Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNCP 18-0002; ECONO LODGE EXPANSION; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2018-10-29C C ( ,. .. .. .. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING• ENGINEERING GEOLOGY• HYDROGEOLOGY Paresh Patel Econolodge 3666 Pio Pico Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION October 29, 2018 Project No. 8721.2 Log No. 20154 Proposed Building Addition and Driveway Improvements 3666 Pio Pico Drive Carlsbad, California References: Attached Dear Mr. Patel: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed building addition and driveway improvements at the subject site. Our work was performed during October 2018. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the soil and geologic conditions at the site in order to provide grading and foundation recommendations for the proposed development. Our scope of work included the following: • Research and review of available plans and geologic maps/literature pertinent to the site (see References). • Subsurface exploration consisting of one boring and one test pit for soil sampling and geologic observation. • Laboratory testing of samples obtained from the subsurface exploration . • Engineering and geologic analysis. • Preparation of this report presenting the results of our field and laboratory work, analyses, and our conclusions and recommendations . 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008-4369 • (760) 931-1917 • Fax (760) 931-0545 333 Third Street, Suite 2 • Laguna Beach, CA 92651-2306 • (949) 715-5440 • Fax (760) 931-0545 www.hetheringtonengineering.com C C C C C C r t.. .. .. .. .. .. t.. .. i ... .. .. .. .. Ill .. .. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Building Addition and Driveway Improvements 3666 Pio Pico Drive Carlsbad, California HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. C C C C ,,. L. ,. 11111 ,. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ,. ... -.. --Ill GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8721.2 Log No. 20154 October 29, 2018 Page2 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is located at 3666 Pio Pico Drive, Carlsbad, California (see Location Map, Figure 1). The property is approximately I-acre in size and is relatively level. The site currently supports a two-story Econolodge and adjacent parking and driveway areas. The portion of the site to be improved is vacant and unimproved. This area is bounded by developed residential and commercial properties to the east, the existing Econolodge building to the north, Pio Pico Drive to the west, and Magnolia A venue to the south. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Proposed development consists of a two-story building with concrete parking on the lower level, and permeable concrete paver driveway improvements. We anticipate wood- frame construction founded on conventional continuous/spread footings. Building loads are expected to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. Proposed grading consists of minor cuts and fills. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions were explored by excavating one hand-auger boring and one hand- excavated test pit to depths of 8 and 6-feet, respectively, below existing site grades. The approximate locations of the exploratory boring and test pit are shown on the attached Plot Plan, Figure 2 . The subsurface exploration was supervised by an engineer from this office, who visually classified the soil, and obtained relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples for laboratory testing. The soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classifications are shown on the attached Boring Log, Figure 3 and Log of Test Pit, Figure 4 . LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. Test performed consisted of the following: • Dry Density/Moisture Content (ASTM: D 2216) • Direct Shear (ASTM: D 3080) • Soluble Sulfate (Cal Test 417) HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. ADAPTED FROM: The Thomas Guide, San Diego County, 57th Edition, Page 1106 LOCATION MAP HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. t N I SCALE: 1" -2000' (1 Grid Equals: 0.5 x 0.5 miles) 3666 Pio Pico Carlsbad, Californ ia GEOTEC HNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 8721.2 I FIGURE NO. 1 C C .. 11111 .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. • .. .. .. .. .. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8721.2 Log No. 20154 October 29, 2018 Page 3 Results of the dry density and moisture content determinations are presented on the attached Boring Log, Figure 3 and Log of Test Pit, Figure 4. The remaining laboratory test results are presented on the attached Laboratory Test Results, Figure 5. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 1. Geologic Setting The subject site lies within a relatively level marine terrace that is contained within the coastal plain region of northern San Diego County, California. The coastal plain region is characterized by numerous regressive marine terraces of Pleistocene age that have been established above wave-cut platforms of underlying Eocene bedrock and were formed during glacio-eustatic changes in sea level. The terraces extend from areas C?f higher elevations east of the site and descend generally west-southwest in a "stairstep" fashion down to the present day coastline. These marine terraces increase in age eastward. The site area is contained within the central portion of the USGS San Luis Rey 7.5-minute quadrangle. As observed in the boring and test pit, the site is underlain by fill and Quaternary terrace deposits. Structurally, bedding within the terrace deposits is considered to be essentially massive. The fill and terrace deposits are granular and have a very low expansion potential. 2. Geologic Unit a. Fill -Fill soils were encountered from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 2-feet and consist of gray to brown silty sand that is dry to moist and loose to dense . b. Terrace Deposits -Encountered in both the boring and the test pit beneath the fill, the terrace deposits consist of red brown silty sand that is moist and dense to very dense . 3. Groundwater Groundwater or seepage was not encountered in the exploratory boring or test pit. It should be noted, however, that fluctuations in the amount and level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation and other factors that may not have been evident at the time of our field investigation . HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. ,. t .. ,. ~ .. ... .. ... .. ... --.. ... .. .. ,,.. .. ... .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. Ill .. .. ,. I. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8721.2 Log No. 20154 October 29, 2018 Page4 SEISMICITY Based on review of the available geologic maps/literature, there are no known active or potentially active faults that traverse the subject site, and the property is not located within the currently mapped limits of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The following table lists the known active faults that would have the most significant impact on the site: Maximum Probable Fault Earthquake Slip Rate (Moment Magnitude) (mm/year) Rose Canyon 7.0 1.5 (8.9-kilometers/ 5.5-miles southwest) Elsinore (Julian Segment) 6.8 1.5 (37-kilometers/ 23-miles northeast) SEISMIC EFFECTS 1. Ground Accelerations The most significant probable earthquake to affect the property would be a 7.0 magnitude earthquake on the Rose Canyon fault. Based on Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 California Building Code and Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7-10, peak ground accelerations (PGAM) of O .4 73 g are possible for the design earthquake . 2. Landsliding Review of the referenced geologic maps/literature indicates that the subject property is not included within the limits of any previously mapped landsliding. The risk of seismically induced landsliding affecting the site is considered low due to the relatively level site topography . 3. Ground Cracks The risk of fault surface rupture due to active faulting is considered low due to the absence of known active faults on site. Ground cracks due to shaking from seismic events in the region are possible, as with all of southern California . HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. ,. L C .. .. .. .. .. -----------• ------.. .. -.. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8721.2 Log No. 20154 October 29, 2018 Page 5 4. Liquefaction The risk of seismically induced liquefaction within the site is considered low due to the dense nature of the terrace deposits and absence of shallow groundwater . 5. Tsunamis The site is not located within a mapped tsunami inundation area (Reference 4). The risk of a tsunamis event adversely impacting the site is considered low due to the · elevation of the property above sea level. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. General The proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Grading and foundation plans should take into account the appropriate geotechnical features of the site. Provided that the recommendations presented in this report and good construction practices are utilized during design and construction, the proposed construction is not anticipated to adversely impact the adjacent properties from a geotechnical standpoint. 2. Seismic Parameters for Structural Design Seismic considerations that may be used for structural design at the site include the following: a. Ground Motion -The proposed structure should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in Section 1613 of the 2016 California Building Code. Site Address: 3666 Pio Pico Drive, Carlsbad, California Latitude: 33.1557°N Longitude: 117.3379°W b. Spectral Response Accelerations -Using the location of the property and data obtained from the U.S.G.S. Earthquake Hazard Program, short period Spectral Response Accelerations Ss (0.2 second period) and S1 (1.0 second period) are: Ss = 1.141g S1 = 0.438g HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. ,. L ... ,,. f .. ,,. .. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project N:o. 8721.2 Log No. 20154 October 29, 2018 Page 6 c. Site Class -In accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7, and the underlying geologic conditions, a Site Class D is considered appropriate for the subject property. d. Site Coefficients Fa and Fv -In accordance with Table 1613.3.3 and considering the values of Ss and S1, Site Coefficients for a Class D site are: Fa= 1.044 Fv = 1.562 e. Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Sms and Sm1 -In accordance with Section 1613.3.3 and considering the values of Ss and S1, and Fa and Fv, Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters for the Maximum Considered Earthquake are: Sms = 1.191g Sm1 = 0.684g f. Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Sds and Sd1 -In accordance with Section 1613.3.4 and considering the values of Sms and Sm1, Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters for the Maximum Considered Earthquake are: Sds = 0.794g Sd1 = 0.456g g. Long Period Transition Period -A Long Period Transition Period of TL = 8 seconds is provided for use in San Diego County . h. Seismic Design Category -In accordance with Tables 1604.5, 1613.3.5(1) and 1613.3.5(2), and ASCE 7, a Risk Category II and a Seismic Design Category D are considered appropriate for the subject property . 3. Site Grading Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of existing surface obstructions, vegetation and debris. Materials generated during clearing should be disposed of at an approved location off-site. Holes resulting from the removal of any buried obstruction should be filled with compacted fill or lean concrete. Seepage pits and/or septic systems, if encountered during site development, should be abandoned in accordance with local guidelines . Within the limits of proposed improvements and to 3-feet beyond, existing loose fill and disturbed terrace deposits should be removed down to approved undisturbed terrace deposits (estimated depth 2-feet). Actual removal depths should be determined HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. C ,,. L ,,. L .. ... .. .. -.. .. .. ---- .. Ill --.. ... GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8721.2 Log No. 20154 October 29, 2018 Page7 in the field by the Geotechnical Consultant based on conditions exposed during grading. The exposed subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8-inches, moisture conditioned to about optimum moisture content and compacted by mechanical means to a minimum relative compaction of 90-percent (ASTM: D 1557). Fill should be moisture conditioned as necessary to about optimum moisture content and compacted by mechanical means in uniform horizontal lifts of 6 to 8-inches in thickness. All fill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90-percent based upon ASTM: D 1557. The on-site materials are suitable for use as compacted fill provided all vegetation and debris are removed. Rock fragments over 6-inches in dimension and other perishable or unsuitable materials should be excluded from the fill. All grading and compaction should be observed and tested as necessary by the Geotechnical Consultant. 4. Foundation and Slab Recommendations The proposed structure may be supported on conventional continuous/spread footings founded at least 18-inches in compacted fill and/or terrace deposits. Continuous footings should be at least 12-inches wide and reinforced with a minimum of four #4 bars, two top and two bottom. Foundations located adjacent to utility trenches should extend below a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected upward from the bottom of the trench. Foundations bearing as recommended may be designed for a dead plus live load bearing value of 2000-pounds-per-square-foot. This value may be increased by one- third for loads including wind and seismic forces. A lateral bearing value of 250- pounds-per-square-foot per foot of depth to a maximum value of 2000-pounds-per- square-foot and a coefficient of friction between foundation soil and concrete of 0.35 may be assumed. These values assume that footings will be poured neat against the foundation soils. Footing excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of reinforcing steel in order to verify that they are founded in suitable bearing materials. Total and differential settlement due to foundation loads is considered to be less than 3/4 and 3/8-inch, respectively, for foundations founded as recommended. Slab-on-grade floors should have a minimum thickness of 5-inches, and should be reinforced with #4 bars spaced at 18-inches, center to center, in two directions, and supported on chairs so that the reinforcement is at mid-height in the slab. Floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture vapor retarder consisting of a minimum 10-mil polyethylene membrane. At least 2-inches of sand should be placed over the vapor HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. .. L. .. I .. .. .. .. --.. --.. ------• -• -• -.. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8721.2 Log No. 20154 October 29, 2018 Page 8 retarder to assist in concrete curing and at least 2-inches of sand should be placed below the vapor retarder. The vapor retarder should be placed in accordance with ASTM: E 1643. Prior to placing concrete, the slab subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened. Vapor retarders are not intended to provide a waterproofing function. Should moisture vapor sensitive floor coverings be planned, a qualified consultant/contractor should be consulted to evaluate moisture vapor transmission rates and to provide recommendations to mitigate potential adverse impacts of moisture vapor transmissions on the proposed flooring . 5. Hardscape Concrete flatwork should be at least 5-inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced at 18-inches on-center (two directions) and placed on chairs so that the reinforcement is in the center of the concrete. Contraction joints should be provided at 8-feet spacing (maximum). Joints should create square panels where possible. For rectangular panels (where necessary) the long dimension should be no more than 1.5 times the short dimension. Joint depth should be at least O .25 times the flatwork thickness. Expansion joints should be thoroughly sealed to prevent the infiltration of water into the underlying soils. 6. Permeable Concrete Pavement We recommend that the permeable interlocking concrete pavement consist of 3 1/8- inch thick (minimum) concrete pavers (with edge restraints and sand filled joints) underlain by a bedding sand layer (for leveling) and compacted base and subbase. Materials for use as bedding sand, base and subbase should meet the following specifications: ASTM No. 8 stone Base 4 inches ASTM No. 57 stone Subbase 6 inches ASTM No. 2 stone The base and subbase should be compacted to a minimum of 90-percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM: D 1557 .. Prior to placement of subbase and base, the underlying subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of 12- inches and compacted to at least 90-percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557) . HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC . ,. .. -.. .. • • .. .. .. .. .. -.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -t .. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8721.2 Log No. 20154 October 29, 2018 Page 9 7. Sulfate Content A representative sample of the on-site soils was submitted for sulfate testing. The result of the sulfate test is summarized on the Laboratory Test Results, Figure 5. The sulfate content is consistent with a not applicable sulfate exposure classification per Table 4.2.1 of the American Concrete Institute Publication 318, consequently, no special provisions for sulfate resistant concrete are considered necessary. Other corrosivity testing has not been performed, consequently, on-site soils should be assumed to be severely corrosive to buried metals unless testing is performed to indicate otherwise. 8. Drainage The following recommendations are intended to minimize the potential adverse effects of water on the structures and appurtenances . a. Consideration should be given to providing the structure with roof gutters and downspouts that discharge to an area drain system and/or to suitable locations away from the structure . b. All site drainage should be directed away from the structure . c. No landscaping should be allowed against the structure. Moisture accumulation or watering adjacent to foundations can result in deterioration of building materials and may affect the performance of foundations . d. Irrigated areas should not be over-watered. Irrigation should be limited to that required to maintain the vegetation. Additionally, automatic systems must be seasonally adjusted to minimize over-saturation potential particularly in the winter (rainy) season . e. All yard and roof drains should be periodically checked to verify they are not blocked and flow properly, and maintained as necessary. 9. Recommended Observation and Testing During Construction The following tests and/or observations by the Geotechnical Consultant are recommended: a. Observation and testing during site grading . b. Observation of foundation excavations prior to placement of forms and reinforcement. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC . r .. ,,,. .. .. ,,,. .. .. .. .. .. ,,,. ,,,. .. ,,,. .. - ... --.. .. .. .. -.. ' ... GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8721.2 Log No. 20154 October 29, 2018 Page 10 c. Utility trench backfill. d. Hardscape/driveway subgrade and base. e. Permeable paver subgrade, subbase and base. 10. Grading and Foundation Plan Review Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to confirm conformance with the recommendations presented herein or to modify the recommendations as necessary . LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our investigation and further assume the excavations to be representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. If different subsurface conditions from those encountered during our exploration are observed or appear to be present in excavations during construction, the Geotechnical Consultant should be promptly notified for review and reconsideration of recommendations. Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call this office. Sincerely, HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC . 1v1 ngmeer Geotechnical E ( expires 3/31/20 ro ess10nal Geologist 377 Certified Engineering Geol Certified Hydrogeologist 5 (expires 3/31/20) HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC . ... .. ,. ... ... .. ... ... ,,. i ... ,.. .. ... .. .. -.. .. -.. -.. .. .. ,.. ... .. ' .. ,.. .. ... .. .. .. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8721.2 Log No. 20154 October 29, 2018 Page 11 Attachments: Location Map Plot Plan Boring Log Test Pit Log Laboratory Test Results Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Distribution: 1-via e-mail Shanup Patel (shanuppatel@gmail.com) 5-Addressee HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC . ---------- _______ _,,.. .................. --.?---... -·------------------ C ( C C C C C C ... L ,,,. ... C r ., .. L. ... L. REFERENCES 1. A. E. Engineering, "Soil Engineering Investigation, Report, Proposed Two Story Hotel Building, 3666 Pio Pico Drive, Carlsbad, California", dated September 1, 2017. 2. ASCE 7-10, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures", American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineers Institute, dated May 2010. 3. bHa, Inc., "Grading Plans For: Econolodge 2-Story Expansion, 3666 Pio Pico Drive", undated (Sheets 1 through 5). 4. California Geological Survey, "Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Oceanside/San Luis Rey Quadrangle", California Geological Survey, June 1, 2009. 5. ICBO, California Building Code, 2016 Edition. 6. ICBO, "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998. 7. Peterson, Mark P ., et al, "Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazards Maps," USGS Open File Report 2008-1128, dated 2008 . 8. Tan, Siang S. and Kennedy, Michael P., "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 96-02, dated 1996. 9. USGS, Earthquake Hazard Program, Seismic Design Maps. 10. Weber, F. Harold, "Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides, and Related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California", California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 82-12, dated 1982. 11. 2007 Working Group and California Earthquake Probability, "The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF-2)," USGS Open File Report 2007-1437 and California Geological Survey Special Report 203, dated 2008. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. 8721.2 Log No. 20154 ;._ {; ,1/ • I ,t\>• ,:-¼ (-. ,i l. 'f-,.~ .yt- l~~;L b~!1a: , , ---~---.... ~ I ~- -<~:) '/3 ~.1?' J'\,. 4 r:Ot.UVNS Cl :&· ~1 a'. I I !"· \.., '-- ' I r· r 11 : . S,' ~t;c,•,-=' . I I ., ,t ~- r .. ~ r ·--~·t i t ~ ~-•:, C::......i.t·· .t~'tt .. r ' I ' I ll ~---·; :' · .. i3;. ,. .. ·L.l I,, i. .. , ·i•· ~ I I.~ '·' µ. __ .-' ' ~/ :s ~ I -~ I ~ Ii: I-' ~ I ~ I!!! ~ ("3 "· ~ 12" SO CATCH BASIN TG-72.70 /.£ IN-4"PF:RF.-71.52 I.E. OUT 4 "SOI.JD-71.40 R/W \ 20' :r~, - ~ (.~~-'~1-:-.... ~~s~, ~ , .. ilj::,13 ~ , bl .. '1 ~ "-::'.:::oi!s~ ~ <l.' 10 ·"\r i\' --;;. -~~ [•' ~,..~~ P.; ~ !~,.j ::,_ i 13~~a '': lf K m ,z 1..,. <; Rh ,._ ""9-;; ;z ;,c-;/; <, ~ t <Y )'G ,..... ef , qnJ':C , , e .,,:::; z' ___, -~ KJ 1~; z l,·J .. I _'::i~\s!~g~ :f .' ... ~Cl Cv'5 ._ ~ .rf1 ~~~~~~ ,I -;_ fl f . ;1;""<>:-i;: ;. ·r ,;;t;~;!:l:!~o , :· ~~d.8a~ bi:. I '\ ', \ f·<;_J ':-l ~~ t·• A "1 ~ ~ ~- · 1 ... ·cc• -Tr -~cc,?'i' rl . ir· .... . ' •1• I .l q r-l, ' Ii I ?\! ~ K:; f ~ i✓ ~ f~ ,, ~ t! ·~ " i~ Lr1 ,f l. I· ft[<,. •I" PVC souo' SCH ' ~ @om FF-74.20 ,' ,/ ""' PAD-73.70 -, / • , , • f '-. -~ ... •? ~ . 1.. ·• ·1 • ( 1!~~-,~--~ 7 53, • . -... ... v• :·. ' .. :•t'. ·. [ I ------~--------,~ ·fe' -+ i--)' ;, -, • ·~ ,,~,-·, j ,,f 1.I;':·' ; , 1n ---"' ,rn, -·----f~,----r _ , • _ ffi ·• !I j( ·"• :•i' , ~-f,,Lj . . -::::-.. -:-...:::.!~~~~~~::'::'::':::'::=:======lLf ROOF LIN[_/ -------~... / /, //: .' 1t '<t -'),; ~·--.. ,,.-.-::l;-L~2.J0.76"-·' ?!i;.."' ----------I 1 _,...-,--:, //,~, '/1, • • • ' -.. ,. . --------' " fl ,, • ) ·1 • __ , • •.•.. • "''·'"'"" .,._ ----0 -, ,-tee-• d.'-//(., =,.· ..._.·-···• -.1 1· -r1''\' ·•-···;,• .. ·,-..•. .,..'.\.' J,.179•34· \~ -LR/W AR[A ... __....,,..w s5-29 , ,, l\ ,.-', ,o/;!i!_•·~I-, r £X/ST. CURB TO .• ccc,--.-·-~P· -----~··•"···-· , -...;.-,.,f · /'•• ,,,,, · . . • -·... ~--... 4.:::1.:: .... ffi'/C:. .... . ... ·•······· ---~G-7J 1 ,.. .,,,,--1 ~,!61 J' _/ /.,/' f / .,_ INLET-/.[.~ -69.20 --·=---.. •·-r:~-~-:?~~:~~-:.·.,. :_ ... :::::;_-::;:-_ -.Z':'\-----:::.::::--;::~.; ,,_"");\.' ,-~ ~/:·., \ fi~ ~l'{? '?,=--~-='·= ~-~-: ' . :L -:·=~~ . C .. .. '.''.:::·'' _:;;,;,;_ ----• -•i • > ---/ / :· ,// • ~;,/:.. ;:'"""' • INLET ,§ t ,:.:~·:' f:XIS-;;J t , -· .::-:: --:::;:_ .. '-,,.. -~-' . .. :, ===·· 4' MIN :f /.: ~'-• ,)1/ / ;.\·~ I l : · · '"· · ·· _,'.·.~ ,,, :~~-~ ;;1;,'if -< -~-~;2"'1I:-P~trf,~f ;?1 ~~k"":'i>£: , ;;_,. i f:XIST. B"] _Rfl.lAIN . . -~°"UC,.,,-: _, ,-,--,.,.-p~~\' .,.. . •• IIIIH Nf.W_BUILO/NG CT 1· ,w . ,) - CJ) -----~ -_ ~~---~ -•/( ;: ' vi\/{ PfN f.Ai. TT(11A-S .•• - MOVt;MfNlr1 -~'CN MAP ,VD '31 ·--·~: "~; ,,. --~ - ._;;; --.::::l --._ ~S) -- {S> - • •~ ,m "' ·•""-''"™ ,. -,,o•t ' -, H ·" rn,c. • ---• ,,, -". --,. """"" -•·' '\' h :.,;-· = = -. -' ---'"''"'''·\ -. ''" '"" q,,, . ". _, ···-----. ·-e-~._1., .. _____ '\ \ '\ J -. . .,..... \1' ~ .. ' -·-(,/' .. \\ ~ . <w,,'\'r I\. ----- :'vi)-r·,n (V) rwJ ·•·· . , I rEXlST. re ll.,; l ,,..;_ -l l.,0/ ;Y~ t' ~,-'; ,-:. JO'~ I {' 20' 10· . /-~~ .;.· ··, I ,, ·' ), ~ ~ . ~ !, "" \,, ..., 1/) ' 13 :, (' ~ . , .. , fl-1 I ;: / ' ~ ~---··f "{,~. ' 1 I ·-, ., 1· '. '.,; ," '• t \ ~:t,.· ~ 1'1 ! > i< ~ 0 z c.!, ~ .> ,. .'>-'fJ;, ~ 11 1 ' ->'-\--I 'EXJST.x 1 " CURB ' j ' , .. INLET : ~~I Jq _; t~i. ',. 1_ ,, t,~k\~~:)1 "< · 1 \ ·\J...!', .... , .... \ r , ;-.. ., 's,,·,·.,.,,' }\ 4•e 1 "' I\. .. /~ \. ~ "" ., \.\··, . ·--..... };,_~ ·.--..... :, , i ~--,:. '" \, ',.:\,'l:1", ..... , ' . . ' '·-.., --;_____ . ' "° '-......... '---.·,., __ . .: 1-. ·.-· •-..-; :1; ,,_ -~ " 1 ' . <,.,_,;·l"" ·•· -~-·t . ,·,// -·-('.,J) ....... '~ ·-_1_ . /'-·{ ;,_, {;,•}-rl,.,,:) ~~:) . .:-::. •-<-~~-::··· -.,, l f:XIST. VCPJ -.. -.. ·: -~ ,s PIO PICO DRIVE ---~- .. ' /... 24" RCP -1iL ·:_-__,,___ -'J ;;.,, I ~--;· I, I'----.__ EXIST. 24" RCP T -\.',, CURB (S) SEM£'R S.; ('.!) ••.. 1,.r 0·AV/:"11•·N1 L'f~ ~-t" :, ,i~ ·-· ~;t;.r --7--G}- \\1 \1\ ';-_l" ~~· -'-"-----A·"·:;. I ,I ------------- HA-1" TP-18 /->\-' ig1 ~;, ..._).·-.,~ AC ':-~1N·,~-1tK LEGEND -.,,. .. ·~•<." :-cf--'"' ,\?·r~ ..... ,._ ~ ~ tj f2 ~ , . ..,.,,.,,,. ... =.v~~ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HAND AUGER BORING APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT >.\ .• •····-<S) .:/· - ·:r- ;;;, ·s ,'-'\\'\ --) -··•. \ S::: Cui?~ \. \$, ri'J'' -'-,.~" t~ ;,;~ ,~-~ f«" ~~ .----':~ ·~ ~ j ~;,:-::; N. \'-,·'\> __ 1\.\_ AC S:O[WALK ··<::l' ,,,,w >• -• ·--j >'tt"'Sl ~ll, ~v_. _. ,,-:;,. ...... ~ .<.,,, J-. '.S)_ Th· ,s, ~ \S) ,:<.;) .. ·-·•···-··.--.. ,~J .::·.::~--~ ...... .C.\.:i ............ ___ i:·S-::-· ..... ..,,,,, ,~ -~ I\~'\•.: ~c~<S:-,., ~~ 0 2 0 10 20 30 40 PLOT PLAN HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 3666 Pio Pico Carlsbad , California 8721 .2 I FIGURE NO. 2 -DRILLING COMPANY: Mansolf RIG: Hand Auger DATE: 10/10/18 -BORING DIAMETER: 4 II DRIVE WEIGHT: DROP: ELEVATION: 74' + - -µ:J E:-< µ:J µ:J ,-::i :,.., -,-::i 0.. E:-< E:-< o'P {/J -µ:J 0.. ~ 0 H -{/J BORING NO. HA-1 "" -~ 0 C/l µ:J ,:c: C/l [fJ "" z 0:: E:-< ,-::i -- ::i:: [fJ ----- µ:J p z u u µ:J C/l 0 -E:-< µ:J E:-< ;:,,:: :> rs: 4--1 [fJ E:-< ,-::i r:fl 0.. ,-::i H 0 :,.., 0 H z H µ:J p 0:: ,-::i 0:: °' 0 0 0 p 0 !l1 0 !l1 0 -:a: u [fJ -SOIL DESCRIPTION ~ 0.0 -FILL: Light brown silty sand, dry, loose I -SM ~ 96 2.7 --- -\ TERRACE DEPOSITS: Red brown silty sand, moist, dense .__ -C----~ -92 4.0 ---I ~ -5.0-i-- 98 6.0 ---\ .__ ---.....__ ~ 100 5.4 --~ -Total depth: 8-feet No caving -No groundwater ~ 10.0-- -~ --r- --'---.. -r---15.0 BORING LOG 3666 Pio Pico Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Carlsbad, California --GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 8721.2 I FIGURE NO. 3 ------- --------------- - ------ -.. - BACKHOE COMPANY: Mansolf BUCKET SIZE: DATE: 10/17/18 Ci) -Ci) • l,J st: Ci) >a >a O,::H H' :I:H ~~ ~-~1;j UU H iiJ :,,:; 0.. Cl) H Cl) lH Cl) H H Cl) 0..1,J H::8:Z:CI) :>-<ZO HZ-H • i,Ji:,.. :::>s:l;iiJiiJ 0,::iiJO.. 00@ O:::> SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT NO. TP-1 ELEVATION: 73' + o-P'.)Cl)OH 00-::SU-Cl)-0.0 --J.--+----t---+----+--+---------------------------.--l FILL: Gray silty sand with 3/4" angular gravel, dry, loose SM 103 4.8 113 4.5 5.0 113 6.3 10.0 @ 1 ': Becomes brown silty sand. dry to moist, dense @ 16": Becomes dark brown, moist, dense @ 22": Glass fragment TERRACE DEPOSITS: Red brown silty sand, moist, dense to very dense Total depth: 6-feet No caving No groundwater 15.0--'--__l__...L__ __ _j__ __ ---'-_ _j__ _______________________ ----'.---I LOG OF TEST PITS HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 3666 Pio Pico Drive Carlsbad, California 8721.2 I FIGURE NO. 4 ------------------ - --------- -----.. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS DIRECT SHEAR (ASTM: D 3080) Sample Location Angle of Internal Cohesion Remarks Friction (0) (pst) Remolded to 90 percent relative compaction at TP-1@ 1 to 2' 29 75 optimum moisture content, consolidated, saturated, drained SULFATE TEST RESULTS (Cal Test 417) Sample Location I Soluble Sulfate in Soil (%) TP-1 (ci), l to 2' I 0.0018 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM: D 1557 A) Sample Location Description Maximum Dry Density (pcf) TP-1 (ci), l to 2' Brown silty sand 127.5 Optimum Moisture Content(%) 9.5 Figure 5 Project No. 8721.2 Log No. 20154