &1 Ln9 v ���vv`$9 1 9 , g4�vv4 0 q�3�3�3�r '�icit`�RR'�c��c�c�c� 0 C6 w z L 8F3�88893 838�n3 8u388c�cF38g�'834(iBc c C) �'' RRRR8 R8 RR 8RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR r � � Co Cd aD Co ao ad Co Co ao ao Co ao Co ao ad ad ao ao ad ad ao ad ad Co ao ao ao ao Co ao ao ao ao ao ao ao ao ao ao � � U d Q' .� tp 'U —) t�ppi p �p � R.- g�8�3N�8 t_ N f0 M tF Q N t0 . . . aD O O D) P U) a li T 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w = z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 2d 342.3( y 321.66 303.36 NE Draw 279.47 i 259.40 247.03 / /,231.68 217.43 206. 199.88 193.07 185.10 i e 51 75.53 /�0� 166.18 149.63 133.09 % 116.55 100.00 1 in Horiz- = 30 1 in Vert = 30 C U_ LL LL C m '. a (L EL Im J U W \ + N O O N O \ Q a No \. . , Lu '+ N Z U Fu 3 g 13 w Z `. w O O k* 0 (g) UOIIPA913 2Z r l0 C ..l C CO C N O O \ N N r Cl c N a a� c m c 0 N 3 w Z co 0 0 0 23 • 7260 -G: D -75 Intercepting Ditch Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File p:101 -008 roberts\hydro101008r2.fm2 Worksheet D -75 @ Top of Slope Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.016 Channel Slope 0.010000 fttft Diameter 24.00 in Discharge 1.00 cfs Results Depth 0.32 ft Flow Area 0.32 ftz Wetted Perimeter 1.64 ft Top Width 1.46 ft Critical Depth 0.34 ft Percent Full 15.84 Critical Slope 0.007105 ft/ft Velocity 3.13 ft/s Velocity Head 0.15 ft Specific Energy 0.47 ft Froude Number 1.18 Maximum Discharge 19.77 cfs Full Flow Capacity 18.38 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.000030 ft/ft Flow is supercritical. 01/11/02 CAInc FIovvMaster v5.07 05:18:08 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 2¢ 6 ' 6 ' — 7 5' /A/ i� ,2 mac= P7 �ivl, 7S f T C ,-/ illo�Ty ✓°�O/1G /2TY L ��c� 7260 -G: Driveway SD Cross Drain Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File p:101 -008 roberts\hydro \01008r2.fm2 Worksheet Driveway SD Line Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.010000 ft/ft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 0.70 cfs Results Depth 0.29 ft Flow Area 0.15 ft Wetted Perimeter 0.97 ft Top Width 0.66 ft Critical Depth 0.39 ft Percent Full 44.05 Critical Slope 0.003709 ft/ft Velocity 4.72 ft/s Velocity Head 0.35 ft Specific Energy 0.64 ft Froude Number 1.76 Maximum Discharge 1.88 cfs Full Flow Capacity 1.75 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.001608 ft/ft Flow is supercritical. 01/11/02 CArnc Fkw*viaster v5.07 05:17:49 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 ZS 7260 -G: Grass Channel @ Driveway Worksheet for Triangular Channel Project Description Project File p:101 -008 robertslhydro101008r2.fm2 Worksheet Grass Channel Flow Element Triangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.030 Channel Slope 0.040000 fttft Left Side Slope 5.000000 H : V Right Side Slope 5.000000 H : V Discharge 1.60 cfs Results Depth 0.33 ft Flow Area 0.54 ft Wetted Perimeter 3.36 ft Top Width 3.30 ft Critical Depth 0.36 It Critical Slope 0.023763 fttft Velocity 2.94 ftts Velocity Head 0.13 ft Specific Energy 0.46 ft Froude Number 1.28 Flow is supercritical. 01/25102 Conway & Assoc. Inc Fkw Master v5.07 01:12:28 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 Z !r i 7260 -G: Outlet Drain @ Grass Swale Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File pA01 -008 roberts\hydro101008r2.fm2 Worksheet Yard Drain Outlet @ Swale Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.024000 fVft Diameter 8.00 in Discharge 1.50 cfs Results Depth 0.35 ft Flow Area 0.19 ft Wetted Perimeter 1.09 ft Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.57 ft Percent Full 53.20 Critical Slope 0.006853 fttft Velocity 7.95 ftts Velocity Head 0.98 ft Specific Energy 1.34 ft Froude Number 2.63 Maximum Discharge 2.91 cfs Full Flow Capacity 2.70 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.007386 fttft Flow is supercritical. 01/26102 Conway & Assoc. Inc FlowMaster v5.07 06:43:52 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06706 (2M)7_ Page 1 of 1 27 7260 -G: Yard Drains - Basins A -F Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File p:101 -008 robertslhydro101008i2.fm2 Worksheet Yard Drains #2 Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.023000 ft/ft Diameter 6.00 in Discharge 1.21 cfs Results Depth 0.40 ft Flow Area 0.17 ftz Wetted Perimeter 1.11 ft Top Width 0.40 ft Critical Depth 0.49 ft Percent Full 80.59 Critical Slope 0.019705 ft/ft Velocity 7.14 ft/s Velocity Head 0.79 ft Specific Energy 1.19 ft Froude Number 1.92 Mabmum Discharge 1.32 cfs Full Flow Capacity 1.23 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.022291 ft/ft Flow is supercritical. 0126JO2 Conway & Assoc. Inc FlowMaster v5.07 06:49:48 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 7- e) 7260 -G: Yard Drains - Basins A -D Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File p: \01 -008 roberts\hydro \0100812.fm2 Worksheet Yard Drains #1 Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.009 Channel Slope 0.023000 ft/ft Diameter 6.00 in Discharge 1.00 cfs Results Depth 0.34 ft Flow Area 0.14 ft Wetted Perimeter 0.97 ft Top Width 0.46 ft Critical Depth 0.47 ft Percent Full 68.51 Critical Slope 0.013167 ft/ft Velocity 6.98 ft/s Velocity Head 0.76 ft Specific Energy 1.10 ft Froude Number 2.21 Maximum Discharge 1.32 cfs Full Flow Capacity 1.23 cfs Full Flow Slope 0.015225 ft/ft Flow is supercritical. 01/26/02 Conway & Assoc. Inc FlowMaster v5.07 06:48:25 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 p Z1 z Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers /Surveyors /General- Engineering Contractors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive • Carlsbad, CA 92008 • Telephone (760) 753 -1453 • Fax (760) 635 -0839 HYDROLOGY MAP (1" =30, 8% "x11 ") 30 NEW RIP NEW D -75 RAP OED ® PL a G _-mmm rN NEW PRIVATE • • m v SD C� (� C6 co , % A On o G ARAGE ,I P � \ � @ � PB PN rr pJS , n -o / G H i� NEW ROCK -LINED o G°, 11 r r' SWALE 11 r SUB -BASIN LIMITS / NEW 18 RCP _ / SD EXTENSION / NEW PRIVATE SD OUTLET H or GRASS -LINED , - CHANNEL SUB -BASIN \ DESIGNATOR NEW 24 "x24" \ CB W/ FILTER ONSITE J P SD 1 BASIN LIMITS Q 1 1 u ROBERTS\ RESIDENCE - 7260 -G ONSITE ODROLOGY \ 1/25/02 t'%nKlWA V 1. A CCr1 ^f A =C lAl/% 010=03= Min Minn r%A MI CM A n /►A n�nnc • Conway & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers /Surveyors /General- Engineering Contractors AB412412 2525 Pio Pico Drive • Carlsbad CA 92008 • Telephone (760) 753 -1453 • Fax (760) 635 -0839 HYDROLOGY MAP (V=100', 36 "x24 ") 31 a +R9A71 9 -,ROil TEST T Nf; FNR T NFFRS ST) 79c� PP7 TI IN Or, 'n7' ` { Testing Engine erS - San Diego, Inc. Established tyro March 2002 Mark N. Roberts Architect Cho Vlark Roberts Project No. 2001 1 -1022 711 Orange Grove Way Folsom, CA 95630 _�f( (� Subject: UPDATE RE VIEW OF GEDTE�HMCAL RE�RT � � E � V l5 D project: Proposed Sir, Ile - Family Residential Lot 1225 Desert I .osc Way JK 24 in Encinitas, Ca ifornia Reference: TESD, Febm Ary 13, 2001, "Geotechnical Investigation, Roberts esi fi I VICES Rose Way, E lcinitas, California ", Project No. 2001 -1022. CITY OF ENCINITAS Dear Mr. Roberts: In accordance with yow requi st, Testing Engineers — San Diego, Inc. has reviewed the geotechnical aspects of the above referenced repot From information obtained fivm previous investigation activities, our recent site reconnaissance and and t Manding of the proposed development, we conclude that the proposed development is gootechnically feasible if recommendations contained in the original report and the supplemental recommendatio is provided below are incorporated into the design and implemented during construction. it is our opinion that the prol osesd development will not be adversely affected by landslides, settlement or slippage. Additionally, TESI 1 has reviewed the site drainage as indicated on the Preliminary Grading Plan provided by Conway & Assoc iates, Inc., it is our opinion that the development of the site damage as planned will not create an adverse conditions for landslides. A cut/fill transitional pad is I tanned with an approximate 7 feet high 2:1 fill slope at the south area of the pad, and an approximate 141.et high 2:1 cut slope at the north area of pad. A keyway should be provided for the proposed fill slope. The keyway should extend a minimum of two (2) feet into dense native soils, measured at the outside lip of the keyway. The bottom of keyway should be a minimum of 10 feet in width and have a minimum of 2% h -al towards the inside of slope. The bottom of keyway should be inspected by a geotechnical engineer reps %entative prior to fill placement. According to the mentioned Preliminary Grading Plan, the house foundation will be placed within close proximity to the top of the proposed 2:1 fill slope. A e bottom of footit g excavations should have a minimum lateral distance of seven (7) feet as treasured from the outside w111 of excavation to the face of slope. Testing Engineers — San Die 3o appreciates the opportunity to continue to be of assistance to you on this project. We welcome the of portunity to continue our role as geoteehnical consultants. Should you have any questions regarding the f ndings of this letter or the previous report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. ESS d Sincerely, Testing Engineers — San Dii F C. E� 9/30103 t 1iw C les ive k, 4 19 S Geologist q; CAU Geo 'httksil Engineer 2001 -(022 Roborts Rna rw) Ur1ate Letter.si Testing lnbinerrs . San Diego, Inc., 7995 Convoy Court, Suite 18 Sen Diego. CA. 92111 (85 715.5800 Fax 18"1 715 - SRI0 0 +Ea5Eft ".55E30 TcST I NG z� I NEEPS SL 832 Pec %?�+ Pi =R 02 ' a! 1 �' Testing hng veers -San Diego, Inc Established ':946 Mr. Mark Roberts February 23, 2001 Mark N. Roberts Archite "t Project No. 2001 -1022 711 Orange Grove Way _ )~olsom, California 9563 ) Subject: GEOTEt MICAL INVEST C��TIQN project; Roberts l Lsidence 1225 Devil Rose Way Encinitas , Califbrnia Dear Mr. Roberts: J In accordance with you - request, Testing Engineers -San Diego, Inc, has conducted a Geotechnic-al Investigation at the o hen rO ect and pro d mc ommendatio s for the proposed de elopment the geotechntoal aspects p j Our subsurface investij stion has found that the proposed residential building pad area is underlain by an expansive be& ck and deeper loose materials, possibly landslide debris to a depth of approximately 10 f We conclude that the development of the proposed residence is geotechnically ibasible cased upon the existing soil conditions, and provided the recommendations contained herein are im demented in the design and construction, Testing Engineers -San Diego appreciates the opportunity to be of assistance to you on this project and welcome the oppol - ty to continue our role as geotechnical consultants• Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. .. Sincerely, _„ Testing Engineers -Sal i Diego, Inc. U & 1,. NO 5 eL No. co54071 ' _'Stev n N, Bradley, CEG Saliou Diallo, RCE $4,071 It Exp, is -I 0413 Senior Engineers�q c Mt Principal Geologist 2001.1022 Ra etu Fzr&nce Ga Inver, sQ 'resting Engineers . San Uiegn. Irc , ?895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 San Diego. C'A. 9211 1 (85'3] 7;5 -5800 Fax [856] 715 -5810 ............ . +858 `_ 558rjG? TESTING ENG I NEEDS Sid 831 Pea: 29 M* 02 ' Zi 14: 10 1 TABLE OF CON'V'ENTS INTRODUCTION .... ...... .............................. General ................, ..,,............. .......... ......................,..... " "' ,.....,......,..,... ......,.....,.,.,.,...........1 s o pe s of Services .................... ..................,...................................,.... .............,...,,..,..,.....1 PROJECT BACKGROU vD SiteDescription ................. .:........,........... .......... ........................, ............. .,.,,,,.............. Proposed Develol meet ....... . .. ... .. ............. ........ ... .. ,. SITE INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TEST .. 2 S ubsurface Exple ation ......................... ............................... ........ .......................... ........ 2 Laboratory Testir g Program .... ,.....,..., .....,....,.................... . GEOLOGY ........ 3 Geologic Setting ... ............................... ............. ............................ ................... 3 Site Stratigraphy ............. ............. •....,.....,.................,............... ....................,....,...,. . GEOTECHNICAL E`JA LUATION ........., 3 General Concl�as ons ......................... ...... ............................... Compressible So is ........................ .......... ............................... ......... ........... 4 Exoansive ................................................ ............................... ................ .. Groundwater ............. .............................. ....................................... . ^..........,................., .4 Seismic Design f �ritcria ........ .................. ............................... ................ ..............................5 Permanent s ........... ......................................... . ,.....I... ........ ....,... ...,,.............,,........... 5 Slop . ......... ............................... CRADINC AND EARS 'HWORK IpECOMMBNDATI( G .. eneral ............. .............. .......................... ............................. ....................... 5 Clearing and or tbbing ................................................................ .......... ,..... ...... ........, ........ 6 � S1 Imprc vement of Soils ... . ............................... ..................... ...... ........... 6 "Trmitions Betvreen Cut & Fill ........ ...........•....................................... ................,. , . 6 Method and Cri oria : of Compactio... ................................................... ............................... plazementofQ'ersizedRmk ...................................................... ..............................7 Erasion and Silt ition ..., ... • ....... ............................... .. .............................., Standard Gradu.g Guidelines ............. ............................... .... ..............................„ ..,...,...,.. , FOUNT RATION AND iLAB RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... ................................ . ............ :........................ 7 Conventional F mdadons ....... .............................. .... .................... .,. .. ..... .., .. ,., . . 9 Conventional S labs -oa- Grade„ ................................•......................,.. ........,...•....•,.,...,,..,. ... 9 Post - Tensioned. Slabs -on -Grade .................................. ............................... ................, 0 Settlement........................... ............................... ............................. . ............................... i0 Presaturadono ' Slab Subg*ade ............. ..................... 10 Type of Ceme: t for +Consnuction ..... • .............. ............................... •...,,.,..,..,......... +858 ?':55'dEG .TESTING ENGINEERS Sr 931 PE4%29 MAR 02 '01 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (condaued) ADDITIONAL RECOM MFNDATIONw .............. : 0 RetaimngWails ......................-..........,..................... ............................... 11 Pavements .................................................... ............................... ............................... 12 Txrxch BackMl ....... ............................... ._ Surface Draixtag ...,., .....1 .............•..,,.............. ............... ....,...,.........,.......,.... ,............,.,.. 12 Foundation Rovi , ,w ......... ,. w CLOSURE ............... 12 Limits of Tnvesti ;st:an ........................ ...........................,,., ..........,. ,..... , ...................13 Addition Sergi ;es ............. .......... .............................., .............., ......... . Y FIGURES Plate 1- Site Lo ration Map Plata 2 - Plot M n APPENDICES Appendix A - R <;ferenaes ,Appendix B Fi eld Exploration Logs Appendix C - L .boratory Test Results 631 p�,5:29 MAR 02 TEST I r � ENr i NEER.S SI✓ +858''x' 1550 PRDIF.cT BA�GROUND t Side of Desert Rose c • °n tial lot loca G 1 ted on t*9 Eas ron'p' ed rasit loc den anon is shown on Fig`u, Site L.ocat l ro ec slo ing The subject Bite is at irregular- ihap fot U%. The g rate soutltwestr P in the City of tely two (2) acres with a mo& limits of the �d aouthem au area of apgrnxima western them damag swale. south and west aloe$ bor by ',-he site onaorngasse5 soa Cs run a d area over the 80'1 arcd is tea ., prainsge DUB to the building P 'T he subject p s a< dg b , ice plant and few trees- site. .A cal wed of rovide �ur �dntisl dcvelog . e t lvde a _ ' e- to. structuredtot 'o d development will tr�c A �veway will access d on rov ,ded, the P S �1 au d a detach fr Desert Rose way. The Plot Plan, Base tbo site plan p nce 8 � ° ' be utilized a8 � deMee, �� dt side of th gTO rest nt. property ator4 s layout of the proposed devolol� 'Fib 2, prov AND �A�RAT'QRy TASTING SITE �gTiGAT[ o ace exploration, was 1 eral ree subs pits excavated with a 'onsistmg of surfi in ducted by it exc avations was to on, ex loration was a test p The si � � T y 24 , 2001, Subsurfaoo P The pe w of tb conduc p pcd with a 24rinch bucket. of dcvelogment feet below ils in Ilse prop area g to 10 Case $80E baakl� � ose roxirly evaluate the condition G. � t he Boils h ranSiUS the Staff complete to dap logged In the field by d tsazrt A total of foot (4) test t its ware comp its were resistant c ,{ners, an a materials f uce. The sect p tared subsur the ex st� pound las were Collected, sealed in moisturo f ttiot>5 ohat P out? are �dieatsd on the resentative satr p Detailed descnP it tc> � l a b o ratory for subs xluent test of this tcpo�*� The ata pro vided in the Sit StradS�p ontains the Field Exploraxion L°gs. plot Flan, fig= 2. A was conduce to establish the r rogram testing plop= a laboratory p terials. 'Ifie labarato maximum dry ration, a d di t i on the f old explo ion ma canOSivity c nstics of the fawAat rbcrg limits were p ied in general a e, nn 3 ion index ar pectinettt ern ex All laboratory led test methods ded visual Ole . utclu �si�Inoist co rd specifications or other 71 and optim ma moisture s d r d with ,gpveable ASTM roved results. a aordaz'sce of test p ute5 811 Appeu C provi� cs a summary t +BSe�'1e© Ti ST INC, - NGINEERC Si GEOLOG l lc 5e ally what is lrnown as the P Ranges rtion of in Encinitas area typic T he subj n the southern po o f the province ma rin e sedimen ect site i locates `" coastal areas de age 'c ?rovincc of ( ,alifor1l trace deposits % Qm ) c QeomorP ene a , marine made up of Pleistoc rocks (E) - se d during the ficld rated from conditions expo eons U' in ter p reted descripti cns provided p►.s such, all of the subsurface corsdi The subsur and/or f logic literature• countered during the ation an �C1 red from the g80 bons of the in Appendix B of this re subsurfacc materials en investig Detailed de s provided ri• 1e may not be represented. on the ExPloration Log p on are pr seated li of the encountered soil types field investigAd Pr ►vide general descrip following, paragraP o ut, usually container$ roots and other c mantles the each of the test pits was su&cii soil r�terts s tation. Topsoil observed in clay that was Topsoil is the vcg to reddish or brown sandy g�c materials why ah sups of dark green roots reddish rootlets). OPTOximately 1 to 2 , eat duck and co r R= is of organics Moi st and soft in cons' icy with wino 1 iii -fey generally consisted of oil horizon in TP -2. The landslid deb ris observed below t dense in cor+sisttncy l,,aadslide debris we t r tdcd, damp and medium yellow and �n sar ay clay= dep of 14 feet. ye t zxglas ed extends beyond the �— L ` il layer. The bedrock bel Bedrock was the landslide debris or the topso dk green claystone, moist= enaot ntered underlying e sedirnentary rocks and consists of light F ag e 'narin wifn occasional fractw'�• to the utd stiff in consistency slightly weathered GEOTEC" -ICS L EVALUATION us roviest the miners y 4C conclude t h } standpo':nt pded the r� �estigation and evaluation of � m la ° g ot��im l st structural Based po sed our t feasible ro riy implemented &uing pro posed struo� l dovolopmenNs report will be p Pe recommendation i contained to development• e b z t � o ' +859 ^_ E = S7INia ENGIHEERS SL • -- conventional fo c struction are the existence of highly expansive soils at The major factors affectiN the Proposed rovidt a uniform support shallow deptih and the I an( - debris encountered of the stnl�ral Port of the building pads consist of reinforced cortinu d eribe aus f°°tmgs with r the structures+ overt xc .nation and recomp will be required, The fow i3ations may , Recarru' CRdatiols this enna for reinforced slabs or prefer+ bly post - tension foundation system Recommendations section of foundation de81€� are cc ntained in the F and 5iab report' C OM r es 'ible Sa ils bedrock that field observations at d testing indicate low compressibility within the sedie to a depth of ou loose topsoil was typically en t Und ered underlies the. entire sit However, lC5 and landslide debris to an undetermined depth approximately 2.0 feet 1 Below surface ressible. Due to the Potential for soil compression upon general, the surfici�al tc )soil is comp antial loading cavation and re rnPaction) , remedial gtadit g of these near - surface soils (including will be reqWM& tential for lementat on of the earthwork rccornmenlati� presented herein, the po Following imp from the new development has been esnmated to be low. m soil compsion result no weU.pinr¢Ied and maintained site drainage Ys settlement �essimer' as-` I� d in the Grading a a earthwork construction are present2nd Reco dations rep rding rnidgation by Eutbwork RecorturlM rations section of this rem• ExuausiyC S isti ausion of cla�stonc exhibit a high potential far eX pansian. An Exp The underlying sails consng lc tested. index of 92 was obtab :ed from the soil sarnp gQUd'tj v •as not encountered within the d of our w g and surface In the general, ts icinity Statig roundwater �r �„han 100 feet be � anticipated thatou� idwater is generally of the subject site. celsmia Des j g C er.— cti ve fault chaps pertaining to the site indicates the existence of the from Rose this loom A review of the a } west of the subject site. Ground shaking the site. The Fault Zone ap"r�'nately fifteen (15) is the most likely event affecting Fau the other Majc r active faults in the region r uirernerLts of the 1997 a ropt building a wuld be designed in accordance with se neersAss Ion of California using P Code or the Structural Engi edition of the Unify :Im Building the following criter a. v T�F,5]' F�lSli dr 1 +858 =5SS �SSTING �IGINEEKS 5L' UBC Reference Value pararrreter Table 16 -I 0 Zon pastor, Z Table 16-3 E�M on Table 16- le T e 0,44 Table 16 -R tctertt, Ca Coeff 0.64 Table 16-S Coe fflGlCnt Cv 1 'Fable 16 -T Near - Source Factor Na 1.0 Table 16 -U Neas-Sourcc Factor, Ivv B Seismic Source Li and consistency of the underlying soils, it is our the absence of shallow WOundw$t + typ Based on tcntia � for liquefaction is very low. opinion that the po P S t and may be construes Permanent cut U& fi11 E lopes are anticipated to be le a man he ots �` ou t h e per, Slopes um slope I atio of 2:1 ( hor. to vert.) $ stable, It is r0 00=ended that drought at a maxim , ted to be gm y actical to enhartc e the stability of the constructed to such a i ;tattrtcr arc anticipn faces as soon as Pr resistant veion be planted on the slope slope suffices. T..r.nnracy S10g um o f 4 feet trenches, temporary vertical cats to a maxim t constraints For excavation of foundation or utility cuts beyond the above hetgh idelines may a canstr ed n fill or natural soil. Any to � . to volt ) slope ratio, OS r HA should be shored or f other laid back following construction. for "=h p safety should be imglemented during GRADING AND E. MTHWORK RECOMII'MND PONS ne c of the preliminary Plans and the information obtained during are Based upon our ,u, ierstanding and earthwork ve anticipate that structures will be The llowing gradi footings, ed field inves b ro erly compacted fill. erl irelY y P P on flit geotechnical investigation performed, and should be vex: . suppo � dations e -e based up during construction by our field representative. Clear1n �d CCc� eared of vegetaO` receive fill and/or structures should be c' of of off site. ti Me arm ald All areas to be grad or to led rations should be properly lisp possible buried obj ects, which need to be rerouted �emo and the debris fror i the clearing removal of these ected for any p be thoroughly insl adi_ng. All holes, trenches, or p ockets left by the to the inception Q'', or during gt +058''x' I55E1© Y, ST I NG EiJG I NEER SI Esi PE9 %29 t1=,R 02 '"31 1.1; � obj%ts should be properly ba .lcfilled with compacted fill materials as recommended in the Method and Criteria of Compactior► $i coon of this report, stmomrs, xr�pcovem 0 bw ornlation obtained from our tielcl and iaoorstory analysis indic t �°.°ro o se 10 fee paoil 1nf landslide debris cover portio is of the site to depths ranging from app Bascd upon the soil These loose surficial sails c� d the following: to Set upon loading, characteristics, eve rcc p _ y' - p tcrsoil and la nd slide debris should le re mov ed as de scnbec herein from ld be com ... � «.A /nr at„t� { „T I improv The areas h are p la toed to receive compacted fills , TEED bottom of the rtln val area should expo iacerne t of new fill, ft b o of ft the removal geotechnical representative. Prior t the p from 0 area should be scari led a rr i=urn nth of at least 6 inches, rtn aisture acted t o l east 90 to 2 percent above the optimum moisture content, and then reeotup percent relative cos paction (ASTM D-1557 test method). completed for the structural building pact to a minimum depth * Overex,cavation shy iuid be eorrlP osed looting or 3.0 feet below surface grade, of 2 feet below a a bottom of t� p� whichever is g ea :er. The limit of the required area of overtxcavation should be foot riot extended a minimt m of 5 feet laterally beyond the perimeter footing (b uildin g p )• For rlon- structural areas, such as &ri o or 1.5 feet feet below proposed 9ubgradet depth of 2 feet be pow ex isting grad greater. * Soils utilized as till should be moisture- conditioned nd cclon of this d in o d Pt with the follow inI , Method ar.3 Criteria of Compaction and extent of any overexcavation and recornpaction should be evaluated in the field by a representative of "F.SI]• * ovide a low or non-expansive compacted fill cap, to a depth of 4 Another option w. ll be to pr feet below finish I Tade. — Tr s�nsi M s between Cu k rid BLA p structures are i nticipated to be founded shoul d entirely le ta pmpe im y inate compacted uu fil the earthwork P transitions below the pry «posed $tructurefl should bcompletely c construction as required i a the previous sectio Meth id And Criteria of Comps_ �� Compacted fills should 'ortsifit of approved soil rnateriai, free of trash debris, roots, vegetation or equipment i be other deleterious materiels. Fill soils �ess a specified, all soils subjected to rocompaction u'form loose lifts of 6 o 8 inches. unl should be moisture : -co iditianed at least 3 percent over the optimum moisture content and r:irr urn of g0 percent relative compaction per ASTM fast method A - 1557. recompacted to a mi QCto:r hnu>s11�l6ecion C7 Cn�iniz3i f alifomic v P10ief ^.1 • �? Q t �. 2U i +ass 5500�T: ST I Nu _1JG I NEERS S, 631 F'iF7!c9 M"; 22 ' 1 The an -sift soils, after being processed to delete the aforementioned deleterious materials, Ir"zy be used for recornpaction purpc ses. Should any importation of fill be planned, the intended import s ource(s) should be evaluate 1 and approved by TESD Prior to delivery to the site. Care should be taken to ensure that these soL s are not detrimentally expar:sive. pisremeut of Oversized Aa tk All materials for capping the structural building pads should be free of rocks and debris in excess of 3 - inch dimension. Select f ll should extend a minimum of 5 feet laterally outside the structural footprint. Material up to 1 t -inch dimension may be placed between 3 and 10 feet from finish grades, but must remain at 1 ,ast 10 feet laterally from the face of permanent slopes and should also not be placed within the a4 anent of proposed utilities - Although we do not anticip Ue earthwork construction to create oversized material from 12 to 48 inches in dimension, if enc )unterod, it may be placed in approved non - structural fill areas. The oversized material should b s placed in windrows surrounded by granular fill. The rock windrows should be flooded with wab x to facilitate filling of voids. Care should be taken to avoid neaUg of oversize rocks and no lug ; rock should be pla=d within 10 feet of any slope face. The non- structural rockfill should be capped with a minimum 3 feet of fill containing no rocks greater than 6- inch dimension. Erosion gl Siltation surface Areas of recent grading or ;xposed ground may be subje basins. on. D urin g s COM g or o wafer should be controlled via berms, sandbags, n The contractor should take method to avoid damage i the finish work or adjoining properties erosion measures to prevent erosi+ fn of graded areas until such time as per w ent drainage surfaces should control measures have been installed After completion of grading, excavated exhibit positive drainage a, :d eliminate areas where water might pond. Stan d __. i; �W thods Grading and earthwork sh =ld be conducted in accordance with the standard -of p C r nil for this local, the guide' roes of the current edition of the Uniform Building Code, requirements of the juris+ ,ictional agency. Where the information provided in the geotechnical report differs from the Su ndi rd Grading Guidelines, the requirements outlined in the report shall govern. FOU,NDATION ANA S1 CAB RE COMMENDATIONS •en rah The foundation design i ecormnendations herein are "minimums" in keeping with the current standard - of - practice. Th , y do not preclude more restrictive criteria of the governing agencies or structural considerations. The Strucraral Engineer should evaluate the foundation configurations and reinforcement require ments for structural loading, concrete shrinkage and temperature stresses. All design and site dev 4opment criteria should corforn to the minimum design: requirements +•rCT1 M D nhL`YL +858^'- 5580�1cSTING ENGINEERS SD 831 P11!29 M;11 ©2 ' 14:1 provided in the current editi in of the uniform Building Code (UBC). The following assumes that existing on -site soils will be Stilized for construction of the building pad. If a non- exparusive fill cap is used, these recommendati( ets may be modified. Conventional F0und2t10n Conventional continuous fc stings are suitable for support of the planned residential building and garage. Footings for the sti ictures should be founded entirely in properly compacted fill soil. The footing dimensions, reinfoi cement, and other structural criteria presented below are based on geotechnical considerations and are not intended to be in lieu of requirements of the Structural Engineer. Fnotin¢ DimenSionl Exterior footings for the sir gle -story structure should be embedded a minimum of 30 inches below the lowest adjacent grade ai 4 have a minimum width of 12 inches. Excavations should be trimmed "neat ", square and level, wi th no loose debris prior to concrete placement. Interior footings should be embedded a minimum o' IS inches at a minimum width of 12 inches. Reinf rrcc t It is recommended that al exterior footings be reinforced with a minimum of four (4) #S steel reinforcing bats placed he rizontally in the footing, two near the top and two near the bottom. Interior footings should be Arnilarly reinforced with four #S bars, The above reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and i s not intended to supersede requirements of the structural engineer. Allay-abte Bearing Maci A soil bearing pressure of 1,000 psf may be utilized for continuous footings founded in properly compacted fill. The soil aaaring pressure may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot increment of depth. For so olems con te ion , the maximum fill, alowable bearing capacity should not exceed 3,000 psf for fc ting iatai 1� sil =g atera] loads against fou: tdations or retaining structures may be resisted by a sliding re sistance between the bottom of th, , footing and the supporting soil. An allowable sliding resistance of 130 psf may be utilized in the foundation design. Alternatively, an allowable passive earth pressure of loopsVft (100pcf EFP) may be used. Lateral bearing and lateral sliding resistance may be combined. In order to utilize the giv+ n values, footings must be poured "tight" against competent soils. A one- third increase in the latere l resistance may be considered for transient loads (wind/seismic). TcGn I Ro6rr!s Rmide�Cc " rte, chntci Irvesti et nn O n mitts C$�{:SJ'�± �0 X001 1tY12 O tetrs:av 13. 21101 8 15EE0�T 'STING ENGINEERS SI) e3i F1 ;ES M R 02 31 14; 15 Convend2n31 SjtLbs- ou -Gt de Conventianal interior slabs ►hould be a net S inches thick. The slabs should be underlain by a moisture barrier consisting ( f a r inimurn of 2 inches of clean sand, a 1 0 -mil visqueen sheet and a minimum 4-inch thick layer )f free - draining coarse sand, gravel or crushed rock. Reinforcement for the midential structure and garage should consist of 44 bars on 16-inch centers. Reinforcement should be located at or sligk tly above mid - height within the slab secdorL Reinforcement for actual loading conditions should ba as required by the structural engineer. Post gne, Slab -on —rig Due to the high potential fo expansion of the subgt'ade soils, post - tensioned slabs -on -grade may 've designed by the project Str emal Engineer as an alternative to the above conventional slabs. The following soil parameters rn iy be used: Parameter value 3xpattsioa Index 92 Expansion Potential High Plasticity Index I 29 Soil Classification CH (USCS) Modulus of Subgrade 100 pci Reaction Edge Moisture 5 . 3 ' Variation distance for Center Lift (e,b) Edge Moisture 2 . 4 ' Variation distance for Edge Lift (e ` Differential Swell for II 3.95" 4 Center Lift (y,n) � I � Differential Swell for 0.90 1. i Edge Lift {y TFCD • Re6enc RCSidetee _ r'-' tIicaI In, vntia , gig O Encinitas. C a 116p rnis O ?tales Vo 200' 1022 Q Frh uary 13 20U l 9 • +858 _STING a6INEEPS 5D 631 P13%29 MPR 02 '01 14:15 Settl, em ent While subjected to struct ral loading, a differential settlement up to one-quarter inch should be anticipated, with eorrespot ding total settlement up to one half -inch across the structural sp p values for structure adjusd cant assume that compressible topsoil is completely removed within the structural prism; and that proper surface drainage is implemented such that the subsoil moisture ontent is maintained relat vely constant. PruaturGA101 of Slab Sul �rlde Subgrade soils extending ' o a depth of 24 inches below finish pad grade should be saturated for at least 24 hours prior to 002 ,T to placement. Moisture tests should be perforated at that time to insure at least 90 permt saturati on, of anent Lor COD I coon used upon the corrosi* ' analysis of the on -site soils, we recommend Type V Portland Cement (or 5 to 7 sacks Type 11 eeme; it tnix) for construction with a water - cement ratio no greater than 0.45. ADDITIONAL REC ri MLNDATIONS Retaining &AW C=tilevered retaining wt [Is should be designed for an "active" lateral earth pressure of 43 psf/ft (45 pcf EFP) for approved 1 canular backfill and level backfill conditions. Where cantilevered walls support 2.1 (honvert) sla. ling ba&fiill, the equivalent active fluid pressure should be increased to 60 pcf, Cantilever walls s+ abject to uniform surcharge loads should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure t qual to one -third (1 /3) the anticipated surcharge pressure, Restt aned walls should I e designed utilizing an "at -rest" earth pressure of 75 psVft (75 pef E1=P) for approved granular and le ml backfill. Restrained walls subject to uniform surcharge loads should be designed for an additi= l uniform lateral pressure equal to care -half (112) the anticipated surcharge. Retaining wall footings Should be embedded a minimum of IS inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Retaining walls hat are to be located near the top of slopes should be designed to allow a minirnum daylight d.istat ce of 7 feet laterally from the outside edge of the footing to the slope face. Soil design criteria, su('•h as bearing capacity, passive earth pressure and sliding resistance as recommended under the Foundation and Slab Recommendations section, may be incorporated into the ret:ainitng wall design, The design and location of retaining walls should be reviewed by TESD for conformance with of r recommendations Footings should be rein Forced as recommended by the structural engineer and appropriate back dranage provided to av )id excessive hydrostatic wall pressures. As a minimum we recommend a fabric- wrapped crushed rock and perforated pipe system. At least 2 cubic feet per linear foot of free - drainage crushed reek should be provided. rccn R,bert• keslAer ,SiS invtit esson U "n�i -ism C rliferttie O Proiggttia' -10 fcbstuv 13_241 10 +BSB?iSS80 TESTING 7 2ZINEERS SD • 631 P14%E9 M =R 02 '21 14 The remaining wall backfi'1 should consist of approved granular material. This fill material should be compacted to a trinimu n relative compaction of 9G percent as determined by ASTM D-1557 test method. Flooding or jettir.1 of backfill should not be permitted. Granular backfill should be capped with 18 inches (minimum) of relatively impervious fill to seal the backfill and prevent saturation. It should be noted that the use of heavy compaction equipment in close proximity to retaining structures can result in w €11 pressures exceeding design► values and corresponding wall movement greater than that associate i with active or at -rest conditions, In this regard, the contractor should take appropriate precautia Is during the backfill placement. avemen The following presents areliminary recommendations for flexible asphalt and rigid concrete pavements. The pavemet t section requirements have beeu prepared based on our evaluation of the on -site soils and standard pavement design procedures. The recommendations are not intended to supersede stricter requires cents posed by the jurisdictional agency. e a t P vef_(_AQ It is recommended that d ie constructed pavement subgrade should be evaluated and tested prior to asphalt placement in order to verify the assumed R -value up,&or modify the design sections presented. The R -value of the on -sit -. soils is estimated to be less than 5 due to the high clay content. Based on the estimated R-value, w , offer the following preliminary pavement design sections. The actual design and ad)ption relative to allowable road gradients should be developed by the civil designer based on jurisdi ;tional requirements. T attic dex I ;;r=en vc = Section Corr>ments 4.5 3 .0 11 AC on 10.0" Class 2 AB Driveway The subgrade soils for d .e proposed driveway should be scarified to a minimurn depth of 12 inches, moisture - conditioned 3 percent over optimum, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the Maximum Dry Densitl per ASTM D -1557. The aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 p= Section 26 of the Caltrans Standard Spec ficationsf 1994 the Edition. S d materials criteria as et f rt Conmu Pax= ents (P.C. Where rigid concrete z avements are planned to sGpport light vehicular traffic, the following minimum sections are r ;comrnended: Trafficg recommended Pavement Section Comments q,5 S.0" PCC on Compacted Subgrade Driveway % C r, � a .ai O Fn nitre Cnl f^ is CS Proiect No 2001- ai �, .i+ "- II - 2001 yCp,+ Ro6ers �sider ,��. , RC 1 l 1 +p5B7= 558G�TESTING ZN51HEERr SD 831 P15/2� M -rR 82 '31 14: 1v Compaction of the subgra ie soil sliould be conducted as specified f Asphalt Pavements, above, PCC Pavement should be ninimurn 3,500 psi concrete. It is r ecomm ende d that steel reinforcement be provided for PCC pave cents, which will sustain heavy impact loading, such as fire tntcks. As a enimtrrn for such slabs, ' ve recommend number 3 deformed rebar placed on 24-inch centers each way. Placement of coi crete, controllexpansion joints, and any reinforcement should be in conformance with ACl sp ;cifications and the Structural Engineer's design. TapgLa m Trench excavations for atility lines, which extend tinder structural areas should be properly backfulled and compaceec. 'Utilities should be properly bedded and backfilled With clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least 1 -foot over the pipe. This backfill should be u formly watered and compacted to a firm condition for both vertical and lateral pipe su p rts. The remainder of the backfil may be typical on - site soil or law - expansive import which should be placed near optimum ma; store content in lifts not exceeding S inches in thickness and mechanically compacted to a least go p , relative compaction. Surface pa w Irrigation and drainage a t this site should be designed to maintain the current subsurface moisture regime in a state of relat! ve natural equilibrium. Drainage in llardscape areas adjacent to structures should be designed to c allect and direct surface waters away from the proposed structures at a =ommended minimum gradient of 1 percent. The drainage should be directed to approved drainage facilities. For earth areas, positive drainage with a minimum gradient of 5 percent away from all structures should be provided and i maintained for a distance of at least 5 feet to reduce saturation of foundation soils, E U &wales sh ruld have a minimum gradient of 2 percent should be directed toward approved drainage rec4 ptors. Drainage patterns approved at the time of grading should be maintained throughout f Le life of the development. Foundation Review Foundation CX;'Watio > should be reviewed by TESD prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement, or concr to for conformmce with the intentions of this investigation. CLOSM Limioes '�atiot Our investigation was performed using the skill and degree of care ordinarily exercised, under similar circumsta:uas, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other w� rranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice in in with �tten cl'0�nt client and Testing Engineers -San Diego, be L assigned �o The samples taken am used for testing, and the observations made, are believed representative of site conditions; howe1 -.r, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between test pits and - r;:qD 4 Robvi; Reside i;9_2 .( od eehr ad [r�ClL�lor O Fn tayf aflfam a O Proick N� 20Q1 1022 O Fe! n,,► l3. 2(TO? 12 . TBEB 71X80 TEST I MG aZ; I h -IEERS SL 831 F1b:'c9 i1�R e2 '@1 14!'- 61 surface exposures As in r cost major projects, conditions revealed by construction excavations may vary with preliminary hnP- If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by a ry fin representative of TESD an i designs adjusted as required or alternate designs recommended Tiffs report is issued wict . the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure ti iat the information and recaommendafions contained herein are brought to the attention of the prof eet architect and engineer. Appropriate fecornmendations should be incorporated into the strac Lit such recommendations , The essay s the steps should be taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry The findings of tWs repor are valid as of this present date. Howe changes in the conditions of a property can occur with ti ie passage of tirr ►e, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjace. i properties. in addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur from legislatic a or the broadetdng of knowledge. Accordingly, the find r.gs of this report may be invalidated whol y or partially by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and. sho ild be updated after a period of three years. AdditifnAervices The review of plans ani � specifEcatians, field observations and testing under our direction is an integral part of the re-coi urteadations matte it this report. if Testing Enginners -San Diego is not retained for these service , s, the client agrees to assume our responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during a mstruction. Ubservatioa and testing are additional services, which are provided by our fir_n, an, i should be budgeted within the cost of development, Testing Engineers -San Diego, Inc, s r d Geoc hnicel it a� ;2�,, i�itac � iJn,r s At�jcc' No ?(ini 102 � F'thrLrt� tt ?��1 13 +6518715590 TESTING ENGINEERS SE 631 P17!29 M;R 02 ' 31 14116 A '.i ry , 1. N � . i •T ry .r.. MW,t +858 15580 TESTING ENGINEERS SZ1 831 P18iz'Q M R 02 '31 14.19 �� •,:r � �! t D � Yr �� 1 � � Fin .r,' r z \ 7 �,�,/ I._ f � � a. 1 �, ^irJ raj... .,� ,.• J i r ,�' t�`�' �. , ��. .p t } ice, , �,• %L..� .,€ � a. � � '. ' L 14 �. ' l bb.{� ° �,� r� � l' � �y s �.? � l 7 A OIw ♦ �,.. . t r f II q r� q , ' ' Y , % ' 1 ! —�, ' i t l ri � .. . ,. .�A � ti l 1 'ib r,J1 ', � r � f �l, 5 �. �, w� a. ;r1 � , { , r r C,• & r , � , fir ..r ' � ': � tl • ��� r�ti�, „S i '.-q.y � , � � j.r r' „' ,�r t1`1 n • � a � • � � , �s" y + 5 f OSA +',• ' e� •' III 1�n �i� s w.••'� � � � r ��. r, . ; •.`' f } 'i .,✓� h 1 ` r ' " + "^ r k'; �. ,V ,. 4 �. "®imI�1 \art. 'y '.4.• `.� � _ • i5�"' �y..C�V � �•r•" # �'. ,�} � � �t 'rt � ^t �J, ``°•ro, � � 7� - t ��.\ , • I V,v w r . k a 1, 't� r ,��. 1 't lr. Nwf �' ' Y �1. ' f =.a r l �.. .t • r i r ` J 1 ,. •� r • :�4 tr f / � �'^111.1r �M � ,J r.tr. \, .� I 4i ' fA TopvQuad� Cop►d�t 01!94 L►ringm Yemtouetl ME "046 k me rAul U 1506 , 0 0001k Scdt l t rW L*a(b lm OaN WCSM Testing Engir ears - San Diego, Inc SITE LOCATION MAP - Plate 7895 Cos voy Court, Suite 18 Raberts Residence San I liego, CA 92111 Encinitas, Califomla I Too: (858) 7154 800 Fax (65$) 716-58 10 2001.1022 Februery, 2001 +e5e7is58a tESTING ENGINEERS SL • P�1 Pi9:;� f1AR 02 31 1 Wt OR V z owl N r a +6587 15580. TSSTING ENGINEERS SL . 0z1 P20/29 M;R 02 '01 14,2@ i s ♦f;�r��w ;i � �' y ,ywG+ hv.Yy ' j � i ii +f c r. _ 5580TEST i NG :NG I NEERS Si • 831 ° ^ c 1:'2? t'1�,R C '31 1 41 20 BEFEREAICES 1. Bonilla, M.G., 197), Surface FaultjU and ReloAgd E�ecta in Wiegcl, R. L., Earthquake Engineering, Prenti * -Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p. 47 -74. 2. Bowles, ].E., 1977, Eguadation Analysis and Desim New York, NY, McGraw -Hi , 750 p. 3. bunt, R.E., 1986, Geotecbnical Esaeizteerin-z_jnvestiggtion Manual New York, NY, McGraw -Hill, 983 �. 4. Hunt, RE., 1984, 5cgtcchnicz.l Engineering Tecluaues and Practices New York, NY, McGraw -Hill, 729 ). 5. Jerutinjis, C W., 1S 94, Fault Activity Map of California and Adiaoent Areas California Division of Mines � nd Geology, Map No. 6, Scale 1 :750,000. 6. Kennedy, M.P. an(, Peterson, G.L., 1975, Goploa of the San Dieeo Metropolitan Ama, Cal ifomia, 1975, C J.ifornia Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200. 7. Uniform Building :ode,, 1997 Edition Whittier, CA, International Conference of Building dhftcials. 3 'Vol== s. 8. Wesnousky, S.G., . 986, Ethguakcs GuatcM= Faults and Seismic Hazard in California Journal of Geophysq 'Lal Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, pp. 2587 -2631. 9. Winterkom, H.F., usd Fang, H.Y., 1976, Foundation Engineering liendbook New York, NY Van Nostrand Reinhold, 751 p. +858715E8© TEGTING ENGINEEPS S% • E51 P M;R e2 '21 14:21 3 " �3':?k •'� �' 4 �.;�' fi t, E �f..� ^ �;. , p tk ,. � yL.r:M�? w,'+ ;... .i .•R. '"S, ' �• ! `P, y a1' +858^ .TESTING ENGINEERS SL 631 P23/29 t1=+R 02 '01 14; GENERAL NOTES SAIY FLE IDENTIFICATI01 f The Unified Soil Cla ,sificatior. System is used to identify the soil unless otherwise noted. som PROPERTY SYMmOI N: Standard "N' penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 in.4hes on a 2- inch O.D. s; !it- spoon. Qu: Unco-nfined mmpreasive strength, tsf. Qp: Penetromett r value, unconfined compressive strength, tsf. Mc: 'Water Conte It, LI,: Liquid limit %. Pl: Plasticity in l.x °lo. DD: Natural dry tensity, PCF. tf : Apparent gr madwater level at time noted after completion. DRII -LING AND gA_MPLIA G SYMBOLS CAL: Modified 0 lif=ia Sampler - 2 5!g" I.D., 3.0" O.D., except WhWe noted. SS: Split -Spoon -1 3/8" LD., 2" O.D., except where noted. ST: Shelby Tub - 3" 0.17., except where noted. AU: Auger Saab W. a DB: Diamond B t. CB: Carbide Bit WS: Washed Sai Sple. B LAUVE DENSJU t CONSISTENCY CLASSEFICATIDN s ST AND ARD PENEIB A=N RESISTANCE M) '�T'F,'RM INON- CQHESIV}? . OII.S) Very Loose 0 to 4 Loose 4 to 10 Medium Dense 11 to 30 Dense 31 to 50 Vey Demo Over 50 TERM ICaHESIVta S0IL5 SPT OU - (TSF) Very Soft 0 to 2 0 -0.25 Soft 2 to 4 0.25-0-50 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 0.50.1.00 Stiff 8 to 16 1.00.2.00 Very Stiff 16 to 32 2.00-4.00 Hard Over 32 4.00+ PART - ME Boulders 8 in. + Coarse Sand $mm -0.6mm Silt 0.074 mm 0.005mm Cobbles 8 in -3.in Medium Sand 0.6mm -0.2=n Clay - 0.005mrn Gravel 3 in -5= Fine Sand 0.2mm- 0.074mm +1358 ?'�5580�'TESTING ENGINEERS SD � 8?1 P24r'29 MtiR 02 ' 31 14: Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc. 7896 Convoy Court, Suite 18 San Diego, CA 920111 Tel (858) 715.5800 Fax (858) 715.5810 LOG OF TEST PIT PRWFC - r MW; Watt Roberts Resideno I PRO.IECTNO D DATE ouBiiRvfi 1124101 AtETMOO OF EXCAVATION: Case 580E Bacdkhoe w124" bucket LOGGED BY: MS8 GRC IND ELEVATION: NIA LOCATION: See map oeFTH JNQ BULK M04T. TEST PR NO.: 1 (FEEL) CLASS N SAMPLE sA,W'! CONT. QC OMRIP'nON SOILTEST TgMil: Light brown sandy CLAY, damp, very soft, minor CL _ rootlets, edrock Light yellow silty SAND, damp, medium dense, SM mode c _ _ ____________________ 5 CL— — Light green CLAYSTONE, damp, medium stiff, moderately E=xpansion Index weathered, moderate blocky fracturos, moderate caliohe. Sulfate Dark groan CLAYSTONE, damp, stuff, slightly weathered, CL slightly blocky fractures, some crack polishing noted, to TO =10 ft, No G Backfilied 1/24101 ,a LOGGED 6Y: MSB GROL C ELEVATION: NIA LOCATION: See Me TEST PIT NO,: 2 CL To °soft, Dark green Sandy CLAY, damp, very soft, sore Max Derrity rootlets, CL L andslide Debris; Mottled light yellow sandy CLAY and -• -- --- — -� - - -- g r o an, d a_m_p , medium dense, no homogeneous texture. _ CLAYSTONE, green, damp, medium stiff, moderately s CL weathered, moderate blocky fractures, tralce of cal'Iche. CL Redroek: Silty CLAYSTONE, mottle green and red, damp, to stiff, slightly weathered, TO = 10,6 ft, No GW Seckfilled 112410' �a i Tal Pit Lops } c 1 Cjl F''c5 /�° MaR E2 ' u i 1 c . .. 00 T E ST ING = NG.hi_GRS SL to resting Engineers - San Diego, Inc. I8e5 Convoy COUrt, Suite 18 San Diego, CA 92011 Tel (868) 716 -5800 Fax (858) 715.5840 LOG OF TEST PIT ;aS=MMe Matt Roberts Reeldor m aa=sc , KO; QA7zosaenveoo- 1124101 MFT'L-=of Exenvnrten, One 5WE Sackhoe w124° bucket LOWED SY: M68 a�cw, o tl�CvAT N/A L,GAMK See n^ MPTM ttuo RUCK Masi. TEST PIT NO.: 3 (PEIe?I CLAS6 N SAAMRJ 6AMPt CDti7. �0 �iBKr'liP-IQN - 801L TE97 s t CL Tnpsoh: Dark green, sandy wLAY, damp, very soft some iootlets. CL B*dM;X , nark green CLk(STONE, damp, mecflum Stiff, —.. -- -- - - -- highly weathered, many biooky fractures, ron- homogeneou R CL � te_xtura. _ _ ___ - -- Vax Censity B-- - -- — -- ^ ^-- - - - - -- - -- __ _ Mottled+ yellow and green silty CLAYSTONE, moist, medlLm stif _ma_de w " ther ed , minor callcne•___ —____ �R Olive grow sandy 'CLAYSTONE, moist, stiff, moderately CL weat m ral ______________ __ Green CLAYSTONE, moist, stiff, minorly weathered, minor ,a fractures: massiva. TO= 1 0 ft. °1 No GW °s Sack lied 4/2x101 Low 8Y: MS8 JRout a tLEVATiow NIA L ocATM: See Map TEST PIT NO.: � GL ; Reddish brown, CLAY, damp, very soft, some rootlets. CL -.— -- — StdrQrsk: Green CLAYSTONE, moist, medium stiff, CL— _ �yv moderately weathered, moderate b" fractures, mo derat e _ca _ ____________ __ __ e _ 01�ve green sandly CLAYSTONE, moist, stiff, rnodemtaly Atxerberg Limits CL weat highly_biock_y fractures, h caliche. Light green CLAYSTONE, moist, stiff, moderate fractures, minor calicha 1a TD = 8,5 ft. 1 No GW ! Backfiiled 1;24101 I 15 -- Tat Pt taw . +9587 ":5580 TESTING ENGINEERS SD 631 P26 %29 MAR 02 '01 14:2 , •��� }1 r ?i`1.R < �? � ` I�1 t� 'f� w Wo� c ia"t' A. :' �y Y��1,: "���� �• ��r �r � � k� y �„ •� I: � � . r r0. 1 » rY✓ q , +e58715550 TESTING aAG? NEERS S: a31 Pc i2: M =R 02 21 14 : 24 LABORATORY Tl✓STING La�tor Proms g_m_ Laboratory tests were pe formed on representative soil samples to determine their relative enginoering properties, Ti sts were performed in accordance with test methods of the American Society for Testing : .Materi is (ASTM) or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various # st methods used. Cl� cation Soils wore classified visually according to the Wt ed Soil Classification System (USCS). Visual classifications were supple mented by laboratory testing of selected samples in accordance with ASTM D� -2487. The soil cl assifcations are show on the Exploration Logs, Appendix B. ' U- ximum PrX Degsityl a9mum HgisS' rg Coixtgnt The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of selected samples was detmminod in accordance viffi ASTM D -1557, Method A. The test results are provided in the following tables. Atte er Li Atterberg limits tests were )erformed on selected representative samples in accordance with ASTM D -4318. The results = pro vided in the following plate. 1Jxn�,�;,n Yudez Expansion Index tests were performed on representative samples of the near•sutface soils. Samptes were remolded and surch; ,,rged to 144 pounds per square foot in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard N, 1. 18 - 2. The test results are summarized in the following tables. Corxosivi tv Corrosivity tests consist in of pH, sulfate, chloride and resistivity tests were performed according to California Te st Methods 643, 417 and 422 in order to recommend the type of cement and estimate the li `e of underground plumbing. The test results are provided in the following tables. +956715530 18"2STIN5 ENGINEERS SI 931 P2e,'29 MAR 02 '21 14:24 SLq�JAARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESLILTS P -- UTS Of MAXIMUM DENISITY Es (ASTMD-1557)- ol 0 TP-2 @ 0 -1' 111,9 Nf 15.6% 7- P-3 @ 3,5 -5.0' 117.8 pcf 13,5% F ESULTS OF EXPANSION rNI)EX TESTS (UBC NO, 18-2) TP I @ 4 0-5.0' 92 (High) ftft� RESULTS OF CORROSIVITY TESTS FT P" -0 WWII Tp. I Ca 4.0-5.0' NA NA 5460 130 Degree of Corrosivity NA I NA Severe Low California Test Mc thod 643 California Test Mc thod 417 California Test M-L thod 422 . +2SB71558�T:STING ENGINEERS SD • 631 P29 P1�R 02 ' 31 14 25 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT a Dashed line mdlca es th e PP roxi=ts I u ppor limit boundary for natural soils i t -- 50 I 40 —� • �. 20 � � � (,�' � I I � II ..fir--•- - 1 0 MH or OH I M - -- a I 50 70 90 30 0 L1QUIO LIMI 3pIL DATA NATURAL U10 PLASTICITY UG us CS SAMPLE DEPTH ` WATER PLASTIC II �,iNUt INDEX $YM6oL SOURCE N0. (ft.) CONTENT LIMIT W *A 27 I 56 2 0 O"rECHNIC 1 TP-4 I 1 I I II ti Architect LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMIT 5 TE,9T REPORT Pr I," t., M Moz R ben°Residence • Geotcchr.icai lnvast. �, TESTING ENCANEERS ro �t ol.,o , PI s., +85871558 ThST ING ENGINEERS SD 831 P02/29 MAR 02 '01 14:09 j: Testing Engineers -San Diego, Inca Estzbiished 19.46 Mr. Mark Roberts February 23, 2001 Dark N. Roberts Architect Project No, 2001 -1022 711 Orange Grove Way - Folsom, Galifomia 95630 Subject: GE TECMUCAL INVESTIGATIQN project: Roberts Residence 1 225 Desert Rose Way Encinitas, California Dear Mr. Roberts: In accordance with your request, Testing Engineers -San Diego, Inc. has conducted a Geotechnical Investigation at the itlerenced site in Encinitas, California. The attached report discusses the gcotecWcal aspects of the project and providers recommendations for the proposed development, Our subsurface investigation has found that the proposed residential building pad area is underlain _ by an expansive bedrock and. deeper loose materials, possibly landslide debris to a depth of approximately 10 feet, We conclude that the development of the proposed residence is. geotechnically feasible based upon the existing soil' conditions, and provided the recommendations contained herein are implemented in the design and construction. Testing Engineers -San Diego appreciates the opportunity to be of assistance to you on tl�s project and welcome the opportunity to continue our role as geotechnical consultants. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Usti R.-MG9 IDS. REE UA NOX 054071 'Ste n N. Bradley, CEG Saliou Diallo, RCE+ $4071 * Exp, Senior Engineer � cIK Principal Geologist � 2001 -1022 Roberta Residence 000, Invest, 5d 'resting Engineers Son Dieso, Inc., 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 Salt Diego, CA. 91111 (858] 715 -5800 FAX (858] 715 -5$10 4� y ' +B5871558 TESTING ENGINEERS SD ' 831 P03'29 MAR 02 '01 14'10 ( ( - � ' ' ' TABLE OF INTRODUCTION ~^. ~~,^.,,.,.,,,,_,..~.,,.....,,,,__.,,,,,~.~.,,,,,.__.^.^`� GenOW . -.....~.°.~.,~.._-.~....`'~..~....° scope ...,"....~.°"._..'~ ~ �co�ww� .-^^'~^~^^"^`~~'' .,.°°..._-. % q mmo�������o,^,.~. ,,,,,,,, �.^ ,,, .~ }] PROJECT B��^.o��p°°U^� .,.,`. .,,,.~_._.__.,,._2 Site � .^...^.--.^...~~.°.......=,`.- � -proposed Development s ��� TESTING �7� ������uun �o���^n�^^~^^~° ���u��^ ^~`^- ^.,,..,._,.__.^~.,.__._^_,.,,^,,.� � SubsurAce1xplmrm�on.--._.^.,^..^,,~^~,^,~,~,°,,,,, . ,,,,^..,_,_,,,.___._^'^..~^._..2 I ��ora�»ry][e$�o8Pnmgo»o�-..^^'-..-_....-~-.',^.^..-^. . - GEOLOGY ,.~°.,~~,...____~,___,~,,,,,,,^,,~.,~^°,,,~_.� ������o�p"^w��.°.^'~^'~'°'~~^' _',.~~..^~^.,,,,,,~.^^,,,.,,� 8�mSt�4�zmpby....~..~",~^-...~ ' ConVress Sods .~..~~."._--.~=..~~..~~__....._'-._...'..."..°.~~ ...,°~........"` , wuvw �w�="�.~-....^.,"~.... ��A�iu ~~~..`~.~,^,^`,.~~.,.,,~,~,.,,.._._,.._~_..,.^_~'.^,°=,,,.` u°°�^~~^~-~=, .,,_.~~^,~._,,~°._,.,,..,.,,,^,,,._,~_.~,,,._._^,_.,.__-^,,^,^...,5 . � ��u�e�._- +~~"°°~�~^-'`,- ,,~.,,-___,.,~__,.,._,,.~°~,~,.~,.,.,.,,,,.,~......._'_'5 GRADI . .~~`�-'_'--� AND QATIONS ^..~._�^.....~....°...~..."`.._..^^~.~..........._-...---~.^..~-..^^.........~ ��1 ''^'~~'^'~~^'~'^'~~`~'^~'~^^~^~"^^^'^'^--^^`--~''^^'^^^^~'� �=�=� ~^---� 8 n��oBu ~~,~^,,,,.,,�,,.___^~,,,_.__ ' ��*ny����\��� F/�.,^,._._,.^^ _..,,~_,.,.`^,,,,',,,_..~.~.....~..v zm��w~° =^=~ °~~~-'-^---p-'-'- 7 �a�� '.............. ^'^'^^^^^ �l8��ot�����n0�����~.-_'..~.'.^~.....--' . . ' Ero�o#���S�t4dmo,""...~.--~".~,~....~.... Standa Grading K3x6de�tes...,.°°.~^..~...^^^^^^.~^^'~-^'' AND SLAB L��Tz��Nm FOUNDATION ^-`- ---- .,,,,, ~._,.__.~.,___^.^,__,,^.,.,.,.,,.~...,....^...'? ���~"=^^~'^^'^~^~~'~^'-^-,..,,,,.~,.,,,,,_,,____,,,__^,,,.~,,.^,,..- ............... Q ....~...............~...--^....--~^....~..°.~.... ~~'�`~~-~-- Sl -'- ' 0 � .-.~`...-~..^....-..-..~-.....---~.^-'--.....-. ^"=�^~~�~^�� Slabs-on-Grade , ,,~,',,,.,� -�.^.....-l0 Settlement Settlement ^~"''~^'^'--'~^^-~~'~'~^^^'^~"^^^^~'~'"''—' ^ ' - _^.,,'___~.,,.~,.,^,.__,,,.,,,,~.,-...,._-l0 ^°~~~^~~~-~------ ---~'' l0 Typ ofCmoxeTitfor Coustmntimu.... ........ ........................ -~~.^~^-.^.~^^^-...^^-. N | N | ° ^ ' +85E7155BB��- TESTING ENGINEERS SD 831 F04/29 MAR 02 '01 14'10 ( \ ' � TABLE 0FCKDMNTS � `D�'^^~^-~ .... 10 �� �Pm�m ~,,.,,.,,,,.°.,~.~,,.~.,,~._,___,`,..__ �����o�� '^'^'~''''~-~^^^^^~ ,_.,,~.~.,,~.,.,___..~.,'^,,�� � pavx�zeU�$..,`'~'~'^~'-'-~'~~~'^--'~''—^"'^'~^^^^^^~'~^~~_,°.",~_.,.°,^,~,,,,,,,..l� Bha& �� l '~ °^ `"'"' ~^^~ ' ~- '_ -~^ ' ~- ' -~^^'^^^^'~'~^`- ^ . ^ .,, ~ , ^° , ~ ,, ° .,,,~.~."...l� � su�a l7 Foundation 0�v�*�..~~...^...~..°.~......~ ^ ClJOSURY^ .^ .,~,~.,,.°~~,~,,.,,._,---^......l I �zoi��of�»�Wtq���» .n-^'^^--~~~^~~~-^^'~'`~^^^'~' ' ......13 AdditionaA Services .~~~~__--~..^---......~~...~.....-~...".~..~.°^..."..., � MOMS plate 1~Site LjocmtionMaP ^^ plate 3-Plot.Pl»n APPENDICES � A-�dae�� Appendix B- Lo Appendix C- Laboratory Test Results .� -~ + `+ � � -^ -~ � � +85871550 TESTING E NGINEERS SD 831 P05/29 MFR 02 '01 11:11 PROJECT BACKGROUND The subject site is an imgular- shaped residential lot located on the East Side of Desert Rose Way, in the City of Eminitas, California. The project location is shown on Figure 1, Site Location Map. The site encompasses au area of approximately two (2) acres with a moderate southw - sloping natural terrain. Drainage swales run south and west along the western and southern limits of the site. A culvert provides awns to the building pad area over the southern drainage Swale. Vegetation consisted of grass, shrub, ire plant and few trees. The subject parcel is bordered by si.ruilar residential developments. Prow - d I? evelgR eennt, Based on the site plan provided, the proposed development will inclu& a single -story structure to be utilized as a regdertce, a swimming pool and a detached garage. A driveway will access the property along the south w0st side of the proposed residence from Desert rose Way. The Plot Plan, Figure 2, provides a layout of tie proposed development. SITE ;L VESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING} Ruh�rface Exloration The site investigation, consisting of surficial reconnaissance and subsurface exploration, was conducted on January 24, 2001. Subsurface exploration was conducted by test pits excavated with a Case WE backhoe equipped with a 24 -inch bucket. The purpose of the test pit excavations was to evaluate the candition of the soils in the proposed area of development. A total of four (4) test pits were completed to depths ranging from approximately 8 to 10 feet below the existing ground surface. The teat pits were lagged in the field by the staff engineer. representative samples were collected, sealed in moisture- resistant containers, and transported to the laboratory for subsequent testing. Detailed . descriptions of the encountered. subsurface materials aYe pro�tded in the �`ite ati�raphy sectic i oft3�is rcpe The t tit dg-tions -are �ndicated..on the Plot Plan, Figure 2. Appendix B contains - the Field Exploration Logs. Labora oa Testing 1!r9Z&1W In addition to the field exploration, a laboratory testing program was conduoted to Qstablish the pertinent engineering characteristics of the foundation materials. The laboratory testing ptogratn included visual clan fication, expansion index, Atterberg limits, corrosivity and maximum dry density and optimum moisture content tests. All laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM standard specifications or other accepted test methods. Appendix C provides a summary of test procedures and results, r O 2UF 2. , +85e?1558T TESTING ENGINEERS SD 831 P06/29 MAR 02 "01 14:11 GEOLOGY GuI4Plc e The subject site is located Within the southern portion of what is known as the Peninsular Ranges Goaixior phic Pmvincs of Cel.ifornia. The GoasW areas of the province in Encinitas arm typically made up of Pleistocene age marine terrace deposits ( Qm ) and Eocene ago marine sedimentary rocks (E). The subsurface .descriptions provided are interpreted from conditions exposed during the field investigation and/or inferred front the geologic literature. As such, all of the subsurface conditions may not be represented. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface materials encountered during the field investigatioa are presented on the Exploration Lags provided in Appendix 13 of this report. The fallowing paragraphs provide gneral descriptions of the c=untered soil types. Topsoil is the surficial soil material that mantles the ground, usually containing roots and other organic materials which supports vegetation. Topsoil obaerved in each of the test pats was approxi=tely l to 2 feet thick and consisted of dark green to reddish brown sandy clay that was moist anal soft in consistency with minor amounts of organics (roots and rootlets), L_dslide 1?ebris Landslide debris were observed below the topsoil horizon in TP -2. They generally consisted of yellow and green sandy clay, mottled., damp and medium dense in consistency. The landslide debris extends beyond the maximum explored depth of 10 feet. B Bedrock was encountered underlying the landslide debris or.the topsoil layer. The bedrock belongs t0-ft one age mine -se&na y= rocks- and=cbusists- ofbght. to :dank green cla y gone, mQ t, slightly weathered and stiff in corsistency with occasional fractures. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION General +Conclustons Based on our i nvesti gati on and evaluation of the collected information, we conclude th the proposed structural development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations contained in this report will be properly implemented dwing structural development. TESB' �y�?G s Resi n�r,�U t i sl Ipy�g�jglnn C Ene niy.Califbmia O Pmicct Ne 194�:J92'r gcbruory 11 OOI 3 • v +85871558 TESTING ENGINEERS SD GM P07/29 MAR 02 '01 14;12 . The major factors affecting the proposed construction are the existenco of highly expansive soils at shallow depth and the landslide debris encountered in T]P-2. In order to provide a uniform support for the structus:es, overexattvation and recornpaction of the stnuctural portions of the building pads will be required. The fbimdations may consist of reinforced continuous footings with conventional reinforced slabs or preferably post - tension foundation systems. Recorm andations and criteria for foundation design are Contained in the Foundation and Slab Recorn eodations section of this report. Compress bk &US tax field observations and testing indicate low compressibility within the sedimentary bedrock that underlies the entire site. However, loose topsoil was typically encountered to a depth of approximately 2.0 feet below surface grades and landslide debris to an. undeterminesd depth. m general, the surticW topsoil is compressible. Due to the potential for soil compression upon loadizrg, remedutl gradiug of these near- susfItce sails (including ovemeavation and'recompactiou) wiil be requlred. Following implementation of the earthwork reconuTiendations. presented herein, the potential for soil compression resulting from the new development has been estimated to be law. The low- settlornent assessment asy%umes a well platuted and maintained site drainage system. Recorntrumdations regarding mitigation by earthwork omtruction are presented in the Grading and Earthwork Reconunendations section of this report. Etc. a rsiv S i s The underlying soils consisting of claystone exhibit a high potential for expansion. An Exparision Index of 92 was obtained from the soil samplo tested. Grouatd'�,�tet' Static groundwater was not encountered within, the depths of our explorations. In general, it is anticipated that groundwater is generally greater than 140 feet below ground surface in the vicinity of the subject sitm gem a Design Criteria A review of the active fault maps pertaining to the site indicates the existence of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone approximately fifteen (15) km west of the subject site. Gromid shaking from this fault and the other major active faults in the region is the most likely event aectin.$ the site, The proposed building should be designed in accordance with seismic design requirements afthe 1997 edition of the UrAform Building Code or the Structural Engineers AMociation of Califbr»ia using the following criteria; T � 'a O P y00 • � 3..29(!1 4 +858715590 TESTING ENGINEERS SD i 031 P08/29 MRR 02 1 01 14:12 parameter Value UBC Reference Seismic Zone factor, Z 0.4 Table 16 -I Soil Profile Type So 'Table 16 -J Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.44 Table 16 -Q Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.64 Table 16 - Near- Source factor Na 1.0 Table 16-S Near Source Factor, Nv 1.0 Table 16-T Seismic Source . H Table 16-U �f `uefac Based on the absence of shallow groundwater, type and consistency of the underlying soils, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction is very low. Permanent aSlapea Permanent out and fill slopes are anticipated to be less than 15 feet in height and may be constructed at a maximum slope ratio of 2:1 ( hor. to Wert.) to the heights indicated on the plans. Slopes constructed in such a. manner arc anticipated to be grossly stable, It is romnrnended that drought resistant vegetation be planted on the slope faces as soon as practical to enhance the stability of the slope surfaoes, T"eMpoxary 51010 For the excavation of foundation or utility trenches, temporary vertical cuts to a maximum of 4 feet may be constructed in fill or natural soil. Any temporary cuts beyond the above height constraints should be shored or further laid back following a 1:1 ( hor. to. vent ) slope ratio. OSHA guidelines for trench excavation safety should be implemented during construction. GRADING AND EARTHWORK REC011MNDATIONS (gene Based upon our understanding of the preliminary plans and the information obtained during the field investigation, we anticipate that structures will be founded on continuous footings, which are supported entirely by properly compacted fill. The following grading atad earthwork rea n naeadationa are based upon the geotechnical investigation performed, and should be verified dating construction by our field representative. Cle, earigg an,. d Grubbinst All areas to be graded or to receive fill and/or structures should be cleared of vegetation. Vegetation and the debris from the clearing operations should be properly disposed of off -site. The are$ should be thoroughly inspected for any possible buried objects, which need to be rerouted or removed prior to the inception of, or during grading. All holes, trenches, or pockets loft by the removal of these Zj - act No. 2001-1022 0 h bmary, S TESTING ENGINEERS SD E31 P09/29 MAR e2 '01 14!13 ( I objects should be properly bnkfilled with compacted fill materials as recommended in the Method and Criteria. of Compaction section of this report. Stx etcurai lm r vement Of Tnformadon obtained flrom our 3ie1d and laboratory analysis indicates that 10050 tbpaoil and landslide debris cover portions of tha site to depths ranging &arn approximately 1.5 to over 10 feet. These loose surficial soils are susceptible to settlement won loading. Based upon the x011 Characteristics, we recomrricnd the fallowing: All topsoil and lasulslide debris should be completely removed as described herein horn areas which are planned to receive oompacted fills anWor structural improv ements, The bottom of ft removal area rhhould expose competent materials as approved by TMD geotechnical representative. Prior to the placement of new fill, the bottom of the removal area. should be scarified a minimum depth of at bast b inches, moisture- conditibn.ei from 0 to 2 percent above the optimum moisture content, and then recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D -1557 test method). . * overe nation should be completed for the structural building pail to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the proposed footing or 3.0 feet below surfaco grade, whichever is greater. The limit of the required area of overexcavation should be extended a minimum of 5 feet. laterally beyond the perimeter footing (building footprint). _ For non stmctuural areas, such as driveways„ we reoonu=nd overexcavation to a minimum depth of 2 Feet below existing de or 1.5 feet below proposed subgrade, whichever is gr Soils utilized as rill should be moisture- condltionad and recompacted in conformance with the following Method and Criteria of Compaction suction of this report. The depth and extent of any overexcavation and recompaction should be evaluated in the field by a representative of TBSD, * Another - option will be to provide a low or non- apansivc compacted fill cap, to a depth of feet bdow - fi A le. . Tz�eiitipps Bet�veen.+Cutt 1 proposed stru o=% are anticipated to be founded entirely in properly compacted fill. Cut to fill transitions below the proposed structures should be completely eliminated during the earthwork construction as required in. the previous section. Itod and ra�Compaction Compactod. fills should consist of approved soil material, free of trash debris, roots, vegetation or other deleterious materials. pill soils should be compacted by suitablc compaction equipment in uniform loose lifts of 6 to 8 inches. Unless otherwise specified, all soils subjected to recompaction should be maist4re- conditioned at least 3 percent over the optimum moisture content and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compacnon per AS I rd test me -thud D -1557. w tC l�V i n 0 gntlllLta9_ f' lite r o Pfs�fiti# 22 Fl�hl'�aiX 0). 2001 si$tt�ru ..y:- �--:^- +858715590 TESTING ENGINEERS SD 831 P10/29 MFR 02 '01 14114 I The on -site soils, after being processed to delete the aforementioned deleterious materials, may be used for.recompaction purMes. Should any importation of fill .be planned, the intended import source(s) should be evaluated and approved by T'E§D prior to delivery to the site. Care should be taken to ensure that these soils are not detrimentally expansive. PlaMmed of QXVrftd l edi All ma leafs for capping the structural building pads should be free of rocks and debris in excess of 3 -inch dimension. Sekot fill should extend a raWraum of 5 feet laterally outside the structural footprint. Material up to 1.2-inch dimension may be placed between 3 and 10 feet , from finish grades, but must rerawn at least 10 feet laterally from the face of permanent slopes and should also not bc.. placed within the alfgmta ent of proposed utilities. Although we do not anticipate earthwork construction to create oversized material from 12 to 48 inches in dimension; if encountered, it maybe placed in approved non - structural fill areas. The oversized material almul.d be placed in windrows surrounded by granular fill. The rock windrows Should be floodod with water to facilitate filling of voids. Care should be taken to avoid nesting of oversme rocks and no large rock should be placed within 10 feet of any slope face. The non- structural rockfill should be capped with ,a minimum 3 feet of fill contaWng no rocks greater than 6 inch dimension. Erosion and atadon Areas of recent grading or exposed ground may be subject to erosion. Duriatg.constructilon, surface water should be controlled via berms, sandbags, siltation basing, positive surface grades, or other method lo avoid dwmage to the finish work or adjoining properties. The cofactor should take measures to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time m permanent drainage and erosion con"I treasures have been installed. After completion of grading, all excavated surfaces should exhibit positive drainage and eliminate areas where water might pond. StandaW QXadjU Q 'd�, ey.. - Qm4ing and-ea o& sboukLke� conducted-in .accordance: vAth the standardsof wi_cff_ muds for this local, the guidelines of the current edition of the Uniform Building Code, and the requirements of the jurisdictional agency. Where the informmtion provided in the geot"Wcal report Id from ft Standard Grading Cmidelirm, the requirements outlined in the report shall govom.. FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS The foundation desiga recommendations herein are "minimums" in keeping with the current standard -of -practice. They do not preclude more restrictive criteria of the governing agencies or structural corsiderations. The Structural Engineer should evaluate the foundation configufatiotzs and reitfarcerneat requirements for structural loading, concrete shrinkage and temperature stresses, Ali design and site development criteria should confonn to the minimum design reg7wremortts T RQ s "EI�S� 4k4t ^� aLLn l'SS. 11 An 1irta call b.Prole t No. 1001.1 Z O F binary 13, 2001 7 . +858715580 TESTING ENGINEERS SD 931 P11/29 MRR e2 '01 14;14 k provided in the current edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The following assumes that existing on -site soils will be utilized for construction of the building pad. If a non - expansive fill cap is used, these remmmendations may be modified. Cauvend21lgl F ound9do� Conventional continuous footings are suitable for support of the planned residential building and garage. Footings for the stractures should be founded entirely in properly compacted fig soil. The footing .dimensions, reinforcement, and other structural criteria presented below are Based on geotechnical considerations and axe not intended to be in lieu of requirements of the St metural Engineer. Footing �irncnsions Exterior footings for the singl"tory structure should be embedded a minimum of 30 inches below the lowest adjacent grade and have a minim= width of 12 inches, Excavations should be trimmed "neat ", square and level, with no loose debris prior to concrete placement. Interior footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches at a minimum width of 12 inches. for It is recommended that all exterior footings be reinforced with a minimum of four (4) #S steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footing, two new the top. axed two near the bottom. Interior footings should be similarly reinforced with four #5 bars, The above reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to supersede requirements of the structural engineer. Atlo�,wable Dga&& Canaci A soil bearing pressure of 1,004 psf may be utilized for continuous footings founded in properly compacted fill. The soil bearing pressure may be increased by 240 psf for each additional foot increment of depth. For settlement considerations, the maxim= allowable bearing capacity should not exceed 3,000 psf for footings constructed into compacted fill, �,ateral �A�b- �tesi.sEar�ce . Lateral loads against foundations or retaining structures may be resisted by a. sliding resistance between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil. An allowable sliding resistance of 130 psf may be utilized in the foundation design. Alternatively, an allowable passive earth pressure of 10Opsflft 000pcf. REP). may be used. Lateral bearing and lateral sliding resistance may be combined. In order to utilize the given values, footings must be poured "tight" against competent soils. A one - third increase in the lateral resistance may be considered for transient loads (wind/seismic). TESD # '1 CC 0 QdfYechti CA Q2 0 1 8 +85a - rI55e TESTING ENGINEERS SD 831 P12/29 MAR 02 '01 14.15 f Cunve_ndUg [,�„S,lsbs, -oA�de Conventional interior slabs should be a net 5 inches thick. The slabs should be underlain by a moisture barrier consisting of a. minimum of 2 inches of clean sand, a 10 -mil visqueen shoot and a mirdmutn 4=inch :flock layer of frog- draining coarse sand, gravel or crushed rock, Reinfoioerneat fbr the residential structure and garage should consist of #4 bats on 15 -inch centers. Reinforcement should be located at or slightly above mid- height within the slab section. Reinforcement for. actual . loading renditions should be as required by ft struemral engineer, Past- TenjLULA S CMs @n ads Due to the high potential for expansion of the subgrade soils, post - tensioned slabs -on grade may be designrd by the Prged. Structural Engineer as an alternative tq the above .Gas�ventiaz�al slabs. The following soil parameters may be used: Parameter Value Expansion index 92 Expansion Potential High Plastioity Index 29 Soil Classification CH (USCS) Modulus of Subgrade 100 pci Reaction - Bdge M%tare 5.3" Variation distance for Center Lift (ca) Edge Moisture 2.5' Variation distance fbr Edge Lift (e,) Differontial Swell for 3.95" Center Lift (y Differential Swell for 0.90" Edge Lift (y eo 00 %;Kdol vtst =tiori a. i ct No. 20al-1022 o Vebrugry 13.200 9 +8587155eoP— TESTING ENGINEERS SD r 831 P13f29 MAR 02 '01 14;15 ettle chile subjected to structural loading, a differential settlement up to one- quarter inch should be anticipated, with correspoilc{ing total settlement up to one half inch across the stmctural span. The values for stn;eture adjust cent assume that compressible topsoil is completely. removed within the. structural prism ; - bnd that- proper- suff4ee _irdW:ge -ia implemented-suc'h -that the subs- OlLmooistWe -- - - - - - _ oonteat is maintained relatively constant. Presatttr fin of `Sl& Sulastrade Sub de soils extending to.a depth of 24 inches below finish pad grade should be saturated for at least 24 houra prior - to Crete pl acemen t. Moisture testa should be perfomed at that time to insure at. least 90 pint saturation. Type iCem�t for Ctunst+�►sctl S Upon the corrmivlty a dysis of the on -site soils, we recommend Type V Portland Cement (or 5 to 7 Sacks Ty,O TI oMOW trAx)' for construction with a water-cement ratio No greater than 0.45. A.II I' ONAL REGOHMEN;C ATTIONS etalnin i 9 Ca sitilevered retaaning wells shhould be designed for an "active" lateral earth pressure of 45 psf!#t (45 pcf` EFF) for approved granular backfill and level backfill conditions. Where cantilevered Walls support 2;,1(honygn) tdoping backfill, the equivalent active fluid pressure should be increase�dd to 60 pcf. C�ttile+ver walls subject to uniform surcharge loads should be designed for arl additional uniform lateral pressum equal to one -third (113) the anticipated surcharge pressure. Restrained walls should be designed utilizing an "at- rest" earth pressure of 75 psf /ft (75 pef BFP) for approved granular and. level backfill. Restrained walls subject to uniform surcharge loads should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one -half (1/2) the anticipated surcharge. Retainilag wall. footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Retaining walla that are to be located near the top of slopes should be designed to allow a minimum daylight distance of 7 feet laterally from the outside edge of the footing to the slope face. Soil dosign. miteti.a, such as bearing capacity, passive earth pressure and sliding resistance as recon=er+dad under the Foundation. and Slab keCOmmeadations section, may be incorporated Wo the retaining wall design. The design and location of retaining walls should be reviewed by T ESD f`or conforr =ce with our recommendations. Footings should be reinforced as recornmoudod by the structural engirt= and appropriate back drainage provided to avoid excessive hydrostatic wall pressures. As a minimurn we recommend a fabric - wrapped crushed rock And perforated pipe system, At least 2 cubic feet per linear foot of free- draipage crushed took should be provided. CESD • Robtrt. invmtin don O E c' ita, UIF=4 9 2 2mmkfSt Ng 2Q01 -1022 C? rebruAry t& 10 +858715580 TESTING ENGINEERS SD 831 P14/29 MAR 02 '01 14:16 1 Tho remaining wall backfill should cons of approved granular material, This fill material should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as determined by ASTM D -1557 test method. Flooding or jetting of backfill should not be permitted. Granular backfill should be capped with 18 inches (minimum) of relatively impervious fell to seal the backfill and prevent saturation. It should be noted that the use of heavy compaction egtupment in olose proximity to retaining structures Carl result in wall pressures exceeding design values and corresponding wall movement greater that - associated with -active or at -rest conditions, - In -this regard, the contractor. should take appropriate precautions during the backfill placement. paveme The following presents preliminary recotn=endations for flexible asphalt and rigid concrete pavements. The pavement section requirements have beau prepared based on our evaluation of the on -site soils and standard pavement design procedures. The taco mmen lotions re not intended to a supersede strieter requirements. posed by the jurisriictional. agency. Anbgt Pavements (AC) It is recommended that the constructed pavement subgracle should be evaluated and tested prior to asphalt placement in order to verify the assumed R- value and/or modify the design sections presented. The R -value of the on -site soils is estimated to be less than 5 due to the high clay content, Based on the estimated R- value, we offer the following preliminary pavement design sections. The actual design and adoption relative to allowable road gradients should be developed by the civil designer based on jurisdictional requirements. T affic [nd x Recommend Pavcme t Secti Comments 4.5 310" AC on 10.0" Class 2 AB Driveway. The subgrade soils for the proposed driveway should be scarified to a minimurn depth of 12 inches, rnaistureWcond�oned 3 - percent - aver - optimum, and_ zes�c �t��o �t-least _� percent o€ a Maximurn Dry Density per ASTM D-1557. The aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative Compaction (ASTM 1557) and should be in conformance with the materials ari ttria as set fbrth in Section 26 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications, 1994 Edition. C_onCr�r CC Where rigid concrete pavements are planned to support liAt vehicular traffic, rho following minimum sections are recommended: mffi Recommended pavement Section! Comments 4.5 6.0" PCC on Compacted Subgrade Driveway TE80 0 _ 1� +050715580¢ TESTING ENGINEERS SD 031 P15/29 MPR 02 '01 14:10 ( (. Compaction of the subgrade soil should be conducted as specified for Asphalt Pavements, above, pCC Pavement should be a*imutn 3,504 psi concrete. It is recommended that steel reinforcement be.provided for FCC pavements, which will sustain heavy impact .loading, such as fire trucks, As a mi mw we re n for such slabs, commend munber 3 deformed rebar placed on 2�4 -inch centers each way. Placement of concrete, controllexpansion joints, and MY reinforcement should be in conformance with A.CI soca fications and the Structural Engineer's design. Trench $act�fll Tronch excavations for utility lines, which extend under stnictural areas should be properly backfiiled and compacted. Utilities should be properly bedded and bacIdiiled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least 1 -foot over the pipe, This backfill should be uniformly watered and compacted to a firm condition for both vertical and lateral pipe supports, The remainder of. th . backfill may be typical on -site soil or low - expansive import which should be placed near optirraum moisture content in lifts not exceeding ti inches in thickness and mechanically cornpacted to a lW# 90 percent relative compaction. Irrigation and drainage at this site should be designed to maintain the current subsurface moisture regilhe in a state of relative natural equilibrium. Drainage in hardsaapo areas a4jacsnt to structures should be designed to collect said direct surface waters away from the proposed structures at a recommended minimum gradient of I percent. The drainage should be directed to approved drainage facilities. For earth areas, positive drainage with a minimum gradient of 5 percent away from all structures should be provided and maintained for a distance of at least 5 feet to reduce saturation of foundation. soils, � in swalas 'should have a minimum gradient of 2 percent should be directed toward approved drainage receptors. Drainage patterns approved at the time o grading should be maintained throughout 60 life of the development. F ounds an �leviw -r,0unda,0cm— exoa-vat3ot s- would be- =viewed.. by TESD _p-dor _to .the _pIacemetit of :forms, reinf'oroemeut, or concrete for conformance with the intentions of this investigation. CLOSM Limits A# �nve$�i A,� ti0ri Our investigation was performed using the skill and degree of care ordinarily exercised, render similar circuriastarices, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included its this report. This report is ,prepared for the sole use of our client and may not be assigned.to others without the written consent of the client and Testing Engineers -San Diego, Inc. The samples taken and used for testing, and the observations trade, are believed representative of s ite condit however, soil a nd ge ol ogic conditions call :raaiy ei 1Ca ntly between tit. nits and Rabuts ftbidjogp Q .rtecxachnicsil Inv�Sliftdt��- �� t '' 6 55 Ni+ 2Q01.1022 C1 FChnlan 13. 2Ua 12 +eSe?i55e0� TESTING ENGINEERS SD �. 631 P16f29 MAR 00 '01 14 1? surface .egpowivs. As inmost major projects, corAitio�ns revealed by construction excavatfona may vaxy with preliminM fin ngs, If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by a representative of'TFSD and designs adjusted as regttired or alternate deslOw r6OOM Cne 1cd, This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responilbilltY of the owner, or of his represett'3ati've, to ensure that. the int rmation and recomtnerx io contained herein & brought to the tte #1- : project architect - and engineer, ,appropriate reccutunendations should -be i ncorporated into the structural glans, The necessary steps should kte taken to. see that the contractor and subcontmctw Carry cut such mmrnmendations in the field ' The findings of tkiis report are valid as of this present date.. Dower, er, changes in the conditions of a property can c cur with. the passage of time, whether they are slue to nawd processes ov the works of man. on: this or adjacent properties. in addition, changes in applicable tit` appropriate standards tnav occur of legislation or the broadeniug of knowledge. Acc00_91y; fire fuxi of thI report may be invalid4ted wholly or pattlally by obanges outside of.our _antral. Tlaerofmc, this report is subject to review and .should be.updatcd.after a. period of tbroa yds. Ad ftigilal i5eOftg . The review of plats azd speeifcations, field observations and tasting under our claxection is an integral. part of the made In this report. if 'Testing En tors -San Diego is not retained for these s rvi ces, the client agt to assume our responsiNlity frsr .gay potential claims that tray arise during construction. Obserra4oa and tasting are additional services, which are provided by our Win, and should be budgeted within the cost of development, Tasting Engineers -San Diego, Inc. fFSD * RoLtnc a c pfi$ Cleat ehnioaJ in p, �Q{� 6o�initoi C ifs,mia C�$i ect No 2 01.1022 4 Fabr,e 3.2 01 13 +85871558G¢ TESTING ENGINEERS SD 831 P17/29 MAR 02 1 01 14:18 c I i + +858'715580¢ ,TESTING ENGINEERS SID 831 P18i29 MAR 02 '01 14;18 j � -. . _rn+ Iy � 4 — 4 rJ.: u,. .._�,,/r �' .+ 1 •r'1 , . ..� J. t F v, 1.. `,. F .�r•..: Jrrr µ' ' rJ .r :1 + r }.,.,! . •.,.' _ F" F.. N r WW 't?�'+,.'._••;4{7''!•. i�� �.•• !; y +,;:..,, - i ��(ti '� ' , -•'•." �:•7fS!"j i r � _ ♦.., , I • ,1 f 1 • W f .� - f ,'s_ + .ir. r r ,� h 4 1 I • tF +! .! i �, 4 r ' ,, 5 •' : � r r{�ir��'� -,�, ��i {� i , +.'" _. r'� • ^'•t +, >•,Q '" ±1 ' f.` j r „���� .� :�'' �•'�' ` A sr , • S ' f r 1 �, �. •" 1 i '� X 54 :'�.,, (5 �i.. r t.ti r a. .k1F '� p t t � p ,, y :.r' -:• w +•+, 1�,�, v�f: � t � SM -..; ` y % r � • { 4 �J i l� \� t r ` J. •d ' ` ,�r.. `•! �,t �ii� 5`. r1 t A•. ,.,. S r �� • fy ' ' S , I �; r. t m tt r�q ` ',�'�G'y r7 j; � .r r:- r�,..•')�r `',.�` ' {�, U . �,.'y.•.+•'4.� � :'�, +��•� 41 1 .r "' 1' �•—., { +'Y r � . ^. i • ' • j - r ! r� i ' .. ,! '����� �� r'•}T!'�'1'YSr� `... f • � -!!�" ; i d � � , rJ,. � y � 1 I ��f,.+a J •'r '�.W ,'.., "1" ' r ,L. � 1ii0I# O 1� ' .1. �` R f � •, ^5 `� tl�� t ,�'' t i � ' 1' .. +' "tip r. [, t � i y �y�F� ,SJ .,i•1.,�. r�_ a ��i' l ♦1 L�, , ,',�_ w �:..• �. r' •Yx '� , y;,}'t" . ?�.�• aR3ti �$ i , 5 ? r-• ? �+ �, f� r!:• �.�� , 1 Cmiro Sk1 t F � � • '' ~ � '`' �' i ' "• � �� r S ibs';' ��,,n j''}{rYh,� is � • �� ? 1 rF � y .�... W .. •' i 7/'. }l�l. •. - : f ". J i �yC�...}• '14 �+1+ry�l A 7�' J' • y • 1� 4 % '• �' '^h i(''7'. ", i;j: �....``y, '�• - ^'+* y * '�" R'¢' P''u " a k i d �' 4s"1 r 1 ���rb • � i' �.1��;`ry +� r.' Ir ( ,� , . F.,,a'.•'�. 7 .p. +..11 a ,. g.� - r.,' b..y- • -� •r r�Y �'. f ♦ 'rr �;',' �� w V, Jf f 4� �••, r • � � +'y . �(. •r 1./ ` _ `` \ M`;1 }Nx �' ,.. :"41f. =1 r 1 ,7 .A' £t �,� {' � �� ',r +,�'�' ,� ,',.. Y, .. ' � I ?7i[1 +'. ^ , ^ • ' G a l t, � .r� 4 �� �, r 1aA •L ���. ' 1 * t •�' .�.'t ��:�� � y`�'r9 '",' • k •f �-4"�� a� ',`''�,•�, ;'`t't�. 'W...� '�.� t +� �J1 r - t • S T7 •' M' . 't'A_. �,.,r' .. ��` `.���r1Fw'i4r. -F �'. . y� � {1;': -'�4 kk /r j .Mir r d'. 1 t � �n't (, f r,r ' �� tr' y�� ,�•t� �4 _ C.0 I� . ! rI �_:'• `'i: � rYp��.•.'."..."? v 1 r I 1 t. •�, r 1 rr +Z. F` F�`"' : - 1 :Ly �" 1 `. F ,.'W ,' � j:� '�J r':. ' i 1 ''',� ',; �•••,.�? r 1 '':'.°,�.' - ` •'' '� Y : 4�t, 1 ^ ,�•' 1 r ).. A(F �til! '�, ".r�.i !l ter : wilt✓ '• ♦� �- 4 ' -• � 9' •;'� � , � : `� . i;4� �t �• '�, �� .>t - 'b, J 2.- 4:7�ri�,1 a� •, 1 _Q +v s, ��.• �. _ ;.�+ r e q� L 1fit, jr kt 1•,. , . ' , 1 r :' +, r '.,pP�c �:' r 4 ' a " 1 / • : 1` r r E , y�lF. '�tr AL :i r'f = '}F : f !1.._ i ti'' �� �'i .. ., '.�� * •. � � , I ,» �: ao' , t � ' ;Ti 9 !f r" r-.+. , ! ,r . '"t 5 " „�__�+ i i...l F S � „r,�ad� .� .. �r }•A 7apv�wds. Cagyd�t �D199gDeiatmeYta�ilt7uQlyM '1i010l6 60aire :�t8G8 pDO Savlis= �:1'f;�fi x# 13 -0 Pat:eaLWS'►':r� Testing Engineers - San Diego, tine. SITE LOCATION MAP - Pl ate 1 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 Roberts Residence San Map, -CA 92111 Enai:nitas, California 1 79J,(&58) 715 - 6800 Fax: (888) 715 -5810 2001.1022 February, 2001 +85871558 0f • TESTING ENGINEERS STS � 831 Pig/2 MAR 02 1 01 14.19 t Os de x k 6 ER * p. gR �. M IA A Z. �. 1 tit.. a• !r ' TW +858715580�-TESTING ENGINEERS SD 831 P20/29 MAR 02 '01 14:20 • r ' f • ,t a 7'•: , � +858715580Q TESTING ENGINEERS SD (, 831 P21/29 MAR 02 1 01 14.20 it1<FEMNCEs 1. Bonilla, M.G., 1978, Surfaoe Faulting and EWgtgd Effe,ct s , in Wiegel, R. L., Earthquake Enineering, Pmntice -Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p. 47 -74. 2. Bowles, T.E., 1977, Egu2�da m.Analyais aid Desien: New York, NY, McGraw -Hill, 750 p. 3. Hunt, RZ, 1986, . GeotechnicW Fj=Aggfiag 7nvedd 'on Mmol, New York, NY, McGraw -Hill, 983 p. 4. Hunt,_ %E., _1984, Q goLc2 cal Fn &eying Techn�aues end Pracfzces New York, NY, McGraw- Hill, 72 P. 5. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault AcdviZ M_ ap of California and Adjacent Areas California Division of Mines and Geology, Map No. 6, $case 1 :750,044. . 6. Kennedy, M.P. and Peterson, G.L., 1975, �plogy of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, !Qgj1 ,1975, California Division of Minea and Geology, Bulletin 200. 7. Lrni&M Huflding Code,, 1997 .Ediflon Whltaer, CA, International Conference of Building t�ffiCials, 3 '`�oltn�s. 81 Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, Earthguak;§.!2g %2 ntu r�Faults, and Seismic Hazard in Ca.lifomia Journal ofOeophysiW Research, Vol. 91, No. 812, pp. 25872631: 9. Winterkom, XF., and Fang, H.Y., 1976, Fgodadcm Engine §dng HiWdbook New 'York,. NY, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 751 p. +8587.15580 TESTING ENGINEERS SID (. 831 P22/29 MRR 02 '91 14;21 r J +858'715580 TESTING ENGINEERS SD (. 931 P23/29 MAR 02 '01 14:22 GENTMAL NOTIS SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION The Unified Soil Classification System is used to identify the soil unless otherwise noted, cnrr P pF,RTY S) OLS N: Standard "N" penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound han=tr falling 30 inches on a 2- inch O.D. split - spoon. (u: Unconfined compressive strength, tsf Qg: Naetrotnater value, unconfined compressive strength, ts£ Mc: 'Water content, %. LI.,: Liquid limit, 9 /a. Pl. Plasticity #idea, - DD: Natural dry density, PCP'. v : Apparent groundwater level at time noted after completion. DRILLING AND SAMPLINBOLS CAL: Modified California Sampler - 2 518" I.D., 3.0" O.D., except where noted. SS: Split -Spoon -13/8" LD., 2" O.D., except where noted. ST: Shelby Tube - 3" 0.0., except where noted AU: .Auger Sample. Da: Diamond Bit, CB: Carbide Sit. WS: Washed Sample. ��I DENS' &M CON51STENCY CLASSIFICATION TE Q=- CQ=Pa SO STANDARD VENNIHA TIQN MISTANCB [SP'Tl Very Loose 0 to 4 Loose 4 to 10 Medium Dense 11 to 30 Dense 31 to 50 Very Dense Over 50 TBRItii �CZ�A ,IVE S1 T Ou - (TSFI Very Soft 0 to 2 0 -0.25 Soft 2 to 4 0.25-0.50 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 0.50.1100 stiff a to 1 1,00-2.00 Very stiff' 1 b to 32 2,00-4.00 Hard over 32 4. PAkTIt�'L£ slz� Hauldees 8 in. +- Coarse Sand 514n -0.6mm Silt 0.874 =,0.005mm Cobbles 8 in -3.in Medium Saud Okmm- 0.2mrin Clay - 0,005mm Gravel 3 in -5mm Fine Sand 0.2mm- 0.074mm rw +85F3715580� TESTING ENGINEERS $D �. 831 P24i23 MAR 02 '01 11..2 Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc. 7896 Convoy Court, Suite 18 San Olego, CA 920111 Tel (1158) 715.5600 Fax (858) 715.5810 LOG OF TEST PIT PFKWI,C Matt " ResIdence PROJECTNO: 205 1 - PATS oescsia; 1124101 MEIKOD OF EXCAVATION! Case 580E Backhae w)24" bucket LOGGED BY: MSB GROUND ELEVATION: NIA LOCA See map Qa�r:i LINO HULK MOIST, TE PIT M: (per) cLAss H SAMP" &WPLC CONT. M OESCRIPM SOiL_TEST CL jg2jg t; L�ght brown sander CLAY, damp, very soft minor rootlets. SM fie drwL Light yellow ;silty SAND, damp, rttedlurn dense, moderate cal ___ _ s CL -- Lightgrfn .CLAYSTONIS,- daW,mediumsti moderately . Expansion Index - - - weathered, moderate Moogy fractures, moderate caliohe. Sulfate -- -- -- — -- — - --- ......, -- _ Bark green =YSTONF, damp, sluff, slightly weathered, CL slightly Wcky fractures, some oracle pollaNng noted. Ia TO = 10 ft. No GVV Saekt)lied 1124101 1d LOGGIA BY: MaB OROLrND ELEVATrdN: NIA LOCATION; see Wa TEST PIT NO,: 2 CL Tapso t: DArk green Sandy CLAY, damp, very soft, e0n)e Max.Donsity rootlets. CL Mottled light yellow Sandy CLAY and S CLAYMNE, green, damp, medium sW, moderately Cl_ weathered, moderate blocky fractures, lrace.of callche. CL 13 k: Silty CLAYSTONE, mottle green and -red, damp, 1Q Stiff, slightly weethe.red. TO = 10.6 ft. No OW Dock 1124/01 13 Tut N Lc9a . K ' ' +G5e?i -c5B0r .TESTING ENGINEERS Sb 231 P25/29 MAR 02 '01 1 -,23 Fearing Engineers - San Diego, Inc. m5 t: a voy Court, suite 18 say 01"0, CA 920111 Tel (96$).715.6804 Fax ($5O) 71$ 5910 LOG OF TEST SPIT t?flQJE�"+Y1V+a1dl� tVleti i?tt�i ift6 X55 11C$ PROMT1401 �. QAT-A o 1 112 0A M OF 6X0AVAMgtf: Cue 580E.8aaMos.w /24" bucket ROEf0t0 BYt Maao ... QAQ111±i0 UWAT.10M /f 4 IC+CATiOPC $66 map. i I AM +MOts�, Ta~ST Mt~a.: 3 TaOTf . !! e''. q+ :. rte- .. OD DEBG tiPT 6011EST.. 1=rao l: l aX , sand CLAY;, dOMp, Very aoft, some. C.1 ;,, Dark gf93,$}1 CLAYSTONE, darr►p, rrtao= alf, — — hig* weathered. msm +.Olacky,ircturas, turf- homogeneou .toxtu Max 0 srlslty= - �y.r+.. ,... - ---------- fin �� y� ., .w .... q. `, 'mottled yeopw and gm6n nifty. CLAY -S .� k ONE, mola all m stif rr' damtety:Y*a mirror Wlche. _._.� ..,,_- ....,.. — ------------ olive gr6w trendy CLAY6TONE, moist, stiff,. modswely CL �'` w_ea_#he rrilt►or c'�liche, .. ,,...._....,-........, ,,..------ .__:.._.......,.._-- �a G h l AY>51'C?N , :moist, stiff; ir► wdy weal o redi minor . ft�ature>3, riyr3l>�i TO ;10 ft. Na 0W 46 Sackfillad 1124)11 LOWED BY ORQUNO UWAMON: N/A LOCATION: Sawmap Tt~SYiT NO:: a . ;Reddish br rn, , damp, very.saft, some CL rootlets. ,,. -�-� -- -� -- -- Aukadii Green CLAYISTONE. mold, medium stiff, Gk. - '�� 1�odarete ly'�1�ed,- rni�dte�+loeky #kn'�� . — - —r- '., madArofe s llttla. -- _ — — — — t� 01!v# griper s" CLAYSTONE, moist, stiff, moderately — Atfsrb+erg Limits GL weat highly bl t cky fr h;qt� ca R oh e. Light green CLAYSTt9N1 , moist, stiff., moderate — fria�G;t"&, m inor csiicha iA TD = $.5 ft. No GW Backfillad 1124101 is .. T#0 Pk Lop r + +858715590 TESTING ENGINEERS SD {_ 831 P26/29 MAR 02 X01 1 123 1 , J 1 1 T � 1 �, jp Y�,uu �'1 1 �..1 �o. < ,�• t , y J. 1 •P!•... A Y 0. `� .r ' +85871558QQ TESTING ENGINEERS SD 031 MAR 02 ' 01 14;24 LABORATORY T>E'JSTING L b, kra &Mm Iraboretory tests were performed on representative soil ,samples to determine their relative engineering properties, Testis . wtare performed it accordance with test methods of the American. Society for Testbao Materials (ASTM) or. other accepted standards. The following presents a brief descripiion of:the var aus tea methods used. Soils wem Classified visually acacordin to the T.JWfied Soil Classification System (USCS). Visual classifications w= supplemented by laboratory testing of selected smvless in accordance with ASTM D4487. The..soil ctassigoations are shown on the Bxploration Logs, Appendix B. JAX ]fir Pe;asitM 92 ftu n1 HW1WXQQ The laboratory maximum dry density and opt4num moisture content of selected samples was de errniaed in acacoA.mce with. ASTM D -1557, Method A. The test results are provided in the following tabu. A.. ttebenz UjUW Attmlaerg lirnits tests were performed on selected representative samples in accordance with ASTM D -4318. The results am provided in the fallowir4 plate. ��cpa�ifln �nsie�. . Bxpo sW Index tests were performed on representative samples of the near- surface soils. Samples were remolded and surcharged to 244 pounds per tquar foot in accordance with the Uniform Building Oode-$tandard No. -1 &2: Thr' test - results are- s=madzed 4n the foLowing tables. Onrr Corrosivity tests consisting of pH, sulfate, chloride and resistivity tests were performed according to Calihc� a Test Methods 643, 417 and 422 in order to recommend the type of coment end estimate the life of underground plumbing. The test results are provided in the following tables, +858715580 TESTING ENGINEERS SD ( 831 P28/29 MAR 02 '01 14:24 t SuI(ARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS RESULTS OF MA UM DENSITY TEST (AS7 M T� -157 +j@ •:bb't•• si.,4 � ` . „ ++i y,N `H' �' ' ��.•ytii'j (;y�; �Ik '.1 .:y:: 7. P;+jr,• :r.,tre'c': � � f:'.' ". s: C ..'� ;' ,)� t �,.C r r. . • , Vie. ,. + •�: ,� C' ,�.'+; ".F �q�yp/ M.,; •.Y: � ti'.9,: .1'Kti'.21.It M „ a p ,� �'a'�' -�n ' � •'K ''T`y' .��` ?.�1 2' rM (' F n 1RS �1'�t ���.h�b;•a��Y'.�A.II{+�'?4hi�� ? •�. 7 ��,'� r ��'��r��?. t t,�,�; ; , t� '. d� � ' .d t�� �:. TP -2 @ 0 -1' 1 1 1.9 pof 1 5. 6 _ TP -3 @ 3,5 -5,0' - - - - - - 117,8 pcf 13,5 "/a - RESULTS OF EXPANSION YNDEX TESTS EC NO, 1 S•-2 a 4 TPi1 @ 4 .0-5.0' 92 (High) RESULTS OF CORROSIVITY TESTS ,.�. �: �'� (f .'. MiJ•: f �'>,t .r� °�.� .t 1:�5. ,. '.f � +� y °-ts a.. TFW1 @ 4.D -5,1?' NA. NA. 5460 13 Degree of Comsivity NA. NA Severe Law Califam.ia Test Method 643 ' * California Test method 417 '�* California Tast Mathod 422 (1::)�d ItSTING ENGdNEERS SD 831 P29i29 MAR ' 01 14:25 LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 Dashed line indicates the approximate / upper limit. boundary for natural soils C> 40 _• _ . 30— a / 20 _., -- / f 10 J _ 7 4 r ML r OL MH i r Gil f 1 D 30 50 70. 9 110 L4QUID LIMIT SOIL DATA - - - - - NATURAL— SAMPLE DEPTH W1 ATPR PL.ASTIO LIOU10 PLASTIC-FTY BYM60L SOURCE N0. (ft.) CONTENT LJMIIT. UMUT INDEX u5cs a G 30TECKNICAL TP 4 5.545' 27 56 29 LIQUID AND PLAVIC LIMITS TEST REPQRT Client: Mark N. Roberts Architect Projvr* Matt Roberts Residence- Geotechnical Invest, TESTING ENGINEERS Pro] mct l•1022 pl I � . I � I I � I � . . , - , 1U.i1i::X.-.''�',�, ....- , �.. - - . I . I � IT M ...".... ..i� .,.����������.,'.�."",�����..�.���."..�,.?..����:��.,.,..,..�.-.��.*-.,Y.*. ,.,*".*..*.:�ii��i!i�:..,.";�:���:;,*.��������:]��i::����:�:�"..".:�i�,.,�.',.*.�-.*,�:�� i:�:�.,..,�i��:,...i���!:"",.,.:.i:� :::�,,...�.�.'.-',....... ..,,-,��:��,.:�:�:�i���������i�����.,.ii;ii::.,..:;::��!��i:��.,,,...������..........,.:i;�]���..:::�'.�'.-.,�:...,��,.,��:�i:::��� .�.�::'..-�.-,�.-,-,--.�, ,-..-,.,."�;�*����:���*...-.�-.��,�-,',.�.��.,�,.,,- ...-..����-......,,�":i� ����:1--�....:������-.�,...,....*-...�������,�.-*.-',�*.,-..,-'.����..,,...... ...:ji���M����i:.,�,�i��",.,.!�".".,....�.""�..' �.�. ����:���i��:��"... , ."" , *.'.�..,..-'�:�:,*3". , .., , ...�,'..'?�.��',�"... ' �,��.*,'.-'��.*.-',,� .".,.. , i���:�:� , .,...���i��... , ...��*..�i����������..'� , �'.'..,*.:�i! : �:.� �i���i�i�.�..�i.'.�i.' , .� i!,�.��:,. - . -, .. --- ,.........�:��i�.. , .... , . ,, !;�,.",.. , ." , . , ��i". , .". , . , �i�*�',*.'��* , .**:. ,, ... �.*Kiii:."�ti� ttiitt�ii��.� i Womm - - ---- i : I . - I., ii�.-- � � ., I . . - I IWWW___� I ; . . . � " 1!�.'� 1 . I . . I � ..., . � . I . . I ... ., � . I . ��: '�-. �: I I . . ­ .. � . � I . I , Z:' "'; ,,, ­ . .I. - ­: I : I . I I 1 0 .A A sii,' ... ! . I - t, I I � I . I . . . � I ", ': i"., ,:- g ,�] I I � , . . . - I I � . I I .. 1. : � I A of W. I - .. . :iy - .& '. �l: : . I . ,� . I I I I . � .. I I ,— I - - ­ . "! I ... ., ,�,, I . I . . � ia -i ", 11� � . I . . .1 . :�;;i� - " . . I . I . � .� . . . . I I . . x %� ., I . .1 . I � I I . I , � . � � . . .:: �. .. . I V :0 �,� Y, I . . . . .1 I I A Qi. I i I . � I ; I I I , � . ,. , �,. � I : I I . .. W - __ - I � I I . I �! - . . Z� � . � ; , . � .. . . - . I W "Ai V . I i . � . � I ... I . i . .: . .. I I . .: � . -E. 5�261',�U,010 , ..'j I �. ff- . ­:. , �� . . I I 1. I � . . .. I . I . . � �. ­­ . I .., .. � �:�': - �� I I I - I I .. . .1 - . t . .__11..11­..... ...... ..., `.:�' .:. i '::�,�::: -il 7 ....... :__�: ........... -, .,­ - ­__­_­­__,.,_, ....... :� .. t� I . _ .. _ - :� �'*'�:,�'�,.".*,::�'-'..'.':,"�'.-*:,.;,.,���::�'.'.'�**."'.* ..... ��:�:�� �-'.:�'.�ilk ..'�, _.­_­�.,� , . . ......... ­­­ ....... : ........ :i ......... . . wm , - ..... � .:: �:� . �: ­.-Il." - . : * .... - _... �77­77:�Z - '___ _ - - I ;:�:.-�'�: ,* .: .. , , _-, . . ". I 1 , .,.l1....'X:. �. � , �_ .... :_ I. , -4 �-`;,t . � �. ; . . . '. ��',' 7:i�7 � �i�'�*�'.::`!:-:: , _ . - ,.1,iri1x . �, ...... �,�i , " d1ii,,, IZ,. , : .; , � ..... . ,�..�..�,: -7,­... 0 Q q "� it .. - . . --- -s- - SK`-.`FOU-�-� -_ ---_� ,,.,,.,, -�,� � . , . 7 " �:i�:, � 7 , I .. ., ... . ,�eq I I 7 - , �, .7. � , 1. I �., . . I . = KY, I , . ,� '. ...-,-��s..7- . .... ;.. 11 , :. , - �,',..:-��.- 4, .......... . I-W - � t t�,_­ '', .", .. U." 2 ... : :­1 I ..­:,: ,...� .. .. .. , .� . _.� ­, _­..: .''. , ._ ::X,�,,. ."... , >_ .: , I , � _,.__n� ..., i::' I _�; * - ii�i - . � ... � ... -1. I; , I..... ., , , - I - - ..''.. - 0'-!�1*11.11'�-`�,.. ..'1. ... . "Ill . .. .1 -. . .. , ._,__­1; � I . _( - ..... I i - __ �. .l . ,i � .d.- ­. . � � � .. � ;­',:�­ ....:�, , : . � i� .. j��!�� -_�*,,' :l", �;� , -.- � . , l-­'�i�] ]��i:�,.i . . . . - . . � : .-:��.::. .:: � I , , � *1, :.w; , . -11 , .. � . , � I I AW ". f A ...:� ��,:,:��:� .::: � - : � _'. - ...._ :.,!�iii�,'... . . .. - : � , - �i:._*.�:: i. .. � : ­ - ..... - - .. :, �".:%l. * - � , .. � � T' . =��&, 1 ��. �. I - , . ., ­. I : �I tl �,. . ... .. I i �, � .........',.... � , : - I i I ..... . _:� - :91k - 1 i .­ '? 1 : 9 : . , :i,.: �:.-,.,-�---._��- ::�. :,i�!� I Z " , 11 - .. l ,7 1 . �.... � ...,.., �:-� WORK A 11 .. . �.., - - 11P.", �:. W -,n : � �': .".,: , 7*11 - :::::: � Not Or , � � I . -- , . : ...;1­.. 1� 4 ;�,* ,:-;,: ,�, . : I. VXQAM� "WAT I .:.�:. �,� ., ,.,,�,� . P `.l��i;�',.',,� �M'F,,iiii .,�, I' -."?*;;�,:::� , it " . . i�i]ii ..,::... 11 .i!�:::�� . . TV i ;�: �::: ..­.-:� - ,. , : � � � . ���* V"s .�;::, �ll .1 - ,"..',­. � - � S �',� � . I 1 �= - ­1 - ­l'- . , , �� 11 . . ..`.-­:�-.�:: � I_ - - W ,!� , �, . " . � , ".111 1 I :: �� �w-','.*f,l.. ,',.'.....,-.,: . ­ ., . "am �, Y X ..��.',�,'-ii: il . � W 'W �,. . _ � � I .: ��:�: � �:.!�:::. � � �� .�l f "'t. .: � _; 70 � .� �� .'_`.....� . . . . . �� ... I i , ­-, ­ - . .,i:_;2_:. -, ­��- .1 . _if . _��N­ �,,-�' �;._ � ,,�­ ";e*.,: , :� :: . ;; ,:_ ,...._ j � kr7i.. i I ­­­.: ,.'': ". 11 - .. , . 1�.'�"%t::�'. . j qq M . *,. . . " .. , I l :� ,I Iffil �� - � "' ! " . . -1. ':.:.:.W..'..... � - ­. ffi - - . - �. � ...,­__ :, � I IS. �:v. , - � �!�� ��: ��:,��,��:�::::�:: -.1, . .. .. " " .1 ... " ... � - -.�, ... .,� . , I l:� - * . . 1 , .... �: .,. .,�._ . -..:� - ".. , i ...__ :i.-.- ��.-� 1,11. . _�! � , I . . - . I , � � .�.� � . : ::,- , �.,�:�,.,� �ii:. , ., ��i�l..--.-:� . � . � . b . - . I . � . :: : - ---� ::�il . - -.0, ;...,i.- I . "", ,IF : 1, ,:�i ! ... �.. .. . . , : . . , . . .. .,; .. . . ... . - . - - n. . . -..... � , , � 1 . � �X� I - � I .­­... I - _: ,.-�i�� '....... ,:.: " , '. �.,�. * *, z " 'I'l l- ft _._ ii� � :li+'. ;l, 1,��: ­­:;%, .. , 7: . ,�U � ll� �": '' _:, : � , � � � .; 1�:. !�:::�.:!::�. , t ,�:W;.'�.,lki,,tt, * , " , ) , e , �� - :� * �.r , . , ,: ­ " ': ., '. - ,*: _�:�:,::j:.:, ,� �� " . . � - ,. I � ... I , , , , � .��', � - - , - , . . � I - ... I i�;:_!�_:�:�:-.:, :: . . . � ,l. .� _, .. "': ., ;& � . -,N , ":R ..." .:.� , . "i'Miz �� �':',�, � , I ", ';:.:­. ., , , . I �� ... -, V I . ,.�..:� , . .. .:. - - , . �'.., No 0 % - Q I.... RUNKA �: �� �, �. ��:�::�!:�:��', '': ., �,:.. : � . , . Iiii , �� . '*, . I ;.: it ......... . - ,. , , INN , �� ;i".J."t � o , siwo,"......", -i�: . �::_ � , . . ::��:]l I ;1.1_.111X%,�I,� , , 1� I -- � .. " _.�:_ . I : , � 1. ­ 1 , .: .. . 1 1, _..,.- . . Ii.� -, ��,:. ,g - ... I i:l� ::...�, �:,� :, W �.�: . . .. . . :: �� �!,� I : .�:� �:�, .. . ��: � . % -WAN ip - 11, *iiii.,.;:_*:: a '... ,:­­.; I., 'I �W:--;-_ 4s. - -1. W � �,.,.­. - � .:'�_ � � : ... � . R * . :_�,::t-...:'­.. . ,­ � 1% N­­';'_.. " -1 K ,: ., - . � ­.�', 1. �..,. � �'s -Qj 1, � ­x. . � � ­ , �, , , I I 4 W.". k 4"Af AF NMI: A���cto?� A . . � - go - : ., I "", . I le - ..��::i�i:.:�.::�. - '. -, �: �� i �i !1 .�� ., : zsuow I _. I �,,�����,,��-,�",.-�,�,��,,�::: ,,, " ,Z;i .%�,_� .. I . I Ill .� �k � I , . � � � J�:i�:, , �l , I ''. � � I 1 ,_, ' , , I ­ K , .1- ­11 I ,:, " � - ... 0, .� . - . . R � . . .. ,%.. � � . . . � �_ : �: � : 11 "�, - t, V . � * _ . .1 , � � � �. � :�__ . ,. - - � , � ..­11. � l � .... ­:. ,:::. � . 'k : . , � ... I �, , - %, -, R i N .!i :�� J ::::: �:��: . �i � , - � � , ': �:� � : 0 ­ �:�x" -­ ,�".4,,�,svxw . _X � :� .. ­ ,.. 1.­;�­­.: - � - : I ���, �;: , - I _ - - . . , � , 1�_: - I - , ,_�� .� . I �&r&.,. � � KPOW K�� 0 , WAMQW� ,. �: ��b_ ,: . I l'. �:: :w, .. �.:. ­.­ �. , * . liii '.., __ . ..; - . . . , ,. - .,. � �._ . I - ,::�:: ...­ ­ �l : 1 , ��iwi�l --,:.­ . :i w- i . : � : :.�i: -i � . - " ,� ,�:X., , ., , . ­.: : � iit:i�; __ "", _ _.:_ I . '� " I ,,,,, - , , � , . , :! � .. , ��,_ � . "l:�� l ­. � , '. i -, , . �. � . -_ I , 1. . I 4 i � I I SO . � *� �: .1, �: I !ll :�iiis�:� .. ::�, ::. , - - ::::l: 1 - : . !��:��::;:ii:�:��� '.,,� l, ,:iisl' .: ��: * _. .F .,.i ,:. I .,� ". � ,.. ;�j� �� ��::,: � ���:����:����!:;�:i�:�:��������� ,i;: � ,..I.!!� ,�,:i­ ": 0 . , _- - W"Wma � ,- ; ,e ;� W-".;;; , . . ..%. .w.-s . 4 , � � ­­- 1� � � - - : , . �� .- a Umm = , ,.,� �P I �r . . 5 ­ I , _�,, ,,:�,:,i�:..:,�_ � : : : � �� �� ... �- � -..--.-� , . : . - �: , '. _.1 � ._.�._. -F i.: .:. �j - ,?!- f R. , : W _ Is. ;�,,­ , FR6 I . am �:: �. KP . ­ -.__ , � - :::� ;��: ���:: , * � . . , �i!�!�����,�����������!;!���i���:�i���i��i���� tiivynu�!�� _w �: � I I , W ]:, �. F , , , I - ,:, ., '', , . I - �:� x-l' , ­- �: � � - . I I - . , ., , , ,, . .... :_ , : .:.�: �, , ., � 1. '. : . - . z I - 1 .. I .1 : - . ,...., ,. -,�;�, W.- __., : � I . . , .. 1; 1 � l i: ��*! ��,��!�' :.�. �.. .. " ". ", I � . I , . ­ , , i��!! I �.: "' � . .,.� I . , g , .. ..... , . � . . . k . 7 " _ , ,_� � . -- . t . W 11 _-1_­1___ , --.-- - --I ."... I I , I I �.,:-.,�: . . �iPii��!Ijl!is�g.. ���] wy­ IM - O I .. I . W_ . �. , �,,::��.�:���!���::-,, , WIN Vi­ Z , . ;11 i : � , , � , � ...... ­ .1 � i`"- ­l- :.:, . - , . , �* '­� ��, . . I I � . - - -1.1 - _ .. , . � . , , , - : ... ...­.�. 1 , .. % - , :��;:i:::�_'.i:-s�,,�­,.'i � 7 4 " i: - W �� ­­ � _�,�;.:..:. �. . :�i'_._ , .., ­ �:� :�� ,� '! ��7 :��:�,��:�::;�.�:� �: - �1 E � l ��l , I � � I I ts _ �, - _�:�!�� l �, , : � : : � . .- . . , , �.: �� ,.;: .�, � : ��,�� ..: M . � = . - , � .:.: ��� ,., ''. �._ � . , . _,....� � ... -,__� I 4- �: , .�!, , :, , it , � I I �i :..,__.'_ � . . �.�.-... ,; .....A.'....., . ', - 1, - , � , - , . .. . . .... . ��� - , ­ � - ': � ,,.... . .'. �� , ... ­� I I . .. ;:!::i:..l� .A. I,_� . ., , .�� 1, . 15095 1 l - __ . a-MISOF 1 V . . - -1 .. , � . .­­­ , . �:� E�� . , . ! . .. . . . �:: ., ��* , ,i�::�::::,:�:. , � 0 . - � . - . - 7 'i " ' ...- �_..., - I �,,::��::��:� ��: * ... � .. .: ..:..:.. :T�x::�-'�j:�� � � � .­ . �i� l � l l� ­­�:� � . _ � _._:.­:_. , , , , , ::�_'.i:s�, � . . . � � , . , � � .. ",�** ii� . . .1 I I �.:,: �:. , , � , , ,i��*�'iit � - '. - . i � . 5 1� . . .. _' �: , . - .i ., .1 . I _1 . �� my .. , `�--:�--. .,:. , 1� 2� _:�_ �:: . . . .. . . .. _ :::�� .. �: P - . . Isi 1`1 � � _:. .. -� ­- -�]-,i:;�,:::,.::�.�: . .1 -1 - :::i:. - � = i . 1, . -.6 ...., , L:!;.,� �: - ��l,'�. .: -`.*1`11.�ti: �.. . . Ix 7,._ 0 ��:' 1-1.1 .. � ,.. �;.­_ . .. , !:!��il:;�:, 1 l., z . n ni l iW - - - �����:������,,�.,:::� , * s� � � : I N515 . .. . � SAWTA y 1. I - .., ­­­�. . .. , , ­1 . . � . z I . ?., -,!�;��:.'-- U '. � ... 0901151 '. :�::�:��,:�, �� ". . :�i�:"�,.l,�,, - NO & -,­�,--, .. 1 �,::�� , _ 1. 1. . . ., .. ._;:i�!� - . _.. �'.. ow � �� " :� � . _.. , ,,,, ��­.�.',' .. . - .::.:,�.:.?..:,...,..::.,.:�...,., , - - - , . , . , A& ,, > �� n jgg ��� natal; 0 � I ­ "... ". . , ... - -�ii'� "'.. . . , .:: �.:.. I. � . . . . - _ _ _.. :i�iiii;��i!:i: - ... IN � �'..., - * % . - : :_ � - , _.::.:::.:: ,. , �:. .lq.. lt l i i.,.-- 1. ­ ., , , - .. B F..� - , .....I �� _ ... i �. �. -1> I . :. - - :. . si:�!i I - . 7 _ , .­::: ; ; . l., � i . :.- -,;:��:�::.,,, :�� ,> .­:::. ���.� �,`,i�7�:!��.l - .. .- � , -.�' .--��-­ �, .. -�! ., 'K T� Of., 2�� W.1 �� AMW 4� . . ` l .. " - - ,'. � . . � -, -.­ - .. . . . �i_�. , � � % � ..." - - : - ­ :��:����:!�� ...,,i.­,*:,.**,,.:.�:l� ­­� �... �!.� , . I ..:. . . ; , ... , - . I 'i, i: ::�X­__X.: - � W�ni � . , ,,;:.; l�i��siii:7:iit:�;;�'� ii I 1 � .: J . k..,:::��i!.�::,�.: - �,�___ - "....,....'. , MW , ii**��]�? is��I:�;� ll,.: _.-_�'.lis I : , : :: .,.:�:!,x:­­_ ss�:,.:_� e. _... .� � X � .�.­'_ ;i " . ...... ,.'.!! 1. ::,.;:�.:� . . �:.�.,:�:::, � %�i!..' ��'. ,�, '. ,� . , ; .. , .-I. � . I . . � � I ���..: .. ..... . � 11 I-. � �. ­ . 1. � 1. I ., , ......- ­ I I .,001 , * 1 WA , I �,::.*_` I ,.,.::. - ...._."., �� .. - �,Rl!�! " - w - . � , . , ..... � .. .1. '.. - :-�-_,._ - � ..; �, -.',�. - I.: ��!�� *� . : ;i :­ W ­ ];,*'. __ . ,� , i �-: - , `:'. * 1 *,-. - .. l 1, ,� ,, 1­_­-1-.­ . , '' I I .. �. " ­­, :�::, : i