No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 2017-0018; POLZIN RESIDENCE; UPDATED PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2017-04-2723811 Washington Ave, Suite Cl 10, #112, Murrieta, CA 92562 E-mail: ss.testing@aol.com Phone: (951) 239-3008 FAX: (95 I) 239-3122 April 27, 2017 ,iw.c•!J REC E. \V)- Mr. Joe Polzin P.O. Box 268 Temecula, CA 92593 J\JL 1 0 20\7 crTY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING 0\\/\S\ON SUBJECT: UPDATED PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single-Family Residence 4382 Adams Street City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Work Order No. 3011601.00A Dear Mr. Polzin: Pursuant to your authorization, a preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted on the subject site in accordance with the 2016 California Building Code, Section 1803.5.11. Attached as Plate 1, the Geotechnical Map is a noHo-scale image of the l 0-scale "Conceptual Grading Plan", prepared by Spear & Associates, Inc., indicating the proposed development, the approximate location of the exploration trenches, our geologic cross-section, and pertinent geotechnical information. Scope of Work The scope of work performed for this study included the following: 1. 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. 3011601.00A Mr. Joe Polzin April 27, 2017 Page 2 5. Preparation of rep01t of findings, including conclusions and recommendations for grading and minimum foundation design. Introduction This investigation has been conducted resulting from a 2016 California Building Code Chapter 18 requirement for preliminaiy geotechnical investigations being conducted for all projects 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. It is our understanding that the single-family residence will be a typical 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 no1th central 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 surrounding area are shown on our Site Location Map, Figure 1. 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 northwest toward to Adams Street. Overall relief on the subject site is approximately 34-ft, from above mean sea elevations 92 to 124. 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 subject site. Proposed Development Based on the I 0-scale "Conceptual Grading Plan", we anticipate that proposed development consists of cutting a flat pad into the existing hillside on the north-central portion of the subject site. The majority of the site will be founded in cut with very minor fill. Grading quantities indicated on the "Conceptual Grading Plan" include 2,500 cubic yards of cut and 30 cubic yards of fill. 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. 301160!.00A I FIGURE 1 Mr. Joe Polzin April 27, 2017 Page3 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-backhoe 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 subject site was performed on Saturday, September 24, 2016 and the exploratory trench logs are presented in Appendix B. The approximate location of our exploratory trenches is presented on our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. Observation and sampling of the exploratory trenches was performed by our field personnel, who logged approximately 1-ft of undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils overlying Old paralic sediments (Kennedy & Tan, 2002) to the total depth explored of 7-ft bgs. Laboratory Testing The results of laboratory testing are 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. Additional 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 eaiih 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 and a Geologic Cross-Section with proposed site development is included as Figure 3. A brief description of the geologic units underlying the site that are considered pe1tinent to proposed development follows: Undifferentiated Alluvial/Colluvial Soils (Map Symbol -Oal) Approximately 1-ft of undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils was encountered at the ground surface within exploratory trench T-1. This unit consisted of silty Sand (Unified Soil Classification -SM) that, for the most part, can be described as dark brown, fine to medium grained, dry, loose with minor organics. Old Paralic Nonmarine Sedimentary Units (Map Symbol -Oop) Old paralic sedimentary units (Kennedy & Tan, 2002) underlie the subject site throughout. 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, South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00A ('. -·· .. . , ~ .; .:. '.t: .;1-.,, .... "'"' APPROXIMATE LOCATION , ~ ,, OF GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION \ \ \ ~ -1 SOUTH SHORE TESTING & ENVIRONMENTAL Cl!.OTECHNICAL MAP PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDl!.NCR '311 ADAMS STREET crrv OFCARl.SBAD,SAN DI£GO comrrv, CALIFORNIA WORXORDERJ ~ DA TE~ SOP SWQMP NOTE; ,..... . ., ...... _ .... ,._,, ~~-~ ORAINAOe AREA DMA BRliAKDOWN ...... AG ... .U -..... _.., --"'" "-"'•n ... ,..., ••n ""' "'" ,.,,,.n -.... ..,,.n IOOitlOl/lltlA• "-"'•n = ,_,_...,._,_,..._,..lDII,.,,., ·-"" .... _.,_.,_ --l'W.· I ·-,_ ------....... _ . ..._. • I l L'filli Oop ~ T-2 111 • OI.Ot"/\1V.UC,-:0NMAHINl·.IJ1-"'1'"1'i · APl'KOXIMl\l'El.0C.:Al10N 1.N• hXl'LOKI\IUKY IW:l:J-it:tlb I ~ "·" ·-~· • CAtl..,.CIIICIIIIOIWll' ~ tJI ,_ ,-,oscr • ·-·----·------ l.eOAL DESCRIPTK)N W.l•a0tt11\tt .. .,,....."C'"."""'°"t..•MC1ftfJ ~Clllill1"l'OSM..._Ju.a•~,caa.c-_,.~-Jt)lfut11Mortctt11acCMT'l'.1CC*IIIUI trS-MIQ..,...1.iell.~«IINO•C.~• ICrlCIIIPU, .. nMIIO .......... ._11MIQIUll.r«tcaet0AJH.1Cn'•"O WIVCAW.c» ~-COIDl•iftl,IM1,Sl0t IIO a. .... r»aot GENERAi. NOTES ,.,~---,cllll'OltllfAJDO,," '-l.Oa,ln<l'l,l#/Jll[aMt,IUlh(r OIM-C IOW'Ull•Y'(llllltl,ll'ltJl,al,C'""'-C ,, ,uuso,-s ".-.en IIIUliall. Jrot-1-~-c, JJ10f""1C.A , •• ,sa.,..wt{tll•»-'Cllt oYffiER QC Aft M•C'-'M ......... ~ ... "" ......... "'.,., COd.Ct,a:,a,,. ~·t,)IJ,V.."'l REFERENCE PBAWINGS ,-o,c, • ..,, •fARTl:NK)RK OUANDJJES or--LML~ 11.i·--&.n ....otr:-----1.Ct' OHi/,. --L.fll..ty ......_.--Ltr )' ••.....a•ait•~ -~-Cllauat-_, ..... _ . ......,.,. .. BENCH MAR!( .._..._. ¥11 -KMI # <l"IKS q;; BIi De e9•W t• M IFIIP1:.1U t• A" 1¥ R!!l!I IIMftP lJ HIC rt ts 11, r,;1 MPPIII rr ¥"dl mn n.c.w.111> ,nnaw, o,u,.. M!IM ~MtrU·--·-~GICP.:IIOAI( -··-----~.IQlll .....,..,.,, MIOI/Ot,IS.,a,,1,__t11.MU,..__,.,_,.,., ...-nrw, -ltf' ~., w -_, .111.'JlQIJ' --- w.o. 3011601 .00 FIGURE 2 A l'iD 1'2.0 -f'l..o 100 I I l ---,---' pro~ ~·J-1 '\. Prof)o~cJ. -, -- Hao:s.-p...l '(i<>-ro.~~ ~ q .. 1 _Oo_P_ -__ Prof'ex>e:-D.:,ve=;·j- -JOO ' I\JQ...,,,,s I S-tlh."t '2-S-\-ol'.~ ~ Q o~ 80 jco~----:'Z:r.c:-"""----.:,.,i::-o-----:Gr.:O~----:r.o::----,'.":ooi:------,To:""'-=-:-:-. :-:. _-::7T o ___ __..,To ____ 1"'111!"'"o ____ -z.Loo 110 Sc.~le ,,. = '20~ (H ; V) WO# 3011601.00A JQ!; • .P.Q~IN . . . . 4382 ADAMS STREET CARU:iBAO, CA Qal -Undifferentiated AlluviaVColluvial soils Oop -Old Paralic Nonmarine deposits .. \. FIGURE 3 - Mr. Joe Polzin April 27, 2017 Page4 friable, weakly cemented and medium dense to dense. Detailed descriptions of the onsite units are presented on our exploratory trench logs included in Appendix B. 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 subject site. The subject site is not located within a groundwater 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 lists the known faults that would have the most significant impact on the site: FAULT Rose Canyon (~-9~~--~-Wl Newport-Inglewood (~.J.~k:lll N)V) Elsinore (Julian Segment) ... (5LQ~klll NE) South Shore Testing & Environmental MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKE (MOMENT MAGNITUDE) 7.2 7.1 6.8 SLIP RATE FAULT TYPE . . L? _111m/ye~r B . 1 '.? 111m_/y~ar. B ......... . . 5 111rr1/ year .. A W.O. NO. 3011601.00A Mr. Joe Polzin April 27, 2017 Page 5 2016 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 2016 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 2016 California Building Code, peak ground accelerations modified for site class effects (PGAM) of approximately 0.449g are possible for the design earthquake. 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 3-1 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-mrnngement 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 particularly susceptible when subject to ground accelerations such as those due to earthquake motion. South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00A Mr. Joe Polzin April 27, 2017 Page6 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: Depaiiment 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 ip California: Southern California Earthquake Center University of Southern California (I 997), 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 further 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. Seiches 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 4). Rockfall Potential The subject pad is proposed to be located on sloping ten-ain 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 geotechnical standpoint provided that the recommendations contained herein are implemented during design and construction. South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00A I I I METHOD OF PREPARATION ---~-,...,_ .... ,..._.. • ...._~Cl,IIQ ------~·---,.~ ......... -~ ....... =:--..::-.==.-=-.--c:::-...=-....;::-----------.... -· ..... ..,..,-......, _ .... -~~ .. -------ar------~---· .. ----f/1• ---.... -.---,-.n-----__ ,.,.,._.,... __ ...,__. __ __..,.---·---.. --.. ----.----------~-------------....------s--.. --------------...----...----..--___ .,.._.. ..... ___. __ .,._....,._ -----.--------__ __..,._..,._.,._......,.. __ _ _ ..................... . =5:..-1Z?.::r-:rn-~-............ -~-------.. -___ ........... _.. ......... ------...... --.. --__ ., .. ______ ....,._,....., ___ _ ----... ~-.. ------· ........ --.,.__, _ _,..._ ________ _ ... ---..---...--~---•N_ ............ -....-------·---_,.,._..,_. . ..,__,,.,._ ·-..------..... ··~-____ ...__. ___ ..,. _____ .. _.., __ .., ______ _.,. ..... ..... ,._ .. ,.. ___ .,. ____ ,,__ ....... .,.. ------.--------_......,. .. a..-~ ........ --...... --...-...--"----'IQ .. ~n..-.. .......... ~ ........ ~ .... a.-... ._ .......... -....... ~--~ -...~--IOIA~.aGC._., ..... ~ .. -----..... ----.------... ~--------...... ......0-0 ---~.,, _.._~, -----..... ·--·~ .... &'!Ofl)...,..,._.......,..NIL•fllt.tt• ..,...,.,..,._ca ___ ....,.__._...,. _.,___,.._o., __ ..,,_,.MCI 01111 .. '!111'" 11., ...... Mloll_ ... ______ ....,~ ....,__.,...... ..... . ------------------------ TsUllan"d Inundation Map tor Emwgwncy Planning Ocnml<le Quadnngle/San luis Rey Quadrangl• .. , I I 'I I Smta 01 Cdlotrl"D COUllly ol Sen Oitl)O .. -;r~Y I ~(" I I I , . .:-l ;~, >-.. • \,\~: I \, TSUNAMI INUNDATION MAP FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING State or Ca&fomla -County or San Diego OCEANSIDE QUADRANGLE SAN LUIS REY QUADRANGLE June 1, 2009 ,,. \ \ \ l '\ -,. \ \ I .\ I > " . ' MAP EXPLANATION PURPOSE OF THIS MAP ___ .......,. __ .....,. _____ __..,.. ---------------.....,_.,..... .. __ .. ______ ....,. --------------___ ___._.....,.. ---·-------__....----____ .,. ______ _ ··----.----..... --______ ,. _______ __ __ ,,......., ___ ........ ___ __ -·-...... --..--.----~-----------__ Qllll,Ool.....,..___....,....__~ ...... =-----,..::.---..:c:::::::zc .... 91: ::;::!'!. ____ ,.._-:""'0-- =-.!.~-=~;;;=:";;.,;;.,;;;;.r __ ==---....... c:ao--._... ....... .-o,t .... , MAP BASE ......... ---.."· ..... ---... --,..,_.. ......-............ 1---------________ ____......_..,._ __ ___ ..,_...,_ ____ _ DISCLAIMER .... a.,,q...,..--.-,.......,tClil ..... ..---. ........ ~..-:1.-ftC....._... .... __ ___...... . ._..,.... ......... -------.. ___ ----~---=-.... -... ___ .. _____ .....,_..._ :::.=-.:;:--... ---.-... ----.... - FIGURE 4 Mr. Joe Polzin April 27, 2017 Page 7 1. According to the I 0-scale "Conceptual Grading Plan" map provided by you, we anticipate that the proposed pad will be constructed entirely in cut on the north-central 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 fill. 3. Observation, classification, and testing indicate that the near surface soils are non- expansive with an expansion potential (EI=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 I-ft of loose and porous undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils in the vicinity ofT-1. Site Grading General RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the IO-scale "Conceptual Grading Plans", we anticipate that the majority of the proposed development will be founded entirely in cut with very minor fill. Cut slopes constructed at 2: l (h:v) slope ratios to vertical heights of 7 and 12-ft on the southerly and northerly boundaries of the subject site, respectfully. Cut slopes are anticipated to expose massive, dense sedimentary units. No fill slopes are anticipated on the subjects site. Cut generated from excavation of the pad will likely be utilized as fill on the southerly portion of site with the majority being exported offsite. It is important to note that all imported 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 earthwork construction, City, County and State ordinances and Table 1705.6 of the 2016 California Building Code. South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00A Mr. Joe Polzin April 27, 2017 Page 8 Where structural 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-towfill 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 report 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 fill 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 I 557-12 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. 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 detem1ine final design requirements for foundations, slabs and concrete used. Slope Construction Cut and fill slopes constructed at a 2: 1 (h:v) slope ratio, to a maximum vertical height of approximately 30-ft, will be surficially and grossly stable if constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report and in Appendix D of this report. Based on our review of the 10-scale "Conceptual Grading Plan", cut slopes have been designed at 2: 1 (h:v) slope ratio, to maximum vertical heights of approximately 7 and 12-ft on the southerly and northerly portions of the site, respectively. Cut slopes are anticipated to expose massive sandstone and no adverse conditions are anticipated. No fill slopes are planned. South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO.3011601.00A Mr. Joe Polzin April 27, 2017 Page 9 No adverse conditions are anticipated, but should be re-evaluated during grading operations by the project engineering geologist. 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-te1m 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 of 12 inches and depth of 12 inches and conform to the minimum criteria of the 2016 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 2016 CBC for low expansive soils (EJ=0). The use of isolated column footings is not discouraged, however, where utilized, should have a minimum embedment 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. 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. Imported 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 irregular 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. South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0. NO. 3011601.00A Mr. Joe Polzin April 27, 2017 Page 10 Moisture Barrier When the intrusion of moisture through concrete slabs is objectionable, particularly 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 10 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. Reinforcement 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 A.C.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 2016). 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. Concrete Based on our con-osivity 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), 318, 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 SoilCor 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 corrosion analysis and mitigation. South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00A Mr. Joe Polzin April 27, 2017 Page 11 Lateral Loads The bearing value of the soil may be increased by one third for short 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 concrete footings. 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. If 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 IO to 15 percent for the undifferentiated alluvial/colluvial soils should be anticipated when excavating and compacting the undifferentiated alluvial/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, occurring mostly during site construction. 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 1.5:1 (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. South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00A Mr. Joe Polzin April 27, 2017 Page 12 Utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum d1y density determined in laboratory testing by the ASTM D 1557-12 test method. It is our opinion that utility 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 d1y density. The upper 1-ft of utility trench excavations located within pavement areas should be compacted to a minimum of95 percent of the maximum dry density. Fine Grading and Site Drainage Fine grading of areas outside of the garage/studio should be accomplished such that positive drainage exists away from all footings in accordance with 2016 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 ea1thwork 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. • 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 repo1t, the undersigned must, in writing, certify that the foundations meet the minimum requirements of this report 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 allowed 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. South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO.3011601.00A Mr. Joe Polzin April 27, 2017 Page 13 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 repo1t 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 ofbackcuts for fill slopes or retaining walls. Time periods for unsupported cuts 5 feet or greater ve11ical should be limited to 60 days in the non-rainy season and 30 days in the rainy season. Grading Plan Review Based on our review of the IO-scale "Conceptual Grading Plan", it is our opinion that the plan is 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 confim1 that the plans are in general conformance with recommendations presented in this report. Construction Monitoring Observation and testing by South Shore Testing & Environmental is necessary to verify compliance with recommendations contained in this repoit 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. LIMITATIONS 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. South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00A Mr. Joe Polzin April 27, 2017 Page 14 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 their 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 locations. 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 condition 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 report may be invalidated wholly or paiiially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified. The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for this project should be retained to provide testing obse1vation 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 Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00A Mr. Joe Polzin April 27, 2017 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 of record. 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 indirectly from any aspects of this project. We appreciate the opportunity 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 ~ Mark Slatten, CEG 1605 Certified Engineering Geologist ATIACHMENTS Figure I -Site Location Map (2,000-scale) Figure 2 -Regional Geologic Map Figure 3 -Geologic Cross-Section Figure 4 -Tsunami Inundation Plan Plate I -Geotechnical Map (not-to-scale) Appendix A -References Appendix B -Exploratory Trench Logs Appendix C -Laboratory Test Results Appendix D -Standards of Grading Appendix E -USGS Design Maps Summary Report South Shore Testing & Environmental / ---- William C. Hobbs, RCE 42265 Civil Engineer W.O. NO. 3011601.00A APPENDIX A References South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO.3011601.00A REFERENCES California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2016, "2016 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Pait 2, Volume 2 of 2". California Division of Mines & Geology, 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California", Special Publication 117. California Division of Mines & Geology, 1996, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California", DMG Open File Rep01t 96-08, USGS Open File Report 96-706. California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, June l, 2009, "Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California -County of San Diego, Oceanside Quadrangle, San Luis Rey Quadrangle", Scale: 1 :24,000. Ciremele Surveying Inc., August 9, 2016, "Topographic Survey, Adams Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008", Scale: 1" = IO', Sheet 1 of I, Job No. 16-017. 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 (CD-ROM Version). Izbicki, John A., December 1985, "Evaluation of the Mission, Santee, and Tijuana Hydrologic Subareas for Reclaimed-Water Use, San Diego County, California", U.S. Geologic Survey Water- Resources Investigations Report 85-4032. Jennings, C. W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Emptions, 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 I: I 00,000, California Geologic Survey-Geologic Map #2. Spear & Associates, Inc., 2017, "Conceptual Grading. Plan for Polzin Residence, 4382 Adams Street, Carlsbad, CA 92008", Sheet I of 1, Scale: 1" = 10'. Tan, Siang S. and Giffen, Desmond G., 1995, "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, CA", DMG Open-File Report 95-04, Landslide Hazard Identification Map #35A, Oceanside and San Luis Rey Quadrangles, Scale: 1 :24,000. Weber, H.F., Jr., 1963, "Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, California", California Division of Mines and Geology-County Report 3, Plate 1, Scale: 1 :120,000. South Shore Testing & Environmental W.0. NO. 3011601.00A APPENDIXB Exploratory Trench Logs South Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00A LOGGED BY: JPF METHOD OF EXCAVATION: CASE #580 SUPER M EXTENDA DATE OBSERVED: 9/24/16 BACKHOE EQUIPPED W/ 24" BUCKET ELEVATION: ±.107 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECH PLAN z 0 w >-c;: f 0 ,_ wii' ~ 0 w ., a: 0 [ 0 "'w Q. ~[ oe,, TEST PITNO. 1 a: ., ~ l :)Q. "'>-SOIL TEST :,: u: t-i=f f/) ~~ ~lii ,_ .; " oz DESCRIPTION Q. fl) g Q[I) ., ::;;o a. z w :s z ::, z UJ 0 a, ::, ID 0 -o 0 UNDIFFERENTIATED ALLUVIAL/COLLUVIUM MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM L--1---.._ I--t--I--SIL TY SAND (SM): DARK BROWN. FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED. DRY, LOOSE, MINOR ORGANIC MOISTURE CONTENT, SIEVE ANALYSIS, ~ L-- OLD PARALIC __ D_EPOSITS EXf'ANSION.INDEX, CORROSIVITY SUITE, ....:.. SANDSTONE-MEDIUM BROWN, FINE GRAINED, WELL SORTED, DRY, MEDIUM DENSE, REMOLDED DIRECT SHEAR I-- 5 MASSIVE - I-- TOTAL DEPTH= 7.0' 1-- NO GROUND WATER I-- 10 L-- 1-- L-- I- ,_ 15 1-- I--- ,__ ,__ 20 --- L---~ I-- ,__ I-- 1-- JP I- 1-- I-- L-- ~ L-- ~ I-- ,__ 40 I- JOB NO: 3011601.00 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 WI 24" BUCKET ELEVATION: :t115 LOCATION: SEE GEOTECH PLAN ~ ~ 0 UJ w? ,_;;:: w _, ~~ "'w Q. w "'.., ::;; "' ;::: TEST PIT NO. 2 !:. i:?"-iii =>z w,-SOIL TEST t 1-w u,-r d "' !z ... :S '.Sin DESCRIPTION Q. 0 V, 00 0. z w .., z :> :;; () zw 0 Ill ::, a, -o OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS >- SANDSTONE, MEDIUM BROWN, DRY & LOOSE IN UPPER 1 FT, BECOMING DENSER W/ DEPTH. >- F.INE.GRAINED,.ERIABLE,.MASSIVE ·········-·· ....... ..... -.._ - 5 TOTAL DEPTH.;. 5.0' -NO GROUND WATER >-- >-- >-- 10 1-- - - - - 15 ,__ >-- 1-- ~ '-- 20 I-- - - - >-- d§ 1-- >-- f-- f-- 30 .._ .._ -- I-- ~ >- .._ - ,_.. ~ JOB NO: 3011601.00 LOG OF TRENCH PIT FIGURE: T-2 APPENDIXC Laboratory Test Results South Shore Testing & Environ menial W.O. NO. 3011601.00A LABO RA TORY TESTING A. Classification B. Soils 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 D-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. C. 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 A particle size determination, consisting of mechanical analyses (sieve) was perfo1n1ed 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. E. 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. 3011601.00A TABLEI EXPANSION INDEX TEST 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 MOISTURE TEST LOCATION (pcf) (%) T-1 @0-5 ft 131.0 8.0 TABLEIII CORROSIVITY SUITE TEST LOCATION SATURATED CHLORIDE 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.O. NO. 3011601.00A ¢ ; /. r;j. ,~, EXPANSION INDEX TEST Job No. 3011&01-ao Project s:;~ P0 /7.t1\ Test Method ASTM D 4829 Tested By ,4H Date 11/2.r::,(1& ; Lot# Checked By Depth (ft.) 0-'5' Date Sample/ Lab No. r-1 Tract I INITIAL CONDITIONS I INITIAL MOISTURE, W % ~. fo REMOLDED WET SOIL+ TARE llJ.1 TARE (g) r ( q <t WET SOIL, Wt (g) '-/IL/,<:/- DRY SOIL, Ws (g) 384 REMOLDED WET DENSITY tt I J 15,a t = Wt(.30165) (PCF) REMOLDED DRY DENSITY ~d II r.S-d = Ws(.30165) (PCF) WEIGHT OF WATER Ww 1.~ Ww=1t -lfd (PCF) SOLIDS VOLUME, Vs (ft 3) 10 Vs=td + 168.5 VOIDS VOLUME, Vv (ft3 ) 'SD 0/o Saturation 40-60 Vv = J -Vs Expansion Results DEGREE OF SATURATION s 11 I. J Initial Reading <I S = Ww x 100/62.4 x Vv(%} 1TD J, r1 r). 1 Sample Description: Final Reading ' Height Change l 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: · Curve No.: 2.60 Sample No. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION MEDIUM BROWN SIL TY SAND Date: 9/26/16 --------·······------------------------------- Classifications -uses: SM -~~-AASHTO: --· -· -------Nat:"Mo1st. = ---···-·····-·· ---·-·---------.. ----------·--· ----------Sp.G. = -2~·65-----· Liquid Limit = % >No.4:a: % Maximum dry density= 127.6 pcf Optimum moisture= 7.7% Plasticity Index= % < No.200 = TEST RESULTS Test specification: \ \. "\. ---t---J----,t--1--f--+-tv.-t-"'<+--"\. '\. ... I\. ASTM D 1557-91 Procedure A Modified ,-----.,,,., - •-MO• ·--·---,._ 7 --·--·-·-· 13Ql--+-+-+-l--li--!--+-+-+'~ ... +-',-"'--~, ..... '\. '-' ---'-..'."'-. " !\,. ., ... , '\. "'\. ' ··----. " ~ ' ~ 120 f--f--f--1---if--l--+-+--+-t--t--+--l-'.....+--"<-!--"k--+",. ·-----· ---···-+--+--+--f----1,----+-,-f----~-+-.... 1, " ····-----· -----·· ··-----------·1---1--+-'-P-c-f~ ~' 100% SATURATION CURVES FOR SPEC. GRAV. EQUAL TO: -f------f--1---+----------" --~~~-~ ---' ' l"'-.;;-----.... J_ -....... ---· ----------····---·--------,-.·---+--+---+--P-<--1--"d-8. 110 ' r-.. p,.._ -----·---------+---+--f---+--1--+---t--t---+--+·----t---,'----t~-"'-f¾-+"~~~ ii, .., r--... '- ·@ ,__,____,_____,..___1----1--+---+---l----j----j----j----t----f---t--t--t---cJ----,c--t----t-"-+,·"'-c+I"'-_'""",_ i '-........ ""-, --------N•~••N 2.8 2.7 2.6 >. '"' .... , OL. 1 QQ 1--1--1--t--t--if--l--t-+-t--t--+--+-+-+-+-t--t--f--+--+--f--+---l--'"'k,--P..,;:--l--"...._ '--..... r--... ~ .... , ............ 901--1--1--1--l--f--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+--+--+-+-+--+--+--1---1---1---1---1--1--1--1--1--1-+.::~-........;::-1-..,.t-......._::..-...r--..... ............... _ ...... , :--....,--... 8Ql--lf--l'--l--t-+-+--+-+--l-+--+-+-+-+--l--1--!--t-+-+-+-+--+--+--l--l--l-+--+--l--+---+-+-t-r-ir,--+-;i:,-..i 70t.,._11........J__,l,~-,I----L..-l--l......J.....,.L,-..L-..L-..L-.L-..,.L.,-l-.....!__,l,--l.--l..--l..-L.....L-1........L......L....l.-...L.J--L.....J........1.-.J--'-;~ ......... --L-L....J 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Water content, % Figure C-3 C. 0 m z ~ c.... t.lQ am ~ ""'O O') 0 or :--" N 0 -0 z i--- (i) ::0 J> -z l GRAVEL SAND COARSE MEDIUM _l J flNE J SILT CLAY SIEVE SIZES·-U.S. STANDARD 314'' 1.12" IX' 4 k 20 40 't 2T 100r r 111 111 ,+, , 111r, 1 , '1 1 , 111 i , , , , 11, 1 1 1 , , , 1100 I 9011 ! 111111 ! 11 I I 111111 I I II I I ! 111 I I I I I I 111 I I I l I I bo "-i,. ll. so~ 11111111 I I I I 1111 ll I II I I I 1111111 I I 1111111 1 I ~ ~~ i 1111!1 l!I I ~ 111111~1 111111111111 111111111 I:~ .... " I I I I ~--0 ~~ I\ ~~ 00 00 S!? N ,,, z . \ z Q Q 40 . i'\ I 40 0 -~ -m C: -I -0 z r--"ll c5 C ~ "1 ~I'? ~ I i\ I I 3011 I I J I I II I l I I II I JU I 1 l II I I I I I .l J I I I I I I I I J. I I J30 'fl I II I I II I . I I n 1111 Ii I II I ti II I Ii I I I I " 1 Ii 1 1 ' ' 2011 I 11 I 111 11 I I II l 111 I ! ! ·il ! I ·~ ; ; t I l I I : : : : : . ·: : : : : {20 !OIi 1111111 Ill I Ii 111111111 I I l ~ 111 I I 1111111 I I l,0 I , u 1 1 11 1 1 , u 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lo Qli I ) I 1 1 JI It 1 .001 10.0 1.0 0.1 .01 PARTICLE ·DIAMETER-MILLIMETERS BORING NO. I DEPTH 1 FT. SYMBOL LIQUID LIMITIPLASTIC mOEX CLASSI fjCATION T-1 I 0-5· SM MEDIUM BROWN SIL TY SAND BSoilCor CORROSION 8c THERMAL SCIENCE$ 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 ND *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. • ~~ Ol:CAlff:.r100l U 11! MB IE l't Ahmet K. Kaya, Laboratory Manager www.soifcor.com C-5 mSailCor CORROSION & THERMAL SCIENCES 41765 Hawthorn Street Murrieta, CA 92562 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 DIRECT SHEAR ASTM D3080 Displacement Rate: 0.050 in/m Box Gap; 0.025 in Max Data: 127.6@7.7% Remold Target Data: 90 % = 114.8 pcf 9.7 %Mc(-No.10) 2.65 Gs(assumed} *As Received Mc:~ Adjusted Mc: 9.9 % **After Shear Mc: -% *Existing Gradation for undisturbed specimens, -No.1 0 fraction for remolded specimens D Undisturbed **Test 1 Specimen (Highest Nonna! Stress) • Remolded Test 1 SHEAR RECORD: Prov. Ring Vert. Dial Disolacement fin): O.o10 9 100 0.020 24 100 0.030 53 100 U.040 91 101 0.050 158 104 0.060 210 108 0.070 233 111 0.080 226 111 0.090 185 110 0.100 0.110 0.120 0.130 0.140 0.150 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 Test 1: 233 69.6 2042 Test 2: 124 36.7 1077 Test 3: 73 22.8 669 *Peak Values NORMAL STRESS (psf): Proving Ring SN:6927 Calibrated 30-August-16 Reviewed By Test 1: 2070 Test 2: 1035 Test 3: 517 10/4/zo 10 Date Test2 Test 3 Prov. Ring Vert. Dial Prov. Ring Vert. Dial 7 19 38 78 102 115 124 122 91 2500 ,:::-2000 e "' "' ! 1500 lfJ .. CG ,! 1000 lfJ 500 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 I __, i . -.. . J --+--+--.......... j 0 4---. -'---'-~'---'--+-_,__..__.,__,____,f---'__,__..____._--i 0 1000 2000 3000 Normal Stress (psf) Form No. 130R Rev. 08/16 www.primetesting.com C-6 APPENDIXD Standards of Grading Soutl1 Shore Testing & Environmental W.O. NO. 3011601.00A STANDARD GRADING AND EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS These specifications present South Shore Testing & Environmental, standard recommendations for grading and earthwork. No deviation from these specifications should be permitted unless specifically superseded in the geotechnical report of the project or by written communication signed by the Solis Consultant. Evaluations performed by the Soils Consultant during the course of grading may result in subsequent recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 The Soils Consultant is the Owner's or Developer's representative on the project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the Soils Consultant include observations by the Soils Engineer, Soils Engineer, Engineering Geologist, and others employed by and responsible to the Soils Consult<1nt. 1.2 All clearing, site preparation, or earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted and directed by the Contractor under the allowance or the supervision of the Soils Consultant. 1.3 The Contractor should be responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all grading. During grading, the Contractor shall remain accessible. 1.4 Prior to the commencement of grading, the Soils Consultant shall be employed for the purpose of providing field, laboratory, and office services for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the Soils Consultant provide adequate testing and observations so that he may provide an opinion as to determine that the work was accomplished as specified, It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Soils Consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly, 1.5 It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes, agency ordinances, these specifications, and the approved grading plans. If, In the opinion of the Soils Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as questionable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc, are resulting in a quality of work less then required in these specifications, the Soils Consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. 1.6 It Is the Contractor's responsibility to provides safe access to the Soils Consultant for testing and/or grading observation purposes. This may require the excavation of the test pits and/or the relocation of grading equipment. 1.7 A final report shall be Issued by the Soils Consultant attesting to the Contractor's conformance with these specifications. 2.0 SITE PREPARTION 2.1 All vegetation and deleterious material shall be disposed of off-site. This removal shall be observed by the Soils Consultant and concluded prior to fill placement. 2.2 Soll, Alluvium or bedrock materials determined by the Soils Consultant as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site or used in open areas as determined by the Soils Consultant. Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the Soils Consultant prior to fill placement. 2.3 After the ground surface to receive fill has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced and/or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from ruts, hollows, hummocks, or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction. The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as specified. If the scarified zone is greater than twelve inches In depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts not to exceed six inches or less. Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive fill shall be observed, tested, and approved by the soils consultant. 2.4 Any underground structures or cavities such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines, or others are to be removed or treated In a manner prescribed by the Soils Consultant. Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications Page2 3.0 2.5 In cut-fill transitions lots and where cut lots are partially in soil, colluviurn or unweathered bedrock materials, in order to provide uniform bearing conditions, the bedrock portion of the lot extending a minimum of 5 feet outside of building lines shall be over excavated a minimum of 3 feet and replaced with compacted fill. Greater over excavation could be required as determined by Soils Consultant. Typical details are attached. COMPACTED FILLS 3,1 Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and shall be approved by the Soils Consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics shall be placed in areas designated by Soils Consultant or shall be mixed with other soils to serve as satisfactory fill material, as directed by the Solis Consultant. 3.2 Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided • They are not placed or nested In concentrated pockets • There is sufficient amount of approved soil to surround the rocks • The distribution of rocks is supervised by the Soils Consultant 3.3 Rocks greater than twelve Inches in diameter shall be taken off-site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Consultant, areas designated as suitable for rock disposal (A typical detail for Rock Disposal is attached.) 3.4 Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted fil. 3.5 Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed by the laboratory of the Soils Consultant to determine the physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Soils Consultant before being approved as fill material. 3.6 Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the Soils Consultant. 3.7 If the moisture content or relative compaction varies from that required by the Solis Consultant, the Contractor shall rework the fill until it has been approved by the Soils Consultant. 3.8 Each layer shall be compacted to at feast 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling government agency or ASTM 1557-70, whichever applies. If compaction to a lesser percentage Is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soil conditions the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall either be delineated on the grading plan and/or appropriate reference made to the area ln the geotechnlcal report. 3.9 All fills shall be keyed and benched through all topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, or creep material, into sound bedrock, or firm material where the slope receiving fill exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical or in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Consultant. 3.10 The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum width of 15 feet within bedrock or firm materials, unless otherwise specified in the geotechnlcal report, (see detail attached,) 3.11 Sub drainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency, or with the recommendations of the Soils Consultant. {Typical Canyon Subdraln detalls are attached.) Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications Page3 3.12 The contractor will be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of at least 90 percent out to the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses, and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either over building the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment, or by any other procedure, which produces the required compaction approved by the Soils Consultant. 3.13 All fill slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by other methods specified in the Soils report. 3.14 Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or creep material into rock or firm materials and the transition shall be stripped of all soils prior to placing fill (see attached detail.) 4.0 CUT SLOPES 4.1 The Soils Consultant shall inspect alt cut slopes at vertical intervals exceeding five feet. 4.2 If any conditions not anticipated in the geotechnical report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, Joint or fault planes encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Solis Consultant, and recommendations shall be made to mitigate these problems (Typical details for stabilization of a portion of a cut slope are attached.) 4.3 Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by a non-erodible interceptor swale placed at the top of the slope. 4.4 Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut sloped shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. 4.5 Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Soils Consultant. 5.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS 5.1 Trench excavation shall be inspected prior to structure placement for competent bottom. 5.2 Trench excavations for utility pipes shall be backfilled under the supervision of the Soils Consultant. 5.3 After the utility pipes 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 least one foot over the top of the top of the pipe. The sand backfill shall be uniformly jetted into place before the controlled backfill is placed over the sand. 5.4 The on-site materials, or other soils approved by the Soils Consultant, shall be watered and mixed, as necessary, prior to placement in lifts over the sand backfill. 5.5 The controlled backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density, as determined by the ASTM D1557-70 or the controlling governmental agency. 5.6 Field density tests and Inspection of the backfill procedures shall be made by the Soils Consultant during backfilling to see that proper moisture content and uniform compaction is being maintained. The contract shall provide test holes and exploratory pits as required by the Soils Consultant to enable sampling and testing. Standard Grading and Earthwork Specifications Page4 6.0 GRADING CONTROL 6.1 Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Consultant during the progress of grading. 6.2 In general, density tests should be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the Job. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests shall be made to verify that the required compaction is being achieved. 6.3 Density tests should be made on the native surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils Consultant. 6.4 All clean-out, processed ground to received fill, key excavations, subdrains, and rock disposals should be inspected and approved by the Soils Consultant prior to placing any fill. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Consultant prior to placing any fill. ft shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Consultant when such areas will be ready for Inspection. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Erosion control measures, when necessary, shall be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls. 7.2 Upon completion of grading and termination of inspection by the Soils Consultant, no further filling or excavating, including that necessary for the footings foundations, large tree welts, retaining walls, or other features shall be performed without the approval of the Soils Consultant. 7.3 Care shall be taken by the Contractor during the final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of permanent nature on or adjacent to the property. I I I I I I TYPE A TYPES Selection of alternate subdrain details, location, and extent of subdralns should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading. SOUTH SHORE TESTING CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL Plate 1 I I I I I I I I I ····· 6-inch minimum ----t_ A-1 Filter material: Minimum volume of 9 cubic feet per lineal foot of pipe. FILTER MATERIAL Perforated pipe: 6-inch-diameter ABS or PVC pipe or approved substitute wtth minimum 8 perforations (¼-inch diameter) per lineal foot in bottom half of pipe (ASTM D-2751, SDR-35, or ASTM D-1527, Schd. 40). For continuous run in excess of 500 feet, use 8-inch-diameter pipe (ASTM D-3034, SDR-35, or ASTM D-1785, Schd. 40). Sieve Size 1 inch ¾Inch % inch No.4 No. 8 No.30 No.50 No.200 Percent Passing 100 90-tO0 40-tO0 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 ALTERNATE 1: PERFORATED PIPE AND FILTER MATERIAL Filter fabric - \ --6-lnch minimum \ "I I I / '----6-lnch _l-----.(_ minimum A-2 6-!nch minimum J-... Gravel Material: 9 cubic feet per lineal foot. Perforated Pipe: See Alternate 1 Gravel= Clean ¾-inch rock or approved substitute. Filter Fabric: Mire.ti 140 or approved substitute. I i---6-inch minimum I ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED PIPE, GRAVEL, AND FILTER FABRIC SOUTH SHORE TESTING CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS Plate 2 Original ground surface to be restored with compacted fill ± I_______ I _______ 1__ ---20 -1 Toe of slope as shown on grading plan / N>o~ / c?a / Original ground surf ace .f, q_< / D • Anticipated removal of lA'l!lliteble material $'/ / (depth per geotechnical ergheer) '\~ ~·/ l ~ //\ . \: ~~~~n'":\:------l---------- Back-cut varies. For deep removals, backcut should be made no steeper than 1=1 (H:V), or flatter as necessary for safety considerations. ~0~\\) Provide a 1:1 (HV) minimum projection from toe of slope as shown on grading plan to the recommended removal depth. Slope height, site conditions. and/ or local conditions could dictate flatter projections. SOUTH SHORE TESTING FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIATED CANYON DETAIL PLATE 3 Proposed grade \ _i ------- Proposed additional compacted fill .c..--To be removed before placing -- additional compacted fill Previously placed, temporary compacted fill for drainage only --- SOUTH SHORE TESTING-:, REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL DETAIL Plate 4 Drainage per design civil engineer Design finish slope -- 2-Percent Gradient 15-foot minimum - Blanket fill (if recommended by the geotechnical consultant) l 15 foot j 1--mirimum --! I '---4-inch-diameter non-perforated Typical benching (4-foot minimum) ----or H/2 where His the __ _. approved native material outlet pipe and backdrain (see detail Plate E-6). Outlets to be spaced at 100-foot maximum intervals and shall extend 2 feet beyond the face of slope at time of rough grading completion. At the completion of rough grading. SOUTH SHORE TESTING elope height Subdrain as recommended by geotechnicaf consultant the design civil engineer should provide recommendations to convey any outlet's discharge to a suitable conveyance, utmzing a non-erosive device. .TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL Plate 5 I I I I I I I I Filter Material: Minimum of 5 cubic feet per lineal foot of pipe or 4 cubic feet per lineal feet of pipe when placed in square cut trench. Alternative in Ueu of Filter Material, Gravel may be encased in approved filter fabric. Filter fabric shall be Mirafi 140 or equivalent. Filter fabric shall be lapped a minimum of 12 inches In all joints. Minimum 4-lnch-Diameter Pipe: ABS-ASTM D-2751, SOR 35; or ASTM D-1527 Schedule 40, PVC-ASTM D-3034, SDR 35; or ASTM D-1785 Schedule 40 with a crushing strength of 1,000 pounds minimum, and a minimum of 8 uniformly-spaced perforations per foot of pipe. Must be installed with perforations down at bottom of pipe. Provide cap at upstream end of pipe. Slope at 2 percent to outlet pipe. Outlet pipe to be connected to subdrain p ipe with tee or elbow. Notes: 1. Trench for outlet pipes to be backfilled and compacted with onsite soil. 2. Backdrains and lateral drains shall be located at elevation of every bench drain. First drain located at elevation just above lower lot grade. Additional drains may be required at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Filter Material shall be of the following specification or an approved equivalent. Gravel shall be of the followlng specification or an approved equivalent. Sieve Size Percent Passing Sieve Size Percent Passing 1 inch ¾ inch ¾ inch No. 4 No. 8 No,30 No. 50 No. 200 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 1½ Inch No.4 No. 200 100 50 8 SOUTH SHORE TYPICAL BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL TESTING Plate 6 --- Toe of slope as shown on grading plan 7 Natural slope to be restored with compacted fill l Backcut varies NOTES: - Proposed grade ,,,,.--\ / / -----r I Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant / Compacted fill 1. Where the natural slope approaches or exceeds the design slope ratio, special recommendations would be provided by the geotechnical consultant. 2 The need for and disposition of drains should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant, based upon exposed conditions. SOUTH SHORE TESTING FILL OVER NATURAL (SIDEHILL FILL) DETAIL Plate 7 - H •heigitofslope Cut/fm contact as shown on grading plan ~ Original (existing) grade Meintein I · imun 'IS-foot 1 I r section trom • I backcutloface , I or nh e1ope y / 4-foo1 mnimum Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTE: The cut portion of the slope should be excavated and evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to construction of the fill portion. SOUTH SHORE TESTING FILL OVER CUT DETAIL Plaie 8 Natural slope r.· ..• ·. • • 1. '\ -• • ••• :._ • • • • '1.,, • : ·; .. • ••• : : ~-•• • ~ ' Proposed finish grade -... -.. · .. , .... -Remove:uneutable · .. :·.: .. ' .. :,·· -_-:_~-·:>·.:··: __ :-<:_=_:~--~--~-=-:~-:.:~ ~:·.·;,.(_-::.\,::-~:\~a~:.-<~-:.~_-::_:_ • .. '• • .:•. ,: : .. :· · · •: .· · · ·1 , ··.,1s-root · ·' ·' .r .. -· ... · ,. ~ Typical benching (4-foot minimum) Compacted stablization fill ':._._:.-.,,.·_-._-··:._·--.-: ·. ·.~-'-· ~ / ,:-...,..,..._.,,..,.,....,~'[Hootminimum1i1t back .....__ Bedrock or other ·. -~ · .' \ .,-· ... _: -~.; ::;;.;-. /' ~.;,. ,, ''\: 1/.\' d t· t . I :_ .. ~--"· -----/G--=-~ ____ -,,,?-(_ _ _ _ _ approve na 1ve ma ena ./ ~¼'((\~~----t- ./ >-' . ~ ./ .):! ---If recommended by the geotechnical ~~ consultant. the remaining cut portion of -~ 2 Percent Q-adient ___ -~Y the slope may require removal and xf(~ ½\\ ~~~ ½~ ~ replacement with compacted fill \ 1/.~ 1/,. y).: A \'<:;...(,~y""_,\ I w ... I Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTES: 1. Subdrains may be required as specified by the geotechnical consultant. 2 W shall be equipment width (15 feet) for slope heights less than 25 feet. For slopes greater than 25 feet, W shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant At no time, shall W be less than H/2, where H is ihe height of ihe slope. SOUTH SHORE STABLIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL EXPOSED IN CUT SLOPE DETAIL Plate 9 TESTING - Proposed finish grade --Natural grade Typical benching (4-foot minimum) Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical consultant NOTES= 1. 15-foot minimum to be maintained from proposed finish slope face to back cut. - . ' . . ..;,-:--·3-foot rrinimum approved native material 2. The need and disposition of drains will be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions. 3. Pad overexcavaiion and recompaction should be performed if evaluated to be necessary by the geotechnical consultant. SOUTH SHORE TESTING SKIN FILL OF NATURAL GROUND DETAIL Plate 1 Q - Reconstruct compacted fill slope at 2:1 or flatter (may increase or decrease pad area) Overexcavate and recompact replacement fill Avoid and/or clean up Natur al grade Subdrain as recommended by geotechnical. consultant NOTES: Subdrain and key width requiremen1s wiO be evaluated based on exposed subsurface conditions and thickness of overburden. 2. Pad overexcavation and recompaction should be performed if evaluated necessary by the geotechnical consultant. SOUTH SHORE TESTING DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL Plate 11 Natural grade ·--··· Proposed pad grade------------------- __ J_ CUT LOT OR MATERIAL-TYPE TRANSmON l_ Typical benching (4-foot minimum) --------_ Natural grade ---- Bedrock or approved native material I -'- • Deeper overexcavatlon may be recommended by the geotechnlcal consultant In steep cut-fill transition areas, such that the underlying topography is no steeper than 3:1 (H:V} CUT-FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) SOUTH SHORE TESTING TRANSITION LOT DETAILS Plate 12 I I I I I (E) Hold-down depth minimum NOTES: VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE / c::::,c:o OJ I (A) I I OJ---15-foot--.cco J_ o:J r~-1s-1ooJ ~ '-...} minimum (D) c::::,c:o OJ C) VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE Proposed finish grade -·-~ ,--(8) -1------- ,--100-1001-1 I cco-~_f _ ccr:x:xx~ 0 3-fool minimum co::)(F) ·--· Bedrock or approved native material A. One equipment width or a minimum of 15 feet between rows (or windrows). B. Height and width may vary depending on rock size and type of equipment. Length of windrow she.II be no greater than 100 feel C. If approved by the geotechnical consultant, windrows may be placed dlreclty on competent material or bedrock, provided adequate space is available for compaction. D. Orientation of windrows may vary but should be as recommended by the geotechnfcal engineer and/ or engineering geologist. Staggering of windrows is not necessary unless recommended. E. Clear area for utility trenches, f oundatlons, and swimming pools; Hold-down depth as specified in text of report, subject to governing agency approval. F. All fill over and around rock windrow shall be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction or as recommended. G. After 1III between windrows Is placed and compacted, with the lift of fill covering windrow, windrow should be proof rolled with a D-9 dozer or equivalent. VIEWS ARE DIAGAAMMA TIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT AECOMMENDA TIONS OR CODE ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOOS SHOULD BE COMPLElEL Y FILLED SOUTH SHORE TESTING OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate 13 I I I ROCK DISPOSAL PITS Fill lifts compacted ove1/-··· rock after embedment r------- 1 / ..... -.. -.. Granular material L _ _ _ __:.-.;.:::::::.:.:,:-: Large Rock I ... I I I Compacted Fill I ------7 '-Size of excavation to l be commensurate I with rock size I ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS Granular soil to fill voids, densified by flooding (fj __ -{ _:::i~':'.'.''.:_1~ _ Layer one rock high ___ ::rx_ J[J'()\\?" _/_ £.. Proposed finish gr~ ~ __:::___.-. --=~ • Hold-down depth ......._.,_~-'--J PROFILE ALONG LA YER "' .....___ ( • Hold-d°"" dep~ "' FihSlope L .. L •• Cleu zone TOP VIEW • Hold-clown depth or below lowest utility as specified In text of report, subject to governing agency approve.I. •• Clear zone for utility trenches, foundations, Bnd swimrnlllg pools, as specified In texl of report. VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY AND MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS OR CODE ROCK SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN SOUTH SHORE TESTING ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL Plate 14 I I I I I I I South Shore Testing & Environmental APPENDIX E USGS Design Maps Summary Report W.O. NO. 3011601.00A Des ign Maps StlJTlJTlilry Report http:1/ehp I -earthquake cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/sumrnary.php?temp of2 =USGS 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 (which utilzes USGS hazard data available h 2008) Site Coordinates 33.1464°N, 117.3282°W Site Soil Classificati(ln Site Class C -.. Very Dense Soil and Soft Ro~ Risk Category I/II/III USGS-Provided Output S5 = 1.135g S1 = 0.436 g SMS = 1.135g SHJ = 0.595 g S05 = 0.757g S01 = 0.396 g For infonnation on how the SS and S1 values above have been calrulated 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. 'ii -~ MCEll Response Spectrum 1.20 1.09 O." 0.8-l 0.72 o.,o 0."8 031i 0.2-' 0.12 0.00 ----+---+----11---+---+---if---+---+---f 0.00 0.20 o.,o O 9) 0.80 1 00 l 20 1.,0 1 ,o 1 80 2.00 Period. T (sec) -ell -~ o.aa Design Response Spectrum 0.80 0.72 o.n 0.5, 0.49 0.-C0 0.32 0.2, 0.1, O.~ 0.00 ~---+---t---t--+--+----11---+---+----I o.oo 0.20 o . .o o.,o o.ao 1 .00 1.20 1.-co 1.,0 1.80 2.00 P-lod, T (sec) For PGAi,., TL, Cits, and Cit1 values, please View the detailed report. 9/28/2016 3:50 Pl Design Maps Detailed Report http://ehpl-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?templa1 ,f6 EUSGS Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 7~10 Standard (33.1464°N, 117.3282°W) Site Class C -"Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock", Risk Category I/II/III Section 11.4.1 -Mapped Acceleration Parameters 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 Ss) and 1.3 (to obtain 51). 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 S5 = 1.135 g From Figure 22-2 r21 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 Vs !-_· _H~~~-~'::~~-_____________ -··----~---..... ------------------~-~~~~~~!~------······--------N/ A _________________ N/ A _________ _ -~:--~~~~------··--·----___ -····-· ___ _ ~!~9-~~~--?~~oo ~!_~---------··-· ____ ~!A__ _ _______________ _!}_(.":_ ___ -----·· __ C. Very dense soil and soft rock D. Stiff Soll E. Soft clay soil F. Solis requiring site response analysis in accordance with Section 21.1 >50 >2,000 psf 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s 600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf • -• •--••-• -·····-,-,v,·-·-·-·--' •-··-·••.o••-···••·•-------------·---·· ., ···-··--~----------------------------·· <600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics: • Plasticity index PI> 20, • Moisture content w ~ 40%, and • Undrained shear strength Su < 500 psf See Section 20.3.1 For SI: lft/s = 0.3048 m/S llb/ft:2 = 0.0479 kN/m2 9/28/2016 3:50 Pl Design Maps Detailed Report http://ehpl-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report.php?templa . 2of6 Section 11.4.3 -Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (t:1~£11.) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Site Class A B C D E F Site Class A B C D E F Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient Fa Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period Ss :S 0.25 Ss = 0.50 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.00 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 See Section 11.4. 7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of 55 For Site Class= C and 5s = 1.135 g, Fa= 1.000 Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient Fv Ss ~ 1.25 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period S1 :S 0.10 S1 = 0.20 S1 == 0.30 S1 = 0.40 51 ~ 0.50 0.8 0.8 0,8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.6 1.5 I 1.4 1.3 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4 See Section 11.4. 7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of 51 For Site Class= C and 51 = 0.436 g, Fv = 1,364 9/28/2016 3:50 P? Design Maps Detailed Report http: I I ehp I -earthquake.er. usgs.gov/designmaps/us/report. php?templa 3 of6 Equation (11.4-1): SMs = FaSs = 1.000 X 1.135 = 1.135 9 Equation (11.4-2): ---····-··-··--·--·---------------··-------------··-·-------·--·---·- Section 11.4.4 -Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation {11.4-3): Sos=½ SMs = ½x 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 c3J TL = 8 seconds -----·-~--------···-~----·-·-·--------··--------·---------·-·--·---··--··------------·----·-·-·------ Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum S;r, = 0.757 ------- S::,1 = 0.396 To= 0.105 T5 = 0.523 T<T0 :s. =S00 (0.4 + 0.6T /T0 ) T ~ :s: r :s r 11 : s. = S05 T& <TS TL: s. = so,IT r >TL: s. = s01TL 112 1.000 Period, T (s-ec) 9/28/2016 3:50 Pr Design Maps Detailed Report http:// ehp I -earthquake .er. usgs .gov/ designmaps/us/report. php?templa 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. S.,5 = 1.13S -,-.-----. Sv1= 0.595 ~~----·-~---~---------- ' I T.,= 0.105 Tr.=-0.524 1.000 Period, T (sec) 9/28/2016 3:50 p~ Design Maps Detailed Report http://ehp1-earthquake.cr.usgs.gov/ designmaps/us/report.php?templa )f6 Section 11.8.3 -Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F From Figure 22-7 t4 1 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 s 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, FPGA = 1,000 Section 21.2.1.1 -Method 1 (from Chapter 21 -Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) From Figure 22-17 tsJ CRS = 0.945 ..... -·--··· -· ____ ,, ________________ ,, _________________ , ____________________ ----------------------- From Figure 22-18 £61 CRl = 0.997 ----·----·---------- 9/28/2016 3:50 Pl Design Maps Detailed Report http://ehpI-earthquake.er.us gs .gov/ designmaps/us/report.php?templa f6 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 Sos< 0.167g A A A 0,167g :S Sos< 0,33g B B C 0,33g :S S05 < 0,50g C C D 0.50g :S S05 D D D For Risk Category= I and 50s = 0.757 g, Seismic Design Category= D Table 11.6·2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-S Period Response Acceleration Parameter RISK CATEGORY VALUE OF S01 I or II III IV So1 < 0.067g A A A 0,067g :S S01 < 0.133g B B C 0.133g :S S01 < 0.20g C C D 0.20g S So1 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 bulldings in Risk Categories r, rr, and III, 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_22-1.pdf 2. Figure 22-2: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_A5CE- 7 _Figure_22-2.pdf 3. Figure 22-12: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE- 7 _Flgure_22-12. pdf 4. Figure 22-7: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_A5CE- 7 _Figure_22-7. pdf 5. Figure 22-17: http ://earthquake. usgs.gov/haza rds/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE- 7 _Figure_22-17. pdf 6. Figure 22-18: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/20iO_ASCE- 7 _Figure_22-18. pdf 9/28/2016 3:50 p~