The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 2020-0044; GIBSON FAMILY RESIDENCE; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2020-08-18\ID Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA August 18, 2020 Prepared For: Curt Gibson 7089 Leeward Street Carlsbad, CA 92011 Prepared By: VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 Auto Park Way Escondido, California 92029 Job #20-178-P 2450 Auto Park Way· Escondido, California 92029 · 760-743-1214 · Fax 760-739-0343 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. SITE DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Ill. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 IV. SITE INVESTIGATION ............................................ 2 V. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. Earth Materials . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. Groundwater and Surface Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C. Slope Stability. . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 D. Regional Geology. . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 E. Faults/Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 4 F. Site Classification for Seismic Design • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 G. Seismic Ground Motion Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 6 H. Geologic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . 7 I. Field and Laboratory Test and Test Results. . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 9 VI. SITE CORROSION ASSESSMENT ................................. 12 VII. HYDRO MODIFICATIONS ........................................ 13 VIII. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 IX. RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 A. Grading & Earthwork . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 B. Footings and Slab-on-Grade Floor Foundations . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 C. Soil Design Parameters . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 D. Swimming Pool/Spa Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • 24 E. Exterior Concrete Slabs and Flatwork . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 F. Pavement Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 G. General Recommendations ...........•............................. 27 X. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD (GER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 XI. LIMITATIONS .................................................. 30 PLATE NO. Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Geotechnical Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Test Pits 1-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 Geologic Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Geologic Cross-Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Fault-Epicenter Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O FEMA Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Tsunami Inundation Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Isolation Joints & Re-Entrant Corner Reinforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Retaining Wall Drain Detail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Attachment A: U.S. Seismic Design Map GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION The subject property investigated herein consists of a vacant corner lot located southwest of the intersection of Hillside Drive and Park Drive within the City of Carlsbad. The site location is shown on a Vicinity Map attached as Plate 1.The approximate site coordinates are 33. 0 N latitude and 117. 0 W longitude. We understand that the property is planned for the support of a single-family residential development and associated improvements. Consequently, this investigation was initiated to determine geotechnical conditions at the site and to ascertain their influence upon the proposed development. Testing pit digging, soil/rock sampling, and laboratory testing were among the activities conducted in conjunction with this effort which has resulted in the grading and foundation recommendations presented in the following sections. II. SITE DESCRIPTION A Geotechnical Map, reproduced from the available Precise Grading Plan, showing existing topographic conditions and the proposed development is attached as Plate 2.The generally rectangular-shaped lot is characterized by largely natural terrain that descends gently in a southeasterly direction. Minor fill slopes (2:1 gradients) that ascend to Hillside Drive and Park Drive mark the north and east property margins respectively. Surface areas range from recently brushed to ice plant and weeds. A large protected Torrey Pine is in the southeast site corner and a large eucalyptus (to be removed) is in the northeast corner. Site drainage flows in a southeasterly direction to offsite areas. Offsite drainage from Hillside Drive is currently directed into the property from a concrete spillway constructed on the southerly curb line. Site drainage will be improved to disallow offsite runoff from entering the property. Excessive scouring or erosion is not in evidence. Ill. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT As shown on Plate 2,much of the property will be utilized for the support of a large residential dwelling. A small additional dwelling unit (ADU) is planned in the southwesterly corner of the property. Improvements will include an access driveway from Hillside Drive, a pool and on-grade flatwork. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE2 Site grading will consist of remedial grading of on site soils and importing fill soil to construct a building pad at approximate street elevations. Significant graded embankments are not planned. Vertical fills will generally approach 1 O feet maximum and cuts are currently not proposed. Building foundation plans and details are not yet developed. However, future building construction is expected to consist of a conventional wood-framed structure with exterior stucco supported on shallow stiff continuous strip and spread pad footings, and slab-on- grade floor foundations. IV. SITE INVESTIGATION Geotechnical and subsurface conditions at the property were chiefly determined by the excavation of 5 test pits dug with a track-mounted John Deere excavator. All the test pit excavations were logged by our project geologist who also directed sampling of representative soil and rock for laboratory testing. Test pit locations are indicated on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 2. Logs of the test pits are included as Plates 3-7. Laboratory test results of selected samples are provided in a following section. V. GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS The study property consists of largely natural, gentle terrain underlain at shallow depths by sandstone deposits. The Geologic Map of the San Diego 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California (Michael P. Kennedy and Siang S. Tan, 2008) indicates the site is underlain by the Eocene age Santiago Formation as shown on Plate 8. However, site specifically, the property is underlain by Pleistocene age Old Paralic Deposits typical of Carlsbad coastal areas. The Santiago Formation is expected to occur at depth beneath the Old Paralic Deposits. Geologic Cross-Sections depicting subsurface conditions and the proposed development are included as Plate 9. The following earth materials are recognized: A. Earth Materials Old Paralic Deposits (Qop2-4): The project property is underlain at shallow depths by Old Paralic Deposits dominated by fine-grained sandstone. Site sandstone deposits were typically found in massive, weathered friable, and medium dense conditions in upper exposures becoming moderately cemented and uniformly dense at depth. Clay-bearing sandstone deposits were locally encountered, and are expected to be in minor quantities overall. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE3 Project dense Old Paralic Deposits are considered stable and competent deposits that will provide adequate support for new fills, structures, and improvements. Topsoil: Site Old Paralic Deposits are mantled by a relatively thin layer of topsoil. The topsoil typically consists of silty fine sand that was found in very dry to damp, loose, and root-laden conditions overall. Site surficial soils and weathered loose Old Paralic Deposits are not suitable for structural support in their present condition and should be removed and reworked as recommended in following sections. B. Groundwater and Surface Drainage Subsurface water was not encountered in our test pits to the depths explored and is not expected to impact the future performance of the graded building pad. Drainage will be improved to disallow runoff from street areas onto the site. Like all graded building sites, the proper control of site surface drainage and efficient irrigation techniques are critical components to overall stability of the project graded surfaces and embankments, as well as continued performance of the new developed sites. Surface water should not pond upon graded surfaces, and irrigation water should not be excessive. All graded embankments should be provided with brow ditches. C. Slope Stability Large slopes are not present, nor are any planned. Existing perimeter fill slopes will be filled against to create a level building pad at near street level. Consequently, slope stability will not be a significant geotechnical concern in the site development. D. Regional Geology The subject property is located in the Costal Plains subdivision of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of San Diego. The coastal plain area is characterized by Pleistocene marine terrace landforms. These surfaces are relatively flat erosional platforms that were shaped by wave action along former coastlines. The step-like elevation of the marine terraces was caused by changes in sea level throughout the Pleistocene by seismic activity along the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located west of the coastline. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is one of many northwest trending, sub- parallel faults and fault zones that traverse the nearby vicinity. Several of these faults, including the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, are considered active faults. Further discussion of faulting in regards to the site is provided in the Faults and Seismicity section of this report. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE4 E. Faults/Seismicity Faults or significant shear zones are not indicated on or near proximity to the project site. As with most areas of California, the San Diego region lies within a seismically active zone; however, coastal areas of the county are characterized by low levels of seismic activity relative to inland areas to the east. During a 40-year period (1934- 1974), 37 earthquakes were recorded in San Diego coastal areas by the California Institute of Technology. None of the recorded events exceeded a Richter magnitude of 3.7, nor did any of the earthquakes generate more than modest ground shaking or significant damages. Most of the recorded events occurred along various offshore faults which characteristically generate modest earthquakes. Historically, the most significant earthquake events which affect local areas originate along well known, distant fault zones to the east and the Coronado Bank Fault to the west. Based upon available seismic data, compiled from California Earthquake Catalogs, the most significant historical event in the area of the study site occurred in 1800 at an estimated distance of 10.5 miles from the project area. This event, which is thought to have occurred along an offshore fault, reached an estimated magnitude of 6.5 with estimated bedrock acceleration values of 0.125g at the project site. The following list represents the most significant faults which commonly impact the region. Estimated ground acceleration data compiled from Digitized California Faults (Computer Program EQ Fault Version 3.00 updated) typically associated with the fault is also tabulated. TABLE 1 MAXIMUM PROBABLE FAULT ZONE DISTANCE FROM SITE ACCELERATION (R.H.) Rose Canyon Fault 5.2 Miles 0.241g Newport-Inglewood Fault 6.0 Miles 0.222g Elsinore-Julian Fault 24.0 Miles 0.143g Coronado Bank Fault 21.3 Miles 0.1B3o The location of significant faults and earthquake events relative to the study site are depicted on a Fault -Epicenter Map attached to this report as Plate 10. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGES More recently, the number of seismic events which affect the region appears to have heightened somewhat. Nearly 40 earthquakes of magnitude 3.5 or higher have been recorded in coastal regions between January 1984 and August 1986. Most of the earthquakes are thought to have been generated along offshore faults. For the most part, the recorded events remain moderate shocks which typically resulted in low levels of ground shaking to local areas. A notable exception to this pattern was recorded on July 13, 1986. An earthquake of magnitude 5.3 shook County coastal areas with moderate to locally heavy ground shaking resulting in $700,000 in damages, one death, and injuries to 30 people. The quake occurred along an offshore fault located nearly 30 miles southwest of Oceanside. A series of notable events shook County areas with a (maximum) magnitude 7.4 shock in the early morning of June 28, 1992. These quakes originated along related segments of the San Andreas Fault approximately 90 miles to the north. Locally high levels of ground shaking over an extended period of time resulted; however, significant damages to local structures were not reported. The increase in earthquake frequency in the region remains a subject of speculation among geologists; however, based upon empirical information and the recorded seismic history of County areas, the 1986 and 1992 events are thought to represent the highest levels of ground shaking which can be expected at the study site as a result of seismic activity. In recent years, the Rose Canyon Fault has received added attention from geologists. The Rose Canyon Fault is a significant structural feature in metropolitan San Diego which is characterized by a complex zone of strike-slip, oblique, reverse, and normal faults that extend onshore from La Jolla Cove south to San Diego Bay. Test trenching along the fault in Rose Canyon indicated that at that location the fault was last active 6,000 to 9,000 years ago. More recent work suggests that segments of the fault are younger having been last active 1000 -2000 years ago. Consequently, the fault has been classified as active and included within an Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone established by the State of California. A more recent study of the Newport-Inglewood / Rose Canyon Fault system concluded that the coastal region of San Diego may experience earthquakes up to magnitudes 7.3 and 7.4 (Sahakian et al, 2017). Work on the fault system also indicates that 6.5 to 6.8 magnitude earthquakes may occur along the Rose Canyon Fault every 1,000 to 1,500 years Fault zones tabulated in the preceding table are considered most likely to impact the region of the study site during the lifetime of the project. The faults are periodically active and capable of generating moderate to locally high levels of ground shaking at the site. Ground separation as a result of seismic activity is not expected at the property. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA F. Site Classification for Seismic Design AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE6 The Site Class is based on the average conditions present within 100 feet of the ground surface, and are designated as A-F. Class A is classified as hard rock and Class F as potentially liquefiable or collapsible soils, and is based on shear wave velocity. For the A and B classification, it is preferable to measure the shear wave velocity onsite. Site Classes C, D and E can be determined by seismic methods or typical Standard Penetration Test (SPT-N) results (based on Section 20.4.2 of ASCE 7-16) conducted during drilling. Site Classification is then established based on Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-16. Site Class Dis typically used conservatively as a default, unless otherwise noted. However, the Building Code does allow the design condition to be estimated by a geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist, or seismologist with knowledge of specific geologic formations and conditions (considering weathering and fracturing). G. Seismic Ground Motion Values Seismic design values were determined as part of this investigation in accordance with Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and ASCE 7-16 Standard. Presented values are generated using the web-based SEAOC/OSHPD (Structural Engineers Association of America/California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development) ground motion calculator. Generated results at the site are summarized in the enclosed Appendix. Requirements provided below are also applicable and should be incorporated in the project design where appropriate: 1. Site specific hazard analysis is required (see Section 11.4.8} in accordance with Chapter 21.2 of ASCE 7-16 for structures on Site Class E sites with values of Ss greater than or equal to 1.0g, and structures on Site Class D and E sites with values of S1 greater than or equal to 0.2g. However, the following 3 exceptions are permitted for Equivalent Lateral Force design (ELF) using conservative values of seismic design parameters in lieu of performing a site specific ground motion analysis: • Structures on Site Class E sites with Ss greater than or equal to 1.0, provided the site coefficient Fa is taken as equal to that of Site Class C. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE? • For structures on Site Class D sites with 81 greater than or equal to 0.2, a long period coefficient (Fv) of 1.7 may be utilized for calculation of Ts, provided that the value of Seismic Response Coefficient (Cs) is determined by Equation (12.8-2) for values of the fundamental period of the building (T) less than or equal to 1.5Ts, and taken as 1.5 times the value computed in accordance with either Equation 12.8-3 for T greater than 1.5 Ts and less than or equal to TL or Equation 12.8-4 for T greater than TL. • Structures on Site Class E sites with S 1 greater than or equal to 0.2, provided that Tis less than or equal to Ts and the equivalent static force procedure is used for the design. 2. Where Site Class B is recommended, and a site specific measurement is not provided, the site coefficients Fa, Fv, and FPGA shall be taken as unity (1.0) in accordance to Section 11.4.3 of ASCE 7-16. 3. Where Site Class D is selected as the default site class per Section 11.4.3 of ASCE 7-16, the value of Fa shall not be less than 1.2. Where the simplified procedure of Section 12.4 is used, the value of Fa shall be determined in accordance with Section 12.14.8.1, and the values of Fv, SMS and 8M1 need not to be determined. H. Geologic Hazards Potential geologic hazards at the project study site were evaluated as part of this effort in accordance with the Title 24, California Code of Regulations, 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and California Geologic Survey (CGS) Note 48 guidelines: 1. Seismicity: Moderate to locally heavy levels of ground shaking can be anticipated during rare events along an active fault over the lifetime of the development. Details of the project's seismic environment are given in a preceding section. 2. Faulting: Faults or significant shear zones are not indicated within the project site. The project is not located in proximity to Alquist -Priolo earthquake fault zone areas associated with active faults discussed above. 3. Flood Inundation: In order to determine general site flooding potential, we obtained pertinent copies of the available Flood Insurance Rate Map produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). According to the FEMA map, the project site is located in Zone X as depicted on the enclosed Plate 11. Zone X, by definition, is an area outside the 500-year flood plain. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE. CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGES Dams, or other significant water retention structures are not within sufficient distance to the study site. Site flood inundation, a catastrophic erosion or related hazards are considered unlikely to remote. Site flooding due to natural sheetflow or street flooding is also considered remote. The site is in close proximity to the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. However, as shown on a Tsunami Inundation Map included as Plate 12, the site is sufficiently removed from the lagoon, making a Tsunami or Seiche impacting the site remote. 4. Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlements: Soil liquefaction or related ground failures can adversely impact manmade structures and improvements at the site where subsoils consist of loose sandy alluvial deposits inundated with groundwater. Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil strength in response to ground shaking during an earthquake event. The project site is underlain at relatively shallow depths by competent and medium dense to dense sandstone deposits. In addition, static groundwater conditions were not encountered to the explored depths. Under these circumstances, the possibility of liquefaction within the underlying natural deposits is considered extremely remote to none. Secondary phenomena such as seismically induced ground settlements, surface manifestation, flow slides and lateral spread potential are also not indicated. 5. Slope Stability: As detailed in a preceding section, significant slopes are not present and large new graded embankments are not planned. Consequently, slope stability is not considered to be a major geotechnical factor in the planned residential development, as currently proposed. 6. Static Settlement: Static or at-rest settlement of foundation bearing soils is an important factor in the future performance of the planned new structures. At the project site underlying dense Old Paralic Deposits are stable and competent deposits. Post construction settlement is expected to be within the acceptable tolerances and are anticipated to be less than approximately 1-inch occurring below the heaviest loaded footing(s).The magnitude of post construction differential settlement of site fill deposits, as expressed in terms of angular distortion, is not anticipated to exceed ½-inch in a distance between similarly loaded adjacent structural elements, or a maximum distance of 20 feet. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE9 HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 7. Collapsible Soils: Buildings and improvements founded on collapsible soils may be damaged by sudden and often large induced settlement when these soils are saturated after construction. Collapsible soils are typified by low values of dry unit weight and natural water content. The amount of settlement depends on the applied vertical stresses and the extent of the wetting and availability of water. Surficial soils and weathered friable sandstone deposits indicate a potential for collapsible. However, these deposits are recommended for removal and recompaction. Consequently, soil collapse is not considered a major geotechnical concern in the project development. 8. Expansive Soils: Based upon our field observations and laboratory testing, onsite soils are chiefly sandy deposits with very low expansion potential (per · ASTM D4829). However, some low expansive sandstone deposits are locally present, but expected to be in minor quantities overall. Consequently, expansive soils are not considered a major geotechnical concern provided our grading and import recommendations are followed. I. Field and Laboratory Tests and Test Results Earth deposits encountered in our exploratory test excavations were closely examined and sampled for laboratory testing. Based upon our test pit and field exposures site soils have been grouped into the following soil type: TABLE 2 Soil Type Description I Brown/red brown fine sand-sandstone: To□soil/Old Paralic De□osit !Qoo2-4l The following tests were conducted in support of this investigation: 1. Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of Soil Type 1 was determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557. The results are presented in Table 3. TABLE3 Soil Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Location Tune Densitv IY m•ocfl Content lwopt•%\ I TP-1 @ 2' I 4 I 117.5 I 9.0 I GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE10 HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 2. Moisture-Density Tests (Undisturbed Chunk Samples): In-place dry density and moisture content of representative soil deposits beneath the site were determined from relatively undisturbed chunk samples using the water displacement test method. Results are presented in Table 4 and tabulated on the attached Test Pit Logs. TABLE4 Field Degree Moisture Field Dry Max. Dry In-Place of Sample Soil Content Density Density Relative Saturation Location Type (w-%) (Yd-pcf) (Ym-pcf) Compaction s (%) TP-1 @ 2' 1 3 101.0 117.5 86 15 TP-1 @ 4' 1 3 96.6 117.5 82 12 TP-1 @ 5' 1 7 106.9 117.5 91 40 TP-2@ 2' 1 4 95.4 117.5 81 16 TP-2 @ 4' 1 8 99.1 117.5 84 36 TP-2 @ 5' 1 8 101.5 117.5 86 38 TP-3@ 3' 1 10 94.3 117.5 80 39 TP-3@ 5' 1 14 103.3 117.5 88 71 TP-3@ 7' 1 12 102.0 117.5 87 59 TP-3@ 9' 1 8 111.9 117.5 95 53 TP-4 @ 3' 1 9 101 .2 117.5 86 44 TP-4@ 5' 1 8 103.1 117.5 88 40 TP-5@ 3' 1 4 108.6 117.5 92 24 TP-5 @ 5' 1 11 102.6 117.5 87 55 TP-5 @ 8' 1 14 104.4 117.5 89 73 Note 1: Sample may be somewhat disturbed. Assumptions And relationships: In-place Relative Compaction= (Yd+ Ym) X100 Gs= 2.70 e = (Gs Yw + Yd) -1 S = (w Gs)+ e 3. Expansion Index Test: One expansion index (El) test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1 in accordance with the ASTM D-4829. The test results are presented in Table 5. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA TABLE 5 Molded Degree of Final Initial Dry Sample Soil w Saturation w Density Location Tvne /%} /%} /%} /PCFl I TP-3@ 5' I 1 I 9.6 I 44.5 I 19.6 I 106.5 I (w) = moisture content in percent. AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE 11 El Measured 50% El Saturation 27 I 24 I Elsa= Elmeas -(50 -Smeas) ((65 + Elmeas)-,. (220 -Smeas)) Expansion Index (El) Expansion Potential 0-20 Very Low 21 -50 Low 51 -90 Medium 91 -130 High ) 130 Verv Hiah 4. Direct Shear Test: One direct shear test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1. The prepared specimen was soaked overnight, loaded with normal loads of 1, 2, and 4 kips per square foot respectively, and sheared to failure in an undrained condition. The test result is presented in Table 6. TABLE 6 Wet Angle of Apparent Sample Soil Sample Density Int. Frie. Cohesion Location Type Condition (Yw• (ct>-Deg.) (c-psf) pcf) TP-1 @ 2' 1 Remolded to 90% of YM @ % wool 115.8 30 35 5. pH and Resistivity Test: pH and resistivity of a representative sample of Soil Type 1 was determined using "Method for Estimating the Service Life of Steel Culverts," in accordance with California Test Method (CTM) 643. The test result is tabulated in Table 7. TABLE 7 Samole Location J SoilTvne f Minimum Resistivitv /OHM-CM) I oH I TP-3@ 5' I 2240 6.8 6. Sulfate Test: A sulfate test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1 in accordance with California Test Method (CTM) 417. The test result is presented in Table 8. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE12 TABLES Amount of Water Soluble Sulfate Samole Location Soil Tvoe In Soil 1% by Weight) ITP-3@ 5' I 1 I 0.003 I 7. Chloride Test: A chloride test was performed on a representative sample of Soil Type 1 in accordance with the California Test Method (CTM) 422. The test result is presented in Table 9. TABLE9 Amount of Water Soluble Chloride Samole Location Soil Tvne In Soil /% bv Weiqht) I TP-3@ 5' I 1 I 0.006 I VI. SITE CORROSION ASSESSMENT A site is considered to be corrosive to foundation elements, walls and drainage structures if one or more of the following conditions exist: • Sulfate concentration is greater than or equal to 2000 ppm (0.2% by weight). • Chloride concentration is greater than or equal to 500 ppm (0.05 % by weight). • pH is less than 5.5. For structural elements, the minimum resistivity of soil (or water) indicates the relative quantity of soluble salts present in the soil (or water). In general, a minimum resistivity value for soil ( or water) less than 1000 ohm-cm indicates a potential for presence of high quantities of soluble salts and a higher propensity for corrosion. Appropriate corrosion mitigation measures for corrosive conditions should be selected depending on the service environment, amount of aggressive ion salts (chloride or sulfate), pH levels and the desired service life of the structure. Results of limited laboratory tests performed on selected representative of site soil samples indicated that the minimum resistivity is more than 1000 ohm-cm suggesting presence of low quantities of soluble salts. Test results further indicate that pH levels are greater than 5.5, sulfate concentrations less than 2000ppm and chloride concentration levels less than 500ppm. Based on the results of the available limited corrosion analyses performed on selected samples, the project site is considered non-corrosive. The project site is not located within 1000 feet of salt or brackish water, however, the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon lies approximately 2000 feet to the south. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE13 Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. does not consult in the field of corrosion engineering and the client, project architect, or structural engineer should agree on the required level of corrosion protection, or consult a corrosion engineer as warranted. Based on the result of the tested soil sample, the amount of water soluble sulfate (804) was found to be 0.003 percent by weight which is considered negligible according to ACI 318 (SO Exposure Class with Not Applicable severity). Water soluble chloride (CL) was found to be 0.006 percent by weight and concrete is expected to be dry or protected from moisture. Consequently, exposures to chloride are also considered negligible (CO Exposure Class with Not Applicable severity). As a minimum, concrete consisting of Portland cement Type II with minimum 28 days compressive strength (f'c) of 2500 psi and maximum 0.50 water-cement ratio is typically considered adequate for SO and CO Class exposures, unless otherwise specified, or noted on the project plans. Table 1 0 below is appropriate based on the pH-Resistivity test results. Adequate protective measures against corrosion should be considered for all buried metal pipes, connections, elbows, conduits, improvements and structures, as necessary and appropriate. Buried metal pipes and conduits should be wrapped and provided with appropriate protective cover wherever applicable. TABLE10 Design Soil Type II Gage 18 JI Years to Perforation of Steel Culverts 16 i 14 j 12 19 24 1 30 1 41 10 1 a 1 s3 1 64 I VII. HYDRO MODIFICATIONS Project stormwater quality treatment control Best Management Practices (BMP), if appropriate and as applicable, should be designed and constructed considering the site indicated geotechnical conditions. The implemented management practice(s) and water treatment control BMPs shall have no short and long term impacts on the site new building pads, graded embankments and natural surfaces, fills and backfills, structures, and onsite and nearby offsite improvements. Bio-retention and filtration systems consisting of vegetated buffers or strips and self- contained retention/detention areas with impermeable liners on sides and bottom, special engineered sand filter media and perforated pipe(s) which discharge into an approved storm drain facility are typical methods consistent with the project geotechnical conditions for stormwater quality treatment control BMPs, if applicable. The bio-retention/detention areas should be sited adequately away from the site structures, improvements, retaining walls, foundations and top and toe of graded embankments, unless otherwise specifically approved. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE14 The bio-retention/detention basins should be properly sized for adequate storage capacity with filtrations completed not more than 72 hours and vegetation carefully managed to prevent creating mosquito and other vector habitats. Additional and more specific recommendations should be provided by the project geotechnical consultant at the final plans review phase, if necessary. VIII. CONCLUSIONS Based on the foregoing investigation, the planned single-family residential development, substantially as proposed, is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint. The project property planned for the support of new structures and improvements is underlain by Old Paralic Deposits at shallow depths overlain by a mantle of loose surficial soils. The following factors are unique to the property and will most impact project construction procedures and associated costs from a geotechnical viewpoint: •. Landslides, faults or significant shear zones are not present at the project property and are not considered a geotechnical factor in planned development. The study site is not located near or within the Alquist -Priolo earthquake fault zones established by the State of California. However, moderate to locally high levels of ground shaking are expected at the site during occasional periods of seismic activity along distant active faults. • The study property is generally characterized by relatively level to gentle surfaces, and large natural or graded slopes are not present at the project site. Minor road fill embankments mark the north and east site margins. Finish grades are planned at 78.0 (MSL), which is near adjacent street elevations, requiring imported fill to achieve design pad grades. The creation of new large graded embankments is not planned. Consequently, slope stability is not considered a geotechnical concern in the project development. • Project earth operations will consist of remedial grading of upper site soils and the importing of fill soils to achieve finish grades. All excavations, earthwork, remedial and grading efforts should be completed in accordance with requirements of the following sections. • The site surficial soil mantle and upper exposures of the underlying Old Paralic Deposits are loose and compressible deposits not suitable for structural support. These deposits should be stripped (removed) to the underlying more dense Old Paralic Deposits, as approved in the field, and placed back as properly compacted fills in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Dense Old Paralic Deposits are those with in-place densities of 86% or better. Approximate stripping depths are provided in the following sections. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE15 • Stripping and recompaction remedial grading work will be required under all proposed new structures and site improvements in order to construct uniform bearing and subgrade soil conditions throughout, as specified in the following sections. There should be at least 24 inches of well-compacted fills below bottom of the deepest footing(s). and site improvements, unless otherwise approved. Cut- fill daylight transition is not expected to be factor in the planned residential development provided our remedial grading recommendations are followed. • Added care will be required to avoid any damages to the existing nearby offsite structures and improvements due to site excavations, remedial earthwork grading and construction work. Adjacent public and private properties and right-of-ways should also be properly protected as necessary and appropriate. For this purpose, completing excavations and remedial grading adjacent to improvements in limited section may become necessary based on actual field conditions. Permission to grade offsite, or near property lines, should be obtained from neighboring property owners and public agencies as necessary and appropriate. Added care should be taken when grading near the offset limits for the protected Torrey pine tree. • Earth deposits generated from the site excavations will predominantly consist of sandy deposits which are considered suitable for reuse as new fills and backfills, provided they are prepared and manufactured into a uniform mixture in accordance with requirements of this report. • Project new fills and backfills should be clean deposits free of trash, roots, stumps, organic matter and deleterious materials, properly processed, throughly mixed, placed in thin lifts horizontal lifts and compacted as specified in the following sections. • Final bearing and subgrade soils at the project property will be largely based on the imported soil needed to achieve proposed grades. Import soils should meet the requirements outlined in a following section, and be approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to delivery to the site. • Groundwater conditions were not encountered to the depths explored and is not expected to be a factor in the planned new residential construction or impact future performance of the new building and site improvements. As with all graded sites, the proper control of surface drainage and storm water is a critical component to overall site and building performance. Runoff water should not be allowed to flow onto the property from the adjacent roadways or pond upon graded surfaces Irrigation water should not be excessive. Over-watering of site vegetation may also create perched water and the creation of excessively moist areas at finished surfaces and should be avoided. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE 16 Storm water and drainage control facilities should be designed and installed for proper control and disposal of surface water as shown on the approved grading or drainage improvement plans. • Settlement of foundation bearing soils is not expected to be a major geotechnical factor in the construction of the planned structures and improvements provided our recommendations are followed. Post construction foundation bearing soil settlements are expected to be less than approximately 1-inch and should occur below the heaviest loaded footing(s). The magnitude of post construction differential settlements, as expressed in terms of angular distortion, is not anticipated to exceed ½-inch in a distance between similarly loaded adjacent structural elements, or a maximum distance of 20 feet. • Soil collapse, liquefaction and seismically induced settlements will not be a factor in the development of the project property provided our remedial grading recommendations are followed. IX. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are consistent with the indicated geotechnical conditions at the project property and should be reflected in the final plans and implemented during the grading and construction phase. Added or modified recommendations may also be appropriate and should be provided in a plan review report when final grading and redevelopment plans are available: A. Grading and Earthwork: Modest remedial grading efforts and importing fill soils will be required in order to achieve final design pad grades and construct safe and stable level surfaces for the support of planned new structures and site improvements. Importing fill soils and raising surface grades should only be carried out after completion remedial grading of existing upper loose to soft surficial fill exposures. All excavations, grading, earthwork, construction and bearing soil preparation should be completed in accordance with Chapter 18 (Soils and Foundations) and Appendix "J" (Grading) of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), ASCE 7-16, the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, City of Carlsbad Ordinances, the requirements of the governing agencies and following sections, wherever appropriate and as applicable: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE 17 1. Existing Underground Utilities and Buried Structures: All existing underground waterlines, sewer lines, pipes, storm drains, utilities, tanks, structures and improvements at or nearby the project site should be thoroughly potholed, identified and marked prior to the initiation of the actual grading and earthwork. Specific geotechnical engineering recommendations may be required based on the actual field locations and invert elevations, backfill conditions and proposed grades in the event of a grading conflict. Utility lines may need to be temporarily redirected, if necessary, prior to earthwork operations and reinstalled upon completion of earthwork operations. Alternatively, permanent relocations may be appropriate as shown on the approved plans. Abandoned irrigation lines, pipes and conduits should be properly removed, capped or sealed off to prevent any potential for future water infiltrations into the foundation bearing and subgrade soils. Voids created by the removals of the abandoned underground pipes, tanks and structures should be properly backfilled with compacted fills in accordance with the requirements of this report. 2. Clearing and Grubbing: Remove all existing surface and subsurface structures, tanks, vaults, pipes, vegetation, tree roots, stumps, and all other unsuitable materials and deleterious matter from all areas proposed for new fills, improvements, and structures plus a minimum of 5 horizontal feet outside the perimeter, where possible and as approved in the field. All debris generated from the site clearing and vegetation removals should be properly disposed from the site. Trash, vegetation and debris generated from the site clearing and grubbing should not be allowed to occur or contaminate new site fills and backfills. The prepared ground should be observed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant or his designated field representative prior to grading and earthwork. 3. Over-Excavations and Removals: Uniform and stable bearing soils conditions shall be constructed under all planned site structures and improvements. For this purpose, over-excavation (removal) and recompaction of the site surficial soil mantle and upper weathered exposures of underlying Old Paralic Deposits will be required. Over-excavations and remedial grading should extend a minimum of 5 horizontal feet outside the perimeter of the proposed new building and improvement envelop where possible, unless otherwise approved in the field. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE18 Over-excavation depths shall encompass the entire building and improvement envelop and extend to the underlying dense and competent Old Paralic Deposits suitable for receiving new fills and backfills (in-place densities of 86% or better), as approved in the field. Actual over-excavation depths should be established in the field by the project geotechnical consultant or his designated field representative. However, based on available exploratory test pits, over- excavation depths are anticipated to be on the order of 4 to 5 feet below the existing ground surfaces (BGS). Locally, deeper over-excavations may be necessary and should be anticipated. Bottom of all removals should be additionally prepared, ripped and recompacted to a minimum depth of 6 inches, as a part of initial fill lift placement, and as directed in the field. The exposed bottom of over-excavation should be observed and expose dense and competent sandstone deposits, below the weathered zone, as approved by the project geotechnical consultant or his designated field representative prior to fill or backfill placement. 4. Temporary Excavation Slopes and Trenching: Over-excavation and trenching deeper than 5 feet maximum are not expected in connection with the project development. In general, undermining existing nearby underground utilities and improvements, structures and adjacent public and private properties by the site excavations, removal and trenching operations shall not be allowed. For this purpose, adequate excavation set backs shall be maintained and excavation slopes laid back at safe gradients, where necessary and as appropriate. Temporary excavations and trenching less than 3 feet in maximum height, may be constructed at near vertical gradients, unless otherwise approved or directed in the field. Temporary excavations and trenching greater than 3 feet may be constructed at near vertical gradients in the lower 3 feet and laid back at 1 : 1 gradients within the upper portion. The remaining wedge exposed at the laid back temporary slopes should then be properly benched out and new fills/backfills tightly keyed-in as the backfilling progresses. All temporary construction slopes will require geotechnical observation during the excavation operations. Additional and site specific recommendations should be given in the field by the project geotechnical consultant based on actual exposures. Revised temporary construction slope and trenching recommendations including flatter slope gradients, larger setbacks and the need for temporary shoring/trench shield support may be necessary and should be anticipated. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE19 The project contractor shall also obtain appropriate permits, as needed, and conform to Cal-OSHA and local governing agencies' requirements for trenching/open excavations and safety of the workmen during construction. Appropriate permits for offsite grading or excavation encroachments into the adjacent neighboring private properties, utility easement(s) and public right-of- ways shall be obtained from respective owners and agencies, as required and necessary. 5. Imported Soil: Import soils, required to complete grading and achieve final design pad grades, should be good quality sandy granular non-corrosive deposits (SM/SW) with very low expansion potential (100% passing 1-inch sieve, more than 50% passing #4 sieve and less than 18% passing #200 sieve with expansion index less than 20). Import soils should be observed, tested as necessary, and approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to delivery to the site. Import soils should also meet or exceed engineering characteristic and soil design parameters as specified in the following sections. 6. Fill/Backfill Placement, Spreading and Compaction: Uniform bearing and subgrade soil conditions should be constructed throughout the building and improvement surfaces by the project pad and remedial grading earthwork operations. Site soils should be adequately processed, thoroughly mixed, moisture conditioned to slightly (2%) above the optimum moisture levels, as directed in the field in thin (8 inches maximum) uniform horizontal lifts and mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% of the corresponding laboratory maximum dry density per ASTM D1557, unless otherwise approved or directed in the field. 7. Surface Drainage and Erosion Control: A critical element to the continued stability of graded building pad and improvement surfaces is an adequate stormwater and surface drainage control. Surface water should not be allowed to flow toward or pond near the building foundations or impact the graded construction and improvement sites. For this purpose establishing positive drainage (minimum 5%) during fine grading efforts away from the building and site improvements onto a suitable drainage collection and disposal facility will be necessary. Roof gutters and area drains should be installed. Over-watering of the site landscaping should also not be allowed. Only the amount of water to sustain vegetation should be provided. Temporary erosion control facilities and silt fences should be installed during the construction phase periods and until landscaping is fully established. Site drainage improvements should be completed as shown on the project approved grading/erosion control plans. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE. CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE20 8. Engineering Observations and Testing: All earthwork operations including excavations, removals (stripping), suitability of earth deposits used as compacted fills and backfills, and compaction procedures should be continuously observed and tested by the project geotechnical consultant and presented in a final report. The nature of finished bearing and subgrade soils should be confirmed in the final report at the completion of project earthworks construction. Geotechnical engineering observations and testing should include but are not limited to the following: • Initial observation -After clearing and grading limits have been staked, but before brushing and over-excavations start. • Stripping, removals and bottom of over-excavation observation -After dense and firm Old Paralic Deposits are exposed, but before new fill or backfill is placed. • Temporary trenching and excavation observations -After the excavation is started but before the vertical depth of excavation is more than 4 feet. Local and Cal-OSHA safety requirements for open excavations apply. • Fill/backfill observation -After the fill/backfill placement is started but before the vertical height of fill/backfill exceeds 2 feet. A minimum of one test shall be required for each 100 lineal feet maximum in every 2 feet vertical gain, with the exception of wall backfills where a minimum of one test shall be required for each 30 lineal feet maximum. Finish rough and final pad grade tests shall be required regardless of fill thickness. • Foundation trench and subgrade soil observation -After the foundation trench excavations but prior to the placement of steel reinforcing for proper moisture and specified compaction levels. • Geotechnical foundation/slab steel observation -After the steel placement is completed but before the scheduled concrete pour. • Underground utility, plumbing and storm drain trench observation -After the trench excavations but before placement of pipe bedding or installation of the underground facilities. Local and Cal-OSHA safety requirements for open excavations apply. Observations and testing of pipe bedding may also be required by the project geotechnical engineer. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE 21 • Underground utility, plumbing and storm drain trench backfill observation - After the backfill placement is started above the pipe zone but before the vertical height of backfill exceeds 2 feet. Testing of the backfill within the pipe zone may also be required by the governing agencies. Pipe bedding and backfill materials shall conform to the governing agencies' requirements and project soils report if applicable. Plumbing trenches more than 12 inches deep maximum under the floor slabs should also be mechanically compacted and tested for a minimum of 90% compaction levels. Flooding or jetting techniques as a means of compaction method should not be allowed. • Pavement/improvements base and subgrade observation -Prior to the placement of concrete or asphalt for proper moisture and specified compaction levels. B. Footings and Slab-on-Grade Floor Foundations The following recommendations are consistent with the recommended sandy (SM/SW) imported bearing soils with very low expansion potential ( expansion index less than 20), and site indicated geotechnical conditions. All design recommendations should be further confirmed and/or revised as necessary at completion of site grading work based on actual testing of final bearing and subgrade soils: 1. Shallow stiff concrete footings and slab-on-grade floor type foundations may be considered for support of the new dwelling and ADU structure. All foundations should be supported on minimum 90% compacted fills, placed in accordance with the requirements of this report. There should be at least 24 inches of compacted fills below bottom of the deepest footing(s) throughout (or at least 4 feet of compacted fill below rough finish pad grades), unless otherwise approved. 2. Perimeter and interior continuous strip footings should be sized at least 15 inches wide and 18 inches deep for one and two-story building loading conditions. Isolated spread pad footings, if any, should be at least 24 inches square and 18 inches deep and structurally interconnected with the continuous strip footings with grade beams. Interconnecting grade beams should be a minimum of 12 inches wide by 18 inches deep. Footing depths are measured from the lowest adjacent ground surface, not including the sand/gravel layer underneath floor slabs. Exterior continuous footings should enclose the entire building perimeter. Flagpole footings also need to be tied together if the footing depth is less than 4 feet below rough finish grade. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE 22 Continuous interior and exterior footings should be reinforced by at least 2-#5 reinforcing bars placed near the top and 2-#5 reinforcing bars placed near the bottom. Interconnecting grade beams (if any are required) should be reinforced with minimum 2-#4 bars top and bottom and #3 ties at 30 inches center to center maximum. Reinforcement details for spread pad footings should be provided by the project architect/structural engineer. 3. All interior slabs should be a minimum 5 inches in thickness, reinforced with #4 reinforcing bars spaced 16 inches on center each way, placed mid-height in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand (SE 30 or greater) which is provided with a well performing moisture barrier/vapor retardant (minimum 10-mil Stego) placed mid-height in the sand. Alternatively, a 4-inch thick base of compacted ½-inch clean aggregate provided with the vapor barrier (minimum 15-mil Stego) in direct contact with (beneath) the concrete may also be considered provided a concrete mix which can address bleeding, shrinkage and curling is used Provide "softcut" contraction/control joints consisting of sawcuts spaced 1 0 feet on centers each way for all interior slabs. Cut as soon as the slab will support the weight of the saw and operate without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. The sawcuts should be minimum 1-inch in depth but should not exceed 1 ¼- inches deep maximum. Anti-ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. Avoid wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. Provide re-entrant corner reinforcement for all interior slabs. Re-entrant corners will depend on slab geometry and/or interior column locations. The enclosed Plate 13 may be used as a general guideline. 4. Foundation trenches and slab subgrade soils should be observed and tested for exposing suitable bearing strata, proper moisture and specified compaction levels and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to steel placement or pouring concrete. C. Soil Design Parameters The following soil design parameters are based on the available strength tests completed by this office on representative samples of onsite earth deposits and are appropriate for the proposed retaining wall designs: 1. Design soil unit weight= 116 pcf. 2. Design angle of internal friction of soil = 30 degrees. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE 23 HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE. CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 3. Design active soil pressure for retaining structures= 39 pcf (EFP), level backfill, cantilever, unrestrained walls. 4. Design at-rest soil pressure for retaining structures= 58 pcf (EFP), non-yielding, restrained walls. 5. Design soil passive resistance for retaining structures = 347 pcf (EFP), level surface at the toe (soil mass on the toe side extends a minimum of 1 O feet or 3 times the height of the surface generating passive resistance). 6. Design coefficient of friction for concrete on soils = 0.38. 7. Net allowable foundation pressure = 1500 psi. 8. Allowable lateral bearing pressure = 150 psf/ft. Notes: -An additional seismic force due to seismic increments of earth pressure should also be considered in the project designs, if appropriate and where applicable. A seismic lateral inverted triangular earth pressure of 17 pcf (EFP), acting at 0.6H (H is the retained height) above the base of the wall should be considered. Alternatively, seismic loading based on Mononobe-Okake (M-O) coefficients may be considered for seismic force due to seismic increments of earth pressure. The following relationships and design values are appropriate: Wall Total Seismic Lateral Ka Ko Kh KAE KoE Ysoil Condition Lateral Pressure Pressure Unrestrain PAE=PA + PAE IIPAE=¾KhYH' 0.33 . 0.15 0.48 -116 ed Restrained POE=PO + POE IIPOE=Kh YH2 -0.50 0.15 -0.65 116 -Use a minimum safety factor of 1.5 for wall over-turning and sliding stability. However, because large movements must lake place before maximum passive resistance can be developed, a safety factor of 2 may be considered for sliding stability where sensitive structures and improvements are planned near or on top of retaining walls. -When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance the passive component should be reduced by one-third. The upper 6 inches of ground surfaces should not be included in the design for passive soil resistance, unless otherwise noted or specified. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE 24 -The net allowable foundation pressure provided herein were determined based on minimum 12 inches wide by 12 inches deep footings. The indicated value may be increased by 20% for each additional foot of depth and 20% for each additional foot of width to a maximum of 4500 psi, if needed. The allowable foundation pressures provided herein also applies to dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic loading. -The allowable lateral bearing earth pressures may be increased by the amount of the designated value for each additional foot of depth to a maximum of 1500 pounds per square foot. D. Swimming Pool/ Spa Construction A swimming pool/ spa is proposed on the southeast pad margin, as shown on the enclosed Plate 2. The pool excavations are expected to expose low expansive, fills soils (based on our import recommendations). The pool should be entirely supported on compacted fills or undisturbed bedrock. In the case of fill support, there should be at least 12-inches of well-compacted fill beneath the pool. The pool may be designed and constructed for very low expansive soils (expansion index less than 20) and based on lateral earth pressures provided in this report. The pool should also be provided with a minimum 15 inch wide by 18 inch deep perimeter grade beam reinforced with minimum 2-#4 bars top and bottom around the top of the concrete shell. Pool shell reinforcements and thickness per structural details. E. Exterior Concrete Slabs and Flatwork 1. All exterior slabs (walkways, patios, pool flatwork) supported on very low expansive subgrade soils should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness, reinforced with #3 bars at 18 inches on center in both directions placed mid- height in the slab. The subgrade soils should be recompacted to minimum 90% compaction levels at the time of fine grading and before placing the slab reinforcement. Reinforcements lying on subgrade will be ineffective and shortly corrode due to lack of adequate concrete cover. Reinforcing bars should be correctly placed extending through the construction joints tying the slab panels. In construction practices where the reinforcements are discontinued or cut at the construction joints, slab panels should be tied together with minimum 18 inches long #3 dowels at 18 inches on centers placed mid-height in the slab (9 inches on either side of the joint). GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE. CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE 25 2. Provide "tool joint" or "softcut" contraction/control joints spaced 1 0 feet on center (not to exceed 12 feet maximum) each way. The larger dimension of any panel shall not exceed 125% of the smaller dimension. Tool or cut as soon as slab will support weight, and can be operated without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. Tool or softcuts should be a minimum of 1-inch but should not exceed 1 ¼-inch deep maximum. In case of softcut joints, anti-ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. Avoid wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. Joints shall intersect free-edges at a 90° angle and shall extend straight for a minimum of 1½ feet from the edge. The minimum angle between any two intersecting joints shall be 80°. Align joints of adjacent panels. Also, align joints in attached curbs with joints in slab panels. Provide adequate curing using approved methods (curing compound maximum coverage rate = 200 sq. ft./gal.). 3. As a minimum, use Green Book 560-C-3250 concrete for sidewalks, flatwork and exterior slabs. All exterior slab designs should be confirmed in the final as- graded compaction report. 4. Subgrade soils should be tested for proper moisture and specified compaction levels and approved by the project geotechnical consultant prior to the placement of concrete. F. Pavement Design 1. Asphalt Concrete (HMA) Paving: Specific HMA pavement designs can best be provided at the completion of rough grading based on R-value tests of the actual finish subgrade soils; however, the following structural sections may be considered for initial planning phase and cost estimating purposes only (not for construction): • A minimum section of 4 inches HMA (AC) on 6 inches Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base (AB) or the minimum structural section required by City of Carlsbad, whichever is more, may be considered for the onsite asphalt paving surfaces outside the private and public right-of-way. Actual designs will depend on final subgrade R-value and design Tl, and the approval of the City of Carlsbad. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE 26 • Maximum lift for asphalt concrete shall not exceed 3 inches, unless otherwise approved. The asphalt concrete layer (4-inch total section) may consist of 2.5 inches of a binder/base course (¾-inch aggregate) and 1.5 inches of finish top course (½-inch aggregate) topcoat, placed in accordance with the applicable local and regional codes and standards. The Class 2 aggregate or recycled base (AB) materials shall meet or exceed the requirements set forth in the current California Standard Specification (Caltrans Section 26-1.02). Aggregate base (AB) materials should be compacted to a minimum 95% of the corresponding maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). Subgrade soils beneath the asphalt paving surfaces should also be compacted to a minimum 95% of the corresponding maximum dry density within the upper 12 inches. 2. PCC Paving: Residential PCC driveways and parking supported on very low expansive (expansion index less than 20) granular subgrade soils should be a minimum of 5½ inches in thickness, reinforced with #3 reinforcing bars at 16 inches on center each way placed at mid-height in the slab. Subgrade soils beneath the PCC driveways and parking should be compacted to a minimum 95% of the corresponding maximum dry density, unless otherwise specified. As a minimum, use Green Book 560-C-3250 concrete for PCC pavings. Reinforcing bars should be correctly placed extending through the construction (cold) joints tying the slab panels. In construction practices where the reinforcements are discontinued or cut at the construction joints, slab panels should be tied together with minimum 18 inch long (9 inches on either side of the joint) #3 dowels at 16 inches on centers placed mid-height in the slab. Provide "tool joint" or "softcut" contraction/control joints spaced 1 0 feet on center (not to exceed 15 feet maximum) each way. The larger dimension of any panel shall not exceed 125% of the smaller dimension. Tool or cut as soon as the slab will support the weight and can be operated without disturbing the final finish which is normally within 2 hours after final finish at each control joint location or 150 psi to 800 psi. Tool or softcuts should be a minimum of 1-inch in depth but should not exceed 1 ¼-inches deep maximum. In case of softcut joints, anti- ravel skid plates should be used and replaced with each blade to avoid spalling and raveling. Avoid wheeled equipments across cuts for at least 24 hours. Joints shall intersect free-edges at a 90 ° angle and shall extend straight for a minimum of 1 ½ feet from the edge. The minimum angle between any two intersecting joints shall be 80°. Align joints of adjacent panels. Also, align joints in attached curbs with joints in slab panels. Provide adequate curing using approved methods (curing compound maximum coverage rate= 200 sq. fl./gal.). GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE 27 3. General Paving: Base section and subgrade preparation per structural section design, will be required for all surfaces subject to traffic including roadways, travelways, drive lanes, driveway approaches and ribbon (cross) gutters. Driveway approaches within the public right-of-way should have 12 inches subgrade compacted to a minimum of 95% compaction levels and provided with a 95% compacted Class 2 base section per the structural section design. Base layer under curb and gutters should be compacted to a minimum of 95%, while subgrade soils under curb and gutters, and base and subgrade under sidewalks should be compacted to a minimum of 90% compaction levels, unless otherwise specified. Base section may not be required under curb and gutters, and sidewalks, in the case of very low to non-expansive subgrade soils (expansion index less than 20). More specific recommendations should be given in the final as-graded compaction report. G. General Recommendations 1. The minimum foundation design and steel reinforcement provided herein are based on soil characteristics and are not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary for structural considerations. 2. Adequate staking and grading control is a critical factor in properly completing the recommended remedial and site grading operations. Grading control and staking should be provided by the project grading contractor or surveyor/civil engineer, and is beyond the geotechnical engineering services. Staking should apply the required setbacks shown on the approved plans and conform to setback requirements established by the governing agencies and applicable codes for the protected Torrey Pine, off site private/public properties and property lines, utility easements, right-of-ways, nearby structures and improvements, leach fields and septic systems, and graded embankments. Inadequate staking and/or lack of grading control may result in illegal encroachments or unnecessary additional grading which will increase construction costs. 3. Open or backfilled trenches parallel with a footing shall not be below a projected plane having a downward slope of 1-unit vertical to 2 units horizontal (50%) from a line 9 inches above the bottom edge of the footing, and not closer than 18 inches from the face of such footing. 4. Where pipes cross under-footings, the footings shall be specially designed. Pipe sleeves shall be provided where pipes cross through footings or footing walls, and sleeve clearances shall provide for possible footing settlement, but not less than 1-inch all around the pipe. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE 28 5. Expansive clayey soils should not be used for backfilling of any retaining structure. All retaining walls should be provided with a 1 :1 wedge of granular, compacted backfill measured from the base of the wall footing to the finished surface and a well-constructed back drain system as shown on the enclosed Typical retaining Wall Backdrain, Plate 14. Planting large trees behind site retaining walls should be avoided. 6. All underground utility and plumbing trenches should be mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% (95% in public right-of-way) of the maximum dry density of the soil unless otherwise specified or required by the governing agencies. Care should be taken not to crush the utilities or pipes during the compaction of the soil. Very low expansive, granular import backfill soils should be used. Trench backfill materials and compaction beneath pavements within the public right-of-way shall conform to the requirements of governing agencies. 7. Finish ground surfaces immediately adjacent to the building foundations shall be sloped away from the building at a minimum 5% for a minimum horizontal distance of 1 0 feet measured perpendicular to face of the building wall (CBC 1804.4 Site Grading). If physical obstructions or property lines prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, a 5% slope shall be provided with an alternative method for diverting water away from the foundation. Swales used for this purpose shall be sloped not less than 2% where located within 1 0 feet of the building foundation. Impervious surfaces (concrete sidewalks) within 10 feet of the building foundation shall also be sloped at minimum 2% away from the building. 8. Care should be taken during the construction, improvements, and fine grading phases not to disrupt the designed drainage patterns. Roof lines of the buildings should be provided with roof gutters. Roof water should be collected and directed away from the buildings and structures to a suitable location. 9. All foundation trenches should be observed to ensure adequate footing embedment and confirm competent bearing soils. Foundation and slab reinforcements should also be inspected and approved by the project geotechnical consultant. 10. The amount of shrinkage and related cracks that occur in the concrete slab-on- grades, flatwork and driveways depend on many factors, the most important of which is the amount of water in the concrete mix. The purpose of the slab reinforcement is to keep normal concrete shrinkage cracks closed tightly. The amount of concrete shrinkage can be minimized by reducing the amount of water in the mix. To keep shrinkage to a minimum the following should be considered: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE 29 • Use the stiffest mix that can be handled and consolidated satisfactorily. • Use the largest maximum size of aggregate that is practical. For example, concrete made with %-inch maximum size aggregate usually requires about 40-lbs. more (nearly 5-gal.) water per cubic yard than concrete with 1-inch aggregate. • Cure the concrete as long as practical. The amount of slab reinforcement provided for conventional slab-on-grade construction considers that good quality concrete materials, proportioning, craftsmanship, and control tests where appropriate and applicable are provided. 11. A preconstruction meeting between representatives of this office, the property owner or planner, city inspector as well as the grading contractor/builder is recommended in order to discuss grading and construction details associated with site development. X. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD (GER) Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. will be the geotechnical engineer of record (GER) for providing a specific scope of work or professional service under a contractual agreement unless it is terminated or canceled by either the client or our firm. In the event a new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm is hired to provide added engineering services, professional consultations, engineering observations and compaction testing, Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. will no longer be the geotechnical engineer of the record. Project transfer should be completed in accordance with the California Geotechnical Engineering Association (CGEA) Recommended Practice for Transfer of Jobs Between Consultants. The new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm should review all previous geotechnical documents, conduct an independent study, and provide appropriate confirmations, revisions or design modifications to his own satisfaction. The new geotechnical consultant or soils engineering firm should also notify in writing Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc. and submit proper notification to the City of Carlsbad for the assumption of responsibility in accordance with the applicable codes and standards (1997 USC Section 3317.8). GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE. CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA XI. LIMITATIONS AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE 30 The conclusions and recommendations provided herein have been based on available data obtained from the review of pertinent reports and plans, subsurface exploratory excavations as well as our experience with the soils and formational materials located in the general area. The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory testing are believed representative of the total area; however, earth materials may vary in characteristics between excavations. Of necessity, we must assume a certain degree of continuity between exploratory excavations and/or natural exposures. It is necessary, therefore, that all observations, conclusions, and recommendations be verified during the grading operation. In the event discrepancies are noted, we should be contacted immediately so that an inspection can be made and additional recommendations issued if required. The recommendations made in this report are applicable to the site at the time this report was prepared. It is the responsibility of the owner/developer to ensure that these recommendations are carried out in the field. It is almost impossible to predict with certainty the future performance of a property. The future behavior of the site is also dependent on numerous unpredictable variables, such as earthquakes, rainfall, and on-site drainage patterns. The firm of VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC., shall not be held responsible for changes to the physical conditions of the property such as addition of fill soils, added cut slopes, or changing drainage patterns which occur without our inspection or control. This report should be considered valid for a period of one year and is subject to review by our firm following that time. If significant modifications are made to your tentative reconstruction plan, especially with respect to the height and location of cut and fill slopes, this report must be presented to us for review and possible revision. This report is issued with the understanding that the owner or his representative is responsible to ensure that the information and recommendations are provided to the project architect/structural engineer so that they can be incorporated into the plans. Necessary steps shall be taken to ensure that the project general contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. The project geotechnical engineer should be provided the opportunity for a general review of the project final design plans and specifications in order to ensure that the recommendations provided in this report are properly interpreted and implemented. If the project geotechnical engineer is not provided the opportunity of making these reviews, he can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of his recommendations. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION HILLSIDE DRIVE & PARK DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 18, 2020 PAGE 31 Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc., warrants that this report has been prepared within the limits prescribed by our client with the usual thoroughness and competence of the engineering profession. No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended. Should any questions arise concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Reference to our Job #20-178-P will help to expedite our response to your inquiries. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. Steven J. Melzer CEG #2362 ONA!. G ~ JAY No, 2382 11' ::.\ CERTIFIED :ll NGINEERING * ~ GEOLOGIST -i:~:-----~"f: Ot: CAL\TO~ REFERENCES Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4 -Construction, Volume 04.0B: Soil and Rock (I); D420 - D5B76, 2016. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4 -Construction, Volume 04.09: Soil and Rock (II); D5B77 - Latest, 2016. Corrosion Guidelines, Caltrans, Version 1.0, September 2003. California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 & 2, 2016, International Code Council. "The Green Book" Standard Specifications For Public Works Construction, Public Works Standards, Inc., BNi Building News, 2015 Edition. California Geological Survey, 2008 (Revised), Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117 A, 108p. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (California Geological Survey), 1986 (revised), Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports: DMG Note 44. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (California Geological Survey), 1986 (revised), Guidelines to Geologic and Seismic Reports: DMG Note 42. "Proceeding of The NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance Soils," Edited by T. Leslie Youd and lzzat M. Idriss, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Dated December 31, 1997. "Recommended Procedures For Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines For Analyzing and Mitigation Liquefaction In California," Southern California Earthquake center; USC, March 1999. "Foundations & Earth Structures," Naval Facilities Engineering Command, DM 7.02. "Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Robert D. Holtz, William D. Kovacs. "Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical Engineering," George F. Sowers, Fourth Edition. "Foundation Analysis and Design," Joseph E. Bowels. Caterpillar Performance Handbook, Edition 29, 1998. "An Engineering Manual For Slope Stability Studies," J.M. Duncan, A.L. Buchignani and Marius De Wet, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, March 1987. "Minimum Design Loads For Buildings and Other Structures," ASCE 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). USGS Maps http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/maps/mapviewl. 2016b. SEAOC/OSHPD (Structural Engineers Association of America I California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development) ground motion calculator https://seismicmaps.orgl VICINITY MAP SW Comer of Hillside Drive & Park Drive Carlsbad Jeffersc111 \ Elementary~\. ' \ d .. USGS The~ Mop: -a-u... Dob:el. 30EP eo-l'lagn,.....,. Homes_,,_ s,-,, -~ o.,,,,,d,~I.MICIC:0...~--Dalood.lllld -r,_ llalaset USGS G-~ U.S. Ctn= Carlsbad Seaside .MadelltJI "1 e Chestnut t,: Ma9na/ia Elementary Valley Middle -er. :r -,.. ,;) ?-a .., ... 0 "' -.., Approximate Scale I :20,000 North ~ .. Q -- ... .. ,.. uz..qr.cr.a Ril'tra Parle C, PLATE 1 V &M JOB #20-178-P ",. >~, \;¼;:~ -,,::~&<~<s. "<~:.~[ GEOTECHNICAL MAP ]>,. /"'-"'I) x ..... ,'"!, 1;~-.. -'--'..-:,r..,J ........ !0n . o ....___ ----,.. . ~ .. ~ !J . \. , .................... , -<::-D .· --~ ~ ' I .B ............___,,-- / J -------~ '\_;' ............ .... --.._ ----'. /. .. ' -"-. '--r.r···" " r~ .. :--... "-:<"'; ' ....... , ~;V$ : t.t/sr~ ·'-,, --_ --· . ..::J._ ,;?' ~ r.,, !J'-·~ , ~ ,'--..... .... ~. ..• r -• -, '-" ' ...._,.., • .... .... (-11,) ... , • '\ . -·--------. ;;;,-,"-' . f.i .• --~ ...... ~.... ~· ~ \ \ ----~ ---"/ I'~. .,, ··:. ~ ~,.,~ ........ \ ' -~----_ _..,.,,,,,, ' ~---', °("I -·. \ '-"-. . . .., "--.... .., '"'-c-.,... \ \ : _,._ "'-.. r., ....... r:. ,, --:-r ~ re fl......_'\; . .. • --. ~ ...... to.>-.._ -......... ·....J"' -,-, -,-__', \ • _ .,:f.-..,;:;---.-~ ,;;, '-::-.... -----13 ... . "" -, ~""' . ,1t-1 --- I ~ $ I g l/i I83 _, ,,_ '"'.7~ ,_ '--....._..__ . "::.~,----... ~--\ 1 -;;-cwi-<.,-,., ._ .::, __ ? -'::-r.,-.:._ ---"----.......... *t ~ ;---~---\ \ . --:,~(") --. ·.: . ,., -,., -::--...._ ... '"'i------\ \ . . . (") __ ,., .. . -ttll'I -... ::_ ·~ --~ ·-, \ -. --~-{,., --<.,--.;._ I --:~:.....,___ • '.. ' ,., -,., -CW) I /! ~~l--'-rSDJ--=::.------..:~ . . . -<"I-~ I f-1w'I ~1wi -1wi ---'"L=-=.(WJ..~I::;--.~-,:;_ . (, -..;_ . ---.!"1. =t2oh........_ ---.... . . I -----~-,~.,... . . --::::::-.... --..; __ ~~.i..-,., .-: / ~. ·.-• -... _ '"'>'---"":..,, ~,.,_(\rJ ;; _ · ----,--:::---_ ·:,. -----fto; '~::..., ·' . ,, _('o)_fo? _ -I -csi ~ · --..:::::: ---· · ......... ------... ...... · -• 1"1 -c"! I ~ -~1wr . ~-r,1----..~.· ·•• .. -.--e _ ... ,,,rto;•',,,.., Im-, I ----(ll) - (C) -() =-UJ.:-(SJ •.• -...::....:...-.---.....:.~, ;I ~ C · ·-~' ---,S) .-. ~, ~~' ..., ..• (CJ --(CJ 7~ ---------(S) ~Ct,._ -.. ~' ~----~ -{cJ ___ ,,,~ .. :.. (s, -----cs) ..____ csJ. ~ '~ ... , r~1 .......... . ------_ ) - • ~-...___ -·• r,> ........__~.,... ~ ~ H , s -·•-. .. _ ~~ ..... --'"'-i•J~ ,,r-'!-~1Sl-csJ -.:a ~{) -(S) -<) ---... ~ > ' ------.. "'-<•> ' ~ ~c--,f ---... ~ ~ ··--... · -._,.~ 1M ~ J I • ---... ---... I -. ·--~ .•. "•.C· . /?,o ,i:9 . . .... ~--:-:-'"' '--(CJ -ti ,-1 / / ---... ---··-......__ ;"-. ',, g / ~ ...._-,.,.:: -~ ·-... __ '-I~ -----',, ~ ',, ,JI! " • ' fj ' , • ---... L . --------.. ----------' ~ ' ;;i I ' I ~ ~ ---·••• '-' I I 1 ,./ Qop2-.4 / ...... --...... _ -. ~ "' ---._, -~ ',~Jl> .... j T /~{,, . --· --~~ ··-.. ~ .... ,,,,-... i {) /" ..,,, "' ~ ,,.._____. ---~ ~ '. ~ .... f.i,:J"' d) / / '-. I ' '.... I I -" -• ~ ~, '{ 'e / ::, I I / , --··.. ~ ~ ,, -JI / -.. ----"• -', '.... .;. / , ..___ t.Qa " t ,~ I .--I' t'.•-K: I~ I' [ TP-5 ] 8 • . r~ ---_ _ ~ / I h ,,--,:,, ,' l! / !.•-".~. I -llll a II llll "-----D \ B , r• I '',/"t/J''i // I -'C,::'.}t'~~ p---.___ ~ . 111 ~ f .,,~/ / /// I THRE ·STALl GARAGE ;~~~~-J TP-3 \ \ :; ' lj L f' I ,,: ;~ I . /Bod SF) 13 1 / ,· ,g 1 , 1 '. 1 E: I -' I 'I I ' I! I ! I I • I '. I I l I £1 I " :/ j /fi"':~=-. J' ' I !if ' I l!: I ' '/1. i : I ~~ ...... ~ 19,~~ . . 183 ~f.o t • I ii' I I / /: J ~= r~-!::-d-...cc!J _ \ , Raf ·,\0 ,1~/ ! /1~ · JI If !If tr j I I I ~ I ' I ~'~' ' I A ' / ~Tl IFf.t!!itl -4 ,!. \ : U~' 1 l/ ✓ J,g j I ~ AOU ~ \ : ~! j I 1 . I -!,Aa.,~ ---------~ / \\ II \ 1~,,'V! ~ i ! i / '-. ' t"I' . I -( '\/ ', : ...... i' I 61 I • ' -I -I . ·,_ \ I, I I : 'I I . g ., I I ! I i I . I • I~ I / ~ I' ~. ~ \ \ \ \ IB . 7' / T ! . ~ __ .. -. \ \ \ I I _: -;. \ -1 \ • , , ~-..:,_--:_J I - ( ! / ', ,~ I "i j !! !NII r ¼ ,t ,'1' 'i'·. I ~J J ~ I n, ,' /1: I ,Ir I ' I GEOTECHNICALLEGEND Approx. Location of Test Pit Geologic Cross-Section Raf Road Fill Qop2-4 Old Paralic Deposit ~ 10' 5' 0' ~ lQ'. SCALE: l • = 20' 20' 'AS BUILT' RCt ___ OCf>, ___ _ R£VIC\i£D BY, INSP£CTIR DATE DATE: --. '~:--~_1 I ---I .' '-,. . \ / I ---r--( ......... \ ' . / / .. ) I ,' -i---~.._, __ ...... ....:\--\-.,.. \ ',.7 ( I J 't 7 '. I I ~- I I I I I I I 1~1G~==NG:~~AD IISH:f I GIBSON FAMILY RESIDENCE t ~ •• I·_., I . I . '"' . I I I \ ( I \\ \ ' [ PLATE 2 ) V&M JOB #20-178-P 1a12020-mx I APPRO'<Bl: JASON s GELDER A\ ClY DtQNEIR PE IJ912 Elll'R5 9/lll(lO . ft• - DAIi: --DYtNY -·~ 1:NmGJt or..., REVISION DESCRIPTION DAit NIIN.. DA1£ ...,,.._ l01KD 8a~ __!LIi PRo.ECT NO. IJDRAIIING N OTHIJI -~ aTY -~ R\IIIO BY: XXX-XA PRIMARY DIVISIONS GROUP SECONDARY DIVISIONS SYMBOL GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Woll l!nuled gro,·ols, gro,·ol-s..,d mixrures, linlo or no finc:s. (LESS THAN MORE THAN HALF OF 5~{. FINES) GP Poorly !!faded l!ra,·cls or gra\'Cl-sMd mixtures, linle or no fines COARSE GRAINED COARSE FRACITION IS GRAVELS SOILS GM Silty !!"'' els, gra1·cl-sond mixtures. non•plastic fines LARGER THAN NO. 4 WITH MORE THAN HALF OF SIEVE FINES Ge Clayci, l!r.ll'cls, gr.11·cl•sand•clay mixtures, plastic fines MATERIAL IS LARGER SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded !lllmls, grn1·elly sands. linle or no fines, TIIAN NO 200 SIEVE (LESS THAN SIZE MORE THAN HALF OF 5%FINES) SP Poorly !!faded sMds, l!ra1·elly SMds, linle or no fines. COARSE FRACITION IS SANDS SM Silly sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines SMALLER THAN NO. 4 WITH SIEVE FINES SC C layc sands, !lllnd-cloy mixtures, plastic fines SIL TS & CLAYS ML lnof!!llllic sills and ,·c,y fine !lllnds, rock llour. SIiiy or clayey line !lllnds or clovcv sills with sliuh1 nlosricitv FJNEGRAINED CL Inorganic cloys of low 10 medium plasticity. l!ravelly clays. sandy cloy~ SOILS LIQUID LIMIT IS siltv clnvs. Icon clovs LESS THAN 50"/o OL Orgamc sills and Dll!onic silty cloys of low plasticity MORE THAN l·IALF OF lnol'llonic silts, micn=u• or d101oma=us fine sandy or silty soils, MA TERI AL IS SMALLER SILTS&CLAYS MH elastic soils THAN NO. 200 SIEVE CH lno'l!on,c clays ofhil!h plasticity. fat cloy, SIZE LIQUID LIMIT IS MORE THAN 50¾ 011 O'l!onic clays of medium 10 hil!h plosticity. DIJ!onic Slits IIIGHL Y ORGANIC SOILS PT Pc,it or other hil!hly OIJ!onic soils GRAIN SIZES U S ST,\NO,\RD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQAURE SIEVE OPENINGS 200 40 IO 4 ½" 3" 12" SAND GRAVEL SIL TS & CLA VS I COARSE COBBLES BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY SANDS.GRAVELS & BLOWS/FOOT CLAYS& STRENGTH BLOWS /FOOT NON-PLASTIC SIL TS PLASTIC SIL TS VERY LOOSE 0-4 VERY SOFT 0 -½ 0-2 SOFT ¼-½ 2 •4 LOOSE 4-IO FIRM ½-1 4 . 8 MEDIUM DENSE 10 -30 STIFF 1-2 8-16 DENSE 30 • so VERY STIFF 2 -4 16 -32 VERY DENSE OVER50 BARD OVER4 OVER32 I. BLOW COUNT: 140 POUND HAMMER FALLING JO-INCHES ON A 2-INCII DIAMETER O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER (ASTM D-1586) 2. UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH PER SOIL TEST POCKET PENETROMETER CL-700 T' Nuclear Densometer/ Sandcone Test ■ Bulk Sample B\ Standard Penetration Test (SPT) -(ASTM D-1 586) Blow Counts Per 6-lnches □ Chunk Sample 0 Driven Rings 1%1\ California Sampler With Blow Counts Per 6-Inches VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. KEY TO BORING / TEST PITS LOGS 2450 Aulo Park Way UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Escondido, C'nlifomia 911129 ?60-743-1214 vinjc mlddlcton'?ibcglobal.ncl (ASTM D-2487) December, 2013 ~ VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. TEST PIT: TP-1 PROJECT: Proposed Residential Development CLIENT: Curt Gibson PROJECT NO.: 20-178-P PROJECT LOCATION: SW Corner of Hillside Drive and Park Drive. Carlsbad Date Excavated: 7/24/20 Bucket Size: 24" Logged By: SJM Equipment: John Deere 350 Mini-Excavator Contractor: Colonello Remarks: No cavinl!. No groundwater. u w ~I~ !:e ~i:: ls~ ~8 <ll ..iw 5~ DEPTH u MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ...... i=--~il (ft) ;;i..J <l'i ~~ so-~~ :sl§t 0 ::i "' :ieu Q ~Q ~< : . :,: .. :::-. · :-·: .-:~. :-•:.• Tousoil: ·,: ·> ,/:• . • ._ I,::_: Silty fine sand. Brown color. Dry to damp. Loose. Roots . . ·, .... 1 -·=.:_; ·:·~ -.:·-. ST-I . . ~. I,::_: _::-·-:· -.. _ .. :-·.: ... SM :~: :_ -:,:_ .. ::_: ._ 2 --.. _-. \\~ ,• Loose to medium dense at 2 feet. Dry. OIi ?:~ 3 101.0 86 15 .. .. ·-· . '?/: .~ ·, _·.:•. .... 3 ._•_ . ·.':.:::-. "~, .. ~--.. ... ..... ••u·••••••• ............ -·-·· ·••···· Old Paralic Deposit (00122-4): .......... --·········· ... . .......... ........ ... . , .......... --------... ........... Sandstone. Fine grained . Red brown color. Weathered. --· ...... ............ ,__ 4 -···••-..... Friable. Massive. Modertely cemented. Loose to medium er= ....... , ... 3 96.6 82 12 •··•••··••·· SP dense. ST-I ............ ... -............ •U••••••OOO ............ -··········· ... , ........ ···•··· ... ,__ 5 -···-········ 'UH .. Tight at 5 feet. Blocky. Dense. o= 7 106.9 91 40 ···-········ .. . . ............. ... ..... 10,<u•••••• ....... , .... Bottom of test pit at 5.5 feet. ■ BULK □ CHUNK T DENSITY .SZ, GROI.IND 3 SAMPLE SAMPLE TEST -WATER PLATE ~ VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. TEST PIT: TP-2 PROJECT: Proposed Residential Development CLIENT: Curt Gibson PROJECT NO.: 20-178-P PROJECT LOCATION: SW Corner of Hillside Drive and Park Drive. Carlsbad Date Excavated: 7/24/20 Bucket Size: 24" Logged By: SJM Equipment: John Deere 35G Mini-Excavator Contractor: Colonello Remarks: No cavinl!. No l!'.roundwater. u vi w ~i7 !::,:;-!::!~ ;~l !DEPTH ~8 ...lw Zl!, u MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ..... =>-3;;;1 (ft) ~..,J ell ~~ "' .. ~~ ifj-::i so-*~ 0 "' :;:u C ~o ::t-::\\:: TO(!SOil: .. • . . .... . :\ :{:/:: Silty fine sand. Brown color. Dry to damp. Very loose. Roots . .... 1 -).! . \.:\ ST-I · ... ,·,• ..... · . . }. :~-: ~ -·:---~ ,• ·_.:·:.::.: -::.·, SM . :: ... ..... 2 -,.· ,,, -:.· : .. ·:-· Continues dry and very loose at 2 feet. I ::::::: 4 95.4 81 16 _:, · ..... -:.· ·,:::-:. /:_:: Ill -3--:.· :~:\ -· •'• ·······-----,., " .... -·--·---···· ........... •••hoo,.000 Old Paralic De(!osit {0o('!2-4}: .. ,., .... ..... 4 -----····-··· ........... I 8 99.1 84 36 --------···· ··-····•"' ---· .... ··••· Sandstone. Fine grained. Brown to red brown color. Moist. ......... . ·-..... -··· SP Weathered. Friable. Massive. Loose to medium dense. ST-I .......... ···-·· .... -5-., .......... Blocky at 5 feet. Moderately cemented. Medium dense to I .......... 8 l01.5 86 38 ....... ... ............ dense . .. ·--~--... ........... ............ Bottom of test pit at 5.5 feet. ■ BULK □ CHUNK T DENSITY Q GROUND SAMPLE SAMPLE TEST -WATER PLATE 4 ~VINJE& MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. TEST PIT: TP-3 PRO.JECT: Proposed Residential Development CLIENT: Curt Gibson PRO.JECT NO.: 20-178-P PROJECT LOCATION: SW Corner of Hillside Drive and Park Drive. Carlsbad Date Excavated: 7/24/20 Bucket Size: 24" Logged By: SJM Equipment: John Deere 35G Mini-Excavator Contractor: Colonello Remarks: No cavinl!. No l!roundwater. u ~ w ~ii t::c:;, ~~ "'"o DEPTH ~CJ -'W ~~ Oi:; u MATERIAL DESCRIPTION i~ i=--lil (ft) "-o :s'"~ ~...I "' !a -~~ ~- CJ ::i "' ~8 0 ~c :-:::_.: .. :•: , .. :-. ,t:. ·.• .. . •:.· Topsoil: ~:\ ~: -'•~.' . '• :.-~·· .:.-: Silty fine sand. Brown color. Dry. Very loose. ST-I I-1 -\-:: ·-:, .:,·: :-·,.:"·. .. ',•· :::::_:: ·~-...... _:. ,:.:•. SM -:.· :-· •:.· I-2 -)i .\:{ )-: ,w:; ; .. :• ?:\: -3 ).! .-{:t ............ D._ ............ 10 94,3 80 39 ······-··--· ... ,., .. .. ... --····· Old Paralic Deposit (0op2-4): , .. "' . . ···--·· -·······;•.· . ...... "' . . . .. .. ,., Sandstone. Fine grained. Brown/red brown color. Moist. ... no•••• ............ ~4-······ ... Weathered friable. Massive. Loose. ST-I ............ ••• ••••• ro ............ ···-······-· ............ ·-•·-••···. -............ ............ ... ,. .... -· .;, ......... ········-··· ,...5_ ............ Somewhat blocky and moderately cemented at 5 feet. Continues DI •••••••••oo 14 103.3 88 71 ..... , ...... ......... . , ~· " ...... moist. Medium dense to dense. ··•······ ............ ... • •h••::::::,•,•, ........... .... , ....... ·······-···· ••••hH,1'-• ,_ 6 -............ ......... ., •. n .. ,,., SC ., .......... ... • • "u•••• • ............ ............ ............ ........... ••••••••••M I-7-........ Medium dense to dense at 7 feet. I . •· .. ,. . 12 102.0 87 59 .. --·· .. ..... , ,., . ............ , . ............ ............ I-8 ---.. -... ... ..... ........ ··••·••···•· >,i,l,d, --•••••u••• .......... ' •ooooHOO .. ........... ............ ......... ............ ... . .. I-9-............ 1 ., ..... Consistent characteristics at 9 feet: Moist. Massive. Dense. l 8 111.9 95 53 ............ , ........... •on•••••• , ........ , .. ···--······· Bottom of test pit at 9.5 feet. ■ BULK □ CHUNK T DENSITY 'SJ.. GROUND SAMPLE SAMPLE TEST -WA'll:R PLATE 5 ~ VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. TEST PIT: TP-4 PROJECT: Proposed Residential Development CLIENT: Curt Gibson PROJECT NO.: 20-178-P PROJECT LOCATION: SW Corner of Hillside Drive and Park Drive. Carlsbad Date Excavated: 7/24/20 Bucket Size: 24" Logged By: SJM Equipment: John Deere 350 Mini-Excavator Contractor: Colonello Remarks: No cavim!. No l!roundwater. ~ <ri "' ~i !::e ~i:: ""c iEg ... "' ~ -:z: K. Ci:; IDEPTH u MATERIAL DESCRIPTION """" i:::--;~i ~~ ~ e :;,-:s~~ (fi) v; ;;;;~ ~..: =i 00 <:!j:- 0 "' :::.u C ~Q ~< ;:_~: .. -.::_ :~\ ,_'.-· .. ,',• Topsoil: I-•~:-: ', ~. .'~~: , ·•· . .. _~-. :(: . _.-Silty fine sand. Brown/red brown color. dry to damp. Very -1 -,_:.:-<~-:/: .·,• loose. ST-I :r-·/;\ SM ._ ~·> ·~: ._., ... t-2 -:::·:_:: } << ·.• ,:;, }.: :\\ .~. '.·."·. ._ ·., ·,• ,'.· '·_-:,·: •· .. .~. ~:. ·. 'L: -3 ._·.· --•('• ----··--·---•·H•·•ltH• LL 9 l01.2 86 44 ······ '. ............ ---········· Old Paralic Deposit (0op2-4): . ' .. ~," , ... ····•··•···· ............ ......... .. ............ ............ ... , .. ,., ... Sandstone. Fine grained. Brown/red brown color. Moist. 0MOO • ·• 00000 -4-'•·•••·•"* Weathered friable. Moderately cemented. Medium dense to ...... ., ..... ·•••OU•·•••• SP dense. ST-1 ., .......... ............ ... .. ..... ... 000 OOOOOM000 ........ ·•• ••~•-• M000 ............ •····-••·••·· ,_ 5 -. ,. ... [C •· ... Blocky at 5 feet. Dense. 8 103.1 88 40 ...... •·" .... ·•· ............ Bottom of test pit at 5.5 feet. ■ BULK □ CHUNK ~ DENSITY 'SL GROUND SAMPLE SAMPLE TEST -WATER PLATE 6 ~VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. TEST PIT: TP-5 PROJECT: Proposed Residential Development CLIENT: Curt Gibson PROJECT NO.: 20-178-P PROJECT LOCATION: SW Corner of Hillside Drive and Park Drive. Carlsbad Date Excavated: 7/24/20 Bucket Size: 24" Logged By: SJM Equipment: John Deere 35G Mini-Excavator Contractor: Colonello Remarks: No cavinl!'.. No l!'.roundwater. u '11 "' Iii !::c;;-s:e:; ""o DEPTH it:, ..Ju, ~! Oi:; u MATERIAL DESCRIPTION .... i=--!j-(ft) "-o :"e>-::5'"~ ~,..J <I) ~~ Z-ti! C, ::i <I-00 ;!~ t:) "' ::;:u Q c< ·-:":,· ;,: . '•, :::-.... , .. Topsoil: -/.· .. -::: ::,: ~:= ~~_:: . Silty fine sand. Brown color. Dry. Very loose. ST-1 -1 -_., >: :·? -·.·.· .... ,. ,' ·.••:,• '· . :· }-:: _., ·:,:·; ~ -.... ·. ·•' . SM ·.•. 'r•••,, :_-· .--_ ...... ,_-. -~--~::·:--2-:,.:·-~ ·,•·:,• ,',· ,:-_ ...... '-,:_~ ·(·_ -;, . ,' . -. ·.' .~:: ','. ,:_~_.. -~·: \} ,-3 .. ~. ~ ............ .... ,,., I 4 108.6 92 24 H • •--••••♦ , .. , .. ............ Old Paralic Deposti {0op2-4}: .. '. ~-.. ····-·--~---. ............ ...... .... -·-····••rO• .... , ..... Sandstone. Fine grained. Brown/red brown color. Dry . ....... ' .... -4-••·••···· .. ,, Weathered friable. Massive. Blocky. Medium dense to dense. ····•··· ... ---········· .. , ... , ..... ST-I ············· ' .... ... ,_ . .......... --.•. -. ·•• .. ............ ·••···•····· ............ ............ -5-... ; .. , ..... T ··········· Moist at 5 feet. Dense. II l02.6 87 55 ............. ··•··•••t<•• ............. . ·••·• --~-.... ............ -·::::::.·::::. ·····•······ ........... M ... ,,,0.ooo SP -6-............ -········ .. ............ ... .... ... .. ,,; ....... ~---··· ..... ........... , ,_ -~.·.·::.·:::,·::. ~•••••••o" ········-··· , ........... Moist. -······••·••· Running sand from ±6-7.5 feet. Local horizonatal -1-······•-•·••· ............ bedding along dark-colored seams. Tight. Generally ............ ...... ···•· cohesionless . ........ •·· .. , ......... -. :·::·::::::: ............ .... ....... ·······•····· .... ... ········-•·· ,-8 -... " ... Moderately cemented and blocky at 8 feet. Moist. Dense. I -•··-•······ 14 104,4 89 73 ............ ........... . .. -~." .... ............ ...... , ..... Bottom of test pit at 8.5 feet. ■ BULK □ CHUNK ~ DENSITY 'SL GROUND SAMPLE SAMPLE TEST -WATER PLATE 7 Pertinent Geologic Deposits GEOLOGIC MAP SW Corner of Hillside Drive and Park Drive Carlsbad North~ Scale 1 :50,000 D Old Paralic Deposits Units 2-4 (Late to Middle Pleistocene): Brown/red brown sandstone (site specific) Santiago Fonnation (Middle Eocene) Excerpt From the Geologic Map of the San Diego 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California, Michael P. Kennedy and Siang S. Tan, 2008. Plate 8 V &M Job #20-178-P 80 60 [ GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTIONS] SCALE;= 20' I& Fe /&Q fl I --------.---.==----. --- 1 PROPOSED I DWELLING t / _.? );.---""--'" / ,,., -•. ? ~~ ··~ ,. ,_ .-•-· ~---./·· ,TOPSOIL ❖, ~ ~? _;__;---.' PROPOSED FLATWORK -------PROPOSED GRADE: (APPROX.) I ROADPII.L 4R.f) ~-· lilLLSIDE DR. _!__L_80 OLD PARALIC DEPOSIT [Qop2-4} 60 ----=------r PROPOSED DWELLING 183 fP so~ I l w 183a . . ---PROPO~!P GRADE (APPROX.) -----------------I I '":~"' ""! a,_ .. -. --~ . . ------~? • ...____ ~-♦ ♦ ----... ' .,, ' • . . '? • -----=----:·'--? ··-• ,._, r" '"ro'·'PSQ'IL " ;;,, .. ~-,,, c"',·. :•~-~ -__ _,___· .:_-__ .c--7 ~ . 60 60 OLD PARALIC DEPOSIT [Qop2-4} . 40 40 [ PLATE 9 ] V&M JOB #20-178-P FAULT-EPICENTER MAP SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGION Indicated Events Through a 200 Year Period N Approx. Scale: 1" = 50 Miles EPICENTER MAP LEGEND [ ] 'I! C, :I Po1i;,tt 1800· 18ti9 19J2 1e68 1931 1999 ~7.0 ---65 60 • • • 60-64 • • • 5.5-59 • • • 50-54 • • • Hl"1QnCIII FnLJ!ttng Holoccmo Falt.ling Highways jl,la,<>11 llighw11ys (Mlno1j Lnklls T • lnsl l't.<> d;glts or M ;, 6.5 e~11tquaka year Map is reproduced from California Division of Mines and Geology, "Epicenters of/ and Areas Damaged by M ::: 5 California Earthquakes, 1800-1993 . Plate 10 V &M Job #20-178-P National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette SW Comer of Hillside Drive & Park Drivet Carlsbad s,uw,ru,ool IIAZARDMEA!i lmtEII AR£A5 Of R.000 HAZARD Legend ----lllftl ........ ,. ... _ _,,_lleplll_AI. ............ ......,.,__ ~-a..----o11•-----. daf,ltl ..,_,_ a,.. -,._.., dnll'II .. --olloulhonano._,.,.,.._, ru,,,,. Condi-11' -· CbaftCII F'load Ha.latfd .ta. I An:• wllll Roduczd Acmd Rbk due,_ le¥N.5N--• ---Rilllcluolll1-,-o b ..... o1 .. ____ , Ellllct,_Lll_ cmtERAR£AS An:aolU----• GENERAL a-tlld.C>ftcrt.atS-- S1Rll!C1\IRES i.-, m. ... - 1 a2 Oou5oalanswlth1•Ann"'1Chanco .....lL1 Wllllr SUrf ai:c Eklvlltlon ~ --Comal 1'nnla:t -~•-a....FIDDd~U...(BFE) =um11o1sa,11J ---ao..-, --~ITrmscdS-lno DTHER ---lllndlnct FEATIIRES __ 11,o>os,DPl,lc l'cotUNI MAPPANn.5 11,o pin ~don lhD 11111p II an -limala polntlclodcd 11J lhD uur and don lllll 1q11111an an-lllllaaw ~IDc,iUon. -·· -,3 FEMA , .. Plate 11 V &M Job #20-178-P 7 TSUNAMI INUNDATION MAP Map Legend Tsunami Inundation Line Tsunami Inundation Area • ,,.· ' .r101£cr ~ !iJT£ ' .... ,--i;.,v~, r ~ ' ' \ ' ,, \ L. , ' I \. \ \ ' , l . ' . , • I -.. -,: ' \ \ JV l * Scale: 1:12,000 Excerpt from the Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Oceanside Quadrangle/San Luis Rey Quadrangle, June 1, 2009. Plate 12 V &M Job #20-178-P ISOLATION JOINTS & RE-ENTRANT CORNER REINFORCEMENT (A) RE-ENTRANT CORNER REINFORCEMENT-----._ No. 4 BARS PLACED AT l.S" BELOW TOP OF SLAB NOTES: Typical -No Scale (B) (C) I. Isolation joints around the columns should be either circular as shown in (A) or diamond shaped as shown in (B). If no isolation joints are used around comlumns, or if comers of the isolation joints do no meet the contraction joints, radial cracking as shown in (C) may occur (Reference ACI). 2. In order to control cracking at the re-entrant comers (±_270° comers), provide reinforcement as shown in (C). 3. Re-entrant coner reinforcement shown is provided as a general guideline only and is subject to verification and changes by the project architect or structural engineer based upon slab geometry, location, and other engineering and construction factors. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 Auto Perle Way Escondido, California 92029 760-743-1214 vinjc.middlcton@sbcglobal.net PLATE 13 V &M Job #20-178-P July201a RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL Typical -No Scale Waterproofing Drain e----- :::-:-:-:-:-:-:-·.-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:f?·:i:::· 11 111 11 :::::: ·. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::.\ ·:: ' ----::-:: .-.-:-or.rnii1iu-;-~ori.:J;~pArishie-:-:-· ,----·.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-0ac-.:-m1;.-r.,,-.. 'acted-:::. ----.......•..... ,ff.. . ·"'· .l'JIP.... . . . . I f.4+.:~:?:'.'.::::\:::::~:r::::::::-::: ,~ -.-, I I 1-1 I vvvvvvv vvvvvvv vvvvv --~-Filter material. Crushed rock (wrapped in filter fabric) or Class 2 Penneable. (See specifications below) -·11 I SPECIFICATIONS FOR CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (68-1.025) SIEVE SIZE % PASSING 1" .............................. 100 ¾" ............................. 90-100 ¾" ............................. 40-100 No. 4 ............................ 25-40 No. 8 ............................ 18-33 No. 30 ·····················--···· 5-15 Approved Compacted Soil or Competent Natural Material No. 50 ........................... 0-7 No. 200 ......................... 0-3 Sand Equivalent> 75 CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS: I. Provide granular, non-expansive backfill in a 1: I gradient wedge behind the wall. Compact backfill to minimum 90% of laboratory standard. 2. Provide back drainage for wall to prevent build-up of hydrostatic pressures. Use drainage openings along base of wall or back drain system as outlined below. 3. Backdrain should consist of 411 diameter PVC pipe (Sch. 40 or equivalent) with perforations down. Drain to suitable outlet at a minimum 1 % fall. Provide ¾ 11 to½ 11 crushed rock filter wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent). Delete filter fabric if Caltrans Class 2 Permeable material is used. Compact Permeable Class 2 to minimum 90% of laboratory standard. 4. Seal back of wall with waterproofing in accordance with the architects specifications. 5. Provide positive drainage to disallow ponding of water above wall. A lined drainage ditch with a minimum 2% flow away from wall is recommended. * Use l ½ cubic foot per foot crushed rock with granular soil and 4 cubic foot per foot if expansive soil is present. VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC. 2450 Auto Park Woy Escondido, Colifomio 92029 760-743-1214 vinje.middleton@sbcglobol.net PLATE14 V &M Job #20-178-P Satember2018 Attachment A 7/27/2020 U.S. Seismic Design Maps OS HPD 20-178-P SW Corner of Hillside Drive & Park Drive, Carlsbad Latitude, Longitude: 33.1501, -117 .3264 9 California WaterSports Go gle Date Design Code Reference Document Risk Category Site Class Type Value Ss 1.043 S1 0.378 St,15 1.129 SM1 null-See Section 11.4.8 Sos 0,753 So1 null -See Section 11.4.8 Pacifica House 9 ii, iii g 'O 0: -'S iii .c: u c:, Qj CI) 7127/2020, 2:59:44 PM ASCE7-16 II O-Stlff Soll Da11criptlon MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period) MCER ground motion. (ror 1.0s period) Site-modified spectral acceleration value Sile-modified spectral acceleration value Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA Type Value Description soc null -See Section 11.4.8 Fa 1.083 Fv null -See Section 11.4.8 PGA 0.459 FPGA 1.141 PGA,.. 0.523 TL 8 SsRT 1.043 SsUH 1.165 SsD 1.5 S1RT 0.378 S1UH 0.417 S10 0.6 PGAd 0.534 CRs 0.895 CR1 0.907 https:1/selsmlcmaps.org Seismic design category Site amplification factor al 0.2 second Site amplification factor al 1.0 second MCE6 peak ground acceleratlon Site amplificatlon factor at PGA Site modified peak ground acceleration Long-period transition period in seconds Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second) Factored uniform-hazard (2% probablllty of exceedance In 50 years) spectral acceleration Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second) Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second) Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of e,cceedance In 50 years) spectral acceleration. Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1,0 second) Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration) Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods Mapped value of the risk coefficient al a period of 1 s 112