HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUD 15-04; Carlsbad Lagoon Custom Homes; Planned Unit Development - Non-Residential (PUD) (3)REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION
Rincon Residential Project
165-175 Chinquapin Avenue
Carlsbad, California
JOB NO. 14-10623
28 October 2014
Prepared for:
Mr. Kevin Dunn
Rincon Real Estate Group, Inc.
ilwi^ Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.
SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
28 October 2014
Mr. Kevin Dunn
RINCON REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.
1520 N. El Camino Real, Unit 5
San Clemente, CA 92672
Job No. 14-10623
Subject: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Rincon Residential Project
165-175 Chinquapin Avenue
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. Dunn:
In accordance with your request and our proposal dated October 2, 2014,
Geoteciinicai Exploration, Inc. has performed an investigation of the
geotechnical and general geologic conditions at the subject site. The field work was
performed on October 15, 2014.
In our opinion, if the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are
implemented during site preparation, the site will be suited for the proposed
residential project consisting of three, two-story residential structures with attached
garages and associated improvements.
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any
questions concerning the following report, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Reference to our Job No. 14-10623 will expedite a response to your inquiries.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. /
Jaim^'TCCerros, P.E.'
R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Reed, President
999/P.G. 3391
7420 TRADE STREET* SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX: (858) 549-1604 • EMAIL: geotech@gel-sd.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. PROJECT SUMMARY 1
II. SCOPE OF WORK 1
III. SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS 2
IV. SITE DESCRIPTION 3
V. FIELD INVESTIGATION 4
VI. LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION 4
VII. SOIL & GENERAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION 6
VIII. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 8
IX. GROUNDWATER 16
X. RECOMMENDATIONS 17
XI. GRADING NOTES 37
XII. LIMITATIONS 37
FIGURES
I. Vicinity Map
II. Site Plan
Illa-e. Exploratory Handpit Logs
IV. Laboratory Soil Test Results
V. Geology Map and Legend
VI. Retaining Wall Drainage Schematic
APPENDICES
A. Unified Soil Classification System
B. Seismic Data - EQ Fault Table
C. Modified Mercalli Index
D. Spectral Acceleration (SA) vs. Period (T)
REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Rincon Residential Project
165-175 Chinquapin Avenue
Carlsbad, California
JOB NO. 14-10623
The following report presents the findings and recommendations of Geoteciinicai
Exploration, Inc. for the subject project.
I. PROJECT SUIMMARY
It is our understanding, based on conversations with the property owner, Mr. Kevin
Dunn of Rincon Real Estate Group and review of a conceptual site plan prepared by
Shackelton Design Group, that the existing residential triplex structure and
Improvements are to be removed, and the property is being developed to receive
three 3-story residential structures with attached garages, paved driveways, and
associated improvements. The new structures are to be constructed of standard-
type building materials utilizing conventional foundations with concrete slab on-
grade floors.
Final construction plans for development have not been provided to us during the
preparation of this report, however, when completed they should be made available
for our review.
II. SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work performed for this investigation included a review of available
published information pertaining to the site geology, a site geologic reconnaissance
and subsurface exploration program, laboratory testing, geotechnical engineering
analysis of the research, field and laboratory data, and the preparation of this
report. The data obtained and the analyses performed were for the purpose of
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 2
providing geotechnical design and construction criteria and recommendations for
the project earthwork, building foundations, and slab on-grade floors.
III. SUMINARY OF GEOTECHNICAL & GEOLOGIC FINDINGS
Our subsurface geotechnical investigation revealed that the lot is underlain at
relatively shallow depth by medium dense, silty sand of the Quaternary-age Old
Paralic Deposits (Qope-?) overlain by approximately 1 to 2 feet of variable density
fill/topsoils and weathered terrace materials. In their present condition, the
surficial soils (fill/topsoils and weathered natural soils) will not provide a stable base
for the proposed residences and associated improvements. As such, we
recommend that, after demolition of existing structures and debris removal, the
upper 3 feet be removed and recompacted as part of site preparation prior to the
addition of any new fill or structural improvements. The formational terrace
materials have good bearing strength characteristics, are of low expansion
potential, and are suitable for support of the proposed recompacted fill soil and
structural loads.
In our opinion, the site is suited for the proposed residential construction provided
our recommendations are implemented during site development. No geologic
hazards exist on or near the site that would prohibit the construction of the new
residential improvements. Conventional construction techniques and materials can
be utilized. Detailed construction plans have not been provided to us for the
preparation of this report, however, when completed they should be made available
for our review for new or modified recommendations.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 3
IV. SITE DESCRIPTION
The property is known as Assessor's Parcel No. 206-070-02-00, a portion of Block
"W" of Palisades No. 2, according to Recorded Map 1803, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California. For the location of the site, refer to the
Vicinity Map, Figure No. I. For purposes of this report, the front of the property is
considered to face north.
The square-shaped site, consisting of approximately 9,900 square feet, is located at
165-175 Chinquapin Avenue. The property consists of a relatively level building
pad at an approximate elevation of 58 to 63 feet above MSL, sloping from a high
along the east property line to a low along the west property line. Information
concerning approximate site elevations was obtained from an undated topographic
survey map prepared by Pasco Laret Suiter.
The property is bordered on the north by Chinquapin Avenue; on the south by level
open space and a southerly-descending slope to the Aqua Hedionda lagoon; on the
west by a single-family residential property at a slightly lower elevation; and on the
east by a multi-family residential property at a slightly higher elevation (for Site
Plan, referto Figure No. II).
Existing structures include a single-story, residential triplex structure with asphalt
driveways, concrete walkways and patio areas, short masonry retaining walls to
accommodate the gently-sloping lot, and associated improvements. Vegetation
consists primarily of ornamental landscaping including mature trees, decorative
shrubbery and some lawn grass.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 4
V. FIELD INVESTIGATION
A. Exploratory Excavations
Five exploratory excavations were placed on the site in areas near where the
proposed residential structures and improvements are to be located and where
access and soil conditions allowed (for exploratory handpit locations, refer to Figure
No. II). The handpits were excavated to depths ranging to SVi feet in order to
obtain representative soil samples and to define a soil profile across the lot.
The soils encountered in the exploratory handpits were observed and logged by our
field representative and samples were taken of the predominant soils. Excavation
logs have been prepared on the basis of our observations and laboratory testing.
The results have been summarized on Figure Nos. Ill and IV. The predominant
soils have been classified in general conformance with the Unified Soil Classification
System (refer to Appendix A).
VI. LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION
Laboratory tests were performed on retrieved soil samples in order to evaluate their
physical and mechanical properties and their ability to support the proposed
residential structures and improvements. Test results are presented on Figure Nos.
Ill and IV. The following tests were conducted on the sampled soils:
Rincon Residential Project
Carlsbad, California
Job No. 14-10623
Page 5
1. Moisture Content (ASTM D2216-10)
2. Standard Test Mettiod for Bull< Specific Gravity and Density of
Compacted Bituminous Mixtures using Coated Samples (ASTM
Dll88-07
3. Laboratory Compaction Characteristics (ASTM Dl557-09)
4. Determination of Percentage of Particles Smaller than #200 Sieve
(ASTM Dl 140-06)
Moisture content measurements were performed to establish the in situ moisture of
samples retrieved from the exploratory excavations. Moisture content and density
measurements were performed by ASTM methods D2216 and D1188, obtaining the
soil unit weight and moisture content by using the bulk specific gravity utilizing
paraffin-coated specimens. These density tests help to establish the in situ
moisture and density of samples retrieved from the exploratory excavations.
Laboratory compaction values (ASTM D1557) establish the Optimum Moisture
content and the laboratory Maximum Dry Density of the tested soils. The
relationship between the moisture and density of remolded soil samples gives
qualitative information regarding existing fill conditions and soil compaction
conditions to be anticipated during any future grading operation.
The passing -200 sieve size analysis (ASTM DH40) aids in dassification of the
tested soils based on their fine material content and provides qualitative
information related to engineering characteristics such as expansion potential,
permeability, and shear strength.
The expansion potential of soils is determined, when necessary, utilizing the
Standard Test Method for Expansion Index of Soils (ASTM D4829). In accordance
with the Standard (Table 5.3), potentially expansive soils are classified as follows:
Rincon Residential Project
Carlsbad, California
Job No. 14-10623
Page 6
EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION
0 to 20 Very low
21 to 50 Low
51 to 90 Medium
91 to 130 High
Above 130 Very high
Based on our particle-size test results, our visual classification, and our experience
with similar soils, it is our opinion that the majority of the on-site silty sand fill soils
and formational terrace materials have a very low expansion potential (EI less than
20).
Based on the laboratory test data, our observations of the primary soil types, and
our previous experience with laboratory testing of similar soils, our Geotechnical
Engineer has assigned values for friction angle, coefficient of friction, and cohesion
for those soils which will have significant lateral support or load bearing functions
on the project. These values have been utilized in determining the recommended
bearing value as well as active and passive earth pressure design criteria.
VII. SOIL AND GENERAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION
A. Stratigraohv
Our investigation and review of pertinent geologic maps and reports indicate that
formational terrace silty sands identified as Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits
(Qope-y) underlie the entire site. The encountered soil profile includes surficial fill
soils/topsoils overlying the formational terrace soils.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 7
Fill Soils/Topsoils (Oaf): The site is overlain by approximately 1 to 2 feet of surficial
fill soils encountered at all exploratory excavation locations. The fill soils and
topsoils consist of gray-brown, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand with many roots
in the upper 1 to 2 feet. The fill soils are generally loose, dry, and of very low
expansion potential. These fill soils are not suitable in their current condition for
support of loads from structures or additional fill. Refer to Figure Nos. Ill and IV
for details.
Old Paralic Deposits (Qop^): The encountered Old Paralic Deposits formational
terrace materials consist of generally medium dense, light red- and tan-brown,
silty, fine- to medium-grained sand. The upper 1 foot ofthe formational soils are in
a weathered condition. These formational terrace soils were encountered at
shallow depths below the fill and topsoils at all excavation locations. The
formational terrace soils are of very low expansion potential and have good bearing
strength characteristics. Refer to Figure Nos. Ill and IV for details.
B. Structure
Quaternary-age Old Paralic Deposits underlie the entire site at shallow depth and
are underlain at depth by the Eocene-age Santiago Formation (Tsa). The Old
Paralic deposits are relatively flat-lying as depicted on the geologic map (Kennedy
and Tan, 2008; Figure No. V). Although not encountered in our shallow
excavations, the Santiago Formation strikes approximately east-west and dips 8 to
10 degrees to the north-northeast as depicted on the geologic map. No faults are
indicated on or nearby the site on the geologic map. The geologic structure and
relatively flat topography presents no adverse soil stability conditions for the
property.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 8
VIII. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The following is a discussion of the geologic conditions and hazards common to the
Carlsbad area, as well as project-specific geologic information relating to
development of the subject property.
A. Local and Reaional Faults
Reference to the geologic map of the area. Figure No. V (Kennedy and Tan, 2008),
indicates that no faults are mapped on the site. In our explicit professional opinion,
neither an active fault nor a potentially active fault underlies the site.
Rose Canyon Fault: The Rose Canyon Fault Zone (Mount Soledad and Rose Canyon
Faults) is mapped approximately 4.7 miles west of the subject site. The Rose
Canyon Fault is mapped trending north-south from Oceanside to downtown San
Diego, from where it appears to head southward into San Diego Bay, through
Coronado and offshore. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is considered to be a complex
zone of onshore and offshore, en echelon strike slip, oblique reverse, and oblique
normal faults. The Rose Canyon Fault is considered to be capable of generating an
M7.2 earthquake and is considered microseismically active, although no significant
recent earthquakes are known to have occurred on the fault.
Investigative work on faults that are part of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone at the
Police Administration and Technical Center in downtown San Diego, at the SDG&E
facility in Rose Canyon, and within San Diego Bay and elsewhere within downtown
San Diego, has encountered offsets in Holocene (geologically recent) sediments.
These findings confirm Holocene displacement on the Rose Canyon Fault, which was
designated an ''active" fault in November 1991 (Hart E.W. and W.A. Bryant, 2007,
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 9
Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, California Geological Survey Special
Publication 42).
In a report compiled by Rockwell et al. (2012) for Southern California Edison, it is
suggested that the recurrence interval for earthquakes on the RCFZ is in the range
of 400 to 500 years, with the most recent earthquake (MRE) nearly 500 years ago.
The report indicates the slip rate on the RCFZ is not well constrained but a
compilation of the latest research implies a long-term slip rate of approximately 2
mm/year.
Newport-Inglewood Fault: The offshore portion of the Newport-Inglewood Fault
Zone is located approximately 5.3 miles west and northwest of the site. A
significant earthquake (M6.4) occurred along this fault on March 10, 1933. Since
then no additional significant events have occurred. The fault is believed to have a
slip rate of approximately 0.6-mm/yr with an unknown recurrence interval. This
fault is believed capable of producing an earthquake of M6.0 to M7.4 (SCEC, 2004).
Coronado Bank Fault: The Coronado Bank Fault is located approximately 20.6
miles southwest of the site. Evidence for this fault is based upon geophysical data
(acoustic profiles) and the general alignment of epicenters of recorded seismic
activity (Greene, 1979). The Oceanside earthquake of M5.3 recorded July 13,
1986, is known to have been centered on the fault or within the Coronado Bank
Fault Zone. Although this fault is considered active, due to the seismicity within the
fault zone, it is significantly less active seismically than the Elsinore Fault (Hileman,
1973). It is postulated that the Coronado Bank Fault is capable of generating a
M7.6 earthquake and is of great interest due to its close proximity to the greater
San Diego metropolitan area.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 10
Elsinore Fault: The Elsinore Fault is located approximately 24.8 to 58.2 miles east
and northeast of the site. The fault extends approximately 200 km (125 miles)
from the Mexican border to the northern end of the Santa Ana Mountains. The
Elsinore Fault zone is a 1- to 4-mile-wide, northwest-southeast-trending zone of
discontinuous and en echelon faults extending through portions of Orange,
Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. Individual faults within the Elsinore
Fault Zone range from less than 1 mile to 16 miles in length. The trend, length and
geomorphic expression of the Elsinore Fault Zone identify it as being a part of the
highly active San Andreas Fault system.
Like the other faults in the San Andreas system, the Elsinore Fault is a transverse
fault showing predominantly right-lateral movement. According to Hart, et al.
(1979), this movement averages less than 1 centimeter per year. Along most of its
length, the Elsinore Fault Zone is marked by a bold topographic expression
consisting of linearly aligned ridges, swales and hallows. Faulted Holocene alluvial
deposits (believed to be less than 11,000 years old) found along several segments
of the fault zone suggest that at least part of the zone is currently active.
Although the Elsinore Fault Zone belongs to the San Andreas set of active,
northwest-trending, right-slip faults in the southern California area (Crowell, 1962),
it has not been the site of a major earthquake in historic time, other than a M6.0
earthquake near the town of Elsinore in 1910 (Richter, 1958; Toppozada and Parke,
1982). However, based on length and evidence of late-Pleistocene or Holocene
displacement, Greensfelder (1974) has estimated that the Elsinore Fault Zone is
reasonably capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude as large as M7.5.
Study and logging of exposures in trenches placed in Glen Ivy Marsh across the
Glen Ivy North Fault (a strand of the Elsinore Fault Zone between Corona and Lake
Elsinore), suggest a maximum earthquake recurrence interval of 300 years, and
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 11
when combined with previous estimates of the long-term horizontal slip rate of 0.8
to 7.0 mm/year, suggest typical earthquake magnitudes of M6.0 to M7.0 (Rockwell,
1985). More recently, the California Geologic Survey (2002) considers the Elsinore
Fault capable of producing an earthquake of M6.8 to M7.1.
San Jacinto Fault: The San Jacinto Fault is located approximately 47.3 to 60.4
miles to the northeast of the site. The San Jacinto Fault Zone consists of a series of
closely spaced faults, including the Coyote Creek Fault, that form the western
margin of the San Jacinto Mountains. The fault zone extends from its junction with
the San Andreas Fault in San Bernardino, southeasterly toward the Brawley area,
where it continues south of the international border as the Imperial Transform Fault
(Earth Consultants International, 2009).
The San Jacinto Fault zone has a high level of historical seismic activity, with at
least 10 damaging earthquakes (M6.0 to M7.0) having occurred on this fault zone
between 1890 and 1986. Earthquakes on the San Jacinto Fault in 1899 and 1918
caused fatalities in the Riverside County area. Offset across this fault is
predominantly right-lateral, similar to the San Andreas Fault, although some
investigators have suggested that dip-slip motion contributes up to 10% of the net
slip (ECI, 2009).
The segments of the San Jacinto Fault that are of most concern to major
metropolitan areas are the San Bernardino, San Jacinto Valley and Anza segments.
Fault slip rates on the various segments of the San Jacinto are less well constrained
than for the San Andreas Fault, but the available data suggest slip rates of 12 ±6
mm/yr for the northern segments of the fault, and slip rates of 4 ±2 mm/yr for the
southern segments. For large ground-rupturing earthquakes on the San Jacinto
fault, various investigators have suggested a recurrence interval of 150 to 300
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 12
years. The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP, 2008)
has estimated that there is a 31 percent probability that an earthquake of M6.7 or
greater will occur within 30 years on this fault. Maximum credible earthquakes of
M6.7, M6.9 and M7.2 are expected on the San Bernardino, San Jacinto Valley and
Anza segments, respectively, capable of generating peak horizontal ground
accelerations of 0.48g to 0.53g in the County of Riverside, (ECI, 2009). A M5.4
earthquake occurred on the San Jacinto Fault on July 7, 2010.
The United States Geological Survey has issued the following statements with
respect to the recent seismic activity on southern California faults:
The San Jacinto fault, along with the Elsinore, San Andreas, and other
faults, is part of the plate boundary that accommodates about 2
inches/year of motion as the Pacific plate moves northwest relative to
the North American plate. The largest recent earthquake on the San
Jacinto fault, near this location, the M6.5 1968 Borrego Mountain
earthquake April 8, 1968, occurred about 25 miles southeast of the
July 7, 2010, M5.4 earthquake.
This M5.4 earthquake follows the 4th of April 2010, Easter Sunday,
M7.2 earthquake, located about 125 miles to the south, well south of
the US Mexico international border. A M4.9 earthquake occurred in
the same area on June 12th at 8:08 pm (Pacific Time). Thus this
section of the San Jacinto fault remains active.
Seismologists are watching two major earthquake faults in southern
California. The San Jacinto fault, the most active earthquake fault in
southern California, extends for more than 100 miles from the
international border into San Bernardino and Riverside, a major
metropolitan area often called the Inland Empire. The Elsinore fault is
more than 110 miles long, and extends into the Orange County and
Los Angeles area as the Whittier fault. The Elsinore fault is capable of
a major earthquake that would significantly affect the large
metropolitan areas of southern California. The Elsinore fault has not
hosted a major earthquake in more than 100 years. The occurrence of
these earthquakes along the San Jacinto fault and continued
aftershocks demonstrates that the earthquake activity in the region
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 13
remains at an elevated level. The San Jacinto fault is known as the
most active earthquake fault In southern California. Caltech and USGS
seismologist continue to monitor the ongoing earthquake activity using
the Caltech/USGS Southern California Seismic Network and a GPS
network of more than 100 stations.
B. Other Geoioaic Hazards
Ground Rupture: Ground rupture is characterized by bedrock slippage along an
established fault and may result in displacement of the ground surface. For ground
rupture to occur along a fault, an earthquake usually exceeds M5.0. If a M5.0
earthquake were to take place on a local fault, an estimated surface-rupture length
1 mile long could be expected (Greensfelder, 1974). Our investigation indicates
that the subject site is not directly on a known active fault trace and, therefore, the
risk of ground rupture is remote.
Ground Shaking: Structural damage caused by seismically induced ground shaking
is a detrimental effect directly related to faulting and earthquake activity. Ground
shaking is considered to be the greatest seismic hazard in San Diego County. The
intensity of ground shaking is dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake, the
distance from the earthquake, and the seismic response characteristics of
underlying soils and geologic units. Earthquakes of M5.0 or greater are generally
associated with significant damage. It is our opinion that the most serious damage
to the site would be caused by a large earthquake originating on a nearby strand of
the Rose Canyon or Newport-Inglewood Faults. Although the chance of such an
event is remote, it could occur within the useful life ofthe structure.
Landslides: Based upon our geotechnical investigation and review of the geologic
map (Kennedy and Tan, 2005 and 2008), there are no known or suspected ancient
landslides located on the site.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 14
Liguefaction: The liquefaction of saturated sands during earthquakes can be a
major cause of damage to buildings. Liquefaction is the process by which soils are
transformed into a viscous fluid that will flow as a liquid when unconfined. It occurs
primarily in loose, saturated sands and silts when they are sufficiently shaken by an
earthquake.
On this site, the risk of liquefaction of foundation materials due to seismic shaking
is also considered to be remote due to the dense nature of the natural-ground
material, the anticipated high density of the proposed recompacted fill, and the lack
of a shallow static groundwater surface under the site. No soil liquefaction or soil
strength loss is anticipated to occur due to a seismic event.
Tsunami: A tsunami is a series of long waves generated in the ocean by a sudden
displacement of a large volume of water. Underwater earthquakes, landslides,
volcanic eruptions, meteoric impacts, or onshore slope failures can cause this
displacement. Tsunami waves can travel at speeds averaging 450 to 600 miles per
hour. As a tsunami nears the coastline, its speed diminishes, its wave length
decreases, and its height increases greatly. After a major earthquake or other
tsunami-inducing activity occurs, a tsunami could reach the shore within a few
minutes. One coastal community may experience no damaging waves while
another may experience very destructive waves. Some low-lying areas could
experience severe inland inundation of water and deposition of debris more than
3,000 feet inland.
The site is located less than 0.3-mile from the Pacific Ocean strand line at an
elevation of 58 to 63 feet AMSL. It is unlikely that a tsunami would affect the lot.
Although the Aqua Hedionda lagoon is mapped within a possible inundation zone on
the California Geological Survey's 2009 "Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 15
Planning, Oceanside Quadrangle, San Diego County,"the subject site is not mapped
within the zone due to its elevation.
Geologic Hazards Summary: It is our opinion, based upon a review of the available
geologic maps, our research, and our site investigation, that the site is underlain by
relatively stable formational materials (and shallow fill/topsoils to be recompacted),
and is suited for the proposed residential structures and associated improvements
provided the recommendations herein are implemented. No significant geologic
hazards are known to exist on the site that would prevent the proposed
construction. In our professional opinion, no "active" or "potentially active" faults
underlie the project site.
The most significant geologic hazard at the site is anticipated ground shaking from
earthquakes on active Southern California and Baja California faults. The United
States Geologic Survey has issued statements indicating that seismic activity in
Southern California may continue at elevated levels with increased risk to major
metropolitan areas near the Elsinore and San Jacinto faults. These faults are too
far from the subject property to present a seismic risk. To date, the nearest known
"active" faults to the subject site are the northwest-trending Rose Canyon Fault,
Newport-Inglewood Fault and the Coronado Bank Fault.
No significant geologic hazards are known to exist on or near the site that would
prevent the proposed construction.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 16
IX. GROUNDWATER
Groundwater and/or perched water conditions were not encountered at the
explored excavation locations and we do not expect significant groundwater
problems to develop in the future if proper drainage is maintained on the property.
It should be kept in mind that construction operations will change surface drainage
patterns and/or reduce surface permeabilities due to the densification of compacted
soils. Such changes of surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, plus irrigation
of landscaping or significant increases in rainfall, may result in the appearance of
surface or near-surface water at locations where none existed previously. The
appearance of such water is expected to be localized and cosmetic in nature, if
good positive drainage is implemented, as recommended in this report, during and
at the completion of construction.
Based on our site observations and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that the silty
sand fill soils and underlying medium dense silty sand formational soils are
relatively permeable and well-suited for the use of permeable pavers. Shallow
perching conditions were not encountered on this lot and are not characteristic of
the sandy soil conditions comprising this area of Carlsbad.
It must be understood that unless discovered during initial site exploration or
encountered during site grading operations, it is extremely difficult to predict if or
where perched or true groundwater conditions may appear in the future. Water
conditions, where suspected or encountered during grading and/or construction,
should be evaluated and remedied by the project civil and geotechnical consultants.
The project developer and property owner, however, must realize that post-
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 17
construction appearances of groundwater may have to be dealt with on a site-
specific basis.
X. RECOMMENDA TIONS
The following recommendations are based upon the practical field investigation
conducted by our firm, and resulting laboratory tests, in conjunction with our
knowledge and experience with similar soils in the Carlsbad area.
The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are
contingent upon Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. being retained to review the final
plans and specifications as they are developed and to observe the site earthwork
and installation of foundations. Recommendations presented herein are based on
undated preliminary conceptual plans provided by our client.
A. Seismic Desian Criteria
1. Seismic Data Bases: An estimation ofthe peak ground acceleration and the
repeatable high ground acceleration (RHGA) likely to occur at the project site
is based on the known significant local and regional faults within 100 miles of
the site. In addition, we have reviewed a listing of the known historic
seismic events that have occurred within 100 miles of the site at an M5.0 or
greater since the year 1800, and the probability of exceeding the
experienced ground accelerations in the future based upon the historical
record.
Rincon Residential Project
Carlsbad, California
Job No. 14-10623
Page 18
The RHGA and seismic events within 100 miles are derived from tables
generated from computer programs EQSearch and EQFault by Thomas F.
Blake (2000) utilizing a file listing of recorded earthquakes (EQSearch) and a
digitized file of late-Quaternary California faults (EQFault). The EQSearch
tables are retained in our files for future reference, and we have included the
EQFault Table as Appendix B. Estimations of site intensity are also provided
in these listings as Modified Mercalli Index values. The Modified Mercalli
Intensity Index is provided as Appendix C.
2. Seismic Design Criteria: The proposed structure should be designed in
accordance with the 2013 CBC, which incorporates by reference the ASCE 7-
10 for seismic design. We recommend the following parameters be utilized.
We have determined the mapped spectral acceleration values for the site
based on a latitude of 33.1467 degrees and longitude of 117.3433 degrees,
utilizing a program titled ''U.S. Seismic Design Maps and Tools," provided by
the USGS, which provides a solution for ASCE 7-10 (2013 CBC) utilizing
digitized files for the Spectral Acceleration maps.
In addition, we have assigned a Site Classification of SD. The response
parameters for design are presented in the following table. The design
Spectral Acceleration (SA) vs. Period (T) is shown on Appendix D.
TABLE I
Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values and Desian Parameters
Ss Sl Fa Fv Sms Smi Sds Sdl
1.162 0.446 1.035 1.554 1.203 0.693 0.802 0.462
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 19
B. Preparation of Soiis for Site Development
3. Clearing and Stripping: The existing structures, improvements, and
vegetation on the site should be removed prior to the preparation of the
building pads and areas of associated improvements. This includes root
systems of the existing trees. Holes resulting from the removal of root
systems or other buried foundations, piping, debris or obstructions that
extend below the planned grades should be cleared and backfilled with
properly compacted fill.
4. Treatment of Existing Fill or Loose Surficial Soils: In order to provide suitable
foundation support for the proposed residential structures and associated
improvements, we recommend that the existing fill/topsoils and any loose
surficial soils that remain after the necessary site excavations have been
made be removed and recompacted. The anticipated depth of removal is
approximately 3 feet.
The recompaction work should consist of (a) removing the fill/topsoils and
loose surficial soils down to native medium dense to dense formational
terrace materials; (b) scarifying, moisture conditioning, and compacting the
exposed subgrade soils; and (c) replacing the excavated material as
compacted structural fill.
The areal extent and depth required to remove the loose fill and surficial soils
should be confirmed by our representatives during the excavation work
based on their examination of the soils being exposed. The lateral extent of
the excavation and recompaction should be at least 5 feet beyond the edge
of the perimeter foundations and any areas to receive exterior improvements
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 20
or a lateral distance equal to the depth of soil removed at any specific
location, whichever is larger. Any unsuitable materials (such as oversize
rubble or rocks, and/or organic matter) should be selectively removed as
directed by our representative and disposed of off-site.
Any rigid improvements founded on existing loose or soft fill or surface soils
can be expected to undergo movement and possible damage. Geotechnical
Exploration, Inc. takes no responsibility for the performance of any
improvements built on loose natural soils or inadequately compacted fills.
5. Subgrade Preparation: After the site has been cleared, stripped, and the
required excavations made, the exposed subgrade soils in the areas to
receive fill and/or building improvements should be scarified to a depth of 6
inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to the requirements for
structural fill. Anticipated excavation into formational soils should not need
scarification or recompaction unless soft or loose soils are exposed. The
near-surface moisture content of fine-grained soils should be maintained by
periodic sprinkling until within 48 hours prior to concrete placement.
6. Expansive Soil Conditions: We do not anticipate that significant quantities of
medium or highly expansive clay soils will be encountered during grading.
Should such soils be encountered and used as fill, however, they should be
moisture conditioned or dried to no greater than 5 percent above Optimum
Moisture content, compacted to 88 to 92 percent, and placed outside building
areas. Soils of medium or greater expansion potential should not be used as
retaining wall backfill soils.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 21
7. Material for Fill: Existing on-site soils with an organic content of less than 3
percent by volume are, in general, suitable for use as fill. Any required,
imported fill material (such as for retaining wall backfill) should be a low-
expansion potential (Expansion Index of 50 or less per ASTM D4829-11). In
addition, both imported and existing on-site materials for use as fill should
not contain rocks or lumps more than 6 inches in greatest dimension. All
materials for use as fill should be approved by our firm prior to filling.
Retaining wall and trench backfill material should not contain material larger
than 3 inches in greatest dimension.
8. Fill Compaction: All structural fill should be compacted to a minimum degree
of compaction of 90 percent based upon ASTM D1557-09. Fill material
should be spread and compacted in uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8
inches in uncompacted thickness. Before compaction begins, the fill should
be brought to a water content that will permit proper compaction by either:
(1) aerating and drying the fill if it is too wet, or (2) moistening the fill with
water if it is too dry. Each lift should be thoroughly mixed before compaction
to ensure a uniform distribution of moisture. For low expansive soils, the
moisture content should be within 2 percent of optimum.
No uncontrolled fill soils should remain after completion of the site work. In
the event that temporary ramps or pads are constructed of uncontrolled fill
soils, the loose fill soils should be removed and/or recompacted prior to
completion of the grading operation.
9. Trench and Retainina Wall Backfill: Utility trenches and retaining walls
should preferably be backfilled with on-site, low-expansive or imported, low-
expansive compacted fill; gravel is also a suitable backfill material but should
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 22
be used only if space constraints will not allow the use of compaction
equipment. Gravel can also be used as backfill around perforated subdrains
protected with geofabric. All backfill material should be placed in lift
thicknesses appropriate to the type of compaction equipment utilized and
compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent by mechanical
means.
Our experience has shown that even shallow, narrow trenches (such as for
irrigation and electrical lines) that are not properly compacted, can result in
problems, particularly with respect to shallow groundwater accumulation and
migration.
Backfill soils placed behind retaining walls and/or crawl space retaining walls
should be installed as early as the retaining walls are capable of supporting
lateral loads. Backfill soils behind retaining walls should be low expansive,
with an Expansion Index equal to or lower than 50. All areas backfilled with
gravel should be capped with a minimum 12-inch-thick layer of properly
compacted on-site soils overlying Mirafi 140N filter fabric to reduce the
potential for fines loss into the gravel.
C. Design Parameters for Proposed Foundations
In order to support the proposed structures on conventional continuous concrete
foundations the following recommendations should be followed. Footings should
extend into formational soils or properly compacted fill soils to a depth of 18 inches.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 23
10. Footings: Footings for the new residential structures should bear on
undisturbed formational materials or properly compacted fill soils. The
footings for the proposed structures should be founded at least 18 inches
below the lowest adjacent finished grade and have a minimum width of 12
inches. The footings should contain top and bottom reinforcement to provide
structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities.
Footings located adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing
surfaces situated below an imaginary 1.0:1.0 plane projected upward from
the bottom edge of the adjacent utility trench. Otherwise, the trenches
should be excavated farther from the footing locations.
11. Bearina Values: At the recommended depths, footings on native, medium
dense formational soil or properly compacted fill soil may be designed for
allowable bearing pressures of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for
combined dead and live loads and may be increased one-third for all loads,
including wind or seismic. The footings should have a minimum width of 12
inches.
12. Footing Reinforcement: All continuous footings should contain top and
bottom reinforcement to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning
of local irregularities. We recommend that a minimum of two No. 5 top and
two No. 5 bottom reinforcing bars be provided in the footings. A minimum
clearance of 3 inches should be maintained between steel reinforcement and
the bottom or sides of the footing. Isolated square footings should contain,
as a minimum, a grid of three No. 4 steel bars on 12-inch centers, both
ways. In order for us to offer an opinion as to whether the footings are
founded on soils of sufficient load bearing capacity, it is essential that our
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 24
representative inspect the footing excavations prior to the placement of
reinforcing steel or concrete.
NOTE: The project Civil/Structural Engineer should review all reinforcing
schedules. The reinforcing minimums recommended herein are not to be
construed as structural designs, but merely as minimum reinforcement to
reduce the potential for cracking and separations.
13. Lateral Loads: Lateral load resistance for the structure supported on footing
foundations may be developed in friction between the foundation bottoms
and the supporting subgrade. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.40 is
considered applicable. An additional allowable passive resistance equal to an
equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting against the
foundations may be used in design provided the footings are poured neat
against the adjacent undisturbed formational materials and/or properly
compacted fill materials. These lateral resistance values assume a level
surface in front of the footing for a minimum distance of three times the
embedment depth ofthe footing.
14. Settlement: Settlements under building loads are expected to be within
tolerable limits for the proposed residences. For footings designed in
accordance with the recommendations presented in the preceding
paragraphs, we anticipate that total settlements should not exceed 1 inch
and that post-construction differential angular rotation should be less than
1/240.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 25
D. Concrete Slab-on-arade Criteria
Slabs on-grade may only be used on new, properly compacted fill or when bearing
on dense natural soils.
15. Minimum Floor Slab Reinforcement: Based on our experience, we have
found that, for various reasons, floor slabs occasionally crack. Therefore, we
recommend that all slabs-on-grade contain at least a minimum amount of
reinforcing steel to reduce the separation of cracks, should they occur.
Interior floor slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches actual thickness and be
reinforced with No. 3 bars on 18-inch centers, both ways, placed at
midheight in the slab. Slab subgrade soil moisture should be verified by a
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. representative to have the proper moisture
content within 48 hours prior to placement of the vapor barrier and pouring
of concrete. Shrinkage control joints should be placed no farther than 20
feet apart and at re-entrant corners. The joints should penetrate at least 1
inch into the slab.
Following placement of any concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must
be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature placement of
floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening
ofthe finish floor materials.
16. Slab Moisture Protection and Vapor Barrier Membrane: Although it is not the
responsibility of geotechnical engineering firms to provide moisture
protection recommendations, as a service to our clients we provide the
following discussion and suggested minimum protection criteria. Actual
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 26
recommendations should be provided by the architect and waterproofing
consultants or product manufacturer.
Soil moisture vapor can result in damage to moisture-sensitive floors, some
floor sealers, or sensitive equipment in direct contact with the floor, in
addition to mold and staining on slabs, walls, and carpets. The common
practice in Southern California is to place vapor retarders made of PVC, or of
polyethylene. PVC retarders are made in thickness ranging from 10- to 60-
mil. Polyethylene retarders, called visqueen, range from 5- to 10-mil in
thickness. These products are no longer considered adequate for moisture
protection and can actually deteriorate over time.
Specialty vapor retarding products possess higher tensile strength and are
more specifically designed for and intended to retard moisture transmission
into and through concrete slabs. The use of such products is highly
recommended for reduction of floor slab moisture emission.
The following American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and
American Concrete Institute (ACI) sections address the issue of moisture
transmission into and through concrete slabs: ASTM E1745-97 (2009)
Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact
Concrete Slabs; ASTM E154-88 (2005) Standard Test Methods for Water
Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth; ASTM E96-95 Standard Test
Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials; ASTM E1643-98 (2009)
Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact
Under Concrete Slabs; and ACI 302.2R-06 Guide for Concrete Slabs that
Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 27
16.1 Based on the above, we recommend that the vapor barrier consist of a
minimum 15-mil extruded polyolefin plastic (no recycled content or
woven materials permitted). Permeance as tested before and after
mandatory conditioning (ASTM E1745 Section 7.1 and sub-paragraphs
7.1.1-7.1.5) should be less than 0.01 perms (grains/square foot/hour
in Hg) and comply with the ASTM E1745 Class A requirements.
Installation of vapor barriers should be in accordance with ASTM
E1643. The basis of design is 15-mil StegoWrap vapor barrier placed
per the manufacturer's guidelines. Reef Industries Vapor Guard
membrane has also been shown to achieve a permeance of less than
0.01 perms. Our suggested acceptable moisture retardant membranes
are based on a report entitled "Report of Water Vapor Permeation
Testing of Construction Vapor Barrier Materials" by Dr. Kay Cooksey,
Ph.D., Clemson University, Dept. of Packaging Science, 2009-10.
The membrane may be placed directly on properly compacted
subgrade soils and directly underneath the slab. Proper slab curing is
required to help prevent slab curling,
16.2 Common to all acceptable products, vapor retarder/barrier joints must
be lapped and sealed with mastic or the manufacturer's recommended
tape or sealing products. In actual practice, stakes are often driven
through the retarder material, equipment is dragged or rolled across
the retarder, overlapping or jointing is not properly implemented, etc.
All these construction deficiencies reduce the retarder's effectiveness.
In no case should retarder/barrier products be punctured or gaps be
allowed to form prior to or during concrete placement.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 28
16,3 As previously stated, following placement of concrete floor slabs,
sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of any floor
coverings. Premature placement of floor coverings may result in
degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor
materials.
17. Concrete Isolation Joints: We recommend the project Civil/Structural
Engineer incorporate isolation joints and control joints (sawcuts) to at least
one-fourth the thickness of the slab in any floor designs. The joints and cuts,
if properly placed, should reduce the potential for and help control floor slab
cracking. We recommend that concrete shrinkage joints be spaced no
farther than approximately 20 feet apart, and also at re-entrant corners.
However, due to a number of reasons (such as base preparation,
construction techniques, curing procedures, and normal shrinkage of
concrete), some cracking of slabs can be expected.
18. Exterior Slab Reinforcement: Exterior concrete slabs should be at least 4
inches thick. As a minimum for protection of on-site improvements, we
recommend that all nonstructural concrete slabs (such as patios, sidewalks,
etc), be founded on properly compacted and tested fill or dense native
formation and be underlain by 2 inches (and no more than 3 inches) of
compacted clean leveling sand, with No. 3 bars at 18-inch centers, both
ways, at the center of the slab. Exterior slabs should contain adequate
isolation and control joints as noted in the following paragraphs.
The performance of on-site improvements can be greatly affected by soil
base preparation and the quality of construction. It is therefore Important
that all improvements are properly designed and constructed for the existing
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 29
soil conditions. The improvements should not be built on loose soils or fills
placed without our observation and testing. The subgrade of exterior
improvements should be verified as properly prepared within 48 hours prior
to concrete placement, A minimum thickness of 2 feet of properly
recompacted soils should underlie exterior slabs on-grade for secondary
improvements,
19, Exterior Slab Control Joints: For exterior slabs with the minimum shrinkage
reinforcement, control joints should be placed at spaces no farther than 12
feet apart or the width of the slab, whichever is less, and also at re-entrant
corners. Control joints in exterior slabs should be sealed with elastomeric
joint sealant. The sealant should be inspected every 6 months and be
properly maintained. Concrete slab joints should be dowelled or continuous
steel reinforcement should be provided to help reduce any potential
differential movement.
20. Concrete Pavement: New concrete driveway and parking slabs should be at
least 5V2 inches thick and rest on properly prepared and compacted subgrade
soils. Subgrade soil for driveway and parking areas should be dense or, if
fill, be compacted to at least 95 percent of Maximum Dry Density. The
driveway and parking slabs should be provided with reinforcing consisting of
No. 4 bars spaced no farther than 15 inches apart in two perpendicular
directions. The concrete should be at least 3,500 psi compressive strength,
with control joints no farther than 12 feet apart and also at re-entrant
corners. Pavement joints should be properly sealed with permanent joint
sealant, as required in sections 201.3,6 through 201.3.8 of the Standard
Specifications for Public Work Construction, 2012 Edition.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 30
Control joints should be placed within 12 hours after concrete placement or
as soon as the concrete allows sawcutting without aggregate raveling. The
sawcuts should penetrate at least one-quarter the thickness of the slab.
21. Permeable Driveway Pavers: If permeable pavers are considered, it is our
opinion based on our site observations and laboratory testing, that the on-
site silty sand fill soils and underlying medium dense silty sand formational
soils are well-suited for the use of permeable pavers.
It is recommended that a minimum 6-inch thick base layer of crushed
miscellaneous rock material, compacted to at least 95 percent relative
compaction, be placed below a 1-inch thick leveling sand layer under the
pavers. The subgrade soils supporting the base layer should also be
compacted to 95 percent relative compaction.
E. Slopes
It is our understanding that no permanent slopes are proposed at this time. Should
portions of the site be modified to include new slopes, our office should be
contacted for additional recommendations.
22. Temporary Slopes: Should temporary slopes be needed for retaining wall
construction (not currently proposed) or removal and recompaction site
grading, they should be stable for a maximum slope ratio of 0.75:1.0
(horizontal to vertical) to a maximum height of 12 feet. No soil stockpiles,
improvements or other surcharges may exist or be placed within a horizontal
distance of 10 feet from the excavation.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 31
The stability of temporary construction slopes will depend largely on the
contractor's activities and safety precautions (storage and equipment
loadings near the tops of cut slopes, surface drainage provisions, etc.), it
should be the contractor's responsibility to establish and maintain all
temporary construction slopes at a safe inclination appropriate to his
methods of operation.
If these recommendations are not feasible due to space constraints,
temporary shoring may be required for safety and to protect adjacent
property improvements. This office should be contacted for additional
recommendations if shoring or steep temporary slopes are required.
23. Cal-OSHA: Where not superseded by specific recommendations presented in
this report, trenches, excavations, and temporary slopes at the subject site
should be constructed in accordance with Title 8, Construction Safety Orders,
issued by Cal-OSHA.
F. Retaining Wall Design Criteria
At present, we are not aware of retaining walls planned for the project. However,
in the event that property line or interior project walls are required, we are
providing the following wall design criteria based on the encountered soil
conditions.
24. Static Design Parameters: Retaining walls must be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures and any additional lateral pressures caused by surcharge
loads on the adjoining retained surface. We recommend that restrained
retaining walls with level backfill be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 32
of 56 pcf for low expansive import or on-site soils. Wherever restrained walls
will be subjected to surcharge loads, they should also be designed for an
additional uniform lateral pressure equal to 0.47 times the anticipated
surcharge pressure.
Backfill placed behind the walls should be compacted to a minimum degree of
compaction of 90 percent using light compaction equipment. If heavy
equipment is used, the walls should be appropriately temporarily braced.
25. Seismic Earth Pressures: If seismic loading is to be considered for retaining
walls more than 6 feet in height, they should be designed for seismic earth
pressures in addition to the normal static pressures. The soil seismic
increment is an equivalent fluid weight of 8 pcf. A Kh value of 0.18 may be
used is a computer program such as "Retaining Wall Pro" or a similar
program is used for wall design. The soil pressures described above may be
used for the design of shoring structures.
26. Design Parameters - Unrestrained: The active earth pressure to be utilized
in the design of any cantilever retaining walls (utilizing on-site or imported
very low- to low-expansive soils [EI less than 50] as backfill) should be
based on an Equivalent Fluid Weight of 38 pounds per cubic foot (for level
backfill only). In the event that an unrestrained retaining wall is surcharged
by sloping backfill, the design active earth pressure should be based on the
appropriate Equivalent Fluid Weight presented in the following table.
Rincon Residential Project
Carlsbad, California
Job No.14-10623
Page 33
Slope Ratio 0.25
Height of Slope/Height of Wall*
0.50 0.75 l.OO(-f)
50 52
*To determine design active earth pressures for ratios intermediate to those
presented, interpolate between the stated values.
Backfill soils should consist of low-expansive soils with EI less than 50, and
should be placed from the heel of the foundation to the ground surface within
the wedge formed by a plane at 30° from vertical, and passing by the heel of
the foundation and the back face ofthe retaining wall.
27. Surcharge Loads: Any surcharge loads placed on the active wedge behind a
cantilever wall should be included in the design by multiplying the vertical
load by a factor of 0.31. This factor converts the vertical load to a horizontal
load.
28. Wall Drainage: Proper subdrains and free-draining backwall material or
board drains (such as J-drain or Miradrain) should be installed behind all
retaining walls (in addition to proper waterproofing) on the subject project
(see Figure No. VI for Retaining Wall Backdrain and Waterproofing
Schematic). Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will assume no liability for
damage to structures or improvements that is attributable to poor drainage.
Architectural plans should clearly indicate that subdrains for any lower-level
walls be placed at an elevation at least 1 foot below the top of the outer face
ofthe footing, not on top ofthe footing. At least 0.5-percent gradient should
be provided to the subdrain.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 34
The subdrain should be placed in an envelope of crushed rock gravel up to 1
inch in maximum diameter, and be wrapped with Mirafi 140N filter fabric or
equivalent. The subdrain should consist of Amerdrain, QuickDrain
(rectangular section boards), or equivalent products. A sump pump may be
required if project elevations and discharge points do not allow for outlet via
gravity flow. The collected water should be taken to an approved drainage
facility. Open head joint subdrain discharge is not considered acceptable for
retaining walls. All subdrain systems should be provided with access risers
for periodic cleanout.
29. Drainage Quality Control: It must be understood that it is not within the
scope of our services to provide quality control oversight for surface or
subsurface drainage construction or retaining wall sealing and base of wall
drain construction. It is the responsibility of the contractor to verify proper
wall sealing, geofabric installation, protection board (if needed), drain depth
below interior floor or yard surface, pipe percent slope to the outlet, etc.
G. Site Drainaae Considerations
30. Erosion Control: Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken at all
times during and after construction to prevent surface runoff waters from
entering footing excavations, ponding on finished building pad areas or
causing erosion on soil surfaces.
31. Surface Drainage: Adequate measures should be taken to properly finish-
grade the lot after the residential structures and other improvements are in
place. Drainage waters from this site and adjacent properties should be
directed away from the footings, floor slabs, and slopes, onto the natural
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 35
drainage direction for this area or into properly designed and approved
drainage facilities provided by the project civil engineer in the grading plans.
Roof gutters and downspouts should be installed on the residences, with the
runoff directed away from the foundations via closed drainage lines. Proper
subsurface and surface drainage will help minimize the potential for waters to
seek the level ofthe bearing soils under the footings and floor slabs.
Failure to observe this recommendation could result in undermining and
possible differential settlement of the structures or other improvements or
cause other moisture-related problems. Currently, the California Building
Code requires a minimum 1-percent surface gradient for proper drainage of
building pads unless waived by the building official. Concrete pavement may
have a minimum gradient of 0.5-percent.
32. Planter Drainage: Planter areas, flower beds and planter boxes should be
sloped to drain away from the footings and floor slabs at a gradient of at
least 5 percent within 5 feet from the perimeter walls. Any planter areas
adjacent to the residences or surrounded by concrete improvements should
be provided with sufficient area drains to help with rapid runoff disposal. No
water should be allowed to pond adjacent to the residence or other
improvements or anywhere on the site.
H. General Recommendations
33. Project Start Up Notification: In order to reduce any work delays during site
development, this firm should be contacted at least 48 hours prior to any
need for observation of footing excavations or field density testing of
compacted fill soils. If possible, placement of formwork and steel
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 36
reinforcement in footing excavations should not occur prior to observing the
excavations; in the event that our observations reveal the need for
deepening or redesigning foundation structures at any locations, any
formwork or steel reinforcement in the affected footing excavation areas
would have to be removed prior to correction of the observed problem (i.e.,
deepening the footing excavation, recompacting soil in the bottom of the
excavation, etc.).
34. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs): Construction BMPs must
be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the controlling
jurisdiction. At the very least, sufficient BMPs must be installed to prevent
silt, mud or other construction debris from being tracked into the adjacent
street(s) or storm water conveyance systems due to construction vehicles or
any other construction activity. The contractor is responsible for cleaning
any such debris that may be in the street or alley at the end of each work
day or after a storm event that causes breach in the installed construction
BMPs.
All stockpiles of uncompacted soil and/or building materials that are intended
to be left unprotected for a period greater than 7 days are to be provided
with erosion and sediment controls. Such soil must be protected each day
when the probability of rain is 40% or greater. A concrete washout should
be provided on all projects that propose the construction of any concrete
improvements that are to be poured in place. All erosion/sediment control
devices should be maintained in working order at all times. All slopes that
are created or disturbed by construction activity must be protected against
erosion and sediment transport at all times. The storage of all construction
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 37
materials and equipment must be protected against any potential release of
pollutants into the environment.
XI. GRADING NOTES
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. recommends that we be retained to verify the
actual soil conditions revealed during site grading work and footing excavation to be
as anticipated in this "Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation" for the
project. In addition, the compaction of any fill soils placed during site grading work
must be observed and tested by the soil engineer. It is the responsibility of the
grading contractor to comply with the requirements on the grading plans and the
local grading ordinance. All retaining wall and trench backfill should be properly
compacted. Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. will assume no liability for damage
occurring due to improperly or uncompacted backfill placed without our
observations and testing.
XII. LIMITATIONS
Our conclusions and recommendations have been based on available data obtained
from our field investigation and laboratory analysis, as well as our experience with
similar soils and formational materials located in this area of Carlsbad. Of
necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory
excavations and/or natural exposures. It is, therefore, necessary that all
observations, conclusions, and recommendations be verified at the time grading
operations begin or when footing excavations are placed. In the event
discrepancies are noted, additional recommendations may be issued, if required.
Rincon Residential Project Job No. 14-10623
Carlsbad, California Page 38
The work performed and recommendations presented herein are the result of an
investigation and analysis that meet the contemporary standard of care in our
profession within the County of San Diego. No warranty is provided. This report
should be considered valid for a period of two (2) years, and is subject to review by
our firm following that time. If significant modifications are made to the building
plans, especially with respect to the height and location of any proposed structures,
this report must be presented to us for immediate review and possible revision.
It is the responsibility of the owner and/or developer to ensure that the
recommendations summarized in this report are carried out in the field operations
and that our recommendations for design of this project are incorporated in the
structural plans. We should be retained to review the project plans once they are
available, to see that our recommendations are adequately incorporated in the
plans.
As stated previously, it is not within the scope of our services to provide quality
control oversight for surface or subsurface drainage construction or retaining wall
sealing and base of wall drain construction. It is the responsibility of the contractor
and/or their retained construction inspection service provider to verify proper wall
sealing, geofabric installation, protection board installation (if needed), drain depth
below interior floor or yard surface, pipe percent slope to the outlet, etc.
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 the safety of
personnel other than our own; the safety of others is the responsibility of the
contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considered any of the
recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe.
Rincon Residential Project
Carlsbad, California
Job No. 14-10623
Page 39
The firm of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. shall not be held responsible for
changes to the physical condition of the property, such as addition of fill soils or
changing drainage patterns, which occur subsequent to issuance of this report and
the changes are made without our observations, testing, and approval.
Once again, should any questions arise concerning this report, please feel free to
contact the undersigned. Reference to our Job No. 14-10623 will expedite a reply
to your inquiries.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.
Cathy K. Ganze
Senior Project Geologist
LdsiJ^xE^ Reed, President
C.E.G. 999/P.G. 3391
Jaime A. Cerros, P.E.
R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
REFERENCES
JOB NO. 14-10623
October 2014
Association of Engineering Geologists, 1973, Geology and Earthquake Hazards, Planners Guide to the
Seismic Safety Element, Southern California Section, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special
Publication, p. 44.
Berger 8i Schug, 1991, Probabilistic Evaluation of Seismic Hazard in the San Diego-Tijuana
Metropolitan Region, Environmental Perils, San Diego Region, San Diego Association of Geologists.
Blake, T., 2002, EQFault and EQSearch Computer Programs for Deterministic Prediction and
Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults and Historical Earthquake
Catalogs.
California Geological Survey 2009 Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, La Jolla
Quadrangle, San Diego County.
Cooksley, K., 2009-10, Report of Water Vapor Permeation Testing of Construction Vapor Barrier
Materials, Clemson University, Department of Packaging Science.
Crowell, J.C, 1962, Displacement Along the San Andreas Fault, California; Geologic Society of
America Special Paper 71, 61 p.
Demere, T.A., 2003, Geology of San Diego County, California, BRCC San Diego Natural History
Museum.
Greene, H.G., 1979, Implication of Fault Patterns in the Inner California Continental Borderiand
between San Pedro and San Diego, in "Earthquakes and Other Perils, San Diego Region," P.L. Abbott
and W.J. Elliott, editors.
Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California; Calif.
Div. of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23.
Hart, E.W., D.P. Smith, and R.B. Saul, 1979, Summary Report: Fault Evaluation Program, 1978 Area
(Peninsular Ranges-Salton Trough Region), Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, OFR 79-10 SF, 10.
Hart E.W. and W.A. Bryant, 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, California Geological
Survey, Special Publication 42, Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999.
Hauksson, E. and L. Jones, 1988, The July 1988 Oceanside (ML=5.3) Earthquake Sequence in the
Continental Borderiand, Southern California Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 78, p.
1885-1906.
Hileman, J.A., CR. Allen and J.M. Nordquist, 1973, Seismicity of the Southern California Region,
January 1, 1932 to December 31, 1972; Seismological Laboratory, Cal-Tech, Pasadena, Calif.
Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California; Bulletin 200, Calif. Div.
of Mines and Geology.
Kennedy, M.P., S.H. Clarke, H.G. Greene, R.C. Jachens, V.E. Langenheim, J.J. Moore and D. M. Burns,
1994, A digital (GIS) Geological/Geophysical/Seismologlcal Data Base for the san Diego 30x60
REFERENCES/Page 2
Quadrangle, California—A New Generation, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v.
26, p. 63.
Kennedy, M.P. and S.H. Clarke, 1997A, Analysis of Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and
Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 97-lOA.
Kennedy, M.P. and S.H. Clarke, 1997B, Age of Faulting in San Diego Bay in the Vicinity of the
Coronado Bridge, an addendum to Analysis of Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard
to the Coronado Bridge, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 97-lOB.
Kennedy, M.P. and S.H. Clarke, 2001, Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the
Coronado Bridge, California Geology.
Kennedy, M.P. and S.S. Tan, 1977, Geology of National City, Imperial Beach, and Otay Mesa
Quadrangles, Southern San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Map Sheet 29, California Division of
Mines and Geology.
Kennedy, M.P., S.S. Tan, R.H. Chapman, and G.W. Chase, 1975; Character and Recency of Faulting,
San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Special Report 123, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology.
Kennedy, M.P. and S.S. Tan, 2005 and 2008, Geologic Map of San Diego 30'x60' Quadrangle,
California, California Geological Survey, Dept. of Conservation.
Kennedy, M.P. and E.E. Welday, 1980, Character and Recency of Faulting Offshore, metropolitan San
Diego California, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Map Sheet 40, 1:50,000.
Kern, J.P. and T.K. Rockwell, 1992, Chronology and Deformation of Quaternary Marine Shorelines, San
Diego County, California in Heath, E. and L. Lewis (editors). The Regressive Pleistocene Shoreline,
Coastal Southern California, pp. 1-8.
Kern, P., 1983, Earthquakes and Faults in San Dlego, Pickle Press, San Diego, California.
McEuen, R.B. and CJ. Pinckney, 1972, Seismic Risk in San Diego; Transactions of the San Diego
Society of Natural History, v. 17, No. 4.
Reed, L.D., 2005, The Soledad Avenue Terrace: A Newly Identified Pleistocene Marine Terrace
Deposit, Association of Engineering Geologists, Abstract and Presentation, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Reed, L.D., 2009, The Chronology and Rate of Mt. Soledad Uplift and Resultant Creation of Landslide-
prone Terrain, La Jolla, California, Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists, Abstract
and Presentation, Lake Tahoe, Nevada.
Reed, L.D., 2009, Preliminary Evidence ofa Mt. Soledad Western Flank Mega-slide, La Jolla, California,
Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists, Abstract and Presentation, Lake Tahoe,
Nevada.
Richter, C.G., 1958, Elementary Seismology, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, Calif.
Rockwell, T.K., D.E. Millman, R.S. McElwain, and D.L. Lamar, 1985, Study of Seismic Activity by
Trenching Along the Glen Ivy North Fault, Elsinore Fault Zone, Southern California: Lamar-Merifield
Technical Report 85-1, U.S.G.S. Contract 14-08-0001-21376, 19 p.
Simons, R.S., 1977, Seismicity of San Diego, 1934-1974, Seismological Society of America Bulletin, v.
67, p. 809-826.
REFERENCES/Page 3
Southern California San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Seismic Source Characterization Research
Project, 2012, Paleoseismic Assessment of the Late Holocene Rupture History of the Rose Canyon
Fault in San Diego.
Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in Southern Part of San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Dlego
County, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 95-03.
Toppozada, T.R. and D.L. Parke, 1982, Areas Damaged by California Earthquakes, 1900-1949; Calif.
Div. of Mines and Geology, Open-file Report 82-17, Sacramento, Calif.
Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California, Calif. Div. of Mines and
Geology Open-file Report 93-02, 45 pp, 3 plates.
URS Project No. 27653042.00500 (2010), San Diego County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan
San Dlego County, California.
U.S.G.S. Earthquake Hazards Program, 2010, http://earthquake.usqs.qov/.
VICINITY MAP
Thonnas Guide San Diego County Edition pg 1106
Rincon Residential Project
165-175 Chinquapin Avenue
Carlsbad, CA.
Figure No. I
Job No. 14-10623
PAIjSAUtS MAP
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP - RINCON PROPERTY, CARLSBAD CALIFORINA
EXISTING CONDITIONS
'^Ef£fl£^^C^ f'tJS «ctf pfepjwBd from
an nx'Siitg unaaSWTOPOGfWHiC SifHVF/WAf
Oy Pasco S arei SuWr & Assxmiss and ftom a
P^EtmifiA^f SfTf PLAW t>Y S'lacfeflon Desigo
Group datoa rOyfO^i Jano from o^-jTe fwW Existing Structures
PASCO LARET SUITER
jj5>jinttHiirL«j lOL.mpA, Wll^•BHl^^cA™^Ti
Jill »fl.;S»j?l? I bH4£-mdS]? IplueivTKcn^BEQin
Proposed Residentiol
Siructure
-0
SCALE; r' = 20'
(approximale)
LEGEND
CEN-IBLOC
<OJONI^ nrOPOITY LNE
TE ur* JFSfaiPNtT 11#
iWll
iraxtEhtDLHi w
OMlftvDuiiLn.
CDNavBauirACE
WiitLiiuvia
SMcncLCAtfur
OF' ^ MCTCn
°° PCMCUPCU
IV. fCP£>-»HL
ft FLHi»l SJIPACC
A ICKIDUOIVI
0 WPRCKUU'C TltJt* CUH*tH
PLOT PLAN
165-175 CfJinqiispfO Avdnue
Carlsbad, CA
Figure No. il
JobNo. !4-10623
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.
October 2014
'^EQUIPMENT
Hand Tools
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION
2' X 3' X 3.5' Handpit
DATE LOGGED ^
10-15-14
SURFACE ELEVATION
± 58' Mean Sea Level
GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH
Not Encountered
LOGGED BY
CKG
!
i
FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND
CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size, Density, Moistuie, Color)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained; minimal
cohesion. Loose. Dry. Gray-brown.
TOPSOIL
~ with many roots from less than 1/8" to 1" in
diameter.
li
Q
I P
m o
Q
o o
sl
S o
1 -
2-
3-
4-
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained; minimal
cohesion, minor cementation. Medium dense. Dry.
Light red- and tan-brown.
WEATHERED OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop
6-7)
SM
2.9
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained; minimal
cohesion, minor cementation; minor porosity.
Medium dense. Dry. Red- and tan-brown.
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qopg.^)
-18% passing #200 sieve.
SM
Bottom @ 3.5'
2.4
102.2 82
9.0 126.5
103.8 82
I PERCHED WATER TABLE
^ BULK BAG SAMPLE
|T] IN-PLACE SAMPLE
• MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE
[s] NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST
^ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
JOBNAME
Rincon Residential Project
SITE LOCATION
165-175 Chinquapin Avenue, Carisbad, CA
JOB NUMBER
14-10623
FIGURE NUMBER
Ilia
REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC
Gcotactinlcal Eapterrtloii. Inc,
LOG No.
HP-1
EQUIPMENT
Hand Tools
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION
2' X 3' X 3,5' Handpit
DATE LOGGED
10-15-14
SURFACE ELEVATION
i 60' Mean Sea Level
GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH
Not Encountered
LOGGED BY
CKG
Q.
FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND
CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size. Density, Moisture, Color)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained. Loose.
Dry. Gray-brown.
FILL (Qaf)
' many small roots in the upper 1 foot.
</3
U
ai
il
ig
a
gd
o
S 8
o
sl
2-
4-
2.4 96.5
SiLTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained; minimal
cohesion, minor cementation. Medium dense.
Damp. Red- and gray-brown.
TOPSOlU
WEATHERED OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS
(GRADATIONAL) (Qop ,.7)
~ many roots from less than 1/8" to 1/2" in
diameter.
SM
2.7
2.7
108.8
105.6
SiLTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained; minimal
cohesion, moderate cementation; minor porosity.
Medium dense. Dry. Red-brown.
SM
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop,.^)
Bottom @ 3.5*
77
87
84
D. O
o
X PERCHED WATER TABLE
13 BULK BAG SAMPLE
[T] IN-PLACE SAMPLE
• MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE
\s\ NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST
^ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
JOBNAME
Rincon Residential Project
SITE LOCATION
165-175 Chinquapin Avenue, Carisbad, CA
JOB NUMBER
14-10623
FIGURE NUMBER
lllb
REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No.
HP-2
^EQUIPMENT
Hand Tools
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION
2' X 2' X 3.25' Handpit
DATE LOGGED ^
10-15-14
SURFACE ELEVATION
± 61' Mean Sea Levei
GROUNDWATER/SEEPAGE DEPTH
Not Encountered
LOGGED BY
CKG
FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND
CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size. Density, Moisture, Color)
ij 2 Q:
ii ki
Ul o
S 3 ij o m o
3-
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained. Loose.
Dry. Gray-brown.
FILL/
TOPSOIL (Qaf)
~ many small roots to 1/8-inch in diameter in the
upper 1 foot.
1.3 89.4 71
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained; minimal
cohesion, minor cementation. Medium dense. Dry.
Red- and tan-brown.
WEATHERED OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop
6-7)
~ 20% passing #200 sieve.
~ some roots to 1/2" in diameter.
SM
9.0 125.2
2.1 113.0 90
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained; minimal
cohesion, moderate cementation; minor porosity.
Medium dense. Dry. Red-brown.
^ OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS IQoo^,)
Bottom @ 3.25'
SM
2.6 109.2 86
I PERCHED WATER TABLE
13 BULK BAG SAMPLE
H IN-PLACE SAMPLE
• MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE
[i] NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST
^ ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
JOBNAME
Rincon Residentiai Project I PERCHED WATER TABLE
13 BULK BAG SAMPLE
H IN-PLACE SAMPLE
• MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE
[i] NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST
^ ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
SITE LOCATION
165-175 Chinquapin Avenue, Carisbad, CA
I PERCHED WATER TABLE
13 BULK BAG SAMPLE
H IN-PLACE SAMPLE
• MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE
[i] NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST
^ ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
JOB NUMBER
14-10623
FIGURE NUMBER
liic
REVIEWED BY
LDR/JAC
||li^4 GcotKhnlcal
SMpioraaon. Inc.
LOG No.
HP-3
'^EQUIPMENT
Hand Tools
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION
2' X 2' X 3.33' Handpit
DATE LOGGED ^
10-15-14
SURFACE ELEVATION
± 58' Mean Sea Level
GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH
Not Encountered
LOGGED BY
CKG
o.
g
FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND
CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size. Density, Moisture, Color)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained. Loose.
Dry. Gray-brown.
FILU
TOPSOIL (Qaf)
~ with minor roots in the upper 1 foot.
§M
i'
: z g
o
ii is
a
d^
2-
3-
SlLTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained; minimal
cohesion, minor cementation. Medium dense. Dry.
Red- and tan-brown.
WEATHERED OLD PARAUC DEPOSITS (Qop
6-7)
SM 1.8 102.9 82
1.6 97.9 78
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained; minimal
cohesion, moderate cementation. Medium dense.
Dry. Red-brown.
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (QOP«.T1
Bottom @ 3.33'
SM
2.3 101.3 80
JL PERCHED WATER TABLE
^ BULK BAG SAMPLE
[H IN-PLACE SAMPLE
• MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE
[s] NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST
^ STANDARD PENETFIATION TEST
JOBNAME
Rincon Residentiai Project
SITE LOCATION
165-175 Chinquapin Avenue, Carisbad, CA
JOB NUMBER
14-10623
FIGURE NUMBER
Hid
REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC
GcatMtmlcal
BxptoraOon, Inc,
LOG No.
HP-4
'^EQUIPMENT
Hand Tools
DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION
2' X 2' X 3' Handpit
DATE LOGGED ^
10-15-14
SURFACE ELEVATION
±61' Mean Sea Levei
GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH
Not Encountered
LOGGED BY
CKG
f
FIELD DESCRIPTION
AND
CLASSIFICATION
sg
Q a. d >-d
gd
g
+ ',
d
d^ DEPTH (1 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS
(Grain size. Density, Moisture, Color) U.S.C.S. sg OPTIMUl MOISTUI is
d >-d
gd EXPAN. CONSOL BLOW COUNTS SAMPLE (INCHES SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained. Loose.
Dry. Gray-brown.
SM
FILU
\ TOPSOIL (Qaf) / SM
1 - •
- 1
0 - -;
,'. 1
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained; minimal
cohesion, minor cementation. Medium dense. Dry.
Light red- and tan-brown.
WEATHERED OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop
6-7)
1.8 106.5 85
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained; minimal
cohesion, moderate cementation. Medium dense.
Dry. Tan-brown.
SM
2
OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop ,.7) 2.0 105.2 83
o
Bottom @ 3'
4-
-
I PERCHED WATER TABLE
^ BULK BAG SAMPLE
[U IN-PLACE SAMPLE
• MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE
[s] NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST
^ ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
JOB NAME
Rincon Residentiai Project I PERCHED WATER TABLE
^ BULK BAG SAMPLE
[U IN-PLACE SAMPLE
• MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE
[s] NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST
^ ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
SITE LOCATION
165-175 Chinquapin Avenue, Carisbad, CA
I PERCHED WATER TABLE
^ BULK BAG SAMPLE
[U IN-PLACE SAMPLE
• MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE
[s] NUCLEAR FIELD DENSITY TEST
^ ^ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
JOB NUMBER
14-10623
FIGURE NUMBER
iiie
REVIEWED BY
LDR/JAC
||B4^4 GMttchnlnl ''^•^ Exploration, Inc.
LOG No.
HP-5
J
I
8
o
Source of Material
Description of Material
Test Method
HP-1 @2.5'
SILTY SAND (SM), Red-brown
ASTM D1557 Method A
TEST RESULTS
Maximum Dry Density
Optimum Water Content
Expansion Index (El)
126.5 PCF
9.0 %
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:
2.80
2.70
2.60
20 25
WATER CONTENT, %
40 45
Geotechnicai
Exploration, Inc.
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Figure Number: IVa
Job Name: Rincon Residential Project
Site Location: 165-175 Chinquapin Avenue, Cadsbad, C^
Job Number: 14-10623
Source of Material
Description of Material
Test Method
HP-3 @ 1.0'
SILTY SAND (SM). Tan-brown
ASTM D1557 Method A
TEST RESULTS
Maximum Dry Density
Optimum Water Content
Expansion Index (El)
125.2 PCF
9.0 %
Curves of 100% Saturation
for Specific Gravity Equal to:
2.80
2.70
2.60
20 25
WATER CONTENT, %
z o p o S. s
8
Geotechnical
Exploration, inc.
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP
Figure Number: IVb
Job Name: Rincon Residential Project
Site Location: 165-175 Chinquapin Avenue, Carisbad, CA
Job Number: 14-10623
Contour Inlen al 50m
EXCEPT FROM GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE OCEANSIDE 30' X 60' QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA
\Ucharl P K ftuf^it and Siang S. Tun
Oiyiial I'rrparoinm h\
Ktll\ R HoYurii' ItmMM Hi-am'amJ .KfnhuriJ H'utson'
QOpi-4
Bus* Map
I'SnipcirtABon) trxfr USOS <tiO>t* 1^ fi'ap^ ;DLG) MU Smn D«90 30 • M m»inc qt^'angte SlwOad
i(ipco'*P'^ ''U'^ U K G S diytal election rpodel*
UirytTiMry hum NOAA ftngl* and rnMbmo-r Ciitu
P^tlpn • L/TM zcm 11 Noflh Amartcan Da^um *977
Rincon Residential Project
165-175 Chinquapin Avenue
Carlsbad, CA.
ONSHORE MAP SYMBOLS
Coniacl - Coniacl between geologic units Oolted vyhere concealed
Fault Solid where accurately located; dashed where
approximately located, dotted where concealed U = upthrown
block D = downthrown block Arrow and numt)er indicate
direction and angle cf dip of fault plane
Anticline - Solid where accurately located; dashed where
approximately locaied, dotted where concealed. Arrow
indicates direction of axial plunge
Syncline - Solid where accurately located; doited where concealed
Arrow indicales direclion of axial plunge.
Landslide - Arrows indicale pnncipal direction of moverrient
Queried where existence is questionable
Strike and dip of beds
Inclined
Stnke and dip of igneous joints
Inclined
Vertical
Strike and dip ol metamorphic foliation
Irjclined
Qopfc
DESCRIPTION OF MAP I'NITS
Old paralic deposits, linits 2-4 undivided (lale lo middle
Pleistocene)—Mostly poorly sorted, moderately pemieable.
reddish-browTi, interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine
and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and
conglomerate. In much ofthe area marine tenaces and their
paralic deposits can not be divided as Ihey merge witli and
are altemately covered by one another. Their physical and
temporal relationships are diagrainatically illustrated in
Figure 3
Old paralic deposits, Unit 7 (late to middle
Pleistocene)—Mostly poorly sorted, moderately pemieable,
reddish-brown, interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine
and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and
conglomerate. These deposits rest on the 9-11 in Bird Rock
terrace (Fig. 3)
Old paralic deposits, ITnil 6 (late to middle
Pleistocene)—Mostly poorly sorted, nxiderately pemieable,
reddish-brown, interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine
and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and
conglomerate. These deposits rest on the 22-23 iii Nestor
terrace (Fig. 3)
Santiago Formation (middle Eocene)—Named by Woodring
and Popenoe (1945) for Eocene deposits of northweslem
Santa Ana Mountains. There are three distinctive parts. A
basal member tliat consists of bufT and brownish-gray,
massive, coarse-grained, poorly sorted arkosic sandstone and
conglomerate (sandstone generally predominating). In some
ateas the basal member is overlain by gray and brownish-gray
(salt and pepper) central member lhat consists of soft,
medium-grained, moderately well-sorted arkosic sandstone.
An upper member consists of gray, coarse-grained arkosic
sandstone and grit. Throughout the fonnation. both vertically
and laterally, there exists greenish-brown, massive claystone
interbeds, tongues and lenses of often fossiliferous. lagoonai
claystone and siltstone. The lower part of the Santiago
Formation interfingers with the Delmar Fonnation and Toney
Sandstone in the Encinitas quadrangle
lUSGS
TtM map Mt r«»io*d r> bv U S GvcMovaf
Surv«f ruaon» C«oparav^ G«c«vc Mapping Pioorvrr
ST»TEMAPfc«>rOic fleHOAG204»
Copyns^: * TOOt by iha CaikKn* Daoa-tnar: ol Conaarvaton
M r^Mi raaarwd Ho part o( »aKijbi«iiDn m#y ba wooxad vnriou) M«iar conaari of iha CaMkomu GaoKaycai Survry
Tha Oapartnanl o» Cana«fv«wo makaa no warra-fhas ak to irie •i^tabtkTy of th« i.fXi<Siict for ar<v pvbcul<M pi«poaa
rincon-10623-geo.ai
Figure No. V
Job No. 14-10623
ll^lP ? Geotechnical
I Exploration, Inc.
October 2014
RECOMMENDED SUBGRADE RETAINING
WALL DRAINAGE SCHEMATIC
Tt
Exterior /Retaining
Footing / Wall
Lower-level
Slob-on-grocJe
or Crawispace
Sealant
Proposed Exterior
Grade
To Drain at A Min. 2%
Fall Away from Bldg
Waterproofing
To Top Of Wall
Properly
Compacted
Backfill
Sealant
Perforated PVC (SDR 35)
4" pipe with 0.5% min. slope,
with bottom of pipe located 12"
below slob or Interior (crawispace)
around surface elevation, with 1.5
(cu.ft.) of gravel 1" diameter
max, wrapped with the Miradrain
6000 filter cloth. Ameridrain,
Quickdrain or equivalent products
ay be used as on alternative.
Between Bottom
12" of Slob and
I Pipe Bottom
Mirafi UON
Filter Cloth
NOT TO SCALE
NOTE: As an option to Miradrain 6000, Gravel or
Crushed rock 3/4" maximum diameter may be used
with a minimum 12" thickness along the interior
face of the wall and 2.0 cu.ft./ft. of pipe
gravel envelope.
Figure No. VI
Job No. 14-10623
14-W623-VI
Explorailon, Inc.
APPENDIX A
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Coarse-grained (More than half of material Is larger than a No. 200 sieve)
GW GRAVELS, CLEAN GRAVELS
(More than half of coarse fraction
Is larger than No. 4 sieve size, but
smaller than 3")
GRAVELS WITH FINES
(Appreciable amount)
SANDS, CLEAN SANDS
(More than half of coarse fraction
is smaller than a No. 4 sieve)
SANDS WITH FINES
(Appreciable amount)
GP
Well-graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little
or no fines.
Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little or
no fines.
GC Clay gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures
SW Well-graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines
SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.
SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures.
SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures.
Fine-grained (More than half of material is smaller than a No. 200 sieve)
SILTS AND CLAYS
ML Liquid Limit Less than 50
Liquid Litnit Greater than 50
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt
and clayey-silt sand mixtures with a slight plasticity
CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly
clays, silty clays, clean clays.
OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity.
MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or
silty soils, elastic silts.
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity.
PT Peat and other highly organic soils
(rev. 6/05)
APPENDIX B
SEISMIC DATA EQ FAULT TABLES
Rincon TEST.OUT
*******-kir *iclt*iiifl!i!lt***-lt*
* *
* EQFAULT *
* *
* Version 3.00 *
* *
***********************
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 14-10623
DATE: 10-23-2014
JOB NAME: Rincon eqfTest Run
CALCULATION NAME: Rincon eqf Test Run Analysis
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1467
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3433
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 8) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-soft Rock-Uncor.
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell ssR: 1 Campbell SHR: 0
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0
EQFAULT SUMMARY
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 1
Rincon TEST.OUT
Page 1
APPROXIMATE
ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
ABBREVIATED DISTANCE MAXIMUM PEAK EST. SITE
FAULT NAME mi (km) EARTHQUAKE SITE INTENSITY
MAG.(Mw) ACCEL, g MOD.MERC.
ROSE CANYON 4 .7( 7 5) 6.9 0 .404 X
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 5 • 3( 8 6) 6.9 0 .379 X
CORONADO BANK 20 .6( 33 1) 7.4 0 162 VIII
ELSINORE-TEMECULA 24 .8( 39 9) 6.8 0 084 VII
ELSINORE-JULIAN 24 9( 40 1) 7.1 0 105 VII
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 34 4( 55 3) 6.8 0 056 VI
PALOS VERDES 35 • 7( 57 5) 7.1 0 067 VI
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 44 • 2( 71 1) 6.5 0 032 V
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 46 3( 74 5) 6.9 0 041 V
SAN JACINTO-ANZA 47 3( 76 2) 7.2 0 051 VI
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 47 8( 77 0) 6.9 0 040 V
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 48 3( 77 7) 6.7 0 040 V
WHITTIER 51 8( 83 3) 6.8 0 033 V
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 52 9( 85 1) 6.8 0 032 V
COMPTON THRUST 56 0( 90 1) 6.8 0 041 V
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 58 2( 93 6) 6.8 0.028 V
ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 59 0( 95 0) 6.7 0 035 V
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 60 4( 97 2) 6.7 0 025 V
SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino 65 6( 105 5) 7.3 0 036 V
SAN ANDREAS - Southern 65 6( 105 5) 7.4 0 039 V
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 66 6( 107 2) 6.6 0 020 IV
SAN JOSE 69 1( 111 2) 6.5 0 021 IV
PINTO MOUNTAIN 72 5( 116 7) 7.0 0 025 V
SIERRA MADRE 72 8( 117 1) 7.0 0 030 V
CUCAMONGA 73 1( 117 6) 7.0 0 030 V
SAN ANDREAS - Coachella 73 7( 118 6) 7.1 0 027 V
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 76 4( 122 9) 7.0 0 028 V
CLEGHORN 78 1( 125 7) 6.5 0 015 IV
BURNT MTN. 78 6( 126. 5) 6.4 0 014 IV
RAYMOND 80 7( 129. 9) 6.5 0 017 IV
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 80 9( 130 2) 6.7 0 020 IV
SAN ANDREAS - Mojave 81 2( 130. 6) 7.1 0 023 IV
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 81 2( 130. 6) 7.8 0 041 V
EUREKA PEAK 81. 3( 130. 9) 6.4 0 013 III
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 82. 5( 132. 8) 6.5 0 017 IV
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 83. 0( 133. 5) 6.6 0. 015 IV
VERDUGO 83. 3( 134. 1) 6.7 0. 020 IV
HOLLYWOOD 85. 1( 137. 0) 6.4 0. 015 IV
ELMORE RANCH 86. 6( 139. 3) 6.6 0. 014 IV
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 87. 6( 141.0) 6.6 0. 014 IV
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 2
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
LANDERS
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT
LAGUNA SALADA
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU COAST
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern)
NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge)
SPRGS
APPROXIMATE
DISTANCE
mi (km)
88.4(
88.9(
89.4(
89.8(
92.3(
93.0(
95.7(
96.1(
96.6(
142.2)
143.1)
143.9)
144.5)
148.5)
149.6)
154.0)
154.7)
155.4)
Page 2
ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
MAXIMUM
EARTHQUAKE
MAG. (Mw)
PEAK
SITE
ACCEL, g
EST. SITE
INTENSITY
MOD.MERC.
7.3 0.025 V
7.1 0.021 IV
7.0 0.019 IV
6.6 0.016 IV
6.7 0.017 IV
7.3 0.023 IV
6.4 0.011 III
6.7 0.014 III
6.9 0.022 IV
Rincon
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN.
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando)
SAN GABRIEL
ANACAPA-DUME
TEST.OUT
96.6( 155.5) 6.9 0.016
97.1( 156.3) 6.7 0.016
97.4( 156.8) 7.0 0.017
***********i************************htLllt*U^^
-END OF SEARCH- 53 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
IV
IV
IV
V
THE ROSE CANYON
IT IS ABOUT 4.7 MILES (7.5 km) AWAY. FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4038 g
Page 3
Rincon rhTEST.OUT
***********************
* *
* EQFAULT *
* *
* version 3.00 *
* *
***********************
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 14-10623
DATE: 10-23-2014
JOB NAME: Rincon eqfTest Run
CALCULATION NAME: Rincon eqf Test Run Analysis
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1467
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3433
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 8) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Soft Rock-Uncor.
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, s=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 1 Campbell SHR: 0
COMPUTE RHGA HORIZ. ACCEL. (FACTOR: 0.65 DISTANCE: 20 miles)
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0
EQFAULT SUMMARY
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 1
Rincon rhTEST.OUT
Page 1
APPROXIMATE
ABBREVIATED DISTANCE MAXIMUM RHGA EST. SITE
FAULT NAME mi (km) EARTHQUAKE SITE INTENSITY
MAG.(Mw) ACCEL, g MOD.MERC.
ROSE CANYON 4.7( 7. 5) 6.9 0.262 IX
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) 5.3( 8.6) 6.9 0.247 IX
CORONADO BANK 20.6( 33. 1) 7.4 0.162 VIII
ELSINORE-TEMECULA 24.8( 39. 9) 6.8 0.084 VII
ELSINORE-JULIAN 24.9( 40. 1) 7.1 0.105 VII
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 34.4( 55. 3) 6.8 0.056 VI
PALOS VERDES 35.7( 57. 5) 7.1 0.067 VI
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 44.2( 71. 1) 6.5 0.032 V
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) 46.3( 74. 5) 6.9 0.041 V
SAN JACINTO-ANZA 47.3( 76. 2) 7.2 0.051 VI
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 47.8( 77. 0) 6.9 0.040 V
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) 48.3( 77. 7) 6.7 0.040 V
WHITTIER 51.8( 83. 3) 6.8 0.033 V
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 52.9( 85. 1) 6.8 0.032 V
COMPTON THRUST 56.0( 90. 1) 6.8 0.041 V
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 58.2( 93. 6) 6.8 0.028 V
ELYSIAN PARK THRUST 59.0( 95. 0) 6.7 0.035 V
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 60.4( 97. 2) 6.7 0.025 V
SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino 65.6( 105. 5) 7.3 0.036 V
SAN ANDREAS - Southern 65.6( 105. 5) 7.4 0.039 V
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 66.6( 107. 2) 6.6 0.020 IV
SAN JOSE 69.1( 111. 2) 6.5 0.021 IV
PINTO MOUNTAIN 72.5( 116. 7) 7.0 0.025 V
SIERRA MADRE 72.8( 117. 1) 7.0 0.030 V
CUCAMONGA 73.1( 117. 6) 7.0 0.030 V
SAN ANDREAS - Coachella 73.7( 118. 6) 7.1 0.027 V
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) 76.4( 122. 9) 7.0 0.028 V
CLEGHORN 78.1( 125. 7) 6.5 0.015 IV
BURNT MTN. 78.6( 126. 5) 6.4 0.014 IV
RAYMOND 80.7( 129. 9) 6.5 0.017 IV
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 80.9( 130. 2) 6.7 0.020 IV
SAN ANDREAS - MOjave 81.2( 130. 6) 7.1 0.023 IV
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Ruptuce 81.2( 130. 6) 7.8 0.041 V
EUREKA PEAK 81.3( 130. 9) 6.4 0.013 III
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 82.5( 132. 8) 6.5 0.017 IV
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 83.0( 133. 5) 6.6 0.015 IV
VERDUGO 83.3( 134. 1) 6.7 0.020 IV
HOLLYWOOD 85.1( 137. 0) 6.4 0.015 IV
ELMORE RANCH 86.6( 139. 3) 6.6 0.014 IV
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 87.6( 141. 0) 6.6 0.014 IV
ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 2
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
LANDERS
HELENDALE - S. LCKKHARDT
LAGUNA SALADA
SANTA MONICA
MALIBU COAST
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern)
NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge)
APPROXIMATE
DISTANCE
mi (km)
88.4(
88.9(
89.4(
89.8(
92.3(
93.0(
95.7(
96.1(
96.6(
142.2)
143.1)
143.9)
144.5)
148.5)
149.6)
154.0)
154.7)
155.4)
Page 2
ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
MAXIMUM RHGA EST. SITE
EARTHQUAKE SITE INTENSITY
MAG.(Mw) ACCEL, g MOD.MERC.
7.3 0.025 V
7.1 0.021 IV
7.0 0.019 IV
6.6 0.016 IV
6.7 0.017 IV
7.3 0,023 IV
6.4 0.011 III
6.7 0.014 III
6.9 0.022 IV
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN.
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando)
SAN GABRIEL
ANACAPA-DUME
Rincon rhTEST.OUT
96.6( 155.5)
97.1( 156.3)
97.4( 156.8)
98.9( 159.1)
6.9
6.7
7.0
7.3
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.025
IV
IV
IV
V **********i'*'*************************i***********i,it***i,iii,i,i,i,.i,^i,;,i,i,.i,i,f,f,^^f,^,.^^.^^^^
-END OF SEARCH- 53 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
THE ROSE CANYON
IT IS ABOUT 4.7 MILES (7.5 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.2625 g
FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
Page 3
1100
1000 --
900
800 --
700 --
600 --
500 --
400
300 --
200
100 --
CALIFORMA FAULT MAP
Rincon eqfTest Run
-100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
APPENDIXC
MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931
(Excerpted from the Califomia Division of Conservation Division of Mines
and Geology DMG Note 32)
The first scale to reflect earthquake intensities was developed by deRossi of Italy, and Forel of Switzerland, in the 1880s, and is known
as the Rossi-Forel Scale. This scale, with values from I to X, was used for about two decades. A need for a more refined scale
increased with the advancement of the science of seismology, and in 1902, the Italian seismologist Mercalli devised a new scale on a I
to Xli range. The Mercalli Scaie was modified in 1931 by American seismologists Harry O. Wood and Frank Neumann to take into
account modern structural features.
The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale measures the intensity of an earthquake's effects in a given locality, and is perhaps much more
meaningful to the layman because it is based on actual observations of earthquake effects at specific places. It should be noted that
because the damage used for assigning intensities can be obtained only from direct firsthand reports, considerable time ~ weeks or
months ~ is sometimes needed before an intensity map can be assembled for a particular earthquake.
On the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale, values range from I to Xll. The most commonly used adaptation covers the range of intensity
from the conditions of"/ - nof felt except by very few, favorably situated," to "Xll ~ damage total, lines of sight disturbed, objects
thrown into the air" While an earthquake has only one magnitude, it can have many intensities, which decrease with distance from the
epicenter.
It is difficult to compare magnitude and intensity because intensity is linked with the particular ground and structural conditions of a
given area, as well as distance from the earthquake epicenter, while magnitude depends on the energy released at the focus of the
earthquake.
1 Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable cfrcumstances.
II Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing.
III Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize ft as an earthquake.
Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vfbratfon like passing of truck. Duration estfmated.
IV During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At nfght some awakened. Dfshes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make
cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.
V Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows, etc., broken; a few instances of cracked plaster; unstable
objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop.
VI Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged
chimneys. Damage slight.
Vll Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in building of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built
ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving
motor cars.
Vlll Damage slight In specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in
poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls.
Heavy furniture overtumed. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving motor cars
disturbed.
IX Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial
buildings with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken.
X Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly
cracked. Rails bent. Landslides considerable from riverbanks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed (slopped)
over banks.
XI Few, If any, masonry stmctures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures In ground. Underground pipelines
completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly.
Xll Damage total. Practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or destroyed. Waves seen on ground surtace. Lines of
sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown upward into the air. |
APPENDIX D
USGS DESIGN MAPS SUMMARY REPORT
EUSGS Design Maps Summary Report
User-Specified Input
Report Title 175 Chinquapin Avenue, Carlsbad, CA
Tue October 28, 2014 17:35:10 UTC
Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard
(which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008)
Site Coordinates 33.1467°N, 117.3433°W
Site Soil Classification Site Class D - "Stiff Soil"
Risk Category I/II/III
1 x 2mi . ], SOOOm
N
Q mapquest
USGS-Provided Output
Ss= 1.162 g
Sl = 0.446 g
SMS — 1.203 g
0.693 g
Sos = 0.802 g
0.462 g
For information on how the SS and Sl values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and
deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and
select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document.
1.43 T
MCER Response Spectrum
0.00 0.20 0.40 O.eo O.SO 1.00 1.20 1.40 l.eo I.SO 2.00
Period, T (sec)
0.90 T
Design Response Spectrum
0.00 0.20 0.40 O.eo 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 I.SO I.SO 2.00
Period, T (sec)
For PGA„, TL, C^^, and Cm values, please view the detailed report.
Design Maps Detailed Report
ASCE 7-10 standard (33.1467'»N, 117.34330W)
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 Sg) and
1.3 (to obtain SJ. 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 Fiaure 22-1 Sg = 1.162 g
From Figure 22-2Si = 0.446 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 Ciass N or /V,,
A. Hard Rock >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A
B. Rock 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A N/A
C. Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf
D. Stiff Soil 600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf
E. Soft clay soil <600 ft/s <15 < 1,000 psf
Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the
characteristics:
• Plasticity index PI > 20,
• Moisture content w > 40%, and
• Undrained shear strength s^, < 500 psf
F. Soils requiring site response See Section 20.3.1
analysis in accordance with Section
21.1
For SI: Ift/s = 0.3048 m/s lib/ft^ = 0.0479 kN/m^
Section 11.4.3 — Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted l*^aximum Considered Earthqual<e
(MCEJ Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters
Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient F,
Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period
Ss < 0.25 Ss = 0.50 Ss = 0.75 Ss = 1.00 Ss > 1.25
A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0
D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0
E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9
F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of Sg
For Site Class = D and = 1.162 g, F , = 1.035
Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient F^
Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1 -s Period
Sj < 0.10 Sl = 0.20 Sl = 0.30 Sl = 0.40 Sl > 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 Si
For Site Class = D and S, = 0.446 g, F^ = 1.554
Equation (11.4-1): SMS = FgSs = 1.035 x 1.162 = 1.203 g
Equation (11.4-2): S^i = F^Si = 1.554 X 0.446 = 0.693 g
Section 11.4.4 — Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters
Equation (11.4-3): SDS = % SMS = % X 1.203 = 0.802 g
Equation (11.4-4): SDI = % SMI = X 0-693 = 0.462 g
Section 11.4.5 — Design Response Spectrum
From Fiaure 22-12 TL = 8 seconds
II
(A
II
"v
V
< II w e
0
ec
t II a.
(A
Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum
/
5-,=,= 0.802
Sr., = 0.462
T<To:S.«S„(0.4 + 0.«T/TJ
T,STST,:S.*S„
T,<TST,:S. = S„/T
T>T,:S. = S„T,/P
Tc,= 0.115 Ts, = 0.576 1.000
Period, T (sec)
Section 11.4.6 — Risk-Targeted IHaximum Considered Eartiiquake (MCER) Response
Spectrum
The MCER Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above
by 1.5.
li
111
II w u < II M c 0 a n «
fl
V
n
S^ = 1.203
SKI = 0.693
Ti=0.B76 1.000
Period, T (sec)
Section 11.8.3 — Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic
Design Categories D through F
From Fiaure 22-71*^ PGA = 0.464
Equation (11.8-1): PGAM = FPGAPGA = 1.036 x 0.464 = 0.481 g
Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient F„,
Site
Class
A
B
C
D
E
F
Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.6
2.5
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.7
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
PGA = 0.40 PGA > 0.50
0.8 0.8
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
1.1 1.0
0.9 0.9
See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7
Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA
For Site Class = D and PGA = 0.464 g, Fp^^ = 1.036
Section 21.2.1.1 — Method 1 (from Chapter 21 - Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for
Seismic Design)
From Fiaure 22-17 CRS = 0.934
From Fiaure 22-18 CRI = 0.986
Section 11.6 — Seismic Design Category
Table 11.6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter
VALUE OF
RISK CATEGORY
VALUE OF
I or II III IV
S„s < 0.167g A A A
0.167g < Sps < 0.33g B B C
0.33g < Sps < O.SOg C C D
O.SOg < Sos D D D
For Risk Category = I and S^g = 0.802 g, Seismic Design Category = D
Table 11.6-2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-S Period Response Acceleration Parameter
VALUE OF
RISK CATEGORY
VALUE OF
I or II III IV
Soi < 0.067g A A A
0.067g < Soi < 0.133g B B C
0.133g < Soi < 0.20g C C D
0.20g < Soi D D D
For Risk Category = I and S^j = 0.462 g. Seismic Design Category = D
Note: When Si 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-j: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-l.pdf
2. Figure 22-2: http.V/earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-2.pdf
3. Figure 22-12: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-
12.pdf
4. Figure 22-7: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-7.pdf
5. Figure 22-17: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-
17. pdf
6. Figure 22-18: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE-7_Figure_22-
18. pdf