Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 2019-0001; TU CASA DRIVEWAY REPLACEMENT; SUMMARY OF PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMMUNITY DRIVEWAY; 2018-08-13RECORD COPY Initial B/1'< \, q Date GeoMat Testing Lanora or1es~lnc. Soil Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Materials Testing, Geology August 13, 2018 TO: Tu Casa Home Owners Association 4747 Marina Drive, Unit 17 Carlsbad, California 92008 Project No. 17119-01 SUBJECT: Summary of Pavement Recommendations for Community Garage Driveway at 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California REFERENCE: GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. "Preliminary Soil Investigation Report, Contract 17-01 for Removal and Replacement of Parking and Driveway Hardscape at 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California.• Report Dated December 20, 2017, Project No. 17119-01 As requested we have prepared this summary of recommendations for porous and non-porous pavement to be utilized for the driveway at the subject site. The pavement recommendation in this summary has been scaled down from the recommendations presented in the above referenced soil report to meet the Community of Tu Casa budget and the City code for a maximum of 200 yard of earthmoving to avoid City grading fees. Utilizing the revised pavement section is at the discretion of the property owner. Porous Permeable Pavers Permeable porous pavers may be utilized for the driveway. The pavers may be supported by 2 inches of No. 8 stone underlain by 12 inches of No. 57 rock. The subgrade should be examined for soft and saturated spots which should be removed and replaced with rock. Pavement Geogrid should separate the rock from subgrade surface. Non-Porous Pavers The upper 12 inches of subgrade should be stabilized by lime treatment as indicated in the above referenced soil report and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. After subgrade treatment, the subgrade should be provided with 4 inches of Class 2 aggregate base compacted to 95 percent relative compaction. The pavers may be placed over the Class 2 aggregate base and cemented in place. Non-Porous Concrete Pavement Concrete pavement may consist of 5 inches of 3500 psi concrete over 18 inches of lime treated subgrade. Referenced Report All other recommendations presented in the above referenced report remain pertinent. This letter should be considered as part of the above referenced report. Disclaimer The above revised recommendations are provided in order to meet limited budget as indicated by Angel Brown, a representative of the property owner. Therefore, the above revised pavement recommendations is an opinion and should not be considered risk-free and, more importantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and the proposed pavers will perform as planned. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. is not be responsible for construction items not based on standard design exercised by practicing geotechnical engineers. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this letter. Submitted for GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. ~~~' RECEIVED Haytham Nabilsi, GE 2375 CAND DEvt:.LOPMENT 9980 Indiana Avenue• Suite 14 •Riverside• California• 92503 • Phone (951) 688-54~~~fr(j'E4~i52t)Q www.geomatlabs.com, contact: info@geomatlabs.com 1\1\.;i RECORD COPY Soil Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Materials Testing, Geology December 20, 2017 TO: Tu Casa Home Owners Association 4747 Marina Drive, Unit 17 Carlsbad, California 92008 ATTENTION: Architectural Committee Project No. 17119-01 SUBJECT: Preliminary Soil Investigation Report, Contract 17-01 for Removal and Replacement of Parking and Driveway Hardscape at 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California In accordance with your authorization, GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. has performed a preliminary soil investigation at the subject site. The accompanying report presents a summary of our findings, conclusions, recommendations, and limitation of work for the proposed improvements. The primary purpose of this investigation and report is to provide an evaluation of the existing geotechnical conditions at the site as they relate to the design and construction of the proposed development. More specifically, this investigation was to address geotechnical issues for the preliminary design of the parking lot and driveway hardscape. Additionally, this report provides a summary of the geotechnical engineering services conducted to support evaluation of the feasibility of infiltration, in the upper three feet, at the subject site. The purpose of our services was to complete four insitu infiltration tests utilizing percolation testing procedure in boreholes to evaluate the feasibility of infiltration for disposal of stormwater runoff following the falling head method. If you should have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Submitted for GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Haytham Nabilsi, GE 2375 Project Engineer Distribution: (3) Addressee Art Martinez Staff Engineer RECEl''ED JUL 1 S 20\9 AND DEVELOPMENT L E G\NEEr<\NG 9980 Indiana Avenue• Suite 14 •Riverside• California• 92503 • Phone (951) 688-5400 • Fax (951) 688-5200 www .geomatlabs.com, contact: e-mail: info@geomatlabs.com 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Table of Contents ProjectNo.17119-01 December 20, 2017 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Scope of Work ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Existing Site Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Proposed Development ...................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 2 2.1 Field Work ........................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Subsurface Findings ........................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Soil Type .............................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Excavation Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 3 2.5 Temporary Excavations ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.5.1 Safe Vertical Cut ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.5.2 Precaution for Excavations ....................................................................................................... 3 2.6 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2.7 Laboratory Testing .............................................................................................................................. 4 2.7.1 Expansive Soil Characteristics ................................................................................................. 4 2.7.2 Soluble Sulfate Content ............................................................................................................ 4 2.7.3 Collapsible Soil .......................................................................................................................... 5 2.7.4 Permeability of Soil ................................................................................................................... 5 2.7 .5 Shrinkage/Subsidence .............................................................................................................. 5 2.8 Infiltration Testing (Percolation Testing Method) ............................................................................... 5 2.8.1 Infiltration Test Results ............................................................................................................. 5 2.8.2 Factors of Safety ....................................................................................................................... 6 2.8.3 Hydrologic Soil Group ............................................................................................................... 6 3.0 GEOLOGIC FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Regional and Site Geology ................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Secondary Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................................. ? 3.2 .1 Liquefaction Potential ................................................................................................................ 7 3.2 .2 Landslides and Stability ............................................................................................................ 7 3.2.3 Tsunamis and Seiches ............................................................................................................. 7 3.2.4 Subsidence ................................................................................................................................ 8 3.2.5 Geologic Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 8 3.3 Site Class ............................................................................................................................................. 8 3.4 Ground Motion and Seismic Design Parameters: .............................................................................. 8 4.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 9 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 10 5.1 Site Clearing ...................................................................................................................................... 1 0 5.2 Subgrade Stabilization Measures ..................................................................................................... 10 5.2.1 Scarification/Drying or Remove/Replace ............................................................................... 10 5.2.2 Lime Treatment ....................................................................................................................... 10 5.2.3 Cement Modified Soils ............................................................................................................ 11 5.3 Soils with High Sulfate Content ........................................................................................................ 11 5.4 Allowable Bearing Capacity .............................................................................................................. 11 5.5 Modulus of Native Subgrade Reaction ............................................................................................. 12 5.6 Total Settlement ................................................................................................................................ 12 5. 7 Compacted Fills/Imported Soils ........................................................................................................ 12 5.7.1 Trench Backfill ......................................................................................................................... 12 5. 7 .2 Pipe Bedding ........................................................................................................................... 12 5.8 Tentative Pavement Design .............................................................................................................. 13 5.8.1 Conventional AC and Concrete Pavement ............................................................................ 13 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page i 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 5.8.2 Conventional AC and Concrete Pavement with Modified Subgrade .................................... 13 5.8.3 Porous Pavement ................................................................................................................... 13 5.9 Site Drainage ..................................................................................................................................... 15 5.10 Additional Services ............................................................................................................................ 15 5.10.1 Plan Reviews .......................................................................................................................... 15 5.10.2 Additional Observation and/or Testing ................................................................................... 15 5.10.3 Final Report of Compaction During Grading .......................................................................... 16 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RISK .............................................................................................................................. 17 7.0 LIMITATION OF INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................ 17 ATTACHMENTS: Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 APPENDIX: Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Site Location Map Regional Geologic Map Regional Fault Map Regional Ground Shaking Map Seismic Hazards Zones Map Tsunami Inundation Map Exploratory Boring Location Map Seismic Settlement above Groundwater Modulus of Subgrade Reaction References Geotechnical Boring Logs Laboratory Test Results Infiltration Test Sheets 2016 CBC Seismic Design Parameters GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page ii 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California 1.1 Scope of Work 1.0 INTRODUCTION • Review soils, seismic, groundwater data, and maps in our files. • Exploration of the site at accessible location. • Logging of exploratory boreholes. • Sampling of select soils. • Laboratory testing of select soil samples. • Prepare CBC seismic design parameters. Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 • Preparation of a soil investigation report to include: site preparation, allowable soil bearing value, pavement design, infiltration rate, earthwork recommendations, Site Class, and CBC seismic design parameters. 1.2 Existing Site Conditions The subject site is located on the south end of Marina Drive, a cul-de-sac that branches off of Park Drive in the City of Carlsbad, California. Marina drive is a paved road with existing concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The geographical relationship of the site and surrounding vicinity is shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1 The site is currently a three-story multi-family condominium complex with garages at grade, swimming pool, concrete hardscape, and concrete driveway and parking lot. 1.3 Proposed Development We understand that the site is proposed for removal of the existing concrete in the driveway and parking lot and replacing it with permeable concrete pavers. We have not been provided with any site plans of the proposed improvements, at the time of our investigation. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 1 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 2.1 Field Work Four exploratory borings were drilled on December 18, 2017 to maximum depth of 10 feet below existing ground surface utilizing a core drill and manual auguring tools. Sampling was conducted with a Dames and Moore California Ring Sampler (see Exploratory Boring Location Map, Plate 1 ). This sampler has three inches external diameter, 2.5 inches inside diameter, and is lined with one inch high brass rings, with an inside diameter of 2.41-inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground at the bottom of the excavation with 35-pound hammer with a free fall of approximately 36-inches. Sampler driving resistance, expressed as number of blows for 12-inch of penetration, was recorded. Ring samples were retained in close-fitting, moisture tight canisters for transport to our laboratory for testing. A bulk sample was collected in sealable from the auger cuttings during drilling. To convert the field blow count to an SPT equivalent, we have utilized the conversion formula by D.M. Burmister, 1948, "The importance and practical use of relative density in soil mechanics: Proceedings of ASTM, v. 48:1249." (W * H) [(2)2 -(1.375)2] Ncorrected = Nraw * (l40) * (30) * (Do)2 _ (Di)2 W: hammer weight=35 lb, H: Drop Height=36 in, D0: Diameter of sample barrel= 3 in, D;: Diameter of drive sample=2.4 in The compactness of the material based on SPT blow count is as follows: Location Depth (ft) Field Blow Count SPT Compactness lnar 12 Inches, (ASTM 1586, B1 5 95 32 Hard B2 3 16 5 Medium Firm B3 5 32 11 Firm B4 2 13 4 Soft B4 7 14 5 Medium Firm Bulk samples were also collected from the auger cuttings during drilling. The sample was collected in plastic bags tied and tagged for the location and depth. The geotechnical boring logs are presented in Appendix B and may include a description and classification of each stratum, sample locations, blow counts, groundwater conditions encountered during drilling, results from selected types of laboratory tests, and drilling information. Each boring was backfilled with grout slurry at the completion of the logging and sampling. 2.2 Subsurface Findings The subsurface materials encountered at the boring locations are briefly described below. Detailed descriptions are provided in the boring logs, which are presented in Appendix B. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 2 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 According to the Geologic Map of the Oceanside Quadrangle, Figure 2, the regional area prior to development was mapped as alluvial flood plain deposits (Qa) of the late Holocene age. Based on our exploratory borings, the site is underlain by artificial fill consisting of clayey sand (USCS "SC") and fat clay (USCS "CH") underlain by native alluvial soil classified as fat clay (USCS "CH"). Groundwater was encountered in the exploratory borings and is depicted in the following table. Borehole Depth to Groundwater Depth to groundwater Durlna Drllllna after 24 hours B-1 No Groundwater 63" B-2 No Groundwater 96" B-3 No Groundwater No Groundwater B-4 No Groundwater 97• 2.3 Soil Type In accordance with OSHA, the onsite soil may be classified as follows: Alluvial Soil: "Type B" 2.4 Excavation Characteristics The onsite material is not expected to exhibit difficult excavation resistance for typical excavation equipment. 2.5 Temporary Excavations All excavations must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. Construction site safety generally is the sole responsibility of the Contractor, who should also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations. 2.5.1 Safe Vertical Cut Temporary un-surcharged excavations of 5 feet high may be made at a vertical gradient for short period of time. Temporary un-surcharged excavations greater than 5 feet may be trimmed at 1 H:1 V gradient. Exposed condition during construction should be verified by the project geotechnical engineer. No excavations should take place without the direct supervision of the project geotechnical engineer. All applicable requirements of the California Construction and general Industry Safety Orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and current amendments, and the Construction safety Act should be met. Cuts should be observed during excavation by the project's geotechnical consultant. If potentially unstable soil conditions are encountered, modifications of slope ratios for temporary cuts may be required. 2.5.2 Precaution for Excavations The Contractor should be aware that unsupported excavation depths should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, and/or federal safety regulations (e.g., OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations). Such regulations are strictly enforced and, if they are not followed, the Owner, Contractor, and/or earthwork and utility subcontractors could be liable for substantial penalties. The contractor's "responsible person", as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 3 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California 2.6 Groundwater Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 Groundwater study is not within the scope of this work. Groundwater was recorded at 5 feet below ground surface after a 24-hours stabilization period. The potential for rain or irrigation water locally seeping through from adjacent elevated areas cannot be precluded. Our experience indicates that surface or near-surface groundwater conditions can develop in areas where groundwater conditions did not exist prior to site development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. In addition, changes in local or regional water and management patterns, or both, can significantly raise the water table or create zones of perched water. We therefore recommend that landscape irrigation be kept to the minimum necessary to maintain plant vigor and any leaking pipes/sprinklers, etc. should be promptly repaired. The depth to the groundwater may fluctuate with seasonal changes and from one year to the next. We have no way of predicting future groundwater levels or perched water due to increase in surface water infiltration from rainfall or from landscape irrigation. Subdrains, horizontal drains, toe drains, French drains, heel drains or other devices may be recommended in future for graded areas that exhibit nuisance water seepage, past evidence for shallow water, or areas with a potential for future shallow/surface water. 2.7 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples. The tests consisted primarily of in place densities, moisture content, expansion, soluble sulfate, unconfined compressive strength, R-value, sieve analysis, Atterberg limits, permeability, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, and direct shear. The soil classifications are in conformance with the Unified Soil Classifications System (USCS), as outlined in the Classification and Symbols Chart (Appendix B). A summary of our laboratory testing, ASTM designation, and graphical presentation of test results is presented in Appendix C. 2. 7 .1 Expansive Soi I Characteristics Based on laboratory testing, the upper foundation soils have a low in expansion potential (El=43). 2. 7.2 Soluble Sulfate Content Laboratory testing conducted for a soil sample showed that water soluble sulfate content is 0.30 percent (severe sulfate exposure risk). We recommend Type V cement for all concrete work in contact with soil. Ferrous metal pipes should be protected from potential corrosion by bituminous coating, etc. We recommend that all utility pipes be nonmetallic and/or corrosion resistant. Recommendations should be verified by soluble sulfate and corrosion testing of soil samples obtained from specific locations at the completion of grading. 2.7.2.1 Ocean Related Corrosion Building materials, such as metal, stucco, plastics, and others are prone to corrosion and deterioration due to the presence of salts in the air and humidity from the evaporation from the ocean. Therefore, the ocean breezes and winds that will be blowing across the site should be considered to be corrosive towards metals and concrete, and the architect should take these conditions into consideration when selecting building materials. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 4 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California 2.7.3 Collapsible Soil Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 Soil hydroconsolidation is a phenomenon that results in relatively rapid settlement of soil deposits due to addition of water. This generally occurs in soils having a loose particle structure cemented together with soluble minerals or with small quantities of clay. Water infiltration into such soils can break down the interparticle cementation, resulting in collapse of the soil structure. Collapsible soils are found primarily in Holocene alluvial fan deposits. A representative subgrade sample was tested for consolidation which indicated that hydrocollapse of the onsite soil is not considered an issue. 2.7.4 Permeability of Soil We have completed laboratory permeability testing for a representative clay soil sample from borehole B-3. The laboratory permeability testing was in accordance with ASTM D2434 guidelines for constant head method. Laboratory permeability testing was conducted at an approximate density of 100 pcf. According to the laboratory obtained coefficient of permeability, the soil is considered impervious when compacted. 2. 7 .5 Shrinkage/Subsidence Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced as engineered fill should be anticipated. We estimate that this shrinkage should be on the order of 15 (±5) percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted should be between 1 and 2 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading, and the actual degree of compaction attained. The losses associated with the removal of unsuitable material cannot be estimated at this time but could be significant. 2.8 Infiltration Testing (Percolation Testing Method} Four test holes were drilled and a 4-inch-diameter perforated PVC casing wrapped with filter fabric was placed in the boreholes. Pea gravel was placed below and around the pipe for stability of the borehole. The boreholes were presoaked prior to the percolation testing. Infiltration testing was conducted the next day. Testing was conducted for six hours with readings taken 30 minutes apart, from a fixed reference point. The measurements were taken by filling up the test hole with water and allowing the water to percolate. The drop of water level was recorded every 30 minutes. A wrist watch was used to record the time. 2.8.1 Infiltration Test Results Infiltration tests were conducted between 24 and 36 inches below ground surface. The following summarizes the result of the infiltration feasibility study. Test No. Depth Below Percolation Rate Adjusted Infiltration % Passing Surface (in/hr) Rate (in/hr) No. 200 Sieve P-1 24" 1.00 0.09 36 P-2 36" 8.00 0.89 28 P-3 36" 0.75 0.07 49 P-4 24" 5.25 0.54 35 The percolation rate is the rate in horizontal and vertical direction. This rate is adjusted using Porchet Method for horizontal water infiltration. Refer to Appendix D for test results. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 5 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 A safety factor should be applied to this rate by the design engineer. Safety factor discussion is in the following section. 2.8.2 Factors of Safety Long-term infiltration rates may be reduced significantly by factors such as soil variability and inaccuracy in the infiltration rate measurement. The correction factor for site variability is between 3 and 10. Safety factors for operating the system, maintenance, siltation, biofouling, etc. should also be considered by the design civil engineer at his discretion. Minimum safety factor required by the County of San Diego for tests conducted when deep exploratory borehole has been drilled at the site is 3. 2.8.3 Hydrologic Soil Group According to the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Services, the site is mapped in Las Flores soil units (LfC) which has a hydrologic soil classification as "Group D". GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 6 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California 3.1 Regional and Site Geology 3.0 GEOLOGIC FINDINGS ProjectNo.17119-01 December 20, 2017 The subject property is located in the coastal region of Carlsbad, California. The site is located along the Hedionda Lagoon. There are no mapped active or potentially active faults with surface expression that trend through or are adjacent to the subject property, according to those references cited herein. The site does not lie within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CDMG, 2000). According to the California Department of Conservation, Fault Activity Map of California, the site is located approximately 5 miles east of the Newport Inglewood Rose Canyon Fault, see Figure 3. The subject site, as is the case with most of the tectonically-active southern California area, will be periodically subject to moderate to intense earthquake-induced ground shaking from nearby faults (see Figure 4). Significant damage can occur to the site and structural improvements during a strong seismic event. Neither the location nor magnitude of earthquakes can accurately be predicted at this time. The terrain onsite is nearly level. Total relief on site is roughly 2 feet. The elevation onsite is approximately 10 feet above mean sea level. According to the USGS Geologic map of the Oceanside Quadrangle, Figure 2, the regional area prior to development was mapped as alluvial flood plain deposits (Qa) of the late Holocene age. 3.2 Secondary Geologic Hazards 3.2.1 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated, cohesionless soils are subject to ground shaking during an earthquake of large magnitude when the water table is less than 50 feet below ground surface. According to the city of Carlsbad General Plan, see Figure 5, the site is located in an area with a potential for liquefaction. Therefore, there is a possibility that the planned improvements could be damaged If liquefaction and associated ground deformations occurs onsite. 3.2.1.1 Seismic Settlement Based on Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) seismic settlement is estimated at 0.17 inch (refer to Plate 2) from 3 feet below ground surface to 7 feet below ground surface. This assumes the removal/stabilization of the upper 3 feet of onsite soil to incorporate the proposed pavers. Therefore, settlements are expected to be within tolerable limits. 3.2.2 Landslides and Stability The site and the surrounding properties are flat and not prone to slope instability hazards, such as landslides. The project will not be impacted by a landslide or impact adjacent properties due to a project generated landslide. 3.2.3 Tsunamis and Seiches A tsunami is a series of long period waves generated in the ocean by a sudden displacement of large volumes of water. Causes of tsunamis include underwater earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or offshore slope failures. According to the State of California Tsunami Inundation Map, the site is in a Tsunami inundation area, see Figure 6. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 7 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 A seiche is a run-up of water within a lake or embayment triggered by fault or landslide induced ground displacement. Seiches from the adjacent lagoon may be a hazard on site. The potential effects from a seiche include flooding damage and related hazards from spilling or sloshing water, as well as increased pressure on the walls of the lagoon. 3.2.4 Subsidence The site is not in an area of known subsidence, associated with petroleum or groundwater extraction. 3.2.5 Geologic Conclusion The geologic setting of the property is favorable for the use intended, provided the following engineering designs are properly carried out. 3.3 Site Class The proposed building is of conventional light frame construction, and a fundamental period of vibration of less than 0.5 seconds. Accordingly site specific evaluation to determine spectral acceleration for liquefiable soils is not required and therefore the structure need not be designed as if it is Seismic Site Class "F:" It is our opinion that structures should be designed in accordance with the current seismic building code for Site Class "D". 3.4 Ground Motion and Seismic Design Parameters: The peak ground acceleration (PGA) and 2016 CBC seismic design parameters are presented in Appendix E. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 8 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 • Active or potentially active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. • The site is located in a region of generally high seismicity, as is all of southern California. During its design life, the site is expected to experience strong ground motions from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults. Therefore, typical structural design mitigations should be considered by the structural engineer. • The site is located in an area with potential for liquefaction. • Excavations are not expected to exhibit any difficult excavation resistance for typical excavating equipment. • In our opinion, no significant infiltration should be expected to occur within the proposed below grade stormwater infiltration system. • The infiltration test results may be utilized when the bottom of the infiltration system will be located within the alluvial soil observed/tested. Should this system be located in a different soil type, the infiltration characteristics will be different than those observed during the infiltration testing. The infiltration rate recommended above is based on the assumption that only clean water will be introduced to the subsurface profile. Any fines, debris, or organic materials could significantly impact the infiltration rate. • Groundwater was encountered at 5 feet below ground surface after a 24-hour stabilization period. • Potential for rain or irrigation water moving through from adjacent and elevated areas cannot be precluded. Our experience indicates that surface or near-surface groundwater conditions can develop in areas where groundwater conditions did not exist prior to site excavation, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. Since groundwater may fluctuate throughout the year, we recommend the contractor verify groundwater conditions and evaluate dewatering requirements prior and during to construction. • Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation of the site, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 9 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California 5.1 Site Clearing 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 The existing concrete and any associated debris should be cleared from the site to expose firm and stable soils, as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer's representative. All debris, abandoned utility lines, roots, irrigation appurtenances, underground structures, leach lines, seepage pits, deleterious materials, etc., should be removed and hauled offsite. Cavities created during site clearance should be backfilled in a controlled manner. 5.2 Subgrade Stabilization Measures Soil subgrade and fill materials, especially soils with high fines contents such as clays and silty soils, can become unstable due to high moisture content, whether from high in-situ moisture contents or from winter rains. As the moisture content increases over the laboratory optimum, it becomes more likely the materials will be subject to softening and yielding (pumping) from construction loading or become unworkable during placement and compaction. There are several methods to address potential unstable soil conditions and facilitate fill placement and trench backfill. Some of the methods are briefly discussed below. Implementation of the appropriate stabilization measures should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis according to the project construction goals and the particular site conditions. 5.2.1 Scarification/Drying or Remove/Replace Excavated soil may be allowed to dry to near optimum moisture content. Depth of overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be necessary to reach competent ground. Pumping bottom (soft) may be provided with three feet of gravel to bridge over soft soil. This condition requires additional excavation to accommodate the gravel depth. Filter fabric should be utilized at soil-to-gravel contact. Saturated onsite soils are not suitable for use as compacted fill in its present saturated condition. The material may be dried back by spreading the soil thin and allowed to dry back or may be mixed with dryer imported soil. Subsequent to drying back, the soil should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 6 to 8 inches and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Tensar geogrid (TriAX TX 140-475 or equivalent) reinforcement should be placed at bottom of compacted fill and every foot of fill. As an alternative to drying back, the contractor may choose to over-excavate 36 inches of unstable/saturated soils and replace them with suitable approved import materials. Refer to Section 5.7 for import material recommendations. Tensar geogrid will also apply. 5.2.2 Lime Treatment As an alternative, chemical treatment, such as lime, can be considered to create non-expansive fill of subgrade soil. It has been our experience that for high Pl clayey soil materials will likely need to be mixed with 4 (±1) percent quicklime (CaO) or approved equivalent. Lime-treatment of the subgrade soils should be performed in general conformance with Section 24 of the Ca/trans Standard Specifications. If this option is considered, additional testing should be performed during construction to verify that the pavement subgrade strength is achieved in the field. Field-mixed soil-lime should be tested for compaction (by ASTM test methods) during construction relative to the lime-soil mix. Lime modified soils are expected to have a severe corrosion potential with respect to concrete. Following modification, corrosion resistant cement will be required. It should be noted that lime modified soils are generally unsuitable for landscaping use, due to the increase in pH of the soil. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 10 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California 5.2.3 Cement Modified Soils Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 Cement modified soils is a term used to describe native soils that have been treated with an appropriate (relatively low) proportion of Portland cement. The objective of the treatment is to amend the undesirable properties of problem soils so that they are suitable for load support below pavement. Proper cement content is the primary requirement for soil-cement construction. The soil material in soil-cement can be coarse or fine material. Generally, the more silty and clayey the soil, the higher the cement content required to harden it adequately. Sufficient amounts of cement should be added to silt-clay soil to make fully hardened soil-cement. Soils with a high plasticity index may be difficult to work with in construction because of their instability and stickiness when wet. Onsite soils have a laboratory tested plasticity index of31and41. Soil material that contain excessive amounts of moisture will not mix readily with cement. Sandy soil can be mixed with moisture content at optimum or slightly above, while clayey soils should have a moisture content below optimum when cement is spread. Cement should not be applied onto puddles of water. If the soil material is excessively wet, it should be aerated to dry it before cement is applied. The subgrade soil on site may be classified as AASHTO Soil Group "A-7". Typical requirements for these soil types could take up to 10 to 16 percent (by weight) cement. The intent is to reduce the plasticity index down to no greater than 10. This may be accomplished by an initial 5 percent cement mixture to stabilize the subgrade soil. This percentage may be increased up to the above mentioned typical values; until the soil is fully hardened. This should be verified during construction by compaction testing. A representative soil sample was tested and determined to have a pH level of 6.94. Soils with a pH less than 5.3 will typically require higher-than-economical quantities of cement if cement stabilization is being considered. The costs of using higher quantities for stabilizer will need to be compared with the costs of other strategies. 5.3 Soils with High Sulfate Content The presence of soluble sulfate salts can present problems when soils are stabilized with any calcium- based additive (e.g. lime, Portland cement, fly ash). Soils containing significant amounts of sulfates (greater than 0.3 percent) may require additional lime and/or special construction procedures. The representative soil sample that we tested showed the existing subgrade soil of having a soluble sulfate content of 0.3 percent. Sulfate concentrations of 3,000 to 5,000 ppm (0.5 percent) can be readily stabilized if care is taken to follow good construction practices such as using plenty of water and allowing ample time for the lime and soil to mellow between mixings. Concentrations greater than 5,000 ppm are often treated with two applications of lime, the first before the first mixing and the second after the mellowing period. The moisture content of the soil is raised to 5 percent over optimum during a multi-day mellowing period to solubilize as many sulfates as possible and to force ettringite to form before compaction. Once formed, ettringite is relatively stable and is unlikely to cause future problems. After the mellowing period additional lime is added to the soil and construction proceeds normally. 5.4 Allowable Bearing Capacity An allowable soil bearing capacity of 1200 psf may be used for compacted subgrade soil located above the groundwater level. The foundation should be supported on compacted soil with a minimum embedment depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 1 1 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California 5.5 Modulus of Native Subgrade Reaction Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 The modulus of subgrade reaction is dependent on the native soil classification and density. There are several different soils on site at various depths. Refer to Plate 3 and Geotechnical Borehole Logs in Appendix B to obtain the Modulus of Subgrade Reaction. 5.6 Total Settlement Onsite subgrade soil below the bottom of the proposed pavement section will be modified by one of the options stated above. The modified subgrade have relatively high strengths and will not be subject to significant stress increases from the foundations of the new addition. Therefore, estimated total long-term settlement between similarly loaded adjacent foundation systems should not exceed one inch. The structures should be designed to tolerate a differential settlement on the order of 1 /2 to 3/4-inch. 5.7 Compacted Fills/Imported Soils Any soil to be placed as fill, whether presently onsite or import, should be approved by the soil engineer or his representative prior to their placement. All onsite soils to be used as fill should be cleansed of any roots, or other deleterious materials. All fills should be placed in 6-to -8 inch loose lifts, thoroughly watered, or aerated to near optimum moisture content, mixed and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. This is relative to the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D1557 Test Method. Any imported soils should be sandy (preferably uses "SM" or "SW", and very low in expansion potential) and approved by the soil engineer. The soil engineer or his representative should observe the placement of all fill and take sufficient tests to verify the moisture content and the uniformity and degree of compaction obtained. 5.7.1 Trench Backfill All utility trenches and retaining wall backfills should be mechanically compacted to the minimum requirements of at least 90 percent relative compaction. Onsite soils derived from trench excavations cannot be used as trench backfill when saturated. Trench excavations should be performed with equipment capable of providing a relatively clean bearing area. Stable soils are essential to provide a strong base during construction. In addition, stable soils enhance trench bottom stability, support for bedding compaction, and minimize possible pipe settlement. Whenever soft soils are encountered during trench excavation, we recommend overexcavating at least 2 foot or more to stabilize subgrade, and replacing the additional excavation with crushed rock wrapped with filter fabric. Excavated material from footing trenches should not be placed on parking subgrade unless properly compacted and tested. 5.7.2 Pipe Bedding Soils with sand equivalent greater than 30 may be utilized for pipe bedding and shading. Pipe bedding should be required to provide uniform support for piping. Most of the onsite soils are characterized by high fine content, therefore they cannot be used as pipe bedding. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 12 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California 5.8 Tentative Pavement Design Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 On the basis of classifications of onsite soil, assumed Traffic Index, and an R-value of 7, the minimum recommended pavement thickness is in the following sections. Final pavement design recommendations should be based on laboratory test results of representative pavement subgrade soils upon the completion of rough grading. 5.8.1 Conventional AC and Concrete Pavement Minimum Recommended Pavement Section Pavement Option Pavement Class II Thickness of Reinforced AaareQate Base Compacted SubQrade Conventional AC Pavement 3.0" 10.0" 23.0" Conventional Concrete Pavement 6.0" 4.0" 26.0" The subgrade should be prepared in accordance to Section 5.2 "Stabilization of Subgrade Soil" of this report and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557 test method. Aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557 test method. 5.8.2 Conventional AC and Concrete Pavement with Modified Subgrade Minimum Recommended Pavement Section Pavement Option Class II Aggregate Thickness of Pavement Modified Base Subgrade Conventional AC Pavement 2.5" 10.0" 18.0" Conventional Concrete Pavement 5.0" 6.0" 18.0" The subgrade should be prepared in accordance to Section 5.2.2 or 5.2.3 "Lime Treatment or Cement Modified Soil" of this report and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557 test method. Aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D1557 test method. 5.8.3 Porous Pavement Minimum Recommended Pavement Section Pavement Option Bedding Course Structural Layer Reservoir Layer Pavement AASHTO AASHTO AASHTO Section (No. 8 Stone) (No. 57 Stone) (No. 2 Stone) Porous AC Pavement 5.0" --16.0" 20.0" Porous Concrete Pavement 7.5" --16.0" 20.0" Permeable Pavers Paver 2.0" 16.0" 20.0" In order to bridge over soft soils, the recommended minimum total all stone layer thickness below pavement should be 36 inches. No. 89 stone may be utilized directly below pavement if the No. 2 stone reservoir is not necessary by the civil engineer design. Stone layers should be rolled with large steel drum roller until no movement is visible. If permeable pavement is used, it should be designed in accordance with design in accordance with the County of San Diego Low Impact Development Handbook. • As stated earlier, no significant infiltration should be expected to occur. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 13 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 • The infiltration test results may be utilized when the bottom of the infiltration system will be located within the alluvial soil observed/tested. Should this system be located in a different soil type, the infiltration characteristics will be different than those observed during the infiltration testing. The infiltration rate recommended above is based on the assumption that only clean water will be introduced to the subsurface profile. Any fines, debris, or organic materials could significantly impact the infiltration rate. • The design should include geotextile fabric (use geotextile with properties for underground drainage and low serviceability) around pavement reservoir, to prevent soils from migrating into the rock matrix. In general, filter fabric should be utilized wherever aggregate is in contact with soil. • A minimum vertical separation of 5 feet is recommended between the bottom of the permeable pavement reservoir layer and an impermeable layer. A minimum vertical separation of 10 feet is recommended between the bottom of the permeable pavement reservoir layer and the historic high groundwater mark. • Infiltration water should not be allowed to saturate foundations. • Installation requires a very high level of workmanship. The permeable pavers and aggregate courses must be handled with great care. Improper installation can render a porous pavement design inoperative from the outset. • Clogging of the pavement surface from natural circumstances is best prevented by installing it in areas that do not have highly erodible soils or steep slopes adjacent to the paved area. • The surface of porous pavement must be cleaned regularly to prevent it from becoming clogged by fine material. High maintenance practices are recommended for these devices. • GeoMat Testing Laboratories should observe the infiltration bed excavation prior to placing construction material. Laboratory testing including but not limited to grain size analysis, sand equivalent, sulfate content, etc should be conducted during construction. An important consideration for infiltration facilities is that, during construction, great care must be taken not to reduce the infiltrative capacity of the soil in the facility through compaction by heavy equipment or by using the infiltration area as a sediment trap. Infiltration facilities should be located down gradient from structures and constructed late in the site development after soils (that might erode and clog the units) have been stabilized, or should be protected (by flagging) until site work is completed. Infiltration facilities should be sited with the following guidelines: INFILTRATION FACILITY SETBACKS Setback From Distance Prooertv Lines and Public Rioht of Wav 5feet Foundations 15 feet or within a 1: 1 plane drawn up from the bottom of foundation Slopes H/2, 5 feet minimum lH: is slooe heiaht) Private drinkina water wells 100 feet Ferrous metal pipes should be protected from potential corrosion by bituminous coating, etc. We recommend that all utility pipes be nonmetallic and/or corrosion resistant. Recommendations should be verified by soluble sulfate and corrosion testing of soil samples obtained from specific locations during construction. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 14 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California ProjectNo.17119-01 December 20, 2017 If applicable, four to six inch diameter observation well(s), with locking cap, extending vertically into the system's bottom is suggested as an observation point. Observation well(s) should be checked regularly and after large storm events. Once performance stabilizes, frequency of monitoring may be reduced. GeoMat Testing Laboratories should observe the basin excavation. Additional laboratory testing including but not limited to grain size analysis, sand equivalent, sulfate content, etc. should be conducted during construction. 5.9 Site Drainage Positive drainage should be provided and maintained for the life of the project around the perimeter of all structures (including slopes and retaining walls) and all foundations toward streets or approved drainage devices to minimize water infiltrating into the underlying natural and engineered fill soils. In addition, finish subgrade adjacent to exterior footings should be sloped down (at least 2%) and away to facilitate surface drainage. Perimeter water collection devices may be installed around the structure to collect roof/irrigation/natural drainage. Roof drainage should be collected and directed away from foundations via nonerosive devices. Over the slope drainage must not be permitted. Water, either natural or by irrigation, should not be permitted to pond or saturate the foundation soils. Planter areas and large trees adjacent to the foundations are not recommended. All planters and terraces should be provided with drainage devices. Internal drainage should be directed to approved drainage collection devices. Location of drainage device should be in accordance with the design civil engineers drainage and erosion control recommendations. The owner should be made aware of the potential problems, which may develop when drainage is altered through construction of retaining walls, patios and other devices. Ponded water, leaking irrigation systems, over watering or other conditions which could lead to ground saturation should be avoided. Surface and subsurface runoff from adjacent properties should be controlled. Area drainage collection should be directed through approved drainage devices. All drainage devices should be property maintained. 5.10 Additional Services 5.10.1 Plan Reviews The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary information and subsurface conditions as interpreted from limited exploratory trenches at the site. We should be retained to review final grading and foundation plans to revise our conclusions and recommendations, as necessary. Professional fees will apply for each review. Our conclusions and recommendations should also be reviewed and verified during site grading, and revised accordingly if exposed geotechnical conditions vary from our preliminary findings and interpretations. 5.10.2 Additional Observation and/or Testing GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. should observe and/or test at the following stages of construction. • Following subgrade excavation and prior to aeration/stabilization. • During all trench backfill. • During grading and compaction of subgrade soils. • During installation of filter fabric, aggregate courses, and permeable pavers. • When any unusual conditions are encountered. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 15 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California 5.10.3 Final Report of Compaction During Grading Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 A final report of compaction control should be prepared subsequent to the completion of grading. The report should include a summary of work performed, laboratory test results, and the results and locations of field density tests performed during grading. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 16 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RISK Project No. 17119-01 December 20, 2017 The concept of risk is an important aspect of the geotechnical evaluation. The primary reason for this is that the analytical methods used to develop geotechnical recommendations do not comprise an exact science. The analytical tools which geotechnical engineers use are generally empirical and must be used in conjunction with engineering judgment and experience. Therefore, the solutions and recommendations presented in the geotechnical evaluation should not be considered risk-free and, more importantly, are not a guarantee that the interaction between the soils and the proposed structure will perform as planned. The engineering recommendations presented in the preceding sections constitute GeoMat Testing Laboratories professional estimate of those measures that are necessary for the proposed water line to perform according to the proposed design based on the information generated and referenced during this evaluation, and GeoMat Testing Laboratories experience in working with these conditions. 7.0 LIMITATION OF INVESTIGATION This report was prepared for the exclusive use on the new construction. The use by others, or for the purposes other than intended, is at the user's sole risk. Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers practicing in this or similar locations within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The field and laboratory test data are believed representative of the site; however, soil conditions can vary significantly. As in most projects, conditions revealed during construction may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this condition occurs, the possible variations must be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and adjusted as required or alternate design recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the engineer for the addition and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractor carry out such recommendations in the field. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our own personnel on the site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented herein are based on our understanding of the addition and on subsurface conditions observed during our site work, and are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Page 1 7 ~ ~--~ t -s:. ~ ... ~..)" -~ " ~ ' Data use subject to license. © 2006 DeLonne. Topo USA® 6.0. www.delorme.com Topo USA® 6.0 ' ,,,, rFf Ag11cr Ht'd1,mdcr J --..... "'' «Jianda C eek Scale 1 : 12,800 I: , ... " m~ 5:-i,: -1" = 1,066.7 ft Data Zoom 14--0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP Artificial fill (lata Holocene) Wash deposits (late Hotocene) Alluvial fan deposits (late Hotocene) Alluvial flood-plain deposits (late Holocene) Landslide deposits, undivided (Holocene and Pleistocene) Marine beach deposits (late Holocene) Paralic estuarine deposits (late Holocene) Undivided marine deposits In offshore region (late Holocene) Marine ran deposits (late Holocene) Old alluvial flood-plain deposits, undhlided (late to middle Pleistocene) Very old co!luvial deposits, undivided (middle to early Pleistocene) Very otd parelic deposits, undivided (middle to earty Pleistocene) Stadium Conglomerate (middle Eocene) Friars Formation (middle Eocene) Torrey Sandstone (middle Eocene) Delmar Formation (middle Eocene) Santiago Formation (middle Eocene) Granite pegmatite dike (mid-Cretaceous) Granite, undivided (mid-Cretaceous) Monzogranlte, undivided (mid-Cretaceous) Granodiorite, undivided (mid-Cretaceous) Granodiorite (fine-grained), undivided (mid-Cretaceous) Tonalite, undivided (mid-Cretaceous) Quartz-bearing diorite, und'tvided (mid-Cretaceous) Diorite, undivided (mid-Cretaceous) Gabbro, undivided (mid-Cretaceous) Heterogeneous granitic rocks (Cretaceous) From: "Kennedy, M.P., Tan, S.S., Bovard, K.R., Alvarez, R.M., Watson, M.J., and Gutierrez, C.I., 2007, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30x60- minute quadr n le California: California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, scale 1:100,000" aaowm:I PROJECT: 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO: 17119-01 DATE: December 20, 2017 FIGURE 2 REGIONAL FAULT MAP I' :;;: _., ., ,l} ' ,\ " \ / Follbrook ,,,.,.,,,- Volley Center Vlsto S.:w, M.xcos Escondido ~ DESCRIPTION Encl111ta:1 ,J Geologic Years Before Presenl Faull Symbol Recency 1---------------+ E~ ~ t ~ 0 i:' i ! i Time Scale I " % 1 I 3 ~ s ! X j i •. t ~li.fflll-..6c:WMf-9 ~...,..._,_.,a) ?._ ~ (Approx.) of Mo\'cmcnl ON LA D OFFSIIORE -~ ..... ..,._ ... a-. ? • m-+----++-,~--,-1------~-----~ ~ ---.... , ............. ----, .... .,..,..,.~------ «*•°'~· 100.000,~1---4-...... 4-~-------li-------~ ~~--, __ OAt, .... t/~ ,..,....,. .. ...,,,.,.,_,.. ... ~-.............. ...... ,.aaoooo.,...,. ........... ~ .......... '#ldl~ll!da---... _,,. -'----,1-1 eoo.ooo·-+--+---'-++-------+------ , .... ,,,,._,,.~ FMQAt..,...olPiioow-.OI ~ ....... Ot .,... W'IOWIIIQ~~no ---IIMNOl~NCthol f ti Poway 1 \ / 1 I I --- Lem on G1 L From: "Fault Activity Map of Calffornia," compiled by Charles W. Jennings and William A. Bryant, California Geological Survey, Map No. 6, California Geolooic Data Mao Series. 2010 111[1] PROJECT: 4747 Marine Drive, Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO: 17119-01 DATE: December 20, 2017 FIGURE 3 \ \ \ ~ l'Otnl..'.llll ""'er '°'if ,401_, ovine ~ : ;'1f , .... 0 O U~B~ e L.W,,ti f(U'-1 • • L~Jlll.'.I U1~cl 0 • 0 l :1'1,.11:tBe.,-;I\ • • • 0 • • • • 0 • • cP 0 • 0 • • •O • 0 0 • 0 • ' • 0 \• 0 • • • • • •• ..... 0 • 0 - REGIONAL GROUND SHAKING MAP ,:~,.__, .. "-',. ....... Co1Pt ■•,. • 0 • ci!P • • 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California ti c.-...on A..:: .... Earthquakes ,Ac M2.5+, 1810--Jan2015 • 0 0 0 0 oo M2.6• MS• M4• M&, Me• .,.,. °""' 0 • 0 • 1800-11MIO 1990-1890 1980-2000 2000-2010 2010-201~ Dali! eouroe. "!Qnhffll ~ '°"1t" ~""111"•"' O:l!a <;,,ni.r LD,c .... ,• Faults ...... "' .. -.elnlllePast15,000yea,o • • From: The Northern California EarthQuake Data Center (NCEDC) PROJECT NO: 17119-01 DATE: December 20, 2017 FIGURE 4 SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP Potential Liquefaction ~ Riverwash s Tidal flats MM M Highways Major Street Planned Street Railroad ~ Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes ~ Other Hazard ..------..., l_ ____ j City Limits Source: City of Carlsbad, 2013; DUDEK, 2013: SANDAG, 2013; Dyett & Bhatia, 2013. Reference: City of Carlsbad, General Plan, Figure 6-6: Liquefaction Hazards PROJECT: Ramona Boulevard Storm Drain, City of Rosemead, California ,,,m PROJECT NO: 17061-02 DATE: November 9, 2017 FIGURE 5 TSUNAMI HAZARD ZONES MAP \ \ \ I \ \ \ I ,,. TSUNAMI INUNDATION MAP FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING MAP EXPLANATION State of California ~ County of San Diego OCEANSIDE QUADRANGLE SAN LUIS REY QUADRANGLE ~ Tsunami Inundation Line Tsunam i Inundation Area June 1, 2009 MAP BASE Topographic base maps prepared by U.S. Geological Survey as part of the 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map Series (originally 1 :24,000 scale). Tsunami inundation line boundaries may reflect updated digital orthophotographic and topographic data that can differ significantly from contours shown on the base map. PROJECT: 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California ,,,m PROJECT NO: 17119-01 DATE: December 20, 2017 FIGURE 6 ----------, 4 .,, 177' "ij"'t::li• TM.,. L ~ ~ L J :1 • • • ! r.i F I•.· -'. SITE PLAN NOTES, m "'~ .... CM.~ 1. Cl!)~ ._,_,Plll'Y'•T~ ,4,C'l!J6,A6~ 1- :.~b-~---v- d .. --;, _'.cv.:;,.~· .-_L .. "--~ .. . -~~~~..li";~-"·1•, , · ·,., B-3 J -• 11 ··· ·t -" .• ·_ ~,..dC i} l-·~"4 >, uN: I: .· -• -A; ·.ti·· . , .. •.. · .· .. · •, i • • 11 • • f . ·.· . . . • . • . • • _,.-: • .i,. , _.,·1 :-· ,r;::-:i ·. [I-•· ~, :•·1P-41 ' • : I • • •• 1 • . ......~.:;-l -. 'L: ·-------__ ,, ---------; ·-----··--•······---' ' ' ' • ---------•---------' : ' ·---------• --------- i I 111 I I I I I I ----r----tt--------., ___ ----_,_ __ --1-----+-----.----• ----1 II I I I I I I ----t-----1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I 111 I I I I I I I 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I ~ ! ! I ! l ! : ~-· .. ,,. <~---•.• ·' ·• ·[8-17· .• r□-71 1! ·.;·_~·-·:<·p_2 • .-:,-'.f..(:·;1~.f' ·,; ;. • ••• -•• • : < • :.:<-. ~:<.:··:?:,::-~>-- : ' l ' I I I I I I I I I I I ---...,... ----r----....----...,... ---...,... ----,..---...,... ----r-----,.. ----r----t----I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I j 4 ,. '· ~ ,, 1; g l fl ; I I I I I I I I .. C'I!) eoc::MTa ... ......n .,C'l!JCQNCMTW.tuoeCNn"IHTll<ILL. 'l C"IJec:t«::M'TS~IHTIW.L.IITM ~ALIIM&.NI04TCll"' ._ <l!JIITl!P'Bf:ZGW&ATI: 9,.(11)11,ltM~ W.C'l!J~~ .. C'l!)~9CI)( SHEET SCHEDULE, .... , (I.J ......... t.,,.. .... ,C'l!J ... t~ A-:tC"V-=ocf\.OCllll ..... (8JNR:)fl'I..C)Qlt ..... (Vl"CUITMl"l,.OQII ..., rv .. , MC .,..,. 11..aV' • .r.-, (V eo..rtW MO NCWIM BiV. 1.-.e W ..... T MO .. T ~T &av. A-'9 (I.Jf"'"""1M.,IO,IIW.-C,P"CCJL.MOl,IN:IL.EV'N,,t. PROJl!CT ADORE88, .. "W1,....,...,Dflf"9 ~,CA.._ C (.) Q C m U) ... IC C (.) c U) .I~ •$1 "',,. I I ,,..M'ww -... -,..--+--+-----' ' ' ' ' -m-_ -------___,.....,_.T .._...------ -m--0 ------ C (.) :::) t-...... -'"""'°' , .... -'"""'°' AS-BUILT SITE PLAN IICA&.i,J.IW'•t ... LEGEND, 1111 rv,...,.~~ r~~~~:~::.:i~;j W~~T D()qF.~. ,..,,,...M"1'011Mft" CH&.WN!L ~ifj GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Exploratory Borehole/Infiltration Test Location Map Project No. 17119-01 Plate 1 lanuary 2, 2018 •Approximate Location of Exploratory Borehole QApproximate Location of Infiltration Test Gal!RAL NOTES, m n. ~ w,,e, Nit' CO.ffU:ta) ... ne •• ~-...otGQOOI. PROJECT DATA.. ...... ...... --.....,..,, ....... .....,.., __ Cf'9ol•t~ '°'"" "°"- """"""°"' A.P.No1 :w, ....... 11-Al ,., ........ . OWNER, ow.. ....... ...,.. TU e.MA ~ AiNCIC2AT'IOM Ulf"'""911 .... T,...,.9 ~.CA ..... ARCHITECT, LAS~ ~L.CM9N,Mll':M1ac:T .. caklfril~•~ Wc::u«llll.Nft 1"0.90)c: .... IJlafTALIHT ~CA ..... l"MCIC, n..J,1,p-ra .. M>c. (16e),4».3919 .. ' . mu.•: l~,=-=-- A-1 AS-BULT SITE 111 .., ..... Seismic Settlement Above GWT Project Name: 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California Project No.: 17119-01 Date: Boring No.: 1/2/2018 B-4 Single Layer Input (Layer 1) Initial Surface(Feet) Zo 3.00 Field Blowcount Final depth(Feet) Zf 7.00 Earthquake Magnitude Bulk Unit Weight(KCF) ymoist I 0.12 Reference Stress Max. Peak Ground Accel.(g) amax I 0.470 !Probabilistic Value from USGS Normalized SPT, (N1 )60 = N*CN*CR*Cs*CE*Cs N= 5 CN= 1.091 (N1 )60 = 4.092 CR= 0.75 Single Layer Output (Layer 1) Eff. Stres@bott-prev. layer O''prev 0.360 Constant b N M Po CS= CE= CB= Stress Reduction Factor r d 0.9951 Ratio 'tav/Gmax Effective Stress(ksf) O'' 0.8400 Background Cales eA(b*C31) Median Effective Stress-ksf <Jm 0.6 Cyclic Shear Strain Veff Cyclic Stress Ratio(ksf) 'tav 0.145924968 Volumetric Strain (15 Max. Shear Modulus(ksf) G max 783.56 Median Eff. Stress <Jm Relative Density(%) Dr 41 Number of Cycles Ne Constant a 0.189352 Volumetric Strain for nc t nc Settlement of layer ~Si 0.17 Inches I References: 5 7.50 !Mw 1.00 !ksf 1 1 1 4688.073424 0.000186234 2.394274753 2.57E-04 1.73E-03 600 15.16 0.001735077 US Army Corps of Engineers, CECW-EG Engineering Manual 1110-1-1904, Settlement Analsyis, September 30, 1990 ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 118, 1987, "Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Due to Earthquake Shaking.", by K. Tokimatsu and H.B. Seed, . 871 ,876. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Plate 2 0~ ;;:.,a. '< ...... a:!!:: a, 0 ::::!. a, :::, :::!. a, u, C C"' ., a, -· Q. < CD C ,, Ill ... -.2. !'! CD (') 0 -CD z (") 9 CD 3 g __. ---.I ... __. N __. 0 (0 I N 0 0 __. __. ---.I ""CJ -Q) r-+ CD (.,.) ~ m' (b ::::, ~ UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; (TSF) ~ CLAY :vER!kar'rl MEDIUM u 1r •1srrrr STIFF VERY STIFF 3 < ~ (") ...... 0 .... ,,,....., 1-w w Li_ u 1--l CQ ::J u ' (/.) z □ ~ '-/ > ~ SAND 0 1 2 3501----~-.JL.------,-----l..--:---~---'---r-~ 300 I -----t--·---+------+-------1-----;! 200 K~ -FQR c□ARSEl GRAINED sp1Ls K~ -FOR 'l FINE-GRAINED SOILS ----------·--·· ____________ ':]~ 100 ~-------------1-✓------------------1 0 0 20 I I VERY LOOSE I LOOSE 40 60 MEDIUM DENSE 80 100 0 VERY DENSE I DENSE 3:: 0 Q. C C u, a "' IC C"' aJ Q. CD :::a CD a, ~ 0 :::, Appendix A 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California ProjectNo.17119-01 December 20, 2017 REFERENCES Portland Cement Association, Research and Development Bulletin RD125, "Comparative Performance of Portland Cement and Lime Stabilization of Moderate to High Plasticity Clay Soils,· by Sankar Bhattacha~a and Javed I. Bhatty, 2003 Portland Cement Association, "Cement-Modified Soil for Long Lasting Pavement," by Gregory E. Halstad, P.E., 2011 Portland Cement Association, Guide to Cement-Modified Soil (CMS), Gregory E. Halsted, Wayne S. Adaska, William T. McConnell, 2008. Portland Cement Association, "Soil-Cement Construction Handbook, Engineering Bulletin," 1979, Revised 1995. National Lime Association, Lime-Treated Soil Construction Manual, Lime Stabilization & Lime Modification, Bulletin 326, January 2004 Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbook, Pervious Pavement Design Guidance, August 2014 Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library USGS, National Water Information System, Web Interface, Groundwater Levels for California. Department of the Navy, Design Manual 7.01 , Soil Mechanics, September 1986. Department of the Navy, Design Manual 7.02, Foundation and Earth Structures, September 1986. Department of the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering and Design, Bearing Capacity of Soils, EM 1110-1-1905. Robert Day, Geotechnical Engineer's Portable Handbook. Robert Day, Geotechnical Foundation Handbook. Foundation Engineering Handbook, Hsai-Yang Fang Fu Hua Chen, Soil Engineering, Testing, Design, and Remediation, 1999. Bray JD, et al, 2000, Documenting Indents of Ground Failure Resulting from the August 17, 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix A Appendix B I (,'1 \I Ii \I \,,,,' DRILLING NOTES WIIB L1V11. ■IEIJ1111■-Blill lllllla ...... _. 'Toe ~ Penelralion Tesl jg concWed in c:or;,lCllon will the spil- t.Tel ~ procaciJre. The "N" value 0011911)()1 Ids ii the oomber ol tmws requred ii ~ lhe last 1 tool (0.3ml ol an 18 in. (0.46111) long, 2 in. {51nm) O.D. sptil-GW181 wnpler with a 140 h (63.5 kg) tllnmer laing a dislance ol 30 in. (0.76111). The Saldard Penelralion Test is c.-ried out 8000lding to ASlM 0-1586. (See "N" Vu below.) Waler l8Yels ildicalad on Iha boring logs are Ms measured in the borings at the times incicaled. In permeable materials, fie illlicaled IMls may reflect Iha localion ol i,widwaler. In low permaabilly sols, lhe acmalll dalennination of groundwater Ms is not poesiJle with only short-term obserValons. WATER LEVEL 08SERVATION DESIGNATION W.D. Wille Drilng A.B. Aller Boring B.C.R. Belort Casing Removal A.C.R. Aller Casing Removal 24 tr. Waer 1M1 18k811 8AJIOXlllllel't 2-4 In. after boring ~ AS cs DB HA HS PA RB ss· ST we CR Aur;ier~ Continuous San'4)ler Diamond Bil -NX unless Olhelwise noted Hin! Aur;ier Hollow Siem Auger PowerAuger RodlBit Splil-Balrel Shebt T~ • 2" l5lm,rf unless OlherWiSe noled wash Bore Calfomia Ring Sampler 3' O.D., Lined with 2.5'X1" Rings SOIL PROPERTIES & DESCRIPTIONS 1UnlE PAATlCLE Clay Sitt Sand Gravel Cobbles Boulders SIZE <0.002mm <'200SiM 14i>l200SiM 3in.tot-4SiM 12 In. to 3 In. > 12 in. CMIMIIIU (< 0.002 nm) (0.075nm) (-4.75 lo 0.075 nm) (75 nm to-4.75 nm) (300 nm to 75 nm) (300nm) SAND & GRAVEL ~ trace with modiler FINES ~ trace with modifier CONSISTENCY UNCONAIED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (CM (pal) (kPa) Very Soft < 500 (< 24) Soft 500. 1000 (24 -48) Medilln 1001 • 2000 (48· 96) Sliff 2001 • 4000 (96 • 192) Yery Sliff 4001 ·IKlOO (192 • 383) Hard >81101 (> 383) % ll'f Dry Weight < 15 15 • 29 >30 %1Jr0ry~ <5 5-12 > 12 PLASTICITY ~ Lean Lean i> F• Fat Soil~ M bMld on 1he l-'1iliad Sol Clallificatiorl Sy&lem (USCS) • Ol6lld In AS1M oaai,,ab1s 0-2'487 and 0-2-488. The~ group synilol shown on 1he ~ logs 00ff8IPOlld i> the group namea l&lld below. The d89c:riptior1 irdJdes aoi constiluanlB, consillency, relaliw denaiy, cob and oiler approprlale ~ l8nns. Geologic d89c:riptior1 ol bemlck, when encotl1lnd, also is sholllln in h d89c:riptiorl coum. ... naa ... _ ..,naa .... _ GW Wei Graded Gravel CL U8l Clay GP Foorty Graded GrlMII ML Sit GM SlyG-Ml OL Organic Clay Of Sit GC Cl¥YG-Ml CH Fat Clay SW Wei Graded Sand MH Bastic Silt SP Foorty Giaded Sand OH Organic Clay Of Sit SM Sly Sand PT l'Nt SC ClayaySand CL-CH Lean to Fat Clay Cohessive Soils CIHEI II lJ1t IOU Conslstenacy "N" value RELATIVE DENSITY "N" VALUE' Vr,Soft <2 lotery Loose 0-3 Soft 2-4 Liquid LiTil (%) Mldlum ~ Loose -4 ·9 <45% 8tlll (Finn) 8-15 Medil.rnDense 10 .29 45 to 49% v.., 8tltl (Vory Firm) 1~ Dense 30.49 ~50% Hird >30 Very Dense ~50 BEDROCK PROPERTIES & DESCRIPTIONS -IIIIIJIY --... , DESCRIPTION OF ROCK QUALITY Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excelenl ROD(%) 0-25 25 .50 50 . 75 75.90 90-100 HRQD jg defined as he total lenglh ol sound a,re pieces, 4 inches (102nm) r,; greater in leng1h, mcpnlll1llld as a peroenage of the 1mal lqlh cored. ROD provides an lrdcabl of the inlagriy ol lhe rock mass and reldve extent of seams and bedcing planes. -W IIEITIBal Sl91IIY Wealherecl Slglt ~• ol paren1 material in jOinls and seams. Weathered Wel-dMloped ar.d deco11j)Uiidd ~ and seams. ~ W8alhered Rodi highly dllcomposed, may be extremely broken. ....... ,.w,w Solid Vuggy Pllrous Cavernous eor-. no \!Olds. Colunng emal pis Of CIYilies < 1fl' (13mm). Coluiing ruTa00S \10ids Mlich may be inlaOOINl8ded. Colunng cavities, somelimas (Jile i.ge. When dassilcalion ol rodl mal8rials has i--, eslinaled lrom cisturbed ..,.,., core sa,11)les and pelnVlphic lf1lllysls may l'lMIIII Olher rock types. -• -W l!llc-n,.,11111•• LIMESTONE Hard Moderately Hard Soft SHALE Hard Moderalely Hard Soft SANDSTa.E Wall Cemented Cemented Poort, Cemented Difficult 10 scru:h with knifl. C-1 scru:h wl1h knife Id not ~ lngernail. c., be acralched Mil fingernail. Can SO'alch wl1h knile Id not with tngemail. Can be scraEhed wilh firvemail. Can be molded easily with fingers. Capable of saalching a kni1e blade. Can be acralched with krile. Can be broken apart easiy with fingers. -Cllllllll:'lamc TERM \lalyTlidllleGlacl Thick lleGlacl MeliJlll!edded TlwllleGlacl Vf/ly n., Baled Laninml Thi1ly Laminated lllddingf'lanE Jon Sean THICKNESS (inches) THICKNESS (mm) >36 >915 12·36 305 ·915 4-12 102·:ll5 1-4 25-102 0.-4 · 1 10 ·25 0.1 ·0.◄ 2.5· 10 <0.1 <2.5 f'la,-cMlr,g h inlMiJal iayerl, bldsorllnlla cl rodes . Ffanln iodl, gens~ mcnorllaa ¥8!bl orlnnww ilthebatilg. AiJples lo bedding plsiewllh 111 inpeciledde!Jw olWllilhering. IIIMlt Tlltlll lllllrltlrllS. IIC. ~I--Project Name: 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California Boring No.: B-1 Page 1 of 1 ' Project No.: 17119-01 Boring Location: See Plate 1 Drilling Co. GeoMat Logged By: MN Drilling Date(s): 12/18/2017 Drill Time: 12:30:00 PM Groundwater Depth: --ft Drilling Method: Manual with Dames and Moore Depth to Bedrock: --ft Hammer Weight/Drop: 35 lbs./--Ground Ele. 13' AMSL Total Deoth: 10 ft Sampler Type: illAuger Cuttings (C) C8Jcalifornia Ring (R) Osplit Spoon (S) LABORATORY TEST DATA SAMPLES BLOWCOUNTS ~~ 'l;' --~ )( l E "' :I: ·;;; 'O I-..., "' "' ix, SPT :::, -~ 't :::i :::i .f: a.. (II a. ~ a. \0 "' ..... USGS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1;; C "' 'O u (II ..... ·o ~ 0 .9; "' t; w ~ E > E ' "N" C ·5 ti 0 "' I-"' a ;,-, ~ 5 i!' i:.:: !iZ "' "' Vl Vl io ..... Value u 0 ...., a: a: -4.0" Concrete Pavement (No Rebar) 1 -C af ARTIFICIAL Fill 2--beige clayey sand mixed with 3--olive brown to dark brown fat clay 4-\I -groundwater at 63" bgs {24hr observation) 5--dark brown with white/beige sand 6--R 32 hard 14 115 7--C saturated 8--9 -CH FAT CALV 10--11- dark brown fat clay -12--TD= 10' 13-- 14--15--16--17-- 18--19-- 20- - 21--22 --23 --24-- 25-- 26--27-- 28 - -29- - 30 - - 31 - -32-- 33 -- 34- - Tile stratification lines represent tile approximate boundarv lines between soil and rock tvPes. In-situ the transition mav be 11:rad ual. '■~ Project Name: 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California B 2 l •~ Proiect No.: 17119-01 Boring No.: -Page 1-B_o;.,,r,,,,in_.1g._L..,.o_c..;.at...,i...,o_n: _____ s...,e...,e_P.,..la,,,,t...,e_l.,,,.... _______ D_r,.,.ill,..in__.111:,_C_o_. ___ G.,...,,eo.,,.M--=--=a-=t ,-,-,,------1 Logged By: Drilling Date(s): 12/18/2017 Drill Time: 1:30:00 PM Groundwater Depth: ~...,,.. ...... ---,,:...:..,.-----.:.......:..,.---,-,-,,...------,..,..,.------------------1 Drilling Method: Manual with Dames and Moore Depth to Bedrock: '"H;...a_m_m...._e_r '""'w..;.e-ig..,.h_t/.,.D_r_o_p: --3--'5.;.,l..;.bs;..;."'"/--...;......;..._;_ ___ ..;.;..;G_r_o_u_nd..,.....E'""le-. ---1--7.,..' A-M--,.S_L _____ __, Total Deot h: 1 of 1 MN 10 ft ft ft Sampler Type: IIAuger Cuttings (C) [8]california Ring (R) O split Spoon (S) LABORATORY TEST DATA SAMPLES BLOWCOUNTS :I: ..., ix> SPT I-Q) Q) ;..., ~ Q) Q. :!:. Q. ~ .... USGS Q) .... UJ !:=. E > E "N" 0 "' .... "' 0 ~ ;..., VI VI .... Value MATERIAL DESCRIPTION l ~ i i >< Q) l Q) :5 ·;; "C ~ C 't ::::; ::::; E: t: Q) "' u ·5 2l 0 .e Q) "C t; t; C ~ C ·s ~ 0 i:i: C" "' "' u 0 ::::; a: a: - 1 --+---5.5" Concrete Pavement (No Rebar) -C af ARTIFICIAL FILL 2 --3 --4-R ~ beige clayey sand mixed with 5 olive brown to dark brown fat clay 16 112 -5 -- medium stiff, very moist from surface saturated 6 --7 - -C 8 --+---- \] CH FAT CALV 9 -- 10 --11- dark brown fat clay groundwater at 96" bgs (24hr observation) - 12 --TD = 10' 13 -- 14--15 -- 16 --17 --18 --19--20 -- 21-- 22 --23 - 24- -25 - -26 - -27 -- 28 - -29 -- 30 -- 31--32 --33 --34 -- The stratification lines reoresent the aooroximate boundarv lines between soil and rock tvnes. In-situ the transition mav be 11radua1. •■--Project Name: 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California Boring No.: B-3 Page 1 of 1 ' Project No.: 17119-01 Boring Location: See Plate 1 Drilling Co. GeoMat Logged By: MN Drilling Date(s): 12/18/2017 Drill Time: 11:25:00AM Groundwater Depth: --ft Drilling Method: Manual with Dames and Moore Depth to Bedrock: --ft Hammer Weight/Drop: 35 lbs./--Ground Ele. 9' AMSL Total Depth: 10 ft Sampler Type: ilAuger Cuttings (C) ~California Ring (R) Osplit Spoon (S) LABORATORY TEST DATA SAMPLES BLOWCOUNTS ~~ ?;-... I )( :I: ·.;; l 'i~ Qj .:;--0 I-Qj Qj ~ k SPT :::, -lii'E" ::::; ::::; .!:: Q.. Q) a. ~ a. to ... USGS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION t;; C "' -0 u ~ ... "NII ·o !! O.!,!: Qj t; t; LU E > E C ·5 0 "' .... "' 0 to ~ ::i: g ~ u: CT "' "' <I) <I) ... Value u 0 ::::; ii: ii: -5.0" Concrete Pavement (No Rebar) 1 -C at ARTIFICIAL FILL 2--beige clayey sand mixed with 3--olive green to dark brown fat clay 4--firm, very moist 5 -R 11 CH FAT CALV 54 71 6--olive gray fat clay 7--C becoming dark brown in color 8--very moist 9--black clay at 9' 10-- 11--TD= 10' 12--13--14--15--16--17-- 18--19-- 20--21-- 22-- 23--24-- 25-- 26--27-- 28--29--30-- 31--32--33-- 34-- The stratification lines reoresent the aooroximate boundarv lines between soil and rock rvnes. In-situ the transition mav be 11radual. 11 ... Project Name: 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California Boring No.: 8-4 Page 1 of 1 ' Proiect No.: 17119-01 Boring Location: See Plate 1 DrillinR Co. GeoMat Logged By: MN Drilling Date(s): 12/18/2017 Drill Time: 9:15:00AM Groundwater Depth : --ft Drilling Method: Manual with Dames and Moore Depth to Bedrock: --ft Hammer Weight/Drop: 35 lbs./--Ground Ele. 8' AMSL Total Deoth: 10 ft Sampler Type: IIAuger Cuttings (C) 1:8:lcalifornia Ring (R) Osplit Spoon (S) LABORATORY TEST DATA SAMPLES BLOWCOUNTS ~ ~ l:;---~ )( :c l .E QI z--~ '6' -0 I-QI QI ~ ~ SPT :::, -:::; :::; .!: 0.. Q.) Q. ~ ci. "' ... USGS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION t; C .,, -0 u UJ Q.) ... "NII ·-QI 0 ..9: QI ~ t; ~ E > E 0 0 -C ·5 0 "' f-"' ~ ;.., ::E 5 ~ u:: CT "' "' V, V, ... Value u 0 :::; 0: 0: -4.0" Concrete Pavement {No Rebar) 1 -C af ARTIFICIAL FILL 2--R 4 beige clayey sand mixed with 25 95 3--4-olive green to dark brown fat clay -5 soft, saturated -CH FAT CALV 6--dark brown to black fat clay 7-\I -R 5 medium firm 48 71 8--groundwater at 97" bgs (24hr observation) 9--10--TD= 10' 11--12--13--14-- 15-- 16--17-- 18-- 19--20-- 21--22--23--24-- 25--26--27--28--29--30-- 31-- 32--33--34-- The stratification lines reoresent the aooroxlmate boundarv lines between soil and rock runes. In-situ the transition mav he ora11 ua1. Appendix C 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 17119-01 January 2, 2017 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS U.S. Standard Sieve Opening in Inches 100% 20 4 1½ 90% 80% 70% :i: 0) 60% 'iii s:: }; 50% 0) C: 40% ·;;; "' (II c.. 30% ~ 0 20% 10% 0% 1000 Date : I Sample#: Sample ID: BI @ 6' Source: Ring Cobbles Project: 4747 Marina Drive Location: Carlsbad, California Boring#: Bl Depth: 6' oarse 100 Section Cumulative +- ! I t. I 10 Gravels Coarse Fine Cumulative U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers 0.1 Grain Size in Millimeters Sands 10= D30 = 0.14 D60 = 0.39 Cc = 1.48 Cu. 11.67 Liquid Limit= n/a Plastic Limit= n/a Plasticity Index= n/a mes Section SC, Clayey Sand Specifications custom specs I Fineness Modulus 1.50 Hydrometer Results --- 0.01 Silts 0% 10% 20% 30% :i: 40% 0) 'iii s:: 50% >-.r:, 60% al C: :§ 70% Q) a:: ~ --80% 0 90% 100% 0.001 Clays %Sand 77.04% % Silt&Clay 22.57% Sample Moisture 16.5% Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs Sieve Size Percent Specs Specs us Metric Passin Passing Max Min us Metric Passing Passing Max Min 6.00" 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 99.6% 99.6% 4.00" 100.00 I00.0% #8 2.360 97.5% 97.5% 3.00" 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 95.6% 2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.180 91.3% 91.3% 2.00" 50.00 100.0% #20 0.850 83.5% 1.75" 45.00 100.0% #30 0.600 77.5% 77.5% 1.50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 63.1% 1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 52.8% 52.8% 1.00" 25.00 100.0% 100.0% #60 0.250 45.6% 7/8" 22.40 100.0% #80 0.180 35.7% 3/4" 19.00 100.0% 100.0% #100 0.150 31.4% 31.4% 5/8" 16.00 100.0% #140 0.106 26.2% 1/2" 12.50 100.0% 100.0% #170 0.090 24.3% 3/8" 9.50 100.0% 100.0% #200 0.075 22.6% 22.6% 1/4" 6.30 99.7% #270 0.053 #4 4.75 99.6% 99.6% Copyrighl Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-2004 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix C 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 17119-01 January 2, 2017 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS U.S. Standard Sieve Opening in Inches 100% 90% 80% 70% :l: 0, 60% "ai ~ >, ..c 50% 0, C: 40% "iii <I) "' a.. 30% ~ 0 20% 10% 0% 1000 Date : 12/18/17 Sample#: Sample ID: BI @ IO' Source: Bulk Cobbles Project: 4747 Marina Drive Location: Carlsbad, California Boring#: Bl De th: 10' oarse Section 4 11 ~. ½ 100 10 Gravels Coarse Fine U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer Results ~ -+- ... 0.1 0.01 Grain Size in Millimeters Coarse D10 = 0.01 D3o = 0.02 D60 = 0.05 Cc= 1.50 Cu. 6.00 Liquid Limit= o/a Plastic Linlit= o/a Plasticity Index= o/a mes Section Classification CH, Fat Clay Specifications custom specs I Fineness Modulus 0.02 Silts ctua Cumulative Cumulative Clays 0% 10% 20% 30% :l: 40% 0, "ai ~ 50% >, ..c 60% al C: 70% j Q) 0:: 80% ~ 0 90% 100% 0.001 %Gravel 0.00% %Sand 1.35% % Silt &Clay 98.65% Sample Moisture 61.3•;. Sieve Size Percent Passin Specs Specs Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs us .00" 4.00" 3.00" 2.50" 2.00" 1.75" 1.50" 1.25" 1.00" 7/8" 3/4" 5/8" 1/2" 3/8" 1/4" #4 Metric 150.00 100.00 75.00 63.00 50.00 45.00 37.50 31.50 25.00 22.40 19.00 16.00 12.50 9.50 6.30 4.75 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Passin 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Max Min us #4 #8 #10 #16 #20 #30 #40 #50 #60 #80 #100 #140 #170 #200 #270 Metric Passin Passin Max Min 4.750 100.0% 100.0% 2.360 100.0% 100.0% 2.000 100.0% 1.180 99.8% 99.8% 0.850 99.7% 0.600 99.6% 99.6% 0.425 99.4% 0.300 99.3% 99.3% 0.250 99.2% 0.180 99.0% 0.150 98.9% 98.9% 0.106 98.8% 0.090 98.7% 0.075 98.6% 98.6% 0.053 E ineerin & Technical Services PS, 1996-2004 Appendix C 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 17119-01 January 2, 2017 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS U.S. Standard Sieve Opening in Inches 100% 20 4 1½ s4 • • 90% 80% 70% .E C> 60% "iii s: >, Ll 50% C> C 40% ·;;; (I) "' Q. 30% "t!- 20% 10% 0% 1000 Sample#: Sample ID: B4 @ 2' Source: Ring Cobbles Project 4747 Marina Drive Location: Carlsbad, California Boring#: B4 Depth: 2' oarse Section t 100 10 Gravels Coarse Fine U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers 0.1 Grain Size in Millimeters Sands 10= D30 = 0.05 D60= 0.17 Cc= 0.83 Cu. 10.89 Liquid Limit= n/a Plastic Limit= n/a Plasticity Index= n/a 1nes Section Specifications custom specs I Fineness Modulus 0.91 Hydrometer Results 0% 10% 20% 30% .E 40% C> "iii s: 50% >, Ll 60% ~ C s 70% Q) a:: :,!! 80% 0 90% 100% 0.01 0.001 Silts Clays ve 0.00% %Sand 51.49% % Silt& Clay 48.51% Sample Moisture 26.8% Sieve Size Percent Passing Percent Specs Specs Sieve S12e Percent Percent Specs Specs US Metric Passing Max Min us Metric Passing Passing Max Min 6.00" 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 100.0% 100.0% 4.00" 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 98.8% 98.8% 3.00" 75.00 I00.0% #10 2.000 97.4% 2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.1 80 94.4% 94.4% 2.00" 50.00 100.0% #20 0.850 89.3% 1.75" 45.00 100.0% #30 0.600 85.5% 85.5% 1.50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 77.7% 1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 72.1% 72.1% 1.00" 25.00 100.0% 100.0% #60 0.250 67.5% 7/8" 22.40 100.0% #80 0.180 61.1% 3/4" 19.00 100.0% 100.0% #100 0.150 58.3% 58.3% 5/8" 16.00 100.0% #140 0.106 52.6% 1/2" 12.50 100.0% 100.0% #170 0.090 50.5% 3/8" 9.50 100.0% 100.0% #200 0.075 48.5% 48.5% 1/4" 6.30 100.0% #270 0.053 #4 4.75 I00.0% 100.0% Copyright Spear, Engineering & Technical Semces PS, 1996-2004 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix C 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 17119-01 January 2, 2017 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS U.S. Standard Sieve Opening in Inches U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer Results 100% 20 6 4 3 1½ ¾ ½ •A tu 1n 1s ,n -.n 4n sn 1nn '"" 0% - 90% r 10% 80% • 20% 70% t I 30% .E I .E Cl 60% -40% C> ·a; ·a; 3: 3: >, 50% t 50% >, .D .D C> al C: 40% ~ 60% ·u; C: "' t s "' c.. 30% --70% Q) ~ 0:: 0 ~ 20% -..... 80% 0 10% 90% 0% I I 100% 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 Grain Size in Millimeters I Cobbles Gravels I Sands I Silts I Clays I Coarse Fine I Coarse I Medium I Fin" I Date: 12/18/17 u10= o.ol Classification o/o Uravel Sample#: 0 30 = 0.02 CH, Fat Clay 0.00% Sample 10: B4 @ 6' 060= 0.05 %Sand Source: Bulk Cc= 1.50 Specifications 2.36% Project: 4747 Marina Drive Cu. 6.00 custom specs I % Silt&Clay Location: Carlsbad, California Liquid Limit= n/a 97.64% Boring#: B4 Plastic Limit= n/a Fineness Modulus Sample Moisture Depth: 6' Plasticity Index= n/a 0.02 55.5% Loarsc Actual mterpotateo ~IDeS ACIU81 1 mterpo1ateo Section Cumulative Cumulative Section Cumulative Cumulative Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs us Merrie Passing Passing Max Min us Merrie Passing Passing Max Min 6.00" 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 100.0% 100.0% 4.00" 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 100.0% 100.0% 3.00" 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 100.0% 2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.180 99.8% 99.8% 2.00" 50.00 100.0% #20 0.850 99.7% 1.75" 45.00 100.0% #30 0.600 99.7% 99.7% 1.50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 99.6% 1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 99.5% 99.5% 1.00" 25.00 100.0% 100.0% #60 0.250 99.2% 7/8" 22.40 100.0% #80 0.180 98.8% 3/4" 19.00 100.0% 100.0% #100 0.150 98.6% 98.6% 5/8" 16.00 100.0% #140 0.106 98.0% 1/2" 12.50 100.0% 100.0% #170 0.090 97.8% 3/8" 9.50 100.0% 100.0% #200 0,075 97.6% 97.6% 1/4" 6.30 100.0% #270 0.053 #4 4.75 100.0% 100.0% Copyright Spean Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-2004 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix C 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 17119-01 January 2, 2017 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS U.S. Standard Sieve Opening in Inches 100% 20 4 1½ a• ½ • 90% 80% 70% .c O> 60% ·a; ~ ~ 50% O> C: 40% ·u; VJ m 30% 0.. ~ 0 20% 10% 0% 1000 Date : I I Sample#: Sample ID: Pl Source: Bulle Cobbles Project: 4747 Marina Drive Location: Carlsbad, California Boring#: Pl Depth: 2' oarse Section 100 10 Gravels Coarse Fine U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer Results 0.1 0.01 Grain Size in Millimeters ,o= D30 = 0.06 D60= 0.27 Cc= 0.70 Cu-12.85 Liquid Limit= n/a Plastic Limit= n/a Plasticity Index= n/a ,nes Section Specifications custom specs I Fineness Modulus 1.22 Silts Cumulative Cumulative 0% 10% 20% 30% .c 40% .!2' Cl> ~ 50% >, .0 60% al C: 70% -~ Cl> a:: ~ 80% 0 90% 100% 0.001 Clays 0 rave 0.32% %Sand 63.85% % Silt&Clay 35.83% Sample Moisture 17.6% Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs us Metric Passing Passing Max Min us Metric Passing Passing Max Min 6.00" 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 99.7% 99.7% 4.00" 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 97.2% 97.2% 3.00" 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 95.2% 2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.180 90.7% 90.7% 2.00" 50.00 100.0% #20 0.850 84.3% 1.75" 45.00 100.0% 1130 0.600 79.5% 79.5% 1.50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 70.0% 1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 63.3% 63.3% 1.00" 25.00 100.0% 100.0% #60 0.250 58.0% 7/8" 22.40 100.0% #80 0.180 50.6% 3/4" 19.00 100.0% 100.0% #100 0.150 47.4% 47.4% 518" 16.00 100.0% #140 0.106 40.6% 1/2" 12.50 100.0% 100.0% #170 0.090 38.1% 3/8" 9.50 100.0% 100.0% #200 0.075 35.8% 35.8% 1/4" 6.30 99.8% #270 0.053 #4 4.75 99.7% 99.7% Copyright Spean Engineering & Technical Services PS. 1996-2004 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix C 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 17119-01 January 2, 2017 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS U.S. Standard Sieve Opening in Inches 100% 20 4 1½ 90% 80% 70% E C) ·m 60% 3: },' 50% C) C: 40% ·en (/) OI 0.. 30% .,,e. 20% 10% 0% 1000 Date : I 18 17 Sample#: Sample ID: P2 Source: Bulk Cobbles Project: 4747 Marina Drive Location: Carlsbad, California Boring#: P2 Depth: 3' oarse Section I t l I- 100 10 Gravels Coarse Fine U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers + + + .. + 0.1 Grain Size in Millimeters 10 = D3o=0.I0 D60 = 0.50 Cc= 0.71 Cu. 18.19 Liquid Limit= n/a Plastic Limit= n/a Plasticity Index= n/a mes Section Specifications custom specs I Fineness Modulus 1.75 Hydrometer Results Silts i j. t I t I I t 0.01 0% 10% 20% 30% E 40% .!2' Q) 3: 50% >, .0 60% al C: :§ 70% Q) a:: 80% .,,e. 90% 100% 0.001 Clays 1/o rave 1.12% %Sand 71.39% %Silt &Clay 27.49% Sample Moisture 17.0o/o Sieve Size Percent Passing Percent Specs Specs Sieve Size Specs Specs US Metric 6.00" 150.00 4.00" 100.00 3.00" 75.00 2.50" 63.00 2.00" 50.00 1.75" 45.00 1.50" 37.50 1.25" 31.50 1.00" 25.00 7/8" 22.40 3/4" 19.00 5/8" 16.00 1/2" 12.50 3/8" 9.50 1/4" 6.30 #4 4.75 100.0% 100.0% I00.0% 100.0% 98.9% Passin 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% I00.0% 100.0% 99.2% 98.9% GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Max Min us Metric Passing Passing Max Min #4 4.750 98.9% 98.9% #8 2.360 93.7% 93.7% #10 2.000 90.0% #16 1.180 81.7% 81.7% #20 0.850 72.5% #30 0.600 65.5% 65.5% #40 0.425 56.2% #50 0.300 49.5% 49.5% #60 0.250 44.9% #80 0.180 38.4% #100 0.150 35.6% 35.6% #140 0.106 30.9% #170 0.090 29.1% #200 0.075 27.5% 27.5% #270 0.053 Copyright Spean; Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-2004 Appendix C 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 1711 9-01 January 2, 2017 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS U.S. Standard Sieve Opening in Inches 100% 20 4 1½ 90% 80% 70% E 0) 'iii 60% :i: >, .0 50% 0) C 40% ·;;; V> "' a.. 30% -;,e. 20% 10% 0% 1000 Date: I Sample#: Sample ID: P3 Source: Bulk Cobbles Project: 4747 Marina Drive Location: Carlsbad, California Boring#: P3 Depth: 3' 100 oarse ctua Section Cumulative 10 Gravels Coarse Fine terpo ate Cumulative U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers 20 0.1 Grain Size in Millimeters Sands IO= D30= 0.05 D60= 0.17 Cc= 0.81 Cu. 11.14 Liquid Limit= n/a Plastic Limit= n/a Plasticity Index= n/a mes Section Specifications custom specs I Fineness Modulus 0.93 Hydrometer Results 0% 10% 20% 30% E 40% 0) 'iii :i: 50% >, .0 60% al C 70% ~ a:: + :,!! 80% 0 90% 100% 0.01 0.001 Silts Clays 0.00% %Sand 52.21% % Silt&Clay 47.79% Sample Moisture 23.6% Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs ieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs us Metric Passing Passing Max Min us Metric Passing Passing Max Min 6.00" 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 100.0% 100.0% 4.00" 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 98.2% 98.2% 3.00" 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 96.9% 2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.180 93.8% 93.8% 2.00" 50.00 100.0% #20 0.850 89.0% 1.75" 45.00 100.0% 1130 0.600 85.4% 85.4% 1.50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 77.4% 1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 71.7% 71.7% 1.00" 25.00 100.0% 100.0% #60 0.250 67.0% 7/8" 22.40 100.0% #80 0.180 60.5% 3/4" 19.00 100.0% 100.0% #100 0.150 57.7% 57.7% 518" 16.00 100.0% #140 0.106 51.9% 1/2" 12.50 100.0% 100.0% #170 0.090 49.8% 3/8" 9.50 100.0% 100.0% #200 0.075 47.8% 47.8% 1/4" 6.30 100.0% #270 0.053 #4 4.75 100.0% 100.0% Copyright Spears Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-2004 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix C 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 17119-01 January 2, 2017 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS U.S. Standard Sieve Opening in Inches 100% 20 4 1½ 90% 80% 70% .c 0, "iii 60% ~ 1, 50% 0, C: 40% ·.;; 1/) cu 0.. 30% ~ 0 20% 10% 0% 1000 100 Cobbles Source: Bulk Project: 4747 Marina Drive Location: Carlsbad, California Boring#: P4 Depth: 2' oarse ctua Section Cumulative I 10 Gravels Coarse Fine terpo ate Cwnulative U.S. Standard Sieve Nwnbers Hydrometer Results t \. 0.1 0.01 Grain Size in Millimeters 10= Dio = 0.07 D60 = 0.30 Cc= 0.66 Cu-13.66 Liquid Limit= n/a Plastic Limit= n/a Plasticity Index= n/a 1nes Section Silts Specifications custom specs I Fineness Modulus 1.29 ctua Cumulative terpo ate Cwnulative 0% 10% 20% 30% .c 40% 0, "iii ~ 50% >-.0 60% al C: 70% s G) a:: ~ 80% 0 90% 100% 0.001 Clays 0 rave 0.52% %Sand 64.88% ¾Silt &Clay 34.59% Sample Moisture 15.21/o Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs Specs Steve IZC Percent Percent Specs Specs us Metric Passing Passing Max Min us Metric Passing Passing Max Min 6.00 .. 150.00 100.0% #4 4.750 99.5% 99.5% 4.00 .. 100.00 100.0% #8 2.360 97.2% 97.2% 3.00 .. 75.00 100.0% #10 2.000 95.1% 2.50" 63.00 100.0% #16 1.1 80 90.4% 90.4% 2.00" 50.00 100.0% #20 0.850 83.8% 1.75" 45.00 100.0% #30 o.600 78.8% 78.8% l .50" 37.50 100.0% #40 0.425 68.1% 1.25" 31.50 100.0% #50 0.300 60.4% 60.4% l.00" 25.00 100.0% 100.0% #60 0.250 55.1% 7/8" 22.40 100.0% #80 0.180 47.7% 3/4" 19.00 100.0% 100.0% #100 0.150 44.5% 44.5% 5/8" 16.00 100.0% #140 0.106 38.7% 1/2" 12.50 100.0% 100.0% #170 0.090 36.6% 3/8" 9.50 100.0% 100.0% #200 0.075 34.6% 34.6% l/4" 6.30 99.6% #270 0.053 #4 4.75 99.5% 99.5% Copyright Spcan Engineering & Technical Services PS, 1996-2004 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix C 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California 100 90 80 70 -60 Q. -X Cl) "O C > 50 ..., ·o :;::; V') ro 0::: 40 . j. i ! i ! ! ' i 30 I --·--_j 20 10 0 0 LEGEND .& 82 @0-3' ■ 82@ 10' I 1 i ! f 10 ASTM D4318 +- , 20 , , , , , PLASTICITY CHART . t I , , . , ~-, -, ,: , . , ' , . , I ,' CL ot OL , J ;, ' ,. MLorOL , , , , , , , , , , , t , , ,, , 30 40 50 60 Liquid Limit (LL) CLASSIFICATION , , Project No. 17119-01 January 2, 2018 , , , , , , , , ' , , ,": l -, ,_' . , , ,, > ,, , ' , CH or OH i f I I t : r I I j i l : 1 ; I 70 80 90 , , , , , , , 100 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS LIQUID PLASTIC PLASTICITY LIMIT (LL) LIMIT (PL) INDEX (Pll 54.0 75.0 23.0 34.0 31.0 41.0 Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils , .• GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix C 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California Project No. 17119-01 December 28, 2017 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 3000 I I I I I l ·----~· ---·~ -, __ ,._ ,_ - -,--~ ·- t I --- ·-c·--· ---------·------- 2500 I _ --'-~ ~ --·-·--.... ---•--~ c---,~ - ----,_ ,_ ---,_ -·----· - --1--1---·~· --~~ 2000 / ,,.,, c;::----·-------v ,,,--"' I/ ~ -,_ ,,"">"' I,::_ -"' / /_,, "' ·----~ QI ,;:: .,,.,, .. ... --· ---Ill ::;::..,, .. .... "' 1500 QI /_,, s:. / Ill ·->----I-·-,._ ,--,,,..,, c_ --1--- -,~ -1--,-. ~ ~ ---·- /j, .,,.,, -- / ~,, ,_ __ ---,___ --~.,, -1-- 1000 ,, .,, --:p II::' --- /2 , __ -.,,.~,, ~,,, -·--~~ 500 V v ~ --·- 1-- 0 ---------~---------~-----------------..... ---------------- 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Normal Stress (psf) Sample Symbol Description Soil Type Shear Friction Angle, Cohesion, c [USCS] Strength <t> [degrees] [psf] B2@3' ■ Clayey Sand SC Peak 30.5 329 B2 @3' ---+--Clayey Sand SC Ultimate 29.7 324 B2@3' --•--Clayey Sand SC Residual N/A N/A Sample Moisture [%] Saturated Moisture[%] I Dry Unit Weight [pcf] 1e11Iml] 15.6 22.5 I 107.0 ASTM D-3080 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix C MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY -OPTIMUM MOISTURE Project Name Project No. Project Location Location In Structure Sample Location Sample No. Sample Depth Soil Type Test Fraction Total Sample Weight Weight of Oversized Weight of Fines _T_u_C_a_sa_H_O_A ___________ Test Date 1/20/2018 _1_7_1_19_-_0_1 ___________ Date Sampled 12/18/2017 _4_7_4_7_M_ar_in_a_D_ri_ve_,_c_a_r_ls_b_a_d._, C_a_lif_o_rn_ia __ Sampled By _P_a_r_ki_n.._g_L_o_t ___________ Sample Type AM Bulk _P_a_v_e_m_e_n_t_S_u_b_.g._r_ad_e _________ Tested By MN ..;;B;..;1 _______________ Mold Size 4-inch ..;0_-3.;..' _______________ No. of Layers 5 _S_C _______________ Blows per Layer 25 No.4 Hammer Wt./Drop ------------------1 0-lb/18-inch ____ ...._ _______ Bulk Spec. Grav. of Oversized _____________ Percentage of Dry Fines ____ o _________ Percentage of Dry Oversized Moisture Content of Oversized Moisture Content of Fines --------------% Corrected Dry Density of Soil Corrected Optimum Moisture -------------- Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 113.0 119.3 118.9 109.8 8.2 10.4 13.3 17.2 . ,. •• .,. -• ' .,. . • • • • • • SG=2.5 145 4-4--l--~~--+-+-+---+--+---+--+--1-4--l-l--<l---l---1----1--.----+---l--+--I-I ._ . .,. -. ,.,. . '" " . .. -_ .... . I+-½--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+·-t-----SG=2.6 . ' .. --SG=2.7 . ,. . -. .,. 135 . . ..,. ,. -•SG=2.8 -. " ,_ .. . 2.650 % <5% % pcf % 120.0 cf 12.0 % --------- --------+---l--+---+ -~---1--+-+-+-l•-+-l--l--l--l--l--l--+-+-+--+ ·-:. -Uncorrected Test Results ----130 4-4--1-+-~l--l---l--"~-.-,+-"'"""-+-+--l-+--.!l--l---l--+-.----+---l--+--I-I -. . .,. 125 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 -- _.._ . ~ ~ .. ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . r.---1---1---1---1--1--+--+--I- e Corrected Dry Density - .. 1-+--+--+--+-+-+-+-+-+-I ·•-ffo.-1--.!~ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--1--1--1---1---l--t-::_1._:_1..-:...1..----1-+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--t -·-~ .:-,_ -\ ,.,+---1---1---1--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-t--t-----'-'- • ' 'I ----_1,.- I . ... • -t--II -._ ' -._ -t--l-- •;~·,~~,--~,--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+----1----4 --~~--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-~•l\i:,..:;: ... ,-4~~ ... ~--l-l-l-lHHHHl-l-l-l--l--l--l--l--l--l--+-+-+-I ...._........_..._,.....,.__.__.__,__,_--+-• • '-I.._ ,i ---._ ,_ 1-f- 0 f------ . -- I--. _.,_ - J. _,_ ..... .,_ .... 1--1---1- ~i--1--- i---. ........ -- ..... j -1-_._,_.,__,__,,_,_ -4---1-l- J. ... ,_,_ __ ---_,_ i ,_.... - --1--4--4--1-•----1-- 5 10 15 . 1--. -+-----t-- ---t-t- 1-t- -t- - t~-1--r------·-- 20 25 30 35 40 45 Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils {Constant Head Method} ASTM D2434-68 (2006) / AASHTO T21S Project: 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California Notes Very Low Permeability (cm/s) [Terzaghi and Peck] I Project No.: 17119-01 101\-5 to lQ/\-7 Sample Number: 82 Diameter of Sample: 6.35 cm Sample Dry Density: 100.0 pcf Depth of Sample: 0-3' Area of Smaple: 31.67 cm2 Maximum Dry Density: 116 pcf Date Sampled: 12/18/2017 Height of Sample: 12.7 cm Relative Compaction: 86 % Soil Classification (USCS): CH/SC Assumed Specific Gravity of Soil: 2.65 Dry Weight of Soi l Sample: 644.2 g Void Ratio of Sample: 0.65 In-Situ Moisture Content of Soil: 20.4 % Distance Between Manometers, L: 6.35 cm I Manometers (cm) Head,h Flow,Q I Time, t Velocity, v IHyd. Grad., i'I Temp. •coeff. Of Perm. Test No. I (cm3) (cm/s) (h/L) K20, (cm/s) H1 H2 (cm) (s) (·q 1 11.75 9.5 2.25 0.2 3600 0.0000 0.3543 24 0.00000451 2 12.25 9.5 2.75 0.3 3600 0.0000 0.4331 24 0.00000553 3 12.75 9.5 3.25 0.5 3600 0.0000 0.5118 24 0.00000780 I Average K20 (cm/s) = 5.94E-06 • Coefficient of permeability corrected to having viscosity of water at 20°C. Velocity, v (cm/s) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.5 3.5 - ~ I ·--_-::. 3 -.... 3 -e-Hydraulic Gradient, i ----:, ~-,, -e--Velocity, v -J,. ~ -f.---.,. 2.5 ,, .... 2.5 .,.-I/ .,., ,, ..1.::1 --·----e 2 2 e ~ ~ ..c ..c -c:i -c:i nl nl ! 1.5 1.5 ! -1 1 -·----->--· _,_ 1----+ --->------>--. ---·t I-,_._ >---,__ --e---0.5 :± J 0.5 ,_ ·->-,._,_ --T~ --,_ -I I I I I I I-+-I ---,_ -•~ -e--1--._._ _j__ ·-f- 0 0 0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 Hydraulic Gradient, I GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Appendix C 4747 Marina Drive Carlsbad, California .... EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM D4829) 0.5 0.45 -,.,€,;::.. -,.._-,- 0.4 -.,-----~ --V---1 0.35 / ----7 '-0.3 , f-.. I- ._ - 'ii -l 0.25 - ---.,_ ----0.2 -----I--t-- I --,_ ---._ I l-,_ -0.15 I ----- 0.1 7 v l f-/ 0.05 ~v --t---- "-.-1<! --._ --0 0.1 1 10 100 Time [min] Classification of Potential Expansion of Soils I Expansion Index, El I Oto 20 21 to SO 51 to 90 Using Expansion Index, El I Potential Expansion I Very Low Low Medium Compacted Moisture Compacted Dry Density Final Moisture Expansion Index Sample {%) (pcf) {%) Bl @ 0-3' 10.1 112.2 20.3 43 GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. -~ - --- ----- - -- 1000 91 to 130 I >130 Project No. 17119-01 January 8, 2018 - - - -- -- - 10000 High I Very High Expansion Classification Low Appendix C geom GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Soil Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Materials Testing, Geology UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Project Name Tu Casa -Carlsbad Test Date 12/29/2017 Project No. 17119-01 Date Sampled 12/18/2017 Project Location 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California Sampled By AM Location In Structure Parking Lot Sample Type Bulk Sample Location B1 Tested Bv MN Sample No. B1 @0-3' LL Sample Dia (in) 2 Sample Depth Subgrade PL Sample Length (in) 4 SoilType SC Pl Surface Area lin2\ 3.1416 Soil Description Beige and Olive Sandy Clay Volume (in) 12.5664 Test Fraction No. 4 Mass farm) Specimen Moisture (%) 18.5 Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture (%) Rina Conversion 0.442 Deformation Load Dial Sample Axial Axial Corrected Load Axial Stress Dial Redaing Reading Deformation Strain Strain Area (0.010in) (0.0001 in) l1L (E) % (in2) (lb) (psi) 5 12 0.050 0.013 1.250 3.181 5.304 1.667 10 23 0.100 0.025 2.500 3.222 10.166 3.155 15 32 0.150 0.038 3.750 3.264 14.144 4.333 20 41 0.200 0.050 5.000 3.307 18.122 5.480 25 49 0.250 0.063 6.250 3.351 21.658 6.463 30 55 0.300 0.075 7.500 3.396 24.310 7.158 35 62 0.350 0.088 8.750 3.443 27.404 7.960 40 68 0.400 0.100 10.000 3.491 30.056 8.610 45 73 0.450 0.113 11.250 3.540 32.266 9.115 50 77 0.500 0.125 12.500 3.590 34.034 9.479 55 79 0.550 0.138 13.750 3.642 34.918 9.586 60 80 0.600 0.150 15.000 3.696 35.360 9.567 RESULTS Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) Undrained Shear Strength (Cohesion) 12.000 10.000 -"iii E: 8.000 QI QI 6.000 ... ... In ni ·x ct 4.000 2.000 0.000 0.000 1380 psf 690 psf ' - 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 Axial Strain 9980 Indiana Avenue, Suite 14, Riverside, California 92503 Phone (951) 688-5400 Fax (951) 688-5200 www.geomatlabs.com, email: info@geomatlabs.com - 0.160 geomml GeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Soil Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Materials Testing, Geology UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Project Name Tu Casa -Carlsbad Test Date 12/29/2017 Project No. 17119-01 Date Sampled 12/18/2017 Project Location 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California Sampled By AM Location In Structure Parking Lot Sample Type Bulk Sample Location B3 Tested By MN Sample No. B3@0-3' LL Sample Dia (in) 2 Sample Depth Subgrade PL Sample Length (in) 4 SoilType SC Pl Surface Area (in2) 3.1416 Soil Description Beige and Olive Sandy Clay Volume (in) 12.5664 Test Fraction No. 4 Mass (arm) Specimen Moisture (%) 18.5 Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture (%) Ring Conversion 0.442 Deformation Load Dial Sample Axial Axial Corrected Load Axial Stress Dial Redaing Reading Deformation Strain Strain Area (0.010 in) (0.0001 in) ill (E) % (in2) (lb) (psi) 5 4 0.050 0.013 1.250 3.181 1.768 0.556 10 9 0.100 0.025 2.500 3.222 3.978 1.235 15 14 0.150 0.038 3.750 3.264 6.188 1.896 20 21 0.200 0.050 5.000 3.307 9.282 2.807 25 28 0.250 0.063 6.250 3.351 12.376 3.693 30 34 0.300 0.075 7.500 3.396 15.028 4.425 35 40 0.350 0.088 8.750 3.443 17.680 5.135 40 47 0.400 0.100 10.000 3.491 20.774 5.951 45 52 0.450 0.113 11.250 3.540 22.984 6.493 50 58 0.500 0.125 12.500 3.590 25.636 7.140 55 64 0.550 0.138 13.750 3.642 28.288 7.766 60 69 0.600 0.150 15.000 3.696 30.498 8.252 RESULTS Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) Undrained Shear Strength (Cohesion) 9.000 8.000 7.000 ~ 6.000 E: t 5.000 ~ 4.000 iii ·x <( 3.000 2.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 1188 psf 594 psf 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 Axial Strain 9980 Indiana Avenue, Suite 14, Riverside, California 92503 Phone (951) 688-5400 Fax (951) 688-5200 www.geomatlabs.com, email: info@geomatlabs.com 0.160 R-Value Test Results Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure, ft 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.00 i.., 100 95 it: 1.80 i.. 90 ..: i. ill 85 Cl) -1.60 .. 80 Cl) 1~ E 75 .2 1.40 ~ 70 :c i.. 65 n, 1.20 60 Cl) ... I, .. U) :::, >, i..w 55 ii .'2 1.00 i.."' 50 > I II) 45 a::: II) 0.80 i..."' 40 Cl) i.."' C 35 ~ I, .. .!:? 0.60 _,,,, 30 .c 25 ._ 0.40 1.;iil' 20 ~ ~ " 15 -0 0.20 1~' 10 0 5 iii' 0.00 0 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Exudation Pressure (psi) Compact Dry Expansion Horizontal Sample Exudatio Moisture Pressure-n Corrected No. Pressure Density (%) Pressure psi at 160 Height Pressure R-Value R-Value (psi) (pcf) (psi) psi (in) (psi) 1 125 113.5 14.7 21 119 2.39 737 13 13 2 75 109.8 16.7 14 127 2.49 411 9 9 3 50 111.2 18.7 10 132 2.41 244 7 7 Test Method CT 301 Sample Location B1 Sample Description Beige Clayey Sand and Olive Clay Mix Notes 1 2 3 Assumed Trafic Index s Stability Thickness 0.93 0.97 1.00 Gravel Equivalent Factor 1.5 Exp. Pressure Thicknes 0.70 0.47 0.33 Expansion, Stability Equilibrium 0 R-Value by Expansion N/A R-Value by Exudation 7 R-Value at Equilibrium (Result) 7 Project Name Tu Casa HOA 'ueawl Project Location 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California Client Name Tu Casa HOA Project No. 17119-01 1eowm:IGeoMat Testing Laboratories, Inc. Soil Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Materials Testing, Geology SOLUBLE SULFATEAND CHLORIDE TEST RESULTS Project Name 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California Test Date 12/29/2017 ProjectNo. 17119-01 Date Sampled 12/18/2017 -----------------------Project Location 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad, California Sampled By Location in Structure 83 @ 0-3' Sample Type -------------------Sam p I e d Classification SC Tested By ------------------- TESTING INFORMATION Sample weight before drying Sample weight after drying __________________ Sample Weight Passing No. 10 Sieve Mixing Dilution Sulfate Location Reading Ratio Factor loom) 83 3 (25/5) 200 Moisture Sulfate Content (ccml (%) 3000 0.300 Chloride Content m % AM Bulk MN pH Averaae Avera e Averaae I ACI 318-05 Table 4.3.1 Requirements for Concrete ExDosed to Sulfate-Containina Solutions Water-Soluble Sulfate (S04) Maximum Minimum Design Sulfate Sulfate (S04) Exposure In Soll, In Water Cement Type w/cm Compressive Strength % by Mass ppm by Mass fc, MPa (psi) Negligible < 0.10 < 150 No Special Type ---- II Moderate IP{MS), IS(MS), (see water) 0.10 to 0.20 150 to 1500 P(MS), 0.50 28 (4000) l(PMXMS), l(SM)(MS) Severe 0.20 to 2.00 1500 to V 0.45 31 (4500) 10,000 Very Severe > 2.00 >10,000 V + DOZZ 0.45 31 (4500) Caltrans classifies a site as corrosive to structural concrete as an area where soil and/or water contains >500pp chloride, >2000ppm sulfate, or has a pH <5.5. A minimum resistivity of less than 1000 ohm-cm indicates the potential for corrosive environment requiring testing for the above criteria. The 2007 CBC Section 1904A references ACI 318 for material selection and mix design for reinforced concrete dependant on the onsite corrosion potential, soluble chloride content, and soluble sulfate content in soil Comments:Sec 4.3 of ACI 318 (2005) Soil environment is detrimental to concrete if it has soluble sulfate >1000ppm and/or pH<5.5. Soil environment is corrosive to reinforcement and steel pipes if Chloride ion >500ppm or pH <4.0. The information in this form is not intended for corrosion engineering design. If corrosion is critical, a corrosion specialist should be contacted to provide further recommendations. Signature Date Print Name Title 9980 Indiana Avenue• Suite 14 •Riverside• Callfornla • 92503 • Phone (951) 688-5400 • Fax (951) 688-5200 www.geomatlabs.com, contact: e-mall: geomatlabs@sbcglobal.net CONSOLIDATION TEST DATA Client: Tu Casa HOA Project: 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad Project Number: 17119-01 Source: Sample No .: Elev. or Depth: 3 ' Location: B2 Description: Clayey Sand Liquid Limit: uses: sc Testing Remarks: AASHTO: Sample Data Sample Length (in. /cm.) : 1 " Plasticity Index: Figure No.: Test Specimen Data TOTAL SAMPLE BEFORE TEST AFTER TEST Wet w+t = 184 .00 g. Consolidometer # = 18 Wet w+t = 179.00 g. Dry w+t = 152 .30 g. Dry w+t = 152 .30 g . Tare Wt. = 42 .90 g. Spec. Gravity = 2.65 Tare Wt. = 42 .90 g . Height = 1.00 in. Height = 1.00 in . Diameter = 2 .41 in. Diameter= 2 .41 in. Weight = 141 .10 g. Defl. Table = n/a Moisture = 29.0 % Ht . Solids = 0 .5523 in . Moisture = 24 .4 % Wet Den. = 117 . 8 pcf Dry Wt . = 109.40 g. Dry Wt. = 109 .40 g . * Dry Den. = 91. 4 pcf Void Ratio = 0 . 811 Void Ratio = 0 .630 Saturation = 94 .7 % * Final dry weight used in calculations End-of-Load Summary Pressure Final Machine Cv Ca Void % Compression (tsf) Dial (in.) Defl. (in.) (ft.2/day) Ratio /Swell start 0.00000 0 . 811 0 .09 0.01200 0 .00000 0. 789 1. 2 Comprs . 0.17 0 .02050 0.00000 0 .774 2 .0 Comprs . water 0 .01820 0.00000 0.778 1. 8 Comprs. 0 .35 0.02250 0.00000 0.770 2.3 Comprs . 0 .70 0.03390 0.00000 0 .749 3 .4 Comprs. 1. 39 0.05070 0 .00000 0.719 5 .1 Comprs . 2 .78 0.07570 0.00000 0.674 7 .6 Comprs. 5.57 0 .10460 0 .00000 0 .621 10 .5 Comprs . 2 . 78 0 .10280 0 .00000 0.625 10 .3 Comprs . 1. 39 0 .09960 0.00000 0.630 10.0 Comprs. Cc = 0.17 Pc= 0.89 tsf Cs= 0 .02 Swell Pressure= 0 .28 tsf Swell percentage = 0.2 Geomat Testing Laboratories CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT -.0125 .0000 .0125 r , ... r-,... I'- ~~""l"--o. ,.._ -:-,.. ~ ?,., WATER ADDED : .0250 r---t\ ~ ' .!: .0375 "t\ ' .E \ C) "ii> ~ I .0500 ..!: -\ a, C) ' C: (ti .s:::. ' () .0625 \ \ .0750 ~ \ '-.0875 ' ' ' .1000 -.. ..._ \ ~ ~--., .1125 .01 .02 .05 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 Applied Pressure -tsf Natural Dry Dens. LL Pl Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cs Swell Press. Swell eo Sat. I Moist. (pcf) Gr. (tsf) (tsf) (tsf) % 94.7 % I 29.o % 91.4 2.65 0.89 0.17 0.02 0.28 0.2 0.811 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION uses AASHTO Clayey Sand SC Project No. 17119-01 Client: Tu Casa HOA Remarks: Project: 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad Locatlon:B2 Geomat Testing Laboratories Riverside, CA Figure CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT -1.25 0.00 1.25 r "i' r"-.. ..... ~,.. ....... i-...__l"'--, ""I ' 2.50 WATER ADDED : ', i\\ 3.75 "', C i\ "iii ... cJ5 i\ -5.00 C Cl) \ 0 ... Cl) 0.. \ 6.25 ' \ 7.50 \ ~ \ 8.75 ' ' 10.00 ' -... ..._ \ ,_,,..__ "V 11.25 .01 .02 .05 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 Applied Pressure -tsf Natural Dry Dens. LL Pl Sp. Overburden p Cc Cs Swell Press. Swell eo Sat. I Moist. (pcf) Gr. (tsf) (tsl) (tsf) % 94.1 % I 29.o % 9 1.4 2.65 0.89 0.17 0.02 0.28 0.2 0.8 11 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION uses AASHTO Clayey Sand SC Project No. 17119-01 Client: Tu Casa HOA Remarks: Project: 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad Location: B2 Geomat Testing Laboratories Riverside, CA Figure CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT .846 .821 .796 Ci,,. r-.... ~ "' ~~ t-,... ,._ .771 ri.... I WATER ADDED I ~~ ~ "' .746 ~~ ~ 0 ~ a: .721 ~ l "O ' ·o > r\ ' .696 \ .671 'b \ \ .646 ' ' --... --i--\ ~ .621 .596 .01 .02 .05 .1 .2 .5 1 2 5 Applied Pressure -tsf Natural Dry Dens. LL Pl Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cs Swell Press. Swell Sat. I Moist. (pcf) Gr. (ts!) (tsf) (tsf) % eo 94.7 % I 29.o % 91.4 2.65 0.89 0.17 O.Q2 0.28 0.2 0.811 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION uses AASHTO Clayey Sand SC Project No. 171 I 9-01 Client: Tu Casa HOA Remarks: Project: 4747 Marina Drive, Carlsbad Location: B2 Geomat Testing Laboratories Riverside, CA Figure Appendix D PERCOLATION TEST -P-1 Project No. 17119-01 Project Name Tu Casa Carlsbad Proj. Location 4747 Marina Dr, Carlsbad, California Soak Method 5 gallons Drilling Date 12/18/2017 Soak Date 12/18/2017 Depth of Hole (in) 24 Testing Dat e 12/19/2017 Borehole Diameter (in) 4 Test Refill Depth (in) 10 TIME D0,INITIAL D1, FINAL t.H, WATER AVERAGE PERC RATE PERC RATE CORRECTED* CRITERIA TIME INTERVAL DEPTH TO DEPTH TO DROP (in) WETTED (min/in) (in/hr) INFILTRATION (min) WATER (in) WATER(in) DEPTH (in) RATE (in/hr) > .!!! rl• II •:11 n •7",• II 14 17 3 "'C -== w n -7<.•:11 7", Ill Was Sandy Soil Criteria Met? NO C ~ +-' .,: ·;:: u 0:00:00 0:30:00 14 16.75 2.75 8.625 10.91 5.50 0.57 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 14 15.75 1.75 9.125 17.14 3.50 0.35 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 14 15.25 1.25 9.375 24.00 2.50 0.24 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 14 15 1 9.5 30.00 2.00 0.19 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 ro 14 14.75 0.75 9.625 40.00 1.50 0.14 ..., 0:30:00 30.00 ro 0 0:30:00 ..., 0:00:00 V, 14 14.75 0.75 9.625 40.00 1.50 0.14 Cl) I-0:30:00 30.00 C: 0 0:00:00 0:30:00 :.:; ro 14 14.S 0.5 9.75 60.00 1.00 0.09 0 u ... 0:30:00 30.00 Cl) 0:00:00 0:30:00 a.. 14 14.5 0.5 9.75 60.00 1.00 0.09 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 14 14.5 0.5 9.75 60.00 1.00 0.09 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 14 14.5 0.5 9.75 60.00 1.00 0.09 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 14 14.5 0.5 9.75 60.00 1.00 0.09 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 14 14.5 0.5 9.75 60.00 1.00 0.09 0:30:00 30.00 *Po rchet Method Cumulative Percolation Infiltration 0.70 ~ 6.00 .. ... Time (hr) (in/hr) (in/hrl ~ 0.60 ... .. r-~, l 5.00 0 5.50 0.57 z: -.. :§. 0.50 1 .. z: 0.50 5.50 0.57 ,,~ 4.00 g 1.00 3.50 0.35 GI 'Ii: 0.40 'l' C 1.50 2.50 0.24 a: ~-1' 3.00 .2 g 0.30 .. ,i,: i"o,,.... "' 2.00 2.00 0.19 i 2.00 0 """ u ~ 0.20 ~ .. 2.50 1.50 0.14 ",. GI i.: -t-i · :;:, ICI. 3.00 1.50 0.14 .5 0.10 1.00 --------T 3.50 1.00 0.09 4.00 1.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 4.50 1.00 0.09 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 5.00 1.00 0.09 Cumulative Time (hr) 5.50 1.00 0.09 ---Infiltration -Percolation 6.00 1.00 0.09 lg11rirn1 ■ PERCOLATION TEST -P-2 Project No. 17119-01 Project Name ITu Casa Carlsbad Proj. Location 4747 Marina Dr, Carlsbad, California Soak Method 5 gallons Drilling Date 12/18/2017 Soak Date I 12/18/2017 Depth of Hole (in) 36 Test ing Date 12/19/2017 Borehole Diameter (in) I 4 Test Refill Depth (in) 10 TIME D0, INITIAL D1, FINAL AVERAGE PERC RATE PERC RATE CORRECTED* CRITERIA TIME INTERVAL DEPTH TO DEPTH TO 6H, WATER WETTED INFILTRATION DROP (in) (min/in) (in/hr) (min) WATER (in) WATER (in) DEPTH (in) RATE (in/hr) > .!!! 0 ' II ' II II'/"' 11 26 37 11 ~ == Qi 0 '.7S· 11 7<; II Was Sandy Soil Criteria Met? NO C: 0 .... ra v, ·-Vl Q 0:00:00 0:30:00 0:30:00 30.00 26 33.75 7.75 6.125 3.87 15.50 2.18 0:00:00 0:30:00 26 32.25 6.25 6.875 4.80 12.50 1.59 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 26 31.25 5.25 7.375 5.71 10.50 1.25 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 26 31.25 5.25 7.375 5.71 10.50 1.25 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 0.96 <1l 26 30.25 4.25 7.875 7.06 8.50 ..... 0:30:00 30.00 <1l 0 0:00:00 0:30:00 ..... 0.89 VI 26 30 4 8 7.50 8.00 {!!. 0:30:00 30.00 C: 0 0:00:00 0:30:00 '.P 8 7.50 8.00 0.89 <1l 26 30 4 0 u 0:30:00 30.00 ,._ (I) 0:00:00 0:30:00 Q.. 26 30 4 8 7.50 8.00 0.89 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 26 30 4 8 7.50 8.00 0.89 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 26 30 4 8 7.50 8.00 0.89 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 26 30 4 8 7.50 8.00 0.89 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 26 30 4 8 7.50 8.00 0.89 0:30:00 30.00 *Porchet Method Cumulative Percolation Infiltration 2.50 18.00 Time (hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) 1111 ... ~ 16.00 I 2.00 0 15.50 2.18 ,,. 14.00 ~ ..... ~ 2.18 :§. .s:. 0.50 15.50 ~~ 12.00 ~ QI 1.50 1.00 12.50 1.59 .. ._1..,1_ 10.00 "' .... '""- C 1.50 10.50 1.25 ~ -, 0 C 8.00 +l .S! 1.00 ' "' 2.00 10.50 1.25 .. I ··--. . . ,. -----------6.00 0 "' u 2.50 8.50 0.96 .. .. :! I QI i 0.50 4.00 A. 3.00 8.00 0.89 I I I 2.00 3.50 8.00 0.89 4.00 8.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 4.50 8.00 0.89 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 5.00 8.00 0.89 Cumulative Time (hr) 5.50 8.00 0.89 ---Infiltration -Percolation 6.00 8.00 0.89 '1eal11fn ■ PERCOLATION TEST -P-3 Project No. 17119-01 Project Name Tu Casa Carlsbad Proj. Location 4747 Marina Dr, Carlsbad, California Soak Method 5 gallons Drilling Date 12/18/2017 Soak Date 12/18/2017 Depth of Hole (in) 36 Testing Date 12/19/2017 Borehole Diameter (in) 4 Test Refill Dept h (in) 10 TI M E D0,INITIAL D1, FINAL AH, WATER AVERAGE PERC RATE PERC RATE CORRECTED* CRITERIA TIME INTERVAL DEPTH TO DEPTH TO WETTED INFILTRATION (min) WATER (in) WATER (in) DROP (in) DEPTH (in) (min/in) (in/hr) RATE (in/hr) > -~ n•·u •ru n •'>C:•ru 26 26.75 0.75 -0 = t 0:25·111 'J"-Ill Was Sandy Soil Criteria Met? NO C O ..., n, LI) ·- I.I) u 0:00:00 0:30:00 26 26.75 0.75 9.625 40.00 1.50 0.14 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 26 26.5 0.5 9.75 60.00 1.00 0.09 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 I 26 26.5 0.5 9.75 60.00 1.00 0.09 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 26 26.5 0.5 9.75 60.00 1.00 0.09 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 "' 26 26.5 0.5 9.75 60.00 1.00 0.09 ... 0:30:00 30.00 "' 0 0:00:00 0:30:00 ... V'I 26 26.5 0.5 9.75 60.00 1.00 0.09 QI I-0:30:00 30.00 C: 0 0:00:00 0:30:00 :.::; "' 26 26.5 0.5 9.75 60.00 1.00 0.09 0 u L. 0:30:00 30.00 QI 0:00:00 0:30:00 n. 26 26.5 0.5 9.75 60.00 1.00 0.09 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 26 26.5 0.5 9.75 60.00 1.00 0.09 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 26 26.375 0.375 9.8125 80.00 0.75 0.07 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 26 26.375 0.375 9.8125 80.00 0.75 0.07 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 26 26.375 0.375 9.8125 80.00 0.75 0.07 0:30:00 30.00 *Porchet Method Cumulative Percolation Infiltration 0.16 1.80 Time (hr) (in/hr) lin/hrl _ 0.14 ~ .. 1.60 -~ .. i-0 1.50 0.14 J:. • 1.40-.::- 0.50 1.50 0.14 :S, 0.12 I~ I J:. 1.00 1.00 0.09 i 0.10 l~i..... ,_ '---...... ... __ .. '. ·---I-~- 1.20 i "' • 1.00 C 1.50 1.00 0.09 a: 0.08 0.80 i C 11111 _,_,_ ~ 0.06 2.00 1.00 0.09 0.60 0 "' u 2.50 1.00 0.09 .. .. i 0.04 o.4o l 3.00 1.00 0.09 C -0.02 0.20 3.50 1.00 0.09 4.00 1.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 4.50 1.00 0.09 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 5.00 0.75 0.07 Cumulative Time (hr) 5.50 0.75 0.07 ---Infiltration -Percolation 6.00 0.75 0.07 lge~nn ■ PERCOLATION TEST -P-4 Project No. 17119-01 Project Name Tu Casa Carlsbad Proj. Location 4747 Marina Dr, Carlsbad, California Soak Method 5 gallons Drilling Date 12/18/2017 Soak Date 12/18/2017 Depth of Hole (in) 24 Test ing Date 12/19/2017 Borehole Diameter (in) 4 Test Refill Depth (in) 10 TIME 00, INITIAL 01, FINAL AVERAGE PERC RATE PERC RATE CORRECTED• CRITERIA TIME INTERVAL DEPTH TO DEPTH TO AH, WATER WETTED INFILTRATION (min) WATER (in) WATER (in) DROP (in) DEPTH (in) (min/in) (in/hr) RATE (in/hr) > .!2 n• II • II O •J ..,_' II 14 17.5 3.5 "'C = Gi 0·7'i· 11 J'i N Was Sandy Soil Criteria Met? NO ~ ~ -~ V') cJ 0:00:00 0:30:00 0:30:00 30.00 14 17.25 3.25 8.375 9.23 6.50 0.69 0:00:00 0:30:00 14 17.25 3.25 8.375 9.23 6.50 0.69 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 14 17.125 3.125 8.4375 9.60 6.25 0.66 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 14 17 3 8.5 10.00 6.00 0.63 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 8.5 10.00 6.00 0.63 C'O 14 17 3 ..., 0:30:00 30.00 C'O 0 0:00:00 0:30:00 ..., 8.625 10.91 5.50 0.57 VI 14 16.75 2.75 QI I-0:30:00 30.00 C 0 0:00:00 0:30:00 ·.::. 8.625 10.91 5.50 0.57 C'O 14 16.75 2.75 0 0:30:00 30.00 u ... QI a.. 0:00:00 0:30:00 14 16.625 2.625 8.6875 11.43 5.25 0.54 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 8.625 10.91 5.50 0.57 14 16.75 2.75 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 14 16.625 2.625 8.6875 11.43 5.25 0.54 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 0.54 14 16.625 2.625 8.6875 11.43 5.25 0:30:00 30.00 0:00:00 0:30:00 14 16.625 2.625 8.6875 11.43 5.25 0.54 0:30:00 30.00 •Porchet Method Cumulative Percolation lnfi ltration 0.80 I 7.00 Time (hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) _ 0.70 I I ~ -6.00 ... ·-· •• -r-~-,... ... 0 6.50 0.69 .s:: ... ,_ ~ -]" 0.60 ... , ... i-.. -.. 1... .. .. •• .... 5.00 E, 0.50 6.50 0.69 "; 0.50 .... . , . . C 1.00 6.50 0.69 .. 4.00 ~ "' 1.50 6.25 0.66 ex: 0.40 .2 C 3.00 1ii ,8 0.30 2.00 6.00 0.63 0 "' u 2.50 6.00 0.63 ... 2.00 ... iE 0.20 CII A. 3.00 5.50 0.57 C 1.00 -0.10 I 3.50 5.50 0.57 0.00 I 0.00 4.00 5.25 0.54 0.57 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 4.50 5.50 5.00 5.25 0.54 Cumulative Time (hr) 5.50 5.25 0.54 ---Infiltration -Percolation 6.00 5.25 0.54 Appendix E Design Maps Detailed Report https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report.php?template=mi l of6 11IJSGS Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 7-10 Standard (33.14353°N, 117.32297°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 55) and 1.3 (to obtain 51). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B. Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3. From Figure 22-1 [11 Ss = 1.129 g From Figure 22-2 c21 51 = 0.434 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 A. Hard Rock 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 Vs Nor Nm Su >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf 600 to 1,200 ft/S 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf <600 ft/s <15 < 1,000 psf Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics: • Plasticity index PI > 20, • Moisture content w 2: 40%, and • Undrained shear strength Su < 500 psf See Section 20.3.1 For SI: lft/s = 0.3048 m/s llb/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/m2 12/20/201 7, 4:20 P rfesign Maps Detailed Report https://eartbquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report.php?template=mi ... 2 of6 Section 11.4.3 -Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (~C-£&) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient F. Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Accelerat ion Parameter at Short Period 55 $ 0.25 55 = 0.50 55 = 0.75 55 = 1.00 55 ~ 1.25 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4. 7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of 55 For Site Class= D and S5 = 1.129 g, F. = 1.048 Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient F. Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period 51 $ 0.10 51 = 0.20 51 = 0.30 51 = 0.40 51 ~ 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 51 For Site Class= D ands, = 0.434 g, F. = 1.566 12/20/2017, 4:20 PM Design Maps Detailed Report https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report.php?template=mi 3 of6 Equation (11.4-1): SMs = FaSs = 1.048 X 1.129 = 1.184 g Equation (11.4-2): SM1 = FvS1 = 1.566 X 0.434 = 0.680 g Section 11.4.4 -Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation (11.4-3): Sos =½ SMs = ½ X 1.184 = 0.789 g Equation (11.4-4): 501 = ½ SM1 = ½ X 0.680 = 0.453 g Section 11.4.5 -Design Response Spectrum From figure 22-12 c3J TL = 8 seconds Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum ~-0.769 I T < T0 : s. = Saa ( 0.-4 + 0.8 TI T0) T0 :S:T:S:T1 : S1 =S11a T, < T :s: TL : s. = s01 , T T >TL ; s.: SD1TL / f2 So, •0.4!:>l -o-----------• ---------- lo 0.115 I I 1.000 Period. r (sec) 12/20/2017, 4:20 P:ti esign Maps Detailed Report https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report.php?template=mi ... 4 of6 Section 11.4.6 -Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCEJ Response Spectrum The MCE. Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by I I I I I I I 1.5. s,,, 0.680 -,-----------➔ ---------- I I I I I I I I To•0.1 15 12/20/2017, 4:20 PM Design Maps Detailed Report https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report.php?template=mi 5 of6 Section 11.8.3 -Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F From Figure 22-7 C4l PGA = 0.446 Equation (11.8-1): 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 = 0.446 g, FPGA = 1.054 Section 21.2.1.1 -Method 1 (from Chapter 21 -Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) From Figure 22-17 c51 CRS = 0.947 From Figure 22-18 C&J CRl = 0.998 12/20/2017, 4:20 P Design Maps Detailed Report https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report.php?template=mi ... 6 of6 Section 11.6 -Seismic Design Category Table 11.6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter RISK CATEGORY VALUE OF Sos I or II III IV Sos< 0.167g A A A 0.167g :S Sos < 0.33g B B C 0.33g :S 5 05 < O.SOg C C D O.SOg :S 505 D D D For Risk Category = I and 505 = 0 .789 g, Seismic Design Category = D Table 11.6-2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-S Period Response Acceleration Parameter RISK CATEGORY VALUE OF 5 01 I or II III IV 501 < 0.067g A A A 0.067g :S S01 < 0.133g B B C 0.133g :s 501 < 0.20g C C D 0.20g :s 501 D D D For Risk Category = I and 501 = 0.453 g, Seismic Design Category = D Note: When 51 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: 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/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-2.pdf 3. Figure 22-12: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE- 7 _Figure_22-12.pdf 4. Figure 22-7: https ://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/20 lO_ASCE-7 _Figure_22-7 .pdf 5. Figure 22-17: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE- 7 _Figure_22-17.pdf 6. Figure 22-18: https://earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE- 7 _Figure_22-18.pdf 12/20/2017, 4:20 PM I I