Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 2020-0008; CHURCH RESIDENCE; UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2018-11-15REPORT OF UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Church Residence West of and Adjacent to 4485 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA, 92008 APN 206-200-04 JOB NO. 18 7072 November 15, 2018 Prepared for: McCullough Design Development 10531 4S Commons Dr #700 San Diego, CA 92127 7840 EL CAJON BLVD., SUITE 200 ■LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91942 Phone: (619) 462-9861 ■ Email: Clamonte@Flash.Net ■ Fax:(619) 462-9859 Soil and Foundation Engineers Soil and Foundation Engineers 7840 EL CAJON BLVD., SUITE 200 ♦ LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91942 Phone: (619) 462-9861 ♦ Email: clamonte@flash.net ♦ Fax: (619) 462-9859 TO: SUBJECT: REFERENCE: This report has been prepared in response to review of the above referenced geotechnical report by N|V|5, representing the City of Carlsbad. Our response to the comments are listed in numerical order below for continuity of discussion. July 7, 2020 Job No. 18 7072 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Response to Geotechnical Report Review Proposed Church Residence West of and Adjacent to 4485 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA, 92008 APN 206-200-04 Project No.: 226816-00101.72 City Project ID: TBD (DEV2019-0036) City GR No.: GR2020-00 15 Preliminary Soil and Geotechnical Investigation, Parcels A, B, C, APN # 260-20-03, 04 and 05, Adams Street, Carlsbad, California, by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., dated August 10, 1998 Report of Updated Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Church Residence, West of and Adjacent to 4485 Adams Street, Carlsbad, CA, 92008, APN 206-200-04, by C.W. La Monte Company, Inc., dated November 15, 2018 Review of Geotechnical Report, Proposed Church Residence, West of and Adjacent to 4485 Adams Street Carlsbad, California, Project No.: 226816-00101.72, by N|V|5, dated May 29, 2020 Page 2 Church Residence July 23, 2020 Comment 1 - Page 8 of the referenced geotechnical report (reference 1), indicates that the recommended seismic design parameters were determined in accordance with 2012 International Building Code (2012 IBC). The 2012 IBC is an outdated standard. The consultant should provide updated seismic design parameters determined in accordance with the currently adopted 2019 California Building Code (2019 CBC). Reply: Seismic design parameters were obtained from current USGS Seismic Design Maps are presented in the below table: The analyses included the following input parameters: Design Code Reference Documents: ASCE 7-16 Site Soil Classification: Site Class C Risk Category: II Site Coordinates: 32.9091664, -117.1759336999 The values generated by the Design Hazards Reports are provided in the following table: TABLE I Site Coefficients and Spectral/Ground Response Acceleration Parameters (ASCE/SEI 7-16 Standard) Ss S1 Fa Fv Sms Sm1 Sds Sd1 PGAM PGA 0.958 0.344 1.2 1.5 1.15 0.516 0.767 0.344 0.505 0.42 Comment 2 - It appears that no laboratory soil testing was performed by the consultant in support of preparation of the project geotechnical report. The report makes reference to a previous (1998) geotechnical investigation report prepared for the site… On page 26, the project geotechnical states that "extensive laboratory testing" was included in the 1998 report prepared for the site, and instructs the reader to refer to that report for the laboratory test results. NVS does not have access to the 1998 report for review or reference. Since the consultant is relying on laboratory tests and conclusions presented in a previous geotechnical report, the consultant should include a complete copy of that report, and provide a statement indicating that they are in agreement with the test results, conclusions and recommendations. in that way, the referenced 1998 report will become a part of the project documentation I I Page 3 Church Residence July 23, 2020 Reply: A copy of the 1998 report, by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, is included with this submittal as Appendix A. The report was obtained from the City of Carlsbad, engineering records. In addition, we are in agreement with the test results, conclusions and recommendations contained in said report. Comment 3 - On page 16, the referenced report discusses temporary and/or permanent shoring, and indicates that: Temporary cut slopes sloped at the recommended inclinations may not be feasible in some areas due to property line or structure constraints (particularly along the south side of the proposed basement). Temporary or permanent shoring may be necessary in some areas in order to protect off-site improvements and provide a safe work environment. If such is the case, excavation shoring should be provided in such locations where undermining or other damage to adjacent structures and improvements is an issue. The report does not include geotechnical design parameters or recommendations for temporary and/or permanent shoring. The geotechnical consultant should review the project grading and retaining wall plans and provide a statement indicating whether or not the plans are in accordance with the geotechnical report. The geotechnical consultant should provide supplemental geotechnical design parameters and recommendations for temporary and/or permanent shoring, as necessary. Reply: The plans provided for review do not include provisions for shoring. If any future shoring design requires parameters not already included in the referenced geotechnical report they can be provided on request. It is not clear if shoring will even be required for the project. Upon review of the grading plans it appears walls exist along both the east and west property lines. Therefore, the east and west property lines require consideration when placing temporary excavations. Initially it appears the north and south ends should allow safe temporary excavations. The referenced grading plan provides numerous sections along the property lines (Sheets 11 and 12). Based on review of the sections, in most instances the proposed, onsite walls will abut or be slightly lower in elevation than the adjacent offsite walls. Placing a continuous excavation adjacent to offsite walls on the property line could be destabilizing where the excavation is lower in elevation that the footing of the existing wall. Although shoring is an option to mitigate this conditions other alternatives are possible. Page 4 Church Residence July 23, 2020 12/31/2021 12/31/2021 In order to minimize the potential for unplanned caving, when placing temporary footing excavations a “slot” cutting operation is recommended. An "A-B-C " slot sequence with a maximum slot width of 6 feet should be utilized. The “A” slot will be excavated first, leaving the B slot intact. The "A" slot excavation will then constructed and/or backfilled. The procedure will then be repeated for the adjacent "B" slot (then C slot) until all the required excavations and construction has been completed. All slot-cutting operations should be under observation of the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record and may require modification based on field conditions and observations. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, C. W. La Monte Company Inc. ________________________________ Clifford W. La Monte, R.C.E. 25241, G.E. 0495 Exp. No. 25241 APPENDIX A Preliminary Soil and Geotechnical Investigation Parcels A, B, C, APN # 260-20-03, 04 and 05 Adams Street, Carlsbad, California Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. August 10, 1998 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Ms. Kyrenne Chua Subject: Review of Geotechnical Report Project: Proposed Church Residence NV 5 West of and Adjacent to 4485 Adams Street Carlsbad, California · City Project ID: City GR No.: TBD (DEV2019-0036) GR2020-0015 May 29, 2020 Project No.: 226816-00101.72 References: 1) "Report of Updated Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Church Residence, West of and Adjacent to 4485 Adams Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008, APN 206-200-04", prepared by C. W. LaMonte Company, Inc., Job No. 18 7072, dated November 15, 2018. 2) "Technical Guidelines for Geotechnical Reports", issued by the City of Carlsbad, dated January 1993. 3) "CGS Note 41, Guidelines for Reviewing Geologic Reports", prepared by the State of California, Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, dated 2017. Dear Ms. Chua: As requested, NV 5, West Inc. (NV 5) has conducted a geotechnical review of the above-referenced geotechnical report for the proposed residence located project located west of and adjacent to 4485 Adams Street in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of the review was to provide an opinion on whether the geotechnical aspects of the project have been identified and appropriately addressed in the project geotechnical report. NV5's geotechnical review is based on geotechnical information presented in the referenced geotechnical report and experience with the geotechnical conditions in the general site area. NV5 has not performed an independent geotechnical investigation at the project site and therefore does not offer or imply any guarantee or warranty as to future site performance. The opinions presented below are limited. Other consultants could arrive at different conclusions. This report presents a summary of the review. Review Summary Based on our review, the referenced geotechnical report for the proposed project generally identifies the geotechnical factors affecting the proposed project. However, the report is not approved. Additional information is requested. The following comments should be addressed by the geotechnical consultant. Note that the outlined text boxes are excerpts from the referenced report. Comment 1 -Page 8 of the referenced geotechnical report (reference 1 ), indicates that the recommended seismic design parameters were determined in accordance with 2012 International Building Code (2012 IBC). The 201 2 IBC is an outdated standard. The consultant should provide updated seismic design OFFICES NATIONWIDE I 5092 AVENUE OF SCIENCE. SUITE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92 I 28 WWW.NV5.COM OFFICE 858.385.0500 FAX 858.385.0400 CONSTRUCTION OuAUTY AsSURAKCi'. • INF'RASTRUCTURE • ENERGY . PROGRAM MANAGE'HEl<T . ENVIRONMENTAL Review of Geotechnical Report Proposed Church Residence Project No.: 226816-00101.72 Page\ 2 West of and Adjacent to 4485 Adams Street Carlsbad, California l·n accordance with the currently adopted 2019 California Building Code parameters determined (2019 CBC). In addition the report makes reference to the 2013 California Building Code (2013 CBC) in several of the other reco~mendations contained in the repOJ:-The consultant should review those references and recommendations, provide updated recomtpen<lations that reflect the current 2019 CBC, as necessary• Comment 2 _ It appears that no laboratory soil teSting was performed by the consultant in support: of preparation of the project geotechnical_ report. The report makes reference to a previous ( 1998) geotechmcal investigation rep011 prepared for the site: REFERNCE: Preliminary Soil and Geotechnical Investigation, Parcels A, B, C, APN # 260-20-03, 04 and 05, Adams Street, Carlsbad, California, by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., dated August 10, 1998 On page 26, the project geotechnical states that "extensive laboratory testing" was included in the 1998 report prepared for the site, and instructs the reader to refer to that report for the laboratory test results. LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION l The Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. report (1998) included extensive laboratory testing. Refer to this document for laboratory characteristics and results. Our report also includes the following soil information: NV5 does not have access to the 1998 report for review or reference. Since the consultant is relying on laboratory tests and conclusions presented in a previous geotechnical report, the consultant should include a complete copy of that report, and provide a statement indicating that they are in agreement with the test results, conclusions and recommendations. In that way, the referenced 1998 report will become a part of the project documentation. Comment 3 -On page 16, the referenced report discusses temporary and/or permanent shoring, and indicates that: Temporary cut slopes sloped at the recommended inclinations may not be feasible in some areas due to property line or structure constraints (particularly along the south . side of the proposed basement). Temporary or permanent shoring may be necessary in some areas in order to protect off-site improvements and provide a safe work environment. li such is the case, excavation shoring should be provided in such locations where undermining or other damage to adjacent structures and improvements is an issue. ' The report does not include geotechnical design parameters or recommendations for temporary and/or permanent shoring. The geotechnical consultant should review the project grading and retaining wall plans and provide a statemen! indicating whether or not the plans are in accordance with the geotechnical report. The geotechmcal consultant should provide supplemental geotechnical design parameters and recommendations for temporary and/or permanent shoring, as necessary. NIVIS OFFICES NATIONWIDE C0NSTRUCT!OM QIMurv AssUAANCE -INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING • MUNICIPAL OUTSOURCING • ASSET MANAGEMENT • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Review of Geo technical Report Proposed Church Residence West of and Adjacent to 4485 Adams Street Carlsbad, California Project No.: 226816-00101.72 Page I 3 NV5 appreciates the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, NVS West, Inc. Distribution: (J) Addressee, via email NIVIS OFFICES NATIONWIDE Carl Henderson, PhD, GE 2886 CQA Group Director (San Diego) CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE • INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING • MUNICIPAL OUTSOURCING ASSET MANAGEMENT • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Soil and Foundation Engineers 7840 EL CAJON BLVD., SUITE 200 ■LA MESA, CALIFORNIA 91942 Phone: (619) 462-9861 ■ Email: Clamonte@Flash.Net ■ Fax:(619) 462-9859 November 15, 2018 TO:McCullough Design Development 10531 4S Commons Dr #700 San Diego, CA 92127 SUBJECT:REPORT OF UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Church Residence West of and Adjacent to 4485 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA, 92008 APN 206-200-04 REFERNCE:Preliminary Soil and Geotechnical Investigation, Parcels A, B, C, APN # 260-20-03, 04 and 05, Adams Street, Carlsbad, California, by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., dated August 10, 1998 In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential development. We are presenting herein our findings and recommendations. The above referenced geotechnical investigation, conducted in 1998, and included the subject property as well as the adjacent parcels to the east and west. The findings of this investigation have been incorporated into this report as well as the findings of our independent site exploration. In general, we found the property suitable for the proposed project provided that the recommendations contained herein are adhered to.We found the proposed project site to be overlain with up to 4 feet of loose fill and topsoil. The property is underlain at depth with competent sedimentary bedrock. Much of the loose surficial soils will be removed by future cut and export operations. Remaining loose surface soils may require mitigation by remedial grading in some locations. Detailed earthwork and foundation recommendations are provided in the ensuing report. Job No.18 7072 12/31/2019 12/31/2019 If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, C. W. La Monte Company Inc. ______________________________ Jerry Redolfi, Project Geologist ________________________________ Clifford W. La Monte, R.C.E. 25241, G.E. 0495 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................... 1 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................... 2 FINDINGS......................................................................................................................... 3 SITE DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................ 3 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS........................................... 4 GROUND WATER .......................................................................................................... 5 STORM WATER AND INFILTRATION...................................................................... 5 HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP ....................................................................................... 5 CONCLUSIONS REGARDING INFILTRATION LID IMPROVEMENTS............. 6 SEISMICITY AND FAULTING...................................................................................... 6 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS................................................................................ 8 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.................................................................................................. 9 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................. 11 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................ 13 EARTH WORK AND GRADING................................................................................ 13 Specifications and Preconstruction....................................................................... 13 Compaction and Method of Filling ...................................................................... 15 Temporary Cut Slopes............................................................................................ 16 Excavation Characteristics..................................................................................... 17 Surface Drainage ..................................................................................................... 17 Erosion Control........................................................................................................ 18 Grading Plans Review............................................................................................ 18 FOUNDATIONS............................................................................................................ 18 Foundation Embedment......................................................................................... 18 Deepened Foundations........................................................................................... 19 Soil Bearing Value................................................................................................... 19 Lateral Load Resistance.......................................................................................... 19 Foundation Reinforcement .................................................................................... 19 Horizontal Distance of Footings from Slopes ..................................................... 20 Anticipated Settlements ......................................................................................... 20 Foundation Excavation Observation.................................................................... 20 Foundation Plan Review........................................................................................ 21 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE................................................................................ 21 SLAB MOISTURE BARRIERS...................................................................................... 22 Interior Slab Curing Time ...................................................................................... 22 DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES.................... 23 Passive Pressure ...................................................................................................... 23 Soil Bearing Value................................................................................................... 23 Active Pressure for Retaining Walls..................................................................... 23 Pressures for Seismic Ground Motions................................................................ 24 Surcharge Loads...................................................................................................... 24 Vehicular Loads....................................................................................................... 25 Waterproofing and Drainage................................................................................. 25 Backfill....................................................................................................................... 25 FIELD INVESTIGATION.............................................................................................. 26 LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION............................................... 26 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................ 27 TABLES Table I Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values and Design Page 8 Table II Foundation Embedment Page 14 Table III Equivalent fluid weights Page 19 ATTACHMENTS FIGURES Figure No. 1 Site Location Map (Topo) Figure No. 2A Plot Plan and Geotechnical Map Figure No. 2B Site Plan -Proposed Development Figure No. 3 A through 3E Test Boring Logs Figure No. 4 Cross Section Figure No. 5 Regional Geologic Map Excerpt (2005) Figure No. 6 Regional Fault Activity Map Figure No. 7 Landslide Hazard Map Figure No. 8 Tsunami Inundation Map Figure No. 9A and 9B Retaining Wall Details APPENDICES Appendix "A"- Standard Grading Specifications Appendix "B" - Unified Soil Classification Chart Appendix "C" – Select Test Trench Logs (Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., 1998) REPORT OF UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Church Residence West of and Adjacent to 4485 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA, 92008 APN 206-200-04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following report presents the results of a limited geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed residential project. The project site is a vacant lot located west of and Adjacent to 4485 Adams Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. Figure Number 1 (attached) provides a vicinity map showing the approximate location of the property and area topography. The lot consists of moderately sloping hillside terrain descending to Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. It is our understanding the site is being developed to receive a custom single-family residence. The project is still in the planning phase, however, we anticipate the residence will be a maximum of three-stories in height and will be terraced into the hillside terrain. It is intended to found the structure on conventional shallow spread foundations with concrete slab on grade floors and masonry basement retaining walls. Grading to construct the basement levels will likely consist of temporary cut slopes up to 12 feet in height. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the stated client and his design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be changed in any way, the modified plans should be submitted to C. W. La Monte Company, Inc.for review to determine their conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation, laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, expressed or implied. Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 2 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA SCOPE OF WORK The scope of this investigation was limited to: surface reconnaissance, research of readily available geotechnical literature pertinent to the site, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analysis of the field and laboratory data and preparation of this report. More specifically, the intent of this investigation was to: Review available geotechnical reports and maps pertinent to the subject site. Identify the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. Based on laboratory testing and our experience with similar sites in the area, identify the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the proposed construction, including the allowable soil bearing pressures, expansive characteristics and settlement potential. Describe possible geotechnical factors that could have an effect on the site development. Provide mapped spectral acceleration parameters relative to the 2013 California Building Code. Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions and groundwater, and provide recommendations concerning these problems. Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the proposed structures and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation designs. Provide a preliminary pavement section based on the estimated R-value characteristics of the anticipated subgrade soil. Perform infiltration testing to determine the feasibility of infiltration LID improvements. Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 3 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA Present our opinions in this written report, which includes in addition to our findings and recommendations, a site plan showing the location of our subsurface explorations, logs of the test trenches and a summary of our laboratory test results. It was not within our scope of work to evaluate the site for hazardous materials contamination. Further, we did not perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on-site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on- grade concrete and below grade improvements. FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The property is located west of and adjacent to 4485 Adams Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The site is bounded on the east with a single-family home, on the west with a similar vacant lot, on the north with Adams Street, and on the south with Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. A legal description of the property is Assessor's Parcel Number 206-200-04. The lot is vacant consists of moderately sloping hillside terrain descending to Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. An oblique area photograph of the site and adjacent areas is presented below. Project site – View looking east. Boundary is approximate Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 4 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA The property is somewhat quadrilateral-shaped and is approximately 0.47 of an acre in size with approximately 75 feet of slightly radial frontage along Adams Street. The lot is up to 291 feet deep, descending to the shore of the lagoon. An offsite CMU wall is located along the northeast corner of the property, bordering the property line. Vegetation consists of a light to moderate growth of wild grasses, weeds and shrubs. The property consists of primarily natural hillside terrain sloping moderately to the south, descending to the shore of Aqua Hedionda Lagoon where gently sloping beach encroaches onto the south end of the property. An offsite fill slope, associated with the grading of Adams Street, descends to the north property line of the property. The fill slope is a maximum of 6 feet in height in the area adjacent to the site. Elevations on the site range from a high of approximately 57 feet (MSL) at the northwest corner of the property to a low of about 2 feet at the mean high tide line on the beach at the south end of the site. DESCRIPTION OF SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS The site is located within the coastal plain section of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The coastal plain generally consists of subdued landforms underlain by tertiary to quaternary aged marine sedimentary deposits. The site was found to be underlain Quaternary and Tertiary aged sedimentary formational deposits with associated surficial materials. These soil types are described individually below in order of increasing age. Also refer the attached Test Boring Logs, Figure No. 3A-3E. Trench logs, placed on or adjacent to site, by Vinje & Middleton Engineering in 1998 are also included in Appendix C. A Plot Plan and Geotechnical Map is attached as Figure No. 2 with the test boring locations a mapping of the encountered units. An excerpt from a regional geologic map is included as Figure No. 5. Fill:A short fill slope associated with the construction of adjacent Adams Street encroaches onto the north end of the property. The slope face, which is located offsite, ranges from about 5 to 6 feet in height. The encountered fills ranged from to about 2 to 3 feet in maximum thickness and consist of brown, loose to medium dense silty sand with some gravel. Beach Deposits (Qb), Late Holocene—unconsolidated beach deposits consisting mostly of fine- and medium-grained sand located along the lagoon shore and encroach onto the south end of the subject site. Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 5 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA Topsoil/Slope Wash:The site is overlain with an intermittent veneer of undifferentiated topsoil and slope wash with some minor fills. These surficial deposits, where present, range from about 1 to 2 feet in thickness and consists primarily of dark brown and brown, loose to medium dense, silty sand with some gravel. Old Paralic Deposits (Qop):The upper elevations of the site are underlain with competent, Quaternary-aged, terrace deposits indentified as old paralic deposits in current geologic literature. The paralic deposits were encountered at elevations above 25 to 35 feet and consist primarily of reddish brown to light brown, very dense, silty sandstone interbedded with greenish-tan, hard, sandy siltstone. The paralic materials are considered suitable foundation bearing material and generally possess a very low-expansion potential at the site bearing levels. Santiago Formation (Tsa):The Eocene-aged Santiago Formation was encountered underlying the old paralic deposits and forms the lower portion of the hillside. The encountered formation consists of tan, very dense, clayey sandstone and appears massively bedded. GROUND WATER No groundwater was encountered in our test excavations at the time of our investigation. Postulated groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the site are shown on the attached cross section Figure No. 4. The section assumes that the Santiago Formation, clayey sandstones are relatively impervious and groundwater would be limited to poorly consolidated soils within the lagoon area. Lens of impervious siltstone were encountered underlying highly permeable terrace sands at the upper portions of the site. Such conditions could result in temporary seepage during prolonged periods of heavy precipitation. STORM WATER AND INFILTRATION HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, 2016), Web Soil Survey (WSS) maps the Marina loamy coarse sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes, across the site. The Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 6 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA unit is described as Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) “B” with no hydric soil rating. The HSG “B” classification implies relatively good infiltration characteristics. Our exploration encountered sandy loam with characteristics of HSG “B” or better. But also significant area of the site is underlain with clayey sandstone and siltstone anticipated to be impervious. Geologic units and site conditions are discussed in the previous report section. Please note our investigation did not include any infiltration testing for proposed BMP’s. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING INFILTRATION LID IMPROVEMENTS Our geotechnical investigation indicates that soil conditions exist on the site that may be favorable to infiltration. However, the site exists as a hillside lot with average inclination of approximately 25 percent. Introducing, by artificial means, significant quantities of groundwater into the subgrade is not recommended and is contrary to good geotechnical engineering practices. Further, the proposed home will be constructed with a basement. Introducing infiltrated groundwater into the subgrade can increase the probability of moisture intrusion problems within the subsurface portions of the proposed structure. Therefore, due to the site’s hillside topographic conditions and proposed basement construction infiltration BMP’s are not recommended.Infiltration BMPs could significantly increase the risk of geotechnical instability. BMP’s designed for storage and filtration are appropriate for the project site. BMP planters, basins, planters, etc. should be constructed with an impervious liner to minimize infiltration into the subgrade. SEISMICITY AND FAULTING No faults are known to traverse the site, thus it is not considered susceptible to surface rupture as a result of on-site faulting. The probability of soil cracking caused by shaking from close or distant fault sources is also considered to be low. It should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones, which typically consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to north- westerly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zones) are classified as active while others are classified as only potentially active, according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology (currently California Geological Survey). Active fault zones are those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years), while potentially active fault zones have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 2 million years before the present) but no movement Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 7 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA during Holocene time. An excerpt from the 2010 Fault Activity Map of California (California Geological Survey) is attached as Figure No. 6 and provides the recency of faulting in the site vicinity. Current geologic literature indicates that the Rose Canyon /Newport-Englewood Fault Zone is the nearest active fault with the nearest segment mapped offshore about 2 miles west of the site. According to the 2008 National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters (USGS website), the Maximum Magnitude earthquake on the Rose Canyon / Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is 6.9 (Ellsworth) or 6.7 (Hanks) with a slip rate of 1.5. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is currently classified as a Type "B" fault (California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps,June 2003. Other nearby faults, as shown on Figure Number 5, includes several unnamed Pre- Quaternary (inactive) faults located within 5 miles of the site and located to the north, south and east. Also the La Nacion Fault Zone and other Quaternary faults are located over 20 miles south of the property. These faults are considered potentially active, inactive, presumed inactive, or activity unknown, by the City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study [potentially active faults have demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene Epoch (11,000 to 1.6 million years before the present) but no movement during Holocene (recent) times]. The Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones located about 37 and 57 miles (respectively) northeast of the site. The City of San Diego Seismic Safety Element estimates the maximum probable earthquake for both the San Jacinto and the Elsinore fault zones is between M 6.9 and 7.3, with a repeat interval of approximately 100 years. The maximum credible earthquake for both fault zones is estimated at M 7.6. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Bank and San Clemente Fault Zones to the southwest, and the Earthquake Valley Fault and San Andreas Fault Zones to the northeast. However, a Maximum Magnitude Earthquake on the Rose Canyon or Elsinore Fault Zones is anticipated to generate ground accelerations on the site, greater than any of the other nearby fault According to the Official Map of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California,by the California Division of Mines and Geology (currently California Geological Survey) (CDMG, 1991) the site IS NOT located an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone map. Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 8 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS We have re-determined the mapped spectral acceleration values for the site utilizing U.S. Seismic Design Maps, Version 3.1.0 (July 11, 2013) from the USGS website. The seismic design parameters are specific to the site and provide a solution for Section 1613 of the 2012 IBC (which uses USGS hazard data available in 2008). The analysis included the following input parameters: Design Code Reference Document:ASCE 7-10 Standard Site Soil Classification:Site Class C Risk Category:I or II or III Site Coordinates: 33.05912°N, 117.29919°W The values generated by the Design Map Report are provided in the following table: TABLE I Site Coefficients and Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Ss S1 Fa Fv Sms Sm1 Sds Sd1 PGA 1.134 0.435 1.0 1.365 1.134 0.594 0.756 0.396 0.448 Application to the criteria in Table I for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if ever seismic shaking occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 9 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA GEOLOGIC HAZARDS General:No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude development of the site as currently proposed are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site is suitable for the proposed development. Ground Shaking: A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking resulting from movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned above. Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to severe, depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed structures. Construction in accordance with the minimum requirements of the current building codes and local governing agencies should minimize potential damage due to seismic activity. Landslide Potential and Slope Stability:A detailed, deterministic slope stability analysis was not included within our scope of services. However, as part of this investigation we reviewed the publication, “Landslide Hazards in the Southern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area” by Tan and Giffen, 1995. This reference is a comprehensive study that classifies San Diego County into areas of relative landslide susceptibility. The subject site is located in Area 3. The 3 classification is typically assigned to areas generally susceptible to slope movement. The site is further located in Subarea 3-1 within the 3 classification (See Figure No. 7, attached). Slopes within the 3-1 subarea generally occupy steeper and higher slopes which are marginally stable and potentially susceptible to landslides and other slope failures. Due to the sites underlying stable bedrock and moderate topography, deep-seating landsliding does not appear to present a significant geotechnical hazard. Liquefaction:The materials at the site are not subject to significant liquefaction due to such factors as soil density, grain-size distribution, and groundwater conditions. Soil Expansion:Generally, the soils encountered at the site are considered to possess a very low to moderate-expansive potential. Flooding:According to a review of FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the building area of the site is located in Zones X, which is defined as: “Other Flood Areas-Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood.” Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 10 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA A flood hazard zone encroaches onto the beach area at the south end of the site, defined as:Special Flood Hazard Areas Subject To Inundation By The 1% Annual Chance Flood-The 1% annual chance flood (100-year flood), also known as the base flood, is the flood that has a j% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The Special Flood Hazard Area is the area subject to flooding by the 1% annual chance flood. Areas of Special Flood Hazard include Zones A, AE, AH, AO, AR, A99, V. and yE. The Base Flood Elevation is the water-surface elevation of the 1% annual chance flood. Tsunamis and Seiches:A tsunami is a large ocean wave triggered by any form of mass movement below the ocean surface. This can be submarine landslides or submarine dip slip fault rupture that results in seafloor uplift or down drop. This mass movement translates to a tsunami or gravity wave within the overlying water. In a lake or fresh water body this phenomenon is usually called a seiche. Tsunamis travel radially outward from the point of initiation. The size of a tsunami is proportional to the mass movement that generated the tsunami. The speed of a tsunami is proportional to the depth of the water in which the tsunami originated. Tsunamis can travel at great speeds but in the open ocean result in relatively little wave height above the mean sea level as the energy is distributed throughout the water column. The wavelength of a tsunami is much longer than wind generated waves also making it hard to detect in the open ocean. As a tsunami approaches the shore and the depth of the water column decreases, the energy in the wave pushes the wave crest above the water surface resulting in a large wave height. Wave run-up is the elevation above mean sea level on dry land that a tsunami reaches. Run-up is what causes inundation of coastal areas that are below the run-up height. An excerpt from the Tsunami Inundation Map, Oceanside Quadrangle San Luis Rey Quadrangle, June 1, 2009, by the California Emergency Management Agency is attached to this document as Figure No. 8. The inundation map has been compiled with best currently available scientific information. The inundation line represents the maximum considered tsunami runup from a number of extreme, yet realistic, tsunami sources. Tsunamis are rare events; due to a lack of known occurrences in the historical record, this map includes no information about the probability of any tsunami affecting any area within a specific period of time. Regions that are below the projected run-up height are delineated, and evacuation plans are essentially the only mitigation methods currently available. Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 11 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA According to the map, Tsunami inundation area encroaches onto the southern beach area of the property.The potential inundation area is outside the proposed building location. According to California Emergency Management Agency there are two sources for California tsunamis based on distance and warning time: Local Sources:Relatively local earthquakes and landslides off the California, Oregon, and Washington coast pose the greatest threat of tsunamis and can reach California’s coastline in less than an hour. The earthquake will be the warning. Distant Sources:A tsunami caused by a very large earthquake elsewhere on the Pacific Rim could reach the California coast many hours after the earthquake. Your warning will come from official sources and the media. CONCLUSIONS In general, our findings indicate that the project site is suitable for the proposed structures, provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. The most significant geotechnical conditions that will influence site development are summarized below. Most of the site is overlain with about 1 to 2 feet of loose fill, topsoil and slope wash. The north end of the site is underlain with up to 3 feet of undocumented fill. The site is underlain at depth with competent formational deposits. The overburden materials have been removed by erosion from the central portion of the site exposing competent formational deposits at the ground surface. These upper topsoil and fill materials are potentially compressible under foundation loads. Therefore, it is recommended all new foundations extend through the loose surficial topsoil deposits and be founded into the firm formational deposits at depth as detailed in the “Foundations” section of this report. Alternately, it may be feasible to mitigate the loose surface soil condition by remedial grading in lieu of using the deepened footings as discussed above. Remedial grading is a common method of loose soil mitigation and involves Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 12 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA removing the loose fill and topsoil materials within the footprint of the proposed structure and replacing the material to design grades as properly compacted fill. Refer to EARTHWORK section of this report for more detailed recommendations. However, based on the proposed finish floor elevations and the encountered site conditions, it appears that the cut depths required for some basement areas will remove the loose overburden material from the basement area, exposing competent, sedimentary bedrock at below grade, finish floor elevations. Therefore, no additional site preparation is required for basement locations exposing competent formational deposits at finish grade elevations. We anticipate the proposed basement will be founded entirely on competent bedrock. Above grade portions of the structure that will extend beyond the footprint of the basement and could be founded on as much as 10 feet of compacted fill (placed as retaining wall backfill). This situation creates a differential bearing condition between the basement structure (which will be founded on dense natural ground) and the surface structure portion (which could be founded on the less dense compacted fill). Traditional transition (cut-fill) undercutting may not be practical for the proposed basement structure. Therefore, in order to provide a closer bearing match to the natural ground conditions, the wall backfill supporting above grade portions of the structure (which overhang the basement) should be compacted to a minimum relative density of at least 95 percent. This condition should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction to determine if such conditions are generated by the proposed site grading. Another significant geotechnical condition that will affect the construction of the improvements as proposed is the placement of temporary cut slopes and whether there could be a need for temporary shoring during the construction of the basement walls. Temporary excavations and shoring are discussed in the following Temporary Cut Slopes section of this report. No groundwater water or significant seepage was encountered in our test excavations. Any proposed cut or fill slopes shall be constructed at a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) inclination. We do not anticipate any significant unretained slopes. Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 13 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA The foundation level materials encountered at the site are considered to possess a very low expansion potential (expansion index [EI] less than 50) as defined by ASTM 4829. Recommendations for heaving soils are not required. We do not anticipate a significant transition (cut/fill) we be generated by the recommended site grading. No groundwater was encountered in our test borings. Therefore, groundwater should not present issues to the development as presently designed. RECOMMENDATIONS EARTH WORK AND GRADING Specifications and Preconstruction Any grading should conform to the guidelines presented in this report, Sections 1804 and Appendix “J” of the 2016 California Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the Standard Grading and Construction Specifications, Appendix “A”, attached hereto, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to any grading, a representative of C. W. La Monte Company Inc. should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if necessary, and to review the earthwork schedule. Fill Suitability On-site excavated materials may be used as compacted fill material or backfill. The on-site materials, typically, possess a very low to low expansion potential. Any potential import soil sites should be evaluated and approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to importation. At least two working days notice of a potential import source should be given to the Geotechnical Consultant so that appropriate testing can be accomplished. The type of material considered most desirable for import is a non-detrimentally expansive granular material with some silt or clay binder. Observation of Grading Observation and testing by the soil engineer is essential during the grading operations. This observation can range from continuous to an as-needed basis, based Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 14 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA on the project situation. This allows the soil engineer to confirm the conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect the actual field conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading progresses in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein. Site Preparation Site preparation should begin with the removal of the all improvements designated for removal and all vegetation and other deleterious materials from the portion of the lot that will be graded and/or that will receive improvements. Planned site grading for the basement area will consist primarily of a cut and export operation. Excavations for the basement should expose competent materials at the finish surface. No additional site preparation should be necessary in the basement areas where competent natural ground is exposed. The surficial deposits of undocumented fill, topsoil/colluvium should be removed from areas of the site that will support settlement-sensitive improvements. As the project is presently planned, any remaining soil removals are expected to range to maximum of 0 to 3 feet, but may be thicker in localized areas. The loose soil shall be removed to expose firm natural ground as determined by our field representative during grading. All removal areas should be approved by a representative of our office prior to the placement of additional fill or improvements. Planned site grading for the basement area will consist primarily of a cutting operation. Most excavations for the basement should expose competent materials at the finish surface. No additional site preparation should be necessary in the basement areas where competent natural ground is exposed by planned grading. Where existing grade is at a slope steeper than five units horizontal to one unit vertical (20-percent slope) and the depth of the fill exceeds 5 feet (1524 mm) benching shall be provided in accordance with Figure J107.3 (reproduced below) of the 20116 California Building Code (A copy is attached to the back of Appendix A). A key shall be provided which is at least 10 feet (3048 mm) in width and 2 feet (610 mm) in depth. All removal areas should be approved by a representative of our office prior to the placement of fill or improvements. Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 15 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA Figure J107.3 Benching Details from the California Building Code Prior to placing any fill soils or constructing any new improvements in areas that have been cleaned out to receive fill, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of approximately 6 to 12 inches, be moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Compaction and Method of Filling All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D1557. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris, roots, vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project geologist. All material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of eight inches in maximum width. Utility trench backfill within five feet of the proposed structures and beneath all pavements and concrete flatwork should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent 2 Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 16 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA of its maximum dry density. The upper one-foot of pavement subgrade and base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative density. All grading and fill placement should be performed in accordance with the local Grading Ordinance and/or the California Building Code. As discussed previously, we anticipate the proposed basement will be founded entirely on competent natural ground. Above grade portions of the structure may extend beyond the footprint of the basement and may be founded on as much as 10 feet of compacted fill (placed as future retaining wall backfill. This situation could create a differential bearing condition between the basement structure (which will be founded mostly on undisturbed natural ground) and the surface structure portion (which is founded on the less dense compacted fill). Transition (cut-fill) undercutting is not practical for the proposed basement structure. Therefore, in order to provide a closer bearing match to the natural ground conditions, the wall backfill supporting above grade portions of the structure (which overhang the basement) should be compacted to a minimum relative density of at least 95 percent. This condition, if present, can be better evaluated when temporary excavations are placed Temporary Cut Slopes Temporary cut slopes, up to 8 feet in maximum height, are planned for the proposed basement excavation. We anticipate temporary slopes may be excavated at a minimum inclination of 3/4:1.0 (horizontal to vertical) in the competent, formational deposits. Where sufficient room exists we recommend the temporary cut be excavated at a 1:1 inclination. In addition, a short vertical cut will be allowable at the base of the cut to accommodate the foundation excavation. The topsoil and existing loose fill should be sloped back at a 1:1 inclination. The stability of temporary slopes should be verified by the geotechnical consultant at the time of excavation. No surcharge loads such as stockpiles, vehicles, etc. should be allowed within a distance from the top of temporary slopes equal to half the slope height. Further care should be taken not to undermine adjacent improvements by the placement of temporary excavations. Temporary cut slopes sloped at the recommended inclinations may not be feasible in some areas due to property line or structure constraints (particularly along the south side of the proposed basement). Temporary or permanent shoring may be necessary in some areas in order to protect off-site improvements and provide a safe work environment. If such is the case, excavation shoring should be provided in such locations where undermining or other damage to adjacent structures and improvements is an issue. Design for shoring is, typically, provided by the Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 17 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA installation contractor. Supplemental soil design parameters can be provided on request. Plans for shoring should be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant. It should be noted that the contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and may need to shore, slope, or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to maintain the stability of the excavation sides where friable sands or loose soils are exposed. The contractor’s “responsible person”, as defined in the OSHA Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety process. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. Actual safe slope angles should be verified by the geotechnical consultant at the time of excavation. Excavation Characteristics Based on our exploratory excavations, the subsurface materials at the site appear relatively easy to moderate to excavate with conventional earthmoving equipment and will generate good quality silty sand. No significant amounts of oversize rock material are anticipated. Surface Drainage Surface runoff into graded areas should be minimized. Where possible, drainage should be directed to suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices such as paved swales, gunited brow ditches, and storm drains. Pad drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from proposed structures and toward approved drainage areas and/or LID systems. Section 1804.3 of the 2013 CBC specifies the following for site grading: The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of not less than one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal (5-percent slope) for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, a 5-percent slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2 percent where located within 10 feet of the building foundation. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation shall be sloped at a minimum of 2 percent away from the Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 18 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA building... The procedure used to establish the final ground level adjacent to the foundation shall account for additional settlement of the backfill. Erosion Control In addition, appropriate erosion-control measures shall be taken at all times during construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations, ponding on finished building pad or pavement areas, or running uncontrolled over the tops of newly-constructed cut or fill slopes. Appropriate Best Management Practice (BMP) erosion control devices should be provided in accordance with local and federal governing agencies. Grading Plans Review Any future grading plans should be submitted to this office for review to ascertain that the recommendations provided in this report have been followed and that the assumptions utilized in its preparation are still valid. Additional or amended recommendations may be issued based on this review. FOUNDATIONS Foundations for the structures should consist of continuous strip footings and/or isolated spread footings founded in compacted fill or competent natural ground. It appears recommendations for heaving soils are not required Foundation Embedment Foundations should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the project structural engineer and the minimum requirements of the CBC. The actual embedment and dimensions of foundations shall be determined by the structural engineer. The following table provides suggested foundation dimensions. TABLE II - FOUNDATION DIMENSIONS Number of Floors Supported by The Foundation Width of Footing (Inches) Embedment Depth Below Undisturbed Soil* 1 12 12 2 15 18 3 18 24 * Sloping conditions may dictate deeper embedment Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 19 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA Isolated pad footings shall be at least 24 inches in width. Deepened Foundations In some areas it may not be practical to perform complete remedial grading. In such areas footings supporting the structure should extend through any loose fill and topsoil and be embedded in the dense formational materials. The minimum foundation width dimensions, provided above, also apply to deepened foundations. Soil Bearing Value The recommended allowable bearing capacity for foundations with minimum dimensions described herein is 2,000 psf for footings bearing in competent formational deposits or properly compacted fill. For foundations bearing entirely in “bedrock” may utilize 3000 psf.The values presented herein are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. Lateral Load Resistance Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.35. The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot in recompacted fill or firm natural ground material. This assumes the footings are poured tight against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one- third. Foundation Reinforcement It is recommended that continuous footings be reinforced with at least four No. 5 steel bars; two reinforcing bars shall be located near the top of the foundation, and two bars near the bottom. The steel reinforcement will help prevent damage due to normal, post construction settlement or heaving, resulting from variations in the subsurface soil conditions. The minimum reinforcement recommended herein is based on soil characteristics only and is not intended to replace reinforcement required for structural considerations). Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 20 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA Horizontal Distance of Footings from Slopes According to Section 1808.7 (Foundation on or adjacent to slopes), of the 2013 California Building Code foundations on or adjacent to slope surfaces shall be founded in firm material with an embedment and set back from the slope surface sufficient to provide vertical and lateral support for the foundation without detrimental settlement. Generally, setbacks should conform to Figure 1808A.7.1, which is reproduced below. Where the slope is steeper than 1 unit vertical in 1 unit horizontal (100-percent slope), the required setback shall be measured from an imaginary plane 45 degrees to the horizontal, projected upward from the toe of the slope. Anticipated Settlements Based on our experience with the soil types on the subject site, the soils should experience settlement in the magnitude of less than 0.5 inch under proposed structural loads. It should be recognized that minor hairline cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing and/or redistribution of stresses and some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. Foundation Excavation Observation All foundation excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placing reinforcing steel and formwork in order to verify compliance with the foundation recommendations presented herein. All footing excavations should be excavated neat, level and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. Figure 1808.7.1 from the CBC ,✓ FAC£OF STRUCTUR~ TOP OF SLOPE AT LEAST THE SMALLER OF H/2 AND· t5 FEET H ~r LEAST THE SMALLcR l OF H/3 AND 40 FEET Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 21 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA Foundation Plan Review The finalized, foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review to ascertain that the recommendations provided in this report have been followed and that the assumptions utilized in its preparation are still valid. Additional or amended recommendations may be issued based on this review. CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE It is our understanding that the floor system of the proposed structures will consist of concrete slab-on-grade floors. We anticipate that the concrete slabs-on-grade will be supported by non-detrimentally expansive, competent formation and/or properly compacted fill material. The following recommendations assume that the subgrade soils have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the “Grading and Earthwork” section of this report. In addition, the following recommendations are considered the minimum slab requirements based on the soil conditions and are not intended in lieu of structural considerations. Interior Floor Slabs:We recommend a minimum floor slab thickness of four inches (actual) is recommended for slab-on-grade floors. The floor slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcing should be supported by chairs and be positioned at mid-height in the floor slab. An expandable or compressible water stop is recommended at all foundation and floor slab joints and abutments that are below grade. Exterior Concrete Flatwork: On-grade exterior concrete slabs for walks and patios should have a thickness of four inches and should be reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches on center each way. Exterior slab reinforcement should be placed approximately at mid-height of the slab. Reinforcement and control joints should be constructed in exterior concrete flatwork to reduce the potential for cracking and movement. Joints should be placed in exterior concrete flatwork to help control the location of shrinkage cracks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance with the American Concrete Institute specifications. When slabs abut foundations they should be doweled into the footings. Vehicular traffic should be avoided until the slab concrete is adequately cured. Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 22 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA SLAB MOISTURE BARRIERS A moisture barrier system is recommended beneath interior slab-on-grade floors with moisture sensitive floor coverings or coatings to help reduce the upward migration of moisture vapor from the underlying subgrade soil. A properly selected and installed vapor retarder or barrier is essential for long-term moisture resistance and can minimize the potential for flooring and environmental problems related to excessive moisture. “Above-grade“ interior floor slabs should be underlain by a minimum 15-mil thick moisture retarder product over a two-inch thick layer of clean sand material. (Please note additional moisture reduction and/or prevention measures may be needed, depending on the performance requirements for future floor covering products). All moisture retarder/moisture barrier products used should meet or exceed the performance standards dictated by ASTM E 1745 Class A material and be properly installed in accordance with ACI publication 302 (Guide to Concrete Floor and Slab Construction) and ASTM E1643 (Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarder Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs). The above described section is considered a moisture retarder and does not necessarily provide a waterproof floor system.If full waterproofing is desired, an appropriate moisture retarder product should be selected and incorporated into the overall basement waterproofing system. Moisture Retarders and Installation Vapor retarder joints must have at least 6-inch-wide overlaps and be sealed with mastic or the manufacturer's recommended tape or compound. No heavy equipment, stakes or other puncturing instruments should be used on top of the liner before or during concrete placement. In actual practice, stakes are often driven through the retarder material, equipment is dragged or rolled across the retarder, overlapping or jointing is not properly implemented, etc. All these construction deficiencies reduce the retarders’ effectiveness. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the moisture retarder is properly placed in accordance with the project plans and specifications and that the moisture retarder material is free of tears and punctures and is properly sealed prior to the placement of concrete. Interior Slab Curing Time Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 23 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA Following placement of concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials. Prior to installation, standardized testing (calcium chloride test and/or relative humidity) should be performed to determine if the slab moisture emissions are within the limits recommended by the manufacturer of the specified floor- covering product. DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES The below foundation values are provided for conventional shallow foundations. Passive Pressure The passive pressure for the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. This pressure may be increased one-third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.35 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction value should be reduced by one-third. Soil Bearing Value Conventional spread footings with the above minimum dimensions may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot for foundation bearing in compacted fill. Foundations bearing in “bedrock” may utilize 3000 psf. Active Pressure for Retaining Walls Lateral pressures acting against masonry and cast-in-place concrete retaining walls can be calculated using soil equivalent fluid weight. The equivalent fluid weight value used for design depends on allowable wall movement. Walls that are free to rotate at least 0.5 percent of the wall height can be designed for the active equivalent fluid weight. Retaining walls that are restrained at the top (such as basement walls), or are sensitive to movement and tilting should be designed for the at-rest equivalent fluid weight. Values given in the table below are in terms of equivalent fluid weight and assume a triangular distribution. The provided equivalent fluid weight values assume that onsite or imported, sandy soils (SP, SM, SC) with an Expansion Index (E.I.) of less than 20 will be used as backfill. No clay soils or silts (CL,CH, ML) should be used as retaining wall backfill. Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 24 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA Pressures for Seismic Ground Motions In addition to the above static pressures, unrestrained retaining walls located should be designed to resist seismic loading as required by the 2013 CBC. The seismic load can be modeled as a thrust load applied at a point 0.6H above the base of the wall, where H is equal to the height of the wall. This seismic load (in pounds per lineal foot of wall) is represented by the following equation: Pe =3/8 * Υ*H2 *Kh Where: Pe = Seismic thrust load H = Height of the wall (feet) Υ = soil density = 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) Kh = seismic pseudo static coefficient =0.5 * peak horizontalground acceleration (PGA=0.448) Walls should be designed to resist the combined effects of static pressures and the above seismic thrust load. Surcharge Loads Retaining walls must be designed to resist horizontal pressures that may be generated by surcharge loads applied at or near the ground surface. Where an imaginary 1:1 plane projecting downward from the outermost edge of a surcharge load or foundation intersects the retaining wall, that portion of the wall below the intersection should be designed for an additional horizontal thrust from a uniform pressure equivalent to one-third the maximum anticipated surcharge load. Surface slope of Cantilever equivalent Restrained equivalent Retained material Fluid weight Fluid weight Horizontal to vertical*(active pressure)(at-rest pressure) (pcf)(pcf) LEVEL 30 60 2 : l 43 76 TABLE NO. IV TABLE OF EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHTS FOR ACTIVE PRESSURE AND AT-REST PRESSURE BASED ONSITE BACKFILL CONDITON Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 25 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA Vehicular Loads In the case of vehicular loads coming closer than one-half the height of the wall, we recommend a live load surcharge pressure equal to not less than 2 feet of soil surcharge with an average unit weight of 125 pcf. Waterproofing and Drainage In general, retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and be waterproofed as specified by the design consultant. Also refer to American Concrete Institute ACI 515.R (A Guide to the Use of Waterproofing, Damp Proofing, Protective and Decorative Barriers Systems for Concrete). Retaining walls that are not properly waterproofed and drained are potentially subject to cosmetic staining (such as efflorescence), surficial spalling and decomposition of the masonry materials. Positive drainage for retaining walls should consist of a vertical layer of permeable material positioned between the retaining wall and the soil backfill. Such permeable material may be composed of a composite drainage geosynthetic or a natural permeable material such as crushed rock or clean sand at least 12 inches thick and capped with at least 12 inches of backfill soil. The gravel should be wrapped in a geosynthetic filter fabric. Provisions should be made for the discharge of any accumulated groundwater. The selected drainage system should be provided with a perforated collection and discharge pipe placed along the bottom of the permeable material near the base of the wall. The drain pipe should discharge to a suitable drainage facility. A typical retaining wall detail is attached as Figure No. 9A. If lateral space (due to property line constraints) is insufficient to allow installation of the gravel-wrapped "burrito" drain, a geocomposite system may be used in lieu of the typical gravel and pipe subdrain system. TenCate's MiraDrain (and similar products) provide a "low-profile" drainage system that requires minimal lateral clearance for installation. See Figure No. 9B for a typical MiraDrain detail, which is provided by the manufacturer. MiraDRAIN and similar products may also be incorporated into a waterproofing system and provide a slab drainage system (Please note that supplemental manufacturer’s details will be required to provide a waterproofed system). Backfill All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Imported or on-site sands, gravels, silty sand (SM) and clayey sand (SC) materials are suitable for retaining wall backfill. Soil with an expansion index (EI) of greater than 20 should Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 26 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA not be used as backfill material behind retaining walls. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. FIELD INVESTIGATION A total of five manually excavated test explorations were placed on the site using a hand auger system and other manual methods of excavation. Additionally, prior field work by Venje-Middleton Engineering (1998) was incorporated into this investigation, which included the placement of four backhoe excavated test pits on or adjacent to the project site. The excavations were placed specifically in areas where representative soil conditions were expected and/or where the proposed additions will be located. Our investigation also included a visual site reconnaissance. The excavations were visually inspected and logged by our field geologist, and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout the field operation. Test excavation logs have been prepared on the basis of our inspection and the results have been summarized on Figure No. 3A through 3E, the 1998 test pits are included as Appendix C. The predominant soils have been classified in conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are provided. The density of granular soils is given as very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense. The density of cohesive soils is given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, and hard. Disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples of typical and representative soils were obtained from the test borings and transported to the laboratory for testing. LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION The Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. report (1998) included extensive laboratory testing. Refer to this document for laboratory characteristics and results. Our report also includes the following soil information: CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 27 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA LIMITATIONS The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with California Building Code. It is recommended that C.W. La Monte Company Inc. be retained to provide soil engineering services during the construction operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. It should be verified in writing if the recommendations are found to be appropriate for the proposed changes or our recommendations should be modified by a written addendum. The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can occur, however, with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing Church Residence November 15, 2018 Page 28 Adams Street Carlsbad, CA under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. It is the responsibility of the stated client or their representatives to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. The firm of C.W. La Monte Co. Inc. shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to the issuance of this report. Our firm will not be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of others is the responsibility of the Owner and Contractor. The Contractor should notify the Owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. SITE LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Figure No. 1 C.W. La Monte Company Inc. Soil and Foundation Engineers Excerpt from USGS Topographic Map, San Luis Rey Quadrangle, 7.5-Minute Series, National Map Website I ,oom 50(1 fl" B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 A A' Qop Tsa Tsa Qb Qb Qaf T-6 T-5 T-4 T-3 Qop FIGURE NO. 2A Church Residence Adams St., Carlsbad, CA Approximate Test Boring Location GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND B-2 Geologic Contact Qaf = Artificial Fill Qb = Beach Deposits Qop = Old Paralic Deposits Tsa = Santiago Cross Section PLOT PLAN AND GEOTECHNICAL MAP Approximate Test Trench Location (Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., 1998) / / / 25' / / II II CURB & GUTT[R /11 f--.._ II ~ACBERM 60 25' I I \ I I 1 / / \ I I \ I/ I I I I I T-4 \. \'; GROSS O NET LOT ' I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --- A ? ~ I I 21: \ \ ~ I I I I -' I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I fA = 21,203 SF I I I I I I I ' ' ' Qaf -------Qop A -==>Z=e:::::::3: SCAL[. 1 "= 10' O 5 10 L[GEND ABO\/[ GRAO[ EL[~ ON GRAOE ELEV. PROPERTY UN[ ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT LINE RETAINING WALL 20 SYMBOL ----191J9J X 82.JJ JO FENCE -X -X -X - [OC,E AC PAl,fMENT B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5A A' T-6 T-5 T-4 T-3 FEET 0 20 40 Qop Tsa Tsa Qb Qb Qaf Qop FIGURE NO. 2B Church Residence Adams St., Carlsbad, CA Approximate Test Boring Location GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND B-2 Geologic Contact Qaf = Artificial Fill Qb = Beach Deposits Qop = Old Paralic Deposits Tsa = Santiago Cross Section PLOT PLAN AND GEOTECHNICAL MAP Approximate Test Trench Location (Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., 1998) I 4 I CURB ~ GUTTER I / I I I I /t; I I IQ AC BERM I I I f-;:: IV) I , _______ I 50--1 I ~ ulOFP I I I I I £ STRIPE I I SMH .~ I"( I : I I £R/W__,,,/j I :::I .ii T-4 --- A \ \/ I /i I / .J,,o,,, \ I / \ ; I I / 6 ,s. UMIT OF 100' llf7!AN1 BUFFER /1 \ /~ i i i / I V I UM/75/JFSAND i )/ _ I I / /j I i r-------r-----f--L\-----1--r -----..l 1 ------ / I I I _____ J _/ \ / I I i I 3~1'4J"E 275.30' \------\----'----t --L-__ !J I I I / ------:r I I I I / Qaf -------Qop A 10/24/2018JBR 4" Dia. Hand Auger Soil Description Figure No. 3 Project: Test Boring No. U.S.C.S. DEPTH (FEET) Church Residence Adams St., Carlsbad, CA SAMPLE TYPE BULK IN PLACE Relative Density (%) Moisture Content (%) Maximum Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Surface Elevation:Date:Logged By: Drilling Method:Drive Weight:Drop: Sampling Methods: B-1 Excavation Bottom A FILL SM OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) Brown, dry, loose to medium dense, silty sand with some gravel @ 7 feet becomes moist SLOPE WASH Dark brown to brown, dry, loose to medium dense, silty sand Brown, slightly moist, stiff, sandy silt Light brown,slightly moist, medium dense, fine to medium sand Brown to grayish brown, very moist, medium dense, very clayey sand sand Light brown,slightly moist, medium dense, fine to medium and fine to coarse sand SM ML SP SC SP SW 53.5'+ - - - ~ ~ ,_ - - ------~ - - - - - - - - - - - - --,_ - - - ---1--- \__ - - - - - - - - - - - -,_ - - ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ( . Wo. ta M~ ~l C~mJUf k~. ~l ~dlf~ffilihi~ti~limt~i@~ :II: IL: :II: L-., ..,._,.. :II: :i,;; ..,.., L :;,i,: 10/24/2018JBR 4" Dia. Hand Auger Soil Description Figure No. 3 Project: Test Boring No. U.S.C.S. DEPTH (FEET) Church Residence Adams St., Carlsbad, CA SAMPLETYPE BULK IN PLACE RelativeDensity(%) MoistureContent (%) Maximum Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Surface Elevation:Date:Logged By: Drilling Method:Drive Weight:Drop: Sampling Methods: B-2 Excavation Bottom B FILL / SLOPE WASH SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) Greenish tan, moist, stiff, sandy siltML Dark brown to brown, dry, loose to medium dense, silty sand with some gravel Greenish tan to brown, moist, dense, silty sand Gradational contact 42.5'+ --f--- - ------~ - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - C. WI.. taMtt1)~tt t~J~W btr~. ~J1~~d!mim1lm~~ 10/24/2018JBR 4" Dia. Hand Auger Soil Description Figure No. 3 Project: Test Boring No. U.S.C.S. DEPTH (FEET) Church Residence Adams St., Carlsbad, CA SAMPLE TYPE BULK IN PLACE Relative Density(%) Moisture Content (%) MaximumDensity (pcf) DryDensity (pcf) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Surface Elevation:Date:Logged By: Drilling Method:Drive Weight:Drop: Sampling Methods: B-3 C Reddish brown to light brown, dry very dense, fine to coarse sand OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop) Excavating Refusal with Hand Auger 39'+ - ~'--------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - c. WI..~ Mw~tc~,~}J ai~. ~landl~~w,_-~~ 10/24/2018JBR 4" Dia. Hand Auger Soil Description Figure No. 3 Project: Test Boring No. U.S.C.S. DEPTH (FEET) Church Residence Adams St., Carlsbad, CA SAMPLE TYPE BULK IN PLACE Relative Density (%) Moisture Content (%) Maximum Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Surface Elevation:Date:Logged By: Drilling Method:Drive Weight:Drop: Sampling Methods: B-4 Excavation Bottom D SC SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) Tan, slightly moist, very dense, clayey sand 23'+ - - - - - - - - - - - - C:. W/.. ~M~mtt C~J~f ll«z1. ~ll~~~~&t~1tm L_L_-___________________________________ .....J_L-_-::_-_-::_-_-::_::::_::::_____"""":_::::_____"""":_::::_::::_::::_::::_::::_::::_::::_:::::-_~ 10/24/2018JBR 4" Dia. Hand Auger Soil Description Figure No. 3 Project: Test Boring No. U.S.C.S. DEPTH (FEET) Church Residence Adams St., Carlsbad, CA SAMPLE TYPE BULK IN PLACE RelativeDensity (%) MoistureContent (%) Maximum Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Surface Elevation:Date:Logged By: Drilling Method:Drive Weight:Drop: Sampling Methods: B-5 Excavation Bottom E SC SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa) Tan, slightly moist, very dense, clayey sand FILL / SLOPE WASH SM Dark brown to brown, dry, loose to medium dense, silty sand with some gravel 15' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C. WI.. M~1tt Ce•,~w .€;. ~cmdi~~~~~ + Elevation (Feet) Distance (Feet)20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 Property Line ExistingGroundSurface 40 30 20 10 00 50 60 70 -10 B-1 B-2 B-4 B-5 Tsa (Sandstone) Qop (Sandstone) Undifferentiaed Slope Wash and Fill Lagoon Mean High TideBeach Sand ExistingGroundSurface Saturated Soil T-4 ? ? ? ? ? Qop (Siltstone) Finish Floor Finish Grade Finish Floor Proposed BuildingFill ADAMS STREET CROSS SECTION A FIGURE NO. 4 Church Residence Adams Street, Carlsbad, CA ------, I + GEOLOGY MAP EXCERPT Figure No 5 Qop =Old paralic deposits Tsa =Santiago Formation Fault -Solid where well defined; dashed where inferred. LEGEND (Localized) Excerpt from: DIGITAL GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE OCEANSIDE 30' X 60' QUADRANGLE, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (2005), By Kennedy - Tan Tsa C. Wlo. r_ C<@JlDf ·. S:~JI ~dllf~~ti~l-~~@~ ························ -- SUMMARY EXPLANATION Fault traces on land are indicated by solid lines where well located, by dashed lines where approximately located or inferred, and by dotted lines where concealed by younger rocks or by lakes or bays. Fault traces are queried where continuation or existence is uncertain. FAULT CLASSIFICATION COLOR CODE (Indicating Recency of Movement) Historic Fault (last 200 years) FIGURE 6 - Excerpt from: 2010 Fault Activity Map of California, Geologic Data Map No. 6 Holocene fault (during past 11,700 years) without historic record. Late Quaternary fault (during past 700,000 years). Quaternary fault (age undifferentiated) Pre-Quaternary fault (older that 1.6 million years) or fault without recognized Quaternary displacement. 7.P . )i I . ·, hu1IL Re..,rvalle1n Excerpt from: DMG OPEN-FILE REPORT 95-03, LANDSLIDE HAZARDS IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN AREA, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DMG OPEN-FILE REPORT 95-03, by the California, California Department of Conservation, Division Of Mines and Geology (1995) \ \ \ ~--~~a ~- ' ~ ~l -=--1/1 ) •' y /,/ _.,,-j' ._4,-· _--~·-~:::;~::: i'.', .· -· --1-:·-~~ ~: _ ;:- \(P / .· . +or~, ---t -: .•. -_·:;,i·•../·.""""""'"~'\ '* :_~.: t; -. . . \ . ·-• ='"'-~~;,:o"'"f \\ . _\!!,)l-c=' ,, .->_, . ·----"'---,s 8 . ~\~.I,.~-,: .. cc--'\ \ .. i\ · .. RELATIVE LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY AREAS 1 2 3-1 I 3-2 4-1 I 4-2 Least Marginally Generally Most Susceptible Susceptible Susceptible Susceptible • ---------------------------------Increasing landslide susceptibility-------------------------------> Figure No. 7 Figure No.8 METHOD OF PREPARATION lnit!11I CIU!lll!Tl' modet,,g WBI ptirformed bv the UnlYeredy Of SouthemCaiitoml& 1USC) T11Jm1ml Re::st>&rch CentNllnOed l1Trooi,i. th6 Ce11lom!e Emilll18'KY fitiifl8g8111er'II AvMCV (C.atB'./AI Do)' IN NauOl\ll1Tf;IJnaml lilunf Mlllgllllon Ptognim Th916tlf'l11m, rrodflh~ proCE68 uu:.:.O the MOST {Me!l'Od Qf Splmig Taunair,1) ~t&tlonal IJ"OOfll!T1 {Vttr11lon 0), wiw::h •lbw!I kirwsw eYO&!t,o,i f:#9' 11 lfarieble bidhyl'Tl'31rY eM topo;rsphy 1.-d IOrtl.>& ir.Jlidalion mapping fTIOY and Oooza!SZ, 1911'7. T"°"' end 5~1Bki&. 1998) TM bii,U,~~•~lc; da-1• t:,;;i,t-•• 1.1..d In ti'.. ""'°iilmo m~, ~ltlM ~ ■ 'i~ of'-led grid, NMr-~i;rr• '1'ic/$ v,o(t). 11 3 ,;,n;;.MCIOl>(f (75-toaD~~) 111~r;,rttgi,•• ..,.,.. o1d11,1111wd SO 'MHnHigh\'4lV M-i1-!.\1111 QQOl;fibc;,nt. ,wp,.,..n1ing a oo~atJv• M;a1 lwY11! for Iha mt■no.;t ~ gf tlw ~amt mQdlilng arldmllPP•ng A.~oftwn;u,11---..IJllliln~~H._t.dformodilli11g,r~rN11rrilng.-.11EIJlio lpi;;ianclo11t.in1■;ri,q1,111k••~~al•,1~~rq_;i ~-5hor11la~liow fT■t;,At, ·~ Loi.ol l~r>am! IOUn::111 rt,;,1 ........ wnlllden!d indu<l9 offlhor• ·~•rq-lt11111111 fiiuha. t1:1W~n,ng blNQ" 011 WiJ<v-1ltp f~tr ltlfln 11nd l.o•!i19 l11Jbmo1nf14 biridffd1n. .;.ip;,t;111 d 5>gnfflnt w111kio• di;plK40m1nt ~d itvn.mi g11,_o1r;on 0,15Qoldtl~! SQ1,1ro-,r.ihat'Nlff'9cai,r;id~lnc:11,1r:;.gr1Ji11wbd1.IC~.:Ollll-bffi;,!M•ilnownl0 hl!Yaoca..nrndhh;~cally\1960Clil•.and 11;1&4,'J;11Y<•aathqu;,k.n>andt:o1Nl'll""tildt canoccairaroundtt.P1:11:lfiaC>ee.ln"RlngofFir•· In ortmt to -,han(!11 .._ tfli.A from In• 75• 1kt 90-ml,1,ri IMn:l:luon grid dalil, a FTUtlhld w111 da•l'Mop..::I IAili:rrng higt.ar-r■1olulian d~I topogn,phie, mta (l• ID 10.m■mr• ~) 1hll! b■llat DKflr,n ltla bo.iion eal!he rm.XlrtU'TI lrurubtionlln• (US Geologa:alSul\'ay leB'l lnhlrrm,e•,:200l,NOM,2004J, Thrr IOcalioneallha•nhlmcad lnundallo,, lil".111. .,,,1&da.rm.-.d by ur.lngdlg,Nal ltna,g11ty and l~ln da!aen aGIS ~m wi1h aoncda,ab11n gi'len lo h11tn,ie.111Undation lnformabcrn (l..llr.ldat, et 111 1993) Thi• lrlformation wal v•1111ad, \rffltl'■ pc,abre by liddwo1" COOJdinlll~ wUh locaimuntfi,ancnnal Tl>R «:CU~ gfftM, ll'n.)dillbOn ri"" .tiQ\\TI 01\ lha,,ia rra:ip• ill-~~ to ltmi111ti0r11, in b acea.nr::y a~ aimplllianass of a~lab,. 1,11,..._ ■l'ld lsllm:111'11 MJUl'oa 1rdormatltin, .lll'ld the D.Jf1'nl uri,dant;md;rig cl tsun.1rT'1'9"1a1"111ion and prqi;zig11liofl ph1momar1.J as 11~prtssad 1111t,I, inodllil Thu1,. ;,Jtt,~.an 1111-mpt hit,; b1tn f11;;;1d■ to ~t,fy a cnditl,■ uppllr bourrci to w.md■1i0n al any 1Qc:11icrn lllotlq 1h11 oe.;is:Hir.e, ll t_,.,ans po~bl■ ihal aclLAI ~ndalllJ'l could ba g!-cer in II m:1jor tsUnam, ■Y■nt nw., m:ap d:aea !10i ••~ inun::f;:,t:..v, frari a .,.-;gl11.111:41na,o tll'YWlt, II w.:as u■.a!■ d by oornbrung .,UR0,11ian flni.11• for an ■n .. mbl■ of tllUr<:41 ■yanllli ■ffecling a gill'■ n ragiori (Tula 1J Fcrlhllli~ li11;1fthelni.md:,1JQ11reglOnln■p11rticulor11~11....,llnol 1,1:sl:f Ila i,tund■iaddUhrlg a slr,gl■ ""'"•ml 11-..it. . \~~i l \1 '1\. • m-I I ,tt ►'.r . f )Jr /_:'", .. / t. '·• r I I/·. •·l i TSUNAMI INUNDATION MAP FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING State of California ~ County of San Diego POINT LOMA QUADRANGLE June 1, 2009 SCAlE 1 ;24.000 Tnllle 1. Tsunwrn sou1cos; modelOO lo, uu1 San Diego County ooa~t1!r19 I _/~ I I ' , ... MAP EXPLANATION ..r\.;-'--Tsunami Inundation Une Tsunami Inundation Area PURPOSE OF THIS MAP n.., t9;Uf'llrt'li ln1M:11~0n l'Np wn p,eplrll!d t.a n.al clliat trld c~tiH in xt..nury,rtg thmf' bun111'1U hal:attl. II II -,,i~9d Jot local JI.IIHM:lcb:lnal, CCW,llll ""a(IL.m.bOl'I s,l■ntmg L1k11 only, Thl!I fl'IIIP. •~ ltlt lnf,:,rft'llfon fll'"knlbd hefeln., l,i, nc,t .11 .g:11 c!oc:utnent■l'ddoMMitl'l'lo!tidl\!ldolUfel9(lUll~C!llotfelllelall!treMl!ICtiorl! ftOflOl'lllll,)'~1Mr&9ia■IOeypurr,c:,M!! Tt-clmlndatlonfflJIPh■!lbe<!no:mp&..dwlthb.,9lCIJrrMlll)lll'tl■ubl1!sclein11h,; .iiofmal:llln Tba.G,lf\d&IJOR line IBJ)IQlli!nlS Iha me~)ml,lmC0!"'9ider&d twnltlTW runup from e ,wmbef of enreru,e, r,,t rUlr.ut. t:imf;ITi &llutcEril TS1JBSm.s ere rar-. e~er,te,. due 10 e laq( oi\l'ICll,'l'I Dl!:OUfr9flCB! Ir, tfle n,etulCBI recot<l dlls msp lndudB! no l'\lotm!l\,o,i.KIO!Jtlheprob9tr,11\yaf..n'f~lffl!ll'NQ!fec:i1rcsllfl\'11raa11o11n1na.1peclfic perlodoftl!Nl Plaeserater1otnelollo,.,119"W11ell8iteeforedd1IIOl\elinfortn&~onootneC()!'l!llrUClJOl1 and/Qr111E1aed L1Ee d ltle 1111.meml ITTuncutoo map SWe of C.14om.a ~ncy MeniQ8mBnt Agere 1, EarlhQWi~B end Trainem1 Progra."n, ~~DJ~G~e::::;~~~==;::~nt,'81EO MAP BASE Tcp:.;irillphie bu• rN1F" pi.p;:ir..tby US Gaalogie.i,IS~i "" p..-,ol lh• 7 ~ITWl\l\a O,.,a,hrigl■M11pS■,_(Ol"5111..tl:,1'24,l)OO ...... ) Tautal'Ti n.,,n,;l111ionllllll boundaui■• may ..A.et l,lpd■t~ dlg~aJ 11,thop~phlc and tqx>grapHc: d.t.■ that c.1 dfl■, ~11'rc■rdly Iron a:,nlc,u,. aha,..., 11n tha bno m:11p DISCLAIMER TI\Q C11ldorra.a En,ei,g,.,ney Mana~n1A(J·9t)('y [CalfM>\t, Ille Vrw9f'Sltyof Soutnem Clli;bnta NSC>. and~ C.~OrtM Geo"9Clf 6uNe)' (005) m,a1r.t no rft)fewn~ Ol''WwroltltiEIElfeglilfdlngltlea«:u<3q1oitni&•l'lllldo1ton~nor1t1&($1ailrO'nwhlch N map war. derWea N61!het tne Stal& ot Cal1on'l'a ~ USC r.hall be 11aole u!\OiW (iJ(Vj ctrCUmi:W\Oe11 kr WI)' dlfe,¢1. lndrect $pECal, ll'IOlif~:!nlal Cl' c.of'lf,9QU8f'lnal ciam&gB!I Wlll1 ni'l)&t1 lO "l'f darm b)' 1mv llf,oil' Of lllfll lhlfll p,!lit)' an ICCOJM Of Oi' ~ from 1NI UH oflh!~ map TYPICAL RETAINING WALL SECTION (No Scale) Figure No.9A C.W. LA MONTE COMPANY Soil and Foundation Engineers CONCRETE $1,,/ALE (\./HERE OCCURS> 6' F RETAI I G \./ALL--..__ REI FORCED CONCRETE EINF□RCED CMU OR OTHE R AP PROVED BY THE BUILD! G OFFICIAL < D \./DOD> El FORCED CO CRETE SLAB OR 6' SOIL MIN. Fl ISHED GRADE ..... 'v f> ' , /.' i;:, . "" . . ' . i' .// \.IA L FD TING --~ . i;:, 1~c..,,:.=~--MOISTURE BARRIER <AT BASE ET VAL L> GE □F A BRIC \./ AP ~~~~~~-4• DIAMETER SCHEDULE 12• 40 PVC PIPE \./[TH 11/. MINI UM GRADIE T TO lllllil~:IKlLL...!.A~PPROV ED OUTLET f> \,:<,A" ~-KEY <VHE E □CCU S> Figure SPREAD FOOTING DETAIL SLAB Mira Drain Detail PANEL CONNECTION DETAIL DRAINAGE BOARD ---CONCRETE WALL SHINGLE IN DIRECTION OF WATER FLOW ... -4 4 ~ 'II ;I ... . -~ -. -~ 4f/ ·4 ~-21 .. . ., . ·4 . 2.1 • 4 . .., . .. ., . .., -~--4! .... ~ ·4 . .,l' ., CARL ISL © 2004 CARLISLE CORPORATION ~ 4 CCW M IRADRAIN DRAINAGE COMPOSITE - SECURE TO WALL OR WATERPROOFING WITH ADHESIVE * CONNECT THE CCW OUICKDRAIN TO THE MIRADRAIN DRAINAGE COMPOSITE -OVERLAP THE FLANGE FROM THE UPPER PANEL OVER THE LOWER PANEL -FOLD THE FABRIC DOWN ON THE LOWER PANEL AND OVERLAP THE FABRIC FROM THE UPPER PANEL DOWN OVER THE LOWER PANEL AND SECURE WITH ADHESIVE + CCW QUICKDRAIN DRAINAGE COMPOSITE - SECURE TO WALL OR WATERPROOFING WITH ADHESIVE • FABRIC FLAP FABRIC FLAP - FOLD DOWN OR CUT OFF ADHESIVE TO SECURE FABRIC * ----DRAINAGE BOARD PANEL TERMINATION DETAIL ., ·.d • . ., 4 ~ WRAP FABRIC TO BACK OF CCW-QUICKDRAIN AND SECURE WITH CCW-DRAIN-GRIP OR CCW-704 MASTIC * CONCRETE FOOTING FABRIC ---DRAINAGE BOARD .i....i.....i....~~~r;.,l \: ADHESIVE TO SECURE FABRIC (OPTIONAL) FABRIC FLAP - WRAP TO BACK SIDE OF DRAIN -+ CCW DRAIN-GRIP. CCW MIRABOND OR CCW-702 OR ANY COMPATIBLE ADHESIVE 9B ß°°»²¼·¨ ßŒ ÍÌßÒÜßÎÜ ÙÎßÜ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÝÑÒÍÌÎËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÍÐÛÝ×Ú×ÝßÌ×ÑÒÍ ß°°»²¼·¨ ßŒ ÍÌßÒÜßÎÜ ÙÎßÜ×ÒÙ ßÒÜ ÝÑÒÍÌÎËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÍÐÛÝ×Ú×ÝßÌ×ÑÒÍ Ì¸»-» -°»½·º·½¿¬·±²- °®»-»²¬ ¬¸» «-«¿´ ¿²¼ ³·²·³«³ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬- º±® °®±¶»½¬- ±² ©¸·½¸ ÝòÉò Ô¿ Ó±²¬» ݱ³°¿²§ ·- ¬¸» ¹»±¬»½¸²·½¿´ ½±²-«´¬¿²¬ò Ò± ¼»ª·¿¬·±² º®±³ ¬¸»-» -°»½·º·½¿¬·±²- ©·´´ ¾» ¿´´±©»¼ô »¨½»°¬ ©¸»®» -°»½·º·½¿´´§ -«°»®-»¼»¼ ·² ¬¸» °®»´·³·²¿®§ ¹»±´±¹§ ¿²¼ -±·´- ®»°±®¬ ±® ·² ±¬¸»® ©®·¬¬»² ½±³³«²·½¿¬·±² -·¹²»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® ±® Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ Ù»±´±¹·-¬ ±º ®»½±®¼ò ÙÛÒÛÎßÔ ßò ̸» ͱ·´­ Û²¹·²»»® ¿²¼ Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ Ù»±´±¹·­¬ ·­ ¬¸» Ñ©²»®Ž­ ±® Þ«·´¼»®­Ž ®»°®»­»²¬¿¬·ª» ±² ¬¸» Ю±¶»½¬ò Ú±® ¬¸» °«®°±-» ±º ¬¸»-» -°»½·º·½¿¬·±²-ô °¿®¬·½·°¿¬·±² ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® ·²½´«¼»- ¬¸¿¬ ±¾-»®ª¿¬·±² °»®º±®³»¼ ¾§ ¿²§ °»®-±² ±® °»®-±²- »³°´±§»¼ ¾§ô ¿²¼ ®»-°±²-·¾´» ¬±ô ¬¸» ´·½»²-»¼ Ý·ª·´ Û²¹·²»»® -·¹²·²¹ ¬¸» -±·´- ®»°±®¬-ò Þò ß´´ ½´»¿®·²¹ô -·¬» °®»°¿®¿¬·±²ô ±® »¿®¬¸©±®µ °»®º±®³»¼ ±² ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ -¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²¼«½¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ݱ²¬®¿½¬±® «²¼»® ¬¸» -«°»®ª·-·±² ±º ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»®ò Ýò ׬ ·­ ¬¸» ݱ²¬®¿½¬±®Ž­ ®»­°±²­·¾·´·¬§ ¬± °®»°¿®» ¬¸» ¹®±«²¼ ­«®º¿½» ¬± ®»½»·ª» ¬¸» º·´´­ ¬± ¬¸» ­¿¬·­º¿½¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® ¿²¼ ¬± °´¿½»ô -°®»¿¼ô ³·¨ô ©¿¬»®ô ¿²¼ ½±³°¿½¬ ¬¸» º·´´ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» -°»½·º·½¿¬·±²- ±º ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»®ò ̸» ݱ²¬®¿½¬±® -¸¿´´ ¿´-± ®»³±ª» ¿´´ ³¿¬»®·¿´ ½±²-·¼»®»¼ «²-¿¬·-º¿½¬±®§ ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»®ò Üò ׬ ·­ ¿´­± ¬¸» ݱ²¬®¿½¬±®Ž­ ®»­°±²­·¾·´·¬§ ¬± ¸¿ª» ­«·¬¿¾´» ¿²¼ ­«ºº·½·»²¬ ½±³°¿½¬·±² »¯«·°³»²¬ ±² ¬¸» ¶±¾ ­·¬» ¬± ¸¿²¼´» ¬¸» ¿³±«²¬ ±º º·´´ ¾»·²¹ °´¿½»¼ò ׺ ²»½»--¿®§ô »¨½¿ª¿¬·±² »¯«·°³»²¬ ©·´´ ¾» -¸«¬ ¼±©² ¬± °»®³·¬ ½±³°´»¬·±² ±º ½±³°¿½¬·±²ò Í«ºº·½·»²¬ ©¿¬»®·²¹ ¿°°¿®¿¬«- ©·´´ ¿´-± ¾» °®±ª·¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ݱ²¬®¿½¬±®ô ©·¬¸ ¼«» ½±²-·¼»®¿¬·±² º±® ¬¸» º·´´ ³¿¬»®·¿´ô ®¿¬» ±º °´¿½»³»²¬ô ¿²¼ ¬·³» ±º §»¿®ò Ûò ß º·²¿´ ®»°±®¬ ­¸¿´´ ¾» ·­­«»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´­ Û²¹·²»»® ¿¬¬»­¬·²¹ ¬± ¬¸» ݱ²¬®¿½¬±®Ž­ ½±²º±®³¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸»­» -°»½·º·½¿¬·±²-ò Í×ÌÛ ÐÎÛÐßÎßÌ×ÑÒ ßò ß´´ ª»¹»¬¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ¼»´»¬»®·±«- ³¿¬»®·¿´ -¸¿´´ ¾» ¼·-°±-»¼ ±º ±ºº -·¬»ò ̸·- ®»³±ª¿´ -¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²½´«¼»¼ °®·±® ¬± °´¿½·²¹ º·´´ò Þò ͱ·´ô ¿´´«ª·«³ô ±® ¾»¼®±½µ ³¿¬»®·¿´- ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»®ô ¿- ¾»·²¹ «²-«·¬¿¾´» º±® °´¿½»³»²¬ ·² ½±³°¿½¬»¼ º·´´- -¸¿´´ ¾» ®»³±ª»¼ º®±³ ¬¸» -·¬»ò ̸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® ³«-¬ ¿°°®±ª» ¿²§ ³¿¬»®·¿´ ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ¿- ¿ °¿®¬ ±º ¿ ½±³°¿½¬»¼ º·´´ò Ýò ߺ¬»® ¬¸» ¹®±«²¼ -«®º¿½» ¬± ®»½»·ª» º·´´ ¸¿- ¾»»² ½´»¿®»¼ô ·¬ -¸¿´´ ¾» -½¿®·º·»¼ô ¼·-½»¼ô ±® ¾´¿¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ݱ²¬®¿½¬±® «²¬·´ ·¬ ·- «²·º±®³ ¿²¼ º®»» º®±³ ®«¬-ô ¸±´´±©-ô ¸«³³±½µ-ô ±® ±¬¸»® «²»ª»² º»¿¬«®»- ©¸·½¸ ³¿§ °®»ª»²¬ «²·º±®³ ½±³°¿½¬·±²ò ̸» -½¿®·º·»¼ ¹®±«²¼ -«®º¿½» -¸¿´´ ¬¸»² ¾» ¾®±«¹¸¬ ¬± ±°¬·³«³ ³±·-¬«®»ô ³·¨»¼ ¿- ®»¯«·®»¼ô ¿²¼ ½±³°¿½¬»¼ ¿- -°»½·º·»¼ò ׺ ¬¸» -½¿®·º·»¼ ¦±²» ·- ¹®»¿¬»® ¬¸¿² ïî ·²½¸»- ·² ¼»°¬¸ô ¬¸» »¨½»-- -¸¿´´ ¾» ®»³±ª»¼ ¿²¼ °´¿½»¼ ·² ´·º¬- ®»-¬®·½¬»¼ ¬± ê ·²½¸»-ò Ю·±® ¬± °´¿½·²¹ º·´´ô ¬¸» ¹®±«²¼ -«®º¿½» ¬± ®»½»·ª» º·´´ -¸¿´´ ¾» ·²-°»½¬»¼ô ¬»-¬»¼ ¿- ²»½»--¿®§ô ¿²¼ ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»®ò Üò ß²§ «²¼»®¹®±«²¼ -¬®«½¬«®»- -«½¸ ¿- ½»--°±±´-ô ½·-¬»®²-ô ³·²·²¹ -¸¿º¬-ô ¬«²²»´-ô -»°¬·½ ¬¿²µ-ô ©»´´-ô °·°» ´·²»-ô ±® ±¬¸»®- ¿®» ¬± ¾» ®»³±ª»¼ ±® ¬®»¿¬»¼ ·² ¿ ³¿²²»® °®»-½®·¾»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® ¿²¼ ñ±® ¹±ª»®²·²¹ ¿¹»²½§ò Ûò ײ ±®¼»® ¬± °®±ª·¼» «²·º±®³ ¾»¿®·²¹ ½±²¼·¬·±²- ·² ½«¬óº·´´ ¬®¿²-·¬·±² ´±¬- ¿²¼ ©¸»®» ½«¬ ´±¬- ¿®» °¿®¬·¿´´§ ·² -±·´ô ½±´´«ª·«³ô ±® «²ó©»¿¬¸»®»¼ ¾»¼®±½µ ³¿¬»®·¿´-ô ¬¸» ¾»¼®±½µ °±®¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ´±¬ »¨¬»²¼·²¹ ¿ ³·²·³«³ ±º í º»»¬ ±«¬-·¼» ±º ¾«·´¼·²¹ ´·²»- -¸¿´´ ¾» ±ª»® »¨½¿ª¿¬»¼ ¿ ³·²·³«³ ±º í º»»¬ ¿²¼ ®»°´¿½»¼ ©·¬¸ ½±³°¿½¬»¼ º·´´ò ß°°»²¼·¨ ß Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ Ù®¿¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ݱ²-¬®«½¬·±² Í°»½·º·½¿¬·±²- п¹» î ÝÑÓÐßÝÌÛÜ Ú×ÔÔÍ ßò ß²§ ³¿¬»®·¿´ ·³°±®¬»¼ ±® »¨½¿ª¿¬»¼ ±² ¬¸» °®±°»®¬§ ³¿§ ¾» «¬·´·¦»¼ ·² ¬¸» º·´´ô °®±ª·¼»¼ »¿½¸ ³¿¬»®·¿´ ¸¿- ¾»»² ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¬± ¾» -«·¬¿¾´» ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»®ò ᱬ-ô ¬®»» ¾®¿²½¸»-ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ³¿¬¬»® ³·--»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ½´»¿®·²¹ -¸¿´´ ¾» ®»³±ª»¼ º®±³ ¬¸» º·´´ ¿- ¼·®»½¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»®ò Þò α½µ º®¿¹³»²¬- ´»-- ¬¸¿² ê ·²½¸»- ·² ¼·¿³»¬»® ³¿§ ¾» «¬·´·¦»¼ ·² ¬¸» º·´´ô °®±ª·¼»¼æ ïò ̸»§ ¿®» ²±¬ °´¿½»¼ ·² ½±²½»²¬®¿¬»¼ °±½µ»¬-ò îò ̸»®» ·- ¿ -«ºº·½·»²¬ °»®½»²¬¿¹» ±º º·²»ó¹®¿·²»¼ ³¿¬»®·¿´ ¬± -«®®±«²¼ ¬¸» ®±½µ-ò íò ̸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® -¸¿´´ -«°»®ª·-» ¬¸» ¼·-¬®·¾«¬·±² ±º ®±½µ-ò Ýò α½µ- ¹®»¿¬»® ¬¸¿² ê ·²½¸»- ·² ¼·¿³»¬»® -¸¿´´ ¾» ¬¿µ»² ±ºº -·¬»ô ±® °´¿½»¼ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²- ±º ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® ·² ¿®»¿- ¼»-·¹²¿¬»¼ ¿- -«·¬¿¾´» º±® ®±½µ ¼·-°±-¿´ò Üò Ó¿¬»®·¿´ ¬¸¿¬ ·- -°±²¹§ô -«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¼»½¿§ ±® ±¬¸»®©·-» ½±²-·¼»®»¼ «²-«·¬¿¾´» -¸±«´¼ ²±¬ ¾» «-»¼ ·² ¬¸» ½±³°¿½¬»¼ º·´´ò Ûò λ°®»-»²¬¿¬·ª» -¿³°´»- ±º ³¿¬»®·¿´ ¬± ¾» «¬·´·¦»¼ ¿- ½±³°¿½¬»¼ º·´´ -¸¿´´ ¾» ¿²¿´§¦»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ´¿¾±®¿¬±®§ ±º ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® ¬± ¼»¬»®³·²» ¬¸»·® °¸§-·½¿´ °®±°»®¬·»-ò ׺ ¿²§ ³¿¬»®·¿´ ±¬¸»® ¬¸¿² ¬¸¿¬ °®»ª·±«-´§ ¬»-¬»¼ ·- »²½±«²¬»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ¹®¿¼·²¹ô ¬¸» ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ¿²¿´§-·- ±º ¬¸·- ³¿¬»®·¿´ -¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²¼«½¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® ¿- -±±² ¿- °±--·¾´»ò Úò Ó¿¬»®·¿´ «-»¼ ·² ¬¸» ½±³°¿½¬·±² °®±½»-- -¸¿´´ ¾» »ª»²´§ -°®»¿¼ô ©¿¬»®»¼ °®±½»--»¼ô ¿²¼ ½±³°¿½¬»¼ ·² ¬¸·² ´·º¬- ²±¬ ¬± »¨½»»¼ ê ·²½¸»- ·² ¬¸·½µ²»-- ¬± ±¾¬¿·² ¿ «²·º±®³´§ ¼»²-» ´¿§»®ò ̸» º·´´ -¸¿´´ ¾» °´¿½»¼ ¿²¼ ½±³°¿½¬»¼ ±² ¿ ¸±®·¦±²¬¿´ °´¿²»ô «²´»-- ±¬¸»®©·-» ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»®ò Ùò ׺ ¬¸» ³±·-¬«®» ½±²¬»²¬ ±® ®»´¿¬·ª» ¼»²-·¬§ ª¿®·»- º®±³ ¬¸¿¬ ®»¯«·®»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»®ô ¬¸» ݱ²¬®¿½¬±® -¸±«´¼ ®»ó©±®µ ¬¸» º·´´ «²¬·´ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® ¿°°®±ª»- ·¬ò Øò Û¿½¸ ´¿§»® -¸¿´´ ¾» ½±³°¿½¬»¼ ¬± çð °»®½»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ³¿¨·³«³ ¼»²-·¬§ ·² ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ¬»-¬·²¹ ³»¬¸±¼ -°»½·º·»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ½±²¬®±´´·²¹ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿´ ¿¹»²½§ò øײ ¹»²»®¿´ô ßÍÌÓ Üóïëëéóçïô ¬¸» º·ª»ó´¿§»® ³»¬¸±¼ ©·´´ ¾» «-»¼ò÷ ׺ ½±³°¿½¬·±² ¬± ¿ ´»--»® °»®½»²¬¿¹» ·- ¿«¬¸±®·¦»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ½±²¬®±´´·²¹ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿´ ¿¹»²½§ ¾»½¿«-» ±º ¿ -°»½·º·½ ´¿²¼ «-» ±® »¨°¿²-·ª» -±·´- ½±²¼·¬·±²ô ¬¸» ¿®»¿ ¬± ®»½»·ª» º·´´ ½±³°¿½¬»¼ ¬± ´»-- ¬¸¿² çð °»®½»²¬ -¸¿´´ »·¬¸»® ¾» ¼»´·²»¿¬»¼ ±² ¬¸» ¹®¿¼·²¹ °´¿² ±® ¿°°®±°®·¿¬» ®»º»®»²½» ³¿¼» ¬± ¬¸» ¿®»¿ ·² ¬¸» -±·´- ®»°±®¬ò Øò ß´´ º·´´- -¸¿´´ ¾» µ»§»¼ ¿²¼ ¾»²½¸»¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¿´´ ¬±°-±·´ô ½±´´«ª·«³ô ¿´´«ª·«³ ±® ½®»»° ³¿¬»®·¿´ô ·²¬± -±«²¼ ¾»¼®±½µ ±® º·®³ ³¿¬»®·¿´ »¨½»°¬ ©¸»®» ¬¸» -´±°» ®»½»·ª·²¹ º·´´ »¨½»»¼- ¿ ®¿¬·± ±º º·ª» ¸±®·¦±²¬¿´ ¬± ±²» ª»®¬·½¿´ô ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²- ±º ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»®ò ×ò ̸» µ»§ º±® ¸·´´-·¼» º·´´- -¸±«´¼ ¾» ¿ ³·²·³«³ ±º ïë º»»¬ ·² ©·¼¬¸ ¿²¼ ©·¬¸·² ¾»¼®±½µ ±® -·³·´¿® ³¿¬»®·¿´-ô «²´»-- ±¬¸»®©·-» -°»½·º·»¼ ·² ¬¸» -±·´ ®»°±®¬ò Õò Í«¾¼®¿·²¿¹» ¼»ª·½»- -¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²-¬®«½¬»¼ ·² ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ±®¼·²¿²½»- ±º ¬¸» ½±²¬®±´´·²¹ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿´ ¿¹»²½§ô ±® ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²- ±º ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® ±® Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ Ù»±´±¹·-¬ò Ôò ̸» ½±²¬®¿½¬±® ©·´´ ¾» ®»¯«·®»¼ ¬± ±¾¬¿·² ¿ ³·²·³«³ ®»´¿¬·ª» ½±³°¿½¬·±² ±º çð °»®½»²¬ ±«¬ ¬± ¬¸» º·²·-¸ -´±°» º¿½» ±º º·´´ -´±°»-ô ¾«¬¬®»--»-ô ¿²¼ -¬¿¾·´·¦¿¬·±² º·´´-ò ̸·- ³¿§ ¾» ¿½¸·»ª»¼ ¾§ »·¬¸»® ±ª»®¾«·´¼·²¹ ¬¸» -´±°» ¿²¼ ½«¬¬·²¹ ¾¿½µ ¬± ¬¸» ½±³°¿½¬»¼ ½±®»ô ±® ¾§ ¼·®»½¬ ½±³°¿½¬·±² ±º ¬¸» -´±°» º¿½» ©·¬¸ -«·¬¿¾´» »¯«·°³»²¬ô ±® ¾§ ¿²§ ±¬¸»® °®±½»¼«®» ©¸·½¸ °®±¼«½»- ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ ½±³°¿½¬·±²ò ß°°»²¼·¨ ß Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ Ù®¿¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ݱ²-¬®«½¬·±² Í°»½·º·½¿¬·±²- п¹» í Óò ß´´ º·´´ -´±°»- -¸±«´¼ ¾» °´¿²¬»¼ ±® °®±¬»½¬»¼ º®±³ »®±-·±² ±® ¾§ ±¬¸»® ³»¬¸±¼- -°»½·º·»¼ ·² ¬¸» -±·´- ®»°±®¬ò Òò Ú·´´ó±ª»®ó½«¬ -´±°»- -¸¿´´ ¾» °®±°»®´§ µ»§»¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬±°-±·´ô ½±´´«ª·«³ ±® ½®»»° ³¿¬»®·¿´ ·²¬± ®±½µ ±® º·®³ ³¿¬»®·¿´-ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¬®¿²-·¬·±² -¸¿´´ ¾» -¬®·°°»¼ ±º ¿´´ -±·´ °®·±® ¬± °´¿½·²¹ º·´´ò ÝËÌ ÍÔÑÐÛÍ ßò ̸» Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ Ù»±´±¹·-¬ -¸¿´´ ·²-°»½¬ ¿´´ ½«¬ -´±°»- ¿¬ ª»®¬·½¿´ ·²¬»®ª¿´- ²±¬ »¨½»»¼·²¹ ï𠺻»¬ò Þò ׺ ¿²§ ½±²¼·¬·±²- ²±¬ ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» °®»´·³·²¿®§ ®»°±®¬ -«½¸ ¿- °»®½¸»¼ ©¿¬»®ô -»»°¿¹»ô ´»²¬·½«´¿® ±® ½±²º·²»¼ -¬®¿¬¿ ±º ¿ °±¬»²¬·¿´´§ ¿¼ª»®-» ²¿¬«®»ô «²º¿ª±®¿¾´§ ·²½´·²»¼ ¾»¼¼·²¹ô ¶±·²¬- ±® º¿«´¬ °´¿²»- ¿®» »²½±«²¬»®»¼ ¼«®·²¹ ¹®¿¼·²¹ô ¬¸»-» ½±²¼·¬·±²- -¸¿´´ ¾» ¿²¿´§¦»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ Ù»±´±¹·-¬ ¿²¼ ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»®ô ¿²¼ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²- -¸¿´´ ¾» ³¿¼» ¬± ¬®»¿¬ ¬¸»-» °®±¾´»³-ò Ýò Ý«¬ -´±°»- ¬¸¿¬ º¿½» ·² ¬¸» -¿³» ¼·®»½¬·±² ¿- ¬¸» °®»ª¿·´·²¹ ¼®¿·²¿¹» -¸¿´´ ¾» °®±¬»½¬»¼ º®±³ -´±°» ©¿-¸ ¾§ ¿ ²±²ó»®±¼·¾´» ·²¬»®½»°¬±® -©¿´» °´¿½»¼ ¿¬ ¬¸» ¬±° ±º ¬¸» -´±°»ò ˲´»-- ±¬¸»®©·-» -°»½·º·»¼ ·² ¬¸» -±·´- ¿²¼ ¹»±´±¹·½¿´ ®»°±®¬ô ²± ½«¬ -´±°»- -¸¿´´ ¾» »¨½¿ª¿¬»¼ ¸·¹¸»® ±® -¬»»°»® ¬¸¿² ¬¸¿¬ ¿´´±©»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ±®¼·²¿²½»- ±º ½±²¬®±´´·²¹ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿´ ¿¹»²½·»-ò Ü®¿·²¿¹» ¬»®®¿½»- -¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²-¬®«½¬»¼ ·² ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ±®¼·²¿²½»- ±º ½±²¬®±´´·²¹ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬¿´ ¿¹»²½·»-ô ±® ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²- ±º ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® ±® Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ Ù»±´±¹·-¬ò ÙÎßÜ×ÒÙ ÝÑÒÌÎÑÔ ßò Ѿ-»®ª¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» º·´´ °´¿½»³»²¬ -¸¿´´ ¾» °®±ª·¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» °®±¹®»-- ±º ¹®¿¼·²¹ò Þò ײ ¹»²»®¿´ô ¼»²-·¬§ ¬»-¬- -¸±«´¼ ¾» ³¿¼» ¿¬ ·²¬»®ª¿´- ²±¬ »¨½»»¼·²¹ î º»»¬ ±º º·´´ ¸»·¹¸¬ ±® »ª»®§ ëð𠽫¾·½ §¿®¼- ±º º·´´ °´¿½»³»²¬ò ̸·- ½®·¬»®·¿ ©·´´ ª¿®§ô ¼»°»²¼·²¹ ±² -±·´ ½±²¼·¬·±²- ¿²¼ ¬¸» -·¦» ±º ¬¸» ¶±¾ò ײ ¿²§ »ª»²¬ô ¿² ¿¼»¯«¿¬» ²«³¾»® ±º º·»´¼ ¼»²-·¬§ ¬»-¬- -¸¿´´ ¾» ³¿¼» ¬± ª»®·´§ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»¼ ½±³°¿½¬·±² ·- ¾»·²¹ ¿½¸·»ª»¼ò Ýò Ü»²-·¬§ ¬»-¬- ³¿§ ¿´-± ¾» ½±²¼«½¬»¼ ±² ¬¸» -«®º¿½» ³¿¬»®·¿´ ¬± ®»½»·ª» º·´´- ¿- ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»®ò Üò ß´´ ½´»¿²ó±«¬-ô °®±½»--»¼ ¹®±«²¼ ¬± ®»½»·ª» º·´´ô µ»§ »¨½¿ª¿¬·±²-ô -«¾¼®¿·²-ô ¿²¼ ®±½µ ¼·-°±-¿´- ³«-¬ ¾» ·²-°»½¬»¼ ¿²¼ ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® ±® Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ Ù»±´±¹·-¬ °®·±® ¬± °´¿½·²¹ ¿²§ º·´´ò ׬ -¸¿´´ ¾» ¬¸» ݱ²¬®¿½¬±®Ž­ ®»­°±²­·¾·´·¬§ ¬± ²±¬·º§ ¬¸» ͱ·´­ Û²¹·²»»® ©¸»² ­«½¸ ¿®»¿­ ¿®» ®»¿¼§ º±® ·²­°»½¬·±²ò ÝÑÒÍÌÎËÝÌ×ÑÒ ÝÑÒÍ×ÜÛÎßÌ×ÑÒÍ ßò ̸» ݱ²¬®¿½¬±® -¸¿´´ °®±ª·¼» ²»½»--¿®§ »®±-·±² ½±²¬®±´ ³»¿-«®»-ô ¼«®·²¹ ¹®¿¼·²¹ ¿²¼ °®·±® ¬± ¬¸» ½±³°´»¬·±² ¿²¼ ½±²-¬®«½¬·±² ±º °»®³¿²»²¬ ¼®¿·²¿¹» ½±²¬®±´-ò Þò Ë°±² ½±³°´»¬·±² ±º ¹®¿¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ¬»®³·²¿¬·±² ±º ·²-°»½¬·±²- ¾§ ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»®ô ²± º«®¬¸»® º·´´·²¹ ±® »¨½¿ª¿¬·²¹ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ²»½»--¿®§ º±® º±±¬·²¹-ô º±«²¼¿¬·±²-ô ´¿®¹» ¬®»» ©»´´-ô ®»¬¿·²·²¹ ©¿´´-ô ±® ±¬¸»® º»¿¬«®»- -¸¿´´ ¾» °»®º±®³»¼ ©·¬¸±«¬ ¬¸» ¿°°®±ª¿´ ±º ¬¸» ͱ·´- Û²¹·²»»® ±® Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ Ù»±´±¹·-¬ò Ýò Ý¿®» -¸¿´´ ¾» ¬¿µ»² ¾§ ¬¸» ݱ²¬®¿½¬±® ¼«®·²¹ º·²¿´ ¹®¿¼·²¹ ¬± °®»-»®ª» ¿²§ ¾»®³-ô ¼®¿·²¿¹» ¬»®®¿½»-ô ·²¬»®½»°¬±® -©¿´»-ô ±® ±¬¸»® ¼»ª·½»- ±º °»®³¿²»²¬ ²¿¬«®» ±² ±® ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» °®±°»®¬§ò Üò ײ ¬¸» »ª»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬»³°±®¿®§ ®¿³°- ±® °¿¼- ¿®» ½±²-¬®«½¬»¼ ±º «²½±²¬®±´´»¼ º·´´ -±·´- ¼«®·²¹ ¿ º«¬«®» ¹®¿¼·²¹ ±°»®¿¬·±²ô ¬¸» ´±½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ »¨¬»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ´±±-» º·´´ -±·´- -¸¿´´ ¾» ²±¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ±²ó-·¬» ®»°®»-»²¬¿¬·ª» ±º ¿ ¯«¿´·º·»¼ -±·´ »²¹·²»»®·²¹ º·®³ò ̸»-» ³¿¬»®·¿´- -¸¿´´ ¾» ®»³±ª»¼ ¿²¼ °®±°»®´§ ®»½±³°¿½¬»¼ °®·±® ¬± ½±³°´»¬·±² ±º ¹®¿¼·²¹ ±°»®¿¬·±²-ò Ûò ɸ»®» ²±¬ -«°»®-»¼»¼ ¾§ -°»½·º·½ ®»½±³³»²¼¿¬·±²- °®»-»²¬»¼ ·² ¬¸·- ®»°±®¬ô ¬®»²½¸»-ô »¨½¿ª¿¬·±²-ô ¿²¼ ¬»³°±®¿®§ -´±°»- ¿¬ ¬¸» -«¾¶»½¬ -·¬» -¸¿´´ ¾» ½±²-¬®«½¬»¼ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ -»½¬·±² ïëìï ±º Ì·¬´» èô ݱ²-¬®«½¬·±² Í¿º»¬§ Ñ®¼»®-ô ·--«»¼ ¾§ ÑÍØßò ß°°»²¼·¨ ß Í¬¿²¼¿®¼ Ù®¿¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ݱ²-¬®«½¬·±² Í°»½·º·½¿¬·±²- п¹» ì ßÐÐÛÒÜ×È  ތ ËÒ×Ú×ÛÜ ÍÑ×Ô ÝÔßÍÍ×Ú×ÝßÌ×ÑÒ ÝØßÎÌ ÍÑ× Ô ÜÛÍÝ Î× ÐÌ× ÑÒ × ò ÝÑßÎÍÛ ÙÎß×ÒÛÜæ Ó±®» ¬¸¿² ¸¿´º ±º ³¿¬»®·¿´ ·- ´¿®¹»® ¬¸¿² Ò±ò îðð -·»ª» -·¦»ò ÙÎßÊÛÔÍæ Ó±®» ¬¸¿² ¸¿´º ±º ½±¿®-» º®¿½¬·±² ·- ´¿®¹»® ¬¸¿² Ò±ò ì -·»ª» -·¦» ¾«¬ -³¿´´»® ¬¸¿² íþò ÙÎÑËÐ ÍÇÓÞÑÔ ÌÇÐ×ÝßÔ ÒßÓÛÍ ÝÔÛßÒ ÙÎßÊÛÔÍ ÙÉ É»´´ ¹®¿¼»¼ ¹®¿ª»´-ô ¹®¿ª»´ó-¿²¼ ³·¨¬«®»-ô ´·¬¬´» ±® ²± º·²»-ò ÙРб±®´§ ¹®¿¼»¼ ¹®¿ª»´-ô ¹®¿ª»´ -¿²¼ ³·¨¬«®»-ô ´·¬¬´» ±® ²± º·²»- ÙÎßÊÛÔÍ É×ÌØ Ú×ÒÛÍ ÙÓ Í·´¬§ ¹®¿ª»´-ô °±±®´§ ¹®¿¼»¼ ¹®¿ª»´ó -¿²¼ó-·´¬ ³·¨¬«®»- øß°°®»½·¿¾´» ¿³±«²¬ ±º º·²»-÷ ÙÝ Ý´¿§»§ ¹®¿ª»´-ô °±±®´§ ¹®¿¼»¼ ¹®¿ª»´ -¿²¼ô ½´¿§ ³·¨¬«®»-ò ò ÍßÒÜÍæ Ó±®» ¬¸¿² ¸¿´º ±º ½±¿®-» º®¿½¬·±² ·- -³¿´´»® ¬¸¿² Ò±ò ì -·»ª» -·¦» ÝÔÛßÒ ÍßÒÜÍ ÍÉ É»´´ ¹®¿¼»¼ -¿²¼ô ¹®¿ª»´´§ -¿²¼-ô ´·¬¬´» ±® ²± º·²»- ò ÍРб±®´§ ¹®¿¼»¼ -¿²¼-ô ¹®¿ª»´´§ -¿²¼-ô ´·¬¬´» ±® ²± º·²»- ò ò ÍßÒÜÍ É×ÌØ Ú×ÒÛÍ ÍÓ Í·´¬§ -¿²¼-ô °±±®´§ ¹®¿¼»¼ -¿²¼ ¿²¼ -·´¬§ ³·¨¬«®»-ò øß°°®»½·¿¾´» ¿³±«²¬ ±º º·²»- ÍÝ Ý´¿§»§ -¿²¼-ô °±±®´§ ¹®¿¼»¼ -¿²¼ ¿²¼ ½´¿§³·¨¬«®»- ò ××ò Ú×ÒÛ ÙÎß×ÒÛÜæ Ó±®» ¬¸¿² ¸¿´º ±º ³¿¬»®·¿´ ·- -³¿´´»® ¬¸¿² Ò±ò îðð -·»ª» -·¦» ò Í×ÔÌÍ ßÒÜ ÝÔßÇÍ ÓÔ ×²±®¹¿²·½ -·´¬- ¿²¼ ª»®§ º·²» -¿²¼-ô ®±½µ º´±«®ô -¿²¼§ -·´¬ ó ±® ½´¿§»§ó-·´¬ ©·¬¸ -´·¹¸¬ °´¿-¬·½·¬§ò Ô·¯«·¼ Ô·³·¬ ÝÔ ×²±®¹¿²·½ ½´¿§- ±º ´±© ¬± ³»¼·«³ °´¿-¬·½·¬§ô Ô»-- ¬¸¿² ëð ¹®¿ª»´´§ ½´¿§-ô -¿²¼§ ½´¿§-ô -·´¬§ ½´¿§-ô ´»¿² ½´¿§- ÑÔ Ñ®¹¿²·½ -·´¬- ¿²¼ ±®¹¿²·½ -·´¬§ ½´¿§- ±º ´±© °´¿-¬·½·¬§ ò Í×ÔÌÍ ßÒÜ ÝÔßÇÍ ÓØ ×²±®¹¿²·½ -·´¬-ô ³·½¿½»±«- ±® ¼·¿¬±³¿½»±«- º·²» -¿²¼§ ±® -·´¬§ -±·´-ô »´¿-¬·½ -·´¬ Ô·¯«·¼ Ô·³·¬ ÝØ ×²±®¹¿²·½ ½´¿§- ±º ¸·¹¸ °´¿-¬·½·¬§ô º¿¬ ½´¿§-ò ¹®»¿¬»® ¬¸¿² ëð ÑØ Ñ®¹¿²·½ ½´¿§- ±º ³»¼·«³ ¬± ¸·¹¸ °´¿-¬·½·¬§ò Ø×ÙØÔÇ ÑÎÙßÒ×Ý ÍÑ×ÔÍ ÐÌ Ð»¿¬ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ¸·¹¸´§ ±®¹¿²·½ -±·´-ò - Select Test Trench Logs – FROM: Preliminary Soil and Geotechnical Investigation, Parcels A, B, C, APN # 260-20-03, 04 and 05, Adams Street, Carlsbad, California, by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., dated August 10, 1998 ir. l ·-,._ : Qate:· 7-1,.;98 Logged by : OM T-1 DRY RELATIVE DEPTH SAMPLE MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACnoN Mfll (%) . ·DESCRIPTION (pct) (%) : -0-·FILL: ' i Silty sand. Brown. Dry, loose i ", l -- t --0 ■ COLLUVIUM: ! Sandy clay. Mottled grey-brown. White carbonate spots in upper . --I 2. 2-; r 3'. Slightly moist, hard. ST-1 i -,:) - -- 1 --w ' From 4', grades more sandy !. \ [ \ 3,7 -· -TERRACE DEPOSIT: ' Sandstone pale brown color. Fine grained, massive. . -1.D -Moderately ' well cemented to friable. Gradational contact. ST-2 . -- ' -- i --End Trench at 8'. ) . ' --I I -'JS -) i ! ' Date: 7-1-98 Logged by: OM i ; -i T-2 DRY' RELATIVE ! DEPTH SAMPLE MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION l (ft) (%) (pcf) (%) DESCRIPTION -TOPSOIL: '· --Silty fine sand grading to ·sandy clay. Brown. Loose to stiff. ST-1 : ' -- i --l -s 0 ■ TERRACE DEPOSIT: ' ' -8-I jl\.3 8 1. &> l Sandstone. Tan to light brown. Fine to medium grained. ; --i Moderately well to weakly cemented. ST-2 I --'· ! --~ At 4', attitude o·n 1" thick grey siltstone bed: N5/15W. ; \ i / -10- ; .. -tram 6' -8', sand is coarse grained, loose. i i ----End Trench at 9'. -- -15 - ; <·,~yi*~{f "'"''' ,_,,.,,;; ~·--... ·• < ,. ·-' ,: -~,.-a,-,::.• ,,, ··~,1,,:;•1~\j} VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGIN EERING, INC -:.\~tx-,;/{;,TESTTRENCH·LOGS. .;-;~~if. ,, '~ti!'.-. 1 -~~>-... :,,. .... ·-•:,·, ~·.:. .'/,• ~1.:1.,; ... ,-~ ... -. ,,;;o,•-•,•:"?.."!tt ' -~;'.'";~.~· ' ~-~- i 2450 Vineyard Avenue, Suit e 102 · AbAMS STREET, CARLSBAD Escondido, California 92029-1229 } ; Office 760-743-1214 Fax 760-739-0343 PROJECT NO. 98-257-P PLATE 2 i T Sand Cone Test ■ Bulk-Sample 0 Chunk Sample 0 Driven Rings f~te: 7-1~98 Logged by: OM DRY RELATIVE· DEPTH SAMPLE T-3 MOISTURE; DENSITY COMPACTION I (Ill (%) (pct) (%) n DESCRIPTION ·-Q .. TOPSOIL: --Silty sand grading to sandy clay. e·rown. Dry to moist, loose to .I --hard. White carbonate stringers. 1 l --TERRACE -DEPOSIT: I Sandstone. Brown. Fine to mediur:ngrained. White carbonate l -5 -l --' spots. Massive. Weakly cemented. ST-2 I r -" I 0 ■ \ ~ --FORMATIONAL ROCK: :1.1 !"2...S-. l l· Sandstone. Off-white color. Fine to coarse grained. Massive. --- ,I -10-\Weakly cemented (erodable). ST-3 r. ! -- 5 --End Trench at 7'. 1 -- f -- ~--15 - l ~-t' . D::1te: 7-1-98 Lo·gged by: DM " ' .. T-4 DRY. RELATIVE Dc:PTH SAMPLE MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION (rt) (%) (pct) (%) DESCRIPTION ;r\= FORMATfONAL ROCK: Sandstone. Off-white color. Fine to coarse grained. Horizontally : --0 stratified along discontinuous pebble beds. Moderately well /2'7,7 7.' ---cemented to friable. ST-3 -5 -End Trench at 4'. -- ---- --: -10- -- ----. -- -15 :- ; VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC .:~1f;1~\l1if~~trsr&:£IJr~~J~~11:1 2450 Vineyard Avenue, Suite 102 ADAMS STREET, CARLSBAD ! Escondido, California 92029-1229 : Office 760-743-1214 Fax 760-739-0343 . PROJECT NO. 98-257-P PLATE 3 . T Sand Cone Test ■ Bulk Sample 0 Chunk Sample 0 Driven Rings Date; 7-1-98 Logged by: DM .. T-5 DRY RELATIVE CEPTH SAMPLE MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION i:ni (%) (pcf) (%) DESCRIPTION ,,-I J--FILL: --Silty sand. Brown. Dry, loose. ----COLLUVIUM: Sandy clay. Mottled brown. White carbonate spots 2' -3'. Moist, -5 -\_hard. ST-1 · ----TERRACE DEPOSIT: 0 Sandstone. Pale brawn color. Mottled. Fine to medium grained. \\0. '=-8 ,, 0 8-~ --Massive. Cemented friable. ST-2 -10-\ --End Trench at 8'. ----, -- -15 - Date: 7-1-98 Logged by: OM T-6 DRY RELATIVE DEPTH SAMPLE MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION (rt) DESCRIPTION (o/o) (pct) (¾) -0 -TOPSOILJFILL: ,---.-., Silty fin·e sand. Brown. Dry, loose. I'... - -- --TERRACE DEPOSIT: -5 -Sandstone. Pale brown color. Fine grained. Cemented friable. --Locally coarse grained. ST-2 --\ From 6', color grades to grey-brown. Mottled. Well cemented. --ST-2 -10 -\ --End Trench at 7'. ------ -1!5- VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC -~~:w,~/4i~;it·1tfesr~ff ReNcit1to&-.,'.,)--f:.-,,~~~r.,~l,.,.~. ··"' · .. 1. ~-.!(:._'J,;:1::/~•.1,51"0.:•~~"I--.~..;?'.:--.'•~" ,r, ,.._;j_~ -~, ,• ;-: • 4.'?,.• , , ; ,•~. " : •:!;'("..:,..-,.:. • , I 2450 Vineyard Avenue, ·Suite 102 ADAMS STREET, CARLSBAD Escondido, California 92029-1229 Office 760-743-1214 Fax 760-739--0343 PROJECT NO. 98-257-P PLATE 4 T Sand Cone Test ■ Bulk Sample 0 Chunk Sample 0 Driven Rings . I qa_te_~~7_-1_-_98--T-________________ --,-L_o_gg_e_d.....,.bTy_:_D_M_r-__ 7I j--DRY RELATIVE · OEl"TH (l'I) SAMPLE T-7 MOISTIJRE DENSITY COMPACTION 1------'--------------------, {¾) (pcf} {%} DESCRIPTION (\· --+----+-----------------------+----1r-----r-----;1 I' -0 - ! -l l i ■ TERRACE DEPOSIT: Sand. Light brown to tan color. Medium to coarse grained. Clean. Moist, loose. Local caving from 2'. Horizontally stratified along coarse sand seams. ST -4 -10--4----1------------------------t End Trench at 1 O'. -15 - Date: 7-1-98 . Logged by: DM T-8 DRY RELATIVE DEPTH SAMPLE MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION (ft} DESCRIPTION -(o/o) (pct) (o/o) 0 -TERRACE DEPOSIT: -Sandstone. Brown color. Fine to medium grained. Massive. --Cemented friable. ST-2 -- ---£' ~, - ----I FOBMATIONAL ROCK: Sandstone. Off-white color. Medium grained. Cemented friable. ' -Hl-I\ Upper contact gradational. ST-3 ----End Trench at 9'. -- -- -15 - ViNJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, ING }¾f~:,:1i:1~o;,fi#fes¥~'friiEr:lct?roGsllfl~1Mtt::\ · _:tf:{tt;J:~~ .. ~s~·~;t~%-,. :1• ...... !~.t,i -·.. .. •\·"'" ii·.· :.i.•:!~-• ;.,.~".:• h ·--~'·* _ .-, ~~li ::ri::=.:. 2450 Vineyard Avenue, Suite 102 ADAMSSTREET,CARLSBAD Escondido, California 92029-1229 Office 760-743-1214 Fax 760-739-0343 PROJECT NO. 98-257-P PLATE 5 T Sand Cone Test • Bulk Sample 0 Chunk Sample 0 Driven Rings