The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 13-20; Wallace Residence; Preliminary Soils Report; 2014-12-30.. .... Christine Wal lace 1 704 Evergreen Circle Carlsbad, California 92008 EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTAT ION AND ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE "I" SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 (619) 258-7901 Fax 258-7902 Subject: Limited Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Single-Family Residence 3935 Syme Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Ms. Wallace: December 2, 2015 Project No. 15-110606 In accordance with your request, we have performed a limited geotechnical investigation at the subject site to discuss the geotechnical aspects of the project and provide recommendations for the proposed development. Our investigation has found that the proposed building pad is underlain by topsoil to a maximum depth of approximately 2 feet below existing grade. Dense terrace deposits were underlying the topsoil to the explored depth of 5 feet. It is our opinion that the construction of the proposed single-family residence with a secondary dwelling unit is geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations herein are implemented in the design and construction. Should you have any questions with regard to the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, Mamadou Saliou Diallo, P.E. RCE 54071, GE 2704 MSD\md LANDO E .. .. . • ' CHRISTINE w.,;~:.:.);CF.13935 SYME DRIVE/CARLSBAD PRC_{T NO. 15-l 106G6 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. .3 SCOPE OF SERVICES ....... , .............................................................................................................................. 3 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 3 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................................... .4 GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................ .4 Geologic Setting ................................................................................................................................... .4 Site Stratigraphy ................................................................................................................................... .4 SEISMICITY ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Regional Seismicity ............................................................................................................................... 5 Seismic Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 5 2013 CBC Seismic Design Criteria ...................................................................................................... 5 Geologic Hazard Assessment ................................................................................................................ 6 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION .................................................................................................................. 6 Compressible Soils ................................................................................................................................ 7 Expansive Soils ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Groundwater ..................................................................................... _ ................................................... 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ ? GRADING AND EARTHWORK. ..................................................................................................................... ? Clearing and Grubbing .......................................................................................................................... 8 Structural Improvement ofSoils ............................................................................................................ 8 Transitions Between Cut and Fill ................................... , ..................................................................... 9 Method and Criteria of Compaction ...................................................................................................... 9 Placement of Oversized Rock ............................................................................................................... 9 Erosion Control. ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Standard Grading Guidelines ...................................................................................... :: ....................... I 0 FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS ...................................................................................................................... 10 SETTLEMENT ................................................................................................................................................. 11 TEMPORARY SLOPES .................................................................................................................................. 11 TRENCH BACKFILL ...................................................................................................................................... 11 DRAINAGE ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 11 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION ......................................................................................................... 11 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ............................................................................................................................ 12 PLATES Plate 1-Location of Exploratory Test Pits Plate 2 -Summary Sheet (Exploratory Test Pit Logs) Plate 3 -USCS Soil Classification Chart PAGE L-1, LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .............................................................................................. 14 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 15 2 .. . . ' • CHRISTINE W/i,..i.J,CE/ 3935 SYME DRIVE/CARLSBAD PROt"',.,'f NO. 15-110606 INTRODUCTION This is to present the findings and conclusions of a limited geotechnical investigation for the proposed construction of a single-family residence with a secondary dwelling unit to be located on the east side of Syme Drive, in the City of Carlsbad, California. The objectives of the investigation were to evaluate the existing soils conditions and provide recommendations for the proposed development. SCOPE OF SERVICES The following services were provided during this investigation: 0 Site reconnaissance and review of published geologic, seismological and geotechnical reports and maps pertinent to the project area 0 Subsurface exploration consisting of four (4) boreholes within the limits of the proposed area of development. The boreholes were logged by our Staff Geologist. 0 Collection of representative soil samples at selected depths. The obtained samples were sealed in moisture-resistant containers and transported to the laboratory for subsequent analysis. 0 Laboratory testing of samples representative of the types of soils encountered during the field investigation 0 Geologic and engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data, which provided the basis for our conclusions and recommendations 0 Production of this report, which summarizes the results of the above analysis and presents our findings and recommendations for the proposed development. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The subject site is an irregular-shaped residential lot located on the east side of Syme Drive, in the City of Carlsbad, California. The property, which encompasses an area of approximately 13,340 square feet is presently occupied by a one-story house. The site slopes gently to the west. Vegetation consisted of grass, shrub and a few trees. Site boundaries include Syme Drive to the west and similar residential developments to the remaining directions. The site plan prepared by Barger Engineering of Escondido, California indicates the proposed construction will include a single-family residence with a secondary dwelling unit following demolition of the existing structure. It is our understanding the new structure will be one and/ or two-story, wood-framed and founded on continuous and spread footings with slab-on-grade and raised-wood floors. 3 .. . . ' • CHRISTINE WAL;,,i'CE/ 3935 SYME DRIVEi CARLSBAD PROu .. -'F NO. I 5-1 /06G6 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING On November 13, 2015, four (4) boreholes were excavated to a maximum depth of approximately 5 feet below existing grade with a hand auger. The approximate locations of the boreholes are shown on the attached Plate No. 1, entitled "Location of Exploratory Boreholes". A continuous log of the soils encountered was recorded at the time of excavation and is shown on Plate No. 2 entitled "Summary Sheet". The soils were visually and texturally classified according to the filed identification procedures set fo_rth on the attached Plate No. 3 entitled "USCS Soil Classification". Following the field exploration, laboratory testing was performed to evaluate the pertinent engineering properties of the foundation materials. The laboratory-testing program included moisture and density, particle size analysis and expansion index tests. These tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM standards and other accepted methods. Pa'ge L-1 and Plate No. 2 provide a summary of the laboratory test results. GEOLOGY Geologic Setting The subject site is located within the southern portion of what is known as the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The geologic map pertaining to the area indicates that the site is underlain by Pleistocene marine terrace deposits (Qt). Site Stratigraphy The subsurface descriptions provided are interpreted from conditions exposed during the field investigation and/or inferred from the geologic literature. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface materials encountered during the field investigation are presented on the exploration logs provided on Plate No. 2. The following paragraphs provide general descriptions of the encountered soil types. Topsoil \ Topsoil is the surficial soil material that mantles the ground, usually containing roots and other organic materials, which supports vegetation. Topsoil was observed in the boreholes with a thickness of approximately 12 to 24 inches. It consisted of dark brown, silty sand that was dry, loose and porous in consistency with some organics (rootlets). Marine Terrace Deposits (Qt) Marine terrace deposits were underlying the topsoil layer. They generally consisted of reddish brown, silty sand that was dry to moist and medium dense to dense in consistency. \ 4 ' • CHRISTINE WAt..,.,/CE/ 3935 SYME DRIVEi CARLSBAD PRO • .; .. }[ NO. 15-J 10606 SEISMICITY Regional Seismicity Generally, Seismicity within California can be attributed to the regional tectonic movement taking place along the San Andreas Fault Zone, which includes the San Andreas Fault and most parallel and subparallel faults within the state. The portion of southern California where the subject site is located is considered seismically active. Seismic hazards are attributed to groundshaking from earthquake events along nearby or more distant Quaternary faults. The primary factors in evaluating the effect an earthquake has on a site are the magnitude of the event, the distance from the epicenter to the site and the near surface soil profile. According to the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones Act of 1994 (revised Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act), quaternary faults have been classified as "active" faults, which show apparent surface rupture during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene time). "Potentially-active" faults are those faults with evidence of displacing Quaternary sediments between 11,000 to 16,000 years old. Seismic Analysis Based on our evaluation, the closest known "active" fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 8.6 kilometers (5.4 miles) to the west. The Rose Canyon Fault is the design fault of the project due to the predicted credible fault magnitude and ground acceleration. The Seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing the 2008 USGS Hazard Maps and Seed and Idriss methods for active Quaternary faults within the regional vicinity. The site may be subject to a Maximum Probable Earthquake of 6.9 Magnitude along the Rose Canyon fault, with a corresponding Peale Ground Acceleration of 0.44g. The maximum Probable Earthqualee is defined as the maximum earthquake that is considered likely to occur within a 100-year time period. The effective ground acceleration at the site is associated with the part of significant ground motion, which contains repetitive strong-energy shaking, and which may produce structural deformation. As such, the effective or "free field" ground acceleration is referred to as the Repeatable High Ground Acceleration (RHGA). It has been determined by Ploessel and Slosson (1974) that the RHGA is approximately equal to 65 percent of the Peale Ground Acceleration for earthqualees occurring within 20 miles of a site. Based on the above, the calculated Credible RHGA at the site is 0.29g. 2013 CBC Seismic Design Criteria A review of the active fault maps pertaining to the site indicates the location of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone approximately 8.6 km to the west. Ground shaking from this fault or one of the major active faults in the region is the most likely happening to affect the site. With respect to this hazard, the site is comparable to others in the general area. The proposed residential structure should be designed in accordance with seismic design requirements of the 2013 California Building Code or the' Structural Engineers Association of California using the following seismic design parameters: 5 .. ' ' • CHRISTINE WAi.£11.CEI 3935 SYME DRIVEi CARLSBAD PROJ,:;,:,7 NO. 15-110606 PARAMETER . '' ' . ' ·. ',.\'. "-.' .. ·?,:; 'VALUE· 2011 CBC and ASCE 7 REFERENCES· . . , . Site Class D Table 20.3-ll ASCE 7, Chapter 20 Mapped Spectral Acceleration For Short Periods, 1.132g Figure 1613.3.1(1) S, Mapped Spectral Acceleration For a I-Second 0.435g Figure 1613.3.1(2) Period, S1 Site Coefficient, F, 1.047 Table 1613.3.3(1) Site Coefficient, Fv 1.565 Table 1613.3.3(2) Adjusted Max. Considered Earthquake Spectral 1.186 Equation 16-37 Resoonse Acceleration for Short Periods. SMs Adjusted Max. Considered Earthquake Spectral 0.680g Equation 16-38 Resoonse Acceleration for I-Second Period, S~11 5 Percent Damped Design Spectral Response 0.790g E~uation 16-39 Acceleration for Short Periods, Sos 5 Percent Damped Design Spectral Response 0.454g Equation 16-40 Acceleration for !-Second Period, Sm Geologic Hazard Assessment Ground Rupture Ground rupture due to active faulting is not considered likely due to the absence of known fault traces within the vicinity of the project; however, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out. The unlikely hazard of ground rupture should not preclude consideration of "flexible" design for on-site utility lines and connections. Liquefaction Liquefaction involves the substantial loss of shear strength in saturated soils, usually sandy soils with a loose consistency when subjected to earthquake shaking. Based on the absence of shallow groundwater and consistency of the underlying terrace deposits, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction is veiy low. Landsliding There is no indication that landslides or unstable slope conditions exist on or adjacent to the project site. There are no obvious geologic hazards related to landsliding to the proposed development or adjacent properties. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION Based on our investigation and evaluation of the collected information, we conclude. that the proposed structural development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations provided herein will be properly implemented during construction. In order to provide a uniform support for the proposed structures, footings should be excavated into properly compacted fill soils or extended to the dense terrace deposits. The new foundations may 6 .. .. .. CHRISTINE WA.;,.,,.CE/ 3935 SYME DRIVE/CARLSBAD PRO~ ... dr NO. /5-J /0606 consist of reinforced continuous and/ or spread footings with the raised-wood and reinforced slabs floors. Recommendations and criteria for foundation design are provided in the Foundation and Slab recommendations section of this report. Compressible Soils Our field observations and testing indicate low compressibility within the dense terrace deposits, which underlie the site. However, loose topsoil was encountered to a depth of approximately 12 to 24 inches below surface grades. These soils are compressible. Due to the potential for soil compression upon loading, remedial grading of these loose soils, including overexcavation and recompaction will be required unless footings are extended to the dense terrace deposits. Following implementation of the earthwork recommendations presented herein, the potential for soil compression resulting from the new development has been estimated to be low. The low-settlement assessment assumes a well-planned and maintained site drainage system. Recommendations regarding mitigation by earthwork construction are presented in the Grading and Earthwork Recommendations section of this report. Expansive Soils An expansion index test was performed on representative sample of the terrace deposits to determine volumetric change characteristics with change in moisture content. An expansion index of O was obtained which indicates a very low expansion potential for the foundation soils. Groundwater Static groundwater was not encountered to the depths of the boreholes. The building pad is located at elevations over 150 feet above Mean Sea Level. We do not expect groundwater to affect the proposed construction. Recommendations to prevent or mitigate the effects of poor surface drainage are presented in the Drainage section of this report. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the analysis of .the data and information obtained from our soil investigation. This includes site reconnaissance; field investigation; laboratory testing and our general knowledge of the soils native to the site. The site is suitable for the proposed residential development provided the recommendations set forth are implemented during construction. GRADING AND EARTHWORK Based upon the proposed construction and the information obtained during the field investigation, we anticipate that the proposed structures will be founded on continuous and/ or spread footings, which are supported by properly compacted fill or dense terrace deposits. The following grading and earthwork recommendations are based upon the limited geotechnical investigation performed, and should be verified during construction by our field representative. 7 '· • CHRISTINE WAtu,CEI 3935 SYME DR/VF/ CARLSBAD PRC~-.siT NO. ! 5-110606 Clearing and Grubbing Following demolition of the existing structure, all areas to be graded or to receive fill and/or structures should be cleared of vegetation. Vegetation and the debris from the clearing operation should be properly disposed of off-site. The area should be thoroughly inspected for any possible buried objects, which need to be rerouted or removed prior to the inception of, or during grading. All holes, trenches, or pockets left by the removal of these objects should be properly backfilled with compacted fill materials as recommended in the Method and Criteria of Compaction section of this report. Structural Improvement of Soils Information obtained from our field and laboratory analysis indicates that loose topsoil covers the site to a maximum depth of approximately 2 feet below existing grade. These loose surficial soils are susceptible to settlement upon loading. Based upon the soil characteristics, we recommend the following: .. * * * * All topsoil and other loose native soils should be completely removed from areas, which are planned to receive compacted fills and/or structural improvements. The bottom of the removal area should expose competent materials as approved by ECSC&E geotechnical representative. Prior to the placement of new fill, the bottom of the removal area should be scarified a minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned within 2 percent above the optimum moisture content, and then recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557 test method). Overexcavation should be completed for the structural building pad to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the proposed footings or 3 feet below surface grade, whichever is greater. The limit of the required area of overexcavation should be extended a minimum of 5 feet laterally beyond the perimeter footing (building footprint). For non-structural areas, such as driveways, we recommend overexcavation to a minimum depth of 2 feet below existing grade. Soils utilized as fill should be moisture-conditioned and recompacted in conformance with the following Method and Criteria of Compaction section of this report. The actual depth and extent of any overexcavation and recompaction should be evaluated in the field by a representative ofECSC&E. An alternative to the overexcavation and recompaction of subgrade is to extend the proposed footings to the dense terrace deposits. However, for slab support, we recommend overexcavation and recompaction of the upper two feet of subgrade. Foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm to verify competent bearing soils. 8 CHRISTINE W /ii,,:.,i_CE/ 3935 SYME DRIVEi CARLSBAD PRO,;,.,,.;T NO. 15-I /06G6 Transitions Between Cut and Fill The proposed structure is anticipated to be founded in either properly compacted fill or dense terrace deposits. Cut to fill transitions below the proposed structure should be completely eliminated during the earthwork construction as required in the previous section. Method and Criteria of Compaction Compacted fills should consist of approved soil material, free of trash debris, roots, vegetation or other deleterious materials. Fill soils should be compacted by suitable compaction equipment in uniform loose lifts of 6 to 8 inches. Unless otherwise specified, all soils subjected to recompaction should be moisture-conditioned within 2 percent over the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM test method D1557. On-site soils, after being processed to delete the aforementioned deleterious materials, may be used for recompaction purposes. Should any importation of fill be planned, the intended import source(s) should be evaluated and approved by ECSCE prior to delivery to the site. Care should be taken to ensure that these soils are not detrimentally expansive. Placement of Oversized Rock All materials for capping the structural building pads should be free ofrocks and debris in excess of3- inch dimension. Select fill should extend ,a minimum of 5 feet laterally outside the structural footprints. Material up to 12-inch dimension may be placed between 3 and 10 feet from finish grades, but must remain at least 10 feet laterally from the face of permanent slopes and should also not be placed within the alignment of proposed utilities. Although we do not anticipate earthwork to create oversized material from 12 to 48 inches in dimension, if encountered, it may be placed in approved non-structural fill areas. The oversized material should be placed in windrows surrounded by granular fill. The rock windrows should be flooded with water to facilitate filling of voids. Care should be taken to avoid nesting of oversize rocks and no large rock should be placed within 10 feet of any slope face. The non-structural rockfill should be capped with a minimum 3 feet of fill containing no rocks greater than 6-inch dimension. Erosion Control Due to the granular characteristics of on-site soils, areas of recent grading or exposed ground may be subject to erosion. During construction, surface water should be controlled via berms, gravel/ sandbags, silt fences, straw wattles, siltation or bioretention basins, positive surface grades or other method to avoid damage to the finish work or adjoining properties. All site entrances and exits must have coarse gravel or steel shaker plates to minimize offsite sediment tracking. Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be used to protect storm drains and minimize pollution. The contractor should take measures to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. After completion of grading, all excavated surfaces should exhibit positive drainage and eliminate areas where water might pond. 9 CHRISTINE Wlii.uiCF/ 3935 SYME DR/VF/ CARLSBAD PRG.,-,,.:;T NO. ! 5-1 l06G6 Standard Grading Guidelines Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the standard-of-practice methods for this local, the guidelines of the current edition of the California Building Code, and the requirements of the jurisdictional agency. Where the information provided in the geotechnical report differs from the Standard Grading Guidelines, the requirements outlined in the report shall govern. FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS a. Continuous and spread footings are suitable for use and should extend to minimum depths of 12 and 18 inches for the proposed one and two-story structure respectively into the properly compacted fill soils or dense terrace deposits. Continuous footings should be at least 12 and 15 inches in width respectively and reinforced with a minimum of four #4 steel bars; two bars placed near the top of the footings and the other two bars placed near the bottom of the footings. Isolated or spread footings should be at least 24 inches wide and reinforced with a minimum #4 bars spaced 12 inches on center each way and placed horizontally near the bottom. The above reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu of the project structural engineer requirements. b. Interior floor slabs should be a minimum 4 inches thick. Reinforcement should consist of #3 bars placed at 16 inches on center each way within the middle third of the slabs by supporting the steel on chairs or concrete blocks "dobies". The slabs should be underlain by 2 inches of clean sand over a 10-mil visqueen moisture barrier. The effect of concrete shrinkage will result in cracks in virtually all-concrete slabs. To reduce the extent of shrinkage, the concrete should be placed at a maximum of 4-inch slump. The minimum steel recommended is not intended to prevent shrinkage cracks. c. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slabs, the 10-mil plastic moisture barrier should be underlain by a capillary break at least 2 inches thick, consisting of coarse sand, gravel or crushed rock not exceeding 3/4 inch in size with no more than 5 percent passing the #200 sieve. d. An allowable soil bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous and spread footings at least 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches into properly compacted fill soils. This value may be increased by 400 psf for each additional foot of depth or width to a maximum of 4,000 lb/ft2. e. Lateral resistance to horizontal movement may be provided by the soil passive pressure and the friction of concrete to soil. An allowable passive pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be used. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 is recommended. The soils passive pressure as well as the bearing value may be increased by 1/3 for wind and seismic loading. 10 CHRISTINE WAi;Ul'CEI 3935 SYME DRIVEi CARLSBAD PRO~,;,CT NO. 15-1 /06G6 SETTLEMENT Settlement of compacted fill soils is normal and should be anticipated. Because of the type and minor thickness of the fill soils anticipated under the proposed footings and the light building loads, total and differential settlement should be within acceptable limits. TEMPORARY SLOPES For the excavation of foundations and utility trenches, temporary vertical cuts to a maximum height of 4 feet may be constructed in fill or natural soil. Any temporary cuts beyond the above height constraints should be shored or further laid back following a I: I (horizontal to vertical) slope ratio. OSHA guidelines for trench excavation safety should be implemented during construction. TRENCH BACKFILL Excavations for utility lines, which extend under structural areas should be properly backfilled and compacted. Utilities should be bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to a depth of at least one foot over the pipe. This backfill should be uniformly · watered and compacted to a firm condition for pipe support. The remainder of the backfill should be on-site soils or non-expansive imported soils, which should be placed in thin lifts, moisture-conditioned and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. DRAINAGE Adequate measures should be undertaken after the structure and other improvements are in place, such that the drainage water within the site and adjacent properties is directed away from the foundations, footings, floor slabs and the tops of slopes via rain gutters, downspouts, surface swales and subsurface drains towards the natural drainage for this area. A minimum gradient of 2 percent is recommended in hardscape areas. In earth areas, a minimum gradient of 5 percent away from the structure for a distance of at least 10 feet should be provided. Earth swales should have a minimum gradient of 2 percent. Drainage should be directed to approved drainage facilities. Proper surface and subsurface drainage will be required to minimize the potential of water seeking the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings and floor slabs, which may otherwise result in undermining and differential settlement of the structure and other improvements. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW Our firm should review the foundation plans during the design phase to assure conformance with the intent of this report. During construction, foundation excavations should be observed by our representative prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete for conformance with the plans and specifications. ' LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION Our investigation was performed using the skill and degree of care ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No 11 ·, CHRISTINE W-l=dCEI 3935 SYME DRIVEi CARLSBAD PRC., .. .£,'T NO I 5-1 /0606 other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This report is prepared for the sole use of our client and may not be assigned to others without the written consent of the client and ECSC&E, Inc. The samples collected and used for testing, and the observations made, are believed representative of site conditions; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between exploration trenches, boreholes and surface exposures. As in most major projects, conditions revealed by construction excavations may vary with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by a representative of ECSC&E and designs adjusted as required or alternate designs recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the project architect and engineer. Appropriate recommendations should be incorporated into the structural plans. The necessary steps should be taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The findings of this report are valid as of this present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should be updated after a period of two years. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The review of plans and specifications, field observations and testing under our direction are integral parts of the recommendations made in this report. If East County Soil Consultation and Engineering, Inc. is not retained for these services, the client agrees to assume our responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during construction. Observation and testing are additional services, which are provided by our firm, and should be budgeted within the cost of development Plates No. 1 through 3, Page L-1 and References are parts of this report. 12 .. ., ' / .' ~~ ·~ :/·, ' / / EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION & ENGINEERING, INC. ... 10925 HAR1U!Y RD~ surra I. SAN'TllE, CA.92071 _(619) 258-7901 Pmt (619) 258-7902 />~ I{.(!)./' . . . DEPTH Surface 2.0' 3.0' 4.0' 5.0' DEPTH Surface 1.0' 1.5' 3.0' DEPTH Surface 2.0' 3.0' 4.0' DEPTH Surface 1.5' 3.0' 4.0' CHRISTINE w;,;,iACEI 3935 SYME DRIVEi CARLSBAD PRc...l::r NO. 15-l I 06G6 PLATEN0.2 SUMMARY SHEET BOREHOLE NO. 1 SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL dark brown, diy, loose, porous, silty sand with rootlets TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) reddish brown, dry, medium dense, silty sand becomes moist and dense " " " " " bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater borehole backfilled 11113/15 BOREHOLE NO. 2 SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL dark brown, dry, loose, porous, silty sand with rootlets TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) reodish brown, chy, medium dense, silty sand becomes moist and dense bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater borehole backfilled 11/13/15 y 113.7 y ---------·------------------- BOREHOLE NO. 3 SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL dark brown, dry, loose, porous, silty sand with ro11tlets TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) reddish brown, dry, medium dense, silty sand becomes moist and dense · bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater borehole backfilled I l/!3/15 BOREHOLE NO. 3 SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL dark brown, diy, loose, porous, silty sand with rootlets TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt) reddish brown, dry, medium dense, silty sand becomes moist and dense bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater borehole backfilled 11/13/15 y y 104.9 Y = DRY DENSITY IN PCF M = MOISTURE CONTENT IN% 13 M 32 33 4.3 M M M 3.1 • : . ; ' MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL DESCRIPTION GW WELL GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVE!.-SAND MIXTURES. LITTLE OR NO FINES GRAVELS GP POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND (MORETHAN~ OF COARSE MIXTURES. LITTLE OR NO FINES FRACTION GM SIL TY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES >NO. 4 SIEVE SIZE) COARSE GC GRAINED SOILS CLAYEY ORA VELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES (MORE THAN ~ OF SOIL SW > NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE) WELL GRADED SANDS OR ORA VELL Y SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS SP POORLY GRADED SANDS OR ORA VELL Y SANDS, (MORE THAN~ OF COARSE LITTLE OR NO FINES FRACTION SM <N0.4S!EVE SILTY SANDS, SILT-SAND M1XlURES SIZE) SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MlXl1lRES • ML INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK SILTS& FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SUGHT PLASTICITY CLAYS CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM UQUIDUMIT PLASTICITY, GRA YELL Y Cl.A YS, SANDY CLAYS, <SO SILTY CLAYS. LEAN CLAYS FINE GRAINED OL SOILS ORGANIC Sll.TS AND ORGANIC Sll.TY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY (MORE THAN ~ OF son. MH < NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE) INORGANIC Sll.TS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS SILTS& FINE SANDY OR Sll.TY son.s ELASTIC Sll.TS CLAYS CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT UQUIDUMIT >SO CLAYS OH ORGANIC Cl.A YS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC Sll.TY Cl.A YS. ORGANIC SIL TS illGfilY ORGANIC SOILS Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHL y ORGANIC son.s CLASSIFICATION CHART (UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATIONSYSTEM) CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF GRAIN SIZES U.S.STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN SIEVESIZE MILLIMETERS BOULDERS Above 12 Inches Abovc30S COBBLES 12 Inches To 3 Inches 30STo 76.2 GRAVEL 3 Inches to No. 4 76.2 to4.76 Coarse 3 Inches to % Inch 76.2 to 19.l Fine % Inch to No. 4 19.1 to 4.76 SAND No. 4 to No. 200 4. 76 to 0.074 Coa,sc No. 4 ID No. 10 4.76 ID2.00 Medium No. 10 ID No. 40 2.00 ID 0.420 Fine No. 40 ID No. 200 0.420 ID 0.074 SILT AND CLAY Below No. 200 Below0.074 GRAIN SIZE CHART EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULTATION AND ENGINEERING, INC. 10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE "I" SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 U.S.C.S. SOIL CLASSIFICATION • ' • ' . '• ,.,..,..,,na•• of "/ ·' ~-· / ;;;; . .,·~--. .sJ ... , _,.i,,n .. 11u.•tu/ ~-?-,. Pl•Q.ntu.•l:OI ,.,. ......... 'Y / r::,-?-./i '"'1iol.t L.l.•llt.'1•' -•t•Q.ICU.•U // "'"' / / / ~ / cl' ,,. non• .. .. .,, MLjOL • . --N LIQUID 1.IIIIT IU,I -·-- PLASTICITY CHART / ./ t111/!l.577NG NA-£-t,4<:e '5Y,41t!"t:K, J/1},Jeq' /W, /6-/l~bG& ,PLA-77 Nt7. 3 /Y()Y. 3t? r ~IG" . . CHRISTINE W ;.w:./J.CEI 3935 SYME DRIVEi CARLSBAD PRCc=::!T NO. 15-110606 INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT(%) 8.5 l" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 uses PAGEL-1 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS EXPANSION INDEX TEST (ASTM D4829) SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT(%) 16.1 INITIAL DRY DENSITY EXPANSION (PCF) INDEX 115.3 0 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422) ---- -100 100 99 99 99 99 99 91 91 45 47 25 29 19 23 SM SM 14 ' LOCATION BH-1 @3.5' -- - -- 100 93 48 30 25 SM • . .. . ·, CHRISTINE W ;.';;-.,,.CE/ 3935 SYME DRIVEi CARLSBAD PRC~_,:,1T NO. 15-110606 REFERENCES I. "2013 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of2", Published by International Code Council. 2. "Geologic Map of the San Diego 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California", by Michael P. Kennedy and Siang S. Tan, 2008. 3. "Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering: Design and Construction", by Robert W. Day, 1999. 4. "1997 Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions", Published by International Conference of Building Officials. 5. "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada· to be used with 1997 Uniform Building Code", Published by International Conference of Building Officials. 6. "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California", Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, by Siang S. Tan and Michael P. Kennedy, 1996. 7. "Bearing Capacity of Soils, Technical Engineering and Design Guides as Adapted from the US Anny Corps of Engineers, No. 7", Published by ASCE Press, 1994. 8. "Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.2", by Department of Navy Naval Facilities Engineering Command, May I 982, Revalidated by Change I September 1986. 9. "Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes", by H.B. Seed and J.M. Idriss, 1982. 15