The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 05-46; Proposed Moss Residence; REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVEST; 2007-04-20~ • I I I I I I I I I I I REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL CDP 05-1/& 12!,0,idL,~ /ll O.J4eCElVED APR 3 0 2007 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT INVESTIGATION A AND GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE S, Proposed Moss Residence cf'./4 5015 Tierra Del Oro Street ,,,._"' '!,,.,'lJ Carlsbad, California Q~ ~(b,, 4-a:P-cJ 7 ~(] ~~~ -~~ ,~ JOB NO. 07-9342 20 April 2007 Prepared for: Mr. Steven Moss Pacific View Development I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY 20 April 2007 Mr. Steven Moss PACIFIC VIEW DEVELOPMENT 23679 Calabasas Road, #360 Calabasas, CA 91302 lob No. 07-9342 Subject: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic Reconnaissance Proposed Moss Residence 5015 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Moss: In accordance with your request and our proposal dated December 7, 2006, Geotechnica/ Exploration, Inc. has performed an investigation of the geotechnical and general geologic conditions at the location of the subject site. The field work was performed on February 8 and 14, 2007, by our field geologist. In our opinion, if the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are implemented during site preparation, the site is suited for the proposed structure and associated improvements. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions concerning the following report, please contact our office. Reference to our lob No. 07-9342 will help to expedite a response to your inquiry. Respectfully submitted, 7420 lRADE STREET I :I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT SUMMARY II. SITE DESCRIPTION III. FIELD INVESTIGATION IV. FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION V. GENERAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION VI. SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION VII. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS VIII. EARTHQUAKE RISK EVALUATION IX. GROUNDWATER X. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS XI. GRADING NOTES XII. LIMITATIONS FIGURES I. Vicinity Map II. IIIa-g. IV. V. VI. VII. Plot Plan and Geologic Map Exploratory Boring and Handpit Logs Laboratory Data Foundation Requirements Near Slopes Retaining Wall Waterproofing and Drainage Schematic Geologic Cross Section APPENDICES A. B. C. D. E. Unified Soil Classification System Seismic Data -EQFault Seismic Data -EQSearch Modified Mercalli Intensity Index Slope Stability Analysis PAGE 1 3 4 5 8 10 12 20 21 23 40 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND GEOLOGIC RECONNAISSANCE Proposed Moss Residence 5015 Tierra Del Oro Street Carlsbad, California JOB NO. 07-9342 The following report presents the findings and recommendations of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. for the subject project. I. SCOPE OF WORK It is our understanding, based on review of preliminary plans prepared by Zavatto Design Group, dated January 30, 2007, that the existing structure will be removed and the site is being developed to receive a new single-family residential structure with a basement-level living area, an attached garage, driveway and associated improvements. The proposed structure is to be a maximum of two stories in height over a basement and will be constructed of standard-type building materials utilizing conventional foundations with a concrete slab-on-grade floor. Final construction plans for development of the site have not been provided to us during the preparation of this report, however, when completed they should be made available for our review. With the above in mind, the scope of work is briefly outlined as follows: 1. Identify and classify the surface and subsurface soils to depths, in con- formance with the Unified Soil Classification System. 2. Make note of any faults or significant geologic features that may affect the site. I 'I I I I '.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 2 3. Evaluate the existing fill soil and native materials for soil type and consistency. 4. Recommend the allowable bearing capacities for the on-site medium dense to dense natural soils or properly compacted fills. 5. Recommend site preparation procedures. 6. Evaluate the settlement potential of the bearing soils under the proposed structural loads. 7. Recommend preliminary foundation design information and provide active and passive earth pressures to be utilized in design of any proposed retaining walls and foundation structures. Our subsurface investigation revealed that the site is covered by up to 7 feet of loose fill soils which are underlain by silty sand formational terrace materials and, at depth, by dense silty sand formational soils of the Santiago Formation. In general, the terrace materials are in a medium dense to dense condition, however, the shallow terrace materials encountered within the handpit excavations were loose to a depth of about 3 feet. The loose fill soils and any shallow-depth, loose terrace materials will not provide a stable soil base for the proposed structure and associated improvements. As such, we recommend that the fill soils and any loose terrace materials be removed and recompacted as part of site preparation prior to the addition of any new fill or structural improvements. Excavation for the basement will result in the removal of most of the existing fill materials at the proposed basement location. Approximately 2 feet of loose terrace sand, however, may require removal and recompaction below the basement elevation. The I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 3 competency of the soils in this area should be evaluated during the basement excavation work. II. SITE DESCRIPTION The property is known as: Assessor's Parcel No. 210-020-15-00, Lot 15, according to Recorded Map No. 3052, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. The existing, rectangular-shaped lot consists of approximately 13,650 square feet, and is located at 5015 Tierra del Oro Street (see Figure No. I). The property is bordered on the north by a vacant lot and south by existing residential properties at a slightly higher elevation; on the east by the northern terminus of the north-south trending Tierra Del Oro Street; and on the west by a rip-rap protected slope, a sandy beach and the Pacific Ocean. Refer to Figure No. II. Structures currently on the site consist of a single-story, single-family residence founded on a raised wood floor with a perimeter concrete foundation, an attached garage, a concrete driveway, concrete and brick walkways, and wood decks and walkways. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of trees, decorative shrubbery, and grass with iceplant on the westerly slope. The split-level property consists of a relatively level building pad on a westerly- descending lot. An approximately 10-to 15-foot-high, 1.5: 1.0 (horizontal to vertical) fill/natural slope descends from the western side of the level building pad area. The westerly portion of the property descends moderately to the top of an approximately 8-to 10-foot-high, rip-rap covered slope that descends westerly to the beach. The rip-rap was reportedly installed in the early 1980s. The building pad is at an approximate elevation ranging from 39 feet above mean sea level ;I ' 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 4 (MSL) at the street grade to 26 feet above MSL at the lower level. Elevations across the property range from approximately 39 feet above MSL along the eastern perimeter of the property to 13 to 21 feet above MSL along the top of the rip-rap along the western property boundary. The rip-rap is approximately 10 feet in exposed height and 18 feet in total height and the beach elevation along the base of the rip-rap is approximately 3 to 4 feet above MSL. Approximate elevations were obtained from a Boundary and Topographic Survey by Hofman Planning and Engineering, dated February 2007 (see Figure No. II). III. FIELD INVESTIGATION Three small diameter exploratory borings and four hand-excavated test pits were placed on the site. The handpits and borings were placed in areas where the proposed residence is to be located in order to obtain representative soil samples to define a soil profile (for exploratory boring and handpit locations, refer to Figure No. II). The exploratory borings were excavated to a maximum depth of 18 feet and the handpits were excavated to a maximum depth of 6½ feet. The soils encountered in the borings and handpits were logged by our field representative and samples were taken of the predominant soils throughout the field operation. Exploratory excavation logs have been prepared on the basis of our observations and laboratory testing. The results have been summarized on Figure Nos. III and IV. The predominant soils have been classified in general conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (refer to Appendix A). I I I i I I I I I I I 11 ~ I ! ' ~ • ~ ~ - - :=-/ MOSS RESIDENCE 39. 70 FF AIAJN 28.70 FF BASEJIENT I i EXISTING WALL: PROTECT IN Pt.ACE \\~/ ( I J EXISTING RESIDENCE * GRASS SHALL BE CAREX SISSA OR EQUIVALENT AS SPECIFIED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. GRASS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AS NEEDED TO ENSURE PERFORMANCE OF SWALE VEGETATED BUFFER STRIP TC-31 LEGEND: ~ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Hofman Planning & Engineering 5900 Pasteur Court, Ste 150 carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 438-1465 www .hofmanplanning.com JOSEPH P. COHAN R. C.E. C58873 EXP. 06-30-07 0 10 20 40 SCALE ,· = 20· DATE - 80 C ~/ t:7S-7'6 /1~55 611//1~ DATE JULY 6 2007 JOB NO . ATTACHMENT NO. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 5 IV. FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS AND SOIL INFORMATION A. Field Tests Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving a 3-inch outside-diameter (O.D.) by 2-3/8-inch inside-diameter (I.D.) split-tube sampler a distance of 12 inches. Standard Penetration Tests were also performed by using a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D. by 1-3/8-inch I.D. sampler tube a distance of 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches was recorded for use in evaluation of the soil consistency. The following chart provides an in-house correlation between the number of blows and the consistency of the soil for the Standard Penetration Test and the 3-inch sampler. 2-INCH O.D. 3-INCH O.D. DENSITY SAMPLER SAMPLER SOIL DESIGNATION BLOWS/FOOT BLOWS/FOOT Sand and Very loose 0-4 0-7 Non-plastic Loose 5-10 8-20 Silt Medium 11-30 21-53 Dense 31-50 54-98 Verv Dense Over 50 Over 98 Clay and Very soft 0-2 0-2 Plastic Silt Soft 3-4 3-4 Firm 5-8 5-9 Stiff 9-15 10-18 Very Stiff 15-30 19-45 Hard 31-60 46-90 Very Hard Over 60 Over 90 B. Laboratory Tests Laboratory tests were performed on disturbed and relatively undisturbed soil samples in order to evaluate their physical and mechanical properties and their I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 6 ability to support the proposed residential structure and improvements. Test results are presented on Figure Nos. III and IV. The following tests were conducted on the sampled soils: 1. Moisture Content (ASTM D2216-98) 2. Density Measurements (ASTM D1586-98) 3. Laboratory Compaction Characteristics (ASTM D1557-98) 4. Determination of Percentage of Particles Smaller than No. 200 (ASTM D1140) 5. Direct Shear Test (ASTM D3080-98) The moisture content of a soil sample is a measure of the water content, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight of the sample. Density measurements were performed by ASTM method D1586-98 on soils collected by the Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils with a sampler driven with a manual hammer. This establishes the in situ density of retrieved samples. Laboratory compaction values 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 soil compaction conditions to be anticipated during any future grading operation. In addition, this relation helps to establish the relative compaction of existing fill soils. The -200 sieve size analysis helps to more precisely classify the tested soils based on their fine material content, and to provide qualitative information related. to engineering characteristics such as expansion potential, permeability, and shear strength. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 7 The expansion potential of on-site soils is determined, when necessary utilizing the Uniform Building Code Test Method for Expansive Soils (UBC Standard No. 29-2). In accordance with the UBC (Table 18-1-B), potentially expansive soils are classified as follows: EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL Oto 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 on-site fill soils and formational terrace materials have a very low expansion potential (EI less than 20). A direct shear test (ASTM D3080) was performed on an undisturbed soil sample in order to evaluate the strength characteristics of the terrace materials. The shear test was performed with a constant strain rate direct shear machine. The specimen tested was saturated and then sheared under various normal loads. Based on the laboratory test data, our observations of the primary soil types on the site, and our previous experience with laboratory testing of similar soils, our Geotechnical Engineer has assigned values for the angle of internal friction and cohesion to those soils that will provide significant lateral support or load bearing on the project. These values have been utilized in assigning the recommended bearing value as well as active and passive earth pressure design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California V. GENERAL GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION Job No. 07-9342 Page 8 San Diego County has been divided into 3 major geomorphic provinces: the Coastal Plain, Peninsular Ranges and Salton Trough. The Coastal Plain exists west of the Peninsular Ranges. The Salton Trough is east of the Peninsular Ranges. These divisions are the result of the basic geologic distinctions between the areas. Mesozoic metavolcanic, metasedimetary and plutonic rocks predominate in the Peninsular Ranges with primarily Cenozoic sedimentary rocks to the west and east of this central mountain range (Demere, 1997). In the Coastal Plain region, where the subject property is located, the "basement" consists of Mesozoic crystalline rocks. Basement rocks are also exposed as high relief areas (e.g., Black Mountain northeast of the subject property and Cowles Mountain near the San Carlos area of San Diego). Younger Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments lap up against these older features. The Cretaceous sediments form the local basement rocks on the Point Loma area. These sediments form a "layer cake" sequence of marine and non-marine sedimentary rock units, with some formations up to 140 million years old. Faulting related to the La Nacion and Rose Canyon Fault zones has broken up this sequence into a number of distinct fault blocks in the southwestern part of the county. Northwestern portions of the county are relatively undeformed by faulting (Demere, 1997). The Peninsular Ranges form the granitic spine of San Diego County. These rocks are primarily plutonic, forming at depth beneath the earth's crust 140 to 90 million years ago as the result of the subduction of an oceanic crustal plate beneath the North American continent. These rocks formed the much larger Southern California batholith. Metamorphism associated with the intrusion of these great granitic masses affected the much older sediments that existed near the surface over that period of time. These metasedimentary rocks remain as roof pendants of marble, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 9 schist, slate, quartzite and gneiss throughout the Peninsular Ranges. Locally, Miocene-age volcanic rocks and flows have also accumulated within these mountains (e.g., Jacumba Valley). Regional tectonic forces and erosion over time have uplifted and unroofed these granitic rocks to expose them at the surface (Demere, 1997). The Salton Trough is the northerly extension of the Gulf of California. This zone is undergoing active deformation related to faulting along the Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones, which are part of the major regional tectonic feature in the southwestern portion of California, the San Andreas Fault Zone. Translational movement along these fault zones has resulted in crustal rifting and subsidence. The Salton Trough, also referred to as the Colorado Desert, has been filled with sediments to depth of approximately 5 miles since the movement began in the early Miocene, 24 million years ago. The source of these sediments has been the local mountains as well as the ancestral and modern Colorado River (Demere, 1997). As indicated previously, the San Diego area is part of a seismically active region of California. It is on the eastern boundary of the Southern California Continental Borderland, part of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This region is part of a broad tectonic boundary between the North American and Pacific Plates. The actual plate boundary is characterized by a complex system of active, major, right- lateral strike-slip faults, trending northwest/southeast. This fault system extends eastward to the San Andreas Fault (approximately 70 miles from San Diego) and westward to the San Clemente Fault (approximately 50 miles off-shore from San Diego) (Berger and Schug, 1991). During recent history, the San Diego County area has been relatively quiet seismically. No fault ruptures or major earthquakes have been experienced in historic time within the San Diego area. Since earthquakes have been recorded by I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 10 instruments (since the 1930s), the San Diego area has experienced scattered seismic events with Richter magnitudes generally less than 4.0. During June 1985, a series of small earthquakes occurred beneath San Diego Bay, three of which had recorded magnitudes of 4.0 to 4.2. In addition, the Oceanside earthquake of July 13, 1986, located approximately 26 miles offshore of the City of Oceanside, had a magnitude of 5.3 (Hauksson and Jones, 1988). On June 15, 2004, a 5.3 magnitude earthquake occurred approximately 45 miles southwest of downtown San Diego (26 miles west of Rosarito, Mexico). Although this earthquake was widely felt, no significant damage was reported. In California, major earthquakes can generally be correlated with movement on active faults. As defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology (Hart, E.W., 1980), an "active" fault is one that has had ground surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). Additionally, faults along which major historical earthquakes have occurred (about the last 210 years in California) are also considered to be active (Association of Engineering Geologist, 1973). The California Division of Mines and Geology defines a "potentially active" fault as one that has had ground surface displacement during Quaternary time, that is, during the past 11,000 to 1.6 million years (Hart, E.W., 1980). VI. SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGIC DESCRIPTION A. Stratigraphy A geologic reconnaissance of the site was conducted to evaluate the on-site geology and potential of geologic hazards that might affect the site. Our reconnaissance drew upon information gathered from published and unpublished geologic maps and reports, as well as the results of our recent exploratory borings and handpits. i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 11 The subject site is located within a residential area along the west side of Tierra Del Oro Street, along the edge of a coastal bluff in the City of Carlsbad. The subject site is located in an area with moderate to high geologic risk (as identified by Map 12a-b and 13a of the "Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region --Volume II" [California Department of Boating and Waterways and San Diego Association of Governments])." No faults were shown to cross the site. The Rose Canyon Fault is located offshore approximately 5 miles west of the subject site. Our field investigation and review of pertinent geologic maps and reports indicate that the site is underlain by a limited amount of artificial fill soils/topsoils, marine terrace deposits of the Bay Point Formation (Qbp) and the Santiago Formation. Artificial Fill/ Topsoils (Qaf): A limited amount of fill/topsoils (less than 2 feet to approximately 7 feet) was encountered on the surface of the building pad of the site. The fill and topsoils are loose to medium dense and consist of light gray- brown to red-brown, silty, fine-to medium-grained sand with some roots and rock fragments. The fills/topsoils are considered to have a very low expansion potential. Refer to Figure· Nos. III and IV for details. Marine-Terrace Deposits (Qt)/ Bay Point Formation (Qbp):. The major portion of the site is underlain by Pleistocene-age marine-terrace deposits of the Bay Point Formation. These materials are generally medium dense to dense, however some of the near-surface terrace deposits were observed to be in a loose condition. The terrace deposits consist of gray-brown to red-brown to light gray and orange, fine- to coarse-grained sand with some silt. These materials are generally damp to moist, poorly to moderately well cemented, and are considered to have a low consolidation potential and very low expansion potential. Refer to Figure Nos. III and IV for details. I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 12 The marine-terrace deposits occur as relatively thin, very gently dipping deposits within 2 to 3 miles of the coast. One of the older maps (Wilson, 1972) shows these deposits as part of the Lindavista Formation. However, a more recent map (Weber, 1982) includes these deposits as part of the Bay Point Formation. Review of the Shoreline Erosion Assessment report also indicates that these deposits are mapped as part of the Bay Point Formation. Bay Point Formation is the currently accepted name. Santiago Formation (Ts,J: The site is underlain at depth by the Eocene-age Santiago Formation (Weber, 1982). Materials of the Santiago Formation, as encountered at the locations of exploratory borings B-1 and B-,2, and handpits HP-2 and HP-3, consist of dense, well-cemented, dark gray, silty, fine-grained sand. This portion of the Santiago Formation is considered to have low expansion and consolidation potentials. Refer to Figure No. III for details B. Structure The marine terrace deposits that underlie the site are considered to be massive and conformably overlie the massively bedded silty sandstone materials of the Santiago Formation. VII. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The following is a discussion of the geologic conditions and hazards common to the Carlsbad area of the County of San Diego, as well as project specific geologic information relating to development of the subject property. I.-: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California A. Local and Regional Faults Job No. 07-9342 Page 13 Rose Canyon Fault: The Rose Canyon Fault Zone (Mount Soledad and Rose Canyon Faults), located approximately 5 miles west of the subject site, 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 causing a 6.9-magnitude earthquake and considered microseismically active, although no significant recent earthquake is 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 (California Division of Mines and Geology --Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, 1999). Coronado Bank Fault: The Coronado Bank Fault is located approximately 20 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). An earthquake of 5.3 magnitude, 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 7.0- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 14 magnitude earthquake and is of great interest due to its close proximity to the greater San Diego metropolitan area. Elsinore Fault: The Elsinore Fault is located approximately 24 miles east and northeast of the site. The Elsinore 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 identified 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 6.0- magnitude quake 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 7.5. Recent study and logging of exposures in trenches in Glen Ivy Marsh across I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 15 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 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 6 to 7 (Rockwell, 1985). B. Other Geologic 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 magnitude 5.0. If a 5.0-magnitude 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 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 local seismic condition. Earthquakes of magnitude 5.0 Richter scale 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 Fault Zone. Although the chance of su~h an event is remote, it could occur within the useful life of the structure. The anticipated ground accelerations at the. site from earthquakes on faults within 100 miles of the site are provided in Appendix B. I I I I I I I I I ii I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 16 Liquefaction: The liquefaction of saturated sands during earthquakes can result in major damage to buildings. Liquefaction is the process in which soils are transformed into a dense fluid that will flow as a liquid when unconfined. It occurs principally in loose, saturated sands and silts when they are shaken by an earthquake of sufficient magnitude. On this site, the risk of liquefaction of foundation material due to seismic shaking is considered to be remote due to the density of the natural-ground material. No loss of soil strength is anticipated to occur at the site due to the design seismic event. Landslides: According to our geologic reconnaissance and a review of the geologic map (Weber, 1982) and aerial photographs (4-11-53, AXN-BM-99 and 100) there are no known or suspected ancient landslides located on the site. Tsunami: The site is located at an elevation between 3 and 4 feet above MSL at the base of the rip-rap protection and 39 feet above MSL east of the active beach. Based upon historical information on tsunami activity in Southern California, it is our opinion that the risk to the site from a tsunami is minimal. Groundwater: Perched water conditions were encountered at a depth of 16 feet at the location of boring B-1, 15½ feet at the location of boring B-2, 5 feet at the location of handpit HP-2, and 6.25 feet at the location of handpit HP-3. Significant groundwater problems are not expected to develop in the future --if the property is developed as planned with proper drainage provided for the surface of the lot, and subdrains for the basement. It should be kept in mind, however, that the proposed grading operations may change surface drainage patterns and/or reduce permeabilities due to the densification of compacted soils. 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. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 17 Positive drainage measures should be constructed to intercept and divert all surface runoff waters away from the structure and improvements planned for the site. The damage from such water is expected to be minor and cosmetic in nature, if good positive drainage is implemented and maintained at the completion of construction. C. Bluff Edge Evaluation It appears that the concealed bluff edge is located between elevation 15 and 20 feet above mean sea level (MSL). This point on the site is where the marine terrace deposits slope steeply down to the west and come in contact with the relatively flat surface of beach sand deposits and the underlying Santiago Formation. The bluff face is currently covered with rip-rap, so it is not visible. The bluff edge is located approximately 10 to 15 feet lower in elevation than the proposed structure and should not be affected by the proposed new construction on the building pad. The westerly edge of the proposed new home will be approximately 40 feet from the bluff edge. D. Bluff Stability Evaluation We have attached as Appendix E slope stability calculations performed for a typical cross section (A-A') passing through the subject property in an east-west direction and representing the proposed slope geometry. Slope stability analyses were performed utilizing the computer program GSTABL7 with Stedwin v.2.54, by Gregory Geotechnical Software. The cross section was prepared utilizing provided topographic contours and proposed architectural pad elevation information. Excavation log geologic information and soil laboratory testing results from. our referenced report were also utilized. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 18 The slope stability program calculates the required factors of safety against deep failure of the site and adjacent western slope down to the beach. The program searches many potential slide surfaces passing through a series of points at the toe, mid-face and upper face of the slope, and outletting in the upper building pad areas. The program calculated the lowest factors of safety for circular shaped slide surfaces. The program output consists of a graph depicting the 10 failure surfaces yielding the lowest calculated factors of safety. Soil strength values utilized in the slope stability analyses are reported below. These values are based on the results of our laboratory testing and our experience with similar soil types. Soil Type Unit Saturated Cohesion Friction Angle Wei ht Unit Wei ht Fill Soils 125 cf 130 cf 100 sf 32 de rees Beach De osits 120 cf 125 cf 25 35 de rees Marine Terrace 125 cf 130 cf so 35 de rees 125 cf 130 cf so sf 36 de rees 135 cf 138 cf 0 45 de rees The slope stability analysis for deep and shallow stability indicates that the proposed slopes will possess a factor of safety of at least 1.5 against deep and shallow potential failure surfaces. E. Rip-Rap Evaluation/Discussion The rip-rap was reportedly installed in the early 1980s following the severe winter storms of 1981. The existing rip rap has provided effective protection for at least the past 25 years. Prior to the installation of this shoreline protection, we have calculated a bluff :1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 19 recession rate of 0.33 feet/year in the past 99 years. Using a recession rate of 0.33 feet/year yields a projected, estimated unprotected sea cliff recession of 25 feet over a period of 75 years. As such, based on the current shore protection and the estimated recession rate, it is our opinion that the proposed structure will be protected for at least 75 years, the assumed designed life of the proposed structure. F. Flooding The site appears to be in compliance with chapter 21.110 of the City's Floodplain Management Regulations. The site is not located within or near the 100-year flood plain or any other special flood hazards. As stated in Section II of our report, the site is located at an elevation between 3 feet above MSL at the base of the rip rap protection and 39 feet above MSL east of the active beach. Based on historical information on tsunami activity in Southern California, it is our opinion that the risk from tsunami or sea surface super elevation rise at the site is minimal. G. Summary It is our opinion that a significant geologic hazard does not exist on the site. No evidence of faulting or landslide activity was encountered during our investigation of the site. The site is situated in a developed neighborhood of Carlsbad and in the event that severe earth shaking does occur from a seismic event, compliance with Uniform Building Code requirements for construction should help reduce structural damage. From a geotechnical standpoint, our investigation indicates that the proposed residence can be constructed at the site provided the recommendations in this report are followed. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California VIII. EARTHQUAKE RISK EVALUATION Job No. 07-9342 Page 20 Evaluation of earthquake risk requires that the effect of faulting on, and the mass stability of, a site be evaluated utilizing the M10 seismic design event (i.e., an earthquake event on an active fault with less than a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years). Further, sites are classified by CBC 2001 Edition into "soil profile types SA through SF," Soil profile types are defined by their shear velocities where shear velocity is the speed at which shear waves move through the upper 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) of the ground. These are: SA ⇒ Greater than 1500 m/s Ss ⇒ 760 m/s to 1500 m/s Sc ⇒ 360 m/s to 760 m/s So ⇒ 180 m/s to 360 m/s SE ⇒ Less than 180 m/s SF ⇒ Soil requiring specific soil evaluation By utilizing an earthquake magnitude M1o for a seismic event on an active fault, knowing the site class and ground type, a prediction of anticipated site ground acceleration, g, from these events can be estimated. The subject site has been assigned Classification "Sc," Additional active near-source information is provided in Section X of this report. An estimation of the peak ground acceleration· and the repeatable high ground acceleration (RHGA) likely to occur at the project site by the known significant local and regional faults within 100 miles of the site is also included in Appendix B. Also, a listing of the known historic seismic events that have occurred within 100 miles of the site at a magnitude of 5.0 or greater since the year 1800, and the probability of exceeding the experienced ground accelerations in the future based upon the historical record, is provided in Appendix C. Both Appendix B and Appendix C are tables generated from computer programs EQFault and EQSearch by Thomas F. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 21 Blake (2000) utilizing a digitized file of late-Quaternary California faults (EQFault) and a file listing of recorded earthquakes (EQSearch). Estimations of site intensity are also provided in these listings as Modified Mercalli Index values. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Index is provided as Appendix D. It is our opinion that a known "active" fault presents the greatest seismic risk to the subject site during the lifetime of the proposed residence. To date, the nearest known "active" faults to the subject site are the northwest-trending Rose Canyon Fault, Coronado Bank Fault and the Elsinore Fault. The owner should understand that there is some risk associated with any construction in the San Diego County area due to the proximity of the Rose Canyon Fault, which is considered "active". A structural engineer should be asked to review the ground acceleration possible at the site from the Rose Canyon Fault (see Appendix B). The maximum probable repeatable horizontal ground acceleration (RHGA) anticipated is 0.231g. The maximum probable peak horizontal ground acceleration anticipated is 0.356g. IX. GROUNDWATER Perched water conditions were encountered at a depth of 16 feet at the location of boring B-1, 15½ feet at the location of boring B-2, 5 feet at the location of handpit HP-2, and 6.25 feet at the location of handpit HP-3. Significant groundwater problems are not expected to develop in the future --if the property is developed as planned with proper drainage provided for the surface of the lot, and subdrains for the basement. It should be kept in mind that any required grading operations will change surface drainage patterns and/or reduce permeabilities due to the densification of I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 22 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 damage from 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. On properties such as the subject site where formational materials exist at relatively shallow depths, even normal landscape irrigation practices or periods of extended rainfall can result in shallow "perched" water conditions. The perching (shallow depth) accumulation of water on a low permeability surface can result in areas of persistent wetting and drowning of lawns, plants and trees. Resolution of such conditions, should they occur, may require site-specific design and construction of subdrain and shallow "wick" drain dewatering systems. Subsurface drainage with a properly designed and constructed subdrain system will be required along with continuous back drainage behind any proposed lower-level living area or garage walls, property line retaining walls, or any perimeter stem walls for raised-wood floors where the outside grades are higher than the crawl space grades. Furthermore, crawl spaces shall be provided with the proper cross- ventilation to help reduce the potential for moisture-related problems. 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. When site fill or formational soils are fine-grained and of low permeability, water problems may not become apparent for extended periods of time. ,----------------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 23 Water conditions, where suspected or encountered during grading operations, should be evaluated and remedied by the project civil and geotechnical consultants. The project developer and property owner, however, must realize that post- construction appearances of groundwater may have to be dealt with on a site- specific basis. X. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following preliminary conclusions and preliminary 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 this area of the City of Carlsbad. We found the site to be underlain by medium dense to dense formational terrace materials with less than 2 feet to approximately 7 feet of loose to medium dense fill soils/ topsoils that will not provide adequate bearing strength for the proposed structure and improvements. As such, we recommend that the fill soils and any loose terrace materials (within the upper 7 feet) be removed and recompacted as part of site preparation in the building pad area prior to the addition of any new fill or structural improvements. The underlying formational terrace soils and formational soils of the at-depth Santiago Formation have good bearing strength characteristics, and are suitable for support of the proposed structural loads. Excavation for the basement will result in the removal of most of the existing fills/topsoils at the proposed basement location, however, approximately 2 feet of loose sandy terrace soil may require removal and recompaction below the basement elevation. In addition, shoring may be required along the north, south and east property lines if temporary steep cuts at the recommended inclinations are not allowed due to space constraints. This is especially a concern in the southwest corner of the proposed structure, where the existing fill soils have settled, causing I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 24 separations between the house and wood deck. Special care should be given to excavations made along the south property line walls. As indicated previously, final construction plans were not yet available for our review at the time of report preparation. When final plans become available we should be provided with the opportunity to review the project plans to see that our recommendations are adequately incorporated in the plans. A. 1. 2. Preparation of Soils for Site Development Clearing and Stripping: The existing structures and vegetation observed on the site should be removed. Any buried objects, abandoned utility lines, or particular soft soil areas, etc., which might be discovered in the construction areas, shall be removed and the excavation properly backfilled with properly compacted fill. Holes resulting from the removal of root systems or other buried obstructions that extend below the planned grades should be cleared and backfilled with properly compacted fill. Treatment of Existing Fill Soils/Topsoils: In order to provide suitable founda- tion support for the proposed residence and associated improvements, we recommend that all existing fill soils, topsoils and loose sandy terrace soils (within the upper 7 feet) that remain after the necessary site excavations have been made be removed and recompacted. The recompaction work should consist of (a) removing all existing fill soil, topsoils and loose sandy terrace soils down to medium dense to dense formational terrace deposit materials; (b) scarifying, moisture conditioning, and compacting the exposed natural subgrade soils; and (c) cleaning and replacing the fill material as compacted structural fill. The areal extent and depth required to remove the fills is anticipated to be up to 7 feet but should be determined by our I I I I I ~1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 25 representatives during the excavation work based on their examination of the soils being exposed. Excavation for the basement will result in the removal of most of the existing fill materials at the proposed basement location. Approximately 2 feet of loose sandy terrace soil, however, may also require removal and recompaction below the basement elevation. The lateral extent of the excavation shall be at least 5 feet beyond the edge of the perimeter foundations and any areas to receive exterior improvements. In the proposed pool area, existing fill soils will require extensive removal and proper recompaction along the western slope. The fill will most likely have to be retained by walls founded on deepened conventional foundations or caissons. Where the organic/root content of the fill materials precludes their use as compacted structural fills, imported soils may be required. Imported soils should have similar strength characteristics as on-site soils and should be approved by our firm prior to importation. Any unsuitable materials (such as oversize rubble, clayey soils, and/or organic matter) should be selectively removed as indicated by our representative and disposed of off-site. Any rigid improvements founded on the existing loose 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. Any exterior area to receive concrete improvements should be verified for compaction and moisture within 48 hours prior to concrete placement or during the fill placement if the thickness of fill exceeds 1 foot. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 26 3. Subgrade Preparation: After the site has been cleared, stripped, and the required excavations made, the exposed subgrade soils in 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. 4. 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 to at least 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. 5. Material for Fill: All 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 should be a low-expansion potential (Expansion Index of 50 or less per ASTM D4829-95). 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 if the fill soils are compacted with heavy compaction equipment ( or 3 inches in greatest dimension if compacted with lightweight equipment). All materials for use as fill should be approved by our representative prior to importing to the site. 6. Fill Compaction: All structural fill should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent based upon ASTM D1557-98. Fill material should be spread and compacted in uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Before compaction begins, the fill sho·uld 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 1-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 27 7. B. 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. For medium to highly expansive soils, the moisture content should be at least 5 percent over optimum. No uncontrolled fill soils should remain on the site 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. Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill: All backfill soils placed in utility trenches or behind retaining walls should be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. 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 should be low expansive, with an Expansion Index equal to or lower than SO. Design Parameters for Proposed Foundations 8. Footings: We recommend that the proposed residence be supported on conventional, individual-spread and/or continuous footing foundations bearing entirely on u_ndisturbed formational materials and/or entirely on well- compacted fill material. All footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade. If the proposed footings are located closer than 8 feet inside the top of slopes, they should be deepened I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 28 to 1 ½ feet below a line beginning at a point 8 feet horizontally inside the slopes and projected outward and downward, parallel to the face of the slope and into firm soils (see Figure No. V). Footings located adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing surfaces situated below an imaginary 1.5:1.0 plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the adjacent utility trench. 9. Footing Bearing Values: At the recommended depths, footings may be designed for allowable bearing pressures of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for combined dead and live loads and 3,300 psf for all loads, including wind or seismic. The footings should, however, have a minimum width of 12 inches. 10. Foundation 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 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. I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 29 11. Seismic Design Criteria: Site-specific seismic design criteria to calculate the base shear needed for the design of the residential structure are presented in the following table. The design criteria was obtained from the California Building Code (2001 edition) and is based on the distance to the closest active fault and soil profile classification. The nearest active fault is approximately 5 miles from the site. Parameter Value Reference Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.40 Table 16-1 Soil Profile Type Sc Table 16-J Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.40Na Table 16-Q Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.56Nv Table 16-R Near-Source Factor, Na 1.0 Table 16-5 Near-Source Factor, Nv 1.08 Table 16-T Seismic Source Type B Table 16-U 12. 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 acting against the foundations may be used in design provided the footings are poured neat against the adjacent undisturbed formational terrace materials and/or 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 of the footing and any shear keys. 13. Settlement: Settlements under building loads are expected to be within tolerable limits for the proposed residence. For footings designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the preceding ,------,, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 30 paragraphs, we anticipate that total settlements should not exceed 1 inch and that post-construction differential angular rotation should be less than 1/240. C. Concrete Slab-on-grade Criteria 14. Minimum Floor Slab Reinforcement: Based on our experience, we have found that, for various reasons, floor slabs occasionally crack, causing brittle surfaces such as ceramic tiles to become damaged. 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. 14.1 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. The slabs should be underlain by a 2- inch-thick layer of clean sand (S.E. = 30 or greater) overlying a moisture retardant membrane over 2 inches of sand. Slab subgrade soil 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. 14.2 Preferably, any proposed basement slabs should be provided with a waterproofing membrane such as Paraseal on a 4-inch gravel base, per the manufacturer's instructions. The owner should be consulted as to the degree of moisture protection desired. 14.3 Following placement of any concrete floor slabs, sufficient drying time must be allowed prior to placement of floor coverings. Premature I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 31 placement of floor coverings may result in degradation of adhesive materials and loosening of the finish floor materials. 15. Concrete Isolation Joints: We recommend the project Civil/Structural Engineer incorporate isolation joints and 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. 16. Slab Moisture Emission: 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. The thicker the plastic, the stronger the resistance will be against puncturing. Although polyethylene (visqueen) products are commonly used, products such as Vaporshield possess higher tensile strength and are more specifically designed for and intended to retard moisture transmission into concrete slabs. The use of Vaporshield or equivalent is highly recommended when a structure is intended for moisture-sensitive floor coverings or uses. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 32 16.1 Vapor retarder joints must be lapped and sealed with mastic or the manufacturer's recommended tape. To provide protection of the moisture retarder, a layer of at least 2 inches of clean sand on top and 2 inches at the bottom should also be provided. No heavy equipment, stakes or other puncturing instruments should be used on top of the liner before or during concrete placement. 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. 16.2 The vapor retarders are not waterproof. They are intended to help prevent or reduce vapor transmission and capillary migration through the soil into the pores of concrete slabs. Waterproofing systems must supplement vapor retarders if full waterproofing is desired. The owner should be consulted to determine the specific level of protection required. 17. Exterior Slab Reinforcement: As a minimum for protection of on-site improvements, we recommend that all nonstructural concrete slabs (such as patios, sidewalks, etc.), be at least 4 inches in actual thickness, founded on properly compacted and tested fill or dense native formation and underlain by no more than 3 inches of clean leveling sand, with No. 3 bars at 18-inch centers, both ways, at the center of the slab, and contain adequate isolation and control joints. The performance of on-site improvements can be greatly affected by soil base preparation and the quality of construction. ~t is therefore important that all improvements are properly designed and constructed for the existing soil conditions. The improvements should not be built on loose soils or fills placed without our observation and testing. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 33 For exterior slabs with the minimum shrinkage reinforcement, control joints should be placed at spaces no farther than 15 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. 18. Concrete Pavement: Driveway pavement, consisting of Portland cement concrete at least 5½ inches in thickness, may be placed on properly compacted subgrade soils. The concrete should be at least 3,500 psi compressive strength, with control joints no farther than 15 feet apart. 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, 2003 Edition. Subgrade soil for the driveway should be compacted to at least 90 percent of Maximum Dry Density. D. Slopes No new significant slopes, other than temporary basement wall slopes, are proposed for the project. The existing approximately 10-to 15-foot-high slope along the west side of the property consists of loose fill soils that will require complete removal and proper recompaction. If these soils are not recompacted, any new improvements will require deepened footings or caissons. 19. Permanent Slopes: Any new cut or fill slopes up to 15 feet in height should be constructed at an inclination of 2.0: 1.0 (horizontal to vertical). 20. Temporary Slopes: A representative of Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. must observe any steep temporary slopes during construction. In the event that soils and formational material comprising a slope are not as ,-------- ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 34 anticipated, any required slope design changes would be presented at that time. Proposed temporary slopes to be graded as part of basement construction should be stable for a maximum slope height of 14 feet in medium dense natural soils at a ratio of 0. 75: 1.0 (horizontal to vertical) and at a slope ratio of 1.0: 1.0 in the upper 8 feet for existing loose surface soils or properly compacted fill soils. No soil stockpiles or surcharge may be placed within a horizontal distance of 7 feet from the excavation. Temporary shoring/underpinning or special phased construction procedures will most likely be needed to ensure that the adjacent properties to the north and south will not be affected by the basement excavation or where the recommended temporary slopes can not be constructed due to surcharge or space constraints. 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. 21. Slope Top/Face Performance: The soils that occur in close proximity to the top or face of even properly compacted fill or dense natural ground cut slopes often possess poor lateral stability. The degree of lateral and vertical deformation depends on the inherent expansion and strength characteristics of the soil types comprising the slope, slope steepness and height, loosening of slope face soils by burrowing rodents, and irrigation and veget~tion maintenance practices, as well as the quality of compaction of fill soils. Structures and other improvements could suffer damage due to these soil I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 35 movement factors if not properly designed to accommodate or withstand such movement. 22. Slope Top Structure Performance: Rigid improvements such as top-of-slope walls, columns, decorative planters, concrete flatwork, swimming pools and other similar types of improvements can be expected to display varying degrees of separation typical of improvements constructed at the top of a slope. The separations result primarily from slope top lateral and vertical soil deformation processes. These separations often occur regardless of being underlain by cut or fill slope material. Proximity to a slope top is often the primary factor affecting the degree of separations occurring. Typical and to-be-expected separations can range from minimal to up to 1 inch or greater in width. In order to reduce the effect of slope-top lateral soil deformation, we recommend that the top-of-slope improvements be designed with flexible connections and joints in rigid structures so that the separations do not result in visually apparent cracking damage and/or can be cosmetically dressed as part of the ongoing property maintenance. These flexible connections may include "slip joints" in wrought iron fencing, evenly spaced vertical joints in block walls or fences, control joints with flexible caulking in exterior flatwork improvements, etc. In addition, use of planters to provide separation between top-of-slope hardscape such as patio slabs and pool decking from top-of-slope walls can aid greatly in reducing· cosmetic cracking and separations in exterior improvements. Actual materials and techniques would need to, be determined by the project architect or the landscape architect for individual properties. Steel dowels placed in flatwork may prevent noticeable vertical Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 36 differentials, but if provided with a slip-end they may still allow some lateral displacement. E. Retaining Wall Design Criteria 23. 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 thari 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 a retaining wall is surcharged by sloping backfill, the design active earth pressure shall be based on the appropriate Equivalent Fluid Weight presented in the following table. Height of Slope/Height of Wall* Slope Ratio 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00( +} 2.0:1.0 { existit19 slope) 42 48 50 52 *To determine design active earth pressures for ratios intermediate to those presented, interpolate between the stated values. 24. Design Parameters -Restrained: Retaining walls designed for a restrained condition should utilize a uniform pressure equal to 8xH (eight times the total height of retained soil, considered in pounds per square foot) considered as acting everywhere on the back of the wall in addition to the design Equivalent Fluid Weight. The soil pressure produced by any footings, improvements, or any other surcharge placed within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the retaining portion of the wall should be included in the wall design pressure. The recommended lateral soil pressures are based on the assumption that no loose soils or soil wedges will be retained by the I I I I I I I I I 11 I II I 'I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 37 retaining wall. Backfill soils should consist of low-expansive soils with an 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 projected up from the heel of the retaining wall. Shoring walls may be designed based on the described equivalent fluid weights already indicated. If soil parameters are used, we recommend that a friction angle of 32 degrees, a cohesion of 50 psf, and a unit weight of 128 pcf be used. 25. Surcharge Loads: Any loads placed on the active wedge behind a cantilever wall should be included in the design by multiplying the load weight by a factor of 0.32. For a restrained wall, the lateral factor shall be 0.52. 26. Wall Drainage: Proper subdrains and free-draining backwall material or board drains (such as J-drain or Miradrain) shall 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. The architectural plans should clearly indicate that subdrains for any lower- level walls be placed at an elevation at least 1 foot below the bottom of the lower-level slabs. At least 0.5-percent gradient should be provided to the subdrain. 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 or equivalent. 27. 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 38 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 (if needed), drain depth below interior floor or yard surface, pipe percent slope to the outlet, etc. F. Site Drainage Considerations 28. Surface Drainage: Adequate measures should be taken to properly finish- grade the lot after the residence 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 drainage direction for this area or into properly designed and approved drainage facilities provided by the project civil engineer. Roof gutters and downspouts should be installed on the residence, 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 of the bearing soils under the footings and floor slabs. Failure to observe this recommendation could result in undermining and possible differential settlement of the structure or other improvements on the site or cause other moisture-related problems. Currently, the Uniform Building Code requires a minimum 2-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. 29. Erosion Control: Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken c;1t all times during and after construction to prevent surface runoff waters from entering footing excavations or ponding on finished building pad areas. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California ---~-----~ Job No. 07-9342 Page 39 30. 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 residence 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. G. General Recommendations 31. 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 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 ag~inst erosion and sediment transport at all times. The storage of all construction materials and equipment must be protected against any potential release of pollutants into the environment. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 40 32. Pro;ect Start Up Notification: In order to reduce any work delays during site development, this firm should be contacted at least 24 hours and preferably 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 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.) 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 and Geologic Reconnaissance" 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 41 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. 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 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 (if needed), drain depth below interior floor or yard surface, pipe percent slope to the outlet, etc. 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. ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Proposed Moss Residence Carlsbad, California Job No. 07-9342 Page 42 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 on the site; 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. 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 lob No. 07-9342 will expedite a reply to your inquiries. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC. @;_f#~ 3ay:Heiser Senior Project Geologist ~ C.E.G. 999cexp. 3-31-oci1/R.G. 3391 Jaime A. Cerros, P.E. R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007 Senior Geotechnical Engineer > I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REFERENCES JOB NO. 07-9342 APRIL 2007 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, Published July 1973, p. 44. Berger & Schug, 1991, Probabilistic Evaluation of Seismic Hazard in the San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Region, Environmental Perils, San Diego Region, San Diego Association of Geologists. Bryant, W.A. and E.W. Hart, 1973 (10th Revision 1997), Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. California Division of Mines and Geology -State of California Earthquake Fault Zones, La Jolla Quadrangle, November 1, 1991. City of San Diego Seismic Safety Element, revised 1995, Map Sheets 25 and 29. Clarke, S.H., H.G. Greene, M.P. Kennedy and J.G. Vedder, 1987, Geologic Map of the Inner-Southern California Continental Margin in H.G. Greene and M.P. Kennedy (editors),.California Continental Margin Map Series, Map 1A, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology, scale 1:250,000. Crowell, J.C., 1962, Displacement along the San Andreas Fault, California; Geologic Society of America Special Paper 71, 61 p. Gray, C.H., Jr., M.P. Kennedy and P.K. Morton, 1971, Petroleum Potential of Southern Coastal and Mountain Area, California, American Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 15, p. 372-383. Greene, H.G., 1979, Implication of Fault Patterns in the Inner California Continental Borderland 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; California Division 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. Hauksson, E. and L. Jones, 1988, The July 1988 Oceanside (ML =5.3) Earthquake Sequence in the Continental Borderland, Southern California Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 78, p. 1885-1906. Hileman, J.A., C.R. 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., and S.H. Clarke, 2001, Late Quaternary Faulting in San Diego Bay and Hazard to the Coronado Bridge, California Geology, July/August 2001. 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-l0A. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 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-l0B. Kennedy, M.P., S.H. Clarke, H.G. Greene, R.C. Jachens, V.E. Langenheim, J.J. More and D.M. Burns, 1994, A Digital (GIS) Geological/Geophysical/Seismological Data Base for the San Diego 30-x60' Quadrangle, California --A New Generation, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 26, p. 63. Kennedy, M.P. and G.W. Moore, 1971, Stratigraphic Relations of Upper Cretaceous and Eocene Formations, San Diego Coastal Area, California, American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 55, p. 709-722. Kennedy, M.P., S.S. Tan, R.H. Chapman and G.W. Chase, 1975, Character and Recency of Faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Special Report 123, 33 pp. 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. Lindvall, S.C. and T.K. Rockwell, 1995, Holocene Activity of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone in San Diego, California, Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 100, no. B-12, p. 24121-24132. McEuen, R.B. and C.J. Pinckney, 1972, Seismic Risk in San Diego; Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History, Vol. 17, No. 4, 19 July 1972. Moore, G.W. and M.P. Kennedy, 1975, Quaternary Faults in San Diego Bay, California, U.S.Geological Survey Journal of Research, v. 3, p. 589-595. 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-Merifleld 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. Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in Southern Part of San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Calif. Div. of Mines and Geology Open-file Report 95-03 (Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 33). 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. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1953, Aerial Photographs AXN-8M-99 and 100. I I I I I I :I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~D 1TE VICINITY MAP Thomas Bros Guide -San Diego County pg. 1126 Moss Residence 5015 Tierra Del Sol Carlsbad, CA. r~-------.1 F Figure No. I Job No. 07-9342 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NOTE: This Plot Plan is not to be used for legal purposes. Locations and dimensions are approxi- mate. Actual property dimensions and locations of utilities may be obtained from the Approved Building Plans or the nAs-Built" Grading Plans. I,, I ' ,e, ~~ ~ 0.: 0.: ,-------------------------------, I ' ' !~~ .8 ~ ,. ~, ~. I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I beach X 0.2 / ______ beach~--- ,--0.1 beach X 0.1 beach X 0.1 L __ _ s 0 5 10 20 SCALE: 1' = 20 ' 07-9342-p2 A I I I I I I I I I beach X 3.1 t~.l •)/6:54'10"£ 22~.'f/9".9 grf 24.2 grd 31.2 I I Reference: This Plot Plan was prepared from an existing electronically transferred CAD file by Hoffman Planning and Engineering and from on-sfte field reconnaissance performed by GEi. I I I I I I I I I I I CONSTANTINE RESIDENCE I I MOSS RESIDENCE 8Un.J)ABL£ AR£A 2900 SF:I: Vic-L 1 DI MARE RESIDENCE II II ~ 9 I I I tc unk. 39.5 4• o \ pw: pipe B-3 ~ ~ llt T 'a ; ~ :a: fl 39.2 ~-3 LEGEND A HP-4 A' I ASSUMED PROPERTY BOUNDARY CROSS SECTION LOCATION ~ ♦ B-2 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY HANDPIT APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING 0 I / / , a I 0 °' 0 iD 0 < °' °' 1!!:! ,-.. \ / ; ',l ...J I I I I I I I I I I LEGEND: RIGHT OF WAY PRO.ECT 90IJNOARY DOST. HARDSCAP£ DOST. BULDING £XJS11NG ElEVA 110H DOST. caiTOUR DOSTING RIP RAP PR<P. STRINGLJNE: PR<P. BUILDAB/.£ AMA X 38.3 ----cs---- l J;;c Jf ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 210-02<r16-00 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 15 OF TIERRA DEL ORO SUBDIVISION, arr OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN OEGO, STAIE" OF CAUFORN/A, AS SHO'M>I ON IIAP 2052 F1LED IN TH£ OFF1C£ OF THE: COUNTY R£CORO£R OF SAN OEGO COUNTY, FEBRUARY 4, 1954. D<CO'TING TH£RUROII THAT PORTIOH NOW OR H£RUOFOR£ L't1NG saow THE: IEAN TIDE: UN£ OF THE: PACIFIC OCCAN. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY: FIELD SURll£Y BY WAL T£RS LAND SIJRl,£'t1NG IN FEBRUARY 2007. PLOT PLAN and GEOLOGIC MAP Moss Residence 5015 Tierra Del Sol Carlsbad, CA. Figure No. II Job No. 07-9342 •~ r.eotechnlcal ~I.-, Exploration, Inc. ~ :;.,---April 2007 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,._ I g ~ rEQUIPt.ENT DIMENSION & lYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED Limited Access Auger Drill Rig 6-inch diameter Boring 2-8-07 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWA TERI SEEPAGE DEPTH LOGGED BY ± 26' Mean Sea Level 16 feet JKH FIELD DESCRIPTION AND ~ 1l:'[ ~ ~'[ CLASSIFICATION ...,: w 0-~~ ::i:-u. _, wa: ~!'.= j~ ~ Cl) ~~ :::i~ i!: 0 DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS a) cj ~~ .!l Cl) -Cl) a.. ~ I (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) Cl) &~ i~ w t~ zW 0 Cl) :::i -0 SAND, ne-to medium-grained. Loose to SP medium dense. Damp. Light orange and red-brown. 2 FILL (Qaf) 4.9 97.9 4 6 SAND, fine-to medium-grained with some coarse SP rock fragments. Dense. Damp. Light gray-brown. 8 TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) 4.2 102.9 10 -4% passing #200 sieve. -Bag sample from 6' -12'. 13.8 110.0 -3% passing #200 sieve. 12 -sands are poorly cemented. ·:.\•. ·:~ .. · 14 .-~:~t\. . -~ ,,:_ .. •• ;ir,:·: . ·· .. :. ~-:· SAND, fine-to coarse-grained; poorly cemented. SP 16 Dense. Very moist to wet. Light gray and orange. 24.5 93.3 TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) -rched water 16'. 18 SIL TY SAND, fine-grained with slight clay binder; well cemented. Dense. Damp. Dark gray. SANTIAGO FORMATION Tsb 20 Bottom@ 17.5' .Y JOBNME PERCHED WATER TABLE Proposed Moss Residence ~ LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION [I] IN-PLACE SAMPLE 5015 Tierra del Oro Street, Carlsbad, CA ■ JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC DRIVE SAMPLE 0 FIELD DENSITY TEST 07-9342 ::,=-FIGURE NUMBER ~ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST Illa '-- "I l i-: c:i c:i + ~ ci-i'.=q ·d WW ~!z -'W ci5 ::i: ~ Cl) a...::c: zo ~ ~ !~ w~ _,a 0-w (.) a) (.) 80 24 3" 12 2" 94 60 3" 63 2" 94/ 85 10" 3" 100 2" LOG No. B-1 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION Limited Access Auger Drill Rig 6-inch diameter Boring SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWA TERI SEEPAGE DEPTH ± 26' Mean Sea Level 15.5 feet FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION g ~ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ~ ! (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) -~ X - :=1rl SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained, with some roots and coarse rock fragments. Loose to medium dense. Damp. Light gray and red-brown. FILL (Qaf) 6 j ru SAND fi t . d 'th _ :-\//· , ne-o coarse-grame w1 some 8 _ \/t pebbles; poorly cemented. Dense. Damp. Light j (~;~ gray and ora;;~CE DEPOSITS (Qt) 1 0 -/ // ~ -5% passing #200 sieve. -.;,,._:f ·· .• TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) -2% passing #200 sieve. cri c.j cri :::i SM SP -I 20 __:: SIL TY SAND, fine-grained with slight clay binder; 1 _ l well cemented. Dense. Damp. Dark gray. SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsb) ~----=-...c.c..--~~~~~~--~~----' -Bottom @ 18.5' ~ w ii:-g: □-w a:: ~~ ;~ ~~ • w -~ ~o 2.7 95.5 3.6 101.4 DATE LOGGED 2-8-07 LOGGED BY JKH ~ ~'R ;;-::id~ ::::i;-~q ~~ ~~ ::::!:--::::!: ;;ilen -en ~'5 I--g~ o..O Wal? O::::!: 0- 78 92 ~ -£. ~ + ·cl z en i~ w (.) " c::i i-= ~ 0~ wen --'W ~z 0..5 __. a i~ CD (.) 34 3" 21 2" 64+/ 3" 10" 52 2" 50+/ 3" 6" 2" 50+/ 6" 8 ~ ,......_....____. ...... __________________ ..._ ...... _ __._ __ ..._ ______ ....._ _____ .....____, ~ & § ! 9 ~ i ~ \.. Y. ~ [I] ■ ~ ~ PERCHED WATER TABLE LOOSE BAG SAMPLE IN-PLACE SAMPLE DRIVE SAMPLE FIELD DENSITY TEST STANDARD PENETRATION TEST JOBNAt.E Proposed Moss Residence SITE LOCATION 5015 Tierra del Oro Street, Carlsbad, CA JOBNU~ER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOGNo. 07-9342 :g&=·· B-2 FIGURE NU~ER lllb ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION Limited Access Auger Drill Rig 6-inch diameter Boring SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWA TERI SEEPAGE DEPTH :t 39' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered .,_: u... ~ w 0 .~~·7 : -✓.~:,, -:~:·il: -~ ~ ~ 2 -.... -.. 4 - 6 - - - 8 - FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained, with some roots and rock fragments. Loose to medium dense. Dry. Red-brown. i\ TOPSOIL SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained; moderately well cemented. Dense. Damp. Light red-brown. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) -12% passing #200 sieve. en cj en ::i SM f SP -~ -no sample recovery. 10 - - 12 - 14 - - - 20 - -SAND, fine-to medium-grained with some coarse -SP- rock fragments; poorly cemented. Dense. Damp to wet. Light gray and orange. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) ~ w rr-g: □-WO:: ~~ ~~ ~~ :zo •w _:::::;; ~o 3.5 106.7 2.6 103.2 DATE LOGGED 2-8-07 LOGGED BY JKH ~ ~'R: ::d~ c:i :::::;;-~q ::, ::, j~ ::::EI-en::::. -en -en i~ z'o ~~ w;11. 0 - 87 13.0 122.0 94 l + ·d z en i~ WU ~ c:i .,_: ci-~~ ~ fil c..5 ..... a !~ mu 41 3" 62 2" 57 3" 50/ 2" 5" 84+/ 3" 11" 62 2" g - ~-------------B_o_tt_o_m_@ __ 18_' _____________ ...._ _________ ....__..__ _ _.__...__ ____ _.____. _y JOB NAME PERCHED WATER TABLE Proposed Moss Residence ~ LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION [I] IN-PLACE SAMPLE 5015 Tierra del Oro Street, Carlsbad, CA ■ JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOGNo. DRIVE SAMPLE 0 FIELD DENSITY TEST 07-9342 ;:,=-B-3 FIGURE NUMBER ~ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST Ille "--~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I rEQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION DATE LOGGED Hand Tools 2.5' X 2.5' X 3' Handpit 2-14-07 SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH LOGGED BY :t 19' Mean Sea Level Not Encountered JB FIELD DESCRIPTION AND ~ 12:'[ ~ ~'[ CLASSIFICATION t;:: w o_ :::::E~ :::::e-w a:: ~~ _, w u:i u~ ::::,~ j~ :I: 0 _, DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ~~ I-ID Q. ci ~~ ;;tl en -en Q. ~ ! (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) u:i &~ i~ w t~ zW 0 en ::j _o -~ Approximately 6 feet of fill above top of excavation. -SIL TY SAND, fine-to coarse-grained. Loose. SM -Damp. Dark red-brown. ---TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) 1 - - --same as above; becomes medium dense. - 2-loo - I• -same as above; becomes dense. I, - I• - 3 - - - -Bottom@3' 4- ------ 5 - - - - - - - .Y JOB NAME PERCHED WATER TABLE Proposed Moss Residence ~ LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION [I] IN-PLACE SAMPLE 5015 Tierra del Oro Strnt, Carlsbad, CA ■ DRIVE SAMPLE JOB NUt.eER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC 0 FIELD DENSITY TEST 07-9342 C51=-FIGURE NUMBER ~ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST Hid "" " l .,_: ci ci + ~i d~ ~q -d wen -:::::E ~ en -JW ~'15 Q. :I: ~ i5 ga !~ w~ 0-WU IDU LOGNo. HP-1 .J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g ~ ~ & § i § ~ I 'EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION Hand Tools 2.5' X 3' X 5.5' Handpit SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH ± 18' Mean Sea Level 5feet ------4------- 5 --. - _:.:-.. · -6 -- -- - FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained. Loose. Moist. Dark red-brown. FILL (Qaf) SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained. Very loose. Damp to moist. Yellow-brown. BEACH DEPOSITS (Qb) -becomes saturated. cr.i c.:i cr.i :::i SM SM ,-laver of cobble (to 6" in diameter) ta> 5.25'. ISM- 7 SIL TY SAND/ SANDY SIL t fine-grained. Firm to ~ ML 1 stiff. Very moist to wet. Gray. SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsb) Bottom @ 5.5' DATE LOGGED 'I 2-14-07 LOGGED BY JB - ~ ~i ~ ~i ~ i--: ci w 0-:d:l:! ::::;;-ci . ~ 0-w a:: ~~ ~tj +_ d 0~ ::> ::> j~ wen ~~ ::::;; I--::::. ~ en 3::!z --'W ~~ -en -en ~'5 Q.. :I: ;; g~ ~§ 0 ::> !~ ,o • w wae --' 0 ~::::;; ~o o-ID 0 ll----'-----.......&.------------------.i..........1.-.....1..--.,__-.i....._ ....... _.,__ _ __,__ ....... __,J y_ JOB NAME PERCHED WATER TABLE Proposed Moss Residence ~ LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION [I] IN-PLACE SAMPLE 5015 Tierra del Oro Street, Carlsbad, CA ■ JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No. DRIVE SAMPLE 0 07-9342 111 =--HP-2 FIELD DENSITY TEST FIGURE NUMBER ... ~ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST Ille ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g ~ la (!) 2 (!) "' ~ ;,; a, r EQUIPMENT DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION Hand Tools, Hand Auger 2.5' X 2.5' X 6.5' Handplt/ Auger He SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER/ SEEPAGE DEPTH t 18' Mean Sea Level 6.25 feet -- -► •I 3-,, ----4 - ----5- ----- 6=,· -:_ .. _ .... . _ ........ . -7 - - FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) Terrace Deposits exposed 2 feet from backcut. SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained. Very loose to loose. Moist. Dark red-brown. FILL (Qaf) -small roots; plastic bag. SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained. Very loose. Moist. Yellow-brown. BEACH DEPOSITS (Qb) Hand augered below 4 feet. en u en ::i SM SM 1\-small oebbles (uo to 1/2" in diameter). r>-- h SIL TY SAND/ SANDY SIL l fine-grained. Firm to r>-- stiff. Very moist to wet. Gray. I SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsb) I Bottom @ 6.5' ~ w ~'R 0~ wa:: ~~ U:::::> ~~ ~~ •w ~:::;; ~o DATE LOGGED " ~le 2-14-07 LOGGED BY JB ~ ~'R l ""' c:i ::!el~ c:i 0-:::;;~ ~cj + ~ :::::> :::::> j~ z~ wen :::;;1-u5:::. I-..JW -en -en z'l5 t ~ ~a a..13 Ii:-i~ !~ 0~ w;ie o~ w u CDU ,..__...._____. ....... __________________ .__ ______________ ....__...,_ _ _..__...._ __ y_ JOB NAME PERCHED WATER TABLE Proposed Moss Residence ~ LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION ill IN-PLACE SAMPLE 5015 Tierra del Oro Street, Carlsbad, CA ■ JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No. DRIVE SAMPLE 0 07-9342 1fSei =·· HP-3 FIELD DENSITY TEST FIGURE NUMBER ~ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST lllf ~ '-~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g ~ § & ~ :,: "' EQUIPMENT Hand Tools DIMENSION & TYPE OF EXCAVATION 2' X 2.5' X 5' Handpit SURFACE ELEVATION :t 21' Mean Sea Level GROUNDWA TERI SEEPAGE DEPTH Not Encountered i-: u. ::i:: fu 0 - 3 - - I• FIELD DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS (Grain size, Density, Moisture, Color) 7 feet of FILL below deck pad elevation down to "\top of bluff. SIL TY SAND, fine-to medium-grained. Loose. Damp. Light red-brown. FILL (Qaf) -small roots. Terrace contact@ -18' above MSL. SILTY SAND, fine-to coarse-grained. Medium dense. Damp to moist. Dark red-brown. TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) 4 -:: -small pebbles (to 1" in diameter) @ 4'. -- ---5 -- - 6 -Bottom@S' - en c_j en ::::i ISM SM ~ w ~'R o_ w ix: ~~ ~~ ~~ ;t~ 'w ~o DATE LOGGED 2-14-07 LOGGED BY JB ~ ~'R ::;; M:! ::;;- => ~ ~~ ~en -en li:o i~ o::. l ci i-: ci + ~ 0 -~q -d ~lz ~en _::;; ~ en o...w ~"15 ii W;#! ~~ _,a 0-a:,(.) ,,___.._ ....... _,_ _________________ .....__..._......_ __ .__ ______ ......____. __ .....__.....___, y_ JOBNAt.E PERCHED WATER TABLE Proposed Moss Residence ~ LOOSE BAG SAMPLE SITE LOCATION [I] IN-PLACE SAMPLE 5015 Tierra del Oro Street, Carlsbad, CA ■ JOB NUMBER REVIEWED BY LDR/JAC LOG No. DRIVE SAMPLE 0 07-9342 ;,-HP-4 FIELD DENSITY TEST FIGURE NUMBER Ellplordon, Inc. ~ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST lllg ~ '--~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 13 5 130 125 120 115 110 u Q. ~ in ffi 105 0 ~ 0 100 95 90 85 80 75 0 5 \ \ I I \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ Source of Material B-1 @10.0' \ \ \ ' Description of Material SAND (SP}1 Light gra~-brown \ \ \ \ \ ASTM D1557 Method A \ Test Method \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ ' \ \ TEST RESULTS \ \ ' \ \ Maximum Dry Density 110.0 PCF I\ \ ~ Optimum Water Content 13.8 % .If" I'.. \ \. ~' ...... I\ \ • "111 \ I\ \ Expansion Index (El) '\ \ \ \ \ \ \ " '\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ I\ \ ~ Curves of 100% Saturation \ [\ ' for Specific Gravity Equal to: " \ i\ \ \. 2.80 \ \ \ \.. 2.10 " \ \. r\ ' 2.60 \ i\ \ '\. I\. I\. \ "' \. r\ ' " ' '\ \. ' "\: '-' ' '\ \.. '-'\ " '-...... " ... '\. ' ""'- '\. "-. """" " I"-. ........ ' " ..... I'\. ' '-.. ' ' 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 WATER CONTENT,% Geotechnlcal Exploratlon, Inc. MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Figure Number: IVa Job Name: Proposed Moss Residence Site Location: 5015 Tierra del Oro Street, Carlsbad, CA Job Number: 07-9342 I I I I I I I I 'ti Q. ~ I en z w 0 ~ 0 I I I I I I I I I I 13 5 13 0 12 5 120 115 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 0 5 \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ \ -~ . .., \ ' -\ .. , \ \ \ \ '\'\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ 10 15 Geotechnlcal -~-....... Exploration, Inc. Source of Material B-3@4.5' Description of Material SIL TY SAND (SM}1 Light red-brown Test Method ASTM 01557 Method A \ \ \ TEST RESULTS \ Maximum Dry Density 122.0 PCF \ ~ Optimum Water Content 13.0 % \ \ \ \ ~ \ " Expansion Index (El) f\ \ .. \ \ \. \ \ \ \ \ \ " \ \ ' \ I\ \. \ \ lo. Curves of 100% Saturation \ \. "' \. for Specific Gravity Equal to: \. '\ \ It,. 2.80 '\ \ \ ' ~ 2.70 \. \ \. ' " ' 2.60 \ \ ' '\ I\ ' I\ '\ II,. I\ '\ " r--. ' '\ I\ " " ' " " \. " '\ lo.. " " " ... \. '\ "'11.. I\. " ....... ' '-II. r--,._ " ... " " ~ ' ~ 20 25 30 35 40 45 WATER CONTENT,% MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Figure Number: IVb Job Name: Proposed Moss Residence Site Location: 5015 Tierra del Oro Street, Carlsbad, CA Job Number: 07-9342 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f t ~ fu c ~ r ~ ~ ;: i !/l 5,000 4,000 3,000 I/ 'Iii V c.. :I: I-(!) z w a: I-./ (/) a: ~ :r (/) 2,000 / / / 1,000 V 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 NORMAL PRESSURE, psf Specimen Identification Classification r. MC% C ♦ • B-3@7.0' SIL TY SAND (SM), Light red-brown 742 30 4~e, I Geotechnlcal DIRECT SHEAR TEST Figure Number: IVc Exploration, Inc. ~ ~ ~ Job Name: Proposed Moss Residence ~ /~~ Site Location: 5015 Tierra del Oro Street, Carlsbad, CA ~ Job Number: 07-9342 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS NEAR SLOPES Proposed Structure Concrete Floor Slab Reinforcement of Foundations and Floor Slabs Following the Recommendations of the Architect or Structural Engineer. Concrete Foundation 18" Minimum or as Deep as Required for Lateral Stability TOP OF COMPACTED FILL SLOPE (Any loose soils on the slope surface shall not be considered to provide lateral or vertical strength for the footing or for slope stability. Needed depth of imbedment shall be measured from competent soil.) COMPACTED FILL SLOPE WITH MAXIMUM INCLINATION AS PER SOILS REPORT. Total Depth of Footing Measured from Finish Soil Sub-Grade COMPACTED FILL ' ' ' ' "--- Outer Most Fac'e,-------8'·-------... ' of Footing TYPICAL SECTION ( Showing Proposed Foundation Located Within 8 Feet of Top of Slope ) E a, ~ 0.. LL 0 a, v; u-c 0 0 0.. -t;o 0 I- l 811 FOOTING / 8' SETBACK Total Depth of Footing # 1.5: 1.0 SLOPE 2.0: 1.0 SLOPE 0 82" 2' 66" 4' 51" 6' 34" 8' 18" # when applicable 66" 54" 42'' 30'' 18" Figure No. N Job No. 03-8426 -~;; Geofechnkal Exploration, Inc. ~ I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I RECOMMENDED BASEMENT/SUBGRADE RETAINING WALL/EXTERIOR FOOTING DESIGN Exterior/Retaining Footing Wall Lower-level Sealant Slab-on-grade or Crawlspace . . . . . . . · .. .. . . . • f .. • ' .· . . ' . .. ..... . . : • • 1, / . .. .. : . . . • , •: " I . .... . : . . . .. .. · . . .· .. • .. . . . . . . , f • . : . . ... Proposed Exterior Grade / To Drain at A Min. 2% 6" Min . / Fall Away from Bldg ~~VA/)\~ ,~~~~~vk~ ~ ~~A%%~~0 Miradrair, 60tYCY/-.(' /)-Y ,, ~Properly~ Waterproofing Compacted To Top Of Wall Backfill Sealant Perforated PVC (SDR 35) 4" pipe with 0.5% min. slope, with bottom of pipe located 12" below slab or Interior (crawlspace) 9round surface elevation, with 1.5 (cu.ft.) of gravel 1" diameter max, wrapped with the Miradrain 6000 filter cloth . T Between Bottom 12" of Slab and 1 Pipe Bottom NOTTO 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. base-retain Figure No. VI Job No. 07-9342 ·~;a .......... , ~I,-, llxplol'flflon, Inc. ~ - 16 > ~ 0 Q) V) C 0 Q) ~ Q) ~ .0 <( C 0 += 0 > Q) iii ~ 0 E ·x e Q. Q. <( - 60 40 20 APPROX. MEA HIGH nDE LINE - A 0 07-9342-xs ---------- CROSS SECTION A-A' Geologlc Legend Oaf -Artificial Fill Ob -Beach Deposits Qt -Terrace Deposits Tsb -Santiago Formation Moss Residence 5015 Tierra Del Oro Carlsbad, CA. ROOF ELEV= 69.0' PROPOSED RESIDENCE SEE ARCH. SECTTONS FOR DETAILS ----- A' ~ B-3 V I ~ROPERTY LINE I I : XIST CURB MAIN FLOOR2P,70 FF _____ ---tr---.--~--~ ____ -I EXIST GRADE~ / B-1 / / Qt 20 40 60 80 BASEMENT 28.70 FF SECTlONkA SCALE 1• = 20' HORIZ SCALE 1• = 20' VERT. 100 Relative Horizontal Distance ( Feet) Scale: 1" = 20' (Horizontal and Vertical) NOTE: This Cross Section is not to be used for legol purposes. Locations and dimensions ore approxi- mate. Actual property dimensions and locations of utilities may be obtained from the Approved Building Plans or the "As-Built" Grading Plans. Qt 0 5 10 120 20 140 MATCH IN AT FLOWLINE o• CURB 40 160 Figure No. VII Job No. 07-9342 I ._.,.. Exploratlon, Inc. wG-hnlcal April 2007 - I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SOIL DESCRIPTION Coarse-grained (More than half of material is larger than a No. 200 sieve) 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) GW GP GC SW SP SM Well-graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little or no fines. Poorly graded gravels, gravel and sand mixtures, little or no fines. Clay gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures Well-graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. 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) SIL TS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit Less than 50 Liquid Limit Greater than 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS (rev. 6/05) ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt and clayey-silt sand mixtures with a slight plasticity Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, silty clays, clean clays. Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts. Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. Peat and other highly organic soils I I I I I 'I I I I APPENDIXB ii EQ FAULT TABLES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TEST.OUT *********************** * * * E Q F A U L T * * * * version 3.00 * * * *********************** DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 07-9342 JOB NAME: MOSS Test Run CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.1600 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3500 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi DATE: 04-25-2007 ATTENUATION RELATION: 12) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-soft Rock-Cor. 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 Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TEST.OUT EQFAULT SUMMARY DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 1 ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) ROSE CANYON CORONADO BANK ELSINORE-TEMECULA ELSINORE-JULIAN ELSINORE-GLEN IVY PALOS VERDES EARTHQUAKE VALLEY NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) SAN JACINTO-ANZA SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) WHITTIER SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK COMPTON THRUST ELYSIAN PARK THRUST ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO SAN ANDREAS -San Bernardino SAN ANDREAS -southern SAN JACINTO -BORREGO SAN JOSE SIERRA MADRE PINTO MOUNTAIN CUCAMONGA SAN ANDREAS -Coachella NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) CLEGHORN BURNT MTN. RAYMOND NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) SAN ANDREAS -Mojave SAN ANDREAS -1857 Rupture EUREKA PEAK CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT VERDUGO SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) HOLLYWOOD ELMORE RANCH LANDERS !ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE DISTANCE 1------------------------------MAXIMUM I PEAK EST. SITE mi (km) EARTHQUAKE I SITE INTENSITY MAG.(MW) I ACCEL. g MOO.MERC. ===== =====I==== ==== 5.0( 8.0)1 6.9 I 5.0( 8.0)1 6.9 I 20.9( 33.6) 7.4 I 24.4( 39.2) 6.8 I 24.7( 39.7) 7.1 33.4( 53.8) 6.8 35.2( 56.6) 7.1 44.5( 71.6) 6.5 45.4( 73.0) 6.9 46.9( 75.5) 7.2 47.3( 76.1) 6.9 47.3( 76.1) 6.7 50.8( 81.7)1 6.8 52.9( 85.1)1 6.8 55.1( 88.6)1 6.8 58.0( 93.4)1 6.7 58.7( 94.5)1 6.8 59.5( 95.8)1 6.7 64.9( 104.5)1 7.3 64.9( 104.5)1 7.4 66.9( 107.7)1 6.6 68.1( 109.6) 6.5 71.8( 115.5) 7.0 71.9( 115.7) 7.0 72.1( 116.0) 7.0 73.3( 117.9) 7.1 75.5( 121.5) 7.0 77.2( 124.2) 6.5 78.2( 125.9) 6.4 79.7( 128.3) 6.5 80.2( 129.l)I 6.7 80.2( 129.1)1 7.1 80.2( 129.1)1 7.8 81.0( 130.4)1 6.4 81.5( 131.2)1 6.5 82.4( 132.6)1 6.7 83.4( 134.3)1 6.6 84.2( 135.5)1 6.4 87.0C 140.0)I 6.6 87.9( 141.4)1 7.3 Page 2 0.356 0.356 0.150 0.086 0.104 0.062 0.072 0.037 0.048 0.057 0.046 0.057 0.040 0.038 0.052 0.046 0.034 0.032 0.044 0.047 0.026 0.034 0.045 0.032 0.045 0.033 0.043 0.021 0.019 0.029 0.032 0.030 0.051 0.019 0.028 0.031 0.021 0.025 0.020 0.032 IX IX VIII VII VII VI VI V VI VI VI VI V V VI VI V V VI VI V V VI V VI V VI IV IV V V V VI IV V V IV V IV V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TEST.OUT DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 2 ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME ===============================- APPROXIMATE DISTANCE mi (km) !ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT 1------------------------------- 1 MAXIMUM I PEAK !EST. SITE EARTHQUAKE! SITE !INTENSITY I MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOD.MERC. ========== ========== ========= SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 88.0( 141.7) 6.6 0.019 IV HELENDALE -S. LOCKHARDT 88.2( 141.9) 7.1 0.027 V SANTA MONICA 88.9( 143.0) 6.6 0.027 V LAGUNA SALADA 90.1( 145.0)1 7.0 0.025 V MALIBU COAST 91.4( 147.1)1 6.7 0.028 V LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 92.3( 148.5)1 7.3 0.030 V JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 95.6( 153.8)1 6.7 0.019 IV NORTHRIDGE (E. oak Ridge) I 95.6( 153.9)1 6.9 0.031 V BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 95.9( 154.4)1 6.4 0.016 IV SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I 96.2( 154.8)1 6.7 0.027 v EMERSON So. -COPPER MTN. I 96.2( 154.8)1 6.9 0.022 IV SAN GABRIEL I 96.4( 155.2)1 7.0 0.023 IV ANACAPA-DUME I 98.0( 157.7)1 7.3 0.040 I v ******************************************************************************* -END OF SEARCH-53 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.0 MILES (8.0 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.3557 g Page 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TEST.OUT *********************** * * * * * E Q F A U L T version 3.00 * * * * * *********************** DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS JOB NUMBER: 07-9342 JOB NAME: Moss Test Run CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.1600 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3500 SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi DATE: 04-25-2007 ATTENUATION RELATION: 12) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Soft Rock~cor. 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 Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TEST.OUT EQFAULT SUMMARY DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS Page 1 ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) ROSE CANYON CORONADO BANK ELSINORE-TEMECULA ELSINORE-JULIAN ELSINORE-GLEN IVY PALOS VERDES EARTHQUAKE VALLEY NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) SAN JACINTO-ANZA SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) WHITTIER SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK COMPTON THRUST ELYSIAN PARK THRUST ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO SAN ANDREAS -San Bernardino SAN ANDREAS -southern SAN JACINTO -BORREGO SAN JOSE SIERRA MADRE PINTO MOUNTAIN CUCAMONGA SAN ANDREAS -Coachella NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) CLEGHORN BURNT MTN. RAYMOND NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) SAN ANDREAS -Mojave SAN ANDREAS -1857 Rupture EUREKA PEAK CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT VERDUGO SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) HOLLYWOOD ELMORE RANCH LANDERS ----------------------------------------------!ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT APPROXIMATE DISTANCE 1-------------------------------MAXIMUM I RHGA IEST. SITE EARTHQUAKE I SITE I INTENSITY MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. g IMOO.MERC. mi (km) 5.0( 8.0) 5.0( 8.0) 20. 9( 33. 6) 24.4( 39.2) 24.7( 39.7) 33.4( 53.8) 35.2( 56.6) 44. 5( 71.6) 45.4( 73.0) 46.9( 75.5) 47.3( 76.1) 47.3( 76.1) 50.8( 81. 7) 52. 9( 85 .1) 55.1( 88.6)1 58.0( 93.4)1 58.7( 94.5)1 59. 5( 95.8) I 64.9( 104.5)1 64.9( 104.5) 66.9( 107.7) 68.1( 109.6) 71.8( 115. 5) 71.9( 115.7)1 72.1( 116.0)I 73.3( 117.9)1 75. 5( 121. 5) 77.2( 124.2) 78. 2 ( 12 5 . 9) 79.7( 128.3) 80.2( 129.1) 80.2( 129.1) 80.2( 129.1) 81.0( 130.4) 81. 5 ( 131. 2) 82.4( 132.6) I 83.4( 134.3) I 84. 2 C 13 5 . 5) I 87.0C 140.0)I 87.9( 141.4)1 Page 2 I I 6.9 I o.231 6.9 I 0.231 7.4 I 0.150 6.8 I o.086 7.1 I o.104 6.8 I o.062 7.1 I o.072 6.5 I 0.037 6.9 0.048 7.2 0.057 6.9 0.046 6.7 0.057 6.8 0.040 6.8 0.038 6.8 0.052 6.7 0.046 6.8 0.034 6.7 0.032 7.3 0.044 7.4 0.047 6.6 0.026 6.5 0.034 7.0 0.045 7.0 0.032 7.0 0.045 7.1 0.033 7.0 0.043 6.5 0.021 6.4 0.019 6.5 0.029 6.7 0.032 7.1 0.030 7.8 0.051 6.4 0.019 6.5 0.028 6.7 0.031 6.6 0.021 6.4 0.025 6.6 0.020 7.3 0.032 IX IX VIII VII VII VI VI V VI VI VI VI V V VI VI V V VI VI V V VI V VI V VI IV IV V V V VI IV V V IV V IV V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 2 TEST.OUT DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS I !ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT I APPROXIMATE 1-------------------------------ABBREVIATED I DISTANCE MAXIMUM I RHGA EST. SITE FAULT NAME I mi (km) EARTHQUAKE! SITE INTENSITY I MAG.(Mw) I ACCEL. g MOD.MERC. I == === -------------------SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 88.0( 141.7) 6.6 0.019 I IV HELENDALE -S. LOCKHARDT 88.2( 141.9) 7.1 0.027 I V SANTA MONICA 88.9( 143.0) 6.6 0.027 I V LAGUNA SALADA 90.1( 145.0) 7.0 0.025 I V MALIBU COAST I 91.4( 147.1)1 6.7 0.028 I V LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGSI 92.3( 148.5) 7.3 0.030 I V JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 95.6( 153.8) 6.7 0.019 I IV NORTHRIDGE (E. oak Ridge) 95.6( 153.9) 6.9 0.031 I v BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 95.9( 154.4) 6.4 0.016 I IV SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) 96.2( 154.8) 6.7 0.027 I v EMERSON So. -COPPER MTN. 96.2( 154.8) 6.9 0.022 I IV SAN GABRIEL 96.4( 155.2)1 7.0 0.023 I IV ANACAPA-DUME I 98.0( 157.7)1 7.3 0.040 I v ******************************************************************************* -END OF SEARCH-53 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS. THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE. IT IS ABOUT 5.0 MILES (8.0 km) AWAY. LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.2312 g Page 3 I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIXC EQ SEARCH TABLES I I I I I I JOB NUMBER: 07-9342 TEST.OUT ************************* * * * * * E Q S E A R C H version 3.00 * * * * * ************************* ESTIMATION OF PEAK ACCELERATION FROM CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS DATE: 04-25-2007 I JOB NAME: Moss Test Run EARTHQUAKE-CATALOG-FILE NAME: ALLQUAKE.DAT I I I I I I I I I ~I MAGNITUDE RANGE: MINIMUM MAGNITUDE: 5.00 MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE: 9.00 SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33.1600 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3500 SEARCH DATES: START DATE: 1800 END DATE: 2006 SEARCH RADIUS: 100.0 mi 160.9 km ATTENUATION RELATION: 12) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-soft Rock-cor. UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0 ASSUMED SOURCE TYPE: DS [SS=Strike-slip, DS=Reverse-slip, BT=Blind-thrust] SCOND: 0 Depth Source: A Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 1 Campbell SHR: 0 COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0 Page 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TEST.OUT EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS Page 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------I TIME I I I SITE ISITEI APPROX. FILE' LAT. I LONG. I DATE I (UTC) IDEPTHIQUAKEI ACC. I MM I DISTANCE CODE NORTH I WEST I I HM Seel (km)I MAG.I g IINT.I mi [km] ----+-------+--------+----------+--------+-----+-----+-------+----+------------11.4( 18.4) 23 .1( 37 .1) 28.8( 46.3) 32.8( 52.8) 32.9( 53.0) 35.4( 57.0) 35 .4( 57 .0) 35.4( 57.0) 37 .4( 60.2) 37 .4( 60.2) 37.4( 60.2) 37.7( 60.6) 38. 3( 61. 7) 40.4( 65.0) 43.4( 69.9) 45.2( 72.7) 45 .4( 73 .1) 45.4( 73.1) 46.4( 74. 7) 46.5( 74.8) 47.5( 76.5) 48.6( 78.2) 49.7( 80.0) 51.8( 83.4) 53.7( 86.4) 54.1( 87.1) 54.2( 87.2) 54.4( 87.5) 55.6( 89.6) 55.6( 89.6) 58.3( 93.8) 58.6( 94.4) 58.7( 94.4) 58.7( 94.4) 58.7( 94.4) 58.7( 94.4) 58.7( 94.4) 59.3( 95.5) 61. 7( 99. 2) 62.3(100.3) 62.6(100.7) 62 . 8 (101. 1) 63. 4(102 .1) DMG 33.0000l117.3000lll/22/1800l2130 0.0 0.0 6.501 0.210 MGI 33.0000l117.0000I09/21/1856I 730 0.0 0.0 5.001 0.041 MGI 32.80001117.1000105/25/18031 0 0 0.0 0.0 5.001 0.033 PAS 32.9710 117.8700107/13/198611347 8.2 6.0 5.301 0.034 DMG 132.7000 117.2000105/27/1862120 0 0.01 0.01 5.90 0.049 T-A 132.6700 117.1700110/21/18621 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.00 0.027 T-A 132.6700 117.1700105/24/18651 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.00 0.027 T-A 132.6700 117.1700112/00/18561 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.00 0.027 DMG l33.7000l117.4000I05/13/1910I 620 0.01 0.01 5.00 0.025 DMG l33.7000l117.4000I04/ll/19101 757 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.025 DMG 133.7000 117.4000105/15/191011547 0.0 0.01 6.001 0.046 DMG 133.2000 116.7000101/01/19201 235 0.0 0.01 5.001 0.025 DMG 33.6990 117.5110105/31/19381 83455.4 10.0I 5.501 0.033 DMG 32.8000 116.8000110/23/1894 23 3 0.0 0.01 5.701 0.035 MGI 33.2000 116.6000110/12/1920 1748 0.0 0.01 5.301 0.026 DMG 33.7100 116.9250109/23/1963 144152.6 16.51 5.001 0.021 DMG 33.75001117.0000106/06/1918 2232 0.0 0.01 5.001 0.021 DMG 33.7500l117.0000I04/21/1918 223225.0 0.01 6.801 0.063 DMG 133.5750 117.9830 03/11/1933 518 4.0 0.01 5.20 0.022 MGI 133.8000 117.6000 04/22/1918 2115 0.0 0.01 5.00 0.020 DMG 33.6170 117.9670 03/11/1933 154 7.8 0.01 6.30 0.043 DMG 133.8000 117.0000 12/25/1899 1225 0.0 0.01 6.40 0.045 DMG 133.6170 118.0170103/14/1933119 150.0I 0.0 5.101 0.020 DMG 133.9000 117.2000112/19/18801 0 0 0.01 0.0 6.001 0.032 PAS 133.5010 116.5130102/25/19801104738.51 13.6 5.501 0.023 DMG 133.6830 118.0500103/11/19331 658 3.01 0.0 5.501 0.023 DMG l33.0000l116.4330106/04/1940l1035 8.3 0.0 5.101 0.018 DMG 133.50001116.5000109/30/19161 211 0.0 0.0 5.001 0.017 DMG 33.7000 118.0670 03/11/1933 51022.0 0.0 5.10 0.018 DMG l33.7000l118.0670I03/ll/1933I 85457.0 0.0 5.101 0.018 DMG 134.0000 117.2500107/23/1923 73026.0I 0.01 6.25 0.034 MGI 134.0000 117.5000112/16/1858 10 0 0.01 0.01 7.00 0.055 DMG 133.7500 118.0830103/11/1933 230 0.01 0.01 5.10 0.017 DMG 133.7500 118.0830103/11/1933 910 0.01 0.01 5.10 0.017 DMG 33.7500 118.0830103/13/19331131828.0 0.0 5.301 0.019 DMG 33.7500 118.0830103/11/19331 323 0.0 0.0 5.001 0.016 DMG 33.7500 118.0830103/11/19331 2 9 0.0 0.0 5.001 0.016 DMG 33.3430 116.3460104/28/19691232042.9 20.0 5.801 0.025 DMG l33.9500l116.8500I09/28/19461 719 9.0 0.01 5.001 0.015 DMG l33.7830l118.1330l10/02/19331 91017.6 0.01 5.401 0.019 DMG 132.81701118.3500112/26/19511 04654.0 0.01 5.901 0.025 DMG l33.4000l116.3000I02/09/1890ll2 6 0.0 0.01 6.301 0.032 T-A l32.2500l117.5000I01/13/1877l20 0 0.0 0.01 5.001 0.014 Page 2 VIII V V V VI V V V V V VI V V V V IV IV VI IV IV VI VI IV V IV IV IV IV IV IV V VI IV IV IV IV IV V IV IV V V IV I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I TEST.OUT MGI 134.10001117.3000107/15/190512041 0.01 0.01 5.301 0.017 IV 65.0(104.5) DMG 33.40801116.2610103/25/193711649 1.81 10.01 6.001 0.026 V 65.1(104.8) DMG 33.20001116.2000105/28/189211115 0.01 0.01 6.301 0.030 V 66.5(107.0) DMG 33.97601116.7210106/12/19441104534.71 10.01 5.10 0.014 IV 67.0(107.8) DMG 33.78301118.2500111/14/19411 84136.31 0.01 5.401 0.017 IV 67.4(108.4) DMG 133.28301116.1830 03/23/19541 41450.0I 0.01 5.101 0.014 IV 67.9(109.3) DMG 133.2830 116.1830 03/19/1954 95429.0I 0.01 6.201 0.028 V 67.9(109.3) DMG 133.2830 116.1830 03/19/1954 102117.0I 0.01 5.501 0.018 IV 67.9(109.3) DMG 133.2830 116.1830 03/19/1954 95556.0I 0.01 5.001 0.013 III 67.9(109.3) DMG 133.9940 116.7120106/12/1944 111636.0I 10.01 5.301 0.016 IV I 68.3(109.9) EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS Page 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I I I TIME I I I SITE ISITEI APPROX. FILEI LAT. I LONG. I DATE I (UTC) IDEPTHIQUAKEI ACC. I MM I DISTANCE CODEI NORTH I WEST I I HM Seel (km)I MAG. I g IINT. I mi [km] ----+-------+--------+----------+--------+-----+-----+-------+----+------------DMG l32.7000l116.3000I02/24/1892 720 0.0 0.01 6.701 0.038 I V I 68.6(110.5) MGI l34.0000l118.0000l12/25/1903 1745 0.0 0.01 5.001 0.013 I IIII 69.0(111.0) DMG 133.21701116.1330108/15/1945 175624.0 0.01 5.701 0.019 I IV I 70.4(113.3) GSP l34.1400lll7.7000I02/28/1990 234336.6 5.01 5.201 0.014 I IV I 70.6(113.6) DMG 133.1900 116.1290104/09/19681 '22859.ll 11.1 6.40 0.030 v I 70.6(113.6) DMG 133.8500 118.2670103/11/193311425 0.01 0.0 5.00 0.013 IIII 71.1(114.4) DMG 134.2000 117.4000107/22/18991 046 0.01 0.0 5.50 0.017 IV I 71.9(115.6) PAS 133.9980 116.6060107/08/19861 92044.51 11.7 5.60 0.018 IV I 72.0(115.8) DMG 34.1000 116.8000 10/24/1935 1448 7.61 0.0 5.101 0.013 III 72.2(116.2) DMG 34.2000 117.1000 09/20/1907 154 0.01 0.0 6.001 0.023 IV 73.2(117.8) DMG 34.1800 116.9200 01/16/1930 034 3.61 0.0 5.101 0.013 III 74.6(120.1) DMG 34.1800 116.9200 01/16/1930 02433.91 0.0 5.201 0.014 III 74.6(120.1) GSP 134.16301116.8550106/28/19921144321.0 6.0 5.30 0.014 IV 74.9(120.5) DMG 134.10001116.7000102/07/18891 520 0.0 0.0 5.30 0.014 IV 74.9(120.5) PAS 34.0610 118.0790 10/01/1987 144220.0 9.5 5.90 0.021 IV 75.0(120.7) DMG 133.11301116.0370104/09/19681 3 353.5 5.0 5.20 0.013 III 76.0(122.3) PAS 134.0730 118.0980110/04/1987 105938.21 8.2 5.301 0.014 IV 76.3(122.8) DMG 134.0170 116.5000107/26/1947 24941.01 0.0 5.101 0.012 III 76.8(123.5) DMG 34.0170 116.5000107/25/1947 61949.01 0.0 5.201 0.013 III 76.8(123.5) DMG 134.0170 116.5000107/25/1947 04631.0I 0.0 5.001 0.012 III 76.8(123.5) DMG 34.01701116.5000 07/24/19471221046.0 0.01 5.501 0.016 IV 76.8(123.5) GSP 34.19501116.8620 08/17/19921204152.l 11.01 5.301 0.014 IV 76.8(123.5) DMG 33.93301116.3830 12/04/19481234317.0 0.01 6.501 0.030 V 77.1(124.1) DMG 34.27001117.5400 09/12/19701143053.0 8.01 5.401 0.015 IV 77.4(124.6) T-A 34.00001118.2500109/23/18271 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.012 III 77.7(125.1) T-A 34.00001118.2500103/26/18601 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.012 III 77.7(125.1) T-A 34.00001118.2500101/10/18561 0 0 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.012 III 77.7(125.1) MGI 34.10001118.1000107/ll/18551 415 0.01 0.01 6.301 0.026 V 77.9(125.4) DMG 33.23101116.0040105/26/19571155933.61 15.11 5.001 0.012 III 77.9(125.4) GSN 34.20301116.8270106/28/19921150530.71 5.01 6.701 0.033 V 78.0(125.6) DMG 34.20001117.9000108/28/18891 215 0.01 0.01 5.501 0.015 IV 78.4(126.2) DMG 34.30001117.5000107/22/189912032 0.01 0.01 6.501 0.029 V 79.2(127.4) DMG 32.9670 116.0000ll0/22/19421181326.0I 0.01 5.001 0.011 III 79.2(127.5) DMG 32.9670 116.0000ll0/21/19421162519.0I 0.01 5.001 0.011 III 79.2(127.5) DMG 32.9670 116.0000ll0/21/19421162654.0I 0.01 5.001 0.011 III 79.2(127.5) DMG 32.9670 116.0000ll0/21/19421162213.0I 0.01 6.501 0.029 V 79.2(127.5) DMG 34.2670 116.9670108/29/19431 34513.0I 0.01 5.501 0.015 IV 79.5(128.0) GSP 33.8760l116.2670I06/29/1992l160142.81 1.01 5.201 0.013 III 79.6(128.0) MGI 34.00001118.3000109/03/19051 540 0.01 0.01 5.301 0.013 III 79.7(128.2) Page 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TEST.OUT GSP 33.90201116.2840107/24/19921181436.21 9.01 5.001 0.011 IIII 79.9(128.6) DMG 34.30001117.6000107/30/18941 512 0.01 0.01 6.001 0.021 IV I 80.0(128.8) DMG 32.98301115.9830105/23/19421154729.0I 0.01 5.001 0.011 IIII 80.0(128.8) GSP 34.2390 116.8370 07/09/19921014357.6 0.01 5.30 0.013 IIII 80.1(128.9) DMG 132.0000 117. 5000 06/24/193911627 0.0 0.01 5.00 0.011 IIII 80.6(129.6) DMG 132.0000 117.5000 05/01/193912353 0.0 0.01 5.00 0.011 IIII 80.6(129.6) DMG 132.2000 116.5500 11/05/19491 43524.0 0.01 5.10 0.012 IIII 81. 0(130. 3) DMG 132.2000 116.5500 ll/04/19491204238.0I 0.01 5.70 0.017 IV I 81.0(130.3) GSP 133.9610 116.3180 04/23/19921045023.0I 12.01 6.10 0.022 IV I 81.1(130.6) PDG 134.2900 116.9460 02/10/20011210505.81 9.01 5.10 0.012 IIII 81.4(131.0) MGI 134.0800 118.2600 07/16/1920118 8 0.01 0.0 5.00 0.011 III 82.3(132.4) DMG 132.50001118.5500 02/24/19481 81510.0I 0.0 5.301 0.013 III 83.2(133.9) GSP l34.0290l116.3210I08/21/1993I014638.4I 9.0 5.001 0.011 III 84.3(135.6) DMG l32.0830lll6.6670lll/25/1934I 818 0.01 o.o 5.001 0.011 III 84. 3 (13 5 . 7) EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS Page 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------I I I I TIME I I I SITE ISITEI APPROX. FILEI LAT. I LONG. I DATE I (LJTC) IDEPTHIQUAKEI ACC . I MM I DISTANCE CODEI NORTH I WEST I I HM Seel (km)I MAG.I g IINT. I mi [km] ----+-------+--------+----------+--------+-----+-----+-------+----+------------GSP l34.0640l116.3610I09/15/1992I084711.31 9.01 5.201 0.012 I IIII 84.4(135.9) GSP 134.2620l118.0020I06/28/199ll144354.5I 11.01 5.40 0.013 I IIII 84.8(136.5) GSP 134.10801116.4040106/29/1992 141338.81 9.01 5.401 0.013 I III 85.1(136.9) DMG 134.37001117.6500112/08/1812 15 0 0.01 0.01 7.001 0.037 I V 85.3(137.3) GSP 34.3400 116.9000 11/27/1992 160057.5 1.0 5.30 0.013 III 85.5(137.5) DMG 134.06701116.3330105/18/1940 55120.21 0.01 5.201 0.012 I III 85.7(137.9) DMG 34.0670 116.3330105/18/19401 72132.7 · 0.0 5.001 0.011 III 85.7(137.9) GSP 34.1390 116.4310106/28/19921123640.6 10.0 5.101 0.011 III 85.8(138.0) DMG 33.1830 115.8500 04/25/19571222412.0 0.0 5.101 0.011 III 86.7(139.5) GSP 34.3690 116.8970112/04/19921020857.5 3.0 5.301 0.012 III 87.4(140.7) DMG l34.0830l116.3000I05/18/1940I 5 358.5 0.0 5.401 0.013 III 87.8(141.3) MGI 134.00001118.5000111/19/191812018 0.0 0.0 5.001 0 .010 III 88.0(141.6) DMG 34.0000 118.5000108/04/192711224 0.0 0.0 5.00 0.010 III 88.0(141.6) PAS l33.0130l115.8390lll/24/19871131556.5 2.4 6.001 0.019 IV 88.0(141.6) DMG l33.0000l115.8330I01/08/1946l185418.0 0.0 5.401 0.013 III 88.5(142.3) DMG 133.03301115.8210109/30/19711224611.3 8.0 5.101 0.011 III 88.9(143.0) GSN 134.20101116.4360 06/28/19921115734.l 1.0 7.601 0.055 VI 89.0(143.2) DMG 133.21601115.8080 04/25/1957 215738.7 -0.3 5.201 0.011 III 89.2(143.5) PAS 33.9190 118.6270 01/19/1989 65328.8 11.9 5.001 0.010 III 90.3(145.2) PAS 33.0820 115.7750 11/24/1987 15414.5 4.9 5.801 0.016 IV 91.2(146.8) T-A 33.5000 115.8200 05/00/1868 0 0 0.0 0.0 6.301 0.022 IV 91.3(147.0) DMG 33.9500 118.6320 08/31/19301 04036.0 0.0 5.201 0.011 III 91.7(147.6) PAS 33.94401118.6810 01/01/19791231438.91 11.3 5.001 0.010 III 93.8(150.9) GSP 34.26801116.4020 06/16/19941162427.51 3.0 5.001 0.010 III 93.9(151.1) DMG 131.81101117.1310 12/22/19641205433.21 2.31 5.60 0.014 III 94.0(151.3) GSP 134.34101116.5290 06/28/19921124053.51 6.01 5.20 0.011 III 94.2(151.6) DMG 132 .98301115.7330101/24/19511 717 2.61 0.0 5.60 0.013 III 94.3(151.8) DMG l33.2330l115.7170ll0/22/19421 15038.0I 0.0 5.50 0.013 III 94.5(152.0) DMG 132.95001115.7170106/14/19531 41729.91 0.0 5.501 0.012 III 95.6(153.9) GSP l34.3320lll6.4620I07/0l/1992l074029.91 9.0 5.401 0 .012 III 95.6(153.9) PAS 134.3270 116.4450 03/15/1979121 716.51 2.51 5.201 0.010 III 95.9(154.3) DMG 134.0000 116.0000 04/03/1926120 8 0.01 0.01 5.501 0.012 III 96.9(156.0) DMG 134.0000 116.0000 09/05/192811442 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.009 III 96.9(156.0) DMG 132.9000 115.7000 10/02/1928119 1 0.01 0.01 5.001 0.009 III 97.2(156.4) GSP l34.2310l118.4750I03/20/1994l212012.31 13.0I 5.301 0.011 IIII 98.2(158.0) Page 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TEST.OUT PAS l33.0980l115.6320I04/26/198ll12 928.41 3.81 5.701 0.014 I IIII 99.4(160.0) GSP l34.2130l118.5370I01/17/1994l123055.4I 18.01 6.701 0.026 I V I 99.7(160.4) ******************************************************************************* -END OF SEARCH-143 EARTHQUAKES FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH AREA. TIME PERIOD OF SEARCH: LENGTH OF SEARCH TIME: 1800 TO 2006 207 years THE EARTHQUAKE CLOSEST TO THE SITE IS ABOUT 11.4 MILES (18.4 km) AWAY. LARGEST EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE FOUND IN THE SEARCH RADIUS: 7.6 LARGEST EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION FROM THIS SEARCH: 0.210 g COEFFICIENTS FOR GUTENBERG & RICHTER RECURRENCE RELATION: a-value= 1. 508 b-value= 0.381 beta-value= 0.877 TABLE OF MAGNITUDES AND EXCEEDANCES: Earthquake I Number of Times I cumulative Magnitude I Exceeded I No./ Year -----------+-----------------+------------4.0 I 143 I 0.69082 4.5 I 143 I 0.69082 5.0 I 143 I 0.69082 5.5 I 50 I 0.24155 6.0 I 27 I 0.13043 6.5 I 11 I 0.05314 7.0 I 3 I 0.01449 7.5 I 1 I 0.00483 Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' APPEND/XO MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931 (Excerpted from the California 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 tor 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 XII range. The Mercalli Scale was modified in 1931 by American seismologists Harry 0. 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 t ime --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 XII . The most commonly used adaptation covers the range of intensity from the conditions of "I --not felt except by very few, favorably situated," to "XII --damage total, lines of sight disturbed, objects thrown into the air." While an earthquake has only orie 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. I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances. II Felt only by a few person$ at rest. especially on upoer floors of buildings. Delicately susoended oblects may swing. Ill Felt quite noticeably Indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize It as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration like passing of truck. Duration estimated. IV During the day felt Indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation llke heayy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably. V Felt by nearly eve_ryone, 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. VII Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible In building of good design and construction; slight to moderate In well-built ordinary structures; considerable In poorly bullt or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving motor cars. VIII 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 overturned. 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. Ralls bent. Landslides considerable from riverbanks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed (slopped) over banks. XI Few, If any, masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures In ground. Underground plpellnes completely out of service. Earth slumps and land sllps In soft ground. Ralls bent greatly. XII Damage total. Practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or destroyed. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects thrown upward Into the air. I I I I I I I APPENDIX E I SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------- 160 # FS Soil a 1.524 Oesc. b 1.525 C 1.539 Fill d 1.545 Rip Rap e 1.546 BeOepst f 1.551 Terrace g 1.556 Ftn h 1.574 1.583 , 120 80 1 40 Moss Res/Job 07-9342/Sect. A·A After Grading c:\old pc~72sw\9342a01.pl2 Run By: JAC, Geotechnical Exploratioh, Inc 4123/2007 01 :2l3PM Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt.. Unit Wt.. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pct) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 125.0 130.0 100.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 135.0 138.0 0.0 45.0 0.00 0.0 0 3 120.0 125.0 25.0 35.0 0.00 0.0 0 4 125.0 130.0 50.0 35.0 0.00 0.0 0 5 125.0 130.0 50.0 36.0 0.00 0.0 0 a 14 4 11 4 27 5 1 4 16 18 4 4 0 L----------'---------'---------_J_--------_j_-------____J 0 40 80 120 160 200 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.524 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method ------------------- Moss Res/Job 07-9342/Sect. A-A After Grading c:\old pc'Q72sw\9342a01 .plt Run By: JAC, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc 4/23/2007 01 :23PM 160 ,------------,---------.,..--------~--------~---------, 120 16 18 / 4 4 4 80 1 40 0 c__ _______ ____j_ ________ ......._ _______ ____._ ________ --'-------------' 0 40 80 120 160 200