HomeMy WebLinkAbout; 5025 Tierra Del Oro Street; Geotechnical Evaluation of Coastal Bluff Property; 1997-11-17SGC Southland Geotechnical Consultants
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
OF COASTAL BLUFF PROPERTY
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS
5025 TIERRA DEL ORO STREET
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Project No. 126F21
November 17, 1997
Prepared for:
Adams Design Associates
839-B Second Street
Encinitas, California 92024
1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92O21
(619)442-8022 • FAX (619)442-7859
SGC South/and Geotechnical Consultants
November 17, 1997 Project No. 126F21
To: Adams Design Associates, Inc.
829-B 2nd Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Attention: Mr. Andy Wilt
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation of Coastal Bluff Property, Proposed Residential
Additions, 5025 Tierra del Oro Street, Carlsbad, California
Introduction
In accordance with your request, Southland Geotechnical Consultants has performed
a geotechnical evaluation of the subject coastal bluff property. We understand that
additions to the existing single-family residence are planned at the property. This
report presents a summary of our field and research studies and our conclusions and
recommendations, from a geotechnical standpoint, relative to the proposed
development.
Purpose and Scope
This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation of the coastal bluff
property located at 5025 Tierra del Oro Street in Carlsbad. The purpose of our study
was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions at the coastal bluff property and provide
recommendations relative to the proposed construction. The scope of our
geotechnical evaluation included the following:
Review of aerial photographs, geologic/topographic maps, and geologic
literature pertaining to the site and vicinity. A list of the items reviewed is
presented in Appendix A.
Geologic reconnaissance to observe the existing site conditions including the
coastal bluff and general vicinity.
Preparation of a tape and compass profile of the bluff face.
Investigation of the subsurface soil conditions by manually excavating, logging
and sampling three exploratory borings in the areas of the proposed additions.
Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained including a computer-generated
slope stability analysis of the coastal bluff.
• 1238 GREENFIELD DRIVE, SUITE A EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92021
(619)442-8022 • FAX (619)442-7859
Project No. 126F21
Preparation of this report summarizing the results of our geotechnical evaluation
of the coastal bluff property. This report includes a summary of the coastal
bluff conditions and discusses the geotechnical factors affecting the proposed
additions including allowable soil-bearing pressure, foundation design and other
design/construction considerations.
Site Description
The subject coastal bluff property is known as San Diego County Assessor's Parcel
Number 210-02-12. The roughly rectangular property is located at 5025 Tierra del
Oro Street in the City of Carlsbad (see Figure 1). The eastern property line at the site
is located along the westerly side of the Tierra del Oro Street roadway. Single-family
residential developments exist on the properties to the north and south of the subject
property. The relatively level bluff-top area of the property is bounded on the west
by an approximately 30-foot high coastal bluff with an overall gradient of
approximately 28 degrees {see Photos 1 and 2). A rock revetment exists along the
base of the coastal bluff. The approximate elevation of the bluff edge is about 38 feet
above sea level based on the City of Carlsbad 1991 orthophoto map (Appendix A).
In general, the bluff-top area at the site slopes gently towards the east. A single-
story, single-family residence occupies the majority of the bluff-top area. On
November 1, 1997, a SGC representative made approximate measurements of the
features located on the western portion of the bluff-top area at the site. The results,
with our interpretation of the approximate location of the bluff edge, are included on
Figure 2. Please note that the bluff edge on the site is obscured by vegetative growth
(see Photos 3 and 4} and we emphasize that our measurements are approximate.
Figure 2 is not a surveyed map.
Bluff Description
During our site visit on November 1, 1997, a tape and compass profile of the coastal
bluff on the property was prepared. The results of our approximate measurements are
presented on Figure 3 (Coastal Bluff Profile). Following is a summary of the onsite
bluff conditions.
The approximately 30-foot high coastal bluff slopes at an overall gradient of
approximately 28 degrees (from the base of the bluff face east of the rock revetment
to the upper bluff edge). There is a rock revetment ("rip- rap") at the base of the
coastal bluff (see Photos 1 and 2). This rock revetment is approximately 35 feet wide
and extends continuously laterally along the beach for a distance of approximately
230 feet north and for approximately 300 feet south of the subject property. A
veneer of beach sand overlies the wave-cut platform to the west of the rock
SGC
Project No. 126F21
revetment. The wave-cut platform is developed on the Santiago Formation sandstone
at the site (see Photo 2). The coastal bluff appears to be underlain by terrace deposits
sands and is generally moderately to well vegetated with iceplant and other plants.
A wooden stairway (with landing areas) and various slope retention structures were
observed on the coastal bluff face. The largest retaining wall is an approximately
3.5-foot high block wall in the southwestern portion of the bluff. This wall extends
to the north for approximately 15 feet from the existing stairway.
Proposed Development
Based on our review of preliminary project plans (Appendix A), it is our understanding
that the existing residence will be remodelled and one- and two-story additions to the
residence are proposed at the site. The additions proposed to extend beyond the
perimeter of the existing residence are shown on Figure 2. We understand that the
residential additions will consist of typical, relatively light, residential construction.
Subsurface Exploration
On November 5, 1997, an engineering geologist from our firm manually excavated,
logged and sampled three exploratory borings at the approximate locations shown on
Figure 2. The borings were excavated to a maximum depth of 3.7 feet. Logs of the
exploratory borings are included as Figure 4. Subsequent to logging, the exploratory
borings were backfilled.
The soil exposed in our exploratory borings consisted of silty fine sand and is similar
to soil in the general site vicinity found to have a very low expansion potential when
tested in accordance with UBC Standard No. 29-2.
Geologic Units
Based on our review of a geologic map (Appendix A, Reference 13) and our onsite
observations, the property appears to be underlain by Eocene-aged Santiago Formation
sandstone at depth. The Santiago Formation is overlain by Quaternary-aged terrace
deposits, which are exposed in the coastal bluff face. Surficial deposits consisting of
beach deposits were observed during our site visit and fill soils may exist on the bluff
face and bluff-top area. The approximate limits of these units, as observed in our
onsite studies, are shown on Figure 3 and are described below:
Santiago Formation - The Eocene-aged Santiago Formation is exposed in the
wave-cut platform (see Photo 2) underlying the beach sand in the western
portion of the site and underlies the entire site at depth (below the terrace
SGC
Project No. 126F21
deposits). The Santiago Formation sandstone generally consists of a light gray--
brown, well-cemented, silty, fine-grained sandstone.
Terrace Deposits- Quaternary-aged terrace deposits unconformably overlie the
Santiago Formation and comprise the majority of the bluff face. The terrace
deposits consist of orange-brown to light brown, dense but friable, slightly silty
fine- to medium-grained sand.
Beach Deposits - A variable thickness of unconsolidated beach deposits occur
on the beach at the base of the coastal bluff, west of the rock revetment.
During our site visits, the beach deposits consisted of sand. This material is
subject to addition and removal in response to storm waves and currents.
Fill Soils - Relatively minor amounts of fill soils exist locally on the bluff face
(primarily behind the slope retention structures). Fill soils associated with the
existing site improvements on the bluff-top area also were observed. The fill
soils generally consist of locally-derived terrace deposits and imported
landscape soils. The limits of the relatively minor amounts of fill soils are not
shown on Figure 3.
Geologic Structure
The Santiago Formation is exposed in the wave-cut platform in the western portion
of the property {see Photo 2). The Santiago Formation at and near the subject
property is nearly flat-lying. In the general site vicinity, bedding in the Quaternary
terrace deposits can be observed as alternating more resistant and less resistant beds;
Where observed on site and in the general site vicinity, the terrace deposits appear to
be horizontally bedded with localized cross bedding.
Major out-of-slope bedding components, jointing or fracturing that would be adverse
to slope stability were not observed on site. Indications of deep-seated landslide
features were not observed during our research studies or site visits.
Review of Geotechnical Hazards/Constraint Mao
Our review of Geotechnical Hazards/Constraint Map page 14 of the City of Carlsbad
Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study (Appendix A) indicates that the site
is located in Hazard Categories 42 and 53. Category 42 pertains to areas with
"coastal stability" concerns and describes areas that are "generally stable: low bluff
face, generally favorable structure, low to moderate erosion.1* Category 53 pertains
to areas with "other terrain conditions: generally stable: relatively level mesa areas
underlain by terrace deposits, sandstone or granitic/metavolcanic bedrock." Although
SGC
Project No. 126F21
the map is not intended for evaluation of individual sites, it can provide general
indications of the presence of known geologic hazards.
Faulting
Our review of geologic literature {Appendix A) pertaining to the general site area
indicates that there are no known "active" faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the
site. An "active" fault is defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology as
one which has "had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000
years)" (Appendix A, Reference 4). Indications of active faulting were not observed
in the subject coastal bluff or in nearby exposures. The nearest known active faults
are the Rose Canyon fault located offshore approximately 4 miles west of the site, the
Coronado Bank fault located offshore approximately 19.5 miles west, and the Elsinore
fault located approximately 25 miles northeast of the site. The San Andreas fault is
located approximately 62 miles northeast of the site.
Tsunami and Storm Waves
Tsunami are sea waves generated by submarine earthquakes, landslides or volcanic
action. Submarine earthquakes are common along the edge of the Pacific Ocean and
coastal areas are subject to potential inundation by tsunami. Most of the 19 tsunami
recorded on the San Diego tidal gauge (between 1854 to 1872 and 1906 to 1977)
have only been a few tenths of a meter in height (Appendix A, Reference 1). The
largest San Diego area tidal gauge excursion (1 meter) was associated with the
tsunami of May 22, 1960 and was recorded at La Jolla (Scripps Pier) (Appendix A,
Reference 12). The tsunami was generated by a Richter magnitude 8.5 earthquake
in Chile. For comparison, the diurnal range of tides at San Diego Bay is 1.7 meters.
The possibility of a destructive tsunami along the San Diego coastline is considered
low (Appendix A, Reference 5). However, tsunami or storm waves (associated with
winter storms), in conjunction with high tides, may overtop the rock revetment and
erode the friable terrace deposits that comprise the coastal bluff face but generally are
not anticipated to have the potential for inundation of the bluff-top building site.
Groundwater and Surface Water
During our site visits, groundwater seepage was not observed in the coastal bluff.
Based on our experience and observations, our estimation to the depth of groundwater
is that it is at or near sea level and may also be perched locally on the Santiago
Formation at its contact with the overlying terrace deposits. Groundwater levels can
be expected to fluctuate with the tides, seasonal precipitation and irrigation.
Groundwater is not expected to be a constraint to construction of the proposed
SGC
Project No. 126F21
residential additions. However, our experience indicates that near-surface
groundwater conditions can develop in areas where no such groundwater conditions
previously existed, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water
infiltration results from landscape irrigation or unusually heavy precipitation.
The bluff-top surface waters appear to primarily drain towards the east as sheet flow.
The majority of the bluff-top surface waters appear to be directed into a concrete
swale and area drain that apparently discharge easterly to the Tierra del Oro Street
roadway.
Historic Research Summary
We have reviewed the literature, maps and aerial photographs of the site and general
vicinity listed in Appendix A. Following is a limited outline summary of our review
observations:
The oldest map we found on file at the County of San Diego is an 1898 survey
for the Fifth Road District (Appendix A). The bluff along the coastline is
sketched on this map and the railway line is shown.
The oldest photograph we reviewed was one from the 1928-29 aerial
photograph set on file at the County of San Diego. The railroad and coastal
highway (approximately the current Carlsbad Boulevard) are shown on this
photo. A dirt road west of the coastal highway, roughly parallel to the
coastline, and along the bluff top in the general site vicinity is shown.
The Shore Drive roadway and some of the homes in the subdivision to the
south of the subject property are shown on the 1953 aerial photographs. The
subject property and Tierra del Oro subdivision appear to be in an undeveloped,
mostly natural state, however, a dirt road exists along the bluff edge in the site
vicinity and several trails down the bluff face were observed to the north of the
site. Relatively minor erosional gullies on the bluff face in the site vicinity were
observed on the photographs.
The existing residence at the subject property is shown on the 1964, 1967, and
1970 photographs and no rock revetment is apparent along the base of the
coastal bluff. On the 1964 photos, the bluff face appears to be unvegetated.
The existing residence is shown on the 1975 photographs and a relatively leve!
area is shown at the base of the coastal bluff, south of the stairway, just west
of the largest retaining wall that currently exists at the site. It is unclear from
the photographs if some type of structure (patio?, bathhouse?) had existed in
SGC
Project No. 126F21
this area. It appears that some rip-rap may have existed at the base of the
coastal bluff.
On the 1983 photograph, it appears that some rip-rap may have existed at the
base of the coastal bluff.
On the 1989 and subsequent photographs, rip-rap exists along the base of the
coastal bluff and looks generally similar in configuration and size to the rip-rap
{rock revetment) that was observed during our site visits.
On the 1991 orthophoto mapping sheet and 1992 photographs, the bluff-face
area is vegetated generally similarly to what we observed during our recent site
visits. However, the area shown at the base of the coastal bluff, south of the
stairway, just west of the largest retaining wall, is unvegetated. The larger
retaining wall and another shorter wall are apparent in this area.
Coastal Bluff Retreat
The Carlsbad coastline in the vicinity of the subject property consists of a slight
headland (see Figure 1). Mechanisms for coastal bluff retreat at the site may
occasionally include slow abrasion and undercutting by marine erosion (wave action)
of the terrace deposits. Storm surf and higher high tides contribute to the natural
process of marine erosion. However, the existing rock revetment reduces the
potential for erosion of the onsite coastal bluff. Other factors affecting the rate of
retreat of a coastal bluff include degree of fracturing, jointing, consolidation of
sediments, steepness of slope, groundwater and surface water conditions, vegetation
or lack of, and intensity of pedestrian and animal traffic. Portions of coastal bluffs are
also exposed to precipitation, wind, pedestrian/animal erosion (including foot traffic
and burrowing rodents), variations in landscape, landscape maintenance, and other
activities by humans.
During our studies, we did not observe indications of deep-seated instability, such as
ancient or active landslides, on the site, and the Santiago Formation sandstone that
underlies the site at depth is not known to be prone to large, deep-seated failures.
The terrace deposits are friable and commonly rill and ravel in oversteepened slopes,
however, they are not known to be prone to large, deep-seated failures.
The rate and magnitude of coastal bluff retreat at a specific site are dependent on a
variety of factors, both natural and manmade. Many of these factors are ongoing
processes and historic documentation can be helpful in estimating general bluff-edge
retreat rates. However, there are other factors affecting coastal bluff retreat that
cannot be estimated from historic documentation. Such factors include future human
activities or possible extreme variations in regional weather patterns.
SGC
Project No. 126F21
Detrimental changes in factors affecting bluff-edge retreat, such as misdirected
drainage, water line breaks, very heavy storm surf and/or precipitation, could increase
the rate of future erosion. However, favorable changes in the factors affecting bluff-
edge retreat could decrease the rate of future erosion. Some of these include
eliminating detrimental human activities on the bluff, proper maintenance of a bluff-
stabilizing vegetative cover, enhanced site drainage provisions and beach sand
replenishment.
Research studies along the San Diego coast and historic photograph and map review
are components in providing an estimation of the rate of bluff-edge retreat. We
assume that the historic retreat rate may give an indication of the future retreat rate
at a particular site. However, accurate and clear photographic and map
documentation for measuring retreat is not always available or is of fairly short time
intervals so changes may not be noticeable.
Lee and others (Appendix A, Reference 6) performed research studies of regionat
historic bluff-edge retreat and estimated a maximum annual bluff-edge retreat rate of
0.22 to 0.33 feet per year. Over a 75-year period {assumed to be the economic
lifetime of the new construction), this equates to a conservative estimate of bluff-edge
retreat of a maximum of 16.5 to 24.8 feet. This maximum is based on research
studies of regional historic bluff retreat that includes coastal bluffs with generally
favorable conditions, as well as coastal bluffs that are affected by more adverse
conditions (fracturing, sea caves, groundwater, human activities, etc.). The estimated
values of maximum retreat are very conservative, and the actual rate of bluff retreat
at the subject property is expected to be significantly less considering the site
conditions, relatively shallow slope gradient, historic bluff-edge retreat, and rock
revetment improvements at the site.
Sea cave formation and subsequent collapse are localized factors in the bluff retreat
process. Indications of sea cave development were not observed at the subject
property during our site visits.
Our historic photograph review (Appendix A) indicates that the coastal bluff at the
subject property is generally similar in configuration in the 1929, 1953, and
subsequent photos. The location of the onsite bluff edge is also generally similar on
the photographs, prior to and subsequent to the placement of the rock revetment at
the site. The rock revetment appears to be retarding marine erosion of the lower
portion of the bluff. In addition, the coastal bluff has a relatively shallow gradient with
limited areas of oversteepening.
8
SGC
Project No. 126F21
Slope Stability Calculations
A computer-generated slope stability analysis was performed on the coastal bluff at
the site. The slope stability was analyzed using 'Janbu's Simplified Method of Slices'
with the PCSTABL 5M computer program. Groundwater was included in our slope
stability analyses. The slope stability calculations are included in Appendix B. The soil
strength parameters used in our analysis are presented below. These values are based
on laboratory test results, back-calculation, our past experience in this area, and our
professional judgement.
Soil Type Unit Weight Friction Angle Cohesion
Terrace Deposits 120.0 pcf 35 degrees 200 psf
Santiago Fm Sandstone 120.0 pcf 40 degrees 500 psf
The results of the analyses (Appendix B) indicate that for the existing configuration,
the calculated factor of safety against deep-seated failure is in excess of 1.5 (the
generally accepted standard for the geotechnical industry).
SGC
Project No. 126F21
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our geotechnicat evaluation of the coastal bluff at the site, it is our opinion
that the proposed residential additions {and the loading from this relatively light bluff-
top construction) will not adversely impact the existing coastal bluff. In addition, it
is our opinion that trie proposed construction should not be affected by anticipated
coastal bluff retreat processes during its economic lifetime {assumed to be 75 years).
Slope Stability and Erosion
Our geotechnical evaluation of the present overall static stability on the subject
property indicates that the bluff is grossly stable. In its present state, the slope has
a low to moderate potential for erosion and future surficial instability. We provide the
following recommendations to help reduce erosion of the bluff and to reduce potential
for future instability of the bluff face.
Irrigation of the landscape areas on the property should be limited to the
minimum amount required to establish vegetation and maintain plant vigor. The
subject coastal bluff and the bluff edge are currently well vegetated with
iceplant. At this time, it is our opinion that modifications to the vegetation in
these areas should not be considered. However, if landscape planting and/or
plant removal on the westerly bluff-top area is performed, it should be done
without significantly disturbing the bluff-top soils. The surficial stability of
those portions of the bluff that are not well vegetated may be increased by
planting in accordance with the recommendations of a professional landscape
company experienced with coastal bluffs. Terracing or excavation of the bluff-
face soils should be avoided.
Based on our review of the preliminary project plans and our site observations,
it appears that site development will include provisions to discharge surface
waters to the east (toward the Tierra del Oro Street roadway). Drainage at the
site should be directed such that surface waters discharge into non-erosive
drainage provisions. Runoff at the site should not be directed over the bluff
edge. Eave gutters were observed on the existing residence and should be
installed on the remodelled residence and additions. Eave gutters should be
properly maintained with downspouts that discharge into non-erosive drainage
provisions. Pedestrian and animal traffic (and burrowing, etc.) on the bluff face
and bluff edge should not be allowed.
10
SGC
Project No. 126F21
Slooe/Bluff-Edae Setback
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of the coastal
bluff for all structural footings and settlement-sensitive structures. This distance is
measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing horizontally to the slope face
and should be a minimum of 10 feet. Due to the proximity of the existing slope, the
soils within the structural setback zone possess limited lateral support characteristics,
and improvements {such as patios and pools) constructed within this setback zone
may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. Based on our
review of the project plans, the proposed residential additions will be set back a
minimum of 11.5 feet from the bluff edge. It is our opinion that the proposed setback
will safeguard the proposed residential additions from slope-top lateral instability
during the economic lifetime of the new construction.
Seismic Considerations
The principal considerations for most structures in southern California are surface
rupturing of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking or seismically-induced
ground settlement or liquefaction. The possibility of damage due to ground rupture
is considered minimal since no active faults are known to cross the site. It is our
opinion that the potential for liquefaction or seismically-induced ground settlement at
the site due to an earthquake is very low because of the dense nature of the
underlying terrace deposits and Santiago Formation sandstone.
The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an
earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. The nearest known active fault
is the Rose Canyon fault located offshore approximately 4 miles west of the site. It
is estimated that a maximum earthquake on this portion of the Rose Canyon fault
(magnitude 6.5) could produce moderate to severe ground shaking at the site.
In general, the role seismic shaking plays in bluff retreat is dependent on bluff
conditions at the moment of shaking. It is possible that some of the oversteepened
portions of the terrace deposits may undergo shallow failure and some ravelling of the
poorly indurated bluff-face terrace deposits may also occur during ground shaking,
especially on unvegetated portions of the bluff face. However, it is our opinion that
the potential for deep-seated or severe, catastrophic failure of the bluff due to
expected seismic ground shaking is low at the site.
Site Preparation
Prior to construction activities, the proposed addition areas should be cleared of
vegetation, demolition debris and loose soils. Vegetation and loose debris should be
11
SGC
Project No. 126F21
properly disposed of off site. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions
(pipes, etc.) which extend below finished site grades should be filled with properly
compacted fill soils.
Removal/Recompaction of Compressible Soils
The existing fill soils and topsoil mantling the dense terrace deposits are considered
compressible and unsuitable for the support of structural loads in their present
condition. We recommend that the existing fill soils and topsoil be removed in areas
planned for structures, surface improvements or fill placement. As encountered in our
exploratory borings, these soils apparently underlie the site to a depth of
approximately 1 foot below the existing ground surface. Actual depths may vary and
should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during removal of these unsuitable
soils. These soils are considered suitable for re-use as compacted, structural fill
provided they are free of organic material and deleterious debris.
Structural Fill Placement
Areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a
minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near-optimum moisture conditions, and
recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, based on laboratory standard
ASTM D1557. Fill soils should be brought to near-optimum moisture conditions and
compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction {ASTM D1557).
The optimum lift thickness to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the
size and type of construction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in
loose lift thicknesses not exceeding 8 inches.
Foundation and Slab Recommendations
It is anticipated that the proposed one- and two-story additions will be supported by
the existing foundations and/or additional foundations. The adequacy of the existing
foundations to support additional loading should be evaluated by a structural engineer.
New foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural
considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume
that the soils encountered during foundation excavation will consist of medium dense
to dense natural terrace deposits with a very low to low expansion potential.
The proposed additions may be supported on isolated or continuous footings bearing
at least 6 inches into firm, natural soils at a minimum depth of 18 inches beneath the
lowest adjacent grade. At this depth, footings may be designed for an allowable soil-
bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-
12
SGC
Project No. 126F21
third for loads of short duration, such as wind or seismic forces. Footings should have
a minimum width of 12 inches, and reinforcement consisting of two No. 4 rebars {one
near the top and bottom of each footing).
Slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced at midheight in
the slab with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way (or No. 4 rebars at
24 inches on center each way). Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of sand
which is underlain by a 10-mil moisture barrier. The potential for slab cracking may
be lessened by careful control of water/cement ratios. The use of low slump concrete
is recommended. Appropriate curing precautions should be taken during placement
of concrete during hot weather. We recommend that a slipsheet or equivalent be used
if crack-sensitive flooring is planned directly on the concrete slab.
Footings and slabs founded in firm, natural soils may be designed for a passive lateral
bearing pressure of 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. A coefficient of
friction against sliding between concrete and soil of 0.4 may be assumed. These
values may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration, such
as wind or seismic forces.
Lateral Resistance
Lateral loads can be resisted by assuming a passive pressure of 350 psf per foot of
depth and a coefficient of friction of 0.35 between concrete and soil. The lateral
resistance may be taken as the sum of the passive and fractional resistance, provided
the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance.
Other Considerations
The recommendations provided in this report are based on our understanding that one-
and two-story additions to an existing residence (with their relatively tight loading) are
planned at the site and will be set back a minimum of 11.5 feet from the bluff edge.
The site conditions and bluff edge indicated on Figures 2 and 3 have been compiled
from approximate measurements made during our site visits. They should not be
relied on for site development. If needed, we suggest that a licensed land surveyor
be retained to prepare a site topographic plan that accurately delineates the property
boundaries and bluff edge. A site drainage study may also be conducted to develop
a site-specific drainage plan for the proposed development. Please note that the
recommendations contained herein may be revised based on modified and/or additional
information regarding the structure and improvements planned at the site. A qualified
consultant should be retained to review site conditions and assess potential site
impacts following significant erosion events in the future or if major changes in the
bluff configuration are noticed.
13
SGC
Project No. 126F21
Limitations and Uniformity of Conditions
This geotechnical evaluation report addresses the coastal bluff conditions at the
subject property and is based on our understanding that the proposed development
consists of design and construction of additions to an existing single-family residence.
The additions will be set back a minimum of 11.5 feet from the bluff edge.
This report is based on our document/photograph review, surficial observations of the
geologic conditions exposed at the site and vicinity. This report assumes that the
geologic/soils conditions do not deviate appreciably from those observed during our
site visits. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the coastal bluff
property evaluated. We have hot performed an evaluation of the presence of
hazardous materials/contamination at the site.
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in conditions of a
property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to
natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition,
changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, from legislation or the
broadening of knowledge in the fields of geotechnical engineering or geology. Hence,
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.
If there are questions regarding the information contained herein, we should be
contacted. We will not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the
information herein. Our services consist of professional consultation and no warranty
of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with
the work performed by us.
14
SGC
Project No. 126F21
If you have any questions regarding our report, please call. We appreciate this
opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
SOUTHLAND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
€,
Susan E. Tanges, CEG
Managing Principal/E
CERTIFIED
ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST
Steven NorrisT
Project Engineer
Attachments:Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Site Plan
Figure 3 - Coastal Bluff Profile
Figure 4 - Logs of Exploratory Borings
Photographs 1 through 4
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Slope Stability Calculations
Distribution: (3) Addressee
15
SGC
N
SITE LOCATION MAP
Project No. 126F21
5025 Tierra del Oro Street, Carlsbad
Scale (approximate): 1 inch = 100 feet
Base Map:
City of Carlsbad
Orthophoto Topographic Map 93
dated 1991 FIGURE 1
SGC
Project No. 126F21
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
BORING NO. DEPTH DESCRIPTION
Boring 1 0-0.7' Disturbed Toosoil - Brown, dry to damp, loose to medium
dense, silty fine sand (SM); friable, roots, organics
0.7-1.7' Weathered Terrace Deposits - Brown, damp to moist, dense,
silty fine sand (SM); friable
1.7-3.7' Terrace Deposits - Brown to red-brown, moist, silty fine sand
(SM); more red-orange with depth, less weathered with depth
Total depth = 3.7 feet
No ground water encountered
Excavated and backfilled 11-05-97
Boring 2 0-0.8' Disturbed Toosoil - Brown, dry to slightly damp, loose to
medium dense, silty fine sand (SM); friable, roots
0.8-2.6' Weathered Terrace Deposits - Brown, damp, dense (increasing
density with depth), silty fine sand (SM); friable
2.6-3.1' Terrace Deposits - Brown to orange-brown, moist, silty fine
sand (SM); friable, more dense with increasing depth
Total depth = 3.1 feet
No ground water encountered
Excavated and backfilled 11-05-97
Boring 3 0-1' Fill/Disturbed Topsoil - Dark brown, damp to slightly moist,
loose to medium dense, silty fine sand (SM); with organics
(loamy texture), roots
1 '-3' Weathered Terrace Deposits - Brown to orange-brown, damp to
moist dense (increasing density with depth), silty fine sand
ISM); friable, more orange with depth
Total depth = 3 feet
No ground water encountered
Excavated and backfilled 11-05-97
FIGURE 4
SGC
PHOTO 1 Coastal bluff at 5025 Tierra del Oro Street, Carlsbad
PHOTO 2 Coastal bluff at 5025 Tierra del Oro Street, Carlsbad
SGC
PHOTO 31 Bluff edge, view northerly, 5025 Tierra del Oro Street, Carlsbad
PHOTO 4 -
Bluff edge, view southerly ;'&<£~i#y'r>rj
5025 Tierra del Oro Street
SGC
APPENDIX
Project No. 126F21
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1. Agnew, D.C., 1979, Tsunami history of San Diego, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott,
W.J., eds.. Earthquakes and Other Perils: Geological Society of America field
trip guidebook.
2. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1 994, Fault activity map of California
and adjacent areas: CDMG Geologic Data Map No. 6.
3. Flick, R.E., ggL., 1994, Shoreline erosion assessment and atlas of the San Diego
region: California Department of Boating and Waterways and the San Diego
Association of Governments publication, dated December (two volumes).
4. Hart, E.W., 1994, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Division
of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42, revised.
5. Lee, L.J., 1977, Potential foundation problems associated with earthquakes in
San Diego, in Abbott, P.L., and Victoria, J.K., eds.. Geologic Hazards in San
Diego, Earthquakes, Landslides, and Floods: San Diego Society of Natural
History John Porter Dexter Memorial Publication.
6. Lee, L., Pinckney, C., and Bemis, C., 1976, Sea bluff erosion: American Society
of Civil Engineers, National Water Resources and Ocean Engineering Convention
Preprint No. 2708.
7. Legg, M.R., Agnew, D.C., and Simons, R.S., 1978, Earthquake history and
seismicity of coastal San Diego County, California, 1800-1976 (unpublished).
8. Southland Geotechnical Consultants, in-house geologic information.
9. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide hazards in the northern part of the
San Diego metropolitan area: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-
file Report 95-04.
10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal
Waves Study, Shoreline Movement Data Report, Portuguese Point to Mexican
Border (1852-1982) (CCSTWS 85-10), dated December.
11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985, Coast of California Storm and Tidal
Waves Study, Coastal Cliff Sediments, Sari Diego Region (CCSTWS 87-2),
dated June.
SGC
Project No. 126F21
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
(continued)
12. Van Dorn, W.G., 1979, Theoretical aspects of tsunamis along the San Diego
coastline, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., e_ds.. Earthquakes and Other Perils:
Geological Society of America field trip guidebook.
13. Weber, F.H., Jr., 1982, Recent slope failures, ancient landslides and related
geology of the north-central coastal area, San Diego County, California:
California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 82-12.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
County of San Diego, 1929, Photo 30D1 (vertical, not stereoscopic).
County of San Diego, 1967, Series GS-VBTA, Flight Line 1, Photos 1-142 and 1-143,
dated May 8 (vertical, stereoscopic).
County of San Diego, 1970, Series SDCO, Flight Line 2, Photos 2-1 (015) and 2-2
(014), dated October 9 (vertical, stereoscopic), scale 1:24,000.
County of San Diego, 1975, Flight SDPD, Flight Line 36, Photos 36-2 (129) and 36-3
(128), dated January 20 (vertical, stereoscopic), scale 1 inch = 1,000 feet.
County of San Diego, 1983, Flight C11109 83059, Photos 256 (023) and 257 (024),
dated November 22 (vertical, stereoscopic), scale 1 inch = 2,000 feet.
County of San Diego, 1989, Series WAC-89A, Photo 3-7, dated April 7 (vertical, not
stereoscopic).
Geo-Tech Imagery Intl., 1992, Carlsbad Frames 3 and 4, dated November 1 (infrared,
oblique, stereoscopic).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1953, Series AXN, Flight Line 14M, Photos 17
and 18, dated May 2 (vertical, stereoscopic), scale 1:20,000.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1964, Series AXN, Flight Line 4DD, Photo 97, dated
April 9 (vertical, not stereoscopic).
SGC
Project No. 126F21
APPENDIX A
(continued)
MAPS
City of Carlsbad, 1992, Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, dated
November.
City of Carlsbad, 1991, Orthophoto Mapping, Sheet 93, scale 1" = 100' {aerial
photography dated September-October 1988).
County of San Diego, 1975, Orthophoto Topographic Map 350-1665, dated
September 17, scale 1"=200'.
County of San Diego, Assessor's Map Book, page 210-02.
County of San Diego, 1898, Survey Number 148, Fifth Road District, Oceanside to
Encinitas, two parts, dated October.
County of San Diego, 1915, Map of Partition of a Portion of the Land Owned by the
Undersigned in the Rancho Agua Hedionda, Map No. 823, dated May 1.
County of San Diego, 1954, Tierra Del Oro, Map No. 3052, recordation dated
February 4.
SGC
APPENDIX B
** PCSTABL5M **
by
Purdue University
—Slope Stability Analysis—
Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of Slices
Run Date:
Run By:
Input Data Filename:
Output Filename:
Plotted Output Filename:
November 17, 1997
GC
CBAD3.IN
CBAD3.OUT
CBAD3.PLT
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: COASTAL BLUFF STABILITY ANALYSTS
EATON RESIDENCE, 5025 TIERRA DEL ORO STREET, CARLSBAD, CA
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
8 Top Boundaries
9 Total Boundaries
Boundary
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
X-Lcft
(ft)
20.00
41.00
77.00
84.00
89.00
112.00
121.00
144.00
77.00
Y-Left
(ft)
20.00
21.00
31.00
33.00
33.00
51.00
52.00
63.00
31.00
X-Right
(ft)
41.00
77.00
84.00
89.00
112.00
121.00
144.00
200.00
200.00
Y-Right
(ft)
21.00
31.00
33.00
33.00
51.00
52.00
63.00
63.00
31.00
Soil Type
Below Bnd
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
2 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) {psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
120.0
120.0
135.0
135.0
500.0
200.0
40.0
35.0
.00
.00
.0
.0
1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
Unit Weight of Water = 62.40
Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
X-Water
(ft)
77.00
200.00
Y-Water
(ft)
31.00
31.00
BOUNDARY LOAD(S)
1 Load{s) Specified
Load X-Left X-Right Intensity Deflection
No. {ft} (ft) (Ib/sqft) (deg)
1 169.00 170.00 1000.0 .0
NOTE - Intensity Is Specified As A Uniformly Distributed
Force Acting On A Horizontally Projected Surface.
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified,
100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced
Along The Ground Surface Between X = 30.00 ft.
and X = 110.00 ft.
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 120.00 ft.
and X = 175.00 ft.
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft.
5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are The Five Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces
Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * *
Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
X-Surf
(ft)
83
88
93
98
103
107
112
116
120
123
126
129
129
.33
.20
.18
.17
.10
.88
.42
.65
.48
.85
.71
.00
.84
Y-Surf
(ft)
32.81
31.66
31.17
31.34
32.17
33.64
35.73
38.41
41.62
45.31
49.42
53.86
56.23
2.445
Individual data on the 16 slices
Slice
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Width
Ft(m)
.7
4.2
.8
4.2
5.0
4.9
4.8
4.1
.4
4.2
3.8
.5
2.9
2.9
2.3
.8
Water Water
Force Force
Weight Top Bot
Lbs (kg)
15.6
477.8
148.7
1836.9
4702.2
6893.4
8386.9
8227.3
876.9
8101.6
6059.7
708.9
3437.8
2576.1
1123.1
111.5
Lbs (kg)
1906.
11532.
2195.
14018.
15354.
13632.
11770.
9010.
688.
6819.
6080.
820.
4797.
4533.
3437.
1222.
3
5
5
6
0
3
9
6
5
9
5
0
1
9
1
7
Tie
Force
Norm
Tie
Force
Tan
Earthquake
Force Surcharge
Hor Ver Load
Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg) Lbs (kg)
1890.
12075.
2275.
11947.
14273.
14117.
13757.
12001.
1199.
12457.
11538.
1693.
8768.
9246.
7912.
3438.
7
7
3
1
0
2
9
4
9
3
8
5
7
2
4
2
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
x-surf
(ft)
83.33
88.33
93.30
98.15
102.82
107.23
111.32
115.04
118.31
120.45
Y-Surf
(ft)
32.81
32.81
33.42
34.63
36.42
38.77
41.64
44.99
48.76
51.94
2.552
Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
X-Surf
(ft)
83.33
88.13
93.07
98.07
103.04
107.90
112.57
116.95
120.99
124.61
127.75
130.36
132.39
133.03
Y-Surf
(ft)
32.81
31.41
30.64
30.53
31.07
32.25
34.05
36.45
39.40
42.84
46.74
51.00
55.57
57.75
2.725
Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
X-Surf
(ft)
92.22
96.99
101.96
106.94
111.77
116.26
120.26
123.61
126.21
127.95
128.37
Y-Surf
(ft)
35.52
34.02
33.44
33.81
35.12
37.31
40.32
44.02
48.30
52.98
55.53
*** 2.737 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
X-Surf
(ft)
92.
96.
101.
106.
111.
116.
121.
125.
128.
131.
134.
135.
136.
22
81
67
65
63
47
02
18
81
82
14
68
30
Y-Surf
(ft)
35.
33.
32.
31.
32.
33.
35.
38.
41.
45.
50.
55.
59.
52
54
34
97
42
70
76
54
97
96
40
15
32
2.765
Y AXIS FT
.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00
X . 00 + + + + + +
_ *
25.00 +
A 50.00 +
X 75.00 *
6
6*
6*
0124
7854.
I 100.00 0.312 . .
- 73162. .
0781462 . .
- 0.751692. .*
- 075816.2.2
- 0.75831. . .*
S 125.00 + 0.75.3141..
- 0.7.5.33418
0..75.5633
0.797.5.5
0..9.767.
09 *
150.00 + 90.00
9. . .
9. .
9.
91/1
F 175.00 +
200.00 +
125
188 -
A
X
I
3
75 i
38
25
8
8 25 75 180 125
X - AXIS
158 175 288
ft
X
I
8
IBB •
75
58
25 .
e
w
8 25 58 75 IBB 125 150 175 288
X - AXIS
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Irregular Surfaces, Has Been Specified.
Janbus Empirical Coef. is being used for the case of c & phi both > 0
100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced
Along The Ground Surface Between X = 30.00 ft.
and X = 110.00 ft.
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 120.00 ft.
and X = 175.00 ft.
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft.
5.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations
The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined
By The Following 25 Coordinate Points
Point x-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 65.56 27.82
2 69.87 25.29
3 73.84 22.25
4 77.49 18.83
5 81.47 15.81
6 85.49 12.83
7 89.51 9.87
8 94.19 8.11
9 98.92 9.75
10 102.00 13.69
11 102.98 18.60
12 103.11 23.59
13 103.16 28.59
14 105.08 33.21
15 105.57 38.19
16 108.27 42.40
17 111.29 46.38
18 115.96 48.18
19 120.68 49.82
20 125.00 52.34
21 129.83 53.61
22 134.38 55.68
23 139.30 56.59
24 143.66 59.04
25 146.18 63.00
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 12.878
Factor Of Safety Calculation Has Gone Through Ten Iterations
The Trial Failure Surface In Question Is Defined
By The Following 11 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
NO. (ft) (ft)
1 101.11 42.48
2 104.65 38.94
3 108.33 35.56
4 113.24 34.63
5 118.24 34.79
6 122.90 36.62
7 125.33 40.98
8 127.78 45.34
9 127.80 50.34
10 128.04 55.33
11 128.04 55.37
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface = 8.919
Following Are Displayed The Five Most Critical Of The Trial
Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical
First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * *
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 83.33 32.81
2 88.01 31.03
3 93.00 31.18
4 97.96 31.86
5 102.90 32.64
6 107.52 34.54
7 112.17 36.38
8 115.18 40.37
9 118.03 44.48
10 120.70 48.70
11 123.31 52.97
12 123.38 53.14
2.665
Individual data on the 15 slices
Slice
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Width
Ft(m)
.7
4.0
1.0
4.0
5.0
4.9
4.6
4.5
.2
3.0
2.9
2.7
.3
2.3
.1
Water Water
Force Force
Weight Top Bot
Lbs(kg)
20.0
652.6
262.1
1864.4
4382.1
6464.2
7555.1
8356.6
338.3
5198.7
3503.0
1885.2
121.4
457.6
.6
Lbs(kg)
1906.
11001.
2726.
13464.
15278.
13720.
11476.
9846.
278.
4872.
4570.
4223.
465.
3900.
115.
3
1
9
8
0
4
9
2
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
Tie
Force
Norm
Tie
Force
Tan
Earthquake
Force Surcharge
Hor Ver Load
Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg)
1971
12093
2849
11470
14190
13962
13544
12495
466
12050
10787
9487
995
7166
264
.1
.7
.3
.3
.2
.4
.9
.1
.3
.8
.3
.6
.8
.4
.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
' .0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
X-Surf
(ft)
92
96
100
105
110
113
116
118
122
.22
.05
.93
.88
.13
.06
.02
.97
.37
Y-Surf
(ft)
35.52
32.31
31.22
31.99
34.61
38.67
42.69
46.73
50.39
10 124.92 53.87
*** 2.812 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
X-Surf
(ft)
92
95
100
105
109
113
117
121
125
128
131
131
.22
.76
.58
.23
.32
.47
.48
.29
.19
.83
.11
.26
Y-Surf
(ft)
35.52
31.99
30.64
32.48
35.35
38.15
41.13
44.36
47.50
50.93
55.38
56.91
2.861
Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
X-Surf
(ft)
92.22
96.10
101.07
106.05
110.84
115.62
120.00
124.31
127.93
131.53
133.98
134.34
134.44
Y-Surf
{ft}
35.52
32.36
31.88
32.36
33.78
35.25
37.67
40.19
43.64
47.11
51.47
56.46
58.43
3.023
Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1 .
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
X-Surf
(ft)
101.11
105.99
110.95
115.95
120.94
125.89
130.88
135.58
138.13
141.30
144.57
148.20
150.36
Y-Surf
(ft)
42.48
41.40
40.71
40.71
40.59
41.35
41.68
43.38
47.67
51.54
55.33
58.77
63.00
3.435
.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00
X . 00 + + + + + +
_ *
25.00 +
A 50.00 +
- 7
- 7
- 7.8
708
X 75.00 78.*
78. .
08. .*
70.1*
7.8.1.2
7.8..2. .
I 100.00 78.21. . .5
78..1..65
78..1
87.4156..*
0.74.1219.
- 0. .745.312*
S 125.00+ 7.4583.12
- 0. . .74.83.3.
- 0. . .7.464.3
- 0. . .5.56.8. .
0.07..5.8..
070.5.8*
150.00 + 7.755
0. .6
06
0
0
1/1
F 175.00 +
200.00 +
125
108 I
75
A
X
I
S
25 i
•t-
25 38 73 180
X - ftXIS
125 158 175 200
125
Iflfl -L
A
X
I
S
75 t
50
25
8 e 23 73 188 123
X - AXIS
130 173 288