The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 16-34; RESPONSE TO CITY OF CARLSBAD ISSUES OF CONCERN; 2017-10-31EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD SUITE I SANTEE CALIFORNIA 92071 619 258-7901 fax 619 258-7902 Brian & Lori Lavin 158 Chestnut Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Response to City of Carlsbad issues of Concern Proposed Single-Family Residence (Lavin Residence) 158 Chestnut Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 October 31, 2017 Project No. 16-1106E6 RllcEIlvIED MAY 302018 LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING Reference: "Limited Geotechnical investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence (Lavin Residence), 158 Chestnut Avenue, 158 Chestnut Avenue 92008", Project No. 16- 1106E6, Prepared by East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated November 8, 2016. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lavin: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the grading plan prepared by Coastal Land Solutions, Inc. of Encinitas, California to address the City of Carlsbad issues of concern in their review of documents dated September 2, 2017 for the proposed single-family residence at the subject site. Due to the site limitations to the east and west, the 2 percent drainage gradient on hardscape areas adjacent to the structure will be sufficient provided the proposed vegetated swales adjacent to the retaining walls are changed to concrete swales with a minimum gradient of 1 percent. In order to protect adjacent structures or pavement from erosion, the proposed bioretention basin may be lined with a Mirafi FW 400 geotextile or equivalent. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, ou i GE 2704 roy t EXP *% •-.-._ I 1*) IMamadou SalitrTatlo, P.E. RCE 54071, GE 2704 MSD\md RCE 54071, GE 2704 MSD/md Respectfully submitted, EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE "I" SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 (619) 258-7901 Fax 258-7902 Brian & Lori Lavin November 8, 2016 158 Chestnut Avenue Project No. 16-1106E6 Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Limited Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Single-Family Residence (Lavin Residence) 158 Chestnut Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lavin: In accordance with your request, we have performed a limited geotechnical investigation t the subject site to discuss the geotechnical aspects of the project and provide recommendations fdr the proposed residential development. Our investigation has found that the proposed building pad is underlain by approximately a tiree- foot layer of topsoil over dense terrace deposits to the explored depth of six (6) feet. It i$ our opinion that the construction of the proposed single-family residence is geotecimically feasible provided the recommendations herein are implemented in the design and construction. Should you have any questions with regard to the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. BRIAN & LORI LA VINI 158 CHESTNUT A VENUE PROJECT NO. 16-1106E6 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................ ..3 SCOPEOF SERVICES .................................................................................................................................... ..3 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... .'.3 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING...................................................................... GEOLOGY....................................................................................................................................................... GeologicSetting ................................................................................................................................... SiteStratigraphy .................................................................................................................................. ..4 SEISMICITY.................................................................................................................................................... ..5 RegionalSeismicity.............................................................................................................................. SeismicAnalysis.................................................................................................................................. 2013 CBC Seismic Design Criteria..................................................................................................... GeologicHazard Assessment............................................................................................................... GEOTECHNICALEVALUATION .................................................................................................................. ..7 CompressibleSoils............................................................................................................................... ExpansiveSoils..................................................................................................................................... 17 Groundwater......................................................................................................................................... CONCLJSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................... GRADINGAND EARTHWORK .................................................................................................................... Clearingand Grubbing...........................................................................................................................8 StructuralImprovement of Soils........................................................................................................... TransitionsBetween Cut and Fill......................................................................................................... Method and Criteria of Compaction..................................................................................................... ErosionControl..................................................................................................................................... Grading Guidelines............................................................................................................... toStandard FOUNDATIONSAND SLABS ......................................................................................................................JO SETTLEMENT.................................................................... ............ ....... . ....... ..................................................10 PRESATURATIONOF SLAB SUBGRADE .................................................................................................. TEMPORARYSLOPES .................................................................................................................................. TRENCHBACKFILL ...................................................................................................................................... DRAINAGE...................................................................................................................................................... FOUNDATIONPLAN REVIEW.................................................................................................................... 1 LIMITATIONSOF INVESTIGATION .........................................................................................................12 ADDITIONALSERVICES ............................................................................................................................. PLATES. Plate 1-Location of Extloratory Boreholes Plate 2 - Summary Sheet (Exploratory Borehole Logs) Plate 3 - USCS Soil Classification Chart PAGE L-1, LABORATORY TEST RESULTS..............................................................................................14 15 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 2. BRIAN & LORE LA VIN/ 158 CHESTNUT A VENUE PROJECTNO. 16-1106E6 INTRODUCTION This is to present the findings and conclusions proposed single-family residence to be located at California. of a limited geotechnical investigation 1 for a 158 Chestnut Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad, The objectives of the investigation were to evaluate the existing soils conditions and recommendations for the proposed development. SCOPE OF SERVICES The following services were provided during this investigation: 0 Site reconnaissance and review of published geologic, seismological and geotechnical and maps pertinent to the project area 0 Subsurface exploration consisting of three (3) boreholes within the limits of the proposel area of development. The boreholes were logged by our Staff Geologist. 0 Collection of representative soil samples at selected depths. The obtained samples were in moisture-resistant containers and transported to the laboratory for subsequent analysis. Laboratory testing of samples representative of the types of soils encountered during th. field investigation Geologic and engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data, which provided the lbasis for our conclusions and recommendations Production of this report, which summarizes the results of the above analysis and presents our findings and recommendations for the proposed development SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The subject site is a rectangular-shaped residential lot located on the north side of Chestnut Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad, California. The property which encompasses an area of 4,375 square feet is occupied with a one-story, single-family residence with a raised-wood floor 4'nd a detached garage. The site slopes gently to the northwest. Vegetation consisted of grass, shml and a few trees. The parcel is bordered by Chestnut Avenue to the south and similar residential developments to the remaining directions. The site plan prepared by Brooks Design of Carlsbad, California indicates that the proposed construction will include a single-family residence following demolition of the existing structures. The new structure will, be two-story, wood-framed and founded on continuous footings with blab- on-grade floors. Associated improvements will include patios, driveway, walkway, landsc.ping and other appurtenances. 3 BRIAN & LORI LA yIN! 158 CHESTNUTA VENUE PROJECTNO. 16-1106E6 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING On October 27, 2016, three (3) boreholes were excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 6 feet below existing grade with a hand auger. The approximate locations of the boreholes are shown on the attached Plate No. 1, entitled "Location of Exploratory Boreholes". A continuous log cf the soils encountered was recorded at the time of excavation and is shown on Plate No. 2 entitled "Summary Sheet". The soils were visually and texturally classified according to the filed identification procedures set forth on Plate No. 3 entitled "USCS Soil Classification". Following the field exploration, laboratory testing was performed to evaluate the pertinent engineering properties of the foundation materials. The laboratory-testing program included moisture and density, particle size analysis and expansion index tests. These tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM standards and other accepted methods. Page L-1 and Plate i4o. 2 provide a summary of the laboratory test results. GEOLOGY Geolwnc Settin The subject site is located within the southern portion of what is known as the Peninsular Rnges Geomorphic Province of California. The geologic map pertaining to the area (Reference Wo. 6) indicates that the site is underlain by Pleistocene terrace deposits (Qt). Site Stratigraphy The subsurface descriptions provided are interpreted from conditions exposed during the I field investigation and/or inferred from the geologic literature. Detailed descriptions of the substfrface materials encountered during the field investigation are presented on the exploration logs provided on Plate No. 2. The following paragraphs provide general descriptions of the encountered soil types. Topsoil Topsoil is the surficial soil material that mantles the ground, usually containing roots and other oranic materials, which supports vegetation. Topsoil was observed in the boreholes with a thicknss of approximately three (3) feet. It consisted of dark brown, silty sand that was moist, loose and porous in consistency with some organics (roots and rootlets). Marine Terrace Deposits (Ot) Marine terrace deposits were observed below the topsoil layer. They generally consisted of reddish brown, silty sand that was moist and dense in consistency. 4 BRIAN & LORI LA VINI 158 CHESTNUTA VENUE PRO.JECTNO. 16-1106E6 SEISMICITY Regional Seismici Generally, Seismicity within California can be attributed to the regional tectonic movement taking place along the San Andreas Fault Zone, which includes the San Andreas Fault and most prallel and subparallel faults within the state. The portion of southern California where the subject site is located is considered seismically active. Seismic hazards are attributed to groundshaking. from earthquake events along nearby or more distant Quaternary faults. The primary factors in evaluating the effect an earthquake has on a site are the magnitude of the event, the distance, from the epicenter to the site and the near surface soil profile. According to the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones Act of 1994 (revised Aiquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act), quaternary faults have been classified as "active" faults, which show apparent sirface rupture during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene time). "Potentially-active" faults are those faults with evidence of displacing Quaternary sediments between 11,000 to 1.6 million years old. Seismic Analysis Based on our evaluation, the closest known "active" fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Idcated approximately 7.4 kilometers (4.6 miles) to the west. The Rose Canyon Fault is the design fault of the project due to the predicted credible fault magnitude and ground acceleration. The Seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing the 2008 National Hazard Maps from the USGS website and Seed and Idriss methods for active Quaternary faults within a 50-mile radius of the subject site. The site may be subjected to a Maximum Probable Earthquake of 6.9 Magritude along the Rose Canyon Fault, with a corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.44g. The maximum Probable Earthquake is defined as the maximum earthquake that is considered likely to occur within a. 100-year time period. The effective ground acceleration at the site is associated with the part of significant ground motion, which contains repetitive strong-energy shaking, and which may produce struetural deformation. As such, the effective or "free field" ground acceleration is referred to a the Repeatable High Ground Acceleration (RHGA). It has been determined by Ploessel and Shsson (1974) that the RHGA is approximately equal to 65 percent of the Peak Ground Acceleratidn for earthquakes occurring within 20 miles of a site. Based on the above, the calculated Creklible RHGA at the site is 0.29g. 5 BRL4N& LORJ LA ViNI 158 CHESTNUTA VENUE PROJECT NO. 16-1106E6 2013 CBC Seismic Design Criteria A review of the active fault maps pertaining to the site indicates the location of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone approximately 7.4 km to the west. Ground shaking from this fault or one of the major active faults in the region is the most likely happening to affect the site. With respect té this hazard, the site is comparable to others in the general area. The proposed single-family residence should be designed in accordance with seismic design requirements of the 2013 California Building Code or the Structural Engineers Association of California using the following seismic design parameters: PARAMETER V4LUE 2013 CBC & 4SC 7 REFERENCES Site Class . . D Table 20.3-1/ ASCE 7, Chapter 20. Mapped Spectral Acceleration For Short Periods, Ss 1.16 Ig Figure 1613.3.1(1) Mapped Spectral Acceleration For a 1-Second Period. .S. 0.445g Figure 1613.3.1(2) Site Coefficient, Fa 1.036 Table 1613.3.3(1) Site Coefficient, K.,. .. .. 1.555 Table 1613.3.3(2) Adjusted Max. Considered Earthquake Spectral, Response Acceleration for Short Periods, SM.S. 1.202g Equation 16-37 Adjusted Max. Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration for 1-Second Period, SM1 0.692g Equation 16-38 5 Percent Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration for Short Periods, SDS 0.802g Equation 16-39 5 Percent Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration for 1-Second Period, SDI 0.461g Equation 16-40 Geologic Hazard Assessment Ground Rupture Ground rupture due to active faulting is not considered likely due to the absence of known fault traces within the vicinity of the project; however, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out. The unlikely hazard of ground rupture should not preclude consideration of "flexible" design for on-site utility lines and connections. Liquefaction Liquefaction involves the substantial loss of shear strength in saturated soils, usually sandy soils with a loose consistency when subjected to earthquake shaking. Based on the absence of shallow groundwater and consistency of the underlying bedrock materials, it is our opinion that the potvntial for liquefaction is very low. Landsliding There is no indication that landslides or unstable slope conditions exist on or adjacent to the piioject site. There are no obvious geologic hazards related to landsliding to the proposed development or adjacent properties. BRIAN & LORI LA VIN/ 158 CHF77VL1TA VENUE PROJECTNO. 16-1106E6 Tsunamis and Séiches The site is not subject .to inundation by tsunamis due to its elevation. The site is also not subject to seiches (waves in confined bodies of water). GEOTECBNECAL EVALUATION Based on our investigation and evaluation of the collected information, we conclude that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations proided herein will be properly implemented during construction. In order to provide a uniform support for the proposed residence, footings should be excavated into properly compacted fill soils or extended to the dense terrace deposits. The new foundations may consist of reinforced continuous and/ or spread footings with reinforced slabs. Recommendations and criteria for foundation design are provided in the Foundation and Slab recommendations section of this report Comnressible Soils Our field observations and testing indicate low compressibility within the terrace deposits, which underlie the site. However, loose topsoil was encountered to a depth of approximately 3 feet below surface grades. These soils are compressible and should be overexcavated and recompacted i.inless footings are extended to the dense terrace deposits. Following implementation of the recommendations presented herein, the potential for; soil compression resulting from the new development has been estimated to be low. The low-settlement assessment assumes a well-planned and maintained site drainage system. Recommendations regarding mitigation by earthwork construction are presented in the Grading and Earthwork Recommendations section of this report. Exnansive Soils An expansion index test was performed on a representative sample of the topsoil to deterjrnine volumetric change characteristics with change in moisture content. An expansion index of 0 was obtained which indicates a low expansion potential for the foundation soils. Groundwater Static groundwater was not encountered to the depths of the boreholes. The building pad is located at an elevation over 40 feet above Mean Sea Level. We do not expect groundwater to affe4t the proposed construction. Recommendations to prevent or mitigate the effects of poor surface drainage are presented in the Drainage section of this report. 7, BRIAN & LORI LA VINI 158 CHESTNUT A VENUE PROJECTNO, 16-1106E6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the analysis of the data!and information obtained from our soil investigation. This includes site reconnaissance; field investigation; laboratory testing and our general knowledge of the soils native to the site. The site is suitable for the proposed residential development provided the recommendations set forth are implemented during construction. uiiei to] i t Based upon the proposed construction and the information obtained during the field investigatiop, we anticipate that the proposed single-family residence will be founded on continuous and/ or spread footings, which are supported by properly compacted fill. The following grading and earthwork recommendations are based upon the limited geotechnical investigation performed, and should be verified during construction by our field representative. Clearing and Grubbing The area to be graded or to receive fill and/or structure should be cleared of vegetation and the demolition of the existing structures. Vegetation and the debris from the clearing opera be properly disposed of off-site. The area should be thoroughly inspected for any poss objects, which need to be rerouted or removed prior to the inception of, or during grading. trenches, or pockets left by the removal of these objects should be properly backfllled with fill materials as recommended in the Method and Criteria of Compaction section of this rep Structural Improvement of Soils Information obtained from our field and laboratory analysis indicates that loose topsoil covens the proposed building pad to a depth of approximately 3 feet below existing grade. These surflcial soils are susceptible to settlement upon loading. Based upon the soil characteristics, we recommenl the following: * All topsoil and other loose natural soils should be completely removed from the area, which is planned to receive compacted fill and/or structural improvements. The bottom of the renioval area should expose competent materials as approved by ECSC&E geotechnical representative. Prior to the placement of new fill, the bottom of the removal area should be scarified a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned within 2 percent above the optimum moisture content, and then recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557 test method). * Overexcavation should be completed for the structural building pad to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the proposed footings. The limit of the required arça of overexcavation should be extended a minimum of 5 feet laterally beyond the perimeter footing (building footprint). 8 BRIAN & LORI LA VINI 158 CHESTNUTA VENUE PROJECTNO. 16-1106E6 * Soils utilized as fill should be moisture-conditioned and recompacted in conformance with the following Method and Criteria of Compaction section of this report. The actual depth and extent of any overexcavation and recompaction should be evaluated in the field by a representative of ECSC&E. * An alternative to the overexcavation and recompaction of subgrade is to extend footings for the proposed residence to the dense terrace deposits. However, for slab support, we recommend overexcavation and recompaction of the upper 2 feet of subgrade. Transitions Between Cut and Fill The proposed structure is anticipated to be founded in either properly compacted fill or dense terrace deposits. Cut to fill transitions below the proposed structure should be completely eliminated dimng the earthwork construction as required in the previous section. Method and Criteria of Compaction Compacted fills should consist of approved soil material, free of trash debris, roots, vegetation or other deleterious materials. Fill soils should be compacted by suitable compaction equipment in uniform loose lifts of 6 to 8 inches. Unless otherwise specified, all soils subjected to recompaction should be moisture-conditioned within 2 percent over the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM test method Dl 557. On-site soils, after being processed to delete the aforementioned deleterious materials, may be used for recompaction purposes. Should any importation of fill be planned, the intended import source(s) should be evaluated and approved by ECSCE prior to delivery to the site. Care should be taken to ensure that these soils are not detrimentally expansive. Erosion Control Due to the granular characteristics of on-site soils, areas of recent grading or exposed ground my be subject to erosion. During construction, surface water should be controlled via berms, gravel/ sandbags, silt fences, straw wattles, siltation and bioretention basins, positive surface grades or other method to avoid damage to the finish work or adjoining properties. All site entrances and exits "must have coarse gravel or steel shaker plates to minimize offsite sediment tracking. Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be used to protect storm drains and minimize pollution. The contractor should take measures to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. After completion of grading, all excavated surfaces should exhibit positive drainage and eliminate areas where water might pond. BRIAN & LORI LA VINI 158 CHESTNUT A VENUE PROJECT NO. 16-I106E6 Standard Grading Guidelines Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the standard-of-practice methods for this local, the guidelines of the current edition of the California Building Code, and the requirements of the jurisdictional agency. Where the information provided in the geotechnical report differs from the Standard Grading Guidelines, the requirements outlined in the report shall govern. FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS Continuous and spread footings are suitable for use and should extend to a minimum depth cf 18 inches for the proposed two-story structure into the properly compacted fill soils or dense terrace deposits. Continuous footings should be at least 15 inches in width and reinforced with a minimum of four #4 steel bars; two bars placed near the top of the footings and the other two bars placed near the bottom of the footings. Isolated or spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. Their reinforcement should consist of a minimum of #4 bars spaced 12 inches on center (each way) and placed horizontally near the bottom. Interior concrete slabs should be a minimum 4-inch thick. Reinforcement should consist f #3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way within the middle third of the slabs by supporting the steel on chairs or concrete blocks "dobies". The slabs should be underlain by 2 inches of lean sand over a 10-mil visqueen moisture barrier. The effect of concrete shrinkage will result in cracks in virtually all-concrete slabs. To reduce the extent of shrinkage, the concrete should be piacedl at a maximum of 4-inch slump. The minimum steel recommended is not intended to prevent shrinkage cracks. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slabs, the 10-mil plastic moisture barrier should be underlain by a capillary break at least 2 inches thick, consisting of coarse sand, gravel or crushed rock not exceeding 3/4 inch in size with no more than 5 percent passing the #200 sieve. An allowable soil bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous and spread footings at least 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches into properly compacted fill soils or the dense terrace deposits as set forth in the 2013 California Building Code, Table 1806.2. This value may be increased by 400 psf for each additional foot of depth or width to a maximum value of 4,000 lb/ft2. Lateral resistance to horizontal movement may be provided by the soil passive pressure and the friction of concrete to soil. An allowable passive pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 is recommended. The soils passive pressure as well ai the bearing value may be increased by 1/3 for wind and seismic loading. SETTLEMENT Settlement of compacted fill soils is normal and should be anticipated. Because of the type and minor thickness of the fill soils anticipated under the proposed footings and the light building ibads, total and differential settlement should be within acceptable limits. BRIAR & LORI LA VIN/ 158 CHESTNUTA VENUE PROJECT NO. 16-1106E6 PRESATIJRATION OF SLAB SUBGRADE Due to the granular characteristics of the subgrade soils, presoaking of subgrade prior to concrete pour is not required. However, subgrade soils in areas receiving concrete should be watered! prior to concrete placement to mitigate any drying shrinkage, which may occur following site preparation and foundation excavation. TEMPORARY SLOPES For the excavation of foundations and utility trenches, temporary vertical cuts to a maximum height of 4 feet may be constructed in fill or natural soil. Any temporary cuts beyond the above height constraints should be shored or further laid back following a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope Iratio. OSHA guidelines for trench excavation safety should be implemented during construction. TRENCH BACKFILL Excavations for utility lines,, which extend under structural areas should be properly backfllled and compacted. Utilities should be bedded and backfllled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the pipe. This backfill should be uniformly watered and compacted to a firm condition for pipe support. The remainder of the backfill should be on-site soils or non-expansive imported soils, which should be placed in thin lifts, moisture-conditioned and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. DRAINAGE Adequate measures should be undertaken after the new structure and other improvements are in place, such that the drainage water within the site and adjacent properties is directed away from the foundations, footings, floor slabs and the tops of slopes via rain gutters, downspouts, surface swaies and subsurface drains towards the natural drainage for this area. In accordance with the f2013 California Building Code, a minimum gradient of 2 percent is recommended in hardscape areas adjacent to the structure. In earth areas, a minimum gradient of 5 percent away from the structure for a distance of at least 10 feet should be provided. Earth swales should have a minimum gradient of 2 percent. Drainage should be directed to approved drainage facilities. Proper surface and subsurface drainage will be required to minimize the potential of water seeking the level if the bearing soils under the foundations, footings and floor slabs, which may otherwise result in undermining and differential settlement of the structure and other improvements. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Our firm should review the foundation plan and details during the design phase to assure conformance with the intent of this report. During construction, foundation excavations should be observed b' our representative prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete for conformance with the plans and specifications. 11 S BRJAN& LORI LA VINI 158 CHESTNUT A VENUE FROJECTNO. 16-1106E6 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION Our investigation was performed using the skill and degree of care ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities". No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in S this report. This report is prepared for the sole use of our client and may not be assigned to others without the written consent of the client and ECSC&E, Inc. The samples collected and used for testing, and the observations made, are believed representative of site conditions; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between exploration trenches, boreholes and surface exposures. As in most major projects, conditions revealed by construction excavations may vary with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by a representative of ECSC&E and designs adjusted as required or alternate designs recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the project architect and engineer. Appropriate recommendations should be incorporated into the structural plans. The necessary steps should be taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors cany out such recommendations in the field. The findings of this report are valid as of this present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should be updated after a period of two years. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The review of plans and specifications, field observations and testing under our direction are integral parts of the recommendations made in this report. If East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc. is not retained for these services, the client agrees to assume our responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during construction. Observation and testing are additional services, which are provided by our firm, and should be budgeted within the cost of development. Plates No. 1 through 3, Page L-1 and References are parts of this report. 12 AV S S S w S • EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION & ENGINEERING, INC. 10975 HARTLEY RD.. SUITE 1. SANTEE, CA 92D71 • (619) 258-7901 Fax (619)258-7902 /9/ Mv/N /ft Y M Y M. BRiAN & LORI LA yIN! 158 CHFSThTUTA VENUE PROJECT NO. 16-1106E6 PLATE NO.2 SUMMARY SHEET BOREHOLE NO.1 SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL dark brown, dry, loose, porous, silty sand with rootlets 4$ 94 44 C6 U TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) reddish brown, dry, dense, silty sand bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater borehole ackflhled 10/27/16 BOREHOLE NO.2 SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL dark brown, dry, loose, porous, silty sand with rootlets TERRAE DEPOSITS (Qt) reddish bipwn, dry, dense, silty sand bottom ofjborehole, no caving, no groundwater borehole backfilled 10/27/16 BOREHOLE NO.3 SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIT dark brown, thy, loose, porous, silty sand with rootlets TERRAE DEPOSITS (Qt) reddish brøwn, dry, dense, silty sand bottom otborehole, no caving, no groundwater borehole ltackfilled 10/27/16 Y = DRY DENSITY IN PCF M = MOISTURE CONTENT IN % DEPTH Surface 1.5' 30' 6.0' DEPTH Surface 3.0' 5.0' DEPTH Surface 3.0' 4.0' 13 BRIAN & LORI LA yIN! 158 CHESTNUTA VENUE PROJECTNO. 16-1106E6 PAGE L-1 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS EXPANSION INDEX TEST (ASTM D4829) INITIAL SATURATED INITIAL DRY MOISTURE MOISTURE DENSITY EXPANSION cONTENTc%) CONTENT(%) IPCF) INDEX LOCATION 9.4 18.3 110.5 0 BH-1 Cch, 1.0' PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) la z. U.S.Sndard $VSiZ W - . . 1'cint Pasiii' BH M6 . a 1 0 ll .Of -. ._11 eOitil : 1" 100 - 1/2" 98 - 3/8" 98 - #4 98 - #8 95 - #16 95 100 #30 84 8 #50 41 44 #100 21 23 #200 17 17 uscS SM. 14 BRIAN & LORI LA yIN! 158 CHESTNUT A VENUE PROJECTNO. I6-1106E6 REFERENCES "2013 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2", Published by International Code Council. "Geologic Map of the San Diego 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California", by Michael P. Kennedy and Siang S. Tan, 2008. "Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering: Design and Construction", by Robert W. Day, 1999. "1997 Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions", Published by International Conference of Building Officials. "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevda to be used with 1997 Uniform Building Code", Published by International Conference of Building Officials. "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California", Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, by Siang S. Tan and Michael P. Kennedy, 1996. "Bearing Capacity of Soils, Technical Engineering and Design Guides as Adapted from the US Army Corps of Engineers, No. 7", Published by ASCE Press, 1994. "Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.2", by Department of Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, May 1982, Revalidated by Change 1 September 1986. "Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes", by H.B. Seed and I.M. Idriss, 1982. 15