HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 02-05; CARLSBAD OCEAN ESTATES; GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE REPORT; 2001-06-22'1
I';
I
I:
I:
I
I·
I
I
I.
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~, .;;f ",' ,,' •• < t'
,1st
\ di';'" ~~~~p
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERJNG UPDATE ltEPOltT
FOR. .
CARLSBAD OCEAN ESTATES
-
o z
[£J Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. . ~ iiii Geotechnical & EnvirOllll1entai Engineering W . :c
o
5
--Om CiO~05
11 ;
Ii
I;
Ii I
II
I
I:
I;
11 I j II
Ii
II
Ii;
RECEIVED
MAR 21 2006
ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING UPDATE REPORT
FOR. .
CARLSBAD OCEAN ESTATES
LOCATED AT
NE C.ORNER OF HOOVER & ADAMS STREETS
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FOR
MR. HENR.Y OLIVIER
4370 HALLMARK PARKWAY, SUITE 101
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92407
PROJECT G--1845-06
JANUARY 31,. 2006
GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ Geotechnical Solutions, Inc:-.---::--__________ _____ iiiiii! Geotechnical & Environmental Engineering
June 22,2001
Project: G-184S-06
Mr. Henry Oliver
4370 HalimaTk Way #101
San Bernardino, California 92407
Re: Preliminary ,Geotechnical Engineering Study'
Approximately 1.15-acre parcels
NE corner of Adams & Hoover Streets
Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
As authorized submitted herewith is the report of a preliminary
geotechnical investigations conducted by this office for proposed
development at the subject property! located north of Adams Street and
east of Hoover Street, in Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California. The
scope of this investigation was established in collaboration with the client.
Ba,sed upon findings of this investigation I it is concluded that the
development of the project as three custom homes are feasible, subject to
the compliance with the recommendations outlined 'in the attached report.
Underlying near the surface sandstone bedrock is favorable for foundation
support and site stability.
The property lies within an area of moderate seismicity and known active
faults and occasional ground shaking from moderate to large magnitude
should be expected during the life of proposed d.evelopments. The closest
known active fault to the site is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is
located about 5.3 miles away from the site. The project site does not lie
within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and the potential for direct
surface fault rupture is considered unlikely.
An adequately constructed foundation system consisting of conventional
continuous footings established in competent bedrock or newly certified
Phone: (949) 261-8328 17935 Sky Park Circle Drive, Suite F, Irvine, CA 92614 Fax: (949)261-0449
l:
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
compacted fill is expected to provide satisfactory support for proposed
structures.
The investigation was made in accordance with generally accepted
engineering principles and procedures and included. such field and
laboratory tests considered necessary in the circumstances. The
accompanying report has been substantiated by mathematical and other
data and presents fairly the design information requested by your
organization.
Respectfully submitted,
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
Distributions: (5) Mr. Henry Oliver
c· C. Mars all Payne
Senior E gineering Geologist
CEG # 3 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
Proposed Development ................................................................................................... 1
Site Description ................................................................................................................ 1
Geologic Conditions ......................................................................................................... 2
Faulting and Seismicity .................................................................................................... 3
Field Investigation ............................................................................................................ 4
Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................... 5
. Moisture and Density .................................................................................................... 5
Mechanical Analysis .............................................. : ...................................................... 5
Direct Shear ..................................................................................................................... 5
Consolidation ................................................................................................................... 6
Expansion ........................................................................................................................ 6
Chemical Analysis··· .. · .. ······ ........ ···· .. · .. ····· .. · .. ···· .. · .... · .. · .. · .. · .............................................. 6
Design Values .... · .... · ........ ·· ............ ······· .. · .... · .. · .... ·· ............ ·· .. · .. · ...................................... 6
Seismic Factors ........................................................................................ : ................... 7
Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... 7
Foundation Support ......................................................................................................... 8
Lateral Resistance ........................................................................................................... 9
Active Pressure .......................................................................................................... 9
General Grading Criteria ............................................................................................. 1 0
Excavatibility .................................................................................................................. 11
. Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 11
Remarks ........................................................................................................................ 12
Appendix 1 ....................................................................................................................... 1
Appendix II ....................................................................................................................... 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No. G-1845-06
Henry Lots I Carlsbad
Introduction
The primary objectives of this investigation were to' evaluate surface and
subsurface conditions within the project site and to explore the existing
soils and bedrock conditions relative to site development.
The objectives of the investigation were met by a visual reconnaissance of
the site and vicinity, review of available conceptual development plans,
review of other published and unpublished literature's for the site and
vicinity, exploratory drilling, test pit excavations., sampling of earth
materials, laboratory testing and engineering analysis.
Project development is in preliminary design stage and no grading plans
were available for review at this time, therefore general recommendations
given in this report is for planning of the proposed development. Review of
grading and project development plans will be performed and further
recommendations will be submitted, as deemed necessary.
Proposed Construction
It is understood that the subject parcel is planned to be prepared for
construction of three residential single-famity custom homes. The proposed
development includes three lots, which will lie on top of the very low relief
terrace surface as shown on Plate B. All of the proposed lots are located
on natural. terrain.
Site grading to provide terraced, relatively level pads will require· cuts and
fills, removals and new fill slopes to be constructed at the site.
S:ite Description
The subject proposed three lot, residential hills.ide development is located
at the northeast intersection of Adams and Hover Streets in the City of
Carlsbad, San Diego County (See Plate A). The trapezoidal shaped parcel
measures roughly 400-feet (northwest-southeast) by 300-feet (northeast-
southwest) and has an area just over one acre. Elevation across the parcel
from northeast to southwest ranges from 60 to 11 O-feet or about a 50-foot
elevation difference. This natural southwest-facing parcel has low smooth
and rolling relief (about 3 to 1 to 4 to 1 slope ratios). A gentle swale
extends through about the central portion of the parcel. Steep road cuts
three to five feet high ascend from Adams and Hover Streets, Most of the
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No. G-1845-06
Henry Lots I Carlsbad
slepe surface is plewed (grass cevered) regularly; hewever there are a few
scattered trees and ice plant grows alcng the preperty borders with the
adjacent streets.
There has been no grading en the· property except fer the plowing of the
annual grasses. Though a swale prejects through the site there has been
no. excessive erosion ef the greund surface. Sandy surface seils are either
nen-existent er are less than a feot thick. Sandstone bedreck is
discentinueusly expesed en the preperty and aleng the cut slepes near the
two. streets. The seils and bed reck are considered well drained.
Geologic Conditions
The preject s.ite is situated abeut SOO-feet to. the nerth-northeast of Aqua
Hedionda Lagoon and 4S00-feet frem the coastline. Terraced hills in the
area are broad and project in an irregular fashion toward the northwest
paralleling the coast. They represent an elevated marine (eroded) bedrock
surface though the bedrock reportedly is of non-marine origin (river
outwash deposits).
Geelogic conditions on the property are without complication. Bedrock is
expesed discontinuously on and around the property and was exposed in
the feur-backhoe test pits excavated en-site for this study. Bedrock
eutcreps also. were observed in proximity to the preperty. The rock has
been mapped as the PUo-Pleistocene age Upper sub-unit of the Linda
Vista Formation. As noted, the rock had a strong reddish brown coler
though at a depth of abeut four feet yellow brown and light gray tones
began to show-up. Bedrock consisted of very massive fine-grained
sandstene with a trace of silt. Iren cementation provided a lew to
moderated level of indurations/conselidation. Both the overlying mostly
residual soils (silty sands) were considered well drained. The degree of
cementatien will provide a very suitable base fer feundation footings.
Structurally the rock displayed marginal evidence for stratification. Only
ene bedrock attitude was taken on a discolored sandstone lenses (10
degree north dip in TP-2). This attitude agrees with the regional mapping
by· Webber, 1982, CDMG OFR-82-12). Joints, fractures and small faults
essentially were absent.
No. evidence ef near surface groundwater was noted en or near the site.
The bedreck is considered quite capable ef stering and transporting water
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No. G-1845-06
Henry Lots I Carlsbad
but as mentioned above, it is well drained. The depth to water is judged to
be near sea level or at about a depth of 60 to 1 ~O-feet on the property.
Slope stability is not considered a geologic constraint. The slope geometry
(3 to. 1 of less) and moderate bedrock indurations plus the lack of adverse
geologic structure (clay seams) and shallow groundwater are considered
quite favorable with respect to slope stability (see geologic cross sections
Plate B-1). Slope stability analyses were not conducted for the reason just
described.
Faulting and Seismicity
No faults of any kind have been detected trending towards or through the
site area. The site does not lie within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone as designated by the California Department of Mines and Geology.
The· potential for direct surface fault rupture is considered unlikely.
The closes known active fault is the offshore portion of the Newport-
Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone. This is a northwest trending right
lateral slip type of fault. If the fault was to rupture opposite the site very
strong ground motions can be expected. Earthquake design criteria are
summarized in proceeding Section of this report for the proposed
development.
EQFAUL T (version 3.0) indicates the Rose Canyon Fauit Zone (RCFZ) to
be closest to. the site 5.3 miles (8.5Km). The largest earthquake
acceleration noted is 0.344g associated with the RCFZ.
FRISKSP provides a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of the
amount of ground shaking, which can be expected at the site. Considering
a 10% probabifity of exceedance in 50 years, peak horizontal ground
acceleration of 0.23g with an average return period of 475 years can be
expected for the site vicinity (Campbell & Niazi, 1999).
Under criteria published in the Uniform Building Code (USC)', the Rose
Canyon Fault is considered to be a "seismic source type "8".
The site is located within "seismic zonell 4 with a "seismic zone factorU of
0.4 (Table 16-1). Field observ~:itions indicate the bedrock to be "soil profile
type" "Se" (Table 16-J).
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No. G-1845-06
Henry Lots / Carlsbad
The site is located within "seismic zone" 4 with a "seismic zone factor" of
0.4 (Table 16-1). Field observations indicate the bedrock to be "soil profile
type" "Se" (Table 16-J).
In addition to possible strong earthquake shaking from a large nearby
event other secondary effects include: liquefaction induced flooding,
landsliding and subsidence. These are addressed below:
Liquefaction: Because bedrock lies at or near the surface and groundwater
is judged to be over 60-feet deep, the potential for liquefaction is
considered unlikely.
Induced Flooding: The property lies high and/or far enough from the coast
or large inl.and body 'Of water (lagoon) to preclude hazards from a tsunami
or seiche wave or from the inundation from the rupture of an up-gradient
reserVoir.
Induced Landsliding: Induced landsliding is considered' unlikely due the
slope geometry, shallow bedrock and bedrock type. No 'steep or high cuts
are proposed for the development.
Induced Subsidence: Similarly, because sound bedrock underlies the entire
property at or near the ground surface the potential for induced subsidence
is considered unlikely.
Field Investigation
In addition to an examination of surface features, the field investigation,
which was conducted, included: .
(1) Field reconnaissance and geologic mapping of the site.
(2) Four test pits were excavated using a backhoe to variable depths of up
to 5.5 feet. Trench logs are enclosed in Appendix I of this report.
(3) One relatively deep boring with hollowstem drill rig drilled to a depth of
25 feet below ground surface.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No. G-1845-06
Henry Lots I Carlsbad
A continuous record of the soils encountered during exploration was made
by the field geologist and is presented in test boring and test pit logs and
Log of test pits/boring are presented on Plates C through C-6. Undisturbed
samples were secured at selected depth intervals for laboratory
examination and testing.
Disturbed bulk samples representative of the basic subgrade soil types
encountered were also obtained.
Even though the actual transitions between materials are comparatively
well defined, it should be noted that the lines designating the interfaces
between soil types and rock strata on the test hole logs represent
approximate boundaries only. No evidence of groundwater was observed
within the depths penetrated by this exploration.
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing was programmed following a review of the field
investigation data and consideration of the various structural and grading'
elements to be evaluated. Testing included physicaptesting to determine all /'
foundation and active lateral pressure bearing chpracteristics, selective---
classification tests, relative compaction and expansion potential.
A. Moisture and Density_
In-situ moisture content and density values were determined for all
undisturbed samples obtained during exploratory drilling. Test results
are tabulated on Plates C through C-4.
B. Mechanical Analysis
Mechanical analysis was performed on typical natural soil samples to
confirm field classification. Test results indicated the following grain size
compositions:
Test Pit Depth Percent Percent Percent
No. {Feet} Sand Sand Sand
1 3-4 78 12 10
2 2-3 87 3 10
'C 11 .' ,~j
;.
3 3-4 80 13 7 5!;
~'f
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No. G-184S-06
Henry Lots I Carlsbad
4
c. Direct Shear
3-4 83 9 8
Direct shear tests were performed on undisturbed natural samples of
the bedrock encountered within the full depth explored, and were
considered most pertinent slope stability calculations. All tests were
performed in the saturated-drained and remqld to 90% with optimum
moisture condition. Individual test results are shown on Plate D.
D. Consolidation
Consolidation (load deformation) test were performed on undisturbed
samples at selected depth. Plotted test results are presented on Plate
E and J.
E. Expansion
Expansion Index test-was performed on selected sample of the
underlying near surface soils. Test results are as follows:
TP-No.
1
Depth
(ft)
1-2
Moisture Cont.
(%)
8.6
Dry Density
(pcf)
116.0
Expansion
I-ndex
o
Expansion Index test shows very row expansion potential based on UBC,
Table 29-C.
F. Chemical Analysis
Chemical sulfate analysis was performed on a representative sample by
the CAL 417 -A method. A soluble sulfate of 155 parts per million was
indicated therefore, the use of type II cement will be adequate for
foundation, floor slab and other concrete elements, in contact with the soil.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No. G-1845-06
Henry Lots / Carlsbad
Design Values
These preliminary design parameters are representative values selected
from the test data and other sources for design and are tabulated below:
Field Density (pcf)
Expansion Index
Angle of Internal Friction, Degrees
Cohesion p.sJ.
Subgrade Reaction "K"
Seismic Factors
a. Soil Pro.file Type
b. Subject site is located in Seismic Zone 4,
c. Seismic zone Factor
c. Fault Distance
d. Seismic Coefficient
e. Near Source Factor
f. Seismic Source Type
g. Magnitude
h. Maximum Slip Rate
i. Probabilistic Acceleration
j. Max. Site Earthquake Acceleration
Conclusions and Recommendations
= Type Sc
=0.4
120 o
28,34
200,300
100 pci
= 5.3 miles (8.5 km)
Nv = 1.1
= Type B
= 6.9
= 1.5 mm / year
= 0.23g
=0.344g
Based on the subsurface condition and from a geotechnical standpoint, it is
concluded that the development of the project site is feasible relative to
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No. G-1845-06
Henry Lots I Carlsbad
soils, bedrock and other geotechnical factors, if recommendations outlined
in this report are properly executed.
The site lies within a seismically active region of southern California. The
site is not located within or near Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The
potential for surface fault rupture, liquefaction or flooding is considered very
low to nil. Strong earthquake shaking from adjacent and distant active
faults is very likely at any time during the life of the structure.
No ground water was encountered in the excavations nor was any
evidence found to suggest that there is a near surface ground water in the
site ..
The followings are general recommendations to be followed for the site
development:
a. Site grading plan shall be reviewed to evaluate proposed cut and
fill pads and to provide specific recommendation for grading and
site development, as necessary.
b. Existing surficial surface soils, loose alluvium and topsoil's are not
suitable for structure support and support of new fills.
c. All new cut and fill slopes should not have an inclination steeper
than 2:1 (H:V).
d. Structures shall not be placed in two different type of material. In
case buildings are placed in cut-fill transition, it is recommended to
either extend all footings into the bedrock or over excavate the cut
areas to a depth of 3 feet below grade and re compact. In this case
all footings will be embedded into certified compacted fill.
Foundation Support
For design purposes, an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per
square foot at minimum embedment of 12 inches into firm natural bedrock
may be used. Footings on approved compacted fill may be designed for an
allowable bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot.
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No. G-1845-06
Henry Lots / Carlsbad
An increase of 150 pound per square foot ··2S0 psf is allowed for each
additional foot of increase in width and depth, respectively to a maximum
value of 3,SOO psf.
Settlement calculations are based upon consolidation test results in
accordance with the method set forth in Fundamentals of Soils Mechanics
by D.W. Taylor. The amount of settlement is a function of the size of .the
loaded area as well as of the load. The magnitude of the imposed stress in
the soil diminishes with depth in accordance with the influence factor,
which is a dimensionless quantity that depends on the area and Poisson's
ratio. Settlement calculations are based on the maximum stress. When the
stress at depth becomes less than ten percent of the applied stress, it is
assumed that consolidation would be negligible. Settlement calculations for
typical footings are less than 1/2 inch, for loading of 3.S kips per square
foot. Differential settlement will be 1/3 inch maximum for a horizontal
distance of SO-feet. In order to provide a uniform bearing conditions, all
foundations for isolated individual structures should be embedded in the
same bearing materials such as entirely in native bedrock or entirely in
compacted fill or bedrock.
This allowable bearing value is for dead plus live load and may be
increased by one-third for transient loads such are wind or seismic forces.
Lateral Resistance
Horizontal forces may be resisted by passive pressure acting on the side,
and sliding resistance. The passive pressure may be 300 psf per foot of
embedment from the lowest adjacent grade up to a maximum of 4,SOO psf.
FriCtion between base of footings and/or floor slabs, and the underlying
soils or bedrock may be assumed to be 40 percent of the dead loads.
The allowable bearing capacity and the allowable resistance of horizontal
forces may be increased one-third for transient forces.
Friction and lateral pressure may be combined, but not to exceed two-
thirds of the allowable lateral pressure.
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No. G-1845-06
Henry Lots I Carlsbad
Active pressure
Recommended active lateral soil pressure values for design of drained
retaining walls if any, are as follows:
Surface Slope
Of Retained Earth
Level
3:1 Slope
2:1 Slope
On-site
Backfill
35
40
50
A pipe and gravel drain (4" perforated PVC Schedule 40 or equivalent,
embedded in at least three cubic feet of gravel per lineal foot of pipe)
should be provided at the retained earth side, near the base of all the
retaining walls. Backfill should consist of sand and/or gravel. All backfills
should be compacted to the required degree; care should be taken when
working close to the walls to prevent excessive pressure.
Walls of underground structure shall be designed for a restrained condition.
The restrained condition will be 55 pounds per cubic foot of equivalent fluid
pressure.
"General Grading Criteria
I
a. Grading at a minimum should conform to Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
b. The existing ground surface should be prepared for grading by
removing all vegetation, debris, non-complying fill, and any other
organic material. Voids created by removal of such material should be
properly backfilled and compacted. No compacted fill should be placed
unless the underlying soil has been observed by the Geotechnical
. Engineer.
c. Toe key and uphill benches should be excavated into firm and
competent material under all fills placed over natural ground sloping 5:1
or steeper. At areas of steep natural slopes, benching should be
provided on all back cuts.
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No. G-1845-06
Henry Lots I Carlsbad
d; Areas receive fill, the exposed bedrock surface should be scarified,
minimum of six inches, moisture conditioned as required, thoroughly
mixed to a uniform near optimum moisture condition, and recompacted
to at least 90 percent of ASTM 0-1557-96 laboratory test standard.
e. The bottom of all excavation should be observed by a representative of
this firm prior to processing or placing fill.
f. All fill and backfill should be brought to near optimum moisture, placed
in layers with loose thickness not greater than six (6) inches and should
be compacted to a minimum of ninety (90) percent of the maximum dry
density obtainable by the ASTM 0-1557-96 test method.
g. Strict management of irrigation above the slope should be provided
and maintained, because excessive water migrating to the slopes may
cause a failure.
h. Drainage systems should be designed so the water is hot discharged
into the slopes or near structures. Final site grade should be such that
all water is diverted away from the structures, and is not allowed to
pond, and should not flow over the slopes.
i. Plans and specifications should be provided to Geotechnical Solutions,
Inc., prior to grading. Plans should include the grading plan and
proposed site development plans, if any.
j. Temporary excavation slopes up to five (5) feet high can be cut verticaL
Over excavation or any cut deeper than 5 feet should be excavated at
an inclination of 1 H:1V or flatter. Stability of those slopes will depend to
a great extent on keeping traffic and outside load away from the slope
top, at a minimum distance equal to the excavation depth. No water
should be allowed to pond above or freely run over the slope face.
Excavatibilty
Based on this cursory investigation, it is apparent that the soils and
bedrock underlying the site is considered economically rippable with
conventional, and heavy duty grading equipment.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No. G-1845-06
Henry Lots I Carlsbad
Limitations
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of
the owner or his representative to see th.at the information and
recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the other
members of the design team for the project and that the applicable
information is incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps are
taken to see that the contractors and the subcontractors carry out such
recommendations. The findings of this report are valid as of the present
date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the
passage of time, whether due to natural processes or to the works of man,
on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or
appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or
the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may
be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes outside of our control. The
validity of the recommendations of this report assumes that Geotechnical
Solutions, Inc. will be retained to provide these services. The scope of our
services did not include any investigation for the presence or absence of
hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air,
on or below or around this site.
Remarks
The conclusion and recommendations contained herein are based on the
findings and observation made at the boring locations. While no significant
variations in soil conditions are anticipated, if conditions are encountered
during the site grading which appear to differ from those disclosed by the
test borings, this office should be notified so as to consider the need for
modifications. Your attention is directed to the fact that while caving was
not encountered in the small diameter borings; it is possible that a trench or
larger diameter excavation could react in an altogether different manner. All
shoring and bracing should be in accordance with current requirements of
CAL-OSHA, the Industrial Accident commission of the State of California
and all other public agencies having jurisdiction. This report is subject to
review by the controlling public agencies having jurisdiction.
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
12
I
I Project No. G-1845-06
Henry Lots I Carlsbad
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX I
Vicinity Map
Site Plan & Boring/Test Pit Locations
Cross Sections
Log of Boring
Log of Test Pits
Direct Shear Test
Consolidation Tests
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
~ %' " -'tflo
"U1 ;-.x-,
VICINITY MAP
"
, .. -
CARLSBAD LOTS
\, "
... ." " "
Northeast corner of Hoover and Adams street, Carlsbad, California
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
", .~t
I, "
t!i * .. .,-" -'lJ.~ __ :/./
.' " ,:
I ••• ..~ . ---~ " .~ , ,
",
j i • . l: .
r~ ",
"
·t •••• • ...
~ L .. __ ..
,
, .. . ". ~.
I : i i
I ; . !
, ,
. ~ .\.} '", ..
'" ......
t: t,
• !
Project No. 'G-184S-06
Plate: A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Log of Test Hole No. 1
Drilling Equipment: 8" Hollowstem Auger
Driving Weight: 140 Ibs. @ 30" Drop
Drilling Date: 5/30101
I Depth (ft' S B Description N D W #4 _ II Sand silty __________ ~ ______ .
-Sandstone bedrock 66 1'09 5
-
5 -I fine grained 71 107 4
massive
-
10 -~ 88 111 6
-
15 -I 75 104 4
-
20 -I 102 113 5
-
25 -I 111 109 4
End of boring @ 25-feet.
No caving.
No groundwater
30 -
35 -
40 -
.eaend:
B Bulk Sample S
N
·0
W
Core Sample
Number of Blows
Dry Density
#4 % Passing Sieve No.4
#200 % Passing Sieve No. 200
Field Moisture Content
CARLSBAD LOTS
Northeast· corner of Hoover and Adams ::;tl tjet, Carlsbad California
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
#200 C F
reddish mod
browm dense
dense
to
very
dense
C Color
F Firmness
i Project No. G-1845-06
Plate: C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
I
Log of Test Pit No.1
Equipment: Manual sampling/Jack hammer Drilling Date: 5/30/01
Drivin Weight: 64 Ibs. @ 30" Drop
Depth (ft) SIB DescriptioJ} NQ 'If'{ #4 #LUU C F
Sand, silty
Sandstone Bedrock
1 -
fine grained
2-
massive
3-
119 112 6
Reddish
brown
dense
to
very
dense
4 -I-+~ ______________________ ~ __ ~~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ ______ ~ ______ ~
-
-
Leaend:
S
N
D
W
End of excavation @ 4.0-ft.
No caving & no groundwater.
Core Sample
Number of Blows
Dry Density
Field Moisture Content
B Bulk Sample
#4 % Passing Sieve No.4
#200 % Passing Sieve No. 200
CARLSBAD LOTS
Northeast: corner of Hoover and Adams street Carlsbad, California
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
C Color
F Firmness
! Project No. G-1845-06
Plate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Log of Test Pit No.2
Equipment: Manual sampling/Jack hammer Drilling Date: 5/30/01
Drivin Weight: 64 Ibs. @ 3011 Drop
I Depth (ft)ISIB Description N D W #4 #200 C F
1-
2-
Sand, silty
Sandstone Bedrock
cobble to 8 inch
lenses
fine grained
124 106 3
Reddish
brown
dense
to
very
dense
3-~~----------------------~--~~--~--~--~------~------~
4-
-
-
.eaend
S
N
D
W
End of excavation @ 3.0-ft.
No caving & no groundwater.
Core Sample
Number of Blows
Dry Density
Field Moisture Content
S Bulk Sample
#4 % Passing Sieve No.4
#200 % Passing Sieve No. 200
CARLSBAD LOTS
Northeast· corner of Hoover and Adams street, Carlsbad California
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
C Color
F Firmness
'Project No. G-1845-06
Plate: G2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Log of Test Pit NO.3
Equipment: Manual sampling/Jack hammer
Drivin Weiqht: 64 Ibs. @ 30" Dr()Q
Drilling Date: 5/30101
[Depth (ft)ISIB Description
-Sand, silty
1-
2
3-
4-
5-
6-
-
ILeaer..J.
Sandstone Bedrock
lightly cemented
lenses
fine grained
moderately well cemented
End of excavation @ 5.5-ft.
No caving & no groundwater.
N Q
121 .111
S Core Sample B Bulk Sample
_V'{ _tH
4
N Number of Blows
D Dry Density
#4 % Passing Sieve No.4
#200 % Passing Sieve No. 200
W Field Moisture Content
CARLSBAD LOTS
Northeast corner of Hoover and Adams street, Carlsbad California
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
1120Q C-F
Reddish dense
brown
to
to
very
light
Reddish dense
brown
C Color
F Firmness
I Project No. G-1845-06
Plate: C3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Log of Test Pit No.4
Equipment: Manual sampling/Jack hammer Drilling Date: 5/30/01
Drivin WE}iabt: 64 Ibs. @ 30" Drop
IDepth (ft)ISIB Description NQVY #tJr .. tf200C F
----
1 ---
--
2 ----
3---
4-
5-
6-
-
.eaend:
Sand, silty
Sandstone Bedrock
slightly cemented
Friable
lenses
fine grained
massive
moderately well cemented
End of excavation @ 5.5-ft.
No caving & no groundwater.
110 107 3
S Core Sample B Bulk Sample
N Number of Blows #4 % Passing Sieve No.4
D Dry Density #200 % Passing Sieve No. 200
W Field Moisture Content
CARLSBAD LOTS
Northeast corner of Hoover and Adams str~§!~ Carlsbad California
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
Reddish dense
brown
to
to
very
light
Reddish dense
brown
to
multi color
yellow
brown
to
light brown
C Color
F Firmness
Project No. G-1845-06
Plate: C4
I
I Geologic Test Pit Log
I --rP _/\
\" ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I \
I ----
I
I
I
I
I
\ t~-:"
.. ~
.~ I ! I ,,'" \~ :.:.
., .... \ ) '-'"
' .... ~{::l~i.JS~
CARLSBAD LOTS Project No. G-1845-06
I Northeast corner of Hoover and Adams street, Carlsbad, California C5 Figure
Geotechnical Solutions,· Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\. \
Geologic Test Pit Log
~~ftz)·~,.{ 1.':';:).
~;f) F~··;·~~~:1!:..
.~
r··}
i "-I \ \.J
------------~~
..,.'Q~~O':\'--\
\. "';'-=-1'
CARLSBAD LOTS
Northeast corner of Hoover and Adams street, Carlsbad, California
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
-:-;'.' "~"",,'"
------.
Project No. G-1845 .. 06
Fiqure C6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0
4.0
fZ' ~
~ 3.0 o ~
~ ~ ~ 2.0
DIRECT SHEAR
1'OV~
0.0
0.0
SYMBOL LOCATION
A* Test Pit No.1
8** Test Pit No.1
* Bedrock
** Fill
1.0
DEPTH
(FT)
2'-3'
2'-3'
2.0 3.0
NORMAL LOAD (KSE)
TEST CONDITION
Saturated -Drained
Remold to 90%
CARLSBAD LOTS
Northeast corner of Hoover and Adams street, Carlsbad, California
4.0
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
5.0 .
COHESION
(PSF)
200
300
Project No.
Plate:
FRICTION
(DEG)
34
28
G-1845-06
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONSOLIDATION
Load In Kips per Square Foot
.5 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10
I--.
1 ' "' '\. .....
"'" " '"
"-"-"-
2 "-"-"-
"-"-" ,
\.
"-
3 "-"-"-,
'\
!f
'\
\. r-" I--'\ --"-4 --'\
~ ~ 5
6
7
0 After Water Added to Sample
Test Pit # 1 @ 2-3 ft
CARLSBAD LOTS
Northeast· corner of Hoover and Adams street, Carlsbad, California
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
15 20 30
Project No. G-1845-06
Plate: E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONSOLIDATION
Load In Kips per Square Foot
.5 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10
-........ --1 ,......
..... ,
" , , ,
" ,
"-
2 " , ,
"-" "\.
"-"\.
"\.
"-
3 --I--'-. -" --" -c --"', ~ -
i] 4
Ie 5
6
7
0 After Water Added to Sample
Test Pit # 2 @ 2-3 ft
CARLSBAD LOTS
Northeast corner of Hoover and Adams street, Carlsbad, California
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
15 20 30
Project No. G-1845-06
Plate: F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONSOLIDATION
Load In Kips per Square Foot
.5 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10
r--........
'-....,
1 "'
........
" ....,
"-""'-2 ."-,
"-"-"-"-"-"-"-
"-"-
3 "'\
"-
roo--. ""--... , c -"-~ r-"-
J ... " -"-4 -
I)
5
6
7
0 After Water Added to Sample
Test Pit # 3 @ 2'-3'
CARLSBAD LOTS
Northeast: corner of Hoover and Adams street, Carlsbad, California
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
15 20 30
Project No. G-1845-06
Plate: G
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONSOLIDATION
Load In Kips per Square Foot
.5 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10
--..
"'" y r.....
1 l )
r-..
"--.....
'-.....
"-
2 ....
'. "-
"-"-......
" " " 3 "-
"-"-" , ...... ,
j --~. ---1"-
-I-"-~ 4 I~
] 5
6
7
0 After Water Added to Sample
Test Pit # 4 @ 2'-3'
CARLSBAD LOTS
Northeast corner of Hoover and Adams street, Carlsbad, California
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
15 20 30
Project No. G-1845-06
Plate: H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONSOLIDATION
Load In Kips per Square Foot
.5 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10
-,......, ......
1 r
"
........
'-
'-
'-,
2 "'-" '-,
"-"-" "-'.
"-....
3 "---"---"---, -" t;; r--..:. , -"-i ~ ;;;;:;:
f] 4
Cl. 5
6
7
0 After Water Added to Sample
Boring 1 @ 2'-3'
CARLSBAD LOTS
Northeast corner of Hoover and Adams street, Carlsbad, California
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
15 20 30
I
Project No. G-1845-06 ..
Plate: I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CO'NSOLIDATION
Load In Kips per Square Foot
.5 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10
t-....... ....... ......
1
1 '-v
........
.........
......... .... ......
''' . .....
"
2 , .....
"-
"-....
"-...
..... -"-
3 .....
;--"-
c j
I] 4
J CL 5
6
7
0 After Water Added to Sample
Boring 1 @ 5-6 ft.
CARLSBAD LOTS
Northeast corner of Hoover and Adams street, Carlsbad, California
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
"
15 20 30
Project No. G-1845-06
Plate: J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No. G-1845-06
Henry Lots I Carlsbad
APPENDIX II
Seismic Data
EQ-Fault
FRISKSP
2
I
I
I CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
I Henry Lots
1100
I 1000
I 900
I 800
I 700
I 600
I 500
I 400
I 300
I 200
I 100
I 0
I -100
I -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
I
I
II
I
II
II
II
I
I
II
I
I
I
TEST. OUT
***********************
* * * E Q F A U L T * * * * version 3.00 * * * ***********************
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: G-1845-06
DATE: 06-20-2001
JOB NAME: Henry Lots
CALCULATION NAME: EQ Fault Analysis
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1487
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3299
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 miles
ATTENUATION RELATION: 12) Bozorgnia campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Sort
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, s=sigma): M Number of sigmas: 0.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km campbell SSR: 1 campbell SHR:
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
Rock-Cor.
o
II FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT
II
II
II
I
I
I
I
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TEST.OUT
EQFAULT SUMMARY
-----------------------------
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
-----------------------------
page 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------I . I ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE 1-------------------------------
ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE I MAXIMUM I PEAK lEST. SITE
FAULT NAME 1 mi (km) I EARTHQUAKE I SITE I INTENSITY
I 1 MAG.(Mw) 1 ACCEL. 9 IMOD.MERC.
================================1==============1==========1==========1=========
ROSE CANYON . 1 5.3( 8.5)1 6.9 1 0.344 1 IX
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (offshore) 1 6.0( 9.7)1 6.9 I· 0.317 I IX
CORONADO BANK 1 21.2( 34.1)1 7.4 1 0.147 I VIII
ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 24.1( 38.8)1 6.8 1 0.087 I VII
ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 24.2( 39.0)1 7.1 I 0.106 1 VII E~SINORE-GLEN IVY 1 34.2( 55.1)1 6.8 1 0.060 1 VI
PALOS VERDES 1 36.5( 58.7)1 7.1 I 0.069 1 VI
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 43.4( 69.8)1 6.5 1 0.038 1 V
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 46.7( 75.2)1 6.9 1 0.047 1 VI SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 46.7( 75.2)1 7.2 1 0.058 1 VI
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 47.3( 76.2)1 6.9 1 0.046 1 VI
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 48.4( 77.9)1 6.7 1 0.055 1 VI
WHITTIER 1 51.9( 83.5}1 6.S 1 0.039 1 v
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 52.1C 83.9)1 6.8 1 0.0391 V
COMPTON THRUST I' 56.S( 90.9) 1 6.8 1 0.051 1 VI
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 57.4( 92.4)1 6.8 1 0.035 1 V
ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 1 59.3( 95.5)1 6.7 1 0.045 1 VI
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 60.1( 96.8)1 6.7 1 0.031 1 V
SAN ANDREAS -San Bernardino 1 65.1( 104.7)1 7.3 I 0.044 I VI
SAN ANDREAS -Southern 1 65.1( 104.7)1 7.4 1 0.047 1 VI
SAN JACINTO -BORREGO 1 65.B( 105.9)1 6.6 1 0.027 1 V SAN JOSE 1 69.2( 111.4)1 6.5 1 0.033 1 V
PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 72.0e 115.9)1 7.0 1 0.032 r V
SIERRA MADRE 1 72.9( 117.3)1 7.0 1 0.044 1 VI
SAN ANDREAS -coachella 1 73.1( 117.6)1 7.1 1 0.033 1 V
CUCAMONGA 1 73.2( 117.8)1 7.0 1 0.044 1 VI
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 1 76.1( 122.5)1 7.0 1 0.042 1 VI
BURNT MTN. 1 77.9( 125.4)/ 6.4 / 0.019 / IV
CLEGHORN. / 77.9( 125.4) /. 6.5 1 0.021 1 IV
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 1 80.S( 129.5)1 6.7 1 0.032 1 V
EUREKA PEAK 1 80.7( 129.9)1 6.4 / 0.019 / IV
RAYMOND / 81.0( 130.3)/ 6.5 1 0.028 / V
SAN ANDREAS -1857 Rupture 1 81.2( 130.6)1 7.8 1 0.050 / VI
SAN ANDREAS -Mojave 1 81.2( 130.6)1 7.1 1 0.030 1 V
SUPERSTITION MTN. (san Jacinto) 1 82.1( 132.2)1 6.6 1 0.021 1 IV
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT / 82.7( 133.1)1 6.5 1 0.027 1 V VERDUGO / 83.6( 134.6)1 6,7 / 0.031 1 V
HOLLYWOOD / 85.5( 137.6)1 6.4 / 0.025 1 V
ELMORE RANCH 1 85.7( 138.0)1 6.6 1 0.020 / IV
SUPERSTITION HILLS (san Jacinto) 1 S6.S( 139.7)1 6.6 1 0.020 1 IV
page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 2
TEST. OUT
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
/ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
APPROXIMATE /-------------------------------, ABBREVIATED DISTANCE / MAXIMUM I PEAK /EST. SITE
FAULT NAME / mi Ckm) /EARTHQUAKE/ SITE /INTENSITY
/ / MAG.(MW) / ACCEL. 9 /MOD.MERC.
================================1==============1==========/==========/=========
LANDERS / 87.8( 141.3)1 7.3 1 0.032 1 V
HELENDALE -S. LOCKHARDT 1 88.5( 142.5)1 7.1 1 0.027 / V
LAGUNA SALADA 1 88.7( 142.8)1 7.0 1 0.025 1 V
SANTA MONICA 1 90.2( 145.2)1 6.6 / 0.027 1 V
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 92.5( 148.8) 1 7.3' 1 0.030 1 V
MALIBU COAST / 92.8( 149.3)1 6.7 1 0.028 / V
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 94.9( 152.7)1 6.4 1 0.016 / IV
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) / 95.6( 153.9)1 6.7 1 0.019 1 IV
EMERSON -So. -COPPER MTN. 1 96.0( 154.5)1 6.9 / 0.022 / IV
NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge) 1 97.0( 156.1)1 6.9 1 0.031 1 V
SIERRA MADRE (san Fernando) 1 97.5( 156.9)1 6.7 1 0.026 1 V
SAN GABRIEL 1 97.7( 157.3)1 7.0 1 0.023 1 IV
ANACAPA-DUME 1 99.4( 160.0)1 7.3 1 0.039 / V
*******************************************************************************
-END OF SEARCH-53 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 5.3 MILES (8.5 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.3438 9
page 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .'
I
....-....
~ 0 ........,
~ +-' .-
..Q co
..Q
0 s...
0..
CD () c co
-0
CD
CD ()
>< w
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
BOZ. ET AL.(1999)HOR SR COR 1
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
r-
~
~'
~\\
-r-
I-r-
I-
'---
r-\ I-r-
I-
--
\ \ ~ --
I • I
25 yrs
I • I
75 yrs
-\ \~\ r-
I-r-
~ \\ ~ '---
r-'" ~ r-
=1 1 1 I ..... I 1 I I 1 I
I
I ... I
50 yrs
I T I
100 . yrs
I ILl 1 III 1
. 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (Q)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,--
,..-......
C/)
L
~
'-"
'U
0 . -L
Q)
D-
c L
:J -f-I
(J.)
~
.RETURN PERIOD vs. ACCELERATION
BOZ. ET AL.(1999)HOR SR COR 1
1000000 /
..,-
~
/
100000 /
. at'
./
./
/'
100()O / ..
/'
/
t"
/
10()0 /
/
V
/
" 100 /
v-
I I .1 I I I I J I I I I 1 I I. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.00 0'.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (Q)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CALIFORNIA F AUL T MAP
Henry Lots
1100~------------------------------------------------------~
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300 .
200
100
o
_100~·I~~~~~~~~~~~~~-r~~~~~~~~~~~~~y
-400 -300 -200 -100 o 100 200 300 400 500 600
POOR.
QUALITY
ORIGINAL· S
-~ ,,~-'-
--,--- - ----- - -..
,
< >
/'
.....
137.75' m .~ I~ t!
SITE pLAN AND TEST PIT/ 80:RI·NG LOCATIO
CARLSBAD LOTS
Northeast corner of Hoover and Adams' tre Carl ifornia
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
.... -
:1:
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
" ;
.~ g'J -\i.)es,-I \ .. -I 1 >-.,1 , .. 1-+ G\>.~s. I ~ , • -, ,! 1lJ. \ t" ",-' I 1)i)J =-"'\ \-;)&-I -'-• . " ,.' I "'"
\L 1 \ .-('\J " \ i . I' .f= •
, ,,,.._~ If"'", I 1-.. • J>'
, ' ~2-~~S ... ,' ' ~ ..
ill 70 _ 0,,\)(\"'''' ( r= ,/'''''''''" r"U' . , .. ,~' '="~I' II·
-> 1.0'.' ' ' ' " ",~'-" "'" 1-'1
0
ill ,'Wl, .. c-=~==-~=,=--=r-I ;n-/ ~-.:... . ,~Y~:D I'
. " ..... .~~ I I "{} ~ " ,,:=-,"~'''' ," ., " . '" '" ~-( .:.:-~": :" c--_ """,.us o .. ""==! ._ ~~ -5, ---__ ,_,1 L
r
\-
'" : .. '" C" ,:' \.,>"", \)~~ 'F<>.,... ••• ~ S --190~ , U
B SECTlo0 A-h' L3
$01 \l:eSTL.-I c~--I ' 'l ,-1 I' -(l"",'"", ,:):", .. ,")1 " ~ -Itiil1'l'& . . I' -;11 ~~ , ,,-~ ~--!
\
sr=-' I ~-' .' ~, ._ -<",' . • ' ' ,1, • _ e""'" -W
r -;0-
1
~~ L' ~a.: G~o>J.'YT;> ~\b--!>.c;;. . (' n -~ ~ -/l\=IOJ.~L ~\.... . I .=~ r'C! ! ill et~ / . ,--_e,'" r _ r ,~' ''0 1 \!l \ " _~ ",,' -~~ ~~~d ~ -.
lJ. _I r ~'o-~~~ ,.'i' .--sU...?U .-=--_~-. ,.' I ~ ~ \ ,/ .. ~~ ~ , ~ ~ 1<1 .... "'" ~<~..,. ~ I"e
o
__ -____ .. ,""" U=~ -0" -_. ~--. r·t-. ______ ~ , . _" ... ~"o ' < r tl:
\, '11 l' C"-' ~I]O:5 ." v, ",c",,,,,, '_"" "20 "C'GTIo\0 'B-'t',' ,~ (. ill
, \,..ooh::.\ ,-'r ~ "-'!::>-'~ .. J .... I"-".:r-\~,,-::i ~
CARLSBAD LOTS No. ,I G~1845-06
Northeast corner of Hoover and Adams street. Carlsbad
Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.