The URL can be used to link to this page

2007-493 G (2) y City gENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering July 15, 2008 Attn: Union Bank of California 247 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Brian Bagley 201 N. Vulcan Avenue APN 256-400-68 and 69 Grading Permit 493-GI Final release of security Permit 493-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, 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# 2889025157 the amount of$ 7,913.15 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. Sincerely, Debra Geishart y Le bach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Brian Bagley Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 �� recycled paper ENGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT T yy city Of Capital Improvement Projects Encinitas District Support Services Field Operations Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering July 15, 2008 Attn: Lincoln General Insurance Company 3350 Whiteford Road P.O. Box 3709 York, PA 17402-0136 RE: Brian Bagley 201 N. Vulcan Avenue APN 256-400-68 and 69 Grading Permit 493-GI Final release of security Permit 493-G authorized earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the grading and finaled the project. Therefore, release of the remaining security deposit is merited. Performance Bond 661121159, in the amount of$ 126,610.40, is hereby fully exonerated. The document original is enclosed. Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633- 2779 or in writing, attention this Department. Sincerely, 7 Debra Geisha y bach Engineering Technician Finance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services Cc: Jay Lembach,FinanceManager Brian Bagley Debra Geishart File Enc. TEL 760-633-2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 �sp� recycled paper City oNGINEERING SER VICES DEPARTMENT Encinitas Capital Improvement Projects District Support Services Field Operations Sand Rep lenishment/Stormwater Compliance Subdivision Engineering Traffic Engineering June 11, 2008 Attn: Union Bank of California 247 N. El Camino Real Encinitas, California 92024 RE: Brian Bagley 201 N. Vulcan Avenue APN 256-400-68 and 69 Grading Permit 493-GI Partial release of security Permit 493-GI authorized earthwork, private drainage improvements, and erosion control, all as necessary to build described project. The Field Inspector has approved rough grade. Therefore, release of the 75%portion of the 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# 2889025348 in the amount of$ 23,739.45. 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. t Sincerely, Debra Geishart L bach Engineering Technician inance Manager Subdivision Engineering Financial Services CC: Jay Lembach, Finance Manager Brian Bagley Debra Geishart File Enc. -2600 / FAX 760-633-2627 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 �� recycled paper l.. 1 1 1 V r Li LV \11 _L LV _L 1 h 0 ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 505 S . VULCAN AVE. ENCINITAS, CA 92024 GRADING PERMIT PERMIT NO,. : 493GI PARCEL NO. 256-400-6800 PLAN NO. 493- JOB SITE ADDRESS : 201 N. VULCAN AVENUE CASE NO. . 9 / CDP APPLICANT NAME BRYAN BAGLEY MAILING ADDRESS : 1702 DORA DRIVE PHONE NO. : 760-505-8360 CITY: CARDIFF STATE: CA ZIP: 92007- CONTRACTOR : CHARLES PINKEL PHONE NO. : 619-572-4377 LICENSE NO. : 547581 LICENSE TYPE- B ENGINEER : BHA, INC. PHONE PERMIT ISSUE DATE: 8/27/07 PERMIT EXP. DATE: 8/27/08 PERMIT ISSUED BY: INSPECTOR: TODD BAUMBACH ------------------------- PERMIT FEES & DEPOSITS ---------------------------- 1 . PERMIT FEE . 00 2 . GIS MAP FEE . 00 3 . INSPECTION FEE 6, 474 . 00 4 . INSPECTION DEPOSIT: . 00 5 . NPDES INSPT FEE 1, 349 . 00 6 . SECURITY DEPOSIT 158, 263 . 00 7 . FLOOD CONTROL FEE 318 . 00 8 . TRAFFIC FEE . 00 9 . IN-LIEU UNDERGRND . 00 10 . IN-LIEU IMPROVMT . 00 ll . PLAN CHECK FEE . 00 12 . PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT:, . 00 1=22 -- - - - - DESCRIPTION OF WORK ------------------------ ------- / 'EE PERFORMANCE AND LABOR AND MATERIALS FOR EARTHWORK, l'e l eCC,Se- a ff IMPROVEMENTS, AND EROSION CONTROL PER APPROVED PLAN MUST OBTAIN A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR ALL WORK DONE IN ! OF WAY. CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN TRAFFIC CONTROL AT ALL �D TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN OR W.A.T.CH. STD. AUG 9, 07 . ---- INSPECTION ---------------- DA E DATE -------- INSPECTOR' S SIGNATURE ---- / INITIAL INSPECTION 8!Z c'/© COMPACTION REPORT RECEIVED 2/2-0/07 ENGINEER CERT. RECEIVED f1 / O QGL-� ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION 4_1110 7 FINAL INSPECTION 9 O ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------- I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THE APPLICATION AND STATE THAT THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAWS REGULATING EXCAVATING AND GRADING, AND THE PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS OF VSATURE RMIT UED PURSUANT TO THIS APPLICATION. DATE SIGNED Eg YAO-i -7 go- PRINT NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER CIRCLE ONE: 1 . OWNER 2 . AGENT 3 . OTHER ____ CITY OF ENCINITAS — ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: � fJ AIa S i SczfsS a G,edV Inl6 & •TLI� ��f r /� S c/.2�E�rnfc. /S �M!� ir�1 '/�i'L�� cj 1-6-107 eUn�rE ViSI'T- i1/hE GUS yc DC`u A1 0 zii�/& c:AciSu��L n' ,^l U?�° �'.-LcS r c�'J Cc�•-r/T�-c�:-- �t�4Su,2�S .i /''_�tr ?� �i2 = /S' A- S C kieyu Le-" 911VIO7 -?1-&V1XZ 9�/ �7 ��G-� C=7^ICS �s UG Ic'�-T�4,r�./vc� G�•' S i' c, 07 r�SPezg2q /jV-77 X,-S FD9- &JAS 6Wr Z M4tlt L'�r.-15`T< .Q �'�'� "i�t .5✓ `t'�C y ,iJ-�a y :�_ �U�Li� 10111/o7 /67- e "c-7- �%, , _ fans /0 3J 0 7 G rC • /3 u/ s./� 1t ice• �G,Cm vv-1�1 rrl .C�o z-,'vo vS � toc n cyy :5 'Aic 40.v �G i. %rrrj/►;2� �-�-,-tou r7< v lS� crct At c- ��A ;� S r 7�• ,�i Scc E3� C fc1 r titer - - /,21��ti J t.-m�t7�• �� rT Du t i..t� �'� � r4C-�4� G i%�'T�'l j4-�p�f�� `T-•C• C�r� �» L= Fiy. ✓ C'tL C7tJ17L7� /�t�rr' L2��9T ' rY� F, C�G Cos' AT /,A) rr� �✓�!�-� �u ,z m14429 nL;At:ed a �►, u> l' �y cLC� Esc CITY OF ENCINITAS - ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: STREET LOCATION: PERMIT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR: TELEPHONE: Z_ 43 U e � q;.p. Cre 17 f .S/zv &,-I A! Brett-5e ef:Arl-P ,Tb _ `Adt� C'N siG� �AL/ A& f-CS(,h P lvl - P l e'er" v'wr- . ^^ ��i.��, (r/".4o(4 c• � �,(l�2_ �-_��y�pn k� l"l�t 1A-) ��7 Pot— V� k-rc M • �lt�ITFO 5 i-M7 � �r'YIE� I�-L►�t-�� Kwi �C A AU Veal 611 Itc' COIF Via.^fsc \hm _ l�D, -Tas �'``�``3 T°� �� istxn-ems��D U toy C� WAS ��Pte+J'�+il t7r�L-.►"� 1114" ALA:%,/ bE�:7NA �y`.�j"(,�►t.�:T 1,tNE� A- -5 rn tee r! �-+►1 f no 0 41�- --SAW CUR t-i rV E 'TG e,-q-t SIG-C O L'_, -Tv�,►42poseF -- ,> - � (0/6/ 00 .� !-�ftsh 3`rizc E7Z-, SL"ol r_ p-, who 1S Svc,( iANJ' vJ C=AL C12 S,rr;7 D a erpL rcc tau!-i t rt_— c o � t,rluG k7` N l"-IT r (p 211 op Great 1.1 i2,o•Lj , rs° Z-,/o . eau-��/ �r�� (� ►�d i'ct z be v z . r Q c oaf Z� . U }L. - j �icA e , 7 f3 0 D lt, ft �f� 7a Sv�i� - �3TL�E' CL.-s�/r�-f7. -�c✓JPi'�E f /��L�� E-c�lt.�.�� ' m14429 bhA, Inc, ROD BRADLEY, Urban Planner land planning, civil engineering, surveying RONALD L. HOLLOWAY, Civil Engineer July 8, 2008 W.O. 838-1125-600 Engineering Services Permits JUL 3 2003 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 South Vulcan Avenue _.. Encinitas, CA 92024 RE: ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION FOR GRADING PERMIT NUMBER 493-G The grading under Permit Number 493-G has been performed in substantial conformance with the approved Grading Plan or as shown on the attached"As Graded" Plan. Final grading inspection has demonstrated that lot drainage conforms with the approved Grading Plan and that swales drain at a minimum of 1% to the street and/or an appropriate drainage system. All the Low Impact Development,Source Control and Treatment Control Best Management Practices as shown on the drawing and required by the Best Management Practice Manual Part II were constructed and are operational. , a9 � b , Engineer of Record:-�,/, ° ichael H. h bhA, Inc. 4 V Dated: July 8, 2008 ' ° �" y Verification by the Engineering Inspector of this fact is done by the Inspector's signature hereon and will take place only after the above is signed and stamped and will not relieve the Engineer of Record of the ultimate responsibility: Engineering Ins ector: Dated: Q v— 7 pad-cert.ltr 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L - Carlsbad, California 92008-4387 (760) 931-8700 FAX (760) 931-7780 9k / - 9 C,om Soil and Foundation Engineers 4350 PALM AVENUE, SUITE 25 LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91941 Phone: (619) 462-9861 Fax: (619) 462-9859 September 5, 2007 job No. 06-5213 TO: Bryan Bagley Construction 1702 Dora Drive Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007 SUBJECT: Retaining Wall Recommendations Existing Accessory Building (Remainder Structure) Proposed Two-Lot Residential Development 201 N. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA REFERENCE: Report Of Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Tzm Residential Lots, 201 N. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, CA, by C.W. La Monte Company, Inc., dated September 18, 2006 In accordance with your request and the request of the City of Encinitas, we are providing this letter to discuss retaining reconstruction. It is our understanding the existing masonry retaining wall located along the east property line will be removed and replaced. The replacement wall will not exceed 5 feet in height. The typical on site materials consist of slightly silty sand materials (SM-SP). This material type is optimal for retaining wall construction. Therefore, standard regional retaining wall details are appropriate for the project and in our opinion may be used in lieu of engineered details. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, "% Exp. x E Ex Ex Ex C.W. La Monte Company Inc. 12/31/07 _J 12131 7 NMI C 11 NO. 40 ni Z Clif W. La Monte, C vot C C R.C.E. 25241, G.E. 0495 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC REPORT BAGLEY - 201 NORTH VULCAN AVENUE City of Encinitas DWG No. 439-G 4L E � tart Prepared for: i icEs Bryan Bagley 1702 Dora Drive Cardiff, CA 92007 Prepared by: bhA, Inc. land planning, civil engineering, surveying 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L Carlsbad, CA 92008-4387 (760) 931-8700 or March 27, 2007 Revised on May 03, 2007 CA�i1 `� W.O. 838-1125-600/AH TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Discussion Purpose and Scope Project Description Study Method Conclusions II. Calculations Existing Hydrology Proposed Hydrology III. Exhibits Location Map Existing Hydrology Map Developed Hydrology Map IV. References I. DISCUSSION PURPOSE AND SCOPE: The purpose of this report is to publish the results of hydrology and hydraulic computer analysis for the proposed Bagley - 201 North Vulcan Avenue, DWG No. 493-G. The scope is to study the existing and developed hydrology and hydraulics as it influences existing storm drain facilities in the vicinity during a 100-year frequency storm event. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Bagley - 201 North Vulcan Avenue is located in the City of Encinitas APN (256-400-69), east of North Vulcan Avenue, between Orpheus Street and the intersection of North Vulcan Avenue and Sunset Drive. The Proposed Bagley - 201 North Vulcan Avenue consists of construction of two single family residential on 0.43 gross acres. Existing Condition In the existing condition, approximately 49% of the property site is impervious. Off side runoff entering the property from the east, the run off from the site sheet flows in the east- westerly direction to the North Vulcan Avenue. Proposed Condition The proposed condition consists of construction of two single family residential and a driveway, approximately %56 of the property is impervious. Proposed drainage respects the existing drainage pattern, the off site runoff is captured by a ditch running along the easterly boundary and is conveyed by a 6-inch pipe to the North Vulcan Avenue. The runoff from the site is captured by two grassy swales, one running along the westerly boundary and the other one running along the driveway, and is released to the North Vulcan Avenue. STUDY METHOD: The method of analysis was based on the Rational Method according to the San Diego County Hydrology Manual. The Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis were done on Hydro Soft by Advanced Engineering Software. Drainage basin areas were determined from the topography and proposed grades shown on the Grading Plan. The Rational Method provided the following variable coefficients: Soil group A will be used for a composite runoff coefficient for the existing and proposed hydrology analyses. Runoff coefficient of 0.55 (49% Impervious) will be used for the existing hydrology calculation and a runoff coefficient of 0.60(56%Impervious)will be used for proposed hydrology calculation. This runoff coefficient reflects a composite value of landscaping,roof and street runoff per County of San Diego Hydrology Manual County. Initial time of concentration for rural residential land use is based on Appendix X-C (Urban Areas Overland Time of Flow Curves). Rainfall Intensity = I = 7.44x(P6)x(Tc)^0.645 P6 for 100 year storm =2.4 Table 1.1 - Com arison of Existing and Developed Peak Flow Rate EXISTING PROPOSED Basin (NODE/ACRES/CFS) (NODE/ACRES/CFS) 1 40/0.96/1.72 100/0.95/1.77 CONCLUSION: The development of Bagley - 201 North Vulcan Avenue will increase the basin's runoff by insignificant amount of 0.05 cfs. However, this increase in peak runoff is negligible and will not have any harmful affect to the downstream drainage system at North Vulcan Avenue. II. CALCULATIONS II. CALCULATIONS A. EXISTING HYDROLOGY **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003, 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2005 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 2.0 Release Date: 06/01/2005 License ID 1459 Analysis prepared by: Bha, Inc. 5115 Avenida Encinas Suite L Carlsbad, CA 92008 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 100 YEAR EXISTING HYDROLOGY * BAGLEY ENCINITAS * 838-1125-600 ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: EX931.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:02 03/26/2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2. 400 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 4 .00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR - NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0. 67 2.00 0.0313 0. 167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2 . (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE. * **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< RESIDENTIAL (1. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .2700 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 45 i INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 125.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 110.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 15.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN. ) = 6.935 WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.120 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.33 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.33 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 110.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 94 .00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 110.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.1455 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 3.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.035 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4 .793 RESIDENTIAL (1 . DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .2700 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 45 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.52 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 2. 45 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.06 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.75 Tc (MIN. ) = 7. 68 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.29 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.38 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.270 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0. 53 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0. 69 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.07 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 2.77 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 30.00 = 210.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 40.00 IS CODE = 51 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< »»>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ------------------------------------ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 94 .00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 75.00 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 200.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0950 CHANNEL BASE (FEET) = 3.00 "Z" FACTOR = 5.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.539 RESIDENTAAL (14 .5 DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 69 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 1.22 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 4 . 93 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.07 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0. 68 Tc (MIN. ) = 8 .36 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0. 43 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.07 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.395 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0. 96 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.72 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.09 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 5. 64 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 40.00 = 410.00 FEET. END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0. 96 TC(MIN. ) = 8.36 PEAK FLOW RATE (CFS) = 1.72 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS II. CALCULATIONS B. PROPOSED HYDROLOGY **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2003, 1985, 1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2005 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) Ver. 2.0 Release Date: 06/01/2005 License ID 1459 Analysis prepared by: Bha, Inc. 5115 Avenida Encinas Suite L Carlsbad, CA 92008 =❑E I],--❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑Ell❑❑❑E❑❑__�❑❑❑❑❑Ell❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑1111❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑EL,❑❑0❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑1111❑ ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * * 100 year proposed hydrology * * bagley encinitas * * 838-1125-600 ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: PR931.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 09:32 03/27/2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------ USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT (YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2. 400 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE (INCH) = 4 .00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS (DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0. 90 SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: USE MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD PROCEDURES FOR CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR - NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0. 67 2.00 0.0313 0. 167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top-of-Curb) 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ---------------------------------- RESIDENTIAL (1. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .2700 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 45 t INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 125.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 110.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 15.00 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN. ) = 6.935 WARNING: THE MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW SLOPE, 10.%, IS USED IN Tc CALCULATION! 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5. 120 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.33 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0. 33 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 110.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 89.40 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 60.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.3433 CHANNEL BASE (FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 3.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.035 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 °-- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.027 RESIDENTIAL (1 . DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .2700 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 45 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.53 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 4 . 99 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0. 19 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.20 Tc (MIN. ) = 7 . 14 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.29 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.39 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.270 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.53 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.72 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH (FEET) = 0.21 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 5. 40 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 30.00 = 160.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 31 -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 89.40 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 74 .80 FLOW LENGTH (FEET) = 190.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 3.0 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 7 .46 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.72 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0.42 Tc(MIN. ) = 7 .56 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 350.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<<<< FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 50.00 IS CODE = 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : RESIDENTIAL (1. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 45 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 90.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 93.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 84 .20 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 8 .80 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN. ) = 3. 993 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.323 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.23 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.23 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50.00 TO NODE 50.10 IS CODE = 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 84 .20 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 84 .00 FLOW LENGTH (FEET) = 17 .00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 2. 6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 2.74 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.23 PIPE TRAVEL TIME (MIN. ) = 0. 10 Tc(MIN. ) = 4 .10 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 50.10 = 107.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50. 10 TO NODE 60.00 IS CODE = 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 84 .00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) 83.73 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 22.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.0 INCH PIPE IS 2. 6 INCHES PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 2. 81 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.23 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0. 13 Tc(MIN. ) = 4 .23 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 60.00 = 129.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 50. 10 TO NODE 60.00 IS CODE = 81 ------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.323 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : "'° RESIDENTIAL (1. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 45 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0.6000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.01 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.04 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.07 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.27 TC(MIN. ) = 4 .23 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 70.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------=------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)<<<<< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 83.73 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 77.50 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 60.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0. 1038 CHANNEL BASE (FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 10.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00 CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 0.27 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 4 .04 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.08 TRAVEL TIME (MIN. ) = 0.25 Tc(MIN. ) = 4 .47 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 70.00 = 189.00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 60.00 TO NODE 70.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.323 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : RESIDENTIAL (1. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 45 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0. 6000 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0. 16 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0. 61 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.23 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.87 TC(MIN. ) = 4 . 47 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 70.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 77 .50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 74. 90 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 72.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0361 CHANNEL BASE (FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 3.000 - MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.035 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.323 NOTE: RAINFALL INTENSITY IS BASED ON Tc = 5-MINUTE. *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : RESIDENTIAL (1. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 45 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0. 99 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 2.49 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH (FEET) = 0.36 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 0. 48 Tc (MIN. ) = 4 . 96 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.06 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.23 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0. 600 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.29 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1. 10 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH(FEET) = 0.38 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 2.56 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 261.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN. ) = 4 . 96 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.32 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.29 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1. 10 **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 80.00 TO NODE 90.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : RESIDENTIAL (1. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 45 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH (FEET) = 69.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 77.80 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 77.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 0.80 SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MIN. ) = 7. 116 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.036 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0. 15 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.05 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.15 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 90.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL FLOW<<<<< >>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA (EXISTING ELEMENT)««< ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET) = 77.00 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 74.90 CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 120.00 CHANNEL SLOPE = 0.0175 CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 0.00 "Z" FACTOR = 3.000 MANNING'S FACTOR = 0.035 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 0.50 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4 . 467 *USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA) : RESIDENTIAL (1. DU/AC OR LESS) RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = . 6000 S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 45 TRAVEL TIME COMPUTED USING ESTIMATED FLOW(CFS) = 0.26 TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA BASED ON VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 1.38 AVERAGE FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = 0.25 TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 1.45 Tc (MIN. ) = 8.57 SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 0.08 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 0.21 AREA-AVERAGE RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 0. 600 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0. 13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0.34 END OF SUBAREA CHANNEL FLOW HYDRAULICS: DEPTH (FEET) = 0.28 FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. ) = 1 .46 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 80.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 189.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 1 ---------7------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<< >>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<< TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN. ) = 8.57 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4 .47 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0. 13 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 0.34 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN. ) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 1. 10 4 .96 6.323 0.29 2 0. 34 8.57 4 .467 0. 13 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY NUMBER (CFS) (MIN. ) (INCH/HOUR) 1 1.30 4 . 96 6.323 2 1. 12 8 .57 4 .467 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.30 Tc(MIN. ) = 4 . 96 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.42 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 261.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 100.00 IS CODE = 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<< ** MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN. ) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 1. 30 4 .96 6.323 0.42 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 40.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 261.00 FEET. ** MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA NUMBER (CFS) (MIN. ) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE) 1 0.72 7 .56 4 .843 0.53 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 100.00 = 350.00 FEET. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY n NUMBER (CFS) (MIN. ) (INCH/HOUR) 1 1.77 4 .96 6. 323 2 1.71 7 .56 4 .843 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.77 Tc (MIN. ) = 4 . 96 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0. 95 END OF STUDY SUMMARY: TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0. 95 TC(MIN. ) = 4 .96 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 1.77 , END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS III. EXHIBITS LOCATION MAP z LG � 'sue 1 y� zG site ' S OCEAN ENC/Nl TA BL VD. M J � D L Z D Z G m VI CI N l T Y MAP #1148-B5 NOT TO SCALE EXISTING HYDROLOGY MAP W Ch 2� U y N I O W O Z - E-+ En f-4 cn I � I � I wI ------- --- -1- -_ --- --1_;_ --------- NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText _ San Diego County Hydrology Manual Section: 3 Date: June 2003 Page: 12 of 26 Note that the Initial Time of Concentration should be reflective of the general land-use at the upstream end of a drainage basin. A single lot with an area of two or less acres does not have a significant effect where the drainage basin area is 20 to 600 acres. Table 3-2 provides limits of the length (Maximum Length (Lm)) of sheet flow to be used in hydrology studies. Initial T; values based on average C values for the Land Use Element are also included. These values can be used in planning and design applications as described below. Exceptions may be approved by the "Regulating Agency" when submitted with a detailed study. Table 3-2 MAXIMUM OVERLAND FLOW LENGTH (Lm) & INITIAL TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Ti) Element* DU/ .5% 1%, 2% 3% 5% 10% Acre LNt Ti LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti LM Ti Natural 50 13.2 70 12.5 85 10.9 100 10.3 100 8.7 100 6.9 LDR 1 50 12.2 70 11.5 85 10.0 100 9.5 100 8.0 100 6.4 LDR 2 50 11.3 70 10.5 85 9.2 100 8.8 100 7.4 100 5.8 LDR 2.9 50 10.7 70 10.0 85 8.8 95 8.1 100 7.0 100 5.6 MDR 4.3 50 10.2 70 9.6 80 8.1 95 7.8 100 6.7 100 5.3 MDR 7.3 50 1 9.2 65 8.4 80 7.4 95 7.0 100 6.0 100 4.8 MDR 10.9 50 1 8.7 65 7.9 80 6.9 90 6.41 100 5.7 100 4.5 MDR 14.5 50 8.2 65 7.4 80 6.5 90 6.0 100 5.4 100 4.3 HDR 24 50 6.7 65 6.1 75 5.1 90 4.9 95 4.3 100 3.5 HDR 43 50 5.3 65 4.7 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 100 2.7 - N. Corn 50 1 5.3 60 4.5 75 4.0 85 3.8 95 3.4 100 2.7 G. Corn 50 1 4.7 60 4.1 75 3.6 85 3.4 90 2.9 AOO O.P./Corn 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.1 80 2.9 90 2.6 Limited I. 50 4.2 60 3.7 70 3.1 80 2.9 90 2.6 General I. 50 3.7 60 3.2 70 2.7 80 2.6 90 2.3 *See Table 3-1 for more detailed description -12 EQUATION:V 1.49 R26 Stn 0.3 1,0 40 .0,2 0.3 G 0.15 i �30 0.01 0.4 0.10 0.09 0.08 F 0.5 20 0.07 0.06 0.6 0.05 0. 0.04 0.8 0.02 0.9 0.03 1.0 OOS 10 t > 9 0.02 \ /� 8 0.03 N C \ / 0 7 N cn a`) 6 0 0.04 a CL U 0.01 p 2 / 5 0.008 w 0.009 Pj \Lo 0.05 LLI c U / \ } t Cl-l 0.007 ? 4 () 0.06 O 0.006 3/ \O O 0.005 0.07 LU 3 0.004�p0�3/ _ 0.08 , j 4 0.09 0003 0.10 0.002 5 2 6 7 8 0.001 9 0.0009 10 1.0 0.2 0.0008 0.0007 0.9 0.0006 70.8 0.0005 0.7 0.3 0.0004 0.6 0.0003 20 0.5 0.4 GENERAL SOLUTION SOURCE:USDOT,FHWA,-HDS-3(1961) F I G U R E - Manning's Equation Nomograph 3_7 Watershed Divide r • Design Point L Watershed Divide Area "A" Area"B" • �E Design Point Effective Slope Line (Watershed Outlet) Stream Profile L Area"A"=Area"B" SOURCE:California Division of Highways(1941)and Kirpich(1940) F I G U R E Computation of Effective Slope for Natural Watersheds 3-5 EQUATION 0 E 1_1.9_L3 0.385 _ Feet Tc ( QE 5000 Tc = Time of concentration(hours) L = Watercourse Distance(miles) 4000 AE = Change in elevation along effective slope line(See Figure 3-5)(feet) 3000 Tc Hours Minutes 2000 4 240 3 180 1000 900 2 120 800 WO 100 600 90 \ 500\ 80 \ 70 400 \ 60 30D \ 50 \ 2DD \ 40 \ L \\ Miles Feet 30 \ 1 1oa \ 4,000 20 \ 18 3000 16 so 0.5 \\ 14 2000 \\ 12 40 1800 \ 1600 \ 10 30 1400 \ 9 1200 8 20 1000 7 900 800 6 700 600 5 10 500 4 400 3 300 5 200 AE SOURCE:California Division of Highways(1941)and Kirpich(1940) F I (s Li R E -- Nomograph for Determination of Wa _� Time of Concentration (Tc) or Travel Time(Tt)for Natural tersheds 74 �'A A m Xux. '•'r +i `+- to - .6 .p r s �''• 0.�` 7 C.. •' - 1 K u t� —E \k& k t I-SbC k- ica" n A itoc tD2 Cfe 40 Cb0l, *r4 eE -CbJ3' cso-,;, ff Csc F. CbC' IV c s vt j7, --tt> ;b, ".Kfv. qpc r CbD We CbB CcE,;A LvFJ s 6 V6 71, Ti cqfc�� • gc % "B r c 'Cr Cfa Cs C. W. La Monte Company Inc., Soil and Foundation Engineers REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Two Residential Lots - 201 N. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA - JOB NO. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 vo - Prepared for: Bryan Bagley Construction 1702 Dora Drive Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007 La Mess n it r�� a t.;� �^•-, � -. � �„ �- ; /� f�+a C. p Inc. Soil and Foundation Engineers 4350 PALM AVENUE, SUITE 25 LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91941 Phone: (619) 462-9861 Fax: (619) 462-9859 September 18, 2006 Job No. 06-5213 TO: Bryan Bagley Construction 1702 Dora Drive Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007 SUBJECT: REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Two Residential Lots 201 N. Vulcan Avenue u Encinitas, CA In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential development. We are presenting herein our findings and recommendations. In general, we found the site suitable for the proposed project provided that the recommendations contained herein are adhered to. The ~4 property is underlain with competent sedimentary terrace deposits with associated loose surficial topsoils and localized undocumented fills. These loose surficial materials require removal and/or recompaction during future grading operations. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, C.W. La Monte Company, Inc. E �'Y�� 12/3ll Exp. 12/3 1/07 MRt+ "J -J No. 4955 " as v �a CIU. O F (rF C!►1.�� 25241, G.L. 049: TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECTDESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................5 SCOPEOF WORK............................................................................................................6 FINDINGS......................................................................................................................... SiteDescription.................................................................................................................7 Description of Site Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions....................................7 GroundWater...................................................................................................................8 TECTONICSETTING......................................................................................................8 SEISMICDESIGN PARAMETERS................................................................................9 Uniform Building Code Design Information...............................................................9 Maximum Bedrock Acceleration...................................................................................9 GEOLOGICHAZARDS................................................................................................10 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................11 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................11 EarthWork and Grading...............................................................................................11 General......................................................................................................................11 FillSuitability...........................................................................................................12 Observationof Grading..........................................................................................12 SitePreparation........................................................................................................12 Compaction and Method of Filling.......................................................................13 Excavation Characteristics .....................................................................................13 TransitionConditions.............................................................................................13 FillSlope Construction ...........................................................................................14 TemporaryCut Slopes...................................................................................................14 SurfaceDrainage......................................................................................................14 ErosionControl........................................................................................................15 GradingPlans Review ............................................................................................15 FOUNDATIONS............................................................................................................15 General......................................................................................................................15 Dimensionsand Embedment.................................................................................15 SoilBearing Value ...................................................................................................16 LateralLoad Resistance..........................................................................................16 Foundation Reinforcement.....................................................................................16 AnticipatedSettlements..........................................................................................16 Foundations Setback from Top of Slopes.............................................................17 - Foundation Excavation Observation .................................................................... FoundationPlans Review.......................................................................................17 CONCRETESLABS-ON-GRADE................................................................................17 InteriorFloor Slabs..................................................................................................17 MoistureProtection.................................................................................................18 InteriorSlab Curing Time.......................................................................................18 Exterior Concrete Flatwork....................................................................................18 DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES....................18 FIELDINVESTIGATION..............................................................................................19 LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION...............................................19 CONSTRUCTIONNOTES............................................................................................20 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................20 TABLES Table I Seismic Design Parameters Page 9 Table II Foundation Embedment Page 16 ATTACHMENTS FIGURES Figure No.1 Site Location Map Figure No.2 Plot Plan Figure No.3a-3b Excavation Logs APPENDICES Appendix"A"-Standard Grading Specifications Appendix"B"-Unified Soil Classification Chart REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Two Residential Lots 201 N. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, CA PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed residential project. The project consists of the development of property located at 201 N. Vulcan Avenue in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, California. Figure Number 1 (attached) provides a vicinity map showing the location of the property. In general, the purpose of our investigation was to provide the foundation and grading recommendations for the proposed residential construction. The property is currently improved with three residential buildings, which will be _. removed. It is our understanding the property will be split into two lots and a new single-family residence will be constructed on each lot. The new structures will be maximum two-stories in height and will be of typical wood frame construction. It is intended to place the structure on conventional shallow spread footings with slab- on-grade floor. Proposed cuts and fills for the building pads will be less than 5 feet. A retaining wall, approximately 6 feet in maximum height, will be placed at the common boundary between the two lots. To aid in the preparation of this report, we were provided with a preliminary grading plan sketch, prepared by BHA, Inc. This plan was used as the basis for our Site Plan preparation and mapping and is included herewith as Figure Number 2. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the stated client and their design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be changed in any way, the modified plans should be submitted to C.W. La Monte Company, Inc. for review to determine their conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation, laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, expressed or implied. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of this investigation was limited to: surface reconnaissance, research of readily available geological literature pertinent to the site, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geotechnical analysis of the field and laboratory data and preparation of this report. More specifically, the intent of this investigation was to: Identify the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed grading and construction. • Based on laboratory testing and our experience with similar sites in the area, identify the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed construction, including the allowable soil bearing pressures, expansive characteristics and settlement potential. Describe the general geology of the site including possible geologic factors that could have an effect on the site development, and provide seismic design parameters established in the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (Tables 16-J, Q, R, S, T and U). • Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions, and/or groundwater, and provide recommendations concerning these problems. • Develop soil engineering criteria for site grading. Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the type of structure anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation designs. • Provide design criteria for the design of earth retaining walls. • Present our opinions in this written report, which includes in addition to our findings and recommendations, a site plan showing the location of our subsurface explorations, logs of the test trenches and a summary of our laboratory test results. We did not evaluate the site for hazardous materials contamination. Further, we did not perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on-site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on-grade concrete and below grade improvements. Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 6 FINDINGS Site Description The project site consists of a rectangular-shaped parcel of land that is located on the east side of North Vulcan Avenue in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, California. The property is further bounded on the north, south, and east by existing residential development. A legal description of the property is A.P.N. 256-400-69. The property is approximately 100 feet wide and about 190 feet deep. The site is improved with three, one-story residential buildings. Exterior improvements include asphalt paved driveways, concrete sidewalk and patios slabs, and railroad tie retaining walls. Vegetation consists primarily of a light to moderate growth of grass and weeds, landscape shrubs and several trees. The property consists of terrain sloping gently to moderately to the west. According to the provided grading plan sketch, elevations approximately range from a low of about 75 feet (MSL) at the northwest corner of the property to a high of about 95 feet (MSL) at the southeast corner of the lot. Description of Site Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County. According to the Geology of the Northu)estern Part of San Diego County, California (Kennedy 1996), the site is underlain with Quaternary-aged terrace deposits with associated topsoils and localized fill materials. These encountered soil types are described individually below in order of increasing age, also refer to the attached Test Excavation Logs, Figure 3a-3b attached. Artificial Fill: Undocumented fill soils form the building for the existing residential structures. The estimated location of the fills is shown on the attached Plot Plan, Figure 2. The fills are wedge shaped in section and range to an approximate maximum thickness of 5 feet. The fills consist primarily of brown to dark brown, loose to medium dense, silty sand. Topsoil: The site is overlain with a veneer of natural ground topsoil materials ranging from about 2.5 to 4 feet in thickness. The topsoils consist primarily of da,�rk brown, loose to medium dense, silty fine- to medium-grained sands. T11Pr r. . 1.i.,�- Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 7 Terrace Deposits (Qt): The topsoils are underlain with competent marine terrace deposits. Typically, the encountered formation consists of orange- brown to red brown, medium dense to dense, silty, and fine- to medium- grained sand. Ground Water No groundwater was encountered in the test excavations at the time of our investigation. However, it should be kept in mind, that any required grading operations might change surface drainage patterns and/or reduce permeabilities due to the densification of compacted soils. Such changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the appearance of surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously. The damage from such water is expected to be minor and cosmetic in nature, if good positive drainage is implemented at the completion of construction. Corrective action should be taken on a site-specific basis if, and when, it becomes necessary. TECTONIC SETTING No major faults are known to traverse the subject site but it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area are characterized by a series of active fault zones that generally strike in a northerly to north-westerly direction. According to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology, active fault zones are those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (within the last 11,000 years). The site IS NOT located in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. According to Uniform Building Code Map 0-36, the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone (RCFZ) is located about 5.5 kilometers west of the subject site. The 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code indicates a 6.9 would be the Maximum Magnitude Earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault. However, current geotechnical literature indicates that a 7.2 magnitude earthquake (Tianging, et al, 2002) would be the maximum event. The current literature still classifies the Rose Canyon as Type "B" fault. The new information only impacts the softer soil profile types relative to the Uniform Building Code and therefore the information provided in the 1997 Uniform Building Code is still appropriate for the Sc type soil encountered on subject site. Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 8 Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough and San Clemente Fault Zones to the southwest and the Elsinore, Earthquake Valley, San Jacinto and San Andreas Fault Zones to the northeast. However, the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered the most significant nearby fault with respect to the potential for seismically induced ground shaking (due to its closer proximity to the site). Therefore, we recommend the structure be designed for a maximum magnitude earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. E::�� SEISMIC A RAMETERS Uniform Building Code Design Information Seismically related design parameters obtained from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 edition, Volume II, Chapter 16, are presented below in Table. These design factors are based on subsurface soil and bedrock conditions and distance of the site from known active faults. TABLE I SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS UBC Chapter 16 Seismic Recommended Table No. Parameter Value 16-I Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40 16-J Soil Profile Type Sd 16-Q Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.44 Na 16-R Seismic Coefficient Cv 0.64 Nv 16-5 Near Source Factor Na 1.13 16-T Near Source Factor Nv 1.26 16-U Seismic Source Type B Maximum Bedrock Acceleration Based upon a Maximum Magnitude Earthquake along the nearest portion of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, the Maximum Bedrock Acceleration at the site is estimated to be 0.50 g. For structural design purposes, we recommend a damping ratio not greater than 5 percent of critical dampening. Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 9 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude development of the site as we presently contemplate it are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed development. A discussion of potential geological hazards is listed below. Ground Shaking: A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as a result of movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above. Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to severe, depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to u_ the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed structure. Construction in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the - Structural Engineers Association of California lateral force design requirements, and local governing agencies should minimize potential damage due to seismic activity. Landslide Potential and Natural Slope Stability: As part of this investigation we reviewed the publication, "Landslide Hazards in the Southern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area" by Tan and Giffen, 1995. This reference is a comprehensive study that classifies San Diego County into areas of relative landslide susceptibility. The subject site is located in an area classified as 3-1. The 3-1 is a general classification assigned to areas generally susceptible to slope movement. Slopes within the 3-1 classification are considered at or near their stability limits due to steep slopes and can be expected to fail locally when adversely modified. Sites Within this classification are located outside the boundaries of known landslides but may contain observably unstable slopes that may be underlain by weak materials and/or adverse geologic structure. It should be noted that that this reference, typically classifies most sloping terrain, (that is not underlain by landslides or landslide prone formations) within the 3 category. Generally, the encountered terrace formation materials consist of massively bedded silty sands with good soil strength characteristics. Proposed permanent cut and fill slopes are anticipated to be stable. Liquefaction: The materials at the site are not subject to liquefaction due to such factors as soil density, grain-size distribution, and groundwater conditions. Flooding: The site is located outside the boundaries of both the 100-year and the 500- year flood plains according to the maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 10 Other Hazards: The probability of the occurrence of other geologic hazards such as volcano, tsunami and seiche activity is considered very low to non-existent. CONCLUSIONS In general, our findings indicate that the subject property is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations provided herein are followed. Our conclusions regarding major site development are listed below. • The site is overlain with a veneer of loose topsoils that range from about 2.5 to 4 feet in thickness. Further undocumented fill soils, ranging to 5 feet in maximum thickness form the existing building pad supporting the existing residence. These materials are considered unsuitable in their present condition to support additional fill and/or settlement sensitive improvements. As such, all fill and topsoil materials will need to be removed from areas to support fills and/or settlement sensitive improvements and, where necessary to achieve planned site grades, be replaced as compacted fill. Refer to the "Site Preparation" section of this report for specific recommendations. • Assuming remedial grading and based on estimated site grades, the building pad will be traversed by a cut/fill transition. In order to mitigate for potential differential settlement of the proposed structure, the cut portion of the lot should be undercut as recommended in the "Transition Conditions" section of this report. Minor transitions, however, can also be mitigated without additional grading by placing additional reinforcing steel in the footings. RECOMMENDATIONS Earth Work and Grading General All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Encinitas and the Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a representative of C.W. La Monte Company Inc. should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if necessary, and job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 11 Fill Suitability On-site excavated materials may be used as compacted fill material or backfill. The majority of the on-site materials typically possess very low- to low-expansion potential. Any potential import soil sites should be evaluated and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to importation. At least two working days notice of a - potential import source should be given to the Geotechnical Consultant so that appropriate testing can be accomplished. The type of material considered most desirable for import is a non-detrimentally expansive granular material with some silt or clay binder. Observation of Grading Observation and testing by the soil engineer is essential during the grading operations. This observation can range from continuous to an as-needed basis, based on the project situation. This allows the soil engineer to confirm the conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect the actual field conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein. Site Preparation Site preparation should begin with the removal of all structures, utilities, vegetation and other deleterious materials from the portion of lot that will be graded and that will receive improvements. This should include all root balls from the trees removed and all significant root material. The resulting materials should be disposed of off- site. After clearing and grubbing, site preparation should continue with the removal of all existing fill and topsoil material from areas that will be graded or that will support settlement-sensitive improvements. As the project is presently planned, soil removals are, generally, expected to vary from about 2.5 to 4 feet, but may be thicker in localized areas. The loose soil shall be removed to expose firm natural ground as determined by our field representative during grading. In areas to support fill slopes, keys should be cut into the competent supporting materials. The keys should be at least ten feet wide and be sloped back into the hillside at least two-percent. The keys should extend at least one foot into the competent supporting materials. All removal areas should be approved by a representative of our office prior to the placement of fill or improvements. Prior to placing any fill soils or constructing any new improvements in areas that have been cleaned out to receive fill, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 12 90 percent relative compaction. Compaction and Method of Filling All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D1557-91 guidelines. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content,' in lifts six to eight inches thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris, roots, vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project geologist. All material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of twelve inches in maximum width. However, in the upper two feet of pad grade, no rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches should be allowed. Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structure and beneath all pavements and concrete flatwork should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The upper one-foot of pavement subgrade and base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative density. All grading and fill placement should be performed in accordance with the local Grading Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and the Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto as Appendix A. Excavation Characteristics The on-site materials are likely to be excavated with easy to moderate effort using large excavating equipment. No significant amounts of oversize material are - anticipated. Transition Conditions Our review of the project indicates that the structures will be partially founded on - cuts into dense natural ground, and partially on compacted fill. Structures founded on such transition conditions can undergo minor distress as a result of differential settlement between portions of the structure founded on undisturbed natural ground - and portions on compacted fill materials. Although the fills may be properly placed and compacted, they possess a considerably greater potential for anticipated post construction settlement then the denser, natural ground. Such distress can manifest itself as minor wall, slab and foundation cracking. - The cut portion of any building pad that will be traversed by a cut/fill transition line should be undercut at least three feet below finish grade. As an alternative, additional reinforcing steel may be placed in footings supported by fill material to mitigate the potential for differential settlement for transitions that do not exceed 15 Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 13 "Footing Reinforcement" section of this report. The bottom of any over-excavated areas should be sloped in such a manner that water does not become trapped in the over-excavated zone. Prior to replacing the excavated materials, the soils exposed at the bottom of the excavation should be scarified to depth of six inches, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Fill Slope Construction Proposed fill slopes that may be constructed, should be constructed at an inclination of 2:1 or flatter (horizontal to vertical). Compaction of slopes should be performed by back-rolling with a sheepsfoot compactor at vertical intervals of four feet or less as the fill is being placed, and track-walking the face of the slope when the slope is completed. As an alternative, the fill slopes may be overfilled by at least three feet and then cut back to the compacted core at the design line and grade. Temporary Cut Slopes Unshored temporary cut slopes placed in existing terrace materials may be excavated at a 0.75 : 1.0 slope angle. The overlying fill and slope wash is considerably less stable and should be excavated at 1.0 to 1.0 (Horizontal to Vertical) slope angle. Keep in mind that actual safe slope angles will need to be determined at the time of excavation. The Geotechnical Consultant should observe temporary cut slopes during grading to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions exist. No surcharge loads such as stockpiles, vehicles, etc. should be allowed within a distance from the top of temporary slopes equal to half the slope height. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations. The contractor's "responsible person", as defined in the OSHA Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety process. Temporary cut slopes should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this section. In no other case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation w depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. Surface Drainage Surface runoff into graded areas should be minimized. Where possible, drainage should be directed to suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices such as paved swales, concrete brow ditches, and storm drains. Pad drainage should be designed c, irface water ate, from proposed structures and the top of Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 14 one percent should be maintained. The ground around the proposed buildings should be graded so that surface water - flows rapidly away from the buildings without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to buildings slope away at a gradient of at least two- percent. Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired should have a minimum gradient of five percent within the first five feet from the structure. Erosion Control In addition, appropriate erosion-control measures shall be taken at all times during construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations, ponding on finished building pad or pavement areas, or running uncontrolled over the tops of newly-constructed cut or fill slopes. Appropriate Best Management Practice (BMP) erosion control devices should be provided in accordance with local and federal governing agencies. _ Grading Plans Review The finalized grading plans (if significantly different from the referenced plan) should be submitted to this office for review to ascertain that the recommendations provided in this report have been followed and that the assumptions utilized in its preparation are still valid. Additional or amended recommendations may be issued based on this review. FOUNDATIONS General Based on the findings of our investigation, it is our opinion the proposed structure may be supported on conventional continuous and isolated spread footings. The below recommendations assume the site is selectively graded to non-detrimentally expansive conditions and all fills under the structure have been have been properly placed and recompacted. Therefore no special consideration and design for heaving soils is provided at this time. Dimensions and Embedment Conventional shallow foundations may be utilized in the support of the proposed - structures when founded on properly recompacted fill soils. Foundations should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the project structural engineer. The table provided below is derived from the 1997 Uniform Building Code, which suggests minimum foundation dimensions: Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 15 TABLE II FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT Number of Floors Width of Footing Embedment Depth Supported by (Inches) Below Undisturbed The Foundation Ground Surface (Inches) 1 12 12 2 15 18 3 18 24 Isolated pad footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. We recommend a "tie beam' be constructed across garage door openings. - Soil Bearing Value A bearing capacity of 2000 psf may be assumed for proposed footings when founded a minimum of 12 inches into firm natural ground or properly compacted fill. This bearing capacity may be increased by one-third, when considering wind and/or seismic loading. Lateral Load Resistance Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.40. The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot. This assumes the footings are poured tight against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one-third. Foundation Reinforcement Reinforcement requirements for foundations should be provided by a structural engineer. However, based on the existing soil conditions and provided the transition building pads are undercut, we recommend that the minimum reinforcing for continuous footings consist of at least four No. 5 bars. Two bars positioned three inches above the bottom of the footing and two No. 5 bars positioned approximately two inches below the top of the footing. Anticipated Settlements Based on our experience with the soil types on the subject site, the soils should 1„ rr - posed Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 16 It should be recognized that minor hairline cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing and/or redistribution of stresses and some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. Foundations Setback from Top of Slopes If footings for structures are proposed adjacent to the top of slopes, we recommend that a minimum horizontal setback from the outer edge of the footing to the adjacent slope face be provided. In general, the minimum setback from the slope face recommended is 5 feet from slopes 0 to 15 feet high and 10 feet for slopes 15 to 30 feet high. The building setback distance from the top of slopes may be modified by using deepened footings. Footing setback is measured from competent soil and should - neglect any loose or soft native soils that may occur at the top of a natural slope. Plans for any footings that will not comply with the specified setbacks should be submitted to the Geotechnical Engineer for specific review and approval prior to construction. Foundation Excavation Observation All foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing reinforcing steel and formwork in order to verify compliance with the foundation recommendations presented herein. All footing excavations should be excavated neat, level and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. Foundation Plans Review The finalized, foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review to ascertain that the recommendations provided in this report have been followed and that the assumptions utilized in its preparation are still valid. Additional or amended recommendations may be issued based on this review. CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE Interior Floor Slabs The minimum floor slab thickness should be four inches. The floor slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcing should be supported by chairs and be positioned at mid-height in the floor slab. Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 17 Moisture Protection Where the concrete on-grade floor slabs will support moisture-sensitive floor coverings, it should be underlain by a moisture barrier. The slab shall be underlain with two inches of clean sand overlying a 10 mil Visqueen moisture barrier, overlying an additional two inches of clean sand. Joints in the Visqueen sheeting should overlapped at least 12 inches. Interior Slab Curing Time Following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials. Prior to installation, standardized testing can be performed to determine if the slab moisture emissions are within the limits recommended by the manufacturer - of the specified floor-covering product. Exterior Concrete Flatwork Exterior slabs should have a minimum thickness of four inches. Reinforcement and control joints should be constructed in exterior concrete flatwork to reduce the potential for cracking and movement. Joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with the American Concrete Institute specifications. When patio walks and porch slabs abut perimeter foundations they should be doweled into the footings. DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES Masonry retaining walls shall be designed using the following soil parameters: Passive Pressure: The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased one-third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.4 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one-third. The upper 12 inches of exterior retaining wall footings should not be included in passive pressure calculations where abutted by landscaped areas. Active Pressure for Retaining Walls: The active soil pressure for the design of "unrestrained" and "restrained" earth retaining structures with level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 30 and 45 pounds per cubic foot, respectively. These pressures do not consider any other surcharge and �`;Sl?pin �, �]'�??:�n1� ��2C��f1�� (hl�lt70T1. T��`'n �'i�t�n�. ��^,1]"?"lp �-1�,�_� ,�-,7,^ .7� j.-,-1•f;17 Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 18 material. Retaining Wall Foundations: Retaining walls shall be designed by a structural engineer and should be supported by foundations with the minimum recommended parameters provided in the "Foundations" section of this report. Waterproofing and Subdrain Observation: The project architect or design engineer shall provide specifications for retaining wall drainage and waterproofing. Retaining walls that are not properly waterproofed and drained are potentially - subject to cosmetic staining (such as efflorescence), surficial spalling and decomposition and/or excessive moisture emissions (and resulting problems) into interior space areas. Retaining Wall Backfill: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90% -- relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. FIELD INVESTIGATION A total of four test explorations were placed on the lots, using a hand auger system. The excavations were placed specifically in areas where representative soil conditions were expected and/or where the proposed structures will be located. Our investigation also included a visual site reconnaissance included cut slopes and natural exposures. The excavations were visually inspected and logged by our field geologist, and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout the field operation. Test excavation logs have been prepared on the basis of our inspection and the results have been summarized on Figures No. 3a-3b. The predominant soils have been classified in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix B). LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed is presented below: CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 19 MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in-place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the test excavation logs. MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a typical soil were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D-1557, Method A. The results of this test are presented on the following page. Soil Type Location T-2 @ 3'-4' Sample Description Brown, silty sand (SM) Maximum Density 124 pcf Optimum Moisture 10.2 % ESTIMATED DIRECT SHEAR DATA: Soil Type Location T-2 @ 3'-4' Angle of Friction 31 degrees Apparent Cohesion 100 psf EXPANSION INDEX: The materials were empirically evaluated as non-expansive. CONSTRUCTION NOTES It is the responsibility of the Owner and/or Developer to ensure that the recommendations summarized in this report are carried out in the field operations. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the Contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of other is the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor should notify the Owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. LIMITATIONS The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with Appendix Chapter 33 of Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 20 the Uniform Building Code. It is recommended that C.W. La Monte Company Inc. be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. It should be verified in writing if the recommendations are found to be - appropriate for the proposed changes or our recommendations should be modified by a written addendum. The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind wLatsoever, expressed or implied, is made of intended in connection Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 21 with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. ._ It is the responsibility of the stated client or their representatives to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's, plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. The firm of C.W. La Monte Co. Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns,which occur subsequent to the issuance of this report. Job No. 06 5213 September 18, 2006 Page 22 SITE LOCATION MAP Two Residential Lots 201 N.Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California �' is x ��• j t i ` ii • Qr . }, S c? , n\. t • �, �t/1-h y. � � tai_ �.,t�'� "'STATE - AAA ,�� A r 4f .# Q` i y � r kC F.� 1/2 x . 1 11 ILE NtIMN 13t/s° 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 FEET Printed from TOPO!@1997 Wildflower Productions(www.to oxom) C W La Monte Company Inc. Soil and Foundation Engineers Job No. 06-5213 Figure No. 1 PLOT PLAN C I l r, I I � iI lLl 1 I I �lb i � I LEGEND P s- / i ' °' Approximate Location 1 of Test Excavation Geologic Contact Qaf _ I I Qaf=Artificial Fill — 1 Qt Qt=Marine Terrace Deposits 1 1 Project: Two Residential Lots C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY, INC. 201 N.Vulcan Avenue Encinitas,California Soil and Foundation Engineers Job No. 05-5213 Figure No. 2 ,. a z TEST EXCAVATION NO. 1 - - - - ate^ U Surface Elevation: ± 77' Date: 9/14/06 Logged By: JBR �- r cn a WG Q a Q Excavation Method: Hand Auger - -- x - --- - -- — --4 A.. z DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS I�. A - -4i? --- —-— - SM Topsoil- SM Dark brown, dry, loose, silty sand,numerous rootlets 2 � I CH -I 3 ' I ISM Marine Terrace(Ot) 4 � I I Orange-brown,slightly moist, medium dense, silty sand � I 5 I Excavation bottom 6 - ----- __ — t z TEST EXCA�-- ---- - --NATION NO. 2 — - a o w I Q d Q U� Surface Elevation: ± 81' Date: 9/14/06 Logged By: JBR _Excavation Method: Hand Auger U. o w o a s a DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SM Topsoil Dark brown,dry, loose, silty sand 2 I l I SM Marine Terrace(Qt) 3 7A 5.1 110 Orange-brown, slightly moist,medium dense, silty sand 4 5 I C. W. LA MONTE COMPANY 201 N. Vulcan Ave.,Encinitas,CA— Soil and Foundation Engineers JOB NO. 06_5213 FIGURE NO. 3a -- - m o - -T — -- — --- --- - — --- -- w TEST EXCAVATION N0. 3 Surface Elevation ± 89' Date: 9/14/06 Logged By: JBR Excavation-Method: _ Hand Auger U- ----- - —---- --- - --- ---- — - j A m z 'n a DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS l SM Topsoil -- i SM Dark brown,dry,loose,silty sand,numerous rootlets i I 2 CHI t 3 _ Marine Terra ce(Q 1 SM Oran e-brown,moist,medium dense,silty sand -1 g I ,I _ II II @3.5'becomes very moist 4 I i 5 I i Excavation bottom 6 ION N0. 4 - ! w z TEST EXCAVATION Surface Elevation± N/A Date: 9/14/06 Logged By: JBR 0 F V Excavation Method: Hand Au E V er --_---- - - A 0 A a a a DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS it I f I li SM Topsoil � Dark brown,dry, loose, silty sand 2 3 @3 becomes moist � I i I 4 I '� ISMMarine Terrace 4 t Orange-brown,moist to very moist,medium dense,silty sand _ 5 II� s _—.-i-- _— - _- - --- --- - -- - - - C. W. LA MONTE COMPANY —_ 201 N. Vulcan Ave.,Encinitas, CA I� Soil and Foundation Engineers JOB NO. 06-5213 FIGURE NO. 3b I Appendix "A" STANDARD GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for projects on which C.W. La Monte Company Inc. is the geotechnical consultant. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the preliminary geology and soils report or in other written communication signed by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist of record. _a GENERAL A. The Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist is the Owner's or Builders' representative on the Project.For the purpose of these specifications, participation by the Soils Engineer includes that observation performed by any person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the licensed Civil Engineer signing the soils reports. B. All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted by the Contractor under the supervision of the Soils Engineer. C. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer and to place, spread,mix,water, and compact the fill in accordance with the specifications of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall also remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the Soils Engineer. D. It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due consideration for the fill material,rate of placement,and time of year. E. A final report shall be issued by the Soils Engineer attesting to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications. SITE PREPARATION A. All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off site.This removal shall be concluded prior to placing fill. B. Soil, alluvium, or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Engineer, as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. The Soils Engineer must approve any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill. C. After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced, or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction. The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth,the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches. Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be inspected, tested as necessary, and approved by the Soils Engineer. D. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soils Engineer and/or governing agency. E. In order to provide uniform bearing conditions in cut-fill transition lots and where cut lots are partially in soil,colluvium, or un-weathered bedrock materials,the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 3 feet outside of building lines shall be over excavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 2 COMPACTED FILLS A. Any material imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been determined to be suitable by the Soils Engineer. Roots, tree branches, and other matter missed during clearing shall be removed from the fill as directed by the Soils Engineer. B. Rock fragments less than 6 inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill,provided: 1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets. 2. There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks. 3. The Soils Engineer shall supervise the distribution of rocks. C. Rocks greater than 6 inches in diameter shall be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. D. Material that is spongy, subject to decay or otherwise considered unsuitable should not be used in the compacted fill. E. Representative samples of material to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Soils Engineer as soon as possible. F. Material used in the compaction process shall be evenly spread, watered processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane,unless otherwise approved by the Soils Engineer. G. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that required by the Soils Engineer, the Contractor should re-work the fill until the Soils Engineer approves it. - H. Each layer shall be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency.(In general,ASTM D-1557-91,the five-layer method will be used.) If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soils condition,the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soils report. I. All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material except where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one -- vertical,in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer. J. The key for hillside fills should be a minimum of 15 feet in width and within bedrock or similar materials, unless otherwise specified in the soil report. K. Subdrainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency,or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. L. The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment,or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction. M. All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion or by other methods specified in the soils report. N. Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm `t--j_-"cd of X11 F')ll prior tO pl�ciw"fill. Appendix A Standard Grading and Construction Specifications Page 3 CUT SLOPES A. The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes at vertical intervals not exceeding 10 feet. B. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soils Engineer,and recommendations shall be made to treat these problems. C. Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope. D. Unless otherwise specified in the soils and geological report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. E. Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies,or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. GRADING CONTROL A. Observation of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. B. In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding 2 feet of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placement. These criteria will vary, depending on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any event,an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verily that the required compaction is being achieved. C. Density tests may also be conducted on the surface material to receive fills as determined by the Soils Engineer. D. All clean-outs, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals must be inspected and approved by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for inspection. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS A. The Contractor shall provide necessary erosion control measures,during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls. B. Upon completion of grading and termination of inspections by the Soils Engineer, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for footings, foundations, large tree wells, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. C. Care shall be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales,or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. D. In the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill soils during a future grading operation, the location and extent of the loose fill soils shall be noted by the on-site representative of a qualified soil engineering firm. These materials shall be removed and properly recompacted prior to completion of grading operations. E. Where not superseded by specific recommendations presented in this report, trenches, excavations, and temporary slopes at the subject site shall be constructed in accordance with section 1541 of Title 8, Construction Safety Orders,issued by OSHA. FOUNDATIONS NEAR TOPS OF SLOPES A. Foundations and footings of proposed structures, walls, et cetera, when located seven feet and further away If proposed foundations and footings are located closer than seven feet from the top of slopes, they shall be deepened at least one foot below an imaginary plain projected from a point seven feet horizontally inside the l l.l Vl.lii,. llii SIUj)i:i:.:iil 1 „ii:.: t; li.: £i_v 1, li it .l:i SaJy::.. Appendix "B" UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOI L DESCRIPTION 1. COARSE GRAINED: More than half of material is larger than No.200 sieve size. GRAVELS: More than half of coarse fraction is larger than No.4 sieve size but smaller than 3" GROUP SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines GP Poorly graded gravels,gravel sand mixtures,little or no fines GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels,poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures (Appreciable amount of fines) GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel sand, clay mixtures SANDS: More than half of coarse fraction is smaller than No.4 sieve size CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand,gravelly sands,little or no fines SP Poorly graded sands,gravelly sands,little or no fines SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands,poorly graded sand and silty mixtures (Appreciable amount of fines) SC Clayey sands,poorly graded sand and clay mixtures II. FINE GRAINED: More than half of material is smaller than No.200 sieve size SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands,rock flour,sandy silt or clayey-silt with slight plasticity. Liquid Limit CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, Less than 50 gravelly clays,sandy clays,silty clays,lean clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,elastic silt Liquid Limit CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fat clays greater than 50 OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils C M La a J Soil and Foundation Engineers REPORT OF RELATIVE COMPACTION TESTS RESULTS AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS Two Single-Family Residences 201 N. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California Assessor's Parcel Number 256-400-69 Job No. 06 5213 September 20,2007 PREPARED FOR: Bryan Bagley Construction 1702 Dora Drive Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007 4350 Palm Avenue #25 ♦ La Mesa, CA 91941 ♦ 619-462-9861 ♦ Fax 619 462-9859 Soil and Foundation Engineers 4350 PALM AVENUE, SUITE 25 LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91941 Phone: (619) 462-9861 Fax- (619 462-9859 September 20, 2007 job No. 06 5213fc TO: Bryan Bagley Construction 1702 Dora Drive Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007 SUBJECT: Report of Relative Compaction Tests Results and Field Observations Two Single-Family Residences 201 N. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California Assessor's Parcel Number 256-400-69 REFERENCE: Report Of Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Tim Residential Lots, 201 N. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, CA, by C.W. La Monte Company, Inc., dated September 18, 2006 In accordance with your request, and in accordance with the requirements of Section 1701.5.13 of the Uniform Building Code, this report has been prepared to present the results of the field observations and relative compaction tests performed at the subject site by C.W. La Monte Company Inc. These services were performed between September 6, 2007 through September 19, 2007 and included observation and testing during grading of the residential structure building pads. Additional work in the future, not covered by this report, may include retaining wall backfill, pavement subgrade and base, and utility trench backfill. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION It is our understanding that the site is being developed to receive two single family homes to be a maximum of two-stories in height. The structures will be founded on conventional shallow foundations with concrete slab-on-grade and/or raised wooden floors. A later phase of work will include the construction of masonry retaining walls up to six feet in maximum height. Job No. 06 5213fc September 20, 2007 Page 2 A previously existing accessory building is located at the southeast corner of the property. The accessory building will remain and will be incorporated into the proposed development. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site consists of a rectangular-shaped parcel of land that is located on the east side of North Vulcan Avenue in the City of Encinitas, County of San Diego, California. The property is further bounded on the north, south, and east by existing residential development. A legal description of the property is A.P.N. 256-400-69. The property is approximately 100 feet wide and about 190 feet deep. Prior to grading the site was improved with two, one-story residential buildings and an accessory building at the southeast corner of the site. Exterior improvements included asphalt paved driveways, concrete sidewalk and patios slabs, and railroad tie retaining walls. Vegetation consisted primarily of a light to moderate growth of grass and weeds, landscape shrubs and several trees. The existing structures and improvements were removed prior to grading operations for the building pads. The accessory building will remain and will be incorporated into the proposed development. The property consists of terrain sloping gently to moderately to the west. According to the provided grading plan sketch, elevations approximately range from a low of about 75 feet (MSL) at the northwest corner of the property to a high of about 95 feet (MSL) at the southeast corner of the lot. AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS To assist in determining the location of our field density tests and to define the general extent of the site grading for this phase of work, we were provided with a preliminary grading plan sketch, prepared by BHA, Inc. SITE PREPARATION Prior to grading the existing structures vegetation was removed from the building area and disposed of off-site. Minor amounts of vegetation and debris that remained after the clearing operations were mixed with the on site soils in such a manner as not to leave any clumps of deleterious matter or to be detrimental to the structural fill. The subject grading operation consisted primarily of a cut and fill operation. The loose topsoil was removed to a depth exposing the competent terrace formational material. Areas to support fill slopes, received a key excavation cut into the competent supporting materials. The keys p Job No. 06 5213fc September 20, 2007 Page 3 were at least ten feet wide and sloped slightly back into the slope. The keys extended at least two feet into the competent supporting materials. T of excavations were prepared to receive fill y toa depth approximately 6 inches, moisture conditioning, and recompacting the soils to at least 90 percent of their maximum dry densities. 3 feet (where not removed by planned grading) we re over-excavated at least below finish grade in order to reduce transition conditions and remove loose topsoils from areas to receive improvements. The pad for the detached garage of the westerly residence was excavated into competent natural ground and required no additional site preparation. The fill material was obtained from on-site excavation slightly o silt to primarily of material. very low expansive, reddish brown, silty sand a Y The fill was placed in approximate eight inch layers, watered to above optimum moisture contents, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction by was means of an wheel rolling with heavy construction hillside equipment. o remove any loose top raised in elevation, benches were placed into d on the soils and expose dense natural ground. Areas placed thickness ckness ofefill place on the attached Plot Plan, Figure No. 2. The maxim um site was on the order of six feet. Manufactured cut and fill slopes were constructed to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope angle and are less than 10 feet in height. Vertical cut slopes, up to 6 feet in height remained after initial grading. These slopes are temporary and will be retained with masonry walls. FIELD OBSERVATION AND TESTING A representative of C.W. La Monte Company c during The operations taken performed observations and field density tests according to A.S.T.M. Test 1556-90 guidelines and the results of these tests are shown on the attached Table 1. As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of work we agreed to be involved with, and performed tests, on which,com together, we based our opinion as to whether the and the Uniform Bui din g Code with the job requirements, local grading ordinances LABORATORY TESTS Maximum dry density determinations fills a cord according to A S.T M representative 1557- samples of the soils used in the compacted Job No. 06 5213fc September 20, 2007 Page 4 91, Method A guideline. The results of these tests, as presented on Table 2, were used in conjunction with the field density tests to determine the degree of relative compaction of the compacted fill. The expansion potential of foundation soils was evaluated according to the UBC Expansion Index Test classification. The soils encountered during site grading were determined to possess a low expansive potential. CONCLUSIONS Based on field observation and the density test results, it is the opinion of C.W. La Monte Company Inc. that the grading was performed basically in accordance with the requirements of the City of Encinitas Grading Ordinance and the Uniform Building Code. Conditions encountered during site grading were basically as anticipated in the referenced geotechnical investigation. The appropriate recommendations presented in this report do apply to the as-built graded site. These recommendations are summarized in the following section of the report. RECOMMENDATIONS Foundations Based on as-built graded conditions, it is our opinion the proposed structure may be supported on conventional continuous and isolated spread footings. No special consideration and design for heaving soils is required at this time. Foundation recommendations are summarized below. Dimensions and Embedment: Conventional shallow foundations may be utilized in the support of the proposed structures when founded on properly recompacted fill soils. Foundations should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the project structural engineer. The table provided below is derived from the 1997 Uniform Building Code, which suggests minimum foundation dimensions: Job No. 06 5213fc September 20, 2007 Page 5 TABLE II FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT Number of Floors Width of Footing Embedment Depth Supported by (Inches) Below Undisturbed The Foundation Ground Surface (Inches) 1 12 12 2 15 18 3 18 24 Isolated pad footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. We recommend a "tie beam" be constructed across garage door openings. Foundation Reinforcement: It is recommended that new continuous footings be reinforced with at least four No. 5 steel bars; two reinforcing bars shall be located near the top of the foundation, and two bars near the bottom. Soil Bearing Value: A bearing capacity of 2000 psf may be assumed for said footings when founded a minimum of 12 inches into firm natural ground or properly compacted fill. This bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when considering wind and/or seismic loading. Lateral Load Resistance: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.40. The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot. This assumes the footings are poured tight against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one-third. Concrete Slabs-on-grade General: Concrete floor slabs, shall have a minimum thickness of four inches and shall be underlain by two inches of clean, washed sand overlying 10 mil visqueen, overlying an additional 2 inches of sand material. Job No. 06 5213fc September 20, 2007 Page 6 Slab Reinforcement: The slab should be reinforced with #3 reinforcing bars placed at 18-inch centers, each way. The reinforcement should be placed on concrete "chairs" or spacers, to within the middle third of the slab. Interior Slab Curing Time: Following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials. Prior to installation, standardized testing can be performed to determine if the slab moisture emissions are within the limits recommended by the manufacturer of the specified floor-covering product. Site Drainage Considerations Adequate measures shall be taken to properly finish-grade the site after the additions and other improvements are in place. Drainage waters from this site and adjacent properties are to be directed away from foundations, floor slabs and footings, onto the natural drainage direction for this area or into properly designed and approved drainage facilities. Proper subsurface and surface drainage will ensure drainage that no waters will seek the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings and floor slabs. Failure to observe this recommendation could result in uplift or undermining and differential settlement of the structure or other improvements on the site. In addition, appropriate erosion-control measures shall be taken at all times during construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations, ponding on finished building pad or pavement areas, or running uncontrolled over the tops of newly-constructed cut or fill slopes. Planter areas and planter boxes shall be sloped to drain away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs. Planter boxes shall be constructed with a subsurface drain, installed in gravel, with the direction of subsurface and surface flow away from the foundations, footings, and floor slabs, to an adequate drainage facility. Summary This report covers only the services performed from September 6, 2007 through September 19, 2007. As limited by the scope of the services, which we agreed to perform, our opinions presented herein are based on our observations and the relative compaction test results. Our service was performed in accordance with the currently accepted standard of practice and in such a manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the grading operations with the job p Job No. 06 5213fc September 20, 2007 Page 7 requirements. No warranty, express or implied, is given or intended with respect to the services which we have performed, and neither the performance of those services nor the submittal of this report should be construed as relieving the grading contractor of his responsibility to conform with the job requirements. The firm of C.W. La Monte Co. Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, addition ance of this report changing drainage patters, which occur subseq uent to the If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY INC. 1 L Clifford a Monte,R.C.E. 25241, G.E. 0495 INV'' M Exp. h► t Exp. 12/31/07 12/31/07 won" v No. 495 m, Q) o L — ,CL) u > y w N E- W L o w _ O 1 o M a oQ �oo o � o o z Q w Q w Q U \se oB �- .96'66 3.OZ.£S.LZS Qo p rg fB 6- 1 O A 1 o � IO OD \ N O \d ° O OD 1 v \. z ° O ° y� -t'a. °hc - - Q Nr z 3b ry } 3 r a d \ Ira/ _ .,.\ :•Zf,' ° _ m ..7 U o 1y z a o J oe o. / 0 0 s h�i _m P ° ° ° o' v - a w 4 a vO \ ° a m 1 � \ \\ �1 0 3NI133 1 ,8 "6 M OZ£S.LZN � 3NI133i11 1 1 It 8 LA CD - lJ �i nN�n d s� I Nb�-i nn` O ---- ----------------------------------------- w a � �o SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Project: Two Residential Lots 201 N. Vulcan Avenue Encinitas, California TABLE 1 RELATIVE CCIMPACTIN TESTS t '1'1 ; 11 -91 Test No. Date Location Elev. (feet)or Soil Type Moisture Dry Max. %Relative Fill Thickness (%) Density Density Compaction (pco (pc fl 1 9/7/2007 See Fi mre 1 2' 1 11.0 118.6 125.0 94.9 2 9/7/2007 See Figure 1 2' 1 11.2 118.8 1 125.0 95.0 3 9/13/2007 See Fi nire 1 FG 1 11.1 120.7 125.0 96.6 4 9/13/2007 See Figure 1 FG 1 11.0 119.7 125.0 95.8 5 9/13/2007 See Figure 1 FG 1 11.2 118.5 125.0 94.8 6 9/14/2007 See Figure 1 2' 1 11.1 118.8 125.0 95.0 7 9/14/2007 See Fi gure 1 4' 1 11.0 120.5 125.0 96.4 8 9/19/2007 See Figure 1 FG 1 11.2 119.0 1 125.0 95.2 9 9/19/2007 See Fi e 1 FG 1 11.1 120.4 1 125.0 96.3 TABLE 2 MAX MVM DRY DENSITY and OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT; ASTM W7 4 1 Soil Type Description USCS Optimum Moisture Maximum Dry Density Class (%) (pco 1 Reddish Brown Silty Sand SM 1 10.0 125.0 Job No. 06-5213 FC Figure No. 2 MAXIMUM DENSITY CURVE 145 19 2.8 140 z. - - __. _.• 2 135 Soil Type 130 125 3 .0 120 115 110 105 100 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Soil Moisture(°/) Soil Type Description Optimum Maximum Moisture (%) Density (Pcf) 1 Reddish Brown Silty Sand 10.0 125.0 Two Residential Lots Project: C.W. LA MON'TE COMPANY 01 N. Vulcan Avenue Y INC. Encinitas, California Soil and Foundation Engineers Job No. 06-5213 Figure No. 3 I U.0 0 O? W~ H W 0 XX =° Q w r i ui W E z� E m ui w N T � c W U- 96 0 W QO z P u) E E N Yll w � U H w W � X z W 0 _ 0 H Z A W z z O 0 CL o � � o° N U- h-cn = I 00 cS3 L U< E oo fs1 al APPENDIX "A" Page 1 WET WEATHER MAINTENANCE AT RESIDENTIAL SITES* Southern Californians, unlike other residents of the nation, are unaccustomed to heavy rainfall. Whenever unusually wet weather occurs, San Diegans, particularly those living on slopes of filled land, become concerned (often unduly)about the conditions of their building site. They should not be,generally. The grading codes of the County of San Diego,and the various incorporated cities in the County, concerning filled land, excavation, terracing, and slope construction, are among the most stringent in the state, and adequate to meet almost any natural occurrence. This is the opinion of the San Diego Chapter of the California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors, whose membership help prepare and review the codes. In 1967,the local Chapter of the California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors compiled a list of some precautions that homeowners can take to maintain their building sites. This updated pamphlet reiterates those precautions. Everyone is accustomed to maintaining his house. Everyone realizes that periodic termite inspections are a reasonable precaution, and that homes require a coat of paint from time to time. Homeowners are well used to checking and replacing wiring and plumbing,particularly in older homes. Roofs require occasional care. However, the general public regards the natural ground as inviolate. They ought to realize that Nature is haphazard in creation of all land, some of which becomes building sites. Nature's imperfections have been largely compensated through careful engineering design and construction and enforcement of rigorous building and lot development ordinances. It is only reasonable to assume that an improved building site requires the approximate same care that the building itself does. In most instances, lot and site care are elementary steps that can be taken by the homeowner at considerably less cost than building maintenance. As a public service, engineers in private practice of the San Diego Chapter of the California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors have compiled this pamphlet of pertinent Do's and Don'ts as a guide to homeowners. The CCCELS respectfully advises that, in offering these guides, it accept no responsibility for the actual performances of home sites or structures located thereon. *Pamphlet prepared by the San Diego Chapter of the California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors 4350 Palm Ave.,Suite 25,La Mesa,CA 91941 —(619)462-9861 APPENDIX "A" Page 2 DO'S Do clear surface and terrace drains with a shovel, if necessary,and check them frequently during the rainy season. Ask your neighbors to do likewise. Do be sure that all drains have open outlets. Under the right conditions,this can be tested simply on a dry day with a hose. If blockage is evident,you may have to clear the drain mechanically. Do check roof drains gutters and down spouts to be sure they are clear. Depending on you location, if you do not have roof gutters and down spouts, you may wish to install them because roofs and their wide, flat space will shed tremendous quantities of water. Without gutters or other adequate drainage, water falling from the eaves ponds against foundation and basement walls. Do check all outlets at the top of slopes to be sure that they are clear and that water will not overflow the slope itself,causing erosion. Do keep drain openings(weep-holes)clear of debris and other material that could block them in a storm. Do check for loose fill above and below your property if you live on a slope or terrace. Do watch hoses and sprinklers. During the rainy season, little, if any irrigation is required. Over-saturation of the ground is not only unnecessary and expensive,but can cause subsurface damage. Do watch for backup in interior drains and toilets during a rainy season,this may indicate drain or sewer blockage. Do exercise ordinary precaution. Your house and building site were constructed to meet certain standards that should protect against any natural occurrences,if you do your part in maintaining them. DONT'S Don't block terrace drains and brow ditches on slopes or at the tops of cut slopes on sloping ground. These are designed to carry away runoff to a place where it can be safely distributed. Generally,a little shovel work will remove any accumulation of dirt and other debris that clogs the drain. If several homes are located on the same terrace, it is a good idea to check with your neighbors. Water backed up in surface drains will tend to overflow and seep into the terraces,creating less stable slopes. Don't permit water to gather above or on the edges of slopes (ponding). Water gathering here will tend to either seep into the ground, loosening fill or natural ground, or will overflow on the slope and begin erosion. Once erosion is started,it is difficult to control and severe damage may result rather quickly. Don't connect roof drains and roof gutters and down spouts to sub-drains. Rather, arrange them so that they will flow out onto a paved driveway or the street where the water may be dissipated over a wide surface. Sub- drains are constructed to take care of ordinary subsurface water and cannot handle the overload from roofs during heavy rain. Overloading the sub-drains tends to weaken the foundations. Don't spill water over the slopes, even where this may seem a good way to prevent ponding. This tends to cause erosion and,in the case of fill,can eat away carefully engineered and compacted land. 4350 Palm Ave.,Suite 25,La Mesa,CA 91941 —(619)462-9861 APPENDIX "A" Page 3 Don't drop loose fill slopes. It is not compacted to the same strength as the slope itself and will tend to slide with heavy moisture. The sliding may clog terrace drains below, or may cause additional damage by weakening the slope. If you live below a slope, try to be sure that no loose fill is dumped above your property. Don't discharge water into French drains close to slopes. French drains are sometimes used to get rid of excess water when other ways of disposing water are not readily available. Overloading these drains saturates the ground and,if the drains are located close to slopes,may cause slope failure in their vicinity. Not only are septic tanks constructed for a water into septic tanks (leaching fields). Y 8 •Ze wl]] tend t0 naturally accumulate additional water from the f Q f the rainy season is bad for the same reason as their size dl ng ose a serious health at tificially e their overflow can p APPENDIX "A" Page 3 Don't drop loose fill slopes. It is not compacted to the same strength as the slope itself and will tend to slide with heavy moisture. The sliding may clog terrace drains below, or may cause additional damage by weakening the slope. If you live below a slope, try to be sure that no loose fill is dumped above your property. Don't discharge water into French drains close to slopes. French drains are sometimes used to get rid of excess water when other ways of disposing water are not readily available. Overloading these drains saturates the ground and,if the drains are located close to slopes,may cause slope failure in their vicinity. ce water into Septic tanks (leaching fields). Not only are septic tanks constructed for a Q f the]r S1Ze will tend to naturally accumulate additional water from the eS Se but because m agiflClally d6jIg to rainy season is bad for the same reason Othe e their overflow can pose a serious health i I ; i i 'i ! i 1986-Z9b(619)— It'6I6 d3`USOIN el`SZ 3r!n3`•and uzied OS£b salems papolq anoqu puod.ialem Ial IOU op`suuaui I[u $ '3allno anrlisod aaglo ao Iaails`Xemanup aqI piemol.ialum 2uinouzai Xplomb3o asodmd aqI zoo aiagl Ind uaaq anug so* mO1legs asarl•l, 'pad Iol aqI.io asnoq znoX puno.re papui3 uaaq anuq and o0 sa ums 1 Iq;,uoQ Ilim siq I uosuas Xuiva agI �ui.znp XljLinoiuud `odols ua pauu oauoe�uiureuzai za Tlumles puno r�aouuqu3 Floods puu asoq u anual ;,uo(I [Iem agI di).io aunivapun oslu 11im Inq`lios pauiva$-auq guiloeduzoo �°hem Iaaior33a Isual agI�uipool;si XWO ION Iutpool;Xq sadols luau sllenn puigaq I193ioeq louduroo oI ssaox s11 . a l;�u oQ uze em oI a�u u uuag asneo ueo aussaad taaprsur agueal Puu ssauduiuP 8uI So um ag lueaodtui arouz`luauasuq aqI s l iP 1 p allwad siTalem3I a jo Xuuo oI suiuip-qns Xq pimdw000v vsa au a aPuulsthm oI llmq am,s11um asagZ 'slem ivauzasuq pue m qm azpuepuno �a I utaz zalll i?ururulai`suoilupuno3 Isuiu,& Ia l a,u oQ 11 Palueld -uorsoia snouas sl uls Osle Inq `aanoo aqI sfonsap Xluoi IOU q�a siasoolallnd°I iaeoo puno �Aeaq JOgIO pue luuld aoi asnuo uuo uoilu�uri `uosuas Iam aqI 2uun arnlsiouz atuos annbai 11im uotlela�an zaglO Poe lueld aoi 3o ianoo p noi�sglueour.lawn loq aqI guunp II mluN sadols alugrul-.zano I uo(l glleag snouas e asod ueo molliano.uagl asneoaq snoia� uoseai acres a .io �P Ignop si puu `sutu p.rezuq ql ;peq si uosuas�uiez aqI 2uunp XIjL,,0g!I1e uiagl�urpuolran gou2i3 Pup suruIp-qns se aqI uzoi3 Talem Iuuo.1. alelnumooe XIlumluu oI pual Ilim azis ua o asO oa iu� ineaq�uunp punOJ2 L 10 3 PaloiWsuoo I orldas are quo IoN -(so' $uigaual) MUMI ildas oluia alum a��d luaaa33?) fir. . . uagl ur amltuj adols asneo XLLu`sadols of asolo paleool aie sure a ;rns a�regas[p ;`uoQ aqI salumles surerp asagl$uipuolianp 'alqulluAe�[Tpuaz Iou are zalem�uisodsr o s,� ssaoxa Jo PP ia5 o 8131`P�puno.i2 I pasn satuilauzos a.re sute.Tp gouaid sadols oI asolo sure P em TagIO uagm I2IEm . .rp q uar3 olur aalt,," inoX ano z e paE d ua�m up d i aa �j ls �ar�a.dra�o�ta{ �ar stp 1,upQ Xq a.Reuep Ieuorl 113 asool ou Iq; ains a q OI iJI adols e ippe asneo to moloq suie o q anal no jI glim aprls of ua I III Puejlasli adols aqI se 013 a a 'ado is aq,Vuaus atues aqj of Palaedzp I- - ll •aj�510Op do l� la