Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CT 2017-0002; TYLER STREET RESIDENCES; SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN; 2016-06-27
RECORD COPY i>h., /,g • Initial Date Subsurface Investigation for Geotechnical Design for Proposed 8-Unit Condominium Development 3337 Tyler Street, Carlsbad, California Prepared for Ms. Elizabeth LaGrua Tyler Street Development, LLC June 27, 2016 (revised January 19, 2018) RECEf\iED JUL O 9 2018 LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. Ms. Elizabeth LaGrua Tyler Street Development, LLC 4459 Hackett A venue Lakewood, CA 90713 SUBJECT: RE: Subsurface Investigation for Geotechnical Design for Proposed 8-Unit Condominium Development 3337 Tyler Street, Carlsbad, California Dear Ms. LaGrua: June 27, 20 I 6 (revised January 19, 2018) 116152 At your request, Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. (HGI) has performed a subsurface investigation to prov ide geotechnical design recommendations for proposed new construction consisting of an 8-Unit condominium development at the subject site. The fo llowing report presents the results of our geotechnical in vesti gation and provides recommendations for site grading, seismic design, foundation design and pavement design. We have also included results of infiltration tests performed at selected locations at the site. This report has been revised based on City of Carlsbad review comments. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our geotechnical services. If you have any questions regarding our report, please call at your earliest convenience. 593 1 Sea Lion Place, Suite I 02 Carlsbad, CA 920 I 0 Respectfully, Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. 9~,J~~~ Stanl ey Helenschmidt, Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2064 Michael W. Hart Certified Engineering Geologist CEG 706 www.hgiengineering.com Telephone 760-579-0333 Fax 760-579-0230 cr2011-ooo~ SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN FOR PROPOSED 8-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT 3337 TYLER STREET CARLSBAD,CA 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work ......................................................................................... 1 2.0 SITE AND TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS .................................................................... 2 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .......................................................................................... 2 4.0 INFILTRATION TESTING ........................................................................................... 3 5.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING ................................................................................................... 3 5.1 Regional Geology ......................................................................................................... 3 5.2 Site Geology .................................................................................................................. 4 5.2.1 Topsoil/Fill (undifferentiated, Af) ....................................................................... 4 5.2.2 Te1Tace Deposits (Qt) ........................................................................................... 4 5.2.3 Santiago Formation (Tsa) .................................................................................... 4 5 .3 Groundwater .................................................................................................................. 4 5 .4 Seismic Setting .............................................................................................................. 4 6.0 POTENTIAL GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS .................................................................. 5 6.1 Seismic Hazards .................................................................................................... 5 6.1.1 Ground Rupture Hazards .............................................................................. 5 6. 1 .2 Ground Shaking Hazards .............................................................................. 5 6.1.3 Ground Failure Hazards ............................................................................... 5 6.1.4 Tsunamis ...................................................................................................... 6 6.1.5 Seiches .......................................................................................................... 6 6.2 Landsliding/Slope Stability ........................................................................................... 6 6.3 Settlement Behavior ...................................................................................................... 6 6.4 Expansive Soils ............................................................................................................. 6 7.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 6 7.1 Seismic Design .............................................................................................................. 7 7.2 Rippability and Compaction ......................................................................................... 7 7.3 Soil Corrosivity ............................................................................................................. 7 7.4 Groundwater .................................................................................................................. 7 7.5 Suitability of On-Site Soils ........................................................................................... 7 7.6 Infiltration Rates ............................................................................................................ 8 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 8 8. 1 Eaithwork Recommendations ...................................................................................... 8 8.1 .1 Site Preparation .................................................................................................... 8 8.1.2 Excavation and Trenching ................................................................................... 8 8.1.3 Removal and Recompaction ................................................................................ 8 8.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction .......................................................................... 9 8.2 Foundation Design ........................................................................................................ 9 Table of Contents (cont.) 8.2.1 Shallow Foundation Design Bearing in a Uniform Fill Mat .......................... 9 8.2.2 Parking Garage Floor Slab Design .................................................................... I 0 8.2.3 Concrete Design ................................................................................................. I 0 8.3 Preliminary Pavement Design for Trash Enclosure Approach ................................. I 0 8.4 Pervious Concrete for Public Sidewalk ...................................................................... 10 8.5 Retaining Walls ........................................................................................................... 10 8.6 Surface Drainage ......................................................................................................... 11 8. 7 Seismic Design ............................................................................................................ 11 8.8 Potentially Corrosive Soils ......................................................................................... 11 9.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS .................................................................................. 12 TABLE 1- TABLE 2 - FIGURE I - FIGURE 2 - FIGURE3- Tables, Figures, Appendices and Plates Infiltration Rates (Factored) ................................................................................... 3 Earthquake Faults and Seismicity .......................................................................... 5 Site Location Map ................................................................................ Rear of Text Pervious Concrete for Public Sidewalk Detail ..................................... Rear of Text Retaining Wall Drainage Detail (Typical) ........................................... Rear of Text APPENDIXA- APPENDIX B- References Field Investigation : Exploratory Boring, Test Pit Logs and Infiltration Test Data APPENDIX C- APPENDIXD- Laboratory Test Data Seismic Hazard Data PLATE 1-Plan, Geologic and Boring/Trench Location Map & Geologic Cross-Section ....... . .................................................................................................................. In Pocket II SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION FOR GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN FOR PROPOSED 8-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT 3337 TYLER STREET CARLSBAD, CA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation of the 0.34-acre parcel located at 3337 Tyler Street, Carlsbad, California. We performed our field investigation on June 8 and June 9, 2016. A site location map is attached as Figure 1. This report has been revised based on City of Carlsbad review comments. 1.1 Project Description We understand that the proposed new construction will include a three-sto,y, eight-unit, wood- frame condominium development. The lower floor will consist of "at-grade" enclosed parking. Ground floor (parking) elevations are expected to be similar to current site grades and no basement level is currently proposed. We expect that only minor cuts and fills (five feet or less) will be required to bring the site to finish grade. Infiltration features (designed by others) are to be incorporated into the project design and construction to handle storm water runoff. 1.2 Purpose and Scope of Work The purpose of our investigation was to identify geotechnical conditions that may affect site development. Our objectives were to: I) evaluate existing surface and subsurface conditions; 2) develop conclusions and recommendations regarding geotechnical hazards, site preparation and grading, foundation type and geotechnical design criteria; and 3) perform infiltration testing in order to provide infiltration rates to the Civil Engineer for design of storm water infiltration systems. The specific scope of work performed for our investigation included the following tasks: I) Review of in-house geologic data and available geologic and seismic data. 2) Geotechnical site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration which included drilling and logging two exploratory borings drilled to a maximum depth of 19 .5 feet below existing site grades, and excavation of five exploratory test pits to a maximum depth of 4 feet below existing site grades. 3) Review of available online records at the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health to check for documented presence or absence of wells or septic systems. 3) Infiltration testing of test pits in accordance with Appendix D Approved Infiltration Rate Assessment Methods for Selection and Design of Storm Water BMPs of the Model BMP Design Manual San Diego Region For Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodification ManagemenL dated February 20 I 6. Ms. LaGrua 4) 5) 6) June 27, 2016 (revised January 19, 2018) 116152 Laboratory testing, including: moisture/density, grain size analysis, direct shear, maximum density and optimum moisture, pH, resistivity, chloride content and sulfate content. Engineering evaluation of geotechnical hazards, seismicity evaluation, development of generalized foundation and grading design criteria for several potential land uses; and Preparation of this report which summarizes the results of our investigation and provides a summary of potential geotechnical hazards which may impact the site, as well as geotechnical recommendations for potential site redevelopment, site preparation and grading and foundation and retaining wall design. 2.0 SITE AND TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS The property consists of two adjoined rectangular lots with overall dimensions of roughly 70 feet by 214 feet and is relatively flat. The site has a gentle gradient toward the west. Site elevations range from approximately 49 feet (mean sea level, MSL) near Tyler Street to approximately 46 feet (MSL) along the southwesterly (rear) property boundary. The property fronts on Tyler Street (northeast side) and is surrounded on three sides by developed properties. The site is currently occupied by two existing single-story, residential wood-frame structures. The residence at the front of the property was constructed circa 1943 and is approximately 671 square feet in area. The residence at the rear of the property (constructed between 1953-1964) is approximately 1,881 square feet in area. We understand that the existing structures will be razed as part of the site redevelopment. Access to the two structures is provided by a partially paved driveway that is shared with the neighboring property to the northwest. Discussion with a previous property owner indicates that the site to the rear (southwesterly) portion of the property was previously used for vegetable farming. Review of online records at the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health revealed no documented evidence of water wells or septic systems within or immediately adjacent to the subject property. lt should be noted, however, that abandoned septic systems (leach fields, seepage pits or septic tanks) are commonly found on coastal development properties which may not be recorded or discovered by limited subsurface investigation. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Subsurface exploration was performed on June 8 and June 9, 2016 and included logging of two, eight-inch diameter hollow stem auger borings and five exploratory test pits. Borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 19.5 feet below adjacent grade and test pits were advanced to a maximum depth of four feet below adjacent grade. Borings were advanced using a truck-mounted mobile B-61 drill rig. Borings were logged by our field representative who obtained bulk and drive samples for classification and testing. Drive samples were obtained with a modified California barrel sampler or a standard penetration device (SPT). Drive samples were driven with a 140-pound hammer dropping 30 inches. Laboratory tests were performed to assess strength, index, gradation and chemical properties of the site soils. Tests included moisture/density, grain size analysis, direct shear, maximum density and optimum moisture, pH, resistivity, chloride content and sulfate content. -2- Ms. LaGrua June27,2016 (revised January 19, 2018) 116152 Subsurface conditions encountered in our borings predominantly consisted of sandy artificial fill soils (including topsoil) extending to depths between one to two feet underlain by Quaternary Terrace Deposits. Greater thicknesses of fill or isolated areas of fill associated with underground utilities, seepage pits, or trash disposal pits may be present at the site, which were not encountered m our exploratory borings. Boring and test pit locations are indicated on Plate I. Boring and test pit logs are provided in Appendix B. Results of a laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C of this report. Moisture/density results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix B. 4.0 INFILTRATION TESTING Test pits (T-1 through T-5) were used to perform infiltration tests in proposed infiltration areas. Test pits were approximately two-foot square and extended to two feet to four feet in depth. Infiltration rates of the soils were evaluated using the Simple Open Pit Test procedure as described in the Approved Infiltration Rate Assessment Methods/or Selection and Design a/Storm Water BMPs of the San Diego Region Model BMP Design Manual. Test pit locations are indicated on Plate 1. Test pit logs and infiltration test field data are provided in Appendix B. A factor of safety of 3. I has been estimated in accordance with procedures outlined in the San Diego Region Model BMP Design Manual. Stabilized infiltration rates (factored) are provided below: TABLE 1 Infiltration Rates (Factored) Test Pit Total Approx. Depth Stabilized Infiltration Below Adjacent Rate (min.fin.) Grade (Ft.) T-1 2 105 T-2 2 57 T-3 2.3 66 T-4 4 228 T-5 4 165 5.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING The following section presents an overview of the regional and site geologic conditions, groundwater conditions and seismic setting: 5.1 Regional Geology The site is located in the coastal portion of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province. Specifically the site is located on a young Pleistocene terrace deposit known as the Nestor Terrace which is estimated to be 120,000 years old. The Nestor Terrace Deposits (Qt) overlie older Eocene sediments belonging to the Torrey Sandstone (Tt) and Santiago Formation (Tsa). The contact between the Terrace Deposits and Santiago Formation has been mapped along the shoreline approximately 2000 feet to the southwest of the site. -3- Ms. LaGrua June 27, 2016 (revised January 19, 2018) 116152 5.2 Site Geology The near surface geologic units at the site consist of topsoil/artificial fill (undifferentiated), Terrace Deposits, and Santiago Formation. 5.2.1 Topsoil/Fill (undifferentiated, At) -Topsoil/fill consisted of gray to red brown silty sand with organics. Where encountered, topsoil/ti 11 extended to a maximum depth of approximately two feet. Abundant organics were generally present in the upper five to six inches. 5.2.2 Terrace Deposits (Qt) -The on-site Terrace Deposits generally consisted of orange brown to red brown, fine to medium grained, poorly graded sand transitioning in Boring B-1 to a gray to orange gray, medium to coarse grained, poorly graded sand at about 15 feet in depth and then gray, fine grained silty sand at a depth of 18 feet. These sands are compositionally similar, consisting primarily of quartz and lithic grains with little or no feldspathic or mica content. In Boring B-2 orange brown to red brown, fine to medium grained, silty sands transitioned to gray, fine grained silty sand at a depth of 11 feet, becoming medium to coarse grained at approximately 14 feet in depth. 5.2.3 Santiago Formation (Tsa) -Santiago Formation was encountered below the Terrace Deposits at a depth of 18 feet in Boring 8-2 and consisted of gray siltstone with manganese oxide blebs and iron oxide banding. These soils were moist and very dense. 5.3 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 14.75 feet in Boring B-1 only. Seasonal variations in the static groundwater table can occur as a result of rainfall infiltration. 5.4 Seismic Setting The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Zone (A-P Zone). However, it is located between several major, northwest-southeast trending fault zones which are capable of generating large earthquakes and seismic shaking at the site. The closest fault system is the Newport-Inglewood Fault. Fault characteristics of nearby faults are shown below in Table 2 below: -4- Ms. LaGrua TABLE 2 Earthquake Faults and Seismicity Fault Zone1 Sense of Slip1 Distance (miles) 1 Newport- Inglewood Strike-Slip 4.8 (Connected) Newport- Inglewood Strike-Slip 4.9 (Offshore) Rose Canyon Strike-Slip 5.0 Palos Verdes Strike-Slip 20.7 (Connected) Coronado Bank Strike-Slip 20.7 Elsinore Strike-SI ip 23.3 12008 Nauonal Se1s1111c Hazard Maps Fault Parameter Database (USGS) 6.0 POTENTIAL GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS June 27, 2016 (revised January 19, 2018) 116152 Maximum Moment Mae:nitude1 7.5 6.8 6.7 7.7 7.3 7.9 The following discussion provides a summary of pertinent geotechnical hazards at the site. 6.1 Seismic Hazards 6.1 .1 Ground Rupture Hazards -According to the State of California (CGS 2010), no active faults have been recognized on, or mapped through, the subject property. In addition, no fault features have been identified during the subject subsurface exploration. Therefore, the potential for surface faulting and ground rupture on the property is considered to be low. 6. 1.2 Ground Shaking Hazards -Ground shaking associated with an earthquake on any of the nearby active faults is possible during the lifetime of the project. Based on a probabilistic analysis, considering recurrence intervals of 4 75 years and 24 75 years, peak horizontal ground accelerations of 0.21 g and 0.43g, respectively, have been estimated. The site would experience severe shaking with a duration of several seconds for these scenarios. Other significant effects associated with seismic activity are discussed below. 6.1.3 Ground Failure Hazards -Seismically induced ground failure mechanisms include: liquefaction, lateral spreading and seismically induced settlement. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which a saturated, cohesionless, near-surface soil layer loses strength during cyclic loading (such as typically generated by earthquakes). During the loss of strength, the soil acquires a "mobility" sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, fine grained sands that are generally located within 40 to 50 feet of the ground surface. Surface manifestations -5- Ms. LaGrua June27,2016 (revised January 19, 2018) 116152 of liquefaction include settlement and sand boils. Given the density of the Terrace Deposits underlying the site, the potential for liquefaction and liquefaction derived settlement is considered low. In addition, the risk of lateral spreading is also considered low due to the lack of significant topography and the low potential for liquefaction. 6.1.4 Tsunamis -A tsunami is a sea wave generated by a submarine earthquake, landslide or volcanic action. Submarine earthquakes are common along the edge of the Pacific Ocean, subjecting coastal areas to risk of tsunamis. Tsunami inundation maps developed by collaborative research by USGS, the California Geological Survey (CGS), the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) and several other universities and private organizations, indicate that the site is not at risk from tsunami inundation. These maps consider both local and distance seismic sources capable of generating seafloor displacement which could in turn, generate a tsunami. 6. 1.5 Seiches -A seiche is an earthquake induced wave in a confined body of water such as a bay or a lake. The site will not be affected by a seiche due to the lack of confined bodies of water in close proximity to the site. 6.2 Landsliding/Slope Stability The site is not considered to be in a landslide susceptible area and slope stability rs not a consideration in site design due to lack of significant topography at the site. 6.3 Settlement Behavior The existing surface soils (undifferentiated topsoil/fill) underlying the site are considered compressible in their present state. These soils will require removal and recompaction. Recommendations for removal and recompaction of fill soils are provided in the following sections. Properly recompacted fill soils and underlying Terrace Deposits will have a low potential for significant settlement under anticipated design loads. Dynamic settlement potential under a design earthquake scenario is considered low due to the density of the Terrace Deposits at the site and the low potential for liquefaction. 6.4 Expansive Soils Due to the granular nature of on-site soils, expansion potential is considered to be low. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Development of the site for the proposed eight-unit condominium development and associated improvements is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report are incorporated into the design and construction. The most significant geotechnical constraints to site development include earthquake induced ground-shaking, and the presence of undocumented fill soils. -6- Ms. LaGrua 7.1 Seismic Design June 27, 2016 (revised January 19, 2018) 116152 Ground-shaking effects on habitable structures can be mitigated by appropriate structural design in accordance with the California Building Code, International Building Code and guidelines established by the Structural Engineers Association of California. 7.2 Rippability and Compaction The site soils should be generally rippable using conventional grading equipment such as a D-8 dozer or larger. Our experience with the soils encountered at the site indicate that compaction is most easily achieved with smooth drum, vibratory compactors in soils moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture. 7.3 Soil Corrosivity The site soils are considered moderately corrosive and have a low potential for sulfate attack. Type Tl cement with a maximum water cement ratio of 0.45 should be acceptable for concrete in contact with site soils. A corrosion engineer should be consulted for site and project specific recommendations for protection of reinforcing and exposed metals at the site. 7.4 Groundwater Groundwater was encountered in Boring B-2 at a depth of 14 . 75 feet. However, construction at the site is unlikely to be affected by groundwater due to the anticipated shallow excavations. 7.5 Suitability of On-site Soils Fill and near surface natural soils are considered compressible in their present state, and will require removal and recompaction as discussed in section 8.0 of this report, if they are to support structural improvements. Non-structural uses of fill and near surface soils, such as landscaping, would be acceptable. However, pavement and hardscape improvements would be subject to settlement and potential distress, unless fill soils are removed and recompacted. We anticipate that removals of approximately three feet below existing grade will be necessary in building areas and approximately two feet in pavement or hardscape areas. Deeper removals may be necessary when grading plans are developed to mitigate differential settlement in the building area due to cut/fill transitions. Also, localized deeper removals are possible due to the presence of excavations from existing utilities or other buried objects. Potential settlement of undocumented fill under improvements can be mitigated through proper foundation design and the use of suitable grading methods to remove and recompact existing undocumented fill soils. The upper 0.5 feet of existing topsoil/fill materials have a high percentage of organic materials and will not be suitable for re-use as compacted fill . In areas with trees, significant root matter should be anticipated that will require deeper removals and disposal of organic materials. Compacted fill soils and fill soils generated from the on-site Terrace Deposit materials should have excellent strength and drainage characteristics. The fill soils are considered to have a low potential for expansion upon wetting. -7- Ms. LaGrua June27,2016 (revised January 19, 2018) 116152 7.6 Infiltration Rates Factored infiltration rates ranged from 57 to 228 minutes per inch. Soils were more permeable in shallow test pits (two feet deep versus four feet deep). The infiltration rates may be used by the Civil Engineer for storm water infiltration design in accordance with the San Diego Region Model BMP Design Manual. 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The following geotechnical recommendations are provided based on limited site design data available at the time of our subsurface investigation and geotechnical conditions disclosed by our investigation, testing and analysis. When detailed grading and structural plans are available, they should be reviewed by this office to check for conformance to the recommendations herein and to provide supplemental geotechnical recommendations, if appropriate. 8.1 Earthwork Recommendations 8.1 .1 Site Preparation -Prior to construction of any future improvements, the area of the proposed improvements should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions and debris including abandoned utilities and foundation remnants. Concrete from building and pavement demolition may be crushed on-site using a crusher fitted with a one inch minus screen and re-used as recycled aggregate base under new pavement. If concrete is not to be used for recycled aggregate base, it should be disposed of off-site. Depressions or voids resulting from removal of buried obstructions should be filled with properly compacted fill material as described below. All surficial trash, landscape debris, construction debris, and unrecyclable portions of existing buildings should be disposed of at an approved facility. During site grubbing, any existing landscaping should be removed and residual topsoil containing more than three percent organic matter should be stripped off and disposed of off-site. 8.1.2 Excavation and Trenching -Shallow excavations may be accomplished by conventional heavy duty earthmoving equipment in good working condition. Trenches over four feet in depth should be provided with shoring if workers are to enter excavations. Stockpiling of materials directly adjacent to utility trenches can promote sloughing or cave-ins and should be avoided. Stockpiles should be located a minimum horizontal distance from the side of the trench equal to the trench depth. Excavations adjacent to the existing building to the southeast may require shoring or construction in short sections depending on the depth of excavation and the proximity to the building. This should be evaluated by the Geotechnical Engineer when detailed construction plans are available. The contractor shall be responsible for protection of off-site improvements during construction. 8.1 .3 Removal and Recompaction -The maJonty of the site is underlain by granular, undocumented fill soils that are likely derived from Quaternary Terrace Deposits. The soils will require removal and recompaction. We recommend that a depth of removal and recompaction of at least three feet below existing grade be -8- Ms. LaGrua June 27, 2016 (revised January 19, 2018) 116152 8.2 assumed in proposed building areas for estimation purposes. Prior to cleanout, the upper soils containing high percentages of organics should be removed from the site. Depths of removal and recompaction should be based on the recommendations of our field representative during grading observation. Construction that crosses a cut/fill transition will require uniform removal and recompaction in the area of proposed structural improvements of at least three feet and extending five feet beyond the building perimeter to create a uniform fill pad. 8.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction -Prior to placement of fill , excavation bottoms should be scarified and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D 1557. Fill material should be free of debris and deleterious matter and have no particles larger than six inches in maximum dimension. The existing undocumented fill soils are considered suitable for re-use (except for upper highly organic portions), provided the fill remains are similar to that encountered in exploratory borings. Oversize rock fragments should not be placed in structural fill areas. Any import soils should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to importing. The contractor should make allowances in his schedule for testing of import fill prior to hauling to the site. Fill should be placed at near optimum moisture and in uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding six to eight inches in loose lift thickness. Fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557, except in driveway and parking areas. The upper 12 inches of fill in areas to receive pavement or in parking areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). Base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). Utility trench backfill should be placed in lifts not exceeding six to eight inches in loose lift thickness and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). Due to the granular nature of the majority of the on-site soils, compaction should most easily be achieved with vibratory equipment. Foundation Design Proposed structural improvements at or close to ex1st111g site grades can be founded on a combination of shallow continuous and isolated spread footings, provided the site is undercut and the existing undocumented fill soils are recompacted as discussed above. 8.2.1 Shallow Foundation Design Bearing in a Uniform Fill Mat -Shallow foundations bearing in compacted fill or formational soils may consist of isolated or continuous spread footings extending a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade. Footings should be at least 24 inches in width and be reinforced in accordance with structural requirements. An allowable bearing capacity of 3000 pounds per square foot (pst) may be assumed. A passive pressure based on an equivalent fluid weight of 300 psf may be assumed. A one-third increase in bearing capacity and passive pressure may be assumed for temporary loads, such as wind or seismic. Minimum continuous footing reinforcement should consist of two #5 re-bars top and bottom. Minimum isolated spread footing reinforcement should consist of #5 re-bar on 12-inch centers each way. Steel reinforcement should have a minimum concrete -9- Ms. LaGrua June 27, 2016 (revised January 19, 2018) 116152 cover of three inches. Footing excavations should be wetted prior to pouring concrete. 8.2.2 Parking Garage Floor Slab Design -The following foundation and slab recommendations are based on soils at or near finish grade having a low expansion potential. Slabs should be at least 5.5 inches in thickness and reinforced in accordance with structural requirements. Minimum reinforcement should consist of #4 re-bar at 12 inches on center each way. Vapor barrier shall consist of a minimum 15-mil extruded polyolefin plastic (no recycled content or woven materials permitted). The material must comply with ASTM E 1745 CLASS A and have a permeance of less than 0.0 I perms [grains/ft2/Hr/in-Hg] as per ASTM E 96 or ASTM F 1249 for both new material (ASTM E 154 Section 7) and material subjected to conditioning testing as outlined in ASTM E 154 Sections 8, 11 , 12, and 13. It should be installed with seams lapped six inches in accordance to ASTM E 1643. The vapor barrier should be underlain by a four-inch thick layer of pea gravel (3 /8-inch diameter). 8.2.3 Concrete Design -Concrete for floor slabs, garage slabs, grade beams, trash enclosure approach aprons and footings should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4000 pounds per square inch (psi). Type II cement may be used for concrete located at least four feet above the groundwater table. Concrete should have a maximum water cement ratio of 0.45. Weakened plane joints in slabs should be provided per the Structural Engineer's recommendations. Care should be taken during slab curing to prevent cracking, particularly during hot and windy weather. Low shrink concrete should be specified to reduce potential slab curling. The Structural Engineer should provide recommendations for slab curing. 8.3 Preliminary Pavement Design for Trash Enclosure Approach For trash enclosure approach aprons subjected to trash truck loadings, a minimum six-inch thick concrete slab should be provided and be reinforced in accordance with the Structural Engineer's recommendations. The slab should be underlain by six inches of Caltrans Class II aggregate base compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D 1557. The upper foot of subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM D 1557. 8.4 Pervious Concrete for Public Sidewalk Pervious concrete sidewalks may be designed in accordance with the detail provided in Figure 2 (subject to approval of the City Engineer) and the 2016 County of San Diego, Department of Public Works, Green Street Specifications. 8.5 Retaining Walls Retaining walls, if required, may be founded on shallow footings on formational soils in accordance with the foundation design criteria above. Cantilever retaining walls (free to rotate) retaining level, non-expansive, well drained, granular backfill may be designed assuming an active equivalent fluid weight of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Restrained walls retaining non-expansive, granular backfill derived from approved on-site soils (or approved import soils) may be designed assuming an active equivalent fluid weight of 55 pcf. If cantilever walls are proposed, note that angle points in the retaining walls will impede rotation of the wall and result in higher pressures than the -I 0- Ms. LaGrua June 27, 2016 (revised January 19, 2018) 116152 active conditions described above. Accordingly, control joints should be provided at wall corners for cantilever walls or the walls should be designed for higher "at rest" conditions in accordance with the recommendations of Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. and the Project Structural Engineer. Retaining walls should be provided with appropriate waterproofing and drainage (Figure 3). Retaining walls and retaining wall foundations should be reinforced in accordance with the recommendations of the Project Structural Engineer. 8.6 Surface Drainage We recommend that all surface drainage be permanently diverted away from the planned structures, at a minimum five percent grade for landscape areas and two percent grade for impervious surfaces, to a suitable outlet. Roof gutters, if installed, should be directed to a suitable, non-erosive outlet, preferably tied directly into the storm drain or infiltration system. Planter areas adjacent to building areas should be avoided. If planting areas adjacent to buildings are desired, suitable sub- drainage should be installed to mitigate the potential for wicking along the building exterior or excessive moisture build up under the building slab. Infiltration systems to direct runoff from storm events back into the soil, if located near the proposed building, may require installation of a vertical moisture barrier to help reduce potential for wicking. 8.7 Seismic Design In accordance with the guidelines of the 2016 CBC, the spectral parameters for the site (based on a Site Class C soil) are estimated to be Ss = 1.15g and S1 = 0.44g, utilizing 2009 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions (USGS, 2017). Review of the geotechnical data obtained during our subsurface exploration indicates that the site should be classified as Class C per the ASCE 7-10, Chapter 20 (Table 20.3-1 ). Consequently, Site Coefficients Fa= 1.0 and F v = 1.36 appear to be appropriate for the subject site. Based on this information, the adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response parameters SMs = 1.15g and SM 1 = 0.60g are recommended for seismic design of the project. Building risk category is II (Table 1604.5; CBC 2016). Based on spectral design parameters of Sos= 0.77g and S01= 0.40g, the site will have seismic design category ofD (Table 1613.3.5 (I) and (2), CBC 2016). Final selection of the appropriate seismic design coefficients should be made by the structural consultant based on the local laws and ordinances, expected building response, and desired level of conservatism. A summary of design seismic parameters obtained from the USGS website are included in Appendix D. 8.8 Potentially Corrosive Soils Laboratory testing was performed to evaluate the site soils' soluble sulfate and chloride content, in order to assess the potential for corrosive attack on buried concrete structural elements at the site. Results of this testing (Appendix C) yielded a soluble sulfate content of 43 parts per million and a chloride content of 16 parts per million. Type II cement may be used in concrete that will be in contact with the on-site soils. Concrete having a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.45 (by weight) should be utilized. pH and minimum resistivity tests on the existing near surface fill soils (Appendix C) indicate a moderate potential for corrosion for buried metallic objects. We recommend that a Corrosion Engineer be retained to develop project specific recommendations to mitigate corrosion effects when design plans are available. -11- Ms. LaGrua 9.0 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS June 27, 2016 (revised January 19, 2018) 116152 Our services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. No warranty, express or implied, or merchantability of fitness, is made or intended in connection with our work, by the proposal for consulting or other services, or by the furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. Evaluation of waste or other environmental contaminants is not included in our scope of services. Any recommendations and/or design criteria presented in this report are contingent upon our firm being retained to review the final drawings and specifications, to be consulted when any questions arise with regard to the recommendations contained herein, and to provide testing and inspection services for earthwork and construction operations. Unanticipated soil and geologic conditions are commonly encountered during construction which cannot be fully determined from existing exposures or by limited subsurface investigation. Such conditions may require additional expenditures during construction to obtain a properly constructed project. Some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate these possible extra costs. 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 called to the attention of the project architect and engineer and incorporated into the plans. Furthermore, it is also the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. -12- Imagery© 2016 Google. Map Data© 2016 Google. PROJECT1 •~ SITE PACIFIC N OCEAN NOTTO SCALE ~ ~~f 1• Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. ■ - Site Location Map 3337 Tyler Street Carlsbad, CA Project Number: 116152 Date: June 2016 Drafted: VC Eng/Geo: SRH Scale: NTS Figure Number: 1 NOTES: BASE COURSE/ RESERVOIR LA YER SEE OTE 1 z c.o _::E ~ MAX 5% LO GI UDINAL SLOPE MAX 2% CROSS SLOPE STEEPER SLOPE ALLOWED IF APPROVED BY CITY E GI EER <I ·...-0 z . , .... " ~:. -:.::. ,_-: _: _:-_:; _: :..: ~: UNCOMPACTED SUBGRADE SEE NOTE o 2 PERMEABLE PORTLA D CEME T CONCRETE :. ... _ 3" TYP 1. DETAIL TO BE USED ONLY WHEN APPROVED BY CITY OF CARLSBAD AND SHALL MEET CURRENT APPROVED COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SPECIFICATION FOR "PERVIOUS PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT'. 2. UNCOMPACTED SUBGRADE FOR AREAS DESIGNED FOR INFILTRATION PRACTICES. FOR OTHER AREAS, COMPACT AS SPECIFIED. FOR SOFT SOILS, INSTALL GEOGRID PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER RECOMMENDATIONS. 3. AGGREGATE LAYERS SHALL MEET CURRENT APPROVED COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SPECIFICATION FOR "AGGREGATE FOR PERMEABLE PAVEMENT AND RAIN GARDEN". 4. WHERE IN-SITU SOILS ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO INFILTRATION OF DESIGN STORM VOLUME WITHIN 72 HOURS, UNDERDRAIN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THROUGH COORDINATION WITH CITY ENGINEER. 5. IMPERMEABLE LINER TO BE USED TO PROMOTE WATER RE-USE, PROTECT NEARBY BUILDING FOUNDATIONS, AND AVOID INFILTRATION AROUND UTILITIES. 6. AGGREGATE DEPTH MAY BE GREATER THAN MINIMUM. AS SHOWN IN DESIGN PLANS TO ACHIEVE ADDITIONAL STORMWATER STORAGE. DEEPENED CURBS MAY BE REQUIRED IF AGGREGATE DEPTH IS INCREASED IN ORDER TO REDUCE SATURATION OF PAVEMENT SUBGRADE. 7. BOTTOM OF RESERVOIR LAYER SHALL BE AT LEAST 1 O' ABOVE THE SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE OR 2' ABOVE BEDROCK, AS DETERMINED BY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION. 8 . TOP OF PAVEMENT SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE 1 % MINIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION. 9. IN CASE OF TREE PLANTINGS, STRUCTURAL SOIL MAY EXTEND UNDER RESERVOIR LAYER. ,_ Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. Pervious Concrete for Public Sidewalk Detail 3337 Tyh:r Street Carlsbad. CJ\ Project umber 11 6152 Date. Jan. 2018 Drafted: VC Eng/Geo: SRI I/M l I Scale: Not to Scale Figure umber· 2 RETAINING WALL ____ ___. FINISH GRADE 7 'l/ 'l/ ~ ~ WATERPROOFING ~--FINISH GRADE .,._1_.0_' M_I_N·-LE 3/4 -INCH WASHED GRAVEL SURROUNDED BY MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. 6" MIN. LAP 6" SCH. 40 PERFORATED PVC PIPE (PERFORATIONS DOWN) 2% MINIMUM SLOPE TO OUTLET !-Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. Retaining Wall Drainage Detail (Typical) 3337 Tvler Stn:et Carlsbad. CA Project Number: 116152 Date: June 20 16 Drafted: VC Eng/Geo: SRH/Ml I Scale: Not to Scale Figure Number 3 APPENDIX A: REFERENCES REFERENCES Bryant, W.A. and Hart, W.W. (2007) Fault rupture zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Zone Maps, Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, 2007 Interim Revision. California Geological Survey (Formally California Division of Mines and Geology): Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California, Dated 1986. Open File Report 86-8. California Geological Survey (Formally California Division of Mines and Geology): Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California (Plates I & 2), Dated 1996. Open File Report 96-02. California Geological Survey (CGS; 2010): Fault Activity Map of California. California Geological Survey (CGS; 2013): Regulatory Map Database: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH; 2016): Online Citizen Access Portal: https://publicservices.sdcounty.ca.gov/citizenaccess/ County of San Diego Department of Public Works (February 2016) Green Streets Specifications, 62 pp. Emery, K.O. and Kuhn, G.G. ( 1982): Seacliffs: Their Processes, Profiles and Classification. Geologic Society of America Bulletin, Volume 93, Number 7, Pages 644-654. Geosyntec, Rick Engineering Company and Project Clean Water (2016) Model BMP Design Manual San Diego Region For Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodification Management, 468 pp. Kennedy, M.P. (1975): Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200. Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S. (2007): Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California. Kern, J.P. and Rockwell, T.K. (2012): Chronology and Deformation of Quaternary Marine Shorelines, San Diego County, California. Society for Sedimentary Geology (SEPM). Kuhn, G.G. and Shepard, F. P. ( 1984): Sea Cliffs, Beaches, and Coastal Valleys of San Diego County, Amazing Histories and Some Horrifying Implications. Berkley: University of California Press. San Diego Land Surveying & Engineering, Inc.: A.LT.A./ N.S.P.S. Land Title Survey, Sheet I of I. Dated l /l 7/2016. Southern California Earthquake Data Center (Earthquake Catalogue): http:/ /www.data.scec.org/about/index.htm I A-I Tan, S.S. and Giffen, D.G. (1995): Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California. Open File Report 95-04. Tan, S.S. and Kennedy, M.P. (1996) Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, Geologic Map of the Oceanside, San Luis Rey and San Marcos 7.5' Quadrangles, San Diego County, California. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (2012): Encinitas-Solana Beach Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Integrated Feasibility Study & Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), San Diego County, California. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (2012): Encinitas-Solana Beach Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project, San Diego County, California. Appendix C -Geotechnical Engineering. United States Geological Survey (USGS; 2008): National Seismic Hazard Map Fault Database: https://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults 2008 search/query main.cfm United States Geological Survey (USGS; 2008): 2008 Fault Sources https://earthguake.usgs.gov/hazards/gfaults/map/#hazfaults2008 United States Geological Survey (USGS; 2017): US Seismic Design Maps https://earthguake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS • NETR (20 I 2-193 8) https://www.historicaerials.com/ A-2 APPENDIXB: FIELD INVESTIGATION: EXPLORATORY BORING, TEST PIT LOGS AND INFILTRATION TEST DAT A FIELD INVESTIGATION Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by means of two eight-inch diameter hollow stem auger borings and five manually excavated test pits, approximately two feet square (see Plate I for depths). The locations of the borings and test pits are shown on Plate I. Our field representative who logged the borings and test pits directed the drilling and visually classified the soils in accordance with ASTM D 2487. We obtained bulk samples of the on-site soils at selected intervals in the borings and test pits. We obtained relatively undisturbed samples of the materials encountered at selected depths from the small diameter borings. These samples were obtained in brass rings that were 2.5 inches in outside diameter and I inch high; the rings were inside a modified split-barrel California sampler. Other samples were obtained by using a split barrel Standard Penetration sampler. Both types of samplers were driven with a 140-pound hammer that was raised by a cathead mechanism and allowed to fall about 30 inches. The blow counts to drive the samplers are an indication of the relative density of the soils. Blow counts are indicated on the boring logs. Sample depths are shown on the logs, with the following abbreviations used to designate the type of sampler used at each depth : Modified California samples are designated CM and Standard Penetration tests are designated SPT. Descriptive logs of the borings and test pits are presented in this Appendix. These logs depict our interpretation of the subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated. It is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other times and locations. The contacts on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between earth materials and the transitions between these materials may be gradual. HELENSCHMIDT GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILLING Project T ler Street 8-Unit Condominium Develo ment Location 3337 T ler Street Carlsbad CA Drilling Contractor/Rig Cal-Pac Drillin / Mobile B-61 Ground Surface Elev. 47.6' A rox. Logged By =SR="~--- Surface Conditions =D~e=ad~G~r=as=s _______________ _ ,,, " Geotechnical C :c 0-IJ ... "'C' -oil == en . Description "-·-Q " "-o u~ E ~ ,..,,e "-"" E...1 00 .!! .. ~ J'l0 ... Q-r.:, ::-u Q -1 .i I SM TQPSQI!./FILL (!.ln!liff!.:rtnti!!lt!I, Al): 0'-2,!!' -1 I I Red brown, fine to medium grained Silty Sand. Dry to -I i I damp, loose to medium dense. Roots in upper 3". 2 -I :r I SM TERRACE DEPQSITS {Qt): 2.!)'-12.!)' Or. brown, medium grained Silty Sand. Damp, dense, CM-I 126.0 -1 .i I slightly cemented. -I I .. 1 4 -, i ·, -i J I -, :r I -r I ·, CM-2 118.9 6 --= I I ·., -' ·i ·I _I J I 8 _I f I -1 .1 I -I I .1 -I i ·'! 10 -1 J I @ I 0.0': Abundant MnO.1. -1 :.1 I CM-3 111.0 -1 .i I -, I I 12 -, i ·'I -; J I -1 :.1 I - 14-1.1 I ~ .... ----------------------.. SP Gray to orange gray, medium to coarse grained Sand -.. 16 -.. with abundant rounded Quartz. Occa~ional rounded SPl~I --. . Cobbles up to I" . . . -. . .. . . -.. . . . . ----------------------- 18 -l'T•':r; ---Gray, very fi ne grained Silty Sand with rounded I f ·I SM Cobbles ( 1/2"-2" in diameter). Very dense, slight Fe2O3 slaininll,. CM-4 117.4 Total Depth: 19.0' 20 -Groundwater Table Encountered al 14.75'. Backfilled with cuttings on 6/8/2016. 22- - 24- -· 26- - - - 28- Boring No. _B_-1 ___________ _ Project No. _1_16_1~5_2 _________ _ Date of Drilling 6/8/2016 Hole Diameter ~8_-I_n~ch _________ _ Weather ~O~v=er~c=a=st~----------- SPT ... Blows/ft ... ~ ... =~ _;~ -.. §~ Cl. Cl. Comments ; .!' o-.., . ~ o::-en - -@ 0'-5' Bulk Sample. -- 1%. -4.5 CM 100 -+ -- 1% 5.6 CM 90 --6 ------ 1% @ I 0'-15': Bulk Sample. 7.7 CM 70 - ·-6 - - -- -IX -16.1 SPT 100 -I - -- 19.2 so~ CM 50 - - - -- - - - --- f-- ---- f-- - HELENSCHMIDT GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILLING Project T ler Street 8-llnit Condominium Develo ment Location 3337 T ler Street Carlsbad CA Drilling Contractor/Rig Cal-Pac Drillin / Mobile B-61 Ground Surface Elev. 45.8' (Approx.) Logged By =SR=l=·I ___ _ Surface Conditions ~G~r=a=ss~----------------- "' "' Geotcchnical .., C :a 01J -°" ""C' ~:, C. 0 "',; Description c.._ Q "' U"' -"' -C. C.., t;..l C ._, .,~ "'!! J'5C c-Q -c.:i :::iu Q -I _ I I SM/ TQrSQll.lEILL (llulli[[mulialtll, AO· ll'-1.!i' I I I ML 0'-0.33': Lt. gray to brown, fine grained Silty Sand to 1i"· -1 ---,. Sandy Silt. Dry, loose. 2 --1 l I SM 0.33'-l .6': Lt. red brown, tine to medium grained Silty Sand with occasional Gravel. I • J-I TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt\: l.6'-19.0' I .1 I I I _I Or. brown, tine to medi um grained Silty Sand. Moist, medi um dense. 4 -I i :I I l I CM-I 121.1 I • f-I i: I I 6 -I I .1 I i I: -I l I 8 _, f I -I .i I I I I I I I 10 --1 l I -1 J-I ~.ti -------------------------CM-2 104.0 Gray, fine grained Silty Sand. Moist, medium dense. I_ I _I 12-J° i I_ -ll I -I fl 14-f I I -------------------------~=--.~ -.. SP Gray, medium to coarse grained Sand . Wet, medium .. . . dense, abundant MnO3, rounded grains . . . . . .. . . .. SPT-1 -- 16-.. . . -.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-.. -.. SANil!\GQ FQRMATIQN fTsa)· 12 0'-19 5' .. .. Gray Siltstone with MnO3 blcbs and Fe2O3 banding. SPT-2 -- 1111 ML Moist very dense. 20 -Total Depth: 19.5' -No Groundwater Encountered. -Backfilled with cuttings on 6/8/2016. " 22 - - - - 24 - - - - 26 - - 28 - Boring No. __,,B'---'-2,,__ ___________ _ Project No. -'l'-'-l-"-6,_,1 S<-=2'------------- Date of Drilling 6/8/2016 Hole Diameter _,,8_,-l"'n""'ch,.,_ ________ _ Weather ~o~v~erLlc~a~st.__ __________ _ SPT .., Blows/ft ... u .., =~ -.., ~~ :~~ C. C. Comments ~~ o-~ ._,c "' i:z:- "Z. @ 0'-5': Bulk Sample. - - 1% 6.3 CM 90 - 4 I- - - 1% @ 10'-15': Bulk Sample. -4.5 CM 90 -3 - -- - - - 21.8 I¾ SPT 100 ~ I- ~ -17.0 SPT 100 + I- - I- I- -,_ I- ~ I- ~ - ~ I- T-1 i-: LL I I-a.. w 0 w ~ 2 x 0 0::: a.. a.. <t: 0 1 2 STATION (FT.) ---N56E ► SCALE 1": 1' (H = V) LEGEND ~ ~ CD 0 @ @ TOPSOIL/FILL (UNDIFFERENTIATED} TERRACE DEPOSITS 0'-0.42': Roots in upper 5". 0'-1.0': Red brown. fine to medium grained Silty Sand. Dry lo damp. I .0'-2.0': Orange brown. line to medium grained Silty Sand. Damp. Total Dt:pth: 2.0'. No groundll'atcr encountered. EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOGGED BYS HELENSCHMIDT ON 6/7/16 T-1 i-: LL ~ I I-a.. w 0 w ~ 2 x 0 0::: a.. a.. <t: l~.al Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc . • Test Pit Log: T-J 333 7 T\ !er Street Carls'i-lad. C!\ l'roJect Number 116152 I Datt: .lune 2016 Drafted VC Fng Geo: SRI I Ml I '>cak I" I' Figure Number B-1 T-2 ._: LL -I f-c.. w 0 w ~ ~ x 0 0:: c.. c.. <{ 0 1 2 STATION (FT.) ---N56E ... SCALE 1": 1' (H = V) LEGEND G) @ @ © ® TOPSOIL/FILL (UNDIFFERENTIATED) 0'-0.42': Roots in upper 4"-5". 0'-1.0': Red bro\\'n. fine grained Silty Sand. Dry to damp. loose. '§0.5': Glass fragments I .0'-2.0': Red brown. line to medium grained Silty Sand. Damp. medium dense. Total Depth: 2.0'. No groundll'ater encountered. EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOGGED BYS HELENSCHMIDT ON 6fil16 T-2 ._: LL -I f-c.. w 0 w ~ ~ x 0 0:: c.. c.. <{ 19Jlll Helenschmidt GeotechnicaL Inc . • l'ro_1cct Number 116152 Dralkd VC Scak I" I' Test Pit Log: T-2 3337 T) k r Strctt Carlshad. CA Date June 2016 Fng Gel>. SRI I Ml I Figure 1'/umber B-2 T-3 ~ LL :r: I-a.. w 0 w ~ ~ x 0 0::: a.. a.. <( 0 1 2 STATION (FT.) ---N34W ... SCALE 1": 1' (H = V) LEGEND G) ® @ © TOPSOIL/FILL (UNDIFFERENTIATED} TERRACE DEPOSITS 0'-1 .6': Lt. red brown. line to medium grained Silty Sand with occasional Gravel. @ I .5': 4" Sewer ABS. I .6'-2.3': Orange broll"n Silty Sand. Damp. medium dense. Total Depth: 2.3'. No ground11·atcr encountered. EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOGGED BY S HELENSCHMIDT ON 6/,116 T-3 ~ LL ~ :r: I-a.. w 0 w ~ ~ x 0 0::: a.. a.. <( I.al Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. ■ Test Pit Log: T-3 333 7 ·1\ lcr Street Carls't,aJ. C.,\ l'rnJCct Number I 16152 !Date .lunL' 2016 Draftcd VC Fng Geo· <;RI I Ml I Scak I"= I' Figure Numbc:r B-3 LEGEND G) ® @ @ TOPSOIL/FILL (UNDIFFERENTIATED\ TERRACE DEPOSITS 0'-0.13': 1-1 /2" NC. 0.17'-1.6': Red brown. fine lo medium grained Silty Sand. Dry. 1.6'-4.0': Orange brown. fine lo medium grained Silty Sand. Dry to damp. Total Depth: 40'. No groundwater encountered. EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOGGED BYS HELENSCHMIDT ON 617/16. i-..: LL. -I f- 0.. w 0 w ~ ~ >< 0 a::: Q. Cl. <{ T-4 0 1 STATION (FT.) ---N56E ... SCALE 1": 1' (H = V) 2 T-4 i-..: LL. I f- 0.. w 0 w ~ ~ >< 0 a::: Q. Cl. <{ I.al Helenschmidt GeotechnicaL Inc. ■ Prn_1cct Number· 116152 Drafkd VC Scak I''= I' Test Pit Log: T-4 3337 T) kr Street Carlsbad. C \ Date June 2016 Eng G.:o· SRI I Ml I Figure !\umber B-t LEGEND G) 0 @ 0 ® ® TOPSOIL/FILL (UNDIFFERENTIATED) TERRACE DEPOSITS 0'-0.13': 1-1/2" A/C. 0'-0.42': Gray brown, fine grained Silty Sand to Sandy Silt. Dry. loose. 0'-0.5': Abundant Palm Roots ( 1/16" to 3/8" in diameter). 0.5'-2.0': Scattered Palm Roots ( 1/16" to 3/8" in diameter). 0.42'-4.0': Orange bro11·n. tine to medium grained Silty Sand. Damp to moist. medium dense. Total Depth: 4.0'. No groundwater encountered. EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOGGED BYS HELENSCHMIDT ON 618/16 i--= LL ~ I l-a. w 0 w ~ ~ X: 0 a:: a. a. <l'. T-5 @ G) A e ... _, 0 -.,., 0 ~ 0 1 STATION (FT.) ---N34W ► SCALE 1": 1' (H = V) 2 T-5 i--= LL I l-a. w 0 w ~ ~ X: 0 a:: a. a. <l'. 19J/lll Helenschmjgt Geotechnical, Inc. i l'ru_1ec1 Number· 116152 DrnHcd VC Scak I"= I' Test Pit Log: T-5 3337 T) kr Street C arlshad. C. \ Date June 20 If, l'ng Geo SRll'Mll Figure :--;umhcr B-5 Appendix D: Approved Infiltration Rate Assessment Methods Worksheet D.5-1: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate Worksheet .\sstg11ed Facmr Producr (p) Factor Caregory Facco r Description \Veigbt (w) Value (v) p :::. W XV Soil assessment merhods 0.25 1. 0 -,-, Predominant soil texture 0.25 '2 C' ') Su itabiliry Site soil va.l'.iabiliry 0.25 '2 _. {) '-. ,\ ' Assessment Deprh groundwater I impervious co 0.25 -I 0 ...., layer ,<:'., ' Suitability _,\ssessment Safety Facr.or. S,1 = Ip -l,1"' Level of preri:e:Hmenr / expected 0.5 2.., sediment loads l B De·ign Redundancy/ resiliency 0.25 \ D. ·2 -:;- Compaction during co nsrruction 0.25 :2--{) . 'I Design Safety Factor, Sil= Ip I 7 ;, Combined Safery Faccor. St<,,,.1= S.1 x Sis 3, I ( )bserved Infiltration Rare, inch/hr, K ,b,.-,,cd ( A✓ b- (corrected for test-specific bias) 1 -/\".L ,'? Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr. K ll~,g,• = K ,b,,,w.l / S,u,al D.Y~ Supporting Data Briefly Jescribe infiltrarjon rest anJ provide reference to ccsr forms: Se.fil.. ~ n e'-~ r;, (\,. \ r-e or·\ . D-19 February 26, 2016 Simple Open Pit Infiltration Test Data Sheet Project: lvl~r .c;t Project No.: Ill.a I S:-L Date: Le-· 7• !IP Test Hole No.: I Tested By: "::>Z+l Depth of Test Hole, Dr: .. l,. I uses Soil Classification: s rt'\. Test Hole Dimensions (inches) length Width Diameter (if round)= Sides (if rectangular)= "'Z.. ~t -z 1.1 tiD tit Do Dt Change in Infiltration Time Interval Initial Depth Final Depth Water level Rate Trial No. Start Time Stop Time (min.) to Water (in.) to Water (in.) (in.) (min.fin.) \ I ·,;o ,~A -~ ·C L\ ,c I ~ 19 I -z I I ...,._ . 'Z. I ,o "':; l"' Z.D () 7~,?, I c'!l ,t 7-C "Z. (' 1, •. ( I ''1 1 . ,, t 1 ' 'f\ 1 ~i 't o•,--i 1. \ >l"'i -i ·"4 ) 7. 'i? ~ '"2.-\ '1, \ () ,1,3 ~ .. '\0 -{.., -Z,.\ \~ F, tie) ~ .-~c :; .. 1Y ID \Y \ ,'? ', •1..,_ """ . ., ~..,,.,. .. "S • o[' :;. J-:-\ r:;· ,~\~ l Cf I 't,,, / ,.~-'\ . 1.-( 0 ,P► ~ l '\ ?C' •, ... I 1-f f 3-;,'8' .. 71 I " ~· I \ 3 •f . I ;;, -, 'Z or~ \ 'S> i=-,1/t) ...:..-.--"" I. =t ' ,7 l °? 1C\ I • -,e...., ,, ' ,, ..) .. ., I ~ ,,., \{ I '\ \~ D ' ~ v 1-/ . .::, t ,~. ·(.;, ._, r ltff I q /~ -/k:--;~ & ) .... ,... . . ~ COMMENTS: Simple Open Pit Infiltration Test Data Sheet Project: t"vlt:J L_, _, Project No.: 11v1~t-Date: fr .-7-I' Test Hole No.: --z._...,.-Tested By: ""; J(., ,+-- Depth of Test Hole, Dr: v' uses Soil Classification: .?.,';)f\.- Test Hole Dimensions (inches) Length Width Diameter (if round)= Sides (if rectangular)= '2 'l -z i-.f 6D M Do Dr Change in Infiltration Time Interval Initial Depth Final Depth Water Level Rate Trial No. Start Time Stop Time (min.) to Water (in.) to Water (in.) (in.) (min./in.) I ,·.::-; 7 ·tj l l I l'i ~"'I"'> ; ti ... 2 .oj -z.,. '?0 't-"'Z 0 ""' 'l,,. ~ -;z. ? C, ,~' ·;:,; 'S ~ ,ZC I :.:1 I -;":,,,w 'r,. ' ,~ ·2 . .., ~-f I 1,4. '?., L/ "Z { / 't,.., 7,""c, . "2,. 7 'I > 1? ,t:•l'e j II I !? , •(?, ~-er ,-, "I; . ,,. / 't' ~::,/._,( :.-·· , .,)' -; '(' 0 ... ? '. I '{ ,v I q 'Ji.; 2 11..-J ,.., . ('f "? ;'8 f -.../ 70 11 '? I ~? .,,,. ... "" •1,.1r '( . ("'Z :..f; -, I ,,.. 'Z.3 1--r 3 t I 0"9 Lf I { () 17 ',,._, -· 1( J --I ' .r!. !-/. /8 11"J & I:, J f I "'t I Jr J/1"-f ,., · 1 lc 4. ,1~ 'i J ~ J..1..( l~ •/· ,;.; t;'· { \{ f q } Cf 1> fl1 1I COMMENTS: Simple Open Pit Infiltration Test Data Sheet Project: ... , tf /;;•; /;.> f Project No.: / l l,, I t:;,. Date: t_,, ~r -If.a Test Hole No.: ~ Tested By: '?'~µ- Depth ofTest Hole, DT: ·"t ,,, uses Soil Classification : t;;,A Test Hole Dimensions (inches) Length Width Diameter (if round)= Sides (if rectangular)= '2.. ~ ( '-( t.D M Do Dr Change in Infiltration Time Interval Initial Depth Final Depth Water Level Rate Trial No. Start Time Stop Time (min.) to Water (in.) to Water (in.) (in.) (min.fin.) I -;,of --· '1 -z,t -z, ,z. f ;~1 2, ', I ") ..,.,,. 15 ~ ~ z5 I() "'"'J, l '' t, . '·I 1, -;ti ,,;J t"i:,,_ 't. '. "Z. -' i ·~~ '0 '21 ( .... , , ,. "\., 7 "j .-t,. • '?: --i. ; ~f 'Z., 7 ~, '/,,;, ,Zft:; //, i , ) • ..I -z., r . •-'..,,,., 1 '. Ct' ;" I r; I k>;1 ? . ';:> s '2 > 't·'u ·3 • '7 I "J ~ I t ~; 1-1 .,.,,. ;,,;, . ,-3 3;,t' Ir '.:., ?. ·,., ,.., *.f , "' .---11-'.,,,, .. -, ..... . ,, ,,, ' . " i.f w ,o ""• , 1 ""' ; _, ,:;;; ···"' . . ( ,. ,.,,,,1 ' 't.. ,,,, ( ,., I I, ' ,, ... ,1· ..... > '/ . i C· 4· rt,.. ~ . ,. r /!,;,.! • . ,_ .. ..... J I:.; ... t. / •• ,., i-J ', ?7 '" 2 -z ~i •. , . ., .. f~ ..,..,..,, . .,,, '-I ..., ~r I! :1e ·s 3 77 1 ... -~ ,.J •.. "t., . ' ""',,.,...,. ... -•-·---·" -· ,';, I,., ,.'.,it I v ~, t.[ ., r:"" r 7 / -~ .,. _.,,. ,) \ ,..,., I .:;) ·, .. ,_._ -- COMMENTS: Simple Open Pit Infiltration Test Data Sheet Project: 1-1 /er ?/ Project No.: JI& I '-S" ~L Date: ?-·7-l~ Test Hole No.: i,{ Tested By: .,,,,.~ It Depth of Test Hole, Dr: ll " uses Soil Classification: ... ::,,~ Test Hole Dimensions (inches) Length Width Diameter (if round)= Sides (if rectangular)= 7 (I ?'1 t.D tit Do Dt Change in Infiltration Time Interval Initial Depth Final Depth Water Level Rate Trial No. Start Time Stop Time (min.) to Water (in .) to Water (in.) (in .) (min.fin.) l "? ) -,, : 1 (../,,; ..:;-'3C t~/ I t./ o/ I../ 0 ""' k/: t ~ ~r· i, J Lf > \., (..,' t-( z ( L-{ '} ( ,o I l7. ./' I ;; #. --t-/ '-[ -z._, ,. I '"{O YO {Ii,-.\ ;1 l ?.. (' 1,/ !'( .,.. '> ' ( ; z.3 '1C J •', '' -r, t'5 ,,; • I I 'g' l/D Lf{) 'A <" I I I l-, fj!, 2 I JC' fr t--f I j (,. . -1 f -; i. t:' : t{ tt IM1 lfl L,/) (p r , ~ 1; '/ti ' I t t.J D I I../ 7? J !! \ -.::, I, (, {(( , ,. t (,,, L/ f) I ;'"f -.: I,.,_( ' L / C ;n'..,I (, ,.,.. '/\ /,, ~ ~( '? Z f' '-IC $o/14 1,/t "?,(.,: ---....____ k, ~, -s r (,; '.t; fl 2s t/0 ~ 1.{ I 3lu11 \ i ~. f...,-, . ) ----~ COMMENTS: Simple Open Pit Infiltration Test Data Sheet Project: '"';;?;,?;:;1 •''L~ i:ST Project No.: \\ k>\':,7..... Date: fo!~/1'-r Test Hole No.: s. Tested By: V0 Depth ofTest Hole, Dr: .-41{ uses Soil Classification: ~,a, {c/L. '.'4 G'IV. SAt--J "'- Test Hole Dimensions (inches) Length Width Diameter (if round)= Sides (if rectangular)= ;l'--,4 .. ~ ,, L\D Llt Do D1 Change in Infiltration Time Interval Initial Depth Final Depth Water Level Rate Trial No. Start Time Stop Time (min.) to Water (in.) to Water (in.) (in.) (min./in.) I 'y, ?t'J ~ ,'.\C> \O 4'2.f"'l /.\? 0 0 ";3 3') '5'.l\o \0 42.e::. 4'1 !/Jr.. D,b<:,7_:;;-' 8" <'.\O ~ '1l 10 4? Yi"' 4 1'-7/tt.., ('.). ?sis &.w ','Do 10 4~ 7 /fk.> 47. "/1t.,,, n .""2.-;:- 9 D.::> C\ !O 10 4'2"/1(., 47. 14'/U,--t~n~ !O q Vl \0 .Ll'l \4-//{n 4?.::,~0 6. !'2..-~ :E t,O \ .Q fj " = -, C\ .'15' G\ 3G \0 4-Z.....b 1-:t 1/u.., O ,OC..'.).5 ... q; ,:,$ 0\ •. "-ts;' 10 ,4 7-1/ l I.,,, 4 ~7 /ffA /) -:2,-, s a. 4C.. q ·• s:-s:-iv 4:i-1 /1 t,.. A-2, '1 ft (,, 0-\~ <\. ss 10. oS" \o 4">-9 / (b .tt-2 'li/i(p h ~°?;l25 \1Y 0$ \(): 1;;; \0 t\::i, i'-f;n, 4'~•0 r, ' 1-:Z..::S- 10· u; 10 ~ 7-f;. 10 43. f"I 4~A-/IL 0 ,-,S:: (,'.. •lii>.l:::,.t;:>.::. \ !/ t I/ .3 \ O: ;1-, \0 ol 10 y-:2.D 4'J.-2>/J \fl o, 1s1c; \0'•?1 10 · 4--i !O "1? 0/1 !,p 42,tA./;1,_p 0 ,"'?-is;' \O •. 1-.n \0'. C::7 \0 4-'7..-o/1t;, ~'2 1'3./i(.p O, IB7lo J'.Sl . ' 8 7 10 A7.. i:a.Ji t.,, A '2. * /t l,, o .12....S II ,01 \'. 1"1 \D 4.2-*/1!..,. /.j'2. VS/J (., () , Di..""lA \' -,'1 \ \ ';)./ \ C> 4--z. vs. /v.~ -4:, "1 /t la 0. \O,JS,. ~ ~t>::. I I\ r2.·( -r I s;--~3, ~ COMMENTS: APPENDIXC: LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY TESTING The laboratory analysis performed for the site consisted of limited testing of the principal soil types sampled during the field investigation to evaluate moisture and density, and strength parameters of subsurface materials. The soi l descriptions and the field and laboratory test resu lts were used to assign parameters to the various materials at the site. The results of the laboratory testing program are presented on the boring logs and in this Appendix. The following laboratory tests were performed as part of this investigation and rn general accordance with the referenced standards: I. Detailed soil description; ASTM D 2487 2. Natural moisture content of the soil; ASTM D 2216 3. In-situ density of the soil (wet and dry) 4. Sulfate Concentration; California Test 417 5. Chloride Concentration; Cali fornia Test 422 6. Soil p.H. and Resistivity; California Test 643 7. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture; ASTM D 1557 8. Particle Size Analysis; ASTM 422 9. Direct Shear; ASTM D 3080 Sample B-1 Bulk 0 -5.0 Feet Or. to red brown Silty Sand B-1 Bulk 0 -5.0 Feet Or. to red brown Silty Sand 3337 Tyler Street Test Soluble Sulfate Chloride Resistivity Conductivity pH Maximum Density Optimum Moisture (ASTM D-1557) Results 42.9 ppm 16.3 ppm 4900 ohms-cm 204 umhos/cm 7.51 131.0 pcf 8.5% 19.11 Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. ■ Summary of Chemical Characteristics and Muimum Density Test Results 3337 Tyler Street Carlsbad. CA Project umber: 116152 Date: June 2016 Drafted: VC Eng/Geo SRI I/Ml I Scale: NIA Figure Number: C-1 U.S. Standard Sieves U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Microns I 2 1-1 /2 1 3/4 1/2 3/8 I 4 10 16 30 50 100 200 40 30 20 10 7 5 3 2 I 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 .E on ~ 60 IIIIIIHllllllllllllllll ll 111 111111 11 1 ■11;111w11111:1111111;111111111111111111111111 11 I I I I I I I I 1111 ■:1ui1nw111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111 1111 ■111iHlllllll;;iiiilllillllllll llllllll I II I I I I I I I I I I illl:llllliililllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 11 1111111111 I 60 >-, .0 g 50 lillllllllllllllllllllllll l 1111 11111111 1 ■i,:IIIUlll-iliiilllllt;lllllilllllllllllllll I III I I I I I I I 1111 ■:lll:IIHllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llll 111111111111111 ■11111:1:m1111~:ililllllllllllllllllll I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ::lll:lillH!lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 1111 1111111111 I 50 LL. C: V t 401111111111111111111111111111111 111111111 ■,JilUl.l,l,,lllllli!lllillllllllllllllllll lll I I I II I I I Ill ■:1111:IHlllllllllilllllllllllllll~II IIIIII I I I I I I I Ill I I I ■.illllJ::111111u11rn11111111111111111 1 111111111 11::llll:lll!l lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll I Ill I I I I I I I I I 40 0.. 30 20 10 0 50 10 5 Gruvd C(lllJ'SC:. Fine Cl>arse llok Sampk Depth Field Cu S~ mhol No. l.oc. or llloistur.: D,,/D1" Ekv. (%) 0 B-1 Bulk 0'-5' -U 235.3 I 0.5 0.1 0.05 Sand llkdium Fini;_ ('o Percent (D11i Passing U.S.C.S. Dw, D,., No. 200 58.8 23.9 SM 30 20 10 0 0.01 0.005 0.001 Si lt or Clay , .. Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. ■ Summary of Gradation Results 3337 Tyler Street Carlsbad. CA Project Number: 116152 Date: .lune 2016 Dralkd: VC Eng/Geo SRIJIMIJ Si:alc· Nol to Scak Figure Numbt'r C-2 BORING/S/\MPLE NO. -=B'--~l /_Ccc..M_-1 ___ _ DEPT! I 2.0' -3.5' SAMPLE DESCRIPTIO ~O~rc:.. . .!c!.br~o!.!:w!.!.11!....!Sc!..!ic!.!lt.Ly-'=S~a!!:11d,!__ __________________ _ APPARENT /\NGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION. 0 (DEGREES) PEAK DRY DENSITY (PCr) 126.0 39.1 APPARENT COHESION. C (KSF) PEAK 0.14 EFFECTIVE OVERBURDEN STRESS (KSF) SAMPLE DIAMETER 2.4 Inch es ------------------- N/\TUR/\L MOISTURE CONTENT(%) 4.5 l-lOR l7.ONT/\L SI-IE/\R RATE (in. per min ./ 0.01 5.0....------,---------r-----,-------,------, / 4.01-------1-----+------+----+----./-----r-----1 / i u~-----~-----~-/----~v--~--~-----~ ::r: 2.01------+-------+---L----+--------r----------i ~ ·)/: IOV OL-____ ..L,_ ____ ...J.... ____ --1... ____ __._ ____ ----::' O 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 SU RCHA RGE, CT (J<SF) !-Helenschmidt Geotechnical, Inc. Project Number: 116152 Dratted: VC Scale: Not to Scale Direct Shear Test 3337 Tvler Street Carlsbad. CA Date: June 2016 Eng/Geo: SRI I/Ml I Figure umber· C-3 APPENDIXD: SEISMIC HAZARD DATA 1/17/2018 Design Maps Detailed Report ElJSGS Design Maps Detailed Report 2009 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions (33.156°N, 117.346°W) Site Class C -"Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock", Risk Category I/II/III Section 11.4.1 -Mapped Acceleration Parameters and Risk Coefficients Note: Ground motion values contoured on Figures 22-1, 2, 5, & 6 below are for the direction of maximum horizontal spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain SsuH and 550) and 1.3 (to obtain 5 1uH and 510). Maps in the Proposed 2015 NEHRP Provisions are provided for Site Class B. Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3. Figure 22-1: Uniform-Hazard (2% in SO-Year) Ground Motions of 0.2-Second Spectral Response Acceleration (S% of Critical Damping), Site Class B 1,000 Mies ii I I I I I I 250 500 1 .0 00 Kilometers Figure 22-2: Uniform-Hazard (2% in SO-Year) Ground Motions of LO-Second Spectral Response Acceleration (S% of Critical Damping), Site Class B https://earthquake .usgs .gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report. php?template=minimal&latitude=33 .156&1ongitude=-117 .346&siteclass=2&riskcategory=O&edili... 1 /9 1/17/2018 Design Maps Detailed Report / 1000 Mies ______ _....- 11 111 250 500 1 J) 00 Kilometers https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report. php?template=minimal&latitude=33.156&Iongitude=-117 .346&siteclass=2&riskcategory=0&editi.. . 2/9 1/17/2018 Design Maps Detailed Report Figure 22-3: Risk Coefficient at 0.2-Second Spectral Response Period 1J)00 Mies I I 250 500 1 J) 00 Kilometers Figure 22-4: Risk Coefficient at 1.0-Second Spectral Response Period I I I I I 250 500 I I I I I 1 1 J)00 Mies I 1 J) 00 Kilometers https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report. php?template=minimal&latitude=33.156&Iongitude=-117 .346&siteclass=2&riskcategory=0&editi.. . 3/9 1/17/2018 Design Maps Detailed Report Figure 22-5: Deterministic Ground Motions of 0.2-Second Spectral Response Acceleration (5% of Critical Damping), Site Class B v .... ____ _ 1J'.)00 Mies I 11 11 I 11 I I 250 500 1 J'.) 00 Kilometers Figure 22-6: Deterministic Ground Motions of 1.0-Second Spectral Response Acceleration (5% of Critical Damping), Site Class B \ \ ,,....,-,,,-- __,\----,t--------\ -l-------<-------· \ \ ~~~-~-~ \ 'q ~ IWl"~r'--?-.,....!l.--1 I 1J'.)00 Mies 250 500 1 J'.) 00 Kilometers https://earthquake.usgs .gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report. php?template=minimal&latitude=33.156&Iongitude=-117. 346&siteclass=2&riskcategory=0&editi.. . 4/9 1/17/2018 Design Maps Detailed Report Section 11.4.2 -Site Class The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/or the default has classified the site as Site Class C, based on the site soil properties in accordance with Chapter 20. Table 20.3-1 Site Classification Site Class A. Hard Rock B. Rock C. Very dense soil and soft rock D. Stiff Soil E. Soft clay soil F. Soils requiring site response analysis in accordance with Section 21.1 -Nor Nch -Vs Su >5,000 ft/s N/A N/A 2,500 to 5,000 ft/S N/A N/A 1,200 to 2,500 ft/S >50 >2,000 psf 600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf <600 ft/s <15 <1,000 psf Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics: • Plasticity index Pl > 20, • Moisture content w ~ 40%, and • Undrained shear strength su < 500 psf See Section 20.3.1 For SI: lft/s = 0.3048 m/s llb/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/m2 Section 11.4.3 -Site Coefficients, Risk Coefficients, and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCEa) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Equation (11.4-1): CRsSsuH = 0.939 X 1.230 = 1.154 g Equation (11.4-2): 5 50 = 1.523 g 55 = "Lesser of values from Equations (11.4-1) and (11.4-2)" = 1.154 g Equation (11.4-3): cR1S 1uH = o.991 x 0.447 = 0.442 g Equation (11.4-4): 510 = 0.616 g 5 1 = "Lesser of values from Equations (11.4-3) and (11.4-4)" = 0.442 g https://earthquake.usgs .gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report. php?template=minimal&latitude=33 .156&1ongitude=-117 .346&siteclass=2&riskcategory=0&editi... 5/9 1/17/2018 Site Class A B C D E F Site Class A B C D E F Design Maps Detailed Report Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient F0 Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period 55 :5 0.25 S5 = 0.50 S5 = 0.75 S5 = 1.00 55 ~ 1.25 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 See Section 11.4. 7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S5 For Site Class= C and S5 = 1.154 g, F0 = 1.000 Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient Fv Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-Second Period S1 :5 0.10 S1 = 0.20 S1 = 0.30 51 = 0.40 S1 ~ 0.50 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4 See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of 51 For Site Class= C and S1 = 0.442 g, F. = 1.358 https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report. php?template=minimal&latitude=33.156&Iongitude=-117 .346&siteclass=2&riskcategory=0&editi... 6/9 1/17/2018 Design Maps Detailed Report Equation (11.4-5): SMS = Fass = 1.000 x 1.154 = 1.154 g Equation (11.4-6): Section 11.4.4 -Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation (11.4-7): Sos=½ SMs = ½ X 1.154 = 0.769 g Equation (11.4-8): 501 = ½ SMl = ½ X 0.601 = 0.400 g Section 11.4.5 -Design Response Spectrum Figure 22-7: Long-period Transition Period, TL (s) I 11 11 I 11 250 500 I I 1J)00 Mies 1 Jl 00 Kilometers https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report. php?template=minimal&latitude=33 .1 56&Iongitude=-117 .346&siteclass=2&riskcategory=0&editi... 7 /9 1/17/2018 Design Maps Detailed Report Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum Soc. .. 0.769 -------- ' I T < T0 '. 51 = S05 ( 0.4 + 0.6 TI T0 ) T0 ST s T8 .: S1 = ~ -,----------r ------·---- I I I I I I 1.000 Peno:!. T ( ~ .. ~J Section 11.4.6 -.~.~.Sa Response Spectrum The MCER response spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by 1.5. !:.is·"' 1.154 --r------... ~' 4 0.601 __ 1 ___ ------·--_, --·-•--------· ' I To .. 0.104 Ts•0,521 1.GOO Pem>d. T (,~) https://earthquake .usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report. php?template=minimal&latitude=33.156&Iongitude=-117 .346&siteclass=2&riskcategory=0&editi.. . 8/9 1/17/2018 Design Maps Detailed Report Section 11.8.3 -Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient FPGA Site Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA Class PGA ~ PGA = PGA = PGA = PGA 2'.:: 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 a.so A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4. 7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA For Site Class = C and PGA = 0.459 g, FPGA = 1.000 Mapped PGA PGA = 0.459 g Equation (11.8-1): PGAM = FPGAPGA = 1.000 x 0.459 = 0.459 g https://earthquake.usgs .gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report. php?template=minimal&latitude=33.156&Iongitude=-117 .346&siteclass=2&riskcategory=0&editi... 9/9 ~ ~ 20 0 20 SCALE -1":20' (H=V) 1\;IAP 775 BLOC}( 30 17 113 '/9 20 21 22 I, 2d 11 124 l 2 ],, .. ,. t1, 2B 21 I 28 29 /, ' , II /' a '' 6 ' ' I I b e ' ', ------/: ,, '---, ' ' '' '\(; \, ~\.,<\, o '\",\, T Y L E ~ '\G" S T R E E T (PUBLIC RIGHT OF WA7 \\, '\",, ,(1 '<J!__'\V) ,". ' " °'°' <o ' ft:__;), ,~, ;), <c i/', ~o ~() ':l°' '\",:, .<5' i,'l· '],\J ,'l· 1,'l(J()() . l><CJ'b'.\() l><'o ,9/0]0':,<i:J ~/; ,'b· l><'o i,'o'o<o SMH ''6,'-",,,,_ i,Oi ---t, ___ -L_L.J.-__ I< i, ~ -----,L-~----;---I>< ___ ,_,__ C1 "lr.5' '-.·I? 0 '1~ o}-!r; )?1/ --? -~ -----\'¾. \c.J -sMH "_'¼G lf) As PH A L T S\~R FA I;._ ''\V/. FOUND L~lf3:;;& TACK PER ~ -=-----.-"' ,,/\\, c-J/4 \\, FOUf'!D LEAD & DISC ~<o/4._i\, ~ e,J,/'<\, -.!. 0 1></\;:,--,-R OF S,~~ Cl,,/4.s_\, .:l/4··· \J' . a,:-··v," 0 ·'cS--70"1'6!' 'b-.-·-,rv= '<I".' 'b····,.u ~ ~1/01/-,'b/,,G"" co/4te'-1/,'b I>< 'b " " 'b I>< 'b ..._ ' 'DL ~ ~. , •• ✓ I>< I>< ~ . I, ii ' 2 -;;. --✓/ - ~ '\ 'v ' r,'o/;'I. -~ ,; ... S:::',--(Y-:---,~:~-~ AC + 0 ~· AC \ :t:@ss;,-__ .r;iMB 0 69 55'., @I -'L2 cs + -----+ EDJ re: t,?J ~~ ~ " O,·) I, ~ jl I, r ~ ",/69.00' !x°'y'71(" , ,_, 'ob,,.-'{,90CS ~ \)'. t,3/ / ~-~~ ~~ '. i, A ~~ I , earn . ,s VEWAY i:;: ~ , "' 1 ' PORCH s1-1ARE0 oR1 a ~ I , (D T:2') ----o-, ;,,, : 20,· o GM 9 3•' -cs ct: ee\ EM eu 8 4 20' c:, _I I y IF tii,.2-·_ 07 .J 0::0-(.Q er I 4 I \ I 'b· ct: a -.::i • "°'t' I I>< "'~'-"''I" ~-2 ' , hi:::U]tc'•S. Q ,9 /9.0 "-· co ~ ~ '" , · ~v <.o I O' t--.zc "-i:o r-..,: I ---l 4.0 f<"JO,;ilO wo STORY' r--I Lo :';. 'Y (j) :;.J .! c:r~ hucm eu,1mNc 2 / I I I .. Lu Cl a? 0 ,(l\l <O co .~ 1J, I I □-~ '.'.i / ti , .. A ~ 17 R('\J '- 0 THREE STORY STUCCO APARTMENT BU/LO/N G C:J ~o· C ROS 1 8-409 0 0 -0 0 ----0------0-- THREE STORY STUCCO APARTMENT BU/LO/NG I I I $~1-- cs JNDU S TR JAL TF!ACT CG "' 0 " "' Lu k "' co '.O 0 0) lf) 02: '\ o/i T-4 :Y (D=4') .__---I ✓ .. v' ~I,' -' ·u, \·;,; MAP L O T ·JI 4 6 1 0 ONE STORY STUCCO BUILDING ~ I I ~ I SOUTHWESTERLY FAC[ OF IJ I L__~ J, '/ LOT TWO SrGRY STUCCO BUILDING I 69 O' '1< • .f)/ 9 f C.i I ·~ 4.9 ~I O; <o NI 2.0'! 1 " 0 0 (J,) u) "' j. I lo't,/~ ) ~/ :;:i I ;·,~-~I "" -"I I .Ac _ .. ·''',\\,. . . 2 · 0 ·"' J ps •b·l· ~'ti-,., \ ,,.,-----· ,y . ? 1 ' ~ 0 I ,'\/ 0 '()', I 'o . Cl I , s \J· 1--' Lu ;g 0 . ~. (/) ct: . ~ ~y x"6' (() ~ >-::::, --·s f'{&,, o A~~!:-"-.,, · '' · "'" 0 E'j ct: 1-t'.c I "( ,_ I T-3 N --JO:S ·">I () (D=2_3,) ~4-070-11 ~ t;, i'= 0i I ~ ,,,,·, Ct,:LiJ VJ,_ "4 nr ·I><; 9 i-'.i!s§&l_ I / ·-...-, o~ ~ ~ :s: ?J.9' ".J 'o ,. I; I I><'. 6' jsHEO 68. 19 ' cs B" BLOCK WALL ON TITLE LINE THREE STORY STUCCO APARTMENT BUILDING lj > 's I , ,; 1 0'5L5 W '.AO;_,_..~, ' \ L _.,., "'" ~\;y I o, \_;-FOUND LEAD & DISC Is I>< o, I "-.,_ ~ ;1/" . · 5941 IN WALL FOOTING ,,;/i \ -FOUND 2" IRON PIPE & DISC ' PER R OF S 16439 / I "LS,l'f:f.1" PER R OF S 1640 . I W1 9"t,ONCRET[ SURFACE %0° LO I 2 I ~ I ~ J20' _ 2 0 ROS 18-4:J9 I Lu l:Jo1 I ~ Q") -~ LO ~ (O LO a<-~") I ~ ~ 0 1/) a Le I < I ,,j 0 c., y-26.52 PER I? OF S 16439 :ca::\:· _ cuuNo ,;;~· IRON PIPE LS LJJI J...,------6 9. 00' -~~------------. . .. N 34 °00'55" W POR-f!ON LOT 9 w 69 01' ----138 01' ~ -" 0 0 co lf) < ____J - "1 ! v/ LEGEND @] @] I Tsa I Af Qt ~-B-2_ I ~ $1T-57 ~ I TD: 19.5' !HGl-1 ! L D D ---?--? •" "' I ' <n LO "' • TOPSOIL/FILL /UNDIFFERENTIATED) TERRACE DEPOSITS SANTIAGO FORMATION DENOTES SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC UNIT ABOVE BURIED GEOLOGIC UNIT E.G.ARTIFICIAL FILL OVER TERRACE DEPOSITS APPROX. LOCATION EXPLORATORY BORING -SMALL DIAMETER ("D" DENOTES DEPTH OF BORING) -PLAN VIEW APPROX, LOCATION EXPLORATORY TEST PIT/ INFILTRA"PION RATE TEST ("D" DENOTES DEPTH OF TEST PIT) -PLAN VIEW APPROX. ~OCATION SMALL DIAMETER EXPLORATORY BORING -SECTION VIEW GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION EXISTING STRUCTURE RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY LINE APPROX. EXISTING GRADE GEOLOGIC CONTACT, QUERIED WHERE APPROXIMATE HGl-1 HGl-1' ~ i-: LL ~ z 0 ~ > LU _J LU ""T'" 100 - 80-~BORING B-2 I , It ~ TEST PIT T-3 60- I • 40-11 TO: 2.3' EXISTING ~GRADE TEST PITT-5 PROJ. 13' S ~ ( l_ TO SECTION) µAt TD: Qt 4.0' EXISTING RESIDENCE--~ ~BORING B-1 I !3337! --, i --.- t-100 TYLER ST. ' I-80 li'.7 I I l J[aa t-40 1----------1------------?-----?-----?-----?---TI>:-?--,---?-----?------?-----?-----?---... _, TD: 19.0' 20-19.5' I t-20 Tsa 0-'----------------------------------------0 --N71E • SCALE 1" : 20' (H = V) Base Map From: Sht 1 of 1 of Plan Titled "A.L.T.A./N .S.P.S. Land Title Survey" by San Diego Land Surveying & Engineering, Inc. Dated: 1/27/16 ~ i-: IL ~ z 0 ~ > UJ _J UJ Site Plan, Geologic and Boring/Trench Location Map & Geologic Cross Section 3337 Tyler Street Carlsbad, CA Project Number: !16152 Date: June 2016 Drafted: VC Eng/Geo: SRH/MH Scale: l" ~ 20' Plate Number: I