The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD 2020-0004; WILSON RESIDENCE ADDITION; LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TWO STORY DETACHED HOME EXPANSION; 2019-06-17June 17,2019 Mr. Drew Wilson 7953 Sitio Vaquero Carlsbad, CA 92009 Dear Mr. Wilson: RzoiectNo. 19-2110 U""C1FJVFD OCT 072020 LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING Attached herewith is the Limited Geotechnical Investigation report prepared for a two-story detached home expansion to be located at 7953 Sitio Vaquero, in Carlsbad, California. We appreciate this opportunity to provide geotechnical services for this project. If you have questions or comments concerning this report, please contact us at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, ETERNIA, C. G.`E.:m Principal Engineer Distribution: Mr. Drew Wilson (1 PDF) LIMITED GEOTECH]ICAL INVESTIGATION TWO STORY DETACHED HOME EXPANSION 7953 SITIO VAQUERO CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR MR. DREW WILSON ETERNIA PROJECT NO. 19-2110 During May and June 2019, a limited geotechnical investigation was performed by this firm for the proposed two-story home expansion to be located at 7953 Sitio Vaquero in the City of Carlsbad, California. The purposes of this investigation were to explore and evaluate the geotechnical engineering conditions at the subject site and to provide appropriate geotechnical engineering recommendations for design and construction of the proposed development. The location of the site is depicted on the Index Map (Enclosure A-i). Google earth aerial imagery was used as a base map for our Site Plan (Enclosure A-2). The results of our investigation, together with our conclusions and recommendations, are presented in this report. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services provided during this limited geotechnical investigation included the following: . A field reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area Logging and sampling of exploratory borings for testing and evaluation Laboratory testing on selected samples Evaluation of the geotechnical engineering/geologic data to develop site-specific recommendations for site grading and foundation design. Preparation of this limited report summarizing our findings, professional opinions and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction Eternia, Inc. Page No. 2 Project No. 19-2110 PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS Information furnished to this office indicates that a detached two-story home expansion is planned at the subject site. We anticipate that the structure will consist of wood framing and will be supported by continuous or spread footings and on-grade slabs. Light to moderate foundation loads are expected. Additional details were not provided during preparation of this report. The final project grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. SITE DESCRIPTION The assessor's parcel number obtained from the County of San Diego Assessor is 264-502-04-00. The site is roughly square in shape, approximately 0.59 acres in area, and is located at 7953 Sitio Vaquero, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California. The site is currently occupied by a single family residence and bounded by Corte Castillo on the south, single family residence on the north, Sitio Vaquero on the east and single family residence on the west. The subject site is nearly flat with descending slopes on both the south and west sides of the property. FIELD P4VESTIGATION The soil conditions underlying the subject site were explored by means of two (2) exploratory borings excavated to a maximum depth of 5.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) with hand augering tools. The approximate locations of our exploratory borings are indicated on Enclosure A-2. Continuous logs of the subsurface conditions, as encountered within the exploratory borings, were recorded at the time of drilling by a representative of this firm. A California modified ring sampler was utilized in our investigation. Both relatively undisturbed and bulk samples of typical soil types obtained were returned to the laboratory in sealed containers for testing and evaluation. Page No. 3 Project No. 19-2110 The exploratory boring logs, together with the in-place density data, are presented in Appendix B. The exploratory borings were backfilled with excavated soils using reasonable effort to restore the areas to their initial condition prior to leaving the site, but they were not compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent or greater. In an area as small and deep as a boring, consolidation and subsidence of soil backfill may occur over time causing a depression. The client is advised to observe exploratory boring areas occasionally and, when needed, backfill noted depressions. LABORATORY INVESTIGATION Included in the laboratory testing program were field dry density and moisture content tests on relatively undisturbed samples. The results are included on the exploratory boring logs. An optimum moisture content - maximum thy density relationship was established for a typical soil type. Expansion index testing was performed to evaluate the expansion potential of the subsurface soils. Sieve analysis and Atterberg limits were performed for classification purposes. A modified proctor was performed to determine the maximum density and optimum moisture content of the subgrade soil. Remolded direct shear testing was performed for bearing capacity and lateral earth pressure analysis. Preliminary corrosivity testing was performed by Clarkson Laboratory and Supply, Inc. Laboratory test results appear in Appendix C. Soil classifications provided in our geotechnical investigation are in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The site does not lie within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies zone according to the County of San Diego mapping. As with most of southern California, the subject site is situated in an area of active and potentially active faults. Active faults present several potential risks to structures, the most common of which are strong ground shaking, dynamic densification, liquefaction, mass wasting, and Page No. 4 Project No. 19-2110 surface rupture at the fault plane. The following four factors are the principal determinants of seismic risk at a given location: Distance to seismogenically capable faults. The maximum or "characteristic" magnitude earthquake for a capable fault. Seismic recurrence interval, in turn related to tectonic slip rates. Nature of earth materials underlying the site. Based upon proximity to regionally significant, active faults, ground shaking is considered to be the primary hazard most likely to affect the site. SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS Near-surface soils consisted of dark olive brown sandy clay and lean clay with sand (CL) to the maximum depth exploration hole. Groundwater was not encountered within the exploratory borings to the maximum depth of approximately 5 feet below ground surface. More detailed descriptions of the subsurface soil conditions encountered are included within our exploratory boring logs (Appendix B). 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE - SEISMIC PARAMETERS Based on the geologic setting and anticipated earthwork for construction of the proposed project, the soils underlying the site are classified as Site Class "D, stiff soil profile", according to the 2016 California Building Code (CBC). The seismic parameters according to the 2016 CBC are summarized in the following table. Page No. 5 Project No. 19-2110 2016 CBC - Seismic Parameters Mapped Spectral Acceleration Parameters S = 1.026 and S1 = 0.398 Site Coefficients F = a 1.09 and F v = 1.605 Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Parameters SMS = 1.118 and SMI = 0.638 Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters SDS = 0.745 and SD1 = 0.425 Peak Ground Acceleration 0.438g De-aggregated Magnitude 6.7 GROUNDWATER Groundwater was not encountered during our field exploration to a maximum depth of 5.5 feet below the existing grade. Groundwater is not expected to be a constraint during the construction of the proposed addition. LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL Liquefaction is a process in which strong ground shaking causes saturated soils to lose their strength and behave as a fluid (Math and Carson, 1991). Ground failure associated with liquefaction can result in severe damage to structures. Soil types susceptible to liquefaction include sand, silty sand, sandy silt, and silt, as well as soils having a plasticity index (P1) less than 7 (Boulanger and Idriss, 2004) and loose soils with aPI less than 12 and a moisture content greater than 85 percent of the liquid limit (Bray and Sancio, 2006). The geologic conditions for increased susceptibility to liquefaction are: 1) shallow groundwater (generally less than 50 feet in depth); 2) the presence of unconsolidated sandy alluvium, typically Holocene in age; and 3) strong ground shaking. All three of these conditions must be present for liquefaction to occur. The site is not located in area mapped as having liquefaction potential, as identified by the County of Page No. 6 Project No. 19-2110 San Diego (Enclosure A-3). On this basis, liquefaction is not considered to be a constraint at the subject site. No further analysis of liquefaction susceptibility is warranted. STATIC SETTLEMENT Potential static settlement was evaluated utilizing field and laboratory data and foundation load assumptions. The calculations indicate total static settlement of less than one inch beneath foundations. Most of the potential static settlement should occur during construction. Based on the uniformity of the materials encountered, differential settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 1/2 inch in 30 feet. LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE STABILITY The State of California, the County of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad have not produced landslide hazard maps for the area of the subject site. There was no visual evidence of landslides on or near the subject property noted during the field investigation. There are no mapped landslides on or near the subject site. On this basis, landslides are not considered to be a geologic constraint on the subject site. FLOODING POTENTIAL Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) were compiled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the Flood Insurance Program and are available for most areas within the United States at the FEMA web site (http://msc.fema.gov/). The attached FEMA Flood Map (Enclosure A-4) was created from FIRMs specific to the area of the subject site. The FEMA Flood Map shows that approximately half of the site is located within 'Zone X', which is an area identified as minimal flood hazard zone. Therefore, flooding is not considered to be a constraint for the development of the subject project at this location. Page No. 7 Project No. 19-2110 Seichina: Seiching is the oscillation of an enclosed body water, usually due to strong groundshaking following a seismic event Seiching can affect lakes, water towers, and swimming pools. There were no enclosed bodies of water observed in close enough proximity to affect the subject site. Seiching should not be considered to be a geologic constraint at this site. Tsunamis: Tsunamis are not considered to be a geologic hazard at the subject site due to its inland location. EXPANSION POTENTIAL Based on our laboratory testing, the near-surface soils are considered to have a medium expansion potential. The recommendations provided in this report are provided with consideration to the "medium" expansive condition of the on-site soils. Additional evaluation of soils for expansion potential should be conducted by the geotechnical engineer during the grading operation as warranted. The results of our expansion index testing are provided in Appendix C. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of our field and laboratory investigations, it is the opinion of this firm that the proposed development is feasible from geotechnical engineering and engineering geologic standpoints, provided the recommendations contained in this report are implemented during grading and construction. Moderate to severe seismic shaking can be expected at the site. There are no known active faults on or trending toward the subject site; the site does not lie within an Aiquist-Priolo Special Studies zone. Groundwater was not encountered within any of our exploratory borings at the site. Liquefaction is not considered to be a potential hazard to the site. Page No. 8 Project No. 19-2110 Total static settlement of less than one inch beneath foundations should be anticipated. Differential static settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 1/2 inch in 30 feet. Landslides are not considered to be a geologic constraint on the subject site. Temporary excavations are anticipated to conform to local and State codes with regard to the geologic materials present at the site. The on-site materials clay material are considered to have a medium expansion potential based on our laboratory testing. Based upon our field investigation and test data, it is our opinion that the upper existing soils will not, in their present condition, provide uniform or adequate support for the proposed structure. Undocumented fill and/or variable in situ conditions may be present in the upper soils. These conditions may cause unacceptable differential and/or overall settlement upon application of the anticipated foundation loads. Also, based on the observed in-place moisture condition, there is a high likelihood to encounter soft/wet subgrade soils during the grading for the proposed improvements that will require subgrade mitigation. Because of site conditions and the presence of vegetation and existing top soils, it will be necessary to remove a minimum of 3 feet of the existing soils in building areas. To provide adequate support for the proposed structure, it is our recommendation that the building areas be subexcavated as necessary and recompacted with a compacted fill mat beneath footings. A compacted fill mat will provide a dense, uniform, high-strength soil layer to distribute the foundation loads over the underlying soils. Conventional spread foundations, either individual spread footings and/or continuous wall footings, may be utilized in conjunction with such compacted fill mat. The final project grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Page No. 9 Project No. 19-2110 RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL SITE GRADING: It is imperative that no clearing and/or grading operations be performed without the presence of a representative of the geotechnical engineer. An on-site, pre-job meeting with the developer, the contractor 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 exclusions of affected areas from the final compaction report for the project. Grading of the subject site should be performed, at a minimum, in accordance with these recommendations and with applicable portions of the CBC. The fbllowing recommendations are presented for your assistance in establishing proper grading criteria. INITIAL SITE PREPARATION: All areas to be graded should be stripped or cleaned of significant vegetation and other deleterious materials. These materials should be-removed from the site for disposal. The cleaned soils maybe reused as properly compacted fill. Rocks or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches should not be used in compacted fills. If encountered, existing utility lines should be traced; removed and rerouted from areas to be graded. MINIMUM-MANDATORY REMOVAL AND RECOMPACTION OF EXISTING SOILS: The building area (including at least 3 feet laterally beyond the footing lines) should have at least the upper 3 feet of existing soils removed and the open excavation bottoms observed by our engineer/ geologist to verify and document in writing that all undocumented fill is removed prior to refilling with properly tested and documented compacted fill. The removed and cleaned soils may be reused as properly compacted fill provided that it meets the moisture content criteria presented in this report. Page 10 Project No. 19-2110 Further subexcavation may be necessary depending on the conditions of the underlying soils. The actual depth of removal should be determined at the time of grading by the project geotechnical engineer/geologist. The determination will be based on soil conditions exposed within the excavations. At minimum, any undocumented fill, topsoil or other unsuitable materials should be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill. In-place density tests may be taken in the removal bottom areas where appropriate to provide data to help support and document the engineer/geologists decision. PREPARATION OF FILL AREAS: Prior to placing fill, and after the mandatory subexcavation operation, the surfaces of all areas to receive fill should be scarified and moisture treated to a depth of 6 inches or more. The soils should be brought to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with ASTM D1557. PREPARATION OF FOOTING AREAS: All footings should rest upon at least 2 feet of properly compacted fill material. The required overexcavation should extend at least 3 feet laterally beyond the footing lines, where reasonably possible. In instances where the 3-foot lateral overexcavation may not be accomplished, this firm should be contacted to evaluate the effect. Based on the observed moisture content, there is potential to encounter soft/wet subgrade bottoms. If encountered, the exposed subgrade should be stabilized by geogrid (Tensar BX1200 or equivalent) and aggregate base (AB). The geogrid should be placed over a relatively undisturbed bottom, followed by placement of 12 inches of AB as one-thick-lift compacted to achieve 90 percent relative compaction. Once the bottom has been stabilized, the onsite material may be used as fill material to achieve the finish pad grade, provided that the material is brought to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content. All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of the project geotechnical engineer to verify that they have been excavated into compacted fill prior to placement of forms, reinforcement, or Page No. 11 Project No. 19-2110 concrete. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level, and square. All loose, sloughed or moisture- softened soils should be removed from the excavations prior to placing of concrete. Excavated soils derived from the footing and/or utility trenches should not be placed in building slab-on-grade areas or exterior concrete flatwork areas unless the soils are brought to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density. COMPACTED FILLS: The on-site soils may be used as ifl material provided they are free from organic matter and other deleterious materials, and has a moisture content that is 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content. Rocks or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches should not be used in compacted fills. If utilized, import fill should be inorganic, non-expansive granular soils free from rocks or lumps greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension. The contractor shall notify the geotechnical engineer of import sources sufficiently ahead of their use so that the sources can be observed and approved as to the physical characteristic of the import material. For all import material, the contractor shall also submit current verified reports from a recognized analytical laboratory indicating that the import has a "not applicable" potential for sulfate attack based upon current American Concrete Institute (ACI) criteria and is "mildly corrosive" to ferrous metal and copper. The reports shall be accompanied by a written statement from the contractor that the laboratory test results are representative of all import material that will be brought to the job. Fill should be spread in near-horizontal layers, approximately 8 inches thick. Thicker lifts may be approved by the geotechnical engineer if testing indicates that the grading procedures are adequate to achieve the required compaction. Each lift should be spread evenly, thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformity of the material and moisture in each layer, brought to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with ASTM D1557. Page No. 12 Project No. 19-2110 FOUNDATION DESIGN: If the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed structure may be safely founded on conventional spread foundations, either individual spread footings and/or continuous wall footings, bearing on a minimum of 2 feet of compacted fill. Exterior footings should be a minimum of 18 inches wide and should be established at a minimum depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent final subgrade level. Exterior footing reinforcement should consist of at least four No.5 reinforcing bars (two on top and two on bottom). Additional reinforcement may be required by the structural engineer. Interior footings should be a minimum of 15 inches wide and should be established at a minimum depth of 18 inches below lowest adjacent final subgrade level. Interior footings should consist of at least four No. 4 reinforcing bars (two on top and two on bottom). Additional reinforcement may be required by the structural engineer. For the minimum width of 15 inches and depth of 18 inches, footings may be designed for a maximum safe soil bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads. This allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 75 psf for each additional foot of width and by 300 psf for each additional foot of depth to a maximum safe soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf for dead plus live loads. These bearing values may be increased by one-third for wind or seismic loading. For footings thus designed and constructed, we would anticipate a maximum static settlement of less than one inch. Differential static settlement between similarly loaded adjacent footings is expected to be approximately half the total settlement. Static settlement is expected to occur during construction or shortly after. LATERAL LOADING: 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 Page No. 13 Project No. 19-2110 250 psf per foot of depth. Base friction may be computed at 0.27 times the normal load. Other than conservative soil modeling, the lateral passive earth pressure and base friction values recommended do not include factors of safety. If the design is to be based on allowable lateral resistance values, we recommend that minimum factors of safety of 1.5 and 2.0 be applied to the friction coefficient and passive lateral earth pressure, respectively. The resulting allowable lateral resistance values follow: Allowable Lateral Resistance Values Ultimate Allowable Factor of Safety Passive Lateral Earth Pressure (psflft) 250 125 2.0 Base Friction Coefficient 0.27 0.18 1.5 Allowable base friction and passive earth pressure may be combined without reduction. SLABS-ON-GRADE: To provide adequate support, concrete slabs-on-grade should bear on a minimum of 18 inches of compacted soil. The final pad surfaces should be rolled to provide smooth, dense surfaces. Concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness and should consist of at least No. 3 reinforcing bars spaced at 12 inches on center each way. Additional reinforcement may be required by the structural engineer. Slabs to receive moisture-sensitive coverings should be provided with a moisture vapor retarder/barrier. We recommend that a vapor retarder/barrier be designed and constructed according to the American Concrete Institute 302.1R, Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, which addresses moisture vapor retarder/barrier construction. At a minimum, the vapor retarder/barrier should comply with ASTM El 745 and have a nominal thickness of at least 10 mils. The vapor retarder/barrier should be properly sealed, per the manufacturer's recommendations, and protected from punctures and other damage. Per the Portland Cement Association (www.cement.org/tech/cct_con_vapor_retarders.asp), for slabs with vapor-sensitive coverings, a layer of dry, granular material (sand) should be placed under the vapor Page No. 14 Project No. 19-2110 retarder/barrier. For slabs in humidity-controlled areas, a layer of dry, granular material (sand) should be placed above the vapor retarder/bather. EXCAVATIONS: The soils encountered within our exploratory borings are generally classified as a Type "C" soil in accordance with the CAL/OSHA excavation standards. Unless specifically evaluated by our engineering geologist, all the trench excavations should be performed following the recommendation of CAL/OSHA (State of California, 2013) for Type "C" soil. Based upon a soil classification of Type "C", the temporary excavations should not be inclined steeper than 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical for maximum trench depth of less than 20 feet. For trench excavations deeper than 20 feet or for conditions that differ from those described for Type "C" in the CAL/OSHA excavation standards, this firm should be contacted. SLOPE PROTECTION: Inasmuch as the native materials are susceptible to erosion by wind and running water, it is our recommendation that the slopes at the project be planted 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 watering operation should be monitored to assure proper operation of the water system and to prevent over watering. Measures should be provided to prevent surface water from flowing over slope faces. Rodent infestation can also be a serious issue with respect to slope stability. Rodent tunneling and burrowing alters the strength of the soil and can allow water to infiltrate the soil, resulting in ultimate slope failure. Rodent burrows can also provide direct access for surface water to the slope face, causing surficial slope "blowouts". Although a maintenance issue, we recommend that measures be taken to prevent rodent infestation in slopes. Page No. 15 ProjectNo. 19-2110 SLOPE SETBACK: As per section 1808.7.2 of the 2016 CBC, which references Figure 1808.7.1 of the 2016 CBC, the distance between the face of the footing from the face of descending slopes should be at least the smaller of H13 and 40 feet, where H is the height of the slope. Footings should be deepened as necessary to meet this requirement. The distance between the face of the structure and the toe of ascending slopes should be at least the smaller of H12 and 15 feet. The building should be setback from ascending slopes to meet this requirement. Where the code-required setbacks are not achieved, this firm should be contacted for further evaluation as warranted. POTENTIAL EROSION AND DRAINAGE: The potential for erosion should be mitigated by proper drainage design. The site should be graded so that surface water flows away from structures at a minimum gradient of 5 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet from structures. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of structures should be sloped a minimum of 2 percent away from the building. Water should not be allowed to flow over graded areas or natural areas so as to cause erosion. Graded areas should be planted or otherwise protected from erosion by wind or water. TRENCH BEDDING AND BACKFILL: Trench Bedding - Pipe bedding material should meet and be placed according to the current edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction "Greenbook" or other project specifications. Pipe bedding should be uniform, free-draining, granular material with a sand equivalent of at least 30. Proposed pipe bedding material should be evaluated to confirm sand equivalent values by this firm prior to use as pipe bedding material. Page No. 16 Project No. 19-2110 Backfill - The on-site soils should provide quality backfill material provided they are free from organic matter and other deleterious materials. Rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches should not be buried or placed in backfihls. Fill to be compacted by heavy equipment should be spread in near-horizontal layers, approximately 8 inches in thickness. For fill to be compacted by hand-operated equipment, thinner lifts, 4 to 6 inches in thickness, should be utilized. Each lift should be spread evenly, moisture conditioned to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with ASTM D1557. To avoid pumping, backfill material should be mixed and moisture treated outside of the excavation prior to lift placement in the trench. Soils required to be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction, such as pavement subgrade, should be moisture treated to near optimum moisture content not exceeding 2 percent above optimum. A controlled low-strength material could be considered to fill any cavities, such as voids created by caving or undermining of soils beneath existing improvements CILEMICAL/CORROSIVITY TESTING: A selected sample of material was delivered to Clarkson Laboratory and Supply, Inc. for preliminary corrosivity analysis. Laboratory testing consisted of pH, resistivity, chlorides and sulfates. The results of the laboratory tests appear in Appendix C. The result from the resistivity test indicates a "severely corrosive" condition to ferrous metals. Specific corrosion control measures, such as coating of the pipe with non-corrosive material or alternative non- metallic pipe material, are considered necessary. Results of the soluble sulfate testing indicate a Class SO anticipated exposure to sulfate attack. Based on the criteria from Table 19.3.2.1 of the American Concrete Institute Manual of Concrete Practice Page No. 17 ProjectNo. 19-2110 (2014), special measures, such as specific cement types or water-cement ratios, are not considered necessary for this Class SO exposure to sulfate attack. The soluble chloride content of the soils tested was not at levels high enough to be of concern with respect to corrosion of reinforcing steel. The results should be considered in combination with the soluble chloride content of the hardened concrete in determining the effect of chloride on the corrosion of reinforcing steel. Eternia, Inc. does not practice corrosion engineering. If further information concerning the corrosion characteristics, or interpretation of the results submitted herein, is required, then a competent corrosion engineer could be consulted. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW It is recommended that we review the foundation plans for the proposed structure as they become available. The purpose of this review is to determine if these plans have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in this report. This review will also provide us an opportunity to submit additional recommendations as conditions warrant. GRADING PLAN REVIEW The project civil engineer should review this report, incorporate critical information on to the grading plan and reference this geotechnical study, by company name, project number and report date, on the grading plan. Final grading plans should be reviewed by us when they become available to address the suitability of our grading recommendations with respect to the proposed development. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: All grading operations, including site clearing and stripping, should be observed by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer's field representative will be present to provide observation and field testing and will not supervise or direct any of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Neither the presence of the geotechnical engineer's field representative nor Page No. 18 Project No. 19-2110 the observations and testing by the geotechnical engineer shall excuse the contractor in any way for defects discovered in his work. It is understood that the geotechnical engineer will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project, which will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. LIMITATIONS Eternia, Inc. has striven to perform our services within the limits prescribed by our client, and in a manner consistent with the usual thoroughness and competence of reputable geotechnical engineers and engineering geologists practicing under similar circumstances. No other representation, express or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended by virtue of the services performed or reports, opinion, documents, or otherwise supplied. This report reflects the testing conducted on the site as the site existed during the investigation, which is the subject of this report. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Changes in applicable or appropriate standards may also occur whether as a result of legislation, application or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore, this report is indicative of only those conditions tested at the time of the subject investigation, and the findings of this report may be invalidated fully or partially by changes outside of the control of Eternia, Inc. This report is therefore subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon observations performed and data collected at separate locations, and interpolation between these locations, carried out for the project and the scope of services described. It is assumed and expected that the conditions between locations observed and/or sampled are similar to those encountered at the individual locations where observation and sampling was performed. However, conditions between these locations may vary significantly. Should conditions that appear different than those described herein be encountered in the field by the client or any firm performing services for the client or the client's assign, this firm should be contacted immediately in order that we might evaluate their effect. Page No. 19 Project No. 19-2110 If this report or portions thereof are provided to contractors or included in specifications, it should be understood by all parties that they are provided for information only and should be used as such. The report and its contents resulting from this investigation are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse on extensions or modifications of the project, or for use on any other project. Page No. 20 Project No. 19-2110 CLOSURE We appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust this report provides the information desired at this time. Should questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact this office. '~Kv I NtA No: No. GE3085 CM. Respectfully submitted, PO ft ETE , C. Maihan Noorzay, G.E. Principal Engineer Page No. 21 ProjectNo. 19-2110 REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, 2014, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (AC! 318- 14), Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (AC! 318R-14), American Concrete Institute City of Carlsbad, 2013; DUDEK, 2013; SANDAG, 2013; Dyett & Bhatia, 2013. Coduto, Donald P., 2001, Foundation Design, Principles and Practices 2nd Edition, Prentice-Hall. Coduto, Donald P., et.al., 2011, Geotechnical Engineering Principles and Practices, 2' edition, Pearson. Das, Braja, M., 2007, Principles of Foundation Engineering, 6th edition, Thomson. Day, R. W., 2012, Geotechnical Engineer's Portable Handbook, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York International Conference of Building Officials, 2016, California Building Code, 2016 Edition: Whittier, California. Yi, F., 2018, GeoSuite, version 2.4 APPENDIX A MAPS t3f elk-It, 9 7953 Sitlo Vaquero, Carlsbad, CA 92009 arcc :3nt3 e A Reference: Microsoft 2018 Date: ___________ Figure 5/31/2019 Index Map A-i I Drawn By: 7953 Sitio Vaquero, Carlsbad, CA 92009 ___________ L. B. " I . TI JT1 • .- r'11 A B-i Approximate Boring Location Date: I I ___________ I Figure I 5/31/2019 Site Plan and Boring Locations I I I I Drawn By: 7953 Sitio Vaquero, Carlsbad, CA 92009 __________ I A-2 I LB. I I National Flood Hazard Layer FiRMette cm * to •0• [U 1 H [ -. lu or door c .) Air i 14 WO 44 iA - — Feet 1 6,000 250 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 Legend Sn FIS OtPOO1 FOP 0(110.001.10CC *00 010(0 edO 0*0 PACL LAYOUT 0100 fle0mngolth 1% 60,0.01 Chance Soot ace Eleoatlon Thft mapcompile. with FEMA..ban001d. for the one 04 - C0010al T,anso.1 .5(1101 flood n.age If it N not aOdd C deedlbed below. New Flood Elmetlon Line (B,!) The batiensap oboesn conlpse. sill. EDO A. bes.moo .1oeacy 1001.00,0. LOin, of Study - Jurisdiction Oft We y The flood 1.000,0 itto.m0500 IS portraitdltwctiy front_ (ho CO O"105001 P050111W sdsodthOse NFI web .5101105 provided by FEMA. TN. map woo eopoflod on 6 12 2019 at 728.56 AM and doe. sot OTHER EloiSe Sa.01Iss ,50IS01 ch.n(e. oromendnlents ii*saqoem 10(18.1 date and The NFNL and oitechse 10aUOn may 0h00(e 10 FEATURES wf~aphbc Feature Was become lotlefledod by new data oaot time. Digital Data Aseltobis TN. map 0.050 is void IllS, one alma,. of the blowing 1000 elemonte do not appeal' b.oensap Imagery, flood Coo label. Na DigItal Daca 6000.010 ..4. logond. ocale bar, map cleatlon date. con.no.nity, desiRe... MAP NE1.S Upped RPM 01 0051.01.000RPM pffacWa data Map 100(0510, onmapped and I.,000denti,ed fl0O connote. used TO, ,egldatooy P010000. The pin dISplP1wd on the map IS an app.aNmal, point Selected by the 01.01 and doe. 00100910.100, an oothonfate.n pp0901h location Reference: FEMA Flood MaD Service Center A flood ElaC4IOU ( SPECIAL FLOOD NEtTlES 0590hz,.,. At 10 00 Vi 00 HAZARD AREAS Ps*delneyfl000p 0.2% 600001 Chance Rood Hazard. doses oil'. 0000.1 chance flood whiT 00010(0 depth no. than one fool 0' witlt drinnege eteed of too. than one .0000e nile 111111.,'.. Fsdnee Datthtloncl% Amsod 0.00(5 Rood fd0000d Ace. with Reduced flood P1.1. dee to OTHER AREAS OF Lose.. Sort Notes. U. P1.000 HAZARD Area with flood P10k dos to Leses' U Aa 01 Mitinnat flo 14.1.10 LONE. OTHER AREAS doss of (J00115mm.ad Rood Hanoi GENERAL I - - - - Channel. 0.110.1.10 SOon,, Sowe, STRUCTURES I 111.111 L0000. DIke, 01.10000011 Date: I I ___________ I Figure I 6,12/2 0 19 FEMA Flood Map I I I I (iTj!, I Drawn By: 7953 Sitio Vaquero, Carlsbad, CA 92009 ___________ I A-4 I I I I APPENDIX B EXPLORATORY LOGS SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY I RELATIVE Visual-Manual Procedure (ASTM D248) DENSITY MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP TYPICAL NAMES CRITERIA SYMBOLS OW Well Graded Grovels and Gravel- Kcfcreiice:'Foundation Engincerin. Peck. Hansen. Clean Sand MI,ItUISS. LIttle or no Fmes Thomburn. 2nd Eddlon. Gravels Gravels Poorly Graded Gravels and 50% or more OP Gravel-Sand Mixtures. Little or Standard Penetration Test of Come no Fines Granular Soils Fraction GM Silty Gravels. Gravel-Sand-Silt Retained on Penetration Resistance. Rekillst Come- No. 4Sieve Gravels Mixtures. " N.(RlowslFoot) Density Grained with GC Clayey Gravel. Gravel-Sand.Clay 5oi1s Fines Mixtures** 0-4 Very Loosc sw Well Graded Sands and Gravely Sands. Little or no I'Mes More than 50% 4.10 Loose Rctained Clean 10-30 Medium SP Poorly Graded Sands and Gravely Sands. Little or an Fines an No. 200 Sieve 5anjs Sands 30-50 Dense More than Sands SM Silty Sands. Sand-Sill Mixtures" 50% of Come 550 Very Dense Fraction Passes with SC Clayey Sands. Sand-Clay No. 4 Sieve Fines Mixtures** Standard Penetration Teal ML Inorganic Silts. Sandy Silts. Rack Flour Cohesive Soils CL Inorganic Clays of Low to Silts and Clays Penetration Consistency Unconflned Medium Plasticity. Gravelly Resistance. N. Compressive Liquid Limits 50% or less Clays. Sandy Clays. Silty Clays. (final Pool) Strength. Floe Lean Clays (Tonsl Sq. Grained Ft.) OL Organic Silts and Organic ANY Soils" Clays of Low Phetietty 42 Very Soft 40.25 MM Inorganic Sifts. Micaceousor 50%or 24 Soft 0.25-0.5 more Dbtotaceous silts. Plastic Silts Posses No. 4-9 Medium 0.5- 1.0 __________ CM _______________________ Inorganic Clays ofllish 200 Sieve Silt and Clays Liquid Lm,d.s Greater tItan 50 Is Stiff 1.0-2.0 I5-30 Very Stiff 2.0-4.0 Oil Organic Clays ot Medium to High Plasticity >30 hard >4.0 IIigItIyOrganic Soils PT Peal. Muck. or Other llighly Organic Soils * Based on material passing the 3-inch sieve. ' More than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve; 5% to 12% passing No. 200 sieve requires use of duel symbols (i.e., SP-Sft GP-GM, SP-SC, GP-GC, dc.); Border line clasSifications are designated as CH/CI. GM/SM. SP/SW, etc. U.S. Standard Sieve Size 12" 3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 Unified Soil Classification Designation Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Sill and Clay I Coarse I Fine I Coarse I Medium I I Fine Moisture Condition Material Quantity Other Symbols Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, Trace <5% C - Core Sample dry to the touch. Slightly 5 - 12% S - SPT Sample Moist Damp but no visible moisture. Little 12-25% B - Bulk Sample Wet Visible free water, usually Some 25 - 50% CK - Chunk Sample below the water table. R - Ring Sample N - Nuclear Gauge Test V - Water Table 1Date: Simplified USCS Soils Classification Chart Figure I ___ __________ B-i I 3/26/2019 Drawn By: ___________ I R Project: Project Number: Client: Boring No. Wilson Home Expansion 19-2110 Drew Wilson I Address, City, State Drilling Contractor Drill Rig Type: 7953 Sitio Vaquero, Carlsbad, CA Logged By: Started: Bit Type: Diameter: Lee Bainer . 9:00 AM Cal Sampler! Hand Auger 2.5" Drill Crew: Completed: Hammer Type: Etemia Inc. N.C./L.B. Co o 10:00 AM Hand USA Ticket Number Backfllled: Hammer Weight: Hammer Drop: Cuttings N/A N/A Groundwater Depth: Elevation: Total Depth of Boring: None Encountered Surface 5.5' Lithology .CL 0613 CE Soil Group Name: modifier, color, moisture, density/consistency, grain Z a u size, other descriptors Rook Desorlotlen: modtherm color, hardness/degree of concentration, 10 0 (I) bedding and joint characteristics, solutions, void conditions. - I•4p4S, - S,tplpl, >< I 96 27.3 Wet Soft Dark Olive Brown Sandy Clay 2 ::: - 24.4 >< >< Wet Soft Dark Olive Brown Sandy Clay - - 4 4 4 •_ >< j Wet Dark Olive Brown Sandy Clay 3 94.5 27.4 - - 4 90.5 31.2 Wet Dark Olive Brown Clay w/ Sand Wet Olive Brown Clay w Sand 5:::':: 924273 - Hole abandoned at 5.5' - Bulk Sample Collected from 0'-5' 10— Civil Engineering Boring Log: Sheet I of I Standard Penetration Slit Spoon Sampler (SPT) H California Sampler Y Stabilized Ground water 111111 Shelby Tube 7 Groundwater At time of Drilling 99 CPP Sampler Bulk! Bag Sample Project: Wilson Home Expansion Project Number: 19-2110 Client: Drew Wilson Boring No. 2 Address, City, State 7953 Sitio Vaquero, Carlsbad, CA Drilling Contractor: Drill Rig Type: Logged By: Lee Bainer . o Started: 10:00 Bit Type: Hand Auger Diameter: 2.5" Drill Crew. Etemia Inc. N.C./L.B. Completed: 10:30 Hammer Type: USA Ticket Number Backfiiled: Cuttings Hammer Weight: N/A Hammer Drop: N/A Groundwater Depth: None Encountered Elevation: Surface Total Depth of Boring: 2.5' CL . 's 8 M=.2 I CL U) E g 0 3 u Lithology Sall Group Name: modifier, color, moisture, density/consistency, grain size, otherdescnptors RookDescrlatlon: modiflerm color, hardness/degree of concentration, bedding and joint characteristics, solutions, void conditions. 0 ' 2.5 2 4,SpSfr4 ' -- Wet Soft Dark Olive Brown Sandy Clay _____________________________________________________________________________________________ >< - >< Wet Soft Dark Olive Brown Sandy Clay - 5 - 10— Hole abandoned at 2.5' Bulk Sample Collected from 0'-2.5' Civil Engineering. Boring Log: Sheet I of I Standard Penetration Slit Spoon Sampler (SPT) H California Sampler Stabilized Ground water 111111 Shelby Tube 7 Groundwater At time of Drilling CPP Sampler 19 Bulk! Bag Sample APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING H Dry Density and Moisture Content Date Tested: 5/1/2019 Boring # Sample # Depth (ft) Dry Density (pci) Moisture Content (%) Description B-i S-i 11-1.51 96.0 27.3% Dark Olive Brown Sandy Clay B-i S-3 3'-3.5' 94.5 27.4% Dark olive Brown Sandy Clay B-i S-4 4'-4.5' 90.5 31.2% Dar kOliveBrownClaywith Sand B-i S-5 5'-5 .5' 92.4 27.3% Dark Olive Brown Clay with Sand Performed in General Accordance with ASTM D7263 B and 02216 I Project Name I FIGURE Wilson Residence Home LB Expanson NUMBER: 12110 DA: 16-May-19 3000 2500 2000 1500 500 0 ---- ---- - — -. — — — — Ole 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 Displacement 5000 o Peak Point 4000 —Peak Envelope 1000 04 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Normal Stress (psf) Strain Rate = 0.0118 inch/min Date Tested: 617/2019 Interpreted Shear Strength Peak Ultimate Boring No. Sample No. Depth UCSC Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (deg) Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (deg) B-I Bulk 01-5' CL 880 22.3 696 24.8 Sample description: d By: LB. Tech: L.B # 19-2110 12-Jun-19 Dark Olive Brown Sandy Clay (Remolded to 90% of Proctor at Optimum Moisture) Remolded Direct Shear Test Results Figure (ASTM 03080) Wilson Residence Home Expansion C-2 Expansion Readings DATE TIME READING 5/8/2019 7:00 AM 0.0458 5/8/2019 7:10 AM 0.0456 5/11/2019 7:00 AM 0.1127 << Add Water << Final (1J Expansion Index (ASTM D4829) Location Sample No. Depth (ft) Sample Description B-i . Bulk 01-5' Dark Olive Brown Sandy Clay Density Determination Weight Compacted Sample and Ri Weight of Ring Net Weight of Sample Wet Density, pcf Dry Density, pcf Moisture Determination Wet Weight of Sample, g Dry Weight of Sample, g Moisture Content, % Trial #1 Trial #2 731.1 362.5 368.6 111.7 99.0 Expansion Index 67 Corrected Expansion Index 67 (MEDIUM) %Saturation 49.5 Project Name FIGURE CKED BY: LB. TECH: LB. Wilson Residence Home Expansion C-3 NUMBEII 19-2110 JDATE 5/16/2019 SOIL MAXIMUM DENSITY 150 ----2.75 140 2.65 C 130 0 120 110 100 90 ....,.... 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Water Content Test Meth od ASTM D1557 B Uncorrected Corrected (%) Material Description: Dark Olive Brown Sandy Clay Location: B-i, 0'-S' Bulk Rammer Type: Mechanical Specimen Preparation: Moist Project Name Figure Tech: L.B. Wilson Residence Home Expansion C-4 Job Number: 19-2110 \\ \ ----2.70 -- • • , ------2.60 b - 0 Proctor Corroded Proctor Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 112.1 na Optimum Water Content (%) 14.5 na Oversize Fraction, retained on 3/8 (%) <5 Bulk Specific Gravity of Oversize Fraction . na (*T AlT ERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS 1I' Date Tested 5/11/19 60 50 K 30 IL 20 10 0 -- UQUID LIMIT (LL) PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WrFH ASThI D 4318 FIGURE Wilson Residence Home C-S TECH:LB. Expansion PROJECT NO: 19-2110 16-May-19 i SYMBOL SAMPLE NAME DEPTH (It) U PL P1 uscs CLASSIFICATION (Minus No. 40 Sieve Fraction) USCS (Entire Sample) • 0 B-1,S-2 2'-2.5' 44 15 29 CL CL 70 __ rA VA ..d Es [,1sc1. ssfss;lsIs[s ETEPJILA Y(I)U101114 i JIN I liillilliellillill IIiiãIii!IIIIII U IIIII IUII•H IIIII I• 11111111HEIIIIIIIIu..iii111111111UNII iii u IN I NEI l IIIII I 1HEV I I III millillimmil UNION .iioui..ioiiuu. JII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIi9IIHIIUUIHIUIIIOIIIIUU - illilloollillill — ______IIIIUII1IiIIOIIIIIIIIIII1IUUIIiUIIIHIUII•HIUIIUU I- IlI1IIIuIIIIIIIIflhII1OIiII1UIIIIHUIIHIUII•IIIIIIII JIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIflhIUI11IIIIIUUIIiUIIIHIUIIIIUIIIIR iiiiiiiuuiuoonuuiiiiiuiuuiiiiiiiuu•iiiuuuiuiiuuiuiu e :!_ilIi P4 11 IllI Ih'I I lIllEl PJl( *JI i Iii I.3 IPIO I1•?1 js) V Residence J C,) sit1Expansion1 Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) Passing 200%) USCS Classif Sample i l mm mm ---Project- Name i RAVEL SAND FINES Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Slit Clay G J cation B-i S-i 11-1.5' 61.3 CL Description Dark O ve Sandy lean clay Moisture 27.3 Brown Percent Sieve Size % Passing 2" 50 mm 100 1.5" 37.5 100 1" 25 mm 100 3/4" 19 mm 100 1/2" 12.5 100 Sieve 3/8" 9.5 mm 100 Analysis No. 4 4.75 100 No. 10 2.0 mm 100 No. 20 0.85 99 No. 40 .425 97 No* 60 0.25 96 10 No 0 0.15 91 No 200 .075 61.3 ETERHL& c 1.I 7I v(o)k V • 1 jSj S ( I fktYrZW I :d':•:'', AVEL SAND FINES Coarse 1111111 uIIi 1111111old iu i;!uIII1H II IuII uIIIIuIHII uI• JIiIflhIIIIIUIIIIUI1IIIIIIIIHDHUI•IIUlUIUIHIIUUU II VIIiIIIIIIIIIflhIUI1IIIiIIIlIIiUII•IIIHIII•IHIIIIl .JIDUHUIuIIHflhUUIHUIuIUIi!IiUII•IIUIIIIIIIUUI ii .IIDIIHhiIIHHflhI•IHIIIIII1Ub1IUIUIOIIUUUIIIIIUl hIEjIiIHIIIIIIIIflhI•UIIuIIIu1OHHhIlUIHIUIIUIIUIUI I- JI11IIiI1IUIIHIIIII•IIIIIIIIII1UIII1IUIUIHIUIUUIIUIIII iiiiiniiuiiiiiiiiiiiniuuiiviiuuaiiuu.u•uuiu.0 JIIlIIIuIIIIOIIIIIII11IUIIIIUIIiIIII•IIIUIII•IHIIIII• el_I I 1:1 P4 1t I 11111 'J I ri Wilson I7( *fiu I : (I) 131 I U) :i • I (1)11 1tEf L u L I) Project Name _4U(: i { rn I.'3I (I I'1i( J Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) Passing 200 (%) USCS Classifi l IllE!I GR Coarse Fine Medium Fine Silt Clay cation B-i S-2 2-2.5 54.0 CL Sample Description Dark Olive Sandy lean clay Moisture 24.4 Brown Percent Sieve Analysis Sieve Size % Passing 2" 50 mm 100 1.5" 37.5 inn 100 1" 25 mm 100 3/4" 19 mm 100 1/2" 12.5 mm 100 3/8" 9.5 mm 100 No.4 4.75 mm 100 No. 10 2.0 mm 100 No. 20 0.85 mm 99 No. 40 .42511m1 97 No. 60 0.25mm1 93 No 100 0.15 mrnj 81 No 200 .075 mml 54.0 ETEPJ1IA ' III1IIIlIIIIIIIIIIIlIIiiii!iUIII1IIIII•IOIUIIUIHIUIU JIiIIIUIIHIIIlIIUIHUIIIhiIIIiUIIUIIUIIIIUIIIIUII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII•IHUIIIIIkiIII1IUII•IIIIIIIIUIHIIIIU• N _iiviiuuumiiiiiiuu•iiuiuuuiiiviuui•iiiiiuiuiiiiiuuu I IIHhIIII1iIIIIIIIIIal1IIIIIuIIIIIhIIIII•IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUU I IIiIIIIIIIIOIflhIUI1UIIII1UHIUUUUHUIUIUIIIIIIII• .IIDIUIUIIIIHflhIUIHUIiIUUIIiUIIUIIUIIII.IIUII... IIDIIIlIIiIIIIIIIIII•IlIIiII1UIIIIIIlUIIIHIIIIHIUII• IIIIIIHUIIHIIflhI•IIIUIIII1UHiUII•IOIIUIUIIHUII is • .111 •xi:. e1.1IIjY4 iResidence1 : (I)I.J • Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) Passing 200 (%) USCS Classifi l mm mm MM mnj Project Name i Wilson RAVEL SAND FINES Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay G J J cation B-i S-3 3'-3.5 50.1 CL Sandy lean day Percent Moisture 27.4 Sample Description Dark O ve Brown Sieve Size % Passing 2 50 mm 100 1.5" 37.5 100 i 25 mm 100 3/4" 19 mm 100 1/2" 12.5 100 Sieve 3/8" 9.5 mm 100 Analysis No.4 4.75 99 No. 10 2.0 mm 99 No. 20 0.85 98 No. 40 .425 96 No. 60 0.25 92 No 100 0.15 74 No 200 .075 50.1 ETEPJIIA 0 114 irr I Y II II VIIlII1IIIHIilIIUlIIiiii!UIIIIIUIUIHIUIIIIIIIIII I U IlI IHUIIIO IIIII• III 1IIIIlIIUIHIIIIIIIlIIIIiIUI1IIiiIIUUIIIIIIIIUIIIIUhI . __.JIVIIIII1IIIIUflhIUIlIIIII1UHHHUIIIIIUII•IIUIIII 1._I. IIDIIIIIII1OUflhIUI11IIIIIIIIUHI1IUIIIIUUIU•IIIIIIII IL.JIHIIHIIUIIOIflhIUI1IIIIIIIUIIVIUIIUHUIIII•IIIIIUIU IL_J11111U11H111111•I1111UU11iU11•1IU111111111111U IJItIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIII•IVIIIIII1UHiIUIUIIIIUIIUIHIIUUU JIIIIIIIlIIUIIIINiII•IiIIlIIII1OiIIIIRIHIUIIIIIIUIlR S)E I 1I(tIW((•Rl )7?[ *?i IS1U I3i!41 Ns) 1 ! it1.1 (') ist.I 1s i'j (1)11 DTE RIIs IIB1 ftLE3Ji Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) Passing 200 (%) USCS Classifi t mm mm rn minj mn rn nim Project Name h RAVEL SAND FINES Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay G J cation B-i S-4 4-4.5 77.5 CL Sample ecription Dark Olive Lean day wi sand Moisture 31.2 Percent Brown Sieve Size % Passing 2" 50 MM 100 1.5" 37.5 100 1" 25 mm 100 3/4" 19 mm 100 1/2" 12.5 100 Sieve 3/8" 9.5 mm 100 Analysis No.4 4.75 100 No. 10 2.0 min 100 No. 20 0.85 99 No. 40 .425 98 No. 60 0.25 96 No 100 0.15 91 No 200 .075 77.5 €TEPJ1LA I JII1uInImIIIulII•uiiiiIIIiuII•IIuIuI•IIuuIIu IIIIIIIiIlIIIIIIIiIII11UIIIIIUI!IUIlIHIIIII•HUIIII• N —_II VIIflUIIOIIIIIIUIIIIUUIIiUhUIHIUhIUIIUIUIU I III1IIIIIIiIIIlIIIiIII11IIIIIII1I1IIDIUIIUIIHhIIIUIIIIIIIIR I::IIHIIIuu.IIIIIIuII.IiIIIIuuoiuIu.IIIIuI..IIuIuI I .IIiIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIl1IUIiIIItIVIUIUIIIIUIIUIIIHUIN -. JII1IIflh1IIOIIIIIUIiIIIIUUHiIIIU•IHIIUU•IIIIIIIIR IIHIIIiIiIIOIIflhIUIIIIIiIUUIII1IUII•IIIIIIIIUIIUIIII ci I I1 P4 I 'I II Ik' I :{ l Il(eI i *"AJ I: IbI S I I) Project Name N.) 'U HomeI :i '1i 'i Ci) 1 1Dtt PI.'4I[I l' t mm mm mm mn pM h RAVEL SAND FINES Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay G J Boring No. Sample No. Depth (ft) Passing 200 (%) USCS Classification B-i S-S 51-5.5' 72.4 CL Sample Description Dark Olive Lean day wi sand Moisture 27.3 Brown Percent Sieve Size % Passing 2" 50 Min 100 1.5" 37.5 100 in 25 mm 100 3/4" 19 mm 100 1/2" 12.5 100 Sieve 3/8" 9.5 mm 100 Analysis No. 4 4.75 100 No. 10 2.0 mm 100 No. 20 0.85 99 No. 40 .425 98 No. 60 0.25 96 No 100 0.15 88 No 200 .075 72.4 Telephone (619) 425-1993 Fax 425-7917 Established 1928 CLARKSON LABORATORY AND SUPPLY INC. 350 Trousdale Dr. Chula Vista, Ca. 91910 www.clarksonlab.com ANALYTICAL AND CONSULTING CHEMISTS Date: April 18, 2019 Purchase Order Number: 19-2110 Sales Order Number: 44018 Account Number: A-ETEI To: *-------------------------------------------------* Eternia Inc 4455 Murphy Canyon Rd Ste 100 San Deigo, CA 92123 Attention: Lee Bainer Laboratory Number: $07290 Customers Phone: 858-380-8906 Sample Designation: *-------------------------------------------------* One soil sample received on 04/17/19 at 10:00am, taken from Wilson Home Expansion marked as B-i, 0'-2.5', Bulk. Analysis By California Test 643, 1999, Department of Transportation Division of Construction, Method for Estimating the Service Life of Steel Culverts. pH 7.8 Water Added (ml) Resistivity (ohm-cm) 10 4900 5 2700 5 1500 5 1300 5 950 5 890 5 900 5 920 29 years to perforation for a 16 gauge metal culvert. 38 years to perforation for a 14 gauge metal culvert. 52 years to perforation for a 12 gauge metal culvert. 67 years to perforation for a 10 gauge metal culvert. 82 years to perforation for a 8 gauge metal culvert. Water Soluble Sulfate Calif. Test 417 Water Soluble Chloride Calif. Test 422 0.021% 0.003% Laura Torres LT/ilv