HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 03-49; Brown Residence; Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation; 2002-04-15COAST GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
April 15, 2002
Laveme and Elaine Brown
5411 Los Robles Drive
Carisbad, CA 92008
RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single Family Residence
Lot 119, Map No. 3312
Vacant Lot, Carlsbad Boulevard
APN 210-115-24
Carlsbad, Califomia
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Brown:
In response to your request and in accordance with our Proposal and Agreement dated
March 14, 2002, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation on the
subject site for the proposed residence. The findings of the investigation, laboratory test
results and recommendations for foundation design and site development are presented
in this report.
From a geologic and soils engineering point of view, it is our opinion that the site is
suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in this report are
implemented during the design and construction phases.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (858) 755-8622. This
opportunity to be of service is appreciated.
Respectfully submit^
COAST GEOTECHI
Mark Burwell, C.E.G.
Engineering Geologist
^ 2109
Exp. 6-31-0? 1
CERTIFEn /
ENGINEERiNG /
^EOLOGKST /,
Vithaya 'Singhane'
Geotechnical Eng:
779 ACADEMY DRIVE • SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNLA 92075
(858) 755-8622 • EAX (858) 755-9126
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single Family Residence
Lot 119, Map No. 3312
Vacant Lot, Carlsbad Boulevard
APN 210-115-24
Carlsbad, Califomia
Prepared For:
Laveme and Elaine Brown
5411 Los Robles Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Prepared By:
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
779 Academy Drive
Solana Beach, Califomia 92075
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VICINITY MAP
INTRODUCTION 5
SITE CONDITIONS 5
PROPOSED ADDITION 5
SITE INVESTIGATION 6
LABORATORY TESTING 6
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 7
CONCLUSIONS 10
RECOMMENDATIONS 11
A. BUILDING PAD-REMOVALS/RECOMPACTION 11
B. TEMPORARY SLOPES/EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS 12
C. FOUNDATIONS 12
D. SLABS ON GRADE (INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR) 13
E. RETAINING WALLS 14
F. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS 14
G. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 14
H. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 15
I. UTILITY TRENCH 15
J. DRAINAGE 16
K. GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS 16
L. PLAN REVIEW 17
LIMITATIONS 17
REFERENCES 19
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS
GRADING PLAN
APPENDIX B REGIONAL FAULT MAP
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
APPENDLX C GRADING GUIDELINES
Copyright <S> 2000 DeLorme. TopoToolo Advunced Print Kit TE. Sc«lo: 1 : 7,200 Zoom Le»el: 14-7 Datutn: WGS84
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 5
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation on the subject property.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the nature and characteristics of the earth
materials underlying the property, the engineering properties of the surficial deposits and
their influence on the proposed residence.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject property is located just south of Cerezo Drive, along the east side of Carlsbad
Boulevard, in the city of Carlsbad. The site includes a vacant rectangular lot that slopes
very gently to the west. Relief on the site is approximately 3 0 vertical feet. The property
is bounded along the north, south and east by developed residential lots.
Vegetation includes a sparse to moderate growth of ice plant, shrubs and cactus.
Drainage is by sheet flow to the west.
PROPOSED ADDITION
Preliminary grading and building plans for development of the site were prepared by
Grabhom Engineering and DZN Partners Architecture, respectively. The project includes
construction of a new two story residence over a proposed basement. Grading will
include excavation up to 4.0 vertical feet for the basement.
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 6
SITE INVESTIGATION
Site exploration included three (3) exploratory borings driUed to a maximum depth of
16.5 feet. Earth materials encountered were visually classified and logged by our field
engineering geologist. Undisturbed, representative samples of earth materials were
obtained at selected intervals. Samples were obtained by driving a thin walled steel
sampler into the desired strata. The samples are retained in brass rings of 2.5 inches
outside diameter and 1.0 inches in height. The central portion of the sample is retained
in close fitting, waterproof containers and transported to our laboratory for testing and
analysis.
LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
The field classification was verified through laboratory examination, in accordance with
the Unified Soil Classification System. The final classification is shown on the enclosed
Exploratory Logs.
Moisture/Density
The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each of the
undisturbed soil samples. This information is useful in providing a gross picture of the
soil consistency or variation among exploratory excavations. The dry unit weight was
determined in pounds per cubic foot. The field moisture content was determined as a
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 7
percentage of the dry unit weight. Both are shown on the enclosed Laboratory Tests
Results and Exploratory Logs.
Maximum Drv Densitv and Optimum Moisture Content
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were determined for selected
samples of earth materials taken from the site. The laboratory standard tests were in
accordance with ASTM D-1557-91. The results of the tests are presented in the
Laboratory Test Results.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The subject property is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego.
The property is underlain at relatively shallow depths by Pleistocene terrace deposits.
The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rocks which have
commonly been designated as the Santiago Formation on published geologic maps. The
terrace deposits are covered by thin residual soil deposits. A brief description of the
earth materials encountered on the site follows.
Artificial Fill
No evidence of significant fill deposits were encountered in the exploratory borings. A
small mound, approximately 2.0 feet high, of stockpiled sandy deposits with concrete
fragments and roots was observed in the northeastern portion of the site.
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 8
Residual Soil
Site exploration suggests the underlying terrace deposits are blanketed by approximately
3.0 to 6.0 inches of brown silty sand. The soil is generally dry and loose, as encountered
in the exploratory borings. The contact with the underlying terrace deposits is
gradational and may vary across the site.
Terrace Deposits
Underlying the surficial materials, poorly consolidated Pleistocene terrace deposits are
present. The sediments are composed of tan to reddish brown fine and medium-grained
sand. The terrace deposits are dry to an approximate depth of 12 feet where a slight
increase in moisture was observed. RegionaUy, the Pleistocene sands are considered flat-
lying and are underlain at depth by Eocene-age sedimentary rock units.
Expansive Soil
Based on our experience in the area and previous laboratory testing of selected samples,
the residual soil and Pleistocene sands reflect an expansion potential in the low range.
Ground Water
No evidence of perched or high ground water tables were encountered to the depth
explored. However, it should be noted that seepage problems can develop after
completion of construction. These seepage problems most often result from drainage
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 9
alterations, landscaping and over-irrigation. In the event that seepage or saturated
ground does occur, it has been our experience that they are most effectively handled on
an individual basis.
Tectonic Setting
The site is located within the seismically active southem Califomia region which is
generally characterized by northwest trending Quatemary-age fault zones. Several of
these fault zones and fault segments are classified as active by the Califomia Division of
Mines and Geology (Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act).
Based on a review of published geologic maps, no known faults transverse the site. The
nearest active fault is the offshore Rose Canyon Fault Zone located approximately 3-9
miles west of the site. It should be noted that the Rose Canyon Fault is not a continuous,
well-defined feature but rather a zone of right stepping en echelon faults. The complex
series of faults has been referred to as the Offshore Zone of Deformation (Woodward-
Clyde, 1979) and is not fuUy understood. Several studies suggest that the Newport-
Inglewood and the Rose Canyon faults are a continuous zone of en echelon faults
(Treiman, 1984). Further studies along the complex offshore zone of faulting may
indicate a potentiaUy greater seismic risk than current data suggests. Other faults which
could affect the site include the Coronado Bank, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas
Faults. The proximity of major faults to the site and site parameters are shown on the
enclosed Seismic Design Parameters.
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 10
Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction is a process by which a sand mass loses its shearing strength completely and
flows. The temporary transformation of the material into a fluid mass is often associated
with ground motion resulting from an earthquake.
Owing to the moderately dense nature of the Pleistocene terrace deposits and the
anticipated depth to ground water, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction and
soil instability is considered low.
CONCLUSIONS
1) The subject property is located approximately 300 lateral feet east of the coastal
bluffs and is relatively free of potential geologic hazards such as landsliding,
liquefaction, high ground water conditions and seismically induced subsidence.
2) The existing soil and dry terrace deposits are not suitable for the support of
proposed footings and concrete flatwork in their present condition. These
surficial deposits should be removed in the upper 3.0 feet and replaced as
properly compacted fill deposits in areas which will support footings and concrete
flatwork outside the proposed basement walls.
3) It is anticipated that the basement excavation will expose terrace deposits.
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 11
However, if dry and loose materials are encountered in the area of the proposed
basement slab they should be compacted. All retaining waU footings should be
founded the design depth into competent terrace deposits.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Building Pad-Removals/Recompaction
In foundation and slab areas outside the proposed basement walls, the existing soil and
weathered terrace deposits should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 0 feet below the
existing grade or 18 inches below the base of proposed footings, whichever is greater,
and replaced as properly compacted fill. Removals should include the entire building
pad extending a minimum of 5.0 feet beyond the building footprint, where applicable.
Most of the existing earth deposits are generally suitable for reuse, provided they are
cleared of aU vegetation, debris and thoroughly mixed. Prior to placement of fill, the base
of the removal should be observed by a representative of this firm. Additional
overexcavation and recommendations may be necessary at that time. The exposed
bottom should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6.0 inches, moistened as required and
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Fill
should be placed in 6.0 to 8.0 inch Ufts, moistened to approximately 1.0 - 2.0 percent
above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density. Soil and weathered terrace deposits in areas of
proposed concrete flatwork and driveways should be removed and replaced as properly
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 12
compacted fill. Imported fill, if necessary, should consist of non-expansive granular
deposits approved by the geotechnical engineer.
Temporary Slopes/Excavation Characteristics
Temporary excavations should be trimmed to a gradient of Vi-.l (horizontal to vertical)
or less depending upon conditions encountered during grading. The Pleistocene Terrace
deposits may contain hard concretion layers. However, based on our experience in the
area, the sandstone is rippable with conventional heavy earth moving equipment in good
working order.
Foundations
The following design parameters are based on footings founded into non-expansive
approved compacted fill deposits or competent terrace deposits. Footings for the
proposed residence and garage should be a minimum of 12 inches wide and founded a
minimum of 12 inches and 18 inches below the lower most adjacent subgrade at the time
of foundation constmction for single-story and two-story stmctures, respectively. A 12
inch by 12 inch grade beam should be placed across the garage opening. Footings
should be reinforced in accordance with the project stmctural engineer's
recommendations. Footing and slab recommendations provided herein are based upon
underlying soil conditions and are not intended to be in lieu of the project stmctural
engineer's design.
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 13
For design purposes, an allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot may be
used for foundations at the recommended footing depths. The bearing value may be
increased to 2000 pounds per square foot for subterranean retaining wall footings.
The bearing value indicated above is for the total dead and frequently applied live loads.
This value may be increased by 33 percent for short durations of loading, including the
effects of wind and seismic forces.
Resistance to lateral load may be provided by friction acting at the base of foundations
and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead-
load forces. A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot, per foot of depth
of fill penetrated to a maximum of 1500 pounds per square foot may be used.
Slabs on Grade (Interior and Exterior)
Slabs on grade should be a minimum of 4.0 inches thick and reinforced in both
directions with No. 3 bars placed 18 inches on center in both directions. The slab should
be underlain by a minimum 2.0-inch sand blanket. Where moisture sensitive floors are
used, a minimum 6.0-mil Visqueen or equivalent moisture barrier should be placed over
the sand blanket and covered by an additional two inches of sand. Utility trenches
underlying the slab may be backfiUed with on-site materials, compacted to a minimum
of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. Slabs including exterior concrete
flatwork should be reinforced as indicated above and provided with saw cuts/expansion
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 14
joints, as recommended by the project stmctural engineer. AU slabs should be cast over
dense compacted subgrades.
Retaining Walls
Cantilever walls (yielding) retaining nonexpansive granular soils may be designed for an
active-equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained walls
(nonyielding) should be designed for an "at-rest" equivalent fluid pressure of 58 pounds
per cubic foot. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the foundation
design recommendations. AU retaining walls should be provided with an adequate
backdrainage system (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent is suggested). The soil parameters
assume a level granular backfill compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory
maximum dry density.
Settlement Characteristics
Estimated total and differential settlement is expected to be on the order of 3/4 inch and
1/2 inch, respectively. It should also be noted that long term secondary settlement due
to irrigation and loads imposed by stmctures is anticipated to be 1/4 inch.
Seismic Considerations
Although the likelihood of ground mpture on the site is remote, the property wiU be
exposed to moderate to high levels of ground motion resulting from the release of energy
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 15
should an earthquake occur along the numerous known and unknown faults in the
region.
The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is the nearest known active fault and is considered the
design earthquake for the site. A maximum probable event along the offshore segment
of the Rose Canyon Fault is expected to produce a peak bedrock horizontal acceleration
of 0.39g and a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.25g.
Seismic Design Parameters ri997 Uniform Building Code)
Soil Profile Type - S^
Seismic Zone - 4
Seismic Source - Type B
Near Source Factor (N^) - 1.1
Near source Acceleration Factor (NJ - 1.0
Seismic Coefficients
C, = 0.40
C, = 0.64
Design Response Spectmm
T3 = 0.643
T„ = 0.129
Utility Trench
We recommend that all utilities be bedded in clean sand to at least one foot above the
top of the conduit. The bedding should be flooded in place to fiU all the voids around
the conduit. Imported or on-site granular material compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction may be utilized for backfill above the bedding.
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 16
The invert of subsurface utiUty excavations paralleUng footings should be located above
the zone of influence of these adjacent footings. This zone of influence is defined as the
area below a 45 degree plane projected down from the nearest bottom edge of an
adjacent footing. This can be accompUshed by either deepening the footing, raising the
invert elevation of the utility, or moving the utility or the footing away from one another.
Drainage
Specific drainage patterns should be designed by the project engineer. However, in
general, pad water should be directed away from foundations and around the stmcture
to the street. Roof water should be collected and conducted to hardscape or the street,
via non-erodible devices. Pad water should not be aUowed to pond. Vegetation adjacent
to foundations should be avoided. If vegetation in these areas is desired, sealed planter
boxes or drought resistant plants should be considered. Other altematives may be
available, however, the intent is to reduce moisture from migrating into foundation
subsoils. Irrigation should be Umited to that amount necessary to sustain plant Ufe. All
drainage systems should be inspected and cleaned annually, prior to winter rains.
Geotechnical Observations
Stmctural footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior
to the placement of steel and forms. All fill should be placed while a representative of
the geotechnical engineer is present to observe and test.
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 17
Plan Review
A copy of the final plans should be submitted to this office for review prior to the
initiation of constmction. Additional recommendations may be necessary at that time.
LIMITATIONS
This report is presented with the provision that it is the responsibility of the owner or the
owner's representative to bring the information and recommendations given herein to
the attention of the project's architects and/or engineers so that they may be incorporated
into plans.
If conditions encountered during constmction appear to differ from those described in
this report, our office should be notified so that we may consider whether modifications
are needed. No responsibility for constmction compliance with design concepts,
specifications or recommendations given in this report is assumed unless on-site review
is performed during the course of constmction.
The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic stmcture described
herein are based on individual exploratory excavations made on the subject property.
The subsurface conditions, excavation characteristics and geologic stmcture discussed
should in no way be constmed to reflect any variations which may occur among the
exploratory excavations.
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 18
Please note that fluctuations in the level of ground water may occur due to variations in
rainfall, temperature and other factors not evident at the time measurements were made
and reported herein. Coast Geotechnical assumes no responsibiUty for variations which
may occur across the site.
The conclusions and recommendations of this report apply as of the current date. In
time, however, changes can occur on a property whether caused by acts of man or nature
on this or adjoining properties. AdditionaUy, changes in professional standards may be
brought about by legislation or the expansion of knowledge. Consequently, the
conclusions and recommendations of this report may be rendered wholly or partially
invalid by events beyond our control. This report is therefore subject to review and
should not be relied upon after the passage of two years.
The professional judgments presented herein are founded partly on our assessment of
the technical data gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed constmction
and partly on our general experience in the geotechnical field. However, in no respect
do we guarantee the outcome of the project.
Coast Geotechnical April 15, 2002
W.O. P-357032
Page 19
REFERENCES
1. Hays, Walter W., 1980, Procedures for Estimating Earthquake Ground Motions,
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1114, 77 pages.
2. Petersen, Mark D. and others (DMG), Frankel, Arthur D. and others (USGS), 1996,
ProbabiUstic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of CaUfomia,
CaUfomia Division of Mines and Geology OFR 96-08, United States
Geological Survey OFR 96-706.
3. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1970, A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil
Liquefaction Potential: Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
4. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, LandsUde Hazards in the Northem Part of the
San Diego MetropoUtan Area, San Diego County, Plate 35A, Open-File
Report 95-04, Map Scale 1:24,000.
5. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, A Review and Analysis,
Califomia Division of Mines and Geology.
MAPS/AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
1. Aerial Photograph, 1982, Foto-Map D-8, Scale 1"=2000'.
2. Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California,
Scale 1"=750,000'.
3. Geologic Map of the Oceanside, San Luis Rey and San Marcos 7.5' Quadrangles,
1996, DMG Open File Report 96-02.
4. Grabhom Engineering, 2002, Concept Grading Plan, Brown Residence, Scale
r'=8'.
5. U.S.G.S., 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Topographic Map, Digitized, Scale Variable.
APPENDDC A
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
TABLE I
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
(Laboratory Standard ASTM D-1557-91)
Sample Max. Dry Optimum
Location Density Moisture Content
(pcf)
B-1 @ 1.0'-3.0' 128.6 10.1
TABLE II
Field Dry Density and Moisture Content
Sample Field Dry Field Moisture
Location Density Content
(pcf) o
B-1 @ 1.0' 109 . 1 3 . 6
B-1 @ 2.0' 96 .4 3 .3
B-1 @ 3.5' 94 . 1 4 . 1
B-1 @ 8.0' 105 .4 4 .4
B-1 @ 11. 0 ' 112 . 2 6 . 6
B-1 @ 15 . 0 ' Sample Disturbed 7 . 1
B-2 @ 2.5' 96 .1 3 .4
B-2 @ 3.5' 104 . 8 3 . 5
B-2 @ 7.0' 107 .1 3 . 2
B-2 @ 9.0' Sample Disturbed 4 . 5
B-3 @ 2.0' 94 .1 3 .4
B-3 @ 5.0' Sample Disturbed 4 . 6
B-3 @ 7.0' Sample Disturbed 4 . 5
P-357032
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 1
DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER
BORING DIAMETER: 3.5"
SURFACE ELEV.: 51.5'
PROJECT NO. P-357032
DATE DRILLED: 03-29-02
LOGGED BY: MB
a a.
>^
H
00
Q H
I
w o <
c/3
o
t/3
60
GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
51.50
109.1
96.4
94.1
105.4
112.2
II
li
I
3.6
3.3
4.1
4.4
6,6
7.1
0.00 SM SOIL (Qs): Brn.silty and fine-grained sand, dry, loose
:
I
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan to Reddish bm., fine and med.-grained
sand, dry, dense
T3
a>
t
tn X> O
03
-a
o
d
o
_49 '
2.(
_47 50
4.00
45 I
6.U()
I 43 50
8.( I
41 ^0
10111
tan
r dr if
mnt HI
I
— 39.50
12.00
37.50
I
14.00
35.50
— 16.00
From 12', increase in moisture
End of Boring @ 16.5'
SHEET 1 OF 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 2
DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER
BORING DIAMETER: 3.5"
SURFACE ELEV : 52'
PROJECT NO. P-357032
DATE DRILLED: 03-29-02
LOGGED BY: MB
8,
H
Q
96.1
104.8
107.1
3.4
3.5
3.2
4.5
Pi m
H
T3
<1>
t
(U t/l
O
l-I u
13
•T3
o
I
I
I
1
s
52.00
0.00
511
l.CO
50,1"
2.0
t»
H
r iT
H
riiiTi
H
r ir
49.()()
3.00
48.'I
4.00
H
r T
M
r iir
47. 11
5.0"
46.00
6.0u
' iT tf
45.00
7.0
44.00
8.0
43.00
9.00
U
1/3
!/3
SM
SM
GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
SOIL (Qs): Bm.silty and fine-grained sand, dry, loose
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan to Reddish bm., fine and med.-grained
sand, dry, dense
EndofBoring@9.5'
SHEET 1 OF 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NO. 3
DRILL RIG: PORTABLE BUCKET AUGER
BORING DIAMETER: 3.5"
SURFACE ELEV.: 52.5'
PROJECT NO. P-357032
DATE DRILLED: 03-29-02
LOGGED BY: MB
H
1
Pi
9
PH
52.50
4Hf»
00
o
c/3
!Z1 C/3
c«
GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
94.1 3.4
4.6
4.5
— 0.00 SM
M M
— 51 50 I£IIM]
SM
I
1.00 SiiHiiS]
' tf tf
4 X X
^itfhltfQ HIIKI
2.1 III
73
a> t
[/]
.£5 O
T3
O
6
o
_4!> «ii
3.00 iliHIIHS
{iiMitfij
_41 '
4.00
H M
I
j47 SO
5,00
' tf tf
I
j4l. 50
6,00
45 M) t itfiitf
7.00 •iiAitfi
1HIINI
tf tfg
_44 50 AiMitfi
8,00 * " "
43.50
SOIL (Qs): Bm.silty and fine-grained sand, dry, loose
TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt): Tan to Reddish bm., fine and med.-grained
sand, dry, dense
End of Boring @ 9'
SHEET 1 OF 1 "9W COAST GEOTECHNICAL
34+00 +/- PER DWG NO 331-7
< >
.J
S o oa a < ca
<
[50.68] ;S4+69+/- PER DWG NO 331-7
PORTION OF GRADING PLAN
LEGEND
4- BORING LOCATION (approx.) 1.
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
P-357032 GRAPHIC SCALE '
APPENDIX B
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
BROWN
1100
1000 --
900 --
800
700
600 --
500 --
-100
400 --
300 --
200 --
100 --
-400 -300 -200 -100 100 200 300 400 500 600
* *
* UBCSEIS *
* *
* Version 1.03 *
* *
***********************
COMPUTATION OF 1997
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
JOB NUMBER: P-357032
JOB NAME: BROWN
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT
DATE: 04-12-2002
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1284
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3323
UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4
UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SC
NEAREST TYPE A FAULT:
NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN
DISTANCE: 40.6 km
NEAREST TYPE B FAULT:
NAME: ROSE CANYON
DISTANCE: 6.3 km
NEAREST TYPE C FAULT:
NAME:
DISTANCE: 99999.0 km
SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS;
Na: 1.0
Nv: 1.1
Ca: 0.40
Cv: 0.64
Ts: 0.643
To: 0.129
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page
1 APPROX. SOURCE 1 MAX. 1 SLIP 1 FAULT
ABBREVIATED 1 DISTANCE TYPE 1 MAG. RATE 1 TYPE
FAULT NAME 1 (km) (A,B,C)1 (Mw) (mm/yr)
1(SS,DS,BT)
ROSE CANYON 1 6.3 B 1 6.9 1 1.50 1 SS
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 1 9.5 B 1 6.9 1 1.50 1 SS
CORONADO BANK 1 32.2 B 1 7.4 1 3.00 1 SS
ELSINORE-TEMECULA 1 40.5 B 1 6.8 1 5.00 1 SS
ELSINORE-JULIAN 1 40.6 A 1 7.1 1 5.00 1 SS
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 1 57.2 B 1 6.8 1 5.00 1 SS
PALOS VERDES 1 58.9 B 1 7.1 1 3.00 1 SS
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 70.2 B 1 6.5 1 2.00 1 SS
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 1 76.4 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 1 SS
SAN JACINTO-ANZA 1 77.1 1 A 1 7.2 1 12.00 1 SS
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 1 78.2 B 1 6.9 1 12.00 1 SS
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 1 79.3 B 1 6.7 1 1.00 1 DS
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 1 85.0 1 B 1 6.8 1 4.00 1 SS
ELSINORE-WHITTIER 1 85.5 1 B 1 6.8 1 2.50 1 SS
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 1 92.2 1 B 1 6.8 1 4.00 1 SS
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 1 99.1 1 B 1 6.7 1 12.00 1 ss
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 1 106.3 1 B 1 6.6 1 4.00 1 ss
SAN ANDREAS - Southern 1 106.8 1 A 1 7.4 1 24.00 1 ss
SAN JOSE 1 112.6 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS
CUCAMONGA 1 116.8 1 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 1 DS
SIERRA MADRE (Central) 1 116.9 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.00 1 DS
PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 117.9 1 B 1 7.0 1 2.50 1 SS
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 1 125.6 1 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 1 DS
BURNT MTN. 1 127.2 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.60 1 SS
CLEGHORN 1 127.6 1 B 1 6.5 1 3.00 1 SS
RAYMOND 1 131.4 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS
EUREKA PEAK 1 131.6 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.60 1 SS
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 1 132.0 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 1 132.2 1 B 1 6.6 1 5.00 1 SS
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 1 132.7 1 A 1 7.8 1 34.00 1 SS
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 1 133.6 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.50 1 DS
VERDUGO 1 135.2 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.50 1 DS
ELMORE RANCH 1 138.1 1 B 1 6.6 1 1.00 1 SS
HOLLYWOOD 1 138.3 1 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 1 DS
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 1 139.7 1 B 1 6.6 1 4.00 1 SS
ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA 1 142.3 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.50 1 SS
LANDERS 1 143.2 1 B 1 7.3 1 0.60 1 SS
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT 1 144.7 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.60 1 SS
SANTA MONICA 1 145.9 1 B 1 6.6 1 1.00 1 DS
MALIBU COAST 1 150.2 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.30 1 DS
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 1 150.9 1 B 1 7.3 1 0.60 1 SS
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 1 153.3 1 B 1 6.5 1 25.00 1 SS
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) 1 155.9 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.60 1 SS
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 1 156.1 1 B 1 6.7 1 2.00 1 DS
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 1 156.3 1 B 1 6.9 1 0.60 1 SS
ANACAPA-DUME 1 158.6 1 B 1 7.3 1 3.00 1 DS
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page
1 APPROX. SOURCE 1 MAX. 1 SLIP 1 FAULT
ABBREVIATED 1 DISTANCE TYPE 1 MAG. 1 RATE 1 TYPE
FAULT NAME 1 (km) (A,B,C)1 (Mw) 1 (mm/yr)
1(SS,DS,BT)
SAN GABRIEL 1 159.0 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 1 SS
IMPERIAL 1 165.9 A 1 7.0 1 20.00 1 SS
PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 1 166.5 B 1 7.1 1 0.60 1 SS
CALICO - HIDALGO 1 169.2 B 1 7.1 1 0.60 1 SS
SANTA SUSANA 1 171.5 B 1 6.6 1 5.00 1 DS
HOLSER 1 180.4 B 1 6.5 1 0.40 1 DS
SIMI-SANTA ROSA 1 187.9 B 1 6.7 1 1.00 1 DS
OAK RIDGE (Onshore) 1 188.7 B 1 6.9 1 4.00 1 DS
SAN CAYETANO 1 197.2 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 1 DS
GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE 1 197.7 B 1 6.9 1 0.60 1 SS
BLACKWATER 1 212.8 B 1 6.9 1 0.60 1 SS
VENTURA - PITAS POINT 1 216.1 B 1 6.8 1 1.00 1 DS
SANTA YNEZ (East) 1 216.9 B 1 7.0 1 2.00 1 SS
SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 1 224.7 B 1 6.8 1 1.00 1 DS
M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA 1 226.7 B 1 6.7 1 0.40 1 DS
RED MOUNTAIN 1 230.1 B 1 6.8 1 2.00 1 DS
GARLOCK (West) 1 233.4 A 1 7.1 1 6.00 1 SS
PLEITO THRUST 1 238.6 B 1 6.8 1 2.00 1 DS
BIG PINE 1 244.4 B 1 6.7 1 0.80 1 SS
GARLOCK (East) 1 248.3 A 1 7.3 1 7.00 1 SS
WHITE WOLF 1 259.3 B 1 7.2 1 2.00 1 DS
SANTA ROSA ISLAND 1 259.6 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 1 DS
SANTA YNEZ (West) 1 262.0 B 1 6.9 1 2.00 1 SS
So. SIERRA NEVADA 1 272.7 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.10 1 DS
LITTLE LAKE 1 277.5 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.70 1 SS
OWL LAKE 1 278.8 B 1 6.5 1 2.00 1 SS
PANAMINT VALLEY 1 279.0 1 B 1 7.2 1 2.50 1 SS
TANK CANYON 1 279.6 1 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 1 DS
DEATH VALLEY (South) 1 288.2 B 1 6.9 1 4.00 1 SS
LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE 1 304.2 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.70 1 DS
LIONS HEAD 1 321.7 B 1 6.6 1 0.02 1 DS
DEATH VALLEY (Graben) 1 329.1 1 B 1 6.9 1 4.00 1 DS
sm LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) 1 331.4 1 B 1 7.0 1 0.20 1 DS
SAN JUAN 1 332.1 1 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 1 SS
CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) 1 339.8 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.25 1 DS
OWENS VALLEY 1 345.9 1 B 1 7.6 1 1.50 1 SS
LOS OSOS 1 361.5 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.50 1 DS
HOSGRI 1 367.5 1 B 1 7.3 1 2.50 1 SS
HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY 1 372.5 1 B 1 7.0 1 2.50 1 SS
INDEPENDENCE 1 381.7 1 B 1 6.9 1 0.20 1 DS
DEATH VALLEY (Northern) 1 382.4 1 A 1 7.2 1 5.00 1 SS
RINCONADA 1 382.4 1 B 1 7.3 1 1.00 1 SS
BIRCH CREEK 1 438.0 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.70 1 DS
SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 1 438.7 1 B 1 5.0 1 34.00 1 SS
WHITE MOUNTAINS 1 442.6 1 B 1 7.1 1 1.00 1 SS
DEEP SPRINGS 1 461.1 1 B 1 6.6 1 0.80 1 DS
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page
1 APPROX. SOURCE 1 MAX. 1 SLIP 1 FAULT
ABBREVIATED 1 DISTANCE TYPE 1 MAG. 1 RATE 1 TYPE
FAULT NAME 1 (km) (A,B,C) 1 (Mw) 1 (mm/yr)
1(SS,DS,BT)
DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) 1 466.4 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 1 SS
ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) 1 473.0 B 1 6.8 1 1.00 1 DS
FISH SLOUGH 1 480.9 B 1 6.6 1 0.20 1 DS
HILTON CREEK 1 499.1 B 1 6.7 1 2.50 1 DS
ORTIGALITA 1 523.1 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 1 SS
HARTLEY SPRINGS 1 523.3 B 1 6.6 1 0.50 1 DS
CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) 1 528.6 B 1 6.2 1 15.00 1 SS
MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS 1 531.3 B 1 7.1 1 0.50 1 DS
PALO COLORADO - SUR 1 532.2 B 1 7.0 1 3.00 1 SS
QUIEN SABE 1 541.9 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 1 SS
MONO LAKE 1 559.3 B 1 6.6 1 2.50 1 DS
ZAYANTE-VERGELES 1 560.4 B 1 6.8 1 0.10 1 SS
SAN ANDREAS (1906) 1 565.6 A 1 7.9 1 24.00 1 SS
SARGENT 1 565.7 B 1 6.8 1 3.00 1 SS
ROBINSON CREEK 1 590.6 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS
SAN GREGORIO 1 606.6 A 1 7.3 1 5.00 1 SS
GREENVILLE 1 615.5 B 1 6.9 1 2.00 1 SS
MONTE VISTA - SHANNON 1 615.8 B 1 6.5 1 0.40 1 DS
HAYWARD (SE Extension) 1 615.9 B 1 6.5 1 3.00 1 SS
ANTELOPE VALLEY 1 630.9 B 1 6.7 1 0.80 1 DS
HAYWARD (Total Length) 1 635.6 A 1 7.1 1 9.00 1 SS
CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) 1 635.6 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 1 SS
GENOA 1 656.2 1 B 1 6.9 1 1.00 1 DS
CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY 1 683.4 1 B 1 6.9 1 6.00 1 SS
RODGERS CREEK 1 722.2 1 A 1 7.0 1 9.00 1 SS
WEST NAPA 1 723.1 B 1 6.5 1 1.00 1 SS
POINT REYES 1 741.0 1 B 1 6.8 1 0.30 1 DS
HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA 1 745.5 1 B 1 6.9 1 6.00 1 SS
MAACAMA (South) 1 784.9 1 B 1 6.9 1 9.00 1 SS
COLLAYOMI 1 801.8 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.60 1 SS
BARTLETT SPRINGS 1 805.3 1 A 1 7.1 1 6.00 1 SS
MAACAMA (Central) 1 826.5 1 A 1 7.1 1 9.00 1 SS
MAACAMA (North) 1 886.1 1 A 1 7.1 1 9.00 1 SS
ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) 1 892.3 1 B 1 6.8 1 6.00 1 SS
BATTLE CREEK 1 915.9 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS
LAKE MOUNTAIN 1 950.7 1 B 1 6.7 1 6.00 1 SS
GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 1 967.8 1 B 1 6.9 1 9.00 1 SS
MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1 1024.1 1 A 1 7.4 1 35.00 1 DS
LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1 1030.8 1 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 1 DS
MAD RIVER 1 1033.6 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.70 1 DS
CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1 1037.7 1 A 1 8.3 1 35.00 1 DS
McKINLEYVILLE 1 1044.0 1 B 1 7.0 1 0.60 1 DS
TRINIDAD 1 1045.5 1 B 1 7.3 1 2.50 1 DS
FICKLE HILL 1 1046.0 1 B 1 6.9 1 0.60 1 DS
TABLE BLUFF 1 1051.3 1 B 1 7.0 1 0.60 1 DS
LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) 1 1064.7 1 B 1 7.1 1 1.00 1 DS
c o
-+-•
0
Q) O O
<
o
Q.
CO
DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
Seismic Zone: 0.4 Soil Profile: SC
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period Seconds
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
APPENDIX C
GRADING GUIDELINES
Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing
agencies, Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, the geotechnical report and the
guidelines presented below. All of the guidelines may not apply to a specific site and
additional recommendations may be necessary during the grading phase.
Site ClearinQ
Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the
site. Non-organic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas under direction
of the Soils engineer.
Subdrainage
1. During grading, the Geologist and Soils Engineer should evaluate the necessity
of placing additional drains (see Plate A).
2. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Geologist and Soils Engineer
during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill.
3. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project
surveyors. Outlets should be located and protected.
Treatment of Existing Ground
1. All heavy vegetation, rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed
of off site.
2. All surficial deposits including alluvium and colluvium should be removed unless
othenwise indicated in the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial
areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text
of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months.
3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of
six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill
standards.
Fill Placement
1. Most site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some
special processing or handling may be required (see report). Highly organic or
contaminated soil should not be used for compacted fill.
(1)
2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture
conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in
thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and
compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by the Soils
Engineer.
3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soils
engineer, the Contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the
following:
a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture.
Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-
watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to
watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils.
b) Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the
controlling governmental agency. In this case, the testing method is ASTM
Test Designation D-1557-91.
4. Side-hill fills should have a minimum equipment-width key at their toe excavated
through all surficial soil and into competent material (see report) and tilted back
into the hill (Plate A). As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial
deposits and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by the
Soils Engineer.
5. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill,
provided:
a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets;
b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the
rocks;
c) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer.
6. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in
accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated
as suitable for rock disposal.
7. In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of six (6) inches
minimum dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot
compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break the up blocks.
(2)
8. The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90
percent out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by
either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct
compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment.
If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods then the slope
construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained
throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor
should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should
compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back
rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. Density tests
should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill three to
five feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the
compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction
should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to
determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Finish grade testing of
the slope should be performed after construction is complete. Each day the
Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's "Daily Field Engineering
Report" which would indicate the results of field density tests that day.
9. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner:
a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the
cut-fill interface.
b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide (see report) and tipped at least 1
foot into slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed
by the Soils Engineer or his representative.
c) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to fill placement
to evaluate if stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be
responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut
excavation.
10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped with
a four foot thick compacted fill blanket (or as indicated in the report).
11. Cut pads should be observed by the Geologist to evaluate the need for
overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water
infiltration into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones,and/or due to
differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation
should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in
some cases.
(3)
12. Exploratory backhoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be
excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located.
Grading Observation and Testing
1. Observation ofthe fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer during
the progress of grading.
2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill
height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending
on soil conditions and the size of the fill. In any event, an adequate number of
field density tests should be made to evaluate if the required compaction and
moisture content is generally being obtained.
3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as required by
the Soils Engineer.
4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations,subdrains and rock
disposal should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will
be the Contractor's responsibilityto notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are
ready for observation.
5. A Geologist should observe subdrain construction.
6. A Geologist should observe benching prior to and during placement of fill.
Utilitv Trench Backfill
Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards:
1. Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material is used as backfill.
2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded into place. No specific
relative compaction would be required; however, observation, probing, and if
deemed necessary, testing may be required.
3. Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected
from the outside bottom edge of the footing, should be compacted to 90 percent
of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless it is similar to the inplace fill,
should not be allowed in these trench backfill areas.
Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired
results.
(4)