HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS 16-01; PACIFIC WIND; PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT CARLSBAD APARTMENTS; 2014-07-31LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Soi! Engineering • Geology • Environmental
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CARLSBAD APARTMENTS
APN's 204-292-01, -02, -10 THROUGH -14, -16 THROUGH -22,
204-291-14, -16, -17, AND -19 THROUGH -27
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 33090.1
JULY 31, 2014
Prepared For:
Harding Street Neighbors
14211 Yorba Street, Suite 200
Orange, California 92780
Attention: Mr. Todd Cottle
6121 Quail Valley Court .._ Riverside, CA 92507 .._ (951) 653-1760 .._ (951) 653-1741 (Fax) .._ www.lorgeo.com
19-438 Ruppert Street .._ P.O. Box 580799 .._ N. Palm Springs, CA 92258 .._ (760) 329-2727 .._ (760) 329-2626 (Fax)
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Soil Engineering ..A Geology ..A Environmental
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
14211 Yorba Street, Suite 200
Orange, California 92780
Attention: Mr. Todd Cottle
July 31, 2014
Project No. 33090.1
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Multi-Family Residential
Project, Carlsbad Apartments, APN's 204-292-01, -02, -10 through -14,
-16 through -22, 204-291 14, -16, 17, and -19 through-27, Carlsbad,
California.
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc., is pleased to present this report summarizing our
geotechnical investigation for the subject project. In summary, it is our opinion that
the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical perspective, provided the
recommendations presented in the attached report are incorporated into design and
construction.
The project site is underlain by surficial loose to medium dense alluvial materials with
minor amounts of fill soils present locally. It is our opinion that existing fill materials
and upper loose to medium dense alluvial soils will not provide uniform and/or
adequate support for the proposed development. Thus, we recommend a compacted
fill mat be constructed beneath footings and slabs. The fill mat should be a minimum
of 24 inches thick below the bottom of the footings. The construction of this
compacted fill m_at will allow for the removal of the existing, uncontrolled fills and
upper loose alluvium. Removals on the order of 3 to 5 feet are anticipated to be
required within proposed structural areas of the site.
Very low to low expansion potential, moderate R-value quality, poor to good
infiltration, and negligible soluble sulfate content generally characterize the onsite
soils.
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.
6121 Quail Valley Court _.. Riverside, CA 92507 _.. (951) 653-1760 _.. (951) 653-1741 (Fax) _.. www.lorgeo.com
19-438 Ruppert Street _.. P.O. Box 580799 _.. N. Palm Springs, CA 92258 _.. (760) 329-2727 _.. (760) 329-2626 (Fax)
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS .................................... 1
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS .................................... 2
SUBSURFACE FIELD INVESTIGATION .............................. 2
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM ................................ 3
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ....................................... 3
Regional Geologic Setting .................................. 3
Site Geologic Conditions ................................... 4
Surficial Deposits ........................................ 4
Fill .............................................. 4
Alluvium .......................................... 4
Groundwater Hydrology .................................... 4
Mass Movement ......................................... 5
Faulting ............................................... 5
Historical Seismicity ...................................... 6
Secondary Seismic Hazards ................................. 7
Liquet action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Seiches/Tsunamis ................................... 8
Flooding (Water Storage Facility Failure) .................... 8
Seismically-Induced Landsliding .......................... 8
Rockfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Seismically-Induced Settlement .......................... 8
SOILS AND SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA (California Building Code 2013) ...... 8
CBC Earthquake Design Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
PERCOLATION TESTING PROGRAM ............................... 9
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Soil Expansiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Geologic Mitigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Seismicity ............................................ 11
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
General Site Grading ..................................... 12
Initial Site Preparation .................................... 13
Preparation of Fill Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
Preparation of Building Pad Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3
Engineered Compacted Fill ................................. 14
Short-Term Excavations ................................... 15
Slope Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5
Slope Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5
Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6
Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7
Building Pad Slab-On-Grade Design ........................... 17
Exterior Flatwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8
Wall Pressures ......................................... 18
Preliminary Pavement Design ............................... 20
Sulfate Protection ....................................... 21
Infiltration ............................................ 21
Construction Monitoring .................................. 22
LIMITATIONS .............................................. 22
TIME LIMITATIONS 23
CLOSURE ................................................. 24
REFERENCES ............................................... 25
APPENDICES
Appendix A -Index Map, Conceptual Site Plan, Site Plan, Regional Geologic Map,
Partial Description of Geologic Units and Historical Seismicity Maps
Appendix B -Field Investigation Program and Boring Logs
Appendix C -Laboratory Testing Program and Test Results
Appendix D -Liquefaction Analysis
Appendix E -Infiltration Test Results
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July31,2014
INTRODUCTION
Project No. 33090.1
During July of 2013, a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation was performed by LOR
Geotechnical Group, Inc., for the proposed multi-family residential development of
APN' s 204-292-01, -02, -10 through -14, -16 through -22, 204-291-14, -16, -17, and
-19 through -27 generally located along Harding Street between Magnolia Avenue and
Carol Place in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purpose of this investigation was
to provide a technical evaluation of the geologic setting of the site and to provide
geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed development. The scope of
our services included:
• Review of available geotechnical literature, reports, maps, and agency
information pertinent to the study area;
• Geologic field reconnaissance mapping to verify the areal distribution of earth
units and significance of surficial features as compiled from documents,
literature, and reports reviewed;
• A subsurface field investigation to determine the physical soil conditions
pertinent to the proposed development;
• Infiltration feasibility testing;
• Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained during the field
investigation;
• Development of geotechnical recommendations for site grading and foundation
design; and
• Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, and providing conclusions
and recommendations for site development.
The approximate location of the site is shown on the attached Index Map, Enclosure
A-1 within Appendix A.
PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
To orient our investigation at the site, a conceptual site plan was furnished for our
use. The proposed building configurations and associated driveway, parking, and
landscape areas are indicated on this plan. To orient our field investigation, an aerial
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July31,2014
Project No. 33090.1
photograph image of the site was used. The site plan and aerial photograph area
presented as Enclosures A-2 and A-3, respectively, within Appendix A.
As noted on the conceptual site plan, the subject site is proposed to be developed
with several two story multi-family residential structures with the remainder used for
driveways, parking, and landscape areas. The buildings are anticipated to be of wood
frame and stucco, masonry, or similar type construction. Moderate foundation loads
are anticipated with the proposed structures.
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
At the time of our investigation, the site consisted of numerous parcels of land each
containing duplex residences and a paved residential roadway, Harding Street which
trends southerly through the approximate central portion of the site to the southern
boundary of the site where it turns westerly, becoming Carol Place and exiting the site
in the southwest corner. One notable exception was APN 204-292-16 which
consisted of a vacant lot within the northeast corner of the site, adjacent to Interstate
5. The topography of the site is essentially a flat plain with a very slight slope to the
west.
The site is bounded by both multi-family and single-family residential properties and
an elementary school on the west, commercial properties on the south, both multi-
family and single-family residential developments on the north, and Interstate 5
freeway on the east.
SUBSURFACE FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our subsurface field exploration program was conducted on July 8, 2014. The work
consisted of advancing a total of four exploratory borings using a truck mounted drill
rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow stem augers. The approximate locations of
our exploratory borings are presented on Enclosure A-3, within Appendix A.
The subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings were logged by a
geologist from this firm. The borings were drilled to a maximum depth of
approximately 51 feet below the existing ground surface. Relatively undisturbed and
bulk samples were obtained at a maximum depth interval of 5 feet and returned to our
geotechnical laboratory in sealed containers for further testing and evaluation.
2
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July31,2014
Project No. 33090.1
A detailed description of the subsurface field exploration program and the boring logs
is presented in Appendix B.
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Selected soil samples obtained during the field investigation were subjected to
geotechnical laboratory testing to evaluate their physical and engineering properties.
Laboratory testing included moisture content, dry density, laboratory compaction,
direct shear, sieve analysis, sand equivalent, R-Value, expansion index, and soluble
sulfate content. A detailed description of the geotechnical laboratory testing program
and the test results are presented in Appendix C.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Regional Geologic Setting
The subject site is located within the Peninsular Ranges geologic province of southern
California. The province is composed of a series of small northwest trending mountain
ranges and intervening valleys lying along the coast of southern California from south
of the Los Angeles basin into Baja California. These ranges are composed of crystalline
igneous rocks and marine sedimentary rocks with some metamorphic pendant units.
Major faults within the Peninsular Ranges geologic province include, from east to
west, the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, and the Rose Canyon fault. The San
Jacinto fault lies near the eastern portion of the province, with the Elsinore fault lying
near the center, and the Rose Canyon fault running along the western portion. All of
these faults trend roughly parallel to the trend of the ranges, or to the northwest.
The nearest known active earthquake fault is the Rose Canyon fault which lies
approximately 3.6 kilometers (2.2 miles) to the west-southwest. Other active
earthquake faults in the region include the Elsinore fault located approximately 39
kilometers (24 miles) to the northeast, and the San Jacinto fault located approximately
75 kilometers (4 7 miles) to the northeast.
The geologic conditions of the site and immediate surrounding region as mapped by
Kennedy and Tan (2005) are shown on the Regional Geologic Map, Enclosure A-4,
within Appendix A. A partial description of the geologic units shown is shown on
3
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July31,2014
Project No. 33090.1
Enclosure A-5. As shown on this map, the site is underlain by old marine and
continental deposits.
Site Geologic Conditions
As observed during this investigation, the subject site contains minor amounts of
uncontrolled fill overlying native alluvial materials. These units are described in further
detail in the following sections:
Surficial Deposits
Fill: Minor amounts of surficial fill soil materials were noted to be present at the site
primarily associated with current development of those areas of the site. These soils
consist of silty sand which was brown in color, dry to moist, and in a loose state.
These soils were noted to be on the order of approximately 1 to 2 feet in thickness.
However, based on current site usage, deeper fills locally may be present primarily
associated with the current structures, roadways, and underground utilities.
Alluvium: Beneath the thin surficial fill materials discussed above, natural alluvial
deposits were encountered. These materials generally consist of silty sand, clayey
sand, some poorly graded sand, and minor sandy silt, well graded sand, and lean clay
with sand. In general, the alluvial materials were reddish-brown to yellowish-brown in
color within the upper portions becoming lighter, gray to white, with depth. These
materials were found to be dry to moist within the upper approximately 20 feet
becoming moist to saturated beneath. Based on our in-place density testing and
equivalent SPT blow counts, the alluvium is in a medium dense state becoming dense
to very dense quickly with depth. Refusal was not experienced during our drilling.
A detailed description of the subsurface soil conditions as encountered within our
exploratory borings is presented on the Boring Logs within Appendix B.
Groundwater Hydrology
Groundwater was encountered within our deeper boring (B-1) at a depth of
approximately 21 feet below the existing ground surface. In order to estimate the
approximate depth to groundwater in this area, a search was conducted for water
wells on both the California Department of Water Resources and U.S.G.S. National
4
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July31,2014
Project No. 33090.1
Water Information System online databases. No wells were indicated in the nearby site
region for either database. We contacted the Vallecitos Water District, the water
supplier for the site and surrounding area, for groundwater information in the region
surrounding the site. They indicated that they do not keep well records.
Mass Movement
The site lies on a relatively flat surface. The occurrence of mass movement failures
such as landslides, rockfalls, or debris flows within such areas is generally not
considered common and no evidence of mass movement was observed on the site.
Faulting
There are no known active faults at or projecting into the site. The subject site does
not lie within a current State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart and Bryant,
1997).
The closest known active earthquake fault is the Rose Canyon fault which lies
approximately 3.6 kilometers (2.2 miles) to the west-southwest. Other active
earthquake faults in the region include the Elsinore fault located approximately 39
kilometers (24 miles) to the northeast, and the San Jacinto fault located approximately
75 kilometers (47 miles) to the northeast.
The Rose Canyon fault is right lateral strike slip fault. While estimates vary, the Rose
Canyon fault is generally thought to have an average slip rate on the order of
1.5mm/yr and capable of generating large magnitude events on the order of 7.2.
The Elsinore fault zone is one of the largest in southern California. At its northern end
it splays into two segments and at its southerY1 end it is cut by the Yuba Wells fault.
The primary sense of slip along the Elsinore fault is right lateral strike-slip. It is
believed that the Elsinore fault zone is capable of producing an earthquake magnitude
on the order of 6.5 to 7 .5.
The San Jacinto fault zone is a sub-parallel branch of the San Andreas fault zone,
extending from the northwestern San Bernardino area, southward into the El Centro
region. This fault has been active in recent times with several large magnitude events.
5
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July31,2014
Project No. 33090.1
It is believed that the San Jacinto fault is capable of producing an earthquake
magnitude on the order of 6.5 or larger.
Current standards of practice have included a discussion of all potential earthquake
sources within a 100 kilometer (62 mile) radius. However, while there are other large
earthquake faults within a 100 kilometer {62-mile) radius of the site, none of these are
considered as relevant to the site as the faults described above due to their greater
distance and/or smaller anticipated magnitudes.
Historical Seismicity
In order to obtain a general perspective of the historical seismicity of the site and
surrounding region, a search was conducted for seismic events at and around the area
within various radii. This search was conducted utilizing the historical seismic search
program by EPI Software, Inc. (Reeder, 2000). This program conducts a search of a
user selected cataloged seismic events database, within a specified radius and
selected magnitudes, and then plots the events onto an overlay map of known faults.
For this investigation the database of seismic events utilized by the EPI program was
obtained from the Southern California Seismic Network {SCSN) available from the
Southern California Earthquake Center. At the time of our search the data base
contained data from January 1, 1932 through December 31, 2010.
In our first search, the general seismicity of the region was analyzed by selecting an
epicenter map listing all events of magnitude 4.0 and greater, recorded since 1932,
within a 100 kilometer (62 mile)radius of the site, in accordance with guidelines of the
California Division of Mines and Geology. This map illustrates the regional seismic
history of moderate to large events. As depicted on Enclosure A-6, within Appendix
A, the site lies within a relatively quiet region. The closest was a magnitude 4.0
located approximately 43 kilometers (27 miles) south of the site.
In the second search, the micro seismicity of the area lying within a 10 kilometer (9.2
miles) radius of the site was examined by selecting an epicenter map listing events on
the order o·f 1.0 and greater since 1978. In addition, only the "A" events, or most
accurate events were selected. Caltech indicates the accuracy of the "A" events to
be approximately 1 kilometer. The results of this search is a map that presents the
seismic history around the area of the site with much greater detail, not permitted on
the larger map. The reason for limiting the events to the last 35 ± years on the detail
6
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31, 2014
Project No. 33090.1
map is to enhance the accuracy of the map. Events recorded prior the mid 1970's are
generally considered to be less accurate due to advancements in technology. As
depicted on this map, Enclosure A-7, numerous events are scattered in the general
area, primarily to the southeast.
In summary, the historical seismicity of the site entails numerous small to medium
magnitude earthquake events occurring in the region around the subject site. Any
future developments at the subject site should anticipate that moderate to large
seismic events could occur very near the site.
Secondary Seismic Hazards
Other secondary seismic hazards generally associated with severe ground shaking
during an earthquake include liquefaction, seismic-induced settlement, seiches and
tsunamis, earthquake induced flooding, landsliding, and rockfalls.
Liquefaction: The potential for liquefaction generally occurs during strong ground
shaking within granular loose sediments where the groundwater is usually less than
50 feet. As noted during our field investigation, the site is underlain by alluvial
materials which are in a medium dense to dense in-place condition. In addition,
groundwater was recorded at the site at a depth of 21 feet. Given that there is a
potential for a strong ground motion seismic event to occur during the lifetime of the
proposed development and given the conditions, the susceptibility of the site soils to
liquefaction was assessed by means of the computer program LIOUEFY2 (Blake,
1998). This assessment was conducted using our deepest SPT boring log for the site,
field blow counts, and laboratory soil data. The evaluation was performed in general
accordance with the Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in
California, Special Publication 117 A (California Geological Survey, 2008).
The liquefaction calculations were performed using an earthquake ground motion at
the site of 0.318g caused by a 7 .2 magnitude seismic event and a groundwater level
of 21 feet below the existing ground surface.
The analysis found that subsoils below a depth of 21 feet at the site are dense enough
to prevent liquefaction. Therefore, the risk for soil liquefaction at the project is
considered nil to very low. The results of the computer program analysis utilizing
Liquefy2 are presented in Appendix D.
7
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31, 2014
Project No. 33090.1
Seiches/Tsunamis: The site lies within two to three thousand feet of the Agua
Hadionda Lagoon and Pacific Ocean, respectively. The elevation of the site is
approximately 65 feet above mean sea level as noted on Enclosure A-1. According to
the Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Purposes, the site does not lie
within a Tsunami inundation area (CGS, 2009). Based on the site elevation and
previous mapping by the CGS, the potential for the site to be affected by a seiche or
tsunami (earthquake generated wave) is considered nil.
Flooding (Water Storage Facility Failure): There are no large water storage facilities
located on or near the site which could possibly rupture during in earthquake and
affect the site by flooding.
Seismically-Induced Landsliding: Due to the low relief of the site and surrounding
region, the potential for landslides to occur at the site is considered nil.
Rockfalls: No large, exposed, loose or unrooted boulders are present above the site
that could affect the integrity of the site.
Seismically-Induced Settlement: Settlement generally occurs within areas of loose,
granular soils with relatively low density. Since the site is underlain by medium dense
to very dense alluvial soils, the potential for settlement is considered very low. In
addition, the recommended earthwork operations to be conducted during the
development of the site should mitigate any near surface loose soil conditions.
SOILS AND SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA (California Building Code 2013}
Section 1613 of Chapter 16 of the 2013 California Building Code {CBC) contains the
procedures and definitions for the calculations of the earthquake loads on structures
and non structural components that are permanently attached to structures and their
supports and attachments.
It should be noted that the classification of use and occupancy of all proposed
structures at the site, and thus design requirements, shall be the responsibility of the
structural engineer and the building official.
8
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July31,2014
Project No. 33090.1
CBC Earthquake Design Summary
The following earthquake design criteria have been formulated for the site utilizing the
source referenced above.
However, these values should be reviewed by the building official (Risk Category) and
structural engineer and the final design should be performed by a qualified structural
engineer familiar with the region.
CBC 2013 SEISMIC DESIGN SUMMARY
Site Locati9n (USGS WGS84) 34.0202, -117.0487, Risk Category ll
Site Class Definition (Table 1613.3.1 ( 1 )) D
s. Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, (Figure 1613.3.1 (2)) 1.144
S1 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, (Figure 1613.3.3( 11 )) 0.439
Fa Short Period Site Coefficient at 0.2s Period, (Table 1613.3.3(11)) 1.042
Fv Long Period Site Coefficient at 1s Period,(Table 1613.3.3(2)) 1.561
SMs Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period, (eq . 16-37) 1.192
SM1Adjusted Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, (eq . 16-38) 1.685
S08 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2s Period,(eq .16-.39) 0.795
S01 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 s Period, ( eq . 16-40) 0.457
Seismic Design Category-Short Period (Table 1613.3.5(1)) D
Seismic Design Category Long Period (Table 1613.3.5(2)) D
PERCOLATION TESTING PROGRAM
Percolation testing was conducted in the general locations of proposed infiltration
areas. For our testing, test holes were excavated to an approximate depth of 3 feet
and were 6-inches in diameter. Two inches of gravel was placed in the bottom of each
hole and perforated plastic liners were inserted. Additional gravel was placed on the
outside and top of the liner prevent caving. A five gallon bottle of water was inverted
over each test hole with a vacuum seal to provide a 6-inch constant head and the
change in the volume of water was monitored over time. Measurements of the time
for the water level to drop a given amount were taken.
9
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31, 2014
Project No. 33090.1
Infiltration test results are summarized in the following table. For the detailed field
data, see the enclosed test data sheets within Appendix E.
TABLE OF INFILTRATION TEST RES UL TS*
Test No. Clear Water Percolation Rate Infiltration Rate
Gal/Sf/Day In/Hr
P-1 190 12. 7
P-2 10.7 0.7
* average of final two readings
The clear water percolation rates obtained in our test locations ranged from 0. 7 to
12. 7 inches per hour. The actual test results are provided on the attached data sheets,
within Appendix D.
The borings placed during this evaluation indicate that the subsurface soils at the site
generally consist of silty sand with occasional clay within the upper 5 to 10 feet. Our
percolation test data indicates poor to good absorption characteristics of the
subsurface soils with a clear water absorption rate ranging from 0. 7 to over 12 inches
per hour. An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the rate for storm water.
A typical factor of safety for such is 2.0 to 3.0.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of our field investigation and testing program, it is the opinion of LOR
Geotechnical Group, Inc. that the proposed development is feasible from a soil
engineering standpoint, provided the recommendations presented in this report are
incorporated into design and implemented during grading and construction.
Based upon the field investigation and test data, it is our opinion that the upper
portions of the alluvial soils, including the minor existing surficial fill materials, will not,
in their present conditions, provide uniform and/or adequate support for the proposed
structures. Our in-place density results indicated variable conditions of the upper
portions of the alluvial materials ranging from loose to medium dense states. Left as
is, this condition could cause unacceptable differential and/or overall settlements upon
application of the anticipated foundation loads.
10
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31 , 2014
Project No. 33090.1
To provide adequate support for the proposed structures, we recommend a compacted
fill mat be constructed beneath footings and slabs. This compacted fill mat will provide
a dense, high-strength soil layer to uniformly distribute the anticipated foundation
loads over the underlying soils. In addition, the construction of this compacted fill mat
will allow for the removal of the existing fills and the loose alluvial soil within the
building pad areas.
Soil Expansiveness
As noted by our subsurface explorations and laboratory testing, the site surficial soils
primarily consist of silty sand with a very low expansion potential. Therefore,
specialized construction procedures to specifically resist expansive soil activity are not
anticipated at this time However, some clayey materials with anticipated low
expansion were noted at depth. Should such materials become more prevalent under
proposed foundations and slabs, measures will be necessary to mitigate the effects
of expansive soils. These measures are described in the Foundation Design, Building
Area Slab-on-Grade, and Exterior Flatwork sections of this report. Careful evaluation
of on-site soils and any import fill for their expansion potential should be conducted
during the grading operation.
Geologic Mitigations
No special geologic mitigation methods are deemed necessary at this time, other than
the geotechnical recommendations provided in the following sections.
Seismicity
Seismic ground rupture is generally considered most likely to occur along pre-existing
active faults. Since no faults are known to exist at, or project into the site, the
probability of ground surface rupture occurring at the site is considered nil. ··
Due to the site's close proximity to the faults described above, it is reasonable to
expect a very strong ground motion seismic event to occur during the lifetime' of the
proposed development on the site. Large earthquakes could occur on other faults in
the general area, but because of their lesser anticipated magnitude and/or greater
distance, they are considered less significant than the fault zones discuss within from
a ground motion standpoint.
11
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31 , 2014
Project No. 33090.1
The effects of ground shaking anticipated at the subject site, should be mitigated by
the seismic design requirements and procedures outlined in Chapter 16 of the
California Building Code. However, it should be noted that the current building code
requires the minimum design to allow a structure to remain standing after a seismic
event, in order to allow for safe evacuation. A structure built to code may still sustain
damage which might ultimately result in the demolishing of the structure {Larson and
Slosson, 1992).
RECOMMENDATIONS
General Site Grading
It is imperative that no clearing and/or grading operations be performed without the
presence of a qualified geotechnical engineer. An on-site, pre-job meeting with the
developer, the contractor, the jurisdictional agency, and the geotechnical engineer
should occur prior to all grading related operations. Operations undertaken at the site
without the geotechnical engineer present may result in exclusion of affected areas
from the final compaction report for the project.
Grading of the subject site should be performed in accordance with the following
recommendations as well as applicable portions of the California Building Code, and/or
applicable local ordinances.
All areas to be graded should be stripped of significant vegetation and other
deleterious materials. Such materials may not be used as engineered fill.
All uncontrolled fill&. encountered during site preparation should be completely
removed, cleaned of significant deleterious materials, and may then be reused as
compacted fill. Minor amounts of uncontrolled fills were identified at the site during
this study and other areas of fill, including fills associated with the existing structures
and underground utilities at the site, are anticipated.
It is our recommendation that all existing uncontrolled and/or undocumented fills,
buried obstructions, foundations, etc., under any proposed flatwork and paved areas
should be removed and replaced with engineered compacted fill. If this is not done,
premature structural distress {settlement) of the flatwork and pavement may occur.
12
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31, 2014
Project No. 33090.1
Cavities created by removal of subsurface obstructions should be thoroughly cleaned
of loose soil, organic matter and other deleterious materials, shaped to provide access
for construction equipment, and backfilled as recommended in the following
Engineered Compacted Fill section of this report.
Initial Site Preparation
All existing uncontrolled fills and loose alluvial materials should be removed from
structural areas and areas to receive structural fills. The data developed during this
investigation indicates that removals on the order of 3 to 5 feet will be required to
encounter competent alluvium across the majority of the site. Localized areas requiring
deeper removals may be encountered locally. Competent alluvium is defined as damp,
relatively dense materials with a minimum relative compaction of 85 percent (ASTM
D 1557).
The actual depths of removal should be verified during the grading operation by
observation and in-place density testing.
Preparation of Fill Areas
After conducting the removals discussed above and prior to placing till, the surfaces
of all areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches. The
scarified soil should be brought to near optimum moisture content and recompacted
to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent (ASTM D 1557).
Preparation of Building Pad Areas
All footings should rest upon a minimum of 24 inches of properly compacted fill
material placed over competent alluvium. In areas where the required fill thickness is
not accomplished by the removal of the existing fill and loose alluvial materials and
site rough grading, the footing areas should be further subexcavated to a depth of at
least 24 inches below the proposed footing base grade, with the subexcavation
e·xtending at least 5 feet beyond the footing lines. Where deeper removals in excess
of 5 feet are required, these removals should extend laterally at a 1: 1 ratio. The
bottom of this excavation should then be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches,
brought to near optimum moisture content, and recompacted to at least 90 percent
13
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31, 2014
Project No. 33090.1
relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) prior to refilling the excavation to grade as
properly compacted fill.
The minimum fill thickness under any one structure should be at least one-third of the
maximum fill thickness.
To provide adequate support, concrete slabs-on-grade should bear on a minimum of
12 inches of compacted soil. During rough grading, the remedial removals
recommended above will most likely provide the recommended 1 2 inches of
compacted soil for adequate support of concrete slabs-on-grade. The final pad
surfaces should be rolled to provide smooth, dense surfaces upon which to place the
concrete.
Engineered Compacted Fill
The on-site soils should provide adequate quality fill material, provided they are free
from organic matter and other deleterious materials. Unless approved by the
geotechnical engineer, rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension
greater than 6-inches should not be buried or placed in fills.
Import fill, if utilized, should be inorganic, non-expansive granular soils free from rocks
or lumps greater than 6-inches in maximum dimension. Sources for import fill should
be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to their use.
Fill should be spread in maximum 8-inch loose lifts, each lift brought to near optimum
moisture content, and compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent in
accordance with ASTM D 1557.
Based upon the relative compaction of the near surface soils determined during this
investigation and the relative compaction anticipated for compacted fill soil, we
estimate a compaction shrinkage factor of approximately 10 to 15 percent. In
addition, we would anticipate subsidence of approximately 0.15 feet. These values
are for estimating purposes only, and are exclusive of losses due to stripping or the
removal of subsurface obstructions. These values may vary due to differing conditions
within the project boundaries and the limitations of this investigation. Shrinkage should
be monitored during construction. If percentages vary, provisions should be made to
revise final grades or adjust quantities of borrow or export.
14
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31, 2014
Project No. 33090.1
As noted before, some of the on-site soils beneath a depth of approximately 7 feet
may have a potential for expansion. Therefore, a careful evaluation of on-site and
imported soils for their expansion potential should be conducted during the grading
operation.
Short-Term Excavations
Following the California Occupational and Safety Health Act (CAL-OSHA)
requirements, excavations 5-feet deep and greater should be sloped or shored. All
excavations and shoring should conform to CAL-OSHA requirements.
Short-term excavations of 5-feet deep and greater shall conform to Title 8 of the
California Code of Regulations, Construction Safety Orders, Section 1504 and 1539
through 1547. Based on our exploratory borings, it appears that Type C soil is the
predominant type of soil on the project and all short-term excavations should be based
on this type of soil. Deviation from the standard short-term slopes are permitted using
Option 4, Design by a Registered Professional Engineer (Section 1541.1 ).
Short-term slope construction and maintenance are the responsibility of the contractor,
and should be a consideration of his methods of operation and the actual soil
conditions encountered.
Slope Construction
Preliminary data indicates that cut and fill slopes should be constructed no steeper
than two horizontal to one vertical. Fill slopes should be overfilled during construction
and then cut back to expose fully compacted soil. A suitable alternative would be to
compact the slopes during construction, then roll the final slopes to provide dense,
erosion-resistant surfaces.
Slope Protection
Since the native materials are susceptible to erosion by running water, measures
should be provided to prevent surface water from flowing over slope faces. Slopes at
the project should be planted with a deep rooted ground cover as soon as possible
after completion. The use of succulent ground covers such as iceplant or sedum is not
recommended. If watering is necessary to sustain plant growth on slopes, then the
15
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31, 2014
Project No. 33090.1
watering operation should be monitored to assure proper operation of the irrigation
system and to prevent over watering.
Foundation Design
If the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed buildings may be safely founded
on conventional foundation systems, either individual spread footings and/or
continuous wall footings, bearing on a minimum of 24 inches of engineered
compacted fill. Footings for one-and two-story buildings should have a minimum
width of 12 inches. Footings for three-story buildings should have a minimum width
of 15 inches. Foundations on low expansive soils should be established a minimum of
18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade.
For the minimum width of 12 inches and depth of 18 inches, footings may be
designed using a maximum soil bearing pressure of 1,800 pounds per square foot (psf)
for dead plus live loads. This value may be increased by 1 00 psf for each additional
foot of width and by 400 psf for each additional foot of depth, to a maximum of
4,000 psf. For example, a footing 3 feet wide and embedded 2 feet will have an
allowable bearing pressure of 2,400 psf.
The above values are net pressures; therefore, the weight of the foundations and the
backfill over the foundations may be neglected when computing dead loads. The
values apply to the maximum edge pressure for foundations subjected to eccentric
loads or overturning.· The recommended pressures apply for the total of dead plus
frequently applied live loads, and incorporate a factor of safety of at least 3.0. The
allowable bearing pressures may be increased by one-third for temporary wind or
seismic loading. The resultant of the combined vertical and lateral seismic loads should
act within the middle one-third of the footing width. The maximum calculated edge
pressure under the toe of foundations subjected to eccentric loads or overturning
should not exceed the increased allowable pressure.
Resistance to lateral loads will be provided by passive earth pressure and base friction.
For footings bearing against compacted fill, passive earth pressure may be considered
to be developed at a rate of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. Base
friction may be computed at 0.30 times the normal load. Base friction and passive
earth pressure may be combined without reduction.
16
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31, 2014
Project No. 33090.1
Footings on low expansive soils should be reinforced with a minimum of two # 4
rebars, one near the top and one near the bottom of the footings.
The preceding recommendations to counteract low expansive soil activity should be
considered minimum and should be revised upon the completion of the site grading.
More stringent parameters for design of foundations on expansive soils can be
specified by a structural engineer experienced in these matters.
Settlement
Total settlement of individual foundations will vary depending on the width of the
foundation and the actual load supported. Maximum settlement of shallow foundations
designed and constructed in accordance with the preceding recommendations are
estimated to be on the order of 0.5 inch. Differential settlement between adjacent
footings should be about one-half of the total settlement. Settlement of all
foundations is expected to occur rapidly, primarily as a result of elastic compression
of supporting soils as the loads are applied, and should be essentially completed
shortly after initial application of the loads.
Building Pad Slab-On-Grade Design
Slabs to receive moisture-sensitive coverings should be provided with a moisture vapor
barrier. This barrier may consist of an impermeable membrane. Two inches of sand
over the membrane will reduce punctures and aid in obtaining a satisfactory concrete
cure. The sand should be moistened just prior to placing of concrete.
The slabs should be protected from rapid and excessive moisture loss which could
result in slab curling. Careful attention should be given to slab curing procedures, as
the site area is subject to large temperature extremes, humidity, and strong winds.
Should low expansive soils be encountered or found to exist under slab areas, these
areas should be properly pre-soaked prior to pouring concrete. For this condition, slab
areas should be pre-soaked to approximately 2 to 4 percent above the optimum
moisture content to a minimum depth of 18 inches. Unless more stringent parameters
are given by the structural engineer experienced on expansive soil design, the slab
thickness should be a minimum of 4 inches. Minimum slab reinforcement should
consist of #3 rebars placed at a maximum spacing of 18 inches on center, each way.
17
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31 , 2014
Project No. 33090.1
The preceding recommendations to counteract low expansive soil activity should be
considered minimum and are subject to the review and approval of the project
structural engineer. These recommendations should be also revised upon the
completion of the site grading.
Exterior Flatwork
To provide adequate support, exterior flatwork improvements should rest on a
minimum of 12 inches of soil compacted to at least 90 percent (ASTM D 1557).
If low expansive soils are present under flatwork areas, these areas should be pre-
soaked prior to pouring concrete to a minimum depth of 18 inches and to
approximately 2 to 4 percent above the optimum moisture content. All sidewalks,
patio slabs, and driveways with a minimum dimension greater than 5 feet, should be
reinforced with #3 re bars placed at a maximum spacing of 18 inches on center, each
way. Reinforcement for curbing should be one continuous #4 rebar at top and bottom.
In addition, it is recommended that sidewalks, patio slabs, curbs, etc., have a
thickness of at least 4 inches, with saw cuts every 10 feet or less. Driveways should
be at least 6 inches thick, with saw cuts every 15 feet or less.
Flatwork surface should be sloped a minimum of 1 percent away from buildings and
slopes, to approved drainage structures.
Again, the recommendations given to counteract low expansive soil activity should be
considered minimum and should be revised upon the completion of the site grading.
Wall Pressures
The design of footings for retaining structures should be performed in accordance with
the recommendations described earlier under Preparation of Building Pad Areas and
Foundation Design. For design of retaining wall footings, the resultant of the applied
loads should act in the middle one-third of the footing, and the. maximum edge
pressure should not exceed the basic allowable value without increase.
For design of retaining walls unrestrained against movement at the top, we
recommend an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) be used. This
assumes level backfill consisting of recompacted, non-expansive, native soils placed
18
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31, 2014
Project No. 33090.1
against the structures and within the back cut slope extending upward from the base
of the stem at 35 degrees from the vertical or flatter.
Retaining structures subject to uniform surcharge loads within a horizontal distance
behind the structures equal to the structural height should be designed to resist
additional lateral loads equal to 0.30 times the surcharge load. Any isolated or line
loads from adjacent foundations or vehicular loading will impose additional wall loads
and should be considered individually.
As noted before, some clayey, expansive soils are present at the site. Since these
materials have a very low permeability, very uncertain behavior, and exert much
higher lateral earth pressures on retaining structures, they should not be used as wall
backfills. Therefore selective grading should be conducted to place very low
expansive, sandy soils within wall backfill areas. Alternatively import materials may
be used provided that these are inorganic, non-expansive granular soils. Sources for
import fill should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to their use.
To avoid over stressing or excessive tilting during placement of backfill behind walls,
heavy compaction equipment should not be allowed within the zone delineated by a
45 degree line extending from the base of the wall to the fill surface. he backfill
directly behind the walls should be compacted using light equipment such as hand
operated vibrating plates and rollers. No material larger than 3 inches in diameter
should be placed in direct contact with the wall.
Wall pressures should be verified prior to construction, when the actual backfill
materials and conditions have been determined. Recommended pressures are
applicable only to level, non-expansive, properly drained backfill with no additional
surcharge loadings. If inclined backfills are proposed, this firm should be contacted
to develop appropriate active earth pressure parameters.
19
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31, 2014
Preliminary Pavement Design
Project No. 33090.1
Testing and design for preliminary on-site pavement was conducted in accordance
with the California Highway Design Manual. Based upon our preliminary sampling and
testing, and upon an assumed Traffic Index generally used for similar projects, it
appears that the structural sections tabulated below should provide satisfactory
pavements for the subject pavement improvements:
AREA T.I. DESIGN PRELIMINARY SECTION A-VALUE
On site vehicular parking 6.0 35 0.25' AC/0.60' AB with occasional truck traffic
AC -Asphalt Concrete
AB Class 2 Aaareaate Base
The above structural sections are predicated upon 90 percent relative compaction
(ASTM D 1557) of all utility trench backfills and 95 percent relative compaction
(ASTM D 1557) of the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade soils and of any
aggregate base utilized. In addition, the aggregate base should meet Caltrans
specifications for Class 2 Aggregate Base.
In areas of the pavement which will receive high abrasion loads due to start-ups and
stops, or where trucks will move on a tight turning radius, consideration should be
given to installing concrete pads. Such pads should be a minimum of 0.5-foot thick
concrete, with a 0.35-foot thick aggregate base. Concrete pads are also recommended
in areas adjacent to trash storage areas where heavier loads will occur due to
operation of trucks lifting trash dumpsters.
It should be noted that all of the above pavement design was based upon the results
of preliminary sampling and testing, and should be verified by additional sampling and
testing during construction when the actual subgrade soils are exposed.
20
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July31,2014
Sulfate Protection
Project No. 33090.1
The results of the sulfate tests conducted on selected subgrade soils expected to be
encountered at foundation levels are presented in Appendix C.
Based on the test results it appears that there is a negligible sulfate exposure to
concrete elements in contact with on site soils. The 2010 CBC, therefore, does not
recommend special design criteria for concrete elements in conduct with such
materials.
Infiltration
The separation between the bottom of the proposed system and the groundwater level
should be designed to meet the County and State requirements.
The system should be designed and constructed as outlined within the
recommendations contained within this report and any other jurisdictional agency
requirements.
Systems should be set back a distance from improvements as to not have an adverse
affect in those improvements.
Any geotextile filter fabric utilized should consist of material that prevents soil piping
but has greater permeability than the existing soil.
During site development, care should be taken as not to disturb the area(s) proposed
for infiltration as changes in the soil structure could occur resulting in a change of the
soil infiltration characteristics. This may not be feasible in areas of existing fill that are
proposed for improvements.
Proper maintenance of the system is critical. A maintenance program should be
prepared and properly executed. At a minimum, the program should be as outlined by
the jurisdictional agency.
21
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31, 2014
Project No. 33090.1
An appropriate factor of safety should be applied to the clear water rate obtained
during this investigation and used in the design in accordance with jurisdictional
agency requirements.
Construction Monitoring
Post investigative services are an important and necessary continuation of this
investigation. Project plans and specifications should be reviewed by the project
geotechnical consultant prior to construction to confirm that the intent of the
recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the design.
Additional R-value, expansion index, and soluble sulfate content testing may be
required after/during site rough grading.
During construction, sufficient and timely geotechnical observation and testing should
be provided to correlate the findings of this investigation with the actual subsurface
conditions exposed during construction. Items requiring observation and testing
include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:
1. Site preparation-stripping and removals.
2. Excavations, including approval of the bottom of excavations prior to the
processing and preparation of the bottom areas for fill placement.
3. Scarifying and recompacting prior to fill placement.
4. Subgrade preparation tor pavements and slabs-on-grade.
5. Placement of engineered compacted till and backfill, including approval of fill
materials and the performance of sufficient density tests to evaluate the degree
of compaction being achieved.
LIMITATIONS
This report contains geotechnical conclusions and recommendations developed solely
tor use by Harding Street Neighbors, LP, and their design consultants, tor the purposes
described earlier. It may not contain sufficient information tor other uses or the
22
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31, 2014
Project No. 33090.1
purposes of other parties. The contents should not be extrapolated to other areas or
used for other facilities without consulting LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.
The recommendations are based on interpretations of the subsurface conditions
concluded from information gained from subsurface explorations and a surficial site
reconnaissance. The interpretations may differ from actual subsurface conditions,
which can vary horizontally and vertically across the site. If conditions are
encountered during the construction of the project, which differ significantly from
those presented in this report, this firm should be notified immediately so we may
assess the impact to the recommendations provided. Due to possible subsurface
variations, all aspects of field construction addressed in this report should be observed
and tested by the project geotechnical consultant.
If parties other than LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. provide construction monitoring
services, they must be notified that they will be required to assume responsibility for
the geotechnical phase of the project being completed by concurring with the
recommendations provided in this report or by providing alternative recommendations.
The report was prepared using generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices
under the direction of a state licensed geotechnical engineer. No warranty, expressed
or implied, is made as to conclusions and professional advice included in this report.
Any persons using this report for bidding or construction purposes should perform
such independent investigations as deemed necessary to satisfy themselves as to the
surface and subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used
in the performance of work on this project.
TIME LIMITATIONS
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a
property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to
natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition,
changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Governmental Codes may occur. Due to
such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by
changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a
significant amount of time without a review by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. verifying
the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations.
23
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Harding Street Neighbors, LP
July 31, 2014
CLOSURE
Project No. 33090.1
It has been a pleasure to assist you with this project. We look forward to being of
further assistance to you as construction begins. Should conditions be encountered
during construction that appear to be different than indicated by this report, please
contact this office immediately in order that we might evaluate their effect.
Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact
our office at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc.
~
Andrew A. Tardie
Staff Geologist
. Leuer, GE 2030
AAT:RMM:JPL/ejt
Robert M. Markoff, CE
Engineering Geologist
No. 2073
CERTIFIED
GINEERI
Distribution: Addressee (4) and PDF via email todd@c-cdev.com
24
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
REFERENCES
Blake, Thomas, F. 1998, Liquefy2, Version 1.50.
California Building Standards Commission and International Conference of Building
Officials, 2013, California Building Code, 2013 edition.
California Geological Survey, 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning
Purposes, Sate of California, San Diego County, Oceanside Quadrangle/San Luis Rey
Quadrangle.
Hart, E.W. and W.A. Bryant, 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California,
California Dept. of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S., 2005, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x
60' Quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California.
Larson, R., and Slosson, J., 1992, The Role of Seismic Hazard Evaluation in
Engineering Reports, in Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California, AEG
Special Publication Number 4, pp 191-194.
Reeder, W., 2000, Earthquake Plotting Program, EPI Software.
Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999, Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigation Liquefaction Hazards in California, March 1999.
State of California Division of Mines and Geology, 2008, Special Publication 117 A
Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, September 11,
2008.
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
APPENDIX A
Index Map, Conceptual Site Plan, Regional
Geologic Map, Partial Description of Geologic
Units and Historical Seismicity Maps
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
tF=.....,==·-' ,
_u,:.na v· • • . =-:~ ~
\..s...., _ _e£,,_-✓·;,-·;:c-_-' __ .....,'i'-~-o.t-1'-9
"if,\Rh,!":-t '(:} .~ ·.~ ~~ . ~:
0
+
INDEX MAP
PROJECT: CARLSBAD APARTMENTS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 33090.1
CLIENT: HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS, LP ENCLOSURE: A-1
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: JULY 2014
SCALE: 1" = 2,000'
PROJECT:
CLIENT:
PROJECT DATA
SITE AREA 7.1 ACRES
UNIT MIX PARKING
2 BED 100
3 BED +4 TOTAL 144 -3 STORY UNITS (20/ACRE) 302 (2.1 / UNIT)
CARLSBAD APARTMENTS
SITE PLAN Sep110.2012
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
JEFFERSON
CARLSBAD APARTMENTS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.:
HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS, LP ENCLOSURE:
33090.1
A-2
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: JULY 2014
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
(Locations Approximate)
♦ 8-4 · EXPLORATORY BORING
♦ P-2 • PERCOLATION TEST
SITE PLAN
PROJECT: CARLSBAD APARTMENTS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO: 33090.1
CLIENT: HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS, LP ENCLOSURE: A-3
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: JULY 2014
SCALE: 1" == 70'
Kt
-----"-., --I ----
Tmo
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP (Kennedy and Tan, 2005)
PROJECT: CARLSBAD APARTMENTS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 33090.1
CLIENT: HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS, LP ENCLOSURE: A-4
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: JULY 2014
SCALE: 1:100,000
Old paralic deposits undivided (late to middle
Pleistocene )-Mostly poorly sorted, moderately permeable,
reddish-brown, interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine and
colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and
conglomerate. These deposits rest on the now emergent wave
cut abrasion platforms preserved by regional uplift. Where
more than one number is shown ( e.g., Qop2-4) those deposits
are undivided (Fig. 3 ). Includes:
Old paralic deposits, Unit 7 (late to middle
Pleistocene)--Mostly poorly sorted, moderately permeable,
reddish-brown, interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine
and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and
conglomerate. These deposits rest on the 9-11 m Bird Rock
terrace (Fig. 3)
Old paralic deposits, Unit 6 (late to middle
Pleistocene)-Mostly poorly sorted, moderately permeable,
reddish-brown, interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine
and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and
conglomerate. These deposits rest on the 22-23 m Nestor
terrace (Fig. 3)
PARTIAL DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGIC UNITS (Kennedy and Tan, 2005)
PROJECT: CARLSBAD APARTMENTS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.: 33090.1
CLIENT: HARDING STREET NEIGHBORS, LP ENCLOSURE: A-5
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. DATE: JULY 2014
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
+ M4
+
+
N
EPI Software 2000
-+-+
+ ---l+ +
-+
--f-~~
+
--~f-+ ++
~--------------~----------~
Seismicity 1932-2010 (Magnitude 4.0+) 100 kilometer radius
+
+
SITE LOCATION: 33.1535 LAT. -117.3384 LONG.
MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: C
TOTAL# OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 1264
0 50
KILOMETERS
TOTAL# OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS: 223
MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS:
4.0-4.9 : 209
5.0-5.9: 13
6.0-6.9: 1
7.0-7.9: 0
8.0-8.9: 0
CLOSEST EVENT: 4.0 ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 04, 2007 LOCATED APPROX. 43 KILOMETERS SOUTH OF THE SITE
LARGEST 5 EVENTS:
6.4 ON SATURDAY, MARCH 11, 1933 LOCATED APPROX. 81 KILOMETERS NORTHWEST OF THE SITE
5.8 ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1951 LOCATED APPROX. 94 KILOMETERS WEST OF THE SITE
5.5 ON SUNDAY, JULY 13, 1986 LOCATED APPROX. 53 KILOMETERS SOUTHWEST OF THE SITE
5.5 ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1980 LOCATED APPROX. 85 KILOMETERS NORTHEAST OF THE SITE
5.5 ON MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1969 LOCATED APPROX. 91 KILOMETERS EAST OF THE SITE
MS
M6
+
100
Enclosure A-6
+
M1
+ M2
+ M3
12 Oceanside + M4
•,' MS
'l
SITE tJ
+
q Carlsbad
\1
\ \
\
. \
\
\
• +
EPI Software 2000 Seismicity 1978-2010 (Magnitude 0.0+) 15 kilometer radius
SITE LOCATION: 33.1535 LAT. ·117.3384 LONG.
MINIMUM LOCATION QUALITY: A
TOTAL# OF EVENTS ON PLOT: 951
TOT AL # OF EVENTS WITHIN SEARCH RADIUS: 283
MAGNITUDE DISTRIBUTION OF SEARCH RADIUS EVENTS:
0.0-.9: 31
1.0-1.9: 179
2.0-2.9: 72
3.0-3.9: 1
4.0-4.9: 0
5.0· 5.9: 0
6.0-6.9: 0
7.0-7.9: 0
8.0-8.9: 0
0 7
KILOMETERS
CLOSEST EVENT: 1.2 ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 03, 1981 LOCATED APPROX. 1.2 KILOMETERS WEST OF THE SITE
LARGEST 5 EVENTS:
3.3 ON FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1985 LOCATED APPROX. 12 KILOMETERS SOUTHWEST OF THE SITE
2.9 ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 LOCATED APPROX. 12 KILOMETERS SOUTH OF THE SITE
2.8 ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 1988 LOCATED APPROX. 7 KILOMETERS EAST OF THE SITE
2.7 ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1988 LOCATED APPROX. 8 KILOMETERS SOUTHWEST OF THE SITE
2.7 ON SUNDAY, OCTOBER 02, 1988 LOCATED APPROX. 14 KILOMETERS SOUTH OF THE SITE
15
Enclosure A-7
APPENDIX B
Field Investigation Program and Boring Logs
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
Subsurface Exploration
APPENDIX B
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Our subsurface exploration of the site consisted of drilling 4 exploratory borings to
depths ranging from approximately 19.5 to 51 feet below the existing ground surface
using a CME 75 drill rig on July 8, 2014. Two additional shallow borings were hand
excavated for the purposes of conducting percolation testing within the underlying
native soils. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Enclosure A-3
within Appendix A.
The drilling exploration was conducted using a CME 75 drill rig equipped with 8-inch
diameter hollow stem augers. The soils were continuously logged by a geologist from
this firm who inspected the site, created detailed logs of the borings, obtained
undisturbed, as well as disturbed, soil samples for evaluation and testing, and
classified the soils by visual examination in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System.
Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsoils were obtained at a maximum interval
of 5 feet. Within our deepest boring B-1, samples were recovered by using a California
split barrel sampler of 2.50-inch inside diameter and 3.25-inch outside diameter from
the ground surface to 10 feet deep and a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler
from 25 to 50 feet deep. For all remaining borings, samples were recovered by using
a California spit barrel sampler. The samplers were driven by a 140-pound automatic
trip hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The number of hammer blows
required to drive the sampler into the ground the final 1 2 inches were recorded and
further converted to an equivalent SPT N-values which are included in the boring logs,
Enclosures B-1 through B-4.
The undisturbed soil samples were retained in brass sample rings of 2.42 inches in
diameter and 1.00 inch in height, and placed in sealed plastic containers. Disturbed
soil samples were obtained at selected levels within the borings and placed in sealed
containers for transport to our geotechnical laboratory.
All samples obtained were taken to our geotechnical laboratory for storage and
testing. Detailed logs of the borings are presented on the enclosed Boring Logs,
Enclosures B-1 through B-4. A Boring Log Legend is presented on Enclosure B-i. A Soil
Classification Chart is presented as Enclosure B-ii.
r ~
TEST DATA
(/) f-f-z f-(/) (/) UJ w f-UJ f->-Ul f-f-a. >-I.!.) z: z
U)""' >-0 LOG OF BORING B-1 w.. :) >-0 f-0 (/) z f-0 oc: U,:::-Z4. ...J 0 Q., u 0 UJ ci' Ul(J UJ 0 :r: (/) ;:l: f-oc: ~ Cl~ ...J c/2 < a. :r: f-:) >-2 f-:)
Q., 0 oc: f-0,: < ::i I.!.) ...J 0 (/) Cl Cl a:i a:i 6 (/)
< ...J 2 DESCRIPTION 0 ~ SM @0' FILL: SILTY SAND, approximately 5% gravel to 1/2", 20%
11 2.9 109.8 I I r-r--r-:-SM
coarse grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 30% fine I I erained sand 20% siltv fines lieht brown. drv. loose.
@2' ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse
5 .. '-:"'"7" grained sand, 30% meidum grained sand, 40% fine grained I II 3.9 107.2 I SP sand 20% siltv fines. brown damo.
32 13.9. 119.9 I SC @ 5' POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 30% medium
I grained sand, 65% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, light red
10 brown damn.
24 13.2 118.5 I @ 7' CLAYEY SAND, approximately 20% coarse grained sand,
25% medium grained sand, 25% fine grained sand, 30% clayey
fines of low plasticity, red brown, moist.
@ 10' becomes gray.
IS 25 for 3" 21.4 104.1 ■ @ 15' becomes wet, slightly coarser grained.
20 28 for 3" 23.4 98.3 ':!! @20' alternating layers of CLAYEY SAND and POORLY
GRADED SAND, 2 to 5" thick.
@ 21' groundwater.
25 63 for 3" IS.I "'"" CL @ 25' LEAN CLAY with SAND, approximately 15% medium
grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 25% clayey fines of low
plasticity, gray, damp.
30 o7 for 311 19.7 ll:1 21 SM @30' SILTY SAND, approximately 15% coarse grained sand,
30% medium grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 25% sitly
fines with trace clay, gray, wet.
35 KJ7 for S" 12.3 lt! lt!
40 'f,7 for 3" 21.4 "' "' .. SP @ 40' POORLY GRADED SAND with SIL TY, approximately
SM 10% coarse grained sand, 40% medium grained sand, 40% fine . ,• grained sand, 10% silty fines, gray white, wet.
45 67 for 3" 15.6 "'"" . ,•
so "'"' 67 for 3" 12.6 END OF BORING
Fill 0-2'
55 Groundwater@ 21'
No Bedrock
Boring backfilled with bentonite
60
PROJECT: Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project PROJECT NUMBER: 33090.1
CLIENT: Harding Street Neighbors, LP ELEVATION: NA
DATE DRILLED: July 8, 2014
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: CME75
HOLE DIA.: 8" I ENCLOSURE: B-1
Ii.. ~
,
TEST DATA
f-Ul Ul f-
ill z Cl.. ;:)
~ I;: 8
::C: Ul ;s'. ti: 0 Ul ...l 0 CO
Ul f-f-z Ul Ul Ul f-f-z >-0
0:: U-0 Ul;,,: ~ cc---
CG ;:)
0 ti;
U.I a. >-f-
U.I ....l a. z < Cl)
>-0 0 ....l 0 :r: f-
:J
Cl) u
~ ;:)
LOG OF BORING B-2
~ 0
Of------+--...l--+--~-+------+----------1e----+-.-........+--+--=--~-----=D::...:E=-:S:::..:C::..::RI=-PT::...:I:..::O:...:..N-'------,--,--------1 SM @0' FILL: SILTY SAND, approximately 35% medium grained
sand, 40% fine grained sand, 25% sitly fines, brown, dry, loose.
15 5.9 114.5
51----+---+---+---+-------l 9 U 1~4
16 6.8 103.8
l01---3-6---1f-----+-6-.9-f-----+-I-0-6.-9---1
151-----1------I~---+-------+------< 34 17.0 114.8
I
I
I
I
20128 for 3' 12.6 103.8 I
251-----1------1----+-------+------<
1.-_.·
L····
::~--~
SM @2' ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 40% medium
grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 30% silty fines, red
brown, dry.
@5' SIL TY SAND, approximately 35% medium grained sand,
40% fine grained sand, 25% silty fines, red brown, dry,
micaceous.
SP @ 7' POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, approximately 40%
SM medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 10% silty fines,
red brown, damp.
SP @ 10' POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 15% medium
grained sand, 80% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, speckled
black-brown, damp.
SM @ 15' SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse grained sand,
25% medium grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 15% silty
fines, red brown, wet.
@ 16' becomes gray white, trace clay.
END OF BORING
Fill 0-2'
No groundwater
No bedrock
Boring backfilled with bentonite
PROJECT: Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project PROJECT NUMBER: 33090.1
CLIENT: Harding Street Neighbors, LP ELEVATION: NA
DATE DRILLED: July 8, 2014
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: CME75
HOLE DIA.: s" I ENCLOSURE: B-2
II,.
f-{/J UJ f-
UJ z u.. :::,
Z f-0
0... u ~ {/J ;$
0... 0 UJ ,_J 0 O:l
{/J f-{/J
UJ f-
~ 0 f-< ~ 0 O:l
j
TEST DATA
f-;z:
UJ
f-~ u"" UJ ~ ~ __,
:::,
f-{/J
0 :E
Ul 0... >-f-
UJ ,_J
0... :E < {/J
>-0 3
0 E ,_J
{/J
cj
(/}
::i
LOG OF BORING B-3
DESCRIPTION 0 i-----t---t----t----t----1------t-~-c~-cf.-rPT=--:~@:-'.,'""o~·-;:;;s=-::::o=-'-;;::Dc--c-=-=-~-~-=-~-=-~-~-~-=-~---_-_-_-~-~-----~-~-~-~-~-----~~--~------~
'"'-.:_ SM @0' TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse
14 4.5 I I0.7
51---1-7 --+---+--6.-4--+---+--1-0-9.-2--1
20 9.2 111.0
I01---2-2--+---+--5-.2--+l----+-98-.6--l
15 !25 for 5" 14.4 112.5
I
I
I
I
I
ZO 28 for 5" 15.8 99.o I
25f----+---+---+---+------<
SM grained sand, 25% medium grained sand, 45% fine grained
\ sand 25 fines strom1 brown moist.
@ I' ALL :. SIL TY SAND, approximately 30% medium
grained sand, 50% fine grained sand, 20% silty fines, brown,
damp.
@ 5' becomes light red brown, trace clay.
@7' SILTY SAND, approximately 20% medium grained sand,
60% fine grained sand, 20% sitly fines, light yellow brown, dry.
SP @ IO' POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 5% medium
grained sand, 90% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, speckled
black tan, damp.
ML @ 15' SANDY SILT/SIL TY SAND, approximately 20% medium
SM grained sand, 30% fine grained sand, 50% silty fines, gray
white, damp.
ML @20' SANDY SILT, approximately 20% coarse grained sand,
80% siltv fines with trace clav. Hav white damo.
END OF BORING
Fill 0-1'
No groundwater
No bedrock
Boring backfilled with bentonite
PROJECT: Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project PROJECT NUMBER: 33090.1
CLIENT: Harding Street Neighbors, LP ELEVATION: NA
DATE DRILLED: July 8, 2014
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: CME75
HOLE DIA: 811 j ENCLOSURE: B-3
I
,
TEST DATA
(/) f-f-z
f-(/) (/) u..J
u..J f-LI.l f->-u..J >-f-t: CL. u..J z z >-Q LOG OF BORING B-4 1-L ::i >-0 ::2 G::' f-0 [/) z f-0 c::: u~ LI.l ....J l! CL. u 0 [J_J ~ u..J (._) ....J 0 :r: [/) ;3: f-c:::~ Cl !2::., [/)
<I'. CL. :r: f-::i >-2 f-::i
CL. 0 c::: f-c::: <I'. :J u..J ....J 0 [/) Cl Cl co co 0 (/)
<I'. ....J 2 DESCRIPTION
0 ~ "'~~ PT @0'SOD ~ >-'-I-SM @0.5' TOPSOIL: SILTY SAND, approximately 10% coarse ~ SM\ grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 35% fine grained I ~ sand 25% siltv fines. brown. moist.
16 7.0 115.8 I ~ @ I' ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, approximately 30% medium ~ grained sand, 40% fine grained sand, 30% silty fines with trace
clay, red brown, moist.
5 13 7.7 109.3 I @5' clay no longer present.
16 8.7 107.5 1·
@ 7' SIL TY SAND, approximately 20% medium grained sand,
65% fine grained sand, 15% silty fines, red brown, dry.
10 ....,.........,':-
23 6.7 98.5 I ·-· SP @ 10' POORLY GRADED SAND, approximately 10% medium
.. grained sand, 85% fine grained sand, 5% silty fines, speckled
black brown, dry, some pyrite flakes.
•,•
..
•,'
-·:-:.::
15 ~:; 26 13.7 108.8 I SW @ 15' WELL GRADED SAND, approximately 20% coarse = ~-. :..._ grained sand, 30% medium grained sand, 45% silty fines, tan,
CL I drv. r
@ 16' LEAN CLAY with SAND, approximately 5% medium
grained sand, 35% fine grained sand, 60% clayey fines of low
plasticity, gray white, damp.
20 128 for 5" 21.1 106.6 I ML @ 20' SANDY SIL TY, approximately 5% medium grained sand,
35% fine grained sand, 60% silty fines with trace clay, gray ! I white damn.
END OF BORING
Fill 0-1'
No groundwater
No bedrock
Boring backfilled with bentonite
25
PROJECT: Proposed Multi-Family Residential Project PROJECT NUMBER: 33090.1
CLIENT: Harding Street Neighbors, LP ELEVATION: NA
DATE DRILLED: July 8, 2014
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP INC. EQUIPMENT: CME75
HOLE DIA.: 8" I ENCLOSURE: B-4
... ...
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Program and Test Results
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
General
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
Selected soil samples obtained from the borings were tested in our geotechnical
laboratory to evaluate the physical properties of the soils affecting foundation design
and construction procedures. The laboratory testing program performed in conjunction
with our investigation included moisture content, dry density, laboratory compaction,
direct shear, sieve analysis, sand equivalent, R-value, expansion index, and soluble
sulfate content. Descriptions of the laboratory tests are presented in the following
paragraphs:
Moisture Density Tests
The moisture content and dry density information provides an indirect measure of soil
consistency for each stratum, and can also provide a correlation between soils on this
site. The dry unit weight and field moisture content were determined for selected
undisturbed samples, in accordance with ASTM D 2921 and ASTM D 2216,
respectively, and the results are shown on the boring logs, Enclosures B-1 through B-
4, for convenient correlation with the soil profile.
Laboratory Compaction
Selected soil samples were tested in the laboratory to determine compaction
characteristics using the ASTM D 1557 compaction test method. The results are
presented in the following table:
LABORATORY COMPACTION
Sample Maximum Optimum
Boring Depth Soil Description Dry Density Moisture
Number (feet) U.S.C.S. (pcf) Content
(percent)
B-1 0-3 (SM) Silty Sand 130.0 8.5
B-2 0-3 (SM) Silty Sand 132.0 9.0
Direct Shear Tests
Shear tests are performed in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 with a direct
shear machine at a constant rate-of-strain (0.04 inches/minute). The machine is
designed to test a sample partially extruded from a sample ring in single shear.
Samples are tested at varying normal loads in order to evaluate the shear strength
parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion. Samples ~He tested in remolded
condition (90 percent relative compaction per ASTM D 1557) and soaked, to
represent the worse case conditions expected in the field ..
The results of the shear tests are presented in the following table:
DIRECT SHEAR TESTS
Sample Apparent Angle of
Boring Depth Soil Description Cohesion Internal
Number (U.S.C.S.) Friction (feet) (psf) (degrees)
8-1 0-3 (SM) Silty Sand 400 31
Sieve Analysis
A quantitative determination of the grain size distribution was performed for selected
samples in accordance with the ASTM D 422 laboratory test procedure. The
determination is performed by passing the soil through a series of sieves, and
recording the weights of retained particles on each screen. The results of the sieve
analyses are presented graphically on Enclosure C-1.
Sand Equivalent
The sand equivalent of selected soils were evaluated using the California Sand
Equivalent Test Method, Caltrans Number 217. The results of the sand equivalent
tests are presented on Enclosure C-1.
R-Value Test
Soil samples were obtained at probable pavement subgrade level and sand equivalent
tests were conducted. Based on these indicator tests, a selected soil sample was
tested to determine its R-value using the California R-Value Test Method, Caltrans
Number 301 . The results of the R-value test is presented on Enclosure C-1 .
Expansion Index Tests
Remolded samples are tested to determine their expansion potential in accordance
with the Expansion Index {El) test. The test is performed in accordance with the
Uniform Building Code Standard 18-2. The test results are presented in the following
table:
EXPANSION INDEX TESTS
Boring Sample Depth Soil Description Expansion Expansion
Number (feet) (U.S.C.S.) Index (El) Potential
8-1 0-3 (SM) Silty Sand 4 Very Low
Expansion Index: 0-20 21-50 51-90 91 130
Very low Low Medium High
Soluble Sulfate Content Tests
The soluble sulfate content of selected subgrade soils were evaluated. The
concentration of soluble sulfates in the soils was determined by measuring the optical
density of a barium sulfate precipitate. The precipitate results from a reaction of
barium chloride with water extractions from the soil samples. The measured optical
density is correlated with readings on precipitates of known sulfate concentrations.
The test results are presented on the following table:
SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT TESTS
Sulfate
Boring Sample Depth Soil Description Content
Number (feet) (U.S.C.S.) (percent by
weight)
8-1 0-3 (SM) Siltv Sand 0.01
8-4 0-3 (SM) Siltv Sand 0.01
, -,
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 I '4 l/2 3/8 J 6 gl0 1416 20 30 40 50 ?0100140 200 " 100 I I II I ""-I I I I I I'-I I I I -\
•i--\ 90
I\
\ -:
80
~ \
: \
p : \ ~ E
R70
C
E I
N
T60
F
I
N
E50 ~ R
B \~
y40
w \\
E '\ ~ I i
G30 H T
20
IO
0
100 IO 1 0.1 0.01 0.00]
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES I GRAVEL SAND I SILT OR CLAY I coarse fine coarse medium I fine I
Specimen Identification Soil Classification SE RV Cc Cu
le B-1 @ 0-3' (SM) Silty Sand 23 37
III B-4 @ 0-3' (SM) Silty Sand 13 --
..
Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay
• B-1 @ 0-3' 19.00 0.26 3.8 64.6 31.6
III B-4 @ 0-3' 4.75 0.23 0.0 65.6 34.4
PROJECT Proe_osed Multi-Family__ Residential Project -PROJECT NO. 33090.1
Carlsbad, California DATE 7/29/14
GRADATION CURVES
LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. ENCLOSURE C-1
\.. ~
APPENDIX D
Liquefaction Analysis
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
33090B1. OUT
***************************** * *
LIQUEFY2
Version 1.50
* * **********************~****~*
EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF
l:ARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
JOB NUMBER: 33090,1
JOB NAME: Boring B-1
SOIL-PROFILE NAME: 33090bl.LDW
BORING GROUNDWATER DEPTH: 21.00 ft
CALCULATION GROUNDWATER. DEPTH; 21.00 ft
DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 7.20 Mw
SITE Pf:AK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.318 g
BOREHOLE DIAMETER. CORRECTION FACTOR= 1.00
SAMPLER SIZE CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00
N60 HAMMER CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00
MAGNITUDE SCALING FACTOR METHOD: . rdri ss (1997, in press)
Magnitude scaling Factor: 1.110
rd-CORRECTION METHOD: NCEER (1997)
DATE: 07-26-2014
FIELD SPT N-VALUES ARE NOT CORRECTED FOR THE LENGTH OF THE ORIVE RODS.
Rod Stick-up Above Ground: 5.0 ft
CN NORMALIZATION FACTOR: 1.044 tsf
MINIMUM CN VALUE: 0.6
33090B1. OUT --------------------------~---------------------NCEER (1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 1
------------------------------------------------
File Name: 33090b1.0UT
-----------------------------------~------------------------------------------I CALC. I TOTAL! EFF. I FIELD I FC I I CORR. I LIQUE. I I INDUC. I LI QUE.
SOIL! DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N fDELTAJ C !(Nl)60IRESISTI r ISTRESSISAFElY
NO.I (ft) I (tsf)I (tsf)l(B/ft)INL60I N l(B/ft)I RATIOI d I RATIOIFACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------1 0.251 0.0151 0.015 11 ~ I * I * I * I * I * I ** 1 0.751 0.0451 0.045 11 ,., I * I "' * I * I * I ** 1 1.251 0.0751 0.075 11 ~ I .,, I * 'l\-I * I * I ** 1 1.751 0.1051 0,105 11 * I * * I * I .,, I cft<2
l 2.251 0.1351 0.13s 11 I ..., .,, I 1r * I * I * I ** 1 2.751 0.1651 0.1651 11 I * I * * I * I * I -lt<2
1 3.251 0.19S1 0.1951 11 ,i-I * * I * I * ** 1 3.75I o.2251 0.2251 11 * I * * I * I * *"'
1 4.251 0.2551 0.2551 11 * I * 'fr I * I * ** 1 4.751 0.2851 0.2851 11 ~ * I * * I * I * *"' 2 5.251 o.315I o.315 11 I ~ * I * * * I * 'f,'/t
2 5.75 0.34S1 0.3451 11 I .... I * I * * * I * **
2 6.25 0.3751 0.3751 11 I ~ I * I * I * * I * ,i,,i-
2 6.75 0.405 0.4051 11 I -I * I * I * * I * ** 3 7.25 0.435 0.4351 32 I ~ I * * I ¼ * I * **
3 7.7S 0.465 0.4651 32 I ~ I * * I * * I * 'A''ft
3 8.25 0.495 0.4951 32 I ~ I * * * * I * **
3 8.75 o. 525 0.5251 32 I ~ I * * * * I .,, **
3 9.25 0.555 0.555 32 I -I * * * * I * **
3 9.75 0.585 0.585 32 I I * * * * * I ,t(1r
4 10.25 0.615 0.615 24 I ~ I * * I .,, I * * *"'
4 I 10.75 0.645 0.645 24 I ~ I * * I * I * * ** 4 I 11.251 0.675 0.6751 24 I ~ I * * * I * * **
4 I 11.751 0.7051 0.7051 24 I ~ I * 1t: * I * I * **
4 I 12.251 0.7351 0.7351 24 I ~ I * * * I * I * **
4 12.751 0.7651 0.7651 24 I -I * * * I * I * ** 4 I 13.2SI 0.79S 0.79S1 24 I -I * I * I * * I * I **
4 I 13.75 0,825 0.8251 24 I ~ I * I * I * * 'I< I ,J,-k
4 I 14.25 0.855 0.8551 24 I -I * I * I * * I * I ** 4 I 14.75 0.885 0.8851 24 I -I * I * I * .,, I * I **
5 ! 15.25 0.915 0.9151 so ~ I * I * * I * I * I **
5 I 15.75 0.945 0.9451 50 .... I fr I * * I 'l\' I * I cf,-t,
s I 16,251 0.975 0.975I 50 ~ I * l * * I * * I **
5 I 16. 751 1.0051 1.005 50 ~ I * I * * I * * I **
5 I 17.251 1.0351 1.035 50 ~ I * I * I * I * * ** 5 I 17.751 1.0651 1.065 50 I ~ I * I * I * l * * **
5 I 18.251 1.0951 1.095 50 I -I * I * I * I * I 'It </,'f,
5 I 18.751 1.1251 1.125 so I ~ I * I * I * I * I * ** 5 I 19.251 l.1551 l.155 50 I ~ I * I * I * I * I 'it I ** s I 19.751 1.185 l.185 50 l I * * I * l * I * I </,<2
6 I 20.251 1.215 1.2151 so I ~ I * * I -1, I * I * I 'f:¼
6 I 20.751 l.245 1.2451 50 I ~ I * * I * l of< I ,i, I **
6 I 21.2s I 1.275 1.2671 so I ~ I -~ I .., I -I -I
33090B1.0UT
NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 2
File Name: 33090bl.OUT
--------------------------------~---------------------------------------------I CALC.I TOTAL! EFF. !FIELD I FC I I CORR. I LIQUE, I I INDUC. I LIQUE.
SOILI DEPTHISTRESSISTRESSI N IDELTAI C l(Nl)60IRESISTJ r ISTRESSISAFETY
NO.I (ft) I (tsf)I (tsf)l(B/ft)IN1-60I N l(B/ft)I RATIO! d I RATI0IFAO0R ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------6 I 21.75 1. 305 I 1.282 50 I ~ I -I ~ I ,.. I ~ I
6 I 22.25 1.3351 1.296 50 -I ~ I ~ I ~ ..,
6 I 22.75 l.3651 1.310 so ~ I ~ ..., I ~ 6 I 23.25 1.395 I 1.325 50 ~ I ~ I ~ I ~
6 I 23.7S l. 4251 1. 339 so ~ I ~ I -I ~
6 24.251 1.4551 1.3S41 so I ~ I ~ I ,.., I ~ l 6 24.751 1.4851 1.3681 50 I -I ~ I ~ I ..,
7 25.25! 1.5151 1.3821 63 I ~ I ~ I -I 7 25.751 1.5451 1.3971 63 I ~ I ~ I ~ I 7 26.251 1.5751 1.4111 63 I ~ I ~ l ~ I ~ I
7 26.751 1.6051 1.4261 63 I ..., ~ I ~ I ~ I
7 I 27.2511.6351 1.4401 63 ,.., I ~I ~ I ~-
7 I 27.75 1.665 1.4541 63 -I ~ I ~ I
7 I 28.25 1.695 1.469I 63 -I ~I .... I
7 I 28.75 1.725 1.4831 63 ~ I ~ .... I ~ I -l
7 I 29.25 1.7S5 1.498 63 ~ I ~ ~ I ,., I -~ I ,.,,.,
7 I 29.75 1.785 1.512 63 -I ~ .., ~ .., ~ I ~
8 I 30.25 1.815 1.526 67 (10.6510.825 65.9 Infin 0.928 0.228 NonLiq
8 I 30.75( 1.8451 1,541 67 110.65 0.825 65.9 Infin 0.924 0.229 Nonliq
8 I 31.251 1.875 1.5S5 67 110.65 0.825 65.9 Infin 0.920 0.229 NonLiq
8 I 31. 751 l. 905 1.570 67 110.65 0.825 65.9 Infin 0.916 0.230 NonLiq
8 I 32.25 1.935 1.584 67 110,65 0.825 65.9 Infin 0.9121 0.230 NonLiq
8 I 32.75 1.965 1. 598 I 67 110.65 0.825 65.9 Infin 10-9071 0.23l!NonLiq
8 I 33.2S 1,995 1.6131 67 110.65 0.825 65.9 Infin 10,9031 0.2311NonLiq
8 I 33.75 2.025 1. 6271 67 110.65 0.825 6S.9 Infin 10.8991 0.2311NonLiq
8 I 34.25 2.055 1.642 67 110.65 0.825 65.9 Infin I0.8951 0.232[NonLiq
8 I 34.751 2.085 1.656 67 (10.65 0.825 65.9 Infin [0.8911 0.232INonLiq
9 I 35.251 2.115 l.670 67 I 10. 37 0.789 63.2 Infin 10.8871 0.2321NonLiq
9 I 35.75 2.145 1.685 67 110.37 0.7891 63.2 rnfin 0.8831 0.232 NonLiq
9 36.25 2.175 1.699 67 ll0.3710.7891 63.2 IInfin 0.8791 0.233 NOnLiq
9 36.75 2.205 1.714 67 110.3710.7891 63.2 IInfin 0.8751 0.233 NonLiq
9 37.25 2.235 1.728 67 110.3710.7891 63.2 I Infin 0.871 0.233 NonLiq
9 37.751 2.2651 1.742 67 110.37 0.7891 63.2 IInfin 0.867 0.233 NonLiq
9 38.25 2.2951 1.7571 67 I 10.37 0.7891 63.2 lnfin 0.863 0.233 NonLiq
9 38.75 2.3251 1.7711 67 110.37 0.7891 63.2 :rnfin 0.859 0.233 NonLiq
9 39.25 2.3551 1.7861 67 110.37 0,789! 63.2 Infin 0.855 0.233 NOnLiq
9 39.75 2.385 1.8001 67 110.37 0.789 63.2 Infin 0.851 0.233 NonLiq
10 40.25 2.415 1.814I 67 I 1.97 0.757 52.7 Infin 10.8461 0.2331NOnliq
10 40.75 2.44S 1.829I 67 1.97 0.757 52.7 Infin !0-842I 0.233INonLiq
10 41. 25 2.475 1.8431 67 l.97 0.757 52.7 IInfin 10.8381 0.2331NonLiq
10 41.75 2.505 1.8S8I 67 1.97 0.757 52.7 IInfin 10.8341 0.2331NonLiq
10 42.25 2.535I l.872( 67 1.97 0.757 52.7 llnfin 10.8301 0.2321NonLiq
10 I 42.751 2.565! 1.8861 67 1.97 0.7571 52.7 I Infin (0.8261 0.232I NonLiq
10 I 43.251 2.5951 1.9011 67 1.97 0.7571 52.7 IInfin 10.s221 0.2321NonLiq
3309081,0UT
NCEER [1997] Method LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY PAGE 3
File Name! 33090bl.OUT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------I CALC,I TOTALI ~FF. !FIELD I FC I I CORR,ILIQUE.I IINDUC.ILIQUE.
SO.IL I DEPTH I STR.ESS I STRESS j N I DEL TA I C I (Nl) 60 I RESIST I r I STRESS I SAFETY
NO.I (ft) I (tsf)j (tsf)l(B/ft)!Nl._601 N l(B/ft)I RATIO! d RATIOIFACTOR ----+------+------+------+------+-----+-----+------+------+-----+------+------10 I 43.751 2.6251 1.9151 67 I 1.97 0.7571 52.7 Infin 10.8181 0.2321NonLiq
10 I 44.251 2.6551 1.9301 67 I 1.97 0.7571 52.7 Infin 10.8141 0.231 Nonliq 10 I 44.751 2.6851 1.9441 67 I 1.97 0.7571 52.7 Infin 10.810 0.231 NonLiQ 11 I 45.251 2.715 1,9581 67 I 1.93 0.729/ 50.8 Infin 0.806 0,231 NonLiq 11 I 45.751 2.745 1.9731 67 I 1.93 0.7291 50.8 IInfin 0.802 0.231 NonLiq 11 I 46.251 2.775 1.9871" 67 I 1,93 0.7291 50.8 IInfin 0.798 0,230 NonLiq 11 46.751 2,805 2.002 67 I 1.93 0.7291 50.8 IInfin 0.7941 0.230 NonLiq 11 47.251 2.835 2,016 67 I 1.93 0.7291 50.8 IInfin 0.7891 0.229 NonLiq
11 47.751 2.8651 2.030 67 I 1.9310.7291 50.8 linfin 10,7851 0.229 NonLiq
11 48.251 2.8951 2.045 67 I 1.9310.7291 50.8 IInfin I0.7811 0.229 NonLiq 11 48.751 2.9251 2.059 67 1.9310.7291 50.8 IInfin 10,777I 0.2281NonLiq 11 49.251 2.9551 2.074 67 l.93 0.7291 50.8 !Infin J0.773I 0.228INonLiq
11 49.751 2.9851 2.0881 67 1.93 0.7291 50.8 Jinfin 10.7691 0.2271NonLiq
12 50.251 3.0151 2.1021 67 1,890.7031 49,0 IInfin I0.7651 0.2271NonLiq 12 50.751 3,0451 2.1171 67 1.89 0.7031 49.0 IInfin 10,7611 0.2261NonLiq
APPENDIX E
Infiltration Test Results
LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP, INC.
MODIFIED BOTTLE INFIL TROMETER TEST DAT A
Project: Carlsbad Apartments Test Date: July 9, 2014
Project No: 33090, 1 Test Hole No.: P-1
Soil Classification: SM Test Hole Size: 6" X 6"
Depth of Test Hole: 2.9 feet Date Excavated: July 9,2014
Tested By: DW
TEST PERIOD
TRIAL NO. TIME TIME INTERVAL TOT AL ELAPSED WATER USED (lbs.) WATER USED (gal) INFILTRATION RA TE INFILTRATION
(minutes) TIME (minutes) (gal/sf ./day) RATE (in/hr)
s 8:08
1 35 35 3.67 0.44 18.5 1.2
E 8:43
s 8:43
2 40 75 3.47 0.42 15.3 1.0
E 9:23
s 9:23
3 80 155 6.05 0.73 13.3 0.9
E 10:43
s 10:43
4 70 225 4.69 0.56 11.8 0.8
E 11 :53
s 11 :53
5 71 296 4.51 0.54 11 .2 0,7
E 1 :04
Enclosure E-1
TEST PERIOD
TRIAL NO. TIME TIME INTERVAL TOT AL ELAPSED WATER USED (lbs.) WATER USED (gal) INFILTRATION RATE INFILTRATION
(minutes) TIME (minutes) (gal/sf./day) RA TE (in/hr)
s 1 :04
6 65 361 3,99 0.48 10.8 0.7
E 2:09
s 2:09
7 14 375 0.85 0.10 10.7 0.7
E 2:33
Enclosure E-1 continued
MODIFIED BOTTLE INFIL TROMETER TEST DAT A
Project: Carlsbad Apartments Test Date: July 9, 2014
Project No: 33090.1 Test Hole No.: P-2
Soil Classification: SM Test Hole Size: 6" X 6"
Depth of Test Hole: 3 feet Date Excavated: July 9, 2014
Tested By: ow
TEST PERIOD
TIME TOT AL ELAPSED WATER USED WATER USED INFILTRATION RATE INFILTRATION TRIAL NO. TIME INTERVAL TIME (minutes) (lbs.) (gall (gal/sf ./day) RA TE (in/hr) REMARKS
(minutes)
s 8:26
1 5 5 20.09 2.41 707.5 47.3 Refilled
E 8:31
s 8:36
2 14 19 28.59 3.43 359.6 24.0 Refilled
E 8:50
s 8:59
3 5 24 8.99 1.08 316.6 21.2
E 9:04
s 9:04
4 5 29 8.73 1.05 307.4 20.6
E 9:09
s 9:09
5 5 34 8.81 1.06 310.3 20.7
E 9:14
Enclosure E-2
s 9:14
6 3 37 5.25 0.63 309.1 20.6 Refilled
E 9:17
s 9:35
7 5 42 8.51 1.02 299.7 20.0
E 9:40
s 9:40
8 5 47 7.67 0.92 270.1 18.1
E 9:45
s 9:45
9 5 52 7.72 0.93 271.9 18.2
E 9:50
s 9:50
10 3 55 4.46 0.54 261.8 17.5 Refilled
E 9:53
s 10:04
11 5 60 5.99 0.72 210.9 14.1
E 10:09
s 10:09
12 5 65 6.38 0.77 224.7 15.0
E 10: 14
s 10:14
13 5 70 5.41 0.65 190.5 12.7
E 10: 19
s 10: 19
14 5 75 5.39 0.65 189.8 12. 7
E 10:24
s 10:24
15 3 78 3.25 0.39 190.8 12.8
E 10.27
s 10:27
16 2 80 2. 15 0.26 189.3 12. 7
E 10:29
Enclosure E-2 continued