HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 2017-0018; POLZIN RESIDENCE; PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2016-10-03South Shore Testing & Environmental
23811 Washington Ave, Suite C I IO, #112, Murrieta, CA 92562
Phone: (951) 239-3008 FAX: (951) 239-3122
E-mail: ss.testing@aol.com
October 3, 2016 REC ~,v
Mr. Joe Polzin OCT O 4 2017
P.O. Box 268
Temecula, CA 92593 LAND DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Single-Family Residence
4382 Adams Street
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
Work Order No. 3011601.00
Dear Mr. Polzin:
Pursuant to your authorization, a preliminary geotechnical evaluati1WJ..-W<11::.....kUJL.LYJ.il.i.l..l<.\Lll.!!.....!:!!S.... __ _J
subject site in accordance with the 2013 California Building Code, Section 1803.5.11. Attached
as Plate I, the Geotechnical Map is a not-to-scale image of a l 0-scale "Topographic Survey"
map, indicating the proposed development, the approximate location of the exploration trenches,
and pertinent geotechnical information.
Scope of Work
The scope of work performed for this study included the following:
I. Onsite observation and documentation of existing site geometry with respect to the
location of the proposed single-family residence. No grading plans were available for our
use, but we anticipate that the proposed residence will be constructed on the northeasterly
portion or upper elevations of the site.
2. Advancement of two (2) exploratory trenches to the total depth explored of 7.0-ft below
the ground surface (bgs) for sample recovery for laboratory testing and observation of
subsurface conditions.
3. Engineering analysis of test results to develop specifications for grading and preliminary
foundation design.
4. Research of Geologic literature to develop design specifications for hazards such as
seismic shaking and related effects.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2016
Page 2
5. Preparation of report of fi ndings, including conclusions and recommendations for grading
and minimum foundation design.
Introduction
This investigation has been conducted resulting from a 2013 Cal ifornia Building Code Chapter
18 requirement for preliminary geotechnical investigations being conducted for all proj ects in
Seismic Category D . This investigation will address geotechnical conditions existing on the site
as they may pertain to the proposed single-family residence with associated paved driveway that
will be constructed on the site. ll is our understanding that the single-family residence will be a
typical one or two story type V structure. Contained herein also are preliminary
recommendations for foundation design for the proposed construction.
Site Description
The subject residential pad will be located on the no11herly portion of a nearly rectangular-shaped
0.38-acre parcel located along the northeasterly side of Adams Street (4382) in the City of
Carlsbad, westerly San Diego County, California. The geographical relationships of the site and
swrnunding area are shown on our Site Location Map, Figure l. The site is bounded on the west
and north by residential development, on the east by a vacant parcel and further residential
parcels and on the south by Adams Street and vacant land.
Topographically, the subject site is located in an area of gently to moderately sloping terrain with
natural gradients of approximately 13 to 20 percent. Drainage on the subject site is accomplished
by sheetflow to the southeast and no11hwest toward to Adam s Street. Overall relief on the
subject site is approximately 34-ft, fro m above mean sea elevations 92 to l 24. Currently, the
subject area is vacant and undeveloped with scattered ground cover and annual weeds and
grasses and trees along the westerly boundary of the subject site. Man-made features on the
subject site were generally limited to temporary perimeter fencing along the easterly boundary of
the subj ect site.
Proposed Development
We anticipate that proposed development consists of grading a flat pad on the northeasterly
portion of the subject site. Minor cut/fi ll grading will be required to establish pad grade. The
grading quantities are not known at this time as no grading plan has been prepared. Please refer
to Plate 1, Geotechnical Map, for proposed site geometry and approximate location of the
proposed.
Foundations are anticipated to consist of continuous spread and isolated column footings to carry
structural loads, otherwise typical wood-framed, slab-on-grade construction.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0 . NO. 3011601 .00
Data use subject to license
Cl Delorme To · · po NorthAmericaT" 9
www.delorme.com ·
... NN(tt.1•11
FIGURE 1
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2016
Page 3
Field Work
Field work on the site consisted of review of available literature and observation and logging of
two (2) exploratory trenches advanced with a Case No. 580 Super M extenda-back.hoe equipped
with a 24-inch bucket. A representative bulk sample of earth materials was obtained for
laboratory testing and observing the conditions of the soils on the site. Subsurface exploration of
the subj ect site was performed on Saturday, September 24, 20 I 6 and the exploratory trench logs
are presented in Appendix B. The approximate location of our exploratory trenches are presented
on our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Observation and sampling of the exploratory trenches was
perfonned by our field personnel, who logged approximately I -ft of undifferentiated
alluvial/colluvial soils overlying Old paralic sediments (Kennedy & Tan, 2002) to the total depth
explored of7-ft bgs. ·
Laboratory Testing
The results of laboratory testing arc presented in Appendix C . It should be noted test results are
preliminary and generally representative for the purposes of demonstrating feasibility of design
for proposed construction. Addition testing recommended by this report may result in changes of
minimum design requirements.
Subsurface Conditions
The California Geologic Survey Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle (Kennedy
& Tan, 2002) indicates the formational earth materials underlying the site to be late to middle
Pleistocene Old paralic nonmarine sedimentary deposits (map symbol Qop). A Regional
Geologic Map is included in this report as Figure 2. A brief description of the geologic units
underlying the site that are considered pe1tinent to proposed development follows:
Undifferentiated Alluvial/Colluvial Soils (Map Symbol -Qal)
Approximately I-ft of undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils were encountered at the
ground surface within exploratory trench T-1. This unit consisted of silty Sand (Unified
Soil Classification -SM) that, for the most pait, can be described as dark brown, fine to
medium grained, d1y, loose with minor organics.
Old Paralic Nonmarine Sedimentary Units (Map Symbol -Oop)
Old paralic sedimenta1y units (Kennedy & Tan, 2002) underlie the subject site tlu-oughout.
This unit, for the most part, consisted of sandstone (Unified Soil Classification -SM) that
can be described as medium brown, fine to medium grained, well sorted, dry, massive,
friable, weakly cemented and medium dense to dense. Detailed descriptions of the onsitc
units are presented on our explorato1y trench logs included in Appendix B.
South Shore Testing. & Envil'onmcntal W.0. NO.3011601.00
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
Cal
Substa-i-... \I
~
76 +-,;
', .....
..... ,
l ..._
W .0. 3011601.00 FIGURE 2
PARCEL A
PM 16064
/
/ "' /
., ....
PAJ-!Cft 1
PM 792
#
/
/
/
/
)
/
/ ·,,.,.
// Qop ,,,,,,
/
·-~
/
··~-/ _,,' ..... ✓ --.. .,.,
:~,
/
/
/
/
/ ,,,,,,,,,~ T,,-,,,2.-,,,,,'
/
., ... , /
/
/
/ /
/
/ /
.,...,,,,,,,,,.. /
/ / /
., .. /
/ I
I
:~, ..
I
/ // /
,,,,,✓✓ .,,✓ .. /4" ,.,.,.-
/ / / / ./
•~• I
I
,.,,.,,-., .,,, _,,, /~c:M:~ _.,,.. .,.,,T -1 __ -.,...
, , ~ -/ / /
/' / / /"<111,.11 /
/ / / ·~· ,,, 'Qop,,,,' -.
/ // //PORTION OF"_.,,, {oT 11 ,. • .,.... .,,,,
/ llJ-oCKC •.✓ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
• ,... /MA'P NO. 215: _,.. _,,,.
/
I
I
I ·~· I
I
/
/ -I .••
/
lJ.:GF..1'1>
~
Qop ~ OLU !'ARAU(.' NO:,.IM/\RINE DEPOSITS
SYMBOU;
T -2 -APPROX I MA TE J.OCA'rlON OF EXPLOIUTUR Y l RbNClff:~ -
l,. I
u,.;"· I
L;J---3 T .JO
, fNC'><. ,orcrr
GRAPHIC SCAL(
/ ·-·
-.r .>--• ... .,,.._ / /
--...: ~~ / / ·~--:✓ /
' /
// .... / /
/ / / < ·=/ ,_
I:; LOT 10
BtOCK C
I ECfNP ANQ ABBR[Vl,\TIQNS
rw,,,0 ~111 .ts ...Orto
_.-u:o--O:,Sll#C ccw~ Ar 7· Wrtll'll""-5
~cr:aOF~ll'AIIW(; ., "" ~ ~ ,.,
~
...... ,
CCWCAt'.lt a.co:
~~,n,a
l'UCAl.l'PIUS ll'fU '""" ._,. ... n= 10# OF lf.Al:t
•.tttll JJCIVI
w.P NO
SOUTH SHORE TESTING & ENVIRONMENTAL
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
PROPOSED SINCLE.sTORY RF.SIDENCE
4382 ADAMS STREET
Cll-Y OFCARI.SBAD,SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CAUFORNIA
WORK ORDER: 30H60I.00 OATt:~ PLATE:.LQ£1.
2152
/
··;x,,,_ ~-,\_~; / '~ ,.__~~ "",,. .
~Y, / ,, K , ' -:--."":<..
'~· ' -... ~-..(,,_.>< . ' ~
/ /
/
/
Qop z1
/
.,.. I
~. //"" .. n,
i
i
1
11
~
(j . ... <~"' ~
-~~c ~ <...'.) C 0) C ~ <~ -~-;:, :;:~<ld,~
~fic:i~~
ct~~ c;-f fx~St.~ ""' " lLJ "'.., "' -.J """ ~ lLJ -<,j
~ G
>-w ro > Ct: 0 0 :::, ~ N V) W Ol
0 w Ct: <( I mo 0.. <( U) ci Ct: :::;: <( c.:>
I I it <( ro oVl
0 <( a:! ~ <(
I ; 0
i ...,,.,
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2016
Page 4
Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered within our exploratory trenches, which were advanced to a
maximum depth of 7-ft on the lower elevations of the subj ect site. The subject site is not located
within a ground water basin (USGS, 1985). Historic high groundwater is anticipated to be at least
50-ft below the ground surface (Department of Water Resources, 2016). Minor fluctuations can
and will likely occur in moisture or free water content of the soil owing to rainfall and irrigation
over time
Excavation Characteristics
We anticipate that the onsite Old paralic sedimentary units can be excavated with moderate
difficulty to the proposed depths utilizing conventional grading equipment in proper working
condition.
Seismicity
There are no known active of potentially active faults transecting the site, and the site is not
located within the presently defined boundaries of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone
(Hart, 2000). Active fault zones regional to the site include the Rose Canyon Fault, the Newport-
Inglewood fault, and the Elsinore fault (Julian segment), which are located 8.0-kilometers
southwest, 9 .3-km northwest, and 51.0-km northeast, respectively. The following table list the
known faults that would have the most significant impact on the site:
FAULT
Rose Canyon
(8.0-km SW)
Newport-Inglewood
(9.3-km NW)
Elsinore (Julian Segment)
(51.0-km NE)
South Shore Testing & Environmental
MAXIMUM PROBABLE
EARTHQUAKE
(MOMENT
MAGNITUDE)
7.2
7.1
6.8
SLIP RATE FAULT
TYPE
1.5 mm/year B
1.5 mm/year B
5 mm/year A
W.O. NO. 3011601 .00
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2016
Page 5
2013 California Building Code (CBC) -Seismic Parameters:
Based on the geologic setting and soil conditions encountered, the soils underlying the site are
classified as "Site Class C, Very Dense Soil & Soft Rock", according to the CBC. The seismic
parameters according to the CBC are summarized in the USGS Design Maps Summary Report
presented in Appendix E. The corresponding value for peak ground acceleration from the design
response spectrum based on the 2013 CBC seismic parameters is 0.449g.
SEISMIC EFFECTS
Ground Accelerations
The most significant earthquake to affect the property is considered to be a 6.8 Richter magnitude
earthquake on the Rose Canyon fault zone. Based on Section 1803.5.12 of the 2013 California
Building Code, peak ground accelerations modified for site class effects (PGAM) of
approximately 0.449g are possible for the design ea1ihquake. The seismic parameters according
to the CBC are summarized in the USGS Design Maps Summary Report presented in Appendix
E.
Ground Cracks
The risk of surface rupture as a result of active faulting is considered low owing to the absence of
an active fault on or adjacent to the site (Kennedy & Tan, 2002). Cracking at the ground surface
are possible and may occur due to shaking from seismic events.
Landslides
The subject property is located in an area low rolling gently sloping terrain and no landslides
have been mapped in the area (Tan & Giffen, 1995). Tan and Giffen (1995) have mapped the
subject site and adjacent properties as 3-l generally susceptible. Owing to the gently sloping
nature of the subject site, we anticipate the risk of seismically induced landsliding to affect the
proposed development is low.
Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is the loss of soil strength due to increased pore water pressures caused by a
significant ground shaking (seismic) event. Liquefaction typically consists of the re-arrangement of
the soil particles into a denser condition resulting, in this case, in localized areas of settlement, sand
boils, and flow failures. Areas underlain by loose to medium dense cohesionless soils, where
groundwater is within 30 to 40 feet of the surface, are paiticularly susceptible when subject to
ground accelerations such as those due to ea1thquake motion.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO.301 1601.00
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2016
Page 6
The liquefaction potential is generally considered greatest in saturated loose, poorly graded fine
sands with a mean grain size (Dso) in the range of 0.075 to 0.2mm. Typically, liquefaction has a
relatively low potential at depths greater than 45-ft and is virtually unknown below a depth of 60-ft.
Procedures outlined in two publications, I) The Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117: Department of Conservation, Division of
Mines and Geology (1997); and 2) Recommendations for Implementation of DMG Special
Publication 117: Guidelines of Analyzing and Mitigation, Liquefaction Hazards in California:
Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern California (1997), provide for a
"screening study" in lieu of a complete liquefaction analysis.
It is our opinion that, owing to the absence of shallow groundwater, and the medium dense to dense
Old paralic sedimentary units underlying the subject site, liquefaction is not anticipated, and fu1ther
analysis appears to be unwarranted at this time. Liquefaction potential is considered to be
negligible.
Seismically Induced Soil Settlement
The proposed footings are anticipated to be founded medium dense to dense engineered fill
materials or in-place sedimentary bedrock units. The settlement potential, under seismic loading
conditions for these onsite materials, in our opinion, is low.
Seichcs and Tsunami
Considering the location of the site in relation to large bodies of water, seiches and tsunamis are
not considered potential hazards of the site (Cal Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 2009 -Figure 3).
Rockfall Potential
The subject pad is proposed to be located on sloping terrain that is free of boulder outcroppings
located above the proposed pad. The potential for rockfall is anticipated to be negligible.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
General
The development of the site as proposed is both feasible and safe from a geoteclmical standpoint
provided that the recommendations contained herein are implemented during design and
construction.
Soulh Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00
r C.lifo,Na f'Mr9ency M......-meftl Ao,tncy
c.lfo,,11.1 o.o&oQlcal Swvey
UnNe,afty Of .SO..IM,,_ C.Womla
METHOD OF PREPARATION
---..-.•N-hN_.,....,_C-\C. =~~=-=-...~~~ r--•,--·-·----·-_.........-........ , __ ..., ___ ........... _ '"' '-... ....,_. ·-,..,...,.._...., _____ ., ............ ____ .,, -... --.... --~--,--.,,. .. ~ -............. ..,_._"""" __ _ =·--------.... -.... _.,. ........ _,, _____ ..,_.,. ______ _ ....... _ __.._.,..._. __ .... __
,·-111.tt•---.. --........... --::-"-~: ... -z:-"":..':.::..?~==-___ .,. __ .,... ____ .. ,_.
----.1••0,....,.., ... ._ __ . __ ._ ___ ... ,.. .. ~""""''"
:..-:.:...-=::::.::::..,..:.-=:;_--:r:::..:.;.-----.... -·----·"' °"""'f,( • .._,., _ _,_ ........ _,,.,. __ _ .. , ... _ _,,_....,_,._. __ ,_•tOt ---•-...-•--·--·--· !MJi ""'--·----.. ----.. ,. ----............... ...,,__,. ---.................. _,,.. ... _.,.,. ____ ..,. ____ _ ..,. ____________ -.C-_N_
,..,.,._ f"o,,,. • .._ ... ...._ ____ ~·------..... -_,, ... _. _____ _ --.. ·-····---,..,. ____ ..___, _____ , ___ ., -......-,--.. ·----.......... _....,. 1rw.•1 ,.,.._ ...... __.,....,.,,_., _ _.. .. ...,, .. __....,... . ...., .. ..,_._
_.........,_.,. :ou ....... .,_ ___ ...,~ --"'-''-•_ .. ,__ __ ,,:,
E:~1f~s~~~ -.-.---o,.-...._....,.,.,..,.,.1:,ar;it-t=:'..=:..-:--~10.--1-----°""""" .. -!f~
""'"" ..,.o.,,, • .,,,, "'' __ __,.,,,. __ _ ...... "°''''°"'~--Lllll."W\.,., "' """'"' _..,_,c, ""---.•-•--_ .,...,_.,...,.c-.... o.-.....,_,..ax,: •:•1• tt.,,,,,
... 0-.,.....,..,,litJO.,,•llo,,--•--.._,. .. .,.... ~-0,,•-0.0.1 .. ,
Tsunami lnunct,tion M1p tor Emergency Planning
Oceanside Quadrangl.,San Luis Rey Quadrangle
TSUNAMI INUNDATION MAP
FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING
State of California -County of San Diego
OCEANSIDE QUADRANGLE
SAN LUIS REY QUADRANGLE
June 1, 2009
SI.al• of Cahfomia
County Of San Oh:go
f ••
l.
\
'~
-_\ ,
\ ,. : \
<.. \
,.
/...: .
MAP EXPLANATION
~ Tsunaff'l lnundnon Une
Ttunafri Inundation Area
PURPOSE OF THIS MAP .. , __________ .. _..,... ...,..,_ ........ __ .. ______ _ _..,_.., ,.,. ______ ... , .... ___ ,. _______ ...._ .... ..,-~....,..._ i-....-.... __ ......,. __ ........, ..... _... ---,.,.~ ... _ ..... _____ _ _, __ ,, __ ,. ___ -....... ...-...... _., ___ ,,,.. __ '"--
:::;,-;--_-... ~-.... -..... ..,---·-:::::::.'":"' ... i.::::-~-=-·"'-... ,,,~"""--..-......... t-•-~--... ... =,MJ';",.:,t:,=::;:n--~•IC __.,.,,..........,c,._.,.......,..__c_ -.---~" f!Nfl~°""--4_., __ _ ..... ___ ............._.._.,..._,,,._ ..... -~--.-i,~•1--.. -,_, -----~------
MAP BASE
DISCLAIMER
....,c-.,~-....-....... fCaCWr,jN-.,,fl ......... ~-.JIICl-NC-........ ..,..,<:ICJJ.,_N_ ...... -............. _______ ,,. __ _
,,. _____ --........ ~ .. ""°""'"--" __ .., ______ _ =-=~:.:-~ ... --.... -....... --. .._-
FIGURE 3
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2016
Page 7
1. According to the 10-scale "Topographic Survey" map provided by you, we anticipate that
the proposed pad will be constructed on the no1t herly portion of the subject site.
2. Observation of excavations indicates that suitable material for support of fill and/or
structures is near the surface on the site. Earth materials on the site are also suitable for
use as compacted structural fil I.
3. Observation, classification, and testing indicate that the near surface soils are non-
expansive with an expansion potential (El=O) consisting of a low plastic silty sand.
4. Based on our exploratory trenches, the subject site in underlain by Old paralic deposits
consisting of sandstone and extended to a maximum depth explored of 7-ft bgs. This unit
is overlain by 1-ft of loose and porous undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils in the
vicinity of T-1 .
Site Grading
General
RECOMMENDATIONS
No grading plans were available at the time of our investigation. We anticipate that minor
cut/fill grading will be required to achieve design grades including cut slopes and minor fill
slopes constructed at 2: I (h:v) slope ratios to a height of less than 10-ft. Cut slopes are
anticipated to expose massive, dense sedimentary units. Any cut/fill transition should be
eliminated from pad area with the cut portion being overexcavated a minimum of 4-ft below
fi nish grade.
Cut generated from excavation of the pad wi ll likely be utilized as fill on the southerly portion of
the pad and to construct the driveway. It is important to note that all impo1ted soils must be
observed and approved by the soil engineer prior to use as fill to verify compliance with project
specifications and consistency with onsite soils with respect to expansion potential and structural
contact pressure.
Site Specific Grading
A representative of this firm shall be present to observe the bottoms of all excavations including
keyways and overexcavations. A representative of this firm shall be present during all fill
placement operations to monitor and test as the earth materials are being placed. This
observation and testing is intended to assure compliance with the recommendations of this report
as well as project specifications as they relate to ea1ihwork construction, City, County and State
ordinances and Table 1705.6 of the 20 13 California Building Code.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3,2016
Page 8
Where strnctural fill is to be placed, all loose undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils,
undocumented fill and weathered bedrock at the ground surface shall be removed to competent
earth, i.e., sedimentary bedrock. Cut-to-fill transitions should be eliminated from building pad
where the depth of fill exceeds 6-inches. This should be accomplished by overexcavating the cut
portion a minimum of 2-ft below the bottom of the deepest footings and replacing the materials
as properly compacted fill.
No structural fill shall be placed within the building area on any ground without first being
observed by a representative of the company providing this repo1t and then providing written
certification that the ground is competent and prepared to receive fill.
Onsite soils derived from excavations will be suitable for use as structural fill provided they are
free of large rock (8" or larger) and organic debris or construction waste. Approved fi ll material
should be placed in 6 to 8-inch loose lifts, brought to optimum moisture content, and compacted
to a minimum of 90% of the maximum laboratory dry density, as determined by the ASTM D
1557-12 test method. No rocks larger than 8 inches in diameter should be used as fill material as
they inhibit the compaction process. Rocks larger than 8 inches may be removed or crushed and
used as fill material. Broken concrete slab shall also be reduced in size so as to be less than 8
inches in the major direction. Rocks larger than 8 inches that cannot be crushed, organic
materials, asphaltic concrete or oil bearing surface aggregate should be removed from the graded
area and in the case of oil bearing materials, removed and taken to an appropriate dump site that
is designed to handle such.
All earthwork should be done in accordance with the specifications contained in Appendix D.
Additionally, it will be the responsibility of the owner and or the grading contractor to provide
this firm with schedule information for grading activities that require observation and testing. It
is preferred that we have a minimum of 48 hours of notice for such.
It will also be recommended that at the completion of rough grading, additional testing of
engineering characteristics such as expansion potential and ancillary testing should take place to
determine final design requirements for foundations, slabs and concrete used.
Slope Construction
Cut and fill slopes constructed at a 2: 1 (horizontal:ve1tical) slope ratio, to a maximum ve1tical
height of approximately 15-ft, will be surficially and grossly stable if constructed in accordance
with the recommendations presented in this repo1t and in Appendix D of this report. No grading
plans were available at this time and proposed cut/fill slopes should be evaluated once plans are
finalized and if necessary a slope stability analysis perfo1med at that time.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2016
Page 9
We anticipate that proposed fill slopes will be constructed of earth materials generated from the
onsite undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils and sedimentary units. The fill is anticipated to
consist of fine silty Sands (Unified Soil Classification -SM). Any proposed cut slopes are
anticipated to be founded entirely in fine to medium grained, massive sedimentary units. No
adverse conditions are anticipated, but should be re-evaluated during grading operations by the
project engineering geologist.
A keyway should be established along the toe of any proposed fill slope. The outside edge of the
keyway should be founded a minimum of 2-ft into observed and competent granitic bedrock and
inclined into the hillside at a minimum 2% gradient for a minimum width of 1 0'. The keyway
excavations should expose granitic bedrock that is free of pinpoint pores and fine roots
throughout the bottom area and up a minimum of 2 feet on all sides. Any loose soils or
weathered bedrock should be completely removed by benching during rough grade operation.
The impo11ance of proper fill compaction to the face of slope cannot be overemphasized. In order
to achieve proper compaction to the slope face, one or more of the four following methods should
be employed by the contractor following implementation of typical slope construction guidelines;
I) track walk the slopes at grade, 2) grid roll the slopes, 3) use a combination of sheep foot roller
and track walking, and/or 4) overfill the slope 3 to 5-ft laterally and cut it back to grade.
Care should be taken to avoid spillage of loose materials down the face of any slope during grading.
Loose fill on the face of the slope will require complete removal prior to shaping and or track
walking. Proper seeding and planting of the slopes should follow as soon as practical to inhibit
erosion and deterioration of the slope surfaces. Proper moisture control will enhance the long-term
stability of the finish slope surface.
Bearing Value and Footing Geometry
A safe allowable bearing value of 1,800 psf for foundations embedded into observed competent
fill soils compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the dry density as determined by ASTM D
1557 test method. Continuous footings, for single-story or equivalent structures, should have a
minimum width o f 12 inches and depth of 12 inches and conform to the minimum criteria of the
2013 CBC for low expansive soils (EI=0). Continuous footings, for two-story or equivalent
structures, should have a minimum width of 15 inches and depth of 18 inches and conform to the
minimum criteria of the 2013 CBC for low expansive soils (EI=0). The use of isolated column
footings is not discouraged, however, where utilized, should have a minimum cmbedment of 18
inches below lowest soil grade. The minimum distance of the bottom outside edge of all footings
and any slope face shall be 5 feet. All footings should be embedded a minimum of 12 inches into
observed competent native materials or properly compacted fill, regardless of depth below the
adjacent ground surface.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0. NO. 3011601.00
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2016
Page 10
Settlement
The bearing value recommended above reflects a total settlement of 0.5-in and a differential
settlement of 0.5-in within a horizontal distance of 20-ft (L/480). Most of this settlement is
expected to occur during construction and as the loads are being applied.
Concrete Slabs
All concrete slabs on grade should be 4 inches thick, minimum. They should be underlain by 2-
inches of sand or approved non expansive onsite materials. lmpo1ted or approved onsite
materials may be utilized for this purpose. Contractors should be advised that when pouring
during hot or windy weather conditions, they should provide large slabs with sufficiently deep
weakened plane joints to inhibit the development of in-egular or unsightly cracks. Also, 4-inch
thick slabs should be jointed in panels not exceeding 8-ft in both directions to augment proper
crack direction and development.
Moisture Barrier
When the intrusion of moisture through concrete slabs is objectionable, paiticularly with interior
slabs where flooring is moisture sensitive, a vapor barrier should be installed onto the subgrade
prior to the pouring of concrete. It should consist of a minimum IO mil visqueen, protected from
puncture with 2-inches of sand above and 2-inches of sand below. This is considered a minimum
recommendation as there are other devices that provide as good as or better moisture protection.
The project architect and or structural engineer may recommend alternative devices for moisture
protection.
Reinfor·cement
From a Geotechnical standpoint, continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of
two number 4 steel bar placed at the top and bottom. In no case should the content of steel in
concrete footings be less than the recommended minimums of the appropriate sections of the
AC.I. standards. Slabs should be reinforced with a minimum of number 3 steel bars placed at
the center of thickness at 24-inch centers both ways (CBC 2013). These are considered
minimums and additional requirements may be imposed by other structural engineering design
requirements. In addition, at the completion of grading, testing of the near surface soils may
indicate that different or more stringent reinforcing schedule minimums may be appropriate.
Careful consideration should be given to the recommendations that will be contained in the final
report of compaction test results and foundation design requirements.
South Shore Testing & E11viro11mcntnl W.O. NO.301 1601.00
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2016
Page 1 I
Concrete
Based on our co1Tosivity suite testing, Type II Portland cement concrete can be utilized for the
subject site .. Test results indicated that the percent soluble sulfates were 0.001, which equates to a
Negligible sulfate exposure per American Concrete Institute (ACI), 3 I 8, Table 4.3.1 (2005).
Soluble sulfate content testing should be conducted within the building pads at the completion of
rough grading to confirm concentration of sulfite ions within the onsite earth materials.
Corrosivity test results indicated a saturated resistivity of 13,000 ohms/cm for the onsite soils,
which indicates the onsite soils are mildy corrosive (NACE International, 1984). Laboratory
analysis was performed by Soi!Cor of Murrieta, CA, and is included in Appendix C. South Shore
Testing and Environmental does not practice corrosion engineering. If specific information or
evaluation relating to the corrosivity of the onsite or any import soil is required, we recommend that
a competent corrosion engineer be retained to interpret or provide additional conosion analysis and
mitigation.
Lateral Loads
The bearing value of the soil may be increased by one third for sho1t duration loading (wind,
seismic). Lateral loads may be resisted by passive forces developed along the sides of concrete
footings or by friction along the bottom of concrele foolings. The value of the passive resistance
for level ground may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf for level ground.
The total force should not exceed 3,000 psf. A coefficient of friction of .35 may be used for the
horizontal soil/concrete interface for resistance of lateral forces. lf friction and passive forces are
combined, then the passive values should be reduced by one third.
Earthwork Factors
Shrinkage results when a volume of material removed at one density is compacted to a higher
density. A shrinkage factor of 10 to 15 percent for the undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils
should be anticipated when excavating and compacting the undifferentiated alluvia1/colluvial soils
to an average relative compaction of 92 percent. A shrinkage factor of O to 3 percent for the
sedimentary units should be anticipated when excavating and compacting these units to an average
relative compaction of 92 percent. An increase in relative compaction, or deeper removals, could
correspond to an increase in shrinkage values. Subsidence, as a result of ground preparation, may
also be anticipated on the order of 0.15 feet, occu1ring mostly during site construction.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W 0. NO. 3011601.00
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2016
Page 12
Oversize Rock
No oversize rock was observed during our site mapping and subsurface investigation of the subject
site. No oversize rock is anticipated. If any oversize material is to be generated during site
development, it should be disposed of off-site, utilized in landscaping, or placed in an approved
rock fill in accordance with Appendix D of this repo1t.
Utility Trench Backfill
All trench excavations should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA standards as a
minimum. The soils encountered within our exploratory trenches are generally classified as Type
"C" soil in accordance with the CAL/OSHA (2007) excavation standards. Based upon a soil
classification of Type "C", the temporary excavations should not be inclined steeper than 1.5: I
(horizontal:vertical) for a maximum depth of 20-ft. For temporary excavations deeper than 20-ft
or for conditions that differ from those described for Type "C" in the CAL/OSHA excavation
standards, the project geotechnical engineer should be contacted.
Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry
density determined in laboratory testing by the ASTM D 1557-12 test method. It is our opinion
that uti lity trench backfill consisting of onsite or approved sandy soils can best be placed by
mechanical compaction to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density. The upper I -ft
of utility trench excavations located within pavement areas should be compacted to a minimum
of 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
Fine Grading and Site Drainage
Fine grading of areas outsid e of the garage/studio should be accomplished such that positive
drainage exists away from all footings in accordance with 2013 CBC and local governing agency
requirements. Run-off should be conducted in a non-erosive manner toward approved drainage
devices per approved plans. No run-off should be allowed to concentrate and flow over the tops
of slopes.
Construction
South Shore Testing & Environmental, or a duly designated representative, should be present
during all earthwork construction in accordance with the standard specifications contained at the
back of this report, to test and or confirm the conditions encountered during this study. In
addition, post eaithwork construction monitoring should be conducted at the following stages:
• At the completion of final grading of the building pad so that a finished surface
compaction test may be obtained. Moisture content near optimum will necessarily need
to be maintained, both to maintain proper compaction and to prevent wind erosion of the
pad.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011 601.00
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2016
Page 13
• At the completion of foundation excavations, but prior to the placement of steel and or
other construction materials in them. As a requirement of this report, the undersigned
must, in writing, certify that the foundations meet the minimum requirements of this
repo1t and the building plans for depth and width along with the earth materials being the
appropriate moisture content and compaction. Backfilling of over deepened footings with
earth materials will not be all owed and must be poured with concrete. Consequential
changes and differences may exist throughout the earth materials on the site. It may be
possible that certain excavations may have to be deepened slightly if earth materials are
found to be loose or weak during these observations.
• Any other pertinent post construction activity where soils are excavated or manipulated or
relied upon in any way for the performance of buildings or hardscape features.
Supplemental Recommendations
If at any time during grading or construction on this site, conditions are found to be different than
those indicated in this report, it is essential that the soil engineer be notified. The soil engineer
reserves the right to modify in any appropriate way the recommendations of this report if site
conditions are found to be different than those indicated in this report.
• The soil at the surface is observed to be compact silty coarse grained soil. It is minimally
to non-erosive. It is dense at shallow depths, on the order of I foot and water does not
percolate well into the onsite soils.
• Cuts to 5 feet, or slightly more will stand vertical for normal time periods associated with
construction of backcuts for fill slopes or retaining walls. Time periods for unsupported
cuts 5 feet or greater vertical should be limited to 60 days in the non-rainy season and 30
days in the rainy season.
Grading Plan Review
Once grading plans are finalized, a Grading Plan Review should be performed to review plans and
confirm that the plans are in general conformance with recommendations presented in this report.
Foundation Plan Review
Once foundation plans are finalized, a Foundation Plan Review should be perfonned to review
plans and confirm that the plans are in general conformance with recommendations presented in
this report.
Sou\h Shore Tcs\ing & Environmental W.0. NO. 301 1601.00
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 201 6
Page 14
Construction Monitoring
Observation and testing by South Shore Testing & Environmental is necessary to verify compliance
with recommendations contained in this report and to confirm that the geotechnical conditions
encountered are consistent with those encountered. South Shore Testing & Environmental should
conduct construction monitoring during any fill placement and subgrade preparation prior to
placement of fill or construction materials.
LIMIT A TIO NS
Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under
similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists practicing in this or
similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and
professional advice included in this report.
The report is issued with the understanding that it is used only by the owner and it is the sole
responsibility of the owner or thei r representative to ensure that the information and
recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect, engineer, and
appropriate jurisdictional agency for the project and incorporated into the plans; and the necessary
steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations
contained herein during construction and in the field.
The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative;
however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between test locati ons. The evaluation
or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the
scope of services provided by South Shore Testing & Environmental, or its assigns.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the condi tion of a
property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the works of man
on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may
occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the
findings of this rep01t may be invalidated wholly or pa1tially by changes outside our control.
Therefore, this repo1t is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified.
The firm that performed the geoteclmical investigation for this project should be retained to provide
testing observation services during construction to maintain continuity of geotechnical
interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented herein are implemented during site
grading, excavation of foundations and construction of improvements.
South Shore Tcsling & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00
Mr. Joe Polzin
October 3, 2016
Page 15
If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services during
construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the
responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer ofrecord. Selection of another firm to perform any
of the recommended activities or failure to retain the undersigned to perform the recommended
activities wholly absolves South Shore Testing & Environmental, the undersigned, and its
assigns from any and all liability arising directly or indi rectly from any aspects of this project.
We appreciate the oppo1tunity to be of service. Limitations and conditions contained in reference
documents are considered in full force and applicable. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully submitted,
South Shore Testing & Environmental
John P. Frey
Project Geologist
Mark Slatten, CEO 1605
Cei1ified Engineering Geologist
ATTACHMENTS
Figure 1 -Site Location Map (2,000-scale)
Figure 2 -Regional Geologic Map
Figure 3 -Tsunami Inundation Plan
Plate 1 -Geotechnical Map (not-to-scale)
Appendix A -References
Appendix B -Exploratory Trench Logs
Appendix C -Laborato1y Test Results
Appendix D -Standards of Grading
Appendix E -USGS Design Maps Summary Report
South Shore Testing & Environmcntnl
William C. Hobbs, RCE 42265
Civil Engineer
W.0. NO. 3011601.00
APPENDIX A
References
South Shore Testing & Environmcmal W.0. NO. 3011601.00
REFER.ENCES
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2013, "20 I 3 California Building Code,
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of2".
California Division of Mines & Geol06'Y, 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California", Special Publication 117.
California Division of Mines & Geology, I 996, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the
State of California", DMG Open File Report 96-08, USGS Open File Report 96-706.
California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, June I , 2009, "Tsunami
Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California -County of San Diego, Oceanside
Quadrangle, San Luis Rey Quadrangle", Scale: I :24,000.
Ciremele Surveying Inc., August 9, 2016, "Topographic Survey, Adams Street, Carlsbad, CA
92008", Scale: I"= 1 0', Sheet 1 of 1, Job No. 16-0 I 7.
Coduto, Don, P., 1994, "Foundation Design Principles and Practice", Prentice Hall, pages 637-655.
Department of Water Resources Website, 2016, "Groundwater Data Section".
Hart, E.W., 2000, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California", California Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42, CD-003 (CO-ROM Version).
Izbicki, John A., December I 985, "Evaluation of the Mission, Santee, and Tijuana Hydrologic
Subareas for Reclaimed-Water Use, San Diego County, California", U.S. Geologic Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Repo11 85-4032.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and
Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map
No. 6.
Kennedy, Michael P. and Tan, Siang S., 2002, "Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60'
Quadrangle, California", Scale l: 100,000, California Geologic Sw-vey -Geologic Map #2.
Tan, Siang S. and Giffen, Desmond G., 1995, "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San
Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, CA", OMO Open-File Report 95-04, Landslide
Hazard Identification Map #35A, Oceanside and San Luis Rey Quadrangles, Scale: 1 :24,000.
Weber, F.H., Jr., 1977, Seismic Hazards Related to Geologic Factors, Elsinore and Chino Fault
Zones, No1thwestern Riverside County, California, DMG Open File Repo1t, 77-4 L.A., 96 pages.
Weber, H.F., Jr., 1963, "Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California",
California Division of Mines and Geology -County Rep01i 3, Plate 1, Scale: I :120,000.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00
APPENDIX B
Exploratory Trench Logs
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0. NO. 3011601.00
LOGGED BY: JPF M ETHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE #580 SUPER M EXTENDA DATE OBSERVED: 9/24/16
BACKHOE EQUIPPED W/ 24" BUCKET
ELEVATION : :t.107 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECH PLAN
c; 2 0 "' ,..c:-Q ... ~l 8 "' ct g; t ~ "' "' TEST PIT NO. "' .., ::, :,>-1 u le :, "-.; ... z ~~ SOIL TEST :z: ~ ~ ... ::, "! I!! :;: IF)<( :S oz :s iii DESCRIPTION g i5 IF) "8 0. z "' :s z :, z UJ 0 u "' :, ., -o
UNDIFFERENTIATED ALLUVIAUCOLLUVIUM MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM -,-.. -i------SIL TY SAND (SM): DARK BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED DRY LOOSE MINOR ORGANIC MOISTURE CONTENT, SIEVE ANALYSIS, >-
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS EXPANSION INDEX, CORROSIVITY SUITE. >-
SANDSTONE-MEDIUM BROWN, FINE GRAINED, WELL SORTED, DRY, MEDIUM DENSE, REMOLDED DIRECT SHEAR
>-
5 MASSIVE --
TOTAL DEPTH= 7.0' -
NO GROUND WATER -
10 ---
>-
f---
15 f------~
~ -
-
-
-
-
3E.
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
>-
35 ,---
f---
>-
40 f---
ya. NO, 30116-01.00 LOG OF TRENCH PIT FIGURE: T-1
LOGGED BY: JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE #580 SUPER M EXTENDA DATE OBSERVED: 9/24/16
BACKHOE EQUIPPED W/ 24" BUCKET
ELEVATION: :!:115 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECH PLAN
z ►;;: (_ .... 0 ... ~ l w j 8 a: u w ~ 0. O!o, ~ ... a. J z w >-TEST PIT NO. 2 SOIL TEST :r .;: ~ I w u .... ... ;;; " .... a DESCRIPTION z a. 1/) ~ 0 w 5 al u zw 0 u -o
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS ,__
SANDSTONE. MEDIUM BROWN. DRY & LOOSE IN UPPER 1 FT. BECOMING DENSER W/ DEPTH, ,._
,._ FINE GRAINED. FRIABLE, MASSIVE
-5
TOTAL DEPTH= 5.0' ,__
NO GROUND WATER ,._
,__
,__
10 --
-
-
-
15 ,__
-
>-
,__
,__
20 --
-
-
-
3.?.
--,._
,__
30 ,__
,__
,__
,__
,__
~
,_
,__
,__
,__
~
JOB NO: 301 1601.00 LOG OF TRENCH PIT FIGURE: T-2 '~
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Test Results
South Shore Testing & Env ironmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00
LABORATORY TESTING
A. Classification
B.
C.
Soil s were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
Classification was supplemented by index tests such as maximum density and optimum
moisture content.
Expansion Index
An expansion index test was performed on a representative sample of the onsite soils
remolded and tested under a surcharge of 144 lb/ft2, in accordance with ASTM 0-4829-
11 . The test results are presented on Figure C-1, Table I and a copy of our laboratory
test results are presented on Figure C-2.
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content
A maximum density/optimum moisture content relationship was determined for typical
sample of the onsite soils. The laboratory standards used were ASTM 1557-Method A.
The test results are summarized on Figure C-1, Table II and laboratory results are
presented on Figure C-3.
D. Particle Size Determination
E.
A particle size determination, consisting of mechanical analyses (sieve) was performed on
a representative sample of the onsite soils in accordance with ASTM D 422-63 and CAL
TEST 202. The test results are shown on Figure C-4.
Corrosivity Suite
Corrosivity suite testing including resistivity, soluble sulfate content, pH and chloride
content were performed on a representative sample of the onsite soils. The laboratory
standards used were CTM 643, CTM 417 & CTM 422. The test results are presented on
Figure C-1, Table III and Figure C-5.
F. Direct Shear
A remolded direct shear strength test was performed on a representative sample of the
onsite undisturbed soils. To simulate possible adverse field conditions, the samples were
saturated prior to shearing. A saturating device was used which permitted the samples to
absorb moisture while preventing volume change. Test results are graphically displayed
on Figure C-6.
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00
TABLE I
EXPANSION INDEX
,T LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL
T-1 @ 0-5 ft 0 Non Expansive
TABLE II
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE RELATIONSHIP
ASTM D 1557
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOlSTURE
TEST LOCATION (pcf) (%)
T-1 @0-5 ft 131.0 8.0
-
TABLE III
CORROSIVITY SUITE
TEST LOCATION SATURATED CHLORJDE SULFATE
RESISTIVITY pH CONTENT CONTENT
T-1 @ 0-5 ft 13 ,000 6.5 ND ppm 0.001 % by wgt
Figure C-1
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0 . NO.3011601.00
(~
I . c·-c~· EXPANSION lNDEX TEST I I I ,·. /. ' ) j 301100/,0() ,-., ' Job No,
_,.,.-';) I '-"
Project ..J J e I ,·•/7i'1'\ I !) . .. \
,i "-I Tested By ;,; .f
Test Method ASTM D 4829 ? /2 (;17!& Date
Lot # Checked By
Depth (ft.) 0-'S' Date
,f" ! Sarno le/ Lab No. I •✓ Tract
I [NITIAL CONDITIONS II Ii ' !NlTIAL MOISTURE, W % I
{, { I
t9'• \:'.')
;
!
REMOLOED WET SOIL+ TARE !
(,'"J (l 7 I Oi , -:
TARE (g) I q </
WET SOIL, Wt (g) LI I l/, 1
DRY SOIL, Ws (g) '7811 .) • I C REMOLDED WET DENSITY ls' t /7c"" i cc Wtp0 l 65) (PCF) o, J. d
REMOLDED DRY DENS ITY ~d II 't,s-cl '" Ws(.30165) (PCF)
WEIGHT OF WATER \Vw 1, ---:;-. Ww =i t -t d (PCF)
SOLIDS VOLUME, Vs (ft 3 ) <;j-t\ Vs=t d + 168.5 ,lJ
VOIDS VOLUME, Vv (ft3 ) 'l. ;, % Saturation 40-60
Vv = I -Vs JU Exnansion Results
DEGREE OF SATURATION s l/} I. ) (p S = Ww x 100/62.4 x Vv(¾) Initial Readin12.
17 u ; , t 1-;z I
Sample Description: Final Reading '
Height Charnze : l
Exnansion Index 0
C-2
COMPACTION TEST REPORT
Project No.: 3011601 .00
Project: JOE POLZIN
Location: T-1
Elev./Depth: 0-5'
Remarks:
Description: ·
Classifications -
Nat. Moist. =
Liquid Limit =
% > No.4 = %
Curve No.: 2.60
Sample No.
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
MEDIUM BROWN SILTY SAND
uses: SM AASHTO:
Sp.G. = 2.65
Plasticity Index =
% < No.200 =
TEST RES UL TS
Date: 9/26/16
• •-•-><••••·-••--•-•••••••-• •••--••--·--.. H~--,.,._,___ •-•-••••A•><•-••••--••--~-••--••~••-•••-••••.,---•• ••H •·~·•-••-•••
Maximum dry density ,~ 127.6 pcf
Optimum moisture '·" 7.7%
Test specification:
ASTM D l 557-9 l Procedure A Modified
Water content, %
100%, SATURATIOI\J CURVES
FOR SPEC. GF{AV. EQUAL TO:
2.8
2.7
2.6
Figure C-3
<-.. 0 SAND I ID GRAVEL z COARSE MED I UM FINE I SILT CLAY q
~ SIEVE SIZES·-U.S. STANDARD G:) 0 0 rn 3/4" 1/2'' 1/4" 4 ID 2p 410 l(X) 290 _., _., -0 100. '., i 100 0) 0 ...........__ 0 _., r
N ........... ~ 0 z 0 90 • 90 ,___ \
' 80 80 ' \
70 \
70 "tJ m \ '"(l Ci) ::u \ rn 0 :lJ ::u ~ 60 0 l> 60 f1j --i 2 :z .. -j
7J la (/) fl, 50 '"tl I \ 50 l> -<f) <f) N (/) J'1l z -\ 2 G)
G) 40 :\
0 \ 40 -Cl) \ -I C\n ::0 --I \.. 30 -m ' C ·, -I 20 \ 20 -0 f\ z I\ 10 I 10 .
0 I 0 10.0 1.0 0.1 .01 .001
-PARTICLE DIAMETER -MILLIMETERS ,,
PLASTIC lNDEX I CLASS! FlCATION ci BORING NO. DEPTH, FT. SYMBOL LIQUID LIMIT C ::u T-1 0-5· SM MEDIUM BROWN SIL TY SAND n,
~o
I
~') ' () .., I
II SoilCor
CORROSION a THERMAL SCIENCES
41765 Hawthorn Street Murrieta, CA 92562
ph (951) 894-2682 • fx (951) 894-2683
Work Order No.: 1613307
Client: South Shore Testing & Environmental
Project No.: 3011601 .00
Project Name: Joe Polzin
Report Date: October 4, 2016
Laboratory Test(s) Results Summary
The subject soil sample was processed in accordance with California Test Method CTM 643
and tested for pH/ Minimum Resistivity (CTM 643), Sulfate Content (CTM 417) and Chloride
Content (CTM 422). The test results follow:
Minimum Sulfate Sulfate Chloride
Sample Identification pH Resistivity Content Content Content
(ohm-cm) (mg/kg) (% bywgt) (ppm)
T-1 @ 0-5 ft. 6.5 13,000 10 0.001 NO
*ND=No Detection
We appreciate the opportunity to serve you. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any
questions or clarifications regarding these results or procedures.
• ~~
OIC"''Z.UIO"M. MfMlfR
Ahmet K. Kaya, Laboratory Manager
www.soilcor.com C-5
II SoilCar
CORROSION & THERMAi. SCIENCES
41765 Hawthorn Street
Murrieta, CA 92562
DIRECT SHEAR
ASTM D 3080
ph (951) 894-2682
South Shore Testing & Environmental
Project: 3011601.00 Joe Polzin Sample ID: T-1 @0-5'
Soil Description: (SM) Brown, Silty Fine-Medium Sand
Displacement Rate: 0.050 inlm Box Gap: 0.025 in Max Data: 127.6 @7.7%
Remold Target Data: _iQ_ % = 114.8 pct ~ %Mc(-No.10) 2.65 Gs(assumed)
*As Received Mc: 2.8 Adjusted Mc:~% **After Shear Mc: -%
□ Undisturbed
■ Remolded
*Exlstlng Gradation for undisturbed specimens, -No.10 fraction for remolded specimens
**Test 1 Specimen (Highest Nonnal Stress)
Test 1 Test2 Test3
SHEAR RECORD: Prov. Ring Vert. Dial Prov. Ring Vert. Dial Prov. Ring Vert. Dial
Disolacement (in): 0.010 9 100 7
0.020 24 100 19
0.030 53 100 38
0.040 91 101 78
0.050 158 104 102
0.060 210 108 115
0.070 233 111 124
0.080 226 111 122
0.090 185 110 91
0.100
0.110
0.120
0.130
0.140
0.15(
0.160
0.170
0.180
0.190
0.200
0.210
0.220
0.230
0.240
0.250
*SHEAR STRESS: Divisions Pounds psf 3000
Test 1: 233 69.6 2042
Test 2: 124 36.7 1077
Test 3: 73 22.8 669
2500
*Peak Values
NORMAL STRESS (psf): ~2000
!
Proving Ring
SN: 6927
Calibrated 30.August-16
Form No. 130R
Rev. 08/16
Reviewed By
Test 1: 2070
Test 2: 1035
Test 3: 517
10/4/2010
Date
.,, f 1500
1/) ... .. .! 1000 1/)
500
0
www.primetesting.com
-
--
--
-----
---
--
/ v
0
99 6 99
99 17 99
100 39 99
100 60 100
101 69 101
102 73 102
104 71 102
104 62 103
104
-l -/
~
~ ~,
-· l
% i ,----,-
I/ f i l c-· V t
---V / -..,
~ I -
1
--~~ -I ~"--r-_, -r T -j I -
1
---
-
1000 2000 3000
Normal Stress (psf)
C-6
APPENDIX D
Standards of Grading
South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0. NO. 3011601.00
!)JANDA.HJ) GRADlNC AND LA.HTJJ WORh SPLClf JCATH~1"S
No tll.!vittl:u.-l ,rt.Hi) thc:ii: 'ipcc:11icaticjn:o, shoold be p~rmitt:.:d un!~:,~ spc~1!icall)' s;1pc1'>~(kd in the gcvi\'.:cirn1cnl r>!pOrt of rile proJ('CI tir b\ w1ii1C"n ~JillllH1nication c,1gned b) the
.',011~ Cons111!a111 r=:,a:11ntions performed bj the Soil:; ConsulIan1 during the cow-.;t or grading may result m subsequent re~onuncndalions which w uld sup~r~~dc lhc~t·
spe,:iticaI ion, m Ill,~ rcco111rnendni ions of the geotechoical rero, 1
I.II GE1°'iGRAL
I I
I .,
1.1
14
16
I 7
The Soils Consultant is th~ 01mer's o, Developer·~ represen1a1ive on the project. For 1he purpose or these specdications, ob5crvations by the Soils
Consultant include observations by the Soils Engineer, Seib Gngineer, Engineering Ge,,Jogisl, and others cmploy~d by anc1 responsible 10 the Soils
Consultant
/\II d eming, site prcpnration. 01 eurlhwork performed M the proJCC! shall b,· condttctcd 11nd cli,ected hy the Co111racIor undc, the allowanrc or
sttpcrvision of1hc Soils Consnlla111
I h,• Co,m,1cI0, .lhottltl l;c responsibh: for th,• salc1v ol rht• 1>,oieci anc1 SHlisi\i,·1,,ry ,·omple11m1 of all grnding During gradmg. the Contractor slrnll
rcmaitt accessible.
l'rim Ill the co111111~11cemc111 or gra,hng. the Sods ('onsuhan1 slrnll be empltJyed for the purpose or provId111g field. labonuury and offtce servI,.;~ for
c11nliirmm1t:e wlih tht· rcc0mmcndmi,Jn; of tl1<' gcn1ci;hnkal report an<! these spcci(kmiuns It will be ncc~s,m:,-tha: the Soils Consullftn! prL•vtclt
a<kqnme tcs1ifl~ and obsc, vat:un, ,,, th111 he 111ay p,,witk "" upinion a•; to clcteJ111111,, IhaI Ihc Wl!fl, wa, acc,1111plishcd as specified It shall be the
responsibility of the ( ·ontrnc<or IO assist 1l1e S,>ib Consul1;1111 and keep him apprised of wor], schedules and changes so that he may scheduk h"
I,crsonnel accordmgly.
It shill I b1..~ the.~ !iole n::spons,bility oi lh\! C '01itrrn.:1rn h., provh'h.: adtl1uatc.: 1.:qttip111cn1 c111d m~thods to accompli·;h the wort, in act.:ordat1cc with
appltcnbk grndmg codes. ag~nc, ordtnances. these ~pcc1tica1,ons, and the approv~'d grading plans If. in the op111irn1 of ths, Soils Cons111tani
unsatisfactory cond~tions, such as q:1cstiunabk so1l1 1>ot)r 11101s11irc concH,iun. 1rntc.k:q11at\! cornpat:lic.)n adv..:rsc weather el~. are resulting ma qunlil)
of work lcs5 t!rnn required it1 these specificati,ln,. the Soils Consull/1111 will lie empow•~rcd 10 rt:,iet:I the worl, and recommend that cons1ruction be
.Shlppc<I until till' C(mdition, ""' rectified
II is the C:on1rnctur's r~-sponsibilily l\l provide safe access to the Soils Consultmu fo1 testing and/m grading ohscrvation purposes Thb may rcqurrc
the excavation oftest pits and/or the relocation of grnc1ing equipment
A !inn! rqJ<•rl shall be issued b) th.: Soils Consulianl ;,11::st.ing lo 1hc Contractor's co11l<1rn1~ncc wilh these srccific~tions
2.0 :-i_!Tl: .. l'Hl:.PA.HA.l'fO!\
) I
_) ;
2'
2.4
2.5
,,11 v1.::g;.:lai ,on au,I dekk1w1;• n?;:i:;11,1: •ha!! h\· di,i\\}S<'d .;! ,11';-s:i~ 1 h:--/Ci!!1n:_,! ).}WI! b.: ob~cr•r;o b ... ti1•.' !,011-.. ( ·oa:~u1i:1i11 w1,! 1.:.i1h;(11ci<:d fllh:-1 ((I
Jill plan:n1cn1
');·,ii c1H11•.:i!!IL" ell b..:ifr:_id, mt11cr•al·; 'li.'(l~Pli:111:,i tr,· ll;,: ',,)JI: ( 01::t•lfltull :i:-IJi..•mµ. lll:'.illil.:11:k li;,1 p1;;tcl'.l':t.':1i n: :,,;,unp~\(:i~d li'i~ sfh'lll ht'· l\:i'l\01,'l:(! frt)II•
the .,.ih.: oi l,:-.1;,.! 111 op.;n <1r,:a~ Ch dt'lt·11nin .. :d 1)) ilk' '),.,11 . .., ('n,;_;11:1;m1 A.1:, n1:,t~·,ial 1111.'l.,:p,"inue,: -t:-<: 1':.l,i: 1.)( ·11;4.,1·,1pacl-·1l fii11rn1:a h,· i!j>provu1 h~
1h,.' <;,>i!~ ( ·ons111la111 pri,H to fill pl;1,:cmcnl
/\fh;:1 lh1..'! gn)und :-;ui ,;.;.c,: i•) rc;:cciv1.~ till ha·; L-.C.tii cl.:ar..:d H ~ltttll bl! s<.:<1nfic:d d1M.:Gd ai:dl,.H binctcd l,> 1he Ct>iltn1~h,i unnl ir b un1ft-,ff11 and n l.!t from
ruts. hol!ow!i, hwnmc,cks. 01 oth~, uneven fcatur~s whrch mar prevent unifon11 compacnon
Th~ scarified gro11nd surface shall then be brought to optimum lllOisLure. mixed as required, and compacted a$ spt,cificd. If the scarilicd zone i;
greatc, tlrnn lw~lvc inches in depth, the e.xces~ ;hall be removed and 11laced in !ills not to exceed six ind1es OJ less
Prior to placing fill, Il1e ground surfacr 10 receive fill shall be ot,served, tested, and approved by the Soils Consultant.
Any underground structures or cavities such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, lunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be re111o~ed
or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soils Consuhant
In cut-fill transition lob and where cut lots arc partially in soil. coll11vi11m o, unwea1hcrcd bedrocl, materials, in order 10 provide unifo,m bearing
condition.,, the bedrock ponion ofth~ 101 extending a minimum of S feet 01,1side of building line~ shall be overcxcavaIed a minimum o f 3 feet and
replaced with compacted fill (ircater ovc1exc<1vation could be rcqu,rcd as determined by Soils Consultant Typical dc1ails arc attached
.rn (;OMPACTED FILLS
J I !Vlatcnnt 10 be pif,ced as fill shall be free of'orga,Hr rnaner and other deleterious substance$, n11d shall be approved by th<" Soils Consultant Soils of
poor grndntion, expansion, o, strength clrnractertstic~ shall be placed in aicas cksignated by Soil& Co,:sultanl 01 shall be mixed witl1 other soil$ lo
serve as satisfactory Iii! ma1erial, as directed by the Soil, Cons11han1.
3.3
3 .5
.l 6
3 7
3.9
I!
J 12
3 13
3 1,1
They are not plac~ct or nfst~d in co11cemra1cd 1>ocke1,
There is a Sllfficiem amount ofapprovetl soil to su1rnl1nd the rocks
The distribution ofrocks is supervised by the .Soils Consultant
Rocks greater than twelve inches in diameter shall be taken ofl~s11e, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of ihc Soils Consultant in
areas designmed as suitable for rack dispos11l (A typical detail for Rock DispClsal is attached.)
Maicrial tha1 is spongy, sub.red to decay or otherwise conside,ect 1111sui1ablc shall no( be used in the compacted fill
Rc:preseniatiw siimpk, of materials IIJ b~ util11td ,1:, cump<1cled till shall be analyz~<I by the labornt(n)· ol th<' ::,oils ConsulI,1111 to rktcn11inc the11
physical properties If any 111aterial oth~r than chat previously tested is encoumcr~d during gradmg, rhe appropriatt: analysis of this material shall be
conducted by the S(lils Consultant before being approved as fill material
Material used 111 fhe co111p11c1ing process slrn/I be evenly spread. w;itered, processed, and cornpact,•.d in 1hi11 lifis 1101 10 exceed six 111ches in th1ck11<:ss
to ob1ai11 ii t1111formly cknse layer The /ill shell bt' placed m1d compacted on ;1 horizo11111I plane, unless othc1wisc approved by 1he Soils ( :onsul1m11
If the mois1urc conti:11I or rela11•1< c()mpaction vanes l'r,m, thm rcq11ircd by the Soil~ Consultant the Comrnutor sh,1tl rework th~ Ii/I wml ii 1s
approv~d by th<' Soils Cons11lta111
Fach h~}CI shal! be compacted l() al lcasr 90 pc:rccrn 01· 1hc mnxin1111n dcn~i(y in complia:·1c,· "vith thl' rcsIing method spi.~citict1 by the conln.1lling
govcmrncntal agency or ASTM 1557-70, whichever applies
If coinp~ction 10 a lesser pcrc~ntage 1s authorilecl by th~ controlling govern men lat agency l1ecm1,e c•f a specific land use Of cxpansiw soil C(>ndit,orr,
the ~rca lo receive !ill compacted to less iha11 90 percent slu1II either be delineated on the grading plan and/or appropriate reference made lo the ar<=a
in the geotechnica/ reporl.
All fills shall be keyed and benchcrl through all topsoil, coll11vium alluvium, 01 creep mnlcri~I, into s01111cl bedrock or firm material where ihc slope
feceiving fill exceeds a ratio or live horizo11wl to 01w vcr1 ical or in accordance with the recomm<=ndatio11s orthe $oils Consulta111
J'ric key tb1 sick hill f1tl!--.:i·1;1II bt~ a min?nwm width of I.;;, fo:..~1 wirhm h•.:df\)Ck o: iinn m,:i!criah 11nl:.::,.1i r,th\~p;1i~.: spi.!ci ficd m lih.~ g.,:1.)i(.!l~hn1~a! n.~pvrt
lS<:,: detail mrnd1ed ~
,\11b\!rmnag1: <kv ti:~:.~~ -;iir1H l':i, con•;Jn1C;l:..:d iii ~:ornpl::.Hi.~1.· 1,.\'i\L ih~ ◄)1 dm;._!11-:.-:·~ or lh,· ~:o111.-nll111~ t1,:wl;r:1:i1tH!,i! ug:.:111..:} 01 ... vil.h th-:.· rc .. :,>m1.11:1;d;iJ11,1
t)((h .. ~ s,,il:; ( \')PSnl:.-:1:~ (i'•;pir.·a! { 'r1r1y01, S11hdrnin d<.:taih (!I\'. itilCIL.:h,:(l i
J'hc r\·)nli'acw, will l?c.' r::qt111:..·d to Phl<iin <l rn1nm,wT1 rt1~·,ir-,~: con·1r,~c:1(.)r: ,:,I at ka:;, 90 pt:n.;~f1! ,1ul 10 tlk· linish -;lope fat;-.• nf di! 5!op<..'S. t,uures:·;,;:;'.':.
anrl \rabili1:ntio;: i:l/.\ 1 Iii-; rna.'t b•.:: a~hit."v,:d h)' t:i1hi.::1 ov1·:1 !.>nilding thi..· 51<.•p•: and culling. b:!d~ 1n 1lii:. co111pm.:1t:d ..:,wv1 01 b) d111,,~i.;1 con1paclH)11 o1
1ilc.:: sfope focc wiih suitH:-,1:.._, cquiprnc.:111. or by {1ny nth(:r pn1c,:dun.:. which pnJduce~ die..· n .. ·quin.:d conipuclion approved hy· ihr: Snih. Cu,1sultnnt
Al: till slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by othc, methorb specified in the Soil~ repori.
Fill-over-cul slop~s shall be properly !,.:eyed through topsoll1 colh1vium or creep materia} into rock or firm material!>, <1nd 1hc frnnsnion :,hall bl?.
stripped of all soil prior to placing fill (Sec attached detail)
4.0 CliT SLOPES
4 I
4.2
4 3
4.4
4.5
The Soils Consultant shall inspect all Clll slop.::; at vertical intervals c.xcecding five fell!.
If any conditions nol anticipated in 1hc gcotechnical rcpo,1 such as perched water, seepage, lenticulM or confined straw of a potentially adverse
nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fau lt planes encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Soils Consultant,
and recommendations shall be made t0 mitigate these problems (Typical details for stabilization or a po,1io11 of n cur slop~ arc auached J
C.:111 slopes !hat face in the same direction as 1hc prevailing drninag~ shall be protected from slope wash by a non-erodible i1licrcep1or swale placed a1
ihc top or I11c slope
Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical r<:pon, 110 cul slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper 1han ihat alloY,ed by the ordinances 1>f
contrnlling go,,ernme11ta/ agencies
Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of con1rol/ing govenirnental agencies, or with the rccommendntion;, of the
Soils Consultant.
S1;mda;o ( i, 11d1ng •me :-.nrUw~or', \p::-::11·icat!1~r>,
Page~ ·~
s.o TRENCH BACl-ff.li:.Lli
5 I
52
5.3
5.4
5.6
Trench c.~c:ivali<,n ~lrnll bt rn,pec1ed prio, l<.l strucIure placemcnI lc)r compe1e11I bottom
Trench cxcava1ions lbr utili1y pipes shall be bi!ckfilled under Ihc supervision of the Soils Consuliant
Aller the utility pipe has been laid, the space under and around the pipe shall be backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at
leas! one fool over the top of the pipe The sand backfill shall be unifonnl)• jetted into place before tl1c controlled backfill is placed over the sand
The on-site materials, or other soils approved by Ihe Soils Consultant, shall be water~d and rni.xed, as necessary, prior to placement in liOs over the
sand bac~fill
Th~ co111rolled back till shall be compacicd le> al l~u>' 90 pcn:~11I of' th~ maxim1,rn labo,-mory dens ii)', as dctennincd by Ihc ASTM 0 155 7 · 70 01 the
controlling governmental agency
Field dcnsily test~ and inspection of th.:, backfill proced,:res shall he made by the Soil$ Cons111ln11I dtiring backfilling 10 see tha1 I,ropcr moisture
con!cnt !H1d uniform cornpacrion is being mainrni11ccl l"ht contractor shall providt' tcsI holes and exploratory pit, as require(! b; th(" Soils
Consultani 10 cnal)le sampling an<l testing
6.0 GRADING CONTROL
6 I
I, 2
63
6.4
Inspection of the l"ill pl~ccment shall be prnvick-d by the Soils Con,11lwn1 during the progress of grading.
In gencml, density tests sh,)11/d h<? mad,' aI 111I~rvals 11,)1 exceeding 1w._, feet of fill h<!ight or every 500 cnbtc yards of fill pl~ced Tiu:; ,~riteria will
va,y dcpcn<iing on soil conditions ~nd !ht; ,iR or cl,-, 10b In W1)' event, a,1 ackqual<. 11111nbcr or lield density 1cs1s shall be rnnck to vcrif} tha1 the
required compaction is being achieved
Density 1cst~ should iilso be made on the native ,urfacc material to receive fill. as required by the Soils Consultant
All clean-out, processed ground to received fill, key cxcavnlions, subdrains, and rock disposals sh0ulcJ be inspected and approved by the
Co11sulta11I prior lo placing any fill II shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Consullanl when such areas will be read.
inspection
7.0 CONs·rnt,(:ll(F, C~Sl!)ERATIO!'{~;
'/ I f:r<t·rn,n •~l)fif!ltl n11.:a-;un.~"-wt1c•1; nt:,:,::--::,at; ;.;h::!ll h,.' pn1v11kd h', !ih· t'on1nJGi<)1 durin~? g.n~ding. a1H.I pnnr u: the <:nrnpk 1i~m a,1d C:1)J1'-;lJ1H,'.tion 01
p1~;·rnancn! d1~ine'lgt· :.::(;nirob
l)poi: ;.:nrnpiGtF1r ur grndin.£• ar:d ;;•rrninafl<>11 r,f tll.~;;-.;,..:l:(111·-b; rh<.: \rn!:":1 Cun:~1iltn1·:i 1:0 tunil:.:1 tilliHg O+ t:xc;n•aiing .. 11:1.:!ud111g tha1 llt:;_:;·;srny !;.1,
!ix;1ir11;·, i(J1Jnd:1!i1m:>. larg,~ i.ri~,~ \.V•:lb, r1.~1a:nin~_ v,n!b rn \'iih::t f't.:<llui":!.~ sh(:il l"h' pcrl~Hllitd wi;hoo: il1c appn>val 1..lf th~: ~;t>ib Co1lstili<!lll
( '\ti\· illn!I lw taken by lili.'. C,1rHr~1c:1,,); <luring 1ina! gradrng l\· pn!,)<.:rv,. an~• :h~rllls:. drnirHt~~:..! 1cn1K,:s i11t~n.·.::ptoi swalt.::i, 01 nrJn::; cle\'ic~> o!
p1..:rnwn1..:n1 nanir ... : cn1 o, adjm.:c:111 to the prup'!:rly
nur:r< P 11(:.:r r1c:: r-.1 ,.J \..>, ... ,,,i /.-{ , .. q r· .. ·A1 1 L-L I .l,
,,,.....__ F INISH GRADE
~-------=--.:._ -------· COM 0 AC-:_1-EO-=-:
SLOPE
FACE
&--_-_-_ -:Jc-_:::_-:_-_-_-_-:cc-_-:_-:_ -_-_-_,-_-,
-----10' M'N -----1
----· I • --------=-F l _ _::_-....:
-----~~::f=--::::-=~-:::-=-...:::::-::=:-:-::f"---==::-::-:::::.::::c::::::--::::=::-~~==j
--· .. ---· -·· ... ----.-;.,--··")------· -· ---,-,y --· --------:.r-~-
GRANU!.J.\R SO H .
To fiT1 void,
df-:ri:.sif if:,j b ~---
f h)~:~ci in~_,
-.... _ ..
PR ("! i:~;1 [:' .LI ;/"' :l..C /\LONG
·~ ...... ··
VVINDROW
=--------------------
NOTE;
--
-~ · q t\ 1\l l~ 1 ·-r ,· n t\ i . 11, .,~1.,. 1 ~--11, LG"f r ··, r -·\ I j I"·' ~-i-j/, ~ . . . .~· ' \ 1.) •... ,,! .. \"•
(·.: ' 1 ·r-F. I 1 , . L ' L ~--· LCI T
----•--~----••'"F---••-•~••-•-•--~-•--•••~• ---••••--~-••-••-•-•-••
CUT LOT
...... ,' , ... -, .......... .
--__,,
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK O R f r-·-· MATER!.-1.:l.l APPROVED BY --------
, THE GEOTECH.NlC/.>,L CONSULTPJ\IT
N,i:-..TLJRAL GRO\
L. -_,_ --·
be;:-pe-ov-re , · ...l . -1 oe _;(cov<u 1011 on,__1 recornoac t ion sho 11 be pedor,ned
,f de1ermined ·o be n,er.::esscry by the geotechnicol consultc1n1..
:r,.: () -i·t: G ~
..... , ~.. ... ...~.-.,,.. ~-·· .
;~• F"iH blrJr-ii<-ei, b.-:1ck cu i-, key '.-vidth ond
key d t:pth are subject to fi1:)ld chon9e,
pei· repo.r t /plans.
,t_, Key he.<::/ subdro in} b!onke·? droin~ or
ver-tfcr.;d drain may be required at tn<!.~
discretion of the g-eotechnk:c! consultant.
,z, SUBDRAIN INST.A.LLA TiOl'-l -Subd,cdn
pipe .shal! be instal!ed with perfornHons
down ot, ot kx::cition.s designated by
the geotechnkol consultant, shall be
nonperfo,cded pip•e,
~ S_S1~9~!\ll.'Jrc.J;tfE .. -Suod,oin type shoH
A;l~~_A_$.tf P,~~~-~PL9 ?3,-6 ~ ASTM V'l.521, i~~-1SL.~~~Q1,~i~ B~'°ldi!Sl~ $1:yrens· Irr"' .,-,o~ of ASTA~ 1JSOS""··· ~;;-,i:, ,;i,:, ,:; "' 11.-e-T·'.l:, L~~ ... 1~lt• ... .:h.:.c~~\.O:Z-~J~:-r~~~---·~. ~':"1.t~. ~~~l_f3~ ":'=-? fl~il ·-01188, Schedul®_ 40 Poiyv}.n~;J · Ch-k>ritle PlastJt; {PVC!~~;~~:; ~p~r<;iye~. eqi.~va~n~ .
. ,. ~·•-.--;---,:---
Al TERNA T E t-.
...............
• 1 ____ .,., r l \ ... t-·p,,._, l . t-·· L.. ! c: r< -,. f I : • "".:...' .. :::· .:
Fl·\--~;r mot-er iol ·shall ue
Class 2 per-rneable rnoter-iaJ
per State of Colifornio
Standard Specifications,
or approved a lternate.
C lass 2 grading as fol lows:
SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSIN
.;c...;...;;;;;...__c..c.-------·
i ,,
, 3//.~H
3/8"
j-,fo .. l;
i',!o. 8
No, 30
No. 50
No. 200
100
90-100
L)0--100
25--L+O
IB-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
OVEfl
f {E.i\rl ()\/t':
tft\J~.:i) ~ ... ( '.\ E51 f
..... ~ ... -·
......
l\10TES:
TG be construct ed prior
to fi !I plocement
L.OWEST BE;NCH; D-cpfri ond v\,•/dth subjec•i lo fr<f"Jid chonge
bo..sed c~1 cons1.,fkint1s inspecti'on .
.Si..JSDR.l:,.l7-.Ll\G[-::.: 8-.::-c+ ,j;--_::.i·,~ rnoy be required cit the:
di~~<"~·;-,et ,,or1 of t~1e r:Jeo tec:hr-JOccd cons\..1i t,ont"'
/-.. ·--.. , ... _ ··--·---·----------· ··---·---·-··-··-----·-·-·. --· ------
/ S U 8 0 R /\. If\/ P €: r1 o r a l f:: d P i p B S v n o u n ci e d VV i t t-,
( ~LTERN(',TE_;."\: F ilt&r M r:.,t eri al
I
/ .-F lt T E Fi ~11-\ 7 E: Fl i A L ... ·-.....
/~ 9 f I . ·J f i . ',,,
__ ;_ ______ J. · --. · ··· CO \i' .... t· , • ....---:-¾-.,
I ---~ d.. . . 1 ,-1. .. , t: d ···-:,,-7 ·····-·""' • , . \ :-~i-.,,,7 ..•.. f .. ,• ' ♦ i7 l ~ "' • _ _,,,; ~}•/J ., • 0 I • • /'. ,'•' I / .. •.·•. -. 6 11 1\1/i\.J_-·,, ... ·· i·· ... _.._.·"' .
/ :~:;~s.-~: •_._·_:. :· '.)~,jt._ ...... i ... _.. I ~ :.-.-:·;,-:·:-:-·.·:,f l -·~--· Cr .:..i··· ·-··-·· ··· ··· ··---·····--···-•--· ··.. · .s ... --····--'---·'i· · ·
l • --~-i~\:f: .... -.................. ELff:!?~2)~1.0:~ ..... 1. -~~.'..~~~~.:::.:.. ~ i , 1, \. , .. ;, ' ..... -· 7·1·~''· ...............
l' fl!l_.ernals A-_1 I:" Ml~I. )Atternale A-2
. , '-PERFCJRATE D P IPE,.,.
"-,.. (H f1 J'•/\j{,j_
r. ~ : ·~ i .:? • ' t➔ r n \.' c~ l '·· 'l t r., r r; s d
, 1·• r n ·1 r· ..-r· .. t ! 1 .
::, ":"·.,, 1! J.
Fll.TEH MAT EflJ.6.1,,,
Filler rnoicr ic l shd! b-e
Cf<JS"i I pt.rrneoblf-.: cncl.f•1· ini
per S1cdc o f Coliforn i<.:
~1Gnd,,,·d Spec i ficc!'t ion.,.
01 opprov~d offc:.'?TH'..!1e ..
Cf,1:<;.s 2 gr<:,ding a~ follows:
~,~.::_v~ S1_2-.E
l"
3 /11"
3/8"
No. 4
t--.lo. 8
No. 30
No .. 50
t-1,:;. 21.i(J
i, .
PFHCEf·.JJ PA
·: •.. :
100
90-100
40-l 00
25-40
18-33
5 -!5
0-7 u .. ·;
... \ • ~, l ( I _; ; \ ;~ ) f'' l.h i i Vi '1 (; t/,' r.~;--(,·:,, si 10,, l (I !·,, er 1,.
v,i1l i c, r,i1nirnu;,, uf I (
long p.edorot-ed pipe
ne-c:1 ed t o a nonperfo.-o·l ec
hc1v ing o m in irnum of 5 f~
length inside t h1::: 1,vrc
g,avel.
r Sl.JBDFV-\JN INSTALLATION -Subd:roin pipe 5hcdl b e in.s1 oH,-:=d •,vi'lh perforoticn..s ~-o·Nn O(, (d_ loca:ti-ons_d~=-~~~~12~-~--~? _ _t_hc 9eotechniccl con.sum.:.in½ sh-oil b •.~ nonp,er foroted p ip.::.,
~ SUi&DRt:~!N ~tr'f PE. -£1,JJXlr•~i:n type smiB be AST~N D27S1, SDR 23.);3 or AS1"M 015;21, S:ehadule 40
,P---lbfYh:w~M~,~ 'BA.,Jt:~if.l~g-,;e S'l:yil'en,31 {AP.$) ·or .ASTM 0~034 S/DiPl 2~?Lt) ,t)i' 1-'\STM tJ'l785, S-cootl'l..ie t\·D
Pt➔iY~lns: Ch1or.5d~l flU:l:ls~:o __ ff>VC} pip,? o:r appi·-oved ·eqaAJ~1.-1l.'aU1'3:.
APPENDIX E
USGS Design Maps Summary Report
Sout11 Shore Testing & E11viro11111e111al W.0. NO. 301 1601.00
Design Maps Swnmary Report http:// ehp I -earthquake .er. usgs.gov/ designmaps/us/ s wnmary. php ?tempi ...
I of2
iElJSGS Design Maps Summary Report
User-Specified Input
Report Title 4382 Adams Street, Carlsbad, CA
Wed September 28, 2016 22:49:46 UTC
Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard
(whleh utilizes USGS hazard data available In 2008)
Site Coordinates 33.1464°N, 117.3282°W
Site Soil Classification Site Class C -"Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock"
Risk Category I/II/III
USGS-Provided Output
S5 = 1.135g
S1 = 0.436 g
SMs = 1.135 g
S M1 = 0.595 g
Sos= 0.757 g
So1 = 0.396 g
For information on how the 55 and 51 values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and
deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and
select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document.
DI -II Ill
M CE.._ Response Spectrum
1.20
l .Oa
o.,,
0.11'
0.72
o.,o
0.49
0.),
0.24
0.12
0.00 +----+--+---+--+--+---+--+----< 0.00 0.20 o.,o o.,o 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.,0 1.90 2.00
Period, T (sec)
DI -II Ill
Design Response Spectrum
o.aa
o.ao
0.72
o.,,
o.s,
0.48
0.40
0.32
0.24
0.1'
o.oa
0.00 +---+--+--+---+--+--+---+--+--+---1
o.oo 0.20 o.,o o.,o 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.,0 u ;o 1.eo 2.00
Pe riod, T (sec)
For PGAM, TL, CRs, and CR1 values, please yjew the detailed report .
9/28/2016 3:50 PM
Design Maps Detailed Report http :// ehp I -earthquake .cr.usgs.gov/des ignmaps/us/report.php':itemplat. ..
I of6
EUSGS Design Maps Deta iled Report
ASCE 7-10 Standard (33.1464 °N, 117.3282°W)
Site Class C -"Very Dense Soil and So~ Rock", Risk Category I/II/III
Section 11.4.1 -Mapped Acceleration Para meters
Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal
spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric
mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain S5) and
1.3 (to obtain S1). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B.
Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3.
From Figure 22-1 c11 Ss = 1.135 g
From Figure 22-2 c21 S1 = 0.436 g
Section 11.4.2 -Site Class
The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/or the
default has classified the site as Site Class C, based on the site soil properties in
accordance with Chapter 20.
Table 20.3-1 Site Classification
Site Class
A. Hard Rock
B. Rock
C. Very dense soil and soft rock
D. Stiff Soil
E. Soft clay soil
F. Soi ls requiring site response
analysis in accordance with Section
21.1
-Nor Nch -Vs Su
> 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A
2,500 to 5,000 ~/s N/A N/A
1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf
600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf
<600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf
Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the
characteristics:
• Plasticity index Pl > 20,
• Moisture content w ;c: 40%, and
• Undrained shear strength Su < 500 psf
See Section 20.3.1
For SI: lft/s = 0.3048 m/s llb/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/m2
9/28/20 16 3:50 PM
Design Maps Detailed Report http://ehp I -earthquake .er. us gs.gov/ des ignmaps/us/report. php?temp lat. ..
2 of6
Section 11.4.3 -Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake
CM~J:8) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters
Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient F,
Site Class Mapped MCE I\ Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period
55 :S0.25 55 = 0.50 55 = 0. 75 S5 = 1.00 55 ~ 1.25
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0,8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1. 2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
D 1.6 1.4 1. 2 1.1 1.0
E 2.5 1. 7 1.2 0.9 0,9
F See Section 11.4. 7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S5
For Site Class = C and S5 = 1.135 g, Fa= 1.000
Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient Fv
Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period
51 $ 0.10 51 = 0.20 S1 = 0.30 S1 = 0.40 S1 ;?; 0.50
A 0.8 0,8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1. 7 1.6 1. 5 1.4 1. 3
D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5
E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4
F See Section 11.4. 7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S1
For Site Class = C and S1 = 0.436 g, Fv = 1.364
9/28/2016 3:50 PM
Design Maps Derailed Report http:// ehp 1-earthquake.cr.usgs .gov/ designmaps/us/report. php?templat. ..
3 of6
Equation (11.4-1): SMs = FaSs = 1.000 X 1.135 = 1.135 g
Equation (11.4-2): SMl = fvSl = 1.364 X 0.436 = 0 .595 g
Section 11.4.4 -Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters
Equation (11.4-3): Sos=½ SMs = ½ X 1.135 = 0 .757 g
Equation (11.4-4): S01 = ½ SMl = ½ X 0.595 = 0.396 g
Section 11.4.5 -Design Response Spectrum
From Figure 22-12 r31 TL = 8 seconds
I'll VI c 0 i .. QI 1i V V <
Q/ .. C 0 0. .. QI C:
ni t 41 Q. VI
Figure 11 .4-1: Design Response Spectrum
S:,."' 0 75 7 · · ··~---~
T,, = 0.105 T,=0.523
T < T0 : s. = Sc, ( 0.4 + 0.6 T / T0 )
T0 STST5 :S,=S05
T5 <Ts\: S, = S01 / T
1.000
Period, T (sec)
9/28/2016 3:50 PM
Des ign Maps Detailed Report http://ehpl-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designrnaps/us/repo11. php?templat ...
4 of6
Section 11.4.6 -Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response
Spectrum
The MCER Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by
1.5.
IV VI c 0 i .. 41 "i V V
er:
OI "' C: 0 Cl. "' 41 a:
ii
t QI
0. VI
s .. , = 1.135 · --.----~
s ... , = 0.595
T:-=0.105 T,= 0.524 1.000
Period, T (sec)
9/28/2016 3:50 PM
Design Maps Detailed Report http://ehp ! -earthquake.er. us gs.gov/ des ignmaps/us/report. php?templat. ..
5 of6
Section 11.8.3 -Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic
Design Categories D through F
From Figure 22-7 [41 PGA = 0.449
Equation (11.8-1): PGAM = FPGAPGA = 1.000 x 0.449 = 0.449 g
Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient FPGA
Site Class Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA
PGA~0.10 PGA = 0.20 PGA = 0.30 PGA = 0.40 PGA ~ 0.50
A 0.8 0,8 0.8 0.8 0 .8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1. 2 1. 2 1.1 1.0 1.0
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
E 2.5 1. 7 1.2 0.9 0.9
F See Section 11. 4. 7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA
For Site Class= C and PGA = 0.449 g, FPcA = 1.000
Section 21.2 .1.1 -Method 1 (from Chapter 2 1 -Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures
for Seismic Design)
From Figure 22-17 l5l CRs = 0.945
From Figure 22-18 C6 l CR! = 0.997
9/28/2016 3:50 PM
Design Maps Detailed Report ht1p :I le hp I -earthquake .cr.usgs.gov/ desi gnmaps/us/reporl. php?temp lat. ..
6 of6
Section 11.6 -Seismic Design Category
Table 11.6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter
RISK CATEGORY
VALUE OF Sos
I or II III IV
S 05 < 0.167g A A A
0 .167g S Sos< 0.33g B B C
0.33g S S0 5 < 0.50g C C D
0.50g S S 05 D D D
For Risk Category= I and S05 = 0.757 g, Seismic Design Category= D
Table 11.6-2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-5 Period Response Acceleration Parameter
RISK CATEGORY
VALUE OF S 01 I or II III IV
S01 < 0.067g A A A
0 .067g S S0 1 < 0.133g B B C
0.133g s 5 01 < 0.209 C C D
0 .20g :s; 5 01 D D D
For Risk Category = I and S01 = 0.396 g, Seismic Design Category= D
Note: When S1 is greater than or equal to 0. 75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for
buildings in Risk Categories I, II, and HI, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespective
of the above.
Seismic Design Category = "the more severe design category in accordance with
Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2" = D
Note: See Section 11.6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category.
References
1. Figure 22-1: http:( /earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-
7 _Figure_22-l. pdf
2. Figure 22-2: http:/ (earthquake. usgs. gov /hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-
7 _Figure_22-2. pdf
3. Figure 22-12: http:/ (earthquake. usgs.gov /hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-
7 _Figure_22-12. pdf
4. Figure 22-7: http:/ /earthquake. usgs. gov /hazards/designm aps/downloads/pdfs/20 lO_ASCE-
7 _Figure_22-7. pdf
5. Figure 22-17: http ://earthquake. usgs. gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE -
7 _Figu re_22-17. pdf
6. Figure 22-18: http ://earthquake. usgs. gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-
7 _Figure_22-18. pdf
9/28/2016 3:50 PM