The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 2017-0038; SHERIDAN PLACE ADU; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2017-03-27Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Prepared For: Prophet Solutions, Inc. Mr. Rod Boone 5845 Avenida Encinas, Suite 138 Carlsbad, California 92008 Prepared By: r· l ' §M§ GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 5931 Sea Lion Place, Suite 109 Carlsbad, California 92010 Project No. GI-17-02-107 APR ] ) "l'ii "I ( ',I .) Project No. GI-17-02-107 March 27, 2017 Prophet Solutions, Inc. Mr. Rod Boone 5845 Avenida Encinas, Suite 138 Carlsbad, California 92008 SNS GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists 5931 Sea Lion Place, Suite 109 Carlsbad, California 920 I 0 760-602-7815 smsgeosol.inc@gmail.com GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, SHERIDAN PLACE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) Pursuant to your request, 6116 Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. has completed the attached Geotechnical Investigation Report for the proposed single-family residential development at the above-referenced property. The following report summarizes the results of our subsurface exploratory test borings, field in-situ testing and sampling, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and provides conclusions and recommendations for the proposed new development, as understood. From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the planned single-family residential development at the project property is feasible, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The conclusions and recommendations provided in this study are consistent with the site indicated geotechnical conditions and are intended to aid in preparation of final plans and allow more accurate estimates of construction costs. If you have any questions or need clarification, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Project No. GI-17-02-107 will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. 6#6 Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................... 1 III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ........................................... 1 IV. FIELD INVESTIGATION ............................................... 2 V. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ........................................ 2 A. Earth Materials ..................................................... 2 B. Groundwater and Surface Drainage .................................... 3 C. Faults / Seismicity ................................................... 3 D. Seismic Ground Motion Values ........................................ 5 E. Geologic Hazards and Slope Stability ................................... 5 F. Field and Laboratory Tests and Test Results ............................. 6 VI. SITE CORROSION ASSESSMENT ....................................... 9 VII. STORMWATER BMPs .....................................•.......... 10 VIII. CONCLUSIONS ..........................................•........... 11 IX. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 13 A. Grading and Earthworks ............................................ 13 B. Footings and Slab-on-Grade Foundations ...................•........... 17 C. Soil Design Parameters ............................................... 18 D. Exterior Concrete Slabs and Flatworks ................................. 19 E. Proposed Spa ........................................•............. 20 F. Pavement Design ................................................... 21 G. General Recommendations ........................................... 23 X. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD (GER) ............••......... 25 XI. LIMITATIONS ....................................................... 26 FIGURES Regional Index Map .................................................•••....... 1 Approximate Geotechnical Map ............................................•.... 2 Boring Logs . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 Fault-Epicenter Map .........................................................• 6 Sieve Analysis ................................................................ 7 Typical Isolation Joints and Re-Entrant Corner Reinforcement .........•••.•......•• 8 Typical Permeable Paver Detail ......•.................•........................ 9 Typical Retaining Wall Back Drainage Detail .................................•.. 10 APPENDIX GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE SHERIDAN PLACE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) I. INTRODUCTION The project property investigated herein consists of a relatively level, nearly rectangular-shaped vacant parcel, located within a developed residential cul-de-sac, south of Tamarack Avenue west of Interstate 5 Freeway and within the limits of the City of Carlsbad. The approximate property location is shown on a Regional Index Map attached to this report as Figure 1. The approximate site coordinates are 33.1499°N latitude and -117.3394°W longitude. We understand that the project property is planned to support a single-family residence, and a detached accessory dwelling unit with the associated structures and improvements. Consequently, the purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the soil and geotechnical conditions at the project property and to ascertain their influence upon the planned new development. Exploratory test borings, soil/rock sampling, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis were among the activities conducted in conjunction with this effort, which resulted in the remedial grading and foundation recommendations presented herein. II. SITE DESCRIPTION An Architectural Site Plan prepared by Andrew Carlos Architect, dated March 10, 2016, that depicts the planned development is reproduced and attached herein as an Approximate Geotechnical Map, Figure 2. In general, the study property and surrounding areas are characterized by relatively level surfaces near the adjacent Sheridan Place street grades, which bounds the property along the eastern margin. Developed residential lots neighbor the property on the north, south and west sides. The property is covered with a thick growth of native grasses. Existing surface drainage at the site is not well defined, however, neither ponded water nor excessively moist to wet ground surface conditions were noted at the time of our field investigations. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Proposed development is shown on the enclosed Approximate Geotechnical Map, Figure 2. As shown, a 2-story main residence is planned on the eastern portions of the lot, while a detached accessory dwelling unit will occupy the property on the northwest comer. Associated improvements included an access driveway off of Sheridan Place, a spa on the southwest comer of the lot and underground utilities. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page2 Significant ground modifications or the creations of large new graded embankments are not anticipated in connection with the planned site redevelopment. However, minor or fine grading efforts are expected to establish level pad grades and achieve final design surfaces. The majority of site earthwork operations related to building pad development are expected to consist of remedial grading and foundation soil preparation. Detailed foundation and construction plans are not yet available. However, conventional wood- frame with exterior stucco building type construction supported on shallow stiff concrete footings and slab-on-grade floor foundations are anticipated. IV. FIELD INVESTIGATION Subsurface conditions at the project site were chiefly evaluated by reviewing pertinent geologic maps and literature and by the excavation of three exploratory test borings drilled with a mini track- mounted hollow stem auger rotary drill rig. Borings were logged by our project geologist, who also supervised in-situ testing and the collection of representative soil samples at selected intervals for subsequent laboratory testing. Boring locations are shown on the enclosed Figure 2. The logs of the exploratory borings are attached to this report, as Figures 3, 4 and 5. Laboratory test results and engineering properties of selected representative soil samples are summarized in following sections. V. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The project site is underlain at shallow depths by natural Terrace Deposits that are widely exposed along coastal areas of Carlsbad. Site surfaces mostly appear to consist of natural to disturbed terrain. Instability which could preclude the planned development is not in evidence. The following earth materials were recognized: A. Earth Materials Terrace Deposits (Qt): Pleistocene age Terrace Deposits, typical of local coastal areas, underlay the property at a relatively shallow depth. As exposed in our exploratory borings, the Terrace Deposits typically consist of tan to red brown colored silty fine to coarse grained sandstone units that were generally found in weathered conditions near the upper exposures becoming dense to very dense with depth. Underlying Terrace Deposits also included occasional pebbles. The underlying dense to very dense Terrace Deposits below the upper weathered zone will adequately support new fills, structures, and improvements. Topsoil (Qs): A relatively shallow section of undifferentiated topsoil/disturbed natural ground mantles site Terrace Deposits. Based on our subsurface explorations, site topsoil/disturbed natural-ground mantle is typically on the order of 2½ feet thick, at the exposed locations, and chiefly consists of dark brown silty fine to medium sand that occurs in a moist to very moist and loose to very loose condition overall. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page3 Site existing surficial topsoil/disturbed natural ground deposits and upper weathered exposures of the underlying Terrace Deposits are not suitable for structural support in their present condition, and should be regraded as outlined in following sections. Detailed logs of the exploratory borings are provided in the attached to Boring Logs, Figures 3 through 5. B. Groundwater and Surface Draina2e Subsurface water was not encountered in our test borings to the depths explored at the time of our field explorations, and is not expected to impact the proposed new development. However, like all developed properties, proper control of surface drainage is an important factor in the continued stability of the future development and performance of planned new buildings and associated site improvements. Ponding of surface run-off near foundations should not be allowed and over-watering of site vegetation should be avoided. Perimeter surfaces should direct run-off away from the building foundations and site improvements. Surface run-off should be properly captured and discharged into approved storm drainage facilities as shown on the project approved plans. C. Faults / Seismicity Faults and other significant shear zones are not indicated on or near the proximity of the project site. As with most areas in California, the San Diego region lies within a seismically active zone; however, coastal areas of the county are characterized by low levels of seismic activity relative to inland areas to the east. During a 40-year period (1934-1974), 37 earthquakes were recorded in San Diego coastal areas by the California Institute of Technology. None of the recorded events exceeded a Richter magnitude of 3. 7, nor did any of the earthquakes generate more than modest ground shaking or significant damages. Most of the recorded events occurred along various offshore faults which characteristically generate modest earthquakes. Historically, the most significant earthquake events that affect local areas originate along well known, distant fault zones to the east and from the Coronado Bank Fault to the west. Based upon available seismic data compiled from California Earthquake Catalogs, the most significant historical event in the area of the study site occurred in 1800 at an estimated distance of 10.6 miles from the project area. This event, which is thought to have occurred along an offshore fault, was an estimated magnitude 6.5 earthquake with an estimated bedrock acceleration value of 0.15 lg at the project site. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page4 The following list represents the most significant faults that routinely impact the region. The estimated ground acceleration (RHGA) compiled from the Digitized California Faults (Computer Program EQFAULT VERSION 3.00 updated) typically associated with respective faults are also tabulated. TABLE 1 MAXIMUM FAULT ZONE DISTANCE FROM SITE PROBABLE ACCELERATION lRRGA) Rose Canyon Fault 4.6 miles 0.256g Newport-Inglewood Fault 5.2 miles 0.240g Coronado Bank Fault 20.8 miles 0.187g Elsinore-Julian Fault 24.5 miles 0.140g The location of significant faults and earthquake events relative to the study site are depicted on a Fault -Epicenter Map attached to this report as Figure 6. More recently, the number of seismic events in the region appears to have increased in frequency. Nearly 40 earthquakes of magnitude 3.5 or higher have been recorded in coastal regions between January 1984 and August 1986. Most of the earthquakes are thought to have been generated along offshore faults. For the most part, the recorded events remain moderate shocks, which typically resulted in low levels of ground shaking to local areas. A notable exception to this pattern was recorded on July 13, 1986 when an earthquake of magnitude 5.3 shook the County coastal areas with moderate to locally heavy ground shaking which resulted in $700,000 in damages, one fatality, and 30 peopled injured. The quake ruptured along an offshore fault located approximately 30 miles southwest of the City of Oceanside. A series of notable events shook the County areas with a maximum magnitude 7.4 shock in the early morning of June 28, 1992. These quakes originated along related fault segments of the San Andreas Fault approximately 90 miles to the north. Local high levels of ground shaking over an extended period of time occurred; however, significant damages to local structures were not reported. The increase in earthquake frequency in the region remains a subject of speculation among geologists; however, based upon empirical information and the recorded seismic history of County areas, the 1986 and 1992 events are thought to represent the highest levels of ground shaking which can be expected at the study site as a result of seismic activity. I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page5 In recent years, the Rose Canyon Fault has received added attention from geologists. The fault is a significant structural feature in metropolitan San Diego which includes a series of parallel breaks trending southward from La Jolla Cove through San Diego Bay toward the Mexican border. Test trenches along the fault in Rose Canyon indicated that at that location the fault was last active 6,000 to 9,000 years ago. More recent work suggests that segments of the fault are younger having been last active I 000 -2000 years ago. Consequently, the fault has been classified as active and included within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone established by the State of California. Furthermore, a more recent study concluded that the coastal region of San Diego may experience earthquakes up to magnitudes 7.3 and 7.4 (Sahakian et al, 2017). This study used Newport-Ingelwood/Rose Canyon fault offshore. Although, an earthquake of this magnitude has likely not occurred in the I 00,000 years, according to the data. Fault zones tabulated in the preceding table are considered the most likely to impact the region around the study site during the lifetime of the project. The faults are periodically active, and capable of generating moderate to locally high levels of ground shaking at the site. Ground separation caused by seismic activity is not expected at the property. D. Seismic Ground Motion Values Seismic ground motion values were evaluated as part of this investigation in accordance with Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) and ASCE 7-10 Standard using the web-based United States Geological Survey (USGS) ground motion calculator. Generated results including the Mapped (Ss, S1), Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) adjusted for Site Class effects (SMs, SM1) and Design (S0s, S01) Spectral Acceleration Parameters as well as Site Coefficients (Fa, Fv) for short periods (0.20 second) and I-second period, Site Class, Design and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum, Mapped Maximum Considered Geometric Mean (MCEo) Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects (PGAM) and Seismic Design Category based on Risk Category and the severity of the design earthquake ground motion at the site are summarized in the enclosed Appendix. E. Geologic Hazards and Slope Stability Geologic hazards are not presently indicated at the project site. Significant slopes are not present at or within close proximity to the project property, nor are there any planned in conjunction with the proposed development. The most significant geologic hazards at the property will be those associated with ground shaking in the event of a major seismic event. Liquefaction or related ground rupture failures are not anticipated. I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 6 I F. Field and Laboratory Tests and Test Results Earth deposits encountered in our exploratory test excavation were closely examined and sampled for laboratory testing. Based upon our test pit and field exposures site soils have been grouped into the following soil type: TABLE2 Soll Tl.2! I Description I 1 Dark brown fine to medium sand (Topsoil) 2 Tan to red-brown fine to coarse cohesionless sand to siltv sand (Terrace Deposits) The following tests were conducted in support of this investigation: 1. Standard Penetration Tests: Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed at the time of borehole drilling in accordance with ASTM standard procedure D-1586 using rope and cathead. The procedure consisted of a standard 51 MM outside diameter sampler without liner, 457 MM in length and 35 MM in inside diameter driven with a 140-pound hammer, dropped 30 inches using 5-foot long AW drill rods. The bore hole was 200 MM (8 inches) in diameter and drill fluid or water was not necessary to aid drilling. The test results are indicated at the corresponding locations on the attached Boring Logs. 2. Grain Size Analysis: Grain size analysis was performed on a representative sample of Soil Types 1 and 2. The test results are provided in Table 3 below and graphically presented in the attached Figure 7. TABLE3 Sieve Size 1" ½" %" #4 #10 #20 #40 #100 #200 Location Soil Type Percent Passing B-1 @3' 2 100 100 100 100 100 99 88 39 31 B-1 @9' 2 100 100 100 100 100 46 18 13 10 B-1 (a). 15' 2 100 97 95 92 88 75 51 13 7 3. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of Soil Type 2 was determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557. The results are presented in Table 4. I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) TABLE4 Location Soll Maximum Dry Tvoe Density tr-...-n B-1 (@3' 2 129 March 27, 2017 Page 7 Optimum Moisture Content (<i>opt-•/4) 10 4. Unit Weieht & Moisture Content Tests: In-place dry density and moisture content of representative soil deposits beneath the site were determined from relatively undisturbed ring samples using the Direct Measurement test method (Method B) in accordance with ASTM D7263, and Water Content of Soil and Rock by Mass test method in accordance with ASTM D2216. The test results are presented in Table 5 and tabulated on the attached Boring Logs at corresponding locations. TABLES Field Moisture Field Dry Mu.Dry In-Place Degree of Sample Soll Content Density Density Relative Saturatio Location Type (c.,...%) (Td-pcf) (Tm-pcf) Compaction n S (o/e) B-1 @3' 2 11 123.7 129 96 79 B-1 @6' 2 4 115.8 129 90 23 B-1 @9' (I) 2 6 -129 -- B-1 @ 15' (I) 2 2 -129 -- B-2 @2.5' 2 10 116.8 129 91 63 B-2 @5' (2) 2 6 104 129 81 25 B-2@8' o> 2 4 -129 -- B-2 @ 15' 2 6 -129 Sample Disturbed - B-3 @ 4' 2 9 117 129 91 58 B-3@7'c1> 2 4 -129 -- B-3 @ 10' (I) 2 6 -129 -- (1) SPT Sample (2) Sample May Somewhat Be Disturbed Assumptions and Relationships: In-Place Relative Compaction= (id + Ym) Xl00 Gs= 2.70 e = (Gs Tw + Td)-1 S = (w Gs)+ e I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page8 5. Expansion Index Test: One expansion index (EI) test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 2 in accordance with the ASTM D-4829. The test results are presented in Table 6. TABLE6 Sample Soll Molded Degree of Final Initial Dry Measured EI (a) Saturation (a) Density 50% Location Type ,•1.l (%) (%) lPCFl EI Saturation B-2 @ 2.5' 2 8 47 15 115.6 Non-plastic Non-expansive ( w) = moisture content in percent. El50 = Elmeas -(50 -Smeas) ((65 + Elmeas) + (220 -Smeas)) Expansion Index (El) Expansion Potential 0-20 Very Low 21 -50 Low 51 -90 Medium 91 -130 High ) 130 VervHi2h 6. Direct Shear Test: One direct shear test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 2 in substantial accordance with ASTM D3080. The prepared specimen was soaked overnight, loaded with normal loads of 1, 2, and 4 kips per square foot respectively, and sheared to failure in an undrained condition. The test result is presented in Table 7. TABLE7 Sample Soil Sample Wet Angle of Apparent Dennty Int. Frie. Cohetion Location Type Condition fTw-nrn , .. Dee.) lc-nd\ B-1 (a) 3' 2 Remolded to 90% of Y m ca) % wont 129.4 34 180 7. pH and Resistivity Test: pH and resistivity of a representative sample of Soil Type 2 was determined using "Method for Estimating the Service Life of Steel Culverts," in accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 643. The test result is tabulated in Table 8. TABLES Sam le Location Soll Minimum Reslstivi H B-1 3' 2 6400 7.8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 9 I VI. 8. Sulfate Test: A sulfate test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 2 in accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 417. The test result is presented in Table 9. TABLE9 Sample Location Soil Type Amount of Water Soluble Sulfate In Soil (% by Weiut) B-1 @3' I 2 I No Detection I 9. Chloride Test: A chloride test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 2 in accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 422. The test result is presented in Table 10. TABLE 10 Sample Location Soil Type Amount of Water Soluble Chloride In Soil (•/4 by Weiut) B-1 @3' 2 No Detection SITE CORROSION ASSESSMENT A site is considered to be corrosive to foundation elements, walls and drainage structures if one or more of the following conditions exist: * Sulfate concentration is greater than or equal to 2000 ppm (0.2% by weight). * Chloride concentration is greater than or equal to 500 ppm (0.05 % by weight). * pH is less than 5.5. For structural elements, the minimum resistivity of soil ( or water) indicates the relative quantity of soluble salts present in the soil ( or water). In general, a minimum resistivity value for soil ( or water) less than 1000 ohm-cm indicates the presence of high quantities of soluble salts and a higher propensity for corrosion. Appropriate corrosion mitigation measures for corrosive conditions should be selected depending on the service environment, amount of aggressive ion salts ( chloride or sulfate), pH levels, and the desired service life of the structure. Results oflimited laboratory tests performed on selected representative site samples indicated that the minimum resistivity is greater than 1000 ohm-cm, suggesting the presence oflow quantities of soluble salts. Test results further indicated that pH levels are greater than 5.5, sulfate concentration is less than 2000 ppm and chloride concentration levels are less than 500 ppm. Based on the results of the corrosion analyses, the project site is considered non-corrosive. The project site is also located outside of a 1000 feet limit from salt or seawater. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 10 Based upon the result of the tested soil sample, the amount of water soluble sulfate (SO4) was found to be at "no-detection" levels which is considered negligible according to ACI 318 (SO Exposure Class with Not Applicable severity). Portland cement Type II and concrete with minimum 28 days compressive strength (f c) of2500 psi and 0.50 water-cement ratio are typically considered adequate for SO Exposure Class, unless otherwise specified or noted. VII. STORMWATERBMPs Storm water BMP facilities, if required or considered in connection with the project development should be designed and constructed considering geotechnical conditions indicated at the site. The implemented management and water treatment control practices shall have no short and long term impacts on the new building pad and improvement surfaces, fills and backfills, underground or subterranean structures and facilities, and onsite and nearby offsite improvements. Infiltration testing and determination of an apparent infiltration rate of site native materials were not a part of this study at this time. However, in general, site subsoil profiles chiefly consist of shallow topsoils atop dense sandstone Terrace Deposits, that may generally be characterized as Group B/C hydrologic classification (based on San Diego Hydrology Manual classification). Based on site available geotechnical data, a bio-retention/detention system generally consisting of a suitably sized excavated basin(s) with specially engineered sand filter media and ¾-inch crushed rocks provided with a perforated pipe(s) at the bottom may be considered appropriate. Actual infiltration testing should be used as a basis for providing more detailed and specific recommendations, if appropriate. The bio-retention/detention basin(s) should be properly sized for adequate storage capacity with filtrations completed not more than 72 hours and vegetation carefully managed to prevent creating mosquito and other vector habitats. Periodic observations, upkeep and continued maintenance of the project storm water BMP infiltration facilities will be required to assure proper functioning and uninterrupted continuous discharge flow of the captured runoff water. Improper functioning of the proposed infiltration pits or prolonged ponding can adversely impact nearby foundation improvements and adjacent properties, or potentially result in failures. In order to avoid such adverse conditions, a well-established maintenance program that includes careful management of the infiltration facilities and testing for proper functioning of the underderain/outlet pipes should be set in-place and followed by the current and future home owners. In the event poor or under performing conditions develop, as noted during the scheduled maintenance program, appropriate repairs, maintenance and mitigation should be immediately carried out as necessary. As a minimum, a maintenance schedule consisting of at least 2 times a year, before and after the annual rainy season should be considered. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) VIII. CONCLUSIONS March 27, 2017 Page 11 Based upon the foregoing investigation, the proposed single-family residential development, as currently planned at the project property, is substantially feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint. The project property is generally underlain by sandstone Terrace Deposits at a relatively shallow depth and is overlain by a section ofloose undifferentiated topsoil/disturbed natural ground cover. The following factors are unique to the property and will most impact project construction procedures and associated costs from a geotechnical viewpoint: 1. Evidence oflandslides, faults, liquefaction, seismically induced settlements or other adverse geologic hazards, which could preclude the planned development was not indicated at project property. The study site is not located near or within the Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone established by the State of California. Moderate to locally high levels of ground shaking, however, are expected at the site during occasional periods of seismic activity along distant active faults. 2. The property is generally characterized by relatively level topography. Significant ground modifications are also not anticipated in connection with the proposed pad development. Final pad surfaces are anticipated to be established at or very near the existing grades. 3. Large natural or graded slopes are not present on or near the immediate vicinity of the project site, nor are any new large graded slopes expected. Consequently, slope stability is not considered a geotechnical factor in the planned development. 4. A relatively shallow to modest section ofloose to very loose topsoil/disturbed natural ground deposits, on the order of 2½ feet thick, mantles the project property. Below the upper topsoil/disturbed natural ground mantle, natural sandstone Terrace Deposits are present. Underlying Terrace Deposits typically occur in weathered loose to medium dense conditions near the upper exposures becoming dense to very dense with depth overall. The Terrace Deposits below the upper weathered zone are competent deposits that can suitably support the planned new fills, structures and improvement. 5. The site topsoil/disturbed natural ground mantle and the upper weathered section of the underlying Terrace Deposits are loose deposits not suitable for structural support. They should be stripped (removed) to the underlying dense Terrace Deposits, as approved in the field, and placed back as properly compacted fills in accordance with the recommendations of this report. 6. Stripping and recompaction remedial grading work will be required under all proposed new constructions and improvements in order to construct uniform bearing and subgrade soil conditions throughout, as specified in the following sections. There should be at least 18 inches of well-compacted fills below the bottom of the deepest footing(s), and site improvements throughout, unless otherwise approved. "" Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 12 7. Significant cut-fill grading creating a daylight transition is not expected, and remedial grading efforts will be required over the entire pad surfaces, as specified herein. Consequently, cut-fill transition is not expected to be a factor in the planned site development. 8. Project earthwork operations are expected to chiefly consist of remedial grading and foundation bearing and subgrade soils preparation. The site topsoil/disturbed natural ground mantle is also expected to shrink when recompacted as specified herein, and import soils may be required to complete grading and achieving final design pad grades. All earthworks, remedial and fine grading efforts should be completed in accordance with requirements of the following sections. 9. Soils generated from the project stripping, removals and over-excavations will generally consist of sandy deposits that typically work well as site new fills and backfills, provided they are adequately processed and prepared in accordance with the requirements of this report. All surface vegetation should be properly cleared and removed from the site as specified below. 10. Based on our field observations and laboratory testing, final bearing and sub grade soils at the project property are expected to chiefly consist of sandy to silty sand (SP-SM/SW) deposits with very low expansion potential ( expansion index less than 20) based on ASTM D-4829 classification. Expansive soils are not considered to be a major geotechnical factor in the planned new development. 11. Natural groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory test borings to the depths explored, and is not expected to be a factor in the planned new construction. As with all graded sites, the proper control of surface drainage and storm water is a critical component to overall site and building performance. Run off water should not pond upon graded surfaces, and irrigation water should not be excessive. Over-watering of site vegetation may also create perched water and the creation of excessively moist areas at finished surfaces and should be avoided. Storm water and drainage control facilities should be designed and installed for proper control and disposal of surface water as shown on the approved grading or drainage improvement plans. 12. Considering the anticipated and relatively shallow over-excavations and stripping depths necessary for the project remedial grading efforts, significant construction impacts on the nearby off-site structures and improvements are not anticipated. In general, added care will be required to avoid any damages to the existing nearby on and off site structures, retaining walls and improvements due to site excavations, remedial earthwork grading and construction works. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 13 13. Soil collapse and post construction settlements are not expected to be a major geotechnical concern provided our remedial grading and foundation recommendations are followed. Post construction settlements are expected to be less than approximately 1 inch and should occur below the heaviest loaded footing(s). The magnitude of post construction differential settlements of site fill deposits, as expressed in terms of angular distortion, is not anticipated to exceed ½-inch between similar adjacent structural elements. IX. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are provided based on the available geotechnical data generated during this effort and scheme of the proposed development, as understood. Added or modified recommendations may also be appropriate and should be provided at the time of final plan review phase: A. Gradine and Earthworks Significant grade alterations are not anticipated and site earthwork operations are expected to mostly consist of relatively minor to modest remedial and fine grading efforts in order to achieve final design grades and construct safe and stable building and improvement surfaces. All site excavations, grading, earthwork, construction, and bearing/subgrade soil preparations should be completed in accordance with Chapter 18 (Soils and Foundations) and Appendix "J" (Grading) of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC), City of Carlsbad Ordinances, the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, and the requirements of the following sections wherever applicable. 1. Existing Underground Utilities and Structures: All existing underground waterlines, sewer lines, pipes, storm drains, utilities, tanks, structures, and improvements at or nearby the project site should be thoroughly potholed, identified and marked prior to the initiation of the actual site excavations, grading and earthworks. Specific geotechnical engineering recommendations may be required based on the actual field locations, invert elevations, backfill conditions, and proposed grades in the event of a grading conflict. Utility lines may need to be temporarily redirected, if necessary, prior to earthwork operations and reinstalled upon completion of pad constructions. Alternatively, permanent relocations may be appropriate as shown on the approved plans. Abandoned irrigation lines, pipes, and conduits should be properly removed, capped or sealed off to prevent any potential for future water infiltrations into the foundation bearing and subgrade soils. Voids created by the removals of the abandoned underground pipes, tanks and structures should be properly backfilled with compacted fills in accordance with the requirements of this report. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 14 2. Clearing and Grubbing: Remove all existing surface and subsurface structures, improvements, pipes and conduits, old foundations, asphalt pavings, vegetation, tress, roots and stumps, and all other unsuitable materials and deleterious matter from all areas proposed for new fills, improvements, and structures plus a minimum of three horizontal feet outside the perimeter, where possible and as approved in the field. All trash debris and unsuitable materials generated from site demolitions and clearing efforts should be properly removed and disposed of from the site. Trash, vegetation and construction debris should not be allowed to occur or contaminate new site fills and backfills. The prepared grounds should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant or his designated field representative prior to grading and earthwork. 3. Stripping and Removals: All existing loose upper surficial topsoil/disturbed natural ground deposits and upper weathered section of underlying Terrace Deposits in areas of the planned new fills, structures and improvements plus a minimum of 3 horizontal feet outside the perimeter, where possible and as directed in the field, should be stripped (removed) to the underlying dense and competent Terrace Deposits and placed back as properly compacted fills. Actual stripping depths should be established and approved by the project geotechnical consultant based on field observations and testing of bottom exposures. However, based on the available exploratory test borings, typical stripping depths are expected to be on the order of 3 feet below the existing grades, or 18 inches below the bottom of deepest footing(s ), whichever is more. There should be at least 18 inches of well compacted (minimum 90%) fills below bottom of the deepest footing(s) throughout, unless otherwise approved. There should also be a minimum of 18 inches of compacted fill below rough finish subgrade in the planned parking and improvement areas, unless otherwise directed in the field. Locally deeper removals may also be necessary based on the actual field exposures and final grades and should be anticipated. Bottom of all striping and removal exposures should be additionally ripped, processed and recompacted to a minimum depth of 6 inches, as a part of initial fill lift placement, as directed in the field. The exposed stripping and removal bottoms should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant or his designated field representative prior to fill placement. 4. Excavation Setbacks and Temporary Slopes: Temporary open excavations and trenching necessary for the project remedial grading work and construction are expected to be relatively shallow and at a maximum of 3 feet deep. Consequently, significant construction impacts on the nearby off-site structures and improvements are not anticipated. However, adjacent public and private properties and right-of-ways should also be properly protected, and permission to excavate and grade near adjacent property lines and public right-of-ways obtained from the respective owner( s) and public agencies, as necessary and appropriate. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 15 Excavations and removals adjacent to the existing foundations, improvements and structures should be performed under observations of the project geotechnical engineer. Undermining existing adjacent foundations, structures, improvements and underground utilities to remain should not be allowed by the project removals and earthwork operations. Temporary excavations and trenching less than the 3 feet maximum may be developed at near vertical gradients, unless otherwise noted or directed in the field. However, performing remedial grading in limited sections (one-half property length maximum) may be considered to limit exposures and reduce overall stockpile quantities. Temporary slopes and trench excavations greater than the 3 feet high maximum, if any, may be constructed at near vertical gradients within the lower 3 feet and laid back at 1: 1 gradients within the upper portions. The new fills and backfills should be properly keyed-in and benched into the 1: 1 temporary excavation wedge as the fill/backfill placement progresses. More specific recommendations should be given in the field by the project geotechnical consultant based on actual site exposures. Revised temporary excavation and trenching recommendations including laid back slopes, larger setbacks, completing excavations and remedial grading in smaller limited sections and the need for temporary shoring/trench shield support may be necessary and should be anticipated. The project contractor shall also obtain appropriate permits, as needed, and conform to Cal-OSHA and local governing agencies' requirements for trenching/open excavations and safety of the workmen during construction. 5. FiWBackftll Materials, Shrinkage and Import Soils: Site stripping, removals, and excavations will chiefly generate a sandy to silty sandy soil deposits that typically work well as site new fills and backfills, provided it is adequately prepared, processed, placed and compacted in accordance with the requirements of this report. Vegetation, roots and stumps, buried pipes and conduits, construction debris, and organic matter, where encountered, should be throughly removed and separated from the fill/backfill mixture to the satisfaction and approval of the project geotechnical consultant. Onsite soils may be expected to shrink nearly 10% to 15%, on volume basis, when compacted (minimum 90%) as specified herein. Import soils, if required to complete grading and achieve final grades, should be good quality, sandy granular non-corrosive deposits (SM/SW) with very low expansion potential (100% passing 1-inch sieve, more than 50% passing #4 sieve and less than 18% passing #200 sieve with expansion index less than 20). Import soils should be observed, tested as necessary, and approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to delivery to the site. Import soils should also meet or exceed engineering characteristic and soil design parameters as specified in the following sections. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 16 6. FiWBackfill Placement, Spreading and Compaction: Uniform bearing and subgrade soil conditions should be constructed throughout the building and improvement surfaces by remedial and fine grading operations. Site soils should be adequately processed, thoroughly mixed, moisture conditioned to slightly (2%) above the optimum moisture levels, or as directed in the field, placed in thin (8 inches maximum) uniform horizontal lifts and mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% of the corresponding laboratory maximum dry density per ASTM D-1557, unless otherwise specified. The upper 12 inches of subgrade soils beneath the aggregate base layer under asphalt parking areas should be compacted to at least 95% compaction levels. 7. Surface Drainage and Erosion Control: A critical element to the continued stability of graded building pads and improvement sites is an adequate stormwater and surface drainage control. Surface water should not be allowed to flow toward and pond near the building foundations or impact developed building and improvement sites. Surface water should flow away from the building foundations and site improvements in a positive manner. Roof gutters and area drains should be installed. Over-watering of the site landscaping should also not be allowed. Only the amount of water to sustain vegetation should be provided. Site drainage improvements should be shown on the project approved plans. 8. Engineering Observations: All remedial grading, bearing and subgrade soil preparations, and earthwork operations including stripping and removals, suitability of earth deposits used as compacted fills and backfills, and compaction procedures should be continuously observed and tested by the project geotechnical consultant and presented in the final as-graded compaction report. The nature of finished bearing and sub grade soils should be confirmed in the final compaction report at the completion of grading. Geotechnical engineering observations should include but not limited to the following: * Initial observation -After the site clearing and staking of project limits but before grading/brushing starts. * Bottom of stripping (removal) observation -After dense and competent Terrace Deposits are exposed and prepared to receive fill or backfill, but before fill or backfill is placed. * Fill/backfill observation -After the fill/backfill placement is started but before the vertical height of fill/backfill exceeds 2 feet. A minimum of one test shall be required for each 100 lineal feet maximum, in every 2 feet in vertical gain. Finish rough and final pad grade tests shall be required regardless of fill thickness. - Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 17 * Foundation trench and subgrade soils observation -After the foundation trench excavations and prior to the placement of steel reinforcing for proper moisture and specified compaction levels. There should be at least 18 inches of compacted fills below bottom of the deepest footing( s) throughout, unless otherwise approved. There should also be a minimum of 18 inches of compacted fill below rough finish subgrade in the planned parking and improvement areas. * Geotechnical foundation/slab steel observation -After the steel placement is completed but before the scheduled concrete pour. * Underground utility/plumbing trench observation -After the trench excavations but before placement of pipe bedding or installation of the underground facilities. Local and Cal-OSHA safety requirements for open excavations apply. Observations and testing of pipe bedding may also be required by the project geotechnical engineer. * Underground utility/plumbing trench backfill observation -After the backfill placement is started above the pipe zone but before the vertical height of backfill exceeds 2 feet. Testing of the backfill within the pipe zone may also be required by the governing agencies. Pipe bedding and backfill materials shall conform to the governing agencies' requirements and project soils report if applicable. All trench backfills should be mechanically compacted to a minimum of90% compaction levels unless otherwise specified. Plumbing trenches more than 12 inches deep maximum under the floor slabs should also be mechanically compacted and tested for a minimum of 90% compaction levels. Flooding or jetting techniques as a means of compaction method should not be allowed. * Improvement subgrade observation -Prior to the placement of concrete for proper moisture and specified compaction levels. B. Footinis and Slab-on-Grade Foundations The following recommendations are consistent with the anticipated sandy to silty sand (SP- SM/SW) bearing soils with very expansion potential ( expansion index less than 20), and site indicated geotechnical conditions. All design recommendations should be further confirmed and/or revised as necessary at the final plan review phase, and at completion of remedial grading works based on actual testing of final bearing and subgrade soils: 1. Conventional shallow stiff concrete footings and slab-on-grade floor type foundations may be considered for support of the new restaurant building extension. All foundations should be supported on well-compacted fills, placed in accordance with the requirements of this report. There should be at least 18 inches of compacted fills below the bottom of the deepest footing( s) throughout, unless otherwise approved. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 18 2. Perimeter and interior continuous strip footings should be sized at least 15 inches wide and 18 inches deep for single and two story buildings. Spread pad footings, if any, should be at least 30 inches square and 12 inches deep. Footing depths are measured from the lowest adjacent ground surface, not including the sand/gravel layer underneath the floor slab. Exterior continuous footings should enclose the entire building perimeter. Perimeter continuous and interior strip foundations should be reinforced by at least four #4 reinforcing bars. Place a minimum of two #4 bars 3 inches above the bottom of the footing and a minimum of two #4 bars 3 inches below the top. Reinforcement details for spread pad footings should be provided by the project architect/structural engineer. 3. Interior slabs should be a minimum of 4½ inches in thickness reinforced with minimum #3 reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches on center maximum each way placed mid-height in the slab. Provide re-entrant comer reinforcement for all interior slabs based on slab geometry and/or interior column locations, as generally depicted on the enclosed Figure 8. Slabs should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand (SE 30 or greater) which is provided with a well-performing moisture barrier/vapor retardant (minimum 10-mil Stego) placed mid-height in the sand. Alternatively, a 4-inch thick base of compacted ½-inch clean aggregate provided with the vapor barrier (minimum 15-mil Stego) in direct contact with (beneath) the concrete may also be considered provided a concrete mix that can address bleeding, shrinkage and curling is used. Provide "softcut" contraction/control joints consisting of sawcuts spaced 10 feet on centers each way for the all interior slabs. Cut as soon as the slab will support the weight of the saw and operate without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. The sawcuts should be minimum 1-inch in depth but should not exceed 1 ¼-inches deep maximum. Anti-ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. A void wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. 4. Foundation trenches and slab subgrade soils should be observed and tested for exposing suitable bearing strata, proper moisture and specified compaction levels and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to the placement of concrete. C. Soil Desien Parameters The following soil design parameters are based upon tested representative samples of on-site earth deposits. All parameters should be re-evaluated when the characteristics of the final as-graded soils have been specifically determined: 1. Design soil unit weight= 129 pcf. 2. Design angle of internal friction of soil = 34 degrees. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 19 3. Design active soil pressure for retaining structures = 36 pcf (EFP), level backfill, cantilever, unrestrained walls. 4. Design at-rest soil pressure for retaining structures = 57 pcf (EFP), non-yielding, restrained walls. 5. Design passive soil resistance for retaining structures = 451 pcf (EFP), level surface at the toe. 6. Design coefficient of friction for concrete on soils = 0.41. 7. Net allowable foundation pressure (minimum 15 inches wide by 18 inches deep footings) = 2000 psf. 8. Allowable lateral bearing pressure (all structures except retaining walls)= 200 psf/ft. Notes: * Use a minimum safety factor of 1.5 for wall over-turning and sliding stability. However, because large movements must take place before maximum passive resistance can be developed, a minimum safety factor of 2 may be considered for sliding stability particularly where sensitive structures and improvements are planned near or on top of retaining walls. * When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance the passive component should be reduced by one-third. * * The indicated net allowable foundation pressure provided herein was determined based on a minimum 15 inches wide by 18 inches deep footings and may be increased by 20% for each additional foot of depth and 20% for each additional foot of width to a maximum of5500 psf. The allowable foundation pressures provided also apply to dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loading. The lateral bearing earth pressures may be increased by the amount of designated value for each additional foot of depth to a maximum 1500 pounds per square foot. D. Exterior Concrete Slabs and Flatworks 1. All exterior slabs (walkways, patios) supported on potentially very low expansive subgrade soils should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness, reinforced with minimum 6X6-10X10 welded wire mesh (or #3 bars at 18 inches on center, both ways) laced near the slab mid-height. The subgrade soils should be compacted to minimum 90% compaction levels at the time of fine grading and before placing the slab reinforcement. Reinforcements lying on subgrade will be ineffective and shortly corrode due to lack of adequate concrete cover. Reinforcing bars should be correctly placed extending through the construction joints tying the slab panels. In construction practices where the Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 20 reinforcements are discontinued or cut at the construction joints, slab panels should be tied together with minimum 18 inches long #3 dowels at 18 inches on centers placed mid-height in the slab (9 inches on either side of the joint). 2. Provide "tool joint" or "softcut" contraction/control joints spaced 10 feet on center (not to exceed 12 feet maximum) each way. The larger dimension of any panel shall not exceed 125% of the smaller dimension. Tool or cut as soon as slab will support weight, and can be operated without disturbing the final finish, which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. Tool or softcuts should be a minimum of 1-inch, but should not exceed 1 ¼-inch deep maximum. In case of softcut joints, anti-ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. A void wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. Joints shall intersect free-edges at a 90° angle and shall extend straight for a minimum of 1 ½ feet from the edge. The minimum angle between any two intersecting joints shall be 80°. Align joints of adjacent panels. Also, align joints in attached curbs with joints in slab panels. Provide adequate curing using approved methods ( curing compound maximum coverage rate= 200 sq. ft./gal.). 3. All exterior slab designs should be confirmed in the final as-graded compaction report. 4. Subgrade soils should be tested for proper moisture and specified compaction levels and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to the placement of concrete. E. Proposed Spa A spa is planned in the southwest comer of the project property, as depicted on the enclosed Figure 2. Competent natural sandstone Terrace Deposits are expected to occur at a relatively shallow depth, approximately 3 feet below the existing ground surfaces, and may be anticipated to be exposed throughout the spa excavations. Spa excavation should be observed to confirm uniform undisturbed natural sandstone Terrace Deposits throughout, and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. However, minor remedial grading efforts and preparation of bottom of spa excavation may become required based on actual field conditions and possible cut-fill daylight exposures, as evaluated in the field, and should be anticipated. In case of cut-fill daylight exposures, the cut portion ofthe spa bottom exposure should be undercut a minimum of 12 inches and reconstructed to finish elevation with minimum 90% compacted fills for providing a uniform compacted subgrade soil condition throughout. The spa should be designed and constructed by the project design/build contractor based on the soil design parameters provided in this report. The spa may be designed for very low expansive soil conditions ( expansion index less than 20). The spa structure should also be provided with a minimum 15 inches wide by 18 inches deep grade beam reinforced with minimum 2-#4 bars top and bottom around the top of concrete shell. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) F. Pavement Desi2n March 27, 2017 Page 21 Remedial subgrade preparation consisting ofremoval (stripping) and recompaction of upper loose soils to the underlaying dense Terrace Deposits, or 18 inches minimum, will be required under all site paving surfaces unless otherwise approved or directed in the fills. All pavement remedial grading works should be completed in accordance with the requirements of this report, and observed, tested and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to the construction of actual pavement section. 1. Asphalt Paving: Specific pavement designs can be best provided at the completion of rough grading based on R-value tests of the actual finish subgrade soils; however, the following structural sections may be considered for initial planning phase and cost estimating purposes only (not for construction): * A minimum section of 4 inches asphalt concrete (AC) on 6 inches Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base (AB) or the minimum structural section required by City of Carlsbad, whichever is more, may be considered for the onsite asphalt paving surfaces outside the private and public right-of-way. Actual designs will depend on final subgrade R- value and design TI, and the approval of the City of Carlsbad. * The asphalt concrete layer (4-inch total section) may consist of 2.5 inches of a binder/base course (¾-inch aggregate) and 1.5 inches of finish top course(½ or%- inch aggregate as approved by the city) topcoat, placed in accordance with the applicable local and regional codes and standards. Class 2 aggregate base (AB) shall meet or exceed the requirements set forth in the most current California Standard Specification (Caltrans Section 26-1.02A). * Aggregate base materials (AB) should be compacted to a minimum 95% of the corresponding maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). Subgrade soils beneath the asphalt paving surfaces should also be compacted to a minimum 95% of the corresponding maximum dry density within the upper 12 inches. 2. PCC Pavings: Residential PCC driveways and parking supported on very low expansive ( expansion index less than 20) granular subgrade soils should be a minimum of 5 inches in thickness, reinforced with #3 reinforcing bars at 16 inches on centers each way placed at mid-height in the slab. Subgrade soil beneath the PCC driveways and parking should be compacted to a minimum 90% of the corresponding maximum dry density, unless otherwise specified. Reinforcing bars should be correctly placed extending through the construction ( cold) joints tying the slab panels. In construction practices where the reinforcements are discontinued or cut at the construction joints, slab panels should be tied together with minimum 18 inch long (9 inches on either side of the joint) #3 dowels ( dowel baskets) at 16 inches on centers placed mid-height in the slab. ... Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 22 Provide "tool joint" or "softcut" contraction/control joints spaced 10 feet on center (not to exceed 15 feet maximum) each way. The larger dimension of any panel shall not exceed 125% of the smaller dimension. Tool or cut as soon as the slab will support the weight and can be operated without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. Tool or softcuts should be a minimum of I-inch in depth but should not exceed 1 ¼-inches deep maximum. In case of softcut joints, anti-ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. A void wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. Joints shall intersect free-edges at a 90° angle and shall extend straight for a minimum of 1 ½ feet from the edge. The minimum angle between any two intersecting joints shall be 80°. Align joints of adjacent panels. Also, align joints in attached curbs with joints in slab panels. Provide adequate curing using approved methods ( curing compound maximum coverage rate= 200 sq. ft./gal.). 3. Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers (PICP): Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavers (PICP), if considered as a part of the project storm water quality treatment BMPs should consist of a self-contained system disallowing saturation of adjacent foundation bearing soils, wall backfills and site improvement subgrade. In general, PICP pavements should maintain a minimum clear distance of 3 feet from the building foundations with finish subgrade sloped away at a minimum 2% onto a 12 inches wide collector trench along the low edge provided with a 4-inch diameter (Sch. 40 or SD R 3 5) underdrain pipe surrounded with ¾-inch crushed rocks, as conceptually shown in the enclosed Typical Permeable Paver Detail, Figure 9. In case of nearby fill embankments and wall backfills, a minimum 10 feet clear setback should be considered, unless otherwise approved. The perforated underdrain pipe should discharge collected water into an appropriate storm drainage facility Perimeter curb edge restraints should be provided, and bottom and sides of the system lined with an impervious liner, as shown, unless otherwise approved. The impervious liner on the bottom and sides of the PICP system may be eliminated and the paving constructed with 12 inches clear distance from the building foundations provided a minimum 8 inches wide concrete slurry cut-off wall ( deepened edge restraint) is constructed extending a minimum of 24 inches below the bottom of the adjacent perimeter foundations. The cut-off wall ( deepened edge restraint) should be constructed prior to building foundation trenching. Nearby site structures and improvements should also be protected with similar cut-off walls (deepened edge restraints) as needed PICP pavement structural section should consist of 31/a-inch, PICP over a minimum of 2 inches of ASTM No. 8 bedding course/choke stone over a minimum 8 inches of ASTM No. 57 stone base course over a minimum of 12 inches of95% compacted subgrade (per ASTM D-1557), unless otherwise approved. Bedding course/choke stone and base I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 23 course stone should also be well compacted, consolidated and interlocked (avoid crushing the underdrain pipes) with heavy construction equipments. ASTM No. 8, No. 9 or No. 89 should be used for joint materials depending on the joint size and per manufacturer recommendations. Gradation requirements for ASTM No. 57, No. 8, No. 89 and No. 9 are as follows: TABLE 11 Sieve Percent Passine Size No.57 No.8 No.89 No.9 l ½" 100 l" 95 to 100 ½" 25 to 60 100 100 3/e" 85 to 100 90 to 100 100 No.4 0 to 10 10 to 30 20 to 55 85 to 100 No. 8 0 to 5 0 to 10 5 to 30 10 to 40 No. 16 0 to 5 0 to 10 0 to 10 No.50 0 to 5 0 to 5 4. General Paving: Base section and subgrade preparations per structural section design will be required for all surfaces subject to traffic including roadways, travelways, drive lanes, driveway approaches and ribbon (cross) gutters. Driveway approaches within the public right-of-way should have 12 inches subgrade compacted to a minimum of95% compaction levels and provided with a 95% compacted Class 2 base section per the structural section design. Base layer under curb and gutters should be compacted to a minimum of 95%, while subgrade soils under curb and gutters, and base and subgrade under sidewalks should be compacted to a minimum of 90% compaction levels, unless otherwise specified. Base section may not be required under curb and gutters and sidewalks, in the case of very low to non-expansive subgrade soils ( expansion index less than 20). More specific recommendations should be given in the final as-graded compaction report. G. General Recommendations 1. The minimum foundation design and steel reinforcement provided herein are based on soil characteristics and are not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary for structural consideration. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 24 2. Adequate staking and grading control is a critical factor in properly completing the recommended remedial and site grading operations. Grading control and staking should be provided by the project grading contractor or surveyor/civil engineer, and is beyond the geotechnical engineering services. Staking should apply the required setbacks shown on the approved plans, and should conform to setback requirements established by the governing agencies and applicable codes for off-site private and public properties and property lines, utility easements, right-of-ways, nearby structures and improvements, leach fields and septic systems, and graded embankments. Inadequate staking and/or lack of grading control may result in illegal encroachments or unnecessary additional grading that will increase construction costs. 3. Open or backfilled trenches parallel with a footing shall not be below a projected plane having a downward slope of I-unit vertical to 2 units horizontal (50%) from a line 9 inches above the bottom edge of the footing, and not closer than 18 inches from the face of such footing. 4. Where pipes cross under-footings, the footings shall be specially designed. Pipe sleeves shall be provided where pipes cross through footings or footing walls, and sleeve clearances shall provide for possible footing settlement, but not less than I-inch all around the pipe. 5. All underground utility and plumbing trenches should be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density of the soil unless otherwise specified. Care should be taken not to crush the utilities or pipes during the compaction of the soil. Non-expansive, granular backfill soils should be used. Trench backfill materials and compaction levels beneath pavements within the public right-of-way shall conform to the requirements of governing agencies. 6. Large retaining walls are not anticipated. In general, expansive clayey soils should not be used for backfilling of any retaining structure. All retaining walls should be provided with a I: I wedge of granular, compacted backfill measured from the base of the wall footing to the finished surface and a well-constructed back drainage system as shown on the enclosed Figure I 0. Planting large trees behind site building retaining walls should be avoided. 7. Site drainage over the finished pad surfaces should flow away from structures onto the street in a positive manner. Care should be taken during the construction, improvements, and fine grading phases not to disrupt the designed drainage patterns. Roof lines of the buildings should be provided with roof gutters. Roof water should be collected and directed away from the buildings and structures to a suitable location. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 25 8. Final plans should reflect preliminary recommendations given in this report. Final foundations and grading plans may also be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant for conformance with the requirements of the geotechnical investigation report outlined herein. More specific recommendations may be necessary and should be given when final grading and architectural/structural drawings are available. 9. All foundation trenches should be observed to ensure adequate footing embedment and confirm competent bearing soils. Foundation and slab reinforcements should also be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. 10. The amount of shrinkage and related cracks that occurs in the concrete slab-on-grades, flatworks and driveways depend on many factors, the most important of which is the amount of water in the concrete mix. The purpose of the slab reinforcement is to keep normal concrete shrinkage cracks closed tightly. The amount of concrete shrinkage can be minimized by reducing the amount of water in the mix. To keep shrinkage to a minimum the following should be considered: * Use the stiffest mix that can be handled and consolidated satisfactorily. * Use the largest maximum size of aggregate that is practical. For example, concrete made with %-inch maximum size aggregate usually requires about 40-lbs. more (nearly 5-gal.) water per cubic yard than concrete with 1-inch aggregate. * Cure the concrete as long as practical. The amount of slab reinforcement provided for conventional slab-on-grade construction considers that good quality concrete materials, proportioning, craftsmanship, and control tests where appropriate and applicable are provided. 13. A preconstruction meeting between representatives of this office, the property owner or planner, city inspector as well as the grading contractor/builder is recommended in order to discuss grading and construction details associated with site development. X. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD (GER) 6B6 Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. is the geotechnical engineer of record (GER) for providing a specific scope of work or professional service under a contractual agreement unless it is terminated or canceled by either the client or our firm. In the event a new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm is hired to provide added engineering services, professional consultations, engineering observations and compaction testing, 6616 Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. will no longer be the geotechnical engineer of the record. Project transfer should be completed in accordance with the California Geotechnical Engineering Association (CGEA) Recommended Practice for Transfer of Jobs Between Consultants. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page26 The new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm should review all previous geotechnical documents, conduct an independent study, and provide appropriate confirmations, revisions or design modifications to his own satisfaction. The new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm should also notify in writing §N§ Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. and submit proper notification to the City of Carlsbad for the assumption ofresponsibility in accordance with the applicable codes and standards (1997 UBC Section 3317 .8). XI. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations provided herein have been based on available data obtained from the review of pertinent reports and plans, subsurface exploratory excavations as well as our experience with the soils and formational materials located in the general area. The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory testing are believed representative of the total area; however, earth materials may vary in characteristics between excavations. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. It is necessary, therefore, that all observations, conclusions, and recommendations be verified during the grading operation. In the event discrepancies are noted, we should be contacted immediately so that an observation can be made and additional recommendations issued if required. The recommendations made in this report are applicable to the site at the time this report was prepared. It is the responsibility of the owner/developer to ensure that these recommendations are carried out in the field. It is almost impossible to predict with certainty the future performance of a property. The future behavior of the site is also dependent on numerous unpredictable variables, such as earthquakes, rainfall, and on-site drainage patterns. The firm of §II§ Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical conditions of the property such as addition of fill soils or changing drainage patterns which occur without our observation or control. This report should be considered valid for a period of one year and is subject to review by our firm following that time. If significant modifications are made to your tentative construction plan, especially with respect to finish pad elevations, and height and gradients of graded slopes, this report must be presented to us for review and possible revision. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner or his representative is responsible for ensuring that the information and recommendations are provided to the project architect/structural engineer so that they can be incorporated into the plans. Necessary steps shall be taken to ensure that the project general contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence Sheridan Place, Carlsbad, California (A.P.N. 206-042-47-00) March 27, 2017 Page 27 The project geotechnical engineer should be provided the opportunity for a general review of the project final design plans and specifications in order to ensure that the recommendations provided in this report are properly interpreted and implemented. If the project geotechnical engineer is not provided the opportunity of making these reviews, he can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of his recommendations. §61§ Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., warrants that this report has been prepared within the limits prescribed by our client with the usual thoroughness and competence of the engineering profession. No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended. Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Project No. GI-17-02-107 will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. §61§ Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. Mark Burwell CEG #2109 Distribution: Addressee (3, e-mail) §.M§ GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TOPO! map pr1nted on 02/28/17 from "San Diego.tpo" and "Untitled.tpg" 117.35000° w 117.33333° w REGIONAL INDEX MAP z 0 " '° '° '° \ ... m fl') 0 ' '\. " \ '· \ Q CAR·LSRAD ',. \ ' C. .... 'C' Zo z 0 0 '. 0 0 Ill .... fl') fl') 1£1 V't), .. \ \ \ \ \ ' 0 ' ' ,, ' 9-• 13' ,t T);v).£\ '· v:!> \ \ \ ' \ \ -, \ { \ \ ' \ ' \ ' \ '• \ ' \ \ ' \ \ ' ' ' ' \ <P \ \ \ \ \ ' ' ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ ' \ \ ?f \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 12 \ \ \ \ ' \ 't, \ \ \ \ I I ' \ \ \ I \ \ ' '· ' ' \ ' 117.35000° w 117.33333° w t::==::::c:::::==::c:~~========iHU y I I I ,goo F[£T , I I I I ,im I I I I fOOO"' ?rinted from TO?O! Cl999 \\-tld110\\·er ?roductia,u (""'""•-tO!)O.com) ·~-~ ,'\ \ , ,if J . WGS84 117.31667° W z 0 " '° '° '° ... m l'l - ,l, I ' - I, _, . I 1 KEYNOTES 12'-6" REAR YARD SETBACK 20% OF LOT WIDTH " N I m PRQJECTDATA D • BEDROOM ' 11.5X10 r.= I "' I .. ,.. '"''"''""' •= I L-----"'/ I-----" MASTER BEDROOM 13.5 X 17.5 I D 0 \ I\ 0 MASTER BATH I ' " "" I co le. 0 §2~:r: -<( 0 b >--- w:,,: ',c 0 U f-- (fl a5 g LJ (/) fl f ~ •, X --! -~- bl--------7' I --' I ~ _J -/~/ --' I ~ I I \15'-------.... ,. I rrr"'<~=-----::;~~~==i'i\\==_;;;c,c 7/ ---=~;----=::i 2 ~ cc X I I • I ~"' C I I -g ,; L :::; ~ 0 \~-"-:::; I ' N i-11iwr-CLOSET -( ) MASTERCLOSET 1~ LAUNDRY J :in1 ~ _rc=>-_cC" __ =;-=_=_=::;==~~~-=;-~=--~ 0 r--~wTM----: \ =I • 1 ~ = = ~~=n==="' =,~.J_·,,1/~ 1= 7 1 I MEDIA WALL ~ I t=:::::::=t~ I \1 ~ I t---J!i-ali,. Fw~·=· *1::f\~Rc=· P:LAj'CEF;===;;;~'i ~~~;;;=~:::::!~=H:,,~ri=AI_,_~ ' ~! ~ t_,--S=~-_-=-=~:::'-7"=_==_=_/==/=~=·-·~=:~=--~:=: LIVING 10 X 11 D / i !:''·-Cl 39' 8" AVAILABLE YARD SPACE SPA ,.,,. KITCHEN 7.5 X 11 lLJ D lU 0.. (/) 0 '--"' >° -uo w I --" 0 O'.l "' :'5 ~ ~ ··" I I I I" : Fi LANAI bl LJ D n I 0 n D - ©l~ (Q)'\#~ln ©l~ I 1 I, 18'-2" I ~-,L._--+-------------T I / \ MEDIA WALL I li!I FIRE PLACE I FAM!l Y LIVING 30X 18 \ '" I I I I I L V, ©l~ (Q) '\#~in (Q)\k D t, I -or--· -·r-----t---JI ' l GUEST EDROOM 11.5X1 ,. \\ -l j\ D _J i I I I I I I I I I I I ! i I I I I I I I 20'-o" FRONT YARD SETBACK . . . - X 0 m f- l/) 0 0... . \ I \' \ \ \ \ UJ (J <( ...J Q. z <( 0 -II UJ :r: CJ) GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND B-2$ Approximate Location of Exploratory Borings l Qs Topsoil I Qt Terrace Deposits !Project No. GI-17-02-107 i NORTH SCI\!£ 3116" = 1'-0' [ FIGURE 2] .c () ,._ ctl (/) 0 '-cu () 5 Cl) ... i;J C ro cl'ncirew Carlos architect 8 -,; I'-,,. -~· I~·-- ~-··· ~-·._· •··.····. ~ ()JI ... i::L_.·_. ~-· ~--10 i~F:-ONa··' -~-~ ..... ·· I..;,£..~. w z .. -·,·· ~· ~ _:.._'._·. ··. :_·_. \;;l";J </\' • n~t l':T"I ·-~·· l.iil.J V >, < . : . .. . bbl C) !ll.!!i~lillr~!ll!m~ . REVISIONS HOA REVIEW: PLAN CHECK: PLAN CHECK RESPONSE SITE PLAN -/ 12016 --·--- 3/10/20'16 _J_/2016 -illil!fl!Wll!IIM-lffill<iill$al11ml SHEET NUMBER 1 ' -. . __ ,-· .• 11 .. , '· . . . . . . ·~: ,; : . ' -1"·<· ,:; , . . ,. . "· I ·' :'' • 'c .~ . " ' ·. :; .. ·- ··:...=·· . ,' . ;.',c ' .. . "· '._.., . . :,, '!, .. ,··· .. r: . ,. ,<; T'. ,. f 1 . ,., , ._:) -;' ' . ,. ···-. ,• -----------------------~--~~~~ I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I KEY TO BORING/ TEST PIT LOGS DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: ST: Split Spoon -1-3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., Unless otherwise noted Thin-Walled Tube -2" O.D., Unless otherwise noted HS: PA: Hollow Stem Auger D Chunk Sample Power Auger ~ Sandcone Density Test Ring Sampler-2.375" I.D., 2.5" O.D., Unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger DB: Diamond Bit Coring-4", N, B Bulk Sample or Auger Sample RB: WB: Rock Bit Wash Boring or Mud Rotary The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sample (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the "Standard Penetration" or "N-value". For 2.5" O.D. ring samplers (RS) the penetration value is reported as the number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches, reported as "blows per foot" and is not considered equivalent to the "Standard Penetration" or "N-value". WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS WL: Water Level WCI: Wet Cave in DCI: Dry Cave in AB: After Boring WS: WD: BCR: ACR: While Sampling While Drilling Before Casing Removal After Casing Removal N/E: Not Encountered Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observation. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the unified classification system. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS Unconfined Standard Com11ressive Penetration or N- Streng!h, gu, 11sf value (SS} Blows[Ft. Consisten~ < 500 <2 Very Soft 500-1000 2-3 Soft 1001-2000 4-6 Medium Stiff 2001-4000 7-12 Stiff 4001-8000 13-26 Very Stiff 8000+ 26+ Hard RELATIVE PROPORTION OF SAND AND GRAVEL RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS Standard Penetration or N-Ring Sam11ler (RSI value (SSI Blows[Ft. Blows[Ft. Relative Densicy 0-3 0-6 Very Loose 4-9 7-18 Loose 10-29 19-58 Medium Dense 30-49 59-98 Dense 50+ 99+ Very Dense GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Descri11tive Term(s) of other constituents Trace With Modifiers Percent of Dry Weight < 15 Major Com11onent of Sam11le Boulders Particle Size Over 12 in. (300 mm) 15-29 > 30 RELATIVE PROPORTION OF FINES Descri11tive Term(s) of other constituents Trace With Modifiers Percent of Dry Weight < 15 15-12 > 12 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Term Non-plastic Low Medium High 12 in. to 3 in. (300 mm to 75 mm) 3 in. to #4 sieve (75 mm to 4. 75 mm) #4 Sieve to #200 Sieve (4.75 mm to 0.075 mm) Passing #200 Sieve (0.075 mm) PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Plasticicy Index 0 1-10 11-30 30+ ~~~ Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests• Soil Classification Group Group Name S mbol Gravels Clean Gravels Cu:!: 4 and 1 S Cc s 3' GW Well-graded gravel' More than 50% of coarse Less than 5% fines• Cu< 4 and/or 1 >Cc > 3' GP Poorly graded gravel' Coarse Grained Soils fraction retained on #4 Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel',G.tt More than 50% sieve More than 12% fines• Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel'·G,H retained on #200 Clean Sands Cu:!: 6 and 1 s Cc s 3' sieve Sands Less than 5% fines0 Cu< 6 and/or 1 >Cc > 3' 50% or more of coarse Sands with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH fraction passes #4 sieve More than 12% fines0 Fines classify as CL or CH SW Well-graded sand' SP Poorly graded sand' SM Silty sandG,H,o SC Clayey sandG,H,o inorganic Pl > 7 and plots on or above "A" line' Sitts and Cla~ Pl < 4 and plots below "A" line' CL Lean clay".·'·" ML SiltK.~M Fine Grained Soils Liquid limit less than 50 organic Liquid Limit -oven dried 50% or more passes Liquid Limit -not dried the #200 sieve inorganic Pl plots on or above "A" line Sitts and Cla~ Pl plots below "A" line <0.75 OL Organic clay<.l,M.N Organic snt•.l,M,o CH Fat claf.l<M MH Liquid limit 50 or more organic Liquid Limit -oven dried Liquid Limit -not dried <0.75 OH Organic clay'·'·"" Organic silt•.l.M,a Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A 8 C 0 Based on the material passing the 3 in. (75 mm) sieve. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. Gravels with 5% to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. G H If soil contains ~15% sand, add "with sand" to group name. If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. If soil contains ~15% gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. If soil contains 15% to 29% plus No. 200, add "with sand" or "with gravel" whichever is If soil contains ~30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. Sands with 5% to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand. M If soil contains :!:30% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to For classifications of fine-grained soils and fine grained fraction of coarse- grained soils. Equation of "A" line. Horizontal at Pl=4 to LL=25.S, then Pl=0.73 (LL-20). Equation of "U" line. Vertical at Ll=16 to Pl=7, then Pl = 0.9 (LL-8) 60 50 -40 ~ X Cl> '"O £ 30 i!' ·u ~ "' (1) ci: 20 10 7 4 0 0 N 0 p Q 10 16 20 group name. Pl ~4 and plots on or above "A" line. Pl <4 or plots below "A" line. Pl plots on or above "A" line. Pl plots below "A" line L 30 40 50 60 liquid Limit (LL) H MH or OH 70 80 90 100 ~~~ Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. - - "" ... -... SMS GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. PROJECT: Single-Family Residential Development Boring: B-1 CLIENT: Proohet Solutions Inc. PROJECT No.: GI -17-02-107 PROJECT LOCATION: Sheridan Place Carlsbad. California DATE LOGGED: 2/24/2017 BOREHOLE DIA: __ 8_"_ LOGGED BY: -~M=·=B~. --t CONTRACTOR: -0S~c=ott~'s=-=-Dr=ill=in""g ____ _ DRILL METHOD: Mini Track-Mounted Rotarv Drill. Hollow Stem Auaer. SAMPLE METHOD: 140-LB hammer dronned 30-inches bv rooe & cathead. 5-Foot AW rods. REMARKS: No cavina. No aroundwater. u DEPTH ~C> (fl) ~s (!) :-::::.: :_: -- 1 I ·: ... ,-- ·-: .. . -2 -. .-... ·.· :-.... :-: .-·. MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TOPSOI L(Qs) : Thick growth of naive grasses. SP/SM Fine to ~ium-graned said. Da-k brown color. Silty. Moist to very moist. Loose. Rootlets in upper 12 to 18 3 ·. :-. inches throughout. /.---l----1 ST-1 -.--+----+---+----+-----+----t . ·. ;,: :. :::-. -4 -_:-: . :-: :_ ·.:·· .. :_-. >;-: -5 _::_:: ;: :/ ·-::::_-:- -6 -. · ... :-:. :_:-:-_-.. ::: -7 _{:>:\: ·.:· :·.·.- -8 -::·: -:·i:::: -... : _:_ -:-::. :,::_: -9 .. ·-.· ·. . . . . . . . . -.... 10 ..•. ~ -~:-:•:•:• .. ·. ·.·.· -~:::: _ 11 _ ··:•:•:•: _12_ _13_ _ 14_ - ,....15_ - _ 16_ ... • ... rs•••• TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt): Fine-graned sa,dstone. Tai to reddish-brown color. Silty. Dry to slightly moist. Weahered in upper exposure. Dense below. From 9 feet, chaiges to ta, fine to coa-se-gra ned said . Little or no cohesion. Occasional pebbles. Dry to slightly moist. Dense to very dense. Becomes dry aid tight a 15 feet . ST-2 tsonom oT oorenoIe at 10.0 Tea:. C STANDARD f'9'I MODIFIED • BULK n GROUND a PENETRATION 1Af CALIFORNIA SAMPLE -¥-WATER TEST SAMPLER SM S-N- SP/911 I] M 12-17 16-24 13-15-17 (32) 11-14-15 (29) 11 123.7 96 79 4 115.8 90 23 6 2 FIGURE 3 - ... - , ... ... ... ,. SMS GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. PROJECT: Single-Family Residential Development Boring: B-2 CLIENT: Proohet Solutions Inc. PROJECT No.: Gl-17-02-107 PROJECT LOCATION: Sheridan Place. Carlsbad California DATE LOGGED: 2/24/2017 BOREHOLE DIA: ------=--8"_ LOGGED BY: __ M~._B_. _, CONTRACTOR: -'S~c=o=tt'-=--s-=D-'-'ri=llin'""'g,__ ____ _ DRILL METHOD: Mini Track-Mounted Rotarv Drill. Hollow Stem Auaer. SAMPLE METHOD: 140-LB hammer dronned 30-inches bv rooe & cathead. 5-Foot AW rods. REMARKS: No cavina. No aroundwater. (.) DEPTH ~CJ (fl) ~g C) ,,'' '.:. 1 I', . --1 ,· :, . -3 _1o:-:: • lo • • lo·.. • • -i-::: : : -4 -• • i-:•: : • . . . -~::: : : -5 _lo. • -:-: : . le.·. . • . ::: : : -6 -·. • "':-: : . \:: -7 -~··· •• i.:•: : • -i-::: : : -8 -.• ••• . ·.. . . · ::: : : -9 -• • i-••• • • lit •• • • • . ::: : : -10_ i( _11-t: _ 12--.:-. : i,.•.• •• -i-••• • • 13 -:::: : --... . ·:· . : -i-:-: : • 14 •.·. • • --i-.: .. : i,.•.· •• -i-··· .. i-::: e-15_':::: : ~ -i-·-· .. 1h i-:-:: • MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TOPSOI L(Qs) : Thick growth of nativegrac;ses. Fine to ma:lium-graina:l sa,d. Da-k brown color. Silty. Moist to Vffy moist. Loose to Vffy loose. Rootlets throughout the upper 12 to 18 inches. ST-1 TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt): Fine to ma:li um-grained sa,dstone. Tan to reddish-brown color. Silty. Moist. Weathera:l in upper exposure .Ma:lium dense below . At 5 feet, saTiple may beoomewhat disturba:l. From 8 feet, relatively dean with little or no cohesion . Occasional pebbles. Dry to slightly moist. Vffy dense. From 10 feet, cha,ges to fine to coa-se-grai ned said. Tai color. Silty. Dry to slightly moist. No cohesion. Continues dense to Vffy dense with occasional pebbles. At 15feet, sampleisdisturba:l. ST-2 tsonom or oora10Ie a lt>.u reec. a STANDARD l'9"I MODIFIED • BULK ..-, GROUND !::'!I PENETRATION IA.I CALIFORNIA SAMPLE 4 WATER TEST SAMPLER Iii 0 Iii ::::i SP/SM II SP-~ ilM/SV n s:~ oz -'::::, mo u 10-15 9-15 17-23-24 (47) 13-19 10 116.8 91 6 104.0 81 4 6 FIGURE 4 63 25 .... .... ... - SMS GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. PROJECT: Single-Family Residential Development Boring: B-3 CLIENT: Pronhet Solutions Inc. PROJECT No.: Gl-17-02-107 PROJECT LOCATION: Sheridan Place. Carlsbad California DATE LOGGED: 2/24/2017 BOREHOLE DIA: __ 8"_ LOGGED BY: __ M~-~B~ ....... CONTRACTOR: _S_c_o~tt'~s~D~ri~lli_ng _____ _ DRILL METHOD: Mini Track-Mounted Rotarv Drill. Hollow Stem Auaer. SAMPLE METHOD: 140-LB hammer droooed 30-inches bv rooe & cathead. 5-Foot AW rods. REMARKS: No cavina. No aroundwater. (.) DEPTH ~8 (ft) ~...J C!) :_,;. -: . -1 -: .. . : . -2 -.. .:-: ·. :,:-..:.· 3 to:•:: • --::: : : -i-:-:: . -4 -~:::: : to/~ ~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION TOPSOI L(Qs) : Thick growth of naive grasses . Fine to medium-grained saidstone. Da-k brown color. Silty. Very moist. Very loose. \ Rootlets throughout the upper 12 to 18 i nctles. ST-1 TERRACE DEPOSITS(Qt): SP/SM 12-16 9 117.0 91 58 -5 -to.• .•. to-:· . : -:-: : . Fine to medium-grained sa,dstone. Tan to reddish-brown color. Silty. Moist. Weeihered in upper exposures. Dense to very dense below. ~ SP-,-.a.--+---+---+---+----+---1 6 •.• ••• --"'··· .. to::: : : 7 -:-: : • I---"'.·· •• t-••• • • i-,. •• • • -"' ::: : : ~ 8 -.-: .. : \ ~: -9 -::: : : . . . i.... • . 10 •:::: : --·.· .. -::: : : 11 :-: : : --::: : : From 8 feet, cha,ges to fine to medi urn-grained said. Ta, color. Silty. Relciively deai with little or no cohesion. Very dense. Moist. ST-2 tsonom ot oor~ote a 11.0 1ea:. a STANDARD II] MODIFIED • BULK a PENETRATION CALIFORNIA SAMPLE TEST SAMPLER n GROUND 4 WATER Wils-J M 12-15-17 (32) 17-20-21 (41) 4 6 FIGURE 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' -. -~ . \ \ ~ ' FAULT-EPI CENTER MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGION Indicated Earthquake Events Through A 200 Year Period ~ j ,. E PICENTER MAP LEGE ND ~- t ~ :: ,3 .... ,. 1E~9 ,~3;:. t·H:$ l!tJl ,, ••• t,: ,~. -• F " ,1 ••• • • • • ,. 4 • • • Map is reproduced from California Division of Mines and Geology, "Epicenters of/ and Areas Damaged by M ~ 5 California Earthquakes, 1800-1 999". SMS Geotechnical Solution Sieve Analysis 5931 Sea Lion place, Suite 109 ASTM D 6913 _ 04 1 CarlsbPardo,J·CAect92010 ___________________ 1 Job# ,.... 1 _________________ ___ Prophet Solutions, Inc. . . Gl-17-02-107 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Supervising Lab Tech S.B. I Address Sheridan Place, Carlsbad .....__-============ ,----====~---;:======~ Supervising Lab Manager S.M.S. I Date 3/2/2017 Tech m 100 I : 90 80 70 tlO 60 C V) V) ro 0.. so +-' C (l) u .... 40 (l) 0.. 30 I ! ~ 20 10 0 1~ 500 100 so 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 Grain Size (mm) Cobbles Gravel Sand Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine Silt or Clay B-1@ 3' 8-1@9' B-1@ 15' D60 D60 1.1 D60 0.55 D60 D30 D30 0.65 D30 0.25 D30 D10 D10 0.075 D10 0.165 D10 Location Depth Symbol uses NAT,w o/o LL PL Pl Cu (D60/D10) Cc (D230/ 060*D10) B-1 3' (.., SM 11 -- B-1 9' • SP/SW 6 14.67 5.12 B-1 15' SP 2 3.33 0.69 Figure# 7 (a) (6) ISOLATION JOINTS CONTRACTION JOINTS NOTES: RE-ENTRANT CORNER REINFORCEMENT NO. 3 BARS PLACED MID-HEIGHT IN SlAB (c) INOSCALEI RE-ENTRANT CORNER CRACK 1. Isolation joints around the columns should be either circular as shown in (a) or diamond shaped as shown in (b). if no isolation joints are used around columns, or if the corners of the isolation joints do not meet the contraction joints, radial crocking as shown in (c) may occur (reference ACI). 2. In order to control cracking at the re-entant corners ( + /-270 degree corners), provide reinforcement as shown in (c). 3. Re-entrant corner reinforcement shown herein is herein is provided as a general guideline only and is subject to verification and changes by the project architect and /or structural engineer based upon slab geometry, location, and other engineering and construction factors. 6116 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Consulting GeotechnicaJ Engineers & Geologists 5931 Sea Lion Place, Suite 109 Carlsbad, California 92010 760-602-7815 smsgeosol.inc@gmail.com rrPECA\~ E~OLAVECN JOtW!TS £~@ IE,.,rH\ll'FM~V COINIR ~EU~lFORCE1'E~V PRIOJ;ECf ~O: FlGURE NO: Gl-17-02-107 8 ---- NO. 8 AGGREGATES IN OPE:NINGS PE:R MANUFACTURER SPECS. PERMEABLE PA 'vf:RS (TRAFFIC RA TED) J-1/8" THICK CONCRETE PA VERS, TRAFFIC LOADING 6" CONCRETE fDGE RESTRAIN riiiziiJJiiJJJ2Jii~JJi~~ii~~Jg?~~iq~~]~~,~~4 2" BEDDING COURSE (NO. 8 AGGREGATE ... ,;_·..f"'or··,...-,,./·...,_, .. ,..,,~~~~iee~¼)~~~~~~~~iii~~~1~~~ii.~ OR PER MANUFACTURER SPECS) 8" THICK OPEN GRADED BASE, 'MTH MIN. 5" PER HOUR INRL TRA noN RA TE t.__....H~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-__L.--(No. 57 STONE -J/4" MAX.) SOfL SUBGRADE UPPER 12" AT 95% COMPACnON. {ASTM 01557) Schematic And Conceptual Only No-Scale 6.ll'NGEOTECHNIC AL SOLUTIONS, I NC. 59J 1 Sea Lion Place, Suite I 09 Carlsbad, California 92010 (760) 602-78 l ~ smsi:<'osol.inc(n· gmail.com PR JECT NO: DATE: Gl-17-02-107 IC - 4" PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN SCH. 40 PVC. CONNECT TO PERFORATED PIPE:S UNDER THE 8/0RETENTTON AREAS. ,FIGURE NO: 3-21-2017 9 I I I I I I I I SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (68-1.025) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ,. 3/4 3/8 No 4 No. 8 No. 30 No.50 No. 200 % PASSING 100 90-100 40-100 25-40 18-33 5-15 0-7 0-3 SAND EQUIVALENT > 75 RETAINING WALL FILTER MATERIAL, 3/4' · 1~" CRUSHED ROCKS (WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC OR CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIALS (SEE SPECIFICATIONS) WATERPROOFING (TYP) FINISH GRADE 6" MIN. CONCRETE-LINED DRAINAGE DITCH FILTER MATERJAL, 3/4" · lf CRUSHED ROCKS (WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIALS (SEE SPECIFICATIONS) WATERPROOFING (TYP) PROPOSED GRADE 6"MIN. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS: I NO SCALE I I NO SCALE I GROUND SURFACE MIN 90% COMPACTED FILL APPROVED FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140N) 12' OVERLAP, TYP. 4' PVC PERFORATED PIPE MIN. (SCH 40 OR SDR35) MIN. 1 /2% FALL TO APPROVED OUTLET (SEE REPORT) NATURAL OR GRADED SLOPE ' TEMPORARY 1 : 1 CUT SLOPE PROPERLY COMPACTED (MIN. 90%) BACKFILLED GROUND "'----BENCH AND TIGHTLY KEY INTO TEMPORARY ·w -..... ~o • z alw ~w !!?.. BACKCUT AS BACKFILLING PROGRESSES APPROVED FILTER FABRJC (MIRAFI 140N) 12' OVERLAP, TYP. "-------4' PVC PERFORATED PIPE MIN. (SCH -40 OR SDR35) MIN. 1 /2% FALL TO APPROVED OUTLET (SEE REPORT) 1. Provide granular, non-expansive backfill soil in 1: 1 gradient wedge behind wall. compad backfill to minimum 90% of laboratory standard. 2. Backdroin should consist of 4" diom~t~r PVC pipe (Schedule 40 or equivalent) with perforations down. Drain to suitable at minimum,%. Provide 3/4" • 1,• crushed rocks filter materials wrapped in fabric (Mirofi 140N or equivalent). Delete filter fabric wrap if Coltrans Closs 2 permeable material is used. Compod Closs 2 permeable material to minimum 90% of laboratory standard. 3. Seal bock of wall with approved waterproofing in accordance with architect's specifications. 4. Provide positive drainage to disallow ponding of water above wall. Drainage to flow away from wall at minimum 2%. Provide concrete-lined drainage ditch for slope toe retaining walls. 5. Use 1 ~ cubic feet per foot with granular backfill soil and 4 cubic foot per foot if expansive backfill is used. 6116 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineen & Geologists 5931 Sea Lion Place, Suite 109 Carlsbad, California 92010 760-602-7815 smsgeosol.inc@gmail.com TYPICAL RETA[NING WALL BACK DRAENAGE PROJECT NC: FIGURE NO: Gl -17-02-107 10 APPENDIX .... I Design Maps Summary Report I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIUSGS Design Maps Summary Report User-Specified Input Report Title Prophet Solutions, Inc. -Sheridan Place, Carlsbad WP.d Marrh 1, 201/ 19 18 48 UIC Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard (whirh utrliZP.S lJSCS hazard data avarlablP in 2008) Site Coordinates 33.1499°N, 117.3394°W Site Soil Classification Site Class D -"Stiff Soil" Risk Category I/II/III USGS-Provided Output Ss = 1.149 g S1 = 0.440 g s .. s = 1.195 g s .. 1 = o.687 g : tin,.,.· "C'~, t1r . .;lfll,m 'Vista ,1 rn:11 t., rp ,u... T fl 11""\,; Sos= 0.797g So1 = 0.458 g Stn Marcos Escondido• For information on how the SS and S1 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. .. o; c, ,n '::· ..,:,:, I -~~~ :.) For PGA,,, T,, CRS, and c.1 values, please view the detailed report. https:/ /earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/desigrunaps/us/summary .php?template=minimal&latitude= .. . 3/1/2017 ... ... Design Maps Detailed Report IIIJSGS Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 7-10 Standard (33.1499°N, 117.3394°W) Site Class D -"Stiff Soil", 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 S5) and 1.3 (to obtain S,). 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 cii Ss=l.149g From Figure 22-2 121 s, = 0.440 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 D, based on the site soil properties in accordance with Chapter 20. Table 20.3-1 Site Classification Site Class Vs Nor Heh Su A. Hard Rock >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A Page 1 of 6 -----------------~-----------~,.------------------ B. Rock C. Very dense soil and soft rock D. Stiff Soil E. Soft clay soil F. Soils requiring site response analysis in accordance with Section 21.1 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A ------------------~---------------------------·-·---------------~--- 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s 600 to 1,200 ft/s <600 ft/s >50 15 to 50 <15 >2,000 psf 1,000 to 2,000 psf <1,000 psf Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics: • Plasticity index PI> 20, • Moisture content w e:: 40%, and • Undrained shear strength Su < 500 psf See Section 20.3.1 For SI: lft/s = 0.3048 m/s 1lb/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/m2 http://earthquake.usgs.gov/cnl/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.... 2/28/2017 ... ... Design Maps Detailed Report Page 2 of 6 Section 11.4.3 -Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient F, Site Class Mapped MCE "Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period Ss :5 0.25 Ss = 0.50 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.00 Ss ?: 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 Ss For Site Class= D and Ss = 1.149 g, F, = 1.040 Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient Fv Site Class Mapped MCE " Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period s, :5 0.10 s, = 0.20 s, = 0.30 s, = 0.40 s,?: 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 S, For Site Class = D and S, = 0.440 g, F. = 1.560 http://earthquake.usgs.gov/cnl/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.... 2/28/2017 ... - .. , .. Design Maps Detailed Report Equation (11.4-1): SMs = F.Ss = 1.040 X 1.149 = 1.195 g Equation (11.4-2): SM! = fvS1 = 1.560 X 0.440 = 0.687 g Section 11.4.4 -Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation (11.4-3): Sos=½ SMs = ½ X 1.195 = 0.797 g Equation ( 11.4-4): Soi = ½ SM, = ½ X 0.687 = 0.458 g Section 11.4.5 -Design Response Spectrum From Figure 22-12 [JJ TL = 8 seconds Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum " ~· u ,,, .-. ,,.,..., ·L,./_1,' T < T0 : s.::: 500 ( 0.4 + 0.6 TI T0 ) T0 STST5 :S.=Sos T$ <Ts TL: s.::: so,' T Page 3 of 6 http://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn1/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.... 2/28/2017 - .... ·• Design Maps Detailed Report Page 4 of 6 Section 11.4.6 -Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum The MCE. Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by 1.5. ~ .11: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/cnl/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.... 2/28/2017 .. .. ... .. Design Maps Detailed Report Page 5 of 6 Section 11.8.3 -Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F From Figure 22-7 r4i PGA = 0.456 Equation ( 11.8-1): PGAM = FPGAPGA = 1.044 x 0.456 = 0.476 g Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient FPGA Site Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA Class PGA ~ PGA = PGA = PGA = PGA;?: 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 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 = D and PGA = 0.456 g, F.G. = 1.044 Section 21.2.1.1 -Method 1 (from Chapter 21 -Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) From Figure 22-17 rsi CRs = 0.939 From Figure 22-18 E5l CR1 = 0.992 --------------------~------------~-~------------~----------·------------·----~---------------·- http://earthquake.usgs.gov/cnl/designmaps/us/report.php?template=minimal&latitude=33.... 2/28/2017 ... ... Design Maps Detailed Report 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< 0.1679 A A A 0.1679 :$ Sos< 0.339 B B C 0.339 :$ Sos < 0.509 C C D 0.509 :$ Sos D D D For Risk Category= I and Sos= 0.797 g, Seismic Design Category= D Table 11.6-2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-S Period Response Acceleration Parameter RISK CATEGORY VALUE OF So1 I or II III IV So1 < 0.0679 A A A 0.0679 :S So, < 0.1339 B B C 0.1339 :S So1 < 0.209 C C D 0.209 :$ So1 D D D For Risk Category = I and S01 = 0.458 g, Seismic Design Category = D Note: When S, is greater than or equal to 0. 75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for buildings in Risk Categories I, II, 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 : Page 6 of 6 https ://earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7 _Figure_22-1. pdf 2. Figure 22-2: https ://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/201 O_ASCE-7 _Figure_22-2. pdf 3. Figure 22-12: https ://earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/201 O_ASCE-7 _Figure_22-12. pdf 4. Figure 22-7: https ://earthquake .usgs.gov /hazards/design maps/downloads/pdfs/201 O_ASCE-7 _Figure_22-7. pdf 5. Figure 22-17: https ://earthquake. usgs.gov /hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/201 O_ASCE-7 _Figure_22-17 .pdf 6. Figure 22-18: https ://earthquake. usgs.gov /hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/201 O_ASCE-7 _Figure_22-18. pdf httn://earthauake.uSQS.Qov/cn 1 /designmans/us/renort nhn?tpmnlMP=minimi:i IX>-li:ititnrlP=~ ~ 'J /')Sl/')() 1 7