The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 16-29; LINCOLN RESIDENCE; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2019-01-15RECORD COPY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single Family Residence 5198 Shore Drive Carlsbad, California RECEt,1ED MAY 2 0 2019 LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGlNEERlNG HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. €/4/,tt Date HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING• ENGINEERING GEOLOGY• HYDROGEOLOGY Beach Bus Studios 349 Third Street Laguna Beach, California 92651 Attention: Mr. Jason Dunkerton January 15, 2019 Project No. 8081.1 Log No. 20273 Subject: GRADING AND FOUNDATION PLANS REVIEW/GEOTECHNJCAL UPDATE Proposed Single-Family Residence 5198 Shore Drive Carlsbad, California References: Attached Dear Mr. Dunkerton: In response to your request, we have reviewed the referenced geotechnical report (Reference 1) and performed a site reconnaissance of the subject site. Based on our review and site reconnaissance, the subject site is in generally the same condition as addressed by the referenced report and the geotechnical recommendations provided in the referenced report remain applicable. We have also reviewed the grading and foundation plans (References 3 and 4). Based on our review, the grading and foundation plans have incorporated the geotechnical recommendations presented in the referenced report (Reference 1) and are considered suitable from a geotechnical perspective. This opportunity to be of services is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, HET~RIN TO ~ Mat-· D. JJ:mi0~({J Civil Engineer 3048 Geotechnical Engin ( expires 3/3 1/20) Distribution: 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008-4369 • (760) 931-1917 • Fax (760) 931-0545 333 Third Street, Suite 2 • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 -2306 • (949) 715-5440 • Fax (760) 931-0545 www.hetheringtonengineering.com ' .. REFERENCES 1. "Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 5198 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California", by Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated November 14, 2016. 2. "Grading Plans For: 5198 Shore Drive", (Sheets 1 and 2), by Duca-McCoy, Inc., signed by Pete Duca January 9, 2019. 3. Foundation Plan and Details, 5198 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (Sheets S-0.1 0, S-0.11 , S-1.0, S-RW, SDl.0, and SDl.1), by Core Structure, Inc., plot dated May 11, 2018. 4. Foundation Plan -Driveway Retaining Walls and Driveway Retaining Wall Details & Notes, 5198 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (Sheets S-1.1 and S-RW2), by Core Structure, Inc., dated January 4, 2019. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. 8081. I Log No. 20273 HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY Beach Bus Studios 349 Third Street Laguna Beach, California 92651 Attention: Subject: Mr. Jason Dunkerton GRADING AND FOUNDATION PLANS REVIEW Proposed Single-Family Residence 5198 Shore Drive Carlsbad, California References: Attached Dear Dunkerton June 22, 2018 Project No. 8081.1 Log No. 19934 In response to your request, we have reviewed the grading and foundation plans (References 2 and 3). Based on our review, the grading and foundation plans have incorporated the geotechnical recommendations presented in the referenced report (Reference 1). This opportunity to be of services is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. D. He eri gton Civil Engineer 30488 Geotechnical Engineer ( expires 3/31/20) Distribution: 4-Addressee . Bogseth fessional Geologist 3 772 1-via e-mail Gason@beachbusstudios.com) 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A • Carlsbad, CA 92008-4369 • (760) 931-1917 • Fax (760) 931-0545 333 Third Street, Suite 2 • Laguna Beach, CA 92651-2306 • (949) 715-5440 • Fax (760) 931-0545 www.hetheringtonengineering.com REFERENCES 1. "Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 5198 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California", by Hetherington Engineering, Inc., dated November 14, 2016. 2. "Grading Plans For: 5198 Shore Drive", (Sheets 1 and 2), by Duca-McCoy, Inc., undated. 3. Foundation Plan and Details, 5198 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (Sheets S-0.10, S-0.11, S-1.0, S-RW, SDl.0, and SDl.l), by Core Structure, Inc., plot dated May 11, 2018. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. 8081.1 Log No. 19934 HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING• ENGINEERING GEOLOGY• HYDROGEOLOGY November 14, 2016 Project No. 8081.1 Log No. 18627 Bruce and Christy Lincoln 3044 Cottonwood Lane Phoenix, Arizona 85040 Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single-Family Residence 5198 Shore Drive Carlsbad, California References: Attached Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln: In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for a proposed single-family residence at the subject site. Our work was performed in October and November 2016. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate site geologic and soil conditions in order to provide grading and foundation recommendations for the proposed construction. We were provided with architectural plans (Reference 8) to assist in our investigation. With the above in mind, our scope of work included the following: • Research and review of available reports, plans and geologic literature pertinent to the site (see References). • Subsurface exploration consisting of two limited access auger borings for soil sampling and geologic observation. • Laboratory testing of samples obtained from the subsurface exploration. • Engineering and geologic analysis. • Preparation of this report providing the results of our field and laboratory work, analyses, and our conclusions and recommendations. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is located at 5198 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California (see Location Map, Figure 1). The site consists of a relatively level lot supporting a one and two-story, wood-frame, single-family residence and attached garage that is apparently founded on conventional continuous/spread footings. The property is bounded by Shore Drive to the southwest and by similarly developed residential properties to the northwest, southeast and northeast. 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A• Carlsbad, CA 92008-4369 • (760) 931-1917 • Fax (760) 931-0545 333 Third Street, Suite 2 • Laguna Beach, CA 92651-2306 • (949) 715-5440 • Fax (760) 931-0545 www.hetheringtonengineering.com PA 1FIC OCEAN 1-----1----· - ADAPTED FROM: The Thomas Guide, San Diego County, 57th Edition, Page 1126 ~ N I SCALE: 1" -2000' (1 Grid Equals: 0.5 x 0.5 miles) LOCATION MAP 5198 Shore Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Carlsbad California GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 8081 .1 I FIGURE NO. 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8081.1 Log No. 18627 November 14, 2016 Page2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT We understand the proposed development consists of a custom, single-family residence, attached garage, and associated yard improvements. Existing site improvements are to be demolished. The proposed structure will be two-stories plus basement with the basement up to 7-feet below existing site grades. We anticipate wood-frame construction founded on conventional continuous/spread footings with slab-on-grade floors. Building loads are expected to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. Grading consisting of cut up to 7-feet below existing grade is anticipated. No slopes are proposed. SUB SURF ACE EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions were explored by excavating two limited access borings to depths of 13.5 and 15.5-feet below existing site grades. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the attached Plot Plan, Figure 2. The subsurface exploration was performed by an engineer from this office, who visually classified the soil, and obtained bulk and relatively undisturbed samples for laboratory testing. The soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classifications are shown on the attached Boring Logs, Figures 3 and 4. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. Tests performed consisted of the following: • Dry Density/Moisture Content (ASTM: D 2216) • Expansion Index (ASTM: D 4829) • Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557) • Direct Shear (ASTM: D 3080) • Soluble Sulfate (Cal Test 417) Results of the dry density and moisture content determinations are presented on the Boring Logs, Figures 3 and 4. The remaining laboratory test results are presented on the attached Laboratory Test Results, Figure 5. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8081.1 Log No. 18627 November 14, 2016 Page 3 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 1. Geologic Setting The subject site lies within a relatively level marine terrace that is contained within the coastal plain region of northern San Diego County, California. The coastal plain region is characterized by numerous regressive marine terraces of Pleistocene age that have been established above wave-cut platforms of underlying Eocene bedrock and were formed during glacio-eustatic changes in sea-level. The terraces extend from areas of higher elevations east of the site and descend generally west-southwest in a "stairstep" fashion down to the present day coastline. These marine terraces increase in age eastward. The site area is contained within the southern portion of the USGS Oceanside 7-1 /2 minute quadrangle. As observed in the subsurface excavations, the site is underlain by fill and Quaternary Terrace Deposits. These soils are considered very low in expansion potential. Structurally, bedding within the terrace deposits is considered to be massive. The terrace deposits are underlain at depth by early to middle Eocene Santiago Formation bedrock 2. Geologic Units a. Fill -An approximate 1 to 2±-feet thick layer of fill was observed in the borings consisting of red brown silty sand that is moist, loose, porous, and contained scattered roots and rootlets. b. Terrace Deposits -Terrace deposits were encountered in the borings underling the fill. The terrace deposits consist of red brown to light brown silty sand that is moist and mediun1 dense to dense. 3. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in the borings. It should be noted, however, that fluctuations in the amount and level of groundwater might occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation and other factors that may not have been evident at the time of our field investigation. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8081.1 Log No. 18627 November 14, 2016 Page4 SEISMICITY The following table lists the known active faults that would have the most significant impact on the site: Maximum Probable Fault Earthquake Slip Rate (Moment Magnitude) (mm/year) Rose Canyon 7.0 1.5 ( 4-miles/6.4-kilometers southwest) Coronado Bank 7.4 3.0 (20-miles/3 2.2-kilometers southwest) Elsinore (Julian Segment) 7.3 3.0 (24-miles/3 8. 6-kilometers northeast) SEISMIC EFFECTS 1. Ground Accelerations The most significant probable earthquake to effect the site would be a 7.0 magnitude earthquake on the Rose Canyon fault. Based on Section 1803.5.12 of the 2013 California Building Code, peak ground accelerations (PGAM) of 0.487g are possible for the design earthquake. 2. Landsliding Review of the referenced geologic literature indicates that the subject property has no previously mapped landslide deposits. The risk of seismically induced landsliding effecting the site is considered nil due to the dense, massive nature of the terrace deposits and relatively level topography. 3. Ground Cracks The risk of fault surface rupture due to active faulting is considered low due to the absence of an active fault on site. Ground cracks due to shaking from seismic events in the region are possible, as with all of southern California. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8081.1 Log No. 18627 November 14, 2016 Page 5 4. Liquefaction The risk of seismically induced liquefaction within the site is considered low due to the dense nature of the tenace deposits and absence of shallow groundwater. 5. Tsunamis The site is not within a mapped tsunami inundation area (Reference 2). The risk of a tsunami adversely impacting the site is considered low due to the elevation of the site above sea level. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. General The proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Grading and foundation plans should take into account the appropriate geotechnical features of the site. Provided that the recommendations presented in this report and good construction practices are utilized during design and construction, the proposed construction is not anticipated to adversely impact the adjacent properties from a geotechnical standpoint. 2. Seismic Parameters for Structural Design Seismic considerations that may be used for structural design at the site, based on Section 1613 of the 2013 California Building Code and ASCE 7-10, include the following: a. Ground Motion -The proposed structure and improvements should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in Section 1613 of the 2013 California Building Code. Site Address: 5198 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California Latitude: 33.13046°N Longitude: 117.33489°W HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECB.NICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8081.1 Log No. 18627 November 14, 2016 Page 6 b. Spectral Response Accelerations -Using the location of the property and data obtained from the U. S. G. S. Earthquake Hazard Program (Reference 12), short period Spectral Response Accelerations Ss (0.2 second period) and S1 (1 .0 second period) are: Ss= 1.176g S1 = 0.452g c. Site Class -In accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-10 and the underlying geologic conditions, a Site Class D is considered appropriate for the subject property. d. Site Coefficients Fa and Fy -In accordance with Table 1613.3.3 and considering the values of Ss and S1, Site Coefficients are: Fa = 1.030 Fv = 1.548 e. Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Sms and Sm 1 -In accordance with Section 1613.5.3 and considering the values of Ss and S,, and Fa and Fv, Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters for Maximum Considered Earthquake are: Sms = 1.21 l g Sm1 = 0.700g f. Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Sds and Sd1 -In accordance with Section 1613.3.4 and considering the values of Sms and Sm1, Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters for Maximum Considered Earthquake are: Sds = 0.807g Sd1 = 0.467g g. Long Period Transition Period -A Long Period Transition Period of TL = 8 seconds is provided for use in San Diego County. h. Seismic Design Category -In accordance with Tables 1604.5, 1613.3.5, and ASCE 7-10, a Risk Category II and a Seismic Design Category Dare considered appropriate for the subject property. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8081.1 Log No. 18627 November 14, 2016 Page 7 3. Site Grading Prior to grading, the site should be cleared of existing improvements, surface obstructions, vegetation and debris. Materials generated during clearing should be disposed of at an approved location off-site. In areas of proposed improvements/hardscape and where not removed by the basement excavation, existing fill and any loose or disturbed terrace deposits should be removed down to approved terrace deposits and replaced with compacted fill in order to achieve design finish grades. Removal depths on the order of 1 to 3-feet below existing grades are anticipated. Removals below basement grade are not necessary if competent/undisturbed terrace deposits are exposed. Following removals, the exposed surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8-inches, moisture conditioned to about optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90-percent relative compaction. The recommended removals and recompaction should extend to at least 5-feet outside the proposed improvements, where possible. Actual removal depths should be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Consultant based on conditions exposed during grading. Fill should be compacted by mechanical means in uniform horizontal lifts of 6 to 8- inches in thickness. All fill should be brought to near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90-percent based upon ASTM: D 1557. The on-site materials are suitable for use as compacted fill provided all vegetation and debris are removed. Rock fragments over 6-inches in dimension and other perishable or unsuitable materials should be excluded from the fill. All grading and compaction should be observed and tested as necessary by the Geotechnical Consultant. 4. Foundation and Slab Recommendations The proposed structure should be supported on conventional continuous/spread footings founded at least 18-inches into compacted fill and/or terrace deposits. Continuous footings shoul d be at least 12-inches wide, and reinforced with a minimum of four #4 bars, two top and two bottom. Foundations located adjacent to utility trenches should extend below a 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical) plane projected upward from the bottom of the trench. Foundations bearing as recommended may be designed for a dead plus live load bearing value of 2000-pounds-per-square-foot. This value may be increased by one- third for loads including wind and seismic forces. A lateral bearing value of 250- pounds-per-square-foot per foot of depth and a coefficient of friction between HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8081.1 Log No. 18627 November 14, 2016 Page 8 foundation soil and concrete of 0.35 may be assumed. These values assume that footings will be poured neat against the foundation soils. Footing excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of reinforcing steel in order to verify that they are founded in suitable bearing materials. Total and differential settlement due to foundation loads are considered to be less than 3/4 and 3/8-inch, respectively, for foundations founded as recommended. Slab-on-grade floors should have a minimum thickness of 5-inches and should be reinforced with #4 bars spaced at 18-inches, center-to-center, in two directions, and supported on chairs so that the reinforcement is at mid-height in the slab. Floor slabs, including the garage, should be underlain with a moisture vapor retarder consisting of a minimum 10-mil polyethylene membrane. At least 2-inches of sand should be placed over the vapor retarder to assist in concrete curing and at least 2-inches of sand should be placed below the vapor retarder. The vapor retarder should be placed in accordance with ASTM: E 1643. Prior to placing concrete, the slab subgrade soils should be thoroughly moistened. Vapor retarders are not intended to provide a waterproofing function. Should moisture vapor sensitive floor coverings be planned, a qualified consultant/contractor should be consulted to evaluate moisture vapor transmission rates and to provide recommendations to mitigate potential adverse impacts of moisture vapor transmissions on the proposed flooring. 5. Retaining Walls Retaining wall foundations should be designed in accordance with the previous building foundation recommendations. Retaining walls free to rotate (cantilevered walls) should be designed for an active pressure of 40-pounds-per-cubic-foot ( equivalent fluid pressure) assuming level backfill consisting of onsite granular soils. Walls restrained from movement at the top should be designed for an at-rest earth pressure of 60-pounds-per-cubic-foot (equivalent fluid pressure). Any additional surcharge pressures behind the retaining walls should be added to these values. Retaining walls should be provided with adequate drainage to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure and should be adequately waterproofed. The subdrain system behind retaining walls should consist at a minimum of 4-inch diameter Schedule 40 (or equivalent) perforated (perforations "down") PVC pipe embedded in at least 1- cubic-foot of 3/4-inch crushed rock per lineal foot of pipe all wrapped in approved filter fabric. Other subdrain systems that may be contemplated for use behind HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8081. l Log No. 18627 November 14, 2016 Page 9 retaining walls due to the ultimate design and construction methodology will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Recommendations for wall waterproofing should be provided by the Project Architect and/or Structural Engineer. The lateral pressure on retaining walls due to earthquake motions ( dynamic lateral force) may be calculated as PA = 3/8 y H2kh where PA y H kh = = = = dynamic lateral force (lbs) unit weight = 120 pcf height of wall (feet) seismic coefficient = 0.16 The dynamic lateral force may also be expressed as 14.4-pcf (equivalent fluid pressure). The dynamic lateral force is in addition to the static force and should be applied as a triangular distribution at 1/3H above the base of the wall. The dynamic lateral force need not be applied to retaining walls 6-feet or less in height. 6. Temporary Slopes Temporary slopes necessary to facilitate site grading and the construction of the basement retaining walls may be cut vertically up to 5-feet where the cuts are not influenced by existing structures or property line constraints. Any portion of temporary slopes near existing improvements, higher than 5-feet, or exposing potentially unstable soils should be sloped at a ratio no steeper than 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical), slot cut, or shored. Construction in sections or shoring may be necessary to construct the retaining walls along the northwest and southeast sides of the basement due to the close proximity of the cuts to the adjacent property. Field observations by the Engineering Geologist during grading of temporary slopes is recommended and considered necessary to confirm anticipated conditions and provide additional recommendations as warranted. Slot cut/shoring parameters can be provided upon request. 7. Concrete Flatwork Concrete flatwork should be at least 5-inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced at 18-inches on-center (two directions) and placed on chairs so that the HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8081.1 Log No. 18627 November 14, 201 6 Page 10 reinforcement is in the center of the slab. Slab subgrade should be maintained at or slightly above optimum moisture content prior to placement of concrete. Contraction joints should be provided at 10-feet spacing (maximum). Joints should create square panels where possible. For rectangular panels (where necessary) the long dimension should be no more than 1.5 times the short dimension. Joint depth should be at least 0.25 times the flatwork thickness. Expansion joints should be thoroughly sealed to prevent the infiltration of water into the underlying soils. 8. Retaining Wall and Utility Trench Backfill All retaining wall and utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90- percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557). Backfill should be observed and tested as necessary by the Geotechnical Consultant. 9. Corrosivity A representative sample of the on-site soils was submitted for sulfate testing and the results are presented on the Laboratory Test Results, Figure 5. The sulfate content is consistent with a negligible/not applicable sulfate exposure classification per American Concrete Institute Publication 318, Section 4.3. Consequently, no special provisions for sulfate resistant concrete are considered necessary. Other corrosivity testing has not been performed, consequently, the on-site soils should be assumed to be severely corrosive to buried metals unless testing is performed to indicate otherwise. 10. Site Drainage Site drainage and choice of landscaping are important. The following recommendations are intended to minimize th e potential adverse effects of water on the structure and appurtenances. Surface drainage issues should be addressed by the project Architect and/or Civil Engineer. a. Consideration should be given to providing the structure with roof gutters and downspouts that discharge into appropriate and designed outlet structures. b. All site drainage should be directed away from the structure and to designed outlet structures. This may be accomplished through area drains or through sheet drainage. Drainage should not be allowed to pond behind retaining walls or adj acent to the structure. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8081.1 Log No. 18627 November 14, 2016 Page 11 c. No landscaping should be allowed against the structure. Moisture accumulation or watering adjacent to foundations can result in deterioration of wood/stucco and may adversely effect footings and the performance of the structure. d. Irrigated areas should not be over-watered. Irrigation should be limited to that required for maintaining the vegetation. Additionally, automatic systems should be seasonally adjusted. e. All yard and roof drains should be periodically checked to verify they are not blocked and flow properly and maintained as necessary. 11. Recommended Observation and Testing During Construction The following tests and/or observations by the Geotechnical Consultant are recommended: a) Site grading. b) Footing excavations prior to placement of forms and reinforcing steel. c) Retaining wall backdrains and backfill. d) Utility trench backfill. e) Driveway/hardscape subgrade. 12. Grading and Foundation Plan Review Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to confirm conformance with the recommendations presented herein and to provide additional recommendations, as necessary. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our investigation and further assume the excavations to be representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site. If different subsurface conditions from those encountered during our exploration are observed or appear to be present in excavations, the Geotechnical Consultant should be promptly notified for review and reconsideration of recommendations. Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Consultants practicing in this or HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 8081.1 Log No. 18627 November 14, 2016 Page 12 similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call this office. Sincerely, HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. aul A. ogseth Professional Geologist 3 772 Certified Engineering Geolog Certified Hydrogeologist 591 ( expires 3/31/18) Attachments: Location Map Plot Plan Boring Logs Laboratory Test Results Distribution: I-Addressee Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 and 4 Figure 5 4-Powell Dudley Frith Architects 1-via e-mail Lisa Custer (lcuster@pdfarchitechs.com) HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. REFERENCES 1. ASCE 7-10, "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures," American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineers Institute, dated May 2010. 2. California Emergency Management Agency, "Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Oceanside Quadrangle, San Luis Rey Quadrangle," dated June 1, 2009. 3. California Geological Survey, "The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF2)," CGS Special Report 203, dated 2008. 4. ICBO, California Building Code, 2013 Edition. 5. ICBO, "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998. 6. Jennings, Charles W., "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas," California Data Map Series, Map No. 6, dated 1994. 7. Peterson, Mark P ., et al, "Documentation for the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazards Maps," USGS Open File Report 2008-1128, dated 2008. 8. Powell Dudley Frith Architects, "Lincoln Residence, 5198 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, CA," dated August 25, 2016 (15-sheets). 9. Sowards and Brown Engineering, "Topographic Plat, 5198 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, CA," dated November 13, 2015. 10. Tan, Siang S. and Kennedy, Michael P., "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 96-02, dated 1996. 11. United States Geologic Survey, "2008 National Seismic Hazards Maps-Source Parameters," Earthquake Hazards Program. 12. United States Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazard Program, Sesimic Design Maps Website. 13. Webber, F. Harold, Jr., "Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides, and Related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Repo1t 82-12, dated 1982. 14. 2007 Working Group and California Earthquake Probability, "The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF-2)," USGS Open File Report 2007-1437 and California Geological Survey Special Report 203, dated 2008. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. 8081.l Log No 18627 \ t ·1 ' I' I ·. I • \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ ·u i ... , ,. I I >~ \ i \l i f-_ ! I'\ I 11 I \ ' ai ,.:;,j -1 I I I ! i\_.✓ I i ' .::j 4 • I I I \ -l 1----,· -------., -·-____ i_ --·;-; •-· i ; , i I I " I { i .;_··· I' . I · . ' . I • ' . ' . . . . -: .r .. ,c;;.? ~ I ~ •• < <O~~ j1 i•:· I 1- ~·:_ __ _ lG. AALL .c';_.67 : ' \ i ' I. ·\ I ' T.C. L't•!•J:\!G / .L7.51 l ~ \' 11, : I J• ! '•1 " i • I I ij ,Ii ·t : I . I ·J f -. :-1 . .I I -I I · :i is·-:n Sf_·:!~:" _: -1-z ---¥ .... ~..., -c~ -~- I c: I~,,- -.... -. . . . ... I I ~:--....... -.:........ ...•... :----<-.:..:--:: . . -.. I ----. -.,..·~-t .. .... ____ _ I :1 ).1~,rc~c~ S.\SL ~ :-l: .. rn_v R:SIGD\C.::: i I/ K ;;;~ 0 0 2 0 5 10 15 20 LEGEND 8-2~ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING PLOT PLAN HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 5198 Shore Drive Carlsbad, California 8081.1 I FIGURE NO. 2 DRILLING COMPANY: Native RIG: Tripod DATE: 10/07/16 BORING DIAMETER: 6" DRIVE WEIGHT: 140Ib DROP: 30" ELEVATION: 44' + -w E-< t:il ...:l >-< -t:il ...:l A< E-< E-< d{J Cl) -t:il A< ~ 0 H -Cl) BORING NO. B-1 r,.. -~ 0 Cl) t:il ,:i; Cl) Cl) r,.. z p:; E-< ...:l ::r: Cl) ..___ w :::i z u u w Cl) 0 -E-< w E-< :,.:: :> :;:: ..... Cl) E-< ...:l C/J A< ...:l H 0 >-< CJ H z H w :::i p:; ...:l p:; 0, 0 0 0 :::i 0 P:J 0 P:J 0 -~ u Cl) -SOIL DESCRIPTION ~ 0.0 SM FILL: Red brown silty sand, damp to moist, loose, roots - TERRACE DEPOSITS: Red brown and light brown silty sand, -I 3/6" moist, medium dense to dense - -4/6" 114 5.8 @ 2': Slight porosity and rootlets -6/6" -r- 5.0-~I 10/6" -15/6" 113 6.2 -15/6" -- -I 11/6" ,-- 18/6" 109 6.7 @ 8' : Dense to very dense --24/6" 10.0-t----- 1x1 18/6" r- 30/6" 99 4.9 -30/6" - -:1 13/6" - 15.0-17/6" 98 4.9 14/6" -(ci) 15' : Tan brown r -- -Total depth 15.5-feet 1-- -No seepage No caving r- -- 20.0-- -- -- ---- 25.0---- -- -r- - f-- 30.8 BORING LOG 5198 Shore Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Carlsbad, California GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 8081.1 I FIGURE NO. 3 DRILLING COMPANY: Native RIG: Tripod DATE: 10/07/16 BORING DIAMETER: 6" DRIVE WEIGHT: 140Ib DROP: 30" ELEVATION: 43' + -w E--< w ,-.:i >< -w ,-.:i p.. E--< E--< df' C/l -w p.. ~ 0 H -C/l BORING NO. B-2 i:,., -~ 0 C/l w ,:i: C/l C/l i:,., z p:; E--< ,-.:i :r: C/l ----- w D z u u w C/l 0 -E--< w E--< ~ > :;: 4-l C/l E--< ,-.:i C/l p.. w ,-.:i H 0 >< 0 H z H 0 D p:; ,-.:i p:; 0. 0 0 0 D SOIL DESCRIPTION o:i 0 o:i 0 ::,:: u C/l -~ 0.0 SM FILL: Red brown silty sand, damp to moist, loose, roots -- -I 3/6" TERRACE DEPOSITS: Red brown and light brown silty sand, -3/6" 106 8.2 moist, medium dense ~ 3/6" -~ 5.0-~I 7/6" - -10/6" 118 8.8 ~ 10/6" -1-- -I 13/6" 1-- 14/6" 113 6.6 @ 8' : Moist, dense -1--20/6" 10.0-~ -~ :~1 14/6" 1-- 21/6" 109 5.7 26/6" 1-- @ 15' : Grav brown r -'-' 15.0-Total depth 13.5-feet ---No seepage -No caving ~ -~ -...._ -~ 20.0-- -- -- -- -1-- 25.0-- -1-- -~ -1-- -...._ 30.v BORING LOG 5198 Shore Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Carlsbad, California GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 8081.1 I FIGURE NO. 4 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS EXPANSION INDEX ,A:Sl'M: D 4829 Sample Location Initial Compacted Final Expa'nsion Expansion Moisture (%) Dry Moisture Index Potential Density (%) C 0 to 5' 4.6 113.4 16.2 1 Very Low MA::XIMUM DRY DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT Sample Location B-2 Oto5' B-2 @Oto 5' (ASTM: l> 1557 A) Description Silty sand DIR!ECT SHEAR (AS'J'M: D 3080) Maximum Dry Densi 122.0 Optimum Moisture Content % 10.5 Angle of lnterllal Friction ° 6 ohesion • (psf) 30 25 Remolded to 90% relative compaction at optimum moisture content, soaked, consolidated, drained SUiL1.?:A. TE ?;ElSW RESlJ,LTS ,cal 'Fest 4ll 7) l Figure 5 Project No. 808 !.I Log No 18627