2006-354 G City OfENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT
Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects
District Support Services
Field Operations
Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
June 2, 2008
Attn: Union Bank of California
HOA Banking Services V03-012
P.O Box 513840
Los Angeles, California 90051-3840
RE: Skyloft HOA
1713 Gascony Road
APN 216-331-24 and 29
Grading Permit 354-GI
Final release of security
Pen-nit 354-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control,
all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading.
Therefore, a full release of the remaining security deposit is merited.
The following Certificate of Deposit Account has been cancelled by the Financial
Services Manager and is hereby released for payment to the depositor.
Account# 1809009341 in the amount of$30,250.00.
The document originals are enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please
contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-2779 or in writing, attention the Engineering
Department.
Sinc ely, /
Debra Geis Le ach
Engineering Technician finance Manager
Subdivision Engineering Financial Services
CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager
Skyloft HOA
Debra Geishart
File
Enc.
TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 40� recycled paper
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.
SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING •GROUNDWATER • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
DD
15 May 2008
is MAY 2 9 2008
KYLOFT HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION lob No. OS-8974
Board of Directors
C/o Marshall Mahoney
California Construction Concepts
3429 Merrimac Avenue
San Diego, CA 92117
Subject: Report of Soil Special insp ection
Skyloft Slope Repair
Cavagnaro Residence
1713 Gascony Road
Encinitas, California
Dear Mr. Mahoney:
As requested and as per our proposal, we herein present the summary of test
results and observations made of the drilled piers, tiebacks, and fill slope
replacement and recompaction for the slope repair at the subject property.
Previous to this report we had issued a progress report after the tieback and
caisson excavations were drilled. That report was issued on March 14, 2008.
The slope repair consisted of installing 8 drilled caissons, drilling 8 holes for
tiebacks, installation of tiebacks, building a concrete wall on top of the drilled
caissons to support the tieback heads, removing loose soils from the slope failure
area, placing fill and geogrid reinforcement to rebuild the t=ill slope face down slope
from the recently installed concrete wall, and backfilling and compacting the access
road toward the north end of repair area. Our scope of work consisted of observing
and testing the slope repair compacted soils, observing caisson drilling and tieback
drilling, and observing, evaluating and documenting the pull tests performed on the
tiebacks. Our firm was not involved for observations and tests during the concrete
swale subgrade preparation, the spreading and placement of surplus soils on the
7420 TRADE STREET•SAN DIEGO, CA.92121• (858)549-7222• FAX: (858)549-1604• EMAIL: geotech @gei-sd.com
Skyloft Slope Repair
Encinitas, California Job No. 05-8974
_ Page 2
- property, nor were we involved during the placement and backfilling of a storm
drain pipe from a small brow ditch behind the new concrete wall and the
pipe
discharge on the repaired concrete swale built down the slope.
The observations by our firm reported herein were performed between January 14
and April 29, 2008. The slope repair project plans were prepared by DSI; and the
- general contractor on the project was Soil Engineering Construction. Approved
changes to the project plans included the use of steel tendons in lieu of steel bars,
and modified embedment length in a few caissons due to encountered drilling
refusal. To compensate for the shorter caisson embedment at one documented
location, the tiebacks were pulled to a higher test load (75 Kips rather than 57
Kips), and left with a lock off load higher than previously specified. The structural
engineer approved those changes. We approved a shorter caisson and a higher
allowable soil passive resistance for the encountered soil conditions. Concrete and
steel reinforcement special inspections were provided by another company.
OBSERVATIONS AND TEST RESULTS
1. Our observation visits were provided as requested by the project contractor's
Soil Engineering Construction representative.
2. Tieback drilled holes were made first. The drilled tieback holes had a
minimum diameter of 8 inches and a typical length of 55 feet. The DCP steel
strands were manufactured by CON-TECH Systems Ltd. The 3 strands per
tieback location were greased and sheathed in smooth polyethylene sheath in
the unbonded length, and encapsulated in 2-inch diameter HDPE corrugated
sheath with the bottom 2 feet pregrouted. The strands were provided with a
5 to 7-foot long tail. The tieback holes were drilled at approximately 20
degrees relative to the horizontal plane.
Skyloft Slope Repair Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California
Page 3
3. After drilling the tieback holes, the steel strands were placed and the holes
grouted. Grout placement and testing was provided by another consulting
firm.
4. Drilled holes were made for the caissons. Our field representative measured
the diameter, depth of penetration into formational soils and total depth of
penetration from temporary bench ground surface for 6 out of 8 caissons.
We understand that the material special inspector documented the
dimensions of the final two drilled caissons (#1 and #2). The measured
dimensions of the observed and documented caissons by our firm are
presented in the attached Appendix A.
5. Drilling of 8 caisson excavations began on a temporary bench made in front
of the retaining wall location. The caisson drilling excavation started on
February 4, 2008. The drilled excavations were initially 24 inches in
diameter (later increased to 30 inches in diameter) and were required to
have a minimum 15 feet of penetration into formational soils. Our
representative observed the total penetration into formation for 6 of the 8
drilled excavations. Excavations for caissons #1 and #2, towards the north
end of the project, were not verified by us to have penetrated the minimum
required length into formation since they were filled with concrete before our
representative had the opportunity to measure them (see attached Table I).
Our representative observed when caissons No.1 and 2 started to be drilled
into formation, but not the completely drilled length.
6. In caisson #3, the measured depth into formation was 12 feet -- short of the
15 feet required. The total depth of excavation for caisson #3 was 26 feet.
Excavation drilling was stopped when drilling equipment met refusal due to
dense soils. The allowable soil passive resistance was increased from 300 to
400 psf and the structural engineer indicated that the lock off load should be
_
VIP
Skyloft Slope Repair Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California
Page 4
left at 75,000 pounds. Our certified engineering geologist went down hole to
verify the depth into formational soils.
7. Caissons #1 and #2 were verified to have reached the top of formation at 12
feet and 13 feet below the ground surface, but total drilled penetration was
not verified since the contractor placed concrete without our final
measurement verification. The contractor indicated that the excavations
were made to 30.5 feet (see attached Table I in Appendix A).
8. At the time drilling for caisson #6 started, our field representative observed
the keyway excavation for the slope fill recompaction.
9. After observing the soils in the excavation for the new retaining wall (grade
beam), concrete was placed. The material special inspector verified the steel
and concrete compliance with the plan specifications. After waiting for
concrete curing of the wall for a few days acceptable to the structural
engineer, tieback pull tests started under observations.
10. Two different jacks were used during the performance and proof tests of the
tiebacks. Both test jacks were verified to be calibrated by Mactec
Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (refer to Appendix B for pull test results).
11. Three of the tieback pull tests were performance tests, and five were only
proof tests. The tests were satisfactory, passing the creep and design load
proof tests and performance tests. All tiebacks were locked off at the
increased design load of 75 Kips. The maximum test load was 133 percent of
the design load. The tests were performed in accordance with recommended
procedures of the Post Tensioning Institute.
VP
Skyloft Slope Repair Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California
Page 5
12. A few days after the tie back testing was completed the contractor installed
the protective galvanized caps at the tieback heads. Our firm was not
involved during the installation of the tieback caps.
13. After tieback installation the slope repair grading was continued and
completed. We observed the excavated key to be placed at least 2 feet deep
- and 5.5 feet wide into firm soils. Miragrid 5XT was used as geogrid
reinforcement and placed no farther than 2 feet in vertical spacing during the
- placement and compaction of the fill for slope reconstruction. The loose soils
on the slope surface were removed from a maximum of about 10' in width to
a minimum of approximately 2 feet. The geogrid length was shortened as
the slope face soil recompaction neared the concrete wall base.
Recompacted fill soils were placed up to 2 feet above the bottom of the
concrete wall. Benching into firmer soils was performed as the grading of the
slope repair progressed from the keyway to the concrete wall.
_. 14. After the down slope face of the failure area was reconstructed, fill soils were
placed and compacted in the depression of the access ramp area used during
the slope repair work. On site soils were placed between geogrid layers also
used behind the new concrete wall. Geogrid layers were similarly placed
every 2 feet of vertical distance.
15. Fill placed during the slope repair was tested at the approximate locations
shown on the Plot Plan, Figure No. II, and yielded relative compaction of at
F least 90 percent at those tested locations. Areas with failing test results
were pointed out to the contractor for corrective work. Those areas were
approved after corrective work was performed and satisfactorily passing test
results were obtained. The list of compaction test results is presented in
Figure No. III.
T�
Skyloft Slope Repair Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California
_. Page 6
16. Soil conditions in the area of the caissons and tieback construction were in
substantial conformance with those assumed in our soil reports prepared for
the wall design and slope repair. Relatively small variation was encountered
in the depth to formational soil. In particular, some drilled caissons toward
the north part of the project formation were encountered at shallower depth
than in the south area of the project.
17. In general, the observed and tested soil-related work evaluated by our firm
was found to be in general compliance with the project plan specifications
and our recommendations.
LIMITATIONS
The findings and conclusions presented herein have been made in accordance with
generally accepted principles and practice in the field of geotechnical engineering in
the City of Encinitas. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is made.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact our office. Reference
to our Job No. 05-8974 will help expedite a response to your inquiries.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.
RpV ESS/pN
. Cerros, P �� 4. Q <IN L . Re President
R.C.E. 34422JG:E -' '
Senior Geotechni ° m C.E.G. 999[exp. 3/31/09]JR.G. 3391
WV020Qq7 rn
E xp. 913Q/�
cc. Soil Enginee ' G Q
F OF D. A
Enclosures: Appendix , Figs. I-III " No. 999
Exp.3/31/
CERTIFI t
d� EMOIN� .
APPENDIX A
DRILLED CAISSON OBSERVATIONS
Skyloft Slope Repair
Cavagnaro Residence
1713 Gascony Road
Encinitas, California
JOB NO. 05-8974
TABLE 1
Date Caisson Diameter Adjacent Formational Bottom of
Ground Material Hole Elevation
2/7/08 #g 30„ Elevation Elevation
_ 0 -17' -33'
-2/8/08 #7 30„
0 -17' -34'
2/13/08 #6 30„
0 -17� -34'
2/13/08 #5 30"
2 #4 0 -17' -33'
30" 0 -16' -32.5'
#3 30" 0 -14' -26'
#2 30" 0#1 -13' not verified
30" 0
-12' not verified
APPENDIX B
(DON
MACTEC
engineering and constructing a better tomorrow
REPORT OF RAM VERIFICAITION
PROJECT: Soil Enizincering Corp. LAB NO.: 197:5 PROJECT NO: 5014-06- 011.01
RAM ID: SEC-R1 SUBMITTED BY: G.Doi son DATE: MAY 108
3AUGE 1D: SEC-G) AUTHORIZED BY: G.Dotson DATE: MAY!08
PUMP ID: 363671(SEC2) TESTED BY: S /Sa aceni DATE: 04/0: '08
REPORT DATE: 04/03/08 REVIEWED BY: L.Col ins DATE: 04/0 -08
10,000
9,000 /!
i
� I J
8,000
� as _._. .
7,000 — 1
a
6,000
s,000 Y = 50.979x + 67.363 I 1
a _I
00 4,000 I
e -- —
CO I
a 3,000
I '
y i
2000,
V J
1,000 — I
I ' I
0
i
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 15l 200
Actual Load in 1000 bounds
Equipment calibrated on Forney LT1000 SN#68133,Calibrated on June 15,2(07.
Gauge Machine Dial in Pamds Average of Three I
(PSI) Run#1 Run#2 Rua#3 Reading!(lbs.)
0 0 0 0 1 0
1000 18000 18000 1 18000 1 18000
2000 38000 38000 38000 38000
3000 1 57000 58000 1 -nwoo-T 57667
4000 1 77000 76000 77000 76667
5000 96000 95000 96000 95667
6000 116000 115000 1]5000 115333
7000 135000 135000 135000 135000
8000 157000 157000 157000 157000
_ 9000 176000 176000 176000 176000
10000 195000 1 195000 195000 195000
Reviewed By:_
David C.Wilson, 734
-= MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. WM
9177 SKY PARK COURT, SUITE A • SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-4341 • Phone: 858.278.3600 . Fax: 858,278.5300 vw.w.mactec.com
- - - - - - - - - - —
AMACTEC
engineering and constructing a better tomorrow
REPORT OF RAM VERIFICATION
PROAICT: Soil Ea ' Cotp. LAB NO.: 19728 PROJECT NO: 5014 OG«n111.U1
ILAMID: SEC-111 SUBMITTED BY: G.Dotson DATE.- 03�31inR
GAUGE ID: 1-B AUTHORIZED BY: G.Dolton DATE: 03l31i0R
PUMP[D: 13363 67 1- TESTED BY: S(rev/S.ric�-Ili DATE: 03J3V108
REPORT DATE: 03/31/08 REVIEWED BY: L_Co1r DATE: 03�1;Og
10,000 .................................................................................
9,000
8,000
� I
7,000
N
L
O. 6.000 _
h
y= 49.692x + 204 ! I
a 5,000
4,000
a 3,000
e4
2.000
i
1,000
� I —t-
�
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 1:20 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Actual Load in 1000 Ix,urids
Equipment calibmted on Forney LT1000 SN#68133,Calibrated on June 15,2007.
Gauge Machine Dial in Pounds Average of Three
(PSI) Run#1 Run#2 Run#3 Readin a Ibs.)
0 0 0 0 0
1000 1 16000 16000 16000 16000
.._ 2000 35000 36000 36000 35667
3000 54001) 54000 54000 54000
4000 74000 75000 75000 74667
5000 95000 1 96000 96000 95667
'— 6010 114000 115000 115000 114647
7000 12E_l I37000 1 137000 137000
8000 157000 157000 1 158000 157333
9000 178000 1784U0 179000 178333
10000 198UOU 198000 199000 198333
-- RvAewed By
David C. Nilson,PE#54734
-- MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.
9177 SKY PARK COURT, SUITE A • SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-4341 • Phone: 858.278.3600 • Fox: 858.278.5300 www.Mattec.com
i
Tie Back ,,-,e tests Speadsheet C eq v, 6C4
F►20o F �1 -75__ T3
Load Basis of load Load (kips) Observation Jack
Movement Remarks
increments (design load) period (min) Pressure(p o) (inches)
_. Alignment load 25p 0,0
0.25 DL o
,D
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL 20 67 0,OP,)
Alignment load
0.25DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL Z "b Z9
1, 0 `3
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
1.00 DL
' 3b 9 31 1, S
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
1.00 DL
1.20 DL
4 7 2,3'i
i 2 5 O 1
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL 66
._ 0.75 DL 2
1.00 DL
1.20 DL I" 1
1.33 DL
1.33 DL
1.33 DL 3 2 S10
1.33 DL 4 2 5 1
1.33 DL 5 5iS
1.33 DL 6 Z .SIq
1.33 DL 10 ? S�3
1.20 DL
1.00 DL
L oU/-0�� `�' 3�
77E-& ce -g- Z Tie Ba Performanc tests Speadsheet Ll rZ (OS
Load Basis of load Load (kips) Observation Jack
Movement Remarks
increments (design load) period (min) Pressure (psi) (inches)
Alignment load Z50 fl�6"
0.25 DL 1136
Alignment load 2go 0.ly$
0.25 DL
0.50 DL Zo67 0,14
Alignment load ZSO O 1'1
_. 0.25DL 1 13(0 0.,4ZI
OSO DL Zob 4,-i5
0.75 DL z-949 1 157
Alignment load 2So O,/7g
0.25 DL 113(0 0, p
0.50 DL Zo67 0,$ 6
0.75 DLg fsZt
1.00 DL 39t 3 (. X58 t,ro o►c G a
Nom' kCI6NL
Alignment load 500 a.5Z3
0.25 DL
0.50 DL 113 0,72r
(
0.75 DL I, I I 29q I
1.00 DL -3931 t y
1.20 DL
4876 2 �p
Alignment load Sop �e 6(raZ
0.25 DL 11.E O
0.50 DL Za(,� (a
_.. 0.75 DL 1, S 6
1.20 DL
1.00 DL -3cc t 19 3,7
'�S 2
1.33 DL 1 SIPo Z,2,46 ,E ?"f -
1.33 DL 2 2,y 65
1.33 DL 3 z, y 6
1.33 DL 4 z H 6$
1.33 DL 5 p
1.33 DL 6 7,k77-
1.33 DL l0 Z y�
1.20 DL H9-7
1.00 DL c.oc�o 39,3
TZrc, 3
Tie Back fir,tests Speadsheet `
�nooF �
Load IBasis of load Load(kips) Observation Jack
increments I(design load) Movement Remarks
period (min) Ivressure(psi) (inches)
Alignment load
0.25 DL
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
Alignment load
- 0.25DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL Q
z9q 0,943
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
1.00 DL3
3�
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
1.00 DL
1.20 DL Ln , �q
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
1.00 DL
1.20 DL
t, o
1.33 DL 1 s�
1.33 DL G
_,. 1.33 DL 3 I g2g
1.33 DL 37-
1.33 DL 4 ►,q 5
1.33 DL t'932-
6 1.937-
1.33 DL 10
1.20 DL 1,93S-
1.00 DL l oG OF= 3 3 I
-17 **r' y Tie Bac Performance sts Speadsheet
Load Basis of load Load(kips) Observation Jack Movement Remarks
increments (design load) period(min) Pressure(psi) (inches)
Alignment .load Sew o 34�
0.25 DL
413 o,s(o
Alignment load Sb0 or q29
I DL 'I. d,S7(o
DL ZO 6? b.4ys
ment load Soo
0.25DL 113(c 0,
0.50 DL Zo67 0,96 I
0.75 DL Z4er C1 4,3tS
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL o vZ
0.75 DL Z4Q I, 3�0
1.00 DL
_72,931 1,70q
Alignment load 5D0 1, 511G Nom► At.►(�NNL N'(
0.25 DL )130 1,16s )
0.50 DL Zob7 1,992-
0.75 DL zcwt Z e 3 q
1.00 DL
1.20 DL
Alignment load '500 t
0.25 DL It3lo l, 6lS
0.50 DL Zo67
0.75 DL at
1.00 DL -
1.20 DL 114 1.33 DL 1 5! t 3,Z bZ
1.33 DL 2 3 Z(OZ-
1.33 DL 3
1.33 DL 4
1.33 DL 5 3 �S
1.33 DL 6
1.33 DL 10 3,zr
1.20 DL
1.00 DL 393
S Tie Back Pefferme,9ce tests Speadsheet y�z/ag
Pn.00lr
Load Basis of load Load(kips) Observation Jack
Movement Remarks
in ents (design load) period (min) Pressure(psi) (inches)
Alignment load
0.25 DL It 3(o o,2is
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
Alignment load
0.25DL
0.50 DL
fi 5 DL
nment load
5 DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
1.00 DL 39 3 I 39
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
1.00 DL
1.20 DL
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
1.00 DL
1.20 DL
1.33 DL 1 Sl 61 , ,o bO
1.33 DL 2 -2,04,1
w 1.33 DL 3 d7
1.33 DL 4 Z o89
1.33 DL 5 Z,091
-_. 1.33 DL 6 z, oq
1.33 DL 10 Z'og1
1.20 DL
1.00 DL 3�.3
T L (o Tie Back R048wwe tests Speadsheet `�I7 f v8
P rLooF d (-j Jz�
Load Basis of load Load (kips) Observation Jack Movement Remarks
increments (design load) period (min) Pressure(psi) (inches)
Alignment load 5S-O ni
0.25 DL t o Z3
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL 197 bZ
Alignment load
0.25DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
Zq 31 1, 008
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
1.00 DL 1 ,38(0
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
1.00 DL
1.20 DL `I65S l,1 i
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
1.00 DL
1.20 DL 9�S
1.33 DL 1 SIZE' 1, qgq
1.33 DL 2
1.33 DL 3 1 99$
1.33 DL 4 1,qq 6
1.33 DL 5 1,q9
1.33 DL 6 1 rQq
1.33 DL 10
1.20 DL
- 1.00 DL -3 0
Pre4< it -7 Tie Back( erformance sts Speadsheet -11 -7108
2 t,d ���,
Load Basis of load Load(kips) Observation Jack Movement Remarks
increments (design load) period(min) Pressure (psi) (inches)
Alignment load
0.25 DL IoZ o 35S
Alignment load Sod 0,239
0.25 DL 1 o'Z o,3?Z
0.50 DL 19-) O,-1 q
Alignment load Soo 0.3zz
_. 0.25DL 1023 0, 43
0.50 DL 19-19 0,-1y9
0.75 DL 293 14 1, 13
Alignment load 500 F1, o
0.25 DL l c23 0.5111
0.50 DL 1ot74 7
0.75 DL 7243 I
1.00 DL '3 qO
Alignment load 5bo 0, yC
0.25 DL I0�3 a .SS
0.50 DL l9'19 0 8SV
0.75 DL z 43y I, Z39
1.00 DL 3Sgo 1 510
1.20 DL 14(01W I , 4yI
- Alignment load Sb0 0, yfoo
0.25 DL 1o2.3 0, 6� ►
0.50 DL (Q7q
0.75 DL 7-j3 t, 31
1.00 DL 3MO 1'-191
1.20 DL 4655 1 .99s-
1.33 DL 1 S(25 z,2o6
1.33 DL 2 Z 2 ofo
1.33 DL 3 z,Z 13
1.33 DL 4 2,22
1.33 DL 5 -2,Z34
-. 1.33 DL 6 2,Z3
1.33 DL 10 2,Z3S
1.20 DL
1.00 DL -3 0
Tie Back Pauce tests Speads eet
P-1 0 PC- -�� 6 11/r 7 e°8
_ load Basis of load Load(kips) Observation Jack
(design load) Movement Remarks
increments
period(min) Pressure (psi) (inches)
Alignment load 5-00
0.25 DL 0 O
to23 o.ZSz(
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL I q,?q o,6Z�
Alignment load
0.25DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL ZR3
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
1.00 DL
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
1.00 DL
1.20 DL
Alignment load
0.25 DL
0.50 DL
0.75 DL
1.00 DL
1.20 DL
1.33 DL i 'S f?
1.33 DL 2
1.33 DL 3
1.33 DL 4
1.33 DL 5 2 Z 93
_. 1.33 DL 6 2 Zqg
1.33 DL 10 3 B S
1.20 DL
1.00 DL LDC4(- er'!� 34>9O
VICINITY MAP
rah
O
A
r �
34
�« M BUPA u
I AU
1
MWA TATM M t l
3(; gKY 0� DR
C
LN
lira - - - - - -.•
CD
C
Z l� CD
IE 94TE P�
tt IN
roou OR
1P.
sI
ai
!� & i g E US cJ `� LN
ST �� $
�fl) a
✓ NORMANDY
y5S E $ 6 o BRITTANY RD
DIA �
6LMICUS 1tD Boa st
A 01.1 S � sl
.,.. Thomas Bros Guide - San Diego County pg. 1147
Skyloft Slope Failure Repair
W 1713 Gascony Road
Encinitas, CA.
Figure No.
Job No. 05-8974
N
O
I W
a J C
I asN
M0139 UO1S d a�
S :z : L7
ca
ocri 'c � a
1
91ldMoo}S sl.lga4 HOS a C•- W �
y0 4IQ MOJB ap!m -V p0.
f
2"
---♦ •
U V --- - — —�i
LO
o�
(O • c I N 0 CL 0:
� c a
N
278 O • v I �c O B.Cs r
!' c- CR
(N o
- � -- o 0
as 2,
�- • L7 aM-Ec"LO 286 � o — —•—a• FE �
°M 6u�u, _ _ _ — — — °El
. 'l4 ti
292 : -
®,Z l
W
298 0c,1 c x H
i ED
I a °�
(D
a
N ;so
304 • p Z n
I T �•• ch drn
• I \• °
y S
1
O ZW�rtn
CL
I N
LL- I ;'
-C I
U
V) I
I
I W I
L I
I
I
I
I
I I O
1 �
z z
I O r O_
LLJ ~z
O � Oe �O
I 0 022
� O
CL
�"'-U
i CC z .0-3
0 �W
QO QO 0 QO
LO
/ D 04 • O
/ Ld ��
LU
R
d
z
a,
LL
G O
n v
U U
H
N c
a c o
N g E° rn rn rn m°' �i �i rn rn $ ago rn rn $ rn rn rn $ rn Si oNi rn oNi �i Si' rn
p U
� a
Q A
�O M oM (p co
�( s1 S � oO �01 �O m o o
� o0 S om0000
e dm
� R C � M N O N Ip V M (p R M cq
Q O f-
y X �Op O UA 1A Ip Ip 1A In 1,- f- t M
co Q W LL N N N N N N N N N N r N f0 'V 1n .M-- fV LL
}
H
co
z
W
p
J
fEf
LL
LL
0 c
_0 m
m N
w O O O O m N cm
W U 2 2
m lu
Q p 0 0 0 0 E
W d F" N N
J
a s O. a i-. N d
°yy' yy yy yy y y y y yy yy y yyyy 0 a r r r r 42 MA Mh M
MCL Gp-
w41 w!A w
E O O O O O O O 0 E E E E '8 '8 '8
F) H f F fA
C c c
h �
F ao aD (O Oo 0o . . CO
O O O O O \ \ pM 00 O O O O O O W co 7 an d
a
as a°, o o o o U LL LL LL
c M '25 a v c v v v P'v N m
v v
0
z o
-• .i zI •-- N M V' (p (0 1- co 0) r .�-- O O O N M R In z
C N N (V N N N
Job No. 05-81
TABLE B
LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1557-91)
Compaction
y Test Maximum Optimum
Curve No. Description of Material Source of Dry Density Water Conn
Invest Invest
1 SILTY SAND (SM),Red to Gray Brown terial —(Pco— %
121.5 12.5
2 SILTY SAND (SM), Tan Gray Orange Brown
Invest 111.0 17.5
3 CLAYEY SAND (SC) Yellowish Gray Brown On-Site
117.0 14.9
Figure No. IIIb
( H, �j4
L11
REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION '
Skyloft Slope Failure
(Cavagnaro Residence)
d 2007 2
Road DEC�
1713 Gascony �r
Encinitas, California
JOB NO. 05-8974
22 August 2005
Prepared for:
Sky/oft Homeowners Protection Corporation
C/O Ca/ West Management
sr
k �
E"1 GEOT
1 ECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.
SOIL&FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT• ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
22 August 2005
SKYLOFT HOMEOWNERS PROTECTION CORP.
C/o Cal West Management lob No. 05-8974
519 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 108
Encinitas, CA 92024
Attn: Chris Osteen
Subject: Report of Limited Geotechnical Investigation
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
1713 Gascony Road
Encinitas, California
Dear Mr. Osteen:
In accordance with your request and our proposal dated March 2, 2005 (revised April 19,
2005), Geotechnica/ Exploration, Inc. has prepared this report of limited geotechnical
investigation for the proposed slope repair below the residence at 1713 Gascony Road. The
field work was performed on May 18, 2005, by our field representatives.
It must be noted that this report is a limited investigation of the slope-top deck area and
slope conditions with respect to proposed repairs of the deck support system and the subject
slope face. It is not to be construed as a complete soil investigation or geologic report for
the entire site or other areas of the site's slope, or as a report of analysis of the overall mass
stability of the slope. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the existing soil
conditions in the failure area, recommend necessary site preparation
procedures, and to
provide recommendations, as warranted, for repairs to the slope and deck.
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions
concerning the following report, please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 05-
8974 will help to expedite a response to your inquiry.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. s
QROFESSj��
erros, P. ,P o
R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 ,�; cqj
Senior Geotechnical Engineer ac No 00 0 7`n m
Exp.��0�05
G
(P� �OTFC H VA\C:
9
lF of CAok�'��
7420 TRADE STREET• SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 • (858)549-7222 • FAX:(858)549-1604 • E-MAIL:geotechOixpres.corn
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
i• PROJECT SUMMARY
1
II. SITE DESCRIPTION
3
III. SLOPE DESCRIPTION AND DAMAGE
3
IV. FIELD INVESTIGATION
4
V. FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS AND ANALYSIS
S
Vi. SOIL DESCRIPTION
8
VII. SHALLOW FAILURE SLOPE STABILITY
9
VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
11
IX. LIMITATIONS
28
REFERENCES
FIGURES
i. Vicinity Map
II. Site Plan
IIIa-h. Exploratory Boring and Excavation Logs
IV. Laboratory Data
V. Cross Section A-A' - Existing Conditions
VI. Cross Section A-A' - Proposed Slope Repairs
APPENDICES
A. Unified Soil Classification System
4 Sp.
REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
1713 Gascony Road
Encinitas, California
JOB NO. 05-8974
The following report presents the findings and recommendations of Geotechnica/
Exploration, Inc. for the subject project.
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
It is our understanding, based on communications with the property manager, Mr.
Chris Osteen, that the east rear yard slope failure below the residence at 1713
Gascony Road occurred as a result of the exceptionally heavy 2004-05 winter
rainfall in the San Diego area. It appears that the failure, measuring approximately
35 to 40 feet in width and approximately 15 to 20 feet in height, resulted from
wetting of the slope fill soils combined with the steep inclination of the east-facing
fill slope. Observations of the top-of-slope deck supports indicate that the supports
posts have shallow embedment and have rotated out-of-vertical. Based on our site
observations and field work, it is recommended that the cantilevered deck be re-
leveled and supported by pipe piles, and that the slope along the east side of the
property be repaired utilizing a drilled pier wall and geog rid-reinforced slope face
soils or partially buried wood and steel pipe-supported walls. Because of limited
slope access for grading equipment, re-grading of the slope using geogrid
reinforcement is considered to be the most effective method of slope repair, if
f
feasible.
With the above in mind, the scope of work is briefly outlined as follows:
1. Identify and classify the surface and subsurface soils in conformance with the
Unified Soil Classification System.
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence) Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California Page 2
2. Evaluate the existing failed and unfailed slope materials.
3. Evaluate the cross sectional geometry of the slope and failure areas.
4. Evaluate the existing deck foundation support system.
5. Recommend site preparation procedures.
6. Develop recommendations for deck support and slope face stabilization.
Our investigation revealed that the slope failure area is underlain by loose to
medium dense, silty sand fill materials to approximately 18 feet in depth at the top
of the slope. Due to the steepened slope of the failure and the presence of loose,
moist to wet fill soils on the slope face, it is recommended that one of two
alternative slope repair concepts be considered:
-- It is recommended that the slope failure area be repaired utilizing buried or
partially buried wood and steel pipe-supported walls in order to restore the
slope surface to its original condition or that geogrid reinforcement be used
to repair the lower part of the slope. The lower slope may then be cleared of
failure debris, finish-graded to an approximate slope of 1.5:1.0 (horizontal to
vertical) or less, and be replanted with erosion resistant vegetation. In
addition, a drilled pier wall should be built to stabilize the upper portion of the
slope supporting the deck and the house.
-- After the lower slope and upper slopes have been stabilized, the decks may
be underpinned with pipe piles or piers.
VP
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence) Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California Page 3
Regardless of which slope repair alternative is selected, it is recommended that the
cantilevered deck be resupported on pipe piles or piers.
H. SITE DESCRIPTION
The property is known as: Assessor's Parcel No. 216-331-24-00, Lot 94, according
to Recorded Map 7880, in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, State of
California (see Figure No. I for site location).
The property is a generally rectangular-shaped lot located at 1713 Gascony Road in
the Skyloft residential development. The property is situated on a building pad
graded on an easterly descending hillside, and is bordered on the north, south and
west by similar residential properties. The property is bordered on the east by an
approximately 200-foot-high, approximately 1.5:1.0 (horizontal to vertical)
composite fill/natural canyon slope that abuts a north-south trending drainage
channel at its downslope terminus (see Figure No. II for a partial Site Plan).
III. SLOPE DESCRIPTION AND DAMAGE
The slope descending to the east from the residence is a fill slope overlying an east-
west trending drainage channel under the site. Figure No. II includes the location
of the slope failure, top-of-slope improvements and the location of our exploratory
excavations. Figure Nos. III and IV include the excavation logs and laboratory test
results.
The east-facing fill slope below the residence is approximately 30 feet in total height
to the base of the failure. The upper portion of the slope has an approximate
gradient of 1.5:1.0 (horizontal to vertical) with the lower portion consisting of an
irregular fill slope at and approximate gradient of 1.5:1.0. More steeply sloped
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California Job No. 05-8974
Page 4
areas, such as within and adjacent to the slope failure, were also observed. A post-
supported deck is located along the top-of-slope area and a 3-foot-high, north-
south retaining wall (approximately 65 feet in length) is located mid-slope below the
deck and above the slope failure area. Some of the deck's post supports were
observed to be out-of-vertical in the direction of the slope. The deck piers
reportedly extend to a depth of 6 to 8 feet below the existing slope face. The
residence (built in the late 1970s) is located approximately 5 feet from the top of
the slope. Evidence of significant damage due to loss of bearing and/or lateral
support as a result of the recent shallow slope failure was not observed on the
residence exterior. However, the wood deck area adjacent to the residence shows
signs of bowing and downdropping, but no significant lateral separation from the
east side of the residence was observed.
Figure Nos. II, V and VI depict the approximate location and cross-sectional
geometry of the slope failure. The failure area is roughly rectangular in shape and
approximately 35 to 40 feet wide. The "head scarp" or top of the failure is
approximately 3 to 4 feet in height and appears to be located approximately 25 feet
east from the slope top. The failure "toe" is located approximately 15 to 20 feet
east of and below the head scarp". Debris flows extend downslope from the base
of the failure to the concrete brow ditch. Figure No. II has been prepared to
illustrate the failure in plan view and its location relative to the residence,
cantilevered deck and mid-slope retaining wall.
IV. FIELD INVESTIGATION
Four exploratory handpit excavations were placed adjacent to and in the face of the
slope failure and one handpit excavation was placed adjacent to the residence
foundation at the northeast corner. In addition, three small diameter borings were
also placed in the northeastern corner of the rear yard and on the slope face. The
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence) Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California Page 5
borings and excavations were placed where access allowed and representative soil
conditions were expected. The exploratory handpits were excavated to a maximum
depth of 3 feet in the slope face and adjacent to the residence. The exploratory
borings were placed to a maximum depth of 211/2 feet.
The soils encountered in the borings and handpit excavations were logged by our
field representative and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout
the field operation. Exploratory excavation logs have been prepared on the basis of
our observations and laboratory testing. The results have been summarized on
Figure Nos. III and IV. The predominant soils have been classified in conformance
with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix A).
Our field investigation of the slope failure conditions also included field mapping the
plan view and cross section geometry of the failure; collection of soil samples
representative of the failure mass; and documenting to our satisfaction that the
failure area is underlain by soils suitable as bearing material for reconstruction or
retention of the failed slope.
Field observation of slope conditions must continue during the slope repair process.
Any previously unknown slope conditions discovered during the repair process
should be documented in an as-built slope repair report issued following completion
of repair work.
V. FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS AND ANALYSIS
A. Field Tests
Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 3-inch outside-diameter
(O.D.) by 2-3/8-inch inside-diameter (I.D.) split-tube sampler a distance of 12
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence) Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California Page 6
inches. Standard Penetration Tests were also performed by using a 140-pound
weight falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D. by 1-3/8-inch I.D. sampler tube a
distance of 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last
12 inches was recorded for use in evaluation of the soil consistency. The following
chart provides an in-house correlation between the number of blows and the
consistency of the soil for the Standard Penetration Test and the 3-inch sampler.
2-INCH O.D. 3-INCH O.D.
DENSITY SAMPLER SAMPLER
SOIL DESIGNATION BLOWS/FOOT BLOWS/FOOT
Sand and Very loose 0-4 0-7
Non-plastic Loose 5-10 8-20
Silt Medium 11-30 21-53
Dense 31-50 54-98
Very Dense Over 50 Over 98
Clay and Very soft 0-2 0-2
Plastic Silt Soft 3-4 3-4
Firm 5-8 5-9
Stiff 9-15 10-18
Very Stiff 15-30 19-45
Hard 31-60 46-90
Very Hard Over 60 Over 90
B. Laboratory Tests
Laboratory tests were performed on disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil
samples in order to evaluate their physical and mechanical properties and their
ability to support the proposed deck foundation and slope repair. The following
tests were conducted on the sampled soils:
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California Job No. 05-8974
Page 7
FDetermination re Content (ASTM D2216-98)
tory Compaction Characteristics (ASTM D1557-98)
Measurements (ASTM D1188-90)
of Percentage of Particles Smaller than
0 (ASTM D1140)
ion Test (UBC Test Method 29-2)
The moisture content of a soil sample is a measure of the water content, expressed
as a percentage of the dry weight of the sample.
Laboratory compaction values establish the optimum moisture content and the
laboratory maximum dry density of the tested soils. The relationship between the
moisture and density of remolded soil samples gives qualitative information
regarding soil compaction conditions to be anticipated during any future grading
operation. In addition, this relation helps to establish the relative compaction of
existing fill soils.
The -200 sieve size analysis helps to more precisely classify the tested soils based
on their fine material content, and to provide qualitative information related to
engineering characteristics such as expansion potential, permeability, and shear
strength.
The expansion potential of the sampled on-site fill soils was determined utilizing
Uniform Building Code Test Method for Expansive Soils (UBC Standard No. 29-2).e
In accordance with the UBC (Table 18-1-B) potentially
expansive soils are classified
as follows:
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California Job No. 05-8974
Page 8
EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL
0 to 20 Very low
21 to 50 Low
51 to 90 Medium
91 to 130 High
Above 130 Very high
Based on the test results, the sampled clay soils on the site have a very high
expansion potential, with a maximum measured expansion index of 138. The
majority of the soils encountered are sandy and have a much lower expansion
index.
Based on our laboratory results and experience, our Geotechnical Engineer has
assigned an angle of internal friction of 300 and a cohesion of 200 psf for the on-
site, properly compacted fill soil for use in foundation design and failure repair
design evaluations. Laboratory information is presented on Figure Nos. III and IV.
If imported materials are needed to reconstruct the failure area, the minimum
strength characteristics of the materials selected for import must meet or exceed
those presented in this report. Proposed import soils should be evaluated by our
firm prior to importing them to the site. If crushed rock gravel is used as backfill
material, an equivalent fluid weight of 30 pcf may be used in the retaining wall
design.
VI. SOIL DESCRIPTION
Our field work, reconnaissance and review of pertinent geologic maps and reports
indicate that the site is underlain at depth by formational material of the Tertiary-
age Torrey Sandstone (Tt). The encountered soil profile generally consists of fill
soils to approximately 18 feet in depth at the location of boring B-3 at the slope top
S'.
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence) Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California Page 9
to approximately 14 to 15 feet at the locations of borings B-1 and B-2 in the slope
face. The fill soils become shallower downslope (refer to the excavation logs, Figure
Nos. IIIa-h for handpit and boring logs). Each of these units is described below.
Artificial Fill Soils (Oaf)• The encountered fill soils consist primarily of silty fine- to
medium-grained sand and sandy silt with some clay, pebbles and rock fragments.
The fill soils in the rear yard area above the slope failure and within the slope failure
area are generally in a loose, moist to wet condition. Refer to Figure Nos. II, III
and IV.
Torrey Sandstone Formation (Tt)• The fill soils are underlain by the Tertiary-age
Torrey Sandstone Formation (Eisenberg, 1983). The encountered Torrey
formational materials consist of medium dense to dense, moderately cemented,
silty sandstone and hard, moderately well indurated clayey siltstone. The
formational materials were encountered at depths of approximately 14 to 15 feet at
the location of borings B-1 and B-2, and at a depth of 18 feet at the location of
boring B-3 in the top-of-slope yard area. Refer to Figure Nos. II and III for details.
VII, SHALLOW FAILURE SLOPE STABILITY
Based on our experience, relatively shallow slope failures usually occur due to a
combination of the following factors:
1. The relative density of soils within the outer 5 feet of the slope face is often
lower than deeper soils comprising the slope. This results from the difficulty
in achieving proper compaction of the slope face and post-grading loosening
of soils by rodent activity, planting, weathering of the surface soils, and the
shrink-swell activity of fine-grained soils.
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence) Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California Page 10
2. Soil moisture contents approach saturation during periods of heavy rainfall,
over-irrigation, or when improper surface drainage focuses surface runoff to
a specific location on the slope. The exceptionally heavy rainfall episodes
during the winter of 2004-05 contributed significantly to the slope failure
condition.
3. The slope face soils, at the time of failure, have inherently weak soil strength
characteristics such as low values for cohesion or soil friction angle. These
low strength values are often due to insufficient compaction during original
grading and slope construction.
4. The slope inclination of slopes constructed prior to the late 1970s is often too
great for the strength characteristics of the soils. As described previously,
the upper portion of the pre-failure slope appears to have had an
approximate inclination of 1.5:1.0 (horizontal to vertical) with locally steeper
areas. The entire pre-failure slope appears to have been oversteepened and
marginally stable.
If on-site soils are utilized during repair work they should be compacted to at least
90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. Imported soils used as wall backfill should
possess a friction angle of at least 300 and cohesion of 200 psf or equivalent
combination of friction and cohesion. Following repair work, including clearing and
re-sloping of the slope to a gradient of approximately 1.5:1.0, the factor of safety
against shallow shear failure of a 1.5:1.0 slope at saturated conditions (to 3 feet in
depth) should be at least 1.5. (A factor of safety of 1.0 or below will result in slope
failure. A factor of safety of 1.5 is commonly considered to be the minimal
acceptable factor of safety.) Therefore, it is our opinion the calculated factor of
safety against shallow shear failure of the recommended repairs (1.5:1.0 slope) is
acceptable.
VP
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence) Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California Page 11
VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on information obtained during our limited investigation and laboratory
testing, in conjunction with our knowledge and experience in the Encinitas area, we
offer the following recommendations for foundation support of the existing deck,
retaining wall, and for remediation of the existing slope failure conditions at the
subject site.
The slope failure is approximately 35 to 40 feet wide, 3 to 4 feet deep and
approximately 15 to 20 feet high. Observations of the existing deck supports
indicate that the piers are founded in the loose fill soils and the supports posts have
rotated out-of-vertical. Reportedly, the deck support piers extend to a depth of 6
to 8 feet below the existing slope face.
Based on our site observations and field work, it is recommended that the
cantilevered deck and masonry block retaining wall be supported by piers founded
into dense formational soils. If the existing retaining wall is properly stabilized, the
deck could be re-leveled or underpinned with steel pipe piles. The existing retaining
wall should have all backfill soils and debris removed for proper evaluation and
installation of adequate waterproofing and drainage. The existing weep holes
should be replaced with a perforated drain pipe and gravel back drain or geodrain
material prior to proper backfilling.
Due to the limited slope access for grading equipment, it is recommended that the
slope along the east side of the property be repaired utilizing recompacted slope
face soils and partially buried wood and steel pipe-supported walls. Re-grading of
the slope using geogrid reinforcement is also considered to be an acceptable
alternative for slope repair if feasible. Refer to Figure No. VI for a cross section of
the proposed repair configuration.
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence
Encinitas, California Job No. 05-8974
Page e 12
Following their review of this report, bidding repair contractors are encouraged to
contact our office with any questions they may have. It will be the responsibility of
the contractors to develop, based on their experience and available resources,
access and construction strategies for working on the limited access rear yard
slope.
A. Design Parameters for Retaining WaY and Deck support Piers
It is recommended that the existing masonry retaining wall and cantilevered deck
be supported by drilled piers. The following recommendations are provided. The
existing deck should be evaluated by a structural engineer for structural integrity
prior to the start of repairs. Once the deck is evaluated, the repair work may begin.
1. Pier Design: Where piers are utilized, they should be designed by the project
Civil/Structural Engineer to support all vertical and lateral loads of the
retaining wall and deck.
2. End-bearing Piers: For vertical loading, all end bearing piers should be
embedded at least 10 feet into or dense formational soils. When drilling
excavation for piers that utilize end-bearing strength, it is important to limit
the amount of loose material at the bottom of the excavation. Therefore, we
recommend that piers be designed with a minimum diameter of 24 inches in
order to facilitate observation of the excavations and allow for easy hand-tool
removal of material on the bottom.
For end-bearing capacity piers, no slough over 1 inch in thickness should
remain at the bottom of the excavation before concrete placement. The
drilling contractor should provide an appropriate cleaning tool to satisfy this
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence) Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California Page 13
requirement. Otherwise, shoring installation and hand-tool cleaning (or
another acceptable option) will be required.
3. Pier Spacing: The minimum center-to-center spacing of piers, in a direction
perpendicular to the temporary seismic or wind lateral load, should be 3 pier
diameters. For piers located in the same line of the applied lateral load, the
shadow effect produces a reducing effect in their combined individual lateral
load capacity. The reduction factors for pier spacings 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B and
8B (where B is the diameter of the pier) are 3.0, 2.6, 2.2, 1.8, 1.4 and 1.0,
respectively. Downhill lateral loads acting on the drilled piers to support the
existing retaining wall may require pier spacings between 6 and 8 feet.
4. End-Bearing Capacity: The allowable end bearing capacity is 10,000 psf for
piers penetrating at least 10 feet into dense formational soils. This end-
bearing capacity has already deducted the down drag force produced by
existing fills. The pier weight to be considered in the structural analysis is
only one-third of the actual weight of buried pier. The actual needed pier
length and embedment into formational soils should be established by the
structural engineer based on the length needed to adequately support the
total vertical and lateral loads included in the design. An increase of 1,000
psf of vertical end-bearing capacity may be allowed for every additional foot
of embedment into formation (at least 10 feet below ground surface and at
least 5 feet into formation), up to a maximum of 20,000 psf.
The recommended allowable end bearing vertical capacity for the piers
already includes the effect of negative friction produced by the existing,
compressible fills as well as the buried pier weight. Any pier weight above
the soil surface should be considered as dead load and should be deducted
from the net end bearing capacity. The depth to dense formational soils in
rp
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence) Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California Page 14
the explored area is anticipated to range from approximately 14 to 18 feet
from the existing slope surface.
5. Fixity: For lateral earthquake or wind load resistance, the structural engineer
may use any method that considers the equilibrium of forces and moments.
Some structural engineers like to use the fixity concept. Based on a fixed-
head pier with diameter equal to 24 inches, the concrete modulus of
elasticity, and a horizontal subgrade reaction of the loose fills, we
recommend that fixity depth to be considered in the calculation be not less
than 8 feet from the soil surface. The maximum moment produced by the
lateral load may be calculated by multiplying the lateral load times the total
distance between the point of application of lateral load times the depth of
fixity. For piers near the slope face, the depth to fixity should be measured
from the horizontal plane providing a setback of 8 feet to daylight (starting at
-4 feet below ground surface).
If a balance of forces is calculated based on the applied lateral forces and
reaction soil forces, the following allowable passive (equivalent fluid) forces
are recommended: 130 pcf for existing loose fill soils and 300 pcf for
formational soils. The passive resistance of the piers may be considered
applicable on a projected surface equal to 2.5 times the diameter of the pier
multiplied by the vertical length being considered. The piers to be built to
support the existing retaining wall and upper slope should be designed to
carry a horizontal load of 13,500 pounds per lineal foot of spacing between
piers. The load should be applied beginning -2 feet below the existing
retaining wall.
In addition, the fixity depth for piers within 8 feet of the top of a slope or on
a slope face should be measured beginning -4 feet below the ground surface.
VP
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California Job No. 05-8974
Page 15
6. Pier Drilling Observations: Pier drilling operations should be
the continued observations of a representative of our m to ormed under
firm
penetration into formational soils. confirm the
7• Pier Des/ n Standards. The design and construction of t
accordance with the recommendations he Piers should be in
presented above, the current UBC
requirements accepted by the City of Encinitas, and also in accords
ACI 336, 311-93 Design and Construction of Drilled Piers of th e American
nce with
Concrete Institute. The contractor should follow all the safet
required by Cal OSHA. Y procedures
8' Fill—�� of Pier Excavations:
It is also our recommendation that the pier
excavations be filled with concrete within 24 hours after the excavations
completed, to help reduce the risk of soil caving, are
etc. Slough material filling the bottom of drilled hole or slough intrusion,
prior to concrete placement. should be removed
P Should caving ccur while drilling
contractor should use shoring. 9 piers, the
9• Shoring may be removed while placing
concrete. Any deep trenches (deeper than 3 feet) should also be fille
24 hours after being excavated for the same reason. d within
Underpinning support for the deck can consist of either drilled
as stated previously or mini-piles. If mini as designed
P -piles are utilized, the contractor
can use driven piles surrounded with grout. Additional recommendations be issued by our firm if mini-piles are chosen as the deck support ns can
pport option.
9• Ca/-OSHA Guidelines:
All excavations should follow Cal-OSHA guidelines for
safety purposes.
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California
Job No. 05-8974
Page 16
B• S/o a Reconstruct/on and Buried or Partial
1v sib / Buried Wa// Re air
10. Soil Remova/: Following removal of surface
soils and loose fills on the existing slope face must the disturbed failure
fill soils. The anticipated soil depth removal should be removed down to firm
feet, as measured from the existing slope face. Based un the order of 2 to 3
subsurface investigation, it a Pon our surface and
ppears that such removal should result in a
relatively level "bench" in the lower failure area, with s
steep, temporary excavation walls alon hOrt but relatively
removal area. 9 the lateral uphill sides of the
Some lateral removal beyond the obvious failure area ma
necessary for construction access. Y be
11. Excavation Observation: The base of the excavatio
as to rovide a competent stepped, n should be compacted so
P P
peed, level base upon which to receive slope
reconstructing fill soils. The bottom of the excavation shout
and evaluated by a representative of our firm before any f d be observed ll
Placement should not start until the bottom of the excava io placement. Fill
our representative. Initial fill placement should produce st is approved by
surface for pipe drilling and wall construction. epped working
12. Stock i/ed Soi/s: If the excavated soils are stock ' d
soils will be allowed within a distance equal to the depth l on site, no stockpiled
of the excavation.
13. Temoorary S/ peS; We anticipate that tem orar
to 6 feet in hei ht p Y slopes of approximately 4
9 may be required. Based on the results of our field
investigation, it is our opinion that the following temporary
criteria may be considered in areas where the excavation slope slope design
least 10 feet away from any existing structures: °Pe top will be at
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California Job No. 05-8974
Page 17
Temporary slopes may not be cut at a slope ratio steeper than 0.75:1.0
(horizontal to vertical) unless protective shoring is used. If the
recommended piers supports for the existing retaining wall are constructed
first, they can provide the desired shoring. Any plans for slopes in excess of
the anticipated 6-foot maximum must be presented to our office prior to
grading to allow time for review and specific recommendations, if warranted.
Proper drainage away from the excavation should be provided at all times.
A representative of Geotechnica/ Exploration, Inc, must observe any
steep temporary slopes during construction. In the event that soils and
formational material comprising a slope are not as anticipated, any required
slope design changes would be presented at that time.
Where not superseded by specific recommendations presented in this report,
trenches, excavations and temporary slopes at the subject site should be
constructed in accordance with Title 8, Construction Safety Orders, issued by
Cal-OSHA.
14. Compacted Fill Placement: Excavated materials to be replaced as compacted
fill should be cleaned" of detrimental materials such as vegetation, large
rocks, etc., and processed so as to reduce the size of "clumps" to no greater
than 6 inches in diameter or 3 inches if the compaction equipment consists of
mechanical hand tampers. These materials should then be dried or watered
to approximately optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90
percent of Maximum Dry Density in accordance with ASTM D1557-98,
Method A. The fill materials should be placed in layers not exceeding 8
inches in compacted thickness, or thinner thickness if compacted with hand
tampers. Field density tests should be taken periodically as the fill placement
progresses.
Alt AM&
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California Job No. 05-8974
Page 18
The compacted soils should be reinforced with Tensar BX1200 geogrid or
equivalent at 18-inch intervals up to the design elevation of the pipe driving
work surface. The geogrid should extend from the back to the front, and
then folded up to provide a lip at least 24 inches wide by 18 inches thick
before additional fill soil is placed and compacted.
Beginning recompaction at the base of the fill portion of the slope should
allow for efficient use of acceptable slope failure soils in the compaction
process.
15. ImDOrt soils: It may be necessary to utilize approved import soils for wall
backfill. Imported soils should be evaluated and approved by our firm prior
to importing them to the site. Imported soils used as wall backfill should
Possess a friction angle of at least 320 and a cohesion of 200 psf. These
materials should be dried or watered to approximately optimum moisture
content, and compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density in
accordance with ASTM D1557-98, Method A.
16. Observations and Testing: It is mandatory that a representative of this firm
perform observations and/or fill-compaction testing during remedial
operations to verify that the remedial operations are consistent with the
recommendations presented in this report. All grading excavations resulting
from the removal of disturbed soils as depicted on Figure Nos. II, V and VI
should be observed and evaluated by a representative of our firm before they
are backfilled.
17. Siooe Face Compaction: Following reconstruction of the failed slope areas,
the repaired slope face should be compacted with hand-operated equipment
and/or track-rolling (depending upon contractor equipment on-site).
GV 41
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California Job No. 05-8974
Page 19
18. Grading Requirements: Applicable portions of the City of Encinitas Grading
Requirements should be followed in reconstruction of the damaged portions
of the slope.
19. Verification of Soils Conditions: Geotechnica/ Exploration, Inc,
recommends that we be asked to verify the actual soil conditions revealed
during site grading work and slope excavation to be as anticipated in this
"Report of Limited Geotechnica/ Investigation" for the project. In addition,
the compaction of any fill soils placed during site grading work must be
tested by the soil engineer. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor
to comply with the requirements on the grading plans and the local grading
ordinance.
All retaining wall and trench backfill should be properly compacted.
Geotechnica/ Exploration, Inc, will assume no liability for damage
occurring due to improperly or uncompacted backfill placed without our
observations and testing.
20. Pipe and Board Wall Design Specifications The wall design consists of
reconstructing the sloping surface between the walls to no greater than a
1.5:1.0 (horizontal to vertical) slope ratio and utilizing buried or partially
buried steel post-supported wood plank walls backed with a geodrain board
to increase long-term stability of the reconstructed slope. Backfill between
the driven pipe walls and the upper pile wall must utilize Tensor BX1200
reinforcing geogrid at 18-inch intervals to reduce soil loads against the wood
planks. Based on our evaluation, we provide the following design
specifications.
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California Job No. 05-8974
Page 20
20.1 Vertical supports consisting of 3-inch-diameter (5.79 Ibs/lf) standard
steel pipe (Fy=36 ksi) spaced every 3 feet maximum.
20.2 Vertical support embedment of at least 15 feet into the geogrid-
reinforced soils resulting in total pipe lengths of approximately 18 to 20
feet from the top of the walls.
20.3 2"x12" wood planks, consisting of pressure-treated Douglas Fir (PTDF)
structural grade, should be installed spanning the vertical supports.
The lowest wall plank should extend 1 foot below the ground surface
and the exposed portion of the wood retaining wall should not be
higher than 2 feet above the ground. The total height of the wood
planking, below and above ground, should not exceed 4 to 5 feet.
20.4 Placement of a back-of-wall subdrain system consisting of either
Miradrain 2000 (or equivalent) geodrain board carrying collected water
down through 1-inch weep holes drilled on 2-foot centers through the
face of the lowest exposed wood planks or, preferably, Mirafi 140N
filtercloth allowing water seepage through the joints. If all planks are
buried, then a collector subdrain should be used for each wall.
20.5 Recompaction of new Tenser 6X1200 geogrid-reinforced fill soils
between and above the pipe and board walls. Refer to Figure No. VI
for a graphic representation of the wall configuration. The geogrid
should be placed as on the lower slope fill, i.e., extend from the back
to the front and then folded up to form a lip 24 inches wide by 18
inches thick, include 18 inches of soil and then kept in place by
additional, properly compacted fill.
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California
Job No. 05-8974
Page 21
C. S/ove Reconstruction On/
As an alternative to reconstructing the slope surface and utilizing
buried steel post-su buried or partially
pported wood plank walls the sloe ma
utilizing geog rid-reinforced com acted earth. P y be reconstructed
would have to be imported to accomplish slope A significant quantity of soil material
P reconstruction.
21• Soi/ Remova/: Following removal of surface vegetation
soils and loose fill soils on the existing slope face must'b he disturbed failure
undisturbed fill or native formational materials. The anticipated s down to
removal should be on the order of 4 to 5 feet on the lower ated soil depth
slope. portion of the
22• Excavation Observation: The base of the excavato
as to rovide a competent stepped, n should be compacted so
P p
Aped, level base upon which to receive slope
reconstructing fill soils. The bottom of the excavation should
and evaluated by a representative of our firm before an fill be observed
Placement should not start until the bottom of the excavation Placement. Fill
our representative. is approved by
23. Geoorid Reinforcement: The newly placed fill soils placed steeper than 1.75
horizontal to 1.0 vertical will need to be reinforced with
equivalent) layers laced horizontally eve Tensar 6X1200 (or
P
the bottom of the excavation (see Figure No inches in depth beginning at
Properly compacted. The VI)• All fill soil should be
geogrid should extend from the back of the
excavation to the front.
24• Stockoi/ed Soi/s: If the excavated soils are stockpiled
soils will be allowed within a distance equal to the depth the ex
of site, c stockpiled
cavation.
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California
Job No. 05-8974
Page 22
25, Temporary S/oDeS: We anticipate that temporary
to 12 feet in height ma n' opes of approximately 10
y be required. Based on the results of our field
investigation, it is our opinion that the following temporary
criteria may be considered in areas where the excavation slo slope design
least 10 feet away from any existing e top will be at
g structures:
Temporary slopes may not be cut at a slope ratio steeper
(horizontal to vertical) unless protective shoring is used. Any than 1.0:1.0
in excess of the anticipated 12-foot maximum ny plans for slopes
p must be presented to our
Office prior to grading to allow time for review and specific recommendations,
if warranted. Proper drainage away from the excavation should b provided
ed
at all times, hould be provided
A representative of Geotechnica/ Exploration, Inc
steep temporary slopes Burin construction. must observe any
P 9 In the event that soils and
formational material comprising a slope are not as antici
slope design changes would be presented at that time. gated, any required
Where not superseded by specific recommendations res
trenches, excavations and tem ora P ented in this report,
P ry slopes at the subject site should be
constructed in accordance with Title 8, Construction Safet Ord
Cal-OSHA. Y ers, issued by
26. C mpacted Fill P lacement: Excavated materials to
fill should be be replaced as compacted
cleaned" of detrimental materials such as vegetation large
rocks, etc., and processed so as to reduce the size of "Clumps,,
than 6 inches in diameter or 3 inches if the compaction equipment ps„ to no greater
mechanical hand tampers. These materials should then be dri consists of
to approximately optimum moisture content, and compacted dried or watered
P ed to at least 90
cry
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence) Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California Page 23
percent of Maximum Dry Density in accordance with ASTM D1557-98,
Method A. The fill materials should be placed in layers not exceeding 8
inches in compacted thickness, or thinner thickness if compacted with hand
tampers. Field density tests should be taken periodically as the fill placement
progresses.
Beginning recompaction at the base of the fill portion of the slope should
allow for efficient use of acceptable slope failure soils in the compaction
process.
27. Import Soils: It may be necessary to utilize approved import soils for slope
reconstruction. Imported soils, if needed, should be evaluated and approved
by our firm prior to importing them to the site. Imported soils used as wall
backfill should possess a friction angle of at least 320 and a cohesion of 200
psf, or an equivalent friction and cohesion combination. These materials
should be dried or watered to approximately optimum moisture content, and
compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density in accordance with
ASTM D1557-98, Method A.
28. Observations and Testing: It is mandatory that a representative of this firm
perform observations and/or fill-compaction testing during remedial grading
operations to verify that the remedial operations are consistent with the
recommendations presented in this report. All grading excavations resulting
from the removal of disturbed soils should be observed and evaluated by a
representative of our firm before they are backfilled.
29. Slope Face Compaction: Following reconstruction of the failed slope area,
the repaired slope face should be compacted with hand-operated equipment
and/or track-rolling (depending upon contractor equipment on-site). The
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California Job No. 05-8974
Page 24
recommended method of slope compaction consists of overfilling the slope
face and compacting.
30. Grading Reouirements: Applicable portions of the City of Encinitas Grading
Requirements should be followed in reconstruction of the slope.
31. Verification of Soils Conditions: Geotechnica/ Exploration, Inc,
recommends that we be asked to verify the actual soil conditions revealed
during site grading work and slope excavation to be as anticipated in this
"Report of Limited Geotechnica/ Investigation" for the project. In addition,
the compaction of any fill soils placed during site grading work must be
tested by the soil engineer. It is the responsibility of the grading contractor
to comply with the requirements on the grading plans and the local grading
ordinance.
D. Site Drainage Considerations
32. Drainage: Adequate measures should be taken to properly finish-grade the
top-of-slope area after the slope repair is in place. Drainage waters are to
be directed away from foundations, floor slabs, footings, and slopes,
and into properly designed and approved drainage facilities.
Currently, the California Building Code requires a minimum 2-percent surface
gradient for proper drainage of building pads unless waived by the building
official. Concrete pavement may have a minimum gradient of 0.5-percent.
As part of our limited geotechnical investigation, we encountered significantly
high soil moisture conditions in the rear slope area. Most of the subsurface
moisture seepage appears to be rain and irrigation water runoff from higher
areas within the Skyloft development. This has been observed and
Orp
R"_
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence) Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California Page 25
documented in other areas of the subdivision and should be further evaluated
around the subject lot. We recommend that additional drilling be performed
in the front yard area and possibly along Gascony Road. Piezometers should
be installed to monitor the existing subsurface moisture conditions for future
remedial recommendations.
33. Roof Gutters: Roof gutters and downspouts should be installed on the
residence, with the runoff directed away from the foundation. Preferably, all
roof gutters should discharge into closed drainage lines and be directed to
the primary collection point for surface drainage. Currently, all roof gutters
and surface drains discharge into an existing concrete drainage swale under
the existing deck. The swale discharges into a 6-inch solid PVC pipe that
runs down the slope into a larger concrete brow ditch. The existing concrete
swale should be reconstructed after repairs are completed to ensure proper
fall (minimum 2 percent) to an approved outlet.
34. Erosion Control: Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken at all
times during construction to prevent surface runoff waters from running over
the existing slope.
E. S/ Re Planting and Irrigation
35. Slope Planting: Following slope repair operations, the resulting exposed soil
surfaces should be improved with erosion control materials and replanted
with a lightweight, deep-rooted, low-water-use vegetation in compliance with
the City of San Diego guidelines. It is recommended that the use of fiber
rolls, jute-netting or other comparable systems be considered to provide
interim erosion control. A landscape architect or contractor should be
contacted for final recommendations for slope face treatment and planting.
4 rip
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California Job No. 05-8974
Page 26
In addition, the existing concrete brow ditch at the base of the rear slo
severely cracked and should be repaired or replaced as Pe is
repairs. Part of the slope
36. Siooe Irrigation: If an irrigation system is to be placed on t
recommend that such trenches be located at least 5 feet away ro slope, m we
of the newly reconstructed slope areas. Any existing irrigations from rim
should be checked prior to use in an effort to identify any damage o fines
r joint
separations that may have occurred due to the failures. It is imperative that
irrigation systems, especially near repaired slope areas, be inspected
frequent basis because one broken sprinkler head or a damaged irrigation
on a
Pipe can result in the type of failure currently 9ation
Y present on the slope. Irrigation
of the slope-face vegetation should be kept at
sustain plant growth, in order to minimize moisture he minimum required to
soils. infiltration to slope face
Drip irrigation systems are recommended and preferable for the slo e
and repair retaining wall areas. P rebuilt
F. Genera/Recommendations
37. -Re air Site Meeting: We require that a pre-repair site
scheduled, with representatives of this firm and all concerned parties g be
attendance. Any import soils should be evaluated with laborator soil is in
and approved by our firm prior to importing to the site. Y ests
38. Contractor Performance: All repair work should be performed in
with all local industry standards of good practice and building odes for the
types of repairs to be the
performed. This includes the construction of any
S
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence) Job No. 05-8974
Encinitas, California Page 27
temporary shoring that may be needed for the purposes of safety and/or the
protection of uphill improvements such as the residence and/or patios. In
addition, the contractor retained to perform the above-recommended repairs
should be qualified and experienced in limited-access slope reconstruction of
the types of repairs to be done.
39. Owner Responsibility: It is the responsibility of the owner/homeowner's
association to ensure that the recommendations summarized in this report
are carried out in the field operations and that our recommendations for
design of this project are incorporated in improvement plans. Our firm
should review any project plans not prepared by our firm once they are
available, to verify that our recommendations are adequately incorporated in
the plans. Additional or alternate recommendations may be issued by our
firm, as warranted, after this review.
40. Safety: This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety
engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be
responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; the
safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should
notify the owner if he considered any of the recommended actions presented
herein to be unsafe.
41. New Slope Failures: Should other similar failures occur in as-yet unfailed
slope areas in the future, we (or another qualified engineering firm) should
be contacted to assess new failure conditions. The recommendations for
slope repair contained in this report are valid only for the investigated areas
and may not be appropriate in other circumstances.
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California Job No. 05-8974
Page 28
IX. LIMITATIONS
Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on all available data
obtained from our limited field investigation and laboratory analysis, as well as our
experience with similar soils in the Encinitas area. Of necessity, we must assume a
certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or existing
exposures. It is therefore necessary that all observations, conclusions and
recommendations be verified at the time repair operations begin. In the event
discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued (if required).
This limited investigation was performed to identify to the degree possible the cause
of the surficial slope failure, and to provide opinions as to repair of the slope face.
The investigation and soil conditions encountered reasonably explain the observed
evidence of damage related to the slope face failure. Investigation of the overall
stability of the slope or the general vicinity, which could also contribute to current
or future damage, is beyond the scope of our work.
Deeper excavations in the general vicinity of the site would be required to identify
any deep-seated geologic or other features that could affect stability of larger areas
of the site, and/or areas of the adjacent properties. Our firm did not perform such
an extensive investigation because on-site conditions did not imply the existence of
such features as a mechanism contributing to the shallow failure, and the scope or
our field investigation included only those soils associated with failure of the slope
face materials. Our firm shall not be held responsible for any subsequent
movement of deep-seated geologic features that underlie the general vicinity or
shallow slope face failures that may occur in the future.
This report should be considered valid for a period of two years or until
additional distress to the slope occurs, whichever is less. At such time this reporport t
Skyloft Slope Failure (Cavagnaro Residence)
Encinitas, California Job No. 05-8974
Page 29
is subject to review by our firm and possible revision. The firm of Geotechnica/
Exp loration, Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical
condition of the property, such as inappropriate repair measures or changed
drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to issuance of this report. If significant
modifications are made to the investigated area, especially with respect to the
remedial repair of the slope and any changed drainage conditions, this report must
be presented to us for immediate review and possible revision.
It must be emphasized that the recommended slope face stabilization does not
increase the stability of any existing slope areas outside of the actual failure area
or those slope soils deeper than the failed slope face materials. All efforts must be
taken to minimize saturation of adjacent slope areas, since similar soil conditions
probably exist in those areas.
Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to
contact our office. Reference to our .lob No. 05-8974 will help to expedite a reply
to your inquiries.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.
Venior r
ct Geologist Jaime A. Cerros, P.E.
R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
�O
1?i�01ESQ�9l
a cF�� Fyn
No. 00 007 ^'
m
Exp. 1
G- v
v K11TV ILA A n
ICINI
Jaie s RInF
KONTF KIM LH
1 TATIE* M RU .e o
EuGOU cars _ LOO cn r
AVM r DR
RK
WOO
ate ;,-CONE
y O FIC o,
1 NAATUC6_y J
O
r^ SZ CT 11 f n G
CRS F Z 3
p51uR� c+Tt
qr A
CAPRI_ RD
.-C S� a: � woao OR o
Opt
)TIP, �CiE a Y .
€ Pfl�G4 G G OI' .i.
SUNRICH c
�8 z^ E GLAUCUS $c� LN �;k
:a y ST 51 DR .. m x
R ,
CD
AZr c
R ��pNP0 �
c^P�pEBE k`, VGUS p NORMANDY
W`1
4 �� 5
, s c 4
w 6�o BRITTANY RD �'LA UC US
DI A
O IA NA
Thomas Bros Guide -San Diego County pg. H 47 y
Skyloft Slope Failure-Cavagnaro
1713 Gascony Road
Encinitas, CA.
Figure No. I
Job No 05-8974
Z a- Z
Z
ui
�oc
CK
U oc
CL
UJ a-cc
z IL 0 CL FE
IL CL O = ,
a� a� g ,
'uS ii QO a0
ol
_saga(] floS 4,
_® H04I0 MOJB aPIM ,t _
p
co
now— sugaQ Q,
72
Q ( C� 0
oc
I I I Q a
2u ® I m
Q _ W W
2�
c Q
ui
'0
J
w
JjoM buiuio}a�j ON 2
Lai i
n�
I
p m E
I
I C
I aIDMS ajaJouoo a j
V Y
V
I
m® V o
o '
LL-
Of °
CL
cn V
a, c
c � o
x
W
t
ax my
uo� mm
nd
o_
01 C
m na m�
± i, aomEc�
f p c o Q
S ri Ec9m
r�a m o
E
U T
� cmro�
d c n m
0
o
CQ II r do—Ec
G �� uwmeww P J O D
X
m
O 0 m"�V
1L O
d J z nE-6 M3
!Z
I Q U
V a
a
EQUIPMENT DIMENSION&TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED
Limited Access Auger Drill Rig 6-inch diameter Boring 5-18.05
SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH LOGGED BY
t 275'Mean Sea Level Not Encountered JKH
FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND
CLASSIFICATION w o T3"T.:DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ° + -i LL w o �¢ (Grain s¢e,Der>sity,Moisture,Color) � a o n.z z'6 a z
o v I CLR SILTY SAND/SANDY SIL with some clay and SM-
rock fragments. Loose(soft). Moist to wet. ML
Tan-brown.
2
FILL/
SLOPE FAILURE DEBRIS / SM 3"
JQ�___ 13.2 116.2
SILTY SAND,fine-to rnedium-grained,with
4 some pebbles,rock and sandstone fragments.
;a a Loose. Moist to wet. Red-brown and gray-brown. 17.4 110.3 4 2"
fop FILL(Qal)
6 —38%passing#200 sieve.
5.9 12.5 121.5
SILTY SAND,fine-to medium-grained,with SM
�} ' some day, pebbles,siltstone and sandstone
8 fragments. Loose to medium dense. Moist. Dark
N.° grey and tan-brown. 13 3"
FILL(Qaf)
10 `�° —no sample recovery.
16 2"
,`a
0
12
34/ "
rock 3
14 SILTY SANDSTONE moderately cemented. SM
Medium dense to dense. Damp. Light tan-gray. 17 2"
16 ' !' TORREY SANDSTONE(Tt)
18 8.6 116.1 62/ 3"
m 11"
0
20 Bottom @ 18.5'
o'
U
0
a
o Z WATER TABLE NAME
Skyloft Slope Failure(Cavagnaro Residence)
y ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION
Q
10 IN-PLACE SAMPLE 1713 Gascony Road,Encinitas,CA
a
° DRIVE SAMPLE REVIEWED BY LOG No.
g LDR/JAC
0 0 FIELD DENSITY TEST 85-8974
FIGURE NUMBER Eq*wadwn'kw. B-1
® STANDARD PENETROMETER Ilia �in
EQUIPMENT DIMENSION&TYPE OF EXCAVATION +DATE GGED
Limited A ccess Auger Drill Rig 6-inch diameter Boring 8-05
SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH BY
t 288'Mean Sea Level Not Encountered
FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND 7im
CLASSIFICATION a DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS °of � (Grain size,Density,Masture,Cobr �' S i S +- —vi rL— rz z �? cn z Z Z� O �
�0
SILTY SAND,fine-to coarse4rained,with some SM
rocks and concrete debris. Loose. Dry to damp.
Gray-brown.
2
o WALL BACKFILL(Qat)
4.3 97.7 g 3'
4
. q
SILTY SAND,fine-to medium-grained,with SM- 5 2"
' some clay,siltstone and sandstone fragments. Sc
6 Loose. Moist to wet. Dark gray and red-brown.
FILL(Qat)
8 29.7 91.5 g 3"
10 3 2"
12 IA SILTY SAND,fine-to medium-grained,with SM
° some rock fragments. Loose.Very moist to wet.
k pr_* 17.0 109.7 "
Red-brown. 9 3
14 @^
FILL(Qaf) 8 2"
CLAYEY SILTSTONE moderately well ML
16 indurated. Hard. Damp. Dark gray and orange.
TORREY SANDSTONE(Tt)
�v
a 18 48 2"
i< 20 Bottom @ 18.5'
o'
W
NAME
0
a
0 1 WATER TABLE JOB
Slope Failure(Cavagnaro Residence)
W ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATfON
Q IN-PLACE SAMPLE 1713 Gascony Road,Encinitas,CA
0
° DRIVE SAMPLE JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No.
05-8974
o s FIELD DENSITY TEST FIGURE 1BER caoaawoM
0i ® STANDARD PENETROMETER B=2
Illb
EQUIPMENT
DIMENSION&TYPE OF EXCAVATION +DATE LOGGED
Limited Access Auger Drill Rig 6-inch diameter Boring 5-18-05
SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH GED BY t 300'Mean Sea Level Not Encountered KH
FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND Uzod-LL J w CLASSIFICATION o o DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS i Q p >> > ° +v 5; 5�(Grain sine,Density,Masture,Color)
n — a `" z z rs a a 0 j �o LU
�. SILTY SAND,fine-to medium-grained,with SM-
�'p, some clay and siftstone fragments. Loose. Moist. SC
2
Q Dark gray and orange-brown.
Fes,° FILL(Qat)
21.2 95.7 12 3"
4
6 2"
6 d,a
r '
a SILTY SAND,fine-to medrum�rained,with SM
8 a�o some rocks and siltstone fragments. Loose to 20.5 107.9 10 3"
medium dense. Moist to wet. Red-brown.
A(�
FILLLafL---------_i SM- 10 2"
10 SILTY SAND/SANDY SILT;with some clay and
°1 siltstone fragments. Medium dense(firm). Damp ML
to moist. Dark gray-brown.
12
0
FILL(Qat)
16.9 113.1 20 3"
14
65 14 2"
16
a
L
�F
o .
18 �` CLAYEY SILTSTON� moderately well ML
indurated. Hard. Damp. Dark gray and orange.
20 TORREY SANDSTONE(Tt)
22.5 101.4
m 59 3"
0 22
c�
J
Bottom @ 21.5'
o'
W
c�
a'
U_ 1 WATER TABLE NAME
Skyloft Slope Failure(Cavagnaro Residence)
® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION
c�
Q IN-PLACE SAMPLE 1713 Gascony Road,Encinitas,CA
o DRIVE SAMPLE NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No.
o Q FIELD DENSITY TEST 05-8974
FIGURE NUMBER �� Inc. Bm3
W ® STANDARD PENETROMETER Illc
EQUIPMENT DIMENSION&TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED
Hand Tools 2'X 2'X 3'Handpit 5-18-05
SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH LOGGED BY
t 275'Mean Sea Level Not Encountered JKH El
FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND
CLASSIFICATION Iwo -,
= o � w� w fir ° + UO-zi
r m a DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS vi v v rte- > > > °o > (Grain size,Density,Moisture,Color) vi a`" a z `�' z Z g a z� fo oM
Mo ox?
SILTY SAND,with some rocks and silts tone M
fragments. Loose. Dry to damp.Tan-brown.
FILL(Oaf)
1 SILTY SAND, to medium-grained,with slight SM
clay. Loose. Moist to wet.Tan-gray and
orange-brown.
FILL(Qaf)
2
17.6 100.1
3
Bottom @ 3'
4
5
o
m
0
v
a
O
w
v
a'
Z WATER TABLE Skyloft Slope Failure(Cavagnaro Residence)
y ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION
IN-PLACE SAMPLE 1713 Gascony Road,Encinitas,CA
JOB
o DRIVE SAMPLE NUM�R REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No.
P E FIELD DENSITY TEST U5-8974
��' ° HP-1
FIGURE NUMBER EeloraWft Ins.
® STANDARD PENETROMETER tlld
EQUIPMENT DIMENSION&TYPE OF EXCAVATION
DATE LOGGED
Hand Tools 2'X 2'X 3'Handpit 5-18-05
SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH
LOGGED BY
1283'Mean Sea Level Not Encountered JKH
FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND o
LL J w CLASSIFICATION L; o W o o o
S DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ui v v >j 5 F ° + _j c� win
s� s�
o (Grain size,Density,Moisture,Color) a— a z � a �, 3 Z Q=
Z� ?v OM �0 0� 00 m0 ?
SILTY SAND,fine-to medium-grained. Loose to SM
medium dense. Moist. Red-brown to gray-brown.
FILL(Qaf)
1
2 SILTY SAND,fin
e-grained, with some pebbles SM
f and rock fragments. Loose. Moist. Dark brown.
FILL(Qaf)
SILTY SAND%SANDY SILK with some siltstone SM-
:s fragments. Loose to medium dense. Moist. Dark ML
of. gray-brown.
3
FILL Qa
Bottom @ 3'
4 The mid-slope retaining ng wall is 3 feet high. The
footing is at least 12 inches wide and
approximately 18 inches deep. The slope is at an
approximate inclination of 1.5:1.0(H:V).
0
J
X
W
0
W
a-
a
JOB
U_ Z WATER TABLE N"
Skyloft Slope Failure(Cavagnaro Residence)
N ® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION
a
IN-PLACE SAMPLE 1713 Gascony Road,Encinitas,CA
0
oDRIVE SAMPLE NUMBER REVIEYYED BY LDR/JAC LOG No.
FIELD DENSITY TEST 05-8974 ��
o FIGURE NUMBER HP=2
® STANDARD PENETROMETER file
EQUIPMENT
DIMENSION&TYPE QF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED
Hand Tools 2'X 2'X 3'Handpit 5-18-05
SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH
LOGGED BY
t 275'Mean Sea Level Not Encountered
JKH
FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND o
LL J W CLASSIFICATION W o o Z
LU ix
W o Z d
i� a DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS vi v r r o ' _; LL o
o (Grain size,De ) v 5 v~i g� ��- �'_ ~m z 9 z � W W
rutty,Masture,Color vi a— a z �"—' z z a �¢ o x
�O a Z
- ?0 O M R O 0 0 m 0 Z
SILTY SAND,with some rocks and SM
siltstone fragments. Loose. Dry to damp.
Tan-brown.
FILL(Qaf)
1 SILTY SAND,fine-to medium-grained, SM
with slight clay. Loose. Moist to wet.
Tan-gray and orange-brown.
FILL(Qaf)
2
r
17.5 111.0 138
27.8 99.4
3
Bottom @ 3'
4
5
o
0
t?
a
U'
w
a
a Z WATER TABLE NAME
Skyloft Slope Failure(Cavagnaro Residence)
® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION
IN-PLACE SAMPLE 1713 Gascony Road,Encinitas,CA
oDRIVE SAMPLE toe NUMBER BY LDR/JAC LOG No.
1 Q FIELD DENSITY TEST 05-8974
® STANDARD PENETROMETER k`. HP-3
Illf
EQUIPMENT
DIMENSION 8 TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED
Hand Tools 2'X 2'X 3'Handpit 5-18-05
SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH
LOGGED BY
f 270'Mean Sea Level Not Encountered
JKH
FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND
LL J CLASSIFICATION
w w °a w ° o ~ o
G- DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS !=m° + w
EL o (Grain siae,Density,Mashie,Color) a a z n co m ¢ �, z a i z 15 z� ?o oM �o In '� ° mo z
SILTY SAND/SANDY SILK with some clay, SM-
,V siltstone and sandstone fragments. Medium dense ML
(stiff).Damp.Tan-gray and frown.
A3
" FILL(Qaf)
n, a;
.c
a
2
�v
3
Bottom @ 3'
4
5
o
m
0
v
XJ
W
0
111
v
a
o Z WATER TABLE JOB NAME
Skyloft Slope Failure(Cavagnaro Residence)
LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION
a
Q IN-PLACE SAMPLE 1713 Gascony Road, Encinitas,CA
JOB
0
° DRIVE SAMPLE NUMBER REVIEWED BY LOG No.
o LDR/JAC
o Q FIELD DENSITY TEST 05-8974
FIGURE NUMBER Inc• HP-4
® STANDARD PENETROMETER Illg
EQUIPMENT
DIMENSION 8 TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED
Hand Tools 2'X 2'X 3'Handpit 5-1 8-05
SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH
LOGGED BY
1300'Mean Sea Level Not Encountered
JKH
FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND _
w CLASSIFICATION W o o ^ o
� w o F
LL o
im � DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS vi cwi cwi
o (Grain size.Density,Moisture,Cobr) ci g 5�, _�~ '- a 0 - _
z� zo a 0 w w p 00 Z
z ,8 SILTY SAND,fine-to medium-grained,with SM o ° °" ° m v
some roots, rock fragments and pebbles. Loose to
OL,
medium dense. Damp. Gray-brown.
ko FILL(Qaf)
SILTY SAND,fine-to medium-grained,with slight SM
clay binder. Medium dense. Damp to moist.
Red-brown.
FILL(Qaf)
2 Footing Depth:24 inches.
v 22.6 105.3
3
Bottom @ X
4
5
0
v
XJ
W
W
O
a
o Z WATER TABLE """�
Skyloft Slope Failure(Cavagnaro Residence)
® LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION
Q IN-PLACE SAMPLE 1713 Gascony Road, Encinitas,CA
v
oDRIVE SAMPLE JOB NUMBER REVIEwEO LDR/JAC LOG No.
Q FIELD DENSITY TEST 05-8974
® STANDARD PENETROMETER FIGURE NUMBER �� Eloratbn,lnc_ HP=5
Itlh l
135
130
125
Source of Material B-1 90 5.01
Description of Material Red-to gray-brown SILTY
120 SAND(SM)
Test Method ASTM D1557 Method A
115
TEST RESULTS
110 Maximum Dry Density 121.5 PCF
Optimum Water Content 12.5 %
C
CL
w 105 ATTERBERG LIMITS
0
o LL PL PI
100
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:
95 2.80
2.70
2.60
90
85
a
80
a
O
C7
0 75
N0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
„ WATER CONTENT,%
z
frP�
Geotechnkat MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Exploratlon. Inc. Figure Number: IVa
Job Name: Skyloft Slope Failure(Cavagnaro Residence)
jSite Location: 1713 Gascony Road, Encinitas, CA
Job Number: 05-8974
135
130
125
Source of Material H @ 2.0'
120 Description of Material Tan-gray and orange-brown
SILTY SAND(SM)
Test Method ASTM 01557 Method A
115
TEST RESULTS
110 Maximum Dry Density 111.0 PCF
CL
Optimum Water Content 17.5 %
CL
0 105 ATTERBERG LIMITS
° LL PL PI
100
Curves of 100%Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:
95 2.80
2.70
90 2.60
85
8
a
80
J
a
6
0
w
C7
75
q 0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
WATER CONTENT.%
o Geotechnical MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
ExPloration, Inc, Figure Number: lVb
a
Job Name: Skyloft Slope Failure(Cavagnaro Residence)
Site Location: 1713 Gascony Road, Encinitas, CA
Job Number: 05-8974
L
o
z : -
•_ r
0 �
Q �
-- u U- "0 '0
N o o0U >
h C I R 0 O
V) - O O
O vy � O � C ' Z
^ C 00
in U •- wUL -, m k a
c r
U3
0
` Q r
U& E �
CD v
a
m Q
c $. c
0
n
v
oUL Q
Lu
U o 6
.�
Uz =
F 0
ad
> O $ 0
= m
oc
3 s:
O
w
m
O
a JOB /J / C
m / 0
CL
o m
C �y„
C
ED
0
�r
`
oco°
C!Ym
`°E�ui pp
• c
cod
a
/ oonEDo
t u
V o E°o a
a a
b / ~p Q=°
._C
� z'aE om r
Q � O
yy
(IGAGI OGS UDGW enogo 49od) u04nne1
00 � c
—
Q U M
N �
W a � CQ � a°�'
C/) po0U o0
N N v, 0 P z
N O � c � Z
o - o
r
� a AM
Li O V r W -5
U
CL
I
� O
r
U
E
c
m
cc
° u
o c
N II —
cc L p
Q U o
U J o
b Q Z =
V O m
W $ �--
> O
I de
.. ----
0
m o 03
Y N — N
CL
o
O
O°
°Ecam
°Ec �
qvv o�
Poo A�°
v�oEp
o •a
ZO.Eom
O
Q 3 N
N N
(18A81 DOS UDBW BAOCgD Jam) 1 OtPA81
APPENDIX A
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Coarse-grained (More than half of material is larger than a No. 200 sieve)
GRAVELS, CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well-graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little
(More than half of coarse fraction or no fines.
is larger than No. 4 sieve size, but
smaller than 3") GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little
or no fines.
GRAVELS WITH FINES GC Clay gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures
(Appreciable amount)
SANDS, CLEAN SANDS SW Well-graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines
(More than half of coarse fraction
is smaller than a No. 4 sieve) SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.
SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures.
(Appreciable amount)
SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures.
Fine-grained (More than half of material is smaller than a No. 200 sieve)
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid Limit Less than 50 ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy
silt and clayey-silt sand mixtures with a slight
plasticity
CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly
clays, silty clays, clean clays.
OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity.
Liquid Limit Greater than 50 MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy
or silty soils, elastic silts.
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils
(rev. 6/05)
APPENDIX B
CO C2 Q � � in � q i0 61 Q P7
u Q o e u I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o
—Ln
0 0 � i r
C O7 N w
I
V I
—
C,
o -
c -
0
i
u `
C'3
i
i
0
r
N
Le!
r /
II % —
LL.
r r r —
O O O j
LA Lf9
eq
_o
a
u
O �
f / N
C
N
O
N _
/ u'1
_ e
9 N M tH _
O O H '
w to CL N tL 7 �
A �
E c _ g
E
p7 Ir'f N j
Vr CL
I
i —
V
m E �
� ro � p I � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
J � u. = eo o Cw* Q 3
Q ^ u n � CO °v F
C; C" feu I � IIII � IIII � IIII � iII o
o `
O o+ 0 c o
a
y
� V _
O
N7
O
CL
X
W
i
r
C
0
u
0
—o
f(
i�
o �
o
a
u
— o
` � A
j LL1 N
/ J
e
e
a
O � e
y r+ o O
{/ e
N m m C —
O O
w Ln O O i co
N r O O
a i
E e I —
a 't5 ° e°nN
c� CL« i
� V
O
a E �
u0 m IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillll Sw
u
0 0
Q 0�"+
m us
e Ln a w o I Q
P u Q a `
ca' c p I � IIII � IIII � IIil � lll
o° ` m �o u —Ln
O o e u
a e en i
v ,
—
w cn
` i,
o —
c —
�3 i
o r
u
C3 i�
0
r
LL —
X �
i'
i'
a
o
—o n
Ln N
a
i e
N
u —
aL 0 . o °
So
} $
.fl_N PN7 M pQ — �i CD ca ca
Ln, .7 c�
V N cn
p
-
E o OrocN
p L r- o
� r r r l
t�
� F
a E
u o " —o
€ � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � III
v
U, °a e°n
a Q Ln a ` {D Ln Q M
V � ti Q a O
C; o. I I l l l l l l l l l l l l t l
o+ v1 0
A u
u , —
c e
e
uj
0
a
V�
O —
A f
C —
f
u j
o
C7
0
f,
;i
/
/
/ N
u
e
O o
/ � N
C
/ O
0
V
IL N r O o l u1
8
'C N M M C —
CO
CL v-, N M
E , + —
a
E t6Tr°� ^ a
_ t
N
a o E #
u a = om Ln °v CM* �
m uul w eon
��
Q o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �Ln
u
D O
or-
0
V I r
!= N w I
a u
rn a I
V
e c –
c
o –
06
W
v ;
c –
0
u
Q
1' —
C:
II
LL
cv to
i
1'
r'
i�
/ N
A
+� O
M
C
u
_O �
j u7 y
i�
C
u
8
a eh en I _
fA �
.- cn e o H
fq t!! a IA
U to en $
a
E —
e
E
E fn CY 1
CL
C e e
Lu o 19 —o
'�° � � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIt g
u � �
CO C2 CO
O o e
Ln
of y o
a pa
�u
N ip
� U I
o
N /
co
IA
O —
S �
i;
/
O
/ —O
r
f
I
i —
0
ci f,
n /
LL —
X f
m
C
// 11
— LL
0
/ m
Y
� 0
GCI y
j C
u
9 M 9" _
go ca
O Ln y {j
V OW N m
A
E _ 3
E1 to� a
Ve CL ot r r
1
� 3
V
0d
� � �CCm tlllllllllllllllilll
� V
a e en LO coo ton °v a°n
V Q a p
mop a p� a Ck. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o
uo pa� �
C c u r
c o co o
t°n � 0
v
G O
C
O
co
Ln
XO¢ —
W
yC —
V
u
w
0
u
C7
0
_o
r
Lo
a
r
n
Ya
Y
_ �tt
f..1
O
Y
O
o R
-LO N
s
e
O
Y —
N O O O
N cc tW, c —
b �
N
V 0
06 r N en
A
q "-POY N
U
N
t. c 0 Ifl
€ � IIIIIIIIIIIIilllllll
� �° z M C2 Q
a 4 in � 4* f00 LOOS C* C,
C.1
C; 0 g Q� o� c a p
D c u
c o cn o
c .00
v
u � —
o
0
r �
o —
W
t�
C —
Y
w
O
u
C7
0
o
r
r —
O
lL9
r
II
LL
e
In
u
— tW
U
a
u
s
O a
LL7 y
s
e
0
O �
N o
u — g
N O O O i�
c
tV RS m _ $
'OO IOA N
V =ffi- N (n
a
E -
E -0 c. !� N
CL
r r r
v
c � E
� � � i IIII IIII IIII III
s � _ C US a
C O
up� e 0 o LCi o a e'a
om o = o I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l f o
� o
cc
r
0 0a rn o
v �a
c e
/
C, /.
r0 fn i
xO¢ —
8 � _
C
u %
C7
i
i
i
/ O
—O
r
�r
a
LO J
O
11 f"
U. �a _
X
e
6
i d
/ e
0
_L p
Lag y
t
O
N -
ta
r O O i
_ I
� N f °
n _ o
C
V N r.N A � 7
A
A vlm r r
c 1 —
C7 c
f� m
u
p —O
m9 � a IlltiIllllIlllllllll
cc
O O R O
ea tea e'a
O O O O
�Q r- p 10 !17 Q {*7
C O CA w
o V
�
' V I
C
C
w cn /.
40
r
Oq —
X �
W
a /
u
o '
C7
i'
m f
o j o
o /j —o
n
i —
m
a
p
l a
f �
/ O
LC1 y°
t' O O
p8
O
I co
DD r 0
O in :I
V CL r N m u
aim CY 1
^
M 1
r
e e f m
o �
°
to tn c° m a
0 0 0 0
4 ^ LQn of ao n 0 61
0 u vT a
wo
a` 3 � ae
O c u e
c fn
A a 0
.0 u
C/1 �
� U
e3
G O
C
O
CA
_Oa —
X
W
8
C _
v
u
0
u
C7
0
—CO
0
ul
0
n —
X
i
0
N
- LL
u
a
_O p
0 w
s
o /
8
N � _
w
g � a o 0
CY 1ci fl M et°•i o _
CL
b �
U O N f�rf N
A �+
E �c _
pv di C9 N C
G7 C, w �•
M
_ w E g
a a
u o
m Cc as
0Ln gym _°o i i t i i i i t i i i i i t o
0
O e u r
cm o
a ►-
1 V
e o —
e
0
cn
a
o _
W
A
w
c
s —
w
0
u
C7
N —0
N r
N
ti
X _
N
N
N
11
D
O
Y
-
ul R
{� H
0 m
N a
fV _
8
LO) Nteietnn fC
_ S�
J
V N N e La
co 0
O
E _
A N m
— r
V
� 6 M
_ c C
O o o O
m ul Q m
o o CA o r d o
Co C
71 Cq.
3 n
� d
caooae
QI N co
9a O O C y
Ln
�s N
a
F
O
O
n
°e
T —
q
in
A
O
J �
Q�
0 0
LJ
n
w
A
m
— o
o
-3 0
S'+
A i
S t/)
� d C
cl o
z �
n cc
co
0 0 0 0