The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 15-04; The Grand Madison; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2015-04-24ERINGTON ENGIN ERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY • HYDROGEOLOGY Mr. Pat McGuire 2609 Ocean Street Carlsbad, California, 92008 Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Mixed Use Building 725 Grand A venue Carlsbad, California References: Attached Dear Mr. McGuire: April24, 2015 Project No. 7610.1 LogNo.17402 In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for a proposed mixed use building at the subject site. Our work was performed in March and April2015. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate geologic and soil conditions in the area of proposed construction, and to provide grading and foundation recommendations. We were provided a "Conceptual Site Plan ... " (Reference 6) that has been used as the base map for the attached Plot Plan, Figure 2. With the above in mind, our scope of work included the following: • Research andc review of available geotechnical reports and geologic literature pertinent to the site (see References). • Subsurface exploration consisting of two hollow-stem auger borings to depths of 19- feet for bulk and relatively undisturbed soil and bedrock sampling, and geologic logging. • Laboratory testing of soil 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 725 Grand Avenue in the city of Carlsbad, California (see Location Map, Figure 1 ). The site consists of a relatively level, rectangular shaped property that presently supports a two-story office structure with a subterranean bomb shelter and asphalt concrete parking areas. The property is bounded by Madison Street to 5365 Avenida Encinas, Suite A" Carlsbad, CA 92008-4369 • (760) 931-1917 • Fax (760) 931-0545 327 Third Street " Laguna Beach, CA 92651 " (949) 715-5440 • Fax (949) 715-5442 www.hetheringtonengineering.com ADAPTED FROM: The Thomas Guide, San Diego County, 57th Edition, Page 1106 LOCATION MAP HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. ~ N I SCALE: 1" -2000' (1 Grid Equals: 0.5 x 0.5 miles) 725 Grand Avenue Carlsbad California GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 7610.1 I FIGURE NO. 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 7610.1 Log No. 17402 April24, 2015 Page2 the west, Grand A venue to the north and multi use buildings at similar elevations to the east and south. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on discussions with you and review of the "Conceptual Site Plan ... " (Reference 6), we understand that the proposed development consists of demolishing the existing site improvements and constructing an approximately 19,000 square-foot, four-story, mixed use building with covered parking and driveway areas. The building will include retail/commercial space, residential condominiums, and office condominiums. We anticipate that the structure will be of wood or steel frame construction founded on conventional continuous/spread footings with slab-on-grade floors. Grading is expected to consist of relatively minor cuts and fills. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Subsurface exploration consisted of drilling two hollow-stem auger borings to depths of 19-feet below existing site grades. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the attached Plot Plan, Plate 1. The subsurface exploration was supervised by a geologist from this office, who visually classified the soil and bedrock materials, and obtained bulk and relatively undisturbed samples for laboratory testing. The soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Soil classifications are shown on the attached Boring Logs, Figures 2 and 3. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. Tests performed consisted of the following: • Dry Density and Moisture Content (ASTM: D 2216) • Sieve Analysis (ASTM: D 422) • Soluble Sulfate (Cal. Test 417) • Direct Shear (ASTM: D 3080) • Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557) HETHERINGTO ENGINEERING. INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ProjectNo. 7610.1 Log No. 17402 April24, 2015 Page 3 Results of the dry density and moisture content determinations are presented on the Boring Logs, Figures 2 and 3. The remaining laboratory test results are presented on the Laboratory Test Results, Figures 4 and 5. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 1. Geologic Setting The subject site is located on 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 sedimentary bedrock and were formed during glacio-eustatic changes in sea level. The terraces extend from areas of higher elevation east of the site and descend generally west- southwest in a "stair step" fashion down to the present day coastline. These marine terraces increase in age eastward. The subject property is contained within the southwestern portion of the U.S.G.S San Luis Rey 7-1/2 minute quadrangle. Based on the results of our subsurface investigation, the site is underlain by fill, Quaternary marine and non-marine terrace deposits, and Santiago Formation bedrock. No known or reported landsliding is known to exist on the site. No known or reported active or potentially active faults exist within the site. 2. Geologic Units a. Fill -Encountered in boring B-2, the fill soils consist of dark brown silty sand that is slightly damp and medium dense. The existing fill is not considered suitable to support compacted fill or proposed improvements. b. Terrace Deposits -Encountered at a depth of approximately 3-feet in boring B-2 and immediately below the pavement in boring B-1 are terrace deposits consisting of damp to wet, medium dense to dense, dark red brown, red brown, and light gray silty sand and sand. The terrace deposits are considered suitable for support of the compacted fill and proposed improvements, and possess a very low expansion potential. c. Santiago Formation Bedrock-Encountered at a depth of approximately 18-feet in both borings, the bedrock consists of light grey sandy clayey siltstone that is moist and hard. Bedding within the bedrock reportedly dips 1 0-degrees to the north- northeast. HETHERIN GIN G. INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ProjectNo. 7610.1 LogNo. 17402 April24, 2015 Page4 3. Groundwater Groundwater was perched on the bedrock and encountered in both of the borings at approximately 14.5 to 15-feet below site grades. It should be noted, however, that fluctuations in the amount and level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation, and other factors that may not have been evident at the time of our field investigation. SEISMICITY The site is located within the seismically active southern California region. There are, however, no known active or potentially active faults presently mapped that pass through the site nor is the site located within the presently defined limits of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Active or potentially active fault zones within the site region include the Rose Canyon and Elsinore (Temecula Segment). Strong ground motion could also be expected from earthquakes occurring along the San Jacinto and San Andreas fault zones, which lie northeast of the site at greater distances, as well as numerous other faults which lie offshore. The following table lists the known active faults that would have the most significant impact on the site: Maximum Probable Fault Earthquake Slip Rate Fault (Moment Magnitude) (mmlyear) Type Rose Canyon 7.0 1.5 B (8 kilometers/5-miles southwest) Elsinore (Temecula Segment) 7.3 3 A (39 kilometers/24miles 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 of 0.476g are possible for the design earthquake. HETHERI ENG I C. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 7610.1 Log No. 17402 April 24, 2015 Page 5 2. Landsliding The risk of seismically induced landsliding to effect the site is considered nil due to the level topography of the site. 3. Ground Cracks The risk of surface fault rupture is considered low due to the absence of a known active fault on site. Ground cracks due to shaking from seismic events in the region are possible, as with all of southern California. 4. Liquefaction The risk of seismically induced liquefaction to effect the site is considered low due to the dense underlying terrace deposits. 5. Tsunamis The "Tsunami Inundation Map ... " (Reference 2) indicates the site is not within a tsunami inundation zone. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. General The proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Grading and foundation plans should consider the appropriate geotechnical features of the site. Provided that the recommendations presented in this report and good construction practices are utilized during the design and construction, the proposed grading and construction is not anticipated to adversely impact 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: HETHERI G. INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 7610.1 LogNo.17402 April24, 2015 Page6 a. Ground Motion -The proposed structure 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: 725 Grand A venue, Carlsbad, California Latitude: 33.16184° N Longitude: 117.34708° W b. Spectral Response Accelerations - -Using the location of the property and data obtained from the U. S. G. S. Earthquake Hazard Program (Reference 10), short period Spectral Response Accelerations Ss (0.2 second period) and Sr (1.0 second period) are: Ss = 1.150g Sr = 0.441g 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 Fv _ In accordance with Table 1613.3.3 and considering the values of Ss and Sr, Site Coefficients are: Fa= 1.040 Fv = 1.559 e. Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Sms and Sm1 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 = (F a)(Ss) = 1.196g Smr = (Fv)(Sr) = 0.688g f. Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Sds and Sd1 -In accordance with Section 1613.3.4 and considering the values of Sms and Sm~, Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters for Maximum Considered Earthquake are: Sds = 2/3 Sms = 0.797g Sdr = 2/3 Smr = 0.458g HETH NGTON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 7610.1 Log No. 17402 April24, 2015 Page7 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 D are considered appropriate for the subject property. 3. Site Grading a. Clearing and Grubbing -Existing site improvements, vegetation and miscellaneous debris should be removed to an appropriate offsite disposal area. Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions (including the bomb shelter), which extend below finished site grades, should be replaced with compacted fill or lean concrete. In the event that abandoned cesspools, septic tanks or storage tanks are discovered during the excavation of the site, they should be removed and backfilled in accordance with local regulations. Existing utility lines to be abandoned should be removed and capped in accordance with local requirements. b. Removal of Unsuitable Soils -Within the limits of the proposed improvements and to 3-feet beyond, where possible, existing fill and other unsuitable material should be removed to approved terrace deposits. Removal depths of 1 to 3-feet are anticipated. The actual depths and extent of removals should be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant during site grading. c. Scarification -All areas to receive fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 to 8-inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90-percent relative compaction based upon ASTM: D 1557. d. Compacted Fill -Fill soils should be moisture conditioned to about optimum moisture content and compacted by mechanical means in uniform horizontal lifts of 6 to 8-inches in thickness. All fill should be 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. Rock fragments over 6-inches in largest dimension and other perishable or unsuitable materials should be excluded from the fill. All grading and compaction should be observed and tested by the Geotechnical Consultant. Any imported soil should have a very low expansion potential and should be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to import. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERIN INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 7610.1 LogNo.17402 April24, 2015 Page 8 4. Foundation and Slab Recommendations The proposed building may be supported on conventional continuous/spread footings founded at least 24-inches below lowest adjacent grade and bearing in compacted fill or terrace deposits. Continuous footings should be at least 18-inches wide and reinforced with a minimum of four #4 bars, two top and two bottom. Foundations bearing as recommended may be designed for a dead plus live load bearing value of 3000-pounds-per-square-foot. This value may be increased by one- third for loads including wind and seismic forces. A lateral bearing value of 300- pounds-per-square-foot per foot of depth to a maximum value to 3000-pounds-per- square-foot and a coefficient of friction between foundation soil and concrete of 0.35 may be assumed. These values assume that footings will be poured neat against compacted fill or terrace deposits. 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. Slab-on-grade floors should have a minimum thickness of 5-inches (actual) 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 should be underlain with a moisture vapor retarder consisting of a 10-mil polyvinyl chloride 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. Temporary Excavations Temporary excavations may be made up to 5-feet vertically in compacted fill or terrace deposits, and at a 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical) above 5-feet. Field observations by the Engineering Geologist during excavation of temporary slopes are recommended and considered necessary to confirm anticipated conditions and provide revised recommendations if warranted. HETHERIN ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ProjectNo. 7610.1 Log No. 17402 April24, 2015 Page9 6. Soluble Sulfate A representative sample of the on-site soils was submitted for sulfate testing. The result of the test is summarized on the Laboratory Test Results, Figure 4. The sulfate content is consistent with a negligible sulfate exposure classification per Table 4.5.3 of the American Concrete Institute Publication 318. Consequently, special provisions for sulfate resistant concrete are not 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. 7. Concrete Flatwork Concrete flatwork should be at least 5-inches thick (actual) and reinforced with #4 bars spaced at 18-inches on center (two directions) and placed on chairs so that the reinforcement is in the center of the slab. Slab subgrade should be thoroughly moistened prior to placement of concrete. Contraction joints should be provided at 8- 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. 8. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill soils should be moisture conditioned to about optimum moisture content and compacted by mechanical means in uniform horizontal lifts. Lift thickness should be dependant on the type of equipment used for compaction, but in no case should exceed 8-inches in thickness. All utility trench backfill should be 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. Rock fragments over 6-inches in dimension and other perishable or unsuitable materials should be excluded from the fill. 9. Site Drainage The following recommendations are intended to mm1m1ze the potential adverse effects of water on the structure and appurtenances. Surface drainage should be designed by the project Architect and/or Civil Engineer. HETH N ENGINEERI G. INC. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 7610.1 Log No. 17402 April24, 2015 Page 10 a. Consideration should be given to providing the structure with roof gutters and downspouts that discharge to an area drain system and/or to suitable locations away from the structure. b. All site drainage should be directed away from the structure. The on-site soils are generally sandy in nature and considered erodible if exposed to concentrated drainage. c. Landscaping planned adjacent to the structure should be designed so as to minimize the amount of moisture that can penetrate the pad subgrade soils to prevent damage to the structure. Moisture accumulation or watering adjacent to foundations can result in deterioration of wood/stucco. d. Irrigated areas should not be over-watered. Irrigation should be limited to that required to maintain the vegetation. Additionally, automatic systems should be seasonally adjusted to minimize over-saturation potential particularly in the winter (rainy) season. e. All yard and roof drains should be periodically checked to verify they are clear and flow properly. This may be accomplished either visually or, in the case of subsurface drains, by placing a hose at the inlet and checking the outlet for flow. 10. Recommended Observation and Testing During Construction The following tests and/or observations by the Geotechnical Consultant are recommended: a. Observation and testing of grading. b. Observation of temporary slopes. c. Observation of foundation excavations pnor to placement of forms and reinforcing steel. d. Observation of interior and exterior utility trench backfill. e. Observation and testing of concrete flatwork subgrade. H NGTO ENGI c. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 7610.1 Log No. 17402 April 24, 2015 Page 11 1 I. Grading and Foundation Plan Review Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to confirm conformance with the recommendations presented herein or to modifY the 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 the 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 similar localities. No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this rep01t. This oppottunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. lf you have any questions, please call this office. ,r. at Professional Geologist 3772 Certified Engineering Geolo Certified Hydrogeologist 591 (expires 3/31/16) Attachments: l_,ocation Map Boring Logs Laboratory Test Results Plot Plan Distribution: 4-Addressee !-via email (Pat@oceanstrcet.net) Figure 1 Figures 2 and 3 Figures 4 and 5 Plate 1 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 Planning, Oceanside Quadrangle/San Luis Rey Quadrangle," dated June 1, 2009. 3. ICBO, California Building Code, 2013 Edition. 4. ICBO, "Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions ofNevada," California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998. 5. Jennings, Charles W., "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas," California Data Map Series, Map No.6, dated 1994. 6. MAA Architects, "Conceptual Site Plan, Grand Madison Mixed Use," dated March 27, 2015. 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. 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. 9. United States Geological Survey, "San Luis Rey 7.5-Minute Quadrangle," dated 1997. 10. USGS, Earthquake Hazard Program, Seismic Design Maps. 11. Weber, F. Harold, "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 Report 82-12, dated 1982. 12. 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 HETHERI ENGI EERING. Project No. 7584.1 Log No. 17402 DRILLING COMPANY: Scott's Drilling BORING DIAMETER: ril ril r-'1 r-'1 0.. E-< ~ ~ 8 ><C U} "" :r:: U} ril -;;; E-< ~ > :s: 8" >-< E-< H U} :z: ril t=l -'H >-< u DRIVE WEIGHT: -o\O U} --U} ril ><C U} p:; E-< r-'1 D :z: u u E-< ril U} E-< r-'1 U} H z H RIG: Hollow Stem DATE: 03/27/15 140 lbs. DROP: 30" ELEVATION: I + BORING NO. B-1 0:: ~ 0 0 0 D t=l -::8 u U} - ~ r.:J H 0 t=l ~ tS ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION ~ 0.0~--~----+-----~-----+---+----------------------------------------------~ 1---1\ ASPHALT CONCRETE:: 4-inches thick _;; ~ ~I\ 1 ~ 69/11" r--i\c BASE: 5-inches thick 1 , 118 6.7 5.0-~ 50/6" 114 10.5 ~~~ \: gs/115' 114 10.4 1 0. 0--1---+e>i 52 106 6.8 64 12.7 15.0-iX" ~ ~ ~ 121 JJ2 50/3" 17.7 20.0- 25.0- 30.0 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Dark brown silty sand, damp, dense @ 2': Dark red brown silty sand, damp, dense @ 5': Red brown clayey sand, moist, dense @ 8': Light gray brown silty sand, moist, dense @ 10': Red brown silty sand, damp, dense @ 13': Gravel and cobble layers @ 14.5': Groundwater encountered @ 15': Light orange gray brown clayey sand, wet, dense, contains abundant rounded gravel and cobbles BEDROCK (Santiago Formation): Light gray sandy clayey - - 1- 1- ~~s~ilt=s=to~n=e~,m~oi=st=·~h=ar~d~~~~~~~---------------J1r- Total depth 19-feet Drilling refusal @ 19-feet on bedrock Groundwater encountered @ 14.5-feet BORING LOG 1- HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. 725 Grand Avenue Carlsbad, California GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 7610.1 I FIGURE NO. 2 DRILLING COMPANY: Scott's Drilling RIG: Hollow Stem DATE: 03/27/15 BORING DIAMETER: 8" DRIVE WEIGHT: 140 lbs. DROP: 30" ELEVATION: I + -J:£1 E-< J:£1 r'l >-< -J:£1 r'l 0.. E-< E-< o\O UJ -J:£1 0.. ~ 0 H -UJ BORING NO. B-2 "-< -~ «C 0 UJ J:£1 «C UJ «C UJ "-< z r:r:: E-< r'l :r:: UJ '-J:£1 t:l z u u E-< J:£1 UJ (::\ -E-< J:£1 0.. ~ > :s 'H UJ E-< r'l UJ r£1 r'l H 0 >-< u H z H (::\ t:l r:r:: r'l r:r:: ~ 0 0 0 t:l SOIL DESCRIPTION p:j (::\ p:j (::\ -~ u UJ --0.0 1---1\ ASPHALT CONCRETE:: 4-inches thick f -1\ BASE: 4.5-inches thick --SM FILL: Dark brown silty sand containing pockets of black silty -sand and fraqments of asphalt concrete, damp, medium dense - -;c;J TERRACE DEPOSITS: - ~ 64 128 9.0 @ 3': Dark red brown silty sand, moist, dense. -- 5.0-- -~ - 40 113 9.1 @ 6': Red brown silty sand, moist, dense -- -- -! - 31 104 5.4 @ 9': Red brown and gray silty sand, damp, medium dense 10.0-- -- - -@ 12': Gravel and cobble layers - I 75 107 18.0 @ 12': Light gray to orange brown sand, moist, dense, -containing rounded gravel and cobbles - -- 15.0-'4 @ 15': Groundwater encountered - ~ 62 116 21.4 @ 15': Light gray brown micaceous sand, wet, dense -- -c-- - E5o/4.5" BEDROCK {Santiago Formation}: Light gray sandy clayey r-114 16.4 siltstone, moist, hard 20.0- Total depth 19-feet Drilling refusal @ 19-feet on bedrock - -Groundwater encountered @ 15-feet - -r- -c-- -c-- 25.0-I- -- -:-- -r- -c-- 30." BORING LOG 725 Grand Avenue HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Carlsbad, California GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 7610.1 I FIGURE NO. 3 Sample Location LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SULFATE TEST RESULTS (CalTest 417) 0.0245 Angle of Internal Friction CO) · •··•·••.·~emarks 30 Remolded to 90% relative compaction at optimum moisture content, soaked, consolidated, drained MAXIMUM• DRY DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT . • (ASTM: .~·1557) . . Optimum Moisture Content(% 9.0 Figure 4 ProjectNo. 7610 . .1 Log No 17402 3 100 90 80 70 p:; 60 r£1 z H ~ ~ 50 r£1 u p:; r£1 ill 40 30 20 10 0 100 COBBLES SYMBOL 0 u.s. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 1-1/2 3/4 3/8 4 8 16 20 30 40 50 100 200 I I I ,..._ ~ ~ \ (~ '~p 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE (mm) GRAVEL SAND Coarse Fine Coarse I Medium Fine SAMPLE LOCATION B-1 at 0-10.0' %PASSING NO.4 SIEVE 99 %PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE 30 HYDROMETER 100 90 80 70 60 p:; r£1 z H ~ 50 E-< z r£1 u p:; r£1 40 ill 30 20 10 0 0.01 0.001 SILT and CLAY %FINER UNIFIED SOIL 2 MICRONS CLASSIFICATION SM GRADATION TEST RESULTS HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 725 Grand Avenue Carlsbad, California 7610.1 I FIGURE NO. 5 LEGEND B-2 ~ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING ,;,;/ :_''f.! "'::-/' ~ LJ==l=Fi 0 5 10 15 20 PLOT PLAN HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. carlsbad, catitorma I 725 Grand Avenue GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 7610.1 I PtATE NO. 1 MAA Architects !lA Architecture *Planning *Interiors 2173 Salk Ave. Suite 250 Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone: 760-431-7775 EIA Information Form P-l(D) Date: To: From: April30, 2015 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 7 60-602-461 0 Kirk Moeller Project Architect Re: The Grand Madison Application Please see response to EIA Information Form P-l(D) questions 32 and 33. 32. The existing project site contains an existing two story building housing the Packard Dental offices. The site currently contain a 22 stall parking lot with minimal landscape elements. The building sits directly adjacent to the paved ROW on Grand and Madison. The site is very flat with very little topographic variation. See photos attached below. 33. The property to the West of the subject property currently contains a commercial Chase Bank branch building and parking lot. The property to the South contains a parking lot. The property to the North contains the Grand A venue Bar and Grill and it's parking lot. The property to the East contains a two story multi-family residential building. SITE PHOTOS Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Thank you, MAA Architects Inc. Kirk Moeller Project Architect