Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CT 03-02; MARBRISA VILLA 67; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR MARBISA VILLA 67, GRAND PACIFIC RESORTS; 2023-01-09
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION MarBrisa Villa 67 Grand Pacific Resorts Carlsbad, CALIFORNIA Grand Pacific Resorts 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 200 Carlsbad, California 92008 Date: January 9, 2023 (Revised) MTGL Project No.: 1916A24 MTGL Log No.: 22-0806-R1 MTGL, Inc. 6295 Ferris Square, Suite C San Diego, California 92121 858.537.3999 | www.mtglinc.com Page i GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION MATERIALS TESTING ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICE LOCATIONS ORANGE COUNTY CORPORATE BRANCH 2992 E. La Palma Avenue Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 SAN DIEGO IMPERIAL COUNTY 6295 Ferris Square Suite C San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 INLAND EMPIRE 14467 Meridian Parkway Building 2A Riverside, CA 92518 Tel: 951.653.4999 Fax: 951.653.4666 OC/LA/INLAND EMPIRE DISPATCH 800.491.2990 SAN DIEGO DISPATCH 888.844.5060 www.mtglinc.com November 4, 2022 Revised January 9, 2023 Mr. Houston Arnold MTGL Project No.: 1916A24 MTGL Log No.: 22-0806R1 MTGL Branch: San Diego Director of Development & Construction Grand Pacific Resorts 5900 Pasteur Court, Suite 200 Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION MarBrisa Villa 67 MarBrisa Circle, Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Arnold, MTGL Inc. is pleased to present this revised report describing the results of our geotechnical investigation for the subject project. With your authorization, we have performed this work in general accordance with our proposal dated October 17th, 2022. Based on the results of our investigation, we consider the planned developments feasible from a geotechnical perspective, provided the recommendations of this report are followed. We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service and look forward to providing additional consulting services during the planning and construction of the project. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, MTGL, Inc. Jay Rowerdink, E.I.T. Daniel Richardson, P.E. Staff Engineer Senior Engineer Isaac Chun, P.E., G.E. Greg Wilson, P.G., C.E.G Vice President Senior Geologist Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In accordance with your request and authorization, we have completed our geotechnical investigation for the subject site located at MarBrisa Circle in Oceanside, California. Based on correspondence with the project development team, we understand the project will consist of the design and construction of a new multi-story villa building at the resort. Preliminary structural plans were available for review at the time of this investigation. Associated civil improvements may include new utilities, sidewalks, driveways, shallow storm water best management practices (BMPs), and other auxiliary features. The purpose of our work was to provide conclusions and recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects of the project. Our subsurface investigation was performed between October 19th and 20th, 2022, and consisted of drilling four (4) exploratory soil borings within the project site. The borings were drilled to depths between approximately 5 to 20 feet below existing ground surface (BGS) using hand tools and a truck-mounted drilling rig equipped with an 8 inch hollow stem auger. Two (2) shallow borings were converted to borehole percolation tests to evaluate infiltration feasibility. An MTGL geologist logged the borings and collected samples of the encountered materials for geotechnical laboratory testing. Selected samples were tested in our laboratory to evaluate their engineering properties. As encountered in our borings, the site is underlain by compacted fill (Qf) and old paralic deposits (Qop). Fill was encountered in each of the borings at the ground surface and extended to depths of about 14 feet below existing ground surface. As encountered, the fill generally consisted of various shades of brown and gray, medium dense to very dense, fine to coarse grained silty to clayey sand, and hard sandy clay. Old paralic deposits were encountered beneath the fill materials and extended to the total depths explored. As encountered, the old paralic deposits generally consisted of various shades of brown, very dense silty to clayey sand. The main geotechnical consideration affecting the project is that a considerable amount of time has passed since remedial grading for the building pad in 2013. Therefore, upon completion of clearing and grubbing, the top 8 to 12 inches of pad subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Similar scarification and recompacting should be performed below footings. Beneath areas subject to vehicular traffic, relative compaction should be increased to 95%. In general, conventional shallow spread and/or continuous footings bearing entirely on compacted fill or on two-sack slurry extending into compacted fill may be used to support the proposed structures. To reduce the potential for expansive heave, concrete slabs-on-grade, hardscape, and site and retaining wall footings should be underlain by at least 2 feet of material with an expansion index of 20 or less. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.00 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.01 PLANNED CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 1.02 SCOPE OF WORK ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.03 SITE DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 2 1.04 FIELD INVESTIGATION .............................................................................................................. 2 1.05 LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................................ 3 2.00 FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 4 2.01 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES .................................................................... 4 2.01.1 MTGL, 2011, GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION .................................................................... 4 2.01.2 MTGL, 2013, BUILDING PAD CERTIFICATION ...................................................................... 4 2.02 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 5 2.03 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 6 2.04 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................................................................................................ 6 2.04.1 STRONG GROUND MOTION AND MAPPED SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ...................... 6 2.04.2 SITE SPECIFIC GROUND MOTION ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 6 2.04.3 ACTIVE FAULTING AND FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD ............................................................. 7 2.04.4 LIQUEFACTION AND DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT ..................................................................... 8 2.04.4.1 BEARING FAILURE .............................................................................................................. 8 2.04.4.2 LATERAL SPREADING (LATERAL DISPLACEMENT) ............................................................ 8 2.04.4.3 LIFELINE HAZARDS ............................................................................................................. 9 2.04.5 TSUNAMIS, SEICHES, AND FLOODING ................................................................................. 9 2.04.6 LANDSLIDES AND EXISTING SLOPE STABLITY ...................................................................... 9 2.04.7 SUBSIDENCE ......................................................................................................................... 9 2.04.8 HYDRO-CONSOLIDATION ..................................................................................................... 9 3.00 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 11 3.01 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 11 4.00 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 12 4.01 EARTHWORK .......................................................................................................................... 12 4.01.1 SITE PREPARATION AND CLEARING ................................................................................... 12 4.01.2 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................ 12 4.01.3 FILL MATERIALS .................................................................................................................. 13 4.01.4 EXPANSIVE SOILS ................................................................................................................ 13 4.01.5 IMPORTED SOILS ................................................................................................................ 14 4.01.6 OVERSIZED MATERIALS ...................................................................................................... 14 4.01.7 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS ............................................................................................... 14 4.01.8 TEMPORARY SHORING ....................................................................................................... 15 4.01.9 TEMPORARY DEWATERING ............................................................................................... 15 4.02 FOUNDATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 16 Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page iv 4.02.1 CONVENTIONAL SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS ...................................................................... 16 4.02.2 CAST IN DRILLED HOLE (CIDH) DEEP FOUNDATIONS ........................................................ 17 4.02.3 SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................ 17 4.03 INTERIOR SLABS ON GRADE .................................................................................................. 17 4.04 HARDSCAPE ............................................................................................................................ 18 4.05 PREWETTING RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 18 4.06 CORROSIVITY.......................................................................................................................... 19 4.07 RETAINING STRUCTURES ....................................................................................................... 19 4.08 SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURES ................................................................................................... 21 4.09 PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTIONS ..................................................................................... 21 4.10 UTILITY TRENCHES ................................................................................................................. 22 4.10.1 THRUST BLOCKS ................................................................................................................. 22 4.10.2 MODULUS OF SOIL REACTION ........................................................................................... 22 4.10.3 BEDDING ............................................................................................................................. 22 4.10.4 BACKFILL ............................................................................................................................. 23 4.11 INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY ..................................................................................................... 23 4.12 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................... 24 4.12.1 MOISTURE-SENSITIVE SOILS AND WEATHER-RELATED CONCERNS ................................. 24 4.12.2 DRAINAGE AND GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................... 24 4.12.3 SITE DRAINAGE ................................................................................................................... 25 4.13 PLAN REVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 25 5.00 GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING ............................................................... 26 6.00 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................ 27 ATTACHMENTS: Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Subsurface Exploration Map Figure 2A – Subsurface Exploration Map – Previous Work Figure 3 – Regional Geology Map Figure 4 – Geologic Cross Section A-A’ Figure 5 – Fault Activity Map Figure 6 – Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Appendix A – References Appendix B – Field Investigation (Boring Logs) Appendix C – Laboratory Testing Appendix D – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix E – Site-Specific Seismic Design Analysis Results Appendix F – Borehole Percolation Test Results Appendix G – Previous Field Investigation & Laboratory Testing Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 1 1.00 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and authorization, MTGL, Inc. has completed a geotechnical investigation for the subject site. The following report presents a summary of our findings, conclusions and recommendations based on our field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. 1.01 PLANNED CONSTRUCTION Based on our review of the previous geotechnical reports, supplemental addenda, and conversations with the project development team, we understand the proposed project consists of the construction of a new multi-story villa building. Associated civil improvements may include new utilities, sidewalks, driveways, shallow storm water best management practices (BMPs), and other auxiliary features. The proposed building pad was previously graded and is currently near pad grade elevation (within less than approximately ½ foot). As recommended in Section 4.01.1 of this report, the project is anticipated to include an 8 to 12 inch pad subgrade scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction to a minimum of 90% relative compaction or greater. The scarification should extend up to 5 feet outside the proposed pad limits, or up to existing improvements, whichever is greater. Similar scarification should be performed beneath footings. Additionally, the site is relatively flat, and no cut slopes, fill slopes, or retaining walls are currently planned for the project. 1.02 SCOPE OF WORK We conducted this investigation in general conformance with the scope of work presented in our proposal No. P-22-876. The scope of our geotechnical services included the following: • Reviewing readily available literature, previous reports, and maps to obtain background information of regional geology, site development, seismicity, and groundwater. • Marking out boring locations on the site and contacting Underground Service Alert (USA) to locate onsite utility lines. • Utilizing a private utility locator service to clear borings of potential underground utility conflicts. • Drilling, logging, and sampling of four (4) exploratory borings using hand tools and an 8 inch diameter hollow stem auger drill rig. • Converting two (2) shallow borings to borehole percolation tests. • Performing two (2) borehole percolation tests to assess infiltration characteristics. • Performing laboratory testing of select samples. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 2 • Performing geotechnical engineering review of compiled data and performing geotechnical engineering analyses. • Preparation of this report summarizing our findings and presenting our conclusions and recommendations for the proposed construction. 1.03 SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located on the western portion of Carlsbad within the county of San Diego, California. The site is situated on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 2111311300, at MarBrisa Circle. The site is generally bounded by existing villas on the west, south, and east, and by a pool and recreation area on the north. Figure 1 presents a Site Location Map. The site is relatively flat with surface elevations ranging from approximately 190 to 193 feet MSL (Google Earth, 2022). Based on our review of previous reports and historic aerial photographs, the site was developed between 2010 and 2012 (Historic Aerials: NETRonline, 2022). Prior to development, the site was primarily used as agricultural land. The site is currently occupied by a turf lawn area. Other existing improvements include shade canopies, hardscapes, asphalt pavements, subsurface utilities, and landscaped areas. 1.04 FIELD INVESTIGATION Prior to performing our field investigation, a site reconnaissance was performed by an MTGL geologist to observe the existing surface conditions, mark out proposed boring locations, evaluate each location with respect to obvious subsurface structures and assess site access for the drilling rig. Underground Service Alert (USA) was subsequently notified of the marked locations for utility clearance as required by law. In addition, a private utility locator was subcontracted to mark-out potential utility conflicts. Our subsurface investigation was performed on October 19th and 20th, 2022, and consisted of drilling four (4) exploratory soil borings within the project site. Figure 2 presents the boring locations on a Subsurface Exploration Map. Two (2) borings (B-1 and B-2) were drilled to depths up to approximately 20 feet (BGS) using hand tools and a truck-mounted drilling rig equipped with an 8 inch hollow stem auger. The remaining two shallow borings (P-1 and P-2) were drilled to depths up to approximately 5 feet (BGS) and converted to borehole percolation tests to evaluate infiltration feasibility. An MTGL geologist logged the borings and collected samples of the encountered materials for geotechnical laboratory testing. Representative disturbed bulk soil samples were obtained from the borings in the upper 5 feet. Relatively undisturbed samples were taken using Modified California (CAL) and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samplers at selected depth intervals. Samplers were driven into the bottom Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 3 of the boring with successive drops of a 140 pound weight falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The energy corrected number of blows per foot required to drive the CAL and SPT samplers are shown on the boring logs in the N60 column (Appendix B). A conversion factor of 0.65 was used to normalize N60 values obtained by Modified California samplers. SPTs were performed in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1586 standard test method. See Appendix B for further discussion of the field exploration methods and logs of test borings. Soils encountered were described in general conformance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Samples were sealed and packaged for transportation to our in-house geotechnical laboratory for storage and subsequent testing. After completion of drilling, borings were backfilled. 1.05 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on select samples to verify the field classification of the recovered samples and evaluate the geotechnical properties of the subsurface materials. Laboratory tests were performed in general conformance with applicable ASTM or State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standard methods. The results of laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 4 2.00 FINDINGS 2.01 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES To aid in the preparation of this report, we have reviewed the geotechnical and as-graded report previously performed for project site below. A brief summary of each is provided. PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS REVIEWED Author, Year Title MTGL, 2011 Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Sales, Activity, and Fitness Buildings, Carlsbad Ranch, Planning Area 5, MarBrisa Phase II, Carlsbad, California, MTGL Project No. 1916-A08, Log No. 11-1409, dated November 4. MTGL, 2013 Building Pad Certification – Villas 57-61, 64-67, 69-70, MarBrisa Resorts, Carlsbad, California, MTGL Project No. 1916A09, Log No. 13-141 2.01.1 MTGL, 2011, GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION This geotechnical investigation included six (6) borings, drilled with an 8 inch diameter hollow- stem auger, extending to depths between approximately 20 to 50 feet below existing ground surface (BGS). This investigation was performed in the general vicinity of the western portion of MarBrisa Resorts, encompassing the area proposed for Villa 67. Each boring encountered documented fill generally consisting of medium dense to very dense sands in the upper 7 to 18 feet. Terrace deposits (old paralic deposits) were encountered underlying the documented fill in each of the borings and extended to the total depths explored. The terrace deposits generally consisted of dense to very dense sands. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings. The geotechnical data indicated that the site was suitable for the proposed project, provided that proposed structures are not underlain by cut/fill transitions. Foundation recommendations for this project included conventional continuous/isolated footings bearing on compacted fill. Appendix G presents the borings logs and laboratory tests appendices from this investigation. Figure 2A presents the locations of the borings performed as part of the previous investigation. 2.01.2 MTGL, 2013, BUILDING PAD CERTIFICATION This report included the building pad certification for Villas 57-61, 64-67, and 69-70, located at MarBrisa Resorts. The report states MTGL performed grading observations and testing at the site between February 29, 2012 through September 24, 2012. The report states the preparation of the building pads were accomplished in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, and referenced geotechnical investigation. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 5 2.02 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California, which stretches from the Los Angeles basin to the tip of Baja California in Mexico. This province is characterized as a series of northwest trending mountain ranges separated by subparallel fault zones and a coastal plain of subdued landforms. The mountain ranges are underlain primarily by Mesozoic metamorphic rocks that were intruded by plutonic rocks of the southern California batholith, while the coastal plain is underlain by subsequently deposited marine and non-marine sedimentary formations. As encountered in our borings, the site is generally underlain by compacted fill (Qf) and old paralic deposits (Qop). The subsurface materials encountered in our borings were generally consistent with the mapped geologic units presented by Kennedy and Tan (2007). Approximate locations of borings are presented on the Subsurface Exploration Map (Figure 2). Figure 3 presents a map of regional geology within the vicinity of the site. Figure 4 presents Geologic Cross Section A-A’. Descriptions of the materials encountered in the borings are presented below. Fill (Qf) – Compacted fill was encountered in each of the borings at the ground surface and extended to depths up to approximately 14 feet below existing ground surface. As encountered, the fill generally consisted of various shades of brown and gray, medium dense to very dense, fine to coarse grained silty to clayey sand, and hard sandy clay. Documentation regarding the placement of fill underlying the site was available for review at the time of this report. Thus, the fill is considered engineered fill. Old Paralic Deposits (Qop) – Pleistocene-age old paralic deposits were encountered underlying the fill in borings B-1 and B-2 and extended to the total depths explored. As encountered, the old paralic deposits generally consisted of various shades of brown, very dense silty to clayey sand. Although not encountered within our subsurface explorations, geologic maps suggest the site is underlain by Eocene-age Santiago Formation at depth. A summary of boring locations and pertinent data for each boring are presented in the table below. SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS Boring No. Depth Below Existing Grade (ft) Latitude (Deg) Longitude (Deg) Surface Conditions Existing Ground Elevation (ft)* Approximate Thickness of Fill (ft) Groundwater Depth Below Ground Surface (ft) B-1 20 33.13125 -117.31214 Turf/Soil 190 14 NE** B-2 20 33.13128 -117.31191 Turf/Soil 190 14 NE** P-1 5 33.13122 -117.31214 Soil 191 >5 NE** P-2 5 33.13131 -117.31190 Soil 191 >5 NE** * Approximated using Google Earth ** NE- Not Encountered Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 6 2.03 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater was not encountered in the subsurface explorations. The groundwater table is expected to be below a depth that will influence the planned construction. However, groundwater levels may fluctuate in the future due to rainfall, irrigation, broken pipes, or changes in site drainage. Because groundwater rise or seepage is difficult to predict, such conditions are typically mitigated if and when they occur. 2.04 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Geologic hazards are summarized and discussed with respect to the site and proposed development below. 2.04.1 STRONG GROUND MOTION AND MAPPED SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS A geologic hazard likely to affect the project is ground shaking as a result of movement along an active fault zone in the vicinity of the subject site (USGS, 2020). Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during our investigation, the site may be classified as site class D. The mapped site coefficients and maximum considered earthquake (MCER) spectral response acceleration parameters in accordance with the 2019 CBC are presented below: 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE – MAPPED SITE COEFFICIENTS Site Coordinates Latitude Longitude 33.1313° -117.3121° Site Coefficients and Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Values Site Class D Site Coefficients, Fa 1.2 Site Coefficients, Fv *See Note 1 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Period, Ss 1.049 g Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period, S1 0.380 g Mapped Design Spectral Acceleration at Short Period, SDS 0.839 g Design Spectral Acceleration at 1-Second Period, SD1 *See Note 1 Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAm 0.554 g * Note 1 – ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8. A site-specific ground motion analysis is required to be performed in accordance with Section 21 unless exempted in accordance with Section 20.3.1. 2.04.2 SITE SPECIFIC GROUND MOTION ANALYSIS For a site class D, a site-specific ground motion analysis is required to be performed in accordance with the requirements of 2019 CBC and ASCE 7-16. As part of the site-specific analysis, base ground motions were evaluated in conjunction with both a Probabilistic Seismic Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 7 Hazard Analysis (PSHA) and a Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis (DSHA) to characterize earthquake ground shaking that may occur at the site during future seismic events. The PSHA is based on an assessment of the recurrence of earthquakes on potential seismic sources in the region and on ground motion prediction models of different seismic sources in the region. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) unified hazard analysis tool was used to develop a seismic hazard curve and the USGS risk targeted ground motion calculator was used to analyze ground motions for corresponding periods. Maximum directional scale factors were applied to the results to develop the probabilistic ground motions specific to this site. The DSHA is represented by the 84th percentile of the spectral accelerations for different periods using Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center’s (PEER) Next Generation Attenuation West-2, Ground Motion Prediction Equations (NGA West 2 GMPE) tool. Fault parameters including the magnitude and width required for the NGA West 2 GMPE tool were obtained from the USGS Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3) model. After applying maximum directional scale factors appropriate for each period, the maximum directional deterministic model specific to the site was developed. Based on the PSHA and DSHA models, the Site-Specific Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) was taken as the lesser of the spectral response accelerations from the PSHA and DSHA. The design response spectrum and design acceleration parameters were calculated in accordance with the procedures of ASCE 7-16. The site coefficients and maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters are presented below. Tabulated values and graphical plots are included in Appendix E. ASCE 7-16 SITE SPECIFIC SEISMIC PARAMETERS Site Coefficients and Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Values Site Class D Site Specific Site Coefficient, Fv 2.500 Site-Specific Design Spectral Acceleration at 1-Second Period, SD1 0.422 g Site Specific Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.539 g 2.04.3 ACTIVE FAULTING AND FAULT-RUPTURE HAZARD The closest known active fault is the Newport-Inglewood, Rose Canyon Fault zone (Offshore) located approximately 4½ miles southwest of the project site (USGS, 2022). Other regional faults capable of generating seismic hazards include the Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough, and San Clemente faults to the west and the Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas faults to Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 8 the east. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Based on our review of the referenced fault databases and geologic maps, no active faults are known to underlie or project toward the site. Therefore, the probability of surface fault rupture at the site is considered low. Figure 5 presents a California Fault Activity Map (CGS, 2010). 2.04.4 LIQUEFACTION AND DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT Liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein earthquake induced ground vibrations increase the pore pressure in saturated, granular soils until it is equal to the confining, overburden pressure. When this occurs, the soil can lose its shear strength and enter a liquefied state. The possibility of liquefaction is dependent upon characteristics including grain size, relative density, confining pressure, saturation of the soils, strength of the ground motion and duration of ground shaking. Effects of severe liquefaction can include excessive settlements, bearing capacity failures, lateral spreading, and other mechanisms of failure. The project site is not located within an area evaluated by CGS for liquefaction hazard. Due to the lack of shallow groundwater and given the dense nature of the materials beneath the site, the potential for liquefaction and dynamic settlement to occur is considered low. 2.04.4.1 BEARING FAILURE hen liquefaction occurs, the soil can completely lose its shear strength and lose its capacity to support the structure resulting in a foundation bearing failure. Lightweight structures that are embedded in liquefiable soils and extend below the groundwater table contain large void spaces which may “float” or lift up and out of the ground surface during or after an earthquake. Based on our analysis, the potential for bearing capacity failure due to liquefaction is low. 2.04.4.2 LATERAL SPREADING (LATERAL DISPLACEMENT) Lateral spreading is a condition in which a relatively stiff block of soil moves laterally toward a free face or slope on a liquefied zone of subsurface soil. Lateral spreads generally develop along gentle slopes and move toward a free face such as an incised river channel. Lateral spreads can cause significant horizontal movement causing fissures, and scarps to develop at the surface. Lateral spreads have been observed to disrupt foundations located across a failure, to rupture sewers, pipelines and other utilities and compress or buckle structures at the toe of the spread. Based on discussions with the project development team, we understand the site will be graded to a generally flat condition; thus, the potential for lateral spreading is considered negligible. Should revised graded conditions include open face slopes at risk for lateral spreading, our office should be contacted to perform additional evaluations. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 9 2.04.4.3 LIFELINE HAZARDS Liquefaction, lateral spreading, and seismically induced settlement of structures may also pose problems for streets and lifelines. Specifically, natural gas pipelines may break and catch fire during an earthquake and water lines may break preventing firefighters from accessing water. Therefore, consideration should be given to providing isolated and flexible connections for gas and water utility lines as a preventive measure. 2.04.5 TSUNAMIS, SEICHES, AND FLOODING The project site is not mapped as being located within an area susceptible to tsunami inundation (CGS, 2022). Additionally, given the surface elevation and inland location of the site, the potential hazard posed by tsunami is considered negligible. Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays, or open reservoirs. The site is not located adjacent to any bodies of water subject to seiches. Therefore, the potential for seiches to affect the site is considered low. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the site is mapped as being located within an area designated as Zone X (FEMA, 2012). Zone X is defined as an area of minimal flood hazard. 2.04.6 LANDSLIDES AND EXISTING SLOPE STABLITY Based on our review of available published mapping and literature, landslides are not present within the project boundaries. Additionally, no evidence of landslides was observed during our site reconnaissance and subsurface investigation. Given the relatively flat topography, and lack of surficial landslide evidence at the site, the potential for landslides or slope instabilities to occur at the site is considered low. 2.04.7 SUBSIDENCE The site is not located in an area of known subsidence associated with fluid withdrawal (groundwater or petroleum); therefore, the potential for subsidence due to the extraction of fluids is considered negligible. 2.04.8 HYDRO-CONSOLIDATION Hydro-consolidation can occur in recently deposited sediments (less than 10,000 years old) that were deposited in a semi-arid environment. Examples of such sediments are aeolian Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 10 sands, alluvial fan deposits, and mudflow sediments deposited during flash floods. The pore spaces between the particle grains can re-adjust when inundated by groundwater causing the material to consolidate. Given the relatively dense nature of the materials underlying the site, the potential for hydro-consolidation is considered negligible. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 11 3.00 CONCLUSIONS 3.01 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Based on the results our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The conclusions and recommendations provided herein should be incorporated into the design of the proposed improvements and implemented during grading and construction. The main geotechnical consideration affecting the project is that a considerable amount of time has passed since initial grading in 2013. Therefore, upon completion of clearing and grubbing, the top 8 to 12 inches of pad subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Similar scarification and recompacting should be performed below footings. Beneath areas receiving vehicular traffic, relative compaction should be increased to 95%. Soft or yielding areas should be removed and replaced with compacted fill. In general, conventional shallow spread and/or continuous footings bearing entirely on compacted fill or on two-sack slurry extending into compacted fill may be used for the support of the proposed structures. To reduce the potential for expansive heave, concrete slabs-on-grade, hardscape, and site and retaining wall footings should be underlain by at least 2 feet of material with an expansion index of 20 or less. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 12 4.00 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are provided to address the geotechnical aspects of this project and are considered minimum. They may be superseded by more conservative requirements of the architect, structural engineer, building code, or governing agencies. In addition to the recommendations in this section, additional general earthwork and grading specifications are included in Appendix D. 4.01 EARTHWORK 4.01.1 SITE PREPARATION AND CLEARING Site preparation should begin with the removal of existing improvements, vegetation, and debris. Subsurface improvements that are abandoned should be removed, and the resulting excavations should be backfilled and compacted in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Pipeline abandonment can consist of capping or rerouting at the project perimeter and removal within the project perimeter. If appropriate, abandoned pipelines can be filled with grout or slurry as recommended by and observed by the geotechnical consultant. Upon completion of clearing and grubbing, the top 8 to 12 inches of pad subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Similar scarification and recompacting should be performed below footings. Beneath areas receiving vehicular traffic, relative compaction should be increased to 95%. Soft or yielding areas should be removed and replaced with compacted fill. Removal of underground tanks is subject to state law as regulated by the County, City and/or Fire Department. If storage tanks containing hazardous or unknown substances are encountered, the proper authorities must be notified prior to any attempts at removing such objects. If water wells are encountered during construction, they should be exposed and capped in accordance with the requirements of the regulating agencies. 4.01.2 EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS Based on the materials encountered during our subsurface investigation, it is anticipated that excavations can be achieved with conventional heavy duty earthwork equipment in good working order. However, the selected grading contractor should be responsible for their own assessment of site excavatability. Difficult excavation should be anticipated in very dense zones within the old paralic deposits. Difficult excavation should be anticipated within the fill where unforeseen debris is revealed. Gravel and cobbles should also be anticipated. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 13 Contract documents should specify that the contractor mobilize equipment capable of excavating and compacting very dense materials with gravel and cobbles. 4.01.3 FILL MATERIALS We anticipate that most on-site soils, except for roots, debris, and rocks greater than 6 inches, may be re-used as compacted fill. Concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 2 feet of material with an expansion index of 50 or less as determined by ASTM D4829. Based on our subsurface investigation and laboratory test results, we expect that most of the onsite sandy soils will meet this expansion index criteria. Prior to placing fill, the exposed surface should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Fill should be placed in horizontal lifts at a thickness appropriate for the equipment spreading, mixing, and compacting the material, but generally should not exceed 8 inches in loose thickness. Fill should be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. Fill should be benched into sloping ground inclined steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical). The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for evaluating relative compaction should be determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. Utility trench backfill beneath structures, pavements and hardscape should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. The top 12 inches of subgrade beneath pavement sections should be compacted to at least 95%. 4.01.4 EXPANSIVE SOILS The on-site soils were visually classified as having a very low potential. Additionally, laboratory testing performed on a selected sample from this investigation indicated the expansion index to be 7 (very low expansion potential). To reduce the potential for expansive heave, the top 2 feet of material beneath building footings, concrete slabs-on-grade, hardscape, and site and retaining wall footings should have an expansion index of 20 or less. Horizontally, the soils having an expansion index of 20 or less should extend at least 5 feet outside the planned perimeter building foundations, at least 2 feet outside site/retaining wall footings and hardscape, or up to existing improvements, whichever is less. Based on the laboratory test results, we expect that most of the on-site sandy soils will meet the expansion index criteria. Onsite clays, if encountered, will not meet the expansion index criteria. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 14 4.01.5 IMPORTED SOILS Imported soil should consist of predominately granular soil, free of organic matter and rocks greater than 4 inches in any dimension. Imported soil should have an expansion index of 20 or less and should be inspected and, if appropriate, tested prior to transport to the site to determine suitability for the intended use. 4.01.6 OVERSIZED MATERIALS Excavations may generate oversized material. Oversized material is defined as rocks or cemented clasts greater than 6 inches in largest dimension. Oversized material should be broken down to no greater than 6 inches in largest dimension for use in fill, used as landscape material, or disposed of off-site. 4.01.7 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS Temporary excavations 4 feet deep or less can be made vertically. Deeper temporary excavations in fill and old paralic deposits should be laid back no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal: vertical). Should groundwater or perched groundwater be encountered, excavations will likely need to be laid back at a slope flatter than 1:1 (horizontal: vertical). The faces of temporary slopes should be inspected daily by the Contractor’s Competent Person before personnel are allowed to enter the excavation. Zones of potential instability, sloughing, or raveling should be brought to the attention of the engineer and corrective action implemented before personnel begin working in the excavation. Excavated soils should not be stockpiled behind temporary excavations within a distance equal to the depth of the excavation. MTGL should be notified if other surcharge loads are anticipated so that lateral load criteria can be developed for the specific situation. If temporary slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season, berms are recommended along the tops of slopes to prevent runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. Temporary slopes and excavations should be made in conformance with applicable OSHA standards and requirements. Based on the results of our investigation, the subsurface materials can be categorized as Type C soil. Slopes steeper than those described above will require shoring. Additionally, temporary excavations that extend below a plane inclined at 1½:1 (horizontal:vertical) downward from the outside bottom edge of existing structures or improvements will require shoring. Soldier piles and lagging, internally braced shoring or trench boxes could be used. If trench boxes are used, the soil immediately adjacent to the trench box is not directly supported. Ground Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 15 surface deformations immediately adjacent to the pit or trench could be greater where trench boxes are used compared to other methods of shoring. 4.01.8 TEMPORARY SHORING For design of cantilevered shoring, an active soil pressure equal to a fluid weighing 35 pcf can be used for level retained ground or 50 pcf for 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) sloping ground. The surcharge loads on shoring from traffic and construction equipment adjacent to the excavation can be modeled by assuming an additional 2 feet of soil behind the shoring. For design of soldier piles, an allowable passive pressure of 350 psf per foot of embedment over 2.5 times the pile diameter or the spacing of the piles, whichever is less, up to a maximum of 3,500 psf can be used for soil above the groundwater level. Soldier piles should be spaced at least three pile diameters, center to center. Continuous lagging will be required throughout. The soldier piles should be designed for the full- anticipated lateral pressure; however, the pressure on the lagging will be less due to arching in the soils. For design of lagging, the earth pressure but can be limited to a maximum value of 400 psf. Piles should be filled with concrete immediately after drilling. The concrete should be pumped to the bottom of the drilled holes using the tremie method. If casing is used, the casing should be removed as the concrete is placed, keeping the level of the concrete at least 5 feet above the bottom of the casing at all times. 4.01.9 TEMPORARY DEWATERING Groundwater was not encountered in subsurface explorations. However, perched groundwater should be anticipated in excavations. Groundwater seepage may occur locally due to local irrigation or following heavy rain. Temporary dewatering can be accomplished by sloping the excavation bottom to a sump and pumping from the sump. A layer of gravel about 6 inches thick placed in the bottom of the excavation will facilitate groundwater flow and can be used as a working platform. A specialty dewatering contractor should be contacted for additional project specific dewatering recommendations. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 16 4.02 FOUNDATIONS Proposed improvements can be supported on shallow spread footings and/or continuous footings with bottom levels bearing entirely on compacted fill. Site walls or retaining walls can be supported on spread footings with bottom levels bearing on compacted fill. Shade structures, covered walkways, and other pole-type structures can be supported on cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) piles. Our recommendations are only minimum criteria based on geotechnical factors and should not be considered a structural design, or to preclude more restrictive criteria of governing agencies or by the structural engineer. The foundation system should be designed by the project’s structural engineer, incorporating the geotechnical parameters described herein and the requirements of applicable building codes. The foundation recommendations provided herein are considered generally consistent with methods typically used in Southern California, however, other alternatives may be available. Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, recommendations for various foundation systems are presented in the following sections. 4.02.1 CONVENTIONAL SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS The planned structures can be supported on shallow conventional spread and/or continuous footings bearing entirely on compacted fill or on two-sack slurry extending into compacted fill. An allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf can be used for shallow footings supported on compacted fill and two-sack slurry extending into compacted fill. If additional bearing is needed, the allowable bearing capacity can be increased by increasing the thickness of two- sack slurry beneath the foundations. For this case, the allowable bearing capacity may be increased by 850 psf for each additional foot of depth below the minimum up to a maximum of 5,000 psf. The bearing value can be increased by ⅓ when considering the total of all loads, including wind or seismic forces. Footings located adjacent to or within slopes should be extended to a depth such that a minimum horizontal distance of H/3 (where H is the height of the slope) or 40 feet exists between the lower outside footing edge and the face of the slope in accordance with California Building Code (CBC) requirements. The recommended minimum footing width and embedment depth below the lowest adjacent grade are as follows: Foundation Type Minimum Width Minimum Depth Continuous (Interior) 24 inches 24 inches Continuous (Perimeter) 24 inches 24 inches Spread Footings 24 inches 24 inches Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 17 Lateral loads will be resisted by friction between the bottoms of footings and passive pressure on the faces of footings and other structural elements below grade. An allowable coefficient of friction of 0.33 can be used. Passive pressure can be computed using an allowable lateral pressure of 350 psf per foot of depth below the ground surface for level ground conditions. The passive pressure can be increased by ⅓ when considering the total of all loads, including wind or seismic forces. The upper 1 foot of soil should not be relied on for passive support unless the ground is covered with pavements or slabs. 4.02.2 CAST IN DRILLED HOLE (CIDH) DEEP FOUNDATIONS Shade structures, covered walkways, and other pole-type structures may be supported on CIDH piles. Should CIDH be considered for this site, please contact our office for pile design development. During excavation, layers of cohesionless soils may be encountered; thus, caving of the pile shafts should be anticipated. Special care should be taken during construction to stabilize the sides of the CIDH piles, as required. 4.02.3 SETTLEMENT CONSIDERATIONS Foundations should be designed for the anticipated settlements. Static settlement of an individual foundation member will vary depending on the plan dimensions of the foundation and the actual load supported. We estimate maximum static settlement of foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented to be on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement between similarly loaded and adjacent footings are expected to be less than ½ inch across 40 feet, provided footings are founded on similar materials. Static settlement of all foundations is expected to occur rapidly and should be essentially complete shortly after initial application of the loads. 4.03 INTERIOR SLABS ON GRADE The project’s structural engineer should design on-grade building slabs. However, it is recommended that interior slabs be at least 5 inches thick and reinforced with at least No. 4 bars at 18 inches on center each way. Moisture protection should be installed beneath slabs where moisture sensitive floor coverings will be used. The project’s architect should review the tolerable moisture transmission rate of the proposed floor covering and specify an appropriate moisture protection system. Typically, a plastic vapor barrier is used. Minimum 10-mil plastic is recommended. The plastic should comply with Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 18 ASTM E1745. The vapor barrier installation should comply with ASTM E1643. The slab can be placed directly on the vapor barrier. Where a vapor barrier is installed, a capillary break shall also be installed in accordance with California Green Building Standards Code (Chapter 4, section 4.5). A 4 inch thick base of ½ inch or larger clean aggregate shall be provided with a vapor barrier in direct contact with concrete. A concrete mix design which will address bleeding, shrinkage, and curling shall also be used in combination with the capillary break. 4.04 HARDSCAPE Hardscape and other exterior concrete slabs-on-grade should be underlain by at least 2 feet of material with an expansion index of 20 or less. Exterior slabs should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with at least No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center each way. Slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints. Joints should be placed in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. The project’s architect should select the final joint patterns. A 1 inch maximum size aggregate mix is recommended for concrete for exterior slabs. The corrosion potential of on-site soils with respect to reinforced concrete will need to be taken into account in concrete mix design. Coarse and fine aggregate in concrete should conform to the “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. 4.05 PREWETTING RECOMMENDATIONS Prior to placing concrete slabs and flatwork, the underlying soils should be brought to within a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 4% above its optimum moisture content for a depth of 12 inches prior to the placement of concrete. The geotechnical consultant should perform in-situ moisture tests to verify that the appropriate moisture content has been achieved a maximum of 24 hours prior to the placement of concrete or moisture barriers. Once the slab subgrade soil has been pre-wetted and compacted, the soil should not be allowed to dry prior to concrete placement. If the subgrade soil is dry, the moisture content of the soil should be restored prior to placement of concrete and re-tested. Proper moisture conditioning and compaction of subgrade soils prior to concrete placement is recommended. Even with proper site preparation, some soil moisture changes of the subgrade soils supporting the concrete flatwork due to edge effects (shrink/swell) may occur. Drying and/or wetting of subgrade soils adjacent to landscaped areas or open fields may increase the potential of shrink/swell effects beneath concrete flatwork areas. To help reduce edge effects, lateral cutoffs, such as inverted curbs are recommended. Control joints should be used to reduce the potential for flatwork panel cracks as a result of minor soil shrink/swell. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 19 4.06 CORROSIVITY Soluble sulfate tests indicate that concrete at the subject site will have a negligible exposure to water soluble sulfate in the soil. We recommend that the concrete be designed to resist a low to moderate exposure category. Our recommendations for concrete exposed to sulfate-containing soils are presented below. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE CONTAINING SOILS Sulfate Exposure Severity Class Water soluble sulfate (SO4) in soil (% by wgt) Sulfate (SO4) in water (ppm) Max Water to Cement Ratio by Weight Minimum Compressive Strength (psi) Cement Type Calcium Chloride Admixture Negligible S0 0.00 - 0.10 0-150 --- 2,500 --- No Restriction Moderate S1 0.10 - 0.20 150-1,500 0.50 4,000 II/V No Restriction Severe S2 0.20 - 2.00 1,500-10,000 0.45 4,500 V Not Permitted Very Severe S3 Over 2.00 Over 10,000 0.45 4,500 V Plus Pozzolan Not Permitted Corrosivity testing consisting of soils reactivity (pH) and resistivity (ohms-cm) were also tested on select soil samples. The test results indicate that the soils have a soil reactivity ranging from 6.6 to 6.8 and a resistivity ranging from 1,460 to 2,080 ohms-cm. A neutral or non-corrosive soil has a reactivity value ranging from 5.5 to 8.4. Generally, soils that could be considered corrosive to metal have resistivities less than 3,000 ohms-cm. Those soils with resistivity values of less than 1000 ohms- cm can be considered extremely corrosive. Based on our test results, it is our opinion that the underlying soils at the site have a low to moderate corrosion potential. Protection of buried pipes can be performed by utilizing coatings on underground pipes; clean backfills and a cathodic protection system can also be effective in controlling corrosion. A qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted to further assess the corrosive properties of the soil and provide mitigation measures appropriate to the improvements. 4.07 RETAINING STRUCTURES Although not currently part of the project’s design, the recommendations presented below should be used for retaining structures, if needed. Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on the walls. The magnitude of these earth pressures will depend on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under the load. If the wall can yield sufficiently to mobilize the full shear strength of the soils, it may be designed for the active condition. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, then the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized, and the earth pressures will be higher. These walls Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 20 such as basement walls and swimming pools should be designed for the at rest condition. If a structure moves towards the retained soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil will be the passive resistance. For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls constructed above the static groundwater table and backfilled with non-expansive soils is provided below. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction based on the maximum density defined by ASTM D1557. Retaining structures should be designed to resist the following lateral earth pressures. • Coefficient of Friction (Soil to Footing) – 0.34 • Passive Earth Pressure - equivalent fluid weight of 350 pcf (Maximum of 3,500 psf) • At rest lateral earth pressure - 66 pcf • Active Earth Pressures (equivalent fluid weights): Slope of Retained Material Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Level 45 2:1 (H:V) 81 It is recommended that retaining wall footings be embedded at least 24 inches below the lowest adjacent finish grade. In addition, the wall footings should be designed and reinforced as required for structural considerations. The wall areas should be over excavated to a minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the proposed footings. The required horizontal limits of the over excavation area shall be a minimum distance of 2 feet. Lateral resistance parameters provided above are ultimate values. Therefore, a suitable factor of safety should be applied to these values for design purposes. The appropriate factor of safety will depend on the design condition and should be determined by the project’s structural engineer. These parameters do not include loading from adjacent structures. If any super-imposed loads are anticipated, this office should be notified so that appropriate recommendations for earth pressures may be provided. Retaining structures should be designed with effective drainage to prevent the accumulation of subsurface water behind the walls. Backdrains should be installed behind retaining walls exceeding 3 feet in height. Backdrains may consist of a 2 feet wide zone of ¾ inch crushed rock. The backdrain should be separated from the adjacent soils using a non-woven filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Weep holes should be provided, or a perforated pipe should be installed at the base of the backdrain and sloped to discharge to a suitable storm drain facility. As an alternative, a geo- Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 21 composite drainage system such as Miradrain 6000 or equivalent placed behind the wall and connected to a suitable storm drain facility can be used. The project’s architect should provide waterproofing specifications and details. A typical detail for retaining wall back drains is presented on Figure 6. Backdrains should be outletted to suitable drainage devices. 4.08 SEISMIC EARTH PRESSURES If required, the seismic earth pressure can be taken as equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 25 pcf. This value is for level backfill and does not include a factor of safety. Appropriate factors of safety should be incorporated into the design. This pressure is in addition to the un-factored, static active earth pressure. The passive pressure and bearing capacity can be increased by ⅓ in determining the seismic stability of the wall. 4.09 PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTIONS Recommended pavement structural sections are based on the procedures outlined in "Design Procedures for Flexible Pavements" of the Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation. This procedure uses the principal that the pavement structural section must be of an adequate thickness to distribute the load from the design traffic (TI) to the subgrade soils in such a manner that the stresses from the applied loads do not exceed the strength of the soil (R-value). Pavement sections were designed based on a tested R-Value of 25. The recommended structural sections are as follows: ASPHALT PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTIONS Pavement Area Traffic Index Asphalt Thickness (inches) Base Thickness (inches) Parking Areas 5.0 4 4 Driveways 6.0 4 8 Fire Access Lanes 7.5 5 11 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION Pavement Area Traffic Index PCC Thickness (inches) Base Thickness (inches) Concrete Pavement (min f’c = 4,500 psi) 5.0 – 8.0 7½ 6 The top 12 inches of subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. Soft or yielding areas should be removed and replaced with compacted fill or aggregate base. Aggregate base and asphalt concrete Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 22 should conform to the Caltrans Standard Specifications or the “Greenbook” and should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. Aggregate base should have an R-value of not less than 78. Materials and methods of construction should conform to good engineering practices. 4.10 UTILITY TRENCHES Cal/OSHA construction safety orders should be observed during all underground work. Utility trench backfill within street right of way, utility easements, under or adjacent to sidewalks, driveways, or building pads should be observed and tested by the geotechnical consultant to verify proper compaction. Trenches excavated adjacent to foundations should not extend within the footing influence zone defined as the area within a line projected at a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) drawn from the bottom edge of the footing. Trenches crossing perpendicular to foundations should be excavated and backfilled prior to the construction of the foundations. The excavations should be backfilled in the presence of the geotechnical engineer and tested to verify adequate compaction beneath the proposed footing. 4.10.1 THRUST BLOCKS For level ground conditions, a passive earth pressure of 350 psf per foot of depth below the lowest adjacent final grade can be used to compute allowable thrust block resistance. A value of 175 psf per foot should be used below groundwater level, if encountered. 4.10.2 MODULUS OF SOIL REACTION A modulus of soil reaction (E’) of 1,000 psi can be used to evaluate the deflection of buried flexible pipelines. This value assumes that granular bedding material is placed adjacent to the pipe and is compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. 4.10.3 BEDDING Pipe bedding as specified in the “Greenbook” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction can be used. Bedding material should consist of clean sand having a sand equivalent not less than 30 and should extend to at least 12 inches above the top of pipe. Alternative materials meeting the intent of the bedding specifications are also acceptable. Samples of materials proposed for use as bedding should be provided to the engineer for inspection and testing before the material is imported for use on the project. The on-site materials are not expected to meet “Greenbook” bedding specifications. The pipe bedding material should be placed over the full width of the trench. After placement of the pipe, the bedding should be brought up uniformly on both sides of the pipe to reduce the potential for unbalanced loads. No voids or uncompacted areas should be left beneath the pipe haunches. Ponding or jetting the pipe bedding should not be allowed. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 23 4.10.4 BACKFILL Excavated material free of organic debris and rocks greater than 6 inches in largest dimension are generally expected to be suitable for use as backfill. Imported material should not contain rocks greater than 4 inches in largest dimension or organic debris. Imported material should have an expansion index of 20 or less. MTGL should observe and, if appropriate, test proposed imported materials before they are delivered to the site. Backfill should be placed in lifts 8 inches or less in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to optimum or slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. The top 12 inches of soil beneath pavement subgrade should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. 4.11 INFILTRATION FEASIBILITY MTGL conducted an infiltration feasibility study at the site on October 20th, 2022. At the time of this report, the project is in the planning phase and no preliminary BMP exhibits are available for review. Our fieldwork consisted of converting two shallow geotechnical borings (P-1 and P-2) into shallow borehole percolation tests to assess stormwater infiltration feasibility. The tests were performed in general accordance with the City of Carlsbad BMP design manual (2021). Please note that a design factor of safety was not applied to these preliminary infiltration test results. The City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual states that a combined safety factor (STOT) of no less than 2.0 shall be used to compute the design infiltration rate. If the proposed BMP utilizes an underdrain, a default safety factor of 2.0 may be applied. If the proposed BMP does not utilize an underdrain, then a combined factor of safety should be used. This combined factor of safety is the product of Suitability Assessment Safety Factor (SA) and Design Safety Factor (SB). MTGL recommends a value of 1.75 for SA. The project’s designer should estimate SB based on final design conditions. The initial results of the testing are presented in Appendix F and summarized in the table below. INFILTRATION RATE TEST RESULTS Test Location Test Depth (Feet) Material Type at Test Depth (USCS Classification) Tested Infiltration Rate* (Inches/Hour) P-1 5 Fill (Af): Clayey Sand (SC) 0.07 P-2 5 Fill (Af): Clayey Sand (SC) 0.07 *Tested infiltration rates (No factor of safety applied). Based on our observations, the tested soils do not support infiltration in an appreciable quantity. Additionally, we do not recommend infiltrating into engineered fill materials. We recommend that BMP facilities be lined with an impermeable geomembrane on the bottom and sides to reduce the potential for water-related distress from lateral migration of infiltrated stormwater to adjacent structures or improvements. A subdrain system should be installed in BMP facilities to transport collected water. Additionally, BMP facilities should be kept at least 10 feet from structural Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 24 foundations. The testing performed for this report was limited in nature and was intended for preliminary design. Should infiltration BMPs be implemented within the design of the project, additional testing is recommended during construction, to determine final infiltration suitability and design parameters. 4.12 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 4.12.1 MOISTURE-SENSITIVE SOILS AND WEATHER-RELATED CONCERNS The upper soils encountered at this site may be sensitive to disturbances caused by construction traffic and to changes in moisture content. During wet weather periods, increases in the moisture content of the soil can cause significant reduction in the soil’s strength and its support capabilities. In addition, soils that become excessively wet may be slow to dry and thus significantly delay the progress of the grading operations. Therefore, it is recommended to perform earthwork and foundation construction activities during the dry season. Much of the on-site soils may be susceptible to erosion during periods of inclement weather. As a result, the project’s Civil Engineer/Architect and Grading Contractor should take appropriate precautions to reduce the potential for erosion during and after construction. 4.12.2 DRAINAGE AND GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS Based on our subsurface investigation, groundwater is expected to be at a depth below the anticipated depths of grading. However, variations in the groundwater table may result from fluctuation in the ground surface topography, subsurface stratification, precipitation, irrigation, and other factors such as impermeable and/or cemented formational materials overlain by fill soils. In addition, during retaining wall excavations, seepage may be encountered. Therefore, we recommend that a representative of MTGL be present during grading operations to evaluate areas of seepage. Drainage devices for reduction of water accumulation can be recommended should these conditions occur. Water should not be allowed to collect in foundation excavations, on floor slab areas, or on prepared subgrades of the construction area either during or after construction. Undercut or excavated areas should be sloped to facilitate removal of any collected rainwater, groundwater, or surface runoff. Positive site drainage should be provided to reduce infiltration of surface water around the perimeter of the structure and beneath the floor slabs. The grades should be sloped away from the structure and surface drainage should be collected and discharged such that water is not permitted to infiltrate the backfill and floor slab areas. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 25 4.12.3 SITE DRAINAGE The site should be designed to provide for positive drainage away from structures in accordance with the building code and applicable local requirements. Unpaved areas should slope no less than 2% away from structure. Paved areas should slope no less than 1% away from structures. Concentrated roof and surface drainage from the site should be collected in engineered, non-erosive drainage devices and conducted to a safe point of discharge. The site drainage should be designed by a civil engineer. 4.13 PLAN REVIEW MTGL should review the grading and foundation plans to verify that the intent of the recommendations presented in this report has been implemented and that revised recommendations are not necessary as a result of changes after this report was completed. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 26 5.00 GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information and subsurface conditions as interpreted from the investigation. Our preliminary conclusions and recommendations should be reviewed and verified during site grading and revised accordingly if the exposed geotechnical conditions vary from our preliminary findings and interpretations. The geotechnical consultant should perform geotechnical observation and testing during the following phases of grading and construction: • During site grading including over-excavation, fill placement, temporary slopes, and hardscape subgrade. • During foundation excavations and placement including piles and retaining walls. • During installation of subdrains. • Upon completion of retaining wall footing excavation prior to placing concrete. • During excavation and backfilling of utility trenches. • During processing and compaction of the subgrade for the access and parking areas and prior to construction of pavement sections. • When unusual or unexpected geotechnical conditions are encountered during construction. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page 27 6.00 LIMITATIONS The findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on the site conditions as they existed at the time of our investigation, and further assume that the subsurface conditions encountered during our investigation are representative of conditions throughout the site. Should subsurface conditions be encountered during construction that are different from those described in this report, this office should be notified immediately so that our recommendations may be re-evaluated. This report was prepared for the exclusive use and benefit of the owner, architect, and engineer for evaluating the design of the facilities as it relates to geotechnical aspects. It should be made available to prospective contractors for information on factual data only, and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions included in this report. Our investigation was performed using the standard of care and level of skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable soil engineers and geologists currently practicing in this or similar localities. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the Contractor's operations, and we are not responsible for their actions. The contractor will be solely and completely responsible for working conditions on the job site, including the safety of all persons and property during performance of the work. This responsibility will apply continuously and will not be limited to our normal hours of operation. The findings of this report are considered valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a site can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural events or to human activities on this or adjacent sites. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate codes and standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, this report may become invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified. FIGURES Figure No.1SITE LOCATION MAPMARBRISA VILLA 67CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA MTGL Project No.:1916A24 JCRDate:January, 2023 Author: Geotechnical Engineering Construction Inspection Materials Testing Environmental SCALE (feet) 4,000'8,000'0' Note: All locations are approximate. ©2022 Google Earth Project Site Cannon Road Palomar Airport RoadPacific Ocean Figure No.2SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION MAPMARBRISA VILLA 67CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA MTGL Project No.:1916A24 JCRDate:January, 2023 Author: LEGEND B-2 (20)Location of Boring(Depth in Feet)-Geotechnical Engineering Construction Inspection Materials Testing Environmental SCALE (feet) 20'40'0' Reference: Excel Engineering, Grading Plans,Carlsbad Ranch, P.A. No. 5 (MarBrisa - Villa67), Sheet 2 of 4, November 2, 2022. Note: All locations are approximate. ©2022 Google Earth A A'Geologic Cross Section-P-2 (5)Location of PercTest(Depth in Feet)- B-1 (20) P-1 (5) B-2 (20) P-2 (5) A A' Figure No.2ASUBSURFACE EXPLORATION MAP - PREVIOUS WORKMARBRISA VILLA 67CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA MTGL Project No.:1916A24 JCRDate:January, 2023 Author: LEGEND B-2 (20)Location of Boring(Depth in Feet)-Geotechnical Engineering Construction Inspection Materials Testing Environmental SCALE (feet) 70'140'0' Reference: Excel Engineering, Grading Plans,Carlsbad Ranch, P.A. No. 5 (MarBrisa - Villa67), Sheet 2 of 4, November 2, 2022. Note: All locations are approximate. ©2022 Google Earth P-2 (5)Location of PercTest(Depth in Feet)- PB-6 (50)Previous Boring(MTGL, 2011)(Depth in Feet)- PB-3 (30) PB-6 (30) PB-5 (40) PB-4 (50) PB-2 (20) PB-1 (30) B-2 (20) B-1 (20) P-2 (5)P-1 (5) Figure No.3REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAPMARBRISA VILLA 67CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA MTGL Project No.:Date:Author: Geotechnical Engineering Construction Inspection Materials Testing EnvironmentalSCALE (Mile) 1 20 Note: All locations are approximate. EXPLANATION: Qop2-4 Old paralic deposits, Unit 2-4 (late to middlePleistocene) – Poorly sorted, moderatelypermeable, reddish-brown, interfingeredstrandline, beach, estuarine and colluvialdeposits composed of siltstone, sandstone,and conglomerate. These deposits rest on thenow emergent wave cut abrasion platformspreserved by regional uplift. Where more thanone number is shown those deposits areundivided. Project Site 1916A24 JCRJanuary, 2023 Reference:Michael P. Kennedy and Siang S. Tan. (2007), Geologic Map of theOceanside 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California, California Geological Survey,scale 1:100,000. Fault – Solid where accurately located; dashedwhere approximately located; dotted whereconcealed. D \ _\_. Figure No.4GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A' MARBRISA VILLA 67CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA MTGL Project No.:Date:Author: LEGEND Geotechnical Engineering Construction Inspection Materials Testing Environmental Note: All locations and elevations areapproximate. Geologic Contact, QueriedWhere Uncertain or Inferred?FillAf Boring LocationB- 1 Qop Old Paralic Deposits 180 170 160 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 190 200 210 130 140 150 160 170 1:1 Horizontal to Vertical B-1 180 170 160 150 190 200 210 A' ENE A WSW Existing Grade(190') SCALE (feet) 20'40'0' 1916A24 JCRJanuary, 2023 Qop Qop Qop Af Af Af PROPOSED VILLA 67 P-1 P-2B-2 TD = 5'PROJECTED9' NORTH TD = 20'TD = 20' TD = 5' PROJECTED7' SOUTH El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) ???? ???? ?????? ? ? ?? ? ?? ????????? ? ? ? Proposed PadGrade (190.10') I Figure No.5MTGL Project No.:1916A24 JCRDate:January, 2023 Author: Geotechnical Engineering Construction Inspection Materials Testing EnvironmentalSCALE (Miles) 1 20' Note: All locations are approximate. EXPLANATION: Reference:California Geological Survey, 2015, Fault Activity Map ofCalifornia, C.W. Jennings, W.A. Bryant, accessed on November1, 2022, at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/ 465 Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyonfault zone, Oceanside section JENNINGS ID NUMBER: Project Site 465 465 REGIONAL FAULT MAP MARBRISA VILLA 67 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA S.:191, Creek High Av~,. ii,i:, -f'lj.: A111ar:-i -z. Goll C lub a,,iq\)~s Q\ Bnl ·~ LJIIOS La Jo on Fa,ult traces on l!md a·e fndlC!lted by solid lines where -.veil located, by dashed lines \o\t1ere approximately llocatec:! or inferred, anc by dotted lines, where concealed by y,lunger rocks or by lakes or bays. F1:1ull lr1:1L.:<::i!S ~,-:: ~i.,o,ric<J "'heno uu11.lir1ualio11 ,ur ~1.islt!11i.;i; i!S uncertain. All offshor-a1 faults ba,ed CNl .seismic reH!!clion profile mmrrl!'l ;nP. !;hnl'm .i~ !'lnlifl linP.!'l .,,t,P.rn WP.II rlP.finP.rl, rlAi!'lhP.rl wh?.rP. inferred, queried wher,e unca:tairn. Holocena fault displacement [during past 11,700 ','ears) without hlstodc 1ecord Late Ouatcrnu~ fault dlspacomcnt (du,,ng past 700,000 years) . . . ~. Quaternary fault (age undiflerent111tedl. 1 Pre.Qualemary 1aull (aide• lhat 1 6 million years) o, fault wllhout recogoized QualemEII)' displacement ADDITIONAL FAULT SYMBOLS -1---- Bar ;ind ball on downlhrown side (releitlve or apparent} Anows along fault Indicate relati11e or apparent direction of lateral movernenL _t_ __ .. Arr.ow on feull lnd,cales dIreclloo of dip. D Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Figure 6 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Soil backfill, compacted to 90% relative compaction* Filter fabric envelope (Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent) ** Minimum of 1 cubic foot 3" diameter perforated PVC pipe (schedule 40 or equivalent) with perforations oriented down as depicted minimum 1% gradient to suitable outlet. 3" min. Wall footing Compacted fill Finished Grade Retaining wall Wall waterproofing per architect's specifications * Based on ASTM D1557 ** If class 2 permeable material (See gradation to left) is used in place of 3/4" - 1 1/2" gravel. Filter fabric may be deleted. Class 2 permeable material compacted to 90% relative compaction. * SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL (CAL TRANS SPECIFICATIONS) Sieve Size % Passing 1" 3/4" 3/8" No.4 No.8 No.30No.50 No.200 0-3 0-75-15 18-33 25-40 40-100 90-100 100 per linear foot of 3/4"crushed rock 50 feet on center to a joints or outlet drain atProvide open cell head suitable drainage device . .. . . . . .. . . . . ~ 0 ? 0 0 0 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page A1 APPENDIX A REFERENCES American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017, ASCE 7-16 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Building and Other Structures. BWE, 2022, Structural Plans for Villa 67, 1585 MarBrisa Circle, Carlsbad, California 92008, dated April 25. California Building Standards Commission, 2019, California Building Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations. California Geological Survey, 2002, California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36. California Geological Survey, 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42. California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. California Geological Survey, 2022, Tsunami Hazard Area map, County of San Diego, dated October 7, 2022. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2012, Flood Insurance Rate Map, National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette, FEMA Map 06073C0768G, dated May 16. Historic Aerials, https://www.historicaerials.com, accessed October 2022. Kennedy and Tan, 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California, California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map Number 2, Scale 1:100,000. Leighton and Associates, 2005, As-Graded Geotechnical Report of Rough and Fine Grading, Hotel One, Resort and Conference Facilities, Sales Building, and Villas No. 53 through 56, Lots 10, 11, and a Portion of Lot 1, Grand Pacific Carlsbad, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 040575-005, dated August 2. MTGL, Inc. (2011). Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Sales, Activity and Fitness Building, Carlsbad Ranch, Planning Area 5, Marbrisa Phase II, Carlsbad, California, MTGL Project No. 1916- A08, Log No. 11-1409, dated November 4. MTGL, Inc. (2013). Building Pad Certification—Villas 57-61, 64-67, 69-70, Marbrisa Resorts, Carlsbad, California, MTGL Project No. 1916A09, MTGL Log No. 13-141, dated January 30. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page A2 MTGL, Inc. (2022a). Geotechnical Update Letter, Building Pad Remedial Grading, Villa 67, MTGL Log No. 22-0255, dated March 15. MTGL, Inc. (2022b). 2019 CBC Seismic Update Report, MarBrisa Development- Villa 67, Grand Pacific Drive, Carlsbad, California, MTGL Project No. 1916A21, MTGL Log No. 22-0450, dated May 17. MTGL, Inc. (2022c). Grading and Foundation Plan Review, MarBrisa Development- Villa 67, Grand Pacific Drive, Carlsbad, California, MTGL Project No. 1916A21, MTGL Log No. 22-0579, dated July 18. OSHPD, 2022, Seismic Design Maps Calculator, https://seismicmaps.org/, accessed October. Seed, H.B. and Whitman, R.V., 1970, Design of Earth Structures for Dynamic Loads in ASCE Specialty Conference, Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth-Retaining Structures. United States Geological Survey, 2022, U.S. Quaternary Faults, https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf, accessed October 2022. APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page B1 APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM The subsurface conditions for this Geotechnical Investigation were explored by excavating exploratory borings with an 8 inch hollow-stem-auger and hand tools. Driven samples were obtained by SPT or a Modified California Tube Sampler. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Subsurface Exploration Map (Figure 2). The field exploration was performed under the supervision of our engineer and geologist who maintained a continuous log of the subsurface soils encountered and obtained samples for laboratory testing. Subsurface conditions are summarized on the accompanying Logs of Borings. The logs contain descriptive information and interpretation of subsurface conditions based on the obtained samples. The stratum indicated on these logs represents the approximate boundary between earth units, however, transitions may be gradual. The logs show subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated and may not be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. Identification of the soils encountered during the subsurface exploration was made using the field identification procedure of the Unified Soils Classification System (ASTM D2488). A legend indicating the symbols and definitions used in this classification system and a legend defining the terms used in describing the relative compaction, consistency or firmness of the soil are attached in this appendix. Bag samples of the major earth units were obtained for laboratory inspection and testing, and the in-place density of the various strata encountered in the exploration was determined. The exploratory borings were backfilled in general accordance with DEH requirements and patched where appropriate. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page B-2 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM No . 2 0 0 U . S . S t a n d a r d S i e v e i s t h e s m a l l e s t p a r t i c l e v i s i b l e Co a r s e -gr a i n e d s o i l s > 1 / 2 o f ma t e r i a l s i s l a r g e r t h a n #2 0 0 s i e v e GRAVELS are more than half of coarse fraction larger than #4 sieve Clean Gravels (less than 5% fines) GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Gravels with fines GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines SANDS are more than half of coarse fraction larger than #4 sieve Clean Sands (less than 5% fines) GM Silty Gravels, poorly graded gravel- sand-silt mixtures Sands with fines GC Clayey Gravels, poorly graded gravel- sand-clay mixtures Fi n e -gr a i n e d S o i l s > 1 / 2 o f m a t e r i a l s is s m a l l e r t h a n # 2 0 0 s i e v e SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit Less than 50 SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines SM Silty Sands, poorly graded sands- gravel-clay mixtures SC Clayey Sands, poorly graded sand- gravel-silt mixtures ML Inorganic clays of low to med plasticity, gravelly, sandy, silty, or lean clays SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid Limit Greater than 50 CL Inorganic clays of low to med plasticity, gravelly, sandy, silty, or lean clays OL Organic silts and clays of low plasticity MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH Organic silts and clays of medium to high plasticity Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, humus swamp soils with high organic content GRAIN SIZE SIZE PROPORTION Description Sieve Size Grain Size Approximate Size Trace – Less than 5% Boulders >12” >12” Larger than basketball-sized Few – 5% to 10% Cobbles 3”- 12” 3”- 12” Fist-sized to basketball-sized Little – 15% to 20% Gravel Coarse ¾”- 3” ¾”- 3” Thumb-sized Some – 30% to 45% Fine #4 - ¾” 0.19” - 0.75” Peat-sized to thumb-sized Mostly – 50% to 100% Sand Coarse #10 - #4 0.079” - 0.19” Rock salt-sized to pea-sized MOISTURE CONTENT Medium #40 - #10 0.017” - 0.079” Sugar-sized to rock salt-sized Dry – Absence of moisture Fine #200 - #40 0.0029” - 0.017” Flour-sized to sugar-sized Moist – Damp but not visible Fines Passing #200 <0.0029” Flour-sized or smaller Wet – Visible free water Project:MarBrisa Villa 67 Project Location:Carlsbad, California Project Number:1916A24 Key to Log of Boring Ma t e r i a l T y p e La b T e s t i n g REMARKSGr a p h i c L o g Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f MATERIAL DESCRIPTIONN6 0 De p t h ( f e e t ) Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS 1 Elevation (feet): Elevation (MSL, feet). 2 Depth (feet): Depth in feet below the ground surface. 3 Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval shown. 4 Sampling Resistance: Number of blows to advance driven sampler 0.5 feet (or distance shown) beyond seating interval using the hammer identified on the boring log. 5 N60: N60 Value calculated from blow counts 6 Material Type: Type of material encountered. 7 Graphic Log: Graphic depiction of the subsurface material encountered. 8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered. May include consistency, moisture, color, and other descriptive text. 9 Water Content, %: Water content of the soil sample, expressed as percentage of dry weight of sample. 10 Dry Unit Weight, pcf: Dry weight per unit volume of soil sample measured in laboratory, in pounds per cubic foot. 11 Lab Testing: Lab Tests being run on sampes taken back to lab 12 REMARKS: Comments and observations regarding drilling or sampling made by driller or field personnel. FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS AL: Atterberg Limits EI: Expansion Index DS: Direct Shear Test COR: Corrosivity MAX: Maximum Density Test CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test PD: Particle Size Distribution (percent passing No. 200 sieve) UC: Unconfined compressive strength test, Qu, in ksf WA: Wash sieve (percent passing No. 200 Sieve) MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Lean CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CL)Clayey SAND (SC) Silty SAND (SM) TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Auger sampler Bulk Sample 3-inch-OD California w/ brass rings CME Sampler Grab Sample 2.5-inch-OD Modified California w/ brass liners Pitcher Sample 2-inch-OD unlined split spoon (SPT) Shelby Tube (Thin-walled, fixed head) OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS Water level (at time of drilling, ATD) Water level (after waiting) Minor change in material properties within a stratum Inferred/gradational contact between strata ?Queried contact between strata GENERAL NOTES 1: Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive, and actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2: Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. C: \ U s e r s \ j r o w e r d i n k \ D o c u m e n t s \ P r o j e c t F i l e s \ R e p o r t s \ 1 9 1 6 A 2 4 M a r B r i s a V i l l a 6 7 \ B o r i n g L o g s . b g 4 [ m a s t e r 2 b a s e . t p l ] Page B3 Sheet 1 of 1 u u ..... uuuu u u u u u § □ □ □ B § □ ~ ~ ■ E rn ~ __5J_ ___]' ~ w ~ 1 ~ I § - - - - Project:MarBrisa Villa 67 Project Location:Carlsbad, California Project Number:1916A24 Log of Boring B-1 Date(s) Drilled 10/19/22 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type Truck-Mounted CME-75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered Borehole Backfill Soil Cuttings Logged By GSW Drill Bit Size/Type 8" / HSA Drilling Contractor Baja Exploration, Inc. Sampling Method(s)Bulk, SPT, Cal Location 33.13125, -117.31215 Checked By DJR Total Depth of Borehole 20 Feet BGS Approximate Surface Elevation 190 Feet MSL Hammer Data 140 lb / 30" Drop Ma t e r i a l T y p e SC SC SM SC SC SM La b T e s t i n g EI, PD, RV REMARKSGr a p h i c L o g Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % 10.9 10.3 Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f 123.1 120.6 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL (Af): CLAYEY fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, dense, light gray to brown, moist, scattered roots. Medium dense, brown to dark brown. CLAYEY fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, very dense, light brown to gray, moist, resembles reworked formational material. SILTY fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, very dense, light brown to light gray, moist, resembles reworked formational material. CLAYEY fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, medium dense, reddish brown, moist. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): Harder drilling started at 14 feet. CLAYEY fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, medium dense, reddish brown, moist. SILTY fine to medium SAND, trace clay, very dense, reddish brown, moist. Boring terminated at 20 feet BGS as planned. No groundwater encountered. Boring backfilled with soil cuttings on 10/19/22. N6 0 31 >50 >50 27 33 >50 De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e 15 17 20 11 21 22 24 50-3" 7 9 12 6 15 24 12 18 26 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 190 185 180 175 170 165 160 C: \ U s e r s \ j r o w e r d i n k \ D o c u m e n t s \ P r o j e c t F i l e s \ R e p o r t s \ 1 9 1 6 A 2 4 M a r B r i s a V i l l a 6 7 \ B o r i n g L o g s . b g 4 [ m a s t e r 2 b a s e . t p l ] Sheet 1 of 1 - - - - - - -- - - - ------------------ - ----------------- - - ------------------ - - - i------ -~ - ----------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - Project:MarBrisa Villa 67 Project Location:Carlsbad, California Project Number:1916A24 Log of Boring B-2 Date(s) Drilled 10/19/22 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type Truck-Mounted CME-75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered Borehole Backfill Soil Cuttings Logged By GSW Drill Bit Size/Type 8" / HSA Drilling Contractor Baja Exploration, Inc. Sampling Method(s)Bulk, SPT, Cal Location 33.13129, -117.31191 Checked By DJR Total Depth of Borehole 20 Feet BGS Approximate Surface Elevation 191 Feet MSL Hammer Data 140 lb / 30" Drop Ma t e r i a l T y p e SC SM CL SC SM La b T e s t i n g DS, MAX, PD REMARKSGr a p h i c L o g Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % 9.1 Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f 130.5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL (Af): CLAYEY fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, medium dense, brown, moist. SILTY fine to medium SAND, trace clay, medium dense, reddish brown, moist, slightly micaceous, resembles reworked formational material. Very dense. Fine to medium SANDY CLAY, very stiff, reddish brown, moist, mottled. OLD PARALLIC DEPOSITS (Qop): Harder drilling started at 14 feet. CLAYEY fine to medium SAND, very dense, reddish brown, moist, slightly micaceous. SILTY fine to medium SAND, trace clay, very dense, reddish brown, moist, slightly micaceous. Boring terminated at 20 feet BGS as planned. No groundwater encountered. Boring backfilled with soil cuttings on 10/19/22. N6 0 22 42 29 34 >50 >50 De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e 8 9 8 14 50-6" 7 9 13 10 13 27 13 21 32 15 23 36 El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 191 186 181 176 171 166 161 C: \ U s e r s \ j r o w e r d i n k \ D o c u m e n t s \ P r o j e c t F i l e s \ R e p o r t s \ 1 9 1 6 A 2 4 M a r B r i s a V i l l a 6 7 \ B o r i n g L o g s . b g 4 [ m a s t e r 2 b a s e . t p l ] Sheet 1 of 1 -D ~ I -_D ~ D --D X ~ --~ D ~ -_D ~ ~ D --~~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --X -- - --i - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --X ~ -- -~ -:~ - A ~------X -~ -. - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~~ - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - Project:MarBrisa Villa 67 Project Location:Carlsbad, California Project Number:1916A24 Log of Boring P-1 Date(s) Drilled 10/19/22 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type Truck-Mounted CME-75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered Borehole Backfill Soil Cuttings Logged By GSW Drill Bit Size/Type 8" / HSA Drilling Contractor Baja Exploration, Inc. Sampling Method(s)Bulk Location 33.13123, -117.31214 Checked By DJR Total Depth of Borehole 5 Feet BGS Approximate Surface Elevation 190 Feet MSL Hammer Data 140 lb / 30" Drop Ma t e r i a l T y p e SC La b T e s t i n g REMARKSGr a p h i c L o g Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL (Af): CLAYEY fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, dense, brown to dark brown, moist, scattered roots. Boring terminated at 5 feet BGS as planned. No groundwater encountered. Boring converted to perc test hole on 10/19/22. Boring backfilled with soil cuttings on 10/20/22. N6 0 De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 190 185 180 175 170 165 160 C: \ U s e r s \ j r o w e r d i n k \ D o c u m e n t s \ P r o j e c t F i l e s \ R e p o r t s \ 1 9 1 6 A 2 4 M a r B r i s a V i l l a 6 7 \ B o r i n g L o g s . b g 4 [ m a s t e r 2 b a s e . t p l ] Sheet 1 of 1 -D ~ I -_D ~ D --D X ~ --~ D ~ -_D ~ D --~ ~ 0£. - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - Project:MarBrisa Villa 67 Project Location:Carlsbad, California Project Number:1916A24 Log of Boring P-2 Date(s) Drilled 10/19/22 Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig Type Truck-Mounted CME-75 Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered Borehole Backfill Soil Cuttings Logged By GSW Drill Bit Size/Type 8" / HSA Drilling Contractor Baja Exploration, Inc. Sampling Method(s)Bulk Location 33.13131, -117.31190 Checked By DJR Total Depth of Borehole 5 Feet BGS Approximate Surface Elevation 191 Feet MSL Hammer Data 140 lb / 30" Drop Ma t e r i a l T y p e SC La b T e s t i n g REMARKSGr a p h i c L o g Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % Dr y U n i t W e i g h t , p c f MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL (Af): CLAYEY fine to medium SAND, trace gravel, medium dense, light brown to reddish brown, moist, resembles reworked formational material. Boring terminated at 5 feet BGS as planned. No groundwater encountered. Boring converted to perc test hole on 10/19/22. Boring backfilled with soil cuttings on 10/20/22. N6 0 De p t h ( f e e t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sa m p l e T y p e Sa m p l i n g R e s i s t a n c e El e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) 191 186 181 176 171 166 161 C: \ U s e r s \ j r o w e r d i n k \ D o c u m e n t s \ P r o j e c t F i l e s \ R e p o r t s \ 1 9 1 6 A 2 4 M a r B r i s a V i l l a 6 7 \ B o r i n g L o g s . b g 4 [ m a s t e r 2 b a s e . t p l ] Sheet 1 of 1 -D ~ I -_D ~ D --D X ~ --~ D ~ -_D ~ D --~ ~ 0£. - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page C-1 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES 1.Particle Size Analysis Particle size analysis on representative soil samples were determined using the standard test method of the ASTM D6913. 2.Expansion Index Expansion index of materials encountered were determined using the standard test methods of the ASTM D4829. 3.Maximum Density Maximum density tests were performed on a representative bag sample of the near surface soils in accordance with ASTM D1557. 4.Direct Shear Direct Shear Tests were performed on in-place samples of site soils in accordance with ASTM D3080. 5.Resistance Value Testing R-Value testing was completed in substantial compliance with Caltrans Test Method 301. Graphical plots of our tests are included in this appendix. 6.Corrosion Chemical testing was performed on representative samples to determine the corrosion potential of the onsite soils. Testing consisted of pH, chlorides (CTM 422), soluble sulfates (CTM 417), and resistivity (CTM 643). Particle Size Distribution Report (ASTM D6913) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 0 1 15 45 39 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ i n . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 TEST RESULTS Opening Percent Size Finer Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Sampled:Sample Number: B-1 Depth: 0 - 5.0' Project: Project No:Figure .5.375#4#10#20#40#60#140#200 100100100999884624339 0.5193 0.4396 0.23410.1609 10/19/22 11/2/22 JH DR ENGINEER 10/19/22 MarBrisa Villa 67 1916-A24 PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks CLAYEY SAND (SC) C-2 ----I I I I '( ~ rr t~ I I I I II I I I I I I I I l'\.I I I I I I I I I I II II I ~ I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 11 I I I I I 11 I I I I I II 11 I i\ I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I II II I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I 1\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I \.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I N I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 11 I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I II I I IA ~_ I Particle Size Distribution Report (ASTM D6913) PE R C E N T F I N E R 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 1 0 22 51 26 6 i n . 3 i n . 2 i n . 1½ i n . 1 i n . ¾ i n . ½ i n . 3/ 8 i n . #4 #1 0 #2 0 #3 0 #4 0 #6 0 #1 0 0 #1 4 0 #2 0 0 TEST RESULTS Opening Percent Size Finer Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Date Sampled:Sample Number: B-2 Depth: 0 - 5.0' Project: Project No:Figure .75.5.375#4#10#20#40#60#140#200 1001009999999777493026 0.5969 0.5130 0.31070.2561 0.1106 10/19/22 11/2/22 JH DR ENGINEER 10/19/22 MarBrisa Villa 67 1916-A24 PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks C-3 CLAYEY SAND (SC) ~ -I I I I Y'"~ --I I I I II IT I I I I I I I I I !"II\ I I I I I I I I I I II II I ' I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 11 I \1 I I I 11 I I I I I II 11 I ~ I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I :\ I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I \: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'l: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I ', ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I IT I I I I I II II I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 11 I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I II I I IA L_ I By:Date: Job Number:Figure: 7CLAYEY SAND (SC) EXPANSION INDEX ASTM D4829 ASTM D1557 Low 51-90 DESCRIPTION B-1 at 0 to 5 Feet 21-50 Very High 91-130 1. ASTM - D4829 Medium R-VALUE SAMPLE B-2 at 0 to 5 Feet CLAYEY SAND (SC)126 CLAYEY SAND (SC) 10.9 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) DESCRIPTION 18 CALIFORNIA TEST 301 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT SAMPLE EXPANSION INDEX Very Low1-20 Expansion Potential Classification of Expansive Soil 1 Expansion Index Above 130 High R-VALUE B-1 at 0 to 5 Feet OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) C-4 January, 2023 1906A24 GSW MarBrisa Villa 67 Carlsbad, California Client: Grand Pacific Resorts Project: MarBrisa Villa 67 Sample Number: B-2 Depth: 0 - 5.0' Proj. No.: 1916-A24 Date Sampled: 10/19/22 Sample Type: Remolded Description: Assumed Specific Gravity= 2.65 Remarks: Remolded at 90% Relative Compaction Sample No. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf Saturation, % Void Ratio Diameter, in. Height, in. Water Content, % Dry Density, pcf Saturation, % Void Ratio Diameter, in. Height, in. Normal Stress, psf Fail. Stress, psf Strain, % Ult. Stress, psf Strain, % Strain rate, in./min. In i t i a l At T e s t Sh e a r S t r e s s , p s f 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Strain, % 05101520 1 2 3 Ul t . S t r e s s , p s f Fa i l . S t r e s s , p s f 0 1000 2000 3000 Normal Stress, psf 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 C, psf , deg Tan() Fail.Ult. 204 29 0.55 218 28 0.53 1 10.8 113.5 62.5 0.458 2.42 1.00 16.8 114.5 100.0 0.445 2.42 0.99 1000 730 3.3 718 10.3 0.010 2 10.9 113.4 62.8 0.459 2.42 1.00 16.1 115.9 100.0 0.428 2.42 0.98 2000 1328 9.3 1316 9.8 0.010 3 10.9 113.4 62.8 0.459 2.42 1.00 15.5 117.3 100.0 0.410 2.42 0.97 4000 2380 6.2 2317 10.4 0.010 MarBrisa Villa 67 Carlsbad, California H APPENDIX D GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page D1 APPENDIX D GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL These specifications present general procedures and requirements for grading and earthwork as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the attached geotechnical report are a part of the earthwork and grading specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained herein in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the Consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations, which could supersede these specifications, or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. EARTHWORK OBSERVATION AND TESTING Prior to the start of grading, a qualified Geotechnical Consultant (Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It will be necessary that the Consultant provide adequate testing and observation so that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to assist the Consultant and keep them apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications, and the approved grading plans. Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction will be performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Test Method (ASTM) D1557. Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page D2 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED Clearing and Grubbing: All brush, vegetation and debris shall be removed or piled and otherwise disposed of. Processing: The existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of fill shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches. Existing ground, which is not satisfactory, shall be over- excavated as specified in the following section. Over-excavation: Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, shall be over- excavated down to firm ground, approved by the Consultant. Moisture conditioning: Over-excavated and processed soils shall be watered, dried-back, blended, and mixed as required to have a relatively uniform moisture content near the optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557. Re-compaction: Over-excavated and processed soils, which have been mixed, and moisture conditioned uniformly shall be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90% of ASTM D1557. Benching: Where soils are placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be excavated in firm material for a minimum width of 4 feet. FILL MATERIAL General: Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances and shall be approved by the Consultant. Oversize: Oversized material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill, unless the location, material, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the Consultant. Oversize disposal operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page D3 within 10 feet vertically of finish grade or within the range of future utilities or underground construction, unless specifically approved by the Consultant. Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material shall meet the general requirements. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION Fill Lifts: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness. The Consultant may approve thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. Fill Moisture: Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum shall be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers shall be aerated by scarification or shall be blended with drier material. Moisture conditioning and mixing of fill layers shall continue until the fill material is at uniform moisture content at or near optimum. Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned, and mixed, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90% of maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM D1557. Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and shall be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Fill Slopes: Compacting on slopes shall be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet as the fill is placed, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90% in accordance with ASTM D1557. Compaction Testing: Field tests to check the fill moisture and degree of compaction will be performed by the consultant. The location and frequency of tests shall be at the consultant's discretion. In general, these tests will be taken at an interval not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise, Grand Pacific Resorts MTGL Project No. 1916A24 MarBrisa Villa 67 MTGL Log No. 22-0806-R1 Carlsbad, California Revised January 9, 2023 Page D4 and/or 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. In addition, on slope faces, at least one test shall be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrain systems, if required, shall be installed in approved ground to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials shall not be changed or modified without the approval of the Consultant. The Consultant, however, may recommend and, upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade, or materials. All subdrains should be surveyed for line and grade after installation and sufficient time shall be allowed for the surveys, prior to commencement of fill over the subdrain. EXCAVATION Excavations and cut slopes will be examined during grading. If directed by the Consultant, further excavation or over-excavation and refilling of cut areas, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes shall be performed. Where fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope shall be made and approved by the Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. APPENDIX E SITE-SPECIFIC SEISMIC DESIGN ANALYSIS RESULTS Appendix E MTGL Log No. 22-0806R1 January, 2023 SITE-SPECIFIC GROUND MOTION ANALYSIS (ASCE 7-16) Latitude:33.1313 deg Calculated By: Longitude:-117.3121 deg Checked By: Project: MarBrisa Villa 67 Client: Grand Pacific Resorts Job No: 1916A21 Vs30 :259 m/s Date: Period T (sec) Uniform Hazard Ground Motion (g) Risk Targeted Ground Motion (g) Maximum Direction Scale Factor Maximum Directional Probabilistic Sa (g) 84th Percentile Spectral Accelaration (g) Maximum Direction Scale Factor Maximum Directional Deterministic Sa (g) 80% of Code Based Sa (g) Design SaM (g) Design Sa (g) T x Sa (T>1s) 0 0.539 0.505 1.1 0.556 0.563 1.1 0.620 0.268 0.556 0.370 --- 0.10 0.939 0.888 1.1 0.977 0.892 1.1 0.981 0.616 0.977 0.651 --- 0.20 1.268 1.205 1.1 1.326 1.233 1.1 1.356 0.671 1.326 0.884 --- 0.30 1.393 1.299 1.125 1.461 1.398 1.125 1.573 0.671 1.461 0.974 --- 0.50 1.291 1.194 1.175 1.403 1.373 1.175 1.613 0.671 1.403 0.935 --- 0.75 1.026 0.941 1.2375 1.164 1.119 1.2375 1.384 0.519 1.164 0.776 --- 1.00 0.827 0.757 1.3 0.984 0.936 1.3 1.216 0.389 0.984 0.656 0.656 2.00 0.432 0.391 1.35 0.528 0.497 1.35 0.671 0.195 0.528 0.352 0.704 3.00 0.275 0.250 1.4 0.350 0.315 1.4 0.441 0.130 0.350 0.233 0.700 4.00 0.194 0.175 1.45 0.254 0.212 1.45 0.308 0.097 0.254 0.169 0.677 5.00 0.145 0.131 1.5 0.197 0.150 1.5 0.225 0.078 0.197 0.131 0.655 0.116 0.671 0.580 0.671 INPUT PARAMETERS - SEAOC (https://seismicmaps.org/)SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Site Class=D SDS=0.877 90% of max Sa (ASCE 7-16 Sect 21.4) Fa=1.200 Short Period Site Coefficient SMS=1.315 MCER, 5% Damped, adjusted for Site Class SS=1.049 Mapped MCER, 5% Damped at T=0.2s SD1=0.704 Design, 5% Damped, at T=1s (Sect 11.4.5) S1=0.38 Mapped MCER, 5% Damped at T=1s SM1=1.056 MCER, 5% Damped, at T=1s, adjusted for Site SDS= 0.839 Design, 5% Damped at Short Periods Fa=1.200 Short Period Site Coefficient (7-16 Sect 21.3) SMS= 1.259 The MCER, 5% Damped at Short Periods Fv=2.500 Long Period Site Coefficient (7-16 Sect 21.3) TL (sec)=8.0 Long Period Transition (Sect 11.4.6)SS=1.096 MCER, 5% Damped at T=0.2s FPGA (g)=1.2 Site Coefficient for PGA S1=0.422 MCER, 5% Damped at T=1s PGAM (g)=0.554 PGAProbabilistic (g)=0.539 Peak Ground Acceleration, Probabilistic Fv=1.920 Used Only for Calculation of To and Ts PGADeterministic (g)=0.563 Peak Ground Acceleration, Deterministic SM1= 0.730 FPGA (g)=1.1 Site Coefficient for PGA, when PGA = 0.5g SD1= 0.486 Design, 5% Damped at T=1s 0.5*FPGA (g)=0.550 OK (Check PGADeterministic > 0.5 x FPGA) To (sec)=0.116 Defined in ASCE 7-16 Sect 11.4.6 0.8*PGAM (g)=0.443 PGAM (g) (Determined from ASCE 7-16 Eq. 11.8-1) TS (sec)=0.580 Defined in ASCE 7-16 Sect 11.4.6 Site Specific PGA (g) =0.539 (Check PGASite Specific> 0.8 x PGAM) 0.097 0.122 0.162 0.243 0.770 PROBABILISTIC (RISK-TARGETED) GROUND MOTION ANALYSIS DETERMINISTIC (84TH-PERCENTILE) GROUND MOTION ANALYSIS SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN RESPONSE CODE-BASED (LOWER LIMIT) ASCE 7-16 SECTION 11.4.6 Code Based Sa (g) 0.336 0.486 0.649 0.839 0.839 0.839 DJR TC May, 2021 PGA Appendix E MTGL Log No. 22-0806R1 January, 2023 PGA 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.75 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Rose Canyon (M=6.99)0.563 0.892 1.233 1.398 1.373 1.119 0.936 0.497 0.315 0.212 0.150 Oceanside Alt1 (M=7.24)0.300 0.513 0.717 0.786 0.720 0.561 0.451 0.232 0.145 0.100 0.072 84th Percentile Spectral Accelaration 0.563 0.892 1.233 1.398 1.373 1.119 0.936 0.497 0.315 0.212 0.150 DETERMINISTIC (84TH-PERCENTILE) GROUND MOTION ANALYSIS Fault Period, T (sec) Appendix E MTGL Log No. 22-0806R1 January, 2023 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Sp e c t r a l A c c e l e r a t i o n . S a ( g ) Period (sec) Site-Specific Response Spectra per ASCE 7-16 Probabilistic (Risk-Targeted) MCER Response Spectrum Deterministic (84th-Percentile) MCER Response Spectrum Mapped Design Response Spectrum, ASCE Section 11.4.6 Design Response Spectrum I I I I APPENDIX F BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS Project Name:MarBrisa Villa 67 Test Number:P-1 Job Number:1916A24 Tested By:JR Date Drilled:10/19/2022 Date Tested:10/20/2022 Drilling Method:CME-75 Drill Rig Presoak Time:24 HR Drilled Depth (feet):5.0 Test Hole Diameter (inches):8 Gravel Pack:Y Pipe Diameter (inches):3 USCS Soil Classification Fill (Af): CLAYEY SAND (SM) Time Initial Water Final Water Change in Water Percolation Trial No.Time Interval, ΔT Height, Ho Height, Hf Height, ΔH Rate (min)(ft)(ft)(in)(min/in) 8:40 9:10 9:10 9:40 9:40 10:10 10:10 10:40 10:40 11:10 11:10 11:40 11:40 12:10 12:10 12:40 50.0 min/in 1.2 in/hr 0.07 in/hr *Tested infiltration rate using the Porchet Method: ΔH(60r) ΔT(r + 2Havg) ΔH = Change in water head height over the time interval [in]= 0.6 r = Test hole radius [in]= 4 ΔT = Time interval [min]= 30 0.1 Havg = Average water height over time interval = 12(Ho + Hf)/2 [in]= 31.6 By:GSW Date:Job No:1916A24 Figure: Report of Borehole Percolation Testing Storm Water Infiltration Sandy Soils Criteria Test : Does Not Pass 1 0:30 2.96 2.90 0.72 41.7 1 0:30 2.86 2.81 0.60 50.0 2 0:30 2.90 2.86 0.48 62.5 3 0:30 2.76 2.71 0.60 50.0 2 0:30 2.81 2.76 0.60 50.0 5 0:30 2.66 2.66 0.00 0.0 4 0:30 2.71 2.66 0.60 50.0 6 0:30 2.66 2.61 0.60 50.0 Observed Percolation Rate: MarBrisa Villa 67 Carlsbad, California January, 2023F-1 *Tested Infiltation Rate, It: It = ~~ Gell-lcal ln111noertag ta..inu:u .. IIIS9llelhln /111111 ft-fl.. ··:.:=ta': Project Name:MarBrisa Villa 67 Test Number:P-2 Job Number:1916A24 Tested By:JR Date Drilled:10/19/2022 Date Tested:10/20/2022 Drilling Method:CME-75 Drill Rig Presoak Time:24 HR Drilled Depth (feet):5.0 Test Hole Diameter (inches):8 Gravel Pack:Y Pipe Diameter (inches):3 USCS Soil Classification Fill (Af): CLAYEY SAND (SM) Time Initial Water Final Water Change in Water Percolation Trial No.Time Interval, ΔT Height, Ho Height, Hf Height, ΔH Rate (min)(ft)(ft)(in)(min/in) 8:41 9:11 9:11 9:41 9:41 10:11 10:11 10:41 10:41 11:11 11:11 11:41 11:41 12:11 12:11 12:41 50.0 min/in 1.2 in/hr 0.07 in/hr *Tested infiltration rate using the Porchet Method: ΔH(60r) ΔT(r + 2Havg) ΔH = Change in water head height over the time interval [in]= 0.6 r = Test hole radius [in]= 4 ΔT = Time interval [min]= 30 0.1 Havg = Average water height over time interval = 12(Ho + Hf)/2 [in]= 32.2 By:GSW Date:Job No:1916A24 Figure: 50.0 Report of Borehole Percolation Testing Storm Water Infiltration Sandy Soils Criteria Test : Does Not Pass 1 0:30 2.56 2.46 1.20 25.0 2 0:30 2.46 2.41 0.60 1 0:30 2.41 2.41 0.00 0.0 2 0:30 3.11 2.96 1.80 16.7 3 0:30 2.96 2.86 1.20 25.0 5 0:30 2.76 2.71 0.60 50.0 4 0:30 2.86 2.76 1.20 25.0 6 0:30 2.71 2.66 0.60 Observed Percolation Rate: *Tested Infiltation Rate, It: 50.0 It = MarBrisa Villa 67 Carlsbad, California January, 2023F-1 ~~ Gell-lcal ln111noertag ta..inu:u .. IIIS9llelhln /111111 ft-fl.. ··:.:=ta': APPENDIX G PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM On October 6, 2010, six exploratory borings were drilled utilizing 6-inch diameter hollow stem auger drilled to a depth of between 20 and 50 feet below existing site grade. Samples were obtained with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler, CAL Sampler and a bulk sample, as appropriate. The approximate location of the borings are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Figure 2, attached. The field exploration was performed under the supervision of our Geologist/Engineer who maintained a continuous log of the subsurface soils encountered and obtained samples for laboratory testing. The soils encountered were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (see Key to Logs, Figure B-0). Subsurface conditions are summarized on the Boring Logs, Figures B-1 and B-5. The soils were classified based on field observations and laboratory tests. DATE OBSERVED:METHOD OF DRILLING: GROUND ELEVATION: 188'LOCATION: 0 Corrosivity SB-1 36 13.5 122.9 R-value 5 SB-2 52 12.5 120.4 Gradation Direct Shear Consolidation 10 SB-3 76 9.3 124.1 15 SS-1 54 11.8 20 SS-2 56 10.4 25 SS-3 49 13.4 30 SS-4 55 10.4 35 40 Figure B-1 DE P T H ( F E E T ) SA M P L E N U M B E R BL O W S / F O O T DR I V E S A M P L E S Oct. 6, 2011 See Figure 2 8" Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: ECD BU L K S A M P L E MO I S T U R E CO N T E N T ( % ) IN - P L A C E D R Y DE N S I T Y ( P C F ) BORING NO. B-1 DESCRIPTION Grades to dense. SOIL TEST FILL: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, moist, medium dense, trace clay. TERRACE DEPOSITS: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, moist, very dense, mix yellow-brown color, trace clay. Grades with dark brown color. Grades with mix grey color. Grades to very dense. Grades to dense Boring Terminated at 30 Feet. No Groundwater Encountered. Borehole Backfilled on 10/6/2011. Project No.: 1916A08 LOG OF BORING -----~ X ----L. ----~ -----n--X -----LL ----o= -----o= ------------ DATE OBSERVED:METHOD OF DRILLING: GROUND ELEVATION: 190 LOCATION: 0 SB-1 38 12.1 124.8 5 SB-2 48 13.5 126.2 Max. Density Expansion Index 10 SB-3 65 13.2 123.8 Corrosivity Direct Shear Consolidation 15 SS-1 24 10.2 20 SS-2 37 8.2 25 30 35 40 Figure B-2 DE P T H ( F E E T ) SA M P L E N U M B E R BL O W S / F O O T DR I V E S A M P L E S Oct. 6, 2011 8" Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: ECD See Figure 2 SOIL TEST DESCRIPTION FILL: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, moist, medium BU L K S A M P L E MO I S T U R E CO N T E N T ( % ) IN - P L A C E D R Y DE N S I T Y ( P C F ) BORING NO. B-2 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, dense to dense, trace clay. Grades to mix orange-brown Silty Sand. Grades to medium dense moist, dense, mix with red-brown color. Boring Terminated at 20 Feet. No Groundwater Encountered. Borehole Backfilled on 10/6/2011. Grades to dense. Project No.: 1916A08 LOG OF BORING -----~ ---~ ---- X --~ --,__ ---o= -----o= ---------------------- DATE OBSERVED:METHOD OF DRILLING: GROUND ELEVATION: 215'LOCATION: 0 SB-1 39 14.3 123 R-value 5 SB-2 105 8.1 132.8 10 SB-3 36 11.7 125.8 15 SB-4 80 9.4 131.9 20 SS-1 48 10.1 25 SS-2 45 9.7 30 SS-3 25 9.3 35 40 Figure B-3 Oct. 6, 2011 8" Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: ECD See Figure 2 BU L K S A M P L E MO I S T U R E CO N T E N T ( % ) IN - P L A C E D R Y DE N S I T Y ( P C F ) BORING NO. B-3 DE P T H ( F E E T ) SA M P L E N U M B E R BL O W S / F O O T DR I V E S A M P L E S dense, trace clay. SOIL TEST DESCRIPTION FILL: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, moist, medium Grades to medium dense. Mix with dark brown color, very dense. Grades to dense. TERRACE DEPOSITS: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, moist, very dense, trace clay. Borehole Backfilled on 10/6/2011. Grades to medium dense. Boring Terminated at 30 Feet. No Groundwater Encountered. Project No.: 1916A08 LOG OF BORING ------~ X ----L. ----~ ---------- X -~ -----------o= -----o= -----o= ------------ DATE OBSERVED:METHOD OF DRILLING: GROUND ELEVATION: 215'LOCATION: 0 5 SS-1 15 10.3 Max. Density Expansion Index 10 SS-2 22 11.2 Corrosivity 15 SS-3 50/5"7.4 20 SS-4 72 8.5 25 SS-5 37 8.7 30 SS-6 47 10.2 35 SS-7 47 8.5 40 SS-8 45 9.5 Figure B-4 continuation Figure B-4A Project No.: 1916A08 LOG OF BORING Grades to dense. Grades to very dense. TERRACE DEPOSITS: Silty Sand (SM), moist, orange- brown, very dense, trace clay. Grades to mix yellow-brown and orange-brown color. SOIL TEST DESCRIPTION FILL: Silty Sand (SM), brown, moist, medium dense, trace clay. LOGGED BY: ECD See Figure 2 DE P T H ( F E E T ) SA M P L E N U M B E R BL O W S / F O O T DR I V E S A M P L E S BU L K S A M P L E MO I S T U R E CO N T E N T ( % ) IN - P L A C E D R Y DE N S I T Y ( P C F ) BORING NO. B-4 Oct. 6, 2011 8" Hollow Stem Auger --------o= -----X -o= --,__ ---o= -----o= -----o= -----o= -----o= -----o= -- DATE OBSERVED:METHOD OF DRILLING: GROUND ELEVATION: 215'LOCATION: 40 SS-8 45 9.5 45 SS-9 57 9.8 50 SS-10 50/3"5.7 55 60 65 70 75 80 Figure B-4AProject No.: 1916A08 LOG OF BORING Borehole Backfilled on 10/6/2100. Boring Terminated at 50 Feet. No Groundwater Encountered. moist, dense, trace clay. Grades to gravel inclusions, very dense. IN - P L A C E D R Y DE N S I T Y ( P C F ) BORING NO. B-4 SOIL TEST DESCRIPTION TERRACE DEPOSITS: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, Oct. 6, 2011 8" Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: ECD See Figure 2 DE P T H ( F E E T ) SA M P L E N U M B E R BL O W S / F O O T DR I V E S A M P L E S BU L K S A M P L E MO I S T U R E CO N T E N T ( % ) -LJ_ ----o= -----o= -------------------------------- DATE OBSERVED:METHOD OF DRILLING: GROUND ELEVATION: 215'LOCATION: 0 SB-1 41 8.2 123.5 5 SB-2 47 13.2 123.4 Gradation 10 SB-3 39 13.8 123.4 15 SB-4 37 11.6 124.6 Gradation Direct Shear Consolidation 20 SB-5 50/4"10.4 122.9 25 SS-1 34 10.1 30 SS-2 57 10.4 35 SS-3 60 9.9 40 SS-4 70 7.9 Figure B-5Project No.: 1916A08 LOG OF BORING Boring Terminated at 40 Feet. No Grounwater Encountered. Borehole Backfilled on 10/6/2011. Grades to dense. Grades to very dense. brown, very dense, trace clay. TERRACE DEPOSITS: Silty Sand (SM), moist, orange- Grades to mix dark brown color. dense, trace clay. IN - P L A C E D R Y DE N S I T Y ( P C F ) BORING NO. B-5 SOIL TEST DESCRIPTION FILL: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, moist. medium DE P T H ( F E E T ) SA M P L E N U M B E R BL O W S / F O O T DR I V E S A M P L E S BU L K S A M P L E MO I S T U R E CO N T E N T ( % ) Oct. 6, 2011 8" Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: ECD See Figure 2 -----~ ---~ -----~ ---------- X -~ ------[Z -----o= -----o= -----o= -----o= -- DATE OBSERVED:METHOD OF DRILLING: GROUND ELEVATION: 215'LOCATION: 0 5 SB-1 53 11.2 128.3 Max. Density Expansion Index Corrosivity Gradation 10 SB-2 43 12.9 122.1 15 SB-3 35 10.8 121.4 Direct Shear Consolidation 20 SB-4 90 9.2 125.4 25 SS-1 37 9.8 30 SS-2 55 8.6 35 40 Figure B-6Project No.: 1916A08 LOG OF BORING Boring Terminated at 30 Feet. No Groundwater Encountered. Borehole Backfilled on 10/6/2011. Grades to dense. Grades to very dense. moist, very dense, trace clay. TERRACE DEPOSITS: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, dense to dense, trace clay. Mix with dark brown color. IN - P L A C E D R Y DE N S I T Y ( P C F ) BORING NO. B-6 SOIL TEST DESCRIPTION FILL: Silty Sand (SM), orange-brown, moist, medium DE P T H ( F E E T ) SA M P L E N U M B E R BL O W S / F O O T DR I V E S A M P L E S BU L K S A M P L E MO I S T U R E CO N T E N T ( % ) Oct. 6, 2011 8" Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: ECD See Figure 2 ---------L. X -----k:::::. ----[Z -----[Z -----o= -----o= ------------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIXC LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES GENERAL The results of laboratory testing are discussed and presented in this appendix. MOISTURE/DENSITY Determinations of in situ moisture content and dry density were performed on selected undisturbed samples. Soil moisture content determinations were performed according to the ASTM D 2216. The dry density of soil was determined on CAL samples in general accordance with ASTM D2937. Results of these tests are presented on the boring logs, Figures B-1 through B-2, in Appendix B. CLASSIFICATION The Unified Soil Classification System was utilized for visual (ASTM D2488) and laboratory (ASTM D2487) classifications of soils encountered. GRADATION The sieve analysis of selected soil samples was performed in accordance with ASTM D422 and results are presented in Figures C-1 to C-5 MAXIMUM DENSITY A maximum density test was performed on a representative bag sample of the near surface soils in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The test results are shown below. Location Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Density (pcf) Content(%) B-2@ 8'-12' 130.5 8.3 B-4@ 8' -12' 134.2 8.5 B-6@ 5' -9' · 131.3 9.7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DIRECT SHEAR Direct shear tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D3080-98. Direct shear tests were performed on undisturbed soil samples. Test results are as follows. Location Cohesion Angle of Internal (PSF) Friction (Dea.) B-1@ 5' 435 38 B-2@ 10' 1003 40 B-5@ 15' 1004 35 B-6@ 15' 66 44 EXPANSION INDEX Expansion Index testing was completed in accordance with ASTM D4829. Test results are presented in the following table. Expansion Index -'" :"Y'' Boring Qepth ' UBC· No. (feet) . (ii) . . Potential Exuartsihn B-2 8'-12' 0 Very Low B-4 8' -12' 0 Very Low B-6 5' -9' 5 Very Low CORROSNITY Corrosivity Testing in compliance with Caltrans Test Method 417, 422, & 643. Test results are presented below. Sample Location PH Soluble Sulfates Min. Resistivity (%) (ohm-cm) B-1 @ 1 '-5' 6.8 0.032 1,460 B-2@ 8'-12' 6.7 0.021 1,694 B-4@ 8' -12' 6.6 0.011 1,781 . B-6@ 5' -9' 6.7 0.010 2,080 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONSOLIDATION Consolidation test was performed on representative, relatively undisturbed sample of the underlying soil to determine compressibility characteristics in accordance with ASTM D2435. Test result is presented on Figure C-6 to C-9. R-VALUE R-value testing was performed on existing upper on-site soil within proposed pavement areas. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Test Method 301 was used to determine exudation and expansion values. Location R-Value B-l@l'-5' 25 B-3@ l' -5' 48 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 i I ! cc: ' w 60 z I u::: ! I-50 z I w (.) cc: w 40 , ... a.. 30 '-·- 20 ···r·· 10 0 100 %+3" 0.0 SIEVE PERCENT SIZE FINER .375 100.0 #4 99.4 #10 98.5 #20 94.9 #40 62.8 #60 37.2 #100 24.2 #200 16.4 . Particle Size Distribution Report : : I I I i I 'I I : I I ii I I I : I i ii I II ;, I ; Ii I ' : .. I . .; 'I I ,.J._., •·st·-•··-•··· ! ii I 10 0.1 GRAIN SIZE -mm. %Gravel %Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt 0.0 0.6 0.9 SPEC.* PASS? PERCENT (X=NO) 35.7 46.4 Material Description PL= Dgo= 0.7318 D50= 0.3338 D10= Atterberg Limits LL= Coefficients D95= 0.6501 D30= 0.1986 Cu= Classification . !I •··. ~ .4 i ' - I I ! ; , I \ I 0.01 %Fines 16.4 Pl= USCS= AASHTO= Remarks 0.001 Cla (no spec1ficat1on provided) Sample Number: B-1 Depth: 5' Date: 10/24/11 MTGL, Inc. Client: Project: SALES/ FITNESS BUILDING -MARBRISA PHASE 2 Anaheim CA Pro·ect No: 1916-A08 Fi ure C-1 Tested By: --"J"'-H,__ _________ Checked By: =E=D'------------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CI: w z u: 1-z w g w a.. "' "' 100 ! I 1: 90 ... -1\•i 80 I' i I 70 ~ ! i I '! Ii : 60 50 I I ' I : I 1! i i I ii i i · i ii" I I[ I I i ', 40 30 : ' ·• i i II Ii I I Ii ____J rt-I I 20 I, •········ ·---IT. I I ' 10 ----· ... i: 0 ,I' 100 %+3" 0.0 SIEVE PERCENT SIZE FINER .375 100.0 #4 93.9 #10 90.5 #20 86.6 #40 63.4 #60 46.8 #100 39.2 #200 34.0 - Particle Size Distribution Report ... N ~ ~ 'if. :!! ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -.. I' I I I IT ·~ • I j ! ! i'I I ' : I I: II i I I I ii I I I 1i :'.)_i I , l!i I I 1 I I. I I I i I I Ii I I I II 1,~ ; ! I i I I i ,h L _, ' :I I I I I' I: i -......._1~ ', I I l I I : I 'I I I I I I, I I I i I ' 1··li··· i :: I t-r I•· ' ii' \ I I I, I: I I i I I i i ' i 1, I Ii I ' 1! I I .) I I i I' ! I I l !. I ! J~; I i I ·1 . ..... ' ....... -'I I I I I' i I I I, ' I I I I : I ! 'I ! I 11 I I I I : I I' I I I I I' I ! ! ,, h I 1, I I 1, : +--l--f t +· ' I I ! i\ ~t· ~ I I I I I I I I I I ''i I 1 I I I I '' I I 11 I : ' ........ tr I I ' K.11:1 j I I I I I I I I , I i I I! I '1 ii I : I I i I L.(; I I ___ ,;+J,. I . .... -·--·······-··-··--.. . ..... i I I I I I : I I Ii ' I . · 11 l ' ·, -1--i:--.! .: ..... :1: Ii-I ! I I , ~p i I ( I ' !' I r ,, ' :1 I I ii I I I I I I I I, I i I I· ! 1 I I l...,.:_,1 I :, -'-'_J ·-I , .1-:,-I t.l' ' l ' I I I I ' I ,I I I i I I ' Ii jl j I' I I I I I t····· t··-·· ·-l ,, ·-11 i l' l I: i ·'t, ; ...• -·: i I I :I I I. I I I I I I :1 ' ' I I I I I I I I I ! I I ' I II i ! I i 10 0.1 0.01 GRAIN SIZE -mm. %Gravel %Sand % Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt 0.0 6.1 3.4 27.1 29.4 SPEC.* PASS? Material Description PERCENT (X:NO) PL= Dgo= 1.7910 050= 0.2834 010= USCS= Atterberg Limits LL= Coefficients Das= 0.1921 030= Cu= Classification AASHTO= Remarks 34.0 Pl= i I ; i ~ ·---• ' 0.001 Cla (no specification provided) Sample Number: B-2 Depth: 10' Date: 10/24/ 11 MTGL, Inc. Client: Project: SALES/ FITNESS BUILDING -MARBRISA PHASE 2 Anaheim CA Pro ect No: 1916-A08 Fi ure C-2 Tested By: -=J"'-'H'-----------Checked By: =E~D _________ _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a: w z iI I-z w (.) a: w a.. <O (') 100 90 I i i r _!_: ii I 80 -·--··-; ·• <t ! I 70 I I I ,I I I : 60 ! i I i ! 50 i i i I ! ! ! I ! 40 ~l.-~ .• I I 30 I I ,. ! i : ! I 20 ' I I 10 ! :1 ', i I I' 0 i iii 100 %+3" 0.0 SIEVE PERCENT SIZE FINER #4 100.0 #JO 100.0 #20 98.9 #40 83.4 #60 59.2 #JOO 42.8 #200 34.4 - Particle Size Distribution Report N --.. ,a ~ -.. .. -.. .. .. I I I i' !: I I T I..,. l I I I II 11 I I I I I I J' I I I ;I II I I, i I I '': .J ... ... .1.. .... _J_! !I I ; I 'I I II ! i I ! i i~ I I II ! i I I '1 I I ! , I I I 'I j fi I 1 I 1i -t ' • I :\ ···• ·t····· 1 t 1r1 · l I I I : I ! I I I i i l I i I I I I I I ,I ' ! I I I I I i' N i I I I ! 1, i I ' I I ! I I I Ii ! I ' I I I I ' I I +· ' 'I ' i !' ' I ' I N I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : 11: I I I i [l1 ' : I I I I I ! I ! ii ' I I I \T: II I 'I I I I I I lt 1 ! I I I I ' .. , .. ·•·· ... .......... ........... ....... I ii I I I ' I i ._)_ ~ i I I I I I I I ' --!--r--· ···r ,1 ·---·i _,_ ' I " I I I I :1 I I' i I : I i I·· l ... .! ! ___ Li! ll ' I. H+ ... l.,L. : I ,- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I: I I I I I 11 ; I --t ; ' \ ' i, 11 I ,, ,, I :I I I I :1 ! I i I ,: I II i. I ii I I I I I I I I I Ii I ! 10 0.1 GRAIN SIZE -mm. o/o Gravel %Sand Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt 0.0 0.0 SPEC.♦ PASS? PERCENT (X=NO) 0.0 16.6 49.0 Material Description PL= D90= 0.5158 D50= 0.1958 □10= Atterberg Limits LL= Coefficients Das= 0.4427 D30= Cu= Classification ' I ! !···-· Ii '! I i .••. I ; : ., - I I I I 1-i 0.01 o/o Fines 34.4 Pl= USCS= AASHTO= Remarks (no spec1ficat1on provided) I I ·-·- ..... ' ...... , ···I•· I ' i I I - I ...... I I ; 0.001 Clay Sample Number: B-4 Depth: JO' Date: 10/24/1 1 MTGL, Inc. Client: Project: SALES/ FITNESS BUILDING -MARBRISA PHASE 2 Anaheim CA Pro·ect No: 1916-A08 Fi ure C-3 Tested By: ~J~H~--------Checked By: =E~D ________ _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a: w z u: 1-z w (.) a: w 0.. 1orr· %+3" 0.0 SIEVE SIZE #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 . ; 100 PERCENT FINER 100.0 99.5 98.4 81.8 59.3 43.4 33.6 Particle Size Distribution Report 10 0.1 0.01 GRAIN SIZE -mm. %Gravel %Sand %Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt 0.0 0.0 0.5 17.7 48.2 33.6 SPEC.* PASS? Material Description PERCENT (X=NO) PL= Dgo= 0.5460 D50= 0.1925 010= USCS= Atterberq Limits LL= Pl= Coefficients Das= o.4645 D30= Cu= Classification MSHTO= Remarks 0.001 Clay (no spec1fica11on provided) Sample Number: B-5 Depth: 15' Date: l 0/24/11 MTGL, Inc. Client: Project: SALES/ ATNESS BUILDING -MARBRISA PHASE 2 Anaheim CA Pro·ect No: 1916-A08 Fi ure C-4 Tested By: __ J ___ H _____________ Checked By: =E-0 _________ _ I _J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a: w z iI I-z w () a: w a. Particle Size Distribution Report .Ii "' .., N ~ ~ ;,.. '!!' .. .. .. .. .. .. -100 90 80 70 II II I I I I !Ji l ' . . I I I I I 1;1 i i ii I I I I I I I ft)j I I I I I I'. , I I ill ..... .L J L.. l I I I,, , I I .... --1. L I: ----· ......... 'I I 11 1 I~ it+ ·······r•--· i I I I I I I I' I I I ;ii i i l,i I ' I 'I I ' I I ! I t I I I ·; i ' t -··t:_ 1 I -l.;.t•wi---I i I I ,I I I I ; ;'/ ' I ii I ;I I I q 'i I i I I ' -········"···--··········· I 'I I 11 I I I ': ' I I I ;, ··---~------·-··-I ii I ' I I [ I > I ii '' \ I I Ii !I !! i I I I I I I I , I ! I 60 ii : I ;' i I f···· ... I : I 11 I ., I I ! '.lni ., -•·····-'i ii ', I ' ;\ \i I 1, i ' 50 ··-•··· Ii 40 ' Ii 30 20 II : : _I __ ii " ii : '. f;+ I .I 10 : ' ,I I' 0 l1i 100 %+3" 0.0 SIEVE PERCENT SIZE FINER #4 100.0 #10 99.6 #20 98.0 #40 77.5 #60 52.5 #100 35.0 #200 25.2 - I I I I I : I ii I ii I I I I I I I i I I 'I I ,i ··+ , ... , .. I 1\ i I II I !I I ; I : I 1: I I i ;L i: ! ' : I ::1. ,..;. L .. ! I ' -· ·• I I I I I I 1111 1: : I Ii ! I I } !1,_ 11 !'. ... j--;-I ' I I I I ! ! ,:, I : ; i I J.. .. ·,·--·--I ! I 11 ' f' 1--·; I 11 I' ... ~ i, l ' I I ii I I; I I'~ I ' I l1 ' : j IL __ l __ t i 11 I J lt I! H I IL ! I I I I 'I I I I I ' I i I I I Ii 'I I I I I I, I I i ' i t 1: I ' 1····-,_ . ., t , .. -·-··-t ·'····--l II, I I :: I I I I I I ii Ii I I I i ' \1 1· I l i I : I I I I I I I : 10 0.1 0.01 GRAIN SIZE -mm. %Gravel Coarse Fine Coarse 0.0 0.0 0.4 SPEC.* PASS? PERCENT (X:NO) %Sand "lo Fines Medium Fine Silt 22.1 52.3 25.2 Material Description PL= Dgo= 0.5952 050= 0.2359 010= USCS= Atterberg Limits LL= Coefficients 085= o.s121 D30= 0.1156 Cu= Classification AASHTO= Remarks Pl= i l i I ; i ! I I i I ! I 0.001 Clay (no specification provided) Sample Number: B-6 Depth: 15' Date: l 0/24/ 11 MTGL, Inc. Client: Project: SALES/ FITNESS BUILDING -MARBRISA PHASE 2 Anaheim CA Pro·ect No: 1916-A08 Fi ure C-5 Tested By: ..,J..._H...._ _________ Checked By: =E=D _________ _ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT -0.4 I i i I 0.0 r' r-.... ' ...... i,,.,.,,.l l 0.4 ' ' r-..... i', WATER ADDED I r..... 0.8 ~ i ,, ~; 1.2 ~ I :, i C: ! ~ ~' -~ I -I CJ) i ! -1.6 C: I ,, I Q) I u I'\ ... Q) 0... 1\1 I I 2.0 I j\ I i ~ I ........ ' " ! I 2.4 ._, I"'--, i ' I I""--~ ~ i\l\ I i r-,....i""-~"""" l ' t--.. 2.B ! ' -) I i ' I 3.2 ' ' I I I ! ! I i I i l 3·6 100 200 500 1000 2000 5000 Applied Pressure -psf Natural Dry Dens. LL Pl Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Clpse. eo Sat. I Moist. (pct) Gr. (psf) (psf) (psf) % I 4163 0.1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION uses AASHTO Project No. 1916-A0B Client: Remarks: Project: SALES/ FITNESS BUD..,DING-MARBRISA PHASE 2 Source: Sample No.: B-1 ElevJDepth: 5' MTGL, Inc. Anaheim, CA Figure C-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT 0.0 I I i 0.4 ~ ........ ~ ..... "I ' I 0.8 ' I WATER ADDED I ' ' ·--~) 1.2 ' i'\ '-1.6 ", ! C -~ ~ ~ l u5 -2.0 C ~\ ! Q) ~ i Q) I I a. I\. i 2.4 I ! I'\ I I \ I i ! 1\, i 2.8 i\i ' I ........ I ...... --\ 3.2 I I 1-.......r---.. \ I I ........ ~ ;...... _l\ ! I i""o I I"--. I , _,._,) i I I 3.6 I i I I I I 4.0 100 I 200 500 1000 2000 5000 Applied Pressure -psf Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Clpse. Sat. I Moist. (pcf) LL Pl Gr. (psf) (psf) (psf) % 80 I 1249 0.2 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION uses AASHTO Project No. 1916-A0S Client: Remarks: Project: SALES/ FITNESS BUILDING -MARBRISA PHASE 2 Source: Sample No.: B-2 ElevJDepth: IO' MTGL, Inc. Anaheim, CA Figure C-7 I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I C: -~ -en -C: Q) ~ Q) ll. CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT 0.0 ...----,.-.... 1 ......... -.,--.....,....--.-................. .,---,.-.....,........,......,.i .....,...--,---,--.--,-.....,....-.,..., ----,-.........,~--.---,-l--,1----rr-,-, ' 0.4 t--------t--+--,,----+----+-t---,--+-t----+---1---+--+-i---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---t--+--+-,---+--t--+/---,-' -t i''-N- o.a1-------+---+----i---4--,!--+. -3rilr-r"l-+--'-+--1--~--+-1-----i-+-1---+---1--i--+--+-+---t--+--+-\ ---+-1 I "-, ' 1.2 -------+--+--lf----+-i ---t-<--,.--+--+---+-__ ,_..,,,,c--+---+----+---+--+---+----+---+----+---+---+--+-t---+--;.--+,---1 . ,~, .-~, "~ 1.6 1 WATER ADDED --------+--+-->----+----+-'--< .... ·-·--· ·--' ! i 2.0 2.4 \ I\ \ \, 2.8 t-------+--+--l---t---+--f---i---+--t---+---<--+--+---+----+-1--+--+--+--+----+--+--+-..-f---+---+---+--+---1 \ ~J '\ 3.21-----+-+-i'---l---+-f--,--+-l---t---,--+---+-+---+----"'~--+-+--+---+--+--+-+-~,+--+----+-+--t i !', r'~ \ '~ i ' 3.61-----t--+-,f---+---l-l----''---l--+--t---,--t-+-+--+-f--+f---+---l--~..d~r-,..;f--?--.-+-+--+-\,--i-+-l Ir-~, 4.0 100 200 Natural Dry Dens. Sat. I Moist. (pct) LL I Pl I I l 500 1000 2000 Sp. Gr. Applied Pressure -psf Overburden (psf) Pc (psf) 2693 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 5000 Swell Press. Swell (psf) % 1108 0.1 uses AASHTO Project No. 1916-A0S Client: Remarks: Project: SALES/ FITNESS BUILDING -MARBRISA PHASE 2 Source: Sample No.: B-5 ElevJDepth: 15' MTGL, Inc. Anaheim, CA Figure C-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONSOLIDATION TEST REPORT ·0.5 I 0.0 i I I I i r',... I i ! 0.5 ........ I I I ; ' ' ' I ~ I i 1.0 I -.. WAT~R 1 ADD~~--1 ....,_1 I ~ I ' ' i I I --i~) 1.5 I J ", C: "iii ' ... -~ en I I I c 2.0 ! 17\ (I) ~ (I) I a. i I I ' i 2.5 ' i ~ I I \ 3.0 I I I \ i i ! ~ i I : 3.5 I ,\ i : ........ \ ........ r--,.... I I I i'' ~ \, 4.0 I I I I --... ~ __ \ >--I ..... ~ I ,· j 4·5 100 I I 200 500 1000 2000 5000 Applied Pressure -psf Natural Dry Dens. Sp. Overburden Pc Cc Cr Swell Press. Clpse. Sat. I Moist. (pcf) LL Pl Gr. (psf) (psf) (psf) % 80 I 2559 0.1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION uses AASHTO Project No. 1916-A0S Client: Remarks: Project: SALES/ FITNESS BUILDING -MARBRISA PHASE 2 Source: Sample No.: B-6 ElevJDepth: 15' MTGL, Inc. Anaheim, CA Figure C-9